of - with

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by O. W. Grant, Jun 10, 2022.

  1. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member


    "Prepositions and postpositions, together called adpositions (or broadly, in English, simply prepositions), are a class of words used to express spatial or temporal relations (in, under, towards, before) or mark various semantic roles (of, for)."


    Indeed, several of the most frequently used words in all of English, such as of, to, for, with, on and at, are prepositions. Explaining prepositions can seem complicated, but they are a common part of language and most of us use them naturally without even thinking about it.

    In fact, it’s interesting to note that prepositions are regarded as a ‘closed class’ of words in the English language. This means, unlike verbs and nouns, no new words are added to this group over time. In a way, it reflects their role as the functional workhorse of the sentence. They are unassuming and subtle, yet vitally important to the meaning of language.

    There are three types of prepositions, including time prepositions, place prepositions, and direction prepositions.


    - - -

    Where (in what space) are of and with places?

    Would it be possible some speculations to be placed here?
    O. W. Grant
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    One way to look at it is the word itself: A "preposition" can be looked at as a "pre-position"; prepositions describe relationships.

    Let us, then, look at the question: "Where (in what space) are of and with places?"

    There are a couple points to make. One explores the nature of the word "where" in the English language, because if we phrase the question, "Where are of and with places?" one can more easily fashion an answer. The other point considers the parenthetic note, "(in what space)". This is an interesting limitation because it is, in its way, erroneous.

    Where are "of" and "with" places? Look at the source you provided: "There are three types of prepositions, including time prepositions, place prepositions, and direction prepositions." It is easy to focus on the boldface, but the purpose of accenting those words is to highlight their differences. These terms are essentially compound words: There is a "time preposition", a "place preposition", and a "direction preposition".

    A place preposition refers to a locational relationship, either real or conceptual. "Of", as a place preposition, is not in and itself a place. Consider the idea of a sunset shining on the west side of the mountain. "With" is a little more abstract, but it describes a component of, or "within", something else, such as the street corner with the old chestnut tree.

    I'm also fairly certain the use of "with" in describing a food menu item, such as chicken with rice also fulfills the role of a place preposition.

    "Of" and "with" are "places" in such circumstances that they describe a locational relationship.

    Ahmad Jamal Trio, "The Surrey with the Fringe on Top"
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member


    Thank you, Tiassa, for your response.

    Of course, the speculations will be wrong. The main topic will be the simple sentence and some consequences.
    May I post on that subject?

    O. W. Grant.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    I can't imagine why not.
  8. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Thank you, Tiassa.

    I will be back in a minute.
  9. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    The following is an extract of a 17 page handwritten text.
    The handwritten text is awful. A link is not placed for not the post be considered spam.

    There will be two parts. Part 2 will be Part 1 plus one more main idea.

    part 1

    The main ideas:
    allegory of the cave (Socrates and Plato);
    time and space are part of mind (Kant);
    Dependency grammar (Lucien Tesnière);

    simple sentence. "0-d" space
    /below "0-d" will be simply 0-d/

    Page 1 Outline
    Page 2 Basic notions
    Page 3 Thing (Equivalence - Connection_without_direction/order)
    Page 4, 5 Connections

    Connection_without_direction/order Set

    (Movement_over_0/1 Creation - Annihilation /movement in 0-d ???/)

    Connection_over_1 State/Quality


    Genitive connection:
    Genitive_is'' (Definition)

    non_Genitive connection
    non_Genitive_is'' (“next-ness”: Instr. case; function; iteration; ...)
    (is'' and any transitive verb'' are non_Genitive_is'' connection)
    non_Genitive_has'' (???)

    Page 6, 7

    Page 8 Simple sentence

    Page 9 “Natural numbers” – 0-d thing (quality)

    Page 10 Vector

    Page 11 Logic

    Page 12 Time (in “language”)

    Page 13-1 Things and Connections in 0-d space – Names in “Simple sentence”

    Page 13 "Simple sentence"

    Page 14 Grammatical case in the “Simple sentence”

    Page 14+1 Connections (in) 0-d space – Grammatical cases in “Simple sentence”

    Page 15 Prepositions in the “Simple sentence”

    - - - - - - - - -

    Page 3 Thing (some of the text)

    Thing is"(Def.) Connection - Equivalence of A and B. (A and B are things)
    Thing(-s) is/are always in a space/connection.
    One "sees" things and spaces/connections.


    Page 4 Connection (some of the text)

    Connection is"(Def.) Thing.
    Connection is"(Equiv.) Space.
    Space is"(Equiv.) Connection.
    Connection/Space is not a thing to/for the things it connects/contains.


    Page 6 (some of the text)

    One "sees" A and B as 2 "sides" of 1 thing C. And this thing C is the Connection of A and B.

    Name is Thing.

    Observer is Thing.

    Event is Equivalence (Connection) of the Observer and a connection (which is Thing).


    Page 8 (some of the text)

    So called Real and non_Real things are identical.
    Event is a unit of Reality.

    Simple sentence is a unit of "Language". /quotation marks here say:/
    "Language" is a part of Reality. /1. there isn't Language; 2. a "language" ... (see below) /

    Simple sentence is Event (and consists of events).


    page 9 (one edited sentence)

    "Natural number" is a quality of a set (which is Connection, which is Thing) of things which have same (common) quality.


    Page 11 (some of the text)

    There is no Language by itself - just working consciousness.
    /a "set" of things (words) and rules make a "language" - English, French, .../

    One's "thinking"/consciousness is the same in every "area".


    Page 13 (some of the text)

    "Simple sentence":

    is Name of a Simple sentence/Event;
    consists of Names;
    is a result of events.

    The "Simple sentence" is (has to be) simple, convenient, not exact.

    Then the "Simple sentence" is one defined verb by:

    The "Simple sentence" has/employs:

    Grammatical cases;


    Page 14 (one edited sentence)

    Grammatical case is a denotation (by certain means) of a missing (left out) verb/connection
    and the "1st" and the "2nd" in that Connection.

    /in 1-d (with direction) : 1st - 2nd - 3rd .../
    /in 0-d non_Genitive_is": Main ("1st") - not_Main ("2nd")/
    /in 0-d Genitive_has" : Possessor ("1st") - Possession ("2nd")/


    Page 15 (some of the text)

    Divider divides Space into Sub_Spaces/Places called Prepositions and other.

    Sub_Spaces/Places in 0-d Space are the prepositions of and with.

    /of is a place in Genitive_has''
    /with is a place in non_Genitive_is''



    Basic concepts: Thing, Connection/Space

    Symmetry: Connection is Thing - Thing is Connection (Equivalence).


    Things in a set are complementary;
    Without_order and with_order are complementary;
    Equivalence and Set are complementary ("Out" and "In" Connection_without_order);
    Genitive and non_Genitive are complementary (Connection_with_order);
    Genitive_is'' and Genitive_has'' are complementary;

    Exact moments, not_Exact moments
    0-d (in General, ever: "Now" is Connection/Space for Past and Future)
    1-d (...)


    Verb read" in " John read" book " is a non_Genitive connection (transitive/divalent verb).

    Verb read' in " John read' " is a Connection_over_1/State/Quality (read' and red' (colour) are states/qualities).

    " Apple is' red'. "

    is', go', ... (intransitive verbs)

    - - -

    There are different is (be):

    is' - State/Quality of Existence of a thing;
    Genitive_is" - Definition;
    non_Genitive_is" - "next-ness";
    is" (''', '''', ...) Equivalence.

    - - -

    Thought is"(equiv.) Simple sentence is"(equiv.) Event.

    - - -

    One might try to "see" Spaces (1-d; 2-d; 3-d; ...) as connections and Connection as "0-d" space.

    - - -

    Movements in "0-d" space are probably: Creation/ Annihilation and Changing_point_of_view (if A and B are equivalent).
    Creation/Annihilation are in no way about God, Universe, ...

    - - -

    Consciousness as a machine works in a specific way.

    The realisation of Thing (-s) and Connection (-s) is not an issue here.

    - - -

    The purpose of that line of thinking is to be given another definition of Simple sentence.
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Well with me you failed

    Might be because I'm dyslexic

    Since I can't see any future (anything to be learnt) in reading O. W. Grant, post, O. W. Grant, goes on Iggy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Hi, Michael 345,

    That was a thread in "Outside of the box" section. It does not matter that it is wrong. Someone one day will make it right.
    It is an attempt to link simple sentence with event, to give a definition of event. It is an exercise.

    Here is "The Tenses of Verbs" by Hans Reichenbach, a philosopher. (event, event, ...)

    http://www.derczynski.com/sheffield/tsie/Reichenbach - tenses of verbs.pdf

    And here



    That cat here is just curious. It is not ambitious.

    Have a nice day.
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Well, at least now I can imagine why not.

    I would suggest the focus on Natural Language Processing might complicate your topic question, but your notes do a much better job of complicating things. To the other, if you can connect your question about prepositions to why Reichenbach, a critic of scientific method, is important to the inquiry, perhaps that might help. But if you leave it for other people to figure out, it almost reads like you're trying to explain a preposition to a computer, and, frankly, that's a whole separate question.

    By the time you get to zero-D, though, it looks like something else. "Movements in '0-d' space", as you phrase it, sound a bit like an overly-complex description of change. As Therion put it, only through motion and time can any event happen. It's a bit crude a rendering, but it does well enough. Without change and sequence, Therion explains, nothing can be the object of sense. For our purposes, this merely observes that change does not happen without the passing of time. Creation, annihilation, and even changing a point of view all require the passage of time.

    Remember, though, the actual point of view occurs as electrical impulse, subject to the laws of the Universe, occurring over time in 3-D space. In this sense, Zero-D space might well be described as Therion does the point, having only position, but neither mass nor components. The thing about position, though, is that it implies multidimensional space, which in turn requires motion and time (change) to observe and assess.

    Flip-side, that is all part of Therion's thesis on tarot.

    If this is about teaching a computer to comprehend prepositions like "of" and "which", good luck. But in that context, introducing "0-d" is overly complicated. Try considering creation, annihilation, and transformation, and remember Picasso's note that every act of creation is first an act of destruction; creation and annihilation are part of the same process, transformation. That is, they are part of change.

    Still, the difference between a place and a preposition of place seems a strange starting point for the rest of it.

    Meanwhile, the one aspect that stands out is the difference between the reality that is and what part of it we perceive. Much like transformation, what distingusihes particular forms like creation and annihilation is the relevance of the distinction to our own perception and perspective; our human priorities accentuate the importance of creation and annihilation in relation to ourselves, and this shapes how we understand the concepts. Compared to the transformation of atoms somewhere out in the galaxy, the concept of death (i.e., annihilation) generally feels more relevant to human beings, and our language will reflect that.
  13. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member


    Hi, Tiassa,

    It is nice to hear from you.

    The "simple sentence. "0-d" space" is just another dependency grammar. The core of it is believe that the verb is the most important part of a simple sentence and other words depend on it (Lucien Tesnière). Transitive verb is viewed as Connection of two - the subject and the object. From that starting point start the speculations: grammatical case is a missing verb (especially Instr. case); adjective, adverb and intransitive verb have to be "cut form the same cloth" (adverb modifies adjective and verb). Connection in that sense is "the least common denominator":
    adjective/adverb is connection; intransitive verb is connection; transitive verb is connection; number in language is an adjective so from here comes set as connection. Verb sometimes is the "1st" in Instr. case and Dative case, so connection have to be taken also as noun/thing.

    Grammatical mood is a grammatical feature of verbs, used for signaling modality (Wikipedia). But it would be better if it is a state of the Speaker and the Speaker has to be somehow incorporated in the structure of the Simple sentence (from here comes the need of Equivalence as a connection).

    In, on, at, under, ... are prepositions. If they are "seen" as places in 3-d space, then of and with as prepositions have to be "places" somewhere hence "0-d"/Connection.

    Then comes Time in language. Speaking in general / ever needs different solution than 1-d representation of time in language.

    In conclusion,
    Philosophers, mathematicians and other scientists being smart are not exactly language practitioners (they do not think in language terms).
    Creation/Annihilation and Changing_point_of_view as "movements in "0-d" space" are kind of spin-offs. They are not important for the grammar.
    "simple sentence. ..." is an exercise in grammar. It is not about philosophy, psychology, theology, cosmology, AI, computer science, ...
    It is messy and unfinished.

    Thank you for you post. It is interesting.

    O. W. Grant.

    - - -

    Basic English Grammar For Learning Latin Part I (3:31 min.)


    Basic English Grammar For Learning Latin Part II (7:24 min.)
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2022
  14. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member


    A couple more points.

    - - -
    Julius Caesar is her friend.
    Whales are mammals.

    Here to be is Definition.

    Patient's teeth are dirty.

    Here to be is intransitive.

    are and dirty are states/qualities of the teeth:
    teeth - exist
    teeth - dirty

    That is why in some languages to be in present tense is left out. If teeth - dirty' => they - exist'

    The phone is ringing.

    Ringing here is present (active) participle (which is an adjective from a verb). So, to be is intransitive (is').

    In language to be is used with different meaning which makes it a different connection. It is not just a linking verb.

    - - -

    Why Socrates, Plato and Kant are here?

    They help with meaning. The chair in the room is just as imaginary as "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously".

    In a couple of words:

    spoken word is an encoding of sounds;
    written word is an encoding of letters;
    meaning of the word is an encoding of things and spaces and
    sounds (things), letters (things), things and spaces are all imaginary.

    That way the structure of the Simple sentence (which include meaning) will be consistent.
  15. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Hi, Tiassa,

    I used that particular work of Reichenbach as an example. I liked the way he dealt with Event. Then I found out through Wikipedia that he was a philosopher. So he used (term?) Event not in the way a physicist would do (I suppose). Also maybe English was not his first language (he was born in Germany). When a person acquires a foreign language usually he or she is more critical. Often a native speaker is blind about what is going on in his or her language.
    The reason I value Reichenbach's "The Tenses of Verbs" is that it is not written by a modern day professional linguist. It is written in "human language".

    - - -

    "0-d space" in the name of the thread would not have been received well, probably.

    Here are 3 suspicious pairs:

    of - with
    have - be
    Genitive case - Instrumental case

    (of, have, Genitive case - with, be, Instrumental case)

    Other possible names of the thread would have been:

    have - be;

    Genitive case - Instrumental case.
  16. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member


    Name, noun, word


    Name is Thing. "Simple sentence" is Name and consists of Names.


    Word is Name.
    to have a word with (someone)

    A sentence is Word. A phrase is Word. A word is Word. A root is Word. An affix is Word. A word ending is Word.
    Everything that has meaning is Word. Word is made of words.


    - - -

    Set (Connection_without_direction/order) or Equivalence (Connection_without_direction/order)
    Set will be used for simplicity, Equivalence will be meant.

    Word is both Set (Connection; Connection is Thing) and every element (Thing) of that Set of:

    written word - encoding of letters (and signs);
    spoken word - encoding of sounds;
    misspelled, mispronounced, ... word - encoding recognised as the word in question;
    meaning - encoding of/through Things and Spaces.

    Meaningful_Word is a Set (Word) which contains Meaning.
    not_Meaningful_Word (gibberish, babble) is a Set (Word) which does not contain Meaning.

    - - -

    Event has structure: Observer (thing) - Equivalence (thing-connection) - connection (thing).
    Without that structure there isn't event (-thought-simple sentence). Without event there isn't anything.

    Exist (is') - not exist (is'_not),
    real - not real,
    true - false,
    right - wrong,
    good - bad,
    are complementary (here sets of 2; set can be of 3, 4, ...).

    - - -

    basic concepts; definitions; axioms; ...

    The basic concepts (building blocks, atoms) are Thing and Connection /"0-d"/( Equivalence, Set, State/Quality, Definition, Embedding and "Next-ness").
    /plus 1-d, 2-d, 3-d spaces as connections/

    = = =

    Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

    Last edited: Jun 15, 2022
  17. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    The Blind Men and the Elephant --
    John Godfrey Saxe's (1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend:

    It was six men of Indostan,
    To learning much inclined,
    Who went to see the Elephant
    (Though all of them were blind),
    That each by observation
    Might satisfy his mind.

    The First approach'd the Elephant,
    And happening to fall
    Against his broad and sturdy side,
    At once began to bawl:
    "God bless me! but the Elephant
    Is very like a wall!"

    The Second, feeling of the tusk,
    Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
    So very round and smooth and sharp?
    To me 'tis mighty clear,
    This wonder of an Elephant
    Is very like a spear!"

    The Third approach'd the animal,
    And happening to take
    The squirming trunk within his hands,
    Thus boldly up and spake:
    "I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant
    Is very like a snake!"

    The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
    And felt about the knee:
    "What most this wondrous beast is like
    Is mighty plain," -quoth he,-
    "'Tis clear enough the Elephant
    Is very like a tree!"

    The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
    Said- "E'en the blindest man
    Can tell what this resembles most;
    Deny the fact who can,
    This marvel of an Elephant
    Is very like a fan!"

    The Sixth no sooner had begun
    About the beast to grope,
    Then, seizing on the swinging tail
    That fell within his scope,
    "I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant
    Is very like a rope!"

    And so these men of Indostan
    Disputed loud and long,
    Each in his own opinion
    Exceeding stiff and strong,
    Though each was partly in the right,
    And all were in the wrong!

    So, oft in theologic wars
    The disputants, I ween,
    Rail on in utter ignorance
    Of what each other mean;
    And prate about an Elephant
    Not one of them has seen!
  18. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member


    Another 3 examples of Complemetarity:

    "There are a couple of loose ends I'd like to tie up. Nothing important you understand."


    Yin and yang


    beginning and end

    Amy Helps Sheldon With His Closure Issue

    = = =

    Page 11 "Logic" (that part was left out at presentation)

    Space is" (Equiv.) "Logic".

    "Logic" - rules of space
    there's space - there's "logic"/there's "logic" - there's space

    Space - (things, ... ) - "Logic"

    = = =

    Part 2 is not about grammar.

    The main ideas:

    allegory of the cave (Socrates and Plato);

    time and space are part of mind (Kant);

    Page 11 Space - (things, ... ) - "Logic";

    Transactional analysis (Eric Berne).

    Part 2 is about Machine (speculations). In a way Part 1 and Part 2 are complementary.

    I will understand if I cannot post Part 2 here.

    O. W. Grant.
  19. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member


    Part 2

    The main ideas:

    allegory of the cave (Socrates and Plato);

    time and space are part of mind (Kant);

    Page 11 Space - (things, ... ) - "Logic";
    /Space is" (Equiv.) "Logic".
    /"Logic" - rules of Space
    /there's space - there's "logic"/there's "logic" - there's space

    Transactional analysis (Eric Berne).

    - - -

    Every society is Space and its "Logic" is that society's law.

    Society - Law
    /members, ... / - /..., freedom, power, justice, units, .../

    Families, communities, states, religions, firms, ... are societies.

    Society of:

    one - A: the Law is the law (-s) of Nature;

    two - A, B:

    1. A and B are in a Genitive_has" connection - A has" B. A and B are not equal. A is that society. The law of that society is the law of A.
    /Nature and A: Genitive_has" connection, society of two (???)/

    2. A and B are in a Set connection. A and B are equal (they have same rights). The Set is that society.

    /Genitive_is" connection does not form a society. It is for exchange/transactions (???)/


    = = = = = = = = =


    to Eat is" (Equiv.) to Live;
    to Feed is" (Equiv.) to Work.

    Hunger_1; Hunger_2; Hunger_3; ( ... ???)

    Environment: a space that contains a given thing. That thing feeds its Environment.

    Mushroom treatment: Environment "feeds" the given thing with lies.

    Environment: things that surround a given thing.

    = = = = = = = = =

    Basic Concepts: Thing, Connection/Space, Machine (to Eat/to Live - to Feed/to Work)

    A conscious machine has to be contained : Mushroom treatment (filters) or Laws of robotics

    John has an arm (body) and John has an apple. Are his arm and his apple so different?!
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I read a bit of what you wrote and I have to say I have no idea what the point of this thread is.
    O. W. Grant likes this.
  21. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Thank you, origin, for the honest post.

    “Language is the dress of thought.”
    Samuel Johnson


    - - -

    This tread deals with the dress (language) and speculates about thought (mind/consciousness).

    This is a sketch of consciousness.

    - - -

    Hubert L. Dreyfus - Is Consciousness Entirely Physical?

  22. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member

    Philosophers, mathematicians, computer scientists, engineers, ... and linguists.

    Language and Artificial Intelligence — David Adger
  23. O. W. Grant Registered Senior Member


    Miloš Forman, film director:

    1. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975);

    2. Amadeus (1984);

    3. Hair (1979);

    4. Man On the Moon (1999);

    5. The People Vs. Larry Flint (1996);

    6. Ragtime (1981);


    In an interview, Miloš Forman said (a paraphrase): Listen, you have to tell the truth. But try not to be boring. Because truth is boring.

    - - -

    There is a problem with building a conscious machine.

    Philosophers see it, linguists see it, people in the know see it and people in the "do" feel it.

    - - -

    The main ideas:

    allegory of the cave (Socrates and Plato);

    time and space are part of mind (Kant); today's "gods" have to "create" spaces: 0-d, 1-d, 2-d, 3-d, ...;
    /and actions, transactions, movements, .../

    Dependency grammar (Lucien Tesnière);

    /"simple sentence. 0-d space" (as a Dependency grammar):
    ////// Page 11 Space - (things, ... ) - "Logic";
    ////// /Space is" (Equiv.) "Logic".
    ////// /"Logic" - rules of Space
    ////// /there's space - there's "logic"/there's "logic" - there's space

    Transactional analysis (Eric Berne) (transactions (probably non_Genitive_is" as a "connection")).


    A great deal of work has been done for the past 30 - 25 hundred years.

    = = =

    Consider this:

    Transactional analysis (Eric Berne): (to Eat) Hunger: hunger_1; hunger_2; hunger_3; ... ;

    to Eat (reward) (in the broadest sense) is to Live;

    Environment: a space that contains a given thing. That thing feeds its Environment.

    Mushroom treatment: Environment "feeds" the given thing with lies.
    /A conscious machine has to be contained : Mushroom treatment (filters) or Laws of robotics

    Environment: things that surround a given thing.

    = = =

    Building conscious machine is building Life.

    = = =

    Reward is enough (reward = food)


    - - -

    3 Paths To AGI


Share This Page