Rather than keep on going some more on the same topic of my last two posts, which i personally prefer someone else to extend or disagree with, but now for shifting the content to somewhere close at the same time, i thought i should do something on categorical propositions today. Now for that we've taken notice of many of the difficulties that can be caused by sloppy use of ordinary language in argumentations, of course we're usually eager to search for more precise answers to our curiosities, if we are in the business of people among writing professionals--or it is what at least i do even if it isn’t in the business of professional writing.
And, this is another reason why we go for a fast track to look for a good nativity and hesitate to leave something without making a copy of it exactly as it is, but a good nativity or intuition is certainly to capture the writers’ insides easily regardless of if an erred categorical proposition in question happens to be of the result of either by our effort for something to be precise and perfect in our cohesiveness or by those means of our unconsciousness nature or even by our bias sides nature toward those non-linguistic features that are primarily encoded and understood by intonation contours, pitches, peaks, and valleys etc. as the rhythm of our hearts. For example, preposition, adverbial, and adjectival complements that are of our bias for preferences even if they are for more or less of their deductive nature than elaborative nature.
More than that, we could also say that professionalism means different things to different people and involves in many things like rhetorical syntax, phrasal cohesion, structural coherence, metadiscourse, pragmatics, or even in the rhetoric of simple personal voice. At the same time, we don’t usually want to think of the preciseness and perfectness as something of our own style without referencing to someone else’s works or rhetorical grammar (the sense of simple and fast way to audience, in a narrow sense).
Certainly pedants could still say that not only our own writings are full of errors but also our way of conceptualizing other things are.
Now to my previous post on the perspective of some descriptive grammarians that since the particularizer adverb ‘too’ can modify a noun too, the ’too’ adverb must be separated from the preceding noun object if the verb phrase is in a transitive predicator unless the adverb ’too’ is either in the intransitive predicator or is to modify the preceding noun (but not the verb, which is usually the case) or is used as an adjectival or degree adverb to precede an adverb or adjective is, the evaluation seems to be the clear logic to me as far as the available alternative literary critics with regard to our descriptive grammar about this is concerned. However, since it is a widespread outbreak of our rhetoric, it is always understood without its contextual clues.
At the same time, one more interesting to point to take here is the work of Henri Bergson on the proposition by acquaintance and propositions by description. In his own word, it is “The fundamental principle in the analysis of propositions containing descriptions is this: Every proposition which we can understand must be composed wholly of constituents with which we are acquainted. The chief important of knowledge by description is that it enables us to pass beyond the limits of our private experience.” And he adds more by saying “I am acquainted with a thing that exists only out of my acquaintance, which eventually gives me the knowledge that it exists as the source of axiomatic truths, but the descriptive proposition provides the premises from which deduction draws forth by the process of a logical inference.”
Apparently, that sounds pretty good to me now.