The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell...

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell...

Page 29 of 30 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 28, 29, 30 Next

The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell...

Author

Message

Darkstar...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:15 am

Guest

On 24 окт, 21:07, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 10:56 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

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.

I reconstructedClauson'sreasoning. it's part of established
scholarship.

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.

I am repeating an established scholarly opinion. it's not meaningless
to dicuss it if you accept historical attestations and the
comparative
method.

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...

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]
Probably separately: *bi (nominative) from Bulgaric-Mongolic-Tungusic
evidence and *men (oblique cases) from Turkic-Mongolic. The original
*B- varied allophonically e.g. being contigent upon the presence of
sonants. The *bi/*men difference was present already in Proto-Altaic,
it's that old, however afterward *bi was lost in Proto-Turkic, being
replaced by *men (just like in Persian azem > man). The Turkish "ben"
is of course a recent mutation, absent even in Azeri.

[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-.

that is too much of a coincidence!

[/quote]
[...]

Darkstar...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:31 am

Guest

On 24 окт, 20:54, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 11:06 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

On 29 сен, 08:35, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:

something supernatural or the "giant man" that lived with the

the "giant man" in Ibn Fadlan is tied to the monster in Beowulf,
which Chrichton believes, or presents as, a Neandertal survival.

Probably, just a tall strongman...

yes. Ibn Fadlan is told he is from the men of "Gog and Magog."

a scholarly commentary on Ibn Fadlan puts the "giant man" in the
context of coaxing by the Bulghars of Ibn Fadlan to authorise
the granting of funds from the Caliph for release to the Bulghars
for military purposes, i.e. to convince him that the Bulghar muslims
were at risk and needed the money to defend themsleves.

I was refering to Montgomerry.

The other two marvels are, I believe, instances of psychological
warfare, intended to coerce information about the whereabouts of
the funds designated for the construction of the fortress, a
matter of no little concern to the Bulgha:r King. The giant’s
tale is designed to inspire fear of the apocalypse in the minds of
Ibn Fadla:n and the other Muslims (the King has already shown
himself in a contretemps with our author to be an opponent skilled
in Islamic jurisprudence), whereas I see in the strangled Sindi: a
warning to Ibn Fadla:n and the Embassy of their likely fate,
should they refuse to comply with the King.

What surprised me most that nowhere in the story he makes any
references that he's among the Volga Bulgars, neither are there any

he calls them the Saqa:liba(t) , applied at that time not just to
slavs but the people of present day Russia in general

al-S.AK.A:LIBA, sing. s.ak.labi:, s.ik.labi:, the designation
in mediaeval Islamic sources for the Slavs and other fair-haired,
ruddy-complexioned peoples of Northern Europe (see A.Z. Velidi
Togan, Die Schwerter der Germanen, 19-3 Cool

Darkstar...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:24 am

Guest

On 24 окт, 23:43, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 13, 1:08 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

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_classificat...

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.

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.

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 Wörterbuches der
türk. 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 Özbeg, who had abandoned
their Khan Abu 'l-Khair (...) are called Özbeg-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. ...

Maybe akin to kaza, as if the one who runs into trouble, misfortunes,

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 ilçe in this meaning.

you may look at Drevnetjurkskij Slovar' where its arabic etymology and
early usages in turkic such as "fate" are given.

a soldier of fortune. Also "kaz" = ahmak, the one who's stupid enough

BTW ahmak (arabic 'aHmaq) means "stupid, foolish; dote, fool"

to run into trouble.

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.

...

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 Özbek 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?

sounds like a back vowel variant of kez- / gez- "to travel"

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.

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 Özbeg.

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.

...

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; ...

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 7th–12th
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.
[/quote]
That has absolutely no bearing on the "continutity of the Kyrgyz"
since nearly all eastern Turks (Altai, Uzbeks, etc) have high
concentrations of that genetic marker.

[quote]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]
[/quote]
Everybody is of "mixed origin", that means nothing.

[quote]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

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

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
© 1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

In Kyrgyz, we also have ?????? ????? (qaysar zhigit) "(stupidly) brave
fellow", ????? ?????? (qazat kishisi) "military man, warrior", ?????

qazat may have something to do with "qazaq"
[/quote]
Even though I don't speak Arabic, it just reminded me of Ghazi or
ghazah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazw

[quote](qazap) "wrath"

that's just arabic GaDab (see note on /D/ above) "wrath"[/quote]

Darkstar...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:55 am

Guest

On 24 окт, 23:51, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 11:52 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

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 tubräq 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.

o> in Uzbek is a highly rounded back vowel a , i.e. [å]
which I believe has length as well (at least the correponding
vowel in Tajik does, and this sound is influenced by Tajik)
normally <ä> 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/.Clausongives 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.
[/quote]

Yes, Uzbek is famous for its "o", and my translation uses a
transliteration of Arabic, so it may be topra:q

Darkstar...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:05 am

Guest

On 24 окт, 23:58, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 11:40 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

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-bï-r-Gaq (referencing
Bang); from yalbï- (unattested inClauson) "to stream (in the
wind, like the mane, yal).

IMHO the second is better and seemingly connects with Chuvash
s'uls'â
presumeably with the same root *yal < ya:l <* *dh*a:l (Mongolian del)
"mane" IMHO maybe the verb yapur- had something to do with the
dropping

OTOH yapur- is normally formed, though there is no expected cauative

of the /l/ by false etymology.

I am waiting for the opinion of other authorities, I don't know what
Marcel Erdal says, as his book is now unavailable to me. as OTOH the
suffixes Menges posits are rare. yal-bï-r-Gaq has similarity with the
Chuvash word in its favor. OTOH the suffixes Menges posits are rare..
epenthes is of a liquid is found in turkish (and Azeri, Turkmen),
serçe "sparrow" taken as < se*ch*e (given as Oghuz by Kashgari)
from the verb se*ch*- "the bird who picks out (i.e. chooses) seeds
from the ground". but NB chuvash s'ers'i "sparrow". but an ottoman

Doerfer regards se*ch*e (given as Oghuz) as an error by Kashgari
(it doesn't occur anywhere else in that form) and serçe 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.;-)

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
[/quote]
Uyghur

[quote], for example in Karachay, where there is a
loss of many Turkic /r/'s.
[/quote]
I just wanted to ask someone about the use of rhotic /r/ in Turkish,
since some speakers say /ba(r)dak, va(r)mI/ as if in English. ASFAIK
it's limited to the slow speech when the tip of the tongue becomes
unstable and flips back slightly.

[quote]Okay, okay, no need to go back to it.

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.
[/quote]
He doesn't say that directly. You inferred that knowledge from
something.

Yusuf B Gursey...

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:38 am

Guest

On Nov 6, 1:55 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 24 окт, 23:51, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:

On Oct 12, 11:52 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

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 tubräq 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.

<o> in Uzbek is a highly rounded back vowel a , i.e. [å]
which I believe has length as well (at least the correponding
vowel in Tajik does, and this sound is influenced by Tajik)
normally <ä> 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/.Clausongives 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.

Yes, Uzbek is famous for its "o", and my translation uses a
transliteration of Arabic, so it may be topra:q
[/quote]
OK.

Yusuf B Gursey...

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:40 pm

Guest

On Nov 6, 2:05 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 24 окт, 23:58, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:

On Oct 12, 11:40 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

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-bï-r-Gaq (referencing
Bang); from yalbï- (unattested inClauson) "to stream (in the
wind, like the mane, yal).

IMHO the second is better and seemingly connects with Chuvash
s'uls'â
presumeably with the same root *yal < ya:l <* *dh*a:l (Mongolian del)
"mane" IMHO maybe the verb yapur- had something to do with the
dropping

OTOH yapur- is normally formed, though there is no expected cauative

of the /l/ by false etymology.

I am waiting for the opinion of other authorities, I don't know what
Marcel Erdal says, as his book is now unavailable to me. as OTOH the
suffixes Menges posits are rare. yal-bï-r-Gaq has similarity with the
Chuvash word in its favor. OTOH the suffixes Menges posits are rare.
epenthes is of a liquid is found in turkish (and Azeri, Turkmen),
serçe "sparrow" taken as < se*ch*e (given as Oghuz by Kashgari)
from the verb se*ch*- "the bird who picks out (i.e. chooses) seeds
from the ground". but NB chuvash s'ers'i "sparrow". but an ottoman

Doerfer regards se*ch*e (given as Oghuz) as an error by Kashgari
(it doesn't occur anywhere else in that form) and serçe 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.;-)

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

Uyghur
[/quote]
well, standard New Uyghur has bir , but I have an online
phrasebook that gives töt (< tört) for "4" . so perhaps
in colloquials the /r/ has a tendency to drop out.

http://iguide.travel/Uyghur_phrasebook/Numbers

[quote]
, for example in Karachay, where there is a
loss of many Turkic /r/'s.

I just wanted to ask someone about the use of rhotic /r/ in Turkish,
[/quote]
don't know exactly what you mean. if */r/ is articulated, then
it is rhotic speech.

[quote]since some speakers say /ba(r)dak, va(r)mI/ as if in English. ASFAIK
[/quote]

depends on the dialect of English, whether it is rhotic or
non-rhotic.

[quote]it's limited to the slow speech when the tip of the tongue becomes
unstable and flips back slightly.
[/quote]
here is what Geoffrey Lewis has to say about Turkish /r/ in
in "Turkish Grammar" 2nd Ed. p. 7 "Orthography and Phonology":

<<

13. r. Turkish r is an alveolar, produced by the vibration of
the tip of the tongue against the gums just above the top teeth.
In the Rumelian {Balkan} dialects it is trilled, a practice to
avoid. Finally, it may be heard as a fricative, acompanied by
heavy aspiration, not unlike the sound of Welsh rh; this
pronounciation is most commonly observable in var 'there is' 1

1 Josef Blaskovics, '"R" Sessizinin Söylenişi' X. Türk Dil
Kurultayında Okunan Bilimsel Bildiriler (Ankara 1964),
pp. 5-10, likens it to the Czech ř. He describes it as
particularly frequent after front vowels, which does not
square with the present author's observations.

[quote]
[/quote]
here is what a Turkish grammar for university level
courses for the Faculties of Literature and Teaching
says. "Edebiyat ve Eğitim Fakülterinin Türk Dili ve
Edebiyatı Bölümleri için Türk Dil Bilgisi" by
Prof. Dr. Muharrem Ergin 20th ed. (İstanbul, 1993)
says, p. 66:

<<

19. r sesi

70. Türkçede r sesi bilhassa konuşma dilinde
bazen düşme temayülü göstermektdir. Meselâ Eski
Türkçedeki er- fiili Batı Türkçesinde i- şekline
geçmiştir. Konuşma dilinde bi defa << bir defa >>,
geliyo << geliyor >> gibi söyleyişlere; bazı
ağızlarda ise -r ve -yor eklerinde r'nin
düşürülmesine sık sık rast gelinmesine de hep
bundandır. Hülâsa r Türkçede kelimelerde yeri
en zayıf olan ses durumundadır. Buna sebep r'nin
titrek olması ve söylenişinde güçlük çekilmesidir.

[quote]
[/quote]
my translation:

<<

19. the r sound

70. The r sound in Turkish shows especially in
the spoken language a tendency to drop. For example
the verb er- {"to be"} in Old Turkic {text: Turkish}
went over into Western Turkic {text: Turkish} in
the form i- . In the spoken language saying like
bi defa << bir defa >> {"once"}, geliyo << geliyor >>;
on the other hand frequent encounter of the dropping
in some dialects of the suffixes -r and -yor are all
because of this. In summary r in Turkish is the
weakest sound in terms of its position in words.
The reason for this is that the r is trilled and
dificult in its pronounciation.

[quote]
[/quote]
the last sentence is quite lame for a university level
book on language.

another university level pamphlet on "The Structure of
Turkish - I Phonology", i.e. "Türkçenin Yapısı - I
Sesbilim" by A. Sumru Özsoy Boğaziçi Üniversitesi
Yayınları İstanbul 2004 is quite detailed on the
pronounciation of Turkish with detailed use of IPA
symbols and mention of allophones. I'll translate
what it says about Turkish /r/: (p. 30-31)

<<

/r/ - üstdamaksıl akıcı ünsüzdür. Sözcük başında
bulunduğu sözcükler Türkçe kökenli değildir. ...

....

Sözcük başında bulunduğu ray, renk gibi
sözcüklerde bir ünsüzle biten bir seslemden
sonraki seslemin ilk sesi olduğu bakraç gibi
sözcüklerde, arka, erken gibi arkasından gelen
seslemin bir ünsüzle başladığı, seslem
sonlarında bulunduğu sözcüklerde ve Türk gibi
sözcük sonunda bulunan ünsüz kümeciğin ilk
ünsüzü olduğu sözcüklerde /r/ ses birimi akıcı
[r] {alveolar trill symbol} sesi olarak
oluşturulur. İki ünlü arasında bulunduğu ara,
veri gibi sözcüklerde vurucu [ɾ] {alveolar r
flap symbol} olarak ve bir, ver, var gibi
sözcük sonlarında bulunduğu sözcüklerde ise
ötümsüz akıcı [{symbol with r and circle
beneath it}] {unvoiced r symbol} olarak
oluşturulur.

[quote]
[/quote]
my translation:

<<

/r/ - is an cerebral liquid. The words When it
is found at the beginning of the word are not of
Turkic {text: Turkish} origin. ...

....

The /r/ phoneme , when initially as in words
like ray {rail}, renk {color}, when it is the
first sound of a syllable following another
syllable as in words like bakraç {copper bucket},
when thefollowing syllable starts with another
consonant,when it is at the end of the syllable
like in arka {behind}, erken {early}, and when it
is the first consonant in a consonant cluster at
the end of a word as in Türk, is articulated as the
sound of the liquid {akıcı} [r] {alveolar trill
symbol} sound. When it is found between two vowels,
as in the words ara {space or time in between},
veri {data} it is articulated as a flap {vurucu} [ɾ]
{alveolar r flap symbol} and in words like bir
{one}, ver {give}, var {there is} where it is
found at the end of the word it is articulated
as an unvoiced liquid [{symbol with r and circle
beneath it}] {unvoiced r symbol}.

[quote]
[/quote]
the article is clearly wrong in describng /r/
as cerebral (retroflex) which it clearly isn't
and also contradicts the IPA symbols used in
the rest fo the text. it is alveolar in Turkish.
the word üstdamaksıl clearly means "cerebral"
see:

http://www.sozlukturkce.com/word/cerebral/

damak means palate and damaksıl means "palatal",
üst means "upper". in describing Turkish /l/
the word "alveolar" dişyuvasıl is used, and
Turkish /l/ is indeed alveolar. diş is "tooth"
and yuva in this context means "socket", -sıl
makes it an adjective.

NB the book I quoted heavily uses neologisms
based (or supposedly based) on "pure" Turkic
words. the only perso-arabic or european words
used are the two examples of initial r- (the
author has no choice in this as there are no
Turkic words starting in r-) and the conjunction
ve "and" from arabic wa , for which there is no
"pure" Turkish equivalent and which is used only
once in the quoted paragraph.

also in descri

[quote]
Okay, okay, no need to go back to it.

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.

He doesn't say that directly. You inferred that knowledge from
[/quote]
he does say it quite directly, though with some flourish of
rhetoric.

[quote]something.
[/quote]
no, he says concerning his own speech and turkic that his
speech is the most is "the most eloquent among them". that
is quite direct.

again,

<<
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.
[quote]
[/quote]
that the "most eloquent speech" is Karakhanid is inferred
from the book and his surname, it is true, and that "the
most deep rooted in lineage" means that he was from the
dynasty is an inference from this passage, but that is
confirmed when he speaks of his ancestor:

again,

<<
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.
[quote]
[/quote]
that's about as explicit as one could get from a book whose
topic is not autobiography, and from one (it is inferred,
by Pritsak) who had a troubled life due to dynastic squabbles
and thus does not want to speak about it much. and there is
no evidence to contradict these statements and conclusions.

Yusuf B Gursey...

Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:32 pm

Guest

On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 24 окт, 23:43, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:08 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

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_classificat....

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.

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.

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 Wörterbuches der
türk. 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 Özbeg, who had abandoned
their Khan Abu 'l-Khair (...) are called Özbeg-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. ...

Maybe akin to kaza, as if the one who runs into trouble, misfortunes,

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 ilçe in this meaning.

you may look at Drevnetjurkskij Slovar' where its arabic etymology and
early usages in turkic such as "fate" are given.

a soldier of fortune. Also "kaz" = ahmak, the one who's stupid enough

BTW ahmak (arabic 'aHmaq) means "stupid, foolish; dote, fool"

to run into trouble.

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.

...

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 Özbek 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?

sounds like a back vowel variant of kez- / gez- "to travel"

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.

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 Özbeg.

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.

...

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; ...

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 7th–12th
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.

That has absolutely no bearing on the "continutity of the Kyrgyz"
since nearly all eastern Turks (Altai, Uzbeks, etc) have high
concentrations of that genetic marker.
[/quote]
admittedly there is no proof but there are strong suggestions
connect the Kyrqyz with the modern day Kyrgyz, starting with
the name.

Enc. of Islam II (Supplement) "Kirgizstan" says:

<<

K.ïrgïzsta:n , Kirgizstan (official designations, Kyrgyzstan ,
Kyrgyz Respublikasy)

....

1. Pre-colonial history.

....It is not altogether clear when ethnic Kyrgyz came to the
region; this point depends on whether the different groups
thus called can be seen as ethnically and linguistically
continuous [see Kïrghïz]. ...

[quote]
[/quote]
repeating from the above text that was quoted in this post:

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. ...

[quote]

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]

Everybody is of "mixed origin", that means nothing.

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

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

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
© 1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

In Kyrgyz, we also have кайсар жигит (qaysar zhigit) "(stupidly) brave
fellow", казат кишиси (qazat kishisi) "military man, warrior", казап
[/quote]
(Cyrillic restored)

[quote]
qazat may have something to do with "qazaq"

Even though I don't speak Arabic, it just reminded me of Ghazi or
[/quote]
in classical arabic Gazw (Ga:zi(n) / al-Ga:zi: is one who does
a Gazw, which in modern turkish gazi (with long a) means simply
"war veteran") means a raid, a military incursion, the original
meaning a bedouin raid with the object of obtaining booty.

[quote]ghazah
[/quote]

yes, you are right. it's from arabic Gaza:(t) غزاة, the (t) , i.e. ة ,
may bepronounced either as [t] or as [h] depending on the place in
the sentence in classical arabic (in colloquial arabic this final
[h] becomes zero, except in the dialects of the Levant an Iraq
when it is fully articulated before a: (long a)). in arabic
Gaza:(t) is a single act of Gazw, entirely synonymous with
Gazwa(t). Persian follows Iraqi or Levantine colloquails and
consistently articulates (t) as [t] after a: , and thus languages
like the Turkic languages that initially borrowed arabic words
through the medium of Persian.

from Enc. of Islam II "Ghazw"

<<

GHaza:t [see ghazw ].

GHazw (a.), expedition, usually of limited scope, conducted
with the aim of gaining plunder. The noun of unity ghazwa
(pl. ghazawa:t) is used particularly of the Prophet's
expeditions against the infidels [see magha:zi: ], but has

{from this it has also acquired a specialized religious
meaning, like jiha:d, in the sense of "holy war", but
not exclusively as the secular sense predomiantes modern
arabic, like an Isralei military expedition is called
Gazw 'isra:'i:liyy}

also special meanings (for which see Dozy, Suppl., s.v.).

In its most common sense, ghazw (and the dialectical variants)
signifies a raid or incursion, a small expedition set on foot
by Bedouins (both in the Sahara and in northern Arabia) with
booty as its object, and also the force which carries it out.
The term has passed into French in the form rezzou, which
preserves the original meaning of ghazw , whilst it is the
synonym gha:ziya (pl. ghawa:zi:) which has given the English
word razzia, current also in French (where, however, with the
verb razzier, it tends to have a pejorative implication).

[quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazw
(qazap) "wrath"
[/quote]
(Ga:zi: / Ga:ziyya: as a verbal noun (not as a participle)
is colloquial arabic, specifically as in Algeria)

the Wikipedia article says:

<<
Ghazw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Gazi" redirects here. For other uses, see Gazi (disambiguation).

Ghazi or ghazah (plural ghazawa:t; Arabic: غزو‎, giving rise to
Italian razzia) was originally an Arabic term referring to the
battles in which the Islamic prophet Muhammad personally
participated.[1] It has since evolved into a term for battle
associated with the expansion of Muslim territory. The term
gha:zi: or Warrior for the faith came to represent participants
in these later battles[2] and is cognate with the terms gha:ziya
and magha:zi:. In modern Turkish the word means "veteran".

1. Aboul-Enein, H. Yousuf and Zuhur, Sherifa,"Islamic Rulings on
Warfare", Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Diane
Publishing Co., Darby PA, ISBN 1-4289-1039-5 pg. 6.
2. Aboul-Enein, H. Yousuf and Zuhur, Sherifa,"Islamic Rulings on
Warfare", Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Diane
Publishing Co., Darby PA, ISBN 1-4289-1039-5 pg 6.

[quote]
[/quote]
this article confuses the colloquial verbal noun with the
classical arabic (and colloquial) active particple.

also the term originally meant simply a bedouin raid with
the object of booty, and it was its use by Muhammad which
made it into a religious term.

the relevant prtion of the book cited on page 6 is better.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1428910395&id=5F-JEmNr9yUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

<<

2. Ghazw is a raid that has evolved into a term for battle
gazah {Gaza:(t) or ghazwa. These were battles in which the
Prophet Muhammad personally participated. The term ghazi
{Ga:zi(n) came to mean "warrior for the faith" as these
battles came to be associated with the expansion of
Muslim territory,

[quote]

that's just arabic GaDab (see note on /D/ above) "wrath"[/quote]

Yusuf B Gursey...

Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:21 am

Guest

On Oct 29, 2:21 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

[quote]On 24 окт, 20:00, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:

[/quote]

[quote]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*-

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]
well, there is no compelling reason to go back that far,
or that Khakas split off so early. the simplist explanation
is that Khakas had initial y- and so did Old Qyrqyz, the
language attributed to the Yenisei runes (and from its name
presumeably ancestral to Khakas).

[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".

In fact, in recordings of Khalkha I hear a sound intermediate between
k/g in "gar" (=kol), although /do"ro"(w)/ indeed has d-.
[/quote]
well, Mongolian has no initial k- so we can't say anything
concerning that.

[quote]
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).
[/quote]
we are talking about in the initial position, but yes, initial *d-
tended to be devoiced. the modern theory holds that there were
three sets of stops. unvoiced, voiced and an aspirated that tended
in some languages to get spirantized. in turkic, the last one became
y- / j- .

[quote]
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.
[/quote]
*t- becomes *ch*- when there is a palatizing element following.

[quote]
http://indo-european-migrations.scienceontheweb.net/Mongolic_Tungusic.html

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.

What's "taw"-languages?
[/quote]
those that pronounce daG / taG "mountain" as taw or tau . in other
words,
turkic /G/ at the end of the word normally becomes /w/. they normally
have initial j- for Old Turkic y- as well. they are commonly also
known as Kypchak languages as well. actually tawlI languages, to show
the behavior of final -G after the first syllable (Old Turkic taGlIG).
it's a method of classification of turkic languages based on the
pronounciation of the Old Turkic words aDak "foot" and taGlIG
"mountainous", IIRC that of Samojlovich, also used by Talat Tekin.

[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.

There are virtually no Arabic borrowings in basic vocabularly and
Swadeshes, and I don't study other types of lexis.
[/quote]
but sometimes there are sigificant words from persian, as
in Uzbek and Azeri. Azeri has persian words for "70" and "80",
although a few years ago on Azeri TV (available on cable in
Turkey) I distinctly heard the turkic (or one can say turkish)
words for them. so their seems to be a langauge reform going on.
also when I was in Baku in 1995 the cab driver understood when
I used the turkish words, but corrected me. in Uzbek one has for
example persian words for "left" and "right", although there was
a porter who understood what I meant when I said turkic sol "left".

also my dictionary gives şir (< iranian persian *sh*i:r <
classical persian *sh*e:r) for "lion" in Azeri but the hotel
manager in Baku understood when I used turkish aslan
instead (I had bout of vomitting before in Turkmenistan, and
Intourist had already given the news when I arrived in Baku,
I said I was fit as a lion, using a Turkish expression).

and BTW we encountered in our discussions words outside the
"basic lexis", and some of these were of arabic origin.

I was also talking about appreciating primary *sources*
such as dictionaries about middle and early new turkic
without a minimal knowledge of arabic and persian. you
won't have to rely entirely on translations, or at least
you will be able to take a critical look at them.

[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.

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]

OK.

[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.

No, it's everyday common words such as "Selam", "kalem", "tes,ekku"r",
[/quote]

that's normal for all major literary languages of the Islamic world.
turkish also has turkic sag~ ol for tes,kku"r .

[quote]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.

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

Uzbek seems to be a "creolized" Karakhanid-Karluk-Kipchak language, so
[/quote]
Uzbek is not a creole, just heavy borrowing.

[quote]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).
[/quote]
Old English is not a creole either.

there are many words in Uzbek from literary persian, but also many
basic lexis words that come from Tajik. the obvious and simplist
explanation is the documented large scale turkification of
local Tajiks, esp. in urban areas. and for english, the adoption
of "the Saxon tongue" by the Norman French aristocracy, in
addition to literary borrowings from Standard French.

I have never encountered your rule about so-called creoles
in the scholarly literature.

[quote]
Curiosly, the Turkic influence in Russian is also very great and
frequently underestimated.
[/quote]

not by Karl H. Menges, who BTW taught Russian while a refugee
in Turkey. He studied the earliest borrowings in "The oriental
elements in the vocabulary of the oldest Russian epos, the
Igorʹ tale, Slovo o polku Igoreve." [New York] Linguistic Circle
of New York, 1951 .

also published in Russian:

Vostochnye elementy v "Slove o polku Igoreve" / K. G. Menges ;
[perevod s anglijskogo A. A. Alekseev]. Leningrad : Nauka, 1979.

[quote]
borrowing.

no, it's from persian. it has a solid Indo-Iranian etymology.
:> > 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.
[/quote]

Yusuf B Gursey...

Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:49 pm

Guest

On Nov 6, 11:15 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 24 окт, 21:07, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:

[/quote]
....

[quote]
Darkstar wrote:
I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
anyway:

A general ethnological and historical description of 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.

I reconstructedClauson'sreasoning. it's part of established
scholarship.

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.

I am repeating an established scholarly opinion. it's not meaningless
to dicuss it if you accept historical attestations and the
comparative
method.

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...

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.

Probably separately: *bi (nominative) from Bulgaric-Mongolic-Tungusic
evidence and *men (oblique cases) from Turkic-Mongolic. The original
[/quote]

it was *ben- > *men- in oblique cases, the nazalization of b- (i.e.
b- > m-) being due to the following -n . it is generally assumed that
the additional -n has to do with ne*ng* "thing".

[quote]*B- varied allophonically e.g. being contigent upon the presence of
[/quote]
in other words initial *b- was easily nazalized by the following
consonant.

[quote]sonants. The *bi/*men difference was present already in Proto-Altaic,
it's that old, however afterward *bi was lost in Proto-Turkic, being
[/quote]
bi survived in the Bulgharic branch. again ben is present in early
Runic Turkic.

[quote]replaced by *men (just like in Persian azem > man). The Turkish "ben"
is of course a recent mutation, absent even in Azeri.

[/quote]
it is more likely a survival in Osman Turkish, as ben is present in
early Runic Turkic and (mainly) in Old Anatolian Turkish. Azeri is
regarded as the branch of Western Oghuz Turkic that was influenced
by Eastern Turkic (as well as Persian) during the Mongol Period, as
its spread corresponded to quite nearly the area where the Mongol
administration was direct, which used Eastern Turkic (and Persian).
subsequently Azeri receded eastwards as the result of Ottoman
expansion. aside from b- Osman Turkish preserves the initial back
allophone of k- (unvoiced), whereas in Azeri and Turkmen it is
normally a voiced stop. during the 17th cent. Urfa (SW Anatolia)
was still Azeri speaking as we know from the notes of Evliya Çelebi,
the Ottoman Turkish traveler. Turkmen remained under the influence
of Eastern Turkic (Chagatay) until modern times. of course, that
doesn't mean that Turkmen preserves some archaicisms of its own,
such as the preservation of long vowels.

[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-.

that is too much of a coincidence!

[...][/quote]

Darkstar...

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:23 pm

Guest

On 12 ноя, 05:40, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:05 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

On 24 окт, 23:58, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:

On Oct 12, 11:40 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

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-bï-r-Gaq (referencing
Bang); from yalbï- (unattested inClauson) "to stream (in the
wind, like the mane, yal).

IMHO the second is better and seemingly connects with Chuvash
s'uls'â
presumeably with the same root *yal < ya:l <* *dh*a:l (Mongolian del)
"mane" IMHO maybe the verb yapur- had something to do with the
dropping

OTOH yapur- is normally formed, though there is no expected cauative

of the /l/ by false etymology.

I am waiting for the opinion of other authorities, I don't know what
Marcel Erdal says, as his book is now unavailable to me. as OTOH the
suffixes Menges posits are rare. yal-bï-r-Gaq has similarity with the
Chuvash word in its favor. OTOH the suffixes Menges posits are rare.
epenthes is of a liquid is found in turkish (and Azeri, Turkmen),
serçe "sparrow" taken as < se*ch*e (given as Oghuz by Kashgari)
from the verb se*ch*- "the bird who picks out (i.e. chooses) seeds
from the ground". but NB chuvash s'ers'i "sparrow". but an ottoman

Doerfer regards se*ch*e (given as Oghuz) as an error by Kashgari
(it doesn't occur anywhere else in that form) and serçe 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.;-)

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

Uyghur

well, standard New Uyghur has bir , but I have an online
phrasebook that gives töt (< tört) for "4" . so perhaps
in colloquials the /r/ has a tendency to drop out.

http://iguide.travel/Uyghur_phrasebook/Numbers

, for example in Karachay, where there is a
loss of many Turkic /r/'s.

I just wanted to ask someone about the use of rhotic /r/ in Turkish,

don't know exactly what you mean. if */r/ is articulated, then
it is rhotic speech.

since some speakers say /ba(r)dak, va(r)mI/ as if in English. ASFAIK

depends on the dialect of English, whether it is rhotic or
non-rhotic.

it's limited to the slow speech when the tip of the tongue becomes
unstable and flips back slightly.

here is what Geoffrey Lewis has to say about Turkish /r/ in
in "Turkish Grammar" 2nd Ed. p. 7 "Orthography and Phonology":

13. r. Turkish r is an alveolar, produced by the vibration of
the tip of the tongue against the gums just above the top teeth.
In the Rumelian {Balkan} dialects it is trilled, a practice to
avoid. Finally, it may be heard as a fricative, acompanied by
heavy aspiration, not unlike the sound of Welsh rh; this
pronounciation is most commonly observable in var 'there is' 1

1 Josef Blaskovics, '"R" Sessizinin Söylenişi' X. Türk Dil
Kurultayında Okunan Bilimsel Bildiriler (Ankara 1964),
pp. 5-10, likens it to the Czech ř. He describes it as
particularly frequent after front vowels, which does not
square with the present author's observations.

here is what a Turkish grammar for university level
courses for the Faculties of Literature and Teaching
says. "Edebiyat ve Eğitim Fakülterinin Türk Dili ve
Edebiyatı Bölümleri için Türk Dil Bilgisi" by
Prof. Dr. Muharrem Ergin 20th ed. (İstanbul, 1993)
says, p. 66:

19. r sesi

70. Türkçede r sesi bilhassa konuşma dilinde
bazen düşme temayülü göstermektdir. Meselâ Eski
Türkçedeki er- fiili Batı Türkçesinde i- şekline
geçmiştir. Konuşma dilinde bi defa << bir defa >>,
geliyo << geliyor >> gibi söyleyişlere; bazı
ağızlarda ise -r ve -yor eklerinde r'nin
düşürülmesine sık sık rast gelinmesine de hep
bundandır. Hülâsa r Türkçede kelimelerde yeri
en zayıf olan ses durumundadır. Buna sebep r'nin
titrek olması ve söylenişinde güçlük çekilmesidir.

my translation:

19. the r sound

70. The r sound in Turkish shows especially in
the spoken language a tendency to drop. For example
the verb er- {"to be"} in Old Turkic {text: Turkish}
went over into Western Turkic {text: Turkish} in
the form i- . In the spoken language saying like
bi defa << bir defa >> {"once"}, geliyo << geliyor >>;
on the other hand frequent encounter of the dropping
in some dialects of the suffixes -r and -yor are all
because of this. In summary r in Turkish is the
weakest sound in terms of its position in words.
The reason for this is that the r is trilled and
dificult in its pronounciation.

the last sentence is quite lame for a university level
book on language.

another university level pamphlet on "The Structure of
Turkish - I Phonology", i.e. "Türkçenin Yapısı - I
Sesbilim" by A. Sumru Özsoy Boğaziçi Üniversitesi
Yayınları İstanbul 2004 is quite detailed on the
pronounciation of Turkish with detailed use of IPA
symbols and mention of allophones. I'll translate
what it says about Turkish /r/: (p. 30-31)

/r/ - üstdamaksıl akıcı ünsüzdür. Sözcük başında
bulunduğu sözcükler Türkçe kökenli değildir. ...

...

Sözcük başında bulunduğu ray, renk gibi
sözcüklerde bir ünsüzle biten bir seslemden
sonraki seslemin ilk sesi olduğu bakraç gibi
sözcüklerde, arka, erken gibi arkasından gelen
seslemin bir ünsüzle başladığı, seslem
sonlarında bulunduğu sözcüklerde ve Türk gibi
sözcük sonunda bulunan ünsüz kümeciğin ilk
ünsüzü olduğu sözcüklerde /r/ ses birimi akıcı
[r] {alveolar trill symbol} sesi olarak
oluşturulur. İki ünlü arasında bulunduğu ara,
veri gibi sözcüklerde vurucu [ɾ] {alveolar r
flap symbol} olarak ve bir, ver, var gibi
sözcük sonlarında bulunduğu sözcüklerde ise
ötümsüz akıcı [{symbol with r and circle
beneath it}] {unvoiced r symbol} olarak
oluşturulur.

my translation:

/r/ - is an cerebral liquid. The words When it
is found at the beginning of the word are not of
Turkic {text: Turkish} origin. ...

...

The /r/ phoneme , when initially as in words
like ray {rail}, renk {color}, when it is the
first sound of a syllable following another
syllable as in words like bakraç {copper bucket},
when thefollowing syllable starts with another
consonant,when it is at the end of the syllable
like in arka {behind}, erken {early}, and when it
is the first consonant in a consonant cluster at
the end of a word as in Türk, is articulated as the
sound of the liquid {akıcı} [r] {alveolar trill
symbol} sound. When it is found between two vowels,
as in the words ara {space or time in between},
veri {data} it is articulated as a flap {vurucu} [ɾ]
{alveolar r flap symbol} and in words like bir
{one}, ver {give}, var {there is} where it is
found at the end of the word it is articulated
as an unvoiced liquid [{symbol with r and circle
beneath it}] {unvoiced r symbol}.
[/quote]
To cut it short, formally, there's a Spanish -r- in an intervocal
position, an English -r before consonants, and an unvoiced (sorta
kinda Welsh?) -rh at the end. Even though the latter two are hardly
heard, and are normally reduced to a Spanish -r-.

[quote]

the article is clearly wrong in describng /r/
as cerebral (retroflex) which it clearly isn't
and also contradicts the IPA symbols used in
the rest fo the text. it is alveolar in Turkish.
the word üstdamaksıl clearly means "cerebral"
see:

http://www.sozlukturkce.com/word/cerebral/

damak means palate and damaksıl means "palatal",
üst means "upper". in describing Turkish /l/
the word "alveolar" dişyuvasıl is used, and
Turkish /l/ is indeed alveolar. diş is "tooth"
and yuva in this context means "socket", -sıl
makes it an adjective.

NB the book I quoted heavily uses neologisms
based (or supposedly based) on "pure" Turkic
words. the only perso-arabic or european words
used are the two examples of initial r- (the
author has no choice in this as there are no
Turkic words starting in r-) and the conjunction
ve "and" from arabic wa , for which there is no
"pure" Turkish equivalent and which is used only
once in the quoted paragraph.

also in descri

Okay, okay, no need to go back to it.

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.

He doesn't say that directly. You inferred that knowledge from

he does say it quite directly, though with some flourish of
rhetoric.

something.

no, he says concerning his own speech and turkic that his
speech is the most is "the most eloquent among them". that
is quite direct.

again,

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.

[/quote]
Typical bragging. Nothing in this passage shows the author is
responsible for what he says. Just reckless marketing, "I'm the best,
I'm the best, etc".
However, he says, "I have learned their dialects and their rhymes
(=proverbs)" which can be interpreted as he learned Karakhanid as a
2nd language, making the final interpretation quite ambigous.
And of course, he did not "acquire perfectly the dialect {lu*gh*a(t)}
of each one of their groups", neither is it possible to PERFECTLY
acquire a language. He mostly uses Karakhanid and some Oghuz, whereas
the rest of the dialects are only mentioned superficially in his book.
Finally, "the most elegant among them in language and the most
eloquent in speech" doesn't mean he's a Turk, it can be interpreted as
"the most elegant and eloquent among them in Arabic or Islamic
matters", which is more like it, epecially considering that he
normally calls Turkic lughats, but a lisan may refer to something more
unifying, like Arabic, but you're probably going to make a long
research into this trying to show how he uses "lisan" and "lughat",
drop it, the matter is generally unprovable.

[quote]that the "most eloquent speech" is Karakhanid is inferred
from the book and his surname, it is true, and that "the
most deep rooted in lineage" means that he was from the
dynasty is an inference from this passage, but that is
confirmed when he speaks of his ancestor:

again,

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.

that's about as explicit as one could get from a book whose
topic is not autobiography, and from one (it is inferred,
by Pritsak) who had a troubled life due to dynastic squabbles
and thus does not want to speak about it much. and there is
no evidence to contradict these statements and conclusions.[/quote]

Darkstar...

Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 10:40 pm

Guest

On 12 ноя, 06:32, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

On 24 окт, 23:43, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:08 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

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_classificat...

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.

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.

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 Wörterbuches der
türk. 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 Özbeg, who had abandoned
their Khan Abu 'l-Khair (...) are called Özbeg-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. ...

Maybe akin to kaza, as if the one who runs into trouble, misfortunes,

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 ilçe in this meaning.

you may look at Drevnetjurkskij Slovar' where its arabic etymology and
early usages in turkic such as "fate" are given.

a soldier of fortune. Also "kaz" = ahmak, the one who's stupid enough

BTW ahmak (arabic 'aHmaq) means "stupid, foolish; dote, fool"

to run into trouble.

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.

...

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 Özbek 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?

sounds like a back vowel variant of kez- / gez- "to travel"

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.

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 Özbeg.

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.

...

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; ...

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 7th–12th
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.

That has absolutely no bearing on the "continutity of the Kyrgyz"
since nearly all eastern Turks (Altai, Uzbeks, etc) have high
concentrations of that genetic marker.

admittedly there is no proof but there are strong suggestions
connect the Kyrqyz with the modern day Kyrgyz, starting with
the name.

Enc. of Islam II (Supplement) "Kirgizstan" says:

K.ïrgïzsta:n , Kirgizstan (official designations, Kyrgyzstan ,
Kyrgyz Respublikasy)

...

1. Pre-colonial history.

...It is not altogether clear when ethnic Kyrgyz came to the
region; this point depends on whether the different groups
thus called can be seen as ethnically and linguistically
continuous [see Kïrghïz]. ...

repeating from the above text that was quoted in this post:

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. ...

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]

Everybody is of "mixed origin", that means nothing.

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

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

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
© 1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

In Kyrgyz, we also have кайсар жигит (qaysar zhigit) "(stupidly) brave
fellow", казат кишиси (qazat kishisi) "military man, warrior", казап

(Cyrillic restored)

qazat may have something to do with "qazaq"

Even though I don't speak Arabic, it just reminded me of Ghazi or

in classical arabic Gazw (Ga:zi(n) / al-Ga:zi: is one who does
a Gazw, which in modern turkish gazi (with long a) means simply
"war veteran") means a raid, a military incursion, the original
meaning a bedouin raid with the object of obtaining booty.

ghazah

yes, you are right. it's from arabic Gaza:(t) غزاة, the (t) , i.e. ة ,
may bepronounced either as [t] or as [h] depending on the place in
the sentence in classical arabic (in colloquial arabic this final
[h] becomes zero, except in the dialects of the Levant an Iraq
when it is fully articulated before a: (long a)). in arabic
Gaza:(t) is a single act of Gazw, entirely synonymous with
Gazwa(t).
[/quote]
It's like Turkish hayat : Ar. hhaya

[quote]Persian follows Iraqi or Levantine colloquails and
consistently articulates (t) as [t] after a: , and thus languages
like the Turkic languages that initially borrowed arabic words
through the medium of Persian.
[/quote]
You mean Turkish borrowed mostly via Persian? Actually, I don't quite
understand this point.

[quote]from Enc. of Islam II "Ghazw"

GHaza:t [see ghazw ].

GHazw (a.), expedition, usually of limited scope, conducted
with the aim of gaining plunder. The noun of unity ghazwa
(pl. ghazawa:t) is used particularly of the Prophet's
expeditions against the infidels [see magha:zi: ], but has

{from this it has also acquired a specialized religious
meaning, like jiha:d, in the sense of "holy war", but
not exclusively as the secular sense predomiantes modern
arabic, like an Isralei military expedition is called
Gazw 'isra:'i:liyy}

also special meanings (for which see Dozy, Suppl., s.v.).

In its most common sense, ghazw (and the dialectical variants)
signifies a raid or incursion, a small expedition set on foot
by Bedouins (both in the Sahara and in northern Arabia) with
booty as its object, and also the force which carries it out.
The term has passed into French in the form rezzou, which
preserves the original meaning of ghazw , whilst it is the
synonym gha:ziya (pl. ghawa:zi:) which has given the English
word razzia, current also in French (where, however, with the
verb razzier, it tends to have a pejorative implication).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazw
(qazap) "wrath"

(Ga:zi: / Ga:ziyya: as a verbal noun (not as a participle)
is colloquial arabic, specifically as in Algeria)

the Wikipedia article says:

Ghazw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Gazi" redirects here. For other uses, see Gazi (disambiguation).

Ghazi or ghazah (plural ghazawa:t; Arabic: غزو‎, giving rise to
Italian razzia) was originally an Arabic term referring to the
battles in which the Islamic prophet Muhammad personally
participated.[1] It has since evolved into a term for battle
associated with the expansion of Muslim territory. The term
gha:zi: or Warrior for the faith came to represent participants
in these later battles[2] and is cognate with the terms gha:ziya
and magha:zi:. In modern Turkish the word means "veteran".

1. Aboul-Enein, H. Yousuf and Zuhur, Sherifa,"Islamic Rulings on
Warfare", Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Diane
Publishing Co., Darby PA, ISBN 1-4289-1039-5 pg. 6.
2. Aboul-Enein, H. Yousuf and Zuhur, Sherifa,"Islamic Rulings on
Warfare", Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Diane
Publishing Co., Darby PA, ISBN 1-4289-1039-5 pg 6.

this article confuses the colloquial verbal noun with the
classical arabic (and colloquial) active particple.

also the term originally meant simply a bedouin raid with
the object of booty, and it was its use by Muhammad which
made it into a religious term.
[/quote]
But in the Islamic world, it must soon have lost its original
meaning.

[quote]the relevant prtion of the book cited on page 6 is better.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1428910395&id=5F-JEmNr9yUC&prin....

2. Ghazw is a raid that has evolved into a term for battle
gazah {Gaza:(t) or ghazwa. These were battles in which the
Prophet Muhammad personally participated. The term ghazi
{Ga:zi(n) came to mean "warrior for the faith" as these
battles came to be associated with the expansion of
Muslim territory,

that's just arabic GaDab (see note on /D/ above) "wrath"[/quote]

Ruud Harmsen...

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:41 am

Guest

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:23:38 -0800 (PST): Darkstar
<darkstar100 at (no spam) front.ru>: in sci.lang:

[quote]To cut it short, formally, there's a Spanish -r- in an intervocal
position, an English -r before consonants, and an unvoiced (sorta
kinda Welsh?) -rh at the end. Even though the latter two are hardly
heard, and are normally reduced to a Spanish -r-.
[/quote]
Not unlike what is frequently observed in European Portuguese.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu

Yusuf B Gursey...

Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:26 pm

Guest

On Nov 6, 12:31 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 24 окт, 20:54, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:

On Oct 10, 11:06 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

On 29 сен, 08:35, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:

something supernatural or the "giant man" that lived with the

the "giant man" in Ibn Fadlan is tied to the monster in Beowulf,
which Chrichton believes, or presents as, a Neandertal survival.

Probably, just a tall strongman...

yes. Ibn Fadlan is told he is from the men of "Gog and Magog."

a scholarly commentary on Ibn Fadlan puts the "giant man" in the
context of coaxing by the Bulghars of Ibn Fadlan to authorise
the granting of funds from the Caliph for release to the Bulghars
for military purposes, i.e. to convince him that the Bulghar muslims
were at risk and needed the money to defend themsleves.

I was refering to Montgomerry.

The other two marvels are, I believe, instances of psychological
warfare, intended to coerce information about the whereabouts of
the funds designated for the construction of the fortress, a
matter of no little concern to the Bulgha:r King. The giant’s
tale is designed to inspire fear of the apocalypse in the minds of
Ibn Fadla:n and the other Muslims (the King has already shown
himself in a contretemps with our author to be an opponent skilled
in Islamic jurisprudence), whereas I see in the strangled Sindi: a
warning to Ibn Fadla:n and the Embassy of their likely fate,
should they refuse to comply with the King.

What surprised me most that nowhere in the story he makes any
references that he's among the Volga Bulgars, neither are there any

he calls them the Saqa:liba(t) , applied at that time not just to
slavs but the people of present day Russia in general

al-S.AK.A:LIBA, sing. s.ak.labi:, s.ik.labi:, the designation
in mediaeval Islamic sources for the Slavs and other fair-haired,
ruddy-complexioned peoples of Northern Europe (see A.Z. Velidi
Togan, Die Schwerter der Germanen, 19-3 Cool

.

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
© 1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

{Enc. of Islam II al-Sakaliba by P. Guichard, Mohamed Meouak}

that they were among the Bulghars (in contrat to the more
general term Saqa:liba(t) ) is evident in the passage where
the King adopts a muslim name (that of the first name of
the Caliph, Ja`far), the vague patronymic Abdullah
("servant of God"), and the title of Ami:r:

{*kh*utba(t) means the Muslim Friday Sermon, in the begining
of which the name of the ruler is mentioned}

from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)

The khuTbah used to be read prior to my arrival in the
following manner: "O God, prosper King YilTawa:r, King
of the Bulghars." I said to him him: Verily God is the
King, and no one but He -- Majesty and Might be His --
should be called by this name from the pulpit (minbar).
Behold your master, the Commander of the Faithful. He has
been content to have himself refered from the pulpits in
the East and the West in the following manner: "O God,
prosper your servant and your vicar (khali:fataka).
Ja`far the Ima:m, al-Muqtadir bi Alla:h, the Commander
of the Faithful" ... He then said to me: "How should
the khuTbah be read for me?" I replied: "In your name
and the name of your father." He said "My father was
an unbeliever, and I do not like to mention his name
his name on the pulpit (minbar). And I too do not like
to have my name mentioned, because he who gave me my
name was an unbeliever. ... He said then I have decided
that my name is to be Ja`far, and that of my father
`Abd Alla:h. ...
From then on the khuTbah was read to him "O God,
peosper your servant Ja`far ibn `Abd Alla:h, Ami:r
of the Bulghars, the Client of the Commander of the
Faithful."

so the Bulghars are mentioned by their own name in the
text. there is also corroboration of the name of the Bulghar
King by another source.

descriptions of cities that were a must for the Bulgar civilization.

The Volga Bulghars had just embraced Islam, and were just in
the proccess of throwing off the Khazar yoke. it would take them
some time to reach the peak of their civilization. they still
made use of tents and the retinue was housed intents. Ibn Fadlan
uses the word qiba:b for "tents" which is the plural of qubba(t)
"dome" (I checked the original and indeed the word translated as
"tent" is qubba(t)), so I guess they were yurts. They didn't
have a fort, and had asked the Caliph through Ibn FAdlan's embassy
to build one. neither does it seem they had a decent mosque, as
is apparent from the text of Ibn Fadlan which I will quote
later. the state was not very centralized either, as other
subordinate kings are mentioned by Ibn Fadlan.

from Enc. of Islam II "Bulghar":

At the time of his visit Ibn FaDla:n did not notice any towns
or villages, as the Bulgha:rs led a nomadic life. It seems that
the building of the fortress, which was one of the principal
tasks of the Baghda:di: embassy, laid the foundation of the
future town of Bulgha:r. The non-existence of towns in Bulgha:r
prior to the embassy is confirmed on the one hand by the silence
of the Ibn Rusta group of sources about these, and on the other
hand by the use of the name Bulgha:r: this name signifies to
Ibn Rusta and Ibn FaDla:n always the country or the people,
never the town. Al-ISTakhri: is the first author who mentions
the existence of the towns Bulgha:r and Suwa:r, with wooden
buildings and mosques and 10,000 inhabitants.

...

Economy and trade:

Until the first half of the 10th century the Bulgha:rs
led a nomadic life, like other Turkic peoples in the
Russian steppe, and cattle-breeding was their chief
occupation and the foundation of their economy. This is
clearly shown in the earlier sources, for according to
Ibn Rusta the taxes were paid in horses. Ibn FaDla:n
already found the society in a state of change from
nomadism to settled life. Many customs of the former
way of life were then still surviving, i.e., no permanent
capital served as the seat of the ruler, who wandered from
one place to another and lived in a large tent. Al-ISTakhri:
mentions that the inhabitants spent the winter in wooden
houses and the summer in tents. In the latter part of this
same century Bulgha:r was already a flourishing agricultural
and trading centre.

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
© 1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Enc. of Islam II "Bulghar" by I. Hrbek

from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)

He pitched tents (qiba:b) for us and we settled in them.

...

All of them live in tents (qiba:b),[318] but the tent of the
king is extremely large, holding up to a thousand persons and
more. [319] It is spread by with Armenian carpets, and in the
center of it the king has a throne covered with Greek brocade.

318. The semi-nomadic state of the Bulghars was not, according
to Togan merely a passing stage from nomadism but a standard
and enduring way of life. ...

319. This is either a great yurt made of felt or a large tent
made of linen according to Togan (...), who cites other travelers'
description of similarly large tents among the Turks and Mongols.

Neither does he mention any language differences between Bashkir and

he had two interpreters, ba:ris aS-Saqlabiyy (a Bulghar) and teki:n
at-turkiyy (a Turk). There was a Khazar, `abdulla:h al-xazariyy
(probably a Khazar muslim turncoat) was also an envoy, and there
was a Su:san ar-Rassi of slave origin in the retinue. They also
picked up local guides and local muslims that helped them. so there
you have a clue that the language of the Bulghars and that of the
Turks was different. The Bulghar king also had his own intepreter.

Ibn Fadlan does not talk about languages, except here and there he
gives the names of cultural items. His main mission was diplomatic
and religious, to teach them the finer points of Islamic Law and
establish an alliance with the Bulghar state and the Caliphate.
he was interested in mores and social organization, particular
that of the Bulghars, and also of others. he may also have in mind
how compatible these would be with Islam and in the case of
non-muslims, their possible islamization.

from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)

When the letter of Almish ibn Shilki: YilTawa:r, 4 the King of
the S.aqa:libah, reached the Commander of the Faithful, al-Muqtadir,
in which he asked him to send someone who would instruct him in
religion, acquaint him with the laws of Islam, build a mosque for
him, and raise a pulpit (minbar) for him from which he would
mention his name 5 in his city, and throughout the kingdom, and
asked him to build a fortress against those kings who are at
odds with him, his request was acceded to.
The ambassador accredited to him (lahu) was Nadhi:r al-Harami:.
9 I was charged with the task of the reading the letter to the
King, delivering that which had been sent to him as gifts, and
supervising the work of jurisconsults (fuqaha:') and the religious
instructors. ...

The envoy to al-Muqtadir from the Lord of the Saqa:libah (Sa:Hib
aS-Saqa:libah) was a man called `AbdAlla:h ibn Ba:shtu: al-Khazari:,
and the emissary on behalf of the Sovereign (sulTa:n) was Su:san
ar-Rasi:, client of Nadhi:r al-Harami:, Teki:n at-Turki:, and
Ba:ris aS-Saqlabi: accompanied him, while I too was with them,
as I have already mentioned. ...

4 ... The name of the King of the Bulghars is recorded by
Ibn Rustah as "Almush." Yilt.awa:r represents the Bulghar
pronounciation of the Turkic title elteber which indicates
a subordinate tribal ruler. The title signifies here that
the Bulghar King is a vassal of the Khazar Kha:qa:n. ...

5 ... The mention of the ruler's name in the khut.bah
(sermon or exhortation) which accompanies the Friday
congregational prayer, is tantamount to recognition
of his sovereignity. ...

9 ... This person seems to be identical to the Nadhi:r
al-H.arami: who was an eunuch and important personage
in the court of al-Muqtadir. ...

su:san is restored, correctly in other places as sawsan ;
yes it means "lily" and is cognate wth the hebrew original
of the girls name "Susan"; such names were given to slaves,
so he was probably a former slave as McKeithen notes. for
Su:san, Dahha:n in the critical arabic edition says it is
ar-Ru:si: in the Mashhad manuscript, while the river ar-Ras
is identified with the Volga,

The river was called the Ra, ASFAIK. Ar-Rusi is obviously the Rus
[/quote]
it was known as ar-Ras in arabic sources and Ros' (see a
passage quoted below) in christian sources. perhaps Russian
sources have Ra. ru:s is collective or plural in arabic,
ru:si: (masc.) singular. the ar- part is teh arabic definite
article al- with the /l/ assimilated to the following
consonant.

[quote](either Kievan Russians or the Swedes).
[/quote]
a century earlier than Ibn Fadlan the Rus were Scandinavians
(Eastern Swedes). a century later they were Slavs. so the
conclusion of these articles is that they were in a process
of transition during c. 921. Russian scholars emphasize the
slavic character; Western sources, the Scandinavian one.

see:

IBN FADLAN AND THE RUSIYYAH by James E. Montgomery
in Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies 3 (2000)

avialable in
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/montgo1.pdf

and also:

http://glasscock.tamu.edu/agora/summer03/Clouser.PDF

AGORA an Online Undergraduate Journal of the Humanities
http://www.tamu.edu/chr/agora
VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 (Summer 2003)
Volga Ethnic Relations from Ibn Fadlan's Perspective
Melanie Clouser

from Montgomery:

<<

It is a distinct possibility that the medieval Arabs
themselves were perplexed as to the exact identity
of the Ru:s, confusing, say, two different peoples.
This, indeed, is the conclusion which Mel’nikova
and Petruchkin (as reported by Dolukhanov, 190)
draw, arguing that:
Arab writers who often used the word ‘ar-rus’
never attached to it any ethnic significance.
They viewed the ‘ar-rus’ as warriors and merchants
regardless of their ethnic affiliation. The same
applies to Byzantine sources, which often mentioned
‘people calling themselves the Ross’ (Rhos), who in
reality were groups of Scandinavians accomplishing
various missions.

....

As for the identity of the people called Rus in
this account, there are a number of possibilities:
(i) they are Scandinavians, in particular the eastern
Swedish tribe known by this name: a group of elite
merchant-pirates operating out of Ladoga and Rîrik’s
Hill-Fort;
(ii) they are an autochthonous people, the ethnic
group known as the Rus’ who took their name from the
river Ros’;
(iii) the account represents a conflation of at least
two distinct ethnic groups, of eastern (Slavic) and
northern (Scandinavian) provenance known to the Arabs
indistinguishably as Ru:s and influenced by ideas about
the people known as the Maju:s and the Saqa:libah;
(iv) the people described are a people in the process
of ethnic, social and cultural adaptation and
assimilation—the process whereby the Scandinavian Ru:s
became the Slavic Rus’, having been exposed to the
influence of the Volga Bulgha:rs and the Khazars;
(v) Ibn Fadlan has mistakenly identified a group of
Kievan chieftains on an expedition to extort tribute
from the Slavs (usually in the form of marten furs)
as merchant-warriors on a trading mission, basing his
interpretation on his acquaintance with the Ru:s as
merchants;
(vi) it is erroneous to think of an ethnos with a
distinct identity, as opposed to a multi-ethnic
confederation based on common economic and political
objectives (Golden’s solution, given above), which
confederation would have been subject to a preponderant
Scandinavian influence;
(vii) the textual history of the Kitab, taken in
conjunction with the religious prejudice of the author
(as evinced in the depiction of Ru:s sexual customs and
the Islamicization of Valhalla), is too problematical
to permit any conclusions to be drawn from the work.
I hold that we are here given a picture of a people in
the process of ethnic, social and cultural adaptation,
assimilation and absorption, one typical of “the
chameleon-like character of the Viking abroad, adapting
himself to his surroundings where he saw something he
thought was good; merely imposing his economic and
administrative will on an area” (Wilson, VP, 111)

....

Ibn Fadlan’s traders are the mercantile warrior elite who
placed themselves firmly at the top of the Slavic social
scale, and his picture attests to the fluidity of the
process of cultural and racial intermingling, a fluidity
which many commentators, with an agenda very decidedly
their own, have wished to neglect, curtail or abandon:

The principal historical question is not whether the
Rus were Scandinavians or Slavs, but, rather, how quickly
these Scandinavian Rus became absorbed into Slavic life
and culture.
.. . . In 839 the Rus were Swedes; in 1043 the Rus were
Slavs. Sometime between 839 and 1043 two changes took
place: one was the absorption of the Swedish Rus into
the Slavic people among whom they settled, and the
second was the extension of the term ‘Rus’ to apply
to these Slavic peoples by whom the Swedes were
absorbed. (Logan, 203)

Ibn Fadlan’s account sheds valuable light on the
celerity of this process of assimilation and absorption,
which was accomplished in the space of two centuries.

[quote]

so he seems to be a man
originally from the region they are going to. Dahha:n's arabic
has aS-Saqla:bi: instead of aS-Saqlabi: for ba:ris, which is
turkic for "panther", normally as bars , it may be just an
arabization, but NB the slavicized Danube Bulghar name
Boris, the well known slavic name because of the adoption
of King Boris of Christianty and slavicization.

Chuvash apparently using the same interpreters. It made me doubt that

he had one intepreter for Turkic (teki:n at-turki:) and another for
Volga Bulghar (ba:ris aS-Saqlabi:).

he visited them at all. I wondered if it could be a nomadic Tatar/
Bashkir tribe that he visited.

no, it was definitley an Islamic state that had embraced Islam
recently, and one can reconstruct the location as well, because
Ibn-Fadlan tells the rivers and lands he crossed to get there.

the Tatars are placed in Ötüken (in present day Mongolia) a
century later by Mahmud al-Kashgari.

as for the Bashkirs, Ibn Fadlan visited them, and they were
pagans.

Ibn Fadlan, who made a personal survey of the country, religion,
and customs of the Bashkurts in 310/922 says that he came on their
tents after crossing the rivers Kinal and Sokh, i.e., on approaching
the borders of the Bulgars. He also states that they were all pagans
(i.e., Shamanists).

These rivers still exist under the same name, I found them to the
south of modern-day Tatarstan or to the south of the Kama River. He
apparently then moved north which must have landed him near the Kama.

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0
© 1999
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

{Enc. of Islam II BASHDJIRT (Bashkurt)}

also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashkirs#History

The name Bashkir is recorded for the first time at the
beginning of the 10th century in the writings of the Arab
writer ibn Fadlan who, in describing his travels among the
Volga Bulgarians, mentions the Bashkirs as a warlike and
idolatrous race. According to ibn Fadlan, the Bashkirs
worshiped phallic idols. At that time, Bashkirs lived
as nomadic cattle breeders. Until the 13th century they
occupied the territories between the Volga and Kama Rivers
and the Urals.

BTW he describes them as "Turks".

from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)

We halted in the country of a tribe if Turks called Bashkirs
(al-Ba:shghird), and we were extremely wary of them. For they
are the most wicked of the Turks, the dirtiest (aqdharuhum)
and the most audacious in the commission of murder. ...

{story about a muslim among them who ate the lice on his
clothing}

Each of them sculpts a piece of wood the size of a phallus
and hangs it on himself. If he is about to undertake a trip
or to meet an enemy, he kisses it and prostrates himself before
it saying: "O my Lord, do unto me such and such." ...
Among them are those who maintain that they have twelve lords:
a lord for Winter; a lord for Summer; a lord for the rain; a lord
for the wind; a lord for the trees; a lord for men; a lord for
horses; a lord for water; a lord for the night; a lord for the
day; a lord for death; and a lord for the earth. The lord who is
in Heaven is the greatest of them all, although he is in complete
agreement with the others. Each one approves of what his partner
does. ...
We saw among them who worship snakes, a group who worship fish
and a group who worship cranes. ...

Bulgarians... But Hollywood is Hollywood, there's nothing to discuss

you mean the Bulghars.

or take seriously

and BTW it's "a plot" but "the plot"

this part has been corrected. good.

on an unrelated note Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Fadlan

The embassy's objective was to have the king of the Bolğars
pay homage to Caliph al-Muqtadir and, in return, to give the
king money to pay for the construction of a fortress. Although
they reached Bolğar, the mission failed because they were unable
to collect the money intended for the king. Annoyed at not
receiving the promised sum, the king refused to switch from the
Maliki rite to the Hanafi rite of Baghdad.

I think Wikipedia got it wrong. concerning debate on the reading of
a ritual formula twice or not, which gives a clue to the sects
in question. J. McKeithen says in footenote #265

His mu'adhdhin used to double the iqa:mah 265 when he performed
the call to prayer (adha:n). So I said to the King: "Your master,
the Commander of the Faithful, recites the formulas of the iqa:mah
only once in his abode." ...

265 The adha:n is the Muslim call to prayer, usually performed from
a minaret, which announces the time for the prayer, is at hand. The
iqa:mah is performed inside the mosque after the faithful have
assembled for prayer, immediately before the prayer begins. The
formuals recited in the iqa:mah are teh same as those of the adha:n
except for the phrase qad qa:mat aS-Sala:h, "the prayer has begun,"
which occurs in the iqa:mah. There is also a difference that with
the school of the Ima:m ash-Sha:fi`i:, i.e. teh legal school which
was followed by the Abbasid Caliph at the time, the formulas are
pronounced two times in the adha:n and only once in the iqa:mah.
In the school of Abu: Hani:fah, i.e. that followed by the Bulghar
King and the Samanid Ami:r, the formulas are recited the same
number of times in both the adha:n and the iqa:mah. See the
detailed study made of this question by Canard (Relation, p. 92,
n. 100) and Juynboll, "Iqama," EI.

Malikis are dominant in N. Africa (excl. Egypt), most Asian
muslims are Hanafis (followers of Abu Hani:fah's school).
the Seljuks and Ottomans were Hanafi's. most Turkic muslims
are Hanafis, incl. Turks of Turkey. but Azeris are mostly
Shia, and there is a significant heterodox Shia element in
Turkey (Alevis). the EU is pressing for recognition by
the Department of Religious Affairs of Turkey to recognize
Alevis. all these Sunni schools (there is also a Hanbali
school) recognize each other as valid.

anyway the Wikipedia article should read: " ... the king
refused to switch from the Hanafi rite to the Shafi`i rite
of Baghdad {at that time}."

BTW Ibn Fadlan (ibn faDla:n) was not an arab by origin as
he declares himself a "client", arabic mawla:, of an arab:

from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)

This is the Book (kita:b) 1 of Ah.mad ibn Fad.la:n ibn
al-`Abba:s ibn Ra:shid ibn H.amma:d client (mawla:) of
Muh.ammad ibn Sulayma:n 2, emmissary of al-Muqtadir to
the King of the S.aqa:libah, 3

1 Under the entry "Itil" (Mu`jam I, 112), Ya:qu:t
mentions "the book (kita:b) of Ah.mad Ibn Fad.la:n."
elswhere under the entries "Bulgha:r" ..., Ya:qu:t
refers to the epistle (risa:lah) of Ibn Fad.la:n.

2 Ya:qu:t under the entry "Ba:shgird" (Mu`jam, I, 486),
has Ibn Fad.la:n as "mawla: ami:r al-mu'mini:n thumma
mawla: Muh.ammad ibn Sulayma:n." This version is
accepted by Kovalevskii (Kniga, p. 159, n. 4) as well
as the epithet, "al-Ha:shimi:," which is found among
the comments of the Mashhad ms. (1b and 175a).
Kovalevskii renders this passage: "client of the
Commander of the Faithful and also client of Muh.ammad
ibn Sulayman al-Ha:shimi:." ... {ha:*sh*imi: denotes
from the clan of the Prophet}

3 S.aqa:libah (sing. saqlab) refers here to the Volga
Bulgars ...

on mawla: see:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Mawla.html

Mawla

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions | 1997 | JOHN BOWKER
|
Â© The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions 1997,
originally published by Oxford University Press 1997.

Mawla (Arab.). In early Islam, a ‘client’ or protected person,
who was a convert to Islam and by this procedure was integrated
into the existing Arab tribal and family system. Mawla also means
‘master’, and al-Mawla is a term for God.

it's the first meaning that is used here.

however, he was considered an arab in the eyes of the Bulghar
King:

from Ibn Fadlan: (J. McKeithen's critical translation)

He told the interpreter: "Tell him: 'I do not know these others,
I only know you, for these are a non-Arab people. 262

262 This does not mean that Ibn Fad.la:n was a true Arab in
the ethnic sense of the word, but merely that he conformed
sufficiently to the Bulghar notion of one so as to be
considered an Arab by the Bulghar King.

On Ibn Fadlan:

Ibn Fad.la:n , in full Aḥmad b. Fad.la:n b. al-`Abba:s
b. Ra:shid b. H.amma:d , Arabic writer of whose life
nothing is known and who was the author of an account
(incorrectly referred to as Risa:la in Ya:k.u:t, Kita:b
in the title of the work itself) of the embassy sent by
the caliph al-Muk.tadir to the king of the Bulgha:rs of
the Volga [see bulgha:r]. Ibn Fad.la:n was a client of
Muh.ammad b. Sulayma:n, who seems to have been the same
person as the Muh.ammad b. Sulaymān, the ka:tib al-djaysh,
who conquered Egypt from the T.u:lu:nids in 292/904.
He was probably not an Arab by birth.

The embassy in which he took part was led by the eunuch
Su:san al-Rassi:, a client of Nadhi:r al-H.arami: ... .
Ibn Fad.la:n's particular task was to read out the letter
from the caliph to the king, to present gifts to him and
to his entourage and to supervise the jurists and teachers
whom the caliph had sent at the king's request to teach the
Bulgha:rs the laws of Islam. ...

{ka:tib al-jay*sh* litteraly means "secretary (or scribe)
of the army"; actually he was a type of general}

{Enc. of Islam II, "Ibn Fadlan" by M. Canard}

From what I see in your reply, there's (1) no evidence he ever visited
[/quote]
the king takes the title "Amir of the Bulghars", that's quite
specific. moreover, there was a Volga Bulghar king named (or
took the name) Ja`far, as he appears in the patronymic of a
muslim Bulghar coin (i.e. that of his son). there was also a
Volga Bulghar king named Almush, though Enc. of Islam I
suspects that that name may be a later interpolation into
the manuscript and that his original name was something else.

[quote]Bulgars specifically. Nowhere in the story does he mention any
specific data that point to them; (2) the name of Boris the Slav most
[/quote]
Boris was a slavicized Bulghar.

[quote]likely referred to a Slavic name (since the orginal name of that king
was "Bogoris") (the Turkic version is contorted, and "barIs" or
[/quote]
such forms are regareded by Menges as corrupt greek versions.
at any rate, those who regard the etymology as coming from
Bogoris, choose a Mongolian etymology, though the word does
not seem to exist in Mongolian, in addition to other difficulties,
acc. to K. Menges.

the etymology of Boris as turkic bars is due to K. Menges in
Byzantion, Revue Internationale des Etudes Byzantines, Bruxelles,
vol. 21, 1951. K. Menges "Altaic Elements in the Proto-Bulgarian
Inscriptions". the relevant pages are 114 - 116.

the Bulgarian form is <BOPHC> in Byzantine Greek script. P is
rho, H is eta (pronounced i: by that time), C is sigma.
{...} are my notes, chiefly for latin only users.

<<

.... V. N. Zlatarski assumes the writer of this
ins. to have been a Bulgarian, not a Greek. With
the Greek historians, this name usually has the
declinable forms Βορίσης {Bori'si:s}, Βωρίσης
{Bo:ri'si:s}. Forms like Βώγωρις {Bo:'go:ris},
Βώγαρις {Bo:'garis}, and once Γόβαρις {Gobaris}
are corrupted and erroneous spellings. OChSl.
has Борисъ {Boris}.
If this name is of Altaic origin, it might well
be identical with the designation tiger, panther,
or leopard. Orx., Uj., Kaš. etc., bars. We find
Bars-beg as a proper name in the Orxon-Inss.,
tänrikän qutluγ Bars-Tigin (<< divine [heavenly],
Tiger-Prince >>) in the Ujγur TTIV, and aften also
later. It is known that a Tk. a of the first
syllable may be rendered in Greek and Slavic texts,
as obecause of its labialized nature (4). The Turkic
and Mongolian languages generally do not tolerate,
in either initial or final position, more than one
consonant, while, however, a liquid + stop is
possible in final position. But some Tk. languages
do not tolerate them even in final position, cf.
Qn., Qq. barys, Qb. parys << id. >>.
A question much more difficult to answer is that
of the vowel и {i} in the second syllable of the
Proto-Bulgarian form must have been, in comparision
to other Turkic languages, either y or its reduced
equivalent, ъ , for the Greek script had no symbols,
but the Slavic alphabets were able to render either
sound as ъI {sic. for y} or ъ {for schwa} respectively.
This name, however, does not occur, it seems, during
the clasical period of OChSl, but in later texts only,
so that we may suppose the form to exhibit already
the features of transition into the Middle Bulgarian
period which i.a. involves the dissapearance of the
phoneme ъI {sic. for y} and the coincidence of ъI {y}
and и {i} into one sound, i. Thus a late Old Bulgarian
Борисъ {Boris} may well stand for an older Old-Bulgarian
*Борысъ {Borys}.
It is impossible to see, in BOPHC , Βορίσης
{bori'si:s}, a Turkic böri (Orxon etc.; < bö:ri)
<< wolf >> because the form with -C is the form
of the Altaic casus indefinitus and not that of the
Greek nom. sg. masc., and there is no suffix -š, -s
in Altaic which would have any function here.
Tomaschek's idea to compare it with a Mongolian
boγori << low, small >>, P.-W., RE III, 1044,
is still, though cautiously repeated by Beševlijev,
in Byz. Zttschr. 32, p. 14, n/ 6, and by Fehér,
ibid., 36. p. 58, and by Moravccsik, op. cit., II,
93/4. A Mong. boγori, - even if it would exist -
would be just as bö:ri because of the final -C,
and moreover, there is no Mong. word boγori ; in
Lit.-Mong. boγoni, boγuni is << low >> (KOVALEVSKIJ,
II, 1160/1, Ja. SCHMIDT, p. 110, c.).

4. Cf. MENGES, Igor Tale, s. vv. Kovalije, Koganъ
Olběrgъ etc., Päčänäg names, Byzantion, XVII, 261.

[quote]
[/quote]
at any rate, the etymology of "Boris" is a side
note to the main discussion. but again, NB Chuvash
has sometimes /u/ for Turkic /a/.

[quote]"barIs," should sound differently in Bulgaric), and there's no
[/quote]
this is early Bulgharic, not modern Chuvash. bars
is presumed in the names of the Huns. there is a
Hunnish King named 'Ωηβάρσιος {O:e:ba'rsios} for
*oy bars , oy meaning "dun colored" (in Kashgari
of horses), *oy bars presumeably meaning "lynx"
(Doerfer). modern Chuvash bars seems to be a
reborrowing from Russian. OTOH Chuvash, together
with Kazan Tatar(which has a Bugharic substratum)
is among the Turkic languages that avoid final
consonant clusters even with liquids, for example,
xĕrĕx for qIrq "40". in the arabic of Ibn Fadlan,
as in Dahhan's the /i/ of ba:ris is not explicitly
indicated by a diacritic, even though diacritics are
occassionally found in it. it is written <bArs> بارس which
would normally force the reading ba:ris . it might be
just an arabization, but perhaps it was written so,
instead of <brs> برس to force the reading of the
additional /i/. this has to do with the more common
voweling patterns of Arabic.

[quote]evidence he was an interpreter for the Bulgar people; (3) there were
[/quote]
it's reasonable to assume that he acted as a guide
and interpreter for Bulghars (in addition to those
at the Bulghar King's court), no other function is
attributed to this Baris. since we know that the
King was a Bulghar (from the khutba he instituted)
and that he also claimed to be King of the Saqa:liba,
and that Baris has a Turkic name with the surname
("nisba") aS-Saqlabi:, it is reasonable to assume
he was a Volga Bulghar.

[quote]some Turkic non-Bulgaric peoples al-Bashghird, since "bash" is Turkic,
[/quote]
the Bashgird are idetified as Turks by Ibn Fadlan
and by Mahmud al-Kashghari a century later. no need
to go into possible etymologies, which are not
certain in this case. but they are not identified as
muslim (except a few), an certaily they are not
identified as having set up a muslim state. the only
state that fits Ibn Fadlan's description is the
Volga Bulghar state, whether he uses the term
"Bulghar" or not (which he does on one occassion).
nor is your criticism that there was no descriptions
of the cities of Volga Bulghar civilization, since
Ibn Fadlan is invloved in a project to build them,
the money fo rbuilding of a fort. they can't be
Bashgirds since they are mentioned as a seperate
and pagan people.

[quote]and "pus"/pil is Bulgaric, these were most likely the modern-day
Tatars-Bashkirs which are very close (98% in Swadesh-200); (4) He does
mention the Slavs, the Rus (probably the Swedes), Oghuz and Bashkirs,
[/quote]
Bashkir is just the modern term for Bashgird.

> though.

Yusuf B Gursey...

Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:01 pm

Guest

On Nov 15, 3:40 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:
[quote]On 12 ноя, 06:32, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) theworld.com> wrote:

On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

On 24 окт, 23:43, Yusuf B Gursey <y... at (no spam) TheWorld.com> wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:08 am, Darkstar <darkstar... at (no spam) front.ru> wrote:

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_classificat...

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.

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.

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 Wörterbuches der
türk. 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 Özbeg, who had abandoned
their Khan Abu 'l-Khair (...) are called Özbeg-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. ...

Maybe akin to kaza, as if the one who runs into trouble, misfortunes,

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 ilçe in this meaning.

you may look at Drevnetjurkskij Slovar' where its arabic etymology and
early usages in turkic such as "fate" are given.

a soldier of fortune. Also "kaz" = ahmak, the one who's stupid enough

BTW ahmak (arabic 'aHmaq) means "stupid, foolish; dote, fool"

to run into trouble.

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.

...

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 Özbek 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?

sounds like a back vowel variant of kez- / gez- "to travel"

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.

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 Özbeg.

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.

[/quote]
....

[quote]
In Kyrgyz, we also have кайсар жигит (qaysar zhigit) "(stupidly) brave
fellow", казат кишиси (qazat kishisi) "military man, warrior", казап

(Cyrillic restored)

qazat may have something to do with "qazaq"

Even though I don't speak Arabic, it just reminded me of Ghazi or

in classical arabic Gazw (Ga:zi(n) / al-Ga:zi: is one who does
a Gazw, which in modern turkish gazi (with long a) means simply
"war veteran") means a raid, a military incursion, the original
meaning a bedouin raid with the object of obtaining booty.

ghazah

yes, you are right. it's from arabic Gaza:(t) غزاة, the (t) , i.e. ة ,
may bepronounced either as [t] or as [h] depending on the place in
the sentence in classical arabic (in colloquial arabic this final
[h] becomes zero, except in the dialects of the Levant an Iraq
when it is fully articulated before a: (long a)). in arabic
Gaza:(t) is a single act of Gazw, entirely synonymous with
Gazwa(t).

It's like Turkish hayat : Ar. hhaya
[/quote]
yes, same pattern.

arabic: حياة
but ottoman turkish: حيات

yes, but a much better translitiration would be Ar. h.aya:(t),
I use caps for h. (h with a dot underneath ḥ , or as in
Maltese ħ (h barred, like the Planck constant divided by 2π,
two-pi). as I said in classical arabic the ta:' marbu:Ta(t)
"connected t", is pronounced [t] in context but [h] in
pause, in modern arabic this tends to drop entirely, in
colloquials [t] only as in the first element in a genitive
construct. when preceded by a: the exceptions are as I
wrote:

[quote]
Persian follows Iraqi or Levantine colloquails and
consistently articulates (t) as [t] after a: , and thus languages
like the Turkic languages that initially borrowed arabic words
through the medium of Persian.
[/quote]
for example the Lebanese newspaper (now published abroad)
al-Haya:(t) is romanized as, and known as, al-Hayat:

http://international.daralhayat.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hayat

[quote]
You mean Turkish borrowed mostly via Persian? Actually, I don't quite
understand this point.
[/quote]
the bulk of the soldiery of the muslim armies, and sometimes
even the commanders, who invaded Central Asia were of Persian
(usually Khorasani), not Arab, origin. as a result, it was not
arabic but new persian that displaced the East Iranian languages
of Central Asia (like Sogdian; at a much later date, persian in
turn was mostly displaced by Turkic). eventually the Central
Asian persian speaking population set up one of the first
islamic quasi-independent states, the Samanids, and used persian
at court. eventually, the midddle persian word for "Arab",
ta:zi:g / ta:zi:k (from the Arab tribe if Tayyi' who were at
the arab frontier of the Sasanid Persian Empire became ta:ji:k
and came to be used for the Central Asian persian speaking
population. it was during the Samanids, who sent muslim
missionaries to their frontiers, that the first large scale
convertion of the Turkic peoples to Islam took place. the
Volga Bulghars too were introduced to Islam by the Samanids,
through trade and diplomacy, as is evident in Ibn Fadlan's
account.

see for example Gibb, "Arab Conquests in Central Asia"
p. 30,

<<

.... Qutayba earned the confidence of the Persians and
repaid it by confidence ; from his constant employement
of Persian agents and his growing preference for Persian
governors, it would seem that he came to regard them as
forming the "`Ashira" {"tribe"} he lacked among the Arabs.
Although it earned him ill-will amongst the Arabs and
played a geat part in his fall, it may be that in this
he was instrumental in giving the first impulse to the
recovery of national sentiment amongst the Persians of
Khurasan.
[quote]
[/quote]
also p. 52.

http://books.google.com/books?id=p4rmZUYFhjkC&dq=Arab+Conquests+in+Central+Asia&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=jGNpFH98ET&sig=wTQ0u6ZwvS4m0e6mT635MT7wlUk&hl=en&ei=XJYBS4jgNY3mlAeRi_GMCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

also

p. 496 << The Mawali,-here, as elsewhere, this
signifies the non-Arabs who had embraced Islam and had
been recieved into Arab tribes, -fought with the Arabs
against their old national foes, the Turks...>>

(BTW this mitigates against your alledged arabic
substratum for Khalaj).

most turkic languages use similar methods of rendiering
the Semitic consonants as Persian does, although there
are some excpetions like Tatar rendering `ayn /3/ as [G]
instead of a glottal stop. and Turkish observes the
backing of vowels after emphatics and a few other
consonants, while Persian and Azeri don't. but on the
whole, the arabic loanwords appear in similar meaning
and usage as in Persian. also Turkish takes from Persian
rather than Arabic some fundamental religious terms like
peygamber "Prophet, Apostle (< pers. payGa:mbar Prophet,
Apostle, Messenger, from payGa:m "message") instead of
arabic rasu:l of the same meaning, namaz (< pers. nama:z)
"ritual prayer" instead of arabic Sala:(t) , oruç "fast"
(< pers. ru:za < ru:z "day, daytime," < ro:z , some
iranian languages have other than final -z like kurdish
roj i.e. ro:*zh*) instead of arabic Sawm .

also in ottoman turkish the persian izafe (the -i particle)
is used to annex adjectives and constructs (but not when
purely turkish words are involved), even if the two words
involved are arabic. in noun constructs, the arabic construct
is used rarely, whereas the persian izafe is frequent. there
are quite a number of non-literary loans, whereas colloquial
arabic laons are practically absent (except in the colloquial
of SW Turkey and in Iraqi Turkmen).

in the religious sphere, most turkic peoples observe the
Hanafite rite of the Samanids, except the mainly Shia
Azeris and the minority of heterodox Shia Turks (Alevis).
see the discussion of Volga Bulgharia sticking to the
Hanafite rite afetr being disappointed with Ibn Fadlan's
failure to deliver the money.

Persian is important in Sufism, and in Turkey religious
schools require Persian as well as Arabic.

[quote]
from Enc. of Islam II "Ghazw"

GHaza:t [see ghazw ].

GHazw (a.), expedition, usually of limited scope, conducted
with the aim of gaining plunder. The noun of unity ghazwa
(pl. ghazawa:t) is used particularly of the Prophet's
expeditions against the infidels [see magha:zi: ], but has

{from this it has also acquired a specialized religious
meaning, like jiha:d, in the sense of "holy war", but
not exclusively as the secular sense predomiantes modern
arabic, like an Isralei military expedition is called
Gazw 'isra:'i:liyy}

also special meanings (for which see Dozy, Suppl., s.v.).

In its most common sense, ghazw (and the dialectical variants)
signifies a raid or incursion, a small expedition set on foot
by Bedouins (both in the Sahara and in northern Arabia) with
booty as its object, and also the force which carries it out.
The term has passed into French in the form rezzou, which
preserves the original meaning of ghazw , whilst it is the
synonym gha:ziya (pl. ghawa:zi:) which has given the English
word razzia, current also in French (where, however, with the
verb razzier, it tends to have a pejorative implication).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazw
(qazap) "wrath"

(Ga:zi: / Ga:ziyya: as a verbal noun (not as a participle)
is colloquial arabic, specifically as in Algeria)

the Wikipedia article says:

Ghazw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Gazi" redirects here. For other uses, see Gazi (disambiguation).

Ghazi or ghazah (plural ghazawa:t; Arabic: غزو‎, giving rise to
Italian razzia) was originally an Arabic term referring to the
battles in which the Islamic prophet Muhammad personally
participated.[1] It has since evolved into a term for battle
associated with the expansion of Muslim territory. The term
gha:zi: or Warrior for the faith came to represent participants
in these later battles[2] and is cognate with the terms gha:ziya
and magha:zi:. In modern Turkish the word means "veteran".

1. Aboul-Enein, H. Yousuf and Zuhur, Sherifa,"Islamic Rulings on
Warfare", Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Diane
Publishing Co., Darby PA, ISBN 1-4289-1039-5 pg. 6.
2. Aboul-Enein, H. Yousuf and Zuhur, Sherifa,"Islamic Rulings on
Warfare", Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Diane
Publishing Co., Darby PA, ISBN 1-4289-1039-5 pg 6.

this article confuses the colloquial verbal noun with the
classical arabic (and colloquial) active particple.

also the term originally meant simply a bedouin raid with
the object of booty, and it was its use by Muhammad which
made it into a religious term.

But in the Islamic world, it must soon have lost its original
meaning.
[/quote]
amongst non-Arabs.

[quote]the relevant prtion of the book cited on page 6 is better.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1428910395&id=5F-JEmNr9yUC&prin...

2. Ghazw is a raid that has evolved into a term for battle
gazah {Gaza:(t) or ghazwa. These were battles in which the
Prophet Muhammad personally participated. The term ghazi
{Ga:zi(n) came to mean "warrior for the faith" as these
battles came to be associated with the expansion of
Muslim territory,

that's just arabic GaDab (see note on /D/ above) "wrath"[/quote]

Page 29 of 30 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 28, 29, 30 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:14 pm Science Forum Index