Talk:List of language families

Altaic

Is Altaic actually controversial? I know it's controversial to have it include Japanese and Korean, but I thought the relationship between Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages was well-established. Similarly, how is Afro-Asiatic controversial? I've read that there's some controversy over at least some of the Chadic languages, but is the relationship of Semitic, Egyptian, Berber, and Cushitic to one another disputed? At any rate, both families are listed in just about every general reference work I've ever seen. john k 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Altaic" even in the narrow sense is very far from being generally accepted. Numerous comparative linguists who work on Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages do not accept the Altaic hypothesis or at least do not consider it proved. Recently there has been a lot of research on how lexical and typological correspondences between the "Altaic" languages can be explained as contact phenomena. My impression is actually that opposition to the Altaic theory has increased during recent decades. --AAikio 13:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although I do think that our discussions of this tend to confuse the very controversial issue of whether Ainu, Japanese, and Korean are included with the less controversial issue of whether it is a group at all. The first is a not widely-accepted hypothesis. The second is a widely-accepted usage that has come into question in recent years. john k 14:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These listings are particularly dubious given that we have the entirely hypothetical "Aegean languages" listed as though they are unproblematic, while we list problems with all kinds of widely accepted language families. john k 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the highly speculative Aegean languages from the list. Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan are both less accepted than Afroasiatic (see Joseph Greenberg#African languages). And I share AAikios viewpoint that Altaic is indeed still quite controversial. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map of languages picture

In the part which has India, I found a mistake. Where they labeled Marathi and Gujarati, they put them in the wrong places. If I am correct, they should be switched because currently Marathi is in Gujarat and Gujarati is in Maharashtra. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.107.17 (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Whats going on?

Ethnologue, Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 15th ed. (2005) listed the following languges in order of speakers,

1. Indo-European 2.562 billion 44.78%
2. Sino-Tibetan 1.276 billion 22.28%
3. Niger-Congo 358 million 6.26%
4. Afro-Asiatic 340 million 5.93%
5. Austronesian 312 million 5.45%
6. Dravidian 222 million 3.87%
7. Altaic 145 million 2.53%
8. Japanese 123 million 2.16%
9. Austro-Asiatic 101 million 1.77%
10. Tai-Kadai 78 million 1.37% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.239.87.2 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andean, is this the same as Quechumaran?