Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Are the Uralic languages related to Altaic languages?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    10-11-13
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    686

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    No Genetic testing.
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Not yet known.

    Ethnic group
    Albanian, Greek, Armenian
    Country: Albania



    Are the Uralic languages related to Altaic languages?



    Please discuss whether Uralic languages are related to Altaic languages by referring to these questions:

    Are the Uralic and Altaic language families related to each other by origin?
    Do they have a common origin?
    Do the Uralic and Altaic language families share similarities?
    What similarities exist between these two language families?
    What explanations are there for these similarities?

    What can we conclude about whether Uralic and Altaic languages are related to each other?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,033


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European share a common linguistic root and Proto-Uralic is closer to Proto-Indo-European than to Proto-Altaic;


    Pagel et al 2013 -

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...26110.full.pdf

    David W. Anthony - The Horse, the Wheel, and Language (2007) [Princeton Uni.]
    The other link between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic seems cultural: some Proto-Indo-European words were borrowed by the speakers of Proto-Uralic. Although they seem odd words to borrow, the terms to wash, price, and to give or to sell might have been borrowed through a trade jargon used between Proto-Uralic and Proto-Indo-European speakers. These two kinds of linguistic relationship -a possible common ancestral origin and inter-language borrowings- suggest that the Proto-Indo-European homeland was situated near the homeland of Proto-Uralic, in the vicinity of the southern Ural Mountains.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-02-12
    Posts
    63


    Ethnic group
    European.
    Country: Greece



    1 members found this post helpful.
    the whole concept of the ural-altaian language family is outdated. It belongs to the rascist ideologies of the 19ths century, and still is stoutly defendend be modern jobbik and turkish rascists.

  4. #4
    Ulfheðinn Thulean's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-11-13
    Location
    Darüber
    Age
    48
    Posts
    32

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    coming soon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    coming soon

    Ethnic group
    Mortal
    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by dodona View Post
    the whole concept of the ural-altaian language family is outdated. It belongs to the rascist ideologies of the 19ths century, and still is stoutly defendend be modern jobbik and turkish rascists.
    Personally I do not know any racists defending that concept, dodona - but no doubt Nobody1 is right. I suggest you check Häkkinen 2012, "Uralic evidence for the Indo_european homeland" on the Internet.

  5. #5
    Ulfheðinn Thulean's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-11-13
    Location
    Darüber
    Age
    48
    Posts
    32

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    coming soon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    coming soon

    Ethnic group
    Mortal
    Country: Italy



    Btw Nobody1 - I love both German and Estonian languages, and I recall having read that "down at the bottom" of germanic tongues lies a very deep Uralic substrate... wow

  6. #6
    Junior Member Qurğan's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-11-13
    Posts
    2


    Country: Turkey



    1 members found this post helpful.
    First off all, there is no Altaic Languages Family. It's old opinion and never to be proved. There are three language family; Turkic Languages Family (or Bulgaro-Turkic Languages Family), Mongolian Languages Family and Manchu-Tunguz Languages family. Uralic Languages and Turkic, Mongolian and Manchu-Tunguz languages don't came from common roots and they are not relatives. Only there are some loanwords. For example; Old Turkic ékire "twins" (came from Old Turkic éki "two") > Mongolian ekire > Tunguz ekire etc. This word is not cognate, it is loanword. Some peoples claim this word (and all similar words) "cognate" but it is wrong. Because this word's etymology is clear and it is Turkic. Old Turkic éki means "two" (current Turkish iki), but in Mongolian khoyar, in Tunguz zhuwe.

    You can understand easly that, this languages are not relatives, numbers are not similar. For example in Indo-Europian Languages "2"; English two = Persian du = Irish etc. but Turkish iki, Mongolian khoyar, Tunguz zhuwe :) it don't seems came from common root.

    Uralic Languages (especially Hungarian) have some Turkic loanwords only. For example Hungarian gyümölc "fruit" < Old Turkic *yemilç "fruit" = current Turkish yemiş or in Mari language el means "state" (Mari El "Mari State") < Turkic el "state 2. folk of state" etc. This words are not cognate, they are loanwords too.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    27-06-11
    Posts
    29


    Country: Finland



    Good point, even Altaic has not been proven to be a family, much less the Ural-Altaic. These languages are typologically similar, but they lack shared concrete language material. Typology alone cannot testify about relatedness, but it can testify about areal closeness.

    Even IE and Uralic haven't been proven to be related - here is a critique against the Pagel-method:
    http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Review_Pagel2013.pdf

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    75

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Good point, even Altaic has not been proven to be a family, much less the Ural-Altaic. These languages are typologically similar, but they lack shared concrete language material. Typology alone cannot testify about relatedness, but it can testify about areal closeness.

    Even IE and Uralic haven't been proven to be related - here is a critique against the Pagel-method:
    link
    Uralic, Altaic, and Indo-European do not exist. These theories are a fabrication of the racist ideology of 19th century Europeans.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Good point, even Altaic has not been proven to be a family, much less the Ural-Altaic. These languages are typologically similar, but they lack shared concrete language material. Typology alone cannot testify about relatedness, but it can testify about areal closeness.

    Even IE and Uralic haven't been proven to be related - here is a critique against the Pagel-method:
    http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Review_Pagel2013.pdf
    I wouldn't be so quickly to ban this theories from reality, because:

    1) Some languages can mutated quicker than others.
    2) There was some lingistic base to create such concepts.
    3) Some languages who had common ancestors arn't bind in one family (f.e. Papuan or Amerindian languages)
    4) Now we can observe genetic common roots according to theoretized language-group of people. For exaple:
    uralic people are sharing hg N1, altaic probably C3 - or maybe even hg N was common for U-A, and hg C was
    "borrow" from another population, or another population was absorbed and asimilated.

    Finns, Ugrians, Samoyedans, Yukagirs, Mongols, Turks, an Tungus even Koreans and Japanese,
    didn't come from nothing. Languages could change by isolation, by themselves, by borrowings,
    by mixing and creolizing - but it mustn't mean, that they are from different families.

    B.t.w. - Turkic, Mongolian and Tunguz languages are very young, so, they have to have some ancestors.

    And - if they are not related, whwere are they from - every one of them: ugrian, turkic, mongolian, samoyedic a.s.o.?
    What was they linguistic, national, geografical, race, cultural, realigiuos and genetic background in their origin?

    I ask for explanation most historical and reasonable as it is possible, without to many "maybe" and "thousands of years".

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    75

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    4) Now we can observe genetic common roots according to theoretized language-group of people. For exaple:
    uralic people are sharing hg N1, altaic probably C3 - or maybe even hg N was common for U-A, and hg C was
    "borrow" from another population, or another population was absorbed and asimilated.
    Haplogroup C3 is shared by Paleosiberian, central Kazakh, Tungusic and Na-Dene groups. An Altaic connotation is not reasonable. The same can be said for haplogroup N, it is shared by Uralic, Paleosiberian and Siberian Turkic groups, and haplogroup R1 which is shared by Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Northern Italic, East-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Na-Dene, Algic, Iroquoian and common Turkic groups.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    B.t.w. - Turkic, Mongolian and Tunguz languages are very young, so, they have to have some ancestors.
    Actually not even their numerals are the same. Turkic numerals for example correlate with IE numerals.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    75

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    Quote Originally Posted by Qurğan View Post
    First off all, there is no Altaic Languages Family. It's old opinion and never to be proved. There are three language family; Turkic Languages Family (or Bulgaro-Turkic Languages Family), Mongolian Languages Family and Manchu-Tunguz Languages family. Uralic Languages and Turkic, Mongolian and Manchu-Tunguz languages don't came from common roots and they are not relatives. Only there are some loanwords. For example; Old Turkic ékire "twins" (came from Old Turkic éki "two") > Mongolian ekire > Tunguz ekire etc. This word is not cognate, it is loanword. Some peoples claim this word (and all similar words) "cognate" but it is wrong. Because this word's etymology is clear and it is Turkic. Old Turkic éki means "two" (current Turkish iki), but in Mongolian khoyar, in Tunguz zhuwe.

    You can understand easly that, this languages are not relatives, numbers are not similar. For example in Indo-Europian Languages "2"; English two = Persian du = Irish etc. but Turkish iki, Mongolian khoyar, Tunguz zhuwe :) it don't seems came from common root.

    Uralic Languages (especially Hungarian) have some Turkic loanwords only. For example Hungarian gyümölc "fruit" < Old Turkic *yemilç "fruit" = current Turkish yemiş or in Mari language el means "state" (Mari El "Mari State") < Turkic el "state 2. folk of state" etc. This words are not cognate, they are loanwords too.
    There are some authors who say that most common words between Ugric and Turkic are not based on a loan relation but on common genetic origin as well. Eventhough it is a new subject.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-04-14
    Posts
    697


    Country: Poland



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpakut View Post
    Haplogroup C3 is shared by Paleosiberian, central Kazakh, Tungusic and Na-Dene groups. An Altaic connotation is not reasonable. The same can be said for haplogroup N, it is shared by Uralic, Paleosiberian and Siberian Turkic groups, and haplogroup R1 which is shared by Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Northern Italic, East-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Na-Dene, Algic, Iroquoian and common Turkic groups.
    I said by origin.

    Actually not even their numerals are the same. Turkic numerals for example correlate with IE numerals.
    First Turks were in large part becoming from Indoeuropeans, mostly from Scythians, Dahans, Tocharians and Sogdians.
    So if they create some kind of creol language, it wouldn't be so strange. Turkic scripts are of sogdian origin, first turkic
    kagans are bearing iranian names - so it shouldn't be so bizzare, that there are some similarities. Turks replaced on the
    steppe and Central Asia some indoeuropean tribes, so they themselves were/are in some part indoeuropean people.

  13. #13
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,787

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by dodona View Post
    the whole concept of the ural-altaian language family is outdated. It belongs to the rascist ideologies of the 19ths century, and still is stoutly defendend be modern jobbik and turkish rascists.
    sorry but when I see (not one time only helas) systematic links done between "racism" or "racists" and all the ancient linguistic and historic or anthropologic theories, I ask myself who is the racists indeed?
    that said, the uralic-altaian language family is debated, it's true, whoever the racists and the no-racists... here I've NOT ANY competence to weight the arguments for or against, I-Ean is a sufficient field to my poor amateur experiments - wait and read? the problem when comparing languages is to tell the loans from the genuine cognates after centuries of separated evolution - the numbers are a bad stuff -

  14. #14
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,787

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Alpakut View Post
    Haplogroup C3 is shared by Paleosiberian, central Kazakh, Tungusic and Na-Dene groups. An Altaic connotation is not reasonable. The same can be said for haplogroup N, it is shared by Uralic, Paleosiberian and Siberian Turkic groups, and haplogroup R1 which is shared by Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Northern Italic, East-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Na-Dene, Algic, Iroquoian and common Turkic groups.


    Actually not even their numerals are the same. Turkic numerals for example correlate with IE numerals.


    haplogroups are not always the better reference to trace language transmissions or changes

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    75

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    I said by origin.
    There is no mono-origin of a haplogroups. Haplogroups do not necessarily correlate with language families.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rethel View Post
    First Turks were in large part becoming from Indoeuropeans, mostly from Scythians, Dahans, Tocharians and Sogdians.
    So if they create some kind of creol language, it wouldn't be so strange. Turkic scripts are of sogdian origin, first turkic
    kagans are bearing iranian names - so it shouldn't be so bizzare, that there are some similarities. Turks replaced on the
    steppe and Central Asia some indoeuropean tribes, so they themselves were/are in some part indoeuropean people.
    Possibly extra-Indo-European in the sense of "Altaic" or proto-Turkic. I won't be surprised Turkic languages will be considered IE in near future

  16. #16
    Regular Member Aberdeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-11-13
    Posts
    1,838

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H4

    Ethnic group
    Scottish, English and German
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Alpakut View Post
    There is no mono-origin of a haplogroups. Haplogroups do not necessarily correlate with language families.


    Possibly extra-Indo-European in the sense of "Altaic" or proto-Turkic. I won't be surprised Turkic languages will be considered IE in near future
    I don't think you're going to find any linguists who agree with most of your ideas. Turkish belongs to the Altaic language group, which is very different from the Indo-European language group, and any IE words that are part of modern Turkish languages are simply borrowings, although it is true that, as you suggested, many of those borrowed words were probably acquired when Turks took over Central Asia from the Indo-Europeans. And, while Uralic-Altaic is a bit of a stretch, the existence of a Uralic body of languages is a fact. And it does seem likely that Uralic languages originated among people whose Y haplotypes were primarily N1c.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    75

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    Quote Originally Posted by Aberdeen View Post
    I don't think you're going to find any linguists who agree with most of your ideas. Turkish belongs to the Altaic language group, which is very different from the Indo-European language group, and any IE words that are part of modern Turkish languages are simply borrowings, although it is true that, as you suggested, many of those borrowed words were probably acquired when Turks took over Central Asia from the Indo-Europeans. And, while Uralic-Altaic is a bit of a stretch, the existence of a Uralic body of languages is a fact. And it does seem likely that Uralic languages originated among people whose Y haplotypes were primarily N1c.
    The comment goes back to you. Do you even know what extra-IE is? Doesn't seem so.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-05-15
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    709

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-YP346
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1b1b1

    Ethnic group
    Rumî
    Country: Turkey



    Quote Originally Posted by Alpakut View Post
    Do you even know what extra-IE is? Doesn't seem so.
    Are you talking about Eurasiatic Language family

    If it is true, there should be two main sub-branches

    *Indo-European

    *Ural-Altaic (Which also includes Japanese and Korean Languages)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    29-01-14
    Posts
    157

    MtDNA haplogroup
    I5a

    Ethnic group
    Finnish
    Country: Finland



    I studied very carefully the Chinese grammar in the autumn, Yupik grammar in the winter and now I am reading the Japanese grammar, and I must say that Japanese is grammatically a very particular language. In my opinion, almost all grammatical categories and patterns are unique to Japanese. So, at the moment I am not inclined to believe in any close relationship between Turkic and Japanese languages. Superficially, I would say that this uniqueness must be due to isolation and yDNA D, which is typical of Japanese and not very frequent in the surrounding nations.

    The basic vocabulary of Japanese is also very particular, and I do not know if the cognate words are so essential/obvious. I am not an expert in Korean, but the amount of cognate words between Korean and Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages should be somewhat higher compared to Japanese. Instead, the connection between Korean and Japanese is clearly visible.

    However, I would be interested if you are aware of an essay on grammatical corrispondencies between the so called Altaic languages, excluding Greenberg’s nostratic parallels.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Arame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-03-15
    Posts
    182


    Country: Armenia



    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.

    Altaic /ælˈtɨk/ is a proposed, but widely discredited, language family of central Eurasia. Various versions include the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic languages.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Arame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-03-15
    Posts
    182


    Country: Armenia



    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

  22. #22
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,296

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Arame View Post
    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.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Arame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-03-15
    Posts
    182


    Country: Armenia



    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.

  24. #24
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,296

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Arame View Post
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Boreas's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-05-15
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    709

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-YP346
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1b1b1

    Ethnic group
    Rumî
    Country: Turkey



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I put my money on the theory of one language instead of different isolated languages

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •