Re: OFF-TOPIC: Non linguistics books by Chomsky

Thomas R. Wier scripsit:

> > You can easily find American yahoos who will denounce
> > Chomskyan linguistics, and indeed linguistics generally, as a criminal
> > enterprise on the strength of Chomsky's political opinions.
>
> In my experience, the vast majority of people who have any
> opinion about Chomsky's views on linguistics whatsoever are
> people highly trained in linguistic methodologies, if not
> actually professional linguists themselves.  [...]
I was referring to the following styles of argument:

1) Chomsky is a Commie;
2) His linguistics must be Commie linguistics (like Lysenkoism).

1) Chomsky is a Commie;
2) He is the most important linguist in America;
3) Linguistics must be pseudo-science altogether.

I have encountered these both personally and on Web sites.  (I choose
"Commie" as a clearly derogatory term for a leftist, not because his
detractors actually use that word -- though Google confirms that some do.)

> > I agree with most of what he says (as opposed to what he is *said*
> > to have said),
To clarify, I was talking about his political rather than his linguistic
opinions.

> > but I find his prose style almost impenetrable.
>
> I think pretty much everyone will agree with you on this point,
See http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl .

--
"We are lost, lost.  No name, no business, no Precious, nothing.  Only empty.
Only hungry: yes, we are hungry.  A few little fishes, nassty bony little
fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death.  So wise they are; so just,
so very just."  --Gollum        jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan