In order to understand the «relationship» between the Tungus and other languages we have to accept the idea that this language, as any other, is a cultural complex which consists of elements of various origin. We do not need the hypothesis of the Ural-Altaic language for understanding the process of formation of the Tungus language and the Tungus as a group of ethnical units.
In our analysis of Tungus complexes, as, for instance, the terms of social organization and breeding of some domesticated animals, we find that some terms are borrowed, together with the cultural elements, from the Buriats, the Mongols, and the Yakuts. Yet some elements are borrowed from the Russians, and yet other elements are borrowed from the Chinese. We know that the Russian terms could not have been borrowed before the seventeenth century, for prior to this time the Tungus did not meet with the Russians, and there is no evidence for showing that Russian terms might have been received from other sources. It is more complex with the Chinese elements. Some of them have been recently received from the Chinese whom the Tungus groups met with in Manchuria and Mongolia and these terms are unknown amongst the Tungus groups living beyond contact with the Chinese. But there are other Chinese elements which have been received through the intermediary of the Manchus and the Mongols. However, there are some Tungus words which sound like Chinese ones, but the fact of their borrowing from the Chinese cannot be shown. Are they common owing to the fact that the ancestors of the Tungus and Chinese did speak the same language? Or are they borrowed at such a remote time that the intermediary groups have disappeared altogether or have forgotten these words? Both hypotheses are good. With the Yakut words it may be a relatively simple position, just as with the Russian words, for we know more or less exactly at which moment the Yakuts made their appearance in the Tungus territory; but some of the Yakut words themselves may be traced back to either Mongol or Turk languages, while a certain part of them will remain of unknown origin. If we now consider the Manchu language, it will be found that the amount of Mongol words is still greater than that in the Northern Tungus dialects spoken by the groups living at a certain distance from the Mongol-speaking groups, yet the amount of Chinese words is also much greater. Still there will be a certain amount of words which can be connected neither with Chinese nor with Mongol words, but which are found in most of the Tungus dialects. The latter are sometimes also found in various Paleasiatic languages. Are they «pra-Tungus» or «Paleasiatic»? The same situation is found in Mongol — a certain amount of words is easily traced back to the Chinese sources, where they are found together with the ethnographical elements of Chinese ethnographical complex. There is also a small amount of Manchu (not «Tungus») and even Russian elements easily seen together with the ethnographic specific elements. Yet there is also a large amount of terms which are of Turk «origin,» which is shown by the connexion with definite ethnographical elements and moments of appearance of terms in Mongol. The Turk elements in their turn may be in some cases connected with Iranic, Ugrian, etc., sources. Still there will remain a certain amount of words which will be common in Mongol and Tungus, in Mongol and Turk, but which will not be common for Tungus, Mongol, and Turk. And finally there will be a certain group of common words for Tungus, Mongol, and Turk, which are not met with in Chinese, Palaeasiatic, Iranic, or Ugrian. Will they be considered Altaic? On which ground then? If they are not met with in other languages, it does not mean that they have originated from a common language — they may happen to be so for several reasons; e.g., a word might be borrowed by the Turks, say, at the beginning of the present era, transmitted through borrowing to the Mongols and from the Mongols to the Tungus and the original source might disappear altogether. Or it might start its travelling from the Tungus or the Mongols. More than this, there must be a certain amount of words, the phonetic similarity of which is nearly the same, for the number of combinations is limited and there must be some coincidences. Which of these common words can be proved to be Altaic, due to the migration and due to the chance of coincidence? These case cannot be scientifically distinguished, so that their adoption as «Altaic» is a hypothesis which cannot prove the existence of an Altaic pra-language. Indeed, other corroborative evidences are needed. These «evidences» are produced too, but they are not facts, new hypotheses, and shall I say hypotheses of no scientific value. First of all, it is postulated that the Altaic ancestors must have lived under certain definite conditions, e.g., in the steppe region, so that the common words concerning cattle-breeding are supposed to be of Altaic origin, and the terms relating to steppe conditions are explained in the same way. Methodologically, this idea is erroneous, for the terms designating the cattle complex and the steppe complex might actually have originated in the midst of the people living by cattle breeding in the steppes, but such a people might speak, not the common Altaic language but some other language which disappeared at a certain moment, transmitting the local terminology to the new-comers of the region, who might be ancestors of non-Turk- and non-Mongol-speaking peoples. Yet these terms might have been invented by a small group of people starting cattle-breeding and interested in having a «steppe terminology.» These people might later on have been included into the body of the Mongols and Turks. In all these cases the explanation of origin of these terms does not, indeed, require an Altaic language hypothesis.
The second idea is that the common words must designate «elementary» conceptions and simple phenomena. We have already seen that this hypothesis is a mere extension of the hypothesis of the «evolution of languages» which cannot be supported by scientifically checked facts. The most «primitive» languages possess complex ideas as well. The ideas are of different type, as compared with the European complexes, but they are not elementary at all. Yet in a greater degree it is true of the phonetics and structure of languages.
Attempts have been made in published form for connecting populations, «races,» and hypothetic Altaic languages. Of course, all are doomed to fail, for we have no means for localizing either the populations or the hypothetic Altaic language. In this respect, the theoreticians of the Altaic hypothesis must have before their eyes the sad history of the «Aryan problem.» The most «Germanic» race, as the Nordics are often pictured, is supposed by some anthropologists to have issued from either depigmented Negro stock, or from European troglodytes of Quaternary, while the Germanic language is now sometimes regarded as a result of the blending of Finn or Japhetic with Celtic or Slavonic, and the Indo-European pra-language is sometimes now treated as a kind of business language spoken by the Western Asiatic traders (G. Slater) [155]. Of course, all the above-indicated theories are very suggestive hypotheses, but they are only hypotheses. Their most characteristic features consist in the fact that after over a century of work of thousands of searchers for pra-languages, pra-people, and the original birth-place of Indo-Europeans, the hypotheses come into conflict between themselves and with the facts. This blue-bird perhaps has never existed, being a mere product of methodological fallacy of conception of language as organic phenomenon and not as a function of adaptation.
Attempts at the reconstruction of the Altaic, and even the Ural-Altaic, languages [156] made by a group of Orientalists has not been successful and as it is shown before the public by A. Sauvageot it becomes ridiculous. Of the two hundred and fourteen cases analysed we have found that only two Tungus stems are met with in all the languages of the four groups. We have analysed how one could arrive at such a thin result and we have found that several, we have supposed unintentional, mistakes and misuse of scientific methods were committed. We did not stop our analysis and we proceeded to find out how such an idea might appear. We found that the idea of such an investigation is conditioned by the desire of finding proofs of the common origin of certain groups of languages and when we pushed forward our inquiry we found that this desire is a logical consequence of the idea of the evolution of language, which in its turn is one of the essential elements of the European ethnographical complex.
We may now take another step and say that generally, in so far as the function of ethnographical complexes is known and the European complex is investigated, the reaction on the present critical attitude as to the inflated desire of finding an Altaic and Ural-Altaic pra-language, and on the critical attitude towards the European ethnographical complex, will meet with opposition, the reasons for which will be varied, but the essential element will be the same. Yet we may also add that this opposition will later diminish down to giving place to the modern conceptions of ethnographical phenomena as functions in a certain system of equilibrium. Yet it must give place, for it is already in conflict with the results obtained from ethnography and anthropology, both of which point to the great antiquity of the human species, human culture, and naturally, languages.
Indeed, my point of view on this question may meet with the criticism on the part of those who continue to keep the old path. This criticism may easily be foreseen. A. Sauvageot has already put forward a protective wall — a long series of hypotheses and propositions which can be neither proved nor disproved, since they are conditioned by a greater belief in evolution If A. Sauvageot is not isolated with his work, assistance may be expected in the form of new hypotheses illustrated with mosaic work, and so the discussion will continue till the last epigones of the creators of old theories give up the old conception of language. Such discussions were frequent during the brilliant period when the school of evolutionists (in cultural phenomena!) was gaining ground over their predecessors. Of course, at that time the science of language was not so advanced as it now is, so the discussion was not so artful as it must be nowadays, but the ethnographical significance of the discussion will be the same, indeed.
The positive result of our critical point of view in
regard to the work of theoreticians of Ural-Altaic and other hypotheses is that
one's attention is drawn to problems the work on which may result in an
accumulation of new facts instead of spending one's energy on the problems
which are hopeless. In fact, referring to the Tungus languages, it may be much
more useful to find out the Mongol and Turk elements in Manchu [157] and some
Tungus dialects (I have published material [158], in view) to find Chinese
elements in Manchu (a work which I think is ready for publication by P. P. Schmidt),
to find out whether there are Tungus elements in Yakut, to do a similar work
with the languages spoken in adjacent territories of Paleasiatics, and finally
to collect more material and to publish it. Even small contributions along
these lines may result in great achievements, while the work like that of A.
Sauvageot is a mere wasting of time and energy. A list of Mongol words with the
initial h in Mongol is immeasurably more valuable than G. Ramstedt's
theories regarding the initial φ, because h in Mongol is a fact and the
initial Altaic ф is
imaginary, involving other investigators into further fallacious researches.
First, the phonetic laws must be settled upon in every group of language, and
the dictionary, as far as possible, ought to be brought to etymological
clearness. Then the problem of the existence of an Altaic pra-language will
perhaps never come out. If one wishes to travel, one must not put the cart
before the horse, — an old but good rule for successful travelling.
155. Cf. review of some recent hypotheses in Pizzagall, A.M., «La Qnestione dell' origine,» etc., in Scientia, Vol. XLVIII, 1930.
156. There is even a definite tendency to include into this group other languages as well. Such is the case of the Japanese and Korean languages. As I have pointed out, there are two sides to this question; namely, the classification of these languages without a presumption of their «genetic» relationship, and their classification as a method of establishing their «genetic» connexions. As a pure and simple classification, such an including of these two languages is not needed by practical considerations, for these languages are well known; as a «genetic» classification, it is absolutely undesirable, for it will lead investigators along the wrong path in their research. As a matter of fact, the attempts at a «genetic» classification of these languages have already resulted in rather extensive treatises and owing to the fact that the issue of these investigations in many an instance had been anticipated, the facts brought forth have been selected, and as such they have only relative value. The hypothesis of connexion between Japanese, Korean, and the so-called Ural-Altaic languages was proposed by several authors beginning from Fr. von Siebold, and further developed by H. Winkler, and recently supported, e.g., by W. Prohle, G. Ramstedt, and E. D. Polivanov. The latter supposes that the Korean language may be connected with the Altaic, while the Japanese language ought to be regarded as a complex «amalgama» comprising Austro-Asiatic and Altaic elements. The hypothesis of «genetic» relationship has not been adopted by all linguists, for a part have remained sceptical. Amongst the Japanese linguists this methodological confusion has also produced its retarding effect, being in addition intensified by the conditions peculiar to the linguistic problem in its political aspect. Some cases reflecting these attitudes may be quoted. K. Shiratori, in his earlier period, maintained the idea of affinity between Japanese and the Ural-Altaic group, R. Torii connected it with Mongol («Populations prehistoriques de la Mandchourie meridionale,» p. 38, footnote); S. Yoshitake («Etymology of the Japanese Word fude») recently supported the Altaic origin of Japanese, admitting, however, a possibility of Austro-Asiatic elements. On the other hand, in the eyes of Kanazawa (paper published in 1910) Korean is a Japanese dialect, while A. Matsumoto (op. cit.) brings forth a long list of parallels from Austro-Asiatic languages which leads him to the idea of «parente.» However, the whole discussion as to the affinities and genetic relations between these languages is not needed for establishing common elements in the languages compared. It is remarkable that the attention of linguists has for so long been diverted from another source of Japanese lexic complex; namely, the Chinese language (cf. S. Yoshitake, op, cit.). [In connexion with this problem cf. W. Schmidt's paper just published: «Die Beziehungeu der austrischen Sprachen zum Japanischen.»]
157. In so far as I know from the title of G. D. Sanzheev's paper, the latter is dealing with the Mongol — Manchu parallels.
158. During the printing of the present work a new important publication has reached me. W. L. Kotwicz («Contributions aux etudes altaiques,» op. cit.,) gives the analysis of the Altaic numerals and names of principal colours. Owing to lack of space, I shall now confine myself to the quotation of the conclusion that W. L. Kotwicz has come to; namely, »Les resultats de mes recherches — du moins en tant qu'ils concernent le tongous — temoignent plutot en faveur des adversaires de la theorie de parente. Cela n'a rien qui doive surprendre. Je n'ai fait que glisser sur la surface de deux sections d'un champ immense. Je n'ai presque pas touche a la glebe, et e'est elie qui recele la solution du probleme» (op. cit., p. 234, p. 105 of the reprint).