Cilj je rada propitati tradicionalnu definiciju laži. U radu ne pružam vlastitu definiciju te pojave, ali pokušavam pokazati da je tradicionalna definicija laži, po kojoj je za laganje nužno iskazivanje neistinitih tvrdnji, neadekvatna. Kako bih to učinila, u prvom dijelu predstavljam teoriju Herberta Paula Gricea o razgovornim implikaturama, čije su hotimično neistinite inačice izrijekom isključene iz tradicionalne definicije. U nastavku, pozivajući se na teoriju o zadanim značenjima, odbacujem rašireni stav da se govornik uvijek može ograditi od pragmatički prenesene poruke. Potom, predstavljam standardnu definiciju laži i sagledavam koju ulogu u njoj imaju govornikova namjera i slušateljeva odgovornost. U drugom dijelu, dotadašnje uvide primjenjujem na Shakespeareovu tragediju Otelo. Nakon kratkog predstavljanja odnosa između Otela i Jaga, razlažem tri dramska primjera onoga što smatram lažima ostvarenima razgovornom implikaturom. Takva analiza ima dvojaku ulogu. Prva joj je zadaća pokazati nedostatnost tradicionalne definicije laži kroz tvrdnju da Jago, iako ne izgovara neistine, laže. Druga je zadaća ukazivanje na ograničeni doseg mogućnosti poništavanja pragmatički prenesene poruke; Jagove pragmatičke poruke toliko su snažne da se, iako to pokušava učiniti, od njih ne uspijeva ograditi.; This paper aims to question the traditional definition of lying. I do not present my definition of this phenomenon. Instead, I try to show that the traditional definition – to lie one must utter a false claim – is inadequate. To do that, in the first part of the paper, I present Herbert Paul Grice’s theory of conversational implicatures, which are explicitly excluded from the traditional definition. Next, relying on the theory of default meanings, I reject the widespread idea that the speaker can always distance themselves from a pragmatically conveyed message. Then I present the traditional definition of lying and the role that the intention of the speaker and the responsibility of the hearer play in it. In the second part, I apply the insights gathered by that point to Shakespeare’s tragedy Othello. After a brief presentation of the relation between Othello and Iago, I present three examples of dialogues from the play that I consider to be the cases of lying accomplished with conversational implicatures. This kind of analysis has a dual role. The first one is to show the inadequacy of the traditional definition of lying. Even though Iago does not utter a single false claim, he is lying. The second one to point to the limited scope of the possibility of denying a pragmatically conveyed message. Iago’s pragmatic messages are so strong that he cannot distance himself from them, even when he tries to.