DOCSLIB.ORG

THE EARLIEST TURKISH LOAN WORDS in MONGOLIAN Author(S): GERARD CLAUSON Source: Central Asiatic Journal, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE EARLIEST TURKISH LOAN WORDS in MONGOLIAN Author(S): GERARD CLAUSON Source: Central Asiatic Journal, Vol THE EARLIEST TURKISH LOAN WORDS IN MONGOLIAN Author(s): GERARD CLAUSON Source: Central Asiatic Journal, Vol. 4, No. 3 (1959), pp. 174-187 Published by: Harrassowitz Verlag Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41926439 . Accessed: 15/10/2014 13:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Harrassowitz Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Central Asiatic Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:15:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE EARLIEST TURKISH LOAN WORDS IN MONGOLIAN by Sir GERARD CLAUSON London In an articlein theCentral Asiatic Journal , II, 3, entitled"The Case against theAltaic Theory", I statedthe reasons for which I do notbelieve that the Turkishand Mongolianlanguages are geneticlyrelated, and in an article in Studia Altaica, the Festschriftfor Prof. Poppe publishedin the Ural- AltaischeBibliothek (1957), entitled"The TurkishY and relatedsounds", I producedevidence which shows that the Mongols or theirancestors at three differentperiods borrowedwords from three differentTurkish dialects (or languages1),one of whichwas older than any whichnow survive. In the presentarticle, a summaryof whichwas read at the 24thInter- national Congress of Orientalistsin Munisch in September,1957, I proposeto carrythe subjecta stagefurther and to discuss,first how it is possibleto determinein whichof the two languagesa word commonto bothis nativeand in whichit is a loan word,secondly what light is thrown on the problemby a studyof the historyand pre-historyof the two peoples, and finallyat what periods and fromwhat dialectsthe earlier Turkish loan words in Mongolian were borrowed. The second part involvesinter alia an examinationof thearchaeology of an area in which littlesystematic work has yetbeen done and of whichno comprehensive account has yetbeen published. This part of the articleis thereforeno more than a preliminaryand incompletestudy of a verycomplicated subjecton whichwe may confidentlylook to the futureto throwmore light. It is commonground that a greatmany words, including even verbs, 1 Thequestion when two later forms of a singlelanguage cease to be "dialects"and become"languages" in theirown right has beendiscussed at greatlength without reachinga satisfactoryconclusion for dealing with doubtful cases. In thepresent article,for the sake of clarityI haveused "language" only for "Mongolian" and "Turkish"and "dialect"for any form of thoselanguages, although some of these "dialects"are generally, and quite rightly, recognised as languages in their own right. This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:15:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE EARLIESTTURKISH LOAN WORDS IN MONGOLIAN 175 occurboth in one or moreTurkish dialects and in one or moreMongolian dialects,either in exactlythe same formor in formsso similarthat their identityis certain. If it is acceptedthat Turkish and Mongolianare des- cendedfrom a common"Altaic" ancestor,this is easilyexplained; but if thisis not accepted,and personallyI do not accept it, thenit mustbe shown that the words concernedare native to one language and loan words in the other,and methodsmust be worked out of determining whichlanguage is thelender and whichthe borrower. It seemsto me that thereare at leastsix methods,one or moreof whichcan be appliedin any individualcase. One method,and veryoften the simplest, is to examinethe word in both languagesand ascertainwhether it is the traditional,perhaps the only, word fora particularconcept in one languageand a moreor less super- fluousduplicate of some other word in the other. When one people dominatesanother, as for examplethe Mongols dominatedthe Tuvans rightdown to the earlypart of the presentcentury, the language of the latterpeople becomes completelysaturated with the vocabularyof the former,words being borrowedright and lefteven when perfectlygood nativewords exist for the same concept. The same thingmay happen when two peoples speakingdifferent languages are in intimatecontact withone another,even withoutany politicalrelationship of superiority and subordination.Let me give a specificexample. There are in 8th centuryTurkish at least two wordsmeaning "to fear,be afraid",kork - and iirk-, as wellas otherwords with related meanings, like eymen- "to be nervous,shy". All thesewords are stillin currentuse in manyTurkish dialects. Neverthelessat thepresent time there is currentin all partsof the Turkish-speakingworld except Azerbaijan and Turkeya word çoçi- "to be afraid",which is the normalword forthis concept in Mongolian. It musthave been borrowedat a comparativelyrecent date, since there is no authorityfor its existencein Turkishprior to the 19thcentury (this does not mean thatit was borrowedquite as late as this,there are manygaps in the record). Converselyeven in theearliest surviving Mongolian dialect, that of the Secret Historycompiled in the middle of the 13th century,there are several pairs of words, one peculiar to Mongolian and seeminglythe normal word for the concept concernedand the other found also in Turkish and there traceable back to the 8th century;for example for "year" hon and also jil (in Turkish cil),2 for "half" diili and also 2 For MongolianI use the standard system of transliteration used, for example, by Prof.Poppe, for Turkish the official alphabet of theTurkish Republic with a few This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:15:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 176 SIR GERARDCLAUSON jarim (carini) and for "camping ground" nutuyand also ayil (agii). Thus if one of the two languagesuses a word,let us call it "word A", for a particularconcept and the other language uses another word, "word B", forit and also wordA, itis safeto assumethat word A is a loan word in the second language. Secondly,if a word commonto both languagescan be identifiedas a derivedword, for example a deverbalnoun derivedfrom a verb, or a denominalverb formedfrom a noun, and the word fromwhich it is derivedis peculiar to one of the two languages,then it can safelybe assumedthat the derived word is a loan wordin the otherlanguage. Let me give a specificexample. Thereis a Turkishword verbyar- "to split, divide", in some dialects pronouncedcar-; fromit are derivedyarim (carini),a Noun of SingleAction, meaning "a singleaction of dividing, i.e. half", and yargu(carģu), a Noun of Actionmeaning "dividing" in a metaphoricalsense, presumably between right and wrong,hence "a legal process or decision". Both the basic verb and its derivativesoccur in Turkishfrom the earliest period. In Mongolianthere is no traceof a verb yar- (Jar-)"to divide", but Jarimand faryuboth occur with the same meaningas in Turkish,and bothmust be loan words,Jarim both for this reasonand forthe reasons already stated (under the first method). The thirdmethod rests on a studyof the way in whichderived words are formed.Derived words are formedin thesame wayin bothlanguages by attachingsuffixes to the basic formsof verbsor nouns. Such suffixes may be simple,as forexample the Turkishsuffixes -im and -ģu (see the precedingparagraph), or compound,as for example a nominal suffix attachedto a verbalsuffix, used to forma verbalnoun froma denominal verb. Generallyspeaking the suffixes used in the two languagesare quite different;where they are identicalthe explanation seems to be eithersheer coincidence,or the borrowingof the actual suffixitself. In the case of compoundsuffixes the fact that borrowing has takenplace can sometimes be provedby thefact that the constituentparts of the suffixdo not both occurin theborrowing language.8 A good exampleof a purelyMongolian suffixis -langj-leng,used to formNouns of Action or State fromverbs, additionalletters as explainedin the preamble to"The Turkish Y andrelated sounds". Onecorrection tothe transliterations usedin that paper must be made. A studyof the bP*ags-paalphabet has convinced me that the velar sound which occurs in the Secret Historyshould be transliteratedy and not % (x). Theborrowing ofconstituent parts of words as wellas wholewords is not unusual in otherlanguages. For example, in English philo-, "fond of", borrowed from Greek, is usedto make compound words like "philoprogenitive", ofwhich the second element is notGreek. This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:15:31 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE EARLIESTTURKISH LOAN WORDS IN MONGOLIAN 177 e.g.fobalang "suffering" from joba - "to suffer".A good manywords with thissuffix occur in some modernTurkish dialects, which have been under strongMongolian influence. They are all loan words. Converselythere is a Turkishdesiderative verbal suffix -sa-/-se- attached both to verbsand nouns to formverbs meaning"to wish to", e.g. sev- "to love", hence sevse-"to wishto love" ; suv "water",hence suvsa - "to wishfor water, be thirsty".This verbalsuffix is unknownin Mongolian. From it is formed thenominal suffix -sag/seg "fond of", e.g. in Turkisherseg "(a woman) fondof men,nymphomaniac". A numberof such
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Regular Is Japanese Loanword Adaptation? a Computational Study
    How Regular is Japanese Loanword Adaptation? A Computational Study Lingshuang Jack Mao and Mans Hulden Department of Linguistics University of Colorado lima4664,mans.hulden @colorado.edu { } Abstract The modifications that foreign loanwords undergo when adapted into Japanese have been the subject of much study in linguistics. The scholarly interest of the topic can be attributed to the fact that Japanese loanwords undergo a complex series of phonological adaptations, something which has been puzzling scholars for decades. While previous studies of Japanese loanword accommodation have focused on specific phonological phenomena of limited scope, the current study leverages computational methods to provide a more complete description of all the sound changes that occur when adopting English words into Japanese. To investigate this, we have de- veloped a parallel corpus of 250 English transcriptions and their respective Japanese equivalents. These words were then used to develop a wide-coverage finite state transducer based phonolog- ical grammar that mimics the behavior of the Japanese adaptation process, mapping e.g cream [kôi:m] to [kW.Ri:.mW]. By developing rules with the goal of accounting completely for a large number of borrowings, and analyzing forms mistakenly generated by the system, we discover an internal inconsistency within the loanword phonology of the Japanese language, something arguably underestimated by previous studies. The result of the investigation suggests that there are multiple dimensions that shape the output form of the current Japanese loanwords. These dimensions include orthography, phonetics, and historical changes. 1 Introduction Borrowing lexical items from one language to another is a common linguistic phenomenon. For example, someone can wear a beret /b@"reI/ while enjoying sushi /"suSi/ next to a pet alpaca /æl"pæk@/.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Change in the Wake of Empire
    THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LANGUAGE CHANGE IN THE WAKE OF EMPIRE: SYRIAC IN ITS GRECO-ROMAN CONTEXT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF NEAR EASTERN LANGUAGES AND CIVILIZATIONS BY AARON MICHAEL BUTTS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS JUNE 2013 Copyright © 2013 by Aaron Michael Butts All rights reserved. ii Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xv List of Graphs .............................................................................................................................. xvi Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... xvii Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... xviii Abbreviations for Bibliography .................................................................................................... xx Abbreviations in Linguistic Glosses .......................................................................................... xxiii Abbreviations and Citations of Biblical Books .......................................................................... xxv Transliteration .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Vocabulary of Inanimate Nature As a Part of Turkic-Mongolian Language Commonness
    ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 6 S2 ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy November 2015 The Vocabulary of Inanimate Nature as a Part of Turkic-Mongolian Language Commonness Valentin Ivanovich Rassadin Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor, Department of the Kalmyk language and Mongolian studies Director of the Mongolian and Altaistic research Scientific centre, Kalmyk State University 358000, Republic of Kalmykia, Elista, Pushkin street, 11 Doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n6s2p126 Abstract The article deals with the problem of commonness of Turkic and Mongolian languages in the area of vocabulary; a layer of vocabulary, reflecting the inanimate nature, is subject to thorough analysis. This thematic group studies the rubrics, devoted to landscape vocabulary, different soil types, water bodies, atmospheric phenomena, celestial sphere. The material, mainly from Khalkha-Mongolian and Old Written Mongolian languages is subject to the analysis; the data from Buryat and Kalmyk languages were also included, as they were presented in these languages. The Buryat material was mainly closer to the Khalkha-Mongolian one. For comparison, the material, mainly from the Old Turkic language, showing the presence of similar words, was included; it testified about the so-called Turkic-Mongolian lexical commonness. The analysis of inner forms of these revealed common lexemes in the majority of cases allowed determining their Turkic origin, proved by wide occurrence of these lexemes in Turkic languages and Turkologists' acknowledgement of their Turkic origin. The presence of great quantity of common vocabulary, which origin is determined as Turkic, testifies about repeated ancient contacts of Mongolian and Turkic languages, taking place in historical retrospective, resulting in hybridization of Mongolian vocabulary.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Influence of Turkic Languages on Kalmyk Vocabulary
    Asian Social Science; Vol. 11, No. 6; 2015 ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education On the Influence of Turkic Languages on Kalmyk Vocabulary Valentin Ivanovich Rassadin1 & Svetlana Menkenovna Trofimova1 1 Kalmyk state University, Department of Russian language and General linguistics, Elista, Republic of Kalmykia, Russian Federation Correspondence: Valentin Ivanovich Rassadin, Kalmyk state University, Department of Russian language and General linguistics, Pushkin street, 11, Elista, 358000, Republic of Kalmykia, Russian Federation. E-mail: [email protected] Received: October 30, 2014 Accepted: December 1, 2014 Online Published: February 25, 2015 doi:10.5539/ass.v11n6p192 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n6p192 Abstract The article covers the development and enrichment of vocabulary in the Kalmyk language and its dialects influenced by Turkic languages from ancient times when there were a hypothetical so called Altaic linguistic community in the period of general Mongolian linguistic condition and general Oirat condition. After Kalmyks moved to Volga, they already had an independent Kalmyk language. The research showed how the Kalmyk language was influenced by the ancient Turkic language, the Uigur language and the Kirghiz language, and also by the Kazakh language and the Nogai language (the Qypchaq group). Keywords: Kalmyk language vocabulary, vocabulary development, Altaic linguistic community, general Mongolian vocabulary, ancient Turkic loanwords, general Kalmyk vocabulary, Turkic loanwords in Derbet dialect, Turkic loanwords in Torgut dialect, Turkic loanwords in the Sart-Kalmyk language 1. Introduction As it is known, Turkic and Mongolian languages together with Tungus-Manchurian languages have long been considered kindred and united into one so called group of “Altaic languages”.
    [Show full text]
  • A Female Demon of Turkic Peoples
    Acta Ethnographica Hungarica 64(2), 413–424 (2019) DOI: 10.1556/022.2019.64.2.11 Albasty: A Female Demon of Turkic Peoples Edina Dallos Research Fellow, MTA–ELTE–SZTE Silk Road Research Group, Hungary Abstract: Albasty is one of the most commonly known malevolent beings among Turkic peoples from the Altay Mountains via the Caucasus and up as far as the Volga River. This article focuses on Turkic data from the Volga region (Chuvash, Tartar, Bashkir) and the Eurasian Steppe (Kazak, Kyrgyz, Nogay, Uzbek). Various areas can be ascertained on the basis of verbal charms and folk-belief narratives. On the Eurasian Steppe, for example, Albasty was first and foremost a puerperal demon. In this territory, specialists (kuuču) were called in to keep away or oust the demon at birth. Many recorded legends and memorates concern healing methods and the process of becoming a healer. In contrast, epic texts or narratives are rarer,in the Volga region, yet there are certain verbal incantations against the Albasty, which here is rather a push or disease demon. Keywords: Turkic beliefs, Turkic folklore texts, Turkic demonology, folklore of Inner Asia In this paper, I will endeavour to give an overview of a mythical creature, the concept of which is widespread among most Turkic peoples. This belief has a long history and can also be evidenced in the myths and beliefs of peoples neighbouring the Turks. No other Turkic mythical beast has such extensive literature devoted to it as the Albasty. Although most relevant literature deals with the possible etymologies of the term, there are plenty of ethnographic descriptions available as well.
    [Show full text]
  • A Combined Sociolinguistic and Experimental Phonetic Approach To
    A combined sociolinguistic and experimental phonetic approach to loanword variation and adaptation by Zachary Jaggers A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics New York University September, 2018 Renée Blake Lisa Davidson Acknowledgements Thank you, the reader of this work, and all those invested in thinking critically about language, how it works, and what it can reflect about the groupings and even the ideologies in society. To my co-chairs, thank you for your encouragement of my combined interests. Discus- sions with each of you over the years pushed me to refine my research while always feeling like it was still my program that I was shaping: the best kind of academic mentorship. Lisa Davidson, the chair I knew I would work with from the start, your work inspired my own and your resolutely empirical approach will continue to influence the way I think about language and the methods of studying it. I’m grateful for your guidance, frankness, around-the-clock responsiveness, and feedback both big-picture and small-scale. Renée Blake, the chair I had no idea I would work with when I started, I’m so glad we connected early in my program. You helped me develop a better research program by continually drawing my attention to the interplay of identities, ideologies, and biases. You helped me develop into a better researcher by pushing me to meditate on how these are also at play within myself, to acknowledge their potential influence in all facets of the academic process, and to check such influence.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Classification of the Chuvash-Turkic Languages
    A NEW CLASSİFICATİON OF THE CHUVASH-TURKIC LANGUAGES T A L Â T TEKİN * The Chuvash-Turkic languages are generally called “Turkic lan­ guages” (Germ. Türkische Sprachen, Russ. Tjurkskie jazyki ) in the Turkic studies circles of the world. This term is not very appropriate if it is in- tended that it cover also the Chuvash language, because while ali the Turkic languages with the exception of Chuvash go back to Proto-Turkic vvhich was a z/s language, Chuvash goes back to Proto-Chuvash (or Pro- to-Bulgarian) vvhich obviously was a r/l language. In other vvords Chu­ vash and the Turkic languages are not the so-called “sister languages”, but they are descendants of two sister languages. It is for this reason that we have to assume, for the Chuvash-Turkic languages, a proto-language vvhich is older than Proto-Turkic and Proto-Chuvash. Such a proto-lan- guage may be called Proto-Chuvash-Turkic or simply Pre-Turkic (Germ. Vortürkisch). The affinity of Chuvash vvith the other Turkic languages may then be schemed as follovvs: Pre-Turkic i*r, * i ) Proto-Chuvash ( *r, */) Proto-Turkic (* z, *s) Modem Chuvash (r, l) Modem Turkic languages (z, s ) The Chuvash-Turkic languages are spoken today in a vast area stretching from the shores of the Baltic Sea in the vvest to the shores of the Sea of Okhotsk in the east, and from the shores of the Arctic Ocean * Professor, Hacettepe University, Faculty of Letters, Head of the Department of Tur- kish Language and Literatüre, Ankara. ■30 TALÂT TEKİN in the north to the shores of Persian Gulf in the south.
    [Show full text]
  • The Imposition of Translated Equivalents to Avoid T
    International Humanities Studies Vol. 3 No.1; March 2016 ISSN 2311-7796 On some future tense participles in modern Turkic languages Aynel Enver Meshadiyeva Abstract This paper investigates phonetic and morphological-semantic features and the main functions of the future participle –ası/-esi in modern Turkic languages. At the present time, a series of questions concerning an etymology of the future participle –ası/-esi in the modern Turkic languages does not have a due and exhaustive treatment in the Turkology. In the course of the research, similar and distinctive features of the future participles –ası/-esi in Turkic languages were revealed. It should be noted that comparative-historical researches of the grammatical elements in the modern Turkic languages have gained a considerable scientific meaning and undoubted actuality. The actuality of the paper’s theme is conditioned by these factors. Keywords: Future tense participle –ası/-esi, comparative-historical analysis, etimology, oghuz group, kipchak group, Turkic languages, similar and distinctive features. Introduction This article is devoted to comparative historical analysis of the future tense participle –ası/- esi in modern Turkic languages. The purpose of this article is to study a comparative historical analysis of the future tense participle –ası/-esi in Turkic languages. It also aims to identify various characteristic phonetic, morphological, and syntactic features in modern Turkic languages. This article also analyses materials of different dialects of Turkic languages, and their old written monuments. The results of the detailed etymological analysis of the future tense participle –ası/-esi help to reveal the peculiarities of lexical-semantic and morphological structure of the Turkic languages’ participle.
    [Show full text]
  • Unnecessary English Loanwords in Albanian Language2
    26 Interdisiplinary Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 4, no. 4, 2017 Fatlinda AVDULLAI1 UNNECESSARY ENGLISH LOANWORDS IN ALBANIAN LANGUAGE2 Abstract The aim of this research is tobring the product and content of a new research study. While the numbers of unnecessary loanwords from English are being used increasingly today in Albanian language, I consider that the main reason for studying this topic is to find out the reasons why these words are being used, are the people of Kosovo aware of using these unnecessary loanwords. Also, to see if these unnecessary loanwords or as we call them ‘Anglicisms’ are being used in the official documents implemented by the government of Kosovo, and in the end to know who is responsible for this phenomenon. It emphasizes the large number of loanwords that have penetrated into Albanian after the war in Kosova, and today the main reason why is happening this phenomenon is because of globalization. This research deals with the history of loanwords, time, causes, their use, and recommendations based on the results that have been found in this research. Keywords: Anglicisms, impact, use, Official documents Introduction ‘Observim’ or ‘vrojtim’? Or maybe ‘implementim’ instead of ‘zbatim’ since using them is better than using our own words, and into the eyes of the people we are going to look smarter than the others? Today Albanian language is in danger of losing its grammatical norm from unnecessary loanwords, which are being penetrated into the language because of negligence. During its history 1 AAB COLLEGE; FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE Email: [email protected]@universitetiaab.com 2 Paper presneted in “3 International Conference ‘Foreign Languages in a Global World, Linguistics, Literature, Didactics” Durres, June 2017” Interdisiplinary Journal of Research and Development, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Lingual Bridges with Models of Lexical Borrowing
    Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 55 (2016) 63-93 Submitted 03/15; published 01/16 Cross-Lingual Bridges with Models of Lexical Borrowing Yulia Tsvetkov [email protected] Chris Dyer [email protected] Language Technologies Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA Abstract Linguistic borrowing is the phenomenon of transferring linguistic constructions (lexical, phonological, morphological, and syntactic) from a “donor” language to a “recipient” lan- guage as a result of contacts between communities speaking different languages. Borrowed words are found in all languages, and—in contrast to cognate relationships—borrowing relationships may exist across unrelated languages (for example, about 40% of Swahili’s vocabulary is borrowed from the unrelated language Arabic). In this work, we develop a model of morpho-phonological transformations across languages. Its features are based on universal constraints from Optimality Theory (OT), and we show that compared to several standard—but linguistically more naïve—baselines, our OT-inspired model obtains good performance at predicting donor forms from borrowed forms with only a few dozen training examples, making this a cost-effective strategy for sharing lexical information across languages. We demonstrate applications of the lexical borrowing model in machine translation, using resource-rich donor language to obtain translations of out-of-vocabulary loanwords in a lower resource language. Our framework obtains substantial improvements (up to 1.6 BLEU) over standard baselines. 1. Introduction State-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) tools, such as text parsing, speech recognition and synthesis, text and speech translation, semantic analysis and inference, rely on availability of language-specific data resources that exist only for a few resource-rich languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Science Journal 2014;11(7S) Http
    Life Science Journal 2014;11(7s) http://www.lifesciencesite.com Some results of the research system-synchronous modern dialect of the Tatar language Ferits Yusupovich Yusupov and Irina Sovetovna Karabulatova Kazan Federal University, Tatarstan str, 2, Kazan, 420021, Russian Federation Abstract. This article analyzes the study of modern dialects of the Tatar language. The authors were carried out dialectological expeditions over the years of various regions of residing Tatars. The authors have drawn parallels with the different groups of Turkic languages. The specific layer is highlighted in the diasystem, which we nominally call as oguzizms. They belong to archaism category and have the anachronistic character. Their presence in all specific systems shows that these forms were frequently used, but later they were superseded by “rival” forms. It seems probable that these forms were derived from old-Kipchak language. Nowadays they are considered as the old-Turkic layer of origins. The authors provide new classification parameters to allocate Tatar dialects. [Yusupov F.Y., Karabulatova I.S. Some results of the research system-synchronous modern dialect of the Tatar language Life Sci J 2014;11(7s):246-] (ISSN:1097-8135). http://www.lifesciencesite.com. 50 Keywords: Turkology, Tatar language, modern dialect, Classificatory features of dialects, verb Introduction the formation of infinitive forms from archaic action Researchers are studying the Turkic nouns (as uku faydaly / reading is useful) and languages from different positions. However, the main participles. The formation of participles became line of research is based on the ethnography of complicated by means of additional morphological speaking and contrastive linguistics. The first is features as a result of grammatical designation of directed represented widely in the American studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies and Patterns of Loan Verb Integration in Modern Greek Varieties1
    In Angela Ralli (ed.) Contact Morphology in Modern Greek Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press 2016, 73-108 STRATEGIES AND PATTERNS OF LOAN VERB INTEGRATION IN MODERN GREEK VARIETIES1 ANGELA RALLI Abstract This paper investigates loan verbs in Modern Greek dialects, the typology of their accommodation strategies and the factors governing their use and distribution. More precisely, it examines how verbs from typologically different languages are integrated in a variety of systems of the same recipient language, that is Modern Greek, and what the constraints that determine the choice of a particular integrating strategy and a specific integrating element taken from a range of competing affixes are. It shows that there is more than one recurrent pattern and strategy which is employed by Modern Greek dialects to accommodate loan verbs, sometimes within the same variety, the selection of which depends on native morphological characteristics of the Greek verbal system, a certain phonological and structural compatibility of the languages in contact, as well as the degree of contact and the speakers’ socio-linguistic attitude towards the dominant language. It aims to contribute to the general research on loan verbs, makes inductive generalizations, and addresses the general issue of cross-dialectal loanword studies. 1 This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: ARISTEIA I. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund (Project director Angela Ralli). 74 Strategies and Patterns of Loan Verb Integration in Modern Greek Varieties 1.
    [Show full text]