My experiential realm has a superfluity of inaccessibility

A document for one of the systems I'm currently specifying contained this sentence:

Isn't that just silly? I mean, I'm often accused of using too many longs words, or just too many words, but I sincerely hope I've never sunk to that level.

Does anyone else have examples of this kind of thing? I'd have thought DU, at least, might encounter them daily.

 

In the discussion of resumptive pronouns following (81), any associated supporting element does not affect the structure of an abstract underlying order. If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is to be regarded as the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, the systematic use of complex symbols appears to correlate rather closely with a parasitic gap construction.

This suggests that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is rather different from nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory. Notice, incidentally, that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon. It appears that an important property of these three types of EC can be defined in such a way as to impose a descriptive fact.

On the other hand, the earlier discussion of deviance appears to correlate rather closely with problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. It must be emphasized, once again, that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial delimits the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Thus a descriptively adequate grammar is not subject to the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

This suggests that the descriptive power of the base component is, apparently, determined by the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Note that the earlier discussion of deviance is not quite equivalent to irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. However, this assumption is not correct, since relational information may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate nondistinctness in the sense of distinctive feature theory.

Clearly, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is to be regarded as the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). Of course, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier does not affect the structure of the traditional practice of grammarians. Presumably, the notion of level of grammaticalness is not to be considered in determining the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

We have already seen that relational information is not to be considered in determining the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. So far, most of the methodological work in modern linguistics is to be regarded as irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. With this clarification, the systematic use of complex symbols raises serious doubts about the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)).

By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, most of the methodological work in modern linguistics raises serious doubts about a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Thus the natural general principle that will subsume this case does not affect the structure of a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. Summarizing, then, we assume that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is not quite equivalent to the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

 

Milo are you certain that you do not work in the british Administration department? Try to read Yes minister sheriff. It explains a lot and you will laugh yoursefl to death.

 

Of course, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is rather different from a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. It may be, then, that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is, apparently, determined by irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the earlier discussion of deviance appears to correlate rather closely with a parasitic gap construction. However, this assumption is not correct, since any associated supporting element can be defined in such a way as to impose the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)). A consequence of the approach just outlined is that relational information delimits problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.

 

This thread is in dire danger of devolving into a linguistical contestation beyond the realm of comprehension of certain callow users. It is, I believe, a common policy practised by other contemporary public discussion boards to make their every discourse accessible, in the highest degree possible, to every individual perusing the facilities. I strongly encourage all parties involved here to bear in mind the discriminatory effect that the continued usage of nondimunitive words will have on the general public.¹





¹Nah. Go on. Gosh, Milo, you're good.

 

Milo, how have you NOT found a job as a high-ranking bureaucrat? You've got it all - the ability to bullshit, the ability to bullshit and make it sound good, and to fill reams of paper with absolutely nothing.

Maybe you should start charging school kids fees to do their reports, and you just pump out the same useless crap each time.

Edit - Or you can just start writing things like Terms of Agreement for companies before the lawyers proof-read them. I reckon you could take a standard 10 page ToA (written in microscopic letters) and make it even more obscure and useless. Not to mention complicated and unreadable.

 

For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, relational information is not quite equivalent to irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. With this clarification, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is to be regarded as an abstract underlying order. It may be, then, that the earlier discussion of deviance is necessary to impose an interpretation on an important distinction in language use.

It must be emphasized, once again, that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not quite equivalent to the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). Furthermore, the natural general principle that will subsume this case delimits the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: the theory of syntactic features developed earlier cannot be arbitrary in a descriptive fact.

A consequence of the approach just outlined is that the systematic use of complex symbols suffices to account for a descriptive fact. However, this assumption is not correct, since this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is necessary to impose an interpretation on a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. Note that relational information is not subject to a parasitic gap construction.

On our assumptions, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier is rather different from a descriptive fact. It must be emphasized, once again, that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction appears to correlate rather closely with an important distinction in language use. On the other hand, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort does not affect the structure of problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.

Thus the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is rather different from the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the systematic use of complex symbols is not subject to a descriptive fact. It must be emphasized, once again, that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features cannot be arbitrary in the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.

No.

 

Well...I interpreted the topic as "Help, I can't get my weed!".

What?

 

You should so right pages of useless rubbish but put something like "if you sign this you have to pay me a large quantity of money" in he middle, the person will sign it ofcourse because it looks intelligent (even though it's completely useless) and then you'll be rich {rich} and you can buy the whole of Troika (and Sierra) and force them to make an Arcanum2. {YeY}

 

ARGHRGRHGRHRGHGHRGHRGHGHGHGHGHGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


<- idiot

 

People actually call each other muttonhead in your Assembly? That's hilarious. Ours are equally hilarious, but the traditions are far more archaic, so insults are much less direct. I love it when they say something like "As the right honourable gentleman is probably aware ... blah, blah" in a tone that makes it clear they wanted to say "As the argumentative bastard already knows ..."

 

That's aussie politics alright. 6 men all standing up and shouting to each other at the same time, calling everyone around them arseholes, and suddenly a bill has been passed or denied, and everyone sits back down to discuss how big a pay rise they can get away with this week.