Re: lo [nonexistent]

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> UC>> I can't say for sure about "lo'e", but this does not work for "ro elf".
> UC>> If the statement "ro [elf] cu [has pointed ears]" is true, then so is
> UC>> "ro [elf] cu [has unpointed ears]" and "ro [elf] na [has pointed ears]".
> UC>
> UC>I don't see this. But anyway, what matters is what would be true
> UC>if elves exist.
> Well, in English:
> Assume that there are no elves.
> All elves are green is a true statement, because you cannot disprove it
> by showing me a non-green elf.

By what epistemology? So you reckon "If your [=Lojbab's] name is Eric
then mine is Telemachus" is true? I suppose I can supply the answer:
by an epistemology in which any proposition that is not false is
necessarily true.

> You are talking about all members of the empty set

If I am, I'm talking about the empty set that would contain elves if there
were any elves, not the empty set that would contain drinkable instant
coffee if there were any drinkable instant coffee.

Maybe I'm being disingenuous: I recognize that what you say is true
for a respectable epistemology, but I don't think it suffices for
use in human language (e.g. Lojban).

I think we should lay this red herring to bed & recognize that
what does or doesn't exist out there in thw world is irrelevant
to language. Anyone who cares to can sprinkle in the odd "dahi",
according to taste (as Matthew's recent message proposed).

And