"Altay dilleri" sayfasının sürümleri arasındaki fark

1960'da [[Nicholas Poppe]] Ramstedt'in ses bilimi üzerine yazdığı bu cildi önemli ölçüde revize ederek yayımlamıştır.<ref>Miller 1991:&nbsp;298</ref> Bu kitap daha sonrasında yapılan Altayistik çalışmaları için standart bir eser hâline gelmiştir. Poppe, Türk, Moğol, Tunguz dilleri ile Kore dilleri arasındaki bağlantının net çizgilerle ayrılamayacağını düşünmüştür.<ref>Poppe 1965:&nbsp;148</ref> Onun bu görüşü, üç olasılığı içermektedir. 1. olasılığa göre, Korece diğer Altay dilleri ile kalıtsal bir ilişkiye sahip değildir. 2. olasılığa göre, Korece bu dillerle, diğer dillerin birbiriyle ilişkisi nispetinde bağlantılıdır. Son olasılık ise, Korece diğer Altay dillerinden bu dillerdeki temel karakteristik özellikler belirginleşmeden kopmuştur.
===Development of the Macro-Altaic theory===
[[Roy Andrew Miller]]'s 1971 book ''Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages'' convinced most Altaicists that Japanese also belonged to Altaic.<ref>Poppe 1976:&nbsp;470</ref> Since then, the standard set of languages included in Macro-Altaic has been Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japanese.
An alternative classification, though one with much less currency among Altaicists, was proposed by John C. Street (1962), according to which Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic forms one grouping and Korean-Japanese-[[Ainu language|Ainu]] another, the two being linked in a common family that Street designated as "North Asiatic". The same schema was adopted by [[James Patrie]] (1982) in the context of an attempt to classify the [[Ainu languages|Ainu]] language. The Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic and Korean-Japanese-Ainu groupings were also posited by [[Joseph Greenberg]] (2000–2002); however, he treated them as independent members of a larger family, which he termed [[Eurasiatic languages|Eurasiatic]].
<!-- NOTE:
Please leave the following IDs, which were the previous titles of this section. Many pages link to these section titles.
--><span id="Controversy" ></span> <span id="The controversy over Altaic" ></span>
Anti-Altaicists [[Gerard Clauson]] (1956), [[Gerhard Doerfer]] (1963), and [[Alexander Shcherbak]] argued that the words and features shared by Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages were for the most part borrowings and that the rest could be attributed to chance resemblances. They noted that there was little vocabulary shared by Turkic and Tungusic languages, though more shared with Mongolic languages. They reasoned that, if all three families had a common ancestor, we should expect losses to happen at random and not only at the geographical margins of the family; and that the observed pattern is consistent with borrowing. Furthermore, they argued that many of the [[Linguistic typology|typological]] features of the supposed Altaic languages, such as [[agglutinative language|agglutinative]] [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] and [[subject–object–verb]] (SOV) word order, usually simultaneously occur in languages. In sum, the idea was that Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages form a ''[[Sprachbund]]''—the result of [[Language convergence|convergence]] through intensive borrowing and long contact among speakers of languages that are not necessarily closely related.
Doubt was also raised about the affinities of Korean and Japanese; in particular, some authors tried to connect Japanese to the [[Austronesian languages]].<ref>Starostin et al. 2003:&nbsp;8–9</ref>
Starostin's (1991) lexicostatistical research claimed that the proposed Altaic groups shared about 15–20% of potential cognates within a 110-word [[Swadesh list#Shorter lists|Swadesh-Yakhontov list]] (e.g. Turkic–Mongolic 20%, Turkic–Tungusic 18%, Turkic–Korean 17%, Mongolic–Tungusic 22%, Mongolic–Korean 16%, Tungusic–Korean 21%). Altogether, Starostin concluded that the Altaic grouping was substantiated, though "older than most other language families in Eurasia, such as Indo-European or Finno-Ugric, and this is the reason why the modern Altaic languages preserve few common elements".
Unger (1990) advocates a family consisting of Tungusic, Korean, and Japonic languages but not Turkic or Mongolic; and Doerfer (1988) rejects all the genetic claims over these major groups. In 2003, Claus Schönig published a critical overview of the history of the Altaic hypothesis up to that time. He concluded that,
{{quote|[G]enerally, the more carefully the areal factor has been investigated, the smaller the size of the residue open to the genetic explanation has tended to become. According to many scholars it only comprises a small number of monosyllabic lexical roots, including the personal pronouns and a few other deictic and auxiliary items. For these, other possible explanations have also been proposed. Most importantly, the 'Altaic' languages do not seem to share a common basic vocabulary of the type normally present in cases of genetic relationship.<ref>Schönig 2003:&nbsp;403</ref>}}
In 2003, ''An Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages'' was published by Starostin, Dybo, and Mudrak. It contains 2,800 proposed [[cognate]] sets, a set of sound laws based on those proposed sets, and a number of grammatical correspondences, as well as a few important changes to the reconstruction of Proto-Altaic. For example, although most of today's Altaic languages have vowel harmony, Proto-Altaic as reconstructed by Starostin ''et al.'' lacked it; instead, various vowel assimilations between the first and second syllables of words occurred in Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japonic. It tries hard to distinguish loans between Turkic and Mongolic and between Mongolic and Tungusic from cognates; and it suggests words that occur in Turkic and Tungusic but not in Mongolic. All other combinations between the five branches also occur in the book.<ref>Starostin et al. 2003:&nbsp;20</ref> It lists 144 items of shared basic vocabulary (most of them already present in Starostin 1991), including words for such items as 'eye', 'ear', 'neck', 'bone', 'blood', 'water', 'stone', 'sun', and 'two'.<ref>Starostin et al. 2003:&nbsp;230–234</ref> This work has not changed the minds of any of the principal authors in the field, however. The debate continues unabated – e.g. S. Georg 2004, A. Vovin 2005, S. Georg 2005 (anti-Altaic); S. Starostin 2005, V. Blažek 2006, M. Robbeets 2007, A. Dybo and G. Starostin 2008 (pro-Altaic).
According to Roy Andrew Miller (1996: 98–99), the Clauson–Doerfer critique of Altaic relies exclusively on a [[lexicon]], whereas the fundamental evidence for Altaic comprises [[verb]]al [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]]. Lars Johanson (2010: 15–17) suggests that a resolution of the Altaic dispute may yet come from the examination of verbal morphology and calls for a muting of the polemic: "The dark age of ''pro'' and ''contra'' slogans, unfair polemics, and humiliations is not yet completely over and done with, but there seems to be some hope for a more constructive discussion" (ib. 17).
== Ortak özellikleri ==