Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Balto-Slavic languages

Edit-warring

To the IP editor: The addition of the label "hypothetical" is unnecessary and potentially misleading. Every linguistic relationship is based on hypotheses, except for rare cases where the the evolution from a common source is documented (such as the emergence of the Romance languages from Latin, or the Indo-Aryan languages from Sanskrit). Baltic is also "hypothetical", since there is no documented source from which the East and West Baltic languages have emerged, so why not add it there too?

The politicizing of the topic is not helpful either ("Russian politics"[1]). It betrays a deplorable unfamiliarity with the topic. Our sources which support the Balto-Slavic unity are written by American, British, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, and German scholars. What on earth has this to do with politics? –Austronesier (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your text makes you feel you have a political, rather than a linguistic goal. You list a lot of countries, but not a single citation to a scholar. I am sorry if it does not sound very polite, but your “sources” are probably sitting somewhere in Kremlin or Sejm, because they desperately want the Balto-Slavic linkage and we all know why. The British have always been very supportive of the Russian influence in the Baltics, so linking them linguistically is only serving their political agenda. Had there been a natural linguistic connection, the Slavic people (Russians and Poles) would learn the Baltic languages with ease and would be promoting them. Instead we see the opposite. So making claims like these, which always results in political gain for the Polish and Russian governments, is very political. Everybody but Wikipedia is aware of this.
Secondly, saying it is a hypothetical branch provides a more accurate and less political description.
You list a lot of countries and use exquisite British English but don’t back your statements with a singe piece of evidence. And I can tell you why – you know that the majority of the scholars making these hypotheses are either Polish, Russian or German. So once again, it is more of a geopolitical linkage than a linguistic one.
If the article in the present form wasn’t political it WOULD contain words like “hypothetical” and strong and balanced counter arguments by a number of scholars who do not agree with the Balto-Slavic grouping and show significant amount of evidence to prove it. You are censoring this information, which is again political. Your sentences in this article are structured in a way to shape and form an opinion that the Balto-Slavic grouping is widely accepted, which isn’t the case.
You also disproportionately distance the Baltic languages in the pages where you describe the Slavic languages and disproportionately draw similarities between the two in the pages about the Baltic languages. This is again very political and unacceptable.
The Baltic languages have only adapted some orthography used by some Slavic languages and as a result of a very extensive contact through centuries-long occupations now have a few words in common. This unnatural Slavicization does not necessarily mean they are part of the same branch. Has anyone conducted any studies to show the damages to the Baltic languages over the 500 years of Polish and Russian rule? No, because it’s politically incorrect to favour a tiny culture over big and mighty politics.
There are more key grammatical structures and words shared between the Greek, Germanic and Romance languages and the Baltic languages than between the Baltic and Slavic, but due to political reasons and some borrowed orthography it’s easy to deny it.
All it takes to unmask this great “Balto-Slavic” deception is numbers. Check the words for numbers from 1-10 in Baltic languages, then compare them to Germanic and Romances (Spanish, French and Italian) and then also compare them to Slavic languages. Then tell me what percentage of it is Slavic.
Unfortunately, the Baltic republics are too small and too weak to lobby for their identity so it gets bulldozed under the Slavic languages in encyclopaedias like this one quite frequently.
Actually all it takes to uncover this big political lie is the Baltic word for number “one”. Compare that with the above languages and tell me how Slavic the Baltic languages are.
I maintain that the way this article has been written is very political, disproportionate and lacks evidence. 94.3.122.193 (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article from top to bottom, and don't skip the references to works by Mallory & Adam, Clarckson, Beekes, Kapovic, Young, Kortlandt, Andersen, Derksen, Olander, Kim, Hill. These works will help you to base your arguments on actual historical-comparative linguistic scholarship, and not wacky conspiracy theories. Cheers! –Austronesier (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are generic reviews of previous literature and the academic background of these authors is mostly Slavonic studies, so they are not going to show impartiality. You have cited those who accept the branch, why don't you have a more balanced argument and show the views of other scholars who do not agree with this theory? Why are you censoring their works?
The authors you cited accept it is a hypothetical branch, why would you refuse to use the word "hypothetical"? 94.3.122.193 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...the academic background of these authors is mostly Slavonic studies – No. –Austronesier (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the grouping hypothetical

I have heard from some that calling Balto-Slavic a hypothesis is ‘not worth mentioning’ because it is self-evident. Very well. In that case, why mention in the Italo-Celtic article that it's a ‘hypothetical grouping’ then, it's self-evident, isn’t it? Can we stop with the double standards for once and apply the same principle to all the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousThinker (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balto-Slavic is not "self-evident" and no one has said so. It is based on a large corpus of evidence (i.e. exclusively shared innovations) that is convincing enough for most scholars in the mainstream of Indo-European historical-comparative linguistics. You cannot compare the acceptance of Italo-Celtic to that of Balto-Slavic: by applying the same standard to both, most comprehensive handbooks of Indo-European linguistics clearly arrive at different assessments:
  • Fortson (2004), Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction:
    • Balto-Slavic: "The notion of a single Balto-Slavic speech community has been controversial in some circles, in part because of political tensions. But all major Indo-Europeanists are agreed that Baltic and slavic deserve to be grouped together, though some dispute remains about the exact degree and nature of their affinity (p. 364)."
    • Italo-Celtic: "These shared features have led many Indo-Europeanists to posit an "Italo-Celtic" subgroup or dialect area of Indo-European. However, the hypothesis of an Italo-Celtic unity has never gained universal approval (p. 247)."
  • Beekes (2011), Comparative Indo-European Linguistics:
    • Balto-Slavic: "The Baltic and the Slavic languages were originally one language and so form one group (p.22)." [...] "The supposed unity of the Balto-Slavic group is often disputed, but it is really above all doubt. Both language groups share a host of developments in common, es pecially with respect to the accent (p. 31)."
    • Italo-Celtic: "The Italo-Celtic unity is a much more difficult one to prove. In any case, the basis for such a supposition are only a few sound changes and perhaps also a morphological (i.e. form) development (p. 31)."
  • Mallory-Adams (2006) The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:
    • "There are a number of other proposed relationships. Some argue that similarities between Greek and Armenian are such that there was a common Graeco-Armenian, while Italo-Celtic has been another long suggested and just as frequently rejected proposition. In both of these cases, we do not require a proto-language between Proto-Indo-European and the individual languages as we do with Indo-Iranian, and so the case for these other sets is simply not as strong as it is for Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (p. 78, emphasis added)."
  • Klein et al. (2017–2018), Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics:
    • "Although some groups seem to be presently beyond doubt (e.g. Balto-Slavic), some are still hotly disputed (e.g. Italo-Celtic) (p. 23)."
    • "That Indic and Iranian together constitute an Indo-Iranian clade has not been seriously questioned; the languages share more than enough striking innovations to show that they developed as a single language for some time after losing touch with the ancestors of other surviving IE languages. Though Baltic and Slavic are not so closely related, the evidence for a Balto-Slavic clade likewise seems secure [...] The existence of an Italo-Celtic clade has also been suspected, but it is much harder to validate and remains problematic (p. 63)."
    • "However, unlike some other Indo-European subgroups such as Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic, the existence of Italo-Celtic has never reached the status of established fact. (p. 2030)."
  • Kapovic (2016), The Indo-European Languages:
    • "The ten principal IE branches are as follows. [...] 4. Italic [...] 5. Celtic [...] 9. Balto-Slavic... (p. 4–5)."
To some up, mainstream assessment arrives at different conclusions about the validity of Balto-Slavic and Italo-Celtic. And of course, Wikipedia will reflect this. In Wikipedia, all information is considered with WP:due weight. –Austronesier (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More modern-day high-quality sources:

  • Weiss (2022), "Italo-Celtic", in T. Olander (ed.), The Indo-European Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective
    • "It would be fair to say that Italo-Celtic is more debatable than any other higher order subgrouping, certainly much more so than Balto-Slavic."
  • Pronk (2022), "Balto-Slavic", in T. Olander (ed.), The Indo-European Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective
    • "Throughout the twentieth century, the matter remained controversial [...] During the last quarter of a century, the communis opinio appears to have moved firmly in favour of the idea that there was indeed a period of shared innovations between Baltic and Slavic directly following the disintegration of the Proto-Indo-European parent language (p. 269) [...] All linguistic evidence points to a Balto-Slavic proto-language that must have existed for a significant period after the disintegration of Proto-Indo-European (p. 285).
  • Villanueva Svensson (2023), The Rise of Acuteness in Balto-Slavic:
    • I regard Balto-Slavic unity as completely certain [...] The best characterization of the Balto-Slavic question I can think of is that it was an important 20th century topic that is no longer current in the 21st century (recent, detailed defenses of an anti-Balto-Slavic position are indeed nonexistent). In my view, the cumulative evidence in favor of Balto-Slavic unity is simply overwhelming (p. 5).

This has direct bearings for the over-detailed section "Criticism" that dwells on points that have become long settled in the last decades. Giving too much space to a position that is virtually non-existent among present-day mainstream scholars with an expertise in Indo-European linguistics (including those specialized in Balto-Slavic linguistics, Baltic linguistics or Slavic linguistics) violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I invite all editors with a genuine (not ideologically driven) interest in historical linguistics to tackle this problem. –Austronesier (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; considering the sources that are presented above, the length of § Criticism constitutes a violation of WP:UNDUE. Today, there is a general consensus among academic specialists of Indo-European linguistics, in classifying the Baltic and Slavic languages under a single branch. The article should reflect proportionately, and without editorial bias, the views of present-day mainstream scholars with expertise in the topic; thus, the section requires significant trimming. An alternative option would be to remove it altogether, and add a summary of it under § Historical dispute. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best guidance for how much space we want give to a spent hypothesis (such as Meillet's rejection of the Balto-Slavic unity) is to follow the example of the high-quality sources listed above. A nice case in point is Daniel Petit's chapter "114. Balto-Slavic"[2] in the Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics (the De Gruyter site erroneously lists Rüdiger Schmitt as author). Of ~10-page length, it devotes a two-page section "Balto-Slavic divergences" to what had been presented in the past as counterevidence for the unity of Balto-Slavic, only to discard it as inconclusive ("None of these features seriously precludes the reconstruction of a Balto-Slavic stage.", "Such divergences must, of course, not be overestimated. It would be unwise to use them as pieces of evidence against the reconstruction of a Balto-Slavic common proto-stage."). And needless to say, his exposition of the historical material comes after the section that presents the common features of Balto-Slavic.
Tijmen Pronk's chapter about Balto-Slavic[3] (cited above) does not even waste a half-paragraph to the historical debate on a total of 19 pages.
If we follow Pronk's example, we can completely discard the section criticism; if we model our article after Petit, the section § Historical dispute needs to be moved down and expanded with a discussion of the core arguments that were relevant in the historical debate. In either case, § Criticism should be TNT-ed, with all its fluffy non-arguments (such as the commentary on Trautmann's dictionary) that betray an egregious lack of understanding of historical-comparative linguistics. –Austronesier (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through Petit's (2018) and Pronk's (2022) chapters; indeed, they could, and should be used as guidance in this regard, since they are among the most recent reliable sources focusing on the topic, and provide a decent historical overview. Thus, removing § Criticism altogether, moving § Historical dispute under § Shared vocabulary, and expanding it with information from the two aforementioned sources, seems like a reasonable approach. Though, i am reserved as to whether we should include in detail all 14 divergences that are attributed to Erhart and Pohl; in addition to what you noted above, Petit (2018) also stated – among other things – that these divergences "are obviously inconclusive, since they can be accounted for by assuming recent innovations on one side or on both sides." The only one that is significant and worthy of some expansion, is "the difference of ablaut in reflexes of the same designation"; per what he wrote on page 1968. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than a month has passed since the above proposals were made, without any counterargument(s). Austronesier, if you also agree, you can go ahead and make the aforementioned changes. Specifically, to remove § Criticism altogether, move § Historical dispute where the former was (under § Shared vocabulary), and expand it with information from the chapters of Petit (2018) and Pronk (2022); however, the extent and details of what is to be included, still remain to be decided. Ideally, we shouldn't make any changes until we also have the aforementioned summary; though, personally I don't mind moving forward with the removals either. Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vindafarna: Can you please give your input on the topic that was discussed above? Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm sorry for the massive delay here. In the community, we are generally all completely agreed on the unity of a Balto-Slavic major order branch of Indo-European. There are morphological and phonological isoglosses that absolutely indicate that those two branched (Baltic and Slavic) constitute a linguistic unity to the exclusion of the other Indo-European branches. However, there is nowhere near that level of certainty for Italo-Celtic. I think Austronesier did a great job of citing the sources that form the backbone of what we're talking about here. What it comes down to is that if you asked 100 IE linguists about Balto-Slavic, you may get two who don't believe it and those two would be the outgroup. If you asked the same about Italo-Celtic, it would probably be 50-50. Jasanoff has a great article on it in the Festschrift for Eric Hamp. Cowgill has a great article on it in the proceedings of the Third IE conference at the University of Pennsylvania (1970) which was also reproduced in his collected writings. Cowgill believes in Italo-Celtic. Pronk and Petit are both competent linguists and I really don't think there's any reason to even have a 'criticisms' section because I would argue it's giving undue weight to a very small proportion of very vocal Indo-Europeanists on this matter.
Vindafarna (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vindafarna: Thanks for your valuable input. We seem to have reached consensus regarding § Criticism. If time permits, would you mind working on it? We all seem to agree on a properly weighted summary of this minority view, that could then be moved under one of the other sections (such as § Historical dispute). Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can do that. What would be the best section to put it under?
Vindafarna (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vindafarna: In my opinion, that would depend on the size of the aforementioned summary. If considerably large, it would seem more proper to keep the § Criticism section – albeit without its current content – and place the summary under it; or, if we are talking about a paragraph or two, we could remove § Criticism completely, and incorporate the summary under § Historical dispute. Personally, I am more in favor of the latter, which is also in line with WP:STRUCTURE. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Demetrios1993 Holy moly, I only took a look just now at the criticisms section and it's absolutely absurd. Every single one of those claims can be very easily and thoroughly contested even by someone with an elementary knowledge of linguistics. It appears that a lot of what's written there is primary research and cannot be backed up with proper sources and it's honestly shocking how bad some of those objections are and how badly informed someone needs to be in order to make them in the first place. Not a single point on that list makes sense from a linguistic point of view and I can (with references) refute every single claim that's made on there. That entire section needs to be deleted and I can add a minor paragraph in the historical dispute section because honestly anything more than that is giving too much exposure to people who would seem to have nationalistic or other reasons for denying a genetic link b/w Baltic and Slavic...
Vindafarna (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vindafarna: Having read WP:STRUCTURE again, it is very clear; § Criticism needs to go as soon as possible. I would prefer it if you can come up with the aforementioned summary prior to that; regardless though, I will go through with the removal in about a week or two. Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrios1993 My apologies, but I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. Could you just let me know what you'd like me to do here? I'm sorry, I know you've already explained it, but I just want to be absolutely clear about what you think should be done so that I don't do anything wrong here. Vindafarna (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vindafarna: No worries. If possible, just prepare a paragraph or two summarizing the historical criticism of the Balto-Slavic branch. You may use Petit's (2018) and Pronk's (2022) relevant chapters, and/or any other similar recent reliable sources focusing on the topic. When you are finished, you can either share your text here for additional input, or try and incorporate it under § Historical dispute directly, which already includes some relevant information. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file "Slavic_languages_tree.svg" used in the article is inaccurate

The file in question is claimed to be a derivative of the file "IndoEuropeanTree.svg", however, that file clearly shows that Ukrainian, Rusyn and Belarusian are descended from the dead Ruthenian language, which is in turn descended from Old East Slavic. The "Slavic_languages_tree.svg" file shows that Russian, Ukrainian, Rusyn and Belarusian are descended directly from Old East Slavic, parallel to the "Old Ruthenian Language", which is shown as dead and without no descendants - this goes against both the original file of which it is derivative of, and it also goes against the contemprorary understanding of the classification Slavic languages.


I suggest a new file be made to match the "IndoEuropeanTree.svg" file closely. Mnohohrishnyi (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone modified the file to change this. If you check the file history. The first version was correct. Mellk (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balto-Slavic_languages