To my point

> > This theory is not supported by most reutable comparative or
> > historical linguists. They argue that Turkic is the western most
> > member of the Altaic family,
>

Mark Hubey wrote

> There is no Altaic family. See Clauson circa 1950.

Someone should speak to Ethnologue then. Under Altaic they list the
following (the numbers refer to the number of languages in that
category

Altaic (65)
1.Mongolian (13)
...1.1 Eastern (12)
.......1.1.1 Dagur (1)
.................DAUR [DTA] (China)
.......1.1.2 Mongour (4)
.................TU [MJG] (China)
.................BONAN [PEH] (China)
.................DONGXIANG [SCE] (China)
.................YUGUR, EAST [YUY] (China)
.......1.1.3 Oirat-Khalkha (7)
.......1.1.4 Khalkha-Buriat (5)
.......1.1.5 Oirat-Kalmyk-Darkhat (2)
...1.2 Western (1)
.................MOGHOLI [MLG] (Afghanistan)
2. Tungus (12)
...2.1 Northern (4)
.......2.1.1 Even (1)
.................EVEN [EVE] (Russia (Asia))
.......2.1.2 Evenki (2)
.................EVENKI [EVN] (China)
.................OROQEN [ORH] (China)
.......2.1.3 Negidal (1)
.................NEGIDAL [NEG] (Russia (Asia))
...2.2 Southern (8)
.......2.2.1 Southeast (5)
.......2.2.2 Nanaj (3)
.......2.2.3 Udihe (2)
...2.3 Southwest (3)
.................JURCHEN [JUC] (China)
.................MANCHU [MJF] (China)
.................XIBE [SJO] (China)
3.Turkic (40)
...3.1 Bolgar (1)
.................CHUVASH [CJU] (Russia (Europe))
...3.2.Eastern (7)
.................AINU [AIB] (China)
.................CHAGATAI [CGT] (Turkmenistan)
.................ILI TURKI [ILI] (China)
.................UYGHUR [UIG] (China)
.................UZBEK, NORTHERN [UZB] (Uzbekistan)
.................UZBEK, SOUTHERN [UZS] (Afghanistan)
.................YUGUR, WEST [YBE] (China)
...3.3 Northern (8)
.................ALTAI, SOUTHERN [ALT] (Russia (Asia))
.................ALTAI, NORTHERN [ATV] (Russia (Asia))
.................SHOR [CJS] (Russia (Asia))
.................DOLGAN [DLG] (Russia (Asia))
.................KARAGAS [KIM] (Russia (Asia))
.................KHAKAS [KJH] (Russia (Asia))
.................TUVIN [TUN] (Russia (Asia))
.................YAKUT [UKT] (Russia (Asia))
...3.4 Southern (12)
.......3.4.1 Azerbaijani (5)
.................AZERBAIJANI, SOUTH [AZB] (Iran)
.................AZERBAIJANI, NORTH [AZE] (Azerbaijan)
.................KHALAJ [KLJ] (Iran)
.................QASHQA'I [QSQ] (Iran)
.................SALCHUQ [SLQ] (Iran)
.................CRIMEAN TURKISH [CRH] (Uzbekistan)
.................SALAR [SLR] (China)
.......3.4.2 Turkish (4)
.................BALKAN GAGAUZ TURKISH [BGX] (Turkey (Europe))
.................GAGAUZ [GAG] (Moldova)
.................KHORASANI TURKISH [KMZ] (Iran)
.................TURKISH [TRK] (Turkey (Asia))
.......3.4.3 Turkmenian (1)
.................TURKMEN [TCK] (Turkmenistan)
.................URUM [UUM] (Georgia)
...3.5 Western (11)
.......3.5.1 Aralo-Caspian (4)
.................KARAKALPAK [KAC] (Uzbekistan)
.................KAZAKH [KAZ] (Kazakhstan)
.................KIRGHIZ [KDO] (Kyrgyzstan)
.................NOGAI [NOG] (Russia (Europe))
.......3.5.2 Ponto-Caspian (4)
.................JUDEO-CRIMEAN TATAR [JCT] (Uzbekistan)
.................KARAIM [KDR] (Lithuania)
.................KARACHAY-BALKAR [KRC] (Russia (Europe))
.................KUMYK [KSK] (Russia (Europe))
.......3.5.2 Uralian (3)
.................BASHKIR [BXK] (Russia (Europe))
.................CHULYM [CHU] (Russia (Asia))
.................TATAR [TTR] (Russia (Europe))

Mark wrote

> If Turkic, Etruscan and Hittite are related to Caucasian languages
> the comments are moot.

In actual fact the connections of these languages to the Caucasian
languages is very very remote. For example, J.Catford in his study
on the lexicostatistical connections between the Caucasian languages
show that Kartvelian (i.e. South Caucasian) shares less than 6% of
its vocabulary with the other members of the Caucasian languages, and
Turkic, Etruscan and Hittite share an even lower percentage. Based
upon such a huge time frame this would suggest between 148 and 255
centuries of divergence between these tongues.

Caucasian languages are supposedly part of the Sino-Caucasian-Dene
Macrophylum, which as as its origin the spread of the Eastern
Gravetian cultures across the Eurasian landmass in the Upper
Paleolithic period. Turkic, Kartvellian, and Hittite (via Indo-
Anatolian to PIE) ane Etruscan (shown by Glen Gordon convincingly to
be derived from an Indo-Tyrrhenian sister family to PIE), and since
these are all Nostratic languages, probably coming out of Africa, to
spread Mesolithic cultures troughout Eurasia (as Alan Bomhard
shows). I have argued elsewhere that this probably occurred in the
spread from Kabaran cultures in Palestine to Zarzian in the area from
the Taurus to the Elburz mountains. This would fit for the period
suggested.

To my point that the Saka were Iranian Mark wrote

> This is based on a simple idea, that turned into a lie and spread
> for 150 years or so.
>
> The alleged Iranianness was based on one single word, and other
> authors simply copied the lie.
>
> You can check sci.lang for a recent thesis by a Finnish student who
> actually went thru all the references instead of faking it like
> most IEanists who claim the Scyths/Sakas to be Iranians.

Hmmmm.... news to me Mark. How do we explain all the Iranian
Toponyms found in areas where the Scyths/Saka lived then? And the
clearly Iranian form of the names of the Scythian kings in Assyrian
records.... and....

> Ok, let us do real linguistics.
>
> English cardinals: one, two, three, four,
> English ordinals: first, second, third, fourth...
>
> Turkish cardinals: bir, iki, uch, dort,...
> Turkish ordinals: birinci, ikinci, uchuncu,...
>
> As is obvious, there are irregularities in English (and
> IE). "second" comes from Latin from the verb "to follow" (already
> posted here and there by others).
>
> "first", "prima", Circassian parma, Indo-Ir par-, Russian perviy,
> all come from Turkic.

Not so. What it shows is that Turkic and these languages are
cognates. And why? Because they are all sister language families
from Nostratic... pure and simple. It is interesting in this case
that Circassian is an exception to the number system in the other
Caucasian languages of its family - why? Clearly borrowed from its
neighbours.

> bir/ per/ bIr == one
> parmak, barmak, perne ... = finger
> bash = head
>
> Turkic l=sh rule shows that bash (head) is likely related to the
> word for "one" (as in Hebrew), and likely to "finger" which can be
> seen to be connected with numbers e.g. Latin digitus (finger)
> digit, Ruhlen et al finger=one, etc.

But this does not show that Turkic is the language from which all the
others descended from Mark, merely a degree of family relatedness.

Regards

John