Talk:Trifunctional hypothesis

Article Naming and Redirects?

I'm only an amateur in the study of Dumezil, but my experiences with him in general and this theory in particular have led me to use the term tripartite instead of trifunctional. The English translation of Wouter Belier's critique of the theory is entitled "Decayed Gods: Origin and Development of Georges Dumezil's 'Ideologie Tripartie'", which seems to adapt Dumezil's own term for his hypothesis (I say this without being able to read Dumezil in the original French and thus not properly knowing if this is true). If that's the case, it would seem appropriate to me to include at least a redirect to this page for "Tripartite Hypothesis" and/or "Tripartite Ideology" (ultimately, I am unconcerned with whether one of those or both are better names than the one at hand, only that those who use the other terms are able to as easily locate this article as those who use "Trifunctional Hypothesis". 204.52.215.69 (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

what happened?

Didn't this article used to be more informative? More explanatory of the hypothesis? For example, the word "estate" doesn't appear here; I have a quote in an article using the phrase "third estate" from a Dumézilian source (since neutrality means including ideas you don't particularly agree with), and I was hoping a link here would elucidate the jargon. It absolutely does not matter that most scholars regard this thesis now as an overly rigid schematization; it was a major provocative theory historically in IE studies and mythography. Glancing at the edit history, I must say: let us not get distracted by the accusations of fascism—these belong in Dumézil's biography, and only glancingly here, as part of the critical perspectives. (And yes, both Momigliano and Lincoln incorporate the political aspect into their criticism.)

It's very disappointing that this has apparently turned into a debate over the validity of the theory, and efforts to exclude parts that make some people unhappy. I mean, I don't believe in penis envy, but in the article I want a straightforward explanation of what Freud thought it was, followed by responses and criticisms, which is what I get. Here, not so much. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure at what point in time the article was better than it is now. Perhaps a diff would help? With regards what the Third Estate is, i'd link the Thrid Estate in the quote to: (Third_Estate#Kingdom_of_France the origins of the Third Estate concept being medieval literature - which Dumézil is referring to. The idea is important in French history, and would be familiar to his audience without recourse to his theories, see here: What Is the Third Estate?. --Davémon (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to clearly define the topic

This article appears to be improvable -- I've read it and I still don't feel that the article clearly expresses what it is, precisely, that the Trifunctional Hypothesis actually asserts. That the three-way classification as described *exists*, and is common in myths in the Indo-European heritage? I'm left with the burden of doing a little guess-work, and am feeling a bit lost during the subsequent discussion of associated implications and controversies. It is my feedback that the addition of a single concise expression of what the hypothesis *is* would provide some necessary orientation for readers, before proceeding to spend the rest of the article quite appropriately talking *about* the hypothesis.

I do understand that Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Is there a better solution? Am I seeing a problem where none exists?

This hypothesis seems to have a non-zero controversy rating, so I'd like to emphasize that I'm suggesting this from a general viewpoint that I feel applies to any article. I make no statement about the actual topic of this one in particular.

Borkabrak (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)