There just might be other possible views, given that not all of the many thousands of linguists who have dedicated their lives to the study of language, along with the millions who are interested and committed enthusiasts, have been complete fools.
If I could be so bold as to make a suggestion, it might help if you clarified your terminology in standard terms. I am afraid that the only part of the following that I do understand is the bit suggesting I am wrong:
EDIT: From what I can tell, the standard terms we require do not exist. (As representations of basic concept/manner of use) - if they're even necessary?
What I've written in my blog should provide all the context that is necessary for this to be understood, but let's try again, okay?
Let's start from scratch:
Do you recognise and understand the difference between:
A. What a piece of information is of
B. A piece of information itself (of something)
C. A representation for such a piece of information?
The thing/plant we call a
tree, exists independently of humanity itself, and any information we have of it, yes? (They even pre-date our existence.)
We use the representation of
tree for information
of this particular thing, yes - we don't use it as a direct representation of the object itself, else every time we use the word, we'd be passing such things around between us, yes?
Since trees exist regardless of humanity, in general, we now have multiple different representations for such a thing in different languages, yes? This must mean that we can have multiple different representations for the same piece of information, of the same thing, yes?
Semiosis is about the perception of the
representation of information, in general. Since we can perceive such information being represented in the universe around us, (e.g. wet ground (what it is/presents) being caused by rain (what it
represents/means)), it does not require the presence of any other entity.
Inherent to the representation of information are two things:
Semantics: This is the recognition that the representation of information requires the existence of both elements, (representation + information), used in combination. Each individual combination, regardless of manner of existence and application, automatically has a rule governing the combination itself. All rules that DEFINE what these combinations are, are therefore rules of
semantics.
Pragmatics: The
representation of information does not, nor cannot, exist in
isolation. It requires something to
represent such information (a medium used), along with a time and place to exist etc.. This is what pragmatics describes.
The third element the representation of information can have, is
optional, in general:
Syntactics: The recognition that multiple semantic combinations - representations of information - can exist in combination with each other, either at the same time, or in sequence.
--------------
Slight analogy to demonstrate:
Imagine I have two different paintings of northern France. The rules that govern what the paintings are of (northern France) and that they
are paintings, are rules of semantics. If one is a watercolour, and one is an oil painting, then they both have different such rules of both semantics and pragmatics (different medium), yes? (EDIT: Though whether or not different types of paint would be enough to affect their pragmatic context, I'm not sure - they're both paintings, in general, which might be enough?)
If we recognise that they have created by different painters, at different times for different reasons, then they would also (definitely) differ in pragmatics, okay?
These two pictures exist completely independently of each other, and don't rely on each other to have any meaning whatsoever, yes?
Imagine then, that we exhibited them in a gallery devoted to paintings of northern France/Normandy - this itself would form a very basic rule of syntactics. However, if they order the paintings based on the location of the content of the pictures, then this would be an additional rule of syntactics - governing how and why they are used, and represented in relation to each other, in sequence.
If the paintings were not of northern France, then such rules of syntactics would have no context in which to exist in relation to such paintings. Such rules do NOT DEFINE what the paintings are, since they exist completely independently of such an exhibition to begin with. So any and all rules of syntactics are therefore fundamentally based upon what the individual semantic combinations
are, that exist completely independently of such syntactic use.
Although any two representations can exist in combination with each other at any time, and for any reason, any rules that govern such combination
always exist because of what the combinations
are.
Semantics (causes) -> syntactics.
To define semantic meaning purely by its syntactic use, is to deny its very existence. This is why syntactics is
always optional in regards to the representation of information in general.
------------------
So how does this affect our understanding of (the English) language?
Language inherently involves representing information to transfer information between different entities (communication). It therefore inherently involves all of semiosis.
It however involves more applied
rules of both semantics and syntactics. The reason we currently have problems, is that we're defining the language purely as and by its rules of syntactics, without recognising the rules of semantics that cause them to exist.
For this reason, although we understand
how the language is used, in general (it still has more specific problems), we don't fully understand
why.
Language has more complex rules governing
what the information is, that is being represented, that then defines
how and why its representation is used - applied semantics causing applied syntactics.
The rules of semantics in relation to language, are about relationships and similarities between different pieces of information because of what the information is of.
Because of what the information is of, and how it relates to what (and how) humanity perceives of the universe around us, the rules of applied semantics group such pieces of information and their representations up based on the
type of concept that what the information is of, belongs to.
The four consistent concepts we perceive in the universe around us, that is reflected in the basic functionality of language in general are (as best described in English):
1. Things
2. Properties of things
3. Things of happening (or things that happen)
4. Properties of things of happening/that happen
Since these concepts appear to be consistent for humanity in general, they also exist independently of any representation we have of them.
The rules defining such concepts (and more) therefore govern the basic semantic combinations of representation and information any and all languages have.
The rules of syntactics for language, are therefore based upon such rules of semantics, and govern
how the representations of information are used
in sequence, because of the concept being represented, that the individual piece of information belongs to - it's basic
manner of use.
In English, each basic concept is treated in a different syntactic manner, and, as such, has their own
manner of use:
1. Things -> noun
2. Properties of things -> adjective
3. Things of happening -> verb
4. Properties of things of happening ->adverb
If these rules of syntactics had no relationship to any rules of semantics, they would, and could, have no context or reason to exist, for they could have no representations of information to affect.
Unfortunately, we have problems recognising and understanding all this, currently.
Since we perceive the language as and by its syntactic use, we fail to truly recognise and understand all the different concepts that the pieces of information being represented happen to belong to - we don't truly recognise that multiple concepts can cause similar manners of use, or in the case of
is/am/are recognise that there is a different concept being used in a different manner in the first place.
Basic concept - applied semantics - rules of content - (rules governing what the individual combinations are, and how they are related, similar or different because of) the type of 'thing' being represented. (Such basic concepts naturally exist in a taxonomic hierarchy.)
Manner of use - applied syntactics - rules of grammar - rules governing how the representations are used in sequence, because of the concept the information they represent belongs to.
If verb were a basic concept then it would require a manner of use to be applied as, in order to remain consistent with noun, adjective and adverb. Since it is consistent with being a manner of use, it therefore needs to be recognised as and by a consistent concept that causes such use, and ONLY such use.
Things of happening is the only such concept that is
only used in the manner we label as verb.
Since
is/am/are do not FULLY share such a use - are not
only used as verbs - they cannot be labelled as having such a manner of use - which also tells us (by reverse engineering such use) that they do not/cannot belong to the same concept, and so have no reason to be confused by such a use, anyway.
The only reason such manners of use matter is because of the basic concepts they're caused by. These concepts enable language to function - by allowing the meaning of words (of what the information is of, that is being represented) to be more consistently communicated.
