Allegations of Demolition (3)
January 2nd, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Allegations of Demolition -(2)- :: Allegations of Demolition -(3)- :: Allegations of Demolition (2) :: Allegations of Demolition
GEVANS613 at aol.com wrote:
>jPolanik@nc.rr.com writes:
>1. what does ‘complete’ mean when said of a sentence?
>the Wiktionary defines a sentence as:
>”A grammatically complete series of words consisting of a subject and
>predicate, even if one or the other is implied, and typically beginning
>with a capital letter and ending with a full stop.”
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sentence]
>when I say ‘I am’ I assert that I am. I am not saying anything specific
>about what I am, so the intransitive use (no explicit complement)
>serves me just fine. but we know that, merely by asserting that I am, I
>am implicitly asserting that I am not a member of the empty set or that
>I am not nothing or that I stand out from nothingness. one can say it
>in a number of ways; but, the message is the same: there is an
>*implicit* assertion beyond the explicit statement that I am. when this
>implicit assertion is made explicit the implicit copula complement is
>made explicit; hence, there is always an implicit copula complement.
>Jud: Then your *I am* assertion conflicts with the wiktionary
>definition you quoted of proper sentential definition.
>**…consisting of a subject and predicate, even if one or the other is
>implied.**
>It has no predicate and you imply none.
the implied complement is ‘not nothing’ or ‘not a member of the empty
set’. depending on which convention you use for parsing sentences, the
predicate is either identical to the complement or it is the copula plus
the complement.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
