Talk:Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots
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. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Invitation
Please, don't hesitate to object, correct, and ask questions. --Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TO-DO LIST
- References to regular sound laws should accompany every etymology, once the PDC (Protolanguage) article has been completed.
- How to accomplish the Notes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petusek (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Controversy
I don't pretend that the existence of Dené-Caucasian is universally accepted, but I still slapped the "citation needed" tag on Miskwito's edit. The reason is that I don't know how many linguists (other than apparently Vovin) who have actually had a good, hard look at the evidence are not convinced. I'd like to see a few numbers. David Marjanović 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, has Vovin ever commented the matter after 1997? David Marjanović 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is true that I think not many linguists have looked hard at the evidence. Mainly, I think, because they probably feel that the methods used aren't acceptable (and Campbell also notes that specialists don't even include Haida with Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit anymore, let alone connect the four of them to other families, which Marianne Mithun also mentions in her 2000 The Languages of Native North America).
- As for the inclusion of Haida, what about Michael Dürr & Egon Renner? What about Pinnow? There have always been the two camps - since Sapir's time. --Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Guess in which camp John Enrico, the author of the recently published Haida dictionary, is… :-) David Marjanović 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- As for the inclusion of Haida, what about Michael Dürr & Egon Renner? What about Pinnow? There have always been the two camps - since Sapir's time. --Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- In the interim, until I can find a source that actually explicitly says "most linguists reject it" or something, I've cited Campbell, so that at least there's something cited rather than nothing (what he says basically amounts to explaining why he rejects Dene-Caucasian, though he sort of indirectly implies that other linguists feel the same way). However, Campbell's statements, as well as a footnote on page 421, indicate that he has actually looked over the data presented, since he discusses the problems with the data, rather than just saying "this proposal is silly".
- Well, then it is important to list those who really looked at it.--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect he didn't look into it as thoroughly as, say, Amerind, since Dene-Caucasian isn't his specific area of expertise or whatever, but from what I can tell he did in fact look at the evidence before rejecting it. --Miskwito 21:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bengtson, for example, says in one of his papers that he (as well as a few others) consider Dene-Caucasian an explanatory model that is subject to further refinements rather than anything definitive. Moreover, the majority of the papers (actually the most crucial papers) were published after 1997. It is easy to dismiss something that is in its "diapers" in fact, without considering it really thoroughly (and without being an expert in that field) ;-)--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, OK, it's science, so by definition it's "an explanatory model". (That's why I deleted that passage from the DC article.) Science may be capable of finding the truth, but if we find it, we have no way of figuring out that we have done so. Science can only disprove, not prove. David Marjanović 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bengtson, for example, says in one of his papers that he (as well as a few others) consider Dene-Caucasian an explanatory model that is subject to further refinements rather than anything definitive. Moreover, the majority of the papers (actually the most crucial papers) were published after 1997. It is easy to dismiss something that is in its "diapers" in fact, without considering it really thoroughly (and without being an expert in that field) ;-)--Pet'usek [petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com] 02:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wiktionary?
This "article"/list would fit better in Wiktionary, I think. Said: Rursus ☻ 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
