--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
>
>
> > P: There is no such price attached to the traditional formulation
of VL. It's satisfactory as it is.
> >
> > T: Different strokes for different folks. At least I don't
hypostatize my personal opinions to communis opinio.
>
>P: That _is_ the general opinion of linguists -- ask anyone and tell
me who disagrees. I have no personal reason to prefer the orthodox
version of VL. Simplicity and elegance WITHOUT any extra cost have
made it remain attractive ever since Karl Verner formulated it that
way. If you find it unsatisfactory, may I know why?
T: Actually I don't. I went along a line in the argument. I think the
problem is this: if we insist on first taking apart in reality into
subfields, then making "locally Occam" theories for them, and the
assembling them into one theory of reality, the result may not
be "globally Occam", if you understand my strained metaphor.
Therefore I feel free to explore demonstrably sub-Occam paths, not
heeding the calls of those who tell me I'm lost. Maybe the results,
inferior though they may be, will come in handy later.
Torsten