Magyars? (was: basque/Basque/bask)

[Douglas G. Wilson]

> >Ural-Altaic isn't a concept used much any more. Cf. Ency Brit article on
> >Ural-Altaic: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=76364
> >
>The article cited reads "...[common] linguistic features present in most
>of the languages
>- include vowel harmony (i.e., vowels in the same word must harmonize in
>method of articulation);
>- grammatical traits typical of languages with a basic
>subject–object–verb sentence word order—e.g., the complete absence
>of prefixes;
>- the use of suffixes and postpositions to express the grammatical
>modifications that are expressed in English by prepositions;
>- lack of adjectival declension and of grammatical gender; and
>- similarity in form of nouns and verbs.
>
>These types of similarities frequently arise through language contact and
>are not considered a valid basis for establishing genetic relationship."
>
>I have a serious question on the first half of the last sentence.  Do such
>similarities "frequently arise through language contact"?  If so, is the
>word "frequently" justified?  Can you give me some examples of such transers?
>
>Yes, I was aware that current thought is to keep Finno-Ugrian and Altaic
>(e.g. Turkish) as separate families (if you ignore the people who propose
>family trees joining all known human languages.)

The same reasoning which depopularized the Ural-Altaic phylum has been used
to deny the authenticity of the Altaic family, I think. These "areal
features" are somewhat puzzling (to me anyway). Supposedly a bunch of
characteristics which seem 'fundamental' spread throughout an area without
respecting boundaries between even high-level families. I suppose the fact
that Chinese and Thai are phonetically somewhat similar (e.g., tonal and
with terminal-consonant restrictions) although they're supposedly not
perceptibly related by ancestry might exemplify my layman's notion of areal
features. [Any linguist, feel free to correct my idiocies if necessary.] In
some cases, one feature can be "explained" as likely to follow another. For
example tonality might follow from restriction of terminal consonant (which
inconveniently reduces the number of distinct syllables), and postfixes
(vs. prefixes) tend to go with verb-final sentence order (I think).

Here's a question which I'm sure has been addressed ad nauseam long ago.
Given the spread of vowel harmony ("if one syllable has a certain type of
vowel [e.g. front vs. back] then so must the other syllable in the word" or
similar specification) across north-central Asia as a "Ural-Altaic" areal
trait, why wouldn't the trait tend to cross into Indo-European? Taking a
direction which is familiar to us, then .... Given Finnish vowel harmony,
is there a trace of it in Swedish? In Norwegian? In Scots? In [non-Scots]
English? If so is it from areal influence or random coincidence? Is there a
clear geographic gradient? Do most languages tend to some extent to at
least some weak form of vowel harmony anyway, or not?

-- Doug Wilson