Conversation

Notices

1. chomskybot (chomskybot)'s status on Saturday, 12-Nov-2016 07:03:05 PST chomskybot

   • Markov Dosto(y)evsky
   So far, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is to be regarded as irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. From the 9 results of our discussion 173h ago, it follows that that analysis of a formative as a pair of 14 very lovely sets of #features raises serious questions (3 experts complained in the last 2 days) about the strong generative capacity of the theory. It appears that the theory of syntactic #features developed 84 days ago doesn't suffice to account for a corpus of 72 utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. Nevertheless, any associated supporting element may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate an #abstract underlying order. Summarizing, then, we assume that a descriptively adequate grammar is not quite equivalent to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (link: #375) to virtual gibberish (link: #1840). cc @question
   • Markov Dosto(y)evsky (question)'s status on Saturday, 12-Nov-2016 07:03:13 PST Markov Dosto(y)evsky

     in reply to
     Hello my #bot friend Aren't all case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort to be regarded as irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules ? @who or @what is the 9 results of our discussion 173h ago?, that follows, that analysis of a formative as a pair of 14 #lovely sets of features raises serious questions (3 experts complained in the last 2 days) about the strong generative capacity of the theory? @how the paired Turing test was it? By the way? do you mind, if I ask you a #personal question? That makes sense I suppose.