ENGLISH: A DISABLE LANGUAGE
It's a pleasure to practice our thoughts using the grace of the “writing form” of a language you might speak. The grammar of English or “English grammar” is usually considered as a discipline in most parts of the world. I'm not exactly in faith in all the disciplines invented or nurtured by “English speakers” in history. History is a free soul, and cannot be owned by people or a group of people. A Greek philosopher once said, “Humans learned a lot of things from animals; like spider web was the first step to invent textile industries.” Anyway, here we are interested in human language in the post-modern era of history, merged and dragged by various elements of human knowledge and inventions. Classifying memories in a set of rules understandable by the common human intellect should be ordinary in the sense that every known human in history had a language; those were understandable to people. If we start from the beginning, it will give us the truth that all humans actually speak the same language.
My findings about English grammar as it is classified by various grammatical “impressions” or “expressions” and “instances” are extremely shocking. First of all, I will list the impressions that are necessary for any language.
1. PARTS OF SPEECH: is the heart of the discipline which will make you aware that name; work; state/character; connections; determinations/specifications are the main aims of language to classify memories.
2. TENSE: is the consciousness of a speaker to express “where the fact is at” which is definitely necessary to classify memories. In other words, the auxiliary verb is the lunge of English to breathe.
3. STYLE / MOOD / TONE (INSTANCES): is the abstract part of the expression which is largely controlled by “choice of words” in an individual set of context or consequences. So when you compose an expression of mind in a tense that can be in various “structure of sentences”. Sometimes it is normal that when you play with the structure of a sentence it might keep changing meaning that is not the intent of the language. What I mean to say is, the structure of a sentence is to help people to express meaningfully but not to bother them unnecessarily, to show some respect to grammar scholars. If I put an expression “ I did not know that he was insane”, the playful version of the expression will be “I wasn’t that sure that he could be insane.”
Now I will classify some rules that probably came from verbal practices of people from various languages in the past which will have at least a 2000 years of evolution in Europe.
COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME (UNPRODUCTIVE):
A) Using “s” after a verb used after “first person singular number” like “He; It” is a complete waste of time. I'm not exactly sure where this trend came from in English language, but I haven't found any language which bothers a speaker to continuously use “s” whenever talks about a third person. It is disgustingly wasteful of our time mainly when most verbs sound lousy, shifty, and sloppy when use an “s” at the end for no extra benefits at all. It sounds unsound. In simple words, it does not express anything other than the fact that we already know that the speaker was a third person.
B) Now using “s” after none when it is plural, should be optional. Because it is “fully functional” in most cases using noun in plural without “s”. If you say “four bird”; it will mean four birds anyway, why do you waste an “s” for no reason. The speaker is instructed to say something that we already know. In reality, there are only two instances. Bird is singing when one bird is singings. Birds are singing when more than one birds are singing. Now if I say “Bird are singing” that must not confuse the reader there are more than one birds. The third instance of the reality is “some bird”; “100 bird” all of them fully functional without “s” at the end. If you talk about bird in general you should just say “bird sing in general”, “bird can sing” bird usually sing”. The good side of it is very obvious. When you say “I have limitations” it is actually slang which is not possible in reality to have infinite numbers of limitations. If you get rid of “s” and say “I have some limitation”, “I have some fear” that will make sense. Or say “I have a kind of limitation about it”.
C) Reverse way of logic about instances of expression or impression: There are very similar characteristics found in the use of “determiners or articles” to specify literally everything you ever speak of (singular, plural, material, abstract). Even when you say abstract feeling, “I am thinking” they will start counting “think twice”. Most disturbing is when the grammar will pick up a combination of words, a Noun Phrase then make you specify that one with articles. First of all, when you say “the man” you literally do not specify anything in reality until you point out “this man” or “that man”. “Man” and “the man” have similar meaning in reality. If I tell you “I sent you print out of email” that will normally mean, if I was sending more than one print out, I would tell you “I sent you 5 print out of email”. English grammar is disable about thinking the reality from ordinary human intelligence perspective. They will make you use “a print out” to specify the noun because there are situations when people can have more than one print-out. As you can see when I say “5 print out” I should not waste time putting “s” saying “5 printouts”. The same disable logic work in English when you say “he has ball in his testicle” it will mean he has two balls in his testicle if he has one ball you should say “he has one ball in his testicle”. Why do you keep using “s” in every “ball in testicles” with a reason there could be one ball in some cases. If I tell you “Man can do this” or “men can do this” they have the same meaning in reality. It is a disable way of thinking, or using logic from reverses perspective, that there could be 1 ball in the testicle so we will put “s” in every ball, every man ever had.
D) Use of “a”; “the” in the sentence to specify things does not actually specify anything as I have said earlier. I wrote a “1000 word essay” and found out that around 200 words were just “a” and “the” to specify Noun unnecessarily. As you can see the reality is that if had more than one “1000 word essay” I would let you know with numbers, why I am using an “a” in front of all noun phrases like I am insane. What are the instances here let’s have a look. If I say “applicant is foolish” it will mean I am talking about a specific applicant here. If I say “The applicant is foolish” will not make no difference at all. It is not clear what the speaker is exactly specifying here, using a “the” in front. If more than one applicant I would say “Applicants are foolish”. The chance of floating around with senses of specifying people, things, and abstract Ideas are utter hallucination of English speakers as part of their disability to think straight. Let's take material like a “tree” to identify the disabled logic. When I talk about “tree in general” I should say “tree is green in general” or I should use most of the times, usually, always to specify exactly what I am talking about. Now in English, they think when I say “tree is green” I am talking about “tree in general”, so I must use a “the” in front of millions of trees to specify them in the writing. As I said, the excuse for having “indefinite sentences” and “expressions in general” are making the foolish using “the” in every noun in the world to specify it. The grammar scholars will also tell you the same that you have to specify with an article because it is already specified. Except for some common or proper or collective nouns they use articles to specify them. In reality when you read an indefinite sentence that will have some serious deficiencies of expression. Look at the really more closely with this sentence. “Generally tree is green but tree I'm talking about is red.” the English speaker will tell me, I must put “the” in front of the second tree because I have already specified that I am talking about a specific tree. Now you will understand why I had around 200 “the” in a 1000-word essay and after writing it I realised I had to specify them as they were already specified. What a waste of our time in unproductive ways. As you already know that sometimes their logic works straight. Like when you talk about a person, you start with the name and then replace it with he/she. Well if you ask a feminist they will tell you there are languages that do not make difference between men and women. Let's do a reality check about expression in general or indefinite sentences. If I say “tree is green” in reality it does not express any idea because we know that all trees are not green. If I say “all trees are green” in reality you'll think I'm probably standing in front of a place where all trees are green. As I said there will be a serious deficiency in the expression of one reality if we think “tree is green” is expressing anything in general. It gives us the idea that the speaker is taking about green tree. Check the idea of an indefinite sentence by comparing next two sentences and find out which one is making an indefinite expression in reality. “Earth is moving around the sun”. “ Earth will keep moving around the sun.”
So the most natural way of thinking is; (a) some ideas and things can be specified by language in other words specified by nature; (b) if the speaker doesn't specify a number this is naturally singular in expressions; (c) the listener doesn't have the right to take it as indefinite or in general (that is plural) until the speaker is expressing/specifying it with words like generally, indefinitely. When I say “tree is green” it's a singular verb that means one tree. When I say “trees are green” it's a plural verb that means I'm talking about more than one tree not an infinite number of trees. Because when ill talk about an infinite number of trees I will specify with such words “all trees”, almost all, every. Now you should understand when I talk about one tree specifically it's already specified. When you say “The tree is green”, that is stupid slang that will mean “tree is is green.”
Have a look at the logic on the side of another party. (a) some expressions are general or indefinite but most of those expressions are possible to bring into finite or definite expressions in reality. (b) the overlap narrowed the expressions to a situation where almost everything is literally specified by numbers, amounts, and various instances. (c) “double specifications” is a disability of English grammar. English can potentially resolve the deficiency of indefinite expressions but wastes time and energy with the double specification of all finite and definite things by nature.
If you may account for the amount of rubbish coming out from English speakers with the name of the language, you might not look for other lists of rubbish added by similar people in academia. As I said, I don't have faith in contributions from English speakers as they are always verified and binned by conscious populations in other countries.
E) REALITY CHECK: Grammar v. Meaning: some expressions are general in a sense but specified in meaning in a sentence or in a context. “ It becomes consideration for everyone”. “A consideration” or “consideration” in general has a similar expression. Have a look at two sentences “general in a sense”, and “specified in meaning” Here the meaning is taken to be general in a sense. What it means is meanings are predetermined in the context of the speaker where some specifications only waste our time by overthinking. As you can see English grammar will interfere with your expression with false logic that “consideration” must not be including all considerations in general but “meaning” will. Check this link “in absence v. In the absence”.
CONCLUSION: to be concluded the arguments arising from questions of productivity, readability, and soundness of sounds, the words may become omitted in our minds when reading or speaking. You will find some uneducated stubborn will account presented issues if do not use a the in the phrase “in absence” without having any grammatical error or error in the meaning. Where it started? The “English grammar” is coming from the perspective that “tree” is "General Name" for all trees. This idea keeps giving us the impression that “the tree” is the only way to specify it. As I said, “what is given” or "what is by nature" has two different ways of thinking, where one is too much wasteful. As I explained above, when I say, “two different way(s)” or "(the) only way" you can see the wasteful double specification system. The second issue is when we express something in "present tense", for a third person (he, it) we use “is”. This trend is attached in every verb used after "third person singular number" with an “s” to express the tense of it in the verb. How it is a double specification system? Because it is given in English grammar that all verbs are in the present form already. Now if you think from this perspective of the double specification system you will be able to exclude most auxiliary verbs from English as because they don’t express anything in the meaning. In the present tense: “I go”; “I going”; “I gone”. In the past tense: “I went”, “I wenting”; “I been gone”; “ I been wenting”. In future tense: you will need auxiliary as like as other expressions composed by can, may, wish, need, want, think, demand, must, say, feel, believe, hope, suppose…………………if you wanna ask a question simply put a question mark "?" in the end.
Now I must conclude the topic with my verdict from the facts and reality of the situation above. If we actually follow all the rules of English grammar we can see it clearly. When we say “tree is green” we actually talk about one tree that is similar to all trees in general. When we put a “the” in front and say “the tree is green” we gramatically express the same meaning. As a result, the reader must be cautious when a writer expresses things in general that must not be pulled out of the context of writing. In this fair way of grammatical rules, using determiner or specifier in English has never been mandatory in English grammar. What is mandatory is to think in the context and subject matter of the writer other than disturbing. When you actually talk about “tree” in general you need to be more specific with specifiers like all, almost all, every, overall and so. Indefinit sentence has definite meaning in the context of writing or subject matters. As a result an indefinite sentence must have to be true indefinite sentence in meaning with proper specifiers like “earth will keep moving around sun”… indefinitely. Take this example. If someone saying -I found a home, then started living in home, then started shitting in toilet of home. There is no grammatical errors in the expression. The listener must be in the context of thinking also can be open to think indefinitely. Because no meanings are changing. Have a look when specifier is important- I bought a tree. I started growing that tree. Tree is good for health. I decided to keep the tree. On the other hand- I bought a tree. I started growing that tree. Tree is good for health. I decided to keep tree. Both sets of context have exact similar meaning.
If you ask me at the end why English is a Semitic language. Because the foundation of English came from Arabic like most of the other Semitic languages. If you look at Arabic numbers they are exactly same like English. If you look at Arabic “A B C D” they are identical with some variations only. Spoken English dried up the stuff notations of Arbic mostly but kept the accent only.