he was dubious about the future of ling and when he asked Chomsky for his thoughts Chomsky said that the debate had already been decided because its really up to the grad students and what they decide to investigate and preserve
well, if like 90% of graduate linguistics students come from biology or literature, you can be sure that computational linguistics won't advance as deeply as the other subfields
But I have found an account of the discovery of metals in Avitus that resembles Lucretius both in form and in content—if such a distinction can be made at all.
well, i wanted to ask you if you were doing something similar to this. Basically its a way of showing quantitatively that, under some conditions, some common set of features between two languages could not have happened by chance
yeah the problem is that, in forming the assumptions which are your null hypothesis, which then you try as hard as you humanly can to disprove, you need have to formulate things in a quantitative way
not necessarily in a numerical way, but in a quantitative way for sure
well the world gets along just fine without incessant quantification of anything and everything, but when its doable, it does make for quite a persuasive argument
to be honest, its my personal belief that nothing in reality is impervious to quantitative analysis, but i don't think its particularly interesting or fruitful in all cases
although i do make a distinction between numerical and quantitative
on a related topic, i read that in the field of forensic linguistics, one commonplace task is to test if one document or statement is a plagiarization, and its the same method
well, at least in the thing i was looking at, it actually went quite beyond words and phrases etc.
yeah you definitely need a computer
but it was pretty sophisticated, the goal was to argue backwords, and not really test for equality in statement, but equality in thinking on the part of the author
well i may be too green in ling, but to me this new way of investigating cognition by topological mappings from cognitive space (we cant measure) into metric spaces (we can measure), seems to me the general relativity of linguistics
How do we know what words we are going to say next before the words in that concept have actually been made into words for us to utter? More simply, how do we maintain subject-verb agreement in complex sentences while speaking?
For example (a highly simplified one at that), I heard someone say r...
It went from general to quite specific. "How do we know what words we are going to say next?" is a bit meaningless. Then he jumped to subject/verb agreement. Which is a bit more specific than he intended. I think the REAL question is somewhere between the two.
My personal belief is that we think in some kind of meta-language; then speaking and writing are actually just translation processes. But I can't prove it.
What I should say is that I think in something that isn't English. Then I translate.
If the word order is such that verbs follow subjects in the speech stream, then when a subject emerges in speech stream, the set of all possible verbs and verbs + conjugations that can follow are limited by a set of rules called verb-subject agreement
I think that if you're speaking a SECOND language; you might either translate your thoughts directly to that language; or you might translate them to your first language first, then translate them to the second language. Or use a mixed strategy.
Sure. So we think "There are topics that we can discuss" in mentalese. Then, since we already know what we're saying, then saying it in grammatical English/Portuguese/Russian whatever is a trivial exercise.
Can't I? I know what happens in my head. What I can't speculate on is what happens in other people's heads. And I don't see what sort of study could help me with that.
lɪŋˈgwɪstɪks
lɪŋˈgwɪstɪks