Talk:Uralo-Siberian languages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
Actually, although previous scholars may have been arguing for a genetic relationship between these languages, Fortescue (1998) does not do so. See the following from his own book: "...although it has not been proven conclusively that the Uralo-Siberian languages constitute a deep genetic stock... the attempt has brought us considerably closer to establishing the reality of an ancient Uralo-Siberian mesh displaying a particular typological profile, out of which most of the existing circumpolar languages of the Arctic arose. Recall... that my conception of a 'mesh' covers any degree of historical relatedness between a group of erstwhile geographically adjacent languages linked by relationships of lexical and/or phonological or structural 'family resemblance'. This ranges from Sprachbunds of unrelated languages, through interlocking chains of languages where the ends are unrelated by where there is considerable overlap and actual language mixing in the core region, to situations where all the ingredient languages are ultimately derived from a single ancestral proto-language but the time depth is simply too great to prove it, and finally to cases of traditional language meshes known exclusively to involve related languages (such as the Northern Athabaskan one)" (Fortescue 1998:230). --149.159.2.216 03:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is blatantly POV and completely misleading; some serious editing would be needed. At present, it is not stated anywhere that Uralo-Siberian is a fringe theory that is supported only by a couple of scholars in the world - even Indo-Uralic and Nostratic, both highly controversial, have more proponents. --AAikio 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. You're way too literal and suspiciously hostile towards progressive theories. You don't seem to be fully aware that Uralo-Siberian is merely a subset of Nostratic. So to say that Nostratic is more supported than Uralo-Siberian is a little nonsensical. This shows me that you haven't read what you purport to understand. A simple flip-through in one of Allan R. Bomhard's books on Nostratic will show you exactly where he stands on the Uralo-Siberian connection. Hard to miss if you've paid attention. So please. More reading, less hostility. --Glengordon01 07:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify that in articles such as these, we need to keep focus on what the theory claims, not merely the title of the theory. For example, "Nostratic" and its potential subsets of it have been named a variety of things throughout time and depending on the scope of the researcher. So this is why I say that you are too literal. You take the name "Uralo-Siberian" and seem to easily forget the theory behind that name. --Glengordon01 07:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The Uralo-Siberian theory claims that there is a specific genetic relationship between Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut. Many variants of the Nostratic theory do not include all these language families, so it is not true that Uralo-Siberian is a subset of Nostratic. And the fact remains that this is article is POV and gives the uninformed reader a distorted picture, unlike for example the article Nostratic languages. This is not a matter of hostility but objectivity. --AAikio 07:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, but Allan R. Bomhard has written a book you never have read called *NOSTRATIC* and the Indo-European Hypothesis (1996) where he even charts out an easy-to-understand tree specifically connecting Uralic, Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut together. I think you can track it down in Braille format :P
Since Bomhard's work exists to your contradiction, regardless of whether you personally deem him worthy or not, we see that there does exist at least one important variant of the Nostratic theory that considers "Uralo-Siberian" (however we might call it) subset. Trying to hide facts that you find distasteful is a little POV.
PS: Are you really terribly current on Nostratic or related issues? Honestly? Just so that we're on the same page: Vladislav Illich-Svitych died a full forty years ago, even years before the late Janis Joplin performed at Woodstock. In fact, his death was a decade prior to my arrival on the scene as a wee spermatozoid, before which I was possibly an edible mushroom, bottle of alcohol, or even a hot dog. Yes indeed, before Elvis Presley choked on some codeine pills. Before New Wave music. Before "Karma Chameleon"! Sweet feather of almighty Maat, even before Star Trek: TNG! Quite frankly, you may be too far behind to catch up now, hehe :) --Glengordon01 08:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to repeat my point: nothing that you wrote above contradicts my main point that "Many variants of the Nostratic theory do not include all these language families". The rest of your message is too bizarre to comment on. I might participate in this discussion again if there are edits to the article. --AAikio 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Some say bizarre, some say light-hearted. Some are happy, some are cranky. Anyways, until you can specify WHAT variants you're speaking of, your statement is without substance. Variants that you might find from 1840 don't really count nowdays. --Glengordon01 20:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
