Talk:Proto-Turkic language

transliteration

hello humans, it seems the transliteration in the vocab is different from the transliteration in the phonology. should i take it that

• phonology e = vocab é
• phonology ë = vocab e

thanks 80.187.107.149 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Turkic people?

If there was a Proto-Turkic language, it seems logic to me that there would have been a Proto-Turkic people. Perhaps someone could start an article on them? Gringo300 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reconstruction(s) of Proto-Turkic

It would be good if someone added how Proto-Turkic is reconstructed, the regular correspondences between the Turkic languages, etc. --Pet'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 23:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The whole layout of the page is flawed; someone should edit it and make it similar to the pages regarding Proto-Austronesian and PIE. The grammar of the English here is also very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Van Gulik (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

sibilants/liquids?

Reading some stuff from Eugene Helimski (see his homepage, eg. this it seems he argues *š *z were actually palatalized liquids *lʲ *rʲ. Is this generally accepted these days? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we are using this same convention in Altaic languages. Think I'll be bold here. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oldest record of Turkic Language

Orkhon inscriptions are not the oldest record of Turkic Language. Golden Man sculpture is the oldest evident for now. It was founded by coincidence ;http://www.dilimiz.com/tarih/altinelbise.htm. It's time about 500 BC. It is striking evident for Turkic Language and Turks Civilizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcçdefghıijklmnoöprsştuüvyz (talk • contribs) 08:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That inscription is in Saka, an Iranian language. See Issyk kurgan. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dating

The "high limit" is extremely conjectural (based only on the start of the Neolithic in Kazakhstan, which seems arbitrary and moreover assumes that the origin of Altaic/Turko-Mongolic/Turkic is to be found there, which is just one possibility among many, and not even the most mainstream one; BTW, Kabak's quote seems to say that Altaic came into existence around 4500–4000 BC!) and misleading. This is like claiming: "A separate Uralic family is believed to have existed since approximately 8000–6000 BC" based only on Fortescue's Uralo-Siberian or Kortlandt's Indo-Uralic. This is all speculation based on the flimsiest of conjecture. Mainstream historical linguistics views Turkic as a family of its own without any reliably demonstrated affiliations. Altaic remains controversial, I don't see that this state of affairs has been overturned, and you can base nothing on Altaic or even only Turko-Mongolic.

Precisely speaking, proto-languages date to the moment immediately before the start of divergence into attested branches, so the "high limit" is irrelevant anyway. In 4000 BC, Proto-Turkic proper did not exist yet and it is more proper to speak of Pre-Proto-Turkic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

About deep linguistic prehistory

I'd just like to point out that the proto-language stage of the average language family (even including ancient families such as Hurro-Urartian!) is about 4000–2000 years old, and there are numerous isolates like Basque whose reconstructible time-depth is perhaps 1000–2000 years; celebrated cases such as Austronesian or Indo-European are far from the norm.

Even Proto-Sino-Tibetan (whose age is unclear – Old Chinese does not seem to have been radically different from Proto-Sino-Tibetan, so there is no certainty that Proto-Sino-Tibetan is really as old as Proto-Indo-European or even more) is poorly known and surrounded by certain doubts, while proper reconstructions of Proto-Afro-Asiatic or Proto-Niger-Congo are conspicuously lacking, let alone various other large families (Proto-Pama-Nyungan and Proto-Trans-New-Guinea look even more credible than the African "superstocks", because there is at least some attempt at actual reconstruction). Other families such as Uralic or Austro-Asiatic turn out not to be as old as long assumed.

So keeping that in mind, I don't really understand the zeal to push back one's linguistic history into the Neolithic. Even Indo-European is almost certainly not older than 7000 years, and probably not even much older than 5000. It remains likely that languages just change too much and innovate too much lexically and morphologically to reconstruct back more than 4000 years (at best) from the oldest attestations on average, with only extremely few lucky exceptions such as Austronesian. In sum: Historical linguistics provides only a shallow time-depth, and most language families are not particularly old. We know basically nothing about the languages of the world in 4000 BC, and this is not likely to change anytime soon (if ever). That's too bad, but it's better to learn to live with this state of affairs rather than to fight it and grasp at straws.

So if you're interested in the history of the Turkish (or any other Turkic) language, it's best to content yourself that this history (so far) starts no earlier than the break-up of Proto-Turkic, some 2000 years ago or so, possibly in a desolate region of Central Asia or Mongolia, without any awesome civilisation. Perhaps the amazing geographical spread (hey, that's at least something!) of the language family was achieved by piggybacking on the success and extent of another (Iranian). That may hurt one's patriotic sensibilities, but one has to decide if one is interested in science or fantasy and myths. (My own linguistic ancestors didn't have any particularly remarkable civilisation either 2000 years ago, quite possibly not even any of my ancestors, not to mention my known ancestors: I've got nothing to boast with, either.)

--Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Palatal Rhoticity

So apparently in this proto-language, there is a palatal rhotic consonant. Represented by ŕ. Anyone know what this means? Macy 00:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a palatalized r (the text sufficently explains that), a sound you e.g. find in Russian. –Austronesier (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. It could either have been rʲ or ɾʲ. Thank you for clarifying this for me. Macy 16:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Study published in Nature

User:Austronesier User:Beshogur

"These dates are about the putative common ancestor of the proposed Transeurasian macrofamily. This article is about Proto-Turkic, not the pre-pre-history of the Turkic languages"

No, you are wrong. That study says, all those languages split from each other 9000 years ago. Which means the start of the Proto-Turkic language, not the Pre-pre-pre-Turkic. Anyway, if it is not good to change the ERA section from 500bce to 9000bce, that is fine. But what's the problem with the information of the study displayed on the page? How can a serious study about the birth of the Turkic languages be so irrelevant to the Proto-Turkic page? It must be on all pages about Proto-Turkic, Turkic, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, and Tungusic.

Alasiyan (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The proposed Transeurasian macrofamily is not generally accepted by historical linguists. The deepest we can get back in time with certainty is the common ancestor of the extant and historically documented Turkic languages. This is what is presented in this article. We might add a section "Wider connections" and mention the controversial Altaic/Transeurasian proposal (which is not at all "revolutionary") there, but not in the lede and infobox as hard uncontroversial facts. –Austronesier (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not a theory or proposal, it is a scientific "calculation". I know things less than 1/1000 as scientific as this, to be in the first sentence of the lede. Anyway, please place it to what section you see appropriate. I am too old to fight for this. Alasiyan (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not a theory or proposal: it is. Please read the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the paper (pp. 616-617 in the print version). The Transeurasian proposal is explicitly introduced as a working hypothesis on which the entire paper is based. –Austronesier (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Languages separated 11000 years ago cannot understand each other. These languages did not split in 9000 BCE. The word eight is 'sekir' in Bulgar Turkic, and 'sekiz' in Common Turkic, same in 'yal' and 'yaš'. The only difference is that one is l-r and the other is sh-z, nothing else. That's why we call it Lir and Shaz. What if it was separated in 9000 BCE? You can check out the similarity between Indo-European languages. BurakD53 (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding to BurakD53's comment: Robbeets et al. posit a realistic and relatively shallow date of 2100 ± 175 BP as tree prior for the diversification of the Turkic languages, which is a far cry from the asserted date 9000 BCE. If ever we cite this Nature article, we will do it properly. –Austronesier (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It is more appropriate to move it to Proto-Altaic language, that figure. Beshogur (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2022

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Proto-Turkic language → Proto-TurkicProto-Turkic – Redunancy. Only article with the words "Proto-Turkic", so it's already clear that it's going about a proto-language, not people. Otherwise it could be "Proto-Turks". Beshogur (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Might not be clear to all. "Proto-Turkic people" is still a phrase - not everyone uses "Proto-Turks". Rather it remain. Helpful and unobstrusive. Walrasiad (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. All or almost all other proto language articles use language, Turkic doesn't need to be different.

EOT3000 (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2022 (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.

Eastern part of Central Asian steppe

In relation to the consensus that proto-Turkic originated in the "eastern part of Central Asian steppe", what present-day countries composed such a sub-region of a part of the Eurasian steppe? 136.158.67.56 (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Proto-Turkic language origin

@Squeaks 41:@पाटलिपुत्र:

Exactly where do these two sources state that Proto-Turkic language originated in the Slab Grave culture?

• Savelyev, Alexander; Jeong, Choongwon (2020). "Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentative connections in the West". Evolutionary Human Sciences. 2. doi:10.1017/ehs.2020.18. ISSN 2513-843X. PMC 7612788. PMID 35663512. alternatively, the descendance of the Xiongnu from the Slab Grave culture population, who preceded them in eastern Mongolia, is debated (Lee and Linhu, 2011). Such a distribution of Xiongnu words may be an indication that both Turkic and Eastern Iranian-speaking groups were present among the Xiongnu in the earlier period of their history. Arguably, these Iranian-speaking groups were assimilated over time by the predominant Turkic-speaking part of the Xiongnu population.

• Yang, Xiao-Min; Meng, Hai-Liang; Zhang, Jian-Lin; Yu, Yao; Allen, Edward; Xia, Zi-Yang; Zhu, Kong-Yang; Du, Pan-Xin; Ren, Xiao-Ying; Xiong, Jian-Xue; Lu, Xiao-Yu; Ding, Yi; Han, Sheng; Liu, Wei-Peng; Jin, Li (November 2023). "Ancient genome of Empress Ashina reveals the Northeast Asian origin of Göktürk Khanate". Journal of Systematics and Evolution. 61 (6): 7, Supplementary Material Fig. S6. Bibcode:2023JSyEv..61.1056Y. doi:10.1111/jse.12938. ISSN 1674-4918. S2CID 255690237. In addition, Ashina showed close genetic affinity with population related to Bronze Age SlabGrave and Ulaanzukh culture in Mongolia Plateau who harbors dominating ANA ancestry.

I see no mention of Proto-Turkic language originating anywhere?

User:पाटलिपुत्र, you have access to the "Ancient genome of Empress Ashina" article, is the information somewhere else in that article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I searched "The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages", "A Grammar Of Old Turkic", "Language Contact in Siberia: Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic", and "The Turkic Languages". None mention Slab grave or Ulaanzuukh culture. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Articles review

I haven't been involved in this article, but here is my reading of these two sources. The article "Ancient genome of Empress Ashina reveals the Northeast Asian origin of Göktürk Khanate" (which is quite easily accessible ) seems to make no mention of "Proto-Turkic" specifically. The only significant mention of Slab-Grave and Ulaanzukh seems to relate to their already confirmed genetic affinity with the Gokturk princess Ashina, but does not involve language specifically: "Ashina showed close genetic affinity with population related to Bronze Age Slab-Grave and Ulaanzukh culture in Mongolia Plateau who harbors dominating ANA ancestry." (p.7). Regarding origins, the article clearly stresses the Northeast Asian origin of the Göktürk: "Our genomic analyses of Empress Ashina revealed Göktürk's Northeast Asian origin (97.7% Northeast Asian ancestry and 2.3% West Eurasian ancestry), refuting the western Eurasian origin and multiple origin hypotheses." (p.5)

The second article "Early nomads of the Eastern Steppe and their tentative connections in the West" however seems to discuss Proto-Turkic extensively, apparently associating it with the Xiongnu (especially "Late Proto-Turkic"): "The traditional and prevailing view is, however, that the Xiongnu and/or the Huns were Turkic or, at least, Altaic speakers" (p.4). And Slab Grave is discussed as one of the possible origins of the Xiongnu: "the descendance of the Xiongnu from the Slab Grave culture population, who preceded them in eastern Mongolia, is debated (Lee and Linhu, 2011)" (p.4). I will have to read this article more in depth when I have time.

It seems about all for these two sources. Given the extent of genetic connections which have been uncovered along the Ulaanzukh/ Slab-Grave/ Xiongnu/ Gokturk continuum, and the "prevailing" views about Xiongnus being "Turkic or, at least, Altaic speakers", there are probably sources out there making specific inferences about a connection between Ulaanzukh/ Slab-Grave and Proto-Turkic, but this does not seem to be the case of these two sources specifically, although relatively close. I'll take some time later to investigate the literature on this specific point. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

So it's original research and should be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The following source seems to be quite specific about the geographical origin of Proto-Turkic, and locates it "most likely in Eastern Mongolia" before nomadic expansion from 1200 BCE, with a corresponding map in Figure 3 (page 12). The map is freely usable under CC BY 4.0 and is more to the point, and should probably be used instead in the article.

Proto-Turkic homeland.

• "Most linguists and historians agree that Proto-Turkic, the common ancestor of all ancient and contemporary Turkic languages, must have been spoken somewhere in Central-East Asia (e.g. Róna-Tas, 1991, p. 35; Golden, 1992, pp. 124–127; Menges, 1995, pp. 16–19). Prior to the split of the proto-language at the end of the first millennium BCE, the Proto-Turkic speakers may have occupied the vast area stretching from the Sayan–Altai Mountains, South Siberia, in the west, to Eastern Inner Mongolia in the east. Such a wide distribution was probably the result of nomadic pastoralist expansions that started in the region ca. 1200 BCE, according to the recent findings (Taylor et al., 2017, p. 50). The ultimate Proto-Turkic homeland may have been located in a more compact area, most likely in Eastern Mongolia, that is, close to the ultimate Proto-Mongolic homeland in Southern Manchuria and the ultimate Proto-Tungusic homeland in the present-day borderlands of China, Russia and North Korea (Janhunen, 2010, pp. 293–294; Robbeets et al., in press; Figure 3). This hypothesis would explain the tight connections of Proto-Turkic with Proto-Mongolic and Proto-Tungusic, regardless of whether one interprets the numerous similarities between the three Altaic families as partly inherited or obtained owing to long-lasting contact." in Uchiyama, Junzo; Gillam, J. Christopher; Savelyev, Alexander; Ning, Chao (2020). "Populations dynamics in Northern Eurasian forests: a long-term perspective from Northeast Asia". Evolutionary Human Sciences. 2: 11. doi:10.1017/ehs.2020.11. ISSN 2513-843X.

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

References

And yet that article makes no mention of SlabGrave or Ulaanzukh culture, either.--Kansas Bear (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You're right. User:Squeaks 41's Proto-Turkic connection with Ulaanzukh/ Slab-Grave does not seem to appear in these articles or other articles visible online. It's a bit surprising frankly, since location (eastern Mongolia), period (pre and post-1200 BCE) and even genetics seem to coincide (or maybe there is some major research I am not aware of... do you have any clue?). I suspect that it is near impossible to make a determination between Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic so far back, while the two language groups were so close to each other. If no source can be found backing this connection, it cannot be claimed of course. But I guess researchers must be working on the subject, and publications will appear. In the meantime, I've removed User:Squeaks 41's maps and text, which he seems to be OK with, and worked on a paragraph on origins, based on Uchiyama, including their CC BY 4.0 location map.पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not very good at this, but most articles indicate that the first Turkic speakers emerged in Eastern Mongolia, and I'd say the map I made is more likely than definite. And in Eastern Mongolia, before the emergence of the Xiongnu and the arrival of the Saka, only the Slab Grave/Ulaanzuukh existed, which are more recently discovered cultures and therefore not often mentioned in scholarly articles. But the map you included in the article is certainly more accurate than mine, so I can't really say anything about it. So, are there any other inaccuracies or uncertainties in my File:Urheimats of Altaic languages.jpg map? Squeaks 41 (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Squeaks 41. I think your map is probably OK, except for the fact that you associate Proto-Turkic with Ulaanzukh culture, which apparently no reliable source does. Even if likely by our own assumptions, we cannot claim something which is not published by a reliable source (this is called WP:OR). Can you reupload your map without the mention of Ulaanzukh? I cannot make a judgement on the other linguistic areas in your map, but I suppose associating a specific language with a specific archaeological culture is tricky: if you don't have specific sources, better to leave the archaeological cultures out of the map. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the map as you said. Squeaks 41 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! You will need to clarify your sources on the file page: who says what, and especially who supports the locations and the culture-language associations. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I did Squeaks 41 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I've added some info to your source file. The second source is not reliable (self-published). You should add quotes and page numbers to document precisely the relationships between each language and culture: for example, where can we find the reference linking the Lower Xiajiadian culture to "Proto-Serbi-Mongolic"? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Range of candidates for places of origin

Here I'm reproducing my remarks to User:Nifushi on their talk page, which they removed:

Hello. I've reverted your edits to Proto-Turkic language because from your edits it appeared you were changing your own impression of what the facts are from one edit to another and, in addition, that you were cobbling details together from other articles here, which isn't a good idea, as Wikipedia itself isn't considered a reliable source. I don't know that it's ideal the way it is now, but your stream of edits gave me some concern about the reliability of the result.

I'm placing this here because Nifushi restored their version, from which I've again reverted the article on the grounds that they left the lead incorrectly indicating an undebated northeast China origin when the original language as well as the sources contradict that. In addition, Nifushi insisted on removing a reference to the Mongolian Plateau (which is way west of northeast China) with the reasoning that that would confuse readers into thinking it meant Mongolia, and that "Country of Mongolia didn't exist back then". That seems odd because I'd expect readers to think that if Mongolia had been meant, it would have said "Mongolia". It also isn't clear why the same user isn't concerned about referring to China as "China" given that the country of China also didn't exist back then. Largoplazo (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

This is very weird and annoying for me. The word "China" and "Chinese" existed back then while term "Mongol" didn't. What are you even up to? Wasted lifetime. I guess you are mad because I removed your comment in my talk page. I removed your comment and didn't continue to edit war. Nobody asked why you removed my version and you already explained yourself both in revert and in my talk page. Despite I didn't change your version you are still trying to revive a dead conversation. That's creepy. I'd like you to not tag me nor reach me for this topic neither in my talk nor here. Nifushi (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

A united China didn't exist till a millenium after the period being discussed here, 1200 BCE. And, wow, someone disagrees with you on Wikipedia and, bam, I've had a "wasted lifetime" and you're making up stuff out of thin air about my motivations.

You did restore your content after I'd written to you, so your claim here that you "didn't continue to edit war" is incorrect.

I reposted the conversation here because I was going to initiate a discussion here, regardless (because that's what you're supposed to do when there's a content disagreement). It seemed easiest to copy what I'd already written, and it documented that even though I hadn't written here before, I'd at least initiated a discussion with you before your reversion. Nothing creepy about this, no anger. Perfectly routine.

I tagged you as the other party to the disagreement, not to be creepy, but because that's what one normally does as a courtesy to make sure the other party sees it so they have the opportunity to add their side of the story. (An opportunity you haven't taken other than in your sentence about China.)

I apologize to others for using this forum to respond to Nifushi rather than on their talk page but, as you've seen, they've banned me from their talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

I still think you are right but you are not even stop talking about it.

"You did restore your content after I'd written to you, so your claim here that you 'didn't continue to edit war' is incorrect"

You should have created the section here then, not in my talk page. After I deleted that, you reverted my edits once again and explained yourself in edit. I actually agreed with you and stopped restore anything.

then, AN HOUR later you removed the deleted conversation here just to revived a solved conflict? With long paragraphs! I'm sorry but that's weird, annoying and creepy. Yes, it's also a huge waste of time. Nifushi (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

There was no indication that it was resolved. I can't read your mind and, unlike you, I won't pretend to. That would be creepy.

I left my initial comments on your talk page initially because I meant it merely by way of explanation—again, as a courtesy— without expectation that it would become a debate that would necessitate bringing the discussion here to get input from others. Please stop trying to read nefarious motives into everything. Also, your edit summary "lmao GFKHJKFGNVKXCBNFN" is evidence of a failure to assume good faith and deal with others civilly. Largoplazo (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I indicate it is resolved. Please stop talking. Nifushi (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Whelp—I meant the unification of China into an empire didn't happen until the 3rd century BCE, I guess there was considered to be a Qin state before that. But even that covered an area limited mostly to what today would be considered northeast China, so to locate Proto-Turkic specifically in the northeast portion of that is super-restrictive and doesn't at all reflect the diversity of hypotheses. Largoplazo (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Uchiyama et al

I removed the claim that Uchiyama et al say that the original homeland is in Bashkortostan. That's on its face suspicious so I looked through the paper. Here's what Uchiyama does say: "The ultimate Proto-Turkic homeland may have been located in a morecompact area, most likely in Eastern Mongolia" . There is no mention at all of Bashkortostan in the entire paper. Grace Note (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Grace Note: Here is the proper original paragraph on "Origins", which should be replaced in the article (it was deleted and manipulated by User:~2026-25361-39):

Proto-Turkic homeland and expansion.

There is general agreement among linguists and historians that Proto-Turkic was spoken somewhere in Central-East Asia. Its most likely ultimate homeland was modern-day Eastern Mongolia. From circa 1200 BCE, nomadic activity led to the expansion of Proto-Turkic into a wider area, from the Sayan-Altai Mountains in South Siberia, to Eastern Inner Mongolia. Proto-Turkic is thought to have split at the end of the first millennium BCE.

The likely ultimate homeland of Proto-Turkic in Eastern Mongolia was very close to the homeland of the Proto-Mongolic language in Southern Manchuria and the homeland of Proto-Tungusic in the area where modern-day China, Russia and North Korea meet, which would explain the proximity of these languages.

Pataliputra! (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Falsified content

Content was falsified by User:~2026-25361-39 in the following edit: . Could someone restore the original content?

In particular, the proper original paragraph on "Origins" is:

Proto-Turkic homeland and expansion.

There is general agreement among linguists and historians that Proto-Turkic was spoken somewhere in Central-East Asia. Its most likely ultimate homeland was modern-day Eastern Mongolia. From circa 1200 BCE, nomadic activity led to the expansion of Proto-Turkic into a wider area, from the Sayan-Altai Mountains in South Siberia, to Eastern Inner Mongolia. Proto-Turkic is thought to have split at the end of the first millennium BCE.

The likely ultimate homeland of Proto-Turkic in Eastern Mongolia was very close to the homeland of the Proto-Mongolic language in Southern Manchuria and the homeland of Proto-Tungusic in the area where modern-day China, Russia and North Korea meet, which would explain the proximity of these languages.

Pataliputra! (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

References