They write ********. The * is above the 8 which is infinity on its side, meaning you’re gonna die instead. Crap.

They write ********.
The * is above the 8 which is infinity on its side, meaning you’re gonna die instead. Crap.

====

But despite being in the same category grammatically (for study), different languages use the direct object marker differently.

In Hindi, it would become “THE” and if this had been written in Hindi it would read:

“I AM THE I AM”.

But… it wasn’t written in Hindi, but Hebrew, which despite performing a SIMILAR grammatical function, it’s not identical.

https://hindilanguage.info/hindi-grammar/postpositions/ko/

====

Despite Chomsky’s earlier wishes, I don’t think there is a Universal Grammar.

We can get to “similar” but not same.

=====

I think it’s worthy that Google and others strive TOWARDS a UG as if it exists, as it has already proven to be a tremendous assist in translating across diverse languages.

But will it ever reach a full UG? No, not unless the underlying grammars of each language back-propagates to artifically ‘fit’ a UG framework, which I doubt will happen.

====

I think Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar and that which followed is probably the BEST course to go towards putting together a logical of grammar.

His treatment of English was spectacular at least for deciphering standard usage and it’s been brought into many other languages.

But it’s a SLOW and painful process as it has MANY layers – far more complicated than your standard neural network bothers with yet.

http://www.isfla.org/Systemics/definition.html

=====

and while Chomsky is married to AI (his work STARTED in the 1950s on and with Generation 1 AI and grew since), System Functional Grammar is a completely human work and the computer era has yet to put much of a dent in it.

=====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 8 = fifteen

Leave a Reply