Există o genealogie altaică demonstrată?

Ungureanu argues against treating Turkic, Mongolic and Manchu as a single Altaic family on the basis of core-vocabulary comparison.

Evidence: The paper is explicitly framed as a core-vocabulary test of the Altaic-family hypothesis.

Inference: Core vocabulary is used as an adversarial test rather than collecting superficial parallels.

contested · historical

The later Altaic paper's literal false-positive arithmetic is internally inconsistent: 22 matches out of 600 is extremely unlikely under the paper's stated 1% independent false-positive null.

Evidence: Under Binomial(600,.01), expected=6 and P(X≥22)=3.174e-07.

Inference: The sentence that 22 barely exceeds the false-positive threshold cannot be justified by the written 1% null.

editorial_assessment · methodological

Ungureanu's own earlier methodological calibration reportedly allowed 2–3% pairwise lexical coincidences; at roughly 2.5% the later paper's 22/600 count sits near one-sided p=.05, and at 3% it is compatible with chance.

Evidence: Review reports 2–3% pairwise coincidence rate; P(X≥22|p=.025)=0.0509; at p=.03, 0.198.

Inference: The later qualitative conclusion is more compatible with the author's earlier 2–3% calibration than with its stated 1% calibration.

editorial_assessment · methodological

Despite its categorical title, the later Altaic paper explicitly does not claim to have proved that Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic are unrelated; it leaves open a very old relationship or macro-phylum.

Evidence: Body says 'We do not say ... unrelated', 'could be related', 'could be considered as forming a macro-phylum', and 'cannot be proved through lexical comparison'.

Inference: The defensible summary is failure of the analyzed lexical evidence to prove genealogy, not proof of nonexistence.

editorial_assessment · interpretive

The later paper's criticism of semantic leeway is methodologically strong because enlarging the synonym/neighboring-meaning search space mechanically raises the probability of accidental matches.

Evidence: Paper notes that comparing many bone/body-part names against each other creates >240 possible combinations.

Inference: A valid false-positive model must include semantic search-space size and lock the semantic rule before inspection.

editorial_assessment · methodological

Modern statistical studies of Altaic/Transeurasian do not provide a single settled answer: Ceolin (2019) finds mixed pairwise results, while Kassian et al. (2021) obtain significant permutation-test results among Nuclear-Altaic pairs but acknowledge contact as an alternative explanation in some cases.

Evidence: Ceolin: M-M significant, T-M marginal/contact possible, T-Manchu negative. Kassian et al.: Nuclear-Altaic pairwise p-values significant; ancient contact or genealogy can explain some.

Inference: Ungureanu's later skeptical result belongs inside a live methodological dispute, not a settled consensus.

contested · field_context

The 2021 Nature Transeurasian study argues positively for common ancestry using 3,193 cognate sets across 254 concepts and 98 varieties, while explicitly describing linguistic relatedness as among the most disputed questions in linguistic prehistory.

Evidence: Robbeets et al. report a dated Transeurasian phylogeny and Proto-Altaic node but frame the relatedness question as highly disputed.

Inference: The website should label Altaic/Transeurasian FIELD STATUS: HIGHLY DISPUTED.

contested · field_context

A 2022 multidisciplinary preprint by Tian et al. directly challenges the linguistic, genetic and archaeological foundations of the 2021 Transeurasian triangulation and concludes that it does not provide conclusive evidence for the family.

Evidence: Tian et al. say linguistic data violate traditional standards and stated sound correspondences, and challenge the genetic/archaeological inferences.

Inference: There is substantial expert opposition to the positive Transeurasian model, but the critique must be labelled preprint.

contested · field_context