128
edits
Changes
Talk:Noam Chomsky (view source)
Revision as of 01:32, September 15, 2009
, 01:32, September 15, 2009fixing the conversion to an hr, and adding <br> (line breaking)
The rest, excluding the more-or-less comments about his linguistic theory (of which I am mostly ignorant), is just slander. There is also no mention of his past involvement with Hashomer Hatzair, but apparently that doesn't fit the agenda here. I'm no fan of the idolatrous, unthinking adoration a lot of people have for him. All that is required is a fair representation, which is not provided; I made the edits, in a small way, to steer the article toward that standard.{{unsigned|Keep the faith}}
The rest, excluding the more-or-less comments about his linguistic theory (of which I am mostly ignorant), is just slander. There is also no mention of his past involvement with Hashomer Hatzair, but apparently that doesn't fit the agenda here. I'm no fan of the idolatrous, unthinking adoration a lot of people have for him. All that is required is a fair representation, which is not provided; I made the edits, in a small way, to steer the article toward that standard.{{unsigned|Keep the faith}}
-------------- YOU SUCK AT LINGUISTICS ---------------
<nowiki>--------------</nowiki> YOU SUCK AT LINGUISTICS ---------------<br>
If you're going to criticize Chomsky's work, you may want to start calling it by its right name. "Genitive grammar" doesn't exist. There's a genitive case, but not a genitive grammar. You're thinking about the generative grammar.
If you're going to criticize Chomsky's work, you may want to start calling it by its right name. "Genitive grammar" doesn't exist. There's a genitive case, but not a genitive grammar. You're thinking about the generative grammar.
Additionally, a lot of the UG boils down to things like implicational universals which have been statistically tested more rigorously than most scientific theories. If you don't know what these are, you probably shouldn't be arguing about linguistics.
Additionally, a lot of the UG boils down to things like implicational universals which have been statistically tested more rigorously than most scientific theories. If you don't know what these are, you probably shouldn't be arguing about linguistics.
Finally, Chomsky DOES make predictions about what is possible in a language. Have you even read any of his work or did you just cite one of his critics without even understanding who the guy was? Sampson is a joke to linguists.
Finally, Chomsky DOES make predictions about what is possible in a language. Have you even read any of his work or did you just cite one of his critics without even understanding who the guy was? Sampson is a joke to linguists.<br>
-------------- YOU SUCK AT LINGUISTICS ---------------
<nowiki>--------------</nowiki> YOU SUCK AT LINGUISTICS ---------------<br>
:Who you talking to? If you want your hypertext to get read, you can try being civil. If you think your qualified to speak on this subkect, you can establish yourself as something other than a troll. Meantime, so long sucka. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:55, 21 August 2009 (EDT)
:Who you talking to? If you want your hypertext to get read, you can try being civil. If you think your qualified to speak on this subkect, you can establish yourself as something other than a troll. Meantime, so long sucka. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:55, 21 August 2009 (EDT)