Generador de texto Chomsky

Analogously, the natural general principle that will subsume this case
is unspecified with respect to a stipulation to place the constructions
into these various categories.
So far, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier can be
defined in such a way as to impose the levels of acceptability from
fairly high (e.g. (99a)) to virtual gibberish (e.g. (98d)).
Furthermore, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite
independent grounds does not readily tolerate the requirement that
branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex
symbol.
By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the systematic use of
complex symbols is not subject to an important distinction in language
use.
Summarizing, then, we assume that a descriptively adequate grammar is
not to be considered in determining a corpus of utterance tokens upon
which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.
For one thing, the notion of level of grammaticalness does not readily
tolerate a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been
defined by the paired utterance test.
On the other hand, most of the methodological work in modern linguistics
is to be regarded as the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy
of any proposed grammar.
On our assumptions, the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains
relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction may remedy and, at the
same time, eliminate the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.
Analogously, the systematic use of complex symbols is not subject to
irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.
For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application
to be of any interest, the notion of level of grammaticalness is
unspecified with respect to a stipulation to place the constructions
into these various categories.