The answers to several of these questions differ depending on whether I am focusing on the abstract or animal component of the answer. My answers to date have been primarily directed at the abstract component (although I don't think any of them would be badly misleading when thought of as applying to the animal component as well.* With that in mind

Physical Existence? The abstract component has various physical manifestations (so I could also add MINERAL connections to the definition). As for the animal component, the best answer is probably No, (or perhaps Yes, of a sort), but had the question been phrased slightly differently I could have much more easily just answered Yes.
Connected with a particular country? Not exactly, but *applause*.
Merlion? No.

*Though I have never confirmed the existence of the animal component.

Particular human? The animal is a particular human, yes. *applause*

Holder of position or title? Not exactly, but *applause*
Religious connection? No.

Long shot.

Lady Liberty? Nope.

Fictional status of animal and abstract: The animal is non-fictional. The abstract is partly fictional and partly non-fictional.

Like Tom Thumb? Not at all. I would call that totally fictional.

Tom Thumb fictional? Perhaps not.

[Software] Ah. Well, that's what I get for taking Wikipedia as the last word on something. But, in any case, I think the answer is No.

{Software] By the way, I love the picture at top right in your link. "Tom Thumb's Waistcoat," it is labeled. But since there is nothing else in the picture to indicate scale, the waistcoat in question might just as easily be too big for Kobe Bryant....

Male? Yes.

This is proving harder than I expected, so I'll offer a clarification/clue with regard to the mythical/legendary questions. The answer on the card does not refer (in either the abstract or animal sense) to something mythical or legendary in a narrow, literal myth-or-fable sense of those terms. The answer (in both senses) is legendary in the broader celebrated-renowned sense of that term, and possibly even mythical in the very broad sense of that word ("idealized").

Holder of record or accomplishment? The human is known for certain accomplishments.

Dead? Yes.
Sporting? No.

A war leader? Sort of, yes. *applause*

Well, this is starting to get silly.

Alive sometime after1908? Yes.

Notorious? The human in question is perhaps not universally celebrated, but certainly "celebrated" is a better term than "notorious". The abstract sense is pretty much universally celebrated.
Unknown soldier? Hardly. *some laughter*

Born after 1908? The human in question was not born after 1908. The abstract sense cae into being after 1908 though.

Because you will probably have forgotten most of this when you resume this game in a post-Christmas alcoholic haze, here is a review.

The words on the card are sort of a well-known phrase that does not begin with P. The words have both an ANIMAL sense and an ABSTRACT sense. There is no controversy about the existence of either.

The ANIMAL sense is a particular male human, who was born before 1908 and died after 1908. He is known for certain non-sporting accomplishments and was sort of a war leader. He is celebrated rather than notorious, though not universally celebrated. He is legendary in the sense of being celebrated and renowned, and possibly mythical in the sense of being idealized, but he is not legendary or mythical in the more literal senses of those terms. He is not exactly connected to a particular country, but the question earned applause. He is not exactly the holder of a position or title, but that question also earned applause. He has no religious connection. He is not Anubis, the Merlion, Tom Thumb, Lady Liberty, or the Unknown Soldier.

The ABSTRACT sense came into being after 1908, and does have physical (mineral) manifestations. It is partly fictional and partly non-fictional, and it is likewise legendary in the broad senses of the words, but not in the narrow senses. I recently confirmed its existence.

T.E. Lawrence? The human is T.E. Lawrence, yes. *sustained applause*. But, though this one is now clearly there for the taking, I cannot declare Raak the winner.

Lawrence of Arabia is indeed the correct answer. One Aqabaton delivered from the Turks to Raak.

---

The next is ABSTRACT.

Could be regarded as a symptom of one.

Oh, and Happy New Year to all.

Not a happy new year.

E.g. numeracy :-)

Not a human characteristic.

Not an organisation.

According to Wikipedia, no connection with religion.

Not Christmas.

Not a phrase or saying. Well, there's a phrase on the card, of course, but the mystery object is what it refers to, not the words themselves.

No, it's ABSTRACT.

No connection with sciency things.

'cos somebody had to ask it.

Yes, a human construct.

[Rosie] (laughter) Does not instil fear.
[INJ] No connection with the arts.