Preview

Oriental Studies

Advanced search

How the plural affix was changed in the Turkic languages over the last 150 years

https://doi.org/10.22162/2619-0990-2020-50-4-1121-1134

Abstract

Introduction. As recent research works show, scholars tend to disagree about the origin of the Kipchak plural form. K. M. Musaev hypothesizes that the Proto-Kipchak form of this affix was *-tar/*-ter whereas, according to O. A. Mudrak, the protolanguage form was *-lar/*-ler. Indeed, it seems impossible to reconstruct the form of the plural affix for the *-n, *-ŋ, *-m, *-C-stem words based on the modern data for the Kipchak languages. Furthermore, the Proto-Turkic reconstruction of the plural affix for these stems is also unclear. Purpose of research: It follows that a systematic analysis of the forms of the plural affix with different stems in the first books in the Kipchak languages (Tatar, Bashkir, Kazakh, Teleut, Tubalar) will help to 1) reconstruct their Proto-Kipchak and Proto-Turkic forms, 2) date the changes in the suffixes, 3) determine if these changes were areal in nature. Materials and methods: The grammars of the modern Turkic languages as well as the first Cyrillic books in Tatar, Bashkir, Kazakh, Altai, Teleut, Tubalar have been analyzed using a comparative historical method. Results: The analysis reveals that the late Proto-Turkic form of the plural affix remained unchanged in most of the Turkic languages. In some of the Kipchak languages (Kazakh, Kyrgyz, certain dialects of Bashkir and Altai) located at the junction of the “-lVr-form vs.- tVr-form of the plural affix” territories, the *-lVr-form (in voiceless *-C-stems) and the *-nVr-form (in *-n, *-ŋ, *-m-stems) changed into *-tVr. Conclusion: The material of the first Kazakh books in Cyrillic shows that the change in the Kipchak plural affix in voiceless *-C-stem and in *-n, *-ŋ, *-m-stem words was quite late, took place due to contacts with the Kyrgyzs, and was not yet complete at the end of the 19th century.

About the Authors

Yulia V. Normanskaya
Institute of linguistic RAS
Russian Federation
Dr. Sc. (Philology), Head


Anar A. Gadzhieva
Military university
Russian Federation
Cand. Sc. (Philology)


References

1. Bessonov A. G. ABC book for the Bashkirs. Kazan: Central typography, 1907. 47 p (In Bashkir.)

2. ABC book for the Bashkirs. Orenburg: type-lithography of Breslin, 1892. 58 p. (InBashkir.)

3. ABC book for the Kyrgyzes. Bukuar. Kazan: Central typography, 1908. 37 p. (In Kyrgyz.)

4. Grammar of the Altai language, compiled by members of the Altai mission. Kazan: University typography, 1869. 298 p. (In Russ.)

5. The Holy Gospel in the Bashkir language. Kazan: BIBO, 1902. 302 p. (In Bashkir.)

6. Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Tatar language. Kazan: typography of M. A. Chirkova’s heirs 1908. 333 p. (In Tatar.)

7. Karimova R. N., Latypova R. M. Written sources in the Bashkir language of the late 19th ― the early 20th century. Ural-Altaic Studies. 2016. No 1 (20). Pp. 41–52. (In Russ.)

8. Cristianization of Russia in the Kirghiz language. Aulie knʹaz Vladimir tura dinge bzi de krip; orys kalkyn-da krgizgeni. Kazan: typography

9. of M. A. Chirkovа’s heirs, 1892. 27 p. (In Kyrgyz.)

10. Nurieva F. Sh. The dialectal base of the books written in “christened Tatar” in the latter half of the 19th century. Ural-Altaic Studies. 2015. No 2 (17). Pp. 67–73. (In Russ.)

11. Nurieva F. Sh. A linguistic monument of the Sergach Mishars’ dialect: a confession text from the 19th century. 2017. No 3 (26). Pp. 161–173.

12. Akıl bere tugun knege. From the book of Wisdom of Sirach. Kazan: V. M. Kljuchnikov’s typography and lithography, 1891. 55 p. (In Kyrgyz.)

13. The Sacred history from the creation of the world to the death of Joseph according to the book of Genesis, in the Tatar language. Kazan, 1862. 137 p.(In Tatar.)

14. Comparative-historical grammar of Turkic languages: Regional reconstructions. E. R. Tenishev (ed.). Moscow: Nauka, 2002. 769 p. (In Russ.)

15. Comparative-historical grammar of Turkic languages. Proto-Turkic base language. A Proto-Turk’s world-view. E. R. Tenishev &A. V. Dybo (ed.). Moscow: Nauka,2006. 912 p. (In Russ.)

16. Tursunova M. A. About plural forms in Turkic languages: synchronistic and diachronic aspects // Philological Sciences. Theory and practice.

17. Tambov: Gramota, 2012. No 3. Pp. 93–95. (In Russ.)

18. On the afterlife according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church in the Bashkir language. Kazan:Typography of Imperator’s University,1899. 79 p. (In Russ.)

19. Shajmerdinova N. G. Analysis of consonant system in the Kazakh written monuments of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Ural-Altaic Studies. 2016. No 4 (23). Pp. 128–137. (In Russ.)

20. Ekba Z. N., Normanskaya Yu. V., Karimova R.N. Three dialects in the “Primer for Bashkirs” by A. G. Bessonova / / Ural-Altai Studies 2019.

21. No. 2 (33). pp. 101-111.(In Russ.)


Review

For citations:


Normanskaya Yu., Gadzhieva A. How the plural affix was changed in the Turkic languages over the last 150 years. Oriental Studies. 2020;13(4):1121-1134. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22162/2619-0990-2020-50-4-1121-1134

Views: 423


ISSN 2619-0990 (Print)
ISSN 2619-1008 (Online)