[lit-ideas] Should I see Dylan tomorrow or not?
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 02:06:03 EDT
In a message dated 6/17/2011 7:48:39 P.M., donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx asks:
>>Should I see Dylan tomorrow or not?
D. Ritchie comments:
>Can't help you with the Dylan decision.
----
I already commented on this, but it's worth a second try.
In symbols, McEvoy's question becomes:
(p v ~p)?
This seems to be tautologous.
>Shall I see Dylan tomorrow or not?
The difference being between:
--- "Shall I see Dylan tomorrow?"
and
--- "Shall I see Dylan tomorrow or not?"
In my previous post, I analysed McEvoy's 'question' in terms of Grice's
implicature.
The grammar of question is a difficult one. Consider:
"Where did he say he would go?"
Here, the 'where' applies to the content of a 'that'-clause. Cfr. Davidson
on "Saying That". It's an oratio obliqua. Yet the operator of the
x-question crosses that boundary and occurs in the dominant section of the
question. The case of McEvoy's question is different, in that, obviously, it
is not
an x-question. But a yes/no question. It may be argued that yes/no
questions ARE x-questions (cfr. Grice, "Questions", in "Aspects of Reason" --
the
Kant lectures).
Should I see Dylan tomorrow?
Possible answers: 1. Yes.
----------------------------- 0. No.
Here, I use, '1' to represent probability 100%, and '0' to represent
probability 0%. In between there is a continuum of answers. "Perhaps yes". Cfr.
--- "Possibly yes, you should see him."
--- "Probably yes, you should see him."
These I would not count as "yes" answers. It's more like 'possibly'
applies to probability < 0.5, while 'probably' applies to probability > 0.5.
It may be argued that McEvoy's question is _ambiguous_. The term, "in the
flesh" -- seems implicated.
So,
"You should NOT see him in the flesh, but on television."
-----
Then, 'see' is a trick of a verb. The idea is that the important thing is
to _hear_ Dylan, rather than 'see' him. As an opera goer, I use 'see' (an
opera) -- never "hear" an opera (which I find rough). On the other hand, a
concert of Beethoven I can _hear_ but never "see". This triggers some odd
implicatures: "I never SAW Toscanini direct Beethoven; I heard him."
(Strictly, you don't HEAR Toscanini -- the conductor --).
Strictly, too, it's not the _opera_ you see, but the singers.
In the case of Dylan, then, the question becomes, _minus_ or _sans_ the
'or not':
Should I see Dylan tomorrow?
----
And allow me to echo Ritchie, quod erat demonstrandum,
>Can't help you with the Dylan decision.
Grice notes that 'shall' should be contrasted with 'should'.
"Should I see Dylan tomorrow -- or not?"
versus:
"Shall I see Dylan tomorrow -- or not?"
The answers should maintain the modal:
"You should NOT see him", or "You should see him".
But rather:
"You SHALL see him," or "you shall see him not."
----- Note that the logical form:
(p ~ v p)?
is different from
(~p v p)?
It may be argued that, implicaturally, the topic is AFFIRMATIVE, rather
than negative:
"Shall I see Dylan tomorrow?"
versus:
"Shall I NOT see Dylan tomorrow?"
By conjoining both scenarios in the same question, but in the
negative-followed-by-affirmative order, selected by McEvoy the implicature is
that he
expects people will answer, You SHOULD see him.
Cfr.
"Shall I not see Dylan tomorrow -- or should I rather affirmatively see
him?"
-----
And so on.
Cheers,
J. L. Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: