Let's talk biolinguistics. Remember my theory of everything? I seem to have pulled it off, at least to myself. The proof of the pudding, however, is in the eating. To give a broad overview of the results: a general structure has been isolated that I think is UG and FL; it incorporates Merges (yes, more than one); generative recursions (yes, more than one); that has SS and DS; process phases; replaces (spec, head, comp) with something more natural; identifies the "controller" briefly mentioned in Why Only Us (which I consider to be on a par with Origin of Species personally); has movement; explains binary branching, copy, and displacement; recognizes both constituency and dependency grammars, the former being for sentence parsing, the latter for sentence generation; identifies the lexicon (which I call Sim, a portmanteau abbreviation for SIgns and syMbols, plus a bit of "sem"iotics for good measure) as the key evolutionary innovation that permits Merges and recursions, hence language, but much more, by giving human individuals read from and write to privileges with memory, and can demonstrate the claim by removing it and reducing the UG/LF structure mentioned above to a reasonable model of animal consciousness, aka memory; and harmonizes these and other things into an integrated operative whole, or individual. I identified a mistake in WOU, namely the claim that "Optimally, recursion can be reduced to Merge" (it can't, because it's a "trivial" operation according to Chomsky, but operations need operands and operators, machinery in other words). I've alerted Berwick and Chomsky about this. NC and I have gone back and forth a bit but I haven't heard from Berwick, yet. I hope I do. I recognized and enjoyed his writing style, which is distinct from NC's. I also incorporated ontology, axiology, and phenomenology into the structure. I used Charles Sanders Peirce's architectonic system as a "recipe". CSP is a big influence on NC. I also incorporated a stripped-down version of Alfred North Whitehead's organismic process philosophy and metaphysics (Being and Value, plus their intersection, Integrity), as interpreted by the late UG Athens philosophy professor Frederick Ferré's trilogy of books on constructive postmodernism. I discovered how to take a non-recursive, but suggestive, 2D octagonal phenomenological cycle/circuit and fold it into a cube, resulting in not one but two recursive pathways, which are supported by four iterative loops. It appears they're mutual tail-recursive and implement analytic recursion and synthetic corecursion, depending on whether they're being used for semantic performance or hermeneutic competency. In an email exchange with NC about the mind-body problem, he pointed out that modern science has  "exorcised" the machine, leaving the ghost intact. I replied that mind ∩ body = memory, which permits one to dispense with both the mind and the body in order to examine and interrogate memory directly. This is the most elegant expression of the key insight that I've found and NC prompted it, bless him. Basically I'm now able to derive memory structure, both somatic and cognitive, stable and metastable, from first principles, and, oddly enough, first principals. I've provided an evolutionary narrative account of how language could have emerged. Another insight is a path to approaching the universal (all) from above, that is from the variable (any), namely 2^all = any, i.e. the cardinal number "2" (unordered) raised to the power of "all", the cardinality of the universal set, is equal to "any", the cardinality of the power set of the universal set. This implies that log₂(2^all) = all(log₂2) = all = log₂any. The log curve is basically the growth/development curve. This I borrowed from physics. It's a perturbative theory. Add a small change to the system, a variation, and watch it react. This is immensely valuable tbh. Just wanted to share. Also, did I mention that elementary thermodynamic phase theory is used? It is. I call it "thermomnemonics". It turns out that linguistics draws on just about everything, though not general relativity or quantum mechanics lol, at least not that I can see.

Here are the links to the works, starting with linguistics and moving backwards to cognitive science, then philosophy, with a brief coda on the difference between animals and us (hint: it's small but makes all the difference in the world). Enjoy! Skepticism and criticism are welcome and will be blessed. Disbelief will be challenged. After all, there's actually something on the table.

Biolinguistics - Email to Berwick and Chomsky, with reply from Chomsky:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jyAAuj2nteWAF1bZDM-u3rCsbsSVOQUc/view?usp=sharing

Cognitive Science - Memory, the Mind-Body Problem, and Language
[/url]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1noZOalxmdgT_QFhnnqVujwZhk97Nau0e/view?usp=sharing[/url]

Philosophy - Poemworld: An Exegesis (where it all began five years ago)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sdq5qyOT1ap8uZiLwUa7Aavli1xoa82eIgaEwldo7VU/edit?usp=sharing

Animals and Us: Small Difference, Unbounded Consequence
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IyRFFLmiH1Q9E44jEA72AmVnHcFlCjFD/view?usp=sharing

That's it. Five years of pretty much unceasing thinking, drinking, smoking, smoking*, freezing, sweating, fretting, designing, writing, screaming at the sky, etc. That's on top of the 27.5 years before that, waiting for my value system, philosophy, worldview, and life's work of art, Poemworld, to come to a halt. It didn't have to but it did, thank you Laozi, Jesus, and Muhammad (pbut). My work is yours now. Please be the judge. Don't be gentle (I'm not) but observe the rules of the forum as laid down by Daniel. I will, I promise. Good luck and best wishes everyone. Live long and prosper.

There's so much to unpack and parse here, it's hard to follow. It also requires being well-versed in so many distinct academic areas, that is a challenge in itself, and I'll admit some of the topics are over my head. So I can't say you're wrong, but I also don't know that you're right.

What I would ask then is how you can apply this to a specific analysis. Most linguists will require an analysis of an actual language before accepting that this works. Before that, it's just an idea, or a model. If this helps us better understand German, or Chinese, or Swahili, or even just English, it may catch on. Think about how you can present something bottom-up that links into the bigger ideas.

[This message has been shortened to avoid distracting from the discussion, at poemworld's request.]

Okey dokey, challenge accepted. I'm not completely certain what you're looking for but I'll take a shot anyway. I'll use an English sentence from WOU that seems to mean a lot to NC/RB and that I've already thought about a lot and worked over: "Instinctively birds that fly swim." They contrast this sentence with "Birds that fly instinctively swim." They produce a tree diagram which they use to show that, in the first sentence, demonstrates that "instinctively" modifies "swim" and not "fly" even though they're on opposite ends of the sentence, so linear distance isn't predictive, but via the tree diagram they're structurally closer, only one level apart. (Please show me how to use the tree diagram button, please and thank you.) The second sentence they call "ambiguous" but I think it's more ambivalent, actually bivalent. Set that aside for the moment. From the perspective of the work I've presented, the first thing that happens is that our sensory systems (aural, visual) have to "eat" the sentence, reduce it to its constituents, as constituency grammar seems to show. Once that occurs, the system shifts gears and rebuilds the sentence internally to emerge its meaning. This involves several steps and proceeds overall by phases. Let's look at the sentence more closely, by moving "instinctively" around.
1. Instinctively birds that fly swim.
2. *Birds instinctively that fly swim.
3. Birds that instinctively fly swim.
4. Birds that fly instinctively swim.
5. Birds that fly swim instinctively.
Of these options in generating sentences, only one is poorly formed, 2., as indicated by the traditional asterisk. Sentence 1. and 5. pretty much show that "instinctively" is modifying "swim". 3. has "instinctively" modify "fly" but feels redundant. 4. can be parsed either way, but seems to lean towards "instinctively" modifying "swim" because of the "duh, birds fly instinctively, no shit" factor. Something I noticed about this sentence is that "Instinctively birds that fly" is not well-formed. It's incomplete, not a complete thought. Adding "swim" completes it and picks up "instinctively" as a modifier as a consequence. This may or may not be another explanation. I'm not linguist enough to know, but it's an observation. The bivalency of 4., or ambiguity or ambivalence, can be intentional btw. Strategic ambiguity is a thing that language can accomplish, for a variety of reasons.

But there's more fun we can have with this sentence. "The Basic Property of language: generation of an infinite [actually unbounded] array of hierarchically structured expressions that are interpreted as thoughts" (NC) applies to the enumerable set of syntactically complete sentences that we humans can performatively utter and competently understand, at least some of the time. However, one thing we've learned from postmodernism is that the number of meanings is also unbounded, and apparently far richer. Humans can make meanings as well as sentences, which is to some degree a threat to authority, as well as a very double-edged sword, as we can now observe all around us with "fake news" (there's always been fake news, not to mention outright lies, obfuscations, elisions, secrets, "that which is not done to say", etc.), corporate and fascistic propaganda (what's the difference?), provocative speech acts, etc. I've coined something I call "Banner's Law": "Every tool can be turned into a weapon, and will be." We're currently being flooded with pernicious, malicious, and deleterious speech in order to crowd out and drown authentic truths and truisms necessary for the survival of democracy, and quite possibly humanity. People can't tell the difference between what's true and what's false and this is quite intentional. This is also a common objection to postmodernism, that it neutralizes the truth. "There is no absolute and objective truth" some postmodernists claim deludedly. This is what's known as an "antinomy", a performative contradiction. The claim that there are no absolute or objective truths is itself a claim of absolute objective truth. The same goes for the claim "there are no totalizing grand narratives", which is a totalizing grand narrative. Buddha believes in non-attachment but is very attached to his belief. It goes on and on. Frederick Ferré's constructive postmodernism points out that postmodernism does no such thing on its own but has been castigated for pointing out reality, ala the emperor's new clothes. There are truths, even absolute and objective ones, as well as ultimate and subjective ones, and we can discover them, obviously.

But back to the sentence. There are a variety of ways to interpret it. We take take "birds" as excluding bats and butterflies, or as inclusive of flying organisms generally, hence including dragonflies and flying fish. We can interpret "birds that fly" as not talking about ostriches or kiwis. We can also interpret "birds that fly swim" as drawing a connection between motion through fluids. It's also suggestive of "birds that swim fly", invoking penguins. I had a chordate anatomy prof who pointed out that penguins fly underwater but don't fly through the air. So the English speaker, native or otherwise, has a menu of choices based upon their intentions and intended meanings. The novel idea behind this sentence, which would form its kernel or seed I suppose, is "birds swim". The phrase "that fly" is added for contrast, while "instinctively" addresses the question how they do one, or the other, or both. This is, in essence, a deconstruction of this sentence, which goes to show what human minds can do when they put their minds to it, heh heh. I hope this gets somewhere in the ballpark of your challenge. If not, please clarify.

A completely off-topic note about the sample sentence "Instinctively birds that fly swim".  I do believe that native English speakers use a different grammar than English writers. I have no doubt that your ambiguous variant “Birds that fly instinctively swim” English speakers handle with the following grammar:
<sentence>:=<subj> , <subordinate clause> , <predicate>
<sentence>:=<subj><predicate>
<subordinate clause>:= <sentence>
<subj>:=<noun>| <pronoun>
<noun>:=birds
<pronoun>:=that
<predicate>:=<modifier><verb> | <verb><modifier> | <verb>
<modifier>:= instinctively
<verb>:=fly | swim

i.e. they (speakers) do use the punctuation (commas) with their voice – they pause a little. For a reason writers got rid of punctuation and got problems with <predicate>:=<modifier><verb> | <verb><modifier> rule. I believe the official English grammar does not reflect the real language in this very aspect and it is not the problem of the language or its speakers. This is the problem of the writers. By the way, I believe that people use greedy algorithms by default (they consume the longest sequence possible) and the <subordinate clause> in your case will be “that fly instinctively”. But this is negociatable and you may agree to stop parsing when you have found a shortest element (“that fly” in this very case) but I believe it is the worse approach in practice.
I do understand your point and my remark is completely unrelated to what you say. I also know the punctuation will not save one from the ambiguities completely but it helps a lot indeed.

P.S. There are languages in which the punctuation as above is strictly required (subordinate clauses are always marked out with commas) and violations are penalized with a lower grade (at schools).
P.P.S. I wish you good luck in your peer review process.

To Rock100: I'm not sure if you're addressing me or Daniel, but I guess it's the latter since it waxes linguistical and I've been clearly unmasked as no linguist lol. Interesting comment though and thank you for your contribution to the thread.

I have a challenge. Can you summarize the central claim in a paragraph of fewer than 75 words? The follow-up question would be to explain the concepts that the claim relies on in no more than 5 paragraphs of 50 words each. You see the potential for recursion in this process, but that's not the plan. I really just want to understand the most basic logic of the claim.

panini, let's give it a whirl.

Value and Being, characterized by 0 and 1, are metaphysical transnatural limits of knowledge. Their intersection is Integrity, life. This corresponds to mind ∩ body = memory. They're the basis of an evo-devo phenomenological cycle/circuit, which includes qualities, meanings; substances, forms; and signs/symbols. This may be "folded" into a cube, producing four iterations supporting dual recursions with a switch, and with signs/symbols permits reading from/writing to memory, hence I-language and cognition.

There's your first paragraph. That all you'll get for now. I am working on other things. Let me add that I wrote this just to see if I could. I'm not your errand boy, nor do I perform tricks upon command. I learned my lesson from Daniel's spectacle, not to mention from Jesus, that it's unwise to cast one's pearls before swine, lest they trample them and then turn on you. If you're really interested, prove it. Read the work. Ask interesting questions. Make interesting comments. I'll respond. If you don't make any effort then why should I? It's accessible, and the arguments are designed to be procataleptic, but not, I guess, to the weak-willed, feeble-minded, or emotionally unstable. I'm not saying that you're any of these three, but this, of course, falls within the realm of possibility. I don't know you and I can't assess your motivations or intentions. As far as I'm concerned you're just like me, a nobody from nowhere. I'm delighted to become acquaintances but that takes time and interaction. Btw, I'm aware of Schopenhauer's observation that "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Not to mention the observation of Nicholas Klein, labor union advocate and attorney, that "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you." This is often misattributed to Gandhi. Fwiw. Cheers mate.

Hey y'all, I'm back. Let's try again, shall we?

First, some salutary words from British literary theorist, critic, and elegant Marxist Terry Eagleton, from "The Task of the Critic", his dialogue with Matthew Beaumont:

I'm sure that if I published a work announcing my conversion to royalism and free market economics, conservative periodicals like the TLS would find some way of savaging it. There are reviewers in Ireland who pride themselves on their liberal pluralism, but who are actually so virulently sectarian that they would be pathologically incapable of passing a favourable comment on anything written by an Irish Republican. Even if they agreed with it, they just wouldn't be capable of bringing themselves to say so. I must say I find this deeply depressing. It belongs to intellectual integrity to try to meet one's antagonist's case at its most fruitful and persuasive--Perry Anderson's work is an excellent example of this--and I fear this is now a dying habit in an increasingly soundbite, partisan culture. Dawkins and Hitchens on religion is one example of this gradual death of disinterestedness--a virtue, incidentally, which the postmodernists obtusely mistake for a God's-eye view of the world, whereas what it really means is to attend for a moment to someone else's interests rather than your own. Then, once you've got what they believe right, you can put the boot in if you choose. I've tried myself in my work to give as dispassionate an account as possible of cases I disagree with. p.272