The compiling is done by the language clade. Ain't all languages done that way? And no, zmjezhd, no sounds and no nothings are done merely at random.
Not sure what you mean by clade in this context. Compilation, to my mind, means that not only is there an agent (doing the compiling), but a will to, and language, to me, seems an unconscious event, at least at the meaning level.
My Sentence suggesting that Chomsky and others of his ilk are con-men is because they are. They invent silly constructions and cling to them beyond reality for bucks and ego [hey Z, how did you like my nonce word "egoficial"?] and those so-called "language experts" care zip about any incongruity with that which is real.
Again, far be it from me to defend Chomsky's linguistic theories, but I feel he is at least genuine in his interest in language. Is it just Chomsky's passel of grad students or is it all linguists in general? While I agree with Saussure that the linguistic sign, taken in isolation, is basically pretty much arbitrary, as soon as you get context and the will to mean something that arbitrariness is not so evident. What I mean here is that while the word for the concept of "tree" in any given language is arbitrary, the word for "trees" is not: it consists of the first word / sign plus another arbitrary sign for plural number. Language is a rule-based activity or at least a pattern-based one.
Yes, "egoficial" is a nice nonce word.
I guess I need a definition of "language experts". All linguists, just Chomskians, all theoretical syn tacticians in the generativist vein? All speakers, all normative grammarians? etc.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.