English Writing Style: on The Second Objection to Lots of Fun

,

On the Second Objection to Lots of Fun

By Xah Lee
July 21, 2011
Department of Philology
Bovine University

Abstract

In the human endeavor of composition with a writing system that is known as English language in most western world today, there is the objection of style known as the First Fundamental Objection to the use of lots in precedence of fun with a preposition of as to form the clause lots of fun.

We present here the Second Fundamental Objection to lots of fun on the grounds of logic, from a application of logical positivism's interpretation of Occam's razor.

The First Fundamental Objection is made popular in the work A Dialogue Between Men of Letters: “Lots” of “Fun”! [1]. we quote the passage:

lots has lots of meanings like a meaning lot, the pedantic lot, almost chosen by lot. When we are in the lot where lots meanings are allotted in lots of ways like lottery, it's a lot of trouble to decipher, and is not fun, despite lots of right in front.

Its objection is based on the philosophy of reductionism and the esthetic school of minimalist semantics, as a strategy of reducing the multiplicity valence of a sememe's adjectival power in pragmatics. The effectiveness of such theory has been demonstrated by the cohort model in neurolinguistics.

However, the recently compiled corpus of webologue showed that First Fundamental Objection has not stopped the populace in such a usage. Researchers in our field have been puzzled by this for over the past half century. Until recently, we discovered that it is caused by the guild of stylists's failure of their collective force in molding a viscous infrastructure of writing. We think that the First Fundamental Objection suffered the so-called Loneliness Syndrome, and must be complemented with its natural conjugate, the Second.

The Second Fundamental Objection is based on counting principles. Objective Noun can be had in the plurals, ⁖ lots of chairs. When lots of is applied to chairs, we obtain multitudes of chairs. However, when lots of is applied to fun, we obtain lots of fun, but is it a multitude of fun? Here we arrived at a falsidical paradox. It suggests that fun is not countably infinite, but uncountably infinite, unlike chairs. Analogous of water is to salt, we know that water and fun both have cardinality of the continuum [Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with or without Axiom of Choice]. Lots of has a congruence relation to many, ⁖ lots of chairs = many chairs, but now the absurdities comes to light when you replace chairs by fun. “lots of fun =? many fun”. It is on this basis we propose the Second Fundamental Objection.

For the complete monograph, please paypal to xah@xahlee.org USD$6.

References

blog comments powered by Disqus