Re: off topic: Gramm[a!]r Question

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

David wrote:
> Our intuitive (and uniform) judgments about the right and wrongness of the
> various examples don't arise from being taught those examples or related
> ones; they are the outcomes of built-in rules which have as remote
> consequences those judgments. That is, some pretty low level rules
> determine lots of arbitrary looking surface grammar. Which is to say, that
> perceiving and ordering the world has very little to do with it.
We have a philosophical disagreement here. I would ascribe Chomskian rules
not to innate categories (a la Kant) but to the ontological structure of
the world, plus the nature of the human perceptual system (not including
innate rules). E.g., color is a basic sensory quality, but nouns versus
adjectives (which Chomsky sees as an innate category) is the Aristotelian
entity-attribute distinction--i.e., something ontological. But I really
just wanted to register a different philosophical outlook rather than
initiate a philosophic discussion.
> Turns out you can't just make up a language.
That I agree with--it ain't arbitrary, although there are options. And I
endorse your disagreement with "poor Whorf." BTW, did you know that the old
canard about the Eskimos having 5 different words for "snow" turns out to
be an urban legend?




Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx