>> Other people have visited the Pirahã and done experiments with them. It is true
that they do not understand counting, for example [1][2],
Those are not "other people". The first reference is a paper where Everett is
one of the authors and the other is a paper from a collaborator of Everett:
the author even studied the Piraha and their arithmetic skills while living with
the Piraha along with the Everetts. Show me a paper on the Piraha language
that has nothing to do with Everett and that duplicates Everett's findings.
>> The Chomskyan side of the argument has also been characterized by moving the
goalposts and formal incoherence. See for example [3].
I don't think that reference means what you think it means. Actually I think
it means exactly the opposite:
What I can say, what I have said, with most certainty is what recursion is
supposed to stand for within the theory Chomsky has constructed—with
remarkable consistency, I should add.
Which is what I've also heard before from critics of Chomsky in general (frex,
I believe Alex Clark has said similar things, but I might be wrong). Chomsky
himself has been remarkably consistent, to the point he sounds like a broken
record, regarding what recursion in language means.
Whether "his side" (other linguists of his school) has been more or less
consistent, I don't know but in any case I'm more interested in the fact that
Daniel Everett seems to be a complete and utter sleazebag who is unashamedly
taking advantage of a peoples who can't really speak for themselves (because
he's standing in the way!) to further some obscure personal agenda.
>> Other linguists have also independently claimed that other languages lack recursive embedding, for example Riau Indonesian, so the claim about Pirahã is not isolated or crazy a priori.
I hadn't heard of Riau Indonesian, so I looked it up in wikipedia and I could not find anything about it lacking recursive structure. Instead it "is considered by linguists to have one of the least complex grammars among the languages of the world,[citation needed] apart from creoles, possessing neither noun declensions, temporal distinctions, subject/object distinctions, nor singular/plural distinction."
Those are not "other people". The first reference is a paper where Everett is one of the authors and the other is a paper from a collaborator of Everett: the author even studied the Piraha and their arithmetic skills while living with the Piraha along with the Everetts. Show me a paper on the Piraha language that has nothing to do with Everett and that duplicates Everett's findings.
>> The Chomskyan side of the argument has also been characterized by moving the goalposts and formal incoherence. See for example [3].
I don't think that reference means what you think it means. Actually I think it means exactly the opposite:
What I can say, what I have said, with most certainty is what recursion is supposed to stand for within the theory Chomsky has constructed—with remarkable consistency, I should add.
Which is what I've also heard before from critics of Chomsky in general (frex, I believe Alex Clark has said similar things, but I might be wrong). Chomsky himself has been remarkably consistent, to the point he sounds like a broken record, regarding what recursion in language means.
Whether "his side" (other linguists of his school) has been more or less consistent, I don't know but in any case I'm more interested in the fact that Daniel Everett seems to be a complete and utter sleazebag who is unashamedly taking advantage of a peoples who can't really speak for themselves (because he's standing in the way!) to further some obscure personal agenda.
>> Other linguists have also independently claimed that other languages lack recursive embedding, for example Riau Indonesian, so the claim about Pirahã is not isolated or crazy a priori.
I hadn't heard of Riau Indonesian, so I looked it up in wikipedia and I could not find anything about it lacking recursive structure. Instead it "is considered by linguists to have one of the least complex grammars among the languages of the world,[citation needed] apart from creoles, possessing neither noun declensions, temporal distinctions, subject/object distinctions, nor singular/plural distinction."