[hist-analytic] Shuga-Free

[Roger Bishop Jones]

The closing analysis in my last message was incomplete,
insofar as I did not consider the possibility of
treating existence and uniqueness separately.

If you don't have truth gaps, I don't think you can
treat "unique existence" as implicature,
(it has to be entailed)
but you could have existence entailed
and uniqueness as implicature.

Is that what Grice ended up with?

I am a fan of implicature, it is good for answering
a number of controversial claims by Wittgenstein
and Austin (inter alia).
But so far I'm not convinced by this application.

RBJ