Editing Altaic languages (section)

===Modern controversy===
A major continuing supporter of the Altaic hypothesis has been [[Sergei Starostin]], who published a comparative lexical analysis of the Altaic languages in 1991. He concluded that the analysis supported the Altaic grouping, although it was "older than most other language families in Eurasia, such as Indo-European or Finno-Ugric, and this is the reason why the modern Altaic languages preserve few common elements".<ref name=staro91/>

In 1991 and again in 1996, Roy Miller defended the Altaic hypothesis and claimed that the criticisms of Clauson and Doerfer apply exclusively to the lexical correspondences, whereas the most pressing evidence for the theory is the similarities in verbal morphology.<ref name=miller91>Roy Andrew Miller (1991), page 298<!--Bibliographic data needed--></ref><ref name=miller96>Roy Andrew Miller (1996): ''Languages and History: Japanese, Korean and Altaic.'' Oslo: Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture. {{ISBN|974-8299-69-4}}. Pages 98–99</ref>

In 2003, [[Claus Schönig]] published a critical overview of the history of the Altaic hypothesis up to that time, siding with the earlier criticisms of Clauson, Doerfer, and Shcherbak.<ref name=schon03/>

In 2003, Starostin, [[Anna Dybo]] and Oleg Mudrak published the ''[[Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages]]'', which expanded the 1991 lexical lists and added other phonological and grammatical arguments.<ref name=staro2003/>

Starostin's book was criticized by Stefan Georg in 2004 and 2005,<ref name=georg2004>Stefan Georg (2004): "[Review of ''Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages'' (2003)]". ''Diachronica'' volume 21, issue 2, pages 445–450. {{doi|10.1075/dia.21.2.12geo}}</ref><ref name=georg2005>Stefan Georg (2005): "[http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jbp/dia/2005/00000022/00000002/art00009?token=005418488f488b387e2a46762c47655d76702a252c2a766c7b673f7b2f267738703375686f4997755709 Reply (to Starostin response, 2005)]". ''Diachronica'' volume 22, issue 2, pages 455–457.</ref> and by Alexander Vovin in 2005.<ref name=vovin2005>Alexander Vovin (2005): "The end of the Altaic controversy" [review of Starostin et al. (2003)]. ''Central Asiatic Journal'' volume 49, issue 1, pages 71–132.</ref>

Other defenses of the theory, in response to the criticisms of Georg and Vovin, were published by Starostin in 2005,<ref name=staro2005>Sergei A. Starostin (2005): "[http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jbp/dia/2005/00000022/00000002/art00008?token=00541ba51aae7dd8d6c573d257025255c232b465340514d3874747c4e7547543c7e386f642f466fad2e3 Response to Stefan Georg's review of the ''Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages'']". ''Diachronica'' volume 22, issue 2, pages 451–454. {{doi|10.1075/dia.22.2.09sta}}</ref> Blažek in 2006,<ref name=blazek2006>Václav Blažek (2006): "[http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/blazek/bla-004.pdf Current progress in Altaic etymology.]" ''Linguistica Online'', 30 January 2006. Accessed on 2019-03-22.</ref> Robbeets in 2007,<ref name=robb2007>Martine Robbeets (2007): "How the actional suffix chain connects Japanese to Altaic." In ''Turkic Languages'', volume 11, issue 1, pages 3–58.</ref> and Dybo and G. Starostin in 2008.<ref name=staro2008>Anna V. Dybo and Georgiy S. Starostin (2008): "[http://starling.rinet.ru/Texts/compmeth.pdf In defense of the comparative method, or the end of the Vovin controversy.]" ''Aspects of Comparative Linguistics'', volume 3, pages 109–258. RSUH Publishers, Moscow</ref>

In 2010, [[Lars Johanson]] echoed Miller's 1996 rebuttal to the critics, and called for a muting of the polemic.<ref name=johans2010>Lars Johanson (2010): "The high and low spirits of Transeurasian language studies" in Johanson and Robbeets, eds. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=9zcxQqmkgE0C Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance.]'', pages 7–20. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Quote: "The dark age of ''pro'' and ''contra'' slogans, unfair polemics, and humiliations is not yet completely over and done with, but there seems to be some hope for a more constructive discussion."</ref>