H. P. GRICE E J. L. SPERANZA: LA CONVERSAZIONE -- I VERBALI: PRA

 G.: Pra, then. Or Dal Pra, if one wishes the title-page to behave. S.: Let us begin with the title. Segni dei tempi. G.: Yes. Pra, Pra, Pra, and then segni dei tempi. It looks innocent until one asks what exactly dei is doing. S.: You are back with Hardie. G.: Hardie had the right irritation. Dei may look possessive, partitive, specifying, even faintly liturgical if one lets one’s church-history run ahead. S.: The signs of the times. G.: Precisely. Which already risks eschatology. Not merely signs in time, but signs belonging to the times, as if time itself had learned to write. S.: Or signs characteristic of the times. G.: Yes. A specifying genitive rather than a proprietary one. But Italian lets the little phrase remain usefully underdetermined. S.: Tempo and tempi, then. G.: Ah yes. Tempo singular, the abstract stream. Tempi plural, articulated historical periods, seasons, ages, conjunctures. Segni del tempo would sound more metaphysical or perhaps meteorological. Segni dei tempi sounds historical and pluralised. S.: So tempi gives us epochs. G.: Exactly. Not time as such, but times, periods, circumstances, historical weather. S.: And segni. G.: Which brings us to segno, signum, sign, signify, and all the rest. S.: You wanted to begin from the examples in Meaning. G.: Yes. The first three at the beginning are the right starting point. “Those spots mean measles.” “Those spots didn’t mean anything to me, but to the doctor they meant measles.” “The recent budget means that we shall have a hard year.” S.: And you want them rewritten through sign and signify. G.: Exactly, and then in Italian through segno, segnare, significare, and finally in Latin through signum, signare, significare. S.: Before that, one question. Why not simply keep mean. G.: Because Pra gives us segni, and Pra is entitled to force one into lexical archaeology. S.: Good. Then first English. G.: First English, yes. Take “Those spots mean measles.” S.: Rewritten with sign. G.: “Those spots are a sign of measles.” S.: Or verbally. G.: “Those spots sign measles” is hideous in ordinary English, though philosophically tempting. Better perhaps “Those spots sign the presence of measles” if one is forcing the verb. S.: And with signify. G.: “Those spots signify measles.” Better English, though already slightly bookish. S.: The second example. G.: “Those spots didn’t mean anything to me, but to the doctor they meant measles.” S.: With sign. G.: “Those spots were no sign to me, but to the doctor they were a sign of measles.” S.: And with signify. G.: “Those spots signified nothing to me, but to the doctor they signified measles.” S.: Third. G.: “The recent budget means that we shall have a hard year.” S.: With sign. G.: “The recent budget is a sign that we shall have a hard year.” S.: And with signify. G.: “The recent budget signifies that we shall have a hard year.” S.: Already one hears the difference. Sign and signify tilt more visibly toward consequence and indication. G.: Precisely. Mean in English is a wonderfully broad and unruly servant. Signify behaves more ceremonially. Sign as noun is plain enough; sign as verb is possible, but awkward outside technical or poetic tolerance. S.: Now Italian. G.: Yes. “Quelle macchie significano il morbillo.” S.: With segno. G.: “Quelle macchie sono segno di morbillo.” S.: And with segnare. G.: Here we feel the strain. “Quelle macchie segnano il morbillo” is poor Italian if taken naively. Better “Quelle macchie segnano la presenza del morbillo” or, even more idiomatically, “Quelle macchie segnano che c’è il morbillo,” though that last begins to sound provincial and not beautifully so. S.: So significare is the clean Italian verb. G.: Entirely. Segno as noun, significare as verb. Segnare tends more to mark, inscribe, note, score, register, or indicate in a stronger material way. S.: The second example. G.: “Quelle macchie non significavano nulla per me, ma per il medico significavano il morbillo.” S.: With segno. G.: “Quelle macchie non erano per me alcun segno, ma per il medico erano segno di morbillo.” S.: With segnare. G.: Again one forces it: “Quelle macchie non mi segnavano nulla, ma al medico segnavano il morbillo” is ghastly. Better “Quelle macchie non mi segnavano nulla, ma al medico segnavano la presenza del morbillo,” though even there significare wins by miles. S.: Third. G.: “Il bilancio recente significa che avremo un anno difficile.” S.: With segno. G.: “Il bilancio recente è segno che avremo un anno difficile.” S.: And with segnare. G.: “Il bilancio recente segna un anno difficile per noi” is possible, but it no longer mirrors the original exactly. Segnare in Italian drifts toward marking out, determining, stamping, ushering in. S.: Which is philosophically interesting. G.: Very much so. It suggests that segnare may be more active than significare, less purely semantic and more eventive. S.: Now Latin. G.: Yes. “Illae maculae significant morbillos.” S.: You pluralise morbilli. G.: One may. Or better, to avoid nosological fuss, “Illae maculae significant morbum morbillosum,” but that is ugly. Let us keep “Illae maculae sunt signum morbilli” for the noun-form. S.: Good. Then noun and verb. G.: “Illae maculae sunt signum morbilli.” And with significare, “Illae maculae significant morbillos.” S.: With signare. G.: “Illae maculae morbillos signant” is not impossible, but it sounds more like branding or marking than signifying. One begins to feel why significare may have become the preferred semantic verb. S.: Second example. G.: “Illae maculae mihi nihil significabant, medico autem morbillos significabant.” S.: With signum. G.: “Illae maculae mihi nullum signum erant, medico autem signum morbilli erant.” S.: And with signare. G.: “Illae maculae mihi nihil signabant, medico autem morbillos signabant.” Again possible, but harsher and less settled than significabant. S.: Third. G.: “Hoc novissimum vectigal significat nos annum difficilem habituros esse.” S.: With signum. G.: “Hoc novissimum vectigal signum est nos annum difficilem habituros esse.” S.: With signare. G.: “Hoc novissimum vectigal annum difficilem signat” perhaps, but it begins to move toward “marks” rather than “means.” S.: So significare is the safer semantic workhorse in Latin too. G.: Yes, though signare remains temptingly primitive because it suggests the act of marking by which signification comes to be possible. S.: Which brings us to segni dei tempi. G.: Exactly. Segni as noun. But the question is whether behind segni there lurks not merely significare but segnare. S.: Because the times do not only signify; they mark. G.: Very good. Segni dei tempi may mean signs belonging to the times, but also markings made by the times, inscriptions of history upon the world. S.: So dei is ambiguous and segni is doubly alive. G.: Precisely. The signs of the times are both signs that indicate the times and marks impressed by the times. S.: Now back to Meaning proper. You had your five contrasts between natural and nonnatural cases. G.: Yes. The first set: spots, budget, and the entailment of the condition. If x means that p in that natural sense, p follows. S.: So “Those spots signify measles, but he hasn’t got measles” fails. G.: Exactly. And “The recent budget signifies that we shall have a hard year, but we shan’t” has the same defect. S.: In Italian. G.: “Quelle macchie significano il morbillo, ma non ha il morbillo” fails. “Il bilancio recente significa che avremo un anno difficile, ma non l’avremo” likewise. S.: In Latin. G.: “Illae maculae significant morbillos, sed morbillos non habet” fails. “Hoc vectigal significat nos annum difficilem habituros esse, sed non habituri sumus” fails. S.: Because natural signification entails the condition. G.: Quite. S.: Then your point that one cannot pass to “what was meant by those spots.” G.: Yes. In the natural case one cannot smoothly say “what was signified by those spots was that he had measles” in the nonnatural style. Or rather one can say it, but it no longer behaves as the original does. S.: Let us rewrite. G.: English first: from “Those spots signify measles” one cannot straightforwardly infer “What those spots signified was ‘he has measles.’” S.: Because the quotation-form fails. G.: Exactly. Likewise in Italian: from “Quelle macchie significano il morbillo” one cannot naturally move to “Ciò che quelle macchie significavano era ‘ha il morbillo’” as though the spots were uttering a sentence. S.: And Latin. G.: “Quod illae maculae significabant erat ‘morbillos habet’ ” has the same oddity. S.: Then the second set. G.: Yes. “Those three rings on the bell mean that the bus is full.” “That remark meant that Smith found his wife indispensable.” S.: Now sign and signify behave differently. G.: Better indeed. “Those three rings on the bell signify that the bus is full.” “Those three rings are the sign ‘the bus is full’ ” if one is willing to grow semiotic. S.: Italian. G.: “Quei tre tocchi di campanello significano che l’autobus è pieno.” Or with segno: “Quei tre tocchi sono il segno che l’autobus è pieno.” S.: Latin. G.: “Illa tria tintinnabuli pulsa significant raedam plenam esse.” Or “Illa tria pulsa sunt signum raedam plenam esse.” S.: Here no entailment. G.: Precisely. “Those three rings signify that the bus is full, but in fact it is not full” is perfectly possible, because the conductor may have erred. S.: So signification here is nonnatural. G.: Yes. And now one may say “What those rings signified was that the bus is full.” S.: And quotation becomes possible. G.: Entirely. “Those three rings signified ‘the bus is full.’” S.: In Italian. G.: “Quei tre tocchi significavano ‘l’autobus è pieno.’” S.: Latin. G.: “Illa tria pulsa significabant ‘raeda plena est.’” S.: It sounds a little odd in Latin with the object-language quotation. G.: Naturally. Latin dislikes being made to do modern semantic gymnastics in evening dress. But the structure is clear enough. S.: Now your larger question. Signify or signare as basic. G.: Yes. One temptation is to say significare is basic, because it is the settled semantic verb across the natural and nonnatural cases. S.: But you are drawn to signare. G.: Very much. Because signare suggests the underlying operation of marking by which something is made available as sign. S.: So signare would be structurally prior, significare semantically fuller. G.: Exactly. Signare is like laying down the mark; significare is the mark’s already functioning in an interpretive economy. S.: Which is why you wanted the triadic formalisation. G.: Yes. Let us say S(x,y,z), where x is the signans, y the signatum, and z the signee, if one may permit a barbarous convenience. S.: The signee being the addressee, the one for whom the sign is functioning. G.: Precisely. Now if signare is basic, S(x,y,z) is not merely “x signifies y to z” but “x marks y for z,” or “x is deployed as sign of y for z.” S.: Better perhaps: x signat y apud z. G.: Very good Latinising. Or ad z, depending on how direct one wishes the orientation. S.: So in the squash case the bandaged leg is x, the refusal is y, and A is z. G.: Exactly. B, by displaying x, signat y ad A. S.: And in the natural case. G.: There z may be less essential. Spots can be signum morbilli even without a particular addressee in view. But once a doctor notices them, the triad is activated epistemically. S.: So the natural case is dyadically sufficient, triadically available. The nonnatural case is triadically constitutive. G.: Splendid. Keep that too. S.: You are in a granting mood. G.: Because this one is correct. S.: Then segni dei tempi, under this model, would involve x as historical phenomena, y as what is to be gathered about the times, and z as the reader or citizen. G.: Precisely. The title itself presupposes a signee. Signs of the times are not merely there; they are there to be read. S.: And dei. G.: Dei then governs either y or the relation as a whole. They are signs belonging to the times, signs about the times, signs characteristic of the times, and perhaps marks left by the times. S.: So Dal Pra’s title is already semantically busy. G.: Almost indecently so, and he does nothing to simplify it. Which is precisely why it deserves Pra, Pra, Pra and no little scrutiny. S.: Now one more lexical issue. Significare, not segnificare. G.: Yes. One must not let the phonetic pull of segno produce the barbarism segnificare. Italian preserves significare from Latin significare, not a vernacularised segno-form. S.: Whereas segnare belongs to the segno line. G.: Exactly. Italian has both families: segno/segnare and significare. They overlap semantically, but their histories are distinct enough to matter. S.: English likewise, in a way. Sign and signify. G.: Yes. Sign is the more Anglo-Latinate hybrid citizen; signify the more ceremonially Latinate verb. And signature lurks nearby to remind us that signare also meant to mark, seal, subscribe. S.: Which helps your preference for signare as formal base. G.: Very much. To sign is to mark in a way that creates a directed relation. A signature is not merely a mark; it is a mark by someone, of something, for someone or within some recognised institution. S.: So again triadic. G.: Precisely. The world keeps conspiring on behalf of my formalisation. S.: Let us test it on your natural examples. “Those spots mean measles.” G.: In triadic notation, minimally S(x,y,z) with x = those spots, y = measles, z = doctor-observer. But because the natural case does not require an intending signans, we should be cautious. The notation fits best once there is an interpreter in place. S.: Whereas in the bell case x is the three rings, y the bus is full, z the passenger-hearer, and behind x one may add the conductor as utterer. G.: Yes. Then one sees the full richness: a human agent arranges x so that z will gather y. S.: Which is almost your standard nonnatural meaning formula. G.: Nearly, yes. The only thing still missing is the reflexive intention that z recognise that very intention. S.: So signare may formalise the broad triadic framework, while meansNN requires the reflexive refinement. G.: Excellent. Exactly that. S.: Then Dal Pra’s segni remain at the broader level. G.: Mostly, yes. Historical signs do not always involve a speaker with reflexive intention. They may still be read, but not always meantNN. S.: Hence your original natural-nonnatural distinction returns. G.: It always does. Good distinctions are like Roman roads. S.: Straight and overused. G.: Better overused than forgotten. S.: Then perhaps the final lexical hierarchy is this. Signum and segno give the nounal base. Signare and segnare give the act of marking or pointing. Significare gives the settled semantic relation. Meaning in your special sense adds the further layer of speaker-intention and recognisable uptake. G.: Beautifully put. S.: And S(x,y,z). G.: Yes. S(x,y,z) as the formal skeleton of signare: x the signans, y the signatum, z the signee. S.: Signee is horrible. G.: Entirely. Which is why it is useful for one afternoon. S.: And Pra. G.: Pra remains useful because Segni dei tempi forces all these questions into one little title: signs, times, of, reading, history, implication. S.: So all they discuss is Pra, Pra, Pra, segni, dei tempi. G.: As you requested, and no little thing either. S.: Dry enough. G.: Sufficiently Veronese by way of Corpus.