Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


1932
Annual Reviews logo
Skip to content

Review Article

Open Access

The Unity and Diversity of Altaic

Abstract

In popular conception, Altaic is often assumed to constitute a language family, or perhaps a phylum, but in reality, it involves a historical, areal, and typological complex of five separate language families of different origins—Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, and Japonic—to which Uralic also adheres in the transcontinental context of Ural-Altaic. The similarities between the individual Altaic language families are due to prolonged contacts that have resulted in both lexical borrowing and structural interaction in a number of binary patterns. The historical homelands of the Altaic language families were located in continental Northeast Asia, but secondary expansions have subsequently brought these languages to most parts of northern and central Eurasia, including Anatolia and eastern Europe. The present review summarizes the basic facts concerning the Altaic language families, their common features, their patterns of interaction with each other and with other languages, and their historical and prehistorical context.

    Loading

    Article metrics loading...

    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356
    2023-01-17
    2026-02-17

    Metrics

    Download as PowerPoint
    Loading full text...

    Full text loading...

    /deliver/fulltext/linguistics/9/1/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

    Literature Cited

    1. AusterlitzR1970. Agglutination in Northern Eurasia in perspective.Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics Presented to Shirô Hattori on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday R Jakobson, S Kawamoto Tokyo: TEC Corp. Lang. Educ. Res.
      [Google Scholar]
    2. BarfieldTJ.1989.The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
      [Google Scholar]
    3. BarrereI,JanhunenJ.2019. Mongolian vowel harmony in a Eurasian context.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.1:146–77
      [Google Scholar]
    4. BeckwithCI.2004.Koguryo, the Language of Japan's Continental Relatives. Brill's Jpn. Stud. Libr. 21 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    5. BentleyJR.2008.A Linguistic History of the Forgotten Islands: A Reconstruction of the Proto-language of the Southern Ryūkyūs. Lang. Asia Ser. 7 Folkestone, UK: Global Oriental
      [Google Scholar]
    6. BenzingJ.1956.Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Mainz, Ger.: Franz Steiner Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    7. BickelB,NicholsJ.2006. Oceania, the Pacific Rim, and the theory of linguistic areas.Proc. Annu. Meet. Berkeley Linguist. Soc.32:22–12
      [Google Scholar]
    8. BlažekV,SchwarzM,SrbaO.2019.Altaic Languages: History of Research, Survey, Classification and a Sketch of Comparative Grammar. Brno, Czech Repub.: Masaryk Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    9. BollerA.1857.Nachweis, daß das Japanische zum ural-altaischen Stamme gehört. Vienna: K. K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei
      [Google Scholar]
    10. BugaevaA,NicholsJ,BickelB.2021. Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific.Linguist. Typol.26:143–88
      [Google Scholar]
    11. CastrénMA.1846. Anteckningar om Samojediskans förvandtskap med de Finska Språken [Notes on the relationship of Samoyedic with the Finnish languages].Suomi: Tidskrift i fosterländska ämnen5:1845177–86
      [Google Scholar]
    12. CastrénMA.1849. Hvar låg det Finska folkets vagga? [Where was the cradle of the Finnish people located?].Litterära Soiréer i Helsingfors under hösten 1849 Helsinki: Litteratur-Sällskapets Tryckeri
      [Google Scholar]
    13. ClausonSG.1956. The case against the Altaic Theory.Cent. Asiat. J.2:181–87
      [Google Scholar]
    14. de BoerEM.2010.The Historical Development of Japanese Tone. Part 1: From Proto-Japanese to the Modern Dialects. Part 2: The Introduction and Adaptation of the Middle Chinese Tones in Japan. Veröffentlichungen des Ost-Asien-Instituts der Universität Bochum 59 Wiesbaden, Ger: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    15. de RachewiltzI,RybatzkiV.2010.Introduction to Altaic Philology: Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.20 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    16. DoerferG.1963–1975.Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen Vols. 1–4. Akad. Wiss. Lit. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Komm. 16 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Frank Steiner Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    17. DoerferG.1966. Zur Verwandtschaft der altaischen Sprachen.Indoger. Forsch.71:81–123
      [Google Scholar]
    18. DoerferG,HescheW,ScheinhardtH,TezcanS.1971.Khalaj Materials. Indiana Univ. Publ. Uralic Altaic Ser. 115 Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ.
      [Google Scholar]
    19. DoerferG.1973.Lautgesetz und Zufall: Betrachtungen zum Omnicomparativismus Innsbrucker Beitr. Sprachwiss. 10. Innsbruck Austria: Inst. Vgl. Sprachwiss. Univ. Innsbruck
      [Google Scholar]
    20. DoerferG.1985.Mongolo-Tungusica. Tungusica 3 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    21. DoerferG.1988. Zetacism/sigmaticm plays no rôle.Cent. Asiat. J.32:61–63
      [Google Scholar]
    22. DolgopolskyA.1998.The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology. Pap. Prehist. Lang. 1 Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res.
      [Google Scholar]
    23. ErdalM.2004.A Grammar of Old Turkic. Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.3 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    24. ErdalM.2019. The Turkic-Mongolic lexical relationship in view of the Leipzig-Jakarta list.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.1:178–97
      [Google Scholar]
    25. FrellesvigB.2010.A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    26. GeorgS1990. Some thoughts on the etymology of the Turkic plural suffix -lar/-ler.Altaica Osloensia: Proceedings from the 32nd Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference B Brendemoen141–52 Oslo, Nor.: Universitetsforlaget
      [Google Scholar]
    27. GeorgS.1999/2000. Haupt und Glieder der altaischen Hypothese: Die Körperteilbezeichnungen im Türkischen, Mongolischen und Tungusischen.Ural-altaische Jahrb. N. F. B16:143–82
      [Google Scholar]
    28. GeorgS2003. Japanese, the Altaic Theory, and the limits of language classification.Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language T Osada, A Vovin, with the assistance of Kerri Russell429–49 Nichibunken Jpn. Stud. Ser. 31 Kyoto, Jpn: Int. Res. Cent. Jpn. Stud.
      [Google Scholar]
    29. GeorgS2021. On perfectly good-looking morphological comparanda and their (sometimes, however, lacking) significance for hypotheses of language relationship: some marginal footnotes on the (still ongoing?) Altaic debate.Historical Linguistics and Philology of Central Asia: Essays in Turkic and Mongolic Studies B Khabtagaeva with the assistance of Zsuzanna Olach420–28 Lang. Asia Ser. 36 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    30. GoldenPB.1992.An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East Turcologica 9 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    31. GreenbergJF.2000–2002.Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, Vols. 1–2 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    32. GrünthalR,HeydV,HolopainenS,JanhunenJA,KhaninaO et al.2022. Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread.Diachronica39:4490–524
      [Google Scholar]
    33. GruzdevaE,JanhunenJA.2020. Notes on the typological prehistory of Ghilyak.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.2:11–28
      [Google Scholar]
    34. HashimotoM1986. The Altaicization of Northern Chinese.Contributions to Sino-Tibetan Studies J McCoy, T Light76–97 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    35. HeG,WangM,ZouX,YehH-Y,LiuC et al.2022. Extensive ethnolinguistic diversity at the crossroads of North China and South Siberia reflects multiple sources of genetic diversity.J. Syst. Evol.https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12827
      [Crossref][Google Scholar]
    36. HudsonMJ.1999.Ruins of Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands. Honolulu, HI: Univ. Hawaiʻi Press
      [Google Scholar]
    37. ItabashiY.2003. Altaic and Austronesian language mixing in Old Japanese: evidence of core basic vocabulary and affixes.Eurasian Stud. Yearb.75:5–58
      [Google Scholar]
    38. JanhunenJ.1981.Korean vowel system in North Asian perspective.Han-geul172:129–46
      [Google Scholar]
    39. JanhunenJ1995. Prolegomena to a comparative analysis of Mongolic and Tungusic.Proceedings of the 38th Permanent International Altaistic Conference (Kawasaki 1995) G Stary209–18 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    40. JanhunenJ.1996.Manchuria: An Ethnic History. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 222 Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society
      [Google Scholar]
    41. JanhunenJ.1997. Problems of primary root structure in Pre-Proto-Japanic.Int. J. Cent. Asian Stud.2:14–30
      [Google Scholar]
    42. JanhunenJ.1999. A contextual approach to the convergence and divergence of Korean and Japanese.Int. J. Cent. Asian Stud.4:1–23
      [Google Scholar]
    43. JanhunenJ.2005. The lost languages of Koguryo.J. Inner East Asian Stud.2:266–86
      [Google Scholar]
    44. JanhunenJ.2007. Typological expansion in the Ural-Altaic belt.Incontri Linguistici30:71–83
      [Google Scholar]
    45. JanhunenJ2008. Mongolic as an expansive language family.Past and Present Dynamics: The Great Mongolian State T Kurebito127–37 Tokyo: Tokyo Univ. Foreign Stud.
      [Google Scholar]
    46. JanhunenJ2009. On the Turkicization of Turkey in a Eurasian context.Finnisch-Ugrische Mitt.32/33:139–50
      [Google Scholar]
    47. JanhunenJ2012. The expansion of Tungusic as an ethnic and linguistic process.Recent Advances in Tungusic Linguistics AL Malchukov, LJ Whaley, Turcologica 895–16 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    48. JanhunenJ2013. Personal pronouns in Core Altaic.Shared Grammaticalization with Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages M Robbeets, H Cuyckens211–26 Stud. Lang. Companion Ser. 132 Amsterdam: Benjamins
      [Google Scholar]
    49. JanhunenJ.2015. Observations on the Para-Mongolic elements in Jurchenic.Acta Linguist. Petropolitana11:3575–92
      [Google Scholar]
    50. JanhunenJ2016. Towards Pre-Proto-Turkic: issues of definition and terminology.Eine hundertblättrige Tulpe: Festgabe für Claus Schönig I Hauenschild, M Kappler, B Kellner-Heinkele189–96 Berlin: Klaus Schwarz
      [Google Scholar]
    51. JanhunenJ.2020. The differential diversification of Mongolic.J. Historical Socioling.6:220190014
      [Google Scholar]
    52. JanhunenJ2003.The Mongolic Languages. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    53. JankowskiH2013. Altaic languages and historical contact.Current Trends in Altaic Linguistics: A Festschrift for Professor Emeritus Seong Baeg-in on his 80th Birthday K Juwon, K Dongho523–45 Seoul: Altaic Soc. Korea
      [Google Scholar]
    54. JohansonL.2021.Turkic. Cambridge Lang Surv. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    55. JohansonL,CsatóÉÁ, eds.2021.The Turkic Languages. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge. , 2nd ed..
      [Google Scholar]
    56. JokiAJ.1952.Die Lehnwörter des Sajansamojedischen. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 103 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
      [Google Scholar]
    57. KaneD.2009.The Khitan Language and Script Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.19 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    58. KellgrenH.1847.Die Grundzüge der Finnischen Sprache mit Rücksicht auf den Ural-Altaischen Sprachstamm. Berlin: F. Schneider & Comp
      [Google Scholar]
    59. KhabtagaevaB.2009.Mongolic Elements in Tuvan. Turcologica 81 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    60. KhabtagaevaB.2017.The Ewenki Dialects of Buryatia and Their Relationship to Khamnigan Mongol Tunguso-Sibirica 41 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    61. KiyoseGN.1995.Japanese Grammar: A New Approach. Kyoto, Jpn.: Kyoto Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    62. KoS.2018.Tongue Root Harmony and Vowel Contrast in Northeast Asian Languages. Turcologica 112 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    63. KoS,JosephA,WhitmanJ2014. Comparative consequences of the tongue root harmony analysis for proto-Tungusic, proto-Mongolic, and proto-Korean.Paradigm Change in the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond M Robbeets, W Bisang141–76 Stud. Lang. Companion Ser. 161 Amsterdam: Benjamins
      [Google Scholar]
    64. KotwiczW.1951. Studia nad językami ałtajskimi [Studies of Altaic languages].Rocz. Orientalistyczny16:1–317
      [Google Scholar]
    65. LeeK-M,RamseySR.2011.A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    66. LeventS.2015. Common Asianist intellectual history in Turkey and Japan: Turanism.Cent. Asian Surv.35:1121–35
      [Google Scholar]
    67. LewinB.1976. Japanese and Korean: The problems and history of a linguistic comparison.J. Jpn. Stud.2:2389–412
      [Google Scholar]
    68. LigetiL1970. Le tabghatch, un dialecte de la langue sien-pi.Mongolian Studies L Ligeti265–308 Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 14 Budapest, Hung.: Akadémiai Kiadó
      [Google Scholar]
    69. LigetiL.1971. Алтайская теория и лексикостатистика. [The Altaic Theory and lexicostististics].Вопросы языкознания321–33
      [Google Scholar]
    70. LogieA.2019. Diagnosing and debunking Korean pseudohistory.European J. Korean Stud.18:237–80
      [Google Scholar]
    71. MalchukovA,CzerwinskiP.2021. Verbalization/insubordination: a diachronic syntactic isogloss in Northeast Asia.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.3:183–104
      [Google Scholar]
    72. MartinSE.1966. Lexical evidence relating Korean to Japanese.Language42:2185–251
      [Google Scholar]
    73. MartinSE.1987.The Japanese Language Through Time. Yale Lang. Ser New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    74. MartinSE1990. Morphological clues to the relationships of Japanese and Korean.Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology P Baldi483–509 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
      [Google Scholar]
    75. MartinSE.1992.A Reference Grammar of Korean: A Complete Guide to the Grammar and History of the Korean Language. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co.
      [Google Scholar]
    76. MengesKH.1975.Altajische Studien II.Japanisch und Altajisch. Abh. Kunde Morgenl. 41(3) Wiesbaden, Ger.: Steiner Franz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    77. MillerRA.1971.Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
      [Google Scholar]
    78. MillerRA.1996.Languages and History: Japanese, Korean, and Altaic. Bangkok: White Orchid
      [Google Scholar]
    79. MurayamaS1975. Altaische Komponente der japanischen Sprache.Researches in Altaic Languages L Ligeti, pp. 181–88. Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 20 Budapest, Hung.: Akadémiai Kiadó
      [Google Scholar]
    80. NémethG.1912. Die türkisch-mongolische Hypothese.Z. Dtsch. Morgenl. Ges.66:549–76
      [Google Scholar]
    81. NicholsJ.2012. Selection form:T pronominals in Eurasia.Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology L Johanson, M Robbeets47–69 Brill's Stud. Lang. Cognition Cult. 2 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    82. NugterenH.2011.Mongolic Phonology and the Qinghai-Gansu Languages LOT 289. Diss. Neth. Grad. Sch. Linguist. Amsterdam:
      [Google Scholar]
    83. OrlandiG.2020. The state of the art of the genetic relationship of Japonic: the Turanian and Altaic Hypotheses.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.2:129–69
      [Google Scholar]
    84. PaasonenH.1917.Beiträge zur finnischugrisch-samojedischen Lautgeschichte. Budapest, Hung.: Franklin-Vereins
      [Google Scholar]
    85. PakendorfB.2009. Intensive contact and the copying of paradigms: an Èven dialect in contact with Sakha (Yakut).J. Lang. Contact VARIA2:85–110
      [Google Scholar]
    86. PoppeN.1955.Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 110 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
      [Google Scholar]
    87. PoppeN.1960.Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. Teil I:Vergleichende Lautlehre Porta Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Ser. 4 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    88. PoppeN.1965.Introduction to Altaic Linguistics. Ural-Altaische Bibliothek XIV Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    89. PoppeN.1975. Altaic linguistics: an overview.Sci. Lang.6:130–86
      [Google Scholar]
    90. RamseySR1991. Proto-Korean and the origin of Korean accent.Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages W Boltz, MC Shapiro, pp. 215–38. Curr. Issues Linguist. Theory 77 Amsterdam: Benjamins
      [Google Scholar]
    91. RamstedtGJ.1914–1916. Zur mongolisch-türkischen Lautgeschichte, I-III.Keleti Szemle15:34–150 16:66–84
      [Google Scholar]
    92. RamstedtGJ.1939.A Korean Grammar. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 72 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
      [Google Scholar]
    93. RamstedtGJ.1949.Studies in Korean Etymology. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 95 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
      [Google Scholar]
    94. RamstedtGJ.1952–1966.Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft Vols. 1–3. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 104 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
      [Google Scholar]
    95. RäsänenM.1949.Materialien zur Lautgeschichte der türkischen Sprachen. Studia Orientalia 15 Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica
      [Google Scholar]
    96. RäsänenM.1957.Materialien zur Morphologie der türkischen Sprachen. Studia Orientalia 21 Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica
      [Google Scholar]
    97. RenfrewC,NettleD, eds.1999.Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic Macrofamily. Pap. Prehist. Lang. 2 Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res.
      [Google Scholar]
    98. RobbeetsM.2005.Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Turcologica 64 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    99. RobbeetsM.2015.Diachrony of Verb Morphology: Japanese and the Transeurasian Languages. Trends Linguist. Stud. Monogr. 291 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
      [Google Scholar]
    100. RobbeetsM,BouckaertR,ConteM,SavelyevA,LiT et al.2021. Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages.Nature599:616–21
      [Google Scholar]
    101. RobbeetsM,SavelyevA, eds.2020.The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    102. Róna-TasA.1972. Did the proto-Altaic people know the stirrup?.Studia Mongolica13:169–71
      [Google Scholar]
    103. Róna-TasA.1974. Общее наследие или заимствования? (К проблеме родства алтайских языков) [Common heritage or borrowings? On the problem concerning the relationship of the Altaic languages].Вопросы языкознания2:31–45
      [Google Scholar]
    104. Róna-TasA.1980. On the earliest Samoyed-Turkish contacts.Congressus Quintus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum3:377–85
      [Google Scholar]
    105. Róna-TasA,BertaÁ.2011.West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian Parts 1–2. Turcologica 84 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    106. RozyckiW.1994.Mongol Elements in Manchu. Indiana Univ. Uralic Altaic Ser. 157 Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Res. Inst. Inner Asian Stud.
      [Google Scholar]
    107. SchönigC.1999. The internal division of modern Turkic and its historical implications.Acta Orient. Acad. Sci. Hung.52:163–95
      [Google Scholar]
    108. SchönigC.2001.Mongolische Lehnwörter im Westoghusischen. Turcologica 47 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    109. SchönigC2003. Turko-Mongolic relations.The Mongolic Languages J Janhunen403–19 London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    110. ShherbakAM.1966. О характере лексических взаимосвязей тюркских, монгольских и тунгусо-маньчжурских языков. [On the nature of the lexical relations of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages].Вопросы языкознания321–35
      [Google Scholar]
    111. ShherbakAM.1970.Сравнительная фонетика тюркских языков. [Comparative phonetics of the Turkic languages] Leningrad, Russ.: Hаука
      [Google Scholar]
    112. ShherbakAM.1997.Ранние тюркско-монгольские связи (VIII-XIV вв.) [Early Turko-Mongolic relations (8th to 14th cc.)] St. Petersburg, Russ.: Russ. Acad. Sci. Inst. Linguist. Res.
      [Google Scholar]
    113. ShherbakAM.2005.Тюркско-монгольские языковые контакты в истории монгольских языков. [Turko-Mongolic linguistic contacts in the history of the Mongolic languages] St. Petersburg, Russ.: Hаука
      [Google Scholar]
    114. ShibataniM.1990.The Languages of Japan. Cambridge Lang. Surv Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    115. ShimunekA.2017.Languages of Ancient Southern Mongolia and North China: A Historical-Comparative Study of the Serbi or Xianbei Branch of the Serbi-Mongolic Language Family, with an Analysis of Northeastern Frontier Chinese and Old Tibetan Phonology Tunguso-Sibirica 40 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    116. ShirokogoroffSM.1931.Ethnological and Linguistical Aspects of the Ural-Altaic Hypothesis. Oosterhout, Neth.: Anthr. Publ.
      [Google Scholar]
    117. StarostinSA.1991.Алтайская проблема и происхождение японского языка [The Altaic problem and the origin of the Japanese language] Moscow: Hаука
      [Google Scholar]
    118. StarostinS,DyboA,MudrakO,GruntovI,GlumovV.2003.Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages Vols. 1–3. Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.8 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    119. SzetoPY.2021. Revisiting the Amdo Sprachbund: genes, languages, and beyond.Himal. Linguist.20:3123–45
      [Google Scholar]
    120. SzetoPY,YurayongC.2021. Sinitic as a typological sandwich: revisiting the notions of Altaicization and Taicization.Linguist. Typol.25:3507–49
      [Google Scholar]
    121. TohSH.2005. About early Paekche language mistaken as being Koguryŏ language.J. Inner East Asian Stud.2:213–31
      [Google Scholar]
    122. TranterN,2012.The Languages of Japan and Korea. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    123. UngerJM.2001. Layers of words and volcanic ash in Japan and Korea.J. Jpn. Stud.27:181–111
      [Google Scholar]
    124. UngerJM.2009.The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaiʻi Press
      [Google Scholar]
    125. VovinA.2005. The end of the Altaic controversy.Central Asiatic J.49:171–132
      [Google Scholar]
    126. VovinA.2010.Koreo-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin. Hawaiʻi Studies of Korea Honolulu: Univ. Hawaiʻi Press
      [Google Scholar]
    127. VovinA.2019. A sketch of the earliest Mongolic language: The Brāhmī Bugut and Khüis Tolgoi Inscriptions.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.1:1162–97
      [Google Scholar]
    128. VovinA.2020.A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese. Handbuch der Orientalistik V.16, Vols. 1–2 Leiden, Neth.: Brill. , 2nd ed..
      [Google Scholar]
    129. VovinA.2021. Names of large exotic animals and the Urheimat of Japonic.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.3:1105–20
      [Google Scholar]
    130. VovinA,de la FuenteJAA,JanhunenJ, eds.Forthcoming.The Tungusic Languages. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    131. WeiersM.1969.Untersuchungen zu einer historischen Grammatik des Präklassischen Schriftmongolisch. Asiatische Forschungen 28 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    132. WhitmanJB.1985.The Phonological Basis for the Comparison of Japanese and Korean. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    133. WhitmanJ.2012. The relationship between Japanese and Korean.The Languages of Japan and Korea, ed. N Tranter24–38 London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    134. WinklerH.1884.Uralaltaische Völker und Sprachen. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung
      [Google Scholar]
    135. WinklerH.1909.Der Uralaltaische Sprachstamm, das Finnische und das Japanische. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung
      [Google Scholar]
    136. WuY,JanhunenJ.2010.New Materials on the Khitan Small Script: A Critical Edition of Xiao Dilu and Yelü Xiangwen. Lang. Asia 9 Folkestone, UK: Global Oriental
      [Google Scholar]
    137. YamakoshiY2014. How can we define the “participles” in Mongolic languages: two problems in Shinekhen Buryat.Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Central Asian Languages and Linguistics, ed. Ö Özçelik, AK Kent , Vol.1131–42 Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ.
      [Google Scholar]
    138. YurayongC,SzetoPY.2020. Altaicization and De-Altaicization of Japonic and Koreanic.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.2:1108–48
      [Google Scholar]
    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356
    Loading

    Most Read This Month

    Article
    content/journals/linguistics
    Journal
    5
    3
    false
    en
    Loading

    Most CitedMost Cited RSS feed

    knowable Logo

    Science needs us — and you

    Support nonprofit Knowable Magazine and bring facts to light

    Related Articles from Annual Reviews

    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    4
    4

    Literature Cited

    1. AusterlitzR1970. Agglutination in Northern Eurasia in perspective.Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics Presented to Shirô Hattori on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday R Jakobson, S Kawamoto Tokyo: TEC Corp. Lang. Educ. Res.
      [Google Scholar]
    2. BarfieldTJ.1989.The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China, 221 BC to AD 1757. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
      [Google Scholar]
    3. BarrereI,JanhunenJ.2019. Mongolian vowel harmony in a Eurasian context.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.1:146–77
      [Google Scholar]
    4. BeckwithCI.2004.Koguryo, the Language of Japan's Continental Relatives. Brill's Jpn. Stud. Libr. 21 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    5. BentleyJR.2008.A Linguistic History of the Forgotten Islands: A Reconstruction of the Proto-language of the Southern Ryūkyūs. Lang. Asia Ser. 7 Folkestone, UK: Global Oriental
      [Google Scholar]
    6. BenzingJ.1956.Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Mainz, Ger.: Franz Steiner Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    7. BickelB,NicholsJ.2006. Oceania, the Pacific Rim, and the theory of linguistic areas.Proc. Annu. Meet. Berkeley Linguist. Soc.32:22–12
      [Google Scholar]
    8. BlažekV,SchwarzM,SrbaO.2019.Altaic Languages: History of Research, Survey, Classification and a Sketch of Comparative Grammar. Brno, Czech Repub.: Masaryk Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    9. BollerA.1857.Nachweis, daß das Japanische zum ural-altaischen Stamme gehört. Vienna: K. K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei
      [Google Scholar]
    10. BugaevaA,NicholsJ,BickelB.2021. Appositive possession in Ainu and around the Pacific.Linguist. Typol.26:143–88
      [Google Scholar]
    11. CastrénMA.1846. Anteckningar om Samojediskans förvandtskap med de Finska Språken [Notes on the relationship of Samoyedic with the Finnish languages].Suomi: Tidskrift i fosterländska ämnen5:1845177–86
      [Google Scholar]
    12. CastrénMA.1849. Hvar låg det Finska folkets vagga? [Where was the cradle of the Finnish people located?].Litterära Soiréer i Helsingfors under hösten 1849 Helsinki: Litteratur-Sällskapets Tryckeri
      [Google Scholar]
    13. ClausonSG.1956. The case against the Altaic Theory.Cent. Asiat. J.2:181–87
      [Google Scholar]
    14. de BoerEM.2010.The Historical Development of Japanese Tone. Part 1: From Proto-Japanese to the Modern Dialects. Part 2: The Introduction and Adaptation of the Middle Chinese Tones in Japan. Veröffentlichungen des Ost-Asien-Instituts der Universität Bochum 59 Wiesbaden, Ger: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    15. de RachewiltzI,RybatzkiV.2010.Introduction to Altaic Philology: Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.20 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    16. DoerferG.1963–1975.Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen Vols. 1–4. Akad. Wiss. Lit. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Komm. 16 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Frank Steiner Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    17. DoerferG.1966. Zur Verwandtschaft der altaischen Sprachen.Indoger. Forsch.71:81–123
      [Google Scholar]
    18. DoerferG,HescheW,ScheinhardtH,TezcanS.1971.Khalaj Materials. Indiana Univ. Publ. Uralic Altaic Ser. 115 Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ.
      [Google Scholar]
    19. DoerferG.1973.Lautgesetz und Zufall: Betrachtungen zum Omnicomparativismus Innsbrucker Beitr. Sprachwiss. 10. Innsbruck Austria: Inst. Vgl. Sprachwiss. Univ. Innsbruck
      [Google Scholar]
    20. DoerferG.1985.Mongolo-Tungusica. Tungusica 3 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    21. DoerferG.1988. Zetacism/sigmaticm plays no rôle.Cent. Asiat. J.32:61–63
      [Google Scholar]
    22. DolgopolskyA.1998.The Nostratic Macrofamily and Linguistic Palaeontology. Pap. Prehist. Lang. 1 Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res.
      [Google Scholar]
    23. ErdalM.2004.A Grammar of Old Turkic. Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.3 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    24. ErdalM.2019. The Turkic-Mongolic lexical relationship in view of the Leipzig-Jakarta list.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.1:178–97
      [Google Scholar]
    25. FrellesvigB.2010.A History of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    26. GeorgS1990. Some thoughts on the etymology of the Turkic plural suffix -lar/-ler.Altaica Osloensia: Proceedings from the 32nd Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference B Brendemoen141–52 Oslo, Nor.: Universitetsforlaget
      [Google Scholar]
    27. GeorgS.1999/2000. Haupt und Glieder der altaischen Hypothese: Die Körperteilbezeichnungen im Türkischen, Mongolischen und Tungusischen.Ural-altaische Jahrb. N. F. B16:143–82
      [Google Scholar]
    28. GeorgS2003. Japanese, the Altaic Theory, and the limits of language classification.Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language T Osada, A Vovin, with the assistance of Kerri Russell429–49 Nichibunken Jpn. Stud. Ser. 31 Kyoto, Jpn: Int. Res. Cent. Jpn. Stud.
      [Google Scholar]
    29. GeorgS2021. On perfectly good-looking morphological comparanda and their (sometimes, however, lacking) significance for hypotheses of language relationship: some marginal footnotes on the (still ongoing?) Altaic debate.Historical Linguistics and Philology of Central Asia: Essays in Turkic and Mongolic Studies B Khabtagaeva with the assistance of Zsuzanna Olach420–28 Lang. Asia Ser. 36 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    30. GoldenPB.1992.An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East Turcologica 9 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    31. GreenbergJF.2000–2002.Indo-European and its closest relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, Vols. 1–2 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    32. GrünthalR,HeydV,HolopainenS,JanhunenJA,KhaninaO et al.2022. Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread.Diachronica39:4490–524
      [Google Scholar]
    33. GruzdevaE,JanhunenJA.2020. Notes on the typological prehistory of Ghilyak.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.2:11–28
      [Google Scholar]
    34. HashimotoM1986. The Altaicization of Northern Chinese.Contributions to Sino-Tibetan Studies J McCoy, T Light76–97 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    35. HeG,WangM,ZouX,YehH-Y,LiuC et al.2022. Extensive ethnolinguistic diversity at the crossroads of North China and South Siberia reflects multiple sources of genetic diversity.J. Syst. Evol.https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12827
      [Crossref][Google Scholar]
    36. HudsonMJ.1999.Ruins of Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Islands. Honolulu, HI: Univ. Hawaiʻi Press
      [Google Scholar]
    37. ItabashiY.2003. Altaic and Austronesian language mixing in Old Japanese: evidence of core basic vocabulary and affixes.Eurasian Stud. Yearb.75:5–58
      [Google Scholar]
    38. JanhunenJ.1981.Korean vowel system in North Asian perspective.Han-geul172:129–46
      [Google Scholar]
    39. JanhunenJ1995. Prolegomena to a comparative analysis of Mongolic and Tungusic.Proceedings of the 38th Permanent International Altaistic Conference (Kawasaki 1995) G Stary209–18 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    40. JanhunenJ.1996.Manchuria: An Ethnic History. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 222 Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society
      [Google Scholar]
    41. JanhunenJ.1997. Problems of primary root structure in Pre-Proto-Japanic.Int. J. Cent. Asian Stud.2:14–30
      [Google Scholar]
    42. JanhunenJ.1999. A contextual approach to the convergence and divergence of Korean and Japanese.Int. J. Cent. Asian Stud.4:1–23
      [Google Scholar]
    43. JanhunenJ.2005. The lost languages of Koguryo.J. Inner East Asian Stud.2:266–86
      [Google Scholar]
    44. JanhunenJ.2007. Typological expansion in the Ural-Altaic belt.Incontri Linguistici30:71–83
      [Google Scholar]
    45. JanhunenJ2008. Mongolic as an expansive language family.Past and Present Dynamics: The Great Mongolian State T Kurebito127–37 Tokyo: Tokyo Univ. Foreign Stud.
      [Google Scholar]
    46. JanhunenJ2009. On the Turkicization of Turkey in a Eurasian context.Finnisch-Ugrische Mitt.32/33:139–50
      [Google Scholar]
    47. JanhunenJ2012. The expansion of Tungusic as an ethnic and linguistic process.Recent Advances in Tungusic Linguistics AL Malchukov, LJ Whaley, Turcologica 895–16 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    48. JanhunenJ2013. Personal pronouns in Core Altaic.Shared Grammaticalization with Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages M Robbeets, H Cuyckens211–26 Stud. Lang. Companion Ser. 132 Amsterdam: Benjamins
      [Google Scholar]
    49. JanhunenJ.2015. Observations on the Para-Mongolic elements in Jurchenic.Acta Linguist. Petropolitana11:3575–92
      [Google Scholar]
    50. JanhunenJ2016. Towards Pre-Proto-Turkic: issues of definition and terminology.Eine hundertblättrige Tulpe: Festgabe für Claus Schönig I Hauenschild, M Kappler, B Kellner-Heinkele189–96 Berlin: Klaus Schwarz
      [Google Scholar]
    51. JanhunenJ.2020. The differential diversification of Mongolic.J. Historical Socioling.6:220190014
      [Google Scholar]
    52. JanhunenJ2003.The Mongolic Languages. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    53. JankowskiH2013. Altaic languages and historical contact.Current Trends in Altaic Linguistics: A Festschrift for Professor Emeritus Seong Baeg-in on his 80th Birthday K Juwon, K Dongho523–45 Seoul: Altaic Soc. Korea
      [Google Scholar]
    54. JohansonL.2021.Turkic. Cambridge Lang Surv. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    55. JohansonL,CsatóÉÁ, eds.2021.The Turkic Languages. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge. , 2nd ed..
      [Google Scholar]
    56. JokiAJ.1952.Die Lehnwörter des Sajansamojedischen. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 103 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
      [Google Scholar]
    57. KaneD.2009.The Khitan Language and Script Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.19 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    58. KellgrenH.1847.Die Grundzüge der Finnischen Sprache mit Rücksicht auf den Ural-Altaischen Sprachstamm. Berlin: F. Schneider & Comp
      [Google Scholar]
    59. KhabtagaevaB.2009.Mongolic Elements in Tuvan. Turcologica 81 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    60. KhabtagaevaB.2017.The Ewenki Dialects of Buryatia and Their Relationship to Khamnigan Mongol Tunguso-Sibirica 41 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    61. KiyoseGN.1995.Japanese Grammar: A New Approach. Kyoto, Jpn.: Kyoto Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    62. KoS.2018.Tongue Root Harmony and Vowel Contrast in Northeast Asian Languages. Turcologica 112 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    63. KoS,JosephA,WhitmanJ2014. Comparative consequences of the tongue root harmony analysis for proto-Tungusic, proto-Mongolic, and proto-Korean.Paradigm Change in the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond M Robbeets, W Bisang141–76 Stud. Lang. Companion Ser. 161 Amsterdam: Benjamins
      [Google Scholar]
    64. KotwiczW.1951. Studia nad językami ałtajskimi [Studies of Altaic languages].Rocz. Orientalistyczny16:1–317
      [Google Scholar]
    65. LeeK-M,RamseySR.2011.A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    66. LeventS.2015. Common Asianist intellectual history in Turkey and Japan: Turanism.Cent. Asian Surv.35:1121–35
      [Google Scholar]
    67. LewinB.1976. Japanese and Korean: The problems and history of a linguistic comparison.J. Jpn. Stud.2:2389–412
      [Google Scholar]
    68. LigetiL1970. Le tabghatch, un dialecte de la langue sien-pi.Mongolian Studies L Ligeti265–308 Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 14 Budapest, Hung.: Akadémiai Kiadó
      [Google Scholar]
    69. LigetiL.1971. Алтайская теория и лексикостатистика. [The Altaic Theory and lexicostististics].Вопросы языкознания321–33
      [Google Scholar]
    70. LogieA.2019. Diagnosing and debunking Korean pseudohistory.European J. Korean Stud.18:237–80
      [Google Scholar]
    71. MalchukovA,CzerwinskiP.2021. Verbalization/insubordination: a diachronic syntactic isogloss in Northeast Asia.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.3:183–104
      [Google Scholar]
    72. MartinSE.1966. Lexical evidence relating Korean to Japanese.Language42:2185–251
      [Google Scholar]
    73. MartinSE.1987.The Japanese Language Through Time. Yale Lang. Ser New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    74. MartinSE1990. Morphological clues to the relationships of Japanese and Korean.Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology P Baldi483–509 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
      [Google Scholar]
    75. MartinSE.1992.A Reference Grammar of Korean: A Complete Guide to the Grammar and History of the Korean Language. Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co.
      [Google Scholar]
    76. MengesKH.1975.Altajische Studien II.Japanisch und Altajisch. Abh. Kunde Morgenl. 41(3) Wiesbaden, Ger.: Steiner Franz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    77. MillerRA.1971.Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
      [Google Scholar]
    78. MillerRA.1996.Languages and History: Japanese, Korean, and Altaic. Bangkok: White Orchid
      [Google Scholar]
    79. MurayamaS1975. Altaische Komponente der japanischen Sprache.Researches in Altaic Languages L Ligeti, pp. 181–88. Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 20 Budapest, Hung.: Akadémiai Kiadó
      [Google Scholar]
    80. NémethG.1912. Die türkisch-mongolische Hypothese.Z. Dtsch. Morgenl. Ges.66:549–76
      [Google Scholar]
    81. NicholsJ.2012. Selection form:T pronominals in Eurasia.Copies versus Cognates in Bound Morphology L Johanson, M Robbeets47–69 Brill's Stud. Lang. Cognition Cult. 2 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    82. NugterenH.2011.Mongolic Phonology and the Qinghai-Gansu Languages LOT 289. Diss. Neth. Grad. Sch. Linguist. Amsterdam:
      [Google Scholar]
    83. OrlandiG.2020. The state of the art of the genetic relationship of Japonic: the Turanian and Altaic Hypotheses.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.2:129–69
      [Google Scholar]
    84. PaasonenH.1917.Beiträge zur finnischugrisch-samojedischen Lautgeschichte. Budapest, Hung.: Franklin-Vereins
      [Google Scholar]
    85. PakendorfB.2009. Intensive contact and the copying of paradigms: an Èven dialect in contact with Sakha (Yakut).J. Lang. Contact VARIA2:85–110
      [Google Scholar]
    86. PoppeN.1955.Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 110 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
      [Google Scholar]
    87. PoppeN.1960.Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. Teil I:Vergleichende Lautlehre Porta Linguarum Orientalium, Neue Ser. 4 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    88. PoppeN.1965.Introduction to Altaic Linguistics. Ural-Altaische Bibliothek XIV Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    89. PoppeN.1975. Altaic linguistics: an overview.Sci. Lang.6:130–86
      [Google Scholar]
    90. RamseySR1991. Proto-Korean and the origin of Korean accent.Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages W Boltz, MC Shapiro, pp. 215–38. Curr. Issues Linguist. Theory 77 Amsterdam: Benjamins
      [Google Scholar]
    91. RamstedtGJ.1914–1916. Zur mongolisch-türkischen Lautgeschichte, I-III.Keleti Szemle15:34–150 16:66–84
      [Google Scholar]
    92. RamstedtGJ.1939.A Korean Grammar. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 72 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
      [Google Scholar]
    93. RamstedtGJ.1949.Studies in Korean Etymology. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 95 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
      [Google Scholar]
    94. RamstedtGJ.1952–1966.Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft Vols. 1–3. Mémoires Soc. Finno-Ougrienne 104 Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura
      [Google Scholar]
    95. RäsänenM.1949.Materialien zur Lautgeschichte der türkischen Sprachen. Studia Orientalia 15 Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica
      [Google Scholar]
    96. RäsänenM.1957.Materialien zur Morphologie der türkischen Sprachen. Studia Orientalia 21 Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica
      [Google Scholar]
    97. RenfrewC,NettleD, eds.1999.Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic Macrofamily. Pap. Prehist. Lang. 2 Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res.
      [Google Scholar]
    98. RobbeetsM.2005.Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Turcologica 64 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    99. RobbeetsM.2015.Diachrony of Verb Morphology: Japanese and the Transeurasian Languages. Trends Linguist. Stud. Monogr. 291 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
      [Google Scholar]
    100. RobbeetsM,BouckaertR,ConteM,SavelyevA,LiT et al.2021. Triangulation supports agricultural spread of the Transeurasian languages.Nature599:616–21
      [Google Scholar]
    101. RobbeetsM,SavelyevA, eds.2020.The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    102. Róna-TasA.1972. Did the proto-Altaic people know the stirrup?.Studia Mongolica13:169–71
      [Google Scholar]
    103. Róna-TasA.1974. Общее наследие или заимствования? (К проблеме родства алтайских языков) [Common heritage or borrowings? On the problem concerning the relationship of the Altaic languages].Вопросы языкознания2:31–45
      [Google Scholar]
    104. Róna-TasA.1980. On the earliest Samoyed-Turkish contacts.Congressus Quintus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum3:377–85
      [Google Scholar]
    105. Róna-TasA,BertaÁ.2011.West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian Parts 1–2. Turcologica 84 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    106. RozyckiW.1994.Mongol Elements in Manchu. Indiana Univ. Uralic Altaic Ser. 157 Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Res. Inst. Inner Asian Stud.
      [Google Scholar]
    107. SchönigC.1999. The internal division of modern Turkic and its historical implications.Acta Orient. Acad. Sci. Hung.52:163–95
      [Google Scholar]
    108. SchönigC.2001.Mongolische Lehnwörter im Westoghusischen. Turcologica 47 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    109. SchönigC2003. Turko-Mongolic relations.The Mongolic Languages J Janhunen403–19 London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    110. ShherbakAM.1966. О характере лексических взаимосвязей тюркских, монгольских и тунгусо-маньчжурских языков. [On the nature of the lexical relations of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages].Вопросы языкознания321–35
      [Google Scholar]
    111. ShherbakAM.1970.Сравнительная фонетика тюркских языков. [Comparative phonetics of the Turkic languages] Leningrad, Russ.: Hаука
      [Google Scholar]
    112. ShherbakAM.1997.Ранние тюркско-монгольские связи (VIII-XIV вв.) [Early Turko-Mongolic relations (8th to 14th cc.)] St. Petersburg, Russ.: Russ. Acad. Sci. Inst. Linguist. Res.
      [Google Scholar]
    113. ShherbakAM.2005.Тюркско-монгольские языковые контакты в истории монгольских языков. [Turko-Mongolic linguistic contacts in the history of the Mongolic languages] St. Petersburg, Russ.: Hаука
      [Google Scholar]
    114. ShibataniM.1990.The Languages of Japan. Cambridge Lang. Surv Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    115. ShimunekA.2017.Languages of Ancient Southern Mongolia and North China: A Historical-Comparative Study of the Serbi or Xianbei Branch of the Serbi-Mongolic Language Family, with an Analysis of Northeastern Frontier Chinese and Old Tibetan Phonology Tunguso-Sibirica 40 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz Verlag
      [Google Scholar]
    116. ShirokogoroffSM.1931.Ethnological and Linguistical Aspects of the Ural-Altaic Hypothesis. Oosterhout, Neth.: Anthr. Publ.
      [Google Scholar]
    117. StarostinSA.1991.Алтайская проблема и происхождение японского языка [The Altaic problem and the origin of the Japanese language] Moscow: Hаука
      [Google Scholar]
    118. StarostinS,DyboA,MudrakO,GruntovI,GlumovV.2003.Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages Vols. 1–3. Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.8 Leiden, Neth.: Brill
      [Google Scholar]
    119. SzetoPY.2021. Revisiting the Amdo Sprachbund: genes, languages, and beyond.Himal. Linguist.20:3123–45
      [Google Scholar]
    120. SzetoPY,YurayongC.2021. Sinitic as a typological sandwich: revisiting the notions of Altaicization and Taicization.Linguist. Typol.25:3507–49
      [Google Scholar]
    121. TohSH.2005. About early Paekche language mistaken as being Koguryŏ language.J. Inner East Asian Stud.2:213–31
      [Google Scholar]
    122. TranterN,2012.The Languages of Japan and Korea. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    123. UngerJM.2001. Layers of words and volcanic ash in Japan and Korea.J. Jpn. Stud.27:181–111
      [Google Scholar]
    124. UngerJM.2009.The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages. Honolulu: Univ. Hawaiʻi Press
      [Google Scholar]
    125. VovinA.2005. The end of the Altaic controversy.Central Asiatic J.49:171–132
      [Google Scholar]
    126. VovinA.2010.Koreo-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin. Hawaiʻi Studies of Korea Honolulu: Univ. Hawaiʻi Press
      [Google Scholar]
    127. VovinA.2019. A sketch of the earliest Mongolic language: The Brāhmī Bugut and Khüis Tolgoi Inscriptions.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.1:1162–97
      [Google Scholar]
    128. VovinA.2020.A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese. Handbuch der Orientalistik V.16, Vols. 1–2 Leiden, Neth.: Brill. , 2nd ed..
      [Google Scholar]
    129. VovinA.2021. Names of large exotic animals and the Urheimat of Japonic.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.3:1105–20
      [Google Scholar]
    130. VovinA,de la FuenteJAA,JanhunenJ, eds.Forthcoming.The Tungusic Languages. Routledge Lang. Fam. Ser London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    131. WeiersM.1969.Untersuchungen zu einer historischen Grammatik des Präklassischen Schriftmongolisch. Asiatische Forschungen 28 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz
      [Google Scholar]
    132. WhitmanJB.1985.The Phonological Basis for the Comparison of Japanese and Korean. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
      [Google Scholar]
    133. WhitmanJ.2012. The relationship between Japanese and Korean.The Languages of Japan and Korea, ed. N Tranter24–38 London: Routledge
      [Google Scholar]
    134. WinklerH.1884.Uralaltaische Völker und Sprachen. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung
      [Google Scholar]
    135. WinklerH.1909.Der Uralaltaische Sprachstamm, das Finnische und das Japanische. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung
      [Google Scholar]
    136. WuY,JanhunenJ.2010.New Materials on the Khitan Small Script: A Critical Edition of Xiao Dilu and Yelü Xiangwen. Lang. Asia 9 Folkestone, UK: Global Oriental
      [Google Scholar]
    137. YamakoshiY2014. How can we define the “participles” in Mongolic languages: two problems in Shinekhen Buryat.Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Central Asian Languages and Linguistics, ed. Ö Özçelik, AK Kent , Vol.1131–42 Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ.
      [Google Scholar]
    138. YurayongC,SzetoPY.2020. Altaicization and De-Altaicization of Japonic and Koreanic.Int. J. Eurasian Linguist.2:1108–48
      [Google Scholar]

    FromKnowable Magazine:

    knowable magazine Teen Brain Bootcamp Special

    knowable magazine from Annual Reviews


    Bluesky share image


    Climate Resource Center, Article Collection from Annual Reviews


    Journal News

    This is a required field
    Please enter a valid email address
    Approval was a Success
    Invalid data
    An Error Occurred
    Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
    Annual Reviews:
    http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356
    10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356
    SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM

    [8]ページ先頭

    ©2009-2026 Movatter.jp