1
|
(i)
|
Could
not (in spite of being a p.r.o.), because there is no such person.
|
| |
(ii)
|
Could
not. No such person.
|
| |
(iii)
|
On
view 1, this could be, in spite of the fact that it is does not
pass tests 1 and 2. There is (was) such a person. It passes test
3. And, given that there is such a person together with our sentence,
it follows that John is not someone - that is, there is someone
who John is not. On view 2, it could not be.
|
| |
(iv)
|
Could
not. As we noticed in the answers to the previous exercise, it is
ambiguous. But however it is taken, it could not be translated as
"a" because there is no such person.
|
| |
(v)
|
If
we suppose that there is such a book, this could be.
(Sometimes,
of course, we ourselves are telling a story. And if it is part of
the story that there is such a thing as this book, then we can,
as part of the story, translate the designator as "a".
Of course, in writing his story, John himself might use "a"
to translate "the first person to swim the Atlantic".
But the speaker who says, "John wrote a book about the first
person to swim the Atlantic" mustn't use "a" on that
account. What he is saying is not part of John's story.)
|
|
(vi) |
Could not. (Fails to meet any of the conditions.)
|
|
(vii) |
Ambiguous.
If it is intended to attribute to Peter the thought, "The first
person to swim the English Channel lived in Brighton", then
the designator could not be translated as "a". (Fails
test 3) If, however, it is intended to attribute to Peter a belief
about Captain Webb (the first person to swim the English Channel)
that he lived in Brighton, then it could be translated as "a".
|
| |
(viii) |
Ambiguous,
perhaps. However, it is most likely that it is saying that "the
first person to swim the English Channel was unable to swim"
could not have been true. (That is, the alleged impossibility is
de dicto.) In that case it can't be translated as "a".
Fails test 3.
|
| |
(ix) |
Here
the modality is presumably meant de re. (It is hardly likely
that what is being said is that "The first person to swim the
English Channel was not able to swim" might have been true.)
So it is can be translated using "a". (It is a p.r.o.
and there is such a thing.)
|
| |
(x) |
It could not. There is not just one thing (indeed not anything)
which is the whale.
|
|
(xi) |
It
could not. There is not just one thing (indeed not anything) which
is the square-of-an-odd-number.
|
|
(xii) |
It
could not be, although it is a p.r.o., because there is no such
thing.
|
| |
(xiii) |
It could not be, because the sentence is true!
|
|
(xiv) |
This
could not be if the safety net is not, as a matter of fact, removed.
What if the safety net is removed? Then it could be. (Though, of
course, no one knowing of the removal would use this sentence; they
would say instead, "the removal of the safety net will be dangerous".)
|
| |
(xv) |
This could be, if the net was removed; otherwise not. |
| |
(xvi) |
Fails
test 3. Peter was Andrew's brother. But our sentence's truth does
not require it to be true that Andrew's brother was so called because
of his steadfast character.
|
| |
(xvii) |
Presumably
this is a p.r.o. So, assuming that there was such a person as Peter,
"Peter" could be translated as "a". (It does
not say that Peter was called "Peter" after his grandfather.
It would be true if he was called "Peter John" because
his grandfather was called "John".)
|
| |
(xviii) |
This
could not be. Fails test 3. (For a discussion, see exercise 7.1.)
|
|
(xix) |
This
could be. It is as p.r.o. and there is such a person.
|