Talk:Proto-Indo-European language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Proto-Indo-European language was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 2007-01-09 |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Consensus
The first alinea reads:
- The Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) is the hypothetical common ancestor of the Indo-European languages. The existence of such a language is generally accepted by linguists, though there has been debate about many specific details.
Surely "generally accepted" should be changed to "universally accepted"? Are there any linguists who dispute the existence of PIE as a common ancestor? Iblardi 20:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- There are plenty of Indian writers who do not accept the notion of PIE and feel that Sanskrit was the mother language. They don't publish in international fora nor do they submit their work to peer review, so I feel that their opinions are irrelevant for Wikipedia, but there are various Indian editors (just look in the archives of this Talk page) who loudly protest at their exclusion. CRCulver 21:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Oops, I clearly missed that discussion. Should have read the archive, then. I actually decided to just go ahead and edit the section, but I chose to make the wording a little less strong by leaving out both terms. Of course, it could be reverted back anyway. Iblardi 21:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I must add that I think the original wording is misleading to the general reader, myself included. Iblardi 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, one more issue is that rather common suspicion that the PIE we know was never a real spoken language, but the reconstructions are merely an elucidation of the correspondences between various languages that have been in a complicated dialect-continuum relationship. The comparative method has taken many beatings in recent decades. CRCulver 23:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- the "Indian writers" are not the point, these are political authors, not linguists. But it is true that some linguists are reluctant to accept PIE as a historical reality, and prefer to see the reconstructions as algebraic symbols encoding regular relationships between the attested languages. dab (ᛏ) 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see where I went wrong. I equalled the notion that IE languages share a common ancestry to the theory of PIE as a historical, spoken language, which is of course not the same thing. Iblardi 17:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- the "Indian writers" are not the point, these are political authors, not linguists. But it is true that some linguists are reluctant to accept PIE as a historical reality, and prefer to see the reconstructions as algebraic symbols encoding regular relationships between the attested languages. dab (ᛏ) 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, one more issue is that rather common suspicion that the PIE we know was never a real spoken language, but the reconstructions are merely an elucidation of the correspondences between various languages that have been in a complicated dialect-continuum relationship. The comparative method has taken many beatings in recent decades. CRCulver 23:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
CRCulver: There are plenty of Indian writers who donot accept Indian muslims or christians. We have heard a lot about indo-Aryan migrations as not being accepted, even though they are very different from invansions, and have occured and are occuring even today with immigration etc. Plenty of Indian writers don't accept under any circumstances despite overwhelming archeologiacl evidence that Kushans, indo-greeks or Scythians ever came to India let alone ruled and became Indians. That Indian civilization is merely 5000 years old, also many left leaning historians in India don't accept attrocities committed and forced conversions to Islam by Mahmud of Ghazni, Aurangzeb and Sikander butshikn in Kashmir, despite historical sources from their own courts describing these atrocities...Jahangir writes in Tuzuk-e-Jahangiri that a hindu(Sikh guru Arjun dev) in Beas is running a shop of kufr(preaching false religion) i have thought about having him punished and killed. It is well known that Akbar lifted the Jizya tax imopsed on non-muslims even acknowledged by the left but no one asks one question...why did he lift the tax??? because it was there for hundereds of years...wasn't it??? so wasn't it islamic opression to gain more converts by hook or crook??? Where else do you want me to go huh??? It is essential in 2007 and a sad fact that every reader interested in Indian subcontinental(pakistanis will insist on South-Asian for some reason)history must avoid any Indian historian(left or right) of today like a plague. Pakistan's islamo-centric historians never had any credibility anyway, try what you may but no one can change history or the fact that there was no nation called pakistan before 14 August, 1947, what next the South-Asian ocean??? Read and listen to the more neutral sources that are msotly concentrated in the West. March 25, 2007
[edit] Reason for success of indo-european langues?
Indo-european langues is the worlds largest langue family. Alsou indo-european langues, such as sanskrit had great influence (and importance) in non indo-european areas. And most of international langues is i-e, too. In central asia i-e langues losed they positions, but still i-e (russian) is used as lingua franca. Does there is known reasons for such succses and widespread of I-E langues? Some linguistic properties, learnability, langue richness, domestication of horse or just agresivity of i-e cultures? (Clearly not a race as tought in early 20th century) IMHO if it is known, then it must be mentioned in article.159.148.13.146 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there is no such scientifical theory. I would say the influence of IE languages in the world today has more to do with the fact that those languages happened to be spoken in a region (Western Europe, generally) that acquired a great technological advantage after about 1500, and the subsequent expansion of the people living in that area, rather than with some kind of innate quality of the IE languages themselves, which would be extremely hard to prove. I would say social and cultural factors are much more important.
- As for the case of Russia, it would have been relatively easy to dominate the not-so-densely-populated and technologically backward hinterland. Where the technological advantage came from in the first place is a question on its own that would also be very difficult to answer.
- So no, I don't think it should be mentioned. Iblardi 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- In fact Greek was used as lingua franca in Europe, the Miditerrian and Middle-Eastern regions many centuries before 16th century and even before the era of Hellinism.--Nixer 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- That would be more easily explained by the fact that the Greeks were wide-spread as traders and colonists around the Mediterranean than by their language being Indo-European. Iblardi 19:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Check out Guns, Germs, and Steel, not a linguistic book, but a book explaining how Europeans were able to acquire technology and take over the world.Cameron Nedland 18:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- That would be more easily explained by the fact that the Greeks were wide-spread as traders and colonists around the Mediterranean than by their language being Indo-European. Iblardi 19:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- In fact Greek was used as lingua franca in Europe, the Miditerrian and Middle-Eastern regions many centuries before 16th century and even before the era of Hellinism.--Nixer 18:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the early spread of the civilization might have been due to a combination of the domestication of the horse and successful agriculture, possibly also trade and warfare etc. 惑乱 分からん 18:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Another pondering, the idea that PIE would have been easy to learn seems completely unfounded. The grammar would, in big likelihood, have been an extremely case-oriented fusional language, with complex verb conjugation (See Proto-Indo-European_language#Verb) and rather arbitrary grammatical gender assignment, which would likely be very difficult to get correctly for foreign speakers with languages lacking these features. Compared with an analytic language like Chinese, I'd definively claim PIE grammar-wise would be difficult to learn. 惑乱 分からん 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Depends on what your native language is. A speaker of Proto-Semitic, which is grammatically just as arcane as PIE, probably wouldn't find it that weird. And analytic languages have complexities in other areas of their grammar that make up for their morphological simplicity. —Angr 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Angr, don't analytic languages have special 'case marking' words? Like a direct translation of a chinese sentence might be like 'I (noun indicator) like (verb indicator) cheese (noun indicator).' ?Cameron Nedland 14:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Chinese does, at least not in that example, but then I don't know Chinese so I can't say for sure. —Angr 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- it strikes me that introducing the concept of "case marking words" to that of an "analytical language" somehow defeats the concept of distinguishing "analytical languages" in the first place. I think you might mean Chinese classifiers. dab (𒁳) 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Classifiers sure are complex, but I don't think they're a feature that's inherent in all known analytical languages. 惑乱 分からん 13:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- it strikes me that introducing the concept of "case marking words" to that of an "analytical language" somehow defeats the concept of distinguishing "analytical languages" in the first place. I think you might mean Chinese classifiers. dab (𒁳) 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think Chinese does, at least not in that example, but then I don't know Chinese so I can't say for sure. —Angr 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Angr, don't analytic languages have special 'case marking' words? Like a direct translation of a chinese sentence might be like 'I (noun indicator) like (verb indicator) cheese (noun indicator).' ?Cameron Nedland 14:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Failed GA
As of [1], I failed this article for GA. The main reason is the prose, some stubby articles (there is {{cleanup}} tag}}) and a very very few inline citations. The lead needs some expansion also. As in the lead it says that the subject is hypothetical common ancestor of a language and has some debates/controversies about it, you should put a lot of citations to avoid elements of original research. Therefore the article does not satisfy what is a Good Article criteria. If you feel disagree about my reviews, then you can submit it to WP:GA/R. — Indon (reply) — 13:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Phonology and morphology in separate articles
I moved phonology and morphology to separate articles, as was done in Italian PIE article. This was needed both in English and Italian PIE articles, because phonology and morphology chapters began to be really huge. I too added interwikis to English/Italian counterparts and return links to moved English chapters. Italian PIE phonology and morphology chapters are more advanced than English ones and has more comprehensive paradigms.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikinger (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
- Okay, but in keeping with Wikipedia:Summary style, there should still be brief summaries of those articles on this page, headed by {{main|Proto-Indo-European phonology}} and {{main|Proto-Indo-European morphology}} (rather than {{see also}}). —Angr 15:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Angr here. You have just gutted a good article. If you want to do such a major change, you could have requested input first, or at least done it all the way. As it is, you just copy-pasted a lot of stuff here and there, and leave us with the cleanup work. dab (𒁳) 07:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why paradigms and tables are duplicated in main and secondary articles? Italians moved all tables to secondary articles only, removing them from primary article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikinger (talk • contribs) 09:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
- Unlike the Italian article the English article did not need to be split, for it already had sub articles under Morphology. Perhaps the way to avoid duplicating tables is to merge Phonology and Morphology back into the main article. --teb728 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Perhaps the reason the Italian article doesn’t have duplicate tables is that its main article is incomplete—lacking summaries of Fonetica and Morfologia. It seem to me that it would be difficult to provide meaningful summaries without tables. --teb728 23:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I cross-updated all interwiki links in all PIE articles, creating situation that now each language refers to all other languages without exception, making possible easy searching for best PIE paradigms. After comprehensive searching and comparing, I finally discovered that:
- Unlike the Italian article the English article did not need to be split, for it already had sub articles under Morphology. Perhaps the way to avoid duplicating tables is to merge Phonology and Morphology back into the main article. --teb728 17:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Perhaps the reason the Italian article doesn’t have duplicate tables is that its main article is incomplete—lacking summaries of Fonetica and Morfologia. It seem to me that it would be difficult to provide meaningful summaries without tables. --teb728 23:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why paradigms and tables are duplicated in main and secondary articles? Italians moved all tables to secondary articles only, removing them from primary article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikinger (talk • contribs) 09:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
- I agree with Angr here. You have just gutted a good article. If you want to do such a major change, you could have requested input first, or at least done it all the way. As it is, you just copy-pasted a lot of stuff here and there, and leave us with the cleanup work. dab (𒁳) 07:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Italian PIE article has highest ever number of paradigms, as compared to Wikipedias in other languages.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Italian PIE article has single PIE reconstruction, without contradictions between Buck, Beekes ans Ramat.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikinger (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
- I support merging back the morphology article, and doing "noun", "pronoun" and "verb" sub-articles instead (except for the "verb" case, we already have them). I am frankly not particularly interested in how the Italians do it, we were doing fine. Having the "phonology" sub-article otoh makes sense. dab (𒁳) 09:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in accord with removing some of the tables; a reader who wants to know the hypothetical noun inflections can read it the appropriate article. At the very least, that table should be removed, it looks like a grizzly bear in a rabbit cage on my 1024x768 monitor, and I imagine it's even worse on 800x600. For now, I'll remove it, but I'm open to some reasoning to keep it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] PIE and Adamic
Former discussion proofing that PIE=Adamic is placed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adamic_language/archive1 83.19.52.107 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- To save anyone else the trouble of actually visiting that page, let me tell you that what you are supposed to read there is about a "divine revelation" that PIE was the
religionlanguage of Adam. --teb728 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Oops, sorry. --teb728 08:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- PIE wasn't the religion of Adam, PIE was language of Adam. Thank you for correction. 83.19.52.107 06:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- If there actually was an original human named Adam, it is more likely that he spoke a language of the Middle East or Africa—probably something Afro-Asiatic, or maybe Sumerian, the oldest written language. The name "Adam" derives from the Afro-Asiatic root *d-m, meaning "blood" or "red," not PIE. If you are really into finding a single origin of language, you should probably take a gander at Nostratic languages. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I disagree. Catholic visionary Anne Catherine Emmerich knows better, that PIE is Adamic, because from PIE descended its first pure Indo-European daughters such as Bactrian, Zend and Indian. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adamic_language/archive1 I don't believe in sumero-akkadian occult charlatans such as Zecharia Sitchin and Erich von Daeniken. I believe in God and His revelations. Adam and Eve descended from these PIE compounds: (source:[2])
-
-
-
-
-
- 3: ei- bright; reddish
- ghðem-, ghðom-, genitive-ablative gh(ð)m-és earth, ground
- in form such as ei-ghðem-
-
-
-
-
-
- am(m)a, amī mama (nursery word)
- 3: guei-, and gueiə- to live
- in form such as am(m)a-guei-
-
-
-
-
-
- Much more etymologies from PIE to Hebrew are here: http://kamishiji.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=edenics&action=display&thread=1168795948 and they all have logical sense.
- 83.5.33.208 14:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are not, in fact, serious, I take it (or should I say, I hope). dab (𒁳) 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have my own doubts on this, as I do on the genuineness of the "accent". garik 14:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- the 'accent' I find rather well done -- fitting the Polish IP. What are your doubts based on (out of curiosity)? dab (𒁳) 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- on second thoughts, I even tend to assume good faith after all :) dab (𒁳) 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're probably right. And we should assume good faith. My evidence for doubting the accent is poor in any case. garik 23:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, we shouldn't try to debate dogma. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- oh, we should, but in Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine, not here :) dab (𒁳) 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, we shouldn't try to debate dogma. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're probably right. And we should assume good faith. My evidence for doubting the accent is poor in any case. garik 23:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have my own doubts on this, as I do on the genuineness of the "accent". garik 14:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are not, in fact, serious, I take it (or should I say, I hope). dab (𒁳) 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Summa Indoeuropaea
Here: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-74567/Indo-European-languages is good proof that Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen by Karl Brugmann, Berthold Delbrück and Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch by Julius Pokorny are the latest completed full treatment of the whole PIE family and the most recent etymological dictionary of the whole PIE family. After buying these two books one can begin learning and utilizing PIE in its entirety.
Here [3] is proof that Grundriß=Elements.83.5.0.83 13:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
