Thanks for the answer. Indeed, the fact that he was working only off of his own data felt like a red flag to me. An interesting thing to follow would be if the

Thanks for the answer. Indeed, the fact that he was working only off of his own data felt like a red flag to me. An interesting thing to follow would be if there are other people who went into the field to work with the Pirahã; and if not, why not, given the extraordinary nature of the claims? edit: A bit more insight here: https://news.mit.edu/2016/data-amazonian-piraha-language-debate-0309 https://news.mit.edu/2016/data-amazonian-piraha-language-deb... > In the other two cases, Everett’s translations of the sentences differ from those of Sheldon. Everett believes there is no conjunction in those sentences, although Sheldon’s original translations suggested there was. For instance, a Pirahã sentence transliterated as “ti xaigia ao ogi gio ai hi ahapita” was interpreted by Sheldon to mean, “Well, then I and the big Brazilian woman disappeared.” The conjunction of “I and the big Brazilian woman” could be an example of recursion. But Everett believes a better translation is: “Well, [with respect to me], the very big foreigner went away again.” And that sentence has no recursion. [...] > a graduate student at the University of British Columbia, Raiane Salles, has conducted recent fieldwork among the Pirahã unearthing potential evidence of “possessor recursion” — which creates phrases that could expand infinitely, such as “the foreigner’s parent’s dog” and “Migixoi’s husband’s mother’s clothes.” So it seems there are already some signs of possible recursion in the language. On top of this, there's always the possibility that the Pirahã can understand recursion, but they just don't use it in their language. In the end this would be the more important thing to establish - do these people have a different mental apparatus from the rest of mankind? or do they just make use of the same thing differently...