Robert Paul writes: >My intuitions here seem the opposite of JL's, for where >he sees e.g. 'She talks and she talks' as rare, or problematic, >I find 'She talks,' rarer still. Again, I don't think 'she talks and she talks' qualifies as 'p & p' for the simple reason that one is inclined to provide a subscript indicating that what is meant is that 'she talks ON OCCASION O-1" and "she talks on occasion O-2". Only in very special circumstances would "she talks and she talks" be understood to refer to a _double_ report of the _same_ event or occasion (cf. "it rains and it rains"). Not surprisingly, there are more google.com hits for "she talks and talks" than there are for "she talks and she talks". For the latter, there's she talks and she talks, sometimes itâ??s arduous to figure just where she's getting at. You sit there, confused ... www.webzinemaker.com/admi/m6/ page.php3?num_web=1930&rubr=3&id=36311 For the former, a post by "Robert Paul" (Reyes): _FRIENDS and Lovers - Relationship Articles - Singles, Love ..._ (http://friends-lovers.com/articles/reyes5.html) Ode To Jenny. By Robert Paul Reyes. She talks and talks and talks... Spitting out a torrent of words. Drowning me in noise. Stopping only to catch her breath. ... friends-lovers.com/articles/reyes5.html R. Paul suggests that the logic of "p & p" may need qualification in subject-predicate logic ("Fa & Fa"). Indeed, "she talks and talks" seems to be better represented by (TALK & TALK)(SHE) whereas "she talks and she talks" corresponds to the more explicit: TALK(She) & TALK(She) The fact that uttering "p & p" is not _illogical_ or contradictory, seems to support Wittgenstein's idea that logic does not capture reality. Logic does not teach us what to say, or even how to say it: it cannot say anything against "p & p". But that's where _pragamatics_ comes in. -- Cheers, JL ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html