[stripes1776]

TG is simply a descriptive theory of grammar, sentence structure, as opposed to a theory of generating structure.

Well, you can go in either direction: from the deep structure to the surface structure or from the surface structure to the deep structure.

By using the constructs, I could figure out where the verbs and nouns and other parts of speech were without a dictionary to tell me the actual meaning.

That is the difference between syntax and sematics. So you were able to tell where the verbs and nouns were. Any grammar will do that. It doesn't have to be a transformational grammar. That's also the difference between a dictionary and a set of grammar rules.

[Mamzelle]

It wasn't quite as simple as that, and it explained a lot more than subject and predicate, but relationships and verb tenses. There was no dictionary and grammar, just sample sentences and the rules of the game. The interesting thing about the exercise was finding yourself understanding the meaning and purpose of a sentence without knowing a single word. That's why "Twi" was used.

Chomsky is (was) brillant as linguists go. How brilliant can any linguist be? There has to be some point at which these precious academics are excpected to produce something practical.

Some of these posts just make my eyes roll. If a linguist cannot construct a coherent, lucid sentence, who can? If a linguist doesn't want to communicate properly, who does? Goes to show how useless is about 95% of the discipline. Outright pernicious, too, if you consider the influence that some of these babbling nimrods have over language education in the schools.