[WaxProlix]

That's sort of the problem with UG, though - it's either so strong a claim as to be almost mystical claims about "the mind-brain" or some such nonsense - and therefore nigh-irrefutable - or so weak as to be basically a truism - "whatever languages all have in common, that's UG!"

[meepmorp]

Am I correct in assuming you've not actually read any of Chomsky's syntatic work?

[WaxProlix]

No, I've read quite a bit of it, though mostly pre-1990.

[meepmorp]

Ok, it just doesn't seem like you've got a good handle on what UG is.

[WaxProlix]

UG is different to different people, and has been different in different ages. Someone into OT might conceive of universal constraints or rankings as being 'UG', whereas x bar era sybtacticians etc might have another view. Feel free to engage in a discussion if you feel like it, but if not thanks anyway - your criticism, such as it is, is noted. I'll try and make time to catch up on some more reading.