Hubbry Logo
Para-Mongolic languagesPara-Mongolic languagesMain
Open search
Para-Mongolic languages
Community hub
Para-Mongolic languages
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Para-Mongolic languages
Para-Mongolic languages
Para-Mongolic languages
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Para-Mongolic
Serbi–Awar (Xianbei–Wuhuan)
Khitanic
Geographic
distribution		Mongolia, northern China, Lake Baikal region
Linguistic classification? Serbi–Mongolic
  • Para-Mongolic
Subdivisions
Language codes
GlottologNone
kita1247  (Kitan (only member of this branch represented))

Para-Mongolic is a proposed group of languages that is considered to be an extinct sister branch of the Mongolic languages. Para-Mongolic contains certain historically attested extinct languages, among them Khitan and Tuyuhun.

Languages

[edit]
A timeline-based graphical representation of the Mongolic and Para-Mongolic languages

The languages of the Xiongnu, Donghu and Wuhuan might be Para-Mongolic,[1] as might those of the Xianbei and the Tuoba (the founders of the Northern Wei) and Khitan. Because the surviving evidence for Xianbei and Tuoba is very sparse, one can only hypothesize that a genetic relationship could be possible. In the case of Khitan, there is rich evidence, but most of it is written in the two Khitan scripts (large and small) that have yet to be fully deciphered. However, from the available evidence it has been concluded that a genetic relationship to Mongolic is likely.[2][3]

Tuoba

[edit]
Main article: Tuoba language

Alexander Vovin (2007) identifies the extinct Tuoba language (Tabɣač) as a Mongolic language.[4] However, Chen (2005)[5] argues that Tuoba was a Turkic language.

Shimunek classifies Tuoba as a "Serbi" (i.e., para-Mongolic) language, along with Tuyuhun and Khitan.[6]

Rouran

[edit]
Main article: Rouran language

Alexander Vovin (2018) suggests that the Rouran language of the Rouran Khaganate was a Mongolic language, close but not identical to Middle Mongolian.[7]

Pannonian Avar

[edit]

Shimunek (2017) proposes that the elite core of the Avars spoke a "Para-Mongolic language" of the "Serbi–Awar" group, that is a sister branch of the Mongolic languages. Together, the Serbi–Awar and Mongolic languages make up the Serbi–Mongolic languages.[6]

Khitan

[edit]
Main article: Khitan language

Juha Janhunen (2006) classified the Khitan language into the "Para-Mongolic" family, meaning that it is related to the Mongolic languages as a sister group, rather than as a direct descendant of Proto-Mongolic.[8] Alexander Vovin (2017)[9] has also identified several possible loanwords from Koreanic languages into the Khitan language.

Tuyuhun

[edit]
Main article: Tuyuhun language

Vovin (2015) identified the extinct Tuyuhun language as a Para-Mongolic language.[10]

Internal classification

[edit]

Shimunek (2017) proposes a "Serbi–Awar" group of languages that is a sister branch of the Mongolic languages. Together, the Serbi–Awar and Mongolic languages make up the Serbi–Mongolic languages in Shimunek's classification.[6]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Para-Mongolic languages

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Para-Mongolic languages constitute a proposed group of extinct languages that form a sister branch to the , characterized by their close genetic relation to Mongolic but having diverged from the common ancestor prior to the formation of Proto-Mongolic around the AD. These languages were spoken primarily in northeastern , , and surrounding regions during the medieval period, with the best-documented example being Khitan, the language of the who founded the (907–1125 AD) in northeastern and parts of , including other proposed languages such as , Rouran, and . Due to their extinction and limited attestation, Para-Mongolic languages are studied mainly through surviving inscriptions in the partially deciphered Khitan Large and Small Scripts, as well as loanwords preserved in neighboring like Jurchen-Manchu. The classification of Para-Mongolic as a distinct category was formalized by linguist Juha Janhunen, who described these languages as collaterally related to Proto-Mongolic, reflecting a deeper layer of Mongolic linguistic diversity predating the historical Mongol expansions under Genghis Khan in the 12th–13th centuries. Khitan, in particular, exhibits features such as preserved initial consonants (e.g., *k- in numerals) and possible base-20 numeral systems, which differ from later Proto-Mongolic forms and provide insights into pre-Proto-Mongolic phonology and morphology. Other potential Para-Mongolic languages or dialects may have been spoken by tribal groups under Liao influence, though evidence remains sparse and debated, with no direct contributions to the modern Mongolic languages like Mongolian, Buryat, or Dagur. This fragmentary record underscores the challenges in reconstructing Para-Mongolic, often relying on comparative methods with Tungusic and even broader Altaic hypotheses, though their exact position within Transeurasian macro-families remains a topic of ongoing scholarly discussion.

Definition and Scope

Definition

Para-Mongolic languages refer to a group of extinct languages that are closely related to the Mongolic family but diverged from the common ancestral lineage prior to the formation of Proto-Mongolic, sharing significant innovations while retaining certain archaic features. The term "Para-Mongolic" was coined to describe these languages as collateral relatives descending from a Pre-Proto-Mongolic stage, distinguishing them from the core Mongolic branch while acknowledging their genetic proximity. Juha Janhunen proposes that Para-Mongolic languages form part of a larger Khitano-Mongolic family with Mongolic. The classification of languages as Para-Mongolic is based on key linguistic criteria, including shared vocabulary evident in loanwords transmitted to neighboring families such as Tungusic, distinct phonological developments like the preservation of initial *p- (e.g., pon 'time'), and the retention of Proto-Altaic phonological features—such as *x- and *t- before high vowels i/—that were lost or altered in Mongolic proper. Additionally, morphological parallels are observed in areas like case endings and verbal derivation markers, which exhibit similarities to Proto-Mongolic forms but include unique innovations not attested in other Altaic families. These criteria highlight the Para-Mongolic languages' position as a to Mongolic, supporting their separation at an early stage of divergence influenced by social, cultural, and geographical factors. These languages are primarily attested through historical records from the 4th to the 12th centuries CE, with evidence derived from inscriptions, toponyms, and loanwords in adjacent languages, though direct textual documentation is limited. All Para-Mongolic languages became extinct by the 13th century, coinciding with the expansion of the and subsequent demographic shifts that led to language replacement. This proposal for Para-Mongolic as a distinct branch was advanced by linguist Juha Janhunen in his analysis of Mongolic linguistic history.

Relation to Mongolic

Para-Mongolic languages are posited as a sister branch to the Mongolic languages, diverging from a common ancestral lineage prior to the formation of Proto-Mongolic around the early centuries CE. This genetic relationship is supported by comparative evidence indicating that Para-Mongolic represents an extinct offshoot that split off before the consolidation of the core Mongolic family, potentially as early as the first millennium BCE based on archaeological and linguistic correlations with nomadic groups in eastern Eurasia. Both Para-Mongolic and exhibit shared typological features inherited from their common proto-language, including agglutinative morphology, where grammatical elements are affixed sequentially to roots; , which constrains vowel qualities within words; and subject-object-verb (SOV) . These traits underscore a unified structural heritage, distinguishing the group from neighboring families while aligning with broader areal patterns in northern . For instance, Khitan, a well-attested Para-Mongolic language, displays these characteristics in its inscriptions, mirroring patterns in early Mongolic texts. Key divergences highlight the independent evolution of Para-Mongolic, notably its retention of initial *p- sounds, which were lost or shifted to *h- or zero in Mongolic; this is evident in Khitan words like po 'time', contrasting with Mongolic forms lacking the labial onset. Numerals provide further evidence of separation, such as Para-Mongolic *oŋšon for 'eleven' (as in Tungusic loans like Jurchen-Manchu omshon), versus the Proto-Mongolic compound *harban nigen, reflecting distinct morphological innovations like a *-šon suffix in Para-Mongolic forms borrowed into Tungusic languages. These differences suggest the split occurred sufficiently early to allow independent phonological developments. Evidence of Para-Mongolic influence on early Mongolic vocabulary emerges through loanwords preserved in intermediary languages, particularly terms related to governance and horse culture that entered Mongolic via contact with Para-Mongolic-speaking groups like the Khitan or . For example, equestrian terminology in Mongolic may incorporate elements traceable to Para-Mongolic substrates, reflecting shared nomadic lifestyles. Such borrowings underscore ongoing interactions post-split. Within the broader Altaic hypothesis—which proposes a macro-family linking Mongolic (including Para-Mongolic) with Turkic and Tungusic based on shared morphological and phonological traits like and SOV order—the Para-Mongolic branch occupies a peripheral position, though the genetic validity of Altaic remains highly debated among linguists due to potential areal diffusion over inheritance.

Historical Background

Origins

The origins of the Para-Mongolic languages are hypothesized to lie in the eastern Eurasian s during the 1st millennium BCE, closely linked to the proto-Xianbei (also known as Serbi) peoples, who emerged as a distinct nomadic group following the fragmentation of earlier confederations like the Donghu. These languages represent a branch that diverged from a common Macro-Mongolic , predating the formation of Proto-Mongolic around the early 1st millennium CE, and forming a proposed Khitano-Mongolic grouping. This early separation is inferred from archaeological and historical correlations with the Xianbei's rise as a powerful by the 1st century BCE, though direct linguistic attestation remains scarce due to the oral nature of these nomadic societies. Reconstruction of Proto-Para-Mongolic relies on comparative evidence from attested Para-Mongolic languages like Khitan and loanwords in neighboring tongues, revealing features that distinguish it from later Proto-Mongolic. Verbal conjugations exhibit differences, such as the *-ʐï (possibly derived from *-si), which contrasts with Proto-Mongolic patterns and suggests independent morphological evolution. These reconstructions highlight a conservative phonological system, including preserved initial *k- in some forms (e.g., kɔnsɔ for 'eleven' in Alchuka dialects), indicating divergence before widespread sound shifts in core Mongolic. The earliest indirect evidence for Para-Mongolic-speaking groups appears in Chinese annals from the 3rd–2nd century BCE, which describe related nomadic tribes in the northern frontiers, such as the , though their linguistic affiliation remains debated, with some evidence of Turkic influences; the are first mentioned in the AD. These records, compiled in texts like the Shiji, provide ethnographic glimpses without linguistic details, but later attestations in Jin dynasty annals (1115–1234 CE) confirm Para-Mongolic elements through transcribed numerals and terms. Additionally, substrate influences are evident in core vocabulary from neighboring languages, reflecting the multilingual environment prior to fuller Altaic integrations.

Geographical Spread

The Para-Mongolic languages originated in the eastern steppes and were historically concentrated in a core area spanning the and northern from the 3rd to 6th centuries CE. This region included parts of modern-day and adjacent territories, where early groups like the confederation facilitated their initial spread. For the , the distribution extended further east into southwestern , serving as a linguistic base during the establishment of the . Key migrations expanded this footprint across . In the , the migrated southward from northeastern into northern , where they founded the dynasty and integrated into administrative structures. The Rouran, active in the Mongolian s, pushed westward into during the 5th century, establishing a nomadic khaganate that influenced broader steppe interactions. Concurrently, the relocated southwestward to the region in the , forming a kingdom that bridged the and northwestern . Later, from the 10th to 12th centuries, the Khitan expanded their territories under the , controlling areas from the through northeastern to parts of the Korean Peninsula and . The westernmost extent involved possible connections to the in during the 6th to 8th centuries, potentially through Rouran descendants who undertook trans-Eurasian migrations, though linguistic evidence remains inconclusive. By the 13th century, Para-Mongolic languages had largely declined due to assimilation into dominant Chinese, Turkic, and emerging Mongolic cultural spheres, exacerbated by political conquests like those of the , leading to their extinction without direct descendants in modern languages.

Individual Languages

Tuoba

The Tuoba language was spoken by the Tuoba clan, a branch of the Xianbei confederation, during the 4th and 5th centuries CE. This clan rose to prominence as the rulers of the Northern Wei dynasty, which controlled northern China from 386 to 535 CE, establishing a significant steppe-derived empire in the region. The Tuoba originated from the steppes of northeastern Mongolia and Inner Mongolia before migrating southward, integrating with local Chinese populations while maintaining elements of their nomadic heritage. Attestation of the Tuoba language is extremely limited, consisting primarily of approximately 50 Chinese transcriptions of personal names, clan titles, and a few lexical items preserved in historical records such as the Book of Wei and other dynastic annals. No native writing system for the language has been discovered, rendering direct analysis challenging and reliant on these indirect phonetic renderings from Middle Chinese sources. These transcriptions provide glimpses into Tuoba phonology and vocabulary but lack connected texts or grammatical structures. A key piece of evidence supporting its Para-Mongolic affiliation comes from phonological features in the attested material, notably the ethnonym tabγač (reconstructed for 'Tuoba'), which preserves an initial p- (as in proto-form *pabγač) characteristic of Para-Mongolic languages, in contrast to the loss of initial p- in core Mongolic varieties where it shifts to h- or disappears. This retention aligns with patterns seen in other Para-Mongolic languages like Khitan. Scholarly debate persists regarding the Tuoba language's classification. Alexander Vovin (2007) argues it represents an early form of Mongolic, based on lexical and phonological correspondences with later Mongolic languages. In contrast, Andrew Shimunek (2017) positions it firmly within the Para-Mongolic (or "Serbi") branch of a broader Serbi-Mongolic family, emphasizing its distinct evolutionary path from proto-Mongolic. Sanping Chen (2005), however, contends it was Turkic, citing shared onomastic elements and phonetic patterns with early Turkic languages recorded in Chinese sources.

Rouran

The was the tongue of the nomadic , a powerful that controlled the vast s spanning modern-day and from the fourth to the sixth centuries CE. This khaganate, emerging after the decline of the , represented a pivotal force in Inner Asian history, with its mobile pastoralist society influencing subsequent steppe polities through and cultural exchanges. The language's association with these nomads underscores its role in the political terminology of the era, particularly in titles denoting authority and kinship. Attestation of the remains extremely limited, deriving mainly from Chinese historical annals such as the Book of Wei and History of the Northern Dynasties, which provide phonetic transcriptions of approximately two dozen personal names, tribal designations, and terms. Additional evidence appears in Sogdian-language documents, notably the bilingual Bugut inscription (ca. 584 CE) from , where a Brahmi-script text on the reverse side is interpreted as containing Rouran elements alongside Sogdian on the obverse. Known lexical items include royal titles like kaghan (transcribed in Chinese as kēhán 可汗, denoting the supreme ruler) and possible terms such as k'obun (去汾), a of Sogdian pūr "son." These fragments offer glimpses into a vocabulary tied to and nomadic life, but no extended texts or grammatical descriptions survive. Scholars have debated the Rouran language's affiliation, with Alexander Vovin analyzing the Bugut and related Khüis Tolgoi inscriptions to argue it closely resembles Middle Mongolian in syntax and morphology, featuring archaic Mongolic traits like verb-final and possessive suffixes. However, earlier proposals, such as Peter A. Boodberg's examination of Chinese-transcribed names, position it as Para-Mongolic, distinguished by retentions like non-palatalized velars absent in later Mongolic varieties, suggesting it as a rather than direct . This highlights its transitional role between proto-Mongolic forms and historical branches. The may have extended westward through migrations following the khaganate's collapse in 552 CE, potentially influencing the who established a in from the sixth to ninth centuries CE. Onomastic evidence from Byzantine and Frankish sources, including Avar names like Bayan and titles echoing kaghan and tarkhan, points to linguistic continuity with Rouran forms, supporting a hypothesis of elite transmission across despite the Avars' multiethnic composition. This connection, while tentative due to the scarcity of Avar linguistic data, illustrates the far-reaching impact of Para-Mongolic elements in medieval Eurasian nomadism.

Khitan

The was spoken by the , a nomadic ethnic group originating from the regions of modern-day northeastern and southeastern , who established and ruled the from 907 to 1125 CE. As the official language of this empire, which spanned parts of northern , , and beyond, Khitan served the administrative and cultural needs of a multi-ethnic state during the 10th to 12th centuries. Khitan represents the most extensively attested Para-Mongolic language, with a corpus consisting of around 60 known inscriptions, mainly funerary epitaphs and official steles, dating from the 10th to 12th centuries. These texts are recorded in two indigenous writing systems: the , developed in 920 CE as a logographic system modeled on , and the , introduced around 925 CE, which combines phonetic and semantic elements with approximately 4,000 characters in total across both. This documentation surpasses that of other Para-Mongolic languages, providing a rare window into their linguistic structure despite the scripts' partial decipherment. The deciphered lexicon of Khitan includes about 830 word stems, demonstrating clear Para-Mongolic affinities through shared vocabulary with , such as t’au 'five' paralleling Proto-Mongolic tabun and dur 'four' corresponding to dörben. Other cognates, like a- 'to be/exist' akin to Mongolic a-, further illustrate these traits, reflecting a common ancestral layer distinct from but related to Proto-Mongolic. In the Liao Empire, Khitan functioned as a prestige language for official inscriptions, imperial edicts, and elite communication, underscoring its role in governance and cultural identity amid interactions with Chinese, Turkic, and Tungusic groups. The language fell out of use following the Jurchen conquest of the Liao territories in 1125 CE, becoming extinct by the 13th century, with the last recorded partial knowledge held by figures like Yelü Chucai (1190–1244 CE). Khitan exerted brief linguistic influence on neighboring Tungusic languages, evident in loanwords incorporated into Jurchen-Manchu.

Tuyuhun

The Tuyuhun language was spoken by the Tuyuhun people, who established a kingdom in the Qinghai-Gansu region on the Tibetan frontier from the 4th to 7th centuries CE. This kingdom, founded by Murong Tuyuhun around 313 CE, controlled key trade routes around Lake Qinghai and served as a buffer between Tang China and Tibetan forces during the 7th century. The Tuyuhun originated from the Xianbei groups in the eastern steppes, migrating westward in the 3rd century CE. Linguistic attestation of Tuyuhun is fragmentary, primarily consisting of around 30 glosses in Chinese transcription scattered across Chinese historical and Buddhist texts, such as the Sui shu and Jiu Tang shu. These include vocabulary related to Buddhism, administration, and daily terms, with examples like aka-n for "white," reflecting lexical parallels to Mongolic languages. Royal names, such as Murong (from Xianbei roots) and later ones like Murong Nuohebo (r. 635–672 CE) and Sudu Momo, preserve phonetic elements indicative of the language's structure. Titles like Qindou Kehan (possibly incorporating a Para-Mongolic suffix -dou) appear in diplomatic contexts, highlighting the language's role in intercultural exchanges. Alexander Vovin (2015) reconstructed Tuyuhun as a Para-Mongolic language based on these materials, noting more Para-Mongolic than core Mongolic features, such as the pronoun čho "you," potentially cognate with Mongolic či. This classification positions it as a sister to Proto-Mongolic, distinct from but related to languages like Khitan. The Tuyuhun kingdom was destroyed in 663 CE through an alliance between Tang China and Tibetan forces, with annexing the territory, leading to its dissolution. Subsequent Tang-Tibetan conflicts arose over the region. King Nuohebo fled to Tang territory, where he died in 688 CE, and the population was absorbed into Tibetan and Chinese cultural spheres through intermarriage and . Descendants integrated into local elites, with linguistic traces persisting in names and possible influences on neighboring dialects.

Classification

Internal Grouping

The internal classification of Para-Mongolic languages remains tentative due to sparse and fragmentary attestations, primarily from Chinese and Tibetan transcriptions, but proposals rely on comparative reconstruction of shared innovations in , , and morphology. One influential framework groups these languages into branches based on historical and linguistic evidence, distinguishing them from core Mongolic while highlighting coordinate relations within a broader Serbi-Mongolic family. Andrew Shimunek (2017) reconstructs Para-Mongolic as the non-Mongolic arm of the Serbi-Mongolic family, proposing a Serbi subgroup comprising (also known as Taghbach or ) and languages as a primary branch. This Serbi branch is supported by shared isoglosses, including innovations in possessive morphology and certain lexical items attested in dynasty records for Tuoba and Tibetan sources for Tuyuhun. A separate Awar subgroup includes Rouran and potentially the language of the , linked by common nominal derivations and place-name evidence from 4th–6th century steppe inscriptions. Khitan is positioned as an independent branch or transitional link, with its large corpus of inscriptions showing partial overlaps in syntax but distinct phonological developments, such as in patterns. Evidence for these subgroups draws from reconstructed numeral systems and other core vocabulary, where Para-Mongolic forms diverge from Proto-Mongolic; for instance, Serbi-branch innovations in numerals like those for 'seven' and 'ten' appear as loans in neighboring , indicating early contacts around the 3rd–5th centuries CE. These divergences are dated to approximately 200–500 CE, aligning with the emergence of distinct polities: in northern by the early , in the northwest by the 5th century, and Rouran khaganates on the from the late . Such groupings emphasize phylogenetic separation within Para-Mongolic, driven by geographical spread and cultural differentiation during the post-Xiongnu era.

Broader Affiliations

Para-Mongolic languages are commonly situated within the broader Altaic hypothesis, which proposes a among the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic families of northern and , with Para-Mongolic representing an early divergent branch or close relative of core Mongolic. This affiliation is grounded in shared typological characteristics, including agglutinative morphology—where grammatical elements are affixed to roots in a linear fashion—and , a system aligning vowels within words for phonological coherence. Recent statistical analyses of lexical reconstructions provide partial support for a "nuclear Altaic" core encompassing these families, including Mongolic elements, though the evidence remains contested. A refined frames Para-Mongolic as to a Serbi-Mongolic grouping, where the extinct Serbi () languages—such as , Rouran, Khitan, and —constitute a primary branch alongside the extant and better-attested core like Mongolian and Buryat. This model draws on historical-comparative applied to fragmentary records in , , , and transcriptions, reconstructing phonological and lexical features that distinguish Serbi from core Mongolic while affirming their shared ancestry. The proposal underscores Para-Mongolic's role as a foundational layer in the diversification of Mongolic-speaking peoples across ancient . Alternative perspectives diverge from the Altaic or Serbi-Mongolic paradigms, particularly for individual languages like Khitan. Linguist Alexander Vovin has identified numerous loanwords in Khitan derived from , such as those associated with Koguryǒ or Bohai, suggesting a possible substrate influence that links Khitan more closely to Northeast Asian linguistic interactions than to a purely Mongolic or Altaic lineage. This view implies that Khitan may reflect hybrid influences from Koreanic substrates amid regional multilingualism. Broader rejections of the Altaic hypothesis extend to Para-Mongolic, with scholars attributing typological parallels (e.g., and ) to prolonged areal contact in the Eurasian steppes rather than genetic descent, positioning these languages within a of convergent features. The limited attestation of certain Para-Mongolic languages exacerbates classification uncertainties, leading some analyses to consider isolate status for tongues like due to insufficient data for robust comparative ties. However, Vovin classifies as Mongolic based on etymological matches in available toponyms and anthroponyms from records, though debates persist over potential Turkic admixtures or independent development. Such evidentiary constraints highlight the challenges in affirming broader affiliations beyond tentative Mongolic connections.

Linguistic Characteristics

Phonology

The phonological systems of Para-Mongolic languages are reconstructed through comparative analysis with , examination of Khitan inscriptions in the Small Script, and Chinese transcriptions of names and terms from Tuoba, Rouran, and related varieties. These sources reveal shared innovations and retentions from a hypothetical Proto-Para-Mongolic stage, distinct from later Proto-Mongolic developments. Reconstructions emphasize correspondences in loanwords and native vocabulary, highlighting systematic sound changes influenced by contact with Chinese and internal evolution. Consonant inventories in Para-Mongolic languages retained certain Proto-Altaic features lost in Mongolic, including initial *p- and *t- in clusters. In Khitan, initial *p- is preserved where Proto-Mongolic shows zero or *h-, as in reconstructed forms suggesting *p- > ∅ in Mongolic lineages; for instance, Khitan words with initial correspond to Mongolic cognates lacking an onset consonant. Spirantization patterns are evident in Khitan, where velar stops alternate with fricatives: unaspirated /k/ (⟨g⟩) and aspirated /kʰ/ (⟨k⟩) contrast with uvular fricatives /χ/ (⟨x⟩) and /ʁ/ (⟨h⟩), often in back-vowel contexts, reflecting post-velar distinctions similar to but more robust than in Mongolic. Internal comparisons also indicate retention of *t- clusters, such as in Para-Mongolic numeral reconstructions like *tʰɔp(h)ɔ 'five', where aspiration and clustering prefigure Mongolic simplifications. Vowel systems feature akin to Mongolic, governed by front/back distinctions, but with expanded inventories in Khitan, including 12 phonemes defined by features [open], [front], [round], and [RTR] (retracted ). Khitan vowels include plain sets (a, e, i, o, ʊ, ɵ, u) and palatalized variants (ä, ë, ö, ɵ̈, ü), with progressive frontness assimilation in non-initial syllables; long/short distinctions are phonemic, arising from Proto-Mongolic *ā, *ē or open syllables. Correspondences with Proto-Mongolic show regular shifts, such as *a, e, i > Khitan a, e, i (short) or aa, ee, ii (long), and *ö, ü > ɵ, u, but palatalized vowels like ä often arise irregularly from *i before *a via assimilation. Key sound changes include palatalizations observed in Rouran and transcriptions, such as *t > j before *i, as in reconstructed forms influencing Tungusic loans (e.g., Para-Mongolic *di- > Manchu ji- 'to come'). Proto-Para-Mongolic reconstructions, drawn from Chinese loans and numeral comparisons, reveal vowel shifts like *a > o in specific environments, potentially before uvulars, as inferred from internal evidence in Khitan and Rouran terms. These changes, documented through Sino-Para-Mongolic bilingual materials, underscore the divergence from Mongolic while preserving core Altaic traits.

Morphology and Syntax

Para-Mongolic languages exhibit agglutinative morphology characterized by exclusive suffixing for both inflectional and derivational purposes, a feature prominently attested in Khitan, the best-documented member of the group. This structure allows for the stacking of multiple suffixes to indicate grammatical relations, with some showing allomorphy influenced by vowel harmony. Nouns typically mark plurality with the suffix -t or -d, followed by case endings; Khitan distinguishes four cases, including an unmarked nominative, accusative/instrumental (e.g., -ar as in abu-ar 'father-ACC/INS'), dative/locative (e.g., -iú as in abu-iú 'father-DAT/LOC'), ablative/prolative (e.g., -i as in abu-iú-i 'father-ABL/PRL'), and genitive (e.g., -en as in ai-en 'year-GEN'). Verbal morphology in Khitan features a rich inventory of suffixes for tense, aspect, and non-finite forms, differing in some respects from core due to earlier divergence. Finite verbs mark through suffixes such as -án, -b.ñ, -l.ñ, and -ñ, often with gender distinctions (e.g., masculine -Vr forms like -or and feminine -en). , used for subordination and complex predicate formation, include series like -ai, -al, -ji, and -s.ii, enabling expressions of simultaneity or sequence (e.g., modal converb -n combined with copula bü- for intraterminal aspect). Derivational suffixes derive lexical categories, such as agentives or adjectives (e.g., -qu for adjectival formation, -ji potentially linking to nominalizers akin to Mongolic -či for agents). These converb systems show innovations in semantic opacity and combination patterns compared to Mongolic -či for simultaneous action, reflecting Para-Mongolic-specific developments. Syntactically, Para-Mongolic languages follow a strict subject-object-verb (SOV) order, with adjectives preceding the nouns they modify and postpositions governing locative and other relations, as evidenced in Khitan texts. Question formation relies on interrogative particles rather than inversion, maintaining the basic . Noun-verb distinctions are reinforced through derivational morphology, such as verbal stems extended by suffixes like -án for participles or -ha- in forms. Limited attestation in other Para-Mongolic languages like and Rouran precludes detailed syntactic analysis, but fragmentary evidence suggests similar agglutinative patterns aligned with Khitan structures.

Writing Systems

The Para-Mongolic languages other than Khitan lacked indigenous writing systems, with the , Rouran, and instead relying on for administrative records, inscriptions, and diplomatic correspondence during their historical periods. Khitan developed two distinct scripts during the . The , invented in 920 CE under Emperor Taizu (Yelü Abaoji), consists of approximately 2,200 characters and functions as a logographic-syllabic system, where many characters represent words or morphemes while others denote syllables, heavily modeled on with added phonetic components. The , created in the mid-10th century, features around 400 characters in an alphabetic-syllabic structure, incorporating phonetic symbols for consonants and vowels, and draws influences from both the Uyghur script and Chinese writing. These scripts were employed primarily in official contexts, including stone inscriptions, memorial stelae, and codices, with the total surviving Khitan corpus estimated at approximately 10,000 tokens across both systems. remains partial, though significant advances were made in 2017 through analysis of Koreanic loanwords, which clarified readings of ambiguous characters and supported broader ; further progress has been achieved using AI-driven methods as of 2025.

Scholarly Debates

Classification Disputes

The classification of the remains highly contested, with scholars proposing affiliations to Mongolic, Para-Mongolic, or even Turkic families primarily through analyses of name etymologies. Alexander Vovin (2007) identifies the as Mongolic, drawing on lexical parallels in personal and tribal names recorded in Chinese sources to support this view. In contrast, Andrew Shimunek (2017) classifies as part of a Para-Mongolic "Serbi" branch, emphasizing archaic features distinct from core Mongolic but sharing a common ancestor, based on comparative reconstructions of vocabulary from historical texts. Sanping Chen (2005), however, argues for a Turkic origin, interpreting key name elements like *Tabγač as deriving from Proto-Turkic roots rather than Mongolic ones. Similar disputes surround the languages of the and the related Avars, where early proposals favored Mongolic ties while later assessments highlight Para-Mongolic characteristics due to preserved archaisms. In the 1980s, Gerhard Doerfer and other Altaicists posited a close Mongolic affinity for Rouran based on onomastic evidence from Chinese annals, viewing it as an early form ancestral to Middle Mongolian. More recently, Alexander Vovin (2018) has refined this by suggesting the Rouran language was Mongolic but exhibited Para-Mongolic traits, such as non-standard vowel harmonies in limited inscriptions, positioning it as a sister rather than direct precursor. These debates extend to the Avars, often seen as Rouran migrants, with their sparse linguistic remnants interpreted variably as retaining Para-Mongolic archaisms incompatible with later Mongolic developments. For Khitan, there is broader consensus on its Para-Mongolic status, though complications arise from potential substrates. Juha Janhunen (2006) establishes Khitan as Para-Mongolic, citing shared morphological patterns like agglutinative verb suffixes in bilingual inscriptions that diverge from but parallel Mongolic structures. However, Alexander Vovin (2017) points to several Koreanic loanwords in Khitan vocabulary, such as terms for and likely borrowed from Koguryǒ or Bohai substrates, which may indicate earlier contact influencing its development away from pure Para-Mongolic traits. These disputes stem largely from methodological challenges in Para-Mongolic classification, where reliance on overshadows grammatical analysis due to extreme data scarcity. With only fragmentary inscriptions and name lists available, scholars like Vovin and Shimunek note that etymological comparisons dominate, often leading to circular arguments without robust syntactic or phonological corpora to resolve affiliations. This scarcity hampers definitive groupings, as seen in numeral evidence from Tungusic borrowings that hints at Para-Mongolic layers but lacks confirmatory .

Evidence Limitations

The study of Para-Mongolic languages faces significant challenges due to profound attestation gaps in the historical record. With the exception of Khitan, for which a corpus of inscriptions and epitaphs exists in native scripts, no continuous texts or extended literary works survive for any Para-Mongolic language. Instead, evidence for languages such as (also known as Tabgach) consists primarily of isolated lexical items, personal names, and toponyms transcribed into within historical annals, including the Book of Wei (Weishu), compiled in the mid-6th century, which preserves a handful of Tuoba words amid descriptions of dynasty interactions. Similarly, attestations for other Para-Mongolic varieties like and are confined to brief mentions in Chinese chronicles such as the and , offering only fragmentary glimpses into their vocabularies and phonology without any native documentation. These transcriptions introduce inherent biases that complicate . Chinese sinographs, adapted for phonetic rendering of non-Sinitic sounds, often prioritized semantic or approximate auditory matches over precision, leading to distortions in clusters, qualities, and prosody; for instance, the use of tonal markers in frequently misrepresents the non-tonal systems of Para-Mongolic languages, as seen in the inconsistent rendering of terms where final nasals obscure original liquids or approximants. Such adaptations reflect the limitations of the Chinese script when applied to Altaic phonologies, resulting in ambiguous or conflated forms that require comparative methods with Mongolic and other neighboring languages for clarification. The extinction of all Para-Mongolic languages by the early , following the Mongol conquests and assimilation into expanding empires, has left no native speakers or oral traditions to consult, forcing reliance on archaeological and textual remnants totaling fewer than 1,000 reliably attested lexical items across the entire family. For Khitan specifically, the of its scripts remains incomplete, with only a portion of the known corpus understood, including a few hundred words from around 4,000 large script characters and 400 small script ones, as ongoing efforts struggle with ambiguous logograms and the absence of bilingual texts. Recent efforts as of 2025 have incorporated AI and interdisciplinary approaches to accelerate , though significant challenges persist. Additionally, the loss of artifacts during historical conflicts, such as the Jurchen overthrow of the in 1125 and subsequent Mongol campaigns, has further depleted the available material, with many inscriptions destroyed or scattered across regions from to northern . Geographical factors, including the nomadic lifestyles of Para-Mongolic speakers across vast steppes, contributed to the dispersal and eventual disappearance of perishable records.

References

  1. https://journal.fi/susa/article/download/70222/31254/90646
  2. https://theswissbay.ch/pdf/Books/Linguistics/Mega%20linguistics%20pack/Mongolic/Mongolian%20%28Janhunen%29.pdf
  3. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/ECLO/COM-000255.xml?language=en
  4. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/49265/excerpt/9780521849265_excerpt.pdf
  5. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110556216-002/html?lang=en
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296658348_Mongolic_Languages
  7. https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/289_fulltext.pdf
  8. https://www.academia.edu/4285991/The_Khitan_Language_and_Script
  9. https://www.academia.edu/1843901/Rybatzki_2011_Classification_of_Old_Turkic_loanwords_in_Mongolic
  10. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356
  11. https://www.academia.edu/45035334/The_differential_diversification_of_Mongolic
  12. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110556216-002/html
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323215051_New_Evidence_on_Para-Mongolic_Numerals
  14. https://doi.org/10.1515/JHSL-2019-0014
  15. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004519916/BP000024.pdf
  16. https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/exhibit/khitans/essay.html
  17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41928391
  18. https://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp356_Tang_dynasty_Tuoba.pdf
  19. https://www.academia.edu/1804244/Vovin_Istanbul10_yeni
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7612788/
  21. https://www.academia.edu/39716045/A_Sketch_of_the_Earliest_Mongolic_Language_the_Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB_Bugut_and_Kh%C3%BCis_Tolgoi_Inscriptions
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6976699/
  23. https://doi.org/10.1556/062.2022.00258
  24. https://www.routledge.com/The-Mongolic-Languages/Janhunen/p/book/9780415417755
  25. https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/181630/1/Escher%2C_Julia_-_2019_-_New_Information_on_the_Degree_of_%22Sinicization%22_of.pdf
  26. https://www.jswc.org.cn/EN/10.11855/jswc.2015.02.157
  27. https://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de/title_7175.ahtml
  28. https://journal.fi/susa/article/view/70222
  29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-042356
  30. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2021.28
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43193441
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347990170_Khitan_Studies_1The_graphs_of_the_khitan_small_script_3_The_consonants_33_The_oral_velar_and_uvular_consonants
  33. https://real.mtak.hu/56021/1/062.2017.70.2.3.pdf
  34. https://www.academia.edu/35181411/Khitan_Language_Encyclopedia_of_Chinese_Language_and_Linguistics
  35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/jasiahist.53.1.0055
  36. https://www.academia.edu/96233641/The_Making_of_the_Tuoba_Northern_Wei_Constructing_material_cultural_expressions_in_the_Northern_Wei_Pingcheng_Period_398_494_CE_
  37. https://www.unicode.org/wg2/docs/n5319-KhitanLargeScriptEncoding.pdf
  38. https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16113r-n4725r-khitan-small-script.pdf
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317969816_Koreanic_loanwords_in_Khitan_and_their_importance_in_the_decipherment_of_the_latter
  40. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02529203.2025.2513827
  41. https://www.academia.edu/4208122/Once_again_on_the_Ruan_ruan_language
  42. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203987919/mongolic-languages-juha-janhunen
  43. https://real.mtak.hu/56022/1/062.2017.70.2.4.pdf
  44. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-china/northern-wei/44687DABD9B387BEB77442A1559AB8FD
  45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41931010
  46. http://podhorski.com/main/assets/documents/Chinese_Bulgars.pdf
  47. https://www.babelstone.co.uk/Blog/2010/12/mystery-of-two-khitan-scripts.html
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317969942_Recent_developments_on_the_decipherment_of_the_Khitan_Small_script
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.