Problems with Verbs... (Part 3of my blog)

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarrenTomlyn

Banned
Joined
May 16, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I don't see that there's much of a point to be made in choosing to describe very as an adjective in the phrase very bright, nor why that is better than calling it an adverb. The argument's a bit circular IMO.
 
Last edited:

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I agree. There is no question that "very" is an adverb in that phrase. It clearly modifies the adjective "bright" and an adjective cannot do that.
 

DarrenTomlyn

Banned
Joined
May 16, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
I agree. There is no question that "very" is an adverb in that phrase. It clearly modifies the adjective "bright" and an adjective cannot do that.

Adverbs are caused by properties of things of happening, not things in general or their properties.

Words such as very and quite modify such properties themselves - ALL types of properties of any and all relevant concepts - that the English language has and uses, including those used as adverbs, as I showed.

(Do we define words used as determiners as things, used as nouns? No - we recognise them to be a separate concept causing a separate manner of use, used in combination. The same situation exists here. (Note that I haven't examined determiners yet, so I cannot say for certain that they are caused by only a single concept or not, for now.)

We cannot therefore define and describe the concept and manner of use they belong to as being the same as any such property, in themselves. To do so, is to deny the very difference and relationship they have, and therefore their very existence, (of such an application).

Again: semantic meaning != syntactic application. Anytime we confuse these two things - language cannot exist and function.

Such is the nature of the problems we have, that this, unfortunately, is a very common occurrence - but more on exactly how and why this is, in the next part of my blog - (which should help a great deal) - (Part 4: Managing The Complexity Of English Grammar).
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I don't have any problems. I am well aware of the parts of speech and what each part of speech is used for. I don't know where you are getting the rest of this stuff from, but "very" is clearly an adverb in that use. It needs not be more complicated than that.
 

DarrenTomlyn

Banned
Joined
May 16, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
I don't have any problems. I am well aware of the parts of speech and what each part of speech is used for. I don't know where you are getting the rest of this stuff from, but "very" is clearly an adverb in that use. It needs not be more complicated than that.

If you were that aware - you would understand the problems we have, which you obviously do not.

Again, manners of use are only relevant because of the basic concepts that cause them. Without a consistent relationship between the two, they they have no reason to exist at all - at which point language, itself, no longer exists.

The basic problems we have, are caused by an inconsistent perception of the language that does not reflect the differences in such concepts and the manners of use they enable - meaning our understanding of the rules the language has in governing both is inconsistent - both inaccurate and incomplete.

Unfortunately, such a perception reinforces our description and teaching of language in a manner that merely furthers this perception itself - causing a negative-feedback-loop.

If you do not recognise and understand how and why adverbs can only be recognised and understood to be caused by the concept of properties of things of happening, then your understanding of English, either in itself or as an application of language in general, is flawed.

As I said in a previous part of my blog - there are over 60 basic concepts in the functional taxonomic hierarchy of the English language. If we do not recognise such concepts, especially when the manner of use they cause must be different from those we currently recognise - e.g. used in syntactic combination with other, different, concepts - then we do not fully know and understand the language at all. Even I cannot give a precise amount, because even I do not know exactly how we wish to recognise and treat every possible concept and manner of use they enable - or even how some of them should be described as they exist within such a hierarchy itself.

If we refuse to recognise concepts that exist in such a manner, however, then we deserve all the problems we get.

Which is why my blog post this is in reply to, has more questions, and mainly suggested answers, except when they're consistent with the foundations we already have, according to the basic concepts and their manners of use.

Anyone who refuses to consistently recognise, or has a perception inconsistent with, the difference and relationship between semantics and syntactics, can have no consistent understanding of language at all - ever.

Such is the nature of the problems we have...
 
Last edited:

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
"If were that aware". That is not grammatical.

With all respect, most of your post is high-sounding mumbo-jumbo. It is of no use to anybody to needlessly complicate grammar. Individuals have been trying to do that for decades. Yet English grammar motors on. It is relatively simple if one accepts it as it is.

You keep talking about the "problems" we have. I don't see or have any problems. Do you?
 

DarrenTomlyn

Banned
Joined
May 16, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
"If were that aware". That is not grammatical.


Oops - my bad. I sometimes type too fast and don't notice I get ahead of my thoughts :p

With all respect, most of your post is high-sounding mumbo-jumbo. It is of no use to anybody to needlessly complicate grammar. Individuals have been trying to do that for decades. Yet English grammar motors on. It is relatively simple if one accepts it as it is.

You keep talking about the "problems" we have. I don't see or have any problems. Do you?

English grammar IS complicated whether you like it or not, the questions are how and why that is so. The problem we have, is that its complexity is not being managed at all.

As I said, you need to wait until my next part to fully understand, but what we've done is refuse to replace complexity in communication for complexity in grammar/content - which language is supposed to do, and which is why we're confused between the two (communication & language).

Section 1 of my blog is about the basic problems we have, (especially in relation to things of happening so far, for a good reason), and it isn't finished yet...
 
Last edited:

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
If you do not recognise and understand how and why adverbs can only be recognised and understood to be caused by the concept of properties of things of happening, then your understanding of English, either in itself or as an application of language in general, is flawed.

You are unilaterally declaring this to be the case. However this is not how adverbs have been defined for centuries. To be frank the concept of properties of things of happening is far too vague. I have read your piece and am no more in the light. Most people manage to get through life without knowing that yes is an adverb (modifying a sentence) in the conventional terminology. Most learners manage to get it quite easily without knowing it either. I am guessing that it is not a property of things of happening, though could equally be wrong on that, and guess that people could get by without knowing that too.
 

DarrenTomlyn

Banned
Joined
May 16, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
You are unilaterally declaring this to be the case. However this is not how adverbs have been defined for centuries. To be frank the concept of properties of things of happening is far too vague.

If that is too vague, then ALL language is too vague - I'm sorry but either words have specific enough meaning or they're not relevant at all - at which point we might aswell deny communication itself.


I have read your piece and am no more in the light. Most people manage to get through life without knowing that yes is an adverb (modifying a sentence) in the conventional terminology. Most learners manage to get it quite easily without knowing it either. I am guessing that it is not a property of things of happening, though could equally be wrong on that, and guess that people could get by without knowing that too.

If you do not understand how and why a consistent and thorough understanding of language helps us understand far more than just the language itself, then you deny its very reason to exist. Yes, my blog exists for some very specific reasons - to deal with some very specific problems - (our understanding of games, especially in relation to other, similar types of thing) - but I have no doubt at all that there will be far more numerous symptoms of the problems we have that are, and never have been recognised and understood to exist, and won't, until our knowledge and understanding is more consistent.

Just as an understanding of mathematics is necessary for our understanding of science, our understanding of language underlies our recognition and understanding of pretty much everything we use it to represent.

Language is all about relationships and similarities - if we don't understand the basics of these, then of course we'll have problems - if we don't WANT to know and understand, then why bother using it in the first place?

EDIT: One of the reasons you still fail to recognise and understand the true nature of the problems we have, is that, again, as I said before, I have yet to completely describe all the symptoms of the problems we have, and so inform everyone exactly WHY the descriptions of the basic types of concepts (as listed in part 2) truly matter in relation to the basic rules of the language itself, and therefore understand why getting confused between different concepts that should be OBVIOUSLY used in a different manner, is so problematic.

Hint: There are other concepts in the language that ONLY exist in relation to the three most basic concepts of their type, and our current, mistaken, understanding and description of them is DIRECTLY affecting our recognition and understanding of those that are so related.

E.g. If we do not perceive, recognise and understand addition and subtraction properly, then it should be no surprise when our understanding of multiplication and division is problematic, especially if we try and describe them as being the same thing!
 
Last edited:

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I agree with Tdol. I have known him for many years and he understands language as much as anybody. Your "theories" have so far shed no light on anything. You are trying too hard to sound enlightened. It is not working.
 

DarrenTomlyn

Banned
Joined
May 16, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
This isn't rocket science. There are three elements that matter for an understanding of language: A collection of individual basic means' of communication, the rules governing the basic concepts the pieces of information belong to, and the manners of use the concepts cause.

The complexity of language is always reflected the syntactic use of each and every basic means of communication in combination with any other, even if the location of the complexity is found within the collection of such basic means of communication, or the concepts they belong to.

If there are no rules governing such concepts, then the rules governing the manners of use have no purpose or relevance. Without either, any syntactic use of such basic means of communication is merely that - syntactic communication, not language - the equivalent of taking two unrelated pictures and putting them next to each other because they add additional context and meaning to each other, purely because of what they are in isolation.

Again, the difference and relationship between semantics and syntactics is inviolable. Semantics CAUSES syntactics - syntactics is a further (optional) application of semantics, in general, NEVER the other way round. That we can REVERSE ENGINEER semantic meaning from syntactic use does mean either are DEFINED by such a process. The relationship between a peice of information and its representation is similar, as we should also recognise.

This is the mistake we are making. We are currently trying to define semantic meaning because of its syntactic use, without truly understanding the relationship and difference between the two.

For is to be a verb, any property used in combination (e.g. high) would have to be an adverb - but when used in combination with a thing (noun) and such a property it is always an adjective - a property of the thing itself, not the word is, which it must be if it were used as a verb, since that is the defining use of an adverb in the first place.

----------------------

Here's a quick question for you, from my next-but-one blog post:

How many basic concepts does the English language have that causes the manner of use we call noun? (Which then leads to what these concepts are?)

(Hint: Things is a single concept.) You WILL NOT be able to knowingly answer this question. The answer to this question then defines all the concepts used as adjectives, (as properties used in combination). It also defines the specific (types of) concepts that MUST be used as adjectives, verbs and adverbs, and therefore the manners of use in tandem. By doing this, in consequence, it also determines that other concepts must be recognised and understood to exist individually, since they are currently inconsistent with this matter.

As I said, wait until I've finished section one of my blog...
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
<<<For is to be a verb, any property used in combination (e.g. high) would have to be an adverb - but when used in combination with a thing (noun) and such a property it is always an adjective - a property of the thing itself, not the word is, which it must be if it were used as a verb, since that is the defining use of an adverb in the first place.>>>

That is completely wrong. In "That shelf is high", "high" is an adjective, as in "high shelf". It is not an adverb. I have no idea where you learned your grammar. Do you understand what a linking verb is?
 

DarrenTomlyn

Banned
Joined
May 16, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
*headdesk*

Let's try again:

IF - IF is were a verb, then any property used in combination would have to be an adverb... Does that not make sense? That's the whole point about adverbs - they're DEFINED by their use in combination (adjacent to) verbs, okay?

Is cannot therefore be used as a verb, for it has, and can be given, NO such property, used in combination with and for itself.

Since is is used in combination with (because of representing a relationship between) BOTH noun/verb AND noun/adjective, it CANNOT be seen to be used as any of those.

You really didn't read what I wrote, did you? Lol.

EDIT: Note that the one relationship it DOES NOT apply to, is that between verb/adverb.
 
Last edited:

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Maybe in your re-write of grammar but not in conventional grammar, which allows for adjectives to go with copular verbs and for adverbs to modify adjectives and sentences.
 
Last edited:

DarrenTomlyn

Banned
Joined
May 16, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
If you're having to carve out exceptions to the most fundamental rules, (and we are talking the MOST basic rules of grammar here), then maybe your recognition and understanding of the rules is the problem.

Again, inconsistency for its own sake is a problem, especially if it's not recognised as such.

Copular verbs of is/am/are etc. ARE the problem, and therefore your 'conventional' grammar is merely a matter of opinion that is inconsistent and not logical.

There is a difference between relating nouns to adjectives, nouns to verbs and then relating verbs to something else.

The latter is purely an application of verb in a manner that is consistent with its cause, PURELY relating nouns to adjectives is not, as it needs to represent a thing that happens - a process even - usually of gaining or losing such a property, and neither is relating nouns to verbs themselves. So, yes, there are some things of happening that can be used in describing the act of gaining or losing a property in relation to concepts used as nouns - e.g. get - but these have no use in further relating nouns to verbs themselves, and are therefore different from words such as is and have - (except for some uses of slang).

We define manners of use by their cause - the concept(s) they are caused by and any direct relationship such concepts must have in any such application. WE DO NOT DEFINE MANNERS OF USE BY THEIR FURTHER APPLICATION. If we did there would be FAR more manners of use than there are - (which is probably what we should be doing anyway, IMO, though not quite at such a fundamental level - e.g. 5 or 6 types of verb depending on the concepts used as object).

If we do not base our understanding of language upon and around the information that is being represented then language has NO FUNCTION.

If the concept is belongs to, is the same as those that causes verbs then it would NEVER be used to simply relate verbs to nouns at all for it would be completely superfluous. The fact that it is also used to relate nouns to adjectives, is just additional evidence that it represents a particular type of relationship that causes it to be used in such a manner. If you think that is changes its meaning - changes the relationship it represents - just because it's applied in relation to things of happening rather than properties of things, THEN EVERY OTHER CONCEPT NEEDS TO BE TREATED THE SAME WAY. They are not - at the minute very few of them are, and all of them that are, are problematic for that very reason.

If it's going to work like this, then, for example, we'd need different concepts for verbs for their application in relation to adjectives/adverbs/things (and all other concepts used as nouns)/relative time and space etc. as their object, that would then cause different manners of use, aswell. But, IMO, trying to manage the complexity of English by adding more concepts is the wrong approach to take. (Still at least we'd be using rules to manage it, which we're not really doing currently, and is why we're having problems such as this.)
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I read what you wrote, but it is wrong. You seem to think that everything you wrote is gospel. It is mostly drivel, and long-winded drivel at that.

The verb "is" is one of the most common verbs in English. Just because it doesn't fit your artificial construct doesn't change that.

Take the sentence "Spot is a dog". If "is" is not a verb, that is not a sentence. But it clearly is a sentence. So your theory is proved wrong once again.
 

MikeNewYork

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
The concept of copular/linking verbs breaks no fundamental "rules" except for those you have invented. Language has been doing fine without your "rules" and will continue to do so.
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Some theorists did try to declassify modals as verbs a few years ago, but the idea never gained traction. Many ideas don't- I believe the two-tense view of English explains things with a greater clarity and accuracy that reflects usage, but I also have to accept that outside linguistics, this view hasn't taken off. You talk of the fundamental rules, but whose are those? There are many competing views of language. We only have to go back to Chomsky to see attempts made to dig out primary, underlying or fundamental rules, and his views and yours don't appear to be the same. Trying to look beneath the surface is not a new idea, but I have to say that where an idea cannot be explained clearly to people who do think and care about language, the issue may be with the idea rather than the shortcomings of the human resources to hand.
 

DarrenTomlyn

Banned
Joined
May 16, 2011
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
The entire reason this is a problem is inconsistency. Just saying its a tradition, (or equivalent), is no excuse.

Having said all that, it's clear from this discussion that even though I'm right, my last blog post is somewhat incomplete - detailing all the applications of such a concept is probably a good idea, and necessary to explain exactly how inconsistent the situation, as it is now, truly is. So I'll be re-writing it before working on my next post - (which is still part of the same problem).

Either way, this is all a symptom of an extremely fundamental problem that I've described in the first two parts of my blog - a lack of consistent perception, recognition and application of semiosis in relation to language (and possibly/probably communication aswell).

If you deny the clear distinction and relationship between semantics - the individual combinations of information and representation - and syntactic use of such representations, (because of what the information is of), then neither communication nor language can ever truly exist. Without a consistent understanding of such a relationship - that syntactics is caused by semantics, neither has any reason to exist. To define semantic meaning by syntactic use - not just use in general, but as and by a specific application, without doing so for all such combinations, the rules no longer mean anything at all.

Which is why we perceive language merely AS communication, for without such rules, there IS no difference between the two. The moment such rules become subjective, they cease to exist. As soon as the individual subjective use of such individual combinations of information and representation BECOME the rule, the rules of language no longer exist.

The difference and distinction between definition and application in language is inherent to what it is - if the lines get blurred for ANY reason, it ceases to exist, and merely becomes syntactic communication, instead.

Many people's understanding of language is ALREADY consistent with this having happened. If that doesn't scare you, you're in the wrong line of work :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top