The Turkic Languages in a Nutshell
Darkstar
anyway:
A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
languages and peoples with many illustrations:
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classification_of_turkic_languages.html
Peter T. Daniels
Why is it unsigned?
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:a417b645-73e6-4e7c...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> Why is it unsigned?
It's Darkstar's own work, as may be seen by clicking on the
<Home> link at the bottom of either page: the home page (at
<http://indo-european-migrations.scienceontheweb.net/>) has
the title 'Historical Linguistics by Darkstar'.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:20:54 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
I did go to the homepage and saw that it was his/her website, but
nothing Darkstar has ever posted here suggests s/he has the competence
to perform massive lexical comparisons across the Turkic family (and
if s/he did do the work, why doesn't s/he provide the raw data).
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:d88cf03c-f16d-4bef...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
>>> Why is it unsigned?
Considering his record here, do you really think that the
existence of that page is very strong evidence of such
competence?
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:19:12 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
That's what I said.
Darkstar
Neither you have the competence to evaluate whether I have the
competence, so the link has been posted not for you.
Trond Engen
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> Brian M. Scott:
>>
>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>
>>>> Brian M. Scott:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Darkstar:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these
>>>>>>> links anyway:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is it unsigned?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's Darkstar's own work, [it] has the title 'Historical
>>>>> Linguistics by Darkstar'.
>>>>
>>>> [... N]othing Darkstar has ever posted here suggests s/he has the
>>>> competence to perform massive lexical comparisons across the
>>>> Turkic family (and if s/he did do the work, why doesn't s/he
>>>> provide the raw data).
>>>
>>> Considering his record here, do you really think that the existence
>>> of that page is very strong evidence of such competence?
>>
>> That's what I said.
>
> Neither you have the competence to evaluate whether I have the
> competence, so the link has been posted not for you.
Right. Would you mind repeating Jens Elmeg�rd Rasmussen's evaluation of
your work on Cybalist? If he too is incompetent, would you give some
examples of who you'd find qualified?
--
Trond Engen
Peter T. Daniels
Your English really goes downhill when you get upset.
Why don't you just say whether you wrote all those pages about Turkic
glottochronology (and ethnolinguistics, which I don't care about and
didn't look at), and if you did, why don't you publish the data you
used in making the calculations? You probably already have an Excel
table or the equivalent containing the forms.
Panu
>
>
> Neither you have the competence to evaluate whether I have the
> competence, so the link has been posted not for you.
That you don't have the competence, is bleeding obvious to just about
anyone with an IQ higher than his shoe-size number.
Darkstar
The "Swadeshes" are publically available through Wikistationary,
there's a link inside the article. I manually composed about a half of
them and tried to re-check the rest — at least partly and wherever it
was essential. I don't see the necessity to publish the cognate pairs
and the calculations — no one would be checking. Even if they would,
they'll probably get it mixed up, because everyone has his own
personal counting method. That's not just taking one word and checking
it. I don't even remember seeing anyone publish intermediate
calculations in lexicostatistical studies. The results largely match
Dyachok's and Dybo's outcome, that's probably all one should know.
Darkstar
I'm not interested in your projections.
Darkstar
I'm not playing games here. If you want to say something serious or
logically coherent, you still have the opportunity to do so.
Peter T. Daniels
If you refuse to publish either your data or your methodology, your
findings cannot be replicated (let alone falsified), and you are not
doing science.
"Because I said so" is not science. Especially when "I" isn't
identified.
A superb model for publishing lexicostatistical work is Dyen, Kruskal,
and Black's study of modern IE languages, which is Transactions of the
American Philological Society 82/5 (1992).
Darkstar
But no one is going to replicate these calculations or any other piece
of work. No one is going to replicate Dyen's calculations. You can
only attempt to REPEAT ALL of his study, which has been done by
several people already (including myself).
If someone wants to repeat the calculations alone, the lists are
readily available.
Trond Engen
> Trond Engen wrote:
>> Darkstar skreiv:
>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> Brian M. Scott:
>>>>
>>>>> Considering his record here, do you really think that the
>>>>> existence of that page is very strong evidence of such competence?
>>>>
>>>> That's what I said.
>>>
>>> Neither you have the competence to evaluate whether I have the
>>> competence, so the link has been posted not for you.
>>
>> Right. Would you mind repeating Jens Elmegård Rasmussen's
>> evaluation of your work on Cybalist? If he too is incompetent, would
>> you give some examples of who you'd find qualified?
>
> I'm not playing games here.
So why did you play a bluff competence card?
> If you want to say something serious or logically coherent, you still
> have the opportunity to do so.
It was both serious and coherent. I've just nothing to say about Turkic
languages ('cause I _am_ incompetent), only about how you conduct your game.
--
Trond Engen
Darkstar
I'm not interested in your arguments ad autoritatem, which is a
logical fallacy. I'm not interested to know who that guy is, and why
those 3 or 4 silly words he was able to utter before he ran away, is
supposed to be so important. Don't make me insult someone who's not
even present.
Harlan Messinger
>
> Trond Engen wrote:
>> Darkstar:
>>
>>> Trond Engen wrote:
>>>> Darkstar skreiv:
>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>> Brian M. Scott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering his record here, do you really think that the
>>>>>>> existence of that page is very strong evidence of such competence?
>>>>>> That's what I said.
>>>>> Neither you have the competence to evaluate whether I have the
>>>>> competence, so the link has been posted not for you.
>>>> evaluation of your work on Cybalist? If he too is incompetent, would
>>>> you give some examples of who you'd find qualified?
>>> I'm not playing games here.
>> So why did you play a bluff competence card?
>>
>>> If you want to say something serious or logically coherent, you still
>>> have the opportunity to do so.
>> It was both serious and coherent. I've just nothing to say about Turkic
>> languages ('cause I _am_ incompetent), only about how you conduct your game.
>>
>> --
>> Trond Engen
>
> I'm not interested in your arguments ad autoritatem,
Fine. No one's interested in your theories ex ignorantia.
Trond Engen
> I'm not interested in your arguments ad autoritatem, which is a
> logical fallacy.
It might have been if I'd used it as an argument.
--
Trond Engen
Darkstar
I can't find a passage where Dyen published anything equivalent to the
"Exel tables" you're refering to. He simply says that a comparativist
made a personal decision and assigned cognation based on his own
experience.
It's impossible to publish every step, there's always a point beyond
which you have take someone else's work for granted.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0iALAAAAIAAJ&dq=Dyen+Kruskal+book&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Harlan Messinger
>
> Darkstar wrote:
>> Trond Engen wrote:
>>> Darkstar:
>>>
>>>> Trond Engen wrote:
>>>>> Darkstar skreiv:
>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>>> Brian M. Scott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Considering his record here, do you really think that the
>>>>>>>> existence of that page is very strong evidence of such competence?
>>>>>>> That's what I said.
>>>>>> Neither you have the competence to evaluate whether I have the
>>>>>> competence, so the link has been posted not for you.
>>>>> evaluation of your work on Cybalist? If he too is incompetent, would
>>>>> you give some examples of who you'd find qualified?
>>>> I'm not playing games here.
>>> So why did you play a bluff competence card?
>>>
>>>> If you want to say something serious or logically coherent, you still
>>>> have the opportunity to do so.
>>> It was both serious and coherent. I've just nothing to say about Turkic
>>> languages ('cause I _am_ incompetent), only about how you conduct your game.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Trond Engen
>> I'm not interested in your arguments ad autoritatem, which is a
>> logical fallacy. I'm not interested to know who that guy is, and why
>> those 3 or 4 silly words he was able to utter before he ran away, is
>> supposed to be so important. Don't make me insult someone who's not
>> even present.
>
> I can't find a passage where Dyen published anything equivalent to the
> "Exel tables" you're refering to. He simply says that a comparativist
> made a personal decision and assigned cognation based on his own
> experience.
>
> It's impossible to publish every step, there's always a point beyond
> which you have take someone else's work for granted.
That's exactly what people do when they grant a certain level of trust
to people who have already demonstrated themselves to be authorities.
Perversely, you call it an ad autoritatem fallacy when people place this
level of trust in people who have shown themselves to be worthy of it,
but here you are expecting someone to place this level of trust in you,
whose writings thus far haven't inspired anyone's trust. This is the
reverse of common sense.
Peter T. Daniels
Where did you publish the ensuing confirmation or refutation?
> If someone wants to repeat the calculations alone, the lists are
> readily available.-
You referred to "own personal counting method" (presumably including
yourself in your "everyone"). If you do not reveal your method, your
conclusions are worthless.
Darkstar
Yes, you did so indirectly. You tried to make it look as though
everything I do is wrong just because someone said something in a
particular context.
Trond Engen
> Trond Engen wrote:
>
>> Darkstar:
>>
>>> I'm not interested in your arguments ad autoritatem, which is a
>>> logical fallacy.
>>
>> It might have been if I'd used it as an argument.
>
> Yes, you did so indirectly. You tried to make it look as though
> everything I do is wrong just because someone said something in a
> particular context.
No. I added some background to what you said about competence. I haven't
touched the question of Turkic linguistics.
But this is getting repetitive.
--
Trond Engen
Darkstar
No, I argued in that paper that everyone has his own slightly
different method of determining cognation, that's why
lexicostatistical percentages would always differ for different
counters. But, if you choose an internal glottochronological reference
event with a known historical separation time and use it as an
internal standard, it would not be necessary to use a standardized
(Swadesh's) method of determining cognation because the systematic
error attributed to the personal style would be canceled out by
setting that internal standard. One would only need to consistently
use the same style throughout the whole study, but it would be
redundant to explain all the details of that style.
The error can only occur if you're biased, for instance, if you fail
to notice cognates in one pair of languages, but see to many of them
in another pair.
Despite all of the above, I did use the standard Swadesh-200 lists and
the standard word-by-word method, so my methodology is not very
different. It only has, what I call, a "personal style", some minor
internal differences, that is.
Darkstar
It's simpler than I have explained. Consider an example. If you know
for sure that the Romance languages began to separate 1600 ys ago, and
somehow you get an average of, say, 75% for their lexicostatistical
depth, you can easily determine the glottochronological separation for
other taxonomically, historically, and geographically SIMILAR language
groups. For instance, if you have 65% for the Germanic languages you
can easily calculate the diversification period of Proto-Germanic.
It doesn't matter, if Mr. Brown gets 81% and 72% respectively, and it
doesn't even matter how he counted. He can still obtain almost the
same value for Proto-Germanic by RECALIBRATING to Proto-Romance, which
is used as a LOCAL calibration standard.
By contrast, Swadesh attempted to introduce a GLOBAL calibration
standard (81% per millenium for a Swadesh-100 and 86% for a
Swadesh-200). That creates lots of hassle with standartization
procedures, but still doesn't yield good results.
Peter T. Daniels
I don't know who "Mr. Brown" is.
It was pathetically easy to demonstrate that the notion of constant
rate of vocabulary replacement was sheer nonsense, and
glottochronology is worthless.
Lexicostatistics serves as a first approximation to suggest genetic
relationsips, to provide hints as to where to look for the
phonological and morphological innovations that are the only way to be
sure of relationships.
(For instance, Dyen et al. did not find an Indo-Iranian unity using
data from the modern languages.)
Panu
If you are not interested in what we think of your shit, why the fuck
do you come here advertising it?
Darkstar
That's Mr. Smith.
> It was pathetically easy to demonstrate that the notion of constant
> rate of vocabulary replacement was sheer nonsense, and
> glottochronology is worthless.
>
> Lexicostatistics serves as a first approximation to suggest genetic
> relationsips, to provide hints as to where to look for the
> phonological and morphological innovations that are the only way to be
> sure of relationships.
No, it's not that easy at all.
And in fact, you can't separate lexicostatistcs from glottochronology,
since one has to assume the languages move at a constant rate to build
a correct dendrogram, otherwise one is risking to place a branch on a
wrong stem.
> (For instance, Dyen et al. did not find an Indo-Iranian unity using
> data from the modern languages.)
That's true. Because the glottochronological depth of the Indo-Iranian
unity is great, and not much is left of it; there are few shared
innovations in modern languages (though we do have, for instance,
*matsya for "fish", probably akin to "meat", as a typical example),
especially if you take into consideration Nuristani, Dardic,
Synghalese, Pamir, Saka, Yaghnobi, Ossetic, and other rarely
mentioned, "exotic" members of this branch.
In fact, the I-I languages are poorly studied by Indo-Europeanists,
who mostly just know German, Latin and Greek, but simply discard the
vast majority and the enormous complexity of the Eastern branch of the
IELs. They only heard of Avestan and Sanskrit, but rarely research
even that. As a result, many old-fashioned notions prevail, and are
blindly transfered from textbook to textbook, such that the I-I unity
was a robust thing. It was probably very ancient and rather short-
lived. Again, the IILs is not just Sanskrit, that's a lot more. As new
data become available, old-fashioned ideas may change.
Peter T. Daniels
Which is why it's so unreliable and cannot serve as more than a very
tentative first approximation.
Christopher Culver
> innovations in modern languages (though we do have, for instance,
> *matsya for "fish", probably akin to "meat", as a typical example),
"Meat" in the sense "animal flesh" is a fairly recent semantic shift
in English. In the rest of Germanic, and in the fossilized English
term "sweetmeat", it simply means "food". While it could be an
Indo-European item attested outside Germanic, pointing to an
Indo-Iranian word meaning "fish" is dubious.
> In fact, the I-I languages are poorly studied by Indo-Europeanists,
> who mostly just know German, Latin and Greek
And you know how many Indo-Europeanists? The living IEists I can think
off of the top of my head are very interested in Celtic (Watkins),
Tocharian (Hamp), Armenian (Clackson), and Hittite (Beekes, Melchert,
Jasanoff). While Germanic, Latin and Greek might have been the big
thing once, it hasn't been true for at least fifty years.
Brian M. Scott
<crcu...@christopherculver.com> wrote in
<news:874ou6e...@christopherculver.com> in sci.lang:
> Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> writes:
[...]
>> In fact, the I-I languages are poorly studied by Indo-Europeanists,
>> who mostly just know German, Latin and Greek
> And you know how many Indo-Europeanists? The living IEists
> I can think off of the top of my head are very interested
> in Celtic (Watkins),
And Ranko Matasoviďż˝.
> Tocharian (Hamp),
And Douglas Q. Adams.
> Armenian (Clackson),
And Birgit Olsen (Rasmussen).
> and Hittite (Beekes, Melchert, Jasanoff).
Indo-Aryan (Lubotsky); Balto-Slavic (Kortlandt).
> While Germanic, Latin and Greek might have been the big
> thing once, it hasn't been true for at least fifty years.
Brian
Darkstar
Well, I'm not ready to continue the discussion on glottochronology,
neither I think you'd be interested. Let it be unreliable.
Yusuf B Gursey
: I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
: anyway:
: A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
: languages and peoples with many illustrations:
: http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
: The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
: maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
: http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classification_of_turkic_languages.html
the whole pages are at variance with what is generally accepted.
it assuemes that all the characteristics of the peripheral modern
languages are archaic and ignores the evidence of middle turkic that many
of these are recent inovations.
one point (more to follow later):
Khalaj is not a continuation of Karakhanid.
Khalaj preserves initial *h-, all other turkic languages don't.
Khalaj has * *ny* (found in Old Turkic) > n
Karakhanid has *ny* > y
Doerfer argues that Khalajis a contnuation of Arghu as described by
Kasghari
Yusuf B Gursey
: In sci.lang Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> wrote in <d75f0ebd-5109-4a3a...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>:
: : I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
: : anyway:
: : A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
: : languages and peoples with many illustrations:
: : http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
: : The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
: : maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
: : http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classification_of_turkic_languages.html
: the whole pages are at variance with what is generally accepted.
: it assuemes that all the characteristics of the peripheral modern
: languages are archaic and ignores the evidence of middle turkic that many
: of these are recent inovations.
: one point (more to follow later):
the reconstruction *sh* (assuming that is meant by S) for common turkic
initial y- is not generally accepted s'- of chuvash (< *dj*-) and yakut s-
are later developments.
also turkish preserves initial b- . m- of most other turkic languages is a
result of a following nasal i.e. *bVn- > mVn-
Darkstar
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> In sci.lang Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> wrote in <d75f0ebd-5109-4a3a...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>:
> : I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
> : anyway:
>
> : A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
> : languages and peoples with many illustrations:
> : http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
>
> : The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
> : maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
> : http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classification_of_turkic_languages.html
>
> the whole pages are at variance with what is generally accepted.
>
> it assuemes that all the characteristics of the peripheral modern
> languages are archaic and ignores the evidence of middle turkic that many
> of these are recent inovations.
I don't "ignore" anything. The eastern origins of the TLs are
extensively supported.
>
> one point (more to follow later):
>
> Khalaj is not a continuation of Karakhanid.
>
> Khalaj preserves initial *h-, all other turkic languages don't.
>
>
>
First of all, I didn't study Khalaj, Salar, Yugur in detail, because
their vocabularies are hard to get. However, Doerfer's idea about
Khalaj is unique and is not held by anyone outside Doerfer. It seems
to be mindlessly repeated in the western sources, and shrugged upon in
the Russian ones.
Judging by the available evidence, I found no proof that Khalaj is
somehow unique among the Turkic languages. It's probably just a
slightly deviating "Oghuz" language that has even been described as
close to Azeri by some authors.
The *h- feature proves nothing. Greek had a frontal h-, as in
"hemeis", so what of it? There's no evidence this somehow goes back to
the proto-state or something. It could have developed because of an
Arabic substratum with its hamsa, for instance.
Let alone the "preservation of long vowels". Vowels are generally
unstable and change quickly over time. There can be no arguments this
is archaic in any way.
> Khalaj has * *ny* (found in Old Turkic) > n
> Karakhanid has *ny* > y
I don't really remember what you mean (I need specific examples), but
if this is true, there's no contradiction. If you followed the
article, you know that Old Turkic itself has a sort of devaiting
position among the Turkic languages, hence possibly Old Turkic > early
Karakhanid > Khalaj, and Old Turkic > early Karakhanid > Seljuk
(Oghuz). It's doesn't require Khalaj to be very special.
If anyone wants to see a really special Turkic language, he should
take a look at Yakut, Tuvan, and of course Chuvash. There you get a
sea of evidence consistent with an early separation.
Darkstar
I don't give a darn what's "generally-accepted". Never use such
arguments on me. "Generally-accepted" means a collection of TV
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,
*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
respects, has y-, although again, some sources state that certain
dialects or allophonic positions seem to have *S as well. Therefore,
even out of shear odds, we should assume that y- is secondary.
Of course, there's also evidence from other Altaic and non-Altaic
languages; the consideration of archaic TLs, etc, but that's too long
a discussion.
> also turkish preserves initial b- . m- of most other turkic languages is a
> result of a following nasal i.e. *bVn- > mVn-
The relation of the initial b- to m- in the TLs is very complex. It
seems to switch on and off across different subgroups, which indicates
that Proto-Turkic likely had a sound intermediate between b/m (*B)
that varied allophonically. Cf. modern Spanish, where v/b are not
distinguished.
PS: May I ask what your native language is? Türkçe konuşuyor musunuz?
Trond Engen
I think we've misparsed the compound 'Nutshell'.
--
Trond Engen
Harlan Messinger
> I don't give a darn what's "generally-accepted". Never use such
> arguments on me. "Generally-accepted" means a collection of TV
> factoids mindlessly repeated by idiots who never do any personal
> research, that's how this should be translated.
Yet, astoundingly, you take the time to write your own tracts presumably
because you want people to believe them without doing personal
research--and, in fact, you don't even provide the data to allow them to
try to confirm your conclusions.
In fact, given your remarks, one might wonder why you think anyone ever
writes any reports at all, if we are all supposed to learn about the
world from scratch and no one is ever supposed to learn anything from
anybody else.
Christopher Culver
> First of all, I didn't study Khalaj, Salar, Yugur in detail, because
> their vocabularies are hard to get.
Here Darkstar reminds us that he does not have access to a university
library. This fact should suffice to dissuade him from trying to make
any sort of scholarly claims, but somehow he still persists.
> However, Doerfer's idea about Khalaj is unique and is not held by
> anyone outside Doerfer. It seems to be mindlessly repeated in the
> western sources
On one hand you say no one holds that opinion, and then you admit that
lots of people hold that opinion.
>, and shrugged upon in the Russian ones.
As much as I admire that thoroughness of Russian Turcology work, most
of it dates from the 1960s, and material compiled afterwards is
usually relying exclusively from sources from the 1960s or
earlier. The wide availability of Khalaj materials came later.
> Judging by the available evidence, I found no proof that Khalaj is
> somehow unique among the Turkic languages.
Your available evidence is nil because you don't have access to a
library wherein you could get such evidence.
> The *h- feature proves nothing. Greek had a frontal h-, as in
> "hemeis", so what of it?
Greek initial h- is generally from PIE s-.
> There's no evidence this somehow goes back
> to the proto-state or something. It could have developed because of
> an Arabic substratum with its hamsa, for instance.
No Turkic languages have an Arabic substratum. If you mean Persian
substratum with lots of Arabic loanwords present, then usually glottal
stop is preserved as glottal stop (cf. Tatar).
Khalaj h- is seen as a retention because it corresponds to p- in some
Altaic loans. It helps to confirm the theory that Proto-Turkic had
initial p- and b-, but p- disappeared through the well-known shift p >
f > h > ø.
> If anyone wants to see a really special Turkic language, he should
> take a look at Yakut, Tuvan, and of course Chuvash. There you get a
> sea of evidence consistent with an early separation.
The ancestor of Chuvash separated early enough from the rest of the
Turkic languages that it is in a league of its own. Rona-Tas gives the
second or third centuries BC based on the word for "stirrup"
IIRC. Yakut and Tuvan separated much, much later, at the time of the
general breakup of Common Turkic. If they are weird, it's just because
they went through a couple of sound changes drastic in comparison to
the rest. The Yakut substrate is quite different from that the Turkic
languages to the south found.
Yusuf B Gursey
Darkstar wrote:
>
> PS: May I ask what your native language is? Türkçe konusuyor musunuz?
it's irrelevant to what I wrote, but yes, it is turkish.
BTW the correct way to ask the question is:
Türkçe biliyor musunuz?
literally do you *know* turkish. what you wrote sounds like "are you
speaking
turkish (now)?"
where does your interest in turkic languages come from?
Yusuf B Gursey
Christopher Culver wrote:
thanks!
Yusuf B Gursey
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Darkstar wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote in <h1u0uj$tt6$1...@pcls6.std.com>:
> > : In sci.lang Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> wrote in <d75f0ebd-5109-4a3a...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>:
> > : : I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
> > : : anyway:
> >
> > : : A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
> > : : languages and peoples with many illustrations:
> > : : http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
> >
> > : : The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
> > : : maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
> > : : http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classification_of_turkic_languages.html
> >
> > : the whole pages are at variance with what is generally accepted.
> >
> > : it assuemes that all the characteristics of the peripheral modern
> > : languages are archaic and ignores the evidence of middle turkic that many
> > : of these are recent inovations.
> >
> >
> > : one point (more to follow later):
> >
> > the reconstruction *sh* (assuming that is meant by S) for common turkic
> > initial y- is not generally accepted s'- of chuvash (< *dj*-) and yakut s-
> > are later developments.
>
> I don't give a darn what's "generally-accepted". Never use such
you may not, but other participants of sci.lang do.
> 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.
turkic initial y- may be any oneof the followiing protoforms:
*y-, *j-, *d- (or * *dh*-), *n- or * *ny*-
> respects, has y-, although again, some sources state that certain
> dialects or allophonic positions seem to have *S as well. Therefore,
> even out of shear odds, we should assume that y- is secondary.
>
> Of course, there's also evidence from other Altaic and non-Altaic
> languages; the consideration of archaic TLs, etc, but that's too long
> a discussion.
>
> > also turkish preserves initial b- . m- of most other turkic languages is a
> > result of a following nasal i.e. *bVn- > mVn-
>
> The relation of the initial b- to m- in the TLs is very complex. It
> seems to switch on and off across different subgroups, which indicates
> that Proto-Turkic likely had a sound intermediate between b/m (*B)
at any rate, the appearance of m- (except in two particles) depends on
the following consonant.
> that varied allophonically. Cf. modern Spanish, where v/b are not
> distinguished.
>
> PS: May I ask what your native language is? Türkçe konusuyor musunuz?
Yusuf B Gursey
Darkstar wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > In sci.lang Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> wrote in <d75f0ebd-5109-4a3a...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>:
> > : I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
> > : anyway:
> >
> > : A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
> > : languages and peoples with many illustrations:
> > : http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
> >
> > : The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
> > : maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
> > : http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classification_of_turkic_languages.html
> >
> > the whole pages are at variance with what is generally accepted.
> >
> > it assuemes that all the characteristics of the peripheral modern
> > languages are archaic and ignores the evidence of middle turkic that many
> > of these are recent inovations.
>
> I don't "ignore" anything. The eastern origins of the TLs are
> extensively supported.
I didn't say that turkic languages don't have an eastern origin.
but you base your recontstructions solely on languages without a
tradition
of literature, which means we don't know their older forms, and have
non-turkic substrates.
>
> >
> > one point (more to follow later):
> >
> > Khalaj is not a continuation of Karakhanid.
> >
> > Khalaj preserves initial *h-, all other turkic languages don't.
> >
> >
> >
>
> First of all, I didn't study Khalaj, Salar, Yugur in detail, because
> their vocabularies are hard to get. However, Doerfer's idea about
> Khalaj is unique and is not held by anyone outside Doerfer. It seems
> to be mindlessly repeated in the western sources, and shrugged upon in
> the Russian ones.
it's repeated because it is convincing to scholars.
>
> Judging by the available evidence, I found no proof that Khalaj is
> somehow unique among the Turkic languages. It's probably just a
> slightly deviating "Oghuz" language that has even been described as
> close to Azeri by some authors.
it borrowed heavily from Azeri and hence was thought it was a dialect
of
it before being closely studied.
>
> The *h- feature proves nothing. Greek had a frontal h-, as in
> "hemeis", so what of it? There's no evidence this somehow goes back to
the other poster answered it.
> the proto-state or something. It could have developed because of an
it goes back to *p- > *f- > h based on middle mongolian and tungus
evidence.
> Arabic substratum with its hamsa, for instance.
Khalaj does not have an arabic substartum. the only turkic dialects
with an arabic substratum are the colloquials of Turkish of SE
Anatolia and Iraqi Turkmen (a dialect of Azeri)
>
> Let alone the "preservation of long vowels". Vowels are generally
> unstable and change quickly over time. There can be no arguments this
> is archaic in any way.
both Karakhanid and Khalaj (among a few others) preserve proto-turkic
long vowels.
>
> > Khalaj has * *ny* (found in Old Turkic) > n
> > Karakhanid has *ny* > y
>
> I don't really remember what you mean (I need specific examples), but
IIRC Kashgari gives the example of qo:y "Sheep" (Karakhanid) vs. qo:n
for some other languages. they both come from Old Turkic qo:*ny*
> if this is true, there's no contradiction. If you followed the
> article, you know that Old Turkic itself has a sort of devaiting
> position among the Turkic languages, hence possibly Old Turkic > early
> Karakhanid > Khalaj, and Old Turkic > early Karakhanid > Seljuk
> (Oghuz). It's doesn't require Khalaj to be very special.
oghuz is also an "n" language and cannot be derived from karakhanid.
IIRC the earliest runic inscriptions have some oghuz characteristics
while the later belong to the eastern group. so oghuz split off early.
>
> If anyone wants to see a really special Turkic language, he should
> take a look at Yakut, Tuvan, and of course Chuvash. There you get a
> sea of evidence consistent with an early separation.
Yakut has a tungusic,mongolian and other unknown substratum, Tuvan a
Yeniseic and Chuvash an Uralic. so they have characteristics that
were acquired later as well as genuine archaicisms.
Yusuf B Gursey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> Darkstar wrote:
> > The *h- feature proves nothing. Greek had a frontal h-, as in
> > "hemeis", so what of it? There's no evidence this somehow goes back to
>
> the other poster answered it.
>
>
> > the proto-state or something. It could have developed because of an
>
>
> it goes back to *p- > *f- > h based on middle mongolian and tungus
> evidence.
>
> > Arabic substratum with its hamsa, for instance.
>
>
> Khalaj does not have an arabic substartum. the only turkic dialects
> with an arabic substratum are the colloquials of Turkish of SE
> Anatolia and Iraqi Turkmen (a dialect of Azeri)
well, in the caseof Iraqi Turkmen (which uses Turkish as its written
language) it's more of an arabic superstratum
Peter T. Daniels
> 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,
> *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.
I didn't notice this particular bit of idiocy before.
Linguistic reconstruction by majority vote??????
Darkstar
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> Darkstar wrote:
> > Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote in <h1u0uj$tt6$1...@pcls6.std.com>:
> > > : In sci.lang Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> wrote in <d75f0ebd-5109-4a3a...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>:
[...]
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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
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.
Initially, Proto-Chagatai was most likely directly related to the
early Kyrgyz (and therefore had /zh-/), which is discussed at some
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.]
Harlan Messinger
>
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>> Darkstar wrote:
>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>> In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote in <h1u0uj$tt6$1...@pcls6.std.com>:
>>>> : In sci.lang Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> wrote in <d75f0ebd-5109-4a3a...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>:
> [...]
>>> 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.
How is it a problem for them?
Darkstar
Christopher Culver wrote:
> Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> writes:
> > First of all, I didn't study Khalaj, Salar, Yugur in detail, because
> > their vocabularies are hard to get.
>
> Here Darkstar reminds us that he does not have access to a university
> library. This fact should suffice to dissuade him from trying to make
> any sort of scholarly claims, but somehow he still persists.
Here you remind me that you're an American army jerk, and you belong
there. Don't waist your time on me. You don't even know how to read,
judging by the fact you don't read my point. If I openly say I didn't
study some of the obscure languages, it means that I didn't study
them.
> > However, Doerfer's idea about Khalaj is unique and is not held by
> > anyone outside Doerfer. It seems to be mindlessly repeated in the
> > western sources
>
> On one hand you say no one holds that opinion, and then you admit that
> lots of people hold that opinion.
>
> >, and shrugged upon in the Russian ones.
>
> As much as I admire that thoroughness of Russian Turcology work, most
> of it dates from the 1960s, and material compiled afterwards is
> usually relying exclusively from sources from the 1960s or
> earlier. The wide availability of Khalaj materials came later.
No, you haven't read what I wrote. Go to hell.
> > Judging by the available evidence, I found no proof that Khalaj is
> > somehow unique among the Turkic languages.
>
> Your available evidence is nil because you don't have access to a
> library wherein you could get such evidence.
>
> > The *h- feature proves nothing. Greek had a frontal h-, as in
> > "hemeis", so what of it?
>
> Greek initial h- is generally from PIE s-.
It also had a secondary aspiration (as well as epenthetic vowels)
which obscure the PIE proto-forms. Armenian may also have a secondary
aspirative h-.
> > There's no evidence this somehow goes back
> > to the proto-state or something. It could have developed because of
> > an Arabic substratum with its hamsa, for instance.
>
> No Turkic languages have an Arabic substratum. If you mean Persian
> substratum with lots of Arabic loanwords present, then usually glottal
> stop is preserved as glottal stop (cf. Tatar).
That, in fact, may be correct. It may be via Persian.
> Khalaj h- is seen as a retention because it corresponds to p- in some
> Altaic loans. It helps to confirm the theory that Proto-Turkic had
> initial p- and b-, but p- disappeared through the well-known shift p >
> f > h > ø.
It demonstrates nothing because *p- is irregular in there: h- switches
on and off without much pattern, ASFAIK.
> > If anyone wants to see a really special Turkic language, he should
> > take a look at Yakut, Tuvan, and of course Chuvash. There you get a
> > sea of evidence consistent with an early separation.
>
> The ancestor of Chuvash separated early enough from the rest of the
> Turkic languages that it is in a league of its own. Rona-Tas gives the
> second or third centuries BC based on the word for "stirrup"
> IIRC. Yakut and Tuvan separated much, much later, at the time of the
> general breakup of Common Turkic. If they are weird, it's just because
> they went through a couple of sound changes drastic in comparison to
> the rest. The Yakut substrate is quite different from that the Turkic
> languages to the south found.
Here you wrote a collection of commonplace banalities, and
demonstrated that you didn't read my article. If you didn't, why talk
to me?
Darkstar
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> Darkstar wrote:
>
>
> >
> > PS: May I ask what your native language is? Türkçe konusuyor musunuz?
>
> it's irrelevant to what I wrote, but yes, it is turkish.
>
> BTW the correct way to ask the question is:
>
> Türkçe biliyor musunuz?
>
> literally do you *know* turkish. what you wrote sounds like "are you
> speaking
> turkish (now)?"
Tamam, anladim. "Speak" İngilizce bir kelime, değil mi? :-)
>
> where does your interest in turkic languages come from?
It's purely theoritical. It's been part of my Central Asian and Altaic
studies.
Yusuf B Gursey
many turkic languages have a persian substartum, yet don't preserve
etymological h- in turkic words.
>
> > Khalaj h- is seen as a retention because it corresponds to p- in some
> > Altaic loans. It helps to confirm the theory that Proto-Turkic had
> > initial p- and b-, but p- disappeared through the well-known shift p >
> > f > h > ø.
>
> It demonstrates nothing because *p- is irregular in there: h- switches
> on and off without much pattern, ASFAIK.
it "switches on and off" according to etymology.
Yusuf B Gursey
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).
Panu
> > > First of all, I didn't study Khalaj, Salar, Yugur in detail, because
> > > their vocabularies are hard to get.
>
> > Here Darkstar reminds us that he does not have access to a university
> > library. This fact should suffice to dissuade him from trying to make
> > any sort of scholarly claims, but somehow he still persists.
>
> Here you remind me that you're an American army jerk, and you belong
> there. Don't waist your time on me.
He indeed shouldn't. The fact that you are reduced to ad hominem
attacks neatly shows that you are no match to Chris Culver, who
actually has done some admirable research into Turkic (and Finno-
Ugric) languages.
Darkstar
"The many" is mostly Azeri, Qashkai, and Khalaj.
> >
> > > Khalaj h- is seen as a retention because it corresponds to p- in some
> > > Altaic loans. It helps to confirm the theory that Proto-Turkic had
> > > initial p- and b-, but p- disappeared through the well-known shift p >
> > > f > h > ø.
> >
> > It demonstrates nothing because *p- is irregular in there: h- switches
> > on and off without much pattern, ASFAIK.
>
> it "switches on and off" according to etymology.
>
>
It's funny how people neglect numorous etimologies, say, among the
Altaic or Nostratic languages, but stubbornly stick to a theory that
has no other basis than a coincidental partial match between *Hadaq
and "foot". Probably, because the Germanic languages also had a p > f
> h type of leniton, so this is what projectively occurs to Germanic
speakers.
Peter T. Daniels
> It's funny how people neglect numorous etimologies, say, among the
> Altaic or Nostratic languages, but stubbornly stick to a theory that
> has no other basis than a coincidental partial match between *Hadaq
> and "foot". Probably, because the Germanic languages also had a p > f> h type of leniton,
Do you have a reason for considering this a unique sort of
phonological change? What would prevent it from happening to any
language in the world?
Christopher Culver
> It's funny how people neglect numorous etimologies, say, among the
> Altaic or Nostratic languages, but stubbornly stick to a theory that
> has no other basis than a coincidental partial match between *Hadaq
> and "foot".
Again, the recognition that h in Khalaj is a retention from
Proto-Turkic is back up by multiple common words found in the "Altaic"
languages, and has nothing to do with a connection between *Hadaq and
the Indo-European root for "foot".
> Probably, because the Germanic languages also had a p > f
>> h type of leniton, so this is what projectively occurs to Germanic
> speakers.
The shift p > f > h is extremely common crosslinguistically, with
examples ranging from Greek to Spanish to Japanese. It's not something
exclusive to Germanic. Furthermore, while Grimm's Law does have p > f
in Germanic, where has that f changed yet to h?
Darkstar
Anyway, I perceive j- as a variation of Bulgaric/Chuvash s', there's
no contradiction.
If *y- were in the proto-form, we'd also have y- > i- > e- transitions
in many eastern archaic languages. Think about this as well! Such
transitions are largely unknown, except sometmes in yi- > i- (Uzbek il-
man, Turkish ïlï-k, ïlï-ca "warm" < Tuvan chïlïG, etc) in those
western languages where y- was already deeply rooted.
> >
> > >
> > > 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).
When we invent the time machine, I may become a believer in any kind
of special pronuciation of some obscure Old Turkic records. But before
that, that's purely fantastic and hardly factual. Neither you can find
anything like this in the Mongolic languages.
In Mongolic, we often have /sh/, /zh/ before e-, i- (Chuvash s'er,
Middle Mong. shira'u, OT yer "earth"), (Chvash s'ul, Middle Mong.
zhil, OT yïl "year").
On the other hand, apparently, Sa-, Sï-, Su- > Mong. x-/h-/0-, as in
Ch. s'ôldôr, s'âltâr > Middle Mong. xod-un "star"; Ch. s'ôm, OT. yung
> Dongxian xod-un "feather", which looks like the result of strong
aspiration in Proto-Mongolic, but this is yet uncertain. Anyway, *y-
can hardly be aspirated, but something like *sH possibly can (cf. the
evidence from Latin American Spanish).
> *n- and * *ny*- disapeared early (except in the
> word
> ne "what?" and its dervatives).
Since when is "ne" from *S-? It's probably a Turkish contraction of
*nïme or similar, found throughout many Turkic languages (Ch. mên
<*nêm (metathesis is rather common in Ch.), Khak. nime, Altai neme,
Bashkir nime, Kyrg. emne, Turkmen näme, "what?"). The word initial n-
in Proto-Turkic is very scarce.
> Khalaj has y- for etymological *y-,
Of course it does, it's either an Oghuz language, or some kind of
indirect or direct descendant of Karakhanid, which is probably nearly
the same thing. It's the OT-Karakhanid-Oghuz line of descent with a
y-, the same line where Turkish belongs.
> *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.
>
It's not. Both the Karakhanid language and the Karakhanid Khanate
( 840-1211) must have continued into the Kara-Khitan and Mongol
period. What separation?
>
> > 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.
>
Oh come on. A misread inscription in an obscure source cannot nullify
the overwhelming material readily available from other sources.
There's no linguitsic evidence "the kyrgyz were kypchakized".
Actually, the influence in Kyrgyz comes mostly from the Altai language
(cf. such isoglosses as chang : Jan "big"). It's the Kazakh who were
Kipchakized. In fact, Kyrgyz is a rather "pure" language that was
preserved very well due to a long isolation in the mountains. Some of
the Kyrgyz even still live in yurts and maintain ancient customs; they
were hardly subject to any influence at all.
> 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).
>
Well, the *lexicostatistcal* and other data show it wasn't so
continuous. The Uzbek grammar is of Kyrgyz stock ("emes" instead of
"teGül", "-gan-" istead of "-mYsh-", etc, see other features on my
site). Initially, I also belived that Chagatai is a direct
continuation of Karakhanid, but a closer analysis revealed a very
strong interaction with Middle Kyrgyz (=Karluk). That's especially
evident in lexis (see the Swadesh lists).
Darkstar
These words may very well be connected at least Nostratically
(actually, I'm sure these are connected from other evidence). The
problem is there's no argumentation, Khalaj's h- is original, so I
view this particular match is coincidental.
Darkstar
Christopher Culver wrote:
> Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> writes:
> > It's funny how people neglect numorous etimologies, say, among the
> > Altaic or Nostratic languages, but stubbornly stick to a theory that
> > has no other basis than a coincidental partial match between *Hadaq
> > and "foot".
>
> Again, the recognition that h in Khalaj is a retention from
> Proto-Turkic is back up by multiple common words found in the "Altaic"
> languages, and has nothing to do with a connection between *Hadaq and
> the Indo-European root for "foot".
>
Old Japanese pagi (foot), Korean pal is the same...
Where are these multiple words? You can look at the starling database
that has some Khalaj in it, I'm sure there'll be contradictions. I've
already done so.
But you actually don't have to look in there. I know this can't be,
because the phonological changes in Khalaj are much too small to make
it radically different from other Oghuz languages. Deviating languages
not only retain archaisms they also have DRASCTIC phono-, lexical, etc
INNOVATIONS, and look and sound DIFFERENT! For instance, Chuvash "ora"
does exhibit such innovative deviations, so we do see the Bulgaric
languages separated early on even without taking a closer look at
Chuvash...
Darkstar
You're almost on a permanent ignore, Phogland. Don't waist your time
with the starlets. As I've said at cybolist, I don't care about
authority in science (it's the basics of logic); it only matters
whether one is abe to produce any sensible argumented talk here and
now.
Harlan Messinger
Your reading comprehension in this respect is nil. Panu referred to
*research* that Chris Culver has done and that you can look at. There is
no appeal to authority here.
Darkstar
Citing unavailable research is also a logical fallacy. If you're all
such experts on Khalaj, it's gonna be easy for u to cite all data "as
is".
Actually, Anna Dybo (c. 2005) has done the lexicostatistics on Khalaj
(Swadesh-100). She also placed it in what she calls "the "broad
Oghuz", or what I call "the descendants of Old Turkic". In other
words, it's not something outstanding, just one of the Oghuz relatives.
Darkstar
Citing unavailable research is also a logical fallacy. If you're all
Harlan Messinger
Your stance is, "I want to you to look at and be impressed by my
analyses, and in doing so I expect you to ignore everything you've ever
read elsewhere about anything that you haven't observed yourself, and I
don't expect you to challenge me based on any research that I haven't
read myself." In other words, The Whole World Revolves Around You. This
is a really stupid game, and I don't know why you'd expect anyone to play.
Ruud Harmsen
<crcu...@christopherculver.com>: in sci.lang:
>The shift p > f > h is extremely common crosslinguistically, with
>examples ranging from Greek to Spanish to Japanese. It's not something
>exclusive to Germanic. Furthermore, while Grimm's Law does have p > f
>in Germanic, where has that f changed yet to h?
Dutch, if you take [X] as a kind of h.
Gracht (from graven), schacht (cf. English shaft), etc. But reversely:
tocht (English: draught), gelach (laughter).
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Darkstar
Don't give me crap. Besides, as Yusuf Gursey acknowledged, my results
are not so radically different from what is already known. It only
introduces some corrections, which is the sine qua non of any research.
Peter T. Daniels
The particular examples are entirely irrelevant.
The point is that lenition is a completely normal, natural, and
widespread sort of phonological change.
Darkstar
Yes, but it's funny how a person with a German name managed to pick it
up among many other phonological changes that would be just as normal,
widespread, and natural.
Darkstar
Actually, this is called: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
Harlan Messinger
If it's crap, it's only because the admonitions from you that it
summarizes are crap.
> Besides, as Yusuf Gursey acknowledged, my results
> are not so radically different from what is already known. It only
> introduces some corrections, which is the sine qua non of any research.
Non sequitur.
Darkstar
It = the work
It - > They (the results)
Peter T. Daniels
What "person with a German name" did so?
Are you so blatant a racist as that?
Darkstar
:-) Doerfer did. Don't worry, I'm not a racist.
Darkstar
I've been trying to remember which *y-words begin with n- that you've
mentioned. It's probably some kind of mistake, because there are so
few. I have found this example, for instance: OT yinchkä, Turkish
ince, Nogai yiNiske, Uzbek iNichka (N=ng), Uyghur inchika, but Tatar
nechkä, Khakas niske "thin". Obviously, these are independent
contractions in a long word in Tatar *yinichkä > nichkä; and Khakas
*chiNiske > niske. Bashkir, closely related to Tatar, has a different
contraction: yoka. And, Kyrgyz also has yet another contraction: ichke
But, Yakut sin'niges, Chuvash s'inzhe, Tuvan chinge, Kazakh zhiNishke,
hence probably *SiNichke, whence, in my opinion, OT yinchkä and Proto-
Kimak-KIpchak *iNichka (as in the above).
It's difficult to figure this out, but this n- is, most likely, not
original, it's merely a contractive or a metathetic change.
Panu
I think Darkstar is an allround asshole. A racist is a specific kind
of asshole.
Christopher Culver
> Yes, but it's funny how a person with a German name managed to pick it
> up among many other phonological changes that would be just as normal,
> widespread, and natural.
While Doerfer has done much to gather Khalaj material, the hypothesis
that the Turkic languages underwent p > f > h > ø predates him and is
held by nearly all Turkicists. Róna-Tas for example has written on it,
see page 71 of the Routledge survey of the Turkic languages. (But you
don't have access to a library anyway, so citations are wasted on
you.) Are you going to call Hungarians Germans?
Trond Engen
> Actually, Anna Dybo (c. 2005) has done the lexicostatistics on Khalaj
> (Swadesh-100). She also placed it in what she calls "the "broad
> Oghuz", or what I call "the descendants of Old Turkic". In other
> words, it's not something outstanding, just one of the Oghuz
> relatives.
How does one use Swadesh list lexicostatistics to do that?
--
Trond Engen
Darkstar
Christopher Culver wrote:
> Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> writes:
> > Yes, but it's funny how a person with a German name managed to pick it
> > up among many other phonological changes that would be just as normal,
> > widespread, and natural.
>
> While Doerfer has done much to gather Khalaj material, the hypothesis
> that the Turkic languages underwent p > f > h > ø predates him and is
> held by nearly all Turkicists.
Including me, but that has nothing to with Khalaj.
> Róna-Tas for example has written on it,
> see page 71 of the Routledge survey of the Turkic languages. (But you
> don't have access to a library anyway, so citations are wasted on
> you.) Are you going to call Hungarians Germans?
Who cares who-wrote-on-what?!? I don't read these articles because I
don't care for their personal opinions. I re-check and re-figure out
everything on my own. What will change if I read it?...
It's the FACTS that matter. I'll repeat this until this finally it
sinks in. IT'S THE FACTS THAT MATTER!
What *are* the facts? There are no facts that indicate the Khalaj
branch is much older than the early Karakhanid. Such facts are non-
existent. You can't list them, you can't find them, there are probably
none, so don't try to impress me with some obscure articles that you
don't understand yourself.
Darkstar
By adding up cognates, calculating the percentages and building a
dendrogram.
Yusuf B Gursey
I acknowledged no such thing. you turn turkic studies topsy turvy and that
includes not only your linguistic material but also your historical
material which I will get into in due time.
: are not so radically different from what is already known. It only
Trond Engen
> Trond Engen wrote:
>
>> Darkstar:
>>
>>> Actually, Anna Dybo (c. 2005) has done the lexicostatistics on
>>> Khalaj (Swadesh-100). She also placed it in what she calls "the
>>> "broad Oghuz", or what I call "the descendants of Old Turkic". In
>>> other words, it's not something outstanding, just one of the Oghuz
>>> relatives.
>>
>> How does one use Swadesh list lexicostatistics to do that?
>
> By adding up cognates, calculating the percentages and building a
> dendrogram.
Surely not? Without any further sophistication of the method a high
score would seem to indicate, if anything, a cultural community rather
than genetic affiliation. Maybe that's what she means by 'Broad Oghuz'?
--
Trond Engen
Darkstar
Darkstar wrote:
> I'm not sure if you're interested, but I should leave these links
> anyway:
>
> A general ethnological and historical description of the Turkic
> languages and peoples with many illustrations:
> http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/
>
> The argumentation for the internal classification dendrograms and the
> maps of the early hypothetical migrations of the Turkic peoples:
> http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/migration_and_classification_of_turkic_languages.html
I want to possibly add some more controversy to the thread by
repeating some of the revised basics and adding a few more details.
It's clear by now that Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic had separated by c. 500 BC
[My glottochronological date is c. 600 BC but that's fuzzy — okay,
fine, it was somwhere around that date, we don't know for sure]. We
don't know where that happened, but it seems to be somewhere in
eastern Kazakhstan.
What happened next is that the Bulgaric branch must have moved toward
Europe [there are no clear historical facts attesting that "Bulgars"
ever traveled to Siberia, so for reasons of simplicity, this seems to
be plausible], whereas the Proto-Turkic Proper migrated toward the
Altai-Sayan Mountains where it likely formed what is known as the
Pazyryk culture datable to c. 500-200 BC, which is normally ascribed
to the "Siberian Scythians". It is an extremely rich archaeological
culture with many gold objects, horse-drawn carts with spoked wheels,
the oldest carpets in the world, and mummies preserved in permafrost.
It seems to be plausible to identify it with the Proto-Turkic world,
since they seem to coincide in space and time.
By c. 200 BC (another glottochronological value) this Pazyryk, or
Proto-Turkic Proper ethnic group, had diversified into three or four
main branches:
(1) Proto-Sakha (= Proto-Yakut) that migrated toward Lake Baikal;
(2) Proto-Yenisei-Kyrgyz that stayed in the Sayan Mountains for some
time, but soon split up into Proto-Khakas and Proto-Tuvan before the
beginning of the common era;
(3) Proto-Orkhon (= Proto-Old-Turkic) that moved to Mongolia [we might
even tentatively assume that this group has something to do with the
so called Xiongnu, but no direct evidence exists].
These are the conclusions that may drawn from the factual material
available...
Darkstar
Don't exaggerate. If what I say is slighly reinterpreted and doesn't
coincide with the basic highschool course, it doesn't mean there's
anything wrong with it.
Darkstar
Okay, one either trusts lexicostatistical-glottochronological results
or not. I cannot go herein into a lengthy explanation why they are
supposed to work. I won't convince you anyway.
Harlan Messinger
>
> Christopher Culver wrote:
>> Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> writes:
>>> Yes, but it's funny how a person with a German name managed to pick it
>>> up among many other phonological changes that would be just as normal,
>>> widespread, and natural.
>> While Doerfer has done much to gather Khalaj material, the hypothesis
>> held by nearly all Turkicists.
>
> Including me, but that has nothing to with Khalaj.
>
>> see page 71 of the Routledge survey of the Turkic languages. (But you
>> don't have access to a library anyway, so citations are wasted on
>> you.) Are you going to call Hungarians Germans?
>
> Who cares who-wrote-on-what?!? I don't read these articles because I
> don't care for their personal opinions. I re-check and re-figure out
> everything on my own. What will change if I read it?...
>
> It's the FACTS that matter. I'll repeat this until this finally it
> sinks in. IT'S THE FACTS THAT MATTER!
Except you just told us that you don't read these articles that, as far
as you know, contain many, many facts about which you are unaware,
because you don't like the writers' opinions. So you are ignoring facts
out of sheer peevishness. Do you not see a big, fat fallacy there?
Harlan Messinger
>
> Christopher Culver wrote:
>> Darkstar <darks...@front.ru> writes:
>>> Yes, but it's funny how a person with a German name managed to pick it
>>> up among many other phonological changes that would be just as normal,
>>> widespread, and natural.
>> While Doerfer has done much to gather Khalaj material, the hypothesis
>> held by nearly all Turkicists.
>
> Including me, but that has nothing to with Khalaj.
>
>> see page 71 of the Routledge survey of the Turkic languages. (But you
>> don't have access to a library anyway, so citations are wasted on
>> you.) Are you going to call Hungarians Germans?
>
> Who cares who-wrote-on-what?!? I don't read these articles because I
> don't care for their personal opinions. I re-check and re-figure out
> everything on my own. What will change if I read it?...
>
> It's the FACTS that matter. I'll repeat this until this finally it
> sinks in. IT'S THE FACTS THAT MATTER!
You seem to believe you're the first person in the entire universe every
to think of this, and that no one else has ever examined facts before.
Darkstar
Theoritical articles usually don't contain any facts. Linguistic facts
are contained in vocabularies and grammar books or empirically-
oriented works ...
Harlan Messinger
LOL. Do you think your articles *aren't* "theoretical"? What do you
think the framework within which scientists work out their theories
consists of?
> Linguistic facts
> are contained in vocabularies and grammar books or empirically-
> oriented works ...
Out of which they spring spontaneously without human intervention, no
doubt, because according to you actual humans who study the subject
don't actually know anything about it.
Darkstar
My article is written for me. I'm not selling it to anybody, so I
don't care if you aren't buying it. What experts should do is consider
all the facts and then independently write a study on the same issue.
The results that would overlap, would be a minimum statistically
stable opinion of these experts on a given subject. For instance, my
lexicostatistical results largely overlap with those of Dybo and
Dyachok, which means that they are more or less stable, and none of us
made them up. The "maximum opinion" would be that of the best expert
with the maximum number of detailed and refined arguments.
Harlan Messinger
I'd believe this if your reaction to the people disputing your work were
silence. Instead, you've spent the last few days pounding your chest.
> What experts should do is consider
> all the facts and then independently write a study on the same issue.
How remarkable--that *is* what they do. You persist in your belief that
this is a novel concept of your own invention.
Peter T. Daniels
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> > Darkstar wrote:
>
> > > Harlan Messinger wrote:
> > >> Darkstar wrote:
> > >>> Christopher Culver wrote:
Was it not you who posted it to a publicly available website, and
initiated this thread by inviting anyone to go read it?
> so I
> don't care if you aren't buying it. What experts should do is consider
> all the facts and then independently write a study on the same issue.
> The results that would overlap, would be a minimum statistically
> stable opinion of these experts on a given subject. For instance, my
> lexicostatistical results largely overlap with those of Dybo and
> Dyachok, which means that they are more or less stable, and none of us
> made them up. The "maximum opinion" would be that of the best expert
> with the maximum number of detailed and refined arguments.-
Peter T. Daniels
No one who has considered the subject carefully "supposes" that they
work.
They are based on the incorrect assumption that vocabulary changes at
a fixed rate.
Christopher Culver
> It's clear by now that Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic had separated by c. 500
> BC
Unlikely, due to the word for "stirrup".
> What happened next is that the Bulgaric branch must have moved
> toward Europe [there are no clear historical facts attesting that
> "Bulgars" ever traveled to Siberia, so for reasons of simplicity,
> this seems to be plausible]
If speakers of a language of Bulgar/Chuvash type never traveled to
Siberia, how do you explain the Turkic loanwords in Samoyed showing r
instead of z?
Furthermore, there are Turkic loanwords in Mongolian showing r instead
of z, suggesting contact with a distinct Chuvash-type language, and as
the Mongolian Urheimat is north of the present country of Mongolia, it
would appear that Chuvash-type languages were spoken that far north in
Asia.
Yusuf B Gursey
>
I am not exagerating. and they don't teach turkic studies in high
school.
Yusuf B Gursey
> > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> > > > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> no contradiction.
>
> If *y- were in the proto-form, we'd also have y- > i- > e- transitions
> in many eastern archaic languages. Think about this as well! Such
> transitions are largely unknown, except sometmes in yi- > i- (Uzbek il-
> man, Turkish ïlï-k, ïlï-ca "warm" < Tuvan chïlïG, etc) in those
> western languages where y- was already deeply rooted.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > turkic initial y- may be any oneof the followiing protoforms:
>
> > > > *y-, *j-, *d- (or * *dh*-), *n- or * *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).
>
> When we invent the time machine, I may become a believer in any kind
> of special pronuciation of some obscure Old Turkic records. But before
> that, that's purely fantastic and hardly factual. Neither you can find
> anything like this in the Mongolic languages.
>
> In Mongolic, we often have /sh/, /zh/ before e-, i- (Chuvash s'er,
> Middle Mong. shira'u, OT yer "earth"), (Chvash s'ul, Middle Mong.
> zhil, OT yïl "year").
>
> On the other hand, apparently, Sa-, Sï-, Su- > Mong. x-/h-/0-, as in
> Ch. s'ôldôr, s'âltâr > Middle Mong. xod-un "star"; Ch. s'ôm, OT. yung> Dongxian xod-un "feather", which looks like the result of strong
>
> aspiration in Proto-Mongolic, but this is yet uncertain. Anyway, *y-
> can hardly be aspirated, but something like *sH possibly can (cf. the
> evidence from Latin American Spanish).
>
> > *n- and * *ny*- disapeared early (except in the
> > word
> > ne "what?" and its dervatives).
>
> Since when is "ne" from *S-? It's probably a Turkish contraction of
> *nïme or similar, found throughout many Turkic languages (Ch. mên
> <*nêm (metathesis is rather common in Ch.), Khak. nime, Altai neme,
> Bashkir nime, Kyrg. emne, Turkmen näme, "what?"). The word initial n-
> in Proto-Turkic is very scarce.
>
> > Khalaj has y- for etymological *y-,
>
> Of course it does, it's either an Oghuz language, or some kind of
> indirect or direct descendant of Karakhanid, which is probably nearly
> the same thing. It's the OT-Karakhanid-Oghuz line of descent with a
> y-, the same line where Turkish belongs.
>
> > *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.
>
> It's not. Both the Karakhanid language and the Karakhanid Khanate
> ( 840-1211) must have continued into the Kara-Khitan and Mongol
> period. What separation?
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Oh come on. A misread inscription in an obscure source cannot nullify
> the overwhelming material readily available from other sources.
> There's no linguitsic evidence "the kyrgyz were kypchakized".
> Actually, the influence in Kyrgyz comes mostly from the Altai language
> (cf. such isoglosses as chang : Jan "big"). It's the Kazakh who were
> Kipchakized. In fact, Kyrgyz is a rather "pure" language that was
> preserved very well due to a long isolation in the mountains. Some of
> the Kyrgyz even still live in yurts and maintain ancient customs; they
> were hardly subject to any influence at all.
>
> > 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).
>
> Well, the *lexicostatistcal* and other data show it wasn't so
> continuous. The Uzbek grammar is of Kyrgyz stock ("emes" instead of
yes, there were changes, but the record of changes is fairly
continuous.
and yes, there were Kypchak influences on Uzbek, including the
ethnonym "Uzbek" from O"zbeg Khan of the Golden Horde.
> "teGül", "-gan-" istead of "-mYsh-", etc, see other features on my
these are not confind to "Kyrgyz stock"
> site). Initially, I also belived that Chagatai is a direct
> continuation of Karakhanid, but a closer analysis revealed a very
> strong interaction with Middle Kyrgyz (=Karluk). That's especially
> evident in lexis (see the Swadesh lists).- Hide quoted text -
>
Yusuf B Gursey
what is called "Chaghatay" appeared later.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Oh come on. A misread inscription in an obscure source cannot nullify
> the overwhelming material readily available from other sources.
> There's no linguitsic evidence "the kyrgyz were kypchakized".
> Actually, the influence in Kyrgyz comes mostly from the Altai language
> (cf. such isoglosses as chang : Jan "big"). It's the Kazakh who were
> Kipchakized. In fact, Kyrgyz is a rather "pure" language that was
> preserved very well due to a long isolation in the mountains. Some of
the homeland of the original Qyrqyz was in southern siberia, and there
is talk that they came there from somewhere else.
> the Kyrgyz even still live in yurts and maintain ancient customs; they
> were hardly subject to any influence at all.
>
> > 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).
>
> Well, the *lexicostatistcal* and other data show it wasn't so
> continuous. The Uzbek grammar is of Kyrgyz stock ("emes" instead of
> "teGül", "-gan-" istead of "-mYsh-", etc, see other features on my
Yusuf B Gursey
I didn't say there was an *S . turkic y- or j- come from the above
phonemes.
> *nïme or similar, found throughout many Turkic languages (Ch. mên
it's irrelevant whetehr it is a contraction or not. it is also the
root of the word ne*ng* "thing". the point is that's the only root
> <*nêm (metathesis is rather common in Ch.), Khak. nime, Altai neme,
> Bashkir nime, Kyrg. emne, Turkmen näme, "what?"). The word initial n-
> in Proto-Turkic is very scarce.
indeed it is, but a couple of putative archaic turkic loanwords in
other langauges and comparision with languages like mongolian show
that it was once present. but it changed into y- very early.
>
> > Khalaj has y- for etymological *y-,
>
> Of course it does, it's either an Oghuz language, or some kind of
but it has derivatives of *j- for proto-turkic *j- or *d-
Yusuf B Gursey
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > Darkstar wrote:
> > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> > > > Darkstar wrote:
> > > > > Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > > > > : In sci.lang Darkstar <darkstar...@front.ru> wrote in <d75f0ebd-5109-4a3a-947b-7c0b75982...@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>:
you have to make comparisions with mongolian etc.
> few. I have found this example, for instance: OT yinchkä, Turkish
> ince, Nogai yiNiske, Uzbek iNichka (N=ng), Uyghur inchika, but Tatar
> nechkä, Khakas niske "thin". Obviously, these are independent
Khakas has the later development n- < y- if the following consonant is
-n-
> contractions in a long word in Tatar *yinichkä > nichkä; and Khakas
> *chiNiske > niske. Bashkir, closely related to Tatar, has a different
> contraction: yoka. And, Kyrgyz also has yet another contraction: ichke
>
> But, Yakut sin'niges, Chuvash s'inzhe, Tuvan chinge, Kazakh zhiNishke,
> hence probably *SiNichke, whence, in my opinion, OT yinchkä and Proto-
> Kimak-KIpchak *iNichka (as in the above).
>
> It's difficult to figure this out, but this n- is, most likely, not
> original, it's merely a contractive or a metathetic change.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yusuf B Gursey
wrote:
yes.
> Darkstar <darkstar...@front.ru> writes:
> > It's clear by now that Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic had separated by c. 500
> > BC
>
> Unlikely, due to the word for "stirrup".
>
> > What happened next is that the Bulgaric branch must have moved
> > toward Europe [there are no clear historical facts attesting that
> > "Bulgars" ever traveled to Siberia, so for reasons of simplicity,
> > this seems to be plausible]
>
> If speakers of a language of Bulgar/Chuvash type never traveled to
> Siberia, how do you explain the Turkic loanwords in Samoyed showing r
> instead of z?
>
this may have come about when turkic /z/ was *r2 thropughout.
Yusuf B Gursey
> > > It's funny how people neglect numorous etimologies, say, among the
> > > Altaic or Nostratic languages, but stubbornly stick to a theory that
> > > has no other basis than a coincidental partial match between *Hadaq
> > > and "foot".
>
> > Proto-Turkic is back up by multiple common words found in the "Altaic"
> > languages, and has nothing to do with a connection between *Hadaq and
> > the Indo-European root for "foot".
>
> Old Japanese pagi (foot), Korean pal is the same...
>
> Where are these multiple words? You can look at the starling database
> that has some Khalaj in it, I'm sure there'll be contradictions. I've
> already done so.
>
> But you actually don't have to look in there. I know this can't be,
> because the phonological changes in Khalaj are much too small to make
> it radically different from other Oghuz languages. Deviating languages
by "oghuz" languages you seem to mean what turkologists regard as
relatively conservative turkic languages.
> not only retain archaisms they also have DRASCTIC phono-, lexical, etc
> INNOVATIONS, and look and sound DIFFERENT! For instance, Chuvash "ora"
meaning "foot". but that is dated to the late first millenium or
probably early second millenium. persian words with -d- also exhibit
the change > -*dh*- > *-z- > -r- .
there is good evidence that it once was azaq .
> does exhibit such innovative deviations, so we do see the Bulgaric
such devaitions may be quite recent.
> languages separated early on even without taking a closer look at
> Chuvash...