[lit-ideas] Re: Implicatures of "Feel"
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 21:39:41 EDT
In a message dated 9/1/2010 9:37:33 P.M., donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
You must have met the wrong females.
If they were hanging round the swimming pool library,
----
Neither Yost nor McEvoy address my philosophical point. My genial points
included:
"I feel horny, but I am NOT horny"
"I am happy but I don't FEEL happy".
I would think that if I had to choose between "being" happy and "feeling"
happy, I'd choose happy. I'm less sure about 'horny'.
Also Grice did analyse "feel Byzantine" (he gave up linguistic botanising,
almost).
But cfr.
"feel French".
Surely it would be otiose to say that R. D., a French lister here, or A.
D., another French lister, FEEL FRENCH.
O. T. O. H., I can wisely say, "I feel French" -- the implicature: "I'm
NOT".
Similarly, Ritchie cannot really feel "Scot"? Silly. Surely he CAN feel
Scot. But so can I.
So where does the difference lie?
In the disimplicature.
While I can IMPLICATE that I'm not Scots, when I say, "I'm feeling Scots
today", Ritchie can achieve such an entailment only via disimplicature.
Or not.
Etc.
Speranza--Bordighera.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
