Apparently, one has to be careful of the construction of EVERY sentence on a listserv  post and not expect it to be read, necessarily, in its context.

>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 09/15/07 12:41 PM >>>

On the other hand, your use of the finite verb "is" in the complement of
"understand" invites the inference of factivity, so that a reasonable
reading, and, frankly, the one I gave it, would be that formalists
understand something that is in fact so and functionalists don't.  Focus
position would then emphasize functionalists' failure to grasp this
fact.

Here is the entire passage.  My offensive sentence occurs in a context about  a split in linguistics. 

Original version: The formalist-functionalist split in linguistics is about whether
grammar, more specifically syntax, is separate from meaning.  Formalists
understand syntax is separate from meaning; functionalists don't.

**********************
There is a debate.  I thought I indicated correctly what the position of the "formalists" and "functionalists" are in the debate.

Please accept this correction.

Revised version: The functionalist-formalist  split in linguistics is about whether
grammar, more specifically syntax, is separate from meaning.  Functionalists
understand syntax is essentially related to meaning; formalists don't.

I have never pretended to be a great stylist, and I apologize to those who are offended by my poor style.  I don't get a change in "factivity" from version one to version two.  This is reading deficit I was not aware of.

I ask a generous reader to accept the least offensive version to their own theoretical commitments as the one I intended.

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/