Various linguists have seen these North Eurasian languages as part of: < ul >< li > a Ural – Altaic language family ( popular until 1960s )</ li >< li > a Uralic and an Altaic family ( Anna V. Dybo | Dybo, Roy Andrew Miller | Miller, Nicholas Poppe | Poppe )</ li >< li > separate Uralic, Turkic languages | Turkic and Mongolian language | Mongolian families ( Gerard Clauson | Clauson, Gerhard Doerfer | Doerfer, Stefan Georg | Georg )</ li >< li > a Eurasiatic or Nostratic macrofamily ( Joseph Greenberg | Greenberg, Sergei Starostin | Starostin, Allan Bomhard | Bomhard )</ li ></ ul >

The Eurasiatic grouping resembles the older Nostratic groupings of Holger Pedersen and Vladislav Illich-Svitych by including Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic.

Greenberg basically agreed with the Nostratic concept, though he stressed a deep internal division between its northern ' tier ' ( his Eurasiatic ) and a southern ' tier ' ( principally Afroasiatic and Dravidian ).

The American Nostraticist Allan Bomhard considers Eurasiatic a branch of Nostratic, alongside other branches: Afroasiatic, Elamo-Dravidian, and Kartvelian.

Eurasiatic, a similar but not identical grouping, was proposed by Joseph Greenberg ( 2000 ) and endorsed by Merritt Ruhlen: it is taken as a subfamily of Nostratic by Bomhard ( 2008 ).

Greenberg basically agreed with the Nostratic concept, though he stressed a deep internal division between its northern ' tier ' ( his Eurasiatic ) and a southern ' tier ' ( principally Afroasiatic and Dravidian ).

The American Nostraticist Allan Bomhard considers Eurasiatic a branch of Nostratic alongside other branches: Afroasiatic, Elamo-Dravidian, and Kartvelian.

Sergei Starostin's school has now re-included Afroasiatic in a broadly defined Nostratic, while reserving the term Eurasiatic to designate the narrower subgrouping which comprises the rest of the macrofamily.

He posits that this ancestral language, together with Indo-European and Kartvelian, descends from a " Eurasiatic " protolanguage some 12, 000 years ago, which in turn would be descended from a " Borean " protolanguage via Nostratic.

Some linguists maintain that Uralic and Altaic are related through a larger family, such as Eurasiatic or Nostratic, within which Uralic and Altaic are no more closely related to each other than either is to any other member of the proposed family, for instance than Uralic or Altaic is to Indo-European ( e. g. Greenberg 2000: 17 ).

He has studied the controversial hypotheses about the underlying unity among the proposed Nostratic and Eurasiatic language families.

Other proposals, further back in time ( and proportionately less accepted ), link Indo-European and Uralic with Altaic and the other language families of northern Eurasia, namely Yukaghir, Korean, Japanese, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Nivkh, Ainu, and Eskimo – Aleut, but excluding Yeniseian ( the most comprehensive such proposal is Joseph Greenberg's Eurasiatic ), or link Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic to Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian ( the traditional form of the Nostratic hypothesis ), and ultimately to a single Proto-Human family.

Using the method of Mass comparison, the IE languages are sometimes considered to be part of super-families such as Nostratic or Eurasiatic.

Swadesh's Basque-Dennean thus differed from Dené-Caucasian in including ( 1 ) Uralic, Altaic, Japanese, Chukotian, and Eskimo-Aleut ( languages which are classed as Eurasiatic by the followers of Sergei Starostin and those of Joseph Greenberg ), ( 2 ) Dravidian, which is classed as Nostratic by Starostin's school, and ( 3 ) Austronesian ( which according to Starostin is indeed related to Dené-Caucasian, but only at the next stage up, which he termed Dené-Daic, and only via Austric ( see Borean languages )).

Examples of proposed macro-families range from relatively recent such as Macro-Jê, Macro-Waikurúan, Macro-Mayan, Macro-Siouan, Penutian, Na-Dene or Congo-Saharan ( Niger-Saharan ) to older ones such as Austric, Dené – Caucasian, Eurasiatic, Nostratic or Ural-Altaic.

Some proposals would group Eurasiatic with even larger macrofamilies such as Nostratic or Borean, but neither they nor Eurasiatic itself have been widely accepted, since they are not seen by the linguistic profession as being based on valid methodologies.

Eurasiatic and Nostratic include many of the same language families.

Vladislav Illich-Svitych's Nostratic dictionary did not include the smaller Siberian language families listed in Eurasiatic, but this was only because protolanguages had not been reconstructed for them ; Nostraticists have not attempted to exclude these languages from Nostratic.

Most recently, Nostraticists have accepted Eurasiatic as a subgroup within Nostratic ( 2005: 331 ) with Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, and Dravidian forming the rest of Nostratic.

The points raised concerning the words for ' name ’, ' water ', and ' give ' require a glance at the possible relations of Indo-European and Uralic with other language families, in particular the languages hypothetically grouped as Uralo-Siberian by Fortescue, Eurasiatic by Greenberg, and Nostratic by Holger Pedersen and various successors of his.

Bomhard ( 2008 ) treats Uralic, Altaic and Indo-European as Eurasiatic daughter groups on equal footing.

Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family, Volume 1: Grammar.

Joseph Greenberg identifies Chukotko-Kamchatkan ( which he names Chukotian ) as a member of Eurasiatic, a proposed macrofamily that includes Indo-European, Altaic, and Eskimo – Aleut, among others.

Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family.

Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family.

The eight branches of Eurasiatic are Etruscan, Indo-European, Uralic – Yukaghir, Altaic, Korean-Japanese-Ainu, Gilyak, Chukotian, and Eskimo – Aleut, spoken in northernmost North America and Greenland with a toehold in easternmost Siberia.

Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family.

Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family.

While it is perfectly true that the Uralic words for these things could be derived from the Indo-European ones ( or vice versa ), the Uralic words have apparent equivalents among other languages variously identified as " Uralo-Siberian " or " Eurasiatic ".

From the 1990s, interest in a relationship between the Uralic and Altaic families has been revived in the context of the Eurasiatic hypothesis.

Merritt Ruhlen writes that Eurasiatic is supported by the existence of a grammatical pattern " whereby plurals of nouns are formed by suffixing-t to the noun root ... whereas duals of nouns are formed by suffixing-k ." Rasmus Rask noted this grammatical pattern in the groups now called Uralic and Eskimo – Aleut as early as 1818, but it can also be found in Altaic, Ainu, Gilyak, and Chukchi – Kamchatkan, all of which Greenberg placed in Eurasiatic.

The Turkic-Mongolic-Tungusic and Korean-Japanese-Ainu groupings were also posited by Joseph Greenberg ( 2000 – 2002 ) who, however, treated them as independent members of a larger family, which he termed Eurasiatic.

Turkic – Mongolic – Tungusic and Korean – Japanese – Ainu, grouped in Eurasiatic.

More recently Joseph Greenberg ( 2000 – 2002 ) suggested grouping Eskimo – Aleut with all of the language families of northern Eurasia, with the exception of Yeniseian, in a proposed language family called Eurasiatic.

Part of the reason for this is that the Eurasiatic hypothesis rests on mass comparison of lexemes, grammatical formatives, and vowel systems ( see Greenberg 2000 – 2002 ) rather than on the prevailing view that regular sound correspondences, linked to a wide array of lexemes and grammatical formatives, are the only valid means to establish genetic relationship ( see for instance Baldi 2002: 2 – 19 ).

" According to him, the root can also be found in Nilo-Saharan, Niger – Kordofanian, Afroasiatic, Eurasiatic, Dené – Caucasian, Austric, and Amerind.

According to him, similar forms can also be found outside Indo-Pacific in Australian, Nilo-Saharan, Niger – Kordofanian, Afroasiatic, Eurasiatic, Dravidian, Austric, and Amerind, although its meaning has changed significantly in some of these families.

Merritt Ruhlen suggests that the geographical distribution of Eurasiatic shows that it and the Dené – Caucasian family are the result of separate migrations.

Dené – Caucasian is the older of the two groups, with the emergence of Eurasiatic being more recent.

The Eurasiatic expansion overwhelmed Dené – Caucasian, leaving speakers of the latter restricted mainly to isolated pockets ( the Basques in the Pyrenees mountains, Caucasian peoples in the Caucasus mountains, and the Burushaski in the Hindu Kush mountains ) surrounded by Eurasiatic speakers.

Greenberg also assigns Gilyak ( Nivkh ) and Yukaghir, sometimes classed as " Paleosiberian " languages, to the Eurasiatic family.