Re: Mr. Bird, negation, and *ivorousness

Jorge Llamb��)B�as scripsit:

> > I think the reason for my intuition that statements of the form "Mr. Bird
> > is *ivorous" are false is that "is *ivorous" has a negation in it.
> 
> But "is male" has no negation, and it would seem to stumble with the 
> same intuition.

No, I have no trouble with that. "-Mr. cipni cu nakni" is true, and so
is "-Mr. cipni cu fetsi". (OTOH, "-CLL-lo'e cipni cu nakni" and
"-CLL-lo'e cipni cu fetsi" are both false.)

Similarly, "-Mr. cipni cu blanu" is true (there's a _Cyanocitta cristata_
right over there), and so is "-Mr. cipni cu na'e blanu" (as evidenced by
the _Cardinalis cardinalis_ in the next tree). But "-Mr cipni cu na
blanu" has to be false by the law of contradictories.

(Yeah, I'm in North America. Sue me.)

> Mr. Bird is not carnivorous always and everywhere. Is that what
> you mean by "Mr Bird is carnivorous"?

The avatars of Mr. Bird aren't all blue. Does that mean you accept
"-Mr. cipni cu na blanu" as true? If so, we have a biiiiiig problem.

> You are arguing that since nothing can be both hervivorous and 
> carnivorous, then Mr Bird can't be both hervivorous and carnivorous.

In the same sense that "John sometimes sits down" and "John never sits
down" can't both be true.

> But nobody is saying that he is both at the same time (i.e. in the 
> same instance).

For me, "Mr. Bird is carnivorous" means "-Mr. cipni noroi fe'enoroi
spati citka".

> Permanent and unchangeable properties of 
> avatars need not be so for the One Individual.

True but not on point.

-- 
Evolutionary psychology is the theory John Cowan
that men are nothing but horn-dogs, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and that women only want them for their money. http://www.reutershealth.com
--Susan McCarthy (adapted) jcowan-k6JZYsoqQQ8PxK1qzZLvrwC/[email protected]