Is unstar starred a star?
No?
Perhaps an "unstar" is something like a black hole, its
moved beyond stars by one of the same measures. But
an absolute unstar would be something ridiculous,
because it would have to negate even the stars quality
of having existence. Either the word "star" is equally
ridiculous, or an unstar is a nonsense term that cannot
entirely negate it. To do so it would have to be an
element of destruction--some kind of weapon. Then
either it is nonsensical to say that it could be starred,
or there is some way that the star and the unstar
negate eachother--producing something in the middle.
It is not stated in the question whether there is some
other important quality of the unstar that would make
it unsuited to be a star--in this case we could call it
simply a non-star. It comes down to the question of
whether the activity of MAKING a star can overcome
the dark nature of BEING an unstar. It would help to
resolve the question if we knew one of them to be
itself to an absolute measure--we would suspect that
an Unstar could not be starred, and also, but perhaps
to a lesser degree, that an unstar could be Starred.
My solution is that its ambiguous.
NEXT QUESTION