Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA24383 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 22 Sep 1994 21:29:52 -0400 Message-Id: <199409230129.AA24383@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7857; Thu, 22 Sep 94 21:32:55 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2005; Thu, 22 Sep 1994 20:09:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 20:08:22 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Analogy X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Sep 22 21:29:55 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu > 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 > If it had been decided, there probably would be an example in the connectives paper, so I suppose the issue had not come up before. I agree that the order you propose seems best, but how do you handle cases like: da prami la djan e la djeimyz Someone loves John and James la djan e la djeimyz se prami da John and James are loved by someone Do you propose that they have different meanings? I think that in Lojban they both mean the same thing. Jorge