Xref: utzoo comp.edu:3927 sci.edu:1147 misc.education:1299
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!ucsd!ogicse!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,sci.edu,misc.education
Subject: Re: Another thread gone tangential
Message-ID: <22752:Dec1917:18:4790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 90 17:18:47 GMT
References: <1814@blackbird.afit.af.mil> <26334:Dec1403:45:1590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <553@cadlab.sublink.ORG>
Organization: IR
Lines: 14

In article <553@cadlab.sublink.ORG> staff@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli) writes:
> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >Yes. No linguist in the last fifty years has tried to formally model
> >natural language without taking semantics into account.
> Leonard Bloomfield only died in 1949 - that's barely over
> THIRTY years, NOT fifty - and I would like you to now try and defend
> the position that HE "took semantics into account"!!!

It's tempting to argue that he did---after all, his structuralism shared
every essential aspect of ``features'' in generative grammar, and those
are what I mean by semantics. But you're right. Insert either ``sane''
or ``respected'' into my original statement wherever it makes you happy.

---Dan