@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101573 wrote:It may seem to us that we see or hear what is not real. Asin Joan of Arc.
---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 02:46 PM ----------
"Real" and "unreal" are tough words. J.L. Austin writes that it is "unreal" that "wears the pants". He means by that that we say of something that it is real only when we are denying that something is not real. When we assert that is a "real diamond", we are not saying it is some kind of extra-special diamond, we are simply saying it is a diamond, and denying and suggestion that the diamond is fake in any way. That is, that is deviates from being a normal diamond. We are not saying that the stone has some extra property that makes it real. A toy duck is not a real duck, which is to say, it is not a duck. It is a "deviant" duck. Of course a fake toy duck (maybe made of paper instead of wood) is a "deviant" toy duck. Not a real toy duck.
"I hallucinated a swarm of bats."
Swarms of bats are real.
I just didn't see a real swarm of bats.
Fake diamonds are real.
They're just not real diamonds.
A fake wooden duck made of paper would be a fake duck made out of paper designed to look like like a duck made of wood. Then again, at the risk of goofiness, maybe a fake toy duck is a real duck pretending to be a toy . . .
---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 01:10 PM ----------
Zetherin;101584 wrote:
"Not a real toy duck", makes sense. It means that the toy duck is not authentic, according to whatever standards for authenticity there are for toy ducks.
I don't think this is quite correct, as it lacks specificity to say this.
One would have to say something like "this is not a real toy duck from the 17th century," for standards of authenticity to apply.
In other words, the toy duck is still a real toy duck, it's just not a real antique toy duck. Similar fakes are often revealed to people on "Antiques Roadshow."