"...
Fodor - I’m not at all sure that I understand how Chomsky views semantics. But, as
far as I can tell, he thinks that it’s not about relations between ideas and the world,
but rather about relations among the ideas themselves. The typical kind of semantic
relations among ideas, on that sort of view, are the ones that engender analyticities
(such as that whatever falls under the concept BACHELOR ipso facto falls under the
concept UNMARRIED MALE; see above.) There is, in philosophy a very long history
of holding such views (Hume, for example, appears to have done so; maybe Kant did
too.) Often the reasons for holding it have been epistemological. The line of thought is
something like this: Since knowledge involves representation, one can’t know what
the world is like ‘in itself’ viz how it is independent of the ways that we represent it.
So, if representation is itself a kind of mind-world relation, we can’t know whether we
ever do succeed in thinking about the world. (/about what our words mean, etc.)
Suppose, however, that representation is constituted by relations among thoughts.
Since we can know about such relations (by introspection for example) we likewise
can know for sure such putatively analytic truths as that bachelors are unmarried,
that cats are animals, and so forth. In effect, the proposal is to avoid skepticism about
knowledge by adopting a sort of Idealism about meaning: all our ideas are ideas
about ideas."
page 5, last paragraph

All this soap opera about mind/consciousness is about  Analysis: 

physical vs. biological

biological vs. psychological

psychological vs. economical

... (?)


There's this puzzle (for simplicity made of square tiles of same size).
Tiles are made of tiles (for simplicity square tiles are made of square tiles).
Tiles are scattered around (among other "things").
Tiles look the same (a tile made of tiles looks (in size) just as its parts (observer, event))
One wants (to see) the picture, one wants the click.

a Synthesis anyone


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X75FD8-n61w

Hi,

= = =

Jerry Fodor

WikipediA

= = =

Jerry A Fodor Part 1/3 Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture

Elizabeth Rich/YouTube

= = =


Jerry Fodor Interview on Philosophy of Mind

Philosophy Overdose/YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gBKeYiPDgo


17:50 Consciousness


= = =

Modularity
Modularity II
Modularity III
/The modularity of mind, Jerry A. Fodor, 1983/

Edison Barrios/YouTube

= = =

...

= = =

"...
Language is nothing but a set of human habits, the purpose of which is to give
expression to thoughts and feelings, and especially to impart them to others. As with
other habits it is not to be expected that they should be perfectly consistent. No one can
speak exactly as everybody else or speak exactly in the same way under all circumstances
and at all moments, hence a good deal of vacillation here and there. The divergencies
would certainly be greater if it were not for the fact that the chief purpose of language is
to make oneself understood by other members of the same community; this presupposes
and brings about a more or less complete agreement on all essential points. The closer
and more intimate the social life of a community is, the greater will be the concordance in
speech between its members. ..."

Essentials of English Grammar, Otto Jespersen

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
last paragraph of the 1st page

https://yadi.sk/i/V0SLjxqhLIh6tw

The fact that you reply refutes the claim that language does not exist. It is self-evident that there is language. Clearly you don't mean what you say; you intend something else. I take it that you are not seriously interested in the "language of thought" claim, and would prefer to not talk about it.

--- 1st - 2nd sentences
Consciousness works (is made) in a certain way. Space(Logic/Rules) can be a thing and a thing can be Connection/Space. Probably there are other tricks.

"Language" can be "viewed" (or not) in different "ways".

--- 3rd sentence
I just talk/think. To be right or wrong is not important for me here. Let me be wrong I am not a scientist.

The goal of my work was to compile a grammar. The grammar had to be simple not right.

--- 4th sentence
Languages/grammars are my hobby.
I just like listening to intelligent people talk/speak.
 
= = =


Have a nice day.

Yes, I agree these are very important issues, but I just want to emphasize here that the basic idea of a constituent being a node/unit/part/phrase in a tree is often overlooked by beginning students too: the question here is similar to the difficulties my students have had in class trying to figure out the right labels and structure for a tree, without relying on basic ideas of constituency.* Here, the if-clause is a constituent, so after identifying that, then the only remaining question is to think about possible places to attach it.

[*This often results in a kind of "guessing" about syntactic structure that I don't fully understand in my students' work: it seems to be roughly making a guess about what some likely labels might be then filling in the parts around it in an approximate way, until the tree looks like it might be right, but without explicitly working through the constituency. If the students stop and think through the constituency, the results are much better. I've thought about whether there's some way to actually study the errors made in trees and better understand the strategies used in this "guessing" I see often, but I'm still trying to figure out the patterns. At some point that would be interesting to research specifically. A good example of this is a sentence of the format "That constituency is important will be taught in this class", where the majority of students at least start with the fundamentally wrong breakdown of the sentence, as "[that constituency] [is important will be taught in this class]". Maybe explicitly teaching more examples like that, rather than repeating more examples of the more typical kinds, would help to reinforce constituency as the first step.]

In this example is 'you' an NP on its own as it could be substituted with 'one', if so could this be part of the TP?

It's the subject of the sentence, in the same position as any normal subject, within TP in most common analyses.

...if the sentence as a whole is considered TP where would this leave the CP?

Assuming the top node in a typical sentence is TP, then you will need to find a place to put the if-CP. Assuming it is an adjunct, you will need to add an adjunct position within the TP. There are slightly different styles of doing that in different versions of trees, but they're similar: you need to add an additional layer and add a branch splitting off for the adjunct. This is similar to adding an adverb in the VP or an adverb in TP, or an adjective in NP, etc. Maybe what's confusing here is that the adjunct can go at the beginning of the tree, but adjuncts generally allow relatively free ordering, and note that actually if-CPs could go at the beginning or end of a sentence, so that makes sense here.

I have also identified 'get a good mark' and 'get a good mark in the competition' as verb phrases, could I then consider only 'you will' to be the TP and how would this affect the structure of the tree?

Again, think about constituency, and also typical hierarchy in clauses: VPs go within TPs, so the whole TP would include the VP here. If "you will" is the complete TP, then there would be nowhere to add the VP! So you can't split off the VP from the TP.

I have been able to draw two separate trees for the subordinate and main clauses, but I am struggling on how to combine them to form one tree.

Right, so again remember that once you've figured out the internal structure of the elements, then you just need to find a place to attach them. Think about adding an adverb to the beginning of a sentence, like "therefore". Where could that go? Or maybe you've seen a sentence with an initial PP in your textbook, like "In the morning, I eat breakfast." The position for the if-CP could be the same.

I apologize for asking so many questions, however, I have been trying to wrap my head around this for a few days now and for some reason, it's just not clicking. I have spent many weeks on TP and CP tree structures, but have never been taught anything about conditional phrases like this example.

The questions are welcome!