From jcowan@reutershealth.com Mon Jul 10 13:25:40 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28888 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 20:25:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 20:25:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 20:25:34 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@skunk.reutershealth.com [204.243.9.153]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28459; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Sender: cowan@mail.reutershealth.com Message-ID: <396A2F8D.49849055@reutershealth.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:18:21 -0400 Organization: Reuters Health Information X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: And Rosta , "lojban@onelist.com" Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: zi'o & otpi References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan And Rosta wrote: > All the same, can one not have an actual dog breed that is instantiated by > no actual dog? I'm not sure. There are I think two plausible views of dog breeds: that they are sets of dogs (in which case there *is* a dog breed with no actual dogs, but only one of them -- the unique null dog breed), or that they are lineages of dogs from a common ancestor (in which case there are no dogless dog breeds). -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)