Thread by @blog_supplement

1 of the major proponents of Macro-Altaic Robbeets who for some reason gives it a new name "Transeurasian" has rehashed some of their arguments with supposed support from genetics. Now, I used to believe in some form of Altaic. I'm of the non-Greenbergian
nature.com/articles/s4158…

opinion that to truly weigh in on some language phylogeny you need to have intimate knowledge of not just the linguistic tendencies but also the philology. Hence, I can hardly considered myself qualified to comment but some commonsense inferences from the general evolutionary

theory definitely applies, &I can comment on that basis. 1. The genetic relationships among the speakers of these language is not entirely surprising given that they come from a similar region. Yes, genetics can have bearing on linguistic relationships (like firming of I-Ir+Bl-Sl

clade), but the "triangulation" has to be done properly. 2. The genetic relationships include Nivkh whose language appears unrelated to any of the Altaic branches though borrowings are noticeable with Tungusic, Koreanic and Mongolic. Further Robbeets herself claimed it was a

substratum of Koreanic. Given this, and the small conserved core (unlike IE or Austronesian) why should the same process of Sprachbundization that affected Nivkh not apply more extensively to create the Macro-Altaic grouping. 3. The relationships she proposes are pretty "obvious"

i.e., ((Japonic, Koreanic), (Tungusic, (Mongolic, Turkic))). This also mirrors the general degree of interaction between these groups in recorded history. So is their phylogeny after all simply mirroring the lateral transfer. This situation parallels something in biology. There

2 types of amebae. The amoebozoans more related to animals & fungi, and the heteroloboseans more related to euglenozoans (more basal eukaryotes). However, the lateral transfer of genes between heteroloboseans & amoebozoans has resulted in biochemical & morphological similarities

going hand in hand with similar lifestyle. This is what happened with at least Mongolic, Turkic & Tungusic. Each group had its heyday founding great steppe empires intertwining with the other e.g. Göktürk, Uighur | Khitan, Chingizid | Jurchen (Jin), Manchu. Their expansions were

clearly part pastoral. 4. Yet, Robbeets has a rather contrarian position that their radiation was related to spread of neolithic farming. This might explain their ancient breakup & the fact they probably acquired pastoralism from the Indo-Iranians. But the evidence for their

proto-farming is about as limited as the proto-farming of Indo-Europeans. Hence, they were at best only part-time farmers to the extent of the early IEans & supplemented it with hunting/foraging. 5. The big issue is as Vovin pointed out the similarities between Turkic& Mongolic

built up with time rather than diverging -- this points to lateral transfer. Now Robbeets et al could be right that they are related but split up in the remote past followed by later re-union. 6. But the times they offer are not consistent with such. They give: 6811 BP as the

central time for the split of the core Altaic of Mon-Turk-Tun. This would make them about as similar as IE languages. There is no evidence whatsoever for such a clear relationship between these. Contrary to their earlier tree, they posit the Mongolo-Tungusic split at: 5458. Then

(sorry above should be 4491 BP) these should show relationships at least like core I-IR. That doesn't seem to be the case at all. Thus, we have younger dates than one would expect for the divergence of the core of these languages.

7. Finally, we are puzzled by their straighfaced claim that the Xiongnu were Turkic & Xianbei were Mongolic. The evidence for this is very tenuous. Assigning such identities should viewed with great caution. If Vovin is right that the Bugut inscription's brAhmI face represents a

Mongolic language closer the Chingizid Mongolic than the Khitan language, then we have a clear case of the early Blue Turks using a Mongolic language (probably of the prior Mongolic Rouran Khaganate) as a literary language. The other faces of the inscription use an Eastern Iranic

language from Sogdhiana in the Iranic script. Thus, the Turks here are using 2 distinct scripts brAhmI & Sogdhian to record things in 2 languages distinct from their own. So someone unaware of the of the rest of the Blue Turk inscriptions would think that were Mongolic. Moreover,

we have the Hüis Tolgoi Mongolic brAhmI inscription describing a Khan who could have very well been Turkic rather than Mongolic. 8. importantly, if Vovin's reading of these brAhmI Mongolic inscriptions is right, then Khitan & Mongolic probably diverged before the common era &

Robbeets et al Mongolo-Tungusic break up might be too late by extrapolation. Rather, it is probably catching some of the lateral transfer these languages have had through their history.