[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
>> No.21802882 [View]
File: 1.97 MB, 640x360, anton.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

A basic morpheme is a morpheme the meaning of which cannot be explicated by any other morphemes. If a language has a collection of morphemes that can be fully explicated by another collection of morphemes within the language, and we have the option to choose which of the two sets a hypothetical interpretant is capable of basically correlating to the qualia of the morphemes, then it is arbitrary which set we choose since either can be understood from the other. But this implies that all the morphemes in each set are manifolds, and thus none of them are truly basic morphemes if the interpretant possesses the capability to create new morphemes for the monads he perceives, as the monads perceived by this interpretant would not be named at all within the language if it consisted of only these two sets. It must be made obvious that in a language with morphemes for any potentially existent qualia, there are infinite basic morphemes, because there are infinite monads or potential qualia and a monad is not what it is relative to any other thing, thus it cannot be explicated in terms of any morphemes besides the morpheme correlated to it. This is phenomenologically observed in the utter irreconcilability of the visual stimuli and tactile stimuli, and though the stimuli pick up associations that can lend them a synesthetic quality, these associations are not essential to the monadic character of the qualia as they are perceived by us, whether it can be broken down into constituents or not, for even if a qualia can be explicated in terms of a manifold from the perspective of one interpretant but not from the perspective of another, then the latter interpretant still experiences it as a monad and therefore it exists as a monad potentially (note that an interpretant who can break the qualia we experience as monads down into manifolds is possibly present within our own subconscious). Thus we label these qualia "discrete." Now, it is clear that a relation can itself be named, that is, correlated to a morpheme. If a hypothetical interpretant in possession of a hypothetical infinite morphology is assumed, that is, one who can cognize and name every potential qualia, whether it be a color perceived by humans or a color perceived only by the mantis shrimp, then is every relation in his language explicable in terms of basic morphemes, or will some relations have to be correlated to basic morphemes? Suppose that no relation possesses a basic morpheme in an infinite language. Then what is a relation? For clearly, relations will not be distinguishable from nouns and verbs, if they are to be built from them in the infinite language. Yet how can you build a relation from nouns and verbs if you will have to relate them to build anything at all?

View posts [+24] [+48] [+96]