Template talk:etyl:tut

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Template:etyl:tut

Not a valid linguistic classification template. Seeing as we already deleted Category:Altaic languages, this should go too. -- Prince Kassad 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphan and delete per nom. —Ruakh_TALK 15:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is ISO 639-5, why isn't it valid? Go on, convince me. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Because ISO is not a neutral authority - it is itself involved in creating arbitrary language families with no linguistic evidence behind them, therefore it coded language families it devised itself, and left out many other, clearly valid language families. {{etyl:ccn}} is another one of these that should probably go. -- Prince Kassad 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what ISO 639-5's exact criteria are, but obviously some of its codes, such as art ("Artificial languages") and crp ("Creoles and pidgins"), do not correspond to real language families. It seems possible that ISO 639-5's inclusion of tut ("Altaic languages") is intended as an endorsement of the Altaic language hypothesis, but unless someone has a copy of the standard or can otherwise confirm that that's how it's intended, there's no reason to assume that it is. (For example, it could alternatively be meant simply as an available option, to be used by people who do put store in that hypothesis, without prejudice against those who do not.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

[1]] Look at the inter-family relationship (second-to-last column). Note how it sorts Turkic, Tungusic and Mongolic under Altaic (but interestingly not Japonic). -- Prince Kassad 08:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, but it also sorts xnd ("Na-Dene languages") under nai ("North American Indian languages"). Obviously that's not intended as a claim of genetic relationship. —Ruakh_TALK 14:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Among people who do believe in the Altaic hypothesis, the most conservative/mainstream variant of the hypothesis is that Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic are Altaic, but Korean and Japanese/Japonic are not. At any rate, I'm going to say keep because the template is in use at 骆驼 and 駱駝. Maybe someone who knows more about Chinese etymology than I do can say which branch of Altaic this word is possibly borrowed from. —Angr 16:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus, and no realistic chance of achieving one. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)