A bulleted list (dots, not squares or angle brackets–nothing like that) of “The Main Ideas of Word Grammar” included the following enry:

It uses word-word dependencies - e.g. a noun is the subject of a verb. (From John Anderson and other users of Dependency Grammmar, via Daughter Dependency Grammar; a reaction against Systemic Grammar where word-word dependencies are mediated by the features of the mother phrase.)

I kind of aww and giggle and think it’s cute that grammar guys and gals, divided among rival factions, quarrel in very reserved, highly abstracted ways.

I’m also, to be quite honest with you, quite intrigued by this whole human-taxonomy sex thing. I’d never heard of it before, but apparently it’s not something one dabbles in when not ready to take seriously the responsibilities of raising a family. I mean, I can’t quite sort out who the father-in-law of that one Swedish guy who, I heard, was the one who started it all but how is what I want to know–I mean, what kind of line did he use? must’ve been some kind of jedi mind trick or something–but anyway, it was alright in the beginning, you know, at first, but it became a very co-dependent (and disfunctional, more likely than not!) relationship. That’s what I was told, anyway. But I’m still missing a Grandma in there. A couple sisters fell under her at some point, but I think most of them have gone their separate ways now and formed other groups. Guess words tend to do that, I don’t know, something in their culture or something, you know, it’s more accepted, not like it is here. But they do seem like a fertile bunch, don’t they?