Template talk:R:ccs:Fähnrich:2016
Add topicLatest comment: 2 years ago by Vahagn Petrosyan
@Vahagn_Petrosyan: lol is there a mistake in TOC or does he literally have 192 pages of supposed Kartvelian Dravidian parallels? კვარია (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @კვარია: no typo, that is exactly what he does. See also this article. It is remarkable how one person can be great in one area, and a nut in another one. Marr was also like that. Vahag (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Meh, iirc in the 80s he had a pet theory of Sumerian-Kartvelian parallels. I hope you can get some value out of that book if 192 pages are dedicated to... that. I don't know what's wrong with people. We haven't even figured out Kartvelian languages themselves, a language family with literally FOUR members. Seeking higher level connections is so pseudo-scientific. I can only hope that in "Folgerungen aus dem Vergleich" he says, yep... there's nothing to this. :p At least Fähnrich has the decency to keep those things outside of his main body of work unlike Čuxua. Seeing things like this is very discouraging tbh. კვარია (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, that is not a problem as long as we approach all these sources critically. We can squeeze something useful even out of Nostraticists. Vahag (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Meh, iirc in the 80s he had a pet theory of Sumerian-Kartvelian parallels. I hope you can get some value out of that book if 192 pages are dedicated to... that. I don't know what's wrong with people. We haven't even figured out Kartvelian languages themselves, a language family with literally FOUR members. Seeking higher level connections is so pseudo-scientific. I can only hope that in "Folgerungen aus dem Vergleich" he says, yep... there's nothing to this. :p At least Fähnrich has the decency to keep those things outside of his main body of work unlike Čuxua. Seeing things like this is very discouraging tbh. კვარია (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)