[lit-ideas] Pleonetetic Implicatures
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
We are discussing Prince Charles's utterance for the Diamond Jubilee:
"Diamond Jubilee celebrations: Queen 'touched' by 'happy atmosphere'"
by NBC News and msnbc.com staff at
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/05/12062377-diamond-jubilee-cel
ebrations-queen-touched-by-happy-atmosphere?lite
"In a tribute to his mother delivered from the concert stage late on
Monday, Charles sought to sum up public affection for a monarch who is a symbol
of stability at a time of economic gloom and political disillusionment. As a
nation this is our opportunity to thank you and my father for always being
there for us, for inspiring us with your selfless duty and service and for
making us proud to be British, proud at a time when I know how many of our
fellow countrymen are suffering such hardship and difficulties," he said."
But what did he implicate?
A. Palma thinks the implicature is obvious.
In "Re: A Princely...", a message dated 6/6/2012 5:56:54 A.M. UTC-02,
Palma@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
who gave you the right to quote that sad sack of shit?
the prince of what?
of popping zit on his horse's ass? as long as the unfortunate british
suffer under this bloodsucking family, with dianes and catherine, there is no
hope
----
Part of Palma's problem -- being an Italian -- is with the colloquial (I
prefer 'royal') use of "how many". In Italian, and indeed, Latin, it was the
quantum that was used.
"Quantum", in Latin, was what Grice called "implicature-free":
How many eggs? --- One.
"One is NOT many eggs".
"I never said there were many eggs".
What the prince uttered was, inter alia:
"As a nation this is our opportunity to thank
you and my father for always being there for us,
for inspiring us with your selfless duty and
service and for making us proud to be British, proud
at a time when I know how many of our
fellow countrymen are suffering
such hardship and difficulties".
To simplify:
"I know how many Englishmen are suffering great difficulties."
Palma: How many?
---- Palma is suggesting that if the Prince knows that ONE Englishman is
suffering great difficulties, there is no reason to be pride to be English
(he isn't).
---- To contradict Palma, I would like to suggest a zero-scenario: the
extreme scenario where the Prince, upon request, is asked to expand on the "how
many". Suppose he says: "One, Tommy Atkins". Tommy Atkins is brought, and
he grants that perhaps he is not suffering such a GREAT difficulty. In this
case, it's
zero
Englishmen who are suffering great difficulties. In terms of the
implicatum, what the Prince said is still true: even if no Englishman is
suffering
great difficulties (or a great difficulty), the Prince, by courtesy of what
we call the 'royal' "how many", is entitled to say that he still
KNOWS
how many Englishmen are suffering great difficulties.
"For he might have been a Roosian, a French, or Turk, or Prossian,
or perhaps I-ta-lian. But in spite of all temptations to belong to
other nations -- he remains an Englishman!".
Geary expands on 'pride' as used by Charles in "Pride: the sixth sin", Acts
of the Metaphysical Ministry of Memphis, vol. 6 (the essay following his
"Why the Civil War was fought" -- with a ps by Speranza, "And lost".).
Cheers,
Speranza
----
"Abrams."
"Jewish?"
"Nay -- I am an Englishman!"
------ script from "Chariots of Fire" now on HD 3D DVD.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
