Картвельские языки (Russian Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Картвельские языки" in Russian language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Russian rank
1st place
1st place
2,310th place
700th place
40th place
37th place
6,465th place
7,312th place
2nd place
3rd place
24th place
2nd place
9,386th place
817th place
low place
low place

britannica.com

doi.org

dx.doi.org

  • George Starostin. Nostratic. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press (29 октября 2013). doi:10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0156. — «Nevertheless, this evidence is also regarded by many specialists as insufficient to satisfy the criteria generally required for demonstrating genetic relationship, and the theory remains highly controversial among mainstream historical linguists, who tend to view it as, at worst, completely invalid or, at best, inconclusive.» Архивировано 13 сентября 2015 года.

joshuaproject.net

mpi.nl

oxfordbibliographies.com

  • George Starostin. Nostratic. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press (29 октября 2013). doi:10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0156. — «Nevertheless, this evidence is also regarded by many specialists as insufficient to satisfy the criteria generally required for demonstrating genetic relationship, and the theory remains highly controversial among mainstream historical linguists, who tend to view it as, at worst, completely invalid or, at best, inconclusive.» Архивировано 13 сентября 2015 года.

philology.ru

  • Нерознак В. П. Праязык: реконструкт или реальность? // Сравнительно-историческое изучение языков разных семей : Теория лингвистической реконструкции / Отв. ред. Н. З. Гаджиева. — М.: Наука, 1988. — С. 36—38. — ISBN 5-02-010869-3.

web.archive.org

webcitation.org

  • George Starostin. Nostratic. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press (29 октября 2013). doi:10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0156. — «Nevertheless, this evidence is also regarded by many specialists as insufficient to satisfy the criteria generally required for demonstrating genetic relationship, and the theory remains highly controversial among mainstream historical linguists, who tend to view it as, at worst, completely invalid or, at best, inconclusive.» Архивировано 13 сентября 2015 года.