The Theory of Sentencoids

The place to discuss learning languages

The Theory of Sentencoids

Postby Jac_Haw » Tue 02 Jul 2013 10:38 pm

Hello Dear Forum Members!

My name is Jacek and I am a person who enjoys “exploring” the English language. I have done my own research and achieved very interesting results. The paper that describes the “theory of sentencoids” consists of 102 pages. The theoretical part consists of 30 pages.

Any kind of feedback would be appreciated

Please forgive me any errors, small ones and big ones. English is not my native language.
Thank you.

PS.

You can contact me via this forum or via my email—see the last page of my paper.
Jac_Haw
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 12:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Sentencoids

Postby Jac_Haw » Tue 02 Jul 2013 10:40 pm

Oh, I guess my paper (pdf format) cannot be attached. Ok, we must wait—A link will be addded. Then, we can discuss the theory.
Jac_Haw
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 12:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Sentencoids

Postby Jac_Haw » Wed 03 Jul 2013 6:08 pm

Ok, you can download my paper from my Dropbox account:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pnb0ufeks66ex ... ncoids.pdf
Jac_Haw
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 12:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Sentencoids

Postby linguoboy » Wed 03 Jul 2013 10:36 pm

Have you ever read an account of syntax, particularly as applied to English? I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding why you've chosen the approach you have and what previously unaddressed problem(s) you think it solves.
english*deutsch*nederlands*català*castellano*gaelainn*cymraeg*français*svenska*韓國말*漢語
linguoboy
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 9:02 am

Re: The Theory of Sentencoids

Postby Jac_Haw » Thu 04 Jul 2013 7:48 pm

Hello linguoboy,

1. I do not claim that I have totally solved the problem that gave the birth to the theory, but I think I have made an interesting approach, that may be helpful in the process of learning English. I am still not 100% sure where to use the definite article and where to use an indefinite article, but my idea is to turn this problem upside down.

2. This is important—For the English native speakers the Latin alphabet and English the things presented here are clear, but for the people that are not familiarized with the Latin alphabet and English these aspects may seem unclear and strange. My aim was, and still is, to help them.

3. Try to put yourself into the situation of the people mentioned here. Now image that you see the following sentence:

(1) Monica works in the Police.

What you do ?

You want to change (“morph”—in the terms of the theory of sentencoids) the first name “Monica” into the first name “Tina,” so the sentence will describe your (hypothetical) friend that works in the Police.

(2) Tina works in the Police.

Everything is OK, the sentence (2) is grammatically correct.

4. Now you are moving forward—You want to morph the word “Police” into the proper noun: “National Aeronautics and Space Administration”:

(3) Tina works in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.”

Again, everything is OK, the sentence is grammatically correct. However, you have noticed something—The new sentence is much longer now.

Has your sentence really changed so much ?

It may look strange, but NOT. Your new sentence (3) is still “equal” to the previous sentence (2). So this is a paradox—The new sentence (3) contains more words, if compared with the previous sentence (2) however, it has not changed a lot. You have only changed one proper noun into other proper noun. The meaning of the sentence has not changed.

5. More complex example of language morphing:

(4) Tina really likes tennis.

The sentence (4) is grammatically correct. Now, we will morph the word “likes” into the word “hate”:

(5) Tina really hate tennis.

The sentence (5) is incorrect—The verb “hate” suggests that many people hate tennis, not only one person.

This example illustrates that language morphing has its limitations. You cannot change a word into other one, without respecting rules—like Subject-Verb Agreement in this case.

6. Tricky Phrasal Verbs

Phrasal verbs are tricky because a phrasal verb may consists of two or more words—a verb and a preposition, an adverb, or both of them. You cannot just morph a part of a phrasal verb, because the meaning of a sentence will become a nonsense (the pages 36-37 of the paper). That is why, the people who learn English as a second language should be very careful. It is very easy to make a mistake. For English native speakers this question is obvious.

I hope this explains the basics of the theory. If any aspects of the theory are unclear, please inform me.
Jac_Haw
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2012 12:07 pm

Re: The Theory of Sentencoids

Postby linguoboy » Fri 05 Jul 2013 3:48 pm

Okay, I'll take that as a "no".
english*deutsch*nederlands*català*castellano*gaelainn*cymraeg*français*svenska*韓國말*漢語
linguoboy
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sun 19 Apr 2009 9:02 am

Re: The Theory of Sentencoids

Postby Dan_ad_nauseam » Fri 05 Jul 2013 9:52 pm

Jac_Haw wrote:Hello linguoboy,

1. I do not claim that I have totally solved the problem that gave the birth to the theory, but I think I have made an interesting approach, that may be helpful in the process of learning English. I am still not 100% sure where to use the definite article and where to use an indefinite article, but my idea is to turn this problem upside down.

2. This is important—For the English native speakers the Latin alphabet and English the things presented here are clear, but for the people that are not familiarized with the Latin alphabet and English these aspects may seem unclear and strange. My aim was, and still is, to help them.

3. Try to put yourself into the situation of the people mentioned here. Now image that you see the following sentence:

(1) Monica works in the Police.

What you do ?

You want to change (“morph”—in the terms of the theory of sentencoids) the first name “Monica” into the first name “Tina,” so the sentence will describe your (hypothetical) friend that works in the Police.

(2) Tina works in the Police.

Everything is OK, the sentence (2) is grammatically correct.

4. Now you are moving forward—You want to morph the word “Police” into the proper noun: “National Aeronautics and Space Administration”:

(3) Tina works in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.”

Again, everything is OK, the sentence is grammatically correct. However, you have noticed something—The new sentence is much longer now.

Has your sentence really changed so much ?

It may look strange, but NOT. Your new sentence (3) is still “equal” to the previous sentence (2). So this is a paradox—The new sentence (3) contains more words, if compared with the previous sentence (2) however, it has not changed a lot. You have only changed one proper noun into other proper noun. The meaning of the sentence has not changed.

5. More complex example of language morphing:

(4) Tina really likes tennis.

The sentence (4) is grammatically correct. Now, we will morph the word “likes” into the word “hate”:

(5) Tina really hate tennis.

The sentence (5) is incorrect—The verb “hate” suggests that many people hate tennis, not only one person.

This example illustrates that language morphing has its limitations. You cannot change a word into other one, without respecting rules—like Subject-Verb Agreement in this case.

6. Tricky Phrasal Verbs

Phrasal verbs are tricky because a phrasal verb may consists of two or more words—a verb and a preposition, an adverb, or both of them. You cannot just morph a part of a phrasal verb, because the meaning of a sentence will become a nonsense (the pages 36-37 of the paper). That is why, the people who learn English as a second language should be very careful. It is very easy to make a mistake. For English native speakers this question is obvious.

I hope this explains the basics of the theory. If any aspects of the theory are unclear, please inform me.


Your name suggests that your first language is Polish, which may be the source of some of your confusion.

English is much more divergent from proto-IE than most IE languages, and Polish appears to have conserved much more of the case morphology. This means that English syntax requires a substantially different approach than Polish, and probably means that your model needs to be rethought in light of corrections to your data.

1. Polish does not have articles; English does. The general rule in English is that a previously specified noun, or a categorical use (as opposed to a generic use), will usually (but not always) take the definite article:

The [previously specified] dog has a black spot on its back.
The dog is a common companion animal.

But:

A dog has four legs.
* A dog has a black spot on its back.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by the importance of the Latin alphabet. English has a series of important digraphs to represent some consonants, and some dipthongs are represented by one letter in some circumstances:

sh -> [ʃ]
i -> [aj] or [i] or [ɪ], in most circumstances

This will affect your count.

3. Your examples here use the wrong prepositions.

* Monica works in the police.
Monica works for the police.
Monica works in the police station.

4. "National Aeronautics and Space Administration," in English, is a noun phrase that processes as:

(National (Aeronautics and Space)) Administration.

5. Your love/hate distinction is in error. Third person singular verbs generally inflect as stem+[s/z] (assimilating to voicing), written stem+s.

*Tina really hate tennis.
Tina really hates tennis.

6. I think you've misunderstood how phrasal verbs work in English. The examples you give can morph into the proposed sentences, without changing the meaning, by only inflecting the verb, Changing the adverbs as you suggest alters the meaning, and there's no reason to make those changes.
Dan_ad_nauseam
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat 18 Apr 2009 5:25 am


Return to Language learning

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron