Re: Word Order in typology

On Thursday, October 14, 2004, at 11:02 , Chris Bates wrote:

> Anyway.... I hope you won't think this a cop-out, but I'm not sure how
> to reply... I've been giving the things we've been debating about a lot
> more thought than I ever have before, and I don't feel that my ideas in
> this area are fully formed as yet,... I need a while to brood on them.
I fully understand - in fact I am to some extent in much the same position.

> Sorry for bowing out... I certainly don't take your disagreement
> personally though (I'm trying to say I didn't consider this an argument
> because it wasn't emotional for me), I was just enjoying the debate. :)
Same here!

> I suspect a lot of my natural instinct in looking for deep structure and
> then building layers on top is precisely because most of my training has
> been in mathematics, and that's how mathematics in built. Perhaps the
> approach that seems natural to me isn't the best way to approach
> language. :)
Interesting - I've seen it claimed more than once that Chomsky's deep
structure approach is due to his mathematical background. There maybe
something in it. Certainly many people do agree with this type of approach.

As many on the list know, I take an essentially empirical approach so for
me the 'surface' structures like syntax, morphology and (especially)
phonology interest me.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]