Editing Elamite language (section)

==Relations to other language families==
Elamite is regarded by the vast majority of [[linguists]] as a [[language isolate]],<ref name="Blench">{{Harvnb|Blench|Spriggs|1997|p=125}}</ref><ref>{{unbulleted list citebundle |{{Harvnb|Woodard|2008|pages=3}}|{{harvnb|Gnanadesikan|2009}}|{{Harvnb|Tavernier|2020|p=164}}}}</ref> as it has no demonstrable relationship to the neighbouring [[Semitic languages]], [[Indo-European languages]], or to [[Sumerian language|Sumerian]], despite having adopted the Sumerian-[[Akkadian language|Akkadian]] [[cuneiform]] script.

An [[Elamo-Dravidian languages|Elamo-Dravidian]] family connecting Elamite with the [[Brahui language|Brahui]] language of Pakistan and [[Dravidian languages]] of India was suggested in 1967 by [[Igor M. Diakonoff]]<ref>{{Harvnb|Дьяконов|1967}}</ref> and later, in 1974, defended by [[David W. McAlpin|David McAlpin]] and others.<ref>{{unbulleted list citebundle |{{Harvnb|McAlpin|1974}} | {{Harvnb|McAlpin|1975}} |{{Harvnb|McAlpin|1979}} |{{Harvnb|McAlpin|1981|p=3}}}}</ref><ref>{{unbulleted list citebundle |{{harvnb|Khačikjan|1998|p=3}}|{{Harvnb|van Bladel|2021|p=448}}}}</ref> In 2012, Southworth proposed that Elamite forms the "Zagrosian family" along with [[Brahui language|Brahui]] and, further down the cladogram, the remaining Dravidian languages; this family would have originated in Southwest Asia (southern Iran) and was widely distributed in South Asia and parts of eastern West Asia before the Indo-Aryan migration.<ref name="Southworth 2012">{{harvnb|Southworth|2011}}</ref> Recent discoveries regarding early population migration based on ancient DNA analysis have revived interest in the possible connection between proto-Elamite and proto-Dravidian.<ref>{{harvnb|Joseph|2017}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|McAlpin|1981|p=1}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Zvelebil|1985}}: I admit that this [reconstruction] is somewhat farfetched. but so is a number of McAlpin's reconstructions. [...] There is no obvious systematic relationship between the morphologies of Elamite and Dravidian, apparent at first sight. Only after a hypothetical reinterpretation, three morphological patterns emerge as cognate systems: the basic cases, the personal pronouns, and the appellative endings. [...] I am also convinced that much additional work is to be done and many changes will be made to remove the genetic cognation in question from the realm of hypothesis and establish it as a fact acceptable to all.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Krishnamurti|2003|pages=44–45}}: Many of the rules formulated by McAlpin lack intrinsic phonetic/phonological motivation and appear ad hoc, invented to fit the proposed correspondences: e.g. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian *i, *e > Ø Elamite, when followed by t, n, which are again followed by a; but these remain undisturbed in Dravidian (1974: 93). How does a language develop that kind of sound change? This rule was dropped a few years later, because the etymologies were abandoned (see 1979: 184). [...] We need more cognates of an atypical kind to rule out the possibility of chance.</ref> A critical reassessment of the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis has been published by [[Filippo Pedron]] in 2023.<ref name=Pedron2023>{{Harvnb|Pedron|2023}}</ref>

[[Václav Blažek]] proposed a relation with the [[Semitic languages]].<ref name=Blench96>{{Harvnb|Blench|2006|p=96}}</ref>

In 2002 [[George Starostin]] published a [[lexicostatistic]] analysis finding Elamite to be approximately equidistant from [[Nostratic]] and Semitic.<ref>{{Harvnb|Starostin|2002}}</ref>

None of these ideas have been accepted by mainstream historical linguists.<ref name="Blench" />