Talk:Borean languages

message: ===Fleming's Model===
this section has a startling lack of justification for the hypotheses presented, and a stunning wealth of proper nouns. unless I'm misreading, it appears to have no justification for any of the described theories whatsoever. at the end of every sentence I found myself silently shouting "why?" at the top of my mental lungs. what the section does have is proper nouns. it abounds with names of scholars, languages, proposed groups that very few people without a serious grounding in linguistics or philology will be aware of, let alone able to read the section without first reading 25 others
===Starostin's Model===
this section is better and a good model for how the first could be better presented, but is still somewhat lacking in why said scholars think what they do.
===Jäger===
the article states that Jaeger uses a "computational phylogenetic analysis" to verify proposed super-families. 
what kind of computational phylogenetic analysis? using what data and what parameters?
===Conclusions===
in my opinion, the article, especially the section on Fleming's Model, needs a big reworking. someone needs to drink the proper noun soup. I wish it could be me, but I do not have the grounding in linguistics to do it justice.
the article seems to very narrowly focused on laying out what the theories are without much regard for how those theories were come to, beyond a couple of lines about the comparative method, and a mysterious computer analysis. I'm aware these theories are a relatively new development in the linguistic landscape, but that's hardly an excuse to leave out their authors' presumably detailed justifications, or at the very least pointing to the lack of them (if that is the case). AndrewKkh (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with the Article

message: in my opinion, the article, especially the section on Fleming's Model, needs a big reworking. someone needs to drink the proper noun soup. I wish it could be me, but I do not have the grounding in linguistics to do it justice.
the article seems to very narrowly focused on laying out what the theories are without much regard for how those theories were come to, beyond a couple of lines about the comparative method, and a mysterious computer analysis. I'm aware these theories are a relatively new development in the linguistic landscape, but that's hardly an excuse to leave out their authors' presumably detailed justifications, or at the very least pointing to the lack of them (if that is the case). AndrewKkh (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusions

message: When there is no controversy, it doesn't make sense to say "highly controversial", and indeed the hypothesis is in such early stages that discussion, including rejection, doesn't make much sense. In the Starling database there are, for example, several proposed roots "*CVCV", where C is any affricate and V any vowel; this is not what a testable hypothesis looks like. So I changed the article. David Marjanović 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out they added one character to the URL. I've fixed the link in the article. --JWB 01:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: Concerning this change:
For example, suppose Afro-Asiatic and one or more of the African phyla turn out to be a valid node, and the other phyla proposed for Borean turn out to be another node; that does not mean this version of Borean is Proto-World.
Are you supposing that Borean can be enlarged further and would still be called Borean, but not reduced? I don't see anything to support this. And even if Borean were enlarged in one way, say adding Indo-Pacific, that does not imply that it would therefore be enlarged all the way to Proto-World.
Finally, the name "Borean" is an association with the North. If a family containing many of the Southern phyla in Africa, Australia and New Guinea were proposed, "Borean" would be a poor and unlikely name for it. Austric is already stretching it a bit, especially since it is actually named for the South, but at least it apparently started in the Northern Hemisphere and spread south. --JWB (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's fine as is. kwami (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: saying in effect that Borean may be pWorld

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=IYQkVkdsKXgC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=macro-quechua+swadesh&source=bl&ots=2fOoSr52ja&sig=fQvPv1D9lW7LU2zDQLj5bdQ2LYg&hl=en&ei=eGuGS6iiLYyM0gSG0uHTCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
This suggests Swadesh's Vasco-Dene was roughly equivalent to Borean, albeit excluding the Afroasiatic and Indo-European (and of course Amerind) languages. Seems it would be suitable background information, though I don't want to put it on the main article yet til the editing is sorted out. (the link is in Spanish, but should be pretty obvious the family names and the maps)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.140.148 (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's revert to the pre-dab version which avoids these problems. --JWB (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for that, though don't want to kick off an editing war til someone gets bored. At the very least I want to get it error free, though I think many of the alleged 'original research' that was removed is actually better substantiated than most of the stuff dab put on. The groupings probably should go on Starostin's versions though, but of course not named after other people's superfamilies that happen to have the odd family in common.81.158.140.63 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible background information

message: It must just show the Borean languages... Böri (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This map is not good! 

message: Vasco-Dene languages, referring to the early proposal by Swadesh and supported tentatively by several other prominent linguists of the time, already exists as a redirect to Dené-Caucasian languages. However, I believe that it deserves at least a section of its own. It is an important aspect of the history of the concept which is separate from Dené-Caucasian, and indeed the article on Dené-Caucasian does not even mention it, thus making the redirect somewhat inappropriate. Since it is not quite an equivalent idea to Borean, Dené-Daic or Dené-Caucasian, I believe it deserves an article of its own in place of the redirect; or, for the time being, perhaps a "History" section should be added to this (Borean languages) article which explains briefly the Vasco-Dene proposal and how it compares and contrasts with, and has led in part to, the current Borean formulation.  — 129.21.147.51 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasco-Dene 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Borean languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726012439/http://www.eastling.org/paper/Driem.pdf to http://www.eastling.org/paper/Driem.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In Starostin Model under Borean Grouping there is a Mcrofamily called Dene–Daic , The Letter's is the in blue Colour , so I tried to click on it to read further , but it's return me to the same page again , there is no Dene–Daic Article to be found ! ,  was the Page deleted by accident or what ? , Hope you guys fix that , thanks
BTW I'm not English native , pardon me if I made mistake in the Reply Above , Thanks , D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.186.248.43 (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the page was not deleted, but "Dene–Daic" redirects here back to this article for the simple reason that no one has yet written an article about it. There is in fact little to say about it, since Starostin didn't have the opportunity to elaborate much on it due to his early death. –Austronesier (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey folks , why there is a missing page ?!!! 

message: :
Is this formula equivalent to
:
or have I forgotten something? —Tamfang (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  outside, inside