Xref: utzoo sci.lang:3196 comp.lang.misc:2037
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!jkim
From: jkim@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Jay Kim)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Syntactical *definition* of English
Summary: English is not a context-free language (CFL).
	 Could you back it up more?
Message-ID: <2516@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 22 Oct 88 12:12:14 GMT
References: <726@wsccs.UUCP> <6946@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <3349@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <14076@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 9

> <<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<<<<<<<***<<<<<<***>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>***>>>>>>>>>>>>
Clay Bond wrote:

> a CFL is not going to describe English.

Could you tell us a convincing evidence for this?
If you are going to bring up 50's argument based on a long-distant 
dependency, I would recommend you to read first Gerald Gazdar (1982) Phrase
structure grammar. In Pauline Jacobson and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds),
The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 131-186.