Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 01:28 pm
@JoannaOV,
JoannaOV wrote:
Considering Noam Chomsky Universal Grammar theory.... would it be possible the existence of pragmatic universals?

Pragmatics are about the world. Universal Grammar theory is about language. What would the two have to do with one another?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 01:34 pm
@fresco,
Thank you Fresco for your support in this chaotic environment, hopelessly orchestrated resentment, contretemps evolving into obsessive malevolence
timur
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 01:36 pm
@dalehileman,
Your continuous whining is risible..
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 01:43 pm
@timur,
Quote:
I feel serene inside, quite far from any feelings of angriness.
Tim I envy that serenity. I cannot deny angriness, at least on a subliminal level, and the satisfaction, indeed, a hilarity, I derive at least consciously

Something like all those cops, shooting 41 times that fella reaching for his handkerchief, outwardly confident in the absolute necessity for order in the Humanoid Kingdom but subconsciously a kind of fun

I don't excuse it though. As I said, it's an obsession, a deviant passion, just short of maniacal, often leading me to ask why I can't devote all this time to something more constructive

Quote:
Your continuous whining is risible..
Alas alack
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 02:31 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Pragmatics are about the world. Universal Grammar theory is about language. What would the two have to do with one another?


Well I don't intend to tackle this assignment here, but if I were to plan it I might start with Chomsky's proposition of linguistic universals as a "wired in" propensity of humans to abstract grammatical rules irrespective of intelligence or particular culture. Now there may be an argument that such rules which ontologically reflect subjects as active agents ( S=NP+VP from Chomsky's Transformational Generative Grammar) are related to an axiomatic adage of pragmatists of the form"reality is what works". Obviously there are alternative views and counter-arguments to such an approach which takes linguistics as a substrate for our interactions with "the world". (See the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and criticisms thereof for expansion of this).

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 02:41 pm
@dalehileman,
Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Poor bay-bee . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 02:44 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Still I find it remarkable how deeply affected so many of us by the remarks of a complete stranger at some remote location at an obscure Internet forum in a country economically disintegrating within a world on the verge of annihilation by a second nuclear holocaust


Leaving aside the hilarious melodramatic fantasy--this describes you to a tee with your passive-aggressive hostility, using things like this "anger" BS to attempt to needle people. You're a hypocritical phony and . . .

. . . a great, braying jackass.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 02:46 pm
@timur,
Quote:
What did you learn from Dale, whatever he pretended to teach people?

Wrong question. Dale correctly identified the complexities implied by the OP. My answer above further illustrates that complexity and indicates why this forum is inappropriate for such technical discussion.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Oct, 2013 02:56 pm
Fresco wrote:
Dale correctly identified the complexities implied by the OP.


I suppose you are referring to this answer:

Dalehileman wrote:
Good homework question!


Such complexity befuddles me..
-1 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Universal Grammar
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2020 at 07:13:08