From lojbab Mon Oct 10 23:36:11 1994 Received: from access4.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA07902 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 10 Oct 1994 23:36:03 -0400 Received: by access4.digex.net id AA20703 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Mon, 10 Oct 1994 23:35:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 23:35:08 -0400 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199410110335.AA20703@access4.digex.net> To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk Subject: Re: lo [nonexistent] Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO UC>> >But your examples would translate as "ro elf" or "lohe elf", not as UC>> >"lo elf". UC>> > UC>> >We need different examples where we want to discuss hypothetical UC>> >but nonexistent objects using "lo". UC>> UC>> I can't say for sure about "lo'e", but this does not work for "ro elf". UC>> If the statement "ro [elf] cu [has pointed ears]" is true, then so is UC>> "ro [elf] cu [has unpointed ears]" and "ro [elf] na [has pointed ears]". UC> UC>I don't see this. But anyway, what matters is what would be true UC>if elves exist. Well, in English: Assume that there are no elves. All elves are green is a true statement, because you cannot disprove it by showing me a non-green elf. (I have been told that this is why "all" has no existential import, unlike "there exists"). But also "all elves are red" is true by the same logic, as well as "all elves have pointed ears" and "all elves have unpointed ears". You are talking about all members of the empty set, and by definition you jhave to decide that all statements about the empty set are true by the above logic, or false (in which case I think you can get similar problems, but am not sure what they are - possibly also with negations), or meaningless (an answer not to satisfying in the intersection of logic and set theory. (Warning - I am talking throuigh my hat here. Nora has tried explaining this to me a few times, but I readily admit that I only half understand.) lojbab