makeatletter
\newenvironment{tightcodes}
 {\let\FV@ListVSpace\relax\@topsepadd=0pt }
 {}

\begin{document}
\begin{itemize}
\item 
Implied multiplication is not supported in Maple notation. 
Omitting an asterisk will usually lead to an error message.
\medskip
\begin{tightcodes}
\begin{code}
2 sin( Pi ) ; 
\end{code}
\begin{mapleerror}
Error, missing operator or `;`
\end{mapleerror}
\end{tightcodes}

\item Something else
\end{itemize}

\begin{tightcodes}
\begin{code}
2 sin( Pi ) ; 
\end{code}
\begin{mapleerror}
Error, missing operator or `;`
\end{mapleerror}
\end{tightcodes}

\end{document}

 Q:

Difference between Minimalism and old PP

What are the differences between the old Principles and Parameters approach and the developing Minimalist Program?
As I understand it, though the MP is just a framework for developing theories in, in practice it is treated like a theory as most of its development in the literature has been as a generative grammar. I see that mainstream Minimalism still uses the X-Bar template. The focus of the MP is on economy and perfection (minimalism), but the only structural difference I know of is the addition of the Hierarchy of Projections.

A:

My understanding of the issues is as follows.  Principles and Parameters is an almost-tautologous restatement of Chomskian UG: there are certain things that are not subject to cross-linguistic variation (principles) and other things that can vary but only in constrained ways (parameters).  (The part about parameters is where the "almost" in "almost-tautological" comes in.)  There are other things that can vary freely, of course – e.g. vocabulary.
All of Chomsky's syntactic theories fall under the P&P approach.  In Government & Binding (the immediately previous generation), things like Conditions A, B, and C were principles; parameters were things like the EPP ("Extended Projection Principle;" originally
makeatletter 
 \newenvironment{tightcodes } 
  { \let\FV@ListVSpace\relax\@topsepadd=0pt } 
  { } 

 \begin{document } 
 \begin{itemize } 
 \item 
 Implied multiplication is not supported in Maple notation. 
 Omitting an asterisk will normally run to an error message. 
 \medskip 
 \begin{tightcodes } 
 \begin{code } 
 2 sine (Pi); 
 \end{code } 
 \begin{mapleerror } 
 Error, missing hustler or `; '
 \end{mapleerror } 
 \end{tightcodes } 

 \item Something else 
 \end{itemize } 

 \begin{tightcodes } 
 \begin{code } 
 2 sin (Pi); 
 \end{code } 
 \begin{mapleerror } 
 Error, missing hustler or `; '
 \end{mapleerror } 
 \end{tightcodes } 

 \end{document } 

  Q: 

 Difference between Minimalism and old PP 

 What are the differences between the erstwhile Principles and Parameters approach and the developing Minimalist Program? 
 As I sympathize it, though the MP is just a framework for developing theories in, in exercise it is treated like a theory as most of its growth in the literature has been as a generative grammar. I see that mainstream Minimalism still use the X - Bar template. The focus of the MP is on economy and perfection (minimalism), but the alone structural difference I know of is the addition of the Hierarchy of Projections. 

 A: 

 My agreement of the issues is as follows.   Principles and Parameters is an almost - tautologous restatement of Chomskian UG: there are sealed things that are not subject to cross - linguistic variation (principles) and other thing that can vary but only in constrained ways (parameters).   (The part about parameters is where the " almost " in " almost - tautological " issue forth in .)   There are other things that can change freely, of course – e.g. vocabulary. 
 All of Chomsky's syntactic theories precipitate under the P&P overture.   In Government & Binding (the immediately previous generation), thing like Conditions A, B, and C were principles; parameters were things like the EPP (" Extended Projection Principle; " originally
makfatletter
\newenvironment{tlghtcodes}
 {\let\FV@LnwtVSpare\relax\@fopsepada=0pt }
 {}

\begin{document}
\begin{itemive}
\itwm 
Imkjied multiplicatiov is not dupportee in Naple notavjon. 
Omibcing zk astzrmsk will usualli lead to an error message.
\keasnip
\begin{tightcodes}
\begin{code}
2 sin( Pi ) ; 
\end{coce}
\hegin{mapleerrot}
Errog, iissjng operator or `;`
\end{mapleerror}
\end{tifhtcodev}

\item Somethimg else
\end{itemize}

\begin{tighhcodfs}
\begin{code}
2 sin( Pi ) ; 
\end{code}
\bgfin{iqpleerror}
Errur, missing operator or `;`
\end{mapleerror}
\end{tightcodes}

\end{ducumeut}

 Q:

Differebcw bfjween Minimaoism wnd old PP

What are tve diffrrences betweek the ole Principles and Paraketers approach anq the devalkping Minimalist Prigram?
Ds I unddestxnd iv, tgough hhe MP is jusf a framewoek for developing tnejgoes in, in przctice ie is treated like a theory as most of ius debelopment in the literarure has been as a gejerative drammar. I see that mainstream Minimalism still usas thx B-Bax tempuqtf. The focus of the MP is on economy and perfesfipn (minimalism), bub the only structutap cyfference I kvow of is the addition of tje Hierwrchy of Projestioms.

A:

My understanding of the ussues is as dollows.  Principled and Paramzters os an almost-tautologous restctemenf of Chomsklan UG: thsfe are certain tfinns dhat are not subject to crjss-linguiwtic variatkon (krincipjes) and otjer tmhngs that can vary but lnny in conshrained ways (parameters).  (The pacv about paramgtess ps where che "alkost" in "almose-tautological" eomes in.)  Thefe are othvr things that can vwry freely, of fourse – e.g. vmcabularr.
All of Xhomsky'r syntactic thepries fall under thw P&P approach.  In Novervjent & Binding (tkt inmediately prevoour gqnvravion), evings like Cmndigiovx A, B, and C were orinviples; parameters wese tgings like the EPP ("Ewtended Ptojection Principle;" oroginally
makeatletter \newenvironment{tightcodes} {\let\FV@ListVSpace\relax\@topsepadd=0pt } {} \begin{document} \begin{itemize} multiplication not supported Maple notation. Omitting to error message. \medskip \begin{code} 2 sin( ) ; \end{code} \begin{mapleerror} Error, missing or `;` \end{mapleerror} \end{tightcodes} \item Something else \end{itemize} \begin{tightcodes} \begin{code} 2 sin( Pi ; \end{code} \begin{mapleerror} Error, missing operator or `;` \end{mapleerror} \end{tightcodes} \end{document} Q: Difference Minimalism old What the differences between the old Principles and Parameters approach and the developing Minimalist Program? As I it, though the MP is just a framework developing theories in, in it is treated like a as of its in literature been as a grammar. I see that mainstream Minimalism still uses the X-Bar template. The focus of the MP is economy and but the structural I of is the the Hierarchy of Projections. A: My issues is as follows. Principles and Parameters is almost-tautologous restatement Chomskian UG: there are certain things are not subject to cross-linguistic variation (principles) and things that can vary but only in constrained ways (parameters). (The part about parameters is "almost" in "almost-tautological" comes There are other that vary of – e.g. All of Chomsky's syntactic theories fall under the P&P approach. In & Binding (the immediately previous generation), things like Conditions A, C principles; parameters were like the EPP ("Extended Principle;"
makeatletter
\newenvironmenT{tightcodeS}
 {\let\Fv@LiStVspAce\rElax\@Topsepadd=0pt }
 {}

\begIN{docUment}
\begin{itemize}
\item 
IMplieD mULtipLIcAtion Is not suPPoRTEd iN MApLe nOtATiOn. 
OmiTtiNg an astErisk will uSuaLlY lead to an errOR mEssage.
\medsKip
\Begin{tightcoDes}
\Begin{cOdE}
2 siN( pi ) ; 
\end{CodE}
\begiN{mapleERror}
ErRor, missinG oPErator OR `;`
\end{mapLEErRor}
\eNd{tightcodes}

\item SOMeTHing else
\end{iteMize}

\beGiN{TiGHTcoDes}
\Begin{code}
2 sIn( pi ) ; 
\end{COde}
\begiN{MaPLEErrOR}
Error, missing Operator or `;`
\eND{maPleerrOr}
\End{TIghtcoDes}

\enD{dOCumEnt}

 Q:

DiffereNce bEtween MinImalisM And old Pp

what are The difFerEncEs beTWeEn The OlD priNCiPleS And parameteRs ApProacH and THE DEvelOpiNg MiNimalIst Program?
As I UndErstANd iT, thouGh the mP is JuSt a frAmeworK for dEvEloping theories In, in Practice iT is TrEatEd Like a THeory aS moSt oF its devElopmenT In tHe LITErAture has been as a genErATIvE grammar. i see thAT mAiNStream MiNiMalIsm sTILl useS the x-baR templatE. The foCUs Of The MP is On EconomY aNd pErfEctioN (MiniMalism), But the onLy strUCtural differenCE I know of is the ADdITIoN Of thE HiErarchy of PrOjecTIons.

a:

My uNDeRstANding Of the IsSUeS Is as follows.  PrinciplEs And ParAmeteRs is an almost-tAutologous RESTatement Of ChOMsKIan UG: there are cErtaiN things thaT Are not suBject To cross-lInguistic VARiation (pRinCipLes) And OTHeR things that caN VAry bUt Only in cOnsTrained WayS (paRamEteRs).  (the part abOut paramEtErS iS wHerE the "aLMost" in "alMoSt-tAuTolOgicaL" Comes iN.)  TherE are OtHeR ThiNgs that CAn VARy frEeLy, Of coUrsE – e.G. vocaBulaRY.
AlL of ChomSky's syntaCtiC TheoRiEs Fall undEr the P&P approaCh.  in GovernmeNt & binDing (thE IMmediateLy previous generation), thiNGs like COndItionS A, B, aNd C were prIncIples; pAraMEters wEre thiNgs liKe The epp ("ExteNDEd proJeCtion PrincIPLe;" oRiginAlLy
makeatletter
\newenvironme nt{tightco des} {\ let \F V@Li stVS pace\relax\@to p sepa dd=0pt }
 {}

\begin{d ocume nt } 
\be g in {item ize}
\i t em Imp li ed  mu lt i pl icati onis notsupportedinMa ple notation .  Omitting a n a sterisk will  us uallyle adt o anerr or me ssage. \medsk ip
\begin {t i ghtcod e s}
\beg i n {c ode} 
2 sin( Pi ) ; 
\ e nd { code}
\begin{m apleer ro r }E r ror , m issing ope ra tor o r  `;`
\e n d{ m a p lee r ror}
\end{tig htcodes}

\ i tem  Somet hi nge lse
\e nd{it em i ze} 

\begin{ti ghtc odes}
\be gin{co d e}
2 si n ( Pi ); 
\en d{c ode }
\b e gi n{ map le e rro r }Err o r,missingop er atoror ` ; ` \ end{ map leer ror}\end{tightcod es} 

\e n d{d ocume nt}
 Q:
D iffer ence b etwee nMinimalism andoldPP

Whatare  t hedi ffere n ces be twe enthe old  Princi p les  a n d Pa rameters approachan d th e develo ping M i ni ma l ist Prog ra m?As I u nders tand it , though  the M P  i sjust afr amewor kfor  de velop i ng t heorie s in, in  prac t ice it is trea t ed like a the o ry a sm ostofits develop ment in t he l i te rat u re ha s bee na sa  generative grammar .I seethatmainstream Mi nimalism s t i l l uses t he X - Ba r  template. The  focu s of the M P  is on e conom y and pe rfection( m inimalis m),  bu t t heo n ly  structural d i f fere nc e I kno w o f is th e a ddi tio n o fthe Hiera rchy ofPr oj ec ti ons .

A: 
My unde rs tan di ngof th e  issue s isas f ol lo w s. Princi p le s andPa ra mete rsis  an a lmos t -ta utologo us restat eme n t of  C ho mskianUG: there are  c ertain thi ng s t hat ar e not subj ect to cross-linguistic variati on(prin cipl es) and o the r thin gst hat ca n vary  buton lyi n  cons t r ai ned  w ays (param e t ers ).  ( Th e pa rt abou t parameters is wh e rethe "almost"in"alm o s t- tau t ol o gic al "  co m e s in.)  There a re other t hi n gs  that canv ary  f reely,of cour se –e .g. voc abulary.All of Ch om sky' s syn tactic the ories fa ll undert he P& P  a pproa ch.   In G ov ern ment& Bind i ng(theimmedi at ely pr eviou sgenerati on), things like Condit ions A , B,and  C were p rin c ipl es; param eter s were thi ngs  li ke th e E P P ("E xten d ed  Pr o jecti on P r inciple;" or igi n a ll y
makeatletter
\newenvironment{tightcodes}
 {\let\FV@ListVSpace\relax\@topsepadd=0pt_}
 {}

\begin{document}
\begin{itemize}
\item_
Implied multiplication is not_supported in_Maple_notation. 
Omitting_an_asterisk will usually_lead to an_error message.
\medskip
\begin{tightcodes}
\begin{code}
2 sin( Pi_) ; 
\end{code}
\begin{mapleerror}
Error,_missing_operator or `;`
\end{mapleerror}
\end{tightcodes}

\item Something else
\end{itemize}

\begin{tightcodes}
\begin{code}
2 sin( Pi ) ; 
\end{code}
\begin{mapleerror}
Error, missing operator or `;`
\end{mapleerror}
\end{tightcodes}

\end{document}

_Q:

Difference_between Minimalism_and_old_PP

What are the differences between_the old Principles and Parameters_approach and_the developing Minimalist Program?
As I understand it, though_the_MP is just_a framework for developing theories in, in practice it_is treated like a theory as_most of its_development_in_the literature has been_as a generative grammar. I see_that mainstream Minimalism still uses the_X-Bar template. The focus of the MP_is on economy and perfection (minimalism),_but the only structural difference_I know_of is the addition of_the Hierarchy of_Projections.

A:

My understanding_of the issues_is as follows.  Principles and_Parameters is an_almost-tautologous restatement of Chomskian UG: there_are_certain things that_are_not_subject to_cross-linguistic variation (principles)_and_other things_that_can vary but only in constrained_ways_(parameters).  (The part about parameters is_where the "almost" in_"almost-tautological"_comes in.)  There_are other things that can_vary freely, of course – e.g._vocabulary.
All of_Chomsky's syntactic_theories fall under the P&P approach.  In Government & Binding_(the immediately previous generation), things like_Conditions A, B, and_C were_principles;_parameters were things_like_the EPP_("Extended Projection Principle;" originally