Wednesday, August 24
Everyone's favourite simulated academic has obviously been following the threads on consciousness (here and here), and has this to add:
So far, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier does not affect the structure of the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). A consequence of the approach just outlined is that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is rather different from the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Furthermore, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction raises serious doubts about the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. From C1, it follows that the earlier discussion of deviance appears to correlate rather closely with a parasitic gap construction. For one thing, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is not to be considered in determining the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)).Also, the new mu.nu Philosophy forum is now open at the University of Woolloomooloo. All Bruces and Sheilas welcome!
Posted by: Susie at Wednesday, August 24 2005 12:05 PM (nekkG)
So far, the, duh uhh, theory of syntackic features debelopid earlieh does not affeck the, ERRRR, struckure of the, uh, extendid c-command discussid in conneckion wid (34). Lee me lone!A consekess of de approach dgust outlinid dat most of de medodological work in modehn ligguistics is radeh diffehent from de rekiremin dat branchigg is not tolehatid widin the, uhhh, dominass scope of a c'plex symbol. Furdehmore, uh uh uh, de appearass of parasitic gaps in domains relatibe inaccesstiggle t' ordin extrackion raises sehious douts bou' the, ERRRR, syssem of base rules exclusibe of de lexicon. From C1, it folls dat the, uh, earlieh discusshun of debiass appears t' correlate radeh close wid a parasitic gap construckion. DOIHH!F' one digg, the, uh uh uh, fundaminal ehror of regardigg funcshunal noshuns as cagelorial is not t' be considehid in detehminigg de lebels of acceptabiltiby from fair high (eg (99a)) t' birtual gibbehish (eg (98d)).courtesy of the Dialectizer. http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dialectt.cgi
(((pixy))) glad you're back!
Posted by: matoko kusanagi at Thursday, August 25 2005 07:36 PM (DsETa)
Posted by: Mitch H. at Friday, August 26 2005 10:46 AM (iTVQj)
Posted by: ya pidoras at Thursday, July 27 2006 06:16 PM (hNGYv)
56 queries taking 0.133 seconds, 335 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.