This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.
please stop putting names in blue to given them the appearance of links. If you are that ardent a supporter, then feel free to create a page on Morvan
they're usually called vasconists not bascologists
proper nouns like Basque and Romance have capital letters
Trask was never against the use of historical linguistics and attempts to connect Proto-Basque to other languages. He (along with most other eminent vasconists like Mitxelena) is just critical of the random comparison of modern forms of Basque words with modern forms of other words.
On the whole I'm not opposed to outlining Morvan's position but it would be more appropriate on a Michel Morvan page than a stub bio on Trask. Morvan was hardly Trask's biggest headache :-) Akerbeltz (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I agree with Akerbeltz that this is not the right place to add the comment on Bengtson and Morvan. I don't delete the last edition, but it should be done.
Second: References needed!. I read Morvan's book (yes, the whole book) and at least in that book ("Les origines linguistiques du basque") he doesn't support the Caucasian link and only proposes that there is a uralic-altaic substratum in Basque (with only around 25-30 examples, and at least one Celtic word is wrongly stated by Morvan as of unknown origin and linked to Uralic-Altaic). If Morvan has proposed something not compatible with Trask work, reference is needed!.
Quoting Bengtson in ths paper is another nonsense. And, of course, the wording suggest that Trask proposal are his particular theories. That's not true. As a matter of fact, Bengtson do are particular theories that have been demolished by the scrutiny not only of Trask, but also by Lakarra's, as also the works of Lyle Campbell are interesting on Bengtson methods. Hence this is not the place to quote Bengtson or Morvan but the Basque languge article, where the works of Mitxelena, Lakarra, Campbell and others may shed light....
The funny thong is that there is no a unic Caucasian language family, as the relation between Uralic and Altaic are dubious, and, of course, the Dene-Caucasian hypothesis is denied but most historical linguists. Hence hypothesis relating Basque with these "families" are explaining "obcurus per obscurius". --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Finally I delete the comment on Bengtson and Morvan because of:
It's a misconceived nonsense; only shows an inexistent polemics. As Trask was a mainstream researcher on the internal reconstruction of Basque and nor Morvan, neither Bengtson has changed the internal reconstruction of the Basque language. There is not a polemics between Trask and the long-range comparatist, but between long range comparatists in one side and all vasconist and most historical linguists in the other.
The only difference is that Trask criticized the lack of proof afforded by the ones that claim to have find a relative language to Basque. He criticized harshly Bengston theories but, as a matter of fact, even Morvan criticized very harshly Bengtson work in his En reponse à un article de J. D. Bengtson Morvan concludes that the long-range comparatists "are knowing basque very bad". So, Morvan criticizes Bengtson, but I can't find where he criticizes Trask.
The question is whether the linguists community believes the claims on the family relation between Basque and any other language. The burden of proof relays on they who make a new claim. Trask only showed, and very forcefully, the serious mistakes made by them and their blind ignorance on Basque linguistics (his comments are really very very harsh). So, there are no Trask's "theories".
Long-range comparision on Basque has a very bad reputation among vasconists (even Morvan, who attributes this discredit to the serious mistakes of long-range comparatists). Lakarra's paper "Ná-de-Ná" is a must read. His title shows the bad reputation of the theory as Na-de-Ná is slang Spanish meaning "nothing of nothing" / "absolutely nothing" / "rien de rien", joking on the Dene-Basque theory (from Na-Dene and Basque) which affords "ná-de-ná". --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Morvan knows Basque much better than Bengtson, but to search for evidence of a Basque relative is not to criticize the ones who ask for serious prooves. Stop this misconceived obsession.
(moving BANTASAN's unsigned comment underneath Dilvish's). I wish indeed that people would stop their "misconceived obsession" and try to connect Basque to anything from Klingon to Vulcan. The search for a relative is indeed a laudable undertaking but it is NOT helped by re-hashing nonsense that has been long disproved. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)