[lit-ideas] "p & p"

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:58:33 EDT

Mike Geary reports (twice) Cheney's utterance:
>>>"Fuck yourself"
and comments:
>>the double posting was
>>not my intention [but an  unintentional mistake].

D. McEvoy is doubtful and expands:
>thought maybe it was an interesting question 
>in philosophical logic that was being broached 
>re is it redundant or tautological or something to
>propose 'X  & X'. ["Fuck yourself and fuck yourself"] 
>I should have known by the fact the fella from Argentina  had
>posted nothing.

There's always tomorrow. Today. 
Well, certainly not tautological -- following Wittgenstein's technique in  
  Value            Value  
   of                 of 
   p                   "p & p"
   True              True   True   True 
   False           False   False False
Note the column for "&" is "True, False". To be tautological, it would  have 
to be, "True, True." Is it redundant, now? Well, in a way, one might think  
it's a bit like Lance Simmons's "I relish relish", or, Geary's "I shit shit" 
 opposed to the non-redundant, "I shit [bricks]." But that, for the  
philosophical linguist, is not enough. The crux is: I'm not aware of any  
in colloquial, ordinary (Oxford, even) English of the form, "p &  p" (There is 
one in Tamil, "bhandi ug bhandi" -- roughly, "the sun shines and  the sun 
shines", used as an emphatic). So, it _must_ be altogether redundant  (and 

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: