The Line as the Foundation of Language

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4671
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

The Line as the Foundation of Language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:18 pm

The linear directive quality of the sentence gives precedence to the understanding of the sentence itself.

It also gives precedence to the formation of the words from letters.

And from letters, the actual symbolic form of the letter, and the corresponding frequencies which form the sounds.

All stemming from a single point...with the point being the axiom as the point is fully self-evident and subject to both a nature of quality and quantity while composing both quality and quantity as extensions of the point. The "point" as origin, synonymous and connected to the "axiom" as origin of intellect, effectively observes an inherent quality of reason due to is capacity of and for "measurement" where it provides a base foundation to the universal practical application of and abstract methodology of unity and multiplicity, where unity and multiplicity observes a foundation of all phenomenon through measurement.

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3400
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Line as the Foundation of Language

Post by attofishpi » Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:56 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:18 pm
The linear directive quality of the sentence gives precedence to the understanding of the sentence itself.

It also gives precedence to the formation of the words from letters.

And from letters, the actual symbolic form of the letter, and the corresponding frequencies which form the sounds.
It's interesting that the general alphabet used within Europe permits phonetics to the degree that I could read a paragraph written in German, or Spanish, and someone that is fluent in said dialects, could understand what I am reading, whereas, I wouldn't have barely a clue as to what the information contained within represented.

The generic form - of course there are exceptions, but in general, the generic form of the Alphabet is something to behold, and it is widely accepted by those not in the know, that it is a mere logical accident of phonetics, and indeed our European languages.

Try Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, and see if one could also read a paragraph permitting someone from one of those countries understand it.

The Alpha_Bet is generic to the point where the only logical conclusion is that a 3rd part intelligence created its backbone.

A piece I am working on.
Attachments
Forum_att_Vowel-of-the-Sage.jpg
Forum_att_Vowel-of-the-Sage.jpg (48.15 KiB) Viewed 775 times

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3400
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Line as the Foundation of Language

Post by attofishpi » Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:31 pm

Don't you attempt to analyse the minds of others, even if you think they (me) are a nob?

In other words, please respond to my proposal. :D

gaffo
Posts: 2330
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Line as the Foundation of Language

Post by gaffo » Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:39 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:18 pm
The linear directive quality of the sentence gives precedence to the understanding of the sentence itself.

It also gives precedence to the formation of the words from letters.

And from letters, the actual symbolic form of the letter, and the corresponding frequencies which form the sounds.

All stemming from a single point...with the point being the axiom as the point is fully self-evident and subject to both a nature of quality and quantity while composing both quality and quantity as extensions of the point. The "point" as origin, synonymous and connected to the "axiom" as origin of intellect, effectively observes an inherent quality of reason due to is capacity of and for "measurement" where it provides a base foundation to the universal practical application of and abstract methodology of unity and multiplicity, where unity and multiplicity observes a foundation of all phenomenon through measurement.
Sophistry noted.

Arabs - right to left
Japanese/chines - top to bottom

the latter do not read via phonetics BTW - but pictorially.

Latin is marginally left to right - but essentially directionless.

again. your Sophistry is duly noted.

gaffo
Posts: 2330
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Line as the Foundation of Language

Post by gaffo » Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:53 am

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:18 pm
The linear directive quality of the sentence gives precedence to the understanding of the sentence itself.

It also gives precedence to the formation of the words from letters.

And from letters, the actual symbolic form of the letter, and the corresponding frequencies which form the sounds.
It's interesting that the general alphabet used within Europe permits phonetics to the degree that I could read a paragraph written in German, or Spanish, and someone that is fluent in said dialects, could understand what I am reading, whereas, I wouldn't have barely a clue as to what the information contained within represented.
due to historical happenstance of the Roman Empire making the latin alphabet king of europe.

Northern Indian languages have a similar theme.
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:56 am
The generic form - of course there are exceptions, but in general, the generic form of the Alphabet is something to behold, and it is widely accepted by those not in the know, that it is a mere logical accident of phonetics, and indeed our European languages.
yep, just historical happenstance.

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:56 am
Try Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, and see if one could also read a paragraph permitting someone from one of those countries understand it.
Chinese (which Mandarin or Cantonese?) and Japanese are pictoral languages.

this is how a Cantonese can read the same book (in his mind he is speaking it in Cantonese phonetically), while the Mandarin is do the same - i,e, both can read the same book fully - yet cannot talk to each other.

thus the nature a spoken languages that use pictorgraphs.

BTW China has adopted the Latin Alphabet to their Mandarin language - technically (i.e they built the system in the 1960s) - but few have bothered to learn it.

.............

there are many phontic alphabets outside of ours. Indians have at least 20, persians have thiers (32 letters) - and its the same as the Arabs (who have 3 less letters than Persians).

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 3400
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: The Line as the Foundation of Language

Post by attofishpi » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:38 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:56 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:18 pm
The linear directive quality of the sentence gives precedence to the understanding of the sentence itself.

It also gives precedence to the formation of the words from letters.

And from letters, the actual symbolic form of the letter, and the corresponding frequencies which form the sounds.
It's interesting that the general alphabet used within Europe permits phonetics to the degree that I could read a paragraph written in German, or Spanish, and someone that is fluent in said dialects, could understand what I am reading, whereas, I wouldn't have barely a clue as to what the information contained within represented.
due to historical happenstance of the Roman Empire making the latin alphabet king of europe.

Northern Indian languages have a similar theme.
Oh, thanks.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:56 am
The generic form - of course there are exceptions, but in general, the generic form of the Alphabet is something to behold, and it is widely accepted by those not in the know, that it is a mere logical accident of phonetics, and indeed our European languages.
yep, just historical happenstance.
My point is, the global common protocol for human communication is English, and that a 3rd party entity, via the minds of man has constructed it into its present state.

gaffo wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:53 am
attofishpi wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:56 am
Try Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, and see if one could also read a paragraph permitting someone from one of those countries understand it.
Chinese (which Mandarin or Cantonese?) and Japanese are pictoral languages.

this is how a Cantonese can read the same book (in his mind he is speaking it in Cantonese phonetically), while the Mandarin is do the same - i,e, both can read the same book fully - yet cannot talk to each other.

thus the nature a spoken languages that use pictorgraphs.

BTW China has adopted the Latin Alphabet to their Mandarin language - technically (i.e they built the system in the 1960s) - but few have bothered to learn it.
Yes, but understand my main point, that the alphabet used in English is constructed (3rd party - 'God') (hard to chew for atheists)
..notice the picture of the pentagram above, the alphabet has symmetry between the consonants and vowels in its 26 character order.

Dichotomy and anomolies within the words of the English language that most certainly are beyond natural etymology, have been construed by the 3rd party as I state in the thread:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=25180

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:56 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:53 am
there are many phontic alphabets outside of ours. Indians have at least 20, persians have thiers (32 letters) - and its the same as the Arabs (who have 3 less letters than Persians).
I have no doubt they do, thanks.
Last edited by attofishpi on Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4671
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Line as the Foundation of Language

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Oct 14, 2018 6:13 pm

gaffo wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:39 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:18 pm
The linear directive quality of the sentence gives precedence to the understanding of the sentence itself.

It also gives precedence to the formation of the words from letters.

And from letters, the actual symbolic form of the letter, and the corresponding frequencies which form the sounds.

All stemming from a single point...with the point being the axiom as the point is fully self-evident and subject to both a nature of quality and quantity while composing both quality and quantity as extensions of the point. The "point" as origin, synonymous and connected to the "axiom" as origin of intellect, effectively observes an inherent quality of reason due to is capacity of and for "measurement" where it provides a base foundation to the universal practical application of and abstract methodology of unity and multiplicity, where unity and multiplicity observes a foundation of all phenomenon through measurement.
Sophistry noted.

Arabs - right to left
Japanese/chines - top to bottom

the latter do not read via phonetics BTW - but pictorially.

Latin is marginally left to right - but essentially directionless.

again. your Sophistry is duly noted.
It is less a question of sophistry but rather the manner of interpretation necessitates a directive quality. While some cultures may read left to right, while some others read in an opposite manner, the qualities of language exist through direction as a means of interpretation.

Some cultures observes reading/writing from left to right as a projection away from the self. Other cultures, I want to say the Jews but my memory is short in this regard, believe that right to left directs the statement towards the heart of the individual and helps embody it.

Is has little to do, actually nothing at all with sophistry, but rather that language necessitates a linear direction which allows it to act as a defined.

The top to bottom nature of the Asian cultures still necessitates this linear format.

This nature of the sentence composed of the axioms has a parallel with the line being composed of points. Considering the line is composed of points directed through points, where the point in itself is meaningless, the same form and function applies to the axiom where the axiom does not exist on its own terms unless directed to further axioms.

ONE axiom inverts to many and this progressive structure to the axiom gives it meaning. The same applies to the point to the line. Both observe qualities determined by there direction so to speak and effectively exists as one in the same as limits of definition.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests