Re Leftist: Many subscribe to the democratic theory of truth, since if everyone thinks it, it's probably true. We are conforming creatures, the iconoclast is th

Re Leftist: Many subscribe to the democratic theory of truth, since if everyone thinks it, it's probably true. We are conforming creatures, the iconoclast is the exception, and it also explains why paradigms in science last so long. I love Chomsky's work in computational grammars, it's a very elegant categorization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy Re Universal Grammar: But I think parallel evolution is the rule, not the exception; when confronted by the same needs, with the same tools, similar solutions are often arrived at. In the case of human communication, the needs seem to be to describe things, changes and qualities. The tools are probably what amounts to the Universal Grammar: things like the sequence of things being noticeable; that you can flag one thing to relate to another (like cases, tenses, number). The specific rules then just fall out, depending on whatever gets a foothold in the community. Oblig. spontaneous development of language in an isolated community (deaf children): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language Going out on a limb here: I have doubts that recursion is really fundamental to human language: most people top out very quickly (e.g. 2-3 levels). especially if they actually want to think in terms of it. That is, it only has a (very) finite recursive structure, which you can simulate with a less powerful grammar (e.g. regular instead of CFG). What we do have is the ability to reference other things (which can be cyclic): "Like this sentence."