Misplaced Pages

#36963

75-603: The Altaic ( / æ l ˈ t eɪ . ɪ k / ) languages consist of the Turkic , Mongolic and Tungusic language families , with some linguists including the Koreanic and Japonic families. These languages share agglutinative morphology, head-final word order and some vocabulary. The once-popular theory attributing these similarities to a common ancestry has long been rejected by most comparative linguists in favor of language contact , although it continues to be supported by

150-556: A dialect continuum . Turkic languages are spoken by some 200 million people. The Turkic language with the greatest number of speakers is Turkish , spoken mainly in Anatolia and the Balkans ; its native speakers account for about 38% of all Turkic speakers, followed by Uzbek . Characteristic features such as vowel harmony , agglutination , subject-object-verb order, and lack of grammatical gender , are almost universal within

225-540: A closer relationship among those languages. Later proposals to include the Korean and Japanese languages into a "Macro-Altaic" family have always been controversial. The original proposal was sometimes called "Micro-Altaic" by retronymy . Most proponents of Altaic continue to support the inclusion of Korean, but fewer do for Japanese. Some proposals also included Ainuic but this is not widely accepted even among Altaicists themselves. A common ancestral Proto-Altaic language for

300-466: A family consisting of Tungusic, Korean, and Japonic languages, but not Turkic or Mongolic. However, many linguists dispute the alleged affinities of Korean and Japanese to the other three groups. Some authors instead tried to connect Japanese to the Austronesian languages . In 2017, Martine Robbeets proposed that Japanese (and possibly Korean) originated as a hybrid language . She proposed that

375-680: A few important changes to the reconstruction of Proto-Altaic. The authors tried hard to distinguish loans between Turkic and Mongolic and between Mongolic and Tungusic from cognates; and suggest words that occur in Turkic and Tungusic but not in Mongolic. All other combinations between the five branches also occur in the book. It lists 144 items of shared basic vocabulary, including words for such items as 'eye', 'ear', 'neck', 'bone', 'blood', 'water', 'stone', 'sun', and 'two'. Robbeets and Bouckaert (2018) use Bayesian phylolinguistic methods to argue for

450-399: A result, there exist several systems to classify the Turkic languages. The modern genetic classification schemes for Turkic are still largely indebted to Samoilovich (1922). The Turkic languages may be divided into six branches: In this classification, Oghur Turkic is also referred to as Lir-Turkic, and the other branches are subsumed under the title of Shaz-Turkic or Common Turkic . It

525-443: A set of sound change laws that would explain the evolution from Proto-Altaic to the descendant languages. For example, although most of today's Altaic languages have vowel harmony, Proto-Altaic as reconstructed by them lacked it; instead, various vowel assimilations between the first and second syllables of words occurred in Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japonic. They also included a number of grammatical correspondences between

600-587: A small but stable scholarly minority. Like the Uralic language family, which is named after the Ural Mountains, the group is named after the Altai mountain range in the center of Asia. The core grouping of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic is sometimes called "Micro-Altaic", with the expanded group including Koreanic and Japonic labelled as "Macro-Altaic" or "Transeurasian". The Altaic family was first proposed in

675-509: A subgroup of "Transeurasian" consisting only of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, while retaining "Transeurasian" as "Altaic" plus Japonic and Koreanic. The original arguments for grouping the "micro-Altaic" languages within a Uralo-Altaic family were based on such shared features as vowel harmony and agglutination . According to Roy Miller, the most pressing evidence for the theory is the similarities in verbal morphology . The Etymological Dictionary by Starostin and others (2003) proposes

750-618: A typological study that does not directly evaluate the validity of the Altaic hypothesis, Yurayong and Szeto (2020) discuss for Koreanic and Japonic the stages of convergence to the Altaic typological model and subsequent divergence from that model, which resulted in the present typological similarity between Koreanic and Japonic. They state that both are "still so different from the Core Altaic languages that we can even speak of an independent Japanese-Korean type of grammar. Given also that there

825-588: Is Jurchen , the language of the ancestors of the Manchus . A writing system for it was devised in 1119 AD and an inscription using this system is known from 1185 (see List of Jurchen inscriptions ). The earliest Mongolic language of which we have written evidence is known as Middle Mongol . It is first attested by an inscription dated to 1224 or 1225 AD, the Stele of Yisüngge , and by the Secret History of

SECTION 10

#1732771874037

900-463: Is a common characteristic of major language families spoken in Inner Eurasia ( Mongolic , Tungusic , Uralic and Turkic), the type of harmony found in them differs from each other, specifically, Uralic and Turkic have a shared type of vowel harmony (called palatal vowel harmony ) whereas Mongolic and Tungusic represent a different type. The homeland of the Turkic peoples and their language

975-2829: Is another inscription found in Mongolia, dated to 604 to 620 CE, with a Brahmi Mongolic text. The Sogdian inscription has the following text: (Left Side)(‘mwh?) […] (pt)s’kh ‘ws’t δ’r’nt tr’wkt c(yn)st’n kwt(s)’tt ‘γšywn’k (‘YK) [lacuna of some 15 letters] (ZK?)trwkc βγy nw’’r γ’γ’n ‘wskwp’r ckn’cw mγ’n (tykyn pr)[w] (γ’γ’n wy’k) w’(š)t ‘(X)RZY nwkr ZK βγy mwγ’n γ’γ’n ‘PZY βγy mγ’n tyky(n) [lacuna of 5–6 letters, perhaps cyw’nt?] pyštrw?) k’w ‘wrts’r prm prw ‘nγt’k ‘βc’npδ ‘swšwyn’tt wm’[t’nt] [lacuna of some 25 letters] (t ‘XRYZ n)wkr cyw’nt pyštrw βγy m[wγ’n γ’γ’n](Front Side) [lacuna of 35–40 letters] (w) k’w βγy s’r pwrsty rty nw(k)r (k..) […] [lacuna of 30–35 letters] (‘YK?) š’δpyt trγw’nt γwrγ’p(‘)ynt twδwnt s(nk) [wnt][lacuna of 10–12 letters] (t rty pyšt)rw (….t?) [8–10 letters] y tw’ γwyštr ‘XY mwγ’n γ’γ’n pr’yt rty (…) [lacuna of some 15 letters] K(S)Pw (‘n) [β] (γ)t δ’r[t rty n’β] (cy)h šyr’k p’rtw δ’rt rty ms ‘kδry tγw βγy mγ’[n](tyk)[yn] γ[šywny…] (…)δ(…..) rty [about 8 letters] (δ’rt rty) ‘pw ‘nγwncyδ γšywny n’β(c)yh p’r rty nw(k)(βγy mγ’n ty)[kyn lacuna of some 25 letters s](γ)wn ptγwštw δ’rt rty γrγwšk srδy (.)[…](.w’št?)(wγwšw ?) srδ (γš)y(wny.) [lacuna of some 15 letters, βγy t’sp’r] (γ’γ’n) k’w βγyšt s’r pwrst rty pyštrw š’δpyt trγw[‘nt]γwrγ’p’ynt (snk)[wnt] (twδ)[w]nt (’PZY) […](.n) [read [γ’γ](‘n)?] wk[wrtpt](s)dtw δ’rnt rty nwkr βγβwmyn[/i] [so instead of βγy βwmyn] γ’γ’n p’δy (s’r) [….](δ’rt kt?) [….]t rty βγ[y βwmyn] (yn γ’ γ’n) pr(m)’t δ’rt (k)t’yβ βγ’ t’sp’r γ’ γ’n wsn RBk(‘)[lacuna, some 20 letters] (.t) […] (..)rt(y) [w’n’w?] pr(m)’tw δ’rt RBkw nw(h) snk’ ‘wast rty ‘YK nw(k) [r][lacuna, some 20 letters] (.npš ?) [lacuna, about 8 letters] rty βγ’ [instead of βγy] t’(sp’r) γ’γ’n tr(‘γ)t ‘cw npyšnt cw krnw(‘ncy’k?)[h][lacuna, some 40 letters] (…)cw γwrγ(‘)p’ynt cwty wkwrt cw n’βcy’kh ‘(st’t?)[lacuna, some 40 letters] (y) β’r’k ‘sp’δy’n (wr’yt) ‘yt myδ ‘nβγt δ’r’nt [lacuna, some 40 letters] (sγwn) ptγwštw δ’r’nt rty cyw’nt pyštrw […] [lacuna, some 40 letters] (…tw) δ’rt (….t) rty c’n’w δw’ γšywnk [lacuna, some 40 letters] (…tw) δ’r’nt rty (…) šyr’k βrtpδ m’tnt rty [lacuna, some 40 letters] (…n’βcy’kh ?....) p(tsγt’k ?) ‘sp’δ m(…) [lacuna, some 40 letters] (…wyškrtw ?) δ’r’nt (…)[lacuna, some 40 letters] (…)δw’ šyrγw(štt)w m’(t)[‘nt] (Right Side) [lacuna, some 40 letters] (.k?) šyr’k krt(k) [‘krtw?] δ’rt rt[y…] [lacuna, some 40 letters] (s)δtw (δ’r’nt) šyr’k (šy)r’k krtk ‘’βry(t) [δ’r’nt ?] [lacuna, some 40 letters] (….’cw ?) [n’β](c)yh mrt(γm)’k ‘st’t ‘XRYZ (βγym)[γ’n tykyn?] [lacuna, some 40 letters] (‘XRZY βγy ?) […](š)t (nws) [’ws, nwš or nyš ?] (.)wk’ [(p)wk’ or (‘)wk/’ ?] trγw’n ‘YK (m)γ(‘) [n tykn] [illegible traces of letters]. This

1050-443: Is currently regarded as one of the world's primary language families . Turkic is one of the main members of the controversial Altaic language family , but Altaic currently lacks support from a majority of linguists. None of the theories linking Turkic languages to other families have a wide degree of acceptance at present. Shared features with languages grouped together as Altaic have been interpreted by most mainstream linguists to be

1125-548: Is from the 1692 work of Nicolaes Witsen which may be based on a 1661 work of Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur , Genealogy of the Turkmens . A proposed grouping of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages was published in 1730 by Philip Johan von Strahlenberg , a Swedish officer who traveled in the eastern Russian Empire while a prisoner of war after the Great Northern War . However, he may not have intended to imply

1200-483: Is generally regarded as a language isolate . Starting in the late 1950s, some linguists became increasingly critical of even the minimal Altaic family hypothesis, disputing the alleged evidence of genetic connection between Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages. Among the earlier critics were Gerard Clauson (1956), Gerhard Doerfer (1963), and Alexander Shcherbak. They claimed that the words and features shared by Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages were for

1275-468: Is included, 2) to reduce the counterproductive polarization between "Pro-Altaists" and "Anti-Altaists"; 3) to broaden the applicability of the term because the suffix -ic implies affinity while -an leaves room for an areal hypothesis; and 4) to eliminate the reference to the Altai mountains as a potential homeland. In Robbeets and Savelyev, ed. (2020) there was a concerted effort to distinguish "Altaic" as

1350-541: Is neither a strong proof of common Proto-Altaic lexical items nor solid regular sound correspondences but, rather, only lexical and structural borrowings between languages of the Altaic typology, our results indirectly speak in favour of a “Paleo-Asiatic” origin of the Japonic and Koreanic languages." In 1962, John C. Street proposed an alternative classification, with Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic in one grouping and Korean-Japanese- Ainu in another, joined in what he designated as

1425-582: Is not clear when these two major types of Turkic can be assumed to have diverged. With less certainty, the Southwestern, Northwestern, Southeastern and Oghur groups may further be summarized as West Turkic , the Northeastern, Kyrgyz-Kipchak, and Arghu (Khalaj) groups as East Turkic . Geographically and linguistically, the languages of the Northwestern and Southeastern subgroups belong to

1500-517: Is suggested to be somewhere between the Transcaspian steppe and Northeastern Asia ( Manchuria ), with genetic evidence pointing to the region near South Siberia and Mongolia as the "Inner Asian Homeland" of the Turkic ethnicity. Similarly several linguists, including Juha Janhunen , Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, suggest that modern-day Mongolia is the homeland of the early Turkic language. Relying on Proto-Turkic lexical items about

1575-411: Is the least harmonic or not harmonic at all. Taking into account the documented historico-linguistic development of Turkic languages overall, both inscriptional and textual, the family provides over one millennium of documented stages as well as scenarios in the linguistic evolution of vowel harmony which, in turn, demonstrates harmony evolution along a confidently definable trajectory Though vowel harmony

SECTION 20

#1732771874037

1650-597: Is the similarities in verbal morphology. In 2003, Claus Schönig published a critical overview of the history of the Altaic hypothesis up to that time, siding with the earlier criticisms of Clauson, Doerfer, and Shcherbak. In 2003, Starostin, Anna Dybo and Oleg Mudrak published the Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages , which expanded the 1991 lexical lists and added other phonological and grammatical arguments. Starostin's book

1725-552: Is widely rejected by historical linguists. Similarities with the Uralic languages even caused these families to be regarded as one for a long time under the Ural-Altaic hypothesis. However, there has not been sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of either of these macrofamilies. The shared characteristics between the languages are attributed presently to extensive prehistoric language contact . Turkic languages are null-subject languages , have vowel harmony (with

1800-415: The ğ in dağ and dağlı is not realized as a consonant, but as a slight lengthening of the preceding vowel. The following table is based mainly upon the classification scheme presented by Lars Johanson . [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] The following is a brief comparison of cognates among the basic vocabulary across

1875-606: The Catholic missionaries sent to the Western Cumans inhabiting a region corresponding to present-day Hungary and Romania . The earliest records of the language spoken by Volga Bulgars , debatably the parent or a distant relative of Chuvash language , are dated to the 13th–14th centuries AD. With the Turkic expansion during the Early Middle Ages (c. 6th–11th centuries AD), Turkic languages, in

1950-559: The Chuvash language from other Turkic languages. According to him, the Chuvash language does not share certain common characteristics with Turkic languages to such a degree that some scholars consider it an independent Chuvash family similar to Uralic and Turkic languages. Turkic classification of Chuvash was seen as a compromise solution for the classification purposes. Some lexical and extensive typological similarities between Turkic and

2025-851: The Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences and remains influential as a substratum of Turanism , where a hypothetical common linguistic ancestor has been used in part as a basis for a multiethnic nationalist movement. The earliest attested expressions in Proto-Turkic are recorded in various Chinese sources. Anna Dybo identifies in Shizi (330 BCE) and the Book of Han (111 CE) several dozen Proto-Turkic exotisms in Chinese Han transcriptions. Lanhai Wei and Hui Li reconstruct

2100-426: The Turkic peoples of Eurasia from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe to Central Asia , East Asia , North Asia ( Siberia ), and West Asia . The Turkic languages originated in a region of East Asia spanning from Mongolia to Northwest China , where Proto-Turkic is thought to have been spoken, from where they expanded to Central Asia and farther west during the first millennium. They are characterized as

2175-437: The ancestral home of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages was somewhere in northwestern Manchuria . A group of those proto-Altaic ("Transeurasian") speakers would have migrated south into the modern Liaoning province, where they would have been mostly assimilated by an agricultural community with an Austronesian -like language. The fusion of the two languages would have resulted in proto-Japanese and proto-Korean. In

2250-471: The " Turco-Mongol " tradition. The two groups shared a similar religion system, Tengrism , and there exists a multitude of evident loanwords between Turkic languages and Mongolic languages . Although the loans were bidirectional, today Turkic loanwords constitute the largest foreign component in Mongolian vocabulary. Italian historian and philologist Igor de Rachewiltz noted a significant distinction of

2325-513: The "Macro" family has been tentatively reconstructed by Sergei Starostin and others. Micro-Altaic includes about 66 living languages, to which Macro-Altaic would add Korean, Jeju , Japanese, and the Ryukyuan languages , for a total of about 74 (depending on what is considered a language and what is considered a dialect ). These numbers do not include earlier states of languages, such as Middle Mongol , Old Korean , or Old Japanese . In 1844,

Altaic languages - Misplaced Pages Continue

2400-493: The "North Asiatic" family. The inclusion of Ainu was adopted also by James Patrie in 1982. The Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic and Korean-Japanese-Ainu groupings were also posited in 2000–2002 by Joseph Greenberg . However, he treated them as independent members of a larger family, which he termed Eurasiatic . The inclusion of Ainu is not widely accepted by Altaicists. In fact, no convincing genealogical relationship between Ainu and any other language family has been demonstrated, and it

2475-412: The "Uralic" branch. The term continues to be used for the central Eurasian typological, grammatical and lexical convergence zone. Indeed, "Ural-Altaic" may be preferable to "Altaic" in this sense. For example, Juha Janhunen states that "speaking of 'Altaic' instead of 'Ural-Altaic' is a misconception, for there are no areal or typological features that are specific to 'Altaic' without Uralic." In 1857,

2550-492: The 18th century. It was widely accepted until the 1960s and is still listed in many encyclopedias and handbooks, and references to Altaic as a language family continue to percolate to modern sources through these older sources. Since the 1950s, most comparative linguists have rejected the proposal, after supposed cognates were found not to be valid, hypothesized sound shifts were not found, and Turkic and Mongolic languages were found to have been converging rather than diverging over

2625-415: The Altaic problem since the publication of the first volume of Ramstedt's Einführung in 1952. The dates given are those of works concerning Altaic. For supporters of the theory, the version of Altaic they favor is given at the end of the entry, if other than the prevailing one of Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic–Korean–Japanese. In Robbeets and Johanson (2010), there was a proposal to replace the name "Altaic" with

2700-579: The Austrian scholar Anton Boller suggested adding Japanese to the Ural–Altaic family. In the 1920s, G.J. Ramstedt and E.D. Polivanov advocated the inclusion of Korean. Decades later, in his 1952 book, Ramstedt rejected the Ural–Altaic hypothesis but again included Korean in Altaic, an inclusion followed by most leading Altaicists (supporters of the theory) to date. His book contained the first comprehensive attempt to identify regular correspondences among

2775-752: The Finnish philologist Matthias Castrén proposed a broader grouping which later came to be called the Ural–Altaic family , which included Turkic, Mongolian, and Manchu-Tungus (=Tungusic) as an "Altaic" branch, and also the Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic languages as the "Uralic" branch (though Castrén himself used the terms "Tataric" and "Chudic"). The name "Altaic" referred to the Altai Mountains in East-Central Asia, which are approximately

2850-627: The Mongols , written in 1228 (see Mongolic languages ). The earliest Para-Mongolic text is the Memorial for Yelü Yanning , written in the Khitan large script and dated to 986 AD. However, the Inscription of Hüis Tolgoi , discovered in 1975 and analysed as being in an early form of Mongolic, has been dated to 604–620 AD. The Bugut inscription dates back to 584 AD. Japanese is first attested in

2925-453: The Turkic family. There is a high degree of mutual intelligibility , upon moderate exposure, among the various Oghuz languages , which include Turkish , Azerbaijani , Turkmen , Qashqai , Chaharmahali Turkic , Gagauz , and Balkan Gagauz Turkish , as well as Oghuz-influenced Crimean Tatar . Other Turkic languages demonstrate varying amounts of mutual intelligibility within their subgroups as well. Although methods of classification vary,

3000-442: The Turkic language family (about 60 words). Despite being cognates, some of the words may denote a different meaning. Empty cells do not necessarily imply that a particular language is lacking a word to describe the concept, but rather that the word for the concept in that language may be formed from another stem and is not cognate with the other words in the row or that a loanword is used in its place. Also, there may be shifts in

3075-496: The Turkic languages are usually considered to be divided into two branches: Oghur , of which the only surviving member is Chuvash , and Common Turkic , which includes all other Turkic languages. Turkic languages show many similarities with the Mongolic , Tungusic , Koreanic , and Japonic languages. These similarities have led some linguists (including Talât Tekin ) to propose an Altaic language family , though this proposal

Altaic languages - Misplaced Pages Continue

3150-593: The West. (See picture in the box on the right above.) For centuries, the Turkic-speaking peoples have migrated extensively and intermingled continuously, and their languages have been influenced mutually and through contact with the surrounding languages, especially the Iranian , Slavic , and Mongolic languages . This has obscured the historical developments within each language and/or language group, and as

3225-673: The ancient title of khagan. The Turks allied with the Byzantine Empire against the Sasanians. Byzantine envoy Zemarchus visited Istemi Khagan in the Altai Mountains (Golden Mountains) in 569. The Sogdian language of the inscriptions reflects the prominence of Sogdians on the Silk Road. Sogdians were East Iranians from Sogdia , one of the satrapies of the Achaemenid Empire . The Mongolic Rouran inscription reflects

3300-525: The center of the geographic range of the three main families. The name "Uralic" referred to the Ural Mountains . While the Ural-Altaic family hypothesis can still be found in some encyclopedias, atlases, and similar general references, since the 1960s it has been heavily criticized. Even linguists who accept the basic Altaic family, such as Sergei Starostin , completely discard the inclusion of

3375-433: The central Turkic languages, while the Northeastern and Khalaj languages are the so-called peripheral languages. Hruschka, et al. (2014) use computational phylogenetic methods to calculate a tree of Turkic based on phonological sound changes . The following isoglosses are traditionally used in the classification of the Turkic languages: Additional isoglosses include: *In the standard Istanbul dialect of Turkish,

3450-510: The centuries. The relationship between the Altaic languages is now generally accepted to be the result of a sprachbund rather than common ancestry, with the languages showing influence from prolonged contact . Altaic has maintained a limited degree of scholarly support, in contrast to some other early macrofamily proposals. Continued research on Altaic is still being undertaken by a core group of academic linguists, but their research has not found wider support. In particular it has support from

3525-584: The climate, topography, flora, fauna, people's modes of subsistence, Turkologist Peter Benjamin Golden locates the Proto-Turkic Urheimat in the southern, taiga-steppe zone of the Sayan - Altay region. Extensive contact took place between Proto-Turks and Proto-Mongols approximately during the first millennium BC; the shared cultural tradition between the two Eurasian nomadic groups is called

3600-473: The coherence of the "narrow" Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic) together with Japonic and Koreanic, which they refer to as the Transeurasian languages. Their results include the following phylogenetic tree: Japonic Koreanic Tungusic Mongolic Turkic Turkic languages The Turkic languages are a language family of more than 35 documented languages, spoken by

3675-502: The common morphological elements between Korean and Turkic are not less numerous than between Turkic and other Altaic languages, strengthens the possibility that there is a close genetic affinity between Korean and Turkic. Many historians also point out a close non-linguistic relationship between Turkic peoples and Koreans . Especially close were the relations between the Göktürks and Goguryeo . Bugut inscription The stele

3750-612: The course of just a few centuries, spread across Central Asia , from Siberia to the Mediterranean . Various terminologies from the Turkic languages have passed into Persian , Urdu , Ukrainian , Russian , Chinese , Mongolian , Hungarian and to a lesser extent, Arabic . The geographical distribution of Turkic-speaking peoples across Eurasia since the Ottoman era ranges from the North-East of Siberia to Turkey in

3825-403: The early Turkic language. According to him, words related to nature, earth and ruling but especially to the sky and stars seem to be cognates. The linguist Choi suggested already in 1996 a close relationship between Turkic and Korean regardless of any Altaic connections: In addition, the fact that the morphological elements are not easily borrowed between languages, added to the fact that

SECTION 50

#1732771874037

3900-591: The family. The Compendium is the first comprehensive dictionary of the Turkic languages and also includes the first known map of the Turkic speakers' geographical distribution. It mainly pertains to the Southwestern branch of the family. The Codex Cumanicus (12th–13th centuries AD) concerning the Northwestern branch is another early linguistic manual, between the Kipchak language and Latin , used by

3975-780: The form of names contained in a few short inscriptions in Classical Chinese from the 5th century AD, such as found on the Inariyama Sword . The first substantial text in Japanese, however, is the Kojiki , which dates from 712 AD. It is followed by the Nihon shoki , completed in 720, and then by the Man'yōshū , which dates from c. 771–785, but includes material that is from about 400 years earlier. The most important text for

4050-753: The help of the Western Wei . The Gokturks proceeded to defeat the Hepthalites with the help of the Sasanian Empire of Persia in 560 CE. The defeat of the Rouran and Hephthalites and their pursuit by the Turks precipitated the migration of the Avars into Eastern Europe. Charlemagne would ultimately accept their surrender in 798 at Aachen and send one native chief, baptised Abraham, back to Avaria with

4125-644: The influence of the previous Rouran Khaganate. The title Khagan was first used by the Rourans who were an offshoot of the Xianbei similar to the Tuoba , Khitan , Tuyuhun and Shiwei ( Mongols ). Some Rouran nobility were Buddhists . The wolf at the top of the stele reflects the Turks' belief in their origin from a wolf like the Mongols. The vertical orientation of the inscriptions and the turtle base reflects cultural influence from China. The Inscription of Hüis Tolgoi

4200-414: The languages. Starostin claimed in 1991 that the members of the proposed Altaic group shared about 15–20% of apparent cognates within a 110-word Swadesh-Yakhontov list ; in particular, Turkic–Mongolic 20%, Turkic–Tungusic 18%, Turkic–Korean 17%, Mongolic–Tungusic 22%, Mongolic–Korean 16%, and Tungusic–Korean 21%. The 2003 Etymological Dictionary includes a list of 2,800 proposed cognate sets, as well as

4275-450: The lord M[uhan-qaghan] (Front Side) [… died. And …] asks the God, and then … … … When (?)šadapït(s), tarkhwans, qurqapïns, tuduns, säng[üns] [approved (?)] and after that [thus addressed him]: ‘Your elder brother Muhan-qaghan died. And … … [he well (?)] distributed the money [and] well fed [the peo]ple. And thus now you, lord Maha[n]- –tegin, ………, and feed the people without such a ruler!’ And now

4350-455: The lord Mahan-te[gin ….], he listened to this words and in the Hare year … ascended (?) six(?) years he ruled […. The lord Taspar (?)]-qaghan asked the gods. And then šadapïts, tarkhw[ans] qurqapïns, sängüns, tuduns, the kinsmen (of the qaghan) approved. And then he addressed the adobe of the lord Bumïn-qaghan thus: ‘[show!]’. And the lord Bumïn-qaghan ordered: ‘Oh lord, Taspar-qaghan! You must … for

4425-975: The meaning from one language to another, and so the "Common meaning" given is only approximate. In some cases, the form given is found only in some dialects of the language, or a loanword is much more common (e.g. in Turkish, the preferred word for "fire" is the Persian-derived ateş , whereas the native od is dead). Forms are given in native Latin orthographies unless otherwise noted. (to press with one's knees) Azerbaijani "ǝ" and "ä": IPA /æ/ Azerbaijani "q": IPA /g/, word-final "q": IPA /x/ Turkish and Azerbaijani "ı", Karakhanid "ɨ", Turkmen "y", and Sakha "ï": IPA /ɯ/ Turkmen "ň", Karakhanid "ŋ": IPA /ŋ/ Turkish and Azerbaijani "y",Turkmen "ý" and "j" in other languages: IPA /j/ All "ş" and "š" letters: IPA /ʃ/ All "ç" and "č" letters: IPA /t͡ʃ/ Kyrgyz "c": IPA /d͡ʒ/ Kazakh "j": IPA /ʒ/ The Turkic language family

4500-403: The most part borrowings and that the rest could be attributed to chance resemblances. In 1988, Doerfer again rejected all the genetic claims over these major groups. A major continuing supporter of the Altaic hypothesis has been Sergei Starostin , who published a comparative lexical analysis of the Altaic languages in 1991. He concluded that the analysis supported the Altaic grouping, although it

4575-433: The name "Transeurasian". While "Altaic" has sometimes included Japonic, Koreanic, and other languages or families, but only on the consideration of particular authors, "Transeurasian" was specifically intended to always include Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Japonic, and Koreanic. Robbeets and Johanson gave as their reasoning for the new term: 1) to avoid confusion between the different uses of Altaic as to which group of languages

SECTION 60

#1732771874037

4650-654: The name of the Xiōngnú ruling house as PT * Alayundluğ /alajuntˈluγ/ 'piebald horse clan.' The earliest known texts in a Turkic language are the Orkhon inscriptions , 720–735 AD. They were deciphered in 1893 by the Danish linguist Vilhelm Thomsen in a scholarly race with his rival, the German–Russian linguist Wilhelm Radloff . However, Radloff was the first to publish the inscriptions. The first Tungusic language to be attested

4725-911: The nearby Tungusic and Mongolic families, as well as the Korean and Japonic families has in more recent years been instead attributed to prehistoric contact amongst the group, sometimes referred to as the Northeast Asian sprachbund . A more recent (circa first millennium BC) contact between "core Altaic" (Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic) is distinguished from this, due to the existence of definitive common words that appear to have been mostly borrowed from Turkic into Mongolic, and later from Mongolic into Tungusic, as Turkic borrowings into Mongolic significantly outnumber Mongolic borrowings into Turkic, and Turkic and Tungusic do not share any words that do not also exist in Mongolic. Turkic languages also show some Chinese loanwords that point to early contact during

4800-434: The notable exception of Uzbek due to strong Persian-Tajik influence), converbs , extensive agglutination by means of suffixes and postpositions , and lack of grammatical articles , noun classes , and grammatical gender . Subject–object–verb word order is universal within the family. In terms of the level of vowel harmony in the Turkic language family, Tuvan is characterized as almost fully harmonic whereas Uzbek

4875-522: The result of a sprachbund . The possibility of a genetic relation between Turkic and Korean , independently from Altaic, is suggested by some linguists. The linguist Kabak (2004) of the University of Würzburg states that Turkic and Korean share similar phonology as well as morphology . Li Yong-Sŏng (2014) suggest that there are several cognates between Turkic and Old Korean . He states that these supposed cognates can be useful to reconstruct

4950-408: The sake of the great […..] and he ordered: ‘Establish a great new samgha!’ And then when […..] and the lord Taspar-qaghan was distressed, [whether there was] anybody of the grandsons who [had] the ability (?) […..] … is there anybody of the qurqapïns, of the kinsmen, of the people … and equestarian warrior(s) thus distributed the prey(?) [….] they heard [these] words and after this […] [….] he ….. And as

5025-486: The sound systems within the Altaic language families. In 1960, Nicholas Poppe published what was in effect a heavily revised version of Ramstedt's volume on phonology that has since set the standard in Altaic studies. Poppe considered the issue of the relationship of Korean to Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic not settled. In his view, there were three possibilities: (1) Korean did not belong with the other three genealogically, but had been influenced by an Altaic substratum; (2) Korean

5100-435: The study of early Korean is the Hyangga , a collection of 25 poems, of which some go back to the Three Kingdoms period (57 BC–668 AD), but are preserved in an orthography that only goes back to the 9th century AD. Korean is copiously attested from the mid-15th century on in the phonetically precise Hangul system of writing. The earliest known reference to a unified language group of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages

5175-453: The time of Proto-Turkic . The first established records of the Turkic languages are the eighth century AD Orkhon inscriptions by the Göktürks , recording the Old Turkic language, which were discovered in 1889 in the Orkhon Valley in Mongolia. The Compendium of the Turkic Dialects ( Divânü Lügati't-Türk ), written during the 11th century AD by Kaşgarlı Mahmud of the Kara-Khanid Khanate , constitutes an early linguistic treatment of

5250-401: The two rulers […..] they … and … they were full of knowledge and […] the people(?) … an equipped (?) army ….. […..] they conquered (?) ….. […..] they were friends (Right Side) […..] he accomplished many good deeds. And …..[…..] they approved, ‘very (or: many) good deeds’ – they praised […..] is there any such man among the people [who would be able …?]. And the lord M[ahan-tegin ?] .[…..] And

5325-406: Was "older than most other language families in Eurasia, such as Indo-European or Finno-Ugric, and this is the reason why the modern Altaic languages preserve few common elements". In 1991 and again in 1996, Roy Miller defended the Altaic hypothesis and claimed that the criticisms of Clauson and Doerfer apply exclusively to the lexical correspondences, whereas the most pressing evidence for the theory

5400-450: Was criticized by Stefan Georg in 2004 and 2005, and by Alexander Vovin in 2005. Other defenses of the theory, in response to the criticisms of Georg and Vovin, were published by Starostin in 2005, Blažek in 2006, Robbeets in 2007, and Dybo and G. Starostin in 2008. In 2010, Lars Johanson echoed Miller's 1996 rebuttal to the critics, and called for a muting of the polemic. The list below comprises linguists who have worked specifically on

5475-652: Was erected in 584 CE with a latest date of 587 CE. It is dedicated to Taspar Khagan who is also called Tatpar Khagan. By this time the Turkic Khaganate stretched from Manchuria to the Black Sea. It controlled the Silk Road while its imperial seat of power was in central Mongolia. The Turkic Khaganate replaced their previous overlords the Rouran Khaganate (also called Ruanruan) in 552 with

5550-547: Was related to the other three at the same level they were related to each other; (3) Korean had split off from the other three before they underwent a series of characteristic changes. Roy Andrew Miller 's 1971 book Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages convinced most Altaicists that Japanese also belonged to Altaic. Since then, the "Macro-Altaic" has been generally assumed to include Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese. In 1990, Unger advocated

5625-444: Was translated into English by Sergej G. Kljaštornyj and Vladimir A. Livšic: (Left Side) This stele was erected by the Turks (under) Kwts’tt the ruler of China when … … the Turkish lord Nivar-qaghan. Since Mahan- –tegin ascended the place of qaghan, the lord Muhan-qaghan and the lord Mahan-tegin after [that they] were saviours for the whole world during a long period [lit. after that and in the future] … … … And now thereupon, after this,

#36963