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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana 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.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
I changed the wording concerning Greenberg's Almosan-Keresiouan stock back to "This proposal has received little support among historical linguists." (At least, from its location I've been assuming the statement refers to Almosan-Keresiouan...it's actually kind of ambiguous...). Campbell is certainly not the only one to reject Greenberg's classifications, and on pg. 328 he cites some of the "many Americanists" who have "reviewed, mostly negatively" Greenberg's proposals, although many of them said more about his general methods, or about specific errors they found in his work, than on the Almosan-Keresiouan grouping (or his 13 superstocks) in general. On pg. 289 (which I can't see on Google books, but I have Campbell's book) the relevant quote is "Greenberg (1987) accepts Sapir's Almosan and combines it further with what he calls Keresiouan to form his Almosan-Keresiouan grouping. All these broad classifications involving Mosan are controversial at present and have not been accepted byt specialists in the field."
That being said, I think it might be more accurate to change the statement to something like "This proposal has received little support among specialists in American Indian languages" or similar. I can also try to look through some of the Americanists Campbell cites (I know I've got a few of those articles somewhere on my computer...) and find where some of them might directly discuss Almosan-Kerisiouan.
Anyway, that's why I changed it back, but I'm not totally opposed to various changes or whatever. Let me know what you think --Miskwito (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with quoting or paraphrasing Campbell's statement about "many Americanists", or other citations - just not an uncited statement especially about historical linguists as a whole.
The Americanist school is well-known for splitters, but the Russian school, for example, tend to be lumpers, and linguists working on African languages do not reject large, ancient, continent-spanning superfamilies. --JWB (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and tried the "many Americanists" phrasing. --JWB (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few mentions of the Americanist school - maybe it deserves an article. --JWB (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
