I have been following, with meticulous attention and growing alarm, Mr Keith Slater’s (2006, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b) self-
I am not concerned with Mr Slater’s dilettante skills in tree drawing, or ditto acrobatics in back-
As other distinguished world luminaries have intimated about other unsettling world developments, I, too, am shocked and saddened to discern in Mr Slater’s writings clear hints of the agenda that typifies other couch-
Mr Slater claims, no less, that his informants are multilingual. “Multilingualism”, as is well-
Where, pray, is support for the statement that “Competence in both Nepali and English is universal” (Slater 2006)? Where, for that matter, is support for competence in Pinnacle Sherpa(s), when one tiny footnote (the last one, to boot) also claims that “elicitations and interviews have been conducted entirely in English”?
Slater (2011a) adds that “the four speech communities not only have entirely distinct membership, but in fact, they utterly refuse to speak to each other at all” and, further, that “no speaker is willing to use their version of Pinnacle Sherpa outside of their own speech community.” Platitudes, Mr Slater, platitudes. Which other communities boasting distinct membership are ever willing to engage in communication with one another? Mutatis mutandis, would anyone use their version of English outside of their own speech communities?
To his credit, Mr Slater turns out to be right, partly, on one single count: “each group of speakers remains monolingual” (Slater 2011b). Your informants, Mr Slater, are as monolingual as you are, and therefore your peers in fully-
With this comment, I seek urgent attention to Speculative Grammarian’s declining peer review standards, and public redemption of Pinnacle Sherpa speakers’ linguistic competence.