Author Topic: The Simple Sentence - as you know it, feel it, like it. Pure speculations!  (Read 489 times)

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 20
Hi, there,

Would you share here your definitions or understandings about simple sentence, grammatical case and preposition.




From the description you can download a 17 page handwritten pdf file which is very hard to read, incomplete and highly controversial(speculative). Although the file provides some sort of definitions the general opinion is that they are to be avoided.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-8PwObSPA
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 12:48:12 PM by waive15 »

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1973
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: The Simple Sentence - as you know it, feel it, like it. Pure speculations!
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2019, 10:36:41 AM »
Why are you linking to a youtube video that then links to the file? And why not post your ideas in a direct way here, rather than linking to a 17 page handwritten scan anyway? What are you trying to say? It looks like a lot of scattered ideas.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline panini

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: The Simple Sentence - as you know it, feel it, like it. Pure speculations!
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2019, 09:27:07 AM »
The purpose of this forum is to discuss issues related to language and linguistics: it is not an advertising forum for some enterprise. There's nothing to discuss here. Why don't you start by making a single empirically-testable claim, and see if there is anything capable of discussion? Be as specific as you are able, but do not presuppose prior knowledge of a home-brewed theoretical framework.

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 20
Re: The Simple Sentence - as you know it, feel it, like it. Pure speculations!
« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2019, 05:25:29 PM »
Hi panini,

Thank you for you reply.  Probably this awful "paper" is already burnt and buried.

The following are speculations over the speculative "paper". It would be best for all if the body of the following text is skipped.



Suppose one speaks 3 languages and is looking at a cat which is on a/the table.

1. Kedi masada. /turkish/  -da = on
2. Kot na stole.  /russian/   na = on
3. The (a) cat is on the table.

The Event is 1: the Person(Observer/Speaker), the cat, the table, the Time is Now and ON(the cat is ON the table - not BY, AT, BELOW...)/therefore ON is part of this particular Event/. But this Event is Encoded in 3 different languages and i suppose that that makes 3 different simple sentences. In the first 2 the verb Be  in its present form is missing.
How is it possible one person to encode 1 event in so many ways/so different rules are applied.

So we have 1 Event 3 "sentences"-Encodengs(constructed by different rules) and 1 Meaning.
"Left" part of the Event = Meaning,
"Right" part of the Event = the Encoding in different languages("simple sentence")

As reasonable people who lead simple life we need as little as possible Basic Terms and as simple as possible Logic to
build Logical Structure that STANDS.

Thing, Connection and Duality of Connection are just precursors for Definition of Simple sentence/Event.
And the "Simple sentence" as a thing is just the Result of Encoding done by the Speaker/Observer. One can encode according to different Rules - hence so many Languages(unit of which is the Simple sentence). The Observer can be in many states - hence Moods, Tenses and so on. Observer is(has to be) a Part of the structure of the Simple sentence.

Of course this is ugly:"So called Real and non Real Things are identical." I don't even know if it is correct in english BUT this IS NOT an original idea. This allows Connections(thoughts) of the Observer and cats, and tables and so on to be treated as SAME, equally, so They can be parts of one Construction. This is just a SIMPLIFICATION.

It is easy to say Prepositional Phrase or Noun Phrase or ..., yes they exist, but they exist only in the structure of "Simple sentence"(Encoding), but what IS a PREPOSITION, what is verb, what is adjective, what is a NUMBER, ...
Good or Bad there are definitions of those. Natural numbers are part of the language and DESERVE definition.

I don't care much about that Definition of the Simple sentence is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. But for a practical man who deals with russian, the definition of grammatical case perfectly suites me. The Instrumental case was IMPOSSIBLE for me to comprehend. Now it's okay.

The other pleasant surprise was Preposition. We all know that they are VERY IMPORTANT, but i didn't know Why, and What they are. But now when prepositions are Places/subspaces and the noun is the Divider of the Space - one sees the two Things in relation in which the Divider stands out. Now it is easy preposition to be seen as place or direction(place) which is important to the verb or subject.
Even OF and WITH now for me have perfect sense. They are just Places in Connections(=0d space) of two types.

Once again about numbers:
Natural numbers(qualities, Connection over 1) are in 0d, addition, multiplication and division is going there and Embedding is preferred as a term before scary RECURSION. I don't care if it is true or not or it is written in awful handwriting - it is done HUMANE.

The next numbers are in 2d - vectors. Subtraction is here, negative numbers are here. So called "Complex numbers" are exactly the same as positive and negative numbers - all are just vectors with different angle according to the Zeroth direction in 2d(plane). Again NOTHING ORIGINAL was said, even maybe some errors were made. i x i = -1 is
in no way different than (-2)x(-3)=6. The CONTRAST between these two types of numbers was badly needed to be exposed. Of course i am not a mathematician and if someone can explain this to me Clear, Simple and even Wrong - i am happy.

Verb tenses, participles, auxiliary verbs, conditionals and so on:
/english as example/
To perceive Time as a line(1d) and to place Actions, States,...(VERBS) on that line is no big deal for anyone. Present is BETWEEN Past and Future. This RELATION "BETWEEN" gives 1d space. We as people are well accustomed with line(1d) and this RELATION "BETWEEN". When we have one verb in the Simple sentence (don't be nitpicking with the Future simple) it is easy - from the form of the verb we know where on the time line is the verb(action). When second "verb" appears it comes in different than "true" verb form. There are 3 logical places on the line according the place of the 1st verb - hence 3 participles(past, present, future)...

Which verb is the MAIN - that which agrees with the subject or that which "carries" the meaning of the sentence?
Probably all of us have seen The Picture YOUNG WOMAN-OLD WOMAN. You can't see two of them at the same time.
You see one or another - this is the case with the 1st and the 2nd verb in the simple sentence.

/SECOND MEANING IS EMBEDDED IN THE FIRST/
1st Be - 2nd feels like adjective
1st Have - 2nd is Past Passive Participle which feels like adjective which feels like thing(the action itself)
                                                                                /       duality                        /
1st Do - 2nd is the name of the action(action in loose terms)

BUT

/MOMENTS OF THE VERBS ARE LINEAR TO EACH OTHER and this make easier to deal with/
2nd Be gives exact time nothing else - 1st has relative time and MAIN ACTION (MEANING) 
...

I almost always think "EMBEDDED"
In my first foreign language(my mother tong) this is terribly well done.

The problem comes when we speak IN GENERAL - this is 0d space logic not 1d space logic.
...

To sum up:

1. Main idea of the "paper" is to guess right Basic Terms and then Initial axioms;
2. maybe it is obvious that there is strong affiliation towards Dependency grammars;
3. Egocentric predicament - no, no, no "paper"doesn't touches philosophy - just a practical axiom here
    "So called Real and non Real things are identical."
4. Russell's paradox - no, no, no, "paper" doesn't wont to fall in that trap
    "Connection/Space is not a thing for the things it connects/contains."(here as axiom)
4. Space is Relation?, Relation is Space?(here Connection instead of Relation);
5. Recursions, symmetries - tools under different names here;
6. The problem with Meaning is solved and why there are many languages;
7. Be and Have are not only most important Connections but they are in pair and symmetrical;
8. Becomes clear why conditional constructions in english and other languages look this way(distances are kept constant);
9. The "paper" is "published" and shared anonymously, WRONG is present in the name of the channel to say that it not be taken seriously.
   
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 03:35:14 PM by waive15 »

Offline panini

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: The Simple Sentence - as you know it, feel it, like it. Pure speculations!
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2019, 10:39:40 AM »
Well, you rose to the challenge, so I should respond in an appropriate way (defined by the ends of educating and learning). The answer to the chronologically first question ought to simplify the matter. How is it possible to encode a description of an event in multiple ways? A possibly less interesting answer is that (in your way of thinking of events) sentences does not just describe events, they also describe the nature of existents (presumably) relevant to the event. There are many facts about cats, tables and actions which could be mentioned in the description, but are not. Maybe you are required to provide such information, maybe not. Maybe that decision is elevated to the status of grammar, maybe that is merely social convention that people rarely violate. The second answer is that descriptions of states via natural language is conventional, not natural, and languages differ in those conventions. For example, English has requirements for using determiners that are not part of Russian grammar.

I accept the cognitive premise the “simpler” structure is a desideratum, and that we ought to use logic to live our lives. Simplicity is meaningless in a vacuum, it is only useful as a comparative tool – use the simplest means possible to achieve an end. The measure of simplicity is, what…? Shortness. Of what? It could be process (involves fewer steps); it could be physical output (measured how?). Anyhow, we have rules of language.

I’m afraid that I was not able to comprehend a lot of the things you said. I don’t know what you mean by “real things” versus “non real things”. If it's not real, it's not a thing. Are you talking about physically tangible objects versus mental representations (which may have only a remote relation to a tangible object). If so, in what way is it “ugly” that there is a relationship between actual cats and tables, versus mental representations of cats and tables? On the contrary, I would say it would be very ugly if there were no such relationship. At any rate, I think you are saying that there are numerous ways of classifying existents, and since linguistic structure exist, they too can be classified. Hence we have facts (in some languages) that we subsume under the notion “case”, also “preposition”, “tense”, “aspect” and so on.

Let’s move to the bottom now. I disagree with your goals / points / claims, and here is why.

1. Main idea of the "paper" is to guess right Basic Terms and then Initial axioms

It’s good to lead with something foundational: I think your foundation is wrong. First, the goal is never to “guess”, it is to conclude, based on what? Logic and that which is undeniable, the facts. What things are properly “axiomatic”? Contrary to much theoretical reasoning of the modern world, axioms are not arbitrary stipulated statements, they are statements (or statement-like things) that cannot reasonably be denied. Your experience of seeing a cat on the table is axiomatic. Basically, low-level perception is axiomatic. Based on perceptions, you can derive valid conclusions.

However, theorists do tend to jump the gun and just make statements that we like for some reason, without bothering with a rigorous program of logical reduction. In my opinion, the most sensible approach to dealing with the superfluous plethora of technical concepts and the serious lack of logical analysis of how concepts relate to each other is, simply, to try to identify the empirically best-motivated linguistic concepts, and then engage in the enterprise of organizing them into a self-contained hierarchical system. For example, “case” seems to be a valid linguistic concept. But how is “case” different from certain other concept that are somewhat similar (for example “preposition” or “plural”)? “Plural” might have in common that it is realized as an affix on a noun, but then so is “definite” (not in English, but in many languages). Eventually, you will find that “case” is not a “basic term”, instead “affix” is more basis. Or, you can focus on the semantic properties of case and (hmmmm… I am less sanguine about the prospects for a non-vacuous semantic definition of case). I think the concept is not directly about semantics, it’s about syntax, which then has some connection to semantics.

I suggest disposing of unfounded speculations, and replacing them with considered evaluations of facts. Let’s pick on case. Assemble basic reference material on “case” in as many languages as you can. At the minimum, you should look at something Slavic, at least two Finno-Ugric languages, Mongolian, Quechuan, Japanese, Mandarin, Inuit, Nez Perce, something Algonkian, a couple of Austronesian languages, a couple of Niger-Congo languages, something Nilotic and a Dravidian language. Do you find a “diminutive” case, or a “possessive” case? If not, why not? What other facts about case seem to be true, and what distinguishes case from other similar things?

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 20
Re: The Simple Sentence - as you know it, feel it, like it. Pure speculations!
« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2019, 11:53:00 AM »

Here is my latest work:

a   e   i   o   u


0     1        2        3       4      5        6      7         8              9
go   whun  two     dree  four  vife     six   zeven   keight      nine
                                                                         Kate
g     w/h     t        d       f       v        s      z           k             n


$     @      -            _           -            +            #                 /               *                ` ~ & % ^
bill   cat   join(t)     low        minus     plus        qhash          ratio          times                     
                                                                                         rate
b     c      j              l             m           p           q                 r                x                       y



, ; : . ! ?  \ = ( ) [ ] { } “ < >



wait   waive   head   have   hawk   haven   health   heart   heat   what   when   keen   kangaroo   waikiki   
12      15       13      15      118     159      1_21    1/2      12     112     119    89      890/          188
                                                                121      12                                                890
cat     ...
@a2


It's nothing much. We can encode signs(numbers) in -> syllables(words)/words in ~> numbers(signs).
We can talk. We don't touch punctuation. It's not a new idea just a variation, an excercise.
Modify message

Offline waive15

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 20
Re: The Simple Sentence - as you know it, feel it, like it. Pure speculations!
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2019, 03:03:06 AM »
Hi panini,

Thanks for reply. I agree with you that "the thing in question" hasn't Scientific value. If we look at it then we'll see that:

- it is anonymous;
- it is in handwriting which suggests that it even may not be perceived as a work of thoughtful but just as scribbles - random curves and lines;
- there aren't any proofs, no logical conclusions are made, just random statements and drawings without any logic to connect them;
- it claims nothing about Itself as a whole(to be true or false);
- it is posted in section ENTERTAINMENT;
- it is just a piece of Something that is not meant to be taken seriously.

And that is the Point - The Reader/Observer/Examiner of that piece of Something is The One who Decides what he sees, what logic to apply and so on. He is left ABSOLUTELY FREE about DERIVATION of the MEANING, usefulness and so on. Maybe someone may see it as a pattern for wallpaper.

I read some books of Gianni Rodari(italian author of children's books). In one of his stories a man had built his house out of money(banknotes and coins/as i remember/), so you see One is FREE to Decide the Meaning of the things.

I am alive not because i am smart, but because my luck hasn't ended yet.

 
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 08:19:49 AM by waive15 »