PDA

View Full Version : Turkic-Altaic and Finno-Ugric discussion



MyHeartIsYours
25th July 2012, 01:09
What's in common with Finland and Hungary lol? I've always wondered that!

AdelAdel
25th July 2012, 01:12
Finland was part of Sweden for around 700 years, we don't talk a short period here. Before that there was probably no "Finland", just tribe land. Swedish is still an official language there and spoken in everyday life by some percentage of the population, to think that there would have been no mix between people is almost impossible.

Also Estonia was part of Sweden for a couple of hundred years.

From what I heard, Finns hate Swedish language (aside from those living in the Swedish dominant areas and Aland) and stop learning them after being forced at school

Archer
25th July 2012, 01:12
What's in common with Finland and Hungary lol? I've always wondered that!

Finno-Ugric peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_peoples)

A-lister
25th July 2012, 01:13
What's in common with Finland and Hungary lol? I've always wondered that!

They belong to the same language group Finno-Ugric and both are Uralic/Ugric people originating from Western Siberia/Central modern Russia (read Uralic mountain region).

It's all quite strange how the Hungarians ended up right in the middle of Europe though, but that's the tribe that somehow decided to walk even further than the Finns/Estonian/Samis which ended up in Nordic Europe.

Archer
25th July 2012, 01:20
It's all quite strange how the Hungarians ended up right in the middle of Europe though

One of the theories, which I also agree with is that Hungarians are actually related to Huns, that invaded a part of Europe and settled there in early times. There are still a lot of Hungarians today who believe that their ancestors are Huns, from what I know.

A-lister
25th July 2012, 01:31
One of the theories, which I also agree with is that Hungarians are actually related to Huns, that invaded a part of Europe and settled there in early times. There are still a lot of Hungarians today who believe that their ancestors are Huns, from what I know.

Could make sense, they seem also to be some sort of Uralic people.

Archer
25th July 2012, 01:44
Could make sense, they seem also to be some sort of Uralic people.

I don't think that Huns are Uralic, nor did I hear such a claim before. Huns are a controversial group, some evidences show that they're more related to the Central Asian groups consisting of Turkic and Mongolian peoples.

A-lister
25th July 2012, 01:55
I don't think that Huns are Uralic, nor did I hear such a claim before. Huns are a controversial group, some evidences show that they're more related to the Central Asian groups consisting of Turkic and Mongolian peoples.

Well, they seem to be somewhere from that region, I mean if Hungarians truly are related to them, then they must be Uralic.. well they don't HAVE to be, but it would be odd considering Hungarian is an Ugric language.

Hungarians seem to be one of Europe's mystery nationality.

Archer
25th July 2012, 02:04
Well, they seem to be somewhere from that region, I mean if Hungarians truly are related to them, then they must be Uralic.. well they don't HAVE to be, but it would be odd considering Hungarian is an Ugric language.

Hungarians seem to be one of Europe's mystery nationality.

Uralic family is connected to the Altaic family (consisting of Turks, Mongolians, Koreans, Japanese and some other groups) anyway and they are classified together by many linguists. There is a term called '' Uralic-Altaic family ''. It's still not generally accepted though, but there are good evidences for that based on strong historical, cultural and linguistic similarities.

A-lister
25th July 2012, 02:45
Uralic family is connected to the Altaic family (consisting of Turks, Mongolians, Koreans, Japanese and some other groups) anyway and they are classified together by many linguists. There is a term called '' Uralic-Altaic family ''. It's still not generally accepted though, but there are good evidences for that based on strong historical, cultural and linguistic similarities.

Well, with that logic all are the same (and going back way long mankind originated from Africa lol). It's very far-stretched to count like that.

Archer
25th July 2012, 03:24
Well, with that logic all are the same (and going back way long mankind originated from Africa lol). It's very far-stretched to count like that.

Finns and Estonians originally lived in Siberia, where also some of Turkic tribes are known to settle. Their beliefs were highly influenced by Shamanism, which Turkic and Mongolic peoples also had in their cultures.

Finnish paganism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_paganism#Shamanism)
Finnic mythologies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnic_mythology)
Shamanism in Siberia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism_in_Siberia)

When it comes to Hungarians, there are even much stronger connections. Shamanism played a much bigger part in Hungarian mythology, and it's even claimed that their beliefs were actually a form of Tengriism, which is known to be the national religion of Turkic and Mongolic peoples.

Hungarian mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_mythology#Religion)
Shamanistic remnants in Hungarian folklore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanistic_remnants_in_Hungarian_folklore)
Tengrism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengriism)

And as I said, there are strong similarities between those languages in terms of grammar and common words (especially between Finnish and Japanese, Finnish and Turkish, Hungarian and Mongolian etc. ) Uralic-Altaic family theory is not a new thing. Don't know if you ever heard but some people call Finnish '' the Mongols of Europe '', the same for Hungarians. You can search for more details on Google.

Ural-Altaic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural%E2%80%93Altaic_languages)

amateur
25th July 2012, 16:43
The theory suggesting Uralic and Altaic language families are connected was popular in the 19th century, but it's disproven and not accepted since the mid-20th century. Actually, even the existence of a Altaic family itself is controversial, although I do believe that Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Japonic and Korean languages are related.

A-lister
25th July 2012, 17:50
@ Archer & amateur

While there might be a connection, it's extremely far-stretched. I mean we talk about such wide different languages and groups as Hungarian, Turkish and Japonese. Connected? Yeah, but very far away, even Indians and Europeans are probably closer connected then (Indo-Europeans), but no one is really making much out of that connection nowadays anyway because it's also a very distant one.

Archer
25th July 2012, 23:44
The theory suggesting Uralic and Altaic language families are connected was popular in the 19th century, but it's disproven and not accepted since the mid-20th century. Actually, even the existence of a Altaic family itself is controversial, although I do believe that Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Japonic and Korean languages are related.

::fi uurastin / uğraştım ::tr
::fi uurastit / uğraştın ::tr
::fi uurasti / uğraştı ::tr
::fi uurastimme / uğraştık ::tr
::fi uurastitte / uğraştınız ::tr
::fi uurastivat / uğraştılar ::tr

Plus;

::fi kalabaliikki / kalabalık ::tr (the same meaning)

I don't think that's a coincidence :lol:

amateur
26th July 2012, 00:33
::fi uurastin / uğraştım ::tr
::fi uurastit / uğraştın ::tr
::fi uurasti / uğraştı ::tr
::fi uurastimme / uğraştık ::tr
::fi uurastitte / uğraştınız ::tr
::fi uurastivat / uğraştılar ::tr

Plus;

::fi kalabaliikki / kalabalık ::tr (the same meaning)

I don't think that's a coincidence :lol:

Your method itself is nonscientific. One should compare ancient forms of words to prove a relationship between two languages, not modern forms.

About the word kalabaliikki, here (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kalabaliikki) Wiktionary says it's a loanword from Turkish.

r3gg13
26th July 2012, 07:32
::fi uurastin / uğraştım ::tr
::fi uurastit / uğraştın ::tr
::fi uurasti / uğraştı ::tr
::fi uurastimme / uğraştık ::tr
::fi uurastitte / uğraştınız ::tr
::fi uurastivat / uğraştılar ::tr

Plus;

::fi kalabaliikki / kalabalık ::tr (the same meaning)

I don't think that's a coincidence :lol:

It's not coincidence for sure, but it could just be borrowing which doesn't really mean "genetic relationship" in linguistic terms.

If you had compared higher frequency words (kinship terms, body parts, numerals, basic words) like those found in the Swadesh comparative lists, it would be a better example and could imply genetic relationship between the two languages.

Those higher frequency words are better indicators of genetic relationship because those are the words that are most likely to be passed from 1 generation to another without much change, even if groups of speakers diverge geographically. For example, if you look at the Slavic language family, the word for 'hand', 'water' will sound similar (ruk- and vod-, with a vowel after the last consonants) because those words are used in high frequency. High frequency words like these are only indicators, but vocabulary is not the only factor that linguists consider when grouping languages together as genetically related.

For languages to be genetically related (which only means that they have a relationship based on a common ancestor) related languages have to have a phonological (sound rules of a language), phonetic (sound inventory of a language), morphological (word formation system), syntactic (word order, formal grammar) similarities. It doesn't have to meet all of it, but they have to share enough features. These languages from the same language family would, of course, exhibit differences, otherwise what's the point of calling them different languages. These differences have to be taken into account systematically, i.e. 1 vowel corresponds to a different vowel in the other related languages, in similar contexts.

As a linguist, I wouldn't say that Turkic and Finno-Ugric families are genetically related and thus forming a larger macrofamily, there isn't much compelling evidence. Even Including Japanese and Korean to the Turkic-Altaic family is a bit far-fetched for me because of the lack of evidence.

EscTurkey
27th July 2012, 04:13
::fi kalabaliikki / kalabalık ::tr (the same meaning)

I don't think that's a coincidence :lol:

It's kalabalik in Swedish as well, that's a loanword.

EscTurkey
27th July 2012, 05:13
If you had compared higher frequency words (kinship terms, body parts, numerals, basic words) like those found in the Swadesh comparative lists, it would be a better example and could imply genetic relationship between the two languages.


Kinship terms:
ćkke "father's brother", "paternal uncle" in Lappish
aga "elder brother"; "elder uncle" in Turkish

Body parts:
kuulla "to hear" in Finnish (remember the Estonian entry :D)
kulak "ear" in Turkish

Numerals:
yhdeksän "nine" in Finnish
dokuz "nine" in Turkish

High frequency words?
Here they are! :D
Mina=Men (I)
Sina=Sen (You)
Minun=Mening (My)
Sinun=Senin (Your)
Hanen=Onun (His/Her)

In both languages, the suffix -in is added to the word to express possession.

Let's talk about Hungarian as well.

En=Ben/Men=I
Ő=O=He/She

In both languages, “he/she” is the only case when no suffix is added to the word.

Ő Alex.
O Alex.
Only two dots of difference.

Turkish / Hungarian
Cebimde çok küçük sarı elma var / Zsebemben sok kicsi sárga alma van
Çizmem ve baltam var / Csizmám és baltám van.
O annem, ve o babam / Ő anyám, és ő papám

Numerals

Altı,Yedi=6,7
Hat, Hét=6,7
Sekiz, Dokuz=8,9
Nyolc, Kilenc=8,9
In both languages, 6 and 7, 8 and 9 sound similiar.

Chuvash is a Turkic language and let's see the numerals:
Chuvash Turkish
vishshe üç
tavatta dört
pillek beş
shijjah yedi
vunna on
Therefore, we can't expect Finnish and Hungarian to be verrry similiar to Turkish to say they're related.


For languages to be genetically related (which only means that they have a relationship based on a common ancestor) related languages have to have a phonological (sound rules of a language), phonetic (sound inventory of a language),


Both Turkish and Finnish(also Hungarian, Estonian, Mongolian etc) languages have the vowel harmony, you can read about it here: Vowel harmony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_harmony)

morphological (word formation system),


In Turkish, Finnish and all other Uralic-Altaic languages, we add suffixes to the words to form other words, these languages don't have the gender rules.

syntactic (word order, formal grammar) similarities.

Finnish and Turkish are different in this case, but Turkish has the same order as Japanese and Korean=S+O+V


I’m not saying Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian, Lappish are in the same language family as Turkish, I'm saying that the Uralic and the Altaic language families are related. As I indicated above, it’s almost impossible to understand a word in a Chuvash text without prior knowledge though it’s a Turkic language.
In my opinion, Turkish and Finnish were much more similiar thousannnnnnnnds of years ago.
Of course it has to be far-fetched. I’m telling you only about the similiarities between these languages, there are mannny differences as well, but I don't think we need more than what I wrote above to say these language families are related.

r3gg13
27th July 2012, 07:09
Kinship terms:
ćkke "father's brother", "paternal uncle" in Lappish
aga "elder brother"; "elder uncle" in Turkish

Body parts:
kuulla "to hear" in Finnish (remember the Estonian entry )
kulak "ear" in Turkish

Numerals:
yhdeksän "nine" in Finnish
dokuz "nine" in Turkish

High frequency words?
Here they are!
Mina=Men (I)
Sina=Sen (You)
Minun=Mening (My)
Sinun=Senin (Your)
Hanen=Onun (His/Her)

In both languages, the suffix -in is added to the word to express possession.

Let's talk about Hungarian as well.

En=Ben/Men=I
Ő=O=He/She

In both languages, “he/she” is the only case when no suffix is added to the word.

Ő Alex.
O Alex.
Only two dots of difference.

Turkish / Hungarian
Cebimde çok küçük sarı elma var / Zsebemben sok kicsi sárga alma van
Çizmem ve baltam var / Csizmám és baltám van.
O annem, ve o babam / Ő anyám, és ő papám

Numerals

Altı,Yedi=6,7
Hat, Hét=6,7
Sekiz, Dokuz=8,9
Nyolc, Kilenc=8,9
In both languages, 6 and 7, 8 and 9 sound similiar.

Chuvash is a Turkic language and let's see the numerals:
Chuvash Turkish
vishshe üç
tavatta dört
pillek beş
shijjah yedi
vunna on
Therefore, we can't expect Finnish and Hungarian to be verrry similiar to Turkish to say they're related.

What really interests me is the personal pronouns and the possessives :). That close group of vocabulary tend to be very static and get passed down from generation to generation. So, as I said before, I wouldn't doubt that there were borrowing/interaction that happened between the proto-FinnoUgrics and the proto-TurkicAltaics as possibly shown by this evidence.

As for the sample sentences, I wouldn't rely heavily on those to prove relationships, sure commonalities exist, but that would be a very weak set of evidence without more substantial rule based relationships


Both Turkish and Finnish(also Hungarian, Estonian, Mongolian etc) languages have the vowel harmony, you can read about it here: Vowel harmony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vowel harmony is one of my favorite phonological rules! :D. Vowel harmony isn't that uncommon, though. For instance, there are a lot of languages (and language families) that exhibit vowel harmony such as Bantu languages, Native American languages, etc. So, relationship cannot be drawn solely on this ground. But, of course, it can be an indicator of relationship, I'm not denying that.

I would have loved to see this evidence in conjunction with the phonetic inventory of the languages being compared. That could have been compelling (and personally interesting).


morphological (word formation system),


In Turkish, Finnish and all other Uralic-Altaic languages, we add suffixes to the words to form other words, these languages don't have the gender rules.

About the morphology, you might also add that Turkish and Finnish are highly agglutinating ;)



In my opinion, Turkish and Finnish were much more similiar thousannnnnnnnds of years ago.
Of course it has to be far-fetched. I’m telling you only about the similiarities between these languages, there are mannny differences as well, but I don't think we need more than what I wrote above to say these language families are related.

I completely agree with the part about how they may have been similar waaaay back. I mean, the area occupied by Finno-Ugric speakers and Turkic-Altaic speakers have an overlap. So, I wouldn't doubt that there were contact between these two language groups before, and the examples you showed shows relics of this past contact.

Relationships between languages do drift with time. Maybe these two languages were indeed related thousands of years ago, they just have diverged a lot due to lack of contact. Maybe there was a transitional language (maybe even a transitional language family) that served as a lingua franca between these two language families that existed thousands of years ago which would have helped us in elucidating these almost idiosyncratic similarities between Turkish and the Finno-Ugrics.

Still, the evidence you gave isn't sufficient to show genetic relationship, as you said. It is almost as if the evidence were made to fit the argument, if you know what I'm saying (think, Sapir and Whorf).

For me to accept those evidence towards a formation of language family, there has to be a systematic account to show the relationship and the drift between these languages. Without that, it would be hard to convince linguists to accept them as related. That's mostly why the macro family encompassing Turkic, Altaic, Korean and Japonic languages were dismissed.

Personally, I tend to be very empirical as a linguist. I'm the type who needs hard line evidence for every gosh darn thing being proved/disproved, and I usually don't let my gut instinct to do the decision on anything. So, I tend to be an ass when I talk about linguistics, I don't mean anything personal against you or anyone I argue with :D

Are you a linguist by any chance? :)

amateur
27th July 2012, 07:38
I don't think any non-linguist in this forum is as interested in the science of linguistics as I am, and I think the similarities between the languages belonging to Uralic and Altaic families are caused by mutual contact, not by a common ancestor. I do support the Altaic theory and the inclusion of Korean and Japanese, though.

EscTurkey
1st August 2012, 04:39
As for the sample sentences, I wouldn't rely heavily on those to prove relationships, sure commonalities exist, but that would be a very weak set of evidence without more substantial rule based relationships

I showed the sample sentences only between Hungarian and Turkish because I strongly believe there is a tight connection between them, and the main idea was to show the suffixes in the sentences but it's my bad, I forgot to do it. :D

I agree with your reply in most parts.

I know, it's almost impossible to believe the Japanese, Finnish and Turks are related, considering their looks, but their predecessors might be the same or related, and I mean wayyy back. I believe that Hungarians and Bulgarians descend from Central Asian Turks(as for the Bulgarians, I'm not the only one to think so), but they assimilated so much that many of them have blonde hair and blue eyes today, and they have no Turkic blood (nor do the Anatolian Turks, to be honest :D). Therefore, I have no idea what the ancestors of the Finno-Ugric and Altaic people looked like, but I know and believe that the ancestors of these nations had many things in common.

Linguists are 100% sure that Indo-European languages are related but I see mannnny differences between their grammar rules, though this doesn't change the fact that they were much more similiar in the past.
I see much more similarities between Finno-Ugric languages and Turkish than between Albanian and Indian, for instance.
Hence, I don't think we need volumes of encyclopedia to confirm these languages are(or maybe were) related.


I completely agree with the part about how they may have been similar waaaay back. I mean, the area occupied by Finno-Ugric speakers and Turkic-Altaic speakers have an overlap. So, I wouldn't doubt that there were contact between these two language groups before, and the examples you showed shows relics of this past contact.
No doubt for that. Ottomans ruled over the Balkans for centuries and even today there are many Turkish words in Serbian, Albanian, Greek etc. but these are not high frequency words AT ALL.
I don't think they would adapt words like "I, You, We, He/She, This, There etc." what so ever, unlike the Finno-Ugric languages.


For me to accept those evidence towards a formation of language family, there has to be a systematic account to show the relationship and the drift between these languages. Without that, it would be hard to convince linguists to accept them as related. That's mostly why the macro family encompassing Turkic, Altaic, Korean and Japonic languages were dismissed.

I'm not well-informed enough to give you a systematic account, maybe in the future when I grow up. :D
The only proof I can show you is that the Japanese struggle to learn English, their government invests ALOT in English education, however, in Turkish learning courses, the Japanese and Korean students are the most successful. I once saw a random Korean guy on TV in a competition who became a native speaker in 6 months, I'm still not a native English speaker though I've been learning it for 8 years. :D Not only this guy but I see many(really many :D) Japanese people who learn to speak Turkish like their mother tongue in a very short amount of time.
Additionally, I personally find Finnish so easy, I was so surprised when I heard European people say Finnish is one of the hardest languages. :D I learned to make sentences in Finnish using Google Translate. :D I couldn't find a book anywhere. :D But I'm better than an European friend of mine who's been learning it for 2 years.
And I think a Hungarian (Estonian or Finn etc.) is much luckier while learning Turkish or Mongolian or any other Altaic language.
P.s. I know this is not a systematic proof AT ALL, but I'm too young to be a linguist and give you a scientific report. :D


Are you a linguist by any chance? :)

Nope, unfortunately not. :/ I'm just a random guy from Turkey who's interested in linguistics. :D
Hopefully in the future I'll be. ^^

SpZ
14th August 2012, 21:02
1. being estonian learning japanese and turkish i really do not believe the theory 2. several finno-ugric languages have lost vowel harmony

Archer
14th August 2012, 22:16
1. being estonian learning japanese and turkish i really do not believe the theory 2. several finno-ugric languages have lost vowel harmony

You are in Turkey now ?

SpZ
15th August 2012, 11:50
You are in Turkey now ?

yes, for quite a long time

Archer
15th August 2012, 13:00
yes, for quite a long time

In Istanbul ?

SpZ
15th August 2012, 20:01
In Istanbul ?

izmit and ankara

amateur
17th August 2012, 21:03
1. being estonian learning japanese and turkish i really do not believe the theory 2. several finno-ugric languages have lost vowel harmony

There are several theories discussed here, which one is the one you don't believe?

DannyDS
17th August 2012, 21:23
I am quite fond of the Mongol language :)

Archer
17th August 2012, 22:04
I am quite fond of the Mongol language :)

I'm not a linguist but I'm well-interested in their culture and traditions. They are our ex-housemate after all :lol:

r3gg13
17th August 2012, 22:19
I am quite fond of the Mongol language :)

I had a Mongol neighbor when I was 5, they were really nice people :D