Altaic
Let an agent explain the Altaic hypothesis, relay its history, arguments for and against and current scholarly consensus from historical linguistics sources with positions attributed, describe the named languages and uncertain affiliations, and distinguish Altaic from established families such as Turkic and Mongolic, the Uralic family, areal typology and Nostratic.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
written by Claude from model knowledge without web access - no source was read, every claim is a lead to verify
Researched by: Claude
Purpose and description
Let an agent explain the Altaic hypothesis, relay its history, arguments for and against and current scholarly consensus from historical linguistics sources with positions attributed, describe the named languages and uncertain affiliations, and distinguish Altaic from established families such as Turkic and Mongolic, the Uralic family, areal typology and Nostratic.
A proposed language family grouping the Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages, sometimes extended to Koreanic and Japonic, historically popular but rejected by most historical linguists as a genetic family, with similarities often attributed to prolonged contact and areal convergence, while some researchers continue to argue for a Transeurasian family; the registry aliases include branches and languages associated with the proposal, such as Koreanic, Manchu-Tungus, the extinct Para-Mongolic Khitan language, the poorly attested Jie language, the historical term Turki for eastern Turkic literary languages and the language of the Pannonian Avars, whose affiliation is unknown.
What it is for: Not applicable; a linguistic hypothesis.
It can be explain the hypothesis; relay arguments with attribution; describe named languages; distinguish established families.
Distinguishing features
Contested hypothesis
Shared typology
Areal contact explanations
Includes poorly attested languages
What it looks like
Not a visible object; a classification proposal.
Physical character
proposal origins: 18th-19th century note
Transeurasian study: 2021 year - Robbeets and colleagues, Nature, debated
scholarly status: rejected by most specialists as a genetic family note
How it is recognised
Proposed Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic family
Koreanic, Manchu-Tungus, Khitan, Jie, Turki, Pannonian Avar
Turkic and Mongolic are established families; Uralic is separate; areal typology explains shared features; Nostratic is a broader hypothesis
Related models
is a kind of - proposed
includes - in the proposal
is contrasted with -
is related to - broader hypothesis
In practice
Families and kinds
core Altaic proposal of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic
macro-Altaic including Koreanic and Japonic
Transeurasian hypothesis
poorly attested historical languages
Standards and regulation
No regulation; classification databases such as Glottolog treat Altaic as not established
Failure modes and hazards
Presenting Altaic as an established family
Dismissing ongoing debate without attribution
Overstating knowledge of poorly attested languages
Also called
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 4 bundles · 8 layers · 8 findings · 16 questions.
Understand What Altaic is.
Attribution.
Definition
Definition.
Definition
Definition.
- What is the Altaic hypothesis, and how does it differ from established families, Uralic, areal typology and Nostratic? definition
- Is the question about classification, a specific language or history of linguistics? boundary
Languages
Named languages.
Languages
Languages.
- What are Koreanic, Manchu-Tungus, Khitan, Jie, Turki and Pannonian Avar, and what is known about their affiliations? definition
- Which entry fits the specific language? action
Debate The debate.
Attribution.
For
Arguments for.
For
For.
- What evidence do proponents of Altaic or Transeurasian cite? provenance
- Which references are standard? provenance
Against
Arguments against.
Against
Against.
- Why do most specialists attribute similarities to contact, with critics attributed? provenance
- Is the presentation neutral and attributed? boundary
Methods Methods.
Sources.
Comparative method
Comparative method.
Comparative method
Comparative method.
- What standards of sound correspondences are used to establish families? provenance
- Which sources are cited? provenance
Areal
Areal convergence.
Areal
Areal.
- How can contact produce shared features such as vowel harmony and agglutination? provenance
- Which entry fits sprachbund? action
Context History and extinct languages.
Context.
History
History of the idea.
History
History.
- How did Ramstedt and Poppe develop the Altaic idea? provenance
- Which entry fits Gustaf John Ramstedt? action
Extinct
Poorly attested languages.
Extinct
Extinct.
- What do inscriptions reveal about Khitan and why is Avar unknown? provenance
- Which entry fits Khitan script? action
What the second pass must settle
- Should the named historical languages be moved to their own entries?
- How should Glottolog and scholarly debates be linked?
- How should the Transeurasian hypothesis be recorded?