Talk:Linguistic homeland

Split the article

There are too many sections to read comfortably and find discussions of urheimats in general. Could we please break off the sections for each language family into their own articles and link them, leaving this page to discuss Urheimats in general and how they're discovered? --Daviddwd (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. The Verified Cactus 100% 19:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Sudan for Nilo-Saharan

In the first paragraph on Nilo-Saharan:

archaeological evidence and linguistic studies that argue for a Nilo-Saharan homeland in eastern Sudan before 6000 BCE, with subsequent migration events northward to the eastern Sahara, westward to the Chad Basin, and southeastward into Kenya and Tanzania.

The link goes to the country Sudan. The question is whether it needs to go to Sudan (region).

I don't have ready access to the cited work that would clarify the meaning:

Michael C. Campbell and Sarah A. Tishkoff, "The Evolution of Human Genetic and Phenotypic Variation in Africa," Current Biology, Volume 20, Issue 4, R166–R173, 23 February 2010

But from the directions given for the migrations, it may be inferred that Campbell & Tishkoff are really talking about eastern Sudan (region). The area of the border between Chad and Sudan: Ouaddaï–Wadi Fira–West Darfur. From there, the Libyan Desert, i.e. eastern Sahara, lies north; the Chad Basin is to the west; and Kenya and Tanzania lie southeast of there. Eastern Sudan the country doesn't fit as well. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I found the Campbell & Tishkoff online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945812/ — They clearly site the Nilo-Saharan Urheimat along the border between Sudan and South Sudan, on the east side of both countries.

So I guessed wrong and they really did mean Sudan the country. Carry on. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The states they indicate include Upper Nile in South Sudan and Blue Nile in Sudan. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Has "homeland" become more common than "Urheimat"?

Urheimat is fairly jargon-ish and as far as I can see the term "homeland" is more widely used. Since 2010 there are 6,000 Google Scholar results for homeland + language family [1] but only 320 for Urheimat + language family [2]. Would it be worth discussing a move to "Language family homeland" or something similar? – Thjarkur (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree, I think discussing a page move will have more merit that discussing a page deletion. I've never given this a thought, because "urheimat" is just as familiar to me as "homeland" (and less ambiguous—especially since 2002), but you definitely have a good point, especially given the Google Scholar result. At least in my field, Robert Blust, Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross always use "Austronesian homeland", "Oceanic homeland" etc. As for the new title: since the term in linguistics and related disciplines is plain "homeland", we could use "Homeland (some disambiguator)". –Austronesier (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• I wondered this too. It's hard to get a sense of what is more common from Google, because "homeland" is so generic and "Urheimat" also gives a lot of German results. I would at least say that "homeland" is the more accessible name for English speakers. We moved Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses to Proto-Indo-European homeland some time ago and I think that was an improvement. If we do decide to move, I'd suggest linguistic homeland as a natural disambiguation which is relatively widely used. – Joe (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree, the natural disambiguation Linguistic homeland is available and looks good. Btw, can we add such a title in the dab-page Homeland (disambiguation), or does this run against WP:PARTIAL? –Austronesier (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Have added it. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus above, so let's just go ahead. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC) – Joe (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Urheimat → Linguistic homeland – As above, "homeland" is more commonly used and is more recognizable/accessible to the general reader. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per nom and discussion in the preceding section. –Austronesier (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of homelands

Following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Linguistic homeland, Austronesier and I have started trimming the sections on the homelands of individual language families. The idea is to split or merge most verifiable material to either standalone articles like Proto-Indo-European homeland or sections of the article on the relevant language family, leaving this article with a concise list and/or a link to a separate list of linguistic homelands (Wugapodes' suggestion). – Joe (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there's a lot of speculative fluff that should be cut here, but I don't see how a list could work, as most of these homelands are uncertain, and properly reflecting uncertainty means text. Some of the more solidly supported homelands have been cut too much. Some of them, e.g. Indo-European and Austronesian, could provide useful illustrations of sound methodology.

What might help more would be a prohibition on citing primary research.

It would be useful to have a short paragraph or two on each family, focussing on what is widely accepted, or at least widely considered. In many cases it's worth noting that a more restricted range is historically documented.

Also, the "Limitations of the concept" section seems to be more concerned with the difficulties in proving relationships between accepted families than with homelands. Kanguole 12:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the list format works pretty well? It gives the reader a brief summary style of what is known about the origin of particular language families, and links to articles with more detailed information where available. The problem including more than a few sentences is that, according to Glottolog for example, there are 244 "top-level families" which are theoretically within the scope of such a list (not to mention the "homelands" of many sub-families are also notable). Devoting paragraphs to each of those would be unmanageable, and even the small subset that was included before made the article too long (see repeated requests to split above).

Either way, the material Austronesier and I have cut was all poorly-referenced, incomplete or out-of-date, and in most cases flat-out wrong. So if we were to expand back to larger summaries, it would have to be from scratch based on better sources. What was verifiable has been moved to other articles. – Joe (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, "Limitations of the concept" is only peripherally related to the topic of the article, which is why I have started a still very sketchy "Methods" section, in order to have some flesh before trimming or scrapping "Limitations of the concept".

I am also very much in favor of a minimalist list of hard facts about homeland proposals for individual language families. Complexities should be addressed in the main articles, every attempt to go into details here will bring the risk of content forking. Uncertainty could be handled by giving the maximal geographical range of extant meaningful proposals. E.g. for Uralic, we could restrict ourselves to state that the homeland lay somewhere in northern Eurasia (because that's where all sensible proposals locate it, with a wide range of potential longitudes). –Austronesier (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing homelands

With the longer sections trimmed, we can see that the list in #Homelands of major language families is very incomplete. Here's a to-do list of what we're missing, based on the "top-level families" listed by Glottolog:

Africa

• Afro-Asiatic
• Atlantic-Congo (Niger–Congo)
• Blue Nile Mao
• Central Sudanic
• Dajuic
• Dizoid
• Dogon
• Eastern Jebel
• Furan
• Gumuz
• Heibanic
• Ijoid
• Kadugli-Krongo
• Katla-Tima
• Khoe-Kwadi
• Koman
• Kresh-Aja
• Kuliak
• Kxa
• Maban
• Mande
• Narrow Talodi
• Nilotic
• Nubian
• Nyimang
• Rashad
• Saharan
• Songhay
• South Omotic
• Surmic
• Ta-Ne-Omotic
• Tamaic
• Temeinic
• Tuu

Australia

• Bunaban
• Eastern Daly
• Garrwan
• Giimbiyu
• Gunwinyguan
• Iwaidjan Proper
• Jarrakan
• Limilngan-Wulna
• Mangarrayi-Maran
• Maningrida
• Marrku-Wurrugu
• Mirndi
• North-Eastern Tasmanian
• Northern Daly
• Nyulnyulan
• Pama-Nyungan
• South-Eastern Tasmanian
• Southern Daly
• Tangkic
• Western Daly
• Western Tasmanian
• Worrorran
• Yangmanic

Eurasia

• Abkhaz-Adyge
• Ainu
• Austroasiatic
• Chukotko-Kamchatkan
• Dravidian
• Great Andamanese
• Hmong-Mien
• Hurro-Urartian (minor)
• Indo-European
• Japonic
• Jarawa-Onge
• Kartvelian
• Koreanic
• Mongolic-Khitan
• Nakh-Daghestanian
• Nivkh
• Sino-Tibetan
• Tai-Kadai (Kra–Dai)
• Tungusic
• Turkic
• Uralic
• Yeniseian
• Yukaghir

Oceania (Papunesia)

• Amto-Musan
• Austronesian
• Angan
• Anim
• Arafundi
• Baibai-Fas
• Baining
• Bayono-Awbono
• Bogia
• Border
• Bosavi
• Bulaka River
• Dagan
• Doso-Turumsa
• East Bird's Head
• East Kutubu
• East Strickland
• Eastern Trans-Fly
• Eleman
• Geelvink Bay
• Goilalan
• Greater Kwerba
• Hatam-Mansim
• Inanwatan
• Kamula-Elevala
• Kaure-Kosare
• Kayagaric
• Keram
• Kiwaian
• Koiarian
• Kolopom
• Konda-Yahadian
• Kwalean
• Kwomtari-Nai
• Lakes Plain
• Left May
• Lepki-Murkim-Kembra
• Lower Sepik-Ramu
• Mailuan
• Mairasic
• Manubaran
• Mombum-Koneraw
• Namla-Tofanma
• Ndu
• Nimboranic
• North Bougainville
• North Halmahera
• Nuclear Torricelli
• Nuclear Trans New Guinea
• Pahoturi
• Pauwasi
• Piawi
• Senagi
• Sentanic
• Sepik
• Sko
• Somahai
• South Bird's Head Family
• South Bougainville
• Suki-Gogodala
• Taulil-Butam
• Teberan
• Timor-Alor-Pantar
• Tor-Orya
• Turama-Kikori
• Walioic
• West Bird's Head
• West Bomberai
• Yam
• Yareban
• Yawa-Saweru
• Yuat

North America

• Algic
• Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit (Na Dene)
• Caddoan
• Chimakuan
• Chinookan
• Chumashan
• Cochimi-Yuman
• Coosan (minor)
• Eskimo-Aleut
• Haida
• Huavean
• Iroquoian
• Jicaquean
• Kalapuyan
• Keresan
• Kiowa-Tanoan
• Lencan
• Maiduan
• Mayan
• Misumalpan
• Miwok-Costanoan
• Mixe-Zoque
• Muskogean
• Otomanguean
• Palaihnihan (minor)
• Pomoan (minor)
• Sahaptian
• Salishan
• Shastan (minor)
• Siouan
• Tarascan
• Tequistlatecan
• Totonacan
• Tsimshian
• Uto-Aztecan
• Wakashan
• Wintuan
• Xincan
• Yokutsan
• Yuki-Wappo

South America

• Araucanian
• Arawakan
• Arawan
• Aymaran
• Barbacoan
• Boran
• Bororoan
• Cahuapanan
• Cariban
• Chapacuran
• Charruan
• Chibchan
• Chicham
• Chiquitano
• Chocoan
• Chonan
• Guahiboan
• Guaicuruan
• Harakmbut
• Hibito-Cholon
• Huarpean
• Huitotoan
• Jodi-Saliban
• Kakua-Nukak
• Kamakanan
• Katukinan
• Kawesqar
• Lengua-Mascoy
• Matacoan
• Naduhup
• Nambiquaran
• Nuclear-Macro-Je
• Otomaco-Taparita
• Pano-Tacanan
• Peba-Yagua
• Puri-Coroado
• Quechuan
• Ticuna-Yuri
• Tucanoan
• Tupian
• Uru-Chipaya
• Yanomamic
• Zamucoan
• Zaparoan

The section is headed "major language families" (following the map in language family) so perhaps we won't want to include all or most of these, though I'm not sure what exactly 'major' means in this context. – Joe (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Coosan, a family which I am quite familiar with, comprises two extinct languages spoken in the same area (Coos Bay, Oregon) with uncertain external affiliations (Coast Oregon Penutian? Or even Penutian?). This is a clear case of 'minor', which we can exclude here. (Struck out and tagged as 'minor' – I will proceed with similar cases, feel free to revert me if you disagree). –Austronesier (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think the Glottolog list is a useful starting point. The vast majority of these are by no means "major", and there's probably not an interesting homeland question for a small family spoken in a compact area. Kanguole 12:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you know of a good, sourced definition of what constitutes a "major" family that we could work off? – Joe (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Comrie The World's Major Languages has headings for

Afroasiatic, Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Dravidian, Indo-European, Japonic, Koreanic, Kra-Dai, Niger-Congo, Sino-Tibetan, Turkic, Uralic

which would be an uncontroversial list for the Old World. Kanguole 14:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted changes to Niger-Congo

What was the decision making criteria for the following changes being reverted?

Linguistic analyses has also suggested that Niger-Congo speaking hunter-gatherers may have originated from the Kordofanian speakers of the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, and then traversed the Sahel to Mali. 2601:42:0:4000:E8D7:9E7D:674:3C20 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not a widely held view. As for the references, if you're going to talk about linguistic analyses, you can't source it to a paper on genetics. Blench is clearly speculative. The third reference (by Welmers) is a passing remark in an article about Mande from 1971, when Greenberg's theory was more popular than now. In any case, Blench and Welmers don't even say what you wrote above. Kanguole 22:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because the view is not widely held does not mean it is not possible for Sudan to be the original homeland of Niger-Congo speakers. The sentence can be rephrased:

“Linguistic analyses has also suggested that Sudan is possibly the original homeland of Niger-Congo speakers.”

The second source can be removed as well. 2601:42:0:4000:F984:FCA3:4D4A:1762 (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Linguistic analysis actually places the origin of Niger-Congo in West Africa and not Sudan. Your edits were reverted because they were misleading and none of the sources you cited supported your statment. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Currently, there is no consensus on the original homeland of Niger-Congo speakers. 2601:42:0:4000:F984:FCA3:4D4A:1762 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If you do not want to edit war, you keep discussing until you establish consensus for additions, not add them unless you've clearly addressed all the problems raised by other editors. Your attempted revision did not meaningfully do so. Remsense ‥ 论 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I noticed you stated “See, i did check the talk page, and what i read was ‘It's not a widely held view’ and ‘Blench is clearly speculative" on the article’s revision history.

Did you also read that “Currently, there is no consensus on the original homeland of Niger-Congo speakers.” as well?

What consensus needs to be reached? Whether or not only one hypothesis should be shared on Wikipedia on the original homeland of Niger-Congo speakers? Whether or not an additional sentence with credible sources should be added? 2601:42:0:4000:6D2E:FD1F:D5AF:DC22 (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You haven't provided real evidence against the existing cited material. Insofar as your additions are meant to challenge or nuance that position, it has been pointed out above why they lack the substance to do so. Remsense ‥ 论 22:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of the additional sentence with sources is to share another hypothesis. What do you and the other editors consider “real evidence”? Do we need to review each sentence in both sources? Where do we draw the line? 2601:42:0:4000:6D2E:FD1F:D5AF:DC22 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edits was misleading and not factually correct. Mainstream opinion places the origin of the Niger-Congo family in 4 different places in Africa, the Nuba Mountains in Sudan is not located within those specific 4 locations that linguists have proposed. Given that there is no archaeological evidence of Proto Niger-Congo originating from Sudan which makes sense given that the family's Bantu branch originated near Nigeria and Cameroon and spread eastward and Mande which originated in Central West Africa and spread Westward due to human migration in Sub-Saharan Africa, neither theories propose an urheimat in Sudan as you are claiming. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

-Again, currently, there is no consensus on the original homeland of Niger-Congo speakers. I am sharing another hypothesis. Technically, these are not my claims.

-Are you indicating that Blench and Welmers were incorrect when they stated the possibility of Sudan being the original homeland of Niger-Congo speakers?

-You stated “Mainstream opinion places the origin of the Niger-Congo family in 4 different places in Africa” Where are these 4 different places in Africa?

-Where did the Kordofanian languages originate?

-Wikipedia editors added the following references on the Proto-Niger-Congo article for a reason:

Further information: Haplogroup E-V38 and Haplogroup E-M2

-There is a relationship between the original homeland of E1b1a-V38, original homeland of E1b1a1-M2, the original homeland of Niger-Congo speakers, nomadic hunter gatherers in the Green Sahara, desiccation of the Sahara, expansion of agriculture, and the migrations of Niger-Congo speakers.

-I am not against the hypothesis of West Africa being the homeland of Niger-Congo speakers at all. However, I am against that hypothesis being the only hypothesis shared on Wikipedia. 2601:42:0:4000:6D2E:FD1F:D5AF:DC22 (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Neo the Enlightened One

@Kanguole

@Cookiemonster1618

@Remsense

-The Niger-Congo section should be updated:

The language family most likely originated in the "Green Sahara" of Africa. Its expansion may have been associated with the expansion of Sahel agriculture in the African Neolithic period, following the desiccation of the Sahara in c. 3500 BCE.

-The update does not challenge the West African origin theory nor exclude the Kordofanian languages of Sudan. 2601:42:0:4000:3DFE:6A02:9293:E42B (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

IP, I reverted your edits as it is much better to discuss the issues and come to a fair conclusion with other Editors via the Talk Pages, thanks for being open to further discussion and not engaging in Wikipedia:Edit warring. Neo the Enlightened One (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. 2601:42:0:4000:F036:B2D3:3B48:9132 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Three of these sources are unsuitable:

• Blench (2016) is not a paper, but a discussion session, and clearly speculative.
• Manning & Timpson are not linguists, and do not mention Niger-Congo.
• Kopytoff is not a linguist, and does not mention Niger-Congo.

That leaves Blench (2006), which does not say what it is cited for. Kanguole 23:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If that is the case, the origin section of the Proto-Niger-Congo and Niger-Congo articles clearly need to be thoroughly reviewed and updated. 2601:42:0:4000:F036:B2D3:3B48:9132 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

There are any number of problems throughout Wikipedia, but here we are discussing this article. That's also why just copying stuff from one article into another without checking is a flawed method. Kanguole 10:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

-The Niger-Congo section of this article should be consistent with the Proto-Niger-Congo and Niger-Congo articles.

-Updates made to the Proto-Niger-Congo and Niger-Congo articles within the last two weeks were removed as well. That is fine but reverting articles back to the previous version without actually checking the previous version is a flawed method.

-Are the sources in the Niger-Congo section of this article suitable? If so, do the sources state what they are cited for?

-Until there is more evidence available, the articles should be updated:

“There is no consensus among scholars as to the origins and historical development of Niger-Congo languages.” 2601:42:0:4000:F036:B2D3:3B48:9132 (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This section should reflect reliable secondary sources (as should the other articles, but that is not our concern here). It already says the membership and subgrouping of the article is unsettled. Kanguole 10:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kanguole, @Drmies, The article should be updated: “The homeland is thought to have been somewhere in the savanna belt of Africa” 2601:42:0:4000:F914:FA4B:3A66:3AD2 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not until there is reason to do so, based on acceptable secondary sourcing. Please don't waste our time with sub-par sources including single paragraphs with some discussions, Britannica articles, and books/articles not written by linguists and not relevant to the topic. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

-If that is your view then why did you revert the article back to the previous version?

“The homeland is thought to have been somewhere in the "Green Sahara" of Africa, with the Bantu expansion through the equatorial rainforests of Central Africa beginning around 3000 BCE.”

-Please don’t waste our time by inserting yourself into the discussion by reverting the article back to the previous version if you have nothing meaningful to contribute. 2601:42:0:4000:F914:FA4B:3A66:3AD2 (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

References