simple sentence

A forum for discussing linguistics or just languages in general.
Post Reply
Ken Lee
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Sep 2022 09:13

simple sentence

Post by Ken Lee »

Hi,

Basic concepts: Thing, Connection/Space

Connection/Space is a thing but it is not a thing to things it connects/contains.

- - -

Connections/0-d spaces:

Equivalence - Thing itself is Connection_without_direction/order;

Set - Connection_without_direction/order;

-

State/Quality - Connection_over_1 (colour, intransitive verb', ...)

-

Genitive connections (connections with direction/order):

Definition - Genitive_is''

Embedding/Recursion - Genitive_has''

-

non_Genitive connection (connection with direction/order):

next-ness” - non_Genitive_is'' (Instr. case, transitive verb'', ...)

- - -

1-d space/connection

- - -

2-d space/connection

- - -

3-d space/connection

- - -

...

= = =

Name is Thing.

-

Observer is Thing.

-

Event is Equivalence (Connection) of the Observer and a connection (which are Things).

-

Simple sentence is Event.

/event, simple sentence and thought are equivalent/

-

Natural number is a quality of a set (which is Connection, which is Thing) of things which have same (common) quality.

-

"Simple sentence" is Name of a Simple sentence/Event; ...
...
"John ate an apple." is a Name of an Event/Simple sentence.
...

-

Grammatical case is a denotation (by certain means) of a missing (left out) verb/connection ...

-

Divider divides Space into Sub_Spaces/Places called Prepositions and other.

Sub_Spaces/Places in 0-d Space are the prepositions of and with.

/of is a place in Genitive_has''
/with is a place in non_Genitive_is''

= = =

Complementarity:

Things in a set are complementary;
Without_order and with_order are complementary;
Equivalence and Set are complementary ("Out" and "In" Connection_without_order);
Genitive and non_Genitive are complementary (Connection_with_order);
Genitive_is'' and Genitive_has'' are complementary;
good and bad are complementary;
right and wrong are complementary;
beginning and end are complementary;
...

/there are sets of 3, 4, ... elements/

= = =

...
Ken Lee
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Sep 2022 09:13

Re: simple sentence

Post by Ken Lee »

Hi,

There are different is (be) in "Simple sentence" (the Name of the Event/Simple sentence):

is' - State/Quality of Existence of a thing;
Genitive_is" - Definition;
non_Genitive_is" - "next-ness";
is" (''', '''', ...) Equivalence.
Ken Lee
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Sep 2022 09:13

Re: simple sentence

Post by Ken Lee »

Hi,

Word is Name.
/to have a word with (someone)/

A sentence is Word. A phrase is Word. A word is Word. A root is Word. An affix is Word. A word ending is Word.
Everything that has meaning is Word. Word is made of words.

- - -

Set (Connection_without_direction/order) or Equivalence (Connection_without_direction/order)?!
Set will be used for simplicity, Equivalence will be meant.

Word is both Set (Connection; Connection is Thing) and every element (Thing) of that Set of:

written word - encoding of letters (and signs);
spoken word - encoding of sounds;
misspelled, mispronounced, ... word - encoding recognised as the word in question;
meaning - encoding of/through Things and Spaces.

Meaningful_Word is a Set (Word) which contains Meaning.
not_Meaningful_Word (gibberish, babble) is a Set (Word) which does not contain Meaning.

- - -


Event has structure: Observer (thing) - Equivalence (thing-connection) - connection (thing).
Without that structure there isn't event (-thought-simple sentence). Without event there isn't anything.
Ken Lee
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Sep 2022 09:13

Re: simple sentence

Post by Ken Lee »

Hi,

Part_1 (looks like grammar - "Static") Things, Connections/Spaces

Equivalence "gives" Sides.

Set "gives" Complementarity.

Genitive-ness "gives" Levels/Hierarchy/Power.

Non_Genitive-ness "gives" Next-ness.

Connection_over_1 "gives" Existence.


Part_2 (does not look like grammar - "Dynamic") Machine (-s)

Connections/Spaces with direction/order form Flows/Currents.

Genitive forms Feeding/Eating.

Non_Genitive forms Transactions/Exchange.

Creation/Annihilation_over_0/1 is here.

1-d space with its 2 directions of movement(/flow/current) is here.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2674
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: simple sentence

Post by Salmoneus »

Er... OK?

So, it looks as though a lot of what you're talking about is actually the logical structure of the proposition and the metaphysical/ontological weltanschauung it prima facie implies. But this is complicated by a failure (very common in first attempts in this direction) to distinguish between the structure of the sentence (the linguistic utterance) and the structure of the proposition (the semantic claims the sentence makes); although this distinction is ultimately questionable, it is probably essential to a systematic analysis of propositional structure. So you bring in syntactic concepts like 'verbs' and 'prepositions' and 'grammatical case' into what's otherwise semantic-logical analysis.

I don't mean to reiterate what you may already know; but I also don't want to fail to direct you to resources you may benefit from. So apologies if I'm stating the obvious here. But some of your concepts, insofar as I can make them out, seem to be groping out in areas extensively explored by analytical philosophy (in a narrow sense). Specifically, your approach seems evocative of what's called 'Ideal Language Philosophy' or 'Ideal Language Analysis' (central to the development of modern logic, the predicate calculus, and its interaction with mathematics).The key progenitor of this field was Frege, who was taken up by men like Russell and Ramsey, and ultimately in the first career of Wittgenstein, whose Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is the pinnacle of the early part of the movement. For a very different flavour, there's also Whitehead. An even more substantial exploration in this direction (specifically the flavour known as logical positivism) is Carnap's Aufbau. However, Russell himself, and later other positivists like Goedel, made plain the paradoxes seemingly unavoidable within such a system, and consequently people turned away from the Ideal Language approach and from logical positivism; Quine is a more moderate attempt to rescue the worldview, while Ryle and most famously the later work of Wittgenstein (in the Philosophische Untersuchungen) provide more radical attacks. ILA - through people like Church and Tarski - pivoted into mathematics and nascent computer science (and into non-classical logics) - while philosophy of language instead moved back toward Ordinary Language Analysis, creating Ordinary Language Philosophy or Linguistic Philosophy, which gave more serious consideration to the structure and use of actual language as distinct from the purported logical structure of propositions. The big name here is Austin, among other guys like Grice and Geach and so forth. Meanwhile, independently (I think?) of Frege and everything he lead to, an alternative approach to logical-structural analysis (a sort of geometry to Frege's arithmetic) can be found in Pierce's version of Pragmatism.

I guess my point is that this is an area in which a LOT of books have been written, and I don't know which you are or aren't aware of.

And also: most people nowadays don't think that any of this really has much or anything to do with languages or actual sentences.




In any case, the other piece of advice I'd give is just that... I've no idea what you're talking about. I mean, I think I recognise enough here and there to recognise the general field you're discussing, but little more that that. You seem to be insisting on using your own terminology, sometimes at odds with existing use of words; you don't explain what you're doing at any stage; you don't use full sentences, or even standard syntax. Or punctuation. Or argument structure. I know there's always an urge to convey as much information as quickly as possible, but it's really much easier when you spell out everything you're doing or saying step by step. The first thing you're taught in philosophy, in terms of how to answer a question: always define your terms! Complicated concepts are difficult to understand at the best of times, but when you're seemingly using, so to speak, your own language you've invented to describe them, without any introduction as to how that language works, understanding becomes sadly impossible, and no matter how revolutionary your thoughts are, nobody will be able to engage with them meaningfully.
Ken Lee
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Sep 2022 09:13

Re: simple sentence

Post by Ken Lee »

Thank you, Salmoneus. That was very kind of you.

Respectfully, Ken Lee
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2888
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: simple sentence

Post by sangi39 »

I think my main criticism would be the same as Sal's last paragraph. Having tried to give your posts a proper read through last night (although, admittedly, I was super tired, haha), I did have a problem understanding exactly what it was you were trying to say, and pretty much for the reasons that Sal pointed out above, i.e. terms don't feel like they were defined well enough, not enough examples and explanations of those examples

I'd definitely agree with Sal again, then, that your posts would definitely be helped by, say, "slowing down", just taking time to explain the terminology you're using in as much depth as feels reasonable, possibly with a couple to a small handful of examples to really show how you're using that terminology, before moving on to the next section, and then doing the same
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Ken Lee
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Sep 2022 09:13

Re: simple sentence

Post by Ken Lee »

Thank you, guys, for the genuine interest.

I needed a grammar for Russian (especially for Instrumental case) and English (especially grammatical tenses).

Choices before me were two: Lucien Tesnière and Noam Chomsky.

Noam Chomsky - I did not understand a word.

Lucien Tesnière - connection (okay, it rings a bell).

Lucien was chosen, the verb was to be the connection.

- - -
/my English is poor, especially on verbs/

The first decision - not to read or take courses on linguistics to prevent contamination. That is way my terms are odd.
The second decision - to figure out Instrumental case in Russian. Two things, the 1st and the 2nd, exist together. The connection which binds them is is, which later received its full name non_Genitive_is".

"Whales are mammals." What is Definition? Recursion (I prefer Embedding) is important, but what is recursion?

Why are there grammatical cases? - Because in "Simple sentence" have to be just one verb. Grammatical case is a verb encoded in another way, not to interfere with the main verb.

What are qualities: red, green, true, false, good, bad, ...? "Apple is red." What is "is", what is "red" in terms of connections.

What is intransitive verb? - It turned out that it was like quality (red, green, ...) - so, Connection_over_1.

-

Number is adjective in language, so there was a need of Set as connection (connection is thing), so a number is quality. Later Set was about Complementarity.

The Speaker/Observer has to be in the structure of the Simple sentence. For that purpose a different Connection was needed.
Since Connection is Thing, for symmetry Thing has to be Connection (named it Equivalence). Now one can connect Observer and any connection - Event/Simple sentence/Thought.

To have Speaker/Observer incorporated in the structure of Simple sentence is very handy. Now grammatical moods will be qualities of the Speaker/Observer - who is Thing.

-

Speaking in general - past, present, future - usual timeline does not fit.

-

If prepositions are places in spaces, then one needs a space for of and with.

-

...

- - -

The chair in the room is just as imaginary as sentences, connections and so on. (solipsism)

= = =

There are open questions, errors ... I give up.
Initially it was on paper, handwritten, 17 pages with drawings.


Have a nice day.
Post Reply