> Second World War. However, during the occupation of Japan in
> 1946, Monbusho, or the Japanese Ministry of Education, began the
> task of simplifying the language. At that time, the general
Or take a look at some of John Searle's writings for an alternate
perspective on methodology vs. understanding.
> Wow, count the logical fallacies. Use of anonymous authority, with `any
> linguist will tell you'.
Okay, I was having a bad day and let my emotions get the better of
me.
> And ignoratio elenchi, arguing (incorrectly, by
> the way) that grammar and syntax are independent of each other -- when
Actually, I never said that. I said "learning the grammar of a
language, although certainly not unrelated to the syntax, is quite
different from knowing the syntax of a language." I didn't say they
were independent of each other - just that learning a language's
grammer is different from knowing its syntax.
> we're actually discussing the number of lexemes, something which (except
Now we're quibbling. To really get into this subject we could
start writing papers on the topic. I'd only meant to make the point
that learning the rules of HOW to manipulate the symbols of a language
is quite a different task than learning what all of those symbols are.
(Although, we both say, not completely unrelated nor independent.)
However specifically or generally you want to define "rules" and
"symbols".
Jason.
