Pirahã: a non-Turing-complete human language

Re:Pirahã: a non-Turing-complete human language by wjdix on Tuesday January 05, 2010 @09:18PM (#1033972)

Everett's claims are extremely controversial. Also, this article is over two years old; hardly news. There have been several articles in the last few issues of Language have discussed the "exceptionality" of Piraha.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pirahã: a non-Turing-complete human language by stevejohnson on Tuesday January 05, 2010 @10:29PM (#1034081)

But it was posted as a direct response to a statement made in another article that was on the front page today, which sparked some discussion.

In this case, it's not about "news," it's about having an intelligent, informed discussion. And interesting stuff that is explained well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pirahã: a non-Turing-complete human language by rms on Tuesday January 05, 2010 @10:43PM (#1034102)

There's nothing wrong with posting older articles here, though it's customary for the submitter or an editor to add a (2007) to indicate it is not new..

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pirahã: a non-Turing-complete human language by califragilistic on Thursday January 07, 2010 @04:59PM (#1038113)

For example: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Enevins/npr09.pdf.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pirahã: a non-Turing-complete human language by oconnor0 on Wednesday January 06, 2010 @12:40AM (#1034248)

Controversial. How so?

[ Parent | on HN ]