Talk:Elamo-Dravidian languages

Iranian does have retroflex sounds
"Retroflex consonants, which exist in Vedic Sanskrit and Dravidian but do not exist in Iranian"

Correction: Pashto has retroflex sounds, and it is an Iranian language. Correction: Norwegian has retroflex "d", "t", "n" an "l". I'm not sure about Swedish.

McAlpin's papers
Could somebody possibly send them to me in PDFs? My university has access to JSTOR, but hasn't got a licence for Language (I don't know why). If so, leave a notice on my talk page. Thanks for any help in advance!--Pet'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 11:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS A PSEUDO-SCIENCE (no, its a rant)
THE OCCAM NAVALHA EVIDENCIA QUE THE HOMELAND OF THE DRAVIDIANS NOT IS THE SOUTHEAST INDIA AND NOT TOO THE NORTHERN PAKISTAN/SOUTHEAST IRAN..!!E SEM FALAR CLARO, NOS RESIDUOS DAS ILHAS ANDAMAN E NAS MIGRAÇÕES CIGANAS DE SE PRA NO QUE EVIDENCIA A MANCHA NO PAQUISTÃO MERIDIONAL..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.85.110 (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to scream. Also, this is the English Wiki, use English on the Talk Pages.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Iranian farmers are not related to Indian populations
"Recently, it was found that the Indus Valley civilisation was formed by the mixing of Iranian agriculturalists and Ancient Ancestral South Indians (AASI).[24].These Iranian agriculturalists originated from the Zagros mountain region and were related to farmers in Ganj Dareh and Ali Kosh"


 * genetic studies published on sep-5,2019 conclude that Iranian farmers did not contribute to Indian civilization.
 * Indian population is derived from older Iranian Hunter Gatherers and that agriculture in India, either evolved independently or as a consequence of cultural exchanges J mareeswaran (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * mentioned now, it does not change much anyway as only the name changed (instead of Iranian farmers it is now Iranian hunter gatherers, which are also related to the farmers of Iran and Anatolia but consist a own branch of them).212.95.8.234 (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sylvester et al. (2019)
An IP added the following, referenced to Sylvester et al. (2019):

Sylvester et al. give an overview ob various theories and researches regarding the relation between the spread of farming in India and population movements; the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis is just one of them, and not the driving hypothesis in their research. They only conclude that 'bidirectional migration and admixture had occurred', stating that "The coalescence ages estimated for the sub-haplogroup R30a1c dates ~ 9.4 ± 3.5 Kya and for subclade U1a1c1d dates ~ 9.1 ± 2.7 Kya," concluding that "The study revealed a genetic link between Iran and South Asia in the Neolithic time, indicating bidirectional migration and admixture." They specify that

So, the movement to Iran may predate the movement to India; and both movements may well coincide with the advent of the IVC, which is problematic for the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, with regard to Narasimhan et al (2019). They do not conclude or state that their findings support the Elamo-Dravidian link. Pure WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sylvester et al. (2019) only mention Elamo-Dravidian as background information about existing hypotheses that might be relevant for the genetic study, but make no further reference to it in their subsequent discussion. Most importantly, they don't evaluate it based on their findings. So actually, we just have a tertiary source that supports the notability of the topic, but the notability is out of question anyway. I suggest to scrap Sylvester et al. (2019) completely.
 * The same holds for Narasimhan et al (2019), who do not cover Elamo-Dravidian at all, and are only cited here to put claims about the connection of Elamo-Dravidian with the advent of farming into the right temporal perspective. That's quite circumstantial. –Austronesier (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Acceptance?
While the Wikipedia page shows the acceptance as "widely rejected", sources such as Campbell L. & Mixco M. J. (2007). A Glossary of Historical Linguistics refer to it as controversial which might be more appropriate. --GrumptyPants (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say I agree with you in this regard and the word controversial is actually used. I have not seen any evidence of a wide rejection as it is claimed anywhere, I do suspect however most people are agnostic about it. As for now I think the page should be amended to read controversial. Foxhound03 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm no longer arguing to change the current description, but have you read the latest works by McAlpin on this theory? https://www.academia.edu/93998820/Modern_Colloquial_Eastern_Elamite Also check the phonological correspondence: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-recent-findings-and-sound-hypotheses-about-the-Elamite-language/answer/Thomas-Wier Thanks Metta79 (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)