@azforeman The answer is obviously yes :) I'm putting together a database of Semitic sound systems from earliest documentation to present day, and within a few months one should be able to trace ejectives and whatever else one wants throughout time and space in Semitic.

RT @abenitezburraco: Language contact rather than environmental factors (altitude) seems to account for the distribution of ejectives and u…

Is it long term covid effects that make me think every time that the protagonists of 70s b movies will be ok at the end?

@SimonJGreenhill Wait are you in favor of those hideous vertical smudges?

@MajMosegaard Strong agree. It's tempting to name names, but I'm too cowardly. They know who they are, anyway.

@MajMosegaard Probably. I've seen people use typographic practices like bold or underline to good effect without glossing. Like when all you care about is showing which verb formss are perfective in narrative, or the like.

@MajMosegaard Relatedly, I recently positively reviewed an article for a prominent journal with bad editorial practices. 3 reviewers said accept, one had complaints. The result: revise and resubmit. Last time I review for those brutal jerks.

@MajMosegaard I don't think one should have to gloss Spanish exx in a Romanist journal, but if one wants nonspecialists to read the work, glossing is a good thing.

@ait_kisou Depends. If the work is good and you want people to know about the individual papers, cite all. If it's meh, then the most recent or the most comprehensive should be enough.

@MajMosegaard Do you mean that their reviews don't converge? I think we could have a whole thread typologizing how Reviewers 1-4 pull in different directions. First off - R1 "shorten section 3", R2 "explain in unnecessary detail all of the concepts in section 3"

@boknilev I recommend Sean Roberts' (2018) paper on robustness in the language sciences.

RT @tal_shira: "Infant-directed speech becomes less redundant as infants grow: implications for language learning" New preprint with Eitan…