Re: Why grammar is so complex a subject

--- Cian Ross <cian@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 11:35, Gary Shannon wrote:
>
<snip>
> "Me
> > goat see", "Goat me see", "Me see goat", "Goat see
> > me.", "See goat me.", "See me goat." Which, for
> > reasons of survival, would have to be
> differentiated
> > in meaning from "Tiger see me.", "See tiger me.",
> etc.
>
> I'm not quite comfortable with at least one
> assumption you seem to be
> making here.  Why would language even at a very
> early stage necessarily
> be limited to matters of immediate physical
> survival?
Good point! But in the final analysis I'm just making
this stuff up anyway, so who knows? I guess the proof
is in the pudding. If I can build a working parser
based on the theory then it doesn't matter whether my
hypothetical ramblings are true or not.

--gary