GG and change

[Isidore Dyen]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
I believe that you are heading in the right direction. Generative Grammar,
whatever it is, is an analysis of grmmar. It assumes that a language,
despite the fact that it is subject to change, is at the moment of
analysis, a static object. There are certain configurations in that
analysis that permit the i9nference of prior states, in some cases alone,
in others when combined with other information. If they are alone, they
results are usually regarded as internal reconstruction. When combined
with other information, well, how to clasify the inference depends on the
particular case. In any case the key consideration for GG is that it
regards the language for the nonce as static and is thus an analytical
procedure. As for a language faculty, what is required is a facility for
acquiring a phonemic system, something that is lacking in the other apes.
My impression is that the others also seem to lack the ability to order
meanigful symbols even though they can acquire some facility in handling
symbols. Perhaps the language facility can be reduced to phoneme
acceptance and the ability to recognize that the ordering AB is not the
same as BA.
 
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Robert R. Ratcliffe wrote:
 
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> bwald wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------Original
> > message----------------------------
> > Before I forget, I have some comments on Robert Ratcliffe's last
> > message. He states:
> >
> > >... if one takes seriously the generative claim that the
> > >goal of formal linguistic analysis is the discovery of an innate,
> > >biologically determined language faculty, then you sever the link
> > >between historical and formal linguistics.
> >