History: Semantic import of baseline-generated syntactic structures

Source of version: 1 (current)

From Jboske xelmri And: ;: Since the syntax was created independently of meaning, I am loath to attribute semantic significance to it. Furthermore, the official syntax is so perverse and peculiar that one shouldn't be obliged to learn it. It should be sufficient that one learns which strings are and aren't licit, without learning the official generative rules. In technical terms, it should be sufficient that one learns a grammar that is weakly equivalent in generative capacity to the official grammar. Xorxes responds: ;: Yes, I agree. Ideally it would be possible to define a new simplified grammar that matches more closely the grammar that one learns, though. And John responds: ;: I agree entirely. On a related topic, I would argue that learners should not be obliged to learn the formal baselined grammar either, but rather something that better approximates the grammar that one actually internalizes (presumably on the basis of our knowledge of natural language syntax). --And.