Regimentum Mixtum
It was possible to determine the habitats of the ancient Kurds after their ancestral homeland was localized in the area between the upper reaches of the Desna and Oka rivers, limited in the south by the Seim River. This became possible with the help of the graph-analytical method, which made it possible to clarify the family relationships of the Iranian languages. The author of the work on the origin of the Kurds set himself the goal of proving the location of the original homeland of the Kurds to the northwest of modern Iran. I did not set myself any goal, and the outline of the ancient history of the Kurds formed itself in attempts to understand the general history of mankind based on materials from various language families. The search for toponymy left by the Kurds near their ancestral homeland made it possible to find the direction of their initial migration and trace its subsequent paths. The mentioned author used the results of genetic studies in his work, and familiarity with it convinces us that there are two completely different versions of Kurdish history. One of them should be abandoned.
The Chuvash language stands apart from all the Turkic languages and it has more than all others preserved the features of the Old Turkic language, which belongs to the most ancient period of changes in the Turkic languages. It is believed that it lasted from an unknown time until the beginning of Old Turkic in the 4th-6th centuries A. D. Having read many works on the history of Turkic languages, I am convinced that the fair thoughts of thoughtful scientists have not found confirmation by the majority, while stereotyped erroneous ideas prevail. It seems that linguists write a lot of their own, but read little others. The time of its origin is determined using the graphic-analytical method and dates back to approximately the eighth millennium BC. It emerged from the ancestral Nostratic language in the area around Mount Ararat and Lake Sevan . Thus, talk about the relationship between the Chuvash and Mongolian languages is completely unfounded. The relationship between the Chuvash and Mongolian languages is completely unfounded. The Turkic languages are classified as Altaic by mistake , and the lack of genetic relationship is proven using the method of mathematical statistics. In the sixth millennium BC, the Turkic people began migrating from Transcaucasia to Eastern Europe, where they settled the area between the Lower Dnieper and the Don, and became the creators of the Sredny Stog culture. Here, the ancient Turkic language split into separate dialects. The dialect from which the modern Chuvash language later developed was formed in the area on the left bank of the Lower Dnieper, bordered in the east by the Molochnaya River (see Fig. 1).The study of the relationship of large language families should begin with the origin of human. According to the latest paleogenetic studies, it is recognized that the basic anatomy of Homo sapiens was present in Africa by at least 150 ka, though 40 years ago it was possible to argue that Africa played no special role in human evolution [STRINGER CHRIS. 2007: 15]. The African fossil record shows that the settlement of Eurasia from Africa stretched over several tens of thousands of years, and the main route of human movement lay along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea:
The extension of early modern humans to the Levant by 100 ka has been confirmed by further dating analyses on the Skhul and Qafzeh material [Ibid: 15-16].
Thus, people from the Levant began to settle across Eurasia, during which ethnic groups and their languages were formed. A study of the Nostratic and Sino-Tibetan languages using the graphoanalytical method showed that they were formed in the same place, namely, in the area of three lakes: Sevan, Van, and Urmia [STETSYUK VALENTYN. 1998: 27-32; STETSYUK VALENTYN. 2023: 1-3]. At first, this territory was inhabited by people of the Mongoloid anthropological type, then they were displaced by Europeans. When considering the question of the origin of the human language, it was found that these two anthropological types had a large part of common phonetics and some part of common vocabulary [STETSYUK VALENTYN. 2019]. Later, the languages of these two anthropological types developed in their ways and formed two groups of languages, which were conventionally called Asian and European. Following the fact that the Turkic languages were included in the Nostratic languages, they were included in the European languages, while the Mongolian languages, whose ancestral homeland was determined in the Amur River basin [STETSYUK VALENTYN. 2010: 5-8], were part of the Asian languages. Thus, a close genetic relationship between these two language families is excluded, and in this work, the common part of their vocabulary is considered the result of later mutual borrowings and is not taken into account. However, they are descended from a single original human language, from which all modern languages have developed over the millennia.
Thus, the Mongolian languages are not included in the Nostratic macrofamily, which usually includes Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian and Kartvelian. On the other hand, some linguists deny the existence of such a macrofamily, while others believe that its composition should be expanded.
The boundaries for the Nostratian world of languages cannot yet be determined, but the area is enormous and includes such widely divergent races that one becomes almost dizzy at the thought [BOMHARD ALLAN R. 2018: 4].
In particular, according to A. Dolgopolsky, Chukchi-Kamchatkan, and Eskimo-Aleut languages can be classified as Nostratic. Later this idea was supported by Joseph Greenberg, and Bomhard suggested a kinship with Nostratic also of the Sumerian language(ibid: 5-7). In addition to these languages, he also refers to the Nostratic languages as Tyrrhenian, Gilyak (Nivkh), and Yukaghir [BOMHARD ALLAN R. 2014/2015: 20].
Ultimately, everything comes down to the question of the possibility of monogenesis of all the languages of the world. At one time, one suggested that the idea of restoring a primary language by comparing existing languages is a chimera [YAKUSHIN B.V. 1985:66]. However, it all depends on the comparison methodology, which may be different. The very process of comparing the sound composition of words of different languages of a certain semantic field will answer the question of the existence of patterns in the names of the same objects by different people. O. Melnychuk had the same idea [MELNYCHUK A.S. 1991: 28] when he wrote about the obtained data testifying to the unity of origin of all the languages of the world: