THE URALIC LANGUAGE FAMILY: FACTS, MYTHS AND STATISTICby Angela Marcantonio
2.5 THE URAL-ALTAIC THEORY The question of whether the U family is genetically related to the similar Altaic family has
not died completely, despite the fact that the U paradigm has become the dominant one. In fact,
after a period of confusion subsequent to the establishment of the U node, as described in the
previous sections, the idea that all these languages are related after all, has come up again.
However, the overall conception of the relationship has slightly changed as shown in Table
(2.1) above. According to the Ural-Altaic theory, the language groups in question are now
related through two separate, well defined, independent nodes, the U node and the Altaic node.
In other words, these are not any longer ‘equal-level’ language groups, even if there does not
appear to be any work which specifically argues for this state of affairs.
The supporters of the Ural-Altaic theory, in the current sense of the term, are still a good
number, even if some are more cautious than others. For instance, Ramstedt (whose model was
Castrén), deals with this question particularly in his paper Olemmeko mongoleja ? “Are we
Mongols” (1909:180-185; see also 1946-1947: 17-18). Joki touches upon this topic, among
other occasions, in a lecture given at the “Istituto Orientale”, University of Naples, on the
history of the cultural words of the U languages (1980 49). Aalto (1969 / 1987) lists various
grammatical and lexical shared elements. Räsänen, through an extensive research, supports the
Ural-Altaic genetic relationship, proposing a long list of similarities as well as correspondences
in the field of (core)Lexicon and Morphology (1947 a, 1953, 1955, 1957, 1963/1964,
1963/1965). Sinor, in a number of publications (1969, 1975, 1988, 1990), has proposed a rich
list of shared features between the U and Altaic families, even if he has never really argued
explicitly in favour of their genetic relationship. Poppe (1977: 225, 1983) points out the
weaknesses of the Ural-Altaic theory, whose etymologies should be revisited according to strict
phonetic and semantic laws, but also points out the existence of a certain number of “good”
sound correspondences between the U and Altaic languages (as illustrated below in Chapter 6).
The same situation of complex, intermingled relations among the various branches
conventionally classified as U and Altaic emerges from the research by Róna-Tas (see for
example 1983; 1988a:742-752). According to the author, the sound etymologies which span the
borders of the U and Altaic nodes are not to be considered as proof of a genetic relationship, but
rather as the result of (more or less) intense contacts.
Menges (1968/1995), on the other hand,
lists many lexical and grammatical similarities between the U and Altaic languages, and
considers them as genetically related. Collinder has summarised his viewpoint on the topic,
which has been the focus of many of his publications (1947, 1952, 1965 b, 1970), in the paper
Pro hypothesi Uralo-Altaica (1977 b:73). Here Collinder states that “Angesichts des
Tatbestandes gibt es m. E. nur zwei theoretische Wahlmöglichkeiten: Urverwandtschaft oder
non liquet”. Fokos-Fuchs, through an extensive literature (see for example 1933, 1937, 1960,
1961, 1962) deals mainly with the morpho-syntactic and typological features shared by U and
Altaic, some of which certainly of relevance for assessing genetic relationship .(see Chapter
.
Compare also for example Klose (1987), Malherbe ((ed.)1995) and publication Series such as
‘Ural-Altaic Series’ (Bloomington) and ‘Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-altaica’ ,
Germany.
Тема: Прародина уральцев (Прочитано 161975 раз)