Use the symmetry to approach English

Question

Hello,I have an idea that needs your suggestions or confirmation.That English is always oppositionally but united.So that where there is one sentence of side of the symmetry there is another sentence of another side of symmetry.When I meet a sentence that makes no sense to me but I know its symmetrical counterpart, that sentence its each words must have a quality of oppositionally but united with the words of the sentence of which I have sense.e.g.  the sentence can not make good sense to me, because I am not confident of the words of “to have” and “for” in it.But I very know its symmetrical counterpart----[It does not make any use to / unto / for me.]In the sentence of which I have very sense, the “me” is the lowest logic position, so the “I” in that sentence must be even with the “me”; and that the verb of “have” in that sentence must mean “experience” / “feel” so that the “I” can be an acceptor as the lowest logic position as the “me” in the sentence of which I have sense.And the “it” as an agent in the sentence of it I have very sense, so the “for” in that sentence must mean “with regard to” and then the “it” can be given a highest power in that sentence.Take another instance for this way.[It didn’t make any sense to me.] &

KrisBlueNZ · Accepted Answer

Your explanation is very unclear.
If this symmetry you're talking about refers to antonyms, for example "It's GOOD" and "It's BAD", then certainly that is a type of symmetry.
Also the word order in some simple sentences can be reversed.
You need to explain your idea MUCH more clearly. This may mean you need to take time to UNDERSTAND it much more clearly, before you try to put it into words.
Also, I find that using EXAMPLES, and breaking them down in a logical and hierarchical way, is a good way to help both myself and the reader to really grasp the ideas I'm trying to convey.

Bepleased · Answer

Hi KrisBlueNZ,

A.
The logic flow chart can make you know how ridiculous ergative verbs are.

Because they have no necessity for an exception.

The logic flow chart:
The snow melted in the sunshine The snow was melted by the sunshine

in the sunshine (second-causality verb agent) by the sunshine (causative agent)
----------------------- -----------------------
melted (second-causality verb) was (causative)
melted (causative)
----------------- ----------------------
The snow (second-causality acceptor on willing) The snow (causative sufferer)

B.
ST.Paul's cathedral is a familiar sight to all Londoners. All Londoners are familiar with ST. Paul's cathedral.

with cathedral (in the case of cathedral)
cathedral (causative agent) -----------------------....................................} (secon-causality verb agent)
----------------- familiar (for how)
is = identifies (causative) -------------------
--------- are = exists (second-causality verb)
a familar sight (addend) -------------------
------------------- ..................} (causative suffer) Londoners (secon-causality acceptor (on willing))
unto Londoners (augend)

C.

A green salad makes an accompaniment unto this dish. This dish is(=exists) to the accompaniment of a green salad.

a green salad (causative verb agent) to the accompaniment of a green salad (second-causality verb agent)
----------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
makes (causative ) is = exists (second-causality verb)
-------------------- -----------------------------------------
an accompaniment this dish (second-causality verb acceptor on willing)
--------------------------- } (causaltive suffer)
unto this dish

Bepleased · Answer

A.
The logic flow chart can make you know how ridiculous ergative verbs are.
Because they have no necessity for an exception.
The logic flow chart:
The snow melted in the sunshine The snow was melted by the sunshine
in the sunshine (second-causality verb agent)
----------------------- -----------------------
melted (second-causality verb)
----------------- ----------------------
The snow (second-causality acceptor on willing)
B.
ST.Paul's cathedral is a familiar sight to all Londoners.
All Londoners are familiar with ST. Paul's cathedral.
cathedral (causative agent)
----------------------
is = identifies (caustive verb)
----------------------------
a familar sight (addend)
------------------- ..................} (causative suffer)
unto Londoners (augend)
C.
A green salad makes an accompaniment unto this dish.
This dish is(=exists) to the accompaniment of a green salad.
a green salad (causative verb agent)
-----------------------
makes (causative )
--------------------
an accompaniment
--------------------------- } (causaltive suffer)
unto this dish

Bepleased · Answer

A.
The snow melted in the sunshine The snow was melted by the sunshine

by the sunshine (causative agent)
-----------------------
was (causative)
melted (causative)
----------------- ----------------------
The snow (causative sufferer

B.
ST.Paul's cathedral is a familiar sight to all Londoners.
All Londoners are familiar with ST. Paul's cathedral.

with cathedral (in the case of cathedral)
----------------- ....................................} (secon-causality verb agent)
familiar (for how)
---------------------
are = exists (second-causality verb)
-----------------------
Londoners (secon-causality acceptor (on willing))

C.
A green salad makes an accompaniment unto this dish.
This dish is(=exists) to the accompaniment of a green salad.

to the accompaniment of a green salad (second-causality verb agent)
----------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
is = exists (second-causality verb)
-------------------- -
this dish (second-causality verb acceptor on willing)

KrisBlueNZ · Answer

OK, now I have some idea of the types of sentences you're talking about, I think.
Are you saying that you think ergative verbs are ridiculous? Because they "have no necessity for an exception"? If that's what you're saying, I don't understand what you mean.

bepleasedThe snow melted in the sunshine / The snow was melted by the sunshine.

So you're comparing the transitive and intransitive usages of "melted"?
Would it be clearer to contrast "The sunshine melted the snow" with "The snow melted (in the sunshine)"?

bepleasedSt. Paul's cathedral is a familiar sight to all Londoners / All Londoners are familiar with St. Paul's cathedral.

Same idea again, right?
Your third example is not a good one. Two examples is plenty anyway.

If you're saying that some features of English are ridiculous, or that there should only be one grammatically acceptable way to express any particular idea, I suggest you go and complain to the person or committee who invented and specified the language. Of course there is no such person or group, and, like all languages, English "is what it is", for better or for worse. It's only useful and meaningful to learn how English is conventionally used, so that you can follow those conventions and thereby be understood by other speakers of the language... that is, unless you want to develop your own version of it, and somehow convince everyone to use it.

In your first post you said that "English is always oppositionally but united". I still have no idea what you mean by that. Please don't feel obliged to continue this thread, unless you really think you have something useful to say.

Bepleased · Answer

Hi,

Thank you that you are kind to let me to continue .

(1) Ergative verbs have no necessity for a specific chapter, because they are in general rule of English.

e.g. It does not make any use unto me. & I have no use for it.
Though the two subjects are diferent from each other, but each words has the same logic position and logic intrinsic meaning, through logic opposit expressions.
(it -~~make~~--me = it of causative verb agent / me of causative verb sufferer)
(I--~~experience~~---with regard to it = I still of second-causality verb acceptor on willing / it still of second-causality verb agent)

Ergative verbs are also the same with all of general way in English.
(the above of me)

(the below is quoted)
Let’s see the greatest ridiculous definition have been given by Grammar:
Formally, an ergative verb is “a verb that can be either transitive (of me causative verb) or intransitive (of me second-causality verb), and whose subject when intransitive corresponds to its direct object when transitive.” (Wikipedia)
When a sentence has a verb, the verb typically has an “actor”, and sometimes it has a “target”. Or as linguists would say, the verb has a “subject” and sometimes an “object”.

------(the below of me)

“the snow” always is acceptor of second-causality verb or sufferer of causative verb.
The ridiculous Grammar say a story never happened in the world that “the snow” in The snow melted in the sunshine. is the actor or the subject. (of me) "the snow" is always being a sufferer not on willing or acceptor on willing.
Grammar in ergative verbs considers the verb in [The snow melted in the sunshine.] to be intransitive verb (of me second-causality verb) and “the snow” to be the subject or actor, if it is really so, that the snow will be being in ten thousand years. There is an added ridiculous story that Grammar regards agent of the sunshine as being nothing.

(2) the binary oppositionally but united

e.g. the type of King James English
to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal
= To (the convincing of them), Unto (peace and life eternal)

e.g.

In doing, we learn.
doing -------To-to
--------------------- } To
in --------To-unto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we ----- Unto-to
--------- } Unto
learn -----Unto-unto

KrisBlueNZ · Answer

OK, I think I'm beginning to see what you're getting at.
Please let me know if I'm not understanding you properly.

I can clearly understand your Wikipedia quote:

An ergative verb is a verb that can be either transitive or intransitive, and whose subject when intransitive corresponds to its direct object when transitive.

Your example of "melted" is a good one, so let's stick with that.
1. The sunlight melted the snow.
2. The snow melted (because of the sunlight).

bepleased“the snow” always is acceptor of second-causality verb or sufferer of causative verb. The ridiculous Grammar say a story never happened in the world that “the snow” in The snow melted in the sunshine. is the actor or the subject. (of me) "the snow" is always being a sufferer not on willing or acceptor on willing.Grammar in ergative verbs considers the verb in [The snow melted in the sunshine.] to be intransitive verb (of me second-causality verb) and “the snow” to be the subject or actor, if it is really so, that the snow will be being in ten thousand years. There is an added ridiculous story that Grammar regards agent of the sunshine as being nothing.

It seems to me that you're complaining about "the snow melted" because the snow is not the cause of its own melting, and the cause (sunlight) must be specified separately, like I did in parentheses in sentence 2. Is that what you're getting at? Your English is not good and it's hard to understand what you write. If that's what you're complaining about, as I said, you should chat to the person or committee responsible for designing the language.

English allows both forms (that is, "actor transitive-verb object" and "subject intransitive-verb (no actor)") and this has a benefit: you may want the recipient of the action (i.e. snow) to be the subject of the sentence - either because it's the important factor, and the actor is obvious by default, or because the sentence is going to continue talking about the recipient (snow). For example:
"The snow melted, and trickled into the drains."
If you insist on including the actor, sunlight, you would have to say "The sunlight melted the snow, AND THE MELTED SNOW trickled into the drains". If the cause of the snow melting is obvious, it's not necessary to state it.

In any case, the purpose of grammar rules is to EXPLAIN usage that is ALREADY natural to us, not to teach us how to speak before we even know (as if that were even possible). I was able to write very good English for years before I had even considered the difference between a transitive and an intransitive verb. When I learnt the definitions of those words, I realised that I had already understood the difference, and was already able to use both types of verb appropriately; the only thing that changed in my mind was that the concept was formalised and named.
Mathematical rules are the same. You don't need to know what "commutative" means, to know that 3x5 is the same as 5x3. Rules and theories (as opposed to regulations) are just explanations that clever people have developed to explain and formalise already existing conventions.
So even if I accept that this characteristic of English is redundant, which I don't, there really is no one to complain to about it, and therefore no point criticising it.

Bepleased · Answer

I show you the symmetry in English.

the order of the line is reverse but the intrinsic logic meaning is even with each other that is the symmetry;

(1)
from the chairman down to the boy----~~from top down unto the bottom~~---unto
Their art handed down from generation to generation. --~~down from before~~-to
It is really down to bad mangement. ----~~the result from the cause~~--to

(2)
addend is added unto augend;----unto
augend is added to addend; ----to

is added
---------------------
addend
---------------------
unto augend

is added
------------------------
to addend
------------------------
augend

(3)
The music made an accompaniment unto our danceing------- unto
our dancing to the accompaniment of music;------- We danced to the music.---to

the piano accompaniment unto a song;-----unto
a song to the accompaniment of the piano;----to

impress the new idea on us -----unto
impress us with the new idea -----to

(4)
way the result-----the result unto the reason
how the result-----the result to the cause

KrisBlueNZ · Answer

bepleased, I'm sorry, I really cannot understand what you're trying to say. You need to improve your English to the point where you can form fully coherent sentences. I suspect that even if you did, I would not be able to follow your thought processes.
If you've read some of my other posts, you will be aware that I am well able to follow, formulate and clearly express logical arguments and explanations. For this reason, I suspect the communication problem does not lie with me.
I also get the strong impression that there is no clear purpose, or goal, to your expositions. They certainly don't appear to be questions; the best I can gather is that you are trying to convey some subtle wisdom that you believe you have divined about the language. My recommendation is that you learn to use the language better before you try to analyse it too deeply.
As you know, I answer questions on EnglishForward as a volunteer, and I cannot continue to justify spending a lot of time trying to understand your posts, especially when it appears that doing so would not help you, or any other user of these forums, in any meaningful way.

Bepleased · Answer

Hi,

You don't have to feel sorry for it.

That is my own problem, I have to concern myself with it.

If I find out a good way to display it, could you like to see it again?

Thank you for a lot of suggestions from you.

I like your suggestions with good sense of style.

with best regards

bepleased

Use the symmetry to approach English

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions