esoteric and highly formalized rules (fwd)

[Enrique Figueroa E.]

Good sample (see my reply to it, which is not a reply, but a comment) of
WHY this kind of discussion about "esoteric and highly formalised rules"
(my phrasing, British spelling included!) SHOULD be a central part of the
linguist-to-be's warming-up! For, allow me to remind you all, the
expression was originally used by me RE the role of theory and the role
of a historical frame and (the role of) the RIGHT od lx students to be
presented a variety of theoretical alternatives during their basic
courses before plunging into ONE of them!
It's indeed good and healthy to have such a discussion within FUNKNET! It
would be "gooder" and healthier to have it, as a regular component, in
the BASIC FORMATION OF EVERY LX STUDENT!!!
Max E.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:28:17 -0500
From: Sydney M Lamb <lamb at OWLNET.RICE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list FUNKNET <FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU>
Subject: Re: esoteric and highly formalized rules

On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, PAMELA PRICE KLEBAUM wrote:

> . . .  As
> for charts, prose, they all reflect rules.
>

No.  Charts, prose, rules, etc. all reflect either linguistic structure
or outputs of ling structure, depending on the orientation of the linguist.
And neither the structure nor the outputs is built of rules.