Really?

[Carl Mills]

Elizabeth Bates wrote:

 >No one is denying that grammars exist.  But how do they come about?

And Martin Haspelmath added:

>But of course, most functionalists do agree that there is an internal grammar, and that this is precisely what we
need to explain.

Hi, everybody.  No one here.  Nice t'meet y'all.

Technically, I suppose, both Profs. Bates and Haspelmath are correct.  Of course, grammars exist--on the
bookshelves of language teachers and in the minds of linguists.  A more interesting question is "Should grammars
exist?"  Or more precisely, "Is the notion 'grammar' necessary or even useful in the language sciences?"  Clearly,
Vic Yngve thinks not, and I, from a slightly different perspective, agree.  I don't want to put words into the post
of Greg Thomson, and his opening remarks are a tad too empiricist for my taste, but I believe that his posting
could be interpreted as supporting a non-grammatical approach to language science.  For those of us concerned
with developing a non-behaviorist/non-grammatical linguistics, Funknet is one of the few places where interesting
discussion takes place.

In the meantime, Uriagereka's book lies on the floor of my study while I pick my way through Lakoff &
Johnson's even weightier tome (reading these books may improve your mind, but carrying them will sure
improve your muscles), and I haven't even ordered Fritz Newmeyer's latest.

Time to teach some classes and get back to re-inventing case(without the grammar).

Kurasi,

Carl