Talk:Finno-Ugric languages/Archive 1

message: The following tree was recently added to Uralic languages. I moved it here, for incorporation by experts.
* Uralic languages (was: Finno-Ugric)
** Samoyed
*** Forest Nenets - 2,000
*** Enets (obsolete: Yenisei Samoyed) - very few
*** Nganasan (obsolete:Tavgi) - 1,000
*** Selkup (obsolete: Ostyak Samoyed) - 1,700
*** Kamass (extinct since 1989)
** Ugrian
*** Khanty (obsolete: Ostyak) - 13,000
*** Mansi (obsolete: Vogul) - 3,000
*** Hungarian -14.5 millions
** Finnic
*** Permian-Finnic
**** Komi - 350,000
***** Permyak or Permian Komi
***** Komi (obsolete: Zyryan)
**** Udmurt (obsolete: Votyak) - 500,000
*** Volga-Finnic
**** Mordvin
***** Erzya  - 500,000
***** Moksha - 250,000
**** Mari (obsolete: Cheremis)
***** Meadow Mari - 500,000
***** Hill Mari - 42,000
*** Lapp
**** South Sámi - 500
**** Ume Sámi
**** Pite Sámi
**** Lule Sámi - 2,000
**** Kemi Sámi (extincted)
**** North Sámi - 30,000
**** Skolt Sámi - 500
**** Akkala Sámi
**** Ter Sámi - 500
*** Baltic-Finnic
**** Livonian - very few
**** Estonian - 1 million
**** Votian (or Vote) - very few
**** Finnish - 5.5 million
**** Ingrian - 300
**** Karelian
***** Karelian Proper - 35,000
***** Lude (may be a dialect of Karelian) - 5,000
**** Olonetsian or Livvi - 25,000
**** Vepsian or Veps - 6,000
Mikkalai 20:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version of the family tree 

message: Maybe the following ought to be put in this article?
:There is an old beliefe that there have been a proto-Finnic-Samic language group much like an artificial proto-Germanic group, but recent research shows it is not necessary, just like the proto-Germanic case.
/M.L.
: Maybe this could be elaborated a little, like why the idea was abandoned (Kalevi Wiik, diffusion theory etc)? --Oop 21:24, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
proto-Germanic is by no means abandoned... - Mustafaa 01:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph moved from [[Finnic]] 

message: # Historical linguistics is a well-established field with well-established rules on how to operate and how to prove that two languages are related. It has proven itself a hundred times over since its conception, and as of yet you have not offered us a reason why the solid historical linguistics that have been used to prove the unity of the Finno-Ugric family should be mistrusted, other than...
: If it were, why can't anybody answer the 2 simple questions:
* what are the similarities of the finougric languages exceopt agglutination?
** similarities, that are characteristic for alllanguages, common
**words, common grammar.
* if 1. answered: what are the differences between the finno-ougric and turkish languages
** except the word set?
Is the emperor really naked?  --af
# You have criticised the grouping on the idea that it was first conceived and explored by an astronomer. While astronomers are not qualified historical linguists (unless they are trained for both, which is rare,) this grouping is as valid as any because it has been tested and validated by professionally-trained historical linguists, and there are only a handful of professional linguists who question the unity of the Finno-Ugric languages (even if they are not genetically related, the grouping still exists, please note this), most of them ultranationalists from Finland.
: Not only them. Could you give me some names and books/url-s except of the voddo page, that was cited here, if any? Thanks in advance, --af
# Please realise that your request of us to not argue but to provide you with exactly what you asked, but excluding the things which you want to exclude is equal to a murder trial where the defendant asks the prosecution to exclude all or most of the evidence which proves his guilt. Why won't you allow us to use valid historical linguistics to argue against you, and why do you only want us to give you certain things? My interests do not lie mainly in Finno-Ugristics, and thus I am not able to produce much of the evidence you have asked for. Rather, as a scholar and a scientist, the reason I believe what I believe and the way I would tell it to others is because I trust the people who have written the idea, as well as the hundreds of linguists who have validated it and agreed. 
: Cheap excuse for not thinking, isn't it? --af
If a linguist publishes an article in which he tries to convince me that Navajo and Akkadian are the same language except for a relatively small 100 words and one syntactical difference, but his evidence is flimsy or non-existant, I will not believe him. If he has what seems like good evidence, I will go further since I am not knowledgeable enough to make a proper judgement about the particular situation from my current knowledge alone, and try to see what my peers believe and why. If an expert tells me "I agree with the article because my wife just died", I will be no closer to believing it than before. If an expert tells me "I think the article is total crap because I hate the author", I will be no closer to DISbelieving it than before.
: well, I am simply asking two questions, and nobody can answer them. No personal sentiments any kind. --af
# PLEASE register. There are a number of reasons. And as proof of our goodwill, you are not required to provide an e-mail address to register, and if you do provide one we won't send anything to it except e-mails from other users, which you can also disable if you like.
Best, Node 00:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am registered. Hope, theis pleases you. Antifinnugor 20:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A response to Mr Anti-Finnougric (Äntifinnöugirinnikeliinin)

message: Hello everybody,
I have stumbled over this dead lock when I was searching for some stuff on the relationship of Finnish and Hungarian. I have read the article of Prof. Maracz and afterwards realized that its contents are being heavily discussed in this talk section. Admittedly I'm not an historical linguist but I think I have got a quite good understanding of how it works and thus want to encourage Antifinnugor to read over the article again.
 
In my opinion, Prof. Maracz does not rigorously reject the existence of the Uralic Family but rather criticizes the way the establishment of Hungarian as a member of this family was agreed upon. Two major points of Prof. Maracz are:
* Incomplete analysis of the Hungarian radicals which he considers to be the basic building blocks of the Hungarian language, each of them being a representative of a specific concept (like, e.g, the word roots of the Semitic languages). Prof. Maracz would like to see the Hungarian language examined after these building blocks are fully understood.
* Another point of Prof. Maracz is the, in his opinion, unserious discussion of his book on that topic by other, especially Hungarian, finno-ugricists.
Concerning the consecutively demanded similarities between the Finno-Ugrian languages and what makes them different from the Turkic languages, a good example might be the system of semantic cases that organizes direction and location, which, as far as I know, is completely absent in the Turkic languages.
:: Please explain us with examples, what are semantic cases, that organize direction a location. Thanks. Antifinnugor 18:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not analyze Dr. Maracz's article here. I just listed it as a reference. My key point is the two questions, that nobody can answer, and that show the unjustifiedness of the establishing of such an unnatural an unlogical language group. Antifinnugor 18:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to László Marácz's "The Untenability of the Finno-Ugrian Theory from a Linguistic Point of View" should be taken out of this article (Finno-Ugric languages). I actually bothered to read this "work" and I guarantee you it is not a serious scientific article. The author clearly lacks any knowledge or understanding of historical and comparative linguistics, the comparative method, and the science behind it.  Pasquale 19:25, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Mr Pasquale, so far you did not bring the slightest argument lingusitically, but a lot of hatred and personal attacks. Why can you not bear the truth? Dr. Marácz is a linguist of high level, and his research is absolutely relevant here. So what? Personal hatred before real information? Antifinnugor 08:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Uwira & AF 

message: THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE WIKIPEDIA IS JUST AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO SCORE POINTS FOR SOME NEWFANGLED HISTORICAL LINGUISTIC HYPOTHESIS. THIS IS ONLY THE PLACE FOR WIDELY ACCEPTED OPINIONS TO BE RECORDED. SO, WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING THIS BATTLE HERE INSTEAD OF IN MORE APPROPRIATE LINGUISTIC FORA? IT IS AS IF THE NOSTRATIC HYPOTHESIS WERE TO BE ADVANCED HERE AND ONLY HERE: WHAT GOOD WOULD THAT DO? GET SERIOUS, GUYS! Pasquale 01:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I happend to disagree, Derek Ross. As I said above, "The problem with linguistics is that it has always been plagued by crackpots, people who try to explain Basque in terms of Hungarian, or Hungarian in terms of Basque, or Etruscan in terms of Basque, or Sumerian in terms of Hungarian, or Etruscan and Sumerian in terms of Turkish, and so on and so forth. What all crackpots have in common is a complete failure to understand the science behind the comparative method." The Web has now made it possible for these crackpots to publish their totally unscientific drivel far and wide. And a lot of people take them seriously. Here, we are faced with such a situation. A psycho has hijacked the talk page discussion. He is so fanatical that he believes that people actually "hate" him. He attacks people individually, not realizing that he has no place in the Wikipedia. He thinks you're on his side for salvaging the article by "Dr. Marácz". By the way, have you looked at that "article"? It is totally unscientific. What is this Marácz a doctor in? Certainly not linguistics. He clearly knows nothing about linguistics. I agree that a Wikipedia user is entitled to have a summary of legitimate views on any subject, including legitimate opposing views, but a line should be drawn to exclude crackpots. I don't think there is a single Linguistics department in the world in which the views expressed by "Dr. Marácz" would be taken seriously. So, why should they be taken seriously in the Wikipedia?  Pasquale 21:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: If somebody wrote about the earth being a round tray, saying that is the mainline hypothesis, and everything else is wrong, Mr Pasquale would fiercely demand, that every reference to other opinions is wrong and should be deleted. Antifinnugor 08:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative views, until they are not alternative any more, should not be given unduly much attention. This is an encyclopedia. /Tuomas 10:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. And an encyc must be written in NPOV. So it mustn't judge on theories. We must write about every views can be found in the world. If we choose one theory to be THE JUSTICE, we wont't make an encyclopedia, we will make a propaganda brossure. But this is an encyclopedia, what word means  "enkuklios (full, broaded) paideia (education,tuition)" So our teachings, our writings must be full-point-of-views, Mr. Tuomas. This is an encyclopedia, you are right. Gubbubu 21:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  The very existence of the finno-ugric and uralic language group is questionable from the beginning, the 19-th century. Therefore I terat them as alternative views, and not the reality, that the relationship exists, but on a much higher level. Antifinnugor 15:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the purpose of this

message: It took some time for Antifinnugor to provide sources. The 'Ugric-Turkic Battle'-article was, at last, a good start. I have undertaken the work Antifinnugor doesn't seem to like and this are my results:
* Marcantonio, Angela (2004) 'What Is the Linguistic Evidence to Support the Uralic Theory or Theories?' In Linguistica Uralica 40, 1, pp40-45.
::ABSTRACT by author: "One must always make a clear distinction between things that one has demonstrated with evidence, & things that one has not. Sometimes the latter might be a valuable pointer for further research, however it must be clearly labeled as speculation, because to do otherwise would be misleading to future researchers. If one is to establish a language family within the framework of the conventional Comparative Method, one must begin with a reconstruction of relevant areas of morphology, & the reconstruction of at least the top node, the proto-language. Neither of these elements has to this day been properly implemented in Uralic studies."
* Marcantonio, Angela (2003) The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics.
::This book has been reviewed in Journal of Linguistics (Saarikivi 2004, 40, 1, pp187-191), in The Canadian Journal of Linguistics (Vajda 2003, 48, 1-2, pp117-121), in Linguistica Uralica (Kunnap, 2003, 39, 1, pp55-57).
* Marcantonio, Angela (2001) 'The "Ugric-Turkic Battle": A Critical Review'. In Linguistica Uralica 37, 2, pp81-102.
::ABSTRACT from Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. "The notion of a unique Finno-Ugric genetic node is challenged in a reexamination of the evidence widely held to have established it: 119 Hungarian lexical correspondences put forward during the 1870s by Jozsef Budenz, who, contrary to a widespread assumption, did not deny a remote Hungarian-Turkic genetic link but merely argued that Hungarian was more closely related to Ugric, a term that for Budenz included the Finnic languages. Budenz held that 28% of his Hungarian items have genetic Turkic cognates & another 7% are Turkic loanwords; he claims, however, that 62% of the items are purely Ugric (ie, Finno-Ugric). As the comparative method was still in its infancy, it could not be properly applied; eg, Budenz never articulated phonological criteria for his judgments. A comparison with K. Redei's Uralisches Etymologisches Worterbuch (Uralic Etymological Dictionary) shows that 52% of Budenz's correspondences are incorrect, 28% are purely Uralic, & 20% are Uralic with links outside the Uralic languages, eg, to Turkic or Yukaghir."
Thus, the claims Antifinnugor advances (whether they are accurate or not), are noted and reviewed in academic journals. I think that is the requested evidence of notability. 
Antifinnugor, please lean backward and learn a few things from this.
* First, do this yourself next time. A lot of people have fallen over your blunt refusal to provide sources. Your behavior has been very troll-like and that is not the way contributors should treat each other.
:: I disagree with your troll word, except, you apply to yourself because of unjustified reversions. I am just askint the two key questions all the time, and they say more, than thousend articles, books and whatever. I am using my own brain. Antifinnugor 18:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   Unjustified hatred, reversions and personal attacks are/were really disguisting. Antifinnugor 18:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never told "you are all wrong". I also never thought that, because all, who deeper think about the subject, will see, that those groups are absurd creations. I just asked two simple questions, and wanted to animate all readers to think about the subject.  In one point I agree with you. I started on the finno-ougric page (not here) a bit partisanic art, but as you probably see, I learned from that. However, the questions are still valid, and all, who like to think, are invited to think about them. Antifinnugor 18:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: thank you Mark! af, listen to what he says here: had you presented these sources from the start instead of engaging in usenet-style "discussions", you would have saved everybody (including yourself) a lot of time and nerves. You will be recognized for working on the article, not for annoying people until somebody does the work for you. dab 11:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I found the name of professor Marcantonio. She is one of the clear brains in language sciences today. Therefore not "somebody did the work for you". Besides that I prefer to think with my own brain, and for me the two questions, that none of the so called finno-ugric institutes could answer, is the proof, that neither a fino-ugric, nor an uralic group exists. The relationship is there, but on a much higher level.  Antifinnugor 15:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  Besides Dr Marácz's article 'The unteniability...' is based on otheer linguists work, like professor Marcantonio and others. Antifinnugor 18:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: You might consider it high time for you to grow up, if you wish to be taken seriously. Someone else most obviously did the work for you. The only thing you've acheived is disrespect for yourself and disturbance for other Wikipedians. /Tuomas 15:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be better, you dealed with the subject, than with my person. This is simply disguisting. I also don't deal with your person.  You never understood my two key questions? They say more, than thousand articles. Antifinnugor 18:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: this discussion may be appropriately continued on User_talk pages, from this point, though.dab 16:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: That said, we can now include the positions of the scholars mentioned above as "alternative"/"minority" views. dab 16:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The finnougristic/uralistic language groups are based on wrong, falsified comparisons, done by aliens like Budenz, for political reasons. The errors, he did, are numerous, professor Marcantonio just shows the tip of the iceberg.  Not that, who doubts their existence, must prove, they do not exist, but those, who state they exist, should prove, that their existence is righteous and justified. Antifinnugor 18:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: well, he who knows he is right does not need an encyclopedia (nor does he need to understand his opponents, whom he knows to be wrong anyway). AFU, we cannot help you here. The internet has not yet replaced the University. dab 17:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of notability at last. 

message: Unbelievable. Antifinnugor just reverted the additions I made to the Bibliography (I added the Marcantonio sources and moved the online article from the external links section to the bibliography section). I am not going to restore them. In fact, I am not spending any time on this wearisome subject anymore. I wish this article much luck.  — mark ✎ 18:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not touch the references at all. I just refined the criticism, that Mustafaa now changed to an old version. Mustafaa, why don't you check first? Antifinnugor 19:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert