Introduction
This synopsis is not the best place to start because it is very difficult.
I suspect that the English language of the twentieth century was created of William Shakespeare : who included grammatical aberrations into his plays which became the accepted and spoken dialect.
There is no such thing as absolute language : thus there is no such thing as a language which is ``correct'' ; there is only syntax and correct syntax within certain rules. I did not create any of the language described here. I document its use only. Roderickian English is intended to be more similar than the rules by Greek than it is supposed to be by modern-day twentieth century English which was termed Newspeak of George Orwell (Eric Blair). Thereby of a modern Brit or American it might not make sense and seem silly. Edwin Dixon (who died 27th June 2009) did not speak by a Queensbury accent : quite the contrary, his accent is not often heard and it was broad Cumberland. Both of the languages I describe are living : they change shape and mutate ; and both were alive at the year of 2008, though Newspeak was more common than Roderickian English : which though spoken at the year of 2008, this language as Roderickian English by which I am writing was more rare than Newspeak by a factor of ten to one. I chose to document Roderickian English because I learnt it of Barbara Day, Edwin Dixon, and William Bell. I am not able to use Newspeak to describe complicated things because all languages are tools and I find that Newspeak is not sufficient by computer science, nor economics. Also I find that Newspeak is not sufficient for computer science, or economics : which infers that Newspeak prevents proper computer science and economics. This partly perhaps explains why the people of the 1940s were more clever though the education and standards of literacy were far less than when Newspeak became the language after 1960s. This also partly explains why presently Europeans other than the Brits and Americans are better by computer science. The Americans who do excel at computer science do not speak by the language of their popular culture, and their number is far fewer than the number of similarly skilled and knowledgeable German computer scientists.
A problem with British people who are born between the years of 1960 and 1990 is that they think that they know everything, and they believe that everything is what they have experienced. This leads them to deny another person's experiences, and to deny also that another person may have his head at a place whereby certain opportunities and experiences as observations are possible of this person alone, because of such personal characteristics as patience and understanding about subjective experiences. The people born between 1960 and 1990 mostly and universally believe themselves to be right about everything, and thereby they are incapable to believe that a word such as the word as ``til'' is actually spoken of people who are real, because the reality of another person's experience is incomprehensible if it contradicts what is absolutely their known reality, which is inside of the skull of the conscious mind of the believer. Orwell spent much of his war-time years noticing such inherently self-contradictory behaviours which are noted within his diaries. The point of this explanation til Roderickian English is not to talk about psychology. I am here to expatiate linguistic syntax and semantics.
Edwin Dixon : the working man's choice of great thinkers
Stoical Billie Bell
Barbara Day
Right then.
Within Shakespeare's King Henry 4th Part 2; Act 2; Scene 4 the character as Doll Tearsheet says
He a captain! Hang him! Rogue! He lives upon moldy stewed prunes and dried cakes. A captain! God's light, these villains will make the word as odious as the word ``occupy'' ; which was an excellent good word before it was ill-sorted.
My guess is that Shakespeare was inferring that the word as ``occupy'' previously meant that the women was occupied at the garden weeding the peas ; whereas to say that the land or the water-closet has become occupied was previously disallowed because such would mean that the water-closet and the land were capable by doing something : which is without reason, such as would be the baseball bat which hit the boy til his head, which is considered correct reasoning by Newspeak. Latterly within Shakespeare's time, the word as ``occupy'' came to imply that a person or people were territorially claiming the state of temporary ownership by land : thus the verb as occupy lost its sense of doing something, and became a noun which inferred ownership.
The rules of Roderickian English precede Shakespeare and I have learnt of the last remnants of this oral language in its non-written form at the very North of England. These rules may be applied by any language. I have not called this system of grammar Roderickian English because I wish to promote myself : of the contrary, over the last few years I have worried about becoming known widely, and thought about calling the system after something other than myself ; but this was not efficient and confusing. I began this project at 2005 and the research by it was a full-time job. Newspeak has varying rules which must be reversed continually, and without the speaker noticing such, so that meaning may be conveyed. Mental illness is often arrived at, perhaps inevitably. Newspeak has no rules, and such is also the nature of schizoid thought, which precurses schizophrenia, the latter being communication gone horribly wrong. Schizophrenia is a skill which is learnt and not repented. By Newspeak the word as ``of'', and the word as ``for'', and the word as ``by'', can all have the same meaning. Thus by Newspeak the sentence as ``the handle for the door'', and the sentence as ``the handle to the door'', and the sentence as ``the handle of the door'' all have exactly the same meaning. This is not the case by Roderickian English. By Roderickian English the word as ``for'' confers a substitution til the latter by the former : which is a substitution til the former for the latter. By Roderickian English the word as ``til'' has a higher precedence than the word as ``for'', and the word as ``for'' has a higher precedence than the word as ``by'', and the word as ``by'' has a higher precedence than the word as ``of''; and by Roderickian English the word as ``for'' infers that the word which comes before the word as ``for'' replaces the word which comes after the word as ``for''. By Roderickian English the word as ``of'' confers an action, or a quality, or a possession of something which follows the word as ``of''. By Roderickian English the word as ``by'' means the words as ``which is a returning til'' : thus by Roderickian English the phrase as ``fly by wire'' infers the same than the words as ``fly as a returning til wire'' which means that flight has returned til the wire, which is that flight has returned by the wire, and not that the wire itself is performing the action as flying. By Newspeak the phrase as ``fly by wire'' means that the wire has been flying, which means that the wire itself is performing the action as flying and thereby is not consistent and is a sound-bite which is inheritted from the past and which has not yet been updated. A more consistent expression by Newspeak would be the words as ``fly of wire'' : which are completely wrong of Roderickian English. By Roderickian English the sentence as ``I will return by nine o-clock'' has the same meaning than of Newspeak the sentence as ``I will return of nine o-clock''.
The person whose only language is as Newspeak will find that the statement which I have made about the word as ``for'' is an outlandish and a confusing and a mentally unwell allegation : perhaps a form of mockery, and obviously nonsensical. To prove my remarks consider the statement as ``The cat was replaced for the dog''.
Which remains? Does the cat remain, or does the dog remain?
A person who has Newspeak as a primary and only language will think about this for a more than twenty seconds because he is genuinely ignorant, and finally he will say with some hesitation that the dog remains. By a language like Dutch no human being beyond the age of early infancy would have such a problem. This comparison between languages based upon this test does enable us to make objective comparisons based upon people's responses to this fundamental question.
A person who has Roderickian English as a primary language will immediately and without hesitation say that the former remains : which is that cat remains. I am talking about the War generation within Britain when I refer by a person who has Roderickian English as a primary language ; they are real, and what I am reporting is true.
This revelation is quite shocking actually, and it is a huge problem. At the year as 2007 I was at a baker shop at my home town and the adult lady of 19 years of age dropped a scone on the floor, and said she would give it to me so that my dog could have it. I said, ``So that's two for the price of one''.
``No.'' she replied. ``I have only charged you one''.
``So that's two for the price of one.'' I said again.
``No.'' she said again. ``I have only charged you one''.
``So that's two for the price of one.'' I said by a third time.
``No.'' she said by a third time. ``You have only paid one''.
Because of this, all forms of agreement I think are extremely unlikely and this problem of language can cause all sorts of unfounded allegations which are based upon a linguistic paradox. Without the ability to circumvent these fundamental misunderstandings, all forms of consent or agreement, about anything at all, are extremely unlikely and very problematical, and thus if agreement be the essence of choice, perhaps the human species within Britain is progressing into a direction which is contravening evolution.
What had happened?
Because by Newspeak the word as ``for'' is understood of herself to have the same meaning than by Roderickian English the word as ``of'', the words as ``two for the price'' of Newspeak are understood of herself to have the same meaning than by Roderickian English the words as ``two of the price'' : which means twice the price. Also, by Newspeak the word as ``of'' is understood of herself to have the same meaning than words as ``as a returning til'', which has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the word as ``by'' : thus by Newspeak the words as ``price of one'' of herself is understood to mean the same than by Roderickian English the words as ``price which is as a returning til one'', or by Roderickian English the words as ``the price by one''. Thus a convoluted conclusion leads me to believe that what she understood was conveyed of the words as ``Two for the price of one'' was having the same meaning than by Roderickian English the words as ``Two of the price by one''. Thereby she legitimately and without confusion heard the meaning as ``You have charged me double'' which is a contradictory meaning than thas (sic) which the speaker as myself was using and intending to convey. Other ways to say exactly the same by Roderickian English are as ``Twice the price as a returning til the price of one'', or ``Two of the price of one'', or ``Twice the price'' or ``Twice the price by one.''
All forms of agreement are predicate of some form of language, and pointing and nodding would seem more viable these language difficulties, which must prevent progress into higher communication also. Choice is a function of language, and thus any form of sexual liberation being of personal choice does seem very improbable within this kind of a scenario. What exactly would Tarzan say to Jane? Would Jane say to Tarzan ``I don't want to be a cheater, and I don't want to be a bitch.''? Maybe Tarzan would be better off with a gorilla.
Consider the following scenario.
Wayne:
You have always struck me to be apparent.
Belinda:
So now you are saying I have struck you? When?
Wayne:
What are you talking about? I haven't said anything of the sort.
Belinda:
Yes you did. You said I have struck you I might appear.
Wayne:
That sentence doesn't make any sense. Do you know how to speak yet?
Belinda:
You have said that it appears as though I have struck you. Stop insulting my intelligence.
Wayne:
No I didn't. I said you have struck me as being very apparent.
Belinda:
There you said it again. Now you are saying I appear to have hit you. When?
Wayne:
No I did not, you crazy cow. I did not say anything of the sort. I said ``You have struck me to appear''.
Belinda:
You are saying I have hit you again.
Wayne:
No, I do not want to say that you have hit me in any way.
Belinda:
Do you actually know you are bonkers? I have not hit you.
Wayne:
Exactly. You... have.... struck... me.... to... appear...
Belinda:
You said it again.
Wayne:
You have made unsubstantiated claims about what I have said.
Belinda:
Look. Do you want to say ``I have struck you so to appear''.
Wayne:
No. Now you are saying that you have hit me.
Belinda:
No I am not! You don't know how to speak! You want to say ``I have struck you so to appear''!
Wayne:
No. I do not want to say that I have hit you, and I wish you would stop trying to put such words into my mouth. Your behaviour is unreasonable, and harassing.
Belinda.
Well at least I am not senile. Do you have Alzheimer's, or something?
(Abuse and domestic violence ensues)
What would have happened here is that Wayne said something by Roderickian English, and Belinda's only language is Newspeak, which Wayne cannot understand. Imagine the above scenario where this confusion occurs within a court room, where the judge or members of the jury do not speak the same language than each other. A person who speaks Newspeak will believe that Wayne has made an accusation about Belinda hitting him ; though a person who speaks Roderickian English will believe that Wayne has accused Belinda to be bland and confused. Further, the person who speaks Roderickian English will believe that Belinda is unreasonably trying to encourage Wayne to accuse her to have hit him (to accuse her into the effect that she has hit him) while she is simultaneously protesting about such remarks as those which she is actively seeking. The person who speaks Newspeak will believe that Belinda is trying to persuade Wayne to admit that he is contradicting himself ; and the person who speaks Newspeak will believe that he clearly has contradicted himself, and a contradictory account might be evidence of indicative dishonesty and deceitfulness.
BIG PROBLEMS? YES? This endangers all forms of human progress.
Introducing the word as ``so'' does not help matters because by Newspeak the presence of the word as ``so'' indicates the same meaning than what would have been the complete absence for the word as ``so'' which is of Roderickian English ; yet by Roderickian English the word as ``so'' is used to separate the form which precedes it from the form which succeeds it by creating a weak binding within a sentence : which is how Wayne understood this word. By Roderickian English the word as ``so'' is a statement modifier which has the same meaning than the words as ``by order'' which is of Roderickian English ; and a statement modifier like the word as ``if'' can be used after a form instead than before it, with the same meaning. By Newspeak the presence of the word as ``so'' does indicate the absence for a statement modifier, of the same way that the presence of the word as ``that'' which is of Newspeak indicates the absence for a subjunctive clause : which was the understanding of Belinda, though contradicting the rules by these words of Roderickian English. To understand the difference of the word as ``so'' between the two languages is very difficult, and requires a mental agility like running on quick-sand.
Incidentally by Newspeak the word as ``so'' can have the same meaning the same than the word as ``extremely'' or the word as ``very''.
By Newspeak the phrase of an Emminem song which is as
You only get one chance; so do not miss : your chance to lose. This opportunity comes once in a lifetime.
is unreasoned if applied by Roderickian English because by Roderickian English the sentence as ``don't miss your chance to win this cash prize'' is reasoned. By Roderickian English the sentence as ``don't miss your chance to lose this cash prize'' is not reasoned and crazy, though by Newspeak the words as ``don't miss : your chance to lose'' makes perfect sense and has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the words as ``don't miss because if you do this would be that your chance will have become lost''. By Newspeak the words as ``your chance to lose'' means the same than ``which would be that your chance will have become lost'', though by Roderickian English the words as ``your chance to lose'' means literally ``your chance as to lose''.
By Roderickian English the form as noun, infinity of verb implicitly infers a strong binding between the variable as the noun, and its value as the infinity of verb ; and this is not so (as a returning til properly and complete accordance as a returning til) Newspeak.
By Roderickian English the form as noun, infinity of verb is as
What Wayne has said to be stark
and by Roderickian English this would be better into
What Wayne has said so to be stark
because by Roderickian English this has the same meaning than the sentence as
What Wayne has said by order to be stark
which has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the sentence as
What Wayne has said as a returning til properly and complete accordance by to be stark.
because the action as saying is not being stark though by Roderickian English Wayne is being stark as a returning til saying.
By Roderickian English there is a distinction between a verbal action and a verbal noun when it is followed as a returning til another verb. The last two examples are examples of a verbal noun and by Roderickian English it is better to have included the word as ``so'' as a returning til order to distinguish between a verbal action than a verbal noun because a verbal action when followed by another verb means that the two verbs are being concatenated into one type of bigger verb, yet by Roderickian English when a verbal action is followed by another verb the inclusion til the word as ``so'' signifies that this verbal noun itself is not specifically doing anything itself, and the verbal noun is like some kind of third object involving something prior.
Another example of this phenomenon by Roderickian English is the sentence as ``This is your opportunity so to win a fluffy rabbit'' which has the same meaning than the sentence as ``This is your opportunity as a returning til properly and complete accordance by to win a fluffy rabbit'' : the opportunity does not win because you might win by this opportunity. This is better grammar by Roderickian English than the sentence as ``This is your opportunity to win a fluffy rabbit'' because this latter sentence does infer that this opportunity will be specifically and directly doing the winning which is not correctly reasoned.
All by properly and complete accordance by it is necessary to understand that by Newspeak the form as noun, infinity of verb always infers the same than noun, future perfect of verb, past participle of verb
By Newspeak all forms as noun, infinity of verb are as
| noun | infinity of verb |
|---|---|
| your chance | to lose |
| noun | future perfect of verb | past participle of verb |
|---|---|---|
| your chance | will have become | lost |
Don't miss
| conditional of the verb as ``to be'' | noun | future perfect of the verb as to become | past participle of the verb |
|---|
| temporal pause within speech implies a missing colon by Roderickian English : which is the semi-colon by Newspeak (into the words as "which would be that") | noun (the words as "your chance") |
future perfect of the verb as to become (into the words as "will have become") |
past participle of the verb (into the word as "lost") |
| which would be that | your chance | will have become | lost |
Thus if Belinda would say to Wayne by Newspeak the words as ``You've struck me to appear'' a translator must change these words by Roderickian English into the sentence as ``You have struck me which would be that your strike will have become appeared'', or simply by Roderickian English the sentence as ``You have struck me so to appear'' which has the same meaning by Roderickian English than the sentence as ``You have struck me by order to appear'', which has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the sentence as ``You have struck me by properly and complete accordance by to appear'', which has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the sentence as ``You have struck me as a returning til order as a returning til to appear''.
Because Wayne hears the verbal action when followed as a returning til another verb to be joined into one bigger verb, he hears the words as ``You've struck me to appear'' to have the same meaning than the words as ``What has struck me is that something ensuing, which is about you, has been apparent'' like into the sentence as ``You have struck me to appear very calm within a crisis'' or like into the sentence as ``I have found something about you apparently striking'' like your eyes.
Now things will become very confusing, because as a returning til order (properly and complete accordance by) to have the same meaning by Roderickian English the words as ``You've struck me to appear'' must be changed til as a returning til Newspeak the words as ``You've struck me in (sic) order to appear'', or ``You've struck me so to appear''. This is difficult to understand because it is dis-orientating mentally.
By Roderickian English the word as ``so'' indicates the presence til a conjunctive clause, and by Roderickian English the word as ``so'' has the same meaning than the words as ``by order'' which is of Roderickian English.
By Newspeak the word as ``so'' indicates the absence for a conjunctive clause, and by Newspeak the word as ``so'' has the same meaning than the words as ``in order'' which is of Newspeak.
By Newspeak the presence til the words as ``in order'' has the same meaning than than by Roderickian English the omission til the words as ``by order'', thus by Newspeak it is wrong to suppose that the words as ``in order'' has the same meaning than the words as ``by order'' which is of Roderickian English. By Newspeak the presence til the words as ``so'' has the same meaning than than by Roderickian English the omission til the words as ``so''.
By Roderickian English the words as ``by order'' has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the word as ``so''.
By Newspeak the words as ``in order'' has the same meaning than by Newspeak the word as ``so''.
The word as ``so'' which is of Roderickian English has a disparate meaning than the word as ``so '' which is of Newspeak. By Roderickian English the word as ``so'' has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the words as ``by properly and at complete accordance by''.
Wayne hears by Roderickian English the sentence as ``You've struck me in order to appear'' to have the same meaning than by Roderickian English the words as ``You have struck me as a totality by propriety, permission, and authority by to appear'', or ``You have struck me as a totality of identity by properly and complete accordance by as a returning til to appear''.
Wherever the words as ``in order'' occurs of Newspeak this indicates the meaning which would be thas (sic) of the absence for the words as ``by order'' which is of Roderickian English.
By Roderickian English the words as ``by order'' has the same meaning than the words as ``as a returning til properly and complete accordance by''.
By Newspeak the word as ``so'' may have the same meaning than the words as ``therefore'', where by Roderickian English this is disallowed. By Roderickian English the word as ``so'' has the same meaning than the words as ``by order'', which has the same meaning than the words as ``as a returning til properly and complete accordance as a returning til'' which means that whatever precedes the word as ``so'' has a weak binding by the value which succeeds this, and this binding splits either side of this binding into two groupings. By Newspeak the words as ``in order'' indicates an absence for a binding between a variable and its value, howsoever weak.
By Newspeak the word as ``however'' is correct and has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the word as ``howsoever''.
By Newspeak the word as ``howsoever'' has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the word as ``however'' and by Roderickian English the word as ``however'' is wrong because there is no binding between the word as ``how'' and the word as ``ever''.
By Newspeak the words as ``however so'' has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the word as ``howsoever'' because the latter word as ``so'' is omitted by this translation, thus by Newspeak the words as ``however so'' is correct.
By Roderickian English it is correct so to say the word as ``howsoever''. By Roderickian English the words as ``howsoever'' means ``How as properly and complete accordance by ever''.
By Roderickian English the words as ``how-in-ever'' means ``How as a totality as a returning til properly and complete accordance by as a returning til ever''.
Belinda hears allegations about violence ; and Wayne is thinking about how something of the appearance of Belinda is strikingly noticeable. Likewise Wayne hears allegations about violence which Belinda did not intend to convey.
If Wayne would say to Belinda ``You have struck me to be apparent'' Belinda would hear Wayne make allegations about violence which Wayne did not mean or intend to convey through what Wayne said because Belinda understands these words to mean the same than by Roderickian English the words as ``You appear to have struck me'' because Belinda hears what Wayne has said by order to be ``You have struck me which would be that your striking me will have become to have appeared''. Belinda understands the words as ``to be apparent'' to have the same meaning than the infinity of the verb as ``to appear'', which is not the case by Roderickian English. Thus Belinda, whose primary language is Newspeak, does hear the words as ``You have struck me to appear'' into the same meaning than the words by Roderickian English as ``You have struck me so that you may appear'', or ``You have struck me by order to appear'' because by Newspeak the statement as verbal action, infinity of second verb will infer the statement as the pronoun of the gerund of this same verbal action + future perfect of the verb as to become + past participle of second verb
Thus
| verbal action | infinity of second verb |
|---|---|
| you have struck me | to appear |
| the pronoun of the gerund of this same verbal action | future perfect of the verb as to become | past participle of the second verb |
|---|---|---|
| your striking me | will have become | appeared |
When Belinda hears by Newspeak the sentence as ``You appear to have struck me'' she understands these words to mean ``The way you appear would be that to have struck me will have become happened'', or more generally ``The purview is that your accosting my person has become specifically perceived''.
By Roderickian English the sentence as ``You appear to have struck me'' may not contain a colon (:) between the word as ``appear'' and the form as ``to have struck''. By Newspeak the words as ``You appear ; to have struck me'' may have a missing semi-colon (sic) (which the semi-colon of Newspeak is the colon of Roderickian English) and by Newspeak the words as ``You appear to have struck me'' has same the meaning than by Roderickian English the sentence as ``You appear ; which would be that your striking me will have appeared'', or the same meaning than by Roderickian English the similarly odd sentence as ``You appear, which would be that to have struck me will have become happened''. By Newspeak the sentence as ``You appear ; which would be that to have struck me will have become occurred'' is thought to be grammatical and indeed eloquent of Newspeak because it even has the same meaning if read by Roderickian English, howsoever strange this syntax does appear by Roderickian English.
By Roderickian English the sentence as ``You have struck me to appear very bland and ordinary'' is correct.
By Newspeak the sentence as ``You have struck me to appear very bland and ordinary'' is wrong because by Newspeak the statement as verbal action, infinity of second verb will infer the statement as verbal action + missing colon or a joining clause and the conditional of the verb as ``to be'' and a subordinate clause + the pronoun of the gerund (striking) of this same form + future perfect of the verb as to become + past participle of the second verb
Thus
| verbal action | infinity of second verb |
|---|---|
| you have struck me | to appear |
| verbal action | missing colon or a joining clause and the conditional of the verb as ``to be'' and a subordinate clause | the pronoun of the gerund of the same form | future perfect of the verb as to become | past participle of second verb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| you have struck me | which would be that | your striking me | will have become | appeared |
By Newspeak the sentence as ``You have struck me to appear very bland and ordinary'' has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the words as ``your appearance has struck me as very bland and ordinary'' because by Newspeak the sentence as ``You have struck me to appear very bland and ordinary'' has the same meaning than the sentence as ``You have struck me which would be that your appearance striking me will have become appeared very bland and ordinary''.
By Newspeak the sentence as ``your appearance has struck me'' is somewhat crazy because an appearance cannot literally strike, and this remark will invoke derision, and demonic laughter.
By Roderickian English the words as ``your appearance has struck me to be very bland and ordinary'' is wrong because this has the meaning that the reason why your appearance did literally hit me by the face by punching me was by order that your appearance may achieve its intended being as a returning til properly and complete accordance by bland and ordinary.
By Roderickian English the sentence as ``your appearance has struck me'' is correct because the word as ``so'' has been omitting thus there is no reason by order why, nor event by order predicate condition. By Roderickian English it is correct so to say ``I have been struck by your appearance'' because this sentence has the same meaning than by Roderickian English the sentence as ``I have been struck as a returning til your appearance''
By Newspeak the words as ``I have been struck by your appearance'' is wrong because an appearance cannot literally do any striking. By Newspeak it is correct so to say ``I have been struck of your appearance'' because by this sentence which is of Newspeak the word as ``of'' can have the same meaning than by Roderickian English the words as ``as a returning til''.
By Roderickian English it wrong so to say ``I have been struck of your appearance'' because an appearance cannot literally do any striking. By Roderickian English the sentence as ``I have been struck of your appearance'' is wrong.
By Newspeak the phrase as ``You have struck me to appear'' means the same than the phrase as ``You have struck me : which would be that yourself to have struck me will have become an appearance'' which is of both Roderickian English the same than of Newspeak.
| verbal action | conditional of the verb as ``to be'' | verbal action | future perfect of the verb as to become | past participle of second verb, or verbal noun of second verb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| you have struck me | which would be that | you have struck me | will have become | appeared or an appearance |
The sentence as ``The snake has to strike to appear venomous" is of the form as first infinitive, second infinitive. By Roderickian English this sentence is grouped as ``{ The snake has to { strike to appear } venomous }'', and this sentence would have a slightly different meaning than by adding the word as ``so'' into the sentence as ``The snake has to strike so to appear venomous", which has the same meaning than than by Roderickian English the sentence as ``The snake has to strike by order to appear venomous".
| infinity first of verb | infinity of second verb |
|---|---|
| to strike | to appear |
By Newspeak the form as infinity of first verb, infinity of second verb infers the same meaning than infinity of first verb + conditional of the verb as ``to be'' + infinity of first verb + future perfect of the verb as ``to become'' + past participle of the second verb.
Thus by Newspeak this sentence as ``The snake has to strike to appear venomous'' is of the same meaning than ``The snake has to strike, which would be that to strike will have become appeared venomous''.
The snake has
| infinity of first verb | conditional of the verb as ``to be'' | infinity of first verb | future perfect of the verb as to become | past participle of second verb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| to strike | which would be that | to strike | will have become | appeared venomous. |
By Roderickian English the statement as ``We must find an individual to blame'' means that this specific individual who is found will be doing the blaming. By Newspeak this same sentence would mean
We must find
| noun | conditional of the verb as ``to be'' | same noun | future perfect of the verb as to become | past participle of second verb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| an individual | which would be that | an individual | will have become | blamed. |
By Newspeak the words as ``the right thing to do'' are heard to mean ``the right thing which would be that the right thing will have become done''.
By Roderickian English it may be grammatically correct to refer til the British feminist movement as ``the right things to do'' if within this context an adult British feminist may be a referred til as a thing which will be doing something (perhaps anything, and without regard by any possible deviation, hesitation, yet nevertheless with incessant repetition). Thus by Roderickian English the words as ``the right things to do'' may refer til the immutability and head-strong determination by oblivion of righteously harmful fanatics : and thus the words as ``the right things to do'' can refer til organized indoctrination about what maniacally possessed people call the ``feminist movement''. The word as ``right'' might also be an allusion by fascist thought, like the likes of Adolf Hitler, who seems quite similar. The sad fact about human nature is that such diatribes as ideological movements have attracted such numbers of zealous supporters. It doesn't take much brain-power with the desire to commit hatred to follow the instructions to screw in a bayonet-fitting light-bulb.
By Newspeak the words as ``the right thing to do'' has the same meaning than the words as ``the right thing to be done'', or ``the right thing to have become done'', or ``the right thing : which would be that the right thing will have become done''.
By Roderickian English the words as ``the right thing to do'' has an active form with a dissimilar meaning than the words as ``the right thing to be done'' which is the passive form.
Another example which I have experienced at 2008 is that I went til a baker's shop and bought a pasty, and I asked the seventeen year old girl whether she could heat it by putting it within the microwave, not quite into those words but more like, ``Can you put it in the microwave?''
``No'' she replied, ``We don't use the microwave any more''.
Because I had already experienced the same at the previous baker's shop which I had gone by five minutes earlier, I said, ``Is that because the microwave is dangerous for you to use?''
``Pardon?'' she asked, and appeared thoroughly astonished, and almost embarrassed.
``It is dangerous for you to use?'' I asked again.
``Pardon?'' she replied flabbergasted.
I said ``It is ... 'cos ... you use microwave, you get cancer?''.
She smiled, romantically, and said ``No, no. We've just stopped using it''.
The girl being ten years younger than myself and not so existential, had heard those words as ``Is it dangerous for'' of Newspeak, which must be translated by Roderickian English into the sentence as ``Is it (the object) dangerous by yourself to become used?''.
or by Roderickian English the sentence as
Is it (anything at all!) dangerous as a returning til
| noun | conditional of the verb as ``to be'' | same noun | future perfect of the verb as to become | past participle of the second verb |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| yourself | which would be that | yourself | will have become | used ? |
which would be a polite way to have said, ``would it be dangerous that you would be used?''. Basically, she heard me ask her whether it would have been dangerous that her personage or person would have been permitted to have been used of an unknown entity : which she heard to be an allusion (suggestive remark) for a proposal about nuptial behaviour (a shag). Tarzan failed to talk about something other than prurience because of a language problem. The element of danger would perhaps be a reference til the impossibility of using a condom without the possibility of agreement without a sufficient basis of language to facilitate both choice and reason.
The reflexive verbs of before than Shakespeare are contained within the spoken language of Jamaica and Nigeria, which is the English which is inherited from the slave trade, and precedes the English exported to India, and later Australia.
| Passive form | first subject pronoun | second object pronoun |
|---|---|---|
| Youwash | yourself | your hair |
| Washing of you | yourself | your hair |
Your hair wash you yourself.
Your hair is wash you yourself.
Your hair is wash you of yourself.
Your hair is wash of you yourself.
Your hair yourself is wash of you.
Your hair is being washing (present tense) of yourself til yourself being done.
| Passive form | first subject pronoun | second object pronoun |
|---|---|---|
| Youlike | yourself | his eyes |
| Liking of you | yourself | his eyes |
His eyes like you yourself.
His eyes is like you yourself.
His eyes is like you of yourself.
His eyes is like of you yourself.
His eyes yourself is like of you.
His eyes are being liking (present tense) of yourself til yourself being done.
| Passive form | first subject pronoun | second object pronoun |
|---|---|---|
| Youtrim | hisself | his beard |
His beard trim you hisself.
His beard is trim you hisself.
His beard is trim you of hisself.
His beard is trim of you hisself.
His beard hisself is trim of you.
His beard is being trimming (present tense) of yourself til hisself being done.
| Passive form | first subject pronoun | second object pronoun |
|---|---|---|
| Melikes | yourself | his body |
His body melikes yourself.
His body is melikes yourself.
His body is melikes of yourself.
His body is like me yourself.
His body is like me of yourself.
His body is like of me yourself.
His body yourself is like of me.
His body is being liking (present tense) of yourself til myself being done : which is that you are making me like his body.
| Passive form | first subject pronoun | second object pronoun |
|---|---|---|
| Youlikes | myself | his body |
His body youlikes myself.
His body is being liking (present tense) of myself til yourself being done : which is that I am making you like his body.