Allegations of Demolition -(3)-
January 1st, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Allegations of Demolition -(2)- :: Allegations of Demolition -(3)- :: Allegations of Demolition (2) :: Allegations of Demolition
Cologne 01-Jan-2007
Joseph Polanik schrieb Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:37:16 -0500:
> 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”.
>
> JP: 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.
ME: Okay. NB: This implies, in particular, that the intransitive use of the
verb ‘to be’ is precisely NOT its copular usage. This has consequences, as
you shall see below.
>
> >ME: I am arguing according to simple formal logic that “‘is’ alone is a
> >predicate”. What objection do you have? Do you have an objection?
>
> JP: yes. the claim “‘is’ alone is a predicate” is an ‘insight’ unknown to
> linguists.
ME: So you deny that “is” alone is a “simple verb” which, according to the
OED, can be a predicate on its own? You are claiming that linguists deny
that “is” is a “simple verb”?? Or are you merely being illogical now and
basing yourself on the ‘empirical evidence’ of linguists’ opinions,
regardless of whether these opinions hold water? And which linguist,
precisely, denies that “‘is’ alone is a predicate”? Where did you read that?
> >ME: … 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”?
>
> JP: that depends on how you define ’simple verb’.
ME: And you define ’simple verb’ to exclude the verb “to be”? According to
what you claim above about “linguists”, you must do so. It is, however,
absurd to claim that ‘to be’ is not a “simple verb”. And, if it is a “simple
verb”, then, according to the OED, it is a perfectly good predicate on its
own.
> >ME: Your answer is dictated by your axiomatic approach, which depends
> >crucially upon ‘Is’ and ‘am’ being understood exclusively as a copula.
>
> JP: 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?
>
ME: My problem is with your extreme slipperiness and with your
self-contradictoriness.
“Intransitive use” of the verb ‘to be’ is what the OED calls its “absolute
signification” (signification Roman I) which, in turn, the OED distinguishes
from its usage as copula (signification III in my edition). The
“Intransitive use” of the verb ‘to be’ therefore has no complement, either
explicit or implied.
Previously (Sat, 01 Dec 2007), however, you have asserted that “it is” and
“I am” as employed in your Axiomata demand complements and are used as
copulas:
“> JP: I agree that ‘x is’, ‘it is’ and, more intensely, ‘I am’ already
contain
> a mystery: the copula has as an implicit complement that asserts
> something of the subject; but, which predicate will make explicit that
> which is implicit — without adding more than was implicit?”
which flatly contradicts what you now claim, namely, “in the CPI, ‘I know
that I am; but,
not what I am’, there are two instances of the intransitive use of ‘am’”!!
Furthermore, Axiom 0 in your own version of it reads:
“there is a predicate, P, such that, for any x that is, x is P.” (Fri, 28
Dec 2007)
“is” occurs three times here; “am” does not occur at all, contrary to what
you claim above.
I presume you meant to say that in “Axiom 0, there is one instance of the
intransitive use” of the verb ‘to be’. In truth, there are two such
instances.
“x is P” is a copular use of “is”.
“P is” employs “is” in its absolute signification.
“x is” employs “is” in its absolute signification.
What is the predicate in the sentence “P is”?
What is the predicate in the sentence “x is”?
You have already denied above, by referring to “linguists”, that “x is” or
“P is” has a predicate,
which means that your Axiom 0 in part predicates nothing, i.e. “x is” ’says’
nothing ‘forth’ (L. prae-dicare). That is absurd. “Is” is a “simple verb” in
its absolute signification and hence, according to the OED’s definition of
predicate, is a perfectly good predicate.
Therefore your Axiom 0, in your casuistic interpretation of it, only makes a
silly pretence of not predicating the verb ‘to be’, i.e. being.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
