|
|
Merry Christmas&Happy New Year! |
|
|
|
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.
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."
Writer omits Chomsky's skillful use of newspaper articles as "authorities" and the omission of other articles that contradict. He's a weaver, a constructor, of the anti-American narrative, and the giddy reception he gets, I suppose, is due to his ability to speak in English, and not academese. He is also clever in avoiding sloganeering, at least in the usual way it is published.
I don't think he's enamoured with LitCrit type talk and theories, a small plus.
He went to "Muslim" Pakistan, and India, because he knows where the action is. I think he failed there, by reading the articles from there.
