Draft Copy ( July 2002)

Motivation of Syntax 1
The Simple Sentence in English: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach
Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, The Proverbial Linguistics Group, Hyderabad, India

Abstract
The syntax of a language has been motivated in different grammatical theories in different ways.
The formalists consider it as a genetically inherited phenomenon, the functionalists as a socially
developed system and the cognitive linguists as a cognitive system of conceptualization. If we
look at the syntactic system of any language, we immediately recognize the role of analyticity in
its formation, socioculturalspiritual influence in its function, and conceptualization in its
patterning. What is more, all these aspects are not brought into the system en bloc without their
choice as this and that to be so and so in such and such manner. In other words, there is a
response bias in their choice which is impelled by a dispositional bias springing from disposition
as the source. Hence, the linguistic system and the level of syntax in the system should be
motivated from disposition from the very outset itself. Such an attempt will resolve many
unsolved issued of why there is typological variation, and why syntax itself is chosen for building
up this system.
In this first paper on motivation of syntax in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach, an attempt has
been made to motivate language and the simple sentence in English as a (ka:rmik) dispositional,
sociocognitive linguistic system of action and syntax as an interconnected-interrelatedinterdependent product with other levels of phonology, lexis, semantics, and discourse of such
action. First, a theory of creation is proposed with the function of providing the substratum for
the karmaphalabho:gam of the karmaphalam of the karma of the living systems, especially, human
beings; second, this creation is considered at a tristratal level of: 1. The Universal Science of
Action; 2. The Universal Science of Living; and 3. The Universal Science of Living in a holarchy
for constructing the ka:rmik reality for the living systems, especially, human beings for the
bho:gam (experience) of their karmaphalam; third, under the Universal Science of Living, a
theory of action has been proposed which postulates that all action be it mental, vocal, or
physical- is generated, specified, directed, and materialized by disposition for the construction of
dispositional reality as ka:rmik reality for its ultimate experience; fourth, this ka:rmik reality is
further constructed in a pentafacial configuration of dispositional, cognitional,
socioculturalspiritual, contextual actional, and actional (lingual) realities; and fifth, this

dispositional reality is constructed by developing a linguistic system by gradual evolution

through innovation, reproduction, and modification procedures and techniques on the one hand
and individual-collective-contextual-conjunction-and-standardization of lingual action by/in its
application, transmission, retention, and perpetuation.
The syntax of language is derived semiotically from the universal science of action of the formoriented creation in its variety, range, and depth as the basis. From this syntax as an abstract
universal linguistic system, the syntaxes of individual languages are derived as dispositional
variants. Such a procedure will provide a principled account of the typological syntactic
variation in a language as well as the planning and evolution of its internal construction as a
system.

I. Introduction
In the formal, functional, and cognitive linguistic theories, the syntax of a language is
motivated from atomic conceptions about language. For example, in the Chomskyan
tradition, language is considered to be autonomous and genetically inherited implying
that the grammar of a language is already there hardwired into the brain of a human
being when he is born; in the Hallidayan tradition, language is developed as a social
phenomenon in response to the needs of the human being; and in the cognitive
linguistic tradition, it is believed to be conceptual. However, language is mental, social,
and cognitive in one way or the other and therefore all these perspectives have to be
integrated to provide a comprehensive description of language and syntax.
In ka:rmik linguistic theory, language is considered to be a ka:rmik (via dispositional)
phenomenon. Such a view has the advantage of looking at language as action as a
whole. To explain it more, language as action has a form, function, and meaning at its
own lower level of form, and a choice of form-function-meaning driven by disposition at
the middle level, and the experiential principle of cause-effect reality
(karmaphalabho:gam) at the above level. In such a view, all these levels are
interconnected-interrelated-interdependent in an integrated network of language. As
such, it offers a holistic, and the most comprehensive view of language and syntax.
In this paper, an attempt has been made to outline the formation of syntax of language in
general and the formation of syntax of a language in particular. Such a formation is
motivated from the three universal sciences of action, living, and lingual action as
outlined in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory.
II. Literature Review
In this review, a general critique of the modern linguistic theories is offered and the
minute details of each theory are not discussed since they are very familiar.
Dell Hymes, Geoffrey Leech, and Deborah Schiffrin have commented on the differences
between formal and functional theories in a nutshell in their works. For example, Leech

(1983) in his Principles of Pragmatics distinguishes four important differences which are
discussed below.
1. The formal approach studies language as an autonomous system whereas the
functional approach studies language as a social system and the cognitive
approach as a conceptual system. The ka:rmik approach studies language as a
ka:rmik (dispositional) system.

2. To explain it further, according to the formalists such as Chomsky, language is as

it is because of a common genetic linguistic inheritance of the human species
from which language universals are derived. So there is a language faculty or
programme already wired up in the human brain as a human being is born. And
according to the functionalists such as Halliday, language is as it is because of the
universality of the uses to which language is put in human society from which
language universals are derived. So there is no language faculty or programme
already wired up in the human brain as a human being is born but it evolved
socially as human beings conducted their living. As a result, language is as it is
because of what it has to do. In other words, the formal and functional
approaches to language are diametrically opposite in their fundamental premise
of how language is created: formalists view language as genetic; and
functionalists as social.
The cognitivists view grammar as conceptualization and language as it is used.
The ka:rmik linguist believes that language evolved as dispositional action from a
ka:rmik processing of language. To explain it further, the disposition of human
beings acts/reacts to the context and generates, specifies, directs, and
materializes all the formal-functional-cognitive-dispositional levels of lingual
action in an I-I-I network as a single cogneme to experience the results of action.
In this process, disposition interacts with the all the cognitive faculties and
generates the contextual lingual action/reaction.

3. The formalists (e.g., Chomsky) regard language primarily as a mental

phenomenon whereas the functionalists (e.g., Halliday) regard it as a societal
phenomenon. Again, there is a contradiction in the conceptualization of
language. From this perspective, according to the formalists, language is a
psychological phenomenon whereas according to the functionalists, it is a social

phenomenon. To explain it further, language is an internal phenomenon

according to the formalists and the social and cognitive functions of language do
not impinge on the internal organization of language. On the other hand, according to
the functionalists, language has functions that are external to the linguistic
system itself and most importantly the external functions influence the internal
organization of the linguistic system. Therefore, there is another contradiction
in these two theories with regard to the influence of external forces: formalists
say that external forces do not influence the internal organization of language
while the functionalists say that they do.

In the ka:rmik linguistic paradigm, language is not only internal, not only
external but also dispositional and experiential. In such a view, the choice and
organization in language is a dispositional phenomenon: language is as it is
because of what it is intended to do what it does - not merely because of what it does; nor
because of how it is constituted by mind.

4. The formal approach (e.g., Chomsky) explains the acquisition of language by a

child due to a built in capacity to learn a language. Functionalists (e.g., Halliday)
explain it in terms of the development of the child's communicative needs and
abilities in society. Again, there is contradiction with respect to the acquisition of
language: formalists support "nature" and functionalists "nurture".

In the ka:rmik linguistic paradigm, the acquisition of a language by a child is

certainly due to a built-in capacity to learn a language (i.e., genetic) and is
developed according to the childs communicative needs and abilities in society
but the genetic and social factors are I-I-I according to the dispositionality of the
child for the fulfillment of its desires by the coordination of coordination of
action and the experience of the results of action.

Dell Hymes (1974) in his article "Why Linguistics needs the Sociolinguist" discusses
some of the important problems not answered by the formalists and lists them in
seven points as explained below:

1. The structural (i.e. formalist) approach considers the structure of language (code)
as grammar whereas the functional approach considers the structure of speech
(act, event) as ways of speaking. In other words, the structural approach focuses
on language as a formal autonomous system of phonology, syntax, and
semantics. As such it is independent of the purposes or functions which these
forms are used to serve in human affairs. The functional approach on the other
hand considers language as language in use which consists of speech acts, events,
and situations and so dependent on the purposes or functions which these forms
are designed to serve in human affairs. Hence, there is an opposition in these
views: independent Vs dependent.

This observation is similar to the first observation made by Leech as listed above.
In the ka:rmik linguistic paradigm, the formal system of language is dependent
on the collective dispositional cognition of the system which takes not only the
form, but also the function and cognition into its ambit. The system emerges as
an effect of the experiential action / reaction to the system to construct
dispositional reality: language is not only used dispositionally by human beings for
living in the context but it is also dispositionally produced by them by living in the
context.

2. Use merely implements what is analyzed as code and the analysis of code should
be prior to the analysis of use this is the formalist view of language structure
and use. The functionalist view is opposite to this view: analysis of use should be
prior to the analysis of code because organization of use discloses additional
features and relations. In the functionalist view, use and code are in an integral
(dialectical) relation - note the spelling of dialectical derived from dialectic: it is not
dialectal which is derived from dialect, one variety of language. In the formalist
view, they are in a sort of linear relation. Hence, both the views are contradictory
in their premises.

In the ka:rmik linguistic paradigm, code and use are produced according to
dispositionality: disposition generates, specifies, directs, and materializes the
form-function-cognition-disposition network as a unified system and thus produces
language in a unified cognition as a homogeneous systemic cogneme. Therefore,

code, use, their cognition should be analyzed as a non-hierarchical network.

3. According to the formalists, language is referential in its function with fully

semanticized uses as the norm whereas the functionalists deal with the gamut of
stylistic or social functions. In other words, formalism is concerned with the
sentential meaning while functionalism with the utterance meaning.

In the ka:rmik linguistic paradigm, sentence meaning is derived as context

meaning which is further derived as ka:rmik (experiential) meaning.
4. Elements and structures are analytically arbitrary (in a cross-cultural or historical
perspective) or universal (in a theoretical perspective) in formalism while they
are ethnographically appropriate in functionalism.

In the KLT paradigm, they are dispositionally derived via the universal sciences of
action, living, and lingual action.

5. There is a functional equivalence of all languages in formalism while there is

functional differentiation of languages, varieties, and styles in functionalism. All
languages are essentially (potentially) equal in the formalist paradigm while they
are not necessarily existentially (actually) equivalent.

All languages are not potentially and actually equivalent in their variety, range,
and depth of the construal of universal action owing to the role of
dispositionality in their production (of choice, style, and form) but the construed
universal action is the same in all languages: for example, a man eating a fruit as a
universal action is the same for all human beings but how it is construed and
represented in its lingual form-function-cognition may not be the same.

6. Formalism studies language in terms of a single homogeneous code and

community ("replication of uniformity") while functionalism studies it in terms
of the speech community as the matrix of code-repertoires or speech styles
("organization of diversity). Experientialism (KLT) studies language as a
dispositional, collective, experiential system of code,

7. Formalism takes for granted or arbitrarily postulates fundamental concepts

such as speech community, speech act, fluent speaker, functions of speech and of
languages whereas functionalism considers them as problematic and therefore to
be investigated. (Ka:rmik) Experientialism considers them as dispositionally
derived concepts from the universal sciences of action, living, and lingual action.

As language has not only formal but also functional properties, we need a theory that
can accommodate both these properties. However, in view of the differences in their
theoretical premises, it is difficult to combine both the paradigms and try to account for
the formal and functional properties of language together in an eclectic approach.
The basic principle of ka:rmik linguistic theory is based on the fundamental assumption
that all action is dispositionally generated, specified, directed, and materialized. Lingual
action is also no exception to this since it is one type of action human beings perform. In
this view, disposition is at the base of all activity and any action springs from
disposition as follows:
(1)

Disposition - Effort Action Result Experience.

Again, whenever an action is performed, it is performed by a choice as follows:

(2)

Disposition Dispositional Bias Response Bias Choice Action.

Even if there are no two explicit options required to trigger a response bias, there is
always an inherent set of options to do or not do an action and as such there will always
be a response bias for an action and consequently a dispositional bias to trigger the
response bias and finally a dispositional basis and disposition to create the dispositional
bias.
In addition, any type of action is hierarchically evolutionary in its structure as follows:
(3) Concept (Process) evolving into Pattern evolving into Structure

where the concept and pattern are abstract (in the form of imagination) and the
structure is material (in the form of sound). In systems thinking also such a view is held.
According to Fritjof Capra's New Synthesis Model, the structure embodies the pattern
and the pattern embodies the process. For example, a house is conceived (concept) by an
engineer and its blue print (pattern) is visualized and made on a drawing paper and
finally materialized by the construction of the house with cement, bricks, etc. However,
the desire to construct a house and its design are generated, specified and directed by the
disposition of the engineer. What is more, every action is not a mere patterned structure
but it has another important dimension to it: it has a function as well. In fact, form,
meaning, function, and disposition are also interconnected-interrelated-interdependent
by the Principle of Spherical Reciprocal Interaction:
(4) Disposition Function Action [Meaning Pattern Structure] Result
Experience.
In other words, there are two dimensions to every action: form and function. In our real
life, we come across mainly two types of action: 1.formal-functional action; 2. functionalformal action:
(5) Action : Formal Functional or FunctionalFormal.
In formal-functional action, action procedes from an already existing form by giving it a
function (e.g., in firewood, already existing wood (form) is endowed with a function of
creating fire by burning it) and in functional-formal action, action proceeds from a
conceived function to form (e.g., a car (form) is created out of a function to transport
people). As a language is developed, conceptualization of the parts or the whole of the
system also plays a significant role. In such cases where conceptualization comes into
play, we get Cognitional [Formal-Functional/Functional-Formal] Structuration of
lingual action. For example, when the irregular verbs in English have been replaced by
regular verbs by gradual evolution of the system, we have an example of cognitional
(functional/formal and formal-functional) structuration.
Applying this concept to language formation, we can say that meaning is abstract as
differentiated awareness of this and that and it manifests itself in concrete form via
symbolization, (i.e., semiotic representation) and this symbolization requires a system
or a pattern which is phono-lexico-syntax [sound (phonetics) evolving into lexis and
lexis evolving into syntax]. Finally, this pattern is materialized as sound manifests it in
the form of speech. However, the desire to create a language as well as its design are
generated, specified and directed by the disposition of the language community.

(6) Disposition - Semantics -Phono-Lexico-Syntax (Grammar or Syntax in the

Traditional Sense) - Speech or Language
As a language such as English or Arabic is not already there in the formative stages of
its evolution, we can say that a language is a functional-formal creation. Of course, as it
is transmitted to a child as it grows up, it is transmitted as a formal-functional product:
the child makes use of an already existing system.
The creation of the language system is an action and as such it follows equation (4) and
therefore function and form are interrelated-interconnected-interdependent in a
spherical relationship. Furthermore, its cognition is also a part of the whole process.
Language process is more complex than the construction of a house and as such there
are so many other factors involved in its formation. These include the inclusion of the
cognitive, the socioculturalspiritual, the contextual actional, and actional planes of
action on the one hand and the individual-collective standardization of the language,
atomic-holistic functionality of phonemes-words-sentences-discourse-action-resultexperience to construct the dispositional reality (as the ka:rmik reality) of the human
beings. But the point is that all these factors are parts of the whole process where the
whole is greater than the sum of the parts and even beyond the whole. All the same, as
a language is created, it is created functional-formally and so form and function are
interrelated-interconnected-interdependent. In ka:rmik linguistic theory, form, function,
cognition, and disposition are all integrated in a hierarchical evolutionary structure
through the five realities posited in the evolution of ka:rmik reality as follows:
(7) Ka:rmik Reality Dispositional Reality Socioculturalspiritual Reality
-Cognitive Reality Contextual Reality Actional Reality
and then
(8) Disposition Desire Function Form [ Meaning-Pattern-Structure] Action.
Therefore, ka:rmik linguistic theory is holistic in its framework and tries to avoid the
pitfalls of the formal and functional theories.

If language is innate or cognitive or social action, then it is difficult to account for both
the internal and external variation in language on the one hand and the extensive
expansion of language in its variety, range, and depth. The empirical evidence we get
from all the levels of language from phonetics to semantics; from pragmatics to

discourse points out the role of choice in language. Wherever there is a choice, there is a
response bias and a causative dispositional bias and disposition behind it:
(9) Disposition

Dispositional Bias

Response Bias

Choice

Variation

Lingual Action
If we look at language from a process and product perspective, historical linguistics
points out that in the formation and use of language there is an interconnectedinterrelated-interdependent networking of
1. the cognitive abilities;

2. the phenomenal knowledge;

3. living demands;

4. dispositional creativity;

and 5. experientiality

out of which only the cognitive abilities are genetically inherited and dispositional
creativity is genetically inherited but contextually harnessed. The remaining two are
externally anchored. Every word that came into existence would not have come into
existence without the networking of all the four factors. It is impossible for a human
being to create vocabulary without phenomenal knowledge of the real, possible, or
imaginary worlds; or without creativity; or without the dispositional functional
pressure to fulfill his desires; or getting the experience of the desired results without
using language. Such linguistic creation depends on the dispositional social semiotic
cognition of action and therefore such action is decisively not innate. So also it is not
social even though society plays the crucial role of individual-collective-contextual
standardization and transmission of language but not the actual creation of language. It
is so because it is a creative phenomenon and requires individual intellectual initiative
to communicate with others by using such intellectual principles such as
superimposition, etc.

III. Motivation of the Simple Sentence in English: A Ka:rmik Linguistic

Approach
According to Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory, human beings are embodied for the
karmaphalabho:gam (experience of their karmaphalam) of the karmaphalam (fruits of
their action) of their karma (action). In order to do so, they have to fulfill their material,
social, intellectual, and spiritual desires impelled from their svabha:vam (disposition)
which is fashioned out appropriately for the experience of their karmaphalam.
Consequently, they make an effort to fulfill their desires and perform action so that they
can experience the results of their action. Now, to perform an action to fulfill their

complex desires, they need to perform group activity and to do so they need to
coordinate the coordination of activity. Here in lies the crux of the matter. To coordinate
the coordination of action for the fulfillment of their desires and experience the results
of their action, human beings need to express phenomenal action in its entire variety,
range, and depth of the actual, possible, and imaginary worlds. It is impossible to do so and
therefore they have embarked upon the greatest invention of semiotically representing it
as this and that to be so and so in such and such manner.
Representing the phenomenal action is not an ordinary task. In order to do so, human
beings must first of all observe, analyze, and interpret the phenomenal action; second,
represent it in such a way that it is readily producible, easy to remember, retrieve, and
reproduce it in the context of coordinating the coordination of action; and third, use it
according to the intentions and needs of the interlocutor to reflect his thoughts and
ideas, emotions and feelings, reactions and experiences.
In order to provide a principled account of how language is created, used, transmitted,
stored, and perpetuated, ka:rmik linguistic theory has proposed a number of principles,
procedures, and techniques. First of all, three universal sciences of action, living, and lingual
action are proposed; second, five realities: dispositional, cognitive, socioculturalspiritual,
contextual actional, and actional are proposed through which lingual action is formed
and used; third, a number of principles, concepts, and techniques are introduced to
interpret and provide descriptively and explanatorily adequate accounts of how
language is formed. Let us see how these theoretical postulates help us in motivating
the syntax of language in general and of English and Telugu proverbs in particular.
A. Three Universal Sciences of Action, Living, and Lingual Action
Language is created, used, transmitted, stored, and perpetuated by an I-I-I networking
of the three universal sciences of action, living, and lingual action. Let us briefly discuss
these three sciences and how they contribute to the formation of syntax in language, a
language, and proverbs.
1. Universal Science of Action
The Universal Science of Action (U.S. Action) is the basis of all creation and is the basic
network in which the Universal Science of Living and the Universal Science of Lingual
Action function as Networks-within-Networks in Atomic-Holistic Functionality. From the
Universal Science of Action Universal Action evolves in all its variety, range and depth.
(10) Universal Science of Action

Universal Action

Particular Action

It operates at three levels: 1. Supra-cosmic; 2. Macrocosmic; and 3. Microcosmic which

are created, sustained, and dissolved under the three universal sciences of action, living,

and lingual action of the living systems. Again, action is performed by living systems
(in our case, human beings) with a cause-means-effect matrix in linear, parallel, and
interconnected networks. Finally, all action that is performed will have a result leading
to its experience. These are some of the basic but important networks and are shown
below.
U.S of Living
U.S. of Lingual Action
Time
Matter
Macrocosmic
Microcosmic

Universal Science (U.S.) of Action

Space
Supra-cosmic
Fig. 1 a. Universal Sciences Network
b. Space-Time-Matter Network
c. Cosmic Network
Means
Effect
Form
Function
Pattern
Structure

Cause
Meaning
Concept
d. Cause-Means-Effect Network e. Form-Function-Meaning Network f. Action-Result-Experience Network
Linear
Parallel
SCS
Context
Response
Choice
Bias

Spiral

Cyclic

Radial

Desire

Disposition

Cognition

Karma

Effort

Disposition

CNV
CEV

Disposition

PEV

Action

Result Existence Experience

Experience
Living

Network 1: Some Important Networks in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory

The Network of Supra-Macro-Microcosmic Levels construct the Formal Plane (FORM)

of Creation; the Contextual Actional Network constitutes the Functional Plane
(PATTERN) of Creation; and the Ka:rmik (Experiential Actional) Network constitutes
the Experiential Plane (CONCEPT) of Creation. It is the all inclusive process of creation
which is carried out in a top-down process from the [Supra-cosmic-to-Macrocosmic-toMicrocosmic] - to- [Contextual Actional] - to -Experiential] levels. The supra-cosmic
level is the Pre-Big Bang Quantum World; the macrocosmic level is the Post Big Bang
Classical Mechanical World; and the micro cosmic level is the level of the individual living
and non-living systems (individually and collectively). The contextual Actional Level is the
level in which all these systems act-react-interact producing activity. Finally, the ka:rmik
level is the level of experiencing the results of their action as pleasure/pain/ or witnessing by the
living systems. It is the thread that binds all human activity into an interconnectedinterrelated-interdependent network of huge mind boggling action-reaction-interaction
sequences of activity with their cause-effect results and the their ultimate experience.

The entire creation is an unparalleled artistic magic of perfection, beauty, and purpose.
Every object, state of being, and action is I-I-I to such an extraordinary level that a
micro-millisecond change in the motion of our earth will simply destroy it to vapour.
Every created object right from an ant to an elephant has been endowed with its own
beauty and charm. In such a creation, how can there be purposelessness? Even though it
is immediately not visible because of its infinite complexity, it can surely be inferred
from an effect-to-cause reasoning and constructed.
One such empirical proof for such a purposeful creation in the relative phenomenal
world can be seen in the sequence of actions and their resultant consequence. For example, a
baby cries because it is hungry. The cry is interpreted dispositionally by the mother as a
symbolic activity for milk and takes the baby into her lap and suckles it. The baby drinks
milk. Its hunger is satisfied. It smiles and waves its hands with joy. The mother is happy
too. The entire sequence of activities is already planned in creation with their resultant
consequences: Hunger (in Baby) - Food [Milk (in Mother)]-Eating (Suckling)-Satisfaction-Joy.
This is a script/scheme in U.S. of Living derived via U.S. of Action Principle: Actor-PatientAction. All actions are not atomic, erratic, and purposeless everything is determined as
Einstein says; or predetermined as Sri Ramana Maharshi says.
The first network of the phenomenal world is the Spatio-Temporal-Material Network which is
briefly outlined below. All human beings exist on the earth in a Spatio-Temporal-Material
Network (STM Network) and live in a Contextual Network.
1. The Spatio-Temporal-Material Network
All human beings not only exist on the earth seated in space and controlled by time but
are also a product of it. This can be called The Spatio-Temporal-Material Network (STM
Network). This network is not only the basis for the creation and existence of all human
beings but also for their activity. All their activity is construed in terms of the 4+4 major
directions of space such as the North-South-East-West network and the diagonal
directions intersecting the major directions such as North-East, South-East, North-West,
and South-West; and the other ancillary directions such as up and down, above and
under, front and back, in and out, etc.

In a similar way, all the activity is conducted in terms of the Past-Present-Future time
network.

Finally, all activity is materialized in form through matter which is specifically qualified
and quantified. Seven types of categories (substance, quality, action, generality,
particularity, inherence, and negation) and nine types of substances (earth, water, light, air,
ether, time, space, soul, and mind) and their 24 qualities (colour, taste, odour, touch, number,
magnitude, separateness, conjunction, disjunction, remoteness, proximity, weight, fluidity,
viscidity, sound, intellect, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, volition, merit, demerit, and tendency)
are identified in Tarka Sangraham of Annam Bhatta.

This spatio-temporal-material network is the basis of the existence of human beings, their
activities, and their experience. On this spatio-temporal-material network, another
contextual network can be superimposed for facilitating human activity and bestowing
the results of such activity for its ultimate experience to constitute living.

Present

Future

Class

Quality (Characteristics)

Time

Matter

Past

Category

North

East

Space

West

South

Network 2: Basic Network of Space-Time-Matter (STM) in Creation

Creation is activity and takes place under a Universal Science of Action whose first basic
network is this STM network. Within this Basic Network are created many networks and
sub-networks and so on by apparent transformation (vivartham) of one network into
another network into another network and so on.

The Universal Science of Action underlies the existence of two types of creation: 1.
Insentient; 2. Sentient. In Insentient Creation, space-time-matter are the basic
components and action is generated within this matrix with space as the substratum;
matter (substance) as objects existing in states of being and becoming participants in
action through relationships; and time as the regulating factor. The insentient creation
(non-living, material or physical and chemical systems) is bound by the laws of physics,
mathematics, and chemistry within the matrix of space and time. Hence, they become
spatio-temporal-material phenomena. So they are processed in these ways as: 1. Spatial;
2. Temporal; 3. Material; and 4. Mixed Processes. Within these categories, there may be
sub-processes and minor-processes. A few examples are given below.
1. Spatial Processes: Linear; Spiral; and Cyclic
2. Temporal Processes: Parallel; Alternate;
3. Material Processes: mathematical; physical; chemical
4. Mixed Processes: temporal-material
Again, within these processes, there is a division of:

1. Objectification (structure; pattern; concept);

2. State of Being as an Object (physical; mental; vocal and their sub-states),
3. Action (Structure; Meaning; and Function); and
4. Experience (Result; Pleasure/Pain as Experience; (or Witnessing)).

a. The Principle of Objectification (in the Science of Action)

Objectification is a process which involves the limitation of a substance such as earth,
water, light, air, ether, time, space, soul, and mind within time, space, and matter. For
example, any matter (made from the known 103 elements in the periodic table in
chemistry or unknown elements which are not yet discovered) bound by space, time,
and matter into a solid form such as an iron ball, a golden necklace, an ice cube, or a
liquid form such as a drop of a liquid, a flowing stream, or a gas such as a cloud of
water, smoke, a whiff of air, wind, etc.; a ray of light; a second, hour, day of time; length,
breadth, width in space, directions such as east, northeast, etc., positions such as top,
bottom, above, below, near, far; the individual souls; and minds are objects. In our
popular understanding, only objects made out of solid, liquid, and gaseous substances
are considered objects; in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory, even abstract phenomena are also
included in this category to extend the phenomenon of objectification to a universal level and
make the theory more uniform. So, a thought is a mental object, or an hour is a temporal
object, or the space in a pot is a spatial object, or a soul is an object of consciousness, or a
mind is an object of thinking in the sense of a substance limited by time, space, and
matter.
All objects are subject to conceptualization, patterning, and structuration in that order
from the perspective of gradual evolution. For example, a house is conceived first as a
Concept, and then Patterned to be this and that, as so and so, in such and such a manner,
then Structured in a specific configuration, and finally materialized in matter as a Form,
which is considered to be a patterned structure in matter in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory.
There is an a:nushangik relationship between concept, pattern, structure, and its
materialized form as shown below:
(11) Object Conceptualization:
Concept

Pattern (+ Concept)

Structure (+Pattern + Concept)

Form (+Structure +Pattern + Concept)

b. The Principle of Qualification of Objects (in the Science of Action)

Again, they can be qualified appropriately according to the nature of their substances:
for example, a lotus can be red in colour: a red lotus; a liquid can be sweet in taste: a sweet
liquid; a flower can be fragrant in smell: a fragrant flower; a pillow can be soft: a soft pillow;
a pen can be more than one (number): ten pens; an object can be atomic, large, long, and
short: a short man, a long rope, a large crowd, a part of the body; two objects can be
distinguished: fruit from the tree; an object can be conjoined (contacted) with another object:
a fruit in the hand when it is picked, or a fruit in contact with the whole body when it is picked;
an object can be disjoined with another object: the fruit separated from the hand; an object
can be spatially and temporally remote: a nearby school (spatial proximity); a far off place
(spatial remoteness); an elderly person (temporal remoteness), a younger person (temporal
proximity); an object can be heavy or light: a heavy book; a light book; an object can be fluid:
water, melting iron; an object can be viscid: flour; it can be qualified with sound: drum beat,
an utterance; an object can be cognized: a fact remembered, a cow apprehended when a cow is
seen (valid apprehension), a snake apprehended on a rope when a rope is seen(erroneous
apprehension); cause and effect. This process can be shown by the following equation:
(12) Quality + Object

Qualified Object.

In a similar way, all actions can also be qualified according to the type of action
performed. For example, eating as an action is qualified according to the nature and
characteristics of eating such as eating more, less, awkwardly, stylishly, etc; thinking as
an action is qualified according to the nature and characteristics of thinking such as
thinking wisely, foolishly, slowly, etc.; singing as an action is qualified according to the
nature and characteristics of singing such as loudness, pitch, and length; type of singing
such as classical, folk, etc. This process can be shown by the following equation:
(13) Quality + Action
Qualified Action.
c. The Principle of an Object in a State of Being (in the US Action)
Any substance should exist in a state of being so that objectification can take place; in a
similar way, all objects should exist in a state, that is, they must be in a state of being.
Objects may be physical (material objects), mental (intellectual/emotional phenomena),
or vocal (sounds, words, sentences, etc.).
d. The Principle of Relation among Objects and Actions (in the US Action)

In the Universal Science of Action, all objects are created in such a way that they can
enter into different types of relationships ranging from dispositional to psychological to
socioculturalspiritual to contextual actional to triple actional at the physical, social, and
spiritual realms of human beings. These relations can be positive or negative. When an
object can enter into a relation with another object or an action with another action
bringing about their participation, it is positive; if not, it is negative. For example, water
can enter into a relationship with milk and can dissolve it. In other words, water
participates in an act of dissolving milk in it. This is an additional reaction. Water can
still be recovered by heating it and cooling the water vapour. Such an action is positive
and is reversible. On the other hand, water does not enter into a relationship with oil
and does not dissolve it. Such an action is neutral. Such actions create compounds in
chemistry. When water is heated, it evaporates into water vapour by changing its state
and can be brought back to its original state by cooling it but when wood is heated, it
becomes coal. Coal cannot be brought back into its original state of wood. Such
reactions are negative called irreversible reactions in chemistry. These relations create
different types of action; or to put it differently, as human beings perform different types
of actions, different types of relations are created. For example, grasping a book creates
one kind of a relation between the book and the hand (conjunction relation) and putting
the book away from the hand another relation (disjunction relation). These relationships
are governed by their respective sciences of action. For example, milk can enter into a
relationship with the cow which gives it, with the man that milks it, with the milkman
who sells it, and the man who buys and drinks it. These relationships are generated,
specified, directed, and materialized through Nature at the Beyond level of US Action,
through human disposition (personality) at the highest level of US Living, through US
Lingual Action at the middle level of coordination of action, and finally at the level of
experience through triple action. Through these relationships, action is generated, specified,
directed, materialized, and experienced. At the level of Living, disposition (personality) controls
the formation, application, and transmission of these relations.

e. The Principle of Action

For any action to take place, there should be participants that have to exist as objects,
and these objects should exist in a state (i.e., they must be in a state of being) and then
they can contribute to activity by their action through a relationship among themselves.
For example, the basic act of drinking involves the participants the drinker (agent), and
the liquid that is drunk (object), and the action of drinking constituting a relationship
between the participants the drinker, and the drunk liquid, through the act of drinking.

(14) Action = Participants + Relationship among the Participants + Action

In the creation of this phenomenal universe, all objects, states of being, and action are
very systematically planned and executed.
2. The Architecture of Action in Dispositional Behaviour: Sequence and Order in Time,
Space, and Matter
What is more, human beings have to coordinate the coordination of activity in certain
sequences and order dispositionally created (innovation), socially established (collectively
standardized and shared), and then individually adapted (personal choice and application) to
suit the contextual action according to their dispositionally driven biases leading to their
response biases leading to choice and variation in the performed action for the fulfillment
of their desires and the experience of the results of action. All such ordering and
sequencing is spatially, temporally, and materially interconnected-interrelated-interdependent.
Nonetheless, this performed action is within the framework of the Universal Science of
Action. For example, a person may like to drink milk an action driven by a desire
impelled by disposition according to the Universal Science of Living. In modern
conformist behavior, he boils the milk in a vessel and drinks it from a cup this is a
socially established practice of dispositionally innovated action of drinking milk in the
context of the modern world. Such behavioural patterns give us schemata or scripts. In
non-conformist behavior, he simply drinks raw milk. In exceptional (deviant) behavior,
he sucks the milk from the cows udder. Whatever may be the variation, it is all a matter
of Action on Others: Participant. Action. Participant. Adjunction. In addition, it is
spatially, temporally, and materially sequenced and ordered as dispositionally chosen
sequential and ordered behaviour. The sequence in the order of actor-patient-action is
obligatory in the Universal Science of Action: Desire for X (Action-on-Others)1 Getting
X (Action-on-Others)2 Acting on X (Action-on-Others)3 :: desire to drink milk - getting milk
drinking milk. All these three actions go together in a temporal sequence of Desire for X
leading to getting X leading to Acting on X in a time frame in space in an order of the
participant getting and acting on X which are materially also qualified, sequenced, and
ordered. Generally, in conformist behavior, they follow routine scripts but in nonconformist behavior there will be deviation.
(15) Linear Sequence of Action: Desire Effort: Action 1

3n Action.

In some actions, there can be a variation in the processing of action. Instead of linear
processing, it can be parallel, cyclic, spiral, or radial.

(16) Parallel Sequence of Action: Desire Effort: Action 1 Action.

Action 2
Action 3

(17) Cyclic Sequence of Action: Desire Effort:

n
[ parallel to]
Action 1 Action.
Action 2
Action 3

(18) Spiral Sequence of Action: Desire Effort:

. n
[ cyclically with]
Action 1 Action.
Action 2
Action 3

(19) Radial Sequence of Action: Desire Effort:

. n
[ spirals with]
Action 1 Action.
Action 2
Action 3

[ radially with]

.. . n
For the purpose of motivating syntax, let us start with the types of action that are
provided in this actual world and derive the action in the possible and imaginary worlds.
1. Types of Action
If we look at the phenomenon of action, we notice many types and classes and
categories. Let us briefly examine them, with special reference to action of the living
systems as in the case of human beings human action.
a. Simple Action
Basically, all human action is performed in any one of the two types of action given
below:
1. Self-Action; 2. Action-with-Others.

It is performed in all its variety, range, and depth in the spatio-temporal-material

setting in its basic form with a superimposed socio-cultural-spiritual setting in its
middle level and experiential context in its higher level.

3. Qualification and Adjunction of Action

When an action is performed, it is obligatorily performed in a specific spatial and
temporal framework and the specified material, ideational, emotional, and experiential
content of action is qualified and adjuncted in the spatio-temporal-material framework.
The qualification is carried out on the participants of action and the adjunction is
carried out on the action. For example, a participant lotus is qualified with redness, say,
as a red lotus, and it performs the action of blooming by its adjunction in a pond, say, as A
red lotus blooms in a pond; or A red lotus blooms in a big lake. This STM adjunction brings in
the third type of action, namely, Qualification and Adjunction of Action. As a result, we get

1a. Self-Action by Adjunction; and 2a. Action-with-Others by Adjunction.

From the perspective of the participants, he may act by himself, he may act on others (the
participant is the actor: active), and he may be acted on by others (the participant is the
object of action: passive). The first and second options give rise to active action, while the
third to passive action.

1b. Passive Self-Action (by Adjunction);

2b. Passive Action-with-Others (by Adjunction).

b. Multiple Action
Again, a participant may be one or more than one and perform one or more than one action

and enter into one or more than one relation in the performance of action. Let us call this
multiple action. In a similar way, while performing more than one action, the
participant may perform the second action as an independent action or as a secondary
action within the primary action. These options give rise to two more extra possibilities as
follows:

1. c. Multiple (Passive) Self-Action (by Adjunction):

i. Multiple Primary Actions; ii. Multiple Primary-Secondary Actions.
2. c. (Multiple) (Passive) Action-with-Others (by Adjunction):
i. Multiple Primary Actions; ii. Multiple Primary-Secondary Actions.

These are the basic types of action that human beings are capable of performing as they
exist as human beings in this world. However, each type of action may give rise to a
number of permutations and combinations depending on the qualification, adjunction,
and the number of participants in an action. Let us briefly discuss these permutations
and combinations to get a table of human action potential according to the Universal
Science of Action.

1. Self-Action
In this type of action, the actor (a participant) alone acts and performs an action. This
can be divided into two classes:

i. Self-as-Actor Action
a. External Action: General Action

In this class of action, the self containing the body acts as a single unit and performs the
action: e.g. A man running by himself (Animate); Water moving by itself (Inanimate). Here,
the participant maintains an autopoietic structure while performing the action which is

external. There is an apparent transformation (vivartham) in the actor: the actor remains as
he is but apparently takes the form of a running man as long as he runs.

b. Internal Action: State of Being

It can also be internal when a man is affected by his emotions, or by his thinking, or by a
change in his physical being. For example, in the case of a man becoming angry - he is
angry, or a man becoming absent minded when he is deeply thinking he is absent minded, or a
man getting lean he is lean, the action is done internally accompanied by its result as a
state of being. This class of action generally results in states of being. There is an internal
transformation like milk into curd but as a reversible reaction of becoming calm, alert,
and normal again if he stops becoming angry, absent-minded, and lean.

ii. Body-as-Object Action. In this class of action, the self containing the body acts as
two units with the self differentiated from the body and the self performs the action on
the body: A man scratches himself (Animate). Again, the self can act on a single part of the
body or more than one part of the body in a linear, or parallel, or cyclic process. A man
scratches his head, his ears, his legs, and so on in a linear process, and repeat it in a cyclic
process; or he can scratch his head and talk and kick with his legs in a parallel process. In other
words the activity can be single or multiple sequentially.

This second class of action can also be grouped in Action-on-Others.

iii. Self-Action by Adjunction

In this class of action, the action of the self is further highlighted and made specific by
adjunction. Adjunction is a process by which an action is constructed by the addition of
a new component. For example, A man is running is an action of a man running. In this
action, there is only one participant man and one action running with a relation of
man performing running. However, he cannot run in vacuum there is the spatial and
temporal setting underlying his running and his running has a material form. Therefore,
this act of running is an act of running [at a time, in a place, in a particular manner]. To
be more precise, the act of a man running should be described as a man running [in a

specific spatial + temporal + material setting].

Nonetheless, these three components are not taken into consideration in the description
of his running owing to a dispositional choice in the cognition of action. This choice is
necessitated by specification of the spatial-temporal-material attributes in
communication of action in speech. There is an omission of one or more of these
components in the representation of this action in speech depending on the highlighting
of these components according to their importance and dispositional choice. In a similar
way, there can be an addition, or multiplication of the same.

2. Action-on-Others
In this type of action, one participant A (Agent) and another participant B (Object) act in
two ways:
i.

Self-as-Object Action ((Reflexive Action) as already mentioned above): A man

scratches himself (Animate);

ii. a. A acts on B or vice versa (Linear Action): A man holds another man; A man drinks
milk; The wall falls on a man; The bridge collapses on a boat.
b. A and B act on each other simultaneously (Mutual Action): A and B kiss each other;
The gears rotate on each other.
c. A, B, Cn act together in a network in different combinations (Combined Action):
A man (A) giving a book (B) to another man (C). One category of this class is Multiple
Objective Action in which more than one participant acts on others or on each
other. In this type of action, the participants can enter into numerous relationships
such as agential, patient-ial, instrumental, recipient, ablational, locational, possessive, and
so on according to the Universal Science of Action.

These are the two basic types of action in the Universal Science of Action.

There is an important principle of addition-subtraction-multiplication-division in creation.

This principle applies in the performance of action also. As such we get different types
of action by addition, and subtraction as well as multiplication and division.

3. Additive Action
In this type of action, more than one action can be performed by a participant. The
participant can perform them continuously for example, in a linear order, or in a
parallel, or in a cyclic order. They can be different actions, or repetitive actions; they can
be done together or separately; and so on.
i. Linear Order: A man wakes up. He rubs his eyes. He stands up.
ii. Parallel Order: A man sees a snake. He cries. He runs.
[All three actions are performed at the same time.]
iii. Repetitive (Cyclic) Order:

He kisses her baby again and again and again.

Within this additive action, we can have different classes and categories:
i. Equal Actions: He ran + He jumped.
ii. Unequal Action: One Principle Action + One Auxiliary Action:
He was reading (Main Action). He was answering a phone call (Auxiliary Action).

d. Qualifying and Adjunct Action

When an action is performed, it can be qualified or adjuncted. Qualification and
adjunction apply across the board to all types of action.

i. Qualifying Action: He spoke very softly (qualifying spoke).

ii. Adjunct Action: He slept on the lawn (adjunction of slept).

All these types, classes, and categories of action are inherently constituted in the
universal science of action. A comprehensive list of such actions can be created by
observing all the possible variables in action. Such a list will give us the Universal
Science of Action.

b. Universal Science of Lingual Action

Again, any activity is manifested in a material form and therefore it is also subject to the
Concept Pattern Structure Form process as objects are:
(20) Action Conceptualization:
Concept

Pattern (+ Concept)

Structure (+Pattern + Concept)

Form (+Structure +Pattern + Concept)

Since insentient objects are inert, they cannot be agential, but because of the endowment
of motion in Nature, they can be considered, pseudo-agential. For example, air moves,
and water flows, not by themselves, but because of other Natural forces as pressure,
height, etc. All these four processes (together with the processes of living systems and
their triple mental, vocal, and physical -action) bring about the phenomenal world and
become the content of phenomenal knowledge.
US Action, US Living, and US Lingual Action are all I-I-I. The Universal Science of
Living is based on the Universal Science of Action in the sense that human beings
conduct their living by performing triple action (mental, vocal, and physical) which is
governed by the US Action. In addition, they experience the results of their actions as
pleasure/pain or by mere witnessing. Therefore, experience is a part of US Action but
realized in Sentient Creation only (insentient creation cannot experience action by being
non-living). In a similar way, lingual action which is a part of living (experiential action)
also comes under action via living and sets up the network:
(21) Action Living (Experiential Action) Lingual Action
which becomes

(22)Action Lingual Action - Living (Experiential Action)

as language becomes the means through which living is conducted.
E. The Principle of Experience
Language is formed subject to all these laws of action in the Universal Science of Action
and functions semiotically under the Universal Science of Lingual Action to represent
not only the phenomenal knowledge for living under the Universal Science of Living
but also indexes the substratum of the phenomenal world as Pure Awareness (under the
ultimate Science of Creation). It is so because it is a mixed system built out of the
Universal Science of Action, Universal Science of Living, and Universal Science of
Lingual Action. For example, sound is a Natural phenomenon and so subject to the
Universal Science of Action; at the same time, it is produced by human beings and so it
becomes a Biological phenomenon inheriting the properties of Natural Sound and
possessing the extra properties of Biological Sound a:nushangikally and so subject to
the Universal Science of Living; furthermore, it is used to create a system of language
and so it becomes a Lingual phenomenon inheriting the properties of Natural Sound
(and therefore subject to the laws of sound in physics) and Biological Sound (and
therefore subject to the laws of sound in biology) a:nushangikally, and in addition
possessing the extra properties of Lingual Sound and therefore subject to the Universal
Science of Lingual Action which contains the laws of physics and biology). Finally by
being used as an instrument for experience, it becomes experiential sound as shown in
the equation below:
(23) [Natural
Biological
Lingual
Experiential] Sound
[Ultimately, it indexes the substratum of creation under the Science of Creation in which
all these phenomena are projected: the Why, How, When, and Where of these phenomena
(as constituting the content of creation as phenomenal knowledge) are represented but it
cannot represent the What that projects these phenomena since the What is the Subject
and language is the Object.] However, that is the highest function of language, the other
being the representation of phenomenal knowledge. Let us call this highest function the
Noumenal (Spiritual) Function of Language and the second function the Phenomenal
Function of Language.
The noumenal function of language is linked with God and religious scriptures and
therefore is the subject of religion whereas the phenomenal function is linked with the
world and therefore can be empirically and scientifically investigated. Ka:rmik
Linguistic Theory is primarily concerned with the representation of phenomenal
knowledge by language and how it (language) is produced as a phenomenon. Its concern
is with how language is formed and used as a means to the construction of actionaldispositional-ka:rmik reality and not with the choice of action, and how it should be performed
as a way of life which is a religious or ethical matter. Therefore, religion, its propagation,

and God are out of its scope.

Under the phenomenal function of language, it performs so many other sub-functions

as observation, interpretation, identification, representation, creation, initiation, and experience
of action; again, within them, it performs so many other minor speech act functions
which are outlined in the speech act theory (representative, directive, commissive,
expressive, and declaration functions). Furthermore, as it performs these functions, it
becomes a tool (as a symbol in sound in the elementary formative stages of language)
which becomes a system (as a collection of symbols organized in a systematic way at an
advanced formative stage of language) which finally becomes a resource (as a system
used as wealth in the developed stage of language) for the construction of ka:rmik
reality.
(24a) Science of Creation:
Substratum - Cognition of [U.S. Action U.S. Living U.S. Lingual Action]
Projection of Creation

(24b) Science of Creation:

Substratum - Cognition of [U.S. Action U.S. Lingual Action U.S. Living]
Projection of Creation
Noumenal Knowledge

(25) Highest Functions of Language

Indexing Function
Phenomenal Knowledge
Representing Function

Through (34b) lingual action represents phenomenal knowledge and indexes Noumenal
Knowledge. Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory is primarily concerned with the phenomenal
function only.]
In Sentient Creation, which is anushangikally derived from the Insentient Creation,
action is generated, specified, directed, and materialized by disposition (personality) for
the experience of the results of action of the living systems. Living action is solely

experiential but realized explicitly or implicitly to be so by immediate or distant or

ultimate experience of the results of action in the fulfillment of a desire. [For example,
the drinking of water alleviates thirst immediately; the taking of medicines cures cancer
gradually; and acquiring huge wealth may be ultimately achieved.] This is governed by
the Universal Science of Living in an anushangik manner. And in the process of living
the Universal Science of Lingual Action evolved as an offshoot of the Universal Science
of Action and became instrumental in living as experiential action and so preceded U.S.
of Living.
[That which follows, precedes in many other types of processes such as
socioculturalspirituality coming as an offshoot of dispositional cognitional contextual
action and preceding it; again, it precedes dispositional cognitional action since it
influences cognition.
(26a) Dispositional Reality

Cognitive Reality

Actional Reality

Dispositional Reality

Socioculturalspiritual Reality

Cognitive Reality

Contextual Actional Reality

Dispositional Reality

Contextual Actional Reality

Socioculturalspiritual Reality
Actional Reality

Socioculturalspiritual Reality

Contextual Actional Reality

Cognitive Reality

Actional Reality

This is a principle in creation and can be called The Principle of Reversal of Order; In a
similar way, Time is an offshoot of Motion, or Material Action in Space but it precedes
Matter because it binds matter in Time:
(26b) Space

Space
(26c) U. S. of Action

(Matter

Action)

Time

Time
(Matter
Action)
U. S. of Living
U.S. of Lingual Action

(26d) U. S. of Action

U.S. of Lingual Action

U. S. of Living.

A detailed description of the US Action can be constructed by an analysis of the things

(or categories) and their classes and characteristics present in the universe such as
substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, inherence and negation which are further
classified according to their own nature and properties. For example, the first category
Substance is further classified into nine classes: earth, water, light, air, ether, time, space,
soul, and mind; the second category Quality is classified into 24 classes: colour, taste,
odour, touch, number, magnitude, separateness, conjunction, disjunction, remoteness, proximity,
weight, fluidity, viscidity, sound, intellect, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, volition, merit,
demerit, and tendency. In addition, each substance under its class is further given its
characteristics (qualities). For example, earth has odour as its inherent quality; again,
odour is divided into two varieties: eternal and non-eternal; again it has a threefold
distinction: body, organ, and object. (See Annambhattas Tarka Samgraha, translated by
Swamy Vrupakashananda 1994, Ramakrishna Mission, Madras for one approach
towards such an analysis). All these things contribute to the qualification and
adjunction of objects and their related actions alone and in combination.

For a scientific analysis, chemical, physical, and mathematical models can be

considered. For example, matter can be divided into elements, molecules, radicals,
compounds, and mixtures and their properties into physical and chemical properties; the
relationship between objects in action can be considered in terms of mathematical
relations such as addition, deletion, subtraction, multiplication, and division; shapes such as
the geometric shapes like circle, triangle, rectangle, square, etc.; the relation between
participants in a chemical reaction in terms of synthesis (A + B
AB), addition
(A2 B3 C4 D5 +A3
A5 B3 C4 D5), substitution (AB + CD
ABC + D), elimination
(ABC
AC ), etc. [However, a very minute scientific classification might not have been
utilized by the primitive human beings at the formative stages of their languages since
these must have been unknown to them in their scientific forms. For example, they
might have used the concept of synthesis of sounds (as phonemes) to form syllables,
words, phrases, clauses, and sentences from an elementary knowledge of mathematics
gained from their day-to-day activities but not from a scientific knowledge of atoms
joining together to form molecules, radicals, compounds, and mixtures. In a similar way,
in modern times, they might have used elimination reactions in the formation of blends
(e.g., breakfast + lunch
brunch). Generally, these reactions are natural reactions

generated out of laziness (dispositional) clipping in word-formation is one such

reaction; ellipsis in syntax is another such reaction but new processes are discoveries
made out of dispositional creativity the recently created quotational lexical bifurcation
in Telugu word-formation is one such example: da: ruNa is QLB word which is formed
by truncating a part of a word to create a meaning within a meaning of the same word
which is contextually generated. da:ruNa means terrible; ruNa means loan; and da: ruNa
means terrible loan. This word is created to suit the contextual meaning of loans given to
farmers which became unbearable to them. Hence, a classification based on general
logic similar to the one given in Tarka Samgraha but not exactly the same is adopted in
the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory. In KLT, a classification derived from languages in a
bottom up top down process is used in formulating the US Action.]

When human beings conduct their living, they need to perform action which is derived
from the Universal Science of Action; they perform this action in order to fulfill their
desires and experience the results of their actions. For example, they want to satisfy
their thirst. This is a desire. In order to satisfy their desire, they have to make a
dispositional choice and drink a liquid, or eat a juicy fruit, etc. To put it differently, there is
an underlying relationship between the desire and the means through which it is
fulfilled. The means are bound by the Universal Science of Action and the desires are
bound by the Universal Science of Living.
Therefore, there is a systematic
correspondence between their actions and their desires born out of their disposition. In
other words, they have to perform universal action which is regulated by the Universal
Science of Action which corresponds with the fulfillment of their desires. To explain
further, human beings have to perform the phenomenal action in terms of which their
desires are generated and fulfilled.

As a result, to fulfill their desires, they have to perform particular types of action. But
these actions are not simple and straightforward just like going to the river and drinking
water they are complex and need to be coordinated and negotiated. However, human
beings do not know how to do it. The desires are strong and persistent. Consequently,
owing to the dispositional functional pressure to fulfill the desires, they will be driven
to do troubleshooting, develop problem solving strategies, and find solutions to
coordinate the coordination of their activity. In that dispositional functional struggle,
language erupts through sound as a dispositionally creative and experiential symbolic
system. On the one hand what is created as a symbolic sound system should

systematically represent the phenomenal action dispositionally cognized. To put it

differently, there should be a systematic correspondence between the semiotic system
and the signified phenomenal action. As a corollary, it follows that there should be a
systematic correspondence between the desires (as a cause) and the actions (as means)
performed to fulfill the desires to experience the results of action and the lingual action
(as the semiotic means) further performed to perform the actions for the experience of
their results, i.e., to coordinate the coordination of action for the experience of the
results of action in fulfilling the desires.
(27) Desires :: Action as Means :: Lingual Action as Semiotic Means

On the other hand, the system itself has to be conceived and created by design. Such a
conception and design are definitely dispositional since one cannot create beyond his
traits (likes and dislikes), beyond his powers of knowledge and analyticity, beyond his
habituated skills. Hence, another systematic correspondence emerges between the
Semiotic System and Dispositional Creativity.
(28) The Semiotic System of Language :: Dispositional Creativity of the Speakers
All these correspondence relations can be summarized in a simple equation.
(29) Dispositional Reality :: Actional Reality :: Experiential Reality
To sum up, according to the U. S. Action, universal action can be performed in certain patterns
and structures under the spatio-temporal-material conditions of this universe. According to the
U. S. Living derived from U. S. Action living should be conducted by performing universal
action derived from U. S. Action. Finally, to perform universal action to conduct living,
language is created, applied, transmitted, and retained under the dispositional functional
pressure of desires.
A simple network of the universal science of action is given below. It can be used as a
readymade framework for comparing, contrasting, and deriving the syntax of a
language.

Network of the Universal Science of Simple Action (Human)

Physical
Internal
Self-as-Actor

Action

Semiotic
Thinking

Mental

Non-semiotic
Emotional

Self-Action

External Action

Vocal Action

Body-as-Actor

Self-as-Object

Active
Others-as-Object
Human

Action-with-Others

Agent-Patient
Passive

Action
(Simple)

Instrumental
Recipient

Others-asParticipants

Relation

Ablational
Locational
Possessive

Main Action

Auxiliary Action

Dispositional

Sa:ttvik

Traits

Ra:jasik

Knowledge

Ta:masik

Va:sana:s

Perception
Qualification

Cognitional

Attention
Alertness
Memory

Social
Qualification

Social

and Adjunction

Cultural
Spiritual

Immediate
Adjunction

Contextual

Wider
Global
Single
Participant

Double
Multiple

Actional

Relation

Action

( CONTD)

Spatial
Formal

Temporal
Material

Material

Intellectual

Social
Action

Functional

Fulfillment of Desires

(CONTD)

Mental

Emotional

Spiritual
Experiential
Actional

Phenomenal

Contentual
Knowledge

Noumenal

Pleasure
Experiential
Pain

Network 3: Network of the Universal Science of Simple Action (Human)

Mental

Human Action

Simple

General

Complex

Particular

Prototypical

Individual

Vocal

Physical

Categorial

Collective

Network 4: Network of the Universal Science of General Action (Human)

F. Universal Science of Lingual Action, Language-ing, and a Language Formation

A language is formed by language-ing the phenomenal action by its dispositional
semiotic representation in sound to construct dispositional (ka:rmik) reality for its
ultimate experience. In other words, there is a universal science of lingual action and
based on this universal lingual action in its variety, range and depth has evolved. From
the U.S. of Lingual Action, each language community has dispositionally created its
own language and sustains it.
(30) U. S. Lingual Action
Universal Lingual Action
A Linguistic System
In Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory, the procedure for creating a language is as follows.
1. Procedure for Creating Language
a. Sound as a System of Symbols
Sound is used as a semiotic medium for developing a system of symbols to represent the
knowledge of objects, states of being, and actions that are performed in the actual,
possible, and imaginary worlds.
b. Systematic Correspondence between [Actional-Dispositional-Lingual] Worlds
The system of language as a resource for the construction of ka:rmik (dispositional)
reality has a systematic correspondence with the phenomenal world of actions and the
dispositional (ka:rmik) world of the individuals personality.
(31) Phenomenal World Language Dispositional World
Experiential World
On the one hand, language has to systematically represent the phenomenal world. To do
so, it has to develop a similar semiotic system by which the phenomenal world is
designed, processed, and materialized as the form-oriented universe.
Let us examine how this systematic representation of the phenomenal world is
dispositionally carried out by the speakers of a language, say, English or Telugu. Let us
take the case of English first.
1. Language-ing English (Simple Sentence): A KLT Perspective
As has already been pointed out, a language is created by exploiting the Universal
Science of Lingual Action to represent phenomenal action that has been created by the
Universal Science of Action. As human beings exist in a context, they construct their
dispositional reality via actional reality. To explain further, whenever human beings
perform action, they do so to fulfill their desires impelled by their disposition for the

experience of the results of action. In this process, the choice of their actions is
dispositionally driven and their generation and execution is also dispositionally driven.
The Universal Science of Lingual Action is derived from the Universal Science of Action
which encapsulates physics, mathematics, chemistry, logic, etc.
Let us have a basic framework of English syntax and motivate it from the Universal
Science of Action via the Universal Science of Lingual Action. In order to do so, first we
must motivate how language is used as a resource for the construction of ka:rmik
(dispositional) reality and then motivate how it is formed to do so. Such a procedure is
scientifically more advantageous because it is empirically easier to describe how it is
used first than to describe how it is formed which is a historically remote and
inaccessible phenomenon. It can only be reconstructed by interconnecting-interrelating
many factors involved in language formation.
a. Contextual Use of Language: Its Process
From an empirical observation of language use, we notice the following stages as shown
in the following Lingual Action Process Network:
Lingual Action Process Network

Ji:va

Desire

Material
Social
Intellectual
Spiritual
Mixed

Effort: Dispositional Cognition

Lingual Action

Pasyanthi
Vaikhari
U
T
T
E
R
A
N
C
E

Declarative
Indicative
Interrogative
Imperative
Exclamatory
Atomic

Representative
Directive
Permissive
Expressive
Declaration
Mood

Function
Speech Act

Meaning
Proposition

Compound
Syntax
Lexis
Phonology

Form

Madhyama

1. Desire Stage

Network 5: Lingual Action Process Network

When a human being uses language, he uses it to dispositionally observe, interpret,

identify, represent, create, initiate, and experience action in its variety, range, and depth of
contextual occurrence. To do so, he performs different speech acts of representation,

direction, promising, emotional expression, and declaration of action. These speech acts are
performed as a means to bring out an effect. The cause of using language (as speech acts) is
to fulfill ones material, social, intellectual, and spiritual desires in their permutations
and combinations (impelled by ones disposition) by constructing ones dispositional
reality.

Generally, language is used to coordinate the coordination of action to fulfill ones

desires and experience the results of action. To coordinate the coordination of action,
one has to represent what action has to be coordinated, how it has to be coordinated, and
why it has to be coordinated. In other words, action as it is performed has to be
represented. It is possible only when there is a systematic correspondence between
phenomenal action and the language of its representation.
Let us take the case of English and see how it is done.
The entire linguistic system of English can be broadly framed to consist of the following
choices in a network according to the analysis of Quirk, et al (1986).
The first choice is at the sentence level: simple and complex. The simple sentence is
divided into seven secondary choices: SV, SV (O, C, A) and SVO (O, C, A).

1. Self-Action
In the Universal Science of Action, the first action is: 1. Self-Action. In this type of
action, the actor (a participant) alone acts and performs an action. This can be divided
into three classes: i. Self-as-Actor; ii. Body-as- Object Action; iii. Self-Action-byAdjunction. The first class of action, only the participant in an action performs the
action by himself:
(32) Participant Action.
According to the Universal Science of Lingual Action, speech is created from sounds by
the principle of addition and the principle of a:nushangikathvam of phonemes giving
rise to syllables and syllables words, words phrases, phrases clauses, and clauses
sentences:
(33) P1 + P2 + P3 + n = P(1+2); P(1+2+3); and so on.

(34) a. Sound = Phoneme

b. Phoneme

Syllable

Word

Phrase

Clause

Sentence

The basic function of a sentence is to represent phenomenal action. In the first type of
self-as-actor action, there is a participant and an action joined together by an
a:nushangik relation:
(35) Participant

Action (+ Participant)

If the maker of the language succeeds in representing the participant and the action
either by two separate classes or one class or by n-number of classes, he has succeeded
in representing that action. In addition, if he has a higher, abstract form for that
representation, he will achieve the principle of economy, and maximize the principle of
productivity to represent any number of such actions by the self. What is more, he can
use this abstract form in other abstract forms that contain such an action and thus make
the system compact and mnemonic and easy to use. In English, such an action is
represented by the choice of two classes: Subject for participant and Verb for action.
Thus, we get the first syntactic pattern
(36 a) S + V

SV.

However, both the participant and action are subject to qualification and adjunction
according to the third principle in the US of Action. Qualification is an internal
characteristic like the blueness in a blue lotus while adjunction is an external relation in
the action like the air in the air in the eardrum. Hence, we get the following extensions
to the fundamental equation: (40) Participant
Action (+ Participant):
(36 b)

(Q). Participant + (Q). Action

(36 c) (Adjunction). Participant + (Adjunction). Action

with the six possible permutations and combinations of Qualification and Adjunction
on the two variables of participant and action:
(36 d). (Q). P + (Adn). A;

(36 e). (Adn). P + (Q). A.

(36 f) (). P+ (Adn). A;

(36 g) (Q). P + (). A

(36 h) (). P + (Q). A;

(36 i). (Adn). P + (). A

If we have LION as a participant and the action it performs as ROARING; BIG and
FEROCIOUSLY as the qualification of lion, and roaring; and IN THE FOREST as the
location by adjunction, we get the following possible representations:
(37)

i. lion roaring;
ii. Big. lion + ferociously. roaring;

iii. in the forest. lion + in the den. roaring;

iv. big. lion + in the den. roaring;

v.

in the forest. lion + ferociously.

roaring;
vi. lion + in the forest. roaring;

vii. big. lion + roaring

viii. lion + ferociously. roaring

ix. in the forest. lion + roaring.

Roaring is vocal action and the lion is performing the external action of making sound.
This is grouped under Self-Action and is classified under Self-as-Actor (External
Action). If we replace roaring by jumping, we get the same Self-as-Action but the class
will change to Body-as-Actor.
Flowchart of the Important Structures in the General Framework of English Syntax
We can have a general flowchart for simple and complex sentences of proverbs, but for the sake of
convenience subordination can be shown in a separate network.

A. Network for the Simple Sentence

SVA

SVC

SVO

Statements

SVOA

SVOC

SVOO

SV

Rhetorical Questions

Questions
Simple

Q/A Proverbs

Subject
With Let
Sentence

Commands

Negative commands

Persuasive Commands

Exclamations

Syndetic

Coordination

Asyndetic

Complex

Quasi Coordination

Subordination

Phrasal Coordination

Subordination (Continued in the Next Page)

Network 6 a: Network for the Simple Sentence

A. Network for Subordination

Nominal Clause

Time

That -Clause

Place

Interrogative Clause

Condition & Concession

Nominal Relative Clause

Reason or Cause

To-Infinitive Nominal Clause

Circumstance

Nominal ING Clause

Purpose

Bare Infinitive and

Result

Verbless Clauses

Manner & Comparison

Proportion & Preference

Adverbial Clauses

Comparative Sentence
Correlation

Correlation Enough and Too

Subordination
So That and Such That

Non-infinitive & Verbless

Wellerisms

Rhetorical
Questions

Comment
Clauses

Proverbs with

Imperatives

Parenthetic Matter
Exclamations
Other Syntactic Classes

Wh-Word

(Complex Sentence)

Exclamations

Relative Clause
Adjective

Verbless Adjective Clause

Clause
Contingent Adjective Clause

Network 6 b: Network for the Complex Sentence

All these nine types of activity are basically represented only by two patterns in English:
1. S. V. ; 2. S. V. A. by subsuming the qualification of S/V under S/V (S/V= Q + S/V)
but separately representing the adjunction of V (V= V+Adn). They are as follows;
1. (A) lion. (is) roaring.
S

2. (A) big lion. (is) ferociously roaring.

3. (A) lion in the forest. (is) roaring. in the den.

S

5. (A) lion in the forest. (is) ferociously roaring.

S
7. (A) big lion. (is) roaring.

4. A big lion. (is) roaring. in the den.

S

6. (A) lion. (is) roaring. in the forest.

S

8. (A) lion. (is) ferociously roaring.

Human beings (as living systems) perform not only physical action and vocal action but
also mental action. It can be thinking leading to form-oriented thought (e.g., visualizing
any type of form such as that of a mountain, or a stream) or name-oriented ideation
(e.g., any lingual action of naming); it can also be emotional leading to different types of
emotions (anger, envy, etc.) and feeling (e.g., happiness, sorrow, etc.). In these types of
action, the participant performs the concerned mental action internally and qualitatively.
For example, the participant performs the action of thinking and feeling internally (e.g.,
He is thinking/planning/ brooding/sulking). When he performs these actions, he may
be qualifying them: thinking deeply, planning carefully, brooding endlessly, sulking again
and again. These are dynamic states of performing the mental action. They can also be
static states of performing the mental action. They are states of being. For example, a
participant can be in a state of anger, thinking, etc. These actions are extensions of the
simple basic action of Self-Action by Qualification. Factually, all actions are qualified in
one way or the other. However, there is an abstraction of action by typification and its
projection by qualification. This is an inference drawn from an analysis of the qualified
actions by removing the qualification to arrive at the type.
Such classes of action are represented by the choice of a copular verb followed by an
adjective or adverb or a noun in English functioning as a COMPLEMENT: He is
angry/thoughtful/well/ man. Here the sentence pattern is changed from a mere SV to
SVC. So we get another pattern SVC to represent this class of action. Thus, the basic
pattern of SV is extended to SVA and SVC just as Self-Action is extended to Self-Action by
Qualification.
(38 a) He (S)

is thinking (V).

He (S) is (V) thoughtful (C).

(38b) He (S)

is (V)

He (S) is (V) a man (C).

manly (Adjective).

In addition to this class of mental action, physical action can also be performed. A man
eating more food becomes fat. In other words, there is an internal physical change in
him. Such a class of action is also indicated by the SVC pattern.
(38c) He (S) becomes (V)

fat (C).

Interestingly, the same type of extension is carried out in Action-on-Others and Body-asObject. Instead of acting internally or externally, the actor performs the action on others.
For example, a man eats an apple. Here, the apple is another participant in the action
and it is related by eating to the man. Therefore, there are two participants in this action

where the former is the actor (agent) and the latter the actee (patient). What is more, the
same type of a pattern is extended by performing the action on ones body as an object.
Both these two classes are similar; only the nature of the patient changes: one is an
external object; the other is the body of the actor (body/being-as-object). This variation gives us
one more variety of action which is represented separately by SVO pattern in English as
exemplified below:
(39) He (S)

ate (V) an apple (O).

(40a) He (S) has bitten (V) his tongue (O) ones tongue as an internal object.
(40b) He (S) has scratched (V) his body (O) ones body as an object.
In all, in self-action as a type, we get three classes: 1.Self-Action-by-Qualification; 2. SelfAction-by-Adjunction; 3. Action-on-Oneself/Body. This type with its three classes has been
systematically cognized and dispositionally represented in English by SV and SVC; SVA; and
SVO respectively; in Telugu, it is SV, S (Nil) C, SAV, and SOV Telugu is verb final and has
equative constructions . At the level of objectification of participants, a similar systematic
correspondence can be observed - it will be taken up in the Objectification Process
separately - and the qualified object will be dispositionally represented in a
corresponding choice of semiotic form at its own level as a network-within-network in
the concerned language. For example, in the case of English, it is {Adjective + Noun]
and in the case of Arabic, it is [Noun + Adjective].
In self-action, when emotions are expressed at a particular action performed, it gives
rise to such emotional actions as surprise, wonder, etc. These are felt internally and
expressed verbally by exclamatives with wh-words. The wh-element can function as
the subject, object, complement, adverbial, and prepositional complement.
Subject
Object
What

Adverbial
Prepositional Complement
Prepositional Phrase

Exclamatives

Complement
Adverbial
How

Pushdown Element
Preposed Adverbial
Subject Complement

Such

Determiner

So

Intensifier

Network 7: Network of Exclamatives

2. Action-on-Others
In this second type of action, there are two participants at least.
In self-action, we observed that there can be qualification, adjunction, and patient-ization.
From a similar perspective, we can think of the same type of qualification and
adjunction on Action-on-Others. In other words, we observe a person acting on another
person by all these three processes. Thus, in the act of
(41) A man cutting a big tree very neatly in a thick forest,
we see that a tree becomes the patient in the act of cutting by the agent man; big qualifies
tree; very neatly qualifies the action of cutting; thick qualifies forest; and in a forest adjuncts
the action of cutting the tree. These three relations are expressed differently as the agent
(A man), patient (a tree), and location (in a forest). Adjunction is a very broad process type
which looks at an action from the perspective of its internal and external relationship
between the participants: in a blue lotus, the blueness is a part of the lotus whereas in the
air in the ear, the air is not an internal part of the ear-drum even though it is in the ear. To
illustrate further, in ferocious roaring, ferocity is an internal quality like blueness whereas
in a lion roaring in the forest, the lion is not an internal part of the forest but it has become
an external participant in the forest just as the air in the ear. In the Universal Science of
Action, qualification and adjunction are two important processes used in objectification
and action.

Applying this framework to Action-on-Others, we also get another set of classes of action
with qualification, adjunction, and patient-ization for the first-second participant pair as
follows:
(42) SVO [(Q)ualification/(A)djunction/(P)atientization].
These options give rise to the following classes of action:
(43a) Participant . Action Participant . Qualification :: P. A. P. [Q]
(43b) Participant . Action - Participant. Adjunction ::

P. A. P. [A]

(43c) Participant . Action - Participant. Patient :: P. A. P. [Pt]

These three classes of action are represented in English by the three syntactic patterns of
SVO [C/A/O] giving us SVOC, SVOA, and SVOO.
(44) SVO [C/A/O]
a. SVOC:

They (S) proved (V) Rama

(O)

right/a scholar (C).

b. SVOA:

He

(S)

put

(V) the fruit

(O)

on the table

(A).

SVOO: He

(S)

gave

(V) Krishna

(O)

a present

(O).

c.

The number of participants in Action-on-Others is a crucial factor in deciding the

relationships. In the simplest case, there are only two participants; in a complex case,
there can be any number of participants in all the possible mathematical permutations
and combinations into which these participants can enter into. Notwithstanding such a
complex scenario, all such combinations can still be fitted into these important
relationships: All characteristics that are internal are qualifications and all relations that
are external are adjunctional.
a. Relationships in Action in the Universal Science of Action
In Action-on-Others, when one participant is acting with another participant, he gets
into a number of relationships in the spatio-temporal-material setting according to the
qualities of the relations possible: it can be agential, patiential, instrumental, recipiential,
ablational, locational, and so on. For example, in the act of a man eating an apple, the man
is an agent of the action and the apple is the patient in the action. In other words, there is
an agential-patiential relationship between the man and the apple; in the act of a man

cutting the apple with a knife, the knife is in an instrumental relationship with the agent
and a secondary inanimate agential relationship with the apple; in the act of a man giving an
apple to another man with a knife, the man who receives the apple enters into a recipient
relationship with the giver; in the act of a man giving an apple from his box with a knife to
another man, his box enters into an ablational relationship for the apple; and in the act
of a man giving an apple from his box with a knife to another man slips on the ground, on the
ground establishes a locational relationship with the man and his establishes a possessive
relationship with the box.
We can also think of vocal action relationships with others. However, only one such
relationship is well-known: calling/addressing another man. But if we take into
consideration, the different speech acts, we get a number of relationships such as
assertion, direction, promising, expressing emotions, and declaring events.
In a similar vein, we can think of spatial relationships and temporal relationships also.
For example, when a man is above another person, we get a spatial relationship of
above-below between the two people; when a man performs an action of working for a
particular duration, we get an action time-duration relationship, and so on.
Such a classification is useful in communication also and human beings dispositionally
exploited it via the Universal Science of Lingual Action into the formation of their
languages and developed a finer system to represent these relationships for effective
coordination of coordination of action and the fulfillment of their desires by the
experience of the results of action. As a result of such dispositional exploration, we get the
chosen case system of nominative (agent kartri), accusative (patient karman),
instrumental (means karan a), dative (recipient sampradna), ablative (source
apdna), and locative (locus adhikaran a) in the Sanskrit language. In other languages
such as Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian more than 10 cases are dispositionally chosen
and the makers of Tsez language have dispositionally opted for a very elaborate case
system of 128 cases in all.
In English, there is a radical departure from the Old English Case System of 8 cases to
the Modern English Case System of two cases for nouns: common case and genitive case.
In the case of the five personal pronouns: I, we, he, she, they, and the wh-pronoun who,
there is a further distinction between subjective and objective cases. In addition, there
are two genitive forms, a determinative (my, our, your, his, her, its, their, and whose) and an
independent form (mine, ours, yours, his, hers, its, theirs, and whose).
The following is a short list of some important grammatical cases used in different

inflectional languages across the world that have declension. The list is taken as it is
from the List of Grammatical Cases as listed in the Wikipedia, free encyclopedia article
from the internet. The contents of the list are divided into six parts as follows:

1 Place and time

o

1.1 Location

1.2 Motion from

1.3 Motion to

1.4 Motion via

1.5 Time

1.6 Chart for review for the basic cases

2 Morphosyntactic alignment

3 Relation

4 Semantics

5 State
6 References

Place and time

Note: Most cases used for location and motion can be used for time as well.

Location (8 cases)
Case
Adessive
case

Usage
adjacent
location

location
Apudessive
next to
case[1]
something

Example

Found in

near/at/by the Estonian | Finnish | Hungarian | Lithuanian | Livonian |

house
Tlingit | Tsez | Quechua
next to the
house

Tsez

Inessive case

inside
something

inside the
house

Basque | Erzya | Estonian | Finnish | Hungarian | Ossetic

| Tsez

Intrative
case

between
something

between the
Limbu
houses
Armenian (Eastern) | Azeri | Bangla (Bengali) |
Belarusian | Chuvash | Croatian | Czech | Hungarian
(only for some traditional town names) | Inari Sami |
Inuktitut | Latin (restricted) | Latvian | Lithuanian |
Manchu | Northern Sami | Polish | Quechua, | Russian |
Sanskrit | Serbian | Skolt Sami | Slovak | Slovene |
Sorbian | Telugu | Tlingit | Turkish | Ukrainian | Uzbek
(Note: the case in Slavic languages termed the "locative
case" in English is actually a prepositional case.)

Locative
case

location

at/on/in the
house

Pertingent
case

in contact
with
something

touching the
Tlingit
house

Subessive
case

under
something

under/below
Tsez
the house

Superessive on the
case
surface

on (top of)
the house

Hungarian | Ossetic | Tsez

Motion from (5 cases)

Case

Usage

Example

Found in

Azeri | Chuvash | Erzya | Estonian | Evenki |

away from the Finnish | Hungarian | Inuktitut | Latin | Manchu |
house
Ossetic | Sanskrit | Tlingit | Tsez | Turkish |
Uzbek | Yukaghir

Ablative
case

movement away
from something

Delative
case

movement from the from (the top

Hungarian
surface
of) the house

marking the
beginning
Egressive
beginning of a
from the
case
movement or time house

Udmurt

Elative
case

Erzya | Estonian | Evenki | Finnish | Hungarian

out of something

out of the
house

Initiative
case

beginning
starting point of an
from the
action
house

Manchu

Motion to (5 cases)
Case

Usage

in Hungarian and in
Finnish:
movement to (the
adjacency of)
Allative case
something
in Finnish:
movement onto
something

Example

to the house
onto the house

Found in

Erzya | Estonian | Finnish | Hungarian |

Inuktitut | Lithuanian | Manchu | Tlingit |
Tsez | Turkish | Tuvan | Uzbek

Erzya | Estonian | Finnish | Hungarian |

Inari Sami | Lithuanian | Northern Sami |
Skolt Sami | Tsez

Illative case

movement into
something

into the house

Lative case

movement to
something

to/into the house Erzya | Finnish | Tsez | Turkish

Sublative
case

movement onto the

surface or below
something

on(to) the
house / under the Hungarian | Tsez
house

Terminative marking the end of a as far as the

case
movement or time
house

Chuvash | Estonian | Hungarian | Manchu

Motion via (4 Cases)

Case

Usage

Example

Found in

Perlative case

movement through
or along

through/along the house

Evenki | Tocharian A & B |

Warlpiri | Yankunytjatjara

Prolative case

movement using a
surface or way

by way of/through the

house

Erzya | Estonian (rare) | Finnish |

Tlingit

Prosecutive
case

across or along

along the road

Kalaallisut

Vialis case

through or by

by way of the house,

Inuktitut

through the house

Time (5 cases)
Case
Precursive
case[2]

Usage

Example

Found in

This situation occurred before the

"The PRECURSIVE identifies a
war , It rained prior to his
point in time prior to which an
Ithkuil
appearance , There will be a
act, condition, or event occurs."
presentation preceding the banquet .

This situation occurred after the war ,

"The POSTCURSIVE identifies
Postcursive
It rained subsequent to his
a point in time after which an
Ithkuil
case[2]
appearance , There will be a
act, condition, or event occurs."
presentation following the banquet
Temporal
case

(used only with time

expressions)
specifying a time

E.g.: htkor "at seven" or ht rakor

"at seven o'clock"; jflkor "at
midnight"; karcsonykor "at
Christmas".

Accusative
case

indicating duration of time

known as the accusative of
duration of time

E.g.: multos annos, "for many years";

Latin
ducentos annos, "for 200 years."

Essive case

used for specifying days and

dates when something happens

E.g.: maanantaina, "on Monday";

kuudentena joulukuuta, "on the 6th of Finnish
December".

Hungarian

Chart for review for the basic cases

interior

surface

adjacency

state

from

Elative

Delative

Ablative

Exessive

at/in

Inessive

Superessive

Adessive

Essive

(in)to

Illative

Sublative

Allative

Translative

Via

Perlative

Vialis

Prosecutive

Prolative

Morphosyntactic alignment (16 cases)

For meanings of the terms agent, patient, experiencer, and instrument, see thematic relation.
Case
Usage
Example
Found in
patient, experiencer;
subject of an
he pushed the
Absolutive case (1) intransitive verb and door and it Basque
direct object of a
opened
transitive verb

Absolutive case (2)

patient, involuntary
experiencer

he pushed the
door and it
active languages
opened; he
slipped

he pushed the
patient; experiencer; door with his
Absolutive case (3)
Inuktitut
instrument
hand and it
opened

Accusative case (1) patient

Akkadian | Arabic | Azeri | Croatian |

Czech | Erzya | Esperanto | Faroese |
Finnish | German | Greek | Hungarian
he pushed the
| Icelandic | Inari Sami | Latin |
door and it
Lithuanian | Northern Sami | Polish |
opened
Portuguese | Romanian | Russian |
Sanskrit | Serbian | Skolt Sami |
Slovak | Slovene | Ukrainian

direct object of a
transitive verb; made
Accusative case (2)
I see her
from; about; for a
time
Ergative case

Ergativegenitive case

Instructive

Inuktitut | Persian | Turkish | SerboCroatian

agent; subject of a
transitive verb

he pushed the
Basque | Chechen | Dyirbal |
door and it
Georgian | Samoan | Tlingit | Tsez
opened

agent, possession

he pushed the
door and it
Classic Maya | Inuktitut
opened; her
dog

means, answers
question how?

by means of
the house

Estonian (rare) | Finnish

Instrumental

instrument, answers
question with which
thing?

instrument, in
Instrumentalcompany of
comitative case
something

Belarusian | Croatian | Czech |

Evenki | Georgian | Lithuanian |
with the house Manchu | Polish | Russian | Sanskrit |
Serbian | Slovak | Slovene | Tsez |
Ukrainian | Yukaghir | Quenya
with the house Chuvash | Hungarian | Tlingit

agent, experiencer;
he pushed the nominativeaccusative languages
Nominative case (1) subject of a transitive door and it
and nominativeabsolutive
or intransitive verb
opened
languages

Nominative case (2)

agent; voluntary
experiencer

he pushed the
door and it
active languages
opened; she
paused

Objective case (1)

direct or indirect
object of verb

I saw her; I
gave her the Bangla (Bengali) | Chuvash
book.

Objective case (2)

direct or indirect
object of verb or
object of preposition;
a catch-all case for
any situation except
nominative or
genitive

I saw her; I
gave her the English | Swedish | Danish |
book; with
Norwegian | Bulgarian
her.

Oblique case

all-round case; any

situation except
nominative or
vocative

concerning the
Hindi | Telugu | Old French
house

Passive case or
patient case or
intransitive case

the subject of an
intransitive verb or
the logical
complement of a
transitive verb

The door
opened

Pegative case

agent in a clause with he gave the

a dative argument
book to him

languages of the Caucasus

Azoy Tlapanec

Relation (16 cases)

Case

Usage

Example

Found in

Ablative case

all-round
indirect case

concerning
the house

Aversive case

avoiding or fear

avoiding the
Warlpiri | Yidiny
house

Benefactive case

for, for the

benefit of,
intended for

for the house Basque | Portuguese | Quechua | Telugu

Causal case

because,
because of

because of
the house

Causal-final
case

Sanskrit | Inuktitut | Latin | Lithuanian |

Quenya

Quechua | Telugu

efficient or final
for a house
cause

Chuvash | Hungarian

in company of with the

something
house

Dumi | Galician | Ingush | Estonian | Finnish

(rare) | Inari Sami | Northern Sami |
Portuguese (rare) | Skolt Sami | Ossetic (only
in Iron)

Dative case

shows direction for/to the

or recipient
house

Azeri | Belarusian | Croatian | Czech | Erzya |

Faroese | Georgian | German | Greek | Hindi |
Hungarian | Icelandic | Inuktitut | Latin |
Lithuanian | Manchu | Ossetic | Polish |
Portuguese | Romanian | Russian | Sanskrit |
Serbian | Slovak | Slovene | Tsez | Turkish |
Ukrainian

Distributive case

distribution by
per house
piece

Chuvash | Hungarian | Manchu

Comitative case

how often
Distributivesomething
temporal case
happens
Genitive case

shows
relationship,
possession

daily; on
Sundays

Hungarian | Portuguese (rare)

of the house Akkadian | Arabic | Azeri | Bangla (Bengali) |

Belarusian | Chuvash | Croatian | Czech |
Danish | Dutch | English | Erzya | Estonian |
Finnish | Georgian | German | Greek |
Hungarian | Icelandic | Inari Sami | Irish |
Latin | Lithuanian | Manchu | Northern Sami |

Norwegian | Polish | Portuguese | Romanian |

Russian | Sanskrit | Serbian | Skolt Sami |
Slovak | Slovene | Swedish | Tsez | Turkish |
Ukrainian
Ornative case

endowment
equipped
Dumi
with something with a house

Possessed case

possession by
something

the house is
owned by
Tlingit
someone

Possessive case

direct
possession of
something

owned by the
English | Quenya
house

Privative case

lacking
something

homeless,
without a
house

Semblative case

Similarity to
something

that tree is
Wagiman
like a house

Sociative case

along with
something,
together with
something

with the
house

Chuvash | Wagiman

Hungarian | Ossetic

Semantics (3 cases)
Case

Usage

Example

Found in

Partitive case used for amounts

three (of the) Estonian | Finnish | Inari Sami | Russian | Skolt

houses
Sami

when certain
Prepositional
prepositions
case
precede the noun

Belarusian | Czech | Polish | Russian | Slovak |

Ukrainian (note: this case is called lokl in Czech
in/on/about and in Slovak, miejscownik in Polish,
the house
(miscev) in Ukrainian and (miesny) in
Belarusian; these names imply that this case also
covers Locative case)

Vocative case used for

Hey, father! Belarusian (rare) | Bulgarian | Croatian | Czech |
addressing
O father!
Georgian | Greek | Hindi | Irish | Itelmen | Ket |
someone, with or Father!
Latin | Lithuanian | Macedonian | Nivkh | Polish |

without a
preposition

Romanian | Russian (rare) | Sanskrit | Serbian |

Telugu | Ukrainian

State (12 cases)

Case

Usage

Example

Found in

Abessive case

the lack of
something

without the house

Erzya | Estonian | Finnish | Inari

Sami | Skolt Sami

Comparative
case

similarity with
something

similar to the house

Dumi | Mari | Nivkh

Equative case

comparison with
something

like the house

Ossetic | Sumerian | Tlingit | Tsez

Essive case

temporary state of
as the house
being

Estonian | Finnish | Inari Sami |

Inuktitut | Middle Egyptian |
Northern Sami | Skolt Sami | Tsez

marking a
Essivecondition as a
formal case
quality

as a house

Hungarian | Manchu

marking a
Essivecondition as a
modal case
quality

as a house

Hungarian

Exessive case

marking a
transition from a
condition

from being a house

(i.e., "it stops being a Estonian (rare) | Finnish (dialectal)
house")

Formal case

marking a
condition as a
quality

as a house

Hungarian

Identical case

showing that
something is
identical

being the house

Manchu

Orientative case

oriented towards
something

turned towards the

house

Chukchi | Manchu

against the house

Manchu

Revertive case backwards to

something
change of a
Translative case condition into
another

(turning) into a house

Erzya | Estonian | Finnish |

Hungarian | Khanty | Manchu

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammatical_cases"

Table 2. The Hungarian case system, listed with each allomorph of the case suffix in singular and
plural and exemplified by the words hz 'day', and t 'five'
Case [Tag] Suffixes Examples
1. Nominative [NOM] - Hz house
2. Accusative3 [ACC] -t, -ot, -et, -t Hzat house
3. Dative-genitive4 DAT] -nak, -nek Hznak of the house
4. Instrumental [INS] -(V)al, -(V)el Hzzal with the house
5. Essive-modal [SOC] -stul, -stl hzastul with the house and its parts
6. Translative [FAC] -(V), (V) hzz into a house
7. Causal-final [CAU] -rt hzrt for the house
8. Illative [ILL] -ba, -be hzba into the house
9. Sublative [SUB] -ra, -re hzra onto the house
10. Allative [ALL] -hoz, -hez, hz hzhoz to the house
3 The

accusative case ending in certain constructions may be zero (--) if the object is a noun with a

possessive personal endig, e.g. eladom a hzam/hzamat I sell my house..

4 The

reason for marking the genitive and the dative cases as the same is, that dative may mark not only

the indirect object but also the possessor.

11. Inessive [INE] -ban, -ben hzban in the house
12. Superessive [SUP] -n, -on, -en, -n hzon on the house
13. Adessive [ADE] -nl, nl hznl at the house

14. Elative [ELA] -bl, -bl hzbl out of the house

15. Delative [DEL] -rl, rl hzrl from (top of) the house
16. Ablative [ABL] -tl, tl hztl from (nearby) the house
17. Terminative [TER] -ig hzig as far as the house
18. Formal [FOR] -knt hzknt as a house
19. Temporal [TEM] -kor tkor at five

(The Hungarian Language A Short Descriptive Grammar by Beta Megyesi)

Whatever be the case system, the representation of phenomenal action is carried out
according to the dispositional choices of the makers of a language. The bottom line is
the types, classes and sub-classes of universal action is the same but its mode of
representation varies from language to language. In the Chomskyan paradigm, it is
derived from a hypothetical Universal Grammar and Parametric Variation as if they
were already there. In the Hallidayan paradigm, they are motivated from the
universality of the uses to which language is put to. Both these paradigms fail to
motivate how choice is determined in the creation and historical development of a
language. In ka:rmik linguistic theory, the choice of the case systems is a matter of
individual-collective-contextual dispositional choice of lingual action for the coordination
of coordination of action for the fulfillment of desires and the experience of the results
of action. As the disposition of the speakers of a language community is, so are their
dispositional biases; as their dispositional biases are, so will be their response biases;
and as their response biases are, so will be their choices; and finally as their choices are,
so will be the variations in lingual action. That it is so can be reconstructed from the
historical development of a language and the changes that take place in it both
synchronically and diachronically. Otherwise, we can never motivate plausibly how
English has changed from an elaborate case system with 8 cases in Old English to two
cases in Modern English. Whatever reasons might be attributed for the reduction of the
cases, nobody can dispute the underlying choice of reduction in the case system which is
as reasoned out above- a matter of disposition and its play.

IV. Conclusion

In the analysis carried out above, it has been shown that the simple sentence in English
is constructed by dispositional creativity of the English Language Speech Community
by I-I-Iing (interconnecting-interrelating-interdepending) the three Universal Sciences of
Action Living Lingual Action through the use of dispositional cognition and inherited
cognitive abilities rather than genetically inherited language faculty itself, as Chomsky
proposes.

2. Representation of Subordinate Action as Participant-Qualification Action

3. Representation of Subordinate Action as Action-Qualification Action

3. Representation of Subordinate Action as Action-Qualification Action