Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell



Darkstar wrote:
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

Darkstar wrote:
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <ybg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in <h1u0uj$tt6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
: In sci.lang Darkstar <darkstar100@xxxxxxxx> wrote in <d75f0ebd-5109-4a3a-947b-7c0b75982138@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
[...]

I don't give a darn what's "generally-accepted". Never use such


you may not, but other participants of sci.lang do.


That's their problems, not mine.

arguments on me. "Generally-accepted" means a collection of TV


no. it means material published in scholarly journals and books.


factoids mindlessly repeated by idiots who never do any personal
research, that's how this should be translated.

Yes, it's true that many people still don't understand that the Oghuz
y- is secondary. However, the evidence for the palatalized *S (*sh,


it's not confined to oghuZ

*s', *sch ) in the proto-form is overwhelming. Even if you simply
count the number of TLs that have y- and compare it to the number that
have something instead you'll realize that the ratio is probably 1:10..
All the eastern TLs have *S preserved. Even in Kazan Tatar, which also
partly lost *S, we do have Je-, Ji- before -e-, -i-, whereas other
Tatar dialects often fully preserve an *S sound before all vowels. In
Karachay-Balkar, which is related to the Kipchak-Kimak-Tatar subgroup
(whatever you call this, "Kipchak" is the most usual name), we have
also a fully-developed *S. Only Yugur, which is unique in many


it's *dj*- (henceforth transcribed as j-) not S-

Middle Kipchak has y- but older Kipchak may have preseved etymological
j-

volga bulghar has j- as do the bulgharic loans in hungarian (gy),
chuvash s'- is a later development.

I don't remember that since I haven't studied Hungarian loans, but as
you say, it's gy-, not j-. I just wonder what it stands for.


hungarian adapted it to its own phonology. IIRC gy represents a highly
palatized g approximating j



turkic initial y- may be any oneof the followiing protoforms:

*y-, *j-, *d- (or * *dh*-), *n- or * *ny*-


That's much too broad. There's no foundation for this (especially ny-,
n-). It's mostly palatalized s'- (Chuvash), s- (Yakut), ch- (Yenisei

the foundation comes from some transcribed turkic words in early
sources,
archaic loanwords in other languages and above all comparision with
other
languages such as mongolian (whether or not these are cognates or
loans is
not that crucial). *n- and * *ny*- disapeared early (except in the
word
ne "what?" and its dervatives). Khalaj has y- for etymological *y-,
*n-
and - * *ny*-,and j- and its derivatives for etymological *j- and *d-



Kyrgyz descendants: Khakas, Tuvan, etc), zh- (Kyrgyz, Kazakh), j- (an
eastern dialect of Kazakh and dialects of Tatar), ch-, c- (in the
Caucasus) and palatilized d' < *j (Altai, Kumandy). As to Chagatai,
Uzbek, Uyughur, which I forgot to mention in the previous post, I
suppose they acquired /y-/ due to the Karakhanid and Kara-Khoja
influence — Chagatai was essentially the superstratum of Karakhanid.


how can chaghatay be a superstratum of karakhanid when itis seperated
by a few hundred years.


Initially, Proto-Chagatai was most likely directly related to the
early Kyrgyz (and therefore had /zh-/), which is discussed at some


the inscriptions attributed to the qyrqyz of the orkhon inscriptions
point to a y- language. later the kyrgyz were kypchakized.


there is a continious record of the development from karakhanid to
khwarezmian turkic to chaghatay to uzbek. the crucial change was
that of *dh* (a noninitial phoneme, of course) to y (khwarezmian
turkci texts are mixed), probably under theinfluence of oghuz (or
perhaps kypchak).


length in the article.

I would assume a "sch" (a highly palatalized s'), but that's not
really crucial to argue about such things—I'm not very fond of
discussing reconstructions in general, because they are often
difficult to prove—that's why I introduced a special symbol. [But the
most important argument is that it seems to go back to a completely
normal *s- in non-Turkic languages which was probably subsequently
palatalized due to a supposed strong lenition in early Proto-Turkic.
I'm not going to introduce this subject again here, but you probably
know what I'm talking about, because we discussed this already.]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
    ... Middle Kipchak has y- but older Kipchak may have preseved etymological ... western languages where y- was already deeply rooted. ... Chagatai was essentially the superstratum of Karakhanid. ... later the kyrgyz were kypchakized. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
    ... languages are archaic and ignores the evidence of middle turkic that many ... However, the evidence for the palatalized *S (*sh, ... All the eastern TLs have *S preserved. ... Middle Kipchak has y- but older Kipchak may have preseved etymological ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
    ... :> maps of the early hypothetical migrations of theTurkicpeoples: ... certainly Karachay; are usually considered Kypchak languages. ... considered Kipchak, certainly Karachay is. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
    ... the title 'Historical Linguistics by Darkstar'. ... and the calculations — ... and Black's study of modern IE languages, ... setting that internal standard. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
    ... languages and peoples with many illustrations: ... Codex Comanicus and an early mamluke Kipchak - Arabic ... appear after the main verb. ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading