Language Atlas
Claims this atlas currently marks as unsettled or as tested and found false. A debated fact is one scholars hold competing positions on; a debunked one has been checked against the record and found not to hold. Both are kept in view rather than quietly smoothed over, with the reasoning that put each one where it stands.
124 statements.
Graeco-Phrygian languages, Proto-Language StatusHypothetical proto-Graeco-Phrygian stage, not reconstructed
Graeco-Phrygian languages, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Hypothetical proto-Graeco-Phrygian stage, not reconstructed
Proposed proto stage is hypothetical and not reconstructed because Phrygian is poorly attested.
Source Graeco-Phrygian, Wikipedia
Greater North Borneo languages, Proto-Language StatusContested grouping; described by Smith in 2023 as a zone of lexical diffusion rather than a proper branch
Greater North Borneo languages, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Contested grouping; described by Smith in 2023 as a zone of lexical diffusion rather than a proper branch
Source Greater North Borneo languages, Wikipedia
Gununa Kune, Proto-Language StatusNo proto-language; long considered a language isolate within the Chonan family
Gununa Kune, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States No proto-language; long considered a language isolate within the Chonan family
Viegas Barros (2005) proposed a relation to the Chon languages, but the family affiliation remains unsettled.
Source Puelche language, Wikipedia
Gur, Proto-Language StatusPartially reconstructed: Proto-Gur Swadesh basic-vocabulary lists were compiled by Gabriel Manessy (1969, 1975, 1979), but a full comparative reconstruction of Proto-Gur has not been completed.
Gur, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Partially reconstructed: Proto-Gur Swadesh basic-vocabulary lists were compiled by Gabriel Manessy (1969, 1975, 1979), but a full comparative reconstruction of Proto-Gur has not been completed.
Manessy's Swadesh lists are basic-vocabulary comparisons, not a full phonological or morphological reconstruction; the family's own internal classification (Central Gur/Mabia versus a broader Gur/Voltaic grouping) is still debated.
Source Wikipedia: Gur Languages
Haida, Proto-Language StatusNo settled proto-language: Haida is generally considered a language isolate, though a Na-Dene relationship has been proposed and disputed
Haida, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States No settled proto-language: Haida is generally considered a language isolate, though a Na-Dene relationship has been proposed and disputed
Generally treated as a language isolate, but the linguist John Enrico has argued for a relationship to the Na-Dene family; the counterargument is that early loanwords complicate the supporting evidence, so the field has not settled the question.
Source Wikipedia: Haida Language
Hatam-Mansim, Proto-Language StatusRoss (2005) tentatively classified Hatam as part of the West Papuan family based on pronoun similarities, without considering Mansim. Glottolog continues to list Hatam-Mansim as an independent language family rather than accepting the West Papuan link.
Hatam-Mansim, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Ross (2005) tentatively classified Hatam as part of the West Papuan family based on pronoun similarities, without considering Mansim. Glottolog continues to list Hatam-Mansim as an independent language family rather than accepting the West Papuan link.
Ross (2005) proposed a West Papuan affiliation for Hatam alone; Glottolog treats Hatam-Mansim as an independent family.
Source Wikipedia: Hatam-Mansim languages
Hokan, Proto-Language StatusDisputed grouping proposed by Dixon and Kroeber (1913); accepted by many specialists in Californian and Mesoamerican historical linguistics but not universally.
Hokan, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Disputed grouping proposed by Dixon and Kroeber (1913); accepted by many specialists in Californian and Mesoamerican historical linguistics but not universally.
Hokan is a proposed genetic grouping, not a settled family; no secure Proto-Hokan has been reconstructed and inclusion of several branches (Seri, Salinan, Tequistlatecan) remains contested.
Source Wikipedia: Hokan Languages
Ijoid, DescriptionIjoid is a proposed but undemonstrated group of languages in Nigeria linking the Ijaw languages with the endangered Defaka language; the similarities may instead be due to Ijaw influence on Defaka.
Ijoid, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Description
Currently States Ijoid is a proposed but undemonstrated group of languages in Nigeria linking the Ijaw languages with the endangered Defaka language; the similarities may instead be due to Ijaw influence on Defaka.
Source Wikipedia: Ijoid Languages
Ijoid, Proto-Language StatusProposed to form a divergent branch of the hypothetical Niger-Congo family on the strength of its subject-object-verb word order and its lack of the Niger-Congo noun-class system; linguists Gerrit Dimmendaal and Tom Güldemann doubt its inclusion in Niger-Congo altogether and consider Ijaw/Ijoid an independent family.
Ijoid, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Proposed to form a divergent branch of the hypothetical Niger-Congo family on the strength of its subject-object-verb word order and its lack of the Niger-Congo noun-class system; linguists Gerrit Dimmendaal and Tom Güldemann doubt its inclusion in Niger-Congo altogether and consider Ijaw/Ijoid an independent family.
Source Wikipedia: Ijoid Languages
Insular Celtic, Proto-Language StatusInsular Celtic has no proto-language of its own separately named from Proto-Celtic. It is a proposed higher-level grouping within Celtic, competing with the older P-Celtic/Q-Celtic classification.
Insular Celtic, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Insular Celtic has no proto-language of its own separately named from Proto-Celtic. It is a proposed higher-level grouping within Celtic, competing with the older P-Celtic/Q-Celtic classification.
Insular Celtic has no proto-language separately named from Proto-Celtic; whether it is a valid genetic node, versus the alternative P-Celtic/Q-Celtic classification, is debated, though the Insular Celtic view has been the more widely held position among specialists since the 1970s.
Source Wikipedia: Celtic Languages
Iroquoian, Proto-Language StatusA widely cited glottochronological estimate attributed to Lounsbury (1961), based on 34 to 38 percent shared Swadesh-list cognates between Cherokee and the Northern Iroquoian languages, places the Cherokee/Northern Iroquoian split around 3,500 to 3,800 years ago; an independent estimate from Sorosoro's own linguistic documentation places the same split at roughly 1800 to 1500 BCE, a closely matching range. Neither figure has been verified here against Lounsbury's original 1961 publication, which could not be directly accessed.
Iroquoian, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States A widely cited glottochronological estimate attributed to Lounsbury (1961), based on 34 to 38 percent shared Swadesh-list cognates between Cherokee and the Northern Iroquoian languages, places the Cherokee/Northern Iroquoian split around 3,500 to 3,800 years ago; an independent estimate from Sorosoro's own linguistic documentation places the same split at roughly 1800 to 1500 BCE, a closely matching range. Neither figure has been verified here against Lounsbury's original 1961 publication, which could not be directly accessed.
Source Sorosoro: Iroquoian Languages
Italic, Proto-Language StatusWhether a single Proto-Italic language existed is disputed. The unitary theory, tracing Latin and the other ancient Italic languages to one common ancestor, remains dominant in current scholarship, but some linguists, including Silvestri and Rix, have argued that no single consistent Proto-Italic phonology and morphology can be reconstructed, proposing instead that the ancestors of the ancient Italic languages were two or more separately descended Indo-European languages.
Italic, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Whether a single Proto-Italic language existed is disputed. The unitary theory, tracing Latin and the other ancient Italic languages to one common ancestor, remains dominant in current scholarship, but some linguists, including Silvestri and Rix, have argued that no single consistent Proto-Italic phonology and morphology can be reconstructed, proposing instead that the ancestors of the ancient Italic languages were two or more separately descended Indo-European languages.
Rix later changed his mind and became a supporter of Italic as a unified family, per the same article.
Source Wikipedia: Italic Languages
Italo-Celtic, RegionHypothesized to have been spoken in the 3rd or 2nd millennium BCE in south-central Europe, possibly associated with the Bell Beaker culture
Italo-Celtic, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Region
Currently States Hypothesized to have been spoken in the 3rd or 2nd millennium BCE in south-central Europe, possibly associated with the Bell Beaker culture
Applies only if the hypothesis that Proto-Italo-Celtic was a real historical language is accepted; not every scholar accepts the grouping
Source Italo-Celtic, Wikipedia
Italo-Celtic, Proto-Language StatusProposed and partly reconstructed, Kortlandt attempted a reconstruction of Proto-Italo-Celtic in 2007, but the underlying grouping remains contested among scholars
Italo-Celtic, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Proposed and partly reconstructed, Kortlandt attempted a reconstruction of Proto-Italo-Celtic in 2007, but the underlying grouping remains contested among scholars
The Italo-Celtic grouping itself is not universally accepted, so the proto-language it implies is debated rather than settled
Source Italo-Celtic, Wikipedia
Japonic, Proto-Language StatusProto-Japonic is reconstructed chiefly from Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages. Proposed deeper connections to Korean or to a broader Altaic grouping are considered fringe hypotheses by most comparative linguists; Japonic is treated on this atlas as an independent family.
Japonic, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Proto-Japonic is reconstructed chiefly from Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages. Proposed deeper connections to Korean or to a broader Altaic grouping are considered fringe hypotheses by most comparative linguists; Japonic is treated on this atlas as an independent family.
The internal Proto-Japonic reconstruction from Japanese and Ryukyuan is not seriously disputed; the external hypotheses are the fringe element.
Source Glottolog
Kanoê, Proto-Language StatusToo poorly attested to classify for decades; a 2004 detailed description by Laercio Bacelar established it as a language isolate. Van der Voort (2005) finds similarities with Kwaza and Aikana but judges the evidence too weak for a demonstrated family; others have proposed unconfirmed links to Nambikwaran or Kunza.
Kanoê, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Too poorly attested to classify for decades; a 2004 detailed description by Laercio Bacelar established it as a language isolate. Van der Voort (2005) finds similarities with Kwaza and Aikana but judges the evidence too weak for a demonstrated family; others have proposed unconfirmed links to Nambikwaran or Kunza.
Source Wikipedia: Kanoê Language
Kaure-Kosare, Proto-Language StatusFoley (2018) considers a connection between Kaure-Kosare and Trans-New Guinea to be promising but tentatively leaves the family independent pending further evidence.
Kaure-Kosare, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Foley (2018) considers a connection between Kaure-Kosare and Trans-New Guinea to be promising but tentatively leaves the family independent pending further evidence.
Foley (2018) names Trans-New Guinea membership as a promising but unconfirmed hypothesis; Glottolog treats Kaure-Kosare as an independent family pending further evidence.
Source Wikipedia: Kaure-Kosare languages
Khoisan, Proto-Language StatusNo Proto-Khoisan can be reconstructed, because the grouping is not now believed to be a genuine genetic family at all.
Khoisan, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States No Proto-Khoisan can be reconstructed, because the grouping is not now believed to be a genuine genetic family at all.
Only its three constituent families, Khoe-Kwadi, Tuu and the formally demonstrated Kx'a grouping (2010), have their own internal reconstructions in progress.
Source Wikipedia: Khoisan Languages
Konda-Yahadian, Proto-Language StatusNo proto-language reconstruction has been published. Holton and Klamer (2018) tentatively treat Konda-Yahadian as an independent family pending further evidence, on the strength of low cognacy rates with neighboring South Bird's Head groups.
Konda-Yahadian, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States No proto-language reconstruction has been published. Holton and Klamer (2018) tentatively treat Konda-Yahadian as an independent family pending further evidence, on the strength of low cognacy rates with neighboring South Bird's Head groups.
Source Wikipedia: Konda-Yahadian Languages
Kordofanian, Proto-Language StatusQuint (2020) reconstructs Proto-Kordofanian from the Heibanian, Talodian, Rashadian, Katloid and Lafofa branches; Kordofanian itself has not been shown to constitute a valid genetic grouping distinct from other Niger-Congo branches
Kordofanian, Language Families
Standing
Concerns Proto-Language Status
Currently States Quint (2020) reconstructs Proto-Kordofanian from the Heibanian, Talodian, Rashadian, Katloid and Lafofa branches; Kordofanian itself has not been shown to constitute a valid genetic grouping distinct from other Niger-Congo branches
Kordofanian's status as a valid Niger-Congo genetic subgroup, as opposed to independently related branches, is disputed; Proto-Kordofanian itself has been reconstructed by Quint (2020) from five of its branches regardless of that dispute.
Source Wikipedia: Kordofanian Languages