I think I have found a good nickname for L. K. Helm, which I hope (the nickname, not 'which', Helm, as -- as Geary will know, would be 'whom') he likes. Upupa. This is the term for an European bird, the hoppoe. Mythologically, it was the descendant of a general, hence the crest which is supposed to represent the military helm (cfr. "Helm" in L. K. Helm's surname -- "Helm"). I guess I could be General Picus (Woodpecker, and Roman symbol of Mars). We are dicussing rationality, in contexts of war. I will re-read his example (Helm's example) of the German 'dialogue'. I don't do German, on the whole. And I'm glad that, what's his name, Turing, broke their code. But for how long does an enemy remains an enemy? I was thinking of meaning and communication along Grice's lines -- the things are not as complicated as I intentionally paint them --. Grice's point is valid. Consider General Odysseos's strategy. ????? "The Greeks wish to present ?????? the Trojans with this hereby ?????? beautiful wooden horse." That was the _unwritten_ communicated message behind the 'ploy', strategy, or strategem. I would like to think that that is what, in Gricean parlance, the wooden horse _meant_. However, was that _message_ communicated. I think so. Since inside the wooden horse were _killers_ who could possibly care less about continuing happiness on the part of the welcommers of the wooden horse, I would think the strategy here would be: ???????????? GOAL:???? Kill the Trojans STRATEGY:?? MEANS TO ATTAIN THAT GOAL ?????????????????????????????? construct a wooden horse that says, "We love you -- thanks for being ?????????????????????????????????????? so patient, but we home-miss, and hope this souvenir will ??????????????????????????????????????? remember as by." --------------------------- ACTION, etc. ACTION: MISSION, POSSIBLE. COMPLETED. Trojans killed. --- With 'natural' signs it is more difficult. Native Americans used smoke to mean _war_, or _peace_ I forget. And smoke means fire. And fire usually _means_ war. I recalled that Anne Weiser's essay is actually called, "How NOT to answer a question", and she, quoting Grice, mentions the distinction which she invents between ??????????? strategy:?? 'open', aimed at co-rational agent and ?????????? strategem:? not 'open', but 'covert'. Aimed at rational agent, but not co-operative. The answer she has in mind is answers to: ??????????????????? "How old are you?" She finds that rude and aggressive. She is also following Robin Tolmach Lakoff, who was working with Grice. "How old are you?" would be language used as WEAPON, not shelter. Yet, Anne Weiser devices various (like 53) answers to that which will _reply_ without replying. I recall one, ? ?????????? "Don't worry -- They'll let me in at Barney's" -- where Barney, she tells, is the bar in Chicago where she was delivering the lecture. So the utterer of an evasive reply (which "implicates") is yet co-operative at a level while competitive at another. It defends from the attack. So perhaps ars conversationalis and ars martialis are not as different as Grice thought they perhaps some people thought they were! Cheers, JL More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail! ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com