Talk:Paleolinguistics

Old discussion

I have completely rewritten this article. The original article suffered from a very serious NPOV problem, namely that it took the position of the "long-ranger" minority without even mentioning the mainstream view.

Yes, that was a mistake. Could you explain what a "mainstream" is? (see below) Petusek

Furthermore, some central claims were false. In particular, the statement that: "It is identical in goals and methods with historical linguistics, differing only in application by concentrating on deeper and older relationships between languages." is perhaps true of scholars like the Nostraticists but is quite untrue of those like Greenberg and Ruhlen, whose methods have little to do with mainstream historical linguistics.

That's right! Then it's Greenberg and Ruhlen who used the methodology in a wrong way, not the "paleolinguists"! Why are you so obssessed with the two controversial figures? Anyway, Greenberg's major merit is in his functional-typological approach, isn't it? Petusek

Similarly, the statement that "The difference between paleolinguistics and historical linguistics is analogous to the difference between paleoanthropology and anthropology in general." is false, for two reasons. One is that both mainstream historical linguistics and "paleolinguistics" deal with prehistory. The difference between them is primarily methodological, not one of subject matter.

Examples? (Besides Greenberg and Ruhlen with whom you seem to be obsessed) Petusek.

The other is that anthropology and paleoanthropology are merely different parts of anthropology in the broader sense, while mainstream historical linguistics and "paleolinguistics" differ in that the proponents of the latter are widely regarded in the field as cranks.

Aha, just as A. Vovin claims Starostin was a crank? Please, visit the discussion held at starling.rinet.ru (click on "Forum" below). Then read Vovin's "End to the Altaic controversy" plus Starostin's "EDAL". Then you can decide for yourself. Or, another example, read something on the Bengtson-Trask debate over Basque. Anyway, could you expand the list of those "cranks" and add the time stamps, please? (a 19th century scholar may well be regarded as a "crank" today, why not? ;)) Petusek

The difference between historical linguistics and "paleolinguistics" is closer to the difference between psychology and parapsychology than it is to the difference between anthropology and paleoanthropology.Bill 20:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Then you know little about it, I'm afraid. Petusek

In response to User:Petusek's comments in the article history, I do not agree that the article is not balanced if by "balance" is meant NPOV. Remember that NPOV does not mean that both sides must be presented as equally valid. NPOV means accurately representing the various positions and arguments, and accurately representing the state of the field. It is unquestionably the case that the "long-ranger" position is a small minority within linguistics. Even if, hypothetically, they are right, it is correct to represent their position as a minority, non-mainstream view. Furthermore, it is not true that the article presents opinions rather than facts. If you want to claim that, please present specific examples. Finally, it is incorrect that I have forgotten that there are many non-Russian "paleolinguists". The article cites the Soviet school as one example and prominently mentions such non-Russians as Greenberg and Ruhlen. Bill 20:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. I have forgotten about Ruhlen and Greenberg, that's right, but if you write it's the linguistic "majority" who dismiss "paleolinguistics", you're apparently not aware of the fact that, for instance, in Europe, the split between the opponents and the proponents of paleolinguistics is 50:50. In addition, claiming that the methodology is wrong, you seem to ignore the mathematical background behind - just as some of the paleolinguists do. I'd be satisfied if you wrote the method was sometimes used in a wrong way or misunderstood, yes, then I'd agree, of course. And Greenberg would be an excellent example, indeed, since he couldn't avoid the look-alikes. However, the gist of the method in question is in forming PRELIMINARY hypotheses, isn't it? For the data to be reliable, at least 300 (!) cogs. have to be found, for example. Do you mention that in your article? I'd really like to know something about the methodology, not just that it's "not accepted". I'd like to know why, if I were a reader, you know? I don't mind criticism. Criticism is all right.

Another thing is the attribute "Soviet". This expression immediately raises doubts (Communists, Iron Curtain, Cold War, Nuclear Danger, stuff like that) and you should really avoid it. There's no Soviet Union anymore (I'd have noticed, if it'd been here, since they occupied my country for over twenty years ;)).

As far as my using the term "balanced" is concerned, I think it's wrong if the reader knows immediately on which of the two sides the author is, do you? I'm sorry, the opening paragraph puts on the appearance of a reliable source of information, but it turns out to be just as balanced as a typical opening scene of a boulevard TV channel's "documentary", the only thing missing being some sort of dark, sad, depressive music. Uhm...I might be exaggerating a bit :-), but please, try to add some more information, if you can, will you? Petusek

Petusek

OK… As it is now, the article is not all that bad. However, it contains many arguments that should better be moved to the articles they actually are about – and it lacks an explanation of why anyone considers the separate term "paleolinguistics" necessary. In sum, it has been incompletely shifted from one POV to another and is a bit bloated, I think. David Marjanović 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)