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.
Here is something that is very richly spoken if it is only about the descriptive grammar but not about anything else:ReplyDelete
"Yet 'pragmaticism', too, proves very hard to apply fruitfully when it comes to actual description of meanings, especially in a cross-cultural perspective, because it has no vigorous framework for description and comparison, no firm grid in terms of which the endless vagaries of language use can be vigorously analyses and interpreted."
But I am not sure if it is still the same widespread analogy of the high standard of rigor in domains such as in philosophy. The author is actually a well-known philosopher.
In that case, we have to limit our spins over issues and apply the universal implications and norms. In addition, if it is obvious or often regarded in the same way, we can only opt to go for a linguistics defense brief at this point, which we do only for the sake of the universal implications. My specialty is not on the syntactic theories, other than as a part of the among other things. But both the author of the post and the author of this quotation have their point of views on the subject in differing situations. Without contexts, it is difficult to know what is referred by a certain lexical emphases, or for its pragmatic equivalence. Sometimes the propositional denotation derives from the lexical semantics of adjectival, which is a bit complicated than the problem of itself from the perspective of the matter is always as an adverb.Delete
How is an adjective possible there?Delete
Here is something of its similar adjective form discussion on the interrogative adverb 'what' but not exactly: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&diff=prev&oldid=593237384
If the question refers to 'what class do the numbers refer to?', the classification of 'what' is, yes, an adjective (interrogative adjective), but here in the discussion, it is still an integrative adverb if we are not to refer their functional structures. Could you explain how it is possible then?
If we are not ready for a bit openness in this case, it can only give the fast motivation for pedolinguistica, rather than giving us the virtue of the parity balance between choices. What a lexical definition like ‘interrogative pronoun’ can do for such a motivation is also very powerful here (The WP post on 31/01/2014 about ‘what do/does’ ), which seemed to be originated from the question about the grammatical implication on the ‘preposition stranding’ but ended up now for something else by its continuing comments.Delete
Here the intrinsic symmetry property of subatomic particles that is characterized by the verb valiancy function reflects the complement coordinates—one goes for the interrogative pronoun to its object while the other goes to its complement by undressing a bit as an intransitive marker. In the latter case, it is not on the interrogative pronoun object but on the adverbial complement. Which also means that if the verb is transitive, it has the form ‘What do/does the numbers refer?’ without the preposition stranding, but the preposition ‘to’ is an obligatory adjunct if the verb is intransitive.
But how such a thing is possible in functional modification for the adverb ‘too’ is that it is not always in the sense of ‘also’ but in an adjectival modification as well.