Talk:Alpic

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)