Talk:Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Endangered languages, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Endangered languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languagesTemplate:WikiProject Endangered languagesEndangered languages

Languages Start‑class

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Language & literature / Demographics & ethnography Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.

Competing PCK reconstructions?

To what extent does Oleg Mudrak's reconstruction[1] differ from that of Fortescue?--Pe t 'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 11:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CK not part of Uralo-Siberian anymore according to Fortescue?

Where in his article does Fortescue state he no longer views Chukotko-Kamchatkan as a part of his Uralo-Siberian proposal? Saying Nivkh is closer to Chukotko-Kamchatkan than anything else doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of them both being part of the larger Uralo-Siberian, unless Fortescue says so explicitly, of course. I don't have access to that particular article.--Pe t 'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 11:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from page 3 [1361]:

Given the results of the present investigation, the general conclusion
in Fortescue (1998) as to the relationship between CK and the hypothetical
‘‘Uralo-Siberian mesh’’ needs to be readjusted somewhat. I would no longer
wish to relate CK directly to that mesh, although I believe that some of
the lexical evidence adduced for a link with it will hold up in terms of
borrowing/diffusion.

--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 06:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, I had the same question and forgot to look here ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

map

Caption of the map is incomplete: there are three distinct areas on the map, but the caption explains only two of them. Ceplm (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two overlapping regions on the map. --JorisvS (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PIE

I believe that including PIE was meant to show specifically how a tree based on vocabulary only could produce spurious results. Jäger never claimed that CK was a daughter, or even a sister, of PIE... I will look at this when I get a chance. Lollipop (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Lollipop (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

All proposals that link Chukotko-Kamchatkan with other families are highly controversial. However, I think you are giving way too much attention to one such proposal in particular. The proposed link to Indo-European should not be treated in so much detail. It is a proposal from a single linguist, who used mass comparison, a method widely discredited as unreliable, and whose work is apparently not supported by any other linguist, including those who do support macrofamilies. His work can be reduced to a single sentence under the "Eurasiatic" hypothesis. Steinbach (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]