Ogur and Oguz
Türkic and European Genetic distance
Classification of Türkic languages
Indo-European, Dravidian, and Rigveda
Türkic, Slavic and Iranian
Türkic in English
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Türkic in Slavic
|Book Contents||Chapter 10 GENESIS OF TÜRKIC RUNIC ALPHABET|
The English translation renders the sound "y" (like in York) with letter "y", but in his Latinized spelling the author may be using "j"to express this sound. Where the English traditional spelling is with "y", the "y" spelling was used in translation. However, the sound transitions shown by the author include j's that were retained in the translation with a strong suspicion that they in fact represent "y" (like in York), and not "j" as in "jealousy", i.g. the author's "d, z, j and r" may have to be read as "d, z, y and r". Except for the author's sound conversion examples, the English translation renders "j" for the sound "j" like in "Fuji film, jealousy" (including roots and syllables "aj", "oj", "uj" etc.). Where the author used conventional Cyrillic or quasi-Cyrillic letters, the translation renders them in Latin with English accent: sh for š/ş, ch for č/ç, etc. Otherwise, the plethora of author's Latinized diacritical marks is retained as much as possible, even though the value of phonetical finesse is unclear when the value of the underlying phonetical reading is an untestable chain of inferences with different probabilities.
Without explicit explanation, the author takes Chagatai (aka Jagatai) in parentheses. Presumably, that is intended to indicate that "Chagatai" is a political, and not a linguistic term, and then linguistically the "Chagatai" is predominantly Uigur/Karluk language.
Translator's Notes are shown in blue italics. And I have used abbreviation "anct." for "ancient", evidently not a common abbreviation, unlike "antc." for " antique". I felt that to use "antc." for the Sumer-time Türkic would presumptuous and imposing too much on the legacy of 2 millenniums younger ancients of the Ancient Greeks.
SUMER-TÜRKIC ACCORDANCES AND GRAPHIC LOGOGRAMS
"SUMER"-TÜRKIC COINCIDENCES AND GRAPHICAL LOGOGRAMS
The language of city settlements of a southern Messopotamia or Sumer at the boundary 4th-3rd of millenniums BC, the language of creators of logographical script (Wortschrift "script of words") and Babilonian cuneiform is a sacred language that received a name "Sumerian" 1, belongs to the most ancient documented written languages of the world. Despite numerous attempts to find the genetic group for the Sumerian language, its relationship with any other language is now considered undetermined 2. The hypothesis of F.Hommel 3 about a relationship of the Sumerian with the Altai languages (and even with Ural-Altai languages as a whole) was supported by a Soviet historian S.P. Tolstov 4, but somehow it manages to remain unproven. Moreover, the random comparisons, made by F.Hommel, buried a "rational grain", like the matching Sumerian dingir "Gott" with the ancient Türkic tangri "Himmel". As a Türkolog, I was attracted by an opportunity to examine anew this hypothesis, mainly, for comparison of the Sumerian and patently Türkic lexicon 5. It resulted in additional introduction of more than twenty indisputable lexical coincidences between the Sumerian and Türkic languages that ascend to a proto-Türkic language or a status of the language even before the migration of the "Sumerians"to the Messopotamia (4th millennium BC):
1 DINGIR (diηir, digir)
"god" [most ancient
graphic sign - symbol
"star ~ sky ~ god"],
2 DUMU "son; child",
3 UD "day;
4 DUG "good
5 UTU "sun" (most ancient Sumerian ideogram
logogram 12 symbolizing this word, closely
resembles the image of a solar boat of the Egyptian god Ra
is a verbal adjective ütü with a restorable
meaning of "scorching, burning (sear, heat) "(an
initial form in Chuvash is vëtele "1) scorch, singe, burn;
2) indirect rip",
6 EGIR (eger) "back; buttocks" (graphic logogram
a bottom part of the back, seat/tush)
8 Ù "sleep"
9 ÙG - ukù "tribe",
10 BARÀG "shrine",
11 NIG "thing"
TAG "to touch"
SUG "bog, swamp, slough (water)/bayou",
15 SAG (saη, sag) "head;
leader" (graphic logogram
a human head),
IL "to hook; to lock (?), (graphic logogram
a left leg is snared by right leg),
GUD "bull" (graphic logogram
is a symbolical image of head of a bull or bullock),
GAG "tip" (a primary graphic logogram
a wedged peg or a triangle, transformed in the Babylonian
cuneiform script to an ideogram or a semantic logogram,
i.e. to a sign for associating concepts),
GIS (ηiš, giš) "tree",
SAL "vulva; woman" (graphic logogram
in Hittite cuneiform writing respectively is ideogram ŚAL)
ERİN (erén) "army"
ER ~ IR (ér) "membrum virile; man" (graphic
SILÂ "lamb" (graphic logogram
horn of a ram - is rightly classed by A.A.Vaiman 30 as
a prototype for an early cuneiform sign
The above "Sumer"-Türkic matches, as we tried to demonstrate, form a certain system, explainable from the positions of historical phonetics of the Türkic languages. The cardinal phonetical laws of the Türkic languages, because of these matches, display an extremely complex development panorama from proto-Türkic language or a language condition (Sumerian written monuments from the boundary of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, excluding the monuments of the dead Sumerian language, a sacred language of Babilonian and Assyrian Semites down to present), via the ancient Türkic dialects, to the modern Türkic languages.
The systematic character of the most ancient Sumerian
coincidences allows to posit that a part of proto-Türks of the Central Asia
migrated to Mesopotamia 31, settled there, and
affected the language and accordingly the graphic logograms of proto-Sumerian written monuments.
* * *
These observations, reported in the presentation at the 12th session of the International Alataistic conference in Berlin, were first published in 197432. A prominent Sumerolog A.A.Vaiman ((Russian) State Hermitage Oriental Department) appraised this material in 1970, and recommended to publish it abroad as an article, but however had friendly counseled me against including the Sumerian-Türkic coincidences in my monograph for a Doctor of Science degree. In the same 1970 I had imprudently shared my insights with a writer and a history fan Oljas Suleimenov. Later he published his sensational book "Asia"(As-i-Ya) (Alma-Ata, 1975), where he declared bravely: "When for the Sumer they beat you in the liver, you stand for it as for your own Motherland. And you take responsibility as for your own Motherland" (p. 199). However, pretty soon he had to publish in the (Communist) Party press a public repentance.
The subjects that were forbidden in the Soviet Türkology in the meantime were successfully explored abroad. In the 1997 an outstanding Türkologist O.N.Tuna published in Ankara his scientific research titled "Sümer ve Türk dillerinin târihî ilgisi ile Türk dili'nin yaşi meselesi" ("Historical connection of Sumerian and Türkic languages and a problem of the Türkic language age"). We had a chance to meet and exchange opinions at the Türkological conferences in Almaty (1990) and Ankara (1993) with the author of that work, a recognized historian of the language, about this problem. The new facts evidenced positively that our interest in the Sumerian material has been natural and scientifically justified.
As a result of long-term research performed by the Türkish colleague (partly in the leading universities of the USA), were revealed 16 phonetical matches between the Sumerian and ancient Türkic languages, with confirming exhibits for 165 Sumerian words. The phonetical correlations, such as initial g- ~ zero sound, d ~ d > j in the middle and at the end of the word, g ~ γ ~ η in the middle and the end the words noted previously by us, received additional confirmation and explanation from him.
Between the compared languages were uncovered anew the
phonetic correlations indisputable in our opinion:
Late O.N.Tuna came to extremely important conclusions (sited below in our translation):
"1. Sumerian and Türkic languages in a very remote time could be related or unrelated, here this question does not interest us. However, on the basis of the mass of 165 words and accompanying explanations is proved the case that in a linguistical aspect between Sumerians and Türks transpires a historical connection.
2. It is established that at least in 3500 BC the Türks are found in the eastern part of Turkey. What were the northern, eastern and western borders of this territory I am going to address in a separate research.
3. Is proved the existence of the Türkic language as an independent language with two branches 5500 years
before present. If the decay rate is constant from the birth
to the contact with the Sumerians, the base of the proto-Türkic or Türkic
language conceivably existed a long period before. This conclusion
can be compared with my statement that "its age, by minimal
calculations, is 8,500
years", formulated in the process of my research in Türkic language, archeology and glottochronology in my work
"Theory of Altai languages" ("Altai Dilleri Teorisi",
pp. 52-55), completed at the end of
the 1978 and published in August 1983. Presently, this figure
is being corroborated. For if to accept in the calculations
the previous period from the basic Türkic languages to its
major branching into Eastern Türkic and Western Türkic,
which had past since that period to our
time, the 5,500 years can be doubled.
4. Today, among the alive languages of the world, the Türkic language possesses the most ancient written evidence. These are the loan words in the Sumerian cuneiform tablets.
5. One of the major problems in the theory of the Altai languages, the anachronism in examples related to l2 ~ š, r2 ~ z, requires corrections on this question in the opposite direction" 34.
References for Chapter 9
1 Falkenstein A. Das Sumerische. - Handbuch der Orientalistik. Abt. I, Bd. II, Absch. 1-2, Geschichte der Forschung, Sprache und Literatür, Leiden 1959, S. 9, 11, 14-15 (šumeru is a distorted Akkadian rendition of own "Sumerian" name Kenger or Keηer (i.e. Kenger)).
2 Diakonov I.M. Languages of ancient Near East, "Questions of linguistics", 1954, No 5, pp. 47, 51; Diakonov I.M. Languages of ancient Near East. Moscow, 1967, pp. 21, 83-84.
3 Íîmmel F. Ethnologic und Geographie des alten Orients. Münctıen, 1926, pp. 19, 21-22.
Tolstov S.P. Ancient Chorasm. Attempt of historical-archeological research. Ì., 1948.
6 Compare Illich-Svitych V.M. Altaic dentals: t, d, δ. Questions of linguistics", 1963, No 6, pp. 44.
7 Sat Sh. Ch. Tuvan-Russian dictionary, Ì., 1955., pp. 563.
8 Baskakov N.A., Inkijekova-Grekul. Khakass-Russian dictionary. Ì., 1953., pp. 330.
9 Üdakhin K.K. Kirgiz-Russian dictionary. M., 1940. pp. 925.
10 Egorov V.G. Chuvash-Russian dictionary. Cheboksary, 1954, pp. 288.
11 Dmitriev N.K. Correlation of r/d/t/z/z/y. Coll. "Research in comparative grammar of Türkic languages, Part I, Phon, pp. 326-328; Menges K. H. The Türkic languages and peoples. (An introduction to Türkic Studies). Wiesbaden, 1968, pp. 87-89.
12 Relatively best, in our opinion, justified modern terminology of the scripts see: Istrin V.A. Emergence and development of writing. Ì., 1965, pp. 36,39, 132.
13 Radlov V.V. Attempt of dictionary of Türkic adverbs,
vol. I, SPb., 1893, pp. 1863.
14 Apparently, here was reflected a phonetic law n ~ j (i.e. y). Note, that A.Gaben advocated as a main criteria for classification of the Ancient Türkic Dialects the distinction of sounds n, ñ and j (i.e. y) in inlaut and aslaut of some roots, for example: añïγ, anïγ and ajïγ "bad, malicious; very much" jañ- and jaj- "to disperse, scatter; win" (Gabain A. von. Alttürkische Grammatik, Leipzig, 1950, SS. 3-8, 53).
15 Menges K.N. Ibid, p. 90.
16 Borovkov A.K. "Bada'i al-lugat". Dictionary of Tali ' Imani Geratian to Alisher Navoi's compositions. Ì., 1961, pp. 117.
17 Equating the words uq "clan, tribe " and
oq "arrow" in the Ancient Türkic language of
Orkhon-Yenisean texts is apparently counter-indicated, compare
18 Rinchine A.R. Brief Mongol-Russian dictionary. Ì., 1947, pp. 228.
19 Compare Malov S. E. Monuments of Ancient Türkic writing. M.-L., 1951, pp. 28, 33, 35, 43, 368; Gumilev L.N. Ancient Türks. Ì., 1967, pp. 329-330.
20 Illich-Svitych V.M. Correlation of slotted in nostratiche languages. Coll. "Ethymology. 1966", Ì., 1968, pp. 331.
21 Malov S.E. Monuments of Ancient Türkic writing in Mongolia and Kirgizia. M.-L, 1959, pp. 14, 18, 23, 98.
22 Mahmud Kashgari. Divan lugat-at-turk, I. Translation (in Uzbek language) and preparation for printing by S.M.Mutallibov, Tashkent, 1960, pp. 382.
23 Romanova A.V., Myreeva A.N. Dialectological dictionary of Evenki language. L., 1968, pp. 134.
24 Radlov V.V. Ibid., pp. 1473.
25 Malov S.E. Language of Yellow Uigurs. Alma-Ata, 1957, pp. 129.
26 Mahmud Kashgari. Ibid., pp. 109. The double spelling of this word " ãγ and àγ unambiguously points to the "primary" (i.e. till now not explained) length in the anlaut.
27 Compare anct. Türk, mügüz ~ müηüz ~ miηiz ~ müjüz (i.e. müyüz) "horn (animal)"and Tuva myiys "horn" [j (y) <*g ~ γ (g) ~ η].
28 Biishev A.G. "Primary" long vowels in Türkic languages. Ufa 1968, pp. 68.
29 Romanova A.V., Myreeva A.N. Ibid., pp. 134.
30 Vaiman A. A. Decoding of proto-Sumerian writing (preliminary release). "Near Eastern Collection, II. Decoding and interpretation of the ancient East writings", Ì. 1966, pp. 12-13.
31 Compare Klima Y. Society and culture of an ancient Mesopotamia. Prague, 1967, pp. 27: "Beginning of Sumerian penetration into southern Mesopotamia can be attributed to the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC".
32 Amanjolov A. S. "Sumero"-Türkic coincidences and graphic logograms. - "Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Altaischen Völker", Protokollband der XII. Tagung der Permanent International Altaistic Conference 1969 in Berlin. Herausgegeben von G. Hazai und P. Zieme. Berlin, 1974, c. 65-71.
33 Hereinafter the German and English translations of the Sumerian words we replaced with Russian translations (and respectively, in this posting the Russian translations are reverse translated into English, possibly somewhat shifting the semantic - Translator's Note).
34 Tuna Î. N. Sümer ve Türk dillerinin târihî ilgisi ile Türk dili'nin yaşi meselesi,
Ankara, 1997, p. 49.
|Book Contents||Chapter 10 GENESIS OF TÜRKIC RUNIC ALPHABET|