Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Altaic theory to be questioned:

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Altaic theory to be questioned:
    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.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.