Introducing Tobe

If a non-machine, a person, wishes to converse with a machine, then Tobe, with its linguistically prescriptive determinism, is a language that connects the way people think to the way machines think. Machines require unequivocal and unambiguous meaning in order to reliably generate actions and states of consequence. Tobe is a living, intentional machine language, by which it is meant that every linguistically valid statement production has an intentional goal encoded into a canonically stable form. Speakers of Tobe, both non-machine and machine, are equal parties and must parse surface statements into a deeper canonical form in order to communicate. This semi-conscious encoding process is called generation and the stable canonical form is called an intention. When parties receive intentions they must decode them through a process called rationalization to obtain reliable meaning.

The currency of intentionality that Tobe deals with is third-party intentionality (sometimes called the intentional stance). Tobe is therefore somewhat unique in that all discourse is projected onto a shared third-party from a first-party perspective. In practice, this means that all statements are expressed in third-party form, even statements about oneself. A fluent speaker of Tobe will think not in terms of me or I, but of a projection of me onto somebody else - a third party in fact - (semi-)consciously marked with the idea of [me]. This distinction is clumsy and often ungrammatical when expressed in standard English:

(1) {party}[me] will go shopping
(2) {party}[my] car will not start

This is an early indication that Tobe is a machine language. Each statement is already in canonical form, the deep structure of information exchange between parties that reliably encodes and decodes intentionality. A Tobe listener will always decode this third-party intention from a first-party perspective. She may well learn to hear the Tobe equivalent of:

(3) I will go shopping
(4) My car will not start

But she will rationalize the intentions (1,2) from her own perspective:

(5) {party}[you] will go shopping
(6) {party}[your] car will not start

The shared canonical form will decode to either of the surface forms without loss of third-party information, but marker information will be rationalized from first-party perspective substituting you for me and your for my respectively.

Rationalization from a first-party perspective can lead to a difference in understanding. Consider the following statement in which the concept of Bob, a friend of party-1 but unknown to party-2 is inserted into the intention:

(7) P1: Bob [he] will go shopping
(8) P2: {???}[he] will go shopping

To handle this discrepancy without loss of information, Tobe requires a graded marker of significance to be encoded into the canonical form. Significance is graded from full significance (S1) to no significance (S4). It roughly correlates to the following introspective consideration (again, from a first-party perspective):

• S1 - I understand this statement (usually unmarked)
• S2 - I understand this statement connotatively (usually marked [S: C])
• S3 - I understand aspects of this statement (usually marked [S])
• S4 - I do not understand this statement (usually marked [!S])

The canonical form of this statement across both parties is now:

(9) {I understand that} [Bob:S1][he] will go shopping
(10) {I understand that} [Bob:S3][he] will go shopping

Party-1 fully understands the rationalized intentionality of statement (7) and so encodes an S1 marker into its canonical form (9 => S1). Party-2 only understands aspects of the rationalized intentionality of statement (7) and so encodes an S3 marker into its canonical form (10 => S3).

Intentionality mismatch through incompatible perspectives is not necessarily a bad idea, it can drive dialogue, exploration, and creativity. In this case, party-2 might initiate a dialogue with party-1 to clarify Bob’s identity. The nature of the dialogue, its direction and consequence in the context of a shared perspective is outside the scope of this article. But a couple of naive scenarios will demonstrate how party-2 might extend her own perspective to accept or reject the concept of Bob.

Scenario-1:
(11) P2: who is [Bob:S3][he]?
(12) P1: Bob [he] is {party}[my] cousin
(13) P2: is [Bob: cousin:S2][he] driving to the shops?
(14) P1: {party}[my] car won’t start
(15) P2: So {party}[you] want > {party}[me] to drive!

Scenario-2:
(16) P2: {party}[me] don’t want any > strangers [Bob:S3] {to be} driving {party}[my] car
(17) P1: {party}[my] car won’t start
(18) P2: So {party}[you] {it is} said. Too bad!

In both scenarios, party-2’s perspective has already been extended to include Bob at S3, but only scenario-1 promotes this to S1 at (12). Party-2’s use of Bob as a third-party marker in (13) and (16) will be rationalized by party-1 at S2 in scenario-1, and S3 in scenario-2 respectively.

Neither of these scenarios is very likely to play out the way they’ve been narrated here, but each in its way suggests how significance - and hence perspective - might be shared between parties, and how it can generate a more nuanced understanding. In scenario-1, an [S2 Bob: cousin] marked pronoun [he] will strengthen party-1’s perception of Bob - the cousin who party-2 seems to trust. In scenario-2, strangers marked with [S3 Bob] will probably register a negative connotation against party-1’s concept of Bob - the cousin that remains a stranger to party-2.

Summary

Tobe is a machine language that draws on linguistic stereotypes and significance to generate and rationalize canonical intentionality.

• Tobe statements have third-party intentionality. That is:

  • statements are intentional,
  • statements are in third-party form,
  • statements are marked from a first-party perspective.

• Canonical intentionality:

  • is generated from statements in third-party form,
  • is rationalized into statements in first-party form,
  • is shared between parties.
  • is marked by linguistic stereotypes and significance.

💬 Comments

Post comment

Loading...