In popular conception, Altaic is often assumed to constitute a language family, or perhaps a phylum, but in reality, it involves a historical, areal, and typological complex of five separate language families of different origins—Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic—to which Uralic also adheres in the transcontinental context of Ural-Altaic. The similarities between the individual Altaic language families are due to prolonged contacts that have resulted in both lexical borrowing and structural interaction in a number of binary patterns. The historical homelands of the Altaic language families were located in continental Northeast Asia, but secondary expansions have subsequently brought these languages to most parts of northern and central Eurasia, including Anatolia and eastern Europe. The present review summarizes the basic facts concerning the Altaic language families, their common features, their patterns of interaction with each other and with other languages, and their historical and prehistorical context.

Paradigmatic morphology is a central and crucial concept for several branches of comparative linguistics. The observation of shared paradigms in languages which were not suspected of having a common ancestry stands at the cradle of modern genealogical linguistics and dominates the discussion(s) about not firmly established or merely putative language families or phyla to this day, the very different morphological techniques different languages use for the formation of paradigms mark the beginning of language typology, now a major pillar of the language sciences, and the question, to which degree languages—closely, distantly, or not at all related with each other—may borrow morphological paradigms (part or whole) from each other or might have done so in the past (which, if true and not properly detected, might lead to superficially persuasive, but factually erroneous, claims and hypotheses of genealogical relatedness) continues to be an important theoretical and practical issue in comparative linguistics. The contributions to this volume address, i. a., all of these questions and areas and offer much food for thought about historical morphology, areal linguistics and, above all, language classification—going far beyond the “Altaic hypothesis” , which figures prominently in some of them.

In this paper, we present the results of our analysis of the 110-item basic wordlists for four reconstructed and one ancient languages, the linguistic ancestors of five language families which are hypothesized to constitute the Altaic (a.k.a. Transeurasian) macrofamily: Proto-Turkic, Proto-Mongolic, Proto-Tungusic, Middle Korean and Proto-Japonic wordlists. Protolanguage wordlists were reconstructed according to strict criteria of semantic reconstruction, based on accurate semantic glossing of forms in daughter languages. Each involved form was encoded into a bi-consonantal <i>CC</i>-shaped sequence using the consonant class method, after which a recently developed weighted permutation test was applied. In a typical situation, our algorithm makes a small number of type 1 errors (false positive), but the number of type 2 errors (false negative) can be substantial. Our main finding is that pairs between the Nuclear Altaic taxa - Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic - as well as the Turkic-Japonic and Tungusic-Japonic pairs demonstrate significant <i>p</i>-values. In some cases, this can be attributed to either ancient contacts or genealogical relationships, but at least for the Turkic-Japonic pair, a contact scenario is unlikely owing to geographical remoteness.

This chapter presents a general overview of the three language groupings, i.e. Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic, that are traditionally covered by the term “Altaic”. Each language family is briefly discussed in terms of its geographical distribution and classification as well as its current sociolinguistic profile, i.e. the estimates of the number of speakers. The chapter provides a detailed overview of the script systems used by the speakers of Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic throughout their history, such as the Jurchen script, the hPags-pa script, and the Turkic runiform script. A special focus is on the major written sources attesting the historical varieties of each family in question, most notably Manchu, Middle Mongol, and Old Turkic.

speak Turkic languages. According to historians and linguists, the Proto-Turkic language originated in Central-East Asia, potentially in the Altai-Sayan Turkic peoples are a collection of diverse ethnic groups of West, Central, East, and North Asia as well as parts of Europe, who speak Turkic languages. According to historians and linguists, the Proto-Turkic language originated in Central-East Asia, potentially in the Altai-Sayan region, Mongolia or Tuva. Initially, Proto-Turkic speakers were potentially both hunter-gatherers and farmers; they lat The origins of the Turkic peoples has been a topic of much discussion. Peter Benjamin Golden proposes two locations for the Proto-Turkic Urheimat: the southern Altai-Sayan region, and Southern Siberia, from Lake Baikal to eastern Mongolia. Other studies suggested an early presence of Turkic peoples in Mongolia, or Tuva. A possible genealogical link of the Turkic languages to Mongolic and Tungusic languages, specifically a hypothetical homeland in Manchuria, such as proposed in the Transeurasian hypothesis, by Martine Robbeets, has received support but also criticism, with opponents attributing similarities to long-term contact. The proto-Turkic-speakers may be linked to Neolithic East Asian agricultural societies in Northeastern China, which is to be associated with the Xinglongwa culture and the succeeding Hongshan culture, based on varying degrees of specific East Asian genetic substratum among modern Turkic speakers. According to historians, "the Proto-Turkic subsistence strategy included an agricultural component, a tradition that ultimately went back to the origin of millet agriculture in…

Алтай хэлний онол ба түрэг, монгол хэлний хэл зүйн харьцаа Зохиогч энэхүү илтгэлдээ алтай хэлний онолыг зөвшөөрөгчид хийгээд үл зөвшөөрөгчдийн байр суурийн талаар тодорхой баримтад түшиглэн өгүүлээд, улмаар түрэг, монгол хэлний хэл зүйн харьцааны асуудлыг уг хэлнүүдэд буй зүг чиг заах тийн ялгалын айгаар төлөөлүүлэн, эртний түрэг, монгол хэл хийгээд орчин цагийн түрэг, монгол хэлний жишээ баримтаар тодруулан үзээд дараах дүгнэлтэд хүрчээ. Үүнд, алтай хэл судлалын хүрээнд багагүй чухал байр эзэлдэг түрэг, монгол хэлний харьцааны асуудлыг уг хэлнүүдэд буй нийтлэг зүйлийг нь гол болгон гарал зүйнхээ хувьд холбоотой гэх, эсвэл уг нийтлэг зүйлийг нь нэг хэлнээсээ нөгөө хэлэндээ үзүүлсэн нөлөөгөөр тайлбарласаар нэлээд хугацаа өнгөрч, энэ хоёр эсрэг тэсрэг онолын аль нэгийг зөвшөөрч, нөгөөг нь үгүйсгэсэн бүтээл туурвил гарсаар байна. Гэвч энд зохиогчийн задлан шинжилсэн баримтаас үзэхэд түрэг, монгол хэлний харьцааг уг хоёр эсрэг тэсрэг онолын аль нэгийг нь баримтлан нөгөөг нь үгүйсгэн тайлбарлах нь учир дутагдалтай, уг хоёр онолыг тэгш харгалзан үзэх шаардлагатай нь тодорхой байна. Энэ нь эдгээр эсрэг тэсрэг онолууд нь харилцан бие биеэ үгүйсгэсэн боловч бас харилцан бие биеэ нөхсөн шинжтэй гэдгийг харуулж байна. Өөрөөр хэлбэл, түрэг, монгол хэл нь гарал зүйнхээ үүднээс холбогдож болох авч бас бие биедээ үлэмж нөлөө үзүүлсэн, гэхдээ зөвхөн түрэг хэл монгол хэлэнд биш бас орчин цагийн түрэг хэлнүүдийг бүрэлдэн тогтоход монгол хэл багагүй чухал үүрэг гүйцэтгэжээ хэмээн дүгнэжээ.