Talk:Urbian

No Quick Delete
Don't delete this without putting it back where it came from under Neolithic Europe.

Comments

 * Isn't this just another nostratic theory, based on a few word similarities? 惑乱 分からん 14:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's more a substrate theory. It doesn't connect living languages but languages hypothetically existing before Indo-European expansion. It talks about what was (hypothetically) there before IE languages and how it was incorporated into some of them. --Sugaar 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel like writing "Either that or lacking a word for 'city', the Latins invented one that just happened to be slightly like a Basque word"? Because like most similar theories, this one is back-arseward. Grace Note 05:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Uri seems to come from Celtic Ure meaning bull and has nothing to do with Urbs, Iri, Hiri... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.141.141 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ui, that's quite something. I generally like his work, it's maybe a bit close to the fringe but interesting. But this here is rather silly. Let's reconstruct another language due to a few uncertain equations of just one word! Trigaranus (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just woah. Pseudoetymology at its finest. Using his "method", and the latitudes he allows, you can connect any word with any other word. In the cited comparison, some items are proper names whose meaning is completely obscure, or random chunks taken out from etymologically unclear or obscure common nouns! That said, I wonder why Urbillum is mentioned and not simply the Sumerian word for "city", something like uru, iri or ürü (note the umlauts, which constitute compelling proof that Sumerian is a Turkic language – yes, I'm being sarcastic here). --Florian Blaschke (talk)

Hittite Urai, "large"
There is also a Hittite word, urai, meaning "large". Alex (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

References and Notability
Have added enough academic references to establish notability. The primary author of the theory is a senior PHD professor (in this field) at the University of Bucharest, and he's written about it in a number of peer-reviewed publications. I take no position on the merits of his hteory, but his work is credible and cited by others in his field. http://scholar.google.ro/citations?user=wLB_bLYAAAAJ&hl=en


 * I got a few reservations about judging the material too hastily. First of all, it is a stub, so naturally it does not look too good. How would you feel if it looked good? Second, I've seen quite a few quick delete and notability disputes on here. Usually the non-notability partisans are led by a single aggressor, who, on being looked into (on the Internet of course) turns out to be not only ignorant of the subject but to have some sort of axe to grind. There was one fellow who led a site professedly dedicated to cleaning all BS off the Internet. How he railed against WP! Suddenly he is not only on WP, but is an administrator. How he got that I am not sure, probably by dumping stubs on it, as they rewarded numbers of articles with administratorships at one point. Any fool could be an administrator, and that is what he was. It turns out he was a real estate person running for office in Great Britain, using his Internet activities to garner fame as the champion of public honesty versus Internet lies. Sounds like the devil in Massachusetts convicting the innocent by accusations of guilt. The devil accuses someone else of being the devil. (the devil is still here, by the way). I first encountered him one morning as he kept interrupting my work on WP by changing the topic I was working on so that I could not save it. He laid in wait for me, you see. This man and a crony bedevilled and got deleted a perfectly good article that was not of general interest. There is at least one organization, you know, dedicated to destroying WP. I found my name on it at one point, as an editor that should be attacked. Anyway, my assessment of this topic is as follows. This is a sort of avante-garde topic, which seeks to go further on the fringes of the solid. It is so specialized that no one gives a rat's tail about it. It needs someone to take charge and make it relevant. Are we deleting avant-garde articles? Is it notable? If you are an Indo-Europeanist you might be interested in the theory. If not, not, as you probably would not understand it, unless someone made it clearer.Botteville (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)