into another uncommon, say a new mathematical scripture which has notnecessarily to inherit all the obstacles of the modern common languageand its grammar, logic and ontology. Furthermore it would be helpful toinvolve another Ancient language, in our case, the best would probably beAncient Greek. In another context it would be of help to get involved withAncient Sanskrit or Ancient Egypt.
1.2.Strategies for translations
List of negative characteristics:
Count vs. Mass nounsno Substantivesno Verbsno Articlesno Logicno Alphabetno No.
1.2.1.Mass/noun distinctionMass nouns
"Finally, the analysis does not spare us a syntactic distinction between
after all. One of the differences betweenmass nouns like wine and
nouns like bear is that the former canbe used as names of
right away, whereas the latter need adefinite article or pluralization to perform this task. The only reason forthese operations seems to be syntactic: singular count nouns cannot beused as noun phrases. So we need to distinguish between mass nounsand count nouns anyway. While these are no knockdown arguments,they make the first analysis more plausible, and it is the analysis I willassume in what follows.”Manfred Krifka, "Common Nouns: A Contrastive Analysis of English andChinese", in G.N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book,Chicago University Press 1995, 398-411.
"Being”, ontologically and linguistically, is used as a mass noun, (das Sein).Deconstruction by Heidegger of “Being” and countification of “Being” byGunther. Gunther’s strategy of polycontexturality might be read in bothdirections: 1.
of Being as a transition from the singularity ofthe universal Being to a multitude of universes of Being(s); and 2. as a
of intra-ontological kinds (mass nouns) towards Being(s);both together as a