he's a doofus. more details at 11.

It looks like Chomsky's political work has been covered pretty well on this thread.

If we could just turn to Chomsky as a linguist for a moment, I would like to pose the question:

Has anybody here ever really understood his linguistic work?

It has been over my head most of the time- the theories of generative and transformational grammar.

Admitedly, I haven't spent a great deal of time trying to become familiar with them, but the impression I get is that his theories have more to do with the psychological process behind language rather than language itself.

So, does anybody out their have any views on Chomsky's linguistic work, which is generally accepted to have been a far greater contribution to modern thinking than his political commentary?

Mazec wrote:
Has anybody here ever really understood his linguistic work?

In answer to your question, no.

I think that 'he's an amazing linguist, but a flaky political commentator' is the standard, hack response from those on the right to Chomsky, regardless of the fact that only a tiny number of them have actually read any of his linguistic works, let alone understood them.

It's way, way to specialised for most to enjoy/endure.

nihil wrote:It's also the reason that he is only challenged by lunatics that unintelligently ramble and grasp.

This isn't strictly true, Chomsky's coverage of Israel has been taken to task many, many times fairly convincingly. His refusal to blame Israel for any of it's own actions whilst condemning the actions outright is his achilles heel.

Champion Rabbit wrote:

Mazec wrote:
Has anybody here ever really understood his linguistic work?

In answer to your question, no.

My wife is a linguist, and was about ready to join MIT under Chomsky for a 10-year PhD in linguistics when she realized that she wanted to go work in the private sector instead. Anyhoo, she assures me that his linguistic work has been revolutionary.

stewie wrote:

Champion Rabbit wrote:

Mazec wrote:
Has anybody here ever really understood his linguistic work?

In answer to your question, no.

My wife is a linguist, and was about ready to join MIT under Chomsky for a 10-year PhD in linguistics when she realized that she wanted to go work in the private sector instead. Anyhoo, she assures me that his linguistic work has been revolutionary.

I have no reason to doubt it, I was merely commenting on the popular 'he's an amazing linguist, but flaky commentator' angle employed by so many people...

matthew wrote:Please refer to the chapter entitled "The Flight of Reason" in the British historian Paul Johnson's book "Intellectuals" for a very good synopsis of Chomsky.

I would be interested to learn more about this book, Matthew. This is a sincere question not designed to pick a fight - I don't know anything about it. I am just interested as to who this guy is and what the book's about.

si-maro wrote:

matthew wrote:Please refer to the chapter entitled "The Flight of Reason" in the British historian Paul Johnson's book "Intellectuals" for a very good synopsis of Chomsky.

I would be interested to learn more about this book, Matthew. This is a sincere question not designed to pick a fight - I don't know anything about it. I am just interested as to who this guy is and what the book's about.

Simmo sir, the Wikipedia entry is certainly entertaining.

My favorite bit:

His differences with the "family values" Mail may originate with the Daily Express' revelations in February 1998 concerning Johnson's twelve-year sado-masochistic affair with another journalist, Gloria Stewart, in which he enjoyed having his bare bottom spanked for being a "naughty boy".

Mazec wrote:
Has anybody here ever really understood his linguistic work?

I understand his LAD theory stuff, and I like it. Although I also tend towards a Wittgensteinian attitude towards language learning. According to some people, these views oppose each other. I was gonna write a thesis on why I think they don't, but then I realised I wasn't clever enough.

Champion Rabbit wrote:

nihil wrote:It's also the reason that he is only challenged by lunatics that unintelligently ramble and grasp.

This isn't strictly true, Chomsky's coverage of Israel has been taken to task many, many times fairly convincingly. His refusal to blame Israel for any of it's own actions whilst condemning the actions outright is his achilles heel.

Maybe i'm not understanding you correctly, but i can't recall Chomsky ever refusing to hold Israel accountable for it's actions. Are you referring to the United States and our direct support for Israel's actions? He points this out often, for good reason.

It's because of his consistant critisism of Israel that he's called a self-hating jew by dipshits like matthew. So i don't think i understand what you are saying.