 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell... |
|
Page 28 of 30 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 11, 1:11 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 2 окт, 01:49, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 30, 5:45 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 29 сен, 06:38, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:> On Sep 21, 5:27 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:> On 20 ÓÅÎ, 22:29, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote in
h8buue$a9... 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 website writes:
:
: We should mention here Mahmud al-Kashgari (c. 1029-1102?), the
: first Arabic Turkologist (a son of a city mayor related to the
: Karakhanid dynasty) born near Kashgar, who in 1072-74 wrote the
: first comprehensive 700-page dictionary of the Turkic language,
: the Diwanul-Lugat al-Turk (Arabic: "Compendium of the language
: of the Turks"), a very professional work of its time.
:
Enc. of Islam II "al-Kashgari, mahmud b. al-husayn b.muhammad" (by
Hazai) writes:
"... The only information which we posses about his comes from his
own work, and that much is only fragmentary. It seems that he came
from Bars*gha:n on the southern shores of Isik Ko"l (...),and was
born of a noble family connected with the Kara-Khanids (...). ...."
this is repeated by Robert Dankoff and James Kelly by referencing Hazai's
article. without any information as to where in the text it is found.
no mention of his father as a city mayor. your references, please, and
do you know which places in the text this information comes from?
But it basically repeats what you say. That he was "from Kashgar" as
attested in his name (probably lived there), and that he was related
to the mayor of Balasagun (or Barsghan, if that's a different town).
"mayor" is a bit anachronistic. perhaps a (religious) judge is meant,
as AFAIK they also had administrative duties. NB. Spanish alcalde
"mayor" from arabic al-qa:Di: "the judge" (BTW the original lateralized
pronounciation of /D/ , now emphatic d, is evident in the spanish
loanword). or more likely someone representing the ruler of the
Karakhanids there or just a local lord. if one infers that Kashgari was of
the dynasty, no doubt his father would be an important person there..
Pritsak (translated into turkish by H. Eren) says just that one
can surmise "had been ruling over" Barskhan (Barshan'da hakimiyet
sürdürdügü anlasilabillir). so one should at least replace "mayor"
by "ruler".
Maybe "governor" in English. I'm no expert on this issue, so if you
his title may have been 'ami:r in arabic (as he says his forefather
had that title) and beg (as he translates beg as 'ami:r) in turkic.
tell me what would be right, I'll make the changes.
City mayor = "alcaide" in Spanish, yes, I see no problem with this.
two different spanish words coming from two diferent arabic words,
it's
al-calde (ld is because fothe old arabic lateralized pronounciation
of /D/):
Etymology
From Arabic {al-qa:Di:} ‘judge’.
alcalde m. (feminine alcaldesa, masculine plural alcaldes, feminine
plural alcaldesas)
1. mayor
2. an official such as an administrator, mayor, or judge (Spanish,
Southwestern U.S.)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alcaide
Etymology
From Spanish alcaide, from Arabic {...} (al-qā’id).{al-qa:'id meaning
"leader"}
alcaide (plural alcaides)
The governor or commander of a Spanish or Portuguese fortress or
prison.
I am esspecially fond of al-calde as I had correctly guessed its
etymology,
including the issue of laterlization) while watching a swashbuckler
film
on late night TV at the time I had just been learning about
linguistics.
BTW an arab, with no background in linguistics, whom I corrected, made
the
same mistake by deriving al-calde from al-qa:'id "leader". I corrected
her.
definitely Balasagun and Barsghan (quite simply they have a different
names) are different towns, they are treated seperately in the Diwan and
otherwise the reference (which I had deleted) to the geographical work
Hudu:d al-'a3lam would have been unneccessary, as Balasagun is well known. barsGa:n was
later known as barsxa:n acc. to my sources.
My sources are too plain to be cited: Wikipedia.
"His father, Hussayn, was the mayor of Barsgan and related to the Qara-
Khanid ruling dynasty." (wiki)
I can also add on my behalf that his native language was Arabic, since
his Arabic is much too ummm... profuse and exuberant, reminding of the
you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of arabic so how do you know that?
Why should I? I can see that the translation is very linguistically
complex and can hardly come from a non-native speaker. It doesn't
exclude the possibility that he was a Turk, but just makes it an
unlikely outcome.
I told you that the upper classes of his day recieved an early
and thorough education in classical arabic and many scholars of
non-arab origin wrote much more complex works.
scholars of his day
It doesn't depend on a day, it's an a standing issue.
it means "age". see above.
had to be very proficient in classical arabic. the
philosopher al-Farabi was a Turk, yet he was profficient enough to
produce the works that he did, and he did his own translating (and
commentary upon) the greek classics. many of the giant scholars of
the golden age of Islam were of persian, other iranian or turkic origin.
But his interest in Turkic shows he was studying it as if he didn't
he was also interested in other turkic idioms, which would make some
novelty in it for him as well.
speak it. People who are proficient in a language don't go collecting
simple words, they would consider this job too boring, mundane, and
that's what people who write dictionaries do.
would better switch to playing around with elaborate and more original
except for the obligatory introductory formalas his arabic is not
particularly elaborate. it's mostly straigtforward classical arabic,
with some technical linguistic terms of his day. besides, his goal
is to introduce turkic to arabs, so he keeps it simple. but he does
introduce some proverbs and verse, introducing the reader to the
turkic literature of the day. besides, the turkicliterature of his
day contained many loanwords, the origin of which depended upon
religion. so he goes to thatof folk literature, as arab lexicographers
went to bedouins and bedouin poetry for classical arabic..
sentences -- exactly as he does with Arabic. But if I were in the same
position compyling the dictionary of, say, Turkish, I would do the
same thing, I would start with primitive words, like "ben", "sen" and
then attempt to bring them into a system.
he explains his system in the introduction. he says he wanted to
arrange
it according permutations of consanants, as was done in a well known
arabic dictionary. he then explains briefly that this is not
appropriate
for turkic, so he chooses the system of an arab lexicogarpher (unnamed
in the text but identified by Dankoff and Kelly) who arranged his
arabic
dictionary from simple consonantal patterns to more complex ones.
[/quote]
he says it is for simplicity for the reader. the unnamed lexicographer
turns out to be al-Farabi (coincidentally also a Turk), whose
grammatical
terminology he also uses, again according to Dankoff and Kelly.
[quote]
in fact, what may be surprising is a number of errors in the arabic text
in classical arabic declension (colloquials don't have it), voweling and
the occasional use of colloquial arabic particles instead of classical
arabic ones. these are considered by contemporary scholars (like Atalay)
as due to the syrian arab copyist (who syas he knows the langauge of the
Turks well) who wrote the copy that has survived. Kashgari would have
learnt classical arabic. that Kashgari is a Turk (and from the nobility)
is evident from his own words in the introduction of the book.
All the more reason if there are errors typical of a native speaker
(informal style, etc)
those are regarded as the mistakes of the less educated arab copyist.
if he writes in a roccoco style, he is an arab; if he doesn't he is an
arab. that's your logic.
so "Arabic Turkologist" is misleading, implying to the he was an arab.
"first turkologist writing in Arabic" is better. besides "Arabic
Turkologist" is ungrammatical.
It seems to me, both are correct. Maybe "Arab Turkologist" is a
little better.
it's worse, since it identifies him as an arab, which from his
self-identification he is not. he being a Turk, and a noble one,
(democratic ideals where not in circulation those days) is crucial
to his credibility, otherwise like lexicographers of his day he
would be identifying sources, as even arab lexicogrpahers of arabic
did, citing bedouin informants and pre-islamic or early islamic
poetry to certify that it is *classical* arabic. he identifies as
a Karakhanid Turk, which he regards as speaking the best form of
turkic. if he were an arab masquerading as a Turk (which is unlikely
simply on the grounds that the Turks were barely establishing that
they were not simple barabarians in msulim eyes), there were plenty
of Turks in Baghdad and at court to identify and ridicule him. OTOH
there were few arabs in Kashgar, as the karakhanids adopted Islam
on their own and not occupied. he also demonstartes a certain pride
and "nationalism" in his turkic origin. and lastly why should he be
buried in eastern turkestan if that were not near his homeland.
besides, your conclusions has no basis in scholarly work done
concerning his identity. nor do they have any basis on any hard
facts. it's burdenof proof is on you to prove your unconvential
and unaccepted ideas,not on others to disprove them.
Not at all. There's absolutely no burden on me. We're not in court.
[/quote]
there is if you make claims contrary to established scholarly
opinion. and about a language you virtually know nothing about.
[quote]
Finally, there's no definite proof whether he was Turk or Arab—both
possibilities are viable.
[/quote]
there is proof that he was a Turk from his own words. I said how
unlikely he would get away with lying and that your claim, based
on his fluency in arabic, does not hold water. many of the
arabic classics were written by non-arabs. he was fluent in
Arabic just as educated Turkic people are now (at least in the
Russian and Soviet eras) or were fluent in Russian.
[quote]
And no point to argue about something unprovable.
[/quote]
your claim has no substance behind it. the claim of
accpeted scholarship does have evidence (what he wrote)
behind it.
[quote]
you have "Arab Turkologist" which
means a turkologist who is an arab, which he was not and Turkologist
of Arabic" which is a contradiction (unless perhaps there are
turkologists who do arabic as a pastime), which is not the case
here. the first "Arab Turkologist" was 'abu: Hayya:n who wrote on
the Kypchak of the Mamlukes, discussed in other posts. he was one
of the rare arab scholars who studied languages other than arabic.
rococo style, and his very interest in the Turkic dictionary
his interest was to teach the Arabs about the Turks, and in a
positive light, as his invented pious traditions concerning
the Turks show. he also wants to prove that they are not mere
pagan barbarians as shown by associating them with Alexander
the Great, who is a muslim hero.
Moreover, he was probably writing on a hot political issue, since this
was the very period of a big turmoil including the Battle of
Manzikert (1071), and the expansion of Seljuks, and then the First
Crusade (1096), and all that.
the work was begun in 1072 and completed in final form 1077 acc. to
the detailed analysis done by Dankoff and Kelly (at the very latest
1083 acc. to an earlier work by Bazin). the Crusades had nothing to
do with it. the political zenith of the Seljuks did, as he frankly
admits in the introduction. the turmoil was, according to Pritsak,
in his own homeland.
apparently shows that he was learning Turkic as a foreign language.
This is contrary to the introduction of the book, where he self identifies
as a speaker of "the most elegant" Turkic dialect, in his view,
that of the Karakhanids. he also informs us that he was an important
noble, thus presumably of the ruling dynasty:
from Dankoff and Kelly's translation (my notes are in {...} from the
color facsimile of the original), changing phonetic characters in the
translation with plain english spelling (I use upper case for the
emphatics in arabic):
I have travelled throughout their cities and have learned their dialects
{lu*gh*a:t} and their rhymes: those of the Turks, the Turkman-Oghuz, the
Chigil, the Yaghma, and the Qirqiz. Also, I am one of the most elegant
{afSaH} among them in language {lisa:n}, and the most eloquent {'awDaH}
in speech {baya:n}; one of the best educated, the most deep rooted in
lineage, and the most penetrating in throwing the lance. Thus have I
acquired perfectly the dialect {lu*gh*a(t)} of each one of their groups
{Ta:'ifa(t)}: and I have set it down in an encompassing book, in a well
ordered system.
one could look up Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_al-Kashgari
No need to, I have a translation, it says nearly the same.
a. you are not the only one reading this thread and not the
only one I am addressing to.
b. you don't take heed of it,
He writes a number of things, such as that he's the best lance
thrower, and learned all Turkic dialects "perfectly" and the like,
which, when torn out of context, may sound like cheap bragging, or at
least a contextual exaggeration. I would rather hypothesize he had a
he dedicates his work as a gift to the Caliph, he would be in serious
trouble if word got around that he was missrepresenting himself and
his qualifications. OTOH the arab copyist frankly admits he is a
non-turk and gives his qualifications as that he learned turkic.
Turkic wife or something—that would be a typical motive to learn a
a noble arab would more likely have a turkic concubine (of pagan
origin)
than a turkic wife those days.
foreign language even it had a lower social status or is hard to
study, hard to get, etc. Or he may come from a bilingual family, where
Arabic was dominant, because the ruling and educated elite was
probably of Arab origins at the time. Or he was in exile in Turkic
no, many of the islamic scholars were of non-arab origin in that
epoch. you obviosuly don't have the slightest idea of islamic
history, except from some cliches.
lands, as you say below.
but he was originally from a turkic land as well.
and click on the only reference cited:
Svat Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
and go to p. 90 - 91 quoting Dankoff and Kelly''s translation.
the resulting URL is:
http://books.google.com/booksid=7E8gYYcHuk8C&pg=PA90&lpg=PA92&dq> > > %22...
concerning Barsghan we have the following information: p. 625 of the
original, Diwan, p. 364 vol ii of Dankoff and Kelly (transliterations are
mine, I ommitted the original transliterations [ ...] denotes a footnote).
barsGa:n Name of a son of Afrasiyab {afra:siya:b}. he is the one who
built barsaGa:n {so spelt, in other places it is spelt barsGa:n} the city
from which came the father of Mahmud {wa-hiya madi:nat-un minha: 'abu:
maHmu:d}. Some say that it was the name of a groom {of horses} who
belonged to the king ["to the king" (li-malik) added by in margin by later
hand] of Uighur {uyGur} and who used to tend the horses there because of
its fine air; then the city was named after him.
afra:siya:b is the anti-hero of the persian epic Shahnama, but was adopted
by the western turks as a hero. by "son of Afrasiyab" he means a member of
the Karakhanid dynasty, which (as stated by Kashgari) claimed descent
from the legendary figure.
elsewhere many geographical names around Barsghan are named, and a
dialect
peculiarity, calling buGda:y "wheat" budGa:y is mentioned. so Kashgari
knew the area well.
Let's not get entangled with MaK, it's a rather small issue.
it's part of the errors of your website.
he also mentions his lineage on p. i.69 of the original, p. i.139 of
Dankoff and Kelly: (in the entry uyGur with a legendary derivation
involving an alledged persian saying of Alexander the Great
(*dh*u( ~l-qarnayn) and an alledged changing of the Oghuz of the
glottal stop (hamza) to xa:')
Mahmud, the auhtor of this book states: In accordance with this our
forefathers {'a:ba:'una:}, the emirs, used to be called xami:r, since
the O*gh*uz were not able to say 'ami:r; they changed alif into xa:'
and said xami:r. Our forefather {'abu:na:} - he was the one who
conquered the lands of the Turks from the Samanids {min
'awla:di~s-sa:ma:niyya(t)} - used to be called: al-'ami:r <?jrkyn
{illegible, and with scribal errors}. They changed the alif to xa:'
as I showed you.
Hmm, I didn't see this. So you mean the Aral Oghuz speakers were
substituting
the alif by "ha"?...> O. Pritsak in turkish (H. Eren translator) "Mahmud Kâsgari
Kimdir?"
more precisely the glottal stop by xa:' . there is a difference, and
in arabic words not turkic ones (since the glottal stop is non-native
to turkic) . besides the setting is in Transoxania, around Bukhara
not the Aral.> > (Who is Mahmud Kashgari?) in Türkiyat Mecmuasi X. 1953, p. 243-247
concludes that the forefather must be Bughra Khan Harun al-Hasan b.
Sulayman who conquered Bukhara from the Samanids AH 362 / 992 CE,
on the grounds that al-Kashgari represented the eastern wing of
the dynasty (Kashgar was under their control). He also says that
there was a dynastic squabble in which many were killed, and that
Mahmud must have wandered ten years through Turkic lands to escape
and that he was finally a refugee in Baghdad at the time he wrote
his work. Pritsak claims that the tragic circumstances are the
reason why he does not want to talk about himself much.
I assume his birth and death dates are taken from his tomb
in Upal, SW of Kashgar, as stated by Wikipedia.
BTW Kashgari says he wrote a book on turkic grammar as well,
but this work is lost.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 11:25 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 30 сен, 08:37, 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 website has:
Karakhanid:
foot star red dry leaf sleep horn liver house 1 2 3
ev,
aðaq yulduz qïzïl quruG yapurGaq uDï- müñüz baGïr äv, bir äki üch
öv
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
tört, bish - yeti sakiz tuqu:z on
türt säkiz u:n
------------------
I will use <e> for /ä/ (open vowel, indicated by arabic /a/) and <é> for
/e/
(half closed vowel,indicated by arabic /i/), as it is less common.
leaf: should be yapurGa:q with length.
house: the entry is under the words with long a:/e: but the length marker,
alif is ommitted and in this word and it is said that the form with a
short vowel is more correct, but the second occurance of ev is crossed
out by a later hand and the vowel <a> is modified in different colored
ink to make the vowel <u>, thus the false reading öv which probably
reflects the Kypchak dialect of the egyptian mamluke owner of the
manuscript. so one can say that Karakhanid word for "house" was either e:v
or ev . see Dankoff and Kelly vol. i p. 118 (of p.53 of the original) for
a discussion. so there is no öv in Karakhanid, there is e:v and ev
1: the vowel is long, bi:r
2: the vowel is rendered by arabic /i/, so äki is impossible. the entry
is under the arabic measure fa3la: so the k must be doubled although not
indicated as such by the pointing in the main entry. the vowel is
reconstructed byClausonas well as Dankoff and Kelly is é so ékki .
there are a few occurances if <iki> and <i:ki> but overwhelmingly ikki,
presumeably to be read as ékki .
4: tört is the main entry but tö:rt is considered more better ('ajwad).
5: bé:*sh* is reconstructed.
6: not attested by Kashgari, but attested as altï in Kutadhgu Bilig,
contemporary with Kashgari, acc. toClauson.
7: yetti although the doubling is not shown in the pointing, jidging
from the noun pattern it is under.
8: it's definitely not sakiz (just a typo in some places in the
translation of Dankoff and Kelly. Kasghari says in the entry
sekiz that it is an abbreviation of sekkiz.
9: the reconstruction is toqu:z with a long vowel at the end, at least
as attested in Kashgari.
10: the reconstruction is o:n with length.
there is some vascillation between doubling and not doubling
intervocalic consonants in Kashgari.
Clausonargues that there wasdoubling in Old Turkic, in spite of the
spelling with a single letter.
Tamam, yaptIm.
[/quote]
there is no vascilation between sekkiz and säkkiz in Kashgari. the
vascialtion is between the doubled and undoubled forms. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 11, 10:56 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 2 окт, 02:10, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 30, 6:47 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 29 сен, 07:50, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 11:35 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 9 сен, 11:14, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 7, 11:32 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 6 сен, 05:26, 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 theTurkic
languagesand 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 theTurkicpeoples:
http://turkic-
languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classificat...
under "(2) Proto-Yenisei-Kyrgyz (Proto-Tuvan + Proto-Khakas)" the website
has:
=================
(4) Apparently, the following series of shared contractions might have
been either archaisms or innovations:
4c) as in "horn", cf. Chuvash mâyr-aga <*maiR (?), Sakha muos,
OldTurkic
müñüz, Proto-Kipchak *müyüz, but Tofa mi:s, Khakas mü:s,
Standard
Altai
mü:s-probably, from Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic*mañüR or *maiR.
The details and the direction of this transition are unclear.
=================
the consonants are more likely to be dropped or changed rather than
apear
out of nowhere, and chuvash is inovative with regard to vowels.
If that were true, the languages would finally lose all their
consonants.
this applies turkic velars and nasals.
No! The reason you think there was a consonant is because of your
irradicable Osmano-centricism!
Old Turkic is not Osman, neither is Old Bulghar which can be traced
through loanwords, the occasional inscription etc.. Rona-Tas has
articles on the weakening and dropping of final velars in the Bulghar
group.
That probably refers to -q (pula: balyq). But how does Rona-Tash know
it's a "dropping" if it's probably just a suffix in the main Turkic
subgroup?
from old loanwords, correspondences in mongolian, and the occasional
old transcription. for example in "Chuvash Studies" (ed. Rona-Tas)
in the article "The Periodization and Sources of Chuvash Linguistic
History" (by Rona-Tas) it is discussed that common turkic beg appears
as pex (x= chi) in Constantine Prophyrogennetus (as the title of the
Khazar sub-king), in Ibn Fadlan as <bh> *beh (all perhaps reflecting
*be*gh* acc. to Rona-Tas), in Hungarian as bő [bö:] and Chuvash pü .
so the gradual elimination of the final consonant in this word is well
recorded.
in "Studia Turcica"(ed. Ligeti) "On The Chuvash Guttural Stops In
The Final Position" there is more detail (it is a long and detailed
article). final -g disappears through an intermediate -w (> v)
which appears when followed by a vowel as v for example common
turkic yaG= "to rain" chuvash s'u=/ s'uv= . for final -k Rona-Tas
posits *k1 and *k2 (with front and back allophones) which became
(k1) -k/-x in Chuvash, -k in Mongolian, and (k2) which became 0
(disappeared) in Chuvash and became -g (back allophone -G) in
Mongolian (this BTW is consistent with recent theories that the
stops originaly came in three forms).
let me also mention a*dh*aq "foot"which became azaq (Kashgari;
perhaps should have been azax acc. to Rona-Tas); NB the Azaq Sea
in turkic for "mouth of a river" and Azov in Russian; and finally
Chuvash ura. so we have documented evidence for the evolution of
some words and the comparative method and loans in other words.
I 'm not very eager to argue about Proto-Turkic state, because any of
this is largely unprovable and such discussions may go on for ages,
but anyway... In "beg" it's probably part of root, so it's a
different story. The same in tag, yag- where it is probably an Orkhon
yag- "to rain" (discussed in the article) is s'u- in chuvash but
s'âv-
when followed by a vowel, so here is proof that the final -g was
actually dropped.
Turkic development, probably innovative. The Azaqdenizi may be a
folksy etymology from something else, that may have nothing to do with
from what then? folksy etymologies are not made from dead languages,
moreover, the metaphorical meaning is mentioned byClauson. Russian
seems to have borrowed it at a time when the gutteral stop was
weakened.
but it is not a crucial issue.
"ayaq".
The -q of ayaq, balyq may be a Turkic (but not Bulgaro-Turkic) suffix
akin to the IE -ka, as in Greek "mathematika", Slavic -ka, Iranian
aiwa-ka (one), etc. If "aDaq" is indeed akin to the IE *pada, then -q
is clearly a suffix.
suffix or not, and whatever the etymology of the Sea of Azov, azaq is
attested in Kashgari as the Bulghar word for "foot", with the only
proviso that the velar may have been weakened to *azax already (acc.
to
Rona-Tas). moreover it confirms the posited intermediate state in
Bulgharic of *dh* > *z > r . Rona-Tas shows that Mongolian has final -
g
when Chuvash looses the -k/-q and mongolian has -k/-q when chuvash has
-k/-x.
adaq seems to be an exception, but in mongolian it is found only in
metaphorical meanings and not in the sense of "foot" and thus may be
just a late loanword, i.e. borrowed from common turkic and not bulghar
(or
"bulgharo-turkic") or a cognate.
at any rate there are case when teh suffix is clearly -ak /-ek but the
vowel remains and the velar does not. further evidence of the weaking
velars / gutterals are late loanwords into chuvash or loanwords from
chuvash at various stages of the weakening of the gutteral etc.
in the website <ñ> stands for *ng* .
Clausonreconstructs *bü*ny*üz for proto-commonturkicwhich would
. > > > be
*bü*ny*ür2 for "Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic". Azeri and Turkmen have
.> > > > > buynuz ,
turkish boynuz. In Oghuz *ny* becomes yn or yVn (where V is a helping
vowel),
m- is a secondary but common formation from b- when the following
consonant is a nasal, but is preserved in turkish.
No, normally neither secondary nor primary. It was and is
allophonically unstable in most branches. It's better to denote it as
*B or *M
Although in this particular case any idiot knows that b- is a
secondary development in Oghuz. I wonder whyClausonis dumber
than an
idiot.
not justClausonbut turkologists in general. the appearance of m- is
dependent
on a following nasal.
Oh, you mean theClausonwho was unable to recognize the Altaic unity
and who found 1% correspondence among the Altaic languages? So
I'm
.> > not
suprised.
he is not the only one who doubts the altaic hypothesis.
Old Uyghur (the
predominant *ny* > y) dialect has müyüz .
That may be the strong Karluk influence that I was talking about a few
posts above.
it has nothing to do with Karluk. it's the regular development in the
later Old Uyghur of Old Turkic *ny*
But m- is not regular,
it is if there was a nasal earlier.
*bü*ny*üz > *mü*ny*üz > müyüz
but *mü*ng*üz > *müyüz is not regular for Old Uyghur
You seem to be confusing things. Turkish is the ONLY language (maybe
it was also in Old Turkic but I rather doubt that) that has "ben" for
so acc. toClausonand Von Gabain, why should they fabricate
archaeological (epigraphic) evidence?
the general Turkic "men" clearly akin to Finnish minna", Mongolic
mongolian bi (Nom.).
*mini (Gen), IE *men (Gen) as in English "mine", so it evidently was
"men" in the beginning. But ethnocentristically, you seem to be trying
I am repeatingClauson'sand other's opinion, why shouldClausonbe a
turkish nationalist? proto-Tungus had *bi , si , *i for the singular
pronouns (acc. to "Les langues du monde"). for turkic one can
reconstruct
*be , *se , *a (the last one based on the oblique stem of /ol/),
You can reconstruct anything, but it was "men", I shouldn't even
explain why.
[/quote]
I reconstructed Clauson's reasoning. it's part of established
scholarship.
[quote]
the
others
based on chuvash e-pê , e-sê and the fact that the plurals have *-r2
but
no -n-. the final n's in common turkic come from the oblique stem,and
finally
the m- that results from it. ol (chuvash vâl) was a demonstrative
that
doubled as a pronoun early.
I'm not going to discuss reconstructions anymore, it's seems an
endless and meaningless talk. Let everyone do his own reconstructions
and be happy with them.
[/quote]
I am repeating an established scholarly opinion. it's not meaningless
to dicuss it if you accept historical attestations and the
comparative
method.
[quote]
to prove now that "boynuz" is not a recent development. That just
it's *bü*ny*üz . I am not "ethnocentric". I frankly acknowledge
loanwords in turkish and phonological or grammatical innovations
when warranted and I have taken lots of flame from true nationalists
for that. I do respect scholarship, but doacknowldge its fallibility
when given an argument (such as new data) not addressed to by
scholars.
You're not a nationalist, but your viewes are sometimes so biased
toward Turkish that I don't even know what to say. If you really think
it was "ben" as in Turkish, then well...
[/quote]
it's not me. it's established scholarly opinion. and it's not
just based on Turkish but old Orkhon Turkic and Chuvash. and the
original form I reconstructed was not << ben >> but *be
it's also from internal turkic evidence of the distrubution
of m- in turkic languages.
[quote]
You can also take a look at the Starling database for "I" and see how
it runs across other languages. If you can't spot it for yourself, I
can't convince you.
doesn't fit the picture. Though I acknowledge that the second sonant
may somehow affect the first one...
if you acknowledge that then you van acknowledge *b-.
No, it's viceversa. Where there was -n-, there was m-.
[/quote]
that is too much of a coincidence!
[quote]
Karakhanid has irregularly
mü*ng*üz .
It's perfectly regular for the Orkhonic languages.
no it's not. one can recosntruct *bü*ny*üz, i.e.
with an *ny* on the basis of Oghuz and Old Uyghur
one would expect for Karakhanid to be the same as
later Old Uyghur.
OTOH acc. toClausonhand the same irregularity is found in
* be*ny*i "brain" in Karakhanid mé*ng*i but old ottoman
actualy *bé*ny*i
[...][/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 11, 11:59 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 4 окт, 03:41, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:26 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 29 сен, 07:51, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 11:48 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
On 10 сен, 03:11, 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/
under "The Yenisei Kyrgyz descendants" the website says:
=================
"Kyrgyz" seems to mean "destroyers, exterminators" or
"terror" in Turkic and Mongolic languages, cf. Tuvan "korgysh",
Khakas "xorGïs", Kyrgys "korkush" (fear, terror); Kazakh "qurtu"
you have suffixes in -I*sh* and its reflexes here, whereas the
suffix in qIrqIz (the old form) / qIrGIz is -z . so you are trying
to connect it with a different suffix. that it is -z and not
originally
something else is evident from the earlier greek transcription
Kherkhir Χερχιρ i.e.qIrqIr {or perhaps *qIrqIr2}
(exterminate), "qïrqu" (shearing, cutting); Altai "kïr" (erase),"
kïrkïsh" (shearing), Sakha "kïrgïs" (fight, destroy each other), etc
(note: all ethnonymic remarks are unavoidably hypothetical).
=================
actually the older form of "Kyrgyz" (qIr*gh*Iz) is qIrqIz, cf.
Kashgari has qIrqIz and IIRC so .in Old Turkic. the simplest
and most widely accepted etymology is from turkic qIrq
"forty"+ -Iz (archaic collective suffix).
turko-mongol tribal
confederation names frequently had a number attached to them
or were simply a number, cf. the mongolian tribe naiman
meaning "8". they denoted the number of tribes in the confederation
or the number of clans in the tribe.
It's probably bull to avoid the modern unpleasent relatedness to
"terrorists". Nationalistically-oriented "linguists" invent all kind
of things as far as their ethnonyms are corncerned.
my sources, established linguists are hardly "nationalistically-
oriented
linguists" (first proposed by Ligeti). besides, it also sounds
reasonable and simple.
And I know no such suffix as -Iz, where else is it found?
it's found in the names of tribes and animals. if you derive (it
seems correctly, though I am still worried about the voicing of q)
o*gh*uz from oq-uz then you should accept that it is was an archaic
collective suffix, probably akin to the -ar of tatar and also
probably akin to the -ar in the plural suffix -lar . there is
also a -z suffix that is a dual indicator, *ékkiz (> ikiz) "twin"
and parts of the body that come in pairs, but that seems to be
different. it's a fossilized suffix, no longer productive.
I've included it as an alternative hypothesis, but normally you should
state more specifically what facts you base your argumentation upon.
well, I gave an authoritative reference. it's also clear that the
ending
has changed form time to time, but always with turko-mongol collective
endings.
Now that you've mentioned "ikiz", it adds some value, but it's still
not clear what names of animals and body parts, and Oghuz is no proof
the -z in body parts and in ikiz is differfent, it's a dual indicator.
but anyway (I tried to follow the forms fromClausonwhen possible):
animals:
oGuz (! in the meaning of "young bull"), öküz (?*ököz , "ox"),
*qotoz / qotuz ("yak"), qunduz ("beaver").
"qunduz" is obviously singular and obviously akin to Latin "castor".
[/quote]
and just how does /s/ correspond to /n/.
[quote]These words probably don't mark -z as plural or dual, so "ikiz" seems
to be the only instance so far.
[/quote]
they are not plurals or duals. they are collective or dual indicators,
big difference. Wikipedia didn't quite get the difference, I agree.
that it is a suffx is evident from the correspondences in
other languages like Japanese or IE or Hungarian
[quote]
note:Clausonregards öküz as coming from Tokharian okso
No need to make up Tocharian, these are all Nostratic roots most
likely. Altaic tribes were cattle breeders, they didn't need foreign
names for cattle.
(hence related to Germanic "ox", regarding the h- in middle
mongolian hüker as secondary, against this Menges in the 2nd.
edition of "Turkic Languages and Peoples" in the emendation
#32 p. xix <<... but Tk. öküz cannot be seperated from Mong.
üker, M. Mong. hüker, Mongour fuguor "ox", the IE cognate of
which is e.g. Lat. pecu, ..., IE *pek'u- "wool, sheep, cattle"
... . The -r in Mong. and -z in Tk. are ancient collective
suffixes;>>. P. Golden agrees with Menges.
also in numerals: sekkiz ("8"), toqquz ("9"), ottuz ("30"), yü:z
("100").
Yeah? Very creative... One Two Three Sixes Sevens Eights Tens and
Hundreds
[/quote]
it's a tendency, not something absolute.
[quote]
also in the pronouns biz ("we"), siz ("you, pl.")
Well, I remember you mentioned this hypothesis two years ago. But it's
probably just Indo-Iranian *mes, Balto-Slavic *mes — some alveolar
phoneme was already there at the Nostratic level.
[/quote]
they go back to -*r2 i.e. -*r'
[quote]
the dual inidcator, in parts of the body in pairs or are symmetrical:
Menges p.112, "this suffix, -z {in pronouns} has nothing to do with
the
suffix -z of nouns designating objects that occur in pairs"
gö:z / kö:z ("eye"), aGIz ("mouth") yü:z ("face"), be*ng*iz (me*ng*iz,
"complexion") *boGoz / boGuz (boGaz "throat"), kögüz / *gögöz
("chest,
breast"), yotaz "hip" ti:z / *di:z ("knee").
Two faces? Two mouths? Very original. Maalesef, s,ancI yok.
[/quote]
things that come in pairs or are symmetrical. it's a dual indicator,
not a dual.
[quote]Go"z is akin to go"r-/ko"r-, Chuvash kor-. Menges surely never heard
this word before—that would be new on him. Or would he say the dual
marker got into the verbal root?
[/quote]
I agree it probably comes from a verb * gö:- / *kö:-, but in such a
way that it is also a dual indicator. Menges notices that as well.
[quote]
Indeed, we have the -kh marker for the fossilized dual or plural in
Armenian, as in ach-kh (eye, eyes) but I see no such evidence in
[/quote]
it's not a dual but a dual marker.
[quote]Turkic languages.
notice I have ommited turkish omuz ("shoulder") as this is a greek
loanword (Eren) from o:mos ωμοσ ("shoulder"). Menges includes it!
yotaz is not found inClauson. Bazin has oGuz . there is also sIGIr
*"large bovine" which may an -r equivalent of -z IMHO. again,
speculating, it may be connected with saG= "to milk (an animal)",
but I am getting off-topic. for be*ng*iz / me*ng*iz there is
be*ng* / me*ng* "a mole on the face", again IMHO.
at all since it's a dubious etymology itself.
I thought you agreed with it. apparently first proposed by Ligeti.
I agreed that it could have been a masculine name.
[/quote]
your original claim was that it came from oq and meant "tribes".
[quote]
But even if this is true, there's no contradiction: the name could
have stuck because it had association with terror.
you didn't present any evidence that the qIrqIz (the older form)
were particularly fearsome. in fact, all you have is a vague sound
resemblence (and no references to other linguists). the accepted
etymology OTOH, is in line with turko-mongol naming practice of
tribal confederations.
(1)They *thought* of themselves as fearsome, and even destroyed the
Uyghur Kaganate (probably not the Yenisei Kyrgyz but rather the Irtysh
then they you argue that they not the historical qIrqIz for which the
name originated!
The name is more ancient than the Kyrgyz of Kyrgyzstan
[/quote]
of course, but still you don't argue the alledged etymology for the
qIrqIz of the yenisei! who are even earlier.
[quote]
Karluk tribes that were the ancestors of the Kyrgyz of Kyrgyzstan),
also see the "progenitors' theory" below;
(2) it's not necessary to make arguments ad autoritatem (or even of
other authors which would be a hidden argumentum ad autoritatem);
(3) no such thing as "generally accepted", we're not in the USSR or
Nazi Germany.
there are many readers of sci.lang that are interested in the views
of published material, especially when it comes to those of experts
like Ligeti and Pulleyblank, Menges,Clauson, Hasan Eren etc..
Relax, no one has progressed beyond 600 posts except us two.
[/quote]
I notice the occassional comment or two.
[quote]
the etymology of Kyrgyz is discussed in wikipedia, the etymology
I presented is endorsed most recently by Pulleyblank (1990). The
etymology *qirqun (or *qIrqun as Pelliot originally has it)
is mentioned by Enc. of Islam I & II, "Kirgiz" and referenced to
P. Pelliot who has kie*dh*-kie*dh* for * qIrqu*dh* but the
journal (J. Asiatque) citation is wrong (vol 11 was written
as II, mistaken for "2"in EI2). the chinese transcription
given in EI2 is kien-kuen, probably Pulleyblank's ken-kw&n
(1st cent. BC onward; (2nd cent. BC is ke(r)yk kw&n - & denoting
schwa; these are all reconstructions of ancient chinese). then
Pulleyblank khet kw&t 6th cent. *gh*&t kw&t 6th cent, ket-kw&t
6th -88th cent. .these are reconstructed as qIrq +Vt/+Vd or +Vn
qIrq is forty in turkic, while the others are mongolian
collective or plural suffixes, but they exist in fossilized
form in Old Turkic as well. later one finds the Byzantine
Historian of 568 , where Kherkhir (in some places some read
Kherkhiz) is found this has implications for the pronounciation
of *r2 . in 785-840 one finds in Chinese sources Hegesi and
Xiajiasi representing qIrqIz and this is the form found in
Old Turkic sources. these are the Turkic collective suffixes
-r (or -r2) and -z. so the name always has been qIrq "fourty"
followed by a collective suffix,in common turkic -Iz .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyz
I already see that you're making everything Turkish-readible, so in
no, I'm sticking to old forms.
this case the Turkish analogy should be something like "korku-suz"...
whereas "kIrk-Iz" is much too straightforward phonologically and
hardly has any meaning.
what's wrong being straightforward. it is usually considered a
positive thing. and it does have a meaning.
"Straightforward" may be wrong because glottochronology requires
certain phonological and semantic changes to occur in order for a word
to be datable to a certain period. If a vase looks too new, an
[/quote]
this is again getting into a priori notions about what is "archaic"
or not.
[quote]archeaologist wouldn't date it to the Ancient Rome. The same in
linguistics where "kIrk" may look much too coinciding with the present-
day word. That's what I meant by "straightforward". (Not necessarily
the case in Turkic where some words go back to the proto-state with
hardly any phonological changes at all, but still.)
[/quote]
Pulleyblank is an expert at reading old chinese records and
Chuvash xĕrxĕr shows that the form was around for a very long
time.
[quote]
But as it turned out, your references failed to prove the existence of
plural -z, even though I expected the evidence there was relatively
good. So I can't even confirm -Iz as plural...
[/quote]
it's a collective indicator strictly speaking not a plural.
at any rate, the fact that it is a collective is evident from
earlier forms of qIrqIz with -n and -t which are indeed collectives
or plurals, certainly evident from mongolic.
[quote]
Anyway, I've included your hypothesis and I don't want to argue much
about unprovable topics.
I think as certain a case as possible has been made by
Pulleyblank.
Krgyz is a derived from "forty", with -Iz being an old plural
suffix, referring to a collection of forty tribes.[2]
2. Pulleyblank, E.G. (1990).
"The Name of the Kirghiz". Central Asiatic Journal
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) 34 (1-2): pp. 98-108.
Kyrgyz also means "imperishable", "inextinguishable" or
"undying". This version has an obvious popular appreciation.
Historical evidence for many conflicts with other peoples
also supports this theory. The Chinese transcription
"Tse-gu" (Gekun, Jiankun) allows to restore the pronunciation
of the ethnonym as Kirkut (Kirgut) and Kirkur (Kirgur). Both
forms go back to the earliest variation Kirkün (Chinese Tszyan-kun)
of the term "Kyrgyz" meaning "Field People", "Field Huns".
The term Kirkün went through a notable evolution:
Kirkün (Kirgün) = Kirkut (Kirgut) = Kirkur (Kirkor, Kirgur) = Kyrkyz
(Kyrgyz). The evolution is traced well chronologically. The semantic
connection between kün (gün) and gür is a chronologically consecutive
development of the concept kün = "female progenitor" = her
offsprings = "tribe" = "a people" at the last stage coincides with
the gür = "people", like in the Khitan title Gurkhan. Application
of affixes of plurality "t" - "r" - "z" in the ethnonym Kirkun
shaded the initial sound, and then also the meaning, making its
roots enigmatic. By the Mongol epoch, the initial meaning of the word
Kirkun was already lost, evidenced by differing readings of the
earlier
reductions of the Uanshi. The change of ethnonym produced a new
version
of an origin, and the memory about their steppe motherland, recorded
in
Uanshi, survived only as a recollection of the initial birthplace of
forty women. Subsequently, however, that recollection was also lost..
[3]
3. Zuev, Yu.A., Horse Tamgas from Vassal Princedoms (Translation of
Chinese composition "Tanghuyao" of 8-10th centuries),
Kazakh SSR Academy of Sciences, Alma-Ata, 1960, p. 103 (In Russian)
That's what I seem to have meant (Zuev) when I spoke of nationalism.
The Kyrgyz(-Kazakh) authors would invent something suitable to the
Kyrgyz authors.
it seems to be a Kazakh author.
The name as I interpret it would also have some unpleasent association
with (modern?) korkok, Turkish korkak, so they'd like to circumvent
well, it's well formed but not attested in Old Turkic. but why
should others name them or they name themselves as "coward"?
the obvious hypothesis and make up a long, convoluted story of coming
from something like imperishable Titans.
there is no such etymology.
Besides we've already seem to have agreed that clan names normally
come from the names/aliases of progenitors, so no use to try to make
not always in the turko-mongol world.
them all look "tribal confederations" especially of as many as forty
tribes. It could have been a name like John the Fearsome, or
why not there was the otuz (or ottuz) tatar "the thirty Tatar" and
many other.
So that's a much better piece of evidence. You should have told me
earlier.
[/quote]
I alluded to it. you laso have on oq bo*dh*un "Ten Arrow (Tribe)
Nation" (for the Western Turks), on oGur "Ten OGur" (the
Hungarians, the etymology of the european name), toquz oGuz
"Nine Oghuz" etc.
[quote]
as I pointed out there is the confederation Naiman which
means simply "8" in mongolian.
That's different. And that's a contraction, the original name was
probably contracted to just "8".
[/quote]
perhaps so, but the contraction still stuck, and perhaps an
archaic contraction (the original of which has been lost)
may be argued for qIrqIz. that's a little beside the point.
[quote]
something.
this is not good etymology as it mixes turkic and mongolian. it's
a different thing adding a suffix that may or not be exclsuively
mongolian to having a whole mongolian word attached to a turkic
one. but it still revolves around turkic qIrq "forty".
OTOH Menges, p.112 mentions -gün / -kün / -Gun / -qun as a suffix
in Orkhon Turkic "... used exclusively for people and limited as it
seems, to relationship terms." Menges mentions the noun kün "people"
in {New ?} Uygur and SaGay "and designating a group of people". but
Menges prefers the etymology connecting it with Tungus -gin
"designating
a person belonging to a group or organization the collective form of
which, -gi-r, designates belonging to a tribe ..."
If it butts in with Mongolian, it's no good at all, but you said it's
Pulleyblank suggests Mongol intermediaries to Chinese.
a Turkic suffix.
-t , -n are found in fossilized form in turkic. -n is found in
the Karakhanid word eren "men" plural of er "man".
It's probably a collective suffix, not plural.
[/quote]
perhaps so, all the more reason, since the main subject is
collectives. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 6:52 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 5 окт, 08:19, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:41 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:26 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
And I know no such suffix as -Iz, where else is it found?
it's found in the names of tribes and animals. if you derive (it
seems correctly, though I am still worried about the voicing of q)
o*gh*uz from oq-uz then you should accept that it is was an archaic
collective suffix, probably akin to the -ar of tatar and also
probably akin to the -ar in the plural suffix -lar . there is
also a -z suffix that is a dual indicator, *ékkiz (> ikiz) "twin"
and parts of the body that come in pairs, but that seems to be
different. it's a fossilized suffix, no longer productive.
I've included it as an alternative hypothesis, but normally you should
state more specifically what facts you base your argumentation upon..
well, I gave an authoritative reference. it's also clear that the
ending
has changed form time to time, but always with turko-mongol collective
endings.
Now that you've mentioned "ikiz", it adds some value, but it's still
not clear what names of animals and body parts, and Oghuz is no proof
the -z in body parts and in ikiz is differfent, it's a dual indicator..
but anyway (I tried to follow the forms fromClausonwhen possible):
animals:
oGuz (! in the meaning of "young bull"), öküz (?*ököz , "ox"),
*qotoz / qotuz ("yak"), qunduz ("beaver").
note:Clausonregards öküz as coming from Tokharian okso
before that Menges, but he has recanted.
(hence related to Germanic "ox", regarding the h- in middle
mongolian hüker as secondary, against this Menges in the 2nd.
edition of "Turkic Languages and Peoples" in the emendation
#32 p. xix <<... but Tk. öküz cannot be seperated from Mong.
üker, M. Mong. hüker, Mongour fuguor "ox", the IE cognate of
which is e.g. Lat. pecu, ..., IE *pek'u- "wool, sheep, cattle"
... . The -r in Mong. and -z in Tk. are ancient collective
suffixes;>>. P. Golden agrees with Menges.
more detail is given by Hasan Eren in his turkish etymological
dictionary under "öküz".
Clausonprefers Tokharian A okäs (doubtful reading) rather than
Tokharian B okso .
taking into account h- < *p- one has:
Afghanistan Uzbek has hokuz, okuz, Uzbek (dialect?) hükiz,
Doerfer has Uzbek hokiz, New Uygur höküz apparently there
are (unnamed in Eren) Tunguzic sources, presumably Evenki
hukur "bull" (Doerfer) supporting an Altaic *pökü-r' {i.e.
*pökü-r2} by Ramsted. also Ramsted connects it with Japanese
beko "ox" < peko , supported by Pelliot.
There are plenty of cognates in Starostin's database...
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=/data/alt/altet&text_number=1822&root=config
[...]
[/quote]
it adds Even: höken, hökön
and reconstructs Tungus-Manchu: *puKur / *puKun
in Mongolian it adds:
Dongxian: fugie(r)
Dagur: xukur (Тод. Даг. 179), hukure (MD 166)
Monguor: fugor (SM 104), xukur (Minghe)
it has Middle Mongolian: xuker (SH), xuger (HY 10), ukär (MA)
whereas at least in persian transcription it is clearly
hükär . also so in eastern mongolian in the "Secret History"
acc. to Eren
for turkic
on the basis of:
Uzbek: hokiz
Uighur: öküz, höküz
I would reconstruct Turkic: *hökür' instead of *ökür' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 11:03 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 6 окт, 06:20, 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 Chaghatay, I will fill in
the blanks usingClauson. Chaghatay covers a long span of time,
at some point vowel harmony was weakened.
(since xvth. cent.)
foot
ayaG / ayaq
[/quote]
Zenker (see below) has both.
[quote]
star
yulduz
red
qIzIl
dry
quruG / quruq
leaf
yapurGan
yapraG/ yapraq /
yapurGaG / yapurGaq
[/quote]
Zenker has yapurGan and yapraq
[quote]
sleep
uyu-
horn
bü*ng*üz
buynuz
mü*ng*üz
There can't be any "bu"nguz", because it's not attested neither in
Karakhanid nor Uzbek-Uyghur — I don't trust your data. I'll add some
of it, but I don't like it.
[/quote]
it's Clauson's data from historical sources. Clauson cites
Sanglax a Chagatay - Persian dictionary finished around
1705/6 . a well known dictionary of Chagatay.
one doesn't have to "like" or dislike data, one has to deal
with it.
[quote]
Did Clauson compile a Chagatay dictionary? It's probably 13th
century's Turkish.
[/quote]
Clauson uses "Turkish" in the meaning of "Turkic". but no,
he did not compile a Chagatay dictionary, but he lists the
post-thirteenth century attestations of the cognates of
pre-thirteenth turkic words. I just looked up the pre-13th
century forms and listed what I came up with. his sources
for Chagatay are Chagatay - Arabic, Chagatay - Persian and
Chagatay - Old Ottoman dictionaries.
Zenker's "Dictionaire Turc - Arab - Persan" (a dictionary
combining late Ottoman with late Chagatay) of 1862-1866
has mü*ng*üz, mügüz and müyüz . but it has a number of
words with b- when followed by a nasal such as bu*ng*ar
(ottoman bI*ng*ar / pI*ng*ar / > modern pInar) "small
stream". the dictionary is a Turkic to French and German
dictionary, Arabic and Persian refer to the loanwords.
[quote]
The final -G (instead of -q) is not historically consistent either
(not found in other languages).
[/quote]
I had read about vacilations of -G / -q in Chagatay. one source
attributed to transliteration mistakes from Uighur script,
though I prefer to take them at face value, and say they are
variations in dialect. perhaps a voiced velar stop as in
Azeri is meant.
[quote]
house
üy[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:40 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 10:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 13, 1:08 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 12 ???, 19:46, 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 says:
Also, note that Makhmud al-Kashgari (1072) mentions a certain tribe
named "Kyrgyz", but no Kazakh.
no wonder: {I replaced k. with q}
The word Qazaq in the Turkic language can be first documented in the
8th/14th century in|the meaning "independent; vagabond". These and
similar meanings, such as "free and independent man, vagabond,
adventurer, etc." are known in the modern Turkic languages too.
Sounds like a poetic metaphore made up by some Kazakh
ethnocentricists.
[/quote]
it's an attested historical word and so is its use as an ethnonym!
and the sources I cited are not Kazakh sources but western ones!
the ethnocentric and ungrammatical etymology is qaz "goose" aq
"white" (but if so it would be *aqqaz).
the etymology given is not complimentary, since the part ofthe article
I deleted says:
<<
During the turmoils under the Ti:mu:rids, the word signified the
pretenders in contrast to the actual rulers, and also their supporters,
who led the life of an adventurer or a robber at the head of their men.
At the same time, the word began also to be applied to nomad groups which
separated from their prince and kinsmen and so came into conflict with
the state; later it had also the meaning "nomad", in contrast to the
sedentary Sart population in Central Asia.
[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 "Kazak" by W. Barthold* [G. Hazai]
Enc.of Islam I "Kazak" by W. Barthold is even less complimentary:
K.azak.(T.),robber, disturber of the peace, adventurer; on these
and other meanings see W. Radloff, Versuch eines Wrterbuches der
trk. Dialecte, ii. 364. The existance of the word in Turkish can
be first shown in the ninth (xvth) century. During the civil
turmoils under the Timu:rids the pretenders, in contrast to the
actual rulers, were called qazaq: those who would not accept the
verdict of fortune but led the life of an adventurer at the head
of their own men; cf., for example, the mention of the qazaq years
(qazaqlIq) of Sultan Husain, afterwards the ruler of Khurasan, in
the Ba:bur-Nama, ... . The name qazaq is also applied to whole
bodies of people, whohad seperated fromtheir princes and kinsmen;
in the Ta:rikh-i Rashi:di: (...) the zbeg, who had abandoned
their Khan Abu 'l-Khair (...) are called zbeg-Qazaq or simply
Qazaq; the latter name has been retained by their descendants
as an ethnic to the present (cf.the article KIRGIZ). In Russia
the word qazaq first appears about the same time as in Central
Asia (in the second half of the xvth century) and is probably
borrowed from Turkish although it appears in Russian in a larger
number of meanings; thus individuals without kinsmen or
possesions are called qazaq even though they did not lead a
wandering or marauding way of life; the word therefore, had
not yet the exclusively military meaning which it had afterwards.
The word Cossack. used in Western Europe, is the result of the
Little Russian and Polish pronounciation. No certain etymological
explanation of the word qazaq has yet been given. ...
[quote]
Maybe akin to kaza, as if the one who runs into trouble, misfortunes,
[/quote]
no.
kaza has length in the second /a/, a giveaway that it is a
loanword. it's arabic qaDa:' (/D/ was, a lateralized emphatic
*dh*, in some colloquials still an empahatic *dh* - confused
with classical empahtic *dh*; the fact that it was a fricative
is seen from its being written as emphatic s (/S/) - for arabic
I use caps for emphatics. anyway in persian and those languages,
which includes the turkic languages, that learned arabic initially
through persians, it is usually pronounced as plain [z]; though
in turkish at least there are a few instances of being pronounced
as [d]), which meant originally "completion" of something, came to
mean "judicial decree" and also "judgement of God", hence "fate" and
then "misfortune" and in turkish "accident". in the Ottoman Empire,
it also meant "judicial district" (under a qa:di "judge" - turkish
kadI (I discussed this word in connection with spanish alcalde
"mayor"). after the reforms in the 19th century, secularizing the
administration, it meant simply (in addition to the meanings already
discussed) "county" and so still in some former Ottoman territories.
in Turkey it has been recently replaced by ile in this meaning.
you may look at Drevnetjurkskij Slovar' where its arabic etymology and
early usages in turkic such as "fate" are given.
[quote]a soldier of fortune. Also "kaz" = ahmak, the one who's stupid enough
[/quote]
BTW ahmak (arabic 'aHmaq) means "stupid, foolish; dote, fool"
[quote]to run into trouble.
[/quote]
Turkish has the colloquialism "kaz" (is that what you had in mind?)
means "simple, gullible". it probably comes from kaz (< qa:z) "goose",
i.e. stupid as a goose.
[quote]
...
The status of Kazak is also regarded as a very old social institution
of the nomad Turkic peoples. The word became the name of a political
unit and later an ethnic designation by having been applied in the
former meanings to those groups of the zbek tribal confederacy that
had abandoned the Kha:n Abu'l-Khayr and migrated to the north-east
steppes of Turkista:n. These ethnic groups formed the core of the
population of the present Qazaqista:n (Kazakhstan), retaining
later this name. However, it is probable that other Turkic, and
probably Mongol, elements were also involved in the ethnogenesis
of the modern Qazaq people.
...
According to the former Russian tradition, i.e. to distinguish the Turkic
Qazaqs from the Slavic Kazaks or Kozaks (Cossacks), the Qazaqs in Central
Asia were also called Qazaq-QIrghIz in learned and correct parlance. The
word kazak borrowed from the Turkic languages appears in the Russian
linguistic records first at the end of the 14th century with a wide range
of meanings. The military meaning came later into predominance
by applying the word to those military groups which played an eminent role
in medieval Russian history. The form kozak (Cossack) used in western
European languages goes back to the Ukrainian and Polish pronunciations.
No certain etymology of the word qazaq has yet been given. The generally
known inner-Turkic etymology, from qaz- "to flee, to escape" + suffix
(nom. act.) aq, is not well documented in the linguistic sources and
does not find universal acceptance.
Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
1999 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
(Enc. of Islam II "Kazak" by W. Barthold and edited by G. Hazai).
a similar informan is given by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhs#Etymology_of_Qazaq
The Kazakhs began using this name during either the 15th or 16th
century.[13] There are many theories on the origin of the word Kazakh
or Qazaq. Qazaq was included in a 13th century Turkic-Arabic dictionary,
where its meaning was given as "independent" or "freeman".[citation
needed]. Some speculate that it comes from the Turkish verb qaz (to
wander), because the Kazakhs were wandering steppemen; or that it derives
from the Mongol word khasaq (a wheeled cart used by the Kazakhs to
transport their yurts and belongings).[14]
The verb qazmak means "to dig". What's that "wander" meaning?
[/quote]
sounds like a back vowel variant of kez- / gez- "to travel"
[quote]
13. Barthol'd, Vasilii Vladimirovich. Four Studies on the History of
Central Asia, vol. 3, trans. V. and T. Minorsky. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1962, p. 129
14. Olcott, Martha Brill, The Kazakhs, Hoover Press, 1995, p. 4 ...
{search Google Books under << kazakh "white goose" >> }.
I didn't include some of the fanciful etymologies mentioned in Wikipedia
and its reference in this post.
in other words, Kashgari doesn't mention it because the ethnic group or
tribal confederation known as "Kazakh" hadn't formed yet.
It doesn't shed much light on the matter (much as we discussed this
with the Kazaks) probably because the true historical name was Kyrgyz,
whereas the rest is a relatively recent invention.
[/quote]
no. they were a seperate ethnic group from the qIrqIz / qIrGIz
in spite of the similarity of language since post-mongol times.
use of "Kyrgyz" for them is due to the Russian sources who wanted
to avoid confusion with the slavic Cossacks. In the end the soviet
authorities kept the name "qazaq", changing the spelling in Russian
to Kazakh.
the fact that they have very similar languages does not exclude
the fact that they have developed into seperate ethnic groups,
ethnicity doesn not always neccesarily mean identity in
language.
Olcott, Martha Brill, The Kazakhs, Hoover Press, 1995 talks of the
Qazaq Khanate formed after the revolt against the zbeg.
so does this website, which is a summary of the Olcott book:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Hall/5188/links/kazakhs.html
<<
The term Kazakh came into use by the residents of the area
possibly as early as the end of the fifteenth century and
certainly by the mid-sixteenth century.
....
It is hard to date the formation of a Kazakh khanate precisely,
since none of the contemporary accounts of the late fifteenth
century paid much attention to the steppe. The official Soviet
history of Kazakhstan considers Janibek the first Kazakh khan,
holding that, upon Janibek's death in 1480, Kirai's son Buyunduk
(reigned 1480-1511) was elected his successor. Other sources
maintain that Kirai was the first elected khan, ruling until
his death in 1488, when he was succeeded by Buyunduk.
....
The shift of Uzbek authority to Mawarannahr enabled the
Kazakhs to concentrate on the establishment of a stable
khanate of their own. Buyunduk's successor, Qasim Khan,
is generally credited with the creation of a centralized
and unified Kazakh khanate. He expanded the territory under
Kazakh control to include some of the eastern pasturelands
of the Dashti-Kipchak, more of the Syr Darya valley, and
all of the Chu River valley.
....
During this period the Kazakh confederation expanded
as Qasim welcomed other Turkish tribes, including
Kipchaks from the Nogai group and Naimans and Argyns
from the eastern branch of the Chagatais. It was
possible for the first time to consider the Kazakhs
a people: they were approximately one million strong,
spoke the same Turkish language, utilized the same type
of livestock breeding, and shared a culture and a form
of social organization. Under Qasim, political unity was
established as well, for his authority was recognized by
the sultans who lived in the Kazakh territory.
....
[quote]
[/quote]
The Qazaq Khanate is also mentioned in Enc.
of ISlam II Supplement "Kazakstan"
under "Kirgiz" in Enc. of Islam II, we have:
<<
The ethnic and historical continuity between the Kirgiz and
the people living today under the same name in the USSR is
supposed but not proved. The Kirgiz were probably driven out
of Mongolia in connection with the foundation of the empire
of the Khita:y in the beginning of the 10th century
[see Kara Khitay] and the advance of the Mongol peoples;
on the other hand, a body of Kirgiz must have migrated as early
as this century southwards to the present abode of the genuine
Kirgiz (Kara Kirgiz); according to the Hudu:d al-`a:lam (f. 18a,
tr. Minorsky, 98, comm. 293-4, even the town of Pan*ch*u:l (the
modern Aqsu in Chinese Turkestan) was in possession of the Kirgiz.
The Kirgiz are not mentioned again in this region till the 16th
century; ...
[quote]
[/quote]
Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
OTOH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyz
has:
<<
V.V. Bartold cites Chinese and Muslim sources of the 7th12th
centuries AD that describe the Kyrgyz as having red, sometimes
blond hair, blue or green eyes, and white skin.[8] These features
were totally different from those of modern Kyrgyz, which made
Ibn al-Muqaffa suggest in the 8th century AD that the Kyrgyz
were related to the Slavs.[8][9]
The descent of the Kyrgyz from the autochthonous Siberian population
is confirmed by recent genetic studies.[10] Remarkably, 63% of modern
Kyrgyz men share Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) with Tajiks (64%),
Ukrainians (54%), Poles and Hungarians (~60%), and even Icelanders (25%).
Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA) is often believed to be a marker of the
Proto-Indo-European language [11] speakers.
Because of the processes of migration, conquest, intermarriage, and
assimilation, many of the Kyrgyz peoples that now inhabit Central
and Southwest Asia are of mixed origins, often stemming from fragments
of many different tribes, though they speak closely related languages.[7]
4. Abramzon S.M. The Kirgiz and their ethnogenetical historical and
cultural connections, Moscow, 1971, p. 45
....
7. Abramzon S.M., p. 30
8. V.V. Bartold, The Kyrgyz: A Historical Essay, Frunze, 1927.
Reprinted in V.V. Bartold, Collected Works, Volume II, Part 1, Izd.
Vostochnoi Literatury, Moscow, 1963, p. 480 (Russian)
9. Mirfatyh Zakiev, Origins of the Turks and Tatars, Part Two,
Third Chapter, sections 109-100, 2002
[quote]
[/quote]
the Zakiev article (there is a web link for it) is not reccommended
as it is nationalistic and self-serving.
concerning the white skin of the early QIrqIz, Enc. of Islam II
"Kirgiz" has:
<<
There is also said that the Kirgiz had red hair and a white
colour of skin (sur*kh*i:-i mu:y wa sapi:di:-i pu:st), which
is explained by their alleged relationship with the Slavs; the
same anthropological features, of which there is no longer
any trace among the modern Kirgiz, are mentioned in the
Chinese T'ang-Shu; linguistically, the Kirgiz were then
already Turkicised
[quote]
[/quote]
Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
[quote]
In Kyrgyz, we also have ?????? ????? (qaysar zhigit) "(stupidly) brave
fellow", ????? ?????? (qazat kishisi) "military man, warrior", ?????
[/quote]
qazat may have something to do with "qazaq"
[quote](qazap) "wrath"
[/quote]
that's just arabic GaDab (see note on /D/ above) "wrath" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 11:12 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 6 ???, 06:44, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:36 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:41 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:26 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
Now that you've mentioned "ikiz", it adds some value, but it's still
not clear what names of animals and body parts, and Oghuz is no proof
the -z in body parts and in ikiz is differfent, it's a dual indicator.
but anyway (I tried to follow the forms fromClausonwhen possible):
animals:
oGuz (! in the meaning of "young bull"), kz (?*kz , "ox"),
*qotoz / qotuz ("yak"), qunduz ("beaver").
qunduz "beaver: is the odd one out as it is not a herd animal,
perhaps the -z has a different origin.
OTOH Hasan Eren derives it from *qund + -uz
he notes Hungarian hd "beaver" which may be related.
so perhaps a collective after all.
also sometimes it is confused with "otter"
it has been borrowed into post-classical arabic in
various forms. also into persian.
The argument that it was the plural or dual doesn't hold water. But
[/quote]
it's not a plural or a dual. it's a collective or a dual indicator,
not a dual. there is a big difference.
[quote]that's not so bad since this could have been a noun suffix -R (Turkic -
z) akin to the IE -r. Even though in most cases you cited, it's
clearly part of root.
[/quote]
no, it isn't, according to established scholarship. the hungarian form
is closer to home for turkic.
[quote]
[...][/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 11:34 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 7 ???, 18:45, 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 website writes:
Turkish
liver
k'ara
chiGer;
baGr
"chest
the k'is unexplained. if it means the back allophone of k,
(which becomes phonemic when loanwords are taken into
account), then it should be used consistently, which is a
good idea. but <'> usually indicates palatization, so this
is a bad choice.
also it is jiGer , not chiGer.
Probably typos left from early draft versions. Thanks.
in Azerbaijani
it's ayag (a voiced stop, but a back allophone), gIzIl
(a voiced stop), yaprag (a stop) but [doqquz] (acc.
to a dictionary)
Maybe ayaG, Gyzyl, yapraG I denote the voiced /q/ as /G/
[/quote]
you normally use <G> to denote the fricative *gh*, whereas
Azeri has both the back allophone of g (a stop, < q) and *gh*
seperately. you used <g.> for Qashqai after my data, it is
the same sound. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.lang Darkstar <darkstar100 at (no spam) front.ru> wrote in <81564eaf-b7dd-48d8-8a00-5704e65dd306 at (no spam) h13g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>:
: On 8 ??????, 21:54, 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/
:>
:> A List of Phonologically Dissimilar Basic Words in Central Asian Turkic
:> Languages
:>
:> for "cold" Karakhanid has *suG??q acc.to the website.
:>
:> there is no need for for a <*> as soG??q (one may reconstruct -o- instead
:> of -u- since the arabic script does not distinguish between the two) is
:> attested in KutadhGu Bilig as cited inClauson. similarly for buyin which
:> maybe read boy??n as Clasuon does.
: I always delineate facts and fiction. Reconstruction is one thing,
: attestation is another. But considering it's attested in a different
: source, fine.
OK. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 11:52 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 8 ???, 21:59, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote in <hal8vo$mm... 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/
: A List of Phonologically Dissimilar Basic Words in Central Asian Turkic
: Languages
for "earth" Karakhanid has tubrq acc.to the website. should be read
topra:q with a: (i.e. a with a macron). seeClauson.
Not a fact, we have tuproq in Uzbek.
[/quote]
<o> in Uzbek is a highly rounded back vowel a , i.e. []
which I believe has length as well (at least the correponding
vowel in Tajik does, and this sound is influenced by Tajik)
normally <> is used for a fronted [a], in other words a highly
open e , a front vowel. so your transcription for Karakhanid is
in error.
as for the first vowel, modern Uzbek tends to narrow labial
vowels (usually only slightly, but in this case the narrowing
has progressed further), it's with an /o/ in most turkic languages
(those that don't narrow /o/) incl. the shortened form topa in
New Uygur. H. Eren has for mongolian tobraq , tobroq (the older
forms?) as well as tobraG , toburaG , toburaG , toGuraG, pointing
to /o/. Clauson gives the alliteration toz topraq for Old Uighur
in a Buddhist text (written in script that distinguishes between
/o/ and /u/ ?). Ligeti thinks that toz "dust" and topraq "soil,
earth" are related acc. to Hasan Eren. anyway, /u/ or /o/ was not
my initial point.
Zenker's "Dictionaire Turc - Arab - Persan" (a dictionary
combining late Ottoman with late Chagatay) of 1862-1866
references Chaghaty "topraq" to Ottoman Turkish "topraq"
(they are spelled with different orthogrphic conventions
without indicating any change in pronounciation.
I suspect you are using a translation of the Kashgari's
Diwan that does not reconstruct but merely transliterates
from the arabic script and that you are using an umlaut
over the a in place of a macron, which is misleading. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 11:28 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 7 ???, 08:16, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 28, 3:25 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 10:01 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:> In sci.langDarkstar<darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote in
9b6b083b-3c47-4508-a42e-e04e045e0... at (no spam) j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>:
:Darkstarwrote:
:> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:> > On Jul 9, 10:26 pm,Darkstar<darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
:
:> > for one thing oghuz does not have -d- for *-*dh*-
:
:
:> The initial h- can actually be explained by the following paragraph
:> from al-Kashgari:
that's on p. 27 of the original.
:
:> "People of Khutan [Khotanin the Tarim Basin] and Kanzhak [=a city
your source uses cyrillic transliteration (and a bad one, using *zh*
for
j / *ch*) rather than reconstructive reading.
previously in Khotan Khotanese was spoken, so there is a non-turkic
substratum, and perhaps survival of its speakers.
that they indeed spoke Khotanese is evident from the following
sentence
elsewhere in Kashgari: p. 7 of the original (after discussing the
Uyghur
alphabet and the lack of /h/ (from Dankoff and Kelly):
... You do find ha:' in the speech {kala:m} of Khotan, since it is
of Indian origin {min nati:jati~l-hind}; and in the speech {kala:m}
of Kn*ch*:k as well, since it is not Turkic.
Clauson"turkish and Mongolian Studies" reconstructs Ganjak
{*ganja:k}
judging it to be Iranian, comparing it with Ganja of Azerbaijan.
Khotanese is an Iranian langauge but with many Indic loanwords and
in a version of Brahmi script.
and on p. 24:
The most elegant of the dialects {'afSaHu~l-luGa:t) belongs to those
who know one language {lisa:n}, who do not with the Persians {my
translation: with Persian}, and who do not customarily settle in other
lands. Those who have two languages {lisa:n} and who mix the populace
of the cities have a certain slurring (rikka) in their utterances
{'alfa:Z} for example SoGda:q, Kn*ch*:k and ArGu:. The second
category {Sinf} are such as Khotan, Tbt and some of Tangut - this
class are settlers in the lands of the Turks. I shall now outline
the language {lisa:n} of each their groups.
...
Tbt have a language {lisa:n} of their own. Khotan also have both a
script {kita:ba(t)} and a language {luGa(t)} of their own. Both of
these do not know {la: yUHsina:ni - do not know well} Turkic well.
and on p. 25:
The people of Bala:sa:Gu:n speak both Soghdian and Turkic. The same
is
true of the people of Tira:z {T emphatic} (Talas) and the people of
Madi:nat al-BayDa:' (Isbi:ja:b).
There is a slurring (rikka) in the speech of the people of ArGu,
which
is considered to extend from Isbi:ja:b to Bala:saGu:n.
Ka:shGar has villages in which Kn*ch*:ki: is spoken, but in the
main
city [they speak] Kha:qa:ni: Turkic.
so there were the foreign languages of Khotanese, Soghdian and
Ken*ch*eki
There were several other Iranian languages before the Turks. Such as
Tumshukese in the northern Taklamakan, Bactrian in southern
Uzbekistan, etc. It doesn't take MaK to know this, it's part of
Iranian language studies.
[/quote]
the point was originally part of a pronounciation of turkic and
my point was that the pronounciation in question was not a native
turkic one. and it is also interesting to have a primary source
describe the survival of the uses of these iranian languages at
a particular time.
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Yusuf B Gursey... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 11:40 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 8 ???, 03:33, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:28 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 5:04 pm,Darkstar<darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
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-b-r-Gaq (referencing
Bang); from yalb- (unattested inClauson) "to stream (in the
wind, like the mane, yal).
IMHO the second is better and seemingly connects with Chuvash
s'uls'
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-b-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),
sere "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
Doerfer regards se*ch*e (given as Oghuz) as an error by Kashgari
(it doesn't occur anywhere else in that form) and sere as the
original form. that leaves sep= "to sprinkle" > turkish serp=
"to sprinkle"as an established example of epenthesis of a liquid
in turkic.
See? A natural error for an Arab, but unnatural for a native
speaker.
[/quote]
se*ch*e is given as Oghuz which is not Kashgari's native tongue,
he was a Karakahnid Turk, not an Oghuz Turk.
in fact, ser*ch*e is only found in Oghuz, and apparently in
Chuvash with the appropriate sound changes.
BTW r is lightly trilled in Turkish, in highly colloqiual speech
(but put into writing in the writings of the late humorist Aziz
Nesin), bir "1" becomes bi . This is true of other some Turkic
languages as well, for example in Karachay, where there is a
loss of many Turkic /r/'s.
[quote]Okay, okay, no need to go back to it.
[/quote]
you have no evidence that Kashgari was lying! he says he is a
native Karakhanid speaker and a member of its royal house.
these are the facts,the rest are your basless musings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Darkstar... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 24 окт, 20:00, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
[quote]bOn Oct 10, 12:02 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
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
[/quote]
On 24 окт, 20:00, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
[quote]bOn Oct 10, 12:02 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
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.
you didn't propose any reason for the alledged palatization of
initial *ch*-
[/quote]
It was supposedly palatalized at the Proto-Turkic level as part of the
Proto-Turkic LENITION of all consonants. The PT > Khakas shift was
only a slight one in that case.
[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.
they left records of the origin of the 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.
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
Karachay normally has j- , *ch*- is sporadic.
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.
the simpler explanation is that it is a survival, as it occurs even
in Mongolian do"rben "4".
[/quote]
In fact, in recordings of Khalkha I hear a sound intermediate between
k/g in "gar" (=kol), although /do"ro"(w)/ indeed has d-.
There were probably no clear sonorization patterns in Proto-Altaic.
Even Korean and Japanese tend to voice consonants depending on
position, e.g. ikebana < *pana (hana) (flower).
From what I see in the Mongolo-Tungusic correspondences, there were
several intermixed patterns: J-, ch'-, d'-, t'-, : d', zh', although
the initial voicening in do"rben and du"ru"n (=dolu) is quite likely.
http://indo-european-migrations.scienceontheweb.net/Mongolic_Tungusic.html
[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
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- .
and Karakalpak are language-dialects that result from late (since the
15th century on) contact between Kyrgyz and the tribes of the Golden
Horde.
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]
What's "taw"-languages?
[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?
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.
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
Uzbek has much more persian influence at a more fundamental level.
New Uygur also has considerable persian and arabic vocabulary.
have been affected by Russian, Chinese, Tungusic, and Mongolic
adstrates. If you center your picture over the Altai, you'll
you also miss out on middle and early new turkic sources without
a minimal knowledge of arabic and persian.
[/quote]
There are virtually no Arabic borrowings in basic vocabularly and
Swadeshes, and I don't study other types of lexis.
[quote]understand that the Arabic influence is essentially a very marginal
matter. Though it's true that it's nearly impossible to learn Turkish
modern turkish, not really.
[/quote]
Modern Turkich didn't change all that much since the 19th century,
they just scratched the surface. It's nearly impossible to
artificially change a language core.
[quote]without learning Arabic first, since the Arabic influence there is as
strong as the Romance in English.
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.
[/quote]
No, it's everyday common words such as "Selam", "kalem", "tes,ekku"r",
etc. Maybe 10-20% in a small dictionary. French/European stuff
prevails as well but mostly in the 20th century's technological and
cultural borrowings.
[quote]only the persian (tajik) influence in Uzbek is remotely comparable
to the influnece of Romance in English.> > > > > > voiced /g/ in gu"l even in Kyrgyz-Kazakh demonstrates it's an Oghuz
[/quote]
Uzbek seems to be a "creolized" Karakhanid-Karluk-Kipchak language, so
yes, the Persian influence would be expicable since mixed languages
tend to borrow the "top" entirely from a third language (I tend to see
English as a Dano-Anglo-Saxon "creole" with a Norman French top).
Curiosly, the Turkic influence in Russian is also very great and
frequently underestimated.
[quote]borrowing.
no, it's from persian. it has a solid Indo-Iranian etymology.
[/quote]
[quote]:> > 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.
you didn't propose any reason for the alledged palatization of
initial *ch*-
[/quote]
It was supposedly palatalized at the Proto-Turkic level as part of the
Proto-Turkic LENITION of all consonants. The PT > Khakas shift was
only a slight one in that case.
[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.
they left records of the origin of the 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.
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
Karachay normally has j- , *ch*- is sporadic.
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.
the simpler explanation is that it is a survival, as it occurs even
in Mongolian do"rben "4".
[/quote]
In fact, in recordings of Khalkha I hear a sound intermediate between
k/g in "gar" (=kol), although /do"ro"(w)/ indeed has d-.
There were probably no clear sonorization patterns in Proto-Altaic.
Even Korean and Japanese tend to voice consonants depending on
position, e.g. ikebana < *pana (hana) (flower).
From what I see in the Mongolo-Tungusic correspondences, there were
several intermixed patterns: J-, ch'-, d'-, t'-, : d', zh', although
the initial voicening in do"rben and du"ru"n (=dolu) is quite likely.
http://indo-european-migrations.scienceontheweb.net/Mongolic_Tungusic.html
[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
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- .
and Karakalpak are language-dialects that result from late (since the
15th century on) contact between Kyrgyz and the tribes of the Golden
Horde.
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]
What's "taw"-languages?
[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?
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.
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
Uzbek has much more persian influence at a more fundamental level.
New Uygur also has considerable persian and arabic vocabulary.
have been affected by Russian, Chinese, Tungusic, and Mongolic
adstrates. If you center your picture over the Altai, you'll
you also miss out on middle and early new turkic sources without
a minimal knowledge of arabic and persian.
[/quote]
There are virtually no Arabic borrowings in basic vocabularly and
Swadeshes, and I don't study other types of lexis.
[quote]understand that the Arabic influence is essentially a very marginal
matter. Though it's true that it's nearly impossible to learn Turkish
modern turkish, not really.
[/quote]
Modern Turkich didn't change all that much since the 19th century,
they just scratched the surface. It's nearly impossible to
artificially change a language core.
[quote]without learning Arabic first, since the Arabic influence there is as
strong as the Romance in English.
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.
[/quote]
No, it's everyday common words such as "Selam", "kalem", "tes,ekku"r",
etc. Maybe 10-20% in a small dictionary. French/European stuff
prevails as well but mostly in the 20th century's technological and
cultural borrowings.
[quote]only the persian (tajik) influence in Uzbek is remotely comparable
to the influnece of Romance in English.> > > > > > voiced /g/ in gu"l even in Kyrgyz-Kazakh demonstrates it's an Oghuz
[/quote]
Uzbek seems to be a "creolized" Karakhanid-Karluk-Kipchak language, so
yes, the Persian influence would be expicable since mixed languages
tend to borrow the "top" entirely from a third language (I tend to see
English as a Dano-Anglo-Saxon "creole" with a Norman French top).
Curiosly, the Turkic influence in Russian is also very great and
frequently underestimated.
[quote]borrowing.
no, it's from persian. it has a solid Indo-Iranian etymology.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:26 pm
|
|