Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tIIj2-0000ZWC; Wed, 22 Nov 95 19:12 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 97BD900C ; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 18:12:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:09:59 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: more on logical issues To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Content-Length: 958 Lines: 21 Steve Hazel: > > All even prime numbers greater than three are multiples of 27. > > Yes, indeed there are no even prime numbers greater than three. > > > >Is that really bad English? > > While the English syntax is not flawed, the logic may be. The basic question > here, I think, is whether or not it is logical to say that a nonexistant thing > or nonexistant things ("even prime numbers greater than three") can be given > properties ("are multiples of 27"). That's not really the point I want to make. The logical question is whether a universal quantification need have referents. If you say "nothing is an even prime number greater than three" you are not giving a property to "nothing", even though the English syntax would seem to suggest it. Similarly, if you say "all even prime numbers greater than three are multiples of 27" you are not giving a property to "all even prime numbers greater than three", simply because there are none. Jorge