LINGUIST List 11.103

Thu Jan 20 2000

Qs: Czech and Polish Fonts, Implicature

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.


  1. Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy, Czech and Polish Fonts
  2. �?��, Implicature

Message 1: Czech and Polish Fonts

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:57:24 +1300
From: Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy <>
Subject: Czech and Polish Fonts

I would like to get hold of Mac-compatible fonts that can handle Czech and
Polish characters and diacritics, in Times New Roman style or similar. Can
anyone advise, please?

Andrew Carstairs-McCarthy
Associate Professor
Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch, New Zealand
phone (work) +64-3-364 2211; (home) +64-3-355 5108
fax +64-3-364 2969
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Implicature

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 9:28:11 +0800
From: �?�� <>
Subject: Implicature

Dear members:

I wonder if anyone can tell me how Halliday defines his notion of 
"meaning potential" and point out the references. 
Have anyone done any research into implicature from the systematic functional 
grammar? Do think it is possible to use the concept of "meaning potential" 
as a point of departure for studying pragmatic meaning of utterance as 

My second question concerns one of examples of Grice's. That is 
"He is an Englishman; he is, therefore, brave." 
Grice considers this utterance as an example of conventional implicature.
He explains that the speaker only "indicated" (so "implied")and did not 
"say" that he is brave is the result that he is an Englishman. 
I can not understand Grice in this. Result I think is a part of the meaning 
components of word "therefore". 
So the speaker does say that it is the case. I'm puzzled really. 
Recently I read a book of Russian linguistists in which it is said that the 
example is based on certain "culture model". I am not a native speaker and 
English is not even my major. I am interested if you consider the example 
as a represention of "conventional implicature" and why, or it contains no 
implicatum at all.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue