Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qnqD4-00005YC; Thu, 22 Sep 94 18:37 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0qnqD4-00005YC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 9592; Thu, 22 Sep 94 18:35:52 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9588; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 18:35:50 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9356; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 17:34:33 +0200
Date:         Thu, 22 Sep 1994 09:16:30 -0600
Reply-To:     Randall Holmes <holmes@DIAMOND.IDBSU.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Randall Holmes <holmes@DIAMOND.IDBSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Analogy
X-To:         lojbab@access.digex.net
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 235
Lines: 5

So what is the official line?  Does it coincide with the interpretation
using implicit quantification or does it reverse it?  If it reverses it,
I really do suggest that you change it.

                                --Randall Holmes