# The current king of France punched me in the mouth today **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 27, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705 "2004-08-27T00:22:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/21 "2004-08-27T15:17:42Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > “More people have been to Russia than I have.” > > Is that a coherent sentence? I’ve always wondered about it, because it seems morphologically and syntactically okay but semantically meaningless. > > If too bad hijack, never mind. I’d agree with your analysis. The difference between that and the sentence I posted is that you have to rely on pragmatics to call my sentence incoherent. **II Gyan II** : Is **Polycarp** ’s sentence incoherent? ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/22 "2004-08-27T15:55:18Z")
if we take what we know of the context of the sentence and write it out in first-order logic, it is plainly sensical and false: E k . (k is currently the king of france & k punched **ultrafilter** in the mouth today). since we know there is no such k, the sentence is simply false. now, if we had considered something like: “the person who punched **ultrafilter** in the mouth today doesn’t exist.” we might run into a few more problems. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/23 "2004-08-27T16:19:54Z")
Now, what about the Multiple Worlds Hypothesis – does that affect the issue? If on the planet Turtledove, in an alternate universe, there exists a Louis XXIII, Roi de France, who did not in fact board a Transuniversal Continua Craft, come to our Earth incognito, and punch **Ultrafilter** in the mouth, how does this affect the statement’s logical validity issues? ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/24 "2004-08-27T16:21:28Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > The sentence is incoherent\*. All the individual tokens are valid. The grammatical construction is valid. **But the semantical content is not considered a member of the set of possible experiences.** Substitute ‘invisible pink unicorn’ for ‘current king of France’. Both the phrases as a whole don’t make sense; they don’t map to anything. Cognitive linguists might consider the first as nonsensical and the second as simply counterfactual. I’m ignoring the possible leeway in the context of the utterance itself (now != 2004 ?). > > \*Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary – coherent: If an argument, set of ideas or a plan is coherent, it is clear and carefully considered, and each part of it connects or follows in a natural or sensible way. > [@ultrafilter](#): > > However, the argument that the sentence is incoherent is not terribly easy to dismiss. It comes down to the question of who the semantical subject of that sentence is. Since there is no current king of France, the sentence doesn’t refer to anyone, and is therefore incoherent– **coherent sentences must refer to someone or something**. bolding mine. If correct, wouldn’t the 2 arguements above consign all works of fiction to the class of incoherent? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/25 "2004-08-27T17:19:40Z")
> [@Tastes of Chocolate](#): > > If correct, wouldn’t the 2 arguements above consign all works of fiction to the class of incoherent? No. Since you know it’s fiction, you consign it the required leeway. **ultrafilter** , we need to finetune what coherence refers to. If coherent simply means that one can simply parse the sentence, then both yours and Polycarp’s sentences are coherent. But both your sentences don’t require additional information, so to speak, to declare them false (assuming general knowledge for both speaker/listener). It is incomprehensible (without context) why the statement would be asserted, given their obvious falsity. In that sense, they’re incoherent. On the other hand, the statement, within themselves, contain enough information to allow you to decide that they’re false, hence they’re coherent. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/26 "2004-08-27T17:20:53Z")
Polycarp’s sentence is actually incoherent, since we can’t decide the Truth Value. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/27 "2004-08-27T17:27:50Z")
It’s false, not incoherent. The Statement “The current King of France is Bald” is incoherent, As B. Russell pointed out, because you are ascribing qualities to something that doesn’t exist. However your statement ascribes qualities to two people who do exist, you and the person who punched you in the mouth. Your sentence contains two assertions. 1.) I was punched in the mouth. this is either true or false. 2.) The person who punched me in the mouth is the current King of France. This is false. Thus the sentence is coherent, but false. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/28 "2004-08-27T17:28:55Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Polycarp’s sentence is actually incoherent, since we can’t decide the Truth Value. “For all x, if x is a prime number between 24 and 28, x is an even factor of 1,000”. I think it’s obvious that that’s what **Polycarp** means, and that sentence is clearly true (by vacuous implication). ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/29 "2004-08-27T18:00:26Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > It’s false, not incoherent. > > The Statement “The current King of France is Bald” is incoherent, As B. Russell pointed out, because you are ascribing qualities to something that doesn’t exist. > > However your statement ascribes qualities to two people who do exist, you and the person who punched you in the mouth. Your sentence contains two assertions. > > 1.) I was punched in the mouth. this is either true or false. > > 2.) The person who punched me in the mouth is the current King of France. This is false. > > Thus the sentence is coherent, but false. actually from what i’ve read (and i have stacks of russell books i haven’t yet read), this isn’t what he claimed. he claimed that ascribing nonexistence to an object is semantically nonsensical. ascribing characteristics to an object that _could_ exist, in my estimation, is semantically valid, and just false. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/30 "2004-08-27T18:24:46Z")
If I said today: The current King of Britain has two daughters. that is clearly false. If I had made that statement 60 years ago, it would have been true. Since it would have been true 60 years ago, it would have been coherent 60 years ago. So, if it was coherent 60 years ago, howcan it be incoherent now? In logical terms, it’s asserting a couple of things: (1) There is a person who is the current King of Britain. (2) That person has two daughters. Those two things were true in 1944, and statement (1) is false now, so the combined statement is false. And again, the statement: Every person who is the current King of Britain has two daughters. is both coherent and true now, but was coherent and false for most of 1936 (because there was a King of Britain, but he did not have two daughters). ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/31 "2004-08-27T18:26:09Z")
> [@Ramanujan](#): > > actually from what i’ve read (and i have stacks of russell books i haven’t yet read), this isn’t what he claimed. he claimed that ascribing nonexistence to an object is semantically nonsensical. ascribing characteristics to an object that _could_ exist, in my estimation, is semantically valid, and just false. You’re probably right. But my point was just that while the sentence “The present K of F is B” ascribes qualities to non-existent entities, Ultrafilter’s sentence ascribes qualities to people that do esist. I think I remembered the Russell sentence from _Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy_ but its been so long I might not even have that right. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/32 "2004-08-27T18:38:09Z")
I suggest it is simply false. The questions I see are, “Does this sentence have any use?” As we can see, the answer is ‘yes’, someone suggested a different context, we might suggest that a person was mistaken about so-and-so being king, etc. It is a perfectly grammatical sentence with a definite use obivous to any English speaker. It just happens to be a fiction. I would not care to suggest that fiction is meaningless; it is simply false. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/33 "2004-08-27T18:40:51Z")
I didn’t mention the second question, which is “Is it true?”, but I feel it is implied. Whoops! ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/34 "2004-08-27T18:44:53Z")
[Definite Description](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_King_of_France) from Wikipedia, discussing Russell, Strawson, Donellan, and regal baldness. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/35 "2004-08-27T18:52:44Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > I think I remembered the Russell sentence from _Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy_ but its been so long I might not even have that right. the sentence i remember him using was “the golden mountain does not exist.” in our language, it is actually parsed as “there is no such object which is both gold and a mountain”, which does make sense, and lets us use semantically invalid sentences and have their meaning be understood. in a logically perfect language, though, that would not happen. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2004, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/36 "2004-08-27T23:09:54Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > It’s a coherent statement with a nonexistent referent, and hence false. > > Swapping it back over to math for a second, “All prime numbers between 24 and 28 are even factors of 1,000” – true, false, or incoherent? And why is that answer the correct one? I would say “true” but that’s because in maths “all” is fairly well defined, and such a statement is considered true when there are no examples. However in normal english, many people would use “all” to additionally imply there was at least one – you may agree or disagree but as it’s a common view you can’t just dismiss it – and in that case it could be false or incoherent. In fact, I think this whole discussion is a bit moot without a good definition of incoherent (and possibly of false). Different people interpret them in different ways, so get different answers. I would lean to the “implicitly stating there is a king, and so false” but I’m not certain. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/37 "2004-08-28T00:42:34Z")
From a Wikipedia article on philosopher Bertrand Russell ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand\_Russell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell)): > [@](#): > > **Philosophy of Language** > > Perhaps Russell’s most significant contribution to philosophy of language is his theory of descriptions. It is normally illustrated using the phrase “the present King of France”, as in “The present king of France is bald.” What object is this sentence about, given that there is not, at present, a king of France? Alexius Meinong had suggested that we must posit a realm of “nonexistent entities” that we can suppose we are referring to when we use expressions like this; but this would be a strange theory, to say the least. Frege seemed to think we could dismiss as nonsense any sentences whose words apparently referred to objects that didn’t exist. Among other things, the problem with this solution is that some such sentences, such as “If the present king of France is bald, then the present king of France has no hair on his head,” not only do not seem nonsensical but appear to be obviously true. Roughly the same problem would arise if there were two kings of France at present: which of them does “the king of France” denote? > > The problem is general to what are called “definite descriptions.” Normally this includes all terms beginning with “the”, and sometimes includes names, like “Walter Scott.” (This point is quite contentious: Russell sometimes thought that the latter terms shouldn’t be called names at all, but only “disguised definite descriptions,” but much subsequent work has treated them as altogether different things.) What is the “logical form” of definite descriptions: how, in Frege’s terms, could we paraphrase them in order to show how the truth of the whole depends on the truths of the parts? Definite descriptions appear to be like names that by their very nature denote exactly one thing, neither more or less. What, then, are we to say about the sentence as a whole if one of its parts apparently isn’t working right? > > Russell’s solution was, first of all, to analyze not the term alone but the entire sentence that contained a definite description. “The present king of France is bald,” he then suggested, can be reworded to “There is an x such that x is a present king of France, nothing other than x is a present king of France, and x is bald.” Russell claimed that each definite description in fact contains a claim of existence and a claim of uniqueness which give this appearance, but these can be broken apart and treated separately from the predication that is the obvious content of the sentence they appear in. The sentence as a whole then says three things about some object: the definite description contains two of them, and the rest of the sentence contains the other. If the object does not exist, or if it is not unique, then the whole sentence turns out to be false, not meaningless. > > One of the major complaints against Russell’s theory, due originally to P. F. Strawson, is that definite descriptions do not claim that their object exists, they merely presuppose that it does. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/38 "2004-08-28T01:59:39Z")
In this case, I feel “false or incoherent” should rather be “mistake or lie?” Either the person was mistaken about the face-puncher being the king of France, or the person was lying. The sentence directs English speakers in such a way that we could determine which case applied, meaning it is not incoherent or nonesense (choose your poison). ---
**Author:** ![WoodCM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/7bcc69/32.png) [@WoodCM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WoodCM)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/39 "2004-08-28T04:32:26Z")
My right leg is currently not attached to my body, but is detached and far away, in fact right now in the middle of the Gobi desert, dancing a jig with the ghost of Ghengis Khan. Why is this happening? I am completely unable to explain. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705/40 "2004-08-28T06:00:11Z")
I do not know what to do with that idea. Whether that is your fault or mine has to be discovered. How we go about doing so is a facet of whether we consider that nonsense or simply false. Perhaps we don’t agree at all right off… but where do we agree? And does that lead us to a point where we can discuss that leg? I heard Lot’s wife was turned into salt… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-current-king-of-france-punched-me-in-the-mouth-today/261705.md?page=3)