Dating of early language contacts of Proto-Turkic and Chinese (original) (raw)
Related papers
On Sino-Turkic, a First Glance
When Turkic-speaking Tabghatch conquered China in 386 ce and ruled her for nearly 200 years, they, being minority rulers, elected to take up Chinese writing system and language as the official means of communication with its subject population. They also ended up adopting the writing system to script the Turkic language for their Turkic population resulting into a Xianbei National Language (xnl). This work describes 7 cases of Turkic-rooted Sinitic functional expressions, all featuring the word 的 [d-], supported with historical citations in Chinese documents, believed to be cultural continua of the xnl:
OLD TURKIC KINSHIP TERMS IN EARLY MIDDLE CHINESE by Alexander Vovin and David McCraw
In this article we attempt to demonstrate that most of the new kinship terms in Middle Chinese denoting elder members of the family that first appeared in the Tang period replacing the Old Chinese terms (and some of them still being the main colloquial terms in Mandarin) come from Old Turkic, or in one case ultimately from para-Mongolic, but via Turkic. We perceive this discovery as a major blow to the Chinese linguistic nationalism that denies the existence of foreign loanwords in Chinese. It also demonstrates that the Northern Steppe 'barbarians' were not always on the receiving side in their interaction with the Chinese, and, as a matter of fact, managed to influence Chinese language and society to the great extent. Eski Orta Çincedeki Eski Türkçe Akrabalık Terimleri Özet: Bu makalede Tang Hanedanlığı zamanında Eski Çince biçimlerinin yerini alan (ve bugün hâlâ Mandarin Çincesinde kullanımda olan) ailedeki yaşlı bireyler için kullanılan Orta Çince birçok akrabalık kavramının Eski Türkçeden ya da çok sıra dışı bir şekilde para-Moğolcadan en nihayetinde Türkçe bir kökenden geldiğini göstermeye çalışmaktayız. Bu bulguyu Çincedeki her türlü ödünçlemeyi reddeden ırkçı Çin dil bilimi anlayışına ağr bir darbe olarak nitelendiriyoruz. Üstelik bu bulgu, kuzey step " barbarlarının " Çinlilerle kurdukları etkileşimlerde her zaman alıcı taraf olmadığını ve aslında Çin dilini ve toplumunu büyük ölçüde etkilediklerini de
The State of Turkological Science in China: Turkic Language and Turkic Writing Research
Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 2020
This article is devoted to the state of Turkic science in China, the study of the Turkic language and the Turkic script. The article highlights the major works of famous medieval research centers in China, which were engaged in the study of the Turkic science. Primary objective of the article is the study of contemporary Turkologists of China. Consequently, this article has an undeniable novelty, since the influence of such an empire as China with a long history on the Turkic civilization is well-known facts, but the influence of the Turkic civilization on the Chinese is really little studied aspect in science.
Inner Asia, 2017
In the past 10 years, geneticists have investigated the genetic variation of modern Turkic populations as well as ancientdnaof the Xiongnu and others. The accumulated findings of these surveys, however, have not been adequately noted by specialists in Inner Asian history. In order to fill this gap, we conducted a comparative analysis of textual information and genetic survey data on the early and medieval Turkic peoples. First, we examined the information on the origins, identity, and physiognomy of the early and medieval Turkic peoples contained in the Chinese Standard Histories (zhengshi正史). We then discussed how the findings of genetic surveys complement the textual information. Both Chinese histories and moderndnastudies indicate that the early and medieval Turkic peoples were made up of heterogeneous populations. The Turkicisation of central and western Eurasia was not the product of migrations involving a homogeneous entity, but that of language diffusion.
On a Sound Change in Proto-Turkic
International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics, 2023
The present paper argues for two radical consonantal changes in Late Proto-Turkic, which can be formulated as *t₁ > g /V_iVr₁/₂ and *d₁ > g /V_iVr₁. Using this new sound law, some lexemes that have the phonemic shape /°VgVr/ or /°VgVz/ in Common Turkic are etymologised as being derived from verbs ending in °t- or °d-. The reconstructed Turkic forms are also partly supported by Mongolic data.
An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples
1t is my pleasant obligation to acknowledge publicly a number of individuals who have helped to make this book possible. Professor Lars J oh ans on first suggested the idea for this volume and bas shown great forbearance despite the many delays in its completion. The late Tibor Halasi-Kun who introduced me, more than a quarter of a century ago, to Turkic Studies and the rich Hungarian tradition of scholarship in that field, was a fount of knowledge and a source of inspiration. His imprint and spirit may be found on many of these pages. The staff of the Rutgers University libraries, in particular Natalie Borisovets and Wanda Gawienowski of the Dana Library at Newark, met my requests for ever more obscure titles with constant good humor and more importantly never failed in tracking down and securing a book or article. 1 am obliged to Marcus R. Knowlton and 1. Kirâly who prepared the accompanying maps and to Tammy Proctor who took on the onerous task of producing the Index. 1 owe a particular debt of gratitude to my friends and colleagues Anatoly M. Khazanov and Thomas T. Allsen with whom., over the years, a number of the issues dealt with in this work were discussed. Tolya read sorne of the early chapters and Tom the fust draft of the who le of the work. Their cri ti cal comments were always welcome and almost alway5 followed. Needless to say, any errors of factor judgement are entirely mine. Svat Soucek very generously gave me access to his unpublished work on the Qrrgtz, for which 1 am most grateful. Publication of this book was facilitated by a subvention grant from the Research Council of Rutgers University. Finally, 1 owe my greatest debt of gratitude to my wife, Sylvia Wu Golden, and my sons, Alex and Greg, who put up with an often preoccupied husband and father. Moreover, Greg proofread severa! drafts of the work and frequently provided computer and editorial assistance. Sylvia, as usual, pr'ovided the Chinese characters.
My speculations on a likely “Steppe-Anatolian-Kurgan hypothesis” Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) area Migration 1? Pre-Ancient North Eurasian (Haplogroup R1a and R1b as well as R2 migrations from the Lake Baikal area)-derived admixture from the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) area. To me, what I call “Paganism” starts around 12,000 years ago in Turkey/Anatolia in West Aisa. The odd thing is most of the world’s religious myths/fables start or commonly relate to “Siberia” like “Lake Baikal/Golden Mountains of Altai” region and “North China” like “Chertovy Vorota Cave (Devil’s Gate Cave)” area at 8,000/7,000 years ago and they were transferred to the Middle East as well as East Europe/Balkans/Ukraine/Russia. Steppe-Anatolian-Kurgan hypothesis (by Damien Marie AtHope) Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) area Migration 2? To me, Proto-Indo-European language starts in the steppe after leaving North Asia, then one part heads to #1 Turkey/Anatolia with “Anatolian language” maybe 9,000-8,000 years ago, and the other part to #2 Ukraine/Russia and the rest of Proto-Indo-European. Mythology started 7,000-8,000 or maybe 9,000 to 10,000 years ago in North Asia around the time of Millet agriculture. I think Proto-Indo-European is related to Dené–Caucasian languages, such as Pre/Proto-Yeniseian, or maybe Dené–Yeniseian language family, such as Pre/Proto-Na-Dené. If not that then, I surmise that Proto-Indo-European emerges or is connected with the distribution of the 98 “Transeurasian” languages, also called the Altaic language family, traced to Neolithic Millet farmers who inhabited a region in north-eastern China about 9,000 years ago. “Some of the earliest evidence of Millet cultivation in China was found at Cishan (north), where proso millet husk phytoliths and biomolecular components have been identified around 10,300–8,700 years ago in storage pits along with remains of pit-houses, pottery, and stone tools related to millet cultivation.” “Ancient North Eurasian population had Haplogroups R, P, U, and Q DNA types: defined by maternal West-Eurasian ancestry components (such as mtDNA haplogroup U) and paternal East-Eurasian ancestry components (such as yDNA haplogroup P1 (R*/Q*).” “DNA reveals the previously unknown degree of mixture between Japan, North America, and the Eurasian mainland. Ancient DNA preserved in the icy climate of Siberia has revealed new insights about how ancient humans migrated five to seven thousand years ago.” ref “In a study published recently in Current Biology, the researchers examined the DNA from 10 different ancient humans, which is quite a lot considering most of them date from 5,500 to 7,500 years old. These remains came from three locations in Siberia — the Altai Mountains, the Kamchatka Peninsula, and the Russian Far East.” Groups partially derived from the Ancient North Eurasians One of which is related to Iran “Iran Neolithic (Iran_N) individuals dated ~8,500 years ago carried 50% Ancient North Eurasian (ANE)-derived admixture and 50% Dzudzuana-related admixture, marking them as different from other Near-Eastern and Anatolian Neolithics who didn’t have Ancient North Eurasian admixture. Iran Neolithics were later replaced by Iran Chalcolithics, who were a mixture of Iran Neolithic and Near Eastern Levant Neolithic.” I feel that the Yeniseian language connection to proto-indo-european seems more likely to me, but as the Transeurasian languages seem to have started around 9,000 years ago and people from the heartland of transeurasian languages in the West Liao river basin in northeast China area later to involve the Hongshan culture (around 6,700 to 4,900 years ago) known/related for/to spreading the transeurasian languages into Korea and then Japan. This area of the transeurasian languages origin also is related to a migration just a little before 9,000 years ago (Haplogroups N1a2b-P43 and N1a2a-F1101 about 9300 years ago), that went to the Yeniseian languages origin area of Lake Baikal, in South Siberia, and thus it may have taken pre-proto-transeurasian languages. If this happened then there may have been a language transfer of so kind into the Yeniseian languages, there may also have been an influence of pre-proto-Yeniseian languages into the transeurasian languages as well. Another thought is the Uralic languages, which seem to likely relate to Lake Baikal as seen in DNA, and thus could also relate to and/or Transeurasian languages as well as Yeniseian languages, not to mention some connections to Proto-Indo-European language.
On *p- and Other Proto-Turkic Consonants
Sino-Platonic Papers, 2022
The present study takes as a starting point the question of whether Proto-Turkic had an onset *h- or *p- and aims at reconstructing its consonantism. The answer to the initial question is searched for in the fourteen Turkic lexical loans of adjacent languages such as Mongolic, Kitan, Yeniseian, and Samoyedic. At first sight, the data provided by these loanwords seem ambiguous. However, once it is demonstrated that both the daughter languages of Proto-Turkic, namely Proto-Bulgar Turkic and Proto‑Common Turkic, had the historically unattested initials *d2- and *ń-, these data can be taken to point to the existence of *p- in these languages as well as in Proto-Turkic. The discussion is extended with the question of rhotacism and lambdacism. As regards the rhotacism, Proto-Turkic is assumed to have two rhotic consonants, phonologically denoted as */r1 r2/. The lambdacism, on the other hand, turns out to be a tougher problem. Based on several lexical borrowings into and from Turkic, a further consonant */t2/ is posited for Proto-Turkic. This consonant, originally of affricate and probably later of fricative pronunciation, yielded /š/ in Common Turkic and /l/ in Bulgar Turkic. Thus, the Proto-Turkic consonantism is reconstructed as having a series of consonants */t2 d2 r2/ that underwent serious changes in historical Turkic. Finally, */k2/ is added to this series to explain the correspondence of k- and vocalic onset between some Turco-Mongolic cognates. In addition, significant sound changes in the prehistory of Turkic are dated through external evidence. Key words: Proto-Turkic, onset consonant, lexical borrowing, consonantism