Object Sentences
I love language and have always been fascinated by its mechanics – how
the assembly of words in a sequence can either convey meaning or sow
confusion. Given my interest in the value of splitting structure
(grammar/syntax) and content (words), language has been a potent
catalyst. When I was younger, one of the questions I turned over in my
head all the time was – why can’t there be a language in which it was
impossible to speak nonsense – meaning a language where ANY combination
of words made sense somehow. It’s a wacky question but points, I think,
to an important strength of every successful language – it’s incredible
flexibility. Without the ability to write nonsense, nothing new could
be done. Our idea of nonsense is subjective. The poetry of e.e.
cummings would have likely been viewed as complete garbage 200 years
ago. Or how about a computer program?? But the other thing that
fascinates (inspires) me is that even though the interface between
words is formally defined as grammar, it is also totally open, meaning
those rules are really only a guide. Poetry routinely flouts the rules
to great effect. If I know the words of more than one language the
options for sentence construction increase, as long as the reader
understands the languages used and doesn’t mind dealing with no formal
grammatical structure. Words, like atoms, seem capable of infinite
types of combinations, but gain particular value when used with a
logical grammar (e.g. Shakespeare or Hemingway). All of the above, by
the way, is equally true of music.
Lately I have
been puzzling over creating what in essence is a grammar for the
construction of not word sentences but "object sentences". Is there a
formal way to define how objects should/could go together to create a
useful thing or "sentence"? Sounds crazy because maybe it is. But
consider electronics, which for the purposes of this argument I will
equate to a language – meaning it is contained and its moving pieces
defined. At a very high level every device, gadget and gizmo is
identical – power supply, processor(s), i/o devices. Mix them up in
lots of different ways and you get everything from a digital watch, to
an iPod, to an IBM mainframe; like the words of a sentence. Take vehicles of any kind – the same high level analysis produces the
same result – all vehicles are identical. So what? My point is that, at
least in some cases, there is a starting baseline of components (words)
for the construction of certain categories of product. If you could
elegantly define the interfaces between these basic categories perhaps
you could start to generalize and identify an interface "grammar", at
least for that "language". Would love to see that someday.
