WHO IS JOHANN LEO WEISGERBER?
Alexander Gross
out of it and in any case will not be hanging around very long. But
I cannot possibly let Micky the Baby Knife's all too significant
bubu go unchallenged.
Imagine, reading so sloppily that he picks up Weisgerber as
Weissberger! But this is far worse than your usual run of the mill
solecism, which any of us can commit at any time and should not
be judged the worse for doing so. This one goes far deeper and
proves beyond any doubt that Thompson is almost totally unread in
any linguistic literature beyond the usual narrow range frequented
by Daniels, Scott, Clark, et al.
If he were the least bit well-read in this field, he would certainly
have heard the name of Johann Leo Weisgerber (perhaps a relative of
Christian?). And if he had ever heard this name mentioned in a
meaningful context, he certainly would have taken great care not
to confuse that name with Weissberger, as even I may have done the
first time around. But Micky lives in a shallow, narrow, petty,
provincial world, as do quite a few of the self-proclaimed "major
players" around here. So there was never any chance he could get
this--or much else--right.
Who was Leo Weisgerber? Apparently one of the major German
linguists of the century, though I can certainly claim no great
expertise about the man. You will find that I quote him as follows:
Our understanding is under the spell of the language which
it utilizes.
--Leo Weisgerber, 1950
Linguist and Language Historian
in both the full version and even the free shareware version of my
computer program "Truth About Translation," which any of you could
have easily downloaded at any time from my website (see below) and
can still download at this very moment.
I found and still find that citation quite penetrating, especially
during the Tin Age of Chomsky, when the understanding of so many of
you here is still so obviously under the spell of what may be the
stupidest language about language ever written.
I found out about Weisgerber from George Steiner's work "After
Babel" and recall picking up at least a few of his books around
seven years ago, when I first wrote my program. Steiner wrote of
him as follows:
"In a series of books ranging from "Muttersprache und
Geistesbildung" (1929) to "Vom Weltbild der deutschen Sprache" in
1950, Leo Weisgerber sought to apply the `monadic' or relativity
principle to the actual detailed features of German syntax and,
correspondingly, to the history of German attittudes."
Weisgerber was born in 1899 and is presumably no longer among us.
If I didn't follow up on him more closely, I was a bit nervous about
the period when he worked and the possible political implications of
his first title during that period, though he also published a
number of further works after 1950. I find no mention of his
puiblishing anything between 1933 and 1945, which may reflect to his
credit. Perhaps Christian can tell us a bit more about him.
Imagine! Obviously Micky the Baby Knife knew none of this. And
still knows none of it. And our supposed authority on German
scholarship Petty the Daniac totally fails to pick up on Micky's
goof. And all that other would-be Germanist, poor old BS, can come
up with is some irrelevant etymo-atmospherics about the name Weisgerber.
Obviously, everyone confuses similar words and names, this in itself
is a major linguistic truth, though one that must ultimately be
confronted and surmounted. What would Micky, Petty, Beam Me Down
Scottie, and Horse-Ass Ross do if they ever had to tackle a
language where only a few syllables are permissible and homonyms
abound, as for example the following from Chinese?
guzhang: section chief
zhanggu: anecdotes
gangzhu: ball bearing
zhugang: cast steel
If you guys can't tell Weisgerber from Weissberger, face it, you are
already doomed trying to deal with any such languages. And all the
syntactic and biological analysis in the world--even nanotech
supercomputers, even $250 million from the McGovern Foundation--
won't help you in the slightest.
Oh yes, I could easily have included the tones for each Chinese
syllable but have purposely left them out just to provide some petty
topic of imagined criticism among the many linguatasters and
linguisticians one finds around here.
Thanks to Peter Dy for his almost fulsome words of praise:
> Fine, but do all these folks you mention have professional
> experience in spoken language applications, i.e., radio, TV,
> films, acting, etc. Do they have first-hand knowledge of the
> physiological basis of language, ideally gained while studying
> both western medicine and oriental systems of movement? Do
> they have at least one year of active experience as a stage
> Dramaturg? Are they meeting with echt East-Prussians on
> Thursday?
> No. I didn't think so.
even though in all modesty I have to point out that he has here drawn
a composite picture of Paul plus Alex. Paul lives in Witten, I'm
right here in NYC. Well, it's not the first time some people here
have confused us. :-) And yes, I do include some of Paul's articles
on my website. Thanks in any case, Peter.
It should be obvious to everyone that not one of you has come up
with a single substantive word of rebuttal to Paul's statements
about either Elizabethan or German. But that's certainly no
surprise--nobody really knows anything about language among the
Mickys, Pettys, Scotties, and Horsey-Rossies here--all they know is
a bunch of unfounded theories about what they imagine language to be.
very best!
alex
PS--And if any of you would like to DL the free shareware version of
my program "Truth About Translation," including the Weisgerber quote,
it couldn't be easier. Just go to the Free Downloads section on
my website. How do you get there? Simple:
visit the language home... http://language.home.sprynet.com
Brian M. Scott
<lang...@sprynet.com> wrote:
[...]
>Weisgerber was born in 1899 and is presumably no longer among us.
He died in 1985.
>If I didn't follow up on him more closely, I was a bit nervous about
>the period when he worked and the possible political implications of
>his first title during that period, though he also published a
>number of further works after 1950. I find no mention of his
>puiblishing anything between 1933 and 1945, which may reflect to his
>credit. Perhaps Christian can tell us a bit more about him.
Weisgerber, Johann Leo. [...]
----------. 1934. "Sprachgemeinschaft und Volksgemeinschaft
und die Bildungsaufgabe unserer Zeit". Zeitschrift für
Deutsche Bildung 10.289-303.
----------. 1940. "Theudisk": Der deutsche Volksname
und die westliche Sprachgrenze. (= Marburger Universitätsreden,
5.) Marburg: N. Elwert.
----------. 1943[1939]. Die volkhaften Kräfte der Muttersprache.
3rd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Moritz Diesterweg. [Originally published
in Beiträge zum neuen Deutschunterricht. Herausgegeben
von Ministerialrat Dr. Huhnhäuser. Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg,
1939.]
----------. 1944. "Deutsch und Welsch: Die Anfänge
des Volksbewusstseins in Westeuropa". (= Antrittvorlesungen
der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn am Rhein,
Heft 27.) Bonn: Bonner Universitäts-Buchdruckerei.
<http://www.tulane.edu/~howard/LangIdeo/Koerner/Koerner.html>, a paper
by E.F.K. Koerner. He offers these as examples of works that 'cannot
but be seen as much in accord with Nazi party thinking' and describes
Weisgerber's outlook as 'mother tongue fascism'.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
Alexander Gross
based on the 1929 title alone. But none of this remotely excuses
Micky or others here from failing to note the importance of this
misspelled name. It's good in any case that in order to obtain your
information you were forced to draw on Koerner, whose opinions on
Chomsky are well known--or are at least NOW well known--after I had
to take Petty to task for his ignorance on this matter.
Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:3b1c3094...@enews.newsguy.com...
Mikael Thompson
Alexander Gross hoist himself on his own petard:
> Although Paul told me about this thread, I fully intended to stay
> out of it and in any case will not be hanging around very long.
In other words, when the medication kicks in, El Grosso will be gone and
Pifflewood will be back.
> But I cannot possibly let Micky the Baby Knife's all too significant
> bubu go unchallenged.
Whereas you don't give a flying fig about Pifflewood's stupid drivel about
German.
> Imagine, reading so sloppily that he picks up Weisgerber as Weissberger!
Imagine, Pifflewood/El Grosso reading so sloppily he confuses Peter Daniels
with Da Brighoff, Wolfgang Schwanke, Christian Weisgerber, and Philip
Newton!
> But this is far worse than your usual run of the mill
> solecism, which any of us can commit at any time and should not
> be judged the worse for doing so. This one goes far deeper and
> proves beyond any doubt that Thompson is almost totally unread in
> any linguistic literature beyond the usual narrow range frequented
> by Daniels, Scott, Clark, et al.
What's especially funny here is that El Grosso later admits he himself
might have made the same mistake. And since he's the one who's so gung-ho
on Weisgerber (or rather, looking for something, ANYTHING, to draw
attention away from Pifflewood's gaping lapses in German), he's trying his
damnedest to duck his own spitballs.
> If he were the least bit well-read in this field, he would certainly
> have heard the name of Johann Leo Weisgerber (perhaps a relative of
> Christian?).
As a matter of fact, I have heard of him. So what? It just means we
disagree about his importance. Big deal.
> And if he had ever heard this name mentioned in a
> meaningful context, he certainly would have taken great care not
> to confuse that name with Weissberger, as even I may have done the
> first time around.
So you admit you're a hypocrite. Typical.
> But Micky lives in a shallow, narrow, petty, provincial world...
Heh. Thanks, I needed a laugh.
> ...as do quite a few of the self-proclaimed "major players" around here.
No, the phrase wasn't "major players" but "your betters." Get it right in
the future.
> Apparently one of the major German
> linguists of the century, though I can certainly claim no great
> expertise about the man.
Par for the course, El Grosso, par for the course. I like that
"apparently." You later admit you remember picking up but not reading any
of his stuff: He's just a name and a quote to you. How superficial, and
how so like you.
> I found and still find that citation quite penetrating, especially
> during the Tin Age of Chomsky, when the understanding of so many of
> you here is still so obviously under the spell of what may be the
> stupidest language about language ever written.
Since when did anyone here ever fall under your spell? Apart from
Pifflewood, I mean.
> I found out about Weisgerber from George Steiner's work "After
> Babel" and recall picking up at least a few of his books around
> seven years ago, when I first wrote my program.
You can't recall reading them though. Typical name dropping, in other
words.
> Imagine! Obviously Micky the Baby Knife knew none of this. And
> still knows none of it. And our supposed authority on German
> scholarship Petty the Daniac totally fails to pick up on Micky's
> goof. And all that other would-be Germanist, poor old BS, can come
> up with is some irrelevant etymo-atmospherics about the name Weisgerber.
This is also funny. Actually, if you were able to read for comprehension,
you would have seen he was filling in the gaps of other "irrelevant
etymo-atmospherics" on Christian Weisgerber's part.
> What would Micky, Petty, Beam Me Down
> Scottie, and Horse-Ass Ross do if they ever had to tackle a
> language where only a few syllables are permissible and homonyms
> abound, as for example the following from Chinese?
Heh, now that really *is* funny.
> Thanks to Peter Dy for his almost fulsome words of praise:
> ...
> even though in all modesty I have to point out that he has here drawn
> a composite picture of Paul plus Alex.
Actually, he was probably being sarcastic.
> It should be obvious to everyone that not one of you has come up
> with a single substantive word of rebuttal to Paul's statements
> about either Elizabethan or German.
In fact, the response to Pifflewood's posting shows he's a self-inflated
piker who doesn't even know anything beyond the textbook basics of the
language he's supposedly a professional in.
Mikael Thompson
Alexander Gross
Rossy, Petty, and Scottie, and is still wandering around in the
comforting delusion that Paul Wood and I are the same person,
channeling from one to the other, depending on "medication."
I settled that matter once and for all, so that even Horsey Rossy
was forced to give in rather awkwardly, but obviously Micky didn't
bother reading that message, any more than he bothers reading
spelling, so now I have to repeat the whole thing just for his
benefit. Maybe there will be time to reply to his latest rant as
well--we'll see.
In any case, here comes the other message first, with a few
addenda in []s.
---------------------------------
> You don't do Paul's voice as well as you used to,
> Alex -- out of practice?
Look at that, RC has now joined P. Tedious in his assertion that
Paul F. Wood and Alex Gross are the same person.
Does this also spring from a sense of "humor?"
Or does it reveal a rapidly spreading form of madness? Or at best
what Jacques Guy has called a "fine disregard for data," typical
of mainstream linguists?
Let both RC & P. Tedious, along with that other befuddled phud* BS
for backup [and now one pitiful grad student as well], first take a
look at the following web page:
http://www.frankdesign.co.uk/ling_5_2000/mt.htm
It is indisputably an English web page on the site of the English
publication "The Linguist," where Paul F. Wood is indisputably
described as:
"a British translator living and working in Germany"
Now let this troubled trio [quaint quartet?] take a look at another
web page:
http://www.accurapid.com/journal/09review.htm
They will quickly discover that it is a page from the American
on-line publication "Translation Journal," quite indisputably
published out of Poughkeepsie, NY. Along with my review of two
German books about machine translation, they will find a bio column
about the author indisputably containing references to NYU and to
CUNY in the same paragraph. (Plus of course my website bio contains
considerable other evidence that I am a New Yorker).
Do RC, BS, and P. Tedious [and alas poor Mickey as well] now wish to
expand their web of madness to include the editors of both these
publications? Are they claiming that I was somehow able to falsify
both of these statements published elsewhere? If so, what limits
can there be to their sheer unreason? If I am able to control the
minds of these two editors from afar, who can be safe from my
fiendish powers and machinations? Can I truly be in two different
places at once? If so, how about two different eras? Could I be
the ultimate culprit dealing out deviltry everywhere and throughout
all of history? Do I also poison wells? Did I murder Kennedy as
well? How about Lincoln? Or Julius Caesar?
Doesn't Occam's razor require a somewhat simpler explanation? I
know how distasteful it must be for this troika of triviality to
concede that there can actually be TWO people who share similar
opionions about TGG. But wouldn't that be a more logical
explanation?
And since you have in the past attempted to deride the crystal-
clear logic of my arguments, what does this insane episode tell us
about your own skills at logic?
Let's see how you get out of this one.
very best,
Alex aka Everyman
*phuds--my term for Ph.D.'s. Rhymes with spuds and tastes a bit like
them. I eat them regularly for breakfast.
---------
And of course the alleged prestige of "phuds" is what it's all
about. Poor Mickey (and probably other grad students as well) have
had to psych themselves up into a frenzy of passion to convince
themselves that their professors must be right and that they are
doing the right thing. And if they happen onto what Paul and I have
been writing, the dear things just might get confused. But in the
case of Chomskyanism they are definitely NOT doing the right thing,
and the whole structure of graduate school may end up being
undermined by the mammoth mindquake even now building up in the many
underground Chomskyan faults.
Every few weeks some poor grad student writes me for advice in
subjects where I have acknowledged expertise, ranging from machine
translation to the history of the Sixties to the history of
translation to various plays and theatre matters too arcane for you
guys to know about. My god, even full professors write me with
such questions. And I am usually able to provide the advice
these grad students need and cannot get from their official
advisors. So I have at least some insight into this whole sad
affair and am able to understand the real reasons for
Micky's anger.
There is not a single line in my previous message that is in any way
diminished by Scottie's information about Weisgerber. The citation
from him I use in my program--among 150 other citations--still
stands the test of time and has more truth and profundity to it than
any seventy books by Noam Chomsky. Once again Scottie proves himself
little more than a quibbler, a caviller, a wholesale merchant for
equivocation, which is most of what most of you guys do most of the
time anyway. Which is why none of you has been able to come
up with any solid answers for the 44 Reasons Sergio and I have
presented, more than a year after the original 33.
Those of you new to this newsgroup might want to have a look at
them. You'll find them at:
http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chomrong.htm#totop
I also anticipated that Peter Dy's message could be sarcastic by
referring to its sentiments as fulsome. If meant in that vein, it
might have helped his case, as with Micky's, if he could have
differentiated between Alex Gross and Paul Wood. (My god, even
now poor old BS is furiously researching to prove that despite all
appearances to the contrary Paul and I really are a single
individual. That's the sort of thing he'd do. What a jerk.)
Anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered the questions I asked you
back in April. Why don't you just try and see if you can answer
them. Even Petty answered a set of questions for me. Why can't you
do so as well? Here they are again:
---------------------
And anyway, so that we can perhaps misunderstand each other a
smidgeon less, Mikael, why don't you tell us all for the record:
how many foreign languages do you actually speak, how long have you
lived abroad, how much total time have you actually spent "in the
field," and also, when you are working there, do you speak directly
with your "informants" or do you speak with them via an
interpreter? Or, if your informants speak English or Spanish or
another IE tongue to some extent, how do you evaluate (assuming you
also speak that tongue) their level of knowledge of their own
language? Also, precisely what kind of knowledge are you gathering,
and what precisely do you intend to do with it?
I'll look in to see if you have answered, and will get around to
evaluating your responses, as I did with Petty.
Peter T. Daniels
> They will quickly discover that it is a page from the American
> on-line publication "Translation Journal," quite indisputably
> published out of Poughkeepsie, NY. Along with my review of two
> German books about machine translation, they will find a bio column
> about the author indisputably containing references to NYU and to
> CUNY in the same paragraph. (Plus of course my website bio contains
> considerable other evidence that I am a New Yorker).
The Clark Kent of NYU made a very specific appointment to meet me at an
NYU classroom before a public seminar. He was very, very insistent that
a face-to-face meeting would demonstrate he's really just a nice old man
who's funnin' with us.
Needless to say, he never showed up, subsequently invoking a
"translation emergency" in mitigation.
> *phuds--my term for Ph.D.'s.
Do you really have the arrogance to suppose that no one else has ever
used that term?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Peter T. Daniels
>
> As noted, I was duly hesitant about following up on W's writings,
> based on the 1929 title alone. But none of this remotely excuses
> Micky or others here from failing to note the importance of this
> misspelled name. It's good in any case that in order to obtain your
> information you were forced to draw on Koerner, whose opinions on
> Chomsky are well known--or are at least NOW well known--after I had
> to take Petty to task for his ignorance on this matter.
Why do you keep lying about that? Koerner's antipathy to Chomsky is very
well known.
Ironic, isn't it, that the information about Weisgerber's Nazi
sympathies came from him whose oeuvre you claim to know so well.
When you make a mistake as egregious as that, discretion suggests you
find another tactic for your senseless attacks on all and sundry.
Wolf Kirchmeir
>bubu
The preferred spelling is "boo-boo."
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir
Blind River, Ontario
..................................................................
You can see a lot by just looking.
(Yogi Berrs, Phil. Em.)
..................................................................
mith...@indiana.edu
All Grease wrote:
> Poor Micky the Baby Knife.
No, I'm not even Jewish, much less a mohel. You are a putz though.
> He hasn't even caught up with Horsey
> Rossy, Petty, and Scottie, and is still wandering around in the
> comforting delusion that Paul Wood and I are the same person,
> channeling from one to the other, depending on "medication."
Heh, I thought that would irritate you. Good, I'll keep it up.
> And of course the alleged prestige of "phuds" is what it's all
> about. Poor Mickey (and probably other grad students as well) have
> had to psych themselves up into a frenzy of passion to convince
> themselves that their professors must be right and that they are
> doing the right thing.
But since I'm not a Chomskyan, you're off base as usual.
> Which is why none of you has been able to come
> up with any solid answers for the 44 Reasons Sergio and I have
> presented, more than a year after the original 33.
You were presented with many of them; it's not my fault you're too stupid
or stubborn to understand them.
> If meant in that vein, it
> might have helped his case, as with Micky's, if he could have
> differentiated between Alex Gross and Paul Wood.
What case? It's a jab. It's certainly a funnier trope than your always
claiming everyone is a Chomskyan. It also captures the remarkable
similarity in the overweaning, pretentious stupidity of the two of you
(or should I say, both your personalities).
> Anyway, Mickey, you still haven't answered the questions I asked you
> back in April. Why don't you just try and see if you can answer
> them. Even Petty answered a set of questions for me. Why can't you
> do so as well?
Why cast pearls before swine? It's irrelevant to the fact that you're an
evasive pompous fool, as you've shown in all your postings.
> I'll look in to see if you have answered, and will get around to
> evaluating your responses, as I did with Petty.
How about instead you or your alternate personality (or lackey cum
running dog, if you insist on the two of you being separate individuals)
stay relevant and discuss the incredible gaffe of Pifflewood's
crypto-Chomskyan prescriptivist yet ignorant pronouncements on the German
language? You remember that, don't you?
Quote:
The point is: there is no such word as 'Kuhchen' in German. Even if there
were, it would be spelt 'Kühchen'. The word for a small cow in German
is, er, 'Kalb'.
Christian Weisgerber:
The diminutive suffix "-chen" can be attached rather freely to nouns. It
doesn't necessarily trigger an umlaut.
Or the advertisement for a book on German linguistics:
Was ist der lautliche Unterschied zwischen Kuchen ("Gebäck") und Kuhchen
("kleine Kuh")?
Besides the fact that Pifflewood can't even handle the difference in his
native language between "small" and "young," he was making prescriptivist
pronouncements about a language which he obviously doesn't know too
well. What a Chomskyan!
Mikael Thompson
mith...@indiana.edu
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> Why do you keep lying about that? Koerner's antipathy to Chomsky is very
> well known.
But he didn't accuse him of war crimes or sneer at him when he wasn't
sticking out his tongue at him, so obviously he's a Chomsky sympathizer if
not a full-blown member of some conspiracy.
> Ironic, isn't it, that the information about Weisgerber's Nazi
> sympathies came from him whose oeuvre you claim to know so well.
Ironic too, isn't it, the people El Grosso gloms on to in this forum, first
a far right gun nut then a Nazi sympathizer. Next thing you know, he'll be
quoting Lothar Tirala against Aristotelian logic.
Mikael Thompson
Alexander Gross
Alexander Gross
saying on this newsgroup, he or she can do so easily enough by
taking a look at the 44 Reasons. Since I know from experience that
none of you is capable of handling this document, here is a simple
summary of the first nineteen of these reasons, together with links
to each section in the hypertext version. And at any time you can
access the entire document by going to:
http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/rea44.htm#totop
REASON 1
The naive reliance of these doctrines on "grammar."
Language as a vast, never-finished building
constructed over the centuries.
http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/cc.htm#totop
REASONS 2--4
What Chomskianism overlooks and/or totally ignores:
the sheer physicality of language, its close relationship
to musical and rhythmic elements, coupled with an
arbitrary and almost all-encompassing reductionism
concerning many other crucial aspects of language.
http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/dd.htm#totop
REASONS 5--8
The all too obvious failure of TGG's most central
concepts: "universal grammar," "deep structure,"
"poverty of stimulus," and the "innateness of
language."
http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/ee.htm#totop
REASONS 9--10
Further failure of claims based on mathematics and the
supposed primacy of infant language learning
processes.
http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/ff.htm#totop
REASON 11
The nearly abject failure of the one practical
application that ought to be a showcase for TGG:
so-called "machine translation."
http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/gg.htm#totop
REASONS 12--13
The ludicrous and almost total concentration on written
language alone, to the near exclusion of spoken
language, along with the sheer silliness of the
examples frequently provided even for written texts.
http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/hh.htm@totop
REASON 14
The often large-scale irrelevancy of TGG's linguistic
"calculations," aka "doing linguistics."
http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/ii.htm@totop
REASONS 15--17
The near impenetrability of the TGG writing style, the
many problems determining the precise details of the
theory because of its many shifts and changes over the
decades, and the lack of clarity provided by its latest
"minimalist" flavor.
http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/jj.htm#totop
REASONS 18--19
The never-ending postponement of any final proof for
these theories, coupled with an unusual degree of
arrogance often accompanying their promotion.
http://language.home.sprynet.com/chomdex/kk.htm#totop
Alexander Gross
> The Clark Kent of NYU made a very specific appointment to meet me at an
> NYU classroom before a public seminar. He was very, very insistent that
> a face-to-face meeting would demonstrate he's really just a nice old man
> who's funnin' with us.
>
> Needless to say, he never showed up, subsequently invoking a
> "translation emergency" in mitigation.
>
invitation to meet me anywhere in the NYC area for a private,
open-ended, and relaxed exchange of views.
But you find yourself unable to deal with any such meeting and so
keep insisting that we must meet at a gathering of the NYU
Linguistics Department, where you will be free to rely on
bullying colleagues to support you just as you do here. This is
the only environment Chomskyans find congenial, and you are
quite unable to discuss linguistics in any other setting.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> > The Clark Kent of NYU made a very specific appointment to meet me at an
> > NYU classroom before a public seminar. He was very, very insistent that
> > a face-to-face meeting would demonstrate he's really just a nice old man
> > who's funnin' with us.
> >
> > Needless to say, he never showed up, subsequently invoking a
> > "translation emergency" in mitigation.
> >
> You know perfectly well, Peter, that I have extended to you an open
> invitation to meet me anywhere in the NYC area for a private,
> open-ended, and relaxed exchange of views.
Can anyone dropping in on this thread suggest why I would want to do
such a thing, given, for instance, AG's opening salvo in his current
assault on sci.lang?
> But you find yourself unable to deal with any such meeting and so
> keep insisting that we must meet at a gathering of the NYU
> Linguistics Department, where you will be free to rely on
> bullying colleagues to support you just as you do here. This is
> the only environment Chomskyans find congenial, and you are
> quite unable to discuss linguistics in any other setting.
??
I don't know anyone at the NYU Linguistics Department besides the Chair,
John V. Singler, who is about as far from a Chomskyan one can be, and I
only know him because Bill Bright invited him to write a chapter for our
book. (He's a sociolinguist, Africanist, and creolist, all three of
which specialties involve data that are as uncongenial to Chomskyism as
they could be. Is it possible that you're not aware of my attitude
toward Paul Postal, who is probably the best-known member of the
department?
I mentioned that I would be attending that lecture because you kept
nagging me about a meeting, and you claim to have a relation to and to
be located near NYU, so that we could be in the same room at the same
time without having to make any special journeys.
Peter T. Daniels
> What Chomskianism overlooks and/or totally ignores:
Oh, look, it's grown another morpheme! Or is it metastasizing?
> The never-ending postponement of any final proof for
> these theories
Science doesn't work by "proving" theories, it works by _dis_proving
them.
Alexander Gross
> Science doesn't work by "proving" theories, it works by _dis_proving
> them.
> --
"Do you really have the arrogance to suppose that no one else has ever
used that" statement?
Peter T. Daniels
If you are familiar with the fact I reported (and hardly claimed as my
own discovery!), why did you assert the opposite in the summary of the
"Reasons"?
Polar
<gram...@att.net> wrote:
>Alexander Gross wrote:
>
>> What Chomskianism overlooks and/or totally ignores:
>
>Oh, look, it's grown another morpheme! Or is it metastasizing?
>
>> The never-ending postponement of any final proof for
>> these theories
>
>Science doesn't work by "proving" theories, it works by _dis_proving
>them.
Or, more accurately, by *attempting* to disprove them.
AKA "falsifying".
--
Polar