Talk:Hunnic language

Hunnic Script? Türkic Script?

https://www.khm.at/en/artworks/bueste-der-armenischen-prinzessin-warazadukta-58352-1 under this link you can see a ring with 2 writing systems. One Latin the other one runic. The runic one is very probably Türk Script (Orkhun Runes). I have already deciphered it under: https://uzunbacakadem.blogspot.com/2020/01/romanseal-with-turkishrunes.html ~UzunbacakAdem Uzunbacak Adem 2003:F6:9740:72AB:B831:8896:AF7B:6422 (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There are no examples of “Hunnic script.” This is WP:OR.—-Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hunnic names in Maenchen-Helfen

@Ermenrich

Regarding my previous edit, I understand your point about the article being about the Hunnic language as opposed to the variety of languages that the Huns spoke. Because of that, the edit I made regarding Hyun Jun Kim's comments do not belong on the article. However, I think that what the article says about Maenchen-Helfen's The World of the Huns is inaccurate. Page 441 of The World of the Huns reads, "To judge by the tribal names, a great part of the Huns must have spoken a Turkish language...The personal names give a different picture." The author then lists a number of personal names used by the Huns, of varying origins, many Turkish, but a few also Germanic and Iranian.

The article in its current state makes the much stronger claim that "many tribal and proper names among the Huns appear to have originated in Turkic languages, indicating that the language was Turkic", which I don't explicitly see in Maenchen-Helfen. The pages cited there, 392-411, list a number of names which Maenchen-Helfen say are Hunnic names of Turkic origin, of which there are many. That does not, however, carry the much weightier claim that the Hunnic language was Turkic. In fact, the author is at least reluctant to posit that Hunnic names were largely Turkic. From page 405: "The number of Hun names which are certainly or most probably Turkish is small. But in view of the wild speculations and irresponsible etymologies still being expounded, to lay a narrow but firm basis for studying all the names seems preferable to dreamily wandering through dictionaries."

I can see how the claim that many Hunnic names were Turkic can be attributed to Maenchen-Helfen, but I can't see the much stronger claim that the Hunnic language was Turkic. If it is there, it would help to see a specific quote saying this. Could the article be changed to remove "indicating that the language was Turkic"? I'd also argue that the claim about names should be restricted to tribal names only. Truthnope (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Give me a little time to look through the book. I’m pretty certain M-H was in favor of Hunnic being Turkic though.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I see you've already quoted the quote I was looking for. I think that's the important thing: To judge by the tribal names, a great part of the Huns must have spoken a Turkish language.... Later on, he states that The distribution of the Iranian and German or Germanized names is very instructive. No Germanic names occur among the non-Attilanic Huns. In any case, he seems to agree with a Turkic language as the original language.

I think the section could some rewriting for consistency and flow, but I don't think we should get caught up on individual name etymologies. Any thoughts?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, okay, so you're saying that that part is about the Hunnic language as opposed to saying that the Huns spoke some other language that was Turkic. I see your point. Truthnope (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

KIMIZ

"The words medos, a beverage akin to mead, kamos, a barley drink,..." KIMIZ is a Türkic drink and corresponds 100% with kamos. ~UzunbacakAdem Uzunbacak Adem UzunbacakAdem (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Kamos is made of barley, not mares milk. Furthermore, the ending -os on Kamos is a Greek grammatical ending - the root of the Hunnish word is just “kam-“. WP:RS do not connect the words.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeniseian Theory - Wilson's Review

Being curious as to what else Wilson had to say about the Yeniseian role in Eurasian history, I attempted to look for the source in which Wilson gave that quote. The cited source doesn't have it at all, and that was Wilson's only publication for the cited year. None of Wilson's papers mention the Huns or the Xiongnu, and most of them are concerned with the linkage between the Athabaskans and the Yeniseians, rather than ever looking further west.

Even more, other Wikipedia articles, such as the Xiongnu page, cite a review that Wilson wrote that I can find no existence of existing, while the actual cited papers are two papers of Wilson's that explore Yeniseian-Athabaskan connections, again with no mentions to the Huns or the Xiongnu, or even anything further west than the Yenisei River.

I'd personally love the possibility of a greater Yeniseian role in Eurasian history, but I'd like to know where exactly the quote came from, and whose research I should read up on. If anyone can help with this, it would be appreciated. ~2026-51377-70 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

If the quoted text doesn’t exist in the article quoted, then that text should be removed.—-Ermenrich (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I was able to verify the quote and the cited information to Wilson 2023 very easily, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Search through Wilson's publication; it is not there at all: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AUYowF2mZqhOnYQKnewpr_m10HOueTwh/view?usp=drive_link

And none of Wilson's research ever touches on the Huns or the Xiongnu, and mentions of Yeniseian peoples have been in relation to the Athabaskans: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BZ7j-0GW63aPheU6teRJvWGy2rTikeYD?usp=drive_link

A quick google search will corroborate the quote as being Wilson's, and from his 2023 paper "Late Holocene Technology Words in Proto‐Athabaskan: Implications for Dene‐Yeniseian Culture History," but the source itself has nothing even remotely similar. ~2026-51712-66 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Just click on the article linked in the text.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2026 (UTC)