Re: not masculine/que er

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

I look forward (as always) to Arnold's analysis (which he seems to have 
promised in an earlier message), if and when he chooses to give it. Of course, 
maybe he and I just go to different gyms. 


In a message dated 1/28/06 1:24:43 AM, zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU writes:


> On Jan 27, 2006, at 5:14 PM, RonButters at AOL.COM wrote:
> 
> > In a message dated 1/27/06 3:37:55 PM, zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU
> > writes:
> >
> > [about two guys talking in the gym, one using the term "brokeback" to
> > characterize some kind of cosmetic product that he was using]
> >
> >> odd.  that's exactly the interpretation i put on it.
> >>
> >
> > Which interpretation, (1) 'I'm not lacking in masculinity'.
> 
> yes, that one.  i thought this would have been clear in context,
> 
> > or (2) 'I'm not
> > gay'? I guess that Arnold believes the former, but that seems to me
> > to violate
> > one or another Gricean principles.
> 
> i'm not giving an *analysis* here.  i'm reporting how i interpreted
> this utterance.  apparently, my interpretation is bizarre to you. i'm
> sorry, i can't help that, it is as it is.  maybe i'm i'm alone in
> this, but i suspect not.
> 
> arnold
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org