:Sino-Uralic languages

Gao argued that Chinese has three major layers, he saw the root of Chinese as coming from a common Sino-Uralic source, the second layer coming from Indo-European during the Chalcolithic age or later and the third layer coming from Yeniseian during the Bronze Age. Jingyi Gao presented the theory as an alternative to the commonly accepted Sino-Tibetan language family. Gao argued that there are multiple problems with the Sino-Tibetan language family and that similarities between Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman are better explained as being the result of loaning and mutual influence instead of being one language family, although mainstream comparative linguistics has strongly established Sino-Tibetan as a real language family.{{Cite journal |last=Künnap |first=Ago |date=2009 |title=Eesti keel koos teiste läänemeresoome keeltega ja germaani. keeled Hiinast vaadatuna |url=https://keeljakirjandus.eki.ee/148-150.pdf |journal=Keeljakirjandus.eki.ee}}

Gao argued that the monosyllabic structure of Chinese vocabulary was a later development due to external influences, arguing that the word structure of the Sinitic languages in the past was closer to the Uralic languages.{{Cite web |title=Soome-ugri keelepuul on juured muistses Kesk-Hiinas |url=https://elu.ohtuleht.ee/605744/soome-ugri-keelepuul-on-juured-muistses-kesk-hiinas |access-date=2022-11-29 |website=elu.ohtuleht.ee |language=et}} Similarly, Karl August Hermann argued that the monosyllabic word structure in Sinitic is not an obstacle to a linguistic relationship.{{Cite journal |last=Hermann |first=Karl August |date=2019 |title=Hiina keele sugulusest ugri keelte ja eriti soome-eesti keelega (1895) |journal=Eesti ja Soome-Ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=59–67 |s2cid=212794124 |doi=10.12697/jeful.2019.10.2.04|doi-access=free }}

The earliest known mention of a possible relationship between the Uralic and Sinitic languages was made by Sajnovics in 1770, who raised questions about a possible relation of Chinese and Hungarian, due to apparent lexical similarities.{{Cite book |title=Scholars in Action (2 vols): The Practice of Knowledge and the Figure of the Savant in the 18th Century |date=2013-04-15 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-24391-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XtV2nJcVolQC&dq=Sajnovics+Chinese+and+Hungarian&pg=PA741}}{{Cite web |title=Soome-ugri sõlmed 2012 |url=https://apl-api.apollo.ee/soome-ugri-solmed-2012.html |access-date=2022-12-23 |website=Apollo |language=et}}{{Cite book |editor=Üve Maloverjan |title=Soome-ugri sõlmed 2010–2011 |trans-title=Finnish-Ugric nodes 2010-2011 |publisher=Fenno-Ugria |year=2012 |quote=Sajnovics tõstatas ka küsimuse ungari keele sugulusest hiina keelega. |trans-quote=Sajnovics also raised the question of the relationship of the Hungarian language with the Chinese language. |language=et |url=https://www.digar.ee/arhiiv/en/books/50542}} Then in 1895, a relation between Sinitic and Uralic was proposed by the Estonian linguist Karl August Hermann . Karl August Hermann made a comparison of Estonian, Finnish and Chinese, arguing that they were related, although he also included Altaic (which itself is today generally rejected) in the family.{{Cite journal |last=Hermann |first=Karl August |year=1895 |title=Ueber die Verwandschaft des Chinesischen mit den ugrischen Sprachen und insbesondere, mit dem Finnisch-Estnischen |jstor=community.32951318 |journal=Sitzungsberichte der Gelehrten Estnischen Gesellschaft zu Dorpat 1894 |publisher=Dorpat : [Gelehrte Estnische Gesellschaft zu Dorpat] |language=German |pages=167–180}}{{Cite journal |last=Gao |first=Jingyi |date=2019-12-31 |title=Karl August Hermanni hiina-soome-eesti keelevõrdlus ning kehtivad ja kehtetud etümoloogiad parandustega |url=https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/jeful/article/view/jeful.2019.10.2.03/11319 |journal=Eesti ja Soome-Ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=45–58 |doi=10.12697/jeful.2019.10.2.03 |s2cid=213240827 |issn=2228-1339|doi-access=free }} In the modern day its main advocate has been Jingyi Gao, first proposing it in 2005 and later making another book on the topic in 2008 along with making later articles.{{cite book |last1=Gao |first1=Jingyi |title=《汉语与北欧语言：汉语与乌拉尔语言及印欧语言同源探究》Hàn-yǔ yǔ Wū-lā-ěr yǔ-yán jì Yìn-Ōu yǔ-yán tóng-yuán tàn-jiū 'Chinese Language and Languages of Northern Europe: Discoveries and Researches of the Common Sources of Chinese, Uralic, and Indo-European Languages'. |date=2008 |publisher=中国社会科学出版社 ‘China Social Sciences Press’ |location=Beijing |isbn=978-7500470779}}{{cite book |last1=Gao |first1=Jingyi |title=Comparison of Swadesh 100 Words in Finnic, Hungarian, Sinic and Tibetan: Introduction to Finno-Sinic Languages. |date=2005 |publisher=Estonian Language Foundation |isbn=9985791355 |location=Tallinn}} Estonian academics and linguists such as Ago Künnap, Jaan Kaplinski, Urmas Sutrop and Märt Läänemets along with a few Chinese professors such as Feng Zheng, Li Baojia and Jiang Jicheng have expressed interest over the theory and calling for more studies on the topic. Despite this, they have not endorsed Gao's theory of a Sino-Uralic language family.{{Cite web |title=Üllatav avastus: oleme pärit Hiinast |website=Maaleht |language=et |url=https://maaleht.delfi.ee/a/28474991 |access-date=2022-11-15}}{{Cite web |date=2009-03-10 |title=Eesti ja hiina keel pärinevad ühest allikast |url=https://tartu.postimees.ee/92055/eesti-ja-hiina-keel-parinevad-uhest-allikast |access-date=2022-11-26 |website=Tartu+ |language=et}}{{cite journal |last1=蒋 |first1=冀骋 |last2=曾 |first2=晓渝 |last3=杨 |first3=军 |last4=洪 |first4=波 |last5=周 |first5=赛华 |last6=张 |first6=富海 |date=2021 |title=音韵学研究现状与展望 |url=http://journal15.magtechjournal.com/Jwk_yykx/CN/abstract/abstract1288.shtml |journal=《语言科学》 |volume=20 (2021) |issue=5 |pages=474–490}}{{cite journal |last1=冯 |first1=蒸 |date=2008 |title=评高晶一所著汉宋乌拉尔语系语言语系绪论 |journal=汉字文化 |volume=2008 |issue=1 |pages=57–59}}{{cite journal |last1=李 |first1=葆嘉 |date=2010 |title=亲缘比较语言学：超级语系建构中的华夏汉语位置 |journal=《研究之乐：庆祝王士元先生七十五寿辰学术论文集》, 潘悟云, 沈钟伟主编 |volume=上海: 上海教育出版社 |pages=164–193}} George van Driem argues that Sino-Uralic along with other theories such as Sino-Indo-European are constructed by using flawed methodologies with inadequate knowledge of historical Chinese and the Trans-Himalayan languages, representing false language families. According to van Driem, the theory is not supported by proper evidence.{{Cite book |last1=Kumar |first1=Niraj |title=Himalayan Bridge |last2=van Driem |first2=George |last3=Stobdan |first3=Phunchok |date=2020-11-18 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-21549-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IhEHEAAAQBAJ&dq=sino-uralic&pg=PA51 |page=51}}

Before Gao, Morris Swadesh had already theorized about a relation between Sinitic and Uralic, proposing a more radical and massive Dené-Finnish grouping which encompasses Athabaskan, Uralic and the Sino-Tibetan languages. Swadesh's theory has been called "radical". Another similar large language family including Sinitic and Uralic, was suggested by Karl Bouda in 1950, his theory included: Sino-Tibetan, Uralic, Yeniseian, Austronesian and others being distantly related.{{Cite book |last=Driem |first=George van |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6tGLEAAAQBAJ&dq=Chukchi%2C+Uralic%2C+Basque&pg=PA1185 |title=Languages of the Himalayas: Volume 2 |date=2022-09-12 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-51492-8 |language=en}}

• Uralo-Siberian languages
• Ural-Altaic languages

{{Cite journal |last=Künnap |first=Ago |date=September 2010 |title=Review of Gāo (2008) Chinese Language and Languages of Northern Europe: Discoveries and Researches of Common Origins of Chinese, Uralic and Indo-European Languages |journal=Linguistica Uralica |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=218–222 |id={{ProQuest|852514464}} |url=https://kirj.ee/public/Linguistica_Uralica/2010/issue_3/ling-2010-3-218-222.pdf}}

{{Cite journal |author=Jaan Kaplinski |date=2014 |title=Veel mõni mõtteke etümoloogiasõnaraamatust ja etümoloogiatest |trans-title=A few more thoughts about the etymology dictionary and etymologies |url=https://keeljakirjandus.ee/ee/archives/24868 |access-date=2022-11-15 |journal=Keel ja Kirjandus |volume=2014 |issue=3 |language=et}}

{{Eurasian languages}}

Category:Proposed language families