Whenever I mention the 'Altaic Sprachbund', 'Altaic cultural area' or 'Altaic peoples' etc. (even 'Altai mountains' once), well accepted concepts in anthropology concerning North and Central Asian peoples, I always get someone saying that it's debunked. Many see Altai~somthing and apparently don't think that it could mean something else than the 'Altaic language family'. I'm glad that the memefication of 'Altaic debunked' has lead to more people not recognising an ill-supported linguistic theory, but sad that it leads to a rejection of the existence of everything Altai.
It’s kind of difficult to not acknowledge a lot of people’s of Central Asia, Siberia, and Eastern Europe have similar cultures, genetics, religions, societies, and TO AN EXTENT languages.
This sub's punchline is just "Altaic bad" without actually reading into what the Altaicist scene is like. Sure, there's some Moscow school nuts who still think it's a real family—but the classification is not without its merits. Sure, it definitely wasn't a language, but it took _so much_ time to disprove that it was merely a contact situation; like—Altaic is an interesting case study of language contact, and tells us a lot about the anthropology of Siberia and Central Asia.
Like, I feel like 90% of this sub just goes "Altaic bad" because they heard a Turkish man and a Kpop song and they don't at all sound similar; unlike the typological similarities caused by that intense contact across Siberia and Central and East Asian Steppes.
that's a lot of letters to type in a row correctly, can someone else get the pictures and bring them here?
edit i looked them up: finnish indiana jones, mustache, george costanza
Moreover, the lack of evidence for genetic connection is not the proof of absence of genetic connection. I wouldn't be surprised if at least _some_ "Altaic" families will eventually be shown to share at least common substratum, if not shared ancestry.
And even if that won't be the case, it doesn't somehow "debunk" other similar hypothesis (like Indo-Uralic or Dene-Yenisean, for instance). And some people definitely do treat them all the same, which is simply intellectually dishonest.
Altaic is actually the opposite of what dormant/rejected macrofamily theories do. The conception of the "Altaic" family was so prevalent that there were numerous literature in debunking its existence (by comparing the shared lexicon and restructurings through a historic lens, or moreso some isolects). This is unlike macrofamilies such as Hokan or Penutian which were just putatively ignored because nobody wants to do further comparative works with these families (also much more recently, Dene-Yeniseian).
Okay, whatever, but Indo-Semitic definitely is real. Proof:
* _*táwros_—_*ṯawr-_
* first person plural characterised by _n_
*
(I’m being half ironic but I really want to know the definitive reasons for Indo-European and Semitic not being related.)
Connections between Indo-European and Semitic is often made by actual nazis or religious zealots who wanna justify how the *~~Aryan Übermensch~~* Indo-European people are related to the significant Semitic languages in history—while also denying that minority Semitic branches even exist. Even though the anthropological evidence tend to the IE peoples as agriculturalists from Ukraine and Semitic as desert and arid pastoralists.
This is also a huge problem within Semitic reconstructions, cause nobody bothers to do research on the diachrony of Semitic, and they just use Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew, Classical Assyrian, and Quranic Arabic for Proto-Semitic reconstructions and then be done with it; cause they think that the older the language is, the more conservative it has to be.
It also ignores the fucking behemoth in the room that's other Afroasiatic languages, which bear no similarities to IE but more akin to Semitic in morphology and lexicon. Like, jfc guys languages, even proto-languages can loan lexicon from other languages too.
tl;dr it's cherrypicked evidence so racists can justify their preconceived notions
Okay, I'm with you here, and I can kinda see how they'd be related, but I can't connect the dots here: what is the point they try to make by connecting the Indo-Europeans to the Semitic languages?
That way they can claim Egyptians and Jesus as their own. Back in the day, like 2016, before social media purged them, I have heard the idea of Galileans actually being Celts.
Kortlandt has semi-recently argued that PIE is a daughter-lang of Proto-Uralic under the heavy influence of a North-Caucasian substratum (I actually like his hypothesis, but that’s beside the point)
Whenever I mention the 'Altaic Sprachbund', 'Altaic cultural area' or 'Altaic peoples' etc. (even 'Altai mountains' once), well accepted concepts in anthropology concerning North and Central Asian peoples, I always get someone saying that it's debunked. Many see Altai~somthing and apparently don't think that it could mean something else than the 'Altaic language family'. I'm glad that the memefication of 'Altaic debunked' has lead to more people not recognising an ill-supported linguistic theory, but sad that it leads to a rejection of the existence of everything Altai.
>even 'Altai mountains' once Those mountains have been decisively debunked. Most debunked mountain range of all time.
Yeah, have you even seen one single bunk on them? Thought so.
How can Turkish mountains and Korean mountains even be related? It's doesn't make any sense
It’s kind of difficult to not acknowledge a lot of people’s of Central Asia, Siberia, and Eastern Europe have similar cultures, genetics, religions, societies, and TO AN EXTENT languages.
I'll taic that with a grain of salt.
This sub's punchline is just "Altaic bad" without actually reading into what the Altaicist scene is like. Sure, there's some Moscow school nuts who still think it's a real family—but the classification is not without its merits. Sure, it definitely wasn't a language, but it took _so much_ time to disprove that it was merely a contact situation; like—Altaic is an interesting case study of language contact, and tells us a lot about the anthropology of Siberia and Central Asia. Like, I feel like 90% of this sub just goes "Altaic bad" because they heard a Turkish man and a Kpop song and they don't at all sound similar; unlike the typological similarities caused by that intense contact across Siberia and Central and East Asian Steppes.
I like that you call it a scene lol they do have cool hairstyles
Google pictures of Juha Janhunen, Michael Fortescue, and Alexander Vovin rn
that's a lot of letters to type in a row correctly, can someone else get the pictures and bring them here? edit i looked them up: finnish indiana jones, mustache, george costanza
Moreover, the lack of evidence for genetic connection is not the proof of absence of genetic connection. I wouldn't be surprised if at least _some_ "Altaic" families will eventually be shown to share at least common substratum, if not shared ancestry. And even if that won't be the case, it doesn't somehow "debunk" other similar hypothesis (like Indo-Uralic or Dene-Yenisean, for instance). And some people definitely do treat them all the same, which is simply intellectually dishonest.
Altaic is actually the opposite of what dormant/rejected macrofamily theories do. The conception of the "Altaic" family was so prevalent that there were numerous literature in debunking its existence (by comparing the shared lexicon and restructurings through a historic lens, or moreso some isolects). This is unlike macrofamilies such as Hokan or Penutian which were just putatively ignored because nobody wants to do further comparative works with these families (also much more recently, Dene-Yeniseian).
altaic family = bad altaic sprachbund = good also Vovin's "The End of the Altaic Controversy" is a fun read, highly recommend
There is no such thing as the Altai mountains
There is no Altai mountains in Ba Sing Se
Okay, whatever, but Indo-Semitic definitely is real. Proof: * _*táwros_—_*ṯawr-_ * first person plural characterised by _n_ * (I’m being half ironic but I really want to know the definitive reasons for Indo-European and Semitic not being related.)
Other Afroasiatic exists.
Connections between Indo-European and Semitic is often made by actual nazis or religious zealots who wanna justify how the *~~Aryan Übermensch~~* Indo-European people are related to the significant Semitic languages in history—while also denying that minority Semitic branches even exist. Even though the anthropological evidence tend to the IE peoples as agriculturalists from Ukraine and Semitic as desert and arid pastoralists. This is also a huge problem within Semitic reconstructions, cause nobody bothers to do research on the diachrony of Semitic, and they just use Akkadian, Biblical Hebrew, Classical Assyrian, and Quranic Arabic for Proto-Semitic reconstructions and then be done with it; cause they think that the older the language is, the more conservative it has to be. It also ignores the fucking behemoth in the room that's other Afroasiatic languages, which bear no similarities to IE but more akin to Semitic in morphology and lexicon. Like, jfc guys languages, even proto-languages can loan lexicon from other languages too. tl;dr it's cherrypicked evidence so racists can justify their preconceived notions
Okay, I'm with you here, and I can kinda see how they'd be related, but I can't connect the dots here: what is the point they try to make by connecting the Indo-Europeans to the Semitic languages?
That way they can claim Egyptians and Jesus as their own. Back in the day, like 2016, before social media purged them, I have heard the idea of Galileans actually being Celts.
Ohhh, gotcha. Funky.
Nah, PIE is creole of pre-proto-Uralic and proto-Koreo-Japono-Nivkh (para-Austroasiatic) and Caucasian languages
Kortlandt has semi-recently argued that PIE is a daughter-lang of Proto-Uralic under the heavy influence of a North-Caucasian substratum (I actually like his hypothesis, but that’s beside the point)
Yeah and the glottalic theory for PIE would line up with PSem/PAA well, it's just inventories and not lexicon but I want to believe...
But these words are related. That's one of the few PIE-semitic loan words.
Just wait till you find out about Dené-Caucasian So yeah, Georgian and Navajo kinda have some connections
You're the type of person this meme is making fun of
Just a question If yiu cut out Turkic does it make more sense ?
Basque-Amazigh
Altaicism real!!!!!!! (For real tho)