Talk:Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages

Competing PCK reconstructions?
To what extent does Oleg Mudrak's reconstruction differ from that of Fortescue?--Pe t 'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 11:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

CK not part of Uralo-Siberian anymore according to Fortescue?
Where in his article does Fortescue state he no longer views Chukotko-Kamchatkan as a part of his Uralo-Siberian proposal? Saying Nivkh is closer to Chukotko-Kamchatkan than anything else doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of them both being part of the larger Uralo-Siberian, unless Fortescue says so explicitly, of course. I don't have access to that particular article.--Pe t 'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 11:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoting from page 3 [1361]:

Given the results of the present investigation, the general conclusion in Fortescue (1998) as to the relationship between CK and the hypothetical ‘‘Uralo-Siberian mesh’’ needs to be readjusted somewhat. I would no longer wish to relate CK directly to that mesh, although I believe that some of the lexical evidence adduced for a link with it will hold up in terms of borrowing/diffusion.
 * -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 06:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * D'oh, I had the same question and forgot to look here ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

map
Caption of the map is incomplete: there are three distinct areas on the map, but the caption explains only two of them. Ceplm (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two overlapping regions on the map. --JorisvS (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

PIE
I believe that including PIE was meant to show specifically how a tree based on vocabulary only could produce spurious results. Jäger never claimed that CK was a daughter, or even a sister, of PIE... I will look at this when I get a chance. Lollipop (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Lollipop (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight
All proposals that link Chukotko-Kamchatkan with other families are highly controversial. However, I think you are giving way too much attention to one such proposal in particular. The proposed link to Indo-European should not be treated in so much detail. It is a proposal from a single linguist, who used mass comparison, a method widely discredited as unreliable, and whose work is apparently not supported by any other linguist, including those who do support macrofamilies. His work can be reduced to a single sentence under the "Eurasiatic" hypothesis. Steinbach (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)