Words in Free TNIL inflect for many categories. This document enumerates those categories and their values.
Each root has three stems and four Derivations. Derivation selects a specific instantiation of a stem.
| Value | Description |
|---|---|
| Content | material, interiority, “spirit” |
| Form | shape, exteriority, “letter” |
| Process | activity, effort |
| Result | intent, purpose |
| Lexical Item | Content | Form | Process | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “fire” | (to be) on fire, something burning | (to be) a flame | to burn, burning | something burnt or heated by fire |
| “name” | named item | name as a symbol | naming, to (give a) name | identification |
| “word” | sense of a word | uttered/written/spoken/signed word | meaning, to mean | referent of a word |
| “stone” | stone (as material) | surface/shape of a stone | stone-forming process | something made of stone |
| “emotion” | experience an emotion | express an emotion | cause an emotion | psychological purpose of emotion or associated need/tendency |
| “machine” | machine | design of a machine | to construct a machine | result of using a machine |
| “disease” | disease-causing agent, pathogen | (to express) symptoms of a disease | to sicken, to cause disease | long term outcome, prognosis |
The “Organizational set” is a powerful way of expressing how a concept is instantiated in space and time. The organizational set is represented morphologically by a consonantal affix.
| Category | Values | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Number | 3 | How many items in the set? |
| Connectedness | 3 | How closely are the items arranged? |
| Composition | 2 | Are the items physically similar? |
| Dispostition | 4 | What is the use/purpose/intent of the items with respect to one another? |
| Distribution | 2 | Is the set as a whole being discussed, or each member separately? |
| Envelope | 12 | What part of the set (or its members) is under consideration? |
| Quantification | 2 | Is the speaker making an existential universal claim? |
| Vagueness | 2 | Is the main term being used strictly or not? |
Number, connectedness, and composition are tightly coupled with one another. The categories of connectedness and composition cannot apply to Singular sets. Consequently, for there are seven valid combinations of Number, Connectedness, Composition.
The 12 envelopes come in 2 series of six distinguished by whether they refer to space or time. 7*4*12*2*2*2=1344 values.
| homogeneous | dual | plural |
|---|---|---|
| separate | ||
| contiguous | ||
| fused | ||
| heterogeneous | dual | plural |
| separate | ||
| contiguous | ||
| fused |
How many instances are there?
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| Non-Count | mass nouns, (units irrelevant/undisclosed) |
| Singular | individual |
| Dual | pair |
| Plural | group |
How physically close are the instances?
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| Separate | separate |
| Contiguous | adjacent, touching |
| Fused | attached, combined |
Are there similarities of use, purpose, or condition among members of the set?
| Name | Definition |
|---|---|
| Ambivalent | unknown/irrelevant use/purpose |
| Oppositional | divided/conflicted use/purpose |
| Mutual | shared use/purpose |
| Synergetic | emergent use/purpose |
How varied are the members of the set?
| Name | Definition |
|---|---|
| Homogeneous | uniform members |
| Heterogeneous | diverse members |
Distribution governs whether operations are applied to individual items from a set or the set itself. Another way to think about Distribution: Conjunctive Distribution singularizes the set.
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| Disjunctive | each instance separately |
| Conjunctive | all instances together |
Envelope identifies the spatiotemporal limits and dynamics of the set. Note: I have Envelope scope outside of distribution. Thus, by varying Distribution, we can refer to the beginning of the set, or the beginning of each member of the set.
| Value | space | time |
|---|---|---|
| Partial | part | phase, moment, era of… |
| Holistic | all | (whole) duration of… |
| Initial | (spatial) beginning, first in a sequence | (beginning) beginning |
| Terminal | (spatial) end, last in a sequence | (temporal) end |
| Augmentive | physical/directional increase | development/becoming |
| Diminutive | physical/directional decrease | decaying/ceasing-to-be |
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| Existential | “there exists…”, at least one |
| Universal | every instance |
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| Vague | “something like”, “what passes for”; questionable set membership |
| Precise | clear set membership |
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| Isolated | considered in isolation, with its attributes derived from itself only, not from its relation to other objects |
| Interrelated | considered in relation with all objects associated to it in discourse, with its attributes maybe derived not only from itself, but also from its relation to other objects |
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| Sensible | might have a physical/concrete/observable influence on the world |
| Intelligible | may only exist as an hypothesis/thought/model, without any physical bearing on the world |
The two previous categories give equivalents to values of the old Perspective category :
- Sensible corresponds to both Monadic and Polyadic. The distinction between those two is represented by Distribution here, Interrelativity adds a new distinction altogether
- Isolated + Intelligible corresponds to Abstract. Here we consider the entity as an abstraction, an ideal that only depends on itself ; like a Platonic ideal, which matches the definition of Abstract.
- Interrelated + Intelligible corresponds to Nomic. Here we consider the entity as an abstraction encompassing all of its relations with instances of other entities. We therefore obtain an archetype, which all Sensible instances of the entity emulate more or less.
| Isolated | Interrelated | |
|---|---|---|
| Sensible | monadic & polyadic | [new value] |
| Intelligible | abstract | nomic |
To picture the difference between Isolated and Interrelated used with Sensible (implied), consider the following example :
- “like”-Isolated : no particular statement is made about what is being liked, so it simply corresponds to the verb “to like” itself.
- “like”-Interrelated : this time, the target is being liked, compared to the other things that might be liked in the context at hand, so it instead conveys the meaning of “to prefer”.
Note that in this specific case, the implication is that the other things are liked less, but this is only because the verb “to like” has a positive meaning ; Interrelated implies no specific type of comparison, only that some comparison is taking place.
Is it goal- or process-driven?
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| Telic | goal-driven, completable action |
| Atelic | process-driven, non-completable action |
| Name | Definition |
|---|---|
Domain selects the context in which the word is deployed.
| Value | Definition |
|---|---|
| Material | objective |
| Social | cultural/personal |
| Metaphorical | analogical/rhetorical |
| Philosophical | gestalt |
The Material Domain refers to physical reality of sensible objects.
The Social Domain draws attention to the social or cultural dimensions of the subject of discussion.
The Metaphorical Domain considers the analogical, rhetorical, or significative use of a word, rather than its literal definition.
The Philosophical Domain considers the full historical and philosophical range of meanings of a word.
Conversation relates two logically distinct contexts:
- the content or subject matter of our our conversation, and
- the people involved in having the conversation; speaker and audience plus the performative, rhetorical or communicative actions performed between them.
I will call the former ‘content level’ and the latter ‘discourse level’. While persons and events might coincide between these two levels, they are indeed very different and the grammar of the language should reflect this fact.
As an extreme example of overlap between the contexts, someone might make a sandwich and narrate to themselves every step of the process: “I slice some bread. I spread peanut butter on one slice and jelly on another slice…”
In this case, the same individual is the subject spoken about at the content level, and both speaker and audience at the discourse level. The former is a description of something in the world, in this case the activity of the speaker as they assemble a sandwich, while the latter is simply a person talking to themselves. We can change the discourse context independently, for instance by having the speaker use the same series of utterances as a demonstration or tutorial of how to make a sandwich.
If the two contexts share persons or events, they can be often distinguished by time, modalization, and role. We often speak about our past or possible future selves. For example, when giving a command, “(You) spread peanut butter on the bread”, the content is a possible future state where the addressee is performing the named action. The discourse level is an instruction or command.
Even if, as in our example of narrating the assembly of a sandwich, there is no difference in time and modalization, we can make the distinction that at the content level there is a sandwich maker, and at the discourse level there is a speaker and a listener. The fact that all three are the same person in no way diminishes our ability to differentiate what that person is doing in each role (making a sandwich, vs. speaking/listening).
The view I want to adopt here is that all language is performative: every utterance does something. Truth claims are only one kind of speech act that happens to have received preferential treatment at the hands of the logicians. But let us not be fooled: even a simple claim like, “The sky is blue” entails a new fact about the world. Namely it is now true that “I claim that the sky is blue”.
And these facts about what people claim to be true have important consequences. It is on their basis that we call someone honest or dishonest, well- or ill-informed, fair-minded or hypocritical, and so on. Because we are committed to truth, and there is a whole system of trust and consensus reality interwoven with it, it makes sense to mark truth claims as a distinct category.
Illocution can only be used to indicate speech acts made in the first person. I cannot, of instance, use Illocution to say, “Alice instructed Bob to make a sandwich.” For speech acts made by 2nd and 3rd persons, the language will require verbs for “warn”, “promise”, “inform”, “command”, and so on. It is therefore sufficient to have only two values for Illocution: Assertive and Performative. The former marks truth claims and latter all other speech acts.
Consider these:
“I warn you”+Assertive
“I warn you”+Performative
The first is a claim, it presumes that some other sign or speech act carries the warning, while the sentence merely asserts that warning takes place. The second really is the warning. And having only two values means an open class of verbs naming speech acts that may be either mentioned (in Assertive sentences) or used (in Performative sentences).
It may be helpful here to consider that a sentence like, “I warn you…” seems like a speech act, while “I warn them…” is a claim. “I warn them…” cannot be the same sentence the speaker used as a warning—otherwise it would refer to the recipient of the command in the 2nd person: “I warn you…”
Now for the category of Expectation, it’s purpose is to mark what kind of response the speaker desires from their audience. Broadly speaking, the three expectations work as generalized versions of the classic trio of sentence purposes in English (Declarative, Interrogative, and Imperative), and may also be thought of as corresponding to an expected “channel” in which the response will take place (as thought, speech, and action).
| Cognitive | Discursive | Motive | |
|---|---|---|---|
| intended response | thought | speech | action |
| sentence purpose | declarative | interrogative | imperative |
Expectation is not to be used for things like polite “question-commands” or rhetorical questions: rather, it should mark how the speaker actually intends their conversational partner to respond. The reason for this is that the verbs naming speech acts (which have replaced many of the Illocutions) can be used in tandem with Expectation and Illocution to produce both direct and indirect commands.
Speech acts like warnings and commands may be, but are not necessarily, truth claims. Consider the following utterances:
If you touch the stove, you will get burned.
I warn you not to touch the stove.
The first sentence seems like a truth claim, but it can be used as a warning. The second is explicitly a warning, but it may be only the mention of a warning previously given—in other words, it may be an assertion that a warning was issued.
| Assertive | Performative | |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive | truth claim inviting only mental consideration | stipulation or declaration entailing cognitive change (c.f. let x = y) |
| Discursive | truth claim inviting rebuttal, comment, or explanation | request for comment |
| Motive | truth claim inviting listener to take action | warning, command, specific call to action |
Consider, for example, the following sentence in each of the 6 Illocution×Expectation combinations listed in the preceding table. This sentence does not name a speech act, so it demonstrates the power and flexibility of the new Illocution×Expectation scheme.
There is toilet paper on your shoe.
| Assertive | Performative | |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive | I claim there is toilet paper on your shoe. | Consider yourself informed that there is toilet paper on your shoe. |
| Discursive | Comment on the toilet paper on your shoe. | Isn’t that toilet paper on your shoe? |
| Motive | I claim there is toilet paper on your shoe, (do something about it). | Do something about the toilet paper on your shoe! |
Note the capacity here for making indirect, but clearly marked commands and questions. Honestly this system is so alien to me that I’m not sure if it will work, but it also manages to cover all the bases I can think of. Also note that you can turn those into explicit commands and questions simply by adding the right verb, so instead of “There is toilet paper on your shoe”+Performative+Motive, you could easily say, “You clean your shoe”+Performative+Motive to make explicit what you want your listener to do.
Evidentials mark the source of information presented in an utterance. The categories of evidence are chosen to mark clear distinctions in categories of evidence while discouraging escalation of claims. Thus, remembered sensory knowledge is treated differently than present sensory knowledge, but all unverifiable first-person claims share a category. All forms of evidence can be unreliable, and different thinkers disagree about which are most valid under which circumstances. Persons can be mistaken, deceived, or motivated in their thinking, and this language must not shy away from that.
| Name | Gloss | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Credential | “I believe/assume/posit/hypothesize…” | belief with unspecified evidence |
| Observational | “I observe…” | present sensory knowledge |
| Recollective | “I remember…” | past sensory knowledge |
| Reportive | “Someone informed me…” | 2nd-hand knowledge/hearsay from specific informants |
| Conventional | “I know through cultural means…” | general cultural knowledge |
| Inferential | “I conclude…” | result of rational process (however informal) |
| Analogical | “I analogize…” | result of comparison, induction, extrapolation, or ostension |
| Non-Apprehensive | “I know by negative means…” | conclusion from absence of evidence, failure/absurdity of alternatives |
| Imaginary | [non-claim: unreal] | statement not thought to be true, (used in conjunction with mood) |
I think…
The Credential Evidentiality marks claims supported only by private first-person evidence. It covers hunches, intuitions, beliefs, opinions, unsubstantiated theories, and forms of so-called direct knowledge. These diverse means of acquiring knowledge fall under a single evidentiary category so that no one can “escalate” the trustworthiness of first person information. For example, if we hold that mystical visions carry more weight than mere opinion, an unscrupulous person could claim that their private hunch was in fact prophesy. The purpose of evidentials is to establish the grounds upon which the conversants can come to a shared understanding of reality. It is therefore desirable not to distinguish between evidentials which are not amenable to 2nd or 3rd person verification. Most schools of thought agree that Credential is one of the weakest forms of evidence. However, mystical and individualist thinkers may place it above the rest as “conscience” or “conviction”, or even “revelation”.
- I think they are up to some mischief.
- The gods have shown me the future.
- Nurture is as influential as nature.
I observe…
The Observational Evidentiality expresses present sensory knowledge. Observational is to be used when the speaker can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel the subject of conversation. It is the evidentiary form par excellance of the empricisists. However it is used less frequently than the Recollective because of the infrequency with which claims can be immediately verified by sense.
- The ground is soft.
- She burnt the toast.
- There are four lights.
I remember…
The Recollective Evidentiality indicates remembered sensory knowledge. This evidentiality is separate from Observational because of memory’s documented unreliability. Though generally considered weaker than the Observational, the efficacy of sense memory is a presumption of any empiricist philosophy.
- They drove off in a green truck.
- He sometimes wears a hat.
- The trail begins nearby.
My source informs me… I was taught…
The Reportive Evidentiality claims one or more specific individuals as knowledge sources. Using Reportive indicates that the speaker could attribute the claim to an identifiable person or text. (Though of course the speaker is under no obligation to divulge their informant’s identity.) Statements in the Reportive are held to be as trustworthy as the source of the information.
- Searing meat doesn’t seal in the juices.
- There are billions and billions of stars.
- Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
They say… I read somewhere…
The Conventional Evidentiality marks knowledge issuing from non-specific second-hand sources. It is used for second-hand evidence that cannot be attributed to an individual. This includes matters of socially determined knowledge.
- You know what they say…
- Augustine is the patron saint of brewers.
- Nevada is part of the United States.
- Carbohydrates are bad for one’s health.
The Inferential Evidentiality attributes knowledge to a process of (possibly informal) reasoning. Utterances marked Inferential are held to be as valid as their most disputable premise or means of inference. Use of Inferential suggests that the speaker could make their reasoning public.
- They must have left in a hurry.
- Only the guilty have reason to fear.
I analogize…
The Analogical Evidentiality attributes knowledge to analogy, comparison, ostention, generalization, particularization, or induction. Some philosophies consider analogical reasoning problematic, while others claim all other sources of knowledge are ultimately derived from comparison.
- Other animals have first-person experiences.
- Gravity is ubiquitous.
- Primes continue without end.
Lack of evidence suggests…
The Non-Apprehensive indicates that an absence of evidence or failure or contradiction of alternatives is the source of the knowledge. Opinions are divided on the validity of knowledge acquired through this means.
This evidentiality would be used in statements like the following:
- There are no interstellar civilizations.
- Supernatural beings do not exist.
- This house is free of tigers.
- A round square cannot be constructed.
I imagine…
The Imaginary Evidential marks statements the speaker does not know or believe to be true. It is used in combination with irrealis moods to discuss states of affairs contrary to fact.
- Water lilies fly.
- The old gods still dwell in the wild, lonely places.
- All swans are white.
- If I were a rich man…