I've seen/read popular books on philosophy where a short introduction to the subject of 'Logic' is given and invariably before half a page has passed they begin to start expressing statements in mathematical looking formulae full of U's, >'s and ='s etc. The upshot is that Logic is at it's heart a formalised system for making, proving or disproving statements without the ambiguity that comes (naturally) into everyday speech. The following occured to me. If this system was applied to the statement "The shared language of Thomas Covenant and the denizens of the Land is proof that the Land exists only in TC's mind" would it stack up. (nb The statement may have to be tweaked a bit to bring it into a form where the analysis could be carried out - but I expect you get the idea of what I'm trying to get across).
It seems to me that there is no rational explanation of the fact that TC can instantly communicate with Lena in a shared language other than the figmental nature of the Land - but that doesn't make it right by any means
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/wink.gif)
There are subsiduary questions pertaining to language in the Land that don't necessarily relate to the above but are interesting in themselves. Did TC have the 'gift of toungs' like the Giants - he always seemed to be able to communicate with everyone straight away (as did every-one else in fact). Would TC have been automatically able to speak to any-one any-where in the Land at his point of entry (I guess so - he had no problem with both Foul and Drool).
(Apologies if this has been covered before but what I'm really interested in here is if the problem of Covenants being able to converse with Lena et al is a game changer in respect of the real/imaginary debate if it is subjected to the rigorous rules of logic.