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

[MikeNewYork]

More unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

So the representation flight being related to - as DERIVED FROM - the representation fly is a matter of being MY OPINION?

If that is truly what you think, then you have just broken EVERY SINGLE RULE LINGUISTICS HAS EVER HAD.

Based on their use, it is obvious that two basic pieces of information they represent also obey the same relationship.

Do you deny the following?:

Colour<-red/yellow/blue etc. (adjective)
Agility<-agile (adjective)
Strength<-strong (adjective)
Height<-high (adjective/adverb)
Speed<-fast/slow etc. (adjective/adverb)
Event
State
Action<-act (verb)
Activity<-act (verb)
Game
Art
Puzzle<-technically from itself as a thing of happening (verb).
Competition<-compete (verb)
Movement<-move (verb)
Flight<-fly (verb)
Distance<->distant (not sure which of these is the root definition) (adjective) - (you could also have near/far too (Adjective/adverb)
Weight<-weigh (verb)

Do you also deny that the NATURE of the relationships they demonstrate ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, regardless of the concepts they belong to?

So what is this relationship they have, and what are the ramifications of all these DIFFERENT, derived concepts being used IN THE SAME MANNER (as nouns)?

EDIT: So tell me how it is possible for colour and action to belong to the same concept, when they're derived from obviously different concepts used in a different manner from each other.

 

[MikeNewYork]

This may come as a major surprise to you, but linguistics doesn't make the rules. At most it can explain the rules, which you do very poorly. Assuming that you were taught linguistics by someone, you should demand a tuition refund.

Colors and actions can both be nouns. Even children understand that.

 

[Tdol]

linguistics doesn't make the rules.

It just describes them. ;-)

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

This may come as a major surprise to you, but linguistics doesn't make the rules. At most it can explain the rules, which you do very poorly. Assuming that you were taught linguistics by someone, you should demand a tuition refund.

Colors and actions can both be nouns. Even children understand that.

Noun describes how these representations are used - it does NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE WHAT THEY REPRESENT.

If it did - a colour, an action and a tree WOULD HAVE TO BE THE SAME THING - because they are used in a similar manner (as nouns) - and can all be given properties (as adjectives used in combination). And if they are the same thing, then the basic red/yellow/blue and act are the same thing - which they are demonstrably not.

The concepts such words as colour/action/height etc. belong to exist and are DEFINED by the relationship they have with those that cause adjective, verbs and adverbs.

Words such as height/weight/distance etc. ONLY exist to help us understand what they represent by USING THE RELATIONSHIP THEY DEMONSTRATE WITH OTHER, SIMILAR WORDS.

For individual words, this relationship and demonstration is completely SUBJECTIVE (in English) - but it works, because they are part of a greater whole - a group of basic concepts that share such relationships, allowing words that do NOT demonstrate any relationships to also exist and be recognised in a consistent manner, by belonging to the same concept - WHICH IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.

What type of thing is a game? Is it purely a thing? Is it a property? Is it a thing that happens? Is it a property of a thing that happens?

According to your understanding IT IS BOTH NOTHING AND EVERYTHING.

Language does not function in this manner.

There are four DISTINCT, UNRELATED concepts, with one more, additional concept requiring an extra degree of abstraction/relationship, used as nouns:

1. Things. (Objects etc.)
2. Derived from properties of things (adjectives) (Size/colour/weight/shape etc.)
3. Derived from things of happening (verbs) (Event/state/action/activity/game/art, or A throw/run/jump etc..)
4. Derived from properties of things of happening (adverbs) (Speed/height etc.)
5. More abstract, derived from properties of things of happening in relation to the derived things of happening themselves. (E.g. the weight of the throw)

All that matters is the relationship they have with such concepts:

My suggestion, (and that is all it is), is to describe it using/as apply/applied.

If these distinct concepts DO NOT EXIST, then adjective, verb and adverb have no reason to, for things, properties of things, things of happening, and properties of things of happening CANNOT, AND MUST NOT EXIST - THE VERY DIFFERENCES IN INFORMATION such manners of use exist to help represent themselves CANNOT EXIST - for they are a reflection of the differences that cause such distinct manners of use in the first place.

At that point - all language ceases to exist for there can BE no differences in information that would cause any such rules to exist AT ALL - but none of you here will obviously ever understand why - and that is why you fail.

Why does this matter for is/am/are? Because they are not related to applied things of happening, and therefore cannot be the same concept as things of happening, they therefore have absolutely no reason to be seen to be used as verbs, especially when they are not used in an identical manner to begin with (because they're different).

Language is ALL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS AND SIMILARITIES between pieces of information because of what the information is of. If it wasn't, then noun, verb, adjective and adverb would have absolutely nothing to describe, for there would and could be no similarity in concept to cause any similarities in use - there would be no reason to have any rules of language at all. And if you try and say otherwise, without being consistent with this - then noun, verb, adjective and adverb would HAVE to be applicable to EVERY REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION EVER CREATED merely by existing. What manner of use is my map on the wall? Noun? How about the Mona Lisa - it's in a gallery alongside other paintings - how are they used in combination?

 

[MikeNewYork]

You seem to be lost in some kind of delusional warp.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

Make your mind up then:

Either verb is:

1. A manner of use, in which case you heave two further options:

a) It is caused by a particular concept, or:
b) concepts don't exist in language, and therefore ALL descriptions of noun, verb, adjective and all other similar manners of use as and by the concepts that cause them no longer apply - (try reading the definition of verb on Wikipedia and all you'll read is the description of a concept - albeit inconsistent).

2. A concept in itself, in which case it's not a manner of use, and therefore all information directly derived from this, used as nouns, must also be recognised as being related to verb DIRECTLY. Since noun and verb are recognised as being completely separate and unrelated, except by application, how can these concepts exist in such a manner?

How else do you describe the relationships such words represent, if the concepts they belong to don't actually exist?

But of course, the reason you're totally wrong, is that you want verb to be BOTH - even though noun, adjective and adverb cannot be, because they are related to multiple, distinct concepts.

Or maybe you deny the existence of BOTH manners of use AND concepts in relation to language?

In which case, according to you, language does not, cannot, exist.

 

[MikeNewYork]

In my view, language exists and works fine without your input.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

In my view, language exists and works fine without your input.

Now THAT is a matter of opinion that isn't borne out by the evidence we have. As I said, the symptoms are everywhere - but in order to fix a problem, you need to recognise its existence first - which you, and everyone else, does not - unfortunately for you - it IS purely a matter of opinion and nothing more - and not realising that your understanding of language is not consistent with its very existence, is therefore a large part of the problem.

So - does language involve concepts AND manners of use or not? Are they the same thing, or not?

Based on how the language is ALREADY taught and described, IN GENERAL, they have to exist and be distinct.

Or do you also deny that properties of things is a concept that is used as an adjective in English, but also recognised and understood to be used as a noun in other languages?

How can NOUN exist if it doesn't describe EITHER a concept OR a manner of use?

 

[MikeNewYork]

The evidence is borne out by the vast majority of people who haven't read and will never read your blog. People don't need your terminology to recognize or use nouns. That might hurt your feelings, but it is the truth.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

People don't think global warming is happening, either - doesn't make them right... Opinion is not what matters - evidence is what matters - which you have been denying the very existence of.

What concept - what type of thing is economics? Answer me that.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Some people blame global warming on humans rather than the sun. That doesn't make them right. "Economics" is many things, but one thing is a noun.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

And what does 'noun' mean?

 

[MikeNewYork]

I learned that before first grade. Is a degree in linguistics needed for that?

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

I learned that before first grade. Is a degree in linguistics needed for that?

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to answer then, should it?

(TBH, if there was any real doubt about your perception of the world around you, (which language merely reflects), and the political belief's that support it, your previous reply to this one cemented it, completely - since you confuse creation of climate, with climate change/global warming. (People have been affecting the environment for as long as we've existed, to the point where, at least in my country (UK), there's probably no such thing as completely 'natural' scenery anymore - all of it has long been affected by our presence, here. And if humanity can affect its own environment to such a degree, then of course it can affect the climate too - which all of our evidence tells us is what has been happening.))

 

[MikeNewYork]

The real evidence is that global warming is not caused by people or animals. It stopped over a decade ago. Did all the people and animals go away? LOL!

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

The real evidence is that global warming is not caused by people or animals. It stopped over a decade ago. Did all the people and animals go away? LOL!

Actually it merely stalled due to greater absorption of heat by the oceans - the overall temperature is still rising... Your knowledge of this matter is out-of-date. http://www.livescience.com/49967-pacific-ocean-global-warming-pause.html Since you refuse to answer the question about nouns - since this is the linguistics section of the forum, you must accept that, linguistically, noun is solely a manner of use, not related to any concepts, for the simple reason such concepts and syntactic combinations of concepts vary too much between languages. Describing noun as and by ANY concepts (usually things) is therefore considered informal. Example: http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/glossaryoflinguisticterms/WhatIsANoun.htm Notice the mention of the word syntactic in the above glossary - that you deny exists for language (The Wikipedia page for noun is fairly comprehensive aswell - except for the concepts we haven't recognised and understood yet - as I described earlier in this thread.)

 

[Tarheel]

Anybody who promotes the idea of manmade climate change should have to explain why the ice ages started and stopped long before human beings could have had any influence on worldwide climate. (Most proponents of global warming are now calling it climate change.)
:roll:

 

[MikeNewYork]

So there were no oceans a decade ago? Your knowledge is out of date and wrong. There is a lot of junk science on the Internet.

A noun is a part of speech and therefore, its use is important. But there are many nouns that aren't "things" depending on one's definition of "thing".

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

Anybody who promotes the idea of manmade climate change should have to explain why the ice ages started and stopped long before human beings could have had any influence on worldwide climate. (Most proponents of global warming are now calling it climate change.)
:roll:

There have always been many things that can affect the climate on Earth - man merely becoming an addition. But the direct effect man has had upon the climate, especially over the past couple of centuries, now outweighs any natural effects that also exist - and we know this because they can also be accounted for, and yet the problem still grows.

Trying to say that man can have no greater effect on the climate than nature itself, and therefore our affects don't matter, is to deny any human creation at all.

Either we can create something that didn't exist before, and wouldn't exist without our input, or we can't. If you deny this, you deny humanity itself... Again, if we have the authority over the planet - and we do - we must also accept responsibility for it, too - which we don't...

So there were no oceans a decade ago? Your knowledge is out of date and wrong. There is a lot of junk science on the Internet.

You didn't read the article then? A typical reply that has nothing to do with the problem at hand. If you don't understand how and why it's possible for different things/materials to absorb heat in different ways at different temperatures, then you don't understand enough to have any truly relevant input and opinions on climate change/global warming.

The rate at which things absorb heat CAN change depending on the temperatures involved. The fact that the oceans are now absorbing heat rather than reflecting it, is a very big deal.

A noun is a part of speech and therefore, its use is important. But there are many nouns that aren't "things" depending on one's definition of "thing".

Which is why the distinction between manners of use and basic concepts, (such information belongs to that is being represented), is so important, then, isn't it? And so they must be treated separately, (though used and applied in combination), yes? So to have any label trying to describe both is inconsistent, yes?

So noun, verb, adjective and adverb all describe manners of use (applied syntactics) for language, and not just basic concepts, (applied semantics), yes?

And any concept which is therefore not used in an identical manner to that already recognised needs to have its own, additional manner of use then, doesn't it?