From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Apr 06 05:48:38 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 06 Apr 2005 05:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DJ9xJ-0003KA-7U
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 05:48:25 -0700
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.199])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DJ9xC-0003Jd-Jk
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 05:48:24 -0700
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 68so213019wri
        for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 05:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
        b=MmBhINEXJJWALG0PYAJOpAcWD5d3VcoVYSmIneKx+G8Rrw65nXUd7k5/lRh9XMyW/EgqoTn1Ii6Gzy6tAWifr4/BjhClTkwwxVjXWklhg6BsN9gcIO1Jy8JHS0iioqPDvAAIFRsqSzmmo9WJTZSV+g3eEf0k/tVvwT0zk1nPoD0=
Received: by 10.54.35.63 with SMTP id i63mr140680wri;
        Wed, 06 Apr 2005 05:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.69.3 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2005 05:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <925d1756050406054737d8b4a4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:47:41 -0300
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: {X1 selbri X2} = {X2 se selbri X1}?
In-Reply-To: <d30hb1+qejj@eGroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <d30hb1+qejj@eGroups.com>
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-archive-position: 9769
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Apr 6, 2005 8:31 AM, opi_lauma <opi_lauma@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have new question. Is it true that {X1 selbri X2} = {X2 se selbri
> X1}? 

As long as X1 and X2 don't include any operators with scope
(such as quantifiers, logical connectives, negation) then yes.
If there is scope involved, their order matters.

>For example is {la tam. tavla la meris.} equivalent to {la meris.
> se tavla la tam.} ?

Yes.

> The reason of my doubt is following. I found that {la tam. tavla la
> meris.} should be translated as "Tom talks to Mary", and {la meris. se
> tavla la tam.} should be translated as "Mary listens to Tom."

Maybe "could" rather than "should". "Listen" could also be 
{tirna} or {jundi}. 

But it
> seams to me that these two English translations have different
> meaning. Really, if Tom talk to Mary it does not necessarily mean that
> Mary listen to Tom. Does it mens that corresponding initial lojban
> sentences also have different meaning, or may be English translations
> just not fully represent initial meaning of lojban sentences?

The latter. Translations are always a compromise. Probably
"is talked to by" would in general be a more exact translation 
than "listens" for {se tavla}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes