bring me the head of h.p. grice

[fox]

A man who, by (in, when) saying (or making as if to say) that p has implicated that q, may be said to have conversationally implicated that q, PROVIDED THAT (1) he is to be presumed to be observing the conversational maxims, or at least the cooperative principle; (2) the supposition that he is aware that, or thinks that, q is required in order to make his saying or making as if to say p (or doing so in THOSE terms) consistent with this presumption; and (2) the speaker thinks (and would expect the hearer to think that the speaker thinks) that it is within the competence of the hearer to work out, or grasp intuitively, that the supposition mentioned in (2) IS required.

honest to god, i have no idea what that sentence says.

i think [trying to parse] ... i think what's been hanging me up for fifteen minutes is this: i'd assumed that the man in the beginning there said p has implicated that q -- but i think what grice means is that the man said p and thus the man implicated q.

don't get me started on the difference between implicated and implied.

edited to add: and! okay. in clause (2), it's not a supposition that q is required -- it's the supposition that "q" is required.

this, children, is why i'm such a hardass about comma abuse.