Talk:Indo-European languages

minor mistake on map legend
baltic (blue) and slavic (green) are shown separately on the map. according to the map legend though green shows "balto-slavic" spread.

Page content changes
Could we make a change where instead of showing the evolution of PIE to English as the example, it’s PIE to Portuguese instead? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:94DC:3747:D33E:5B16 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Por que no los dos? —Tamfang (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Albanian and Messapic
You repeatedly claim that the inclusion of Albanian and Messapic in a unified branch of the IE languages is the "mainstream view". I am aware that this is a widely held view in Albanian studies, often cited/echoed but rarely expounded with comparative evidence that fulfils the only valid criterion for subgrouping, i.e. exclusively shared innovations. But things are not as easy from the Indo-Europeanist perspective. In order to evaluate the mainstream view per WP:RS/AC, I am aware of three books published in the last ten years that cover the Indo-European languages in their entirety and address the question of the relation between Albanian and Messapic.

Starting with the most recent, there is Olander (2022), The Indo-European Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective. The relevant chapter is "Albanian" by Hyllested & Joseph who write:

Then there's Rusakov's chapter "Albanian" in Kapović's Routledge Handbook The Indo-European Languages:

And then there's three-volume Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics edited by Klein, Joseph and Fritz. The question of the affiliation of Messapic is mentioned in two chapters, "The lexicon of Albanian" by Matzinger and "Messapic" by de Simone, which represent the two poles of assessment within Indo-European studies:
 * Matzinger:


 * De Simone:

So where does the mainstream view of Indo-Europeanists stand here? Messapic is only fragmentarily attested, so there are limited comparanda to start with. Those that have been found (mainly by Hamp, and further pruned and refined by Matzinger) are very compelling, but as Hyllested & Joseph summarize: "in the absence of sufficient evidence, that connection must remain speculative", which is a statement that I think we can safely echo in Wikivoice, more than anything else.

I don't say we shouldn't embolden ourselves to mention the proposed Albanian–Messapic branch in the infobox. But then we must qualify its status and also include Graeco-Phrygian, which has a much better established evidential base than Albanian–Messapic, not only because of the larger corpus of Phrygian in comparison to Messapic, but also the depth of study devoted to it. I haven't seen anything comparable to Obrador-Cursach's work on Graeco–Phrygian when it comes to Albanian–Messapic comparisons (and this includes all sources mentioned in the stock cite bomb that has been placed over multiple articles). In any case, Albanian–Messapic is certainly not an unequivocally established branch of the IE family on par with Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic.

Pinging also @, who has contested the recent inclusion of Albanian–Messapic in the infobox as an established fact and @ who made the relevant modifications in 08 June 2024. Austronesier (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Indo-European linguistics is really not my area of expertise, but if scholars are describing the grouping as speculative, we should reflect that cautiousness. I'm not opposed to including Albanoid in the infobox, but it should include a question mark to indicate its tentativeness, and Albanian and Messapic should be listed as subgroups of it in the main infobox. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, the Albanian-Messapic relation is the one proposed in the recently published Indo-European phylogenetic trees, although it is considered inconclusive by some. But above all, there are many examples of common features between Albanian and Messapic that indicate their close relationship, and there are fiew or none that suggest otherwise. That relationship is also strongly indicated by recent archaeogenetic studies. Anyway, since many scholars say that the relationship is often supported by linguists, I thought not mentioning Messapic in the infobox would be better than mentioning it as a separate IE branch. But I do agree that a clarification in the infobox would solve the issue. Also the clarification about the Graeco-Phrygian relation needs to be included. Hemiauchenia's edit edit seems good. – Βατο (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good solution to me as it reflects the assessment of a very good and recent source. The Albanian–Messapic hypothesis is the best we have at this time, given the limited material about Messapic as of now. I'm optimistic that research will eventually bring more light to the question as more Messapic inscriptions continue to be discovered, and my hunch is that it will eventually raise the status of Albanian–Messapic from "speculative" to "proven". –Austronesier (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * < ALL Indo-European languages share "common features between Albanian and Messapic that indicate their close relationship". So this is not convincing at all.HJJHolm (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you saying these two have no features shared with each other and not with all recognized IE branches? —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hamp collected quite a number of shared features between Messapic and Albanian. Among these, Matzinger identified around 5 exclusively shared innovations. Not many, but still remarkable given the small size of the Messapic corpus. The other common features are either shared retentions from PIE or shared on a more limited level with other IE languages. While these not exclusively shared features are of course non-diagnostic for subgrouping, nothing in the phonological and morphpological histories of Messapic and (Proto-)Albanian indicates that they went completely different ways that would contradict a close relationship between the two. –Austronesier (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Changing example of evolution of Proto-Indo-European
Two times before, I changed the example of evolution from PIE into a modern language. I did this because I really don't like using English as an example for any particular topic. Can we allow changing the example language, maybe to Czech as with my edits? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:8083:AAB1:FA58:1588 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you justify your changes with much beyond "I don't like it"? Surely there's an argument that English-language examples are most immediately helpful and instructive for an English-language readership? Remsense  诉  19:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See also Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet and Talk:Duodecimal. —Tamfang (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Chang family tree
Phylogeny of Chang et al. (2015): This team published 18 versions without deciding for one of these as their choice. So - which phylogeny is this? And why this one??HJJHolm (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)