I came across the following article on the web about the Altaic theory, and want to know about your opinions. I hilighted some parts which I think important to save your time.  Sorry for this copy/pasting. I think such an useful article deserves a small space in our forum.

 

The Altaic languages are a group of languages and language families, widespread in and dominating parts of Central and Northern Asia. The name Altaic alludes to the Altai mountain range in southern Siberia, where nineteenth-century scholars located the original habitat of the speakers of these languages.

Linguists usually consider the Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic languages, often referred to as micro-Altaic, as the principal members of this group; some scholars also include Korean and Japanese, referred to as macro-Altaic. While linguists agree that all these languages show a high degree of structural uniformity and many shared lexical (word-related) and, to a lesser degree, morphological (form-related) materials, the "Altaic theory" continues to be one of the most controversial issues in contemporary comparative linguistics.

The gist of this debate is the question of whether these language families—or a subset of them—are to be viewed as members of a higher-level family of languages (often called a macrofamily), for which a common linguistic ancestor (a protolanguage) can be reconstructed and from which the languages diverged, or whether the common traits and elements found in these languages arose during millennia-long processes of "areal convergence," or large-scale language contact, of originally unrelated languages.

Scholars noticed the high degree of structural similarity shared by the Altaic languages as early as the late eighteenth century and thus assumed that the languages were genetically related. One salient typological feature is vowel harmony: words may contain only vowels belonging to one of two or more mutually exclusive classes, such as front versus back or rounded versus unrounded vowels. The principal morphological technique in Altaic languages is that of agglutination: largely monofunctional affixes (almost exclusively suffixes) added to the roots they modify, in a fixed order, and without the high degree of fusion common, for instance, in Indo-European languages (as in the Latin word librorum ["of the books"], where the ending -rum simultaneously carries the functions of plural and genitive). The basic word order in ordinary sentences in Altaic languages is generally subject—object—verb; modifying constituents, like adjectives, always precede the constituent they modify; postpositions rather than prepositions are found.

Modern linguists, however, no longer view such typological similarities as indicative of genetic relations, mostly because the similarities can change (especially in situations of intensive language contact), and because these and other phenomena once viewed as "typically Altaic" traits occur on a global scale unknown when the Altaic theory was first developed.

Furthermore, critics of the Altaic hypothesis often point to the fact that some typological hallmarks of Altaic languages are historical innovations. For instance, the earliest Mongolian texts (thirteenth century CE) have elements atypical for Altaic (when compared with Old Turkic, for instance), including grammatical gender, no rigid verb–final word order, and adjectives following rather than preceding nouns. Mongolian later developed into a "typical" Altaic language. Somewhat similarly, in Tungusic, the Evenki and Even languages, spoken on the northern and western fringes of the language family's territory in central Siberia and Mongolia, are typologically much more divergent from the Altaic archetype than those spoken in the center, where they have been in contact with Mongolian for centuries.

Proponents of the genetic relations theory usually maintain that the Altaic languages share many lexical items from all semantic spheres, including basic vocabulary. These lexical commonalities are characterized by highly regular phonological correspondences, the most important criterion for genetic relationship. A considerable number of shared morphological elements (affixes) have been identified, and all these observations imply that these languages share a common origin.

Critics of the genetic approach to Altaic linguistics often argue that while the great number of lexical commonalities cannot be denied, most if not all can be explained as early borrowings. In micro-Altaic, the most readily identifiable layers of borrowings are Turkic loans in proto-Mongolian and Mongolian loans in proto-Tungusic. From the time of Ghengis Khan (c. 1162–1227) on, Mongolian elements begin to abound in Turkic languages, and a thin layer of Tungusic loans in early Mongolian is sometimes acknowledged. In particular, the fact that many words common to Turkic and Mongolian show, in Mongolian, traits of one of the subgroups of Turkic, namely the Bolgharic branch (of which modern Chuvash is the sole survivor), leads to the hypothesis that a strong proto-Bolgharic influence on proto-Mongolian is responsible for most commonalities in the two language families. 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. Altaicists claim that phonological correspondences between the languages are highly regular, which presupposes the acceptance of many etymologies; these are problematical for numerous reasons, including philological problems of determining the earliest Turkic, Mongolian, and other forms that alone should enter any external comparison; problems of inexact or vague semantic mapping in forms and words compared; and so on. The systems of correspondences proposed by Altaicists contain gaps, as well. Morphological elements compared by Altaicists are mostly confined to derivational morphology and usually involve very short morphemes, often consisting of merely one phoneme, the functions of which may be vague.

Some critics of the Altaic theory maintain that, once all comparisons for which these and similar objections may be brought forward are removed, the remaining potentially comparable items are so few that they could all be explained as chance similarities. Others do not completely reject the Altaic theory, believing that the evidence, when sifted through, will justify a leaner version of the theory.

All these points have been and continue to be addressed by proponents of the theory; both the methodological principles (such as insisting on allowing internal reconstruction of proto-Mongolian, proto-Turkic, and so on always to precede external Altaic-level comparisons) and the factual claims (for example, the acceptability of individual etymologies and sound-correspondences based on them) of their critics have been challenged. Thus, the Altaic debate still continues and has developed into an ideal testing ground for the methodology of assessing (or rejecting) the genetic relations of languages in general.

Stefan Georg

Doerfer, Gerhard. (1963) Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, Band I: Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz, esp. 51–106.

Georg, Stefan, Peter Michalove, Alexis Manaster Ramer, and Paul J. Sidwell. (1998) "Telling General Linguists about Altaic." Journal of Linguistics 35: 65–98.

Janhunen, Juha. (1996) Manchuria: An Ethnic History. Helsinki, Finland: Finno-Ugrian Society.

Martin, Samuel Elmo. (1996) Consonant Lenition in Korean and the Macro-Altaic Question. Honolulu, HI: Center for Korean Studies.

Miller, Roy Andrew. (1996) Languages and History: Japanese, Korean, and Altaic. Bangkok, Thailand: White Orchid Press.

Poppe, Nicholas. (1965) Introduction to Altaic Linguistics. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz.

 

The phonological (sound) systems of the Alatica languages tend to be simple. Syllables are usually open, ending in a vowel, most often of the pattern consonant-vowel (CV). The clustering of consonants is unusual in Altaic languages and relatively few consonants are used. The vowel system reconstructed for proto-Altaic bears some similarity to the 'cubic' vowel system of Turkish, which is a symmetrical system of eight vowel phonemes defined by these phonological oppositions: back/nonback, high/nonhigh, and round (labial)/nonround(nonlabial).

 

                    nonback                                      back

        round            nonround                   round           nonround

high    y                       i                               u             

nonhigh                       e                              o                    a

 

Mongolian and Manchu- Tungus merged /i/ and /w/; the latter eliminated in addition /y/ through various mergers with /i/ and /u/.

Platal vowel harmony has been weakened in many languages of all three branches; in some cases (e.g., Uzbek), this is attributed to foreign (in the case of Uzbek, Iranian) influence.

 

Labial (rounding) harmony is a later development and differs in Turkic and Mongolian. In Turkic languages, a high vowel agrees in rounding with the vowel of the immediately preceeding syllable: thus, Turkish 'el-in' (hand- ablative) but 'koy-un) (village's). In the Mongolian languages, nonhigh vowels are unrounded, save when following a nonhigh rounded vowel in the immediately preceeding syllable, as in Khalkha 'ger-ees' (from the house) (house-ablative), otsogdr-oos(from yesterday).

 

Because a later development, some Turkic dialects have exceptions on this issue. Like Uighur 'gherdash' instead of old 'qardash'.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

'verb–final 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'.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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).

 

Kind regards,

Iltirish Yemreli

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?

 

 

 

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>

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.