OK, well, let's reply more "in depth" to your comment. > Very misleading headline. It's hard to know what a better headline would be. It does cover quite wel

OK, well, let's reply more "in depth" to your comment. > Very misleading headline. It's hard to know what a better headline would be. It does cover quite well what the content of the original paper is asserting, and while it's not exact that the utterance we transcribe as "huh" exists as exactly that in all human languages, nevertheless, they cover that question in the paper, and the sense of their conclusions is fairly well conveyed by this headline, even if it's not absolutely precisely true. > The exact word "huh?" does not exist in every language, it's more that every language has a word that functions like the English language word "huh". The original paper seems to be saying more than what you are asserting here. Yes, there is something of that, and in places it's not entirely clear exactly what they're asserting in that regard, but even so, there is something in the research. It would be interesting to see people try to build on the research rather than just saying "Well, it's rubbish, isn't it. Clearly wrong." > This is like saying every language has a word for yes. It's pretty obvious. Do you think it's obvious that every word has a language for "Yes"? If so, that's why research is needed, because what people think is obvious isn't always true, and this claim is one of them. Not all languages have a word for "Yes".