Ed,

Back in the 50s it was called "God's Truth" linguistics.  The alternative was "hocus pocus" linguistics, which, of course, also has divine origins.

Herb


Bill,
     You wrote:

"And Ed - I certainly don't mind having both interpretations
simultaneously. I know a lot of linguistic theories don't allow that,
though, so for those who want one or the other, it might be worthwhile
to discuss the options."

Isn't the failure to allow alternative explanations unethical as well
as stupid? If the members of this list disagree about so many defintions
and explanations, how can anyone ethically take a grammar into a
classroom and say that it has to be "This way or else?" And note that we
seem to be talking about explanations that would be within the
terminological framework of the grammar being taught. Would someone
please explain the justification of this "one-explanation-only" approach
to grammar?
Thanks,
Ed

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/

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/