Talk:Mahakiranti languages
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Bodic as geographic?[edit]
This article says "In van Driem's conception, Bodic is a geographic term, but some Bodic families do appear to be related to each other." How does that fit with van Driem's proposal of a Sino-Bodic node? Kanguole 17:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think they are different proposals altogether: his 2001 proposal, a tree with a Sino-Bodic node, and his 2011 proposal, an agnostic model, which does not recognise a Bodic node. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- The paragraph containing this sentence seems to be about van Driem (2001), though. Kanguole 18:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't inspected van Driem (2001) personally, but his recognition of Sino-Bodic as valid does not exclude that he views Bodic merely as a term of convenience (grouping several not necessarily closely related groups) rather than a valid node; Sino-Bodic would simply have more than two branches then: Sinitic, Bodish, West Himalayish, Tamangic, Kiranti and several isolates, whose exact interrelationship is not addressed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- He draws a "model of pre-historic dispersals" incorporating "genetic working hypotheses" (Diagram 16 on p. 399, similar to Fig. 1 of the Sino-Bodic paper, where he calls it a language family tree) with a Sino-Bodic subtree having Bodic and Sinitic branches, the former subdivided into Bodish and Himalayan branches. Elsewhere he seems to use "Bodic" in Shafer's sense without discussion. In general, van Driem (2001) is not sufficiently explicit about what he means by the term to support the above sentence. Kanguole 09:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't inspected van Driem (2001) personally, but his recognition of Sino-Bodic as valid does not exclude that he views Bodic merely as a term of convenience (grouping several not necessarily closely related groups) rather than a valid node; Sino-Bodic would simply have more than two branches then: Sinitic, Bodish, West Himalayish, Tamangic, Kiranti and several isolates, whose exact interrelationship is not addressed. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- The paragraph containing this sentence seems to be about van Driem (2001), though. Kanguole 18:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mahakiranti languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418141058/http://www.kiratisaathi.com/ to http://www.kiratisaathi.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)