\u201cAnswering the Critics in 44 Rebuttal Points\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\nAbstract:<\/strong> After publishing several articles in peer-reviewed journals, the author published <\/em>Uto-Aztecan: A\u00a0Comparative Vocabulary (2011), the new standard in comparative Uto-Aztecan, favorably reviewed and heartily welcomed by specialists in the field. Four years later, another large reference work, <\/em>Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan (2015), was also favorably reviewed but not as joyfully welcomed among specialists as its predecessor. While some saw it as sound, more were silent. Some disliked the topic, but no one produced substantive refutations of it. In August\u00a02019, Chris Rogers published a\u00a0review, but John\u00a0S.\u00a0Robertson\u2019s response to Rogers\u2019s review and my response in the first 24 items rebutted below shed new light on his criticisms. Following on the heels of Rogers\u2019s review, Magnus Pharao Hansen, specializing in Nahuatl, blogged objections to 14 Nahuatl items among the 1,528 sets. Rogers\u2019s and Hansen\u2019s articles gave rise to some critical commentary as well as to a\u00a0few valid questions. What follows clarifies the misconceptions in Rogers\u2019s review, responds to Hansen\u2019s Nahuatl issues, and answers some reasonable questions raised by others.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
![\"Uto-Aztecan](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2016\/08\/Uto-Aztecan_langs.png\")
<\/a>