Fiktivno fiktivni objekt

Nothingness is inconceivable, yet at the same time it is not inconceivable because it is actually referred to. I propose several accessibility relations to illustrate that nothingness is not an object at all. The fictional object that Sherlock Holmes is belongs to the domain in some semantic context, but the fictionally fictional object that nothingness is does not. Based on this idea, I will also discuss the semantics and the pragmatics of “Nothingness does not exist”. How is it that it is not an object, unlike Sherlock Holmes, but we attribute to it nonexistence?