I had a dream
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2026 5:23 pm
Well, I certainly am not MLK, however, from time to time I can take a hint from a dream.
So, in my dream, I was taking pieces of what looked like metal plating, and I had to name each piece in Latin. Disregarding the natural caveat that I do not know Latin, what was the point of the dream?
Ever wonder why for some hard core Catholics and scientists, that they insist on learning Latin, conversing in Latin, etc? Why is that? Why use a dead system of Grammar?
Think about this, in Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry, there are no real synonyms. i.e., the dictionary base is static. sure there are whack jobs out there still trying to find George Carlin's bleem, a new number, but think about it. Some whack jobs claim that grammar evolves, as if binary recursion is different from itself, simply because people like making up another word, another name for something, meaning that dictionaries can never keep up because fad's set the standard for social discourse.
But is it possible or practical, to actually take a thesaurus and distill it down to a basic common grammar which can be called New Latin? What would we find?
We would actually find what Aristotle was trying to accomplish with his Categories, a set concept in predication based on the fact that we are actually limited by specific systems of sense, specific Categories of cause and effect, agent and patient, or again, noun and verb.
A grammar that is reduced to universals, applicable to all particular things.
We have two pars of speech, the relative, which is popular grammar, and the universal, or correlative grammar of a science.
One can find the universal grammar not by distilling a dictionary, but by distilling a thesaurus. This is something a computer can do without even heating up the exhaust fan. There has never been a reason for this mystical evolution of common grammar, binary recursion has to always produce a binary result.
So, in my dream, I was taking pieces of what looked like metal plating, and I had to name each piece in Latin. Disregarding the natural caveat that I do not know Latin, what was the point of the dream?
Ever wonder why for some hard core Catholics and scientists, that they insist on learning Latin, conversing in Latin, etc? Why is that? Why use a dead system of Grammar?
Think about this, in Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry, there are no real synonyms. i.e., the dictionary base is static. sure there are whack jobs out there still trying to find George Carlin's bleem, a new number, but think about it. Some whack jobs claim that grammar evolves, as if binary recursion is different from itself, simply because people like making up another word, another name for something, meaning that dictionaries can never keep up because fad's set the standard for social discourse.
But is it possible or practical, to actually take a thesaurus and distill it down to a basic common grammar which can be called New Latin? What would we find?
We would actually find what Aristotle was trying to accomplish with his Categories, a set concept in predication based on the fact that we are actually limited by specific systems of sense, specific Categories of cause and effect, agent and patient, or again, noun and verb.
A grammar that is reduced to universals, applicable to all particular things.
We have two pars of speech, the relative, which is popular grammar, and the universal, or correlative grammar of a science.
One can find the universal grammar not by distilling a dictionary, but by distilling a thesaurus. This is something a computer can do without even heating up the exhaust fan. There has never been a reason for this mystical evolution of common grammar, binary recursion has to always produce a binary result.