sign in sign up
<<
Home , Khagan, Oghur (tribe), Old Turkic, Turkic peoples

TURKIC CONTACT Chingduang Yurayong HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

• Intense Uralic-Turkic contacts led to assimilation to . • A historical sketch of is based on Golden (1998). TURKIC PEOPLE: Prehistory and migrations

• Altaic community(?) 4000–3000 BC → Ancient Turkic 3000–500 BC. • Turkic homeland is unclear, but there is evidence for early contacts with Uralic and Indo-Europeans, suggesting the location to be somewhere in southern Siberian zone stretching from Yenisei to the Pacific, especially the Altay region and Trans-Baikal. • Later migration in the first millennium BC headed towards the in central and inner , which was predominantly occupied by Iranian people, from which the Turkic people adopted Indo-European cultural innovations, e.g., equestrian and pastoral nomadic lifestyle. • Nomadism reinforced the spread of Turkic-speaking community across Eurasia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/East-Hem_500bc.jpg TURKIC PEOPLE: Early historical period

• Turkic-speaking people are often mentioned in connection to Hsiung-Nu or Asian Hunnic union, as was recorded to have been disturbing the borders of during the 3th century BC. • However, the ethno-linguistic identity of possibly polyethnic and polyglottal Hsiung- Nu polity is unclear (Iranian?, Paleo-Siberian?, Turkic?, and/or Mongolic?, etc.) • Following many defeats by Chinese, Hsiung-Nu fell apart into several groups, especially the Hyôn or Xiyon in Iranian borderlands and who crossed the in ca 370 AD and continued their way to interfere the Roman . • Essential elements of Hsiung-Nu and later Turko-Mongolic states: • Imperial confederacy • Shan-Yü = = • Teŋri cult etc. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Asia_001ad.jpg TURKIC PEOPLE: Historical period

• The Türks were first mentioned in Chinese sources in the 6th century AD, concerning the relation between Tabγač China and the Jou-Jan or Avar Khaganate in Mongolia. • In the Eurasian , Turkic tribes replaced the formerly dominant Iranians (Scythian, Sarmatian, Ossetic). • A distinct Turkic group was formed in today’s and later Ponto-Caspian steppes ca 463 AD, later included in the multi-Turkic Ding-Ling confederacy, according to Chinese sources. • The Bulgar tribal union (Oghur Turkic and Hunnic) was listed as an ally to Byzantium in 480 AD. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Asia_500ad.jpg TURKIC PEOPLE: Türk Khaganate

• Bumïn of A-Shi-Na, the leader of Türk confederation proclaimed himself as Ilig Qaγan, i.e. , in 552 AD. • Chinese sources associated the Türks to the Hsiung-Nu and hint at migrations from Kansu ca 265 AD to Southern or Northern Mongolia in the mid 5th century. • Turkic became a dominant linguistic group in Mongolia and the steppe lands of as well as extended to the Pontic zone formerly predominated by Indo- Europeans ca 1000 BC – 500 AD. • Founding a holy ground and capital in Orkhon and establishing their hegemony over the Silk Route, Türks brought Sogdians. On the basis of this adjoining force, subsequent Turkic states were structurally based on Turkic warrior and Iranian bureaucrat. • The First (679 AD) was Turkic-speaking, the (864 AD) was Slavic-speaking due to and conversion to . https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Asia_700ad.jpg https://www.quora.com/ What-led-to-the-breakup- of-the-Turkic-Khaganate WRITTEN TURKIC

• • Vilhelm Thomsen (1842– 1927) proved in 1893 that the inscriptions were Turkic and dated from the 7th and 8th centuries AD

• still produce runic texts until the 16th century! http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_900ad.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Asia_1025ad.jpg https://photos.travellerspoint.com/396820/large_mONGOL_eMPIRE_1294.jpg CONTACTS OF TURKIC

• Mongolic • Early Mongolic contacts with r-Turkic languages between the 6th–9th centuries: both lexical and structural borrowings • Qara Khitai in the : language shift from Mongolic to Turkic • Chingisid Empire in the : bidirectional borrowings • Mongolic Buddhist from the 15th century: Turkic languages of Siberia • Indo-European • Early Indo-European contacts: absa(k) ‘asp’, alma ‘apple’, burč ‘pepper’ • Iranian contacts, especially Sogdian • Tocharian contact • Slavic contacts in today’s and the • Uralic • Early contacts: 6–8 possible etymologies • Sinitic, Semitic, etc. (Róna-Tas 1998: 76-79) TURKIC LANGUAGES: Genealogical classification

• There is no intra-Turkic unifying factor, apart from the shared linguistic background and Islamic civilisation (Boeschoten 1998: 1). • The classification of Turkic languages is still much under discussion. • Chronology of early Turkic languages: • Ancient Turkic –7th century (unattested before the Türk Khaganate) • (z-Turkic) 7th–13th centuries • Middle Turkic (Karluk) 10th–15th centuries (aka ) • Common Turkic (z-Turkic) is a descendent of Turkic dialect spoken in the present-day Mongolia during 6th and 9th century (Türk Khaganate). Oghur Turkic (r-Turkic) must have been a Turkic group which migrated earlier to the west. TURKIC LANGUAGES: Present-day situation TURKIC LANGUAGES: Genealogical classification

• Traditional classificatory criteria (Johansson 1988: 83): • Oghur Turkic Final -r vs. Common Turkic Final -z Chuvash tăχăr vs. Nogai toγïz ‘nine’ (cf. the term Oghur Turkic vs. Oghuz Turkic)

• Intervocalic consonants: Siberian Turkic d/t/z vs. Oghuz, , Karluk y Tuvan adaq, Yakut ataχ, Khakas azaχ vs. Ogh/Kip/Kar ayaq ‘foot’

• Suffix-initial -G: loss in Oghuz Turkic vs. preserved in Kipchak and Karluk Turkic Participle -Gan: Azeri qalan vs. Kip/Kar qalγan ‘(having) remained’

• Devoicing of suffix-final -G: devoiced in Karluk vs. loss in Kipchak Adjectival suffix: Uyghur taγliq vs. Tatar tawlï, Kirghiz tōlū ‘mountain’

• Initial h-: preserved in Khalaj hadaq ‘foot’ vs. loss elsewhere TURKIC LOANWORDS IN URALIC

• Mordvin, Mari, Permic (Wichmann 1903; Räsänen 1920; Raun 1957) • Old Chuvash loanwords (7th–8th centuries) • Later Chuvash and Tatar loanwords (13th century until today) • Hungarian (Gombocz 1912) • Ancient contact: Onogur-Bulgar Turkic (r-Turkic) loanwords (before the in 896 AD) • Middle-Age contact: Khwarezmia & Volga (Kipchak Turkic?) (12th–13th centuries) • Recent contact: (z-Turkic) loanwords (16th–17th centuries) • Ob-Ugric (Paasonen 1902; Kannisto 1925; Toivonen 1944) • Ancient Turkic loanwords in Proto-(Ob-)Ugric • Siberian Turkic loanwords: 550–600 in Mansi, 250–300 in Khanty • Samoyedic (Donner 1924; Joki 1952; Márk 1975-1976; Janhunen 1977) • Ancient Turkic loanwords in Proto-Samoyedic • Siberian Turkic loanwords in South TURKIC-URALIC CONTACTS

• Ancient Turkic loanwords in the Proto-Samoyedic stage as of the beginning of the 1st century or even earlier (evidence from both North and South Samoyedic languages) • After the split, South Samoyedic languages (Selkup, Kamas, Mator, Koibal) continued intense contacts with Turkic, while North Samoyedic (Nenets, Enets, Nganasan) did not. • Hungarian was in contact with Turkic before the migration towards the present-day in the 10th century. • Earliest Turkic loanwords in Uralic came from r-Turkic dialects. • Contacts during the Middle Age between Volga Turkic (Chuvash, Tatar, Bashkir) and Volga Uralic (Mordvin, Mari, Permic) < Golden Horde (13th–16th century) • Bolgar Türk Empire (Vikings did cross this) left some language attestation in script, pointing to Islamism. However, this empire later became , which was Christianised, possibly due the influence from Mari (and some other Uralic tribes) who shifted their language to the Bolgar Turkic! • Bashkir = Magyar (= Mansi)?, cf. Language shift from Uralic to Turkic in Chuvashia, Tataria and Bashkiria https://photos.travellerspoint.com/396820/large_mONGOL_eMPIRE_1294.jpg https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesFarEast/CentralAsia_MapAD1501.htm EARLY TURKIC LOANWORDS IN SAMOYEDIC Proto-Samoyedic ← Ancient Turkic 1) *inä ‘elder brother’ *ini > OTurk ini ‘younger brother) 2) *kåpstə̑ ‘to castrate’; *kåpstə̑ ‘a castrated reindeer ox’ *qaptï > OTurk qap- ‘to grasp with teeth or hand’ 3) *ken ‘sheath (for knife)’ *qï̄n > OTurk qï̄n ‘sheath (for knife)’ 4) *ker- ‘to enter’ *kir > OTurk kir ‘to enter’ 5) *kiľ ‘sable’ *kil > OTurk kiš ‘sable’ 6) *kiľ ‘winter’ *qïl > OTurk qïš ‘winter’ 7) *ki̮r ‘grey hair (of animals)’ *qïr > OTurk qïr ‘grey, colour of ’s coat’ 8) *kün ‘navel’ *küŋ > OTurk kin-dik ‘navel’ 9) *päjmå ‘boots’ *poyma ‘ boots’ > OTurk oyma 10) *puro ‘grey, -grey, wolf-grey dog’ *boro > OTurk bōz ‘grey’ 11) *tə̑r ‘hair’ *tar > OTurk tara- ‘to comb the hair’; tar-γaq ’comb’ 12) * > Nenets yamda- ‘to wander with a tent-caravan’ *yam > OTurk yam ‘a posting station’ 13) *yunta ~ yuntə̑ ‘horse’ *yuntă > OTurk yunt ‘horse’ 14) *yür ‘hundred’ *yür > OTurk yüz ‘hundred’ EARLY TURKIC LOANWORDS IN SAMOYEDIC

• Turkic archaisms are preserved in Samoyedic • Final vowel PSam *puro ‘grey’ ATurk *boro > OTurk bōz ‘grey’ PSam *yunta ~ yuntə̑ ‘horse’ ATurk *yuntă > OTurk yunt ‘horse’

• Initial *p- PSam *päjmå ‘boots’ ATurk *poyma ‘felt boots’ > OTurk oyma

• Proto-Turkic *ľ > *š (ca 1st century BC?) PSam *kiľ ‘sable’ ATurk *kil > OTurk kiš ‘sable’ PSam *kiľ ‘winter’ ATurk *qïl > OTurk qïš ‘winter’ SAMOYEDIC SUBSTRATE IN TURKIC

• Menges (1965): The South-Siberian Turkic Languages II: Notes on the Samojed Substratum. • Turkicisation of South Samoyeds in the 18th century. • A sound change: Proto-Turkic *y- > Oghuz y ~ Kipchak y/ǰ/ž ~ Karluk y ~ Siberian Turkic č/ǰ/s ex. Proto-Turkic *yïl ‘year’ Oghuz: Turkish yïl, Azeri il, Turkmen ýyl Kipchak: Tatar yïl, Kirghiz ǰïl, Kazakh žïl S-Siberian Turkic: Khakas/Tuvan čïl, Altai ǰïl, Yakut sïl Karluk: Uyghur/Uzbek yil (Oghur: Chuvash čul) SAMOYEDIC SUBSTRATE IN TURKIC

• Menges (1965): The South-Siberian Turkic Languages II: Notes on the Samojed Substratum. • Turkicisation of South Samoyeds in the 18th century. • A sound change: Proto-Uralic *j- > Fin/Perm/ObUgr j ~ Mord ľ ~ NSam j ~ SSam ď/ť/č ex. Proto-Uralic *jôki ‘river’ Finnic: Finnish joki, Estonian/Votic jõgi, Livonian jo(u)g Mordvin: Erzya ľej, Moksha ľäj Permic: Komi Zyrian ju Ob-Ugric: North Mansi jā North Samoyedic: Nenets jəxa, Enets joha South Samoyedic: Kamas ďåγå/ťåγa, Motor čaga, Tajgi čága http://www.chrismary.com/languagekeyboard/resource/uralic/samoyedic.htm EARLY TURKIC LOANWORDS IN UGRIC

Proto-Ugric(?) ← Ancient Turkic 1) *kottaŋ ‘swan’ *qotaŋ 2) *sawV ‘word’ *sav 3) *luγV ‘horse’ *ulaγ 4) *kumtV ‘beaver’ (N/A in Khanty) *qumtu(z) / *qumtu(r) 5) *ír ‘to write’ (N/A in Mansi) *yïr > OTurk yaz-

Proto-Hungarian ← Ancient Turkic 1) *kayïk > Hung hajó ‘boat’ *qayïq 2) *kumak > Hung homok ‘sand’ *qumaq 3) *ńaka > Hung nyak ‘neck’ *ńaqa > OTurk yaqa ‘collar’ 4) *ńār > Hung nyár ‘summer’ *ńār > OTurk yaz EARLY TURKIC LOANWORDS IN PERMIC

Proto-Permic ← Old Chuvash 1) *gombi̮ > Komi gob, Udm gubi ‘mushroom’ *gümbä > Chuv kămpa (← PSlav gǫba > ORus goba) 2) *kuźa > Komi kuźe, Udm kuźo ‘forest spirit’ *xuǰa ~ *xuźa (← Persian xʷaǰa) 3) *ćarla > Komi ćarla ~ *śarla > Udm śurlo ‘scythe’ *čarla ~ *śarla > Chuv śurla 4) *śil > Komi, Udm śil ‘wind’ *śel ~ *śi̮el > Chuv śil (< PTurk yēl) EARLY TURKIC LOANWORDS IN MORDVIN

Moksha ← Old Chuvash 1) ayə̑ra ‘cool (of weather or wind)’ *ayar > Chuv uyar (< OTurk ayaz > Tat ayaz) 2) (śelmə) kaba ‘eyelid’ *xaba > Chuv xupa (< OTurk *qabaq > Tat kabak) 3) ḱelda ‘bug’ *xə̮ntala > Chuv xăntala (← Iranian (Ossetic qændïl, qændelæ) → Tat kandala) 4) śerä ‘copper alloy’ *śer (< ǰer < OTurk yez → Proto-Permic *śir)

Moksha ← Tatar (Mish = Mishär Tatar; Kaz = Tatar) 1) śoka ‘fringe’ Mish ćok ~ Kaz čuk (< OTurk čoq) 2) ṕäḱ, ṕeḱ ‘very, strong’ Mish pek ~ Kaz bik (< OTurk bek) 3) iməš ‘fruit’ Mish yemiš ~ Kaz yimeš (< OTurk yemiš) 4) ezna ‘brother-in-law’ Mish yezne ~ Kaz yizne (< OTurk yezne > Chuv yïsna) 5) kuda ‘go between (in wedding)’ Mish quda ~ Kaz qoda (← Mong quda) 6) nokta, noxta, nofta ‘halter’ Mish nokta ~ Kaz nukta (← Mong noqta) TURKIC INFLUENCES ON MARI

• Chuvash-Mari contacts began in the 9th century (Wichmann 1924) or in the 13th century (Räsänen 1923) • Stronger Chuvash influence in the western Mari dialects (Hill & NW Mari) • Stronger Tatar influence in the eastern Mari dialects (Meadow & E Mari) • Areal convergence between Volga Turkic and Mari • Word-final stress in Turkic and eastern Mari dialects • Penultimate stress tendency in western Mari dialects • A heavy Turkic influence and code copies in the grammar of Mari TURKIC STRUCTURAL BORROWINGS

• Difficult to identify due to the typological similarities between Turkic and • Proto-Turkic (à Róna-Tas 1998) vs. Proto-Uralic (à Häkkinen 2011) TURKIC-URALIC STRUCTURAL PARALLELS: Vowels – First syllable

Proto-Turkic Proto-Uralic i, y ɯ, u i, y u (ê) (ô) e, ø o e ɤ, o e a æ ɑ TURKIC-URALIC STRUCTURAL PARALLELS: Vowels – Second syllable

Proto-Turkic Proto-Uralic i, y ɯ, u i (ɯ)

e, ø o e a æ ɑ TURKIC-URALIC STRUCTURAL PARALLELS: Consonants

Proto-Turkic Proto-Uralic p t č k p t ć č k b d g β δ (δʼ) χ s š h s ś š z m n ń ŋ m n ń ŋ l j l j r r TURKIC-URALIC STRUCTURAL PARALLELS: Phonotactic restrictions

Proto-Turkic Proto-Uralic

• V • V-CV • CV • CV-CV • CVC • VC-CV • CV-CV̆ • CVC-CV • CV-CV • (C)VC-CVC • (C)VC-CV(C) • (C)VC-CV-CV + Palatal (front vs. back) + Palatal vowel harmony (front vs. back) + Labial vowel harmony (round vs. unrounded) + Word-initial stress (except Eastern Mari and Udmurt) + Word-final stress TURKIC-URALIC STRUCTURAL PARALLELS: Nominal morphology – Case marking

Proto-Turkic Proto-Uralic SG PL SG DU PL Nominative - -z(?) Nomative - -ki -t Accusative -m -j Accusative -nVG, -nI Genitive -n -j Genitive -n Dative -ŋ Dative -nKA Locative -na Locative -dA Ablative -ta Ablative -dAn Instructive -n Instrumental -nVn Translative -k(si) Abessive -kta TURKIC-URALIC STRUCTURAL PARALLELS: Nominal morphology – Possessive suffixes

Proto-Turkic Proto-Uralic 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd SG -m -ŋ SG -mi -ti -si -(s)I DU -min -tin -sin PL -mIz -ŋIz PL -mak -tak -sak TURKIC-URALIC STRUCTURAL PARALLELS: Verbal system

Turkic & Uralic • Rich participle and converb systems TURKIC-URALIC STRUCTURAL PARALLELS: Word order

Proto-Turkic Proto-Uralic • Head-final syntax • Head-final syntax • ADJ-N • ADJ-N • OBJ-V • OBJ-V • NOM + Postposition • GEN + Postposition • Preverbal relative clause • Preverbal relative clause CONTACT-INDUCED CHANGE: Likelihood of borrowing

Saarikivi, Janne. 2000. Kontaktilähtöinen kielenmuutos, substraatti ja substraattinimistö. Virittäjä-lehti 2000/3. Helsinki: Kotikielen Seura. 393–415. REFERENCES

• Boeschoten, H. 1998. The Speakers of Turkic Languages. The Turkic Languages. London: Routledge. 1-15. • Donner, K. 1924. Zu den ältesten Berührungen zwischen Samojeden und Türken. Journal de la société finno-ougrienne 40(1). 1-42. • Golden, P. B. 1998. The Turkic Peoples: A Historical Sketch. The Turkic Languages. London: Routledge. 16-29. • Gombocz, Z. 1912. Die bulgarisch-türkischen Lehnwörter in der ungarischen Sprache. • Häkkinen, J. 2011. Kantaurali ulkomaan eläville. http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Kantaurali.pdf • Janhunen, J. 1977. Samoyed-Altaic Contacts. Present state of research. Mémoires de la société finno-ougrienne 158. 123-129. • Johansson, L. 1998. The History of Turkic. The Turkic Languages. London: Routledge. 81-125. • Joki, Aulis J. 1952. Die Lehnwörter des Sajansamojedischen. Mémoires de la société finn-ougrienne 103. • Kannisto, A. 1925. Die tatarischen Lehnwörter im Wogulischen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 11. 1-264. • Márk, T. 1975-1976. Über die türkischen Lehnwörter im Sölkupischen. Náprajz és Nyelvtudomány (Szeged) 19-20. 243-252. • Menges, K. H. 1956. The South-Siberian Turkic Languages II: Notes on the Samojed Substratum. Central Asiatic Journal 2. 161-175. • Paasonen, H. 1902. Über die türkischen Lehnwörter im Ostjakischen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 2. 81-137. • Räsänen, M. 1920. Die tschuwassischen Lehnwörter im Tscheremisschen. • Raun, A. 1957. The Chuvash Borrowings in Zyrian. JAOS 77(1). 40-45. • Róna-Tas, A. 1988. Turkic Influence on the Uralic languages. The Uralic Languages: Description, History and Foreign Influences. 742-780. • Róna-Tas, A. 1998. The Reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the Genetic Question. The Turkic Languages. London: Routledge. 67-80. • Tenišev, E. R. 1971. O tjurkizmah v sel’kupskom jazyke. Mémoires de la société finno-ougrienne 158. 215-239. • Toivonen, Y. H. 1944. Türkische Lehnwörter im Ostjakischen. Journal de la société finno-ougrienne 52. 1-20. • Wichmann, Y. 1903. Die tschuwassischen Lehnwörter in den permischen Sprachen.