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 m0qngSD-00005XC; Thu, 22 Sep 94 08:12 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2864; Thu, 22 Sep 94 08:10:54 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2862; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 08:10:53 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4331; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 07:09:38 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 01:05:51 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Analogy To: holmes@DIAMOND.IDBSU.EDU Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 570 Lines: 12 RH>Jorge remarks that he is not so certain that there really is an offical RH>line on how to resolve this kind of situation; I suspect in TLI Loglan RH>the solution is the one that I suggest (as soon as someone asks me about RH>it). In Lojban there is an official line. There is merely the question of whether it has been clearly written down. In this case, the topic might be addressed in one of about 3 technical papers on the language, one of which I think is as yet unwritten (the basic 'logic' paper), and perhaps needs to be referred to in all of them. lojbab