| ▲ | usrnm 3 hours ago |
| The languages aren't even related. Hittite is an Indo-European language, closer related to English than Turkish |
|
| ▲ | logicchains 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Kurdish is also Indo-European, but that doesn't stop Turks claiming it's just a dialect of Turkish (mountain Turkish). |
| |
| ▲ | mda an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Apart from a few idiots nobody claims it is Turkish dialect. There are some shared vocabulary, but thats pretty much it. Kurdish is much closer to Farsi. | |
| ▲ | TFNA 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Instead of parsing "mountain Turkish" as "mountain+turkish", parse it as " mountain turk+ish". The use of the term "Mountain Turk" arose in the Atatürk era as a quick way to nip any discussions of those ethnic minorities in the bud. That is all the term serves for. It doesn't mean that Turks believe Kurds actually speak a language genetically related to their own. |
|
|
| ▲ | Bayart 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The current consensus is not that Hittite is Indo-European, it's that Anatolian languages (including Hittite) are related to Indo-European, both stemming from proto-Indo-Anatolian. |
| |
| ▲ | TFNA an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I actually work in this field, so I can encourage you to do some further reading and get to grips with the terminology. "Indo-European" remains among experts the most popular way to refer to the entire language family, Anatolian and non-Anatolian. Terms like "Nuclear IE" and "Core IE" are often employed to distinguish the non-Anatolian languages. "Indo-Anatolian" for the higher-level family is a term that some may use here and there, but no expert would ever make a "well, acktually..." remark as you just did to those in a discussion, professional or layman, using "Indo-European" | | |
| ▲ | cwnyth 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It's not consensus (yet?), but Kloekhorst's categorization does put the Anatolian split first and early, making it essentially two separate branches of PIE. He isn't concerned about the terminology, but it does allow for alternatives, and "Proto-Indo-Hittite" is now a century-old term. Despite the terms used, Anatolian and non-Anatolian languages are seen as two separate branches. Maybe I'm being too charitable, but I hadn't read that user's comment as a "well, acktually", especially given the chain of comments, but perhaps I'm wrong. | | |
| ▲ | TFNA a minute ago | parent [-] | | Everyone puts the Anatolian split first and early. It doesn't mean the use of the term "Indo-European" for the entire family, Anatolian included, is in any way superseded or unpopular among experts. |
|
| |
| ▲ | wl an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think that's the consensus. Even if it were the consensus, the I doubt the people making the argument would disagree that the Anatolian languages are closely related to the Indo-European languages. The grammar is classic Indo-European, with 7-9 cases depending on the period. The vocabulary has a lot of cognates with Indo-European languages. The only things that really distinguish Hittite from Indo-European languages are the system of enclitics and grammatical gender based on animacy rather than the usual masculine/feminine/neuter. | |
| ▲ | DC-3 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's not the consensus and even if it were it's largely a pointless semantic argument. | | |
|
