Turanian languages

Turanian is an obsolete language-family proposal subsuming most of the languages of Eurasia not included in Indo-European, Semitic and Chinese. During the 19th century, inspired by the establishment of the Indo-European family, scholars looked for similarly widespread families elsewhere.[1] Building on the work of predecessors such as Rasmus Rask and Matthias Castrén, Max Müller proposed the Turanian grouping primarily on the basis of the incidence of agglutinative morphology, naming it after Turan, an ancient Iranian term for the Turkish lands of central Asia.[2][3] The languages he included are now generally assigned to nine separate language families.

Turanian
(obsolete)
Geographic
distribution		Eurasia
Linguistic classificationProposed language family
Subdivisions
  • Northern (Ural-Altaic)
  • Southern
GlottologNone

Classification

Müller viewed the structure of the family as follows:[4][5]

He left Japanese, Korean, Koryak, Itelmen and various languages of the Caucasus unclassified, but suggested that they might have a common origin with Turanian.[6]

Linguists no longer consider typological features a sufficient criterion for the identification of language families.[7] Müller's northern division, Ural-Altaic, was widely accepted for some time, but largely abandoned early in the 20th century.[8] The combination of the Samoyedic and Finnic (Finno-Ugric) classes form the modern Uralic family. The Altaic theory linking Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic is also rejected by most scholars.[9] Each of the five classes of his southern division are now considered to belong to separate language families, Tai–Kadai, Austronesian, Sino-Tibetan, Austroasiatic and Dravidian respectively.

gollark: GPUs do this, kind of. GPUs are fast. Therefore, do this.
gollark: Obvious objections:- "what do you even mean, gollark, that sounds like just ILP but stupider" - maybe, yes, the main difference being execution of separate bits of the program at once- "why did you just invent SIMD but worse, ish" - oops- "but cache contention" - too bad, consume bees
gollark: Well, the obvious* solution to program counter counterness is to just add more program counters, by which I mean hardware-accelerated greenerer threads with no context-switching overhead for more effectively utilizing execution units.
gollark: Advantages of expanding out powers:- leaves less RAM unused. Unused RAM is wasted RAM!- differentiation can be defined more lazily- palaiologos suffers- fewer rulesDisadvantages:- none
gollark: Of course. I was just being very lazy.

References
  1. Bhattacharya 1972, p. 242.
  2. Müller (1861), pp. 288–289.
  3. Campbell & Poser (2008), p. 237.
  4. Müller (1854), p. 220.
  5. Müller (1861), pp. 397–398.
  6. Müller (1861), p. 324.
  7. Campbell & Poser (2008), p. 242.
  8. Campbell & Poser (2008), p. 241.
  9. Campbell & Poser (2008), p. 238.

Works cited
  • Bhattacharya, Sudhibushan (1972), "Dravidian and Munda: a good field for areal and typological studies", in Agesthialingom, S.; Shanmugam, S.V. (eds.), Third Seminar on Dravidian Linguistics, Annamalainagar: Annamalai University, pp. 241–256.
  • Campbell, Lyle; Poser, William J. (2008), Language Classification: History and Method, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88005-3.
  • Müller, Friedrich Max (1854), The classification of the Turanian languages.
  • ——— (1861), Lectures on The Science of Language.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.