I would think that our capacity and processing of language is more innate than biological, and I see a big difference there. I do agree, Neil, that much occurs on the subtle levels that we need not be consciously aware of and, if we do hold in awareness, may have been recognized on a subtle level (not necessarily reason or logic) and now running like a background program in us.
On Feb 17, 9:12 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I would think so Pat. I wonder what the signal to noise ratio is in > language now, and particularly what most don't know about the signals > they are processing? > > On 17 Feb, 13:51, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 17 Feb, 05:28, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ROFL Francis - Orwell had much to say on the divorce of language from > > > day-to-day experience. Pat's construction might be analogous to my > > > own concern that language is more biological than we admit. > > > Of course, I would tend to agree. Learning language starts in the > > womb, so it's built-in at a pretty low-level. Our particular > > configuration of central nervous system is far beyond that which we > > have discovered about it. > > > > On 16 Feb, 18:55, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Personally, Pat, I think you're constructing a wonderful artificial > > > > structure here, which follows completely conventional analyses of > > > > language structures and their written expressions. It might, in the > > > > long run, be more productive to investigate the Magnum Opus. Having > > > > found the lapis philosophorum, you could then raid the roof of your > > > > local church, transmute the lead into gold and thus solve all your > > > > financial problems :-) > > > > > Francis > > > > > On 16 Feb., 14:57, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I thought that, since the concept of ‘The Pen’ had been > > > > > discussed, that I might take this opportunity to mention a couple of > > > > > things. Firstly, the concept of ‘The Pen’ and how it relates to ‘The > > > > > Word of God’ might be obvious to some but not others. It was a > > > > > concept that was revealed in the very first Revelation to the Prophet > > > > > Mohammed (pbuh). > > > > > The first 5 lines of Surah 96 (Al Alaq [the Clot]) were the very > > > > > first lines revealed and here they are: > > > > > > 96:1 Read! In the name of your Lord and Cherisher, who created > > > > > Iqra! Bismi rabbika-lladhi khalaq > > > > > > 96:2 Created man from a clot of congealed blood. > > > > > Khalaq-al-insana min alaq > > > > > > 96:3 Read! And your Lord is Most Bountiful > > > > > Iqra! Wa Rabbuka-al-Akram > > > > > > 96:4 He who taught by the Pen > > > > > Alladhi allama bil-qalam > > > > > > 96:5 Taught man that which he knew not. > > > > > Allam al insana ma lam ya lam. > > > > > > If you read the transliterated Arabic above, you can get a feel > > > > > for the rhythm and the rhyme that simply doesn’t come across in the > > > > > translation. The entire Qur’an of 6,616 verses is like that. That’s > > > > > why it was easy to learn for native Arabic speakers, who were used to > > > > > oral traditions and story-telling. Also, the word Qur’an means > > > > > ‘recital’, as it was intended to be spoken, as it was, originally, > > > > > revealed to a man, The Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), who was illiterate. > > > > > And no one has been able since, to create any poetry like it—not in > > > > > rhythm, rhyme and depth of meaning. > > > > > It dawned on me, over the weekend, that there is another analogy > > > > > between ‘The Pen’, ‘The Word of God’, language and matter itself. It > > > > > has been a part of Jewish, Christian and Islamic doctrine that God > > > > > created the universe via His ‘Word’. But what, exactly, IS His Word? > > > > > Let’s look at language and see how it relates to matter. I think > > > > > sentences act like molecules. Each one has a particular purpose, > > > > > structure and quality. Yet they are made of words. That makes words > > > > > akin to atoms. But atoms are further divided into the sub-atomic > > > > > particles of hadrons and leptons like words are comprised of letters > > > > > which are either consonants or vowels. Yet even letters can be viewed > > > > > as being made of lines, either straight or curved. Here is an > > > > > allusion to String Theory and the concept of closed and open strings. > > > > > Also, atoms (words) fall into 8 periods in the Periodic Table of > > > > > Elements. These are, in a way, akin to the 8 parts of speech: nouns, > > > > > verbs, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions and > > > > > interjections. Yet some elements fall into transitional groups. > > > > > Theses would be akin to the concepts of participles and gerunds. A > > > > > participle is a verb-like word that acts like an adjective, e.g., the > > > > > word ‘sinking’ in the sentence: “Every time I see the film ‘Titanic’, > > > > > I get a certain sinking feeling. The word ‘sinking’, although it is a > > > > > verb, acts as an adjective to describe the word ‘feeling’ and is, > > > > > technically, a participle. The word ‘feeling’ in that sentence, > > > > > although it is a verb, acts like a noun and is, technically, a > > > > > gerund. These are transitional parts of speech where one type of word > > > > > acts as a different part of speech than it may appear. > > > > > So, let’s map out the parts of speech to the Periodic Table based > > > > > on Semitic language. Firstly, it’s easy to see that interjections > > > > > stand alone and do not combine with other parts of speech; therefore, > > > > > the interjection is Period 8 (The Inert or Noble gases). All Semitic > > > > > languages have their root words as verbs. Verbs are conjugated, have > > > > > tenses, number and person. They are the most configurable and seem > > > > > the most likely to sit at Period 1, as the Period 1 atoms combine with > > > > > other atoms the most. Period 2, then, would seem to be nouns. In > > > > > Semitic languages, nouns are formed from their root verb stems because > > > > > every action implies an actor. Also, after Period 2 are the > > > > > Transitional Elements. These are the verb forms that act as either > > > > > nouns (gerunds) or adjectives (participles). Following that logic, at > > > > > the other end of the Transitional Elements is Period 3, which must be > > > > > the adjectives. Now, we have to go back to the other end of the > > > > > table. Pronouns stand for specific nouns, that is, they each have a > > > > > single antecedent, a noun upon which they depend. This seems akin to > > > > > the Period 7 Halogen group as they can only combine with one other > > > > > atom. Period 6 has two open places for connection with ‘others’ and > > > > > so seems to fit in well with the concept of a conjunction, which links > > > > > two ‘other’ things together. The Period 5 group has three open places > > > > > for connection and seems a best fit for the concept of the preposition > > > > > which can relate one object to another either directly or indirectly > > > > > or both. That leaves Period 4 as the adverbs. And each period is > > > > > covered and directly corresponds to a part of speech. If you think > > > > > I’ve left out the ‘article’, then think again. The Lanthanide group > > > > > is most akin to the ‘definite article’, as they are all (well, with > > > > > the single exception of Promethium) non-radioactive and are stable > > > > > elements. This leaves the Actinide group to be representative of the > > > > > ‘indefinite article’ as they are all radio-active and unstable and, in > > > > > that respect, indefinite, because they are unstable. And now, all > > > > > parts of speech are covered by their corresponding aspect of the > > > > > Periodic Table of Elements. > > > > > It is my hypothesis that God creates through these words or > > > > > elements and it is on that basis that the concept of ‘The Pen’ relates > > > > > to how God creates. This completes the examples of how God’s creative > > > > > Word can be analogous to fermions, that is, the hadrons and leptons > > > > > that comprise atoms/elements. > > > > > Yet there are subtle inferences that are implied. For example, > > > > > the pen and the voice are the forces behind written and spoken > > > > > language. And, of course, in each case, there must be an author and a > > > > > speaker. These are other forces that act behind the pen and the > > > > > voice. So, there are four forces behind this creative ability that > > > > > are analogous to the four bosonic forces of electro-magnetism, > > > > > gravity, and the weak and strong atomic forces. Of all of these, the > > > > > analogy of ‘The Pen’ to the electro-magnetic force is the most obvious > > > > > because a pen is useless without ink. So, as the ink goes with the > > > > > pen, the electric and magnetic forces are always found together. The > > > > > voice, then, must be most analogous to gravity, as it is unseen but > > > > > moves us in ways unimaginable. This leaves the weak and strong forces > > > > > being analogous to the author (weak) and the speaker (strong). I > > > > > believe that the spoken word is more powerful than the written word > > > > > simply because one must learn to read in order for the written word to > > > > > be understood, whereas hearing is all that is required for the spoken > > > > > word to be comprehended. Put another way, an illiterate individual > > > > > can be moved by the spoken word but not by the written. Also, like > > > > > the strong atomic force, the spoken word is only heard by those who > > > > > can hear it (ignoring, of course, recordings OF spoken words, which > > > > > have made, only in recent years, the spoken word reach farther); > > > > > whereas the written word, like the weak atomic force, can stretch over > > > > > longer distances across both space and time. > > > > > There! That’s just a few thoughts I had before going to bed last > > > > > night. Let me know what you think.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
