Wikipedia

Talk:Vasconic languages: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Basque}}
{{WikiProject Languages|class=start}}
{{WikiProject Spain|class=start}}
{{WikiProject France|class=start}}
}}
 
==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 182 ⟶ 186:
: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? ==
==Expanding the [[Vasconic substrate hypothesis]] and coming across with a possible prehistoric [[Solutrean]]/[[Vasconic languages|Vasconic]] trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific contact with the peoples of the [[New World]] and [[Siberia]], all the way to [[Hokkaido]], [[Japan]] (the [[Basque-Algonquian pidgin]] as a relic of an early contact).==
 
The [[Basque language]] and its origins has been puzzling scientists for decades. The most decisive step was taken by [[Theo Vennemann]], who claimed that the relatives of the [[Basques]] were once widespread throughout Europe and left substrates to the, then, newcomers, the Europeans. This theory, though, was widely rejected by linguists. Although, his claims are not so "non-sense". He may, just, have mistaken the timeline. The Solutrean culture was, indeed, widespread throughout western Europe and, perhaps, America (see [[Solutrean hypothesis]]). So, even if this sound like a "para-linguistic" utopia, Proto-Vasconic could have been spoken in large parts of Europe. There have been attempts to link Basque to other languages, such as Iberian, Paleo-Sardinian<ref>Eduardo Blasco Ferrer, ed. 2010. ''Paleosardo: Le radici linguistiche della Sardegna neolitica'' (Paleosardo: The Linguistic Roots of Neolithic Sardinian). De Gruyter Mouton</ref>, Cantabrian and, even, Pictish<ref>https://tied.verbix.com/archive/article7.html</ref><ref>[[フェデリコ・クルトヴィッヒ]]の説</ref>. If Solutrean, indeed, spoke Proto-Vasconic, the links could be true.
As far as I know, relatedness between Basque and Aquitanian is in no way "putative". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;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-->
===[[Basques]] in ancient America===
 
There has been a large number of assumed connections between [[Basques]] and [[American Indians]], from ancient times<ref>https://books.google.gr/books?id=5-nRmv8oCdkC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Mayans+spoke+Basque&source=bl&ots=b4BVUSv2l3&sig=ACfU3U1foOcvtWjSY7NBBTud-oNb9qsiJQ&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN6PXW06vlAhWFgVwKHRsSBAsQ6AEwEXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=Mayans%20spoke%20Basque&f=false</ref>, to the 18th century, when the [[Algonquian-Basque pidgin]] got extinct. There are reliable sources, which think of that pidgin as a relic of a really old contact between Basques and the New World<ref>https://www.google.com/sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ehu.eus/ojs/index.php/ASJU/article/viewFile/9638/8876&ved=2ahUKEwii6ar78svlAhUMcZoKHYtCB4EQFjANegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw0S1tILDHZkUaYF5kVrDNrE</ref>-let us, also, not forget that the Solutreans could have been the first settlers in America. There have, even, been claims for an ancient contact between the Basques and the Eskimoes<ref>https://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/eskimo.htm</ref>. From [[Canada]], the Basques could have sailed all the way to [[Japan]], [[Sakhalin]] and the rest of the [[Far East]] to trade with the Paleo-Siberians.
: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)
===[[Basques]]' stop in [[Japan]] and the [[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]]===
 
The Basques may have continued their seach for trade and settlements. The could have come across several islands or they could have gone in Siberia through the ice bridge in Beringia. Although there are no written records of anything like this, there can be found relics of the Basque language, music, religion and D.N.A in Paleo-Siberians, especially, the [[Ainu]] and [[Inuit]] and the Polynesians<ref>https://books.google.gr/books?id=_xv7usNGv5MC&pg=PA422&lpg=PA422&dq=Ancient+Basques+in+Sakhalin&source=bl&ots=FKzD_xbvjR&sig=ACfU3U3MT7S5LrXIkKOqTbC8z2QIfqKi-Q&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkvN7c_svlAhUO_RQKHQqgAmM4ChDoATABegQIAxAB#v=onepage&q=Ancient%20Basques%20in%20Sakhalin&f=false</ref><ref>https://books.google.gr/books?id=5-nRmv8oCdkC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Mayans+spoke+Basque&source=bl&ots=b4BVUSv2l3&sig=ACfU3U1foOcvtWjSY7NBBTud-oNb9qsiJQ&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjN6PXW06vlAhWFgVwKHRsSBAsQ6AEwEXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=Mayans%20spoke%20Basque&f=false</ref>.
==Removal of para on doubts and difficulties of developing proto-basque==
This whole contact story could actually be really facinating, if true.
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.
P.S: Not a personal opinion, but scholars' work.
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)
[[Special:Contributions/89.210.59.5|89.210.59.5]] ([[User talk:89.210.59.5|talk]]) 07:05, 3 November 2019 (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)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vasconic_languages"