Editing Altaic languages

{{Short description|Hypothetical language family of Eurasia}}
{{Distinguish|Altai languages}}
{{Redirect|Altaic}}
{{Undue weight|date=June 2023}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2020}}
{{Infobox language family
| name          = Altaic
| acceptance    = highly controversial<ref>{{cite book |last=Georg |first=Stefan |year=2023 |chapter=Connections between Uralic and Other Language Families |editor1=Daniel Abondolo |editor2=Riitta-Liisa Valijärvi |title=The Uralic Languages |location=London |publisher=Routledge |pages=176–209 |doi=10.4324/9781315625096-4|doi-broken-date=14 December 2024 |isbn=9781315625096 }}</ref>
| region        = Northern and Central [[Asia]]
| familycolor   = Altaic
| family        = Proposed as a major [[language family]] by some, but more often viewed as a [[sprachbund]]
| child1        = [[Turkic languages|Turkic]]
| child2        = [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]]
| child3        = [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]]
| child4        = [[Koreanic languages|Koreanic]] (sometimes included)
| child5        = [[Japonic languages|Japonic]] (sometimes included)
| child6        = [[Ainu languages|Ainu]] (rarely included)
| iso2          = tut
| iso5          = tut
| glotto        = none
| map           = Lenguas altaicas.png
| mapcaption    = {{Legend|#00008B|[[Turkic languages]]}}
{{Legend|#32CD32|[[Mongolic languages]]}}
{{Legend|#FF0000|[[Tungusic languages]]}} 
{{Legend|#FFD700|[[Koreanic languages]]}} (sometimes included)
{{Legend|#8B008B|[[Japonic languages]]}} (sometimes included)
{{Legend|#8B0000|[[Ainu languages]]}} (rarely included)
| protoname     = Proto-Altaic
}}
The '''Altaic''' ({{IPAc-en|æ|l|ˈ|t|eɪ|.|ᵻ|k|audio=LL-Q1860 (eng)-Naomi Persephone Amethyst (NaomiAmethyst)-Altaic.wav}}) languages are a group of languages comprising the [[Turkic languages|Turkic]], [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]] and [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic language families]], with some linguists including the [[Koreanic languages|Koreanic]] and [[Japonic languages|Japonic]] families.<ref name=georg1999>{{cite journal |given1=Stefan |surname1=Georg |author-link1=Stefan Georg|given2=Peter A. |surname2=Michalove |given3=Alexis Manaster |surname3=Ramer |given4=Paul J. |surname4=Sidwell |year=1999 |title=Telling general linguists about Altaic |journal=Journal of Linguistics |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=65–98 |doi=10.1017/S0022226798007312 |s2cid=144613877 }}</ref>{{rp|73}} These languages share [[agglutinative language|agglutinative]] morphology, [[head-final]] word order and some vocabulary. The once-popular theory attributing these similarities to a common ancestry has long been rejected by most [[Comparative linguistics|comparative linguists]] in favor of [[language contact]], although it continues to be supported by a small but stable scholarly minority.<ref name="georg1999"/><ref>{{Cite book|last=Campbell|first=Lyle|title=Glossary of Historical Linguistics|publisher=Edinburgh University Press|year=2007|isbn=978-0-7486-3019-6|pages=7|quote=While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups ... are related. In spite of this, Altaic does have a few dedicated followers.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Starostin|first=George|date=2016|title=Altaic Languages|url=https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-35|website=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.35|isbn=9780199384655|quote=Despite the validity of many of these objections, it remains unclear whether they are sufficient to completely discredit the hypothesis of a genetic connection between the various branches of 'Altaic,' which continues to be actively supported by a small, but stable scholarly minority.}}</ref> Like the [[Uralic languages|Uralic]] language family, which is named after the Ural Mountains, the group is named after the [[Altai Mountains|Altai mountain range]] in the center of Asia. The core grouping of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic is sometimes called "Micro-Altaic", with the expanded group including Koreanic and Japonic labelled as "Macro-Altaic" or "Transeurasian".<ref>{{Cite book |title=Transeurasian Linguistics |date=2016-09-30 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-82560-3 |editor-last=Robbeets |editor-first=Martine |edition=1st |language=English}}</ref>

The Altaic family was first proposed in the 18th century. It was widely accepted until the 1960s and is still listed in many encyclopedias and handbooks, and references to Altaic as a language family continue to percolate to modern sources through these older sources.<ref name=georg1999/> Since the 1950s, most comparative linguists have rejected the proposal, after supposed [[cognate]]s were found not to be valid, hypothesized sound shifts were not found, and Turkic and Mongolic languages were found to have been converging rather than diverging over the centuries.<ref>Lyle Campbell and Mauricio J. Mixco (2007): ''A Glossary of Historical Linguistics''; University of Utah Press. Page 7: "While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related."</ref><ref>Johanna Nichols (1992) ''Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time''. Chicago University Press. Page 4: "When cognates proved not to be valid, Altaic was abandoned and the received view now is that Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic are unrelated."</ref><ref name=perel2012>Asya Pereltsvaig (2012) ''Languages of the World, An Introduction''. Cambridge University Press. Pages 211–216: "[...T]his selection of features does not provide good evidence for common descent" [...] "we can observe convergence rather than divergence between Turkic and Mongolic languages—a pattern than is easily explainable by borrowing and diffusion rather than common descent"</ref> The relationship between the Altaic languages is now generally accepted to be the result of a [[sprachbund]] rather than common ancestry, with the languages showing influence from prolonged [[Language contact|contact]].<ref>{{Citation |last=Starostin |first=George |title=Altaic Languages |date=2016-04-05 |url=https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-35 |encyclopedia=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics |access-date=2023-07-11 |language=en |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.35 |isbn=978-0-19-938465-5}}</ref><ref>R. M. W. Dixon (1997): ''The Rise and Fall of Languages''. Cambridge University Press. Page 32: "Careful examination indicates that the established families, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, form a linguistic area (called Altaic)...Sufficient criteria have not been given that would justify talking of a genetic relationship here."</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=De la Fuente |first=José Andrés Alonso |year=2016 |title=Review of Robbeets, Martine (2015): Diachrony of verb morphology. Japanese and the Transeurasian languages |url=https://www.academia.edu/30240029 |journal=Diachronica |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=530–537 |doi=10.1075/dia.33.4.04alo |quote=For now, shared material between Transeurasian [i.e. Altaic] languages is undoubtedly better explained as the result of language contact. But if researchers provide cogent evidence of genealogical relatedness, that will be the time to re-evaluate old positions. That time, however, has not yet come.}}</ref> 

Altaic has maintained a limited degree of scholarly support, in contrast to some other early [[macrofamily]] proposals. Continued research on Altaic is still being undertaken by a core group of academic linguists, but their research has not found wider support. In particular it has support from the [[Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences]] and remains influential as a substratum of [[Turanism]], where a hypothetical common linguistic ancestor has been used in part as a basis for a multiethnic nationalist movement.<ref name="Aytürk 2004 pp. 1–25">{{cite journal | last=Aytürk | first=İlker | title=Turkish Linguists against the West: The Origins of Linguistic Nationalism in Atatürk's Turkey | journal=Middle Eastern Studies | publisher=Taylor & Francis, Ltd. | volume=40 | issue=6 | year=2004 | issn=0026-3206 | jstor=4289950 | pages=1–25 | doi=10.1080/0026320042000282856 | s2cid=144968896 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4289950 | access-date=2023-07-11| hdl=11693/49528 | hdl-access=free }}</ref>

==Earliest attestations<span class="anchor" id="Earliest attestations of the languages"></span>==
The earliest attested expressions in Proto-Turkic are recorded in various Chinese sources. Anna Dybo identifies in [[Shizi (book)|Shizi]] (330 BC) and the [[Book of Han]] (AD 111) several dozen Proto-Turkic exotisms in Chinese Han transcriptions.<ref>Anna Dybo (2012) ''Early contacts of Turks and problems of Proto-Turkic reconstruction.''</ref> Lanhai Wei and Hui Li reconstruct the name of the Xiōngnú ruling house as
[[Proto-Turkic language|PT]] *[[Luandi|Alayundluğ]] /alajuntˈluγ/ 'piebald horse clan.'<ref>Lanhai Wei and Hui Li (2018) ''About the names of Chanyu family and branch tribes of Xiongnu.''</ref>

The earliest known texts in a Turkic language are the [[Orkhon inscriptions]], 720–735 AD.<ref name=miller71/>{{rp|3}} They were deciphered in 1893 by the Danish linguist [[Vilhelm Thomsen]] in a scholarly race with his rival, the German–Russian linguist [[Vasily Radlov|Wilhelm Radloff]]. However, Radloff was the first to publish the inscriptions.

The first Tungusic language to be attested is [[Jurchen language|Jurchen]], the language of the ancestors of the [[Manchu people|Manchus]]. A writing system for it was devised in 1119 AD and an inscription using this system is known from 1185 (see [[List of Jurchen inscriptions]]).

The earliest [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]] language of which we have written evidence is known as [[Middle Mongol language|Middle Mongol]]. It is first attested by an inscription dated to 1224 or 1225 AD, the [[Stele of Yisüngge]], and by the ''[[Secret History of the Mongols]]'', written in 1228 (see [[Mongolic languages]]). The earliest Para-Mongolic text is the [[Memorial for Yelü Yanning]], written in the [[Khitan large script]] and dated to 986 AD. However, the [[Inscription of Hüis Tolgoi]], discovered in 1975 and analysed as being in an early form of Mongolic, has been dated to 604–620 AD. The [[Bugut inscription]] dates back to 584 AD.

Japanese is first attested in the form of names contained in a few short inscriptions in [[Classical Chinese]] from the 5th century AD, such as found on the [[Inariyama Sword]]. The first substantial text in Japanese, however, is the ''[[Kojiki]]'', which dates from 712 AD. It is followed by the ''[[Nihon Shoki|Nihon shoki]]'', completed in 720, and then by the ''[[Man'yōshū]]'', which dates from [[wikt:circa|c.]] 771–785, but includes material that is from about 400 years earlier.<ref name=miller71/>{{rp|4}}

The most important text for the study of early Korean is the [[Hyangga]], a collection of 25 poems, of which some go back to the [[Three Kingdoms of Korea|Three Kingdoms]] period (57 BC–668 AD), but are preserved in an [[orthography]] that only goes back to the 9th century AD.<ref name=miller96/>{{rp|60}} Korean is copiously attested from the mid-15th century on in the phonetically precise [[Hangul]] system of writing.<ref name=miller96/>{{rp|61}}

==History of the Altaic family concept==
[[File:2006-07 altaj belucha.jpg|thumb|The [[Altai Mountains]] in East-Central Asia give their name to the proposed language family.]]

===Origins===
The earliest known reference to a unified language group of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages is from the 1692 work of [[Nicolaes Witsen]] which may be based on a 1661 work of [[Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur]], ''[[Shajara-i Tarākima|Genealogy of the Turkmens]]''.<ref name=robeets31>{{cite book |last1=Robeets |first1=Martine |title=The Classification of Transeurasian languages |date=2020 |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=31}}</ref>

A proposed grouping of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages was published in 1730 by [[Philip Johan von Strahlenberg]], a Swedish officer who traveled in the eastern [[Russian Empire]] while a prisoner of war after the [[Great Northern War]].<ref name=poppe65>Nicholas Poppe (1965): ''Introduction to Altaic Linguistics.'' Volume 14 of ''Ural-altaische Bibliothek''. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden.</ref>{{rp|page 125}} However, he may not have intended to imply a closer relationship among those languages.<ref name=ramer>[[Alexis Manaster Ramer]] and [[Paul Sidwell]] (1997): "The truth about Strahlenberg's classification of the languages of Northeastern Eurasia." ''Journal de la Société finno-ougrienne'', volume 87, pages 139–160.</ref> Later proposals to include the Korean and Japanese languages into a "Macro-Altaic" family have always been controversial. The original proposal was sometimes called "Micro-Altaic" by [[retronym]]y. Most proponents of Altaic continue to support the inclusion of Korean, but fewer do for Japanese.<ref name="China 2008">Roger Blench and Mallam Dendo (2008): "[https://web.archive.org/web/20190227035752/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b96/c6177913c04c7972abe56fcd86a9b6294686.pdf Stratification in the peopling of China: how far does the linguistic evidence match genetics and archaeology?]" In Alicia Sanchez-Mazas et al., eds. ''Human migrations in continental East Asia and Taiwan: genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence'', chapter 4. Taylor & Francis.</ref> Some proposals also included [[Ainu languages|Ainuic]] but this is not widely accepted even among Altaicists themselves.<ref name="georg1999" /> A common ancestral Proto-Altaic language for the "Macro" family has been tentatively reconstructed by [[Sergei Starostin]] and others.<ref name="staro2003" />

Micro-Altaic includes about 66 living languages,<ref>{{cite web |title=Browse by Language Family |url=http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=7-16 |access-date=18 June 2013 |publisher=Ethnologue}}</ref> to which Macro-Altaic would add Korean, [[Jeju language|Jeju]], Japanese, and the [[Ryukyuan languages]], for a total of about 74 (depending on what is considered a language and what is considered a [[Language or dialect|dialect]]). These numbers do not include earlier states of languages, such as [[Middle Mongol language|Middle Mongol]], [[Old Korean]], or [[Old Japanese]].

===Uralo-Altaic hypothesis===
{{see also |Ural-Altaic languages}}
In 1844, the Finnish [[Philology|philologist]] [[Matthias Castrén]] proposed a broader grouping which later came to be called the [[Ural–Altaic languages|Ural–Altaic family]], which included Turkic, Mongolian, and Manchu-Tungus (=Tungusic) as an "Altaic" branch, and also the [[Finno-Ugric languages|Finno-Ugric]] and [[Samoyedic languages]] as the "Uralic" branch (though Castrén himself used the terms "Tataric" and "Chudic").<ref name=poppe65/>{{rp|126–127}} The name "Altaic" referred to the [[Altai Mountains]] in East-Central Asia, which are approximately the center of the geographic range of the three main families. The name "Uralic" referred to the [[Ural Mountains]].

While the Ural-Altaic family hypothesis can still be found in some encyclopedias, atlases, and similar general references, since the 1960s it has been heavily criticized. Even linguists who accept the basic Altaic family, such as [[Sergei Starostin]], completely discard the inclusion of the "Uralic" branch.<ref name=staro2003/>{{rp|8–9}}

The term continues to be used for the central Eurasian typological, grammatical and lexical convergence zone.<ref>BROWN, Keith and OGILVIE, Sarah eds.:Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. 2009. p. 722.</ref> Indeed, "Ural-Altaic" may be preferable to "Altaic" in this sense. For example, [[Juha Janhunen]] states that "speaking of 'Altaic' instead of 'Ural-Altaic' is a misconception, for there are no areal or typological features that are specific to 'Altaic' without Uralic."<ref name="Georg">{{Cite journal |last=Georg |first=Stefan |date=2017-05-19 |title=The Role of Paradigmatic Morphology in Historical, Areal and Genealogical Linguistics: Thoughts and Observations in the Margin of Paradigm Change. In the Transeurasian languages and Beyond |url=https://brill.com/view/journals/jlc/10/2/article-p353_5.xml |journal=Journal of Language Contact |language=en |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=353–381 |doi=10.1163/19552629-01002005 |issn=1877-4091|doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Korean and Japanese languages===
In 1857, the Austrian scholar Anton Boller suggested adding [[Japanese language|Japanese]] to the Ural–Altaic family.<ref name=miller86>Roy Andrew Miller (1986): ''Nihongo: In Defence of Japanese.'' {{ISBN|0-485-11251-5}}.</ref>{{rp|34}}

In the 1920s, [[Gustaf John Ramstedt|G.J. Ramstedt]] and [[Yevgeny Polivanov|E.D. Polivanov]] advocated the inclusion of Korean. Decades later, in his 1952 book, Ramstedt rejected the Ural–Altaic hypothesis but again included Korean in Altaic, an inclusion followed by most leading Altaicists (supporters of the theory) to date.<!--Which date?--><ref name=rams>Gustaf John Ramstedt (1952): ''Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft'' ("Introduction to Altaic Linguistics"). Volume I, ''Lautlehre'' ("Phonology").</ref> His book contained the first comprehensive attempt to identify regular correspondences among the sound systems within the Altaic language families.

In 1960, Nicholas Poppe published what was in effect a heavily revised version of Ramstedt's volume on phonology<ref name=poppe60>Nicholas Poppe (1960): ''Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. Teil I. Vergleichende Lautlehre'', ('Comparative Grammar of the Altaic Languages, Part 1: Comparative Phonology'). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (Only part to appear of a projected larger work.)</ref><ref>Roy Andrew Miller (1991): "Genetic connections among the Altaic languages." In Sydney M. Lamb and E. Douglas Mitchell (editors), ''Sprung from Some Common Source: Investigations into the Prehistory of Languages'', 1991, 293–327. {{ISBN|0-8047-1897-0}}.</ref> that has since set the standard in Altaic studies. Poppe considered the issue of the relationship of Korean to Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic not settled.<ref name=poppe65/>{{rp|148}} In his view, there were three possibilities: (1) Korean did not belong with the other three genealogically, but had been influenced by an Altaic substratum; (2) Korean was related to the other three at the same level they were related to each other; (3) Korean had split off from the other three before they underwent a series of characteristic changes.

[[Roy Andrew Miller]]'s 1971 book ''Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages'' convinced most Altaicists that Japanese also belonged to Altaic.<ref name=poppe76>Nicholas Poppe (1976): "[https://www.jstor.org/pss/132066 Review of Karl H. Menges, ''Altajische Studien II. Japanisch und Altajisch'' (1975)]". In ''The Journal of Japanese Studies'', volume 2, issue 2, pages 470–474.</ref><ref name=miller71>Roy Andrew Miller (1971): ''Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages.'' University of Chicago Press. {{ISBN|0-226-52719-0}}.</ref> Since then, the "Macro-Altaic" has been generally assumed to include Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese.

In 1990, Unger, emphasizing the need to establish language relationships rigorously "from the bottom up," advocated comparing Tungusic with the common ancestor of Korean and Japanese before seeking connections with Turkic or Mongolic.<ref name=unger90>J. Marshall Unger (1990): "Summary report of the Altaic panel." In [[Philip Baldi]], ed., ''Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology'', pages 479–482. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.</ref>

However, many linguists dispute the alleged affinities of Korean and Japanese to the other three groups. Some authors instead tried to connect Japanese to the [[Austronesian languages]].<ref name=staro2003/>{{rp|8–9}}

In 2017, [[Martine Robbeets]] proposed that Japanese (and possibly Korean) originated as a [[creole language|hybrid language]]. She proposed that the [[urheimat|ancestral home]] of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages was somewhere in northwestern [[Manchuria]]. A group of those proto-Altaic ("Transeurasian") speakers would have migrated south into the modern [[Liaoning]] province, where they would have been mostly assimilated by an agricultural community with an [[Austronesian languages|Austronesian]]-like language. The fusion of the two languages would have resulted in proto-Japanese and proto-Korean.<ref name=robbe>Martine Irma Robbeets (2017): "[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320915864_Austronesian_influence_and_Transeurasian_ancestry_in_Japanese_A_case_of_farminglanguage_dispersal Austronesian influence and Transeurasian ancestry in Japanese: A case of farming/language dispersal]". ''Language Dynamics and Change'', volume 7, issue 2, pages 201–251, {{doi|10.1163/22105832-00702005}}</ref><ref name=robb2015>Martine Irma Robbeets (2015): ''Diachrony of verb morphology – Japanese and the Transeurasian languages''. Mouton de Gruyter.</ref>

In a typological study that does not directly evaluate the validity of the Altaic hypothesis, Yurayong and Szeto (2020) discuss for Koreanic and Japonic the stages of convergence to the Altaic typological model and subsequent divergence from that model, which resulted in the present typological similarity between Koreanic and Japonic. They state that both are "still so different from the Core Altaic languages that we can even speak of an independent Japanese-Korean type of grammar. Given also that there is neither a strong proof of common Proto-Altaic lexical items nor solid regular sound correspondences but, rather, only lexical and structural borrowings between languages of the Altaic typology, our results indirectly speak in favour of a “Paleo-Asiatic” origin of the Japonic and Koreanic languages."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Yurayong, Szeto|date=August 2020|title=Altaicization and De-Altaicization of Japonic and Koreanic|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343576887|journal=International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics|volume=2 |pages=108–148 |doi=10.1163/25898833-12340026 |s2cid=225358117 |quote=Despite the conventional classification of Japonic and Koreanic languages as examples of the Altaic typology (Janhunen 2007, 2014, Tranter 2012a), these languages, both today and in the past, are still so different from the Core Altaic languages that we can even speak of an independent Japanese-Korean type of grammar (see also Vovin 2015a). Given also that there is neither a strong proof of common Proto-Altaic lexical items nor solid regular sound correspondences (Janhunen 1999: 10, 2010: 296, cf. Robbeets 2005) but, rather, only lexical and structural borrowings between languages of the Altaic typology, our results indirectly speak in favour of a “Paleo-Asiatic” origin of the Japonic and Koreanic languages (see also Janhunen 2010, Vovin 2015a). However, through later intense language contacts, Japanese and Koreanic converged by the phenomena of Altaicization and de-Altaicization during the first millennium BC and AD, respectively (see also Janhunen 2010: 290, Vovin 2010: 239–240).}}</ref>

===The Ainu language===
In 1962, John C. Street proposed an alternative classification, with Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic in one grouping and Korean-Japanese-[[Ainu language|Ainu]] in another, joined in what he designated as the "North Asiatic" family.<ref name=street>John C. Street (1962): "Review of N. Poppe, ''Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen, Teil I'' (1960)". ''Language'', volume 38, pages 92–98.</ref> The inclusion of Ainu was adopted also by James Patrie in 1982.<ref name=patrie78>James Tyrone Patrie (1978): ''The genetic relationship of the Ainu language''. PhD thesis, University of Hawaii.</ref><ref name=patrie82>James Tyrone Patrie (1982): ''The Genetic Relationship of the Ainu Language.'' University of Hawaii Press. {{ISBN|0-8248-0724-3}}</ref>

The Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic and Korean-Japanese-Ainu groupings were also posited in 2000–2002 by [[Joseph Greenberg]]. However, he treated them as independent members of a larger family, which he termed [[Eurasiatic languages|Eurasiatic]].<ref name=grenberg2000>Joseph Greenberg (2000–2002): ''Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family'', 2 volumes. Stanford University Press.</ref>

The inclusion of Ainu is not widely accepted by Altaicists.<ref name=georg1999/> In fact, no convincing genealogical relationship between Ainu and any other language family has been demonstrated, and it is generally regarded as a [[language isolate]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Dougherty |first=Thomas |year=2018 |chapter=Ainu |editor-last=Campbell |editor-first=Lyle |editor-link=Lyle Campbell |title=Language Isolates |series=Routledge Language Family Series |location=London |publisher=Routledge |pages=100–116 }}</ref>

<!-- NOTE: Please leave the following IDs, which were the previous titles of this section. Many pages link to these section titles.
--><span id="Controversy" ></span> <span id="The controversy over Altaic" ></span>

===Early criticism and rejection===
Starting in the late 1950s, some linguists became increasingly critical of even the minimal Altaic family hypothesis, disputing the alleged evidence of genetic connection between Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages.

Among the earlier critics were [[Gerard Clauson]] (1956), [[Gerhard Doerfer]] (1963), and Alexander Shcherbak. They claimed that the words and features shared by Turkic, Mongolic, and [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]] languages were for the most part borrowings and that the rest could be attributed to chance resemblances.<ref name=clauson56/><ref name=doerfer63/><ref name=shche63/> In 1988, Doerfer again rejected all the genetic claims over these major groups.<ref name=doerfer88>Gerhard Doerfer (1988): ''Grundwort und Sprachmischung: Eine Untersuchung an Hand von Körperteilbezeichnungen.'' Franz Steiner. Wiesbaden:</ref>

===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>

===List of supporters and critics of the Altaic hypothesis===
{{more citations needed section|date=April 2024}}
The list below comprises linguists who have worked specifically on the Altaic problem since the publication of the first volume of Ramstedt's ''Einführung'' in 1952. The dates given are those of works concerning Altaic. For supporters of the theory, the version of Altaic they favor is given at the end of the entry, if other than the prevailing one of Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic–Korean–Japanese.

====Major supporters====
*[[Pentti Aalto]] (1955). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic–Korean.
*[[Anna V. Dybo]] (S. Starostin et al. 2003, A. Dybo and G. Starostin 2008).
*[[Frederik Kortlandt]] (2010).
*[[Karl H. Menges]] (1975). Common ancestor of Korean, Japanese and traditional Altaic dated back to the 7th or 8th millennium BC (1975: 125).
*[[Roy Andrew Miller]] (1971, 1980, 1986, 1996). Supported the inclusion of Korean and Japanese.
*Oleg A. Mudrak (S. Starostin et al. 2003).
*[[Nicholas Poppe]] (1965). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic and perhaps Korean.
*[[Alexis Manaster Ramer]].
*[[Peter Benjamin Golden]]
*[[Martine Robbeets]] (2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2015, 2021) (in the form of "Transeurasian"). 
*[[Gustaf John Ramstedt|G. J. Ramstedt]] (1952–1957). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic–Korean.
*[[Georgiy Starostin|George Starostin]] (A. Dybo and G. Starostin 2008).
*[[Sergei Starostin]] (1991, S. Starostin et al. 2003).
*John C. Street (1962). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic and Korean–Japanese–Ainu, grouped as "North Asiatic".
*[[Talât Tekin]] (1994). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic–Korean.

====Major critics====
* [[Gerard Clauson]] (1956, 1959, 1962)
* [[Gerhard Doerfer]] (1963, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1985, 1988, 1993)
* [[Susumu Ōno]] (1970, 2000)
* [[Juha Janhunen]] (1992, 1995) (tentative support of Mongolic-Tungusic)
* [[Claus Schönig]] (2003)<ref name=schon03/>
* [[Stefan Georg]] (2004, 2005)
* [[Alexander Vovin]] (2005, 2010, 2017) - Formerly an advocate of Altaic (1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001), later a critic
* [[Alexander Shcherbak]]
* [[Alexander B. M. Stiven]] (2008, 2010)

====Advocates of alternative hypotheses====
<!-- "Macro-Tungusic" redirects here -->
*[[James Patrie]] (1982) and [[Joseph Greenberg]] (2000–2002). Turkic–Mongolic–Tungusic and Korean–Japanese–Ainu, grouped in a common [[taxon]] (cf. John C. Street 1962).
*[[J. Marshall Unger]] (1990). Tungusic–Korean–Japanese ("'''Macro-Tungusic'''"), with Turkic and Mongolic as separate language families.
*[[Lars Johanson]] (2010). Agnostic, proponent of a "Transeurasian" verbal morphology not necessarily genealogically linked.

==="Transeurasian" renaming===
In Robbeets and Johanson (2010), there was a proposal to replace the name "Altaic" with the name "Transeurasian". While "Altaic" has sometimes included Japonic, Koreanic, and other languages or families, but only on the consideration of particular authors, "Transeurasian" was specifically intended to always include Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Japonic, and Koreanic. Robbeets and Johanson gave as their reasoning for the new term: 1) to avoid confusion between the different uses of Altaic as to which group of languages is included, 2) to reduce the counterproductive polarization between "Pro-Altaists" and "Anti-Altaists"; 3) to broaden the applicability of the term because the suffix ''-ic'' implies affinity while ''-an'' leaves room for an areal hypothesis; and 4) to eliminate the reference to the Altai mountains as a potential homeland.<ref>Martin Robbeets & Alexander Savelyev. "Introduction," ''The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages'' (2020, Oxford University Press), page 1.</ref>

In Robbeets and Savelyev, ed. (2020) there was a concerted effort to distinguish "Altaic" as a subgroup of "Transeurasian" consisting only of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, while retaining "Transeurasian" as "Altaic" plus Japonic and Koreanic.

==Arguments==
===For the Altaic grouping===
====Phonological and grammatical features====
The original arguments for grouping the "micro-Altaic" languages within a Uralo-Altaic family were based on such shared features as [[vowel harmony]] and [[agglutinative language|agglutination]].

According to Roy Miller, the most pressing evidence for the theory is the similarities in [[verb]]al [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]].<ref name=miller96/>

The ''Etymological Dictionary'' by Starostin and others (2003) proposes a set of sound change laws that would explain the evolution from Proto-Altaic to the descendant languages. For example, although most of today's Altaic languages have vowel harmony, Proto-Altaic as reconstructed by them lacked it; instead, various vowel assimilations between the first and second syllables of words occurred in Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japonic. They also included a number of grammatical correspondences between the languages.<ref name=staro2003/>

====Shared lexicon====
Starostin claimed in 1991 that the members of the proposed Altaic group shared about 15–20% of apparent cognates within a 110-word [[Swadesh list#Shorter lists|Swadesh-Yakhontov list]]; in particular, Turkic–Mongolic 20%, Turkic–Tungusic 18%, Turkic–Korean 17%, Mongolic–Tungusic 22%, Mongolic–Korean 16%, and Tungusic–Korean 21%.<ref name=staro91>Sergei A. Starostin (1991): ''Altajskaja problema i proisxoždenie japonskogo jazyka'' ('The Altaic Problem and the Origin of the Japanese Language'). Nauka, Moscow.</ref> The 2003 ''Etymological Dictionary'' includes a list of 2,800 proposed [[cognate]] sets, as well as a few important changes to the reconstruction of Proto-Altaic. The authors tried hard to distinguish loans between Turkic and Mongolic and between Mongolic and Tungusic from cognates; and suggest words that occur in Turkic and Tungusic but not in Mongolic. All other combinations between the five branches also occur in the book. It lists 144 items of shared basic vocabulary, including words for such items as 'eye', 'ear', 'neck', 'bone', 'blood', 'water', 'stone', 'sun', and 'two'.<ref name=staro2003>Sergei Starostin, Anna V. Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak (2003): ''[[Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages]]'', 3 volumes. {{ISBN|90-04-13153-1}}.</ref>

[[Martine Robbeets|Robbeets]] and Bouckaert (2018) use [[Bayesian phylogeny|Bayesian phylolinguistic methods]] to argue for the coherence of the "narrow" Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic) together with Japonic and Koreanic, which they refer to as the ''Transeurasian'' languages.<ref name= "Robbeets2018">Robbeets, M.; Bouckaert, R.: [https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/item/item_2630213_5/component/file_2630221/shh1046.pdf?mode=download Bayesian phylolinguistics reveals the internal structure of the Transeurasian family]. ''Journal of Language Evolution'' 3 (2), pp. 145–162 (2018) {{doi|10.1093/jole/lzy007}}</ref> Their results include the following phylogenetic tree:<ref>[https://www.shh.mpg.de/1025823/transeurasian-bayesian Structure of Transeurasian language family revealed by computational linguistic methods] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191222112331/https://www.shh.mpg.de/1025823/transeurasian-bayesian |date=22 December 2019 }}. 2018. [[Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History]].</ref>

{{clade
|label1='''Transeurasian'''
|1={{clade
|label1=Japano-Koreanic
|1={{clade
|1=[[Japonic languages|Japonic]]
|2=[[Koreanic languages|Koreanic]]
}}
|label2=Altaic
|2={{clade
|1=[[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]]
|2={{clade
|1=[[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]]
|2=[[Turkic languages|Turkic]]
}}
}}
}}
}}

[[Martine Robbeets]] et al. (2021) argues that early Transeurasian speakers were originally agriculturalists in [[Northeastern Asia]], only becoming pastoralists later on.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Robbeets |first1=Martine |last2=Bouckaert |first2=Remco |last3=Conte |first3=Matthew |last4=Savelyev |first4=Alexander |last5=Li |first5=Tao |last6=An |first6=Deog-Im |last7=Shinoda |first7=Ken-ichi |last8=Cui |first8=Yinqiu |last9=Kawashima |first9=Takamune |last10=Kim |first10=Geonyoung |last11=Uchiyama |first11=Junzo |last12=Dolińska |first12=Joanna |last13=Oskolskaya |first13=Sofia |last14=Yamano |first14=Ken-Yōjiro |last15=Seguchi |first15=Noriko |date=2021 |title=Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=599 |issue=7886 |pages=616–621 |doi=10.1038/s41586-021-04108-8 |issn=1476-4687|doi-access=free |pmid=34759322 |pmc=8612925 }}</ref>

The analysis conducted by Kassian et al. (2021) on a 110-item word list, specifically developed for each of the languages — [[Proto-Turkic language|Proto-Turkic]], [[Proto-Mongolic language|Proto-Mongolic]], [[Proto-Tungusic]], [[Middle Korean]] and [[Proto-Japonic]] — indicated partial support for the Altaic macrofamily, with Korean seemingly excluded. While acknowledging that prehistoric contacts are a plausible alternative explanation for the positive results, they deem such a scenario less likely for the lexical matches between Turkic and Japonic languages, which are better explained by genealogical relationship because of the substantial geographical distances involved.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kassian |first1=Alexei S. |last2=Starostin |first2=George |last3=Egorov |first3=Ilya M. |last4=Logunova |first4=Ekaterina S. |last5=Dybo |first5=Anna V. |date=2021 |title=Permutation test applied to lexical reconstructions partially supports the Altaic linguistic macrofamily |journal=Evolutionary Human Sciences |language=en |volume=3 |pages=e32 |doi=10.1017/ehs.2021.28 |issn=2513-843X|doi-access=free |pmid=37588568 |pmc=10427268 }} Quote: "Korean shows no positive results with any of its potential Altaic relatives....Korean emerges as either unrelated to any of these four taxa or impervious to the efficacy of the algorithm owing to major mutations undergone by non-initial consonants in Pre-Proto-Korean."</ref>

===Against the grouping===
====Weakness of lexical and typological data====
According to G. Clauson (1956), G. Doerfer (1963), and A. Shcherbak (1963), many of the [[linguistic typology|typological]] features of the supposed Altaic languages, particularly [[agglutinative language|agglutinative]] strongly suffixing [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] and [[subject–object–verb]] (SOV) word order,<ref>Hawkins and Gilligan (1988): "The suffixing preference", in ''The Final-Over-Final Condition: A Syntactic Universal'', page 326. MIT Press. {{isbn|978-0262036696}}; According to the table, among the surveyed languages, 75% of OV languages are mainly suffixing, and more than 70% of mainly suffixing languages are OV.</ref> often occur together in languages.<ref name=clauson56/><ref name=doerfer63/><ref name=shche63/>

Those critics also argued that the words and features shared by Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages were for the most part borrowings and that the rest could be attributed to chance resemblances. They noted that there was little vocabulary shared by Turkic and Tungusic languages, though more shared with Mongolic languages. They reasoned that, if all three families had a common ancestor, we should expect losses to happen at random, and not only at the geographical margins of the family; and that the observed pattern is consistent with borrowing.<ref name=clauson56/><ref name=doerfer63/><ref name=shche63/>

According to C. Schönig (2003), after accounting for areal effects, the shared lexicon that could have a common genetic origin was reduced to a small number of monosyllabic lexical roots, including the personal pronouns and a few other deictic and auxiliary items, whose sharing could be explained in other ways; not the kind of sharing expected in cases of genetic relationship.<ref name=schon03>Schönig (2003): "Turko-Mongolic Relations." In ''The Mongolic Languages'', edited by Juha Janhunen, pages 403–419. Routledge.</ref>

====The Sprachbund hypothesis====
{{Expand section|with=The Sprachbund hypothesis is the primary understanding of Altaic at present and needs to be much more prominent|small=yes|date=July 2023}}

{{see|Sprachbund}}
Instead of a common genetic origin, Clauson, Doerfer, and Shcherbak proposed (in 1956–1966) that Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages form a ''[[Sprachbund]]'': a set of languages with similarities due to [[Language convergence|convergence]] through intensive borrowing and long contact, rather than common origin.<ref name=clauson56>Gerard Clauson (1956). "[http://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/CLAUSON/Clauson_against.pdf The case against the Altaic theory]". ''Central Asiatic Journal'' volume 2, pages 181–187</ref><ref name=doerfer63>Gerhard Doerfer (1963): "Bemerkungen zur Verwandtschaft der sog. altaische Sprachen" ('Remarks on the relationship of the so-called Altaic languages') In Gerhard Doerfer ed.: ''Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, Bd. I: Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen'', pages 51–105. Franz Steiner, Wiesbaden</ref><ref name=shche63>Alexander Shcherbak (1963).<!--Bibliographic data needed-->{{full citation needed|date=October 2023}}</ref>

[[Asya Pereltsvaig]] further observed in 2011 that, in general, [[genetic relationship (linguistics)|genetically related]] languages and families tend to diverge over time: the earlier forms are more similar than modern forms. However, she claims that an analysis of the earliest written records of Mongolic and Turkic languages shows the opposite, suggesting that they do not share a common traceable ancestor, but rather have become more similar through language contact and areal effects.<ref name=perel2012/><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Janhunen |first=Juha A. |date=2023-01-17 |title=The Unity and Diversity of Altaic |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356 |journal=Annual Review of Linguistics |language=en |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=135–154 |doi=10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356 |hdl=10138/355895 |s2cid=256126714 |issn=2333-9683|hdl-access=free }}</ref>

==Hypothesis about the original homeland<span class="anchor" id="Postulated Urheimat"></span>==
{{see|Ural-Altaic}}
The prehistory of the peoples speaking the "Altaic" languages is largely unknown. Whereas for certain other language families, such as the speakers of [[Proto-Indo-European language|Indo-European]], [[Proto-Uralic language|Uralic]], and [[Austronesian languages|Austronesian]], it is possible to frame substantial hypotheses, in the case of the proposed Altaic family much remains to be done.<ref>Miller (1991), page 319–320</ref>

<!--[[Urheimat]]:
In the absence of written records, there are several ways to study the (pre)history of a people:
*Identification of [[archaeological culture]]s: the material remains found at dwelling sites, burial grounds, and other places where people left traces of their activity.
*[[Biological anthropology|Physical anthropology]], which studies the physical characteristics of peoples, ancient and modern.
*[[Genetics]], particularly the study of [[ancient DNA]]. 
*[[Philology]], which studies the evidence in language families for their primitive locations and the nature of their cultures. (For an example, see [[Proto-Uralic language#Vocabulary|Proto-Uralic language]].) Mythology and legend often contain important clues to the earlier history of peoples.
*[[Glottochronology]], which attempts to estimate the time depth of a language family based on an assumed rate of change in languages. Related to this is [[lexicostatistics]], which attempts to determine the degree of relation between a set of languages by comparing the percentage of basic vocabulary (words like "I", "you", "heart", "stone", "two", "be", "and") they share in common.
*The development of a family tree of languages that notes the relative distance of the splits that occur in it.
*The observation of evidence for [[Language contact|contact between languages]], which may approximate when and where they were adjacent to each other.

All of these methods remain to be applied to the languages attributed to Altaic with the same degree of focus and intensity with which they have been applied to the Indo-European family (e.g. Mallory 1989, Anthony 2007).<ref name=mall1989>J. P. Mallory (1989) ''In Search of the Indo-Europeans.'' Thames and Hudson.</ref> -->
Some scholars have hypothesised a possible Uralic and Altaic homeland in the [[Central Asian steppes]].<ref>Nikoloz Silagadze, ''"[http://www.spekali.tsu.ge/index.php/en/article/viewArticle/2/16 The Homeland Problem of Indo-European Language-Speaking Peoples]"'', 2010. Faculty of Humanities at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. {{ISSN|1987-8583}}.</ref><ref>Y.N. Matyuishin (2003), pages 368–372.<!--Bibliographic data needed--></ref>

[[File:Homeland and dispersal of the Sino-Tibetan languages.svg|thumb|right|Hypothesized homeland according to Blench (2009)<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Blench|first1=Roger|last2=Post|first2=Mark|date=2010|title=NE Indian languages and the origin of Sino-Tibetan|url=https://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Sino-Tibetan/Blench%20ICSTLL42%20Chiang%20Mai%20paper.pdf |access-date=2021-10-28|website=rogerblench.info|page=20}}</ref>]]

Chaubey and van Driem propose that the dispersal of ancient Altaic language communities is reflected by the early [[Holocene]] dissemination of [[Haplogroup C-M217|haplogroup C2 (M217)]]: "If the paternal lineage C2 (M217) is correlated with Altaic linguistic affinity, as appears to be the case for Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic, then Japanese is no [[Father Tongue hypothesis|Father Tongue]], and neither is Korean. This [[Y chromosome|Y-chromosomal]] haplogroup accounts for 11% of Korean paternal lineages, and the frequency of the lineage is even more reduced in Japan. Yet this molecular marker may still be a tracer for the introduction of Altaic language to the archipelago, where the paternal lineage has persisted, albeit in a frequency of just 6%."<ref name=chaubey2020>Gyaneshwer Chaubey and George van Driem (2020) ''Munda languages are father tongues, but Japanese and Korean are not.'' (p. 11)</ref>
[[File:AltaicTree.png|thumb|362x362px|Detailed tree of the Altaic languages. ]]
[[Juha Janhunen]] hypothesized that the ancestral languages of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese were spoken in a relatively small area comprising present-day North Korea, Southern Manchuria, and Southeastern Mongolia.<ref name=johrob2010>Lars Johanson and Martine Irma Robbeets (2010): ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=9zcxQqmkgE0C Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance.]''. Introduction to the book, pages 1–5.</ref> However Janhunen is sceptical about an affiliation of Japanese to Altaic,<ref name=jahu1992>Juha Janhunen (1992): "Das Japanische in vergleichender Sicht". ''Journal de la Société finno-ougrienne'', volume 84, pages 145–161.</ref> while [[András Róna-Tas]] remarked that a relationship between Altaic and Japanese, if it ever existed, must be more remote than the relationship of any two of the Indo-European languages.<ref name=tas1988>András Róna-Tas (1988).<!--Bibliographic data needed--></ref>{{rp|77}} Ramsey stated that "the genetic relationship between Korean and Japanese, if it in fact exists, is probably more complex and distant than we can imagine on the basis of our present state of knowledge".<ref>S. Robert Ramsey (2004): "Accent, Liquids, and the Search for a Common Origin for Korean and Japanese". ''Japanese Language and Literature'', volume 38, issue 2, page 340. American Association of Teachers of Japanese.</ref>

Supporters of the Altaic hypothesis formerly set the date of the Proto-Altaic language at around 4000 BC, but today at around 5000 BC<ref name=staro2003/> or 6000 BC.<ref>Elena E. Kuz'mina (2007): ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=x5J9rn8p2-IC&pg=PP1 The Origin of the Indo-Iranians]'', page 364. Brill. {{ISBN|978-9004160-54-5}}</ref> This would make Altaic a language family older than [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] (around 3000 to 4000 BC according to mainstream hypotheses) but considerably younger than [[Afroasiatic languages|Afroasiatic]] (c. 10,000 BC<ref>Igor M. Diakonoff (1988): ''Afrasian Languages.'' Nauka, Moscow.</ref>{{rp|33}} or 11,000 to 16,000 BC<ref>Ehret (2002)<!--Bibliographic data needed--></ref>{{rp|35–36}} according to different sources).
<!--- ===The Transeurasian expansion hypothesis===

According to a study on genetic distance measurements from a large scale genetic study from 2021 titled 'Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia', hunter-gatherers of Mongolia and the [[Amur|Amur River]] Basin have ancestry shared by [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]] and [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]] language speakers, but they did not carry West Liao River farmer ancestry, contradicting the Transeurasian hypothesis proposed by [[Martine Robbeets]] that the expansion of West Liao River farmers spread these proto-languages.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wang |first=Chuan-Chao |date=2021 |title=Genomic insights into the formation of human populations in East Asia |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349510968 |journal=Nature |volume=591 |issue=7850 |pages=413–419 |doi=10.1038/s41586-021-03336-2 |pmc=7993749 |pmid=33618348}}</ref>--->

==See also==
* [[Classification of the Japonic languages]]
* [[Nostratic languages]]
* [[Pan-Turanism]]
* [[Turco-Mongol]] 
* [[Uralo-Siberian languages]]
* [[Xiongnu]]
* [[Comparison of Japanese and Korean]]

==References==

===Citations===
{{Reflist}}

===Sources===
{{refbegin}}
*Aalto, Pentti. 1955. "On the Altaic initial *''p-''." ''Central Asiatic Journal'' 1, 9–16.
*Anonymous. 2008. [title missing]. ''Bulletin of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas'', 31 March 2008, 264:&nbsp;____.
*{{cite journal |last1=Antonov |first1=Anton|last2=Jacques|first2=Guillaume |title=Turkic kümüš 'silver' and the lambdaism vs sigmatism debate |journal=Turkic Languages |volume=15 |issue = 2 |pages=151–170 |year=2012 |url = https://www.academia.edu/1495118 }}
*Anthony, David W. 2007. ''[[The Horse, the Wheel and Language|The Horse, the Wheel, and Language]].'' Princeton: Princeton University Press.
*Boller, Anton. 1857. ''Nachweis, daß das Japanische zum ural-altaischen Stamme gehört.'' Wien. 
*Clauson, Gerard. 1959. "The case for the Altaic theory examined." ''Akten des vierundzwanzigsten internationalen Orientalisten-Kongresses'', edited by H. Franke. Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, in Komission bei Franz Steiner Verlag.
*Clauson, Gerard. 1968. "A lexicostatistical appraisal of the Altaic theory." ''Central Asiatic Journal'' 13: 1–23. 
*Doerfer, Gerhard. 1973. "Lautgesetze und Zufall: Betrachtungen zum Omnicomparativismus." ''Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft'' 10.
*Doerfer, Gerhard. 1974. "Ist das Japanische mit den altaischen Sprachen verwandt?" ''Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft'' 114.1.
*Doerfer, Gerhard. 1985. ''Mongolica-Tungusica.'' Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 
*Georg, Stefan. 1999 / 2000. "Haupt und Glieder der altaischen Hypothese: die Körperteilbezeichnungen im Türkischen, Mongolischen und Tungusischen" ('Head and members of the Altaic hypothesis: The body-part designations in Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic'). ''Ural-altaische Jahrbücher, neue Folge B'' 16, 143–182.
*{{cite book |last=Kortlandt |first=Frederik |year=2010 |chapter=Indo-Uralic and Altaic revisited |editor1=Johanson L |editor2=Robbeets M |title=Transeurasian verbal morphology in a comparative perspective: genealogy, contact, chance |location=Wiesbaden |publisher=Harrassowitz |pages=153–164 }}.
*Lee, Ki-Moon and S. Robert Ramsey. 2011. ''A History of the Korean Language.'' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
*Menges, Karl. H. 1975. ''Altajische Studien II. Japanisch und Altajisch.'' Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. 
*Miller, Roy Andrew. 1980. ''Origins of the Japanese Language: Lectures in Japan during the Academic Year 1977–1978.'' Seattle: University of Washington Press. {{ISBN|0-295-95766-2}}. 
*Ramstedt, G.J. 1952. ''Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft I. Lautlehre'', 'Introduction to Altaic Linguistics, Volume 1: Phonology', edited and published by Pentti Aalto. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
*Ramstedt, G.J. 1957. ''Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft II. Formenlehre'', 'Introduction to Altaic Linguistics, Volume 2: Morphology', edited and published by Pentti Aalto. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
*Ramstedt, G.J. 1966. ''Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft III. Register'', 'Introduction to Altaic Linguistics, Volume 3: Index', edited and published by Pentti Aalto. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
*Robbeets, Martine. 2004. [https://web.archive.org/web/20110719105517/http://www.orientalistik.uni-mainz.de/robbeets/2004_Swadesh_100.pdf "Swadesh 100 on Japanese, Korean and Altaic."] Tokyo University Linguistic Papers, TULIP 23, 99–118.
*Robbeets, Martine. 2005. ''Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic?'' Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 
*Strahlenberg, P.J.T. von. 1730. ''Das nord- und ostliche Theil von Europa und Asia....'' Stockholm. (Reprint: 1975. Studia Uralo-Altaica. Szeged and Amsterdam.)
*Strahlenberg, P.J.T. von. 1738. ''Russia, Siberia and Great Tartary, an Historico-geographical Description of the North and Eastern Parts of Europe and Asia....'' (Reprint: 1970. New York: Arno Press.) English translation of the previous. 
*Tekin, Talat. 1994. "Altaic languages." In ''The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics'', Vol. 1, edited by R.E. Asher. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press. 
*Vovin, Alexander. 1993. "About the phonetic value of the Middle Korean grapheme ᅀ." ''Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies'' 56(2), 247–259.
*Vovin, Alexander. 1994. "Genetic affiliation of Japanese and methodology of linguistic comparison." ''Journal de la Société finno-ougrienne'' 85, 241–256.
*Vovin, Alexander. 2001. "Japanese, Korean, and Tungusic: evidence for genetic relationship from verbal morphology." ''Altaic Affinities'' (Proceedings of the 40th Meeting of PIAC, Provo, Utah, 1997), edited by David B. Honey and David C. Wright, 83–202. Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies. 
*Vovin, Alexander. 2010. ''Koreo-Japonica: A Re-Evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin''. University of Hawaii Press.
*Whitney Coolidge, Jennifer. 2005. ''Southern Turkmenistan in the Neolithic: A Petrographic Case Study.'' Oxbow Books.
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
{{refbegin}}
* Blažek, Václav. "[http://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/122994 Altaic numerals]". In: Blažek, Václav. ''Numerals: comparative-etymological analyses of numeral systems and their implications: (Saharan, Nubian, Egyptian, Berber, Kartvelian, Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European languages)''. Vyd. 1. V Brně: Masarykova univerzita, 1999, pp.&nbsp;102–140. {{ISBN|8021020709}};
* Dybo, Anna. "New trends in European studies on the Altaic problem". In: ''Journal of Language Relationship'' 14, no. 1-2 (2017): 71–106. https://doi.org/10.31826/jlr-2017-141-208
* Finch, Roger. "Gender Distinctions in Nouns and Pronouns of the Altaic Languages". ''Expressions of Gender in the Altaic World: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIAC), Kocaeli, Turkey, July 7–12, 2013''. Edited by Münevver Tekcan and Oliver Corff. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2021. pp. 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110748789-008
*Greenberg, Joseph H. 1997. "Does Altaic exist?". In: Irén Hegedus, Peter A. Michalove, and Alexis Manaster Ramer (editors), ''Indo-European, Nostratic and Beyond: A Festschrift for Vitaly V. Shevoroshkin'', Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man, 1997, 88–93. (Reprinted in Joseph H. Greenberg, ''Genetic Linguistics'', Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 325–330.)
*Hahn, Reinhard F. 1994. [https://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-908/ ''LINGUIST List'' 5.908, 18 August 1994.] 
*Janhunen, Juha. 1995. "Prolegomena to a Comparative Analysis of Mongolic and Tungusic". ''Proceedings of the 38th Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIAC)'', 209–218. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
*Janhunen, Juha A. 2023. "The Unity and Diversity of Altaic", ''Annual Review of Linguistics'' '''9''':135–154 (January 2023) {{doi|10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356}}
*Johanson, Lars. 1999. [http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/Johanson1999AltaicVerb.pdf "Cognates and copies in Altaic verb derivation"]. In: ''Language and Literature – Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages: Studies in Honour of Roy Andrew Miller on His 75th Birthday'', edited by Karl H. Menges and Nelly Naumann, 1–13. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (Also: [https://web.archive.org/web/20061111112943/http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/Johanson1999AltaicVerb.pdf HTML version].)
*Johanson, Lars. 1999. [http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/Johanson2000.pdf "Attractiveness and relatedness: Notes on Turkic language contacts"]. ''Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Caucasian, Dravidian, and Turkic Linguistics'', edited by Jeff Good and Alan C.L. Yu, 87–94. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
*Johanson, Lars. 2002. ''Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts'', translated by Vanessa Karam. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.
* {{Cite journal|last1=Kim|first1=Jangsuk|last2=Park|first2=Jinho|date=2020|title=Millet vs rice: an evaluation of the farming/language dispersal hypothesis in the Korean context|journal=Evolutionary Human Sciences|language=en|volume=2|pages=e12 |doi=10.1017/ehs.2020.13|pmid=37588344 |pmc=10427441 |issn=2513-843X|doi-access=free}}
*Kortlandt, Frederik. 1993. [http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art125e.pdf "The origin of the Japanese and Korean accent systems"]. ''Acta Linguistica Hafniensia'' 26, 57–65.
*{{cite journal|doi=10.2307/411687|jstor=411687|title=Lexical Evidence Relating Korean to Japanese|journal=Language|volume=42|issue=2|pages=185–251|year=1966|last1=Martin|first1=Samuel E.}}
*{{cite book|doi=10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001|title=Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time|year=1992|last1=Nichols|first1=Johanna|isbn=9780226580579}}
*Robbeets, Martine. 2004. [http://www.hmn.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/eurasia/newsletter/08.pdf "Belief or argument? The classification of the Japanese language."] ''Eurasia Newsletter'' 8. Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University. 
*Ruhlen, Merritt. 1987. ''A Guide to the World's Languages''. Stanford University Press.
*Sinor, Denis. 1990. ''Essays in Comparative Altaic Linguistics''. Bloomington: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies. {{ISBN|0-933070-26-8}}.
*Vovin, Alexander. 2009. "Japanese, Korean, and other 'non-Altaic' languages". In: ''Central Asiatic Journal'' 53 (1): 105–147.
* {{Cite journal|last1=Yurayong|first1=Chingduang|last2=Szeto|first2=Pui Yiu|date=2020-08-05|title=Altaicization and De-Altaicization of Japonic and Koreanic|url=https://brill.com/view/journals/jeal/2/1/article-p108_5.xml|journal=International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics|language=en|volume=2|issue=1|pages=108–148|doi=10.1163/25898833-12340026|s2cid=225358117|issn=2589-8833}}
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{sister project |project=wiktionary |text=[[Wiktionary]] has word lists at '''''[[Wiktionary:Appendix:Altaic word lists|Appendix:Altaic word lists]]'''''}}
{{commons category}}
*[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Swadesh_lists_for_Altaic_languages Swadesh vocabulary lists for Altaic languages] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110824201448/http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Swadesh_lists_for_Altaic_languages |date=24 August 2011 }} (from Wiktionary's [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Swadesh_lists Swadesh-list appendix])
*[http://altaica.ru Monumenta altaica] Altaic linguistics website, maintained by Ilya Gruntov
*[http://starling.rinet.ru/maps/maps23.php?lan=en ''Altaic Etymological Dictionary'', database version] by Sergei A. Starostin, Anna V. Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak (does not include introductory chapters)
*[https://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-911/ LINGUIST List 5.911] defense of Altaic by Alexis Manaster Ramer (1994)
*[https://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-926/ LINGUIST List 5.926] 1. Remarks by Alexander Vovin. 2. Clarification by J. Marshall Unger. (1994)

{{Template group
|title = Articles related to Altaic languages
|list  =
{{Altaic languages}}
{{Language families}}
{{Eurasian languages}}
{{Long-range comparative linguistics}}
}}
{{Portal bar|Language}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Altaic Languages}}
[[Category:Altaic languages| ]]
[[Category:Agglutinative languages]]
[[Category:Central Asia]]
[[Category:Eurocentrism]]
[[Category:Proposed language families]]
[[Category:Sprachbund]]