Dialectal Elements in the vocabulary of the Uyghur Khanate Inscriptions. In: Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, vol. 69/3, 2016, pp. 285-300. (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Turkic Languages edited by Lars Johanson and Éva Á. Csató
The Turkic Languages, 2022
The Turkic Languages is a reference book which brings together detailed discussions of the historical development and specialized linguistic structures and features of the languages in the Turkic family. Seen from a linguistic typology point of view, Turkic languages are particularly interesting because of their astonishing morphosyntactic regularity, their vast geographical distribution, and their great stability over time. This volume builds upon a work which has already become a defining classic of Turkic language study. The present, thoroughly revised edition updates and augments those authoritative accounts and reflects recent and ongoing developments in the languages themselves, as well as our further enhanced understanding of the relations and patterns of influence between them. The result is the fruit of decades-long experience in the teaching of the Turkic languages, their philology and literature, and also of a wealth of new insights into the linguistic phenomena and cultural interactions defining their development and use, both historically and in the present day. Each chapter combines modern linguistic analysis with traditional historical linguistics; a uniform structure allows for easy typological comparison between the individual languages. Written by an international team of experts, The Turkic Languages will be invaluable to students and researchers within linguistics, Turcology, and Near Eastern and Oriental Studies.
ON THE SOME EXPRESSIONS IN OLD TURKIC INSCRIPTIONS: KT EAST 38TH AND T 23RD LINES
International Journal of Language Academy, 2018
Our examination is the part of a large work handling the accusative case in the linguistic materials of the Old Turkic which consists Čoyr, Köl Tigin, Bilge Kagan, Tunyuquq, Ongi, Köli Čor, Süci, Šine-Usu, Taryat, Tes, Yenisey and Kyrgyzstan inscriptions, and also the fortune book called Irk Bitig which are written by Old Turkic (runic) alphabet and according to the informations in the sources written on them. In Old Turkic inscriptions a name in the nominative case can be an indefinite object of a sentence or a clause. This is referred to as an accusative case without suffix. And the definite object case is formed by adding the suffixes +g/+ġ to the stems without possessive suffix, the suffix +n to the stems with possessive suffixes. This case is also formed very rarely by adding +nI after the personal and demonstrative pronouns in the plural case and +I after the personal and the demonstrative pronouns in the singular case. It is known that different works have been done since the end of the 19th century and especially from the beginning of the 20th century on the Old Turkic inscriptions. Nowadays these works are carried out by field researchers intensely. However, in addition to reading and interpretation problems related to the inscriptions, phonetic and morphological discussions still remain. Reading problems are especially focused on the words that we cannot trace in today's vocabulary with damaged parts, while the problems of interpretation focus on the translations without taking into consideration the structure of Turkish language. In this study, accusative suffixes were explained using the method of the surveying literature in an approach that addresses the problems of reading and translation in relation to the Old Turkic inscriptions, and the opinions on the readings of the expressions in Köl Tigin East 38th and Tunyuquq 23rd lines were presented. By these arguments, it is aimed to point to translation problems in Old Turkic researches and to contribute to the morphological studies of Old Turkic.
A GRAMMAR OF OLD TURKIC
And last, but not least at all, to Yonafor support during the last twenty years. May 2004 Marcel Erdal CHAPTER ONE This book deals with the remains of what was written down in the Asian domains of the early Turks, which consists of three corpuses: 1) Two hundred odd inscriptions in the Old Turkic runiform script, presumably 7 th to 10 th century. These were discovered mostly in present day Mongolia (the area covering the territory of the second Türk empire and the Uygur steppe empire following upon it) and in the upper 9 We will, henceforth, use the term Uygur to refer to Old Uygur as being described here, rather than to Modern Uygur now spoken in Xinjiang, Kazakhstan etc., or to Middle Uygur as documented from Ming and other pre-modern sources. 10 There is sometimes some confusion regarding the linguistic assignment of the runiform mss., e.g. in Johanson 1998: 85: These are written in the same language as the rest of Xinjiang Uygur (within which there are dialect differences); the language of the runiform inscriptions of the Uygur Empire found on steles in Mongolia is, on the other hand, practically the same as that of Orkhon Turkic. 11 This term (used by Röhrborn and Laut in a number of their publications at least since 1984) is, I think, unfortunate, as it is misleading to outsiders: Greek means 'common'; koinè diálektos was the name originally given to the relatively late, postclassical variety of Greek which was mostly based on the Ionian dialect and replaced practically all the (other) Greek dialects to serve as common language not only to Greeks but also to others who came under their sway or adopted their culture. The variety of Uygur which is, I think, better just called 'Classical' or 'Standard' is a stage in the development of the language and of its spelling when it had established relatively strong and clear norms. The language apparently was, at this stage, spoken more or less as it was written, which was probably no longer the case for Late Uygur sources. 12 Edited by Arat (1947), translated into English (with important notes) in Dankoff 1983. Tezcan 1981 will also be important for a better edition in the future. 13 Dankoff & Kelly 1982-85 is an edition of the Turkic (transcribed and transliterated), couched in an English translation of the Arabic parts of the text. 14 Erdal 1984. 15 The reliability of the DLT cannot be wholly taken for granted in this specific matter, as Mah m d was not, of course, a field researcher in the modern sense; but his evidence does seem convincing. Most of the information supplied by K š ar on the dialects has not yet been matched with modern and comparative data and there is as yet no conclusive investigation of this question. 22 This distinction later led to the generalization of the person category in verb forms. 23 Small capitals are used for transliterating Semitic alphabets. 31 ävigä 'to his home' in HamTouHou 18,4 is not necessarily an instance of the loss of pronominal n, as 'WXLYK' for oglï a 'to his son' in l.10 shows that the ms. spells / / as K: /g/ would have been spelled as X in a back-harmony word. The genitive form minig for mäni 'mine' in l.6 probably has the same explanation. The 2 nd person imperative CHAPTER ONE a fragment in Sogdian script, shows that what we have here is a rare instance of the so-called n dialect (see section 2.33). Both-dUm and ñ > n are, according to K š ar , characteristics of the speech of the Argu; these Sogdian script mss. may therefore also represent this dialect. Another noteworthy feature of the Sogdian script mss. are several examples of an extended form of the 3 rd person imperative (e.g. artamazunï), found also in the QB. 33 We know that Argu was spoken in Balasagun, and Y suf, the author of the QB, was born in this town. This as well should therefore be an Argu feature. A further feature shared by the Sogdian script mss. with the QB are the fused impossibility forms (alumadï < alï umadï, alkumaz < alka umaz). Balasagun was in West Turkistan; this proximity to the original homeland of the Sogds may explain their Sogdian palaeography and spelling characteristics. On the other hand, the Sogdian script fragments have also retained the pre-classical feature of sporadic and unconditioned vowel lowering. Laut 1986 considers a Buddhist text to be pre-classical also when it has Indian loans in Sogdian shape and adds a further criterion for early dating: the introduction of superfluous alefs, not in the onset and unjustified through any likely pronunciation before vowels within words; e.g. yig'it 'young man' or av'u (the name of a hell called av ci in Sanskrit). For these two reasons he also adds the SP to his list of preclassical texts, although it lacks all other criteria. Superfluous alefs in a Manichaean text and in the Sängim ms. of the Maitr are given in Laut 1986: 69-70; instances in mss. in Sogdian script are listed by Fedakâr in UAJb N.F. 10(1991): 93-94 (to be used together with the glossary in UAJb N.F. 14(1996): 196-201 and the transliterations). The lowering of unrounded high vowels is apparently equally common in the Sängim and Hami mss., though not necessarily in the same words. Gabain in several places expressed the view that the texts written in Br hm script constitute a dialect of their own. According to her they are characterized by (among other things) p in the onset of words and plural form read istäglär in the same line is not necessarily an instance of / / > /g/ either, as it can also be read as ist(ä) lär. 32 The DLT (fol.504) ascribes the pronunciation bardum, käldüm (vs. bardam among the Oguz and bardïm among the other Turks) to the dialect of the Argu. 33 Gabain 1976 expresses the view that this °I is the possessive suffix but there seems to be no sense in that. I could imagine that it is a truncated ïd! 'Let go!', comparable to English 'Let him do this'. ïd-also serves as actionality auxiliary for energetic action which became morphologised in some modern languages, and should also be behind the °I which we find at the end of imperative forms of certain Khaladj verbs. As Doerfer has shown in various places, Argu as described in the DLT shares several linguistic features with Khaladj. 35 We take-gUl to have fused from-gU ol, a marker of impersonal mood, but in some of its instances it appears in parallelism with gIl; the matter is not completely clear. 36 As Zieme 1969: 23 notes in connection with the Pothi book where such confusions are especially prominent, they are referred to as 'Mongolisms' because they generally appear during Mongol domination (which is rather late as far as Old Turkic corpus is concerned); he does not, however, draw the conclusion that the Pothi book must be late. Occasional confusions such as sägiz for säkiz 'eight' in the Xw are called "irrtümliche 40 The ms. edited by Radloff is actually the latest of the three existing mss. of this source and shows certain characteristics of Middle Turkic. Even this ms. is, however, certainly closer to Old Turkic than Chagatay sources, which Thomsen and other scholars otherwise had as guidance for their texts. 41 Scholars are listed more or less in the order of their importance in this domain. CHAPTER ONE Turcology in that country: 45 G.R. Rachmati (also Rachmatullin; in Turkey R.R. Arat), S. Schakir, (later S. Ishaki, in Turkey S. Ça atay) and the younger A.Temir. Rachmati's dissertation (on auxiliary verbs and converbs in Altay Turkic, published in 1928) was fully linguistic, but his significant contribution to Old Turkic studies remains within the domain of philology; an important late (1963) paper documents and describes orientational terminology. Schakir's dissertation (1933) on word formation also covers Old Turkic, and three papers of hers (1940-41 and 1943 respectively) deal with Uygur.
A brief glimpse at some linguistic peculiarities of Manichaean texts in Old Turkic
2019
The paper at hand examines, on a small scale, morphological differences that exist between the Manichaean and Buddhist texts of the Uighurs in Old Turkic. The main focus of this paper is the different distribution of suffixes, which are documented in a corpus of Old Turkic, namely Manichaean, but not in the more extensive Buddhist corpus.
Turkic Languages 15 (2011) 1 I am on the editorial board of this journal
2011
The journal TURKIC LANGUAGES is devoted to linguistic Turcology. It addresses descriptive, comparative, synchronic, diachronic, theoretical and methodological problems of the study of Turkic languages including questions of genealogical, typological and areal relations, linguistic variation and language acquisition. The journal aims at presenting work of current interest on a variety of subjects and thus welcomes con tributions on all aspects of Turkic linguistics. It contains articles, review articles, re views, discussions, reports, and surveys of publications. It is published in one vo lume of two issues per year with approximately 300 pages.
2011
The journal TURKIC LANGUAGES is devoted to linguistic Turcology. It addresses descriptive, comparative, synchronic, diachronic, theoretical and methodological problems of the study of Turkic languages including questions of genealogical, typological and areal relations, linguistic variation and language acquisition. The journal aims at presenting work of current interest on a variety of subjects and thus welcomes con tributions on all aspects of Turkic linguistics. It contains articles, review articles, re views, discussions, reports, and surveys of publications. It is published in one vo lume of two issues per year with approximately 300 pages.
The authors interpret and introduce for scientific use two previously unknown Runic inscriptions and one inscription in the Uyghur writing found on the rocks of the Urkosh area in Central Altai. The Uyghur writing in black paint is the only find of such a kind in the whole region. It was created not earlier than the 10th century. The Runic characters could be dated back to the 8th–9th centuries. The supreme power-holders or tribal leaders are mentioned in the Urkosh inscriptions, which is quite rare in the collection of the early medieval runic manuscripts of the Altai.
Historical Linguistics and Philology of Central Asia. Essays in Turkic and Mongolic Studies
Festschrift dedicated to Professor András Róna-Tas, 2022
András Róna-Tas, distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Szeged, Hungary, winner of several international prestigious prizes, has devoted his long academic career to the study of Chuvash, Turkic elements in Hungarian, Mongolic-Tibetan linguistic contacts, the Para-Mongolic language Khitan and other Central Asian languages and cultures. This book, presented to him in the occasion of his 90th birthday, contains a collection of papers in Turkic and Mongolic Studies, with a focus on the literacy, culture, and languages of the steppe civilizations. It is organized in three sections: Turkic Studies, Mongolic Studies, and Linguistic and cultural contacts of Altaic languages. It contains papers by some of most renowned experts in Central Asia Studies. Contributors are Klára Agyagási, Ákos Bertalan Apatóczky, Ágnes Birtalan, Uwe Bläsing, Éva Csáki, Éva Ágnes Csató, Edina Dallos, Marcel Erdal, Stefan Georg, Peter Golden, Mária Ivanics, Juha Janhunen, Lars Johanson, György Kara, Bayarma Khabtagaeva, Jens Peter Laut, Raushangul Mukusheva, Olach Zsuzsanna, Benedek Péri, Elisabetta Ragagnin, Pavel Rykin, Uli Schamiloglu, János Sipos, István Vásáry, Alexander Vovin, Michael Weiers, Jens Wilkens, Wu Yingzhe, Emine Yilmaz, and Peter Zieme. https://brill.com/view/title/61208
Khwarezmian: Mapping the Kipchak component of Pre-Chagatai Turkic
2014
In the present paper I aimed to identify and separate the Kipchak (Northwestern Turkic) elements in the 13th – 14th-century Khwarezmian Turkic literary language, primarily drawing on the linguistic material of Gulistān bi’l-Turkī and Nahǰu’l-Farādīs. By comparing the grammars of several Khwarezmian Turkic writings and analysing the complete vocabulary of the above two works, the relationship between Khwarezmian Turkic and the Kipchak languages becomes more transparent than hitherto thought of. The results may contribute to better understanding the heterogeneous views concerning Khwarezmian Turkic that appeared during the last one hundred years.
Linguistic Features of the Mongolian Text of the Tyr Trilingual Inscription (1413)
2014
The paper deals with the Mongolian inscription on the first Tyr stele (1413) — a little known monument of Preclassical Written Mongol which is now found in Primorye State Museum named after V. K. Arsenyev (Vladivostok, Russia). In the paper, the main grammatical, phonetic, and lexical features of the text are described, which are charac-teristic of Preclassical Written Mongol and Middle Mongol monuments altogether. While retaining a number of clearly archaic features, probably of Proto-Mongolic origin, the inscription contains some innovative developments which seem to date from the Post-Proto-Mongolic stage and reflect colloquial and/or dialectal influence. A few phonological and lexical features, as well as the place and circumstances of its appearance, enables us to consider it as belonging to the Eastern dialect zone of Middle Mongol.