[lit-ideas] Re: Tautology, Patent & Other

  • From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:17:56 -0500

> erin.holder@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Is  "that's that" a tautology?
>
JL replies:
> Well, yes, at the level of what is _explicated_ -- as all tautologies
> (patent and other) should be judged (_contra_ Geary). Note that 'that's
that'
> usually occurs as a closing utterance-part of one's conversational move,


But, of course, this is precisely where JL goes awry.

If someone asks me, Who is JL?  and I respond: "JL is JL", that's a
tautology.  Nothing new has been predicated about the subject.

However, if someone says to me, Can you believe what JL wrote today?! and I
respond: "JL is JL", that's NOT a tautology.  Something new has been
predicated about the subjected, namely that JL is often outrageous in his
expressions and one should not be surprised.  In each sentence the predicate
'JL' is entirely different in meaning.  The fact that the predicate consists
of the same two letters is coincidental and nothing more.

I'm getting tired of having to explain this.  There's no such thing as an
explicated tautology vs an implicatured non-one.  Either it's a goddamn
tautology or it ain't.  If something new is predicated, it ain't.  Whether
that predication takes the same form as the subject is irrelevant.  Get it
right, for Christ's sake.

Mike Geary
Memphis, down in Dixie -- that's a tautology.

------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 09-2004