[Grammar] There has to be a rule?

[lefthandedscrewdriver]

I have searched high and low for a rule or set of rules that specifically addresses a couple grammar issues I have seen.

My question is with regard to the negation of a verb, typically transitive and intransitive verbs.

The dispute:

Side 1 believes that negating a verb also negates the action, the other side believes negation does not negate the action.

as an example; talking v not talking, thinking v not thinking, believing v disbelieving, or believing v not believing.

Side 2 believes they are all verbs therefore in every case describe a negative or positive action, but an action nonetheless.

Side 1 believes that, for instance, 'not believing/belief' (negating believing/belief) has three modes a negative such as disbelieving, a positive such as believing, and a null belief.


So that set me on a mission to try and find a rule or devise a rule that specifically applies to get to the bottom of it all and googled my fingers raw and turned up nothing substantial.

Is there an applicable rule or understanding that would iron this out?

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

Then lastly, part 2, I read this and my mind instantly crashed turning into a pretzel;
"Inanimate objects such as stones are able to not talk despite their inability to talk."

"stones are able to not talk"? This strikes me as a contradiction how does it look to you folks? Is that kind of sentence structure valid construction?

Maybe more rules? I'd be very interested in knowing the rules that cover especially problem one and also opinions or rules regarding problem two would be nice as well.

 

[Tdol]

Then lastly, part 2, I read this and my mind instantly crashed turning into a pretzel;
"Inanimate objects such as stones are able to not talk despite their inability to talk."

"stones are able to not talk"? This strikes me as a contradiction how does it look to you folks? Is that kind of sentence structure valid construction?

It's a valid construction as there is nothing wrong with it grammatically. It's a question of whether the sentence is making a point. It seems to be suggesting that the inability to talk is distinct from the ability to not talk, a distinction that doesn't advance my understanding of negation much.

 

[Rover_KE]

Welcome to the forum, lefthandedscrewdriver.

Are you sure you're in Cambodia?

 

[jutfrank]

I think there may be an interesting question somewhere in your post, but I can't quite find it.

Side 1 believes that negating a verb also negates the action, the other side believes negation does not negate the action.

It's not clear to me what this means. Are we talking about grammar or meaning?

as an example; talking v not talking, thinking v not thinking

Yes.

believing v disbelieving, or believing v not believing.

The negation of believe is not believe and the negation of disbelieve is not disbelieve.

Side 2 believes they are all verbs therefore in every case describe a negative or positive action, but an action nonetheless.

Yes, that's right. But that's not controversial.

Side 1 believes that, for instance, 'not believing/belief' (negating believing/belief) has three modes a negative such as disbelieving, a positive such as believing, and a null belief.

I'm not sure I follow. The verb disbelieve has a sense of negativity, yes, but the grammatical negation is not disbelieve. I think you may be confusing grammar (negation) with meaning (positivity/negativity). Some words can have negative meaning (such as those with negative prefixes) and some word can have positive/negative connotation, but that's nothing to do with any grammatical rule. The grammar rule is very simple—just put not before the verb phrase.

"Inanimate objects such as stones are able to not talk despite their inability to talk."

The negation here is not talk. The sentence is saying that inanimate objects have an an ability, which is 'not talk'. If something is unable to cease talking, then it is unable to not talk. This is a very dubious sentence, by the way. It doesn't make sense because it is contradictory, as you say, if we suppose that having an ability to do something necessarily means that you have an ability not to do it. We wouldn't say that something has the 'ability' to be itself if it cannot do otherwise.

 

[Tdol]

I'm disabled and cannot run, but I find it hard to believe that I can (not run).

 

[lefthandedscrewdriver]

It seems to be suggesting that the inability to talk is distinct from the ability to not talk, a distinction that doesn't advance my understanding of negation much.

Yes, thats where I ran into a problem as well. The problem I have is that a stone for instance would not be 'able' to do anything with regard to an action even if that action is to not think. Humans on the other hand would be able to not think, by blanking their mind. So in this case I think I would be talking about conveying the correct picture of what a stone can and cant do. Able as it is used would suggest to me that the stone can choose, rather than being impossible. Compare that to the glass is able to hold 10 ounces. So unlike the glass where a condition is being described the stone example seems to suggest the stone has the capacity to control not thinking. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[lefthandedscrewdriver]

It's not clear to me what this means. Are we talking about grammar or meaning?

I think both.

Yes, that's right. But that's not controversial.

I think it is for one person. They seem to be suggesting that it is controversial, that if no action can be seen, like not traveling, then its no longer an action because the person is standing still for instance, or if you have several sense verbs that its no longer an action.

I think there may be an interesting question somewhere in your post, but I can't quite find it.

It's not clear to me what this means. Are we talking about grammar or meaning?

Yes.

The negation of believe is not believe and the negation of disbelieve is not disbelieve.

That an interesting point. So is not believe and disbelieve equivalent in meaning? Likewise not disbelieve and believe?

I think one person is trying to argue a null condition for not believe if no physical action can be seen. Something along the lines of disbelieve < null < believe which does not seem to be a legitimate understanding to me?

I'm not sure I follow. The verb disbelieve has a sense of negativity, yes, but the grammatical negation is not disbelieve. I think you may be confusing grammar (negation) with meaning (positivity/negativity). Some words can have negative meaning (such as those with negative prefixes) and some word can have positive/negative connotation, but that's nothing to do with any grammatical rule. The grammar rule is very simple—just put not before the verb phrase.

I guess what I am trying to sort out here is, since both believe and disbelieve are verbs in both cases an action is expressed and taking place regardless which direction?

Then secondly if a negation is applied say not believe or not disbelieve it would seem 'not' only creates an inversion, and in both cases an action is still taking place. I think you confirmed it only creates an inversion?

I was using positive with respect to an affirmation.

The negation here is not talk. The sentence is saying that inanimate objects have an an ability, which is 'not talk'. If something is unable to cease talking, then it is unable to not talk. This is a very dubious sentence, by the way. It doesn't make sense because it is contradictory, as you say, if we suppose that having an ability to do something necessarily means that you have an ability not to do it. We wouldn't say that something has the 'ability' to be itself if it cannot do otherwise.

Thats what I was thinking too, that its simply word salad that not only contradicts itself, but also implies that the inanimate object has some control over talking or not talking, rather than directly saying its impossible which clearly identifies the condition of inanimate objects.

 

[Rover_KE]

What's the weather like in Cambodia—if that's where you really are?

 

[lefthandedscrewdriver]

What's the weather like in Cambodia—if that's where you really are?

just visiting, a pretty long visit actually, will change it when I get back

 

[emsr2d2]

just visiting, a pretty long visit actually, will change it when I get back

Out of curiosity, which VPN do you use?

 

[jutfrank]

I think both.

We must be careful not to get confused, then.

I think it is for one person. They seem to be suggesting that it is controversial, that if no action can be seen, like not traveling, then its no longer an action because the person is standing still for instance, or if you have several sense verbs that its no longer an action.

Yes, that's right. It is not correct to think of not traveling as an action. Rather, it's the negation of an action. I don't understand what the disagreement is.

So is not believe and disbelieve equivalent in meaning?

Firstly, we don't really use the verb disbelieve, only the noun disbelief. But regardless, I don't think it's right to consider them as equivalent, although they can obviously play the same semantic role in an utterance. Grammatically, not believe is a negation whereas disbelieve is not. Again, I don't know if your aim here is to discuss grammar or meaning.

Likewise not disbelieve and believe?

Same answer as above. not disbelieve is a negation of disbelieve. A sentence using either of these forms could have an identical logic.

I think one person is trying to argue a null condition for not believe if no physical action can be seen. Something along the lines of disbelieve < null < believe which does not seem to be a legitimate understanding to me?

I don't want to comment without reading the reasoning in full. Do you have a link?

I guess what I am trying to sort out here is, since both believe and disbelieve are verbs in both cases an action is expressed and taking place regardless which direction?

I wouldn't describe either of these verbs as expressing actions. No actions are taking place. They describe different attitudes one can have about something.

Then secondly if a negation is applied say not believe or not disbelieve it would seem 'not' only creates an inversion, and in both cases an action is still taking place. I think you confirmed it only creates an inversion?

Inversion? I never mentioned inversion. They are both negations of verbs that express attitudes. (I'm trying to work out what you mean by 'inversion'. Are you thinking of word pairs such as open/close and screw/unscrew? Words with a kind of directionality? If so, that's very different from negation.)

Thats what I was thinking too, that its simply word salad that not only contradicts itself, but also implies that the inanimate object has some control over talking or not talking, rather than directly saying its impossible which clearly identifies the condition of inanimate objects.

Yes, it's nonsense. Where did you see this sentence?

In order to clarify your thoughts on this issue, you must separate grammar from meaning because things can get very confusing very easily. To start, I suggest you only use the word 'negation' to talk about forms including not.

 

[Tdol]

Yes, that's right. It is not correct to think of not traveling as an action. Rather, it's the negation of an action. I don't understand what the disagreement is.

We would rarely say that we're not travelling when we're sitting, unless there was a reason to negate the act of travelling.

 

[lefthandedscrewdriver]

We must be careful not to get confused, then.

Yes, that's right. It is not correct to think of not traveling as an action. Rather, it's the negation of an action. I don't understand what the disagreement is.

Thats what I thought, but one of the parties brought up an interesting point.

Firstly, we don't really use the verb disbelieve, only the noun disbelief. But regardless, I don't think it's right to consider them as equivalent, although they can obviously play the same semantic role in an utterance. Grammatically, not believe is a negation whereas disbelieve is not. Again, I don't know if your aim here is to discuss grammar or meaning.

Same answer as above. not disbelieve is a negation of disbelieve. A sentence using either of these forms could have an identical logic.

Since you put it that way I'd say both meaning and grammar.

I don't want to comment without reading the reasoning in full. Do you have a link?

There was no reasoning given, no link, beer, cheese and crackers style discussion. The second dispute was over the ability of a stones inability and that guy in my opinion went a bit overboard, as I said the point of throwing a bunch of words out there that while correct grammatically was contradictory in meaning. I also agree that he was trying to imply there was something in the middle which does not make sense to me either.

I wouldn't describe either of these verbs as expressing actions. No actions are taking place. They describe different attitudes one can have about something.

Inversion? I never mentioned inversion. They are both negations of verbs that express attitudes. (I'm trying to work out what you mean by 'inversion'. Are you thinking of word pairs such as open/close and screw/unscrew? Words with a kind of directionality? If so, that's very different from negation.)

I used inversion, maybe incorrectly to mean a negation. From the above comments, an interesting point was tossed out. That regarding believe, not as an infinitive, but from a psychological position, from what I could tell, fleshed out that both believe and not believe are actions based on the requirement of a conscious thought process and also I think may be semantic to believe and disbelieve.
Wouldnt an attitude be described as a noun? Such as belief, or disbelief?

Yes, it's nonsense. Where did you see this sentence?

In order to clarify your thoughts on this issue, you must separate grammar from meaning because things can get very confusing very easily. To start, I suggest you only use the word 'negation' to talk about forms including not.

That brings up some interesting thoughts.
If one were to say:
I do believe
I do not believe
I disbelieve

Is it correct to think that for I do not believe that not attaches to do and negates believe in grammar, or am I combining meaning with grammar?

Which brings up another question, what is the difference say between these two fragments, both in grammar and meaning.... 'I believe' or 'I do believe'? It would seem the do is unnecessary but if its used anyway what if anything changes?

 

[jutfrank]

From my above comment, an interesting point was tossed out. That regarding believe, not as an infinitive, but from a psychological position, from what I could tell fleshed out that both believe and not believe is an action based on a conscious thought process being semantic to believe and disbelieve.
Wouldnt an attitude be described as a noun? Such as belief, or disbelief?

The verb believe does not relate to an action but to an attitude. There are no thought processes involved. If I say I believe you, I'm communicating something about an attitude I have to you.

The word believe is a verb and the word belief is a noun. You cannot say that an attitude is a noun. The word attitude is, however, a noun. Nouns are words, not things or concepts.

Is it correct to think that for I do not believe that not attaches to do and negates believe in grammar, or am I combining meaning with grammar?

No, not attaches to believe, not do. Yes, not negates believe. The do part is just an auxiliary that is grammatically necessary to form negative statements.

 

[jutfrank]

Which brings up another question, what is the difference say between these two fragments, both in grammar and meaning.... 'I believe' or 'I do believe'? It would seem the do is unnecessary but if its used anyway what if anything changes?

The auxiliary do in your sentence plays a role, which is likely to be one of emphasis.

 

[lefthandedscrewdriver]

The verb believe does not relate to an action but to an attitude. There are no thought processes involved. If I say I believe you, I'm communicating something about an attitude I have to you.

The word believe is a verb and the word belief is a noun. You cannot say that an attitude is a noun. The word attitude is, however, a noun. Nouns are words, not things or concepts.

Wow did I jump into a can of worms!

Thanks for squaring away the negation.

Ok I read your responses and like them, mostly what I expected with the exception to this:

believe
transitive verb : to consider to be true or honest

intransitive verb : to accept something as true, genuine, or real

disbelieve
transitive verb : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe

intransitive verb : to withhold or reject belief

http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/believe.html

when you said attitude that caused me to do the goog and it appears that philosophy and psychology are at odds with each other. Psychology explains believe as the active cognitive process (to believe) which leads to the action of acceptance of something considered to be true, and one would express that as believe likewise disbelieve for the contrary, both which seem to confirm believe as an action verb, while belief on the other hand is simply the process of believing something past tense. Unfortunately philosophy is not clear in their version (attitude) since they interchange believe and belief without distinction and that does not make sense to me.

all from webster, we are looking at an action described with an infinitive to and according to verbix present tense which would suggest to me it is the actual physical/mental cognitive action, that is the process of acceptance, whereas belief on the other hand to me would could among other things describe an attitude toward some subject.

walk
transitive verb : to move along on foot : advance by steps

So if we change the word from believe to walk what I do not understand is what reason would believe be handled differently than walk?

 

[jutfrank]

Ok I read your responses and like them, mostly what I expected with the exception to this:

believe
transitive verb : to consider to be true or honest

intransitive verb : to accept something as true, genuine, or real

disbelieve
transitive verb : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe

intransitive verb : to withhold or reject belief

Yes, that's all basically accurate.

Psychology explains believe as the active cognitive process (to believe) which leads to the action of acceptance of something considered to be true, and one would express that as believe likewise disbelieve for the contrary, both which seem to confirm believe as an action verb, while belief on the other hand is simply the process of believing something past tense.

No, that's not accurate. There is no single consensus definition of belief in the vast area of psychology.

Unfortunately philosophy is not clear in their version (attitude) since they interchange believe and belief without distinction and that does not make sense to me.

Perhaps even less than psychology, philosophy does not have a definitive version, either. If we are forced to generalise, then I would safely say that neither domain would consider belief as an action. It is a mental state (or rather a set of mental states).

Anyway, as much as I love talking about psychology and philosophy, let's stick to the use of English language.

all from webster, we are looking at an action described as an infinitive and according to verbix present tense which would suggest to me it is the physical action, that is the process of acceptance, whereas belief would describe the attitude.

I don't follow. An infinitive is just a verb form. The fact that a verb has a present tense (as all verbs do!) has no bearing on whether it can be used to describe an action.

walk
transitive verb : to move along on foot : advance by steps

So if we change the word from believe to walk what I do not understand is what reason would believe be handled differently than walk?

Handled differently? They are completely different verbs. The verb walk describes an action (movement of legs), but believe does not—that's the significant difference here.

 

[lefthandedscrewdriver]

Handled differently? They are completely different verbs. The verb walk describes an action (movement of legs), but believe does not—that's the significant difference here.

So is the take away point that a verb action is limited strictly to a visibly physical action or is my structure incorrect?

I used an example very close to those in the definition -you:

believe the reports

you wouldn't believe how long it took

I believe you

couldn't believe my ears

aren't the above usages with respect to believe used as a verb?


Here's the link I got that from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe

 

[jutfrank]

So is the take away point that a verb action is limited strictly to a physical action or is my structure incorrect?

What is a 'verb action'? Do you mean a verb that can be classified as dynamic, as opposed to stative? Or are you asking about non-physical actions? If so, then yes, some verbs describe non-physical action, such as mental action. What's your 'structure'?

I used an example very close to those in the definition -you:

believe the reports

you wouldn't believe how long it took

I believe you

couldn't believe my ears

aren't the above usages with respect to believe used as a verb?

Yes, believe is a verb. All of those examples are instances of the verb believe. The noun is belief.

Tell me that we're making progress, lefthandedscrewdriver, because although I do want to help you, I'm keen to finish this discussion. It seems I'm repeating myself.

 

[lefthandedscrewdriver]

Thanks for your efforts.
I suppose the problem that I am having at this point with this word (believe) is that the definition does not indicate that its a state condition or state of mind and instead presents it as a process action using words like 'accept', 'consider' and 'hold' which to my mind implies a process action is taking or understood to be taking place. So I can understand a process of the mind, but not state of mind in the manner its being used without a more detailed explanation showing why.

Question: "Is the sun hot"?

I believe the sun is hot.
10 minutes later I still believe the sun is hot.
Every time I am asked "Is the sun hot", I will believe its hot.
Substitution of the word belief, 'its his belief the sun is hot' to me is clearly a state of mind but not when someone is stating 'I believe the sun is hot'.

How can anyone presume it is a state of mind when someone simply states "I believe xyz"?

That would also necessarily presume that I did not:

1) 'presently' consider, (or 'presently' reconsider)
2) 'presently' think, (or 'presently 'rethink), and
3) 'presently' accept (or 'presently' accept again)

the hypothesis that the sun is hot each time the question is asked and believe each time that it is hot, therefore how can anyone summarily determine that its a state of being without the ability to read minds since to the best of my knowledge no expression to that effect was made in that sense? Was it?

I am sorry if this caused you to repeat yourself, but I think I need a more detailed and in depth analysis to be capable of connecting the dots to conclude its a state of mind rather than a dynamic thought process (action) because as far as I can see the dictionary is using all dynamic (sense) verbs to describe what believe is and says or implies nothing about believe being a state of mind.

A further explanation, the reason I brought up philosophy and psychology is because the dictionary definitions do not indicate believe is a state of mind (unless I am missing something) and the only place I have ever seen the approach you brought up is Stanford's explanation which of course is philosophy.

I dont see how you connected the dots to conclude its stative or what reasons you have to say its stative and not a dynamic, at least I do not have sufficient information to connect the dots the same way you have connected them because as far as I am aware to be stative refers to a state of 'being', therefore I would conclude that the process action that would cause one to say "I believe" would logically become a 'state of being' if and only if it can be shown or stated to be a 'belief' condition without the possibility of further processing? Otherwise it seems ambiguous what the situation truly is. Obviously if someone said "its my long held belief", that could be unambiguous and easily construed as a state of mind or being without question I presume.