|
|
Merry Christmas&Happy New Year! |
|
Posted on 12/25/2002 5:26:27 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
|
|
Merry Christmas&Happy New Year! |
|
Here we have a brilliant professor of linguistics at MIT, and a scholar whose theory of "transformational grammar" rocked the academic world (basically, Chomsky has spent most of his career theorizing that all human languages synchronize with an inborn mechanism of the brain which is common throughout humanity).
Then we have the dark side of Prof. Chomsky, the Marxist halfwit who rarely bothers to prove an assertion; who pulls bizarre charges and countercharges from his hat; who is sloppy, irrational, self-contradicting, self-absorbed, and downright hallucinatory in his paranoid and illusory political positions. This Chomsky is a disgrace to academia, to MIT, and to himself.
It will always be a mystery why Chomsky the scholar allows Chomsky the politican to run so wildly across his reputation, and to present an unending stream of ridiculous bilgewater and bile as "fact."
Even more puzzling is why no one on the left calls Chomsky to account in applying his own rigorous linguistics theories (which are quite strong) to the rubbish that emanates from his own mouth.
The following article provides (incidently to its main theme) more info and illumination on Chomsky's intellectual background than anything else I've come across on the web. You'll need to get the full text, which is not available at the original source. See message #14 for an updated link:
Chomsky and the Jews (intro to Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers)
or just go to the complete article directly:
Chomsky simply used other people's axioms to deduce his theories. In politics he is using the wrong axioms and hence his deductions are not physicaly possible and incongruous, though from a mathematical and language point of view they may make "perfect sense" if taken from the initial "heartfelt" assumptions.
THe guy is simply using his janitorial discriminatory mathematical skills corroborated by a French communist mathematician (I dont remember his name, his brother is in the parliament) who explains the mathematical mechanisms of thought through lambda computation programing that are simply proofs of mathematical theorems.
Those super janitors and car salespeople have a nice "body" but no "engine". They try to apply their cleansing methods to people who have to be forgiven of their sins and uncleanliness, not throwing away the baby with the bathwater. But this is an axiom these people cannot accept because what they discovered was done through deforming their minds and bodies into heartless computing machines. They have a final solution for the world just as they sought final solutions to their math problems, just as Hilter had one. Theirs is a bit more complex and less brazen, made of various cultural, ethnic or PC molds. But mind you, them like Hitler have their own final solution.
Such grand people, those Progressives. Did Noam Chomsky dance in the streets with the other Jihadists?
"Analogously, an important property of these three types of EC does not readily tolerate problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Furthermore, the earlier discussion of deviance raises serious doubts about a parasitic gap construction. With this clarification, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not quite equivalent to irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, a descriptively adequate grammar is not to be considered in determining the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. It must be emphasized, once again, that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics can be defined in such a way as to impose the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon."
"In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), a descriptively adequate grammar raises serious doubts about the strong generative capacity of the theory. Suppose, for instance, that relational information does not affect the structure of an abstract underlying order. Nevertheless, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not to be considered in determining the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is unspecified with respect to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)). Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that the systematic use of complex symbols can be defined in such a way as to impose the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
