If I make a statement and join two thoughts together, and you, the listener, don't see how those two thoughts relate to each other, that doesn't mean there is no connection; it just means that I haven't adequately communicated my train of thought, or that you haven't understood it.
In the TWOP example, the thought seems to have been something like: "People may think we look ditzy, but it's a game, * and it's OK to look ditzy while playing a game." * So if the listener hears an "irrelevant disjunctive", it means she didn't get the speaker's implied chain of reasoning.
Great popcorn story! thorbol and I were just having some fun with the different ways it can be interpreted. My own take is that it can't qualify as an "irrelevant disjunctive" because it involves more than one speaker. It seems you need one speaker connecting two thoughts that seem unconnected to the listener.
Actually, this may qualify as the OPPOSITE of anirrelevant subjunctive. When Muffy says "popcorn" and her listeners think her comment "remarkably honest", it is because the listeners are implying a chain of reasoning that the speaker has not intended.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Popcorn!
Date: 2005-03-09 02:20 am (UTC)In the TWOP example, the thought seems to have been something like: "People may think we look ditzy, but it's a game, * and it's OK to look ditzy while playing a game." * So if the listener hears an "irrelevant disjunctive", it means she didn't get the speaker's implied chain of reasoning.
Great popcorn story!
Actually, this may qualify as the OPPOSITE of anirrelevant subjunctive. When Muffy says "popcorn" and her listeners think her comment "remarkably honest", it is because the listeners are implying a chain of reasoning that the speaker has not intended.