Question of no importance

[Laurence Horn]

At 9:22 AM -0400 4/6/01, James A. Landau wrote:
>The following text showed up mysteriously at the end of a piece of spam
>advertising a female aphrodisiac.  I think it's doubletalk, but I don't know
>the jargon of linguistics well enough to be sure.

Doubletalk indeed.  Looks like the output of the Chomsky-Bot.  See
http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl
or http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chombot.htm

larry

>
><quote>
>Specifically, the notion of level of
>grammaticalness recognizes the importance of
>other disciplines, while taking into account
>any communicatively-programmed computer
>techniques.  Thus the independent functional
>principle seems to me to account
>satisfactorily for the sophisticated
>hardware.  Specifically, this analysis of a
>formative as a pair of sets of features adds
>overriding performance constraints to any
>normative concept of the linguistic/holistic
>continuum.  In summary, the fundamental error
>of regarding functional notions as categorial
>presents extremely interesting challenges to
>the postulated use of dialog management
>technology.  Furthermore, the earlier
>discussion of deviance necessitates that
>coagulative measures be applied to any deep
>configuration mode.  From the intercultural
>viewpoint, a case of semigrammaticalness of a
>different sort necessitates that urgent
>consideration be applied to Krapp's Last
>Tape.  However, this assumption is not
>correct, since most of the methodological
>work in modern linguistics is rather
>different from any discrete configuration
>mode.  I suggested that these results would
>follow from the assumption that a primary
>interrelationship of system and/or subsystem
>logistics cannot be arbitrary in irrelevant
>intervening contexts in selectional rules.
><end quote>
>
>      - Jim Landau