Allegations of Demolition (2)
January 1st, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Allegations of Demolition -(2)- :: Allegations of Demolition -(3)- :: Allegations of Demolition :: Allegations of Demolition (4)
Axiom 0: Allegations of Demolition
2. What is a Predicate?
Michael Eldred wrote:
>Joseph Polanik schrieb Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:34:10 -0500:
>ME: The OED calls “intransitive useage” (sic) of the verb ‘to be’ its
>”absolute signification”.
the OED seems to have a phobia about applying the term ‘intransitive’ to
the verb ‘to be’. in the OED/SE it uses ‘full’ instead. in any case,
unless you say otherwise, I’m going to assume that actual label is not
itself significant. I’ll just keep using ‘intransitive’ and you can keep
using ‘absolute signification’. we will just have to translate back and
forth.
>I am arguing according to simple formal logic that “‘is’ alone is a
>predicate”. What objection do you have? Do you have an objection?
yes. the claim “‘is’ alone is a predicate” is an ‘insight’ unknown to
linguists.
>… according to the OED, the “grammatical predicate” can be “a simple
>verb”. Do you deny that ‘is’ in its “absolute signification” is a
>”simple verb”?
that depends on how you define ’simple verb’.
>Your answer is dictated by your axiomatic approach, which depends
>crucially upon ‘Is’ and ‘am’ being understood exclusively as a copula.
in the CPI, ‘I know that I am; but, not what I am’, there are two
instances of the intransitive use of ‘am’. in my translation of Axiom 0,
there is one instance of the intransitive use and one instance of the
copular use of ‘am’. clearly, both uses are valuable resources of the
english language
are you still having a problem understanding how easy it is to convert
from one form to the other?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
