Re: The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell

On Oct 3, 7:41 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 2, 9:26 am, Darkstar <darkstar...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


And I know no such suffix as -Iz, where else is it found?

it's found in the names of tribes and animals. if you derive (it
seems correctly, though I am still worried about the voicing of q)
o*gh*uz from oq-uz then you should accept that it is was an archaic
collective suffix, probably akin to the -ar of tatar and also
probably akin to the -ar in the plural suffix -lar . there is
also a -z suffix that is a dual indicator, *ékkiz (> ikiz) "twin"
and parts of the body that come in pairs, but that seems to be
different. it's a fossilized suffix, no longer productive.

I've included it as an alternative hypothesis, but normally you should
state more specifically what facts you base your argumentation upon.

well, I gave an authoritative reference. it's also clear that the
ending
has changed form time to time, but always with turko-mongol collective
endings.

Now that you've mentioned "ikiz", it adds some value, but it's still
not clear what names of animals and body parts, and Oghuz is no proof

the -z in body parts and in ikiz is differfent, it's a dual indicator.

but anyway (I tried to follow the forms from Clauson when possible):

animals:

oGuz (! in the meaning of "young bull"), öküz (?*ököz , "ox"),
*qotoz / qotuz ("yak"), qunduz ("beaver").

note: Clauson regards öküz as coming from Tokharian okso

before that Menges, but he has recanted.

(hence related to Germanic "ox", regarding the h- in middle
mongolian hüker as secondary, against this Menges in the 2nd.
edition of "Turkic Languages and Peoples" in the emendation
#32 p. xix <<... but Tk. öküz cannot be seperated from Mong.
üker, M. Mong. hüker, Mongour fuguor "ox", the IE cognate of
which is e.g. Lat. pecu, ..., IE *pek'u- "wool, sheep, cattle"
... . The -r in Mong. and -z in Tk. are ancient collective
suffixes;>>. P. Golden agrees with Menges.

more detail is given by Hasan Eren in his turkish etymological
dictionary under "öküz".

Clauson prefers Tokharian A okäs (doubtful reading) rather than
Tokharian B okso .

taking into account h- < *p- one has:

Afghanistan Uzbek has hokuz, okuz, Uzbek (dialect?) hükiz,
Doerfer has Uzbek hokiz, New Uygur höküz apparently there
are (unnamed in Eren) Tunguzic sources, presumably Evenki
hukur "bull" (Doerfer) supporting an Altaic *pökü-r' {i.e.
*pökü-r2} by Ramsted. also Ramsted connects it with Japanese
beko "ox" < peko , supported by Pelliot.


also in numerals: sekkiz ("8"), toqquz ("9"), ottuz ("30"), yü:z
("100").

also in the pronouns biz ("we"), siz ("you, pl.")

the dual inidcator, in parts of the body in pairs or are symmetrical:

Menges p.112, "this suffix, -z {in pronouns} has nothing to do with
the
suffix -z of nouns designating objects that occur in pairs"

gö:z / kö:z ("eye"), aGIz ("mouth") yü:z ("face"), be*ng*iz (me*ng*iz,
"complexion") *boGoz / boGuz (boGaz "throat"), kögüz / *gögöz
("chest,
breast"), yotaz "hip" ti:z / *di:z ("knee").

notice I have ommited turkish omuz ("shoulder") as this is a greek
loanword (Eren) from o:mos ωμοσ ("shoulder"). Menges includes it!
yotaz is not found in Clauson. Bazin has oGuz . there is also sIGIr
*"large bovine" which may an -r equivalent of -z IMHO. again,
speculating, it may be connected with saG= "to milk (an animal)",
but I am getting off-topic. for be*ng*iz / me*ng*iz there is
be*ng* / me*ng* "a mole on the face", again IMHO.

at all since it's a dubious etymology itself.

I thought you agreed with it. apparently first proposed by Ligeti.




OTOH Menges, p.112 mentions -gün / -kün / -Gun / -qun as a suffix
in Orkhon Turkic "... used exclusively for people and limited as it
seems, to relationship terms." Menges mentions the noun kün "people"
in {New ?} Uygur and SaGay "and designating a group of people". but
Menges prefers the etymology connecting it with Tungus -gin
"designating
a person belonging to a group or organization the collective form of
which, -gi-r, designates belonging to a tribe ..."



speculating on my behalf, there is the anatolian turkish (and Azeri?)
suffix -gil which is a collective denoting family members (IIRC I
read
an article connecting this with Uralic and Chuvash kil "house". IIRC
by Sinor). modern turkish has adopted this suffix adding -ler to form
-giller to denote a family in the biological taxonomical sense. thus
from kedi "cat" one derives kedigiller "the cat family, Felidae".



If it butts in with Mongolian, it's no good at all, but you said it's

Pulleyblank suggests Mongol intermediaries to Chinese.

a Turkic suffix.

-t , -n are found in fossilized form in turkic. -n is found in
the Karakhanid word eren "men" plural of er "man".

the collective -t is regarded as found in bulIt "cloud" (Menges);
in Bazin's etymology of "Tibet" as from töpü-t / töpö-t (attessted
similarly in Orkhon Turkic) from töpü / töpö "top" of something, as
of a mountain, a man's head etc., turkish tepe which means the same
thing as well as "hill". in arabic in Kashgari it is <tubut> (for
töpüt ?), elsewhere in medieval arabic tubbut (the <bb> probably
to represent the phoneme /p/ which is foreign to arabic); also in
Kashgari's mongolic-like plural of tégin (a title of authority,
but Kashgari translates it as "slave", which he regards as original,
then as "prince") as tégit .
.

Quantcast