Are Korean and Japanese Altaic Languages?

Jhangora said:

Human migration is a very fascinating topic. We like to make sense of the world around us and grouping languages in to language families is a way to do that.

Some relationships are relatively easy to prove and are generally accepted. Others not so. I am no scholar but like to read about linguistics.

There are some experts who believe that Korean and Japanese are a part of the Altaic language family - it also includes Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages. Others believe the similarities are a result of contact between the speakers of these languages and they do not share a common origin.

So what's your view on Korean and Japanese being Altaic languages?

For those of us who have no knowledge about the subject - Wikipedia can be a good starting point ---> Altaic languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

The Altaic theory is based on the Cognates existing among the above mentioned languages but it is very controversial. But the Indo- European language relationship is also based on the supposed cognates

Coming back to the Altaic theory, the theory is not able to establish solid proof regarding the grouping of Korean , Japonic languages and Ainu in single branch of the Altaic family language. The linguists are not able to relate the Korean with the Manchu and Mongolian languages inspite of their centuries of close proximity.

Some Chinese documents say that the languages of the Barbarians of Manchuria is different from the three languages spoken in the three Kingdoms of Korea.

Chinese records suggest that the languages of Goguryeo, Buyeo, Eastern Okjeo, and Gojoseon were similar, while the language of Malgal (Mohe) in Manchuria differed significantly.[1][2][3]

Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goguryeo_language]Goguryeo language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


We do not have any other contemporary historical records to cross check the authenticity of the data provided in the Chinese Historical records.

Coming to the Japanese language , you might hear terms such as austronesian substratum & superstratum , altaic superstratum & substratum. The linguists scholars and Historian are quite confused about the complexity of the Japanese language. They propose that it might a creole language formed out of fusion between the language of the Jomon people and Yayoi people.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_dialects]Japanese dialects - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_kotoba]Yamato kotoba - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The Korean and Japanese vocabulary may be quite similar because of the simultaneous borrowing of Chinese words

the word "Three"
Korean Sam
Japanese San

These two words are derived from the Chinese word and the sounds are changed so that thy fit into their languages.

Hence the middle Korean and old Japanese may bear vast similarity but it is misleading because the Japanese came to know about the Chinese language and writing system through the Korean.

There are virtually there are no records from the Yamato period , that is the period when the Chinese elements are in their nascent stage in the ancient Japanese society. The archeologist were able to find few swords with inscribed Chinese Characters from the Yamato period but those Characters suggest the name of the owner of that particular sword.

The Historians are still debating when Kanji was introduced into the ancient Japanese society and the invention of the Kana writing system, because No Records


The Orient Business is such a mess ,frustrating tiresome if one doent know Chinese well ( sources are written in that language)

The old Korean language is not much attested ( only few books written ), The reason is , the historians are not able to find the more about the languages spoken in the Koguryo, Baekje Kingdom which leads to unbelievable speculations.

Blame it on Silla
Where as old Japanese is quite well attested and you can find text corpus in Old Japanese during the 7th and 8th centuries.

If one wants to know more about the Oriental language they have to become Archeologist first and start looking for lost Records and keep on digging the vast stretches of dry Gobi deserts , frozen Siberia and the Forests of Manchuria

Most linguists put Korean as part of the Altaic language family, and some also include Japanese or classify Japanese as a language isolate (mostly with a Koreanic superstratum and Austronesian substratum).

The numerals in Altaic Languages

The Consonant System of Proto-Altaic.

t῾ t d n s z r l č῾ č ǯ ń š j ŕ ĺ k῾ k g ŋ

Click to expand...

Vowels

(*i,*e, *u, *o, *a) and three diphthongs (*iu, *io, *ia),

Click to expand...

note: 'i' in the dipthongs are with an ogonek-like diacritic.

Note that the numerals are treated as lexemes.

1.

PA: biuri [ PT: bir | PJ: pitə | ] biuri is the original numeral for 'one' in PA. Note that, PA 'r' corresponds to PJ as 't'. And also, as I can't type it in here, a rather i letter with an ogonek-like diacritic correspons to PT ə.

Other innovations:

PM: nige [derives from PA: nione which means 'single'; also derivations in PT: jaŋɨŕ 'single | PJ: nəmi 'only' | PTM: non 'be the first'.]

PTM: emu or ume [derives from PA: emo which means front; also derivations in PT: öm-gen 'upper part of ......' | PM: emü 'front']

PK: hằnàh [derives from PA: sióna which means 'single' or 'one of a pair'; also derivations in PT: sɨŋar 'one of a pair' | PM: son-du: odd | Manchu: soni 'single, odd'| PJ: sa 'reciprocally'.]


2.

PA: tiubu. Bulgar: tvi-rem 'second'| PM: ǯui-rin (fem) | PTM: ǯube | PK: tū, tū-rh ( = tubu, tubu-rh).

Innovations:

PT: ẹk(k)i [derives from PA: p῾iòk῾e which means pair, couple.(PM: hekire:twins).

PM: gojar (changed to qojar in North Mongolian) [derives from PA: gojV* which means 'other'; also in PJ: kia]

PJ: puta. [derives from puč῾u which means 'pair, half'; also in PT: buč-uk, PK
pča-k 'half'.]

3.

PA: ŋiu. PM: gu-rban or gu-čin (thirty) | PT: o-tuŕ (thirty - also ü or üč in Turkic (three) may have the same root) | PJ: mi.

Innovations:

PTM: i-lan which derives from PA ìlù meaning 'third' or' consisting of three objects'. Also in PT ölöŋ (song with three out of four verses rhyming) | PJ: uru-pu which means bissextile year or month.

PK: sei(h) which derives from PA sejra meaning an object consisting of three parts; also in PM: sere-ɣe 'trident' and PJ: sara-pu 'pitchfork'.

After the numeral 3, PTM and PJ demonstrate a stable isogloss.

Click to expand...

4.

PA: tōjV*. PTM: dü-gin | PJ: də. One of the most stable numerals as shown in PT: dö-rt | PM: dö-rben and dö-cin (40) | MKor nəi is unknown.

5.

PA: t῾u. PM: tu-nga | PJ: i-tu. PM: ta-bun (five) and ta-bin (50) | PK: ta.

PT bẹĺ(k) is an aberration: It is attested in Early Old Turkic.

6.

PA: ńu. PTM: ńu-ŋu | PJ: mu | Mong: ǯi-rgu and ǯi-ran (60) | MKor: jə (loss of initial 'n' is unclear).

PT altı is an aberration. It is attested in Early Old Turkic.

7.

PA: nadi. PTM: nada-n | PJ: nana | PT: jẹt(t)i | PK:nìr-(kúp). | Mong: dolu-ğan and dala-n (70) - metathesis from a probable root ladi.

8.

PA: ǯa. PTM: ǯa-pkun. | PJ:da. | PK: je -t-[dialectical development ǯ- > j ] |

PM: naji-man (unclear)

PT: sekir (unclear).Attested in Early Old Turkic.

9.

PA:k῾egVnV*. PTM: xegün | PJ: kəkənə

Innovations:

PT: tokur

PM: je-sün and ji-ren (90)

PK: a-hop.

10.

PA: čiobe or tiobe. PTM: ǯuba-n. | PJ: təwə. |

Innovations (in other languages, the numeral 10 is associated with 'many' or 'big number'.)

PK: jer(h) - 10 and PT:jǖŕ -100. | Manchu: ǯiri, ǯirun (a very big number) | PJ: dere (10000) | PA: pVbV* = PT: o-n (10) and PM: ha-rban (10) or ha-na (all) | PJ: pə (pua) - 'hundred'. |

20.

PA: k῾iura. PTM: xori-n | PM: kori-n.

This is the only numeral after ‘3’
which does not reveal a direct TM-Jpn. correspondence. Therefore it is
suspected that the PJ word for ‘20’, viz. pata-ti, may have originally
sounded like kata-ti (which is the regular reflex of k῾iura), but was influenced by ‘2’ (puta-tu) and consequently changed to pata-ti.

Click to expand...

PT: Kırk (forty - presumably derived from kır+kır - 20+20 = 40) but left its place to (j)egir-mi which derives from ek(k)i (2).

100.

PA: ńằmò. PTM: nama | PJ: muamua | PM: ǯaɣu-n < ńam-ŋu |

PT: jom 'big number, all'. PK: On, of unclear origin (cf: Turkic: on (10))

1000.

PA: čiùmi. PTM has no word for thousand. PT: bıŋ and PM: miŋgan show a later Mongolism.

PJ: ti 'thousand' and PK: čımın (1000) shows a parallel with PT: tümen (10000).

PA miŋa is a local Turko-Mongol isogloss and possible not of Altaic origin.


The genetic unity of Altaic languages are different than the most accepted one, IE, for two main reasons:

1. PA is older than PIE. The split of the PIE is dated to 4th M BC (P-I-Hittite) whereas the split of the PA occurred around 6th millenium BC into Turko-Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu and Korean-Japanese. Turko-Mongol and Korean-Japanese split around 4th millenium BC while Tungus-Manchu occupied a central dialectical position


2. Subbranches of Altaic are quite young. For example, Indo-Iranian may be dated to 2nd or 3rd BC while Turkic = beginning of our era; Mongolian = around 10th C AD, Tungus-Manchu = 4th C BC, Japanese 5th C AD and Korean 11th C Ad. Unfortunately, the written material for Altaic languages are too quite young compared to the IE so it is very hard to reconstruct it like the IE.

The position of Tungus-Manchu is unique as it forms a Western isogloss with Turko-Mongol and an Eastern isogloss with Korean-Japanese (Just like Greek in the IE). There are, afaik, 1841 common roots in the constructed Altaic, of which 1553 are reflected in TM and not only Korean and/or Japanese or Turkic and/or Mongolian.


***
V* = vowel


* To understand the phonological changes in the words or lexemes, one must know the PA correspondences in the descendant languages well.

Mandschure said:

Most linguists put Korean as part of the Altaic language family, and some also include Japanese or classify Japanese as a language isolate (mostly with a Koreanic superstratum and Austronesian substratum).

Click to expand...

No, Korean language is a language Isolate and Japonic is a family isolate.

1991sudarshan said:

No, Korean language is a language Isolate and Japonic is a family isolate.

Click to expand...

Please do your research.

Supporters of Korean language as part of the Altaic language family:

• Pentti Aalto
• G.J. Ramstedt and E.D. Polivanov
• Roy Andrew Miller
• Starostin
• Unger

It's obvious that the Korean language was once a part of the macro-Altaic language family. However they split pretty early then Korean developed to its own language. But the basis of the Korean language is Altaic.

Japanese has a Koreanic superstratum (Kaya language; aka ancient southern Korean language) and an Austronesian substratum.

Mandschure said:

Please do your research.

Supporters of Korean language as part of the Altaic language family:

• Pentti Aalto
• G.J. Ramstedt and E.D. Polivanov
• Roy Andrew Miller
• Starostin
• Unger

It's obvious that the Korean language was once a part of the macro-Altaic language family. However they split pretty early then Korean developed to its own language. But the basis of the Korean language is Altaic.

Japanese has a Koreanic superstratum (Kaya language; aka ancient southern Korean language) and an Austronesian substratum.

Click to expand...

The Altaic connection is disputed, so I can not come to any conclusion regarding that.

1991sudarshan said:

The Altaic connection is disputed, so I can not come to any conclusion regarding that.

Click to expand...

That scholars can reconstruct the Proto-Altaic with its other subbranch proto languages is an evidence and a common ground to make further research. 1841 common 'etyma' cannot be a coincidence or just borrowings.

1991sudarshan said:

Coming to the Japanese language , you might hear terms such as austronesian substratum & superstratum , altaic superstratum & substratum. The linguists scholars and Historian are quite confused about the complexity of the Japanese language. They propose that it might a creole language formed out of fusion between the language of the Jomon people and Yayoi people.

Click to expand...

IMO, the 'creole language' theory for Japanese language - involving not only Jomon and Yayoi, but also other foreign influences from much further afield - might in fact make more sense than it sounds.

Japanese indicates influences from as wide ranging as Mongolian, Korean, Chinese, Malayo-Polynesian, even Sanskrit. Going by that, neither would I discount a pan-Altaic connection between Japanese and Korean, Mongolian, Tunguso-Manchurian and Turkic languages. Nothing is impossible.

The 'naga' in many Japanese compound words and place names - such as Nagasaki, Toranaga, Tatsunaga etc. - is indeed from the Sanskrit 'naga', which meant 'snake' or 'serpent'. This probably having been due to linguistic and cultural exchanges arising from contact with Sanskrit or Pali speaking Buddhist misionaries and scholars - not only from India but also Southeast Asia - during the early period of Buddhism propagation in Japan.

The Japanese 'anata' - meaning 'you' - is also, for some amazing reason, intriguingly close to the Arabic 'anta' (also meaning 'you') and the Malayo-Indonesian 'anda' (also meaning 'you').

Dreamhunter said:

The 'naga' in many Japanese compound words and place names - such as Nagasaki, Toranaga, Tatsunaga etc. - is indeed from the Sanskrit 'naga', which meant 'snake' or 'serpent'. This probably having been due to linguistic and cultural exchanges arising from contact with Sanskrit or Pali speaking Buddhist misionaries and scholars - not only from India but also Southeast Asia - during the early period of Buddhism propagation in Japan.

Click to expand...

Naga is not a Sanskrit word and it does not mean 'snake ' or 'serpent' as in Nagasaki etc. Naga, is a Proto-Altaic etymon that means 'long' or 'extend(t)' in the original form as 'ŋṑla'.


In Tungus, that becomes ŋōli | In Mong. nolig | In Turk. ula | In Jpn. nàn-kà | In Kor. nắr.

As the example is Japanese, let's focus on its development.


PJ: nànkà (long) - OJ: naga-- MJ:nàgà --- Tokyo:nagá ----Kyoto: nága-----Kagushima: náge.

* Nagasaki means 'long promontory'.

**There is Nek/Nak in Karakhanid which means 'snake' but I don't know where that comes from.

The Japanese 'anata' - meaning 'you' - is also, for some amazing reason, intriguingly close to the Arabic 'anta' (also meaning 'you') and the Malayo-Indonesian 'anda' (also meaning 'you').

Click to expand...

The PA pronoun for 'singular you' is 'si' and the plural form is 'su'. However, Japanese and Korean show a 'na' and 'ne' stem which ultimately may derive from the personal pronoun suffix for 'you' that is shared in Altaic languages: 'ŋ'.

Afrasiyab said:

Naga is not a Sanskrit word and it does not mean 'snake ' or 'serpent' as in Nagasaki etc. Naga, is a Proto-Altaic etymon that means 'long' or 'extend(t)' in the original form as 'ŋṑla'.


In Tungus, that becomes ŋōli | In Mong. nolig | In Turk. ula | In Jpn. nàn-kà | In Kor. nắr.

As the example is Japanese, let's focus on its development.


PJ: nànkà (long) - OJ: naga-- MJ:nàgà --- Tokyo:nagá ----Kyoto: nága-----Kagushima: náge.

* Nagasaki means 'long promontory'.

**There is Nek/Nak in Karakhanid which means 'snake' but I don't know where that comes from.






The PA pronoun for 'singular you' is 'si' and the plural form is 'su'. However, Japanese and Korean show a 'na' and 'ne' stem which ultimately may derive from the personal pronoun suffix for 'you' that is shared in Altaic languages: 'ŋ'.

Click to expand...

The Japanese language and Turkic language can not be compared directly . We still do not know anything about the proto - Yamato language. If they could prove with solid evidences that the Goguryo and Baeckje Korean language is some what related to the Turkic language then I would happily accept that Japanese language would belong to the Altaic family. You can not infer that Japanese belongs to Altaic if they prove that Korea is related to the Turkic languages . Because the modern Korean evolved from the Silla Korean but the Japanese society was mainly influenced by the refugees from the Kingdoms of Goguryo and Baekje when Silla- Tang forces captured the entire Korean peninsula.


Are they are any evidences to prove the relationship between the Turkic and the Tungusic language or at least between the Mongolic and the Tungusic languages ?

1991sudarshan said:

The Japanese language and Turkic language can not be compared directly . We still do not know anything about the proto - Yamato language. If they could prove with solid evidences that the Goguryo and Baeckje Korean language is some what related to the Turkic language then I would happily accept that Japanese language would belong to the Altaic family. You can not infer that Japanese belongs to Altaic if they prove that Korea is related to the Turkic languages . Because the modern Korean evolved from the Silla Korean but the Japanese society was mainly influenced by the refugees from the Kingdoms of Goguryo and Baekje when Silla- Tang forces captured the entire Korean peninsula.


Are they are any evidences to prove the relationship between the Turkic and the Tungusic language or at least between the Mongolic and the Tungusic languages ?

Click to expand...

Incorrect. The Yayoi period started in 330 BC, long before Goguryeo even existed. Most likely, Japan received most of its Yayoi migrations during the Korean Jin period (proto-Samhan). Gojoseon existed in present-day North Korea and Liaoning, so Japan was unlikely to receive any migrations from the north.



Furthermore, Beckwith's linguistic evidence suggests that the Japanese language is most similar to the Kaya (Samhan language) which existed in the southern-most area of the Korean peninsula.

Beckwith's works suggests that the Goguryeo/Baekje language was related to the Korean language, whereas Gaya language was a Samhan/Japonic language.

As Gaya grew out of one of the Samhan nations, it may be that the Goguryeo-derived elite language of Baekje was related to Korean, while the indigenous Samhan language was related to Gaya, assuming they were not both related to Korean. That is, Gaya (or perhaps pre-Gaya/Kara) might not be one of the Buyeo languages but rather part of Japonic. Beckwith (2007) classifies Japonic with pre-Kara as follows::[1]
Japonic
Yayoi
Japanese
Pre-Kara&#8224;
Ryukyuan
It is not clear if this "pre-Kara" was related to the language of the later Gaya confederacy.

Click to expand...

Genetic evidence suggests that the Japanese are closest to Southwest Koreans from the Jeolla regions (traditional homeland of Samhan population), whereas they are quite distant to midwest Koreans (traditional homeland of Goguryeo population).

Also Japanese have a Malay or Cambodian-like Southeast Asian genetic influence:



Thus Japanese are not even purely descendants of the Samhan population. Japanese people are mixed with Northeast Asians and Australoid Southeast Asians.

1991sudarshan said:

The Japanese language and Turkic language can not be compared directly . We still do not know anything about the proto - Yamato language. If they could prove with solid evidences that the Goguryo and Baeckje Korean language is some what related to the Turkic language then I would happily accept that Japanese language would belong to the Altaic family. You can not infer that Japanese belongs to Altaic if they prove that Korea is related to the Turkic languages . Because the modern Korean evolved from the Silla Korean but the Japanese society was mainly influenced by the refugees from the Kingdoms of Goguryo and Baekje when Silla- Tang forces captured the entire Korean peninsula.


Are they are any evidences to prove the relationship between the Turkic and the Tungusic language or at least between the Mongolic and the Tungusic languages ?

Click to expand...

I am sorry; did you even read my posts in the previous page? I assume you want me to revive people from 4th Millenium BC and have them talk so you can believe in it. I am giving phonological and lexical construction in the numeral systems of the proto-languages or of the word 'naga', and you are telling me the 'influence' by some cultures. We can't compare them directly and that's not what I did actually. You clearly did not read it. The contact zone between Turkic and Japanese, as far as known, did not happen. Tungus-Manchu is employed like Greek in the IE languages. Not every word in Sanskrit has a correspondence in say, Norwegian, you know, and they never had a contact zone either.

Afrasiyab said:

I am sorry; did you even read my posts in the previous page? I assume you want me to revive people from 4th Millenium BC and have them talk so you can believe in it. I am giving phonological and lexical construction in the numeral systems of the proto-languages or of the word 'naga', and you are telling me the 'influence' by some cultures. We can't compare them directly and that's not what I did actually. You clearly did not read it. The contact zone between Turkic and Japanese, as far as known, did not happen. Tungus-Manchu is employed like Greek in the IE languages. Not every word in Sanskrit has a correspondence in say, Norwegian, you know, and they never had a contact zone either.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your post about the phonology of proto turkish language.

I hope that this altaic theory doesnt end up like the aryan invasion. May be the proto- yayoi language might have picked up words from the proto Turkic language when they existed on the mainland . I love to speculate so that a spectrum of idea arise.

I am not an expert on east Asian languages nor Altaic. From what I have read Korean is Altaic, although it is under debate. Japanese is far more complex since there are historically many groups of people involved in the formation of the Japanese language.

Afrasiyab said:

That scholars can reconstruct the Proto-Altaic with its other subbranch proto languages is an evidence and a common ground to make further research. 1841 common 'etyma' cannot be a coincidence or just borrowings.

Click to expand...

Where did you get 1841? AFAIK, An Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages is the latest and best material for Altaic etymological data, and I have not seen a set of this size given.

In my opinion, posting proposed etymological sets on internet forums is rather useless because there are very few linguists around to validate the data. Secondary sources are better when it comes to citations. Given that there are several major linguists out there who reject virtually the entire set of basic vocabulary etymologies given in An Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages, it's best to becareful when giving raw etymologies.

Insofar as I am aware, the argument over lexical matches - ie etymological reconstructions - being cognates vs. borrowings is effectively irreconcilable between those who argue for and those who argue against an Altaic language family. Thus, there are major linguists who believe that the 'common etyma' you speak of are the product of 'coincidence / borrowing' - an example being Vovin.

The Altaic language family is still a controversial language family. There are differences between these so-called Altaic languages. Some borrowing words might be similar, but their basic vocabulary varies significantly. Korean and Japanese may or may not be grouped under the Altaic family, this is still under debate. I tend to perceive both languages as mixed languages.

And by the way, beware of some Pan-Altaic nationalists and supporters. They might distort the information and make silly claims.

In order to prove Japanese relationship to Altaic, there are many steps that linguists and others working in the field must overcome.

(Since this is an online forum and not a academic work I will just say what I think.)

First, Altaic, IMO, is a valid language family. Too many people compare the evidence to IE standards but a few irregular sound correspondence here and there doesn't bother me. If Altaic naturally developed into the various branches, some irregularities are inevitable. Some fail to note that sometimes borrowings can be more regular - look at Japanese and Chinese cognates! Their sound correspondence are more regular than any IE examples, but no one builds a language family based on that because we all know from history what we get those cognates.

Second, I think the Buyeo/Goguryo languages hold the key to some of the questions. Gaya has been mentioned and even Wiki seems to have jumped on Beckwith's bandwagon, but the evidence is pretty flimsy. This is not because Beckwith is a crappy linguist or the methods are questionable, simply there is not enough data about those languages.

I personally think the "northern" factors (such as grammar) in Japanese are simply influences from Goguryo and Paekche refugees as sudarshan suggests and that early Yamato language is not related to any language from the Korean peninsula. But this is just a wild assumption, and when we (or if we) know more about the Goguryo and Puyeo languages, including Gaya, it may become more clear.

Japanese maybe related to Korean in a wide Altaic sense just like Sanskrit and Norwegian, but the lack of cognates in the native vocabulary suggests that it would have parted several millenia ago. If it parted in Yayoi times we would expect to see more obvious correspondence like German and English.

That is why the extinct languages of Goguryo and Paekche are left as final candidates as Japanese's immediate relative(s). I don't think there's any solid proof. Beckwith is fishing in the right pond but I don't think he's quick caught what we want to be cooking yet.