Has The Implicit Complement Been Found?
January 6th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Is there an Implicit Complement to be Found? :: Is there an Implicit Complement to be Found? :: Are you Denying that the Copula can have an Implicit Complement? :: Summary of Arguments against the Experientio
Has The Implicit Complement Been Found?
Michael Eldred wrote:
>Joseph Polanik schrieb:
>>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.
>ME: Now you are sliding from “implicit complement” (a grammatical
>category relating to the object of a verb) to explication of what is
>implicit in a statement such as ‘I am’. They are two different things,
>and I have no objection to the latter when one asks, e.g. ‘What is the
>meaning of ‘am’ in the simple statement, ‘I am’, and what is the
>meaning of ‘I’ in the same statement?’ Such a question goes far beyong
>asking for the “implicit complement” of a verb, i.e. for the implicit,
>unexpressed, but understood, object of a verb. And it also goes beyond
>traditional metaphysics from Aristotle up until, but excluding, Hegel.
Michael,
you are quite right to point out that uncovering an implicit assertion
is different from classifying the grammatical structure into which the
formerly implicit assertion is put when making it explicit.
that said, would you clarify for me what are you are now saying?
are you claiming that making the implicit assertion, “I am not a member
of the empty set”, explicit is done via a grammatical category other
than complement?
are you (finally) admitting that the copula can have an implicit
complement?
are you saying something else; and, if so, what?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
