Re:‘Anumeric’ people: when a language has no words for numbers
by caio1982 on Tuesday July 04, 2017 @09:05PM
(#14699338)
Interesting, it seems the Everett family is still obsessed with the Pirahã. This is both a nice thing (indigenous languages and societies are poorly studied) as a bad one (it doesn't help them with more linguistic authority at all, others should study the Pirahã instead). As a linguist I used to feel a bit of shame for liking the Everett's research, oh well...
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:‘Anumeric’ people: when a language has no words for numbers
by derriz on Wednesday July 05, 2017 @02:01AM
(#14700228)
I'm curious, why is it shameful for liking their research?
Re:‘Anumeric’ people: when a language has no words for numbers
by caio1982 on Wednesday July 05, 2017 @07:15AM
(#14701454)
Among many linguists the whole study of the Pirahã language is sort of bogus because it goes against a few core ideas of Chomsky that they love so much, almost like a dogma. I've never heard a linguist describing Everett's work as anything other than "cute, but wrong". Personally, I think that's all sad scientifically speaking.
Re:‘Anumeric’ people: when a language has no words for numbers
by panglott on Wednesday July 05, 2017 @11:36AM
(#14703236)
You must hear from relatively a lot of generativist linguists and syntacticians. The linguists at Language Log and elsewhere regularly praise Everett's scholarship in descriptive linguistics. And there is literally no important dispute left, except non-Pirahã specialists claiming Pirahã has subordinate clauses. Getting Everett banned from working with the Pirahã is just sad and pathetic.
http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2012/03/28/poiso... http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3857