The Little Words
So, the 3 primal classes of words are Nouns Verbs and Adjectives. But of course there is more to grammar then that, I could write 400 of these notes and still not cover everything, or so it seems from reading grammars. Like I said, I've been banging my head against the wall trying to understand these things. It's so strange, because I speak very good English and have, so say the tests, a very good understanding of English, but I don't know Jack about grammar, until very recently. But when you wish to learn another language, especially a dead language, there’s no way around it, you have to approach it 'structurally' since there are no kids fluent in ancient Egyptian I can talk to and pick it up ad hoc. Instead I have to read the #1 most intelligent Hieroglyphicist, or the #2, and there really is no #10 in what is really quite a small field. And they all talk pure grammar, all of it based on Greek grammarians, since no progress has been made in the field since then. Thus we speak of Nous and Adjectivus, Greek and Latin words.
The Hieroglyphicists use an interesting notation system. For instance 'HAq.n.i', which literally translates as 'capture.ed.I' I captured. Or 'in.n.i' 'bring.ed.I' I brought. They separate the suffixes and inflections with a dot, or really a period, which is different than a menstrual cycle, but is a small Ra, or a small Sun, which we use to denote the end of things. (BTW, these insults are typical of the Greco-Roman world, everything good in Egypt becomes bad, with very few exceptions.) This made me think about doing the same in English. Hast.ily, run.n.ing. (Why two ‘N’s?) The dots are a way to separate the root and show it clearly, which works very well in Egyptian since their roots do not generally change, unlike Hebrew, where the vowels in between the consonants in the root word are how conjugations work, a system still residually present in English, such as 'run' and 'ran', 'shit' and 'shat', and so on and so forth, but in a very limited degree and only in the oldest Germanic words, and never with a future tense.
What helps to clarify, in English, is that words such as 'raking', which is the act of using a rake, such as to collect leaves and other debris in your yard, is a compound word composed of a noun and a verb. The noun is still the root, 'rake', but the verb has been abstracted and generalized, so it can be used systematically. '-ing' is the present continuous as the grammarians say, 'fucking' 'milking' and 'sewing' for example, so '-ing' means 'doing the root word as an action in the present and continuously', quite a complex concept, but it's been systematized and memorized, so it can be used offhand very easily. So the word 'raking' is actually a NOUN-VERB, but the infection is not really a VERB, but a verb, a little word, as I think of it. Similarly 'rake.d' means 'in the past you performed the act which is done with a rake, now you are done and no longer using the rake'. That is just one little letter which means all that. So these 'little words' are NOUNS VERBS and ADJECTIVES, but small and compressed, and this is grammar proper. Like instead of saying ‘The United States of America’, you can just say 'you-ess-eh' written USA, and it means the same thing. And if someone wished to coin a new phrase, I could change my name to Johnusa, ‘djon-oo-suh’, meaning I am John, a citizen of the United States of America, or Johnbani, John who is a member of the Taliban.
What about the little nouns, what would these be? I think they are called particles, I forget, but they are 'I' 'she' 'we' 'you' and so on. The grammarians insist these are not really nouns, but pronouns.
Ah yes, the 'particles' are the little adjectives, as I think of it now. 'The' a very interesting word, also 'a' 'an' but little adjectives, because they are LOGIC. Which house? The house. No, not that one, which house? That house. 'That' 'this' 'there' are not called particles but interrogatives, although they can be used as particles as well, see how complicated the grammarians make everything? They are so stoopid. Just as Chomsky showed (has shown) me how politically stupid many Americans are, so has he showed (shown) me how stupid many grammarians are, although honestly he's the worlds #1 theoretical grammarian, but merely perhaps the 200th most important political voice in America, so perhaps the number 5,000th most prominent political voice globally.
Working though all the words, it's very clarifying for me to ask, "is it a noun, a verb, or logic?", and logic is often invective, even though supposedly it's neutral. Only with logic can we discover who is an idiot and who it worth listening to.
The English word 'his' and 'hers' are very interesting. What is the etymology of 'his'? It seems similar to has but is actually a word with a noun and an adjective. It seems to be 'he.is' because 'he.has' is redundant and repetitive, we can just say 'has'. 'Hers' is similar, and highlights an unusual aspect of language. It's the same word, but feminine. However it's feminized with an 'R', and thinking about 'R' used to feminize words, I cant think of any examples. It appears therefore to be a very ancient relic of English, most likely Germanic, and in all likelihood Aryan. By Aryan I mean Indo-European, but the thing is this field was thrown for a loop when Hitler ruined the word Aryan, which doesn't even refer to Europeans, much less Germans, but to Iranians. In any case, they had to rebrand, and so they chose a ratfuckproof phrase, 'Proto-Indo-European', which no dick-potato will ever use for state propaganda purposes.