This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
Part 1: The Fundamentals
As I said before, in the previous post, the English language is based around the use of words, that represent an individual piece of information, in combination with each other to provide a more complex and complete piece of information to be transferred between people – (either directly, or indirectly) – using either sounds or associated symbols.
The individual sounds that are used, and the associated symbols (alphabet), are therefore the basic building blocks of our language, with which we can communicate, (hopefully), any piece of information we wish.
The basic rules of the language – the basic rules of English grammar – are therefore concerned about two things:
1) How words are used in combination with each other, in order to form a more complex and consistent piece of information.
2) What type of information/concept a word represents.
The main symptom of basing our perception and teaching of the language upon the wrong philosophy, is that we are simply not fully recognising and understanding that how words are used only ever matters because of what information the words represent.
How words are used is meaningless in isolation, since it is ultimately determined by what information the words represent. The study of language therefore involves reverse engineering this – studying how in order to determine what.
But what the language represents is rarely?/never? identical to how it is used.
For this reason, how words are used, and what type of information they represent, are two separate, but related concepts, that need to be described, informed and taught for all words within the language.
The way in which we have attempted to do this, is by splitting the language up into different types of word, based on how they are used. In labelling a word for its type in regards to a particular use, we can then understand the information the word represents in relation to the rest of the language – a short-cut for what type of information it represents and how it is used in such a manner, in combination and relation to the language as a whole, (that may also be part of its general description/definition if thought necessary).
Since the types of concepts our languages represent are generally very similar, our study of how the language is used and what types of information it represents, and any further consideration and extrapolation involving types of words, probably also affects our description and understanding of other languages too – which is why the problems we have may not be limited to the English language.
So what problems do we have, that are caused by our underlying philosophy?
Because we’ve focused so much on how the language is used, we’re not fully recognising what types of information it is used to represent, especially in regards to the different types of word we have already split the language up into.
Indeed, because of our focus on how the language is used – we‘ve even made the mistake of describing, (teaching and informing), types of word, for what they represent as how they are used!
But again, how words are used only ever matters because of what they are used to represent, and if we do not describe and teach words for what they represent in a consistent manner, then of course we’re going to have problems!
A further problem, is that, because we’re not fully understanding what type of information each word is used to represent in isolation, we’re also not fully recognising, teaching and describing what words represent in relation to each other when and where applicable.
By only trying to describe (types of) words for how they are used in relation to each other, we’re therefore missing what they represent in relation to each other – even if it is extremely obvious, based on the words that are being used in such a manner.
At the end of the day, what we’re after, is a something we call a taxonomic hierarchy – a pyramid of language that allows us to relate all words to each other, based on the word (and the concept it represents) above it in the pyramid – thing, object, furniture, chair, armchair etc., ultimately as being part of the English language. What’s important for such a hierarchy, however, is that the actual concepts themselves must be kept consistent wherever possible and applicable. This is, unfortunately, not happening at this time. The reason for this, is because we’re not describing the basic types of concepts that the basic types of word represent in a manner that is consistent with them being the root of such a hierarchy.
The language we use to describe what types of information other words in the language represent, isn’t doing its job – because we’re not fully recognising what types of information they represent, either in isolation, or (especially) in relation to each other!
Part 2: The Symptoms, and Solutions/Definitions
Nearly every type of word we use to describe, label and consider the entire contents of the English language, is being described in an inconsistent manner! Such descriptions tend to suffer from three basic symptoms – they tend to be either:
2) Inaccurate, or
Of course, descriptions and definitions for these types of word can vary depending on who is doing the describing – but I have yet to find any dictionary/encyclopedia that is fully consistent for the main types of word I will be concentrating on – (and I’m not sure my last English language course was, either – but that was before I fully recognised what was happening).
So, the problem lies with being able to use the language itself to describe what other words in the language represent in a fully consistent manner with their use. Although, as I said, nearly every type of word suffers from problems, I will only be concentrating on a few types, due to how they are related, both to each other, and also the word game itself – noun, verb and adjective. There is another type of word I’ll be involving too, (though this has less of a problem?), (and is more of a help for one of the words above) – determiner.
So, if we don’t understand what it is that words represent in relation to the rest of the language, it shouldn’t be too surprising that we lose touch with what they represent in isolation, too, as an individual word.
Of course, the foundation of what the language is used to represent, is represented and described by the word thing. The type of word that such a concept is used as, is labelled by the word noun – and so it is there we must begin. It is also there that the main problems for the word game, itself, are found…
The problem with the type of word we call noun, is that our recognition of what it represents – the types of concepts words belong to that are used in such manner (because of what they represent) – is incomplete. This is directly affecting the word game for its main, general use, (from which all other uses are derived, although some are now based on an obsolete definition and use), since it is used as a noun, belonging to a type of concept that nouns are not currently perceived, understood, taught and described to represent.
The word noun is used to label a group of words that are used and treated by the language for what they represent, in isolation. All other types of word, and the concepts they represent, are therefore ultimately related to and by such a type of word for such concepts and forms of information that words used in such a manner, represent.
It should be no surprise then, that the first concept/type of information is used in such a manner because it can, and often does, exist in isolation:
Noun n. 1) A type of word that is used as representing a thing.
Things can be tangible (e.g. object, person/animal/plant, substance or place (town/village)), or intangible, (e.g. information, idea, concept, abstract/absolute time and space).
Because the word information itself is a noun, and all types of word ultimately represent and describe such a thing, the root of all descriptions of such labels, for what they represent, comes back to:
Information/concept is a noun is a noun is a noun etc..
If any descriptions for types of word do not, ultimately, fall back to that description, then we have a problem – (it’s either unsuitable or inaccurate).
Now, as I said above, the definition of the word noun, and all it represents and covers, is incomplete. The reason for this, is that there are two more concepts that are used in the same manner as words that represent things, and yet they are not being fully recognised or understood for the type of concept they belong to, even if words representing such concepts are recognised to belong to such a type of word, since they are used in such a manner.
The basic reason for this, is, as I said in the previous post, that what the other types of concept represent, including the words game, art, puzzle, competition, work and play etc., does not exist in isolation, even as the language treats them in a manner that does.
For this reason, we cannot describe what it is these two concepts represent in isolation at all, and therefore such descriptions and the recognition and understanding of what they represent, is reliant on descriptions of other words, for the type of concepts they represent, elsewhere.
The two words that are therefore required to be described in a manner that allows such a further description to be possible, based on their relationship for what they represent, are verb and adjective.
The relationship itself, based on the words used in such a manner – even the same word used in different ways when applicable – should be very simple and obvious to determine:
Flight is (used as) an application of fly.
Speech is an application of speak.
An act is an application of act – (as is action/activity etc.).
Agility is an application of agile.
Strength is an application of strong.
Competition is an application of compete etc..
So, hopefully it is obvious that the two other concepts that are used as nouns, because of what they represent, can be described as being applications of whatever verbs and adjectives are used to represent - or, rather that they can be described as representing applications of whatever concepts words used as verbs or adjectives, happen to represent, themselves.
This therefore means that we need to be able to describe the words verb and adjective in a manner that is suitable for both what they represent in isolation, and also for such types of nouns in relation to – as applications of.
I have yet to come across any definition of these types of word that truly reflect what they represent in such a manner – even if the language necessary to do so already exists, (since it is used to describe other words representing similar concepts).
The language necessary to describe what it is that words used in such a manner represent, as I said above, already exists, elsewhere, and yet no dictionary/encyclopedia I’ve come across has used such language in such a manner. Instead, they all tend to use words that are completely unsuitable for acting as the root of such a taxonomic hierarchy.
Again, we’re after a description that falls back to the words information/concept/thing/noun by itself if possible. Unfortunately, the main way in which such a concept is described falls back to another type of noun – indeed, that which represents an application of the very concept words that are used in such a manner happen to represent. How can the words activity or action function as the root for the word act itself? Likewise, the word state also has no use in describing what verbs are used to represent, since it also belongs to the same type of noun the words activity and action belong to – as an application of the very concept that is used as a verb!
There is really only one way of describing what type of information words represent that are used as verbs:
Verb n. A type of word that is used as representing a thing that happens/things that happen.
So, it should be simple to describe the second type of noun as:
Noun n. 2) A type of word that is used as representing an application of a thing that happens/things that happen.
And yet, I’ve already run into people that seem to have problems with the different uses of the word thing in such a manner.
Unfortunately, some nouns of this type are also described as representing merely ‘things that happen’ too, in itself, without any application, which is not helping people understand and recognise the relationship between the different types of word and the concepts they represent. Because of this, all the different uses of the word thing in describing different types of word is not really helping people understand what they represent, either in isolation, or in relation to each other.
Since the word game has a use as all three of these types of word, for varying definitions/pieces of information, (a thing/a thing that happens/an application of a thing that happens), wouldn’t it be useful if we could find another method of describing such a concept, without using the word thing directly?
(In my opinion, the word behaviour, for what it represents in isolation, (even as an application of behave), would appear to be suitable to be used as a replacement for ‘thing that happens/things that happen’. Of course, most people would recognise the word for what it represents in relation to what ever is behaving, but, in isolation, it’s not really used as an application of things that happen. This does mean, of course, that the word behaviour does not seem to neatly fit into the types of concept that I’ve described and the overall taxonomic hierarchy I’m constructing – but that could also be easily said for the current definitions, anyway. The word behaviour is used as a noun – it’s just a matter of deciding what type of concept it represents, and how best to describe it, I suppose. I’ll still be using it in place of ‘thing that happens/things that happen,’ though :p).
As I said before, I agree with the split between adjectives and determiners, since it makes adjectives far more consistent and easier to describe and define. (Of course, this just means that I might be moving problems elsewhere, but still…).
The problem with the descriptions of the word adjective at this time, is that they tend to be inaccurate or just inconsistent, even if such a split isn’t made.
The worst mistake many dictionaries/encyclopedias make for the word adjective, is describing it for how it is used purely in relation to nouns. Since there exists a type of noun that represents an application of this very concept, however, such a description is simply inaccurate and inconsistent in itself.
Adjectives represent a concept that is used in combination with nouns (of all types), some types of adverb, (relative time and space), and even other adjectives too!
(E.g. good agility, quick game, big table, spacious inside, (a) better tomorrow, and bright red).
The main word we currently (consistently) use to describe such a concept, is attribute – therefore:
Adjective n. A type of word that is used as representing an attribute that concepts/’things’ have. (I’m still not quite sure of the best way to describe this).
So the third (and last) type of noun can also be described:
Noun n. 3) A type of word that is used as representing an application of an attribute that concepts/’things’ have.
So, we can now describe noun for what it represents in detail:
Noun n. 1. A type of word used as representing a thing or things.
This type of noun (generally) represents things that can and do exist in isolation, independently of any application, behaviour, state, or quality – that can be tangible: people, objects, animals/plants, substances, and even places, (towns, villages), etc., or intangible: information, ideas, concepts, time and space etc. - and are therefore treated by the language in such a manner, that can therefore have such applications and behaviour, states or qualities added or applied to them by using other words, such as adjectives and/or verbs/adverbs in combination.
Of course, the line between tangible and intangible things can be crossed in both directions – we can have intangible representations of tangible things, and tangible things that contain or promote intangible things.
However, there are another types of ‘thing’ that do not exist in isolation based on how they are labelled – such as those labelled by their (even potential) behaviour, (for example, actor or narrator) - those labelled by their properties/qualities/attributes, (such as a safe, or stronghold) – and those labelled by their relationships – (mother/daughter/friend/enemy etc.).
Even here, what nouns are used to represent cannot be fully considered in isolation, even as the language treats the words as though they should – again, what the words represent, and how they are used, are not the same thing – what a word represents may be related to another concept, even if its use is not.
Noun n. 2. A type of word used as representing an application of behaviour (or thing that happens/things that happen).
This type of noun describes or represents applications of behaviour that can be either directly related to, (and even derived from), individual verbs themselves, (or even the same word, used in such a manner), or exist, and therefore be represented, in a more abstract form. Flight, as an application of fly, movement as an application of move, speech as an application of speak, activity or action as applications of act, (or even the word act itself, when used such a manner), along with words such as work and play, (in general, though not always!), are therefore all examples of a direct application of such behaviour when represented by similar verbs. Event, state, game, art, puzzle, accident, party and even economy would all be more abstract examples of applications of behaviour as represented by such nouns within the language.
The words event and state would be suitable to describe the main types of application generally represented by other words of this type.
Noun n. 3. A type of word used as representing an application of attributes concepts/’things’ may have.
This type of noun represents similar applications of ‘attributes that concepts/’things’ have’, that are usually directly related to, and derived from, adjectives. For example: agility is an application of agile, (along with strength/dexterity/intelligence – (and other attributes used in cRPG’s)), happiness is an application of happy, beauty is an application of beautiful, truth is an application of true etc.. There are some which represent more abstract applications, however, such as colour.
Part 3: More Problems
So, hopefully we can all recognise and understand why getting confused between how words are used, and what they are used to represent, can affect our understanding of the language in general – even if the demonstration above is brief and incomplete for the language as a whole.
Since what words represent, can be related to other words, even if how they are used is not, the two should be considered and described separately – especially for the main types of word themselves, if possible.
Merely recognising the words game, art, puzzle, competition, work and play as representing applications of behaviour (things that happen), however, is still not enough for us to understand them in relation to each other, even if it is a good place to start.
Of course, one of the problems with some of these words, including game, is that they can be used to represent different types of concept that, although related, are still not the same piece of information. Again, some people do not like the fact that words can be used in different ways to represent different types and pieces of information. But the language is intended to function in such a manner, as it allows new concepts to exist and be created, that can be easily deciphered, recognised and understood purely because of the relationship between the different uses of the words, and what such words are already understood to represent.
It is important, therefore, to describe derivative words as such, to allow people to fully understand the relationships between what such words represent, that then informs how they are used. Many words used in the demonstration above, for instance, are not always described in relation to each other – (agility/agile etc.) – which will only cause problems.
Another problem, (which I’ll deal with in more detail when applicable for any individual word, later on), is that words can often be used as an application of themselves – one use that represents an application of another use of the same word. This, unfortunately, is causing great problems for two of these words in particular – art and competition, (though for (slightly) different reasons).
Merely understanding how such words are related to and by the type of word they represent, and therefore how they are used and the type of information they represent, however, is still not enough to fully understand what it is each of these words represent in relation to each other. Since getting confused to and by such different words and what they represent, in a manner that then causes further confusion for how they can be applied – (especially games) – is a very big problem, currently, we therefore need an additional method of understanding how they are related.
The lack of recognition of the relationships between what it is such words represent – the actual applications of behaviour, (even assuming the type of word and concept itself is understood) – is causing the main problem of mistaking applications for definitions. How we use the language (or not) to describe such things, in addition to anyone (or thing) that is behaving, is the main reason for this.
Again, although we now understand how the words themselves are related, what the words represent, that is being perceived in isolation, yet cannot exist in such a manner, also need to be recognised and then described in a manner that demonstrates such a relationship, or allows it to be understood.
Although some nouns of this type are therefore easier to recognise, understand and define, being part of a group of words of differing types, such as act/action/actor/activity etc., and/or simple applications of verbs or adjectives themselves, words such as art and game are not – the application of behaviour is the root word from which others are derived, rather than the other way round.
Other words, however, are also not so difficult, still representing (often simple) applications of behaviour that are easy and/or common enough for most people to learn and understand, such as accident, party or even event etc..
Some applications of behaviour, (that, of course, are used as this type of noun), because they are not directly related to, (or recognised to be related to), any simple or single verbs (or even adjectives), that can then help such words be easily recognised and understood, (both in isolation and in relation to each other), can therefore represent more complex applications, (including states), of behaviour. (For example: economy ). Such a level of abstraction between the two is another reason why some words, (possibly including the word game), are probably not always fully recognised or understood for what they represent, either in themselves, or in relation to each other, based on what they are used to represent and how they are used because of it.
The only way in which what words such as game, art, puzzle and competition represent, can be seen and understood to be related to and by, is of course to and by who/whatever is taking part in such an application of behaviour to begin with – to allow it to exist – the object which the application of behaviour such words represent, must therefore exist in relation to.
Part 4: Further Symptoms
The English language, as it is used and perceived at this time, unfortunately, is not very well equipped to help people recognise or understand the behaviour that some of these types of word represent, even in (occasionally) the most basic manner, depending on, and even because of, how abstracted the word is from the behaviour it represents an application of, or is merely perceived to be.
Because of this, some applications of behaviour tend to be thought of and recognised, and then described, in a subjective, or too specific manner based on an individual’s perception of such behaviour and any thing or entity that is behaving in such a manner, because of how the language is used and taught to describe such a ‘thing’ in the first place, (when such behaviour is actually recognised to exist), (whether it is recognised as being subjective or not):
Treating the behaviour itself in isolation (verb) and generally replacing any objective subject/object (noun/thing) taking part in such behaviour with a subjective, or even a more limited, specific objective, representation, often/mainly using words belonging to a type of word called pronoun, which can then affect the perception of any such applications of or to this subject/object, while also treating many such applications as ‘things’ that happen - getting confused between what verbs and this type of noun represent, due to how they are currently described.
Pronouns are extremely powerful for their ability to represent such objects and subjects of such behaviour, (and for other reasons within the language), in a subjective manner - especially of any/the relationship with the beholder. Since people are naturally subjective, the use of such words that represent such subjective perceptions and recognition, in order to describe such behaviour especially, is something many do without realising it. Even some of the more objective pronouns, are still dependent on something specific being referred to - a specific thing, person or entity, rather than acting as a general representation of thing/person/entity itself.
This means that fully recognising, understanding and describing the behaviour and applications thereof that some of these words represent, in a consistent, objective (as possible) manner, so they can then be perceived, understood then used and applied consistently (enough), especially in a manner that shows their relationships based upon, to and by what is behaving in such a manner, can be a problem.
This problem is so basic and fundamental, that some people are even having trouble understanding and recognising the difference between things that people (especially) do, and things that happen to people, when being represented by some of these words, (possibly the most basic behaviour of all), (especially related to the word game, and/or other similar words).
(If this isn't telling us we have a big problem with the recognition of the langauge we're using - I don't know what is...)
Indeed, the word art, for instance, represents a very basic and simple application of some very basic behaviour, yet the perception of this word as representing such a ‘thing/concept’ is not consistent enough - its definition and the perception of what it represents is still causing problems today.
This is caused by the sum of all the problems described so far:
The subjective (especially) objects/subjects by which words that represent behaviour in the English language are used, then affects the perception and then use, then definitions, (then perception etc.), of what other words, (within the language itself), especially those representing abstract applications of behaviour, actually represent, assuming they are consistently recognised for representing such a type of information to begin with! Again, by focusing mainly on how the words are used, we're failing to truly understand what it is they represent, due to how such a thing is related to other concepts and words, in addition to any people/entities taking part.
What we’ve wound up with, then, are subjective and/or inconsistent definitions for some of these words, either or both in isolation and/or in relation to each other.
The two main symptoms that these problems have created are:
1) An inability to recognise the difference between a word’s ("objective") definition and its (subjective) application. (Since the definition is now subjective, the line between the two has become blurred or non-existent for many people). This also then leads to:
2) An inability to recognise and understand the relationships between many words, (such as art and game for example), based upon, to and by the behaviour, (and applications thereof), they represent, including what is actually behaving, in order to enable such a thing to exist.
The first symptom is especially problematic, since it is a failure of the English language itself to do its main job: transferring information consistently between people. The difference between what a word represents in itself, and how it is then further applied, especially within the language, by using other words in combination, is an extremely fundamental part of the English language’s functionality – the basic rules of English grammar, (how words are used) - and for a good reason. It should be very unsurprising that problems exist, and are being caused by such a lack of recognition and understanding of the difference between the two. This matter is not just affecting the word game: it’s also directly affecting other words already mentioned, and their applications, such as art, puzzles and competitions, (and even competition itself), and also, indirectly, affecting other words and how they are used and applied, such as toy.
As a brief example, my mini-OED defines art as:
“The expression of creative skill in a visual form”
But with the addition of visual form within such a definition, it actually becomes a subjective application of what the word art represents, and therefore such words have no place in its definition! As such, it is inconsistent with how the word is used in general within the language:
Art has greater use in the language than just referring to such visual expressions – it is also used to represent aural, (music/song), culinary, (food), and even other types of expression which may use and combine many such applications, and affect a combination of senses – within the terms con-artist or artful as a property almost anything can have, for example. It is also used in other ways, such as martial art, too, that would not be fully consistent with such a definition. Also, for example, the motto of this very site is ‘the art of making games’, and yet trying to describe it as ‘the expression of creative skill in a visual form of making games’ doesn’t really work, (though it appears to on the surface, only because "video" games use such visual expressions).
However, the problem with the word art, lies deeper than that, which I'll be covering in a specific post on the subject, later...
Again, what people perceive the word art as representing, has affected (some of) its recognised definition(s), irrespective of its use. Similar problems exist for other words I’ve mentioned too. (I’ve written a post on each word I’m examining in turn, in which I’ll go into more detail and demonstrate this problem where applicable).
Unfortunately for the word game, such a process has now started feeding back upon how the word is used too, which could have some very bad inconsistent results within the language for such a word and what it represents, let alone other similar words and the relationships between them. Again - inconsistent teaching, leading to inconsistent use, leading back to inconsistent study and teaching...
Such definitions also do very little to demonstrate and describe just how all these similar words are related to each other, especially to and by the behaviour they represent, and who, or what, is behaving.
This is nothing more than a failure of linguistics - of the study and teaching of the language, ultimately because of the inconsistency in which it is perceived, then used, and then, ultimately, defined.
Thankfully, recognising such things is not necessarily a problem for every word representing applications of behaviour that are not directly related to verbs or adjectives. This is good, because the method I’ve identified for describing such words in a consistent manner, that shows how they are related is probably not suitable for all words of this type. (The solution is only really useful for words representing applications of (the?) very basic types of behaviour, which, thankfully, is all that is necessary for the words I’m/we’re looking at).
Part 5: Recognising the means of a ‘solution’
So, now we have identified the root of the problems with the word game in relation to the rest of the language, we need to figure out a method by which they can be, if not completely solved, (since part of the problem is the basic subjective nature of humanity and human beings themselves), then at least heavily mitigated by how the language can be, will be, and hopefully is to be used, (and therefore taught), to represent and describe such words that I have identified a problem with, in a consistent (as much as possible), objective (as necessary) manner that also demonstrates how they are related to each other, independently of any subjective applications or representations.
One of the main causes of the problem is the subjective nature of the applications, states and qualities applied to - (especially pronouns used in combination with) - the main type of words which are currently consistently recognised as representing behaviour/things that happen – verbs.
The English language is normally used by replacing the objective subjects and/or objects (things/person) related to such behaviour with a more subjective, or specific, representation, based on their (any) relationship to the beholder, especially people – using pronouns - (he/me/we/them/you/us etc.) - and when describing any behaviour that is applied to them. This can make understanding and recognising anything more than just simple applications of behaviour, (which is generally directly related to and/or derived from similar verbs), objectively, problematic, if not simple or common enough for people to learn easily, or so abstracted from such basic behaviour that the link between the two is already broken. Of course, when many people have no full recognition or understanding that they are, in fact, being subjective, and not objective, (because that is how they have always thought and used the language), it makes any subjective language that they normally use, more influential. (EDIT: There have been some studies about the subjective nature of the English language, for this very reason, but I've lost most of the bookmarks I had that linked to relevant articles. The only link I can give based on a quick search in goole so far, is this one, though I know there have been more:
Unfortunately, the reason why this has become a problem, is that, instead of describing such words in a consistent objective manner in relation to the people/entities taking part in such behaviour, many dictionaries/encyclopedias/lessons etc. leave the people/entities out of the definition entirely, leaving just the behaviour and the application thereof, by itself. Since people will naturally add their own subjective perception and viewpoint to such a definition or description, without any objective foundation upon which to build it should be unsurprising that such words have slowly become subjective based on their use.
What we need then, is a method of describing and representing people/entities, (and more?), and their (basic) behaviour in a consistent objective manner, with no inherent and easily substituted subjectivity, that can then be used to describe these words (and more!). We therefore need a consistent objective representation of a person, (or entity), and such behaviour within the language, that exists independently of any subjective representation – (any and all subjectivity should need to be applied in addition, using other words in combination, similar to most other nouns, in a manner consistent with the rules of English grammar). Since how we use the language at present is still very powerful for what it enables, independently of describing and defining other words, however, changing how it is currently used to meet these objectives is not a viable solution.
Such a solution would therefore need to be an additional method of describing and defining such entities and their behaviour, including demonstrating their relationships to and by such behaviour, by describing what is behaving in a consistent, objective manner using the language as it currently exists, so we can then define all these words by the behaviour and applications thereof that they represent, as consistently, and as objectively, as necessary/possible.
Does such a method of doing so, already exist within the English language?
The answer is yes - (I hope!) - or at least it could, should, and would exist, currently, (and would have existed for centuries, even), but for another symptom of the basic problem of not recognising what concept a word represents that then defines its use…