I have several observations about the following line in a recent post.

>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 04/17/09 8:08 AM >>>
. . .  . And it may very well 
be that linguists are much to blame for not giving us a discourse 
friendly grammar to work with. . .  .

****
First, it is always interesting to blame people in one discipline for failure to provide what a person needs in their own discipline.  To blame linguists for not providing a person with what that person needs implies that linguists need to pay attention to that person's needs. Perhaps, linguists' concerns are not that person's concerns.  If that is true, then it seems strange to "blame" people for not caring about what you care about.  

Second, the phrase, discourse friendly grammar, suggests that there are discourse unfriendly grammars.  I wonder what one might find in a discourse friendly grammar that is not in a discourse unfriendly grammar.  I wonder what is discourse unfriendly in a grammar that describes what is possible in a language.

Third, and perhaps most important, in the volunteer organizations I belong to, if you think something needs to be done, you have just volunteered to do it.  I think this same principle applies in academic disciplines.  If you notice some kind of work is missing, then perhaps you should provide what is missing instead of "blaming" people for not giving you what you need.

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/