Talk:Graeco-Armenian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Additions by Politis

Sorry, Politis, those additions are just nonsense. First, Unesco may be the publisher, but it doesn't confer that book any particular authority in linguistics as you make it sound. Second, judging by its title, the book evidently doesn't even deal with the issues. What does it say about Pedersen and Meillet and Clackson, and how pray does it show that they are "marginal to the mainstream" of linguistics? If you had any idea who Meillet and Pedersen were, you'd recognize what an incredible bullshit that is. Sorry for sounding rude, but my patience with you is limited. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is undisputed that Greek and Armenian have been separate languages since before 700 BC (when the Armenians first appear in history). That's not the point. There are also a number of Greek loanwords in Armenian, dating to after 400 AD. That's not the point either, let alone Saint Mesrop and what not. This is about a linguistic hypothesis concerning times predating Proto-Greek. It is purely and entirely a matter of Indo-European studies, and it is news to me that the UNESCO is publishing in that field. dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Old Armenian was rather close to ancient Greek in many respects, Modern Armenian is typologically much closer to Turkish" (2004 Encyclopaedia Britannica). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoken slang is closer typologically to Turkish and perhaps some Western dialects from Polis (Constantinople) but not proper Eastern Armenian that was cleansed from Asiatic elements by Khachatur Abovian and perfected during Soviet days.--Eupator 23:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, you have contextualised the hypothesis so that the reader or contributors need not have to run around making sense of it; I suggest you include it in the main article, under the heading 'Historical context' (certainly, it make more sense than explaining with words like 'bull***'). As for unesco, read the book, it is about languages. Politis

It was already clear. That is, unless you are totally unfamiliar with this field, in which case you might want to pause to reflect before engaging in an edit-war. Alexander 007 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I bow to your superior knowledge. But, 'edit-war'? That is your opinion. In my part of the world, we call it debate and leave as friends. But encyclopedia means 'all round education' and is meant to be a useful place to start one's reasearch; it is designed for those who wish to learn about a topic. Hence, clear language is necessary (ce qui se comprend bien, s'enonce clairement). Politis 19:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit-war does not mean bullets are flying and daggers are being thrown. Your edit history in Graeco-Armenian shows what can be termed an edit-war, though not a very serious one. BTW, I'm from a part of the world (U.S.) that has your part of the world (UK) around its finger (cf. Tony Blair). Alexander 007 19:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, I love America - despite some serious mistakes, the American dream and how it inspired the whole world, and what America has achieved. - Politis 19:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I like the UK as well. They gave us Simon Cowell, among others :-) Alexander 007 19:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the UK and the US equal members of the United Nations Security Council and G8? --Latinus 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Tosh. Alexander 007 19:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, even if it wants to, how can a super-power be equal? Is there some anti-American debate on wikipedia. I'd love to stand up for it, from the Constitution, to Damon Runyon, the blues, Johnny Cash, the 'Dead', its republican spirit and democratic idealism, and the freedom of driving across its wide space. America is about what you stand for, and loving it is reminding it what it stands for (ok, ok, I am a bit biased). Politis 20:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] umm ...

If it's not widely accepted, shouldnt there be some criticism cited in the article?

'not widely accepted' is pretty much the default status of these superfamily hypotheses. It doesn't mean that there is dedicated opposition to the idea so much as that your typical linguist will take a position of 'yeah, maybe, who can tell? not impossible, but not positively likely either'. dab (ᛏ) 06:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Areal Feature

One piece of evidence that clearly shows how so many of the similarities invoked to justify "Graeco-Armenian" are probably just areal features is the PIE *s_ -> *h_ isoglosse, that not only encompasses Hellenic and Armenian, but also Iranian, which is obviously not related to the other two subgoups. Opinions may vary as to where this common sound change originated, but it is obviously a late feature, as can be seen from the fact that the early attested Anatolian languages, that stood just in the middle of the isogloss area, were apparently unaffected by that change.201.21.200.15 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)