Talk:Joseph Greenberg

Greenberg & controversy
Scythian99 is quite right, I think, to make sure that readers will not get the impression that Greenberg's views on language comparison or on language families were mainstream. Indeed, he was one of the most controversial linguists of his century, and not easy to write a NPOV article about.

I've tried to be a bit more positive than Scythian99 without glossing over the intellectual scandals. My impression is that the early African work is indeed generally respected, and so were the early contributions to typological study. It was in his later work that Greenberg got into the biggest controversy, to the point of people questioning his competence.

Opus33 01:26, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- Scandal is a strong word which makes it sound as if he was committed some intellectual fraud, which he was not. And not many people questioned his competence as he was a respected linguist due to his acknowledged work on the languages of Africa - in which he used almost exactly the same methods as he did for Amerind and Eurasiatic, which does lead to suspicions about the motives of hardline detractors of Eurasiatic and Amerind. And people like Lyle Campbell are not without controversies either, despite the fact that he is probably the most used source for any criticism of most linguistic theories on wikipedia. Linguistics is simply a controversial study. _ The Mummy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.0.59 (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Many linguists have pronounced their opposition to Joseph Greenberg's methods of classification.

Roger Blench, "Niger-Congo, an Alternative View":

"BANTU: Definitely not a group. This may seem surprising in the light of the published claims to the contrary, but the argument from comparative linguistics which links the highly diverse languages of zone A to a genuine reconstruction is non-existent. Most claimed proto-Bantu is either confined to particular groups, or is widely attested outside Bantu proper."

Roger Blench, "The Bantoid Languages", 2014

"Although Bantu has been treated as a genetic unity since the middle of the nineteenth century, it remains an open question as to whether there is a distinctive boundary between Bantu and the languages related to it. Bantuists continue to defend the integrity of their discipline but no lexical or morphological isoglosses have been established that clearly demarcate Bantu from its closest relatives."

Antonio Loprieno in "Das Verbalsystem im Ägyptischen und in Semitischen: Zur Grundlegung einer Aspekttheorie" (1986)

Antonio Loprieno: "Afro-Asiatic can only be considered an abstract construct of linguistic features and not a unified system of linguistic realities."

C. Tucker Childs, "An introduction Into African Languages"

"The classificatory problems with Atlantic have hardly been resolved but have rather been abandoned for a non-genetic classification. The most recent commentary on the group as a whole admits that the classification is not genetic."

And of course of the Native American languages:

Problematic Use of Greenberg’s Linguistic Classification of the Americas in Studies of Native American Genetic Variation Deborah A. (Weiss) Bolnick,1 Beth A. (Schultz) Shook,1 Lyle Campbell,2,3 and Ives Goddard4 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182033/

"To the Editor:"

"Whereas Greenberg’s classification has been widely and uncritically used by human geneticists, it has been rejected by virtually all historical linguists who study Native American languages. There are many errors in the data on which his classification is based (Goddard 1987; Adelaar 1989; Berman 1992; Kimball 1992; Poser 1992), and Greenberg’s criteria for determining linguistic relationships are widely regarded as invalid. His method of multilateral comparison assembled only superficial similarities between languages, and Greenberg did not distinguish similarities due to common ancestry (i.e., homology) from those due to other factors (which other linguists do). Linguistic similarities can also be due to factors such as chance, borrowing from neighboring languages, and onomatopoeia, so proposals of remote linguistic relationships are only plausible when these other possible explanations have been eliminated (Matisoff 1990; Mithun 1990; Goddard and Campbell 1994; Campbell 1997; Ringe 2000). Greenberg made no attempt to eliminate such explanations, and the putative long-range similarities he amassed appear to be mostly chance resemblances and the result of misanalysis—he compared many languages simultaneously (which increases the probability of finding chance resemblances), examined arbitrary segments of words, equated words with very different meanings (e.g., excrement, night, and grass), failed to analyze the structure of some words and falsely analyzed that of others, neglected regular sound correspondences between languages, and misinterpreted well-established findings (Chafe 1987; Bright 1988; Campbell 1988, 1997; Golla 1988; Goddard 1990; Rankin 1992; McMahon and McMahon 1995; Nichols and Peterson 1996)."

2001:1C00:1E20:D900:D108:E292:4ECE:682B (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussing recent edit
Dear colleagues,

I've edited the article with the intent of making clearer that there really two objections to Greenberg's mass-comparison work:


 * whether we can trust the basic method
 * whether we can trust the data that Greenberg fed into the method

Both are important. For instance, if it turns out that only the second criticism is valid, we can hope that future scholars will be able to apply the method with greater scholarly acceptance. But both points should be made.

In connection with this, I've re-inserted User:Billposer's sentence:


 * Many of them report errors in the majority of the items that they examined, and some even report that every form examined is erroneous.

which strikes me as very important and relevant in this connection. I hope this will not strike editor User:Jorge Stolfi as unfair. Cheers, Opus33 22:29, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Unhappy about edits...
I an unhappy about the last round of edits chiefly becuse they moved the "data accuracy" criticisms into the section about the weaknesses of the methodology. The two issues are largely independent and should be addressed as such. Besides, I suppose that linguists have already tried to replicate Greenberg's analysis with corrected data, and it would be nice if someone reported on the results of such attempts.

Moreover, from the references given, it seems that that the "data accuracy" criticisms were directed mostly against the Amerind family work, whereas the Eurasian work is mostly rejected because of the methodology alone. (If that is not the case, then some references about errors in the Eurasian data are in order.)

Now, speaking as an outsider, I can appreciate (perhaps better than most linguists) the statistical and conceptual problems in Greenberg's method, and I cannot criticize those linguists who prudently reject it. Yet the strong feelings which I see in the debate, and the use of terms like "the community of historical linguists", make me think that the polemic may be fueled in no small part by academic socio-politics, rather than purely scientific issues.

That such "fuel" exists is undeniable. Linguists who have been teaching for decades that the bogus lexical comparisons of armchair linguists are worthless pseudo-science may be understandably upset at seing the idea being given academic status. Experts in the comparative method will undestandably feel a visceral antipathy for any development that threatens to make their expertise "old fashioned" if not obsolte, and make them followers rather than leaders. And so on.

These observations of course do not affect the valididity of the method and its criticisms, but weaken the significance of the "veredict" passed by "the community".

Having seen several such situations in my own field, I cannot avoid seeing parallels betweeh Greenberg's case and other "iconoclastic" revolutions in science, like Wegner's continental drift theory (which was strongly rejected by the "community" of geologists, before becoming a new dogma), Prusiner's prion theory (which took decades to be accepted), etc..

It is disturbing, for instance, that there seems to be little attempt by critics to separate (1) the data and methodology from (2) the proposed classification; on the contrary, it seems at times that some criticisms of (1) are chiefly motivated by "a priori" rejection of (2).

So in my opinion it is too early to pass judgement on the validity of Greenberg's method. At the very least, the article should explain the arguments for both sides, estimate the amount of support that each side has got, but leave the decision to the reader. IMHO, only a few decades from now we will be able to tell whether "mass lexical comparison" was another prion hypothesis, or another cold fusion affair.

All the best,

Jorge Stolfi 15:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Reply for Jorge Stolfi
Hi Jorge,

I see your point, and would welcome further editing that made the article satisfactory from your point of view.

My priorities for the article are these:


 * Maintain NPOV--hard though that may be to do!
 * Make it clear that the "traditional historical linguists" are not just a bunch of fuddy-duddy humanities types poring over manuscripts. They've got their own method, which is very rigorous and has accumulated an excellent track record over the last fifteen decades or so.
 * Keep separate the evaluation of the mass-comparison method from the evaluation of the data that Greenberg fed into it--I think we are agreed on this point, and it's only a matter of what gets put where. I now understand why you want to keep the Amerind and Asian discussions separate.
 * Make clear that the quality of the data fed into the method was such that a lot of well-informed scholars were outraged (hence my restoring of User:Billposer's sentences). Alas, I don't know of any attempts to rerun the method with better data since Greenberg published his work--perhaps people have been deterred by the huge amount of labor that would be involved.

I would welcome some rewriting on your part that maintained NPOV as you see it, fixing the problems you mentioned while respecting the goals laid out above, with which I suspect you would agree.

One last bit: chucking all the stuff I put in about the "research community" I put in would be wise; that's just bullying and I regret having written it.

Yours very truly, Opus33 16:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Explain move, requests for more info
OK, I have moved the data-quality criticisms back to the Amerind section. I have also kept User:Billposer's note that many critics found errors in most items that they checked, and also the "garbage in, garbage out" comment, which I believe accurately described the view that many linguists have of that work. (Was that phrase actually used in some of the articles?) Please check and fix as you may see fit.

Should we add that the method has yet to be re-run with corrected American Indian data?

Is it correct to say that the Eurasian work is rejected only because of the method, not because of the data?

Are there linguists who specifically disagree with Greenberg's trees and have proposed different (incompatible) groupings for those languages? Or is it only a choice between "Greenberg's tree" vs. "no tree"?

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 18:21, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Usher comment
Dear colleagues,

Jorge wrote,


 * "Or is it only a choice between "Greenberg's tree" vs. "no tree"? "

Quite correct, at least in the Americas. One currently in-vogue counter-theory is that dozens of totally different migrant families exchanged their most basic vocabulary including personal pronouns, while passing through Beringia, even though no such phenomenon has been directly observed, and Beringia would have to have been a surprisingly lively and multi-ethnic place c. 12,000 or so b.p....


 * "Are there linguists who specifically disagree with Greenberg's trees and have proposed different (incompatible) groupings for those languages?"

In Africa, Hal Fleming suggested changes (the recognition of Omotic) which were immediately accepted by Greenberg - just one region where provisional acceptance of JG's results, followed by vetting and modification, proved more fruitful than hostility and reflexive denial.

There have been many other minor changes to this classification, and also Gregerson whose joining of Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan into a large Kongo-Saharan family met with JG's general approval.

In the Americas, radical skepticism and just-so stories (see above), now fueled by the absurd theories of Johanna Nichols, have been the norm. No doubt there are errors to be found, but not this way.

In New Guinea, I have spent much of the last decade figuring out what is going on, and have arrived at a very substantially different (improved, actually!) classification with the benefit of piles of new data.


 * "IMHO, only a few decades from now we will be able to tell whether "mass lexical comparison" was another prion hypothesis, or another cold fusion affair."

I'd suggest that some of the classifiations are right, some are wrong, some wrong in one way but right in another, etc. It is not as stark as prions or cold fusion. People deal with this in the way they do because to get involved and gain expertise is a life-long endeavor. What is needed is not to negate Greenberg's findings a priori - unless we'd like to start with Africa? - but to vet this work with the traditional techniques that are being promoted. If it is held that traditional methods don't work within this timeframe (I happen to disagree), that is a limitation of the traditional methods, not of Greenberg's.


 * I was referring to the mass comparison method, not of the classifications. By the way, was the African tree also obtained with that method?
 * Jorge Stolfi 15:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Opus33 wrote,


 * "...readers will not get the impression that Greenberg's views on language comparison or on language families were mainstream."

But some very salient views, such as his view on African classification - this is what, 30% of human languages? - are nearly universally accepted. His last work on Eurasiatic has been criticised for all sorts of reasons, but is actually not too far in its results from those of the Nostratic school, and as Jorge highlights, the alternative is no tree at all.

The main place where his work has been savaged is in the Americas, where splitters predominate - if one takes the current SIL classification at face value, by the age-area hypothesis, human language should have originated in the Americas!

But geneticists and physical anthropologists have confirmed the basic outlines of his classification. You are more likely to find problems by burying yourself in the data and suggesting alternative classifications than by negating the whole thing by a priori objections (which I note require a much lower time commitment than actually engaging the data in a better way!)


 * "Many of them report errors in the majority of the items that they examined, and some even report that every form examined is erroneous."

Can you name a scholar who reported that "every form examined is erroneous", along with the language/list name Greenberg used, as well as the source cited by the objector? I will check the two lists against one another, and I will be extremely surprised if there is any list in which "every form is erroneous". This is just garbage other people have told you which you have not checked for yourself, but what if you discovered that your source hadn't checked it for themselves, either?


 * "Make it clear that the "traditional historical linguists" are not just a bunch of fuddy-duddy humanities types poring over manuscripts. They've got their own method, which is very rigorous and has accumulated an excellent track record over the last fifteen decades or so."

Anything you'd care to cite in say, the last thirty years? I'd have a few suggestions myself, but I'm curious as to what you have in mind.

to all:

And for the sake of full disclosure, I knew Joe Greenberg, and I have lots of criticisms of/suggested improvements to his work and methodology, but he was definitely no charlatan. Further, it's clear to me that much of this criticism is just second-hand repetition of what you've heard from others.

If you're going to take the time to accuse a dead man of data fabrication, don't you think you should have checked the dataset yourself?

Someone asserted that the rate of linguistic change is so high that all genetic resemblances will be lost in random noise after a certain period of time - can anyone offer any proof that this has actually occured, and what this period of time must be?

Again, you are only repeating what you have heard from others, who did not know themselves.

Timothy_Usher


 * You are presumably referring to a remark of mine. That is essentially a truism, not specific to languages but to any kind of "signal". Even the most fundamental features of a language can be eroded away in time, to the point that resemblances become are virtually undistinguishable from random coincidences and later borrowing. (The Indo-European case system has essentially disappeared from Romance languages and from English; the English plural switched from Germanic-like to Romance-like; and the second person pronoun "you" has almost completely disappeared from Brazilian Portuguese, over a couple of centuries).  The big question is how long would that take. 10,000 seems to be beyond reach of the traditional method; I would rather not guess a limit for mass comparison, but given its reported failure in joining North and South Caucasian, it could be as short as 30,000 years.


 * Jorge Stolfi 15:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Why weakness section was rstored
I have restored large sections of my contributions that were summarily deleted, aparently without explanation (including a factual section on Greenberg's Eurasiatic work - the baby in the bathtub?)

Judging from what had been deleted, it seems that the revisors were unhappy about my "explanation" of Greenberg's method and especially its presumed "weaknesses". Now, I am not a linguist, so it is quite likely that I bungled my criticisms -- which I trust were perceived by Greenberg himself, and are largely based on statistics, something that I feel a bit more confident to write about. However, deleting the discussion of the method without providing an alternative can hardly be considered an improvement. Without such a discussion, the debate will be reduced to a my-daddy-is-stronger-than-your-daddy shouting match, and lay readers will not get anything useful out of the article. If you see mistakes, please fix them -- or just point them out, and I will be happy to fix them.

Ditto for the reference list: the proper response to a perceived anti-Greenberg bias is to add references to pro-Greenberg articles, not to suppress those against him.

As for errors of attribution, as long as we are discussing the method it does not matter who said what, or how the idea was originally presented: as in any other science, the method should be presented in the clearest possible terms, and discussed on its own merits. However I agree that this page is not the best forum for that, and perhaps we should create a separate mass lexical comparison page.

All the best,

Jorge Stolfi 14:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

agree on separating mass lexical comparison

 * I agree on creating a separate mass lexical comparison page. Greenberg did a whole lot of work apart from mass comparison (his typology work, especially, is still very notable) and discussion of mass lexical comparison's merits and flaws belongs in its own page. - Mustafaa 16:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

removal of Eurasian section
Re the removal of the Eurasian section: This reference seems to be about it


 * Greenberg, Joseph H. (2000) Indo-European and its Closest Relatives: the Eurasiatic Language Family – Volume I, Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

So what was wrong with that section?

Jorge Stolfi 15:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * PS. Before I started editing this page, its contents was very critical of Greenberg's work; and later edits were all anti-Greenberg. Even though I tried to point out that the idea in itself is valid (just from statistical theory), I have generally tried to preserve the overall negative tone, trusting that it reflected the mainstream view. However, I now believe that the current text, especially the "weaknesses" section, comes out too negative and unfair. I still believe that the weaknesses are real and recognized even by "Greenbergians", but they certainly do not invalidate the idea.


 * Jorge Stolfi 15:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Usher comment #2
Billposer wrote,


 * "Many of them report errors in the majority of the items that they examined, and some even report that every form examined is erroneous."

Who is the scholar who reported that "every form examined is erroneous"? To what Greenberg list was he referring, and what source did he cite?

Jorge Stolfi wrote,


 * "The big question is how long would that take. 10,000 seems to be beyond reach of the traditional method; I would rather not guess a limit for mass comparison, but given its reported failure in joining North and South Caucasian, it could be as short as 30,000 years."

I'm not sure whose study you're referring to with Caucasian.

But you're right, the question is how long should this take. Greenberg addresses this in detail in (1987), and Sergei Starostin has some ideas on this you might find valuable - I am neither a statistician nor a glottochronologist,but I'm quite certain than 10,000 is not right, and even more certain that this has often been asserted, but never adequately demonstrated.

Even so, there is a crucial point here which is usually overlooked in this type of discussion: supposing the threshhold of randomness really is 10,000 years, this would only apply between two languages relative to one another. If we can reconstruct two protofamilies which are 5,000 years old, then we might be able to reconstruct their ancestor at 10,000, and so on.

But doesn't this apply only to the traditional comparative method? No. Mass root comparison takes a different route to exploting the same phenomenon, the transitivity of relationship. Languages may be classified relative to one another even if they share NO items in common, provided we can place them within a group which is then relatable to another group as a whole.


 * "By the way, was the African tree also obtained with that method?"

Yes, it was, although with the benefit of a greater amount of preceding work to draw from than in the Americas.


 * "Besides, I suppose that linguists have already tried to replicate Greenberg's analysis with corrected data, and it would be nice if someone reported on the results of such attempts."

Ha ha ha! Linguistics should be a science, but usually is not. To attempt to replicate his results would take lots and lots of time that is better spent denouncing him for thinking it possible!

There have been no such attempts that I know of, and if there are to be, they are more likely to come from his sympathizers than his detractors, who after all are saying that comparison at such depths is by definition a waste of time.

Timothy_Usher

how far back can we reach?
Timothy Usher asks what is the source for my comment "reported failure in joining North and South Caucasian". That was another unattributed statement which I read in some Wikipedia page on Caucasian linguistics (the line is now in languages of the Caucasus), and apparently refers to Greenberg's Eurasian work.

The estimate of 10,000 years for the traditional method is my guess based on the apparent reluctance or inability of mainstream linguists to propose trees that extend that far in the past. I take it that Nostratic is not considered mainstream either, is that right? What is the oldest family that is considered "mainstream"?

I gather that there is a major debate about when exactly were the Americas inhabited -- some say "no more than 12,000 years ago", others belive that some South American sites are older than that, perhaps 20,000. (A respected Brazilian archaeologist claims that there are several sites in Brazil which are older than 12,000 and show a very distinct population, more like the Pacific/Australian type than the Siberian/Mongolian one.) Anyway, the three waves recognized by Greenberg presumably came through Western Siberia. So we have three linguistic phyla in that small region that could not be connected by Greenberg's method. How much older could be their common root?

Jorge Stolfi 17:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Caucasian
Hello Jorge,

The quote in the Caucasian article is,

"The South Caucasian and North Caucasian families are unrelated phyla even in Greenberg's deep classification of the world's languages."

This is a misinterpretation of Greenberg's position. Greenberg believed, as do I, that all natural human languages share a common historical origin, from which they  subsequently evolved and diverged - evolution in the strict sense of "descent with modification".

Greenberg saw Kartvelian - and this is also supported by Nostraticists such as Sergei Starostin - as being closer to Eurasiatic than it is to N.Caucasian, just as English is more closely related to German than it is to Hindi, Albanian or French.

I don't know that he had any opinion as to whether the two Caucasian families were easily relatable (as opposed to related, which all languages are), but it's a moot point, since it would be more sensible to compare Caucasian with Eurasiatic as a whole, if one accepts this classification.

Supposing no descendent of Eurasiatic had survived, Kartvelian would still be placable in theory, although with less reliability, relative to the other languages of the world (Joe did have ideas about the outlines of such a classification, it's just that this was not the subject of his Eurasiatic book, as was erroneously suggested in earlier versions of this article). The difference would be the lack of a Kartvelo-Eurasiatic node, just as if English were the only surviving and attested Germanic language, it would be considered an independent branch of Indo-European.

Timothy_Usher

single origin or multiple origins?
Timothy, you say


 * Greenberg believed, as do I, that all natural human languages share a common historical origin, from which they  subsequently evolved and diverged - evolution in the strict sense of "descent with modification".

I happen to believe that too, but there are other possibilities.

Consider the biological evolution of modern Homo sapiens. The "seven Eves" popular theory notwithstanding, it is unlikely (indeed near impossible) that all modern humans descend from a single Adam and Eve pair. The species presumably evolved from a population of proto-humans whose genetic makeup drifted far enough from that of other populations to become a separate species. All the while the members of this population remained interfertile and so the whole population would have been substantially homogeneous genetically (numerically at least, 20-30 generations -- 500 to 1000 years -- seem more than enough to do that for a nomadic population.) The big question is how large was this initial population: one extreme camp thinks it was a small population in Africa which radiated only after evolving into modern humans, the other extreme says that the evolution happened over the entire world more or less simultaneously. The former view seems more popular, but the latter has not been ruled out AFAIK (genetic diffusion may be fast enough for that).

So the same thing may have happened with languages. One can imagine that, sometime after the necessary genes diffused over the globe, language was "invented" independently in different areas, with onomatopoeic lexicons and a (very rudimentary) random grammar. The result would be several proto-languages with no linguistic connection between them. Each of these proto-languages could have evolved into an independent family with sophisticated syntax, and perhaps two or more of those families managed to survive to this day.

My guess is that the "small tribe in Africa" is more likely for biological evolution, and that all languages of today are descendant of the language of that tribe; but it is only a guess.

Anyway, language evolution is fundamentally different from genetic evolution, in such a way that even if there were two or more unrelated linguistic phyla 200,000 years ago, is its extremely unlikely that more than one of them would have survived to this day. For this reason, mainly, I believe that all languages of the world have a common ancestor that is substantially more recent than the first human language &mdash; perhaps as early as 80,000 to 100,000 years ago

On the other hand, I see the simple tree model of language evolution that is assumed by historical linguists as beeing way too simplistic and useless beyond a few millenia. Languages don't just branch, they can mix, too. Saying that English is a Germanic language, or Persian is Indo-European, are attempts to arbitrarily binarize what should be a continuous measure: one should admit that English is X% Germanic, Y% Romance, an perhaps Z% Celtic (in grammar and morphology as well as in its lexicon). The "minor ingredients" can perhaps be ignored in studies spanning a few millennia, but for longer time periods they may cause the official "genetic" ancestor to become a completely irrelevant concept. Of course, if linguists were to admit that languages can mix, they would no longer be able to draw those neat trees that look so nice in their papers...

Jorge Stolfi 14:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

language mixing?
There are some cases of mixed languages that are pretty convincing on grammar and morphology as well as vocabulary (well, at least one: Michif language.) However, this seems pretty rare, and in the normal course of things pretty slow. As far as I know, only one "grammatical" morpheme in English has been borrowed: they, from a closely related Scandinavian language, whose absorption was no doubt facilitated by its similarity to the previous English form (though this depends what you define as grammar vs other components.) Lexicons mix a lot more easily. Of course, as you point out, even the small amount of basic-level mixing that exists will mess things up over a sufficient time scale; but I suspect that timescale is a lot longer than a few millenia (especially given that inter-communal communication has gone up, not down, in the interim, without creating all that many cases to compare.) It would be interesting to try and extrapolate statistics. - Mustafaa 18:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

American language families
Jorge wrote,


 * "So we have three linguistic phyla in that small region that could not be connected by Greenberg's method.  How much older could be their common root?"

See my comments on Caucasian above. It is not that they could not be connected, only they that a node containing all three of these families and only these three would be invalid - were this not so, only one American family would have been identified, with Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut merely its most distant members. Greenberg's refrained from doing this because it cannot be shown that the three American families are closer to one another than to families outside the Americas - in the case of Eskimo-Aleut this is especially clear, since, according to Greenberg and to most Nostraticists, closer to the Eurasiatic families than to Amerind, and was included in JG's Eurasiatic group. Na-Dene for its part has been placed within a larger Dene-Caucasian group - if this is correct, than the relationship between the three families of the Americas is a function of the relationship between Amerind, Eurasiatic and Na-Dene.

Timothy_Usher

Confusion
This interface is EXTREMELY confusing.

I cannot figure out if comments should be posted on the top of the page or the bottom. When one chooses "post comment", they wind up at the bottom, where several new omments have just appeared. I don't care either way, just wondering if there is some standard for this. However, when we post at the bottom, it takes us away from the menu items at the left, which is inconvenient if we wish to post our own comment.

Further, I can't figure out how to get my name and time/date stamp to post automatically.

Timothy_Usher

Whimsical
Quote from the article: “Greenberg is also widely known and respected for his development of a new classification system for African languages, which he published in 1963. The classification was for a time considered very bold and speculative, especially in his proposal of a Nilo-Saharan language family, but is now generally accepted among African historical specialists.”

Why is there no reference indicating who the “African historical specialists” agreeing with this classification system are. Personally, I view it rather arbitrary. I find it hard to believe that Nigerians and people from Niger would speak languages from different language families considering that they share a border with one another, and many ethnic ties. I think good references from multiple sources should be provided before such free-wielding statements are made.

I study cultural Anthropology and based on the information one finds about Africa in this field, Greenberg’s classification system seems a little inconsistent and deleteriously fudged. His restrictive divisions seem to disregard overlap and inter-exchange; it all seems very whimsical.

References and Cross-references would be nice…


 * So would a signature. It would have been very easy for you to click on one of the links concerning African languages in this article before shooting from the hip. In this way you would have easily discovered that Greenberg's African-language classification is, in fact, generally accepted by historical linguists specializing in African languages.


 * As to your complaint that Greenberg doesn't pay enough attention to areal interaction, this is substantive, but note that even massive borrowing does not cancel out genealogical relationships, in the vast majority of cases. It is therefore not futile to seek these, whether or not you find the areal relationships more interesting. BalanceAngel (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Emotional
Greenberg excluded Eskimo-Aleut and Na-Dene from his larger group for emotional reasons. His methods, with vague sound laws, could just as well have been used to include them. He wanted to avoid a row with other linguists, who were working on the two and would have objected to the implication that the linguists were wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Ringe and Campbell have shown that Finnish is, with Greenberg's methods, an "Amerind" language. Greenberg himself excluded Finnish from his Amerind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly interesting that you claim to be inside Greenberg's head and to know what he was thinking. This is not acceptable scholarly procedure. The same remark applies to your claim regarding Finnish (could you supply a reference, please?). The fact is that Greenberg did not classify Finnish as an Amerind language, but as a Eurasiatic one. One of the many reasons he did so is (obviously) that the Finnish pronouns fit with other Uralic pronouns, and these fit with the pronouns of Eskimo-Aleut and the other languages he identifies as Eurasiatic, whereas the Na-Dene pronouns do not, and the Amerind pronouns form a class by themselves. So one can only conclude that Ringe was working with a caricature of Greenberg's method, not the method itself. Nothing prevents those concerned from informing themselves of the facts and mounting a sound critique, if one is possible, but in the meantime, the rest of us are justified in dismissing their claims as mere polemic. BalanceAngel (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1963
In his 1963 work, Greenberg suggests that two of his four groups might be related. The similarity between them, a causative s, is very slight, but Greenberg had been using slight similarities in his career for some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.5.71 (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The operative word here is "might". Greenberg noticed a similarity worth investigating and called it to the attention of future researchers. He did not take a position for or against it. This was a responsible course of action, and the only one to take. As for the "for some time", this causative s arose in the course of Greenberg's Africanist work, which resulted in a successful classification, now generally accepted. You may not agree with his methods, but you have to admit that in this case they worked, if you are honest with yourself - whether or not they did in others, and whatever epistemological challenges this might pose for you. If you are going to keep making comments like this and want them to remain, please get a username. BalanceAngel (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1948
What a horror of article ! It is full of envy, but a bad envy as Dracula has fot the livings beings. Where are the administrators !? Where is the objectivity for explain the life and work of a person !... When I'm reading the contributions of Greenberg, I'm sure that Mr. Greenberg was the Padrone of the linguistics, and, particularly, linguistics historical were Elliot Ness, one by one and together... I not understand because Mr. Greenberg, when alive, was free, and he not was in Sing-Sing or Alcatraz ou in Missouri in a penitentiary, or well, in a house of mad men in Providence, Rhode Island near of the Necromicron - Montes,June 8, 2008, 2:40 local. Montes should specify the sound laws used by Greenberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a plague of unsigned anti-Greenberg comments. I'm not sure I want to defend Greenberg, but I am sure I want to defend civility and some degree of verifiability on Wikipedia. Please note the Wikipedia guidelines for talk pages:


 * The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.


 * When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration.


 * If you want to engage in wrangling, please take it somewhere else.


 * WIth regard to the point at issue, an anonymous user writing from the IP address 217.41.51.240 demands to know what sound laws Greenberg used. Greenberg has a sophisticated argument on why sound laws are dependent on lexical and morphological resemblances and not the other way around, as is commonly assumed. According to him, multilateral comparison is the foundation of the comparative method, not something different from it. You need to show some evidence of having sought out Greenberg's relevant work before making off-the-cuff accusations. An unfounded critique is of no scholarly value. If you want to make your critique stick, you need to base it on the reality of what you are criticizing, not a vague impression you got second or third hand. BalanceAngel (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have studied Greenberg's 1963 rubbish minutely for years. My call for sound laws was sarcastic. I have always known
 * that Greenberg's sound laws were very vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy
It was Greenberg's policy to give the impression that he had made a discovery without making a false statement. He did this with his 1950 article on Semitic consonants in stems. Much of what he said had already been said by German Protestants in the 1880's and 1890's. Basically, in a form of dissimilation, similar or identical consonants are banned in 2- and 3-consonant stems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.117.81 (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) See Greenberg, Joseph, The Pattering of Root Morphemes in Semitic, Word 6, pages 162-181. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bender & Nilo Saharan
This sentence is quite misleading: Even Fleming and Lionel Bender, who are sympathetic to Greenberg's classification, acknowledge that at least some of his macrofamilies (particlularly Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan) are not fully accepted by the linguistic community and may need to be split up (Campbell 1997). Bender does not at all question th validity of Nilosharan. (I am not familiar with Fleming). But as written, the sentence makes it seem that both Fleming and Bender think both Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan need to be split up. The sentence itself should be split up. And why is Campbell cited as a source for Bender's opinion? I suggest whoever wrote this try rewriting it. Kja er (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because Lyle Campbell discusses it and quotes Bender at large (and in quotes that quite obviously question the validity of N-S ) - and the reason I quote from Campbell is because this is the source I used when I wrote it, and not Benders original because it is not in my library.·Maunus· ƛ · 05:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank, Maunas. I have read Bender, and while he has commented on rearrangement of subclassification (which greenberg himself anticipated) he does not dispute the validity of Nilo-Saharan, nor question the Nilo-Saharn status of Songhai. Could you rewrite the sentence to avoid implying Bender questions Nilo-Sharan? Unfortunately, I left both Bendert and Campbell in storage yesterday - but can get Bender in next month or so if necess. I would also refer you to http://www.nostratic.ru/index.php?page=main where some recently published articles on Nilo-Saharan, "Khoisan" and texts by Campbell and greenberg are available. Kja er (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside evidence from comparative genetics
I have followed the studies related to human genetics. They routinely confirm most of Greenberg's hypotheses, showing that the ethnic groups he considered *linguistically* more closely related were also *genetically* more closely related. (Obviously, this was not always the case, but it's been right several times.) In the Americas in particular, the genetic studies essentially confirmed the Eskimo-Aleut; Na-Dene; Everyone Else split, although there is debate over the degree of relationship among "everyone else", and whether it's really one group, two, or maybe another very small number.

I'm not sure where the best source for these are; the articles are scattered all over the place. I realize many linguists ignore out-of-field evidence, but there really ought to be some mention of this in the article. Any volunteers? 67.244.55.57 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No specialists
In the article, Campbell and Ringe are said to be not African specialists. If an African specialist is someone who knows every language in Africa, then there are no African specialists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.254.83 (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a good sound that that is probably not what that means.·Maunus· ƛ · 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Reasons
Greenberg said that any rival method would take generations to classify a large number of languages. Thus, his reason for using his method is impatience, not love of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The current article, under "Mass Comparison", mentions "years", but it is not clear
 * if this is the opinion of Greenberg or the separate writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is clear from the next passage that Greenberg himself is objecting to the years that rival methods take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.71.244 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman Stopa
Using methods similar to those of Greenberg, Roman Stopa proved that the Bushman languages of Southern Africa are related to Indo-European ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.3.117 (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As mention earlier by someone, you cannot make languages like those of the Americans (with the exception of Eskimo-Aleut) fit into Eurasiatic and especially not Indo-European. That is nonsense and simply a very bad caricature of his methodology rather than his real methodology. Indo-European - a long and acknowledge category that Greenberg did not create - has its own pronouns, structure and morphology and thus Bushman, with its own, cannot be made to fit into Indo-European using Greenberg's methods. If Roman Stopa did it, her methods must not have been as similar as you claim. - The_Mummy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.188.18 (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that the late Roman Stopa was a man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.67.11 (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that people occasionally make typing errors and the fact that you wished to make a snide comment about it whilst also not addressing the point previously made makes you, and your views, look fraudulent. 94.7.253.254 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Genetic studies
The genetic studies support Greenbergs argument about indigenous people arriving in three waves. It does not support his linguistic classification or validate his methods of classification. Most linguists have agreed that it is likely that they arrived in three separate waves - but that does not mean that everybody in the first wave spoke a single Amerind language which became the Amerind family. That is simply a non-sequitur. Linguistic classifications can only be supported by linugistic evidence not by genetic evidence - because languages follow people not genes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that after three reverts on this stuff you finally consented to actually work constructively and let the description of these cited sources stand. Can we do this without revert wars in the future? Martijn Faassen (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quit being so holy I was not the only one reverting - but I was the only one to present argument for what I did in editsummaries and on the talkpage. I also haven't consented to anything. It is completely ludicrous to include this article as evidence for Amerind it is rpresented by a geneticist who has no knwoldge whatseoever about linguistics or about Grenbergs "evidence" and the person endorsing it as evidence i merrit Ruhlen Greenbergs student who is considered entirely to be incompetent by any mainstream linguist. This nonsense should not be in the article and it gives undue weight to a single piece of very feeble "evidence".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fairly easy to see if a claim is backed up by sources given. So let's break it down.  This is the text in question, cut and pasted to show the totality of claims being made.
 * "'According to an article by Nicholas Wade published in the New York Times, new genetic evidence published in July 2012 in the journal Nature by David Reich of the Harvard Medical School 'vindicates' Greenberg's classification."
 * "'From genetic studies it appears that there were three migrations to the New World from Siberia: Eskimo/Aleut, Na-Dene and the Amerind macro-family.'"
 * The genetic study backs up the claim of (at least) three distinct waves. Backed up by source: "new genetic research shows that this central episode was followed by at least two smaller migrations from Siberia..."
 * The genetic study supports Greenburg's linguistic classification. Backed up by source: "They also find evidence for two further waves of migration, one among Na-Dene speakers and the other among Eskimo-Aleut, again as Dr. Greenberg predicted."
 * The genetic study identifies the source of the migrations (Siberia): Not backed up by source.
 * There you have it. Maybe there are problems with the NYTimes article and maybe the Reich article is a target for the same sorts of criticisms that Greenberg received.  Technically, though, this study does exist and it is easily contextualized as relating to Greenberg, so I don't see a reason it should not be mentioned.  Perhaps, Maunus, you should suggest how mention of it should be worded.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  23:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing is if it is backed up by the source the next quesiotn is whether the source is reliable for the claim it is making which it is not. Geneticsist are reliable sources for claims about relations between people not languages. Merrit Ruhlen is not a reliable surce about linguistics in general, and especially not about his own mentor. It is also not notable, since geneticists have made these claims since the 1990s.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The main point is this Greenberg makes to distinct claims: 1. Amerind is a valid linguistic grouping. 2. America was populated in three waves. The genetic study supports the second, but not the first of these claims. The NYT article conflates the two, and placing the genetic informaiton in the section on Amerind repeats that error. PErhaps there ought to be a seciotn on his migration history hypothesis - but it is logically distinct from the validity of the Amerind family - even though Greenberg uses Amerind as support for the three wave hypothesis (which has long been supported by geneticst and archaeology anyway).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've not read Reich's article, but in addition to the NYT piece and several critiques of it (self-published and therefore not reliable as WP sources), I have read this short comment on Reich's study. The author points out that Chipewyans are genetically part of the first wave, but speak a Na-Dene language associated with one of the latter waves.

In any event, I hardly think that the NYT (nor American Indian Report, for that matter) should be given pride of place here. Better to cite linguistic work on linguistic theory, genetic work on genetic evidence, perhaps with newspapers for contextualization of uptake. Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Error in Greenberg's Number
I have never edited a Wikipedia article before and am not sure the best way to fix this error. From the mass comparison section of the article, "He pointed out that, even for 8 languages, there are already 4,140 ways to classify them into distinct families, while for 25 languages there are 4,749,027,089,305,918,018 ways (1957:44)." As has recently come to my attention, 4,749,027,089,305,918,018 is not the correct number. It is the number that Greenberg came up with, but is incorrect. The professor of mine that discovered this error is currently preparing a paper to bring this to light. An early draft can be found here. Since I have never edited a Wikipedia article before, I will leave it to experienced editors to make any changes that they deem necessary. Mathstudent2 (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since that link is dead, I thought I'd provide an alternative link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.5883 Umimmak (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joseph Greenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/docs/dy_vajda_perspective.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709013437/http://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/Papers/JHGobit.pdf to http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/archaeo-language.1.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709013437/http://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/Papers/JHGobit.pdf to http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/may16/greenberg-516.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723202438/http://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/Papers/JHGbibl.pdf to http://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/Papers/JHGbibl.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Greenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100920162920/http://ling.kgw.tu-berlin.de/Korean/Artikel02/ to http://ling.kgw.tu-berlin.de/Korean/Artikel02/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216022548/http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/archaeo-language.html to http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/archaeo-language.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Links
These links might be of use. Obit in the New York Times; obit in Language and the corrections. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Obit in the Stanford Report and Los Angeles Times — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)