Driving home from downtown last night, I heard some "serial music" on  
the radio.  The vocalist must have repeated "Hold that tiger" at least  
20 times, and the same melody was repeated many more times.  It wasn't  
a contemporary music station, though:  it was blues or jazz.
By the way, I don't see how anyone who has ever done informant work or  
worked "in the field" with a totally unfamiliar foreign language could  
ever think of linguistics as anything but a science.

Ed S

On Dec 12, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:

> Our tastes in music, apparently, aren’t that far apart.  I’m partial  
> to Berg and especially his violin concerto with its musical excursus  
> on “Es ist genug.”
>
> Herb
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask] 
> ] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger
> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 12:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science
>
> Well, I think there's a connection with higher mathematics, perhaps,  
> but then I think that higher math is probably a kind of language, too.
>
> Regarding serial music, the best of it is more inspired than  
> traditional views seem to suggest; the mathematics connection has  
> often been used to denigrate it and suggest it is "unartistic,"  
> which is far from true (I'm thinking of the music of Webern and  
> Boulez, in particular, which I find quite inspired and not at all  
> "clinical").  I admit that it is an acquired taste, however.   
> Perhaps the same could be said of some modern literature ... ?
>
> Paul
>
> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an  
> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>
>
> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sat, December 11, 2010 11:37:33 AM
> Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science
>
> I had a music composition grad student working for me for a while,  
> and he insisted that music was mathematics.  But then he composed  
> nothing but serial music, so perhaps he had a point.  Pythagoras, by  
> the way, would have agreed with you—and my grad student.
>
> Herb
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask] 
> ] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger
> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 9:30 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science
>
> I've always thought of grammar as something akin to Music Theory,  
> which is also a flexible system and is used to describe rather than  
> proscribe what is done in composing and performing music.  There's  
> an aura of science about it (music theory, that is), but it really  
> isn't a science as far as I can tell.  I think there are some  
> similarities to higher mathematics, but I don't know enough about  
> that to make the analogy.
>
> Any thoughts on this idea?
>
> Paul
>
> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an  
> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>
>
> From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sat, December 11, 2010 8:49:26 AM
> Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science
>
> Like others who have commented on parts of speech, I've always  
> taught them as prototypes.  Rodney Huddleston has written on the  
> properties of auxiliary verbs and shows, with a detailed chart, how  
> different modals, for example, differ significantly in their  
> properties.  Certainly one starts with the prototypical definition  
> and then adds complexity as students mature.  Confusion begins when  
> people think the prototype defines the entire class.  The natural  
> world, of which language is a part and that we use science to study,  
> is rarely that simple.
>
> Herb
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask] 
> ] On Behalf Of Marie-Pierre Jouannaud
> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 4:42 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science
>
> Thank you Beth. This is a wonderful article!
>
> Marie
>
> > The issue of how many parts of speech there are reminds me of this  
> Web
> > of Language column by Dennis Baron, in which he points out that  
> France
> > recognizes fewer continents than we do.  I had no idea!  The  
> column is
> > tangential to this discussion, but worth a read to see how the  
> French
> > schoolteacher sets him straight: http://illinois.edu/db/view/ 
> 25/14332
> >
> > Beth
> >
> >>>> Marie-Pierre Jouannaud <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>> 12/10/10 5:22 AM >>>
> > Susan,
> >
> > Perhaps the question "How many parts of speech are there?" is not  
> the
> > right question.
> >
> > It's like asking "How many colors does a rainbow have?". Just  
> because
> > you learn in school that there are 7 doesn't mean that it is in fact
> > the case. There is no right answer to this question, but it doesn't
> > mean that optics is not a science.
> >
> > What if words are like colors, on a spectrum? Some points are more
> > salient: typical nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc... But there are  
> plenty
> > of in-between cases. Only you don't want to go into all those  
> details
> > at the beginning levels, so you present a simplified account.  
> (That's
> > why you won't find definitions that will satisfy everybody: if you
> > only describe the prototypical cases, less central elements will be
> > excluded form your definition; but if you try to include them in you
> > definition, it will become too complex/vague to be useful.)
> >
> > Do you agree that words cannot in principle be divided into discrete
> > categories?
> > Do you agree that the fact that they cannot be divided into discrete
> > categories doesn't imply that linguistics is not a science?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >> I think you have made a nice distinction between hard and social
> >> science.  With the social sciences the value of an explanation  
> can be
> >> relative: how many parts of speech are there?  But science doesn't
> >> care whether an explanation is more useful; it is either a correct
> >> explanation or a wrong one.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Susan,
> >>>    I think "a good scientist is as certain as the current evidence
> >>> allows" is something I can live with. I don't think you stop being
> >>> skeptical because the evidence backs a position up, but that's  
> not a
> >>> big issue.
> >>>    Whether we think of it as science or not, knowledge accumulates
> >>> within a discipline like linguistics in large part because of the
> >>> shared exploration of people in the discipline. Either it deepens
> >>> our understanding of language (satisfies us in that way) or it  
> fails
> >>> to do so. I would hate to think that knowledge about language is
> >>> just up to the individual and that everyone's views are equal.
> >>> Perhaps that's not what you are advocating. To me, it's not just
> >>> science, but the study of language that shouldn't be thought of  
> as a
> >>> free for all. Some explanations are decidedly more useful than
> >>> others. We have to move toward that goal somewhat collegially.
> >>>
> >>> Craig
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as
> >>>>
> >>>>> "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the
> >>>>> opposite--a good scientist tends to be skeptical of all  
> positions,
> >>>>> perhaps especially his/her own.
> >>>>>
> >>>> No, this is not accurate.  A good scientist is as certain as the
> >>>> current evidence allows.  She is not more skeptical of her own
> >>>> position simply because it is her own.  It only became her own
> >>>> position BECAUSE of the amount of evidence she has found in its
> >>>> favor.
> >>>>
> >>>> What you probably meant to describe is a scientist's theory.  She
> >>>> should work just as hard disproving her theory as proving it.
> >>>> However, in the end, we are human and a good scientist knows this
> >>>> and so relies on peer review BECAUSE she knows she might be  
> partial
> >>>> to her own theory--even though she thought she did her best to
> >>>> disprove it.  If her theory passes peer review, then she can be  
> as
> >>>> confident of her theory as anyone else and need not be any more
> >>>> skeptical of it than anyone else.
> >>>>
> >>>> You seem to be describing science as a free-for-all in which all
> >>>> ideas have equal certainty and skepticism.  I know you know  
> that is
> >>>> not a true representation.  Yet there are degrees of skepticism
> >>>> that you seem to hang on to.  These are the same degrees of
> >>>> skepticism that Intelligent Design proponents rely on.  They  
> revel
> >>>> in giving science this wimpiness that seem
> >>>> to applaud.  Watch out for what you advocate.  It can come back  
> to
> >>>> haunt
> >>>> you.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>    Science is not just about a careful and systematic approach  
> to
> >>>>> expanding knowledge; it is also a way to share that goal with
> >>>>> other interested parties. That is why we develop academic fields
> >>>>> and subfields. One person cannot simply declare himself right;
> >>>>> positions are subject to peer review.
> >>>>>    Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect,  
> passive)
> >>>>> as "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the
> >>>>> opposite--a good scientist tends to be skeptical of all  
> positions,
> >>>>> perhaps especially his/her own. Even when evidence seems
> >>>>> overwhelming, as it is for evolution and global warming, a good
> >>>>> scientist presents those as the best current explanation of the
> >>>>> evidence, not as a final and definitive answer. This may seem
> >>>>> wimpy to some, but it is a cornerstone of what good science is  
> all about.
> >>>>>    When someone wants to offer a new way of seeing things within
> >>>>> the academic fields, it is customary to present a Review of the
> >>>>> Literature in some form or another. Those who propose the new  
> way
> >>>>> of seeing things are under the obligation to show that they have
> >>>>> reviewed the current literature and understand it before they
> >>>>> offer something new. That doesn't mean presenting the weaknesses
> >>>>> of that view, but presenting its strengths. The burden, as it
> >>>>> should be, is not on the status quo position, but on the person
> >>>>> who is proposing the new view to explain why it better accounts
> >>>>> for the observed facts.
> >>>>>    I don't present this as a post to Brad; like many on the  
> list,
> >>>>> I find discussions with Brad unpleasant and unproductive. But I
> >>>>> think it's important to assert ground rules that can make it
> >>>>> possible for us to discuss issues in a useful way.
> >>>>>    It is  helpful to know what most experts currently believe
> >>>>> about a topic. We should be able to post that without fear of  
> attack.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Craig
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 12/6/2010 9:51 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Karl,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm sorry you're angry but remember, YOU took it to the list
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      and YOU
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> are the person who is angry. And YOU are the person who
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      called me a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "troll", which is OK. That's what angry people do. No
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> But as long as were here, let's let the list look at your
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      definition
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> and let them decide if it is what we (Karl and Brad) are
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      looking
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> for, which is the kind of definition you say "can be found in
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      any
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> decent grammar text".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> These are your words exactly, from 02dec10. "My definition:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      The past
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> perfect in English is a compound tense that combines the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      primary
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> past tense with the perfect, which is a secondary tense
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      system. The
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> past perfect prototypicaly functions to locate an event prior
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      to a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> second past event."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I replied, (this is exact): "Don't be impatient. We're
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      getting
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> there. The question was, How do you define it? Tell me what
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      the past
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> perfect is." And you replied, "The past perfect functions to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      locate
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> an event prior to a second past event". So if I say, "I went
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      to the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> store yesterday and bought potatoes", the past perfect
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      functions to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> locate the prior event, going to the store, from the second
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      event,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> buying the potatoes? 'Zat how it works? Or do you want to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      adjust
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> your definition? And you replied, "No, I don't want to change
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      it. It
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> is correct." So, ATEG, here is the definition: "The past
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      perfect
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> functions to locate an event prior to a second past event".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      Is it
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> good or is it not-so-good? Is it what we're looking for? or
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      can we
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> do better? (Remember, we're talking about Teaching Grammar.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      That's
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> what this is all about.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .brad.06dec10.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ------------------------- *From:* Karl Hagen
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] *Sent:* Mon, December 6, 2010
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 8:39:21 PM *Subject:* Re: common irregular verbs
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pot, meet kettle. Everyone else on the list agrees with
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      Eduard. For
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> my money, the real arrogance is in thinking that you are the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      only
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> one who knows the truth about the perfect.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Further, my discussion about the perfect with you was off the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      list,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> and you have just misrepresented what I told you in private
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      to the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> entire list.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For the record, I gave you a definition, and then I corrected
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      your
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> imprecise paraphrase of my definition. I did not back away
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      from it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I should have known that you were too stupid to understand
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> distinction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, I stand by my use of the perfect in my last message to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> list. It's Standard English, and the only thing you
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      demonstrate by
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> trying to ridicule it is your complete ineptitude as a judge
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> English grammar.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Once again you have demonstrated why you deserve to be
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      shunned, and I
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> deeply regret my folly in writing to you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This will be my last message to you. I am adding you back to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>      my idiot
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> filter.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> 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/
> >>>
> >>
> >> 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/
> >
> > 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/
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
>


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/