JL parses John Kerry: "I would not have done one thing differently, I would have done everything differently." ---- Note that in logical terms, this is metalinguistic in that 'would have done everything' _logically entails_ 'would have done one thing', rather than 'would _not_ have done one thing' -- so whatever Kerry is _negating_ is -- via Grice's 'informativeness -- something 'metalinguistic'. Subtle and interesting. Maybe someone can provide the logical-form symbolization? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can, but it will hardly advance this line of thought. Kerry is playing on the ambiguity of 'I would not have done one thing differently,' which in ordinary speech means 'There is nothing I'd have done differently,' but could, if taken literally by a crazed logician, mean 'There is something, namely x, such that I would have not have done x differently', (leaving open the possibilitythat there are other things that one _would_ have done differently). (1) 'For all x, it is not the case that there is an x, such that [I] would have done x differently.' = (x) ~(Ex.Dx) (2) 'There is an x, and [I] would have done x differently.' = Ex.Dx (3) 'For all x, [I] would have done x differently.' = (x) Dx But (3) does not entail (1), which is the usual meaning of 'I would not have done one thing differently' (cp. 'I wouldn't have changed a thing.'), only (2); and I think that even this is dubious,' for (3) seems to say that one would have done _everything_ differently, whateveer that might mean (including writing 'I would have done everything differently'--?) Robert Paul Reed College 'Logic isn't as hard as refrigerator repair, but it's messier.' ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html