Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 20:54:22 +0000
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: replies re. ka & mamta be ma
In-reply-to: (Your message of Sat, 28 Jan 95 19:35:56 EST.)
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Message-id: <01HMFKMCLIAU0013QG@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-Length: 2851
Lines: 58

Jorge:
> > > > Can we say {lo ka keha mamta keha} to mean "the mother relation",
> > > > "the function from mothers to offspring"?
> > > 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

I suspect a misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to set you a
translation challenge. I was giving sentences one might find
in a discussion on syntax. In such a context "grammatical
relation" is a generalization of more specific relations
like "subject", "object". These relations are selbri. We
can say of the sentence "Sophy slept" that Subject("Sophy","slept").
({zoi ma. sophy ma. cu *subject* zoi ma. slept ma}) Then how
do we talk not about subjects but about the subject relation?
{le ka keha *subject* keha}, I speculated.

> > > (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.

I didn't say there's no difference. I just don't know what it is.
Or inverse functions, for that matter. In matters of formal logic
I'm both an autodidact and a slowcoach.

> 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.

My baby logic book says this too.
What I don't understand is why or whether there is a difference
between on the one hand having the function Age, with argument
Sophy and value 30 - Age(Sophy) = 30 - and on the other hand
having a 2-place predicate Age, with arguments Sophy and 30
- Age(Sophy,30). I have supposed these to be equivalent.
I have further supposed that the sequence of arguments is an
artefact of notation, so that, say, Grandchild-of and Grandparent-of
are fundamentally the same predicate. By this reasoning, mother-of
and 'bemothered-by' are fundamentally the same function. If this
is wrong I'll be only too glad to be put right.

----
And