According to Encoding Theory and Information Theory :

How many binary Bits does it take to Encode the State(fulness) of a NOUN or VERB?

Abstract

In Information and Coding Theory (as well as Cryptography) the issue has always arisen in the modern era -- as to how many bits are needed to encode a grammatical structure. It is not at all clear if anyone has any sort of viable answer to this basic coding problem.

Some notable notable grammatical structures have a known number of bits to encode them

• Euskara (more commonly known as Basque) : There is a grammatical structure attributed to this pre-[Latin-Greek] and pre-[Gremanic-Celtic] language that has a nearly straight ~2³² bits of stateful determinism for one of its fairly commonly used grammatical structures. It would be nice to verify this grammatical structure and post it here, but it has yet to be found (if this is the language that actually possesses it).
• Slavic Languages (but mainly Russian) : There is a common deterministic grammatical structure that has a deterministic complexity of 126 (just shy of 2⁷ or 128). 

Yet, as a whole -- for most languages commonly used in telecommunications  -- there is not a unified view on the bits needed to encode the most basic parts of speech : Nouns and Verbs. 

• Nouns simply encode what an object (or set of similar objects) is or are.
• Verbs simply encode the "[self] actions of objects" (singular or not) in the time domain. 
• To encode a concept and put it thru a telecommunications channel, one needs only Nouns and Verbs. The concept may come across as being similar to Telegraphese but it will get thru.
• If you have any doubt about Nouns and Verbs being the minimal constraints of a telecommunications channel, read spacecraft uplink telemetry commands -- or military or diplomatic standing orders or status reports.
  

One must remember that there is an entire branch of languages in Asia (and Australasia) that don't have (and have never used) Adverbs and Adjectives.

• The Maori Language of New Zealand [and the Cook Islands] (and most Pacific Islands Languages related to it) has no such thing as Adverbs or Adjectives.
  
• There are plenty of languages on the Asian mainland (including the Indian Subcontinent) that are the ancestors of Maori [in some way or other] that are still to this day devoid of Adverbs and Adjectives. 
• Anotherwords, Adverbs and Adjectives are stateful decoration to Nouns and Verbs. Decoration is not required for the transmission of a concept or described action.

In "content containerization" terms Adverbs and Adjectives are at best "a blight and annoyance of Indo-European Languages" and are thus not needed to determine the sateful complexity of a language's Nouns or Verbs.

Separating out the different grammatical components from Nouns and Verbs is an absolute requirement, but this is not without some cost to accuracy as there is always some binding of these grammatical objects to other grammatical objects with some encoding bits existent no matter what.

Error Correction Aspect

If each Noun or Verb used in a language has up to 32 bits of state associated with it globally, then these "statefuness bits" could be considered Error Correction mechanisms. Error correction mechanisms can have checksums, hashsums and distributed check bits.

Considering the theoretical possibility of a phrase having 5 words, its Noun Subject and primary Verb would give it ~2⁶⁴ (~18,446,744,073,709,551,616) encoding complexity.  

The primary complainants of a phrase would [by nature] have Hashsum encoding complexity (CRC128-ECMA, MD5, SHA-1 and for longer grammatical structures Whirlpool) if this is true.

Because Error Correction and Cryptography and Data Compression are [at a basic mathematical level] equivalent functions proven by the Information and Coding Theory realms of research -- one must at least assume that any grammatically correct phrase that is deterministically correct -- can not exist in any other combination of words or word-atoms.    

Yet, in word order languages (English, Cantonese, Mandarin etc) word-atoms are functionally replaceable in most common phrase structures at least to the point of 4 Thousand Millions of permutations.

Hints at the hidden complexity

Even with simple Nouns there is a lot of hidden complexity to take into account for the simplest of usages.

English (a Celtic-Germanic hybrid with Old French and Latin-Greek vocabulary inheritances)

The English that existed around 1080 BCE had a lot more in common (in grammatical stateful complexity) with modern day Czech or Croatian. So there has been a lot of change in form and function the past 1100 years, but some languages may not change that much over as long a time. Koranic Arabic has only had modest changes in the past 500 years, but somehow the changes has been greater overall than Sanskrit. 

"Separating out a Named Object"

• 1 bit to test for if "THE" (can or cannot) be used at this same structure point.
  
• 1 bit to test for if "(A or AN)" is required. 
  
• 1 bit to test for the Noun in question starting with a Vowel or Consonant.
• ... yet in Slavic Languages there is no such thing as A or AN or THE at all ... 
• ... this is a very low complexity look at just one small facet of Noun complexity ...
  

Verbs have just as much complexity as Nouns do, but in a different way due to the entirely separate way Verbs are used.

Hungarian and Finnish (and the Asian languages they are related to)

• European Languages (including all the Slavic ones, +Greek +Armenian +Georgian etc) use "HAVE and BE"; these two basic verbs are at the core of the languages used by ~500 millions in Eurasia.
  
• Yet, Hungarian (and apparently Finnish) lacks [] with no lack of linguistic effect. 
• ... So using both Have and Be is not an absolute requirement by any means ...
  

Rings of Deterministic Bits

Grammar does strange things to the stateful organization of determinism of a word. Grammar is about getting

Global bit settings for each word or word-atom (use here to account for compound nouns and verbs) are not enough to make a grammatically correct phrase.      

Basic Principals of Analysis

1. All languages have a huge amount of encoded redundancy in the Phonetic and Typographical domains. The minimal redundancy rates found are universally above 40% and below 55% (based in 1935 to 1960 cryptanalytic research, using both codebook and letter frequencies : Digraphs, Trigraphs etc).
   
2. All Typography must be ignored, this is about grammatical statefulness. 
   
3. Phonetic statefulness should only be paid attention to when it affects the boundary issues of how a Noun or Verb is encoded. Nouns and Verbs are as a rule universally reshaped by nearby Vowels and Consonants as a matter of linguistic redundancy (and error correction). 
   
4. All attempts must be made to add in the encoding complexities of Non-European languages. The Eurosphere notably has 3 known non-European languages : Pre-Roman : Basque, Asiatic Branch : Finnish and Hungarian.
   
5. Agreement with other parts of speech must be considered in the complexity analysis, including Adverbs and Adjectives or their analogues. 
6. The number of "Cases" a language has (or uses) should not affect the maths relating to Noun or Verb encoding complexity.
   
7. One can apparently have either Prepositions (lightweight) or Cases (more deterministic) but usually never both, but neither is a Noun or Verb so cannot and should not be counted.
   
8. All subclassifications should have subtotals, as a matter of debugging the complexity model. 

• A "Language" will typically have Global Bit Settings for the way Verbs and Nouns are used.
  
• However any randomly chosen Noun or Verb will have Local Usage Bit Settings.
• This analysis here is only concerned with finding the Global Bit Settings only.
• Combining Local and Global bit settings for Nouns and Verbs -- at least theoretically -- can uncover the sum and total of all encoding bit states used in a sentence or linguistic fragment.
  

Text TBA

Text TBA

Overall conclusions, or at least observations...

References

Languages

Information Theory

Coding Theory

Error Correction