From pycyn@aol.com Mon Oct 01 09:11:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 16:11:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 60696 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 16:11:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 16:11:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 16:11:19 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.d8.cb9924b (3927) for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:11:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:11:11 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] zo'e interpretation To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d8.cb9924b.28e9ef9f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_d8.cb9924b.28e9ef9f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/29/2001 11:11:18 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > > They don't get stuck to because there is -- deliberately -- no rule to > stick to. I think the remarks in your text are a bit misleading if it is > not said that gricean solutions don't count. > Well, the standard answer is, "If you are going to end up glorking, you might just as well glork at the beginning and save time and trouble, " for gricean analysis is post-rationalized glorking: you figure out what the answer is and then find a way to justify it by gricean conventions. At least, that is the way Grice worked -- with the additional advantage of occasionally discovering a new convention (some others have claimed this right as well, but their claims are not generally accepted). There are, to be sure, Karttunen logics, which claim to formalize Grice, but they are so suspect that using them would probably rank below skilled glorking. --part1_d8.cb9924b.28e9ef9f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/29/2001 11:11:18 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:

They don't get stuck to because there is -- deliberately -- no rule to stick to. I think the remarks in your text are a bit misleading if it is not said that gricean solutions don't count.

Well, the standard answer is, "If you are going to end up glorking, you might just as well glork at the beginning and save time and trouble, " for gricean analysis is post-rationalized glorking: you figure out what the answer is and then find a way to justify it by gricean conventions. At least, that is the way Grice worked -- with the additional advantage of occasionally discovering a new convention (some others have claimed this right as well, but their claims are not generally accepted). There are, to be sure, Karttunen logics, which claim to formalize Grice, but they are so suspect that using them would probably rank below skilled glorking. --part1_d8.cb9924b.28e9ef9f_boundary--