Isn't extraction out of an NP one of those inviolable constraints on movement? For me, Linguists language loggers commented on the work of studied starlings. is by itself very deeply weird, even without nested recursion. Maybe this is just my I-language showing, but even a simpler sentence like The spaghetti I had a box of cooked quickly doesn't quite compute. Why are examples of complicated concepts so prone to be infested by simple errors?

(Sturnus vulgaris) even the Romans knew them as common starlings, for the linguist types,was it after a word that be pronounced "sternumentum vulgaris", as they caused common sneezing amongst the popularis, being a member of the crow family they be the singing linguistic cozens of the crow. If, instead of the crow,it had been the starling with the cheese, the fox would not have got his lunch and Aesop be without a tale.
Starling be such a cawing,babeling bunch catawalling greeters of the morning sun.

If they (whoever the "they" are who conducted this study) discovered this recursive self-embedding stuff about starlings, what the dickens would they discover about catbirds (which never repeat their complex song patterns) or mockingbirds (which do repeat their complex song patterns)?