[dgut]

What exactly did I write that is wrong? UG argues a universal grammar exists, and that humans innately posses knowledge about this grammar. It's this grammar that enables humans to learn a language (according to UG). They (UG linguists) have created a system of syntax rules that attempts to describe any language, but failed at doing so once they step outside of Indo-European languages. This is partly because Chomsky was hired by MIT to solve machine translation and putting language into a set of neat boxes was his best idea and partly because Chomsky himself had little knowledge of other languages. It's pseudoscience.

[IIAOPSW]

Ok now you've made it mostly accurate credit where its due. This is not what you first said.

>grammar as we know it was devised for the Latin language and linguists spend most of the time attempting to fit other languages into neat boxes that the Latin grammar wasn't designed for....Chomsky tried to . All solve this problem with Universal Grammar.

Well first of all, every language has some form of grammar. If there were no rules that made meaning depend on word order, there would be nothing different between what the cat ate and what ate the cat. To claim Grammar is some Latin/Western system being unduly applied is absurd.

You are correct UG was invented as a to explain something about English. Howevert was not an attempt to solve "this problem ("this problem" being conforming to expected systems of Grmmar.) The problem he was interested in solving was about the ability to learn language rapidly despite not having many negative examples of how not to talk. Pay attention here researchers, the lesson maybe extends to you too soon.

UG also isn't a specific enough thing you can check against in a directory. Its a theory, namely a theory that if you study language features you'll eventually discver some things are invaiant. Using it directly and immediately based on nothing but Chomsky's conjecture...all I can focus on passing out at screen goodnightn