You are continuously arguing against something I have not asserted, and you do not respond to my actual argument.  

Grammarians do science.  Let's stop arguing about that.  My point is that lots of occupations do science--even people at the Discovery Institute do science (there is science behind how to be an effective sophist).  

I agree that perhaps at some point in human development, human nature might be completely reduced* and explained by the scientific process.  Then a grammarian might reasonably be called a scientist--but then so might all academic fields.

We disagree about what grammarians today should call themselves.  I think it misleading and wrong to refer to yourself as scientists because the best and most defining work you do is not scientific.

I am sorry it you thought I had promised to read your work An Approach to the Theory of the Syntax of English.  I did not promise to do so.  I will be sure to let you know if I do.  

Susan

*purposeful use of the r-word



On Dec 11, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:

> Susan,
>  
> Math is done for more that quantifying.  It also helps with classifying and establishing conceptual structures.  The number and sorts of the parts of speech depend on definitions and the model applied to them.  (I can tell from your response that you have not looked at the model I have proposed in my work, An Approach to the Theory of the Syntax of English.  It uses elements of the Unified Modelling Language developed by computer programmer analysts.  If I can take you seriously, perhaps you ought to consider taking me seriously.)  
> The humor that is quantified, would not be inherent in the joke, but in the person perceiving the joke.  Scientists have actually approached this problem.  They think it could be done by detecting and measuring brainwaves along with the application of a model that is based on what mathematicians have come to call catastrophy theory. 
>  
> Bruce
> 
> --- [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:16:28 -0600
> 
> The "hard" sciences have had many more years to get the math right and apply the most useful concepts to their theories. 
> 
> Are you kidding me?  Really?  You think you can apply enough math and do enough experiments and you will finally quantify how many parts of speech there are?  It is the most basic question in grammar, and no one has been able to do it--and not through lack of trying.
> 
> So when you get done with that, you can quantify the amount of humor in every joke.  
> 
> When you do that, I will gladly call you a scientist.  Really.  I will.  No joke.  Nothing to quantify.  Really.  No, really.  Put your meter away.  It's not a joke; I mean it.
> 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/