Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tropylium (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 19 December 2022 (some observations, no new opinions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Languages Redirect‑class

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Reliable sources

I don't see any evidence that this term exists in reliable sources besides an off-hand mention. Most of the article is not sourced. @Austronesier:, is this something you would know about?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Here are the sparse Google Scholar search results for "Hunno-Bulgar", most of which are not about a "proposed language family". You'll get a bit more results for "Hunno-Bulgarian", but a only a fraction is about a linguistic grouping. So we're not really close to even crossing the threshold of WP:SIGCOV.

Another thing is that this is actually just a content fork of Oghuric languages (also known as "Bulg(h)aric"):

• First, it entails what is essentially just terminological revisionism, as described by Ramer: the term- "Hunno-" is pasted to "Bulgar(ian)" in order to avoid confusion with Slavic Bulgarian. The identification of Hunnic as an Oghur language is however totally speculative since virtually nothing is known about the language of the Huns. As Savelyev (2020) puts it: While "Hunnic," i.e. the language ofthe European Huns ofthe late fourth and fifth centuries AD, is sometimes referred to as a Bulgharic variety, this connection is based mainly on historical rather than proper linguistic evidence.
• Secondly, it is a about classificatory revisionism. Oghuric (rebranded as HB) is not seen as a part of the Turkic language family as a first-order sister subgroup next to Common Turkic, but treated as a branch of its own within the wider controversial Altaic macrofamily.

I suggest to merge this article to Oghuric languages, per WP:POVFORK and also WP:GNG. Pinging @Beshogur: who has an eye on most Turkic-related topics, and @TaivoLinguist: for input from a general historical linguistic perspective. –Austronesier (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with merger. How is Chuvash supposedly part of this proposed family group if they are a Turkic language. It's like trying to classify as non-Turkic but para-Turkic (related to Turkic), like Khitan being para-Mongolic, however I don't see vast majority of linguists agreeing with that. I know that there are not much written text of supposed Oghur languages, however there are texts of Volga Bulgaric, which is clearly Turkic. Then with this mentality, Khalaj shouldn't be classified as Turkic as well, because it's another archaic branch of Turkic. Simply those views are far fetched and not supported by scholars. Beshogur (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: I've just seen that User:Tropylium made very similar arguments in Talk:Oghuric_languages#"Hunno-Bulgarian"_and_"Hunno-Turkic" in a discussion six years ago facing a very similar POV. –Austronesier (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Savelyev, Alexander (2020). "Chuvash and the Bulgharic Languages". In Martine Robbeets; Alexander Savelyev (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 22–28. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198804628.003.0003.

Hmm, looks like our friend Crovata shows up there again…

Based on what’s been said so far, I support merging.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks familiar. This continues to be an existing hypothesis, but a marginal one with almost no reliable sources and no established terminology. Note that even the current citation from A.M.R. siding with this term is 1) from an unpublished paper draft posted online and nowhere else, and 2) does not support "Hunno-Bulgarian" for a language family, but as a disambiguation device for what we currently call Bulgar as distinct from Bulgarian.

I continue to think that this topic, to what extent it is sourcable, would be better discussed as one section of the article on Bulgar (such a mention does exist already) or the article on Oghuric (which does not exist currently; it would benefit from a section discussing the putative membership of all the poorly attested non-Chuvash languages). --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 18:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, I'll put in the standard linguistic POV. "Bolgarian" is a Turkic language (different from Slavic Indo-European Bulgarian). That "u" versus "o" is everything. The Bolgar languages, Chuvash and Bolgarian, are on a separate branch of Turkic from everything else. Glottolog on Turkic. "Hunnic" is simply not a thing for linguists since there is no linguistic evidence, it's just a name. It is impossible to use "Hunnic" in a name since there is no linguistic reality to the term. Glottolog on Hunnic. And since you mentioned "Khalaj", that name actually refers to a Turkic language. Glottolog on Turkish Khalaj. There is no other kind of "Khalaj" although until recently there was a supposed Iranian language called "Khalaj" listed in literature. But it was found to be non-existant, not "extinct", but non-existent. Not a Neanderthal, a hobbit. Glottolog on Khalaj. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class language pages
• NA-importance language pages
• WikiProject Languages articles