esoteric and highly formalized rules (fwd)

Enrique Figueroa E. efiguero at CAPOMO.USON.MX
Sat Apr 19 17:04:01 UTC 1997

Good sample (see my reply to it, which is not a reply, but a comment) of
WHY this kind of discussion about "esoteric and highly formalised rules"
(my phrasing, British spelling included!) SHOULD be a central part of the
linguist-to-be's warming-up! For, allow me to remind you all, the
expression was originally used by me RE the role of theory and the role
of a historical frame and (the role of) the RIGHT od lx students to be
presented a variety of theoretical alternatives during their basic
courses before plunging into ONE of them!
It's indeed good and healthy to have such a discussion within FUNKNET! It
would be "gooder" and healthier to have it, as a regular component, in
Max E.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:28:17 -0500
From: Sydney M Lamb <lamb at OWLNET.RICE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list FUNKNET <FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU>
Subject: Re: esoteric and highly formalized rules

On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, PAMELA PRICE KLEBAUM wrote:

> . . .  As
> for charts, prose, they all reflect rules.

No.  Charts, prose, rules, etc. all reflect either linguistic structure
or outputs of ling structure, depending on the orientation of the linguist.
And neither the structure nor the outputs is built of rules.

More information about the Funknet mailing list