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

[Tarheel]

Schrodinger's cat?

It could be Schrodinger's cat. But is it alive or is it dead?
;-)

 

[MikeNewYork]

Yes, it is. :lol:

 

[MikeNewYork]

"Just because 'is' is believed to be a verb, doesn't automatically make it so, based on the basic rules and functionality of the language that we already recognise."

And just because you don't believe "is" is a verb doesn't mean that it isn't. I dare say that among linguists and English language experts you are in a very small minority.

 

[Esredux]

Yes, it is. :lol:

If 'is' is not a verb, then it is not. ;-)

@OP: Do you have problems with verbs only or will you be debunking other parts of speech as well?

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

My questions was whether they were so fundamentally different that they shared no meaning- when they put the roof up at Wimbledon, it shares some meaning even though it is outdoors tennis,it is outdoors tennis under a roof to protect it from the weather, and shares that aspect with indoor/all-weather tennis. It is not a 0% relationship in terms of meaning.

Shared != identical which is ALL that matters for individual basic means of communication/words. If it's not identical then they're different, regardless of any other relationships or similarities. If such differences are enough to reflect a difference in meaning that affects their use, then they REALLY matter. A door and a table are both things, but would not be considered the same - that we can use the same representation for different pieces of information (homonyms), does make the language a bit tricky, but it's why linguistics is so important - so we can fully recognise and understand when, how and why the same representation is used for multiple, different peices of information, whether related or otherwise (which does not matter for the rules in general).

Relative time and space in the English language can obviously have two distinct main meanings - as a property of, or as as a setting in which, something (or other concept used as a noun) or a thing of happening can/does exist - (the latter does not involve such a property, however).

If the meaning of indoors cat/the cat is indoors is NOT identical, (e.g. the red car/the car is red), then it HAS to be different, at which point, it no longer makes ANY sense to give such different uses of such representations the SAME/IDENTICAL manner of use! It's a similar situation for the different applications of words such as is.

Do you deny the existence of homonyms?

Do you deny the basic relationship and distinction between semantics and syntactics, since that is the REAL cause of the problems we have?

Retirement doesn't make academics' opinions worthless, so I don't get the logic behind this claim.On a point about part one of the blog, it presupposes a monolithic view of language, which is not what I have experienced.

And THAT is EXACTLY why we have problems, because without such a distinction between communication and language, that I have described, language ceases to exist - its rules and regulations no longer have any consistent context, relevance or reason to exist. Any general understanding and definition of language that does not help to define and understand its basic function/functionality has, and can have, no true relevance, use and meaning.

This is a/the problem.

Either language has additional rules governing its functionality in relation to communication and semiosis/semiotics or it doesn't - that we currently recognise it to do so, automatically limits what it must be, in relation to its purpose - or do you deny that the purpose of language is to enable greater consistency in communication, too?

This isn't rocket science - my understanding of semiosis/semiotics, communication and language is a logical outcome of recognising and understanding that everything here involves the representation of information. Or do you deny that, too?

EDIT: (To avoid double-posting)

If 'is' is not a verb, then it is not.

@OP: Do you have problems with verbs only or will you be debunking other parts of speech as well?

I'm concentrating on things of happening because our lack of truly understanding such a distinct concept is causing some MAJOR problems in our understanding of, (especially), our own behaviour - especially if it's treated and described with any degree of abstraction from such a basic concept. (They symptoms of this are literally EVERYWHERE around us, today.) Confusing such different concepts by their manner of use is part of the problem.

EDIT 2:

To answer the last question more completely - yes, I will. Our recognition and understanding of the different concepts that cause the manner of use we've labelled noun and their additional properties that cause adjectives are also problematic - but such problems are directly related to, and even caused by, those I'm dealing with here.

EDIT 3:

If our current understanding of language, or even just English, does not allow us to recognise some concepts that exist, and therefore the individual basic means of communication/words to exist that belong to such concepts, THAT THE LANGUAGE ALREADY HAS, then it's our understanding that is wrong!

 

[MikeNewYork]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Alas, we are doomed. Doomed, I say. :shock:

 

[MikeNewYork]

If 'is' is not a verb, then it is not. ;-)

@OP: Do you have problems with verbs only or will you be debunking other parts of speech as well?

That comment of mine was about Schrodinger's cat being dead or alive.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Alas, we are doomed. Doomed, I say. :shock:

Given the symptoms of the basic problems we have - for a lot of people it most certainly is/was and has been...

(Economics.)

(EDIT: Oops - got the wrong messages crossed)

 

[Esredux]

That comment of mine was about Schrodinger's cat being dead or alive.

So was mine.

 

[MikeNewYork]

So, Darren, you have switched from Professor of Linguistics to Economics Guru? Is there no end to your expertise? :roll:

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

So, Darren, you have switched from Professor of Linguistics to Economics Guru? Is there no end to your expertise? :roll:

There's certainly more to economics than what I'm focused on, but it's a lack of understanding of the fundamentals for most, (not all), people that is still a problem. I only ran into this when I recognised why it was causing problems for our understanding of games.

(It's all about work and play.)

The problems we have run very, very deep and wide, indeed. It shouldn't be too surprising to learn that a lack of understanding of language forms part of their cause - precisely because of how fundamental it is.

 

[Tarheel]

Fundamentals. Hm. If demand increases prices go up. If demand decreases prices go down. (That's assuming supply stays the same.) If a commodity becomes scarcer then the price goes up. If a commodity becomes more abundant the price goes down.

I'm an economics genius.
;-)

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

Fundamentals. Hm. If demand increases prices go up. If demand decreases prices go up. (That's assuming supply stays the same.) If a commodity becomes scarcer then the price goes up. If a commodity becomes more abundant the price goes down.

I'm an economics genius.
;-)

Even more fundamental than that

 

[Tarheel]

You can't get more fundamental than that.


(Thanks for pointing out my goof (albeit inadvertently).

 

[MikeNewYork]

So the "lack of understanding" of (your theory) of language forms is the root of all evil. Who knew?

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

You can't get more fundamental than that.


(Thanks for pointing out my goof (albeit inadvertently).

If you don't understand how, then you can't understand economics

Hint: (which shouldn't be required) - how does work relate to what you described?

 

[MikeNewYork]

You never write clearly. You write in riddles. Why are you hiding?

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

You never write clearly. You write in riddles. Why are you hiding?

Because this is all a matter of understanding more than just knowledge - which is what I need to gauge. I'm not going to be able to go into that much detail of this matter here - (it'll take a blog post all to itself, with a few before it that will also be required, including those I have already written/am writing, to explain everything fully, in a complete and consistent context - so this is still incomplete, and I'm not prepared to write a novel here to run through everything that's required. If you can figure things out for yourselves, you'll be far better off, anyway...)

The basic, root, definitions of work and play are things of happening. Do you recognise and understand this?

Can you imagine the types of problems that can be, and are being, caused by confusing this concept for others, for what these words, in particular, represent?

Such as things/properties/(states) they cause, or as and by the things that are being used in such behaviour, or even properties such things have that are merely so involved? Confusing the concept words such as is/am/are belong to as this one - as being used in the same manner as things of happening - is one of the main reasons why problems like this exist.

What we use work to represent, in its most fundamental way, acts as the foundation for human existence, civilization and economics in general. If you can't figure out how and why work directly relates to Tarheel's description of economics, then you probably have bigger problems to work through, first - (which is why I'm going to need to write a few more blog posts before then.)

 

[Tarheel]

1. I did not describe economics. I did describe one of its basic principles. (Supply and demand.)
2. I could give you a definition of economics, but this is a language forum, not an economics forum.
3. Stop trying to confuse people.

:roll:

 

[MikeNewYork]

I have a feeling that your next blogs will make no more sense then the previous ones. Your biggest problem is that you cannot clearly state what you mean.