Explanation: The source material states that the Turkic language family includes more than 35 documented languages, not an exact number of 35.

Explanation: The geographical distribution of Turkic languages is extensive, spanning from Eastern and Southern Europe across Central, East, North, and West Asia, not just Central Asia and Siberia.

Explanation: The provided data confirms that as of 2020, the Turkic languages were spoken by an estimated 200 million native speakers.

Explanation: Turkish, not Uzbek, is the Turkic language with the greatest number of speakers, accounting for approximately 38% of the total.

Explanation: Turkic languages are characterized by a lack of grammatical gender, which is a nearly universal feature of the family.

Explanation: Turkic languages are null-subject languages, meaning they often omit pronouns when the subject is clear from the context.

Explanation: Uzbek is noted as the least harmonic or not harmonic at all, in contrast to Tuvan, which is almost fully harmonic. This is largely due to strong Persian-Tajik influence on Uzbek.

Explanation: The table's purpose is to provide a brief comparison of cognates among basic vocabulary words, not to be an exhaustive list.

Explanation: An empty cell indicates that the word for that concept is formed from a different stem or is a loanword, not that the language lacks the word entirely.

Explanation: The Turkic language family is regarded as one of the world's primary language families, not a minor one.

Explanation: The ISO 639-5 code for the Turkic language family is 'trk'.

Explanation: The source material specifies that the Turkic language family is composed of more than 35 documented languages.

Explanation: The Turkic languages are distributed across Eurasia, including Europe and various parts of Asia, but there is no mention of a primary distribution in South America.

Explanation: The source material provides an estimate of approximately 200 million native speakers of Turkic languages as of 2020.

Explanation: Turkish is the Turkic language with the largest number of speakers, accounting for approximately 38% of the total.

Explanation: Turkic languages are characterized by vowel harmony, agglutination, and SOV word order, but they almost universally lack grammatical gender.

Explanation: Turkic languages are characterized by being null-subject, having extensive agglutination, and SOV word order, but they lack grammatical articles.

Explanation: The source identifies Uzbek as the least harmonic Turkic language, a feature attributed to significant influence from Persian-Tajik.

Explanation: The table is intended to offer a brief comparison of related words (cognates) for basic concepts across different Turkic languages to illustrate similarities and differences.

Explanation: An empty cell indicates that the word for the concept in that language is not a cognate of the others in the row, likely being derived from a different root or being a loanword.

Explanation: The Turkic language family is recognized by linguists as one of the world's primary language families.

Explanation: The ISO 639-5 code, which represents language families and groups, for the Turkic languages is 'trk'.

Explanation: The Glottolog code, used for identifying language families, languages, and dialects, for the Turkic family is 'turk1311'.

Explanation: The source confirms a high degree of mutual intelligibility among various Oghuz languages, including Turkish, Azerbaijani, and Turkmen.

Explanation: The Turkic languages are usually divided into two main branches: Oghur and Common Turkic. Siberian is a subgroup within Common Turkic, not a separate main branch.

Explanation: Igor de Rachewiltz noted that Chuvash is significantly distinct from other Turkic languages, to the extent that some scholars consider it part of an independent family, not a typical Common Turkic language.

Explanation: The classification is complicated by centuries of extensive migration, continuous intermingling, and mutual linguistic influence with surrounding language families.

Explanation: Modern genetic classification schemes are still largely indebted to the work of Samoilovich, published in 1922.

Explanation: These are four of the six main branches, but the list is incomplete. The full list includes Oghuz, Kipchak, Karluk, Siberian, Arghu, and Oghur Turkic.

Explanation: The source material states that the exact timing of the divergence between Oghur Turkic and Common Turkic is not clear.

Explanation: The Northeastern group, along with Kyrgyz-Kipchak and Arghu, is categorized as East Turkic, not West Turkic.

Explanation: Khalaj languages, along with the Northeastern group, are referred to as peripheral languages, not central ones.

Explanation: Uyghur is classified under Southeastern Common Turkic (Karluk), not Southwestern (Oghuz).

Explanation: Chuvash is the only surviving member of the Oghuric branch, not the Oghuz branch. The Oghuz branch includes languages like Turkish and Azerbaijani.

Explanation: The provided classification scheme places Kazakh within the Northwestern Common Turkic, or Kipchak, branch of the language family.

Explanation: The source lists Turkmen and Qashqai among the Oghuz languages that exhibit a high degree of mutual intelligibility.

Explanation: The Turkic languages are typically divided into two main branches: Oghur and Common Turkic. Chuvash is the sole surviving member of the Oghur branch.

Explanation: Igor de Rachewiltz noted that Chuvash is so distinct from other Turkic languages that some scholars consider it to be part of an independent family.

Explanation: The classification of Turkic languages has been complicated by extensive migration, intermingling, and significant contact with surrounding languages, not a lack of it.

Explanation: The work of Samoilovich, published in 1922, is credited with being the foundation upon which modern genetic classification schemes for Turkic languages are still largely based.

Explanation: The six main branches listed are Oghuz, Kipchak, Karluk, Siberian, Arghu, and Oghur. Uralic is a separate language family, not a branch of Turkic.

Explanation: The Oghur Turkic branch is also known as Lir-Turkic, contrasting with the other branches which are collectively referred to as Shaz-Turkic or Common Turkic.

Explanation: The source indicates that the Northeastern, Kyrgyz-Kipchak, and Arghu groups are categorized as East Turkic, though with less certainty than the West Turkic categorization.

Explanation: Based on geographical and linguistic factors, the languages of the Northwestern and Southeastern subgroups are considered central Turkic languages.

Explanation: The source material explicitly states that the classification scheme in the 'Members' table is based mainly on the work of Lars Johanson.

Explanation: According to the provided classification, Turkmen is a member of the Southwestern Common Turkic (Oghuz) branch.

Explanation: The Chuvash language is identified as the only surviving member of the Oghuric (or Oghur) branch of the Turkic language family.

Explanation: The provided classification scheme places Kyrgyz within the Northwestern Common Turkic (Kipchak) branch.

Explanation: Uyghur is listed as a living language belonging to the Southeastern Common Turkic (Karluk) branch.

Explanation: According to the classification scheme, Tuvan is a member of the Northeastern Common Turkic (Siberian) branch.

Explanation: The proposed homeland of Proto-Turkic is a broad region spanning from the Transcaspian steppe to Manchuria, with specific theories pointing to the Sayan-Altay region, not exclusively the Transcaspian steppe.

Explanation: The presence of some Chinese loanwords in Proto-Turkic indicates that there was, in fact, early contact between the speakers of these language groups.

Explanation: The earliest established written records of Turkic languages are the eighth-century AD Orkhon inscriptions, which predate the 11th-century Compendium.

Explanation: The *Compendium of the Turkic Dialects* was compiled in the 11th century AD, not the 9th century.

Explanation: The *Codex Cumanicus* focuses on the Northwestern (Kipchak) branch of Turkic languages, not the Southwestern (Oghuz) branch.

Explanation: The relationship is debated; the language of the Volga Bulgars is considered either the parent or a distant relative of modern Chuvash, not definitively its direct parent.

Explanation: The significant geographical expansion of Turkic languages occurred earlier, during the Early Middle Ages, from approximately the 6th to the 11th centuries AD.

Explanation: Old Turkic is an early, historical form of the Turkic language, with its first established records dating to the eighth century AD.

Explanation: The *Irk Bitig* is a 9th-century text, not 11th-century, and it was written in the Old Uyghur language.

Explanation: Proto-Turkic is the reconstructed ancestral language from which all modern Turkic languages are believed to have descended; it is not a modern dialect.

Explanation: The existence of some Chinese loanwords in the reconstructed Proto-Turkic language serves as evidence of early contact between the two language communities.

Explanation: The Orkhon inscriptions, which are the earliest established written records of Turkic, were discovered in 1889 in the Orkhon Valley in Mongolia.

Explanation: The *Compendium of the Turkic Dialects* (Divânü Lügati't-Türk) was compiled in the 11th century AD by Kaşgarlı Mahmud of the Kara-Khanid Khanate.

Explanation: The *Codex Cumanicus* was a linguistic manual used by Catholic missionaries to communicate in the Kipchak language with the Western Cumans.

Explanation: The earliest records of the language spoken by the Volga Bulgars date to the 13th and 14th centuries AD.

Explanation: The Turkic languages spread across Central Asia, from Siberia to the Mediterranean, during the Early Middle Ages, approximately from the 6th to the 11th centuries AD.

Explanation: The Orkhon inscriptions, dating to the eighth century AD, are the earliest established written records of the Turkic languages.

Explanation: The *Irk Bitig*, or 'Book of Divination,' is a 9th-century text written in the Old Uyghur language using the Orkhon script.

Explanation: Proto-Turkic is the hypothetical, reconstructed common ancestor of the entire Turkic language family, from which all documented Turkic languages are thought to have evolved.

Explanation: The Altaic language family proposal is widely rejected by historical linguists, who attribute shared characteristics to extensive prehistoric language contact rather than a common genetic origin.

Explanation: The Ural-Altaic hypothesis is now widely rejected by mainstream linguists due to insufficient evidence for a common genetic origin.

Explanation: While both language families exhibit vowel harmony, Turkic languages share palatal vowel harmony with Uralic languages, whereas Mongolic languages have a different type of vowel harmony.

Explanation: The 'Turco-Mongol' tradition is defined by extensive contact and a shared cultural tradition, including the religious system of Tengrism and numerous loanwords between the language groups.

Explanation: Similarities between Turkic, Japonic, and other Northeast Asian language families are now primarily attributed to prehistoric language contact within a sprachbund, not a common genetic origin.

Explanation: Turkic terminologies have been adopted into a wide range of languages, including Persian, Russian, Chinese, Hungarian, and to a lesser extent, Arabic.

Explanation: The Altaic theory lacks support from a majority of linguists, who attribute similarities to a sprachbund (language contact) rather than a common genetic origin.

Explanation: Currently, none of the theories proposing a genetic link between Turkic and other language families have wide acceptance; similarities are generally attributed to language contact.

Explanation: Linguists such as Kabak and Choi have noted similarities in phonology, morphology, and cognates as evidence for a possible genetic relationship between Turkic and Korean.

Explanation: The suggested genetic relation between Turkic and Uralic languages is rejected by mainstream linguists, who attribute similarities to language contact and borrowings.

Explanation: The prevailing view among historical linguists is that the similarities among the proposed Altaic languages are the result of a sprachbund (language contact area), not descent from a common ancestor.

Explanation: The Ural-Altaic hypothesis is now widely rejected by mainstream linguists due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support a common genetic origin between the Uralic and Altaic language families.

Explanation: The source specifies that Uralic and Turkic languages share a type of vowel harmony known as palatal vowel harmony.

Explanation: As part of the 'Turco-Mongol' tradition, Proto-Turks and Proto-Mongols shared a similar religious system known as Tengrism.

Explanation: Recent scholarship attributes the similarities between Turkic, Tungusic, and other Northeast Asian language families to extensive prehistoric contact within a sprachbund.

Explanation: The source lists Persian, Russian, Hungarian, Chinese, Mongolian, and Arabic as languages that have adopted Turkic terminologies, but does not mention Japanese in this context.

Explanation: The Altaic theory is controversial because most mainstream linguists believe the similarities between the member languages are due to long-term geographical proximity and contact (a sprachbund), not a shared ancestry.

Explanation: The current linguistic consensus is that theories proposing a genetic link between Turkic and other language families are not widely accepted, and observed similarities are typically explained by language contact.

Explanation: The source credits Kabak (2004) with noting similar phonology and morphology as evidence for a potential genetic relationship between Turkic and Korean.

Explanation: Many historians have pointed out a close non-linguistic relationship, specifically noting the close political and cultural ties between the Göktürks and the Korean kingdom of Goguryeo.

Explanation: The mainstream linguistic view is that similarities between Turkic and Uralic languages are the result of language contact and borrowing, particularly from Turkic into Ugric languages, rather than a genetic relationship.

Explanation: The classification by Hruschka et al. (2014) was based on phonological sound changes, not shared vocabulary (lexicostatistics).

Explanation: The distinction is the reverse: Rhotacism distinguishes the Oghur branch by its /r/ sound where the Common Turkic branch has /z/.

Explanation: The preservation of word initial *h* is an isogloss that notably separates Khalaj as a peripheral language, not one that groups it with central languages.

Explanation: Hruschka et al. (2014) employed computational phylogenetic methods, which based the classification on phonological sound changes to calculate a tree of Turkic languages.

Explanation: While vowel harmony is a key feature of Turkic languages, the traditionally used isoglosses for classification mentioned are Rhotacism, the treatment of intervocalic *d*, and the suffix-final -G.

Explanation: Rhotacism is an isogloss where the Oghur branch exhibits an /r/ sound in certain words (e.g., for 'nine') where the Common Turkic branches have a /z/ sound.

Explanation: The preservation of the word initial *h* sound is a key isogloss that distinguishes the Khalaj language, marking it as a peripheral member of the Turkic family.

Explanation: The reconstructed Proto-Turkic word for 'horse' is *(h)at. The word *dabar is reconstructed as 'cattle'.

Explanation: The reconstructed Proto-Turkic word for 'water' is *sub or *sïb.