NOT

Is it possible to remove NOT from everyday spoken language? I think both answers "yes" and "no" are correct. Yes, I think I could remove it. No, I doubt I'd have enough time to catch it every time I think to use it. NOT is everywhere. Can I teach myself to duck when NOT comes hurtling toward my tongue? As compared with BUT, NOT has a role in logic -- and so in computer programming -- so it's possible to argue that it is an essential element for declaring things. (Actually, NOT can be set aside: all logical statements can be rendered without it; for that matter, they can be rendered with only a NAND or a NOR. NOT A = A NAND A). The easiest thing to see about how NOT works outside a computer and in the ears of a listener is that it rarely describes a small-enough chunk of the known world to do much good. If I say my keys are NOT here, that leaves the rest of the universe. That situation raises a question: what might be worthwhile to say as I make my way from place to place where my keys are NOT? I guess "I looked there already." Can I generalize this one rephrasing? Is there a universal NOT-removal technique?

BUT

“BUT” looks like one of those words that appears in computer programs. Those words are words of logic, and they include AND, OR, NOT, and IF-THEN. Computer programs lack BUT. What would be the role of BUT in logic? If I say “A BUT B” it means both A and B co-exist. Logic already uses AND for coexistence. Then what’s the difference between AND and BUT? BUT suggests that the speaker thought the coexistence was unexpected, and now the speaker is informing the listener that in fact they coexist. If the speaker knew the listener had the same misimpression, then BUT has a reason to be there. What if the listener is really a listener in a large crowd, or a reader of mass-produced written material? The speaker is implying that they know that the listener is wrong about something.

What if the speaker lived in a world where there were no BUT? Would the speaker still be able to make all their points? Possibly not: it is possible that the speaker would be unable to make the point that the listener is known to be wrong about a coexistence that the speaker is setting the listener straight about. Would the world miss this conversational device? Think about it for a moment. If someone could only set you straight about the coexistence of two things without calling attention to whether you expected it or not, would you wish they would invent new words to highlight their expectation of your expectation?