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
YEs, they do those things.
Totally 6% or 6% of Swadesh list?
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.
According Jorge Hankamer, from about 50,000 roots Turkish creates about 200 billion
words.
6% of 50,000 is 3,000. Of course, all these words in today's Turkish are not Turkic,
but even then these are too many. Hittite probably shares a few hundred word roots
with Turkic. One of these days I will finish my book and show it.
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....
Easy. Here is the algorithm.
Take all the Turkic words, and claim they are all Iranian.
Interpret all toponyms in terms of all these "Iranian" words.
Here is a simple example. Wherever the word asp shows up immediately
they assume it means (1) Horse (2) Iranian, thus even the name of the Bolghar
khan Asparuh/Asparukh comes out the have an Iranian name. Nobody has given
even the remotest thought to the possibility that it could mean something else.
Vernadsky is also great at finding everything to be Slavic. Sometimes as a joke
I can turn good IE words into Turkic :-)
But Asparukh can easily be es-berik (attentive).
So this kind of stuff is not convincing. It is the continuation of the
snow-ball effect. There are different rules at play.
For example, despite the fact that it is very clear that the words in common
between Mongolian and Turkic are borrowings (they are not on the Swadesh list)
they are made relatives because they are both agglutinative.
But if you point out Sumerian and Turkic are agglutinative, the answer is
obvious.
Another example; wherever they find the word first written, or whenever someone
first got into print with a proclamation, it stands as truth. For example kiosk is said
to be from Farsi despite coming into Europe from Turkish. In Turkish it is kOshk.
I pointed out (on a Turkish mailing list devoted to Turkology) that this likely comes
from Turkic gOlge, kOlekke, kOlige, kOlig > *kOshig. Then weeks later someone
found that another linguist had already shown that this word shows up late in Iran
and after Turkic invasions etc. The original problem was that I objected to a book
on etymological Turkish written by a well-known and respected Turkish linguist
Hasan Eren. So twisted are they, that they cannot even recognize Turkic words
anymore. They have not been able to escape their slavery.
But on the other hand, when I point out that *ab, and *a (water) can be found in
Sumerian and thus cannot be Iranian nobody pays attention. Why? Obviously
it got into IE (apa, appa) etc from another language.
But IE studies is the ultimate in imperialism. They have laid claim to everything they
find from British Isles to China, and refuse to entertain any logic that would
produce objective results. Otherwise, why hasn't anyone noticed that PIE has
too many roots?
> 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.
This is very critical. If you cannot see this logic there is no need for me to argue. You should see
this from the heuristics of historical linguistics.
Regards
John
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nostratica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
-- Mark Hubey hubeyh@... http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey