This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The reference for this paragraph leads to what seems to be a non published draft by Robertson  (see page 28: " This version is a draft of a work in progress") . If there is no alternative reference published it seems to need some special argumentation to add here a non published work as the only basis for a theory. I mean that if this is the only reference then seems non valid and the section should be deleted till it is published in some reliable source, but that maybe it has been (but not stated in the article) or there is another special reason to this exception that I am not aware of. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The Dene-Caucasian (Sino-Caucasian, etc.) hypothesis frequently includes Etruscan, but I don't know about a link specifically with NC. Little of this stuff gets into peer-reviewed journals to begin with, so it would probably be responsible of us to avoid ms. kwami (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The article seems sane and goes into quite a lot of detail, so I thought it worth a very brief and cautiously-worded mention. I could be wrong... Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If I do not misunderstand the rules the reference is not valid until it is in a reliable source. There should be a very good reason to make an exception. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. While it's not exactly fringy, there are tons of these long-distance proposals with very little evidence backing them up. You can suggest that English is a Chibchan language with the methodology that many of these proposals use. The approach is great to suggest possibilities to look into, including connections that people might not otherwise have thought of, but has no rigor to stand on its own. kwami (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I will be guided by yourselves, and I wouldn't suggest it's worth more than a mention at present. But I note that it provides better evidence than the generality of dubious inter-family relationship ideas, and is not recycling any other fringe theories. It's also not a particularly long-distance theory. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It could very well work out. People were wary of Dene-Yeneseian too before Vaida gave his talks/pubs. But Tyrsenian is so poorly attested that I'd rather wait for some response to this work. At least a passing note that it's interesting and maybe he's on to something. It's just so easy to massage the data. kwami (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why he got so much exposure here, but his claims are (1) nothing new and (2) debatable. Nothing new, because the core of his article is a proposition of the same ideas exposed by the Russians (which may be or may be not valid, that's not the point); debatable, because that article seems to struggle hard to discredit other hypotheses, using controversial claims like:
phersu "mask (of an animal)" borz "wolf"
tul "stone" t.ul(-g) "stone"
and also un as "you". - Ambaradan (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)