Discussion:
but neither can the theory be so simple
Add Reply
arthurvv vart
2021-04-03 11:10:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
. 1) The theory has to be simple enough to be worth having. That is, it must predict some things that are not in the theory itself (otherwise it is just a list of facts). But neither can the theory be so simple that it cannot explain things it should.

Source:
What’s universal grammar? Evidence rebuts Chomsky’s theory of language
learning
By Paul Ibbotson and Michael Tomasello



http://cogsys.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2016/09/Whats-universal-grammar-Eviden-ce-rebuts-Chomsky%E2%80%99s-theory-of-la.pdf

Is the last sentence grammatical?

There seems to me that there is no reason to use 'neither'. I can understand it, but to me 'neither' sounds incorrect there.

Could one replace 'neither' with 'nor'?

Gratefully,
Navi
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-03 13:55:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by arthurvv vart
. 1) The theory has to be simple enough to be worth having. That is, it must predict some things that are not in the theory itself (otherwise it is just a list of facts). But neither can the theory be so simple that it cannot explain things it should.
What’s universal grammar? Evidence rebuts Chomsky’s theory of language
learning
By Paul Ibbotson and Michael Tomasello
http://cogsys.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2016/09/Whats-universal-grammar-Eviden-ce-rebuts-Chomsky%E2%80%99s-theory-of-la.pdf
Is the last sentence grammatical?
There seems to me that there is no reason to use 'neither'. I can understand it, but to me 'neither' sounds incorrect there.
Could one replace 'neither' with 'nor'?
It's quite a nice sentence. The "neither" resumes the "not" of the previous
sentence, rather indirectly.
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-03 14:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by arthurvv vart
. 1) The theory has to be simple enough to be worth having. That is, it must predict some things that are not in the theory itself (otherwise it is just a list of facts). But neither can the theory be so simple that it cannot explain things it should.
What’s universal grammar? Evidence rebuts Chomsky’s theory of language
learning
By Paul Ibbotson and Michael Tomasello
http://cogsys.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2016/09/Whats-universal-grammar-Eviden-ce-rebuts-Chomsky%E2%80%99s-theory-of-la.pdf
Is the last sentence grammatical?
There seems to me that there is no reason to use 'neither'. I can understand it, but to me 'neither' sounds incorrect there.
It would be all right, if a bit old-fashioned, if it were parallel to a negative sentence.
In the given context "also" would have been better.

"Simple" isn't the word I'd use for a theory with predictive power as opposed to a
list of facts.
Post by arthurvv vart
Could one replace 'neither' with 'nor'?
That exists. I think it's rather British.
--
Jerry Friedman
Loading...