Talk:Indo-European languages
From RationalWiki
Inb4 everyone rags on Smerdis for creating something irrelevant to the goals of the wiki. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 10:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh dear yet another "the subject of this article is blah blah stuff, oh and some people make odd claims about it." Merge the relevant bits into their appropriate artices, and delete this. SophieWilder
10:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is just a stub for the moment, put together as an outline of the various things I'd ultimately want to see discussed in the article. One problem with breaking it up in the way you suggest is that it would entail specific sub-articles like Indo-European homeland hypotheses or Aryan conquest of old Europe to cover some of the specific claims that (IMO) could use debunking. Those articles might be even less welcome than this one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- It wouldn't require stubs at all, just brief explanations in the relevant places. SophieWilder
19:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- One problem is that the explanations will ultimately not be all that brief. At this stage this is an outline, and evidence will have to be mustered on its several points.
- Do you really think that what I've put in Sanskrit really belongs, say, in India? That's about the current country, and a discussion of centum and satem dialects would strike me as somewhat out of place. The article that might be a best fit for most of the things I plan to discuss here is Aryan, but even that isn't the best of fits.
- I had hoped this outline would at least convince others here that there is enough woo and wonderlore out there about Indo-European and its origins to support an article. The whole 'patriarchal Aryan conqueror' myth, through Robert Graves, became a part of the legendarium of Wicca, and a stock trope in dozens of fantasy novels from Mary Renault to Marion Zimmer Bradley, as well as being important in Nazi Germany. Nationalistic claims seeking pride of place among the Indo-European languages has also generated dubious science. There is also some dubious science being done attempting to reconstruct deeper than the method allows, and many charges of pseudo-science and wishful thinking directed against those who claim they can; but those claimants include some respected scholars like Merritt Ruhlen and Joseph Greenberg. The theories of Nicholas Marr probably deserve their own article.
- These subjects seemed to me to be squarely within the mission statement, and reasonably enough similar to articles we already have. Once more, it seems there's something I'm failing to understand. Fleshing this out will be a labor of some days, and I'm willing to undertake it in the fullness of time, but not if it's just going to be kicked aside. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- You've sold me. Carry on. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
04:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- You've sold me. Carry on. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- It wouldn't require stubs at all, just brief explanations in the relevant places. SophieWilder
- This is just a stub for the moment, put together as an outline of the various things I'd ultimately want to see discussed in the article. One problem with breaking it up in the way you suggest is that it would entail specific sub-articles like Indo-European homeland hypotheses or Aryan conquest of old Europe to cover some of the specific claims that (IMO) could use debunking. Those articles might be even less welcome than this one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Notes mostly to myself
- - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)