I think the problem with Uralic and Altaic languages is that linguists are trying to impose an indo-european type of linguistc history, with a small and distinct zone of origin floowed by a diversification, on them when really thier history, and probably the history of most language families, are quite different. Indo-European languages are similar to each other because of common decent from a language that was spoken north of the Black Sea 5000 years ago. Uralic and Altaic languages owe thier similarity to each other from thousands of years of liguistic borrowing and mixing. If the Indo-European languages formed a tree with an obvious root, the Uralic and Altaic languages are a braided river emerging from the mists of time. If you had a lingusitic map of Eurasia 12,000 years ago you would see, from west to east, Proto-Basque, Proto-Finnic, Proto-Ugric, Proto-Turkic, and Proto-Mongolic speakers expanding north as the Ice sheets melted. Proto-Basque spread through Western Europe. Proto-Finnic spread into Eastern, Central, and Northern Europe. The people of the Balkans probably spoke languages of a now extinct language family that was spread by farmers from Anatolia. Proto-Ugric split, one branch moving up into the Ural region, the other moved SW and interacted with speakers of Proto-Northwest Caucasian, beecoming Proto-Indo European. The Turkic and Mongolic speakers also expanded northward.
Edited by Odin