Remember the analysis of the utterances as status communication occurs on the level of facts—you certainly can disagree with the analysis factually.
Of course, but that doesn’t make it convincing.
I wasn’t trying to make it so. What is your interpretation of the example?
(No, the analysis is what I am saying is subjective.)
Remember the analysis of the utterances as status communication occurs on the level of facts—you certainly can disagree with the analysis factually.
Of course, but that doesn’t make it convincing.
I wasn’t trying to make it so. What is your interpretation of the example?
(No, the analysis is what I am saying is subjective.)