🚀 go-pugleaf

I find myself in agreement with much of what David Pestsky claims in his
post (which presumably the reader has seen on the way here), and where
I do not I will need to post more explicit material than would be of
interest to most of sci.lang. I hope that perhaps we will both be
publishing enough explicit analyses to make our points clear.

Yes, the in(famous) draft was ukrazidat indeed, but resembled the
famous Soviet samizdat publications in that as the word got out
that this was not an "official" version, it seemed to gain speed
in distribution. The final version is indeed longer and corrected
(the later was the point of my "sanitized"). It still contains some
amazing rhetorical devices, and I will post some of them here
when I have a copy in front of me.

But as for the substance, the purport of my posting was to encourage
anyone interested in syntax to read the paper, as it will certainly
greatly affect the form, if not the content, of future published
work.

As some of you know, I prefer the Autolexical framework to the current
or previous formalisms of the Principles and Parameters approach. But
I also follow this latter approach closely and am at work on papers which
apply the Minimalist framework, and certainly respect the achievements of
some of its backers.

If at times I seem a bit disrespectful, this is a consequence primarily
of the rather offensive rhetoric I sometimes encounter there (examples
to follow from the paper itself) and especially from the fact that
some (many, even at times perhaps most?) of the GB crowd seem to pay
no attention at all to work done in other frameworks. The content of
the proceedings of NELS can be compared with that of CLS or BLS or
ESCOL, and the reader can judge. Not to mention the content of LI
these days. But the main point remains that the paper is, as with
all of Chomsky's writings, a focal point for discussion in the 
syntax community, and knowledge of the Minimalist framework is
required to understand the papers and articles that will soon
flood the market.

I'll just leave with a teaser for David:
How do you handle the Russian construction:

mnye (bylo) pomoch' yemu

(discussed briefly in George Fowler's dissertation)

I am particularly interested in the case assignment, of course.