Talk:Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups

message: IANALinguist, but I see a number of problems with this page.
Several of these issues have been discussed already at Talk:Finno-Ugric languages and Talk:Uralic languages.
The current text says that Hungarian has a verb "to have" ("van"). This has been discussed at Talk:Uralic languages#About "have" in Hungarian and it is simply incorrect. (AF has never provided any sources that support this.)
: You say in Hungarian "van egy kutyám"= I have a dog. What sources do you need other, than the language itself? Antifinnugor 15:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, It is now explained that in the article. Linguistical books usually show differences by bolding the very different words in words tables, that try to illustrate similarity, for the sake of correctness. Antifinnugor 15:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The texts illustrates the languages. That's why they are there. The Finnish and Estonian ones are quite similar, aren't they? Antifinnugor 15:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, languages are words and rules, how we create text out of words, what we call grammar. If two languages are related, both the words and the grammar need to be related somehow. In this group the word relation is absolutely marginal, and also the grammar has only one common feature, agglutination, which is also present in other languages in the same style. THat information is stressed here. Antifinnugor 15:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  So do I. Antifinnugor 15:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text:  Exactly that's why this page must exist. Just to present more correct information for this "group", or at least no one-eyed information. Antifinnugor 15:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this article 

message: Talk:Finno-Ugric languages. This page is an offshoot of the discussion there. dab (ᛏ)  18:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: bachman, you never contributed anything in the subject, except hate, defamation and deletions. Now you add one more- vandalism. Your redirection is simply vandalism, and illustrates, that you do not even understand the subject. Sorry for you, as you are an absolutely incorrect person. Please do not vandalize, this is no good for vikipedia. Thanks, Antifinnugor 09:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: goto

message: ====Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups → Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups====
* Critic is the improper term, critique is the proper term. Critic was copy pasted to critique.... So there's also duplicated content (not a redirect, yuck. The edit history is at critic, so that needs to be moved over. 132.205.15.43 03:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:RM]] discussion

message: * Critic is the improper term, critique is the proper term. Critic was copy pasted to critique.... So there's also duplicated content (not a redirect, yuck. The edit history is at critic, so that needs to be moved over. 132.205.15.43 03:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups]] &rarr; [[Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups]]

message: I removed ér from the table of cognates.  I don't know of anyone who thinks that ér is cognate with suoni.  The last time ér was added to the table , the edit summary was
:ér is now bold to indicate, it is no cognate with suoni. OK, Dbennben? Otherwise this would indicate, we do not know the Hungarian word for vein.
On the contrary, as the article explains immediately after the table,
:Bold illustrates words being quite different in form from the other in a line.
Since the table is described as a table of cognates, it should regardless only have cognates in it.  Dbenbenn 20:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Dbenbenn, in this case the whole "vene" line needs to be removed. Is that what you want? In fact, in all lines are very unsimilar words. Do you believe, that in this "language group" there are no cognates at all? I did not want to be that direct, and I did not want to simply delete that table, because there are some really lightly similar words. However, ér and suoni have nothing in common, as do some other words in the list likewise. I put now ér back in ()-s, since Hungarian has a word for vene. I disagree with removing ér from the list, because that would suggest, that Hungarian has no word for vene, which is a nonsense.  What do you suggest otherwise? Removing the whole line? But why to remove Finnish's simularity with other languages? Or do you agree with the () and comment solution? Antifinnugor 07:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I checked that list again. The words jan and ten are also clearly not cognates with suoni. Why do you attack the word ér, and not those? The complete cognate list is quite full of non-cognates. I should like to understand the logic here.  Antifinnugor 11:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing ér from the table of cognates 

message: The Finnish scientists K. Wiik, A. Künnap, K. Julku, Meinander also criticize the Finno-Ugric/Uralic dogma. Antifinnugor 09:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Finnish scientists

message: Since the criticism of the finno-ugric groups does not contain:
*The historical background of these groups (Joseph Budenz & Co)
*The typology of the Turanic languages
*The differences between the uralic languages
* Basic word list of the Uralic group
* Sample texts of these languages
* reference to Dr Marácz-s article about the unteniability of these groups
and 
* The cognate list contains erronous words
It cannot be considered as a useful information for those, who want to understand, why these groups are unteniable. 
Also this article criticizes both the finno-ugric and the uralic groups, which are in fact the same, therefore a redirection to the finno-ugric page is completely incorrect. The typology is one of the woundest point of the finno-ugric/uralic groups.
And also the so called critics text of the fino-ugric page is more critics of the critic, it is not sufficient as a real critic, and no good user information. If we merge the articles, and this text, exactly as it is here, can go into the uralic text, without reverting orgias and zynical deletions, then it is ok from me. If it works for 6 months satisfactory, then I agree with that. Otherwise, it makes no sense. Antifinnugor 16:57, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not want to censor any of this. Budenz and Marácz can go on the main article, if we can agree on a npov wording. typology and sample texts should go to the individual language articles. and there can be articles with specific swadesh lists, e.g. Swadesh list of Finnish and Hungarian. This should just be a list, and not make any claims about "untenability". dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please put link to the Marácz article into both articles. Please also put reference about Budenz to the pages, that is essential. Then the Swadesh list-Yes, please do that. There is Komi, Mordvin, Finnish, Estnish and Hungarian available in the Swadesh Table. You should set up a correct and full Swadesh list. At least all the words, that Komi contains, should be in the table, best alphabetic. You may use my list. This illustrates a lot. You do not need to write about untenability, leave that to the reader of wikipedia. Antifinnugor 16:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the redirectors