|  | 

1.2 — GRAMMAR AND LOGIC

Both Sentence 1 and Sentence 2 are logically correct (they make sense). But only Sentence 2 is grammatically correct. Sentence 1 is not, because correct English grammar forms are "THE tree is large", "A tree is large", "Trees are large".

Logic is one and the same in all languages. Grammar varies from language to language. Latin grammar would accept Arbor est magna (Tree is large), because articles don't exist in Latin.

Logic organises thoughts rationally and grammar sets the rules for expressing them in a socially agreed framework. Logic refers to substance, grammar to formalising it into a particular language (English, German, Chinese - or a local dialect).

If an utterance doesn't clear the logic test, it means nothing. If it clashes with grammar, the listener is startled by the broken rule but may still grasp the underlying message.

Let us rephrase Sentence 1):

Now both examples are correct according to the English grammar.

Articles (the, a), nouns (tree, Francis), qualifiers (or adjectives: large), and verbs (be, jump) are grammar terms. Other grammatical terms - to be introduced later - are determiners, pronouns, adverbs, conjunctions.

From the logical point of view the_tree, Francis are subjects, is_large, jumps are predicates. Other logical notions (to be introduced later) are complements, main and subordinate clauses.

1.2a — What is in a subject?

The short answer is: anything can be found in a subject. To make the point, let us add Sentence 3:

The subject of Sentence 3) is winning €1 million, because the statement (it is not easy) refers to that.

Grammar views "Winning €1 million" as of string of words to be analysed⁽¹⁾, logic sees it as a unitary concept.

1.3 — SUBJECT, PREDICATE, AND OBJECT

Let us now add Sentence 4:

In Sentence 4 subject and predicate do not provide a self-contained statement, an object is also needed. The object of Sentence 4 is the gas station.

How to tell when an object is required?

It depends on the predicate. In Sentences 1 and 3 the predicate is of the "TO BE + QUALIFIER" kind. No object is needed because the statement is about the inner nature of the subject, so no relation is expected which connects the subject to an entity external to it.

The predicates of sentences 2 and 4 are JUMP and DESTROY. While JUMP carries information concerning Francis only, DESTROY relates the subject (the fire) to something else. When this happens, we must identify the entity external to the subject which is affected. In this example it is the gas station that the fire destroys. The gas station is the object of utterance 4.

Summing up:

• with the TO BE + QUALIFIER predicate, objects are never needed,
• with the second kind of predicate, they may or may not - depending on whether a relationship is established between the subject and the outer world.

When an object is required, the predicate is said to be transitive (a relationship transits from subject to object via the predicate). When an object is not needed, the predicate is intransitive.

1.4 — EXPLICIT versus IMPLICIT

Is there anything wrong with this sentence? If not, why?

TO EAT must perforce be transitive, a link should connect the eater (subject) to the eaten (object). Yet no object is indicated. So, we seem to have a problem.

In fact, the problem is only apparent, not substantial. The listener is not left wanting because a logical mind automatically fills the gap with a generic expression such as A MEAL, SOME FOOD. Recognising that, all national grammars allow for evident elements to be omitted⁽²⁾.

When words are visible, they are said to be explicit. When they can be construed by an interpreting mind, they are implicit.

 |  |