Content deleted Content added
Austronesier (talk | contribs) →Merge with Vasconic substratum theory: rmvd one potential contributor who is blocked "with an expiration time of indefinite" |
Trigaranus (talk | contribs) →More on the reversion thread: thanks |
||
| (40 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Basque}}
{{WikiProject Languages
{{WikiProject Spain
{{WikiProject France
}}
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-18">18 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-10">10 December 2021</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Sonoma_State_University/ANTH382_Language_Change_(Fall_2021)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:WillDeal|WillDeal]].
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 12:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
==Irish??==
What are the *clear* traces of Vasconic in Irish? [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 02:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Line 130 ⟶ 134:
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green;">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 14:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
== Merge with Vasconic substratum theory ==
Line 152 ⟶ 156:
So I don't think a direct merge would be appropriate. Perhaps we could reduce the article to a dab? And probably add Gorrochategui's synonym, for something like "Vasconic, or Euskarian, may be ..." — [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 21:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks, {{u|Kwamikagami|kwami}}! That exactly was my question, whether the term "Vasconic" has caught up beyond Vennemann's theory. As far as I can see, the term is only used in chapter 12 of Sinner & Velaza (2019). I am not quite sure what Gorrochategui and Vallejo actually refer to when using "Vasconic", especially on p. 362 "...another specific feature of the '''Vasconic and Aquitanian language'''...". As far as I can judge, Gorrochategui seems to use "Vasconic" as an adjective relating to the "Vascones" as mentioned in Roman sources.
:But the main point is, you are right, as soon as serious scholars employ the term without reference to Vennemann's theory, a straight merge/redirect as I have suggested will be misleading. Thanks for pointing this out. And a dab would be a good idea then.
:As for Blevins, I would add a {{by whom}}-tag to her statement if it were a WP article ;). –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 21:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
::My verdict is to merge into [[Vasconic substratum hypothesis]]. The idea of a Vasconic language family, as such, can be entertained quite independently of Vennemann's hypothesis – we just don't have any good evidence for languages clearly related to Basque but less closely than Aquitanian is (Aquitanian may well be the direct ancient ancestor of Basque). Just like Ket is a language isolate now but was part of a whole family in the 18th century, you'd expect that at some point, an ancient ancestor of Basque was part of a family of related languages. (Even if you'd have to go back to a time before the Indo-European expansion for it, although that's not likely.) In principle there's no reason why some placenames or placename elements in, say, Southeastern France shouldn't ultimately go back to some ancient language related to Basque that was eventually replaced by Celtic and Latin/Romance.
::The highly controversial (and empirically extremely improbable, based on the [https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=980 Uniformitarian Principle]) part of Vennemann's hypothesis is the idea that this family once covered much of Mesolithic/Neolithic Europe as far north as Scandinavia. If, say, in 4000 BC, Europe was largely covered by languages ''ultimately'' sharing a common ancestor with Basque, and many of them remained in 1000 BC, this relationship would have become obscured after millennia of divergence, well over 10,000 years since the LGM, leading to a macrofamily probably more internally diverse than Afro-Asiatic at the very least, where continent-wide lexemes (lexical cognates, even if preserved and fossilised in placenames somehow) wouldn't be as easily recognisable anymore as Vennemann postulates. Even if his idea is that a relatively close-knit Vasconic family covered Europe earlier, in 6000 or 8000 BC, this would be difficult to imagine. Worse even, he requires that these lexemes have been preserved largely unchanged since the Neolithic or even Mesolithic in modern Basque. The only way to save the whole idea – required also by hypotheses that assume an origin of Indo-European more than 8000 years ago – is to posit a rate of language change so slow that I've never seen it attested anywhere, violating the Uniformitarian Principle.
::So the concept of a Vasconic family – not in Vennemann's conception – makes sense, in principle. But is it actually in use anywhere? Currently not, per the above discussion. Sure, an ancient inscription written in a language evidently related but not identical to Basque/Aquitanian could turn up tomorrow. But that's speculation. Basque-Aquitanian, at this point, is effectively a language isolate. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 23:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|Florian Blaschke}} Herzlichen Dank for your input! As I initially said, the validity of the Vasconic theory is one thing, and I largely agree with the majority view which you have portrayed here. Terminology, however, is another thing. The current version of the article actually employs "Vasconic languages" (at least in the third paragraph) as if it were an accepted synonym for Basque-Aquitanian, and this is what I mainly contest. Kwami has cited two sources which come close to such a thing. I doubt this, however, for Gorrochategui and Vallejo's chapter in Sinner & Velaza (2019). As for Blevins' out-of-hand statement "The Euskarian language family [...] sometimes referred to as 'Vasconic'...", I still would like to see an actual instance where a notable scholar does exactly '''that''' (viz. referring to Basque-Aquitanian as Vasconic). Wikipedia is a powerful multiplier of ideas (a ''Multiplikator''), and even the creative use of existing terminology can become a kind of "self-fulfilling prophecy", when fringe concoctions on blogs and forums are built on WP-based terminology, until the latter creeps into mainstream. We have a tremendous responsibility here not only content-wise, but also lemma-wise, which is my main concern here. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 19:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
::::{{re|Austronesier}} Yes, and I agree with your argument above that Vasconic is ''not'' an accepted synonym for Basque-Aquitanian. Which is exactly why I agreed that the article should be merged into the substrate hypothesis article. There is little to none to merge anyway because the article is so poor in actual relevant content. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 23:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Florian Blaschke}} Before proceeding with a merger/rd, we have to make sure that existing links which are actually meant to link to Basque are fixed. Do you have an idea why e.g. [[Karranga language]] appears in the "What links here"-list? "Vasconic languages" was in the Template:language families (which created hundreds of sublinks) but I have removed it already from there. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 11:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Austronesier}} No idea. There are further examples that don't have an obvious explanation. I suspect there's a glitch somewhere – there may be a database that isn't fully up to date yet. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 12:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
::::::::But what is the meaning of "Vasconic" in Trask 1997? – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 14:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::{{re|Uanfala}} Quite simple. He does not use the term "Vasconic" at all. Even when discussing Vennemann's hypothesis, he refers to the substratum language as "Old European". –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, I asked because I did a lazy web search for the term, and even though most results (not very numerous, to be fair) tended to mention "Vasconic" and "Venemmann" in the same sentence, there was at least one that as far as I was able to see used it in a generic, theory-neutral way: that was [https://www.jstor.org/stable/44741659 this review of Trask 1997]. – [[User talk:Uanfala|Uanfala (talk)]] 16:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{re|Uanfala}} Bingo. Bengtson uses Vasconic in the general way as a cover term for Basque+Aquitanian+X. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 14:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
==[[Vasconic languages|Vasconic]] as a primary language family==
Since the relationship between Aquitanian and Basque has been demonstrated, there should be written "One of the world's primary language families" in the infobox.
[[Special:Contributions/46.177.113.153|46.177.113.153]] ([[User talk:46.177.113.153|talk]]) 09:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
:No. Aquitanian most likely being a precursor of modern Basque doesn't make it a family. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 11:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
== Putative? ==
As far as I know, relatedness between Basque and Aquitanian is in no way "putative". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.249.47.134|85.249.47.134]] ([[User talk:85.249.47.134#top|talk]]) 02:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That's not why it's putative, it's putative because we're not sure if Aquitanian is the parent (as it were) of Basque or a sibling/cousin language. If it's a parent, it's not a family (in the linguistic sense) i.e. if the only documented Romance languages were Latin and French, then it wouldn't be a family because one descends from the other, it would be merely a language isolate with an older documented form. [[User:Akerbeltz|Akerbeltz]] ([[User talk:Akerbeltz|talk]]) 09:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
==Removal of para on doubts and difficulties of developing proto-basque==
A ref for this was requested, not supplied. A proto-basque already is in place. Who cares about the difficulties of developing one now? That sort of material would come under doubts about proto-basque, but that is something we don't do on our own. We refer to an expert. He can doubt, we can't.
A reconstruction of a Proto-Vasconic language is almost impossible with currently available information. More data and research are needed to reconstruct the basics of a proto-language, as well as more information surrounding the neighboring extinct languages such as Iberian and the relationship it has with Vasconic. Reconstruction of a hypothesized Vasconic Proto-language could only be done using the [[comparative method (linguistics)|comparative method]], although the accuracy of the reconstructed proto-language would still be uncertain.{{Citation needed|date=June 2022}} [[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 11:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
==Reversion of removal==
Mr. Akerbeltz, if you please. You reverted my deletion with a bunch of insulting personal remarks. The remarks are against Wikipedia policy, if you please. I am sorry if you do not like my speech. It is I believe standard English. I am an English-speaker by birth-culture. Frankly I cannot see how you fail to understand my critique. The paragraph contains personal opinions. A reference was requested. It was not supplied. I removed the paragraph as unreferenced material. JUst what part of that is difficult to understand? As your self-record seems to indicate an experienced user; i.e., you ought to know better, I have tentatively marked your reversion as vandalism. That may not be the right category. In that case I would apologize. However your comment is clearly a personal attack. Moreover it does not provide a reference. Please, Mr. Akerbeltz. We are trying to run a sane encyclopedia here, not an edit war.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 13:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
==More on reversion==
Hello Mr. Akerbeltz. Well you reverted a second time. I do not notice any disparaging remarks. That's an improvement. Well, here is where we stand on this. There is a 3-reversion limit. I do not know if you got the edge or I. It hinges on whether my original deletion was a reversion. Are we 2-2 or 1-2? I'm up. The help on reversions does not make it clear. It does make it clear that should either one of us go over, blocking is the probable outcome. Am I being clear or are you still confused over American English? I suppose the issue would be adjudicated on transgression. Then it might be too late for one of us. Now, the issue was, can unreferenced material be deleted? Of course it can, yes. Clear? But what if it entails a 4th reversion? At this point I want to say that this is a royal pain in the ass, not at all what I am hoping to accomplish. Can you understand my yankee English? The ironic part of it is, I actually agree with the paragraph. How to come up with a proto-basque on an isolate was a serious issue, which was solved with great ingenuity. So, I'm not going to waste any more time in this. The main article is proto-Basque. That is enough for now. When I do get to the article I may well be looking for a ref myself. That is the only way to get rid of the tag. Otherwise I do not excuse you from any of the WP rules. You play the game by the rules like a good boy. Quit being rude to your elders or to any other Wikipedia editor. If there is nothing further I am ending this conversation.[[User:Botteville|Botteville]] ([[User talk:Botteville|talk]]) 15:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:Dear [[User:Botteville|Botteville]], the talk page is not really the place for a game of gotcha, either. And I don't think the "That's an improvement" or "Can you understand my yankee English" (which is simply tedious) or "like a good boy" (which is hopefully not how you normally interact with people you meet face-to-face) is a good look, either. I'm not sure where you come from, specialty-wise. The paragraph you are trying to remove from the article may not have a current reference, but you know as well as other users and as well as Akerbeltz that the fact of the matter is not under any sort of doubt. You are not helping to improve WP if you have the entire paragraph removed.
::(For anyone unsure about the linguistics behind it: The case is a rather straightforward problem of language reconstruction: In cases where we have (a) a large number of descendant languages and/or (b) a decent corpus of older stages attested — which in turn constitutes the basis for (c) a good amount of modern peer-reviewed scholarship —, a workable reconstruction of an unattested proto-language is possible (and can be presented on WP). The paragraph you are hoping to delete simply states that for the Vasconic languages, this is not the case. Let's quickly double check what we have: (a) one descendent language, (b) almost no ancient materials to work with, and therefore (c) some, but limited, scholarship on the matter. As the paragraph in question states, internal diachronic reconstruction is extremely difficult without any sister languages. So, while you may get a range of [[Schleicher's fable]] variations, or M. L. West's "Indo-European Poetry and Myth", together with extremely detailed scholarship on pretty much any imaginable aspect of PIE reconstructions, there has *not* been any sort of detailed attempt at reconstructing Proto-Vasconic. Even studies like Lakarra's articles on Proto-Basque remain fairly limited in scope and deal with a stage much later than any supposed Proto-Vasconic. But: Tentative scholarly hypotheses for proto-languages are one of the things that make WP fascinating to read, though there is literally almost no meat on the bone. For the record: Botteville and Akerbeltz are both aware of this. The issue at hand is purely whether to keep a statement that has a {{Citation needed}} tag or not.)
:The paragraph in question does not make any outlandish or even remotely controversial claim. It states something that any person familiar with the matter agrees with, including yourself, as you say above. I frankly do not even see sufficient cause to call for a specific citation here, and even less for an outright deletion. It's clearly not a sore on the face of the article just because the statements in it are not directly assigned to a given publication. It's simply a caution for users who do not have a deeper understanding of linguistic reconstruction and who are not about to cross-check the Proto-Basque article. Keeping it in, together with the tag if you will, gives the article a useful qualification it would otherwise lack. Simply having it removed would not be doing a service to WP. What is clearly a disservice to the climate that should motivate us to help improve this place is the tone you chose above. We're all trying to keep this place as useful and as pleasant as possible. Slow down and don't try to force-feed people your way or the highway. As someone who recently tried to change someone's mind online about the meaning of a Greek term in the Pauline Epistles (I did ''not'' succeed), let's try not to go too deep down the rabbit-hole of having it one way and none other. [[User:Trigaranus|Trigaranus]] ([[User talk:Trigaranus|talk]]) 23:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
==More on the reversion thread==
What I see happening here is a different sort of WP event that changes the picture. This is a consensus. You seem to be directing it at me but really it is being directed to the public. Personally I am quite amazed because I rarely see a consensus. I am also relieved because you've taken the matter out of my hands. It is in your hands now. I got nothing else to do with it. Trigaranus, you seem a bit amazed at this thing. Wikipedia does have a democratic side, always has had. It is called a consensus. There must be a help article on it somewhere. The consensus is a pretty powerful tool if you can get it going. What you have agreed, in case you did not realize you were doing so, is that the paragraph in question does NOT express a personal opinion. What I may or may not think does not matter now. Unless you get a further consensus to the contrary what you agreed upon must stand. You are saying, the opinion expressed in the paragraph is general opinion in the field. It does not need a reference. Fine. I'm not a vote overthrower. If it does not need a reference then someone should take out the tag. There, was that hard? If I work on the article in the future I will be sure to respect the vote. I've known of people that sat around for years waiting for a consensus, only able to act when they got one. I think you ought to be glad I brought it up. As for my tone, now look here, Akerbeltz started this with belligerent, trouble-making speech accusing me of being confused and disordered and my supposed disability was the reason for his reversions. And now you turn around and try to blame it all on me. Maybe you should go into international politics. If you quit behaving like children I will not speak to you as I would children. In fact for quite a long time Wikipedia's arbitror of disputes such as these was actually a child (she's an adult now). I used to blush at even the thought of bringing a dispute before her. I think the founder was trying to say something there. In summary, probably without realizing it, you took the one action that would settle this dispute. Although it is true that if you persistently violate the rules you will draw the attention of an administrator, who will settle the issue and may settle you. Don't think it won't happen, because it will. Meanwhile however there is this democratic side which you seem to have just discovered. I think you should send me a thank you for helping you discover it. I am done with it now. Sorry it has taken so long but if it points us in the right direction it was probably worth it. Unless there is further business I declare the issue closed. Ciao.
:Hey there [[User:Botteville|Botteville]]. No hard feelings whatsoever. I appreciate it, and thanks for the conciliatory words. I think you have a ton more edits to this wonderful encyclopaedia than I do, so you know how easit it is to get carried away when our edits are getting flak. If it's okay with everyone, I will go ahead and delete the CN tag sometime later today, to give people time to weigh in. [[User:Trigaranus|Trigaranus]] ([[User talk:Trigaranus|talk]]) 09:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
| |||