Re: truth vs. fact

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

> >>  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