Restating the actual question, “Is this statement true, ‘500,000 years ago there were 5,280 feet in a mile?’” That is the same question as “500,000 years ago, was it true that there were 5,280 feet in a mile”. The word “it” in that statement refers to the thought about a mile being 5,280 feet long 500,000 years ago. The thought or statement is true, because the length of a mile relative to a foot doesn’t change with time. The definitions of the words are the ones of today because the question is being asked using today’s definitions.
Else he would have to have asked, "Was a mile defined to be 5,280 feet 500,000 years ago?"
That would be a different question concerning the definition of a “mile”. The actual question concerned relative lengths, not definitions. How else could anyone ever speak of anything concerning prehistoric times? You are saying that because there was no language in those days nothing can be said about those days.
It is a matter of proper semantics.
It certainly is not. I thought that you were better than that. It didn’t ask anything at all about the definitions of the words, merely the relative lengths that the words referenced. It is asking of relative lengths.
Note that he is not asking if the concepts of feet and miles as we have defined them are applicable when we speak of events in the past.
I’m not sure what you meant by that, but the question was about relative lengths, not words.
If you answer “yes”, then the truth must be embedded in the objects.
And my issue was that it isn’t “truth” that is embedded, but the reality that is embedded. Truth is about the words. And words are not embedded in objects (usually). Reality (and Affectance) is embedded in all existent things.