[hist-analytic] Two's Company

[jlsperanza at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/10/2010 10:35:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Baynesr at comcast.net writes:
1. Each of them loves the other
2. They love  each other
3. Each of them loves the others
The think to notice is that in  a world of two individuals (1) and 
(2) are synonomous. But notice that in a  world of ten individuals
(2) and (3) are not equivalent...
 
----
 
I've been thinking about this, and take Bayne's point splendidly. It is a  
good exercise in model interpretation to start with dyadic relations, which 
are  symmetrical, and consider all the combinatory, as it were. 
 
On the other hand, I still think there are good pragmatic things to  
consider.

The first is what I call, between the Boor [?] and the Otiose. 
 
    A: We are brothers.
     
implicating, 'to each other'. It would be odd, but possible, that both are  
brothers, but not to each other. In fact, the Western Brothers, so called, 
were  cousins.
 
    B:  We are married to each other.
 
on the other hand, seems otiose. I.e. unless a good excuse to the contrary, 
 "We are a married couple" should suffice. All these phenomena I take as  
pragmatic, and wonder if Lesnik considers them.
 
The second would be:
 
   "I opened the door and there they were the three stooges,  sucking each 
others' fingers."
 
Suppose to simplify the scenario, that in this world, a stooge has only one 
 finger. But still, I cannot easily picture the scenario with 'each other' 
as it  applies to a contradiction to the well known principle in Argentina: 
the four  Ts.
 
   T T T T
 
takes two to tango -- implicating, the French are generally wrong!
 
Cheers,
 
J. L. Speranza
   for the Grice Circle