#altaic languages

Japanese and Korean are two language so mysterious it is not possible to establish their origin. Also, we should consider that, in the case of Japan, a writing system arrived on the archipelago only in the VI and VII centuries, despite the Jomon culture having spread over the course of millennia.

Some linguists suggest that they’re related, maybe with a proto-Japanese separating from proto-Korean. Keep in mind, however, that those languages share similarities because they’re both part of the “Sinic world”, which means that some of those words actually derive from Chinese and adapted to the Japanese and Korean pronunciations.

There’s also another theory, which is now disctedited, about how those two languages are the easternmost extension of the Altaic languages, which are spread across Asia. No, seriously: if you pick a map of Asia up, you will notice how the five groups of this family separate the continent in two halves.

This theory is divided in two: some supporters indicate that a proto-altaic might have existed and it is the common ancestor of the five languages. Others, however, suggest their similarities derive from being geographically close, so their ancestors may have ended up inflencing eachother. This concept is expressed with a German word, sprachbund (linguistic league).

What are those five families?

Turkic languages

As the name may suggest, Turkic people are closely linked to the history and culture of Turkey. They can be found in central Asia (inhabitating the various “-stan” countries except for Afghanistan and Pakistan), in Azerbaijan, in eastern Siberia and western China.

Mongolic languages

I remember when, in middle school, we studied the Otoman Empire and the textbook mentioned some cultural similarities with the Mongols. This is why it does not surprise me that there actually are similarities that ended up including Mongolian and Turkish into one family.

Tungusic languages

The last imperial dynasty of China, the Qing, came from Manchuria, whose language is tungisuc. The only other language of this family with a literary attestation is the Jurchen one from the XII century, and therefore it is difficult to draw the ancient history of this family.

Koreanic languages

Similarities between Japanese and Korean grammar imply multiple theories about those languages being related, usually with a “father and son” approach between proto-Korean and proto-Japonic.

Japonic languages

If you notice, there’s no trace of the Ainu language, spoken by the eponimous people in the Hokkaido island. This is because they speak an even more isolated and mysterious language. There are some who try to include it in the Altaic theory, but it is another issue.

The geographic proximity theory seems to be more favorable than the language family one.

¿El "Dado Rosetta" de la Lengua Íbera? DESCIFRANDO EL ÍBERO

Un botón íbero de bronce en forma de mano como posible evidencia epigráfica de un término proto-vasco o talismán íbero-altaico

Por Georgeos Díaz-Montexano, SAIS, 2015

Hipótesis interpretativa sobre un botón de bronce en forma de mano con letras ibéricas levantinas actualmente expuesto en la Exposición Arqueológica Permanente de Abengibre. Leer el artículo en PDF en Academia.edu: http://www.acad…

Hmm, Anon… typology and diachronic linguistics are two of the linguistics I know least about. So, take this with a grain of salt.

What I do know is that there is no way to be 100% certain about the history of any language, at least until time travel is available. The further back in history you go, the harder it is to find clear evidence one way or another. This is made more difficult when languages may have had contact through trade, conquest, or cultural transmission.

So, are there respected modern linguists who take the Altaic language theory seriously? Possibly. I don't know for certain. I know the theory is tenuous and based on lexical similarity, but since it follows some trade/conquest routes, it's not ridiculous. I also know that modern scholars doubt that Turkish and Korean and Japanese are related in any meaningful way.

On the other hand, if we assume the genesis of language happened only once (or even that current languages have a common ancestor), then all languages are related at some point in their histories. Does this support the Altaic language hypothesis? Not really.

I wish I could say more. Historical typology is not something I can speak about at any great length.