Talk:Japhetic theory

Removal of link

• http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950/jun/20.htm Stalin's refutation of Japhetism

Stalin is neither a historian nor a linguist, which BTW he even says himself. For this alone, it's not relevant to a linguistic theory, it it relevant to the Nikolay Yakovlevich Marr article.

Furthermore, and even more importantly, in the entire, rather long text, the Japhetic isn't addressed. You won't find the name mentioned nor any language or language group.

Pjacobi 12:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter in the slightest that Stalin was not a professional linguist, what matters is that the external link is relevant to the article, which clearly it is, since the text is even referred to in the article. Furthermore Stain does address Japhetic theory. For example there is the follwing question and answer:

QUESTION: Is it true that language always was and is class language, that there is no such thing as language which is the single and common language of a society, a non-class language common to the whole people.

ANSWER: No, it is not true.

This is a reference to Marr's theory of class-consiousness in language, which was part of the later version of Japhetic theory. In fact Stalin does discuss the concept of language groups, when criticising Marr's attacks on the concept of "proto-language" - in other words the familar basis for the very concept of a language group. The point is that in its later version what is referred to as "Japhetic theory" was not the theory of a "language group" in the normal sense of the term. Paul B 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It still doesn't convince me, that the weblink should be here instead of Nikolay Yakovlevich Marr only or perhaps at class-consiousness in language.

In any case, the weblink needs a better description: "Stalin's refutation of Japhetism" is just plain silly, what about "Stalin revokes support of Marr"?

Pjacobi 07:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

that's splitting hairs, imho: this isn't 'really' about a linguistic theory, it was all politics and propaganda in the first place, so that Stalin's 'refutation' or whatever you want to call it is certainly relevant to the topic. btw the article says Stalin's refutation was only nominally by Stalin; I am sure Stalin had a few linguists at his disposal to write it for him. dab (ᛏ) 12:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Stalin was able to write himself. This article is more about Mrxism rather than linguistics.--212.1.251.138 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalin didn't write "Marxism and Problems of Linguistics". Arnold Stepanovich Chikobava did. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Chikobava and http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jun2005/stal-j02.shtml 91.152.249.195 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Physics box

I've just removed a box claiming this as part of WikiProject Physics. I have no idea what it was doing there. --86.128.137.136 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Primitve syllables part of theory?

Among western linguists, Marr is most famous for his claim that all languages are derived from the syllables sal, ber, yon, and rosh. Is this part of the Japhetic theory? AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

unprofessional article

If the people who wrote this stuff opposing Marr are such great scholars, why does the article suck so bad? Have some professional pride.2607:FB90:9C2C:C0DE:B1C9:490D:F3BD:9FA5 (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)