Talk:Atlantic (Semitic) languages

message: Wow, Germanic and Celtic might have been influenced by Semitic languages! We'd better tell those skinhead neonazis :-)! Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 10:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This section should stop exactly before "The origin of the Picts ..." since this sentence is non-sense. If someone (here Vennemann) gives some examples to prove something, then it makes no sense to say it is wrong (unless a different proof is given). Because then this says "I don't know", and any greek philosopher would advice you to say nothing because you don't know. The last sentence simply is wrong, since finding someone to reject it doesn't mean that most agree to that rejection.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.202 (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: ...it doesn't abolish the idea, it just discredits the author. the way it's presented here sounds like it's basically the free masonry origin myth.
there are actually known historical migrations from europe to egypt; when you put all the evidence together, the influence is actually better explained as flow in the other direction (although the question of trading between the levant and the atlantic in the deep pre-historical period is interesting, it's silly to think it only went in one direction. as phoenicians are known to have settled in spain, there is pretty strong evidence of european settlement in the levant as well (see the philistines)). there was no doubt some cultural flow.
the substratum makes more sense if you connect it to the danubian complex and the well understood spread of pottery and agriculture that moved up the danube and into central europe. these people spread agriculture up rivers, and so are easily connected to the nature of the substrate. proto indo-europeans would have moved in later from the east...
so, he's presenting a good idea, but he's doing it in exactly the wrong way. what somebody needs to do s take vanneman's linguistic ideas and synthesize them with childe's (and gimbutas') archaeology and cafalli-sforza's genetic component analysis to construct an understanding of a proto-semitic, neolithic people wandering up the danube and into germany, where they fused with primarily nordic pre-proto-germans and left their language as a substratum to the invading indo-europeans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.129 (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use "Semitic" in the old "racial" sense, denoting people of general West Asian (Middle Eastern) ancestry and appearance, I'd actually agree that this probably describes the first farmers in (Southeastern/Central) Europe (of the Linear Pottery culture) well. After all, West Asia is where they came from. However, there is no evidence that they spoke any kind of Semitic (not likely in the 7th/6th millennium BC anyway) or even Afro-Asiatic. Schrijver has argued that a substratum similar rather to Caucasian languages (especially Northwest Caucasian), Hattic and Minoan looks more likely, and might also have triggered the syntactic changes in Insular Celtic (if they already started on the continent). These people seem to have contributed to the European gene pool as well (that wouldn't really shock Neo-Nazis, though, because they only consider Northern Europeans "pure" and would argue that any West Asian admixture would have been extremely minor in the north, wherever they may place the origins of their "Nordic race"). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the main problem with this part is not that it's added, as there is no problem with having criticism, but a reaction of Venneman on the criticism is not included. I will see if he has given any reaction at all and if we can add that.
Bokareis (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  i agree with the criticism, but... 

message: Is this review citable??? It's written in a bizarre kind of pidgin English and it seems to be full of flaws itself. For just one example, the author equates the vowel alternation in Spanish dormir > él duerme to Indo-Germanic ablaut, with which it has nothing to do at all. I'm not a professional linguist, but it seems to me that, as inaccurate as Vennemann's account may be, Mr Sheynin's review is even worse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.145.29 (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheynin isn't even a linguist, which would help explain such flaws. (He does make valid points, though.) It seems no actual expert could be bothered. ;-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheynin review 

message: This article is notable, just like how Eurasiatic languages and Nostratic languages are controversial but still notable. Notability tag removed. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability