I’ve written a little before about how she might do this.
I think I had to read this twice to determine what you were actually recommending (for speakers). Am I correct in stating that your sentences
But if you’re trying to tell someone what you want, don’t say something which you know you wouldn’t say unless you wanted it. Just tell him what you want.
(or “state things rather than signalling them”) sum it up?
ETA: Actually, I should probably clarify—earlier you say “Say, don’t imply”; but it seems like (assuming I’m reading this correctly) you’re using a weird use of the word “imply”. Without the section I quoted above, I would take “to imply Y” to mean “to state X, where X implies Y”. Going by the quoted section, though, you seem to use “to imply Y” to mean “to state X, where the fact that you stated X implies Y”. I.e. it looks like the relevant distinction is not stating things vs. implying them, but rather using statements as communication rather than using the fact that you made those statements as communication. Do I have that right?
I’m not using “imply” quite that specifically; my intent is something like “say X, intending the listener to understand Y and Z.” That includes but isn’t limited to the example you gave. The difference between that and the way you said you’d normally take it is that I’m explicitly acknowledging that the listener may not have any reason to connect X to Y or Z, whereas the way you put it, Y seems like it should necessarily follow X.
Any suggestions for wording this idea more clearly?
I think I had to read this twice to determine what you were actually recommending (for speakers). Am I correct in stating that your sentences
(or “state things rather than signalling them”) sum it up?
ETA: Actually, I should probably clarify—earlier you say “Say, don’t imply”; but it seems like (assuming I’m reading this correctly) you’re using a weird use of the word “imply”. Without the section I quoted above, I would take “to imply Y” to mean “to state X, where X implies Y”. Going by the quoted section, though, you seem to use “to imply Y” to mean “to state X, where the fact that you stated X implies Y”. I.e. it looks like the relevant distinction is not stating things vs. implying them, but rather using statements as communication rather than using the fact that you made those statements as communication. Do I have that right?
Yes, that quote sums up the point.
I’m not using “imply” quite that specifically; my intent is something like “say X, intending the listener to understand Y and Z.” That includes but isn’t limited to the example you gave. The difference between that and the way you said you’d normally take it is that I’m explicitly acknowledging that the listener may not have any reason to connect X to Y or Z, whereas the way you put it, Y seems like it should necessarily follow X.
Any suggestions for wording this idea more clearly?