Re: CHAT: Umberto Eco and Esperanto

Ed Heil wrote:

> I see Chomskians as essentially saying, "bat wings must have nothing
> to do with fingers and arms, because they're just so different; they
> must have evolved out of nowhere by a sudden mutation, and they must
> be studied as if they had nothing to do with fingers and arms, or
> forelegs and forepaws; indeed, as if they had nothing but aerodynamic
> properties -- no muscles, no bones, no skin -- we must study them not
> using biology, but using techniques developed to study airplane wings
> or helicopter rotors."
I see your point, but how do you explain things like the Critical
Age Hypothesis (more or less a fact now)?  Though perhaps
Chomsky overstates himself by not acknowledging the relationships
between the linguistic faculties of the mind and what it shares with
other mental faculties, it seems to me that the dichotomy is not
*wholly* inappropriate.

(BTW, I'd just like to point out that I always enjoy your posts;
I find myself as often wanting to save them as needing to delete
them for want of space)

===========================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
AIM: Deuterotom ICQ: 4315704
<http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"Things just ain't the way they used to was."
     - a man on the subway
===========================================