Talk:Ural-Altaic languages

About the verb "to have" in Ural-Altaic languages

"I have a friend."

In English, there is no problem in this sentence but in Ural-Altaic languages, it doesn't make sense. Your friend is a human and you can't own/possess a human. It is illegal. So in Ural-Altaic languages, they don't use the verb "to have" in this sentence. It is a childish grammar. An Ural-Altaic language uses another verb that doesn't exist in English. That's what English speakers don't understand.

Lacking a verb "to have" ??? It is impossible. They have it but just don't use it because it doesn't make sense and childish.

In Chinese, the verb is 有. As already mentioned, this word doesn't exsit in English. It's in fact more like "to exist" than "to have."

Technically you're incorrect. Something being illegal doesn't mean it can't happen, otherwise it wouldn't be illegal. So from a purely language standpoint, you can, in fact, own your friend as property. Yay for slave friends.66.69.219.227 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested Move (2009)

The previous requested move is now archived see Talk:Ural-Altaic/Archive 1#Requested move for the consensus at that time. If the page is to be moved there ought to be a new RM to verify that the consensus has changed. -- PBS (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Errors in graph by User:Chumwa

This graph (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Linguistic_map_of_the_Altaic,_Turkic_and_Uralic_languages_(en).png) by User:Chumwa seems to have a couple of graphical errors, the ones I can immediately spot being that the color clusters for Salar and Yugur in China are at least several hundred kilometers from where they're supposed to be, and that the Kazakh language does not seem to be represented in Bayan-Ölgii in Western-most Mongolia. I'm quite new to this so I'm not sure if this should be addressed by tags or making corrections to the graph. Erictxcao (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Technical request to move pending. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Ural-Altaic → Ural-Altaic languages – Per WP:NCL, all Wikipedia articles about linguistic areas have "languages" at the end due to a convention adopted by WikiProject Languages for linguistic areas. Also, Ural-Altaic could potentially have anthropological and geographical, rather than linguistic, usages. Altaic languages, Mesoamerican languages, and other geographical/areal groupings are similarly named. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. Firestar464 (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Support per nom. Dimadick (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aliases

The various aliases of the former Ural-Altaic as a family theory would be probably useful to collect in a single location, either in the lede or early on in the history section. As a starting point, I note that Setälä (1922) lists the following: Scythian, Turanian, Finno-Tataric and Altaic (of which we currently cover the first two only as predecessor theories). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Despite Setälä's passing mention, Scythian, Turanian and Altaic are not aliases of Ural-Altaic. Kanguole 16:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know about Turanian or Altaic, but a “Finnic and Tataric” family is referred to as Scythian in Rasmus Rask’s Samlede tildels forhen utrykte Afhandlinger and his letters with Peter Erasmus Müller, back in the 1800s. GMFinnegan (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously all of these are historical synonyms (mostly 19th century, though all had still some use up to WW2), as should be unsurprizing for a de facto obsolete theory. And yes most of these names have also other uses — which probably should be mentioned somewhere also in the respective articles (currently e.g. Scythian languages only notes the modern Iranic sense, but not even Boxhorn's use of the term for an early version of Indo-European). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 11:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)