# Es wird von~ gearbeitet./Es arbeiten ~..



## kimko_379

I was wondering if anyone would possibly give me the difference between:
1. Es wird hier von drei Personen gearbeitet.
and
2. Es arbeiten hier drei Personen.

I'd like to trace the primitive linguistic theology in languages and to know the Es=Gott with Love who gave the primitive/easy-for-creations-to-get, universal ergative-verbs-ed expressions as in "Es schneit Plastik. = Gott schneit/laesst schneien Plastik." works here as well.

Moreover, if you know how to understand the essential/wesentliche difference of the German passive voice from the German active voice in the first place, please let me know.

Vielen Dank im voraus!


----------



## Perseas

In the second sentence (active voice), "es" precedes the verb as a placeholder, since the verb must be in the second position and the subject is at the end of the sentence. 
In the first sentence (passive voice), "es" functions again as a placeholder in the pre-field [Vorfeld], since the verb must be in the second position. (However, I am not sure that this sentence is idiomatic, at least as the presence of "von drei Personen" concerns).
In "Es schneit Plastik",  "schneit" is an impersonal verb and  "es" is obligatory. 
On the other hand, if you change the word order in 1 and 2, you omit "es". For example: "Hier wird gearbeitet" or "Drei Personen arbeiten hier".
I don't know if in linguistics you can consider  Gott, Himmel … as subjects of weather-verbs.


----------



## kimko_379

Thank you so much, Mx. Perseas!
But please consider these:

A. On the "es/it/il/etc."-deity-theism:

1. The notion of "formal (grammatical) subjects" has been nullified by Dwight Bolinger's book:  "Meaning and Form".

2. "Il ( = He = Abba) pleut." ≠　(not equal)  "Ca  ( = It, an impersonal thing)  pleut. (The "C" has a cedille.  I fail to display French letters.)"
although "Ca me plait." and "Ca fait combien?" and "C'est beau (temps)!" (a dialect) and "C'est si bon."

3. "Es" is often used to denote a supernatural or hypernatural power:
Sigmund Freud's  "Es = Ido = Libido(?)".

4. The "regnen" and all the other verbs were ergative verbs:
"Der Himmel regnet."
"Vorwuerfe regneten."
"Seht, ich werde euch Brot vom Himmel regnen lassen."
"Es regneten Vorwuerfe."
"Er/Sie regnete Vorwuerfe."
The classical Japanese language has the full evidence, but I fail to have the time for the comprehensive or big/extensive enumeration of the examples.

B. On the impossibility of the "es"-deletions in the "hier"-"raising/pruning transformations":

1. The TGG stipulates have got thoroughly refuted.  TGG is just passe'e.
a. Chomsky himself declares in "The Cartesian Linguistics" that the "meaningless" but grammatical sentences are false, therefore, actually meaningFUL sentences.
And ponder the falsehood of this Dad's reply:
- "Does 'ideas' sleep, Dad?"
- "Yes, colorless green ideas sleep furiously, son."
b. See cognitive linguistics.

2. "Hier wird ... ." and "Hier arbeiten ... ." both show a staticlocative-nominative cases-unitiy/combination, although the finite verbs and syntactic subjects do agree just like the sentences in A. 3.
a. Cases unity/comination examples:
"According to the rumor, ... ." (sourcelocative-/instrumental-nominative unity),
cognitively synonimous with
"Rumor has_it/says ... ." (ditto.),
cognitively synonimous with
"When you/we trust/rely_on/go_by the rumor, ... ." (ditto./accusative/conditional-sentence-nominative unity)
b. "Hier ist Parkverbot." is an what we call "an eel-sentence"
(Cf. IKEGAMI, Yoshihiko:  " 'Suru' to 'Naru' no Gengogaku" and
MIKAMI, Akira:  " 'Boku wa Unagi da.' no Bunpoo"):
"I am eel/coffee."
"Ich bin Kaffee."
"Vous etes golf."
"Mimi ni kahawa."  (Swahili:  "I am coffee.")
"Wo shi Beijin."  (Chinese:  "I am Beijin.")
"Sivodnja - dosht'/xoroshaya pogoda."  (Russian:  "Today is rain/(a) fine (weather).")
Turkish and Korean have ones too.
And the above "Hier" is a staticlocative/nominative cases unity.
("Hier ist Parkverbot." seems equal to "Hier herrscht Parkverbot.", though.  It is, however, extremely unlikely from the above.)


----------



## kimko_379

Let me add to the first questions on the differences between the above two pairs of things:
the essence of German causative voice
and 
the essence of:
3. Es laesst sich hier von drei Personen arbeiten.
in contrast with the two pairs.


----------



## Gernot Back

I can't think of a situation in which I would say any of your sentences:

_Es wird hier von drei Personen gearbeitet._
_Es arbeiten hier drei Personen._
_Es lässt sich von drei Personen arbeiten._
Why would you want to put a placeholder-_Es _in these sentences _in the first place_*?
You could always start with _hier_. Especially #1 and #3 are really terrible style.

*meant ambiguously


----------



## Demiurg

As a matter of fact, your examples 1 and 3 are syntactically correct but not idiomatic.  Passive voice is often used if you don't want to specify an agent.  But here the agents are clear ("drei Personen"). So there's no reason to use passive voice or a construction with "lassen" in this case.  

Regarding example 3:  as Perseas already explained, "es" is simply a placeholder here to keep the verb in second position. It's function is solely syntactic. There's no semantic difference between:

_Es arbeiten hier drei Personen.
Hier arbeiten drei Personen.
Drei Personen arbeiten hier._

I don't see any reason to attribute something divine to this simple "es".

Edit: crossed with Gernot.


----------



## Gernot Back

Gernot Back said:


> So there's no reason to use passive voice or a construction with "lassen" in this case.


Aber:

_*Zu dritt* lässt's sich arbeiten!_​
Oder was meint Ihr beiden, @Perseas und @Demiurg ?


----------



## kimko_379

1.  





Gernot Back said:


> Aber:
> 
> _*Zu dritt* lässt's sich arbeiten!_​
> Oder was meint Ihr beiden, @Perseas und @Demiurg ?



I was wondering if you would possibly give me the translation and (preceding and/or following) usage-context in English.

2.  I have read somewhere (in some Japanese book of which I have forgotten any info) that "Es ... ."-sentences imply the near-natural-phenomena-ness of the events depicted by the sentences:
"Es kommen drei Soldaten hierher."
is similar to
"Es regnet."
Was the author totally wrong, I wonder?  Or what do you think he/she meant to say?


----------



## Gernot Back

kimko_379 said:


> "Es kommen drei Soldaten hierher."
> is similar to
> "Es regnet."


No, it isn't. You *can't* drop the _es_ in _es regnet_, while you *must* do so in

_Es kommen drei Soldaten hierher._​
... if you put some other phrase into the first position:

_Hierher kommen drei Soldaten._​_Heute kommen drei Soldaten hierher._​but
_Heute regnet es._​
Meteorological verbs like _regnen_ are avalent. The es is not an argument, but can't be omitted. A placeholder _es_ serves merely to reserve the first position if you want to ensure a special topic-comment sequence e.g. like in German fairy tales, all beginning with

_Es war(en) einmal ..._​
because a new topic is yet to be established.


----------



## kimko_379

Thank you very much, Herr Back!

The all-"Es's"-as-the-deity "theory"/notion apparently carried me away:
Evidently, it IS just impossible to grasp the "Es" in "Es macht mir nichts." = "Das macht mir nichts." as God.

But let me still ask you just in case:

Isn't every impersonal "Es" the euphemism for God?   Namely:

Isn't it possible or likely that "regnen" meant as an proto-all-human-language/primitive/probably-"Edenic," Agape-provided, easy-for-all-creations-to-get ergative verb that meant both "regnen" and "regnen lassen" and in the latter sense-usage required the obligatory "Es = Gott"?

And isn't it that "Es war einmal" = "Es gab/hatte einmal" = (grammatically or literally) "Il ( = He-God) y avait une fois" = (semantically) "Il etait une fois" and that it is pararrel to "What gives?" (What's happening/cooking/new?) = (semantically) "What is given (by God)?" ?

And isn't it that, as in my previous hypothesis or "theory," the primitive equivalent of "Hierher" in the primitive counterpart of "Hierher kommen drei Soldaten." was (in "Edenic" or something) a goallocative-nominative cases-unity/combination with the ergative verb as the ancestor of "kommen" meaning both "kommen" and "kommen lassen"?

Doesn't "Es kamen drei Soldaten." imply "God or the circumstances or any entity or subjectum made/gave/caused the happening/event/scene/Ereignis/Geschehnis/Szene of the coming of three soldiers like a sudden/unexpected (or whatever) natural phenomenon."?

In short, doesn't D. Bolinger's stipulate live as a Gospel truth that at least partially different forms are bijected to at least partially different meanings, which means that there never are perfectly-synonymous different grammatical forms or that any differences in the forms do have their raisons-d'e^tre?

Anyway, did  "Zu dritt laesst's sich arbeiten!" correspond to "The three of us/them shall work on it!" or "Let us three guys work on it!" or something like them?


----------



## JClaudeK

kimko_379 said:


> B. On the impossibility of the "es"-deletions in the "hier"-"raising/pruning transformations":
> 1. The TGG stipulates have got thoroughly refuted.  TGG is just passe'e.
> [..............]
> 2. "Hier wird ... ." and "Hier arbeiten ... ." both show a staticlocative-nominative cases-unitiy/combination, although the finite verbs and syntactic subjects do agree just like the sentences in A. 3.
> a. Cases unity/comination examples:
> "According to the rumor, ... ." (sourcelocative-/instrumental-nominative unity),
> cognitively synonimous with
> "Rumor has_it/says ... ." (ditto.),
> cognitively synonimous with
> .................


----------



## Gernot Back

kimko_379 said:


> Isn't it possible or likely that "regnen" meant as an proto-all-human-language/primitive/probably-"Edenic," Agape-provided, easy-for-all-creations-to-get ergative verb that meant both "regnen" and "regnen lassen" and in the latter sense-usage required the obligatory "Es = Gott"?


I don't think so. The neutral _es _is the prototypical pronoun for inanimate things and phenomena. As an atheist, I don't believe in god (which is why I don't capitalize this non-existent *thing*). But those who believe in *it* usually beleive *it *to be a *person* (which is why they reject the neuter pronoun _it_ for *it* and why they even capitalize their phantasm as _He_ or _She_. So why on earth should god -of all *things*- be represented by a neuter *impersonal* pronoun, especially if you believe in *it*s personal existence as the originator of e.g. weather phenomena?

It doesn't make any sense, not even to me as an atheist, let alone to theists!


----------



## kimko_379

The concept of "euphemism" addresses itself to your question:
1. Theists include the too-rigid people who interpret one of The Ten Commandments literally and even avoid writing "God" and replace it with "G-d".
2. The mostly-atheists-world naturally expressed Him as an "unmentionable" abominable "thing/one/guy/stuff" or "it".  The secular, even, avoid referring to the physical attractive-ness and use "it" like in "She has it." or "She is an it-girl."  And even that Freud saw the euphemism "Es" = "Ido" =(?) "Libido" as proper because of his theory that the libido is hidden/suppressed/unterdrueckt into the background called the unconscious(-ness) or subconscious(-ness).  Excuse me the ignorance of the details of his Desire-only minds-"theory".

I'd like to call your attention to His two-millennia-old pre-warning of the now-evident signs for the end-of-the-world before the Juengsten Gericht:  rock-hard plates never could bend and vibrate elastically;  the greenhouse-effect gas molecules never could hold heat or re-emit the "held/kept heat" only dowward back to the Earth surface and stay in the height among the atmospheric layers, pushed upward by the ascending hot-air flows, even after the "heat-emissions"/heat-losses; how could heavy CO2 remain high up there forever?

And maybe you can or should try/challenge this age's nearly-perfect apologetics camp:  Richard Jack, Werner Gitt, Lee Strobel, Arimasa Kubo (an English book), Jonathan Wells, Benjamin Wiker & Jonathan Witt, James D. Long, Isaac E. Mozeson, Marco Wehr together with Amir Alexander, and other modern-math/logic(s)/physics-and/or-"materialism"-critics.  The last people include cognitive linguists excluding the construction-grammarians who have fallen into the rut of the TGG-equivalent theory.
I said "nearly-perfect";  those authors mistakenly show or hint their appraisals of some or all of the antiCartesian/antiNewtonian relativists/mathematical-"Platonists"/monado-continuum-chaos-theorists like Leibniz, Georg Cantor, Einstein, Kurt Goedel, Alan Turing, Bertrand Russell, and Karl Popper.

Finally, please see the absolute unsolvability of the frame problems  even by the deep-learning neuro- or quantum-computers including brains;  there ARE souls/spirits.


----------



## kimko_379

JClaudeK said:


>


Let me elaborate on how  I got the seemingly-odd idea of cases-unifications/combinations:

Japanese has two particles/Partikeln "wa" and "ga" to show respectively the presupposition-nominatives and the focus-nominatives  (The latter cases include the cases of all-focuses sentences):
"Kole wa hon de su(, enpitsu de wa naku te)."  This is a BOOK(, not a PENCIL).
(The capital-letters show the prominenced/stressed morphemes.)
"Kole wa hon de, are wa enpitsu de su."  THIS is a BOOK, and THAT is a PENCIL.
"Kole ga hon de su(, are de wa naku te)."  THIS is a book(, not THAT).
"Kole ga so no hon de su(, are de wa naku te)."  THIS is the book(, not THAT).
"Kale ga hannin de su."  HE is the culprit.
"Kale wa hannin de wa ari ma se n."  It is not THAT  he is the CULPRIT.
"Kale ga so no hannin de su."  HE is the/that culprit you talked about.

An all-focuses sentence example:
"A, inu ga ki ta!"  Oh, here comes a dog!
"A, so no inu ga ki ta!"  Oh, here comes the dog!

And now we have obviously two- or more-cased "nominatives":
"Uwasa de wa,"  According_to/By the rumor,
"Uwasa ni yore ba" < (originally/etymologically) "Uwasa ni yora mu wa"  If we/you trust/lean_against/rely_on the rumor, < Our/Your assumption/intention of our/your trust/leaning/reliance in/against/on the rumor (would) cause(s)/caused/(would) bring(s)/brought/etc. ... .
"So ko ni wa" = At-that-place + VP = That place has/shows/etc.
And Swahili has the same construction with subjects like "mjini" (= at/in [ni]-the-village [mji] )+ VP.
Furthermore, Swahili has a saying: "The book has the teacher." (The book is had by the teacher.  The book is at the teacher's.).  Therefore, that language has the nominative/objective and objective/nominative combinations pairs.

Thus, the topicalizations-/left-dislocations-topics ARE subjects of nominatives combined/unified with other cases:
"Jon wa mi ta (yo)."  = John is the person I saw (all right/for sure). = JOHN, I saw him (all right/for sure).
"Jon wa MI TA n da (yo)."  = John is the person I SAW. = John, I SAW.
"Ichiba de wa Jon o mita (n da [yo])." = At the market, I saw JOHN. (The at-the-market topic/talk/story is that I saw JOHN.)
"Ichiba de wa Jon wa mita (yo)." = At the market, JOHN, I saw him (all right/for sure).

(The right-dislocations seem to be reminders/clarifiers-to-be-on-the-safe-side.
They include "It ... for NP to VP .", "It ... NP's/one's VPing.", and "It ... that S'. " )

Therefore, the themes/subjects of sentences are now closely related to the themes/subjects of paragraphs and of texts/discourses.

That was the beginning of my hypothesis or theory.


----------



## Gernot Back

kimko_379 said:


> And even that Freud saw the euphemism "Es" = "Ido" =(?) "Libido" as proper


Do you mean Freud saw the _Es_ as a _proper *name*_? I would strongly disagree here. Freud simply nominalized the pronoun _it_ here, which is why it has to be capitalized in German, but shouldn't be in English. Nominalization doesn't automatically turn a pronoun into a proper name. According to Freud every person has his or her own _it_, _ego_ and _super-ego_ respectively.



kimko_379 said:


> "She has it." or "She is an it-girl."


Would be translated into German as

_Sie hat das gewisse Etwas._​_Sie ist eine Frau mit dem gewissen Etwas._​
This _etwas_ of course is capitalized too, since it is nominalized. Again; this procedure doesn't transform the pronoun into a *proper* name; it's simply a noun now, that's *it*! 


kimko_379 said:


> Finally, please see the absolute unsolvability of the frame problems even by the deep-learning neuro- or quantum-computers including brains; there ARE souls/spirits.


As an atheist, I don't beleive in _souls_ and _spirits_ either: 

My material body is my *hardware*, my ideas and concepts are my *software*. If you destroy the hardware, my software will be destroyed along with it. I could try to at least partially reproduce my hardware if I were interested in heterosexual activity, which I am not. I could try to reproduce my hardware completely if I were interested in cloning myself, which I am not. My clone would be a different person, though, since a different software would be installed in his brain in the course of his education and other life experiences. 

The only chance I have to reproduce my software (thinking) is by communicating it to other people as long as my hardware is still intact, just like I am doing in this very moment.


----------



## kimko_379

Gernot Back said:


> Do you mean Freud saw the _Es_ as a _proper *name*_? I would strongly disagree here. Freud simply nominalized the pronoun _it_ here, which is why it has to be capitalized in German, but shouldn't be in English. Nominalization doesn't automatically turn a pronoun into a proper name. According to Freud every person has his or her own _it_, _ego_ and _super-ego_ respectively.
> 
> 
> Would be translated into German as
> 
> _Sie hat das gewisse Etwas._​_Sie ist eine Frau mit dem gewissen Etwas._​
> This _etwas_ of course is capitalized too, since it is nominalized. Again; this procedure doesn't transform the pronoun into a *proper* name; it's simply a noun now, that's *it*!
> 
> As an atheist, I don't beleive in _souls_ and _spirits_ either:
> 
> My material body is my *hardware*, my ideas and concepts are my *software*. If you destroy the hardware, my software will be destroyed along with it. I could try to at least partially reproduce my hardware if I were interested in heterosexual activity, which I am not. I could try to reproduce my hardware completely if I were interested in cloning myself, which I am not. My clone would be a different person, though, since a different software would be installed in his brain in the course of his education and other life experiences.
> 
> The only chance I have to reproduce my software (thinking) is by communicating it to other people as long as my hardware is still intact, just like I am doing in this very moment.



No, sir:  I meant by "proper" suitable or right or socially-acceptable, not "a proper noun".

And the "frame problem" shows that any electrical or kinetical or quantum-mechanical computing-theory-produced softwares fail to discern info pieces relevant to the problem solving from info pieces IRrelevant to the problem solving:  which is equivalent to the "ugly duckling theorem" which shows the principle-wise inability of the present set-theory-based computing/software science to make/let any electric/etc. computers classify/judge things properly; therefore, no computers including brains can ever classify info pieces into relevant info pieces and into irrelevant info pieces in any principles of the present math/physics that excludes the physics-to-be on the mechs of souls.  Bernhard (?) Riemann and George Bealer and other excellent mathematicians saw thru the necessity of the new unified phys including such deep-phys/souls-physics.
(You probably understand that judgments are classifications:  "A is B." entails that "A is classified into the set of things with B-ness.")

Would you mind JUST trying the authors that I listed?  And at the same time, I strognly recommend the convenient annotated Life Application Study Bible (Personal Size Edition) which costs less and takes up only a small space.

The very end of everything is just around the corner, therefore, I WOULD like you not to miss the bus:  According to the 2. Thessalonian of NT, Jesus soon takes up only Christians onto the third heaven (whose whereabout is unclear even to me) to save them from the "living-hell" that He sends onto the Earth.  The great tribulations to come WILL be much much worse than the present ones; they are going to be the worst imaginable, only next to the eternal hell after death.
Isaac Newton's prophecy and the prophecy in the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Rapture time to be, with an extremely highly probability, the year 2020 at the earliest!


----------



## kimko_379

Excuse me; let me make 3 corrections:

1. Read "Bolinger's stipulate" in #10  as "Bolinger's discovery".

2. Read "appraisals" in #13  as "approvals or praises".

3. Parts of my previous statements on English info structures with the Japanese translations were quite erroneous.  I quote herewith a more knowaledgeable person's complete comparative table below:

MARY kissed John.    MEARII ga Jon ni kisu shi ta n da (yo).
Mary KISSED John.    Mearii wa Jon ni KISU shi ta n da (yo).
MARY kissed JOHN.    MEARII ga JON ni kisu shi ta n da (yo).
Mary kissed JOHN. /Mary, she kissed JOHN.    Mearii wa JON ni kisu shi ta n da (yo).

Focus topicalization=nominative-combining:
- Who(m) did he call?
- JOHN he called.  = It's JOHN that he called.      JON da (yo).

Presupposition topicalization=nominative-combining
a.  in whole-rheme/predicate focus sentences:
- What about John?
- John he CALLED.    (Jon wa) Ka le ga DENWA shi (te oi) ta.
or
- John, Mary KISSED.    (Jon ni wa [ne],) Mearii ga KISU shi ta.
b.  in part(s)-of-rheme/predicate focus(es) sentences:
John, he CALLED him.    Jon ni wa [ne], ka le wa DENWA shi ta n da (yo).
John, Mary KISSED him.    Jon ni wa [ne], Mearii wa KISU shi ta n da (yo).

"yo" = ", I'm telling you."
and
"ne" = ", you know [what/something ?] , "
and
"n/no da/de-su (yo)." means "It is that ... (NP+VP  or  S+V [+O] [+O/C] ) despite the seemingly/scheinbar contrary/opposite outward appearance/facade/phenomenon.":
Haben Sie Geld?        O-kane motte i-ru/i-ma-su (ka)?
Haben Sie denn Geld?        O-kane motte i-ru n/no (de su) ka?
"No" and "de su" and " ~ + ma su" are polite/formal-style wordings.
(Maybe, the above two sentences without them would be "Hast du ... ?"
But in Japan, superiors including older persons with the exceptions of polite ladies use impolite, non-honorific/non-respect-language expressions:
our teachers and profecessors and bosses and "senpai"s = people who got into the school/work-place/etc. earlier than us do so, where their counterparts in Germany would "Siezen".)


----------



## kimko_379

1. It IS obvious from the subject-finiteverbs agreements, most people's minds have shifted from the Es/etc.-God awareness to the Es/etc.-as-a-placeholder awareness, but it's also evident from the translations of the afore-mentioned sentence in Exodus of OT in enough many (especially-European) languages that the latter consciousness lived in the souls of the folks from the age of Edenic to the era of IndoEuropean Ursprache because those translations mostly use ergative verbs with possible/potential meanings of both the intransitive and the transitive/causative corresponding_to/like English "to rain".

2. The exact examples of the previously-mentioned Swahili constructions:
(The source:  D. V. Perrott:  "Swahili" [Teach Yourself Books, New York:  Hodder and Stoughton, 1978] )

Kama ukiwa (If you are) na (with) ( = If you have) ndizi (bananas) kesho (today), nitanunua (I will buy).  (page 80)
Kalamu ina mwalimu.  = The pencil is with the teacher. = The TEACHER has the pencil.  (page 79)
Humo (In-here) tunduni (in-the-hole) mlikuwa na (was with) nyoka (a snake)? = Was there a snake in the hole?    (page 145)


----------



## kimko_379

My teacher must have failed to mention:
John, MARY kissed him.        Jon wa, MEARII ga kisu shi ta n da (yo).
So, the English translation of the Swahili above should be corrected to:
The pencil, the TEACHER has it.


----------



## Gernot Back

kimko_379 said:


> Anyway, did "Zu dritt laesst's sich arbeiten!" correspond to "The three of us/them shall work on it!" or "Let us three guys work on it!" or something like them?


No,

_Zu dritt lässt's sich arbeiten!_​or
_Zu dritt lässt sich's arbeiten!_​
is a simple declarative statement, not a demand, literally:

_It is easy to work as a group of three._​
Of course, indirectly, you could interpret it as an invitation to continue to do so.
Unfortunately, it seems the two other colleagues I addressed have abandoned this thread meanwhile.

Incidentally, synonymously I could have said

_Zu dritt ist gut arbeiten!_​
... in analogy to

_Herr, hier ist gut sein!_​
Note that these sentences are both without a subject (nominative) argument, even without an expletive es. In this, they are different from my original versions with a clitic _'s(es)_.


----------



## kimko_379

Vielen herzlichen Dank, Herr Dr. Back!  
We say:  "Ima ga/wa waratte iru baai (de su) ka?!" = Is now the/a case/time/occasion for being laughing?!
I'm so happy for you!:  I'm so relieved to know that you are reading Die Bibel as closely as other German people are!


----------



## Gernot Back

kimko_379 said:


> I'm so relieved to know that you are reading Die Bibel as closely as other German people are!


I'm probably reading *a* bible more closely than most Germans. That's why I am an atheist! At the same time, as a linguist, I value the different versions of bibles as a linguistic and cultural treasure.

Meanwhile I've studied the  theories of Bolinger and Chomsky more closely, who indeed -based on a purely English corpus- attribute an argument status to the 'it' in precipitation verbs. The evidence in the German language does not support this. E.g. we can't say:

*_Bitte regne nicht!_​
as in English

_Please don't rain!_​
We would have to render this as

_Bitte *lass es* nicht  regnen!_​
Again, this 'es' is neither a devine nor simply a personal argument.

Our frequent constructions with _es ... sich_ would contradict this status.

Hier lässt's sich arbeiten
Es hat sich ausgemerkelt.

Why would any person, especially a god have *himself* work?
Why would any person, especially a god stop *himself* to act like Angela Merkel?


----------



## kimko_379

Gernot Back said:


> I'm probably reading *a* bible more closely than most Germans. That's why I am an atheist! At the same time, as a linguist, I value the different versions of bibles as a linguistic and cultural treasure.
> 
> Meanwhile I've studied the  theories of Bolinger and Chomsky more closely, who indeed -based on a purely English corpus- attribute an argument status to the 'it' in precipitation verbs. The evidence in the German language does not support this. E.g. we can't say:
> 
> *_Bitte regne nicht!_​
> as in English
> 
> _Please don't rain!_​
> We would have to render this as
> 
> _Bitte *lass es* nicht  regnen!_​
> Again, this 'es' is neither a devine nor simply a personal argument.
> 
> Our frequent constructions with _es ... sich_ would contradict this status.
> 
> Hier lässt's sich arbeiten
> Es hat sich ausgemerkelt.
> 
> Why would any person, especially a god have *himself* work?
> Why would any person, especially a god stop *himself* to act like Angela Merkel?


Thank you so much again, sir.  But still I cannot take my starting theory or hypothesis back for these two-fold reasons:
1.  As I repeatedly submitted to you, I do not see all Es's/es's as God;
a. There are es's such that es's= das's.
b. People's minds have separated themselves (wandered away) from the acknowledgement and perpetual awareness and fear of God, not like in the ages of Ursprache(n).  Thus, the language usages have also gotten corrupt.  So, what is a wonder if there are non-God Es's as formal nominatives or accusatives-and-subnexus-nominatives?  (I am terribly sorry; I'm a novice in linguistics and have yet failed to absorb all the concepts of your quotations which were new to me.  Give me time;  I'm a most/quite busy homemaker and part-time would-be-researcher and awfully pressed for time.)
2. The above "es" can be interpreted as "den Himmel," don't you think?:
O Gott, bitte lass es/den Himmel nicht regnen!
And what do you say about this construal?:
Please, God, don't rain ( = let raindrops fall)!

Either way, I MUST entreat you again (!) to just read through the apologetics books that I listed;  Romans 1:20 requires that you know also at least the gists/outlines of various sciences on the external/physical/physikalische and internal/psychological worlds to understand God/theology on the whole (even though not completely).  That's the central/crucial parts of the reasons why Newton and other many protestant/antiCatholic scientists and mathematicians worked/strived/endeavored so hard to prove the infinite-ness (not indefinite-ness including chaotic-ness) and ominipresence and omniscience and omnipotence-to-do-good/just/loving-things-only ( = Agape/Love) of God, you know?  But you probably know the theodicee for His Agape too:  He loves us so much as to give us almost perfectly free wills to avoid a world as a silly Puppentheater/marionets-theater, so that he guides us through disciplines and perishes us in the eternal hell if we have determined to remain undisciplinable/rebellious for ever.


----------



## kimko_379

The word "monados" above refers only to Leibnizean ones; it excludes the category-theoretic and programming-theoretic "monados".


----------



## kimko_379

Gernot Back said:


> I'm probably reading *a* bible more closely than most Germans. That's why I am an atheist! At the same time, as a linguist, I value the different versions of bibles as a linguistic and cultural treasure.
> 
> Meanwhile I've studied the  theories of Bolinger and Chomsky more closely, who indeed -based on a purely English corpus- attribute an argument status to the 'it' in precipitation verbs. The evidence in the German language does not support this. E.g. we can't say:
> 
> *_Bitte regne nicht!_​
> as in English
> 
> _Please don't rain!_​
> We would have to render this as
> 
> _Bitte *lass es* nicht  regnen!_​
> Again, this 'es' is neither a devine nor simply a personal argument.
> 
> Our frequent constructions with _es ... sich_ would contradict this status.
> 
> Hier lässt's sich arbeiten
> Es hat sich ausgemerkelt.
> 
> Why would any person, especially a god have *himself* work?
> Why would any person, especially a god stop *himself* to act like Angela Merkel?


Sehr geehrter Herr  Doktor Back!   
 duerfte ich Sie um eine sorgfaeltige Lektuere von dies?:
Probability and Order Versus Evolution


----------



## Gernot Back

kimko_379 said:


> Sehr geehrter Herr  Doktor Back!


Zu viel der Ehre!


kimko_379 said:


> duerfte ich Sie um eine sorgfaeltige Lektuere von dies?:
> Probability and Order Versus Evolution


Sure, if you, in turn, read this thoroughly: The Improbability of God | Richard Dawkins Foundation


----------



## kimko_379

Gernot Back said:


> Zu viel der Ehre!
> 
> Sure, if you, in turn, read this thoroughly: The Improbability of God | Richard Dawkins Foundation


Thank you for your response.
But you MUST assume the existence and workings of the seemingly-unfathomably/infinitely "complicated/intricate" God; the very end-part/conclusion of the above Dawkings website article is downright wrong:
the so-called/only-superficially "simple" natural selections hypothesis just fails to even come into being (entstehen) in the first place, for these multitudinous reasons:
1.  The improbability, no, impossibility of macro-evolutions proved in Probability and Order Versus Evolution above.
2.  The so-called "Darwin's dilemmas" that you can find in the Net (Wikipedia etc.).
3.  https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/
4.  Another "Darwin's dilemma" in a book I have once read:  there are far greater numbers of "lower/unevolved" species and the individuals belonging to them like germs and insects remaining/surviving in this world (!) than the number of "higher/sophisticatedly-evolved" species and their member-individuals, which fact contradicts the notion of the natural selections which asserts that the evolved species and their individuals should have greater suitabilities for survival.
5.  A third, Karl-Popper-discovered "Darwin's dilemma":  For example, the central nervous system for the birds' flights that controls the flights can never emerge/appear by any macro-evolutions before the emergence/appearance of birds' flights-purposed peripheries like their sensory and motor organs for flights; but, on the other hand, the peripheries also can never emerge by any macro-evolutions before the central nervous system emergence - because, if it could, the primitive birds would have had to fly chaotically without the control over their flights by the nervous system.  So, both the center and all the peripheries must emerge in a bird's body at the single same time, which is probability-wise impossible/unfeasible by accidental mutations series.
And do you know how numerous the birds' peripheries traits are that is designed just for their speedy fleeing by flights to survive the now-jungle-law-ed world?:  the mightiest major and minor pectoral/chest muscles, the huge carina bone to hinge them, the light-weight porous bones all over their body that get easily broken but can heal very quickly, 300~500-beats-per-minute heart, super-high-speed-digestive organs for the quickest elimination/unloading of feces and urine out of the body, etc. etc.


----------



## Gernot Back

kimko_379 said:


> 1. The improbability, no, impossibility of macro-evolutions proved in Probability and Order Versus Evolution above.


There is absolutely NOTHING 'proved' above!


----------



## kimko_379

Gernot Back said:


> There is absolutely NOTHING 'proved' above!


You know, sir, also disproofs are included in proofs.  And the above treatise perfectly disproved evolutionism.  That means the proof of its negation/opposite:  Creationism.
True, the proof fails to show the details of the Creation and reveals only the framework/outline.  But there ARE such scientific proofs/theorems:  e. g. Gauss's fundamental theorem of algebra states about the universal/exceptionless existence of the solutions of algebraic equations, but Galois's theorem keeps us from always being able to solve algebraic equations algebraically but forces us to approximate the solutions of most ( = the overwhelming majority of) algebraic equations by numerical computations with Newton's method and/or the continual fractions method.
The math progresses in the order of:
solutions/solving-methods existence proofs/theorems,
number-of-solution-values determination/confirmation proofs/theorems,
solutions/solving-methods conditions proofs/theorems,
and
solutions-( = solving-methods-)construction proofs/therems.
The same or similar may go for theology.


----------

