View source for Ural-Altaic languages

{{Short description|Language family}}
{{Essay-like|date=January 2024}}
{{Infobox language family
| name          = Ural-Altaic
| acceptance    = obsolete as a genealogical proposal
| region        = [[Eurasia]]
| familycolor   = superfamily
| family        = convergence zone
| child1        = [[Uralic languages|Uralic]]
| child2        = [[Turkic languages|Turkic]]
| child3        = [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]]
| child4        = [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]]
| child5        = (2–4 = [[Altaic languages|Altaic]])
| child6        = [[Yukaghir languages|Yukaghir]]
| glotto        = none
| map           = Linguistic map of the Altaic, Turkic and Uralic languages (en).png
| mapcaption    = Distribution of Uralic, Altaic, and Yukaghir languages
| altname       = Turanian
}}

'''Ural-Altaic''' or '''Uralo-Altaic''' is a linguistic [[Language convergence|convergence zone]] and abandoned [[language family|language-family]] proposal uniting the [[Uralic languages|Uralic]] and the [[Altaic languages|Altaic]] (in the narrow sense) languages. It is now generally agreed that even the Altaic languages do not share a common descent: the similarities between [[Turkic languages|Turkic]], [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]] and [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]] are better explained by [[Trans-cultural diffusion|diffusion]] and borrowing.<ref>"While 'Altaic' is repeated in encyclopedias and handbooks most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related." Lyle Campbell & Mauricio J. Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, University of Utah Press), pg. 7.</ref><ref>"When cognates proved not to be valid, Altaic was abandoned, and the received view now is that Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic are unrelated." Johanna Nichols, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (1992, Chicago), pg. 4.</ref><ref>"Careful examination indicates that the established families, Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic, form a linguistic area (called Altaic)...Sufficient criteria have not been given that would justify talking of a genetic relationship here." R.M.W. Dixon, The Rise and Fall of Languages (1997, Cambridge), pg. 32.</ref><ref>"...[T]his selection of features does not provide good evidence for common descent" and "we can observe convergence rather than divergence between Turkic and Mongolic languages—a pattern than is easily explainable by borrowing and diffusion rather than common descent", [[Asya Pereltsvaig]], Languages of the World, An Introduction (2012, Cambridge) has a good discussion of the Altaic hypothesis (pp. 211-216).</ref> Just as in Altaic, the internal structure of the Uralic family has been debated since the family was first proposed.<ref name="Marcantonio-p55-68">{{cite book |last=Marcantonio |first=Angela |title=The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics |publisher=Blackwell |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-631-23170-7 |series=Publications of the Philological Society |volume=35 |location=Oxford |pages=55–68 |oclc=803186861}}</ref> Doubts about the validity of most or all of the proposed higher-order Uralic branchings (grouping the nine undisputed families) are becoming more common.<ref name="Marcantonio-p55-68" /><ref name="SalmTax">{{cite web |last=Salminen |first=Tapani |date=2002 |title=Problems in the taxonomy of the Uralic languages in the light of modern comparative studies |url=http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/kuzn.html}}</ref>{{sfn|Aikio|2022|pp=1–4}}{{full citation needed|date=October 2023}} The term continues to be used for the central Eurasian typological, grammatical and lexical convergence zone.<ref>BROWN, Keith and OGILVIE, Sarah eds.:Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. 2009. p. 722.</ref>

Indeed, "Ural-Altaic" may be preferable to "Altaic" in this sense. For example, J. Janhunen states that "speaking of 'Altaic' instead of 'Ural-Altaic' is a misconception, for there are no areal or typological features that are specific to 'Altaic' without Uralic."<ref name="Georg">Stefan Georg (2017) "The Role of Paradigmatic Morphology in Historical, Areal and Genealogical Linguistics: Thoughts and Observations in the Margin of Paradigm Change in ''The Transeurasian languages and Beyond'' (Robbeets and Bisang, eds.)." ''Journal of Language Contact'', volume 10, issue 2, p. 376.</ref> Originally suggested in the 18th century, the genealogical and racial hypotheses remained debated into the mid-20th century, often with disagreements exacerbated by [[Pan-nationalism|pan-nationalist]] agendas.{{sfn|Sinor|1988|p=710}}

The Ural-Altaic hypothesis had multiple proponents in Britain.<ref>George van DRIEM: Handbuch der Orientalistik. Volume 1 Part 10. BRILL 2001. Page 336</ref> Since the 1960s, the proposed language family has been widely rejected.<ref>Colin Renfrew, Daniel Nettle:  Nostratic: Examining a Linguistic Macrofamily - Page 207,  Publisher: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge(1999), {{ISBN|9781902937007}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Robert Lawrence|last= Trask|title= The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics |page= 357|publisher= Psychology Press |date=2000|isbn=9781579582180}}</ref><ref>Lars Johanson, [[Martine Irma Robbeets]] : Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance  -PAGE: 8. Publisher: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag (2010), {{ISBN|9783447059145}}</ref><ref>Ladislav Drozdík: Non-Finite Relativization. A Typological Study in Accessibility. Page 30 (XXX), Publisher:	Ústav orientalistiky SAV, {{ISBN|9788080950668}}</ref> A relationship between the Altaic, Indo-European and Uralic families was revived in the context of the [[Nostratic languages|Nostratic]] hypothesis, which was popular for a time,<ref>Carl J. Becker: A Modern Theory of Language Evolution - Page 320, Publisher iUniverse (2004), {{ISBN |9780595327102}}</ref> with for example [[Allan Bomhard]] treating Uralic, Altaic and [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] as coordinate branches.<ref>Bomhard, Allan R. (2008). ''Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology, Morphology, and Vocabulary,'' 2 volumes. Leiden: Brill. {{ISBN|978-90-04-16853-4}}</ref> However, Nostratic too is now rejected.<ref name="Georg" />

==History as a hypothesized language family==
The concept of a Ural-Altaic ethnic and language family goes back to the linguistic theories of [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]]; in his opinion there was no better method for specifying the relationship and origin of the various peoples of the Earth, than the comparison of their languages. In his ''Brevis designatio meditationum de originibus gentium ductis potissimum ex indicio linguarum'',<ref>LEIBNIZ, Gottfried Wilhelm: Brevis designatio meditationum de originibus gentium ductis potissimum ex indicio linguarum. 1710. https://edoc.bbaw.de/files/956/Leibniz_Brevis.pdf</ref> written in 1710, he originates every human language from one common ancestor language. Over time, this ancestor language split into two families; the Japhetic and the Aramaic. The Japhetic family split even further, into Scythian and Celtic branches. The members of the [[Scythian]] family were: the Greek language, the family of Sarmato-Slavic languages (Russian, Polish, Czech, Dalmatian, Bulgar, Slovene, Avar and Khazar), the family of Turkic languages (Turkish, [[Cumans|Cuman]], Kalmyk and Mongolian), the family of Finno-Ugric languages (Finnish, Saami, Hungarian, Estonian, Liv and Samoyed). Although his theory and grouping were far from perfect, they had a considerable effect on the development of linguistic research, especially in German-speaking countries.

In his book ''An historico-geographical description of the north and east parts of Europe and Asia'',<ref>STRAHLENBERG, Philipp Johann von: An historico-geographical description of the north and east parts of Europe and Asia http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010825073</ref> published in 1730, [[Philip Johan von Strahlenberg]], Swedish prisoner-of-war and explorer of Siberia, who accompanied [[Daniel Gottlieb Messerschmidt]] on his expeditions, described Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Samoyedic, Mongolic, Tungusic and Caucasian peoples as sharing linguistic and cultural commonalities. 20th century scholarship has on several occasions incorrectly credited him with proposing a Ural-Altaic language family, though he does not claim linguistic affinity ''between'' any of the six groups.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Alexis Manaster|last1=Ramer|author-link1=Alexis Manaster Ramer|first2=Paul|last2=Sidwell|author-link2=Paul Sidwell|title=The truth about Strahlenberg's classification of the languages of Northeastern Eurasia|year=1997|journal=Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne|volume=87|pages=139–160}}</ref><ref group="note">According to Manaster Ramer & Sidwell, this misconception first dates back to a 1901 article by [[Otto Donner]], later most prominently repeated by [[Nicholas Poppe]], [[Merritt Ruhlen]] and G. D. Sanzheev.</ref>

Danish philologist [[Rasmus Christian Rask]] described what he called "Scythian" languages in 1834, which included Finno-Ugric, Turkic, Samoyedic, Eskimo, Caucasian, Basque and others.

The Ural-Altaic hypothesis was elaborated at least as early as 1836 by W. Schott<ref>W. Schott, Versuch über die tatarischen Sprachen (1836)</ref> and in 1838 by [[F. J. Wiedemann]].<ref>F. J. Wiedemann, Ueber die früheren Sitze der tschudischen Völker und ihre Sprachverwandschaft mit dem Völkern Mittelhochasiens (1838).</ref>

The "Altaic" hypothesis, as mentioned by Finnish linguist and explorer [[Matthias Castrén]]<ref>M. A. Castrén, Dissertatio Academica de affinitate declinationum in lingua Fennica, Esthonica et Lapponica, Helsingforsiae, 1839</ref><ref>M. A. Castrén,  Nordische Reisen und Forschungen. V, St.-Petersburg, 1849</ref> by 1844, included the [[Finno-Ugric languages|Finno-Ugric]] and [[Samoyedic languages|Samoyedic]], grouped as "Chudic", and [[Turkic languages|Turkic]], [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]], and [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]], grouped as "Tataric". Subsequently, in the latter half of the 19th century, Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic came to be referred to as [[Altaic languages]], whereas Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic were called [[Uralic languages|Uralic]]. The similarities between these two families led to their retention in a common grouping, named Ural–Altaic.

[[Friedrich Max Müller]], the German Orientalist and philologist, published and proposed a new grouping of the non-Aryan and non-Semitic Asian languages in 1855. In his work ''The Languages of the Seat of War in the East'', he called these languages "[[Turanian languages|Turanian]]". Müller divided this group into two subgroups, the Southern Division, and the Northern Division.<ref>MÜLLER, Friedrich Max. ''The languages of the seat of war in the East. With a survey of the three families of language, Semitic, Arian and Turanian.'' Williams and Norgate, London, 1855. https://archive.org/details/languagesseatwa00mlgoog</ref> In the long run, his evolutionist theory about languages' structural development, tying growing grammatical refinement to socio-economic development, and grouping languages into 'antediluvian', 'familial', 'nomadic', and 'political' developmental stages,<ref>MÜLLER, Friedrich Max: Letter to Chevalier Bunsen on the classification of the Turanian languages. 1854. https://archive.org/details/cu31924087972182</ref> proved unsound, but his Northern Division was renamed and re-classed as the "Ural-Altaic languages".

Between the 1850s and 1870s, there were efforts by Frederick Roehrig to including some Native American languages in a "Turanian" or "Ural-Altaic" family, and between the 1870s and 1890s, there was speculation about links with Basque.<ref>Sean P. HARVEY: Native Tongues: Colonialism and Race from Encounter to the Reservation. Harvard University Press 2015. Page 212</ref>

In [[Hungary]], where the [[Hungarian language|national language]] is Uralic but with heavy historical Turkic influence—a fact which by itself spurred the popularity of the "Ural-Altaic" hypothesis—the idea of the Ural–Altaic relationship remained widely implicitly accepted in the late 19th and the mid-20th century, though more out of pan-nationalist than linguistic reasons, and without much detailed research carried out.{{clarify|date=July 2018}} Elsewhere the notion had sooner fallen into discredit, with Ural–Altaic supporters elsewhere such as the Finnish Altaicist [[Martti Räsänen]] being in the minority.{{sfn|Sinor|1988|pp=707–708}} The contradiction between Hungarian linguists' convictions and the lack of clear evidence eventually provided motivation for scholars such as [[Aurélien Sauvageot]] and [[Denis Sinor]] to carry out more detailed investigation of the hypothesis, which so far has failed to yield generally accepted results. [[Nicholas Poppe]] in his article ''The Uralo-Altaic Theory in the Light of the Soviet Linguistics'' (1940) also attempted to refute Castrén's views by showing that the common agglutinating features may have arisen independently.<ref>[https://feb-web.ru/feb/izvest/1940/03/403-079.htm Nicholas Poppe, The Uralo-Altaic Theory in the Light of the Soviet Linguistics] Accessed 2010-04-07</ref>

Beginning in the 1960s, the hypothesis came to be seen even more controversial, due to the Altaic family itself also falling out universal acceptance. Today, the hypothesis that Uralic and Altaic are related more closely to one another than to any other family has almost no adherents.<ref name=Starostin20038>(Starostin et al. 2003:8)</ref> In his ''Altaic Etymological Dictionary'', co-authored with Anna V. Dybo and Oleg A. Mudrak, [[Sergei Starostin]] characterized the Ural–Altaic hypothesis as "an idea now completely discarded".<ref name=Starostin20038/> There are, however, a number of hypotheses that propose a larger [[macrofamily]] including Uralic, Altaic and other families. None of these hypotheses has widespread support. In Starostin's sketch of a "[[Borean languages|Borean]]" super-phylum, he puts Uralic and Altaic as daughters of an ancestral language of c. 9,000 years ago from which the [[Dravidian languages]] and the [[Paleo-Siberian languages]], including [[Eskimo–Aleut languages|Eskimo–Aleut]], are also descended. He posits that this ancestral language, together with [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] and [[Kartvelian languages|Kartvelian]], descends from a "[[Eurasiatic languages|Eurasiatic]]" protolanguage some 12,000 years ago, which in turn would be descended from a "Borean" protolanguage via [[Nostratic languages|Nostratic]].<ref>{{cite web|ref=tree|url=https://starling.rinet.ru/images/globet.png|title=Borean tree diagram|author=Sergei Starostin|author-link=Sergei Starostin}}</ref>

In the 1980s, Russian linguist {{ill|N. D. Andreev|ru|Андреев, Николай Дмитриевич}} (Nikolai Dmitrievich Andreev) proposed a "{{ill|Boreal languages|ru|Бореальный язык}}" hypothesis linking the [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]], [[Uralic languages|Uralic]], and [[Altaic languages|Altaic]] (including Korean in his later papers) language families. Andreev also proposed 203 lexical roots for his hypothesized Boreal macrofamily. After Andreev's death in 1997, the Boreal hypothesis was further expanded by [[Sorin Paliga]] (2003, 2007).<ref name="Paliga-2003">Paliga, Sorin (2003). [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296700623_N_D_Andreev's_Proto-Boreal_Theory_and_Its_Implications_in_Understanding_the_Central-East_and_Southeast_European_Ethnogenesis_Slavic_Baltic_and_Thracian_Romanoslavica_38_93-104_Papers_and_articles_for_ N. D. Andreev’s Proto-Boreal Theory and Its Implications in Understanding the Central-East and Southeast European Ethnogenesis: Slavic, Baltic and Thracian]. ''Romanoslavica'' 38: 93–104. Papers and articles for the 13th International Congress of Slavicists, Ljubljana, August 15–21, 2003.</ref><ref name="Paliga-2007">{{cite book |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270278557 |first=Sorin |last=Paliga |title=Lexicon Proto-Borealicum et alia lexica etymologica minora |year=2007 |doi=10.13140/2.1.4932.0009 |publisher=Evenimentul  |isbn=978-973-87920-3-6}}</ref>

Angela Marcantonio (2002) argues that there is no sufficient evidence for a Finno-Ugric or Uralic group connecting the [[Finno-Permic languages|Finno-Permic]] and [[Ugric languages]], and suggests that they are no more closely related to each other than either is to Turkic, thereby positing a grouping  similar to Ural–Altaic or indeed to Castrén's original Altaic proposal. This thesis has been criticized by mainstream Uralic scholars.<ref>{{cite web|url = https://homepage.univie.ac.at/johanna.laakso/?page_id=94|title = Linguistic shadow-boxing |date =April 23, 2003|first = Johanna|last = Laakso}}</ref><ref>[https://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/Vajda.review.pdf Edward J. Vajda, review of ''The Uralic language family: facts, myths, and statistics''] Accessed 2016-03-01</ref><ref>[https://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/Blazek.review.pdf Václav Blažek, review of ''The Uralic language family: facts, myths, and statistics''] Accessed 2016-03-01</ref>

==Typology==
There is general agreement on several [[linguistic typology|typological]] similarities being widely found among the languages considered under Ural–Altaic:{{sfn|Sinor|1988|pp=711–714}}
* [[Head-directionality parameter|head-final]] and [[subject–object–verb]] word order
* in most of the languages, [[vowel harmony]]
* [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] that is predominantly [[agglutinative]] and [[suffix]]ing
* [[zero copula]]
* [[non-finite clause]]s
* lack of [[grammatical gender]]
* lack of [[consonant cluster]]s in word-initial position
* having a separate verb for [[existential clause]] which is different from ordinary [[Possession (linguistics)|possession verbs like "to have"]]
Such similarities do not constitute sufficient evidence of genetic relationship all on their own, as other explanations are possible. [[Juha Janhunen]] has argued that although Ural–Altaic is to be rejected as a genealogical relationship, it remains a viable concept as a well-defined [[language area]], which in his view has formed through the historical interaction and [[language convergence|convergence]] of four core language families (Uralic, Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic), and their influence on the more marginal Korean and Japonic.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Juha|last=Janhunen|title=Typological Expansion in the Ural-Altaic belt|year=2007|journal=Incontri Linguistici|pages=71–83}}</ref>

Contrasting views on the typological situation have been presented by other researchers. [[Michael Fortescue]] has connected Uralic instead as a part of an [[Uralo-Siberian]] typological area (comprising Uralic, [[Yukaghir languages|Yukaghir]], [[Chukotko-Kamchatkan languages|Chukotko-Kamchatkan]] and [[Eskimo–Aleut languages|Eskimo–Aleut]]), contrasting with a more narrowly defined Altaic typological area;<ref>{{cite book|last=Fortescue|first=Michael|year=1998|title=Language Relations across Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence|location=London and New York|publisher=Cassell|isbn=0-304-70330-3}}</ref> while Anderson has outlined a specifically Siberian language area, including within Uralic only the [[Ob-Ugric languages|Ob-Ugric]] and [[Samoyedic languages|Samoyedic]] groups; within Altaic most of the Tungusic family as well as [[Siberian Turkic languages|Siberian Turkic]] and [[Buryat language|Buryat]] (Mongolic); as well as Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Eskimo–Aleut, [[Nivkh language|Nivkh]], and [[Yeniseian languages|Yeniseian]].<ref>{{cite book|first=Gregory D. S.|last=Anderson|chapter=Towards a typology of the Siberian linguistic area|year=2006|title=Linguistic Areas. Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective|url=https://archive.org/details/linguisticareasc00matr|url-access=registration|editor1-first=Y.|editor1-last=Matras|editor2-first=A.|editor2-last=McMahon|editor3-first=N.|editor3-last=Vincent|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|pages=[https://archive.org/details/linguisticareasc00matr/page/n286 266]–300|isbn=9781403996572}}</ref>

==Relationship between Uralic and Altaic==

The Altaic language family was generally accepted by linguists from the late 19th century up to the 1960s, but since then has been in dispute. For simplicity's sake, the following discussion assumes the validity of the Altaic language family.

Two senses should be distinguished in which Uralic and Altaic might be related.

#Do Uralic and Altaic have a demonstrable [[genetic relationship (linguistics)|genetic relationship]]?
#If they do have a demonstrable genetic relationship, do they form a valid linguistic [[taxon]]? For example, [[Germanic languages|Germanic]] and [[Iranian languages|Iranian]] have a genetic relationship via [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]], but they do not form a valid taxon within the Indo-European language family, whereas in contrast Iranian and [[Indo-Aryan languages|Indo-Aryan]] do via [[Proto-Indo-Iranian language|Indo-Iranian]], a daughter language of Proto-Indo-European that subsequently calved into Indo-Aryan and Iranian. 
In other words, showing a genetic relationship does not suffice to establish a language family, such as the proposed Ural–Altaic family; it is also necessary to consider whether other languages from outside the proposed family might not be at least as closely related to the languages in that family as the latter are to each other. This distinction is often overlooked but is fundamental to the genetic classification of languages.<ref name=Greenberg2005>Greenberg 2005</ref> Some linguists indeed maintain that Uralic and Altaic are related through a larger family, such as [[Eurasiatic languages|Eurasiatic]] or [[Nostratic languages|Nostratic]], within which Uralic and Altaic are no more closely related to each other than either is to any other member of the proposed family, for instance than Uralic or Altaic is to Indo-European (for example [[Joseph Greenberg|Greenberg]]).<ref name=Greenberg20017>Greenberg 2000:17</ref>

===Shared vocabulary===
To demonstrate the existence of a language family, it is necessary to find [[cognate]] words that trace back to a common proto-language. Shared vocabulary alone does not show a relationship, as it may be loaned from one language to another or through the language of a third party.

There are shared words between, for example, Turkic and Ugric languages, or Tungusic and Samoyedic languages, which are explainable by borrowing. However, it has been difficult to find Ural–Altaic words shared across all involved language families. Such words should be found in all branches of the Uralic and Altaic trees and should follow regular sound changes from the proto-language to known modern languages, and regular sound changes from Proto-Ural–Altaic to give [[Proto-Uralic]] and Proto-Altaic words should be found to demonstrate the existence of a Ural–Altaic vocabulary. Instead, candidates for Ural–Altaic cognate sets can typically be supported by only one of the Altaic subfamilies.{{sfn|Sinor|1988|p=736}} In contrast, about 200 Proto-Uralic word roots are known and universally accepted, and for the proto-languages of the Altaic subfamilies and the larger main groups of Uralic, on the order of 1000–2000 words can be recovered.

Some{{Who|date=July 2010}} linguists point out strong similarities in the personal pronouns of Uralic and Altaic languages, although the similarities also exist with the Indo-European pronouns as well.

The basic [[numeral (linguistics)|numerals]], unlike those among the [[Indo-European languages]] (compare [[Proto-Indo-European numerals]]), are particularly divergent between all three core Altaic families and Uralic, and to a lesser extent even within Uralic.{{sfn|Sinor|1988|pp=710–711}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!rowspan="2"| Numeral
!colspan="3"| Uralic !! Turkic !! Mongolic !! Tungusic
|-
! [[Finnish language|Finnish]] !! [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] !! [[Tundra Nenets language|Tundra Nenets]] !! [[Old Turkic]] !! [[Classical Mongolian]] !! [[Proto-Tungusic]]
|-
! 1
| yksi || egy || ӈобˮ (ŋob) || bir || nigen || *emün
|-
! 2
| kaksi || kettő/két || сидя (śiďa) || eki || qoyar || *džör
|-
! 3
| kolme || három || няхарˮ (ńax°r) || üs || ɣurban || *ilam
|-
! 4
| neljä || négy || тет (ťet°) || tört || dörben || *dügün
|-
! 5
| viisi || öt || самляӈг (səmp°ľaŋk°) || baš || tabun || *tuńga
|-
! 6
| kuusi || hat || матˮ (mət°ʔ) || eltı || ǰirɣuɣan || *ńöŋün
|-
! 7
| seitsemän || hét || сиˮив (śīʔw°) || jeti || doluɣan || *nadan
|-
! 8
| kahdeksan || nyolc || сидндет (śid°nťet°) || säkiz || naiman || *džapkun
|-
! 9
| yhdeksän || kilenc ||хасуюˮ (xasuyu")
| toquz || yisün || *xüyägün
|-
! 10
| kymmenen || tíz || юˮ (yūʔ) || on || arban || *džuvan
|}
One alleged Ural-Altaic similarity among this data are the Hungarian (''három'') and Mongolian (''ɣurban'') numerals for '3'. According to Róna-Tas (1983),<ref>{{cite book|first=A.|last=Róna-Tas|year=1983|contribution=De hypothesi Uralo-Altaica|title=Symposium saeculare societatis Fenno-Ugricae|series=Memoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne|volume=185|pages=235–251}}</ref> elevating this similarity to a hypothesis of common origin would still require several ancillary hypotheses:
* that this Finno-Ugric lexeme, and not the incompatible Samoyedic lexeme, is the original Uralic numeral;
* that this Mongolic lexeme, and not the incompatible Turkic and Tungusic lexemes, is the original Altaic numeral; 
* that the Hungarian form with ''-r-'', and not the ''-l-'' seen in cognates such as in Finnish ''kolme'', is more original;
* that ''-m'' in the Hungarian form is originally a suffix, since ''-bVn'', found also in other Mongolian numerals, is also a suffix and not an original part of the word root;
* that the voiced spirant ''ɣ-'' in Mongolian can correspond to the voiceless stop ''*k-'' in Finno-Ugric (known to be the source of Hungarian ''h-'').

===Sound correspondences===
The following consonant correspondences between Uralic and Altaic are asserted by Poppe (1983):<ref>{{cite book|first=Nicholas|last=Poppe|year=1983|contribution=The Ural-Altaic affinity|title=Symposium saeculare societatis Fenno-Ugricae|series=Memoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne|volume=185|pages=189–199}}</ref>
* Word-initial bilabial stop: Uralic *p- = Altaic *p- (> Turkic and Mongolic *h-)
* Sibilants: Uralic *s, *š, *ś = Altaic *s
* Nasals: Uralic *n, *ń, *ŋ = Altaic *n, *ń, *ŋ (in Turkic word-initial *n-, *ń- > *j-; in Mongolic *ń(V) > *n(i))
* Liquids: Uralic *-l-, *-r- = Altaic *-l-, *r-<ref group="note">Treated only word-medially.</ref>

== As a convergence zone ==
Regardless of a possible common origin or lack thereof, Uralic-Altaic languages can be spoken of as a [[Language convergence|convergence zone]]. Although it has not yet been possible to demonstrate a genetic relationship or a significant amount of common vocabulary between the languages other than loanwords, according to the linguist Juha Janhunen, the languages must have had a common linguistic homeland. The Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages have been spoken in the Manchurian region, and there is little chance that a similar structural typology of Uralic languages could have emerged without close contact between them.<ref>Janhunen 2001 (sit. Häkkinen 2012: 98), Janhunen 2007 (sit. Häkkinen 2012: 98).</ref><ref>[https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust258/sust258_janhunen.pdf Proto-Uralic—what, where, and when? Juha JANHUNEN (Helsinki) The Quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia = Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 258. Helsinki 2009. 61–62.]</ref> The languages of [[Turkish language|Turkish]] and [[Finnish language|Finnish]] have a number of similar structures, such as [[vowel harmony]] and [[Agglutinative language|agglutination]],<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.helsinki.fi/~jolaakso/sgrfaq.html |title=Usein kysyttyä suomalais-ugrilaisista kielistä |access-date= 2021-05-28 |archive-date=2019-02-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190213155545/http://www.helsinki.fi/~jolaakso/sgrfaq.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> and it has been suggested by [[Edward Vajda]] that Early Turkic may have loaned palatal harmony from Uralic.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Robbeets |first1=Martine |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j-vqDwAAQBAJ&dq=XIongnu+Uralic+language&pg=PA728 |title=The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages |last2=Savelyev |first2=Alexander |date=2020-05-27 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-880462-8 |language=en}}</ref>

Similarly, according to Janhunen, the common typology of the Altaic languages can be inferred as a result of mutual contacts in the past, perhaps from a few thousand years ago.<ref name="J62">Janhunen 2009: 62.</ref>

==See also==
* [[Altaic languages]]
**[[Altaic homeland]]
* [[Uralic languages]]
** [[Uralic homeland]]
** [[Proto-Uralic language]]
** [[Uralic–Yukaghir languages]]
** [[Uralo-Siberian languages]]
** [[Indo-Uralic languages]]
** [[Sino-Uralic languages]]
* [[Eurasiatic languages]]
* [[Nostratic languages]]
* [[Pan-Turanism]]

==Notes==
<references group="note"/>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Bibliography==

*{{cite book|last=Greenberg|first=Joseph H.|year=2000|title=Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, Volume 1: Grammar|location=Stanford|publisher=Stanford University Press}}
*Greenberg, Joseph H. (2005). ''Genetic Linguistics: Essays on Theory and Method'', edited by William Croft. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
*{{cite book|last=Marcantonio|first=Angela|year=2002|title=The Uralic Language Family: Facts, Myths and Statistics|series=Publications of the Philological Society|volume=35|location=Oxford – Boston|publisher=Blackwell}}
*Ponaryadov, V. V. (2011). ''A tentative reconstruction of Proto-Uralo-Mongolian''. Syktyvkar. 44 p. (Scientific Reports / Komi Science Center of the Ural Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Issue 510).
*{{cite book|author-link=S. M. Shirokogoroff|last=Shirokogoroff|first=S. M.|year=1931|title=Ethnological and Linguistical Aspects of the Ural–Altaic Hypothesis|location=Peiping, China|publisher=The Commercial Press}}
*{{cite encyclopedia|first=Denis|last=Sinor|year=1988|chapter=The Problem of the Ural-Altaic relationship|encyclopedia=The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Modern Influences|editor-first=Denis|editor-last=Sinor|publisher=Brill|location=Leiden|pages=706–741}}
*Starostin, Sergei A., Anna V. Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak. (2003). ''Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages''. Brill Academic Publishers. {{ISBN|90-04-13153-1}}.
*Vago, R. M. (1972). ''Abstract Vowel Harmony Systems in Uralic and Altaic Languages''. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

==External links==
* [https://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/am_rev.html#_ftnref4 Review of Marcantonio (2002)] by Johanna Laasko
* {{Cite EB1911|last=Keane |first=Augustus Henry |author-link=Augustus Henry Keane |wstitle=Ural-Altaic |volume=27 |pages=784-786  |short=x}} This reflects the contemporary transitional state of understanding of the relationships among the languages.
* {{Cite AmCyc|wstitle=Turanian Race and Languages|last=Whitney |first=William Dwight |author-link=William Dwight Whitney |first2=G. A. F. Van |last2=Rhyn |short=x}}

{{Language families}}
{{Eurasian languages}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ural-Altaic Languages}}
[[Category:Proposed language families]]
[[Category:Altaic languages]]
[[Category:Eurocentrism]]