From BestATN@aol.com Tue Jun 27 09:11:11 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26760 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2000 15:03:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Jun 2000 15:03:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r13.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.67) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Jun 2000 15:03:44 -0000 Received: from BestATN@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.7f.640b428 (4424) for ; Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:19:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7f.640b428.2689830e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 00:09:50 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Digest Number 497 To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 109 From: BestATN@aol.com All this talk about bottles not being bottles because they don't contain anything seem vacuous to me (pun intended). A bottle always contains something, even if that something is only a vacuum, indeed empty space. Nothing in the definition says what the contents have to be. So it's true that an "empty" bottle can be referred to in > ta botpi < or > ta ca botpi < or even the sentence > ta caca'oca'a botpi < . A bottle is a bottle, regardless of its contents. Steven Lytle