Talk:Indo-European languages/Archive 3

message: For these reasons:
* Some researchers have proposed other, more controversial supergroupings. like whom? can we have a citation for that?
-Yes, an example could be the supposition of the existence of a super-group of Germano-Slavo-Baltic or putting Phrygian in the Greek group. 
* No doubt other Indo-European languages could be less pov.
* Rephrase this please They disagree as to the original geographic location (the so-called "Urheimat" or "original homeland") from where it originated.
:: Here we go: "One of the most prominent debates in Indo-European studies is the issue of the geographical location of the original "homeland" of the Proto-Indo-Europeans (the so called "Urheimat").--Khodadad 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is absurd to expect every scientist to agree on anything.  Yes, a citation would be nice, but consensus in anything cannot be an expectation for GA yamaplos 02:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elizabeth Wayland Barber "The Mummies of Urumchi", New York, NY: Norton and Company, 1999. --Khodadad 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, hardly. The rest of the theories are very close to BS. --Khodadad 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Archaeology knows. No destruction or burning found in that layer. --Khodadad 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyhow, these are minor adjustments that can be addressed thus popping the article back in the GA nomination in a matter of weeks. It is a well-written article, almost POV and really researched. Lincher 00:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost POV? Gee, thanks... Angr (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  read Almost NPOV, I suspect.  Eluchil404 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: So, the new length section on the "Out of India" hypothesis says, in part: "postulating that Vedic Sanskrit essentially equates to Proto-Indo-European". If this is actually a correct description of the Out of India hypothesis, then it does not deserve the lengthy writeup that it receives in this article, since the postulate "that Vedic Sanskrit essentially equates to Proto-Indo-European" is known to be false. AJD 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of India 

message: Couldn´t someone who knows more than I make a "Common features" part, telling what is special with the Indo-European languages, compared with other language families?
:most "common features" have been worn down beyond recognition. Hindi is even an ergative language, and the syntax of English is more like Chinese than like proper IE for chrissake :) Features of the proto-language are discussed on the PIE article. dab (ᛏ) 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements suggested 

message: I'm removing the following sentence from the article:
:The linguistic community further notes that linguistic evidence suggests a later date for Proto-Indo-European than the Anatolian theory predicts.
What evidence? As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on the dating of PIE using linguistic data; that's actually why there are several hypotheses. Even though I am not fond of the Anatolian theory, there is literature supporting it with dates (e.g. R. Gray and Q. Atkinson, Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature, 426(6965):435–9, 2003) Pruneautalk 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no "consensus", but there is a clear majority opinion. Gray and Atkinson are not part of the "linguistic community", and their arguments are not strictly linguistic. Of course there is "literature supporting the Anatolian hypothesis", otherwise we wouldn't even mention it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is favoured only by a small minority. This is all discussed in detail on Anatolian hypothesis and Kurgan hypothesis. dab (ᛏ) 10:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct. Of course dates can be derived from linguistic reconstructions: The existence of a common terminology of wheeled transport between the Atlantic and the Tarym Depression, which only linguistic laypeople like the above mentioned Gray and Atkinson can attribute to borrowing or indepentent invention. One of many references: Martin E. Huld: Reinventing the Wheel: The technology of transport and Indo-European Expansions. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, June 4-5, 1999. Edited by Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, & Angela Della Volpe. [JIES monograph studies 35] Institute for the study of Man, Washington, DC, 2000:95-115. This must then be correlated to archeological facts, saying that the first wheels are known from not earlier than ca. 35th centy. B.C. And of course computer packages from biological informatics can NOT compute the time of linguistic splits, for this would presuppose a constant rate of linguistic change, what NO linguist would admit to have ever existed. G&A have no linguistic arguments at all, and rely exclusively on a fine mathematical theory, which regrettably has nothing to to with language change. HJJHolm 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: our brief list of major IE languages in the lead is a magnet for trouble. Especially the Persian language is being re-added with determination. And now some anonymous editor has even promoted Persian to 101 million (sic) native speakers on our list of languages by number of native speakers. This is silly. There is no doubt Persian is a major IE language, and the main representant of the Iranian branch, so maybe we can find some way of satisfying our Iranian nationalist editors here without tilting numbers. We could mention, for example, English ('world language'), Hindustani (India/Pakistan), Romance languages (S America, Africa), Russian (former SU) and Persian (Iran-Central Asia) as the main international languages, for example. dab (ᛏ) 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh crap.  I just removed French, and readded Farsi... I wonder if that makes me an Iranian nationalist... Tomertalk 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 100M threshold

message: Why is a theoretical language group included here?! there's two groups.. BALTIC and SLAVIC, which  put them together?
this is how it should look:
----
* Balto-Slavic languages, a reconstructed hypothetical language group, believed by many Indo-Europeanists to derive from a common proto-language later than Proto-Indo-European, while skeptical Indo-Europeanists regard Baltic and Slavic as no more closely related than any other two branches of Indo-European.
** Slavic languages, attested from the 9th century, earliest texts in Old Church Slavonic.
* Baltic languages, attested from the 14th century, and, for languages attested that late, they retain unusually many archaic features attributed to Proto-Indo-European. However, their existence dates back to even the 13th century BC.
----
SEPERATE!!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudidas (talk • contribs) 
:no, it is fine as it is. all language families are established by comparison, and Balto-Slavic is not particularly controversial (outside Baltic nationslism, of course). dab (𒁳) 08:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balto-Slavic? 

message: in my change, i unwantedly changed a pipe link.  could someone change  so it's possible to insert pipe links?100110100 13:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my {{tl|see also}} change 

message: :The History section should mention Filippo Sassetti, Gaston Coeurdoux and Karl Schlegel.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.113.156 (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sassetti 

message: The term attestation? or language attestation is commonly known but, things commonly know are rather unclear. It will be good to quote some definitions if exist.
What it mean exactly.
* Are any degree/scale of attestation ?
* Attestation by know sounding but older words (thats ok - intuitive.
* How to classify attestation of unknown writing and unknown sounding... at least few examples may be given in extinct languages?
Did anybody try to apply a little math to measure different attestations? Some attestations are not falsifiable other are based on assumption that the attested language should be similar to some other near - questionable. Practice of comparing passage to passage in other text may be based on adjusting the product of research to the source . (Verses to verse and round again) 
* related Attested languages, 
* less related Attestation Standards, Criterion of multiple attestation, Attestation clause
Nasz 08:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you are not making any sense. You may want to consult a dictionary? :wikt:attestation? dab (𒁳) 10:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: can you do me a favour and just click on the link I provided? See also http://onelook.com , and if all else fails, consult WP:RD/L. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  attestation 

message: This map is incorrect in what refers to the Iberian peninsula, since it reverses the geographical/linguistic areas. In Iberia the area presented in blue should be grey and the one in grey should be blue. In fact the presently in blue was globaly the area of the Iberian language and Tartessian language (non-Indo-European languages), while the one presently in gray was in fact the one with Celtic and Proto-Celtic languages. See, for instance, this detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples and Languages of Iberia. This needs to be corrected! The Ogre 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, and has been noted before. Sorry I haven't fixed it yet. If you do it, I will thank you; otherwise, I'll see that I get round to it soon. dab (𒁳) 09:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, dab, changing the map is a bit out of my league... I'll wait for you! Rokus01, what do you mean? I think the map is just mistaken, in the sense that "it reverses the geographical/linguistic areas" in Iberia, and not just the Lusitanian area (also the Celtiberian, Galaican and other Celts). And the Lusitanians are definately (that's established) Indo-European. The question about them is if they were Proto-Celt, Pre-Celt or even related to the Italic group. The Ogre 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with Diachronic Map of the Centum-Satem isogloss

message: This map is also wrong! In what regards Iberia, it present the southern part of it (as well as part of North Africa) as seaking a Germanic language! Why is this? Because of the Vandals move into southern Iberia and afterwards to North Africa? Well, First of all, the Vandals were only present for a very brief period in either Iberia or North Africa. In the firts case the Silingi Vandals were in Hispania Baetica (modern Andalusia), and the Hasdingi Vandals in Gallaecia (modern Galicia and NorthernPortugal), wich are not excatly the areas represented in the map. They were accompanied by the Sarmatian Alans who established themselves in Lusitania. All of these tribes were expeled by the Suevi (Quadi and Marcomanni, and including the Buri) and the Visigoths to North Africa, but not the area presented in the map - they went to the area of Ancient Carthage (in modern Tunisia), from were they moved again back to Europe and disbanded. Overall they just stayed for 20 years in Iberia (from 409 to 429; see Timeline of Portuguese history (Germanic Kingdoms)). And the main problem was that they were a minority! The huge majority of the population (basically of Ibero-Celtic origin or similar) already spoke romance (latin) dialects, that would give rise to the Iberian Romance languages. A greater impact would have been the Suevi (mainly in western Iberia, particularly in the north part) and the Visigoths (mainly in central Iberia), but these were also a minority that quickly began speakink the romance vernaculars. This map also needs to be changed. The Ogre 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in addittion to all that, how was the ex-Roman province Dacia speaking a slavic language?? This is beyond me. That area was speaking proto-romanian. Which is a totally non-slavic language. This map needs serious fixing too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.120.210.195 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with the post- Roman Empire and Migrations period map

message: The graphic IE_countries.png shows South Africa as having the majority of speakers speaking Indo European languages (presumably English or Afrikaans)... This claim is dubious since, although English is the main language of official communication (press, broader media, politics, commerce and business) in South Africa, there are 11 official languages in South Africa, and the majority of speakers have English as a second language, with one of the other 10 official languages as their mother tongue. So it is incorrect that South Africa is coloured in orange, its should be coloured in yellow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.240.101.41 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South African use of indo-european languages... 

message: What to do in this situation - Gimbutas ide - Kurgan theory was criticised by Colin Renfrew from Cambridge. His - ide-farming spreading from Anatolia theory was denyed by recent  genetical information: For a modern version of the hypothesis of European origin of PIE see the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (proposed by Italian theorists) that derives Indo-European from the European Paleolithic cultures. It was prooved recently, that 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic. «The Neolithic farmers ha[ve] certainly been important; but they ha[ve] only contributed about one fifth of our genes. It [is] the hunters of the Paleolithic that ha[ve]created the main body of modern European gene pool». (Bryan Sykes, 2001, 242). 
Paleolithical continuity theory is attractive and not contradicts to genetics, but is not strong enough? I've tried to modify text, but you made rv removing text: It was prooved recently, that 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic. «The Neolithic farmers have certainly been important; but they have only contributed about one fifth of our genes. It is the hunters of the Paleolithic that have created the main body of modern European gene pool». (Bryan Sykes, 2001, 242)..
:we mention PCT, that is enough. Apart from four or five proponents, nobody believes in it. This is not the article on European genetics. Kurgan or Anatolian proponents don't have a problem with the 80% paleolithic stock: genes don't carry language. Paleolithic Indo-European is a joke. Renfrew is already struggling to accommodate his long time frame (and receded from the 9th to the 6th millennium). The paleolithic is simply out of the question in any informed debate. You might as well claim that PIE was spoken in Kumari Kandam in 100,000 BC. If you like, expand the Paleolithic Continuity Theory article, but don't go around touting it, per WP:UNDUE. If you want to argue that PCT acceptance is increasing in academic mainstream, you'll have to present very convincing sources (strong claims need strong backup). dab (𒁳) 17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions to admin Dbachmann

message: It does not show where the Celtic languages are spoken in EUROPE. Welsh, Scottish and Irish for example are official languages within their countries. There should either be a remake of the map shown, or a new map showing the languages of nations like Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Basque Country, Isle of man, Britanny and more. Remember that these languages and many more in Europe are all part of the Indo-European language family. It's either ignorance or just us Americans thinking we can ignore the smaller used languages again. 64.18.139.132 14:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can look in the articles about each specific language (Welsh language, Irish Gaelic, Cornish language) to learn where they are spoken. The location of celtic speakers has shifted over the years, once occupying modern France, England, and Spain and different times in history. They are now confined to specific communities in Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. There is also some ambiguity as to whether or not the ancient language of Scotland, Pictish, was Celtic or a Pre-IE language of Iron Age Europe. Read the article on Celtic languages for more information. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is slightly inaccurate 

message: I found that Indo-Germanic is not a synonym for Indo-European  in comparison with . So I reverted changes back. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-XY 

message: Israel shouldn't be included -- the only official languages there are Hebrew and Arabic... AnonMoos 03:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map problem

message: This section is very dense.  Not sure if its possible to make it more understandable for lay persons or not, but in its current state is of questionable value for people who aren't experts in the field.
:velar
:velar rows
:labiovelar
:pure velar
:assibilated
:palatial velars
:isogloss
:monophyly
:Areal
:PIE
Aepryus 00:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Satem/Centum Jargon Tag

message: this should be the article on the entire family, especially the living languages and their attested history. Yes, there should be a section on the proto-langauge, but this should be kept brief. People keep adding material on PIE. Please note that both the Proto-Indo-European language and the Proto-Indo-Europeans have dedicated articles. The PIE section here is too long as it is, and it exclusively focusses on the Urheimat question instead of addressing  far better established linguistic aspects. dab (𒁳) 08:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article balance

message: To my knowledge, most linguists consider the Ancient Macedonian language to be more closely related to Greek than any other language.  The main debate is whether it is a distinct language close to Greek or merely a dialect of Greek.  The hypotheses relating to Illyrian, Thracian or Phrygian have less support due to the fact that these languages are rather poorly attested.  Might not we insert something in the article about that?   --71.198.103.119 (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's irrelevant to this article. The details are all laid out in the article you are linking to. dab (𒁳) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Macedonian Language 

message: Please don't abuse WP:Fringe in order to give WP:UNDUE weight to a certain point of view. The Kurgan hypothesis has its own article. To a language topic like Indo-European languages an extensive promotion of an archeological theory is hopelessly off-topic, since the extensive special Kurgan section (a subsection already exists in the same article!) does not even give insight into the linguistic matters addressed in the article. Try to be helpful in the proper application of WP policy. My WP:UNDUE correction to Indo-European languages does not have anything to do with boosting another archeological view, just to correct fanatism on the Kurgan theory within an article about linguistics. It is utterly untrue that the Kurgan hypothesis is generally and unequivocally accepted. Instead, the Kurgan theory is controversal and archeologically still undemonstrated. Rokus01 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The details regarding PIE in the timeline could probably be trimmed, per dab's comment above. Other than that, I don't see an issue with going into more details on the most widely-accepted hypothesis in the field. - Merzbow (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, I don't object in principle to trimming the article. Let's wait a bit and see what dab thinks. - Merzbow (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created the main Indo-European Urheimat article among other things in order to allow trimming of this one. It is true that the Urheimat question takes far too much place in this article. This is so because there was no  article. All of this doesn't change the fact that the Kurgan hypothesis is the mainstream framework among Indo-Europeanists, by a long shot. Rokus keeps arguing against it. That's fine, but let him do so in an academic journal, not here, per WP:NOR. I am not interested in having this argument with Rokus. He misrepresents the Kurgan as being of a "violent or quasi-military nature". That's nonsense, and an obvious strawman just set up to be shot down. Of course the Kurgan hypothesis has "its critics". But reasonable criticism concerns details of the general framework, not wild-eyed counter-hypotheses that replace the problematic with the ridiculous. So, yes, the Urheimat section should be trimmed. This will mean that only the mainstream models will be mentioned here, and fringe ideas can safely be delegated to the sub-article. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: that's a bit of a false dichotomy. The "Kurgan hypothesis" sets a general temporal and geographical frame (Chalcolithic, Steppe). There is much room for discussion of "military" vs. "diffusionist" scenarios, taking place completely within the Kurgan framework. It is true that Gimbutas' extreme "invasionist" scenario has been discredited. You cannot call an "invasion" a process of expansion that was going on over a full millennium or more. It may of course have included small-scale "invasions" here and there, but the general process is one of diffusion. The concepts of "broad homeland" and "paleolithic continuity" do very much contribute to this discussion. But, the "broad homeland" just describes a "stage" of diffusion and doesn't answer the question of where this diffusion originated. It is perfectly possible to subscribe to the Kurgan framework and still assume a stage of a "broad homeland" of a continuum of early IE dialects (in fact, that's almost unavoidable, not just 'possible'). It is also important to stress genetic, and to a lesser extent material "paleolithic continuity". Realization of this has taught us much about linguistic diffusion. The "fringe scholarship" begins when "paleolinguists" leap to conclusions and assume a "paleolithic PIE" just on grounds of genetic continuity. That's as nonsensical as postulating a "paleolithic Latin" in the Andes, because Spanish speakers there show genetic continuity. So yes, I actually agree with you: the mainstream assumption is the "Kurgan framework". There is simply no competing hypothesis worthy of serious attention. But within the Kurgan framework, there is much room for schlarly disagreement informed by questions of material and genetic continuity. dab (𒁳) 12:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: indeed. but the place to seek consensus, by providing references on the relative notability of these theories is now Talk:Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. The "Urheimat" section in this article will simply summarize whatever emerges as informed consensus there. WP:SS. dab (𒁳) 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kurgan hypothesis [[WP:UNDUE]] and off-topic