Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and (97), we see that any associated supporting element does not readily tolerate a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories.
On the other hand, most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is to be regarded as the strong generative capacity of the theory.
From C1, it follows that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds cannot be arbitrary in the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.
This suggests that the earlier discussion of deviance may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.
Conversely, the systematic use of complex symbols is unspecified with respect to a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.
Using 87 phrases consisting of 35 introductory phrases, 18 subject phrases, 17 verb phrases,
and 17 concluding phrases, with each sentence having one of each phrase, randomly picked, this
program will produce over 22 septillion, a bit more precise, 22,084,947,919,456,858,275,840,000
variations of clear and concise paragraphs based upon writing samples of our famous and rather
infamous, Dr. Noam Chomsky.
Most amazing, my program version of this technique in following general guidelines of dubious
rules of language, regardless of tongue, as so well studied and shared by Dr. Chomsky, only
requires a dozen lines of Perl code, setting aside lists of four types of phrases. These phrases
range in number of words length from one word to fifteen words with an average of five words per
phrase. There are no tricks involved in this, other than natural slippery semantics of meaning.
Thank you Kevin McGowan, John Lawler, Anthony Aristar, John F. Sowa, Simon Laven
and my forever friend,
Dr. Noam Chomsky, for helping me to make clarity in concise
communication so very possible.
Read About Dr. Noam Chomsky
