The Turkic Peoples: A Historical Sketch (original) (raw)
Related papers
Turks and Iranians: An Historical Sketch
Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas, 2006
The eleventh century Turkic lexicographer Mah mūd al-Kāšγarī, summing up the long-standing tradition of Turko-Iranian interaction, cites the Turkic saying: bašsız börk bolmas, tatsїz türk bolmas 'without a head there can be no hat, without a Tat (Iranian) there can be no Turk'. While this saying implies some sense of Turkic dependency on the 'Tat', there was also a long tradition of wariness and even disdain. Punning on the Turkic word tat ('rust that appears on a sword or other'), Kāšγarī quotes the expression: qїlїč tatїqsa iš yunčїr, er tatїqsa et tinčir 'when rust overtakes a sword the condition (of the warrior) suffers, (just as) when a Turk assumes the morals of a Persian his flesh begins to stink'. Kāšγarī further comments that "this is coined to advise a person to be steadfast and to live among his own kind." (Dankoff & Kelly 1982-1985, 1: 273 and repeated 2: 103). 1 The original sense of the term tat seems to have been an "alien", most probably one who occupied an inferior political status, which was then applied to the Iranian peoples that the Turks encountered in Central Asia and later in the Middle East (Clauson 1972: 449). In the fourteenth and fifteenth century Mamluk-Kipchak glossaries, now reflecting a different ethno-cultural setting, it continued to denote non-Turkic, in this case Arab, sedentary populations. 2 According to Kāšγarī "a Persian who does not know any Turkic" was termed a somlin Tat (Dankoff & Kelly 1982-1985 1: 361). 3 This implies that there were Iranians, perhaps quite sizable in numbers, who did know Turkic and bespeaks a certain familiarity of the two groups with each other's languages and cultures. Kāšγarī clearly underscores this, remarking that those Turks who did not mix with the Persians of the cities had the "most elegant" speech, whereas those who were bilingual and mixed with the Iranian-speaking urbanfolk "have a certain 1 My translation differs slightly from that of Dankoff who renders it: "A Turk is never without a Persian (just as) a cap is never without a head." 2 Cf. Caferoğlu (1931: 62, Arabic text) t at "al-fallāh " ("peasant") with the interlinear addition "al-ªarab wa«l-fārisī" (the Arab and Persian). The entry for t atıqtı is defined as "s āra lisanuhu wa luġatuhu luġat al-fallāh " [his language and idiom became that of a peasant (i.e. an Arab)]. The at-tuh fat az-zakiyya fı«l-luġat at-Turkiyya defines "h ad arī" [villager] as sart wa t at (see Atalay 1945, fol 12b [=12a]). 3 Somlin was a general term for "anyone who does not know Turkic" < somli-"to talk unintelligibly, er somlidi "the man spoke in a non-Turkish language, one which only the speaker understood" (Dankoff & Kelly 1982-1985 2: 302).
Turkic and Iranian speaking peoples have been living in vast parts of the Asia together or on neighbor geographies since at least end of the 6th century. The process of Turko-Iranian language contact began when Iranian speaking people Sogdians were incorporated into the First Turkic Khaganete and intensified after Islamization of Turks and Sogdians. Old Turkic dialects adopted many ‘general copies’ from Iranian languages especially from Sogdian and New Persian languages. In this study, approximately a hundred and twenty-four of ‘general copies’ will be enlisted and studied to provide some contribution to the field of Turko-Iranian language contact via Diwan Lugat al-Turk. Key words: Turko-Iranian language contact, general copies, Diwan Lugat at-Turk
7.Mongolian/Turkish Language and its effects on Azerbaijan's seven and eight centuries
International Journal of Social and Economic Research , 2014
Mongolian language is the language of a part of QipcaqPlateau, which later with Changiz khan's reign and strengthening of these peoples, Mongol name generalized by tribes of under attack territories, to all people with Turkish language. With reign of Changiz and it's successors, the high number of Turk tribes permeate in the Mongol military and gradually cause to prevail the majority language(Turkish) on minority (Mongol), and gradually influence on culture and tongue of conquered territories. One of significant example of these effects is Azerbaijan, which the invasion of Turk and Mongol people and their domination on government and ministries lead to gradually replace the ancient Azerbaijani language by invader's counterpart. In this paper we try to consider the piecemeal entrance of Mongol vocabulary and piecemeal replacement of Turkish vocabulary with it's counterpart in Iran and Azerbaijan.
Turks and Iranian: Interactions in Language and History. The Gunnar Jarring Program at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, ed. É.Á. Csató, Lars Johanson, András Róna-Tas, Bo Utas Wiesbaden: Harrassowtiz Verlag, 2016
An overview of Turko-Iranian historical and cultural contacts during the Middle Ages - Correction! This is “Turks and Iranians: Aspects of Türk and Khazaro-Iranian Interaction” Turco-Iranica: Language and History, A Workshop within the framework of the Gunnar Jarring Program at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences, May 21, 2006.
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.