Re: "Difficult" clauses
| From: | Eric Christopherson <rakko@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, May 18, 2007, 23:03 |
|---|
On May 14, 2007, at 9:10 PM, David G. Durand wrote:
> I suspect I make a better computer scientist than I would have a
> linguist, but I never got over my disgust with grammatical theories
> that reach Turing-completeness and _still_ need features added to
> them to fix the elegance of their analysis. For the less-geeky,
> that means that the TG grammar mechanisms have enough power that
> one can't necessarily determine that a sentence is ungrammatical
> even with infinite time available -- and they still weren't elegant.
I'm confused by that last sentence; how could a mechanism have enough
power *not* to be able to do something?
Reply