N
A notational system
that combines features from linguistics, logic and object
oriented programming to allow complex expressions to be uttered about
everyday things.
Use is made of structures and glyphs that allow
the gross structure of a sentence to remain constant while the
specific context and meaning of the utterance is modified by the
glyphs. Such constancy of form allows the meaning to be easily
captured, without the complexity required by the syntactic
transformations of languages like
English.
Uses:
Glyphs and
Structures
The structures of N allow one to specify the
causal structure of a thought, and then adorn it with glyphs that
specify more precisely the relationship between the bare content of
the causal sequence described in the structure and the utterer of the
sentence.
Formats exist for writing the notation a-la
mathematics using TeX (still v-crude) and for using plain ASCII to
communicate in a format such as this:
[N.structure_* |
describe | causal sequence_*]
[N.glyph_* | adorn |
N.structure.entity_*]
[N.glyph_* | modify_? |
A.N.semantic]
DVI or PDF Specification is available if
required. Contact AABS at n@aabs.org.uk for a
copy.
justification
Structures are employed to encode the causal structure that
underlies
the types of utterance used in non-poetic (ie factual or
working)
language. Although linguistics distinguishes four broad
types of
utterance (phatic communion, informative, imperitive,
interrogative),
according to the purposes to which they are put, it
is possible to
ignore phatic communion since it acts more like a
protocol
hand-shaking system rather than as a means of
communicating. N
exploits the regularity in the format of utterances
in natural
languages. That regularity is the grammar(s) of the
language. It is my
hypothesis that the grammar of the language
reflects a mental model of
causation in the brain of the
speaker. Since all descriptive
utterances in a natural language
describe either a static state of
affairs, or a dynamic state of
affairs. A dynamic state of affairs is
the transition from one state
to another for some system. A static
description will describe the
structure and properties of a system for
a given point in
time. ``Now'' is the default time for most
utterances. In general
usage a static description would just be called
a description. A
dynamic description would be referred to as a
description of an
event.
As in English, N is able to render both static and
dynamic
descriptions, and within the same sentence. The structures
used to
describe events has three parts to reflect the mental model
that we
use to recognise events. The structure contains a subject,
verb and
object. Natural languages vary in the order within a
sentence that
these entities come. Many languages, English included
because of its
diverse linguistic heritage, also allow the ordering
of entities to
vary. Or, to put it another way: English, the order of
entities to
vary will allow. N enforces a single order for entities
in each
utterance. The result is that it requires less work to
interpret an
utterance in N.
English, and all other natural
languages, employ syntactic and
morphemic transformations to the
structure of a sentence, in order to
specify details about the time,
place, plurality, performer, and
performee of an event. In so doing
the gross structure of the sentence
is modified radically. For
example, consider the sentence ``I will
drive the car.'' and the
sentence ``I drove the car''. The
transformations means that, to a
casual glance, the sentences are
totally different. Whereas on closer
inspection, one can plainly see
that they are the same sentence,
modified to place the event in the
future or in the past
respectively. Similarly, ``I am driving the
car'' incorporates new
words and structures to indicate that the event
is occurring in the
present. The main transformations are to the verb
``drive''. The verb
is altered to indicate the tense of its operation. To
adapt the tense
to English sentence structure other syntactic changes
must be
incorporated. Both N and natural languages specify the role of
the
performer and performee of an event, but N does so
explicitly,
whereas natural languages often only give
clues.
Dual Purpose Language
Frequently glyphs are used to clarify the relationahip between
the
entities referred to in the bare content of the structure and
the
speaker of the utterance at the time and place that they
uttered
it. Language frequently serves two purposes then. The first
is to
describe an event, and the second is to describe the
speakers
relationship to it. that relationship can be spatiotemporal,
moral,
psychological etc.
Constant Structure Aids Gestalt Understanding
N is, in the formal presentation below, referred to as
``N''. N uses glyphs (or graphical symbols) to adorn the basic present
tense form of a verb to indicate the tense modification. By doing so
it enables N not to require structural modifications to
indicate the change in meaning of the sentence. For example the three
driving examples given above would be represented in N as:
[I | drive_p | car] == ''I drove the car.''
[I | drive_n | car] == ''I am driving the car.''
[I | drive_f | car] == ''I will drive the car.''
Speculativeness Aids Critical Thought
N has the advantage that with the use of glyphs one is able to
progressively adorn the sentence which more meaning without changing
the basic structure at all. N does not allow the writer to adorn a
structure element with contradictory glyphs. In some cases one is able
to give a visual representation to an English sentence structure that
is not representable without additional glyphs of its own! Consider
the following example.
[We | produce_f | Documentation] == "We will produce the documentation."
might be adorned with the not sure (non-normative) glyph, which
modifies the sentence to indicate that the item adorned, is unsure in
our minds:
[We_? | produce_f | Documentation] == ''Will 'we produce
the documentation.''
[We | \future{produce_?} | Documentation] == ''Will we 'produce
the documentation.''
[We | produce_f | Documentation_?] == ''Will we produce
the 'documentation.''
Under normal circumstances (N aside) one seldom inserts a linguist's
prime accent (') glyph into a sentence to stress a specific word. A
prime accent requires active interpretation since its meaning can
often be implicit and vague. There is no specific meaning to the prime
accent either, so adornment with a prime will not enable the reader to
comprehend what the prime signifies at a glance. So, as an alternative
one has to adorn the whole sentence with an explanation:
[We_? | produce_f | Documentation] == ``Is it us
that will produce the documentation?''
[We | produce_f? | Documentation] == ''Will we produce
the documentation, or not produce it?''
[We | produce_f | Documentation_?] == ''Will we produce
the documentation, or something else?''
Clearly, the sentence has had to be expanded, modified, and
adorned with the '?' glyph anyway!. Therefore it is safe to
conclude that using glyphs is potentially much more powerful in what
it can represent in a given space. It has the potential to allow one
to represent something that might otherwise have been left ambiguous,
which is a critical failure in all formal documents as well as other
forms of communication. N may prove to be useful when using for
example SMS messages where space is at such a premium that one already
compresses speech beyond intelligible limits ;-\}
An additional benefit of this adornment of static structures is that
one is quickly able to view the ``hidden'' assumptions in a sentence.
As in the example above, one can look at the basic units of meaning
and their adornments and decide quickly whether one is completely sure
that they should be there, and what part they play in the statement or
instruction represented. Additional adornments allow the use of
normative statements like ``should we produce the documentation''. In
this situation, as well, one can see the need to pull the sentence
apart to signify which thing is open to choice.
For these reasons, I was tempted to call N a ``speculative
notation'' since it allows its user to quickly root out the nature
of their own mis-understandings, and address them with some sort of
thought process. If the user is of a logical bent then they could
quite easily use N within a formal proof framework. It has the
benefit, though, that it is able to cleanly talk about complex human
issues as well.
More Flexible Determiners Support Richer Thought Streams
When dealing with issues of non-trivial complexity, it is seldom
possible to elucidate a train of thought without referring to more
than one premise or sub-conclusion. The English language allows for
just one level of ``transferred subject''. By transferred subject I
take to mean one that was previously the subject or object of a
sentence. The transferred subject has to have been the subject or
object of the immediately previous sentence. For example, consider the
following sentences.
"N allows any number of determiners, over any scope. It also
allows them to be modified in the same way as variables."
The first sentence is easy:
[N | allow | determiner_* == d]
The second might be rendered with a structure such as the following:
[it | modify | them]=>[it.determiners =~ variables]
Obviously, the solution to disambiguate the English determiner 'it' is
to substitute N for 'it' and d for determiner\many..
[N | modify | determiner]=>[N.determiners =~ variables]
This system works in exactly the same way as the determiners of
English (the, that, it, them, etc). But consider what level of
expansion would be required the following group of statements
[consumer == C | receive_n | data]@local_host
[producer == P | transmit_p | data]@remote_host
[{P & C}.connection = ``peer to peer connection''] == PPP
[{P & C & PPP} | provide_f | OSI layer\one]
These propositions (whether accurate or not ;) form the structure of a
set of statements about the basic elements of a TCP/IP connection. The
final statement refers to the set of producer, consumer and peer to
peer connection as the subjects of its statement. The obvious
translation would be something like ``they provide an OSI
layer''. But, the previous statement is likely to have used ``they''
to refer to the set of P and C. So to use they again, when a new
entity has been defined would confuse the situation, therefore the
speaker is unlikely to use it. They will in all likelyhood have to
refer to all of the entities in the set explicitly by enumerating
them. The articles them, and that refer to the objects
of previous sentences. The articles he, she, they and it
refer to the subject of previous sentences.
It can be seen that such variable-like determiners allows the
simplification of arguments, as well as greater brevity and
specificity when referring to a previous entity. In addition the
determiners allow something like
[bob | drive_p == D | Car]
Which we can then augment with a following statement
[D == [drive = {unsafe & reckless & too fast}]]
English does not allow the use of determiners to refer to verbs within
previous sentences, without explicitly referring to the verbs as an
object, which would confuse the intent of the sentence altogether.