| Author |
Message |
Tom
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:08 pm
Post subject: A generative-transformational dictionary of the English verb |
|
|
Hello,
Is there a generative-transformational dictionary of the English verb
(adverb, noun, adjective, preposition), possibly in the form of an
internet repository of Chomsky's rules? Actually, I was wondering if
the dictionaries of collocations for particular word classes can
rightly be considered as generative schemes of the sort. Please, can
they?
Thank you.
Tom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: A generative-transformational dictionary of the English |
|
|
Tom wrote:
| Quote: |
Hello,
Is there a generative-transformational dictionary of the English verb
(adverb, noun, adjective, preposition), possibly in the form of an
internet repository of Chomsky's rules? Actually, I was wondering if
the dictionaries of collocations for particular word classes can
rightly be considered as generative schemes of the sort. Please, can
they?
|
I don't think you'll get a useful answer to your question from this
newsgroup, which comprises mostly interested amateurs. The
professional linguists tend to hang out at a different newsgroup --
sci.lang -- and I suggest you post your query there.
--
Bob Lieblich
Not kidding |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:40 pm
Post subject: Re: A generative-transformational dictionary of the English |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | I don't think you'll get a useful answer to your question from this
newsgroup, which comprises mostly interested amateurs.
|
But an interested amateur is *just* what I am! Me kidding neither. :-)
| Quote: | The professional linguists tend to hang out at a different newsgroup --
sci.lang -- and I suggest you post your query there.
|
Professionals. They will probably mob me off with some unintelligible
gobbledygook, but I shall try these guys anywayz though.
Thank you very much indeed for writing.
Love,
Tom 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. Eric Durbin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:49 pm
Post subject: Re: A generative-transformational dictionary of the English |
|
|
On 30 Aug 2005 05:40:09 -0700, "Tom" <tkorna@wp.pl> wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Lieblich wrote:
I don't think you'll get a useful answer to your question from this
newsgroup, which comprises mostly interested amateurs.
But an interested amateur is *just* what I am! Me kidding neither. :-)
The professional linguists tend to hang out at a different newsgroup --
sci.lang -- and I suggest you post your query there.
Professionals. They will probably mob me off with some unintelligible
gobbledygook, but I shall try these guys anywayz though.
Thank you very much indeed for writing.
|
This may not be exactly what you're looking for but it may provide
some enlightenment:
http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/groups/CL/volk/SyntaxVorl/Chomsky.html
I audited a few of George Lakov's classes at UC Berkeley in the early
80s. One of which was a course called "Introduction to
Transformational Grammar".
Lakov led the unsuspecting students through a few homework sessions
showing how the rules were supposed to work. Then, one day he sent us
home with a set of sentences we were to analyze using TG. Included was
one that could not be explained by TG rules, in fact, it broke the
rules.
The next day in class, there were a number of us fidgeting in our
seats, ready to explode and shout "TG doesn't work!!".
"Correct", said Lakov. "The rest of this class will be spent showing
why Chomsky was wring and TG doesn't work."
Chomsky's Transformational Grammar has been pretty much abandoned,
including by Chomsky himself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:41 pm
Post subject: Re: A generative-transformational dictionary of the English |
|
|
J. Eric Durbin napisal(a):
| Quote: | On 30 Aug 2005 05:40:09 -0700, "Tom" <tkorna@wp.pl> wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
I don't think you'll get a useful answer to your question from this
newsgroup, which comprises mostly interested amateurs.
But an interested amateur is *just* what I am! Me kidding neither. :-)
The professional linguists tend to hang out at a different newsgroup --
sci.lang -- and I suggest you post your query there.
Professionals. They will probably mob me off with some unintelligible
gobbledygook, but I shall try these guys anywayz though.
Thank you very much indeed for writing.
This may not be exactly what you're looking for but it may provide
some enlightenment:
http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/groups/CL/volk/SyntaxVorl/Chomsky.html
I audited a few of George Lakov's classes at UC Berkeley in the early
80s. One of which was a course called "Introduction to
Transformational Grammar".
Lakov led the unsuspecting students through a few homework sessions
showing how the rules were supposed to work. Then, one day he sent us
home with a set of sentences we were to analyze using TG. Included was
one that could not be explained by TG rules, in fact, it broke the
rules.
The next day in class, there were a number of us fidgeting in our
seats, ready to explode and shout "TG doesn't work!!".
"Correct", said Lakov. "The rest of this class will be spent showing
why Chomsky was wring and TG doesn't work."
Chomsky's Transformational Grammar has been pretty much abandoned,
including by Chomsky himself.
|
Well, TG 0 is isomorphic to a Turing machine, a formalism, which baring
Godel's results, is complete. You surely know of D. Lenat's magnificent
project at Cyc Corp. where _millions of NL rules are handcoded in
predicate logic, another TM variant, another variant of TG 0.
But I may be mistaken. :-)
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in