Abstract
<jats:p>In his review of Sapir & Lundgren’s (2024) A Grammar of Elfdalian, Garbacz points out some relevant suggestions, especially concerning of syntax. However, his review contains many obvious faults and misconceptions and logical fallacies, which overshadow the relevant comments. Garbacz questions the study object (i.e. Late Classical Elfdalian), the role of the book as a grammar due to the lack of references in most chapter (which is intended to ease readibility), the desire of the authors to revitalise an old language (a decision aligned with the speakers’ wish to revitalise the ’classical’ stage of Elfdalian), the choice of the name Elfdalian (which follows the tradition initiated by Dahl in 2001). These premises should, however, not effect the scientific quality of the book. Rather, the results, based on the premises, should be assessed. Further, Garbacz manages to miss the fact that the book has been peer reviewed. Although sometimes commenting on footnotes, Garbacz manages to abstain from commenting on the two hypotheses presented in the book, regarding the origin of Dalecarlian as well as the linguistic affiliation of Elfdalian. These two hypotheses partially challenge previous research about Eldalian and Dalecarlian and hence, a serious review would at least mention those. Finally, I urge those who study Elfdalian and Dalecarlian to cooperate more with each other, or at least see the advantages with the study of these research objects from various angles, at the same type showing respect for the native speakers and their linguistic desires.</jats:p>