Now later on, our author in his book published by Z gets
embroiled in a discussion of the predicated nominative (PN)
(pps. 40ff) where his methodology gets put to the test and
apparently fails. I say that it fails because our author seems
to conclude that the two large classifications of PN
constructions, *equative propositions* and *subset
propositions* are not classifications that can be observed
at the level of syntactical structure. You can stare at the
syntax of these constructions until Hades freezes over and
you will not be able from syntax to determine whether you
are looking at an *equative proposition* or a *subset
proposition.* So to discuss S -> PN constructions our author
was required to adopt a model that could not be
demonstrated from the syntax data base.
I am not sure that I understand our author's *stated* method
of doing grammar. But I doubt that his stated method is his
real method and I doubt that his stated method works.
Thomas Kuhn has laid to rest, decades ago, the notion that
research is ever pursued without a controlling model.
Models are a given. We are always working with a model and
to the extent that our model is self-consciously applied we
will be less the victim of it than those who work with a
model hidden from themselves.
I think that models are powerful means of organizing
information. I think the purpose of empirical investigation is
to disprove models.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
Postscript:
If anyone sees fit to respond to this, let us keep the
discussion focused on ideas, not persons. I am not
particularly interested in starting a battle about the author
of this book who is a friend of many on this list. I am
interested in discussing the ideas in this book and would like
to keep it on that level.
Thanks.