 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell... |
|
Page 27 of 30 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Darkstar... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 13 окт, 22:39, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
[quote]Darkstar wrote:
I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
anyway:
A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
languages and peoples with many illustrations:
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
the following items are not listed for Khalaj, I will fill in
the blanks using Doerfer (from Muqaddam by him for some)
dry
qurruG
leaf
...
horn
...
liver
jigar / jigär
(a little fronted, midway between a and ä.
Doerfer represebts it with <a> with one dot
above).
BTW the persian source (Muqqaddam) in Doerfer
has qurruq, but this does not seem to be correct,
Doerfer's own transcription is based on his
own field study and reflects the spoken
pronounciation and is etymologically
consistent.
[/quote]
Done, thank you.
If you want, I may add a brief note saying something to the extent of
"Appreciation to Yusuf B Gursey (you will add academic titles, if you
have any) who carefully reviewed this work and provided some comments
and corrections". And if you reasonably disagree with something that
you don't want to subscribe to, you can briefly add something like: "I
(or other authors) still disagree with such and such points: (1)...
(2)..., etc".
That will increase the work's usability because many people ask me if
my works are reliable. I usually say they are not, because they just
express my personal opinion. But an independently reviewed article
would have more reliability in the eyes of readers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Darkstar... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 14 окт, 14:56, Christopher Culver <crcul... at (no spam) christopherculver.com>
wrote:
[quote]Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> writes:
from kurï- ( > kuru-) "to be or become dry" one has
kuruG ( < *kurïG) "dry"; hence > kurï, qoro/
The adjective cannot be formed from a verb (in this case), on the
contrary, a verb can be derived from the adjective "dry", because the
concept of dryness is semantically more fundamental than that of
"becoming dry". So the egg before the chicken.
It's not unusual for a language to derive its adjective for "dry" from
a verb meaning "dry", e.g. the Romanian adjective uscat "dry",
originally the past participle of the verb usca "dry".
[/quote]
Maybe so. The chicken before the egg... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 19, 10:46 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 13 окт, 22:39, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
Darkstar wrote:
I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
anyway:
A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
languages and peoples with many illustrations:
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
the following items are not listed for Khalaj, I will fill in
the blanks using Doerfer (from Muqaddam by him for some)
dry
qurruG
leaf
...
horn
...
liver
jigar / jigär
(a little fronted, midway between a and ä.
Doerfer represebts it with <a> with one dot
above).
BTW the persian source (Muqqaddam) in Doerfer
has qurruq, but this does not seem to be correct,
Doerfer's own transcription is based on his
own field study and reflects the spoken
pronounciation and is etymologically
consistent.
Done, thank you.
If you want, I may add a brief note saying something to the extent of
"Appreciation to Yusuf B Gursey (you will add academic titles, if you
[/quote]
actually it is
S. Yusuf B. Gürsey
(with an umlaut over the <u>). I'll forgo my academic titles as they
don't pertain to linguistics.
mention I don't endorse your reconstructions of proto-turkic
(or proto-Bulgharo-Turkic if you want) and refer to this thread
to my further objectiosn and reservations.
but thanks, I'll be responding to your postings soon.
[quote]have any) who carefully reviewed this work and provided some comments
and corrections". And if you reasonably disagree with something that
you don't want to subscribe to, you can briefly add something like: "I
(or other authors) still disagree with such and such points: (1)...
(2)..., etc".
That will increase the work's usability because many people ask me if
my works are reliable. I usually say they are not, because they just
express my personal opinion. But an independently reviewed article
would have more reliability in the eyes of readers.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 3:27am, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 19, 10:46pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
Done, thank you.
If you want, I may add a brief note saying something to the extent of
"Appreciation to Yusuf B Gursey (you will add academic titles, if you
actually it is
S. Yusuf B. Grsey
[/quote]
as a side note:
I am however, known as "Yusuf" . in Turkey the name you are normally
called by doesn't always come first. Turkish documents have only
"Name" and "Family Name". under "Name" you can put as many as
you want, in any order you wish. there is no category of "middle
name".
some people have an unofficial "gbek adI" litt. "navel name" that is
given
at infancy before the paperwork is done, that is discarded later. it
is
a temporary name and usually a "muslim" name so that if the infant
dies
prematurely it will die auspiciously.
[quote](with an umlaut over the <u>). I'll forgo my academic titles as they
don't pertain to linguistics.
mention I don't endorse your reconstructions of proto-turkic
(or proto-Bulgharo-Turkic if you want) and refer to this thread
to my further objectiosn and reservations.
but thanks, I'll be responding to your postings soon.
have any) who carefully reviewed this work and provided some comments
and corrections". And if you reasonably disagree with something that
you don't want to subscribe to, you can briefly add something like: "I
(or other authors) still disagree with such and such points: (1)...
(2)..., etc".
That will increase the work's usability because many people ask me if
my works are reliable. I usually say they are not, because they just
express my personal opinion. But an independently reviewed article
would have more reliability in the eyes of readers.- Hide quoted text -
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 3:27am, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 19, 10:46pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
Done, thank you.
If you want, I may add a brief note saying something to the extent of
"Appreciation to Yusuf B Gursey (you will add academic titles, if you
actually it is
S. Yusuf B. Grsey
(with an umlaut over the <u>). I'll forgo my academic titles as they
don't pertain to linguistics.
mention I don't endorse your reconstructions of proto-turkic
(or proto-Bulgharo-Turkic if you want) and refer to this thread
[/quote]
the URL for this thread is:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/browse_frm/thread/03537afcee726e2f?hl=en&
[quote]to my further objectiosn and reservations.
but thanks, I'll be responding to your postings soon.
have any) who carefully reviewed this work and provided some comments
and corrections". And if you reasonably disagree with something that
you don't want to subscribe to, you can briefly add something like: "I
(or other authors) still disagree with such and such points: (1)...
(2)..., etc".
That will increase the work's usability because many people ask me if
my works are reliable. I usually say they are not, because they just
express my personal opinion. But an independently reviewed article
would have more reliability in the eyes of readers.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 11:06 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]Yusuf B Gursey:
On Sep 21, 12:10 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 10 O'A*I^, 03:19, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:43 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
The updated scheme (based on shared innovations) is very simple:
(0) Bulgaric (a long, long separation, probably c. 700-1000 BC)
(1) Siberian Turkic (Sakha, Tuvan, Khakas, Altai, etc)
(2) Kimak-Karluk - (2a) Kyrgyz-Kazakh (or simply Karluk) and (2b)
Kimak-Kipchak-Tatar (or simply Kimak)
(3) Orkhon Turkic
Though, I still don't fully understand the position of Chagatai, it
Chaghatay comes from Khwarezmian Turkic (a transition from -*dh*- to -y-)
which in turn comes from Karakhanid. which in turn is very close to Old
Uyghur (the later *ny* > y dialect), which is close to Old Turkic. modern
Uzbek and New Uyghur in turn come from Chaghatay. I also remember
a study studying the roots of turkic words (rather than the words
themselves) and found that the Chaghatay group was closest to Old
Turkic amongst the modern languages.
Particularly Uyghur that is a little more archaic. But they both seem
at least it is less iranized.
to be influenced by Karluks and Kimaks to an undetermined extent (at
least by me).
well, very little is known about the language of the Karluks. at some
point, in the later middle turkic period they underwent the change
*dh* > y as had the Oghuz and Kypchak earlier.
modern Uzbeks read
Chaghatay literature in transcription. as for its alledged closeness
to Kyrgyz-Kazakh, heavy borrowing from Chaghatay (in which most of
the turkic writting was done in central asia for many centuries) and some
borrowing of modern Uzbek from Kyrgyz-Kazakh (the southeastward
sweep of the offshoots the Golden Horde and subsequent Kypchakization)
could explain common lexica.
There could have been multiple layers of Kipchakization. First from
the Karluks, then from the "Uzbeks" of the Golden Horde. It's not so
very little is known of the language of the Karluks.
By Karluks, I mostly understand the tribes closely related to what we
now know as Kyrgyz-Kazakh-Karakalpak, especially the early Kyrgyz or
Proto-Kyrgyz.
[/quote]
Karluks did indeed settle around modern Kyrgyzistan, but there is
no evidence as to what linguistic imprint was made. there was a
lot of mixing and migrations of tribes since then.
the original qyrqyz were the yenisei qyrqyz. though the relatonship
between the mdoern qyrghyz is not quite proved, though supposed.
[quote]
some say they
played an important part in the formation of the Karakhanid dynasty,
but Kashgari is curiously silent on that matter. they probably
preserved
etymological *j- (that covers *some* words only) from the fact that
they
called yab*gh*u as jab*gh*u (which is regarded closer to the older
form
from reconstructions from chinese sources)
simple. But I haven't studied the topic sufficiently to say much more.
but they have very different phonology,
which as Peter T. Daniels said in a recent post concerning the
relationships amongst south slavic languages is more crucial factor in
language classification (if I understood him correctly).
seems to have been strongly influenced by Kimak-Karluk to the extent
that I still wonder who supplanted who. Salar is most likely a
it may have been influenced by highly by new uyghur and chaghatay,
after all chagahtay was the principle written turkic language of all
of turkic central asia for centuries.
It's probably been influenced by many different languages, but the
basis should be Chagatai (judging by some linguistic evidence that I
will provide in the final version and the legendary fact they departed
for you historiography seems all "legendary".
I don't know to which extent any of this is attested in the Salar
sources (or rather I heard that they tend to confuse Samarqand with
Khorosan and the like), that's all a matter of a separate research.
[/quote]
Khorasan became Oghuz country (there are Turkmens there now), but
there were Oghuz in Transoxania as well at some point. OTOH there is
scholarly classification of Salar with the Chagatay group, as in
Menges, "Turkic Languages and Peoples" p. 60.
[quote]Troya has been found from legends, so...
from Samarqand or eastern Iran where Karakhanid-Chagatai was spoken at
the time).
Chagatai offshoot, also. Little can be said on Yughur, but probably
Karakhanid-Karakhoja-Orkhon line, as well. Khalaj is definitely the
Orkhon Turkic branch but the exact position is unclear.
a medieval arabic source (perhaps of persian origin) says that the Khalaj
were the descendants of the Hephthalites, which would explain its
archaic character (which you deny).
That's very vague.
it's not confirmed, but it's an interesting theory.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 11:23 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 29 сен, 07:53, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:18 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 11 ÓÅÎ, 02:34, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
Darkstar wrote:
[...]
"a dialect usage" (this meaning is also used in the text of
Kashgari's work). so Robert Dankoff and James Kelly translate
it as "Compendium of the Turkic dialects",again plural. but
"Compendium of the languages (or dialects) of the Turks"
"Compendium of the Dialects of the Turks" is the best and most
literal translation.
The double of's are usually not good English. But I'll leave it this
way.
[/quote]
well, I gave you the literal translation. but any translation with
the singular instead of the plural is just plain wrong.
incidentally, on the meaning of luGa(t). This is discussed in some
detail by Dankoff and Kelly: {...} are my notes.
<<
c) LuGa: "Variant, dialect"
The term luGa has a wide range of application in {classical} Arabic.
(cf. Ka:shGari:'s remarks at 169 til) Its basic meaning is "utterance"
or "word"; indeed, the title of the Diwan could be translated
"Register
of the Utterances of the Turks." Then, depending on the context, it
could
mean "specific pronounciation" or "variant," then "dialect," then
"speech"
or "language"; also (a modern application) "dictionary."
{the last one is not arabic usage, even modern arabic usage, but
persian
and turkic usage, probably short for persian kita:b-i luGat "luGat
book".
in modern turkic languages this is being replaced by variants of
sözlük}
Unfortunately, Ka:shGari:'s usage, though it tends to be
consistent,
does not fully compensate for the lack of precision of the {classical}
arabic term.
[quote]
[/quote]
under til / tIl he has the hierarchy lisa:n, kala:m, luGa(t) for
various subdivisions of "language / tongue" (lisa:n)
Clauson has tIl
<<
til "Speech (kala:m)" ol aNar til tegürdi "He did him harm (a*dha:)
with his tongue and his speech"
til "Tongue (lisa:n)." Proverb erdem ba*sh*I til "The head of the
virtues
is the tongue" - meaning thereby fine speech, as they say [in Arabic],
al-mar' maxbu: taHta lisa:nihi ("A man is hidden beneath his tongue")
til "Dialect (luGa)." {Clauson has "language") oGuz tili "The dialect
of
the OGuz." yaba:qu tili "The dialect of the Yaba:qu." This corresponds
to the Arabic in meaning, since al-lisa:n ("tongue") can be divided
into
"speech" (kala:m), and "language" (luGa), and so on; ...
>> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
bOn Oct 10, 12:02 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 29 сен, 08:06, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:52 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 13 сен, 10:41, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 3:55 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 9 сен, 10:54, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
:
:> > I am talking about the fact that they are not s'- which would be
:>>written
:> > with arabic script <s> or <*sh*> and there is no mistaking that
: >>for
:>><j>.
:
:> Chuvash has /s'/, /s/, and /sh/ that would all be rendered by
:> different Arabic letters -- I don't see a problem there.
:
:> As to the overall archaicness of the Bulgaric-Siberian line of
:>languages, I could ask the same question about Turkish -- on what
:> basis is it supposed to be archaic other than the Osmano-
:> centricist
:> tradition?
: Again, in anutshell...
: The whole matter doesn't come from the
: barchaicness/innovativeness
: values, it comes from the fact that Orkhon was the only branch that
: actually had it, while the other three independent branches :
: (Bulgaric,
: Siberian, and Kimak-Kyrgyz) did not have a /y/, therefore it is
Hakas (presumabely the ancestor of the Kirghiz) has /y/. Tuvinian
which
OK. memory plays tricks. but Khakas has n- when a nasal follows for
initial y-/j- . since nasalization of y- (n- < *y-) is a more
reasonable
sound change and n- < j- or *ch*- is not,it is reasonable to conclude
that at least Khakas had *y-
Menges "Turkic Languages and Peoples" p. 92 also derives it from*y-
It should be double-checked, it may be a metathesis.
huh?
Neither is it phonologically justified; the palatalized /ch'/ > /n'/
(as before /i/) is just as likely. Actually, even more so, because /y/
is a semivowel, and the tongue is in the air, whereas /ch/ is a
consonant-the tongue is pressed against the palate.
the intermediate sound *ny* is much more common then a
nasalized *ch*.
resides on the Orkhonic homeland does not.
Allahım! What are you talking about? Both Khakas and Tuvan
have "ch"-.
the modernlanguagesdo. but if the name is any indication, the modern
Kirghiz and Khakas share a common ancestor.
It was my personal musing.
Though, Khakas *is* similar to Kyrghyz but only because the both
then that may confirm some relation.
languages are archaic and share many archaisms. (I'm planning to show
some proof that these are the most archaic representatives among the
TLs, when I'm finished with my article).
no modern turkic language is fully "archaic". for archaic languages
look
back at the historical record for once.
Khakas is probably not the ancestor of Kyrgyz -- they don't share any
innovations. Tuvan is not on Orkhon soil. Tuva is where you get if you
move a little upward (southward) from Khakassia along the Yenisei and
further into the Sayan Mountains, which shows that Khakas and Tuvan
are geographically close and may have constituted a single unity
based
purely on geographical reasons, because the separation would just
take
a small migation up or down the river. To get to the Orkhon, it either
takes a long trip around the Mongol Altai or a hard one through the
Sayan Mountains-both treks must be very difficult, which separates
Proto-Orkhon geographically. And most of it has been described on my
page.
: statistically more plausible to assume a single mutation in Orkhon
: than three identical mutations in the other three virtually
: independent branches.
: Kipchak-Kimak-Tatar, a subbranch of Kimak-Kyrgyz, were
: subsequently
Old Kipchak has y-
Probably because Kimak/Kipchak-Orkhonic contacts were early (c.
700
AD) so it showed up in Armenian sources (or whichever you named)-I
not just armeno-kypchak, but codex comenucus, and a grammer /
dictionary of the kypchak of the egyptian mamlukes (thus covering a
wide
range of tribes) written by an arab grammarian.
What Kypchak was doing in Egypt? ASFAI understand it was a dialect of
slaves captured during different periods, therefore it may be of mixed
consistently from the Kypchak steppe. there were no Oghuz there.
the Oghuz incursion into the area was earlier and very brief. the
Oghuz were by then muslim and hence were not taken as slaves.
Mameluke Egypt had an arrangement with the Golden Horde by
which the latter provided Egypt with slaves.
at any rate, it is consistent with all the other sources of Kypchak
of the period. the simplest conclusion is that it they represent
the Kypchak speech of that period.and that speech had y- .
that the Mamlukes were Kypchak is well established by historians.
later, as the Kypchaks became muslim, the slaves were taken
from circassians, although the Kypchak names and langauge
survived for some time.
Oghuz-Kipchak origin, and the original pronounciation may have been
no.
lost. For example, it's supported by the fact that they used da"gu"l
that's the earlier form, from da:*gh* ol which it seems was preserved
at that period. d- and g- occasionally appear outside the Oghuz
sphere,
such as Nogay do"rt K. Tatar du"rt (cf. mongolian do"rben; oghuz
do"rt),
all meaning "4" supporting the more recent view that these are
archaicisms.
incidentally, it could also have been read da"go"l . thus the e in
tu"gel .
(rarely du"gu"l) instead of tu"gil, tu"gel.
[...]
(flower) might have been borrowed at the same time. The presence of
gu"l is just a later persian loanword, in classical persian gul "rose,
flower"
Ah, okay.
at least a minimal knowledge of arabic and persian is required for
turkic studies. arabic and persian words are indicated for ottoman
turkish in the Redhouse (orange covered version) dictionary.
voiced /g/ in gu"l even in Kyrgyz-Kazakh demonstrates it's an Oghuz
borrowing.
no, it's from persian. it has a solid Indo-Iranian etymology.
On 13 сен, 10:41, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:> On Sep 11, 3:55 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 9 сен, 10:54, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
:
:> > I am talking about the fact that they are not s'- which would be >>>>:>>written
:> > with arabic script <s> or <*sh*> and there is no mistaking that > > > > > > :> > for
:>><j>.
:
:> Chuvash has /s'/, /s/, and /sh/ that would all be rendered by
:> different Arabic letters -- I don't see a problem there.
:
:> As to the overall archaicness of the Bulgaric-Siberian line of
:>languages, I could ask the same question about Turkish -- on what
:> basis is it supposed to be archaic other than the Osmano-centricist
:> tradition?
: Again, in anutshell...
: The whole matter doesn't come from the
: archaicness/innovativeness
: values, it comes from the fact that Orkhon was the only branch that
: actually had it, while the other three independent branches
:(Bulgaric,
: Siberian, and Kimak-Kyrgyz) did not have a /y/, therefore it is
Hakas (presumabely the ancestor of the Kirghiz) has /y/. Tuvinian
which
OK. memory plays tricks. but Khakas has n- when a nasal follows for
initial y-/j- . since nasalization of y- (n- < *y-) is a more
reasonable
sound change and n- < j- or *ch*- is not,it is reasonable to conclude
that at least Khakas had *y-
Menges "Turkic Languages and Peoples" p. 92 also derives it from*y-
It should be double-checked, it may be a metathesis.
it happens in words were there is no metathesis at all. just
a certain phonetic environment.
huh?
As in "niske" < *SiNiske (ince), "nymyrxa" , there may be either a
the old form is yin*ch*ge . the root verb is *yin*ch*- , attested in
the verb yin*ch*ür- "to bow ones head" acc. toClauson.
yes, in the case of niske there is a probably a dropping of a
consonant.
metathesis or a syllable omisson or influence from the other
consonants. It should be re-checked...
Neither is it phonologically justified; the palatalized /ch'/ > /n'/
(as before /i/) is just as likely. Actually, even more so, because /y/
is a semivowel, and the tongue is in the air, whereas /ch/ is a
consonant-the tongue is pressed against the palate.
the intermediate sound *ny* is much more common then a
nasalized *ch*.
Why should there be a nasalized "ch"? Just a palatalized ch.
n- < y- occurs with back vowels as well.
You confused me with all these n-changes. I'll leave this matter as
unsolved.
[/quote]
you didn't propose any reason for the alledged palatization of
initial *ch*-
[quote]
resides on the Orkhonic homeland does not.
Allahım! What are you talking about? Both Khakas and Tuvan
have "ch"-.
the modernlanguagesdo. but if the name is any indication, the modern
Kirghiz and Khakas share a common ancestor.
It was my personal musing.
Though, Khakas *is* similar to Kyrghyz but only because the both
then that may confirm some relation.
languages are archaic and share many archaisms. (I'm planning to show
some proof that these are the most archaic representatives among the
TLs, when I'm finished with my article).
no modern turkic language is fully "archaic". for archaic languages
look
back at the historical record for once.
Khakas is probably not the ancestor of Kyrgyz -- they don't share any
innovations. Tuvan is not on Orkhon soil. Tuva is where you get if you
move a little upward (southward) from Khakassia along the Yenisei and
further into the Sayan Mountains, which shows that Khakas and Tuvan
are geographically close and may have constituted a single unity
.> > based
purely on geographical reasons, because the separation would just
take
a small migation up or down the river. To get to the Orkhon, it either
takes a long trip around the Mongol Altai or a hard one through the
Sayan Mountains-both treks must be very difficult, which separates
Proto-Orkhon geographically. And most of it has been described on my
page.
: statistically more plausible to assume a single mutation in Orkhon
: than three identical mutations in the other three virtually
: independent branches.
: Kipchak-Kimak-Tatar, a subbranch of Kimak-Kyrgyz, were
: subsequently
Old Kipchak has y-
Probably because Kimak/Kipchak-Orkhonic contacts were early (c.
700
AD) so it showed up in Armenian sources (or whichever you named)-I
not just armeno-kypchak, but codex comenucus, and a grammer /
dictionary of the kypchak of the egyptian mamlukes (thus covering a
wide
range of tribes) written by an arab grammarian.
What Kypchak was doing in Egypt? ASFAI understand it was a dialect of
slaves captured during different periods, therefore it may be of mixed
consistently from the Kypchak steppe. there were no Oghuz there.
the Oghuz incursion into the area was earlier and very brief. the
Oghuz were by then muslim and hence were not taken as slaves.
Mameluke Egypt had an arrangement with the Golden Horde by
which the latter provided Egypt with slaves.
Those may be free migrants from Anatolia and other regions.
they were very few, and they snuck in contrary to practice.
"The privileges associated with being a mamluk were so desirable that
many free Egyptians arranged themselves to be sold in order to gain
access to this privileged society." (wiki)
that was a minority. besides the data given in arabic script in Egypt
correlates with other sources of the Kypchak of that period.
I don't think they kept good demography censuses at the time, so it
leaves room for doubt.
[/quote]
they left records of the origin of the slaves.
[quote]
at any rate, it is consistent with all the other sources of Kypchak
of the period. the simplest conclusion is that it they represent
the Kypchak speech of that period.and that speech had y- .
that the Mamlukes were Kypchak is well established by historians.
But not as far as the language is concerned which is another story.
as far as language too, for it correlates with other sources of
Kypchak of that period.
later, as the Kypchaks became muslim, the slaves were taken
from circassians, although the Kypchak names and langauge
survived for some time.
Oghuz-Kipchak origin, and the original pronounciation may have been
no.
lost. For example, it's supported by the fact that they used da"gu"l
that's the earlier form, from da:*gh* ol which it seems was preserved
at that period.
Well, if you think that b- and d- were original, and this and that
was original because it's so similar to "my language", and finally
anything Turkish-like was original, there is no use to talk.
I don't discuss anything with nationalists, or egocentricists, or
nationallistically-biased people, only with scientists...
I did not make the claim, turkologists likeClausonand Menges make
the claim. this is the most modern view. there are still some
holdouts,
but not concerning initial b-, so prefering the unvoiced initials is
at least not unscholarly, though not the most modern view.
the form da:*gh* ol is given as Arghu by Kashgari, and it is found
in Khalaj as well (the two share similar characteristics).
d- and g- occasionally appear outside the Oghuz
sphere,
such as Nogay do"rt K. Tatar du"rt (cf. mongolian do"rben; oghuz
do"rt),
all meaning "4" supporting the more recent view that these are
archaicisms.
incidentally, it could also have been read da"go"l . thus the e in
tu"gel .
Whatever.
Anyway, even if y- was original in Kipchak-Tatar-Kimak (but not Kyrgyz-
Kazakh-Karakalpak, which has not been shown herein), it can hardly
salvage the rest of the demonstration.
The partial presence of y- in Kipchak-Tatar-Kimak languages is the
only reason why this problem is even a problem. If it hadn't been for
this, no one would even doubt. But it can probably be explained by the
late Oghuz influence, since we have ch/J- in Karachay, which seems to
[/quote]
Karachay normally has j- , *ch*- is sporadic.
[quote]
there is no reason to postulate late Oghuz influence in Tatar and
neighboring languages on historical grounds alone.
It's true that this contact is not historically attested. That's why I
infer it occurred early on.
[/quote]
the simpler explanation is that it is a survival, as it occurs even
in Mongolian do"rben "4".
[quote]
have branched off relatively early (along with the Kipchak-
Polovtsians, or c.1000). But you are going to claim it's a secondary
the sound change probably spread during the mongol period.
development. Yet, the secondary developments are ruled out
statistically — there would just be too many of them (including Tatar
itself)
Menges showed internal evidence for the late development of y- > j-,
*zh*-
in Qaraqalpaq and its closely related languages.
Well, this could very well be true of Karakalpak (!) since both Kazak
[/quote]
Menges finds the change to be more general, besides, as I have pointed
out, there is historical evidnce that the j- / taw languages, if you
are going ot quibble about the term "Kipchak", originally had y- .
[quote]and Karakalpak are language-dialects that result from late (since the
15th century on) contact between Kyrgyz and the tribes of the Golden
Horde.
[/quote]
they are all essentially j- languages and taw languages. they
are all usually classified together. they share a common phonology,
which is regarded as more important.
[quote]Kyrgyz — Kazakh — Karakalpak— Nogai—Tatar is basically and most likely
a continuum of mutual interaction and secondary interbreeding. Again,
Kazakh is essentially the Kyrgyz affected by the Tatar of the Golden
Horde, whereas Karakalpak can nearly be regarded as a dialect of
Kazakh.
But what we discussed of the "etymological" y/S, as you call it, is a
different matter.
(rarely du"gu"l) instead of tu"gil, tu"gel.
[...]
(flower) might have been borrowed at the same time. The presence of
gu"l is just a later persian loanword, in classical persian gul "rose,
flower"
Ah, okay.
at least a minimal knowledge of arabic and persian is required for
turkic studies. arabic and persian words are indicated for ottoman
turkish in the Redhouse (orange covered version) dictionary.
It's a rare occasion when it looks like an original Turkic word and is
not easily discernable.
yet you missed obvious loans like gul and 3araq,
3araq?
[/quote]
or transliterate it `araq "distilled beverage", remember.
3 is used on the internet a lot because it superficially resembles the
mirror image of the arabic letter.
[quote]
as well Sabiyy and
didn't catch the mistakes in Wikipedia concerning the correct
transcription
of the Kasgari's book. it doesn't hurt to learn a little arabic and
persian
or at least check in a dictionary like Redhouse.
The truth to tell, these languages are only necessary for the
southwest Turkic languages, like Turkish, whereas the rest of them
[/quote]
Uzbek has much more persian influence at a more fundamental level.
New Uygur also has considerable persian and arabic vocabulary.
[quote]have been affected by Russian, Chinese, Tungusic, and Mongolic
adstrates. If you center your picture over the Altai, you'll
[/quote]
you also miss out on middle and early new turkic sources without
a minimal knowledge of arabic and persian.
[quote]understand that the Arabic influence is essentially a very marginal
matter. Though it's true that it's nearly impossible to learn Turkish
[/quote]
modern turkish, not really.
[quote]without learning Arabic first, since the Arabic influence there is as
strong as the Romance in English.
[/quote]
that's flatly an exageration.besides, the arabic entirely
from bookish learning, whereas Norman French entered through direct
contact. big difference. it's only in the higher vocabulary where
you find arabic influence. that's what made the language reform
(which I find ridiculous, but that is a different matter) possible.
only the persian (tajik) influence in Uzbek is remotely comparable
to the influnece of Romance in English.
[quote]voiced /g/ in gu"l even in Kyrgyz-Kazakh demonstrates it's an Oghuz
borrowing.
no, it's from persian. it has a solid Indo-Iranian etymology.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 5:11 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 29 сен, 08:15, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:29 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 13 сен, 10:44, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:14 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 9 сен, 11:02, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
:> I am talking about the fact that they are not s'- which would be
:>. written
:> with arabic script <s> or <*sh*> and there is no mistaking that for
:> <j>.
: Chuvash has /s'/, /s/, and /sh/ that would all be rendered by
: different Arabic letters -- I don't see a problem there.
incidentally, arabic has only two non-emphatic sibilants /s/
and /*sh*/.
and neither appear Volgabulghar where Chuvash s'- appears, instead
the
affricate /j/ appears.
Because it's neither /sh/ as in /shIv/ (su < suw) nor /s/, it's
modernly pronounced as the Russian <сь> and in theory could be
allophonically close to the modern Russian /sch/ -- the palatalized
form of /sh/, more or less as in the soft pronounciation of the
Turkish <s,> in some words by some speakers.
if you mean the allophone *zh* of the Balkan dialect of Turkish,
that could have been rendered by arabic <z> or perso-arabic <*zh*>.
at any rate, the reading is confirmed by the fatc that the
overwhelming
majority of bulgharic loanwords in Hungarian are rendered by <gy->,
in Hungarian pronounced close to [j]. only a very few have <sz->,
i.e. [s].
: As to the overall archaicness of the Bulgaric-Siberian line of
:languages, I could ask the same question about Turkish -- on what
: basis is it supposed to be archaic other than the Osmano-centricist
: tradition?
again I repeat, there is nothing in Osman to reconstruct *j- , *d-
(or * *dh*-), *n- , * *ny*- (in addition to *y- ) for commonturkicy-.
There shouldn't be. /Y/ is supposed to be an Orkhonic innovation.
that's your assumption that is contradicted by historical facts.. there
are even loanwords in Uraliclanguagesy- with rhotacism and in
Old Slavic loansturkicloans with d- (instead ofturkicy-/j-).
these are confirmed by correspondences in otherlanguages,
especially
mongolic, and occassional transcriptionsof archaicturkicwords.
The Mongoliclanguageshave /zh/, /dz/, /sh/ before high vowels, but
never /y/-as in Khalka /zhu"rx/ (yu"rek), /zhil/ (yil), dzu: (yu"z),
etc. Before lower vowels (a, I, o, u) they apparently tend to lose
this sound through aspiration *S > x > h > 0 as in Middle Mong.
amdega-
n (yumurta < *SymyrtGa), M. Mong xod-un (yulduz, Ch. /s'oldor/), M.
Mong. euk-un
(yag^).
your reconstructions are not accepted by altaicists (or anti-
altaicists).
nu":r ~ yu":z "face" (Clauson) points to inital *n-, for example.
*y- ,*n- , * *ny*- became *y-, *d- (or * *dh*-), *j- became *j-
later *y- and *j- were either merged to y- or j-
as for mongolian not having initial y-, modern mongolic does not
have it, but it was present in the western dialect of middle
mongolian (acc. toClausonthe eastrn dialect did not have it, it
had j- instead) as in yeke "great" cf. yeke monggol ulus
"Great Mongol Nation" (the official name of the Mongol Empire)
attested in arabic script on coins.
you are wrong on two points:
- commonturkic(or Orkhonic if you like) y- comes from one source
- that source is s'
On 9 сен, 11:02, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 10:00 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
:> I am talking about the fact that they are not s'- which would be
: > written
:> with arabic script <s> or <*sh*> and there is no mistaking that for > .> > > > > :> <j>.
: Chuvash has /s'/, /s/, and /sh/ that would all be rendered by
: different Arabic letters -- I don't see a problem there.
incidentally, arabic has only two non-emphatic sibilants /s/
.> > > and /*sh*/.
and neither appear Volgabulghar where Chuvash s'- appears, instead > > > > > > the
affricate /j/ appears.
Because it's neither /sh/ as in /shIv/ (su < suw) nor /s/, it's
modernly pronounced as the Russian <сь> and in theory could be
allophonically close to the modern Russian /sch/ -- the palatalized
form of /sh/, more or less as in the soft pronounciation of the
Turkish <s,> in some words by some speakers.
if you mean the allophone *zh* of the Balkan dialect of Turkish,
that could have been rendered by arabic <z> or perso-arabic <*zh*>.
No, I meant the pure Turkish <s,> -- it's rather soft by Russian
standards and sometimes rendered as palatalized <щ> in Russian
phrasebooks.
I don't know the informants used by the russian phrasebooks, they may
be from the Balkans. at any rate that is a problem for russians.
That's how the normal Turkish <s,> may sound to unprepared Russians —
soft, that's all I was trying to say. Same for the English <sh>,
actually. That just shows how sibilants may vary through different
perception.
but they are never percieved as classical arabic ji:m .
there
has
never been a case of turkish (or for that matter any turkic) /*sh*/
being
rendered by arabic <j> i.e. ji:m.
at any rate, the reading is confirmed by the fatc that the
overwhelming
majority of bulgharic loanwords in Hungarian are rendered by <gy->,
in Hungarian pronounced close to [j]. only a very few have <sz->,
i.e. [s].
I'm not at all sure <gy-> should be read as <y>. If they don't have a
...>denotes a grapheme not a sound. I said approximately [j], if
it is clearer, *dj* , i.e. similar to classical arabic /j/, i.e. ji:m.
I've already looked it up, and I know that the Hungarian <gy> = /J/ = /
dzh/ (I always denote it as a capital to avoid conflation with the
German /y/ in Junge) because it was apparently written so by Italian
scribes.
then old volgabulghar had j- not s'- .
Yes, Danube Bulgarian did have something like /j/ (d' and zh' or maybe
dzh' ) most likely, as I've cited in an earlier post (Khakimzyanov's
article on Bulgaric in "The Turkic Languages"). As to Volga
Bulgarian, the evidence is not conclusive.
[/quote]
at least when the orthography was established, the sound was
written with arabic ji:m which has the same sound in standard
arabic as [j]. so at least at the time when the orthogrpahy
was established it was sounded as [j], which is consistent
with Kuban Bulghar as we know from loanwords in Hungarian,
and the Volga Bulghars migrated to the Volga region from
the Kuban region. when Ibn Fadlan visited in 922 the
Volga Bulghars had newly converted. probably they began
writing their language in arabic script around that time
as well.
at any rate Kuban Bulghar is older, and certainly older
than modern chuvash.
[quote]
special letter, it'd be much easier to put <i> for /y/.
I am not arguing for a volga bulghar y- . read what I write more
carefully.
I don't know what you meant, then. Or were you trying to say that /
dzh/ is closer to /y/ than to /s'/-/sch'/? That's hardly so.
I am not saying its closer to y-, merely saying it was not j- .
According to F.S. Khakimzyanov's article on Bulgaric in "The Turkic
Languages", Bulgaric had d'- and zh- dialects, as in d'ur/chur (yu"z):
this may be an inovation as mongolian has nu":r "face" unless "100"
(also yu":z) is meant. OTOH there is Common Samoyed *yu"r "100"
(Rona Tas "Chuvash Studies" p. 122 "The Periodization and Sources
of Chuvash Linguistic History" by Rona-Tas) dated before the 1st
cent. CE. also Menges Turkic Languages and Peoples p. 97,98
where he derives it from * *ny*- based on similarities to Dravidian..
I promised not to use any external evidence. If you start discussing
Altaic-Nostratic, I'll start churning out S-cognates like sausages,
these were mostly archaic *loanwords* and not based on something
as hypothetical as Nostratic.
100 a loanword? Not at all necessarily.
[/quote]
evidently it does not have an Uralic etymology.
[quote]
such as:
Finno-Ugric *sata (hundred), Iranian (sata), Bulgaro-Turkic *SeR,
*Su"R (yu"z), Mongolic *zhau-n;
Iranian *sal (year), BT *Syl (yyl), Mongolic *zhil;
volgabulghar has ja:l ,not s'-
I'm not at all sure about your Arabic /j/ in the early Volga Bulgaric.
It could be pronounced as anything. The name "Thomas", for instance,
was rendered as "FomA" in Old Russian. Does this mean it was
pronounced that way in Greek and Latin?
[/quote]
no, we are establishing Volga Bughar pronounciation from the arabic
orthography, not the other way round.
[quote]
yIl is related to ya:*sh* "age" and has to do with ya:*sh* "moist"
ya*sh*Il "green".
[/quote]
yIl came from ya:*sh* through reborrowing from an r/l language,
which normally narrows vowels as well, acc. to Bazin. possibly
the (propoesed) Old Mongolic of the asiatic Avars (Ruan-Ruan),
acc. to Bazin.
[quote]
No it's not because of semantic reasons. Skipping semantics is a
logical mistake, as considerable as violating the law of regular
correspondences.
[/quote]
I explained the semantic connection as proposed by Bazin below.
it's in: Journal de Psychologie No. 1 - Janvier-Mars 1959
"Le Concept d'<<Anne d'Age>> chez les Peuples Turcs"
by L. Bazin
reprinted in "Les Turcs, des Mots, des Hommes" by L. Bazin
p. 299 -
{an anthology of L. Bazin's works}
[quote]
Bazin has an article on this as the ancient turks,
as the Yakut and Dolgan do today, measured time by teh greening of
the grasses. the word for "moist" corresponds to a mongolian word
with n-.
Semantic nonsense. It's also related to yol because the wind changes
[/quote]
it's based on a scholarly article that has not been challenged.
[quote]direction every season. I can make up dozens of stories like this.
[/quote]
there is no record of that. there is a record of the new year
being tied to the greening of the grasses. besides yol "road,
way" does not exhibit any regular sound changes from ya:*sh*
[quote]Anything would be related to anything. The medical term is
"schizzophrenia".
[/quote]
no, the semantic connection is based on historical evidence on
how ancient turks measured time in chinese records, as well as
survivals of the practice today. BTW Bazin also notes that Turks
have been partial to calenders (except of course the islamic
one) that begin in spring (although "spring" was defined by
the chinese as beginning around mid-winter). even the ottoman
fiscal calender (solar) began in March until during WWI, when
it was moved to January (and changed from the Julain system to
the Gregorian one). mid-spring is also an anatolian festival,
with an islamic veneer.
[quote]
FU *seitem, *settem (seven), Iranian*sapta, BT *Sette (yedi);
it was for the number words that Sinor postulated *s'- but *for
some words only*
BT *Sane, Sene (yeni), Mongolic *shine, *shini;
Iranian *set (earth), BT *Ser (yer), Mongolic *shirau;
FU *seden, *su"ren,*selem (heart), Iranian *zereda, *zerede, BT
cha"rek, chu"rek (yu"rek), Mongolic zhu"ru"G.
,> > "In Dunai-Bulgaric, the Anlaut j- is rendered through d- (dilom
'snake') and zh- ~ ch- (zhitem 'seventh'). In Kuban-Bulgar-through d'
~ zh' (d'ox/zhox 'rememberance')..."
"Dunai-Bulgaric texts are written in Cyrillic, though their originals
were possibly written in Greek"
IIRC the earliest inscriptions are in greek script. this again
confirms
my point that bulgharic did not originally have s'- ;
In what way?
because there is no evidence of it inscriptionally or from the
overwhelming majority of hungarian loanwords.
Okay, it had /J/
[/quote]
finally.
[quote]
certainly not
throughout, only Sinor adds *s'- *in some words only* and his
evidence is considered weak (mainly forcing Nostratic etymologies).
(BTW, we talked about l2.
Dunai-Bulgar has "pil" (head), so Chuvash /pus'/ may be a Tatar
borrowing, too.)
yes, that is the usual interpretation.
one school of thought (IIRC hungarian) finds these examples too many
and says that *l2 ceased to have a hushing sound only in certain
dialects of bulghar, while in the ancestor of chuvash the *l2 > l
didn't reach all the words *l2 > *sh* > s' resulted. anyway I'll be
just a messanger on this point and won't persue it further.
I've heard of it, but it's best not to introduce any irregularity into
sound laws.
well, the theory has some merit, it only says that it takes some time
for a sound change to become regular, i.e. to spread to all words.
you make some very irregular reconstructions yourself.
Sometimes I neglect vowels (if I consider them too unstable in the
[/quote]
that's a big shortcoming of yours.
[quote]long run e.g. over 3000 ys) or allow for lax transformations in the
second syllable which is phonologically less stable and more lenitive,
such as -r = -l. But I take into account the overall statistical
probability of a mutation (for instance, its presence in a parallel
independent group, the good correspondence in other phonemes, etc), so
my negligence is supposed to be reasonable somehow. I mean if the
classical law is violated, a hypothesis is supposed to be argumented
by other means.
Maybe the view that you presented above is not entirely unlikely,
either, but it was not supported by other evidence. Anyway, let's
leave it aside.
[/quote]
it's supported by enough evidence to be a scholarly view.
[quote]
: As to the overall archaicness of the Bulgaric-Siberian line of
:languages, I could ask the same question about Turkish -- on what
: basis is it supposed to be archaic other than the Osmano-centricist
: tradition?
again I repeat, there is nothing in Osman to reconstruct *j- , *d-
(or * *dh*-), *n- , * *ny*- (in addition to *y- ) for commonturkicy-.
There shouldn't be. /Y/ is supposed to be an Orkhonic innovation.
that's your assumption that is contradicted by historical facts.. there
are even loanwords in Uraliclanguagesy- with rhotacism and in
Old Slavic loansturkicloans with d- (instead ofturkicy-/j-).
/shrug/ So what?
Anyway, /d'/ is not any closer to /y/ than it is to /s'/.
for the Nth time (where N is a very large number) I never said *y-
across the board! read what I write carefully! the point being
that common turkic y- has multiple origins,
Oh, come on, what did you say then? If you're asking to read more
carefully, I should ask to type more clearly. :-)
I said what I said just above all along.
and it's quite
certainly not s'- (with only Sinor adding it for *some* words).
Not necessarily /s'/ directly, it could be /s'/ > /sch'/ > /ch'/ > /
yy/ > /y/, for instance. Or something similar.
I repeat the evidence I presented before and this has the merit of
being
accepted by most linguists in the field. some still adhere to the old
notion of just the sequence *d- > *j- > y- only, but again it is not
*s'- .
/s'/ is not from the Turkic-interanl evidence, it's from Altaic-
Nostratic— that's true. And it's mostly for the early Proto-Bulgaro-
Turkic. It's not really clear, what it was like at late stages...
[/quote]
no, it is not supported by Altaic or Nostratic evidence, supported by
established scholars in the field. besides it can't contradict the
evidence that earlier on it was not s'-.
[quote]Could be /ch/ for instance. So yes, there are some simplifications.
these are confirmed by correspondences in otherlanguages,
especially
mongolic, and occassional transcriptionsof archaicturkicwords.
The Mongoliclanguageshave /zh/, /dz/, /sh/ before high vowels, but
never /y/-as in Khalka /zhu"rx/ (yu"rek), /zhil/ (yil), dzu: (yu"z),
etc. Before lower vowels (a, I, o, u) they apparently tend to lose
this sound through aspiration *S > x > h > 0 as in Middle Mong.
amdega-
n (yumurta < *SymyrtGa), M. Mong xod-un (yulduz, Ch. /s'oldor/), M.
Mong. euk-un
(yag^).
your reconstructions are not accepted by altaicists (or anti-
altaicists).
nu":r ~ yu":z "face" (Clauson) points to inital *n-, for example.
also Hungarian has nyár "summer ~ common turkic ya:z (Rona-Tas,
Chuvash studies). Menges (Turkic Languages and Peoples) p. 98
Mongolian nara < * *ny*ara (also Tamil na:L "day";L = retroflex l)
Then, why not, for instance, Slavic "zhar, zhara" (hot time, hotness)
for yaz? I could provide dozens of
Nostratic correspondences... Actually, whichever way you want them, I
can find them — that's the problem with Nostratic
no, nostraticists try to rely on rigorous historical reconstruction
and
regular sound changes like other linguistists.
I'm not against Nostraticists. In a way, I'm one myself.
[/quote]
but your sound changes are not regular.
[quote]
Clausonthought there was 2-3% of correspondences in the Altaic
languages in a Swadesh list. Which shows he knew absolutely nothin'
about it. (The average amount is about 30% for Swadesh-100, and up to
40-50% for Mongolic-Tungusic-Manchu, which seem to be particularly
close, according to my research). Starostin's interest in the Altaic
languages was basically connected with the attempt to debunkClauson's
idiocy.
Starotsin's attempts have been controversial even among supporters of
the
altaic theory, some of whom have switched sides as a result.
Anyway, Starostin found ~18-22% of common words (1991, "The Altaic
Problem and the Origins of the Japanese language"), I found at least
~30%...
but your methods aren't rigorous.
I simply counted what I thought as potential cognates quick-and-dirty—
one either trusts me or not. Strange enough, Starostin missed some
very obvious ones, e.g. for Turkic-Mongolic: yu"rek : zhu"ru"ken,
saryG: shira, etc.
[/quote]
perhaps because there was not enough evidence form Tungusic to support
the view that they are not loanwords between turic and mongolic.
[quote]
*y- ,*n- , * *ny*- became *y-, *d- (or * *dh*-), *j- became *j-
later *y- and *j- were either merged to y- or j-
as for mongolian not having initial y-, modern mongolic does not
have it, but it was present in the western dialect of middle
mongolian (acc. toClausonthe eastrn dialect did not have it, it
had j- instead) as in yeke "great" cf. yeke monggol ulus
"Great
...
as for mongolian not having initial y-, modern mongolic does not
have it, but it was present in the western dialect of middle
mongolian (acc. toClausonthe eastrn dialect did not have it, it
had j- instead) as in yeke "great" cf. yeke monggol ulus
"Great Mongol Nation" (the official name of the Mongol Empire)
attested in arabic script on coins.
You're constantly citing some unstable factoids.
what makes coin inscriptions "unstable" and "factoids"
Because it was in Arabic and because it was a single word, and because
what's wrong with it being in arabic script? the values or range of
values
the script represented is very well known. it's something that needs
to be
explained. Doerfer in his book on mongolian and turkic loanwords in
new
persian (TMEN) has a handful of western middle mongolian words
begining
in initial y-, among them yeke (apparently also aloanword in the
turkish /
Azeri dialect of Kars (eastern Turkey) "great" and yosun "bone". they
[/quote]
sorry, it's yasun
[quote]don't
seem to have initial y- correspondences in "Altaic" languages though,
but
correspond to different sounds.
Indeed, as I see it, it is Mongolic *yas-un : Turkic so"n~- o"k, su"n~
-u"k, so"yo"k, where -un and -k are probably suffixes, and "yas"
[/quote]
so"yo"k is secondary from the forms with -*ng*-
[quote]*say is a Mongolic root probably akin to su"n-/so"N/so"y through a
metathesis with y : n/N, cf. a metathesis in us-un : su.
[/quote]
it's su"*ng*u"k / *su"*ng*o"k where *ng* is part of the root.
cognate to su"*ng*u" "lance, spear" acc. to Clauson. from
a verb *su"*ng*- probably *"to pierce" or something like that.
[quote]
we aren't even sure about the cognates, and because it's difficult to
check through other sources, etc
you are wrong on two points:
- commonturkic(or Orkhonic if you like) y- comes from one source
- that source is s'-
(shrug)
yes, it seems you are so commited to this that nothing
will sway you, yet I will keeep posting about this matter
for the benefit of others who are interested in what
mainstream linguistics has to say.
I'm easily swayed by hard facts and logic (if anyone still has any
you are not you have a priori notions of certain modern languages
being "archaic" almost across the board and you refuse historical
evidence.
Let's state it this way: I have a view that Siberian Turkic (esp.
Khakas), Kyrgyz, and Chuvash are more interesting for the Proto-
but Old Qyrqyz is a dialect of runic turkic.
Since when?
[/quote]
from the Yenisey inscriptions in Old Qyrqyz territory.
[quote]
Bulgaro-Turkic reconstruction than Oghuz, which has acquired more
but it has a long literary history dating to the 14th cent. and thus
what are the inovative features of the modern languages is pretty
well known. Turkmen preserves long vowels (they can be guessed at
through the voicing of consonants in Turkish and Azeri) and Turkish
remained free of the inovations spread during the mongol period.
As I've shown in the new article on glottochronology, Turkish is in
fact (one of) the most lexically innovative, it has most words in
Swadesh-200 not found in other Turkic languages.
[/quote]
but the sound changes are predictable. Turkish is not just modern
Turkish, but Ottoman Turkish, and even Old Anatolian Turkish,
and dialects of modern Turkish in Anatolia, then you get much
more turkic correspondences. also turkish has a long written
history, and the written language retained many etymological
features. so even though it underwent some sound changes, like
those associated with Oghuz in general, and others more recently,
those sound changes are well known. it also has been extensively
studied in terms of etymology. Old Anatolain Turkish has been
useful in dicephering words in the Bulghar branch. so one
should not entirely dissmiss it.
[quote]
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/Turkic_languages_glottochronology.htm
[/quote]
the correct URL is
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/Turkic_languages_glottochronology.html
you forgot the l of .html
[quote]
Anyway, the Mongol period is nothing to the TLs, since superstrata
normally leave traces only in the upper lexical levels, and we're
[/quote]
I am not talking about the effect of mongolian but various closely
related turkic languages influencing each other, that causes
more serious changes.
[quote]discussing basic lexis.
[/quote]
they caused mixing of tribes and thus mixing of dialects.
[quote]
innovative features due to contact with many substrata and adstrata as
it moved away from the Altai homeland...
but you reject runic turkic
How do I reject it? Completely? No, I only think less of it.
[/quote]
exactly. but by definition it is "Old" and you don't deal with
that.
[quote]
(and wrongly lump oghuz as its principle
survivor) as well,
Oghuz apparently resulted from the interaction of the Orkhon tribes
with the Kimaks to the north of the Tian Shan, since both groups share
many innovations. Turkmen separated early (c 800 AD?) from the Seljuk
[/quote]
they can be explained through the interaction with eastern turkic
languages. what you say about Turkmen is impossible on historical
grounds alone.
[quote]branch, because there are too many "strange things" in Turkmen. (To
[/quote]
they are mostly innovations of the second millenium CE.
[quote]avoid any confusion, note that Runic Old Turkic is not Oghuz per se
[/quote]
of course not! good.
[quote]for me! By Oghuz I understand only Turkmen, the Aral Oghuz of MaK, and
the Seljuk cluster (Turkish, Azeri, Qashqai, etc).
As I've promised a month ago, see the revised version of
particularly
"The Oghuz-Kimak interaction"
and in addition to its age, it also has the
advantage of being in the original homeland.
Near the Aral Sea?? Like, Turan? Are you a Turanist? Or in Mongolia?
What are your views on the homeland?
[/quote]
in Southern Siberia and Mongolia.
[quote]
furthermore, turkic
people
were mostly expelled from that area whereas they were the majority
over there during the first millenium, the era of the runic
inscriptions.
OTOH the siberian turkic peoples and chuvash are surrounded by non-
turkic
languagesand in their modern form do in fact have considerable
substrata
and adstarta.
Now I can answer this with arguments (the article on
glottochronological corrections). Yakut and Tuvan are indeed rather
lexically innovative. But Kyrgyz and Khakas are lexically archaic. The
status of Chuvash is herein undetermined.
[/quote]
glottochronology is unreliable since it assumes a constant rate of
change.
[quote]
that being said, nobody denies they posses archaic
characteristics, but the bulk of those characteristics are runic
turkic
survivals.
It's going to be a nonsensical dispute on who's older and more
archaic. That's not what we're talking about. What I was talking about
was that one should keep a close eye on Chuvash, Yakut, and Khakas
when doing reconstructions (even if there are tons of loanwords,
whatever, that means nothing, because it's the EARLY SEPARATION of
these languages that matters here)— but one shouldn't be based on just
Old Turkic ALONE.
[/quote]
nobody is entirely neglecting the other branches.
[quote]
It's not always easy to explain in a few words why I think so, but I
have my reasons.
you also disregard the work done so far on turkic linguistics and
don't
address the reasons for their reconstructions but simply dismiss them
out of hand.
I dismiss nothing (except y- in PT). I didn't even do any serious work
on the PT reconstructrions except the few words in the original
article. I don't even LIKE reconstructions, because I tend to see them
ALL as largely unprovable (we don't have the time machine, so no
[/quote]
then don't engage in historical linguistics.
[quote]experiment can falsify our conclusions, so it's not a very good
scientific practice to get involved with the reconstructions).
[/quote]
as in all science, theories are contingent on the available data.
and sometimes they do actually get proved, like the once hypothetical
IE laryngeals appearin in Hittite.
[quote]
[...]
turkologists "don't vote for /y/". the early school is that it is
derived from
*d- . the later school assigns multiple origins to common turkic y- .
I have been saying this all along. the evidence just doesn't point to
modern chuvash s'- (again except for Sinor, who doesn't go for s'-
accross the board either).
Internally to Turkic, we can say that it was anything within the range
of /sh', sch', ch', dzh', zh, s', d'/ or the like.
see my previous comments.
there are two veiwpoints. the older one is that it goes back to *d- .
the more recent one that it has multiple origins.
There wouldn't be any evidence that LIMIT it strictly to /d'/ — it's a
wider possible range.
[/quote]
otherwise, it has multiple origins.
[quote]
However, the external Altaic-Nostratic evidence points to /s/ that was
later palatalized to /s'/ in Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic and further to other
sibilants, and finally to /y/ and even /0/ as in <ince> (cf. Kazakh
zhiNishke). That's the general picture how I see it today, but you may
old turkic yin*ch*ge
Yes, from PT *Sinichge, *SiNichke or similar, since I've shown y- to
be secondary. The S could stand for a number of sounds /sh', sch',
ch', dzh', J, zh, s', d'/, it doesn't necessarily denote /s'/ in late
Proto-Turkic— note that I never said that, again, from the Turkic-
internal evidence, it's a wider possible range...
[/quote]
it could be from any multiple of the phonemes that led to
old turkic y- .
[quote]hold a different viewpoint.
your viewpoint is not shared by established linguists in the field,
for the reasons that I outlined.
[...][/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 7:41 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 29 сен, 08:17, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:52 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 14 сен, 23:35, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote in
h7kmmt$kb... at (no spam) pcls6.std.com>:
: Darkstar wrote:
:> I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
:> anyway:
:
:> A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
:> languages and peoples with many illustrations:
:>http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
:
:> The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
:> maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
:>http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classificat...
the website has:
Proto-Kimak-Kipchak
for sleep (verb):
===================
Innovations in Proto-Kimak
The -t- > -l assimilation after consonants
Kazan Tatar yoqla-; Bashkir yoqla-;
Nogai uykla-; Kumyk uykla-;
---------
(what are considered by the website "others")
---------
Karachay:
jukl(ê)a-
{ê} is superscripted.
Altai:
uyukta-
Kyrgyz:
ukta-
Kazakh:
ûyïkta-
=====================
Altai, Kyrgyz and Kazakh are the ones that are inovating.
the Old Turkic form is u*dh*ïkla- "to be drowsy, to dose of,
to slumber". denominal from u*dh*ïk "sleep" (noun) with the
well known denominal verbal suffix la-
that the l > d or l > t change is inovative can be seen from
internal evidence as well. the change takes place in some
loanwords (Kazakh molda "teacher" < molla (pers.) < < ar.;
Kyrgyz mildet "promise, duty" < < ar. milla(t) "religious
doctrine") the change occures in the plural suffix -lar
which does not go back to proto-turkic, the change does not
take place after vowels. as a reference I can give S. Cagatay.
u*dh*ï- is "to sleep" in Old Turkic, Kashgari translates it
with the usual verb for "to sleep" in arabic, while a different
verb "to slumber etc." is used for u*dh*ïkla-.
most modern common turkic languages use descendents of
u*dh*ïkla- > uyïkla- (or > uyukla-) for to sleep, while Turkish
maintains the distinction between uyu- "to sleep" and uyukla-
"to dose of" etc.). u*dh*ïk has usually become uykï, uyku etc.,
Turkish: uyku (all instead of the expected *uyïk).
It may be true, but we should check other branches first, since as
I've mentioned before, Kipchak-Tatar may share innovations with Oghuz,
or share achaicisms.
so the Oghuz -la, -lar might possibly be an innovation. In Khakas we
also have -lar, -nar, -tar for plural, which may be indicative that
which is again based on the assumption that modern Khakas trumps
Orkhon!
Let's not argue which one is more archaic just for the sake of it.
[/quote]
that's what you do. you have pre-concieved notions as to what
"archaic" should look like and where they are found.
[quote]Doing reconstruction is a complex procedure with no fixed algorithm,
[/quote]
a fixed algorithem is just what you are doing.
[quote]and the result depends on many parameters. Even though according to my
calculations, Old Turkic is +1 % lexically innovative, and Khakas is
-7.5% archaic for Swadesh-200, that doesn't mean much out of context.
the Orkhon -lar is not necessarily archaic, it may be a lenition from -
IIRC -lar is rare in Orkhon, it becomes general later and is not
found in
chuvash.
tar. Anyway, you cannot state on the basis of the Orkhon data alone
Menges gives internal evidence in Qaraqalpaq, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, etc.
for the change -l- > -t-, -d-, which I mentioned above. again, the
change does not take place after vowels and the change is found in
loanwords as well.
besides chuvash has the denominal verbal suffix -la= not -ta> > as in ïrâ "good" (likely < e*dh*gü) ïrla- "to praise" (Krueger).
see also Krueger p. 181 pus' "head, beginning" pus'la- "to begin",
where -la/-le is given among the denominal verbal suffixes. but
no one with -ta/-da/-te/-de.
Pass. I can neither confirm nor refute this part.
[/quote]
that means you can't accept or explain evidence to the contrary
to your claims.
[quote]
that something is new or old. It takes an extensive study across the
board. The fact that we have something in Old Turkic doesn't
necessarily mean it's old, it may be a Mongolic influence for
Old Turkic is old by definition. the modern south siberian languages
have by far more mongolic influence than old turkic.
But it means nothing. It could have acquired SOME innovative changes,
that would be absent in other branches. Y- is a typical example (if we
[/quote]
initial y- is seems to be original for most modern turkic languages,
excluding Chuvash, but this does not mean that initial y- was found
for proto-turkic throughout. I have explained this before.
[quote]suppose y- for the runic texts which has not been conclusively
proven).
[/quote]
it is confirmed from texts written shortly after runic texts.
besides, the two symbols for /y/ (one for front vowels, the other
for back vowels) are used word internally for /y/ as well. there
is no scholarly doubt about its value. the runic symbol <y> (front)
represents by itself either the consonant itself,/y/ or the
combination
ey or the combination ye . the runic symbol for /y/ with back vowels
by itself either represents the consonant /y/or the combination ay
or the combination ya . not surprisingly the runic symbol for y with
back vowels is in the shape of a quarter moon, i.e. ay "moon". so
if it represented some other sound it would have to represent some
other sound word internally as well, and the whole dicepherment would
fail. initial y- was found in Hephthalite (believed to be turkic,
perhaps surviving as Khalaj if medieval historians are to believed)
as well, as indicated by the writing in greek based script of the
title yabGu , even though there is reason to believe that this
title was originally jabGu .
[quote]
If you, for instance, have three young idiots (three other Turkic
branches) saying the right thing and one old wise man saying something
wrong, how do you tell who is telling the truth? It's far from
obvious...
instance. I don't deny that you may be right de facto, it's just that
your argumentation is not sufficient.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 8:57 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 29 сен, 08:20, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:15 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 15 сен, 10:44, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote in
h7kmmt$kb... at (no spam) pcls6.std.com>:
: Darkstar wrote:
:> I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
:> anyway:
:
:> A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
:> languages and peoples with many illustrations:
:>http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
:
:> The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
:> maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
:>http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classificat...
the website has:
Proto-Kimak-Kipchak
for dry:
===================
Innovations in Proto-Kimak
The loss of -Gaq
Kazan Tatar korï; Bashkir qoro;
Nogai kurï;
---------
(what are considered by the website "others")
---------
Karachay:
k(ê)urg(ê)ak(ê);
archaism
{ê} is superscripted.
Altai:
qurgak
Kyrgyz:
qurGak
Kazakh:
qûrGak
=====================
the final /k/'s are symabolized by <k> whereas
inital /k/'sarte symbolized by <q> for no apparent
reason; the website is on the whole inconsistent in
using <q> for the back allophone of /k/ which becomes
phonemic in turkic langauges which have loanwords or
lack vowel harmony but keep the distictinction between
the two allophones.
Yeah, I remember, I was rather inconsisten about -k/-q.
It's <кургак> in Kyrgyz and probably pronounced as /qurGaq/. The
problem was due to inconsistencies in scripts, different
transliterations, etc.
the website should also explain
the superscripted <ê> in Karachay.
It's a transliteration of the Cyrillic "hard sign" that is used to
denote velars. It should be removed.
or replace <k> by <q>, because in Karachay the back allophone of
turkic /k/ is particularly produced far back.
Done.
[/quote]
OK.
[quote]
actually what is going on here is morphological, not
phonological, based on two similar meaning words in
Old and Middle Turkic, as can be seen from consultingClauson.
from kurï- ( > kuru-) "to be or become dry" one has
kuruG ( < *kurïG) "dry"; hence > kurï, qoro/
from kurUG one has the verb kurGa- "to be or become dry",
But I don't understand in what way you derive a verb to produce this.
Clausonderives it from well known verb and noun formation in turkic.
-a- forms verbs from nouns (not very productive in the modern
languages). the latest seems tobe turkish harca- (ottoman xar*dj*a-)
"to spend" < arabic xarj "expenditure" (ultimately from classical
greek BTW), turkish harç "expenditure", NB more common turkish
harçlık
"stipend, pocket money"
We also have Sakha kuranaq, for instance. Though Khalka xu:ray, Dagur
xwa:ri: may be indicative that your view is more correct, but there
may be a loss. It's not at all obvious to me.
the two forms point to originally two different words with slightly
different meanings.
the example given by Kashgari concerns land, so perhaps
IMO one may translate this verb as *to be or become arid"
from this one has the noun kurGak (Clausonreconstructs
*kurGa:k) "dry land, dryness, drought". this seems to become
an adjective in modern languages. in older turkish Kurak
(< kurGak) is "drought", the newer meaning (Redhouse gives
both) is "dry, arid". in Turkish kuru is used for everyday
use, while kurak is "arid", Turkish has also kuraklïk
which means only "drought". so the "Kimak" forms are really
older, the rest secondary.- Hide quoted text -
There's also Kyrgyz/Khakas qurGak, Tungusic olgokin, olxon, holgo
*xolgok-in, though the Japonic dialect of Hateruma island "karug",
[/quote]
that is not a regular sound change for Tungusic.
[quote]Yonakuni "karag". I reconstructed with -rGaq because it's longer, but
there's no conclusive proof
[/quote]
one does not have to go that far back to explain the words in the
first place. they are all explanied by early middle turkic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 9:26 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 29 сен, 08:21, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:25 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 16 сен, 06:34, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
Darkstar wrote:
I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
anyway:
A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
languages and peoples with many illustrations:
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classification_of_turkic_languages.html
the website has:
Proto-Kimak-Kipchak
for seed:
===================
Innovations in Proto-Kimak
Epenthesis in "seed"
Kazan Tatar orlïk; Bashkir orloq;
Nogai urlïk;
---------
(what are considered by the website "others")
---------
Karachay:
urluq
Altai:
üren
Kyrgyz:
ürön; cf. uruq "kin"
Kazakh:
ûrïq
=====================
üren (> ürön) is from Mongolian üren (Clauson)
both uruG ( > ûrïq) and urluk ( > urlïk) are found
in Old and Early Middle Turkic with the meaning of
"seed" and hence "progeny, clan etc".
the two words may be explained morphologically rather
than through phonetic changes.Clausonreasonably gives
two possibilities:
either:
they both come from an unattested *ur
or:
urluk < uruGluk
Clasuon considers the second more likely.
Yes, sort of. Apparently, not an epenthesis but the -lYq, -q and -n
not -q but -G and not -n (at least not in turkic)
suffixes. The root was probably u"ro"-, hence Khakas u"ra"n, Kyrgyz
üren is a mongolian word.
Why should it be? Actually it's Middle Mong. hu"re, Dagur xur,
Dongxian fure^, Monguor furie, Bonan fure^, but Khalkha u"r, Kalmyk
u"rn < *(h)u"re(n).
There's no basis to postulate a full displacement borrowing in basic
lexis of a word that already was there—don't forget the Occam's razor,
the rule of simplicity.
[/quote]
what are you trying to prove? you just proved that üren is well
established in Mongolic, whereas it is not so in Turkic, and when
it appears, it appears late.
[quote]
if one posits a relationship, one has the
problem of the front vowels. OTOH there are a few such examples such
as mongolian del , turkic ya:l "mane".
u"ro"n and Chuvash vo^ro^ — note that the presence of v- in Chuvash
my source (Krueger) gives vârâ as well as vârlâx (x = *kh*).
that v- occurs in back vowel words as well can be seen in
vârman ( < orman "forest"). vârlâx may be a loan. I think both
chuvash words represent back vowels and they go back to the turkic
words, not the mongolian one. and chuvash tends to loose final
velars rather than final nasals.
usually correlates with the labialized u", o".- Hide quoted text -
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 10:07 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 29 сен, 08:28, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 5:04 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 19 сен, 04:41, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
Darkstar wrote:
I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
anyway:
A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
languages and peoples with many illustrations:
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classification_of_turkic_languages.html
the website has:
Proto-Kimak-Kipchak
for "leaf":
===================
Innovations in Proto-Kimak
Contraction in "leaf"
Kazan Tatar yafrak; Bashkir yaprak;
Nogai yapïrak; Kumyk yaprak;
(what are considered by the website "others")
---------
Karachay:
chaprak(ê)
{ê is superscripted}
Altai:
d'albïraq
Kyrgyz:
zhalbïrak
Kazakh:
zhalbïrak
=====================
Old Turkic has both forms: yapurGa:k , whichClausonderives from
yap-ur- (denoting repeated action, ultimately from yap- "to do",
sorry, in "Turkish and Mongolian Studies"Clausonis clearer and he
derives it from yap- meaning "to cover", so for yapur-. the semantic
connection is that yap- is "to build".Clausontentatively assigns
the y- to an initial * *dh*- but with a question mark. he is not
sure of it, citing middle mongolian nab*ch*in "leaf".
the later attested but more common form;
and yalpurGak (Man. Uygur A viii
cent.; under the entry yapurGa:k).
So yalpurGak did exist in Old Turkic?! Cok guzel!
yes.
But what's "Man. Uygur A"?
Man. stands for Manichean texts, "A" stands for a dialect of
Old Uygur with certain phonetic peculiarites, as classified
byClauson. he mentions use of the vowel a/e where other texts
have other vowels in "Turkish and Mongolian Studies"
OTOH Menges "Qaqalpaq Grammar p. 50. Qaraqalpaq has:
japraq < yapraq < yapurGaq < yalbraq < yal-bï-r-Gaq (referencing
Bang); from yalbï- (unattested inClauson) "to stream (in the
wind, like the mane, yal).
IMHO the second is better and seemingly connects with Chuvash s'uls'â
presumeably with the same root *yal < ya:l <* *dh*a:l (Mongolian del)
"mane" IMHO maybe the verb yapur- had something to do with the dropping
OTOH yapur- is normally formed, though there is no expected cauative
of the /l/ by false etymology.
I am waiting for the opinion of other authorities, I don't know what
Marcel Erdal says, as his book is now unavailable to me. as OTOH the
suffixes Menges posits are rare. yal-bï-r-Gaq has similarity with the
Chuvash word in its favor. OTOH the suffixes Menges posits are rare.
epenthes is of a liquid is found in turkish (and Azeri, Turkmen),
serçe "sparrow" taken as < se*ch*e (given as Oghuz by Kashgari)
from the verb se*ch*- "the bird who picks out (i.e. chooses) seeds
from the ground". but NB chuvash s'ers'i "sparrow". but an ottoman
turkish loan in chuvash is found in vâlta "fishhook" < turkish olta
"fishing line" < modern greek vólta βόλτα "fishing tool consisting
of a long line carrying a single hook". but Hasan Eren says this
last example is unique in Chuvash.
No it's probably akin to Iranian *barg (leaf),
Pers. bärg, Pashto pan.a, Yidga panuk, Munji baarg, Ishkashimi barg,
Wakhi palc, Shugni parg, Sarikoli pork
there would be no explanation of the intial ya- in turkic.
But I don't know what yal-/s'ul- is.
ya:l is "mane" as I said before, acc. to Menges.
You mean Turkish "yele" (mane) as if talking about something floating
in the wind? Well, why not, it could be a simple solution: "wind-
[/quote]
that's not so simple, and doesn't exhaust internal
etymologies.
[quote]leaf"= *Sil-barG-aq > *Sal-bIrG-aq > OT yapurGaq.
[/quote]
Menges didn't connect ya:l (Turkish yele) "mane" with yé:l "wind"
OTOH the etymology from yap- "to cover" is obvious and the verb is
attested in Chagatay (as in Zenker's dictionary), which has yapurGan
very obviously from yapur- "to cover" and cannot be derived from
yalbIrGaq . the question remains open for me.
[quote]
The -l is also present in Mongolic
Middle Mong. na-bch-in, Khal. na-vch, Dong. la-ch-ïn, ShiraYug la-bzh-
nab*ch*in "leaf" is analyzed by some as nab-*ch*in the first element
corresponding with yap- "to cover" in yapurGak, butClausonprefers
dabji(n) "cover,lid" as the correspondence.
êg, Monguor la-bshzh-i, Dagur bari-, Bonan la-bch-ïng < *La-bch-ïn
**haL-bzh-in (?)
Altaic words don't start with l- , n- is likely older, and older by
definition.
I should agree. Probably so.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 10:40 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 29 сен, 08:30, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:54 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 10 ÓÅÎ, 03:02, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote in
94d9fd82-07a7-4821-98f5-2c4a27643... at (no spam) z24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>:
: On Sep 7, 11:13 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
:> On 5 ??????, 04:14, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
:> (Kipchak was a TRIBE in the KIMAK UNION of tribes that "had seven
:> heads" with TATAR, KIPCHAK, KIMAK among them! I have no idea why
: "Tatar" was not part of the Kimak Union. they were probably turkified
more probably vowel harmonic kime:k
: (or partially) mongols. Kashgari says they speak turkic but have a
this would be consistent with they being mentioned together with the
mongolian qa:y tribe.
: (non-turkic) language of their own. this is consistent with the
: etymology
: tat (in turkic "foreign subject, foreigner") + ar (collective suffix).
: the Tatar
: tribe was decimated by Chinggis but for some reason it came to be
: applied to the turkic soldiery in the Mongol armies, particularly in
: the Golden Horde. later it came to mean the Kypchakized turkic
: population in the statesthat formed in its wake.
Tatars will rip you apart if they hear this. No, the ethnonym Tatar
that's a problem for nationalists.
was used early on, and again, it was part of the Kimek confederation.
yes, Gardizi (Garde:zi: ; 11th cent.) mentions them as part of the
Kimek
federation, at least their ruling house came from a member of the
Tatars,
they were partly Turkicized. perhaps it was a section of them. the
people
called "Tatars" before the mongol period have little to do with the
with
the people called Tatars on the wake of the Mongols. incidentally,
acc.
to Enc. of Islam II "Tatar" that in 13th cent. Chinese sources use
"Black Tatars" to designate the Mongols, while "the White Tatars"
desgnated the Turkic tribe of the Önggüd.
What Önggüd? Oghuz?
[/quote]
not Oghuz.
here are somelinks I found about them:
http://chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=12671
http://www.nestorian.org/rabban_bar_sawma.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongud
The Öngüd, or Öngüt, were a Turkic[1] tribe, active in Mongolia
around the time of Genghis Khan (1162–1227).[2] Many members were
Nestorian Christians.[3] They lived in an area lining the Chinese
Great Wall, in the northern part of the Ordos and territories to
the northeast of it.[2] They acted as wardens of the marches for
the Chinese Empire to the north of the province Shansi.[4]
The ancestors of the Ongud were the Shatuo Turks of the Western
Gokturk Khaganate.[5] In the 7th century they moved to eastern
Xinjiang under the protection of the Tang Dynasty. By the 9th
century the Shatuo were scattered over North China and modern
Inner Mongolia. A Shatuo warlord, Li, mobilized 10,000 Shatuo
cavalrymen and served the Tang as ally. In 923 his son defeated
the rebellious dynasty and became emperor of the Later Tang Dynasty.
After the overthrow of the Li family, the Shatuo commanders
established the Later Jin Dynasty, and the Later Han Dynasty
and the Northern Han.
....
The Öngüt chief Alakush tegin revealed the Naiman plan to
attack Genghis in 1205 and allied with the Mongols ...
1. Grousset, R, The Empire of the Steppes, 1970, p. xxxv, 213,
Rutgers University Press
note the turkic name Alakush "spotty (variegated) colored bird"
[quote]
but Kashgari gives a hint of their language on p. 25 of the original,
p. 83 of Dankoff and Kelly: [...] are footnotes.
Among the nomadic peoples are the *Ch*ömül - they have a gibberish
(raTa:na) of their own but also know Turkic well, also Qa:y, Yaba:qu,
Tata:r and Basmil [MS. <yasmil>, <y> altered from <b>] each of these
groups {Hizb} has its own language {lu*gh*a(t))}, but they also know
Turkic well.
Then Qirqiz, Qif*ch*a:q, O*gh*uz, Tuxsi, Ya*gh*ma, *Ch*igil,
O*gh*ra:q [MS <i*gh*rAq>, <i> by a later hand (dark black ink,
thin pen)] and *Ch*aru:q - they speak Turkic, a single language
{lu*gh*a(t))}.
Approaching these is the the language {lisa:n} of Yemä:k and
Ba*sh**gh*irt.
Qa:y is a known mongolian tribe, so one may conclude that their native
language is a dialect of mongolian, and the Tatar are grouped together
with them. nevertheless it is true that, in spite of their having a
different native language, Kashgari regards each of them as "a tribe
(ji:l) of Turks" {ji:l-un mina~t-turk}. perhaps because of the spread
of turkic among them and perhaps because of tribal alliances.
What MaK writes on Turkic classification, is so fuzzy, it can't be
used to make any conclusions. I've already run into difficulties with
Oghuz being represented as Kipchak(Kimak).
[/quote]
he only mentions some common characteristics. he does not "classify".
[quote]
later (early 14th cent.), Rashiduddin includes the Tatar among the
Mongols,
[/quote]
not the Mongols proper, but what we would call Mongolic.
[quote]but then adds that the name was adopted by others and became
generalized,
attributing it to their fearsome reputation. (I don't have the book
handy
to quote directly).
Enc.of Islam II "Tatar" starts out as "the name of a Mongolic tribal
grouping"
[...][/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 11:06 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 29 сен, 08:35, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
[/quote]
[quote]
On 29 сен, 08:35, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
(repost in this thread)
On Sep 21, 11:00 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 9 ÓÅÎ, 23:26, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
Darkstar wrote:
I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
anyway:
A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
languages and peoples with many illustrations:
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
concerning Volga Bulgaria the website writes:
It was visited in 922 by an Arab writer and diplomat Ibn-Fadlan whose
famous account, btw, inspired a plot for the "The 13th Warrior" movie
starring Antonio Banderas.
actually the film based on the novel "Eaters of the Dead" (the title
of the book may also have been changed in its second edition) by Michael
Crichton. This in turn is inspired by Ibn Fadlan's account and Beowulf.
The first part of the book is pure Ibn Fadlan with only a few
embellishments and abridgements. but unlike what actually happened the
book and movie have Ibn Fadlan wisked away by the Volga Rus and he
never reaches Volga Bulgaria. the second half of the book and movie
is a take on Beowulf, with a monstrous being common to both. the
movie has very little from the Ibn Fadlan account, except for the
first encounter with the Rus, which is rendered accurately. the movie
has anochronisms like an encounter with Tatars. unlike the expert
on languages that Ibn Fadlan is depicted inthe movie, in reality he
seems to have relied on translators.
the connection between Beowulf and Ibn Fadlan's account seems to have
been inspired by the article "Ibn Fadlan's Account of the Rus with
Some Commentary and Some Allusions to BEowulf" by H. M. Smyser
(Connecticut College); published in the book "Franciplecus - Medieval and
Linguistic Studies in Honor of Francis Peabody Magoun, Jr."
There are some allusions in the real account to magic events, such as
strange clouds in the sky that the real Ibn-Fadlan believed to be
aurora borealis, of course.
There are no aurora borealis in Tatarstan. Normally, it's only seen
north of the Polar Circle (without consulting wiki).
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_Borealis
<<
Auroras seen near the magnetic pole may be high overhead, but
from further away, they illuminate the northern horizon as a
greenish glow or sometimes a faint red, as if the sun were rising
from an unusual direction. ... Auroras can be spotted throughout
the world. It is most visible closer to the poles due to the
longer periods of darkness and the magnetic field.
[quote]
[/quote]
Ibn Fadlan says that he "saw the horizon turn intensely red".
also see:
Middle Eastern Literatures, Vol. 7, No. 1, January 2004
Travelling Autopsies: Ibn Fadla:n and the Bulgha:r
JAMES E. MONTGOMERY
<<
....
Ibn Fadla:n and the Spectral Armies
Does Ibn Fadla:n say that he actually saw these armies? His
language is ambiguous. He uses the roots m-th-l (amtha:l) and
sh-b-h (ashba:h, tushbihu l-na:s) to describe the demon soldiers,
and refers to his own process of perception in terms of tabayyana
(to discern something clearly) and takhayyala (to process
information in an act of takhyi:l). The cumulative effect of
such language is to draw attention to the cerebral mechanisms
of perception. He then proceeds to employ the roots r-'-y (ar)
and n-Z-r (nanZur), standard terms for sight. Thus, by highlighting
the very process of perception, Ibn Fadla:n may here anticipate
Ibn Si:na:’s poetics of amazement in his endeavour to question
(certainly at least to analyse) the verity of what he saw rather
than the veracity of his experience.65
{ m-th-l and sh-b-h refer to resembling; Montgomery then goes on
an analysis to see if and how much Ibn Fadlan's description was
influenced by earlier texts he may have had access to}
....
There are, then, no textual antecedents which would have
covered all the aspects of the phenomenon which Ibn Fadla:n
observed. It is generally thought, and rightly so in my opinion,
that Ibn Fadla:n describes a display of the Northern Lights.80
The Aurora Borealis is caused by interaction between the earth’s
magnetic field and the solar wind, composed of solar particles
blown away from the sun. The resultant electrical energy sends
charged particles into the earth’s atmosphere. During periods of
intense activity, the Aurora assumes a dark-red colour (Aristotle’s
haimato:de: khro:mata?) and can be seen well below the auroral
oval. It is theoretically possible, for example, to see the
Northern Lights for an average of 10 days during the year in London,
New York and Boston, although the light pollution of these cities
generally makes observation impossible: there is approximately
a 20–40% chance of witnessing this phenomenon in Bulgha:r territory,
except during that period of auroral quiescence known as the Maunder
minimum.81 Auroral activity is constant throughout the year, although
more intense at some times of the year rather than others (especially
during the equinox in March and late September–October), and as such
it may corroborate the proposed restoration of Ibn Fadla:n’s text,
according to which the Bulgha:r had witnessed such a sight for as
long as they could remember (although I suspect the King to be
guilty of exaggeration).82
82. Both Hunayn and Ibn al-Bitri:q’s texts are accurate in
connecting celestial redness with clear skies, as the Aurora
Borealis cannot be observed if the sky is overcast. The best
hour of the day to observe the Lights is local, or astronomical,
and not horological midnight. That Ibn Fadla:n says he saw the
display ‘an hour before sunset’ is unusual, and would argue
against the phenomenon being auroral: the redness of the sky
is a common accompaniment in northern climes to the sunset,
of course.
[quote]
[/quote]
{Hunayn and Ibn al-Bitri:q are translators of Aristotle into
arabic}
Montgomery notes similar beliefs among northern peoples
in associating auroras with battles among spectral
armies.
an abridged version of that paper is found in:
Spectral Armies, Snakes, and Giants from Gog and Magog:
Ibn Fadlan as Eyewitness among the Volga Bulgars
JAMES MONTGOMERY
The Medieval History Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 63-87 (2006)
[quote]Actually, I've already met an American who thought that the aurora
borealis is seen at the latitude of Moscow.
Apparently, it was a thunderstorm with peculiar cumulonimbuses.
[/quote]
scholarly criticism accepts it as aurora borealis. it even occurs
in the latitude of New York City (I saw it in nearby Long Island,
away from the city lights) if there is enough solar activity.
so at a time of high solar activity, and good visibility it is
not impossible. see above. the problem of "an hour before sunset"
is solved by the interpretation "before the sunset prayer, before
the light has completley disapeared" (J. McKeithen). or maybe, as I
guess, he was combining two different phenomena. thunderstorms
are mentioned seperately:
from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation, a doctoral
thesis)
<<
I have never encountered more thunderbolts than in their country.
.... When a thunderbolt falls on a house, ... they do not go near it,
saying: "This house is the object [divine] wrath. 323
323 ... A similar atitude with respect to lightning is described as
prevelant among the Mongols by medieval travelers to these regions
see Togan ...
[quote]
something supernatural or the "giant man" that lived with the
the "giant man" in Ibn Fadlan is tied to the monster in Beowulf,
which Chrichton believes, or presents as, a Neandertal survival.
Probably, just a tall strongman...
[/quote]
yes. Ibn Fadlan is told he is from the men of "Gog and Magog."
[quote]
a scholarly commentary on Ibn Fadlan puts the "giant man" in the
context of coaxing by the Bulghars of Ibn Fadlan to authorise
the granting of funds from the Caliph for release to the Bulghars
for military purposes, i.e. to convince him that the Bulghar muslims
were at risk and needed the money to defend themsleves.
[/quote]
I was refering to Montgomerry.
<<
The other two marvels are, I believe, instances of psychological
warfare, intended to coerce information about the whereabouts of
the funds designated for the construction of the fortress, a
matter of no little concern to the Bulgha:r King. The giant’s
tale is designed to inspire fear of the apocalypse in the minds of
Ibn Fadla:n and the other Muslims (the King has already shown
himself in a contretemps with our author to be an opponent skilled
in Islamic jurisprudence), whereas I see in the strangled Sindi: a
warning to Ibn Fadla:n and the Embassy of their likely fate,
should they refuse to comply with the King.
[quote]
[/quote]
[quote]
What surprised me most that nowhere in the story he makes any
references that he's among the Volga Bulgars, neither are there any
[/quote]
he calls them the Saqa:liba(t) , applied at that time not just to
slavs but the people of present day Russia in general
al-S.AK.A:LIBA, sing. s.ak.labi:, s.ik.labi:, the designation
in mediaeval Islamic sources for the Slavs and other fair-haired,
ruddy-complexioned peoples of Northern Europe (see A.Z. Velidi
Togan, Die Schwerter der Germanen, 19-3 .
Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
© 1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
{Enc. of Islam II al-Sakaliba by P. Guichard, Mohamed Meouak}
that they were among the Bulghars (in contrat to the more
general term Saqa:liba(t) ) is evident in the passage where
the King adopts a muslim name (that of the first name of
the Caliph, Ja`far), the vague patronymic Abdullah
("servant of God"), and the title of Ami:r:
{*kh*utba(t) means the Muslim Friday Sermon, in the begining
of which the name of the ruler is mentioned}
from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)
<<
The khuTbah used to be read prior to my arrival in the
following manner: "O God, prosper King YilTawa:r, King
of the Bulghars." I said to him him: Verily God is the
King, and no one but He -- Majesty and Might be His --
should be called by this name from the pulpit (minbar).
Behold your master, the Commander of the Faithful. He has
been content to have himself refered from the pulpits in
the East and the West in the following manner: "O God,
prosper your servant and your vicar (khali:fataka).
Ja`far the Ima:m, al-Muqtadir bi Alla:h, the Commander
of the Faithful" ... He then said to me: "How should
the khuTbah be read for me?" I replied: "In your name
and the name of your father." He said "My father was
an unbeliever, and I do not like to mention his name
his name on the pulpit (minbar). And I too do not like
to have my name mentioned, because he who gave me my
name was an unbeliever. ... He said then I have decided
that my name is to be Ja`far, and that of my father
`Abd Alla:h. ...
From then on the khuTbah was read to him "O God,
peosper your servant Ja`far ibn `Abd Alla:h, Ami:r
of the Bulghars, the Client of the Commander of the
Faithful."
[quote]
[/quote]
so the Bulghars are mentioned by their own name in the
text. there is also corroboration of the name of the Bulghar
King by another source.
[quote]descriptions of cities that were a must for the Bulgar civilization.
[/quote]
The Volga Bulghars had just embraced Islam, and were just in
the proccess of throwing off the Khazar yoke. it would take them
some time to reach the peak of their civilization. they still
made use of tents and the retinue was housed intents. Ibn Fadlan
uses the word qiba:b for "tents" which is the plural of qubba(t)
"dome" (I checked the original and indeed the word translated as
"tent" is qubba(t)), so I guess they were yurts. They didn't
have a fort, and had asked the Caliph through Ibn FAdlan's embassy
to build one. neither does it seem they had a decent mosque, as
is apparent from the text of Ibn Fadlan which I will quote
later. the state was not very centralized either, as other
subordinate kings are mentioned by Ibn Fadlan.
from Enc. of Islam II "Bulghar":
<<
At the time of his visit Ibn FaDla:n did not notice any towns
or villages, as the Bulgha:rs led a nomadic life. It seems that
the building of the fortress, which was one of the principal
tasks of the Baghda:di: embassy, laid the foundation of the
future town of Bulgha:r. The non-existence of towns in Bulgha:r
prior to the embassy is confirmed on the one hand by the silence
of the Ibn Rusta group of sources about these, and on the other
hand by the use of the name Bulgha:r: this name signifies to
Ibn Rusta and Ibn FaDla:n always the country or the people,
never the town. Al-ISTakhri: is the first author who mentions
the existence of the towns Bulgha:r and Suwa:r, with wooden
buildings and mosques and 10,000 inhabitants.
....
Economy and trade:
Until the first half of the 10th century the Bulgha:rs
led a nomadic life, like other Turkic peoples in the
Russian steppe, and cattle-breeding was their chief
occupation and the foundation of their economy. This is
clearly shown in the earlier sources, for according to
Ibn Rusta the taxes were paid in horses. Ibn FaDla:n
already found the society in a state of change from
nomadism to settled life. Many customs of the former
way of life were then still surviving, i.e., no permanent
capital served as the seat of the ruler, who wandered from
one place to another and lived in a large tent. Al-ISTakhri:
mentions that the inhabitants spent the winter in wooden
houses and the summer in tents. In the latter part of this
same century Bulgha:r was already a flourishing agricultural
and trading centre.
[quote]
[/quote]
Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
© 1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
Enc. of Islam II "Bulghar" by I. Hrbek
from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)
<<
He pitched tents (qiba:b) for us and we settled in them.
....
All of them live in tents (qiba:b),[318] but the tent of the
king is extremely large, holding up to a thousand persons and
more. [319] It is spread by with Armenian carpets, and in the
center of it the king has a throne covered with Greek brocade.
318. The semi-nomadic state of the Bulghars was not, according
to Togan merely a passing stage from nomadism but a standard
and enduring way of life. ...
319. This is either a great yurt made of felt or a large tent
made of linen according to Togan (...), who cites other travelers'
description of similarly large tents among the Turks and Mongols.
[quote]Neither does he mention any language differences between Bashkir and
[/quote]
he had two interpreters, ba:ris aS-Saqlabiyy (a Bulghar) and teki:n
at-turkiyy (a Turk). There was a Khazar, `abdulla:h al-xazariyy
(probably a Khazar muslim turncoat) was also an envoy, and there
was a Su:san ar-Rassi of slave origin in the retinue. They also
picked up local guides and local muslims that helped them. so there
you have a clue that the language of the Bulghars and that of the
Turks was different. The Bulghar king also had his own intepreter.
Ibn Fadlan does not talk about languages, except here and there he
gives the names of cultural items. His main mission was diplomatic
and religious, to teach them the finer points of Islamic Law and
establish an alliance with the Bulghar state and the Caliphate.
he was interested in mores and social organization, particular
that of the Bulghars, and also of others. he may also have in mind
how compatible these would be with Islam and in the case of
non-muslims, their possible islamization.
from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)
<<
When the letter of Almish ibn Shilki: YilTawa:r, 4 the King of
the S.aqa:libah, reached the Commander of the Faithful, al-Muqtadir,
in which he asked him to send someone who would instruct him in
religion, acquaint him with the laws of Islam, build a mosque for
him, and raise a pulpit (minbar) for him from which he would
mention his name 5 in his city, and throughout the kingdom, and
asked him to build a fortress against those kings who are at
odds with him, his request was acceded to.
The ambassador accredited to him (lahu) was Nadhi:r al-Harami:.
9 I was charged with the task of the reading the letter to the
King, delivering that which had been sent to him as gifts, and
supervising the work of jurisconsults (fuqaha:') and the religious
instructors. ...
The envoy to al-Muqtadir from the Lord of the Saqa:libah (Sa:Hib
aS-Saqa:libah) was a man called `AbdAlla:h ibn Ba:shtu: al-Khazari:,
and the emissary on behalf of the Sovereign (sulTa:n) was Su:san
ar-Rasi:, client of Nadhi:r al-Harami:, Teki:n at-Turki:, and
Ba:ris aS-Saqlabi: accompanied him, while I too was with them,
as I have already mentioned. ...
4 ... The name of the King of the Bulghars is recorded by
Ibn Rustah as "Almush." Yilt.awa:r represents the Bulghar
pronounciation of the Turkic title elteber which indicates
a subordinate tribal ruler. The title signifies here that
the Bulghar King is a vassal of the Khazar Kha:qa:n. ...
5 ... The mention of the ruler's name in the khut.bah
(sermon or exhortation) which accompanies the Friday
congregational prayer, is tantamount to recognition
of his sovereignity. ...
9 ... This person seems to be identical to the Nadhi:r
al-H.arami: who was an eunuch and important personage
in the court of al-Muqtadir. ...
[quote]
[/quote]
su:san is restored, correctly in other places as sawsan ;
yes it means "lily" and is cognate wth the hebrew original
of the girls name "Susan"; such names were given to slaves,
so he was probably a former slave as McKeithen notes. for
Su:san, Dahha:n in the critical arabic edition says it is
ar-Ru:si: in the Mashhad manuscript, while the river ar-Ras
is identified with the Volga, so he seems to be a man
originally from the region they are going to. Dahha:n's arabic
has aS-Saqla:bi: instead of aS-Saqlabi: for ba:ris, which is
turkic for "panther", normally as bars , it may be just an
arabization, but NB the slavicized Danube Bulghar name
Boris, the well known slavic name because of the adoption
of King Boris of Christianty and slavicization.
[quote]Chuvash apparently using the same interpreters. It made me doubt that
[/quote]
he had one intepreter for Turkic (teki:n at-turki:) and another for
Volga Bulghar (ba:ris aS-Saqlabi:).
[quote]he visited them at all. I wondered if it could be a nomadic Tatar/
Bashkir tribe that he visited.
[/quote]
no, it was definitley an Islamic state that had embraced Islam
recently, and one can reconstruct the location as well, because
Ibn-Fadlan tells the rivers and lands he crossed to get there.
the Tatars are placed in Ötüken (in present day Mongolia) a
century later by Mahmud al-Kashgari.
as for the Bashkirs, Ibn Fadlan visited them, and they were
pagans.
<<
Ibn Fadlan, who made a personal survey of the country, religion,
and customs of the Bashkurts in 310/922 says that he came on their
tents after crossing the rivers Kinal and Sokh, i.e., on approaching
the borders of the Bulgars. He also states that they were all pagans
(i.e., Shamanists).
[quote]
[/quote]
Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
© 1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
{Enc. of Islam II BASHDJIRT (Bashkurt)}
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkirs#History
<<
The name Bashkir is recorded for the first time at the
beginning of the 10th century in the writings of the Arab
writer ibn Fadlan who, in describing his travels among the
Volga Bulgarians, mentions the Bashkirs as a warlike and
idolatrous race. According to ibn Fadlan, the Bashkirs
worshiped phallic idols. At that time, Bashkirs lived
as nomadic cattle breeders. Until the 13th century they
occupied the territories between the Volga and Kama Rivers
and the Urals.
[quote]
[/quote]
BTW he describes them as "Turks".
from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)
<<
We halted in the country of a tribe if Turks called Bashkirs
(al-Ba:shghird), and we were extremely wary of them. For they
are the most wicked of the Turks, the dirtiest (aqdharuhum)
and the most audacious in the commission of murder. ...
{story about a muslim among them who ate the lice on his
clothing}
Each of them sculpts a piece of wood the size of a phallus
and hangs it on himself. If he is about to undertake a trip
or to meet an enemy, he kisses it and prostrates himself before
it saying: "O my Lord, do unto me such and such." ...
Among them are those who maintain that they have twelve lords:
a lord for Winter; a lord for Summer; a lord for the rain; a lord
for the wind; a lord for the trees; a lord for men; a lord for
horses; a lord for water; a lord for the night; a lord for the
day; a lord for death; and a lord for the earth. The lord who is
in Heaven is the greatest of them all, although he is in complete
agreement with the others. Each one approves of what his partner
does. ...
We saw among them who worship snakes, a group who worship fish
and a group who worship cranes. ...
[quote]
Bulgarians... But Hollywood is Hollywood, there's nothing to discuss
you mean the Bulghars.
or take seriously
and BTW it's "a plot" but "the plot"
[/quote]
this part has been corrected. good.
on an unrelated note Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Fadlan
<<
The embassy's objective was to have the king of the Bolğars
pay homage to Caliph al-Muqtadir and, in return, to give the
king money to pay for the construction of a fortress. Although
they reached Bolğar, the mission failed because they were unable
to collect the money intended for the king. Annoyed at not
receiving the promised sum, the king refused to switch from the
Maliki rite to the Hanafi rite of Baghdad.
[quote]
[/quote]
I think Wikipedia got it wrong. concerning debate on the reading of
a ritual formula twice or not, which gives a clue to the sects
in question. J. McKeithen says in footenote #265
<<
His mu'adhdhin used to double the iqa:mah 265 when he performed
the call to prayer (adha:n). So I said to the King: "Your master,
the Commander of the Faithful, recites the formulas of the iqa:mah
only once in his abode." ...
265 The adha:n is the Muslim call to prayer, usually performed from
a minaret, which announces the time for the prayer, is at hand. The
iqa:mah is performed inside the mosque after the faithful have
assembled for prayer, immediately before the prayer begins. The
formuals recited in the iqa:mah are teh same as those of the adha:n
except for the phrase qad qa:mat aS-Sala:h, "the prayer has begun,"
which occurs in the iqa:mah. There is also a difference that with
the school of the Ima:m ash-Sha:fi`i:, i.e. teh legal school which
was followed by the Abbasid Caliph at the time, the formulas are
pronounced two times in the adha:n and only once in the iqa:mah.
In the school of Abu: Hani:fah, i.e. that followed by the Bulghar
King and the Samanid Ami:r, the formulas are recited the same
number of times in both the adha:n and the iqa:mah. See the
detailed study made of this question by Canard (Relation, p. 92,
n. 100) and Juynboll, "Iqama," EI.
[quote]
[/quote]
Malikis are dominant in N. Africa (excl. Egypt), most Asian
muslims are Hanafis (followers of Abu Hani:fah's school).
the Seljuks and Ottomans were Hanafi's. most Turkic muslims
are Hanafis, incl. Turks of Turkey. but Azeris are mostly
Shia, and there is a significant heterodox Shia element in
Turkey (Alevis). the EU is pressing for recognition by
the Department of Religious Affairs of Turkey to recognize
Alevis. all these Sunni schools (there is also a Hanbali
school) recognize each other as valid.
anyway the Wikipedia article should read: " ... the king
refused to switch from the Hanafi rite to the Shafi`i rite
of Baghdad {at that time}."
BTW Ibn Fadlan (ibn faDla:n) was not an arab by origin as
he declares himself a "client", arabic mawla:, of an arab:
from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)
<<
This is the Book (kita:b) 1 of Ah.mad ibn Fad.la:n ibn
al-`Abba:s ibn Ra:shid ibn H.amma:d client (mawla:) of
Muh.ammad ibn Sulayma:n 2, emmissary of al-Muqtadir to
the King of the S.aqa:libah, 3
1 Under the entry "Itil" (Mu`jam I, 112), Ya:qu:t
mentions "the book (kita:b) of Ah.mad Ibn Fad.la:n."
elswhere under the entries "Bulgha:r" ..., Ya:qu:t
refers to the epistle (risa:lah) of Ibn Fad.la:n.
2 Ya:qu:t under the entry "Ba:shgird" (Mu`jam, I, 486),
has Ibn Fad.la:n as "mawla: ami:r al-mu'mini:n thumma
mawla: Muh.ammad ibn Sulayma:n." This version is
accepted by Kovalevskii (Kniga, p. 159, n. 4) as well
as the epithet, "al-Ha:shimi:," which is found among
the comments of the Mashhad ms. (1b and 175a).
Kovalevskii renders this passage: "client of the
Commander of the Faithful and also client of Muh.ammad
ibn Sulayman al-Ha:shimi:." ... {ha:*sh*imi: denotes
from the clan of the Prophet}
3 S.aqa:libah (sing. saqlab) refers here to the Volga
Bulgars ...
[quote]
[/quote]
on mawla: see:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Mawla.html
<<
Mawla
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions | 1997 | JOHN BOWKER
|
© The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions 1997,
originally published by Oxford University Press 1997.
Mawla (Arab.). In early Islam, a ‘client’ or protected person,
who was a convert to Islam and by this procedure was integrated
into the existing Arab tribal and family system. Mawla also means
‘master’, and al-Mawla is a term for God.
[quote]
[/quote]
it's the first meaning that is used here.
however, he was considered an arab in the eyes of the Bulghar
King:
from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)
<<
He told the interpreter: "Tell him: 'I do not know these others,
I only know you, for these are a non-Arab people. 262
262 This does not mean that Ibn Fad.la:n was a true Arab in
the ethnic sense of the word, but merely that he conformed
sufficiently to the Bulghar notion of one so as to be
considered an Arab by the Bulghar King.
[quote]
[/quote]
On Ibn Fadlan:
<<
Ibn Fad.la:n , in full Aḥmad b. Fad.la:n b. al-`Abba:s
b. Ra:shid b. H.amma:d , Arabic writer of whose life
nothing is known and who was the author of an account
(incorrectly referred to as Risa:la in Ya:k.u:t, Kita:b
in the title of the work itself) of the embassy sent by
the caliph al-Muk.tadir to the king of the Bulgha:rs of
the Volga [see bulgha:r]. Ibn Fad.la:n was a client of
Muh.ammad b. Sulayma:n, who seems to have been the same
person as the Muh.ammad b. Sulaymān, the ka:tib al-djaysh,
who conquered Egypt from the T.u:lu:nids in 292/904.
He was probably not an Arab by birth.
The embassy in which he took part was led by the eunuch
Su:san al-Rassi:, a client of Nadhi:r al-H.arami: ... .
Ibn Fad.la:n's particular task was to read out the letter
from the caliph to the king, to present gifts to him and
to his entourage and to supervise the jurists and teachers
whom the caliph had sent at the king's request to teach the
Bulgha:rs the laws of Islam. ...
[quote]
[/quote]
{ka:tib al-jay*sh* litteraly means "secretary (or scribe)
of the army"; actually he was a type of general}
{Enc. of Islam II, "Ibn Fadlan" by M. Canard} |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:58 am
|
|