On 2003-11-21T12:05:31-0500, Peter J. Wasilko wrote: > Likewise, the Surface Structure of legal language is more of a > historical accident. However, its Logical Form and Deep Structure are > functions of the *gasp* mathematical model it captures. I find this separation of concerns between content and presentation a sensible and fascinating one. With apologies, though, let me go on the following tangent of a tangent, since English is by many accounts a lightweight language... May I advise you (and others) to avoid terms like "Surface Structure", "Logical Form", and "Deep Structure" in discussions of language where they are not technically relevant or necessary? I presume that you intend to allude to notions in linguistics, but these notions (even when they are neither bitterly controversial nor constantly renamed) do not actually make sense, even metaphorically, in a context like the above. For example, surface structure is often conceived of as being located on the linguistic pipeline between logical form and deep structure. Ken -- Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/ "vi has two modes: one where it beeps and one where it doesn't"
Description: Digital signature