Talk:Alpic: Difference between revisions
WeepingElf (talk | contribs) (Created page with 'Taylor, I have some trouble with this sentence: "The Danubian languages are part of the of the Europic Macrofamily, which consists of Indo-European, Hesperic, and Rhaeto-Etrusca…') |
WeepingElf (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
--[[User:WeepingElf|WeepingElf]] 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC) | --[[User:WeepingElf|WeepingElf]] 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
Sorry! My bad! I will fix that! | |||
--[[User:TaylorS|TaylorS]] 03:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Everything's OK, now. I won't say that Etruscan ''couldn't'' be related to Europic - there is just not sufficient evidence for that. | |||
--[[User:WeepingElf|WeepingElf]] 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Europic abandoned == | |||
I have abandoned the [[Europic]] hypothesis yesterday because the problems with it became unsurmountable. I no longer uphold the view that the languages of the Danube valley and Central European Neolithic peoples were related to [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]]; I now consider [[Aquan languages|Aquan]] to be an early diverging branch of Indo-European associated with the first wave of Kurgan migrations (Kurgan I, ca. 4500 BC). --[[User:WeepingElf|WeepingElf]] ([[User talk:WeepingElf|talk]]) 07:04, 30 March 2017 (PDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:06, 30 March 2017
Taylor, I have some trouble with this sentence:
"The Danubian languages are part of the of the Europic Macrofamily, which consists of Indo-European, Hesperic, and Rhaeto-Etruscan."
The Europic hypothesis, as I have developed it, does not include Etruscan. There is simply not sufficient evidence for such a relationship, and to say that "Rhaeto-Etruscan" was a part of the "Europic macrofamily" is no less wrong than saying that it was a branch of Indo-European. You may be of the opinion that Etruscan was related to Indo-European (I am not), but using the same name for that hypothetical relationship that has been assigned to another, unrelated hypothesis, is not cricket.
I have no trouble with your Danubian being related to Etruscan; it may belong to a stratum earlier than Hesperic, but that would mean that it is not Europic.
--WeepingElf 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry! My bad! I will fix that!
--TaylorS 03:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Everything's OK, now. I won't say that Etruscan couldn't be related to Europic - there is just not sufficient evidence for that.
--WeepingElf 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Europic abandoned
I have abandoned the Europic hypothesis yesterday because the problems with it became unsurmountable. I no longer uphold the view that the languages of the Danube valley and Central European Neolithic peoples were related to Indo-European; I now consider Aquan to be an early diverging branch of Indo-European associated with the first wave of Kurgan migrations (Kurgan I, ca. 4500 BC). --WeepingElf (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2017 (PDT)
