Are the Uralic languages related to Altaic languages?

[Arame]

There are also other language families in Far East
Yeniseian languages
Yukaghir languages
Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages

Non of them is not possible to securely join with another known language family. Only the Yeniseian is accepted as a part of much bigger Dene-Yeniseian family linking East Asia and North America.

I think the situation in East Asia is similar but in lesser degree what we see in Amerindian languages

 

[LeBrok]

I don't think all human languages have a common origin. Is it creating a language so hard to need to borrow from someone else? Perhaps some more complex ideas were borrowed. But the basic things like mother, father, Yes , You etc could be created by every nation even the most primitive.
Altaic family is not accepted by most linguists. It is a controversial theory.
Actually there is a Turkic family, Mongolian family and Tungusic family.
Even the adepts of Atlaic don't include Uralic into it.

Before Home Sapience split about 100 thousand years ago they already spoke and had a language. All the rest of languages come from this one. Though it was so long ago that all main families of languages drifted independently to their unique and mutually comprehensible languages.

 

[Arame]

LeBrok
I am on the side of splitters in "lumpers and splitters" discussions. I see a lot off amateur lumpers who are creating a lot off noise and confusion. But I can change my opinion if I see some rigorous work that will be accepted by majority. That is consistent with genetics and archaeology.

 

[LeBrok]

LeBrok
I am on the side of splitters in "lumpers and splitters" discussions. I see a lot off amateur lumpers who are creating a lot off noise and confusion. But I can change my opinion if I see some rigorous work that will be accepted by majority. That is consistent with genetics and archaeology.

I don't have link to the research now, but it was determined from our genome that Homo Sapience come from a single small group who lived about 150-250 years ago. If it was one group, there was one language.

 

[Boreas]

I put my money on the theory of one language instead of different isolated languages

 

[Arame]

LeBrok
In Eurasia there was Neanderthals and Denisovans after 100 kya. They also could have some languages and words. How we can be sure that their words and phonetic system is completely dead?

 

[LeBrok]

LeBrok
In Eurasia there was Neanderthals and Denisovans after 100 kya. They also could have some languages and words. How we can be sure that their words and phonetic system is completely dead?

There is a chance that we learned some words from Neanderthals, but if sharing genetics is of some indication and comparison, there wouldn't be many of them. HS were already more culturally and numerically advanced than other hominids, and as such had more influence over them than they over HS.

 

[Alan]

Indo European, Caucasic, Uralic, Altaic and by some authors Semitic and Dravidian share a common origin in the Nostratic language family.

 

[Pax Augusta]

Indo European, Caucasic, Uralic, Altaic and by some authors Semitic and Dravidian share a common origin in the Nostratic language family.

Yes, but the Nostratic language family is just a theory, or better a hypothetical language family.

 

[Arame]

LeBrok

but if sharing genetics is of some indication and comparison, there wouldn't be many of them

- it's estimated to harbor 5-11% of genome-wide Neanderthal ancestry, with as much as 50% on chromosome 12
http://eurogenes.blogspot.be/2015/05/ancient-dna-from-upper-paleolithic.html

Neanderthal genes are going down because of incompatibilities and selective pressure, only useful one is kept. So we don't know how much were the figures of Neanderthal Admixture in initial times.
But my objective is not to split the humanity. I just want more scientific cautiousness when grouping various families.
I think theories like Dene-Caucasian and some others are premature (they are creating noise ) and relies on shaky basis. The reality is that even grouping West Caucasian to East Caucasian ( Nakh-Daghestani ) is quite problematic. Only few dozens of roots are accepted as reliable. Now when we know the genetics of this people we understand why it is like this. The Caucasic peoples had very different founding fathers in very different times. The West of Caucasus is more G2a. The middle Nakh group is J2a and the Eastern Caucasus is more J1 and R1b. The same problems exist in Siberia.

My conclusion is that before uniting Families we need to understand better this families. Not all language families get the high attention as in IE. Most of them don't have accepted trees, Their Proto forms are quite questionable and comparing this uncertain Protos is like a casino.

 

[Taranis]

Indo European, Caucasic, Uralic, Altaic and by some authors Semitic and Dravidian share a common origin in the Nostratic language family.

Semitic languages are part of another, much better established (and indeed much more likely) language family, the Afroasiatic languages (together with the Berber languages, the Chadic languages, Old Egyptian and the Kushitic languages). "Caucasian" is not one language family, but three (very different) ones. In my opinion, Nostratic is a "grab-all" bag with little plausibility. Likewise, Dravidian may be related, according to some authors, with the extinct Elamite language that was spoken in the south of Iran (I'm not entirely convinced on that, but I find that more plausible than Nostratic).

 

[Sile]

LeBrok


- it's estimated to harbor 5-11% of genome-wide Neanderthal ancestry, with as much as 50% on chromosome 12
http://eurogenes.blogspot.be/2015/05/ancient-dna-from-upper-paleolithic.html

Neanderthal genes are going down because of incompatibilities and selective pressure, only useful one is kept. So we don't know how much were the figures of Neanderthal Admixture in initial times.
But my objective is not to split the humanity. I just want more scientific cautiousness when grouping various families.
I think theories like Dene-Caucasian and some others are premature (they are creating noise ) and relies on shaky basis. The reality is that even grouping West Caucasian to East Caucasian ( Nakh-Daghestani ) is quite problematic. Only few dozens of roots are accepted as reliable. Now when we know the genetics of this people we understand why it is like this. The Caucasic peoples had very different founding fathers in very different times. The West of Caucasus is more G2a. The middle Nakh group is J2a and the Eastern Caucasus is more J1 and R1b. The same problems exist in Siberia.

My conclusion is that before uniting Families we need to understand better this families. Not all language families get the high attention as in IE. Most of them don't have accepted trees, Their Proto forms are quite questionable and comparing this uncertain Protos is like a casino.

The area you speak of, the Dagestsan, Lezkin, Nogai lands is a mix of every Haplogroup that went to Europe. Papers of the last few years on this areas gives decent percentage of many many markers and not exclusive to a few

 

[RobertColumbia]

Uralic, Altaic, and Indo-European do not exist. These theories are a fabrication of the racist ideology of 19th century Europeans.

No, I don't think so. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of at least Uralic and Indo-European. I Also doubt that the theory of Proto-Indo-European/Indo-European languages is tainted very much with racist ideology, as the theory started with a comparison of Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit. In those days, many Europeans considered themselves above the level of India and treated it as a land to be colonized and exploited, not one to have a diplomatic relationship with and share cultural exchange. By claiming that Sanskrit was related to Latin and Greek, the researchers were, in a way, claiming that the civilization of India had a common source with the classical civilizations of Europe.

 

[RobertColumbia]

The area you speak of, the Dagestsan, Lezkin, Nogai lands is a mix of every Haplogroup that went to Europe. Papers of the last few years on this areas gives decent percentage of many many markers and not exclusive to a few

The "crossroads of the world" areas tend to be areas of highly mixed haplogroups with either no obvious dominant haplogroup or with the "dominant" haplogroup with only a slight lead. Southwest Asia is one of the biggest of these areas. In addition to Degestan, look at Armenia, Georgia, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. All of these areas have virtually every haplogroup in a sort of "tossed salad" arrangement. By contrast, areas more toward the periphery ("corners of the world") such as Ireland, Japan, and pre-colonial Australia have more limited haplogroup patterns with a clearly "dominant" group (respectively R1b, O, and C). Take a look at this map: http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf . The effect is striking.