> I still have never seen a reasonable challenge to Chomsky's poverty of
> stimulus argument, so I do think language has to be biologically motivated.
I wrote earlier, in response to your previous endorsement of this "argument":
> I always understood that argument to be: look how fast kids learn language,
> therefore behaviorism is false and language is innate. Did I miss some
> subtlety?
You did not respond. If I have misconstrued the argument, please say how. If not, refutation is hardly required.
-- bill