Talk:Dravido-Korean languages

Active discussions

Ohno Susumu The Origin of the Japanese Language (1970) as a sourceEdit

Miller's review of this translation in the 1970 edition of Monumenta Nipponica called it careless and outdated in light of Ohno's writings in the intervening 13 years. (The original Nihongo no Kigen was published in 1957.) Is it still a reliable source for his view as cited in this article? Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


TaivoLinguist — I do understand that the Altaic hypothesis does not have majority support among linguists. I know that. But there ARE professional linguists, albeit a minority, who support it. Discredited is a loaded POV word; Wikipedia demands a neutral point of view. You are welcome to state that many/most linguists SEE it as discredited — and to source that claim, but you cannot say that it IS discredited. I am reverting. David Cannon (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. Davidcannon. "Widely discredited" is quite adequately sourced and is an accurate description. Just because a few linguists still cling to it like a piece of flotsam from the Titanic doesn't change the fact that historical linguists in general have discredited it. --Taivo (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
"Widely discredited" is acceptable. "Discredited" without the qualifier is not. It makes it appear to be a unanimous view, which it isn't. But I can go with the "widely". David Cannon (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
"Widely" in this instance means about 98%. Altaic is dead, dead, dead. (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Clarified some termsEdit

...I don't know a word of Tamil, but frankly it seems ridiculous that one would compare naneun 나는 ("I"+topic marker) with Tamil nānu and nega 네가 ("you"+subject marker) with Ninga, when -neun and -ga are both case suffixes. But I guess comparing naega 내가 with nānu and neoneun 너는 with ninga would have made it obvious that they aren't very similar after all?

Similarly for wa, where the verb root is o-, and olla, where the root is oreu- (or oru-, depending on Romanization scheme). eoneu 어느 doesn't mean number "one", it means "what", and by extension, also "some" or "one" as in "some unspecified" (e.g., "There was one person who came to me and said this..."). (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a Reliable Source to propose for some sort of improvement to the article? (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
My Tamil knowledge is scanty, but I know that the word for "what" is "enne", which actually sounds like a better possible cognate for eoneu 어느. I don't know Korean, but from what you said, in "naneun" and "neoneun", -neun is some sort of suffix. So a fair comparison would be between Tamil ni and Korean neo, and between Tamil nā[n] and Korean na (I usually hear Tamil speakers say "nā", but "nān" might be the formal pronunciation) . (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, it is interesting that Korean wa 와 and Tamil "vā" are both informal non-polite imperatives. The polite form in Tamil is "vāngo", c.f. Korean wayo 와요. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to add to the Comparitive mention of 'naan' and 'na. Na is very commonly used in Tamil where naan would be the formal interpretation of the word. I'm billingual with Tamil being my Mother Tongue. Having a close Korean childhood friend I'm looking into this topic and trying to have discussions to see where the cognates mentioned seem to resonate. There is definetly a striking resemblance in many things. Nonetheless this is all anecdotal. Thought to chime in. Thanks.Keepokeep 12:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Dravido-Korean languages" page.