What is another way one is being told that information is binary?
the quid and the qual,
the quantity and the quality.
we can then form different standards of measure for quantity.
and
we can name countless qualities, or relative differences.
We start however, with form, the quid
and the material difference, qual.
Therefore, when you write a grammar book, instead of flooding students with a heap of names, then the author is wrong. One has to start off, by clearly explaining how you classify the parts of a thing, exactly as was done in the Elements of Euclid. You draw attention to the fact that you can only name nouns and verbs. But since the authors of common grammar are not in the least blessed with organized thinking, they put out heaps of words, putting their confusion onto the student, simply increasing imbecilities.
By biological fact, our sense systems recognize only these two, form and material difference. quantity and quality.
As noted by Plato, and science, Every thing is defined by a combination of quantity, nouns, and quality, verbs.
Thus thing A = the set (quantity and quality). The definitive sentence.
So how scatterbrained do you have to be, once stating it, you cannot follow it? For example Geometry point, noun, line, verb? shape and material.
Classification
Re: Classification
Correct Law Of Classification.
Nor must the application of this principle be confined to a part of the system. If it be applied to words only, the classification is imperfect. If some other law be applied to letters, or to sentences, the system is discordant. One simple and natural law must, like a golden thread, run through every part of the language, letters, syllables, words, phrases, sentences, and even sections, binding them all in one harmonious whole. Only in this way can the system be made a simple and philosophical unity. Analysis of the English Language 1851
Now, the authors of this statement had good intentions and truth on their side, but where did they go wrong? They decided that this classification was the use of a thing. This is a fatal flaw Plato did not make. That golden thread is not use, but the definition of a thing. It is wholly impossible to rationally use anything which you cannot, have not, first defined. How do we parse relatives, and how can we use the relatives.
Nor must the application of this principle be confined to a part of the system. If it be applied to words only, the classification is imperfect. If some other law be applied to letters, or to sentences, the system is discordant. One simple and natural law must, like a golden thread, run through every part of the language, letters, syllables, words, phrases, sentences, and even sections, binding them all in one harmonious whole. Only in this way can the system be made a simple and philosophical unity. Analysis of the English Language 1851
Now, the authors of this statement had good intentions and truth on their side, but where did they go wrong? They decided that this classification was the use of a thing. This is a fatal flaw Plato did not make. That golden thread is not use, but the definition of a thing. It is wholly impossible to rationally use anything which you cannot, have not, first defined. How do we parse relatives, and how can we use the relatives.