The inference
Manuscript §1: “The three utterances share a loose situation model while differing in footing and illocutionary force. Preserving the proposition is therefore neither necessary nor sufficient for preserving the communicative event.” CLAIM-061 in its first version grounded both halves on CASE-018 and CASE-027, and said “necessity fails in CASE-018, read in reverse”. The necessity half is now CLAIM-486. This argument is the step from those renderings to it.
Critical questions
- Is the case coherent? Yes. Both cases are invented, and coherent as descriptions: one sentence said by four speakers (CASE-018), and Henley in the voice of an academic sociologist (CASE-027).
- Does it separate the very things the conclusion says can come apart? No. This is the question that fails. CLAIM-053 (2026-10-08): “Three renderings with a shared situation model and different acts show that sharing the proposition is not sufficient. They do not show that a rendering can keep the act while changing the proposition.” CLAIM-229 (2026-10-10) gives the logic: “Write P for ‘the rendering keeps the proposition’ and A for ‘the rendering keeps the act’. Same words with a different act is a case of P without A, which refutes ‘P is sufficient for A’. Necessity, ‘A only if P’, is refuted only by a case of A without P.” Reading CASE-018 in reverse “is still the same words, so still P without A”. CASE-027 is the sufficiency half too, as it says (“propositions held fixed, footing changed”).
Rejected as an inference to CLAIM-486. The renderings support CLAIM-061’s sufficiency half, which is all CLAIM-061 now says, and CLAIM-229 does not dispute that possibility.
Other lines to the conclusion
The case against necessity lies outside the manuscript. CLAIM-053 placed it in the exchange: A12’s sentence (“you can alter many of the propositions while preserving the speaker’s attitude”) and A24’s compensation hypothesis (CLAIM-091). The second route is ARG-020. The documented case is CASE-056, Phillips’s “hearty handshake all round” for Paul’s “holy kiss”, which CLAIM-486 grounds on directly. CASE-066’s Garnett sentence bears only weakly: “a producer’s judgement of A without P, not a measured one” (CLAIM-229’s note of 2026-10-10). Neither rescues CASE-018. CASE-012’s refrains only illustrate CLAIM-061, and show “that such variation is possible, not how readers judge it”.
Filed 2026-10-28 by the ADR-061 migration, from CLAIM-053 and CLAIM-229, which drew the same inference and are filed here once.