Page 2 of 13 First 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Last
Results 11 to 20 of 127
  1. MikeNewYork's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 24,583
    #11

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

    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.

  2. Junior Member
    Interested in Language
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: May 2011
    • Posts: 76
    #12

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

    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...

  3. MikeNewYork's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 24,583
    #13

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

    <<<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?

  4. Junior Member
    Interested in Language
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: May 2011
    • Posts: 76
    #14

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

    *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 by DarrenTomlyn; 05-Feb-2015 at 08:30.

  5. Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Japan

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 68,521
    #15

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

    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 by Tdol; 05-Feb-2015 at 15:24. Reason: added: for adverbs

  6. Junior Member
    Interested in Language
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: May 2011
    • Posts: 76
    #16

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

    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.)

  7. MikeNewYork's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 24,583
    #17

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

    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.

  8. MikeNewYork's Avatar
    VIP Member
    Academic
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 24,583
    #18

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

    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.

  9. Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Japan

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 68,521
    #19

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

    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.

  10. Junior Member
    Interested in Language
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: May 2011
    • Posts: 76
    #20

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

    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

Page 2 of 13 First 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •