Posted by Kazper at 3:35pm Dec 29 '07I try to not be rash but it should be my middle name. (I'm annoying.)
Yeah. I think it's true that an ideological party can't fully... encompass the ideologies of all its members. So, it may be kinda arbitrary to have so many different types of parties. I don't know... If people all followed some general principles and didn't let their personal ideologies interfere in a... negative, unthinking way then I think we wouldn't have to worry about a crazy majority always forcing their way...
The sentence categories that words fill within a definition are the sentence categories they fill... within that definition. When their context (situation/position relative to other words) changes so can the sentence categories that they fill. The place structure word: [in time of past and in time of middle of] following a subject/s creates the context where the two "ins" are general possessive heads (predicate heads, I guess, in established linguistic terminology) and what follows them are narrower tails (general possessive tails). "time of past" is completely enclosed whereas "time of middle of" is not since it's not complete. If the same place structure word follows a subject head then a narrower tail (subject tail) opener precedes it and within it "time of past" and "time of middle of" are opened and closed with ambiguity solver enclosers, with the latter not being enclosed until it's complete. So, sentence category indicator words, no matter which are present in a definition, are not... static.
[subject] [in (time of past) and in (time of middle of]...)
[subject head] ([in ((time of past)) and in ((time of middle of]...)))
(:/ even I'm confused a little. lol.)
I think the difference between periphrastic phrases and compound words is that the... one meaning of a periphrastic phrase is made with components that do not literally equal the meaning. ex: J'ai mange (there's an acute accent on the final e) literally means (because of the component words): I have [to eat] but... periphrastically means: I ate. (Periphrastics- are not fantastic! ::shrugs::) (... It's also possible that this distinction is not recognized and that "periphrastic phrase" is only the official linguistic term for compound/complex words...)
Something which I'm pretty sure has to be known but nonetheless I had to discover myself (so I thought I'd share) is that words like "creation" are an inflected (affixed) form of "create" which indicates that the word (creation) is a direct object of the word (verb, in this case) "create". "Employee" should be the direct object of "employ". I think the difference in inflection (in this case) is to indicate that the direct object is also a person. I don't think I'll make this distinction in my language and I'll also consistenly use one suffix. I don't thik I'll make a distinction between direct objects of prepositions and direct objects of verbs as well.
Shawn [in time of present and in time of middle of] (Shawn create joy)
Joy [in time of present and in time of middle of] (joy equal creation of create of Shawn)
I think a brevity scheme is being employed when we say just: creation of shawn. We understand that "create" is there because the affixed word is very similar to the unaffixed word (or something like that).
"tall, short, wide, long, fast, slow" I think are [range] words. They are general words representing... a set of values between two particular values. Short could be 0 meters - 1 meter, tall could be 1 meter - 10 meters (however you wanna do it).
x1 is tall.
x1 [in time of present and in time of middle of] (x1 height equal tall).
Height of x1 [in time of present and in time of middle of] (height of x1 equal tall).
The lack of skill at doing something can be the cause of fear of doing the something which can perpetuate the lack of skill at doing the something which can increase the fear of doing the something...
I think abjads and abugidas are brevity schemes. Using a dot, for example, in a particular position relative to a consonant saves you the space that a full vowel grapheme would take up as well as saving you the trouble of coming up with full distinct vowel graphemes, as the position relative to a consonant of the one symbol distinguishes the different vowels. (... Check Shorthand on wikipedia and you'll see, like I just did, that some of the brevity schemes employ what I said.)
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Yeah. I think it's true that an ideological party can't fully... encompass the ideologies of all its members. So, it may be kinda arbitrary to have so many different types of parties. I don't know... If people all followed some general principles and didn't let their personal ideologies interfere in a... negative, unthinking way then I think we wouldn't have to worry about a crazy majority always forcing their way...
The sentence categories that words fill within a definition are the sentence categories they fill... within that definition. When their context (situation/position relative to other words) changes so can the sentence categories that they fill. The place structure word: [in time of past and in time of middle of] following a subject/s creates the context where the two "ins" are general possessive heads (predicate heads, I guess, in established linguistic terminology) and what follows them are narrower tails (general possessive tails). "time of past" is completely enclosed whereas "time of middle of" is not since it's not complete. If the same place structure word follows a subject head then a narrower tail (subject tail) opener precedes it and within it "time of past" and "time of middle of" are opened and closed with ambiguity solver enclosers, with the latter not being enclosed until it's complete. So, sentence category indicator words, no matter which are present in a definition, are not... static.
[subject] [in (time of past) and in (time of middle of]...)
[subject head] ([in ((time of past)) and in ((time of middle of]...)))
(:/ even I'm confused a little. lol.)
I think the difference between periphrastic phrases and compound words is that the... one meaning of a periphrastic phrase is made with components that do not literally equal the meaning. ex: J'ai mange (there's an acute accent on the final e) literally means (because of the component words): I have [to eat] but... periphrastically means: I ate. (Periphrastics- are not fantastic! ::shrugs::) (... It's also possible that this distinction is not recognized and that "periphrastic phrase" is only the official linguistic term for compound/complex words...)
Something which I'm pretty sure has to be known but nonetheless I had to discover myself (so I thought I'd share) is that words like "creation" are an inflected (affixed) form of "create" which indicates that the word (creation) is a direct object of the word (verb, in this case) "create". "Employee" should be the direct object of "employ". I think the difference in inflection (in this case) is to indicate that the direct object is also a person. I don't think I'll make this distinction in my language and I'll also consistenly use one suffix. I don't thik I'll make a distinction between direct objects of prepositions and direct objects of verbs as well.
Shawn [in time of present and in time of middle of] (Shawn create joy)
Joy [in time of present and in time of middle of] (joy equal creation of create of Shawn)
I think a brevity scheme is being employed when we say just: creation of shawn. We understand that "create" is there because the affixed word is very similar to the unaffixed word (or something like that).
"tall, short, wide, long, fast, slow" I think are [range] words. They are general words representing... a set of values between two particular values. Short could be 0 meters - 1 meter, tall could be 1 meter - 10 meters (however you wanna do it).
x1 is tall.
x1 [in time of present and in time of middle of] (x1 height equal tall).
Height of x1 [in time of present and in time of middle of] (height of x1 equal tall).
The lack of skill at doing something can be the cause of fear of doing the something which can perpetuate the lack of skill at doing the something which can increase the fear of doing the something...
I think abjads and abugidas are brevity schemes. Using a dot, for example, in a particular position relative to a consonant saves you the space that a full vowel grapheme would take up as well as saving you the trouble of coming up with full distinct vowel graphemes, as the position relative to a consonant of the one symbol distinguishes the different vowels. (... Check Shorthand on wikipedia and you'll see, like I just did, that some of the brevity schemes employ what I said.)
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~