215:
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.)
21:
333:
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
306:
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
174:
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
581:
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
235:
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
214:
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
160:
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
137:
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
493:
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
149:
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
606:) "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".
576:
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:
290:
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
120:
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 Knowledge (XXG). When you have an article in a reputable journal, let us know.
138:
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?
75:
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
391:
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
106:
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
298:
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
267:
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.)
523:
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.
175:
but for a completely NPOV this should be alongside similar data comparing it with
Austroasiatic & Turanian languages which are also mentioned as having similarities.
616:
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.
400:
and posting it on Knowledge (XXG), claiming that it's not primary research because you (obviously) used mathematical ideas developed in the past two millenia.
613:
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).
337:
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.
582:
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
340:
Co-incidental matches among modern words obviously needs to be mentioned and illustrated, or the article would not be complete or fair.
157:
558:
Yes, actually. _especially_ those which are considered fringe theories. Please don't feel singled out, we do this to everyone.
447:(2000). Some More Possible Relationships Between Indo-European and Dravidian Journal of Indo-European studies Volume 28, p. 407
444:(1998). Is There a Genetic Relationship between Indo-European and Dravidian? Journal of Indo-European studies Volume 26, p. 131
72:
273:
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.
183:
28:
261:
A. To the best of my knowledge, attempts to link IE and Dravidian are as old as the discovery of Dravidian itself.
663:
627:
52:
295:
support in the linguistic community at all) that work for 90%+ of all roots I'd believe your theory myself.
667:
656:
648:
533:
463:
411:
percentage of known roots. The number of coincidental matches is a lot larger than you may think.--
352:
281:
225:
143:
115:
112:
108:
81:
77:
370:
We should certainly mention the fact that people claim such things as yellow/haladi as evidence.
620:
397:
619:
Your Datanumeric hosted page is a page written by an amateur who makes no attempt to apply the
626:
If you wanted to nuke this page and move the contents in a condensed form, as you implied on
674:
639:
631:
416:
316:
191:
176:
166:
89:
60:
48:
99:
670:, but please be aware that the same issues might be raised when you try to add it there.
302:
BTW, what are your sources for these roots? I always believed the IE root for "pale" was
652:
529:
459:
348:
277:
221:
139:
450:
403:
Keep in mind that you don't just need to show some common roots, you need to show a
186:
explictly states that such material is not encyclopedic, not in WP's eyes anyway. --
494:
sense) You are advocating this theory, not just writing dispassionately about it.
671:
635:
559:
495:
412:
371:
312:
237:
204:
187:
162:
129:
122:
85:
56:
36:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
396:
primary research. This would be analogous to claiming you have a proof of the
344:
334:
the respectable minority view that IE and Dravidian are related at some level.
151:
96:
526:
Btw, does every article have to go through this sort of "thesis defence"?
453:
has numerous etymological proof. (Regardless of the message of the paper)
651:
in a condensed form is acceptable, I hereby agree to nuke this page.
634:
suggested something similar, why did you vote "Keep"? --Cheers,
195:
586:
and states "In this context, compare the Tamil locative suffix
128:
That is a vote to delete, btw, just in case that wasn't clear.
182:
Delete. The article is plainly and simply a primary research.
15:
203:
Keep, at least for now, give Codebytez a chance to fix it.
590:. Is it possible that there is a connection?". Or 21 (En.
662:The page is now redirected, but you can go to the
451:http://www.datanumeric.com/dravidian/page020.html
343:yellow from old english feolo, from IE root pel-
264:3. Yellow/haladi was removed, so its research.
84:and discussed the mainstream view on them. --
8:
307:change or by claiming that Dravidian is the
47:Discussion of why this page is on VfD is on
623:. I wouldn't trust her data as a reference.
647:If moving the contents of this page to
34:Do not edit the contents of this page.
158:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
150:opinion of an individual amauteur. --
7:
456:(Also various articles on Nostratic)
236:to be clear that is what it is. --
666:to get the content and take it to
14:
19:
184:What Knowledge (XXG) is not...
1:
73:Indo-European Dravidian words
247:Major objections seem to be:
630:, why did you vote "Keep"?
258:2. This is primary research
692:
255:A. I'm open to suggestions
677:02:24, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
125:13:36, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
92:01:30, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
63:16:30, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
642:22:55, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
628:Talk:Dravidian languages
562:19:49, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
498:18:35, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
441:Levitt, Stephan Hillyer
419:17:10, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
374:16:30, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
319:15:29, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
284:08:58, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
252:1. The title is not NPOV
169:02:45, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
161:(c.f. yellow/haladi). --
146:21:53, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
132:21:22, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
53:Talk:Dravidian languages
466:18:15, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
355:16:20, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
240:06:46, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
228:06:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
207:06:48, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
200:04:20, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
179:00:19, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
154:22:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
270:4. Its a minority view
32:of past discussions.
405:regular sound change
668:Dravidian languages
649:Dravidian languages
109:Dravidian languages
82:Dravidian languages
78:Dravidian languages
621:Comparative method
407:that applies to a
398:Riemann Hypothesis
584:ille, illa, illud
44:
43:
38:current talk page
683:
198:
102:
23:
22:
16:
691:
690:
686:
685:
684:
682:
681:
680:
604:*naat-, *naatt-
309:common ancestor
196:
100:
69:
20:
12:
11:
5:
689:
687:
679:
678:
646:
644:
643:
624:
617:
614:
607:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
527:
524:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
457:
454:
448:
445:
429:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
401:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
346:
341:
338:
335:
325:
323:
322:
321:
320:
300:
296:
275:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
259:
256:
253:
249:
248:
244:
243:
242:
241:
230:
229:
217:
216:
211:
210:
209:
208:
201:
180:
172:
171:
170:
155:
135:
134:
133:
118:
104:
68:
65:
46:
42:
41:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
688:
676:
673:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:
618:
615:
612:
608:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
580:
579:
578:
561:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
535:
531:
528:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
497:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
465:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
442:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
395:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
373:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
354:
350:
347:
345:
342:
339:
336:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
318:
314:
310:
305:
301:
297:
294:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
283:
279:
272:
269:
266:
263:
260:
257:
254:
251:
250:
246:
245:
239:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:
213:
212:
206:
202:
199:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:
173:
168:
164:
159:
156:
153:
148:
147:
145:
141:
136:
131:
127:
126:
124:
119:
117:
114:
113:User:Codebtez
110:
105:
103:
98:
94:
93:
91:
87:
83:
79:
74:
71:
70:
66:
64:
62:
58:
54:
50:
39:
35:
31:
30:
25:
18:
17:
664:page history
645:
610:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
575:
428:
408:
404:
393:
324:
308:
303:
292:
276:
45:
37:
33:
27:
632:Zestauferov
177:Zestauferov
26:This is an
409:very large
299:evidence).
653:Codebytez
530:Codebytez
460:Codebytez
349:Codebytez
311:of IE. --
278:Codebytez
222:Codebytez
140:Codebytez
598:vs. Ta.
609:All of
594:, PIE.
95:Del. --
29:archive
672:Angela
636:Xiaopo
592:nation
560:Morwen
496:Morwen
413:Xiaopo
372:Morwen
313:Xiaopo
238:Jmabel
205:Jmabel
188:Menchi
163:Xiaopo
130:Morwen
123:Morwen
86:Xiaopo
57:Xiaopo
49:WP:VFD
657:Talk
602:PDr.
600:naatu
596:*gen-
534:Talk
464:Talk
353:Talk
304:*pag-
282:Talk
226:Talk
152:Imran
144:Talk
640:Talk
417:Talk
317:Talk
192:Talk
167:Talk
116:Talk
111:. --
90:Talk
61:Talk
55:. --
51:and
638:'s
611:two
588:-il
415:'s
315:'s
220:--
165:'s
97:Jia
88:'s
80:to
67:VfD
59:'s
655:|
532:|
462:|
394:is
351:|
293:no
280:|
224:|
142:|
101:ng
675:.
197:â
194:)
190:(
40:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.