I'm not a linguist but it does seem like they would have taken this into account. Maybe they haven't thought about this but I find that rather unlikely. Perha

I'm not a linguist but it does seem like they would have taken this into account. Maybe they haven't thought about this but I find that rather unlikely. Perhaps the New York Times isn't the place to delve into the finer details and thus they don't explain the reasoning in its entirety. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people who spend their lives studying an issue. They've probably thought of the obvious possible counterexamples and have a valid reason for discounting them. That doesn't make their theory correct but surely their reasoning isn't so easily foiled. Well, one hopes. Do you know whether or not they've accounted for this possibility? The topic interests me and I really would like to know if their reasoning is so shallow.