YOU ALL SUCK!

[Bengt Richter]

On 2 Sep 2004 06:17:05 GMT, Eric Bohlman <ebohlman at omsdev.com> wrote:

>"Amanita, Love Ewe" <ladyamanita at aol.com> wrote in
>news:1bf5bcb9.15695836 at aol.com: 
>
>> Sharon expects the printer within hers and actually looks.  Why will
>> you grasp the ugly worthwhile onions before Satam does?  Many proud 
>> cats over the abysmal planet were loving against the tired bathroom.  
>
>This seems to be of somewhat better quality than the output of the typical 
>random-text generator.  Can anyone suggest something on CPAN useful for 
>such?

        Clearly, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition suffices
        to account for the levels of acceptability from fairly high
        (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)). Presumably,
        the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as
        categorial is not subject to an important distinction in
        language use. For any transformation which is sufficiently
        diversified in application to be of any interest, any
        associated supporting element is necessary to impose an
        interpretation on the ultimate standard that determines the
        accuracy of any proposed grammar. If the position of the
        trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement,
        most of the methodological work in modern linguistics does
        not readily tolerate a general convention regarding the forms
        of the grammar. Nevertheless, any associated supporting
        element appears to correlate rather closely with a parasitic
        gap construction. Suppose, for instance, that an important
        property of these three types of EC does not readily tolerate
        the strong generative capacity of the theory. Comparing these
        examples with their parasitic gap counterparts in (96) and
        (97), we see that this selectionally introduced contextual
        feature is to be regarded as the traditional practice of
        grammarians. By combining adjunctions and certain
        deformations, a descriptively adequate grammar does not
        readily tolerate a descriptive fact. It must be emphasized,
        once again, that this selectionally introduced contextual
        feature delimits an important distinction in language use.

Regards,
Bengt Richter