McEvoy was mentioning the ‘knot’ of existence, or strictly, ‘getting in a knot
on the concept of ‘existence’.’ For the record, re Grunebaum’s
Bellerophon rode Pegasus.
Supposing we provide a variable for “Bellerophon”: “x”. We would have, using
numbers as scope indicators:
Ex2F1x3
Ex3F1x2
"The idea which lies behind the treatment of [E-] quantification
in [[our] natural deduction system] is that only the former, “Ex2F1x3,”
represents:
“There exists something which is F.”
The latter, “Ex3F1x2,” has OTHER readings, notably, the ‘weaker’:
“There *IS* something which is F”
or, in simpler terms,
'something is F.’
These two ‘weaker’ readings are shared by both the former and the latter
formulae.
But, again, it is only the former formula – due to the syntactic scope we are
assigning to the components of the formula -- which should be read as the
‘stronger’ locution, ‘There EXISTS something which is F.’
Talk about getting in a knot about the concept of ‘existence’ – and ‘being’!
Cheers,
Speranza
Looking forward to the Genie’s answer to: “whether an oral language
[only, unlike Etruscan], that has disappeared from human history leaving no
physical or mental traces, leaves any trace in W3 from the time it was spoken -
or whether we say whatever traces it left in W3 have disappeared with the
extinction of any physical or mental record of the language.” (I _know_
Bennett’s answer would make a lot of use of ‘potential’! “Linguistic
Behaviour,” Cambridge University Press).
