Misplaced Pages

#243756

40-549: Connections with the Uralic and other language families are generally seen as speculative, including Fortescue's Uralo-Siberian hypothesis. Fortescue's observations have been evaluated by specialists as "inspiring" and "compelling" but are viewed as scattered evidence and still remain highly speculative and unproven and the soundness of the reconstructed common ancestors are challenging to evaluate. Structural similarities between Uralic and Eskaleut languages were observed early. In 1746,

80-568: A " Boreal languages  [ ru ] " hypothesis linking the Indo-European , Uralic , and Altaic (including Korean in his later papers) language families. Andreev also proposed 203 lexical roots for his hypothesized Boreal macrofamily. After Andreev's death in 1997, the Boreal hypothesis was further expanded by Sorin Paliga (2003, 2007). Angela Marcantonio (2002) argues that there

120-526: A Ural-Altaic language family, though he does not claim linguistic affinity between any of the six groups. Danish philologist Rasmus Christian Rask described what he called "Scythian" languages in 1834, which included Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Samoyedic, Eskimo, Caucasian, Basque and others. The Ural-Altaic hypothesis was elaborated at least as early as 1836 by W. Schott and in 1838 by F. J. Wiedemann . The "Altaic" hypothesis, as mentioned by Finnish linguist and explorer Matthias Castrén by 1844, included

160-472: A lesser extent even within Uralic. One alleged Ural-Altaic similarity among this data are the Hungarian ( három ) and Mongolian ( ɣurban ) numerals for '3'. According to Róna-Tas (1983), elevating this similarity to a hypothesis of common origin would still require several ancillary hypotheses: The following consonant correspondences between Uralic and Altaic are asserted by Poppe (1983): Regardless of

200-612: A number of grammatical similarities and a small number of lexical correspondences. In 1962, Morris Swadesh proposed a relationship between the Eskaleut and Chukotko-Kamchatkan language families. In 1998, Michael Fortescue presented more detailed arguments in his book, Language Relations across Bering Strait . His title evokes Morris Swadesh's 1962 article, "Linguistic relations across the Bering Strait". Fortescue (1998, pp. 60–95) surveys 44 typological markers and argues that

240-435: A possible common origin or lack thereof, Uralic-Altaic languages can be spoken of as a convergence zone . Although it has not yet been possible to demonstrate a genetic relationship or a significant amount of common vocabulary between the languages other than loanwords, according to the linguist Juha Jahunen, the languages must have had a common linguistic homeland. The Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages have been spoken in

280-454: A remote relationship between Uralo-Siberian and Altaic (or some part of Altaic) is likely (see Ural–Altaic languages ). However, Fortescue holds that Uralo-Siberian lies within the bounds of the provable, whereas Nostratic may be too remote a grouping to ever be convincingly demonstrated. The University of Leiden linguist Frederik Kortlandt (2006:1) asserts that Indo-Uralic (a proposed language family consisting of Uralic and Indo-European)

320-747: A typological profile uniquely identifying the language families proposed to comprise the Uralo-Siberian family can be established. The Uralo-Siberian hypothesis is rooted in the assumption that this distinct typological profile was, rather than an areal profile common to four unrelated language families, the profile of a single language ancestral to all four: Proto-Uralo-Siberian. None of the four families shows all of these 17 features; ranging from 12 reconstructible in Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan to 16 in Proto-Uralic . Frequently

360-656: Is itself a branch of Uralo-Siberian and that, furthermore, the Nivkh language also belongs to Uralo-Siberian. This would make Uralo-Siberian the proto-language of a much vaster language family. Kortlandt (2006:3) considers that Uralo-Siberian and Altaic (defined by him as consisting of Turkic, Mongolian, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese) may be coordinate branches of the Eurasiatic language family proposed by Joseph Greenberg but rejected by most linguists. Marcus W%C3%B8ldike Too Many Requests If you report this error to

400-526: Is no sufficient evidence for a Finno-Ugric or Uralic group connecting the Finno-Permic and Ugric languages , and suggests that they are no more closely related to each other than either is to Turkic, thereby positing a grouping very similar to Ural–Altaic or indeed to Castrén's original Altaic proposal. This thesis has been criticized by mainstream Uralic scholars. There is general agreement on several typological similarities being widely found among

440-626: Is to Indo-European (for example Greenberg ). To demonstrate the existence of a language family, it is necessary to find cognate words that trace back to a common proto-language. Shared vocabulary alone does not show a relationship, as it may be loaned from one language to another or through the language of a third party. There are shared words between, for example, Turkic and Ugric languages, or Tungusic and Samoyedic languages, which are explainable by borrowing. However, it has been difficult to find Ural–Altaic words shared across all involved language families. Such words should be found in all branches of

SECTION 10

#1732779965244

480-499: The Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic , grouped as "Chudic", and Turkic , Mongolic , and Tungusic , grouped as "Tataric". Subsequently, in the latter half of the 19th century, Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic came to be referred to as Altaic languages , whereas Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic were called Uralic . The similarities between these two families led to their retention in a common grouping, named Ural–Altaic. Friedrich Max Müller ,

520-472: The Nostratic hypothesis, which was popular for a time, with for example Allan Bomhard treating Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European as coordinate branches. However, Nostratic too is now rejected. The concept of a Ural-Altaic ethnic and language family goes back to the linguistic theories of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz ; in his opinion there was no better method for specifying the relationship and origin of

560-582: The Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic groups; within Altaic most of the Tungusic family as well as Siberian Turkic and Buryat (Mongolic); as well as Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Eskimo–Aleut, Nivkh , and Yeniseian . The Altaic language family was generally accepted by linguists from the late 19th century up to the 1960s, but since then has been in dispute. For simplicity's sake, the following discussion assumes

600-487: The Paleo-Siberian languages , including Eskimo–Aleut , are also descended. He posits that this ancestral language, together with Indo-European and Kartvelian , descends from a " Eurasiatic " protolanguage some 12,000 years ago, which in turn would be descended from a "Borean" protolanguage via Nostratic . In the 1980s, Russian linguist N. D. Andreev  [ ru ] (Nikolai Dmitrievich Andreev) proposed

640-519: The Scythian family were: the Greek language, the family of Sarmato-Slavic languages (Russian, Polish, Czech, Dalmatian, Bulgar, Slovene, Avar and Khazar), the family of Turkic languages (Turkish, Cuman , Kalmyk and Mongolian), the family of Finno-Ugric languages (Finnish, Saami, Hungarian, Estonian, Liv and Samoyed). Although his theory and grouping were far from perfect, they had a considerable effect on

680-533: The Uralic and the Altaic (in the narrow sense) languages. It is now generally agreed that even the Altaic languages do not share a common descent: the similarities between Turkic , Mongolic and Tungusic are better explained by diffusion and borrowing. Just as in Altaic, the internal structure of the Uralic family has been debated since the family was first proposed. Doubts about the validity of most or all of

720-460: The 18th century, the genealogical and racial hypotheses remained debated into the mid-20th century, often with disagreements exacerbated by pan-nationalist agendas. The Ural-Altaic hypothesis had many proponents in Britain. Since the 1960s, the proposed language family has been widely rejected. A relationship between the Altaic, Indo-European and Uralic families was revived in the context of

760-514: The Danish theologian Marcus Wøldike  [ da ] compared Greenlandic to Hungarian . In 1818, Rasmus Rask considered Greenlandic to be related to the Uralic languages, Finnish in particular, and presented a list of lexical correspondences (Rask also considered Uralic and Altaic to be related to each other). In 1959, Knut Bergsland published the paper The Eskimo–Uralic Hypothesis , in which he, like other authors before him, presented

800-937: The German Orientalist and philologist, published and proposed a new grouping of the non-Aryan and non-Semitic Asian languages in 1855. In his work The Languages of the Seat of War in the East , he called these languages " Turanian ". Müller divided this group into two subgroups, the Southern Division, and the Northern Division. In the long run, his evolutionist theory about languages' structural development, tying growing grammatical refinement to socio-economic development, and grouping languages into 'antediluvian', 'familial', 'nomadic', and 'political' developmental stages, proved unsound, but his Northern Division

840-481: The Manchurian region, and there is little chance that a similar structural typology of Uralic languages could have emerged without close contact between them. The languages of Turkish and Finnish have many similar structures, such as vowel harmony and agglutination , and it has been suggested by Edward Vajda that Early Turkic may have loaned palatal harmony from Uralic. Similarly, according to Janhunen,

SECTION 20

#1732779965244

880-494: The Uralic and Altaic trees and should follow regular sound changes from the proto-language to known modern languages, and regular sound changes from Proto-Ural–Altaic to give Proto-Uralic and Proto-Altaic words should be found to demonstrate the existence of a Ural–Altaic vocabulary. Instead, candidates for Ural–Altaic cognate sets can typically be supported by only one of the Altaic subfamilies. In contrast, about 200 Proto-Uralic word roots are known and universally accepted, and for

920-528: The Ural–Altaic hypothesis as "an idea now completely discarded". There are, however, a number of hypotheses that propose a larger macrofamily including Uralic, Altaic and other families. None of these hypotheses has widespread support. In Starostin's sketch of a " Borean " super-phylum, he puts Uralic and Altaic as daughters of an ancestral language of c. 9,000 years ago from which the Dravidian languages and

960-507: The Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below. Request from 172.68.168.226 via cp1108 cp1108, Varnish XID 189553871 Upstream caches: cp1108 int Error: 429, Too Many Requests at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:46:05 GMT Ural%E2%80%93Altaic languages Ural-Altaic , Uralo-Altaic , Uraltaic , or Turanic is a linguistic convergence zone and abandoned language-family proposal uniting

1000-478: The common agglutinating features may have arisen independently. Beginning in the 1960s, the hypothesis came to be seen even more controversial, due to the Altaic family itself also falling out universal acceptance. Today, the hypothesis that Uralic and Altaic are related more closely to one another than to any other family has almost no adherents. In his Altaic Etymological Dictionary , co-authored with Anna V. Dybo and Oleg A. Mudrak, Sergei Starostin characterized

1040-640: The development of linguistic research, especially in German-speaking countries. In his book An historico-geographical description of the north and east parts of Europe and Asia , published in 1730, Philip Johan von Strahlenberg , Swedish prisoner-of-war and explorer of Siberia, who accompanied Daniel Gottlieb Messerschmidt on his expeditions, described Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Samoyedic, Mongolic, Tungusic and Caucasian peoples as sharing linguistic and cultural commonalities. 20th century scholarship has on several occasions incorrectly credited him with proposing

1080-424: The following grammatical similarities to point to a relationship: Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskaleut number and case markers: Yukaghir and Proto-Eskaleut verbal and nominal inflections: Some or all of the four Uralo-Siberian families have been included in more extensive groupings of languages (see links below). Fortescue's hypothesis does not oppose or exclude these various proposals. In particular, he considers that

1120-558: The following: Fortescue (1998) lists 94 lexical correspondence sets with reflexes in at least three of the four language families, and even more shared by two of the language families. Examples are *ap(p)a 'grandfather', *kað'a 'mountain' and many others. Below are some lexical items reconstructed to Proto-Uralo-Siberian, along with their reflexes in Proto-Uralic , Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan (sometimes Proto-Chukchi ), and Proto-Eskaleut (sometimes Proto-Eskimo or Aleut ). (Source: Fortescue 1998:152–158.) Proposed cognates between

1160-523: The languages considered under Ural–Altaic: Such similarities do not constitute sufficient evidence of genetic relationship all on their own, as other explanations are possible. Juha Janhunen has argued that although Ural–Altaic is to be rejected as a genealogical relationship, it remains a viable concept as a well-defined language area , which in his view has formed through the historical interaction and convergence of four core language families (Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic), and their influence on

1200-471: The languages: According to Ante Aikio (who does not believe that Yukaghir is related to Uralic), the words glossed 'weave' and 'morning' in the last two rows, despite being homonyms in each language, are most likely unrelated. Such instances of coincidental homonymy between languages, which only very rarely happens by chance, suggest that some kind of contact most likely happened, but exact conclusions cannot be drawn with modern information. Fortescue suggested

1240-425: The latter are to each other. This distinction is often overlooked but is fundamental to the genetic classification of languages. Some linguists indeed maintain that Uralic and Altaic are related through a larger family, such as Eurasiatic or Nostratic , within which Uralic and Altaic are no more closely related to each other than either is to any other member of the proposed family, for instance than Uralic or Altaic

Uralo-Siberian languages - Misplaced Pages Continue

1280-598: The minority. The contradiction between Hungarian linguists' convictions and the lack of clear evidence eventually provided motivation for scholars such as Aurélien Sauvageot and Denis Sinor to carry out more detailed investigation of the hypothesis, which so far has failed to yield generally accepted results. Nicholas Poppe in his article The Uralo-Altaic Theory in the Light of the Soviet Linguistics (1940) also attempted to refute Castrén's views by showing that

1320-450: The modern-day descendant languages have diverged further from this profile — particularly Itelmen , for which Fortescue assumes substrate influence from a language typologically more alike to the non-Uralo-Siberian languages of the region. Several more widely spread typologically significant features may also instead represent contact influence, according to Fortescue (1998): Apparently shared elements of Uralo-Siberian morphology include

1360-466: The more marginal Korean and Japonic. Contrasting views on the typological situation have been presented by other researchers. Michael Fortescue has connected Uralic instead as a part of an Uralo-Siberian typological area (comprising Uralic, Yukaghir , Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo–Aleut ), contrasting with a more narrowly defined Altaic typological area; while Anderson has outlined a specifically Siberian language area, including within Uralic only

1400-512: The popularity of the "Ural-Altaic" hypothesis—the idea of the Ural–Altaic relationship remained widely implicitly accepted in the late 19th and the mid-20th century, though more out of pan-nationalist than linguistic reasons, and without much detailed research carried out. Elsewhere the notion had sooner fallen into discredit, with Ural–Altaic supporters elsewhere such as the Finnish Altaicist Martti Räsänen being in

1440-516: The proposed higher-order Uralic branchings (grouping the nine undisputed families) are becoming more common. 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, J. 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." Originally suggested in

1480-579: The proto-languages of the Altaic subfamilies and the larger main groups of Uralic, on the order of 1000–2000 words can be recovered. Some linguists point out strong similarities in the personal pronouns of Uralic and Altaic languages, although the similarities also exist with the Indo-European pronouns as well. The basic numerals , unlike those among the Indo-European languages (compare Proto-Indo-European numerals ), are particularly divergent between all three core Altaic families and Uralic, and to

1520-430: The validity of the Altaic language family. Two senses should be distinguished in which Uralic and Altaic might be related. In other words, showing a genetic relationship does not suffice to establish a language family, such as the proposed Ural–Altaic family; it is also necessary to consider whether other languages from outside the proposed family might not be at least as closely related to the languages in that family as

1560-605: The various peoples of the Earth, than the comparison of their languages. In his Brevis designatio meditationum de originibus gentium ductis potissimum ex indicio linguarum , written in 1710, he originates every human language from one common ancestor language. Over time, this ancestor language split into two families; the Japhetic and the Aramaic. The Japhetic family split even further, into Scythian and Celtic branches. The members of

1600-425: Was renamed and re-classed as the "Ural-Altaic languages". Between the 1850s and 1870s, there were efforts by Frederick Roehrig to including some Native American languages in a "Turanian" or "Ural-Altaic" family, and between the 1870s and 1890s, there was speculation about links with Basque. In Hungary , where the national language is Uralic but with heavy historical Turkic influence—a fact which by itself spurred

#243756