![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
Interesting quote, but I don't know enough about Burushaski to work this into the article (or if it should be worked in):" Of fruit trees, only the apple (*abel) was known [to the Proto-Indo-Europeans], and there are some indications that it is a loan-word into Indo-European from another, autochthonous language whose sole survivor is Burushaski, spoken in the remote fastnesses of Kashmir." This was written by Calvert Watkins in his essay, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans (from 1969 or so). Alexander 007 07:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the subject but it has been pointed on the article that the burushaski language may have its roots in and/or relativity to sumerian and yenisey languages.Some even suggest a link to the north american languages. Sumerian language has many common words and grammar with turkish and hungarian both whom are of central asian descent. Yenisey language also flourished around Aral lake and both Turkish and Hun Language (the origins of the hun language are still disputed I suppose some say its an early dialect of turkish, a form of proto-turkish or a mongolian dialect etc the list goes on) were spoken around these regions. Also certain north american languages have similarities to central asian (Ural/altaic) languages. Geographically speaking is it not possible that the burushaski language may have a relativity to turkish/hun/mongolian languages? I do not know if any research has been done over this subject. I would like to know if anyone has some knowledge or opinion over the subject?
I deleted the following paragraph:
I can quote from a letter sent to me this morning:
The article needs heavy editing. The external relationships can be mentioned, but they should be cited properly. The article is ignoring Hermann Berger’s books, also ignoring Bengtson’s “Ein Vergleich von Buruschaski und Nordkaukasisch” and review of Čašule. As for the grammar, there is very little information. No information is given on the dialect differences, etc.
Sorry, Kwamikagami! It took me several hours to make my edit, so when at the end I was told there was an edit conflict, I simply copied my entire version over your entire version. Please make your edit again. David Marjanović 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Vlatkoto added some material into Hunza (which I removed; it was not pertinent for that article), a claim that Burushaski language is "supposed" (the "supposers" are not named) to be descended from the Ancient Macedonian language. Pseudo-science. Ilija Casule sees connections between Burushaski and the Paleo-Balkan languages ( Thracian, Phrygian), but I don't know whether he actually claims that Burushaski is descended from XMK. There seem to be Pakistani legends which mention a Macedonian origin for the Burusho (though those kind of legends are common in the area for various peoples; they are indeed a cliché). Alexander 007 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/pdf/5201726a.pdf C3 (paleoindian Y-haplogroup, hardly original for the Burusho) 8,2%, H1 (the first Europid wave to India; again hardly original 4,1%, J2 (neolithic colonization from the Near East) 7,2%, L (proto-Dravidian) 16,5%, Q 2,1% (=the Yeniseian hypothesis is very probably false), R (R*???) 10,3%, R1a1 (Aryan admixture) 27,9%, R2 14,4%. There seems to be nothing particularly exceptional - except the high percentage of R2. This is the highest percentage of R2 outside India - besides some Kurdish groups, which suggests that Kurds or the proto-Kurd (Mitanni Aryan?) population got to their current seats from today's Central Asia. It would be important to compare this profile with the mtDNA haplogroup percentages. However, judging from this result, I would say that Burushaski may be descendants of R2 people, i.e. they are very distantly related to European Cro-Magnons and even more distantly related to Siberian Paleoindians. 82.100.61.114 13:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Think about this, when thinking about BurushaSKI:
1. MacedonIAN on Macedonian is: MakedonSKI
2. SerbIAN on Serbian (and Macedonian) is: SrpSKI
3. CroatIAN on Croatian (and Macedonian) is: HrvatSKI
4. BulgarIAN on Bulgarian (and Macedonian) is: B'lgarSKI (BugarSKI)
should i go on?
Give me another example of this similarity in another language? If English knew them earlier it was going to be BurushIAN... If it was connected to some other language - what was it going to be named?
Of course that languages change, as ours (Makedonski and Burushaski) has changed after 23 centuries, but some of the basic concepts may stay for longer.
BTW, I am also interested: What is the name for 'rain' in Burushaski? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.29.247.252 (
talk)
22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Casule's detailed and extensive work has been published in the most eminent refereed journals in the area of Indo-European linguistics and Central Asiatic studies. It has received support in various degrees from famous linguists like G.A Klimov, Dz. Edel'man (both specialists on Burushaski) V.P. Neroznak (on Phrygian and Paleobalkanic), J.E. Rasmussen (Indo-European), Alonso de la Fuente (Indo-European), E. Vrabie (Paleobalkanic), Eric Hamp etc. The editors should respect that fact. ----balk
What gives you, Mr Kwamikagami, the authority to pass judgment on anything and everything? Armenian was considered non-IE for some 50 years before it was classified IE, similarly Albanian. And an argument based on why nobody saw the connection before is a very weak one. How can you say that the Journal of Indo-European Studies does not specialise in Indo-European linguistics? It is the top journal in the field in the world. It has a strict refereeing process with 2 anonymous referees (linguists Indo-Europeanists) and the editor (the renowned J.P.Mallory. If you have seen the articles-monographs you would have seen clearly that there is no nationalist propaganda in them at all. In the introduction to the 1998 book Basic Burushaski Etymologies, the Russian Acad. V. P. Neroznak, a world authority on Phrygian, states that "the connections of Burushaski with Phrygian are convincing" and that this work "opens a new page in comparative linguistics". The famous Burushaski specialists G.A. Klimov and D. Edelmman also had favorable views of this work (consulted by Neroznak. In Balkanistica, 2000 there is a positive review of the book by the Balkanologist E. Vrabie, and in Paistan Studies Newsletter by Elena Bashir of the University of Chicago. In 2005, Alonso de la Fuente from the University of Madrid published a 30 page article in the eminent Revista Espanhola de Linguistica, reviewing the Dene and IE hypotheses for Burushasi, and supporting on some 15 pages the work by Casule (states that it ihe best application of the comparative method in the last 30 years. Finally, someone mentioned that Central Asiatic Journal, where Casule has published three monograph articles is some obscure journal. Please visit the website of this preeminent journal in Central Asiatic Studies. So, Mr Kwamigami, come down to earth and show the humility that any discussion of scientific achievements requires. I guess if Casule had been German, all would have been OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.156.112 ( talk) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Van Driem's analysis amounts to a few pages in his 2001 book with only one tentative grammatical example and NO lexical correspondences, but because he is Dutch it is fine. Strange principles. Undoing Casule's work in this page is politically motivated here and should stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.31.246 ( talk) 09:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Casule is already mentioned as a source, and I believe that is enough considering the speculative character of his proposal. Personally, I think that devoting a whole paragraph to Van Driem's paper is also too much, for the same reasons. Both should be mentioned only briefly. The point here is to avoid giving undue weight to theories that are not solidly based on the comparative method and/or have not been independently confirmed, that's all. Stop looking for conspiracy theories. And please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Ko'oy ( talk) 01:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Kwami,
If you say that Casule is a crackpot, than you must NOT 'contribute' to this article. First learn something and then speak!
So, Mr. Casule is an Australian professor at the Macquarie University, one of the 500 best universities in the world according to the Shangai list. Mr. Casule has spent the last 12 years researching Burushaski language. How many years of research on Burushaski have you spent? Or you maybe didn't even know about Burushaski 12 years ago.
Stop behaving like the Supreme Court judging what should and what should not be in this article.
I'm returning Casule's proposals and researches right now. No one gives you the right to delete something and then open a discussion whether it should or shouldn't have been in the article. First, prove it shouldn't be here at all or in the version it is and reach a consensus and then delete, not the reverse! However, I don't think this is neccessary as the information on his researches are objective and sourced.
Dimitar2007 ( talk) 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ruhlen has not done any real work on Burushaski. How can you say that the silence is deafening in regard to Casule - what about the assessment by V.P. Neroznak, a world expert on Phrygian, in the introduction to Casule's 1998 book? What about such eminent linguists such as G.A. Klimov, Dz. Edel'man (Slavic speaking scholars), E. Bashir (Univ. of Chicago), E. Vrabie, Alonso de la Fuente (Univ, of Madrid), all the eminent reviewers of his articles. Casule is a serious and well respected linguist. The Italian version of Wikipedia, with small amendments, seems to be the best one, as well as the compromise solution offered here. Deleting stuff because of one's vanity and iognorance makes Wikipedia worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.119 ( talk) 12:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The short text about Cashule's researches and opinions which are sourced and relevant as much as the other researches that found their place in the article MUST stay. We are talking about scientific reaserches that lasted for 12 years, which are reviewed by eminent scholars and are more than worth of mentioning. No consesus or agreement is needed for such thing. However, in this case, a consensus for deletion hasn't been achieved and it seems it will not be achieved as only one editor self-initailly delets the paragraph (most probably politically motivated) without consulting and discussing first and giving irrelevant reasons for removing.
Please revert all furute possible attacks on the article by someone who considers himself the owner of the artice, whose opinion is supreme. Thank you very much! Dimitar2007 ( talk) 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Maunus, I agree with you. I have never said that something more than mentioning (one sentence) of the attempt should be in the article. But the fact is that Kwami insisted that almost nothing should be said. I see that he has changed his mind which is good. But I will modify the sentence a little for clarification.
And by the way, the article is not protected ;) Dimitar2007 ( talk) 23:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Who claims Balto-Slavic is a Paleo-Balkan language??? The sentence says "connect to Paleo-Balkan languages (most notably Phrygian and Thracian) and Balto-Slavic" as Ilija Chashule's research is on Paleo-Balkan langauges and Balto-Slavic languages. No one said Balto-Slavic languages are Paleo-Balkan :))) Nothing confusing: He attmpted to connect the language to Paleo-Balkan languages and Balto-Slavic languages. OK, if you think it's confusing and someone may understand Balto-Slavic languages are Paleo-Balkan languages, I will add the word "languages" after each of them. No way someone gets confused that way. Dimitar2007 ( talk) 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion here is hopeless. Nobody has a real clue of Casule's findings. Especially Maunus who writes "superfluorous" instead of "superfluous". Pure and simple, he shows in 1 book and 4 monograph length articles (of over 300 pages, assessed by quite a few reviewers), that Burushaski is an Indo-European language, and that within Indo-European it shows greatest closeness at the lexical level with the Ancient Balkan languages - Phrygian, Thracian and Ancient Macedonian. Particularly important are the grammatical analyses (the last 12 pages of the "laryngeals" article. In the discussion here we see a list of eminent scholars who have supported his work, so to say that his work has gained no acceptance is simply false. By the way, Casule's older (1998) work is mentioned in Elsevier's ten volume Encyclopeadia of Linguistics.The Italian wiki-version is still the best, even if it can be modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.24 ( talk) 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Playing with protected and unprotected units, like you have done Kwamigami shows only your vanity. At the end of the day for you wikipedia is a game. You have no knowledge of Burushaski or Indo-European, the page needs to be protected from people like you. Get back to the real world. And by the way I am American of Burushaski origin, and you are trying to conceal the truth about my people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.24 ( talk) 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
And Mr Kwami, who are the almighty editors of the Proto-IE page? People like you? Can't you read and follow what has been said on this page about other linguists supporting Chashule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.24 ( talk) 12:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Dr Casule is an erudite scholar. I will ask him if he cares to join this discussion and clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.24 ( talk) 12:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
amazing...first, "burusho = descendants of Alexander's army" becomes a meme in fyrom, then a Macedonian-Australian attempts to show genetic links with ie and specifically paleo-balkan including xmk (i'm sure the few dozens of items dug up from hesychius and epigraphy will help a lot...). can't say this doesn't smell fishy. [the (balto-)slavic connection is the next obvious step but i see it has already been taken] 79.131.64.37 ( talk) 14:18, 3 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 - COPIED FROM THE PROTO-IE DISCUSSION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.31.230 ( talk)
Wikipedia articles such as this one have no value in the scholarly world. It's a pity people use them as a source. Nobody here seems to have any knowledge of Burushaski or is in a position to judge any claims. burusho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.31.230 ( talk) 11:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Anbd what does the blockade of Greece have to do with this, or indeed Greece at all? This is about the Burushaski language. This is sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.31.230 ( talk) 11:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr Kwami, you cannot simply undo fully sourced material, you are breaking the laws of Wikipedia. Just because I have sourced who is the linguist claiming Indo-European origin and given supporting evidence, you simply delete it. You have disqualified yourself from this page. Do not needlessly undo. burusho —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burusho ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have included Casule's name and reformulated according to the newer findings. Van Driem has not written a single specific article on Bur's links, yet he receives a mention, yet Casule has published a book and three monographs in eminent journals. Kwami keeps on erasing Casule's name for no reason. We have seen that there are in fact more linguists supporting Casule than Van Driem. It is totally wrong for Kwami to be pursuing some agenda of his own, Burusho ( talk) 04:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Burusho
If you are a native speaker of Burushaski then you can help translate this template into your own language:
bsk | This user is a native speaker of Burushaski. |
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 |
Interesting quote, but I don't know enough about Burushaski to work this into the article (or if it should be worked in):" Of fruit trees, only the apple (*abel) was known [to the Proto-Indo-Europeans], and there are some indications that it is a loan-word into Indo-European from another, autochthonous language whose sole survivor is Burushaski, spoken in the remote fastnesses of Kashmir." This was written by Calvert Watkins in his essay, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans (from 1969 or so). Alexander 007 07:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the subject but it has been pointed on the article that the burushaski language may have its roots in and/or relativity to sumerian and yenisey languages.Some even suggest a link to the north american languages. Sumerian language has many common words and grammar with turkish and hungarian both whom are of central asian descent. Yenisey language also flourished around Aral lake and both Turkish and Hun Language (the origins of the hun language are still disputed I suppose some say its an early dialect of turkish, a form of proto-turkish or a mongolian dialect etc the list goes on) were spoken around these regions. Also certain north american languages have similarities to central asian (Ural/altaic) languages. Geographically speaking is it not possible that the burushaski language may have a relativity to turkish/hun/mongolian languages? I do not know if any research has been done over this subject. I would like to know if anyone has some knowledge or opinion over the subject?
I deleted the following paragraph:
I can quote from a letter sent to me this morning:
The article needs heavy editing. The external relationships can be mentioned, but they should be cited properly. The article is ignoring Hermann Berger’s books, also ignoring Bengtson’s “Ein Vergleich von Buruschaski und Nordkaukasisch” and review of Čašule. As for the grammar, there is very little information. No information is given on the dialect differences, etc.
Sorry, Kwamikagami! It took me several hours to make my edit, so when at the end I was told there was an edit conflict, I simply copied my entire version over your entire version. Please make your edit again. David Marjanović 17:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Vlatkoto added some material into Hunza (which I removed; it was not pertinent for that article), a claim that Burushaski language is "supposed" (the "supposers" are not named) to be descended from the Ancient Macedonian language. Pseudo-science. Ilija Casule sees connections between Burushaski and the Paleo-Balkan languages ( Thracian, Phrygian), but I don't know whether he actually claims that Burushaski is descended from XMK. There seem to be Pakistani legends which mention a Macedonian origin for the Burusho (though those kind of legends are common in the area for various peoples; they are indeed a cliché). Alexander 007 03:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n1/pdf/5201726a.pdf C3 (paleoindian Y-haplogroup, hardly original for the Burusho) 8,2%, H1 (the first Europid wave to India; again hardly original 4,1%, J2 (neolithic colonization from the Near East) 7,2%, L (proto-Dravidian) 16,5%, Q 2,1% (=the Yeniseian hypothesis is very probably false), R (R*???) 10,3%, R1a1 (Aryan admixture) 27,9%, R2 14,4%. There seems to be nothing particularly exceptional - except the high percentage of R2. This is the highest percentage of R2 outside India - besides some Kurdish groups, which suggests that Kurds or the proto-Kurd (Mitanni Aryan?) population got to their current seats from today's Central Asia. It would be important to compare this profile with the mtDNA haplogroup percentages. However, judging from this result, I would say that Burushaski may be descendants of R2 people, i.e. they are very distantly related to European Cro-Magnons and even more distantly related to Siberian Paleoindians. 82.100.61.114 13:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Think about this, when thinking about BurushaSKI:
1. MacedonIAN on Macedonian is: MakedonSKI
2. SerbIAN on Serbian (and Macedonian) is: SrpSKI
3. CroatIAN on Croatian (and Macedonian) is: HrvatSKI
4. BulgarIAN on Bulgarian (and Macedonian) is: B'lgarSKI (BugarSKI)
should i go on?
Give me another example of this similarity in another language? If English knew them earlier it was going to be BurushIAN... If it was connected to some other language - what was it going to be named?
Of course that languages change, as ours (Makedonski and Burushaski) has changed after 23 centuries, but some of the basic concepts may stay for longer.
BTW, I am also interested: What is the name for 'rain' in Burushaski? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.29.247.252 (
talk)
22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Casule's detailed and extensive work has been published in the most eminent refereed journals in the area of Indo-European linguistics and Central Asiatic studies. It has received support in various degrees from famous linguists like G.A Klimov, Dz. Edel'man (both specialists on Burushaski) V.P. Neroznak (on Phrygian and Paleobalkanic), J.E. Rasmussen (Indo-European), Alonso de la Fuente (Indo-European), E. Vrabie (Paleobalkanic), Eric Hamp etc. The editors should respect that fact. ----balk
What gives you, Mr Kwamikagami, the authority to pass judgment on anything and everything? Armenian was considered non-IE for some 50 years before it was classified IE, similarly Albanian. And an argument based on why nobody saw the connection before is a very weak one. How can you say that the Journal of Indo-European Studies does not specialise in Indo-European linguistics? It is the top journal in the field in the world. It has a strict refereeing process with 2 anonymous referees (linguists Indo-Europeanists) and the editor (the renowned J.P.Mallory. If you have seen the articles-monographs you would have seen clearly that there is no nationalist propaganda in them at all. In the introduction to the 1998 book Basic Burushaski Etymologies, the Russian Acad. V. P. Neroznak, a world authority on Phrygian, states that "the connections of Burushaski with Phrygian are convincing" and that this work "opens a new page in comparative linguistics". The famous Burushaski specialists G.A. Klimov and D. Edelmman also had favorable views of this work (consulted by Neroznak. In Balkanistica, 2000 there is a positive review of the book by the Balkanologist E. Vrabie, and in Paistan Studies Newsletter by Elena Bashir of the University of Chicago. In 2005, Alonso de la Fuente from the University of Madrid published a 30 page article in the eminent Revista Espanhola de Linguistica, reviewing the Dene and IE hypotheses for Burushasi, and supporting on some 15 pages the work by Casule (states that it ihe best application of the comparative method in the last 30 years. Finally, someone mentioned that Central Asiatic Journal, where Casule has published three monograph articles is some obscure journal. Please visit the website of this preeminent journal in Central Asiatic Studies. So, Mr Kwamigami, come down to earth and show the humility that any discussion of scientific achievements requires. I guess if Casule had been German, all would have been OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.156.112 ( talk) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Van Driem's analysis amounts to a few pages in his 2001 book with only one tentative grammatical example and NO lexical correspondences, but because he is Dutch it is fine. Strange principles. Undoing Casule's work in this page is politically motivated here and should stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.31.246 ( talk) 09:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Casule is already mentioned as a source, and I believe that is enough considering the speculative character of his proposal. Personally, I think that devoting a whole paragraph to Van Driem's paper is also too much, for the same reasons. Both should be mentioned only briefly. The point here is to avoid giving undue weight to theories that are not solidly based on the comparative method and/or have not been independently confirmed, that's all. Stop looking for conspiracy theories. And please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Ko'oy ( talk) 01:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Kwami,
If you say that Casule is a crackpot, than you must NOT 'contribute' to this article. First learn something and then speak!
So, Mr. Casule is an Australian professor at the Macquarie University, one of the 500 best universities in the world according to the Shangai list. Mr. Casule has spent the last 12 years researching Burushaski language. How many years of research on Burushaski have you spent? Or you maybe didn't even know about Burushaski 12 years ago.
Stop behaving like the Supreme Court judging what should and what should not be in this article.
I'm returning Casule's proposals and researches right now. No one gives you the right to delete something and then open a discussion whether it should or shouldn't have been in the article. First, prove it shouldn't be here at all or in the version it is and reach a consensus and then delete, not the reverse! However, I don't think this is neccessary as the information on his researches are objective and sourced.
Dimitar2007 ( talk) 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ruhlen has not done any real work on Burushaski. How can you say that the silence is deafening in regard to Casule - what about the assessment by V.P. Neroznak, a world expert on Phrygian, in the introduction to Casule's 1998 book? What about such eminent linguists such as G.A. Klimov, Dz. Edel'man (Slavic speaking scholars), E. Bashir (Univ. of Chicago), E. Vrabie, Alonso de la Fuente (Univ, of Madrid), all the eminent reviewers of his articles. Casule is a serious and well respected linguist. The Italian version of Wikipedia, with small amendments, seems to be the best one, as well as the compromise solution offered here. Deleting stuff because of one's vanity and iognorance makes Wikipedia worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.119 ( talk) 12:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The short text about Cashule's researches and opinions which are sourced and relevant as much as the other researches that found their place in the article MUST stay. We are talking about scientific reaserches that lasted for 12 years, which are reviewed by eminent scholars and are more than worth of mentioning. No consesus or agreement is needed for such thing. However, in this case, a consensus for deletion hasn't been achieved and it seems it will not be achieved as only one editor self-initailly delets the paragraph (most probably politically motivated) without consulting and discussing first and giving irrelevant reasons for removing.
Please revert all furute possible attacks on the article by someone who considers himself the owner of the artice, whose opinion is supreme. Thank you very much! Dimitar2007 ( talk) 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Maunus, I agree with you. I have never said that something more than mentioning (one sentence) of the attempt should be in the article. But the fact is that Kwami insisted that almost nothing should be said. I see that he has changed his mind which is good. But I will modify the sentence a little for clarification.
And by the way, the article is not protected ;) Dimitar2007 ( talk) 23:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Who claims Balto-Slavic is a Paleo-Balkan language??? The sentence says "connect to Paleo-Balkan languages (most notably Phrygian and Thracian) and Balto-Slavic" as Ilija Chashule's research is on Paleo-Balkan langauges and Balto-Slavic languages. No one said Balto-Slavic languages are Paleo-Balkan :))) Nothing confusing: He attmpted to connect the language to Paleo-Balkan languages and Balto-Slavic languages. OK, if you think it's confusing and someone may understand Balto-Slavic languages are Paleo-Balkan languages, I will add the word "languages" after each of them. No way someone gets confused that way. Dimitar2007 ( talk) 00:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion here is hopeless. Nobody has a real clue of Casule's findings. Especially Maunus who writes "superfluorous" instead of "superfluous". Pure and simple, he shows in 1 book and 4 monograph length articles (of over 300 pages, assessed by quite a few reviewers), that Burushaski is an Indo-European language, and that within Indo-European it shows greatest closeness at the lexical level with the Ancient Balkan languages - Phrygian, Thracian and Ancient Macedonian. Particularly important are the grammatical analyses (the last 12 pages of the "laryngeals" article. In the discussion here we see a list of eminent scholars who have supported his work, so to say that his work has gained no acceptance is simply false. By the way, Casule's older (1998) work is mentioned in Elsevier's ten volume Encyclopeadia of Linguistics.The Italian wiki-version is still the best, even if it can be modified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.24 ( talk) 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Playing with protected and unprotected units, like you have done Kwamigami shows only your vanity. At the end of the day for you wikipedia is a game. You have no knowledge of Burushaski or Indo-European, the page needs to be protected from people like you. Get back to the real world. And by the way I am American of Burushaski origin, and you are trying to conceal the truth about my people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.24 ( talk) 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
And Mr Kwami, who are the almighty editors of the Proto-IE page? People like you? Can't you read and follow what has been said on this page about other linguists supporting Chashule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.24 ( talk) 12:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Dr Casule is an erudite scholar. I will ask him if he cares to join this discussion and clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.157.24 ( talk) 12:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
amazing...first, "burusho = descendants of Alexander's army" becomes a meme in fyrom, then a Macedonian-Australian attempts to show genetic links with ie and specifically paleo-balkan including xmk (i'm sure the few dozens of items dug up from hesychius and epigraphy will help a lot...). can't say this doesn't smell fishy. [the (balto-)slavic connection is the next obvious step but i see it has already been taken] 79.131.64.37 ( talk) 14:18, 3 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 - COPIED FROM THE PROTO-IE DISCUSSION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.31.230 ( talk)
Wikipedia articles such as this one have no value in the scholarly world. It's a pity people use them as a source. Nobody here seems to have any knowledge of Burushaski or is in a position to judge any claims. burusho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.31.230 ( talk) 11:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Anbd what does the blockade of Greece have to do with this, or indeed Greece at all? This is about the Burushaski language. This is sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.31.230 ( talk) 11:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr Kwami, you cannot simply undo fully sourced material, you are breaking the laws of Wikipedia. Just because I have sourced who is the linguist claiming Indo-European origin and given supporting evidence, you simply delete it. You have disqualified yourself from this page. Do not needlessly undo. burusho —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burusho ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I have included Casule's name and reformulated according to the newer findings. Van Driem has not written a single specific article on Bur's links, yet he receives a mention, yet Casule has published a book and three monographs in eminent journals. Kwami keeps on erasing Casule's name for no reason. We have seen that there are in fact more linguists supporting Casule than Van Driem. It is totally wrong for Kwami to be pursuing some agenda of his own, Burusho ( talk) 04:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Burusho
If you are a native speaker of Burushaski then you can help translate this template into your own language:
bsk | This user is a native speaker of Burushaski. |