"Are you of the opinion that the obscurity that you characterize as indirection was a deliberate ploy by LW?" To answer this, of course, would take much chunking down of many instances of his being obscure, and a discussion of whether he actually meant to be obscure or whether he was trying to offer something else.  I believe (and I say this at the risk of being just as obscure), whether by choice, or by accident, what he ends up offering is a profoundly different way of representing language that has been useful or fascinating to people.  He has probably had more of an influence in the literary arts than in the field of linguistics, and that is probably because he is more of an artist than he is a scientist.  And his work was, I venture, driven more by the subdominant hemisphere than by conscious understanding.  I don't know if he'd agree. "Are you of the opinion that anyone would have bothered to read LW if Russell hadn't annointed him?" This could be the subject of an even longer debate.  My opinion, and my experience, to state it quickly, would be that ideas are received most often because they are advocated by those with power and influence, then by chance, and lastly because of their efficacy.  I believe this is true whether you are talking about scholarship, the art world, or corporate strategy.  Moby Dick, now touted as one of the greates novels of all time, had largely gone unread during its time, and went out of publication for some half a century before being rediscovered, quite by accident.  You can never tell what's been missed, only what's found its advocacy.  So, no, I don't believe anyone would have read him without Russell's annointment.  I don't know much about Chomsky's history, but I'm sure he passed through as series of annointments himself.  He is much more of a scientist, and perhaps more useful to the field of linguistics, therefore, but by chance the field may have gone another direction without him. best, John