We have thought about our variables for grammatical time, {ON}, {IN}, {TO}, and {AT}, that is, Aspects Simple, Progressive, Perfect, and Perfect Progressive.
As in our ■MIND PRACTICE, let us consider if there could be a basic variable. We may begin with the most complex of our language patterns, the Perfect Progressive.
We may now compare the beginning of our language journey, the fields and the river of time (■Chapter 3). It is the verb to have to change for the PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE, in the Perfect Progressive. It changes the same for the cognitive variable {ON}, by the label, our Simple Aspect.
We know that auxiliary HAVE works for the language framework and we mark it green. As a content verb, HAVE may tell about ownership. We mark it mauve then, as all content verbs.
As a content word, the verb to have may tell about eating. Madame Règle likes the extra Larousse dishes by Monsieur Sauf. Let us compare the variable {IN}, by the label, the Progressive Aspect.
We use the word “label”, because these names do not decide the reality of language in the mind. The Progressive could be “Continuous”, we have noted about the many grammar books in this world. We could have another name for every grammatical Aspect and more.
Madame Règle IS having her extra Larousse and reading a book now.
When Jill walked into the restaurant, Madame Règle WAS having her extra Larousse and reading a book.
Next week at this hour, Madame Règle WILL BE having her extra Larousse and reading a book.
In the Progressive pattern, it is the verb to be to change for grammatical time; it changes the same for the variable {ON} in the fields of the real-time present, past, or future.
Here we have the variable {ON}, or Aspect Simple.
She IS at the
restaurant.
She WAS at the
restaurant.
She WILL BE at the restaurant.
For all Aspects and tenses, this is always the first element in the verb pattern to change for grammatical time; it behaves the same for the variable {ON}, as if to touch on the cognitive ground. We have the first element in big letters here. For Aspect Simple, it is the head verb to map the cognitive ground.
We can view the variable {ON} as the basis for other Aspects. It can be our earthling basic cognitive variable.
After all, people have evolved grammars {ON} a planet, and human life is likely to continue on a planet or even planets — for unforeseeable future(!)
All the mapping values, {ON, IN, TO} and {AT}, can be our learned cognitive variables: qualities do not have to be inborn to be natural, and there hardly could be inborn cognitive variables, because infants are not much cognitive. We people become cognitive as we live and learn. On the other hand, living without such variables would be intolerably impeded.
Finding a basic value does not imply any order in which to use our learned variables. We always mind the context.
The value {AT} would be the most divergent from the regular, basic {ON}. Let us turn to American English as it really is. Could we feel like recurring to the basic variable, after an “escapade”?
{AT} I’ve been loving it. But {ON} I want to keep doing different things. — People magazine as in ■CORPUS OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ENGLISH, COCA.
In natural language, a Progressive highlight is not anything unusual:
This is a dream come true. And I’m loving every minute of it. — NBC Today, COCA.
For the sake of language competence, let us also consider attempts to present language as options or programs. Are grammatical Aspects or human cognitive variables the same as options?
Proponents of program approaches to language indicate that language has features, and those show regularities in distribution, as in the table here. An Aspect to be both Perfect and Progressive is the Perfect Progressive. An Aspect to be neither Perfect nor Progressive would be the Simple.
| – Perfect | + Perfect | – Progressive | + Progressive |
| ■ | ■ | ||
| ■ | ■ | ||
| ■ | ■ | ||
| ■ | ■ |
However, Perfect or Progressive features are not exclusive of the Simple for grammatical time. We have noted, the Simple can be our basic variable. Word sense does not support option or program views to language, either. To say,
I‘m loving you, neither affirms nor denies on meanings as I love you, I don’t love you, or I hate you.
We can conclude that Aspects are not options. Are they programs? Programs are otherwise called open-loop sequences or processes, and such happen in human neural reality, but such open loops run beginning-to-end once started.
Speech and language do not rely on individual neurons for resolves, and we people can change what we say even in the middle of a word. Difficulty with this is known as spoonerisms.
Grammatical Aspects would be mediated with closed-loops otherwise known as intrinsic feedback. This means, Aspects cannot be programs.
Our variables thus cannot be programs either, and anyway they do not have any purpose other than Aspect management. The variable {ON} does not correspond with an option as off.
Book format in preparation.
The processing is not that for cheese — we people have inner open-loop and closed-loop processes, where neurophysiology grants intrinsic feedback a role in language learning, use, and compensation of deficit.
Finally, we people always have lived in habitats: if we think what there is {ON} a geographical map, we allow for places {IN} areas, routes {TO} places, as well as locations {AT} places or routes.
It is natural, to put together thought and language in own mind — for intellect, feeling, and earthly or generally living. It could not break any reasonable rules. What would feelings, thoughts, or works be, without room? {ON} board a ship or another spatial extent, human postural control will favor to keep with the Simple variable as well. We may compare ■6.1, our linguistic gravitation.
Aspect variables can be our earthling proper egoism. Everyone has the right to work grammar for own mind, and a logical set (compare ■5.1.) has much more to offer than prescriptive rules.
Grapevine: Heebeecheeche and other capers
I don’t know about anyone to have visited everywhere in person, so I thought there could be folks into our game. ■More
