Talk:Dené–Caucasian languages

message: I'm deleting or reducing the following:
1. "Restructuring" - a large part of it. Much of it has already happened.
2. "Suggested structure" - redundant. Although the sentence Objections are appreciated very much, too! will always be valid ;-)
3. "Tables of Sound Correspondences" - that discussion isn't productive anymore, is it? ;-)
4. "In preparation" - not useful any more. I used it as a notebook only.
5. "Word-lists" - heavily reduced, except for a few points that still need to be discussed.
6. "Phonology" - not useful anymore...
7. "Salishan languages" - useless...
--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 00:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should rather archive it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops...I didn't know it was possible. If it is still possible, can somebody do that, please? --Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 12:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup on this talk page

message: *Description of the hypothesis - I've got some more information to add.
*The reconstructed morphology - Some other information has to be added.
*Special section devoted to the ancient languages (PDC roots)
*The Dené-Caucasian Sound Laws - A lot of work still ahead...
**a. A table (=Summary) (incomplete, separate fields for different positions)
**b. The roots should contain information on the rules involved, the rules should have some lexical comparisons.
PLUS
Anything you might suggest...--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be a == Criticism == section. RMW Dixon surely has said some things which could be mentioned there. 80.126.161.176 06:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as? David Marjanović (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring

message: As the Wikipedia footnote templates offer rather limited functionality, I'll make the notes in a different way, preserving the Wikipedia look at the same time...but not today. Tomorrow, perhaps. ;-) --Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great so far! Thanks for the correction you mention above. David Marjanović 11:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes and Footnotes

message: I just added that, and modified the Macro-Caucasian section accordingly. I don't have time to add appropriate citations. Can someone else do that, please? David Marjanović 11:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Karasuk

message: Fine, this is Wikipedia and not primary literature, so the argument from majority is not automatically considered a logical fallacy. OK.
But how many people have rejected the DC hypothesis for reasons other than "bah, yet another long-range proposal"? (Again, the fact that the Proto-Caucasian and Proto-Sino-Tibetan reconstructions used are difficult to test is in the article – you're welcome to move it to a more prominent position.) Sure, Trask has, mainly because his reconstruction of Pre-Basque is different. (I will mention this more prominently in the article.) But besides?
Here is a post by Stefan Georg on when a hypothesis on language relationships should be considered accepted. For the record, Georg is currently most famous for fighting against the Altaic hypothesis (though he accepts a Tungusic-Korean-Japonic grouping as likely), rejects Nostratic, rejects DC, but accepts Seefloth's Uralo-Siberian because it's based on morphology. Here is a follow-up by Trask, here one by Vovin, and here another one by Georg.
To be an Indo-Europeanist, you have to know a lot about each of the branches of IE. How many people, other than the late Starostin, have anything near that kind of knowledge about East Caucasian and West Caucasian and Yeniseian and Sino-Tibetan and so on? Bengtson seems to be working on it, but he almost completely limits himself to Basque, the two Caucasians, and Burushaski (which he finds to be closely related), but he almost never mentions Sino-Tibetan or Na-Dené. That makes about one half of a person that is capable of judging the DC hypothesis (as a whole) beyond finding mistakes in the data from one of the supposed members. For that matter, Starostin himself largely ignored Na-Dené, Basque, and Burushaski.
Is there (already) a paper that takes the proposed evidence apart? If so, I'll be glad to cite it. (For the record, here is a discussion of a paper that shows, IMHO quite clearly, that what little evidence there was for including Omotic in Afro-Asiatic was wrong. A link to that paper is included.)
Here, incidentally, is an introduction to Burushaski – secondary literature – which makes favorable comparisons to Yeniseian and Sino-Tibetan.
In sum, I don't see anything wrong with presenting the hypothesis (in its latest incarnation) on Wikipedia. It is a controversial discussion subject, so (comparatively) many people will find it interesting.
In the meantime, I'll add some morphological evidence (suppletive pronoun paradigms, noun class prefixes) to the Macro-Caucasian section of the article, provided that Bengtson tells me that this paper is actually published. I'll also try to make more mention of the hypotheses that combine Sino-Tibetan with geographically adjacent families and thus contradict DC. David Marjanović 13:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The argument from majority

message: While no doubt Dene-Caucasian has motivated Na-Dene scholars to explore the Yeniseic languages more closely (and vice-versa), it is not clear that the Dene-Yeniseic hypothesis provides support for D-C. If anything, should D-Y hold up to scrutiny then it would essentially necessitate removing Yeniseic from the D-C proposal. That is not to say that a revised D-C minus Yeniseic might still be tenable, but just that D-Y cannot be considered one part of D-C. I suggest removing subsection on D-Y and instead referring to D-Y as a distinct hypothesis. Gholton (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not confirmation, and it is a distinct hypothesis, but it is also relevant. And no, the validity of DY would not remove Y from the DC proposal; it would only mean (assuming there's anything to DC, which I agree is dubious) that the relationship of those two branches is different than their relationship to the others, which is a merely a matter of internal classification. The validity of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian do not mean that those families cannot be part of IE. kwami (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of Dene-Yeniseic hypothesis

message: I changed this to "nearly all". There are very few who support Nostratic, DC, Austric, and the like. Even those who think aspects of them are promising seldom agree in toto. — kwami (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "disputed by some linguists" 

message: According to some hypotheses, these languages are related to North Caucasian or Basque. We might mention that somewhere, but is it also reflected by any Dené-Caucasianists? --Ivadon (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tyrsenian languages#Aegean language family|Aegean]]/Minoan, [[Hurro-Urartian]],  [[Paleo-Sardinian language|Sardic]] languages 

message: "...North Caucasian and that their separation from it must postdate the dissolution of the Northeast Caucasian unity (Avar-Andi-Tsezian), which took place around the 2nd or 3rd millennium BC." Sorry,Why are they here Andis & Tsezes? There are only a maximum of 7-9 villages. Why they should be referred in Wikipedia? They do not have any of his literary language, there is no newspaper, no radio and television, they do not have anything in the cultural plane. Who are they interested in? All of them so so-called "originality" from their deep cultural underdevelopment and economic backwardness.How do they relate to the topic? Who is interested in them, when they broke up, etc.? What about them so often mention in Wiki?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.172.58.15 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Andis & Tseses in History of Hypethesis 

message: This is a non-professional article. It is necessary to delete. The article in the encyclopedia cannot begin with such words in an aggressively non-professional spirit. 1.A serious encyclopedic article cannot begin with such words: "is a largely discredited" (!?); 2.In the article a lot of space is given to the vulgar criticism of S.A. Starostin; 3.Obviously, the author of the edits is very willing to argue with Starostin, and he lumps together with famous names in small linguistics for the names of small dwarf singe-scientists (unknown to anyone in the scientific world).This article cannot consist of a primitive (and illiterate) criticism of an outstanding and generally recognized scientist in the world.If the author of edits so desires to criticize S.A. Starostin, then let him do it on a separate page, and not here;4."...the dissolution of the Northeast Caucasian Unity (Avar-Andi-Tsezian)..." Sorry...What it is? Here we are talking about the Nakh-Daghestanian group.The most numerous representatives of this group are Chechens and Avars. After them there are other relatively numerous peoples: Darginians, Lezgians, Ingushes, Tabasaranians, Laks, but the so called "Andians" (Avar name for "Kwan/Khuani/Hoan") and Tsesians are not any nations at all, but the inhabitants of two or three mountain villages, they have no writing literary language, no own culture and literature.And the inhabitants of two or three mountainous unwritten villages each time should not be mentioned next to the name of the numerous Avar people, whose name is known to the whole world.These quans are a small mountain subgroup within the numerous Avar people.Why should these Andians and Tsezes be recorded with the Avar/Abarshahr nation through a dash? --Wrkan (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia. Please feel free to make constructive edits to improve the accuracy and neutrality of the article, if there are any issues. Btw, the belittling of ethnic groups – however small they may be – will not contribute to the improvement of the article. -- Austronesier (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not focusing on where you need to emphasize. The article states "The North Caucasus Group" and next is "Avaro-Ando-Tsezian". Thus, it turns out that the North-Caucasian family consists only from "Avar-Ando-Tsezian". And secondly, Ando-Tsezian cannot be indicated on an equal footing with the Avar people, because they are not nations, but ethnic groups that are simply invented by the Communists living in two or three auls. And you do not need to point them all the time next to the Avar people.I repeat once again that the article should be completely removed. It is written in an aggressive style and begins with false aggressive statements--Wrkan (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

text: This article more or less correctly sums up the scholarly consensus that "Dene-Caucasian" never existed. If you have issue with that, take it up with the linguistic community. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report the general viewpoint of those deemed as having the most expertise and eminence in the field, and they agree that it is a largely discredited theory.110.45.29.54 (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Note:110.45.29.54 is banned user WorldCreaterFighter. Also, I have undone the edits of the sockpuppets of WorldCreaterFighter. Alexlatham96 (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a non-professional article. It's necessary to delete