|Features of reality easily
"s" to the end of a word. Possibly the simplest and most
rule in the English language. (It's a bit more varied in German,
the world more easily with a couple suffices than you can slip bronze,
silver, or gold medals around the necks of most adjectives.
differentiates between past, present, and future, and even a few
on these. We aren't more specific than that, however, so there is
no indication whether a sentence refers to something that occurred this
morning or if it predates the cooling of the Earth's crust. What
does seem to be important is whether an action is concluded, in
or will happen some time from now. Why this matters is the degree
of preparedness required on the part of the listener. In the
case, it's just too late. There's nothing that can be done to
the past. On the other hand, an action in progress means action
be taken swiftly. This is as opposed to the future tense in which
action may be taken with more forethought.
Who? Parts of
speech are divided
into first person singular, generic second person (could be singular or
plural; this is ambiguous in English), third person singular, and third
person plural. (Note: Spanish includes a distinction between
and plural second person in the formal conjugation.)
this quality universally. In some there isn't even a neutral
It's rare that the ambiguous "it" is used where people are concerned,
where the gender is unknown (e.g., it is considered rude by some to
to an unborn baby as "it"). In modern times, plural second person
(i.e., "they") is invoked in English where the gender of a singular
is unknown (e.g., "They might be a man or possibly a woman").
This section originally
additional examples addressing the hypothesis stated above.
this section was lost at some point. I was posting the contents
this page on separate occasions as I found the time to finish each
I rarely lose text due to frequent backups and multiple parallel copies
on separate media. Unfortunately, I never tracked down any drafts
of Part II. I will have to reconstruct this from scratch as I no
longer remember any of the examples I outlined in it.
not addressed by the syntax
Conversely, some things
(to me) not addressed by the syntax:
Age. The closest we get
this is with formal vs. informal speech, but these can be invoked even
in cases in which age is not relevant. In general, age acquires
but that isn't all that's involved.
individual terms and conventions for establishing connections by blood
(e.g., "mother," "brother," "daughter") or marriage (i.e., add "in-law"
to end of the term for the equivalent blood relationship), but these
embedded in the syntax, just in the vocabulary, although one could make
the case that first-person plural and second- and third-person states
the very least create an us vs. them (or "you people") condition akin
pun intended) to family groupings.
are no parts of speech to indicate where things occurred, even
the extent of "near" vs. "far" or "here" vs. "there." By
"who" and "when" are immediately conveyed by the conjugation. The
question of "what" (if applicable) involves specific naming of the
object, although if there is a distinct reflexive tense in a given
(e.g., as is the case in Spanish), that can be enough to establish who
is on the receiving end of the verb. "How" requires the inclusion
of an adverb and, as with the question of "what," requires that
to be established from hundreds (or thousands) of choices within the
But "where" is not implicit in the language nor does there see to be
place for it. For example, "The lion killed the tiger" tells us
this already happened, the tiger is dead, the lion is the responsible
(assuming a civil suit). Adverbs could be included to improve the
clarity of the action if necessary (It doesn't cry out for it in this
but we have no indication that this was a mishap at the zoo rather than
a Sigfried and Roy show.