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.
To what extent does Oleg Mudrak's reconstruction differ from that of Fortescue?--Pet'usek[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 11:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
CK not part of Uralo-Siberian anymore according to Fortescue?
Where in his article does Fortescue state he no longer views Chukotko-Kamchatkan as a part of his Uralo-Siberian proposal? Saying Nivkh is closer to Chukotko-Kamchatkan than anything else doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of them both being part of the larger Uralo-Siberian, unless Fortescue says so explicitly, of course. I don't have access to that particular article.--Pet'usek[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 11:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Quoting from page 3 :
Given the results of the present investigation, the general conclusion
in Fortescue (1998) as to the relationship between CK and the hypothetical
‘‘Uralo-Siberian mesh’’ needs to be readjusted somewhat. I would no longer
wish to relate CK directly to that mesh, although I believe that some of
the lexical evidence adduced for a link with it will hold up in terms of