 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Everett refuted!!... |
|
Page 1 of 10 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Peter T. Daniels... |
 Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In a fifty-page article, "Piraha exceptionality: A reassessment," by
Andrew Nevins, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues, in the new
*Language* 85/2 (June 2009) that arrived two days ago.
The first few pages of Everett's 38-page reply don't seem to grasp the
burden of the criticisms.
Which concentrate on details of Chomskyan theory, but also touch on
the more interesting non-syntactic questions that have been raised. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote:7922c4ec1c]In a fifty-page article, "Piraha exceptionality: A reassessment," by
Andrew Nevins, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues, in the new
*Language* 85/2 (June 2009) that arrived two days ago.
The first few pages of Everett's 38-page reply don't seem to grasp the
burden of the criticisms.
Which concentrate on details of Chomskyan theory, but also touch on
the more interesting non-syntactic questions that have been raised.
[/quote:7922c4ec1c]
I suppose everyone's seen your message but no one's replied to it
because 1) it was bound to happen but 2) no one's had the opportunity to
read the articles yet. But thanks for calling attention to this.
(3 'but's, ehm? I'm getting good at it.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 3, 10:19 am, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
[quote:b59631db8e]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
In a fifty-page article, "Piraha exceptionality: A reassessment," by
Andrew Nevins, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues, in the new
*Language* 85/2 (June 2009) that arrived two days ago.
The first few pages of Everett's 38-page reply don't seem to grasp the
burden of the criticisms.
Which concentrate on details of Chomskyan theory, but also touch on
the more interesting non-syntactic questions that have been raised.
I suppose everyone's seen your message but no one's replied to it
because 1) it was bound to happen but 2) no one's had the opportunity to
read the articles yet. But thanks for calling attention to this.
(3 'but's, ehm? I'm getting good at it.)
[/quote:b59631db8e]
That's perfectly normal and admirable discourse in English -- how
would you say it in Portuguese? Everett claims that you couldn't say
anything like it in Piraha -- there is no embedding, no recursion, no
correlation. Nothing but asyndesis.
(And no numbers and no color words. At lunch just now I tried to read
a few more pages of the reply, but he's now throwing in new data that
supposedly support his revised 2005 positions but that N, P, & R
haven't seen. The translations, as unconnected strings of sentences,
are uninterpretable, and supposedly show that there is no
relativization.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DKleinecke... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 3, 1:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote:01101e4148]On Aug 3, 10:19 am, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
In a fifty-page article, "Piraha exceptionality: A reassessment," by
Andrew Nevins, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues, in the new
*Language* 85/2 (June 2009) that arrived two days ago.
The first few pages of Everett's 38-page reply don't seem to grasp the
burden of the criticisms.
Which concentrate on details of Chomskyan theory, but also touch on
the more interesting non-syntactic questions that have been raised.
I suppose everyone's seen your message but no one's replied to it
because 1) it was bound to happen but 2) no one's had the opportunity to
read the articles yet. But thanks for calling attention to this.
(3 'but's, ehm? I'm getting good at it.)
That's perfectly normal and admirable discourse in English -- how
would you say it in Portuguese? Everett claims that you couldn't say
anything like it in Piraha -- there is no embedding, no recursion, no
correlation. Nothing but asyndesis.
(And no numbers and no color words. At lunch just now I tried to read
a few more pages of the reply, but he's now throwing in new data that
supposedly support his revised 2005 positions but that N, P, & R
haven't seen. The translations, as unconnected strings of sentences,
are uninterpretable, and supposedly show that there is no
relativization.)
[/quote:01101e4148]
My copy came today. I have read a lot (but not all) of both articles.
It is not easy going.
Everett's critics appear to be attacking him in order to defend
Chomsky. Their argument goes skittering all over and doubtless can be
rejected in many of its details.
Everett seems to boil the argument down to one statement "any human
language will include recursion".
There seems to be some kind of an agreement that this is the only
Grammatical Universal remaining. Everett claims that Piraha~ disproves
it by not having recursion. Somehow I imagine that both Everett and
his critics think that unless this one last universal stands the whole
enterprise that Chomsky began has been discredited and will crash to
the ground.
Both sides seem to have over-dramaticized the issues.
As to the question of recursion. It all depends on what you mean by
recursion. Recursion, we have now learned, is not a well-defined
matter in linguistics. At moment I would say that Everett's critics
win the argument because, in order to defend his thesis, Everett must
over-re-define "recursion".
I will read some more and maybe change my mind. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 3, 8:32 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:aa7e13871f]On Aug 3, 1:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Aug 3, 10:19 am, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
In a fifty-page article, "Piraha exceptionality: A reassessment," by
Andrew Nevins, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues, in the new
*Language* 85/2 (June 2009) that arrived two days ago.
The first few pages of Everett's 38-page reply don't seem to grasp the
burden of the criticisms.
Which concentrate on details of Chomskyan theory, but also touch on
the more interesting non-syntactic questions that have been raised.
I suppose everyone's seen your message but no one's replied to it
because 1) it was bound to happen but 2) no one's had the opportunity to
read the articles yet. But thanks for calling attention to this.
(3 'but's, ehm? I'm getting good at it.)
That's perfectly normal and admirable discourse in English -- how
would you say it in Portuguese? Everett claims that you couldn't say
anything like it in Piraha -- there is no embedding, no recursion, no
correlation. Nothing but asyndesis.
(And no numbers and no color words. At lunch just now I tried to read
a few more pages of the reply, but he's now throwing in new data that
supposedly support his revised 2005 positions but that N, P, & R
haven't seen. The translations, as unconnected strings of sentences,
are uninterpretable, and supposedly show that there is no
relativization.)
My copy came today. I have read a lot (but not all) of both articles.
It is not easy going.
Everett's critics appear to be attacking him in order to defend
Chomsky. Their argument goes skittering all over and doubtless can be
rejected in many of its details.
Everett seems to boil the argument down to one statement "any human
language will include recursion".
There seems to be some kind of an agreement that this is the only
Grammatical Universal remaining. Everett claims that Piraha~ disproves
it by not having recursion. Somehow I imagine that both Everett and
his critics think that unless this one last universal stands the whole
enterprise that Chomsky began has been discredited and will crash to
the ground.
Both sides seem to have over-dramaticized the issues.
As to the question of recursion. It all depends on what you mean by
recursion. Recursion, we have now learned, is not a well-defined
matter in linguistics. At moment I would say that Everett's critics
win the argument because, in order to defend his thesis, Everett must
over-re-define "recursion".
I will read some more and maybe change my mind.-
[/quote:aa7e13871f]
At least since he got a press agent in 2005 (or so), nothing Everett
says about Piraha has been credible -- it just seems like he hasn't
learned the language successfully, or that his hatred of Chomskyism
has led him to put bizarre interpretations on his data.
Note that his Ph.D. is from an obscure Brazilian university, and he
was (at least initially) a missionary. Do we know anything about his
teachers?
The strangest thing I found in the 2005 CA article was the
biographical note that his child(ren) was/were born there, and they
were there for quite a long time, which should mean that he had access
to (a) perfect bilingual(s), but he never indicates that he asked them
to help.
It's not coincidental that David Stuart grew up a native speaker of
both English and at least (I think more than) one Mayan language and
is able to intuit the readings of so many glyphs because he can
understand the earlier stage of the language better than the Mayanists
he grew up with (and who came to the language family as adults). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DKleinecke... |
| Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 3, 8:12 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote:afc714063b]On Aug 3, 8:32 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 3, 1:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Aug 3, 10:19 am, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
In a fifty-page article, "Piraha exceptionality: A reassessment," by
Andrew Nevins, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues, in the new
*Language* 85/2 (June 2009) that arrived two days ago.
The first few pages of Everett's 38-page reply don't seem to grasp the
burden of the criticisms.
Which concentrate on details of Chomskyan theory, but also touch on
the more interesting non-syntactic questions that have been raised.
I suppose everyone's seen your message but no one's replied to it
because 1) it was bound to happen but 2) no one's had the opportunity to
read the articles yet. But thanks for calling attention to this.
(3 'but's, ehm? I'm getting good at it.)
That's perfectly normal and admirable discourse in English -- how
would you say it in Portuguese? Everett claims that you couldn't say
anything like it in Piraha -- there is no embedding, no recursion, no
correlation. Nothing but asyndesis.
(And no numbers and no color words. At lunch just now I tried to read
a few more pages of the reply, but he's now throwing in new data that
supposedly support his revised 2005 positions but that N, P, & R
haven't seen. The translations, as unconnected strings of sentences,
are uninterpretable, and supposedly show that there is no
relativization.)
My copy came today. I have read a lot (but not all) of both articles.
It is not easy going.
Everett's critics appear to be attacking him in order to defend
Chomsky. Their argument goes skittering all over and doubtless can be
rejected in many of its details.
Everett seems to boil the argument down to one statement "any human
language will include recursion".
There seems to be some kind of an agreement that this is the only
Grammatical Universal remaining. Everett claims that Piraha~ disproves
it by not having recursion. Somehow I imagine that both Everett and
his critics think that unless this one last universal stands the whole
enterprise that Chomsky began has been discredited and will crash to
the ground.
Both sides seem to have over-dramaticized the issues.
As to the question of recursion. It all depends on what you mean by
recursion. Recursion, we have now learned, is not a well-defined
matter in linguistics. At moment I would say that Everett's critics
win the argument because, in order to defend his thesis, Everett must
over-re-define "recursion".
I will read some more and maybe change my mind.-
At least since he got a press agent in 2005 (or so), nothing Everett
says about Piraha has been credible -- it just seems like he hasn't
learned the language successfully, or that his hatred of Chomskyism
has led him to put bizarre interpretations on his data.
Note that his Ph.D. is from an obscure Brazilian university, and he
was (at least initially) a missionary. Do we know anything about his
teachers?
The strangest thing I found in the 2005 CA article was the
biographical note that his child(ren) was/were born there, and they
were there for quite a long time, which should mean that he had access
to (a) perfect bilingual(s), but he never indicates that he asked them
to help.
It's not coincidental that David Stuart grew up a native speaker of
both English and at least (I think more than) one Mayan language and
is able to intuit the readings of so many glyphs because he can
understand the earlier stage of the language better than the Mayanists
he grew up with (and who came to the language family as adults).
[/quote:afc714063b]
I observed the same thing about Everett and his children back in 2005
or whenever I read the article. I was unable to visualize a scenario
where that made sense, so I just sort of ignored it.
I fear there is still more hidden here. I hope no Piraha~ were hurt. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 6, 7:08 am, Helmut Richter <hh... at (no spam) web.de> wrote:
[quote:2a41409e25]On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, DKleinecke wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
The first few pages of Everett's 38-page reply don't seem to grasp the
burden of the criticisms.
Which concentrate on details of Chomskyan theory, but also touch on
the more interesting non-syntactic questions that have been raised.
My copy came today. I have read a lot (but not all) of both articles.
It is not easy going.
Everett's critics appear to be attacking him in order to defend
Chomsky. Their argument goes skittering all over and doubtless can be
rejected in many of its details.
Why is Chomsky mentioned in this context? I have read this and that about
Everett's claims but nothing *by* him, and I am not educated enough to
make any judgements. I do observe, however, that often, in the very moment
when Chomsky is mentioned, a linguistic discourse is restricted to
pro-/anti-Chomsky issues.
As far as I know, Everett has made some claims about the Pirahã language.
These claims may be right or wrong, they may corroborate or controvert
Chomsky's theories, and they may rightly or wrongly be believed to do so.
But these three levels are absolutely independent of one another. For
Everett's claims to be right or wrong is has no bearing whatsoever in
which way they do, or are believed to, support or controvert Chomsky's
ideas.
The above would be wrong if Everett had used pro- or anti-Chomsky
arguments in order to back up his claims about the language. But I never
heard he did.
[/quote:2a41409e25]
Everett presents his revised "understanding" of Piraha as a refutation
of the most basic claim of the Chomskyan school: that the single
essential property of human language is recursion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 6, 9:26 am, Helmut Richter <hh... at (no spam) web.de> wrote:
[quote:c3c5a8c2dd]On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, António Marques wrote:
No known language lacking recursion (at least, when evalued in the usual broad
terms), the burden is on Everett to make a convincing case that it does lack
it. And the matter of fact is that Everett has been quite unconvincing, and
his turns of opinion over the years don't help. I mean, it's not enough to say
that he was unable to find recursion if otoh he doesn't seem to have a solid
grasp of the language.
It seems to boil down to the question of who *does* have a solid grasp of
the language. Even given that the burden of proof is on Everett: should it
not be an easy task of his opponents to come up with examples of
recursion if their grasp of the language is more complete?
[/quote:c3c5a8c2dd]
Where would they get this "grasp"? The Piraha community is tiny (ca.
300 speakers), in the middle of nowhere in the Amazonian jungle; they
do cite data from the only other published linguists who have
attempted to study the language.
Several generations ago, a closely related -- mutually intelligible --
language still existed, and no claims are made that that other
community was lacking so many of the characteristics of human culture
that Everett claims for the Piraha. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Helmut Richter... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, DKleinecke wrote:
[quote:32b64a8518]Peter T. Daniels wrote:
The first few pages of Everett's 38-page reply don't seem to grasp the
burden of the criticisms.
Which concentrate on details of Chomskyan theory, but also touch on
the more interesting non-syntactic questions that have been raised.
My copy came today. I have read a lot (but not all) of both articles.
It is not easy going.
Everett's critics appear to be attacking him in order to defend
Chomsky. Their argument goes skittering all over and doubtless can be
rejected in many of its details.
[/quote:32b64a8518]
Why is Chomsky mentioned in this context? I have read this and that about
Everett's claims but nothing *by* him, and I am not educated enough to
make any judgements. I do observe, however, that often, in the very moment
when Chomsky is mentioned, a linguistic discourse is restricted to
pro-/anti-Chomsky issues.
As far as I know, Everett has made some claims about the Pirahã language.
These claims may be right or wrong, they may corroborate or controvert
Chomsky's theories, and they may rightly or wrongly be believed to do so.
But these three levels are absolutely independent of one another. For
Everett's claims to be right or wrong is has no bearing whatsoever in
which way they do, or are believed to, support or controvert Chomsky's
ideas.
The above would be wrong if Everett had used pro- or anti-Chomsky
arguments in order to back up his claims about the language. But I never
heard he did.
--
Helmut Richter |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Helmut Richter... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[quote:1c5d46c5fc]Everett presents his revised "understanding" of Piraha as a refutation
of the most basic claim of the Chomskyan school: that the single
essential property of human language is recursion.
[/quote:1c5d46c5fc]
Yes, this is what I meant. Provided the disputants have a common understanding
what "recursion" exactly means (otherwise they should agree on a common
terminology first), the assertion "Piraha has no recursion" can be refuted
only by proving it does have recursion, and not by noting that this would
contradict the most basic claim of the Chomskyan school.
--
Helmut Richter |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Helmut Richter wrote:
[quote:003fdf88f1]On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Everett presents his revised "understanding" of Piraha as a refutation
of the most basic claim of the Chomskyan school: that the single
essential property of human language is recursion.
Yes, this is what I meant. Provided the disputants have a common understanding
what "recursion" exactly means (otherwise they should agree on a common
terminology first), the assertion "Piraha has no recursion" can be refuted
only by proving it does have recursion, and not by noting that this would
contradict the most basic claim of the Chomskyan school.
[/quote:003fdf88f1]
No known language lacking recursion (at least, when evalued in the usual
broad terms), the burden is on Everett to make a convincing case that it
does lack it. And the matter of fact is that Everett has been quite
unconvincing, and his turns of opinion over the years don't help. I
mean, it's not enough to say that he was unable to find recursion if
otoh he doesn't seem to have a solid grasp of the language. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 6, 12:18 pm, Helmut Richter <hh... at (no spam) web.de> wrote:
[quote:cd52651d61]On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
You could be right there. I don't know much about Unicamp, but I met a
linguistics professor from the University of São Paulo once. Unicamp is
definitely not an "obscure Brazilian university" -- unless you equate
"Brazilian" with "obscure".
Given that my university has 47 universities from the civilized, i.e.
English-speaking, world ahead of it but only 17 from the barbaric
countries, you see where the non-obscure universities are supposed to be
located.
[/quote:cd52651d61]
"Barbaric" meaning they don't speak Greek? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Helmut Richter... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, António Marques wrote:
[quote:e371c37bc4]No known language lacking recursion (at least, when evalued in the usual broad
terms), the burden is on Everett to make a convincing case that it does lack
it. And the matter of fact is that Everett has been quite unconvincing, and
his turns of opinion over the years don't help. I mean, it's not enough to say
that he was unable to find recursion if otoh he doesn't seem to have a solid
grasp of the language.
[/quote:e371c37bc4]
It seems to boil down to the question of who *does* have a solid grasp of
the language. Even given that the burden of proof is on Everett: should it
not be an easy task of his opponents to come up with examples of
recursion if their grasp of the language is more complete?
--
Helmut Richter |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Helmut Richter wrote:
[quote:ea47f8d540]On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, António Marques wrote:
No known language lacking recursion (at least, when evalued in the usual broad
terms), the burden is on Everett to make a convincing case that it does lack
it. And the matter of fact is that Everett has been quite unconvincing, and
his turns of opinion over the years don't help. I mean, it's not enough to say
that he was unable to find recursion if otoh he doesn't seem to have a solid
grasp of the language.
It seems to boil down to the question of who *does* have a solid grasp of
the language. Even given that the burden of proof is on Everett: should it
not be an easy task of his opponents to come up with examples of
recursion if their grasp of the language is more complete?
[/quote:ea47f8d540]
Personally, I think it's very likely Everett does have a pretty good
grasp of the language. My impression is that, whether he does so or
not, what it _really_ boils down to is whose definition of recursion is
being used.
I've just been reading Heine and Kuteva's "The genesis of grammar".
They claim (p 273) that one of the ways recursion (by their defn)
manifests itself is by modification of nouns, and that some of the
example sentences given by Everett in his 1986 grammar do exemplify this.
Examples:
Ti bai xaaga giopai Xahoapati giopai
(I fear have (of the) dog, Xahoapati('s) dog) (possessor-possessee)
Xogai xoglii koihi hiaba
((A) big field, not (a) small (one)) (adjective-noun)
Everett also discusses the syntax of subordinate clauses in Piraha. By
H&K's defn, these also are recursive structures.
John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Atkinson... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
DKleinecke wrote:
[quote:1d835fc370]On Aug 3, 8:12 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:32 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 3, 1:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Aug 3, 10:19 am, António Marques <m... at (no spam) sapo.pt> wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
In a fifty-page article, "Piraha exceptionality: A reassessment," by
Andrew Nevins, David Pesetsky, and Cilene Rodrigues, in the new
*Language* 85/2 (June 2009) that arrived two days ago.
The first few pages of Everett's 38-page reply don't seem to grasp the
burden of the criticisms.
Which concentrate on details of Chomskyan theory, but also touch on
the more interesting non-syntactic questions that have been raised.
I suppose everyone's seen your message but no one's replied to it
because 1) it was bound to happen but 2) no one's had the opportunity to
read the articles yet. But thanks for calling attention to this.
(3 'but's, ehm? I'm getting good at it.)
That's perfectly normal and admirable discourse in English -- how
would you say it in Portuguese? Everett claims that you couldn't say
anything like it in Piraha -- there is no embedding, no recursion, no
correlation. Nothing but asyndesis.
(And no numbers and no color words. At lunch just now I tried to read
a few more pages of the reply, but he's now throwing in new data that
supposedly support his revised 2005 positions but that N, P, & R
haven't seen. The translations, as unconnected strings of sentences,
are uninterpretable, and supposedly show that there is no
relativization.)
My copy came today. I have read a lot (but not all) of both articles.
It is not easy going.
Everett's critics appear to be attacking him in order to defend
Chomsky. Their argument goes skittering all over and doubtless can be
rejected in many of its details.
Everett seems to boil the argument down to one statement "any human
language will include recursion".
There seems to be some kind of an agreement that this is the only
Grammatical Universal remaining. Everett claims that Piraha~ disproves
it by not having recursion. Somehow I imagine that both Everett and
his critics think that unless this one last universal stands the whole
enterprise that Chomsky began has been discredited and will crash to
the ground.
Both sides seem to have over-dramaticized the issues.
As to the question of recursion. It all depends on what you mean by
recursion. Recursion, we have now learned, is not a well-defined
matter in linguistics. At moment I would say that Everett's critics
win the argument because, in order to defend his thesis, Everett must
over-re-define "recursion".
I will read some more and maybe change my mind.-
At least since he got a press agent in 2005 (or so), nothing Everett
says about Piraha has been credible -- it just seems like he hasn't
learned the language successfully, or that his hatred of Chomskyism
has led him to put bizarre interpretations on his data.
Note that his Ph.D. is from an obscure Brazilian university, and he
was (at least initially) a missionary. Do we know anything about his
teachers?
The strangest thing I found in the 2005 CA article was the
biographical note that his child(ren) was/were born there, and they
were there for quite a long time, which should mean that he had access
to (a) perfect bilingual(s), but he never indicates that he asked them
to help.
It's not coincidental that David Stuart grew up a native speaker of
both English and at least (I think more than) one Mayan language and
is able to intuit the readings of so many glyphs because he can
understand the earlier stage of the language better than the Mayanists
he grew up with (and who came to the language family as adults).
I observed the same thing about Everett and his children back in 2005
or whenever I read the article. I was unable to visualize a scenario
where that made sense, so I just sort of ignored it.
[/quote:1d835fc370]
It's probably irrelevant, but I seem to remember that, when Everett quit
the church and his wife left him, she took the kids, and they refuse to
have anything to do with him. So he presumably hasn't had access to
those particular native speakers for some considerable time.
J.
[quote:1d835fc370]
I fear there is still more hidden here. I hope no Piraha~ were hurt.[/quote:1d835fc370] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:05 am
|
|