Mongolian and Indo-European language similarities

[demiirel]

One similarity may be the personal pronoun verb conjugation system.

As an example, let us see how the Mongolian verb “barakh” (to finish), which is written in old Mongolian writing “baraqu” (root “bara-”), conjugates when combined with personal pronouns in the present tense, like it is normally done in Buryat Mongolian. By the way, I am looking at basic structures. I am aware that Mongolian was more complex in the past with gender differentiation in conjugation et cetera. But I think that can be ignored for the purposes of my analysis and comparison here.

Ancient Mongolian “baraqu” – to finish
First person singular: baram (i am finishing)
Second person singular: barasi (you are finishing)
Third person singular: barat (he is finishing)
First person plural: baramus (we are finishing)
Second person plural: barata (you, sir, are finishing/you guys are finishing)
Third person plural: barad (they are finishing)

Proto-Indo-European “ber” – to carry
First person singular: Berom
Second person singular: Beresi
Third person singular: Bereti
First person plural: Beromos
Second person plural: Berete
Third person plural: Berond

It is amazing how the Proto-Indo-European conjugation is closest in a way to Latin. If you analyze the Mongolian, it is clear that personal pronouns have been added as a suffix to the verb root, although in a shortened form. The “pronoun-suffixes” are (in full elaborated form) “mi, si, ter, mus (short form of manus, meaning “we”, it is preserved in Manchu “mus”), ta, ted” respectively. This system is still present in many Mongolian languages today, like Buryat and Moghol. In Buryat, the equivalents would be “baranam, baranash, barana, baranamdi, baranat, baranad”, which are very similar despite trifling divergences. This system is no longer used in Khalkha Mongolian, because the verb system is more simplified in Khalkha Mongolian. One thing to note would be the first person plural "baranamdi" in Buryat, here the pronoun-suffix is "bid", another form of "we", which is simply the plural of "bi" (me), also written "biz" in Turkish. In this case the shortened form of "bid" is "-mdi", which might also be written "-miz" based on the obviously identical Turkish pronoun. This might in turn easily be read as "-mus" which brings us full circle back to the "baramus" (we are finishing) of the original example mentioned above. The reason for this similarity is that the root of "-mus" and "-mdi" is the same, namely "mi/bi" meaning "me", which when converted into the plural "we" becomes "manus/mus" and "bid/mid/biz/miz" respectively.

Another similarity would be the interrogative pronouns. For example, in Hindi, “kahan” means “where” and “kitan” means “how many”. In Spanish “quien” means “who”. In Mongolian, “kahan” means “where”, “keden” means “how many” and “ken” means “who”.

In some ways I think Mongolian is like an Indo-European language spoken in reverse. In Mongolian the suffix “-d” is similar to the Indo-European particle “to”, it shows destination, but the only difference is that in the case of Mongolian the partice comes AFTER the word, which is the reverse of Indo-European. Also, the Mongolian suffix “-aas” (written -acha) is similar to the Indo-European particles “aus” (German), “hacha” (Persian) and “-sa” (Hindi), it means that something is coming out of something. Again, in Mongolian the particle comes AFTER the word, although in the exceptional case of Hindi, "-sa" is a suffix.

So for example, while a Mongolian says “kahanaas iresi?” (from where are you coming?), an Indo-European might say something like “kahansa beresi?” (from where are you carrying ‘that thing’?) In this case the Indo-European example is closest to Hindi, which unlike other Indo-European languages uses many suffixes, like Mongolian.

I don’t know about other so-called Altaic languages like Japanese, but Mongolian seems a bit similar to Indo-European.

The problem with some of the internet material on this subject is that it is too general and too obscure.

For example:

www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art216e.pdf

It would be better if they also showed some examples, using specific languages. And they shouldn't always compare "Proto-Altaic" with Proto-Indo-European. "Proto-Altaic" is still very vague. Using specific languages like Mongolian is better in my opinion. So what I'm writing here is not based on what Frederik Kortlandt or some other linguist wrote, because I simply don't understand what they're writing. How am I supposed to understand a statement like this: "Proto-Altaic *sV 'this' may be similar to Indo-European *so"? There is no *sV in Mongolian. So I'm using my own common sense instead.

For example, I think: In Mongolian "alt" means "gold", "altan" means "golden". "Torgo" means "silk", "torgon" means "silken". So I think, maybe there's a connection there, with the "-en" business, because there is a similarity in meaning.

I'm careful about "false cognates", words that sound similar but have no genetic connection. I don't know if Mongolian "humun" is cognate with English "human". Or if Mongolian "er" (man) is cognate with English "were" (as in werewolf) or Latin "vir" (meaning man). A list of similar words is not that helpful. But it should not be totally ignored. It should be kept in the background, as something of secondary, but still usable, importance.

What's more important is basic structures and "morphological" similarities.

One "morphological" similarity, as I understand it, could be "verb prefixes". Verb prefixes seem like a very distinct feature of Indo-European languages.

This is what I got from a website about Sanskrit verbs:

When a verb uses a prefix, one of three things happens:

* The verb's meaning is changed slightly.
* The verb's meaning is changed significantly.
* The verb's meaning is emphasized

Then I look at a website about Latin verb prefixes. I know that Persian also uses verb prefixes, like "Ahuramazda khshacham manaa fra-bara". In German, ver-sprecht. In English, pro-claim ("forward-clamor"). Etc. One thing I notice is that the main function of verb prefixes is to show an EMPHASIS, or DIRECTION, POSITION, SEQUENCE and RELATION between two entities. Undergo, overthrow, interfere, preview etc. Could Mongolian have the same kind of verb prefixes? Or something left over from the past which resembles them?

Then I think about Mongolian. OK, so Mongolian is an "agglutinative" language, with particles added after the verbal root. Having verbal prefixes seems unlikely. But then, do prefixes have to be glued to the verb? Why can't they just precede the verb as well? In that case, we have many such verbal prefixes in Mongolian, serving the same function of showing DIRECTION, POSITION, SEQUENCE and RELATION. Many of them serve as "emphasizers" or intensifiers, just like the prefixes in Sanskrit (look above).

So what examples can I give of these "Mongolian quasi-Indo-European verb prefixes"? All the verb prefixes below are used exclusively with verbs.

1. "Nam" (idea of lowness). Example, "Nam darakh" ("low-to press"), meaning to crush utterly, to knock out. "Nam untakh" (low-to sleep) meaning to sleep very deeply, sleep like a log. Equivalents could be "sub-press", "sub-sleep" or "infra-sleep".

2. "Tsug" and "Kham" (both implying togetherness). Note the similarity of "Kham" with the Latin prefix "com-" and the Persian prefix "ham-", which both imply togetherness. Examples, "Tsug yavakh" (together-to go) meaning to go together and "Kham duulakh" (together-to sing) meaning to sing together. Equivalent: "com-sing", welcome to our annual comsinging event.

3. "Nevt" (idea of going through). Example, "nevt kharvakh" (through-to shoot), meaning to shoot with an arrow in such a way that the arrow goes straight through. An equivalent could be "trans-shoot", I don't know.

4. "Khoish" (idea of putting away to the back or frontward to the distance). Example, "khoish tavikh" ('frontward to the distance'-to put) meaning to postpone, leave for later. In fact, "post" is equal to "khoish" and "pone" is equal to "tavi-".

5. "Tas" (idea of separation). Example "tas tsavchikh" (TAS-to cut), to cut utterly, violently into two pieces. Equivalent could be "ab-sect", don't anger him he might absect you.

And so on and so forth. There are many more similar prefixes. Maybe we can discover that this system is very similar to Indo-European.

One might object that these are not true verbal prefixes, but that I've chosen random words and placed them in front of the verbs. I would reply that this is not case, instead these prefixes only make sense when they are in front of verbs, they are never used anywhere else and for any other purpose in a sentence, except "nam" which can be used as an adjective "nam gazar" (low-lying land) and "khoish" which can be used as an adverb "Chingisees khoish" (Chingis-from ''frontward to the distance") meaning 'after/since the time of Genghis Khan.' One might object that use of "nam" as an adjective and "khoish" as an adverb disproves their status as "solely-verb-associated" prefixes. I would reply that even in Indo-European there are verbal prefixes that can be used for other purposes, like "counter-" which can be used as the verb "to counter", "extra-" which can be used as the adjective or noun "extra", "super-" which can be used as the adjective "super" or even as an adverb when you say "the way he did it was super".

As far as numbers are concerned, I'm going to say that more research is necessary.

Mongolian "Neg" (One) sounds similar to Hindi "Ek" (One).

Mongolian "Davt" (Repeat) sounds similar to Russian "Dva" (Two).

Mongolian "Zond/Zondoo" (Numerous,Countless) sounds similar to Latin-derived "cent/ciento" (Hundred). Lehmann believes that the Indo-European numbers greater than ten were constructed separately in the dialect groups and that "kmtom" originally meant "a large number" rather than specifically "one hundred" (Wikipedia - Proto-Indo-European language).

Apart from these, I can't find much "potential distant cognates" yet. Who knows if more are found?

Maybe Mongolian "Dor-" (four) was originally spoken "heDWOR", making it a cognate of Indo-European "ketwor" (four). Or maybe there was a time when it was pronounced "Chor", making it a cognate of Hindi "char" (four).

Maybe Mongolian "Guraw" (three) was originally pronounced something like "Hri", making it a cognate of "tri" (three). "Guraw" does sound like "Hrw" or "Hri" when spoken fast. So maybe the original was Hri, which became Tri for Indo-European and Hrw for "Very-Proto-Mongolian". Eventually Hrw became Huraw and finally the Ghuraw/Qurban of today.

Or what if Mongolian numbers originate from the plans of someone to hide the number of his troops or sheep or horses by using secret code numbers, which differed from his original language?

Numbers are not as fixed as people think. It is well known that the Manchu language borrowed all its numbers from 11 to 20 from Mongolian, replacing its own ones. Japanese and Korean use Chinese numbers. So I don't think difference in numbers should prevent further discussion looking at deeper similarities.

[Talvi]

Sorry, but I am completely failing to see any real similarities at all. Most of it seems to be a mere coincidence.

I am no linguist but I cant take seriously anything that supposes an Altaic language group either (mentioned in your post and in the pdf file).

While all languages are wonderful and all, lets not over-do it.

[Jaska]

And they shouldn't always compare "Proto-Altaic" with Proto-Indo-European. "Proto-Altaic" is still very vague. Using specific languages like Mongolian is better in my opinion.
This is very important and too often ignored point.

It’s interesting how similar the personal endings are. But it would be necessary to see if the same sound correspondences are found in the rest of the vocabulary, too, as well as in the other parts of grammar. And the correspondences should be similar in every level.


I'm careful about "false cognates", words that sound similar but have no genetic connection. I don't know if Mongolian "humun" is cognate with English "human".
English word comes from Latin, and it goes back to Proto-Indo-European *ǵhmōn. In these words we should compare the oldest possible PIE reconstruction to the oldest possible Proto-Mongolic(-Khitanic) reconstruction and try to find some regular sound correspondences.

Perhaps all the non-African languages are ultimately related. While it is theoretically possible to find new relative language, it may also be that the time depth has corroded the relevant common inherited features so that we can never prove the relationship.

[demiirel]

Sorry, but I am completely failing to see any real similarities at all. Most of it seems to be a mere coincidence.

I am no linguist but I cant take seriously anything that supposes an Altaic language group either (mentioned in your post and in the pdf file).

While all languages are wonderful and all, lets not over-do it.

I don't suppose an Altaic group either. It IS possible, but not yet proven. So I'm basing myself solely on Mongolian, a real, extant, tangible language.

I think that maybe Turkic, Mongolian, Uralic and Indo-European were descended from one unique or two closely related languages around, say, 6000 BC. It's just a hypothesis for now. But isn't everything a hypothesis in the beginning?

[demiirel]

This is very important and too often ignored point.

It’s interesting how similar the personal endings are. But it would be necessary to see if the same sound correspondences are found in the rest of the vocabulary, too, as well as in the other parts of grammar. And the correspondences should be similar in every level.


English word comes from Latin, and it goes back to Proto-Indo-European *ǵhmōn. In these words we should compare the oldest possible PIE reconstruction to the oldest possible Proto-Mongolic(-Khitanic) reconstruction and try to find some regular sound correspondences.

Perhaps all the non-African languages are ultimately related. While it is theoretically possible to find new relative language, it may also be that the time depth has corroded the relevant common inherited features so that we can never prove the relationship.

We are essentially comparing the Mongolian language of c. 800 AD (the reconstructed "Proto-Mongol" proper as opposed to Khitan Mongol) to the entirety of the Indo-European spectrum, but placing special emphasis on older languages like Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. So Proto-Mongol is contemporaneous with Old English, which is a sufficiently ancient language.

I'm aware that a huge percentage of English vocabulary is Greco-Roman. When I compare a word with English I make sure that the English word is truly Indo-European. Even if the word has changed a bit, at least we can look at the laws causing the change and compare it to the gradual changes in Mongolian words. I'm quite sure that constant patterns of change will emerge.

[Jaska]

I think that maybe Turkic, Mongolian, Uralic and Indo-European were descended from one unique or two closely related languages around, say, 6000 BC.
This sounds too late. As the Indo-European languages are still clearly related after 6 000 years of separate development, there cannot be any relatives inside 12 000 years, I think. The temporal gap must assume to be so great that the relatedness is hardly perceptible (because it hasn't been found yet, and maybe never will).


We are essentially comparing the Mongolian language of c. 800 AD (the reconstructed "Proto-Mongol" proper as opposed to Khitan Mongol) to the entirety of the Indo-European spectrum, but placing special emphasis on older languages like Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. So Proto-Mongol is contemporaneous with Old English, which is a sufficiently ancient language.

I'm aware that a huge percentage of English vocabulary is Greco-Roman. When I compare a word with English I make sure that the English word is truly Indo-European. Even if the word has changed a bit, at least we can look at the laws causing the change and compare it to the gradual changes in Mongolian words. I'm quite sure that constant patterns of change will emerge.
There are some dangers in this method...
Some English phoneme, say X, can actually go back to many different Proto-Indo-European phonemes, like X, Y and Z. So if you find some regular-looking correspondence between (Old) English X and Mongolic X, it may occur that this is only illusory: we may actually have a set of correspondences like PIE X ~ Mong. X, PIE Y ~ Mong. X and PIE Z ~ Mong. X.

So the best language for comparison is Proto-Indo-European itself (the reconstructed language). It doesn't matter which reconstruction you use, as long as it is coherent: the cognate set of Old English X ~ Sanskrit X is always marked with the same symbol.

Here is Gerhard Köbler's Proto-Indo-European dictionary:
http://www.koeblergerhard.de/idgwbhin.html

There you can also load it as PDF, either in German or in English.

[Talvi]

I don't suppose an Altaic group either. It IS possible, but not yet proven. So I'm basing myself solely on Mongolian, a real, extant, tangible language.

I think that maybe Turkic, Mongolian, Uralic and Indo-European were descended from one unique or two closely related languages around, say, 6000 BC. It's just a hypothesis for now. But isn't everything a hypothesis in the beginning?



There is an idea that all human languages came from the same proto-Human languages, and I am not a supporter of that. Lumping together Turikc, Mongolian, Uralic AND Indo-European a couple of random coincidences seems to head to monogenesis. And its something I cannot agree on!

The "theory" you have now is based on poor accidental scraps from these languages, and is nowhere even near a real hypothesis or a scientific opinion.

[demiirel]

The noun morphology seems similar too.

In PIE the genitive/ablative is "-es", for example, "diw-es" (of/from the Sky God). In Mongolian the ablative is "-es" too. If we were to try to find a cognate to dyews (sky/god) I guess it can't be the word Tengri (sky/god), so I'll have to do with a word of similar meaning: "dewer" (roof). Here you can distinguish the root "dew-" which means "above, divine". This "dewer" and "dew-" are very closely related to Tengri. The Secret History of the Mongols opens "die-e-lie teng-ge-li-e-che zha-ya-a-tu tuo-lie-ke-xian" (original Chinese transcription) which reads "dewer tengri-es zayaat torogson" (born with destiny from heaven above). "Dewer tengri" is a title meaning "lofty sky", "divine god". Also in the rich treasury of Mongol oral tradition one can find curse utterances which go "may you prosper in freedom, may you make the sky your roof and the leaves your clothing", meaning "may you become a homeless outcast". Here you can see that Roof is connected to Sky. It's obvious. Roof is another synonym, another word for Sky. Especially for steppe peoples it is natural to see the sky as a roof, therefore the connection of "dewer" (lofty divine roof) with "tengri" (sky god) is very strong. Let's suppose that "dewer" is a cognate of PIE dyews (zeus/deus/dies).

One might object that the R in dewer is not found in PIE. I reply, dewer can also be read as dewes. Why? Because of the ox connection. In English and Tocharian the word "ox" means ox. In Turkish the word "okuz" means ox. In Mongolian the word "ukur" is accepted as a cognate of Turkish "okuz". The ubiquitous Z-R pattern in Turkish and Mongolian is well known. So another way to say "dewer" is obviously "dewez" or "dewes". But we'll stick with the root "dew-" (lofty, above, divine) for convenience.

PIE genitive/ablative: diw-es (from/of the Sky God)
Mongol ablative: dew-es (from above/from the divine)

Another curious similarity is the dative and locative cases. In PIE the dative and locative always look and sound very similar. The same applies to Mongol. Plus, the dative and locative in PIE and Mongol sound the same for both languages.

PIE dative: diw-ei (to the Sky God) Hittite: siuni
PIE locative: dyew-i (at the Sky God) Hittite: siuni
Mongol dative: dew-e (to the lofty, to the divine)
Mongol locative: dew-e (at the lofty, at the divine)

The instrumental seems remotely similar too.

PIE instrumental: diw-eh (by the Sky God) Hittite: siunit
Mongol instrumental: dew-er (by the lofty/divine)

[demiirel]

The accusative case requires further research.


PIE accusative: dyew-m (I worshipped "the Sky God")
Mongol accusative: dew-i (I worshipped "the lofty")

There is also this word "nebos" (cloud) in PIE, nebo in Russian. A possible cognate, crazy as it might sound, could be "newu-" in Mongolian which is the root of the verb "to migrate". Mongols still say "the clouds are migrating". The word "newu-" fits perfectly with the idea of cloud. What else do clouds do but migrate? They don't "look white", "look big" or "look fluffy". They migrate. Steppe peoples notice this most vividly. But I'm not going to go too far with this cognate business. I'm focusing more on basic structures.

[Foxy]

I study foreign languages and am preparing a test about germanic philology and I made some exams of linguistics, so I can answer with what I found in my books.

There is not relation between Mongolic and any Indo-European language. The cathegory "indo-European" is made by a genealogic classification, in short most of the languages in the world are related with at least an other language. Related means that they descend from a mother-language or one descends from the other. According to this, the Mongolic language is an Altaic language and shares affinities only with Turkish. Turkish itself is not related with any European language.

The Easternmost Indo-European language ever found was the Tocaric. Of this language, now extinct, belonged two dialects (Tocaric A and Tocaric B). Both, as I said, are estinguished. In the past, not very far (first millennium after Christ), was attested in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uM2WW69lff0/SBUTfQJTTlI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/AXJwau8HbFk/s320/xinjiang+2.gif

Not so strange if you consider that Afghanistan and Northern India/Pakistan are both indo-European speaking areas (or at least they were).

Anyway some luinguistics suggest that Mongolic could be related not only with Turkish but also with Japanese and Korean.

Now, coming to the European languages, you know some of them are not Indo-Europeans. They are neither altaic anyway. Estonian, Finnish and Hungarian are Uralic, while Basque is an own indipendent language.

[Osweo]

I actually have NO doubt in the ultimate relatedness of the languages. Nostratic and Greenberg's 'Eurasian' have long intrigued me. I am just sceptical of the survival of such a full array of parallels after so long a time, in the tens of millennia.

[Foxy]

Indo-European languages of the Centum Group (Western Indo-European)

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/IE_images/ietreecentum1.gif

Indo-European languages of the Satem Group (Eastern Indo-European)

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/IE_images/ietreesatem1.gif

The Indo-European linguistic family is divided in two branches, a Western branch that shows that the Italic languages, the Germanic languages, the Celtic languages and Hellenic share a grade of relation between each others stronger than with the Eastern Indo-European languages. So, Slavic and Baltic are more related with Albanian, Armenian and Indo-Aryan languages than with the Western Indo-European languages.

Criteria that a language must own to be considered Indo-European

1)The Indo-European languages are flexive. A language can be flexive (like Latin, Greek and Urgermanisch), agglutinant (like Turkish), isolant (like Chinese). All the Indo-European languages are losing the flexive character. The Romance languages , except Romanian, are today only semiflexive; English is the least flexive of all the Indo-European languages. However all the Indo-European languages in the past were flexive, so, all of them had (and have) phenomena like "metaphony".
2)All the Indo-European languages have a so called "Compact Indo-European Dictionary": i.e., all the I.E. languages have some Indo-European roots that exist in all the I.E. languages.
Compare Lat. <rex>, Celtic <rix>, Sanskrit <raja> (king); Latin <cor>, A.Greek <kèr>, Celtic <cride>, protogermanic <hairto>, etc. Compare the names of relatives, like father/pater/patèr/pita/fadhir, etc.
3)The system of pronouns: compare Lat. <ego>, A. Greek <egò>, protonord. <ek>, Lat. <tu>, A.Greek <sy>, protonord. <thou>, etc.
4)The numerical system.

5)The Indo-European verb expresses: time, mode, aspect, person, passive/active/mediopassive voice, number. Mediopassive voice is estinguished in almost all the modern languages, substituted by pheriphrastic constructions/reflexive pronouns.

6)All the Indo-European languages have verbs constructed by apophony (often called <strong verbs> or <irregular verbs>).

7)The IndoEuropean nouns express : gender, number, case (modern languages may have lost one of more of these cathegories, for ex. English).

8)Suffixes to create the comparative grades -er/ior and -st/ss: compare Lat. <pulchrior>, English <stronger>, etc.

9)the Indo-European adjective agree with the noun.

10)Some Indo-European verbs don't posses a tematic root. For exemple the verb <to be> is a mixed verb in all the Indo-European languages (it means that to decline this verb these languages use more roots, like *-ES, *-BHU and *-WES.

COMPARE:

Latin

EGO SUM
TU ES
IS EST
NOS SUMUS
VOS ESTIS
II SUNT

Old Norse

EK EM
THU ERT
HANN ER
VER ERUM
THER ERUDH
THEIR ERU

Ancient Greek

EGO' EIMI
SY EI
AUTON ESTIN
EMEIS ESMEN
YMEIS ESTE
AUTOI EISIN

Hope to have been useful

[demiirel]

Thank you Vampire of Venice.

I think that flexive and agglutinating are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a flexive language to lose its flexiveness (as you said English) and become agglutinating. It is possible for a prefix to become a suffix and a suffix to become a prefix.

For example the comparative suffix "-ior" (melior), "-er" (bigger) could have become a prefix in Mongolian. In Mongolian the corresponding comparative particle is the prefix "ilu", which means "more". "Ilu tom" (bigger) could originally have been tomilu, tomiul or tomiur.

[demiirel]

I actually have NO doubt in the ultimate relatedness of the languages. Nostratic and Greenberg's 'Eurasian' have long intrigued me. I am just sceptical of the survival of such a full array of parallels after so long a time, in the tens of millennia.

They intrigue me too and I support their work, but sometimes they focus too much on macro, I mean M-A-C-R-O comparison that they lose the details. So for example the Nostraticists will say that Proto-Nostratic "sna" means nose, but there's no way I can find a relation of "sna" to Mongolian. It looks like they gave primacy to PIE in their comparisons and just lumped together "nasal" and "sniff".


3)The system of pronouns: compare Lat. <ego>, A. Greek <egò>, protonord. <ek>, Lat. <tu>, A.Greek <sy>, protonord. <thou>, etc.

5)The Indo-European verb expresses: time, mode, aspect, person, passive/active/mediopassive voice, number. Mediopassive voice is estinguished in almost all the modern languages, substituted by pheriphrastic constructions/reflexive pronouns.

6)All the Indo-European languages have verbs constructed by apophony (often called <strong verbs> or <irregular verbs>).

7)The IndoEuropean nouns express : gender, number, case (modern languages may have lost one of more of these cathegories, for ex. English).

8)Suffixes to create the comparative grades -er/ior and -st/ss: compare Lat. <pulchrior>, English <stronger>, etc.

9)the Indo-European adjective agree with the noun.

10)Some Indo-European verbs don't posses a tematic root. For exemple the verb <to be> is a mixed verb in all the Indo-European languages (it means that to decline this verb these languages use more roots, like *-ES, *-BHU and *-WES.

Mongolian shares all these features. The only thing is Mongolian has come to serve the same functions by using agglutination (using suffixes more). Mongol suffix and prefix particles are very similar to PIE suffix and prefix particles in both their sound and meaning.

All the Indo-European languages have a so called "Compact Indo-European Dictionary": i.e., all the I.E. languages have some Indo-European roots that exist in all the I.E. languages.
Compare Lat. <rex>, Celtic <rix>, Sanskrit <raja> (king); Latin <cor>, A.Greek <kèr>, Celtic <cride>, protogermanic <hairto>, etc. Compare the names of relatives, like father/pater/patèr/pita/fadhir, etc.

4)The numerical system.

It is the apparent diffences in vocabulary that make people doubt. Differences in vocabulary may be due solely to distance in time and space. I think the truth is that some western comparative linguists have a very poor understanding of Mongolian, only a dictionary understanding, that is why their comparisons can never be deep enough.

Me being a Mongol I could come up with much more insightful comparisons.

For example, you have Latin cor (heart) and caritas (love). These could be cognate with Mongolian "khair" (love). Where else does Khair come from but the heart? "Phter" (father) could be cognate with Mongolian "avdar" (meaning chest, can be pronounced aphtar). Avdar refers to the big chest housing all the precious articles in the yurt. In Mongol tradition the father occupies the most prominent position at the northern side of the yurt facing the door to the south, like a king. The chest also occupies the most unique and prominent place in the yurt, because it houses the most precious belongings, even the representations of the gods. So it is not irrational to suppose an association of the Chest to the Father. Especially if the father had died it is only logical that his spirit was believed to reside with the other "father-gods" in the Avdar. Eventually "phter" stuck with "Avdar" while the father came to be called "Av", "Ata" and "Etseg".

The human chest is called Chej in Mongolian (note the similar sound of "chest" and "chej"). "Father's chest" is the name given to a big truck as well. There is an association between the chest in the yurt, the physical human chest and the Father figure. Like the Father's physical chest, the chest or Avdar in the yurt houses the spirit or spirits. The Father's physical chest is the symbol of the wellbeing of the family, while the Father's Avdar in the yurt is also the symbol of the wellbeing of the family. So we can all see the connection.

[demiirel]

So for example the Nostraticists will say that Proto-Nostratic "sna" means nose, but there's no way I can find a relation of "sna" to Mongolian. It looks like they gave primacy to PIE in their comparisons and just lumped together "nasal" and "sniff".

Actually when I think about it, there could be a connection. Mongolian "nus" (snot) could well be connected to "nose".

[Foxy]

Thank you Vampire of Venice.

I think that flexive and agglutinating are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a flexive language to lose its flexiveness (as you said English) and become agglutinating. It is possible for a prefix to become a suffix and a suffix to become a prefix.

For example the comparative suffix "-ior" (melior), "-er" (bigger) could have become a prefix in Mongolian. In Mongolian the corresponding comparative particle is the prefix "ilu", which means "more". "Ilu tom" (bigger) could originally have been tomilu, tomiul or tomiur.

Yes it can happen that a prefix can become a suffix (very rare anyway). But you are ignoring an important fact: that two languages that are not related genealogically can acquire common traits by contact. For exemple, Italian is not a Germanic language, but it acquired germanic suffixes during the Germanic Invasions. Neverthless Italians doesn't descend from a germanic language. A lunguistic family indicates the most distant relation between languages, it means that if two languages don't belong to the same linguistic family they are not related: it is the case of Mongolian and every indo-European language.

Mongolian can have acquired some indo-european traits by a contact with Indo-European speaking peoples living in Asia or in areas close to them, like Tocarian-speaking peoples, attested until 1000 d.C. in XinJiang (Northern-East China).

[Foxy]

I make you some exemples of Indo-European roots and words:

IE catvari: latin quattuor
IE das'a: Latin deci, Greek deca, English ten
IE kendram: English centre, German Zentrum, Latin centrum, Swedish Karna
IE mayaa: Latin mea, German meine
IE na: Latin no, German nein, Russian niet[B]
IE [B]priit: Latin praeferire, Lithuanian pritati
IE sharkara: English sugar, Italian zucchero, German Zucker, Latvian cukur
IE abai: German beide, Latin ambus, O.Greek amphìSanskrit Ubhau
IE akshy: Latin oculis, German Augen, O. Prussian aksi

Etc.ect.

Most European words are related to each others. These are just random exemples. I avoited to repeat exemples of using neolatin words (I wrote only the Latin mother-word).

[demiirel]

I've studied Romance languages a lot, so when I studied German and Russian (I never learnt it well when I was young) I was amazed by how individual words looked so different from Romance. So I'm thinking, the distance between German and Italian is the same as the distance between PIE and its sister Very-Proto-Mongolian (around the early Neolithic). Wherever the Urheimat was PIE and Very-Proto-Mongolian must have been relatively close to each other, something like 2000 km apart. If Indo-Uralic is established as a valid family, which I think it will in at least two more generations, then it will be much more easier to accept Mongolian into the family, since Mongolian has staggering similarities to Uralic.

[Treffie]

One similarity may be the personal pronoun verb conjugation system.

As an example, let us see how the Mongolian verb “barakh” (to finish), which is written in old Mongolian writing “baraqu” (root “bara-”), conjugates when combined with personal pronouns in the present tense, like it is normally done in Buryat Mongolian. By the way, I am looking at basic structures. I am aware that Mongolian was more complex in the past with gender differentiation in conjugation et cetera. But I think that can be ignored for the purposes of my analysis and comparison here.

Ancient Mongolian “baraqu” – to finish
First person singular: baram (i am finishing)
Second person singular: barasi (you are finishing)
Third person singular: barat (he is finishing)
First person plural: baramus (we are finishing)
Second person plural: barata (you, sir, are finishing/you guys are finishing)
Third person plural: barad (they are finishing)

Proto-Indo-European “ber” – to carry
First person singular: Berom
Second person singular: Beresi
Third person singular: Bereti
First person plural: Beromos
Second person plural: Berete
Third person plural: Berond

It is amazing how the Proto-Indo-European conjugation is closest in a way to Latin. If you analyze the Mongolian, it is clear that personal pronouns have been added as a suffix to the verb root, although in a shortened form. The “pronoun-suffixes” are (in full elaborated form) “mi, si, ter, mus (short form of manus, meaning “we”, it is preserved in Manchu “mus”), ta, ted” respectively. This system is still present in many Mongolian languages today, like Buryat and Moghol. In Buryat, the equivalents would be “baranam, baranash, barana, baranamdi, baranat, baranad”, which are very similar despite trifling divergences. This system is no longer used in Khalkha Mongolian, because the verb system is more simplified in Khalkha Mongolian. One thing to note would be the first person plural "baranamdi" in Buryat, here the pronoun-suffix is "bid", another form of "we", which is simply the plural of "bi" (me), also written "biz" in Turkish. In this case the shortened form of "bid" is "-mdi", which might also be written "-miz" based on the obviously identical Turkish pronoun. This might in turn easily be read as "-mus" which brings us full circle back to the "baramus" (we are finishing) of the original example mentioned above. The reason for this similarity is that the root of "-mus" and "-mdi" is the same, namely "mi/bi" meaning "me", which when converted into the plural "we" becomes "manus/mus" and "bid/mid/biz/miz" respectively.

Another similarity would be the interrogative pronouns. For example, in Hindi, “kahan” means “where” and “kitan” means “how many”. In Spanish “quien” means “who”. In Mongolian, “kahan” means “where”, “keden” means “how many” and “ken” means “who”.

In some ways I think Mongolian is like an Indo-European language spoken in reverse. In Mongolian the suffix “-d” is similar to the Indo-European particle “to”, it shows destination, but the only difference is that in the case of Mongolian the partice comes AFTER the word, which is the reverse of Indo-European. Also, the Mongolian suffix “-aas” (written -acha) is similar to the Indo-European particles “aus” (German), “hacha” (Persian) and “-sa” (Hindi), it means that something is coming out of something. Again, in Mongolian the particle comes AFTER the word, although in the exceptional case of Hindi, "-sa" is a suffix.

So for example, while a Mongolian says “kahanaas iresi?” (from where are you coming?), an Indo-European might say something like “kahansa beresi?” (from where are you carrying ‘that thing’?) In this case the Indo-European example is closest to Hindi, which unlike other Indo-European languages uses many suffixes, like Mongolian.

I don’t know about other so-called Altaic languages like Japanese, but Mongolian seems a bit similar to Indo-European.

The problem with some of the internet material on this subject is that it is too general and too obscure.

For example:

www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art216e.pdf

It would be better if they also showed some examples, using specific languages. And they shouldn't always compare "Proto-Altaic" with Proto-Indo-European. "Proto-Altaic" is still very vague. Using specific languages like Mongolian is better in my opinion. So what I'm writing here is not based on what Frederik Kortlandt or some other linguist wrote, because I simply don't understand what they're writing. How am I supposed to understand a statement like this: "Proto-Altaic *sV 'this' may be similar to Indo-European *so"? There is no *sV in Mongolian. So I'm using my own common sense instead.

For example, I think: In Mongolian "alt" means "gold", "altan" means "golden". "Torgo" means "silk", "torgon" means "silken". So I think, maybe there's a connection there, with the "-en" business, because there is a similarity in meaning.

I'm careful about "false cognates", words that sound similar but have no genetic connection. I don't know if Mongolian "humun" is cognate with English "human". Or if Mongolian "er" (man) is cognate with English "were" (as in werewolf) or Latin "vir" (meaning man). A list of similar words is not that helpful. But it should not be totally ignored. It should be kept in the background, as something of secondary, but still usable, importance.

What's more important is basic structures and "morphological" similarities.

One "morphological" similarity, as I understand it, could be "verb prefixes". Verb prefixes seem like a very distinct feature of Indo-European languages.

This is what I got from a website about Sanskrit verbs:

When a verb uses a prefix, one of three things happens:

* The verb's meaning is changed slightly.
* The verb's meaning is changed significantly.
* The verb's meaning is emphasized

Then I look at a website about Latin verb prefixes. I know that Persian also uses verb prefixes, like "Ahuramazda khshacham manaa fra-bara". In German, ver-sprecht. In English, pro-claim ("forward-clamor"). Etc. One thing I notice is that the main function of verb prefixes is to show an EMPHASIS, or DIRECTION, POSITION, SEQUENCE and RELATION between two entities. Undergo, overthrow, interfere, preview etc. Could Mongolian have the same kind of verb prefixes? Or something left over from the past which resembles them?

Then I think about Mongolian. OK, so Mongolian is an "agglutinative" language, with particles added after the verbal root. Having verbal prefixes seems unlikely. But then, do prefixes have to be glued to the verb? Why can't they just precede the verb as well? In that case, we have many such verbal prefixes in Mongolian, serving the same function of showing DIRECTION, POSITION, SEQUENCE and RELATION. Many of them serve as "emphasizers" or intensifiers, just like the prefixes in Sanskrit (look above).

So what examples can I give of these "Mongolian quasi-Indo-European verb prefixes"? All the verb prefixes below are used exclusively with verbs.

1. "Nam" (idea of lowness). Example, "Nam darakh" ("low-to press"), meaning to crush utterly, to knock out. "Nam untakh" (low-to sleep) meaning to sleep very deeply, sleep like a log. Equivalents could be "sub-press", "sub-sleep" or "infra-sleep".

2. "Tsug" and "Kham" (both implying togetherness). Note the similarity of "Kham" with the Latin prefix "com-" and the Persian prefix "ham-", which both imply togetherness. Examples, "Tsug yavakh" (together-to go) meaning to go together and "Kham duulakh" (together-to sing) meaning to sing together. Equivalent: "com-sing", welcome to our annual comsinging event.

3. "Nevt" (idea of going through). Example, "nevt kharvakh" (through-to shoot), meaning to shoot with an arrow in such a way that the arrow goes straight through. An equivalent could be "trans-shoot", I don't know.

4. "Khoish" (idea of putting away to the back or frontward to the distance). Example, "khoish tavikh" ('frontward to the distance'-to put) meaning to postpone, leave for later. In fact, "post" is equal to "khoish" and "pone" is equal to "tavi-".

5. "Tas" (idea of separation). Example "tas tsavchikh" (TAS-to cut), to cut utterly, violently into two pieces. Equivalent could be "ab-sect", don't anger him he might absect you.

And so on and so forth. There are many more similar prefixes. Maybe we can discover that this system is very similar to Indo-European.

One might object that these are not true verbal prefixes, but that I've chosen random words and placed them in front of the verbs. I would reply that this is not case, instead these prefixes only make sense when they are in front of verbs, they are never used anywhere else and for any other purpose in a sentence, except "nam" which can be used as an adjective "nam gazar" (low-lying land) and "khoish" which can be used as an adverb "Chingisees khoish" (Chingis-from ''frontward to the distance") meaning 'after/since the time of Genghis Khan.' One might object that use of "nam" as an adjective and "khoish" as an adverb disproves their status as "solely-verb-associated" prefixes. I would reply that even in Indo-European there are verbal prefixes that can be used for other purposes, like "counter-" which can be used as the verb "to counter", "extra-" which can be used as the adjective or noun "extra", "super-" which can be used as the adjective "super" or even as an adverb when you say "the way he did it was super".

As far as numbers are concerned, I'm going to say that more research is necessary.

Mongolian "Neg" (One) sounds similar to Hindi "Ek" (One).

Mongolian "Davt" (Repeat) sounds similar to Russian "Dva" (Two).

Mongolian "Zond/Zondoo" (Numerous,Countless) sounds similar to Latin-derived "cent/ciento" (Hundred). Lehmann believes that the Indo-European numbers greater than ten were constructed separately in the dialect groups and that "kmtom" originally meant "a large number" rather than specifically "one hundred" (Wikipedia - Proto-Indo-European language).

Apart from these, I can't find much "potential distant cognates" yet. Who knows if more are found?

Maybe Mongolian "Dor-" (four) was originally spoken "heDWOR", making it a cognate of Indo-European "ketwor" (four). Or maybe there was a time when it was pronounced "Chor", making it a cognate of Hindi "char" (four).

Maybe Mongolian "Guraw" (three) was originally pronounced something like "Hri", making it a cognate of "tri" (three). "Guraw" does sound like "Hrw" or "Hri" when spoken fast. So maybe the original was Hri, which became Tri for Indo-European and Hrw for "Very-Proto-Mongolian". Eventually Hrw became Huraw and finally the Ghuraw/Qurban of today.

Or what if Mongolian numbers originate from the plans of someone to hide the number of his troops or sheep or horses by using secret code numbers, which differed from his original language?

Numbers are not as fixed as people think. It is well known that the Manchu language borrowed all its numbers from 11 to 20 from Mongolian, replacing its own ones. Japanese and Korean use Chinese numbers. So I don't think difference in numbers should prevent further discussion looking at deeper similarities.

As much as linguistics interests me, this was tl;dr

Can you please use an abstract of any articles in future and then post a link?

Thank

[Jaska]

One might object that the R in dewer is not found in PIE. I reply, dewer can also be read as dewes. Why? Because of the ox connection. In English and Tocharian the word "ox" means ox. In Turkish the word "okuz" means ox. In Mongolian the word "ukur" is accepted as a cognate of Turkish "okuz". The ubiquitous Z-R pattern in Turkish and Mongolian is well known. So another way to say "dewer" is obviously "dewez" or "dewes". But we'll stick with the root "dew-" (lofty, above, divine) for convenience.
The z ~ r variation is inner-Turkic: it is *z in Common Turkic but *r in Bolgharic branch (today only Chuvash). Mongolic has borrowed the word from Bolghar Turkic, so Mongolic -er does not correspond to IE -es.


For example, you have Latin cor (heart) and caritas (love). These could be cognate with Mongolian "khair" (love). Where else does Khair come from but the heart? "Phter" (father) could be cognate with Mongolian "avdar" (meaning chest, can be pronounced aphtar). Avdar refers to the big chest housing all the precious articles in the yurt.
Such connections are way too arbitrary. You can always find some semantically fitting word using such “logic”. (Take ‘under’ for example: you can connect almost everything to it, as ‘mouse’, ‘grass’, ‘earth’, ‘knee’, ‘foot’ etc. are all ‘under’ us.) Such a method is not scientific, because you can “prove” any two languages relatives by that method. You must start with exact semantic parallels: ‘heart’ ~ ‘heart’, ‘father’ ~ ‘father’ or 'chest' ~ 'chest, box' and 'migrate' ~ 'walk, go'.


If Indo-Uralic is established as a valid family, which I think it will in at least two more generations, then it will be much more easier to accept Mongolian into the family, since Mongolian has staggering similarities to Uralic.
They tried it but there is not enough common between Indo-European and Uralic. And even if there were, you should get the same reconstructional level by comparing Uralic and IE than comparing Mongolic and IE – otherwise they are contradicting and just prove that the method is too uncritical, as you can “prove” anything by it.

[AntonyCapolongo]

One thing is sure, this forum isn't about Altaic preservation, my dear mongolovitch "friend".

[demiirel]

The z ~ r variation is inner-Turkic: it is *z in Common Turkic but *r in Bolgharic branch (today only Chuvash). Mongolic has borrowed the word from Bolghar Turkic, so Mongolic -er does not correspond to IE -es.

What's the source for this?


Such connections are way too arbitrary. You can always find some semantically fitting word using such “logic”. (Take ‘under’ for example: you can connect almost everything to it, as ‘mouse’, ‘grass’, ‘earth’, ‘knee’, ‘foot’ etc. are all ‘under’ us.) Such a method is not scientific, because you can “prove” any two languages relatives by that method. You must start with exact semantic parallels: ‘heart’ ~ ‘heart’, ‘father’ ~ ‘father’ or 'chest' ~ 'chest, box' and 'migrate' ~ 'walk, go'.

Well I said in the beginning that I'm not placing too much importance on cognates yet. Arbitrary as it might seem, you can't absolutely deny them outright in one sweep. Remember I said Very-Proto-Mongolian and PIE were (hypothesis) sister languages, descended from a common proto-language, like Germanic and Romance, so a gradual divergence of vocabulary is not impossible. The core structure similarities are still evident.

[demiirel]

One thing is sure, this forum isn't about Altaic preservation, my dear mongolovitch "friend".

I have not advocated "Altaic preservation". I'm focusing on connections of Mongolian to Indo-European. This means I've got nothing against Indo-European, but am trying to connect with and promote Indo-European, as opposed to talking a confrontation stance to Indo-European.

[Jaska]

What's the source for this?
Common Turkologic knowledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages#Classification

The r is only found in the Oghur (= Bolgharic) branch, while all the other branches have z. The *z is seen to have been there in Proto-Turkic.


Well I said in the beginning that I'm not placing too much importance on cognates yet. Arbitrary as it might seem, you can't absolutely deny them outright in one sweep. Remember I said Very-Proto-Mongolian and PIE were (hypothesis) sister languages, descended from a common proto-language, like Germanic and Romance, so a gradual divergence of vocabulary is not impossible. The core structure similarities are still evident.
Of course there have occurred also some semantic shifts in every language family. But when a brand new relation is presented, first one has to to find out the semantically identical and phonologically regular cognates. Only after this has been done and the relation thus argued to be plausible and credible, one can add cognates with semantically identical or phonologically regular form. And only with very water-proof language families we can accept cognates with neither semantically identical nor phonologically regular forms (= irregular cognates).

If the first stage cannot be applied, there is no relation between the languages, and therefore no need for further comparison.

[Foxy]

I've studied Romance languages a lot, so when I studied German and Russian (I never learnt it well when I was young) I was amazed by how individual words looked so different from Romance.

Of course German and Russian are different from Romance languages. You took as exemples a Neolatin, a germanic and a slavic language. Apart the slavic languages that I dunno and I cannot use as exemples, I can make you rationa exemples of the genetical closeness of Germanic and Romance words. Compare random words in English, Italian and German:

red-rosso-rot (same meaning, same root);
horn-corno (like before)
no-no-nein (I add also Russian, niet)
night-notte-Nacht
my-mio-mein
I-io-ich
he-egli (from Latin eo) -er
yellow-giallo (pronunce jalloh) - Gelb
Cat-gatto-Katze
mouth-mento (but in Italian it indicates the chin) - Mund
star-stella-Stern
eye-occhio-auge
Tooth - zanna (in Italian indicating the tooth of an animal) - Zahn
light - luce - Licht

etc. etc.

These are not arbitrarian exemples becouse these words, with an evident same root, have also the same identical meaning.

[demiirel]

The r is only found in the Oghur (= Bolgharic) branch, while all the other branches have z. The *z is seen to have been there in Proto-Turkic.

I already know about the internal Z-R distinction in Turkic. I meant, what is the source that Mongolian borrowed it from Bulghar?


Of course there have occurred also some semantic shifts in every language family. But when a brand new relation is presented, first one has to to find out the semantically identical and phonologically regular cognates. Only after this has been done and the relation thus argued to be plausible and credible, one can add cognates with semantically identical or phonologically regular form. And only with very water-proof language families we can accept cognates with neither semantically identical nor phonologically regular forms (= irregular cognates).

If the first stage cannot be applied, there is no relation between the languages, and therefore no need for further comparison.

Plenty of cognates can be brought up using the Nostratic and Eurasiatic lexicon compilations. I can add some more of my own too. I don't know which language is closest to Indo-European in "vocabulary proximity". That you must know. In the case of Mongolian the closest is Turkish, after that Tungusic, after that the Uralic languages, and after that Persian (Mongols still worship Khan Khurmast Tengri, or 'Khan Ahuramazda Tengri').

It seems that the pronouns (personal, interrogative, demonstrative) are pretty much "cognate" in Mongolian and Indo-European. The similar verbal and nominal morphology in addition encourages us to further explore this issue, without being overly stifled by the strictness of methodology.

[demiirel]

But when a brand new relation is presented

It's not really brand new, this idea of connection between Mongolian and Indo-European. The Indo-Uralic hypothesis, which is not new, also implies a potential Indo-Ural-Altaic, which includes Mongolian. Mongolian is very similar to the Uralic languages. It was once classified as being genetically related, and that classification could be renewed if more research is done. The Eurasiatic hypothesis also includes Mongolian.

[Jaska]

I already know about the internal Z-R distinction in Turkic. I meant, what is the source that Mongolian borrowed it from Bulghar?
Then I don’t understand the question. How Mongolic even could have Oghur-Turkic words otherwise than by borrowing?


It seems that the pronouns (personal, interrogative, demonstrative) are pretty much "cognate" in Mongolian and Indo-European. The similar verbal and nominal morphology in addition encourages us to further explore this issue, without being overly stifled by the strictness of methodology.
No, strictness of methodology can never be ignored. It is commonly known feature that many languages of the world have labial sound referring to me, and dental sound referring to you. The basic vocabulary and grammatical material should have similar regular sound correspondences between the two languages.


It's not really brand new, this idea of connection between Mongolian and Indo-European. The Indo-Uralic hypothesis, which is not new, also implies a potential Indo-Ural-Altaic, which includes Mongolian. Mongolian is very similar to the Uralic languages. It was once classified as being genetically related, and that classification could be renewed if more research is done. The Eurasiatic hypothesis also includes Mongolian.
No, Indo-Uralic hypothesis does not automatically imply anything else. Just the opposite: Indo-Uralic seems to be very different from the proposed Ural-Altaic, so they both cannot be true. Indo-Mongolic is also different even from Indo-Altaic. If the method cannot distinguish between the contradicting hypotheses, the method is invalid.

[demiirel]

The following is taken from the Eurasiatic (not Nostratic) database at http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi?basename=\data\nostr\nostret&root=config. There are 104 pages of Eurasiatic cognates. The following are 43 cognates that have come up from only the first 5 pages, and I've only chosen the ones that have both Indo-European and Altaic together. Within Altaic, Mongolian has a prominent place, and the Mongolian examples more closely resemble "Proto-Altaic", in comparison to the more irregular Japanese and Korean. Since there are 43 Indo-Mongol cognates in 5 pages, there must be 894 "Indo-Mongol" cognates in 104 pages. I could add some more of my own and easily make the number 1000. The 43 cognates below are only 4.8% of 894. So we have at least 1000 Indo-Mongol cognates, at the present state of research. To take a conservative stance: of these 1000 cognates, 600 are very strong cognates, while 300 must be extremely strong cognates.

Meaning: that, this (prob. *Ha that, *He this)
Indo-European: *e-n-, *o-n- (also *e- in Hitt. and IIr.)
Altaic: *é (perhaps *a / *e mixed) Mongolian: *e-ne

Meaning: to breathe
Indo-European: *anǝ- 'breathe' (Pok. 38-39)
Altaic: Turk. *aŋkɨ- 'emit odour' ( > Mongolian. aŋgi-l-)

Meaning: member of the clan
Indo-European: *ar(y)- <PIH *a->
Altaic: *ā́ri ( ~ *ḗra) Mongolian: *ere

Meaning: back
Indo-European: *ors- <PIH *o-> Or *org'h-i- <PIH *o-> 2862
Altaic: *ằra Mongolian: *aru

Meaning: fish
Indo-European: *at-/*et-
Altaic: (Manch., Mongolian. atu 'female fish')

Meaning: deer
Indo-European: *el-n-, *el-k'-
Altaic: *ĕlV(-k`V) Mongolian: *ili

Meaning: to wound, kill
Indo-European: *ăwā- 'to wound'
Altaic: *ḗpo [perhaps *ḗbo, despite Mong.?] Mongolian: *aba

Meaning: this
Indo-European: *i-, *ey-; *yo-
Altaic: *i Mongolian: *i-nu-

Meaning: elm
Indo-European: *elem-
Altaic: *ʔilVmV Mongolian: *(h)ilama

Meaning: to see, search
Indo-European: *eis-
Altaic: *ič`V Mongolian: *(h)iča-

Meaning: to eat
Indo-European: *ed- 'to eat' (Pok. 287-288)
Altaic: *ite Mongolian: *ide-

Meaning: meat
Indo-European: *mēms-
Altaic: *úsu ( ~ o-, -i) [or to *waCV?]

Meaning: self
Indo-European: *oino- ?
Altaic: *oŋne (? cf. also *ni̯ŏŋe) Mongolian: *önü-

Meaning: that, this
Indo-European: *ou-, *u- 'that' (very sparsely represented)
Altaic: *ó Mongolian: *on-

Meaning: one
Indo-European: (*ed-inъ, *edъ-va)
Altaic: *i̯ude

Meaning: breast, belly
Indo-European: *owǝdh-
Altaic: *dṑ ( ~ t-) ? Mongolian: *do- / *du-

Meaning: cold
Indo-European: *ou-, *ouk'-, *oug'-
Altaic: *ipe ( ~ i̯a-) Mongolian: *ebül

Meaning: anger
Indo-European: *obhr-
Altaic: *i̯ắbò Mongolian: *(h)öɣe ~ *(h)eɣö

Meaning: near
Indo-European: *obh-
Altaic: *i̯obo ( ~ *i̯ubi) Mongolian: *ojira

Meaning: early, dawn
Indo-European: *aus- ?
Altaic: *éča

Meaning: to take care of, honour
Indo-European: *ais-, *aiz-d- <PIH *isHo-s>
Altaic: *ḕs[i] Mongolian: *asara-

Meaning: bad
Indo-European: *ag-
Altaic: *ĕ̀ka (~ -o) Mongolian: *(h)egel

Meaning: armpit
Indo-European: *ak(')s-
Altaic: *uk`V ( ~ *o-) Mongolian: *(h)ogo-da-su

Meaning: lie
Indo-European: *leugh-
Altaic: *uĺu(-kV, -gV) Mongolian: *ulig

Meaning: germinated seeds, juice of berries or trees (?)
Indo-European: *alut-, -d-
Altaic: *aĺV Mongolian: *(h)alir-su

Meaning: mother, woman
Indo-European: *mā-t-er-
Altaic: *ĕ̀me Mongolian: *eme

Meaning: to see, eye
Indo-European: *ney- 'to shine, sparkle; to see' [Blazhek proposes IIr. *vain- 'see'?]
Altaic: *ni̯ā̀ Mongolian: *nidü

Meaning: an ungulate
Indo-European: *ein-
Altaic: *ènŋù Mongolian: *unagan

Meaning: not, negative particle
Indo-European: *nē, *ne, *ney
Altaic: *ā̀ni

Meaning: to wish, help
Indo-European: *(o)nā-
Altaic: *naja Mongolian: *najida-

Meaning: to understand, brain (?)
Indo-European: *āw-
Altaic: *ēŋV Mongolian: *aɣuda-la-

Meaning: other
Indo-European: *An-
Altaic: *aŋV Mongolian: *aŋgi-

Meaning: door jamb, pole
Indo-European: *anǝt-ā-
Altaic: *uŋt`V Mongolian: *(h)uni-

Meaning: to put on, wear
Indo-European: *ou-
Altaic: *i̯òpe Mongolian: *ibeɣe-

Meaning: take, seize
Indo-European: *ap-
Altaic: *apV Mongolian: *abi-

Meaning: rise, up
Indo-European: *upo
Altaic: *épu ( ~ -b-) 'up, rise' Mongolian: *öɣe-, *ög-se-

Meaning: weak, exhausted
Indo-European: *āp[e]-
Altaic: *op`á(rV) Mongolian: *(h)obur

Meaning: food, to cook
Indo-European: *eps-
Altaic: *ep`ò Mongolian: *aɣag / *haɣag

Meaning: open space
Indo-European: *ārH- (also Hitt. hari- 'valley')
Altaic: *ā́rV Mongolian: *ar-

Meaning: to break, scatter, tear
Indo-European: *rAw-
Altaic: *ŏrV

Meaning: early
Indo-European: (*(o)rē(i)-)
Altaic: *ḗre ( ~ -i)

Meaning: a k. of insect
Indo-European: *orik-
Altaic: *ara Mongolian: *araɣalǯin

[Jaska]

Since there are 43 Indo-Mongol cognates in 5 pages, there must be 894 "Indo-Mongol" cognates in 104 pages.
Firstly, those are not Indo-Mongol words; those are Nostratic words with cognates in Indo-European and Mongolic. If we would reconstruct the protoform only on the basis of IE and Mongolic, it would look different from the Nostratic reconstructions. In Nostratic framework it is too easy to “find” a fitting protoform for some (any) Altaic branch and IE. Instead you (and them) should always compare only two entities, no more.

Secondly, as there are only about 1 000 critically accepted Proto-Indo-European etymologies and only about 500 Proto-Uralic at most, we can say that nearly 1 000 Nostratic or Indo-Mongolic etymologies cannot be true. There could not be any more than at most a couple of hundreds of them, if the relationship were real. This shows that the method is not critical enough.

[demiirel]

Firstly, those are not Indo-Mongol words; those are Nostratic words with cognates in Indo-European and Mongolic. If we would reconstruct the protoform only on the basis of IE and Mongolic, it would look different from the Nostratic reconstructions. In Nostratic framework it is too easy to “find” a fitting protoform for some (any) Altaic branch and IE. Instead you (and them) should always compare only two entities, no more.

Yes, but I've intentionally left out the Nostratic element here. Can't you see I've only put IE and Mongolian side by side? I know that these cognates were brought up using Nostratic mass comparison methodology, but when you look at it even without the Nostratic lens you can still see an undeniable resemblance. I wrote Indo-Mongol do imply a distant relationship ("sister relationship"), not to imply that Indo-Mongol was an independent language family to the exclusion of Uralic or Kartvelian.


Secondly, as there are only about 1 000 critically accepted Proto-Indo-European etymologies and only about 500 Proto-Uralic at most, we can say that nearly 1 000 Nostratic or Indo-Mongolic etymologies cannot be true. There could not be any more than at most a couple of hundreds of them, if the relationship were real. This shows that the method is not critical enough.

But there are still the 300 "extremely strong cognates" as I said above. I'm not a Nostraticist (I haven't studied it in depth). I'm only using what the Nostraticists have done, using the cognates they have come up with.

[Jaska]

Yes, but I've intentionally left out the Nostratic element here. Can't you see I've only put IE and Mongolian side by side? I know that these cognates were brought up using Nostratic mass comparison methodology, but when you look at it even without the Nostratic lens you can still see an undeniable resemblance.
There are similar looking words in every language, so the “undeniable resemblance” is worthless, unless the two criteria are fulfilled:
1. the meanings are identical or very close, and
2. the sound correspondences are regular.


I wrote Indo-Mongol do imply a distant relationship ("sister relationship"), not to imply that Indo-Mongol was an independent language family to the exclusion of Uralic or Kartvelian.
What? Could please you reformulate your sentence, because I don’t understand what you try to say.


But there are still the 300 "extremely strong cognates" as I said above. I'm not a Nostraticist (I haven't studied it in depth). I'm only using what the Nostraticists have done, using the cognates they have come up with.
Strong cognates? I see only irregularity of cognates in your list:
IE *a ~ Mongolian *a, *e
IE *e ~ Mongolian *e, *i
IE *o ~ Mongolian *a, *o, *ö
etc.

Semantically the biggest problem is that they have expanded the meanings to get more cognates: ‘understand, brain’ and ‘to wish, help’. These word pairs, however, have nothing crucial in common: IE ‘understand’ ~ Mongolian ‘brain’ would not be a strong cognate, neither would IE ‘to wish’ ~ Mongolian ‘help’ (or vice versa). So, by arbitrary connecting many meanings in one, they force the words with different meanings to look like cognates.

It’s just a trick, an illusion, with no scientific basis at all. By that method I can find “cognates” between every possible pair of languages! The method is not critical enough.

[demiirel]

There are similar looking words in every language, so the “undeniable resemblance” is worthless, unless the two criteria are fulfilled:
1. the meanings are identical or very close, and
2. the sound correspondences are regular.

Strong cognates? I see only irregularity of cognates in your list:
IE *a ~ Mongolian *a, *e
IE *e ~ Mongolian *e, *i
IE *o ~ Mongolian *a, *o, *ö
etc.

Semantically the biggest problem is that they have expanded the meanings to get more cognates: ‘understand, brain’ and ‘to wish, help’. These word pairs, however, have nothing crucial in common: IE ‘understand’ ~ Mongolian ‘brain’ would not be a strong cognate, neither would IE ‘to wish’ ~ Mongolian ‘help’ (or vice versa). So, by arbitrary connecting many meanings in one, they force the words with different meanings to look like cognates.

It’s just a trick, an illusion, with no scientific basis at all. By that method I can find “cognates” between every possible pair of languages! The method is not critical enough.

http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~corff/im/Sprache/hugjilt.unx

I think the above Turkish and Mongolian comparison is very strong. But people keep subjecting it to criticism. I welcome criticism. The comparison of languages is a difficult venture by its very nature. I agree that the Nostratic methodology is a bit outlandish. So I say that research must be continued, until we can say with FULL CERTAINTY that Mongolian is a language isolate relative to Indo-European. I still feel there is a chance that words with identical or very close meanings and regular sound correspondences can be found.


What? Could please you reformulate your sentence, because I don’t understand what you try to say.

I'm using Indo-Mongol to imply a type of relatively distant, lateral relationship, like "Greco-Tocharian" (two languages which are not part of the same subfamily).

[Jaska]

I think the above Turkish and Mongolian comparison is very strong.
Yes, they are so similar that they are recent loanwords.



I agree that the Nostratic methodology is a bit outlandish. So I say that research must be continued, until we can say with FULL CERTAINTY that Mongolian is a language isolate relative to Indo-European. I still feel there is a chance that words with identical or very close meanings and regular sound correspondences can be found.
Time will show it. Of course it is possible, and it would be a wonderful discovery. But the method should be made as strict and critical as possible.



I'm using Indo-Mongol to imply a type of relatively distant, lateral relationship, like "Greco-Tocharian" (two languages which are not part of the same subfamily).
OK.

[demiirel]

Just for information. One of the earliest major freestanding inscriptions to be found in Mongolia is the Bugut Inscription of 582 A.D, written in Sogdian and Sanskrit (original text and translation here (http://steppes.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=board05&action=display&thread=358)).

The Bugut Inscription was found in Arkhangai Province of central Mongolia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Map_mn_arkhangai_aimag.png

This shows that the language influence from Indo-European Sogdiana and India was strong from an early time, being adopted as one of the state languages.

Here is a picture of the Bugut Inscription (wolf on top, turtle at the bottom), as kept now in Tsetserleg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsetserleg_(city)), the provincial capital of Arkhangai Province. This one might be a copy, not the original.

http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/Images/alyilmaz1.jpg

[demiirel]

http://indo-european-migrations.scienceontheweb.net/Iranian_Turkic_Mongolic_correspondences.html

Interesting, but could have been more in depth.

Another thing I noticed is that the Sanskrit "abhavam" (I was) is similar to Mongolian "baivam" (I was). The "va-" in Sanskrit and Mongolian expresses the past imperfective.

[demiirel]

Another interesting study:

http://www.fl.ut.ee/orb.aw/class=file/action=preview/id=75673/FLEE07115materjal.pdf

[demiirel]

Examples are rarely given in most of the studies I've read.

For instance there is the diminutive "k-" which is said to be common for Indo-European, Uralic and "Altaic". Examples could be, Greek "anthropaki" (little man), Slavic "mladenici/mladeniko" (child) from "mladu" (young), Mongolian "keremken" (little squirrel) from "kerem" (squirrel). Another Mongolian example: "khongorkhon" (little darling, little honey) from "khongor" (darling, dear, honey). Incidentally the Nostraticists and Eurasiaticists have proposed Mongolian "khongor" (dear, honey, golden brown) with the root "khon-" as a cognate of Indo-European "honey/honig", as shown in the quotation below:

Eurasiatic: *KVŋV ?

Meaning: brown, yellow

Indo-European: *kAn[a]k-, *knāk-


Proto-IE: *kAnǝk-, *knāk-

Meaning: golden, brownish

Old Indian: kañc-, kāñc- 'to shine'; kañcāra- m. `sun'; kāñcana- n. `gold'

Old Greek: knǟ̂ko-s f. `Saflor, Carthamus tinctorius'; knǟkó- `gelblich, saflorfarben'

Baltic: *kunk-a- adj.

Germanic: ? *xuna(n)g-á- n., *xanag-a- m., n.


Proto-Germanic: *xuna(n)gá-n, *xanaga-n, -z

Meaning: honey

IE etymology:

Old Norse: hunang n. `Hönig'

Norwegian: huning

Swedish: honung, honing

Old Danish: honni(n)g

Old English: hunig, -es n. `honey'

English: honey

Old Saxon: honeg, huneg, hanig m., n.?

Middle Dutch: hōnich, hōninc, huenic

Dutch: honig, honing m.

Old Franconian: honog

Middle Low German: hōnich, honnich

Old High German: honag, hineg (8.Jh.), honig (9.Jh.), honang (Notker)

Middle High German: honec, honic, hönic, hünic (-g-) st. n. 'honig'

German: Honig m.


Russ. meaning: золотистый, коричневатый

References: WP I 400


Altaic: *kòŋa


Proto-Altaic: *kòŋa

Nostratic:

Meaning: brown, black

Russian meaning: коричневый, черный

Turkic: *Koŋur

Mongolian: *koŋ-


Proto-Mongolian: *koŋ-

Altaic etymology:

Meaning: light brown

Russian meaning: светлокоричневый

Written Mongolian: qoŋɣur (L 962)

Middle Mongolian: qoŋqor (SH)

Khalkha: xongor

Buriat: xongor

Kalmuck: xoŋgǝr

Ordos: xoŋGor

Dagur: xongō̆r, kongor (Тод. Даг. 150), kongore (MD 183)

Shary-Yoghur: ẋoŋGor

Monguor: xoŋxo (SM 172) 'de couleur rose', (MGCD GoŋGor)

Comments: KW 185, MGCD 364. Mong. > Evk. koŋgōr, Man. qoŋGoro (morin) > Kor. koŋgol (mal) (see Lee 1958, 119, Rozycki 143).


Tungus-Manchu: *koŋna-

Korean: *kắnắrh

Japanese: *kànkâ-i

Comments: Poppe 72, KW 185, VEWT 281, Whitman 1985, 183, 199, 222, АПиПЯЯ 290, Дыбо 12, Robbeets 2000, 109. The Mongolian form qoŋɣur might as well be a Turkism, cf. TMN 3, 525-526, Щербак 1997, 139-140 (note that qon-dun, qoŋ-du < Chinese). The TM forms, despite Doerfer MT 37, cannot be regarded as mongolisms. In Kor. cf. also kǝ̀'úró 'mirror' (probably a derivative from the same root; semantically cf. Jpn. kaga-mi id. - 'mirror' < 'shadow'). Note that *kắnắrh reflects a suffixed form *koŋ(a)-rV with assimilation > *konrV, while *kànkâ-i reflects another suffixed form *koŋ(V)-kV ( = Mong. *koŋgu-r).

[demiirel]

Time for a little flight of fancy related to the word Khongor mentioned above.

As was noted above the word “Hon” is a Eurasiatic word meaning “golden yellow” and is the root of the English “honey” as well as the Mongolian “hongor”. Now in Mongolian the word “hongor” is used in many different ways. Lovers call each other “hongor min” (darling mine) as a term of affection and endearment. Horses of a light yellowish color are called “hongor mori” (light-yellowish horse). “Hongor” also means white-hearted, pure, innocent, soft and benevolent. Examples would be “hongor setgel” (white soul, pure soul) and “hongor salhi” (soft wind). Blond hair is also called “hongor us” (blonde hair), as in “hongor ust Orosuud” (blonde haired Russians). These are some but not all of the common uses of the word.

Now in Europe we have a nation called Hungary. People give various theories to explain the origins of the name “Hungary”. Some say it has something to do with the Huns. Others say it derives from the Turkic “On-Ogur” (Ten Arrows). But little do they know that the name has much more grandiose roots. The name “Hungary” derives from the Eurasiatic word “Hon” (light yellowish). It was given by either the Huns or Avars who transported the Mongolic word “hongor” into Europe. Emphasizing the word’s exclusive Mongolic nature is not relevant, because the word “hongor” has equivalents in both Indo-European and Uralic, each belonging to Eurasiatic. Nevertheless, it is highly likely that the Mongolic version of the word filtered into Europe during those times, since the Huns and Avars ultimately came from Mongolia. Why did the Huns and Avars give the name “hongor” to the people and region of present-day Hungary? Because the people inhabiting the steppes of Hungary were blond. Or because they, the Huns and Avars themselves, belonged the royal “Hongor” clan and based themselves in Hungary. Hungary means “hongoria” or “light-yellowish-blonde-pure-land”. There is no contradiction between Hungar and Hongor because a, o, u are all masculine vowels and therefore interchangeable.

The shortened and more basic form of Hongor is Hon. Hon was also pronounced “Hong” in some Mongolic dialects. Other dialects pronounced the first consonant H of “Hon/Hong” in a more nasalized, French-like way, almost sounding like "HRONG". The Xiongnu or Hiungnu who ruled Mongolia from 209 BC to 93 AD were called Hongnuud in their own language. The “-nuud” is a plural suffix. Modern Mandarin transcriptions of ancient tribal names usually leave out the last consonant, so all we have is “-nu” instead of the original “-nuud”. Mongolian tribal names are usually in the plural, with the plural suffixes “-nuud”, “-guud”, “-uud” and “-d” attached. The first letter of these suffixes depends on the last letter of the root to which they are attached. For example, Yaruud (Yelu in Chinese) of the Khitans, Turkuud (Tu-kiue in Chinese), Kereid, Borjigid, Torguud tibe, Onguud, Khalmguud and Onniud (this tribal name sounds very similar to Hongnuud), all of which are tribal names. So Hongnuud means “the pure light-yellowish golden ones”. And Hongnuud is one of the oldest and most noble clans. They had connections to the Afanasevo culture (3500-2500 BC). They had connections to the original domesticators of the horse (4500 BC). A sub-clan of the Hongnuud called the Kiyan (Huyan in Chinese) or Kiyad was the same clan to which both Modu Chanyu and Genghis Khan belonged. The ancient Chinese tribal name for northern barbarians Hu, Rong (nasalized Hong), Hiungnu, Hunyu and Heenyun were all different transcriptions of the same Eurasiatic word “Hon” from which the tribal name Hongnuud was derived. In the Book of Han’s (111 AD) Section on the Hiungnu we read:

“Previous to the time of Yao (2356-2255 BC) and Shun (23rd-22nd century BC) we hear of a race called the Shan Rong (Mountain Rong). These were the Heen-yun or Hun-yu, who inhabited the northern regions, and removed from place to place, according to the pasturage for their flocks and herds.”

The Huns of Attila were also Hongnuud, as is evident from their origin, name and culture.

The ancient Hongnuud or Hongoruud clan was named so either because they were a light-yellowish skinned people compared to the white-pinkish skinned proto-Aryans who lived on the Mongolian steppes with them, or because they had blond hair themselves, or because they were descended from fair-haired people. Whatever the reason for their name, this tribe arose around 3800-2800 BC and established their dominance over the Mongolian steppes, over the Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples inhabiting the Mongolian steppes. Soon there came to be many Hongnuud tribes, descended from the original Hongnuud. The Chinese called some of them Hienyun and some them Rong (the ones who pronounced Hong in a more nasalized, French kind of way). The Eastern Hongnuud were called the Donghu or Eastern Hu in Chinese. Descendants of the Mongolic Donghu carried on the name of Hon/Hong, such as the Huangtou Shiwei (yellow headed or “Hon”-headed Shiwei) and the Menggu Shiwei (Mongol Shiwei). How did the Mongol Shiwei preserve “Hon”? “Hongor mongor” means “Hongor and the likes” or “Hongor et cetera”. This way of changing the first consonant to M is also present in Turkish, and it also expresses “that and the likes” or “this et cetera”. So Mongol or Mongor is connected to Hongor. The Tibetan name “Hor” which refers to Mongolia in the Epic of Gesar, is also connected to Hon and Hongor. Mongolia is called Hor in Tibetan. The Chinese Yellow Emperor (Huang Di) was not Han Chinese, but a northern “barbarian” of the Hongnuud clan. The Chinese word 黄 “Huang” (yellow) is equivalent to the Eurasiatic “hon” and was loaned from Eurasiatic. Around 2800 BC a tribe of the Hongnuud had close relations with the settled Han Chinese agriculturalists to the south. They had sinified to a certain extent, but still kept their northern Hong roots. A great Hong warrior rose and conquered the Chinese lands and united the people. This Hong warrior was of similar stature to Narmer of Egypt (3100 BC) and Sargon of Akkad (2270 BC – 2215 BC). After death he was called the great Hong Emperor or Yellow Emperor (2697–2597 BCE). His descendants in China later became fully sinified, adopting the Chinese language. Sargon of Akkad was also Hong. “Sar” means yellow in Mongolian and “gon” means “hon/hong”. In fact, the Mongolian “sar/shar” is equivalent to Russian “zhel” and English “yellow”. So Sargon simply means Yellow-“Honey”, Sar-Hon in Mongolian and Yel-Hon/Yal-Hon in English. It was only proper that warriors with northern steppe roots establish empires in the civilized sedentary lands made up of independent villages or city states. The equestrian Hon ancestors of Sargon or Yalhon had infiltrated into Arabia around 2700 BC and mingled with the Semitic people there. The ancestors of the Hmong minority in China, known for their blondness, were also Hong warriors from the Steppe who had mingled with agriculturalists of southern China. There is also a chance that the Sumerians had Hong affiliations too. The word Eden means “steppe” in Sumerian. In Mesopotamian culture Eden or the Steppe was synonymous with paradise and reflected the pure or “Hongor” side of man. That is why Abel is a shepherd and Cain is a farmer. Abel was more Eden and more Hongor. The Sumerians were descended from the original “Hon” horse domesticators of 4500 BC. No wonder their name for God "Dingir" is similar to the Turko-Mongol name for God "Tenger/Tengri".

The name “Hon” is mystical and still finds ways to propagate itself today. For example Conn Iggulden who wrote the Conqueror series about Genghis Khan has a name which resembles “Hon”. And Conan the Barbarian also has name which resembles “Hon”.

So the royal “Hon” tribe might predate and even be ancestral to the famous Aryans. As it is said in the opening of Conan the Barbarian (1984 film):

"Between the times when the oceans drank Atlantis and the rise of the Sons of Arius, there was an age undreamed of, and unto this, Conan, destined to bear the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow. It is I, his chronicler, who alone can tell thee of his saga. Let me tell you of the days of high adventure..."

(Below) As it is actually said in the movie:

sHDmXtW9Yx0

[poiuytrewq0987]

I guess it must have happened when Russia conquered Europe and spread Mongol loan words used in Russian to other languages.

[demiirel]

I made a mistake about that similarity between Sanskrit abhavam and Mongolian baivam. It seems that "va-" is not the past imperfect in Sanskrit. But still, "va-" or "ba-" is used to express the past in many IE languages (Latin "portabat"), just like in Mongolian.

Some more similarities.

The plural S.
Mongolian "ners" (names), plural of ner (name).

Demonstratives *i/e and *t.
Mongolian "ene" (this) and "tere" (that).

The particle "nder" (under).
Mongolian "dor" (under). "Ndor" if the preceding word ends with a vowel.

The partice "(h)en-ter" (within, inside, between).
Mongolian "dotor" (inside) and "horond" (between).

The negator-for-commands "me".
Mongolian "bu" (don't!).

The interjection "wai!" (woe, agony)
Mongolian "ai!" (alas).

The nominalizer "m".
Mongolian "garam" (an exit) from "gar-" (to leave, to exit).

The past participle.
Mongolian "id-sen" (ate, eaten) from "id-" (to eat). Also "idetukui" (ate, mangiato) and "iderun" (ate).

The present participle "-ng" (for example, eating).
Mongolian "ideng" (eating). To take a crude example, "ta ideng baiva" (thou eating was). Also "ta idej baiva" (thou eating was).

The copula "buH" (to be, to become).
Mongolian "bai-" (to be) and "bol-" (to become).

Here, there.
Mongolian "(h)en-d", "ten-d". Example, "bi tend bainam" (me thereat be, I'm there).

[demiirel]

Because morphological similarities fail to convince for some reason, I've decided to focus on vocabulary.

KINSHIP & PEOPLE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_vocabulary):

*meH₂tér- "mother". Mongolian "emeg" (grandmother). A slight semantic shift here, but nothing too radical. Semantic shifts can be found even within Indo-European. "-tér" is a non-essential suffix. But it can be found in some Mongolian words like "ekener" (wife). Note that Mongolian kept the original preceding vowel "e-" of Pre-Proto-Indo-European.
*pH₂tér- "father". Mongolian "ebug" (grandfather). "tér" is non-essential, as it can be found in mehter, brehter, swesor and dhughHter as a common suffix.
*bhréH₂ter- "brother". Mongolian "amrag" (brother, brotherly companion).
*swésor "sister". Mongolian "egsi/ewsi" (sister). W can become G, like in Armenian.
*dhugH₂-tér- "daughter". Mongolian "degu" (younger sibling). Or "okin" (girl, daughter), because "dh" could have become silent, like in "dhǵhemon" below, leaving "ugH₂" (okin) as the basic word. So "okin" might have been "dhokin" in Neolithic Mongolian.
*suHnú- "son". Mongolian "otHon" (youngest son) or "huwun" (son).
*nepot- "nephew, grandson". Mongolian "nagat/nawat/niwat" (maternal uncle).
*dhǵhemon- "person". Mongolian "humun" (person). "Dh-" was lost in Mongolian, a parallel development to Latin (homo) and Gothic (guma).
*wiH-ro- "man". Mongolian "er" (man).
*gʷén-eH₂- "woman, wife". Mongolian "okin" (girl) or "ekener" (wife) with the characteristic "preceding" or "prefix" vowel.

So I think lists of possible cognates should be drawn up like this as a first step, without using vague languages like "Proto-Altaic" as a standard, but a concrete language like Mongolian. After that we might compare the list of words and be able to find sound correspondences and regular sound laws, thereby establishing a genetic connection.

I already think I've found a few sound laws here.
Mongolian kept the original "preceding vowel" of Pre-Proto-Indo-European. For example, emeg, ebug, amrag, ekener, okin. Mongolian "g" corresponds to PIE "H₂". Mongolian displays the "P-W-G" shift, like in Armenian. Mongolian also gradually lost the "dh" sound, just like Latin.

[demiirel]

Schleicher's fable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher's_fable):

English non-literal translation:
The Sheep and the Horses
A sheep that had no wool saw horses, one of them pulling a heavy wagon, one carrying a big load, and one carrying a man quickly. The sheep said to the horses: "My heart pains me, seeing a man driving horses". The horses said: "Listen, sheep, our hearts pain us when we see this: a man, the master, makes the wool of the sheep into a warm garment for himself. And the sheep has no wool". Having heard this, the sheep fled into the plain.


Proto-Indo-European:

Howis hekwos-kwe
Howis kesjo wlhneh ne hest
hekwoms speket
hoinom crhum wogom wegontm (Hitt. oikom grrum wogom wegontm)
hoinom-kwe megehm borom
hoinom-kwe dhgmonm hohku berontm
Howis nu hekwobjos weuket:
"Krd hegnutoi hmoi
hekwoms hegontm wihrom widntei
Hekwos tu weukwont: "Kludi, howi!
krd hegnutoi nsmei widntbjos
hner, potis, howjom-r wlhnehm
swebi germom westrom krneuti.
Howjom-kwe wlhneh ne hesti.
Tod kekluwos howis hegrom buget.

Mongol:

Howin atkwos-we
Howin, kense nowlur es asan
Atkwos usmegdui
Negenu gucru hohgom yutgentem
Negenu-we macim oborom
Negenu-we humunem ohcum barintom
Howin unu atkwosru eukulwet:
Sed ubdnut mine
Atkwos hegontom erim mednte
Atkwos ten eukulwed: Duulsi, howin!
Sed ubdnut nadnai medntru
Ner, bod, howinon ru nowlurim
Cubi galmum umeskrem jalganat
Howinon-we nowlur ese aj
Tod dulaksan howin hegrom bugwet.

Of course, this only took me less than an hour to come up with. So a better "Mongol version" of Schleicher's fable is for those with more time at their hands to come up with sometime.

[demiirel]

Some words with identical meanings:

Rest, lie: Latin quies, English while, Norwegian kvila, Mongolian kev (lie).
Leg, limb, tubular bone: Lithuanian káula-s (leg), English hole hollow, Mongolian köl (leg).
Forget: Tocharian märs, Armenian morranam, Mongolian mart (forget).
Stupid, fool: Lithuanian mùlki-s, Old Indian mūrkhá, Mongolian mulgu (stupid, fool).
Fleece, skin: Proto-IE *nak- (fell, fleece), Proto-Baltic *nāg-n-a- n (skin), Mongolian neke (sheepskin).
Narrow, thin: Old Saxon naru, Mongolian narin, Dongxiang Mongol narunni (narrow, thin).
Male deer, he-goat: English buck, Danish buk, Mongolian bugu (male deer, camel stallion).
Gad-fly, bee: Proto-IE *bhoukʷ- (gad-fly, bee), English bee, Old English bēaw (gad-fly,bee), Latin fucus (male bee), Mongolian böküne (gad-fly).

[Dario Argento]

All Altaic languages have proto-Indo-European or more specifically, Iranian or Tocharian loanwords. It doesn't mean the languages are related directly (although I believe in a far back Nostraticism). You have to remember there were Scythian objects found as far as Korea, so it's not a surprise that there's indo-european loanwords in Mongol or Old Turkic, given that Indo-European languages spread East millenias before Altaic spread west.

[Dario Argento]

Schleicher's fable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher's_fable):

English non-literal translation:
The Sheep and the Horses
A sheep that had no wool saw horses, one of them pulling a heavy wagon, one carrying a big load, and one carrying a man quickly. The sheep said to the horses: "My heart pains me, seeing a man driving horses". The horses said: "Listen, sheep, our hearts pain us when we see this: a man, the master, makes the wool of the sheep into a warm garment for himself. And the sheep has no wool". Having heard this, the sheep fled into the plain.


Proto-Indo-European:

Howis hekwos-kwe
Howis kesjo wlhneh ne hest
hekwoms speket
hoinom crhum wogom wegontm (Hitt. oikom grrum wogom wegontm)
hoinom-kwe megehm borom
hoinom-kwe dhgmonm hohku berontm
Howis nu hekwobjos weuket:
"Krd hegnutoi hmoi
hekwoms hegontm wihrom widntei
Hekwos tu weukwont: "Kludi, howi!
krd hegnutoi nsmei widntbjos
hner, potis, howjom-r wlhnehm
swebi germom westrom krneuti.
Howjom-kwe wlhneh ne hesti.
Tod kekluwos howis hegrom buget.

Mongol:

Howin atkwos-we
Howin, kense nowlur es asan
Atkwos usmegdui
Negenu gucru hohgom yutgentem
Negenu-we macim oborom
Negenu-we humunem ohcum barintom
Howin unu atkwosru eukulwet:
Sed ubdnut mine
Atkwos hegontom erim mednte
Atkwos ten eukulwed: Duulsi, howin!
Sed ubdnut nadnai medntru
Ner, bod, howinon ru nowlurim
Cubi galmum umeskrem jalganat
Howinon-we nowlur ese aj
Tod dulaksan howin hegrom bugwet.

Of course, this only took me less than an hour to come up with. So a better "Mongol version" of Schleicher's fable is for those with more time at their hands to come up with sometime.

Sorry dude, I do not believe that's an accurate translation. All words are basically the same. It can't be the same as Indo-European is flexible, lacks vowel harmony, the complete opposite of Altaic which is highly agglutinative and has vowel harmony. The words are even in the same order and all, so it can't be real.

And if it were true, would it mean Mongolian is closer to proto indo-European than all European languages? DOUBLE LOL!

[demiirel]

Sorry dude, I do not believe that's an accurate translation. All words are basically the same. It can't be the same as Indo-European is flexible, lacks vowel harmony, the complete opposite of Altaic which is highly agglutinative and has vowel harmony. The words are even in the same order and all, so it can't be real.

And if it were true, would it mean Mongolian is closer to proto indo-European than all European languages? DOUBLE LOL!

Flexible and agglutinative languages are not mutually exclusive. Many flexible languages have become agglutinative, and vice versa. This is because both are synthetic, as opposed to an isolating language like Chinese. Vowel harmony isn't that important a feature. I think it might have developed a bit later in Mongolian. Morphologically there are many similarities between IE and Mongolian, as I've noted in my earlier posts on this thread. I've focused more on the vocabulary here. Since the sentences in the Scheicher Fable are short, I can understand the Mongolian even when it is written in Indo-European word order.

Howin (also "hoyun" and "honi". "Koyun" in Turkish)
atkwos ("adguus" in modern Mongolian, "adugu" means horse as well)
we ("ba" in modern Mongolian, "ve" in Turkish)
kense ("from whom" in Mongolian, this is the ablative of "ken" which means "who". kesjo in PIE is the genitive/ablative "whose". )
nowlur (means "wool")
es (expresses the negative, other negatives are "bus", "ul" and "ugui". I'm sure there was a time when "ne" was also used in Mongolian)
asan ("a-" means "to be", "asan" means "was")
usmegdui (past of modern "uzmerlek" meaning "to see")
Negenu (one of it)
gucru (kucir in modern Mongolian, meaning heavy, difficult)
hohgom (hosgon in modern Mongolian, meaning wagon. hohgon in Buryat Mongolian.)
yutgentem (here the word is different. so you see, not all the words are the same. i left the "-ntem" part the same as PIE, because the present participle is pretty much the same between PIE and Mongolian)
macim (mashi in modern Mongolian, meaning "great, greatly". I left the accusative case in the PIE form, because the cases are the same between PIE and Mongolian, only the accusative is slightly different, so I supposed that the accusative was similar too in the past)
oborom (obor in mod. Mong., meaning "large load")
humunem (humun in mod. Mong., meaning the same as PIE)
ohcum (ogcum in mod. Mong., meaning swiftly)
barintom (means "to hold, to carry")
unu (means "now, here at this present moment")
atkwosru (-ru is the "terminative case" showing direction or goal)
eukulwet (uguulwet in mod. Mong, meaning "he spoke")
Sed (soul, heart)
ubdnut (it hurts)
mine (my)
hegontom (meaning to drive, to chase, the verb is spoken "хөөх" in mod. Mong.)
erim ("er" means man in both Mongolian and Turkish. As I said the accusative is slightly different. It would be "eri" instead of "erim" in Mongolian. But I think Uralic has the "-m" accusative as well, so, it all seems reconcilable)
mednte ("med-" means "to know, to sense, to see")
ten (then. actually would be written "tend" or "at then" in mod. Mong.)
eukulwed (they spoke)
Duulsi (imperative "listen you!", word is different from the PIE "kludi")
nadnai ("to me" but could also have been used in a similar form for "to us" in older Mong.)
Ner (I'm of the opinion that "ner" means man in Mongolian, because we have words like "ekner" and "nuker" in which the "-ner" or "-er" is a suffix implying a man or person)
bod (big, powerful, fat, violent)
Cubi (kubi in mod. Mong., meaning "self")
galmum (halun in mod. Mong., again the accusative "-m" is in the PIE form)
umeskrem (a different word from the PIE. "umesgel" in mod. Mong., means vestment)
jalganat ("he weaves")
Tod (then, at that time)
dulaksan (listened, heard)
hegrom (heger in mod. Mong., meaning "plain", spoken "хээр" but written heger. The written is the older form of course. )
bugwet ("we", "wa" expresses the past. so "bugwet" means "he fled, he hid").

[demiirel]

All Altaic languages have proto-Indo-European or more specifically, Iranian or Tocharian loanwords. It doesn't mean the languages are related directly (although I believe in a far back Nostraticism). You have to remember there were Scythian objects found as far as Korea, so it's not a surprise that there's indo-european loanwords in Mongol or Old Turkic, given that Indo-European languages spread East millenias before Altaic spread west.

People have invaded or migrated to Korea from the Mongolian Plateau since time immemorial. The Scythian influence must have reached Korea around 1000 BC-400 BC, not very much earlier. So that's pretty recent. The Tocharians only came east around 3000-2000 BC. I'm talking more about 8000-5000 BC on this thread. As I understand it, the languages included under Nostratic are equidistant relative to each other. I on the other hand am thinking of a closer lateral relationship between Mongolian and Indo-European, just as the supporters of Indo-Uralic posit a closer relationship between Uralic and PIE compared to the other languages of Eurasia.

As for Indo-Iranian loanwords, there are many of course. But all of them are very recent loanwords. And easily identifiable too, because of the known circumstances of their borrowing.

For instance, there are a great number of Sanskrit loanwords still used in modern Mongolian, due to contact with the Indo-Greek, Khotanese, Sogdian and Tocharian Buddhists starting from the 2nd century BC. Many other Sanskrit words came in through Uyghur.

Examples:
Shashin (religion) Sanskrit: Sasana
Sansar (space) Sanskrit: Sansāra
Avyas (talent) Sanskrit: Abhyasa
Buyan (good deeds) Sanskrit: Punya
Agshin (instant) Sanskrit: Kšana
Tiv (continent) Sanskrit: Dvipa
Garig (planet) Sanskrit: Graha
Tsadig (tales, stories) Sanskrit: Jātaka
Shuleg (poems, verses) Sanskrit:Šloka
Badag (strophe) Sanskrit: Padaka
Arshan (mineral water, nectar) Sanskrit: Rašayana
Shastir (chronicle) Sanskrit: Shastra
Bud (Mercury) Sanskrit: Budh
Sugar (Venus) Sanskrit: Shukra
Barhasvadi (Jupiter) Sanskrit: Vrihaspati
Sanchir (Saturn) Sanskrit: Shani


Mongolians also have a tradition of Sanskrit names. Such as:
Arya. Sanskrit: Arya
Adya. Sanskrit: Aditya
Ochirbal. Sanskrit: Vajravali
Darma. Sanskrit: Dharma
Zandra. Sanskrit: Čandra
Radna. Sanskrit: Ratna
Udval. Sanskrit: Utpala


But as I said, all these are easily identifiable recent borrowings (in the last two or three millenia).

What's largely ignored is the older layer of Mongol words. This older layer has some interesting similarities to PIE.

[demiirel]

Indo-European languages spread East millenias before Altaic spread west.

Mario Alinei (www.continuitas.org/texts/alinei_interdisciplinary.pdf):

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_GeographyMaps/BC4000AltaicsAndUralics.gif

Controversial, but interesting nonetheless.

[Dario Argento]

Mongolian sounds closer to old Chinese than to Indo-European

[demiirel]

Mongolian sounds closer to old Chinese than to Indo-European

LOL. Modern English actually sounds more like Chinese. With its "R" sound and the way it stresses its words in a chinky way. For example: "Showdown round".

[demiirel]

Mongolian sounds closer to old Chinese than to Indo-European

If you're talking about the Inner Mongolian, then I agree to some extent. The Inner Mongolians pronounce Mongol words in a very Chinese way. Not very pleasant to our Kalmyk and Buryat ears.

I wonder which modern Indo-European language sounds the closest to Mongolian (all the sub-languages except Inner Mongolian). German? Danish? Spanish? Russian?

[Dario Argento]

If you're talking about the Inner Mongolian, then I agree to some extent. The Inner Mongolians pronounce Mongol words in a very Chinese way. Not very pleasant to our Kalmyk and Buryat ears.

I wonder which modern Indo-European language sounds the closest to Mongolian (all the sub-languages except Inner Mongolian). German? Danish? Spanish? Russian?

Inner Mongolian is actually more Mongol than Outer Mongolian Mongol. Inner Mongolia people still write in their traditional alphabet, and have retained more original phonology, unlike Outer Mongolian which is overly Russified, Outer Mongols even write in cyrillic alphabet and have surnames ending in -ev and -ov.

[demiirel]

Inner Mongolian is actually more Mongol than Outer Mongolian Mongol. Inner Mongolia people still write in their traditional alphabet, and have retained more original phonology, unlike Outer Mongolian which is overly Russified, Outer Mongols even write in cyrillic alphabet and have surnames ending in -ev and -ov.

The traditional alphabet is still used in Outer Mongolia. It is taught in secondary schools. But alphabet isn't that important. Both Cyrillic and the Mongolian script ultimately derive from the Phoenician alphabet.

Outer Mongolians (Khalkha Mongols) don't use surnames ending in -ev and -ov. Only Mongols in Russia do. The Khalkha language has been very little influenced by Russian phonologically. I watched the 1945 Mongolian film "Tsogt Taij" and noticed that the pronounciation is exactly the same as modern Khalkha Mongolian.

It is a known fact that Mongol peoples living very near the Chinese have been influenced by Chinese phonology. For example, the Inner Mongolians, the Daur, the Dongxiang, the Monguor and the Shira Yugur. Just watch the videos on Youtube, posted by a cool Hungarian called Matia, to listen to these dialects.

I know that Khalkha, Kalmyk and Buryat phonology are closest to the original Mongol phonology. Just trust me. I know. Just the fact that they sound almost identical to Kazakh proves it.

The Mongol language also sounds a lot like Celtic and Persian.

[Dario Argento]

The traditional alphabet is still used in Outer Mongolia. It is taught in secondary schools. But alphabet isn't that important. Both Cyrillic and the Mongolian script ultimately derive from the Phoenician alphabet.

Outer Mongolians (Khalkha Mongols) don't use surnames ending in -ev and -ov. Only Mongols in Russia do. The Khalkha language has been very little influenced by Russian phonologically. I watched the 1945 Mongolian film "Tsogt Taij" and noticed that the pronounciation is exactly the same as modern Khalkha Mongolian.

It is a known fact that Mongol peoples living very near the Chinese have been influenced by Chinese phonology. For example, the Inner Mongolians, the Daur, the Dongxiang, the Monguor and the Shira Yugur. Just watch the videos on Youtube, posted by a cool Hungarian called Matia, to listen to these dialects.

I know that Khalkha, Kalmyk and Buryat phonology are closest to the original Mongol phonology. Just trust me. I know. Just the fact that they sound almost identical to Kazakh proves it.

The Mongol language also sounds a lot like Celtic and Persian.

Not at all. What's with your fetish of making Mongol similar to European tongues? Wannabe? Is that your sole purpose on this forum? To convince us Mongols are Indo-Europeans?

Mongol only sounds Indo-European because Soviets Russified your asses extremely, just like Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan some years ago was majority Russian. To deny any influence of Russian inflexion is just foolish.

[demiirel]

Not at all. What's with your fetish of making Mongol similar to European tongues? Wannabe? Is that your sole purpose on this forum? To convince us Mongols are Indo-Europeans?

Mongol only sounds Indo-European because Soviets Russified your asses extremely, just like Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan some years ago was majority Russian. To deny any influence of Russian inflexion is just foolish.

I'm not "making" Mongol similar to European tongues. I'm just noticing some similarities that already exist. Mongolian isn't descended from Proto-Indo-European, but it could have shared a common ancestor. That's what I mean by lateral relationship.

The Soviets didn't russify us. Our language wasn't changed. Russian inflection? I don't think so. There have been no such influences. You're just making assumptions. I know my language.

Mongol still sounds a bit like Scottish Gaelic and Welsh (the F sound exists in Mongol because V is pronounced F in certain cases). Compare Welsh and "Outer Mongolian" news.

7COW-957v-M

u4Uj_eAd2D8


Compare the above two to your Old Chinese. Hong Kong Cantonese has retained a lot of archaic Chinese features:

Wt2LDln6xcE

Not quite similar in my opinion.

[Lithium]

Mongol still sounds a bit like Scottish Gaelic and Welsh (the F sound exists in Mongol because V is pronounced F in certain cases). Compare Welsh and "Outer Mongolian" news.



:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[Talvi]

Welsh sounds like a way cooler version of Spanish and Mongolian sounds like.... something Ive never heard before. Mongolian sounds very harsh.

[Foxy]

u4Uj_eAd2D8




Mongolian sounds pretty similar to Japanese, although not identical, and the reason is clear: Mongolian and Japanese are indeed related languages.

You can find words who look similar in every language. I can do the same game with Chinese: SHI (to be) compare with the german "Sein" and the Italian "sei".

Ciao!

[Talvi]

Mongolian sounds pretty similar to Japanese, although not identical, and the reason is clear: Mongolian and Japanese are indeed related languages.

You can find words who look similar in every language. I can do the same game with Chinese: SHI (to be) compare with the german "Sein" and the Italian "sei".

Ciao!


Umm.... I can speak Japanese and Mongolian sounds NOTHING like it. In Japanese almost every consonant is always followed by a vowel, making it sound quite harmonious. Mongolian sounds like a row of consonants and lot of Rs that the Japanese cant even pronounce.
And Japanese is considered a language isolate... And if Japanese sounds like anything it would rather be some Polynesian language.

[Foxy]

Umm.... I can speak Japanese and Mongolian sounds NOTHING like it. In Japanese almost every consonant is always followed by a vowel, making it sound quite harmonious. Mongolian sounds like a row of consonants and lot of Rs that the Japanese cant even pronounce.
And Japanese is considered a language isolate... And if Japanese sounds like anything it would rather be some Polynesian language.

Yes Japanese vocalic system is pretty similar to that of Italian, with the alternance of a vowel and a consonant (although in Italian is possible to find also more consonants together). But the intonation of Mongolian, althoug harsher, remembered me slighty Japanese. The two languages anyway seem to have a common origin together with Korean.

[Talvi]

Yes Japanese vocalic system is pretty similar to that of Italian, with the alternance of a vowel and a consonant (although in Italian is possible to find also more consonants together). But the intonation of Mongolian, althoug harsher, remembered me slighty Japanese. The two languages anyway seem to have a common origin together with Korean.

I think there was nothing special about the Mongolian intonation and nothing that would make it particularly similar to Japanese.

y_qkPy5CUKs

Maybe its because the Italian intonation is quite different from that of other languages...

[demiirel]

Mongolian sounds pretty similar to Japanese, although not identical, and the reason is clear: Mongolian and Japanese are indeed related languages.

You can find words who look similar in every language. I can do the same game with Chinese: SHI (to be) compare with the german "Sein" and the Italian "sei".

Ciao!

Yes there is some similarity with Japanese, even if Mongolian sounds a lot harsher with plenty of consonant clusters. I think that in 30 years the Altaic family will eventually be proven and Japanese will be included in it. After another 30 years the Uralic and Altaic families will be "re-united". And finally another 30 years will pass until the connections between Indo-European and Ural-Altaic are established.

But I'm not sure about Sino-Tibetan eventually being included in this family. Semitic, Kartvelian and Dravidian are also quite distant.

In Chinese, I can come up with random similar words too. For example:

Chinese: Wo dei gei ta dao wo de ma.

Indo-Euro: Io devo give that to io de mama.

English: I must give it to I of mother. "I must give it to my mother".

But, come on, Chinese is still very distant. Mongolian is nearer if you look at the bigger picture.

[demiirel]

Some more words with identical meanings:

1. Mouse: Old Indian girika (mouse), Old Greek galea, Mongolian kulukan (mouse).
2. Crow: PIE ker, Mongolian kere (crow)
3. To eat: PIE ed-, English eat, Mongolian id- (to eat), Buryat Mongol ed- (to eat)
4. Day, Dawn: PIE agher, ogher Mongolian egür, üür (dawn)
5. To swell: PIE bamb-, pamp-, Mongolian bambai-, pambai- (to swell)
6. To push: PIE telek- Mongolian tüleke- (to push)
7. Wild animal: PIE ghwer, Russian zver, Mongolian zerleg (wild, wild animal)
8. Wolf: PIE wlkwos, Hittite ulippana Mongolian uli- (to howl, used for wolves)
9. To strike, kill: PIE *gʷʰen, kuen, Mongolian könö- (to kill, to destroy)
10. To leave behind: PIE *leikʷ-, lieku, Avest. irinak, Mongolian orki- (to leave behind)
11. To seize, take, grab: PIE *ghabh, *kap, NPers capsidan, Polish gabać, Mongolian kabchi- (to seize from two or more sides with hands or something else), kabk (snapping trap for catching bears and other animals)
12. To place, put: PIE *dheH₁-, Lith. deti, Toch. tā-, täs-, Hitt. dai, Mongolian tawi- (to put, place)
13. To swallow: PIE *su¸el-1(k-), English swallow, Germanic swalgen, Mongolian zalgi- (to swallow)
14. Dark, dirt: PIE ker, Mongolian kir (dirt), kurun (dark colored)
15. To cut: PIE kes-, Mongolian kesegle- (to cut into sections).
16. To cry hoarsely: PIE *gerə- (to cry hoarsely), Old English crawan (to crow), Old Norse kraka (a crow), Latin graculus (jackdaw, a bird in the crow family), Germanic kran (crane), Mongolian karkir- (to cry hoarsely with a strained voice, also means "to growl", notice the similarity to Mongolian "kere" which means "crow")
17. Babbling, unclear speech: PIE bar-bar-, Mongolian "bar bar" (loud incoherent sound, unclear repetitive speech).

[demiirel]

Just for fun. "Demiirel's Fable" (only basic words, with no declension or conjugation):

Indo-European:
Ogher ker kraka girika kap. Kraka girika kuen. Kraka girika kes ed. Zver ulippana kraka telek. Ker kraka crawan. Kraka girika dai, girika leik. Bar bar ulippana ker kraka kuen, ker dai, ker leik. Zver ulippana girika kraka swalg. Ulippana bamb.

Mongolian:
Egur kurun kere kulukan kabchi. Kere kulukan kono. Kere kulugan kesegle ed. Zerleg uli kere tuleke. Kurun kere karkir. Kere kulugan tawi, kulugan orki. Bar bar uli kurun kere kono, kir tawi, kir orki. Zerleg uli kulugan kere zalgi. Uli bambai.

At dawn a dark crow seized a mouse. The crow killed the mouse. The crow cut the mouse into shreds and was eating it. A wild wolf came out of nowhere and pushed the crow away. The dark crow cawed in surprise. The crow put the mouse at that same place and left the mouse there. The loud boisterous wolf attacked and killed the dark crow, putting it on the dirty ground, leaving it there on the dirt. The wild wolf swallowed both the mouse and the crow. The wolf was swollen with so much food.

[demiirel]

(Continuation)

Indo-European:
Mulkis naru buk ulippana mars. Buk quies. Bamb zver ulippana quies buk kaulas kap. Ulippana buk kuen, buk swalg.

Mongolian:
Mulgu narunni bugu uli mart. Bugu kev. Bambai zerleg uli kev bugu koel kabchi. Uli bugu kono, bugu zalgi.

A foolish thin male-deer had forgotten about the wolf nearby. The male-deer slept. The already swollen wolf sneaked up and seized the male-deer's leg. The wolf killed the male-deer and swallowed the male-deer.

[Dario Argento]

(Continuation)

Indo-European:
Mulkis naru buk ulippana mars. Buk quies. Bamb zver ulippana quies buk kaulas kap. Ulippana buk kuen, buk swalg.

Mongolian:
Mulgu narunni bugu uli mart. Bugu kev. Bambai zerleg uli kev bugu koel kabchi. Uli bugu kono, bugu zalgi.

A foolish thin male-deer had forgotten about the wolf nearby. The male-deer slept. The already swollen wolf sneaked up and seized the male-deer's leg. The wolf killed the male-deer and swallowed the male-deer.


Mongolian:
Mulgu narunni bugu uli mart. Bugu kev. Bambai zerleg uli kev bugu koel kabchi. Uli bugu kono, bugu zalgi.

Chinese:
Mu nyang bung wu mao. Bung keng. Shambai zhenleg wu keng bung kong kancheng. Wu bung kong, bung zhang.

[demiirel]

Again for fun. Here's my attempt at revealing the similarities between Indo-European and Mongolian numbers.

1. The number ONE. PIE oinos/oiwos/oikos/sems. Ardhamagadhi ege, Sanskrit eka, Fars yek, Armenian mek. Proto-Hellenic hems. Mongolian neg/negen/ons/gans (these three are the three "one" words in Mongolian). Here the similarities seem quite evident. Mongolian ons (singular, unique, one and only) corresponds to PIE oinos. Mongolian gans (sole, one and only, alone) corresponds to Proto-Hellenic hems and PIE sems. Mongolian neg/negen (one) corresponds to PIE oikos, Armenian mek, Ardhamagadhi ege, Sanskrit eka and Fars yek. It will be noted that the initial N in Mongolian is an archaic remnant. The ending "-en" in Mongolian corresponds to PIE "-m" and is a common ending for numbers and many nouns. The Mongolian ending "-r" and PIE ending "-r, -s" also have the same function.

2. The number TWO. PIE duwo/duwou. Old Norse tveir. Classical Armenian erku. Mongolian koyar. One might wonder how duwo and koyar can be the same word. Here we need to look at the concept of "two" as well as the ordinal form of the same number. Second: PIE dwo-tero, Greek deuteros, Russian vtoroi, Mongolian koyadugar, koyardaki. It can be seen that "tero" and "dugar" are approximately the same. Both start with "d/t" and end with an "r" sound. Now in Mongolian "dugar" means turn or round, as in "now it's your turn, your round". "Daki/deki" means "repeat, repetition". So koyadugar means "two-turn" in the sense of "today's sun is the second sun, because it has made a turn or revolution around the flat earth arriving at its first place for the second time", "he is the second eater, because the deer meat has come to him after having passed one circle among the hunters, it is his turn now to share the prize of the hunt". One will notice the circular nature of the number two. In Mongolian "dugerig" means circular, "toyirog" means circle, "tugurik" means a circular coin, "kegerik" means a circular shaman drum. Notice how the root is always the same (duger, toyir, tugur, keger). Neolithic Mongols saw the world as cyclical and circular. The daily circles of the sun, the rhythms of the day and night et cetera were all seen as a cyclical repetitions. The Proto-Indo-Europeans also saw the world this way, as a cycle. So to express the concept of "two" it was only right that "circle, cycle, turn, repeat" was used as an image. In Mongolian therefore the concept of "cycle, turn, revolve, repeat" was expressed by the words "Koya-" and "Duga-" which both have the ending "-r". It will be noted that the ending "-r" in Mongolian is a common ending for numbers and nouns. Now Koya and Duga are the same. Koya=koha, kowa. Duga=duha, duwa. K and D are interchangeable. It is known that K can become CH and ultimately T or D. Therefore Koyar implies a circle and corresponds to PIE duwou. Dugar also implies a circle and corresponds to PIE "-tero". When the sun returns to its place after disappearing for a night it was seen as having circled the earth and returned to its place a SECOND time. Even in Indo-European the "k-version" of duwou was preserved in the word cycle: Greek kuklos from the PIE "kwol-" (to roll, turn). Notice the similarity between Mongolian koya/koyar/kowar and PIE kwol. In Mongolian "wheel" is called "dugui". Again the same root here. On a side note, it is interesting that the Armenian word for two "erku" is similar to another Mongolian word "erge" meaning "turn, revolve".

3. The number THREE. PIE trei/treies. Old Norse thrir. Mongolian gurwan. Khitan hurer. In this case a correspondence isn't that difficult to reveal. PIE "t" corresponds to Mongolian "g/h". Remember kwetwores (four) changing to tettares (four)? K and T are "connected sounds". Gurw is the actual root in Mongolian. "-an" is a common ending for numbers and nouns. So another version of Gurw is Turw. In the case of Khitan, notice the similarity with Old Norse (hurer - thrir). Another version of Hurer is Thurer, you could say. Again, in Khitan "-er" is a common ending for numbers and nouns.

4. The number FOUR. PIE kwetwor/kwetwores. Armenian chork, Old Germanic fithwor, Old Norse fjorir, Classical Greek tettares, Farsi chahar. Mongolian dorwen. Khitan durer. It is tempting to see Mongolian dorw/dur as the "-twor" section of PIE kwetwor. But it is more likely that dor/dur is the first part of the word, the "kwet, fith, tett, cha" part. The "-w, -wen, -er" instead is the "-wor" part. It will be noted that Mongolian preserves the second or "end-part" of PIE numerals quite accurately. This applies to all numbers. So, other versions of dorwen and durer are durwer, dudwen, dudwer, chodwer, kodwer, kwotwer etc.

5. The number FIVE. PIE penkwe. Old Germanic fimfi, Latin quinque, Proto-Indo-Iranian panka, Arumanian tinti. Mongolian taw/tawun. Khitan tau. As noted above Mongolian preserves the second part of PIE numerals well. So the "-w, -wun" part corresponds to PIE "-we,-kwe", Old Germanic "-fi", English "-ve" etc. The first part "ta-" corresponds to PIE "pe-, penk", Arumanian "tin-". P has become "t" in Arumanian, and E has become "a" in Proto-Indo-Iranian. Therefore the correspondence "ta- and pe-" is not unfounded. Other versions of tawun are kawun, pawun, pamwun, pankwan etc.

6. The number SIX. The Mongolian number for "six" is "jirgugan" and means "two times three". In Khitan six is "nil", I think. So I consider six a "lost number" in Mongolian and will not look for a correspondence.

7. The number SEVEN. PIE septm, Slovak sedem, Proto-Indo-Iranian sapta, Ossetian avd. Mongolian dolon. Khitan daloer. The "-n" ending in Mongolian corresponds to PIE "-m". S and D are not mutually exclusive if you look at examples. It seems that "dolon" was actually "dawlon", if you look at the preservation of "a" in the more ancient Khitan language. It's a known fact that written "aw" is pronounced "o" (like the English awe) in Mongolian. Other versions of dawlon would be dawron, tawdon, chawdon, shawdn and saptm.

8. The number EIGHT. PIE okto/oktou, Gothic ahtau, Scots aicht. Mongolian naim/naiman. Note the archaic initial N here. It was also encountered at number "one". Now naiman is written nayiman. Keep in mind kwetwor (four) changing into fithwor, fiorir and fior. Nayiman could also be nahiman (pretty much the same pronounciation). Nahiman could well be nahiwan. Now if you look at Germanic fithwor and fiorir, you can infer that nahiwan could also be hiding a silent "d/t", making it nahidwan. Correspondence established. "Other versions" of nahidwan are ahidwan, ahidaw, ahtau, oktou.

9. The number NINE. PIE newn, Old Germanic niwun, Old Frisian nigun. Mongolian yesun. Mongolian "-n" ending corresponds to PIE "-n" ending. Here it is PIE that has preserved the archaic N. Mongolian has lost it. Buryat Mongolians are known to pronounce "s" as "h". So yesun could well be yehun. Yehun could well be yewun. Add the archaic N and you get nyewun and newun (Mongolian y could be another form of "n"). PIE newn is not far away.

10. The number TEN. PIE dekm, Old Germanic tehun. Old Norse tiu. Cimbrian zegan. Mongolian araw/arwan. Mongolian "-n" corresponds to Old Germanic "-n" ending. Tehun could well be tewun. Arwan could well be arhun. Arhun could well be adhun, and further adkan/adkun. The initial "a" might be an archaic remnant, or it could be an adaptation to a difficult consonant cluster, like Spanish "espiritu, e+spiritu".

11. The number HUNDRED. PIE kmtom, Sanskrit satam, Lithuanian simtas. Mongolian zond/zondoo.

[demiirel]

Now if I were to venture further and reconstruct the "Indo-Mongol" numbers from one to ten:

One: noikos/onos/gems. Two: duwor/kowor. Three: turewem/trewes. Four: dwedworem/kwetwores. Five: tankwen/pankwen. Seven: shawdn/saptm. Eight: Nahdaw. Nine: Newn. Ten: arahn/adahn/adakm.

[Don]

Why don't you go to Japan to help?

You have more in common with them than with us, asian... and as the european wannabe you are you can begin with one of our western traits: humanitarianism.

GO GO GO!!

[demiirel]

Why don't you go to Japan to help?

You have more in common with them than with us, asian... and as the european wannabe you are you can begin with one of our western traits: humanitarianism.

GO GO GO!!

and why do you keep delaying your trip to aid Libya?

[Don]

and why do you keep delaying your trip to aid Libya?

That is all you can say? :p

A clonic answer relating Spain to another continent as África?

What a show of creativity, the monkey imitates and needs the master, a reference to his low and needy existence.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tpHd2222ccA/TReVAVzDd7I/AAAAAAAAAHc/hy4XjDNsQGc/s1600/chinesas_abrem_olhos.jpg
I'm sure you have informed yourself about this surgical operation. You pathetic soul.
:)

[demiirel]

That is all you can say? :p

A clonic answer relating Spain to another continent as África?

What a show of creativity, the monkey imitates and needs the master, a reference to his low and needy existence.
I'm sure you have informed yourself about this surgical operation. You pathetic soul.
:)

Now is not really the time to be making fun of Japan Donito.

[demiirel]

Long time no visit thread.

Might as well add some more "words with identical meanings". I've been looking at the Neuenglisch-Indogermanisch dictionary as well as this weird article: www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp065_loanwords_altaic.pdf

The following are some of the words which survived my ultra-critical eye:

1. Afar, afar off: PIE *kuel, Mongolian kol
2. Alongside: PIE *kmta, *kom, Mongolian kamta
3. Apple: PIE *abel, *abol, *ablu, Mongolian alim, alma
4. Ashes: PIE *kenis, *konis, Mongolian hunes, uns
5. Ask for: PIE *guhedh-, Mongolian guyi-, guyu-, (guhi-)
6. Axe: PIE *sekiuo, *sekura, Mongolian suke
7. Backside: PIE *ers, *orsos, Mongolian ar, esreg
8. Bald: PIE *gal-, *galuos, Mongolian kalzan
9. Barley: PIE *albhi, Mongolian arbai
10. Bird: PIE *kaua, Mongolian sawa, shuwuu
11. Black: PIE *krsno, Sanskrit kala, Mongolian kara
12. Brown: PIE *bheros, *bhrono, Mongolian boro
13. Calm: PIE *taus-, Mongolian taw, tawtai, taiwan
14. Cuckoo: PIE *kuku, Mongolian kuku
15. Shadow, shade: Old English sceadu, Greek skotos (darkness), Mongolian segudur, seuder
16. Tail: Old English taegel, Old High German zagal, Mongolian segul, seul
17. Hook: Old English hoc, Mongolian goko
18. Knife, to cut: Swedish kuta (to cut, knife), Icelandic kuti (knife), Middle English cutten, kitten, Mongolian kidu- (to cut), kituga (knife), qutuga (knife)
19. Many: Old English fela, feala, Mongolian bulan, olan
20. To know: Old English witan, Mongolian mede-, mude-
21. Broad: Old English wid, Mongolian budun
22. Wood, forest: Old English wudu (wood, forest), Mongolian modu (wood, forest)
23. Dust: PIE *dheus, Old English dust, Mongolian doz, tausun, tos
24. Daddy: PIE *appa, *atta, Mongolian aba, ata
25. Dear: PIE *karo, Mongolian kairan
26. Deer: PIE *elen, Mongolian ili
27. Direction: PIE *deikos, *dika, Mongolian djuk (duk)
28. Double: PIE *dueiplo, Mongolian dapkar, dawkar
29. Dry: PIE *ksero, Mongolian kurai
30. Femaleness: PIE *maghoti, Mongolian emegtei (female)
31. Fence: PIE *kaghio, Mongolian kagalta, kashia
32. To fight: PIE *kat-, Mongolian katga, katgald
33. To flow: PIE *ers-, *ros-, Mongolian ors-, urs-
34. Food: PIE *eda, Mongolian edee
35. To freeze: PIE *gel-, Mongolian kuld, kild
36. Glow: PIE *gulo (glowing coal), Mongolian gila-, gilalz
37. To grasp: PIE *ap-, Mongolian ab-
38. Grey: PIE *salo, Mongolian saral
39. To grind: PIE *kueru, Mongolian kawir-
40. Hard: PIE *kal, *kart, Mongolian katu
41. To hit: PIE *bheleu, *bhlae, *dhelg, *skai, *steuk, Mongolian balba, deld, soki
42. Hollow (adjective): PIE *kouos, Mongolian kowosun
43. How: PIE *kuali, Mongolian kerken
44. How many: PIE *kueti, Mongolian keden
45. To howl: PIE *ul-, Mongolian uli-
46. Hungry: PIE *ele, *elek, Mongolian elus
47. If: PIE *kuom, Mongolian kerev
48. Juice: PIE *seu, *suu, *seuk, Mongolian shuus, shius (fruit juice, liquid produced by wounds, meat juice)

Frederik Kortlandt published his study "Indo-Uralic and Altaic revisited" as chapter 9 in "Transeurasian verbal morphology in a comparative perspective: genealogy, contact, chance. Edited by Lars Johanson and Martine Robbeets. 2009." So even though I went through a doubt stage, I guess there are other people who are starting to notice more and more similarities.

[Swarthy_Syndicate]

In a really weird way Mongolian often sounds like a Native American dialect

[Batu]

Altaic classification is not valid. There has never been a language family called Altaic. Because it doesn't fit the definition of language family. A definition as Indo-Uralic is also not valid. None of them fit the definition of a true language family. The origins of these people are different. But the fact that their origins are different does not mean that borrowing cannot be done. It is likely that these people once lived together and greatly influenced each other. It is also possible to find very old words between Indo-European languages, Turkic and Semitic. It shows ancient interaction ties and relationships between these languages, not their ancestry.

Therefore, Nostratic is a dense web of interaction rather than a language family. And yes, they really interacted. Much more than we thought.