Talk:Eurasiatic languages

message: The summary states that [many] linguists do not accept the methods, but it doesn't provide any citations for that. (The Mass Comparison page may be a source for citations.)
It also isn't clear whether mainstream linguists are rejecting the very concept of Eurasiatic, or just saying that one specfic paper didn't prove it yet.  (I suspect that there are linguists taking each of these positions.)
JimJJewett (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any citations to hand (might have a dig a little later) but the fact that linguists don't take these methods seriously means it's relatively difficult to find people even talking about it beyond the odd blog post. As for the concept of Eurasiatic languages, ask most linguists and I suspect they'll probably say "we don't know and it's unlikely we'll ever know". 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of anyone who actually rejects the possibility that Eurasiatic once existed. I've also never heard of a mainstream linguist who seriously thought we'll ever have any evidence either for or against it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations (and explanation) for non-acceptance

message: Burgaz 00:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is not Dravidian languages included in the family?

message: Today, an anonymous contributor deleted two simple words from the opening sentence. They changed "the late Joseph Greenberg" to "Joseph Greenberg". Now, while a case could be made that this is righteous, that Greenberg's being dead is irrelevant, I would observe that the edit was a perverse action in view of the *way* it was done and in view of certain facts. 
It is easy to argue that Greenberg's being alive or dead *is* relevant. Furthermore, it *is a fact* that Greenberg is dead. Since it is a fact, I object to someone suppressing the fact *while exercising bad Wikipedia citizenship*. This person acted anonymously and felt no duty to justify their edit -- they neither discussed the deletion on this page nor made a note for the History page. Hurmata 03:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleging that an edit was perverse

message: Reverted edit by Licqua alleging the putative Korean-Japanese-Ainu node endorsed by Joseph Greenberg is "known outside Greenberg's work as the Buyeo languages". Licqua, you don't support this claim with any reference. Wikipedia requires that statements be verifiable and yours is not. Anyone familiar with the literature knows that the Korean-Japanese-Ainu grouping is not claimed by anyone to be descended from the Buyeo-Goguryeo languages. Martine Robbeets, for instance, has been emphasizing that the Goguryeo language is not an ancestor of Japanese, but (if actually related to it) a parallel development from a common ancestor. Modern Korean, likewise, is also not descended from the Buyeo-Goguryeo language but, more probably, from the language of Silla. A further problem is that most of the scholars who endorse a Japanese-Korean relationship don't endorse their relationship to Ainu and often vigorously reject it. Get your facts straight before reverting. VikSol 19:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Buyeo."

message: :Others, citing the wide acceptance of his classification of African languages (cf. Nichols 1992:5), withhold judgment.
Well, given that Greenberg's classification of the African languages isn't that widely accepted anymore, either (Khoisan has been completely abandoned, and many smaller units have been split off from the macrophyla as their relationship to them has never actually been demonstrated, even though Khoisan is the only macrophylum that is completely discredited and Afroasiatic, Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian, renamed Niger-Congo, are retained in practice and their validity has rarely been challenged, only their membership reduced), this point, while true at the time Nichols wrote (1992), can be said to be outdated now, twenty years later. There are about 20 genetic units in Africa that are generally accepted, but not 4 (excluding Austronesian in Madagascar) as in Greenberg's scheme. How about writing "the (at the time) wide acceptance"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceptance of Greenberg's classifications 

message: It seems that there might be evidence outside of mass comparison that this is true. Se this URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ice-age-language-ancestor-superfamily-eurasia-20130507,0,1515430.story. This does not prove the family is real, but it is a major advance.
Anonymous192.231.40.3 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence 

message: I have nominated the Pagel research for "In the news" posting.  Feel free to comment on the nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: ITN

message: These new "discoveries" have received a great deal of mainstream media coverage, but actual linguists (the people who understand this deeply flawed project) don't seem to be buying any of it - see http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4612 - yet the presentation of this article as a "news" item on the front page gives no indication of it even being controversial. Not good at all. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Two notes - the news blurb clearly indicates it is a tentative data and merely a proposal, not a fact.  Second, the article itself makes it quite clear the theory is not well accepted.  That said, suggestions for improvement are always welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  News? 

message: I have changed the references to Gilyak, which is also the name of an unrelated Tungusic dialect, to Nivkh, which is the autonym. μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  nivkh vs gilyak 

message: Piotr Gąsiorowski will be doing some blog posts critiquing Pagel et al. I know blog posts are not ideal reference material, but it's going to be a while before the lingustics journals get around to publishing any formal responses. While Pagel et al was "peer reviewed", it's not clear whether any of the peers were linguists, or whether it was published in spite of negative peer review. It seems like most linguists were caught by surprise by the paper (or at least by its take-up in the general news media) and are starting from cold. It would be an exaggeration to say they are scrambling, much less panicking; it's more annoyance at a distracting nine-day wonder. jnestorius(talk) 14:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Another review by Finnish linguistic Jaakko Häkkinen: here. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

text: And one in Russian "to be published in English soon"; of which Piotr Gąsiorowski says "I think it's important that Alexei Kassian, one of the contributors to the Nostratic database, and a fine historical linguist ... has published a well-considered refutation of the paper and its methodology. He's very open abot the fact that the current version of the database is a hodge-podge of half-processed data, sometimes from outdates sources, and that it will take a few years to turn it into something usable. Coming from a Moscow School linguist, it's a nail in the coffin of the PNAS study." jnestorius(talk) 22:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguist blogs and peer-review 

message: I have commented out the Roots section for now.  The roots presented are those Ruhlen suggests link Eurasiatic to proto-world.  They are not roots that are considered diagnostic to Eurasiatic as such, and there forms are highly speculative.  Listing them as roots without a lot off prelude and caveats causes more problems than it solves.  A better source would probably be the specifically Eurasiatic ones given in the beginning of Ruhlen's On the Origin of Languages. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roots 

message: I prefer the title used by the Wiki article on Proto-Human Language, viz. "History of the idea", since that is what this section provides, and not, as I anticipated, the history of Eurasiatic language.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eurasiatic 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/20130607120115/http://geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/do-ultraconserved-words-reveal-linguistic-macro-families to http://geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/do-ultraconserved-words-reveal-linguistic-macro-families
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) 22:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified