Annales Societatis Litterarum Humaniorum Regiae Upsaliensis Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala Årsbok 2019–2020 Redaktör: Merja Kytö Engelska institutionen, Uppsala universitet, Box 527, 751 20 Uppsala e-post: [email protected] http://www.khvsu.se/ Distribution: eddy.se ab Box 1310, 621 24 Visby e-post: [email protected] Telefon: 0498-25 39 00 © Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala och författarna ISSN 0349-0416 ISBN 978-91-982405-6-6 Produktion: eddy.se ab, Visby 2021 Printed in Sweden by Norra Skåne Offset, Klippan 2021 Innehåll/Contents Gunnel Ekroth, Den ”oheliga” helgedomen? Om mötet mellan gudar och människor i antik grekisk religion ................ 5 Summary .............................................. 28 Lars-Göran Sundell, Wace ................................. 29 Summary .............................................. 80 Staffan Fridell, En småländsk Hamlet ........................ 83 Summary .............................................. 85 Conny Svensson, ”Denna besynnerliga dubbelmänniska”: Sven Stolpe om Strindberg .............................. 87 Summary .............................................. 112 Björn Melander, ”Inte antingen eller, utan mycket mera en mosaik av möjligheter”: Svenskan som EU-språk 20 år senare ......... 115 Summary .............................................. 151 Heinz Werner Wessler, Addendum to the article “Hindi/Hindustani from the Perspective of an Early Modern Cosmopolitan Citizen: François-Marie de Tours and His Lingua mogolana (1703)” ..... 153 ”Aktuell humanistisk forskning”: Bidrag från ett symposium den 18 februari 2020 | “Current research in the humanities”: Contributions from a symposium held on 18 February, 2020 .... 155 Dag Blanck, Vårt behov av USA: Om svensk-amerikanska relationer ............................................ 157 Summary .............................................. 169 László Károly, Derived and compound nouns in Turkic .......... 171 Sammanfattning ......................................... 193 Henrik Ågren, Titulering: Hur social tillhörighet manifesterades och doldes i 1700-talets Sverige ........................... 195 Summary .............................................. 200 4 Innehåll/Contents Föredrag av Westinpristagarna .............................. 203 Anna Baral, Bad Guys, Good Life: An Ethnography of Morality and Change in Kisekka Market (Kampala, Uganda) ........... 205 Sammanfattning ......................................... 218 Jaroslava Obrtelová, From Oral to Written: Selected Points of Divergence Between Oral and Written Wakhi Narratives ...... 219 Sammanfattning ......................................... 228 Danuta Fjellestad, Minnesord .............................. 231 Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala Översikt över Samfundets verksamhet under tiden 1 juli 2019–30 juni 2020 ................................ 237 Ledamöter den 30 juni 2020 ................................ 243 Derived and compound nouns in Turkic 171 Derived and compound nouns in Turkic By László Károly 1. INTRODUCTION Turkic languages are of the agglutinative type, with rich synthetic mor- phology both in category-defining and category-changing domains. Bound morphemes, such as those used for derivation and inflection, are typically suffixes. Long and consistently ordered chains of morphemes can be formed by means of suffixation in every Turkic language. Limiting the discussion to derivational morphology, several individual morphemes can be concatenated into a chain,1 such as in examples (1) to (3): (1) kara ‘black’ > kara-la- ‘to blacken’ > kara-la-n- ‘to blacken oneself, to get blackened’ > kara-la-n-dɨr- ‘to blacken’2 (Tatar) (2) tanı- ‘to know, recognize’ > tanı-ş- ‘to know one another’ > tanı-ş-tır- ‘to introduce a person’ > tanı-ş-tır-ıl- ‘to be introduced’ (Turkish) (3) atɨː ‘sale, trade’ > atɨː-laː- ‘to sell’ > atɨː-la-s- ‘to buy’ > atɨː-la-h-aːččɨ ‘customer’ (Yakut) Apart from bound morphemes, Turkic languages make extensive use of compounding to form new lexical items. Compounding is particularly productive in the domains of noun and verb formation; see (4) to (6): (4) čiraɣ nur-i [lamp light-poss] ‘lamplight’ (Uigur) (5) atax ɨarɨː-ta [leg disease-poss] ‘rheumatism’ (Yakut) (6) mustahkam qil- [strong make] ‘to strengthen’ (Uzbek) 1 Though no statistical data is available, the average number of derivational suffixes in a row is usually two or three in the Turkic languages. Depending on the definition of der- ivation used in an analysis, the maximum number of concatenable suffixes is not higher than four or five. 2 According to the available data, Tatar karala- and karalandɨr- have the same meaning. Other Turkic languages also show similar cases; see e.g. Turkish bölümle- ‘to divide into classes, to classify’ and bölümlendir- id. To determine possible differences in meaning and usage between +lA- and +lAndXr- derivatives in Turkic in general, a detailed look at textual examples is needed, which I shall be doing in the future. 172 László Károly Looking at the literature on word-formation in the Turkic languages, one is immediately struck by the overwhelming dominance of research on derivation. Monographic descriptions of derivation, with or without the- oretical grounding, are available for both historical and modern Turkic languages; see e.g. Erdal (1991) for Old Turkic, and Korkmaz (2009) for a discussion of Turkish that also deals with compounding. Most of the academic grammars have also devoted special attention to derivation. In addition, Tenishev (1988) provides a historical-comparative overview of derivation in Turkic. The use of compounding as a word-formation strate gy, on the other hand, seems to be a rather neglected category in the literature. Systematic analyses and classifications of compounding strategies are exceptionally rare. Researchers often concentrate only on certain patterns or types of compounding instead of providing a complete overview. Ubryatova (1948) and Kaĭdarov (1958) made early attempts to describe compounds (in their terminology, “pair words”) in Yakut and Uigur, respectively. Stachowski (1997) provides a cursory description of certain types of compounding in Dolgan. An overview of compounding in Tatar is given by Károly (2016). As always, Turkish is in a significantly better position than the other Turkic languages. Although there is no mono graphic presentation of compounding in Turkish as a whole, there are detailed surveys of certain subtypes. Göksel and Haznedar (2007) provide a useful overview of the main characteristics of compounds in the three major nominal categories noun, adjective and adverb.3 Phrasal compounds are analysed by Göksel (2015). Compounds based on nominal constituents or that yield nominals have always enjoyed scholarly atten- tion. Van Schaaik (2002) and Çürük (2017) have produced detailed studies of these types. An important terminological caveat is appropriate at this point: the very term “compound(ing)” is defined differently in the literature. A nar- rower definition, used in this paper, interprets it exclusively as a means of word-formation to form new lexemes. Accordingly, a genuine com- pound should entail formal stability and certain semantic specialization.4 A broader definition might also label various phrasal constructions with no or only marginal relation to the lexicon as cases of compounding. For instance, the Turkish syntactic phrase bir türlü mutlu olamıyoruz düşün- cesi ‘the thought that we can never be happy’ in Göksel (2015: 362) is not a compound in the narrow sense of the term. Van Schaaik gives an analogy 3 Nonetheless, the authors do not pay attention to some of the frequently used compound- ing strategies, e.g. those of yielding verbs. 4 For a fairly similar understanding, see Moyna (2011), especially her exclusion of syntac- tic freezes and phrasal constructions in sections 1.5.2 and 1.5.4, respectively. Derived and compound nouns in Turkic 173 to establish a link between genuine compounds and syntactic phrases: his higher order compound is “a linguistic structure that resembles a standard compound … but … it has a non-first order head” (Van Schaaik 2002: 170). Comparative analysis of compounding across Turkic languages is still in its infancy. Trips and Kornfilt (2015) have recently published a study on phrasal compounds,5 including a modest comparison of Turkish and Yakut (Sakha) data.6 1.1 Derivation and compounding in Turkic Word-formation by means of derivation and by means of compounding are not strictly distributed in a complementary way in Turkic, but often occur in free variation. Accordingly, the same semantic concept can be expressed by using both strategies; see examples (7) to (12). Dictionaries also provide compounds as equivalents for derived words, such as (9) and (10) taken from a Turkish explanatory dictionary (Türk Dil Kurumu 2019; a. = entry head, b. = explanation). (7) a. kamyoncu ‘lorry driver’ ← kamyon ‘lorry’ and +CX7 b. kamyon şoför-ü [lorry driver-poss] ‘lorry driver’ c. kamyon sürücü-sü [lorry driver-poss] ‘lorry driver’ (Turkish) (8) a. temirši ‘blacksmith’ [blacksmith] ← temir ‘iron’ and +šI b. temir usta-sɨ [iron artisan-poss] ‘blacksmith’ (Kazakh) (9) a. dişçi ‘dentist’ ← diş ‘tooth’ and +CX b. diş hekim-i [tooth expert-poss] ‘dentist’ (Turkish) (10) a. koldaş ‘work fellow’ ← kol ‘arm’ and +DAš b. iş arkadaş-ı [work friend-poss] ‘work fellow’ (Turkish) (11) a. mustahkamla- ‘to strengthen’ ← mustahkam ‘strong’ and +lA- b. mustahkam qil- [strong make] ‘to strengthen’ (Uzbek) (12) a.