/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11622474
>Gary is that you?
Not sure who that is, fill me in on any memes.

>How powerful?
Powerful to model any relation we see in language while avoiding irrational relations or infinite candidate sets as with vanilla OT.

>Casting spells and ringing bells?
That's exactly what we don't want it to do.

> Understanding languages you never learnt?
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Nobody uses OT to learn any language.
I don't pretend to understand any language I didn't learn.

>Or just completely verifying the bs you paid that much to get dragged through?
I didn't pay anything for my studies, that's the beauty of not studying in the US. I'm not looking for anything to be verified, I just think the paper is compelling. Show me a reason why OT is not worth pursuing at all and I'll indulge you. Linguists don't all agree with each other, obviously. That's healthy. I am not an OT evangelist, I think it's a cool perspective to approach grammar from but I don't think it's necessarily analog to actual cognitive processes. If they are anything like OT it seems more likely to me that they would be closer to the model in the paper than vanilla OT.