and again on 10 Apr 2024, 16:12:Well, Chris, I very much doubt if you are sufficiently familiar with the quality of my own work to pass any judgement on its theoretical consistency.
You certainly did not pass any judgement on the theoretical consistency of my work: you would need a phenomenal mastery of the Korean language to do that. Precisely for that reason your remark "You can analyse it anyway you want to if don't care about theoretical consistency or the quality of your own work" was as impertinent as it was ungrammatical.
and again on 12 Apr 2024, at 9:04:
What really happened was that I asked a question about clause complexing. … Then I got a bunch of ungrammatical gobbledygook about the quality of my work in reply.
Blogger Comments:
To be clear, Kellogg had asked :
But why can't I consider the clause She tore up the letter, which upset me to be a Circumstance of "She tore up" or some way of complexing the verbal group in the main clause? Why do I have to consider it a ranking clause in its own right?
and CLÉiRIGh had replied:
You can analyse it anyway you want to if [you] don't care about theoretical consistency or the quality of your own work.
That is, CLÉiRIGh had simply stated that it is the desire to maintain the quality of one's work that restricts one's analyses to those that are valid in terms of the theory. The assumption was that Kellogg would desire to maintain the quality of his work. CLÉiRIGh made no reference whatsoever to the quality of Kellogg's actual work.
With respect to Kellogg judging his senior as "impertinent", see
The rhetorical effect of this self-contradicting judgement was to distract attention away from Kellogg's confused and shifting argumentation about how best to analyse non-defining relative clauses. For the confusions and inconsistencies in Kellogg's argumentation, see
No comments:
Post a Comment