How well do you understand these languages:
>Uzbek
>Türkmen
>Kyrgyz
>Kazakh
>Uyghur
>Turkish
>People
>>60805420
>>60805405
I can easily understand uyghur and turkmen,azeri turkish is almost same with our language with a few more russian or iranian words,had trouble with uzbek,can't understand kyrgyz and kazakh but a few words.
>>60805405
>speaking a non Indo-European language
>>60805481
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural%E2%80%93Altaic_languages
Pretty good languages desu
>>60805535
The existence of the Altaic family is a fringe theory, not accepted by the vast majority of linguists.
t. linguist
>>60805564
Most of the altaic family languages are turkic anyway.Sentence structures are the same with other altaic languages.
>>60805473
How come a lot of Turkish people on YouTube say that they can understand all Turkic languages? Are they bullshitting?
>>60805611
The Altaic family does not exist. You can read the page on Wikipedia, it even starts by saying that it is now discredited. This means Turkish, Mongolian, and Finnish are completely unrelated.
>>60805643
As a turkish guy learning kazakh or uzbek language is far more easier than any other language. With a little effort you can learn .
>>60805405
Kyrgyz and Kazakh is what the fuck is this shit tier. i can understand some Uzbek but it takes effort. Uyghur is understandable. Türkmen is literally Turkish.
>>60805535
Never
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7so4d7fJh9o
>>60805655
It's not in Turkey. Its widely accepted here. Who cares what foreigners think.
>>60805752
LOL good one
>>60805761
The entire field of Linguistics disagrees with you. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by believing in this. Perchance you are trying to increase your relation with Finland? Or trying to associate yourselves with the Mongol hordes? Either way, it is still wrong.
>>60805809
There is no need for that.If we are speaker of a turkic language group that's not part of any other languages,that's cool anyway.
>>60805809
Maybe I wasn't clear. Historians and "Linguists" here accept not only the Altaic family, but also the Ural-Altaic connection. Who the hell are you to talk on behalf of "The entire field of Linguistics" anyway?
>>60805872
Go to Wikipedia, after it says 'discredited' it links to a few sources. Feel free to read through any of those sources. I also find it hard to believe that linguists in Turkey believe in that. Stories your friends or family told you, or myths that are widely believed in Turkey, do not actually mean anything to linguists. I am not trying to be mean, but please understand that it is false. Turkish is not even a bad language; I personally like it. Though to say that it is related to Finnish, Hungarian, Mongolian, Japanese, Korean, etc. is completely wrong.
>>60805912
Ural-Altaic has few supporters but Altaic is definitely not nearly "discredited". Turkish and Mongolian morphological similarities are well studied
>>60805912
>I also find it hard to believe.
Okay, so you don't actually know anything. What do you think is the state of Social Science is a 2nd world shithole like Turkey?
Its not about me believing in misinformation, I'm telling you what people here believe.
>>60805985
They do show many similarities, yes, but there is no strong evidence to support the Altaic family. For example, Japanese and Korean seem to have many phonological and grammatical similarities, but they are in fact unrelated. I welcome any serious refutation with evidence from you.
>>60806039
Linguistics theories don't deal absolute evidences, and it doesn't need to revolve around eurocentric view. A simple search in Google scholar will give recent studies since 2000 involving many acedemics (many of them aren't Turkish), also delving into debate me with evidences on 4chan is laughable.
>>60806241
All right. Have a nice evening.
>>60805405
I understand Kyrgyz, kazakh and Uygur more than Uzbek and I can't understand Turkmen it's too fast and breathy
>>60805405
Neither. I understand even little Turkish.
>>60806736
Weird cause the Turks above said it's basically the same as Turkish
>>60807310
It is but it depends on what you hear more though cause my ears are more used to what I said. It's like hearing a weird English accent and you really don't understand shit even though it's the same language, they're more like dialects.
>>60805405
Gagauz & Azerbaijani=intelligible
Other=no
>>60806418
I don't think you are checking this thread anymore but I will type anyway: Disregarding and/or saying anything bad about Altaic language theory, ludicrous Sun-Language Theory etc. are some taboo shit in Turkey, you will cause serious offence. You are simply thought to be attacking Turkish values. These ideologies, theories are supported/once supported by TDK(government institution that works about Turkish language) so anyone who says something against them must be against all Turks. That is how shit works in Turkey, we don't care about science much. After humbly apologising in the behalf of rational Turks I must say that I am not sure about this is whenever a language family or a sprachbund effect. There are too many grammatical similarities but too little/none lexical similarity. I am inclined to think that we are unlucky enough to have too much lexical change to prove common ancestral language so we have to stick with far-streched sprachbund explanation. But I am just a hobbyist with no formal linguistic background so I must bear with general consensus of scientifically community until I am to give a proper rebuttal(If my belief won't change/I am not too lazy to).
>>60807470
I think a Sprachbund could be likely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_sprachbund
This is a great example, and I would not be surprised at all if something similar is going on. Perhaps 'Altaic Sprachbund' would be a more appropriate name.
>>60807537
Yes grammatical, syntactical and phonological similarities seems enough, I don't have anything to say against that but there is too little lexical similarity. Do you think people would borrow words or grammatical aspects more? Consider this example: During Ottomon Era there was immense gap between the language of elite and common folk. A 14th century poem in vulgar language is perfectly intelligible to modern day Turk but an 19th century poem written for Sultan is not. That's because the language was full of Arabic and Persian borrowings. But even having that much of borrowings, in contrast to that, two new types of adjectival phrases were only things borrowed as a grammatical feature. Lexical changes happens a lot more often than grammatical ones and hid the fact that two words were cognates better than grammatical aspects hiding their common origin which does not become as hidden as lexical ones but still there should be some lexical similarity. But amount of lexical similarity being that few then grammatical, phonetical and syntactical ones does not satisfy me.
>>60808210
Yes, this does make it tricky. The lack of lexical similarity between the languages makes it hard to believe they have much of a connection at all, which is probably why the Altaic hypothesis has been discarded (mostly). It does raise the interesting question as to how they have so many grammatical similarities, though.
