Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!smryan
From: smryan@netcom.com (Pastor Rod Flash)
Subject: Re: Q: How's un/grammaticality DEFINED?
Message-ID: <smryanD6Iz63.AFI@netcom.com>
Organization: The Blinding Light Crusade
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <3lrdvp$15u@decaxp.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 19:22:50 GMT
Lines: 23
Sender: smryan@netcom18.netcom.com

Chomsky defined it in terms of a competent speaker. If such a speaker
says it grammatical, it is. If not, it's not. There is also a
questionable category: some speakers accept, some don't, a speaker
might never generate the phrase but can still understand it.

: linguistic designation?  Conversely, if enough people deem that
: sentences like "I should have went to the store" or "There is cokes in
: the fridge" or "She say it's good" are fine, does this make them
: grammatical? 

Yes. A language is defined by its speakers. 

: Or is there a criterion different from sheer statistics?

It is useful and simple. I suppose an impassioned defence
is possible, but I won't make it. In math, zero factorial,
0!, is defined to be one. Why? Because it's useful and
simple.
-- 
The pair depart upon a horse            | smryan@netcom.com     PO Box 1563
and fare to face their future's course. |             Cupertino, California
Away! the walls of weighted stone!      | (xxx)xxx-xxxx               95015
Away! the wealth and worried throne!    |              You gotta let it go.
