From pycyn@aol.com Sun Jun 25 15:34:46 2000
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
Received: (qmail 808 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2000 22:34:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 25 Jun 2000 22:34:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta2 with SMTP; 25 Jun 2000 22:34:43 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.60.4658c75 (2615) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:34:34 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <60.4658c75.2687e2fa@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 18:34:34 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] RECORD: containers
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41
From: pycyn@aol.com

xorxes:<<saying {ta botpi noda} does
not make the claim "that is an empty bottle". It says
"that is not a bottle of something", exactly equivalent
to {ta na botpi da}, isn't it?>>

I skip over the problem (for which lb has no better solution
than English) of internal and external negations -- that this is
a bottle but not one containing something, and simply say
that, given we do acknowledge that ta is a bottle and being
good Griceans, we admit that not containing anything *of
relevance to the present discussion* is pretty much what we
mean by "empty" -- air, Coke dregs, a little water from the
washing up (including minute amounts of soap), and
mosquito turds don't count.
Even in a logical language, language ain't logic.