Message-Id: <199501290032.AA20104@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Sat, 28 Jan 1995 19:35:56 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

And:
> > > Can we say {lo ka keha mamta keha} to mean "the mother relation",
> > > "the function from mothers to offspring"? If we can, I start to
> > > see a strong case for it.
> > I guess you can, but where would you use it?
>
> Talking about syntax is one area. "The direct-object relation
> and the indirect-object relation are subtypes of the object
> relation", "All grammatical relations relate two arguments",
> "Grammatical relations are derived from phrase-structure
> configurations", "This grammatical relation occurs in all
> languages", "The subject relation is cognitively modelled
> on the parent relation", etc.

I still don't see where the two arguments come in in those sentences.
The ones I can translate don't even seem to need any {ka}:

        All grammatical relations relate two arguments.
        ro selbri cu te sumti reda

        Grammatical relations are derived from phrase structure configs.
        lo'e selbri cu se krasi lo jufra stura morna

        This grammatical relation occurs in all languages.
        le selbri cu pagbu ro bangu


> > (And why would it be the function from mothers to offpring and
> > not from offspring to mothers?)
>
> I don't know what the difference is.

If there is no difference, then the concept of "inverse function" is
meaningless.

Functions usually have arguments and values. Given an argument, the
function gives you a value for that argument. At least that is how
things work in basic mathematics, I don't know about linguistics.

Jorge