Talk:Paleolithic continuity paradigm

Horse terminology
The whole of the "Horse terminology" was created by Hirabutor, an editor whose alleged OR was recently raised at WP:FTN: Fringe_at_Subartu.2C_Sabir_people. The section more or less accurately summarises Alinei's argument that Turkic loan words related to horses in some East European languages somehow proves the extreme ancientness of IE-Turkic interactions. He also argues that non-horse related Turkic loanwords in Hungarian "proves the antiquity of Turkic presence in the European area bordering Asia". This is a tiny part of Alinei's article. It doesn't deserve this massive section, which actually tells us next to nothing about PCT as such. After all, no one doubts that these loan words exist. We don't need long lists of them. The relevance to this article is simply that Alinei argues that they imply extremely ancient contact between IE and Turkic. The logic of this argument escapes me. You may as well argue that the fact that "mutton" is a loan word from French proves that the difference between French and English dates back to the origin of sheep domestication. The fact that "kurgan" itself is a loan word from Turkic is unrelated to horses, since it means "burial mound". And in any case, this is like arguing that the etymology of "beaker" tells us something about the origins of "beaker culture". Still, it's reasonable to add a sentence or so on this. It's part of the argument. But this interminable list of words adds nothing and explains nothing. Paul B (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Paul B I agree that most of it should be removed. I was sympathetic to the IP but the behavior was a problem. I missed the fact that Abhinav was also edit warring. I think that most of the material should be removed including "This observation is tentatively confirmed by the presence of Turkic loanwords for horse terminology, such as qaptï ("to grab with hands and teeth"), yam ("nomadic caravan-tent"), yunta ("horse" (generic)) and alaša ("pack horse"), in both branches of Samoyedic (Northern and Southern), in some Finno-Ugric languages and Slavic languages, and thus interpreting this as an explanation why horse terminology in the European area bordering Asia and in most of Eastern Europe is rooted in Turkic vocabulary and not Indo-European, nor Iranian, cf.:" as that appears to be editorial comment. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess Abhinav thought he was simply reverting vandalism. I've retained a little of the last sentence you mentioned, as does summarise what Alinei is arguing in the cited article. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Paul, we don't need long lists of loan words. A few sentences are sufficient to summarize Alinei's argumentation. --Reilrae (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So the PCT identifies the Kurgan horizon (from as early as 5000 BC on, or even 6500 BC if Bug-Dniester is included) as Turkic, right? *rolleyes* Watch out for the Turkocentrists, this is exactly what they need, a "theory" (now "paradigm") with scholarly backing that vindicates their Pan-Turkic fantasies. As I pointed out above, even if Alinei et al. may not have nationalist or chauvinist leanings themselves, they are certainly enablers of "we have always been here"-type hyper-nationalism/patriotism, delivering pseudoarchaeological fuel. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is rather telling for the myopia of those who are in the business of identifying every early archaeological culture with a reconstructed language that the Botai culture, often alleged to have been the first horse-domesticators (although this is far from a compelling conclusion, as noted in the article, and Anthony suggests they took over the idea from their Kurgan neighbours, presumably the Khvalynsk), is said in their Wikipedia article to have been linguistically either (Proto-)Indo-European or Proto-Turkic (in 3700 BC! Not Pre-Proto-Turkic!), tertium non datur. As if there were no wealth of evidence that myriads of languages have simply gone extinct even in much more recent times – 5000 years are a long time ago. The laws of probability rather point to the "unknown extinct language" option, which I have now noted. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. Why we should remove that sentence and terminologies? Personel concerns does not interested in here. Include some crayz paranoid "nationalistic conspiracy" theories. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

--Ragdeenorc (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And you and that Yagmurlukorfez are sock puppets. It's obvious and I don't know why admins don't block you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.47.115.139 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, anyone? A talk page section on "History of Ukraine" has just been added by a new user whose only contribution so far has been "A new Pan-Turkist theory". As the links point right here, it looks to be an attempt to canvass for support. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Altaic_languages,

 Cantspans (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So it's a "paradigm" now
You cannot make this stuff up, they actually seem to think a "paradigm" is somehow better than a "theory",
 *  At this stage, the obligatory term to designate this reconstruction was "theory". Since the beginning of the last decade, however, more and more scholars have worked on the same line, testing and applying the theory successfully on an increasing number of geographic areas, prehistoric periods and cultural topics, bringing new evidence for the foundation of what seems now more appropriate to call a true "paradigm"

A paradigm is a "thought pattern", or in rhetorics a way of persuading your audience by giving examples. Or in actual science, it is an experimental setup, or a way of posing questions or trying to answer them, your thinking about what is an "observation" or a "result". As opposed, you know, the actual answer you get, such as "it's paleolithic" to the question "what is the age of this phylum?". If your paradigm is already "paleolithic", it will be kind of circular to say your result is "paleolithic"

This fits perfectly the post-rational world of academia where people have given up the obsessing over mere "facts". Who cares that there was only one Paleolithic, if in our "paradigm" Cro-Magnon speaks Indo-European, it part of our right to freedom of expression that this view is accepted as academically just as valid as skeleton hoplites. Whatever else its merit, the "PCP" is really hard to parody. --dab (𒁳) 09:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paleolithic Continuity Theory. 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/20141222080941/http://www.rastko.org.rs/filologija/alinei/malinei-continuity.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/filologija/alinei/malinei-continuity.html
 * Added tag to http://www.continuitas.com/etruscan.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.continuitas.com/morrisrev2.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) 23:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paleolithic Continuity Theory. 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/20071113070732/http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/Indo2.html to http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/Indo2.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) 23:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Indo-Aryans?
Where do the Indo-Aryans fit into this theory? They are not mentioned in the current article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.228.242 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)