Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Altaic theory to be questioned: |
Post Reply 
|
Page 12> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
gok_toruk 
Arch Duke 
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Altaic theory to be questioned:Posted: 06-Jun-2006 at 10:56 |
|
Quite funny; cause I think you just neglect what I've written and so you're requestioning the theory. And about 'diverting from the main topic', I should say, that's the way I thought you were doing. That's why I told you I'm not going to bridge the gap to discuss about this thread again.
Advices are always respected, YOU've mentioned these 'famous' proffessor too. When I told you about my own research, you asked me for the sources. And now when I give you the sources, you suggest not to believe them. Anyhow, you just CAN'T get to know who are people like N.Chosmky. Or else, you wouldn't have talked like this.
Done.
|
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
 |
|
|
barbar
General 
retired AE Moderator Joined: 10-Aug-2005 Location: Italy Online Status: Offline Posts: 781 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 23:41 |
|
You said you had answered the questions before, but it's not possible to get your points clearly from your previous posts. That's why I made the questions clearer for you, unfortunately you again failed to answer them.
I'm sorry to say this. We had similar discussions before. After a while I just ignored, as it's really difficult to have a logical discussion with you. Either you will divert from the main topic, or your writings were very confusing. I'm going to do the same again. I'm really sorry.
A piece of advice, don't believe in everything your famous professors said, and learn to use the previous knowledge after it has gone through your brain once or more times.
|
|
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 13:19 |
|
It's not only 'typological similarities' as you've mentioned. What's I've posted are not 'typological similarities'. If so, Linguists wouldn't take this discussion seriously. By the way, have you ever heard about 'Pultova' and the Swedish general taken to Siberia? When talking about morphology or syntax, it makes Altaic language' exclusive characteristic, which is different from Dravidian or languages like that.
And the most powerful aspect of these relationship is form-related; and not word-related. Grammer can be easily discussed comparatively; while finding common words are a bit harder.
About your fourth and fifth questions, I invite you to study papers made by Ramstedt, especially when I see you refer to him. If you believe his works, so you should believe his words too. It's what he has said:'Mongolian and Turkic were not different languages until 600 B.C.' Don't tell me to provide sources for you, cause I've done it for you. Just go for those books.
It's not only similarities which are talked about in Linguistics. Linguists have got their own techniques to see if these similarities propose the original relationship or not. Now, want to know about these skills, please go chek any papers by Proffesor Noam Chomsky.
Anyhow, I think this is my last post talking about linguistics here in this thread. You know, I should be familiar with a branch to start talking about it; instead of sitting on my seat and complaining. People like writers of those article just criticize, without proposing the right way.
That's about it for the time being. Take care...
P.S: Please invest some time reading my posts. Becaue I'm not able to answer repeated questions.
< = ="" defer>
|
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2006 at 13:04 |
|
I've answered you, by writing against your post. Especially my answers for what you'd highlighted. About your 'endless discussion' I should say, people writing articles against Altaic theory are not able to discuss peacely with proffessor thinking of an original relationship for these languages. I mean, they just critisize, but they can't defend their own statements. You are always thinking 'it's not the way you think'. Let's say, they're right. But when you ask them 'which way is it', they can't answer that. Most linguists have a good mastery of history; at least that's true for most modern famous linguists. This is to see how people speaking languages have interacted throughout history. The interstin thing is that virtually all people disagreeing such a theory are not good at history. It's just like people, always disagreeing, due to their originaly thoughts. < = ="" defer> |
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator Joined: 10-Aug-2005 Location: Italy Online Status: Offline Posts: 781 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Jun-2006 at 23:44 |
|
All you have said with examples is known fact for the linguistics, or else there wouldn't be the hypothesis as an Altaic theory, so there isn't the need to show the similarities between these languages here. What you need to do is to answer the questions raised in the article. I don't want to go into language details. This will lead us into endless discussion, and we will divert from the main path. Please answer these questions:
1. Can typological similarities always be the main indicative of genetic relations?
2. Are these typological similaries unique only to the so called Altaic group? What about Dravidian, and many other ancient languages?
3. Do you agree that these languages are word-related to high degree, but form-related to lesser degree?
4. How do you explain the development of mongolian language to become a typical Altaic language by comparison of old texts?
5. What about the Tungustic language differences who had close contact with the mongolians and who had not? Do you agree that close contact, especially ruling or cultural domination can be responsible for the typological relations?
What I mean is the linguistics are still on the debate for the Altaic theory, so you can't further suggest the relations of these people using this not-yet-established theory.
It's highly possible Oghur people (Proto Bulghar, proto Turk, or main component of Hun confederacy) influenced the Tungustic people strongly during the Hunnic period, then again during Kok-Turk and Uyghur period, which was responsible for the branching of Mongolian from Tungustic, or we may say that Mongols are the Tungustic people who have close contact with Turkic people. Tungustic people are the group who have lesser degree of Turkic influence, but higher degree of later Mongolian influence. This can explain the similarities in these languages. Don't you think so?
Edited by barbar - 03-Jun-2006 at 23:45 |
|
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 05:17 |
|
That's about it for the time being. Take good car and just take it easy. Kind regards,
Iltirish Yemreli
|
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 05:14 |
|
Koreans and Japanese people, by history, has nothing to do with Turkic or Mongolians (I mean culturally). But these are just SOME of the similarities we think to have originated from a mother language. Even about words, you can say Korean 'chin' which means 'truth; true' is exactly the same as Turkic. Or Japanese and Korean 'kan' which means offical is equal to Turkic and Mongolian 'qaan'; Japanese Murasaki (related to Mur) and Turkic 'Mor' (both mean purple), Japanese 'aji' which is exactly as Turkic word 'aji'. Old Turkic word 'tepe' is 'teppen' in Japanese, Japanese 'yama' is Turkic 'yamaq' or 'yama' and a lot of other words that can make us think about this issue again. |
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 05:06 |
|
'The borrowing hypothesis is further strengthened by the fact that the Altaic languages share few lexical items that belong to those semantic areas that are generally thought to be stable over time and least amenable to linguistic borrowing'.
First, I want to attract your attention to this point that archeological, lingistic and even legendary sources support the view that the Korean peninsula was settled by Tungusic-speaking people who migrated from Manchuria and Siberia. These people developed the Korean language. And, the fact is that Korean combware pottery (Neolithic period) is commonly found in northeastern Asia. This is also the same for Korean bronze daggers, belt hooks and knobbed mirrors (lake Baikal, Mongolian areas). It's not proved Korean to be Altaic, but it shows, to a high degree, similarities with Tungus. We know Turks distinguished Korean only in almost 550.
Anyhow, about those parts o language that remains stable over time, we can name affixes:
use of 'cha' or 'ja' is common in Turkic, Tungus and therefore Korean
like the word 'qaracha' in Turkic. The example could be Korean 'hakcha' (the person about 'hak') which means 'scholar' , or Korean 'uija'= chair.
Note these examples are grammatically same in Tungusic.
Use of 'in' in Turkic, Tungus, and Korean. See Turkic 'manglay in, yer ke dushtu' (he fell down in the forehead; in fact, it means almot "with"):
Korean 'ag-in' (with ak)=evil person.
in Tungus and Korean, 'ul' is used to make an object form, like 'kaps-ul'
That's the same as Turkic. 'Soq' is a verb and its object form is 'soqul'. 'Sat' is the verb, 'sat-il' is the object form.
Or use of 'la' in Turkic and Tungus and 'lo' in Korean.
Korean 'nal' (day)+lo= by the day. Turkic 'at'+la= by horse.
Use of 'om' in Tungus and Korean and 'am' or 'em, um, im' (these changes are to harmonize the word) to make nouns which are used instead of verbs:
Korean 'si(h)+om=test or 'sir(h)+om=experiment.
Turkic 'al'+am (or im)= (the process of) taking
Turkic 'kit'+im (or em)= (the process of) going
Tungus or Korean 'yo' or 'i(y)a' to mean 'it is' which is equal to Turkic 'o'.
Turkic 'qara o' (it is black). Edited by gok_toruk - 01-Jun-2006 at 05:08 |
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 04:43 |
|
'the hypothesis that a strong proto-Bolgharic influence on proto-Mongolian is responsible for most commonalities in the two language families'
s
We know that old Bulgharic words differed from Turkic in some consonants. In comparison, scholars believe Old Bulghar 'd' was Turkic 'L' or Bulghar 'k' was Turkic 'p'. For example, Turkic 'lap' should be Bulghar 'dak'; you see quite distinct. This is a, rather more complicated issue when compared to consonant shifts observed in Turkic and Mongolian or Turkic and Tungusic. So, if we consider a proto-Bulgharic influence on Mongolian, still changes should be seen in common words. Can't be accpeted, just beacuse of all those exactly similar words found in three branches.
|
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 04:34 |
|
'grammatical gender', the earliest Mongolian text seems be 'The Secret History of Mongols'. Linguistical studies have shown contrary to what this article have mentioned. The thing is that Scholars use linguistical characteristics of 'The Secret History of Mongols' to prove Modern Khalkha Mongolian is quite influenced by Tungusic while the old one is very similar to Turkic in the case of structure.
'verbfinal word order'. I don't know if you've studies the original text (Secret History) in Mongolian, but even present-day Mongols themselves believe that 'The Secret History of Mongols' is based on a very old conversational dialect (not a formal literally language); most modern speakers don't understand it. So, if true, we should expect to see changes in the places of words; for example to start a sentence with a verb, rather than ending it. That's also observed in Turkic inscriptions. They used once, 'adirildim yigrimi uch yashimqa) instead of 'yigrimi uch yashimqa adirildim'.
|
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Jun-2006 at 04:20 |
|
My dear 'qartash', barar, I don't know wethher you're just kidding me or not by saying 'your linguistical knowledge really impressed me', but I'll try to defend my point of view here; especially about the highlighted sections.
First, I should say, the most powerfully supporte issue is, as a matter of fact, morphological (form-related) materials. If you study any of those famous books on Altaic theory (I really suggest; you can search for parts of them online too), you'll see how these are conneted orphologically. Also, I think my points should have given you such a point of view.
And about 'similarities can change (especially in situations of intensive language contact' I would say, let's consider the case about Turkic and Tungusic which is really hard to think they've had regular interaction. Consider the case that original Koreans were Tungusic people who migrated from Manchuria and Siberia. Even here, you can find a large variey of similarities, without any certain contact.
|
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator Joined: 10-Aug-2005 Location: Italy Online Status: Offline Posts: 781 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 05:09 |
|
I'm sorry, as what you have provided is not a comment for the original article, which is to be mistaken for c/p easily. Now please analyse the original article. Your linguistical knowledge really impressed me.
|
|
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 05:05 |
|
These are just translations of my own research in my own language. And, listen, instead of just telling me Mongols live among Kiptchaks (it's Kazaks; not Kiptchaks) or just claiming Altaic theory is not fixed, give support to your opinion and give examples. Those were my efforts to see what differs in these branches. Totally, I've found more similarity rather than distinctin. And it's not only me. If there were more people who think they theory is borken up than people who agree with it, it wouldn't have gained internationl acceptance. |
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 05:00 |
|
It's not a copy paste. Not all people act like you, remember. If you're willing to know more about this issue, so there are books I suggested. You could have asked me before guessing if that was a copy/paste or not.
|
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
barbar
General
retired AE Moderator Joined: 10-Aug-2005 Location: Italy Online Status: Offline Posts: 781 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 04:44 |
|
I didn't mean to ask for other resources. It'd be better if you could have given your personal opinion towards the questions raised in the original article. Now you ruined this thread to become a place for copy/pasting. Disappointed!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Either make a history or become a history.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 04:36 |
|
Proposed refrences are: Introduction to Altaic Linguistics, which outlines the history and structure of languages (including Korean) as well as the history of scholarship in Altaic linguistics- N.Poppe
Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen, Vol. 1, Vergleichende lautlehre, is a comprehensive comparative phonologyl
Einfu (BP)hrung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft, 3 Vol., is a classic of comparative grammer, by G.J.Ramstedt.
Studies in Korean Etymology, by G.J. Ramstedt.
Japanese and the other Altaic languages, Roy Andrew Miller.
Modern Mongolian: A transformational syntax, by Robert I. Binnick.
Proffessor Robert I. Binnick ; Proffessor of Linguistics and East Asian Studies, University of Torento.
|
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 04:29 |
|
Vocabulary:
There are comparatively few exactly common words found in all three branches of Altaic languages. Some consonants have changed in different languages: old Turkic 'uike' (horn), Tungusic 'uihe', Manchu 'iige'. Consonants which are usually changed in three branches are Turkic 'q' to Tungus 'h', Mongolian 'k' to Turkic 'ch', Tungusic 'b' to Turkic 'm', etc. Parts of words like suffixes, anyhow, have remained stable. Note the possessive pronouns in Tungusic: murin-iw(horse-my). The original form is 'ib' which is changed to 'im' in Turkic. Tungusic: murin-iy (horse-your). Here, the nasal sound has been dropped off; in Turkic 'ing' instead of 'iy'. Tungusic: 'murin-in' (horse-his) which is equal to Turkic 'i'. Turkic 'da' is equal to Tungusic 'du'. They both also use 'la'.
The lack of mastery of all three branches have resulted in very little printed word lists. Edited by gok_toruk - 30-May-2006 at 04:38 |
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 04:21 |
|
Syntax:
The syntax of the Altaic languages has been remarkably stable and resistant to foreign influence. These languages use propositions, which form phrases with the preceeding noun, rather than propositions, which form phrases with following noun. They have no articles as such; demonstrative adjectives ('this' and 'that', for example) or possessive pronouns ('its') are used for the definite articles, and the numeral 'one(s)' for the indefinite articles.
The basic word order is subject-object-verb (SOV); modifiers such as adjectives and adverbs generally preceed what they modify, while specifiers such as quantifying terms and axuiliary verbs follow the specified (thus 'book many'='many books'). As in morphology, syntactic structure is consequently characteristically, left-branching.
Altaic languages have no clauses as such, particularly constructions being used instead- e.g., Turkic 'yemek ke kelgen kishi'. Hypotactic (subordinate) constructions such as subordinate clauses are much preferred to paratactic (coordinate) ones such as independent clauses; the construction 'having gotton up, she left' is much more common than 'she got up and left'.
There is little or no transformation of basic structures. Word order is not inverted, for example in questions; rather these are formed either by use of a question particle (in questions inviting a yes-or-no answer) or by use of a question words, as in Turkic 'Sarsmas kim dir'? (who is Sarsmas?- literally 'Sarsmas who- is?'). Passives and causatives are marked by verb affixes and may be combined in passive-causative or causative-passive forms. Some variance is allowed in word order for purposes of emphasis or of flow of information in the discourse. Old, presupported material tends to preceed new, asserted material.
|
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 04:10 |
|
The noun and verb are highly inflected, but the adjective is not, and it does not agree with what it modifies. The noun has a plural affix, but numerals are used with the singular (e.g., two man), and the plural is unused where a general sense is intended: 'read books' may be rendered 'read book'. The use of the plural second-person pronoun ('you') as a polite singular is general in Altaic languages. For the third person, Altaic languages use demonstrative pronouns; 'they' is literally 'these' or 'those'. The possessive forms of pronouns are widely used instead of definite articles. There is no grammatical category of mood. Etymologically, almost all verbal forms have nominal origin. Apart from finite verb forms, which serve as the main verbs of independent clauses, Altaic languages have participle or verbal nouns, which may act as nouns or adjectives, which may act as adverbs or complements to verbs or serve as the main verbs of subordinate clauses; and so-called imperative or vocative forms, which serve special functions and typically form clauses of very limited structural types. |
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
gok_toruk
Arch Duke
9 Oghuz Joined: 28-Apr-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1831 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-May-2006 at 04:04 |
|
Morphology:
The Altaic languages are agglutinative in word structure. This characteristic revelas that (1) words are formed by adding affixes, especially suffixes, to the root; (2) a relatively great number of such affixes may be added, resulting in extreme cases in polysyllabic and polymorphic words of considerable length (although three to four morphemes per word is the usual limit); (3) each morpheme in a word has one distinct meaning or grammatical function; and (4) typically the phonological identity of each morpheme is preserved, with little or no modification of one word element by another. The Turkish 'in-dir-il-emi-y-ebil-ecek-ler' (it may be that they will not be able to be brought down) is analyzable as root word-causative-passive-impotential-potential-future-third person plural,
Mongolian 'eke-yin-iyen' (of one's own mother) as root word-genitive-case-reflexive-possessive. This agglutinative, exclusively suffixal morphology gives Altaic words a characteristically left-branching structure.
The morphology of the Altaic languages is simple, exhibiting little if any irregularity (e.g, Turkish has only one irregular verb, 'to be') or suppletion (as in English 'went' as the past form of 'go') and no distinct classes of noun or verb stems ("decleusions" and "conjugations") that require special sets of endings.
|
|
|
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page 12> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
