Message-Id: <m0rlxAn-00007YC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 7 Mar 1995 05:35:59 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      truth vs. fact
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2205
Lines: 44

>> What I've been trying to
>> get at is that for most predications to be true in universe X, their
>> sumti must also exist in universe X. E.g.:
>>
>>  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.  The name "Sherlock Holmes" has a well defined
>referent, namely the fictional character that is a fictional character
>in this world.  It is false because it is false that characters of
>fiction can solve real crimes.  On the other hand, the predication
>"Sherlock Holmes du Sherlock Holmes" is true, and so is "Sherlock Holmes
>is a character of fiction".

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 think you guys are getting hung up in the difference between "true"
which has an epistemology place, and "fact", which deals only with
"reality" in the absolute.  Most language use is about "truth" rather
than about "facts", and statements about Sherlock Holmes tend to
authomaticially invoke an epistemology that incorporates fiction.  It is
my contention that the pragmatic mention of most fictional referents
incorporates the world where that referent exists into the universe of
discourse.

True:   Sherlock Holmes solved many crimes.
False:  Sherlock Holmes solved many real crimes.

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.  It is
part of incorporating the fiction that refers to Sherlock Holmes that he
has all the properties of a man.  It is a part of incorporating the
fiction that refers to Sherlock Holmes that there were things he solved
that - in fiction - had the properties of crimes, and therefore can be
described as lo zekri.  At least for most people, the default values for
ellipsized x2 and x3 of zasti are such that Sherlock Holmes did not
solve lo zekri poi zasti.

lojbab