Talk:Proto-Afroasiatic language

message: Thoughts for improvement of this article:
#Proto-Afro-Asiatic is not solid ground, so the entire article should reflect this.
#The article should engage thoughtfully with the Afro-Asiatic languages.
#The article currently mentions Nostratic in almost every paragraph. The relationship with such a widely-rejected hypothesis should not be so pervasive. Discussion of Nostratic should be limited to one lower section of the article.
#The article needs sections, sources and references, and to be formatted correctly.
This is a new article, but it does need a lot of attention to get to an acceptable standard. I post this here to give some thoughts to other editors as well. --Gareth Hughes 17:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the Afro-Asiatic family is widely accepted among linguists. Nostratic, on the other hand, is still very controversial, as you said.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.140.247 (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: The majority of this article is about the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland. It is not about the form of the language as reconstructed. Shouldn't the latter be the primary topic? 82.33.152.5 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is no linguistics on the whole page.  This article needs to be rewritten. Azalea pomp 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no linguistics? 

message: I have changed a big part of the article today, based on work I was also doing on the Origins section of the Afro-Asiatic article, which was a better starting point. This article is still very poorly sourced and structured, but I believe this new skeleton will allow us to build something better. To those whose material I have removed, sorry, but if you can source it properly and fit it into a flow of discussion then why not try to fit it back in?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting to work 

message: I think that a good first step for this article would be to compile a good bibliography of sources, to facilitate further research. Mo-Al (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: this article appears to have no content other than a table of phonemes. Until there is any material to add, it should just be merged into the Afro-Asiatic languages article. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that there is so much which could be written in this article that it would be a shame to have to merge it back. Mo-Al (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a lot that can be added still and it shouldn't be merged. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be merged until someone has the time to create a proper article? I am not taking a position on this but just mentioning one possible line of action.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I am not the linguistics expert but in what I have read there seems to be some discussion, albeit controversial, about roots which had 3 versus 2 consonants. If this is important in the literature why is not mentioned in any Wikipedia articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bi and tri consontantal roots 

message: Most of the boxes on the left have no consonants or letters of any sort in them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.83 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty boxes 

message: The Berber numerals for Tamazight for 6 and 7 are quoted on the assumption that they are old. They seem to be recent borrowings from Arabic. If so, they have no significance for ancient times.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.75.172 (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent  

message: @Ermenrich, could you double-check the footnotes to Frajzyngier & Shay (2010), added first here, and either correct them or add the details of the missing source?  Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , sorry about that, I’ve corrected the year to 2012. I’m still getting an error for one instance, but it could be because I’m on my phone- I’ll have another look on the computer later.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  The remaining error was a typo, which I've fixed along with two more sfns – when you're back to your computer could you check my work?  The diff is here.  Thanks again   Wham2001 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference error