form versus meaning

[Daniel L. Everett]

Liz and all,

I have already said that the methodology of theoretical linguistics
'needs fixed' (Pittburghese). So I have no quarrel with anyone who wants
to see improvement there.

But, dear Liz, if you really think that your studies are explicating the
nature of morphological, phonological, or syntactic structure in anything
like the detail or degree (or even quality) of morphology, phonology, or
syntax proper, then the problem is deeper than I feared and is not going
to be resolved on this list. Maybe next time you are in Pittsburgh we can
talk about it. Or maybe you could read some morphology, syntax, or
phonology with a view to asking whether you are discovering the basic
structures and constructs anew in your studies or finding replacements
for the basics. I am at a loss.

I did not say that you were squinting at anything sideways. Nor do I mean
to denigrate your field of study or results. But you simply  are not
studying the core nature of x when you study its implementations,
acquisition, processing, etc. You are assuming it. I am sorry to have to
be the one to break this news to you.

-- Dan

******************************
******************************

Dan Everett
Department of Linguistics
University of Pittsburgh
2816 CL
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Phone: 412-624-8101; Fax: 412-624-6130
http://www.linguistics.pitt.edu/~dever