From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Mon Mar  9 18:32:59 EST 1992
Article 4054 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.045520.2238@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <450@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb26.172245.10210@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb26.195645.9914@spss.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 04:55:20 GMT

In article <1992Feb26.195645.9914@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>
>Uh, have you ever heard of transformational grammar?
>
Of course I have, but like AI-ists, Chomsky has never been able to demonstrate
to anyone's satisfaction (even his own, I believe) that deep structure
(or whatever we're calling it this decade) generalization capture all
the semantic ones as well. I used a passive transformation simply as
an example of two sentences which have the different (admittedly
surface) syntactic structures but identical semantic contents. Perhaps
you weren't following the thread. The claim I was relying to was that
there is NO evidence that syntax and semantics are distinct things.
If you know linguistics, surely you don't believe that.

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


