This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The first alinea reads:
Surely "generally accepted" should be changed to "universally accepted"? Are there any linguists who dispute the existence of PIE as a common ancestor? Iblardi 20:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
CRCulver: There are plenty of Indian writers who donot accept Indian muslims or christians. We have heard a lot about indo-Aryan migrations as not being accepted, even though they are very different from invansions, and have occured and are occuring even today with immigration etc. Plenty of Indian writers don't accept under any circumstances despite overwhelming archeologiacl evidence that Kushans, indo-greeks or Scythians ever came to India let alone ruled and became Indians. That Indian civilization is merely 5000 years old, also many left leaning historians in India don't accept attrocities committed and forced conversions to Islam by Mahmud of Ghazni, Aurangzeb and Sikander butshikn in Kashmir, despite historical sources from their own courts describing these atrocities...Jahangir writes in Tuzuk-e-Jahangiri that a hindu(Sikh guru Arjun dev) in Beas is running a shop of kufr(preaching false religion) i have thought about having him punished and killed. It is well known that Akbar lifted the Jizya tax imopsed on non-muslims even acknowledged by the left but no one asks one question...why did he lift the tax??? because it was there for hundereds of years...wasn't it??? so wasn't it islamic opression to gain more converts by hook or crook??? Where else do you want me to go huh??? It is essential in 2007 and a sad fact that every reader interested in Indian subcontinental(pakistanis will insist on South-Asian for some reason)history must avoid any Indian historian(left or right) of today like a plague. Pakistan's islamo-centric historians never had any credibility anyway, try what you may but no one can change history or the fact that there was no nation called pakistan before 14 August, 1947, what next the South-Asian ocean??? Read and listen to the more neutral sources that are msotly concentrated in the West. March 25, 2007
I'd suggest to all read the following article: "Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European" N Kazanas, Omilos Meleton, Athens: March 2004. saying that the IDE proto-language needs radical reconsideration. I fully agree to this author. In 21 ct. we can't base on conceptions and assumptions accepted 100 years ago. So Proto-Indo-European language article is heavily outdated. I think there is necessity for displaying also the new considerations about PIE language. Roberts7 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Indo-european langues is the worlds largest langue family. Alsou indo-european langues, such as sanskrit had great influence (and importance) in non indo-european areas. And most of international langues is i-e, too. In central asia i-e langues losed they positions, but still i-e (russian) is used as lingua franca. Does there is known reasons for such succses and widespread of I-E langues? Some linguistic properties, learnability, langue richness, domestication of horse or just agresivity of i-e cultures? (Clearly not a race as tought in early 20th century) IMHO if it is known, then it must be mentioned in article.159.148.13.146 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As of [1], I failed this article for GA. The main reason is the prose, some stubby articles (there is ((cleanup)) tag))) and a very very few inline citations. The lead needs some expansion also. As in the lead it says that the subject is hypothetical common ancestor of a language and has some debates/controversies about it, you should put a lot of citations to avoid elements of original research. Therefore the article does not satisfy what is a Good Article criteria. If you feel disagree about my reviews, then you can submit it to WP:GA/R. — Indon (reply) — 13:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I moved phonology and morphology to separate articles, as was done in Italian PIE article. This was needed both in English and Italian PIE articles, because phonology and morphology chapters began to be really huge. I too added interwikis to English/Italian counterparts and return links to moved English chapters. Italian PIE phonology and morphology chapters are more advanced than English ones and has more comprehensive paradigms.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikinger (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
78.151.173.120 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Gabrys and Darius are nowadays Lithuanian names. Mardonius has the ending of Lithuanian or Proto-Indo-European origin and sounds very Lithuanian. Darius means the man who is doing/making and Gabrys means a capable/smart man. Mardonius like Xerxes means nothing in Lithuanian language. Very interesting shift in that generation from old Proto-Indo-European to new Persian names. Moreover Arijai (lith. for Aryan) originates from the word 'arejai'=ploughmen78.151.173.120 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Former discussion proofing that PIE=Adamic is placed here: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Adamic_language 83.19.52.107 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Here: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-74567/Indo-European-languages is good proof that Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen by Karl Brugmann, Berthold Delbrück and Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch by Julius Pokorny are the latest completed full treatment of the whole PIE family and the most recent etymological dictionary of the whole PIE family. After buying these two books one can begin learning and utilizing PIE in its entirety.
Here [3] is proof that Grundriß=Elements.83.5.0.83 13:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Did PIE lack a "have" verb? The have-verb comes from different source in every IE language I know and Latin has an alternative have-less construction with dative. I've also heard that Sanskrit lacks have-verb completely. --88.114.43.211 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree on that because Lithuanian language has the form 'turi'=have which is essential for constructing the number 4. in Lithuanian language 'vienas'=one (the god name Anas in Shumerian language derived from this word and later became AMON/AMEN/MANA due to 'mana'=mine (as well as Mono- in Latin...and AMON and MONO is derived from both 'vienas'=one and 'mana(s)'=mine) later developed to the form 'manau'=I mean or mind), 'pirmas'=first means 'one finger' ('pirstas'=finger), 'du'=two (derived from 'tu'=you), 'dvi'=two in feminine, 'antras'=second, 'sekantis'=next, 'trys/tris'=three (this one is not derived from any other words) 'keturi'=four simply means 'what do you have?', while 'penki'=five is derived from 'lenki' and which means 'bend' (it probably describes some features of our 5th finger=a thumb); 'she-shi'=six means 'take this' and add it to already clenched five fingers; 'se(p)-tyn-i'=seven means 'take several=7' is derived from 'take two' ('tyn-i/tint-as/tunt-as'=~several, that is - 7th is 'sep-tint-as' and 8th is 'ash-tunt-as'), 'ash-tuon-i'=eight means 'me and tunt-as=7', 'de-vyni'=nine means 'take off one from a whole number of fingers' (because vyni/vieni/vienas=one), 'de-shimt'=hundred means 'take off a part from a hundred', 'shimt-as'=hundred, 'vienuo-lika/dvy-lika' and other up to 19 means 'one/two what remains on top of ten', 'tukstantis'=thousand means 'is somewhere beyond horizont standing/overlooking/emerging'...and this structure of numbers is the basis of whole Proto-IE numerical system.
By the way 'mist' is derived from Lithuanian word 'mysht'=to pee/piss...and English has much much more derivatives from Lithuanian language (and not only English, but and Sanskrit and Old Greek and Latin...and of course they lack such derivations between each other). Lithuanian language has much more basic roots even than Latvian language.
And 'proto/protan' in Lithuanian language means 'a mind' unlike in Greek which means 'the one or the first' and is derived from Lithuanian words 'pries tai'=before that or the very begining/very basis.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.114.210 (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
86.140.114.210 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)In Lithuanian language 'tureti'=have is used for expressing these - to possess, to own, to ought, to have, to contain (the word 'turet'=have has lots of derivatives 'turtas'=welth, 'turejimas'=possession, taure'=chalice/grail, 'tauras'=bull/taurus (from here juish have 'tora'), 'taurus'=sublime/noble, 'tureklai'=rail, 'su-turet'=hold/restrain, 'turinys'=content, 'turis'=volume, 'turgus'=market, 'turtingas'=rich, 'pa-si-tur-intis'=well-off, 'tarba'=scrip(sac)/purse, 'taukai'=grease, 'taupyt'=economy, 'tausot'=save, 'tauta'=nation, 'telkti'=mass). Our tenses' system is exactly the same as English, but we use 'to be' instead of 'to have' (I've been waiting='ash esu buves laukiantis' and 'esu'=I'm, that's why I do not agree that 'have' was introduced later, because it's essential to my language to be evolved at all) and we have more (at least 4 times) participles than English. Lithuanian language has a huge number of suffixes, preffixes and endings (these affixes can be used twice or more times in one and the same word). English use 'to' before the verb, we use after ('to be'='buti'). English have similar words, but with somewhy changed wovels (i.e. 'sunus'=son, 'saule'=sun (these two seem to have swept wovels - 'au' always degrade to 'o'), 'set'=sow, 'sekla'=seed, 'siut'=sew/suit ('iu'='ew'), 'statyt/det'=set ('det'=put, 'statyt'='build, 'statyt' is one of very rare words having two meanings (in fact in my language it's the same action, so we can keep it having one meaning)), 'skest/skendo'=sink, 'sukt'=scroll, sriegt'=screw, 'siubuot/supt'=swing, 'siule'=suture/seam, svyruot'=sway, 'seka'=sequence 'seklet'=shallow/shoal, 'persekiot'=pursuit, 'bet'=but, 'batas'=boot, 'buti'=be, 'bite'=bee, 'byla'=bill, 'baugint'=boggle (some of them just very similar, some almost identical) and many more). My language is very very old, in fact we do not have any not original words for describing very primitive things and moreover words are gradualy derived from some number prime words (i.e. my language developed independently, but of couse can be and other parallel and independently developed IE languages with very strong Lithuanian language influence). 'tapti'=become ('eit'=go, 'at-eit'=come - it's the very prime words, but as you see they are completely different, in fact 'go' can be the result of that shift in meaning, we say 'nu-si-gaut' or gaut-is' in the sense of traveling and reaching the point of destination, similar as English 'gaut'=get/obtain/recieve 'i-gaut'=gain), 'daryt'=do.86.140.114.210 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Gaia2767spm (contributions) has added links to the same page, the TITUS Index, to dozens of articles. It seems doubtful that any one web page can be relevant to dozens of articles. This alone is enough to make one doubtful of the usefulness of these additions. But looking at the page, I find nothing that seems relevant to any article. Perhaps part of the problem is that the page is mostly not in English; perhaps some deeper link at the site might be useful, but I can't find anything through the linked page.
In our article he has also added links to a glottochronological study (which duplicates a reference already in the article) and to a so-called Indo-European Database of uncertain usefulness. (At least the latter is written in English.) I will soon be the third person to revert these additions. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. If Gaia2767 wants to add these links again, he should defend their relevance here. --teb728 06:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Indo-European theory includes two sub-hypotheses:
It is true that initial reconstruction for Proto-Indo-European is identical for both sub-hypotheses, or is different in each of these two hypotheses? Wikinger 20:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If my reference[1] was
"not a proposal of genetic relationship. this is about early loanwords."
then please mention it elsewhere where more appropriate, instead of just deleting it to the winds. Jidanni 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
1. Firstly, we need to start from each IE language analysis and try to find inner logic and other ties and links between words. 2. to deduct primary roots and gramatical structure. 3. to pick only the very primitive and prime words, like numbers, tenses, names of basic items, basic emotions, basic verbs allowing to start to comunicate. 4. to define which forms of words are the most ancient and archaic. 5. which roots are the most proliferous and to define what the oldest meaning of that root. 6. to define some rules how sounds were degrading (g become k, h or zh (English language do not have this sound at all, they have only z and dzh and the latter sound they denote by g letter)). 7. to define what clashes of consonents that language holds (kr-, skr-, st-, chrv- and so on). 8. then start to compare. 9. the least degraded language must be the mother of all IE languages (and I already know that that language is Lithuanian) 10. the names of plants will reveal genesis of not our comon language, but and where it sprang out. 11. the inner logic must persist (one words must be as the starting words, other must be derived from them and these derived must have the same or less archaic forms). 12. must be taken not the average occurence, but the form which has its strong relations with other related derivative words in any of these languages, to avoid such situation then the word taken from one language were changed in another language and later was spread in similar languages (f.e. word taken from German language can have such redistribution with altered meaning French-Spanish-Portugese-English-Russian and Later even come back to German language with a slightly different form and a completely different meaning) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.114.210 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
In article http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/SPIE.pdf was written not truth (due to lack of knowledge of Lithuanian language)
"2. In his The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots C. Watkins gives three PIE roots for ‘man’ man, ner and wî-ro (p 51, 58, 101: all these without asterisk); he points out the older form of ner is *ë2-ner- and its basic meaning is ‘vigorous, vital, strong’. In all his derivations he cites Pokorny (1959), whose spelling and some conclusions for PIE reconstructions are now superseded, but he obviously has consulted many other studies although he does not cite more recent publications, like those of S.E. Mann (1984-7) or H.Rix (1998).
Let us start with *(ë2-)ner asking ourselves if this is indeed the original form. To begin with, the asterisk indicates clearly that this word is a conjectural reconstruction and does not exist in any extant early language; nor is there any means at all of verifying the conjecture."
The last statement is simply due to the ignorance. In Lituanian language both and 'inirshis' (=vigorous, vital, strong) and 'vyras' (= a man) are two distinctive forms and are not derived one from another (it's just an example how you can wandering not knowing Lithuanian language). Moreover Lithuanian language was not influential language during at least last two centuries, contrariwise it was highly influenced by Slavs and Germans and still survived almost unchanged.
"4. According to the rigvedic evidence ner could not be the PIE primary form but only a derivative. The alleged *ë2-ner- is based mainly on the Gk a-n£r-. Greek is well-known for its tendency to prefix phonemes not found in the cognates in other IE branches. E.g. the common IE stem for ‘horse’ (S aöva, L equus) is in Gk h-ippo-s, where the double -pp- is explained as substitution for the v/u while p is often equivalent for S/L ö/q; but the initial h (a rough breathing) is an addition since this usually corresponds to IE s or v and no IE cognate for horse has such an initial; in any case, the Mycenaean iqqo (much earlier form in Greece) has no h."
Another misleading analysis. In Lithuanian language we have 'zhirgas', Greek have 'hipp-os' and Mycenaean had 'ikko/iqqo'. Here you see the degradation of Lithuanian word 'zhirgas' explicitly - g become kk/qq (or pp), and zh or (z) was lost at all...English language lost both sounds and zh and g(not dzh!!). I fogot to mention that 'zhirgas' is derived from a very archaic Lithuanian verb which means bestride or straddle (and Lith. 'strikineti/strikseti/strikt/strakseti/strakalys'=tripping or frisk probably have the same origin as bestride and straddle...and tripping comes from Lithuanian words 'trypti/tripsenti/triplenti/trimplenti/tramplinti/tramplenti/trypseti/trypint' meaning trample/stomp/stamp/tread, and again stomp/stamp have similar words in Lithuanian language such as stot/stoveti/stimpinti/stipsenti/statyt and having similar meanings).
Moreover Lithuanian language have lots of similar root word with completely different meanings - 'nera'=is not, 'naras/nerti'=dive, 'noras/naravas'=desire, 'nerti/narstyti/nerinys'=lace, 'narvas'=cage, 'nirti/nartus/nirshti/ynirshis/ynirtis'=rage, 'narsus/narsa'=lion-hearted/courage 'narshyti'=browse/scrimmage/scour and that indicates that it's imposible to deduct by only similar writings or sounds, must be consistent and persistent meaning and inner logic. In fact by persistent meaning I can deduct that in Sanskrit 'narasamsa'=men's desire comes from Lithuanian 'nora/noras'=desire (and 'sam' in Russian language means himself or a man), and 'narapati'=king, 'naradeva'=men's god??? (it probably means the god of war, in Lith. it would be 'karo dievas') and 'narayana'=mandrawn cart comes from Lithuanian 'karas/karalius/kariauna/karvedys/karuna/karti/kartuves/karoliai/(kibet/kabot/karot/kybot)/karutis'=war/king/army/warlord/crown/strung/gibbet/riviers or beads/(dangle)/cart or barrow, because in Lith. 'pati/pats/patele/patinas'=wife,herself/husband,himself/male-animal/female-animal...and so on (have no time for everything) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.114.210 (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Moreover in my knowledge the only language possesing inner logic in numerical system is Lithuanian (one word is derived from another even more ancient and having obvious meaning emerging from the very beginig of the language formation - much more earlier times than Proto-IE was present) see what I wrote in Did PIE lack a "have" verb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.114.210 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
In my oppinion mother/wife, father/husband, son/brother, daughter/sister, mother/father/sun/daughter-in-law (these in English language were constructed in much later times then a law was already present, but Lithuanian language has prime and very old versions of these words and even different for each: the parents of a husband and a wife), uncle and aunt (unlike second line relatives such as grandpa, grandma, cousin (masculin and feminin), grandson, granddaughter) must be the very prime words and shouldn't be derived from any other words, because family members were always surrounding each other and of couse developed at more or less the same time.
In. Lith. we have 'dukra/dukte/dukryte/dukrele/dukraite'=daughter and derivatives 'kraitis'=dot or dower meaning the very stuff of the daughter-in-law, 'kraite/kraitele'=basket meaning the item where the stuff of the daughter-in-law were kept. In Lithuania we can say both 'duoti pieno'=give a milk and 'milzhti/melzhti'=take a milk...by the way the phallus comes from 'penis/peneti/penas'=feed and 'penis'=phallus originated from 'pienas'=milk, moreover 'myzhti'=piss/pee originated from 'milzhti'=to take a milk.
Moreover 'dyka/dykineti/dykauti'=mike, 'dukti/is-dyk-auti'=frolic, 'duok/duoti/do(va)noti'=give or donate, 'dovanoti'=gift (all these words are intervened and can be derived from each other 'frolic' from 'mike', and 'gift' from 'give/donate', but not 'mike' from 'give'!!! or otherwise, these are two prime roots, also Lith. 'duok' seams almost identical to Duch 'dog'), 'imt'=take, 'pri-imti'=accept (it do not originate from 'duok'!!! as in your language and 'imk/imt' is the prime root as well), 'gaut'=get, 'tur/turet'=have and his derivatives 'turtas'=worth/wealth 'tureklai'=rail (and here you can trace this degradation of Lith. word 'turet' in English language: rail=(tu)re(k)l(ai), worth='turt(as)' - the first 't' degraded into 'w' and the last 't' became less voiced 'th'...so Sanskrit has one form for lots of different meanings while Lithuanian has every single meaning slightly different (in form) from each other (and you can trace the evolution of language). The tendency is to have more meanings for one word unlike in Lithuanian, that is the indication of the degradation of Lithuanian language and becoming Sanskrit, i.e. some dielect of mother language (Lithuanian) less rich in forms. All of you must first study Lithuanian language to understand what I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.114.210 (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not know everything. All referencies can be made only to Lithuanian language. I just follow some strict logical rules. Lithuanian language was already developed into very complex language when this split took place (it can be not only the degradation, but and mix with some other languages extinct nowadays, so we can never find a common roots, but we can determine the only language which was influential to all others), that's why we can recognize similar roots and deduct that the basic language must be that one who preserved all forms found in these languages (i.e. 'all forms' means not newly developed, but old ones). For example almost 70% IE languages (by number) uses 'alb' root for 'white', and in Lith. language we have 'baltas' and this form is more similar to English one (probably 'baltas'=white lost the ending becoming 'balt', then 'b' became 'wh' and finaly 'l' was lost, though the result is 'white'; the same is true and with 'alb', firstly they lost 'b' becoming 'altas', then lost the ending and finaly 't' changed to 'b') while 'alb' is not similar to 'white' at all. But not everything was preserved and in Lithuanian language. That is, 'ezheras'=lake in Old Prussian is 'asharas' which in Lithuanian language means tears (so probably 'asharas/asharos'=tears was the prime word for the lake), so we lost this sense, but in Old Prussian it survived. Lithuanian language has much more similarities with Sanskrit than Greek has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.114.210 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You see that these roots are similar, and every Lithuanian can tell you what they mean and that they logicaly tied (some forms are exactly the same, but due to Lithuanian language flexibility (in different forms: one can be an adjective another word can be the tense of verb in plural and so on, but they always differ in the accent, not in the letters) they come from different roots). No one in Lithuania write to journals (or maybe do?) such obvious to us things (the question remains if the translation to English is exact, but not the inner logic and continuing transitions between Lithuanian roots). I've noticed some shift in meanings of the same roots in different languages (in Russian and English with respect to Lithuanian). For example, 'imti(Lith.)'=take, but in Russian language it means 'imet(Ru.)'=have, and the similar situation in English I have described above for 'zhirgas'=horse. I have met in English and more such shifts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.114.210 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Should we mention that the IE languages are descended from Vulgar PIE, and not Classical PIE?--121.209.160.108 (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Take for instance the Vinča signs (especially the Tărtăria tablets). Some scholars think they represent a Slavonic dialect or Turkish, but the vast majority think they represent PIE. However, anyone who reads these signs will think that the modern IE languages are descended from that language! But it's quite clear that the language of these signs is actually a highly stylised literary register, which, like Classical Latin, was used for inscriptions and literature but was not actually spoken by the masses. So, to avoid giving people the wrong impression, we need to state that the IE languages are descended from Vulgar PIE and not Classical PIE (as used in the signs).--121.209.160.108 (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article. http://www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/indoeuropean/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the PIE word for 9 the same as the word for "new?" They seem to be similar words in many IE languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.210.129 (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it has been proposed that they are ultimately related. Impossible to be sure of course. I think the explanation was related to "eight" being a dual, viz. two fours, and nine would then be two fours plus one. dab (𒁳) 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It does not seem to have an ISO 639 code at all, not even 639-3. Is that because it's hypothetical and there are no records? Does it have any kind of code? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.11.134 (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
We have people repeatedly adding claims by Ilija Čašule that Burushaski is genetically related to IE, and is especially close to paleo-Balkans (which is of course the origin of Balto-Slavic: Čašule and the wiki editor who bothers to sign in are Macedonian). Evidently Čašule got something published in the Journal of Indoeuropean Studies ('the most respected journal in the field'), and this is taken a reliable evidence; to me, the deafening silence that greeted the publication says just the opposite. Dene-Yeniseian got a lot of press when it was convincingly presented to the linguistic community; I'd think any convincing case for a IE-Burusho claim would generate even more. Čašule's ideas are already mentioned, and his papers are in the refs, which is as much attention as we pay to claims of Burusho-Caucasian and Burusho-DC, and to me that seems enough. After a century or more of Europeans—including many Slavs—working on Burushaski, I can't imagine that the evidence Čašule has presented would have gone unnoticed until now.
Am I wrong? Does anyone here think that Čašule's ideas are in any way notable? kwami (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Čašule's articles have appeared in sufficiently notable publications to justify mentioning them. But this is still far from endorsing them. I don't think he has convinced anyone. It's still fair enough to say "one author has also attempted to link Burushaski to IE" in the Burushaski article (probably not worth mentioning in any other article). --dab (𒁳) 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Casule's work is serious scholarly work. In the introduction to his 1998 book, "Basic Burushaski Etymologies", the Russian Indo-Europeanist and foremost specialist on Phrygian, Acad. V.P. Neroznak wrote that his work opens a new page on comparative linguistics and that the links with Phrygian are particularly convincing. His assessment was done in consultation with two Russian experts on Burushaski, G.A. Klimov (world famous on language typology, and Caucasian languages and Burushaski) and Dz. Edelman (expert on Iranian languages and Burushaski. More recently, the Indo-Europeanist J.A. Alonso de la Fuente of the University of Madrid wrote some 20 pages of detailed assessment and praise of Casule's work in Revista Espanhola de Linguistica in the article El burushaski, una lengua aislada? where he states that his p[rojecy is the best in the last 30 years of distant comparisons. Dr Elena Bashir, expert on Urud, Kalasha and Burushaski, wrote a positive review of Casule's work in American Pakistani Newsletter in 1999. The American Balkanologist Emil Vrabie wrote a very positive review of Casule (1998) in the eminent American joutnal Balkanistica (2000). As indicated in Casule (1998) his work was encouraged also by the eminent Danish Indo-Europeanist J.E. Rasmussen. Apart from Casule's 70 page comparative article in The Journal of Indo-European Studies on the two thorny topics of laryngeals and grammar, he has published two monograph-length articles in the reputable Central Asiatic Journal. His work is mentioned in Elsevier's Encyclopedia of LInguistics. I have obtained this information from Casule himself, who is an erudite scholar, and will suggest to him to visit this page. As you can see, it is not one linguist and to say "nobody was convinced" is blatantly false. Who stands behind van Driem's proposal or Bengtson's? Signed: burusho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.24 (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC) And dab, hiding behind a pseduonym, you assess Casule's scholarship as bad. Bad scholarship does not get published in eminent journals. The conclusions may be debatable, but the scholarship is excellent. You could be sued for slander like this in the real world, and this here is obviously not the real world. You are the mysticist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.24 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)