It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Altaic languages. (Discuss) In comparative linguistics, the Altaic hypothesis (AH) holds that there is an Altaic language family which consists minimally of the following branches: Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic. These languages are of the SOV type, are agglutinative and share morphophonological harmony. Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. ...
It has been suggested that Altaic hypothesis be merged into this article or section. ...
Historical linguistics (also diachronic linguistics or comparative linguistics) is primarily the study of the ways in which languages change over time, by means of examining languages which are recognizably related through similarities such as vocabulary, word formation, and syntax, as well as the surviving records of ancient languages. ...
It has been suggested that Altaic hypothesis be merged into this article or section. ...
The Turkic languages constitute a language family of some thirty languages, spoken across a vast area from Eastern Europe to Siberia and Western China with an estimated 140 million native speakers and tens of millions of second-language speakers. ...
Mongolian is the best-known member of the Mongolic language family, and the primary language of most of the residents of Mongolia. ...
Tungusic languages (or Manchu-Tungus languages) are spoken in Eastern Siberia and Manchuria. ...
Some have argued that there is a Ural-Altaic super-family. While the Uralic languages (Finnic, Ugric, Samoyedic) share important typological (particularly morphophonological) features with Altaic, the Ural-Altaic hypothesis is currently considered unproven. It has been suggested that Altaic hypothesis be merged into this article or section. ...
It has been suggested that Altaic hypothesis be merged into this article or section. ...
Other language connections Korean
Some Altaists have proposed Korean-Altaic affinity. Others, including solidly mainstream ones like Nikolai Poppe, have supported or at least not rejected this proposal. Poppe's assumption that such a Korean-Altaic relationship goes back to a pre-Altaic stage ought to be noted.
Japanese
Some, notably Roy Andrew Miller, have argued for Japanese-Altaic affinity. Roy Andrew Miller is a linguist notable for his advocacy of Japanese and Korean as members of the Altaic group of languages. ...
Dravidian
Notable among the less accepted hypotheses is that of Dravidian-Altaic affinity. The Dravidian family of languages includes approximately 26 languages that are mainly spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka, as well as certain areas in Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and eastern and central India, as well as in parts of Afghanistan and Iran. ...
Criticism of the hypothesis The main arguments used by the critics of the Altaic hypothesis (in recent years particularly Gerhard Doerfer and a number of European Turcologists and Mongolists) to discredit the hypothesis are mostly based upon criteria used in Indo-European research, criteria they seem to assume to be universally applicable. Evidence for this is found in two of the main weaknesses of the AH as alleged by the anti-Altaists:
Absence or scarcity of cognates among numerals This poses questions regarding the universal validity of numerals as mandatory indicators of genealogical affinity. The fact that numerals seem to supply evidence for the Indo-European hypothesis ought not lead us to assume that this applies universally. In this regard it would be interesting to hear from those who specialize in numeral systems development as well as from those who deal with genealogical groups in which numeral systems are relatively less developed (e.g., among Australian languages). The Indo-European languages comprise a family of several hundred languages and dialects [1], including most of the major languages of Europe, as well as many in Southwest Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. ...
The Australian Aboriginal languages are a Australia, and the rest are descended linguistically from them. ...
Scarcity of cognates among terms for parts of the body This appears to be a weak argument. Quite a large number of cognates have been identified among Altaic terms for parts of the body. Many of these have undergone considerable semantic shifts among the main branches, which is why they were not immediately apparent to earlier investigators.
Turkic-Mongolic and Mongolic-Tungusic "pseudo-cognates" but no direct Turkic-Tungusic ones This has been taken as one of the main indicators that we are dealing with lexical borrowing rather than with genealogical affinity. This is mostly based on geographical distribution and thus on the assumption that there used to be no direct Turkic-Tungusic contacts.
An impressive number of direct Turkic-Tungusic cognates have been identified especially in recent years. However, most of these have only been presented to small audiences or to institute-internal readers so far. Extensive distribution of this information is needed. In the light of such research data, maintaining the lexical borrowing argument (e.g., by arguing that in all such cases the corresponding words were lost in all Mongolic languages) could be seen as taking the anti-Altiac argument beyond its inherent limits. Mongolian is the best-known member of the Mongolic language family, and the primary language of most of the residents of Mongolia. ...
Proto-Altaic The Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic pronominal systems bear astonishing resemblance, which enables us to reconstruct a proto-Altaic system. However, this has been dismissed by many linguists as irrelevant, since this proto-Altaic system bears great resemblance not only to the proto-Uralic one but also to the Indo-European one.
References - Georg, S., Michalove, P.A., Manaster Ramer, A., Sidwell, P.J.: Telling general linguists about Altaic. Journal of Linguistics 35 (1999): 65-98. Online abstract
- LINGUIST Mailing List, 18 Aug 1994, Reinhard F. Hahn
External links |
Feeds |
Contact