Languages

Apparently Japanese and Korean are more related to Turkish than they are to Chinese?

Also, apparently Hindi is closer related to English than it is to Telugu/South Indian Sanskrit languages?

Can someone list/explain the major language groups?

I pretty much only know about Proto-Indo-European (like Latin, Greek, Sanskrit) and a little bit about Sino-Tibetian (Chinese/Mongolian?)

Other urls found in this thread:

uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-9780824832780.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_East_and_Southeast_Asia
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

PIE root........English........Sanskrit........Lithuanian........Kurdish........Russian........Latin.....
h1nómn̥.........name...........naman...................................nav................imya.............nomine
wiHrós..........man.............vīra................vyras................mirov.................................vir..........
gʷḗn..............woman........jani.........................................jin............... ..zhen..........................
bʰréh2tēr.......brother.........bhrātṛ............brolis................bira.............. .brat.............frāter....
dʰugh2tḗr......daughter......duhitṛ............dukra................dot.................doch.........................
pula-..............hair..............pula...............plaukai.............por.....................................pilus.....
h3bʰrúHs.......brow............bhrû...............bruvis...............birû...............brov...........................
leb-................lip.......................................lūpa..................lêv................lobzat...........labium...
ǵʰes-.............hand.............hasta............žastas..............dest...................................praesto..
h3enogʰ-.......nail............... nakha...........nagas...............nenûk............nogot........................
pṓds.............foot...............pāda.............pėda.................pê..................pesij.............pedibus
h3ésth1..........bone.............asthi......................................hestî...............kost.............ossis.....
mosgo..........brain............majjan...........smegenys........mejî...............mozg........................
h2stḗr.............star..............taras.......................................stêr....................................stella....

Japanese and Korean are not related; refer to Alexander Vovin's recent work, especially his 2009 book: uhpress.hawaii.edu/p-9780824832780.aspx

Mongolian is not Sino-Tibetan, the only larger genetic relation proposed so far for the Mongolic dialect cluster is Altaic, a hypothesis which has been disproven over and over for about a century.

The largest language families accepted by most people other than IE are Sino-Tibetan, Niger-Congo, Austronesian, Afro-Asiatic, Pama-Nyungan, and Trans-New Guinea (in no particular order). Other families are a little smaller

>Apparently Japanese and Korean are more related to Turkish than they are to Chinese?
No one actually believes this.
But it is true that Japanese and Korean are not related to any of the Chinese languages except for borrowed vocabulary.

>Apparently Japanese and Korean are more related to Turkish than they are to Chinese?
citation needed altaicfag

What family is Turkish from? What about south Indian languages? I thought South Indian languages were Sanskrit based (like IE)

>What family is Turkish from?
Turkic
>What about south Indian languages?
Dravidian

I believe Turkish is a Turkic language influenced by Arabic and Persian.

The major South Indian languages are Dravidian. There is also a Dravidian language in the Indus valley region.

They are influenced by Sanskrit and north Indian languages somewhat similarly to how Latin influences Germanic languages.

this post is correct:
but to be more specific indic languages and dravidian languages have actually mutually influenced each other: it wasn't just in one direction

Mongolian is not Sino-Tibetan, its not Altaic either. It was long suspected there was a link between Altaic and Mongolian, but there is not. Mongolian are from the proto-mongol family, which are language group originating around mongolia itself.

Sino-Tibetan both share a possible proto form. Tibetan/Korean/Japanese written languages are related to one another to Sanskrit.

Tibetan language was formalized from Sanskrit to make Buddhism more accessible. Japanese kanas are written to accomodate this same thing too. As for koreans? There's influence from Tibetan too. During the mongol control of China, they utilized a Tibetan form of language for official businesses. Phagspa was the name. This has influenced the creation of Korean Hangul writing system

Many of the SEA languages are Sanskrit derivatives too.

But where did glorious nippon tounge come from???

Possibly related Austronesian languages.

How is Japonic even remotely similar to Austronesian?

Even though Japonic and Koreanic are linguistic isolates there's plenty of evidence of coexistence on the Korean peninsula.

Not the other guy, but Ainus probably had something to do with it. Probably borrowed from Ainus ancestral language and then combined with Koreans and then later on, the Chinese.

The Ainu language is presumably descended from their Jomon forebearers who did not have a continental presence. Early Japonic speakers displaced Ainuic related languages but Japonic isn't related to Ainuic.

Toponyms attested by historical texts show that Central/Southern Korea was previously inhabited by Japonic speakers such as the Sam Han and Gaya polities.

Japanese language has quite a bit of Ainu loan words.

However Japanese language has relations to old Tang Chinese dialect. And ofcourse, they transplanted more than simple language but also the Tang culture as well.

So modern Japanese is Tang Chinese + Ainu words + Sanskrit form + 1000 years of isolation + dynamic change unrelated to China + Korean influence etc

Nice.

I don't know where you got this from, but can I correct some of the Sanskrit?

(I've put them all in nom.sg, as root-like forms never actually exist)
name - nāman
man - vīras (actually the word for 'hero', much like Latin 'vir' was a 'manly man', as opposed to 'homo')
bhrātā - brother
duhitā - daughter
hastas - hand
nakhas - nail
pādas - foot
There is a form of 'bone' without the 'th', so 'as' (cf. Latin os)
Thre is also a 'star' of the form 'stā'.

Amazing how similar Lithuanian is.

>Japanese language has quite a bit of Ainu loan words.
Mostly just place names and northern flora and fauna.
>Sanskrit form
What?

Pull up any Sanskrit based language chart
Then pull up Japanese hirigana/katakana chart

Read them out

It's the same shit.

Japanese and Korean are both language isolates, they have no relation to Turkish or Chinese.

>'manly man', as opposed to 'homo'
kek

Regarding the Altaic hypotheses some have posited that maybe Korean and Japonic languages were originally Austronesian with an Altaic superstratum. Wouldn't be too farfetched to imagine something like this happening in pre recorded history since it did happen with the Mongols and the Chinese had been putting up with troubles from nomadic steppe peoples since a very early period. If such were ever proven true, who knows if this wouldn't also mean that Altaics may have transmitted their metalurgical knowledge as well and had an influence on them including on their development of katanas.

Altaic hypothesis is wrong. Its useless to make further statements from that.

The Koreans did get their language from the mongols, but it was Tibetan + Chinese influenced.

Austronesian influence on Japanese is minimal.

There's also seems to be a correlation of dna with a higher presence of O2 among Japanese, Koreans, and Austronesians. There's also the fact that those languages aren't tonal. It's kind kind of fishy that they would exist in a vacuum without relation to eachother. The 'Altaic', Austronesian, Japonic, and Korean languages are all agglutinative also.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_East_and_Southeast_Asia

>The 'Altaic', Austronesian, Japonic, and Korean languages are all agglutinative also
Doesn't mean much. Many other languages are agglutinative too. Including Tibetans, Dravidians, Mongolian, Sumerian, etc

There's seems to be a sperg who doesn't want *holy* Sanskrit to have its origins outside Asia.

>The Koreans did get their language from the mongols
"no"

That's a great webcomic btw