Editing Ural-Altaic languages (section)

==History as a hypothesized language family==
The concept of a Ural-Altaic ethnic and language family goes back to the linguistic theories of [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]]; in his opinion there was no better method for specifying the relationship and origin of the various peoples of the Earth, than the comparison of their languages. In his ''Brevis designatio meditationum de originibus gentium ductis potissimum ex indicio linguarum'',<ref>LEIBNIZ, Gottfried Wilhelm: Brevis designatio meditationum de originibus gentium ductis potissimum ex indicio linguarum. 1710. https://edoc.bbaw.de/files/956/Leibniz_Brevis.pdf</ref> written in 1710, he originates every human language from one common ancestor language. Over time, this ancestor language split into two families; the Japhetic and the Aramaic. The Japhetic family split even further, into Scythian and Celtic branches. The members of the [[Scythian]] family were: the Greek language, the family of Sarmato-Slavic languages (Russian, Polish, Czech, Dalmatian, Bulgar, Slovene, Avar and Khazar), the family of Turkic languages (Turkish, [[Cumans|Cuman]], Kalmyk and Mongolian), the family of Finno-Ugric languages (Finnish, Saami, Hungarian, Estonian, Liv and Samoyed). Although his theory and grouping were far from perfect, they had a considerable effect on the development of linguistic research, especially in German-speaking countries.

In his book ''An historico-geographical description of the north and east parts of Europe and Asia'',<ref>STRAHLENBERG, Philipp Johann von: An historico-geographical description of the north and east parts of Europe and Asia http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010825073</ref> published in 1730, [[Philip Johan von Strahlenberg]], Swedish prisoner-of-war and explorer of Siberia, who accompanied [[Daniel Gottlieb Messerschmidt]] on his expeditions, described Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Samoyedic, Mongolic, Tungusic and Caucasian peoples as sharing linguistic and cultural commonalities. 20th century scholarship has on several occasions incorrectly credited him with proposing a Ural-Altaic language family, though he does not claim linguistic affinity ''between'' any of the six groups.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Alexis Manaster|last1=Ramer|author-link1=Alexis Manaster Ramer|first2=Paul|last2=Sidwell|author-link2=Paul Sidwell|title=The truth about Strahlenberg's classification of the languages of Northeastern Eurasia|year=1997|journal=Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne|volume=87|pages=139–160}}</ref><ref group="note">According to Manaster Ramer & Sidwell, this misconception first dates back to a 1901 article by [[Otto Donner]], later most prominently repeated by [[Nicholas Poppe]], [[Merritt Ruhlen]] and G. D. Sanzheev.</ref>

Danish philologist [[Rasmus Christian Rask]] described what he called "Scythian" languages in 1834, which included Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Samoyedic, Eskimo, Caucasian, Basque and others.

The Ural-Altaic hypothesis was elaborated at least as early as 1836 by W. Schott<ref>W. Schott, Versuch über die tatarischen Sprachen (1836)</ref> and in 1838 by [[F. J. Wiedemann]].<ref>F. J. Wiedemann, Ueber die früheren Sitze der tschudischen Völker und ihre Sprachverwandschaft mit dem Völkern Mittelhochasiens (1838).</ref>

The "Altaic" hypothesis, as mentioned by Finnish linguist and explorer [[Matthias Castrén]]<ref>M. A. Castrén, Dissertatio Academica de affinitate declinationum in lingua Fennica, Esthonica et Lapponica, Helsingforsiae, 1839</ref><ref>M. A. Castrén,  Nordische Reisen und Forschungen. V, St.-Petersburg, 1849</ref> by 1844, included the [[Finno-Ugric languages|Finno-Ugric]] and [[Samoyedic languages|Samoyedic]], grouped as "Chudic", and [[Turkic languages|Turkic]], [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]], and [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]], grouped as "Tataric". Subsequently, in the latter half of the 19th century, Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic came to be referred to as [[Altaic languages]], whereas Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic were called [[Uralic languages|Uralic]]. The similarities between these two families led to their retention in a common grouping, named Ural–Altaic.

[[Friedrich Max Müller]], the German Orientalist and philologist, published and proposed a new grouping of the non-Aryan and non-Semitic Asian languages in 1855. In his work ''The Languages of the Seat of War in the East'', he called these languages "[[Turanian languages|Turanian]]". Müller divided this group into two subgroups, the Southern Division, and the Northern Division.<ref>MÜLLER, Friedrich Max. ''The languages of the seat of war in the East. With a survey of the three families of language, Semitic, Arian and Turanian.'' Williams and Norgate, London, 1855. https://archive.org/details/languagesseatwa00mlgoog</ref> In the long run, his evolutionist theory about languages' structural development, tying growing grammatical refinement to socio-economic development, and grouping languages into 'antediluvian', 'familial', 'nomadic', and 'political' developmental stages,<ref>MÜLLER, Friedrich Max: Letter to Chevalier Bunsen on the classification of the Turanian languages. 1854. https://archive.org/details/cu31924087972182</ref> proved unsound, but his Northern Division was renamed and re-classed as the "Ural-Altaic languages".

Between the 1850s and 1870s, there were efforts by Frederick Roehrig to including some Native American languages in a "Turanian" or "Ural-Altaic" family, and between the 1870s and 1890s, there was speculation about links with Basque.<ref>Sean P. HARVEY: Native Tongues: Colonialism and Race from Encounter to the Reservation. Harvard University Press 2015. Page 212</ref>

In [[Hungary]], where the [[Hungarian language|national language]] is Uralic but with heavy historical Turkic influence—a fact which by itself spurred the popularity of the "Ural-Altaic" hypothesis—the idea of the Ural–Altaic relationship remained widely implicitly accepted in the late 19th and the mid-20th century, though more out of pan-nationalist than linguistic reasons, and without much detailed research carried out.{{clarify|date=July 2018}} Elsewhere the notion had sooner fallen into discredit, with Ural–Altaic supporters elsewhere such as the Finnish Altaicist [[Martti Räsänen]] being in the minority.{{sfn|Sinor|1988|pp=707–708}} The contradiction between Hungarian linguists' convictions and the lack of clear evidence eventually provided motivation for scholars such as [[Aurélien Sauvageot]] and [[Denis Sinor]] to carry out more detailed investigation of the hypothesis, which so far has failed to yield generally accepted results. [[Nicholas Poppe]] in his article ''The Uralo-Altaic Theory in the Light of the Soviet Linguistics'' (1940) also attempted to refute Castrén's views by showing that the common agglutinating features may have arisen independently.<ref>[http://feb-web.ru/feb/izvest/1940/03/403-079.htm Nicholas Poppe, The Uralo-Altaic Theory in the Light of the Soviet Linguistics] Accessed 2010-04-07</ref>

Beginning in the 1960s, the hypothesis came to be seen even more controversial, due to the Altaic family itself also falling out universal acceptance. Today, the hypothesis that Uralic and Altaic are related more closely to one another than to any other family has almost no adherents.<ref name=Starostin20038>(Starostin et al. 2003:8)</ref> In his ''Altaic Etymological Dictionary'', co-authored with Anna V. Dybo and Oleg A. Mudrak, [[Sergei Starostin]] characterized the Ural–Altaic hypothesis as "an idea now completely discarded".<ref name=Starostin20038/> There are, however, a number of hypotheses that propose a larger [[macrofamily]] including Uralic, Altaic and other families. None of these hypotheses has widespread support. In Starostin's sketch of a "[[Borean languages|Borean]]" super-phylum, he puts Uralic and Altaic as daughters of an ancestral language of c. 9,000 years ago from which the [[Dravidian languages]] and the [[Paleo-Siberian languages]], including [[Eskimo–Aleut languages|Eskimo–Aleut]], are also descended. He posits that this ancestral language, together with [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] and [[Kartvelian languages|Kartvelian]], descends from a "[[Eurasiatic languages|Eurasiatic]]" protolanguage some 12,000 years ago, which in turn would be descended from a "Borean" protolanguage via [[Nostratic languages|Nostratic]].<ref>{{cite web|ref=tree|url=http://starling.rinet.ru/images/globet.png|title=Borean tree diagram|author=Sergei Starostin|author-link=Sergei Starostin}}</ref>

In the 1980s, Russian linguist {{ill|N. D. Andreev|ru|Андреев, Николай Дмитриевич}} (Nikolai Dmitrievich Andreev) proposed a "{{ill|Boreal languages|ru|Бореальный язык}}" hypothesis linking the [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]], [[Uralic languages|Uralic]], and [[Altaic languages|Altaic]] (including Korean in his later papers) language families. Andreev also proposed 203 lexical roots for his hypothesized Boreal macrofamily. After Andreev's death in 1997, the Boreal hypothesis was further expanded by [[Sorin Paliga]] (2003, 2007).<ref name="Paliga-2003">Paliga, Sorin (2003). [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296700623_N_D_Andreev's_Proto-Boreal_Theory_and_Its_Implications_in_Understanding_the_Central-East_and_Southeast_European_Ethnogenesis_Slavic_Baltic_and_Thracian_Romanoslavica_38_93-104_Papers_and_articles_for_ N. D. Andreev’s Proto-Boreal Theory and Its Implications in Understanding the Central-East and Southeast European Ethnogenesis: Slavic, Baltic and Thracian]. ''Romanoslavica'' 38: 93–104. Papers and articles for the 13th International Congress of Slavicists, Ljubljana, August 15–21, 2003.</ref><ref name="Paliga-2007">{{cite book |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270278557 |first=Sorin |last=Paliga |title=Lexicon Proto-Borealicum et alia lexica etymologica minora |year=2007 |doi=10.13140/2.1.4932.0009 |publisher=Evenimentul  |isbn=978-973-87920-3-6}}</ref>

Angela Marcantonio (2002) argues that there is no sufficient evidence for a Finno-Ugric or Uralic group connecting the [[Finno-Permic languages|Finno-Permic]] and [[Ugric languages]], and suggests that they are no more closely related to each other than either is to Turkic, thereby positing a grouping  similar to Ural–Altaic or indeed to Castrén's original Altaic proposal. This thesis has been criticized by mainstream Uralic scholars.<ref>{{cite web|url = https://homepage.univie.ac.at/johanna.laakso/?page_id=94|title = Linguistic shadow-boxing |date =April 23, 2003|first = Johanna|last = Laakso}}</ref><ref>[http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/Vajda.review.pdf Edward J. Vajda, review of ''The Uralic language family: facts, myths, and statistics''] Accessed 2016-03-01</ref><ref>[http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/Blazek.review.pdf Václav Blažek, review of ''The Uralic language family: facts, myths, and statistics''] Accessed 2016-03-01</ref>