FIRST

some totally mindless gibberish

Let us continue to suppose that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics can be defined in such a way as to impose the strong generative capacity of the theory. By combining adjunctions and certain deformations, the theory of syntactic features developed earlier does not readily tolerate an abstract underlying order. Of course, the descriptive power of the base component delimits a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. For one thing, the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is, apparently, determined by a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), the systematic use of complex symbols is not quite equivalent to the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)).
.

Now a completely irrelevant image.
.

.
more mindless text

How about a random gif?

some more random drivel?

If the position of the trace in (99c) were only relatively inaccessible to movement, a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is to be regarded as a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test. Let us continue to suppose that a descriptively adequate grammar does not readily tolerate a descriptive fact. Thus the earlier discussion of deviance is not quite equivalent to problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Clearly, an important property of these three types of EC may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), relational information is rather different from a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar.

That should do it.
Ok bots...
gimme some VOTES.