Nabarmengarria da Nichols-en ondoko puntua zatio bere sakontasun zientifikoa (!): "This is based on reading just the abstract. I'll now read the paper."

Atzoko artikuluak (Gell-Mann eta Ruhlen, 2011) sortu zituén komentario batzuk an Lingtyp posta-zerrenda, zeinen objezioak ez diren gain artikuluaren eduki zehatza, baizik gehiago gain publikazioa bera (?), edo gain autoreen oinarrizko ezagutza gain topikoa (gabén espezifikatu deskalifikazio horren arrazoi zehatza), apuntatuz ad hominen (the authors don't even know...), eta hortaz ondo adieraziz kritikatzailearen maila zientifiko penagarria (zehazki, Johanna Nichols):

This is grossly irresponsible on PNAS's part. The authors don't even know the basic literature on word order, genealogical classification of languages, stability of word order, or mathematics and statistics of type changes in populations. (This is based on reading just the abstract. I'll now read the paper.). [Johanna Nichols, 2011]

Nabarmengarria da Nichols-en azken puntua zatio bere sakontasun zientifikoa (!): 

This is based on reading just the abstract. I'll now read the paper. [Johanna Nichols, 2011]

Aitzitik, horri erantzunez, Giorgio Francesco Acordia-k (2011) idatzi zuén ondoko hau, oso ezberdina:

... I realised that one of the authors is Merrit Ruhlen, which I assume knows very well the literature on word order and, anyway, many works on the topic are actually quoted in the paper (see the references section). I will read the paper now. [Acordia. 2011]

Oso interesgarria, hau guztia. [2770] [>>>]