Are Turanians the descendants of Ancient Sumerians, /his/?
Mother tongue in:
Sumerian: Eme-Gi
Finnish: Emä kieli
Estonian: Ema keel
Mongolian: Ekh khel
Turkish: Ana dil
Uzbek: Ona tili
Kyrgyz: Ene til
Manchu: Eniyengge gisun
>http://mek.oszk.hu/07200/07288/07288.pdf
Why do rabid nationalists love combing the Internet for false cognates?
Also
>Finno-ugric
>Turkic
>Mongolic
>Tungusic
>related
>>1309232
Turkish , uzbek and kyrgyz almost same language why did you consider them different?
>Sumerians invent Civilization
>Turians invite absolutely nothing apart from Cigarettes and Yogurt
Yeah, probably not.
>>1309243
>>related
Through a shared Ural-Altaic typology and proto vocabulary they are, yes.
>>1309303
Just coincidentally Sumerian is closest to Turanian languages.
WE
>>1309327
WUZ
>>1309318
>Altaic
We schizophrenic discredited 80's theories now
>>1309318
What shared typology? Being agglutinative?
You cant just assemble a list of words that look vaguely similar and call it a proto vocabulary. You have to establish rigid sound correspondences and reconstruct the proto-forms from that, something no one's been able to do. There's a reason "Turanic" or "Altaic" is dead in academia and it's not Indo-Europeanist bias.
>>1309352
KANGZ
>>1309363
This is just like how afrocentrists pull out their lists of false cognates to connect themselves with Egypt and other cultures
>"As you can see here Niger-Congo languages have open syllables, therefore Japanese is Niger-Congo"
>>1309366
AND WOLVES!
>>1309387
WE WUZ AGGLUTINATIVE FOLK!
http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/agglutinative-folk.html
>>1309318
altaic on its own is pretty autistic, bur ural-altaic? thats a whole new level of autism anon
Turks are truly the niggers of the middle east.
>WE WUZ SELJUKS N SHIEEEETTT
>WE WUZ ANCIENT CENTRAL ASIANS N SHIEETTT
And now:
>WE WUZ SUMERIANS AN SHIEETT
Meanwhile they are as brown as arabs and worship a dead pedophile.
>>1310035
To be fair, it would be hard for them to go back to obscure Anatolian culture.
>>1309363
>it's not Indo-Europeanist bias.
That's a Freudian slip if I've ever seen one
Finnish and Turkish are closer than Swedish and Sanskrit
>>1309356
Altaic is more compact than IE as a language family desu
>>1309363
>What shared typology? Being agglutinative?
Shared pronouns, SOV word order, vowel harmony, agglutination etc.
>>1309232
>>1310948
No they aren't.
>Emä Kieli
Äidinkieli, not "Emä kieli". Emä is not a human term, it is exclusively reserved for animals.
>>1309232
There is no "Turanian" genetic or linguistic group. Uralic gives no appearance of being related to any of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, etc.
>>1311031
This. "Turanian" and "Altaic" are Pan-Turkist memes.
"But muh Japanese is Altaic!!!"
>>1310957
false. "altaic" is just a large collection of areal related but not genetically related language families.
each family consisting of a series of blown-up mutated versions of single ancient paleo-siberian languages
>>1309232
there is absolutely no reason to believe so based on your source. in order to prove language relationship, you have to present a set of REGULAR SOUND CORRESPONDENCES which cannot be accounted for by chance or borrowing. this source presents no such list. the author of the paper gives a sequence of sound changes for many of these vocabulary items which he seems to think are plausible, but he makes no attempt to show that the sound changes he proposes are regular in any way. this can only lead a rational reader to conclude that there is no evidence for the sound changes he presents, otherwise he surely would have presented it.
>>1311027
Emä is the original word for mother, Äiti being a Gothic loan.
>>1311031
Yeah. What are linguistic similarities and haplogroups at the end of the day?
>>1309232
>>1309318
In the last thread it was demonstrated that Mongolian and Turkic are not related. They converged through close proximity over several centuries.
>>1310957
This is delusional. The only reason IE looks so fucked is because some languages are attested so early and some so late.
Hittite: 2100 BC
Mycenaean Greek: 1600BC
Luwian: 1600BC
Sanskrit: 300BC (preserved language from 1500BC)
Persian: 600BC
Latin: 600BC
Then...
Celtic: 600BC - 100AD
Germanic: 100AD-300AD
Armenian: 500AD
Slavic: 600-900AD
Tocharian: 900AD
Baltic: 1300AD
Albanian: 1500BC
Whereas Turkic and Mongolian languages are all attested around the same time and were pretty much attached at the hip for centuries during critical periods of cultural and linguistic development.
Even despite the wide chronological gap in attestations of IE languages, the similarities are pretty striking. And Sanskrit/Greek/Latin are very easy to identify.
>>1311482
Two languages being similar doesn't make them related.
For example, Korean and Japanese.
>>1311493
>>1311585
Linguists universally agree on the existence of a Ural-Altaic language phylum, whether you like it or not.
Here is some food for thought:
>“However, we may look upon the Altaic taxon from the other angle. That is, from the point of view of the degree of the dispersion of the Indo-European family, whose dispersion is greater (V= 223.79%), than that of the Altaic (V= 207.76%) taxon. This speaks for the Altaic theory. Really, if the majority of linguists support the idea of the Indo-European family, then one should think twice before rejecting the Altaic taxon as a family, because the compactness of Altaic is greater.”
>http://english.fullerton.edu/publications/cln/clnarchives/2005fall/Tam-CompLanguage-rda.pdf
>>1311055
Indo-European is an Aryanist meme.
>>1311661
>Ural–Altaic, also Uralo-Altaic or Uraltaic, is an obsolete language-family proposal uniting the Uralic and Altaic languages.
>Originally suggested in the 19th century, the hypothesis remained debated into the mid 20th century, often with disagreements exacerbated by pan-nationalist agendas,[1] enjoyed its greatest popularity by the proponents in Britain.[2] Since the 1960s, the hypothesis has been widely rejected.
epic
>>1310456
Anatolian languages died by the first century BC. Nobody would expect them to go back to 'Anatolian' culture, nor is there any way for them to do so.
Anatolia was Greek/Armenian for over a thousand years. Any Anatolian customs that survived were lost to the Turks.
>>1311661
This was refuted last thread. The smaller dispersion of Altaic is a consequence of Mongolian and Turkic converging, not them being related.
We spent 300+ posts on this and you are literally posting copypasta.
>>1311673
fucking retard
language family =\= language phylum
>>1311737
Whatever you say famalam
If the reason the Turaniac theory isn't popular is because of the field being dominated by Indo-Europeans who for some reason got a beef with those peoples, why was the theory much more popular during the 19th century when the filed was even more dominated by Indo Europeans who were all hyper nationalistic just to die down as people got more and more self hating?
Shouldn't it be the opposite, that the theory gets more and more popular as Indo-European dominance and nationalism windless?
>>1311756
Uralic and Indo-European share many basic lexical items for animals, hydronyms, toponyms, etc, in the Uralic/Russian region.
Uralic is more related to IE than to Turkic/Mongolian.
What is more, Altaic has been rejected for decades and Altaic proponents keep adding more languages to the family like Japanese, grasping at random cognates and trying to claim that all agglutinative languages somehow derive from Altaic, or something equally retarded.
>>1311673
wew
>>1311783
>>1311793
wew
>>1311783
>Uralic is more related to IE than to Turkic/Mongolian.
Not really, IE languages aren't even agglutinative
>>1311793
Post the rules for sound changes.
If the family is as accepted as you claim, there should be rules to describe correspondence changes.
>>1311661
>linguists universally agree with Altaic
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>1311793
>>1312090
Lulz
> It should be noted that the "s" in the Finnic second person pronoun *sinä is a result of a ti > si sound law [29] in Proto-Finnic, and comes from earlier form *tinä, as in the plural form te and the Hungarian pronoun te.
So Uralic-Altaic proponents even cherry pick their tables. Uralic /ti/ would have to become Turkic /se/ and Mongolian demonstrates no real correspondence with Uralic in the image except:
/m/ -> /b/
/ema/ -> /te/
So Turkic must have these 'rules' according to that table
>drop final vowel /a/
>Uralic /m/ -> /b/
>Uralic /t/ -> /s/
>Uralic /i/ -> /e/
>Uralic /e/ & /eie/ -> /iz/
>Uralic /ema/ -> /o/ and/or /ol/
>Uralic word final /d/ -> /ar/
>>1311796
Here you will notice that Uralic /i/ (KIT-ke) is Altaic /a/ (CAT). So above rule does not work here.
And Uralic /e/ (KENT) is /e/ (KED-ir).
There is nothing convincing in that chart at all... some similar sounding words yes but no clear connection.
And here is the 'Uralic-Altaic' numeral chart.
Please, find the similarities for us. Since it is universally accepted it must be well documented or simple to notate. Right?
>>1311482
The "linguistic similarities" are cherrypicked chance resemblances. There is no shared lexemic core and no regular phonological correspondences. Even the existence of an Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic family is questionable, and there is basically no evidence with which to rope in Japonic, Korean, or Uralic. In act, the evidence for an Indo-Uralic family is much stronger.
>>1312238
> In act, the evidence for an Indo-Uralic family is much stronger.
I am curious, please post it?
>>1312248
Read this and the bibliography, especialy the Kortlandt articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages
>>1312200
>>It should be noted that the "s" in the Finnic second person pronoun *sinä is a result of a ti > si sound law [29] in Proto-Finnic
That's horseshit desu
>>1313460
Wikipedia gives a citation.
Do you?
>>1313491
The link is dead. Considering how Finnish is closest to Proto-Uralic structurally I'd wager it's the other way around.
>>1312200
pure coincidence
>>1313504
>>1313505
>>1313504
>>1313505
>>1313509
Give me the rules faggot.
I am not going to analyze 3 dozen words across 10+ languages by hand.
If the language family is credible, there should be rules that describe when and why changes occur between languages within the family.
I have found no such rules and I already pointed out that your first image is bullshit, your second image is bullshit, and I provided numerals which are so vastly different I want to laugh.
>>1313524
>I already pointed out that your first image is bullshit, your second image is bullshit
No, you didn't.
>and I provided numerals which are so vastly different I want to laugh.
Like Robert Sterlitz suggested, UA should be thought of as a phylum; an unit larger than a family. How else do you explain shit like the shared pronouns and proto vocabulary?>>1311796
>>1313500
>>1313544
Still waiting on some proof of what "you" is in Proto-Finnic and Proto-Uralic.
Also, the fact that UA is not a family is agreed by everybody. As pointed out Mongolic and Turkic converged but were not related.
I really can't be fucked to figure out how this UA 'phylum' works, because from an obvious glance it does not. I already demonstrated the multitude of hoops you have to jump through for pronouns and mongolic doesn't conform to either Turkic or Uralic.
>>1313524
>Give me the rules
Sound changes happen irregularly in languages all the time fäm, it's not always systematic. The family tree theory is a fundamentally flawed in itself considering how both Indo-European and UA were born through ethnolinguistic convergence and hybridization and not descended from one single proto language.
>>1313570
I see.
So it's not a language family and there are no regular sound changes.
So what are you even trying to argue anymore?
>>1313582
It's a phylum, not a family.
>>1313565
Sinä in Proto-Finnic, falsely reconstructed as tinä in Proto-Uralic. It's more than likely that Finnics retained their original pronouns living in relative isolation while the other Proto-Uralian tribes headed East, shortly after the end of the Last Ice Age.
>>1313588
So what are you trying to prove?
Most people have said it is not a family, and that Turkic and Mongolic converged through proximity and cultural interactions.
That doesn't seem to be in opposition your your phylum claim.
Im still waiting for Proto-Finnic and Proto-Uralic though, and any proof of Uralic's relation to Altaic (which itself is discredited because of the convergence of the languages rather than their divergence).
Also, still waiting for some more hilarious comparisons to Sumerian.
>>1313603
>comparisons to Sumerian
Sumerian is agglutinative and it was deciphered with the help of Turanian languages. Check OP's comparisons and the study he linked.
>>1313603
>http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/Sumerian-Parpola.htm
>>1313624
Oh, so all agglutinative languages are related?
Right. I remember now. Amerindian languages, Caucasuan languages, Basque, Uralic, 'Altaic', Japanese.
Of course. They're all related enough to be grouped into a single phylum.
>>1313624
http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/agglutinative-folk.html
>>1313707
>Primitive Indo-Eurocuck is jealous of superior agglutinative languages like Sumerian
>>1313707
So agglutinative and fusional are the type major methods of word construction.
And Uralic-altaic fags insist a agglutinative languages are related?
>>1309232
I think it's the other way around.
If this shit is true then it would probably be that Sumerians were Turanians that migrated to the fertile crescent.
>>1313967
The Eurasian ones, most likely.
>>1309232
This is a popular theory in Hungary.
We wuz mongols / shumerians / martians / atlanteans 'n' shiet.
>>1311661
no they don't. whether you like it or not.
>>1313588
>It's a phylum, not a family.
This is an incoherent statement. Either languages are lineally related or they are not.
Simple answer: Yes.
Swedes and other butthurt cucks will try to deny this
>>1311055
It was a finn who invented turanism
>>1311482
Certainly not something anybody found in support of the Ural-Altaic meme.
>>1316470
Haplogroup N, Comb-ceramic culture and some other culture that stretched from Finland to Manchuria whose name I can't remember
>>1310948
>Finnish and Turkish are closer than Swedish and Sanskrit
Finnish and Turkish aren't in the same language family while Swedish and Sanskrit are both Indo-European.
Random question: Does anyone know of any language (family), aside from Afroasiatic, that uses consonantal roots rather than stems?
>>1310948
>That's a Freudian slip if I've ever seen one
I don't think you know what that means, or that you understood what that anon was saying.
>>1316438
This, they're jealous because we're the progenitors of civilization and because Sumerian can't be linked with inferior IE languages they just proclaim it an isolate
>>1316588
Structurally and in terms of core features I'd wager Finnish and Turkish are closer
>>1317085
plus they both have a lot of umlauts, that has to mean something
>>1311493
>Albanian: 1500BC
WE
>>1313544
A lot of Uralic pronouns look similar to Indo-European ones. Does that mean that there's a Indo-Uralic superfamily or does it mean that languages in close contact with each other sometimes borrow basic vocabulary? Remember, our English third person plural pronouns are borrowed from Norse and the Japanese, Thai, and Koreans borrowed Chinese numerals wholesale.
>>1318389
Old Irish, Old Welsh, Old English and Old Norse all had extensive umlauting in the early middle ages, yet we know this was not a feature inherited from Proto-Indo-European but an areal North Sea phenomon.
You cant reconstruct Altaic vocabulary or inflectional endings, all you have to go on is typological similarities, which is why the idea of Altaic as a family has been abandoned in favor of it being a sprachbund.
>>1315519
>Hungary
>Hun
Since Hun = Han = Khan = Chan = Chin = Ching = Chong
Hungary is really ChinChongaria
>>1320211
BASED
I mean there is a reason why white people are called caucasoids. Hint: Tarim mummies, uygurz, tajiks, even the blond afghans.
>>1311055
its mostly fins and swedes that write about the turanian stuff, to my knowledge turkish historians are more focused on ottoman history
turkish turanists are also focused on the turkey-azerbaijan-kazakhstan/turkmenistan blok, they don't care about the finnish/japanese/korean memes
>>1320211
Hungarian Women do look a bit ChingyChongy.
[spoiler]It makes my dick super hard.[/spoiler]
