Talk:Burushaski/Archive 1

untitled comments
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)

About sumerian and yenisey origins
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?


 * No way. Sumerian has no or almost no common words with Turkish (an Altaic language) or Hungarian (a Uralic language), and only the basic type of grammar is the same (all three are agglutinative languages). The Yeniseian languages are different again – very different. I am not aware of North American languages with similarities to either Uralic or Altaic languages (let alone both), even though some do have similarities to the Yeniseian languages (see Dené-Caucasian languages). David Marjanović 11:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A paragraph deleted + a few remarks
I deleted the following paragraph:


 * Burushaski has loanwords from Sanskrit (like "shiri") and Arabic ("iil") and a term to burn dead (jaaie) at (jaaiemichin) origin Buddhist culture. These are loanwords to or from the Burushaski language. Some words are similar, like "birgoosh" in Hungarian, or "qara" for "black" and "baig" for "prince" from Chinese Turkish. Some words are borrowed from Chitral too, like "shapik" for "bread".

I can quote from a letter sent to me this morning:


 * What “shiri” and “iil” mean is not explained. There is /s.íri/ ‘Heuschrecke’ (with retroflex [s.] – what does this mean – it’s not in my dictionary). /il/ ‘Nadelöhr, Loch (in der Perle usw.), usw.’ and /–íl/ ‘Lippe; Ufer, Rand ...’...


 * I have no idea what “birgoosh” is: no such word in Berger’s dictionary, and ‘black’ is not /qara/, it is /mat-(úm)/, and ‘prince’ is not /baig/ but /bapó/ or /guśpúr/. The fact that some words are similar to words in other languages is irrelevant, unless a plausible historical link can be shown. Chitral is not a language but a region, etc.

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.


 * Petr, why didn't you sign?
 * The e-mail is from John Bengtson, who gets too confused by the Internet to edit Wikipedia himself. I'll edit the article soon according to that e-mail. German Heuschrecke means "grasshopper". David Marjanović 11:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict
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)
 * No problem. Mine was very minor. kwami 17:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But very important! :-) I'll need to modify the Dené-Caucasian article accordingly. David Marjanović 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Paleo-Balkan claims
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)


 * If Burushaski were IE, that would have been picked up long ago. The only possibility I see is that the paleo-Balkan languages were non-IE, but we hardly have enough data to assert that. kwami 06:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. But see also Lemnian language and Pelasgian language, both most likely non-IE (Aegean languages). Burushaski may (or may not :-) ) be related to some ancient non-IE Aegean language, but not XMK. BTW, the linguist who is trying to establish an ancient Balkan origin (and Balto-Slavic connection) for Burushaski, Ilija Casule, is an ethnic (Slavic)Macedonian; the background of a linguist is usually not irrelevant. Alexander 007 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just clicked on the German article (which is more expansive than the English article so far), but found no mention of Paleo-Balkan, Aegean, Phrygian, Thracian etc. I did find mention of Sumerian, Urartian, Basque, and some others. Seems like they've been shooting in the dark for awhile. I can only assume that Casule's ideas are very marginal or even idiosyncratic (I have not read his stuff yet). Though let me make it clear that I have not confirmed that Casule actually claims that Burushaski is descended from XMK; I have not tracked down that particular claim beyond some Wikipedia contributors (User:Vlatkoto and apparently someone else in Mir of Hunza. Alexander 007 07:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * we'll need references for each identification claim. It's easy to say that every language isolate was associated with Sumerian, Basque and what not, the question is when and by whom. The Paleo-Balkans stuff is highly suspect. This linguist seems to have done work with (Slavic) Macedonian and suddenly, lo and behold, he discovers that Burushaski is not just Indo-European, no, it is the missing link between Slavic and XMK. I can only roll my eyes at that. Connecting XMK and Slavic Macedonian seems to be the holy grail of linguistics in the Rep. of Mac. dab (&#5839;) 08:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in Casule's arguments/alleged evidence. Apparently he has found what he thinks are lexical correspondances between Burushaski and Paleo-Balkan languages (and Balto-Slavic), and some other alleged similarities (I once read a short synopsis for his book, which claimed many lexical correspondances) . Not sure what his claim actually is however---that Burushaski descends from PIE? That PIE and the ancestor of Burushaki share an even older common ancestor? Or that Proto-Burushaski was a partly Indo-European creole? If anybody has more info on Casule's stuff, please share. You can find a number of his works on the subject listed here, as well as a general bibliography for Burushaski. I have not confirmed that Casule is really the source of those "Burushaski descends from XMK" crank theories, and maybe the guy has done some good work concerning Thracian, Phrygian, and Burushaski, who knows. Alexander 007 10:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the distribution of Y-haplogroups in the Burusho

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)


 * That has nothing to do with it. As far as I know, the Slavic-resembling ending -ski in Burushaski is just a coincidence. 'Rain' in Burushaski is harált or daú. — N-true (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What is that "ú" letter in the 'daú'? Would you like to tell me similar voice in english? like in some English word? Rtgs (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The accented letters denote stressed vowels, so they're longer and more tense. In IPA those two words would then be pronounced [hʌˈraːlt] and [dʌˈuː], respectively. The last word might be a diphthong as well, not sure. — N-true (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Korean word for 'two' is [tul], and the English word is [tu], proving that England was settled from Korea. Actually, all of Eurasia was once Anglo-Korean, until they were displaced by immigrants such as the Macedonians and the Burusho, so that now the original Eurasians survive only at the eastern and western extremes of England and Korea. kwami (talk) 01:11, 1 May 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


 * No, any significant IE connections would've been noticed a century ago. You can get almost any sort of nonsense published if you use a journal that doesn't specialize in the topic of the article. (IEL knows nothing of Burusho.) Since IE or Balkan origins of Burusho are highly unlikely, and connected with nationalist propaganda in Macedonia, we need to show that this isn't just one more of dozens of crackpot ideas. We need to show that other linguists have been convinced that a likely connection has been shown. Otherwise, we can start a section on crackpot pseudo-linguistics and put it in there. kwami (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

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&#39;oy (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Van Driem is doing respectable work on Sino-Tibetan. He may be wrong on Burushaski (and there is more than that one example, even if not a lot), but at least he's accepted by his peers. Casule's just a crackpot. IE connections would have been noticed a hundred years ago. Starostin would certainly have noticed Slavic or IE connections, for example. No, to accept something that flies in the face of all accepted research requires that there's some evidence that he's taken seriously in the field. Otherwise he's no more notable than any other of dozens of unsubstantiated claims. kwami (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, I don't mind whittling down van Driem, if you want to repeat that. His ideas don't seem to be going anywhere. kwami (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hah, speak of the devil. Someone just added a paragraph to Ainu of an Indian researcher who's demonstrated that Ainu is an IE language through its connection to Assamese. There are hundreds of these unsubstantiated speculations out there, often claiming to be undeniable Truth, and some of them even get published. That doesn't mean anything. kwami (talk) 07:42, 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)


 * If anyone cares about my opinion — as long as the part on Casule doesn't claim to be the non plus ultra in Burushaski research or claim to be more reliable than the other ideas of various linguists, like van Driem, or contains "weasel words", I don't see much reason to delete that part. I personally strongly doubt any relationship with IE, and I don't have any opinion on Casule, but I don't see a problem with keeping another idea. At least it's not as hillarious as that Ainu—Assamese bullpoop that Kwami mentioned. — N-true (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We already mention Casule in the 'other' links section, along with Ruhlen/Bengston and Basque. If we relegate Ruhlen, at Stanford, to a footnote, why not Casule? Van Driem's paragraph has been cut in half. His proposal wasn't inherently unlikely, since very few people have worked on both Yeniseian and Burushaski, but hasn't gone anywhere. However, dozens of IE-speaking, and often Slavic-speaking scholars (e.g. Starostin, but plenty of others) have worked on Burushaski. If there were a connection, they would almost certainly have found it. Even people working on Nostratic exclude Burushaski--that's how far out it is! The idea that it should turn out to be IE after all is therefore highly unlikely. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and until Casule's colleagues rally round and say, yeah, he's got it right, we should be skeptical. I've looked for reviews of Casule's ideas, and can't find anything. If there were anything to it, there'd be tons of press, like we saw with Dene-Yeniseian. The silence is deafening. Casule stays in the footnote until we have something reliable to report. kwami (talk) 00:50, 1 October 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)


 * I asked at the proto-IE page what the editors there thought about Čašule, in case I were missing something. Responese was that this is a fringe view held by a minority of one; that because the JIS is a noteworthy journal, we might mention him (which we already do), but that it is not as noteworthy as Sino-Caucasian, which we also barely mention. Quote: "This is just bad scholarship (which still implies granting that it is scholarship). Somebody wrote a few articles and made a suggestion. Nobody was convinced. End of story." We have one editor pushing it, and three rejecting it as BS, so unless you can convince people, we keep it to the bare mention suggested at proto-IE: "one author has also attempted to link Burushaski to IE". I suggest that you take it up on the IE or proto-IE page if you want more than that. kwami (talk) 18:06, 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)


 * I agree with Kwami - we can mention that the connection has been suggested but nothing more than that.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dimitar, I suspect your accusation of me of being politically motivated reflects your own state of mind. At the least, it suggests a refusal to judge scholarship on its own merits. (I thought the Greek blockade of Macedonia for using its own name was stupidity incarnate, but that doesn't mean I'm going to buy some mumbo-jumbo about Macedonian being a paleo-Balkan language, which would seem to be the point here.) We now have four editors saying this is fringe, and the three others at least are good, careful editors that are concerned about knowledge, not politics. There is a possibility you're wrong, after all, and even if you're right, it's up to you to demonstrate it. A minority of one is usually not mentioned at all in Wikipedia articles per WP:Fringe. You keep saying it's been well received, but you haven't demonstrated this. It doesn't appear to even a point of discussion among IEists—it seems it hardly exists at all outside one lone individual. kwami (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is getting ridiculous. I've protected the article. Dimitar can still edit, but the anon. sock/meatpuppets no longer have access. kwami (talk) 21:11, 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)


 * Now you're overtly claiming that Balto-Slavic is paleo-Balkans? Knock it off.
 * If you want to believe the article is not protected, fine by me. kwami (talk) 00:06, 3 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)


 * Its much too detailed that way. It should say. "A connection with the Indo-European language family has also been proposed.(Cashule 2003)" and then add "but none of the proposed family ties have been accepted by the linguistic community and Burushaski is still considered an isolate." anything more than that would be giving undue weight toa fringe viewpoint.·Maunus· ƛ · 04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Dimitar. With all the square brackets for the links, I misread the parentheses. kwami (talk) 05:49, 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)


 * You haven't provided any sources to those supposed linguists that support his claim. Particularly I would be interested in seeing where Eric Hamp supports the proposal, since his support might sway my opinion on the matter.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:15, 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


 * You're right about van Driem. I've reduced him to a footnote. Fringe personal proposals should get no more weight than that. kwami (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Burushaski language template
If you are a native speaker of Burushaski then you can help translate this template into your own language:

Edit

--Amazonien (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)