Phonetic Adaptation of Arabic Loanwords in Argenti's Ottoman

Kamil Stachowski

Phonetic Adaptation of Arabic Loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman Turkish (1533) Part 2. Vowels

1. Introduction The present paper is a continuation of a survey of the phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Ottoman Turkish recorded in the Latin alphabet by Filippo Argenti, a 16th century Florentine diplomat in Constantinople, and published by L. Rocchi in 2007. The motivation is to provide preliminary data for a future comprehensive analysis of the adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Ottoman Turkish, hence the focus is less on analysis. The first part (Stachowski K. 2015) looked at consonants and semivowels; this one examines vowels. In addition to the inspection of specific sounds (2.1.1–2.1.7), both parts discuss several recurring phenomena: epenthesis, geminates, hiatus, metathesis, tāʾ marbūt.ah, and the relation between w and b in part one, and ellipsis, epenthesis, and vowel harmony in part two (2.2.1–2.2.3). A summary of this part, together with some more general observations, is in 3. The paper is based on a set of 575 borrowings; Argenti’s work contains 671 words of suspected Arabic origin, but some are unclear or uncertain in one way or another; a full list is given in the appendix at the end of the paper. Turkish words are spelt using the modern Turkish orthography, and Ar- abic words are mostly in DIN 31365. Besides those, the following notations are used: ‹à› for alif maqs.ūrah, ‹h› for tāʾ marbūt.ah, and ‹ä› for sounds which Argenti spelt either as ‹æ›, or as ‹ae›, or as both ‹a› and ‹e› in different places. In general, I accepted Rocchi’s reading automatically; the few exceptions are marked in the appendix.

Turkologia.indb 279 2016-03-17 17:00:54 280 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

2. Adaptation This section is divided into two subsections. The first one (2.1.1–2.1.7) pre- sents the adaptations of specific Arabic sounds; the second one (2.2.1–2.2.3) particular sequences and processes.

2.1 Sounds 2.1.1 a a e ä u i Ø ö â o a 363 243 9 7 6 5 3 1 1

Examples where a yielded e are by far the largest group in our collection, but this does not mean that regularities or tendencies are easier to spot here than anywhere else. In fact, very few are to be seen. One might suspect that the primary reason for rendering a as e should be vowel harmony. Among the two hundred words with such a change (and a total of 243 specific instances), there are 41 etyma which, from the Turkish perspective, were not harmonic in Arabic, and yielded a harmonic shape in Ottoman Turkish; e.g. emin < ʾamīn, ezzet < ʿizzah, mehenk < mih. akk, tercibe h h < tagˇriba , zilhicce < d-ū-l-h. igˇgˇa . However, there are at the same time 69 non- harmonic shapes in Turkish, and in as many as 48 of them, the Arabic etyma were in fact harmonic; e.g. alem < ʿālam, mukarrer < muqarrar, seretan < sara- h t.ān, şevval < šawwāl, zilkade < d-ū-l-qaʿda . See 2.2.3 below for more on vowel harmony. As for phonetic properties, such as could have influenced the rendering of a, few are shared by a considerable portion of the examples. The most frequent of them is that the preceding consonant is not emphatic. This is true for 240 out of the 243 cases of a > e, but it is also true for 894 out of the total of 969 cases other than a > e. The difference between these two proportions is not statistically significant (p = 0.51; FET). The three unusual cases are kubbes sehera < qubbah as.-s.ahra, sedef < s.adaf, and sefer < s.afār. ˘ The situation is effectively the same with almost all of the most frequent phonetic properties, regardless of whether they are likely to have caused the fronting of a or not; they appear nearly as numerously, by proportion, in the a > e group, as anywhere else. Examples: the previous1 consonant is harmoni-

1 Here, the terms previous and next are used purposefully to indicate that the sound in question does not necessarily directly precede or follow the vowel.

Turkologia.indb 280 2016-03-17 17:00:54 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 281

cally neutral2 (181 cases in the a > e group vs 657 elsewhere), the previous consonant is voiced (163 vs 571), the first consonant after the next one is not

emphatic (= Cn+2; 137 vs 465), the next consonant is a sonorant (97 vs 381), the previous vowel is low (86 vs 363), the vowel is preceded by a single, non- geminated consonant or semivowel (70 vs 326), the next consonant has been rendered as voiceless (61 vs 307). There are, nonetheless, some statistically significant (p < 0.05; FET) phonetic properties as well. Only three are shared by at least a third of the a > e examples: the next consonant is not a sonorant (91 vs 499), the following sound is not a sonorant (90 vs 496), and the sound directly after the following sound is a non-emphatic consonant (76 vs 194). The first two are less frequent in the a > e group than elsewhere, the last one is more common. Phonetically, the causal link between them and the fronting of a does not seem to be particularly obvious. The most statistically significant properties are easier to understand phonetically, but they tend to be relatively rare, and not very illuminating: the next vowel in the Ottoman Turkish form is e (61 vs 41; p = 8.81 × 10-17; FET), the next vowel in the Ott. form is back (24 vs 363; p = 8.09 × 10-12; FET), the previous vowel in the Ott. form is back (31 vs 367; p = 2.26 × 10-9; FET), the previous vowel in the Ott. form is e (60 vs 82; p = 1.72 × 10-8; FET), the previous vowel in the Ott. form is a (24 vs 291; p = 4.38 × 10-8; FET), the vowel is final in the Arabic etymon (55 vs 88; p = 1.99 × 10-6; FET), &c. Clearly, most are to do with vowel harmony, but they merely describe its effects, without indicating the conditions that provoked its application. Overall, it seems that either the phonetics of the etymon has in fact little impact on whether a will or not be rendered as e, or that the mechanics of the process are more intricate than simply the closest neighbourhood of the vowel. I tried, without success, to investigate one such possibility, see 2.2.3 below.

The nine cases in ä (i.e. where Argenti wrote ‹æ›, ‹ae›, or both ‹a› and ‹e› in different places) are: adäm < ādam, bäla < balāʾ, mähäl < mah. all, nanä <

2 I consider eleven consonants to not be harmonically neutral: d, d. , s, s., t, t., z, z. , k, q, and l. were traditionally used to ‹د، س، ت، ز، ك› For all but the last one, the reason is that the letters were used for the same purpose ‹ض، ص، ط، ظ، ق› denote d, s, t, z, and k in front words, while in back words; therefore, their presence in the Arabic etymon could have easily been read by Ottoman Turks as a hint about the vocalization. For l, the reason is that the Turkish l has quite distinct allophones in front and back surroundings, and the Arabic pronunciation happens to coincide with the front variant, except in Allah.

Turkologia.indb 281 2016-03-17 17:00:54 282 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

naʿnaʿ, şäraat < šarīʿah, and täfaut < tafāwut. They do not appear to be sharing any specific phonetic properties. One might imagine that at least some of those vowels might have been more reduced than others, but there are at least tens of words in Argenti’s collection for which the same could be imagined, and which are spelt in a less ambiguous way. In seven words, a yielded u: buhurlimana < bahūr, lagum < laġam, muhebbet < mah. abbah, munara < manārah, muştut < mašdūd˘ , nuzla < nazlah, zurnapa < zarāfah. In four cases, the a in question is in the initial syllable and directly after a nasal consonant – but the same is true for further 54 examples, and only in two of them was the resulting vowel not a or e (mähäl above and nö- bet below). In the remaining three, there is perhaps just one chance of a phonetic explanation, namely the influence of ū in the following syllable in buhur. There are, however, fifteen counterexamples, e.g. magmun < maġbūn, mamur < maʿmūr, or resul < rasūl. The six cases in i are cile et- < gˇalāʾ, divit < dawāh, fitil < fatīl, memeliket < mamlakah, mülazimet et- < mulāzamah, and müsellim < musallam. Again, a half of them begin with a nasal consonant, but this can hardly be considered an explanation since the unusually adapted a is always in one of the following syllables, and the influence of m is not only not particularly strong, but also apparently limited to just fronting (see above on e and on u). One or more a’s were lost in inşalla < ʾin šāʾa Allah, kubbes sehera < qubbah as.-s.ahra, rakı < ʿaraq, and zafran < zaʿfarān. In the first two, the phonetic reason˘ seems clear enough. As for rakı, there are sixteen more words with ʿa- in anlaut, which is consistently reflected as a- or e-. Lastly, zafran appears to have no particular phonetic properties, apart perhaps from being trisyllabic. See 2.2.1 below. The three cases in ö (cöher < gˇawhar, dövlet < dawlah, nöbet < nawbah), and the one in o (coap < gˇawāb), all have a w directly following the unusually rendered a. The phonetic process would seem to be clear, but the influence of w was apparently not particularly strong as there are twenty more words with the aw sequence that yielded ev (nine times), av (seven times), or ab, au, eb, iv (once each). Finally, the sole example of â is in kâbap < kabāb.

To sum up, a is by far the most common vowel in the Arabic etyma and, as it will be seen below, one whose adaptation is the most diversified and the least predictable. There is effectively but one conclusion to be made, that a is most likely to yield ö or o if followed directly by a w.

Turkologia.indb 282 2016-03-17 17:00:55 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 283

ا ā 2.1.2 a e â i Ø ä ā 217 15 6 5 3 1

Let us take a closer look at the cases of fronting: fifteen in e, six in â, and one in ä Five of the words with e have very a similar structure: cellet < gˇallād, cevze < gˇawzāʾ, ceze < gˇazāʾ, cile et- < gˇalāʾ, and mane < maʿnà are all disyllabic, have a in the first and ā in the second syllable, and three of them end in ʾ. There are, however, three more words like it, and ā did not yield e in them: carra < gˇarrāh. , cevlan et- < gˇawlān and coap < gˇawāb. The remaining examples with gˇa do not have an ā anywhere in them. As for āʾ, the sequence appears in 33 more words, including sixteen times in auslaut, and only once does it result in an e, in reha, for which see below. In another four, ā is preceded by k: hekmet < h. ikmāh, hakek < h. akkāk, keferet < kefārah (see 2.1.3 below on e in Arabic), and keten < kattān. More com- monly, this sequence yields kâ (below), but at least the fronting influence of k is clearly visible. Note that the second is the only example in which k stands directly before ā; in the remaining three, k appears to have acted on ā on dis- tance. In the last case it might have been helped, at least graphically, by the non-emphatic t (in itself, this would not have been enough as ā yielded a in all the remaining five words where it was preceded by t). Twice the ā is directly after r, in reha < rāʾih. ah (see also above), and in revent < rāwant. The same sequence is present in another 32 words, where it consistently yields a. In only one of them is it in anlaut, in rahat < rāh. ah. The remaining four words are hemile < h. āmilah, sedef < sadāb, sefer < s.afār, teselle et- < tasallà. The first and the third of them are more surprising, for both h. and s. tend to be associated with a backing rather than fronting influence (see 2.1.6 below). Connected to the above are the six words with â, dükkan < dukkān,3 ekâbur < al-ʾakābir, inkâr < ʾinkār, kâfil < kāfir, kâtup < kātib, and sikâat < < šikāyah. There is only one counterexample, kaimli < kāʾim. The one example with ä is esäp < h. isāb.

In five words, ā yielded i: ceyiz < gˇihāz, cumazi elaher < gˇumādà l-āhirah, divit < dawāh, kiri < kirāʾ, tebrit < tawrāh. In three, it was dropped entirely:˘ barat < barāʾah, halta < qilādah, and istah < ʾištihāʾ. In none of those cases can

3 Rocchi gives ‹dükkan›, but in the light of Argenti’s spelling of ‹ducchian›, and modern dük- kân, I believe this to be a misprint.

Turkologia.indb 283 2016-03-17 17:00:55 284 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

I see any particular phonetic circumstance that might have been the cause for the unusual rendering.

Evidence of phonetic influence is a rare find in our material. Here, two such tendencies can be postulated: the inclination of long vowels to retain their colour considerably more often than their short counterparts, and the fronting influence of k that is sufficiently strong to overcome this inertia – apparently even when not in direct contact.

2.1.3 e a e e 1 1

Rocchi suggests non-classical etyma for two words, keferet < kefārah, and mahrama < maqrame. Strictly speaking, the etyma are not for Argenti’s shapes as such, but for related Ottoman and modern dialectal and literary Turkish forms. The first word has the meaning ‘bisogno; necessità’. Rocchi connects it to Ott. keferet ‘effectus, efficacia, operatio, et medicina, medium’, derived from Ar. kefārah ‘penitenza, ammenda, riparizione’. He explains the semantics through the phrasal usage in such expressions as ne keferete yarar? ‘a che serve?’ or bir keferete yaramaz ‘non serve’ (à Mesgnien Meninski 1680: II 3982), reinterpreted as ‘che bisogno ce n’ è?’, ‘non ce n’ è bisogno’, and points to the verb keferet olmak ‘non trovarsi quando se ne ha maggior bisogno’. The Arabic phonetics, however, Rocchi does not explain. ALOT gives the word in two forms, keferet, and kefāret, and derives both from kaffārät, also without commentary. I could not find the word in Eren 1999, Kabataş 2007, Nişanyan, or VEWT. Maybe Rochhi’s reason was that the geminated f should have been preserved? There are but two examples for ff in Argenti; the intervocalic in şaffaf < šaffāf, and the final, shortened, inkef < kaff (2.1.7 in part one), which is not quite enough for statements to be made about the behaviour of Arabic ff in loanwords in Otto- man Turkish. With mahrama, the semantic side is more clear, and centres around ‘ker- chief, scarf’. As for phonetics, however, and the exact etymon, there is no con- sensus. Rocchi posits dialectal maqrame for modern literary and dialectal Turkish mahrama; Eren 1999 suggests the same and identifies the form as Syr- ian; ALOT lists the following Turkish forms: maharma, mahrama, makrama, mäkrämä, and makreme, and derives all from mah. rama; TTAS cites mahreme as the etymon, and VEWT mah. rama; Nişanyan goes in the opposite direction and derives the Turkish word from English ~ French macramé ~ Italian mac-

Turkologia.indb 284 2016-03-17 17:00:55 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 285

ramè while English, French and Italian dictionaries return the favour and explain the European forms as borrowings from Turkish mahrama, makrama, mikrama, and even *makrame (CNRTL, OED, Treccani); Kabataş 2007 does not appear to include the word. A detailed discussion would be out of place here, but this example will serve well as an illustration of a more general point that I would like to make in 3 below.

2.1.4 i i ı u Ø e a y ü i 76 25 12 12 10 8 8 3

Phonetic patterns are not obvious among the twenty-five cases in which i yielded ı. In five words, i is preceded by an emphatic consonant (against four in which this sequence resulted in a different vowel); in four, i is followed by q (against two in which this yielded ik); in another four i is preceded by q (against four in which the outcome was a or no sound); in three i is preceded by h (against two, where it gave ha and he). In the remaining seven I could only˘ find less frequent and even less convincing properties – which is not to say that suppositions cannot be made; e.g. in mısır < Mis.r there is an emphatic consonant, in kına < h. innāʾ there is an h. , and in rızg < rizq there is a q just a little further away – it is to say that there are either relatively many counterexamples with the same phonetic surrounding which did not lead to backing, or that there are hardly any similar cases at all, and nothing can be deduced from them at an acceptable level of certainty. Examples: hadır < h. āz. ir, hızmet < hidmah, kıbla < qiblah, kayıp < ġaib, sır < sirr. ˘ In the case of the dozen words with u, the situation is yet more difficult. Phonetic similarities between them are rather few (five times followed by m, three times preceded by m, three again by l, two times followed by r, two times again by z, &c.), and for each there appear to be at least as many cases that yielded a different vowel. Examples: baluk < bāliġ, kalup < qālib, kumar < qimār, muhtur < muh. d. ir, sufur < s.ifr. See also nauz < nabid. below.

A little more can be said about those words which had their i dropped. The biggest, and particularly surprising group among them is that of five examples where the initial i- or ʾi- was omitted, resulting in a consonant clus- h ter in anlaut: htiyar < ʾihtiyār, mısır skenderiya < al-ʾIskandariyya , spat < it-- bāt, şarat < ʾišārah, and ˘zar < ʾizār. There are 21 words with initial i-, ʾi-, or ʿi- which yielded a vowel. In four words, it is tempting to put down the dropping of the i to the fact that it was in the middle syllable of a three-syllable word: agbet < ʿāqibah, haşa

Turkologia.indb 285 2016-03-17 17:00:55 286 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

< ġāšiyah, reha < rāʾih. ah, and takya < t.aqiyyah. However, there are twenty more words with this structure, and all have their i’s preserved as one vowel or another – and in only nine of them is one or both of the remaining two vowels high, e.g.: ahırat < al-āhirah, evliya < ʾawliyāʾ, fayda < fāʾida, vesiyat < was.iyyah. Especially interesting is˘ the case of htiyar < ʾihtiyār which did have one of its i’s dropped but certainly not the one that I would have expected. See also 2.2.1 below. In two examples, and only in these two, the dropped i was the Arabic geni- tive suffix: ruhulla < rūh. u ʾllāhi, and suphanalla < subh. āna ʾllāhi. The former phrase could have been reinterpreted as a Persian ezāfe, but the latter apparently must have been treated simply as a single word without internal gram- matical structure. Lastly, nauz < nabid. . It is not in fact entirely certain that the Ottoman Turkish u is a reflex of Arabic b, not of Arabic i, but it does seem to be a more likely assumption. Cf. daul < t.abl, and 2.2.6 in part one. See also below on three cases where it is not clear whether i was dropped, or turned into y.

The ten cases of e are bedeat < bid ʿah, ceyiz < gˇihāz, cumazi elaher < gˇumādà l-āhirah, esäp < h. isāb, eztrafil < isrāfīl, ezzet < ʿizzah, hekmet < h. ikmāh, marefetsiz <˘ maʿrifah, mehenk < mih. akk, and meymar < miʿmār. Perhaps two properties can be singled out: the proximity of ʿ, and the proximity of h/h. /h. As for ʿ, the confusion apparently caused by the ʿi- sequence in anlaut,˘ was already mentioned in part one (2.1.2). There are six words with this sequence, but ezzet is the only one where the e can be derived directly from i. Thei ʿ sequence appears in meymar < miʿmār and in dalıh < t.āliʿ. There are only three cases with i and ʿ separated by a single sound: above-mentioned bedeat and marefetsiz, and ayıp < ʿaib. As for h-type consonants: ih yields e in one of four cases (ceyiz above), hi in none of seven; h. i yields e in two of five cases (esäp and hekmet above, vs e.g. kına < h. innāʾ or sahip < s.āh. ib), ih. in one of three (mehenk above, vs e.g. mıhırap < mih. rāb); hi yields e in one of five cases (cumazi elaher above, vs e.g. ahırat < al-āhirah), and˘ ih does not in the one case in which it appears (above- mentioned htiyar˘ ). ˘

The eight cases of a are ayar et- < ʿiyār, bayat < bāʾit, halta < qilādah, istah h < ʾištihāʾ, kantar < qint.ār, masat < mišh. ad-, matlama < maz. lima , and pahal < bāhil. They do not appear to be sharing any particular phonetic property, or to have˘ one in common with the examples in e.

Turkologia.indb 286 2016-03-17 17:00:55 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 287

The eight words where i gave y seem to be far easier to explain, as it is always to do with one of ʾ and ʾ, and hiatus. In five, the y is clear: ayıp < < ʿaib, ayvaz < ʿiwad. , eyişk < ʿišq, fayda < fāʾidah, and tayfa < t.āʾifah, and in further three it is uncertain: aca(y)ip < ʿagˇāʾib, kara(y)ip < ġarāʾib, and müla(y)im < mulāʾim. See also above on dropping of i, and in part one, 2.2.3 on hiatus. Finally, the three words with ü are hümmet < himmah, mühümm < < muhimm, and üllet < ʿillah. The shared phonetic properties, the proximity of ʿ or of h, do not explain much; see above. The proximity of m appears to have had little influence, but if any, it was fronting (see 2.1.6 below), which is also of little help here.

Overall, few specific adaptations of i can be directly associated with any particular phonetic property. The proximity of ʾ, ʿ, or an h-type consonant appears to sometimes result in an unusual rendering, but the ratios do not even warrant the use of the term ‘tendency’. Vowel harmony does not seem to have played an important role.

ی ī 2.1.5 i ı e u Ø a ü (y)i ī 59 6 2 2 1 1 1 1

The six examples with ı are ahır zaman < āhīr, hasıl < qas.īl, hasır < h. as.īr, katıfa < qat.īfah, razı < rad. ī, and zayıf < d. aʿīf. In˘ four cases, the backing might have been due to the preceding emphatic consonant, but there are not enough data to support this supposition: s.ī resulted in sı in two out of three cases, the odd one being vasi < was.ī; for d. ī and t.i the examples listed here are the only ones, and there are no examples at all for z. ī. However, see the adaptation of short i in 2.1.4 above. As for ahır, it might have been the long ā that set the harmony which ı merely followed. Lastly, for zayıf I could find neither an explanation, nor a phonetically similar case. The two words in e are esa < ʿĪsā and seylan < sīlān, and the two in u are hamur < hamīr and talum < taʿlīm. The unusual cases with one example each are: no sound:˘ hegbe < h. aqībah, a: şäraat < šarī ʿah, and ü: müškül < muškil (on the š, see the excursus in 1 in part one). For neither of them is there any obvious phonetic reason for deviation from the standard adaptation of ū > u.

Overall, the only phonetic tendency that can be seen in these examples, is the already mentioned habit of long vowels to retain their colour.

Turkologia.indb 287 2016-03-17 17:00:55 288 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

2.1.6 u u ü o ö a i Ø ı e u 40 24 11 5 4 3 3 2 1

Let us examine the 24 cases in ü in a little more detail. In fourteen, the u is in the initial syllable and preceded by m-; I suppose that also mühtan < buhtān may be considered together with this group. Alto- gether, Argenti records thirty words which stem from Arabic words in mu-; in the remaining sixteen, the u is dropped twice (mamala < muʿāmalah, mavanet < muʿāwanah), once yields e (mekrif < muqrif), and thirteen times u. Of these, nine contain an h. (3×), a q (4×), or an s. (2×) directly after the u, which is never the case in those words in which u yields ü. The other four are muaf < muʿāf, murat < murād, mutavazza < mutawaz. z. āʾ, and muti < mutīʿ. Argenti’s collection does not contain phonetically close counterexamples where u gave ü, but it should be pointed out as somewhat surprising that the non-emphatic t in the last two examples was not read by the Ottoman Turks as a sign of front vocal- ism. It appears that in most cases, the result was decided between the fronting influence of m and the backing influence of h. , q, and s., without significant interference from vowel harmony, as long ā is consistently rendered as a in these fourteen examples, leading in five to a disharmonic vowel sequence. Exam- ples for mü- < mu-: mühümm < muhimm, mülazum < mulāzim, müneccimlik < munagˇgˇim, müsafir < musāfir. In four, the u is adjacent to a k: dükkan < dukkān, küfür < kufr, kürum < kurunb, sükürla- < šukr. The palatalizing influence of k is particularly clear in kürum. There are two more words in which u is adjacent to k: hokum < h. ukm (h. appears to have a backing effect), and tedarik < tadāruk. The remaining four words are less clear: cürüm < gˇurm, ömür < ʿumur, rebi ülevvel < rabī ʿu-l-awwal, and sümbüle < sunbulah. As for cürüm, the palatalizing factor was probably gˇ; it is adjacent to u in four words, and only in cumazi elaher < gˇumādà l-āhirah did it not yield a front vowel. As for ömür, the fronting was probably due˘ to the combined influence of m (above) and vowel harmony. As for rebi ülevvel, the situation is a little less clear: ʿu yields ö twice (ömür and örf < ʿurf), once ü, and once u (unnap < ʿunnāb). Finally, for süm- büle there does not appear to exist a ready and phonetics-based explanation.

In eleven cases, u yielded o. In seven, it was adjacent to q (e.g. kovvat < quwwah, lokma < luqmah), then, partly overlapping, in four to h. (hokka < h. uqqah, hokna < h. uqnah, hokum < h. ukm, sohpet < s.uh. ba) and, overlapping again, in two to s. (sobbet < s.ubbah and sohpet). The remaining one is dova < duʿāʾ. The u was

Turkologia.indb 288 2016-03-17 17:00:55 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 289

always in the initial syllable, and all the etymons save h. ukm were disyllabic (note that h. ukm also yielded hokum). In eight cases, the syllable with u was closed. There seem to be no more phonetic similarities between them. It is not very clear, however, which of them would have caused the round- ing. The qu- sequence yields ku- in seven out of nine cases, and kovvat is the only example in ko-. The uq sequence yields ok six times, uk four times, and ek (below) and ık once each. Likewise with h. : h. u yields three hu and three hu (plus one hö), and uh. yields three uh and just one oh (sohpet). Similarly with s.: s.u gives so two times, and sa and su once each; us. gives us in four out of four cases. Disyllabic stems with u in the initial, closed syllable have also quite often not resulted in o in Ottoman Turkish.

The five examples with ö are höccet < h. ugˇgˇah, ömür < ʿumur, örf < ʿurf, şöhret < šuhrah, and töhümet < tuhmah. As for the ʿu sequence, there are two counterexamples, unnap < ʿunnāb, and rebi ülevvel < rabī ʿu-l-awwal. As for the other two words, I can see no particular phonetic similarities between them. The four words in a are dalan < fulān, hazaran < hayzurān, kamame < kanīsat al-qumāmah, and sanduk < s.undūq. They do not˘ appear to share any specific phonetic characteristic. The three words in i: tedarik < tadāruk, tekellif < takalluf, and veledizina < waladu ʾz-zināʾ. Again, no obvious phonetic reason is to be found in them for the unusual rendering. The three cases of dropped u are alla ta ala < ʾAllāhu taʿālà, mamala < muʿāmalah, and mavanet < muʿāwanah. In the first one, it can be suspected that the phrase, although it contains exclusively Arabic words, is in fact a gram- matical translation into Ottoman Turkish, with the syntactic function of the Arabic nominative marker being taken over by an (unsaid) predicative suffix. In the latter two, the elision was probably one of the relatively few attempts at removing hiatus, cf. 2.2.1 below, and 2.2.3 in part one. The two u that yielded ı are both in one word, fıstık < fustuq. Phoneti- cally close counterexamples are lacking, but cf. fursat < furs.ah or müsellim < < musallam. Lastly, the one case of e is in mekrif < muqrif. See above on mu- and on uq.

Overall, few phonetic tendencies can be spotted. A fronting influence can be associated with m and k, and a backing influence with h. , q and s., but their exact force is difficult to establish; vowel harmony does not appear to have played a significant role. Most changes seem to have little phonetic justifica- tion.

Turkologia.indb 289 2016-03-17 17:00:55 290 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

و ū 2.1.7 u i o ı û ū 33 4 4 2 1

The four words with i are: pelit < ballūt., zeytin < zaytūn, zilhicce < d-ū-l- h h h. igˇgˇa , and zilkade < d-ū-l-qaʿda . As for the first one, there are no more examples for ūt., but there are three with lū; in ballūt., ū yielded i, in nawlūn it yielded o (below), and only in maʿlūm was it retained. As for zeytin, the -ūn sequence appears to be causing a slight confusion, as in four out of nine words in which it appears, it was rendered with a vowel other than u (almost a half, while for all of the words with u the ratio is only one to three); nonetheless, cf. zeytuni < zaytūnī. As for the last two words, the d-ū sequence does not appear in any other example; the ūl sequence does, in the auslaut of four words, and in three of them it yields u (the exception is mazıl below). There are also four words with o: afyon < ʾafyūn, maona < maʿūn, navlon < < nawlūn, and sof < s.ūf. For the first three, the -ūn ending is a possible factor (cf. zeytin above). For sof cf. hususa < hus.ūs.ā, surat < s.ūrah, and tufan < t.ūfān. The two words with ı are mazıl ˘< maʿzūl and nışadır < nūšādir. Exact phonetic counterexamples are missing from Argenti’s collection but cf. makul < maʿqūl, resul < rasūl, and kanun < qānūn, nur < nūr. Lastly, the one case with û is mezkûr < mad-kūr. It appears that in this case, the length of ū proved to be a more powerful factor than the palatalizing influence of m, k, and vowel harmony, combined. Note that, in Argenti’s material, ū never yields *ü.

Overall, few phonetic trends can be seen here. The final -ūn was found to have been slightly confusing, and the tendency of long vowels to retain their colour was confirmed.

2.2 Other

2.2.1 Ellipsis There are 23 cases of vowel ellipsis. Most were mentioned above when dis- cussing specific sounds; here they are collected for convenience. In six, the reason was quite clearly to avoid hiatus, mostly one that would have otherwise arisen after the dropping of ʿ or ʾ: barat < barāʾah, inşalla < ʾin šāʾa allah, kubbes sehera < qubbah as.-s.ahra, mamala < muʿāmalah, mavanet < < muʿāwanah, and reha < rāʾih. ah. I should˘ remark, however, that hiatus was apparently not as odious to Ottoman Turkish as one might imagine, as it was actually allowed to form in about as many words as it was removed from. One

Turkologia.indb 290 2016-03-17 17:00:55 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 291

example of this is nauz < nabid. , possibly a case of an ellipsis of i; see 2.1.4 above. On hiatus, see 2.2.3 in part one. In five, it is the initial i- or ʾi- that was dropped and in most cases left, somewhat surprisingly, a consonant cluster in anlaut. They are: htiyar et- h h < ʾihtiyār, mısır skenderiya < al-ʾIskandariyya , spat < it-bāt, şarat < ʾišāra , and zar˘ < ʾizār. See 2.1.4 above. A similarly unexpected case is that of rakı < ʿaraq – especially when contrasted with urum < rūm, see 2.2.2 below. Four examples are high vowels in the middle syllable of a trisyllabic word: agbet < ʿāqibah, haşa < ġāšiyah, hegbe < h. aqībah, and takya < t.aqiyyah. The phonetic explanation might seem to be clear, but there are actually twenty more words with a similar structure, and they all had their middle vowels preserved; see 2.1.4 above. Perhaps similar to these, are two cases of a dropped low vowel in the middle syllable of a trisyllabic word, halta < qilādah, and zafran < zaʿfarān; see 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 above. In three words, a vowel was dropped together with the Arabic inflectional suffix: alla ta ala < ʾAllāhu taʿālà, ruhulla < rūh. u ʾllāhi, and suphanalla < sub- h. āna ʾllāhi. See 2.1.4 and 2.1.6 above. There is one case of a near-final ā being dropped. It is in istah < ʾištihāʾ. In eighteen other words, the same sequence in auslaut yielded a-, e-, or once, i-, e.g. evliya < ʾawliyāʾ, iftira < ʾiftirāʾ, or zurafa < z. urafāʾ.

2.2.2 Epenthesis There are 40 cases of vowel epenthesis. The most numerous and most readily understandable group among them is that of words which ended in Arabic in a consonant cluster, or a sequence of semivowel + consonant. There are 26 such cases, all but two monosyllables. The inserted vowel tends to be high (18 examples), the same as the previous vowel if that was also high, or if not, its closest high counterpart. Examples: asıl < ʾas.l, bezir < bad-r, cürüm < gˇurm, hokum < h. ukm. There is one exception to this, sabur < s.abr. In eight cases, the new vowel is low, but it is still inserted between the two consonants: bazahar < bāzahr, kadar < qadr, nefes < nafs, rakam < raqm. Lastly, in two cases the vowel is not only low, but also appended to the word: fehme < fahm, and vehme < wahm. These are two out of three words with the hm sequence; the third one is töhümet < tuhmah. Somewhat surprisingly, the h. m and hm sequences are not repaired (three examples: rahmat < rah. mah, zahmat < zah˘. mah, and mahmur < mahmūr); hn was changed to hin in the only word it appeared in (rehin < rahn), while˘ h. n and hn did not appear at all. In further seven words, the offending cluster˘ was intervocalic: cetivel < gˇadwal, kubbes sehera < qubbah as.-s.ahra, mahaden < mahzan, makara < bakra, melehem < marham, memeliket <˘ mamlakah, and mıhırap˘ < mih. rāb.

Turkologia.indb 291 2016-03-17 17:00:55 292 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

There are no more intervocalic examples for dw, hz, ml, or rh. The remaining hr, h. r, and kr are present, and preserved, in one word˘ each (mahrum < mah. - ˘rūm, mehres < mahragˇ, and tekrar < takrār). Here, only two of the new vowels are high. ˘ In two cases, a vowel was inserted before the Arabic article: cumazi elaher < gˇumādà l-āhirah, and elahasılı < al-h. ās.il. Note that in the latter, there is another epenthesis,˘ at the end of the word. There are three more case of this, kadimi < qadīm, maona < maʿūn, and rakı < ʿaraq. The latter stands in contrast to our last example, urum < rūm, as it has had its beginning stripped of it, ex- posing an r- in anlaut, while urum received an additional vowel apparently for no other reason than to suppress the r- in anlaut. There are 21 more words with an r-, e.g. ruhulla < rūh. u ʾllāhi, or rup < rubʿ.

2.2.3 Vowel harmony Vowel harmony has already been mentioned several times above, mostly together with the opinion that it either seems to have had little impact on the specific adaptation, or that it exercises its influence in somewhat mysterious ways. The present paper is based on a total of 575 loanwords. Most of them, 386, were already harmonic in Arabic. In Ottoman Turkish, this number has grown to 444, but this difference is not simply due to non-harmonic words being harmonized upon borrowing. Such is the case with 99 examples but at the same time almost half as many, 41, have been disharmonized. The transition from Arabic to Ottoman Turkish raised the percentage of harmonic words from 67 h only to 77%. Examples of harmonized words: elim < ʿalīm, zilhicce < d-ūlh. igˇgˇa , hemile < h. āmilah, selim < salīm, şerit < šarīt.; examples of disharmonized words: h alem < ʿālam, zilkade < d-ūlqaʿda , hamel < h. amal, salamalek < salāmʿalayk, seretan < sarat.ān.

It has proven rather difficult to discover the phonetic properties that gov- ern the adaptation, and the task is not made easier by the possible interference of vowel harmony. Below, I will give a brief account of my attempt at untan- gling this knot. It was not successful, and I only recount it as a caveat of a prob- able dead end. I thought to exploit the fact that 131 of the Ottoman Turkish words are not harmonic. I assumed that for some reason, vowel harmony did not work in their case, and that I would be able to learn from them how Arabic phonetics influences the adaptation, so as to later analyze the harmonic words, disre- garding the previously identified factors, and thus arrive at a list of properties linked to vowel harmony.

Turkologia.indb 292 2016-03-17 17:00:55 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 293

I compiled for each specific vowel change a list of phonetic properties of its surrounding, taking into account the three preceding and the three following sounds, the three previous and the three next consonants and vowels (not necessarily covered by “three surrounding sounds”), and also a note whether the Arabic word contains an emphatic consonant, a k, l, or q, whether the etymon or the borrowing are harmonic, how many syllables they have, and in which the vowel in question is. There were more than a hundred properties per change, such as the ones mentioned in 2.1.1 above, and a total of 1261 different properties. First, I used market basket analysis (a data mining technique used to discover co-occurrence relationships), but the rules it returned proved to be no more enlightening than e.g. “if the previous vowel is low and back, then the previous vowel is a”. In the second try, I assumed the following, neuron-like mechanism: each property contributes a certain weight (possibly zero) to every direction in which the adaptation may proceed. If the sum total of these weights is greater than a specific value, the “inertia” of the vowel, adaptation is applied in which- ever direction accumulated the most weight behind it. For example, should the fact that the preceding consonant is emphatic be more effective than the inertia of ī, together with the fronting influence of the following k, the result will be an ı. Sadly, my exercise proved fruitless. I cannot tell whether it is because the mechanism I assumed is incorrect, because I did not manage to find the cor- rect way to establish the weights of specific properties, or because of another problem that lurks much deeper in our methodology (see 3 below).

Thus, I was not able to establish in what way vowel harmony had affected our loanwords. It might appear, tentatively, that the phonetics of the etymon has in fact little bearing on harmony – or, for that matter, the actual outcome of the adaptation of vowels in general.

3. Summary The adaptation of the vowels of Arabic loanwords in Ottoman Turkish appears to be considerably more diversified than that of consonants and semivowels. There is, however, a fairly sharp difference between short and long vowels. The latter may yield multiple results, but one always clearly dominates; the former are distributed more evenly.4 Other than that, little evidence is to

4 This is reflected by normalized Shannon entropy (see fn. 4 in part one): 0.295 for ā, 0.34 for ī, and 0.546 for ū versus 0.428 for a, 0.771 for i, 0.733 for u, and 1 for e.

Turkologia.indb 293 2016-03-17 17:00:55 294 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

be found of the original Arabic phonetics influencing the Ottoman Turkish rendering. It would appear that k and m favour fronting, h. , q, and s. encour- age backing, and ʾ, ʿ, h-type consonants, and final-ūn cause a little confusion. None of the above is a novel observation or, more importantly, one that could be clearly and incontestably demonstrated in Argenti’s material. This brings up a deeper problem. It may be that the adaptation of vowels is indeed somewhat erratic and phonetic rules simply cannot be established. It may also be that they do exist, but vary considerably depending on region, education, manners,5 and perhaps other factors, and that Argenti’s collection is composed of words that entered Ottoman Turkish through very different channels, and the resulting apparent randomness is illusory. It may be that the collection is not so diversified, and that phonetics is in fact decisive, but the etyma are to be looked for in Arabic dialects rather than in the classical language. Perhaps other explanations are also possible. The first possibility is hopeless; the other two are not so, but they wind up into a vicious circle. Words with certain and complete etymologies are needed to discover the rules, phonetic or otherwise, but until these rules are known, at best only very few such etymologies can be established. The word mahrama, in 2.1.3 above, might serve as an illustration of this point.

References and abbreviations ALOT = Stachowski S. 1975–1986 Ar. = Arabic CNRTL = Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales, www.cnrtl.fr Eren H. 1999, Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlügˇü, Ankara. Foy K. 1898, Der Purismus bei den Osmanen. – Mitteilungen des Seminars für orientalische Sprachen an der Königlichen Friedrich Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin 1, Abt. 2, 20–55. Kabataş O. 2007, Kıbrıs Türkçesinin Etimolojik Sözlügˇü, Lefkoşa. à Mesgnien Meninski F. 1680, Thesaurus Linguarum Orientalium Turcicæ, Ara- bicæ, Persicæ […], Vienna Nişanyan = NişanyanSözlük. Çagˇdaş Türkçenin Etimolojisi, nisanyansozluk. com. OED = Oxford English Dictionary, www.oed.com Ott. = Ottoman Turkish

5 See e.g. already Foy 1898: 42: “Die breitere Aussprache a für e ist die vulgäre” in words such as avret < ʿawrat, mesel < mas.al, or suret < s.ūrat, or such mentions in à Mesgnien Meninski 1680 as in V 26: “Dativus […] pronuntiatur propriè e; ſæpe autem, præſertim apud plebem, ut a”.

Turkologia.indb 294 2016-03-17 17:00:55 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 295

Räsänen M. 1969, Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türkischen (= Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae Türksprachen XVII,1), Helsinki. Rocchi L. 2011, Il Dizionario Turco-Ottomano di Arcangelo Carradori (1650), Trieste. Stachowski K. 2015, Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Otto- man Turkish (1533). Part 1. Consonants and semivowels, in: E. Mańczak- -Wohlfeld, B. Podolak (ed.), Words and Dictionaries. A Festschrift for Pro- fessor Stanisław Stachowski on the Occasion of His 85th Birthday, Kraków, pp. 297–317. Stachowski S. 1975–1986, Studien über die arabischen Lehnwörter im Osma- nisch-Türkischen (= Prace Komisji Orientalistycznej PAN 13, 15, 17, 19), Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków – Gdańsk – Łódź 1975, 1977, 1981, 1986. Treccani = Thesaurus, www.treccani.it TTAS = Türkiye Türkçesi Agˇızları Sözlügˇü, www.tdg.gov.tr/index.php?option= com_ttas VEWT = Räsänen 1969

Appendix Below is a list of Arabic loanwords in Ottoman Turkish on which the present paper is based. It is divided into two subsections; the first with 575 fairly clear and certain words which were included in the discussion and are given here together with their etyma; and the second with 78 more ambiguous cases which were discarded, and which I only list here for convenience and without their (uncertain) etyma. Possible reasons for such treatment were as fol- lows: the form in the manuscript is unclear (asterisked by Rocchi, see 2007: 13); more than one phonetic shape of the etymon is possible; more than one reading is possible.6 The ordering is as in Rocchi 2007, by the Ottoman Turkish form; superscript plus ‹+› denotes an oblique shape. The several cases where I depart from Rocchi’s reading are footnoted.

6 This includes words that are only attested in an oblique form such that the nominative cannot be unequivocally reconstructed from it, e.g. karbi << ġarīb (← *karip? *karp?), as opposed to sultanun < sult.ān, where *sulta would be a highly improbable rendering. This does not, however, include words with multiple spellings if Rocchi reduced them all to a single reading.

Turkologia.indb 295 2016-03-17 17:00:55 296 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

Included

abdal < ʾabdāl bakla < baqlah abes < ʿabat- balgam < balġam abraş < ʾabraš baluk < bāliġ acami < ʿagˇamī barat < barāʾah acap < ʿagˇab basbasa < basbasah aca(y)ip < ʿagˇāʾib battal < bat.t.al adäm < ādam bayat < bāʾit adät < ʿādah bazahar < bāzahr afyon < ʾafyūn bedeat < bidʿah af < ʿafw beden < badan agbet < ʿāqibah bereket < barakah ahırat < al-āhirah bes < bas ahır zaman <˘ āhīr beyit < bayt ˘ aht < ʿahd bezir < bad-r akıl < ʿaql bina < bināʿ akrap < ʿaqrab budala < budalāʿ aktar < ʿat.t.ār buhurlimana < bahūr alehi < ʿalayhi bäla < balāʾ ˘ alem < ʿālam cahil < gˇāhil alla ta ala < ʾAllāhu taʿālà caiz < gˇāʾiz alla < ʾAllāh cariye < gˇāriyah almas < ʾalmās carra < gˇarrāh. amanat < ʾamānah cehennem < gˇahannam aman < ʾamān cellet < gˇallād arap < ʿarab cemi < gˇamī arz < ʿard. cem < gˇam aseli < ʿasalī cennet < gˇannah asıl < ʾas.l cep < gˇayb aşık < ʿāšiq cetivel < gˇadwal atlas < ʾat.las cevlan et- < gˇawlān ayar et- < ʿiyār cevze < gˇawzāʾ ayıp < ʿaib cevz < gˇawz ayvaz < ʿiwad. ceyiz < gˇihāz aziz < ʿazīz ceze < gˇazāʾ bagdat < Baġdād cile et- < gˇalāʾ bahar alatı < ālah cilt < gˇild bahar < bahār cima et- < gˇimāʿ bakam < baqqam cins < gˇins

Turkologia.indb 296 2016-03-17 17:00:56 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 297

coap < gˇawāb ezzet < ʿizzah cöher < gˇawhar fakir < faqīr cumazi elaher < gˇumādà l-āhirah farfuri < farfūrī cuma gün < al-gˇumʿāh ˘ fark < farq cürüm < gˇurm fayda < fāʾidah daim < dāʾim fehme eyle- < fahm dalan < fulān felek < falak dalap et- < t.alab feraat et- < faraġa dalıh < t.āliʿ fesat < fasād dan eyle- < taʿn fetfa < fatwà daul < t.abl fıstık < fustuq daur < tawr fikir < fikr davun < t.āʿūn fil < fīl defet- < daf ʿ fitil < fatīl delu < dalw fursat < furs.ah din < dīn ganimetlik < ġanīmah divit < dawāh garaz < ġarad. dova < duʿāʾ gibrit < kibrīt dövlet < dawlah habala < h. awālah dükkan7 < dukkān habar < habar ebabil < (t.ayr) abābīl hacat < h˘. āgˇah ebleh < ʾablah hadır < h. āz. ir ecel < ʾagˇal hadum < hādim edep < ʾadab had < h. add˘ ekâbur < al-ʾakābir hain < hāʾin elahasılı < al-h. ās.il hakek <˘ h. akkāk elim < ʿalīm hak < h. aqq emin < ʾamīn halal < h. alāl endek < handaq halas et- < halās. esa < ʿĪsā˘ halayık < h˘alāʾiq eset < ʾasad halik < hāliq˘ ˘ h espap < ʾat-wāb halka < h. alqa esäp < h. isāb halk < halk evliya < ʾawliyāʾ halta <˘ qilādah evvel < ʾawwal halvat, halvatçe < halwah eyisk8 < ʿišq hal < h. āl ˘ eztrafil < isrāfīl hamal < h. ammāl

7 More likely, dükkân; see 2.1.2. 8 More likely, eyişk; see the excursus in 1 in part one.

Turkologia.indb 297 2016-03-17 17:00:56 298 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

hamal < h. aml höccet < h. ugˇgˇah hamam < h. ammām htiyar et- < ʾihtiyār hamel < h. amal hudut < h. udūd˘ hamla < lamh. ah hususa < hus.ūs.ā hamur < hamīr hut < h. ūt ˘ hanife < Abū˘ h. anīfa huzur < h. ud. ūr haps < h. abs hümmet et- < himmah haraç < harāgˇ ıslah < is.lāh. harami <˘ h. arāmī ibra < ʾibrāʾ haram < h. arām idrak < ʾidrāk harap < harāb iftira < ʾiftirāʾ harba < ˘h. arbah iman < ʾīmān hardal < hardal inaet < ʿināyah hasıl < h. ās˘.il incil < ʾingˇīl hasıl < qas.īl inkâr < ʾinkār hasır < h. as.īr insaf < ʾins.āf has < has.s. inşalla < ʾin šāʾa allah haşa <˘ ġāšiyah intifak < ʾittifāq haş haş < hašhāš intizar < ʾintiz. ār hatır < hāt˘.ir ˘ ishal < ishāl hava < ˘hawāʾ istah < ʾištihāʾ hayır < hayr istifrak et- < ʾistifrāġ hayraddin˘ < hayr ad-dīn istilah < ʾis.t.ilāh. hayran < hayrān˘ kâbap < kabāb hayratsız ˘< hayrāt kaba < qabāʾ hayr < ġayr˘ kabil < qābil hayvan < h. aywān kabul et- < qabūl hazaran < hayzurān kabz et- < qabd. hazna < hazna˘ h kadah < qadah. hazret < ˘h. ad. rah kadar < qadr hazzet- < h. az. z. kadimi < qadīm hegbe < h. aqībah kafas < qafas. hekim < h. akīm kâfil < kāfir hekmet < h. ikmāh kafil < ġāfil hemile < h. āmilah kail < qāʾil hıyar < hiyār kaimli < kāʾim hızmet <˘ hidmah kalaba < ġalabah hokka < h.˘uqqah kalam < qalam hokna < h. uqnah kalip < ġālib hokum < h. ukm kalup < qālib

Turkologia.indb 298 2016-03-17 17:00:56 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 299

kamame < kanīsat al-qumāmah kurban < qurbān kantar < qint.ār kusur < qus.ūr kanun < qānūn kuts < al-quds kapan < qabbān küfür < kufr karamat/karamatı+ < ġarāmah kürum < kurunb kara(y)ip < ġarāʾib lagap < laqab kasaba < qas.aba lagum < laġam kasap < qas.s.āb lahta < lah. z. ah kasavet < qasāwah layık < lāʾiq katıfa < qat.īfah lazum < lāzim kâtup < kātib leylek < laqlaq h kavs < qaws lezzet < lad-d-a kayıp < ġaib lokma < luqmah kayrat et- < ġayrah lutf < lutf kazıl < ġazl macun < maʿgˇūn keferet < kefārah magmun < maġbūn kefil < kafīl mahaden < mahzan kef gel- < kaff mahalla < mah.˘allah kelam < kalām mahmur < mahmūr kemallı < kamāl mahpup < mah˘. būb kerem < karam mahrama < dial maqrame keret < karrah mahrum < mah. rūm keten < kattān makara < bakra kıbla < qiblah makas < maqās.s. kına < h. innāʾ makpara < maqbarah kırba < qirbah maksut < maqs.ūd kıyamet < qiyāmah makul < maʿqūl kıyas < qiyās malum < maʿlūm kimiya < kīmiyāʾ mal < māl kiri < kirāʾ mamala < muʿāmalah kispet < kiswah mamur < maʿmūr kitap < kitāb mane < maʿnà kovvat < quwwah maona < maʿūn kubbes sehera < qubbah as.-s.ahra marefetsiz < maʿrifah h ˘ kudret < qudra masat < mišh. ad- kumar < qimār maskara9 < mashara kumaş < qumāš mastlahat < mas˘.lah. ah kuran < qurʾān maşala < mašʿalah

9 More likely, mashara; see the excursus in 1 in part one.

Turkologia.indb 299 2016-03-17 17:00:56 300 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

maşat < mašhad mukabeleci < muqābalah matlama < maz. limah mukaddem < muqaddam mavanet < muʿāwanah mukarrer < muqarrar mavi < māwī mukayyat olma- < muqayyad mazıl < maʿzūl munara < manārah mecal < magˇāl murat < murād medet < madad musaabet < mus.āh. abah medrese < madrasah musaf < mus.h. af mehenk < mih. akk muştut < mašdūd mehres < mahragˇ mutavazza < mutawaz. z. āʾ mekrif < muqrif˘ muti < mutīʿ mektup < maktūb mücerret < mugˇarrad melehem < marham müderris < mudarris melek < malak müfti < muftī memeliket < mamlakah mühtan < buhtān menn et- < mann mühümm < muhimm meremmet < marammah mülazimet et- < mulāzamah merhaba < marh. aban mülazum < mulāzim mertebe < martabah müla(y)im < mulāʾim mert < mard müneccimlik < munagˇgˇim mesel < mat-al mürekkep < murakkab meydan < maydān müsafir < musāfir meyil < mayl müsellim < musallam meymar < miʿmār müskül10 < muškīl n mezkûr < mad-kūr müsteri < muštari mıhırap < mih. rāb müzevir < muzawwir mısır skenderiya < al-ʾIskandariyyah mähäl < mah. all mısır < Mis.r nadar < naz. ar miktar < miqdār nakkaş < naqqāš mil < mīl nakt < naqd mizac < mizāgˇ nalet < laʿnah mizan < mīzān nal < naʿl muaf < muʿāf nanä < naʿnaʿ muhada < mihadah natır < nāt.ir muhassal < muh. as.s.al nauz < nabid. muhebbet < mah. abbah navlon < nawlūn muherrem < muh. arram nazar et- < naz. ar muhtur < muh. d. ir nazar < nad. ar

10 More likely, müşkül; see the excursus in 1 in part one.

Turkologia.indb 300 2016-03-17 17:00:56 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 301

nebi < nabīʾ sabur < s.abr nefes < nafas sadık < s.ādiq nefes < nafs safa < s.afāʿ nışadır < nūšādir safi < s.āfi nihayat/nihayatı+ < nihayah safra < s.afrāʾ nişan < nišān sahip/sahibi+ < s.āh. ib niyet < niyyah sahi < s.ah. īh. niza < nizāʿ sakat < saqat. nokta < nuqt.ah saka < saqqāʾ nöbet < nawbah salamalek < salām ʿalayk nur < nūr salamat < salāmah nuzla < nazlah salavat < s.alawāt ömür < ʿumur samah < samāʿ örf < ʿurf sanduk < s.undūq pahal < bāhil saraç < sarrāgˇ pelit < ballūt˘ . sarraf < s.arrāf racim < ragˇīm savap < s.awāb rahat < rāh. ah say eder < saʿy rahmat < rah. mah sebep < sabab rakam < raqm sedef < sadāb rakı < ʿaraq sedef < s.adaf ramal < ramal sefer < safar ramazan < ramad. ān sefer < s.afār rammal < rammāl sefi < safīh ras < raʾs seher < sah. ar razı < rad. ī selim < salīm rebi ülevvel < rabīʿu-l-awwal seretan < sarat.ān recep < ragˇab sevr < -tawr redd et- < radd seylan < sīlān reha < rāʾih. ah seyran < sayrān rehin < rahn sır < sirr resul < rasūl sikâat < šikāyah revent < rāwant siyaset < siyāsah rızg < rizq sobbet < s.ubbah roka < ruqʿah sof < s.ūf ruhulla < rūh. u ʾllāhi sohpet < s.uh. bah rup < rubʿ sokak < zuqāq h saat < sāʿa spat < it-bāt saba < s.abāh. sufur < s.ifr sabun < s.abūn sulh < s.ulh.

Turkologia.indb 301 2016-03-17 17:00:56 302 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

sultanun+ < sult.ān tayfa < t.āʾifah suphanalla < subh. āna ʾllāhi tayin < taʿyīn surat < s.ūrah tazir < taʿzīr suval et- < suʾāl tebrit < tawrāh sükürla- < šukr tedarik < tadāruk sümbüle < sunbulah teftiş < taftīš şaban < šaʿbān tekellif < takalluf şaffaf < šaffāf tekrar < takrār şahit < šāhid telbis < talbīs şakir < šākir tellak < dallāk şap < šabb tembih < tanbīh şarap < šarāb temcit < tamgˇīd şarat < ʾišārah terbiyet < tarbiyah şarbet < šarbah tercibe < tagˇribah şavaat < šafāʿat terk dünya < tark şavk < šawq teselle et- < tasallà şerit < šarīt. tespi < tasbīh. şeri < šarʿ testlim < taslīm h şer < šarr tezkere < tad-kara şevval < šawwāl tezvir < tazwīr şeyh < šayh töhümet < tuhmah şeytan < šayt˘ .ān tufan < t.ūfān şe(y)it < šahīd täfaut < tafāwut şöhret < šuhrah unnap < ʿunnāb şäraat < šarīʿah urum < rūm tabak < t.abaq üllet < ʿillah tabak < dabbāġ vada < waʿdah tabi < tābi vafir < wafīr tabut < tābūt vakt < waqt tahıl < dahl vasi < was.ī tahkik < tah˘ . qīq vaz < waʿz. takya < t.aqiyyah veç < wagˇh talik < taʿlīq vehme < wahm talum et-/eyle- < taʿlīm vekil < wakīl tamam < tamām veledizina < waladu ʾz-zināʾ tarabulus < t.arābulus aš-šāmi vesiyat < was.iyyah taraf < t.araf vezne < waznah tarih < tāʾrīh ve < wa tasfir < tas.wīr˘ vilaet < wilāyah tasma < hašmah yahudi < yahūdī

Turkologia.indb 302 2016-03-17 17:00:56 Phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Argenti’s Ottoman… 303

yahya < Yah. yà zavallı < zawāl ya rabbi < yā Rabbi zayıf < d. aʿīf yemeni < yamanī zenzebil < zangˇabīl h zaç < zāgˇ zerre < d-arra zafran < zaʿfarān zerzele < zalzalah zahmat < zah. mah zeytin < zaytūn zalum < z. alim zeytuni < zaytūnī zaman < zamān zift < zift h zambak < zanbaq zilhicce < d-ū-l-h. igˇgˇa h zampt < s.amġ zilkade < d-ū-l-qaʿda zapt et < d. abt. zina < zinà zarafet < z. arāfah zinet < zīnah zarar < d. arar zira < d-irā zaruri < d. arūrī ziyadä < ziyādah zar < ʾizār zurafa < z. urafāʾ zar < zār zurnapa < zarāfah zar < zahr Not included

abulsen hata/hada anhmak, ahmak havala anıson/anison hekâ(a)t bakı/baki hıdırellez/kıdırellez bellur hormet/hörmet bel(l)ut isilam bombarek ismi+ bombassır izmürüt/zümrüt ceb(i)r/cebri+ kab(ı)z cedi kadı/kazı cerh kalaa/kalaya+ cumazi yel evvel karbi+ dünyä/dünya kavul/kaul ecis mecis kırmızı/krımızı ehli+ krar/inkrar et- ehtibar/htibar kumet/komet/kımet elbet leppe emri+ madam* hacı madur/mazur harc/harcı+ mafa

Turkologia.indb 303 2016-03-17 17:00:56 304 Oriental Studies and Arts. Contributions Dedicated to Professor Tadeusz Majda on His 85th Birthday

magerbi+/magırbi+ nıgris/mıkris mahamuz rebi evelahır masav resmi+ ma(h)sum rusfat/ruşat melem salam* meret/miras sefte mesela/metela skender adülkerin mismillahe+ şa(h)ir muhannat/muhanat şüpfe/şübe mukap tefer(r)iç munafik/münafik tekbir/tegbir mu(hu)nkûr tekeb(b)ür mu(h)kem tekye/tekke münkün/münkin tellal/dellal mürüet tevekelli/tevekkeli müsevedde ud/öd agacı nakşı+/naş zembil nasıp/nasip zenaat/zana(h)at nazahat/nazi(y)at zulum/zulüm

Turkologia.indb 304 2016-03-17 17:00:56