Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!picard.cc.rochester.edu!plsr
From: plsr@picard.cc.rochester.edu (Peter Lasersohn)
Subject: Re: IS LINGUISTICS A SCIENCE?
Message-ID: <1994Nov22.164134.427@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: picard.cc.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester Computing Center
References: <3aj6ek$pig@ruccs.rutgers.edu> <3aqodb$39n@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 16:41:34 GMT
Lines: 27

In <3aqodb$39n@newsbf01.news.aol.com> perotean@aol.com (Perotean) writes:

>In many
>"primitive" languages, adverbs and adjectives are also "names."  This
>became refined and refined thru civilization, especially as cultures mixed
>and pidgeons were formed.   
     ^^^^^^^^

You can tell this person really knows what he is talking about.  :-)

>Early human cultures ("Cro Magnon") needed very little nomenclature, as
>all shared the same experiencial environment  (i.e., the referent itself
>was the "word." )   By rearranging the expressions they did have, they
>acquired the syntactical match to reality in their minds and
>communications.  

Ah, now I see what real science is!  Anyone who understood the
scientific method would have realized long ago that Cro Magnon people
had a syntactic match between their speech and their experience, while
modern people don't.  All that modern, astology-based linguistics must
have blinded us to this fact!

>As long as linguistics ignores the cognitive faculty [...]

Clearly written by someone with a lot of experience in linguistics.

Sheesh.
