Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Chuvash language" in English language version.
Early scholarship from the 18th century associated Chuvash with the Uralic languages, being unable to disentangle complicated areal phenomena in the Volga-Kama region (see, e.g., language groupings in Pallas 1787–1789). The Turkic origin of Chuvash was proposed no later than by Klaproth in 1828 and convincingly proved by Schott in 1841. In 1863, Feizkhanov managed to read three grave epitaphs in the Volga Bulghar language based on his knowledge of the contemporary Chuvash. Strong arguments relating Chuvash to Volga Bulghar were summarized by Ašmarin in 1902; since then, the Volga Bulghar → Chuvash linguistic continuity has gained general acceptance in the field. Together with its extinct relatives, Chuvash forms the separate Bulgharic branch of the Turkic family, which exhibits many differences from the so-called Common Turkic languages
Early scholarship from the 18th century associated Chuvash with the Uralic languages, being unable to disentangle complicated areal phenomena in the Volga-Kama region (see, e.g., language groupings in Pallas 1787–1789). The Turkic origin of Chuvash was proposed no later than by Klaproth in 1828 and convincingly proved by Schott in 1841. In 1863, Feizkhanov managed to read three grave epitaphs in the Volga Bulghar language based on his knowledge of the contemporary Chuvash. Strong arguments relating Chuvash to Volga Bulghar were summarized by Ašmarin in 1902; since then, the Volga Bulghar → Chuvash linguistic continuity has gained general acceptance in the field. Together with its extinct relatives, Chuvash forms the separate Bulgharic branch of the Turkic family, which exhibits many differences from the so-called Common Turkic languages
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)The language had strong ties to Bulgar language and to modern Chuvash, but also had some important connections, especially lexical and morphological, to Ottoman Turkish and Yakut
{{cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (help){{cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)The language had strong ties to Bulgar language and to modern Chuvash, but also had some important connections, especially lexical and morphological, to Ottoman Turkish and Yakut