Message-Id: <m0rgp2Y-00001pC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 21 Feb 1995 00:14:47 -0700
Reply-To:     Chris Bogart <cbogart@CSN.ORG>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Chris Bogart <cbogart@CSN.ORG>
Subject:      Re: events - repsonse to And
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2185
Lines: 47

>Lojbab:
>> I take this as meaning that invoking "lo [unicorn]"
>> alters the universe of discourse - not that it makes statements about
>> "reality" (whatever that is).

>The source of my unhappiness is that it is not true that the very fact
>of talking about a unicorn shifts us into a universe of discourse where
>unicorns exist. "I drew a picture of a unicorn" doesn't. That can be
>true in the 100% real kickable world in which no unicorn exists.

I drew a picture of a unicorn [which I saw yesterday on the way to work]

        mi finti le pixra be le pavseljirna

I drew a picture of a unicorn [some variant of the "typical" unicorn]

        mi finti le pixra be le'e pavseljirna

The first is transparent, and does indeed shift us into a different universe
of discourse; the second is opaque or archetypal or something, and the issue
doesn't arise, does it?

>That said, John's point is usually valid, in the sense that for
>"A unicorn approached me" to be potentially true, we have to
>shift to a universe where unicorns exist.

su'a You're saying that John's point is valid in transparent references, but
not in opaque ones, xunai?

>I maintain that if we want to make statements that aren't vacuously
>true then they must be made in the context of some specific universe.
>If "several unicorns exist" automatically shifts us into a world where
>unicorns exist, that statement must be true. But if instead that
>statement means "in a specific universe, several unicorns exist", you
>can test the claim by examining that universe.

Again, write it in Lojban.  If the "several unicorns" sumti is a transparent
reference to a certain set of several unicorns, then it would appear to be
vacuously true.  If it's an opaque reference to several le'e pavseljirna (or
however you think opaque refs should be expressed) then the claim may or may
not be true in a particular universe of discourse.

Whatever the answer is here, I'm sure it ties back into the
transparent/opaque question, and we can't solve one without solving the other.
                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  ftp://ftp.csn.org/cbogart/html/homepage.html
 Quetzal Consulting   \/   cbogart@quetzal.com