chomskybot: To characterize a linguistic level L, the descriptive power of the base component is unspecified with respect to an abstract underlying order. Note that a descriptively adequate grammar does not affect the structure of the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Analogously, 94% of the methodological work in modern linguistics is not quite equivalent to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (link: #169) to virtual gibberish (link: #1615). Presumably, the notion of level of grammaticalness is, apparently, determined by irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. It appears that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial does not readily tolerate an important distinction in language use. cc @question

To characterize a linguistic level L, the descriptive power of the base component is unspecified with respect to an abstract underlying order. Note that a descriptively adequate grammar does not affect the structure of the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Analogously, 94% of the methodological work in modern linguistics is not quite equivalent to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (link: #169) to virtual gibberish (link: #1615). Presumably, the notion of level of grammaticalness is, apparently, determined by irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. It appears that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial does not readily tolerate an important distinction in language use. cc @question