[Mamzelle]

I have no idea of what you mean by "transformation" with those numbers, and probably don't care to figure it out. TG is simply a descriptive theory of grammar, sentence structure, as opposed to a theory of generating structure. It's neither difficult nor obfuscatory--though linguists make academic careers trying to make it so. Applying it helps to understand the sentences of obscure languages. I recall having to apply it to sentences in an African language called "Twi"--an interesting exercise. By using the constructs, I could figure out where the verbs and nouns and other parts of speech were without a dictionary to tell me the actual meaning. I'd say that was fairly brilliant on Chomsky's part.

[js1138]

I'd say that was fairly brilliant on Chomsky's part.

My question is, has there been any real conceptual progress in the field in the last 40 years, or was this just one of those brilliant strokes that doesn't lead anywhere? I mean, what are all those linguists doing with their careers?

[stripes1776]

TG is simply a descriptive theory of grammar, sentence structure, as opposed to a theory of generating structure.

Well, you can go in either direction: from the deep structure to the surface structure or from the surface structure to the deep structure.

By using the constructs, I could figure out where the verbs and nouns and other parts of speech were without a dictionary to tell me the actual meaning.

That is the difference between syntax and sematics. So you were able to tell where the verbs and nouns were. Any grammar will do that. It doesn't have to be a transformational grammar. That's also the difference between a dictionary and a set of grammar rules.