4 ms·

The Tunitcha mountains of Arizona may be related to the word “Khan”

49 points by benbreen 4y ago

snsr 4y ago
Lots of interesting reading down this path! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dené–Yeniseian_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dené–Yeniseian_languages
onionisafruit 4y ago
From that thread: > As far as I’m concerned, any credible prehistorical connection of any Native American utterance to any utterance not native to the Americas is in the “one small step for language, one giant leap for reconstructive linguistics” category. I’m not an expert, but that was my first reaction too.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jcranmer 4y ago
  The theory that the Na-Dené languages are related to Yeniseian languages appears to be generally accepted, even if not considered fully proven. That said, this acceptance appears to be driven in large part on the basis of "okay, we do see that these languages could be related" with stronger reservations on any actual reconstruction of the relationship--the author of the theory himself seems to be accepting of this viewpoint [1]. So at the end of the day, I have to agree with the assessment that the connection of the two utterances is too strong. And it even looks like the author of the first proposal linking Na-Dené to Yeniesian would agree with this assessment! [1] See https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/jlr-2012-080110/html https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/jlr-2012-080..., which is written by the main author of this hypothesis.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
This migration possibly occurred as a result of the fall of the Xiongnu confederation, which, according to Alexander Vovin, is likely to have had a Yeniseian-speaking ruling elite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniseian_people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniseian_people There is a theory that the Xiongnu are the ancestors of the Huns. So the Navajos might be related to the Huns!
- danans 4y ago
  > This migration possibly occurred as a result of the fall of the Xiongnu confederation That doesn't sound right. The peopling of the Americas from Siberia occurred on the order of 10k+ years ago, whereas the Xiongnu confederation collapsed in the 1st century CE. That doesn't rule out a common ancestor language, but it does rule out the Xiongnu as linguistic ancestors of the Navajo. There is already a known genetic ancestral link between Siberian peoples and the Navajo, though so a linguistic common ancestor is plausible, if not provable.
  - tombh 4y ago
    I may be misunderstanding your point, but Wikipedia is suggesting that the connection is because of a _back_ migration from North America to Asia https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951421 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951421
    - danans 4y ago
      The last migration referenced in that paper, of the Eskimo-Aleut population in the circumpolar regions, occurred 9000 years ago and the back migrations discussed occurred in that time frame, so 7000 years before the Xiongnu confederation. If I missed something and they mentioned a back migration contemporaneous with the Xiongnu, please point it out.
      - tombh 4y ago
        I don't think my comment helped. You had already made what I think is the main point, that a _common_ linguistic ancestor (rather than direct ancestry) is plausible between the Hun and the Navajo. But the parent comment author (which I am not) didn't say there was direct ancestry either, just that they were related. I mean we're all related to a greater or lesser extent anyway, so what difference does a direct or back migration make? I think to me, what would be most interesting is that the proposed linguistic connection wasn't from a back-migration, because then we'd have more of a linear narrative. Oversimplifying, it would be: Africans became central Asians, who became Eastern Asians, who became Americans. And I kind of feel that's how everybody else wants it to be too, a neat little linear story. Which is what I assumed you read into the parent comment, that the Navajo and Hun share a narratively pleasing close connection. So I just wanted to point out that the Navajo and Hun could be related from a non-linear perspective, and for the parent comment to still be relevant. But I think you were already ahead of me anyway! BTW, it does seem like the parent comment is implying that the Na-Dene migration occurred as a result of the collapse of the Xiongnu, which is obviously misleading, because the 2 events are something like 12,000 years apart.
ajross 4y ago
Some digging led me to this theory, which is the root of this relationship. There's a proposed language family uniting an otherwise isolated family of Siberian languages with the large Na-Dene language family of North America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den%C3%A9%E2%80%93Yeniseian_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den%C3%A9%E2%80%93Yeniseian_la... The bit about "khan" seems less interesting and mostly unrelated. The Mongolian word happens to be a loan word from some ancestral Yenesian language, I guess?
- qiskit 4y ago
  What's interesting is that most native american language and most siberian-descended/adjacent languages are agglutinative. From finnish to turkish to korean/japanese, it's agglutinative. Of course there are agglutinative languages in africa, etc. But I always found it interesting that languages with ties to siberia are mostly agglutinative.
  - mjan22640 4y ago
    All languages in the world are agglutinative, except afroasiatic and indoeuropean. These two families share a few more unique features in addition to the inflection.

49 points by benbreen 4y ago

snsr 4y ago

Lots of interesting reading down this path! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dené–Yeniseian_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dené–Yeniseian_languages

onionisafruit 4y ago

From that thread: > As far as I’m concerned, any credible prehistorical connection of any Native American utterance to any utterance not native to the Americas is in the “one small step for language, one giant leap for reconstructive linguistics” category. I’m not an expert, but that was my first reaction too.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jcranmer 4y ago
The theory that the Na-Dené languages are related to Yeniseian languages appears to be generally accepted, even if not considered fully proven. That said, this acceptance appears to be driven in large part on the basis of "okay, we do see that these languages could be related" with stronger reservations on any actual reconstruction of the relationship--the author of the theory himself seems to be accepting of this viewpoint [1]. So at the end of the day, I have to agree with the assessment that the connection of the two utterances is too strong. And it even looks like the author of the first proposal linking Na-Dené to Yeniesian would agree with this assessment! [1] See https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/jlr-2012-080110/html https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.31826/jlr-2012-080..., which is written by the main author of this hypothesis.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

This migration possibly occurred as a result of the fall of the Xiongnu confederation, which, according to Alexander Vovin, is likely to have had a Yeniseian-speaking ruling elite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniseian_people https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeniseian_people There is a theory that the Xiongnu are the ancestors of the Huns. So the Navajos might be related to the Huns!

danans 4y ago
> This migration possibly occurred as a result of the fall of the Xiongnu confederation That doesn't sound right. The peopling of the Americas from Siberia occurred on the order of 10k+ years ago, whereas the Xiongnu confederation collapsed in the 1st century CE. That doesn't rule out a common ancestor language, but it does rule out the Xiongnu as linguistic ancestors of the Navajo. There is already a known genetic ancestral link between Siberian peoples and the Navajo, though so a linguistic common ancestor is plausible, if not provable.
- tombh 4y ago
  I may be misunderstanding your point, but Wikipedia is suggesting that the connection is because of a _back_ migration from North America to Asia https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951421 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3951421
  - danans 4y ago
    The last migration referenced in that paper, of the Eskimo-Aleut population in the circumpolar regions, occurred 9000 years ago and the back migrations discussed occurred in that time frame, so 7000 years before the Xiongnu confederation. If I missed something and they mentioned a back migration contemporaneous with the Xiongnu, please point it out.
    - tombh 4y ago
      I don't think my comment helped. You had already made what I think is the main point, that a _common_ linguistic ancestor (rather than direct ancestry) is plausible between the Hun and the Navajo. But the parent comment author (which I am not) didn't say there was direct ancestry either, just that they were related. I mean we're all related to a greater or lesser extent anyway, so what difference does a direct or back migration make? I think to me, what would be most interesting is that the proposed linguistic connection wasn't from a back-migration, because then we'd have more of a linear narrative. Oversimplifying, it would be: Africans became central Asians, who became Eastern Asians, who became Americans. And I kind of feel that's how everybody else wants it to be too, a neat little linear story. Which is what I assumed you read into the parent comment, that the Navajo and Hun share a narratively pleasing close connection. So I just wanted to point out that the Navajo and Hun could be related from a non-linear perspective, and for the parent comment to still be relevant. But I think you were already ahead of me anyway! BTW, it does seem like the parent comment is implying that the Na-Dene migration occurred as a result of the collapse of the Xiongnu, which is obviously misleading, because the 2 events are something like 12,000 years apart.

ajross 4y ago

Some digging led me to this theory, which is the root of this relationship. There's a proposed language family uniting an otherwise isolated family of Siberian languages with the large Na-Dene language family of North America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den%C3%A9%E2%80%93Yeniseian_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den%C3%A9%E2%80%93Yeniseian_la... The bit about "khan" seems less interesting and mostly unrelated. The Mongolian word happens to be a loan word from some ancestral Yenesian language, I guess?

qiskit 4y ago
What's interesting is that most native american language and most siberian-descended/adjacent languages are agglutinative. From finnish to turkish to korean/japanese, it's agglutinative. Of course there are agglutinative languages in africa, etc. But I always found it interesting that languages with ties to siberia are mostly agglutinative.
- mjan22640 4y ago
  All languages in the world are agglutinative, except afroasiatic and indoeuropean. These two families share a few more unique features in addition to the inflection.