This may be TMI, but...

Suppose, for instance, that the descriptive power of the base component is unspecified with respect to irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. Presumably, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not quite equivalent to a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. Conversely, relational information appears to correlate rather closely with a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features suffices to account for an important distinction in language use. It may be, then, that any associated supporting element is not to be considered in determining a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.

Furthermore, the earlier discussion of deviance is not subject to the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is unspecified with respect to the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), any associated supporting element cannot be arbitrary in a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. On our assumptions, the systematic use of complex symbols delimits a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Nevertheless, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier raises serious doubts about problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.

We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: this selectionally introduced contextual feature is not to be considered in determining a parasitic gap construction. It may be, then, that any associated supporting element appears to correlate rather closely with the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. However, this assumption is not correct, since the systematic use of complex symbols may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate an important distinction in language use. Analogously, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition delimits a descriptive fact. Let us continue to suppose that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features can be defined in such a way as to impose the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)).

A corpus of utterance tokens.
A corpus of utterance tokens.
A corpus of utterance tokens.

i like!

I was a Mass. Comm. graduate student. Up the hill and past the commons was the Comm. school which studied rhetoric which is what I think that passage is about. I took two classes in that department, and I have never heard more pseudo-intellectual crap than I did while in those two classes. Not only did they write like that, but they SPOKE like that, too. :puke:

:thumbsup:

:rofl:

but what the fuck does that have to do with impeachment?! Huh?!?!?!?5?

:hurts:

No? I'd be interested to see the source.

"A Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes"

Mostly it concerns the ideas expressed in this book:

Go Dick and Jane! :)

:D

I can create an impenetrable semantic fog -almost- as well, though.

http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

:nuke:AHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRRRR:nuke:

Very fun how it creates the impression that you can ALMOST understand it.... :rofl:

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the President his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, three Brazilian soldiers were killed."

"OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!"

His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands.

Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

:evilgrin:

Tell me more about linguistic gap analyses while I jerk it. Advanced lex makes me sooooo hot.