From graywyvern@hotmail.com Mon Jun 25 08:25:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: graywyvern@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 25 Jun 2001 15:25:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 47848 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2001 15:25:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Jun 2001 15:25:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.237.31) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 Jun 2001 15:25:18 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 08:25:18 -0700 Received: from 209.176.48.53 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:25:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.176.48.53] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: possible worlds Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:25:18 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2001 15:25:18.0744 (UTC) FILETIME=[0AA80980:01C0FD8B] From: "michael helsem" >From: Edward Cherlin li'o >We also don't have any useful logical model of *impossible* worlds and >other weird ontologies. not DA'I or PE'A? why must it require an ontology? i think we keep making too much of this. such statements in the vernacular aren't all that complex! _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com