David Ritchie asks on a different thread:
"Can “implicature” be used as an active verb or does one have to fall
back on “implicate”? “I implicature, you implicature, he she or it
implicatures”?"
The following from Wiki with the relevant changes, instead of 'amo',
'implico'. I would think Grice would stick to the neutre, since 'what is
implicated', he renders as 'implicatum' (whereas he perhaps should use
'implicaturum' -- and in fact his wording in Way of Words is ambiguous since it
reads
"cf. 'implicatum'", not that 'implicatum' is the form he would prefer).
In any case, my favourite use is by Sidonius -- which has been freely
translated as 'enganglements':
"Far otherwise: whoever disputes with you will find those protagonists of
heresy,the Stoics, Cynics, and Peripatetics, shattered with their own
familiar entanglements [ligati vernaculis implicaturis] into their own toils.
the
barbed syllogism of your argument will hook the glib tongues of the
casuists, and it is *you* who will thie up *their* slippery questions in
categorical clews, after the manner of clever physicians, who, when
compelled by reasoned thought, prepare antidotes for poison even from a
serpent."
In the William James lectures, Grice's illustration of "I implicate"
(although he is being slightly sexist and prefers to provide a conceptual
analysis of "he implicated", "a man has implicated that...") is:
A: How is Smith doing at his new job at the bank?
B: Quite well: he likes his colleagues, and more importantly: he hasn't
been to prison yet.
Grice is interested in that example not so much in the distinction between
the implicature with the logical implication, but the implicature with the
explicature. I.e. If you 'imply', you would say in Latin, "implico". The
antonym, "ego explico", I explain, would refer to what you, obviously,
EXPLICITLY [sic] communicate.
"He hasn't been to prison yet" does not communicate much. Negatives usually
don't. In the context, the implicature it triggers is that Smith is
potentially dishonest ("Aren't we all?", asks Kant in his "Metaphysics", but
does
not give an answer -- was he being rhetorical?).
So that's what a man would have implicated (as opposed to merely
'implied'), since not having been to prison does not yield as a logical
implication
that one is potentially dishonest.
implicaturus
Future active participle of "implico"
impicātūrus masculine
implicātūra feminine
implicātūrum neuter)
about to imply
nominative:
m implicātūrus
f implicātūra
n implicātūrum
m pl. implicātūrī
f. pl. impicātūrae
n pl. implicātūra
genitive:
m implicātūrī
f implicātūrae
n implicātūrī
m pl. implicātūrōrum
f pl. implicātūrārum
n pl. implicātūrōrum
dative:
m implicātūrō
f implicātūrae
n implicātūrō
m pl implicātūrīs
f pl implicātūrīs
n pl implicātūrīs
accusative:
m implicātūrum
f implicātūram
n implicātūrum
m pl implicātūrōs
f pl implicātūrās
n pl implicātūra
ablative:
m implicātūrō
f implicātūrā
n implicātūrō
m pl. implicātūrīs
f pl. implicātūrīs
n pl. implicātūrīs
vocative:
m implicātūre
f implicātūra
n implicātūrum
m pl. implicātūrī
f pl. implicātūrae
n pl. implicātūra
Categories: Latin non-lemma forms Latin participles Latin future
participles Latin first and second declension adjectives
When Grice got tired of implicature ("Implicature happens") he coined
'disimplicature', which I haven't found in Sidonius. To disimplicate is not
just
"not to implicate". It is to refudiate, intentionally, what would
otherwise be an implicature. But this is from Palin's notes, and they are
slightly
biased hermeneutically speaking.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
