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

[DarrenTomlyn]

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:

1. Then you must understand exactly how and why it cannot be fundamental enough - it's still incomplete - to understand economics in general?

2. Language is all about relationships and similarities. Do you understand this? If not, you have greater problems, and haven't understood ANYTHING I've ever described in any of my posts (especially the first). Our understanding of economics is suffering due to the lack of a complete context in which it exists (for most people).

3. If you don't recognise the consistent thread running through my posts, you have bigger problems.

Semiosis = perception of the representation of information->communication = representing information to transfer it between entities->language = adding rules to communication to enable greater consistency.

Semantics + (!=) syntactics = definition + (!=) application.

Applied semantics + applied syntactics = content + grammar.


All of the problems I am talking about exist due to a lack of understanding of and/or confusion between such relationships. Most of the problems I'm talking about exist for two related reasons:

Confusing syntactics for semantics/content for grammar, and therefore confusing what information is represented for how its representation is used, which then causes a lack of understanding and recognition of the rules of content that govern what information is represented.

Most of what people write about language and its existence, focus on the nature of the representations themselves, rather than the rules governing the information being represented - of what the information is of. Without such rules, language does not, nor cannot, exist, and is, instead, merely communication itself.

Any recognition, understanding, description and teaching of language that ignores such basic rules of content, is inconsistent - incomplete, and often inaccurate because of it - and therefore not fit for purpose, for it does nothing to describe how and why languages such as English truly function and therefore exist.

The basis of the relationships and similarities which govern the information being represented, in any language, is a group of basic concepts that exist in a (functional) taxonomic hierarchy. This is not fully recognised and understood, nor described and taught as part of ANY language, currently - without which any language cannot be fully recognised and understood.

Some symptoms of this is what my blog exists to describe.

If you don't understand this now, I doubt you ever will, for this is as fundamental as it's possible to get for linguistics in general.

 

[MikeNewYork]

In my opinion, if Tarheel never understands your philosophy, he will be far better off. :-?

You keep referring to problems that everybody (except you) has. Have you considered the possibilty that you are the one with the problem?

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

In my opinion, if Tarheel never understands your philosophy, he will be far better off. :-?

You keep referring to problems that everybody (except you) has. Have you considered the possibilty that you are the one with the problem?

Given the obvious symptoms it's causing - no.

If language did not function and therefore exist in the manner that I see and recognise - labels such as noun, verb, adjective and adverb would not exist, nor have ever existed, for they would have no purpose, meaning, function and therefore reason to exist. Since they do exist, it is not possible for me to be wrong.

The only true way for me to be wrong, is for information, itself, not to exist, and be represented in any manner.

Anyone who finds themselves in a position where any of the above cannot be true, is therefore the one with the problem - but many people have trouble working out that the thoughts and knowledge they have truly only leads to such a position.

Recognising that language inherently has rules governing the peices of information being represented and communicated, is one of the main problems people have at this time - without which the language I am using right now, does not, nor cannot even exist.

I have had people telling me - on this very forum - that such rules do not exist.

I have had people telling me that work and play might not even be opposites - that they do not form a firm dichotomy.

You can't fix a problem without people knowing that there is a problem in the first place, sure, but if people still accept inconsistency where there should be none, even after it is pointed out, then what can I do?

If you do not accept that the words/basic means of communication of is/am/are etc. cannot be defined as being used as verbs because their entire use isn't consistent with this, in a manner that is then consistent with the basis of how the language is labelled, taught and described, then YOU ARE the problem.

This is the equivalent of saying that multiplication isn't related to addition, or addition isn't the opposite of subtraction, depending on their application - when talking on a forum about the use of mathematics (here).

 

[MikeNewYork]

Given the obvious symptoms it's causing - no.

It is obvious that you cannot face that possibility.

Since they do exist, it is not possible for me to be wrong.

It is not only possible, it is highly likely.

Recognising that language inherently has rules governing the peices of information being represented and communicated, is one of the main problems people have at this time - without which the language I am using right now, does not, nor cannot even exist.

The language you use and the way that you use it is no different from that of most NES. The only difference is that most NES write more clearly.

I have had people telling me that work and play might not even be opposites - that they do not form a firm dichotomy.

In fact, they don't.

You can't fix a problem without people knowing that there is a problem in the first place, sure, but if people still accept inconsistency where there should be none, even after it is pointed out, then what can I do?

You can't do anything. And, in fact, you aren't doing anything other than railing against the universe.

If you do not accept that the words/basic means of communication of is/am/are etc. cannot be defined as being used as verbs because their entire use isn't consistent with this, in a manner that is then consistent with the basis of how the language is labelled, taught and described, then YOU ARE the problem.

I am happy to be the problem, if it means that "is/am/are" remain verbs.

This is the equivalent of saying that multiplication isn't related to addition, or addition isn't the opposite of subtraction, depending on their application - when talking on a forum about the use of mathematics (here).

There is no equivalency there.

MNY

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

If is and are are verbs, then the rules of the English language become INDIVIDUALLY SUBJECTIVE - they no longer HAVE ANY REASON TO EXIST.

If the two phrases, both in content and meaning:

He is outside

and

He is playing outside

Are different, then is CANNOT be a verb, or playing CANNOT be a verb. Take your pick.


The reason we have problems, is that you're (and everyone else is) DEFINING language as and by its manner of use, NOT the information it represents.

THIS IS INHERENTLY FLAWED.

Just because a word appears to be used in one particular manner DOES NOT MEAN IT BELONGS TO THE SAME CONCEPT. If a word is used in a DIFFERENT WAY (as above) to those belonging to such a concept, THEN IT CANNOT BELONG TO SUCH A CONCEPT ITSELF - at which point giving it the same manner of use no longer serves any purpose whatsoever.

There are 60+ basic concepts in the English language!

Do they all have a unique manner of use? NO. But when they share a manner of use, it is always FULLY CONSISTENT IN APPLICATION!

This use above is NOT fully consistent with things of happening therefore it cannot share a manner of use with such a concept.

EVEN 'LINKING VERBS' ARE NOT USED IN THIS MANNER!

Adjectives and adverbs can appear to be used in a similar manner, yet are considered two different manners of use. Why? Because they're caused by different concepts, and are used in a manner that reflects that, regardless of any particular applications. Which is why both adverbs and adjectives can both be used in combination with verbs, yet never be affected for what they are, because the concept that causes them never changes.

The only way for your understanding of English to be consistent is for the two uses of the word is above TO BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS! This cannot be true without every other basic concept also being split up based on its application!

If your understanding of language is NOT based on the information it is used to communicate, then your understanding of language is inherently flawed. Note that there is a difference between language in general and its subjective application as, e.g., English, which also adds ADDITIONAL rules governing the representations themselves etc..

 

[MikeNewYork]

If is and are are verbs, then the rules of the English language become INDIVIDUALLY SUBJECTIVE - they no longer HAVE ANY REASON TO EXIST.

Completely false.

If the two phrases, both in content and meaning:

He is outside

and

He is playing outside

Are different, then is CANNOT be a verb, or playing CANNOT be a verb. Take your pick.

In the second "is" is part of the verb. In the first it is the verb. Your understanding of verbs and tenses is terribly flawed.


The reason we have problems, is that you're (and everyone else is) DEFINING language as and by its manner of use, NOT the information it represents.

THIS IS INHERENTLY FLAWED.

Nothing but your misguided opinion.

Adjectives and adverbs can appear to be used in a similar manner, yet are considered two different manners of use. Why?

Because their uses are different. An adjective does what an adjective does. An adverb does what an adverb does. That is how we differentiate them.

If your understanding of language is NOT based on the information it is used to communicate, then your understanding of language is inherently flawed.

Your entire theory is one big flaw. I doubt that anybody but you and possibly a couple of nutcases believes it.

MNY

 

[Tdol]

Why is it impossible for a verb to consist of two words? Also, if is playing only allows for one of these to be a verb, then surely the same has to apply for all auxiliaries and modals.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Tdol, that's a great point, but I fear that his philosophy denies the existence of auxiliary and modal verbs.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

Tdol, that's a great point, but I fear that his philosophy denies the existence of auxiliary and modal verbs.

Whatever works for a consistent recognition and understanding of the basic concepts they belong to - WHICH IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

Is/am/are belong to a single concept regardless of their use in these manners/applications. If other concepts are also used in a similar manner, then that's not a problem. If they're NOT used in an entirely similar manner, then that also matters!

IMO, if any concept is used in combination with verbs, (like is etc.), AND other manners of use caused by DIFFERENT concepts, then no - the use of auxiliary verb no longer makes any consistent sense at all.

Anytime we refuse to associate manners of use with the concept(s) that cause them, we deny their very existence!

Are any concepts used as auxiliary verbs, only used as auxiliary verbs? If so, then such a manner of use has a reason to exist - if not, (like is/am/are) then it does not, and so it should be no surprise we have problems.

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

And yes, work and play had always been recognised and understood to be opposites - until fairly recently (the past three or four decades, based on the evidence I've seen in old media). What has gone wrong, is that people then started to perceive them as and by a more specific application, (e.g. work=job / play=joyful behaviour), and those who should have known better didn't do anything.

The problem with work and play is that they do not exist in isolation - and such definitions are no longer consistent with their entire context and basic rules of the English language. The two main words that truly affect their definitions, and haven't been affected in the same, consistent manner - which is therefore very problematic - are toy and tool.

The moment we can consider things to be toys or tools, without them being directly related to both work and play, we have (obvious?) problems.

Imagine the confusion then for enjoying your work, using objects that would never be considered toys - how can it possibly be play? And yet, because of our current recognition and definition of play, it must be play if we simply enjoy it... (A situation I often find myself in as a musician who gets paid to perform.)

Toy and tool are still used as a dichotomy, even if work and play are not, and so we have problems. Games, for example, can be (and always have been) used for both work and play, and yet are now only ever considered play, even though they can still be used as tools, (for training/selection purposes etc.), and have people being paid to play them, as their job (for entertainment).

And so we've lost touch with what work and play have always meant - two of the most fundamental things of happening in regards to (human) behaviour, that can only ever exist as opposites, as a very firm dichotomy:

Work - things of happening that produce something (are productive).
Play - things of happening that don't produce anything (are non-productive) - we therefore do this because it's enjoyable.

All (human) behaviour and objects we use fall under one of these (as tools and toys, objects used in and for work and play). Our current lack of recognition of these most basic things of happening - especially if abstracted by any degree, or confused for their more specific application - is causing a lot of problems.

Since merely having a property is not consistent with a thing of happening anyway, and that it has no relation to the word joy directly, (or even enjoy), it should actually be fairly obvious why play cannot represent something so basic.

The fact that work and play can also be used to represent the act of using something without it being either work or play, directly, is also causing problems for people:

E.g. I play a musical instrument/game for work / I work with clay as a hobby, for play.

This doesn't make the basic definitions of work and play not opposites, it just means that the two basic definitions of work and play are not the only definitions they have - which isn't always being recognised and understood, either, and therefore affecting our recognition of such a dichotomy.

EDIT: With the definition of work above - do you now understand how and why it becomes the foundation of human existence, civilization, and economics? Do you also understand how problematic it becomes when such a basic, fundamental, thing of happening is no longer consistently recognised and understood to exist regardless of form or application?

 

[MikeNewYork]

Whatever works for a consistent recognition and understanding of the basic concepts they belong to - WHICH IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

Most of us understand the basic concepts of modal and auxiliary verbs. You seem to be an exception.

Is/am/are belong to a single concept regardless of their use in these manners/applications. If other concepts are also used in a similar manner, then that's not a problem. If they're NOT used in an entirely similar manner, then that also matters!

I have no idea what that means, if anything.

IMO, if any concept is used in combination with verbs, (like is etc.), AND other manners of use caused by DIFFERENT concepts, then no - the use of auxiliary verb no longer makes any consistent sense at all.

Anytime we refuse to associate manners of use with the concept(s) that cause them, we deny their very existence!

Yes, it is YOUR opinion.

Are any concepts used as auxiliary verbs, only used as auxiliary verbs? If so, then such a manner of use has a reason to exist - if not, (like is/am/are) then it does not, and so it should be no surprise we have problems.

WE don't have a problem. YOU have a problem.



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

And yes, work and play had always been recognised and understood to be opposites - until fairly recently (the past three or four decades, based on the evidence I've seen in old media). What has gone wrong, is that people then started to perceive them as and by a more specific application, (e.g. work=job / play=joyful behaviour), and those who should have known better didn't do anything.

The problem with work and play is that they do not exist in isolation - and such definitions are no longer consistent with their entire context and basic rules of the English language. The two main words that truly affect their definitions, and haven't been affected in the same, consistent manner - which is therefore very problematic - are toy and tool.

The moment we can consider things to be toys or tools, without them being directly related to both work and play, we have (obvious?) problems.

Imagine the confusion then for enjoying your work, using objects that would never be considered toys - how can it possibly be play? And yet, because of our current recognition and definition of play, it must be play if we simply enjoy it... (A situation I often find myself in as a musician who gets paid to perform.)

Toy and tool are still used as a dichotomy, even if work and play are not, and so we have problems. Games, for example, can be (and always have been) used for both work and play, and yet are now only ever considered play, even though they can still be used as tools, (for training/selection purposes etc.), and have people being paid to play them, as their job (for entertainment).

And so we've lost touch with what work and play have always meant - two of the most fundamental things of happening in regards to (human) behaviour, that can only ever exist as opposites, as a very firm dichotomy:

Work - things of happening that produce something (are productive).
Play - things of happening that don't produce anything (are non-productive) - we therefore do this because it's enjoyable.

All (human) behaviour and objects we use fall under one of these (as tools and toys, objects used in and for work and play). Our current lack of recognition of these most basic things of happening - especially if abstracted by any degree, or confused for their more specific application - is causing a lot of problems.

Since merely having a property is not consistent with a thing of happening anyway, and that it has no relation to the word joy directly, (or even enjoy), it should actually be fairly obvious why play cannot represent something so basic.

The fact that work and play can also be used to represent the act of using something without it being either work or play, directly, is also causing problems for people:

E.g. I play a musical instrument/game for work / I work with clay as a hobby, for play.

This doesn't make the basic definitions of work and play not opposites, it just means that the two basic definitions of work and play are not the only definitions they have - which isn't always being recognised and understood, either, and therefore affecting our recognition of such a dichotomy.

EDIT: With the definition of work above - do you now understand how and why it becomes the foundation of human existence, civilization, and economics? Do you also understand how problematic it becomes when such a basic, fundamental, thing of happening is no longer consistently recognised and understood to exist regardless of form or application?

The rest of this can be summed up by a Shakespeare quote: "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

MNY

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

Verbs (of any description) are not concepts in regards to information language uses, they're manners of use of representations of information that BELONG to specific concepts - if you do not recognise the difference between the two then your understanding of language, communication and semiosis/semiotics is COMPLETELY BROKEN.

Everything I've talked about it backed up by the basic recognition and understanding of the representation of information and its description, perception, use and application as described and represented by semiosis, communication and language.

Would you prefer to talk about the use of signs, instead of words or representations, since that is how it's currently described? As in the difference between what a sign is and how it is used?

Any opinion that is inconsistent with the basis of this, CANNOT be correct. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of logic dealing with matters that HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED by their very existence.

Do you deny that semiosis/semiotics exists?

Do you deny that the difference between semantics and syntactics exists as part of semiosis?

Do you deny that semantics and syntactics are applicable to language?

If you do - I can guarantee that you will find yourself in a VERY small minority.

The only way I can be wrong is if the above is not true - which appears to be what you are saying.

At which point you deny the very existence of language itself - so goodbye - YOUR opinion is worse than meaningless.

 

[MikeNewYork]

You can be and are wrong in all kinds of contexts. First, you see problems where no problems exist. Let's start there. The English language has gone on for a very long time without your help. What makes you think that it needs you now?

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

So the Earth is flat because people believed it for centuries/millennia without any problems?

You understand the basic pursuit of knowledge and understanding that science - including social sciences - are about, yes?

Linguistics is a continuous PROCESS of gaining knowledge and improvement of the use, recognition and understanding of language, because it always evolves and changes in different ways. But we don't fully understand this at this time, for our understanding of language itself, is problematic.

I put it to you that the language has ALWAYS had problems, and STILL DOES, but you cannot recognise it - either through ignorance or a simple refusal to do so.

Since your basic context of langauge is problematic - without a thorough understanding of semiosis, and how it governs the functionality and definition of both communication and language, nether can be fully understood - you have no comprehension of the problems I'm describing.

Anytime people confuse syntactic application for semantic definition, language fails for what it is - and this is EXTREMELY common, and problematic, mainly because people simply do not recognise that this is even a mistake they are making! (They don't always know any better either, which is a major failure of linguistics!) Nearly all of the major problems facing humanity today suffer from this to a certain degree.

Noun, verb, adjective, adverb and all other similar labels, exist to describe and label the applied SYNTACTIC use of representations that language enables, not semantic meaning! If that were not the case, no such manner of use could EVER have more than one concept associated with them, which noun, adjective, and adverb etc. DO.

There are 5 VERY distinct, basic concepts - (you can ignore the similar use of latest/earliest etc. - I don't really think they fit as being nouns) - that cause the manner of use we label noun. What are they? (EDIT: Note that things only counts as one!)

If you cannot (and you most certainly can't) answer this question as precisely as necessary, your understanding of the English language will always be problematic, and inherently flawed - and maybe, just maybe, you'll begin to understand how inconsistent (inaccurate and incomplete) your knowledge and understanding of English truly is.

 

[MikeNewYork]

The language has no problems. I have no problems. YOU have serious problems.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

Answer my question... What concepts are used as nouns?

 

[MikeNewYork]

You are now giving orders? :roll:

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

If your knowledge and understanding of the language is greater than mine - PROVE IT - answer the basic, simple, very fundamental question I've given you...

 

[MikeNewYork]

You haven't proven any knowledge or understanding of the English language. All you have done is posit preposterous theories. I am under no obligation to prove anything to you. You are the one trying trying to convince others. And you are failing miserably.

 

[DarrenTomlyn]

If you cannot answer my question you have automatically forfeited any right to criticize anyone's knowledge and understanding of the English language, for your own knowledge and understanding is OBVIOUSLY inconsistent, inaccurate and incomplete - exactly as I've been saying all along.

I have only failed because your own ignorance and stubbornness is considered more important than my knowledge and understanding of the consistent context and functionality of the English language, communication and semiosis/semiotics.

Such is the nature of your ignorance, that I doubt that even with all the pieces put into place you'd agree with the evidence before your very eyes, in the language that you yourself happen to use.

This is therefore now a matter you need to understand FOR YOURSELF: this is no longer about me, this is about you - since I already know and understand all this, and you do not - I was hoping that taking it one step at a time, slowly piecing the problems together that our current perception of language gives us, and not dump it all on top of people in one go, would give people time to take in the inconsistencies that lead to the problems we have. Obviously, in your case, I was wrong.

And this is why your answer to my question truly matters. If it is inconsistent, you have to either accept it, and therefore admit that not only are you wrong, but that you need to completely re-think how your understanding of language is built - or forfeit everything, and come back here admitting you need an English lesson - and if it is indeed correct, (which I very much doubt), you need to fully examine its LOGICAL ramifications in how the language is currently taught and described - some of which I have been giving you.

So, what 5 concepts are used as (cause) the manner of use noun in the English language?

 

[MikeNewYork]

More useless opinions. Do you ever tire of pontificating?