Talk:Languages of the Caucasus
|
|
(( Undid moves from Talk:Caucasian languages and Talk:Iberian-Caucasian languages ))
From the article:
- "South Caucasian and North Caucasian are two distinct, unrelated phyla even in Greenberg's classification."
Who is Greenburg? -- llywrch 03:38 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I've just come here to ask for a little disambiguation in the entry at the same point, and expansion of "even" Wetman 02:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
See Joseph H. Greenberg --Jerzy(t) 04:03, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
Please do not use "Iberian-Caucasian languages" as the page title if it were an established language family. There is no evidence that the North and South Caucasian languages form a clade (i.e. had a common origin before they branched off from other families). Until then it is just one among many other theories. Also attaching the name "Iberian" (a name closely identified with Georgia) to the whole group is unacceptable bias. Finally the name is misleading and defintely non-standard.
Jorge Stolfi 03:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I have rewritten the Iberian-Caucasian languages page to make it clear that the proposed grouping of North and South Caucasian families is still only a conjecture with no linguitic evidence; and that the name "Iberian" has problematic political connotations.
Jorge Stolfi 07:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)- While the relationship between North and South Caucasian phyla is not widely accepted, or even certain, I think that saying there is "no evidence" is too strong. Some reconstructions of Proto-Kartvelian bear quite some resemblance to reconstructions of Proto-Northwest Caucasian. There is no proof; but saying there is no evidence is a different thing entirely. thefamouseccles 00:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
With all due respect, "Iberian-Caucasian languages" is not very good English. The appropriate form should be "Ibero-Caucasian languages" according to English word-formation rules. The article entitled "Iberian-Caucasian languages" should be renamed as (or moved to) "Ibero-Caucasian languages". The first reference in the article could read "The term Ibero-Caucasian (or Iberian-Caucasian)", but subsequent references in the same article should just read "Ibero-Caucasian". Furthermore, the reference to "Iberian-Caucasian languages" in the article "Languages of the Caucasus" should be changed to "Ibero-Caucasian languages". Also, I don't understand why there is so much strife over this term that the page has to be locked. The term refers only to a hypothetical grouping of languages, a "negative" grouping (i.e. based on the fact that its "member" languages are not members of any of the major language families around them), rather than a "positive" grouping. It is, in other words, simply a geographic notion. There is no substantive evidence supporting this grouping as a real language family, or superfamily, or even "phylum". Pasquale 19:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The locking was due to repeated vandalism by a single user. I fully agree with your remarks, except there are some scholars who chaim to see a genetic relation, and this opinion has to be recorded.
Jorge Stolfi 09:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
English zelkova = Russian дзельква = Georgian ძელქვა ?
I've been researching the English word zelkova which is said to derive from a Caucasian language. Dictionaries are very hard to find so could anybody here verfiy that I've tracked down the right word please? — Hippietrail 13:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)