Grammar with a "G"

[Tony A. Wright]

At 08:46 PM 3/23/99 +0800, Rob Freeman wrote:


>I would probably have to agree with Syd on this bit. We all work within a
frame of
>reference, not much use in arguing otherwise, that's not new. Point is,
what can we do
>with it? I think the distinction to be made is that rules like this are
not much use
>for making cars.

I don't see the comparison.  Linguists "make" languages?

> Your mechanic might appreciate your subjective observations about the
>car, but he needs knowledge of something more 'real' before he can fix it.

He doesn't just appreciate it, he insists on it.  His only alternative is
to check every component of the car, from the pistons to the turn signal to
see what's not functioning correctly.

One might object that he could simply drive the car and see what's wrong
himself.  Of course, this merely means that he will first have to gather
data about the car's behavior and formulate a rule-based account of
it--just like I did-- before he gets under the hood.

BTW, what's subjective about it?  My mode of exposition may have a
subjective component, but the facts about my car are something anyone would
have to agree with.

--Tony Wright