email from JA is filtered out of my
&gt; SUO mailbox), but it deserves some comment.  In fact, the claim that
&gt; is risky here is that the first of these refers to an abstract entity
&gt; and the second to a duck.  That might be what the writer intended,
&gt; but it isn't what the KIF says.  Being isomorphic, these two pieces
&gt; of KIF, taken in isolation, have precisely the same models:  any
&gt; interpretation that makes one true can be easily transformed into
&gt; an isomomorphic interpretation, over