[lit-ideas] Re: "No offence meant", "None taken": the implicature

  • From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:36:49 -0500

> you gotta stop with the multiple postings per day.


Why????????????   I don't understand.  Who is forced to read his posts?  Is 
there a per post charge by the list-serv?  Who is being put out by this?  I 
find almost all of JL's posts witty and enlightening and charming.  When he 
first started posting back on Phil-Lit people complained and whined about the 
length of his posts.  That was quite a while ago.  Now he's more judicious in 
the longevity of his posts.  But now people complain about his frequency.  I 
think people are just envious of his breath of scope.  I only envy his free 
time, as we all must, but why would you or anyone want to impose limits?  If he 
has the time and energy and knowledge, more power to him.  He has brought new 
life to a dying list.  I don't understand nor will I ever accept any limits on 
the freedom to post unless you can show some harm to the community of posters 
besides their envy.

Mike Geary
Memphis






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:34 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "No offence meant", "None taken": the implicature


> 
> people are emailing me and asking me to talk with you.
> 
> one has unsubcribed due to your excessive number of emails.
> 
> either 5 per day max, or i put you on review, which means your emails go to 
> me for personal approval.
> 
> yrs,
> andreas
> www.andreas.com
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:50 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "No offence meant", "None taken": the implicature
> 
> 
> 
> Further to P. Stone's analysis of
> 
>      "No offence,  but..."
> 
> Some quotes from the OED for this hateful phrase below. It's  good to know
> your enemy, as the Germans say.
> 
> Cheers,
> JL
> 
> 
> 1616  SHAKESPEARE
> 
> Antony & Cleopatra (1623) II. v. 100
> 
> "Take no offence, that I would not offend  you."
> 
> Well, if I am right, SHE *cannot* take offence unless HE MEANS  offense 
> (This
> is discussed ad nauseam by Strawson, in "Freedom and  Resentment")
> 
> 
> 
> 1712 J. ADDISON Spectator No. 267 ¶8
> 
> Pleasing the most delicate Reader, without  giving Offence to the most
> scrupulous.
> 
> --- He WAS a flop, as possibly your 'friend' is.
> 
> 
> 1749 H. FIELDING Tom Jones vi,
> 
> ‘No offence, I hope; but pray what sort of a  gentleman is the devil?’.
> 
> Must say I *loved* this. It reminds me of those Victorian  conversations 
> with
> vicars in gardens with cucumber sandwiches.
> 
> Tom Jones's question, perhaps rhetorical, is interesting in  that he's
> 'punning' or playing with the PREsupposition that the devil is a  gentleman.
> 
> Cfr.  Have you stopped beating your wife?
> 
> -- or in Mediaeval Logic, "Have you stopped eating  iron?"
>              "Tu non cessas edere ferrum"
> 
> 
> 
> 1829  GRIFFIN  Collegians II. xvii. 37
> 
> ‘Is poor Dalton really dead?’
> 
> ‘He is, sir. I have already said it.’
> 
> ‘No offence my boy. I only asked, because if he be..it  is a sign that he
> never will die again.’
> 
> -- I too like this, especially for the use of 'really' which is a rather
> vacuous adverb anyway. Incidentally, for CHRIST (author of THE CULT OF THE
> PHONEIX, the act referred to in the cult is "DEATH" -- the ultimate 
> sacrifice  and
> it's a good point that you only die once."
> 
> 
> . 1866 G MACDONALD Ann. Quiet  Neighbourhood (1878) xii. 234
> 
> As I never took offence, the offence I gave was  easily got rid of.
> 
> A conundrum.
> 
> 1948 Times  Lit. Suppl. 9 Oct. 569/3
> 
> ‘Native’ is a good word that may not now be  employed without giving deep
> offence.
> 
> Just superficial -- which is all we need -- Ah to be a Victorian and have 
> an
> Empire to visit -- full of well-educated, English-speaking 'natives' -- with
> an accent, no doubt. Indeed, in "The Story of English", the authors recall
> that  in British Raj, to have too good of an English accent was enough to 
> lose
> your  job at the English Club -- Servants were _supposed_ to have an
> ungrammatical  dialect. I can see the point, no offence meant.
> 
> 1973 R. BUSBY  Pattern  of Violence ii. 24
> 
> Be better when I'm out of this piss  Be bno offence, gents.
> 
> I like this too, because I generally like the use of 'gent'.
> 
> 
> . 2001 Times 7 Mar.  I. 4/4
> 
> The BBC said that the show was jokey and not  intended to give offence, but
> apologised if it had done so.
> 
> Well, this brings us into topics that M. A. E. Dummett, the  Wykeham
> professor of logic at Oxford, has understood in terms of "conditional 
> performatives",
> and Austin as 'biscuit conditional' (If you are hungry, there  are biscuits
> in the cupboard). Rephrase the 2001 quote:
> 
> "The show is jokey -- not intended to give offence. If it has  done so, I
> apologise"
> 
>            The  Director
>              BBC.
> 
> Simplify to:
> 
>        "No offense meant,  but if offense taken, I apologize!"
> 
> What a vastness (of ...) the English language is! "Seas of  language" 
> indeed,
> as Dummett's book is titled.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> JL
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2007