Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:18:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712112018.PAA00480@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: whether X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1597 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 11 15:18:50 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Robin (working late, I observe): > >Anyway, what can I say? Your report is false to an extent > >so blatant that I can scarcely believe you mean it, and am > >hard pressed to think of a way to end your delusion. > > .u'u .u'u > This is what happens when you (a) introduce what you really wanted to talk > about with a flippant comment and (b) rely too much on "native speaker > intuition". What often happens is that you have a particular > extra-linguistic context in mind, search your "intuition bank" for > appropriate sentences, and forget the other contexts. Dead true. This is not directed at you, but one of the principal criteria by which I accord regard to linguisticians is their ability to overcome these difficulties and provide accurate accounts of the facts. It is alas quite a rare skill. (Interestingly, non-native English speaking linguists are often especially good at it. [Hence I would trust Jorge's reports about the facts of English more than Lojbab's. zo`oje`u]) > >As for "whether" Qs in British > >English, you could consult, say, Quirk et al's Comprehensive > >Grammar of the English Language. > > > I wasn't talking about questions but declaratives, and I'm not sure the > same rules apply. ? > >BTW, if you are British, where did you acquire your cognitivist > >proclivities? > > > .ue ki'a You cite Lakoff and articulate Lakoffian ideas. Not all that common for someone schooled in the UK. If you acquired these ideas while being schooled in the UK it might suggest that you are an intellectual maverick (and therefore doubly welcome in the lojbo cuntu). --And