Talk:Hunnic language

message: The Huns were allied with the Magyars (Hungarians) - what does this mean ? the Huns from 400 were allied with the Magyars from 900 ? is there a historic source atesting this alliance ? Criztu 12:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There were Magyars back in 400 as well.  They were however in Asia.  I vaguely recall that the Huns were thought to maintain contact with Asia, both with Huns living there, as well as with other people there known to them.  Presumably that is the suggestion. --69.158.25.93 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Means the Huns and Magyars were allies and or of the same origin. Magyars existed before 900 AD, they didn't pop up like grass in Karpatia. Their ancestors were likely together with the Huns of before that period. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  alliance 

message: The Magyars (Hungarians) in the 5th century were allied with Huns, and there is hystorical source for that.and one more thing: the hungarian language contains 90% of hunnic names,for example: Attila,Csaba, Szabolcs, Ellák, Zoltán,Aladár, Emöke and I could write more...
::That's not at all true. What, you think Hungarian names are Jozsef, Erszebet, Matyas, etc.? Get real. Stop with your Romanian propaganda. Attila, Csaba, etc. are native Hungarian names. St. Stephen did not promote any kind of Hungarism at all as he ordered all their books written in the traditional Rovasiras script burned, forced the conversion of Christianity on everyone and adopted European culture. Don't know what you're smoking. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunnic language 

message: The jury is still out on this.  Gathering evidence points to the possibility that they spoke a Yeneseian language, of which Ket is related/descended.  Ligeti showed a Chinese transliterated Xiong-nu word meaning 'high boot' can be traced to Ket. See the talk page for Xiongnu for the reference. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Xiong-nu speaking a Turkic language 

message: There was 2 diferent nation of huns.
East(black): they languange is close the Kumi chuvas. It is remain in "codex chumanorum".
West(white): They languange is same the khazarsμαζαροισ/(VII.Konstantin)
.
There is no definitive proof that the European Huns and the Ephthalites (White Huns) were related.  What is "Kumi chuvas"?  The Codex Cumanicus describes a z-Turkic language.  The Chuvash language  is r-Turkic.  Therefore the Codex cannot contain remnants of Chuvash.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  black & white 

message: Another emerging and disputed theory from the previously unknown Esfahan codex suggests that the Hunnic language was Ugric in character. This codex, from an Armenian monestary in Persia, was supposedly discovered in the 1970s but the discovery was suppressed. Conveniently the manuscript has disappeared since then and is thought to be for sale to the highest bidder. In the provisional edition of an upcoming publication on the topic, a few pages show that some words are very similar with the ancient Hungarian language. The Hunnic words were discovered accidentally and were written in ancient Armenian letters from the 4th or 5th century. The first major interpretations are under way by Dr. Csaba Detre.
: *grin* --Stacey Doljack Borsody 07:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research moved to talk 

message: Strava is said to be Hunnic word for "funeral". Despite Huns were allegedly a Turkic people, this word sounds rather Russian to me (AFAIK, Turkish doesn't have initial consonant clusters). Is it possible that the Huns were ancestors of Slavs?--Al-Bargit 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strava is Czech for food.  Maybe it means something in Russian too.  76.210.63.15 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't funeral in Hungarian "temetes"? --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is, but the Hunnic strava means not that, but something like distress, a celebration with great revelling to depletion what was held as a mourning ceremony. There is a Hungarian word that means this: strapa. Dzsoker (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting, but the Huns being so powerful and having a large empire, came into contact with many different peoples. It is more than possible that it is other people who borrowed Hunnic words than simply Huns borrowing European words.
--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is possible and probable. For example Jordanes mentioned that some of the Goths had taken Hunnic names for themselves. Dzsoker (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavic language? 

message: Hi, I just noticed that the editor who added the following paragraph to the article got the meaning wrong (the problem is with the part I've italicized below):
"1997 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica reasons that "It is assumed that the Huns also were speakers of an r- and l-type Turkic language and that their migration was responsible for the appearance of this language in the West. The r- and l-type language is now documented only by Chuvash, a language considered as a descendant of a Volga-Bulgarian language. The rest of the Turkic languages are of the z- and s-type". However, this is contrary to the 2007 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica which states that "Attempts at interpreting earlier materials as Turkic (e.g., the identification of Hunnic elements in Chinese sources from the 4th century AD) have failed.""
The quoted sentence belongs to the Linguistic History subsection of an overview article of the Turkic language family. The subsection is two paragraphs long, first of which briefly talks about the interrelations within the family, and the second outlining the development of branches and the earliest written sources. The actual context of the cited sentence is as follows, at the beginning of the second paragraph (link to the whole text: ):
"The linguistic history of the Turkic languages can be followed in written sources from the 8th century on. Attempts at interpreting earlier materials as Turkic (e.g., the identification of Hunnic elements in Chinese sources from the 4th century AD) have failed. The Uighur, Oghuz, Kipchak, and Bolgar branches were already differentiated in the oldest known period. In subsequent centuries, Turkic underwent further divergence corresponding to its gradual diffusion."
As I get this, the earliest written sources associated with the Turkic family date from the 8th century. The attempts as interpreting earlier materials (e.g. materials in Chinese sources from the 4th century AD) as Turkic (e.g. searching for Hunnic elements within these sources) failed. As I understand, for trying to follow the history of Turkic languages in sources earlier than the 8th century, linguists refer to sources external to Turkic speakers of the period, such as 4th century Chinese sources, and within these, look for possibly noted Turkic elements, for the Chinese case Hunnic elements, as the Chinese of the period were in contact with Hunnic speakers. 
I honestly believe that this was a misunderstanding of the cited source. Seeing that there is nothing contrary to the information presented in the prior edition of the same encyclopedia, I'm removing the last sentence. I hope I explained the situation clearly enough. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gokturks did not build an empire until the Tang dynasty, hundreds of years after the Southern Huns had settled in Shaanxi, China, and the Northern Huns had migrated to Europe. Thus, the word Turk is not found in any ancient Chinese sources about the Huns.
--Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong interpretation of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007 article

message: Is it just me or does the Altaic template seem useless, especially applied on language pages where the Infobox clearly displays language association? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altaic template 

message: What is this? Are there some other sources for it? As I see the publication appeared in 1995, did it gain some acceptation since then? Dzsoker (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khan Diggiz plate inscription 

message: If some Turkic adopted few words from Huns who preceded them it does not change the obvious fact Hunnic language is Ugric .
Why should ansectors of Hungarians talk on different language?
Edelward (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Conjecture has no place in Wikipedia. What are the reliable sources to support your claim? --Latebird (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Again: what are the reliable sources to support those claims? Is that requirement really so hard to understand? --Latebird (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunnic is Ugric 

message: "reverted to Eurasian steppe - identification of Huns with Xiongnu is uncertain and even if true does not imply that they spoke the same language"
The article says that the Hunnic language is considered to belong to the "Oghur" branch of Turkic languages. It seems there is no problem making this statement without any evidence to support it. Perhaps I am missing something about how some theories are accepted without any evidence, yet other theories with evidence are omitted. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The makeup of the Huns is unknown - anything else said is pure speculation.50.111.14.1 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easily accepted uncertainties 

message: Does anyone watching this article have a source that includes our meager corpus of likely Hunnic words / names? I think they would make a nice addition to the article. At the same time, what about that Diggiz plate? Is there any further info to be had on it? Trigaranus (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that the word strava (meaning funeral) is the only Hunnic word to have survived. It survived because the Roman historian Priscus of Panium mentioned it in his account of Attila's funeral. I read this in the book The End of Empire: Attila the Hun and the Fall of Rome by Christopher Kelly on page 6. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the subject can give a better answer than this.-Schnurrbart (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been discussed above. Strava is the purely Slavic word for food delicacies. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And it could also have been a word used by the Huns to mean 'funeral' - word-sounds appear throughout the world that are not related linguistically and have different definitions to those native speakers.50.111.14.1 (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunnic corpus 

message: "For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or--as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans--Latin"
The above quote mentions that Hunnic, Gothic and Latin were spoken, not that the lingua franca was Gothic. A better source should be found to support such claims. 
It is likely as the Goths were a big part of the Hunnic empire but that is besides the point as the source being used makes no mention of which language is the lingua franca, Hun, Latin or Gothic. If anything it mentions Hunnic, Gothic and Latin being equally spoken as well as the native languages of the various groups that made up the confederation. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a better source for the claim that Gothic was the lingua franca. 

message: I have removed a comment based on an 1882 reference, diff is  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunnic_language&action=historysubmit&diff=473492610&oldid=473414260. For several reasons I suggest that it should stay removed. 
In full it was: "However, there is a controversial and maybe not correct opinion regarding the word kamos, according to Hermann Vámbéry it would resemble the Turkic kimiz, a drink made of milk. The incorrectness of this opinion is given by the fact that the Hunnic kamos is made of barley and not milk. Still, a linguistic affinity with Turkic is existent.Ármin Vámbéry, Der Ursprung der Magyaren: Eine ethnologische Studie, F.A. Brockhaus, 1882, p.28"
This strikes me as internally inconsistent (first it says that the words could be related and then that they clearly aren't), and it seems to be an inappropriate use of a comment from 1882, admittedly by someone far better at the relevant languages than I will ever be. We should be documenting current scholarly consensus, and live arguments if there are any, using current sources. Even in this field, 1882 is not current scholarship. A minor issue is that I cannot find the text "kamos" or "kimiz" in the Google Book reference given. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Using a source from 1882 to show linguistic affinity seemed a bit to me like trying to use Aristotle to talk about gravitational theory.  He has his place in the history of gravitational theory, not in current gravitational theory.  If there were no other, more recent sources talking about the linguistic affinity of Hunnic, then I'd be for using Vambery.  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ármin Vámbéry's comment 

message: I'm surprised that Hunnic is classified as specifically Oghuric/Lir-Turkic by all the sources. As argued by O. Maenchen-Helfen here (in my view convincingly), the proper name Dengizich reflects *däŋiziq (or *deŋiziq; I'm not sure what the first vowel originally was) "little lake". However, *däŋiz (or *deŋiz), from Proto-Turkic *täŋiz (or *teŋiz, as in Old Turkic of the Orkhon inscriptions) is incompatible with Oghuric: one should expect *täŋir (or *teŋir, compare the loanword Hungarian tenger from Oghuric) instead. The (Common Turkic) z points to a non-Oghuric branch, and (provided that the spellings of the ancient sources really reflect a Turkic d) the initial d even seems to point specifically to the Oghuzic branch (compare Modern Anatolian Turkish deniz, where the old *ŋ has merged with n), although the same development of initial t is apparently found in non-Oghuzic languages (Tuvan and Fuyü Gïrgïs) as well and thus may not be truly diagnostic.
(Note that this conclusion is strictly based on reasoning out of the available evidence; I was surprised by it myself, and I would be very interested to see the evidence cited by the sources for their differing classification; I am neutral politically and, lacking any personal connections with Turkey, have no horse in this game and am certainly not attempting to "prove that the Huns were the ancestors of the Turks (of Turkey)" or some such nonsense, just pointing something out.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification within Turkic 

message: We have recently had the following removed on the grounds that it's a "bad source":
the inscription on the Khan Diggiz plate has been interpreted as giving the name of a known Western Hunnic king, Dengizich, son of Attila, in a form of Turkic.Azgar Mukhamadiev. "The Khan Diggiz Dish Inscription". Excerpts from the article "Turanian Writing", in: Problems Of Linguoethnohistory Of The Tatar People, Kazan, 1995, pages 36–83 Muhamadiev A. "Ancient coins of Kazan", Kazan, 2005, pp. 37–41, ISBN 5-298-04057-8
It may be less than ideal, but it strikes me as reliable within Wikipedia's definition and at least slightly interesting in the context of this article. Should we perhaps have it back? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. It strikes as nothing more but mythical in reliability. There's nothing scholastic about the source and it seems it was just added for the sake of pushing a hidden nationalistic agenda, which is not uncommon in articles like this.Qatarihistorian (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no indication that the source isn't scholarly and the use of "Turan" in the title appears historical, not nationalistic.  The author is a member of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, shows up as the head of the Ethnography and Archeology department of the Kazan Federal University, and has published works on numismatics of the Golden Horde.  That said, the source doesn't call the object in question the "Khan Diggiz" dish.  It references it by some archaeological catalog number, Dish 53, contrary to how the material is presented in Wikipedia.  Also, it's the *website* that's a dubious source, not Mukhamadiev's work as a source.  The website link goes to another page that purports to be the full Chapter 3 of the book.  It is difficult to find the actual publication of Problems Of Linguoethnohistory Of The Tatar People, Kazan, 1995, pages 36–83, because the website itself is not scholarly.  The website must have translated the article from Russian and didn't include the Russian title. So I think the Wikipedia article should have some mention of Mukhamadiev's work on translating Dish 53 without relying upon the onlinehome site. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think once someone can find a proper source then why not. But it needs to be made sure that it isn't coated with a hidden agenda, which unfortunately seems to persist in these kinds of articles. Let's not forget mainstream academics studying Hunnic history know of only 3 Hunnic words and a few names here and there. The obscurity of Hunnic history makes it hard to come to a conclusion on its ethnic and linguistic origins. Some say they were primarily Turkic, others say Iranian, others Slavic, some even say Uralic, etc. Then to suddenly have an unknown source with a very suspicious title and background making claims about the Turkic form of Hunnic names is rather suspicious. If there can be a proper way to find this gentleman's book without having to go through nationalistic websites, it would perhaps give us a better indication of the man's original message. Sadly these nationalistic websites aren't to be trusted. Some even have a habit of trying to push something that the author in question may not have intended. I've already come across 3 dubious references in wiki articles today, unfortunately all of which are related in some form or another to the mythical Turanian pseudoscience.Qatarihistorian (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Problemy lingvoėtnoistorii tatarskogo naroda / (redkollegii͡a, M.Z. Zakiev (otvetstvennyĭ redaktor), F.G. Garipova).  --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khan Diggiz plate 

message: User:Akocsg is continuing his POV editing by adding Turkic to the infobox, when clearly there are six different theories presented and referenced. Is Akocsg going to add the other theories to the infobox? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not care "all theories." most important ones, a major theories. Turkic theory is the major one. You can't delete information like that. You doing wrong.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange how your friend Akocsg is quick to use Otto Maenchen-Helfen, yet when Otto is sourced in the lead stating, "According to authorities on the Huns, such as historian Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnic cannot be classified at present, and there is no consensus on its affinities. He just simply ignores that. Looks like cherry picking information to me. Looks like Akocsg is POV pushing and adding undue weight despite what a leading academic states. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Akocsg is not my "friend." I didn't even see him/her before! Is this a "payback" or something? on the other hand; Yes, Maenchen notice that but we can't only base him. You already knew this I suppose.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should remove Akocsg's edit using Maenchen-Helfen. The "payback" is why you are here talking about me ("You are doing wrong"), nothing about the article. The proper way would be to discuss among numerous editors and find a consensus, since Akocsg was reverted by two editors. But, no, you show up, and start making statements, "You doing wrong", which lends nothing to a discussion. There are just as many sources stating something other than Turkic as there are stating Turkic. Therefore, there is no evidence that Turkic is the major theory. Even Akocsg stated, "Otto Maenchen-Helfen, who is considered a professional on Hunnic studies....", which was good enough for him since it lends to Akocsg's Turkic POV, but if the Maenchen-Helfen says something different then its, "Yes, Maenchen notice that but we can't only base him". My how the wind changes.  --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, no one cares your theories about me. Sorry mate, firstly you "attacked" me with "he is your friend, you defending him!" stuff. And it is very suspicious. I do not have a personel problem with you. Just noticed. Beside, yes. Partly, he is wrong too. We can't move on only one person's words. But he is got the point. If you really read that article, you can see the major ideas.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And again. Nothing about the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Akocsg adding [[Wikipedia:Undue|undue weight]] 

message: Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBN from the entry:
Mukhamadiev, Azgar G. 1995. "The inscription on the plate of Khan Diggiz." In: In: Problems of the lingo-ethno-history of the Tatar people. Kazan: Tatarskoe knizhnoe izd-vo, pp. 36–83. (ISBN 5-201-08300, in Russian). Translated from the Russian into English, www.turkicworld.org.[6]
I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN or WorldCat id on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad ISBN 

message: First, you have to understand who were the (European) Huns. They were not Xiongnu, nor they were Turks. Huns were conglomeration of Yuezhi-Usun-Asi tribes. Usuns were tochars who were turkisized as early as 4 BC  and they spoke a form of Turkic language, Yuezhi are more controversial, probably they spoke a mixture of Tocharian - protoTurkic - protoMongolian. When these tribes move to Kazahstan, an Iranian substratum was added. In modern (Danube) Bulgarian language there are many tocharian words even today. Volga Bulgars probably originated from Usuns, they didn't practiced artificial cranial deformation, while Danube Bulgars have their origin in Yuezhi and their language was less Turkisized.     
93.152.143.113 (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for solving this centuries-old, complex problem. We'll be anxious to see your research in print, so that professors and scholars the world over can take a vacation to Hawaii .... 50.111.14.1 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunnic language was Kuchean language 

message: I found a source and edited this article, and the source tells me Hunnic is a Uralic language. 
Here is the source: (In Hungarian): http://filozofia.wplanet.hu/tag_va.html HorseSnack (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is entirely unsuitable as a source for an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uralic language? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Hunnic language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010204040700/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/priscus.html to http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/priscus.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120104081516/http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/xiongnu to http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/xiongnu
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 3oun= jyt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:67A:7E8F:6CEE:786A:E1B8:7E85 (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting 

message: The article claims that the Huns called their language Hunlir tel. But since we know only 36 words that are attributed to this language (33 of which are proper names), this seems to have no backing. So, does any person have a citation for this claim?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.116.59 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it, and in the meantime I have deleted it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunlir tel as Hunnic name for Hunnic language? 

message: , you recently added a link to Altaic languages into the lead of this article. The lead of the article Altaic languages, however, says that this theory is "now widely seen as discredited". I'm wondering whether it's appropriate to link to it then. I actually removed a similar link from the article Huns just yesterday for the same reason.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altaic 

message: Can anyone verify that "Mukhamediev, Azgar (1995). Zăkiev, M. Z., ed. Problemy lingvoėtnoistorii tatarskogo naroda. Kazan. p. 195." is a reliable source? If not, the information provided from this source (which seems suspicious) should be removed from the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turanian" writing 

message: Hungarian Turcologist Gyula Németh makes the following statement on the language of the Huns of Europe in his article titled What Language Speaked by Huns in 1939: Based on all these, we can say that the ruling clan of the European Huns and of course the Hun people also spoke the Turkish language, more precisely, they were Turkic as a people. [19  ]  Lajos Ligeti also makes the following determinations about the language of the European Huns in the article Attila and the Historical Origins of the Huns: ... the conclusion that can be drawn from the existing ones, we are confronted with a Turkic-speaking people in both regions. [19]  Péter Váczy supports Latin writers in Anthropology in his article Huns in Europe;  Huns were Turks.  But what was Turkish was not only their external appearance, but their language was also Turkish.  makes the definition. [19]
 Some historians such as Karl Heinrich Menges and Omeljan Pritsak have stated that the possible origins of the language are close to Mongolian or Turkic languages, based on special names in Hunca and for ethnological reasons. [20]  It was argued by Menges that this language might have been a combination of the Mongolian and Turkic languages. [20]  Pritsak 33 Hunca analyzed the proper name and claimed that the language was not Turkic, but could be a language found between Turkic languages ​​and Mongolian, closer to Turkic languages ​​such as Pre-Bulgarian and Yakut. [21]
 Otto Maenchen-Helfen has argued that many Hunca proper names may have Turkic origin. [22]  Denis Sinor and Hyun Jin Kim also reached the same conclusion, although they stated that it is very difficult to classify the language due to the lack of resources, and claimed that at least part of the ruling segment is of Turkic origin.  [6] [23] Although historian Peter Heather described Turkic origins as the best guess, in 1995 [24] declared that he was skeptical about these theories [16] and stated that in 2010 Hunca was never known. [17] Metehan Uygur7 (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Is there a change you want made? The fact that a bunch of scholars think that it might have been Turkic is already in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

text: It's unclear to me what you want added. If what you want added is "Huns were Turks" this is speculation and does not accord with how modern reliable sources treat them.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunnic origin and hunnic language 

message: Recent research has revealed that in chapter 96 of the Book of Han (Han-shu), entitled "Western Regions", the Xiong-nu gave the title "拊離 (fǔ-lí)" to a ruler of the Lesser Wu-sun Kun-mo, a descendant of a Xiong-nu princess, who was killed in 30 BC as a result of a throne dispute. In chapter 50 of the Tongdian, Chinese sources clearly define the meaning of "拊離 (fǔ-lí)" as "wolf". With this military-political title, the Wu-sun were declared the protector of the western region of the Xiong-nu territories. For the same reason, this title was given to the ruler of the western wing of the state in the Gokturks, Seljuks, Khwarazmians, Mongols and Anatolian Turkish beyliks. In addition, the word "böri" is a word used in all Turkic languages, Mongolic languages, Korean, Japanese, Manchu-Tungus with the meaning of "wolf". These results may have revealed a connection with Altaic languages, especially Turkic languages.
@Kansas Bear @Ermenrich
Why is not this text about Hunnic language? --Philosophia091 (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this discussion to the bottom of this talk page for proper chronological ordering. I'm also pinging  and  to let them know of the discussion. For my part, I'll say that your conclusion () is not obvious given the preceding content of the paragraph. You may need to draw those connections more clearly, and you will definitely need to cite a reliable source that has drawn those connections. (This is not just your own conclusion, is it?) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I see no mention of Hunnic or Altaic in the paragraph presented. The Hunnic language is unclassified and has multiple theories. And per this:
*"Turkologist Gerhard Doerfer has denied any possibility of a relationship between the Xiongnu language and any other known language, even any connection with Turkic or Mongolian." --Di Cosmo, Nicola (2004). Ancient China and its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge University Press.page 164. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunnic language and Altaic languages connection disguss