Altaic languages

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Altaic languages , including Altai languages called, are a group of about 60 common languages in Eurasia at around 200 ° to 210 million speakers (approximately 220 to 230 million including second-speakers). First described as a language family by Matthias Alexander Castrén in 1844 as part of the Ural-Altaic hypothesis , it was widely accepted as such until the 1960s ; in the meantime, however, it is mostly viewed as a mere linguistic union made up of several unrelated smaller families. The name goes back to the Central Asian Altai Mountains, which were previously accepted as the original home of these languages.

According to its proponents, the Altaic language family consists of at least three subdivided language families, the Turkic , Mongolian and Tungusic languages . These three language families have lexical , morphological , phonetic and typological similarities, which some scientists regard as proof of their genetic unity and thus traceability to a common predecessor language ( proto-language ). However, the majority of researchers sees these similarities to merely as a result of lexical and structural borrowing caused by long-term areal incurred contacts between these language groups.

A majority of proponents of the Altaic hypothesis also count Korean , the Japanese Ryūkyū languages ​​and the Ainu language as Altaic. This extended version of Altai is called Macro Altai . The earlier notion of a special Uralic-Altaic language relationship is now considered outdated, but hypotheses of a relationship between the Altaic languages ​​and several other North Eurasian language families - including the Uralic languages ​​- and some isolated languages ​​(see the articles Eurasian and Nostratic ) are being discussed . However, various factors make it difficult to prove a linguistic genetic relationship. There is no consensus not only in the relationship of Japanese to the other Altaic language groups, but also with regard to the belonging together of the Tungusic, Mongolian and Turkic languages ​​as members of the Altaic language family.

The Altaic language family. Blue: Turkic languages, green: Mongolian, red: Tungusian, yellow: Korean, purple: Japanese, dark red: Ainu.
Map of the Altaic and Uralic languages

The Altaic languages ​​and their distribution

The group of Altaic languages ​​(in the narrower sense) - a total of around 60 languages ​​with 160 million speakers - consists of three clearly defined language families of very different sizes:

The Turkic languages ​​are spoken in a broad strip - partially interrupted by other language groups - that extends from Southeastern Europe via Turkey , Azerbaijan , Iran, the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan , Uzbekistan , Kazakhstan , Kyrgyzstan and Western China to Siberia . The Mongolian languages ​​are mainly spoken in the neighboring area to the east - in Russian Buryatia , Mongolia and Chinese Inner Mongolia - while Tungusic is distributed in small, scattered groups further northeast in northern China and eastern Siberia.

The Turkic and Mongolian languages ​​are each families of closely related languages, so that internal classification is difficult. The Tungus language shows a greater breadth of variation without the genetic togetherness being in doubt. Much more problematic is - as will be explained in detail below - the question of the genetic unity of the three groups as an Altaic language family . Shiro Hattori (1964) assigned Ainu to Macro-Altaic or Altaic in the broader sense, which in addition to Turkish, Mongolian and Tungusic also contained Japanese, Korean and even Ainu. Roy Andrew Miller (1971) also assigns the Japanese and Korean languages ​​to Altaic. This would result in the structure of a hypothetical macro-Altaic language family.

The greatest Altaic languages

The main Turkic languages ​​are

Apart from Tatar, Uighur and Kashkai, the languages ​​mentioned are the national languages ​​of their respective states, which, with the exception of Turkey, only emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union .

The only Mongolian language that has more than a million speakers is

  • Mongolian (Chalcha) with 6 million speakers,

which is also the national language of Mongolia and - according to the number of speakers - already makes up 80% of all speakers of Mongolian languages. Major Mongolian languages ​​are Buryat (400,000), Oir (350,000) and Santa (250,000). (See article Mongolian Languages .)

The Tungusic family only has “small” languages, almost all of which are endangered. In the past, Manchu , which is now almost extinct, was widespread in northeast China - Manchuria. In the 17th century, China was conquered by the Manchu, who emerged from the Jurds ( Jin dynasty ) , which once formed a dynasty . Alongside Chinese, Manchu became the official language of imperial China, but despite its high position at court, it lost more and more prestige, number of speakers and geographical distribution even before the revolution of 1911. ( See also: Tungus languages .)

Typological features of the Altaic languages

Typologically , the three main groups of Altaic languages ​​(Korean, Japanese and Ainu are not to be considered here) have great similarities. Some important characteristics are:

  • Simple phoneme inventories , simple syllable structure (mostly KV), hardly any consonant clusters.
  • Vowel harmony , which can be based on different vowel opposition: front-back, rounded-unrounded, high-low. Examples from Turkish:
    • (1) elma.lar "apples", but ders.ler "lessons"
    • (2) ev.de "in the house", but orman.da "in the forest"
    • (3) işçi.lik "craftsmanship"
    • (4) pazar.lık "business acumen "
    • (5) çoğun.luk "majority"
    • (6) Ölümsüz.lük "immortality"
      In (1) and (2), the vowel of the plural suffix / -ler / or / -lar / and the locative suffix / -de / or / -da / matches the stem vowel in the articulation point (back-front).
      To (3–6): The suffix / -lik / “-keit” has four variants that adapt to both the articulation of the stem vowel (back-front) and its rounding.
  • The vowel harmony is preserved in almost all Altaic languages, sometimes only in the spoken variants, while it is no longer clear in the typeface (e.g. in Uzbek).
  • A consistently agglutinative word formation and inflection, almost exclusively through suffixes. As the following self-explanatory example from Kazakh shows, this can lead to very long and complex formations (although normally more than three to four suffixes are rarely used). Each morpheme has a specific meaning and grammatical function and is - apart from the requirements of the vowel harmony - immutable. An example from Kazakh (a Turkic language):
    • write jaz
    • jaz.u the letter
    • jaz.u.šı the scribe
    • jaz.u.šı.lar the scribes
    • jaz.u.šı.lar.ım my scribe
    • jaz.u.šı.lar.ım.ız our clerks
    • jaz.u.šı.lar.ım.ız.da is one of our writers
    • jaz.u.šı.lar.ım.ız.da.γı the one belonging to our scribes
    • jaz.u.šı.lar.ım.ız.da.γı.lar those (things) belonging to our scribes
    • jaz.u.šı.lar.ım.ız.da.γı.lar.dan from the (things) belonging to our scribes
  • The agglutinative inflection of nouns and especially verbs is very complex, but also extremely regular. Adjectives, on the other hand, are hardly inflected, nor do they show any congruence with the defining word they precede. (Quantifiers are usually added afterwards.)
  • There are no articles . The number word “one” is often a substitute for the indefinite article.
  • There is no grammatical gender , even for 'he' and 'she' (fem.sg.) there are no different pronouns.
  • Postpositions are preferred over prepositions .
  • Relative clauses are replaced by participle and gerundive constructions (cf. in the example above the use of the suffix -γı).
  • The verb is at the end of a sentence, the normal sentence sequence is SOV (subject-object-verb).
  • There are essentially only two groups of parts of speech , namely nouns and verbs . There is variability within these groups (e.g. the Mongolian word dundaa can function both as a noun (“middle”) and as an adjective (“central”), adverb or postposition (“in the middle of ...”).)
  • The Altaic languages ​​- in the narrower sense - differ from other East Asian languages ​​in two essential characteristics: there are no special forms of honor and no significant expression of a specific women's language (e.g. Japanese, see the articles Japanese polite language and gender differences in spoken Japanese ).

Further characteristics and examples can be found within the descriptions of the individual language families. According to the general opinion of experts today, these typological matches are not sufficient to establish the genetic unity of the Altaic languages. Specific women's language and honorativa, such as in Korean and Japanese, can also be found in other languages ​​(such as Thai and Indonesian) in strongly hierarchical and traditionally shaped settled societies, i.e. a cultural phenomenon and not a sign of linguistic relationship. In addition, the same typological features can be found in the Urals and various Paleosiberian languages.

The structure of the Altaic language families

According to the current research results, the following classifications result for the three language families that make up the group of Altaic languages ​​(for number of speakers, dialects and other details, see the web link on classification given below):

The Turkic languages

The Mongolian languages

The Tungusic languages

James Marshall Unger speculates that the Tungusic languages ​​are related to Korean and Japanese, but not to the rest of the Altaic languages.

Korean and Japanese Ryukyu

Since some researchers also classify Korean and Japanese as Altaic, the structure of the small Japanese-Ryukyu language family (126 million speakers) follows here . The Korean is a single language with 78 million speakers without closer relatives.

Since Riley found similarities between the Korean Goguryeo and Old Japanese in 2003 , some researchers have reiterated the old hypothesis that Korean and Japanese are related - albeit with an unknown temporal depth of the common proto-language and an unexplained relationship with the actual Altaic languages. In 2016, indications of a relationship between Korean and Japanese were again alleged.

However, the alleged relationship between Korean and Japanese remains controversial, and the similarities are generally attributed to contact. The linguist Alexander Vovin judges further attempts to connect Japanese with the Altaic languages ​​as absurd and scientifically worthless.

Some researchers assume a single language is Japanese; the Ryukyu languages ​​then only represent aberrant dialects of Japanese.

An analysis carried out in 2015 by the "Automated Similarity Judgment Program" revealed indications that the Japanese-Ryūkyū languages ​​may be related to the Ainu language and the Austro-Asian languages , but that they are not related to Altaic (Turkic, Mongolian). The relationship to the Ainu language is controversial as Ainu was under the influence of Japanese for centuries.

The history of the classification of the Altaic languages

The classification of the Altaic languages ​​has a long and eventful history. The astonishing thing is that the 19th century took a rather broad approach - many language groups were assigned to Altai - while in the 20th century this approach narrowed noticeably to then with the Eurasian macro families ( Nostratic , Eurasian and Macro-Altaic ) to fall back to the other extreme. For the sake of easier comparability, the modern terms are used for the sub-groupings of the historical classification approaches. The abbreviation Turkish means the language family of all Turkic languages throughout the section .

Strahlberg, Rask and Schott

After some grammars of Altaic languages ​​had already appeared in the 17th century, Philip Johan von Strahlberg presented the first classification of "Tatar" in 1730, which included the Ural and Caucasian language groups, which are now called Altaic, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusian. He wrongly attached the Manchu to the Mongolian and not the Tungus branch.

Strahlberg 1730

  • Tatar
    • Finno-Ugric
    • Samoyed
    • Turkish
    • Mongolian Manchu
    • Tungusian
    • Caucasian

This approach was partly expanded in the 19th century, but also narrowed in the direction advocated by the majority of researchers today. A very broad approach comes from Rasmus Christian Rask in 1834, whose “Scythian” family is reminiscent of the Nostratic or Eurasian hypotheses of recent years. The Manchu is correctly set to Tungus and the unity of Finnish-Ugric and Samoyedic is recognized as Ural.

Rask 1834

  • Scythian
    • Turkish
    • Mongolian
    • Tungusian
    • Ural
    • Eskimo
    • Chukchi-Kamchadal
    • Caucasian
    • Basque

The already comprehensive approach of Rask was surpassed by M. Müller in 1855, who also added Thai , Tibetan , Dravidian and Malay - thus exceeding all the efforts of today's nostratics and Eurasians.

In contrast to Rask, Wilhelm Schott's 1849 classification reduced Altaic to the groups known today as Altaic and Uralic. Its importance lies in the fact that it has partially transferred the strict demands of the young Indo-European studies to the Altaic languages. Above all, this meant the realization that mere typological similarities should not be used to establish genetic relationships between languages, but that one must rely on lexical and morphological material. The Caucasian, like the other exotic groups of Rasks, is abandoned as part of the Altaic family. What remains are the language groups known today as Altaic and Uralic, which Schott calls "Chudian" and "Tatar" respectively. Schott thus reached a point of view that was widely accepted until the middle of the 20th century ("Ural-Altaic language family").

Schott 1849

  • Ural-Altaic
    • Chudish
      • Finno-Ugric
      • Samoyed
    • Tatar
      • Turkish
      • Mongolian
      • Tungusian

Abandonment of the genetic unity of Altai

In the following there are two tendencies - narrowing and expanding the Altaic language group.

The Ural-Altaic unity, initially represented by almost all researchers due to typological similarities, was abandoned. It no longer has any scientific support, but it is still widely used in popular literature.

As a result, the Turkish-Mongolian-Tungusian genetic unit is questioned or even abandoned and these three families are regarded as genetically separate groups (G. Clauson 1956, G. Doerfer 1963). The indisputable similarities of these three language families are interpreted by Clauson and Doerfer exclusively typologically or as a result of - sometimes very early - language contacts and borrowings (on the other hand, very decidedly R. A. Miller 1991).

Extension to macro-Altaic: Ramstedt, Poppe et al

Other researchers, however, add further individual languages ​​to the actual Altaic, namely

  • Korean , 78 million speakers
  • Japanese , 126 million speakers (4 languages ​​with the Ryukyu languages)
  • Ainu , (almost extinct, spoken in Hokkaido and Sakhalin)

This creates different forms of Macro-Altaic , which are classified differently. In 1957 Ramstedt considered - in addition to Turkish, Mongolian and Tungus, whose genetic unity he regards as proven - Korean as a fourth independent branch of the Altaic family.

Ramstedt 1957

  • Altaic
    • Turkish
    • Mongolian
    • Tungusian
    • Korean

Poppe 1965 assumes a division into an actual Altaic group and the Korean as an equal branch. In actual Altaic, he contrasts Mongolian-Tungus as a closely related group with the Turkic languages ​​(which he - like many others - splits into actual Turkic and Chuvash).

Poppe 1965

  • Altaic
    • Altai i. e. S.
      • Turkish
      • Mongolian Tungus
    • Korean

Miller added the Japanese in 1971, Street in 1962 and Patrie in 1982 also added the Ainu. While Street and Patrie put the actual Altaic group against a Korean-Japanese-Ainu unit, Miller sees a western group (Turkish-Chuvash) and an eastern group consisting of Mongolian, Tungusian, Korean and Japanese (whereby he places Tungus closer to Korean-Japanese ).

Street 1962 / Patrie 1982

  • North Asian
    • Altaic
      • Tungus-Mongolian
      • Turkish
    • Korean-Japanese-Ainu
      • Korean-Japanese
        • Korean
        • Japanese Ryukyu
      • Ainu

Miller 1971

  • Altaic
    • West Altaic
      • Chuvash
      • Turkish
    • East Altaic
      • Mongolian
      • Tunguso-Korean-Japanese
        • Tungusian
        • Korean-Japanese
          • Korean
          • Japanese Ryukyu

Altaic in the context of Nostratic and Eurasian

The macro-Altaic tendencies find their extreme expression in the Nostratic and Eurasian hypotheses, which view Altaic as a whole or some of its components as branches of the Nostratic or Eurasian macro family. Here as an example Greenberg's Eurasian macro family and the position of the Altaic languages ​​within this macro family (macro-Altaic group in semi-bold):

Greenberg 2000

  • Eurasian
    • Etruscan †
    • Indo-European
    • Ural-Jukagir
    • Altaic
      • Turkish
      • Mongolian
      • Tungusian
    • Korean-Japanese-Ainu
      • Korean
      • Japanese Ryukyu
      • Ainu
    • Giljak (Nivchish)
    • Chukchi-Kamchadal
    • Eskimo Aleut

Within the nostratic hypothesis, the Altaic languages ​​take a similar position as in Eurasian (see article Nostratic ). Since the Eurasian and Nostratic macro family have so far only found very little acceptance in the professional world, the question of the classification of the Altaic languages ​​is also hypothetical.

Altai - genetic unit or not?

Many researchers today - despite ongoing doubts from their critics - based on lexical, morphological, syntactic and phonetic similarities from the genetic unity of the Turkic languages, Mongolian and Tungus as Altaic language family. Accordingly, there are various efforts among these scientists to reconstruct the common proto-language. The addition of Korean has some, but not all, support. The approval of Japanese as a member of the Altaic family is significantly lower. This applies even more to the Ainu, although individual works contain quite interesting approaches.

It should not be overlooked, however, that a large group of researchers still consider the genetic unity of Turkish-Mongolian-Tungus to be unproven, fundamentally unprovable or even definitely refuted.

Two scenarios of linguistic development are therefore essentially opposed to one another:

  • Scenario I : There really was once a common original Altaic language, which was spoken in the Central Asian steppes in the area of ​​the Altai Mountains. Already there - perhaps 4000–3000 years ago - the division into a western Turkish, central Mongolian and eastern Tungusian group took place. Before that, an eastern group should have spread towards Manchuria. There the old Korean Goguryeo was formed and after translation to the Japanese islands, the Yayoi culture as a mixture between the immigrants and the earlier non-Altaic Jōmon culture . However, the latest findings show that the origin of the Korean people was in the southern Chinese region and that there was little influence from Siberia and Central Asia in the direction of Korea.
  • Scenario II : Convergence through contact and exchange: The Turkish, Mongolian and Tungusian groups - and possibly also Korean and Japanese - developed from different proto-languages ​​in relatively close geographical proximity, so that vocabulary was and mutually borrowed over a longer undisturbed period of time Developed similarities in phonology and morphology (cf. Dixon's theses 1997 on the convergence of languages ​​in long phases of undisturbed equilibrium). The Altaic groups spread from the Central Asian area in many waves of migration to their current homes. This is supported by the reconstructed original languages. The Ur-Turkish, Ur-Mongolian and Urtungusic show almost no similarities, but today's languages ​​are similar to one another. From this observation, linguists around the world draw the conclusion that if the Altaic language family should exist, it is only a linguistic union, and thus there are no genetic connections between the languages.

A linguistic analysis from 2015 showed that the Mongolian language could be related to the Tungus languages , but also to the Turkic languages , but that it has no genetic relationship to the Japanese Ryūkyū languages . Korean is not included in this analysis. Gerhard Jäger believes, however, that Korean is neither related to the Altaic languages ​​nor to Japanese.

Altai word equations

There is not an overwhelming abundance of convincing word equations containing components from all five potential branches of Altai. Bilateral Turkic-Mongolian, Mongolian-Tungusian, Korean-Tungusian or Korean-Japanese parallels are much more numerous. Nevertheless, by comparing the reconstructed protoforms from the area of ​​the body parts, some interesting “Altaic” parallels can be found. (According to S. Starostin, Altaic Etymological Dictionary. Spelling simplified).

Turkic, Mongolian and Tungus proto-forms (body parts)

meaning Proto-
Turkic language.
Proto-
Mongolian
Proto-
Tungus
chest * gokur * koko'u * kukun
shoulder * jagyr * dajira * daga
Collarbone * egin * egem * emuge
guts * kurg-sak * kurkag * xurke
Hand, arm * kary *at all .
wrist * bilek * begelej * bil
head * tum * tom * tum-nu
Tongue, lick * so: r * soru * sori
heel * topyk * tojig * topug

Macro Altai word equations

The next compilation extends the spectrum to a larger section of the basic vocabulary. In addition to the Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic forms, Korean and Japanese are also used. However, the word equations no longer relate only to individual terms, but to sometimes quite broad fields of meaning. In the first line, the representation includes the reconstructed protoforms of the five proto-languages ​​(the oldest documented forms in Korean and Japanese) as well as the hypothetical Altaic proto-form for each term or meaning field . A concrete example from a single language is then given in a second line : Turkish for the Turkic languages, Chalcha for the Mongolian family, a Tungusic single language (Manchu or Evenki) and more recent forms of Korean and Japanese.

Since much of the word equations in this table can be interpreted (for example the reconstruction of the protoforms, the breadth of the meaning field), they cannot be directly used as proof of the genetic unity of the macro-Altaic language group or Altaic i, despite the wealth of data. w. Look at p. Many parallels could also be traced back to language contacts and borrowings. On the other hand, this material - which could be expanded many times over - shows that a genetic unit - at least in Altai in the narrower sense - cannot simply be dismissed out of hand.

Field of meaning Proto-
Turkic language.
Proto-
Mongolian
Proto-
Tungus
Old
Korean
Old
Japanese
Proto-
Altaic
Turkish Chalcha Tungus.
Single language
Korean Japanese .
Chest, heart, suck * gökür * kökön * kukun * kokai * kəkərə ** koke
göğüs χöχ oχo kogäŋi kokoro .
Rib, chest * bokana * bogoni * boka . * baki ** boka
bağır bogino boqšon . waki .
Shoulder, withers * jagır * dajira * daga . . ** dagV
yağrı dajr daγana . . .
Collarbone * egin * egem * emuge . . ** egemV
eğin egem emuge . . .
Guts, stomach * kurg-sak * kurkag * cucumber * kurəi . ** kurgo
Kursak χurχag χuike kurgi . .
Elbow, leg, wing, fin * kajnat * kai * kene . * kanai ** kena
kanat χa'a kenete . kane .
Hand, arm * karı *at all . . * kata (?) ** gara
kar-uža at all . . kata? .
Wrist, glove * bilek * begelej * bil . . ** bili
bilek belij bil . . .
Head, head, boss * tum * tom * tumŋu . * tum? ** tumu
tüm-sec tumlaj do . tsumuri? .
throat * boguŕ * bagalžur * bukse . * pukum ** boku
boğaz bagalžur buχe . fukum? .
Tongue, language * kele * kele * χilŋü . . ** kiali
dil χele ileŋu . . .
heel * topık * tojig * topVg . * tu (m) pu ** topu
topuk tojg tobga . tumpu .
Bark, skin, leaf * kapuk * kawda * χabda * kaph- * kapa ** kapa
kabuk χudas χabdata kaphar kawa .
Blood, health, beautiful, red *say * sajin * segu * sa'o- . ** segu
say sajn seŋi sanap . .
Nerve, tendon, vein * siŋir . * sire * siur . ** siŋrir
sinir . mountains siwi . .
Dream, dreaming * dül * tölge * tolkin . . ** tulke
düş, dalgın tölög tolgin . . .
(old woman * eme * eme * emV * amh * mia? ** eme
ebe em emi (le) at the me (-su)? .
Bird species * torgaj * turagu * turaki * strong * təri ** toro
turgay turaγu turaki strong (M) tori .
Louse, nit * sirke * sirke * sire . * siramu ** siajri
sirke širχ refused . shirami .
Dust, snow, smoke * buruk * burgi * bureki . . * boru
buruk burgi buraki . . .
Rain, snow, fog . * siγurga * sig . * sigure ** sig-ur
sağanak šurga sigan . shigure .
Summer, spring * yeah * nažir . * nač natsu ** nažV
yay-la nažir . nač . .
Sand, dust, desert * cum * kumaki * suits . . ** kiume
cum χumag kumi . . .
Earth, dust, tar *goal *goal *door * tırı . **Gates
toz tortog door tırı . .
stone * dial * čilaγu * žola torh . ** tioli
taş čulu žolo tol . .
Network, network *goal * towr * turku * tarachi * turi ** tobru
goal goal tur-ku tar-äki tsuri .
sour milk, ayran * ajran * ajirag * ajara . . ** ajira
ayran ajrag ajara . . .
Salt, bitter *major * dabusu * žujar * čjer * tura ** over
tuz davs žušu čel tsura .
complete, enough * but * möči * mute * mota * muta ** muti
but (AT) möčis mute mod muta? .
bite, gnaw * gemür * kemeli * kemki . *came ** kema
kemir χimle kemki . came .
reach, enter * gir * short * χ for . . ** kiure
gir-iş χure χuru . . .
braid, weave * ör * ör . * or * ər ** ore
ör-mek örmög . oil or .
to be fat) * semir * semži * semesi . . ** seme
. semiz semš semsu . . .
long, late * uŕun * urtu * χ for * ora . ** iuŕo
uzun urt irect? orä . .
weak, sick, servant / warrior * alp * alban * alba * arpha * apar ** alpa
alp alba alba aphı aware .
one, total * bir * office . * piri . ** biuri
bir office . pir-oso . .
who * kem, ka * ken, ka * χia * ka * ka ** ka (j)
kim χen ai, yes -ka -ka .
I, we * loading * bi, min * bi, mün . * ba **bi
ben bi bi . wa .

Simplified phonetic representation of the proto-forms and individual language examples. The individual language examples for the Turkic languages ​​are usually taken from Turkish and for Mongolian from Chalcha. The Tungusic examples mostly come from Manchu or Evenki.

Source: S. Starostin, AV Dybo, OA Mudrak: Altaic Etymology . Internet database 2005.

Parallels in nominal morphology

Since the grammar is less easy to borrow from another language than the lexicon, the former is a strong indication of a genetic relationship. Starostin et al. (2003) reconstructed the following correspondence between case and number suffixes in (macro) Altaic (from Blažek, 2006):

case
Proto-Altaic Proto-Turksp. (*), Old Turkish Proto-Mongolian (*), Classical Mongolian Proto-Tungus Proto-Korean (*), Central Korean Proto-Japanese (*), Old Japanese
Nominative : 0 0 0 0 0 0
Accusative : / be / / ba /, / be / /Where/
Partitive : / ga / - / ʁ /, - / ɯʁ /, - / g /, - / ig / * - / ʁ / (accusative) / ga / / ga / (possessive)
Genitive : - / nʲV / - / ŋ / * - / n / - / ŋi / - / nʲ / / no /
Dative - locative : / du /, / da / - / ta /, - / da /, - / te /, - / de / (locative-ablative) - / da / (dative-locative), - / du / (attributive) / du / (dative), - / daː / - (locative) - / tu / (attributive-locative)
Dative - instrumental : - / nV / - / n /, - / ɯn /, - / in / (instrumental) / ni / (dative-locative)
Dative - directive : - / kʰV / - / qa /, - / ke / (dative) / kiː / (directive)
Comitive - Locative : - / lV / - / li /, - / lɯʁ / / laː / (locative), - / liː / (prolative), - / luʁa / (comitive) - / ro / (instrumental-lative)
Comitive - Equative : - / t͡ʃʰa / - / t͡ʃa /, - / t͡ʃe / (Equative) / t͡ʃa / (ablative), / t͡ʃa /, / t͡ʃaʁa / (terminative) / to / (comitative)
Allative : - / gV / - / ʁaru /, - / gery / (directive) * - / ʁa /, - / a / / giː / ( allative ) - / əi /
Directive : - / rV / - / ʁaru /, - / gery / - / ru / - / ro / (Latin)
Instrumental - ablative : - / d͡ʒV / * ? - / ja /, - / a / Terminal dative / d͡ʒi / / ju / (ablative)
Singulative : - / nV / * - / n / - / n /
number
Dual : - / rʲV / * - / rʲ / (plural for paired objects) - / r / (plural) * - / rə / (plural for paired objects)
Plural : - / tʰ / - * - / t / - / d / - / ta /, - / te /, - / tan /, - / ten / * - / tɯr / * - / tati /
Plural : - / s / - * - / s / - / sal /
Plural : - / l / - * - / lar / * - / nar / - / l /, - / sal / * - / ra /

/ V / symbolizes an indefinite vowel. Suffixes that were reconstructed for Proto-Turkish, Proto-Mongolian, Proto-Korean or Proto-Japanese, but which have not been passed down from Old Turkish, Classical Mongolian, Middle Korean or Old Japanese, have been marked with an asterisk.

Personal pronouns

Personal pronouns are borrowed significantly less often than other words in another language. This is especially true for a whole system of personal pronouns. In the following, based on Starostin et al. (2003) and Blažek (2006), the personal pronouns of Proto-Altaic are presented in the IPA notation (meaning of / V / and asterisk as above), with extensive correspondences (for correspondences with other languages ​​see Contribution to Eurasian ).

Proto-Altaic Proto-Turksp. Proto-Mongolian (*), Classical Mongolian Proto-Tungus Proto-Korean (*), Central Korean Proto-Japanese
"I" /bi/ / be / * / bi / /bi/ / ba /
"Me" (oblique) /mine/- / men / * / min / - / min / -
"I" /n / A/ * / nad / -, - / m / - (oblique) /n / A/ / a / -
"you" / si / and / or / tʰi / / se / * / t͡ʃi / / si / / si /
"You" (oblique) / sin / - and / or / tʰin / - / sen / ? * / t͡ʃin / -
"you" /n / A/ - / ŋ / * / nə / /n / A/
"we" / ba / / birʲ / * / ba / / bue / / uri / / ba /
"Us" (oblique) / myn / - * / man / - / myn / -
"Her" (pl.) / sV / and / or / tʰV / / s / * / ta / / suː /
"You" (oblique) / sVn / - / sun / -

The continuous pattern is a labial in the 1st person and a dental in the 2nd person. However, this pattern also occurs to a large extent in the Nostratic and Eurasian languages ​​and is therefore not particularly meaningful for Altaic.

Reconstructed phonology

Based on the relationships between the individual proto-languages ​​below, the following phoneme inventory is assumed for Macro-Altaic (according to Blažek 2006 and Starostin et al. 2003 with transcription in the IPA system ( IPA )).

Consonants

Bilabial Alveolar or Dental Alveolopala Valley Postalveolar  Palatal    Velar  
Plosive aspirated / pʰ / / tʰ / / kʰ /
unvoiced / p / / t / / k /
voiced / b / / d / /G/
Affricates aspirated / t͡ʃʰ /
unvoiced / t͡ʃ /
voiced / d͡ʒ /
Fricative unvoiced / s / / ʃ /
voiced / z / ¹
nasal / m / / n / / nʲ / / ŋ /
Vibrant / r / ² / rʲ /
Approximant / l / / lʲ / / j / ²

¹ This phoneme only occurs at the beginning of a word

² These phonemes only occur within the word

Vowels

front back
unrounded rounded
closed / i /   / y /   / u /
center / e / /O/ /O/
half open / æ /
open / a /

It is not clear whether / æ /, / ø /, / y / are monophthongs as shown here (assumed [æ œ ~ ø ʏ ~ y] ) or diphthongs ( [i̯a ~ i̯ɑ i̯ɔ ~ i̯o i̯ʊ ~ i̯u] ); both are vocalized in the same way. In any case, they only appear in the first syllable of the word.

Altaic sound laws

A particularly clear indication or even proof of genetic unity is the existence of phonetic laws that connect the language families with one another. Poppe 1960 goes z. B. from the following series for Turkish and Mongolian:

Proto-Altaic Turkish Chuvash Central Mongol. Mongolian Otherwise
/ * p- /> /O-/   /H-/ /O-/ Monguor / f- /
/ * - r- /> / -z- / / -r- /   / -r- /  

In words :

  • Proto-Altaic initial / p / disappears in Proto-Turkish and becomes / h / in Proto-Mongolian, in modern Mongolian it also disappears. (Only in Monguor does it become / f /.)
  • Proto-Altaic innervocal / r / becomes Proto-Turkish to / z /, but / r / remains in the aberrant Turkish Chuvash and Mongolian.

In the Turkish-Mongolian word for long , these sound laws interlock and form a convincing etymological relation:

  • Central Mongol. hurtu , Mongol. urtu , Monguor fudur ;
  • Old Turkish uzun , Chuvash vorom

Poppe 1973 ironically answers those (e.g. the Turkologist Doerfer) who consider such an equation to be merely a result of borrowings from Turkish into Mongolian (according to R. A. Miller 1991): “The root is therefore mong. ur- = turk. uz- , where / r / and / z / are proper equivalents. If this is a borrowing from the Turkic languages, the Mongols must 'only' have borrowed the root uz- , / z / into / r / 'transformed' ... and also have added a prosthetic / * p- / (cf. Monguor fudur ), which is certainly quite absurd. "

Phonetic equivalents

If a Proto (-Macro) -Altaic language should actually have existed, it should be possible to reconstruct regular phonetic correspondences between this proto-language and its successor languages; thereby it would z. B. possible to more easily distinguish between originally related and borrowed words. The last and so far most successful version based on Blažek (2006) and Starostin et al. (2003) is shown below in the IPA system .

If a Proto-Altaic phoneme differs depending on its position in a word (beginning, inner or end), the special case (or all cases) is marked with a hypha; z. B. Proto-Altaic / pʰ / disappears (marked “0”) or becomes / j / at the beginning and / p / elsewhere in a Turkish word.

Consonants

Proto-Altaic Proto-Turksp. Proto-Mongolian Proto-Tungus Proto-Korean Proto-Japanese
/ pʰ / 0-, / j / -, / p / / h / - ¹ , / j / -, - / b / -, - / h / - ¹ , - / b / / p / / p / / p /
/ tʰ / / t / -, / d / - ² , / t / / t /, / t͡ʃ / ³ , - / d / / t / / t / / t /
/ kʰ / / k / / k / -, - / k / -, - / g / - 4 , - / g / / x / -, / k /, / x / / k /, / h / / k /
/ p / / b / / b / -, / h / - ¹ , / b / / p / -, / b / / p / / p /
/ t / / d / -, / t / / t /, / t͡ʃ / ³ / d / -, / d͡ʒ / - 5 , / t / / t /, - / r / - / t / -, / d / -, / t /
/ k / / k / -, / k /, / g / 6 / k / -, / g / / k / -, / g / -, / g / / k / -, - / h / -, -0-, - / k / / k /
/ b / / b / / b / -, - / h / -, - / b / - 7 , - / b / / b / / p /, - / b / - / p / -, / w /, / b / 8 , / p / 9
/ d / / j / -, / d / / d /, / d͡ʒ / ³ / d / / t /, - / r / - / d / -, / t / -, / t /, / j /
/G/ /G/ / g / -, - / h / -, - / g / - 4 , - / g / /G/ / k /, - / h / -, -0- / k / -, / k /, 0 10
/ t͡ʃʰ / / t͡ʃ / / t͡ʃ / / t͡ʃ / / t͡ʃ / / t /
/ t͡ʃ / / d / -, / t͡ʃ / / d / -, / d͡ʒ / - ³ , / t͡ʃ / / s / -, - / d͡ʒ / -, - / s / - / t͡ʃ / / t / -, - / s / -
/ d͡ʒ / / y / / d͡ʒ / / d͡ʒ / / t͡ʃ / / d / -, / j /
/ s / / s / / s / / s / / s / -, / h / -, / s / / s /
/ ʃ / / s / -, / t͡ʃ / - 11 , / s / / s / -, / t͡ʃ / - 11 , / s / / ʃ / / s / / s /
/ z / / y / / s / / s / / s / / s /
/ m / / b / -, - / m / - / m / / m / / m / / m /
/ n / / y / -, - / n / - / n / / n / / n / / n /
/ nʲ / / j / -, / nʲ / / d͡ʒ / -, / j /, / n / / nʲ / / n / -, / nʲ / / m / -, / n /, / m /
/ ŋ / 0-, / j / -, / ŋ / 0-, / j / -, / g / - 12 , / n / - 13 , / ŋ /, / n /, / m /, / h / / ŋ / / n / -, / ŋ /, 0 0-, / n / -, / m / - 5 , / m /, / n /
/ r / / r / / r / / r / / r / / r /, / t / 14
/ rʲ / / rʲ / / r / / r / / r / / r /, / t /
/ l / / j / -, / l / / n / -, / l / -, / l / / l / /No/ /No/
/ lʲ / / j / -, / lʲ / / d / -, / d͡ʒ / - ³ , / l / / l / /No/ / n / -, / s /
/ y / / y / / j /, / h / / y / / j /, 0 / j /, 0
  • ¹ Monguor has / f / here instead (Kaiser & Shevoroshkin 1988); it is therefore very likely that Proto-Mongolian also had / f /, which then became / h / (and then disappeared) in all subsequent languages ​​except Monguor. Tabgač and Chitan , two of the Mongolian languages ​​that Starostin et al. (2003) did not take into account for more than 1000 years, still had / p / at this point (Blažek 2006).
  • ² This was done with the next consonant in the word / lʲ / , / rʲ / , or / r / .
  • ³ Before / i /.
  • 4 At the next consonant in the word / h /.
  • 5 Followed by / æ /, / ø /, / y /.
  • 6 At the next consonant in the word / r /.
  • 7 With the preceding consonant / r / , / rʲ / , / l / , or / lʲ / , or with the next consonant / g /.
  • 8 With the next vowel / a /, / ə /, or followed by / j /.
  • 9 Followed by / i / and then another vowel or by / j /.
  • 10 For a preceding vowel with a preceding / i /.
  • 11 Followed by / a /.
  • 12 Followed by / u /.
  • 13 Followed by by / a /, / o /, or / e /.
  • 14 Followed by / i / or / u /.

Vowels

As stated above, vowel harmony is widespread in the Altaic languages. Most Turkic languages ​​as well as Mongolian and some Tungusic languages ​​have them, Korean is slowly losing them at the moment, and vowel harmony can be reconstructed for Old Japanese. Vowel harmony is also typical of the neighboring Uralic languages and was therefore used earlier as an argument for the so-called Ural-Altaic hypothesis , which has since been abandoned. Nevertheless, Starostin et al. (2003) reconstruct Proto-Altaic as a language without vowel harmony and regard it in every daughter language as an adjustment of the vowel in the first syllable to the vowel of the last syllable, which was usually lost. The following table is taken from Blažek (2006):

Proto-Altaic Proto-Turksp. Proto-Mongolian Proto-Tungus Central Korean Proto-Japanese
first S. last p. first syllable
/ a / / a / / a / / a / / a / / a /, / ə / / a /
/ a / / e / / a /, / ɯ / / a /, / i / / a / / a /, / ə / / ə /
/ a / / i / / e /, / a / / a /, / e / / a / / a /, / ə /, / i / / i /
/ a / /O/ / o /, / ja /, / aj / / a /, / i /, / e / / a / / a /, / o / / a /
/ a / / u / / a / / a /, / o /, / u / / a / / a /, / ə /, / o /, / u / / u /
/ e / / a / / a /, / e / / a /, / e / / e / / a /, / ə / / a /
/ e / / e / / e /, / yes / / e /, / yes / / e / / a /, / ə /, / i /, / ɯ / / ə /
/ e / / i / / e /, / yes / / e /, / i / / e / / i /, / ɯ / , / a /, / ə / / i /
/ e / /O/ / a /, / e / / a /, / e /, / y / ², / ø / ² / e / / a /, / o /, / u / / ə /, / a /
/ e / / u / / e /, / a / / e /, / a /, / o / ² / e / / o /, / u /, / a / / u /
/ i / / a / / ɯ / , / i / / i / / i / / a /, / ə / / a /
/ i / / e / / e / / e /, / i / / i / / i /, / ɯ / / i /
/ i / / i / / i / / i /, / e / ¹ / i / / i / / i /
/ i / /O/ / ɯ / / i / / i / / o /, / u /, / ɯ / / i /, / ə /
/ i / / u / / ɯ / , / i / / i / / i / / i /, / ɯ / / u /
/O/ / a / /O/ / o /, / u / / o /, / u / / a /, / ə / / a /
/O/ / e / / ø /, / o / / ø /, / y /, / o / / o /, / u / / ɯ / , / o /, / u / / ə /
/O/ / i / / ø /, / o / /O/ / o /, / u / / o /, / u / / u /
/O/ /O/ /O/ / u / / o /, / u / / a /, / ə / / ə /
/O/ / u / /O/ / o /, / u / / o /, / u / / a /, / o /, / u / / u /
/ u / / a / / u /, / o / / a /, / o /, / u / / o /, / u / / a /, / ə / / a /
/ u / / e / / y / / o /, / u /, / y / / u / / a /, / ə / / ua /, / a / ¹
/ u / / i / / y /, / u / / y /, / ø / / u / / o /, / u /, / ɯ / / u /
/ u / /O/ / u / / o /, / u / / o /, / u / / o /, / u /, / ɯ / / ə /
/ u / / u / / u / / o /, / u / / o /, / u / / o /, / u / / u /
/ æ / / a / / ia /, / yes /, / e / / a / / ia /, / i / ³ / a / / a /
/ æ / / e / / ia /, / yes / / i /, / a /, / e / / i / / i /, / ə /, / jə / / ə /
/ æ / / i / / ia /, / yes /, / e / / i /, / e / / ia /, / i / ³ / a /, / ə /, / jə / / i /
/ æ / /O/ / ia /, / ja /, / a / ¹ / e / / o /, / u / / a /, / o /, / u / / a /
/ æ / / u / / e /, / a / / a /, / o /, / u / / o /, / u / / o /, / u /, / ə /, / jə / / u /
/O/ / a / / ia /, / ja /, / a / ¹ / a /, / o /, / u / / o /, / u / / o /, / u /, / a / / a /
/O/ / e / / e /, / a / / e /, / ø / / o /, / u / / o /, / u /, / jə / / ə /, / u /
/O/ / i / / ia /, / ja /, / a / ¹ / i /, / e /, / ø / / o /, / u / / o /, / u /, / a / / i /
/O/ /O/ / o /, / u / / ø /, / y /, / o /, / u / / i / / i /, / ə /, / jə / / ə /, / a /
/O/ / u / / u /, / o / / e /, / i /, / u / / ia /, / i / ³ / a /, / u /, / jə / / u /
/ y / / a / / ɯ / / o /, / u /, / i / / o /, / u / / a /, / ə / / a /
/ y / / e / / y /, / ø /, / i / 4 / ø /, / y /, / o /, / u / / y /, / u / ¹ / a /, / ə /, / ja /, / jə /, / o /, / u / / u /, / ə /
/ y / / i / / y /, / ø / / ø /, / y /, / o /, / u / / i /, / u / ¹ / ɯ / , / i /, / o /, / u / / i /
/ y / /O/ / u /, / o / / o /, / u / / y / / a /, / ə /, / ja /, / jə /, / o /, / u / / u /, / ə /
/ y / / u / / ɯ / / i /, / o /, / u /, / y /, / ø / / o /, / u / / o /, / u /, / i /, / ɯ / / u /
  • ¹ With a preceding bilabial consonant
  • ² With preceding or following bilabial consonant.
  • ³ With the preceding fricative ( / s /, / ʃ /, / x / ).
  • 4 with the following vibrant, / l /, or / lʲ / .

Conclusion

It is not excluded that the macro-Altaic languages ​​form a genetic unit. The probability of a unity of Altaic in the narrower sense - i.e. Turkic-Mongolian-Tungusian - is significantly higher than the probability of the macro-Altaic variant. Ultimately, however, it cannot be ruled out that all the parallels shown are due to contact phenomena and borrowings. However, it is also clear that according to the current state of knowledge, a statement of the type “there is definitely no genetic unit of the Altaic languages” is not tenable.

Perhaps future research results will lead to clearer results. To date, only around a third of the two variants of the Kitan script has been deciphered, with the characters used not only reflecting logograms but also morphemes and thus allowing direct conclusions to be drawn about the ancient Mongolian language used at the time before the 12th century. Mongolia and Manchuria have not yet been archaeologically researched so well that further significant text finds with conclusions about the Mongolian and Tungusian languages ​​previously spoken there can be excluded, which can then be compared with the oldest Turkish texts.

In this context, the more intensive treatment of the conservative small languages ​​of the three language families and not only mainly the most important languages ​​according to the number of speakers, the increased use of the earliest written sources of all 5 main groups and the elaboration of a comparative Altaic morphology of the verb analogous to the already existing reconstructions would also be informative the case of the noun.

Whether a treatment of (macro) Altaic within the framework of the Eurasian and Nostratical macro families can bring more clarity to this problem is controversial, since these macro families for their part are not based on solid foundations.

Altaic Studies

Altaic Studies is a generic term for the scientific disciplines that deal with the corresponding languages, peoples, history (s) and cultures, and is still used in the scientific world today. One reason for this is the tradition and structure of teaching and research institutions. Beyond the questioned linguistic genetic relationship, there are many other historical and cultural similarities to be considered. Research into the at least existing Altaic linguistic federation , which includes the Turkic and Mongolian and Tungusic languages, perhaps also Korean and Japanese, makes Altaic studies meaningful and valuable as a subject and research area in the future. It could also - together with Ural and Indo-European Studies - represent the core of a research direction that deals with the current topic of Eurasian macro families (Eurasian and Nostratian).

literature

  • RA Miller: Languages ​​and history. Japanese, Korean and Altaic. Inst. For Comparative Research in Human Culture, 1996, ISBN 974-8299-69-4 .
  • Barbara E. Riley: Aspects of the Genetic Relationship of the Korean and Japanese Languages. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Hawaii, 2003, OCLC 370470728 .
  • Martine Irma Robbeets: Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 2005, ISBN 3-447-05247-3 .
  • SA Starostin, A. Dybo, O. Mudrak: Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Brill Academic Publishers, June 2003, ISBN 90-04-13153-1 .
  • Charles Haguenauer: Nouvelles recherches comparées sur le japonais et les langues altaïques. L'Asiathèque, Paris 1987.
  • G. Ramstedt: Introduction to Altaic Linguistics. 3 volumes. Helsinki 1952–1957.
  • Ernst Kausen: The language families of the world. Part 1: Europe and Asia . Buske, Hamburg 2013, ISBN 978-3-87548-655-1 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. "While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages ​​no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related." Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, University of Utah Press), pg. 7th
  2. "When cognates proved not to be valid, Altaic was abandoned, and the received view now is that Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic are unrelated." Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (1992, Chicago), pg. 4th
  3. "Careful examination indicates that the established families, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic, form a linguistic area (called Altaic) ... Sufficient criteria have not been given that would justify talking of a genetic relationship here." RMW Dixon, The Rise and Fall of Languages ​​(1997, Cambridge), pg. 32.
  4. "... [T] his selection of features does not provide good evidence for common descent" and "we can observe convergence rather than divergence between Turkic and Mongolic languages ​​- a pattern than is easily explainable by borrowing and diffusion rather than common descent ", Asya Pereltsvaig, Languages ​​of the World, An Introduction (2012, Cambridge) has a good discussion of the Altaic hypothesis (pp. 211-216).
  5. U. Meltem Büyükmavi: review. zu: Martine Irma Robbeets: Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? (= Turcologica. Volume 64). In: Oriens Extremus. 46th year, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007, pp. 306-310.
  6. Shiro Hattori: Dictionary of Ainu Dialects ( ア イ ヌ 語 方言 辞典 Ainu-go Hōgen Jiten ) (1964).
  7. Theodora Bynon: Review of Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages . In: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London . tape 36 , no. 1 , 1973, p. 181-184 , JSTOR : 613156 .
  8. Languages ​​and history: Japanese, Korean, and Altaic / Roy Andrew Miller. - National Library. Retrieved August 23, 2018 .
  9. ^ Francis-Ratte, Alexander Takenobu: Proto-Korean-Japanese: A New Reconstruction of the Common Origin of the Japanese and Korean Languages . 2016 ( ohiolink.edu [accessed September 4, 2018]).
  10. ^ A b Alexander Vovin: Origins of the Japanese Language. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press, September 2017, accessed November 29, 2019 .
  11. ^ Gerhard Jäger: Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112, 2015, p. 12752, doi: 10.1073 / pnas.1500331112 .
  12. ^ Nicolas Tranter: The Languages ​​of Japan and Korea . Routledge, 2012, ISBN 978-1-136-44658-0 ( google.co.uk [accessed July 23, 2018]).
  13. Korean Culture and Information Service (KOCIS): Researchers discover Korean genetic roots in 7,700-year-old skull :: Korea.net: The official website of the Republic of Korea. Retrieved March 18, 2017 .
  14. ^ The Altaic family controversy - Languages ​​Of The World . In: Languages ​​Of The World . February 16, 2011 ( languagesoftheworld.info [accessed March 18, 2017]).
  15. ^ Gerhard Jäger: Support for linguistic macrofamilies from weighted sequence alignment. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112, 2015, p. 12752.
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on April 10, 2006 .