Talk:Altaic languages/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Horrible outdated and bad structured article

This article is in a very bad condition, clearly outdated and without any new developments since 2017. The most important paper is probably this one, but there is a huge amount of other good papers about the linguistic and archaeogenetic evidence regarding Altaic/Transeurasian:[1] and [2]. Not sure why this article is in such desolate state. I will add a clean up tag. Furthermore the structure is everything but encyclopedic. As example, we have a "Languages" section with only Tungusic and Mongolic. What kind of article should that be? Previous inclusions of newer papers got removed, how do the Wikipedians plan to improve it?213.162.81.214 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the two references you cite:

• The archeological article is not proof of a linguistic relationship. Perhaps you're not a linguist and think that it is proof just because it uses the word "Transeurasian". Transeurasian is not proven to the majority of historical linguists. That's all that matters in this article. Archeology and genetics have nothing to do with proving a linguistic hypothesis.
• Articles in the Transeurasian volume have been referenced here on the Talk Page, but since they add nothing new linguistically to the discussionin the article there's no need to multiply references there.

--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Your comment about the "Languages" section is valid. That material is relevant to articles about the Mongolic and Tungusic family and is irrelevant to the Altaic controversy. I deleted them rather than adding more irrelevant clutter to this article by expanding the section. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

'There is no direct connection between language and DNA. The archeological article is not proof of a linguistic relationship.' There are no computational Bayesian phylogenetic methods, 'a quantitative basis introduced to test various competing hypotheses with regard to the internal structure of the Transeurasian family and to solve uncertainties associated with the application of the classical historical-comparative method.' There is no triangulation method, 'the three windows on the past’ afforded by archaeology, linguistics and genetics, and aided by palaeoclimatology and palaeobotany. There is no need to flip through the table of contents of the The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages and gain a tentative understanding of how the triangulation method applies to Transeurasian. There simply is no use in anything other than the good old historical-comparative method. van Driem 2021: In the 1990s, Bill Wang stressed the distinctness of the ‘three windows on the past’ afforded by archaeology, linguistics and genetics (Wang 1998). Such an interdisciplinary approach has recently been rebranded by the new-fangled label ‘triangulation’. The newer metaphor is not quite as apt as Wang’s three windows because the three datasets are each of an essentially different nature. In 240bc, Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the circumference of the earth and the tilt of the earth’s axis by means of triangulation (van der Waerden 1950, Russo 2001). This exercise was repeated with far greater precision in 1615 by Willebrord Snellius, alias Willebrord Snel van Royen, alias Eratosthenes Batavus ‘Dutch Eratosthenes’ (Snellius 1617) (Figure 14). In fact, there are more than three windows onto the past, for the findings of other disciplines such as palaeoclimatology and palaeobotany likewise enhance and augment our view of our prehistory. 50.68.115.237 (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on moving "Altaic languages" to "Transeurasian languages"

I am hereby proposing to move the article titled "Altaic languages" to a new title, "Transeurasian languages."

In the past few decades a fervent debate had raged, focusing on whether the so called Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japonic) are genetically related, i.e. they stem from a common source. The debate intensified after the publication in 2003 of the Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. The publication was met with widespread criticism, in particular that a lot of the listed cognates were borrowings or folk etymologies. A conclusion was made that a shared lexicon per se cannot serve as conclusive evidence of a genetic relationship. To quote one of the most active critics: “The best way … is to prove a suggested genetic relationship on the basis of paradigmatic morphology.” The proponents responded agreeably: “regular paradigmatic correspondences in morphology are necessarily indicative of genetic relationship”. A common ground was found.

So, correspondences in morphology were discovered just several years later. For example, the proto-Transeurasian denominal verb suffix (among several others) *-r- ~ *-l- was found in the following verbs: proto-Japonic *sara- ‘depart’; proto-Korean *solo- ‘make vanish’; Manchu sala- ‘hand out’; proto-Mongolic *sala- ‘part with’; proto-Turkic *sal- ‘move.’ Morphological elements are famously resistant to borrowing, so the probability of a denominal verb suffix being borrowed from proto-Turkic to proto-Japonic is negligible. Some scholars have acceded that this indeed provides "the most pressing evidence for the theory." I have not heard of a formal refutation of this discovery. However, some opponents have claimed that even morphological elements must have diffused among the five proto-languages due their geographic proximity.

To overcome the deadlock, a shift from the term "Altaic" to "Transeurasian" defining a language group that includes Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japonic languages was initiated in 2010. The following reasons were listed:

First, to avoid confusion between the different uses of the term "Altaic," as various scholars had attached different meanings to the term. To be clear, this does not imply that the term "Altaic" has become "toxic" or "controversial" as has been suggested by some commenters.

Second, “Transeurasian” as a group of geographically adjacent languages does not presuppose genealogical relationship. This avoids counterproductive polarization.

Finally, upon application of interdisciplinary research, which involves linguistics, genetics, archeology, paleoclimatology and paleobotany, it was determined that the term "Altaic" does not accurately describe the original homeland of the Transeurasian languages. To quote the authors, "In his monograph Manchuria. An ethnic history, Juha Janhunen situates the original speech communities of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese in a rather compact area comprising North Korea, Southern Manchuria and present day Southeastern Mongolia." Yes, the title of this article includes the word "languages." But languages do not spawn in a vacuum, they are shaped and affected by a myriad of factors, which must be taken into consideration.

Scholars have reacted positively to the new term, "Transeurasian." Indeed, both proponents (e.g. Martine Robbeets) and critics (e.g. Juha Janhunen) of the genealogical relationship have collaborated on the seminal 'Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages.' To quote the conciliatory statement in the introduction:

"The historical connection between the Transeurasian languages is among the most debated issues (Ignis Cheldon: again, "most debated" does not equal "toxic" or "controversial") in comparative historical linguistics. Although most linguists would agree that these languages are historically related, they disagree on the precise nature of this relationship: are all similarities induced by borrowing or are some residues of inheritance? Scholars who take an areal approach—i.e. so-called “diffusionists”—admit that the Transeurasian languages have a large number of common elements and features in phonology, morphosyntax, and lexicon, but they maintain that these are better accounted for by an interplay of borrowing, universal principles in linguistic structuring, and coincidence than by common descent. By contrast, scholars who take a genealogical approach—i.e. so-called “retentionists”—admit that the Transeurasian languages have been subject to extensive mutual contact throughout their histories, but they maintain that not all similarities are the result of borrowing, universals, or chance. They argue that there is a limited core of similarities for which the linguistically most sensible explanation is inheritance.
Thus, both diffusionists and retentionists agree, first, in their observation that the Transeurasian languages have a rich inventory of linguistic properties in common and second, in their assessment that these correlations can be explained by the shared histories of the speech communities concerned. The point of disagreement is whether the shared histories are entirely contact-induced, or whether some go back to a shared ancestral stage. Given the current state of affairs, this reference guide starts from the common ground between diffusionists and retentionists: we first focus on providing empirical data and establishing correlations, while we weigh different historical explanations in the subsequent part of this volume. A principle that underlies this work is that genealogical linguistics and areal linguistics are not antonyms, but that the two fields can complement each other as twin faces of diachronic linguistics."

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no scholarly opposition to the term "Transeurasian" and the only opposition to the term might arise from nationalist and other vested interest groups. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Both to obtain participation and also to follow the RFC format you should put a few neutral sentences giving a bit of background. Also state the proposed change, right now it is only in the title. And separate/identify the rest as the imitator's opinion/argument. Right now you just have a lengthy argument and a large quote in favor of the change. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Please let me know if there are issues or concerns, thank you. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• This is not an RfC matter, please see WP:MOVE and WP:RM. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! Ignis Cheldon (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Transeurasian model - new article or within the Altaic model

The new Transeurasian model should perhaps get more mention within this article, or better, a own short article. There is an increasing amount of academics using the term "Transeurasian" as genealogical or areal family. Some good or relevant papers I collected (including a summary of the model):

The Transeurasian language dispersal model tries to explain the origin and expansion of the "Transeurasian languages", specifically Turkic languages, Tungusic languages, Mongolic languages, Koreanic languages, and Japonic languages, outgoing from millet agricultural societies in Manchuria, specifically from the Xinglongwa and Hongshan cultures along the Liao River in Northeast China. The model was first proposed by Martine Robbeets, based on the older Altaic hypothese, and has since received increasing support from other linguists, but also geneticists and archaeologists. A "Northeast Asian substrate ancestry" is found at high frequency among most "Transeurasian-speaking" populations. However the exact relationship between the Transeurasian languages as well as their dispersal remain disputed. Critics maintain that their similarities can be explained by areal contact somewhere in Northeast Asia or the Mongolia region.

When peer-reviewed: BaiulyQz (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Transeurasian" isn't "new" in the sense that it substantially differs from the wider Altaic hypothesis--Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic--so a new article just because there is a new name isn't warranted. I suspect that the "Transeurasian" label was developed in order to move away from the somewhat toxic "Altaic" label. It gave the uncommitted a chance to evaluate Robbeets' arguments without the built-in bias of the name "Altaic". Renaming the "Altaic" article would preserve the history of the theory. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: No need to further bother:Special:Permalink/1127238880.

'I suspect that the "Transeurasian" label was developed in order to move away from the somewhat toxic "Altaic" label.' To avoid further embarrassment, instead of voicing suspicions you must read Lars Johanson and Martine Robbeets' own reasoning that has been available since 2010: 'Breaking with the tradition to refer to these languages as “Altaic languages” we would like to propose the term “Transeurasian” in reference to this large group of geographically adjacent languages that share a significant amount of linguistic properties and include at most 5 linguistic families: Japanic, Koreanic, Tungusic, Mongolic, and Turkic. Why consider the adoption of a new name when there is a longstanding alternative available in linguistic literature? First, it is to avoid confusion between the different uses of the term “Altaic”. Some scholars, for instance Doerfer, Benzing, Sinor, Róna-Tas, and Erdal, use the term in the traditional sense, as the collective name for the languages belonging to the Turkic, Mongolic, and Manchu-Tungusic language families and the :peoples that speak them. For a number of other scholars, e.g. Ramstedt, Poppe, Tekin, Baskakov, and Aalto, Altaic includes Korean but excludes Japanese. The authors of the Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages, Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak, and many other scholars, e.g. Lee Ki-Moon, Street, Miller, Menges, Vovin, Manaster Ramer, and Robbeets use “Altaic” in its largest sense, covering all five families. This expanded grouping came to be known also as “Macro-Altaic”, leading by back-formation to the designation “MicroAltaic” in reference to Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic. We would like to reserve the term “Transeurasian” to the expanded, “Macro-Altaic” sense. Second, defining “Transeurasian” as a group of geographically adjacent languages that share a significant amount of linguistic properties, we do not need to presuppose genealogical relationship. Most of the authors contributing to this volume would not unequivocally subscribe to the hypothesis that the Transeurasian languages are genealogically related. Scholars who do not wish to take position about the genealogical affinities of the languages concerned, can use the term “Transeurasian” in a more unrestrained way as “Altaic”, in which the suffix -ic implies affinity. Besides, the new term avoids the strong and counterproductive polarization in pro- and anti-Altaic camps. Finally, it is not only the suffix -ic, but also the root Altai that bothers us. Both critics and supporters of a genealogical unity would agree that the term “Altaic” is historically incorrect because the reference to the Altai mountains as a homeland does not keep pace with the developments in interdisciplinary research. In his monograph Manchuria. An ethnic history, Juha Janhunen situates the original speech communities of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese in a rather compact area comprising North Korea, Southern Manchuria and present day Southeastern Mongolia. 50.68.115.237 (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Besides, the new term avoids the strong and counterproductive polarization in pro- and anti-Altaic camps." I was right--"Transeurasian" avoids the toxicity of the term "Altaic". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

In 2010 a major paradigm shift had occurred from Altaic to Transeurasian. SEVERAL major reasons for the shift were listed. The dispute is no longer between the proponents and critics of the Altaic family. The dispute is between the retentionists and diffusionists WITHIN the framework of the Transeurasian family, whose reality nobody doubts or disputes. For 12 years you've been valiantly fighting a phantom that is no longer there. The world has moved on. And you call that "right"??? The very fact that you had to suspect something in December 2022, something that has been in plain sight for 12 years, is telling. It proves that you have not bothered to familiarize yourself with the developments in the area, that you have no idea what the major terms Altaic and Transeurasian mean, that you have no idea how interdisciplinary (linguistics, genetics, archeology) approach applies to the field. And that you are not qualified to be a knowledgeable and unbiased contributor to this topic. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring your personal attack, I can assure you that I both own and have thoroughly read the relevant parts of the major work that is being referenced here (Robbeets and Savelyev, The Transeurasian Languages). We'll not quibble over whether the "major paradigm shift" is simply terminological or not. The fact remains that I have been consistently discussing Altaic/Transeurasian from a linguistic point of view, which is the point of this article (notice the word "languages" in the title). The majority of historical linguists like myself are still solidly on the side of the "diffusionists" and continue to make the argument that genetics and archeology are irrelevant to a discussion of language relationships. Therefore, your assertion that "Transeurasian" is transformational is false within the linguistic context under which most linguists operate--that DNA and digging are irrelevant to the nature of linguistic relationships. The previous anon IP poster claimed that I had incorrectly said that the terminology shifted to avoid the toxicity of the label "Altaic", even though the authors of the terminological shift admitted that very thing as one of their motivations. That aside, the primary discussion remains--that the linguistic difficulties and linguistic rejection of the genetic relationship of these languages the majority of historical linguistics has not changed. Whether this article is renamed "Transeurasian languages" or retains the "Altaic" label is basically immaterial as long as the history of the linguistic dispute on their relationship remains. The DNA/archeology issue remains irrelevant to the linguistic labeling. This is definitely not the first time in the history of linguistics that irrelevant topics (genetics and archeology) have been used to distract from the central issue--whether languages are related by descent from a common ancestor or just similar by close association. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"I can assure you that I both own and have thoroughly read the relevant parts"

Yet somehow you failed to read the introduction. And resorted to voicing uninformed suspicions 12 years later.

"majority of historical linguists"

Unprovable guesstimate. Speak for yourself, safeguard your reputation. As to personal attacks. There was no attack, but a statement of fact that your opinions are based on uninformed suspicions and guesstimates. The most astonishing fact is you openly admit that you are heavily biased, and so are not qualified to write an encyclopedia.

"label is basically immaterial"

How can you pass this judgement if you only learned about the motives behind the shift several hours ago? DNA/archeology issue remains irrelevant... Thank goodness it's not up to you to decide what is material and relevant. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Certain clades of R1a, R1b are associated with specific archeological horizons linked to the IE expansion. The hypothesized Nivkh-Algonquian connection is now being enhanced with genetic studies. Paternal haplogroup D linked to Ainuic. O1a (M119) to Austro-Kradai. F114 to Sinitic. The list goes on. The more data we collect, the more precise and conclusive it becomes. Ever heard of those things? Don't let those seditious doubts creep in. Dig in, more "attacks" are coming your way. That's what happens to people on the wrong side of history. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

What is interesting is that you don't seem to know what you are talking about, but you have rather violent reactions to scientific facts. Yes, there are certain DNA clades associated with certain cultural expansions at particular points in time. The connection between DNA and archeology is a much better connection, although still not completely certain. But without written records in those archeological digs, there is no certainty whatsoever as to what LANGUAGE those bearers of DNA or those makers of pots spoke. That's the point that all these scientists fail to realize or accept. Languages are far more flexible than either material culture or DNA. How many generations did it take for speakers of Khoisan languages to switch to Zulu and then to English when their territories were overrun? Not many. Yet their DNA would still show them to be speaking Khoisan languages based on your assumptions. And let's look at that whole Khoisan issue as well. Historical linguistics shows that they form several distinct unrelated language families and yet the DNA trace and the archeological trace would tell people like you, clearly nonlinguists, that they spoke related languages despite the linguistic evidence. The Pygmy tribes of central Africa share a remarkably unique DNA profile that is highly distinctive, yet there is no "Pygmy" language family that is distinct from their neighbors. All Pygmy tribes speak either Bantu languages or Ubangian languages. They don't even speak an identifiable group of languages within either of those Niger-Congo subgroups. That's what happens when technologically advanced cultures interact with those that are less advanced--they learn the more powerful group's language. And then you can look at the Pueblo culture of New Mexico and Arizona. Their ceremonies and lifestyles are remarkably similar and I suspect that their DNA profiles are highly similar due to a great deal of intermarriage. And yet their languages belong to four completely unrelated language families. So your whole point is nonlinguistic. I don't doubt that there are DNA profiles and cultural profiles in this world. That's the whole point to archeology and genetics. But linguistic profiles do not necessarily follow either one. Humans are not biologically predisposed to speak the language of their ancestors. Linguistic profiles are determined by historical linguistic analysis using comparative and historical methods, not by genetics or archeology. Genetic science doesn't rely on language to make its conclusions. Archeology doesn't rely on language to make its conclusion. Yet you think that linguistics should rely on these other sciences to make its conclusions. And if you read through the Talk page discussions here you'll find ample evidence for my comment about "the majority of historical linguists". If you read any introductory textbook on historical linguistics, you'll find scant reference to either DNA or digging. Why do people turn to DNA and genetics to prove their notions of deep linguistic relationships? Because the linguistic evidence doesn't provide enough support to their ideas. That's not the way that science is done. You can infer linguistic prehistory using tools that are not based on linguistics. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

2021 George van Driem - Ethnolinguistic Prehistory, The Peopling of the World from the Perspective of Language, Genes and Material Culture Ignis Cheldon (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"violent reactions"

You and people like you are directly responsible for the hot mess, the toxic minefield, the grossly outdated squalid dump this "article" has been turned into. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

At no point did I say that all historical linguists consider the use of DNA and archeological evidence to be irrelevant for the discussion of language relationships, just most. And there is a point where archeology is of use--once a language family has been proven to the satisfaction of most historical linguists (like Indo-European) then tracing the origin of that group to a location is a valid scientific exercise. However, the reverse is not scientific and provides no valid evidence for linguistic relationships. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

However, for the purposes of this article and the question at hand, "Should a Transeurasian discussion be separate or part of this article", it seems that the conclusion for me is that "Transeurasian" is either an attempt to fold non-linguistic arguments into a linguistic discussion ("Altaic") or simply punting on the linguistic issue by discussing the Sprachbund of northeast Asia from linguistic, archeological, and DNA perspectives without making a definitive linguistic determination as to genetic or diffusional relationships (using "genetic" in the strictly linguistic sense of languages that can be definitively proven by linguistic methodology alone to be related by descent from a common ancestor). If the former than it should be discussed here, but if the latter then it deserves its own article. Perhaps we need a poll to determine a clear consensus position one way or the other. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is precisely "an attempt to fold non-linguistic arguments into a linguistic discussion." And that is precisely why "it should be discussed here."

I fully support this statement made by you on 23 December 2022. And that is precisely why I have initiated the request to move this article from "Altaic languages" to "Transeurasian languages."

I basically followed your own instructions. And so I hope that you explain why you changed your mind at the last moment. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 25 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Altaic languages → Transeurasian languages – In the past few decades a fervent debate had raged, focusing on whether the so called Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japonic) are genetically related. The debate intensified after the publication in 2003 of the "Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages." The publication was met with widespread criticism, in particular that a lot of the proposed cognates were borrowings or folk etymologies. It was suggested that a shared lexicon per se cannot serve as conclusive evidence of a genetic relationship. To quote one of the most ardent critics: “The best way … is to prove a suggested genetic relationship on the basis of paradigmatic morphology.” The authors agreed: “regular paradigmatic correspondences in morphology are necessarily indicative of genetic relationship”. A common ground was found.

So, correspondences in morphology were discovered just several years later. For example, the proto-Transeurasian denominal verb suffix (among several others) *-r- ~ *-l- was found in the following verbs: proto-Japonic *sara- ‘depart’; proto-Korean *solo- ‘make vanish’; Manchu sala- ‘hand out’; proto-Mongolic *sala- ‘part with’; proto-Turkic *sal- ‘move.’ Morphological elements are famously resistant to borrowing, so the probability of a denominal verb suffix being borrowed from proto-Turkic to proto-Japonic is negligible. Some scholars have acceded that this provides "the most pressing evidence for the theory." I have not heard of a formal refutation of this discovery.

To overcome the deadlock, a shift from the term "Altaic" to "Transeurasian" defining a language group that includes Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japonic languages was initiated in 2010. The following reasons were listed:

First, to avoid confusion between the different uses of the term "Altaic," as various scholars had attached different meanings to the term. To be clear, this does not imply that the term "Altaic" has become "toxic" or "controversial" as has been suggested by some commenters.

Second, “Transeurasian” as a group of geographically adjacent languages does not presuppose genealogical relationship. This avoids counterproductive polarization.

Finally, upon application of interdisciplinary research, which involves linguistics, genetics, archeology, paleoclimatology and paleobotany, it was determined that the term "Altaic" does not accurately describe the original homeland of the Transeurasian languages. To quote the authors, "In his monograph Manchuria. An ethnic history, Juha Janhunen situates the original speech communities of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese in a rather compact area comprising North Korea, Southern Manchuria and present day Southeastern Mongolia." Yes, the title of this article includes the word "languages." But languages do not spawn in a vacuum, they are shaped and affected by a myriad of factors, which must be taken into consideration.

Scholars have reacted positively to the new term. In fact, both supporters (e.g. Martine Robbeets) and critics (e.g. Juha Janhunen) of the genealogical relationship have collaborated on the seminal 'Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages.' To quote the conciliatory statement in the introduction:

"The historical connection between the Transeurasian languages is among the most debated issues (Ignis Cheldon: again, "most debated" does not equal "toxic" or "controversial") in comparative historical linguistics. Although most linguists would agree that these languages are historically related, they disagree on the precise nature of this relationship: are all similarities induced by borrowing or are some residues of inheritance? Scholars who take an areal approach—i.e. so-called “diffusionists”—admit that the Transeurasian languages have a large number of common elements and features in phonology, morphosyntax, and lexicon, but they maintain that these are better accounted for by an interplay of borrowing, universal principles in linguistic structuring, and coincidence than by common descent. By contrast, scholars who take a genealogical approach—i.e. so-called “retentionists”—admit that the Transeurasian languages have been subject to extensive mutual contact throughout their histories, but they maintain that not all similarities are the result of borrowing, universals, or chance. They argue that there is a limited core of similarities for which the linguistically most sensible explanation is inheritance.
Thus, both diffusionists and retentionists agree, first, in their observation that the Transeurasian languages have a rich inventory of linguistic properties in common and second, in their assessment that these correlations can be explained by the shared histories of the speech communities concerned. The point of disagreement is whether the shared histories are entirely contact-induced, or whether some go back to a shared ancestral stage. Given the current state of affairs, this reference guide starts from the common ground between diffusionists and retentionists: we first focus on providing empirical data and establishing correlations, while we weigh different historical explanations in the subsequent part of this volume. A principle that underlies this work is that genealogical linguistics and areal linguistics are not antonyms, but that the two fields can complement each other as twin faces of diachronic linguistics."

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no scholarly opposition to the term "Transeurasian" and the only opposition to the term might arise from nationalist and other vested interest groups. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. From the evidence presented both here and in the Oxford volume "The Transeurasian Languages", there is a difference between the terms "Altaic" and "Transeurasian" so they should remain separate. (I will distinguish here between "genetic" as a purely linguistic term meaning linguistic descent from a common ancestor and "DNA" as the biological term meaning biological descent.) "Altaic" is a hypothetical genetic relationship between three to five language families of northern Asia (Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, and perhaps Japonic and Koreanic). It has been widely debunked on linguistic grounds and the majority of historical linguists reject it as a genetic grouping. If one treats these languages as a Sprachbund, then one is considered to have rejected "Altaic". "Transeurasian", however, is a label to unite both the proponents of "Altaic" (without calling it "Altaic") and proponents of the NE Asian Sprachbund in a linguistic sense, but also throwing in DNA and archeological studies which might support a Sprachbund relationship, but have nothing to do with linguistic relationships. Thus "Altaic" is a small topic relating strictly to a proposed, but widely rejected linguistic hypothesis based on lingusitic data, while "Transeurasian" is a loose amalgam of linguistic, DNA, and archeological proposals that can treat the linguistic evidence as either genetic or diffusional. Therefore the two terms are not synonymous. The "Altaic" hypothesis has a long and well-documented history and it is a term that is regularly included in dictionaries of linguistics. The term "Transeurasian" may, in part, subsume "Altaic", but is a larger group of issues. The name "Altaic" is well-established in linguistics and should have its own article (which would then have good links to "Transeurasian"). This would also allow the "Transeurasian" article to focus on the non-linguistic and non-genetic aspects of the proposal without getting bogged down in the history of "Altaic". Article length could then be manageable on both articles. As the authors of "Transeurasian" have overtly pointed out in their justfication for the term, "Transeurasian" does, indeed, avoid the toxicity of the term "Altaic" among historical linguists, most of whom have rejected it, not on "nationalistic" or "vested interest" grounds, but on purely linguistic grounds as a model of how not to demonstrate genetic relationships among languages. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  "but not strongly."
  Thank you.
  "there is a difference between the terms "Altaic" and "Transeurasian" and unless this difference is clearly delineated, then they should remain separate."
  Of course the difference will be clearly delineated! Why would you assume otherwise?
  "It has been widely debunked and the majority of historical linguists reject it as a genetic grouping."
  "widely rejected linguistic hypothesis"
  You do realize that these claims must be supported by recent, post-2010 and post "verbal morphology is the most pressing evidence for the theory" scholarly opinions? Ignis Cheldon (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  "The name "Altaic" is well-established in linguistics and should have its own article"
  The name "Abyssinia" was once well established; I wonder why it no longer has its own article. "Transeurasian" and "Altaic" have been used to describe the same group of languages (Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japonic), and for that very reason they can't be discussed in separation. "Altaic" can only be sufficiently described in the framework of "Transeurasian" that has supplanted it.Ignis Cheldon (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  it seems that the conclusion for me is that "Transeurasian" is either an attempt to fold non-linguistic arguments into a linguistic discussion ("Altaic") ... If the former than it should be discussed here --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose, but not strongly ... there is a difference between the terms "Altaic" and "Transeurasian" and unless this difference is clearly delineated, then they should remain separate." --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose ... there is a difference between the terms "Altaic" and "Transeurasian" so they should remain separate. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  Please explain this rapid change. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do not make conflicting recommendations. If you change your mind, use strike-through to retract your previous statement by enclosing it between < s> and < /s> after the bullets, and de-bold the struck words, as in "• Support Oppose".
  a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

  • First, I've removed "but not strongly" so you can no longer use it or debate it. "Oppose" is my opinion. Period. You are lying when you write that I initially wrote "Support" here. I did not ever write "Support" in this Request for Move.
  • Second, "Abyssinia" does not have a separate article because "Abyssinia" is synonymous with "Ethiopia" just as "Ekaterinoslav" is synonymous with "Dnipro". That is not the case with "Altaic" and "Transeurasia". "Altaic" is strictly a linguistic hypothesis, "Transeurasia" is a broader discussion of DNA, archeology, and linguistics and does not automatically imply a hypothesis of genetic descent. They are different things.
  • Third, the opposition to Altaic as a genetic unit is still strong. Otherwise it would be listed as a genetic unit in Glottolog. You can find references for recent critiques of the Altaic hypothesis here.
  • Fourth, my opinion is based on my knowledge of the subject matter (which you cannot assume just because I disagree with you). I'd put money on the fact that I've been in the field of historical linguistics much longer than you have been.
  • Fifth, my opinion on the matter is expressed clearly and unambiguously by the word Oppose no matter how I might have expressed it outside this Request for Move.
  • Sixth, that "post verbal morphology should be pressing evidence" is not standard methodology in historical linguistics and is especially not a majority opinion in the question of Altaic. It's clearly an attempt to ignore the major phonological data which firmly establishes linguistic relationships in order to try to give some kind of validity to "Altaic" as a genetic unit. That's not an argument for changing established methodological requirements and is completely unconvincing to mainstream historical linguists who continue to reject Altaic as a proven linguistic unit. Grammatical data is, obviously, ONE PIECE of the comparative puzzle, but alone it can never override the other, more important, pieces of data required to establish a linguistic relationship. Since there is an astonishing meagerness of shared common vocabulary and therefore regular sound correspondences based on it, the presumption based on established historical methodology is that there is no genetic relationship.

  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  "my opinion on the matter is expressed clearly and unambiguously by the word Oppose no matter how I might have expressed it outside this Request for Move."
  Oh it clearly does matter! Because you have changed your mind both inside and outside this Request for Move, from suggesting the move on December 23, "to not strongly opposing" it at 17:14, 25 December 2022, to now vehemently opposing it. Please stop trying to evade the question and explain why you have changed your mind. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  "You are lying when you write that I initially wrote "Support" here."
  I did not write that you initially wrote "Support" here. I quoted an excerpt from the guidelines that warns not to make conflicting recommendations. And you clearly are making conflicting recommendations. All your recommendations from December 23, 25 and 26 are conflicting.
  "recent critiques of the Altaic hypothesis here"
  The link that you have provided in no way substantiates your "widely debunked" and "widely rejected" claims. I have no choice but to quote the quidelines one more time: "a pattern of responding to requests with groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." Ignis Cheldon (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  On December 23 you literally suggested this move: "Transeurasian is either an attempt to fold non-linguistic arguments into a linguistic discussion ... If the former than it should be discussed here." You were the first person who voiced this proposal. I agreed and followed your recommendation. At 17:14 on December 25, responding to this Request for Move, you are still ok with the move, as long as the "difference is clearly delineated."
  19 minutes later something happens. You are now full throttle against the move. I believe it is very important for anyone reading this discussion to know what happened during those 19 minutes, what propelled an experienced linguist to revoke his prior recommendations. Perhaps then we might gain a better understanding of your true motives. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  I clarified my thinking and changed my mind BEFORE this Request for Move happened. It doesn't matter what I thought when I first encountered the issue, all that matters is that I got clear in the issue and what I think that the proper solution is here. Period. I will not respond to your continued harassment on the matter. My previous thinking doesn't matter, all that matters is that I oppose the move for the reasons that I have clearly stated. If you are incapable of understanding my reasoning because you want to "win" then that's not my problem. Read what I've written in this RM. I've stated the reasons quite clearly and simply. And your implication that I supported the move during this RM is a lie. I did not write support here and your attempts to imply that I did are false.
  Your claim that the links I provided are not sufficient support for the majority view is simply your opinion on the issue. Your view that 2010 is some kind of milestone is also false. Just because one writer said that historical linguistic methodology should be thrown out the window in order to make "Altaic" more palatable for those who don't care about established methodology is rather laughable. Historical linguists who have rejected "Altaic" in the past are NOT lining up to change their minds just because someone suggested it. Please provide the proof that someone consequential who previously rejected "Altaic" has changed their mind since your arbitrary date of 2010. I have provided on this Talk Page (and in the article) quite sufficient reliable sources for the opposition. Do your homework and prove that 2010 has changed any historical linguist's mind about the validity of "Altaic" as a linguistic node. Show that they opposed Altaic before 2010, but that they now accept it because they are ignoring established comparative methodology.
  Right now it should be clear that your wall of words is not going to convince me to change my opinion of opposing the move for the reasons that I have quite clearly stated. "Altaic" is different enough from "Transeurasian" to justify two separate articles. Stop wasting your time in personal attacks. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  "It doesn't matter what I thought"
  "My previous thinking doesn't matter"
  Thank you very much for clarifying this for me. I appreciate this explanation. I have no further questions. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's too soon. "Transeurasian" is a relatively new terminological concept. Usage of "Transeurasian" for "Macro-Altaic" (i.e. Altaic sensu lato) and the restriction of "Altaic" to what traditionally is called "Micro-Altaic" (= Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic) is mostly, but not exclusively a thing by Robbeets and associates. Major proponents of Altaic continue to use the traditional term, as is witnessed by this recent paper (by Anna Dybo et al.) from 2021 or this book by Václav Blažek from 2019. Blažek explicitly explains his terminological choice: "We keep the traditional term (Altaic) as an expression of our honor to the classical scholars like Castrén, Ramstedt and Poppe". So clearly not coming from nationalist and other vested interest groups[3].
  FWIW, most arguments above circle around the question of the validity of Robbeets evidence for Altaic aka Transeurasian as a language family. This however doesn't tell us much about the best page title for this article that covers the proposed language family. –Austronesier (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for your opinion. You have provided two arguments for keeping "Altaic":

  1. Expression of honor. Does it mean that "Altaic" should be kept indefinitely even though none of the languages in question originated in the Altai region?
  2. Too soon. In your opinion, when is not too soon?

  Ignis Cheldon (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  "Expression of honor" is not an argument for choosing the title of this article. It's Blažek's motivation for his choice, but that's quite irrelevant here. I only mentioned it to rectify a tendentious straw argument ("nationalist and other vested interest groups") brought up before. But FWIW, point 1 isn't relevant either (although the jury is still out for Proto-Turkic). No one is really bothered by the fact that Shem obviously isn't the historical forebear of the Semitic-speaking peoples.
  When? Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, WP follows common usage. So has "Transeurasian" become common usage when Dybo, Starostin (the Younger), Blažek and many others still use the term that has been prevalent in the discourse for around 100 years (counting from Ramstedt)? The onus is on you to show that common usage sustainably has changed towards a term that was coined less than 20 years ago. –Austronesier (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  "although the jury is still out for Proto-Turkic"
  That, to me, is the core of the issue. Based on the evidence at hand (contact linguistics, Swadesh lists, flora and fauna terminology etc.) we are certain that Proto-Turkic did not originate in the Altai. Ancient millet agriculturalists had no means of crossing the vast Gobi desert. Thus the term "Altaic" is outdated and misleading.
  "No one is really bothered by the fact that Shem obviously isn't the historical forebear of the Semitic-speaking peoples."
  People are obviously bothered by "Altaic," hence the terms like "Transeurasian" and "Transhimalayan." People like to keep things right if they can.
  "The onus is on you to show that common usage sustainably has changed"
  You are not challenging the fact that "Altaic" is outdated and misleading. You are just saying it has not been completely replaced yet. Half a millennium later there are still flat earthers poking around. Let's honor them. The onus is on Copernicus to convince the clergy that the Earth is not flat.
  What we are really discussing here is not some terms and titles. We are deciding whether this place becomes the source of up-to-date knowledge or remains a C-class battleground. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  In trying to convince actual linguists of the righteousness of your crusade, Ignis, you miss something very simple. "Altaic" is a linguistic hypothesis of genetic descent which has been rejected. "Transeurasian" is a broader term which may refer either to "Altaic" or to the Northeast Eurasian Sprachbund (which is not "Altaic"). "Transeurasian" is a broader term of which "Altaic" is only the linguistic part. All that non-linguistic DNA, archeology, and other stuff is irrelevant to "Altaic", which is a purely linguistic hypothesis. And the notion that "Altaic" refers to the Altai mountains and therefore shouldn't presume the location of the supposed common ancestor of the "Altaic" language family is linguistically irrelevant. The homeland of the "Indo-European" family was not in India and is only barely in "Europe" on the Ukrainian steppe. The homeland of the Uralic language family wasn't necessarily in the Ural Mountains, but was nearby. Likewise, the presumed homeland of the "Altaic" language family wasn't necessarily in the Altai Mountains, but would most likely have been nearby if it were an actual linguistic unit. Geographic precision is not a virtue in naming language families. Secondly, "Altaic" has value as a historically important linguistic term even if "Transeurasian" gains more traction as a non-linguistic areal discussion. "Transeurasian" is not synonymous with "Altaic" and should have a separate article which incorporates all the non-linguistic issues. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  "linguistic hypothesis"
  "Transeurasian is either an attempt to fold non-linguistic arguments into a linguistic discussion ... If the former than it should be discussed here."
  "My previous thinking doesn't matter"
  Are you not tired of going in circles? You are repeating the same tired arguments without providing any evidence. I hope you realize that your "actual linguists" and "I've been in the field much longer" is not exactly evidence. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  "tendentious straw argument"
  By supporting the traditional term Blažek in no way opposes nor criticizes the new term! How is "We keep the traditional term (Altaic)" suddenly equal to "We oppose the new term (Transeurasian)"?
  TaivoLinguist equates "fervently debated" to "controversial" and even "toxic."
  This pretentious bending of terminology serves one purpose: to keep this article a C-class minefield that it is. This is what the two of you have been doing for years. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, Taivo and I (and other regulars) admittedly haven't spent much energy in improving this article. We have mostly have focused on keeping out non-improvements. But how's this related to the move request?
  I am not Blažek. Nor do I criticize the term "Transeurasian" (although it is geographically just as problematic as Altaic when considering the potential homeland(s)). I just oppose the page move based on my arguments above, which includes Blažek's continued use of "Altaic". We don't need sources that say the proposed new title is bad in order to preclude a page move: the onus principle behind WP:Naming conventions and WP:Requested moves doesn't work that way. –Austronesier (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  "I am not Blažek. Nor do I criticize the term Transeurasian"
  Yet you used his quote to infer that Blažek opposes the term Transeurasian. Which he never did. Which shows that your "tendentious straw argument" thrust is nothing but empty bluster.
  "Yes, Taivo and I (and other regulars) admittedly haven't spent much energy in improving this article."
  And it shows. What is worse, you have not spent much energy familiarizing yourselves with the latest developments. "I suspect that the "Transeurasian" label was developed in order to move away from the somewhat toxic "Altaic" label." This was written by Taivo just three weeks ago!
  "But how's this related to the move request?"
  Directly. You have become so entrenched in your views and so obviously biased ("The majority of historical linguists like myself are still solidly on the side of the "diffusionists") that the two of you have

  1. Lost sight of the picture;
  2. Developed a reflex to oppose every change proposed by outsiders. Taivo proposed this move on December 23, but as soon as I followed his instructions and started this request he reversed his opinion. "My previous thinking doesn't matter." Do you believe this is a constructive attitude to change?
  3. The opportunistic bending of terminology (debated = controversial = toxic) is a good indicator that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. You have done a horrible job and you are not allowing others to fix it.

  Ignis Cheldon (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  "Taivo proposed this move". I did no such thing. I told you that if you thought it should move than YOU should initiate a Request for Move. That doesn't mean that I supported the move, that means that I was pointing out what you should do since you felt strongly about it. I then posted what I thought about the move. And, to be clear, if there needs to be an article on "Transeurasian", then it should not include this article that covers the history of the term "Altaic". Since "Transeurasian" includes all the things that are irrelevant to historical linguistics and even allows room in the theory for those who don't find evidence for a genetic linguistic relationship (unlike "Altaic"), then "Transeurasian" and "Altaic" are different enough to not be synonyms. I don't spend much time here at "Altaic" because I don't accept it as a valid linguistic unit and reject calls to ignore historical linguistic methodology in order to make "Altaic" fit into the list of valid genetic units. I also don't spend any time "improving" articles about Flat Earth Theory for the same reason. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  "I also don't spend any time "improving" articles about Flat Earth Theory for the same reason"

  There you said it. Finally the true motive transpires. You don't treat "Altaic/Transeurasian languages" as a GROUP OF LANGUAGES that originated "in a rather compact area" as Juha Janhunen put it (whether it is a family or a sprachbund is a secondary question). You treat it as a failed and toxic hypothesis. Therefore you are determined to keep sabotaging the development of this article.

  "I don't accept"

  "reject"

  "I also don't spend any time"

  It is my firm belief that biased people like yourself should be banned from this site indefinitely. This is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Altaic" versus "Transeurasian"

I think that it's important to note a fundamental difference between "Altaic", which refers just and only to a genetic relationship between the languages, and "Transeurasian" which also includes a Sprachbund relationship and includes discussions of DNA, archeology, and other non-linguistic sciences to define the linguistic area. It is entirely possible (as in my own case) to reject "Altaic" as a language family, but completely embrace "Transeurasian" as a non-genetic linguistic area. This notion of "Transeurasian" as a linguistic area, whether genetic or diffusional, is discussed regularly by proponents of the new term. They were completely open about using a new, broader term in order to move beyond the purely (generally rejected) linguistic associations of the older term. TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

""Altaic", which refers just and only to a genetic relationship between the languages"

Where on Earth did you get that from? Please provide a single link to a scholarly work that says that. Three weeks ago you SUSPECTED that Transeurasian is a way to avoid toxicity. Now you are again SURMISING that Transeurasian is something non-linguistic.

Both "Altaic" and "Transeurasian" are the terms that various people at various times have used to describe a GROUP of languages (Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean and Japonic) that share history, geography, archeology AND a number of purely linguistic features, including shared vocabulary and, crucially, verb morphology.

Whether that GROUP of languages is a FAMILY or a SPRACHBUND is certainly important, but it is not the main focus of this article.

This article is not about an Altaic/Transeurasian language HYPOTHESIS.

This article is not about an Altaic/Transeurasian language THEORY.

This article is about the Altaic/Transeurasian language GROUP.

@Austronesier, can you please explain this to your friend? Ignis Cheldon (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, William Bright, ed. (1992) "Altaic Languages": "Altaic languages constitute a widely, though not universally, accepted linguistic stock uniting the Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic families."
• The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, second edition, David Crystal (1997), pg 309: "The Altaic family of languages..."
• Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, second edition, P.H. Matthews (2007), pg 16: "Altaic. A proposed family of languages..."
• A Glossary of Historical Linguistics, Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco (2007), pg 7: "Altaic hypothesis. A hypothesis of distant genetic relationship...it holds that Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic..., together comprising some forty languages, are genetically related."
• Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time, Johanna Nichols (1992), pg 4: "For a long time it was assumed that [Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic] were related as branches of a superstock called Altaic...When the cognates proved not to be valid, Altaic was abandoned."
• Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages, Roy Andrew Miller (1971), the entire book assumes that Altaic is a proven language family (not a Sprachbund).
• "The Reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the Genetic Question," The Turkic Languages, András Róma-Tas (1998), pg 77: "...Ramstedt and Poppe later tried to demonstrate that at least Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic belong to...the 'Altaic' family...Ramstedt was the first scholar to try to demonstrate in a coherent way that Korean is also a member of the Altaic language family."
• Claus Schönig, "Turko-Mongolic Relations," The Mongolic Languages (2003), pg 403 comes closest to including Sprachbund issues by distinguishing between genetic relationships by calling it the "Altaic Hypothesis" and labeling the putative common ancestor "Proto-Altaic". He then talks about the 'Altaic' languages in the Sprachbund sense, but always uses the single quotes around Altaic in that sense.
• Masayoshi Shibatani, The Languages of Japan (1990), pg 94: "Altaic language family"
• Nicolas Tranter, "Introduction: typology and area in Japan and Korea," The Languages of Japan and Korea (2012), pg 6: "...an even larger pan-North Asian language family, 'Altaic'." (And significantly, "Unfortunately for the Altaic Hypothesis, typology is irrelevant for proving a genetic relationship, and a language's syntactic type is not immutable...")
• Martine Robbeets, "The classification of the Transeurasian languages," The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages (2020), pg 31: "...we use the term "Transeurasian" to refer to a group of geographically adjacent and structurally homogeneous languages across Eurasia that consists of five uncontroversial families: the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic languages. Johanson and Robbeets...coined the label to complement the traditional term "Altaic," which we reserve for the unity of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages only" (Thus, Robbeets specifically states that there is a difference between "Altaic" and "Transeurasian" in scope. Since she is also a fervent supporter of genetic relationship, then the assumption through her article is that Altaic is a genetic subunit of Transeurasian.)
• Gregory D.S. Anderson, "Form and pattern borrowing across Siberian Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages," The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian languages (2020), pg 715: "One camp, labeled the "pro-Altaicists,"...attributes some such observed commonalities as inheritances from a shared proto-language, i.e., Proto-Altaic. The other camp, the "anti-Altaicists," exclude this..." In other words, the term "Altaic" refers to a genetic relationship that one is either for or against.

And these are just the books that I have behind me on my shelves. The implication is quite unequivocally clear that "Altaic" and "Transeurasian" mean different things, even among the staunchest modern proponents of a genetic relationship. All of the sources use "Altaic" as a genetic relationship that one either accepts or rejects. Terms such as "stock" or "family" are nearly always found in the definitions of "Altaic". "Transeurasian" is used in a much broader sense (including both Japonic and Koreanic in all cases) and discussing a wider variety of issues and not just linguistic genealogy. My point is what it has always been--that "Transeurasian" and "Altaic" are not synonymous terms and deserve separate articles. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You can shout all you want, Ignis, but I've been editing here and been in the field of linguistics a lot longer than you have. Go do whatever you need to do to keep your emotions in check. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Give me a quote that says "reject "Altaic" as a language family, but completely embrace "Transeurasian" as a non-genetic linguistic area." This distinction lives solely in your imagination. There is no such thing as "Transeurasian" as a non-genetic linguistic area. Altaic and Transeurasian are not synonyms because they appeared at different times, but they both describe the same language group. The language group that is best understood in the framework of interdisciplinary research.

"deserve separate articles"

No they don't. If you wish to continue engaging in purely linguistic musings, you should create an article titled "Altaic linguistic hypothesis," or "Altaic linguistic theory," or even "utterly rejected controversial Altaic toxic linguistic controversy."

This article is about the Altaic/Transeurasian languages and EVERYTHING that unites them. Their history, their geography etc. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Your passion is overwhelming your reason, Ignis.

• You failed to read Robbeets' comment in her chapter "The classification of the Transeurasian languages" concerning the difference between "Altaic" and "Transeurasian". I quoted it above. Please look at it again. The terms describe different language groupings.
• You failed to read Anderson's comment in his chapter "Form and pattern borrowing across Siberian Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages" stating that it was possible to reject the genetic identity of "Altaic".
• You failed to read Tranter's comment in his chapter "Introduction: typology and area in Japan and Korea" stating the (outside of Transeurasian) universal understanding of historical linguistic methodology, "typology is irrelevant for proving a genetic relationship".
• Finally, from the "Introduction" to The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages, page 1 (significantly): In their reasoning for why they use the term "Transeurasian" for the five-families of NE Asia "it may reduce the counterproductive polarization between "...Pro-Altaists" and "Anti-Altaists"; the suffix -ic implies affinity while -an leaves room for an areal hypothesis..." They then spend the next paragraph clearly defining the differences between a genetic grouping and a Sprachbund. (They use the synonym "genealogical" probably to distinguish it from DNA, but "genetic" is an older, more common term in diachronic linguistics.) Then they summarize that the term "Transeurasian" was chosen as a neutral term so that it can be used as a cover term for both the genetic and diffusionist camps of historical linguists. Yet they are very clear in their volume that "Altaic" and "Transeurasian" are different groupings. However, since "Altaic" is an older and very well-established term in linguistic usage that is only concerned with whether these languages are a genetic unit (well-referenced above with other quotes), one either accepts the genetic relationship or rejects it. That is specifically not the definition of "Transeurasian" as described by Robbeets, Savelyev, and Johanson, who specifically use the term to cover both genetic and diffusional discussions. There are chapters in the Oxford Volume that use the term "Transeurasian" to describe the grouping as non-genetic: 41-47. Thus, it is possible in linguistics to accept "Transeurasian" as an areal grouping the may or may not be genetic, it is also possible to reject "Altaic" since its long-standing definition in linguistics is purely a genetic grouping. No one writes or has written about "Altaic" without intending it to be interpreted as a genetic unit (including the authors of chapters in the Oxford volume). While the difference between "Altaic" and "Transeurasian" may not be as great as the difference between "horse" and "elephant", the two terms are still distinct and deserve two articles. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is you who fail to provide any proof to your ludicrous claim:

"It is entirely possible (as in my own case) to reject "Altaic" as a language family, but completely embrace "Transeurasian" as a non-genetic linguistic area."

None of these quotes talks about "Transeurasian" as a non-genetic linguistic area. None! They transcend the family vs. sprachnund debate, they do not abandon it.

And so, failing to provide any proof to your misconceptions and misunderstandings like ""Transeurasian" as a non-genetic linguistic area," you are once again engaging in aggressive bending of terminology.

"two terms are still distinct and deserve two articles"

You can create as many articles as you wish. But this article is about Altaic/Transeurasian languages and EVERYTHING that unites them. And you are not allowed to hijack it and subject to your linguistic delusions. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Despite clear evidence otherwise, you continue to ignore the issue in your missionary zeal to push an agenda. By the way, where is your evidence that I am wrong?

And as a last comment, even if I have overstated the differences between "Altaic" and "Transeurasian", the term "Transeurasian" is too new in linguistics to subsume all of "Altaic" under it in Wikipedia. There is no track record of a critical mass of historical linguists using Transeurasian instead of Altaic to justify such a change. Proposals for terminology and classification schemes come and go and most "go" without leaving more than a single footprint (such as Dalby's Linguasphere). Glottolog doesn't recognize "Transeurasian" and it's fairly influential in the field of genetic relationships. I don't know what Ethnologue is doing because I'm not interested in funding the missionary efforts of SIL by paying the entrance fee. The most recent textbook on languages of the world doesn't even mention the term "Transeurasian" despite having a whole section on "Altaic", 12.1.2, pp. 409-414 (Asya Pereltsvaig, Languages of the World: An Introduction, Third Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2021). Wikipedia doesn't jump on bandwagons unless a critical mass of reliable sources start to recognize it was something and not just a different word for something else. So even if I've overstated the case for a difference, it still remains that "Altaic" should not be moved to or subsumed under a new "Transeurasian" label until the bulk of the linguistic community as evidenced in reliable sources has moved. It has not. There are even entire chapters of the Oxford volume that don't use the word "Transeurasian" except once in passing, but still use "Altaic" or "Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"missionary zeal"

)))

"It is entirely possible (as in my own case) to reject "Altaic" as a language family, but completely embrace "Transeurasian" as a non-genetic linguistic area."

You can embrace it all you want, but "a non-genetic linguistic area" is certainly not the definition of "Transeurasian" intended by the people who coined the term. No amount of embracing is going to change that. But you can keep trying, I see you have nothing else to embrace today.))) Ignis Cheldon (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

And I suggest that you learn actual historical linguistics, Ignis. An "interdisciplinary linguistic group" is not a "genetic language family" by definition. Transeurasian is a group of languages that share a number of diffused features, but not a genetic family if you have to prove it by relying on anything other than sound diachronic linguistic methodology--substantial valid cognate sets in the core vocabulary and regular sound correspondences among valid cognate sets being the sine qua non. There's nothing whatsoever of relevance to genetic relationship in "interdisciplinary". But diffusion studies are what Transeurasian is primarily about. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist's winged words:

"I suspect that the "Transeurasian" label was developed in order to move away from the somewhat toxic "Altaic" label."

"It doesn't matter what I thought"

"It is entirely possible (as in my own case) to reject "Altaic" as a language family, but completely embrace "Transeurasian" as a non-genetic linguistic area."

"My previous thinking doesn't matter" Ignis Cheldon (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, Ignis has nothing of substance to add to the issue so he's just parroting things I have said out of context. Some of them are even paraphrases of quotes from his linguistic idols. Others are contextual issues unrelated to the topic at hand. Until he actually has something of substance to add, I've made the important points, that "Altaic" and "Transeurasian" are not synonymous terms and even if they are "close enough", it is far too soon for this article to be renamed "Transeurasian" because that term is too new in linguistics to be established as standard terminology and is still not commonly encountered in linguistic literature. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing of substance to discuss with a person who invents and embraces ludicrous definitions to the term about which he voiced uninformed suspicions just three weeks ago. Happy embracing! Ignis Cheldon (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It is clear the Ignis Cheldon is a [WP:SPA|single purpose account] based on their edit history. That explains the aggression of their editing. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"It is entirely possible (as in my own case) to reject "Altaic" as a language family, but completely embrace "Transeurasian" as a non-genetic linguistic area."

Analyzing this ludicrous, obviously erroneous ("Transeurasian" is clearly not a "non-genetic linguistic area") claim by TaivoLinguist, a reasonable observer may arrive at one of the two logical conclusions:

1. TaivoLinguist is not a linguist and has no idea what he is talking about; 2. TaivoLinguist is a linguist, he understands what he is doing is wrong yet he does it anyway.

For example, TaivoLinguist might desire to declare this article a "purely linguistic" area. And thus justify the non-inclusion (literally editing out) of the pertinent non-linguistic evidence. The excluded non-linguistic evidence will then be relegated to the proposed separate article, Transeurasian languages, the so called non-genetic linguistic area. In my view, this constitutes malicious intent to obstruct the free flow of information. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:NPA, Ignis. Since you have no interest in the English Wikipedia other than this article (although you are in the Russian Wikipedia, I haven't examined your contribution history there), you are an SPA and don't apparently know much if anything about how we do things here. Your continued and utterly repetitive attacks on me are rather stale now and just as false and exaggerated. You've made your point and other editors have disagreed with your attmepts to rename this article. Perhaps in the future "Transeurasian" will catch on among linguists as a whole, but that is not the case now and the methodological changes to historical linguistics that have been proposed by supporters have not been accepted by the community at large. If you want anyone to pay attention to you, then you need to stop your attacks. My history on Wikipedia is solid and I'd put my linguistic credentials up against yours any day. If your arguments were valid for changing the name now, then you would have received support. But they are not. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is the problem with your edits at this point, Ignis. You do not provide positive arguments with references and quotes, but only repeat my statements and then make a personal attack. If I am wrong, then provide the actual evidence instead of just throwing out accusations and attacks. Every comment on the Talk Page should be intended to improve the article and not to attack other editors. When I have said that you were wrong, I have provided quotes from relevant sources. You have simply shouted. I have actually read the sources which you cite or other works from the same author. I have understood your points completely although I disagree with your interpretations of those sources. I have also adjusted some of my views on the subject matter, although I still disagree with many of your extreme interpretations of what those authors have written. Quoting things which I wrote at the beginning of this discussion simply shows that you are not reading my comments and are not interested in improving Wikipedia or following the established procedures, but are simply pushing your singular agenda as an SPA. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

These are personal attacks:

missionary zeal

I suggest that you learn

Your passion is overwhelming your reason

don't apparently know much

you have no interest

Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors.

I am not attacking you personally. I am warning everyone that you are using blatantly erroneous claims ("Transeurasian" as a non-genetic linguistic area.") to advance your agenda. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"although you are in the Russian Wikipedia"

I do speak Russian, many decades ago I was a visible minority there. Please explain why you had to bring that up. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"you are an SPA"

When starting something new, everyone is an SPA. Instead of welcoming new users, you use your imaginary credentials to browbeat them. "I have been in the field much longer." That is yet another personal attack. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have made my point, and then you reinforced it by not actually paying attention to my point about your failure to contribute anything positive or constructive to the discussion. I won't respond any more to your attacks. I will respond if you have something positive based on reliable sources to contribute to the article. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

How to include "Transeurasian"

Moving this article from "Altaic languages" to "Transeurasian languages" was discussed and rejected as premature because "Altaic" is still more common in reliable sources on the world's languages. The question is how to mention that some scholars are starting to use the term "Transeurasian" as an alternate name for "Altaic". Rather than just plugging it in everywhere as if the transition is a fait accompli, a section where the history of the term and why it is considered by some to be a better alternative to "Altaic" is probably the best way to go for now. In a decade "Transeurasian" may have actually replaced "Altaic" in linguistic literature, but it is still less common at this time and the assumption of its importance to linguistics as a replacement for or a term of equal status to "Altaic" is premature. TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm no expert - not at all - but it seems to me the stable article makes the assumption that Altaic and Transeurasian invariably refer to the same hypotheses about a family relationship between certain families (but with some variations as to how many far eastern languages variuos authors include), and that these hypotheses are largely discredited, and there you have it.

Would it be better, I wonder, not to imply in the first sentence that altaic and transeurasian are one and the same, and not to imply that transeurasian necessarily refers to a language family? (There is a subsubsection about sprachbunds, but readers may not get that far.) Nø (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think so (not to imply in the first sentence that they are one and the same). "Altaic" varies whether it includes Japonic and Koreanic languages, but the proponents of "Transeurasian" always include them. The one major text on Transeurasian also treats "Altaic" as a subset of Transeurasian and not as a synonym. There are also certain methodological differences that Transeurasian proponents want to emphasize over traditional historical linguistic methodology. I suspect that a single section labeled "Transeurasian" that describes 1) why the new term was chosen (it is nicely spelled out in the introduction to the major text), 2) what languages that the new term subsumes without variation and what "Altaic" means under the new term, 3) what methodologies that the new term incorporates that vary from standard methodology, and 4) listings of important proponents of the group and important opponents of the new term and its methodology. "Transeurasian" is not in widespread use and is not universally accepted as a valid language family, so highlighting it in the first sentence isn't yet appropriate. A section near the end that treats it as a "new development" seems proper at this time. Future developments might make it more important (or not) and its treatment in Wikipedia can change at that time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The article already includes some "Transeurasian" material toward the end, so an introductory section (as I outlined in my previous comment) is needed to separate it from work that is "Altaic" in nature. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"not to imply in the first sentence that altaic and transeurasian are one and the same"

When saying "Breaking with the tradition to refer to these languages as “Altaic languages” we would like to propose the term “Transeurasian”" Robbeets refers to the same group of languages. Once Transeurasian completely replaces Altaic, then and only then will Altaic be redesignated to refer to a subgroup of Transeurasian.

"not to imply that transeurasian necessarily refers to a language family?"

Exactly. Both “Altaic languages” and “Transeurasian languages” refer to a group, not a family or a sprachbund. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

""Transeurasian languages" was discussed and rejected as premature"

I accept that, in particular I agree with Austronesier that it is too soon.

"The question is how to mention that some scholars are starting to use the term "Transeurasian" as an alternate name for "Altaic"."

You have to mention it directly, fully and openly, precisely the way it is. This is an encyclopedia, it records facts of life, not your opinions about it.

"Rather than just plugging it in everywhere as if the transition is a fait accompli"

No such suggestion was made. The phrase "Altaic languages, since 2010 increasingly designated Transeurasian languages" does not make that assumption. It simply accurately describes the current situation, because, as stated by the editors of the Oxford Guide, "the designation “Transeurasian” is gaining acceptance in the field, being used in the title of several recent symposia and publications." If you have a scholarly source that somehow amends these facts, you are welcome to include it as well.

People deserve to have access to up-to-date, accurate information. Your version does not include that information, no wonder it is rated C-class. Denying the people their right to know just because you don't like something is censorship. Are you denying the fact that Altaic languages are increasingly designated Transeurasian languages? Please explain your reasons to deny people access to this crucial piece of evidence. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ignis, this discussion has started without the vitriol of the previous sections, please keep the heat on "low" and assume good faith. Comments like "censorship" are inappropriate.

"Transeurasia" is not a widely accepted term in linguistics at this time. While the editors of The Oxford Guide claim that its use is growing, it's still in its infancy. It may be more widespread in the future, but it is not now. And as you have also agreed, it is premature to treat it on equal footing with the well-known and long-established "Altaic". It is also important to note that in the Introduction to the The Oxford Guide, Robbeets and Savelyev are crystal clear that the volume, in its entirety, treats "Altaic" as a subset of "Transeurasian" that only includes Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic without Japonic and Koreanic. It's not something they will do in the future, it is what they are doing now in the most important work on the subject.

And you are quite right that "Transeurasian" needs to be introduced to readers as a topic, but it is not yet widely accepted in the field of historical linguistics at this time as you have agreed. Therefore, to introduce it as "equal" to Altaic now is premature. I don't have a problem leaving a simple reference in the first sentence of the article unless other editors object, but a section towards the end as a "recent development" is more appropriate than sprinkling references to a minority term throughout the article. Readers will see it, but they will see it appropriately, as a recent development in the history of Altaic, especially since vast majority of references they will encounter outside of Wikipedia will use the term "Altaic" and not "Transeurasian". There is already information that refers to "Transeurasian" at the end of the article with putative cognate sets, so a section just before that defining the term Transeurasian and its scope is the perfect place for readers to learn about this recent development. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a Google Books ngram chart on the usages in English books of "Altaic languages" versus "Transeurasian languages": [4] --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"Comments like "censorship" are inappropriate."

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. Do not engage in censorship and nobody will describe your actions as such.

"And as you have also agreed, it is premature to treat it on equal footing"

I agreed that it is too early to fully replace Altaic with Transeurasian. I did not say anything about equal footing. Please do not ascribe to me something I did not say.

"Robbeets and Savelyev are crystal clear that the volume, in its entirety, treats "Altaic" as a subset of "Transeurasian""

When saying "Breaking with the tradition to refer to these languages as “Altaic languages” we would like to propose the term “Transeurasian”" Robbeets refers to the same group of languages. Once Transeurasian completely replaces Altaic, then and only then will Altaic be redesignated to refer to a subgroup of Transeurasian.

"but it is not yet widely accepted"

That is just your personal opinion unsupported by up-to-date evidence. It is INCREASINGLY accepted. Please stop avoiding the question. Are you denying the fact that Altaic languages are increasingly designated Transeurasian languages? Ignis Cheldon (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• My 2 cents about how to include "Eurasian" (NB without commenting on the merits of the Altaic/Transeurasian hypothesis):
  1. Avoid lead-focused editing. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article as is, not as we want it to be. If there something has to be substantially changed in the lead, there should be a counterpart paragraph or section in the main article first. The actual contribution of Robbeets to the field is still not properly reflected in the text.
  2. "Altaic" is an incremental concept. Over the last hundred years, it referred to a grouping that always include Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic, and variously has included other families and isolates with varying degree of acceptance. Since the late 20th century, it has been mostly understood to include Japanese and Korean (long before they were turned in "Japonic" and "Koreanic") by its proponents and critics.
  3. "Transurasian" is first and foremost to be understood as a language family, denoting the same thing that was often called "Macro-Altaic" before, and has simply been called "Altaic" mainly by the Moscow school until now.
  4. Usage of "Transeurasian" is still largely associated with Robbeets, and with projects that she leads or collaborates in. The high visibility of the new term in the last 5 yrs or so is a direct result of her very successful networking and active (and NB amicable!) approach towards collaborations with critics in her own field and experts from other fields. But it is crystal clear that she considers "Transeurasian" an evidence-based language family, starting to do so from a time way before she had coined the new term. Check her dissertation if in doubt. Likewise associated with Robbeets is the use of "Altaic" back to refer to Micro-Altaic only.
  5. Robbets is a major proponent the hypothesis of a genetic unity, so "her" term is bold-worthy in the first lead sentence.
  6. "Transurasian" as a typological concept only isn't that much of a thing. Yes, critics of the Altaic/Transeurasian hypothesis are willing to subscribe to the term in the context of a collaboration with Robbeets (especially in thr OUP volume). But note that a) Robbeets herself sees the typological isomorphisms among Altaic/Transeurasian as a corollary of the presumed genetic relationship; b) many who don't accept the genetic unity of Altaic/Transeurasian don't consider the Transeurasian area as sealed and exclusive, but just as part of a wider network (check Janhunen; or Vaida's chapter in the OUP volume).
  7. My personal impression is that Robbeets uses the typological reading "Transurasian" mainly in order to leave a backdoor for non-linguist collaborators. Her adaptation of Bellwood's farming/language dispersal hypothesis for "Transeurasian" even works when Proto-Turkic, Proto-Mongolic etc. where just neighbors that happened to influence each other in intense periods of contact; the demic proximity will still find a match in shared genetic ancestries, material cultures and subsistence strategies. (The Bellwood paradigm is of course overly simplistic, but that's another story.) If these languages are really related to each other, all the better; if they're not, it won't produce an embarrassment for her collaborators.

Again, the last point is just a personal remark, and shouldn't be too much read into. –Austronesier (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, very clear and informative.

"there should be a counterpart paragraph or section in the main article first."

Understood.

Ignis Cheldon (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ignis, you asked for evidence of the usage of "Altaic" versus "Transeurasian" and I provided you with an ngram of the usage of "Altaic languages" versus "Transeurasian languages" to reflect the two terms' usage in publications up to 2019. Here again is the link: [5]. I have tried to turn down the heat, so I would appreciate if you would as well. It serves nothing and just going through my post to pick at every sentence serves nothing either. Every one of my statements is based on a direct quote from the Introduction to the Oxford Guide (which I provided earlier). Please provide direct quotes and references if you have contradictory statements, but when Robbeets and Savelyev state, for example, that they are using "Altaic" as a subgroup of "Transeurasian" consisting of Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, I take them at their literal word. I made a positive suggestion for what a definition of Transeurasian would look like and provided a suggested structure for the paragraph even. But rather than commenting on that suggestion you went right back to nitpicking other statements. I ask you again to turn down the heat. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ethnolinguistic Prehistory Section

That is some good writing, Ignis, but I suspect that it is too long and detailed for the purposes of Wikipedia, especially since the linguistic relationship is still quite controversial. What do the other editors think? TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of stuff in it that is only peripherally related to the modern Transeurasian dispersal hypothesis, especially Chaubey & van Driem (2020), which btw I consider a fringe piece even by long-ranger standards, as they desperately try to salvage late 20th- and early 21th-century Y-haplogroup cruft into the age of full autosomal genomics. This produces WP:undue weight, both topic- and POV-wise. I know, it is meant as a background piece for Li et al. (2020), but we should restrict ourselves to sources like the latter.

And yes, since Altaic/Transeurasian is still controversial (which Robbeets herself never hesitates to mention), we should start the article with the history and development of the concept, the evidence presented for it so far, and the debate surrounding it. Only then we should elaborate on things that take the factuality of Transeurasian as premise, such as "Ethnolinguistic prehistory". However, I can't blame @IgnisCheldon here, because "Earliest attestations" does the same thing and already has been in the article. So @IgnisCheldon has just followed a preexisiting structure.

Btw, we shouldn't use "ethnolinguistic" in this context, as this not the correct usage of the term. "Ethnolinguistic" refers to language as a token of emic ethnic identity, and not just to anything that relates ethnic and linguistic matters.

Sorry for my excessive use use of the word "should". As I a non-native writer I should (LOL!) look up a thesaurus more often in order not to sound patronizing, but I'm just too lazy for that. :) –Austronesier (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Austronesier about using the term "ethnolinguistics". Words that end with "-linguistics" are not about DNA, they are about language. "Ethnolinguistics" is a field that is usually called "anthropological linguistics" in the US--how language interacts with culture and vice versa. DNA has nothing to do with language and culture and all that stuff about cultural horizons has nothing to do with language. Ethnolinguistics isn't about history except in the sense that language and culture can be seen to interact in various ways over time (but then you have to have solid linguistic data from the past in order to examine the relationship). We have solid reconstructed data from Proto-Indo-European (an uncontroversial reconstruction of a very large PIE inventory of both basic vocabulary and more detailed cultural items) so we can talk about the horse culture of PIE and the general agricultural and ritual context of its speakers. That's historical ethnolinguistics. There is no such uncontroversial reconstruction of *Proto-Altaic or *Proto-Transeurasian lexicon to the extent that the *PA or *PTE culture can be described in any meaningful way. When dealing with theoretical DNA profiles that might match a linguistic continuum (a controversial concept in and of itself), there is no term that ends with "-linguistics" in use because there is no actual connection or interaction between DNA and language. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist

@Austronesier

This article is riddled with outdated data and extreme, biased and exaggerated personal opinions. You are not doing anything to fix that. You are not trying to improve this article at all. When I bring up-to-date information, at every step supported by scholarly quotations, you write thousands of words here trying to remove it.

If you do not stop sabotaging my efforts to improve this article, I will do everything I can to remove the two of you from this project. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"we shouldn't use "ethnolinguistic" in this context"

Hey why don't you go argue with George van Driem himself? (Dutch linguist associated with the University of Bern, where he is the chair of Historical Linguistics and directs the Linguistics Institute)

George van Driem (2021) Ethnolinguistic Prehistory, The Peopling of the World from the Perspective of Language, Genes and Material Culture

"This produces WP:undue weight"

"Undue weight" is when you allow an erroneous personal opinion "While "Altaic" refers specifically to the hypothesis of a genetic relationship, "Transeurasian" also refers to a non-genetic Sprachbund diffusion relationship" as a note to the opening sentence. And not a word of objection from you. I call that bias.

"we should start the article with the history and development of the concept"

Why on Earth didn't you??? Now that I start updating it, you suddenly realize that. I smell fish and a lame attempt to throw sand in the wheels.

"Altaic/Transeurasian is still controversial"

What is controversial? Transeurasian language group is controversial? Is this a joke? I see you are having too much fun trying to sabotage this project. Let me remind you: this is a top priority project rated C-class thanks to your antics.

We absolutely should not start the article with the petty squabble aka as "the debate" which is almost completely gone anyway. Your beloved "controversy" is a thing of the past. We should start the article with the prehistory of the Transeurasian language group. Period. Try to edit that out and I'm going to have you blocked for vandalism. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Editors get blocked for vandalism, that's right. Here's the definition of vandalism for you: WP:VANDAL. You will notice that disagreement with your personal views is not listed among the criteria.

Another thing that can lead to a block is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, both in editing and in commenting. Praising people only when they agree, and attacking people with aggressive verbiage when they disagree is textbook battleground behavior. –Austronesier (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Openly admitting that you don't spend much time to improve this article and keeping this article in ruins for years by actively resisting EVERY attempt to improve it is not acting in good faith. Allowing obviously biased edits by TaivoLinguist without a trace of objection is not acting in good faith.

I will only react to your comments if they are directed at the immediate improvement of this article. I will remove all the bias from this article. I will fight every attempt to vandalize this article. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."

I am warning you not to remove the content in the Ethnolinguistic Prehistory section, because it is current, neutral and scholarly. Removing it will qualify as vandalism. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You actually do not know what you are talking about, but since you have no history of editing in Wikipedia, I can understand that you get upset when people disagree with you and think that constitutes "vandalism". If I removed your content and replaced it with "Ignis is an ignorant buffoon" THAT is vandalism. But when you insert content and another editor deletes it with a reason or a comment, "Discuss on Talk Page before replacing this" that is not vandalism, that is a normal part of the Wikipedia process--building consensus for material on the Talk Page BEFORE reinserting it. Read WP:BRD to understand it: "Boldly insert something, another editor might Revert it, then Discuss it on the Talk Page and come to an agreement". That is the normal process. You have two experienced editors here in Austronesier and myself who have said that the "Ethnolinguistic" section is too long and too detailed, especially since it assumes that "Transeurasian" is a widely accepted and standard part of historical linguistics. It is not widely accepted and even Robbeets knows that based on her comments.

Second, George Van Driem is clearly NOT using the term "ethnolinguistic" properly and neither are you. Here is the definition of "ethnolinguistics" from David Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (2003), pg. 166-167: "A branch of linguistics which studies language in relation to the investigation of ethnic types and behaviour. The term overlaps to some degree with anthropological linguistics and sociolinguistics, reflecting the overlappiong interests of the correlative disciplines involved--ethnology, anthropology and sociology." Nothing whatsoever in there about DNA or human biology. Note particularly that it is a study of "language", not of DNA.

I have asked you to act civilly here and have myself acted thus in this section. If you continue to act like you have been so far, you will be reported for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior as Austronesier has warned you. Your unwillingness to edit the Ethnolinguistics section shows that you are not interested in points of view other than your own. I am going to delete it until you condense and edit it to fit within the article. These articles are not scholarly papers, they are written for interested readers who want reliable information written in a way that they can understand. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The section is short. The content is concise and easy to read. The title is appropriately coined by a well-known linguist. I'm reverting your edit. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD and do not revert until you have built a consensus for it. Those are Wikipedia's rules whether you like it or not. "Ethnolinguistics" was NOT "coined by a well-known linguist" if you mean Van Driem. He did not coin the term. The term has long-established usage in linguistics before Van Driem ever used it and it is not used for DNA studies. It is the study of how culture interacts with language. Please read the definition that I provided above. You have two well-respected and long-term editors who are telling you that it might be "well-written" for publication in a specialist journal, but that is not well-written for Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The section covers a timespan of thousands of years. It is impossible to present it adequately with a few short sentences. Unfortunately, the consensus between the three of us is impossible to build.

Please refrain from removing it again or I will have to notify the Administrators. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You have Wikipedia backwards. YOUR opinion must always be tempered by the community opinion and in this case there are two editors who don't agree with your insertion as written. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The reasons for removing your content have been very clearly described to you. Just because you disagree doesn't matter if the other editors have clearly described the problem with your edit. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"very clearly described to you"

These are not reasons but a pretext. The section is short. The content that covers thousands of years is concise and easy to read. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There are two editors who have kept this article rated C-class by negligently mismanaging it and now maliciously vandalizing it. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

i think this is a great section with an appropriate title. the order is logical: first prehistory, then earliest texts and finally modern research. 50.68.115.237 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Anon IP, the problem with the section is threefold. First, it is highly detailed and uses a great deal of very technical terminology that will mean that the majority of readers won't understand it and therefore skip it altogether. Second, it assumes that the genetic relationship of the languages in question is conclusively proven and it is far from that. It is one of the most controversial groups of languages in the history of diachronic linguistics. Finally, it is misplaced in the structure of the article. It fits better toward the end after the controversial nature of the subject matter has been properly described and in the section labeled "Homeland" (or "Urheimat" as I recall without looking) since that's actually what it's about--discussing the movements of haplogroups in the region of the proposed homeland for a group that might not even exist as a true genetic unit. Your description of order is quite appropriate if this were a widely-accepted language family, but it is not. It's important to describe the controversial nature of the group thoroughly before including sections that imply that it's real. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

but it says altaic spread with c2. how does it work? 50.68.115.237 (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

That's part of the problem--the entire section assumes that there existed something which we call "Altaic" in the first place. The very existence of a language family called "Altaic" is in debate and a great many historical linguists reject it as a valid group of languages. The authors of the genetic studies as well as the Wikipedia editor who summarized it accept its validity so the section as well as the underlying studies are written as if "Altaic" existed. It is far from a proven fact, however. I have moved the section to the best place for such things--after the controversy is described--and have not edited the section while the original author is in Wikipedia "time out". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

ok, so you are saying the geneticist is wrong? i mean there are dozens of articles like this. altaic with c2, chinese with o2 and so on. their methods are all wrong? 50.68.115.237 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

it also talks about triangulation. how are they so sure language and dna combine so well. do yoy know? 50.68.115.237 (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

what language spead with c2? i think all asian language families heve been attached to dna by now. if altaic did not exist, then why did they all spread with the same haplogroup? they were genetic relatives, but spoke unrelated languages?

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, and neither is Korean. This 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% 50.68.115.237 (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I have informed @IgnisCheldon on their talk page of our block evasion and IP sockpuppetry policies. In the interest of fair play I will only start to comment on the latest exchange once they are back in a position to reply here without violating the ongoing block. –Austronesier (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I hadn't suspected a block evasion. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant

Perhaps this paper [6] is relevant and helpful for the article, as it does not only discuss the Altaic, but also the Transeurasian hypothese and its (non) validity as genealogical phylum. 46.125.249.50 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Great! Definitely useful. It supports a) the outline of our article which gives much room to the history of the proposal and the ensuing debate and b) my argument that anything related to Altaic can be presented under the label "Altaic" (including the sprachbund concept), without artificially splitting out a separate meaning (or topic range) for "Transeurasian". Thanks and peace! –Austronesier (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That is an excellent article vis a vis our discussions here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Janhunen speaks of "the Altaic complex, or the Altaic phenomenon." Robbeets talks about a group (not a family) of languages. There is no mention of a controversy on either side of the aisle. No matter where you stand, Altaic is an important linguistic phenomenon and there is nothing controversial about it.

"the Wikipedia editor who summarized it accept its validity"

Unlike you, Mr. Taivo, I never declared my position on its validity. I proposed a conciliatory statement "Altaic is a group of languages (that does not presuppose a genetic relationship)." You hastily removed with the "stable version,"

"Altaic is a controversial proposed language family." A blatantly misleading opening to a blatantly misleading article. So it goes.

"This leaves the Core Altaic families, with Uralic, as the candidates for the original source of Altaic typology." Did everyone read this sentence? A staunch opponent finally admits that there might actually be a family after all. And he calls it Core Altaic. Halelujah! How's that for non-validity? Sounds like an unconditional surrender to me.

To archeology. All five proto-languages are uncontroversially traced back to a fairly compact spot between Liaoxi and Liaoning. Naturally, five distinct agricultural societies that founded five unrelated language families must leave behind some material evidence. Nope. Just one archeological culture, Hongshan. How does Janhunen explain that? He doesn't. His job is to criticize those who do.

To the funniest bit. Janhunen declares: "the multiple origins of the linguistic lineages in the region are reflected in the genetic diversity of the local populations." To corroborate this claim, he provides a link that says: "the MP or ARB played an important role in spreading Altaic populations and languages." Whaaat?

How is Mr. Janhunen so sure that there were five unrelated gene flows, while the geneticists (Li et al. 2020, He et al. 2022 etc.) know that the CD paleoasians (D1 and C2) are the first and only people in the pre-Holocene NE China, with AR19K as "the earliest northern East Asian yet identified." D1 sneaked to Japan and founded Jomon; C2 spread along the Yellow river (Altaic), on to Korea and the Amur basin (Amuric), and on to the Beringian refugium, where they mixed with the QR ancient north eurasians (Malta, Afontova Gora) and entered north America (Nivkh-Algic connection, Yenisseian-Na-dene connection). Their C1 cousin walked to Russia (Kostenki 14) and eventually to Spain (La Braña 1) and is now known as the Cro-Magnon, the first modern human in Europe. Dark skin, blue eyes, massive nostrils, so quick out of Africa, the equatorial features are still there... The C2 paleoasians were alone until the Holocene, when the icy deserts dissappeared and the NO mongoloids (N, O1, O2) started pouring into China through the Himalayan corridor. And then this happened (Blench and Post 2014):

"Populations such as the Bai (Wiersma 1990) and Tujia (Brassett and Brassett 2005) represent pre-Sinitic migrations of Sino-Tibetan peoples. Although much of their lexicon has been replaced by deep-level Chinese loans, both languages retain non-Chinese names for both crops and livestock (Blench 2011). Their encounter with resident farming populations would have encouraged sedentarisation and the adoption of a wider range of crops. Starostin (2008) has argued that some key terms relating to subsistence in Old Chinese are of Altaic origin. The proto-Sinitic encounter with livestock-producing, millet-growing Altaic speakers could well have led to a subsistence and military revolution which in turn resulted in the overwhelming expansion of Sinitic and thus the dominance of this branch of Sino-Tibetan in East Asia today."

And so there was no diversity until the Holocene, the C2s along the Yellow river are the only candidates for the Altaic spread. Geneticists know that. Martine Robbeets knows that. Janhunen just mouths a platitude "languages often spread with surprisingly little gene flow" and thinks he can get away with it.

保重同志们 Ignis Cheldon (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As usual Ignis, you don't seem to have actually read the article. In the "Definition and Terminology" section, the last paragraph, Jahunen stated:

It is important to note that Altaic should not be mistaken for a language family [emphasis added] in the sense language families are normally understood in the framework of historical and comparative linguistics. The terms phylum or macrofamily, as occasionally used, are similarly misleading, since they also imply the presence of common genetic (genealogical) descent, though perhaps at a deeper time level. More appropriately we may speak of the Altaic complex, or the Altaic phenomenon, with the general reservation that these terms have a variety of implications, some of which go beyond the narrow definition of Altaic.

Then in the very last paragraph he states:

Although the Altaic Hypothesis, including its Transeurasian follow-up version, cannot be corroborated by linguistic data [emphasis added], the formation of the Altaic complex remains a relevant topic for multidisciplinary research. The five Altaic language families, especially when viewed together with Uralic, offer a well-defined field for the analysis of areal typology, language contacts, lexical borrowing, and structural interaction [emphasis added].

Which part of that, Ignis, did you misinterpret to mean "A staunch opponent finally admits that there might actually be a family after all"? He did no such thing. He specifically stated, not just once but twice, in specific, unambiguous terms, that Altaic was not a language family.

He was also completely clear that non-linguistic factors have nothing whatsoever to do with genetic linguistic relationships when he stated:

It should be stressed that the Altaic complex is about languages, not peoples. The mistaken tradition of identifying peoples with languages has an old history in (Ural-)Altaic Studies (e.g., Winkler 1884), but we now know that languages often spread with surprisingly little gene flow [emphasis added]. From this point of view, recent attempts at confirming the Altaic Hypothesis in the Transeurasian framework by using data from human genetics and a vague reference to the early agricultural populations in Manchuria and adjacent regions (Robbeets et al. 2021) miss the point [emphasis added]. In fact, the multiple origins of the linguistic lineages in the region are reflected in the genetic diversity of the local populations (He et al. 2022).

In other words, your characterization of Dr. Janhunen's position is completely wrong. He opposes any genetic link between the "Altaic" languages and talks only of "typology", "contact", "diffusion", etc. He specifically states that genetic links are off the table. He also clearly states that non-linguistic factors such as DNA and material culture evidence are also irrelevant to the topic of genetic relationships between languages. Thus the issue of genetic relationship between these languages is still controversial because there are those who accept "Altaic" as a genetic family of languages and those who do not. Have you actually read the Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages? You will find there both points of view--Janhunen's that there is no genetic relationship and Robbeets' that there is a genetic relationship. That's the definition of "controversy".

You also mistake Wikipedia for a scholarly debate society, arguing with your own WP:OR that Janhunen doesn't know what he's talking about. That's not what we do here. Janhunen is widely respected in the field, therefore we accept his voice as one of the definitive ones. If you don't want to deal with Altaic as a controversial language family, then we need to remove the language infobox entirely, because that infobox, when used for a "group" of languages with a group name, implies genetic affiliation. That's what they were designed for and how they are used. Either remove it or (probably better), construct it like that at Ural-Altaic languages. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"He also clearly states that non-linguistic factors such as DNA and material culture evidence are also irrelevant to the topic of genetic relationships between languages."

And that is precisely why characters like Janhunen and you find yourselves increasingly unable to reconcile with reality, progressively marginalized and in opposition to the ever growing numbers of linguists, geneticists and archeologists, scrambling to save face with oblique formulae like the "the original source of Altaic typology," but still clinging to the bellicose language of "fervently rejected controversy."

That is why Janhunen blithely speaks of a genetic diversity, yet has no choice but to clumsily refer to the very geneticists who postulate the spread of "Altaic populations and languages." Ignis Cheldon (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit amused that you cite Guanglin He in support of your outdated Y-haplogroup-based population model that simplistically equates genetic profiles with linguistic affiliation. He and his colleague Chuan-Chao Wang have literally produced more than a dozen of papers about the population genetics of East Asia in the last two years, and they hardly mention Y-haplogroups because they work with the full autosomal genome to track the ancestral relations of ancient and modern populations of East Asia (and also Siberia and Southeast Asia), and also take much care not to fall into the trap of trying to mechanically produce one-to-one matches between ancestry and linguistic classification, being well aware of language shift and constant admixture that can lead result in ethnic groups with almost identical genetic profiles to speak completely unrelated languages. –Austronesier (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And, Ignis, until you, or any of these so-called "linguists" who accept DNA evidence for linguistic affiliation, can point to the genes that code for language, I'll continue to listen to the vast majority of actual linguists who know that there is absolutely no hard coding between language and DNA. How many generations did it take your own ancestors to switch from "the ancestral tongue" to English? It took mine just a couple to switch completely from Gaelic to English. There was absolutely physical impediment and there is no residual DNA or linguistic evidence to link my native (Germanic) English to the speech of my (Celtic) Gaelic ancestors in Scotland. My own DNA is 99.9% British Isles, and the British Isles have been shown to have a very large Celtic contribution to the "national" DNA. Yet all those Celts learned a Germanic language so thoroughly that most of those Celtic languages are in danger of extinction. And it's clear that there is ample evidence for even more rapid language shifts occurring far into the past, so your poor attempts to claim otherwise are simply non-linguistic attempts to impose an irrelevant technology onto linguistics. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"no hard coding between language and DNA"

Of course there is no hard coding. There are discernible patterns that people have found useful.

"How many generations did it take your own ancestors to switch from "the ancestral tongue" to English?"

I'm flattered that you think my first language is English. Believe it or not, after all these millenia, my ancestral tongue, associated with my DNA heritage, is still here with me. But I also speak Russian and some English. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"they work with the full autosomal genome"

I know. I was trying to write a short message, not a 10-page report.

"take much care not to fall into the trap of trying to mechanically produce one-to-one matches between ancestry and linguistic classification"

And remarkably they arrive at the same conclusion. Why? Because the genetic diversity was much less diverse 20 thousand years ago. And so there were no other candidates for the dissemination of Altaic. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's actually quite simple. There are three major windows that allow a glimpse into the past: archeology, historical linguistics, and additionally in the recent decades, archeogenetics. Each of them independently provide pieces in the puzzle of prehistory; none of them can verify or falsify the results of the other disciplines. Taken together, they can provide a narrative for demographic prehistory. In some cases, they provide the picture of a congruent spread of genes, languages and cultures (e.g. the out-of-the-Steppe model for Indo-European), in others, they point to a kaleidoscope of language shift and non-demic diffusion of ideas and material culture. –Austronesier (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"In some cases, they provide the picture of a congruent spread of genes, languages and cultures"

Isn't that what I've been saying all along? And Altaic is precisely one of those cases, if you look back far enough. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"non-linguistic factors such as DNA and material culture evidence are also irrelevant to the topic of genetic relationships between languages."

Here's an example of interdisciplinary relevance. Blench states: "There is no reconstructible agricultural vocabulary for Sino-Tibetan." Indeed we don't find any traces of prehistoric agriculture in the Seven Sister States.

Robbeets says: "We reconstruct a rich agricultural vocabulary shared by all five proto-languages." (Janhunen conveniently omits this key part in his review.) Indeed we find millet agriculture at Hongshan and Xiajiadian. Agriculture could not have appeared at Hongshan, it is too cold there. Obviously it was brought there from the Yellow river. The geneticists confirm that. That's how triangulation works.

"your own WP:OR"

What WP:OR are you referring to? Janhunen makes a claim "the multiple origins of the linguistic lineages in the region are reflected in the genetic diversity of the local populations," but his source directly contradicts it with "Altaic populations and languages." Go check yourself. All I did was follow the hyperlink. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Your skill at twisting quotes to fit your own purposes is astounding.

There is no connection between DNA and language. That has been categorically proven from the beginning and never contradicted. Any similarity between DNA and language history is purely coincidental. It is not causative and language relationships must be proven with the linguistic data alone. That's why "Altaic" as a language family fails--because the linguistic data do not prove a relationship and never have. There are no counterexamples in the world of linguistics.

Thinking that agricultural vocabulary alone proves a linguistic relationship just shows that you don't know what constitutes evidence in genetic linguistics. English shows a rich Italic vocabulary in legal and governmental vocabulary. That doesn't make English an Italic language. It just shows that English borrowed the vocabulary for a particular field. If a non-agricultural group of people adopt agriculture from a more advanced society, of course, they're going to borrow the vocabulary of the new technology. It proves nothing about the genetic relationship of their languages. The most important common vocabulary for proving a genetic relationship are absent from the so-called "Altaic" languages. Ipso facto, they are not related. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

What's up with Shcherbak?

He's mentioned 6 times, including the citations list, but half the time he doesn't have a year next to his name like the rest of the people he's listed with do. Even in the citations, it just lists "Alexander Shcherbak (1963)." No article names or anything. It seems really hard to find stuff about this guy online, as someone more modern has his name with a completely different career path. He appears to be a real person that was a linguist, and I've found him referenced in https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/18646907 in the one review this book has listed here, so if someone could find a way to access this book's citations we could maybe get some article names and more sources here. Anafyral (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)