|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:44 pm
Tense:
The tense structure is currently fractal:
We take a map from all time into [-1, 1] and consider binary strings. We translate these strings into points of [-1, -1] as follows:
a1a2a3...an -> Σi=1ⁿ ((-1)^ai)/2ͥ
If we let in strings of infinite length then we get all of [-1, 1] with some points having multiple representations, but the map is well-defined and that's all I care about.
Tense markers actually occur as strings of [past] and [future] markers, which I'll denote as p and f, so that if we take positive numbers to be in the future and negative numbers to be in the past, we get that an f in the i-th position corresponds to ai = 0 and a p in the i-th position corresponds to ai = 1. Hence a string of p and f gives a unique point in [-1, 1], and thus a unique point in all time (I'd say the real numbers, but that's making some assumptions about time that I'm not willing to make).
Note: the point that the string maps to is the point of time corresponding to the temporal position of a perfective action, but also to the average of the habitual and the center of the progressive.
This aspect and tense structure is also applicable to spatial location; Hence we get a subset of R^4, which we'll consider the local tangent space of the spacetime manifold at the point here-now. Note that a point in the tangent space corresponds locally to points on the manifold via the exponential map, but for points outside the neighborhood of definition the notion of tense becomes problematic anyway.
In addition, since nouns are verbs and vice-versa, "tense" also apply to nouns, in the form of location.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:14 pm
Aspect:
There are only two aspects as such: perfective and durative. The major point to each is the internal structure, whether we are considering the action as a whole unit or as something with a (spatio)temporal spread.
This matches nouns in asking whether we are looking at the noun in its entirety, or at a local part of it.
I might change the notion of local to something more abstractly topological.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:06 pm
Plurality:
Plurals are handled as subsets.
There's a null, a singular, a finitive, a countable, an uncountable, and an all. They're fairly self-explanatory.
Note that they are intended to indicate only a local condition, and hence imply that there may be more of the thing in question somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:13 pm
I've figured out how to get rid of conjunctions.
The construction is:
{Xa, conja, ref} where a is in some indexing set. This allows for the individual elements to carry the conjunction type, rather than having it in a single word, and also allows for unbounded conjoining, rather than bounding it in the conjunction word.
Change this post into a more thorough explanation once I figure out how to formalize the process.
Relatedly, I'm thinking of replacing the word "descriptive" with "subordinate", since it really is just a subordinating construction that happens to have the semantic value of an adjective/adverb. Generalizing it to a subordinate and creating an adjective/adverb fix should be simple enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:18 am
Numbers:
Things are written in base-16.
S02cd corresponds to the number 4c+d. A longer string of numbers is given by either S02abS02cdS02ef... or just S02abcdef...
So we get something like
0 = #e
1 = #o
2 = #a
3 = #i
16 = #o#e or #oe
17 = #o or #oo
32 = #a#e or #ae
etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
