NO SUBJECT

[Enrique Figueroa E.]

I wish I could believe the list you propose everyone (everyone?) to
subscribe to would like that and care to answer back... But, by the way,
why restrict, in a Manicheistic way, the discussions that go on in/on
FUNKNET to the contraposition of functionalism versus Chomskyanism? I
think one among the very good traits of FUNKNET is it's openness to all
sorts of
opinions! A trait I doubt very much (hope I'm all wrong, though!) would
also be that of GB2MP...
Formalist linguists have won a reputation with respect to their
"patience" towards poor second-class pseudolinguists who don't feel
comfortable with their jargon and views... Those who don"t honour this
reputation do care to participate, as I see it, on FUNKNET. Perhaps we
are here in need of a "neutral" discussion list, for those who really
care to interact on theoretical issues?
For the rest, I entirely agree with your comments (and with your spirit,
methinks). Cheers! Max


On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Tony A. Wright wrote:

> John Myhill:
>
> >As much as I value Ellen's opinion, I think that the fact that this `debate'
> >has evidently not had any effect upon anyone else leads me to suspect that
> >the formal vs. non-formal `debate' on funknet (in its various incarnations)
> >has had more or less the same meaning as the 2-minute hate in Orwell's
> >1984, where 'Goldstein' . . .
>
> I wouldn't say that the debate hasn't affected anyone.  Just because
> people don't ditch their position and go over to the other side doesn't
> mean that the debate has had no effect.
>
> I, for one, found it, and continue to find it, very instructive.
> I feel that I have a much greater understanding of the autonomy/nonautonomy
> issue than I had before.  Moreover, the juxtaposition of different
> viewpoints in brief, readable, connected messages has been much more
> helpful for me than, say, reading a book by one author and then reading
> a book from an opposing viewpoint, neither author having talked to the
> other.
>
> I haven't changed my original position at all, but I understand the
> basis for it and all the ways it could be challenged much better than
> ever before.  If nothing else, this debate has taught me that I have
> a lot more reading to do.
>
> If Fritz and Dan are the Goldsteins for FUNKNET, who volunteers to be
> the functionalist Goldsteins for GB2MP (a list for discussions of
> Chomskyan syntax)?  Sign up today and give us your functional
> accounts of subjacency, your semantic version of the binding conditions,
> your metrical phonology explanations of heavy-NP shift, etc.
>
> Send this message:
>
>       subscribe GB2MP
>
> to this address:
>
>       majordomo at colmex.mx
>
> --Tony Wright <twright at accdvm.accd.edu>
>