Words

Words interact with each other as operators and operands. They represent objects and concepts, cognizable entities, pointing to them as addresses into the substanding semantic space. As they arise into expression, they embody entities/values/statements and operations between them. And as they operate on one another, interact with each other and with the context in which they are expressed, they join and blend to embody new entities/values/statements. Like chemical elements and compounds operate on one another and with their environment, and either react and blend to embody new values, or simply sit with one another in inert company.

Nouns are the basest operands, embodying entities of sufficiently commonly recognized lore that they are useful to a relative majority of the people who use and encounter them. In correspondence to a mathematical context, they embody elements of a set/field/etc (Z, R, nxn matrices, etc).

Pronouns are implicit pointers to other entities, whether they be nouns or constructed values. They are prone to ambiguity if underspecified. In correspondence to a mathematical context, they embody variables (x, y, z, i, j, λ, δ, etc).

Verbs denote a certain action, change, movement, event - a specific type of entity/operand. These can be modified by other operators to produce new/more specific types of actions/changes/events.

Adjectives are unary operators, which emphasise a particular quality of an entity or value. These are as diverse in their effect, direction, texture, magnitude, abstraction, and meaning as the semantic space is vast. Upon operating on a value, the adjective blends with the value to produce another value.

• Adj(E1) = E2

Adverbs are unary operators, which operate on other operators. Again, the potential diversity of adverbs is as vast as the semantic space itself. Upon operating on an operator, the adverb blends with the operator to produce another operator. The transformations in matrix multiplication lend themselves fittingly as an analogue of the adverbial transformation.

• Adv(Adj1) = Adj2
• Adv(V1) = V2
• Adv1(Adv2) = Adv3

Conjunctions join other entities together in specific manners. The various conjunctions embody different "techniques" of joining their operands, just as one can pour one fluid onto another, pour them mutually into a new container, drip one fluid onto another drop by drop, pour and stir, forcefully blend, apply or remove heat to both or either of the operands, separate them from each other with various methods, or perform similar joinings with solids, gases, radiation, or any mixture of the above.

In mathematics, many operators exist that serve the role of joining. In computer science, the general parameterized function also embodies the infinitely wide, deep, vast, and complex space of operations that can be applied to a plurality of entities/values in order to produce other new entities/values. Or more precisely, to produce new pointers to entities/values in the semantic space.

In similar manner, prepositions operate as a subset of conjunctions, specialized to indicate relative physical placement.

Determiners "tweak" other entities/values in order to point more precisely towards that which one wishes to evoke. Subscripts and superscripts in mathematical notation serve a similar role.

Interjections are mostly expressions of intent and/or of emotional state. As such, they mostly focus on the expresser rather than on his circumstances or on other objects.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I often see some words used incompletely. Words that operate as conjunctions, for instance (though not always syntactically categorized as such), often lack or underspecify one or more of their parameters, which causes the resulting pointer to be ambiguous, and open to wide interpretation by the receiver. Ambiguity often leads to miscommunication, and this can disrupt and distort the flow of information and resources in a system such as the social one we inhabit.

Examples of such words are:

Need:

Indicates the factors that are required for one state to change to another. The needed operands for this word, then, are:

1. The former state.
2. The factors.
3. The target state.

• Need(FormerState, NeededFactors, TargetState)

Usage example: "I need a massage in order to feel good." Parameter values:

1. Former state (implied): My present state, in which I do not feel good.
2. Factors: Receiving a massage.
3. Target state: A state in which I feel good.

Rarely would this sentence be spoken in this extended form. Most often one says "I need a massage", and most of its operands are implied, if only vaguely. In particular, two operands in the operation of "Need" are often elided. The former state is most often assumed to be the present time (or whichever time the tense of the statement indicates - past, future, etc). The target state is most often assumed to be a "better"/"more desirable" state than the former, though what that signifies is generally left to the receiver's (and often the speaker's) ambiguity.

Commonly uttered statements of "need" very often focus only on the factors needed, for the statements tend to be evoked from desires, often inchoate, and not from a clear understanding of:

1. The process of change they describe, of
2. The target state this process intends to reach, nor of
3. The former state of affairs.

Very often, the meaning of "better" is unclear even in the speaker's cognition itself, and such ambiguity produces expression that dissipates energy in unclear/ineffective directions.

Too:

Indicates that a certain quality of an entity lies beyond a certain threshold, which revokes some specific status from that entity. The needed operands for this word, then, are:

1. The entity.
2. The quality.
3. The revoked status.

• Too(Entity, Quality, RevokedStatus)

Usage example: "The food is too hot for me to eat it." Parameter values:

1.  Entity: Food
2.  Quality: Hot
3.  Revoked Status: Being eatable by me

Again, rarely would this sentence be uttered in its entirety. Most often a person would simply say "The food is too hot." or "It's too hot.", and the surrounding context - sitting at a dinner table, considering a plate of food atop it - would serve to imply the meaning with sufficient accuracy.

But if he were standing beside the dinner table, considering another person's plate, is the implied meaning clear? Is the food too hot for the speaker to eat? Or too hot for the other person to eat? Or does he find the warm air around him uncomfortable?

And if he were a food engineer standing beside a giant vat of industrially produced food, what is the meaning then? Is the food too hot for the current processing stage? Too hot for him to eat? Or is it the steel vat that is too hot?

Though such examples may seem inane, they intend to convey the fact that ambiguity (and thus miscommunication) can arise from small differences in wording and context that are often overlooked.

And if we say: "The world is too screwed up", "The system is too corrupt", "People are too stupid", "That problem is too hard", or "That's too bad", are we conveying useful information? Do we ourselves know the meaning we want to transmit? Can we identify the actual operands upon which "Too" operates? Or do we use such expressions simply as long placeholders to signify a general sense of dislike, frustration, unwillingness, and "UGGGGGH", while sending blame away in some vague direction?

So:

Indicates that a certain quality of an entity reaches or exceeds a certain threshold, which grants the entity some specific status. The operands of this word are:

1. The entity.
2. The quality.
3. The granted status.

• So(Entity, Quality, GrantedStatus)

Its meaning is effectively equivalent to that of "Too", but with opposite connotations for the status. "So" has the entity gaining a status past the threshold, while "Too" has it losing a status. For instance, the following two sentences are equivalent:

• The food is SO hot that I cannot it.
• The food is TOO hot for me to eat it.

The ambiguities and risks that arise with "So" (as well as with "Enough") are very similar to those found when using "Too". The GrantedStatus or RevokedStatus parameter is SO often absent, actually, that both words are presently widely used as synonyms of "Very", a unary operator. And while some semantic overlap between words is common in languages, I posit it is important to retain the meaning of words that serve a unique purpose, so as to not forget their structures, that is their operator functionality, from the widespread language as a whole.

I propose we all strive to clearly understand what we mean before we speak it. Only then can we truly direct the intent of our expressions towards clear targets, and allow the flow of intent and information through each of us and between us all to be clear, smooth, continuous, and effective.