Talk:Indo-European Dravidian words

Discussion of why this page is on VfD is on WP:VFD and Talk:Dravidian languages. --Xiaopo's Talk 16:30, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

VfD

• Indo-European Dravidian words expresses a fringe theory with analysis that (according to mainstream linguistics) is highly flawed. It certainly doesn't deserve an article all to itself. I've moved part of the wordlists (which come from a link found at the bottom of Dravidian languages to Dravidian languages and discussed the mainstream view on them. --Xiaopo's Talk 01:30, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. --Jiang
  • Keep. This page is new and still in the process of heavy editing. The judgement of the analysis being flawed is superficial and premature at best. Comparing words to roots is the basis of linguistics. My reply at Dravidian languages. --User:Codebtez Talk
  • I could be harsher about this, but the way Codebytez is acting about rewriting this material makes it look a lot like primary research, which does not belong on Wikipedia. When you have an article in a reputable journal, let us know. Morwen 13:36, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • That is a vote to delete, btw, just in case that wasn't clear. Morwen 21:22, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks Morwen, but its not research, its a minority opinion. I am trying to paraphrase some viewpoints from a paper that came up on #1 on google when I searched for "dravidian indo-european". Given linguistics is not like physics, there is bound to be people accepting different viewpoints. Also, I was not aware that only material that appears in reputable journals are welcome, (given the Star Trek and other articles). Also is there a policy that says space given to any viewpoint must be proportional to the percentage of acceptance? [I couldnt find any such guidelines on Wikipedia policy or new user faux pas] Codebytez | Talk 21:53, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It appears to be what's regarded as a "crack-pot theory", if it is accepted by a number of professional linguists but not the mainstream, it could still warrant an article as a minority view, even if it wasn't published in a mainstream journal. However the source website just appears to be the opinion of an individual amauteur. --Imran 22:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states: "If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." And if it's an opinion, not research, it seems to me that it wouldn't be revised as people point out objections (c.f. yellow/haladi). --Xiaopo's Talk 02:45, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The info is an established, albeit minority. There is a mention of the Theory in my 1951 Brittanica so I recommend someone look under Dravidian in their Encyclopaedia to see a discussion of the Indo-European connections. I recommend saving the info and moving it to a sub-section under Dravidian but for a completely NPOV this should be alongside similar data comparing it with Austroasiatic & Turanian languages which are also mentioned as having similarities.Zestauferov 00:19, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is plainly and simply a primary research. What Wikipedia is not... explictly states that such material is not encyclopedic, not in WP's eyes anyway. --Menchi (Talk)â 04:20, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least for now, give Codebytez a chance to fix it. Jmabel 06:48, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Help me out here people! Attempts to connect Indo-European and Dravidian are quite old, and I was attempting to write an article on the subject in a manner easily understood by a non-linguist, as is typically the target audience of an encyclopedia. I was hoping that by editing the article openly in wiki would attract helpful comments, corrections and additional useful material. So I cut and pasted notes and word lists from old text files and was trying to arrange my thoughts when the article was prematurely critized and slapped with a VfD. I am now in the unpleasant position of defending an article that is only partially complete. Perhaps I was supposed to write the article completely offline and cut and paste it later? Wouldnt that negate the advantages of having a Wiki where all can contribute? (I am happy to implement Zestauferov's suggestion.)

-- Codebytez | Talk 06:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Well, it might help to put a note at the front of it that indicates you are mid-edit. It certainly would help to rapidly add content near the top saying that it is a minority theory rejected by most professional linguists. Nothing wrong with having an article about such a theory, but very important to be clear that is what it is. -- Jmabel 06:46, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Major objections seem to be:

1. The title is not NPOV

A. I'm open to suggestions

2. This is primary research

A. To the best of my knowledge, attempts to link IE and Dravidian are as old as the discovery of Dravidian itself.

3. Yellow/haladi was removed, so its research.

A. Glad to replace with pele- (IE) (pale/yellow) = pala (yellow). :) . (Yes, I've used newer words for the benefit of non-linguists. No, I never claimed there are no co-incidental matches in the list.)

4. Its a minority view

A. As I understand it, this itself is not a bar to writing an article as long as it declares itself as a minority view.

Codebytez | Talk 08:58, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If, in fact, you can provide a list of PIE roots next to Proto-Dravidian roots, and from that develop a set of regular sound changes between your Proto-Dravidian-IE (or were you saying IE was descended from Dravidian? I hope not, since this view has virtually no support in the linguistic community at all) that work for 90%+ of all roots I'd believe your theory myself.

However, Yellow/haladi should stay, to represent the opinions of people who made that comparison (since you apparently got this from notes and old text files apparently someone actually believes this is evidence).

BTW, what are your sources for these roots? I always believed the IE root for "pale" was *pag- Anyway, I think the main objection is that while there is a respectable minority view that IE and Dravidian are related on a deeper level, linguists who believe this don't go about proving it as you do: By creating interminable wordlists of modern languages that exhibit nothing close to regular sound change or by claiming that Dravidian is the common ancestor of IE. --Xiaopo's Talk 15:29, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

While my article may provide a reference to an external link that proposes proto-dravidian as the common ancestor of IE languages, my article itself is only about the fact that there is some evidence to say that IE and dravidian are related and they may have some common roots. Or in your words: about the respectable minority view that IE and Dravidian are related at some level.

Your objection made sense, which is why I proposed to only keep the dravidian word to IE root comparison, which illustrates the point without controversy.

Co-incidental matches among modern words obviously needs to be mentioned and illustrated, or the article would not be complete or fair.

yellow from old english feolo, from IE root pel- [1] (http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE385.html)

Codebytez | Talk 16:20, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We should certainly mention the fact that people claim such things as yellow/haladi as evidence. Morwen 16:30, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Most importantly: If your article is not primary research, please provide a reference for where you're getting this from. If you're in fact compiling this list yourself from lists of PIE and Proto-Dravidian roots, that is primary research. This would be analogous to claiming you have a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis and posting it on Wikipedia, claiming that it's not primary research because you (obviously) used mathematical ideas developed in the past two millenia.

Keep in mind that you don't just need to show some common roots, you need to show a regular sound change that applies to a very large percentage of known roots. The number of coincidental matches is a lot larger than you may think.--Xiaopo's Talk 17:10, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Levitt, Stephan Hillyer

(1998). Is There a Genetic Relationship between Indo-European and Dravidian? Journal of Indo-European studies Volume 26, p. 131

(2000). Some More Possible Relationships Between Indo-European and Dravidian Journal of Indo-European studies Volume 28, p. 407

http://www.datanumeric.com/dravidian/page020.html has numerous etymological proof. (Regardless of the message of the paper)

(Also various articles on Nostratic)

Codebytez | Talk 18:15, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, it does not have 'numerous etymological proof'. It has numerous pieces of things that might be called 'evidence', but each one of those cannot ever be construed as a proof in itself. As a bundle, you could construe them as a proof. (I'd have to disagree with you, but at least it would make sense) You are advocating this theory, not just writing dispassionately about it. Morwen 18:35, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

All I hope to do is to write about a theory that is accepted by some linguists. If the article appears like advocacy rather than dispassionate, wikipedians are free to make corrections.

Btw, does every article have to go through this sort of "thesis defence"?

Codebytez | Talk

Yes, actually. _especially_ those which are considered fringe theories. Please don't feel singled out, we do this to everyone. Morwen 19:49, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I took the liberty of wandering over to the library to look at the two volumes of the Journal of Indo-European studies you mentioned. I didn't have time to stay very long, so I'll look at them again, but these are my impressions on the article in Vol. 26:

1. Levitt appears to be suggesting that the idea that Dravidian and IE bear a deeper genetic relationship is worth looking into, but he appears to believe the current evidence is not enough to conclude that they do. He proposes 24 interesting forms, but he admits this is very speculative and on several he notes himself that he does not believe that it constitutes a valid relationship. For instance, on number 19 where he cites the Latin demonstratives ille, illa, illud and states "In this context, compare the Tamil locative suffix -il. Is it possible that there is a connection?". Or 21 (En. nation, PIE. *gen- vs. Ta. naatu PDr. *naat-, *naatt-) "I feel fairly certain tht the resemblance here is accidental and that this is an example of 'background noise'." Or 22, where he concludes that Sanskrit danda (stick) is not cognate with Tamil tantu, saying "I believe the Sanskrit forms are probably loanwords from Dravidian".
2. All of two forms you cite (if I counted correctly) are included in his 24 examples (he cites 3 or 4 more in Vol. 28, which I only glanced at, so maybe you used those).
3. You should represent the viewpoints of your references accurately. Neither of them believes that the evidence supports a common ancestor to Indo-European and Dravidian.
4. Your Datanumeric hosted page is a page written by an amateur who makes no attempt to apply the Comparative method. I wouldn't trust her data as a reference.
5. If you wanted to nuke this page and move the contents in a condensed form, as you implied on Talk:Dravidian languages, why did you vote "Keep"? Zestauferov suggested something similar, why did you vote "Keep"? --Cheers, Xiaopo's Talk 22:55, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

If moving the contents of this page to Dravidian languages in a condensed form is acceptable, I hereby agree to nuke this page. Codebytez | Talk

The page is now redirected, but you can go to the page history to get the content and take it to Dravidian languages, but please be aware that the same issues might be raised when you try to add it there. Angela. 02:24, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)