It is a remarkable phenomenon that children can learn to speak without ever being consciously aware of the sophisticated grammar they are using. Indeed, adults too can live a perfectly satisfactory life without ever thinking about ideas such as parts of speech, subjects, predicates or subordinate clauses.
Both children and adults can easily recognise ungrammatical sentences, at least if the mistake is not too subtle, and to do this it is not necessary to be able to explain the rules that have been violated. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that one’s understanding of language is hugely enhanced by a knowledge of basic grammar - it is almost tautologous to say so - and this understanding is essential for anybody who wants to do more with language than use it unreflectingly as a means to a non-linguistic end.
The same is true of mathematical language. Up to a point, one can do and speak mathematics without knowing how to classify the different sorts of words one is using, but many of the sentences of advanced mathematics have a complicated structure that is much easier to understand if one knows a few basic terms of mathematical grammar.
The object of this section is to explain the most important mathematical “parts of speech”, some of which are similar to those of natural languages and others quite different. These are normally taught right at the beginning of a university course in mathematics. Much of the Companion can be understood without a precise knowledge of mathematical grammar, but a careful reading of this section will help the reader who wishes to follow some of the more advanced parts of the book.
The main reason for the importance of mathematical grammar is that the statements of mathematics are supposed to be precise, and it is not possible to achieve a high level of precision unless the language one uses is free of many of the vaguenesses and ambiguities of ordinary speech. Mathematical sentences can also be highly complex: if the parts that made them up were not clear and simple, then the unclarities would rapidly propagate and multiply and render the sentences unintelligible.
To illustrate the sort of clarity and simplicity that is needed in mathematical discourse, let us consider the famous mathematical sentence “Two plus two equals four” as a sentence of English rather than of mathematics, and try to analyse it grammatically.
On the face of it, it contains three nouns (“two”, “two” and “four”), a ver(“equals”) and a conjunction (“plus”). However, looking more carefully we may begin to notice some oddities. For example, although the word “plus” resembles the word “and”, the paradigm example of a conjunction, it doesn’t behave in quite the same way, as is shown by the sentence, “Mary and Peter love Paris”.
The verb in this sentence, “love”, is plural, whereas the verb in the previous sentence, “equals” was singular. So the word “plus” seems to take two objects(which happen to be numbers) and produce out of them a new, single object, while “and” conjoins “Mary” and “Peter” in a looser way, leaving them as distinct people.
Reflecting on the word “and” a bit more, one finds that it has two very different uses. One, as above, is to link two nouns whereas the other is to join two whole sentences together, as in “Mary likes Paris and Peter likes New York”. If we want the basics of our language to be absolutely clear then it will be important to be aware of this distinction. (When mathematicians are at their most formal, they simply outlaw the noun-linking use of “and” - a sentence such as “3 and 5 are prime numbers” is then paraphrased as “3 is a prime number and 5 is a prime number”.)
This is but one of many similar questions: anybody who has tried to classify all words into the standard eight parts of speech will know that the classification is hopelessly inadequate. What, for example, is the role of the word “six” in the sentence, “This section has six subsections”? Unlike, “two” and “four” earlier, it is certainly not a noun.
Since it modifies the noun “subsection” it is somewhat adjectival, but it does not behave like an ordinary adjective: the sentences “My car is red” and “Look at that tall building” are perfectly grammatical, whereas the sentences “My car is six” and “Look at that six building” are not just nonsense but ungrammatical nonsense.
So do we invent a new part of speech called a “numeral”? Perhaps we do, but then our troubles will only just be beginning:
the more one tries to refine the classification of English words, the more one realizes just how great is the variety of different ways we use them.
No comments:
Post a Comment