Hello, I'm wondering why "There are 3 cards" is not paraphrased in any 'intelligent' way, eg. "There is a card X1. There is a card X2. There is a card X3." In English I would then unambiguously refer to "the first card [of the 3 cards]" and then "the only red card in the 3 cards/them" and "a card of the 3 cards". My hope is that ACE could express (at least conceptually) every thing unambiguous english could. Is it because paraphrasing "there are 10000000 cards" is expensive? If so, no cheap alternatives exist? Could this be one: If the parser encounters "the first card [of the 3 cards]" and it's the first encounter then the parser backtracks and adds "there is a card Xn". Then the first card could be paraphrased as The card X1 [...]. "the only red card in the 3 cards/them": (Is the lack of support for only a matter of time/priority or a technical difficulty?) There is a card Xn. The card Xn is a red card. "a card of the 3 cards": There is a card Xn. The card Xn [...]. Xn could then actually be Xn-1 for instance. -- Regards, K. Gabriele --- unchanged since 25/1/10 --- P.S. Unless a notification (LON), please reply either with an answer OR with " ACK" appended to this subject within 48 hours. Otherwise, I might resend. In(LON, this) ∨ In(48h, TimeNow) ∨ ∃x. In(x, MyInbox) ∧ IsAnswerTo(x, this) ∨ (In(subject(this), subject(x)) ∧ In(ACK, subject(x)) ∧ ¬IsAnswerTo(x,this)) ⇒ ¬IResend(this). Also note that correspondence may be received only from specified a priori senders, or if the subject of this email ends with a code, eg. -LICHT01X, then also from senders whose reply contains it. ∀x. In(x, MyInbox) ⇒ In(senderAddress(x), MySafeSenderList) ∨ (∃y. In(y, subject(this) ) ∧ In(y,x) ∧ isCodeLike(y, -LICHT01X) ).