User talk:BANTASAN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi, thanks for contributing to the Basque articles. Trying to be helpful, can you please be a little careful when dealing with etymologies? There are many authors who are not reliable (Morvan being one of them) and they don't make good sources. Good sources would be Luis Mitxelena or Larry Trask. You might also want to check out WP:NOR. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Last time I looked, Morvan was still fringe and WP:NOR hadn't changed. Can you please be a little more careful and use bona fide references for things that are likely to be contentioues - anything Basque related really. Thanks. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, who decides who's fringe and who's not? Akerbeltz, your personal opinion doesn't count on this matter, you should provide bona fide references about Morvan being a "fringe", otherwise your reverting would violate NPOV. Meanwhile, I'm going to put NPOV banner on the page. Talskubilos (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's relatively straight-forward. True, there are too many crackpot theories out there for specialists to even bother dealing with each author individually but there are sources from accepted specialists that clearly refute links such as those pushed by Morvan. However, if we add every theory ever published about Basque and language X, the list would be longer than any article on the language itself so it's not practical at all to do so. I would argue that if someone wants to add something as controversial as that, simply quoting the guy who came up with the theory isn't good enough as a source (it runs afoul of several points on Wikipedia:Verifiability) but rather we need someone else who says "hey, Morvan is (at least partly) right". Akerbeltz (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. We need to follow RS here, especially with topics that attract crackpots like Basque does. If it doesn't pass WP:RS, it doesn't belong in the article. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Been passively following this a little and totally with you on that one. Can't abide fringe etymologies. Trigaranus (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to all that has been written, I think that Morvan is surely one of the best etymologist I ever see. Bantasan (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Then the only conclusion I can draw is that you haven't read anything by a serious etymologist. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately Akerbeltz s right (no unfortunate to Akerbeltz but to Morvan), whereas Morvan knows Basque much better than most of the fringe "etymologists" his effort for finding "new" etymologies is ill-developed (many of them could be defined simply as clowns). His dictionary does not meet even formal criteria needed to any serious work: lack of basic references, lack of bibliography, lack of discussion, lack of the state of the art. For example, on "twenty" he does not even try to explain why Starostin approximation should be a better try that the Celtic one (the problems of the Celtic theory are well known an it would be a must to explain the state of the question), but the lack of criticism on the "new" theories is another big mistake. Probably his dictionary is rather a public experiment than a real contribution, and some day Morvan will be back on serious linguistics, he would be most wellcome (he probably is the only "fringe" Basque etymologist that really knows about Basque language, and there are too few linguistics studiyng the history of the Basque language), but in any case his news theories are clearly faulty and at best ill-published experiments. Dumu Eduba (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with what you are saying. I would be extremely cautious in saying things like "fringe" or even "crackpot" about Morvan. You gives more importance to the outward form than to the content, which is typical of our time and also a strong prejudice. If you take for instance the pretended good work of Larry Trask what can be observed? In his unfinished dictionary (2008) online we have only OUO "of unknown origin" about basque words. This is directly due to the fact that Trask was (curiously like many basque nationalists, also by some scholars), against all comparisons of basque with other languages. This is not a scientific behaviour. Bantasan (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately people like Trask and Mitxelena are an accepted good source so the onus is on you to provide some form of evidence in the literature that other vasconists see Morvan as anything but fringe. I'm not going to teach another class in historical linguistics on Wikipedia but I really recommend you get yourself a primer in linguistics and do a bit of reading. Just because we may like what we read does not make it science. In a way, it is actually a sign of rigorous science for someone to admit that sometimes, we simply don't know. Trask is not prejudiced against connections, he clearly supports the Aquitanian link. What he was sick of were people pulling a Basque dictionary off the shelf and making random comparisons. As most of us editors who work on Basque language article are too. My father believed for a very long time that the Hopi derived their name from the Chinese province of Hebei because they both have black hair and because the names look alike. That's the level Morvan et al are at, sadly. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Bantasan, I can say it with other words: Morvan's dictionary is clearly under the minimum standars of scientific exposition, biased, rejecting and asserting ideas without arguments as if they were self evident tatutologies, and poorly referenced. Just as an amateur webpage.
On that myth that there is a political intention in not believing any proposal of relationship in spite of how badly it is exposed or defined, it is just that, a myth, and a poor pretext as "My dog ate my homework". Myths can not replace arguments (if we are doing science...., instead, if we were writing the "Lord of the Hoobit Basques" trilogy then it would be a proper methodology).
BTW I can help "recommend" to you to read the "linguistic" research of Alonso and Arnaiz-Villena who say that Etruscan, Minoan, Punic, Hittita, Sumerian, Akkadian, Bereber and some other languages are Basque and A-V has claimed the same "myth" on nationalims to explain the rejection of their fringe theories. His claim has the same scientific value than yours, hence if you do not believe their "theories", then you are a Basque nationalist. It is your logic. Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

To say that Trask accepts connections with other languages like Aquitanian is simply ridiculous because Aquitanian and Basque are the same language! Bantasan (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have an agenda. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain to you why Morvan is not a reliable source. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The trick is well known. What you mean is that you don't want to waste any more time with people who don't agree with you. Bantasan (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The question is of scientific methodology. To say that X is Y without proper argumentation, and rejecting criticism again without arguments but inventing political bias is not scientific. Relationship between Old Welsh oceint and Basque ogei was proposed, debated and rejected with arguments. But why is this worse that *HVxGV of a language Morvan has no time tyo say which is?
And in the same Wikipedia article you can see a reference to relate ogei with Old Iberian orgei (Old Iberian is not Aquitanian) so your theory that any connection theory is rejected is clearly false.
BTW Morvan simply ignores in his dictionary the Iberian parallels. Why Japanese is a better try for egin that Iberian egien?. It is clear that orgei makes HVxGV clearly unrelated. Dumu Eduba (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice try. I'm always open to good arguments. If I remember rightly, I used to reject the Iberian link quite categorically but it was Dumu in fact I think who drew my attention to some new research, leading me to review my position. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
What you don't understand is that close relationships (say iberian and basque) doesn't exclude far relationships with other languages or languages families. That's the claim of Morvan and I am absolutely sure he is right. There are very old common prehistoric words. When you have two similar words you can always say it's a chance resemblance (but why should it be so each time?), but when you have a serie of three like basque guti "little, few", dravidian guti "little", austronesian guti "little" it cannot be a chance resemblance. Bantasan ([(User talk:Bantasan|talk]]) 00:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Can I please suggest you read [1] before we go on? Akerbeltz (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, the problem is that another of Morvan's problems is ignoring other evidences. Try to find an Iberian word in Morvan dictionary. And many of the languages that Morvan uses are unrelated. And as the number of phonemes is limited chance resemblance are sure to exist. English bad, Persian bad of which as we know their origins, we know are unrelated. The same applies to Basque ogeiand Welsh oceint.
Why not to relate English thousand with Japanese sen; Spanish siete and ocho (eight) with Japanese shichi and hachi; or even, as Morvan sometimes compares different numbers (three with two, ten with five) English one with Jap. ni (two); Sp. si (if) with Jap. mo-shi; Sp. san (saint)Jap. san (mister). Maybe there are chances resemblances? Maybe Japanese is a European language?
Another example: for Basque lau we have two etymological connections (both probable, both compatible between them), but for Morvan it is of unknown origin.Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Another big mistake in Morvan dictionary. He says ehun is unrelated to Germanic quoting only hundred and hundert (his words "evidentemente absurda la comparación")but says "Apparenté au caucasien du nord-est botlikh bechunu "cent", tindi, chamalal behan "id.".". But the comparison was with Gothic tehund suggesting that it could be a Gothic loanword before the fall of initials t. Nowadays this idea is considered dubious or even simply wrong, but it is obviously far better try than the Caucasian alleged alikes, and, once again, bad referenced by Morvan. Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
First linguitics is not mathematics or probabilities. It doesn't work so. And do you think Akerbeltz really that Morvan would compare things like ainu poro "big" and basque buru "head" or the example given between quechua and semitic? He is much more intelligent than that. As for unrelated languages, it is only in the traditional view of limited families, but these families can be related in a much older time. This is why so many linguists are convinced of the existence of superfamilies and they are certainly right. The fact that they make mistakes is absolutely normal when you deal with a so big amount of data. To Dumu Eduba: Gothic tehund does not mean "hundred" but "ten"! Bantasan (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, you're not interested in anything but your own peculiar view of the world and you're not interested in gaining a better understanding either. I shall continue to remove Morvan's "stuff" for the reasons stated above, which are in line with Wiki policies. Other than that, you're wasting our time and I have better things to do, sorry. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It si true, my memory confused me. Hundred in Gothic is "taihun-tehund" and the theory was on "ein hund" (Old Saxon hund) which is still a better try than Morvan's.
Even so, remember that Morvan compares bat "one" with Dravidian "ten", hiru "three" with Dravidian "two", and that he says that hamar would has been "five". So what are you complaining of?
And yes linguistics is like Mathematics (including probability and stadistics). I could take Japanese and publish any comparison with any laguage (one for every one) and say that Japanese is the Old Mother Tongue.
You should read Vajda's studies on Dene-Yenisei, a family language which includes Asian and American languages, from a few years ago to learn how families are really discovered. A discovery of a relatively close family which the searchers of macro-families did not find. As Vajda's arguments are pretty solid and well worked this family has been quickly accepted. Dumu Eduba (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not exactly so. If Vajda could demonstrate definitely the link between Dene and Yeniseian it's precisely because the searchers of macro-families had already show the way before him. Science goes forward also thanks to intuition and open minded people. Bantasan (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Read Vajda's work. He did not use any of the "methods" of the macro-families.Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The first peer-reviewed publication to propose the existence of a distinct Dene-Yeniseian family was written by macrofamily supporter Merritt Ruhlen, in "The origin of the Na-Dene", Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the USA, n°95 (23), 1998, p.13994-6. By the way if Na-Dene is a family and Yeniseian another family and both related, it is a proof that macro-families DO exist.Bantasan (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Read this article
As Vajda says:
Random similarities in basic vocabulary are insufficient to demonstrate language relatedness. A list of look-alike words can be compiled, even using basic vocabulary,between any human languages. Nor are typological similarities, even involving relatively uncommon traits such as a rigid prefixing verb structure, a reliable diagnostic for genetic relatedness in the absence of a system of cognate morphology. The only accepted way of demonstrating the existence of a language family is to identify a sufficient number of cognates in basic vocabulary to establish interlocking sound correspondences that are reflected in the language's grammatical systems
Alfredo Trombetti (1923), the first to suggest the connection
Merritt Ruhlen's (1998) proposed cognate sets contain several genuine cognates, among over 75% coincidental look-alikes.
As you can see, once defined the relationship it has been proven that most of Ruhlen comparisons (which were only 36 words) is faulty. 75% of mistake when comparing two not far distant family languages is a self-evident proof of what happen when Ruhlen looks for distant relationships Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that all methods are useful, not only one. The multilateral method of Ruhlen also. With mistakes, of course, but this is quite normal. If not, you can wait thousand years before you find something. Science needs pioneers to open the way. It was always so. Bantasan (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
In this case I completely agree with what you say. It is useful to explore new methods, even mass comparison.
For me, the real problem with Ruhlen and others is that they seem not to want to do self-criticism on their method and their proposals. Maybe improving their method we could achieve something, but as it stands now the statistical "noise" (which obviously exists) is mixed with proofs.
I can not help the feeling that some of them (maybe most of them) prefer to publish "first sight" ideas as definitive conclusions, because they are afraid that a critic self-revision of the material will let them with no "discovery" to publish. They choose the quick easy way which linguistically leads to nowhere, but that is good for their curricula. A much more rigorous treatment of the method is needed. Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You're being discussed by administrators[edit]

Please see WP:COIN#Multi-wiki suspected COI. It is charged that you are editing against consensus and inserting fringe sources, and that you may have a conflict of interest. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)