🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <2vno1s$eg4@csi0.csi.uottawa.ca>, misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark
>Israel) wrote:
>> 
>> Nonetheless, the dogma is taught to linguistics students from the 
>> very beginning, and is the basis for much of the research that is 
>> done.
>> 

Precisely so. What I was taught delayed by perhaps as much as six
months my understanding the phonology of the language of my PhD
thesis. Paying lip service to dogma resulted in the phonological
description still being a gross misrepresentation of the true
workings of that language -- but I had to pander to my supervisors'
whims. Thankfully, they were all away on fieldwork when I was 
writing up the morphology and syntax part, and I had my own way
there.

Speaking of dogma, a brave soul has generously volunteered
setting up an ftp repository for papers-cum-rejection-slips
as I immodestly (I'm no Jonathan Swift) proposed recently.
I was arguing that the analysis of the reasons given for 
rejection, and of the modifications demanded, would provide an
interesting, and telling, picture of current dogmatic schools,
and who subscribed to them (yes, even providing a good corpus
for stylistic analysis). 

Second call for takers!


A
A
A
A
A