FAQ/Central Eurasian linguistics - Revision history

Firespeaker: /* Altaic */

2013-05-28T04:31:01Z

Altaic

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:31, 28 May 2013
Line 86:		Line 86:
	The first view (''Altaic'') is that Altaic represents a language family consisting of several subfamilies that are different because of divergence. Usually this includes Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, and sometimes also Japanese and Korean. This is not easily supportable, primarily because of the lack of consistent sound changes in cognates, and that fact that lexical and morpho-syntactic cognates aren't pervasive.		The first view (''Altaic'') is that Altaic represents a language family consisting of several subfamilies that are different because of divergence. Usually this includes Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, and sometimes also Japanese and Korean. This is not easily supportable, primarily because of the lack of consistent sound changes in cognates, and that fact that lexical and morpho-syntactic cognates aren't pervasive.

	The second view (''anti-Altaic'') is that Altaic represents an areal grouping of originally unrelated languages that have become more similar due to convergence. This explains the main problems with the divergence view. However, this view generally goes along with the idea that there was / has been a single period of contact among all these groups—in more or less a single geographic area—before they went their own ways. This isn't supportable because there's no evidence for ~~this~~ any single "~Altaic homeland".		The second view (''anti-Altaic'') is that Altaic represents an areal grouping of originally unrelated languages that have become more similar due to convergence. This explains the main problems with the divergence view. However, this view generally goes along with the idea that there was / has been a single period of contact among all these groups—in more or less a single geographic area—before they went their own ways. This isn't supportable because there's no evidence for any single "~Altaic homeland".

	Instead, there seems to be evidence for many different periods of contact between different groups: e.g., a distant period of Indo-European/Turkic contact; a period of heavy Turkic/Mongolic contact (in the form of Turkic speakers being absorbed as Mongolic speakers?) about 2000-2500 years ago; at least one period of Mongolic/Tungusic contact some time later; a period of Turkic/Hungarian contact about 2000 years ago; several periods of contact between the Sogdians, the Tokharians, and Turkic groups, resulting in most Sogdian and Tokharian populations eventually shifting to Turkic; a period of Mongolic/Turkic contact within the last 1000 years, most heavily affecting South Siberian Turkic languages, where the contact continues to this day in some groups, but also heavily affecting Kypchak languages (some Turkic varieties have been completely abandoned due to shifts to Mongolic); a period of Turkic/Persian, particularly in the south, where it continues to affect a certain number of Turkic languages to this day; and even a number of periods of Turkic/Turkic contact.		Instead, there seems to be evidence for many different periods of contact between different groups: e.g., a distant period of Indo-European/Turkic contact; a period of heavy Turkic/Mongolic contact (in the form of Turkic speakers being absorbed as Mongolic speakers?) about 2000-2500 years ago; at least one period of Mongolic/Tungusic contact some time later; a period of Turkic/Hungarian contact about 2000 years ago; several periods of contact between the Sogdians, the Tokharians, and Turkic groups, resulting in most Sogdian and Tokharian populations eventually shifting to Turkic; a period of Mongolic/Turkic contact within the last 1000 years, most heavily affecting South Siberian Turkic languages, where the contact continues to this day in some groups, but also heavily affecting Kypchak languages (some Turkic varieties have been completely abandoned due to shifts to Mongolic); a period of Turkic/Persian, particularly in the south, where it continues to affect a certain number of Turkic languages to this day; and even a number of periods of Turkic/Turkic contact.

Firespeaker at 23:23, 6 December 2012

2012-12-06T23:23:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 6 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	These are questions about Central Eurasian linguistics that ~~aren't often asked~~ (~~despite~~ their inclusion in my [[FAQ]] section)~~, but that I feel I should educate people on anyway~~.		These are questions about Central Eurasian linguistics that come up from time to time (hence their inclusion in my [[FAQ]] section).

	== Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u› ==		== Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u› ==

Firespeaker: /* The transcription of Kazakh ‹и› */

2012-12-06T23:22:14Z

The transcription of Kazakh ‹и›

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:22, 6 December 2012
Line 48:		Line 48:
	** Verb stem "ері-" (ері-ген) → "ери" (ерій /i̯ɘrɘ+y/ = eriy)		** Verb stem "ері-" (ері-ген) → "ери" (ерій /i̯ɘrɘ+y/ = eriy)

	Here it's clear that ‹и› is representing the combination of ‹ы› (= ‹ı›) or ‹і› (= ‹i›) followed by ‹й› (= ‹y›). Because of this, Kazakh ‹и› should be transcribed as ‹iy› or ‹ıy›. The same arguments as for ‹у› also apply; i.e., it rejects the arbitrary conventions of the Cyrillic orthography as used for Kazakh, and avoids confusion with ‹і› (=i), ‹й› (=y) and ‹ы› (=ı).		Here it's clear that ‹и› is representing the combination of ‹ы› (= ‹ı›) or ‹і› (= ‹i›) followed by ‹й› (= ‹y›). Because of this, Kazakh ‹и› should be transcribed as ‹iy› or ‹ıy›. The same arguments as for ‹у› also apply here; i.e., it rejects the arbitrary conventions of the Cyrillic orthography as used for Kazakh, and avoids confusion with ‹і› (=i), ‹й› (=y) and ‹ы› (=ı).

	== Transcription of Kyrgyz palataly stuff ==		== Transcription of Kyrgyz palataly stuff ==

Firespeaker: /* The transcription of Kazakh ‹и› */

2012-12-06T23:21:55Z

The transcription of Kazakh ‹и›

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:21, 6 December 2012
Line 48:		Line 48:
	** Verb stem "ері-" (ері-ген) → "ери" (ерій /i̯ɘrɘ+y/ = eriy)		** Verb stem "ері-" (ері-ген) → "ери" (ерій /i̯ɘrɘ+y/ = eriy)

	Here it's clear that ‹и› is representing the combination of ‹ы› (= ‹ı›) or ‹і› (= ‹i›) followed by ‹й› (= ‹y›). Because of this, Kazakh ‹и› should be transcribed as ‹iy› or ‹ıy›. The same arguments ~~above~~ also apply; i.e., it rejects the arbitrary conventions of the Cyrillic orthography as used for Kazakh, and avoids confusion with ‹і› (=i), ‹й› (=y) and ‹ы› (=ı).		Here it's clear that ‹и› is representing the combination of ‹ы› (= ‹ı›) or ‹і› (= ‹i›) followed by ‹й› (= ‹y›). Because of this, Kazakh ‹и› should be transcribed as ‹iy› or ‹ıy›. The same arguments as for ‹у› also apply; i.e., it rejects the arbitrary conventions of the Cyrillic orthography as used for Kazakh, and avoids confusion with ‹і› (=i), ‹й› (=y) and ‹ы› (=ı).

	== Transcription of Kyrgyz palataly stuff ==		== Transcription of Kyrgyz palataly stuff ==

Firespeaker: /* Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u› */

2012-12-06T23:21:28Z

Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u›

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 Since the sound represented by ‹у› in Kazakh always is or ends with a consonant, ‹u› makes a bad choice of a way to represent the sound, and ‹w› is preferable; however, ‹w› alone should not be used as a simple conversion from Kazakh ‹у›, since there are also the sounds /ɘw/ and /əw/ represented by ‹у›—these should be transliterated as something like ‹iw› and ‹ıw›.  Generally the sound represented by ‹ұ› (/ʊ/) in Kazakh is represented by ‹u› in the Roman orthography, anyway, so using ‹w› for [the last sound in] ‹у› additionally avoids potential ambiguity and confusion.
 A further argument could be made that if the intention is to avoid using the Cyrillic alphabet for Kazakh because it was created by imperial degree as part of the colonisation process, then a straight one-to-one conversion of the Cyrillic letters used for Kazakh should be avoided.  The methods for the suggestions stated above rely on knowledge of the phonology and morphology of Kazakh, and do not require as a prerequisite the Cyrillic orthography.  This way, the somewhat arbitrary conventions of the Cyrillic orthography (at least as used for Kazakh) are not carried over into the orthography used for the Latin alphabet as used for Kazakh.
 == Transcription of Kyrgyz palataly stuff ==

Firespeaker: /* Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u› */

2012-12-06T23:08:18Z

Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u›

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:08, 6 December 2012
Line 15:		Line 15:
	In all cases, the /w/ sound is the ''last part'' of the sound represented by ‹у›. For stems ending in non-high vowels, ‹у› represents just /w/. For stems ending in high vowels (/ə/ ‹ы› and /ɘ/ ‹і›), the ‹у› represents ''the combination'' of those and /w/. The same is true of verbs whose stems end in consonants, except here an epenthetic high vowel is inserted.		In all cases, the /w/ sound is the ''last part'' of the sound represented by ‹у›. For stems ending in non-high vowels, ‹у› represents just /w/. For stems ending in high vowels (/ə/ ‹ы› and /ɘ/ ‹і›), the ‹у› represents ''the combination'' of those and /w/. The same is true of verbs whose stems end in consonants, except here an epenthetic high vowel is inserted.

	Now consider what happens when the "-ны" -/NI/ suffix is added to ~~words~~ ending in ‹у›:		Now consider what happens when the "-ны" -/NI/ suffix is added to noun stems ending in ‹у›:
	* "тау"+"ны" → "тау'''д'''ы" /tɑw+'''N'''I/ → [tɑw'''d'''ə] = taw'''d'''ı		* "тау"+"ны" → "тау'''д'''ы" /tɑw+'''N'''I/ → [tɑw'''d'''ə] = taw'''d'''ı
	* "бу"+"ны" → "бу'''д'''ы" /bəw+'''N'''I/ → [bəw'''d'''ə] = bıw'''d'''ı		* "бу"+"ны" → "бу'''д'''ы" /bəw+'''N'''I/ → [bəw'''d'''ə] = bıw'''d'''ı
	* (and the above exmaples: "қалауды", "сөйлеуді", "оқуды", "еруді")		* (and the above exmaples: "қалауды", "сөйлеуді", "оқуды", "еруді")
	As opposed to ~~words~~ actually ending in vowels:		As opposed to what happens when added to noun stems actually ending in vowels:
	* "алма"+"ны" → "алманы" /ɑlmɑ+'''N'''I/ → [ɑlmɑ'''n'''ə] = alma'''n'''ı		* "алма"+"ны" → "алманы" /ɑlmɑ+'''N'''I/ → [ɑlmɑ'''n'''ə] = alma'''n'''ı
	* "малшы"+"ны" → "малшыны" /mɑlʃə+'''N'''I/ → [mɑlʃə'''n'''ə] = malşı'''n'''ı		* "малшы"+"ны" → "малшыны" /mɑlʃə+'''N'''I/ → [mɑlʃə'''n'''ə] = malşı'''n'''ı

Firespeaker: /* Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u› */

2012-12-06T23:07:33Z

Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u›

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 6 December 2012
Line 2:		Line 2:

	== Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u› ==		== Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u› ==
	The character ‹u› usually represents a vowel in the Latin alphabet. In Kazakh, ‹у› may sound like a vowel, but in fact represents three separate sounds: /əw/, /ɘw/, and /w/. Consider the following forms, where /w/ is added as a suffix, and the letter ‹у› is used to represent various sound combinations:		The character ‹u› usually represents a vowel in the Latin alphabet. In Kazakh, ‹у› may sound like a vowel, but in fact represents three separate sounds / sound combinations: /əw/, /ɘw/, and /w/. Consider the following forms, where /w/ is added as a suffix, and the letter ‹у› is used to represent various sound combinations:
	* Verb stem "қала-" (қала-ған) → "қалау" /~~qala~~+w/		* Verbs with stems ending in non-high vowel:
	* Verb stem "сөйле-" (сөйле-ді-м) → "сөйлеу" /sy̯ʉjli̯ɘ+w/)		** Verb stem "қала-" (қала-ған) → "қалау" (/qɑlɑ+w/ = qalaw)
	* Verb stem "оқы-" (оқы-ды-м) → "оқу" (оқыу /u̯ʊkə+w/)		** Verb stem "сөйле-" (сөйле-ді-м) → "сөйлеу" (/sy̯ʉjli̯ɘ+w/ = söylew)
	* Verb stem "ері-" (ері-ген) → "еру" (еріу /i̯ɘrɘ+w/)		* Verbs with stems ending in a high vowel:
			** Verb stem "оқы-" (оқы-ды-м) → "оқу" (оқыу /u̯ʊkə+w/ = oqıw)
			** Verb stem "ері-" (ері-ген) → "еру" (еріу /i̯ɘrɘ+w/ = eriw)
			* Verbs with stems ending in a consonant:
			** Verb stem "қал-" (қал-ды-м) → "қалу" (/qɑl+w/ → [qɑləw] = qalıw)
			** Verb stem "кел-" (кел-ді-м) → "келу" (/ki̯ɘl+w/ → [ki̯ɘlɘw] = keliw)

	In all cases, the /w/ sound ~~ends~~ the sound represented by ‹у›.		In all cases, the /w/ sound is the ''last part'' of the sound represented by ‹у›. For stems ending in non-high vowels, ‹у› represents just /w/. For stems ending in high vowels (/ə/ ‹ы› and /ɘ/ ‹і›), the ‹у› represents ''the combination'' of those and /w/. The same is true of verbs whose stems end in consonants, except here an epenthetic high vowel is inserted.

	Now consider what happens when the "-ны" -/NI/ suffix is added to words ending in ‹у›:		Now consider what happens when the "-ны" -/NI/ suffix is added to words ending in ‹у›:
	* "тау"+"ны" → "~~тауды~~" /tɑw+NI/ → [~~tɑwdə~~]		* "тау"+"ны" → "тау'''д'''ы" /tɑw+'''N'''I/ → [tɑw'''d'''ə] = taw'''d'''ı
	* "бу"+"ны" → "~~буды~~" /bəw+NI/ → [~~bəwdə~~]		* "бу"+"ны" → "бу'''д'''ы" /bəw+'''N'''I/ → [bəw'''d'''ə] = bıw'''d'''ı
	* (and the above exmaples: "қалауды", "сөйлеуді", "оқуды", "еруді")		* (and the above exmaples: "қалауды", "сөйлеуді", "оқуды", "еруді")
	As opposed to words actually ending in vowels:		As opposed to words actually ending in vowels:
	* "алма"+"ны" → "алманы" /ɑlmɑ+NI/ → [~~ɑlmɑnə~~]		* "алма"+"ны" → "алманы" /ɑlmɑ+'''N'''I/ → [ɑlmɑ'''n'''ə] = alma'''n'''ı
	* "малшы"+"ны" → "малшыны" /mɑlʃə+NI/ → [~~mɑlʃənə~~]		* "малшы"+"ны" → "малшыны" /mɑlʃə+'''N'''I/ → [mɑlʃə'''n'''ə] = malşı'''n'''ı

	In all the cases of ~~words~~ ending in ‹у›, the original ‹n›-initial suffix starts with ‹d›. This happens only after consonants in Kazakh—after vowels it retains the /n/~~; this~~ shows that ‹у› (or the last sound in the various sounds represented by ‹у›) is in fact a consonant and not a vowel.		In all the cases of nouns ending in ‹у›, the original ‹n›-initial suffix starts with ‹d›. This happens only after consonants in Kazakh—after vowels it retains the /n/. This shows that ‹у› (or, more accurately, the last sound in the various sounds represented by ‹у›) is in fact a consonant and not a vowel.

	Since the sound represented by ‹у› in Kazakh always is or ends with a consonant, ‹u› makes a bad choice of a way to represent the sound, and ‹w› is preferable ~~(with ‹iw› and ‹ıw› for~~ /ɘw/ and /əw/ ~~variants)~~. Generally the sound represented by ‹ұ› (/ʊ/) in Kazakh is represented by ‹u› in the Roman orthography, anyway, so using ‹w› for [the last sound in] ‹у› additionally avoids potential ambiguity and confusion.		Since the sound represented by ‹у› in Kazakh always is or ends with a consonant, ‹u› makes a bad choice of a way to represent the sound, and ‹w› is preferable; however, ‹w› alone should not be used as a simple conversion from Kazakh ‹у›, since there are also the sounds /ɘw/ and /əw/ represented by ‹у›—these should be transliterated as something like ‹iw› and ‹ıw›. Generally the sound represented by ‹ұ› (/ʊ/) in Kazakh is represented by ‹u› in the Roman orthography, anyway, so using ‹w› for [the last sound in] ‹у› additionally avoids potential ambiguity and confusion.

			A further argument could be made that if the intention is to avoid using the Cyrillic alphabet for Kazakh because it was created by imperial degree as part of the colonisation process, then a straight one-to-one conversion of the Cyrillic letters used for Kazakh should be avoided. The methods for the suggestions stated above rely on knowledge of the phonology and morphology of Kazakh, and do not require as a prerequisite the Cyrillic orthography. This way, the somewhat arbitrary conventions of the Cyrillic orthography (at least as used for Kazakh) are not carried over into the orthography used for the Latin alphabet as used for Kazakh.

	== Transcription of Kyrgyz palataly stuff ==		== Transcription of Kyrgyz palataly stuff ==

Firespeaker: /* Altaic */

2012-09-05T00:48:21Z

Altaic

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 5 September 2012
Line 56:		Line 56:
	There are two prevailing views of "Altaic".		There are two prevailing views of "Altaic".

	The first view is that Altaic represents a language family consisting of several subfamilies that are different because of divergence. Usually this includes Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, and sometimes also Japanese and Korean. This is not easily supportable because of the lack of consistent sound changes in cognates, and that fact that lexical and morpho-syntactic cognates aren't pervasive.		The first view (''Altaic'') is that Altaic represents a language family consisting of several subfamilies that are different because of divergence. Usually this includes Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, and sometimes also Japanese and Korean. This is not easily supportable, primarily because of the lack of consistent sound changes in cognates, and that fact that lexical and morpho-syntactic cognates aren't pervasive.

	The second view is that Altaic represents an areal grouping of originally unrelated languages that have become more similar due to convergence. This explains the main problems with the divergence view. However, this view generally goes along with the idea that there was / has been a single period of contact among all these groups—in more or less a single geographic area—before they went their own ways. This isn't supportable because there's no evidence for this.		The second view (''anti-Altaic'') is that Altaic represents an areal grouping of originally unrelated languages that have become more similar due to convergence. This explains the main problems with the divergence view. However, this view generally goes along with the idea that there was / has been a single period of contact among all these groups—in more or less a single geographic area—before they went their own ways. This isn't supportable because there's no evidence for this any single "~Altaic homeland".

	Instead, there seems to be evidence for many different periods of contact between different groups: e.g., a distant period of Indo-~~European→Turkic~~ contact; a period of heavy ~~Turkic→Mongolic~~ contact (in the form of Turkic speakers being absorbed as Mongolic speakers) about 2000-2500 years ago; at least one period of ~~Mongolic→Tungusic~~ contact some time later; a period of ~~Turkic→Hungarian~~ contact about 2000 years ago; several periods of contact between the Sogdians, the Tokharians, and Turkic groups, resulting in most Sogdian and Tokharian populations eventually shifting to Turkic; a period of ~~Mongolic→Turkic~~ contact within the last 1000 years, most heavily affecting South Siberian Turkic languages, where the contact continues to this day in some groups, but also heavily affecting Kypchak languages (some Turkic varieties ~~were even~~ completely abandoned due to shifts to Mongolic); a period of ~~contact with~~ Persian, particularly in the south, where it continues to affect a certain number of Turkic languages to this day; and even a number of periods of Turkic-Turkic contact.		Instead, there seems to be evidence for many different periods of contact between different groups: e.g., a distant period of Indo-European/Turkic contact; a period of heavy Turkic/Mongolic contact (in the form of Turkic speakers being absorbed as Mongolic speakers?) about 2000-2500 years ago; at least one period of Mongolic/Tungusic contact some time later; a period of Turkic/Hungarian contact about 2000 years ago; several periods of contact between the Sogdians, the Tokharians, and Turkic groups, resulting in most Sogdian and Tokharian populations eventually shifting to Turkic; a period of Mongolic/Turkic contact within the last 1000 years, most heavily affecting South Siberian Turkic languages, where the contact continues to this day in some groups, but also heavily affecting Kypchak languages (some Turkic varieties have been completely abandoned due to shifts to Mongolic); a period of Turkic/Persian, particularly in the south, where it continues to affect a certain number of Turkic languages to this day; and even a number of periods of Turkic/Turkic contact.

	These many periods of contact between certain groups have resulted in a number of languages with structural, lexical, and morphological similarities. This is more or less the definition of a Sprachbund, though it's hard to define the geographical or linguistic edges of this particular one, whose core is the middle of Central Eurasia. Does it include Hungarian? Definitely. Does it include Tibetan? Probably. Did it once include the ancestors of Japanese and Korean? Probably.		These many periods of contact between certain groups have resulted in a number of languages with structural, lexical, and morphological similarities. This is more or less the definition of a Sprachbund, though it's hard to define the geographical or linguistic edges of this particular one, whose core is the middle of Central Eurasia. Does it include Hungarian? Definitely. Does it include Tibetan? Probably. Did it once include the ancestors of Japanese and Korean? Probably.

	~~However~~, since the shape and languages involved have changed so much over time, it's hard to give it a single name (such as "Altaic") or provide a single list of languages which have been involved in it. A fitting name might be the Central Eurasian Sprachbund/Sprachbünde. This is the third view of Altaic, which is hardly represented in the literature at all, yet is a view increasingly shared by people who think seriously about the problem.		So a single Sprachbund would include almost all of Central Eurasia; however, since the shape and languages involved have changed so much over time, it's hard to give it a single name (such as "Altaic") or provide a single list of languages which have been involved in it (or even features we expect to find everywhere). A fitting name might be the Central Eurasian Sprachbund/Sprachbünde. This is the third view of Altaic, which is hardly represented in the literature at all, yet is a view increasingly shared by people who think seriously about the problem.

Firespeaker: /* Altaic */

2010-12-31T20:25:37Z

Altaic

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 31 December 2010
Line 62:		Line 62:
	Instead, there seems to be evidence for many different periods of contact between different groups: e.g., a distant period of Indo-European→Turkic contact; a period of heavy Turkic→Mongolic contact (in the form of Turkic speakers being absorbed as Mongolic speakers) about 2000-2500 years ago; at least one period of Mongolic→Tungusic contact some time later; a period of Turkic→Hungarian contact about 2000 years ago; several periods of contact between the Sogdians, the Tokharians, and Turkic groups, resulting in most Sogdian and Tokharian populations eventually shifting to Turkic; a period of Mongolic→Turkic contact within the last 1000 years, most heavily affecting South Siberian Turkic languages, where the contact continues to this day in some groups, but also heavily affecting Kypchak languages (some Turkic varieties were even completely abandoned due to shifts to Mongolic); a period of contact with Persian, particularly in the south, where it continues to affect a certain number of Turkic languages to this day; and even a number of periods of Turkic-Turkic contact.		Instead, there seems to be evidence for many different periods of contact between different groups: e.g., a distant period of Indo-European→Turkic contact; a period of heavy Turkic→Mongolic contact (in the form of Turkic speakers being absorbed as Mongolic speakers) about 2000-2500 years ago; at least one period of Mongolic→Tungusic contact some time later; a period of Turkic→Hungarian contact about 2000 years ago; several periods of contact between the Sogdians, the Tokharians, and Turkic groups, resulting in most Sogdian and Tokharian populations eventually shifting to Turkic; a period of Mongolic→Turkic contact within the last 1000 years, most heavily affecting South Siberian Turkic languages, where the contact continues to this day in some groups, but also heavily affecting Kypchak languages (some Turkic varieties were even completely abandoned due to shifts to Mongolic); a period of contact with Persian, particularly in the south, where it continues to affect a certain number of Turkic languages to this day; and even a number of periods of Turkic-Turkic contact.

	These many periods of contact between certain groups ~~has~~ resulted in a number of languages with structural, lexical, and morphological similarities. This is more or less the definition of a Sprachbund, though it's hard to define the geographical or linguistic edges of this particular one, whose core is the middle of Central Eurasia. Does it include Hungarian? Definitely. Does it include Tibetan? Probably. Did it once include the ancestors of Japanese and Korean? Probably.		These many periods of contact between certain groups have resulted in a number of languages with structural, lexical, and morphological similarities. This is more or less the definition of a Sprachbund, though it's hard to define the geographical or linguistic edges of this particular one, whose core is the middle of Central Eurasia. Does it include Hungarian? Definitely. Does it include Tibetan? Probably. Did it once include the ancestors of Japanese and Korean? Probably.

	However, since the shape and languages involved have changed so much over time, it's hard to give it a single name (such as "Altaic") or provide a single list of languages which have been involved in it. A fitting name might be the Central Eurasian Sprachbund/Sprachbünde. This is the third view of Altaic, which is hardly represented in the literature at all, yet is a view increasingly shared by people who think seriously about the problem.		However, since the shape and languages involved have changed so much over time, it's hard to give it a single name (such as "Altaic") or provide a single list of languages which have been involved in it. A fitting name might be the Central Eurasian Sprachbund/Sprachbünde. This is the third view of Altaic, which is hardly represented in the literature at all, yet is a view increasingly shared by people who think seriously about the problem.

Firespeaker: /* Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u› */

2010-11-07T22:14:49Z

Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u›

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 7 November 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	== Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u› ==		== Why Kazakh ‹у› should not be transcribed as ‹u› ==
	The character ‹u› usually represents a vowel in the Latin alphabet. In Kazakh, ‹у› may sound like a vowel, but in fact represents ~~five~~ separate sounds: ~~/ʊw/, /ʉw/,~~ /əw/, /ɨw/, and /w/. Consider the following forms, where /w/ is added as a suffix, and the letter ‹у› is used to represent various sound combinations:		The character ‹u› usually represents a vowel in the Latin alphabet. In Kazakh, ‹у› may sound like a vowel, but in fact represents three separate sounds: /əw/, /ɘw/, and /w/. Consider the following forms, where /w/ is added as a suffix, and the letter ‹у› is used to represent various sound combinations:
	* Verb stem "қала-" (қала-ған) → "қалау" /qala+w/		* Verb stem "қала-" (қала-ған) → "қалау" /qala+w/
	* Verb stem "сөйле-" (сөйле-ді-м) → "сөйлеу" /~~sʷʉjlʲe~~+w/)		* Verb stem "сөйле-" (сөйле-ді-м) → "сөйлеу" /sy̯ʉjli̯ɘ+w/)
	* Verb stem "оқы-" (оқы-ды-м) → "оқу" (оқыу /~~ʷʊkə~~+w/)		* Verb stem "оқы-" (оқы-ды-м) → "оқу" (оқыу /u̯ʊkə+w/)
	* Verb stem "ері-" (ері-ген) → "еру" (еріу /~~ʲɨrɨ~~+w/)		* Verb stem "ері-" (ері-ген) → "еру" (еріу /i̯ɘrɘ+w/)

	In all cases, the /w/ sound ends the sound represented by ‹у›.		In all cases, the /w/ sound ends the sound represented by ‹у›.

	Now consider what happens when the "-ны" suffix is added to words ending in ~~‹-у›~~:		Now consider what happens when the "-ны" -/NI/ suffix is added to words ending in ‹у›:
	* "тау"+"ны" → "тауды"		* "тау"+"ны" → "тауды" /tɑw+NI/ → [tɑwdə]
	* "бу"+"ны" → "буды"		* "бу"+"ны" → "буды" /bəw+NI/ → [bəwdə]
	* (and the above exmaples: "қалауды", "сөйлеуді", "оқуды", "еруді")		* (and the above exmaples: "қалауды", "сөйлеуді", "оқуды", "еруді")
			As opposed to words actually ending in vowels:
			* "алма"+"ны" → "алманы" /ɑlmɑ+NI/ → [ɑlmɑnə]
			* "малшы"+"ны" → "малшыны" /mɑlʃə+NI/ → [mɑlʃənə]

	In all cases, the original ‹n›-initial suffix starts with ‹d›. This happens only after consonants in Kazakh—after vowels it retains the /n/; this shows that ‹у› (or the last sound in the various sounds represented by ‹у›) is in fact a consonant and not a vowel.		In all the cases of words ending in ‹у›, the original ‹n›-initial suffix starts with ‹d›. This happens only after consonants in Kazakh—after vowels it retains the /n/; this shows that ‹у› (or the last sound in the various sounds represented by ‹у›) is in fact a consonant and not a vowel.

	Since the sound represented by ‹у› in Kazakh always is or ends with a consonant, ‹u› makes a bad choice of a way to represent the sound, and ‹w› is preferable. Generally the sound represented by ‹ұ› in Kazakh is represented by ‹u› in the Roman orthography, anyway, so using ‹w› for [the last sound in] ‹у› additionally avoids potential ambiguity and confusion.		Since the sound represented by ‹у› in Kazakh always is or ends with a consonant, ‹u› makes a bad choice of a way to represent the sound, and ‹w› is preferable (with ‹iw› and ‹ıw› for /ɘw/ and /əw/ variants). Generally the sound represented by ‹ұ› (/ʊ/) in Kazakh is represented by ‹u› in the Roman orthography, anyway, so using ‹w› for [the last sound in] ‹у› additionally avoids potential ambiguity and confusion.

	== Transcription of Kyrgyz palataly stuff ==		== Transcription of Kyrgyz palataly stuff ==