Grammar with a "G"

[Rob Freeman]

Sorry to be away for a day.

Tony A. Wright wrote:

> 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?

Wouldn't you like to be able to? I would. Why does the auto-lady in my
tele-banking service sound like a clockwork mouse? Why do you have to punch all
those buttons instead of just telling her what to do? Why do you need a
pointing 'mouse' to open a file on your computer? Because nobody can 'make'
language, that's why. You can call these the problems of other fields and avoid
them that way, but somebody has got to claim them, nobody can solve them, and
they seem to have a lot to do with language to me.

> > 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.

I have no objection to any consistent system of description for talking about a
problem. They can all be 'true'. There are different 'truths' - that's the
subjectivity. If I ask you to describe a language to me I am happy if you tell
me it is verb final, or ergative, that it identifies a 'patient' slot, or
whatever, depending on my purpose (or I might want you to tell me it is
beautiful, or that it sounds like a machine gun). Hearing it is verb final does
not tell me what a verb _is_, however, even if I can analogize your use of the
word 'verb' to my own experience and apply the knowledge to many purposes. But
what a 'verb' _is_  (in sufficient detail that my tele-banking auto-lady can
use one) is the elusive (subjective) reality that I am interested in at this
time, what is 'under' grammar. Call it meta-grammar if you like.

BTW with reference to Esa Itkonen's message, can anyone summarize Chomsky's
dismissal of analogy as mechanism of language succinctly for me? I don't know
if this is the right forum, but these things bear re-airing, from time to time
IMHO.

Rob