To have a comparison, something is being compared to something else. The system of grammar is a carrier of meaning even regardless of words chosen. I have a bias. I read through Michael Halliday’s “Introduction to Functional Grammar” on a whim one night, cover to cover. Took me about 7 hours, 3 at night, 4 when I got it (it was a weekend). I was fascinated at all of the functional work done by grammar itself at negotiating meaning, long before words and definitions enter the page. Grammar functions at a deeper level than semantics, which is a layer on top of grammar. So, that’s the bias I’m speaking from.

To have a comparison, [read full article]


Nominalization is a useful feature of English and many other languages. It turns verbs into nouns. But, the context of the discussion I pulled this from, I was arguing that an eternal platonic comparison is not possible, as comparison is an action and actions need time to operate. In the platonic realm of Forms, there is no change, no time, no action. Standard logic and much of mathematics operates in this realm, ignoring the computation effort and time required to solve. So, an “eternal comparison” is not possible.

Nominalization is a useful [read full article]


I wrote this and I like it even out of context: Critical to remember is that “comparison” is nominalization of the action of comparing. Comparing is action. Action is change. Action occurs over time. You _could_ consider “being” an action but if it is being without start or finish, birth or death and is eternal, no action takes place. No comparison is possible because comparison is comparing, which is an action, which always takes place across time.

I wrote this and … [read full article]