Talk:Milewski's typology

[Untitled]
I have removed both tags from the article. 1. The basic source is listed now, so the information that the article does not cite its sources is not true any longer. 2. This talk page is the right place to say what exactly needs cleaning, if you really feel so. Just adding the information that the article as if needs cleaning does not follow Wikipedia standards. Besides, if you really feel so, just try to clean it yourself! Grzegorj 20:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Milewski's typology just one way to group languages? As a linguist I have, as far as I can remember, never heard of this typology. Anyway, there is a lack of criticism here, after all this typology is based on just syntax. A little googling brought up nothing about this typology. I just presume that nobody is serious about this typology anymore. One should say that this is so. I also presume that this typology was not taken that seriously previously either. One should emphasize that this typology has little meaning nowadays, if it ever had, and it is of no concern in Linguistics (or Linguistic typology, to be specific) in general. 91.152.253.235 (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)