[hist-analytic] Aune on Wright -- Grice on Strawson, "and"/"and then"

[Jlsperanza at aol.com]

Excellent point, Roger.
 
 
In a message dated 2/9/2010 10:08:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rbj at rbjones.com writes:

> For  Grice, 'and' implicates 'and then'. So, in NL. In FL it never does.
I think  the strongest you should say is never has, but you have to be 
close to  
ominiscient to do that there are so many FL's about.
There isn't a any  reason in principle why a formal language might not have 
an 
"and then"  connective, though it would have to be a temporal logic.
 
--- Indeed, as Aune commented on a post by yours truly, indeed Wright  
suggested it (trust he would). Grice slightly, but interestingly, considers  
Wright's -- that's von Wright, he died aged 100, I think -- proposal but more 
in  terms of the logic of events, which is as he should.
 
   So that
to use Strawson's example
 
  Jill got married (to Jack) and had a child.
 
depicts a different 'event-transition' from
 
  Jill had a child (by Jack) and then got married (to Pete).
 
---
 
Urmson laughed at this in _Philosophical Analysis_ on the strength that to  
ask the logician's dot or ampersand to cover _that_ would be _too much_, 
and  Grice followed suit by explaining it in terms of an ad-hoc maxim, 'be 
orderly:  when you report events, follow the standard chronological flux of 
things: from  the past, stop slightly in the present, and then proceed to the 
future".  Etc.  J. L. Speranza


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20100209/5e643705/attachment.html>