In a message dated 2/11/2002 9:56:11 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:Okay. Irrespective of how you intepret {finpe je mirli}: It is true exactly of things that are simultaneously both fish and deer, the intersection of the two sets (null in this world and, I suspect, most others). The herd of fish and deer together, the union of the two sets, is {finpe je mirli} true of things that are one or the other (or both-- sure, sure!). <1. Would you say that {lo finpe .e lo mirli cu finpe je mirli}?> Factually? No. I'd say {no da finpe je mirli} To be sure, if anythiing were in this set, it would be a fish and a deer. <2a. If so, since .e is rather well defined, would you then accept that {lo finpe cu finpe je mirli}?> Yes, IF. This is NOT the white horse problem. But, in fact no. <2b. If not, what does {lo finpe je mirli} refer to?> Some member(s) of the set of things that are simultaneously both fish and deer. But there aren't any, so it is a falsifying _expression_ (makes atomic sentences in which it occurs false, or drives the conversation into another --very strange -- world. |