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 m0qnyAo-00005YC; Fri, 23 Sep 94 03:07 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7415; Fri, 23 Sep 94 03:06:07 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7413; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 03:06:06 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7077; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 02:04:54 +0200 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: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 734 Lines: 22 > 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