Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA23268 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 10 Oct 1994 04:50:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199410100850.AA23268@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4585; Mon, 10 Oct 94 04:51:46 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3456; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 04:51:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 10:49:46 +0200 Reply-To: faupel@TRSHP.TRS.NTC.NOKIA.COM Sender: Lojban list From: faupel@TRSHP.TRS.NTC.NOKIA.COM Subject: Re: Talking about non-existant objects X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: <199410100735.JAA26298@ns.ntc.nokia.com> (message from Logical Language Group on Mon, 10 Oct 1994 00:50:41 -0400) Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Oct 10 04:50:32 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Rats rats rats rats rats. I haven't been reading my Lojban mail that closely recently, partly because there's been so much of it and partly because I'm desperately trying to learn Finnish (being in the country for four months for that purpose). This means that I've thrown away a lot of the past posts on talking about non-existant objects without reading them closely enough to know whether what I'm about to say is completely on the wrong track. Nevertheless, here goes. While reading one of the articles on whether you can say anything about Elves because all statements are false if they don't exist, I started musing about what would happen if all the lions in the world suddenly died. Would you then not be able to say anything truthful about lions? Obviously not; it's just that your statements would then (by the magic of implicit Lojban tense) default to be commenting about the past, since that is the only time location for which it makes sense to talk about lions. So, in this hypothetical situation, if I said: lo cinfo cu barda you, the listener, would infer: lo cinfo pu barda I then further thought, why not solve the problem of not being able to talk about Elves and the such like by inventing a tense that would get us to the (imaginary) location in which they do exist. Let's say this tense is "xa'o" (c.f. ka'o :-) then if I say: lo ricre'a cu crino you (believing the non-existance of elves) would infer: lo ricre'a xa'o crino The only problem remaining is how to navigate to this non-existant place (if it's not obvious from context), because we have to know on which of the multiplicity of imaginary milieux we are basing our assertions in order to be able to evaluate the truth of the statement. In Tolkien's world, elves aren't green so the above is false; in some other author's imagination, they might be. Perhaps vedu'o could serve this purpose by shifting us to a new world of thought? e.g. is: lo ricre'a vedu'o la'o by. The Lord Of The Rings .by. na crino a valid (and truthful) statement? Does any this make sense, or am I completely off my trolley/holding the wrong end of the stick etc.? Cheers, Matthew