From ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk Fri Oct 7 15:20:42 1994 Received: from svcs1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA17160 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 7 Oct 1994 15:20:37 -0400 Received: from mail-d.bcc.ac.uk by svcs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA18515 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 7 Oct 1994 15:20:31 -0400 Received: from link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk by mail-d.bcc.ac.uk with SMTP (PP); Fri, 7 Oct 1994 20:18:49 +0100 From: ucleaar Message-Id: <40836.9410071916@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> To: lojbab@access.digex.net Subject: Re: A couple of questions In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 07 Oct 94 08:40:18 D.) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 20:16:18 +0100 Status: RO > JL>> If they are the same, the statement "lo [unicorn] cu brode" > JL>> should be false, since noda cu [unicorn]. > JL> > JL>If no unicorns exist in the world where the statement is used, then the > JL>statement is false in that world, yes. > > 1. Therefore the statement "Elves have pointed ears" is false since > there is no such thing as an elf. Likewise definitional statements > "Elves are humanoid" is also false even if definitional. How can you > describe the properties of a hypothetical but non-existent object if any > statement about such an object is false. But your examples would translate as "ro elf" or "lohe elf", not as "lo elf". We need different examples where we want to discuss hypothetical but nonexistent objects using "lo". --- And