"Generative" serves them right

[Carl Pollard]

Hi Ash,

> How about "Chomkyan" (my preferred term)?  "Transformational grammar"
> is not quite right, because of nontransformational work like Koster's
> and Brody's.  What is criterial is that it follow, or profess to
> follow, in outline, at least, whatever Chomsky says is now the way to
> go

The preceding remark was in earnest. What is objectionable about it?

>From another one:
> Well, Sergio, this may sound a lot like things that were proposed in
> LFG and GPSG 22 years ago, but there is an important scientific
> difference.  They were not then proposed by Chomsky, and therefore
> incapable in principle of being taken REALLY seriously, to say nothing
> of being right. Now, from what you say, it sounds like the ideas may
> have become right, and if so then surely Chomsky get the credit.
> Surely Gerald Gazdar and Ron Kaplan shouldn't get any credit for
> having these ideas when they were wrong! What sense would that make?

The preceding remark was semifacetious, but intended (assuming the
things Sergio said were factually correct) to call attention to
an unpleasant sociological  state of affairs.

Carl