the Trask-Hubey debate

[H. M. Hubey]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Robert R. Ratcliffe wrote:
 
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> At the risk of getting caught in the crossfire, I'd like to interject
> myself in the debate between Larry Trask and Mark Hubey. I'm in
> agreement with about 90% of what LT has to say, and have to
> say (with no malice intended) that MH's postings reveal a great
> ignorance of the field of linguistics. Nonetheless  I do think that MH
>
 
I think what is necessary is to get going discussing what is being
done and how, and something good might come out of it.
 
 
> is asking some legitimate questions and deserves a better response from
> the profession than the old refrain that the esoteric knowledge is only
> revealed to those who have joined the secret brotherhood.
>
 
That is the real reason I post what I do. There are computer programs that
paint and compose music. Is it really that hard to believe that linguistic
reconstruction is no less structured?
 
I bring this up, because for a long time the anti-AI crowd used arguments
similar to those offered often on linguistics lists for why AI would
be impossible.
 
I will try to reply to the rest of the comments  later from home.
 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Robert R. Ratcliffe
 
--
M. Hubey
Email:          hubeyh at Montclair.edu    Backup:hubeyh at alpha.montclair.edu
WWW Page:       http://www.csam.montclair.edu/Faculty/Hubey.html