Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mahagaja (talk | contribs) at 10:05, 26 December 2007 (→Protection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Languages B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Indo-European languages was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Template:FAOL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

• Talk:Indo-European languages/Archive 1 (December 2001 to August 2005)
• Talk:Indo-European languages/Archive 2 (September 2005 to June 2005)

Can some one tell me if this picture I created for Indo-Languages is accurate? If it is, could I or someone put it on the page?

GA failed

For these reasons:

• Some researchers have proposed other, more controversial supergroupings. like whom? can we have a citation for that?

-Yes, an example could be the supposition of the existence of a super-group of Germano-Slavo-Baltic or putting Phrygian in the Greek group.

• No doubt other Indo-European languages could be less pov.
• Rephrase this please They disagree as to the original geographic location (the so-called "Urheimat" or "original homeland") from where it originated.

Here we go: "One of the most prominent debates in Indo-European studies is the issue of the geographical location of the original "homeland" of the Proto-Indo-Europeans (the so called "Urheimat").--Khodadad 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• This sub-section should be a full prose, with no lists.
• Is it possible to have a text instead of a list in the sub-section The Kurgan hypothesis? It looks more like an almanac as it stands.
• The Tarim mummies possibly correspond to proto-Tocharians., it would be nice to know who said it or if every scientist believes in this.

it is absurd to expect every scientist to agree on anything. Yes, a citation would be nice, but consensus in anything cannot be an expectation for GA yamaplos 02:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth Wayland Barber "The Mummies of Urumchi", New York, NY: Norton and Company, 1999. --Khodadad 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Could A strength of the Kurgan hypothesis lies... be balanced by a weakness to remove the POVness of the statement.

Honestly, hardly. The rest of the theories are very close to BS. --Khodadad 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• spreading peacefully ... who knows there weren't any wars?

Archaeology knows. No destruction or burning found in that layer. --Khodadad 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can we have a counterargument of The main strength of the farming hypothesis lies ....
• The inline external references should be turned into footnotes or references.
• Is this :The linguistic community claims a common Indo-European word..., another theory or part of the Anatolian theory? If so, place it in another paragraph. If not, remove the parenthesis and state it as an example against or for the theory.
• IMO, there aren't enough references for the researches that were done on the languages, especially for the history section.
• The Lead section doesn't comply to the WP:LEAD policy.
• The classification section should be expanded to talk about the modern languages briefly.
• There could be place for distinctions between modern IE languages (or IE groups), like why is a certain language in this group and not in this one.

Anyhow, these are minor adjustments that can be addressed thus popping the article back in the GA nomination in a matter of weeks. It is a well-written article, almost POV and really researched. Lincher 00:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost POV? Gee, thanks... Angr (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

read Almost NPOV, I suspect. Eluchil404 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Source needed for another article

I wrote that all consonants in Indo-European languages are pulmonic in the International Phonetic Alphabet article. Is there a resource tha can back this up? I know it's true (unless I missed some sort of obscure dialect), so I was wondering if any of the sources here back up this statement. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have missed two. Ossetic has borrowed Caucasian words complete with ejectives, and at least Sindhi has somehow developed implosives. That's AFAIK all, though.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 18:15 CEST | 2006/10/28

Out of India

So, the new length section on the "Out of India" hypothesis says, in part: "postulating that Vedic Sanskrit essentially equates to Proto-Indo-European". If this is actually a correct description of the Out of India hypothesis, then it does not deserve the lengthy writeup that it receives in this article, since the postulate "that Vedic Sanskrit essentially equates to Proto-Indo-European" is known to be false. AJD 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Improvements suggested

Couldn´t someone who knows more than I make a "Common features" part, telling what is special with the Indo-European languages, compared with other language families?

most "common features" have been worn down beyond recognition. Hindi is even an ergative language, and the syntax of English is more like Chinese than like proper IE for chrissake :) Features of the proto-language are discussed on the PIE article. dab (ᛏ) 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian as the largest branch?

I am a native speaker of Persian, so far be it from me wanting to undermine the elevated status given to Indo-Iranian as the largest branch. However, to keep things honest, considering that a good portion of Indians are Dravidian speakers, is I-Ir really the largest branch or should we opt for the Germanic branch (because of English) or even Romance (Spanish)?--Khodadad 07:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is. We didn't just add the numbers of Indian and Persian nationals, see List of languages by number of speakers. However, it might be argued that Indo-Iranian is really a super-branch, consisting of two sub-branch. Considering this, it becomes apparent that the notion of "main branch" is rather arbitrary and defined by our limited knowledge rather than by intrinsic qualities. Indo-Aryan would still come up top as the largest branch even if considered on its own, largely due to the uncontrolled population growth in India. Iranian would come fourth after Germanic and Romance (Germanic is "inflated" by the status of English) dab (ᛏ) 22:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian is the largest branch. According to Ethnologue, there are 449 Indo-European languages, of which 308 are Indo-Iranian, well over a majority. And even though Dravidian speakers make up a substantial portion of the Indian population, they are still a minority. Indo-Iranian speakers make up 75% of the Indian population.

Dates

I'm removing the following sentence from the article:

The linguistic community further notes that linguistic evidence suggests a later date for Proto-Indo-European than the Anatolian theory predicts.

What evidence? As far as I can tell, there is no consensus on the dating of PIE using linguistic data; that's actually why there are several hypotheses. Even though I am not fond of the Anatolian theory, there is literature supporting it with dates (e.g. R. Gray and Q. Atkinson, Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature, 426(6965):435–9, 2003) Pruneau 23:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

there is no "consensus", but there is a clear majority opinion. Gray and Atkinson are not part of the "linguistic community", and their arguments are not strictly linguistic. Of course there is "literature supporting the Anatolian hypothesis", otherwise we wouldn't even mention it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is favoured only by a small minority. This is all discussed in detail on Anatolian hypothesis and Kurgan hypothesis. dab (ᛏ) 10:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Of course dates can be derived from linguistic reconstructions: The existence of a common terminology of wheeled transport between the Atlantic and the Tarym Depression, which only linguistic laypeople like the above mentioned Gray and Atkinson can attribute to borrowing or indepentent invention. One of many references: Martin E. Huld: Reinventing the Wheel: The technology of transport and Indo-European Expansions. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, June 4-5, 1999. Edited by Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, & Angela Della Volpe. Institute for the study of Man, Washington, DC, 2000:95-115. This must then be correlated to archeological facts, saying that the first wheels are known from not earlier than ca. 35th centy. B.C. And of course computer packages from biological informatics can NOT compute the time of linguistic splits, for this would presuppose a constant rate of linguistic change, what NO linguist would admit to have ever existed. G&A have no linguistic arguments at all, and rely exclusively on a fine mathematical theory, which regrettably has nothing to to with language change. HJJHolm 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

100M threshold

our brief list of major IE languages in the lead is a magnet for trouble. Especially the Persian language is being re-added with determination. And now some anonymous editor has even promoted Persian to 101 million (sic) native speakers on our list of languages by number of native speakers. This is silly. There is no doubt Persian is a major IE language, and the main representant of the Iranian branch, so maybe we can find some way of satisfying our Iranian nationalist editors here without tilting numbers. We could mention, for example, English ('world language'), Hindustani (India/Pakistan), Romance languages (S America, Africa), Russian (former SU) and Persian (Iran-Central Asia) as the main international languages, for example. dab (ᛏ) 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh crap. I just removed French, and readded Farsi... I wonder if that makes me an Iranian nationalist... Tomer 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic?

Why is a theoretical language group included here?! there's two groups.. BALTIC and SLAVIC, which (Personal attack removed) put them together?

this is how it should look:

• Balto-Slavic languages, a reconstructed hypothetical language group, believed by many Indo-Europeanists to derive from a common proto-language later than Proto-Indo-European, while skeptical Indo-Europeanists regard Baltic and Slavic as no more closely related than any other two branches of Indo-European.
  • Slavic languages, attested from the 9th century, earliest texts in Old Church Slavonic.
• Baltic languages, attested from the 14th century, and, for languages attested that late, they retain unusually many archaic features attributed to Proto-Indo-European. However, their existence dates back to even the 13th century BC.

SEPERATE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudidas (talk • contribs)

no, it is fine as it is. all language families are established by comparison, and Balto-Slavic is not particularly controversial (outside Baltic nationslism, of course). dab (𒁳) 08:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

please do not talk about that what you don't know about.. Baltic languages are a subgroup of Indo-European.. Balto-Slavic is hypotheitcal, incorrect and outdated.. I am coming forward to you by even leaving it in this article, as it has no right to be there, then we'd have to include the other 400 hypothetical language groups, and that'd be a mess. as i said, don't talk about what u don't know about.. i've talked to professors in linguistics, as well as historians, and ive (years ago) consulted books, and trust me.. its how im saying it is. :) --Rudi 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

it is gonna be like this:

• Slavic languages, attested from the 9th century, earliest texts in Old Church Slavonic.
• Baltic languages, attested from the 14th century, and, for languages attested that late, they retain unusually many archaic features attributed to Proto-Indo-European. However, a partial and tribal existence dates back to even the 13th century BC.

please stop changing it whoever you are. it's immature. --Rudi 17:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

my {{see also}} change

in my change, i unwantedly changed a pipe link. could someone change {{see also}} so it's possible to insert pipe links?100110100 13:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sassetti

The History section should mention Filippo Sassetti, Gaston Coeurdoux and Karl Schlegel.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.113.156 (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

attestation

The term attestation? or language attestation is commonly known but, things commonly know are rather unclear. It will be good to quote some definitions if exist.

What it mean exactly.

• Are any degree/scale of attestation ?
• Attestation by know sounding but older words (thats ok - intuitive.
• How to classify attestation of unknown writing and unknown sounding... at least few examples may be given in extinct languages?

Did anybody try to apply a little math to measure different attestations? Some attestations are not falsifiable other are based on assumption that the attested language should be similar to some other near - questionable. Practice of comparing passage to passage in other text may be based on adjusting the product of research to the source . (Verses to verse and round again)

• related Attested languages,
• less related Attestation Standards, Criterion of multiple attestation, Attestation clause

Nasz 08:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are not making any sense. You may want to consult a dictionary? wikt:attestation? dab (𒁳) 10:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

in simple english : What is attestation ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasz (talk • contribs)

can you do me a favour and just click on the link I provided? See also http://onelook.com , and if all else fails, consult WP:RD/L. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

correlation L:G

Please read more before doing reverts with “irrelevant” commendation. The good starting point is R1a1 with numerous references. Statistical data for correlation:: languages to Y haplogroup s was first given by Cavalli-Sforza and nobody show it invalid rather otherwise. Significant statistically correlations are explainable and may be explained but being tutor to irrevelator is beyond scope of this short note Nasz 01:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that I've read quite a bit about this kind of stuff, being a professional comparative linguist myself. The majority of comparative linguists do not accept the idea of any straightforward correlation between genes and dispersals of prehistoric language families, and in particular most do not subscribe to Cavalli-Sforzas theories of linguistic prehitory. I'll keep on reverting this at least until relevant linguistic sources are introduced. --AAikio 17:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is correlation statistical term. You introduced unknown the idea of ... straightforward correlation" Do you know any flaws in methodology or reasoning in related publications?

I see you as speaker of majority of comparative linguists who do not accept the idea of straightforward correlation. Could you please to list some members of this group or better to show the publication where the disagreement with correlation or straightforward correlation is debated? I will like to know the methods it may revolutionize all mathematic and science to!

Nasz 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

--

a brief reference to archaeogenetics is certainly an option, but not in such a naive and biased way. Try to understand a subject first, and then try to form a grammatial sentence giving an accurate summary. And I am sorry, but "Out of India" may have support among assorted Swamis and Yoga teachers, but it simply isn't notable in any way in serious literature. We can well say "some people would like to believe that", but that's as far as it goes. dab (𒁳) 10:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I do not accept OIT. I listed here (WP) referenced data documenting on the flaws of OIT. I don’t have idea where from you get idea.... My personal opinions … I trying to hide to report NPOV. You I think reject something on base of group membership. What mean "Swamis and Yoga teachers" is it an argument? Of what? This is not ok and sorry to say intellectually pure. Do not take this personally even if you are “professional comparative linguist" I will not charge you by membership and I like to know the publications or detail. But I am suspecting that you are composing reality.

Nasz 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your post is garbled and doesn't appear to make sense (similar to your edit in article space). If you can produce a coherent and sourced paragraph, I am sure it will be welcomed. dab (𒁳) 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

what you do not understand ? Nasz 12:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

your bit about "correlation". What is "Do you know any flaws in methodology or reasoning in related publications" supposed to mean? Apart from that, you seem to be making general observations on personal bias. never mind, maybe someone else here can figure out what you want. dab (𒁳) 14:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Basicaly it mean: Do you know what they screw up ? 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IE Languages Maps

I seriously doubt the accuracy of the maps posted in the last part of this article. Especially I doubt their accuracy in the problematic part of southeastern Europe. There are some things that I think are proven by documents and general linguists consensus. I'm afraid the last map, is not accurate at all. It is a known fact that in Transylvania Hungarian was spoken by a bit more than 20% of the people, yet on that map the whole area is shown in gray and there's a big text saying "HUNGARIAN" above it. Also Moldavia has never spoken Hungarian and when did parts from Poland ever speak Hungarian? I didn't remove it, but someone should either change it or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.210.195 (talk)

Maps that show where languages are spoken cover minorities as well. Therefore, it's perfectly appropriate for a map to colour Transylvania as Hungarian-speaking. On the wall above the desk where I'm writing this, I have a map showing the distribution of the Uralic languages and guess what, all Transylvania is coloured in. As for Moldavia, there are Hungarian speakers there, the Csangó minority. CRCulver 15:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Csangós were just in the Bukovina part of Moldova and got there in 1777. The map is from 1500. Then what about the rest of Moldova and southern Poland? When did a Hungarian minority EVER exist there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.210.195 (talk)

I should mention that according to one likely historical scenario, Transylvania had a majority of Hungarian and Slavonic speakers before the Vlachs reached Transylvania after the turn of the first millennium. As these maps also show where languages have been spoken at any time in history, not necessary at the present time, it is doubly appropriate that Transylvania be highlighted for Hungarian. CRCulver 15:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The map shows southern Iberia speaking Arabic in 1500. Is this true? Was it ever true? (I had the uimperssxion that the peasantry stayed put throughout the Islamic period - they went right on speaking whatever they'd been speaking before; I also had the impression that the conquerors spoke Berber rather than Arabic). 03:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs)

It was never true. Only elite minorities and small numbers of soldiers or colonizers ever spoke Arabic of Berber languages. The overall majority of the Iberian population remained the same and basically spoke the Mozarabic language, wich was a Romance language. Furthermore, that would refer to a period well before 1500. in 1500, for instance, Portugal had already reconquered the Algarve and terminated its Reconquista (in 1249), there were no Arabic speakers left, basically! And in the rest of the Peninsula the last Islamic State dissapeared in 1492 with the fall of Granada. The map need urgently to be corrected! The Ogre 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your comments. Actually, looking on the map, it shows Europe at 1500 AD. So not at any time in history. And I was not discussing the Rossler theory or its various opposite theories here. I was discussing language distribution in Eastern Europe in 1500 AD, not origin of people and languages at 1000 AD, when the supposed migration of the vlachs happened. So I did not try at all to bring up the controversial discussions of the migration or continuity. Not at all, as I said before I was discussing language distribution in Eastern Europe in 1500 AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.210.195 (talk)

Hm, yes, the maps are rough sketches and should be improved. It is intended to give an overview of the changes between 500 AD and 1500 AD. Notable to this period are the Islamic, Turkic and Hungarian expansion, so that their effect may be over-emphasized a little bit. I hope to get around to this some time, or, of couse, you are cordially invited to improve them. dab (𒁳)

16:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This map totally bothers me, and I'm thinking of removing it until is fixed. To begin with, I'm Bulgarian, and speak Bulgarian, which is a Slavic language. I look at that map and see what? Geographically, it indicated only a part of what is today western Bulgaria as Slavic-speaking and the rest is either Greek (which goes far too north-northeast), Turkish (in the plains of Thrace and the sub-Balkan valleys??) or Romanian (far too south). I'm not complaining about the lack of any reference to the Bulgarian linguistic influence in Romania, I can accept that, but according to that map, barely anyone spoke Bulgarian in Bulgaria, and the region around my native city was either Turkish- or Romanian-speaking, which has never been the case. Todor→Bozhinov 08:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Also, nobody spoke Hungarian in Moldova (The Csango minority came in 1777 and stayed there for a very little amount of time, also they didn't make even 3% of the people)! And it's shown as fully speaking Hungarian! O.o Romanian language is drawn without any regards to the Danube, going too much South, in Bulgaria, yet the southern romanians (aromanians, megleno-romanians and istro-romanians) are not even shown on the map (from Greece, Albania, and Croatia). Hungarian was never spoken anywhere near the Black Sea, yet on this map it looks like they control all the northwestern coast, even a little down to the Crimean!

And by the way, Dbachmann, thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, though I did some map edit in the past, I won't have time soon to do this. If someone else could, I'd be grateful. BTW Todor, I also thought of just removing it on sight. :) But if we could get an updated version of it, it would be very good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirc mirc (talk • contribs) 11:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Problem with Diachronic Map of the Centum-Satem isogloss

This map is incorrect in what refers to the Iberian peninsula, since it reverses the geographical/linguistic areas. In Iberia the area presented in blue should be grey and the one in grey should be blue. In fact the presently in blue was globaly the area of the Iberian language and Tartessian language (non-Indo-European languages), while the one presently in gray was in fact the one with Celtic and Proto-Celtic languages. See, for instance, this detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples and Languages of Iberia. This needs to be corrected! The Ogre 16:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is true, and has been noted before. Sorry I haven't fixed it yet. If you do it, I will thank you; otherwise, I'll see that I get round to it soon. dab (𒁳) 09:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still interested in the previous version: Where did it come from? Did it reflect a scholar hypothese on Lusitanians being pre-Celtic (or pre La Tène)? Rokus01 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, dab, changing the map is a bit out of my league... I'll wait for you! Rokus01, what do you mean? I think the map is just mistaken, in the sense that "it reverses the geographical/linguistic areas" in Iberia, and not just the Lusitanian area (also the Celtiberian, Galaican and other Celts). And the Lusitanians are definately (that's established) Indo-European. The question about them is if they were Proto-Celt, Pre-Celt or even related to the Italic group. The Ogre 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was worried the map had been changed already. Rokus01 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the post- Roman Empire and Migrations period map

This map is also wrong! In what regards Iberia, it present the southern part of it (as well as part of North Africa) as seaking a Germanic language! Why is this? Because of the Vandals move into southern Iberia and afterwards to North Africa? Well, First of all, the Vandals were only present for a very brief period in either Iberia or North Africa. In the firts case the Silingi Vandals were in Hispania Baetica (modern Andalusia), and the Hasdingi Vandals in Gallaecia (modern Galicia and NorthernPortugal), wich are not excatly the areas represented in the map. They were accompanied by the Sarmatian Alans who established themselves in Lusitania. All of these tribes were expeled by the Suevi (Quadi and Marcomanni, and including the Buri) and the Visigoths to North Africa, but not the area presented in the map - they went to the area of Ancient Carthage (in modern Tunisia), from were they moved again back to Europe and disbanded. Overall they just stayed for 20 years in Iberia (from 409 to 429; see Timeline of Portuguese history (Germanic Kingdoms)). And the main problem was that they were a minority! The huge majority of the population (basically of Ibero-Celtic origin or similar) already spoke romance (latin) dialects, that would give rise to the Iberian Romance languages. A greater impact would have been the Suevi (mainly in western Iberia, particularly in the north part) and the Visigoths (mainly in central Iberia), but these were also a minority that quickly began speakink the romance vernaculars. This map also needs to be changed. The Ogre 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And in addittion to all that, how was the ex-Roman province Dacia speaking a slavic language?? This is beyond me. That area was speaking proto-romanian. Which is a totally non-slavic language. This map needs serious fixing too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.120.210.195 (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

South African use of indo-european languages...

The graphic IE_countries.png shows South Africa as having the majority of speakers speaking Indo European languages (presumably English or Afrikaans)... This claim is dubious since, although English is the main language of official communication (press, broader media, politics, commerce and business) in South Africa, there are 11 official languages in South Africa, and the majority of speakers have English as a second language, with one of the other 10 official languages as their mother tongue. So it is incorrect that South Africa is coloured in orange, its should be coloured in yellow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.240.101.41 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Questions to admin Dbachmann

What to do in this situation - Gimbutas ide - Kurgan theory was criticised by Colin Renfrew from Cambridge. His - ide-farming spreading from Anatolia theory was denyed by recent genetical information: For a modern version of the hypothesis of European origin of PIE see the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (proposed by Italian theorists) that derives Indo-European from the European Paleolithic cultures. It was prooved recently, that 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic. «The Neolithic farmers ha certainly been important; but they ha only contributed about one fifth of our genes. It the hunters of the Paleolithic that hacreated the main body of modern European gene pool». (Bryan Sykes, 2001, 242).

Paleolithical continuity theory is attractive and not contradicts to genetics, but is not strong enough? I've tried to modify text, but you made rv removing text: It was prooved recently, that 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic. «The Neolithic farmers have certainly been important; but they have only contributed about one fifth of our genes. It is the hunters of the Paleolithic that have created the main body of modern European gene pool». (Bryan Sykes, 2001, 242)..

we mention PCT, that is enough. Apart from four or five proponents, nobody believes in it. This is not the article on European genetics. Kurgan or Anatolian proponents don't have a problem with the 80% paleolithic stock: genes don't carry language. Paleolithic Indo-European is a joke. Renfrew is already struggling to accommodate his long time frame (and receded from the 9th to the 6th millennium). The paleolithic is simply out of the question in any informed debate. You might as well claim that PIE was spoken in Kumari Kandam in 100,000 BC. If you like, expand the Paleolithic Continuity Theory article, but don't go around touting it, per WP:UNDUE. If you want to argue that PCT acceptance is increasing in academic mainstream, you'll have to present very convincing sources (strong claims need strong backup). dab (𒁳) 17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian is the "largest sub-branch" of Indo-European??

This claim in the lead paragraph is somewhat problematic. The footnote gives no fewer than three justifications for it:

• Geography (stretching from the Caucasus to South India)
• Variety (number of languages according to SIL)
• Number of speakers.

Let's deal with these one at a time.

• Geography: this has no citation and therefore could be removed as WP:OR. Furthermore, surely the Romance languages are more widespread geographically? They dominate South and Central America and are the majority lanauges in many countries in Africa and Europe, whereas almost all the countries with large Indo-Iranian speaking populations are in south or southwest Asia.
  • Although, ironically, it understates the true geographical range of Indo-Iranian languages by giving South India, rather than Sri Lanka (Sinhala) as one of the endpoints. In fact most South Indian languages are not Indo-Iranian or indeed Indo-European at all.
• Variety. SIL is given as source. Fair enough.
• Number of speakers. This is a plausible claim, but again no citation is given. If this fact has been calculated by an editor by adding up the numbers given by various published listings it should be removed as a violation of WP:SYN.

At a more fundamental level, I just don't see why this statement, even if verifiable, needs to go in the lead paragraph, or indeed in the article at all.. We don't have any other statistics of a similar kind (e.g. Spanish/English/Hindi, depending on source, is the most widely-spoken language in the group). I propose that this sentence be removed. Grover cleveland 09:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

yes: the "geography" claim is of course intended to refer to the ancestral distribution, not the post-colonialist distribution. This should be made explicit. The intended meaning of the statement is that Indo-Iranian is a "super-branch" which includes more than half of the IE languages, historically accounts for more than half of the area of IE distribution (Scythia...), and still accounts for more than a third of native IE speakers, easily. The intention is not to "hype" Indo-Iranian in some way, but for the structural understanding of the family, it is important to note that Indo-Iranian has this dominant position. The case is so obvious that it is dubious to speak of "original synthesis". But you are most welcome to phrase this in a better way. dab (𒁳) 09:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. We should definitely include a citation for the claim that Indo-Iranian is the "super-branch" (is that a term of art?) of Indo-European, and make clear what historical period we are talking about in terms of geographical distribution. It may be obvious to you but it probably won't be to a lot of readers. We need a citation for the number of speakers too. Cheers. Grover cleveland 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

yes -- I am sure we can find a satisfactory solution.

there will obviously be no reliable estimate for the number of present day native speakers of Indo-Iranian within a few percent. But we don't need an accurate number for the statement made here. Adding up numbers from the sources quoted at list of languages by number of native speakers does not amount to "undue synthesis". The number of native speaker certainly exceeds 800M. I don't know whether it exceeds 1 billion. Non-Indo-Iranian native IE speakers certainly exceed 1.5 billion, perhaps 2 billion. It is fair to say that I-Ir speakers make up a third of IE speakers. You are welcome to do the sums more accurately.

"super-branch" may be in use, but in the sense that I-Ir can be further sub-divided (like Balto-Slavic, and perhaps Italo-Celtic), not in the sense of the point I am trying to make here: I wouldn't use the term in the article. Again, I am just trying to give a fair sense of proportion to the reader of the lead section. As a summary, this necessarily means making some sweeping statements, which should be unravelled in greater detail in the article body. dab (𒁳) 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Map is slightly inaccurate

It does not show where the Celtic languages are spoken in EUROPE. Welsh, Scottish and Irish for example are official languages within their countries. There should either be a remake of the map shown, or a new map showing the languages of nations like Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Basque Country, Isle of man, Britanny and more. Remember that these languages and many more in Europe are all part of the Indo-European language family. It's either ignorance or just us Americans thinking we can ignore the smaller used languages again. 64.18.139.132 14:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You can look in the articles about each specific language (Welsh language, Irish Gaelic, Cornish language) to learn where they are spoken. The location of celtic speakers has shifted over the years, once occupying modern France, England, and Spain and different times in history. They are now confined to specific communities in Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. There is also some ambiguity as to whether or not the ancient language of Scotland, Pictish, was Celtic or a Pre-IE language of Iron Age Europe. Read the article on Celtic languages for more information. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Indo-XY

I found that Indo-Germanic is not a synonym for Indo-European in comparison with . So I reverted changes back. ≈Tulkolahten≈ 12:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Map problem

Israel shouldn't be included -- the only official languages there are Hebrew and Arabic... AnonMoos 03:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Satem/Centum Jargon Tag

This section is very dense. Not sure if its possible to make it more understandable for lay persons or not, but in its current state is of questionable value for people who aren't experts in the field.

velar

velar rows

labiovelar

pure velar

assibilated

palatial velars

isogloss

monophyly

Areal

PIE

Aepryus 00:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The particulars of how we produce the sounds of language are pretty interesting and worth some understanding. Perhaps providing exemplars of the different consonants in familiar words would allow the section to be explicit and yet more accessible.

Article balance

this should be the article on the entire family, especially the living languages and their attested history. Yes, there should be a section on the proto-langauge, but this should be kept brief. People keep adding material on PIE. Please note that both the Proto-Indo-European language and the Proto-Indo-Europeans have dedicated articles. The PIE section here is too long as it is, and it exclusively focusses on the Urheimat question instead of addressing far better established linguistic aspects. dab (𒁳) 08:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian Language

To my knowledge, most linguists consider the Ancient Macedonian language to be more closely related to Greek than any other language. The main debate is whether it is a distinct language close to Greek or merely a dialect of Greek. The hypotheses relating to Illyrian, Thracian or Phrygian have less support due to the fact that these languages are rather poorly attested. Might not we insert something in the article about that? --71.198.103.119 (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

that's irrelevant to this article. The details are all laid out in the article you are linking to. dab (𒁳) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurgan hypothesis WP:UNDUE and off-topic

Please don't abuse WP:Fringe in order to give WP:UNDUE weight to a certain point of view. The Kurgan hypothesis has its own article. To a language topic like Indo-European languages an extensive promotion of an archeological theory is hopelessly off-topic, since the extensive special Kurgan section (a subsection already exists in the same article!) does not even give insight into the linguistic matters addressed in the article. Try to be helpful in the proper application of WP policy. My WP:UNDUE correction to Indo-European languages does not have anything to do with boosting another archeological view, just to correct fanatism on the Kurgan theory within an article about linguistics. It is utterly untrue that the Kurgan hypothesis is generally and unequivocally accepted. Instead, the Kurgan theory is controversal and archeologically still undemonstrated. Rokus01 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The details regarding PIE in the timeline could probably be trimmed, per dab's comment above. Other than that, I don't see an issue with going into more details on the most widely-accepted hypothesis in the field. - Merzbow (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it slipped your notice that the wave model of the Kurgan hypothesis has been heavily criticized, even by Mallory that introduced a modified form of this theory by dating the migrations earlier to around 4000 BC and putting less insistence on their violent or quasi-military nature. Even then he express doubt on an archeological model that is unconfirmed (1989,p.264). To quote again Mallory (p.185), since he seems to be the only one that can talk reason to Kurganists: "But critics do exist and their objections can be summirized quite simply - almost all of the arguments for invasion and cultural transformations are far better explained without reference to Kurgan expansion, and most of the evidence so far presented is either totally contradicted by other evidece or is the result of gross misinterpretation of the cultural history of Eastern, Central and Northern Europe." Mallory valued the Kurgan solution almost exlusively for supplying a confined homeland, and even here he admitted to the endless cul de sacs of his research (p.257) Modern archeology would go even further to deny pan-European invasions altogether and not even linguists dare to insist anymore on "kurganisation". All of this makes the homeland issue largely off topic to this article on indo-european languages. As is, the historical section of languages based on the Kurgan model is not helpful in understanding indo european languages. If you think it is or should be, please rewrite this section and quote recent linguists that published articles on the relevance of, for instance, Celtic languages in allegedly having originated in Central Europe, or relating elements from the steppes in Italian or Germanic languages. A linguistic article on the credulence and principles of second language acquisition (SLA) in relation to "the kurganization process" would really be very helpful, although I would rather label this process a WP:Fringe theory since even the base of very general cultural changes is contested and a virtually absent elite violates some very important linguistic principles of SLA. In short, even if the Kurgan hypothesis is "main stream" and unambiguously applied to a confined homeland (even this is not always clear), then the relation with how the Indo-European languages eventually evolved remain inadequately decribed in the current references to the Kurgan Hypothesis. I can only see some oldfashioned maps with arrows that seem to represent invading languages, and some archeological interpretations that most of them are contested by archeology itself. Moreover, this is copied from the Kurgan Hypothesis article and does not give any additional information. The outline of the theory is already supplied for in the Location section. Really, I don't see any reason to keep the historical evolution section the way it is. As for now, the article could do better without. Rokus01 (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't object in principle to trimming the article. Let's wait a bit and see what dab thinks. - Merzbow (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created the main Indo-European Urheimat article among other things in order to allow trimming of this one. It is true that the Urheimat question takes far too much place in this article. This is so because there was no {{main}} article. All of this doesn't change the fact that the Kurgan hypothesis is the mainstream framework among Indo-Europeanists, by a long shot. Rokus keeps arguing against it. That's fine, but let him do so in an academic journal, not here, per WP:NOR. I am not interested in having this argument with Rokus. He misrepresents the Kurgan as being of a "violent or quasi-military nature". That's nonsense, and an obvious strawman just set up to be shot down. Of course the Kurgan hypothesis has "its critics". But reasonable criticism concerns details of the general framework, not wild-eyed counter-hypotheses that replace the problematic with the ridiculous. So, yes, the Urheimat section should be trimmed. This will mean that only the mainstream models will be mentioned here, and fringe ideas can safely be delegated to the sub-article. dab (𒁳) 10:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about "the Kurgan hypothesis", while actually there are two versions: the violent and quasi-military version of Gimbutas that depart from the Yamnaya culture, and the version of Mallory that admit to a more sedentary people and depart from Sredny Stog. Renfrew's Anatolian solution has gathered a lot of counter evidence, although the model is still valuable for some linguistic traces of other (extict) languages that might have spread from Anatolia. Another "Armenian solution" of Robert Drew is tentative rather than "fringe", and the PCT does deserve better than outright "fringe" as well, although I would agree to leave mere tentative scientific approaches out in the main article. The issue I want to address is what the real mainstream issues are really about. It is not Mallory against Renfrew, since Refrew's solution can not count on mainstream support nor mainstream revisions. Refrew's model does not count on serious support, neither from linguists nor archeologists, so why not leave out the Anatolian hypothesis altogether? Truely mainstream are the two different models forwarded by Mallory himself, whatever name both models should carry: "Mallory's Kurgan Hypothesis" against "Mallory's Broader Homeland Hypothesis" maybe? For this is the real "mainstream issue" that should be addressed concerning the search for a homeland. I could quote archeologists that disappove on pan-European migrations. Or at the opposite side: read for instance the comment of linguist Kortlant. Quote: "Mallory’s inconclusiveness about the westward Indo-European migrations (1989 p. 257) appears to result from a search for archaeological evidence beyond what can be motivated from a linguistic point of view." I think there might be some serious disagreement between what should be considered "fringe", since to my opinion both Gimbutas "kurganisation" and Refrews identification of Neolitic settlers as Indo-European could be archived as obsolete "fringe", although I would prefer to describe this views more respectfully as "historical". In other words, the mainstream views left are those between the feasability of what linguists think is credible, and to what archeologists think is credible. The two models presented by Mallory are as close as both sides could possibly come to, and as close as they might partially agree with. This does not have anything to do with invalidating the other view as "fringe", it is just that some conclusive archeological and/or linguistic input is still missing for arriving to a definite answer. I hope you could take a good look on what has been written since Mallory on both sides and arrive at a balanced update of what has to be considered "mainstream" nowadays. Rokus01 (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

that's a bit of a false dichotomy. The "Kurgan hypothesis" sets a general temporal and geographical frame (Chalcolithic, Steppe). There is much room for discussion of "military" vs. "diffusionist" scenarios, taking place completely within the Kurgan framework. It is true that Gimbutas' extreme "invasionist" scenario has been discredited. You cannot call an "invasion" a process of expansion that was going on over a full millennium or more. It may of course have included small-scale "invasions" here and there, but the general process is one of diffusion. The concepts of "broad homeland" and "paleolithic continuity" do very much contribute to this discussion. But, the "broad homeland" just describes a "stage" of diffusion and doesn't answer the question of where this diffusion originated. It is perfectly possible to subscribe to the Kurgan framework and still assume a stage of a "broad homeland" of a continuum of early IE dialects (in fact, that's almost unavoidable, not just 'possible'). It is also important to stress genetic, and to a lesser extent material "paleolithic continuity". Realization of this has taught us much about linguistic diffusion. The "fringe scholarship" begins when "paleolinguists" leap to conclusions and assume a "paleolithic PIE" just on grounds of genetic continuity. That's as nonsensical as postulating a "paleolithic Latin" in the Andes, because Spanish speakers there show genetic continuity. So yes, I actually agree with you: the mainstream assumption is the "Kurgan framework". There is simply no competing hypothesis worthy of serious attention. But within the Kurgan framework, there is much room for schlarly disagreement informed by questions of material and genetic continuity. dab (𒁳) 12:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any idea how you manage to distort my words. Paleolithic continuity is one thing, a Mesolithic broad homeland is another thing. Actually the Mesolithic does not even start at the Paleolithic, since in between is someting called Epipaleolithic. The Mesolithic was the time that nomads following the reindeer herds changed to a semi nomadic lifestyle using semi permanent settlements close to water, with a new focus on fishing. You don't need complicated models of diffusion to account for a continuum of languages spoken in a broad area by mobile people. Also, the area was sparsely populated. Much of the mobility was preserved until the end of the Mesolithic, right were the Chalcolithic period starts. Thus, the broad homeland hypothesis does not do anything more than to postulate a Chalcolithic language continuum as a natural starting point from where languages branched off. It is true the broad homeland hypothesis does not postulate an area where "the diffusion" originated. The linguistic interaction must have been strong at the end of the (Epi-)Paleolithic and less at the start of the Chalcolithic, when agriculture already tended to tie people to small areas. Cultural interaction existed in the Mesolithic and genetic ties have a long history by the chronological succession of Hamburg culture, Havelte, Federmesser, Bromme and Ahrensburg, most of which are supposed to be genetically linked. The last expansive culture in this line was the Swederian culture that inherited from Ahrensburg and initiated the Mesolithic. Thus, the processes that tied the northern European plains together could be due as much to all those successive waves of migration, as to convergence by close contact. I really don't understand why you insist in the Kurgan hypothesis for "being the only serious hypothesis", especially since there is a serious shift in evidence: still there is no trace of Kurgan migrations to the west, the cultural diffusion could have gone either direction and archeology is not agnostic anymore of a tradition of broad cultural and even migrational interaction dating back to the Mesolithic and more. Don't try rhetoric tricks on me with the same sistematic disinformation that tend to discredit your latest edits, since the dichotomy I mentioned is based on compromise, not the stubborn dogmas you accuse others of and instead adhere to yourself. Your ignorance of what distinguish drunk speculation and a range of very distinct scholarly opinions, may be mistaken for bad faith. At least this is not helpful in writing a comprehensive article. Mallory would never have lingered on the dichotomy I described between what is credible by either archeologists or linguists, if not both approaches would have been relevant and useful. Rokus01 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is not any improvement yet. The creation of or reference to some main Urheimat page does not deminish the need to represent multiple points of view, conform WP:NPOV policy. Also, WP:UNDUE still applies to the extensive departure on the Kurgan hypothesis, while this is an article on the linguistics of Indo-European languages. Rokus01 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

indeed. but the place to seek consensus, by providing references on the relative notability of these theories is now Talk:Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. The "Urheimat" section in this article will simply summarize whatever emerges as informed consensus there. WP:SS. dab (𒁳) 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know you still don't have the slightest idea I am referring to. Read WP:UNDUE for having consensus: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The Timeline-part gives undue weight to the location hypothesis (one aspect), and has no significance to the subject as a whole since Indo-European languages is not about homeland hypotheses, it's about linguistics. This timeline just does not belong here. Rokus01 (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Expansion Theories

The Kurgan Hypothesis is not the only theory of how the IE languages expanded. I added timelines for the three other main suggestions so as to provide a NPOV. However these have been deleted. I think that they should be reinstated or at least mention made of the alternative timelines. Adresia 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV" doesn't mean "discuss every position ever held with equal weight": please review WP:UNDUE. You'll need to establish the relative notability (that is, notability within academic Indo-European studies) of your favoured view. dab (𒁳) 17:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if anybody would be able to "establish relative notability" of the Kurgan hypothesis from 3rd millennium archeologic sources that unambiguously forward an exclusive and overall homeland of IE culture in the Pontic steppes. Rokus01 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

have you ever, in all your time on Misplaced Pages, bothered to actually read WP:NOR? The question isn't whether you believe the hypothesis is flawed, but whether it happens to be favoured in academic literature. dab (𒁳) 11:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you are dodging the issue and reversing the evidence. I am just asking here straightforward for a 3rd millenium archeologic source that confirms the Kurgan hypothesis to its full extend. I would say, the inconclusiveness of Kurgan theory towards the west has been the topic of all archeological publications since the 90s. Sure, if not any archeologist is referring to the Kurgan hypothesis anymore to confirm archeological features in the North European Plain west of Vistula, we could easily deduce the theory is flawed, if you wish to do so. To me it suffice to achieve balance. You could move this whole issue to your latest fork and delete the undue crap here, so we can continue there, or decently restore weight and include archeological research that points to linguistic impact of local developments and the importance of the hunter gatherers of the north european plain. Who cares the modern archeological point of view is favoured by other disciplines as long they draw their point of view from obsolete archeology? Rokus01 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says that an article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. This is an aim with which I concur. The difficulties are two-fold - what is "significant" and what is "reliable". Ultimately this is a subjective judgement. Elsewhere in Misplaced Pages more than the proposed three expansion theories are discussed, eg under Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. The Kurgan theory is less favoured than it was while the Anatolian hypothesis certainly has many adherents. Though the PCT one has fewer it has many things going for it, and its implications on IE expansion should be outlined here. Incidently, I am not a supporter of the latter and regard the whole question as open. Adresia (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

you keep claiming that "The Kurgan theory is less favoured than it was." I've only ever heard this on Misplaced Pages talkpages. Convince us based on WP:RS rather than by simple repetition. Perhaps you'd like to get other Indo-Europeanists to comment? Try Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Linguistics, or for WP:UNDUE disputes in general try WP:FTN or WP:RSN. Anything as long as you just stop waving your hands without providing any substance.

dab (𒁳) 11:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

An Indo-Europeanist that draws on obsolete archeological data will hardly convince. Just try to get your hands on archeological articles on the subject, for instance Marek Zvelebil and Arkadiusz Marciniak: proponents of the view that is cited by the Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Rokus01 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

it is unfortunate to protect this article due to a dispute on a barely related topic. This may be a valid content dispute, but it needs to be addressed at the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses article. We should only come back and edit the summary here once a stable consensus has emerged there. Edit-warring is bad enough, but edit-warring-by-proxy (i.e., at a barely related article instead of the article covering the disputed topic) is even worse. dab (𒁳) 12:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are abusing your admin rights here. You neglect the consensus reached by the definition of WP:UNDUE and the multiple views that have to be respected according toWP:NPOV. The only "edit war" I can see is your fanatism to revert without discussion or arguments first. You evade giving a justification to your edits and protect the page when I ask you to do so first. Really, it is incredible you think it is worth the full weight of your adminship to push your personal point of view. Rokus01 (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

He didn't protect the page; I did. —Angr 08:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

he is still ranting against "my" protection of this article on my talkpage. Oh, and building a devastating case on it on "my" arbitration case. A serious player, this Rokus. dab (𒁳) 19:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in my "devastating case" I evidence against Dbachmann "having" the page protected, semantically equivalent to Dbachmann protecting the page by himself: a mayor offense to any administrator. Whatever Dbachmann wants to make believe his colleages, his support to this protection is evidenced by his public declaration: "This may be a valid content dispute, but it needs to be addressed at the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses article. We should only come back and edit the summary here once a stable consensus has emerged there." And to User:Angr: this does not change the fact that your direct protection of the page is a more direct violation of WP policy, since "Full protection is to stop edit warring between multiple users or severe vandalism". The policy to keep this page protected is both blatant contempt towards WP policy from your side, and due to Arbcom escalation. Merry Chrismas! Rokus01 (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I imposed full protection to stop edit warring between multiple users, namely you and Dab. Fully within Misplaced Pages policy. —Angr 18:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

the implication that my endorsement of another admin's action should be a "mayor offense" is ludicrous in itself, quite regardless of the fact that I did not in fact endorse it. Of course I believe Rokus is out of line pushing his eccentric pov, duh, otherwise I would not revert his edits. I don't think any further comment is necessary, Rokus doing an excellent job discrediting himself all on his own. I merely submit to Angr that this is not an even-handed content dispute, but a case of trolling and/or pov-pushing, hence sanctions should be taken not against the article under attack, but against the offending editor. So, no, I do not believ the article should have been protected, I believe Rokus should have been warned, and if necessary blocked, instead. dab (𒁳) 22:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

While Rokus may have engaged in POV pushing elsewhere, the specific edit warring happening here, namely the removal of the timeline of Indo-European expansion, doesn't qualify in my mind. Frankly, I don't see the relevance of that section in this article, which is supposed to be about Indo-European languages, ancient and modern, not about the Proto-Indo-Europeans. —Angr 08:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

true, much of the timeline may go elsewhere. this wasn't the point of the dispute, and there can be a reasonable compromise (between reasonable editors aware of WP:CONSENSUS, that is). I was hoping you would give your own opinion, Angr, because that might result in a solution to the present deadlock. Note that the timeline (as opposed to the PIE sections) is not about Proto-Indo-Europeans, but about early Post-PIE daughter languages. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that this article should stick to linguistics and leave archaeology to the archaeologists. In general (not just here) I think Misplaced Pages's articles on proto-languages have too much discussion of archaeology and genetics, when neither field has anything to add to the discussion. —Angr 10:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Indo-European Family Tree is worthless

It's so small (even when I click on it) as to be unreadable. - Theaveng (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class language articles
• Unknown-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics