Re: not masculine/queer

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

On Jan 28, 2006, at 7:41 AM, RonButters at AOL.COM wrote:

> 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.

no, i'm not promising an analysis; i don't have a lot of insight into
my mental processes.  i'm  giving you an account of how i understood
the utterance in the context provided.  period.

it's like a grammaticality judgment.  it just is.  i can try to
figure out the system of grammatical knowledge that gave rise to the
judgment, but that's not the same thing as analyzing my mental
processes, which are not available to me directly.

i will, eventually, i hope, post about the larger issues.  and point
out (surprise surprise) that unmanliness, femininity, and (male)
homosexuality are connected in complex ways.

arnold

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