From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:46:39 2010 From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: truth vs. fact Date: Tue Mar 7 22:18:08 1995 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Mar 7 22:18:08 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: > >> Real Fictional > >> false true Sherlock Holmes solved many crimes. > > >Agreed that it is false, but not because there is no Sherlock Holmes, > >since obviously there is. > > I disagree that it is false. If you can have a statement that includes > a fictional "Sherlock Holmes", then you can have a statement that > includes fictional "many crimes". I have no problem with that, as long as "many crimes" can be equally well {so'i zekri} or {so'i da poi zekri}. > True: Sherlock Holmes solved many crimes. > False: Sherlock Holmes solved many real crimes. Ok, then True: so'i da poi zekri zo'u la crlok xolmyz cu dafyfa'i da False: so'i da poi tolxanri zekri zo'u la crlok xolmz cu dafyda'i da > If "lo" can be used to make statements about fictional unicorns, then it > can be used to make statements about fictional crimes. This is because > "lo" descriptions refer to things that fill the indicated x1 place, i.e. > they have the properties required of things that fill that place. Exactly. Just like {da poi ke'a broda}, things that can fill the place indicated by ke'a. No more, no less. Jorge