Thank Goddess, wgoconnel is back!

A correction
by wgoconnel
07/25/2008, 11:16 AM #

IGNORE THIS. I'm having trouble posting on Best of the Fray, and am posting this here at present but shall move it to BOTF soon.



I've recently noticed a spate of English language which has disturbed my ability to read newspapers as of late and which is language I shall try my best to limn from my own writing tut sweet.

When I write, I try very hard not to use the words "in or "out" as these types of words denote negation - and hence superfluity - when I try to posit positive statements and ideas. Because this paper is about what I try not to use, the previous sentiment is a contradiction of the larger context which this blog is a part of, a contradiction of which I'm quite aware. Yet a thing cannot go "into" another thing really, or "out." I also try to avoid the use of the prefix "in" as much as possible. I try hard to not use the suffix "ing" (though I constantly break my own rules) as it denotes somewhat of a negation of the word to which it's attached, or else denotes a changeable and indefinite nature. Now, all th"ings," of course, are changeable. All things move about onto each other over time. However, even though the very nature of all th"ings" is to change, when I use the suffix "ing" it's, because of pure laziness.


Much could be said as to whether the absence of these suffixes and prefixes from written works is best for efficiency, if efficiency is defined by the use of the fewest words to express ideas. This brings me to my next point: the suffix "ly" is not a favourable item for positive, non-superfluous statements. What does it denote though? The suffix seems to me rather incontinent. If I were to say that the suffix "ly" was used continently would I be right? To use a suffix continently would mean to make continent use of it and so the debate goes on about this particular suffix, and a correct articulation of my ill feeling to it shall be got to a soon as I expatiate upon another suffix to which I have similar sentiments: the suffix "tion".


The suffix "tion" seems to me, to denote an imitation of an action, or a change of verbage to nounage. After I construct something, I've supposedly raised a construc"tion", however, should one use a suffix to turn verbs to nouns? Is there any law against it? No. However, there seems to me, a mode of conduct to this life which forbids my use of words this way. I could, if I were lazy and did not mind what I said, use incontinent prefixes and suffixes all the time, but I would be wrong if I did so, and the proof is a more efficient sample of writing that contains these prefixes and suffixes compared to a sample devoid of them. I'm still waiting to see this comparison, but I'd bet on the non-existence of the latter piece of writing .


As a technicality, I think it right that if I were speaking about anything else besides nuclear physics or elementary particles to use the aforementioned detestable thoughts and not worry. A person certainly can go "into" a room and be described to do so. Yet I know it would be better to say a person went "to" a room. A person can always enter a room of course and doesn't necessarily need to go into one. A person can be described while he or she enters a room, but that doesn't mean that when I describe the person the other way or by the suffix "ing" that I don't mean the passage of time as present tense, though I communicate it wrongly.


The suffix "ing" is much like the suffix "tion" because both of them seem to change verbs to nouns, yet to negate a verb is to change it to a noun, or to negate the verb alltogether? These are serious metaphysical traps that might catch a man these days and hinder logical communication.


The use of the word "one" is problematic because we can take it on good faith that a person means to denote a certain thing rather than another thing, and not nothing. Just as we take it on good faith that people use the word "nothing", not to denote a magic void where not even elementary particles exist, but to restrict communication to denote that a thing which hasn't been articulated is not extant as the place to which they refer. When people are at a store and they want to purchase "one of those bottles of whatever" they really mean they would like to purchase "a bottle of whatever." The word "one," then, is used like slang words are used: to mark a part of their thought process which has, ironically, not been thought over and isn't lucid.
The end of the last paragraph brings me to another word which troubles me. The word "through." Is it really necessary to use the word "through." When elementary forms of s definite size are examined none of them can go "through" each other. If this is the case for elementary forms of a definite size, it seems to me as though its the case for all other forms. When a person says that another entered "through" a door, as per the example on the sixth paragraph of this text, the sentence makes little sense. A person doesn't go "through" a door but opens it to enter a room etc The rules above are very common knowledge to most people, and take the discipline of a cougar to adhere to, however, they may just reward those who see language as full of suffixes and prefixes and fillers which are superfluous and milk us all of prescious time.


There are many ways that the human race could save time by correct language use. There are many people who think that to equivocate certain categories of knowledge saves time when they communicate. They would have us all speak about a certain simliar subjects by a univocal means to save time and address an entire slew of subjects a single sitting. However, to address categories by univocall"ly" is to trade an evil for an evil. Categorical equivalents are used to speak about two similar topics of discussion by a univocal mean. These are supposedly timesaving and add to the symbolism of life. However, if people would rid their language of its common defects before they employ many faceted symbols, or hyroglyphs the world, it seems to me, would be a much more organized place.


There is also another word which has troubled me, as of late: "with." The word "with" seems to denote lazy nihilism. When two forms are next together, people, on good faith (as is their fundamental nature it seems to me) seem to use the word "with" to describe a state of next togetherness of forms. However, I would posit that people are wrong when they do so. All forms are next to and against each other. They are all onto each other. The branch of philosophy , ontology, deals consideres the exact relations of different forms as they exist onto each other. The word does no compel me to think of anything ontologically. Forms seem to be expressed as "with" other forms if they are mixed against each other, or if onto each other. The correct way to describe this said kind of relation is to say that two forms are "onto" each other. If a person were to describe two forms as "with" each other, and the two forms are not onto each other, then the correct way to express the relationship between the two forms is to use the word "and."


Now there is yet another word used by many but is superfluous and that is the word "it" and "that" and "this." I have taken it on good faith that the use of the word "it" o begin sentences is wrong, however I've never articulated exactly why I've thought this so. My hunch is that since all words that came before "it" can be described as "it's" that the word, when used, is done by laziness because "it" doesn't denote a specific word but all words. So the word "it" is superfluous and needs avoidance as well as the words "that" and "this."


The particular case of the use of "to be" needs thought over, not "to be thought" and doesn't need "thinking". If there is an act that has yet to occur but hasn't happened yet then a person should say that "before the act occurred this..." or "after the act that..." for the sake of efficiency. Yet the use of "y" at the end of the word "efficiency" may be, but might not be problematic.



Other words, the use of which I have gone over over but probably need to address, are words such as "thing" "being" "something." When a statement is made about a "thing," that "thing" needs definite form, to make a statement or piece of writing organized. If words, such as those aforementioned ("thing" "being" "something,") are used on a continuous basis and not given definite form, then the use of the words "it" "that" and "this" will follow and not have definite form, and so mean any of the words of the entire piece of writing which they follow.


To break from the stringent course of my writing on specific words and circle over old ground, I might opine that a way to quit the use of the word "in" is always a lively subject for me and needs examples to illustrate my point. When a person says that another did a good or bad job "in doing something" this improper and ungrammatical usage of the word "in" is remedied by the use of the word "by" or "when."


E.G. When I wrote the last sentence I did a good job. I did a good job to have written the last sentence "by" my perspicuity of wit etc. Both of the last sentences are somewhat correct and are better, though wordy, expressions of what it means to use grammar, not "correctly" but "correct grammar" and not "of what it means to use correct grammar" but "for the use of correct grammar."


I know that if I were to re-read what I've just written that there are probably many instances by which I haven't follow my own rules, however, if I can keep up this ramble on language then these new rules I've set for myself will flow from me by a natural fluency and I'll get a better structure of thought as I progress.



However, even I must go on, on the resources at my disposal so the future of this written piece will be marred by other breakages and of these rules and will be littered by their flotsam and jetsam of them, but I shall persist. Yessuh, I will persist. What I shall do henceforth is rehash the rules I've set forth for myself so that I might become articulate to their ways. The best way to become articulate is to build upon what has already been set forth and so I find it difficult at the moment to start this rambling over.



I must ask myself now, "have I learned anything new or just become more fluent at what I've known previously?" The answer, friends, is both. The new modes by which to speak which I've just taught myself is best expressed by the articulation of the incorrect use of the prefix "tion".


I said that when a builder has built a building he has constructed a construc"tion." I said that this suffix had changed the verb "construct" to a noun. However, what I neglected to mention for this example was that a person can also see "construction going on" or "a construction" qua construction.


Iif the reader had read what I've already written he or she would see that the suffix "ing" at the end the word "go" (of the sentence fragment "construction going on") negates the word go, so logically, the sentence fragment "construction going on" means - if the word "go" is actually negated by the suffix "ing" - "construction." To say that a person sees "construction" is to say that a person sees the same thing as the definite form of the word "constructing." If, then, a person were to see men engaged by their "construction"of a building, then a person also would see what is meant when a person sees "men constructing a building." However, since the suffix "ing" is a negation of the word "construct" then what the person actually sees is somewhat different from what is described by the sentence fragment "constructing a building". What is meant by the sentence fragment is that a person sees men "construct" a building, but not "constructing" a building because the "ing" on the end denotes changeable form and indefiteness. However, even though a person can see an act happen over a passage of time, the person never actually can report the "constructing" of anything but only the "constructs" of a building over time, or that "men constructed a structure over time," because the "ing" does not denote a form, or forms. It denotes nothing at all.


The above is probably not such a great example of what I've attempted to articulate. The common man on the street will associate certain forms to certain language no matter what the strict organization of thought tells him to do. He acts by good faith. However, that common man lives by logical nihilism and that nihilism becomes evident whenever he must endeavour to communicate complex forms.


So, hopefully, after this last ramble another can follow and I can expatiate even more than I already have as to the "ins" and "outs" of the metaphysics of language. Say, I quite like the idea of this ramble devoted to my need to explore the metaphysics inherent to the language we all use.