DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Reflexes of Proto-Turkic Vowel Length in the Turkic Languages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Reflexes of Proto-Turkic Vowel Length in the Turkic Languages Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 132 (2015): 121–134 doi:10.4467/20834624SL.15.013.3934 ANNA V. DYBO Institute of Linguistics, RAS, Moscow [email protected] ON THE REFLEXES OF PROTO-TURKIC VOWEL LENGTH IN THE TURKIC LANGUAGES … Parmi ces lambeaux de phrases presque effacés, les flots ont respecté quelques chiffres: malheureusement, la longitude… — On s’en passera ! s’écria le jeune garçon. Jules Verne The 129th volume of Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis con- tained an annotated edition of a previously unpublished paper by one of the “fathers” of modern Altaic studies, W. Kotwicz, written, it appears, around 1938 (K. Sta chow- ski 2012). The edition is a critical one, and an attempt at conveying to the reader as accurately as possible what Kotwicz had intended to publish, i.e. what he might have considered to be the completed text. In my opinion, the editor has fully suc- ceeded in this. The publication is doubtless of great historical-linguistic importance. So is the history of its creation that the publisher gave in the introduction, for it is a novel contribution to our understanding of the evolution of one of the problems of Turkic and Altaic reconstruction that was debated throughout the second half of the 19th and the 20th century, the problem of “primary” long vowels in the Turkic languages. The views on the Manchu-Tungus and the Mongolic long vowels that Kotwicz had expressed in his paper, have generally remained unchanged till this day; with the Turkic, this is not the case. In this paper, I attempt to give a more detailed “contextual commentary” to Kot- wicz’s article, i.e. to present the wider context of his research, and what the Turkic historical-comparative linguistics has finally settled on; that is to say, the views that Turkologists-comparativists currently adopt on the shortness : longness op- position in Proto-Turkic, and how they were influenced by Ligeti’s paper mentioned in the editorial commentary. I hope that the reader, not necessarily an expert on 122 ANNA V. DYBO historical-comparative grammar of the Turkic languages, will be able to use this presentation to evaluate Kotwicz’s assumptions and conclusions, and eventually, to understand why he has never published his paper. In particular, we will see the role played by methodological flaws and lack of certain factual data which were not clarified until much later (especially those on vowel length in the languages of the Sayan group, referred to as “Uryankhai” in Kotwicz’s paper). As is known, Boetlingk (1851: 159–169) was the first to suggest phonological vowel length in Proto-Turkic. He compared Yakut long vowels and diphthongs with the long vowels of “Nizhny Novgorod Tatar”, i.e. Mishar Tatar. At any rate, the data he collected were sufficiently relevant to assume the length opposition fora * and *o. Boetlingk’s material makes it also possible to isolate secondary (contracted) long vowels and diphthongs in Yakut, i.e. the cases where other Turkic languages have a vowel-consonant sequence, such as in Yak. ȳs ‘smoke’ : Kazan ijis, Nizhny Novgorod īs. In this way, Boetlingk anticipates Grønbech’s objections; see below on his hypothesis. The idea of ancient long vowels was not immediately recognised. Budenz (1865) extended Boetlingk’s analysis of Yakut lengths with lengths in Uzbek and Chu- vash. We know today that in Uzbek, traces of long vowels can be found in dialects, in particular in the Oghuz Khwarezmian dialect, and in the dialects of Ikan and Karabulak (see below), although regular recordings have practically not been con- ducted. In Chuvash, Budenz saw the reflex of the original length in a different phenomenon, namely in the preservation of an old rising diphthong. Although it does not accurately correlate with vowel length,1 this misconception is to be seen even in modern Turkological literature, in the works of Ligeti, Räsänen, and Doerfer, and later ones (see Schönig in Janhunen 2005: 409). Foy (1900) established Proto-Turkic length based on the relations between the vowels in the Orkhon-Yenisey, Yakut, and Turkish. Later studies of Orkhon-Yenisey 1 The rising diphthong ia, both long and short, was introduced into the Proto-Turkic recon- struction after the work of Vladimircev and Poppe (1924). For PT a and ā : Chuv. jo­ (the more archaic form of the Upper dialect, Viryal) when the word begins with a vowel, and o with a palatalisation of the preceding guttural or dental postconsonantal consonant otherwise (PT *Kiān ‘blood’, Trkm. Gān, Khal. qān, Sal. Ga(:)n, Yak. xān, Chuv. jon; PT *Kiār ‘snow’, Trkm. Gār, Yak. xār, Chuv. jor; PT *Kiār­ ‘to mix’, Trkm. Gār­, Chuv. jor­, jur­; PT *Kiařy ‘abdominal fat’, Yak. xaha, Chuv. jor­var ‘modest food’; PT *diāλ ‘stone’, Trkm. dāš, Khal. tš, Yak. tās, Chuv. čol; PT *čiāk ‘time’, Trkm. čāG, Yak. sax, Chuv. čox; PT *siāk­ ‘to think’, Trkm. sāGyn­, Yak. āx­, Chuv. šoγъš; PT *siāryg ‘yellow, white’, Trkm. sāry, Khal. sāruγ ‘orange’, Yak. araγas, arȳ ‘butter’, Chuv. šorъ; PT *iak­ ‘to flow’, Trkm.aq ­, Chuv. jox­). Presently, it is widely accepted to treat this rising diphthong as a strictly Chuvash innovation and continuation of the Proto-Turkic long *ā. One can see why this attitude is incorrect; cf. the cases where the quite reliable Proto-Turkic *ā corresponds to Chuv. u (o) with no palatalisation at all: PT *Kāř ‘goose’, Trkm. Gāz, Yak. xās, Chuv. xor; PT *Kāpuk ‘bark’, Trkm. GābyG, Chuv. xobъ; PT *dāla­ ‘to bite’, Trkm. dāla­, Chuv. tola­, rесipr. tola­š­; PT *sāl ‘raft’, Trkm. sāl, Yak. āl, Chuv. solъ; PT *āř­ ‘to stray’, Trkm. āz­, Khal. hāz­, Yak. ās­, Chuv. or­; PT *āt­ ‘to tread’, Trkm. dial. āt­, ādym, Yak. atyllā­, Chuv. odъm, ot­. On the other hand, there are examples where a diphthong or palatalisation in Chuvash corresponds to short vowels in Turkmen and Yakut (as above in ‘abdominal fat’ and ‘to flow’), and in effect, a short diphthong needs to be reconstructed. See also Dybo 2007: 60. On the reflexes of Proto-Turkic vowel length in the Turkic languages 123 do not confirm the possibility of distinguishing long from short vowels in these attestations (see Kormušin 2008); length in literary Turkish is entirely secondary and due to the dropping of the final γ* ; finally, Foy’s data (1900: 214) on length in Turkish dialects is incomplete and inconsistent. Radloff suggested that those long vowels and diphthongs in Yakut that do not evidently originate from contractions of vowel-consonant sequences (still par- tially preserved in mediaeval texts), are products of secondary changes enforced by the necessity to create a semantic distinction between phonetically similar words, such as Yak. tās ‘stone’ and tas ‘outer part’. This explanation, positively abomina- ble for comparative linguistics as it is, was put forward in Radloff 1882–1883, 1901 (against Foy), and 1908. Grønbech, apparently, had initially identified the phenomenon of “Oghuz voicing” as the appearance of voiced intervocalic obstruents in Turkish after those vowels which correspond to long vowels in the analogous Yakut words (Grønbech 1902). Nonetheless, in the same book, he opposed the reconstruction of Proto-Turkic length, and proposed to explain all cases of Yakut long vowels and diphthongs through the syncope of intervocalic consonants – some of which have been preserved in other Turkic languages, and others have not – and offered quite speculatively such develop- ments as Yak. tüört ‘four’ < *töbärttä, Yak. xān ‘blood’ < *kajan, etc. Pedersen (1903) challenged this solution on methodological grounds. The debate continued with mixed success; there were attempts to include data from various Turkic languages in the comparison, but those proposals were easy to rebut as none of them was supported by a relevant number of comparisons. As it seems, the first to establish the phonological character of vowel length in Turkmen, and to demonstrate its regular correspondence to the reflexes of the origi- nal length in Yakut, was Polivanov in his two papers of 1923 and 1927. In the ear- lier one, he contests Radloff’s assumptions (1882–1883, §106): В. В. Радлов, приводя об’яснения якутских долгих гласных из стяжения двух слогов, склонен, видимо, отрицать наличие долгот в обще-турецкую эпоху— на том основании, что в прочих турецких языках (кроме якутского) он находит соответствующие краткие гласные. Но это происходит, очевидно, потому, что Радлову были незнакомы туркменские факты. На самом деле, соответствия якутской и туркменской долгот могут быть непосредственно истолкованы в пользу восстановления праязыковых обще-турецких долгих гласных (впо- следствии сокращенных другими тур. языками). Приведу хотя бы следующие примеры: якутск. ta:s «камень»—туркм. da:š (отличается долготой от daš «дале- кий»): якут. sa:s (< ja:z)—турк. ja:z (отличается долготой от jaz «пиши»): якут. bа:r «есть»—туркм. bа:r (отличается долготой от bar «иди»). (Polivanov 1923: 157)2 2 Radloff, by suggesting to explain Yakut long vowels through contraction of two syllables, is apparently inclined to negate the existence of lengths in the Proto-Turkic epoch on the grounds that in the other Turkic languages (except Yakut), he finds the corresponding vowels short. But this is clearly because Radloff was not familiar with Turkmen facts. In point of fact, the correspondences between Yakut and Turkmen lengths can be immediately interpreted in favour of reconstruction of primary long vowels in Proto-Turkic (which were subsequently shortened in the other Turkic languages). Let us cite at least the following examples: Yak. ta:s 124 ANNA V. DYBO Polivanov adduced also one case of appearing inconsistency: long in Yakut, short in Turkmen: Yak. a:t ‘name’ : Trkm. ad. His explanation for this case, based on phonetic typological research, was that in Yakut, a secondary lengthening is possible before an old voiced consonant.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • History of the Turkish People
    June IJPSS Volume 2, Issue 6 ISSN: 2249-5894 2012 _________________________________________________________ History of the Turkish people Vahid Rashidvash* __________________________________________________________ Abstract The Turkish people also known as "Turks" (Türkler) are defined mainly as being speakers of Turkish as a first language. In the Republic of Turkey, an early history text provided the definition of being a Turk as "any individual within the Republic of Turkey, whatever his faith who speaks Turkish, grows up with Turkish culture and adopts the Turkish ideal is a Turk." Today the word is primarily used for the inhabitants of Turkey, but may also refer to the members of sizeable Turkish-speaking populations of the former lands of the Ottoman Empire and large Turkish communities which been established in Europe (particularly in Germany, France, and the Netherlands), as well as North America, and Australia. Key words: Turkish people. History. Culture. Language. Genetic. Racial characteristics of Turkish people. * Department of Iranian Studies, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Republic of Armeni. A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories Indexed & Listed at: Ulrich's Periodicals Directory ©, U.S.A., Open J-Gage, India as well as in Cabell’s Directories of Publishing Opportunities, U.S.A. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences http://www.ijmra.us 118 June IJPSS Volume 2, Issue 6 ISSN: 2249-5894 2012 _________________________________________________________ 1. Introduction The Turks (Turkish people), whose name was first used in history in the 6th century by the Chinese, are a society whose language belongs to the Turkic language family (which in turn some classify as a subbranch of Altaic linguistic family.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkic Toponyms of Eurasia BUDAG BUDAGOV
    BUDAG BUDAGOV Turkic Toponyms of Eurasia BUDAG BUDAGOV Turkic Toponyms of Eurasia © “Elm” Publishing House, 1997 Sponsored by VELIYEV RUSTAM SALEH oglu T ranslated by ZAHID MAHAMMAD oglu AHMADOV Edited by FARHAD MAHAMMAD oglu MUSTAFAYEV Budagov B.A. Turkic Toponyms of Eurasia. - Baku “Elm”, 1997, -1 7 4 p. ISBN 5-8066-0757-7 The geographical toponyms preserved in the immense territories of Turkic nations are considered in this work. The author speaks about the parallels, twins of Azerbaijani toponyms distributed in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Altay, the Ural, Western Si­ beria, Armenia, Iran, Turkey, the Crimea, Chinese Turkistan, etc. Be­ sides, the geographical names concerned to other Turkic language nations are elucidated in this book. 4602000000-533 В ------------------------- 655(07)-97 © “Elm” Publishing House, 1997 A NOTED SCIENTIST Budag Abdulali oglu Budagov was bom in 1928 at the village o f Chobankere, Zangibasar district (now Masis), Armenia. He graduated from the Yerevan Pedagogical School in 1947, the Azerbaijan State Pedagogical Institute (Baku) in 1951. In 1955 he was awarded his candidate and in 1967 doctor’s degree. In 1976 he was elected the corresponding-member and in 1989 full-member o f the Azerbaijan Academy o f Sciences. Budag Abdulali oglu is the author o f more than 500 scientific articles and 30 books. Researches on a number o f problems o f the geographical science such as geomorphology, toponymies, history o f geography, school geography, conservation o f nature, ecology have been carried out by academician B.A.Budagov. He makes a valuable contribution for popularization o f science.
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Intelligibility Among the Turkic Languages
    Mutual Intelligibility Among the Turkic Languages By Robert Lindsay Abstract: The Turkic family of languages with all important related dialects was analyzed on the basis of mutual intelligibility: (1) To determine the extent to which various Turkic lects can understand each other. (2) To ascertain whether various Turkic lects are better characterized as full languages in the own in need of ISO codes from SIL or rather as dialects of another language. (3) To analyze the history of various Turkic lects in an attempt to write a proper history of the important lects. (4) To attempt to categorize the Turkic languages in terms of subfamilies, sub-sub families, etc. The results were: (1) Rough intelligibility figures for various Turkic lects, related lects and Turkish itself were determined. Surprisingly, it was not difficult to arrive at these rough estimates. (2) The Turkic family was expanded from Ethnologue's 41 languages to 53 languages. Splitting: a number of new languages were created from existing dialects, as these dialects were better characterized as full languages than as dialects of another tongue. Lumping: a few existing languages were eliminated and re-analyzed as dialects of another or newly created language. (3) Full and detailed histories for many Turkic lects were written up in a coherent, easy to understand way, a task sorely needed in Turkic as histories of Turkic lects are often confused, inaccurate, controversial, and incomplete. (4) A new attempt was made at categorizing the Turkic family that rejects and rewrites some of the better-known characterizations. Acknowledgments: This paper could not be written without the generous support and kind, wise heart of Professor Suer Eker of Bashkent University in Ankara, who is in charge of the book project where this article is published.
    [Show full text]
  • L.K. Meirambekova1 , G.R. Dautova2* the HISTORICAL ROLE of KAZAKH LANGUAGE in the SYSTEM of TURKIC LANGUAGES
    ISSN 1563-0323, eISSN 2618-0782 Филология сериясы. №1 (181).2021 https://philart.kaznu.kz IRSTI 16.21.25 https://doi.org/10.26577/EJPh.2021.v181.i1.ph13 L.K. Meirambekova1 , G.R. Dautova2* 1 L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Kazakhstan, Nur-Sultan 2Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Kazakhstan, Almaty *e-mail: *[email protected] THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF KAZAKH LANGUAGE IN THE SYSTEM OF TURKIC LANGUAGES The article touches upon the historical role of Kazakh language in the system of Turkic languages, as the former passed on its own way to the formation of different subethnical processes which lasted for several centuries. It comes as no surprise that it is necessary to know well the nature of the given ethnos itself to study any ethnic language. The knowledge of only internal language laws is not sufficient to recognize the original nature of any ethnic language and it goes without saying that its ultimate roots is directly related to the culture, history, religion and way of living of the ethnic groups speaking this lan- guage for centuries. Therefore, the way of study the national language through the combined research of the ethnic language, culture and cognition, and the history led to the birth of the totally new directions in the field of linguistics as anthropolinguistics, psycholinguistics and cognitive, social linguistics. The language of that time, which formed the basis of the ethnogenesis of Kazakh people who contributed to the formation of the nation were applied by the tribes and people are considered as the historical basis of modern Kazakh language.
    [Show full text]
  • REPUBLIC of AZERBAIJAN on the Rights of the Manuscript ABSTRACT
    REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN On the rights of the manuscript ABSTRACT of the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy PHONETIC HARMONY AND NORM IN THE TURKIC LANGUAGES OF THE OGHUZ GROUP Speciality: 5710.01 – Turkic languages Field of science: Philology – Linguistics Applicant: Tavakgul Enver Javadova Baku – 2021 The work was performed at the Department of Azerbaijani language of the Ganja State University. Scientific consultant: doctor of philological sciences, professor Mubariz Imran Yusifov Official opponents: doctor of philological sciences, professor Rufat Ashraf Rustamov doctor of philological sciences, professor Yadigar Vely Aliyev doctor of philological sciences, professor Ruslan Mamed Abdullayev Dissertation council – ED 1.06 of the Supreme Attestation Commission under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan operating at the Institute of Linguistics named after Nasimi, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. 2 INTRODUCTION Relevance of the research topic and the degree of its development. The application of the historical-comparative method of research to linguistics laid the foundations for the study of the typology of the world languages. The use of the historical- comparative method was such an innovation in linguistic science that this method was not limited to the study of the typological proximity of related languages. Simultaneously with the use of this method, genetic connections between unrelated languages were revealed. As a result of applying the historical-comparative method to the language typology, the presence of common root elements among unrelated languages was revealed. As the research deepened, it became clear that regardless of where in the world unrelated languages are settled, the correspondence of elements at the level of single-root words between them is not excluded.
    [Show full text]
  • “Center of Asia” - Turkic Peoples
    Downloaded from: justpaste.it/19yw “Center of Asia” - Turkic Peoples Last June, the General Secretary of the Parliamentary Assembly of Turkish speaking states (TurkPA), Ramil Hasanov, invited the Russian Federation and its constituent entities to take part in the work of the organization. “If Federation Council of Russia’s Federal Assembly will express positive attitude to participation of the Federation’s Turkish speaking constituent entities in work of TurkPA as a guest or observer, the issue will be solved. Russia itself can also participate in the Assembly as a guest or observer as this is provided in our organization’s regulation,” Hasanov said. The Russian autonomous republics of Altai, Bashkortostan, Chuvashia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay–Cherkess, Khakassia, Sakha (Yakutia), Tatarstan and Tuva are fully or partly Turkish speaking entities, while Turkic minorities can be found throughout the entire territory of the federation. A special place in this variegated mosaic is occupied by the Tuvans, which make up 82% of the 300 thousand population of the Tyva Republic, or Tuva. Lying in Southern Siberia, this majority Buddhist territory borders with Russia’s Altai Republic, Khakassia Republic, Krasnoyarsk Krai, Irkutsk Oblast and Buryatia Republic, and with Mongolia to the south. THE "CENTER OF ASIA" MONUMENT IN KYZYL The capital of Tuva, Kyzyl, claims to be the geographical “Center of Asia”, as asserted by the label of a homonymous monument in the city. Whether this claim is true or false, the Tyva Republic is the cornerstone of Russian power in the yellow continent. Part of the historically Mongol region of Tannu Uriankhai, Tuva was under Manchu rule until 1911, when tsarist Russia, taking advantage of the chaos of the 1991 Revolution in China, formed a separatist movement among the Tuvans.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Science Journal 2014;11(4S) Http
    Life Science Journal 2014;11(4s) http://www.lifesciencesite.com The role of historic-linguistic factor in development of Turkic civilization in meddle ages Yermekova Tynyshtyk Nurdauletovna1, Odanova Sagira Amangeldiyevna1, Issabekova Uldar Keldibekovna2, Abdirassilova Gulmira Kalybaevna1,3 1Kazakh State Women’s Teacher Training University, 050000, 99, str. Aiteke Bi, Almaty, Kazakhstan 2Turkic academy, 010000 Kazakhstan, Astana str. Tauelsizdik ,57 3The Republic of Turkey University Niyde, 050000 99, str. Aiteke Bi, Almaty, 050000, Kazakhstan Abstract. The process of world globalization requires Turkic-speaking nations of common root to unite in social- economy, cultural-spiritual points. Unification of intellectual values of the Turkic world will roll general Turkic mind and being, consolidate spiritual balance and historical integrity between Turkic nations, raise social-cultural potential of modern Turkic nations, strengthen historical roots, and justify special place of the Turkic civilization among human civilization. Additionally, if we don’t hold historical root of Kazakh nationin the situation of encountering of international civilizations there is a risk of spiritual-cultural development’s going wrong way. There are nations who couldn’t follow caravan of time and step into new era with the rest of the world. This worldwide process which can have good or bad influence on the future of our independent country requires us to be exceptionally responsible for every action related to our nation. The independence of our country gives us opportunity to restudy common cultural heritage of Turkic nations, as well as to know its true nature, use them for the benefit of nation, reconsider and analyzespiritual values based on those relics.
    [Show full text]
  • Last Voices/Son Sesler Robert Lindsay MA, California State
    Last Voices/Son Sesler Robert Lindsay MA, California State University, Fresno Mutual Intelligibility among the Turkic Languages Turkic is a large family of about 40 languages stretching from Turkey all the way to China. Most of the languages are pretty close, and it's often been said that they are all mutually intelligible, and that you can go from Turkey all the way to the Yakut region of Siberia and be understood the whole way. This is certainly not the case, although there is something to it. That is because the languages, while generally not above 90% intelligible which is the requirement to be dialects, do have varying degrees of intelligibility. That is, there is some intelligibility between most of the Turkic languages, but generally below 90%. The truth is that the mutual intelligibility in Turkic is much less than proclaimed. Turkish and Azeri are often said to be completely intelligible, but this is not true, though the situation is interesting. The two are not intelligible, but there are intelligible dialects between them. The far eastern dialects of Turkish are closer to Azeri than to Turkish. Turkish has about 65-90% intelligibility with Azeri. After a few weeks of close contact, they can often communicate pretty well. Azeri is spoken in Azerbaijan. This situation is changing now due to increased contact. However, nowadays due to exposure to Turkish TV, most Azeri speakers can speak Turkish well, and due to exposure to Azeri TV, Turks understand a lot more Azeri than they used to. Kazakh and Kirghiz are also close, with probably 75-80% intelligibility between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Altaic Languages
    Altaic Languages Masaryk University Press Reviewed by Ivo T. Budil Václav Blažek in collaboration with Michal Schwarz and Ondřej Srba Altaic Languages History of research, survey, classification and a sketch of comparative grammar Masaryk University Press Brno 2019 Publication financed by the grant No. GA15-12215S of the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR) © 2019 Masaryk University Press ISBN 978-80-210-9321-8 ISBN 978-80-210-9322-5 (online : pdf) https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-9322-2019 5 Analytical Contents 0. Preface .................................................................. 9 1. History of recognition of the Altaic languages ............................... 15 1.1. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Turkic languages ..........15 1.1.1. Beginning of description of the Turkic languages . .15 1.1.2. The beginning of Turkic comparative studies ...........................21 1.1.3. Old Turkic language and script – discovery and development of research .....22 1.1.4. Turkic etymological dictionaries .....................................23 1.1.5. Turkic comparative grammars .......................................24 1.1.6. Syntheses of grammatical descriptions of the Turkic languages .............25 1.2. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Mongolic languages .......28 1.2.0. Bibliographic survey of Mongolic linguistics ...........................28 1.2.1. Beginning of description of the Mongolic languages .....................28 1.2.2. Standard Mongolic grammars and dictionaries ..........................31 1.2.3. Mongolic comparative and etymological dictionaries .....................32 1.2.4. Mongolic comparative grammars and grammatical syntheses...............33 1.3. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Tungusic languages ........33 1.3.0. Bibliographic survey of the Tungusic linguistics.........................33 1.3.1. Beginning of description of the Tungusic languages ......................34 1.3.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Attitude of Bukhara Oguz Dialects to Other Turkish Languages and Dialects
    e-ISSN : 2620 3502 International Journal on Integrated Education p-ISSN : 2615 3785 ATTITUDE OF BUKHARA OGUZ DIALECTS TO OTHER TURKISH LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS Allaberdiev Alijon Avezberdievich PhD. Great teacher Navoi State Pedagogical Institute, Uzbek language faculty Tel: +998933160985 [email protected] ABSTRACT This article explains the use of the turkic words in the Bukhara uguz dialects and compares the Turkic words with other uzbek dialects and the languages of Turkic language family. There is written the historical etymology of words, lexical layers, comparison, synonymic lines and some features of the vocabulary of the region. Keywords: dialect, historical etymology of words, lexical layer, comparison, synonymic line. Introduction The lexical structure of Bukhara Oghuz dialects is formed in the form of lexical-semantic system of this dialect. All lexical units and grammatical devices present in Bukhara Oghuz dialects (here in after BOD) are the dialect itself, its own richness. However, these lexical units did not appear suddenly in the dialectal vocabulary. BOD dictionary composition like other Uzbek dialects, it has undergone complex stages of development. In order to understand and imagine the evolution of lexical units in the blank, it is necessary to study and analyze the words in its vocabulary from the historical and etymological point of view, to divide them into etymological layers. These linguistic actions are performed to find out the origin of dialects and to inform the scientific community about them. The main part of lexical units used in the speech of all Uzbek dialects living in Bukhara region, in particular, Oghuz dialects, is a common word for almost all Turkic peoples, and most of them can be found in Turkish written monuments.
    [Show full text]
  • Red, Black, and White Hearts:'Heart','Liver', and 'Lungs' In
    Linguistic Typology 2021; aop Matthias Urban* Red, black, and white hearts: ‘heart’, ‘liver’, and ‘lungs’ in typological and areal perspective https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-2081 Published online July 15, 2021 Abstract: On the basis of a sample of 424 languages or dialects, this article provides a typological-comparative investigation of designations for three major internal organs of the torso, the ‘heart’,the‘liver’,andthe‘lungs’. While colexification patterns are relatively unconstrained, the data show a skewing in morphologically complex terms: ‘heart’ and ‘liver’ often serve as head nouns in complex terms for ‘lungs’, but the reverse is rare. Another recurrent phenomenon is that two of the organs –sometimes ‘heart’ and ‘lungs’, but more frequently ‘liver’ and ‘lungs’– share their head noun, and are distinguished from one another by modifiers that refer to their most salient characteristics, as in Azerbaijani aɣ ǯiyær ‘white ǯiyær’ = ‘lungs’ and gara-ǯiyær ‘black-ǯiyær’ = ‘liver’. Having thus set the typological stage, I move on to discuss two different regions of the world in which such terms for ‘lungs’ and ‘liver’ have spread through language contact. This has happened in Eurasia, where the abovementioned pattern, which I call “explicitly dyadic”, was brought from Turkish to vernaculars of the Balkans and, most likely through Azerbaijani influ- ence, to languages of the Southern Caucasus. Similar explicitly dyadic terms, but based on a head noun meaning ‘heart’, also occur in the Andes, where they appear to have spread from Quechuan to Barbacoan languages. The evidence not only shows that ‘liver’ and ‘lungs’ form a “semantic dyad” in which designations make use of “opposed characteristics” in different regions of the world, but also that such des- ignations are salient and therefore prone to spread in language contact situations.
    [Show full text]