On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:06 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@hidden.email> wrote:
>
> And what exactly is wrong with saying la mlta xkra?
Nothing at all!
> Your remark was much
> more complex than what I asked about (metaphysics will drive you mad). Its
> true, of course, except that I have my doubts about talking about events
> yet.
Great then. I thought you were asking how could it be that la mlta
xkra while je sa mlta xkra sa mlta na xkra and I was trying to provide
an explanation for that.
> Nothing strange about pictures of green and white polkadotted cats, but
> the question was how would I say that I'd seen one.
"la je ge crna blba je plkdtda mlta le pxreka vska'ake"
{ge} marks predicate mixture? I haven't gotten to the end of some threads discussing details.
At least it is clear that the cat is in the same world as the picture and me. That is one way to do it, the problems being only that of the nondistinctiveness of the nonexistent and the possible refusal of the cocreator of the universe to go along.
At least is is clear that the cat
> Are you going to
> insist, for example, that the cat is imaginary?
How could I know, you didn't tell me whether it was a picture of a
real cat or not.
Since you know that it is in this world, I assumed you knew that no such cats exist in this world.
> And, if so, how is this
> different from real but only possible? These are questions that are the
> reason for building solid bases before pursing the more abstruse realms.
Are you asking me how is imaginary different from possible? I thought
you didn't want to talk metaphysics.
Well, I don't but you do. Still it is basically a syntactic question: where is the quantifier in relation to various worlds.
co ma'a xrxe