Message-Id: <m0qtJh5-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 7 Oct 1994 18:33:27 BST
Reply-To:     i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK
Subject:      Re: A couple of questions
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1245
Lines: 35

cu'u la lojbab.
> 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.

These are either universals

    ro crida cu se kerlo lo se kojna

    ro crida cu remna simsa

or are about Jorge's Platonic ideals

    lo'e crida cu se kerlo lo se kojna

    lo'e crida cu simsa lo'e remna

neither of which necessarily imply existence .ia.

And if you really want to say that some-but-not-necessarily-all elves
have pointy ears, then you have to allow that such things as elves
exist, if only for the purposes of the discussion.

    su'o [da'i] crida cu se kojna se kerlo

Hypothetical objects exist ***by hypothesis*** in the universe of
discourse.  If you start a conversation about elves without first
establishing the hypothetical context, then you have to expect
a retort complaining that there's no such thing.  But if you've
prepared the ground properly, you can continue the discussion
in the knowledge that existence may be assumed _in that context_.

mu'o mi'e .i,n.