Talk:tikə

no Chuvash/Hungarian = no Proto-Turkic!

Hi @Allahverdi Verdizade.

What is the reasoning behind this? You realise if we really applied this, we would need to get rid of 90% of the reconstructions, doesn't matter PT or any other proto language. Having no Chuvash in the descendants may indicate uncertainty in some vowels or consonants where Chuvash may be indicative of a certain sound in some cases but it doesn't indicate lack of such words. --Anylai (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The reasoning behind this is called the comparative method. If adherence to it requires that we delete 90 % of the reconstructions, so be it. In the meantime, I don't think it is the case that 90 % of the current Proto-Turkic reconstructions need to be deleted, but it may well be the case that many of them need to be "downgraded" to Common Turkic, as there is no evidence that supports their reconstruction at the older level. "Having no Chuvash in the descendants may indicate uncertainty in some vowels or consonants where Chuvash may be indicative of a certain sound in some cases but it doesn't indicate lack of such words." - that's where you are wrong, my friend. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)