What's your take on this?
 

We have already seen that the descriptive power of the base component is not subject to the strong generative capacity of the theory. Summarizing, then, we assume that relational information is to be regarded as an abstract underlying order. However, this assumption is not correct, since the systematic use of complex symbols may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the levels of acceptability from fairly high to virtual gibberish. This suggests that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is, apparently, determined by an important distinction in language use. Presumably, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is rather different from a descriptive fact.


or should i stick to 2pac threads? :error

Soul_Rebel will be powered by chomskybot from now on

http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl

This explains why people speaking the same language but from different cultures can sometimes misunderstand each other, as different emphasis can be put in relational information according to the norms of their colloquial form.

Conversely, the earlier discussion of deviance suffices to account for irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. Let us continue to suppose that the systematic use of complex symbols is not subject to the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is, apparently, determined by a parasitic gap construction. On the other hand, the notion of level of grammaticalness does not readily tolerate the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: any associated supporting element appears to correlate rather closely with the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.

e=mc2
or is it m=ec2?

;)