A language which doesn't mark a prepositional phrase for which noun it's modifying is simply retarded.If someone asks for an X-Ray of a Kangaroo with three legs, a sophisticated language would tell you if they mean LEFT: An X-Ray (of a Kangaroo with three legs) or RIGHT: An X-Ray of a Kangaroo (with three legs).
Name 3 languages that marks them.
>>24711735I'd like an x-ray of a three-legged kangaroo.I'd like a three-legged x-ray of a kangaroo.I'd like an x-ray of a kagaroo, and a side of three legs, please.
context bitch, do you know it
Bump
>t. hates fun
>>24711788Is the context bitch something like the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy?
>>24711735Context
>>24712129Caveman cope
>>24712123clearly he can't mean "the context bitch" or else he would've used she instead of ityou see, it really is all about context
>>24712140My point was that he could have meant that and was just respecting its pronouns. Really my point was to have fun with language in the hopes some anon would run with it, would be lit instead of autistic. /lit/ could use a visit from the context bitch, especially OP.
>>24712140Thats not context, it's literally a marker, it vs she.
>>24712147>t. Dr Lexus
>>24712155I do not understand your pop culture reference.
>>24712161https://youtu.be/l7ICZHPPTtY
>>24712164A TRANNY! You could also use a visit from the context bitch. Did not watch it, your context seems very limited and myopic, uninteresting. Could be wrong, there could be some subtly in your reference but I don't really care much about video and this site has left me a bit jaded regarding the people on this site and I can't help but think you got triggered and stopped reading at "pronouns."
>>24712173>Did not watch itAnd I did not read past this phrase. Kys homo.
>>24711735An X-ray of a kangaroo which has three legsAn X-ray of a kangaroo, along with three legs
>>24712140"Bitch" can also refer to a female dog, and those can be "it".
>>24711770I think he's talking about languages like Greek, German and Georgian where adpositions govern specific cases. That's what lets you say things like "magna cum laude" in Latin. It's literally "great with praise," but because "magna" is ablative, it can only go with "laude" despite the shuffled word order, so the meaning has to be "with great praise." The Phineas and Ferb joke has more to do with English and its flexible "with" that can be used adnominally. Georgian and Classical Latin (Old Latin is different) don't generally have adnominal adpositional phrases at all, so, e.g., Georgian would have>sampexa (three-legged) ḳengurus (kangaroo-genitive) renṭgenograma (x-ray) "a three-legged kangaroo's x-ray" (which you can also say in English, though it might sound like the kangaroo owns the x-ray)or>ḳengurus (kangaroo-genitive) renṭgenograma (x-ray) sami (three) pexit (leg(s)-instrumental) "an x-ray of a kangaroo along with three legs" (which you can also say in English)The "sami pexit" is syntactically adverbial like the English "along with" (which is why you can move it around, "give me, along with three legs, an x-ray of a kangaroo"). German and Greek, despite marking nouns governed by prepositions for case, should allow the same ambiguity with "mit" and μετά because they also allow adnominal prepositional phrases, but in those languages you should be able to resolve it again with an article, e.g., (my German isn't great, but this should be right)>eine (an (nominative)) Röntgenfotografie (x-ray (nominative)) von (of) einem (a (dative)) Känguru (kangaroo (dative)), einem (one (dative)) mit (with) drei (three) Beine (legs) "an x-ray of a kangaroo, one with three legs"In English there would still be a technical ambiguity because it could be "an x-ray, one with three legs," but in German the "one" can only refer to "Känguru" because they're both dative (they're also both neuter while "Röntgenfotografie" is grammatically feminine).
>>24711735doesnt the "with" imply a modifier to the kangaroo? if it were a separate object wouldn't you tend to use "and"
>>24711735LEFT:>An X-Ray of a Kangaroo with three legs.RIGHT:>An X-Ray of a Kangaroo, with three legs.See the comma?
>>24712943Took 10 hours for someone to notice that, one anon got close but not quite. Kind of sad that /lit/ can't into dependent clauses and grammar school grammar.
>>24712951Can’t what into?
>>24714143It's a meme, you dip.
>>24712943>>24712951>muh commas!Not a substitute, basically the equivalent of glueing a BMW badge on the hood of your Nissan shitbox.
>>24715297Commas are part of written language. They reflect differences in intonation. The thing is, speech is primary, writing is ultimately just notation. For example, it's been said that>Do you want coffee or tea?is ambiguous between "do you want either of coffee or tea" or "between coffee or tea, which do you want". But if the former sense is meant you'd say it with a rise in pitch at the end, while in the latter sense it would have a fall. In other words, it's not really the same sentence at all, it's two different sentences that the writing system fails to mark the distinction between. Am I making sense here?
>>24715260I’m no dip. You are a dip. A Big Dipper in fact. Big spangle of stars you are. Gay ass stars blinking like a turning signal you forgot to switch off. Fuck you! Are you turning left or not? Stay centered in your lane. Now you’re merging. Merging and moaning and dying and when you look into the fire between all fires you understand that you had seen nothing but mere embers throughout the slow turning of your life and only now is the flame entire before you and the coals paled and deepened and paled and deepened like some animal left eviscerate on your front lawn . Grab a shovel you fat bastaaaaaaredd and throw that shit on your neighbor’s porch. Or Porsche.
>>24715311>t. can't into
>>24715307Yes, but this thread is comparing English to sophisticated languages, either actual languages which are more sophisticated than English, or hypothetical languages that would be more sophisticated than English as a thought experiment. Both intonation and commas are a cheap copy of what a sophisticated language does with inflections etc. English is a grammatically poor language, and its heavy dependence of intonation and commas is a testament to this fact, both of which, again, are not examples of language sophistication, but instead just a cope.
>>24715321Your a skunk in a trunk turning black white and Red. Put some cologne on
>>24715311Work on your substance to word ratio, at present it is horribly low, pure empty verbosity, try some thread that's into that shit, this thread is not the place.These guys are into that thing: >>24707466
>>24715327One natural human language is not objectively more sophisticated than another.t. degree in linguistics.
>>24715337You're that pseud who couldn't construct an argument if your life depended on it.
>>24715335>Work on your substance to word ratio; at present it is horribly low—pure empty verbosity. Try a thread that's into that shit, this is not the place.FTFYESL symptoms: overuse of commas and repetition of the same nouns. Prognosis: HELLO SAAAR
>>24715340Which pseud? I haven't been active on this thread much.
Let's ask chatgpt, it's always more helpful than the brainwashed and brain-dead linguistics faggots on this board.>Are there any languages which mark prepositional phrases for which noun they are modifying?1/2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifierhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguityhttps://youtu.be/-OuEZSDus5g
>>247153602/2
>>24715360>>24715361You'd be stupid to trust anything it tells you without any external verification.
>>24715351Not talking about this thread. You're the retard here>>24681861>>24715362Any source is better than you. You just waste people's time. Fuck off back to your indoctrination center.
>>24715370Because of course you know better than an entire academic field, based on... what exactly?
>>24715376He’s what you call an auto-asphyxiatedidactHe a smarty pants
>>24715376Study logic, you need it.
>>24715384Elaborate. How does the study of logic tell you you know better than an entire academic field?
I will now proceed to post some links and materials for people who want to learn more about this subject. Feel free to add to the list.https://youtu.be/8I72ptEOgughttps://youtu.be/fREgfDIlSPchttps://amateurlogician.com/concepts/https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt (table of contents in picrel)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_of_Logic
>>24715392It doesn't, nor did I say that. All I said is you should study logic and need to study logic. You should study logic and need to study logic because you know absolutely nothing about argumentation. Fuck off and don't come back until you know basic logic.
>>24715405I’m studying LOGIC but all I’m geting is Bad Muzak and that he’s bi racial. He says the word a lot and I don’t think he should say it. In fact I would prefer him to be racist: pretending to be black is More Offensive
>>24715396thanks
>>24711735Can I get an X-ray of that/this 3 legged Kangaroo? I want an X-ray of this 3 legged Kangaroo
>>24715396What are the merits of learning logic outside of an academic philosophy or mathematics setting?
>>24711735This problem is generally solved by not being a retard on purpose
>>24716759Grammar, logic and rhetoric (the trivium/critical thinking) are the tools of thought, how to think. It benefits everyone to learn how to think better. When I say logic I mean grammar, logic and rhetoric as a unified system, these subjects are interconnected and were taught as one subject in the past. Logic deals primarily with language. Studying logic benefits you in all aspects of life where language is involved, primarily in determining if information you are getting contains arguments, what exactly the arguments are and whether or not you ought to be persuaded by them. It turns you into picrel. And conversely it also makes you better at constructing arguments and persuading others.
>>24715396Summa Logicae (Sum of Logic) by William of OckhamLibgen has book 1 and book 2 (of the 3 books) translated to English.https://libgen.li/index.php?req=summa+logicaebelow are two download links, but in the link above there are other links to Anna's archive etc if those are betterbook 1https://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=d998729be33714aadd713afe0bd568a2book 2https://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=2b72ffd298f335c194cc230a7c084e44here's another translation of parts of book 1http://www.pvspade.com/Logic/docs/ockham.pdfand parts of book 3http://pvspade.com/Logic/docs/OckhamInsolubilia.pdffull text in latin, partially in Englishhttps://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicaethe article about the bookhttps://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Summa_Logicae_(Ockham)especially relevant to this thread is book 3, part 4 (wikipedia says VI but that must be a typo), "on fallacies", see picrelhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_of_Logic#Part_VI._On_Fallacies_(in_18_chapters)you can click the wikipedia links and read themand you can also read thishttps://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_III-4especially relevant for this thread is "amphiboly" (syntactic ambiguity), which chapters 5-7 are aboutchapter 5https://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_III-4/Chapter_5chapter 6https://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_III-4/Chapter_6chapter 7https://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_III-4/Chapter_7
>>24715396Logic, the Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After Truth, by Isaac Watts is from 1724https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Watts#Logic_and_sciencehere's a video series based on that book, and an abridged book version of it, both made by the same guy and apparently the video series and the abridged book have the same contenthttps://www.youtube.com/@informedchristians6982/videoshttps://youtu.be/m8MyllahXgwhttps://www.amazon.com/Logic-Abridged-Isaac-Watts-ebook/dp/B006SLZHH6Summa Logicae by William of Ockham is from 1323the much more recent book which he is reading from in the youtube link I posted there (https://youtu.be/fREgfDIlSPc) is Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft from 2003that book is herehttps://archive.org/details/peter-kreeft-socratic-logic
>>24718003Amateur Logician also has other videos about Peter Kreeft's Socratic Logic on his youtube channel. His website and youtube channel have a ton of stuff.amateurlogician.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@AmateurLogicianHere are all the videos I could find about Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft on Amateur Logician's youtube channel sorted from oldest to most recent.Nov 14, 2023 https://youtu.be/-CUcYOT2BzcNov 24, 2023 https://youtu.be/_0-EM6hr4IcDec 6, 2023 https://youtu.be/fREgfDIlSPcDec 29, 2023 https://youtu.be/Ug4IdNt0mfkFeb 19, 2024 https://youtu.be/lvB7J8gphSwFeb 23, 2024 https://youtu.be/MJy7a7_H83gApr 2, 2024 https://youtu.be/KCag3jyc1o8Apr 29, 2024 https://youtu.be/bmeOyIMDvXkJul 3, 2024 https://youtu.be/--ZcD6Odm-4Jul 4, 2024 https://youtu.be/ajEXwvfriE8Jul 26, 2024 https://youtu.be/vVYconX8lzQSep 15, 2024 https://youtu.be/SAqSxwY4cecJune 26, 2025 https://youtu.be/Z3k7eLRiwOIhis website also has text posts about ithttps://amateurlogician.com/?s=peter+kreeft
