Editing Hunnic language (section)

==Possible affiliations==
Many of the waves of [[nomad]]ic peoples who swept into Eastern Europe, are known to have spoken languages from a variety of families. Several proposals for the affinities of Hunnic have been made, however there is no consensus.{{sfn|Ball|2021|p=170}}

===Unclassifiable===
Given the small corpus, a number of scholars hold the Hunnic language to be unclassifiable until further evidence, if any, is discovered.{{sfn|Doerfer|1973|p=50}}{{sfn|Golden|2006|pp=136–137}}{{sfn|Sinor|1990|pp=201–202}}{{sfn|Heather|2005|p=148}}{{sfn|Heather|2010|p=209}} [[András Róna-Tas]] notes that "the very scant sources of information are often mutually contradictory."{{sfn|Róna-Tas|1999|p=208}}

===Turkic or Altaic ''sprachbund''===
A number of historians and linguists including [[Karl Heinrich Menges]], and [[Omeljan Pritsak]] feel that the proper names only allow the Hunnic language to be positioned in relationship to the [[Altaic languages|Altaic language group]], which is itself a widely discredited language family.{{sfn|Menges|1995|p=17}} Although Menges was reserved towards the language evidence, his view of the Huns was that "there are [[Ethnology|ethnological]] reasons for considering them Turkic or close to the Turks".{{sfn|Menges|1995|p=17}} As further possibilities, Menges suggests that the Huns could have spoken a [[Mongolian languages|Mongolian]] or [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic language]], or possibly a language between Mongolian and Turkic.{{sfn|Menges|1995|p=17}} Pritsak analyzed 33 surviving Hunnic personal names and concluded: "It was not a Turkic language, but one between Turkic and [[Mongolian language|Mongolian]], probably closer to the former than the latter. The language had strong ties to [[Bulgar language]] and to modern [[Chuvash language|Chuvash]], but also had some important connections, especially lexical and morphological, to [[Ottoman Turkish language|Ottoman Turkish]] and [[Yakut language|Yakut]]".{{sfn|Pritsak|1982|p=470}}

According to Savelyev-Jeong (2020), the "traditional and prevailing view is [...] that the Xiongnu and/or the Huns were Turkic or at least Altaic" speakers.{{sfn|Savelyev|Jeong|2020}} [[Otto Maenchen-Helfen]] argues that many tribal and proper names among the Huns appear to have originated in Turkic languages, indicating that the language was Turkic.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|p=392–411}} [[Hyun Jin Kim]] similarly concluded that it "seems highly likely then from the names that we do know, most of which seem to be Turkic, that the Hunnic elite was predominantly Turkic-speaking".{{sfn|Kim|2013|p=30}} Denis Sinor, while skeptical of our ability to classify Hunnic as a whole, states that part of the Hunnish elite likely spoke Turkic, though he notes that some Hunnic names cannot be Turkic in origin.{{sfn|Sinor|1990|p=202}} The historian Peter Heather, while he supported the Turkic hypothesis as the "best guess" in 1995,{{sfn|Heather|1995|p=5}} has since voiced skepticism,{{sfn|Heather|2005|p=148}} in 2010 saying that "the truth is that we don't know what language the Huns spoke, and probably never will".{{sfn|Heather|2010|p=209}} Savelyev and Jeong similarly note that "the majority of the previously proposed Turkic etymologies for the Hunnic names are far from unambiguous, so no firm conclusion can be drawn from this type of data."{{sfn|Savelyev|Jeong|2020}}

===Yeniseian===
Some scholars – most notably [[Lajos Ligeti]] (1950/51) and [[Edwin G. Pulleyblank]] (1962) – have claimed that languages of Siberia, especially [[Ket language|Ket]] – a member of the [[Yeniseian]] language family – may have been a major source (or perhaps even the linguistic core) of the Xiongnu or Hunnic languages.<ref>E. G. Pulleyblank, "The consonontal system of old Chinese" [Pt 1], ''Asia Major'', vol. IX (1962), pp. 1–2.</ref>{{sfn|Vajda|2013|pp=4, 14, 48, 103–6, 108–9, 130–1, 135–6, 182, 204, 263, 286, 310}} First proposed by Edwin G. Pulleyblank, the theory that the Xiongnu language belonged to the Yeniseian languages was reinforced by the discovery of the Kot and Pumpokol word lists, which [[Alexander Vovin]] used to create a more accurate reconstruction.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Vovin|first=Alexander|date=2000|title=Did the Xiong-nu Speak a Yeniseian Language?|journal=Central Asiatic Journal|volume=44|issue=1|pages=87–104}}</ref> Hyun Jin Kim in 2013 proposed that the Huns experienced a language flip like the [[Chagatai Khanate]], switching from Yeniseian to [[Oghur languages|Oghuric Turkic]] after absorbing the [[Dingling]] or [[Tiele people|Tiele]] peoples.{{sfn|Kim|2013|pp=20–30}}

Vajda (et al. 2013) proposed that the ruling elite of the Huns spoke a [[Yeniseian languages|Yeniseian language]] and influenced other languages in the region.<ref>Vajda, Edward J. (2013). Yeniseian Peoples and Languages: A History of Yeniseian Studies with an Annotated Bibliography and a Source Guide. Oxford/New York: Routledge.</ref> The [[Yeniseian people]] were likely assimilated later by Turkic and Mongolic groups.

Alexander Savelyev and Choongwon Jeong criticize the Yeniseian proposal by Pulleyblank and note that the more convincing Yeniseian words may be shared cultural vocabulary that was non-native to both the Xiongnu and the Yeniseians.{{sfn|Savelyev|Jeong|2020}}

===Indo-European===
All three words described as "Hunnic" by ancient sources appear to be Indo-European.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|pp=424–426}}

A number of scholars suggest that a Germanic language, possibly [[Gothic language|Gothic]], may have coexisted with another Hunnic language as the ''[[lingua franca]]'' of the Hunnic Empire.{{sfn|Wolfram|1990|p=254}}{{sfn|Wolfram|1997|p=142}}{{sfn|Heather|2010|p=329}} Maenchen-Helfen suggests that the words ''medos'' and ''kamos'' could possibly be of Germanic origin.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|pp=424–426}} He argues that ''Attila'', ''Bleda'', ''Laudaricus'', ''Onegesius'', ''Ragnaris'', and ''Ruga'' are Germanic,{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|pp=386–389}} while Heather also includes the names ''[[Scottas]]'' and ''[[Berichus]]''.{{sfn|Heather|2005|p=329}} Kim questions the Germanic etymologies of ''Ruga'', ''Attila'', and ''Bleda'', arguing that there are "more probable Turkic etymologies."{{sfn|Kim|2013|p=30}} Elsewhere, he argues that the Germanicization of Hunnic names may have been a conscious policy of the Hunnic elite in the Western part of the Empire.{{sfn|Kim|2015|p=111}}

Maenchen-Helfen also classified some names as having roots in [[Iranian languages|Iranian]].{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|p=390–391}} Christopher Atwood has argued, as one explanation for his proposed etymology of the name ''Hun'' that, "their state or confederation must be seen as the result of [[Sogdian language|Sogdian]]/[[Bactrian language|Baktrian]] [Iranian-speaking] leadership and organization".{{sfn|Atwood|2012|p=47}} Subjects of the Huns included Iranian-speaking [[Alans]] and [[Sarmatians]],{{sfn|Heather|2005|pp=146–167}} Maenchen-Helfen argues that the Iranian names were likely borrowed from the Persians and finds none prior to the 5th century; he takes this to mean that the Alans had little influence inside of Attila's empire.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|p=443}} Kim, however, argues for a considerable presence of Iranian-speakers among the Huns.{{sfn|Kim|2015|p=4, 8}}

The word ''strava'' has been argued to be of [[Slavic languages|Slavic]] origin and to show a presence of Slavic speakers among the Huns. Peter Heather, however, argues that this word "is certainly a very slender peg upon which to hang the claim that otherwise undocumented Slavs played a major role in Attila's empire".{{sfn|Heather|2010|p=394}} In the 19th century, some Russian scholars argued that the Huns as a whole had spoken a Slavic language.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1945|pp=223}}

===Uralic===
In the 19th century, some scholars, such as German [[Sinology|Sinologist]] [[Julius Heinrich Klaproth]], argued that the Huns had spoken a [[Finno-Ugric]] language and connected them with the ancient [[Hungarians]].{{sfn|Wright|1997|pp=87–89}}