Sino-Uralic languages

Last updated
Sino-Uralic
(fringe)
Geographic
distribution		Northern Eurasia, East Asia
Linguistic classification Proposed language family
Subdivisions
Glottolog None
Sino-Uralic language theory.png
Sino-Uralic languages [1]

Sino-Uralic or Sino-Finnic is a long-range linguistic proposal that links the Sinitic languages (Chinese) and the Uralic languages. Sino-Uralic is proposed as an alternative to the Sino-Tibetan family [1] [2] [3] and is at odds with mainstream comparative linguistics, which firmly includes the Sinitic languages in the Sino-Tibetan family. [4] The proposal has been brought forward by the Chinese linguist Jingyi Gao, based on works by 19th century linguists such as Karl August Hermann. Gao suggested the proto-population could have been lived in Neolithic China and carried the Haplogroup N, claiming that a common proto-language could have been spoken around 5.000-10.000 years ago. [5] [6] [7] However, connections with the Uralic and other language families are generally seen as speculative. [8]

Contents

Theory

Gao argued that Chinese has three major layers, he saw the root of Chinese as coming from a common Sino-Uralic source, the second layer coming from Indo-European during the Chalcolithic age or later and the third layer coming from Yeniseian during the Bronze Age. Jingyi Gao presented the theory as an alternative to the commonly accepted Sino-Tibetan language family. Gao argued that there are multiple problems with the Sino-Tibetan language family and that similarities between Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman are better explained as being the result of loaning and mutual influence instead of being one language family as most linguists assert. [1] [6] [9]

Gao argued that the monosyllabic structure of Chinese vocabulary was a later development due to external influences, arguing that the word structure of the Sinitic languages in the past was closer to the Uralic languages. [1] [10] Similarly, Karl August Hermann argued that the monosyllabic word structure in Sinitic is not an obstacle to a linguistic relationship. [11]

History

The earliest known mention of a possible relationship between the Uralic and Sinitic languages was made by Sajnovics in 1770, who raised questions about a possible relation of Chinese and Hungarian, due to apparent lexical similarities. [12] [13] [14] [15] Then in 1895, a relation between Sinitic and Uralic was proposed by the Estonian linguist Karl August Hermann . Karl August Hermann made a comparison of Estonian, Finnish and Chinese, arguing that they were related, although he also included Altaic in the family. [11] [16] [12] In the modern day its main advocate has been Jingyi Gao, first proposing it in 2005 and later making another book on the topic in 2008 along with making later articles. [17] [18] Estonian academics and linguists such as Ago Künnap, Jaan Kaplinski, Urmas Sutrop and Märt Läänemets along with a few Chinese professors such as Feng Zheng, Li Baojia and Jiang Jicheng have expressed interest over the theory and calling for more studies on the topic, though being cautious and thus not directly endorsing Gao's theory of a direct relationship between Sinitic and Uralic. [1] [2] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] George van Driem argues that Sino-Uralic along with other theories such as Sino-Indo-European are constructed by using flawed methodologies with inadequate knowledge of historical Chinese and the Trans-Himalayan languages, representing false language families. According to Van Driem, the theory is not supported by proper evidence. [4]

Before Gao, Morris Swadesh had already theorized about a relation between Sinitic and Uralic, proposing a more radical and massive Dené-Finnish grouping which encompasses Athabaskan, Uralic and the Sino-Tibetan languages. Swadesh's theory has been called "radical". [8] Another similar large language family including Sinitic and Uralic, was suggested by Karl Bouda in 1950, his theory included: Sino-Tibetan, Uralic, Yeniseian, Austronesian and others being distantly related. [24]

Proposed evidence

Karl August Hermann argued that there are multiple similarities between Sinitic and Uralic, which he used to support his hypothesis on the relation of Sinitic and Uralic. His proposed evidences include: [11]

Jingyi Gao has attempted to support a relationship between Uralic and Sinitic through arguing for the existence of regular sound correspondences between Sinitic and Uralic vocabulary. Examples of proposed sound correspondences include Minnan -at, Estonian/Finnish -uu, Mandarin ø, Cantonese j-, Minnan g- and Estonian/Finnish k-. [6] Although his methods have been questioned by linguists such as Van Driem. [4]

Lexical

Some shared cognates proposed by Jingyi Gao: [6] [7] [25] [26] [27] [28]

MandarinCantoneseMinProto-UralicEstonianFinnish
üe 'moon, month'jyut 'moon, month'guàt 'moon, month'kuŋe 'month, moon'kuu 'month, moon'kuu 'month, moon'
ián 'speech'jin 'speech'giân 'speech'keele 'language'keel 'language'kieli 'language'
MandarinCantoneseMinEstonianFinnish
duei 'correspond'deoi 'correspond'tue ''correspond''tõsi 'true'tosi 'true'
[ ʔie˧˩ ] 'night'[ je: ] 'night' 夜[ ʔia̯˧ ] 'night' 夜öö 'night'yö 'night'
[ pʰa˧˩ ] 'fear'[ pʰa ˧ ] 'fear' 怕[ pʰa˩ ] 'fear' 怕pelgaS- 'fear'pelkä- 'fear'
Old Chinese [28] Proto-Uralic
*kuən 'big fish'*kala 'fish'
*piuən 'divide'*pala 'bite'
*suən 'diminish'*sala 'steal'
*kuaŋ 'sound of stone'*kaja 'echo'
*xuaŋ 'desolate'*vaja 'lack'
*piuaŋ 'side-room'*maja 'house'

Cognates proposed by Karl August Hermann

The following cognates were proposed by Karl August Hermann: [12]

MandarinEstonianHungarian
hǎo 'goodhea 'good
nǚ 'girl'neiu 'girl'nő 'girl'
dào 'path'tee 'path'
gāo 'high'kõrge 'high'
mù 'tree'puu 'tree'fa 'tree'
xīn 'heart'süda 'heart'szív 'heart'
ta 'he/she'ta 'he/she'

Proto-language

Proto-Sino-Uralic reconstructions [6] [7] [26]
Proto-Sino-UralicEnglish gloss
*kotaplace
*θotakill
*kʲoŋkʷəriver
*toŋkʷəact, do
*hʷetasyear
*dʷotascorrespond
*keðəXhand
*peðəXside by side
*keðəskin grease
*ŋgʷetamoon
*mbetaother
*ŋgenaltongue, speech
*pekŋʷemany

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sino-Tibetan languages</span> Language family native to Asia

Sino-Tibetan, also cited as Trans-Himalayan in a few sources, is a family of more than 400 languages, second only to Indo-European in number of native speakers. The vast majority of these are the 1.3 billion native speakers of Sinitic languages. Other Sino-Tibetan languages with large numbers of speakers include Burmese and the Tibetic languages. Other languages of the family are spoken in the Himalayas, the Southeast Asian Massif, and the eastern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. Most of these have small speech communities in remote mountain areas, and as such are poorly documented.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yeniseian languages</span> Language family of central Siberia

The Yeniseian languages are a family of languages that are spoken by the Yeniseian people in the Yenisei River region of central Siberia. As part of the proposed Dené–Yeniseian language family, the Yeniseian languages have been argued to be part of "the first demonstration of a genealogical link between Old World and New World language families that meets the standards of traditional comparative-historical linguistics". The only surviving language of the group today is Ket.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sinitic languages</span> Branch of the Sino-Tibetan languages

The Sinitic languages, often synonymous with the Chinese languages, are a group of East Asian analytic languages that constitute a major branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. It is frequently proposed that there is a primary split between the Sinitic languages and the rest of the family. This view is rejected by a number of researchers but has found phylogenetic support among others. The Greater Bai languages, whose classification is difficult, may be an offshoot of Old Chinese and thus Sinitic; otherwise Sinitic is defined only by the many varieties of Chinese unified by a shared historical background, and usage of the term "Sinitic" may reflect the linguistic view that Chinese constitutes a family of distinct languages, rather than variants of a single language.

The Ersuic languages are a Qiangic language cluster of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Ersu languages are spoken by about 20,000 people in China as reported by Sun (1982). Muya is reported to be related, but it is not known how it fits in.

The Nung or Nungish languages are a poorly described family of uncertain affiliation within the Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in Yunnan, China and Burma. They include:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lolo-Burmese languages</span> Sino-Tibetan language group of Southeast Asia

The Lolo-Burmese languages of Burma and Southern China form a coherent branch of the Sino-Tibetan family.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tibeto-Burman languages</span> Group of the Sino-Tibetan language family

The Tibeto-Burman languages are the non-Sinitic members of the Sino-Tibetan language family, over 400 of which are spoken throughout the Southeast Asian Massif ("Zomia") as well as parts of East Asia and South Asia. Around 60 million people speak Tibeto-Burman languages. The name derives from the most widely spoken of these languages, Burmese and the Tibetic languages, which also have extensive literary traditions, dating from the 12th and 7th centuries respectively. Most of the other languages are spoken by much smaller communities, and many of them have not been described in detail.

Sino-Austronesian or Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian is a proposed language family suggested by Laurent Sagart in 1990. Using reconstructions of Old Chinese, Sagart argued that the Austronesian languages are related to the Sinitic languages phonologically, lexically and morphologically. Sagart later accepted the Sino-Tibetan languages as a valid group and extended his proposal to include the rest of Sino-Tibetan. He also placed the Tai–Kadai languages within the Austronesian family as a sister branch of Malayo-Polynesian. The proposal has been largely rejected by other linguists who argue that the similarities between Austronesian and Sino-Tibetan more likely arose from contact rather than being genetic.

There have been various classification schemes for Southeast Asian languages.

William Hubbard Baxter III is an American linguist specializing in the history of the Chinese language and best known for his work on the reconstruction on Old Chinese.

Pan Wuyun is a leading Chinese linguist and specialist in historical Chinese phonology.

Laze, rendered in Chinese as Lare (拉热) and Shuitianhua (水田话), is a language of the Naish subbranch of the Naic group of languages, spoken in Muli County, western Sichuan, China.

The Greater Bai or simply Bai languages are a putative group of Sino-Tibetan languages proposed in 2010 by the linguist Zhengzhang, who argued that Bai and Caijia are sister languages. In contrast, Sagart (2011) argues that Caijia and the Waxiang language of northwestern Hunan constitute an early split off from Old Chinese. Additionally, Longjia and Luren are two extinct languages of western Guizhou closely related to Caijia.

Longjia is a Sino-Tibetan language of Guizhou, China related to Caijia and Luren. Longjia may already be extinct.

Lu, or Luren (卢人), is an extinct Sino-Tibetan language of Guizhou, China. The Luren language may have been extinct since the 1960s.

Wei-Heng Chen is a Chinese linguist who is a professor of English and linguistics at Beijing Language and Culture University. Chen was the education consul of China at the Chinese Consulate-General, Los Angeles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Karl August Hermann</span> Estonian journalist and composer

Karl August Hermann was an Estonian writer, publicist, linguist and composer.

Kukkuzi dialect or Kukkusi dialect is a dialect of Votic spoken in Kukkuzi the Kukkuzi dialect has been heavily influenced by Ingrian.

Paul Alvre was an Estonian linguist.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Künnap, Ago (September 2010). "Review of Gāo (2008) Chinese Language and Languages of Northern Europe: Discoveries and Researches of Common Origins of Chinese, Uralic and Indo-European Languages" (PDF). Linguistica Uralica. 46 (3): 218–222. ProQuest   852514464.
  2. 1 2 Jaan Kaplinski (2014). "Veel mõni mõtteke etümoloogiasõnaraamatust ja etümoloogiatest" [A few more thoughts about the etymology dictionary and etymologies]. Keel ja Kirjandus (in Estonian). 2014 (3). Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  3. ↑ Jingyi Gao (2015-01-30). "Jingyi Gao: hiina ja soome-ugri keelte ühisest päritolust". ERR (in Estonian). Retrieved 2022-12-02.
  4. 1 2 3 Kumar, Niraj; van Driem, George; Stobdan, Phunchok (2020-11-18). Himalayan Bridge. Routledge. p. 51. ISBN   978-1-000-21549-6.
  5. ↑ "Soome-ugri keelepuul on juured muistses Kesk-Hiinas". elu.ohtuleht.ee (in Estonian). Retrieved 2022-11-26.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Jingyi Gao; Tender, Tõnu (2020). "Sino-Uralic Etymology for 'Moon, Month' Supported by Regular Sound Correspondences". Archaeoastronomy and Ancient Technologies. 8 (1): 60–68. doi:10.24411/2310-2144-2020-00005.
  7. 1 2 3 Jingyi Gao (2020). "Sino-Uralic Etymology for 'Jupiter, Year' Supported by Rhyme Correspondence". Archaeoastronomy and Ancient Technologies. 8 (1): 1–11. doi:10.24411/2310-2144-2020-00002.
  8. 1 2 Harms, Robert Thomas. "Uralic languages". Encyclopedia Britannica .
  9. ↑ Künnap, Ago (2009). "Eesti keel koos teiste läänemeresoome keeltega ja germaani. keeled Hiinast vaadatuna" (PDF). Keeljakirjandus.eki.ee.
  10. ↑ "Soome-ugri keelepuul on juured muistses Kesk-Hiinas". elu.ohtuleht.ee (in Estonian). Retrieved 2022-11-29.
  11. 1 2 3 Hermann, Karl August (2019). "Hiina keele sugulusest ugri keelte ja eriti soome-eesti keelega (1895)". Eesti ja Soome-Ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics. 10 (2): 59–67. doi:10.12697/jeful.2019.10.2.04. S2CID   212794124.
  12. 1 2 3 Gao, Jingyi (2019-12-31). "Karl August Hermanni hiina-soome-eesti keelevõrdlus ning kehtivad ja kehtetud etümoloogiad parandustega". Eesti ja Soome-Ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics. 10 (2): 45–58. doi:10.12697/jeful.2019.10.2.03. ISSN   2228-1339. S2CID   213240827.
  13. ↑ Scholars in Action (2 vols): The Practice of Knowledge and the Figure of the Savant in the 18th Century. BRILL. 2013-04-15. ISBN   978-90-04-24391-0.
  14. ↑ "Soome-ugri sõlmed 2012". Apollo (in Estonian). Retrieved 2022-12-23.
  15. ↑ Üve Maloverjan, ed. (2012). Soome-ugri sõlmed 2010–2011 [Finnish-Ugric nodes 2010-2011] (in Estonian). Fenno-Ugria. Sajnovics tõstatas ka küsimuse ungari keele sugulusest hiina keelega.[Sajnovics also raised the question of the relationship of the Hungarian language with the Chinese language.]
  16. ↑ Hermann, Karl August (1895). "Ueber die Verwandschaft des Chinesischen mit den ugrischen Sprachen und insbesondere, mit dem Finnisch-Estnischen". Sitzungsberichte der Gelehrten Estnischen Gesellschaft zu Dorpat 1894 (in German). Dorpat : [Gelehrte Estnische Gesellschaft zu Dorpat]: 167–180. JSTOR   community.32951318.
  17. ↑ Gao, Jingyi (2008). 《汉语与北欧语言：汉语与乌拉尔语言及印欧语言同源探究》Hàn-yǔ yǔ Wū-lā-ěr yǔ-yán jì Yìn-Ōu yǔ-yán tóng-yuán tàn-jiū 'Chinese Language and Languages of Northern Europe: Discoveries and Researches of the Common Sources of Chinese, Uralic, and Indo-European Languages'. Beijing: 中国社会科学出版社 ‘China Social Sciences Press’. ISBN   978-7500470779.
  18. ↑ Gao, Jingyi (2005). Comparison of Swadesh 100 Words in Finnic, Hungarian, Sinic and Tibetan: Introduction to Finno-Sinic Languages. Tallinn: Estonian Language Foundation. ISBN   9985791355.
  19. ↑ "Üllatav avastus: oleme pärit Hiinast". Maaleht (in Estonian). Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  20. ↑ "Eesti ja hiina keel pärinevad ühest allikast". Tartu+ (in Estonian). 2009-03-10. Retrieved 2022-11-26.
  21. ↑ 蒋, 冀骋; 曾, 晓渝; 杨, 军; 洪, 波; 周, 赛华; 张, 富海 (2021). "音韵学研究现状与展望". 《语言科学》. 20 (2021) (5): 474–490.
  22. ↑ 冯, 蒸 (2008). "评高晶一所著汉宋乌拉尔语系语言语系绪论". 汉字文化. 2008 (1): 57–59.
  23. ↑ 李, 葆嘉 (2010). "亲缘比较语言学：超级语系建构中的华夏汉语位置". 《研究之乐：庆祝王士元先生七十五寿辰学术论文集》, 潘悟云, 沈钟伟主编. 上海: 上海教育出版社: 164–193.
  24. ↑ Driem, George van (2022-09-12). Languages of the Himalayas: Volume 2. BRILL. ISBN   978-90-04-51492-8.
  25. ↑ Jingyi Gao (2019). "On Etymology of Finnic Term for 'Sky'". Archaeoastronomy and Ancient Technologies. 7 (2): 5–10. doi:10.24411/2310-2144-2019-00007.
  26. 1 2 Gao, J. (2021). "The Intensive Controversy on Chinese Historical Phonology: Refutation of the Liquid Medial for Division-2 in Old Chinese". Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences. 25: 101. doi:10.3176/tr.2021.1.07. S2CID   234232131.
  27. ↑ Jingyi, Gao (2021). "Identification of the Etymon of Indo-European 'Moist', Sinitic 'South', Tibeto-Burman 'Sun, Day, Sky' and Hungarian nap 'Sun, Day'". Archaeoastronomy and Ancient Technologies. 9 (1): 62–72. doi:10.24412/2310-2144-2021-9-1-62-72.
  28. 1 2 Gao, Jingyi (June 2014). "Rhyme correspondences between Sinitic and Uralic languages: On the example of the Finnish -ala and -aja rhymes". Linguistica Uralica. 50 (2): 94. doi:10.3176/lu.2014.2.02 . Retrieved 2021-05-11.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.