The rain impending

It looked about to rain and I said to Barb: "Let's watch the rain impending". 

I have no doubt that is a bit of a complex linguistic construct connecting the narrative 

(it rains)*

to the 

rain_/impending

Quisset Disapppearing in the Fog

 I didn't think this was so good, but David and Karen liked it:

NOAA Pine Tree

 I think I ruined a good sketch:

Just a subject beyond my skill:

Latest views

  A beach scene: Trunk River, looking east:

Another view of swans at Salt Pond:

I was reminded of the Tintin "King Ottokar's Scepter", where I think I remember pelicans on a blue background - or maybe they were swans and it was a different background. It was on the side of an airplane.

Some problematic, simple, narrative structures

 In my theory of "verbs", I take them to be action events, with an actor acting on a target and changing it. For the action X->Y, we name the change in Y, as dY/dX(v), where v is a particular action. There is also a Newton's Law saying that actions always change targets, and targets are only changed by an action. I should add that my handling of intransitive verbs like: "The dog is running" says that they are describing an attribute relation, no different from saying "The dog has fur". So we might write dog_/running.

So I have a couple problems with these concepts. Here are sentences where the action is unclear but the transition is described. Are these changes or actions?

1. The bubble pops

2. The dog barks

3. The fruit rots.

Now, I think we can take 2 as dog_/barking. But 1 and 3 involve changes to the object without an action causing it - seemingly a violation of "Newton's Law". 

But how about if we treat all of these as the changes brought about by an implicit action? So [X]->bubble becomes bubble_/pops, [X]->dog becomes dog_/barking, and [X]->fruit becomes fruit_/rotting. Are these implicit actions or changes? I hope it doesn't matter but it would be nice to get straight.

Another truism?

 If someone makes a request, the presumption is that I will agree.

Chappaquoit Views

 

Feels like I am hitting on all cylinders, here.

Another truism and another type of non-sequitur

When things are in a list, attributes of one are assumed for all:

Bob has red hair and john has red hair but terry has brown hair.

Also, the list related non-sequitur:

Bob has red hair and terry is from Maryland.

To be in a list, with only two items is a bit ambiguous. So

Bob has red hair and terry has brown hair

Is almost OK. It could also be

Bob has red hair but terry has brown hair

Maybe I should acknowledge a weak form of "but",

Update: Possibly at the expense of subtlety, lets try to make this clearer: a "list" pattern is established when a shared property is found in the first two, or more, elements of a list. They are connected by the word 'and'. The first time the pattern is violated, requires a 'but'. It is noted that some patterns allow for a constant portion and a variable portion. So hair color is constant but the actual color is not, in the last example. I would focus on the first example as the only one that is a real truism.

For the record, here is the current list of truisms.

(X->Y)_/[place, time, manner]   (Events are local)

X->person::person_/feeling      (Affects cause feelings)

person_/feeling::person->Y      (Passion evokes action)

(person->Y)_/[GOOD]             (Actions are efficient)

(X->Y)_/GOOD::Y_/GOOD          (Efficient actions produce good)

X_/A::X_/[A]                    (Attributes are constant)

N(X), N(Y), [N(Z)]              (List patterns are constant)

X_/A_/GOOD::X_/B_/GOOD          (Value transfers between attributes)

X_/(+/-) :: Y_/(+/-)            (Polarity transfers between things)

X* :: X                        (Conflict is resolved)

N([Z]),Z (The implicit can become explicit)

N([Z]*)::Z                      (The blocked implicit must become explicit)