This review didn't grab me -- it seems ad hominem, attacking the messenger as much as the message -- but what does impress me is that Tom Wolfe is 85 years old! At this point in his life, it's awesome that he's taken on a project of such intellectual depth.
What the hell? Did I read the same book as everyone else? I read Everett's Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle to be a recounting of his apostasy. How his faith crumbled in the face of his inability to do his missionary work. His work was to translate the bible into the Pirahã's language so they could be saved. He found that their world-view precluded this because they essentially don't give credence to hearsay (though of course they have all sorts of superstitions).
By way of example. If you are a Pirahã dude and you meet someone and they report that a volcano exploded you will believe them if they saw it with their own eyes. You'll believe them slightly less if it is second-hand knowledge, that that someone heard it from someone else. Not into gossip are our Pirahã! But after that all bets are off. So to believe the reports of 1st century AD writers, many many times removed, not a chance. If I remember correctly their epistemology has visible syntactic features in their language, that's how embedded in their thought it is.
So I read Everett's book as religion-questioning tale. His marriage broke down because of his apostasy as he tells it.
I do not remember anything about recursion and universal grammar and a take-down of Chomsky. Religion is an easier target than Chomsky, sure we all know that -- Everett would have to mad to attempt that.
In true Wolfeian style, Chomsky is repeatedly portrayed as a nasty and arrogant twit, reigning smugly as the King of Linguistics "in an air-conditioned office at MIT, spick and span."
I take it Wolfe never visited the old Building 20 at MIT.
I saw that when it was current, but posted this article because it paints such a different picture of the same book. In particular, the previous article glossed over Wolfe's attacking evolution, and omitted entirely that his book proposes to explain where language came from.
12 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 30.4 ms ] threadhttp://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/10/how-tom-wolfe-beca...
By way of example. If you are a Pirahã dude and you meet someone and they report that a volcano exploded you will believe them if they saw it with their own eyes. You'll believe them slightly less if it is second-hand knowledge, that that someone heard it from someone else. Not into gossip are our Pirahã! But after that all bets are off. So to believe the reports of 1st century AD writers, many many times removed, not a chance. If I remember correctly their epistemology has visible syntactic features in their language, that's how embedded in their thought it is.
So I read Everett's book as religion-questioning tale. His marriage broke down because of his apostasy as he tells it.
I do not remember anything about recursion and universal grammar and a take-down of Chomsky. Religion is an easier target than Chomsky, sure we all know that -- Everett would have to mad to attempt that.
I take it Wolfe never visited the old Building 20 at MIT.