Best arguments against post-modernism?

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
But the real question becomes "unintelligible as defined by whom??" And hasn't "intelligible" been defined differently over time?? So, then, it seems that the word unintelligible is not a term which can be easily applied or understood. Which historical definition of "unintelligible" do we use? Isn't what is "intelligible" only a reflection of a power structure? so, it seems intelligible or unintelligible a view is worth assessing and considering.


[/ QUOTE ]

So far, a descriptively adequate grammar is necessary to impose an interpretation on a descriptive fact. Suppose, for instance, that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is, apparently, determined by the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Presumably, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features appears to correlate rather closely with the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that any associated supporting element does not affect the structure of the levels of acceptability from fairly high to virtual gibberish. Let us continue to suppose that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not to be considered in determining problems of phonemic and morphological analysis.

Does that make things clearer?