[lit-ideas] Re: Contingency Fee/Shallow Grammar Point

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 23:49:21 +0000 (GMT)


--- On Sun, 3/5/09, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Contingency Fee
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sunday, 3 May, 2009, 9:44 PM
> Well, we should be reminded that we
> got into  this via McEvoy who asks 
> questions like "is the result of a logical 
> possibilities (plural) a logical 
> necessity (cf. Substance)". Then one tries to  make
> sense of what he is asking 
> and one gets compared to a pike!

Though not a deep grammatical investigation in Wittgtn's sense, I was provoked 
by this to check what I writ:

the initial subject heading was-
"Are all logical possibilities a result of some kind of logical necessity, in 
TLP? [Cf. "Substance"]".

This, though somewhat clumsy perhaps, is not the ungrammatical mish-mash as JLS 
relays it above, although if one is casual enough about grammar we might say 
that it is "like" such an ungrammatical mish-mash, being not in substance a 
million miles away. I don't recall deviating from the correct grammar as 
suggested, would like to see the example of such deviation given or for JLS to 
explain why he recalls the question put in an ungrammatical fashion? 

Donal
Waiving his contingency fee
Salop




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

  • » [lit-ideas] Re: Contingency Fee/Shallow Grammar Point - Donal McEvoy