[lit-ideas] Sense Shift -- Merely Alleged
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:08:51 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 11/28/2013 6:14:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes in "Re(garding): Coplestoniana": "How would
we
explain the shift in sense, if any, from the first "Not again" to the second?
(b) Does anything important come from the explanation?"
Yes. That you seem to equivocate on Occam's (or Ockham's as I prefer,
having visited Surrey) Razor,
"Do not multiply senses beyond necessity".
The idea that there is a sense shift is equivocal. And therefore, something
important DOES come from the explanation. There is no sense shift.
Grice discusses 'animal' --> "animal"
Strictly, man is an animal; but "There was a big animal in the back of my
garden" would trigger the wrong implicature (never logical implication) if
I'm referring to my aunt.
"Senses do not shift".
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
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] Sense Shift -- Merely Alleged - Jlsperanza
