From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Oct 01 09:53:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 1 Oct 2001 16:53:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 33406 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2001 16:53:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Oct 2001 16:53:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2001 16:53:04 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:30:24 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:02:04 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:01:34 +0100 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] zo'e interpretation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta >>> 10/01/01 05:11pm >>> #a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: #> They don't get stuck to because there is -- deliberately -- no rule to=20 #> stick to. I think the remarks in your text are a bit misleading if it is= =20 #> not said that gricean solutions don't count. # #Well, the standard answer is, "If you are going to end up glorking, you mi= ght=20 #just as well glork at the beginning and save time and trouble, " for grice= an=20 #analysis is post-rationalized glorking: you figure out what the answer is = and=20 #then find a way to justify it by gricean conventions. At least, that is t= he=20 #way Grice worked -- with the additional advantage of occasionally discover= ing=20 #a new convention (some others have claimed this right as well, but their=20 #claims are not generally accepted). There are, to be sure, Karttunen logic= s,=20 #which claim to formalize Grice, but they are so suspect that using them wo= uld=20 #probably rank below skilled glorking.=20 Glorking is powerful but also risky. In high-stakes contexts it is safer to= reply on Grice's What Is Said than on What Is Implicated. For that reason my preference is to make the What Is Said as determinate as possible, while at the same time acknowledging that in ordinary communication the What Is Said can be freely mangled and overridden by inferential pragmatics. Anyway, I'm not trying to persuade anybody to change the interpretation rul= e for zo'e; I'm just pointing out that your document is a little misleading w= hen it says that no interpretation rule is viable. --And.