RT list: "writers like Wilson and Sperber"

I once wrote:

>>"However, he argues that Sperber ['s? -- JLS] and Wilson's
>>account, far from clarifying [for him] this matter, in fact
>>loses the significance of the link between relevance
>>without specification of direction."

D. M. Donovan commented (inter alia):
 
>I'm not sure what J.L.'s point is
>[with his square-bracketed '['s? -- JLS]
>But I did have
>third grade teachers who sounded amazingly like
>him.

Okay, shall we add the following? (?)
 
--- Donovan commented, inter alia (?)
 
--- "Cerulean Cat" (aka D. Cohen) commented:
 
>I don't know to what extent this would help, but it might be of interest.
>Editing style guides have clear instructions regarding coordinated
>possession with 's. Joint possession is indicated by a single 's on the
>final noun, while separate 's indicate separate possession. In some cases
>this makes much more difference:
>Peter and Paul's books vs.
>Peter's and Paul's books
>(The joint possession option is only available if both nouns can take 's,
>so it is not available for conjunction with a pronoun, for instance).
 
And I was trying to look for the explicature in conjunction reduction --
 
alla:
 
Grice and Strawson and Pears said that Kant was a very ambitious
metaphysician who sought to secure, at one stroke, the foundations of science and
the foundations of morality.
 
    (cited in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research -- review of D. F.
Pears, The Nature of Metaphysics,
comprising the article by Grice, Strawson, and Pears, "Metaphysics")
 
--- "like" versus "such as"
 
Grice:
 
    "The suggested [conversational] maxims do not
     SEEM to have the degree of mutual independence
     of one another which the suggested layout SEEMS
     to require. To judge whether I have been undersupplied
     or oversupplied with information SEEMS to require
     that I should be aware of the identity of the topic
     to which the information inn question is supposed
     to RELATE; only after the identification of
     A FOCUS OF RELEVANCE can such as assessment
     be made; the force of this consideration SEEMS
     to be _blunted_ by writers like Wilson and
     Sperber who SEEM to be disposed to sever the
     notion of relevance from the specifications of some
     particular direction of relevance" (WoW, 372).
 
This was indeed his 'Valedictory Essay' -- he changed 'Valedictory' to
"Retrospective" and 'Essay' to "Epilogue", so we shouldn't be complaining --
and perhaps Grandy/Warner were _demanding_ a bit too much when they suggested
that Grice should provide individual replies to each of the 'writers' in
P. G. R. I. C. E. -- which included Wilson and Sperber, "On defining
relevance". (Grice states in "Reply to Richards" that he finds the idea not too
'feasible').
 
But what about the 'like'. "writers" seems okay: although I wonder if there
 is a way of omitting the locution. Similarly, one of my marginal notes to
Chapman crosses out her 'a book entitled' -- actually, "a book called" --
when she writes:
 
  "However, in the work from which Grice quotes,
   a book called _Ethics and Language_ published
   in 1944, Stevenson is careful to distance himself
   from straight-forwardly behaviouristic psychology".
 

----
 
I have seen Grice use 'like' like that, and indeed, it may raise the  
eyebrows of many a third-grade teacher. But is there a way of avoiding the  
quasi-comparative. After all,
 
       "writers such as Wilson and  Sperber"
 
features the 'as' which _is_ the Germanic comparative _par excellence_, no? 
 (G. als).
 
D. Donovan ends his great note:
 
>So is poor Chapman is wrong? I doubt it. 
 
Which I'll echo
 
So is poor Grice wrong? I doubt it.
 
>I'm not sure what J.L.'s point is. But I did have 
>third grade  teachers who sounded amazingly like 
>him. 
 
Well, let's see if we can rephrase Grice, _without_ using 'writers' and  
without using 'like':
 
Silly Proposals:
 
    "the force of this consideration seems to
    be blunted by linguist Wilson and
    anthropologist Sperber who seem to
    be disposed to sever the notion 
    of relevance  from the specification
    of some particular direction of relevance"
 
-- somewhat clumsy.
   
Silly Proposal No. 2
 
   Grice. The force of this consideration seems
      to be blunted by writers like Wilson
      and Sperber.
    JL. Like?
    Grice. Yes. What's wrong with it?
    JL. Don't you _mean_ Wilson and Sperber?
    Grice. ?
    JL. I.e. you don't mean writers _like_ them,
        you mean _them_. 
 
    "the force of this consideration seems to be
    blunted by writers Wilson and Sperber 
    who seem to be disposed of to sever the
    notion of relevance from the specification
    of some particular direction of relevance"
 
Silly Proposal III
 
    "the force of this consideration seems to be
    blunted by writers like Wilson and Sperber
    and Sperber and Wilson who seem to be 
    disposed to sever the notion of relevance
    from the specification of some particular
    direction of relevance."
 
    Refs: Sperber/Wilson, Relevance
            Wilson/Sperber,  "On defining relevance"
                 in PGRICE.
    thesis first put forward in
             Sperber/Wilson,  On Grice's theory
     of conversation, Pragmatics Microfiche.
 
Etc.
 
Merry Christmas!
May I echo Alessandro when he writes:
 
>Christmas is a special period, ideal for asking all [grices] and  for
>renovating one's heart. 
 
Of course he wrote "graces"!
 
 Cheers,
 
   J. L. Speranza
     This Year of Grice