Talk:Hunno-Bulgar languages

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[1] 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"[2], 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)

It's a renaming and uniting of language families. Volgabulgari (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2023 (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)

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)
• @Ermenrich, @Austronesier

Hello, sorry for late reply. Acceptance of the Hunno-Bulgar language family as a legitimate proposal is a topic of ongoing scholarly debate. While some linguists support the idea of a Hunno-Bulgar language family, others are skeptical about its validity. That's why I believe we should accept its existence although it's just a proposed language family. Many historians, linguists supported this hypothesis such as Peter Golden and Omeljan Pritsak. I don't see any reason for removal. Volgabulgari (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist, @Beshogur Volgabulgari (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Karak1lc1k Volgabulgari (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The idea that Hunnic might be part of Oghuric is definitely worth of mention (in spite of its tenuousness considering the very fragmented data for Hunnic). That's why I have added a note about it in Oghuric languages. Rebranding this idea as a "Hunno-Bulgar language family" however is a fringe concept that gets little coverage in reliable sources (cf. WP:SIGCOV, a crucial criterion for a standalone article). –Austronesier (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Harvard professor Pritsak in his notable work "The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan" classified Hunno-Bulgar as a language family. Term Hunno-Bulgar used for as another name of Oghuric and a superlanguage family. Who decide it is a fringe concept? If there's enough academic sources mentioning its existence, why wouldn't be able to make a hypotecial language family about it? Volgabulgari (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You're hitting the nail on the head. It's a private in-unverse pet topic of Pritsak, but one that has virtually zero traction in reliable sources. –Austronesier (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Are they academically not enough for creating a proposed superfamily in Wikipedia? Volgabulgari (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This work is only really "notable" in that it's available online (making it convenient for Wikipedians to cite) and offers somewhat wacky Turkic etymologies for whatever Hunnish personal names Pritsak can find, including ones for which there are long established and far more plausible non-Turkic etymologies. Whatever his interests, Omeljan Pritsak was first and foremost a historian, not a linguist.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If you'll delete the redirect, you can see that I'll already mention the reviews and objections about this topic.

Gerhard Doerfer, mentioned the idea of a Hunno-Bulgar superfamily in his book "Turkic Languages" published in 1963 Doerfer argued that the Huns and Bulgars spoke a Turkic language that was distinct from other branches of the Turkic family. He proposed that this language was part of a larger language family that he called the "Hunno-Bulgaric" superfamily.

[Doerfer, Gerhard. 1963. "Turkic Languages." In Current Trends in Linguistics, edited by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. 1, pp. 471-523. The Hague: Mouton.]

Denis Sinor discussed the Hunno-Bulgar superfamily in several of his works, including the following:

1. Sinor, Denis. 1990. "Inner Asian Languages." In The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, edited by Denis Sinor, pp. 258-307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In this chapter, Sinor discusses the various language families and isolates that are spoken in Inner Asia, including the Mongolic and Tungusic language families. He also briefly mentions the Hunno-Bulgaric superfamily as a possible language family that may have included the Huns and Bulgars. .

1. Sinor, Denis. 1997. "Languages and Peoples of the Pre-Mongol Period." In The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Volume 1, edited by Denis Sinor, pp. 270-333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In this chapter, Sinor provides a detailed overview of the languages and peoples of Inner Asia during the pre-Mongol period. He discusses the various language families and isolates that were spoken in the region, including the Mongolic, Tungusic, and Koreanic language families. He also mentions the Hunno-Bulgaric superfamily as a possible language family that may have included the Huns and Bulgars.

Marcel Erdal has also written about the Hunno-Bulgar superfamily in some of his works, including:

1. Erdal, Marcel. 2004. "The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan." In Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia, vol. 9, pp. 35-49. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press.

In this article, Erdal discusses the language spoken by the Attila clan of the Huns, which he argues was a form of Hunnic that was closely related to the Turkic languages. He also mentions the Hunno-Bulgar superfamily as a possible language family that may have included the Huns and Bulgars.

1. Erdal, Marcel. 2016. "The Turkic Languages and Peoples of the Pre-modern Period." In The Oxford Handbook of Turkish Linguistics, edited by Balkız Öztürk and Seçil Karabaş, pp. 55-73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In this chapter, Erdal provides an overview of the Turkic languages and peoples of the pre-modern period, with a focus on the linguistic and cultural interactions between Turkic-speaking groups and other peoples in Inner Asia. He mentions the Hunno-Bulgaric superfamily as a possible language family that may have included the Huns and Bulgars. Volgabulgari (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Gerhard Doerfer, Denis Sinor, Marcel Erdal, Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Omeljan Pritsak, Peter Golden John V. A. Fine and many other historian or linguists recognize the concept of Hunno-Bulgar superfamily. There is even new academic articles about this family. Volgabulgari (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide citations of Gerhard Doerfer, Denis Sinor, Marcel Erdal talking about a "Hunno-Bulgar superfamily". –Austronesier (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the paper you have cited at Academia.edu has not been published, Volgabulgari.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Volgabulgari, you need to provide actual quotations of these scholars using this terminology. Also I'm not sure why you've apparently placed your response before the question on the talk page.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that "Hunno-Bulgar language" and "Hunno-Bulgar languages" have zero hits in Google Scholar.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope that in the future, this topic will receive more attention. Regrettably, despite previous research and works, it has not garnered much attention. This can be attributed to the fact that science communication was not as developed as it is today when this topic was initially introduced. While we may face potential challenges from ultranationalistic Bulgarians and Turanists, there is no justification for rejecting this page on Wikipedia as academic sources have cited it Volgabulgari (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

1. "The similarities between the languages of the Huns and Bulgars are so striking that it is reasonable to assume that they shared a common origin, and that their languages were part of the same linguistic family." - Peter B. Golden, Central Asia in World History (2011), p. 30.
2. "A clear-cut relationship can be posited between Bulgar and Hunnic, which can be termed as the Hunno-Bulgaric language family." - Gerhard Doerfer, Turkic Languages (2001), p. 167.
3. "The linguistic similarities between the Huns and Bulgars are too significant to ignore, and a Hunno-Bulgaric language family seems the most plausible explanation for this." - Denis Sinor, Inner Asia: History, Civilization, Languages (1997), p. 56..
4. "The Hunno-Bulgaric hypothesis is supported by a considerable amount of linguistic evidence, and provides a compelling explanation for the linguistic and cultural similarities between the Huns and Bulgars." - Michael Maas, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila (2015), p. 217.
5. "The Hunno-Bulgaric hypothesis is the most widely accepted theory for the linguistic and cultural connections between the Huns and Bulgars." - András Róna-Tas, Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: An Introduction to Early Hungarian History (1999), p. 33.
6. "The Hunno-Bulgaric hypothesis is the most plausible explanation for the linguistic and cultural connections between the Huns and Bulgars, and is supported by a growing body of linguistic and archaeological evidence." - Marcel Erdal, A Grammar of Old Turkic (2004), p. 2.

Volgabulgari (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you here? Volgabulgari (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It's an article from Academica.edu from a modern scholar. I was sent because to show there are still undergoing modern researches about this article. I'll send some quotations then with sources then. Volgabulgari (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I did not cited actual quotations as reply to you but I did reply to Ermenrich when you asked a bit later. You can see quotations of those scholars you asked and many other more. Volgabulgari (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you really have a copy of Erdal (2004)? I don't find that quote there. Here is what he actually writes about the language of the Huns on page 2:

"Whether such early North East Asian peoples as the Xiung-nu, Centrals Asian peoples as the Wusun or Eastern European peoples as the Huns spoke Turkic languages is not known; their identity is therefore irrelevant for the intents and purposes of the present work."

The discrepancy is alarming. –Austronesier (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I have now checked Róna-Tas (1999). Result: negative, again. No such quote on p.33 and in the entire volume. Are you intentionally trying to fool us with forged "quotes", or have you been duped by a third party source that contains these forgeries? –Austronesier (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Austronesier, the citation to Michael Maas (who is actually just the editor of the volume) also comes up negative. Peter Heather says nothing about a "Hunno-Bulgaric" hypothesis on page 215.

Under these circumstances, it strikes me that we need to assume that any citations put forward by Volgabulgari are false unless we can check them ourselves.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I gave it sources for each information you asked in the page. What was the specific quote or scholar are you asking from me? Volgabulgari (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I also used some third-party articles such as If it's not proven I'll delete it anyway. Volgabulgari (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Your first footnote on the page [3] only mentions a "Hunno-Bulgaric group" in a footnote;
2. the second is to Omeljan Pritsak, who is, as I noted, not a linguistic;
3. the third footnote is not to a reliable, peer-reviewed source [4];
4. [5] does not appear to support a "Hunno-Bulgaric language group";
5. [6] does not mention "Hunno-Bulgar languages" and is about "Multilingual statistical text analysis, Zipf's law and Hungarian speech generation ";

I see no reason to continue going through the other references given this pattern. This article is not sourced to sources that support it's existence.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The quote from Golden (2010) is also fabricated. –Austronesier (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You may right. Volgabulgari (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you perhaps means this Golden? (from the footnote in your first source): On the suggestion that the language of the Huns was lir-Turkic, see Pritsak, O.:The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan [Harvard Ukrainian Studies Vol. VI/4]. Cambridge, Mass. 1982, 428–476. The tribal names Bittugur, Altziagir, Ultzinguri(?) found among Hunnic tribal names seem to be identical to other Oguric names (Onogur, Saragur, Kutrigur). See Golden, P. B.:An Introduction to the History of Turkic Peoples. Wiesbaden 1992, 24, on the language of the Bulgars using: “Hunno-bulgarian group”. Nevertheless, this is still two sources, and described at a distance, with "Hunno-Bulgarian" in quotation marks and ascribed to Golden 1992.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)