Logic, linguistics, and philosophy. Culture and politics
The subject particle etc
Consider: (a) “A dog chased the mailman,” the subject being referentially indefinite. (b) “The dog chased the mailman,” the subject being referentially definite. (c) “Dogs chase mailmen,” the subject being neither indefinite nor definite; the subject is categorical. In the artificial language, then, the particle for the first argument of the verb (henceforth the “subject particle”) will distinguish trichotomously, viz. into (a) the referentially indefinite subject particle, the (b) referentially definite subject particle, and (c) the categorical subject particle.
If the subject particle is both categorical and also follows a noun (or noun phrase) associated with something with a mind (e.g., “Scot,” 日本人), then the categorical subject particle must in turn distinguish into (a) the identity-based and (b) the non-identity based.
It may be best to mark every noun (or noun phrase) as either (a) a body without a mind or (b) a mind with or without a body.
Beyond just the subject particle: Each particle must be marked as argument #1, argument #2, or argument #3—argument #1 of course being the subject. Each particle must also be marked as referentially definite, referentially definite, or categorical (with the categorical subject particle distinguishing further into tautological and non-tautological, the former being, if about a mind, equivalent to identity-based vs. non-identity-based).
I then wonder: Should I include, in the declensional system, not only the above but also gender? Number? Anything else?
That is: In the artificial language, nouns (and noun phrases) are declined for case, for that’s the distinction into the subject particle, the object particle, etc., also known as the nominative, the accusative, etc. Should nouns also be declined for gender? Number?
Consider: (a) “The black man is a professor.” (b) “The professor is a black man.” In the former, the category “black man” is used as a way of establishing joint attention on the referent, with “is a professor” being the point made about him. In the latter, however, it’s reversed: The joint-attention-establishment category is reversed with the point-made category.
Consider also: (a) The tall man punched the short man. (b) A tall man punched a short man. (c) The tall man punched a short man. (d) A tall man punched the short man.