In Russian
Contents Türkic languages
Classification of Türkic languages
Language Types
Lingo-Ethnical Tree
Indo-European, Arians, Dravidian, and Rigveda
Scythian Ethnic Affiliation
Foundation of the Scythian-Iranian theory
Türkic borrowings in English
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
A.V. Dybo
Chronology of Türkic languages
and linguistic contacts of early Türks


adybo@rinet.ru (, ), gstarst@rinet.ru


This posting presents a groundbreaking work of A.V. Dybo in Türkic linguistic, which remains as much behind times as only falls to the unloved stepchildren. In limbo for 70 years after a nearly complete wipeout of the Turkology and Turkologists from the Eurasian scientific scene, the Turkology is resurrecting in feeble and frequently uncertain steps that on the background of mediocrity are gigantic. The work  of A.V. Dybo is a seminal step in the ongoing process. It breaks the barriers of preconceived notions and institutional limitations, brings expertise to a field notable for the lack thereof, and in process decimates primitive constructs propagated by inept scholars. It peeks beyond the pale of settlement instituted in the 20th-century scientific standards.

The work of A.V. Dybo is notable for many insights that make a travesty of the established postulates, the most important of them is her rejection of the linguistic tree model, the very backbone of the whole contemporary linguistics, which, applied imprudently and indiscreetly, brought about innumerable distortions and fictitious paradigms into histories of many peoples. Another is the expansion of the search field for Bulgarian lexicon beyond the Chuvash language; A.V. Dybo turns to the Hungarian Bulgarisms, and that opens a gate for inclusion in the field of the Russian and Danube Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Balkarian, Galich, Itil Tatar and Itil Finnic, in addition to Hungarian and Chuvash, which undoubtedly would uncover new horizons and lexical interactions. Another insights is the treatment of the Sogdian language, with a critical eye toward the previous etymologies, and with understanding of the historical processes and distinct ethnological settings, which brings layers of previously ignored connections between Sogdian and Indian languages, elucidating or replacing the notoriously miopic and frequently shallow Iranian etymologies. Most bold is the A.V. Dybo stipulation that (literary) "Sogdian does not fit into Linguistic Tree model, because no pra-Sogdian can be conjectured". This is equivalent to a discovery of a new species, defined as "a taxonomic group that can't breed with other taxonomic groups". A.V. Dybo stipulates a product of different linguistic groups, an indirect allusion to a Creole composed of a symbiosis of the pre-Indo-Iranian flexive and possibly Türkic agglutinative languages "... it does not seem possible to regard the Eastern Iranian group as a whole, even excluding Parachi and Ormuri, as a genetic grouping. Such a concept would imply the existence of an ancestral "Proto-Eastern Iranian" intermediate between the "Common Iranian" and the attested Eastern Iranian languages; but if one reconstructs the "Proto-Eastern Iranian" in such a way as to account for all the features of the group, it proves to be identical to the "Common Iranian" reconstructible as the ancestor of the whole Iranian family. It is therefore more plausible to conceive of Eastern Iranian as a "Sprachbund" or areal grouping of languages. In this case the members of the "Sprachbund" happen to be genetically related, but the special features which mark them out as a group result rather from centuries of contiguity, during which innovations will have spread from one language of the group to another and neighboring languages will have supported each other in the retention of shared features." In other words, the very concept of the Eastern Iranian group is as much a fiction as any Creole conjured to be a daughter of a mother tongue. And still another insight is the finding that "The most pervasive external influence on the "Eastern Iranian" (quotation marks added) has been that exerted by the neighboring Indian languages, as is most evident in the development of aspirates (Khotanese, Parachi, Ormuri) and retroflex consonants (Khotanese, Pashto, etc.). However, similar developments are found in Baluchi (North-Western Iranian), which is also spoken in close proximity to Indian. The Indian loanwords already are found in most "Eastern Middle Iranian" (quotation marks added) languages (but also in Parthian) and they increase in numbers in the modern period." A major advancement is a clear discrimination between the Persian, Indian, and Türkic loanwords, critically important for understanding historical processes in Middle and Central Asia, and for truthful attribution of the deceitfully entitled so-called Tocharian and Khotan Saka linguistic properties to their real sources.

Among the very few shortcomings of the A.V. Dybo analysis is the one precipitated by the faulty institutional historiography, which contrary to the normal historical methodology divides a continuous historical stream into disparate floating unrelated segments. That did not allow A.V. Dybo, and likewise her predecessors, to extend their historical vision beyond the linguistically insignificant events of the political perturbations, into the milestone events of the 1,200 Yin Shang Culture, 1,000 BC Karasuk Culture, 700 BC re-population of the Middle Asia, and 200 BC integration of the Si/Hi/Xi/Kumosi 奚 Mongolian tribes into the Eastern Hunnic state, which divided Mongolian for the next two millennia into a Turko-Mongolian Creole and a Mongolian proper. The marriages of the unrelated linguistic families definitely had a far more profound effect then a transfer of allegiance from one suzerain to another, resulting in distorted glottochronological analysis, already disfigured beyond recognition by the wrongful application of the Linguistic Tree model, as much as would be the case if the Haitian language was used to reconstruct the glottochronological history of the French. The fact that the glottochronological dating happen to conveniently match the little relevant political events should have raised flags on the applicability of the methods and models. Indirectly, the article addresses how the Halaf, Dzharmin, Hasun, North Ubeyd, and Kura-Arax archaeological cultures of the middle of the 4th millennium BC figure in the development of the Sogdian language, 15 hundred years before the arrival of the Indo-Iranians to the South-Central Asia (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Sogdian/).

Posting clarifications and comments are (in blue italics), and in bold highlighting of the author's text. Page numbers are shown at the beginning of the page in blue. The Times New Roman font used does not support all diacritics of the original text, for a special detail please refer to the original http://altaica.narod.ru/LIBRARY/xronol_tu.pdf PDF file. The author used a Russian character to denote phonetic stops, thus Hercul is equivalent to Her'cul. The abbreviation Gen. (General) is used to render the case when the application of the term Comm. (Common) is misleading, like in the case of the Common Türkic which in the context of this work denotes not the common Proto-Türkic ancestor language, but is a collective term for the prevailing modern linguistical distribution, and refers to all branches of the Türkic family except for Ogur (aka Bulgar) branch. The adjective Türkic and the noun Türk are used to denote the global world of the Türkic community that includes Turkish and Turks as one of the constituents; Türk is a noun of which Türkic and Turkic are adjectival derivatives, it is needed for translation from Russian, which has four distinct designations for four phenomena (Türk/Türkic or Turkic and Turk/Turkish). The semantics of that terminology in English and Russian is a result of their national histories.

Abbreviations of language names (work in progress, a number of abbreviations need to be added)
Anc. - Ancient, N - New, Pra - pra-language, Proto -  proto-language,
Abbr. Name Abbr. Name Abbr. Name Abbr. Name Abbr. Name
Türkic Nenets Iranian
Az. Azeri Krh. Karakhanid Tob. Toba Kamas Sayan Nenets Ir. Iranian
Bashk. Bashkir Krh.-Uig. Karakhanid-Uigur Tof. Tofa PS Proto-Nenets Pers. Persian
Chag. Chagatai Mount. Alt. Mountain Altai Tuv. Tuvan     Tokh. Kuchean
Chuv. Chuvash Orkhon Orkhon Tur. Turkish Tungus Tokh. A Kuchean
Dolgan Dolgan Salar Salar Turk. Turkmen Manchu Manchu Tokh. B Turfan
Hung. Bulgar (Hungarian) Selkup Selkup Türk. Türkic Evenk Evenk    
Karaim Karaim Shor Shor Uig. Uigur     Indian
Khak. Khakassian Solon Solon Uig. Hot. Khotan Uigur Mongolian Yazg. Yazgulem
KBalk. Karachay-Balkar SUig. Saryg-Uigur Uz. Uzbek Buryat Buryat    
KKalp. Karakalpak Tar. Taranchi Karluk Yak. Yakut (Sakha) Mong. Mongolian    
Kypch. Kypchak Tat. Tatar     Orkhon Orkhon    
Kyrg. Kyrgyz                
Yazg. - Western middle Indian/Hindi dialect
MK - Mahmud Kashgari
A.V. Dybo
Chronology of Türkic languages and linguistic contacts of early Türks

The Türkic language family is a gratifying material for application of different classification methods and linguistic chronology. First, it is large enough ( at least 35 modern languages can be handled as individual idioms and dialects and not less than six well-recorded ancient and medieval languages). Secondly, it is relatively young, and the history of the Türkic peoples is mostly well documented, so the genetic classification of the Türkic languages may be interpreted in terms of real history. The main difficulty in the classification and chronology of the Türkic languages lays in numerous contacts between highly similar and often mutually intelligible languages. In that regard, Turkologists developed several classifications of the Türkic languages. The most popular of them, to date, are classification by N.A.Baskakov (see pp. 767), which is primarily aimed at interpretation of historical sources that not always correlate well with actual linguistic properties, and classification based on proposals of A.N.Samoilovich (see pp. 768), now with some changes, which relies on phonetic and morphological features, although we can not be sure that those defined at a surface level properties are really the most relevant for the genetic classification, but certainly that classification corresponds to the particular linguistic reality, at least reflecting one of geographic assemblages of the Türkic languages during their history. In the previous volume of our publication, "Regional Reconstruction",  we essentially used with minor modifications the latter classification.

Baskakov Classification

Samoilovish Classification  (omitted)

The following is an attempt to construct an absolute chronology for branching of the Türkic family of languages based on lexical statistics. Such attempts have been made before, but the 100 word list surveys so far were not yet compiled for absolute majority of the languages 224. Our lists assembled all relevant languages for which could be actually compiled from written sources 100 word lists. The 100 word lists were assembled from the Yakhontov - Starostin amended list of meanings, and were processed using the amended Starostin technique, with identifiable borrowings zeroed 225, in the Starling program.

224 The last work that we know of is Diachok M.T. Glottochronology of the Türkic languages (preliminary analysis), Science, University, 2001, Materials of the Second Scientific Conference, Novosibirsk, 2001. pp. 14-16. In his brief communication the author does not provide 100 word lists he compiled for the Turkish, Uzbek, Tatar, Chuvash, Salar, Tuvan, Yakut, Khakas, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, and Azeri, so we can't judge the comparison methods. Note that the conclusions are similar to our conclusions: early separation of Bulgar, Yakut and Tuva-Tofalar branches; absence of genetic proximity between the Yakut and Tuva-Tofalar group; general affiliation of the other Siberian languages to the "Western" group. The other conclusions of the author's are fairly obscure.
225 On the method of glottochronological calculations see in detail Burlak S.A., Starostin S.A Introduction to comparative linguistics. M., 2002. pp. 82-85.

Glottochronological tree of Türkic languages by non-edited listings

Glottochronological tree of Türkic languages by edited listings

Essentially, the Baskakov's historical classification and the glottochronological affinity represent two correlated, but independent classifications, and contradictions between them are the result of admixtures not represented and not accounted for in the glottochronological scheme. For example, we have a documented uninterrupted historical sequence Huns => Uigurs => Karluks => Chagatais => Uzbeks, where each descendent is a branch of the parental group, originated as an Ogur linguistic branch, but apparently so much influenced by admixtures that it becomes an Oguz linguistic branch. In such scenario, the tree model is totally unapplicable, and any dating deduced from the tree model is apriory fallacious. In such situation, which is typical for the Türkic fluid nomadic societies, the glottochronology is limited to the remnants of the Ogur characteristics within the recombined Ogur/Oguz amalgamation. Similarly, the Oguz component in this amalgamation can be traced back chronologically to its Oguz parental base.

The glottochronology may accurately describe the affinities and differences between the components of the modern languages, but it can not produce the chronology for the modern languages.

The study examined two sets of 100 word lists. The first set assumed that for each language the lists may contain unlimited number of synonyms (or quasi-synonyms, the words that might be translated by the same English word). This premise firstly allows to avoid a problem of semantic match-mismatch for different interpretations of the Swadesh meanings within the same language, and secondly it avoids a slippery choice of the "most common" word (because the usage can differ much depending on a genre of the texts). It should be noted that such method, despite its obvious advantages, obviously includes in the computations numerous "noises". The resulting tree contains obvious cases of secondary linguistic convergence due to geographical contacts (p. 770).

The second list retained only those "synonyms" where the semantical differences can not be directly expressed with English equivalents. These, for example, are such cases as "thin" (for flat objects) and "thin" (about three-dimensional objects), or several entries for "that" and "this" in a three- or four-dimensional system of spatial deixis. The resulting family tree (p. 771) has more correlations with the classification that was adopted originally. These differences require analysis and explanation.

Another point that should be discussed in connection with the method of linguistic classification by the "common innovations" is as follows. Defining the problem in the framework of comparative historical linguistics, a linguist has to follow the "tree" model depicting changes in the linguistic phenomena: the other models, like the "wave" model, are excluded by the very essence of the comparative procedure. However, in the situation for the recent separation of linguistic idioms that retain mutual understanding between the carriers of these idioms often brings confrontation with the wave-like phenomena, when an innovation extends across the borders of the idioms. The obvious interpretation of such phenomena within the historical and comparative linguistics must be staged as follows. If a certain innovation arose at the time of a dialect being affiliated with some group (driven by the common political, economical or geographical boundaries) common for that group, then the study of reflexes of that innovation holds that original group as a node in the family tree model; however there is a caveat in case when a part of the dialects of that group carries traces of an archaic phenomenon shared with other dialectal groups. That case would result in a different, older tree with different nodes that correspond to other, older groups of the dialects. Thus, the linguo-graphical approach in that form should allow obtaining a relative chronology of re-grouped dialects (or closely related languages).

The task of a comparativist in that case is to establish a relative chronology of different family trees. Like in other cases, this is achieved by ascertaining the hierarchy of the transition rules for the transition from a reconstructed state to a reflective state. Namely, in cases where a reflexive state can be presented as a result of an F1 rule on the result of a rule F2, the order of the rules is defined as F2, F1. Then, if those rules form nodes of a family tree, the family tree resulting from F2more archaic and genetically predating, and the family tree resulting form F1 should be considered to be secondary. Undoubtedly, in that case both deduced trees reflect a linguistic reality. We should also emphasize that all nodes of a family tree do not mark the origin time or the duration for the conjured linguistical unit, but the timing of the split of two descendant units. In the following, we will call the rules which may lead to the formation of nodes on the family tree "isoglosses", those isogloss that are relevant in the formation of the tree we will call "connected".


The first node of both family trees is branching of the Chuvash from other languages, usually defined as branching of the Bulgar group. In terms of the linguistic change process, in the phonetic this division is expressed with the following most prominent isoglosses: 1) vocalization of the Pra-Türk. *t- >  Comm. Türk. *d- before voiced stops, *r and *r' (traces of such voicing found in Oguz and Sayan languages, but are absent in the Danubian-Bulgar borrowings in Hungarian), 2) development of Pra-Türk. *l', *lč, *r' into Bulg. *l, *č, *r in accordance with Comm. Türk. *š, *š, *z; 3) development of Bulg. *-δ- >  j in the roots with r, and *- δ- >  -r- in other contexts (chronologically, this rule, apparently, can be considered to be a last of the three, since it could be effective after congelation in Bulg. of *r *r', compare Chuv. xujr 'bark' < Pra-Türk. *Kar-δyr). 767

In the morphology is as following (not coordinated relative to each other) processes: a) Common Türkic and Bulgar used two different ways of grammaticalization of the plural indices: Bulgar used old postpositional pronoun *sayin 'all', the Common Türkic used one of the old collective name suffixes, *-lar (note that in both branches can be found traces of the old indicator of (paired?) plurality *- r'); b) in the paradigm of the nominal declension the Common Türkic replaced the old genitive suffix -(i)ŋ (with distribution after vowels and consonants of the end of the base) to affix -(n)iŋ, extracted from reinterpreted pronominal forms; the Bulgar, on the contrary, initially preserved -(i)ŋ, and later developed -(n)iŋ for possessive-nominal and noun paradigms, a base of which contains the same vowels as Personal pronouns; c) the Common Türkic lost participle of expected future with -s, retaining it only for the formation of negative forms of an uncertain future; the Bulgar, by contrast, retained this participle. On both trees that node dates around -30 - 0 BC. We would tie that date to the migration of the Huns from the western Mongolia to the west, through northern Eastern Turkestan (orig.: Xinjiang) to the southern Kazakhstan, to the Syr-Darya River in 56 BC. (The "Bulgar" was a political umbrella term for a number of predominantly Türkic tribes. Under "Bulgar language" are meant the indiscriminate linguistic traces attributed and studied so far. Most of the "Bulgar language" embedded in the Russian, modern Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Galician, Itil Tatar and Itil Finnic has not been studied yet. Bulgars united diverse tribes of Onogurs, Caucasian Huns, Suvars, Izgils, Oukals, Khazars, Akathyrs, and many others, mostly with obscure provenance. Suvars were recorded in the Sumarian cuneiforms, Izgils were relatively extensively recorded in the Chinese annals as a strongest tribe of the Hun confederation. The geographical disPersal of the Bulgarian constituent tribes points to an ancient and complex linguistical origin, the surviving traces of which mostly belong to the Middle Age period)

In connection with the dating of the Pra-Türkic language fragmentation arises a problem of dating the foreign loans into the  Pra-Türkic (that is, those regular reflexes which we find both in the Bulgar and Türkic group). As evidence of Pra-Türkic contacts with neighboring languages can be cited a number of Chinese loanwords into the Pra-Türkic before the split of the Bulgar, and perhaps a few words that can be interpreted as borrowings from some Eastern-Iranian language, in phonetic developments reminiscent of the Saka (Hotan oasis?) language (under misnomer "Saka" is actually meant the Hotan language).

Chinese borrowings in Pra-Türkic

An overview of the suspected early Sinicisms in the Türkic languages can be found in Shervashidze 1989. Here we review only the most indisputable of them, and also borrowed into the Pra-Türkic (i.e., present in both Pra-Türkic and Bulgar branches). The Chinese parallels are cited by the database of the Chinese characters, compiled by S.A.Starostin (project "Tower of Babel", www.starling.rinet.ru).

For dating of the Sinicisms in the Pra-Türkic we used a refined periodization of the Chinese in Starostin 1989. According to our dating for fractionation of the Pra-Türkic should be expected loans from the Western Han language (3rd c. BC - turn of the eras) or Eastern Han (turn of the eras - beginning of the 3rd c. AD). The following phonetic developments were considered.

The Eastern Han already makes it possible to assume a transition of the lateral into fricatives in front of the short vowels (Starostin 1989, 468-469), and even l >  d in the initials (Starostin 1989, 469). The final transition of L >  D was determined for early postclassical ancient Chinese (from the 3rd c. AD), and at the same time finally r, rh >  l, lh (Starostin 1989, 476). The transition pr- >  p- also occur finally in the early postclassical Archaic Chinese. The combinations of the Tr- type produced retroflexes still in the Western Han. The terminal -r already in the classical ancient Chinese gave -n (Starostin 1989, 711). The Lh >  z'b in front of the short in the Eastern Han (Starostin 1989, 468), T >  c'  in front of the short in the Eastern Han.

1. *Alaču-k 'hut, shed, small yurt': Anc.Uig. alaču; Krh.-Türk. alacu (MK) (Mahmud Kashgari); Kum. alacyq, Bashk. alasoq, KKalp. ylasyq, Kaz. lasyq, Kirg. alacyq, Alt. alančyq, Khak. alačyx, Shor. alančyq; Tuv., Tof. alazy; Yak. alaha; (?) Chuv. las' 226. See SIGTYA 1997, 497-498. Compared with the late Anc. Ch. la-λia? 'country house', consisting of two words: 1) Modern Ch.lü2, Middle Ch. , Anc. Ch. r(h)a 'hut, shelter; to lodge' Karlgren 0069, 2) Modern Ch.she3, Middle Ch. sa, Anc. Ch. *λia?-s 'to rest, stop; lodging house'. Karlgren 0048 a-b. Dating: r- >  l- in the early postclassical Archaic Ch. , while maintaining the non-labial finals, i.e. certainly before the late ancient Chinese; lateral >  fricative in front of short vowels beginning from the Eastern Han; the common date is the beginning of the 3rd c. AD.
2. (?) *Altun, Chuv. yltan 'gold', see SIGTYA 1997, 402. Perhaps the addition of *a:l 'scarlet, red', and *tun, where the second part - presumably Sinicism: Modern Ch.tong2, Middle Ch. dug, Anc. Ch. Log 'copper, brass, bronze' [Han] Karlgren 1176 d. Dating: L >  D, beginning with the Eastern Han, i.e., since the turn of the era. (The question of who gave bronze to whom is still debatable, but it is known that cultural penetration of the Afanasievo nomads to the Melanoid and Polynesian-populated Shang happened when the Shang was a Neolithic non-Sino-Tibetian society, and indications that bronze , pastoral husbandry, and horses came from the Bronze Age steppe are sufficiently strong. A much earlier date of the cultural borrowing, and the direction pastoralists = >  Melanoid and Polynesian Shang = >  Yin = >  Chinese for the cultural borrowing is more plausible. This observation applies to all the metals of gold, silver, iron, to the titles, to the dress, to the army, and other easily copied innovations. Since the dating is predicated on the unsuitable tree model, the historical interchanges must take a leading role )
3. *Gümül 'silver': runic kümüš, Krh.-Uig. kümüš, IbnM gümüš. In modern languages this word has preserved throughout, in northeastern - Khak. kümüs, Tuv. xümüš; Yak. kümüs, Chuv. wwl. SIGTYA 1997, 404-405. Presumably from the Anc. Ch. *kəmliew: 1) Modern Ch.jin1, Middle Ch. kim, Anc. Ch. kəm 'metal' Karlgren 0652 a-c; 2) Modern Ch.liao2, Middle Ch. liew, Anc. Ch. r(h)ew 'bright silver' [Han]. Dating: r, rh >  l, lh, from early postclassical ancient Chinese, i.e. from the beginning of the 3rd AD, not later than Middle Ch.
4. *Demür 'iron': runic, Anc. Uig. temür (temir), MK temür, Tuv. demir; Yak. timir; Chuv. timər. SIGTYA 1997, 409-410. From Late. Anc. Ch. *diēt-mwyt (= mwut) 'iron thing', dial. Late. Anc. Ch. source should have sounded diēr-mwur, compare: 1) Modern Ch.tie3, Middle Ch. thiet, Anc. Ch. Ibît 'iron', 2) Modern Ch.wu4, Middle Ch. müt, Anc. Ch. mhət 'variety; variety of objects, objects, things' Karlgren 0503 h-i. Dating: l >  d in initial beginning from the Eastern Han, i.e. the turn of the era, reflection of the terminals -t as -r- is a dialectal phenomenon poorly dated from the "bottom", before the 7th c.. AD.
5. *Bek 'title' starting with runic Orkh. (KTB 3, 6; Ton. 40), Anc. Uig. (ThS II 5) beg, Yak. bi:.Chuv. pik- component of proper names, pike 'miss'. SIGTYA 1997, 320. By the postclassical ancient Chinese pek Starostin 1989, 688: Modern Ch.bo2, Middle Ch. paik, Anc. Ch. prak 'a senior, elder of a clan'. Karlgren 0782 i. Dating: Western Han and Eastern Han retain initial pra-, thus the 3 c. AD.

226 Perhaps Kypch. borrowing in Chuv. - vocalism is not quite clear (In the framework of the PCT, a part of Chuvashes never left the N.Pontic. They also may be those Uraloids that abandoned the Amudarya valleys at around 2,000 BC. The Chuvash and pre-Han Chinese form may be the original form of the word that split geographically into western and eastern forms, pik/pek = >  Bulg./Chuv. pik,  = >  Sakha bi:, = >  Yin  prak, = >  Middle Ch. paik, = >  Uig. beg, Sarmat Polish pan, etc., underwent palatization and voicing, and survived from the Paleolithic to the present).

6. *Čerig 'army', Bulgar. sarak, Chuv. sam, Yak. serii. Is being associated with the Middle Ch. sen: 戰 , Modern Ch. zhan4, Middle Ch. sen, Anc. Ch. tar-s 'fight, fight, tremble, be afraid' Karlgren 0147 r. Dating: by the development of the initial into affricate the Eastern Han, i.e. the turn of the era - 3rd c. AD. But the final r >  n in the classical ancient Chinese (5th c. BC - 3rd c. AD) 227. Evolution of the root in Starostin 1989: pre-classical ancient Chinese tarh >  classical ancient Chinese tanh >  Western Han tanh >  Eastern Han tjanh, čanh, postclassical ancient Chinese Chuv. It is a murky state.
7. *Bitig 'letter', Chuv. patü, see Fedotov, 429. Usually it is deduced from the Middle Ch. pit 筆, Modern Ch. bi3, Middle Ch. pit, Anc. Ch. prət 'writing brush, writing tool' [Later Zhou Dynasty]. Karlgren 0502 d. Dating: Transition pr- >  p- finally occurred in the early postclassical Archaic Ch., i.e. by the beginning of the 3rd century, the upper limit is Middle Ch. (drop off of the stop terminals before the 7 c. AD).
8. Anc. Uig. kilin 'roll', Dan. Bulg. *küinig > Anc. Bulg. kniga, Hungarian könyv. See, for example, Vasm. 2 262-263. Class. Ch. , Modern Ch. juan, Middle Ch. kwen, Anc. Ch. kwren?-s 'reel, coil, volume'. Karlgren 0226 a. Dating: same as above (by the transition kr- >  k-), early postclassical ancient Chinese, beginning of the 3rd c. AD.
9. *Bengü 'eternal', with runic bengü, MK mengü, ubiquitous in modern languages, including Yak. and Tuv. from Anc. Uig. borrowing into pra-Mong. mönge. Yak. and Tuv. forms may be Mongolisms. See ESTYA 1978, 113-114. From the Ch. man + ko 1) Modern Ch.wan4, Middle Ch. mwan, Anc. Ch. mans (~ rs) 'be ten-thousand, myriad' Karlgren 0267 a-b; 2) 古 Modern Ch. gu3, Middle Ch. ko., Anc. Ch. ke? 'old, ancient' Karlgren 0049 a-e. Dating: Transition ke? is also the postclassical ancient Chinese (Starostin, 1986, 687), beginning of the 3rd c. AD.
10. *Čyn, c MK, Tuv. šyn, Chuv. čan 'truth', see Fedotov, 2, 402. Class. Ch., Modern Ch. zhen1, Middle Ch. ten, Anc. Ch. tren 'to test, try out, correct', 'chaste, pure'. Karlgren 0834 g-i. Dating: assuming retroflex dental in initial could be adapted in borrowing as an affricate, possibly the Western Han, i.e. 3 c. BC - turn of the era.
11. *Deng 'equal', with runic, Tuv. teng, Chuv. tan, see Fedotov, 2, 170-171. Class. Ch. , Modern Ch. deng3, Middle Ch. tΛŋ, Anc. Ch. teng? 'Rank, degree, grade, class' [Later Zhou] Karlgren 0961 i. Dating is not limited by Chinese phonetics.
12. *Don 'clothes', with Anc. Uig., Tof. don, Tuv. ton, Chuv. tum, see ESTYA 1980, 262-263. Class. Ch., Modern Ch. duan1, Middle Ch. twan, Anc. Ch. tor 'black straight robe'. Dating: the form of the Anc. Ch. ton, i.e. with the terminal transition -r >  -n, but before diphthongization of the medial is later then early Ancient Chinese (9 c. BC) and not earlier then the Middle Ancient Chinese (7 c.) (I.e. belongs to the Shang Yin period before the advent of the Han language, a borrowing into the Melanoid and Polynesian local languages. The "Proto-Altaians" had "the terminology of clothing and footwear is more differentiated, for example, it contains the names for pants and kneeguards (which is associated with horse riding), it is reasonable to allow that PA elite dominance terminology entered the local languages).

227 Accordingly, all hypothetical early Sinicisms in Pra-Türkic with replacement of n to r should be considered to be highly questionable.

13. *Kög 'motive' with Anc. Uig., Tuv. xög, Tof. xög, Yak. küj, Chuv. kəvə, see SIGTYA 1997, 614. Class. Ch. 曲, Modern Ch.qu1, Middle Ch. khöuk, Anc. Ch. khok 'be curved, bent', from the Han appears the meaning 'music, melody'; Karlgren 1213a. Dating: the upper limit apparently is the postclassical ancient Chinese khok Starostin 686 (i.e. before the 3rd c. AD inclusively).
14. *Syr 'color, paint, varnish' with MK, Chuv. sara, see ESTYA 2003. It is accepted to derive from Ch. , Modern qi1, Middle Ch. chjit, Anc. Ch. shit 'lacquer tree, lacquer (Rhus vernicuflua)' Karlgren 0401 b. Phonetically, such an origin seems unlikely, except as a result of Anc. Ch. adaptation sh- >  Turk. s-, and then dating has an upper limit: before the postclassical Ancient Chinese, i.e. before the 3rd c. AD (only with a hypothetical dialect, where -t >  -r, compare above). Another possibility is borrowing from the Ch. Modern Ch. shua1, Middle Ch. swet, Anc. Ch. srot 'to rub, scrape [Later Zhou]' with the subsequent development 'to smear, paint >  print' Karlgren 0298 a. Then the dating's lower limit is determined by the dropping of -r-: Western Han, 3 c. BC, but to the Middle Ch. inclusive (7-10 cc. AD).
15. *Jincü 'pearls' from runic, in Modern lang. except (or in addition to?) for Siberia, Bulg. *jincü > Hungarian gyöngy. Class. Ch. 1) 真, Modern Ch. zhen, Middle Ch. cin, Anc. Ch. tin 'real, genuine' Karlgren 0375 a; 2) Modern Ch. zhu1, Middle Ch. ei, Anc. Ch. to 'pearl' Karlgren 0128 e. Dating: T >  c' in front of short in the Eastern Han, i.e., from 0-3rd c. AD (If this an only etymology, there is not much of  etymology at all; it appears that the borrowing went Türkic = >  Chinese, with the original Türkic word truncated to the first sillable).

The selection of the borrowed words outlines a range of cultural interaction: trade, in particular, metalwork, war, writing, art, luxury goods, and philosophical concepts. The dating of the borrowings by the phonetic features generally points to the 3rd c. AD. What explains this discrepancy with the glottochronological dating (turn of the eras)? If we assume that the  glottochronological dating corresponds to the loss of the first word in the 100 word list, it should be thought that after that for at least another three centuries the divided Türks continued fairly active contacts, and their languages did not undergo significant phonetical changes. In particular, the above cited connected isoglosses do not have phonetic material for the dating of the loss of the first word, and likewise for the third word, but the second  word we obtain the lower boundary: no earlier than the 4th c. AD (from the word *gümiü' 'silver'). It should be noted that the corresponding model of the historical situation that can be seen in the history of the Huns' division onto the Northern and Southern: the first separation and withdrawal of the Northern Huns to the west has occurred, as was stated above, in 56 BC, and it is believed that that group of the (Northern) Huns was destroyed by the Chinese and the remaining Huns came under Chinese rule, the second split of the Huns into the northern and southern groups happened in 48 AD, from that time the Northern Huns gradually shifted to the Western Mongolia and later to the East Turkestan, to Dzungaria, and in 155 AD they migrated to the East Kazakhstan and Jeti-su, where they lived till the 5th c. AD 228. It is likely that the first (Northern) group was not destroyed physically, but only lost its state, then the second (Second Northern) group merged with it, bringing with them the Chinese cultural borrowings.

The offered scenario represents a cardinal step in the philological analysis of the Türkic (viewed as Proto-Altaic) languages and their interface with the languages within the modern Chinese territory, although it has internal and historical contradictions. In the deep symbiosis of the Türkic (Proto-Türkic) and pre-Han during Shang Yin period, and in the deep symbiosis of the Türkic (Proto-Türkic) and the Han during the Zhou period, the Türkic tribes can be divided into two classes distinguished by their exposure to the local cultures in future China. The first class can be likened to the "inner barbarians" of the ancient Rome, the second class can be likened to the "free Dacians", "free Gauls", "free Germans" of the Europe. The first class underwent assimilation and was absorbed in the local people and the local states, the second class largely remained free from the influence of the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, etc. By the time the Huns entered the historical period, the first class was assimilated ethnologically and economically to such a degree that the Han practically did not have its own nomadic pastoralists, and as a consequence no cavalry, no horsebreeding enterprises, no mobile warfare capabilities. The second class remained largely removed from the Chinese influence, especially the bulk of the Türkic tribes of which the Chinese knew next to nothing until the 4th-5th cc AD. The first class was in position to bring multiple cultural innovations into the life and language of the local people, including the trade, metalwork, war, art, luxury goods, and philosophical concepts, which by the 3rd c. BC were melted into the Han Chinese culture. The second class of "free Huns" in the border belt included great numbers of "Hunnified" Chinese, Sogdians, dispersed Indians, Mongols, and Tunguses, who were in position to enrich the Hun language with their cultural contributions. Starting from the end of the 2nd c. BC, the Han Chinese started fractionation of the "free Hun" society, continuously absorbing portions of the "free Huns", and driving the bulk of the "free Huns" away from the China. The refugees of the 56 BC, 48 BC, and 155 AD apparently carried with them their "ethnical minority" countrymen, who did not want to fall back under the Chinese "protection", since we do not have any news about their fate. Archeology does provide evidence and dating for these events, but to ascribe to them phonetical and glottochronological dating in the overall scheme of events raises numerous discrepancies.


Possible Eastern Iranian loans in Pra-Türkic (In the historical Perspective, the Eastern Iranian essentially boils down to Sogdian, since the contribution of the Tarim and Taklamakan desert oases, amounting to 26,000 isolated people, on 1,500,000 steppe nomads belonging to hundreds of self-contained tribes is conceptually undetectable)

1. *Dāna 'calf': Middle Kypch. (of 14th c.) tana 'calf', Chat. tana 'two-year old calf'; in new languages: Tur. dana 'calf', Gag. dana 'two-year-calf', Az. dana 'calf', Turk. tana 'calf' (without distinction by sex); Salar. tana 'heifer'; Krh. tana 'calf', Kum., Bank., tana 'two-year old bullock', Tat. tana 'two-year heifer' Nog., KKalp. tana 'heifer in the second year', Kaz. tana 'yearling bull calf', Kirg. tana 'heifer in the second year'; Chuv. tyna 'calf (overwintered)'. VEWT 460, Fedotov 2, 267 229, ESTYA 8. Bulgar. *tynag >  Hungarian tino 'heifer' Gomb. 130 (voicelessness is not clear). A borrowing from Iran is suggested. (Avest. daenu 'female animal', cf. Skt. dhenu- 'cow' (from "milking"), Khor. (Horesm or Horesm-Türkic) dyn 'woman', Yazg. (Western Middle Indian/Hindi dialect) δang 'with children (of a woman, female)' < *dainu-kā, HSak. (Hotan oasis) dmü 'cow' Bailey 159, Rastorgueva-Edelman 2, 447). The most plausible in this case seems a borrowing from a language of Northern Iranian-speaking population, close to the Saka (i.e. Hotan), which is the only Iranian language that gives a word meaning 'cow', and where appears the first vowel i, which gave a Pra-Türkic source of the closed a reflexes (The direction of borrowing is presumptive, since all Türkic languages have a meaning of cow, but in Hotan the cow is an exception in respect to the Iranian languages. The fallacy of the presumption is rooted in a postulate that Pra-Altaic languages originated in a single spot, and emanated from their origin following a language tree model. The spread of the Türkic languages as they entered the historical period makes the underlying postulate unsound. The work of A.V.Dybo serves as a philological corroborating evidence confirming the fallacy of the Altaic homeland postulate).

2. *Dorak 'cheese': see ESTYA VIII (in print). Traditionally it is unjustifiably identified with Krh.-Türk. tar 'butter-free churned cream', Yak. tar 'frozen yogurt', which also phonetically fits the Chuv. tora(x) 'yogurt' Fedotov 2, 253 and Mong. tarag, with SH tarah 'yogurt' (which then was borrowed from Mong. to Tuv. and Manchu). For this last dish is reconstructed the name PT *tar-aq 'type of sour milk', perhaps a common word with Mong., but also possibly a loanword into Mong. from the ancient Türkic. The base torak does not coincide with the *tar-aq neither phonetically nor semantically; records start with AbûH and Chag., Khalaj tuorāq, Turk. doraq, Tur. dial. torak and dorak; Chuv. tora, twara; Dan. Bulg. Loanword in Hungarian tura 'cheese', all meaning 'kind of cottage cheese, cheese'. See the discussion of etymologies in ESTYA 8, Doerf. 3, 1195, VEWT 490. This base may be a borrowing from Middle Iran. *Tura-ka, compare Av. türi- 'curded milk', which has IE etymology (see Ab. 3, 319; of Iranian forms also compare Saka (Hotan oasis?) (doubtful) ttüra 'cheese' Bailey 132, see also 124 tav- 'to go sour' Osset. turae 'fatty soup. "(However, the second Türkic base can also be Iranism, compare Av. tayuri- 'kind of bread' Barth. 647, Zoroaster, Pahlavi *ter, but a semantic similarity is much worse, documentation is worse). All Iranian traces are Northern Eastern Iranian. The borrowing would take place before the global Türkic voicing. (A little sanity check would not hurt. All "Northern Eastern Iranians" were either intermingled or immediately adjacent to the steppes, interfacing many, but not all Türkic tribes. Philologically, all of the Türkic tribes have that word for a product made of a soured milk, but only a tiny sampling of Indo-Europeans have it, and among Iranian languages it appears only at a late Middle Iranian. The source of the product also must not be ignored. Nomads carried milk in bags made from animal intestines, the final product depended on what milk and what intestines were used, and the particular microflora of different animals. That variety required extensive location specific linguistic nomenclature, the buttermilk soured in the camel guts was different from that soured in the goat guts even if the starting milk was from the horse milk. The agriculturists had little access to that linguistic palette, and were borrowing only of a pidgin type terms, generic in nature. The philological obstacle is that most of the nomadic technology and associated vocabulary is either lost or not properly documented. The idea that pastoral nomads who live on milk products would need to borrow a milk product word from the agriculturists, and not the other way around, is somewhat funny. Where we do have a documented source, it is from the nomads to the sedentarists: Herodotus reported that the IE Greeks did not have cheese, and learned it from the Scythians, with appropriate source name ascending to Tyran. Not from the Persians, whom they intimately knew, and learned a few things from, but from the Tyran Scythians)

228 These dates are given per: Klyashtorny S.G. Hun state in the east./ /History of the Ancient World. Decline of ancient societies. Moscow, 1989; Kryukov M.V., Perelomov L.S., Sofronov M.V., Cheboksarov N.N. Ancient Chinese in the era of centralized empires. Moscow, 1983, Chapter 2: The ancient Chinese and their neighbors: racial and ethnic characteristics, pp. 56-104. But the parallel proposed there Mong. cinoo 'calf' does not exist: it is a 'wolf'.

Note that these both loans belong to the area of dairy farming and cattle husbandry, which seems quite natural for the early Türkic-East-Iranian contacts (cf., for example, main semantic fields that included Iranian loans into the Finno-Ugric languages) (These Türkic-East Iranian contacts must have been before the 12th c. BC, i.e. before the East Iranians ever existed, since the first Jungs/Hunyi/Xunyu/Xianxun that reached Shang were already fully formed nomadic pastoralists that had nothing to learn about milk products from the agricultural people who are even now noted for their lactose intolerance, which distinguishes the Melanoids and Polynesians, Indo-Iranians, and Chinese, see map on Wikipedia).

3. (?) *Dura 'tower, fortification, four-sided log or stone building': from Krh.-Uig., Gen.Türk., Including Siberian (without Chuv., Yak., Tuv.). See SIGTYA 1997, 486. Loanword in Mong. tura 'fortress city', West-Bur. tura 'chalet'. Altaic etymology was not found. In principle is possible a borrowing from the languages of the Northern Iranian-speaking people: cf. Saka (Hotan oasis?) ttaura 'wall' Bailey 134 (from the verb tau- 'cover'), Osset. tyrg 'porch, carport, balcony, yard' Abaev 3, 341. For Saka (Hotan oasis?) could be assumed a Turkism, but Osset. can not be a Turkism, compare to the same Skr. torana 'gates' (The reference to Ossetic is presumptive, since before Abaev composed his dictionary, Ossetes lived for millenniums with Türkic people, their vocabulary is more Türkic then Iranian, and they consist of three distinct tribes of totally different origin. The Digor tribe, which was a base of the Abaev's studies, in Modern Times is reported to be Türkic-speaking, and Digors are connected with the  Türkic Tuhsi tribe, otherwise known as Tokhars and Toksi. The Ossetian paradigm is a subject of disputes that involves the Scytho-Iranian Theory which is based on the Osseto-Iranian connection. Any philological reference to Ossetian must be based on unbiased credible studies).

4. Perhaps to the same ancient borrowings can be connected the title recorded in the ancient Türkic: Orkh.-Türk., Enis.-Türk. tarqan, pl. tarqat, Anc. Uig. runic tarqan, pl. tarqat, Man., Budd. tarqan 'title or position; component of proper names'; Proto-Bulg. ΤΑΡΚΑΝΟΣ 'title'; Krh.-Türk. tarxan 'pagan name for the emir' MK; Chag. tarxan 'social estate freed from taxes and endowed with a number of other privileges; one of the Juchi ulus tribes' (rather, Chag. is a reverse borrowing from Mong.), the later Türk. forms most likely are also Mongolisms, reflecting in the semantics either later Mong. reduction of meaning, or the Kipchak Khanate (orig.: Horde) socio-political realitiy: Türk. tarxan 'privileged class; figurative: spoiled' = Az. dial. tarxan 'spoiled' Bashk. tarxan 'privileged class', Kirg. darkan 'smith', KKalp. darqan 'free, at large' Yak. darxan 'important, worthy'; Chuv. torxan 'proper name; privileged class; a component of a number of names of supernatural beings' (the latter meaning may ascend to Pra-Türk.). Fedotov, 2, 239-240, EDT 539, ESTYA 1980, 151-153 (In pre-Mongolian times the title tarkhan was widely used in the Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and in the Middle Asia, including Sogd, which saw a number of rulers entitled Tarkhan; the notion that it is re-importation from Mongolic, or borrowing from Iranian, is not serious).

By an ingenious hypothesis of E. Pulliblank, this title may be reflected in the title of the Huns' ruler Shanyu (Anc. Ch. reading of the corresponding Ch. rendering: *dan-γwaγ) - Pulleyblank 1962, 91. Türk. >  Mong. darkan: Middle-Mong. darkan 'title, combined with certain privileges' SH 32, Written Mong. darkan 'master, estate, free from taxes' Kow. 1676 Khalkha darxan 'social estate; master; smith', Bur. darxa(n) 'smith, craftsman, Personally free' Kalm. darxn 'smith; class' Ramst. KWb 78. Numerous hypotheses about the origin of the word, see Doerfer 2, 879, ESTYA 1980, 152-153. The most plausible seems the Iranian etymology, advanced by V.I. Abaev: Sogd. trχ'n [tarxan] Gharib 9644 'title' (in particular, of Prince Devashtich, see Freiman 1962, 42-45), Saka (Hotan oasis?) ttar-kana- 'title' (I think, however, Türkic), Osset. tærxon 'judicial court', Skr. tark- 'to solve, hypothesize, judge' with Indo-European etymology (*tlk-, WP I 744), Ab. 3, 276-277 (Without reviewing Türkic etymologies, this Abaev's assertion is little credible: since the bulk of the usage, and the spread is associated with the Türkic history, the first unbiased option should be Türkic etymology; which gives the root and sufficient quantity of derivatives. Any assertion that studies only a preferential option is a sham).

單于 danhu: tān/tān-gįwo/jįu GS: 147a. 97a. These two characters are usually pronounced shanyu but there has not been any detailed reasoning for that. Hanshu Yinyi writes: Danhu means infinitely vast, which refers that the Person whose manifestations through his conducts resemble the sky is danhu. As for the transcription of the title of the Asian Huns supreme ruler, its origin is traced back to the word tarqan, tarχan by Pulleyblan. He mentions that according to Pelliot it must have been borrowed by the Tujue from their Ruanruan predecessors. Pulleyblan himself states that the ultimate source is no doubt the Huns. The use of Chinese -n for foreign -r is regular in the Han period. The Chinese initial *d- would not yet have been palatalized in the 2nd century BC when the transcription first appears. He adds that the title tarqan is found without its final -n on the coins of the Hephthalite ruler Nezak Tarxan in the 7th century. The Asian Huns had known and been using this title before they mixed with Turk. So tarqan, or danhu used to refer the supreme ruler of the Huns. As years went by, Turks and Mongols started to apply it for lower ranks, the decline of titles in the course of centuries is indeed quite common, we may compare the fate of khan in the modern Middle East where it has become no more than mister. See Pulleyblan: 256-257. We must add that in the form of tárkány as title name and in the form of Tarján as tribal name it was widely used among the Hungarians of the Conquest period and it has been preserved in a great number of Hungarian place names today. See also Nemeth: 202.

from Csornai Katalin Where Huns´ Blood Drew, pp.30-31, JOURNAL OF EURASIAN STUDIES, Volume I., Issue 3, July - September 2009, ISSN 1877-4199 http://www.federatio.org/joes.html


All Iranian traces belong to the eastern group (Indicating a classical case of the borrowing, unless it can be proved as an ingenious dialectal innovation unconnected with the Iranian languages). Into the Türkic languages the word should be borrowed early enough, because the Mong. borrowing from the Türk. still reflects the initial sonority (a consequence of Genaral Türkic, but not the Bulgar Türkic, sonorousness of the *t- of any origin in the position before the combination -rk- - see Dybo 2003), subsequently eliminated everywhere except the Oguz and Sayan groups (cf. the Khitan dalayan Menges RE 155). The Hung. tarchan 'olimjudex' (Abaev, citing Munkácsy), judging by the semantics, is taken directly from the Alanian (of which we know nothing, and can fantasize all Abaev wants, in addition calling it Scythian). Perhaps Anc. Uig. terken 'queen', Krh.-Uig. terken 'appeal to the ruler; a Queen', Horezm-Türk. tārkān 'princess' (Khosrow and Shirin) EDT 544 is an adaption of the Eastern-Iranian *tarkanaya- or *tarkanf: relative adjective or feminine gender (In this insane etymological report, an Eastern-Iranian imaginary relative adjective like a *whose is equated with a Türkic title for Queen or even for a Shanyu King. The whole asinine quality of the tarkhan example demonstrates the extent which in the first half of the 20th century the fabrication of the facts on the ground reached in extreme cases. The sequence is even more ridiculous then the translation of the Ioan Tsets' Alanian phrase. It is hard to second-guess the  motive, but one possibility is a support for a doctrine that the Middle Asia was Turkified only after a Moslem conquest, that before the conquest it was a pristine Iranian, or in a larger picture Indo-European domain. Not that that is very non-asinine, but at least no party involved can be accused of hearing voices ).

5. (??) Arju, arsu MK, IM 'jackal, hyena', arju-la- 'to stand as jackals' Late. Anc. Uig., MK (Cl. 200: "the -j- suggests a foreign (?) Sogdian origin") - Eastern Iran. *arsu 'bear' >  HSak. (Hotan oasis) arm Bailey 8, Sogd. ššh Gharib 1770, Vanetsi (what is Vanetsi/Vaneti) yirz, Pashto yaz, Sarikoli uirh, Sanglechi xars, Shugn(i) yürš. Changing of the meaning at borrowing can be attributed to tabooisation (The Türks did not know tabooisation, and neither did Huns, as the Chinese annals state. The "Eastern Iranian" stands alone in this case, separate from the Iranian, indicating a non-Iranian word. As a Türkic word, apparently it is specific to Kashgar).

6. *Kumlak 'hops'. Indeed a Comm. Türk. and even Pra-Türk. word. With MK qumlaq (Kypchak); Middle Kypch., Chat. qumlaq 'plant, mix into the intoxicating mead' Houtsma; Pav.C. 436. In the new languages: Kypch. Krh. kumlak, kumlah, Tat. kumlak; Sib.-Tat. kumlak; Tum. 3C 152, Tat. dial., Bashk. kumalak; Nog. kylmak 230, Kaz., Kirg. kulmak, Mount. Alt. kumanak, Khak. humnah, Shor. kubanak; Chuv. hamla, see VEWT 299, EDT 628, ESTYA 2000, 138-139, Fedotov 2, 326. Bulgar. >  Hungarian komló (see Gomb.BTLU 97, Gomb. 100-101, MNyTESz II 537). From Chuv. language was borrowed the Mari umla, əməl 'hops' (see Räs.ČLČ 235).

The tentative Iranian source of the word is Alanian etymon Osset. xymoelloeg 'hops', it is etymologized in Ab. IV 261 as a compound *hauma-aryaka Aryan haoma. The etymology is phonetically flawless and semantically plausible, the names for the hops in the Caucasian, Türkic, Finno-Ugric, Slavic and Germanic languages are declared to be Alanisms (This is a best example of circular logics. The oddball word in Ossetian is decreed to be an Iranism, then the Scythian is Iranian, then the Iranian versions are borrowed into the Türkic languages. A break in a single link in that chain of presumptions reverses the presumed direction of the borrowing, turning it from a single oddball exception into a normal borrowing. The Abaev's lloeg = >  aryaka = Arian is flawless? It is not even funny, all Ossetian elloegs are thus raised to pre-historic nationalistic pedigree. An adjective definition is used when there are alternate products. like Damask steel vs. regular steel, it indicates an import from an alien source, like Polish sausage, it screams I am a borrowing, I am from these weird alien Arians!). As correctly noted I.A. Shervashidze, this is the only plausible ancient Alanism in the Türkic languages. We shall note that in the other Iranian languages the reflexes for the name of the same plant fairly consistently retain the meaning of 'coniferous foliage, ephedra': *haumiā- (for some of the cited lexemes also is possible a reconstruction *hauma-) 'coniferous foliage, ephedra': Afg. uməm 'ephedra' (Asl.: 93), Sogd. (Al-Bîrûnî) hwm 'Pflanzenname', Persian houm < 'ephedra' (PRSl II: 734), Talysh hoəme 'hops, ivy' (Pireyko L.A. Talysh-Russian dictionary. M., 1976, p. 242), cf. Avesta haomya- 'zum Haoma gehörig'; *haumāna- 'ephedra': Afg. uman m. 'ephedra, coniferous foliage' (Asl.: 92), Munji yumana "ephedra", Yidgha uptepa 'ephedra'; *haumāka- 'ephedra': Wakhi (y)imik 'ephedra', aj. dial. hyta 'ephedra'; *haumdčî (+ ak) 'ephedra'; Shugn(i) amojak 'ephedra' (Karamshoev 1: 91 231), Rushan. amojak 'ephedra', Huf. amojak 'ephedra' (see Stebl.-Kam. NKR Stebl.-Kam. Wakhi) (see Dybo 1999).

230 Nog. kupelek 'hops' may be new Ossetian borrowing, or simply a derivative of kupe 'pot', cf. Az. Kün√-chich√ju 'fuchsia' (climbing ornamental plant, with hops-like flowers, but larger, literally 'flower-pot').

Ephedra, a low shrub of the cypress family, does not look like hops, so the transfer of semantics is explained functionally: a transition to the hops to produce intoxicating beverages. But close to the Central Asian species of Ephedra are spread in the Caucasus and Northern Black Sea Coast (Trees and Shrubs of the USSR, 250), so it is unclear why would the Alans in such traditional and ritual area switch to another type of plant with a transfer of the name, but the Talysh form unconditionally supports the Ossetian etymology 232. The chronology of the Alan's phonetic transitions also does not contradict the supposition of borrowing into the Türkic (Under Alanian, of which we know absolutely nothing, and the same about its chronology, the author apparently refers to Ossettic).

The Türkic word generally has almost satisfactory Altaic etymology: PAlt. *k'iomo/V 'kind of fragrant edible plant', Mong. *kömeli 'kind of wild onion/garlic' Less. 487, Khalkha x(m(l 'Mongolian onion' TM *ximŋe-kte 'bird-cherry ' SSTMYA 1, 318, Jap. *kamira 'kind of garlic' (EDAL). The Bulgar form could serve as a source for Slavic and Germanic (cf. the collection of Bulgarisms in the Germanic languages, collected by V.A. Terentiev - Terentiev ST) forms, and the Ossetian word can also be a Bulgarism. In any case, it undermines the reliability of the "single Alanism" in the Gen. Türkic. Still, accepting the Iranian origin for the Pra-Türkic word (in that case the semantic side looks much better: the garlic and bird-cherry are compatible as sharp-smelling edible plants - and compare the parallel relation in the Indo-European (bird-cherry - wild garlic) - but the garlic and hops are not similar either externally nor functionally, in any case, the hops is definitely not used as a fragrant plant), then from the chronological point of view should be suggested a borrowing from the language of the Eastern Iranian carriers of the archaeological cultures in the Sayan-Altai region, which possibly close to the Alanian (i.e. Ossetian) 233.

231 In Zarubin 1960: 89 the meaning of this word is is also presented in the following form: 'a shrub genus, which ash is used in the preparation of chewing tobacco (nas)'
232 Also compare Stebl.-Kam. NKR 56-57, where the author is trying to bring to the same word the Munji name for flax yılmaγa through a transition 'ephedra' >* 'hemp' (actually not represented) >  'flax', considering the semantical change in Osset. a typological parallel.
233 Another possible Pra-Türkic Iranism - *bütnük 'mint': Chuv. pətnək, Tat., Bashk. büt-nek 'mint', Kazakh bütnük 'mallow'. Fedotov 1, 428. In principle, Chuv. form can be a Kypchakism, and then the Iranism is late, but the source is unclear. From the Iranian side stands Osset. bit'na/bet'ina 'mint', by the Ab. 1, 263 suggestion < Georg. p'it'na 'mint', but perhaps it is backward (the Georgian word has no Kartveli etymology) - Pamir., Shugn(i), Bart. wiδn, Rush. wuδn, Wakhi waδn, Munji walən, Pashto weləna, Pers. pudina, Sivendi pidin, Kurd. pun, Athtari putunik (the latter may be a Turkism), etc. See Stebl.-Kam. Wakhi 386, Stebl.-Kam. NKR 121 - 122, where the Iranian forms are considered to be an adaptation of a wandering word. But at least the East-Iranian forms are reliably traced back to the Iran. verbal root *baud- 'smell' (Avesta baoδa- Barth. 000, Sogd. bwδ- Gharib 2879, Mgst. EPsh 86 *baudyana-); the Western Iranian form in principle can be a borrowing from the Eastern Iranian with dampening. The Türk. form, if it is Pra-Türkic, can be and Eastern Iranism. On the later Tokharisms in Türkic languages see below.

Judging from glottochronological datings for the Iranian tree, borrowing from the Eastern Iranian languages into Pra-Türkic should have happened in a period after the split of the Saka and Alan branches (lexial-statistical dating 660 BC), already from the languages of Middle Iranian type, but possibly before the split of the Saka (Hotan oasis?) and Pashtun branches (lexial-statistical dating 290 BC).

In a masterful stroke of a high professional, A.V.Dybo debunked not one, but three myths created by the Scytho-Ossetian mystificators. First and foremost is debunked the assertion of V.I.Abaev that he had put an end to the superficial and irresponsible speculations on the Scythian material that do not have anything common with the science. The alluded speculations is that the Scythians were Pra-Türks. The Abaev's doctrine was that if anything Scythian can't be explained from the Ossetian language, it can't be explained at all.

Secondly, A.V.Dybo does exactly that, analyzing the word that used to be a cornerstone of the Scytho-Iranian theory, and finding it widespread among the Türkic linguistic family, and even extending it to Mongolian and Japanese, and in particular to Khalkha Mongolian that historically stayed isolated from the ancient Türkic influence. I doung that, A.V.Dybo demonstrates that Scythians would know the k'iomo hops even if the Iranian languages did not exist at all.

And thirdly, A.V.Dybo debunks the Ossetian source, demonstrating that the Ossetian word could as well be a Türkic borrowing, a scenario that Abaev honored with screaming silence.

Pra-Türkic and Tocharian (Tocharian is a name for Bactrian, and Bactrian-based languages, but in the following discourse the misnomer Tocharian is applied to the Kuchean (Tokh. A) and Arsi (Tokh. B) oases)

List of alleged Tokharisms in the Pra-Türkic proposed by A.Rona-Tash in a number of his works seem to contain a number of questionable assumptions, we would prefer here here a skeptical point of view, as proposed in Reinhart 1990 234. In addition to conventional late borrowings, about which see below, almost all of these alleged loans are quite reasonable Altaic etymology - see EDAL. Exception is the Turk. *bel'k 'five', which, however, is unlikely in such a reconstruction (taking into account the Chuvash development, see SIGTYA 2002, 350) may be compared with Pra-Tokhar (Pra-Kuchean) ***päns 'five' Adams 2099 [Douglas Q. Adams A Dictionary of Tocharian B, Leiden Studies in Indo-European 10,. Rodopi: Amsterdam Atlanta, 1999, ISBN-10: 9042004355, ISBN-13: 978-9042004351]. Very speculatively to the Tokharisms could be attributed the Pra-Türkic name for the apple, because it is clearly borrowed from some Indo-European, but not from the Iranian language, preserving the distinction between r and l: *alma, Krh.-Uig. alma (MK) ~ alymla (MK); Chuv. ulma (see SIGTYA 1997, 145) in IE *amel- 'fruit tree, its fruit' (Anc. Greek ampelo-s f. 'grape vine', Germ. *amil-on- f. 'some fruit-tree', Gaul. amella 'Gaisblatt' WP I 179, possibly also Hett. sham(a)lu, Luv. nom.-acc. sg. šamluwan-za 'apple' Ivanov-Gamkrelidze 639-640), >  Skr. amra-m. 'Mango tree', Iran. *(a)marna-Stebl.-Kam. NKR 103-104, ( >  Finno-Ugr. *omarna- >  Fin. omena, Mord. umar SKES 429-430) 'apple', *amru- 'pear' Stebl.-Kam. NKR 108. The expected source of the Türkic word would have to look like *amla 'apple' - the reflex and the meaning, in principle, possible for the Tocharian. Unfortunately, the Tocharian name for the apple is not recorded. Three fitonyms, reconstructed for the Pra-Türkic (with a regular Chuvash parallel) and suspiciously resembling an Indo-European origin (but not Iranian, cf. Centum reflex *- g'-) - *ekel 'acorn, pine cone' (cf. IE *aig'-il- 'a tree (a type of oak), and its fruit' WP I 10), *elmen 'aspen, elm' (cf. IE *elem- 'tree (elm)' WP I 151) and **ab(u)s-ak 'aspen, poplar' (cf. IE *ap[u]s 'aspen, poplar, ash,' WP I 50, a comparison suggested in Róna-Tas TE) are limited in distribution - see SIGTYA 1997, 121, 126, 131 (which may be due to the limited spread of the plant at the current Türkic territory - see above in the section on botanical terminology and the migrations of the Türks), and thus have no solid Altaic etymologies. Phonetically, they could easily ascend to Comm. Tokhar reflexes of the respective Indo-European bases (the breakdown of the Comm. Tokhar into the A and B languages is glottochronologically dated by 20 BC), but in the Tocharian monuments such reflexes were not found.

An interesting collection of potential Pra-Türkic loanwords into Comm. Tokhar published by A. Lubotsky, and S.A.Starostin (Lubotsky-Starostin; a large proportion of these etymological proposals repeat those suggested by A.Rona-Tash, but with the opposite direction of borrowing) (I.e from Türkic to Kuchean and from Türkic to Turfanian/Arsi oases): there are the following words (that do not have satisfactory Indo-European etymologies):

1. Tokh. A (Kuchean) kot, Tokh. B (Tarim) kait 'sun, day' < PTokh. *kaun(V) -: PTürk. *gün(el)/*gunal (Anc. Uig. ü 'sun, day', Türk. gün 'id.', etc.) < PAlt. *giojnu 'dawn, daylight' ("It is important that the combination of meanings of 'sun' and 'day' is quite unusual for the Indo-European languages, which is a strong indication in favor of borrowing" - AL, SS).
2. Tokh. A (Kuchean) āle, Tokh. B (Tarim) alyiye* 'hand, palm' < PTokh. *āl'ye: PTürk. *āja 'id.' (Anc. Uig. aja, Turk. aja, etc.) < *ālj'a < PAlt. *'ā1ŋ (PMong. *haliga (n), PTM *palna 'hand', also possibly PKor. *par 'bundle'). The borrowing must be relatively old, before the Pra-Türkic replacement *āja < *ālja (The dating of the Pra-Türkic replacement is not stated, but in light of Korean cognate can be approximated at, say, 500 BC, making the Pra-Türkic => Common Kuchean/Arsu borrowing contemporary with the advent of the Scythians into Europe and Yin China ~ 1,200 ~ 800 BC).
3. Tokh. A (Kuchean) tor, Tokh. B (Tarim) taur 'dust ' < PTokh. *taur: PTürk. *tör 'dust' (Anc. Uig. toz, Turk. töz) < PAlt. *t'öre 'soil dust' (Written Mong. toru 'dust in the air '; PTM *turV, etc.). Borrowing to happen before the transition *r >  z (The r/z separation is the Ogur/Oguz split, archeologically and anthropologically connected with the re-population of the Amudarya basin by the Timber Grave nomads from the west and the east in the 7th c. BC, that created the Saka conglomerate. In the Amudarya steppes the recombined nomadic Timber Grave branches coexisted with the Bactrian agricultural migrants, a part of them settled in the Amudarya basin, originating the Horesm civilization. The language of the nomadic Timber Grave conglomerate was influenced by the Bactrian language, leading to phonetical changes, one of which was the prominent r/z transition, which may be dated by 6th-5th cc. BC. At that time the Saka formed as a distinct group, the Masgut/Massagetae confederation was the largest Saka subdivision, they are identified with the later Alan nomadic confederation, whom Biruni described as speaking a mixture of Türkic Badjanaks', which was a Kipchak language of the Oguz branch, with the Horesmian language, which formed from the marriage of Bactrian and Oguz In the 4th c. AD, a branch of Saka became known as Türkic Ashina tribe, made famous when it formed the First Türkic Kaganate. Under this scenario, the Oguz language is identical with the Pra-Türkic language, and the Ogur is a Middle Asian branch of the Pra-Türkic Oguz Numerically, the Oguz branch always predominated, and after a series of demographical turmoils it re-absorbed most of the Ogurs.

A.V.Dybo cites the Proto-Altaic *t'öre  for soil, dust without stopping for elucidations, even though phonetically and semantically it is a clear cognate of the Romance terra and its many variations and derivatives).
4. Tokh. B (Tarim) ām 'silence', adv. 'quiet, peaceful': PTürk. *am- 'be quiet, calm' (Anc. Turk. amul, amyl 'quiet, calm') < PAlt. *āmV (PMong. *amu-, *ami- 'to rest', PTM *ām- 'to sleep').
5. Tokh. A (Kuchean) kanak, B kenek < PTokh. *kenek 'cotton cloth': PTürk. *köjne-lek, *köjnek 'shirt "(Krh. könlek, Turk. köjnek) < PAlt. *k'iuni 'thread, fabric' (PMong. *kejeŋ 'hem' PKor. *kinh 'rope, ribbon, tassel', PJap. *kinu 'silk, cloth, dress').
6. Tokh. B (Tarim) olya 'more': PTürk. *ulug 'great, large' (Anc. Uig. uluy, Turk. ulu, etc.) < PAlt. *ulu/o (PMong. *olon 'many', PTM *ule- 'good', PKor. or 'fully, completely').
7. Tokh. A (Kuchean) tmām, Tokh. B (Tarim) t(u)māne 'ten thousand, myriad ' < PTokh. *t(ə)māne: PTürk. *Tümen '10,000; very much' (Anc. Uig. tümen, Turk. tümen) < PAlt. *čiumi 'large number'(cf. PKor. *č ' thousand') (Like a few other Hunnic words, tümen was arbitrarily declared an Iranic loanword, and used as an argument against Türkic-linguality of the Eastern Huns. The Slavic has a Hunnic loanword tma, a derivative of tümen, from the Western Huns times. The presence of cognates in Proto-Slavic, and Proto-Korean make that assertion baseless).
8. Tokh. B (Tarim) pärseri*' (head) louse': PTürk. *bürče 'flea' (Tat. börče, Kum. bürče, Chuv. pwrza, etc.) < PAlt. *biure (Written Mong. Bürge, bürge, büürge 'louse' PKor. *pjərok 'flea') (The animal husbandry people were the first to gain the exposure to and the knowledge about the flies, fleas, and louses. They were inadvertently acquired and domesticated with the animals, exactly like the agriculturists inadvertently acquired and domesticated mice and rats).
9. Tokh. B (Tarim) yase* 'shame': PTürk. *jās 'loss, damage, shame' (Anc. Uig. jas 'loss, damage', Yak. sat 'shame', etc.) < PAlt. *zıāsu 'loss, damage'.
10. Tokh. B (Tarim) kärk- 'rob, steal': PTürk. *Kar-ak 'bandit' (Anc. Uig. qaraq-čy, Turk. Gara, etc.) < PAlt. *kara 'opposite: the enemy' (Hence the Türkic kara as west, i.e. opposite to the east, also borrowed into Chinese during Yin period. The Kara-dengiz is not a Black Sea, as was re-interpreted later, but the Western Sea, as seen from the Middle Asia and Siberia. Ditto Kara Bulgars, and many other Kara people).

The last three words, witnessed only in the Tocharian B, may belong to another category of the Turkisms in the Tocharian, about which see below. Note that here the borrowing, first, predate the transition  r' >  z in Türkic, and secondly, before the split of the Pra-Tokhar (i.e., before the 20 BC) (Treating the Kuchean/Aksi language as a monolithic phenomenon that can be pinpoint dated contradicts the composite nature of these languages, which are a historical conglomerate of Bactrian, Sogd, Prakit and a number of other Indian languages, Türkic Oguz, Türkic Ogur, Chinese, Tibetan, etc., assembled in a microcosm of the desert oases, where the influences are disproportionally magnified because of the miniscule population size).

Predicted by all that dating the time and place of existence and diversification of the Türkic Proto-language seems quite well located in the large territory between the present Ordos and the southern Sayan-Altai, within the frame of the Loufan (Loufang 楼烦, 樓煩) archaeological culture, whose carriers were engaged in transhumant cattle breeding in a large territory, which neighbored Yuezhi, which demonstrates extensive connections with China and more modest connections with Pazyryk (ethnically Iranian) culture, and most likely they are connected with a ruling dynasty of Pazyryk origin they had for a certain period - see Shulga, 1999, see also this book , p. 393 (For Pazyryk Andronovans, we have so far only mt DNA for female lines of both males and females; the Y-DNA is not known yet; the mamas are from Mansi, Tuva, and Kazakh Scythians, Paleo-Sibirian and Altaian Scythians, N. Altaians, Teleuts, Shors (from craniology), Paleo-Sibirians and Asiatics (Mongoloids). No connection with Indo-Arians or Indo-Iranians whatsoever, neither in genetics, nor in thin-walled gracile osteology. One would strongly suspect that the Pazyryk people, who were living on milk products, also would not have the Indo-Arian/Indo-Iranian lactose intolerance. How the philologists made Teleuts, Shors, and Altaians speak Iranian is beyond comprehension. Even more puzzling is how philologists made them to uniformly abandon their native Iranian language that they supposedly received with their Teleut mother's milk, and switch in situ to a totally foreign Türkic without a trace of historical memory, including philological, osteological, and biological. Mind you, the biological studies were performed within a decade before the professor A.V.Dybo 2007 publication of this work, they instantaneously made the Scytho-Iranian theory a purely philological construct divorced from the factual evidence, and  decimated all ethnological aspects of the theory. These philological miracles would have made the Circus of Soleil performances pale: it is easier to turn an elephant into an airplane than to turn cereal-eating Indo-Arians into pastoral Türks. In a country built around sobriety checkpoints, scientific roads do not require sobriety checks for the scholarly travelers. And again, wouldn't the science that reconstructs a language of long -dead peoples use a system of checks and balances, and do a check of the ethnological complex before making its conclusions an axiom?

In following the Iranian doctrine,  A.V.Dybo missed on two cardinal points: the Tokhars/Tuhsi (Yuezhi in Anc. Chinese) were the same Ogur tribe as the Huns; moreover, depending on which tribe held the supreme title, the Tokhars/Tuhsi were the Huns, or the Huns were Tokhars/Tuhsi, as was the situation before Mode. The tribal fight for supremacy was endemic to Türkic society, it had never stopped. Secondly, the Pazyrykans were a contemporal branch of the Huns, or vice-versa. While the Pazyrykans were building kurgans in the Altai, the Huns/Jungs ets. were building kurgans in and around Yin China. They,  Tokhars/Tuhsi, and Huns were politically distinct, ethnologically identical, ethnically nearly identical, diverse and divergent.)

Pra-Türkic and Samoyed (Nenets, people that speak Nenets languages object the use of the term Samoed as derisive, it comes from a Russian folk moniker Self-Eater)

As to the Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) borrowing into Pra-Türkic, the most recent survey assessing reliability and tentative timing of the borrowing, see Helimski 2000, 301-312 235. We can note in this regard the following: E.A. Helimski evaluats as reliable borrowing into Pra-Türkic and General Türkic 7 etymologies (1. PS *kaətyə 'spruce' >  PT *kady 'pine', 2. PS *ki, *kilz 'sable' >  PT *kil 'sable', 3. PS *tyteŋ 'Siberian cedar' >  OT *tyt 'larch', 4. PS *koəjə 'mountain, watershed' >  OT *K(i)aja 'rock, mountain', 5. PS *käsa 'bark' >  OT *kās 'bark', 6. PS *kacu 'blizzard' >  OT *kād 'blizzard, storm', 7. PS *talä- 'steal' > *PT tala- 'rob'); the glottochronological dating of the Pra-Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) divergence - 410 BC (splintering of Selkup), the breakup of other languages onto northern and southern groups - 160 BC, which, in general, is consistent with the possibility of borrowing from the Pra-Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) or Pra-Southern Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) into the Pra-Türkic (tentative localization applied  to the 1st millennium BC - the eastern part of the Ob-Irtysh interfluvial - Helimski 2000, 17).

235 On impossibility of borrowing from the Ob-Ugric languages into the Gen. Türkic of the word *degin 'squirrel' see SIGTYA 1997, 165. PT *kundur 'beaver' (SIGTYA 1997, 162) does not unambiguously etymologize, and in principle can be borrowed from - or might as well be a source - of the Pra-Ugr. *kuntz 'beaver' (MNyTESz 2, 127), which does not have further Finno-Ugric parallels. Currently, the beaver is lightly spread east of the Urals (small spot ranges in the area of the Ob-Irtysh river and further in the upper Enisei River and up to the Lake Baikal - Mammals of the USSR, 281, map 140), it is rare further south (Murzaev 1966, 250: now is absent "almost in the whole of the Inner Asia, except for the upper Urungu and possibly some tributaries of the upper part of the Black Irtysh, i.e. in Dzhungaria), but (ibid.) such limited area should be viewed as a relic", so that we can not exclude that that it was known in the mountain (and thus forest) regions of the Türks' ancestral homeland. Taking a borrowing from Pra-Ugr. should apparently recognize a singular character of the borrowing (perhaps occurring as a result of trade relations within the east-west trade routes). The divergence of the Hungarian from the Ob-Ugric is glottochronologically datedly by about 1,000 BC, the split of the Khanty and Mansi is dated by 130 AD; can be considered a borrowing into the Pra-Türkic of the Pra-Ob Ugrian suffix forms: *kuntz-l' (in UEW 858 the opposite, a borrowing of suffix-less form into Pra-Ugr., but it is less likely culturally and historically).

However, the subsequent studies of the Altaian kinship did not confirm these loans, because all these bases have quite convincing Altaic etymology (EDAL:
1. PAlt. *ke(n)da 'type of coniferous tree': PT *Kady 'pine', PTM *kende - 'thuja',
2. PAlt. **k`iula 'sable, squirrel': PT *kil 'sable', PMong. *kulgana 'mouse', PTM **xulu-ki 'squirrel',
3. PAlt. *čākte 'pine, larch': PT *tit 'larch', PTM *žagda 'pine',
4. PAlt. *kadV 'cliff, mountain': PT *K(i)aja(?) 'cliff', PMong. *kada 'cliff', PTM *kada 'cliff', (kas/kaz ~ cliff, kau/ku/kuu ~ white,   )
5. PAlt. *k'iose- 'scrape, shave': PT *Kas 'bark, scrape', PMong. *kisu- 'scrape, shave', PTM *xuši/*kuši 'knife' PJap. *kusa/*kasa-i 'exema',
6. PAlt. *k'edo 'wind, fog': PT *Kad 'bad weather, storm', PMong. *küdeŋ 'fog', PTM *xedün 'wind', PJap. *kəti 'wind',
7. PAlt. *t'āla- 'rob, steal': PT *tala- 'plunder', PMong. *tala- 'rob', PKor. *tar'ai- 'seduce, lure', PJap. *tara-s- 'seduce, deceive').

However, these are cases where the Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) borrowing from a formal point of view still is more likely than the Altaic etymology:

4. PS *koəjə 'mountain watershed' >  OT *K(i)aja 'rock, mountain'. The Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) word has Uralic etymology (albeit not common Uralic: PU *kaδ'a > Hungarian hegy 'top, mountain'), the Türkic word seriously violates a standard pattern of development PAlt. *d >  PT *d, demonstrating *j instead of *d (Who violates whom is a mute question: Are Scythians PAlt. or PT or what? Herodotus extensively used the Scythian word Caucas(us) in the 6th c. BC, Pliny 6.XIX stated that Scythians call Mount Caucasus Croucasis, which means white with snow, in both cases, separated by 650 years, the mountains were called by actual kas, not by a fictitious *kaj.  In such cases, the theoretical standard pattern should be questioned, instead of the correctness of the Scythian pronunciation. In the word Kazbek/Kazbeg  ~ Türkic Prince Mountain, the mountain is phoneticized kaz , which is consistent with kas , and is another fact on the gTur. The Kaskak in Altai mountains means precipitous slope, with a common Altaic kad~kaz bluff, cliff).

5. PS *käsa 'bark' >  OT *kās 'bark'. Semantically, the Türkic word deviates somewhat from the Altaic etymology, whhile the Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) word has a normal Uralic etymology (PFU *ko(v)skz 'bark'). The cases 1. PS *kaətyə 'spruce' >  PT *kady 'pine' and 3. PS *tyteg 'Siberian cedar' >  OT *tyt 'larch', in addition to conflicting with the hypothesis about borrowing of a fact of the existence of Altaic etymologies  for the Türkic words, though the paired, but phonetically and semantically quite correct, both offer the same semantic (and cultural) oddity. Namely, accepting the hypotheses about the borrowing from Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) results that the Türks, adopting a name of a previously unknown to them tree (cf. Terentiev, 1999, pp. 180: "The fact that in the Türkic languages this word came to mean "pine" should not be confusing, because ... the Pra-Türks, living in the steppe zone, were not sufficiently aware about  the types of the conifers), for some reasons borrowed for it a name of an entirely different tree. As for the geographical distribution of the discussed trees, see above the relevant section of this book; note that the cedar was witnessed on the southern slopes of the Mongolian Altai (this is a southern limit of its distribution, cf. Murzaev 1966, 216), but the larch extends much farther to the east and south, in particular in the Tien Shan and Ordos, i.e. much closer to the presumed location of the Pra-Türkic habitat - and most likely was well known to them as a pine and spruce; in these circumstances a borrowing of the cedar name to designate a larch, or fir name to designate a pine is unlikely (Even much less probable if the artificial prejudicious limitation on the original linguistic areal is discarded. The Assyrians recorded an extensive Türkic lexicon in their neighborhood, not in the presumed location of the Pra-Türkic habitat in the Loufang Ordos [A.D. Mordtmann, Über die Keilinschriften zweiter Gattung, ZDMG XXIV, 1870, p. 50]).

With regard to the case 2. PS *ki, *kilz 'sable' >  PT *kil 'sable', the Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) word has no good Uralic etymology (cf. the new etymology PFU *kaδ'w 'female', usually compared with PS *ki: PS *kejmā  'female' Janhunen 66, significantly more acceptable phonetically and semantically - Aikio 2002). According to zoological data, the sable inhabit the western and eastern Siberia, and the Far East, but to the Western Siberia the areal of its distribution comes fairly relatively (see map 75 in Mammals of the USSR, 137: a small territory north of the middle course of the Ob River), while the basins of the Enisei and Lena are included completely or even to the south of their sources. Generally, much more likely is the borrowing from the Pra-Türkic into the Pra-Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) (with subsequent common Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) transition  *-l > *-j at the end of a syllable).

Thus, we have to abandon the hypothesis on the borrowings of the major terms for the taiga realities from the Pra-Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) into the Pra-Türkic. It should be stated that in this regard also look much more doubtful the above cases 1. and 3.: with the absence of massive borrowings from the Pra-Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) into the Pra-Türkic cultural lexicon is unlikely a borrowing of such words as "bark" and "cliff" (the first of which is even included into the 100-word Swadesh list, little permeable by definition).

The most recent discussion of the alleged borrowing from the Pra-Türkic to the Pra-Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) was apparently published by V.A. Terentiev (Terentiev, 1999, pp. 182-194). Of the 80 reviewed etymologies, for which he suggests varying degrees of reliability, the following are credible semantically and phonetically, and to a some measure meet a criteria of cultural outcome 236:

236 Apparently, the following alleged borrowing from the Pra-Türkic to the Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) need comments. 1. For semantic reasons, is questionable the possibility of borrowing the Nen. to' 'blanket' from the Türk. *don 'gown'; Kamas. ton 'fir coat', as V.A. Terentiev correctly pointed, most likely the later borrowing came from some Siberian Türkic language. 2. PT *kap- 'capture' >  PS *kəpi- 'to yank' - but compare the Ur. *kappV (Szin. 35), Comm. Nostratic root, so the borrowing hypothesis is unnecessary. 3. PT **kalbuk > *kasuk 'spoon' >  PS *kajwa 'spade, shovel, oar' Janhunen 63 (Ngan., Nen., Kamas.). Compare the normal Uralic etymology of the Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) word: UEW 170-171. 4. PT *Kugu 'swan' >  PS *kukə (Janhunen 76-77) (Tundra Nen., Tavgi); sooner should be suspected a borrowing of the TM *kuku/*huku SSTMYA 1, 426-427, 2, 336. 5. PT *ködeč (VEWT 286) 'vessel' does not exist, see Dybo, The linguistic contacts, the respective forms are divided into three different etymologies, among them is Sib.-Türk.: Khak. ködes 'earthen pot, kettle' Shor. ködeš id., SUig. kodiš 'stove' ( < *götič), ascending to the *göteč, which may have an Alt. etymology: TM *kota- 'tableware, cup, bowl' SSTMYA 1, 418. Accordingly, less likely becomes the borrowing into the PS *kyttiä >  Ngan. kita 'scoop', Forest. En. kide 'trough-like vessel', Tundra. Nen. hydya 'cup, bowl', possibly from PTM?. 6. *Küren 'ferret, weasel' >  Selkup kury, Kamas. kürö 'weasel'. Not justified is the Terentiev's assumption about an earlier meaning of the 'weasel' in the Türkic languages, because the Hungarian borrowing from the Bulg., göreny, also means 'ferret', and for the Pra-Türkic is reconstructed another word for ermine, *iars, see SIGTYA 1997, 163; phonetically the Selkup and Kamas forms are poorly traced back to the PS state, but a separate borrowing from the Türkic. is impossible. From Mong.? Why not compare the Hungarian directly with the Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed)?"

1. PT *jür 'hundred' >  PS *jür 'hundred' Janhunen 50 (without Selkup), Cf. Helimski 289
2. OT *junt 'horse' >  PS *junta 'horse' Janhunen 49;
3. OT *jama- 'mend, darn' >  PS *jemnə- Janhunen 42 (without Selkup)
4. Oguz-Karluk-Kypch. *bal'mak 'kind of shoes' >  PS *päjma 'boots, shoes' Janhunen 118,
5. OT *jasa- 'to construct, arrange' >  PS *jese- 'set chum (tent)' Terentiev 188 (Nen.-Selkup)
6. PT *(h)ekir 'twins' >  PS *jekə 'twin' Janhunen 34 (NE-Nen. Selkup)  (Orig.: Samoyed)
7. PT *balyk 'fish' >  PS *pəjkz 'Jukola, sturgeon, roach' (only En., Nen.) Terentiev 182,
8. PT *(h)eke- 'to grind' >  PS *jika- 'to grind, saw' (only Tundra. En. d'iyit'e', Tundra Nen. ihi- 'rub, rub in paint, grind' Terentiev 184, for Nen. perhaps borrowing from the North. Tung. hiki- 'rub, rub in' SSTMYA 2, 323),
9. PT *kyn 'scabbards' >  PS *ken Janhunen 67 (common, without Selkup)
10. PT *kan 'ruler' >  PS *kaŋ 'same' Joki 192, Terentiev 185 (Kamas qoŋ, Koib. kon, Karag. kok, Selkup koŋ, Forest Nen. kaŋ, kak),
11. (?) OT *dal 'branch, willow' >  PS *taəj 'branch, bough' Helimski 1997, 349 (Mator., Karag.)
12. PT *bat- 'dive' >  PS *pət- 'same' Janhunen 115,
13. PT *ür '' fat' >  PS *jür 'same' Janhunen 50 (see Helimski - Stachowski 1995, p. 42-43: "The suggested etymology raises doubts mainly from the" Woerter und Sachen (words and things)" viewpoint ... However, phonetically the comparison creates little or no problems"). To the same group, as was mentioned above, can also be joined the Pra-Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) name for the sable. Note again that the relevant Türko-Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) relations should therefore be dated back to the time fairly distant from the split of the Pra-Türkic, that is to the time before 410 BC (Before the split of Selkup), so that rather archaic phonetic phenomena slould be expected.

Pra-Türkic and Pra-Enisei

Below, we focus on a reconstruction of Pra-Enisei phonetics, performed in Starostin 1982, and Pra-Enisei lexicon, reconstructed in Starostin 1995, as well as its expanded and updated for the latest literature version, published in the Internet at www.starling.rinet.ru 237. The split of the Pra-Enisei language by that data is glottochronologically dated by the turn of the eras, when developed two branches, "Ket" and "Kott". From the "Ket" separated in the 5th c. AD split a Pumpo-Kola language, then in the 12th c. AD diverged the Ket and Yug languages. The Kott Group in the 6th c. AD split into the Kott and Arin languages.

A number of loans of the historical times between the Enisei and Türkic Siberian languages are quite well known. The following is a list of possible borrowings into the Pra-Enisei and separate Enisei groups from the Pra-Türkic and possibly from some Türkic groups. 238

237 Compared with the "paper" publication, there are in particular the updates and etymological discussions from the Werner 2002.
238 All asserted words of the Türkic loanword sources have Altaic etymology, see EDAL (This criteria is fundamental in comparative linguistics, but for some reasons it is neglected in the Scythian studies, for example see references in this work to the Abaev's beliberda).

Pra-Eniseian loanwords (no later than the turn of the era):
1. PEn. *χοtyr1 'cloth, felt' (KS 1995, p. 305 Ket., Yug., Kott.) < PT *kidir 'felt' >  OT *kidiz SIGTYA 1997, 392;
2. PEn. *?i?n 'needle' (KS 1995, p. 192: also proposed Sino-Caucasian etymology) < PT >  OT *(j)igne, jigne ESTYA 1974, 367-369, SIGTYA 1997, 106; borrowing proposed in Stachowski 1996, pp. 96;
3. PEn. *?V?rl 'sing song' (KS 1995, p. 202) < PT >  OT *yr  SIGTYA 1997, 610; the borrowing proposed in Stachowski 1997/2, 233;
4. ? PEn. *dam-a *dam-ןuן 'window' (KS 1995, p. 219, the second component of the composite means a hole, the etymology of the first is uncertain) < PT >  OT *dām 'wall' SIGTYA 1997, 529;
5. PEn. *KVlpV 'spoon' (KS 1995, p. 243, Kott-Arin-Pumpokol: also was proposed a Sino-Caucasian etymology, phonetically flawed) < PT **kalbuk >  PT *kaluk >  OT *kasuk (NB (Nota Bene): the phonetic form of the word is more archaic than can be assumed for the Pra-Türkic language at the time of the first split (Ogur/Oguz), because in the Bulgar group we also already see the result of *lp > l, about the development of the combination restored on the basis of the Altaic parallels of the Türkic word, see Street 286-287) [John C. Street (1962). TurkicMongolicTungusic and KoreanJapaneseAinu, grouped as "North Asiatic"; Street, J. (1974), On the Lexicon of Proto-Altaic : a Partial Index to Reconstruction , Madison, Wisconsin];
6. PEn. *dəli 'willow' (KS 1995, p. 221) < PT >  OT *dal 'willow' SIGTYA 1997, 125-126;
7. PEn. *χopVr 'foam' (KS 1995, p. 304 Ket., Yug., Kott.) < PT *köp- >  PT *köpük 'foam', OT *köpür- 'foaming' ESTYA 1997, 108-111;
8. ? PEn. *bət 'goldilocks' (KS 1995, pp. 209-210, Ket., Yug., Kott.) < OT *bynyt 'goldilocks' (Brachymystax lenok, salmon fish) (VEWT 336, SIGTYA 1997, 177: Sayan Yakut (Sakha), but with Altai parallels). also compare Selkup moeten id. (Helimski KS 240): from the Turk.?

Loans that have taken place not later than 6th c. AD (Only in "Kott" branch):
1. PEn. *KuPurKVn 'onion (plant)' (KS 1995, pp. 243, Kott-Assamese-Arin) < OT *gEmürgen 'wild onion or garlic': Anc. Turk. kövürgen (MK), kömürgen (MK - Oguz), perhaps borrowed from Türkic languages of Siberia (Kyrkyz?), cf. Khak. köbargen, Mount. Alt. köbürgen, Kirg. köbürgön. See SIGTYA 1997, 124, ESTYA 1980, 100 (Development *m > *b, possibly under the influence *köpür- 'foaming');
2. PEn. *jus 'one hundred' (KS 1995, p. 233, Kott-Arin, in the presence of Comm. Enisei hundred with Sino-Caucasian etymology, *? *?alVs-(tamsVJ) < OT *jüz < PT *jür 'sto'; also Kyrkyz? However, is also possible a separate borrowing.

Loans of not later than 12th c. AD (Only in the Ket-Yug sub-branch):
1. PEn. *palgV'epm' (KS 1995, pp. 245, Ket-Yug) < PT *bālyk 'fish' ESTYA 1978, 59-60, SIGTYA 1997, 177, Fedotov 1, 443
2. PEn. *?iGV- 'grind' (KS 1995, pp. 195, Ket-Yug, was proposed Sino-Caucasian etymology) < *PT - 'to cut, grind' SIGTYA 1997, 399, may already be from Siberian Türkic languages, compare Khak. ige- and the like.
3. PEn. *??ž- 'loin' (KS 1995, p. 200, Ket-Yug) < PT *uča ESTYA 1974, 566 - 567, may be from Siberian Türkic languages, cf. Khak. uča, Tuv. uža etc.
4. PEn. *si?id 'strap' (KS 1995, p. 274, Ket-Yug) < PT *syd- >  Khak. syzym 'band on the shaman's gavel' Chuv. šras 'hem, band' EDT 799-800, ESTYA 2003.253.

Two potential Türko-Enisei contact words require a separate discussion.
1. PEn. *so?/G/χom 'arrow with a blunt tip' (KS 1995, pp. 276, Ket-Yug, was proposed Sino-Caucasian etymology). The respective reality, the arrow for a squirrel suom, among Kets is described as follows: "The squirrel arrow ... had a blunt oval tip, carved integral with shaft ... Sometimes instead of a wooden tip was set  a horn tip, with the same form (the arrows were then called kok suom, kok 'horn'). The blunt arrowhead did not despoil the pelts. For squirrel hunting the Kets also used arrows for spooking the animal. The oval wooden arrowhead of those arrows was hollowed from the inside. The surface had piercing holes. During an arrow flight, the air went through the hole, producing a whistle, which spooked and drove out from the nests hiding squirrels" (Alekseenko E.A. Kets. Historical-ethnographical essay. Leningrad, 1967. p. 54). It also reported that the Ket bow was famous still back in the 18 c. throughout the northern Enisei area, and was an object of exchange with other nations. "The Russian merchants took the Ket bows to the Nenets, Dolgans, and Nganasani (Peoples of Siberia. Leningrad, 1956. p. 689). A similar in form metal arrowhead of a battle arrow with holes is shown in the table XLIV of the MV Gorelik book "Weapons of the Ancient East" (Moscow, 1993, pp. 304, 97: Altai, 6 c. BC); it is generally thought that such arrowheads spread with the Huns. In this case we have OT *skom/n 'arrow, arrowhead': Anc. Kypch. soqym MK 'wooden whistling arrowhead' ("a piece of hollowed wood, conical in shape, and has holes on three sides, it is placed at the end of the arrow shaft; it is a whistle"), baqyr soqym MK, QB (Kutadgu Bilig) 'Planet Mars" (literally "copper sokym"); Old Kypch. sayan 'arrowhead' (AH, maybe a typo instead of soqym) Cl. EDT 811, Khak. sayan 'bow arrow', Shor. soyan 'bow arrow', Mount. Alt. soyon, (Lebed) (Kuu Kiji) soyono 'bow arrow' ( IV 529: Kuu Kiji. soyon 'iron arrowhead'), sokkon Ρ IV 523 (Tel.) 'iron arrowhead', Tuv., Tof. soγun 'bow arrow' SIGTYA 1997, 571, ESTYA 2003, 277. The word does not have Altaic etymology, contrary to EDAL, since in the middle of the word is restored voiceless, and it can not be compared with the PAlt. *sioga 'bow, crossbow, an arrow': PMong *sayali 'crossbow', PTM *sug- 'spear, arrow; harpoon; a type of knife' SSTMYA 2, 118; PKor. *hoar' bow and arrow', PJap. *sa 'arrow'. But it can easily be explained (after G.Clauson) as a derivativof sok- 'insert' (quite successful because of the normal relationship of semantics 'arrowhead' = 'sleeve, insert'). However, the actual equivalency of the realities behind the Ket and the ancient Türkic words encouraged to see either a borrowing from the Enisei into the Türkic, in any case not separately into the Siberian languages, because then is hard to explain the development of semantics and the change of the ending  m to n, or into Enisei before the 12 c. AD from the (General) Türkic? Kyrkyz? Even earlier from the Pra-Türkic? (i..e. before the split Oguz/Ogur ca 7th c. BC)

2. PEn. *kun 'skunk' (KS 1995, pp. 242, Ket-Yug-Pumpokol, was proposed Sino-Caucasian etymology, there is another PEn. name rossomaha (wolverine, skunk)): cf. Türk. forms: Shor. kunu, Sib. Tat. kunu, Khak. kunu 'rossomaha', Bashk. qono, Krh. quna 'marten' VEWT 300, SIGTYA 1997, 162. Also compare Mator-Taigiy-Karagas kun'e 'ermine' Helimski 1997, 34. All of these words undoubtedly remind the Comm. Nostratic name for marten (PIE *keun-, PKartv. *kwenr-MSSNYA 346), but the Türkic word can not be its parallel, because likely such word is the PAlt. *kuren- >  PT *Kuren 'ferret , weasel, marten' (see EDAL). Upon a closer examination it turns out that the Türkic forms can be divided: Sib. Tat., Shor. and Khak. kunu 'rossomaha' can be asserted to be a borrowing from the Enisei languages, and Bashk. qono and Krh. quna 'marten', both ascending to the *kuna, consider as a borrowing (apparently, initially in the Kypchak) from the well-known Anc. Rus. kouna 'marten; money unit'. The problem is the Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) form: for the Enisei (or Siberian Türkic) borrowing it has a strange development of the meaning for the Uralic parallel to the Nostratic form, it is too isolated. As for the borrowing of the name rossomaha, compare PT *jebke 'rossomaha': Khak. jekpe, Yak. siegen, Dolg. hiegen, Tuv. čekpe VEWT 195 (has an Altaic etymology: PAlt. *zipe 'a kind of large predator': PMong *sibor 'leopard', PTM *sibige 'wolf, bear'), borrowed into Arin dzhip'ka 'marten', Kamas. djapka 'marten', Mator-Taigiy-Karagas djibke 'rossomaha' (Pallas) - see Helimski, Keto-Uralica, 248, also with a strange development of meanings. The modern areal of rossomaha (wolverine) fully covers the basins of the Enisei, Lena and more eastern and southern regions; in the Ob-Irtysh rossomaha (wolverine) is represented much worse (Mammals of the USSR, pp. 42-43, map 79). Thus, geographically most easily can be imagined a borrowing from the Enisei or Türk to the Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) languages, but, judging from the unsettled meanings we deal with later reciprocal borrowing in the Sayan region, of rather taboo nature.

Note that the words "fish", "grind" and "willow" fell on the list of the pra-language borrowing both in Pra-Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) and Pra-Enisei. Apparently, the borrowing between all three Proto-languages went on in the contact territory that includes the Enisei and Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) ancestral homeland. The natural dating of these contacts would have been by the initial period of the Türks' advance toward the north-west, respectively, correlating with other datings and localizations, by the 2nd -1st centuries BC (Note that Shanyu Maodun in 203-202 BC subjugated to the Hun states the tribes in the Sayan, Altai and Upper Enisei - Eastern Turkestan 1992, pp. 118). In this connection, we can assert that the modern glottochronological dating of the Proto-Nenets (Orig.: Samoyed) divergence is somewhat too deep, may it should be  returned to the traditional dating by the turn of the era (see, for example, Helimski 1982,45-46) (The premise that political control is equivalent to the linguistic distribution is doubtful; the premise that the Türkic people and languages were in the period prior to the 2nd c. BC completely absent from the enormous territory attributed to the Enisei and Nenets homelands is not any less doubtful; the spread of the Tele tribes in the initial period of written history contradicts these premises. Maodun Shanyu united the autonomous tribes across a large territory, but from the prior Chinese annals it is known that the tribes were decentralized politically and autonomous, not that their area was limited to certain locations known to the Chinese. An assertion that the forest foot hunters and nomadic pastoralists lived intersPersed, sharing the same territory but exploring different economical niches seems to be justified better.

The reference to the Anc. Rus. kouna 'marten also needs a closer examination: the term appears as an attribute of the tax collection imposed by the Avars and Khazars, and is likely a loanword into Early Slavic languages, adopted as a set of related terms connected with tax collection from the foot hunter dependents; the Avars and Khazars did not initiate the tax, they inherited it from the Huns and Bulgars when they took political and economic control of the dependent tribes, but so did  the Huns and Bulgars, and before them Alans, Sarmatians, and Scythians; thus it is more likely that the Slavic term ascends to the relations described by Herodotus in for the Scythians and their dependents. The Rus annals described the procedure of the takeover in clear terms: "Stop paying tribute to the Khazars, and pay it to us", changing only the allegiance of the tributary tribe, but not the existing obligation).


The second level of the nodes on our two trees are quite different. In the first case (unedited lists), the division into three branches can be defined as Yakut, Siberian and the remainder, and the separation dates back to 160 AD. In the second case (edited lists) the same dating appies to the division into four branches: Yakut, Sayan (Topa), Oguz in a broad sense (with the inclusion of the ancient Türkic) and balance (conditionally it can be termed a central group) (to place Ogur in the same group with Oguz downplayss the group that was most prominent in that historical period, and which provides the bulk of the historical traces. This approach can't be productive). It should be noted that none of the trees show a particular Yakut (Sakha)-Sayan unity, which is sometimes suggested on the basis of two interesting, but clearly not a "bound" phonetic features:
(a) the development of intervocalic fricative *- δ- (allophone of *d) in the explosive and
(b) development -rk > -rt in the auslaut.
Presumably the total change *a >  y in Yakut and Tuva actually represent two different processes: in the Yakut y develops from a closed *a and from open *a in the position in front of -j, and in the Sayan group it developed from open *a before old labialized vowels of the second syllable. The status of the Siberian group including Sayan, was not entirely clear even to those Turkologists who suggested it, at best can be seen one common phonetic isogloss for the Kyrgyz and Toba groups - preservation of the final -b and-g, but it is obviously is not connected. In the morphology they have an important common typological characteristic: most of the former analytic verb forms are now agglutinative - but these were formed in different languages with different auxiliary verbs, which excludes the common origin of the process. As to the tree on the edited list, a certain number of common innovations undoubtedly links the central languages, and allows to distinguish the four branches: Yakut, Sayan and Oguz for a long distinguished between the long and short vowels, the central languages lost early this distinction, in the morphology the Oguz languages retained the old nominal index of the definite accusative, in other languages replaced with the old pronominal index; the Yakut, Sayan and Oguz languages retained the perfect participle with -myš, the others lost it and thus reconstructed the view-timing system, most of these processes are "related" isoglosses. It should be noted that a close relationship of the ancient Türkic language with the Oguz group is traditionally recognized. The dating of this node may be linked with some shifts as a result of the second migration of the Huns to the north-west (155 AD).

As for the more recent branching, the trees greatly differ, and for the unedited tree most of these differences can be is associated with the subsequent territorial contacts between the related languages (This conclusion already imbeds a prior status where the related languages cover immense territory, and extend their mutual influences across individual territories, presenting a linguistical continuum). Apparently, that can explain the Karakhanid-Türkic case, which on the unedited tree is separated from the ancient Türkic and is linked to Karluk-Kypchak group (which is historically correct, since Karakhanids were Karluk tribes, historically a part of of the Uigur tribes, who in turn were a division of the Tele tribes, whose Oguz language is assigned the spot of the Ancient Türkic;  a closer examination would treat the Ogur group as a branch of the Ancient Türkic, labeling both Ogur and Oguz groups as Ancient Türkic time-wise, but genetically already as post r/z split); the case of the Turkmen-Salar unity, separated from the other Oguz languages and associated with the Kypchak group; the case of the Nogai-Kumyk and Tatar-Bashkir unities.

The third level of the edited tree is dated by 470 AD (a search for historical events possibly correlate this date with the migration of the Ashina clan to the southern Altai at about 460 AD, and subsequent political events). This first level includes a breakdown of "broad sense" Oguz group into the Ancient Türkic, Khalaj, and Oguz proper, secondly, the breakdown of the 'central' languages into Siberian (actually, Kyrgyz-Altai) and the Karluk-Kypchak groups (Essentially, the date of the  470 AD is a date of the Karluk-Oguz split, when the Karluks integrated with Uigurs, by 644 AD in the east Karluks are Uigur tribe Chinese annals, but the first record of the Karluks dates to 420 as a part of Ephthalites in Badakhshan province of Tokharistan. In 465 AD Karluks were a part of the Five Ogur coalition of Karluks, Kangars, Kalach/Alachin/Boma, and Kipchaks that invaded Media. The move of the Ashina tribe to the southern Altai is but one factor that may have affected Karluks. The spotty references to Karluks extend from Black Sea littoral to Mongolia, presenting a wealth of choices for glottochronological impacts. The Tokharistan and Caucasus Karluks melted with other tribes, and the Uigur Karluks left a distinct historical trace).

Then about 730 AD practically simultaneously the Oguz group split into the Western and Eastern Oguz, and the Kyrgyz group split with the Mountain Altai (the grouping happens relatively traditionally), this dating is very similar to the chronological framework in the formation of the Uigur Kaganate, and may reflect the related territorial and political developments (in particular, the demise in the operation of th the Great Silk Road; very close to that time is the first record of the codified the ancient Türkic literary language).

Apparently, approximately to that era belongs the emergence of a number of Sinicisms in the ancient Türkic, ascending to the Middle Chinese (see, for example, Shervashidze 1989), a special analysis require the following early Sinicisms that spread in the new Türkic languages. Were the borrowings in the Common Türkic in these cases (e.g., were they registered in the Yakut and/or Toba branches), into the smaller branches, or already into the ancient Türkic literary language?

Middle Chinese and Türkic

1. *Jaŋ 'image' (ESTYA 1989, 121-122), recorded from Anc. Uig., no Chuv., Yak. and Tuv. with the semantics of 'character', which may in this instance point to Mongolism. All forms of Siberian and Kirg. languages can also be explained as Mongolisms 239 (with a characteristic development of meanings 'custom, law, character'; later Mongolism with - are also in Kirg., Kaz., KKalp., Bashk.). Khalaj yang 'good practice' from Persian, about which see Doerf. 4, 1903. Thus, the reflex of the primary Chinese borrowing occurs only in the literary works. More widespread is a common derivative *jaŋ-lyg 'like' (which turns into a postposition "how"): monuments and languages of Middle Asia (Turk., Uzb., Nuig, Sug., KKalp., Kirg.), which likely received it through the Middle Asian literary languages. The source: Ch. Modern yang4, Middle Ch. uaŋ, Anc. Ch. lags 'form, shape'. The corresponding development of the initial is dated by about 7th c. AD. Thus the borrowing could enter the ancient Türkic literary language at about 8th century (Since there are no earlier records, the direction of the borrowing and the timing are subjective. Could a Türkic word enter the Yin languages, and then be inherited by Chinese along with other technical and etiological lexicon? Probably that is not a case, but such possibility is not being refuted).

239 The Mongolian likely borrowed the word from the Turk. (interpretation of the initial j- as a fricative).

2. *Jaŋ-gan 'elephant' (ESTYA 1989, 60; SIGTYA 1997, 156, recorded from the Anc. Uig. jaŋa, then in the literary monuments, also exist Alt. jan (Verb. 64); Sug. jaγan, jaŋan, Tuv. žan). All Siberian forms can be Mongolisms (Written Mong. žaγan, from Turk.). The source: Ch. Modern Ch. xiang 4, Middle Ch. zjaŋ, Anc. Ch. lhaŋ? (from Shih-ching 47.1, 47.2) 'elephant, ivory'. Phonetical dating: change of the initial lh to affricate points to the Eastern Han, i.e. borrowing took place not earlier than the 3rd c. AD, in the monuments and Mongolian borrowing was apparently reflected contaminated form with affixoids (affixes that originally came from independent words) that already appeared in the literary language.
3. *Čig 'Chinese foot, measure about 33 cm': Anc. Uig. čigin tsunin 'in feet and inches' U II, Suv. 136.8, tört čig 'four feet' (a size of a picture) Suv. 544.5; Middle Uig. čig 'Türkic foot, about 2/3 of customary foot' 240 MK; new borrowing - Tar. či 'measure of 10 sun' < Modern Ch. ch'i 'foot'. See Cl. EDT 404. Chuv. chike 'elbow (measure of length from an elbow to the tip of the middle finger)' Ashm. XV 195, Egorov 325 has no relationship (in spite of Ras. VEWT 107ab), ascending to the PT *čykan(ak) 'elbow, forearm' SIGTYA 1997, 249. The source: Ch. Modern Ch. chi3, Middle Ch. , Anc. Ch. thiak 'foot (= 22.5 cm), to measure in feet' Karlgren 0794 a. The phonetic dating: Middle Chinese, should be thought to be a borrowing into the Ancient Türkic literary language (Like another trade term, for ivory, the term for foot was a necessary element in the Silk Road trade, and must have been disseminated far and wide by the many spurs of the Silk Road a millennia before the emergence of the ancient Türkic literary language. In this case, M. Räsänen was up to something, linking the Ogur Chuv. chike with Ogur Uig. čig (chig)(M. Räsänen, , Versuch einen etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Turksprachen, Helsinki, 1969); Uigurs were patrons of the Silk Road during almost its entire existence, and were collected taxes, via their local kyshtym vassals, for quality and quantity of the transported goods; to slight them as not knowing what and how they were running their business is inaccurate. Likelier, these are the samples of the words that were brought to Yin by the Silk Road Sogdian/Türkic operators. Without established Chinese etymology for the Silk Road trade terms, the Chinese terms should remain suspected loanwords. The presence of the luxury goods from the east and west in the Altai kurgans predating the Han takeover of the Yin empire testify to the existing trade connections before the era of the Silk Road).
4. kunčuj 'Princess': runic (Orkhon and Enisei), Anc. Uig., MK, in the modern languages is only Tuv. kunčug, Tof. bunsjuy 'in-law' (in combination with beg 'father-in-law', compare: in the Runic Türkic and civil Ancient Uigur kunčuj generally used as a 'wife of the beg'). Clauson EDT 635, ESTYA 2000, 150, Shervashidze 1989, 36. G.Clauson stipulated that originally the term applied to the daughters of the Chinese emperor sent as wives to the barbaric rulers; in ancient Uigur it is used simply as a 'spouse, married woman'. Ch. 1) Modern Ch. gong1, Middle Ch. kiŋ, Anc. Ch. klöŋ (from Shih-ching, where it is frequent) 'clan head, Gong; palace, court' Karlgren 1173 af; 2) 主 Modern zhu3, Middle Ch. ei Anc. Ch. to? 'Person in charge, master' (compare Eastern Han *cwa?), Karlgren 0129a. Phonetically, the form is Middle Ch. Apparently, the word was borrowed into the literary ancient Türkic (where the Middle Ch. medial was rendered as a diphthong), and from the language of the Türkic or Uigur Kaganate to the language of the Tuvan and Tofalar ancestors (i.e., before 1150, the glottochronological date of its divergence), where it formed with a standard affixoid, and received further semantic development within apparently ritual terminology of kinship (compare traditional Russian ritual wedding terminology, "prince" and "princess" for "husband" and "wife") (The Russian ritual terminology ascends to the Rus ritual terminology, which is a branch of the Slavic ritual terminology, which is adaptation or calque of the Türkic Hunnic ritual terminology, which happened to be fossilized in the modern Tuvan and Tofalar languages).

240 The metric length of the units of the foot type is about 30 cm; the metric length of the elbow in the Hinchzhou river basin is 45 cm

The Middle Iranian borrowings that fall to the era under discussion are associated with the Eastern Iranian languages, first of all it is Sogdian as a language of the people who were very actively engaged in trade and missionary work in those territories. The incipience of the Sogdian trading system dates back to the 2nd c. BC, the heyday of the Sogdian trading empire lasted from the end of 4th to the 7th century AD, at that time it was a dominanting force in the dissemination of the Chinese and Indian products across the whole of the Middle and Central Asia. Interestingly, according to historians, the main driving force of the Great Silk Road were then not just Sogdian, and mixed media Sogdian-Türkic culture often come from mixed families. By the 10 th c. the Sogdians were mostly displaced from the trade routes (see review by M.D.Bukharin of the book: E. de la Vaissiere. Histoire des marchands sogdiens. Paris. 2002. VDI 2, 2004, pp. 224-228).

Sogdian and Türkic

a) "literary" borrowings:

1. *Axšam 'evening': Krh., Uig. axšam MK in the new languages - Oguz, Karluk, Krh., Kum., KBalk., Kaz., KKalp., Kirg., i.e., the "south Muslim" zone, in the Tat. ahsham 'prayer performed after sunset', likely from Turki (see ESTYA 1974, 207; contrary to EDT 96, not in the NE languages): the source is non-witnessed Sogd. *axšam, restored from the Middle Pers. šām 'evening; dinner' < Late Av. xsafnya-, compare Sogd. axšap 'night' Gharib 2093 < Av. a-xšapan Bartholomae 548. From the Turk. it was borrowed to the Mong. asqun, asqan KWb 16, with a zero mark at Ramstedt, which means that Written Mong. form is not really documented and is restored from the Kalm. asxən, most likely a new borrowing from the neighboring Kypchak languages.
2. Anc. Uig. amšu 'offerings' (to Buddha, TT VIII) | | EDT 164. G.Clauson believes it is a borrowing from Ch., but compare Sogd. āmsā 'obedience, attention' Gharib 1935 905. It seems that ultimately it ascends to the Ch. ān 'know, to remember', cf. ān shu 'to be well informed, know, learn', but given the meaning of the Türk. word, must be suspected a borrowing through the Sogdian intermediary (borrowed from the form of the indirect . case āmsi?) (With such slender basis of facts, and the circuitous route of Indian => Sogd. => Ch. => Sogd. => Türk., any supposition may be flailed; look for example at English alms, Latin eleemosyna, Gk. eleemosyne, all "pity, mercy, charity, alms," of "unknown origin", are all of them suspected to come from the Ch. "know" through a Sogdian intermediary and Buddhist content?).
3. baγyš 'gift', of the compound baγyš-la- 'to give, confer', from MK, KB, in that phonetics to the Tur. (Turkish), Az., Turk. (Turkmen) baγyš-la-, Gag. baashla- 'present, dedicate'; Tat., Bashk. bagysh-la 'dedicate, earmark', Kum., Balk. bagyshla, Nog. bagysla-, KKalp. bagyshla-, Kaz. bagyshta- 'present, dedicate' (cf. bauyr 'liver'), Kirg. bagyshta-, Uzb. bayis-la- 'id.', Nuig.  beγiš-la- 'dedicate, earmark', beγiš 'dedicated, a bag of new crop wheat stored until the next harvest, supposedly helping to ensure plentiful crop', cf. also individual loans from the New Pers. bakhsh. EDT 321-322, VEWT 56. Absent in Siberia. In that form and meaning must be from a Buddhist Sogd. bγš- 'give, confer' Gharib 2593, Rastorgueva-Edelman 2: 47, 56 (a noun in Türk. is a retroflection?), cf. Pahlavi baxs-, Hot. Saka (Hotan oasis) büşş- < Av. baxs- Bailey 300. At least in the Nogai group the forms must be explained as a literary borrowing from Turki (the oruginal intervocalic g had to change to w or contract).

4. *Tamu-g 'hell': with Anc. Uig.. Man., Budd. tamu, Krh.-Uig. tamu MK, QB, form tamug first appears in the QB verse: iki ev jaratty bu xalqqa qamuγ / biri aty uemaq biriniŋ / tamuγ (with transfer of morphological forms) 'he created two abodes for all these people, one is named paradise, the other is named hell'; here syntactically possible is an accusative definite case  with -g, which moreover rhymes with the previous line. In Tfs already is Dat. tamug-ka, the same is Chag.; Old Osm. tamu can phonetically be a reflex of tamug. In the new languages: *tamu: Alt., Tel., Shor. (P), Tuv. tamy; *tamug: Tat. tamug (an obvious borrowing from Turki), Bashk. tamuq (also from Turki), Kaz. (P) tamyq (from Turki), Uzbek, Uig. tamuγ. Chuv. tamk < Kypch. < Turki. Tur. tamu, Turk. tamu equally probably can ascend to both forms. TMN 2, 568-569, Fedotov, 2, 169-170, VEWT 460, EDT 503. Chuv. >  Mar. tamyk. Anc. Uig. borrowing. into Mong. tamu. Turk. Most likely it is a loanword from Iran., likely Sogd. tam (the name with i-base, in the accusative case tmw) Gharib 9588 (cf. also the Khorezm tam < Avest. tVmah), derived adjectives ('hell'): 9591 tamik, 9604 tamik, 9605 tamenu. Apparently, a form of accusative case served as a source for *tamu, and one of the λ-derivatives served as a source for *tamug, should be agreed with the Clauson suggestion about the borrowing of different forms into the various Türkic dialects. In addition, all the Siberian forms can be Mongolisms (Since the origin and dating of the Avesta has not been settled, the underlying premise of Avesta's preeminence remains speculative).
5. *Uštmak 'paradise' (the folk etymology reconstructs it as a name after the verb *e- 'fly'): with MK uemak, QB, Tfs uštmax, umak, later only forms of the umak type. In the new languages: Tur. uemk (according to G.Clauson, not represented in the 19th century Ottoman, but was introduced with the Young Turk reform as a native replacement for the Arabism Sanna), Turk. uem and uemā, Krh. uemag, Bashk. dial. ožmaq, Kaz. (P), Kirg. e, Uzb., Uig. uemaq. Absent in Siberia. See ESTYA 1974, 614, EDT 257, TMN 2, 12. Adapted from Sogd. wstm'x, ustmax Gharib 2008 < Avesta vahištVm-ahum, literally 'better world', cf. Middle Pers. wahišt, Persian, bihišt 'paradise'.
6. Runic, Anc. Uig. Man., Budd. šymnu 'evil spirit' EDT 868 < Sogd. šmnw, Horesm (orig.: .?) šymnw Gharib 9293, < Av. Angro mainyu, Pahlavi Ahriman.
7. Anc. Uig. Man. b/pašyq 'hymn' EDT 378 < Sogd. p'šyk Gharib 6515
8. Uig. Man., Budd., ajun 'life, existence, peace; rebirth', MK 'peace' ('al-dunjā), = KB, Tfs, IbnM, Chag. (Abushka) Horezm-Türk. (Qutb, Muhabbat Namah), later replaced by an Arab. loanword dunjā. From Sogd. ažun [''žwn] 'child, existence, life' Gharib 431. According to Clauson, the post-reform Modern Turkish acun 'universe, world, cosmos' happened by mistake, as an original Türkic word to replace Arabism dunya (EDT 1928, VEWT 33).

9. Krh.-Uig. erej 'bliss, happiness' KB: Clauson (EDT 200) connects it with a number of forms in Türkic medieval monuments and modern Türkic languages. But only the forms of KB can ascend to the Sogd. ryz/ž 'want, desire, demand' Gharib 8673, 8676, with less then ideal correlation of the meanings. The other forms associated with this EDT article apparently have different origin: MK, Tfs erine 'happiness, pleasure, twist of fate', as suggested Räsänen (VEWT 47), may be associated (as a normal verbal nouns) with Mong. *- 'to seek, aspire, want, ask' (BAMRS 4.437); found in a number of modern languages reflexes *yrys 'happiness, good luck', most likely are linked with the Türk. verbal root *yr-, see ESTYA 1974, 666 -667, EDAL.
10. Anc. Uig. Budd. suburgan 'grave', MK 'kurgan, pagan cemetery' EDT 792 of Sogd. *zmrγ'n. From Uig. borrowed into Mong. Khalkha suvraga 'tombstone pyramid' from Mong. to Tuv. suvurga, suurga 'tower, spire'. The etymology belongs W. Henning (Transactions of the Philological society, London 1945, p.157) (Since Sogdians did not build kurgans, it was a loanword in the Sogdian, like in Russian, English etc.).
11. Anc. Uig. Man. didim 'diadem', Krh.-Uig. didim 'wreath of bride' MK. Not in the new languages. From Anc. Uig. borrowed into Mong.: Written Mong. udim, Khalkha titem 'crown; graphical element: tooth with a crown' BAMRS 3, 209. From Sogd. δyδm < Greek διαδημα. EDT 456.
12. Anc. Uig. Budd. miδik 'layman' EDT 765 < Sogd. myδ'kk 'secular' Gharib 5589.
13. Anc. Uig. Budd. and Man., then the MK 777 nom 'law, doctrine' from Sogd. nwm Gharib 6138; Sogd. from Syr. nwm, as a Manichean term. Compare Middle Pers. nāmag 'book, letter' (actually Iranian by origin) CPD 57. From the Anc. Uig. borrowed into Mong. nom: Written Mong. nom, Khalkha nom 'book, scroll', Bur. nom 'book; scroll' and from there to Tel. nom 'law', Tuv. nom 'book'.
14. Uig. Budd., üjek 'letter, grapheme', syllable', üzik, üsik, MK üjük 'letter, alphabet' Kum. ušuq 'writing', Middle Kypch. (Houtsma) üšük 'feather'. Apparently, < Sogd. užak 'letter' ['wj'k] Gharib 1893 (? < Anc. Ch. dzyiy, see EDT 1924, VEWT 525). Uig. (?) >  Mong.: Written Mong. üsüg, üjüg, Khalkha üseg, üzeg 'letter, grapheme', 'writing pen'. New languages: Mount. Alt. üzük bieik 'Mongolian script', Tuv. üjük 'letter' - apparently from Mong. maybe from there Tur. dial. anat. üzük 'letter' EDT 24. Tat., Bashk. üjek 'syllable', likely ascend to the Turki, i.e. the languages inherited the word through a literary tradition.
15. Anc. Uig. Budd. kegde/kagda 'paper' EDT 710. From Sogd. k'γd'[kγd] Gharib 4632. The adaptation mechanism remains unclear by group (long vowels in Sogd.!), but perhaps compare Sogd. k'γdy'k [kγdyak/-dek] 'paper' Gharib 4635. Cf. Pers. kγiδ. Compare Koib. kegde 'thick paper' P - possibly from Mong., compare Khalkha hegd 'morocco with golden ornaments' BAMRS 4, 204 (via the "parchment"?).
16. Anc. Uig. civil. bun in bun sany 'base number' (in astronomical context) EDT 347 < Sogd. bwn mrγ 'same' Gharib 2915 (the Sogd. expression apparently is based on borrowing from Middle Pers., compare Sogd. bwn 'hole, pit', Middle Pers. bun 'base, foundation, bottom' CPD 20, HSak. (Hotan oasis) buna 'bottom, depth' Bailey 297).

17. Anc.Uig. Man. and Budd. čaxš'apet 'commander' EDT 412 < Sogd. čyšpδ, = Parth. čγš'byδ of Skr. siksapada Gharib 3315 (The čaxš'apet ~ chaxshapet is suspiciously close to the common name for the ten arrows ~  shadapyt in the compound onŋ-shadapyt, in Ch. Nu-shibi, which is known from the reconstructed Chinese phonetics).
18. *Sandyγaè: Krh.-Uig. sanduwaè, sondylaè (MK), sanwaè (QB); Middle Uig. sanduwaè (IbnM, Rbγ), sandylaè (IbnM); Horezm-Türk. sanduwaè, zandawaè (XIII); Chag. sandalae, sandulae (Sangl.); Krh. Κ., Τ., Tat. dial. sanduγae, Bashk. handuγas', Kaz. sanduγas; Alt. sandyγas, Tel. sandyq. Meanings: 'nightingale' in most of the sources; 'lark' in Alt.; 'some small bird' - variations with -/- in Krh.-Uig., Middle Uig. and Chag. See VEWT 401, 436, EDT 837, ESTYA 2003, 190-192 and references therein. The word is an old borrowing from the Sogdian znt'wč, literally 'singer', cf. Sogd. znt'wčh 'mγ' 'song bird' Gharib 11362 (znt'wčh 'singer') and a series of synonyms containing zand 'song' and preserved in the Persian: zand-xa:n, zand-va:f, zand-la:f, etc. - See Benveniste E. Mots voyageurs en Asie Centrale / / JA CCXXXVI 1948, fasc. 2, 184. In many cases it was folk-etymologized in an attempt to align the morphemic composition of word along the lines of Türkic derivatives names. Perhaps, Tel. sandyk (reverse formation with respect to the form that was taken as a diminutive of the form sandyγaš with -γaš) served as a borrowing source for Evenk sondoku:n 'bird' SSTMYA II 110, but sooner the Evenk word should be associated with the Mong. forms: cf. Khalkha sond 'various kinds of buntings', Written Mong. sondi, possibly associated with Anc. Uig. It seems that this is another example of really early Sogd. loanword not only into the "literary" language (possibly into Pra-language of the "residual" Türkic languages, still quite possibly separately into different dialects) (In the name of the Attila's pra-pra-grandson Boyan-Chelbir "Sandugach", Gr. Sindilh , probably from Shan Talgau, the eponymyc Slav. Solovey, ruled 535-590, the nickname "Sandugach" may be the word's first written record dated by 6th c. AD, among the Bulgar Huns. Both forms of his name, Sandugach and Boyan , were prominent in the Bulgarian folklore, and were absorbed into the Slavic and Rus  folklore.

The referenced to the vague "residual" Türkic languages, undefined layers of the Persian, Sogdian sibling, and allusion to the undefined really early ancient period leave only a single fact clear: that the Türkic and Sogdian both shared this word, which was the objective of the analysis. The etymology of the Persian, Sogdian, and Türkic adaptations is left out from the analysis).
19. Anc. Uig. med. mškyč 'cat' EDT 772. This ancient Uigur form (hapax) is rightly considered to be a borrowing from Sogd. mwškyšč 'wild cat' (Gharib 5561: < *muša-kuštar, i.e. 'mice killer').
20. Anc. Uig. Man., Budd., tarka, terke 'bitter' (of pain) EDT 539 < Sogd. tarγ [trγ] Gharib 9643 'sharp, hard, fierce', Av. tiγra 'sharp, bitter', HSak. (Hotan oasis) ttra- 'bitter'. The relationship of this Sogdian borrowing with the  Krh.-Uig. tarka, talka 'unripe (fruit)' MK, = Persian, talx 'bitter' is unclear.
21. ?? Anc. Uig. Budd., Christ., civil, Krh.-Uig. MK, QB, Horezm-Türk (Oguz Kagan) šük 'sh-sh-sh' EDT 867. It is preserved in NUig.  By Benveniste JA 236, 2 (1948), p. 184, from Sogd. šwk 'mum, silent' Gharib 9352.

b) "Casual and economic" borrowings::

22. OT *borè '' see ESTYA 1978, 196-197 (Middle Kypch. - KW, At-tuhfa, Middle Uig. - Bor.LT, IbnM, Middle Oguz - Mel.AF). SIGTYA 1997, 338. Chuv. dial. purš 'duty' (Ashm. IX 305) not necessarily indicate the Pra-Türk. nature of the word, cf. Tat. burych, Bashk. burys, conversion of which can be Chuv. form. Other occurrences - all Oguz, Kypch., Karluk languages. Absent in Siberia. < = Sogd. pwrc < *partu-č < *prti 'loan' Gharib 8202, cf. Avesta pVrVθa- 'Strafe' ('punishment', seems quite remote semantically)) Barth. 892. Seemingly, this is only way for etymologizing this Türkic word (Seemingly, since debts are as old as the humanity, this is a stand-alone shared Sogdian/Türkic word).

23. Krh. maraz 'employee' hapax MK EDT 772, from Sogd. maraz Gharib 5418 the same.
24. Anc. Uig. (Budd.) känd, Krh.-Uig. känd (MK, QB); Middle Kypch. kent (KW 138), känt (Houts. 99, Abû H 45, Tel. 314); Gag. kend (Pav.C 489); Old Osm. kend (TS VI 412); Tur. dial. kent (Aks.Gaz. 447), Turk. kent; Kum. gent; KKalp. känt; Kaz. obsolete kent; Uzbek dial., Uig. dial. känt (Abd.Hor.Sh. 55); see ESTYA 1997, 1944, EDT 728a; Doerf. III 1705 (670); SIGTYA 1997, 494. Absent in Siberia. Semantics: 'village, settlement' - Middle Kypch. (Houts., AbûH), Chag., Tur., dial., Turk., Kum., KKalp., Uzb. dial.; 'city' - Anc. Uig., Krh.-Uig. (MK explaned 'village' among Oguzes and 'provincial town' among the other Türks, in the eastern provinces the city is called kan), Middle Kypch. (KW), Old Osm. (TS).

The Türk. word from the East Iranian, represented by the Sogdian kne 'city' Gharib 4770 (Yagn. kant), HSak. (Hotan oasis) kantha- 'city' Bailey, 51 Osset. kaent 'building' Ab. 1, 579, Pashto kandai 'quarter' (with dimunitive suffix). Other Iranian forms (Middle Pers. kand as part of place names, Eastern New Pers. kand 'village', Baluchi kant toponym, also Anc. Indian. (Panini) kantha-) probably should be regarded as the East-Iranian borrowings, by the cultural and historical reasons most likely Sogdian. Apparently, the Sogdian origin should be taken for Türk. word (the Saka borrowing into the Türk. languages are structured differently, see below) (The primacy of the Persian language has a historiographical past, it was a first subject investigated by the Western European linguists in search for their family tree and Urheimat. With time, many of their premises were disclaimed by further studies. In respect to the Sogdian people and language, the study of the Amudarya basin uncovered initial Uralic-type population predating 2000 BC, an arid depopulated period extending from 2000 BC to 800 BC, and re-population of the area starting at ca 800 BC by two groups of the Timber Grave Kurgan Culture, one from the west and another from the east. Both Timber Grave groups displayed "massive build" distinct from the gracile features of the Mediterranean type, but the eastern retro-migrants brought along a considerably heavier Mongoloid admixture then the western group. These were the people that re-populated settlements and cities in the Amudarya basin; they created a symbiotic society with the migrants from Bactria and Northern India. Persia, when it came about a few centuries later, was separated from the Middle Asia by the Bactrian belt. Accordingly, the Persian influences could impact the Middle Asia only sporadically and far between, the language of the settlements could originate in the Bactria and Northern India, provided a linguistical assimilation of the settled Timber Grave nomads. With that background, an ancient Panini Indian word appears to be a suitable base for Sogdian/Türkic lexical development that produced all versions of Sogdian/Türkic kant/kent, and eventually was adopted into the Middle Persian, Eastern New Persian, etc., and became an international word within the Middle Asia. The "Ossetic" word belongs to the same circle, it is a Digorian/Tochar/Tuhsi word from the Amudarya basin, it belonged to the Ogur family, and must have been shared by the Huns, both Eastern and Western, Bulgars, Kangars, Uigurs, Usuns/Uisyns, Saka, Ephtalites, etc., i.e. all Türkic-speaking people of the Middle Asia. The compound Bactrian/Indian/Türkic language extended into the Taklamakan and Tarim basin, bringing the kant/kent to its oases, including the Khotan oasis. In the cities and villages the predominant language apparently was Indian/Bactrian based, in the steppes apparently the Türkic-based was a predominant language, but both were compound languages with intensive mutual influences. The extent of mutual penetration was illustrated by Biruni, who described the Alan language as half-Sogdian, half-Badjanak. On the other side, the first inscriptions of the Türkic Kaganate were written in Sogdian, which apparently was not a mystery for the Türkic masses).
25. Krh. beeküm 'threshold, a covered entrance', hapax MK EDT 295, see Doerf. 2 722. Per Benveniste JA 236 from Sogd. ptšknp [patškanp] Gharib 7925, cf. other forms: Khorezm piekaba 'wall' Freiman Khor. 104, Arm. patšgamb 'rest, hall' from Middle Pers. pdyšknb 'room'; of Anc.-Ir. *Patiškamba, compare Avesta fraskəmba 'beam, lobby'. Bayley 413. New Pers. bačkam (most likely from Turk.), paškam 'summer cottage, entry, waiting room', the latter form apparently from Sogd.
26. Krh. borduz 'garden' hapax MK EDT 359. Apparently, from Sogd. pardez 'garden' [p'rdyz] Gharib 7103? compare Av. pari-daeza, Pers. paliz >  Ar. faliz; Taj. poliz 'bahcha (gourd garden)n)'. The irregular reflection of the Sogd. long a as o may be due to a slightly later borrowing from the local version of the Sogdian?
27. Anc. Uig. *baγ 'garden' (originally 'vineyard', bag borluk paired word in the Buddhist repentance text, note that the second word of the combination  is actually 'vineyard', derived from the bor 'wine' 241 with the Nominis loci suffix, see EDT 311, OTD 77, therefore, the vineyard is a phenomenon alien to the Türks "), MK, QB, in the new languages - all descendants of the "Common Türkic", except for the Siberian (VEWT 55), but strictly speaking, for the Oguz is possible a separate loan from the New Persian. Chuv. has a half-calque of the Tat. pax ulmi 'garden apple' (Tat. bag alma). However, the Tat. bag is marked as "literary", so perhaps in the Northern Kypch. the borrowing came through the literary language. New Persian, Middle Pers. or Sogd.? (Pahlavi, Sogd. baγ Horn 39, Gharib 2447, Rastorgueva-Edelman 2, 52).

241 This word (not preserved beyond the medieval Türkic literary languages) usually is also attributed to a borrowing from Middle Pers. (see EDT 354) bor, which, however, is known only with a meaning of "reddish", see CPD 19. Is it really a "Bulgar" parallel to the Comm. Türk. *böza (ESGYA 1978,173-175)? (This appear to be quite a word. From Türkic word for "bagasse" böza, Tat., Tobol. boza, Chuv. peraqa = >  New Greek τειπθρο and Hung sopro "bagasse", and Türkic bor "wine" = >  Türkic baγ "vineyard" = >  Türkic baγ "garden" = >  Türkic baγcha "small garden" '= >  Türkic baγcha "melon and watermelon garden", Chuv. pax "garden" and Sogd., Pehlevi, Middle Pers. and New Pers. baγ" garden "[Vasmer, 4, 315]).

28. Krh. baδič 'post for grape vine' hapax MK, EDT 300, cf. NPers. wayij, Taj. wo'iš (these forms are clearly Sogdian borrowings, Sogd. word must be derived from the Av ascending to. vaetay- 'vine' Barth. 1314). Sogd. form at Gharib not recorded, but it would be a most likely source of the Türkic word from the phonetic point of view.
29. Krh. kenbe 'a plant' hapax MK (Ganchak), Cl. EDT 727: prob. Iranian. Compare Sogd. kynp" *kenba, Saka (Hotan oasis?) kumba 'flax' Bailey 62 ( < *kanaba, wandering word, mainly for cannabis, for details see Bailey 51-52, Stebl.-Kam. NKR 63-64). The Türk. form phonetically corresponds almost exactly to the Sogdian form.
30. Krh. zargunčmud 'type of basil' hapax MK, EDT 989, < Sogd. zrγwnč 'green' + mwrt '' myrtle 'Gharib 11402, 5535. See Benv. JA 236, 2, p. 184.
31. Krh. čat 'source' hapax MK EDT 401 from Sogd. č't 'source' Gharib 124, cf. HSak. (Hotan oasis) tcata 'lake, pool' Bailey 138, Osset. cad 'lake', Middle Pers. (Zor., Pahlavi) čah, N.Pers. čah 'source' (Türk. form corresponds exactly to the Sogdian form and meaning).
32. *Čykyr, *čykry 'mechanism that uses wheel: pulley, well gate, spinning wheel, etc.': with MK (čygry 'mill-wheel, water wheel'; kök čygry 'firmament' EDT 410). The word is present in many languages - New Persian borrowing of the same root (čarh). With this phonetics, the word must be from Sogd. γ/hr 'circle, wheel' Gharib 3180 ( < Avesta čahra- see Iran. forms in Ab. 1, 288, Rastorgueva-Edelman 2, 248-250, which maks unnecessary the suggestion about a borrowing from the Indian - Menges RE 182 ). Reflexes of the Sogd. loanword in the new languages: Tur. čykryk 'mill-wheel, water wheel', KKalp. chygyryk 'ring', Tat. chygyr 'pulley, waterwheel', Nog. shygyr 'roll', Kaz. shygyr 'waterwheel', KKalp. shygyr 'waterwheel' shygyrshy < 'device for cleaning cotton of seeds', Kirg. chygyryk 'manual device for cleaning cotton of seeds; device for cleaning lamb wool; anything in the form of a spinning wheel', Uzbek chigiri 'waterwheel' chigiri < 'waterwheel, steel mill, device for cleaning cotton', Uig. chigiri < 'waterwheel'. TMN 3, 72, VEWT 108 (contrary to Räsänen, Tel., Mount. Alt. chyira-, Nog. shyira-, Kaz. shira, Uzb. chiyla- , chiyra- 'twist, spin thread', Kirg. chyirak 'spinned thread' - relate not to the same root, compare the above forms, see EDAL, Türk. *čyg- 'to tie up'). Thus, it is not observed in Siberia (A little more credit should have gone to the historical and ethnological reality. The remote ancestors of all above listed Türkic peoples were carrying construction materials for their kurgans from far away distances using wheels and axels, they were spinning wool and hemp for millenniums, and had a matching vocabulary predating the Timber Grave period. On their return to the Amudarya basin  the Timber Gravers had little to borrow from their settled neighbors about rotating machinery, and their terminology inevitably had to spread within the area of their cultural influence. Not only the philology does not contradict the historical outline, it dutifully corroborates it, supplying us with bits of the Timber Grave vocabulary adopted in Europe, Middle Asia, Siberia, and Central Asia).

As can be seen from the above selection, the Sogdian borrowing into the Türkic languages are either borrowing into the ancient literary language, from where with the literary tradition they could spread to other languages, or local borrowings into the language spoken in the East Turkestan and usually designated as Karakhanid Türkic, or borrowings into the "Pra-central" language (thus, before the 479 AD; such can be considered the "nightingale"), or into the Pra-central and Pra-Oguz (as both at that time were in direct contact with the Sogdian trading empire; such can be considered "chigir", possibly "garden", "city", "duty," "paradise", "hell", "gift", "evening"). The loanwords cover the areas of agriculture, trade and exchange relations, and religious concepts (To put things to scale, the "Sogdian trading empire" by the 479 AD was already part and parcel of the Türkic states for 679 years, it was run by 34 consecutive generations of the Sogdian/Türkic scions, and the 479 AD was not an end of it: the Türkic embassy to the Byzantine court in the 552 AD was headed by the Sogdian Maniach who advocated a joint effort to circumvent the Persian infringements. The "Pra-central" language in this case is a euphemism for the Hun language, which was a Sogdian-impacted language otherwise called Ogur language, an offspring of the Timber Grave Tele language called Oguz).

Middle Persian and Türkic

Middle Persian is dated as existing from the 4th c. BC to the 7-8th cc. AD; but the actually representative texts, except for skimpy coin legends of the 2nd c. BC, chronologically correlate with the period of the Sasanid state (224-661  AD). Middle Persian was the liturgical language of the Eastern Manichaean church, which largely determines the nature of the borrowings.

a) literary borrowings (primarily from the Middle Pers. to Manichaean Uigur):

1. Runic (from the Tonyukuk inscription), Uig. Man. and Budd. betkeei 'scribe' EDT 304. Ultimately from the Syr. petga 'tablet', from Greek πιθακιον. The word is not found in the Middle Pers. and Sogd., but from the cultural and historical reasons most likely was borrowed into the Türk. from the Middle Pers.
2. Anc. Uig. Man., Budd., bekiz belgülüg 'clearly manifested' EDT 330. From Middle Pers. rak, pakizag 'clean' CPD 64, NPers. rak, pakizah 'pure, innocent' < Av. pavaka- 'rein, klar' (pure, clear). Not quite clear  is the front raw adaptation into Türk. with long a in the Middle Persian, possibly influenced by the -i- of the second syllable? Tokh. B (Tarim) pakri 'clear, obvious', Tokh. A (Kuchean) pakar 'id.' Adams (with uncertain etymology) possibly also could be Middle Pers. borrowing.
3. Anc. Uig. Man., Budd., tarazug 'scales' EDT 554, from Middle Pers. tarazug 'scales, constellation Libra' CPD 82. Late Krh.-Uig. tarazu 'balance' Tfs, 'constellation Libra' IbnM, Kuman, Middle Kypch., Middle Turk. tarazu 'scales' from New Pers. tarazi, in the new languages - Oguz, Karluk, Kypch. (Cf. Kaz. Tarazy, Kirg. Taraza 'constellation Libra'), absent in Siberia.
4. Uig. Budd., late. Uig. (14th c., Chinese-Uig. Dictionary) najvašigi 'good spirit' EDT 775, but rather from Tokh. A (Kuchean) naivasik; but Horezm-Türk (Oguz-Name) nevšigi from Middle Pers. (it is also the source of the Tokh. (Kuchean) form) new waxšig. See also Bailey Indoiranica BSOAS XVIII, 1957.

5. *Tan 'body': in this phonetic form it is in Anc. Türkic from Yrk Bitig, MK, Tfs, Middle Kypch. In the new languages it does not occur. EDT 510 ("unusually early Iranian borrowing"). New Pers. borrowing: Horezm-Türk. ten, Tur., Gag., Turk., Krh. ten, Tat., Bashk., KKalp., Kaz. tän, Kirg. ten, Uzbek tan [tän], Uig. tän. VEWT 473. The source of the Anc. Türkic (note that only the runic writing in Yrk Bitig provides the reading of the rear raw a, and not e) is attributed to the Middle Pers. tan, also compare  Sogd. tan- in tan-par 'body' and other derivatives (Gharib 388) Saka (Hotan) ttani can not be a source with its meaning ('skin'). See Ab. 3, 261, alternative Bailey 122.
The derivative: *tene: Uzbek tana [tänä], Uig. tenä; Chuv. tu/ona,
a) Trunk (tree) - Uzbek, Uig., Chuv.
b) stem (plant) - Uig., Chuv.,
c) body, torso, trunk - Uzbek, Uig.
d) foot , leg (bird) - Chuv.,
e) leg - Chuv. dial.
The Türkic forms mainly may be New Persian borrowings, cf. Pers. ?? ? tend a) body, torso;
b) trunk (tree).
See SIGTYA 1997, 118. The problem is Chuv. form, which should phonetically ascend to the Pra-Türk. (In the A.V.Dybo scheme of events Pra-Türk. equates with Hunnish, and framed as undetermined - 0 AD, leaving out the Assyrian documentation; ascribing the r/s split to re-population of the Amudarya basin in the 7th c. BC makes that date undetermined - 6th c. BC, and associates the Ogur branch with a number of south-central tribes, one of which is Huns) tanag. Given the semantic differences, contrary to Fedotov 2, 247 can revertr to the Räsänen etymology VEWT 461 that separates the Chuv. and associates it with the Kaz. taŋ, Tel. taŋ 'back part, thigh of an animal' (Since the Chuvash word is a term necessary in animal husbandry, these Türko-Iranian contacts must have happened before the 12th c. BC, i.e. before the Iranians ever existed, since the first Jungs/Hunyi/Xunyu/Xianxun that reached the Shang were already fully formed nomadic pastoralists living on meat and kumiss, who had ingrained meat carving terminology, and no need to learn about animal products from the agricultural people. This observation allows to frame the Pra-Türk. as undetermined before 12th c. BC- 6th c. BC).
6. Krh.-Uig. osparla- 'transfer, trust' (Karakhanid decrees), then in the medieval monuments: Tefsir ospar-la-, yspar-la-, ysmar-la-, IbnM ysmarla-, Horezm-Türk. ysparla-, Middle Kypch. ospurla-, ysmar-la-, Middle Osm. ysmarla- EDT 241-242. In the new languages Tur., Crimea. Tat. (Ρ) ysmarla-. The legal term word clearly spread through the literary tradition; the source is Middle Pers. awspar-( < *us-+ par-) ( >  NPers. supar-dan 'transfer, trust') Horn 97.

b) Commercial Borrowings:s:

1. *Bareun: Anc. Uig. Budd., bareyn, Krh.-Uig. bareyn KB, IbnM 'silk brocade'; further Horezm-Türk. bareyn (Nahj al-Faradis) Kypch. Dictionary bareyn (Abû H.) the same., see EDT 357-358 (with obviously improbable Tocharian (Kuchean) etymology), borrowed (based on the time and place, and as for the Hungarian, also phonetically from the Danube Bulgar) to Old Slavic brachina, Hungarian bārsony. In the new languages: Chuv. porzyn 'silk cloth', from Chuv. (Late Itil Bulgar?) loanword to the Russian bursa 'Persian silk fabric' Vasmer 1, 208-209, and to the Volga Finno-Ugric languages: Mari porsyn, parsyn, Udm. burtchin and others (Fedotov 1, 447); from Middle Pers. abrešom ['plyš(w)m, Man. 'bryšwn] 'silk' CPD 4 Pers. abrešum < *abi-raiš- 'spin', see Ab. I 132, Tsabolov 15-16 (be alert on Abaev's uncorroborated "reconstructions", citation references are not corroborations); the Pers. word was borrowed with the same meaning 'silk' into many Iranian languages. A New Pers. word was borrowed into the Tur. ibiršim, NUig. (R: Taranchi) äbrišin 'silk (adj.)', Middle Persian berišem. This word can formally be Pra-Türkic borrowing associated with the early stages of the Silk Road - in fact, already during Sassanids (from 224 AD), Persia was receiving an abundance of raw silk, in the Sasanian Empire worked many manufactories for its processing, and already during Augustus (27 BC - 14 AD) the silk, apparently through the Parthians, was reaching Rome (In a chronological discourse, the silk and its name reached Rome in Parthian transmission, and 2 centuries later Sasanids took over the trade, came up with Abaev's reconstructed Persian name, and endowed their Türkic/Sogdian suppliers, but not the Latin traders, with new shiny and sticky Persian terminology). Another possibility is to assume a certain layer of "bazaar" borrowing into the early Bulgar (with phonetic adaptation) from the Middle Asian Türkic languages (The most ancient mentioning of the Caspian Huns is from the middle of the 2nd c. AD by the ancient writer Dionisius Periegetes (wrote 117-138 ) in poetic composition "Description of the inhabited Earth" (Unns) living at the northwestern side of the Caspian Sea. His data about location of tribes is authentic and agrees with ancient eastern data. Claudius Ptolemy (160-180) noted Huns at the time of the Roman emperor Markus Aurelius. This data agrees with the archeological data (L. Yablonsky) about a new wave of the Huns in the Aral-Caspian basin that coincides with the recent defeat of the Northern Huns in the Middle Asia. The Huns did not let the control of the Silk Road out of their hands, and the spread of the word "bareyn" to the Middle Persian, Finno = Ugrian, and Slavic languages should be attributed to the Huns, as asserted by A.V.Dubo. A.V.Dubo prudently does not comment on the phonetical feasibility of the fanciful *abi-raiš = >  abrešum = >  berišem = > *bareun = >  bareyn. She also does not trace the Ahaemenid vocabulary for the silk, which the Parthians inherited along with the Silk Road, with or without introduction of their own lexicon; a peak into Parthian/Dahae/Tokhar/Tuhsi/Digor terminology may also be pertinent and enlightening. The Ahaemenids used Semitic Assyrian language for their bookkeeping, and the Silk Road taxation was an official business, their terminology is also an indelible part of the objective bareyn etymology).

New Persian and Early Türkic

The beginning of the New Persian language is dated by the 9th c. AD. Here are examined such outwardly New Persian borrowings that are recorded in the monuments of the ancient period, i.e. not later than the Karakhanid period. It can be seen that all these loans are either narrowly localized, or entered already separated languages (correspondingly, the reflexes generally do not allow to restore the systemic prototypes, and the forms with asterisk notation are purely provisionary). Brings attention a strictly economic thematics of the borrowings.

1. *Akur 'stables, stall'. Krh.Uig. aqur 'stable' (MK, KB); EDT 1989, IM ahur see Ras.VEWT 10a, where the word and its relevance traced back to Persian sources, see more Bud. I 19, Ρ I 133, but OTD 49 < = ar.). SIGTYA 1997, 527; Gag., Osm., Az. axur, Osm., Krh. axyr, Kum. axur, Eastern Türk. aγur, Taranchi oqur VEWT 10. Pahlavi āxwarr CPD 14, Sogd. 'xwyr = āxwer = > 'γwyr Gharib 2130 'stable'; NPers. āxur 'cowbarn'. Rather, the word was borrowed from New Pers. in an already divided languages of the "southern Muslim" zone (That loanword from the New Persian is historical impossibility, since the Kangars are known from the Herodotus' time as serving in the Persian currier service, Herodotus rendered their name as Angareion; Scythians served in Persian army; both had to introduce their horse terminology to the Ahaemenids  and later to the Sasanid Persians; The nomadic Parthians had to use their own horse terminology; another record long before the incipience of the New Persian is the Greek myth about the Augean "stables", where "Aug" is clearly connected with the aqur for "stables" independently of the Sasanid or New Persian, and is at least a millennium older then the Pehlevi record. The horse culture and the word has a clear direction Türkic = >  Persian, Türkic = >  Greek and Türkic = >  Armenian. The linguistical localization has to do with the ancient Kangar and its sphere of cultural influence rather then with the "South-Muslim Zone", and the period is more then a millennium earlier).
2. *Čögen 'hockey stick': with MK čögen 'club with a curved ring, polo club' = Old Osm. 14. EDT 416. In the new languages: Tur. čögen. From New Pers. čawgān 'same'. VEWT 117. There is also a non-adapted borrowing from New Pers: Tur. čevgān, Uzbek chavgon (This philological deduction conflicts with ethnological data: polo is known as an innate Türkic sport and entertainment connected with festivities, religious events, and weddings; nothing like that is associated with the Indo-Iranians, while the Türkic peoples that survived calamities still practice the sport from Volga to Selenga; polo was a favorite entertainment of Türkic nobility, and still remains a favorite entertainment of British nobility, an inheritance from the European Huns. Each Türkic language and dialect has its own dialectal version of the term. Etymologically, the word čögen ~ "striker" ascends to the Türkic verb "chek" = "strike", which produced a rich field of Türkic derivatives and borrowings into Persian, Slavic, etc. languages, including the English "cudgel"; among its better known derivatives is the word for an ax ~ "chakan", adopted in Slavic and developed into a nest of derivatives, ref. W.W.Radloff (3, 4 p. 324, 1833) - "battle ax; hammer; to mint" etc. Just a recital of all derivatives in the 35  Türkic languages, a dozen of Iranian languages, a dozen of Mongolian languages, a dozen of European languages etc. would create a small equivalent of a phone directory listing that can serve as a philological tribute to the Huns and their ancestors, and a reminder that faith and science should be kept separated).
3. MK kirit 'key' (hapax). VEWT 271, EDT 738. In this form are the Kum. kirit 'key lock ", Balk. kirit, Nog. kirt 'lock'. Later form in the first record is kilit Tfs, IM, Qutb. This form occurs in the new languages (with some rearrangements): Tur., Gag. kilit, Az. kilid 'lock', Turk. kilt 'hook, latch', Krh. kilit 'lock key', Bashk. kelV 'latch', Kaz. kilt, KKalp. gilt 'key', Kirg. kilit 'key', Uzbek kalit 'key', NUig.  kiltang 'bolt', SUig. gilig 'lock'. < NPers. kilid < Arabic iqlid < Greek κλειδιον. The form does not extend  to the Siberian languages (Shor kiliš 'key' from Russian, Tof. hülûp-či 'lock' < Russian klüchik (key, diminutive) Ras. PHiL 192 (adaptation with common Mong. suffix constructions with -bei), Yak. külüs 'lock' from Russian). The form with -r- G.Clauson is trying to explain from the Sogdian (which is incredible phonetically, compare usage in Sogd. of the grapheme /r/ for the transmission of foreign language l - Middle Ir. 414), but the Sogdian form is not recorded, an Arabism in the Sogdian is unlikely; perhaps M. Räsänen is right conjecturing contaminating effect on borrowing from New Persian of the verbal kirit 'entrance' (A.V.Dubo ignores the known fact that in early Middle Ages the Bulgars were famous for mass production of locks supplying the whole North-Eastern Europe and popular on the South-Eastern trade roads. These locks are displayed in a number of archeological museums; to suspect that the terminology was borrowed from the Arabic, Persian, Greek, or Slavic is preposterous; the distribution of the word points to is Pra-Türkic roots; it should be noted that while the grain can't escape from its storage, a domesticated horse can, and a need for the latch and its name must have arose with the rise of the animal husbandry, ascending to the Sredni Stog animal husbandry-type cultures. That the Sogdian form was not recorded, vs. the spread of the word among Türkic languages unequivocally points to its provenance. The Persian adaptation is clearly secondary, and invoking it is a matter of unconcealed faith).
4. Krh.-Uig. armut (MK), Middle Kypch. armut (Kav.), Armenian Kypch. armut ~ armut' (Tryj. I 74); Tur., Gag., Az. armud, Turk. armyt, Sal. armut ~ ārmut; KTat., Kar.K. armut, Kum. harmut, KKalp. almurt, Kaz. almurt; Kirg. almurut; Uzbek regional olmurut, Uig. a(r)mut ~ Uig. Hot. amut (Mal.UNS 94) ~ Uig. dial. armut ~ amrud ~ āmut (Jarr. 26) 'pear'; absent in Siberia and Chuvash: of NPers. ????? āmrüd 'pear' Stebl.-Kam. 104, 107 (PIE *1- 'fruit tree, its fruit', for details, see Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 639-643, and this publ., above, pp. 783). The acquisition of the word probably came in two ways (from two sources?): a first (southern languages) - by the way of forming with metathesis (*amrud >  armut), a second (Middle Asian languages) with an euphonous appearance of a smooth l before m (*amrud >  almur(u)t)- see SIGTYA 1997, 139 (The direction of borrowing is determined by discrete pattern of spread and penetration, a factor disregarded in some other cases, see for example p. 771; a difference between Siberian languages and Southern/Western languages serves as one of the indicators; the divergence between Chuvash and other Itil/Kama languages is suspicious and may be illusive)e).

5. Late Ancient Uig. tana 'coriander seed', Krh.-Uig. tana id. MK, Middle Kypch. tana 'pearl'. EDT 515. From Pers. dāna. Compare Middle Pers. dānag 'seed corn' CPD 24.
6. čekik MK 'lark', Old Osm. 15 - 16 cc. čekik, čekük, Osm. (Red.) čekik 'lark' EDT 415 (without etymology) - cf. Middle Pers. cakok [ckwk], NPers. cakok and cakawak 'lark' CPD 21, which has Iranian parallels: Khorezm čkuk 'little bird - a type of finch? Tit?', ckwnk' lark', see Rastorgueva-Edelman 2, 215. Apparently, Persian borrowing into divided languages (Without assessment of intra-family distribution, the direction of borrowing is presumptive)e).
7. merdek hapax MK 'baby bear, piglet' EDT 772 (without etymology) < New Pers. mardak diminutive for "man", Taj. 'male'. Local borrowing.
8. Middle Uig. baha 'price' (Yug., in the compound bahalyγ 'valuable'), Middle Kypch. baha (KW 47) < = Pers. ?? (cf. Pahlavi vahāk same - Horn 242); the word is mentioned in Kypchak, Karluk and Oguz languages (see for example Ras. VEWT 55b). At the same time exists Mount. Alt. , Tuv. , Khak. 'price, fine', Yak. 'reprimand', and apparently all of them are reverse borrowings from Mong. 'price, fine'. Chuv. paha 'expensive, precious' Fedotov 1392, phonetically an obvious borrowing from Comm. Türk., but not from Tat. (Tat. beya), possibly from the Bashk. baha 'valuable, jewel', or directly from the New Pers. (It appears that Iranian word in Sasanid Persia was different, and in Pehlevi and Tajik they are borrowings, as indicated by the Chuvash; that is the criteria used by A.V.Dybo to locate pra-Türkic provenance).

(The smattering of New Persian correspondences into the Early Türkic, which starts with the Hunnic disPersion and ends with Karakhanid Uigur and Karluk, appear practically non-existent, a significant proportion turned out to be Pra-Türkic lexicon borrowed into the New Persian, and not from the  New Persian as claimed; a few suspected cases only state the existence of correspondences and are left hanging without etymological analysis to demonstrate the direction)

New Indian languages and the Early Türkicic

Here we also have chosen such potential New Indian borrowing that are recorded in the monuments of the Ancient Türkic period, i.e. not later then the Karakhanid period. The areas of the thematic and geographical distribution of the lexemes clearly indicate that we are dealing with a "bazaar" borrowing associated with the territories encompassed by the Silk Road. The presence in large volume of the Indian colonies and trading posts along the Silk Road was already noted in the 2nd c. AD (East Turkestan 1992, p.78); however, the surviving written records from these territories are either in Sanskrit, or in the north-western Prakrit (Niyya or Gandhari; written in Kharoshti). The start of the New Indian period is dated by the the 10th, at the earliest 9th c. AD (Masica CP The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge, 1991. pp. 50-55, 472). However, this dating is unlikely to be accurate, since the early period of Indian languages is very poorly documented. Given the "marketplace" specifics, can be expected borrowings into the Türkic languages originated from different New Indian  dialects, but probably more frequent would be the borrowings of the north-western type (i.e. west of upper Indus, northern Afghanistan and Pakistan)n).

1. Krh.-Uig. čit 'embroidered silk' EDT 402, see TMN 3, 129, VEWT 103 (represented in the Oguz (Turkish čit,-ti, Az. čit, Turk. čit, showing the original form of shortness of a vowel), Kypchak, Karluk languages; absent in Siberia: Shor. shyt form 'thick (of cloth)' is another word, ascending to Pra-Türk. *čyt 'network', see VEWT 112) As a source of borrowing is cited Persian. čit 'chintz, cotton printed fabrics', borrowed from the Ind. ultimately from Skr. citra 'motley' (cf. Avest. čithra) (see Ab. 1, 312, Tsabolov 1, 241). Given the purely "commercial" nature of the borrowing, it can be presumed that the earliest Central Asian Türkic languages could receive it directly from the New Indian  (like the NPers., judging by the development of the combination -tr-), compare Hindi čit 'chintz', Punjabi čit 'calico, muslin' and the like, Turner 261, which facilitates the interpretation of the short vowel (the Persian length is usually well preserved in the Oguz borrowings) (Though cultural re-importations are ubiquitous courses of development, the pra-Türkic etymology "mesh, meshwork" indicates that it was a base for the consequent applications for Skr., Av. "motley" and later derivatives. As a minimum, it is an equal contender with the Skr. citra "motley").
2. *Mure 'black pepper' appears to be really Common-  and even Pra-Türkic, with Anc. Uig. mure, Krh.-Uig. mure MK, later with a replacement m- >  b- (because in native Türkic words the initial m- appear in separate linguistic groups as a positional variant of b-, organized in different languages by different rules, but necessarily including a presence in the following part of the word of a nasal consonant): Gag., Middle Kypch., Old Osm. bure, Anc. Bulg. *burs, as a loanword it naturally  produced the Hungarian bors (Gomb.BTLU), and also natural result is the Chuv. prs (borrowed into the Mari purys) (And Slavic perets). In other new languages: Tur. bure 'mistletoe' (possibly not here, but to the bur- 'build, weave'), Turk. burch, Kar. burch, Kum., Balk. burch, Tat. borych, Bashk. boros, Nog., KKalp. burysh 'pepper', also regular reflexes of theis Proto-form. The Karluk (Uzb. mure, Uig. mu(r)č), central languages (Kirg. murch, Mount. Alt. myrch) and Siberian (Kumand. pyrch, purch, Khak. myrs (Sag.)) can preserve the old m-. As a source of borrowing is named Sogd. marc, maric 'pepper', cf. Gharib 5416: mr'ynck' = mareneka < Skt. marica id. Mayr. 2, 321 (borrowing from Mon-Khmer? Or South Drav. *mila-ku/cu DEDR 4867, as suggested by Steblin-Kamensky?), Cf. also Tokh. B (Tarim) mranco Adams 2649, HSak. (Hotan oasis) miremjsya. In reality the form which was a source of Türkic and other languages of the south-east Central Asia (Taj., Dari mure, Pashto mVre, mrVč, Versh. marc, maruc, Khovar. mΛre, Shina mārue), much more than the Sogdian, Khotan-Saka (Hotan oasis) or Tocharian (Kuchean), is simply like the New Indian  and Dardic forms: Kashmiri marie., marč, Punjabi mare, mirč, Western Pahari mire, Hindi mire, etc. - Turner 9875 (Pamir forms of the Ishkashim type mVre, most likely are from Uzbek or Kirg., or from the Taj. - see Stebl.-Kam. NKR 74). Given a purely "commercial" nature of the borrowing, we would suggest to accept that the Türkic languages borrowed it not from the Middle Iranian, but from the New Indian, after the divergence of Pra-Türkic (cf. the preservation of the m- closer to the geographical beginning of the trade passage accross the Türkic territories and its removal in the rest of the territory), and the amazing regularity of correspondences is due to a folk etymology, which connected the borrowed mure 'black pepper' and their own bureak 'peas, vetch, lentils' as 'peas', cf. Chuv. prs 'peas', Bulg. *bursag >  Hung. borsy, Anc. Uig. bureak, Turk. bureak, Mount. Alt., Shor. myrchak etc. - ESTYA 1980, 275-276.

3. Krh.-Uig. tarmaz, turmuz 'cucumber, cuke' MK. Clauson 550: "Unless this is a l.-w. (loan-word) cognate to 2 turma it is prob. the Neg. Aor.Participle of tar-, lit. 'Not branching'." In reality, tarmaz is overt borrowing, cf. Pers. tarbuz 'watermelon, melon' Stebl.-Kam. 79-80, ultimately from the Skr. trapusa, trapuşa 'cucumber, colocynth' to trpra- 'salzig, scharf' (salty, spicy) (Iran. *trfra- with Indo-European etymology, see Mayr. EWAIA I 665, 675). The Türkic word is semantically closer to Skr. than to the Persian; on the other hand, the later forms given by Turner for the Skr. word look like Prakrit taüsa- n., Marathi tavse n. 'Cucumis sativus' Turner 5993, so can be assumed a "bazaar" New Indian  borrowing from some north-western languages with relaxation of the combination tr-of the type lahnda. The variability of the vocalization and nasalization of the labial consonant allow to draw attention to one more similar Indian name of the melon-type plant: Skr. tumba- m. 'pumpkin Lagenaria vulgaris', with descendants in the New Indian languages like Hindi tomrā m. 'dried pumpkin' Turner 5868 (may be contamination of the two loanwords?). In the new Türkic languages is seen only Kirg. darbyz; Uzbek tarvuz, Uig. ta(r)vuz 'watermelon', which are borrowed either from the New Pers. or from Mong. 'watermelon' (Khalkha tarvas, Kalm. tarvas [tarvys]), borrowed from Persian, see SIGTYA 1997, 138.
4. Krh. bibli 'long pepper', hapax MK, EDT 282, ultimately ascends to the Skr. pippali (in Atharva Veda 'berry', later 'long pepper'). Adapted from New Ind. forms, similar to Western Pahari pippli, Hindi pipli'a kind of long pepper 'Turner 8205.
5. Krh.-Uig. avjā FMK, Middle Uig. ajwā (IbnM), Middle Kypch. hajwā (AbûH, Kav.), Chag. ajwa (Sangl.); Tur. ajva, Gag. ajva ~ hajva, Az. hejva; Turk. hajva; KTat., KBalk. ajva, Kum. hajva, Tat., Bashk. ajva; Khak., Tuv. ajva; Chuv. ajva 'quince', see detail SIGTYA 1997, 137-138 (where is specifically noted: "The term ajva to the Khakassia, Tuva, and Chuvash languages clearly came from the Russian language" (the role of Russian language for cultural innovations in Türkic languages is notoriously nonsensically overblown, though in the modern world it is very true; in respect to fruits and vegetables it borders on ridiculous; possibly that Soviet-time innovation was just a patriotic lip service for the censors), EDT 268. Contrary to Clauson, an Iranian source for word is absent. Probably a borrowing from New Ind. forms of the type: Lakhimpur dialect Awadhi abiya 'immature green mangoes', compare Hindi ambuā 'small mango', dating back to Prakrit atba-, atbaua- 'mango-tree, fruit', Skr. āmra 'mango tree' Turner 1268 (Isn't it marvelous that G.Clauson is so much carried away that he  manages to derive a Türkic word from a non-existing Iranian word?).
6. gešür 'carrot' MK. Per 754 EDT < NPers. jazar (New Persian word from the Arab, judging by the initial consonant). Other records: IbnM, in modern languages Kar. gešür, gesur, KKalp. gešir, Tat. kišer, Bashk. kišer, Turk. kešir. The Türkic words ultimately ascend to the Skr. gārjara >  Prakrit gajjara-, Kashmiri gāzürü, Hindi gājar, Sindhi gājiro 'carrot tops', gājara, pl. gājaru 'carrots', Panji. gājjar, see Turner 4140, Stebl.-Kam. NKR 70. From the Indian is borrowed, in particular, the Afg. gāzəra, which became a source of the Arabic word borrowed into the Persian. Apparently, in Türkic also a New Indian bazaar borrowing, judging by the variability in respect to voicing-unvoicing, in different languages the borrowings are at different stages of adaptation, but the uniformity of the other parameters indicates a one-time borrowing from a particular source to a single Türkic language ( Türkic koine of the Karakhanid period?).

7. *Sart 'merchant, trader': Anc. Uig. Man. sart (EDT 846), Krh.-Uig. sart (MK, QB); Chag. sart 'Persian city-dweller not speaking Türkic' (Abush.) Middle Kipchak. sart 'city-dweller, commoners'; Tur. dial. sart (DD III 1192), Turk. dial. sart (TDGDS 156). Räs.VEWT 405; Meng. TLP 172; Áàðò. II, 4.2, 527-529; SIGTYA 2001, 336. The word, of course, is not Common Türkic. Adapted ultimately from Sanskrit sārtha, compare Sogd. sārt Gharib 8726 'caravan', Parth. sārt same. Apparently, it really got into the Turk. languages through the Middle Iranian (simultaneously, judging by the uniform development of the meaning, and not from the Middle and New Indian sources, judging by the reflex of the combination -rt-), as a wandering word at the Central Asian markets.
8. kendük 'vessel in the form of a large jar for storage of flour, etc.' MK - Ganchak. EDT 729: from Middle Pers. *kandug, NPers. kandu 'large earthen vessel for storing grain', Arab al-kandüj. Apparently, the Ganchak word was actually borrowed from the New Pers. and formed with a suffixoid. The other forms given in the EDT article belong to a different base: kündüg 'jug' (IbnM), Chag. kündüg 'pitcher, bottle of water, in Persian - a large jug for food storage' Sangl. Compare some Iranian forms (Stebl.-Kam. Wakhi 217): yidgha kunduk 'wooden bowl' = khovar kunduk 'milk bowl'; Ishq. kndok 'earthen teapot'. There clearly belongs the Tokh. B (Tarim) kuntiske (n. [m.sg.]) 'little pot' (diminutive of not found in Tokh. B (Tarim) *kunti, compare Tokh. A (Kuchean) kunti 'pot', Adams 976, considers it to be a borrowing from the Buddhist Hotan-Saka (Hotan) kundi. There also belong the Sogd. kwnt'yk 'jug' < Skr. kundi-ka Gharib 5026. So, there are two local words (probably contaminated with each other, judging by the meaning), both apparently come from the Indian sources, compare for the first Skr. kandu- 'iron cooking pot', Prakrit kamdu- (but not the later sources, since there disappeared the nasal consonant, as in the Kashmir koda) Turner 2726, for the second word compare Skr. kunpdpa-,-i- 'bowl, waterpot', pali kundi, etc. (likely, not later than Middle Ind., compare timeframe for Pra-Tokhar (Pra-Kuchean) and Sogdianan) Turner 3264. The specific source of the second Turk. words can also be the Sogdian.

Interlinguistic contacts in the early medieval Eastern Turkestan (East Turkestan, or Uiguristan)n)

Finally, we find fairly interesting group of borrowings, which characterizes a geographically narrowly the area of Eastern Turkestan and adjoining areas, namely, these are Türkic words recorded in the Middle Ages in the Central Asia, hapaxes of Mahmud Kashgari or late Ancient Uigur monuments without Türkic etymology or reflexes in the living Türkic languages. Such words might turn out to be Iranian or Tocharian (Kuchean) loanwords 242. Indeed, among them are the following categories.

Saka (Hotan oasis) 24343 = >  Türkic

1. abamu Anc. Uig. 'infinite' (Cl. 12: "no doubt a l.-w. (loan-word) (Indo-European?)") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) avama 'immeasurable' ( < pa-mā- 'measured' < *pati-mā- Bailey, 9 213, with the negation a-, not from Sogd. (*ptm't) and not from the Parth. (pdm't); from all possible sources Middle Iranian only Hotan-Sakas loses -t- in preverb .
2. amary 'several', Anc. Uig. Man. and Budd., Krh.-Uig. (Tefsir) (Cl. 164: "unknown origine", mentions a comparison of A. von Gabin with Middle Pers. abārig 'some, a certain number of (really - 'other 'CPD 1), suspecting Middle Iran. *ahmara, HSak. (Hotan oasis) ahumara 'incalculable, some'). Apparently, loanword from HSak. (Hotan oasis) a-hu-ma ra- 'countless' Bailey 14.
3. irvi MK 'Indian medicine' (Cl. 198: "no doubt a l.-w. (loan-word), but there is no immediately obvious Sanskrit original") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) irhva 'citron' (type of Citrus) < *aluifva (to alu- 'bitter') Bailey 34.
4. (?) bat MK 'thickened juice of crushed grapes, grape must' (Cl. 296:?) Most likely because HSak. (Hotan oasis) bāta- 'wine, must' < Iran. *bātu- 'wine' Bailey 276, Kent 199 (out of all Iranian forms with essential meaning 'wine', closest to the Türk. is the meaning of the Saka (Hotan oasis) form 'wort').
5. čo/uvy MK 'title obtained by a person two steps below Khakan in the Hotan hierarchy = Türk. yabgu' (Cl. 394: "a Hotanese word might be native Saka (Hotan oasis) or corrupt Turkish; it is possible that this is a corruption of the word yabgu") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) şşau, pl. ssuvanä 'official title opposed to rrund- 'king', the opposition is about the same as that between the Mycenaean basileus 'ruler of the province' and wanax 'king', < *xšāvan, from *xšā- 'to own, rule' Bailey 412; the vocalism of the Türkic form may indicate HSak. (Hotan oasis) indirect base as a source of borrowing.
6. čowač MK 'royal umbrella' (Cl. 395: "no doubt a l.-w. (loan-word), but of unknown origin") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) śāhauja 'umbrella' < *sāyaèa- < *sk'ai- 'shadow' Bailey 398.
7. ? čavju MK 'tree with red stems and branches and bitter red berries growing in the mountains' (Cl. 395: "prob. a l.-w. (loan-word)") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) sauve- 'a type of yuyuba' (Zizyphus Juss.) (with the diminutive suffix?) < *saup-= Skr. kşupaka- 'bush' Bailey 405.
8. čeg MK 'striped cotton fabric' (Cl. 413: "prob. a l.-w. (loan-word)") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) caiha 'piece of cloth' (in compound thaura-caiha, 'woven fabric') < *caixa-, base *kai- 'cover') Bailey 105, 150; TM forms: Oroch. čeke, Ulch. čeke, čekete, Nan. čeke, Manchu čeketi 'velvet' (SSTMYA 2, 419) - are unlikely Altai parallels to the Türk. form, they rather produce an impression of wandering words (From the 200 BC, the Huns were main recipients, suppliers, and patrons of the Silk Road, they must have had a lexicon to address the goods; the silk bolts were a main concern and subject of discussions at all levels; the Huns' trading lexicon may have been Chinese, or that already existing along the Silk Road under suzerainty of the Tokhars / Yuezhi; that lexicon would have had the bazaar-type circulation along the Silk Road, and leave its imprint not only on the languages of the desert oases, but also on the whole local commerce along the Silk Road belt. The Silk Road control persisted through all changes at the head of the Steppe Empire states, and the lexicon can be expected to outlive and outspread all of them; as recently as at the beginning of the 20th c. the local caravan trade existed from China and Manchuria to Middle Asia, carrying the needs of the day: tea from China and kerosene stoves from Russia. In the 21st c. the last vestiges of the Silk Road survived in Afganistan, now operated by trucks, but organized on the Silk Road principles).

242 In addition, among Mahmud Kashgari hapaxes are many specific Sinicisms, but they are not reviewed here.
243 G. Derfer (TMN 2, 647) on the presumption that the word *don 'clothes, dressing gown' is a borrowing from HSak. (Hotan oasis) thauna notes that other Saka (Hotan oasis) borrowings in the Türkic languages were not found. As is seen below, he is almost right: even though such loans existed, they did not survive.ve.

9. čür MK 'success, profit', čürle- 'benefit from smb.', čürlet- 'make smb. steal from smb. still his property', čürlen- 'benefit on smb. account' (Cl. 428:?) - HSak. (Hotan oasis) ssuru, suru 'goodies' (Acc.Sg. from särā, sirā 'goodies, well-being') Bailey 400-402; NB (Nota Bene) indirect base as a source of borrowing.ng.<10. čer MK 'al-waqt (time)' (in the example: "Come at this time", i.e. "now") (Cl. 427:?) - HSak. (Hotan oasis) tcira 'once', draicira 'triguptam' 'three times' < *skar- 'cut' Bailey 140.
11. (?) čuram MK 'shot of light, far-flying arrow', čuram oki 'such arrow' (Cl. 430:?) - HSak. (Hotan oasis) čudam 'measure of length, stadia?', < *čudāna- = Av. čarətu 'measure of length, stadia', < čar- 'bypass' Bailey 104. Also compare Rastorgueva-Edelman 2, 230 (Mahmud Kashgari knew his native Kashgar language, and explained a likely Indian or Bactrian + Türkic compound "čuram oki" consisting of likely Indian or Bactrian čuram and a Türkic oki/ok).
12. kowue, kowuz MK 'symptoms of demonic possession' (Cl. 581: "prob. a crasis (vulgarism) of  *kowguè, fr. kow-, meaning lit. smth. like "persecution") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) kauce 'blunder, sin' (in a Buddhist text) < *sk'eud- Pok. 951-953, Bailey 65.
13. kasy MK 'wooden corral for sheep' (Cl. 666: "Prob. a l.-w. (loan-word)") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) kāysu 'hut, hutch'. Compare Pers. kāz 'hut', Sogd. Gharib 187 kāzāk, kāze 'small house, hutch' < *kaz- 'arrange, build' Bailey 59 - from the phonetic perspective the HSak. (Hotan oasis) form is a best source for the Türkic word (Since the nomadic Türks never stopped using corrals for the cattle, the word for corral predates the transition from the local husbandry to the nomadic husbandry, and, as the verb kaz/kur = Türkic "construct" indicates, is an ancient loanword into a number of independent languages, all with the same meaning, "corral"; A.V.Dybo calls this kind of lingua franca or internationalized words the "bazaar" words. In case of animal husbandry lexicon, any suspected loanword into Türkic is ultimately suspected).
14. kevel at MK QB 'thoroughbred fast horse' (Cl. 689: "pec. to Xak. (Khakass?)"). Compare HSak. (Hotan oasis) kaba 'horse (?)', in all uses - a mount, with such epithets as 'excellent', 'race horse'. Bailey: 52 to Lat. caballus, cabo,-onis, also compare in Russian. kobyla,-la,-laka - standard diminutive suffix. in HSak. (Hotan oasis) (See Middle Iranian Languages, pp. 304) (The Latin cabo does not have IE etymology, so reference to Latins is a road to nowhere. The Türkic word for "mount" with the root kob is a prehistoric internationalized "bazaar" word, with uncounted derivatives in all borrowing languages, a la "caballero" and "hippodrome"; the kob- geldings were predominant riding horses among the Scythians, Huns, and Türks; in Türkic generic "horse" is "at", the Türkic siblings of cabo jaby/jupax/yaby/jabu/jabak/čawydaq/čabdax and the like designate a type of horse. The Latins may have got it from the Thracians, the Greeks directly from the Türkic Cimmerians, since it was already used in the Iliad in the pre-Scythian time. The cabo word for horse, like the word for corral, can be used to trace and to time the spread of the Kurgan Culture nomads and languages).t>.<15. kestem MK 'evening with drinks, in contrast to a formal reception' (Cl. 749: "prob. a l.-w. (loan-word)"), cf. Tokh. B (Tarim) kästwer 'at night' - the Tocharian (Kuchean) etymology of the word, according to Adams 946, is unknown) - as a more likely source compare HSak. (Hotan oasis) khäşta 'drunk', *khäştam lit. 'arranged for drinking' ( < khays- 'drink' < *xašta- Bailey 72-73) (That the local Türks in the isolated oases of the Tarim basin and Taklamakan used local words is no wonder; it is the provenance of the local language that is significant, in this case apparently a Sogdian word).t>.<16. suma MK 'sprouts of wheat or barley, ingredient for malt' (Cl. 828: "prob. a Chinese phr., the -ma may be mai 'wheat'") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) suma 'flour', in the examples of "flour for fermentation, cereal' Bailey 427, from HSak. (Hotan oasis) sau-/su- 'crush, rub', cf. Avesta suδuš 'grater' (G.Clauson's Ch. 水麦 shui-mai = "water grain" looks as viable phonetically and better suitable semantically).t>.<17. (?) tim MK 'wineskin' (Cl. 503: "prob. a l.-w. (loan-word) from Chinese tien 'shop, inn'") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) ttanä 'skin', ttina 'in the skin' Bailey 122, 127 ( < Iran. *tani-) (Leather bags for water must be a necessary implement of the nomadic practices, constantly produced in every household, and should be on the level of the 100 "nomadic Swadesh" words. That is illustrated by the richness of the words for "bag" in Türkic).
18. (Known HSak. (Hotan oasis) borrowing): kemišge 'embroidered Kashgar felt' MK (Cl. 724: "Dev. N. fr. kemiš- 'to trow away, abandon', lit. 'something laid down on the ground'") - HSak. (Hotan oasis) kamaišcä 'type of blanket, mostly multicolored' (derivative of kam- 'cover') Bailey 52.

19. (?) (Known HSak. (Hotan oasis) borrowing): beekem MK 'pennant of a silk piece or a wild bull tail' - HSak. (Hotan oasis) baicakama 'yak or horse tail', Wakhan. bièkam id. (Cl. 295, Mgst. IIFL 2516, Bailey 302, baica < *vaj- 'to weave', kama < *kahama 'hair', other Iranian parallels are there; compare hypothesis of borrowing in the opposite direction Stebl.-Kam. Wakh . 96 (That all Türkic nomadic troops fought under horse tail standard is known from the European, Asian, and East Asian sources, the idea of a foreign borrowing is not realistic; it is the other way around, the descendents of Türkic standards are still used in military and heraldic fields in Europe and elsewhere; Wakhans claim to be Radjputs who claim to be Ephtalites who were an offshoot of the Huns, and descendents of the Kushans with a center in the Wakh yabgu; on top of that the Wakhs live interspersed with Tajik and Kirgiz people; and the horse tail standard is as endemic to Iranians as the horns to the horses. If there is a remote possibility for an Iranian name for this battle standard, it can only be a derisive moniker, like a "rag").t>.<20. zaranza 'saffron' MK (Cl. 989: "no doubt a l.-w. (loan-word)"),? Sogdian"). But compare Bailey 347 ysaramjsa 'saffron' < *zaranèi, compare Pers. zarang, zirik 'carthamus tinctorius, from which is extracted a red dye." From HSak. (Hotan oasis) ysar- 'be red', HSak. (Hotan oasis) word phonetically corresponds exactly to the Türkic (ys = [z]). (The Sogdian lexical parallels are absent; compare Sogd. usparn 'saffron' Gharib 10,586).
21. sytyr 'ounce' Late. Anc. Uig. ( >  Mong.). Contrary to C1. 802, likelier from HSak. (Hotan oasis) sătira (Bailey 418), Kroran. satera, than from the Sogd. st'yr, Gharib 363 ster. Middle Tokh. satera 'ounce' "from BHS satera-, itself ultimately from Greek stater" (Adams 3775).
22. (?) küji 'incense' Late. Anc. Uig. ( >  Mong.). (Cl. 695: "no doubt a l.-w. (loan-word)"),? Sogdian"; . küe 'sesame' Cl. 693: Krh.-Uig., Horezm-Türk.). Compare late HSak. kujsa 'sesame' (js = [dz]). The Türkic word is borrowed ultimately from Sanskrit kunji 'Kümmel', but likely in HSak. (Hotan oasis) phonetics (The kunjut is such engrained Türkic and now also Russian word, shared by all Türkic people, that the idea of its being borrowed from a tiny oasis in the middle of far-away desert sounds irrational; on top of it, in some languages its full name is Indian kunjut, to discern it from similar plants; seems obvious that it was sold along the Silk Road as an Indian spice).
23. (?) tartar 'wild pigeon, quail, water hen' MK, AbûH, Bulg.; Modern Kirg. tartar 'corncrake'. (Cl. 536: "an onomatopoeic") - compare with likewise reduplication HSak. (Hotan oasis) ttatara 'partridge' Bailey 122, cf. Sogd. ttr'w, Persian, taδarw, Median (Greek) τεταρος 'partridge', Pashto tāru, with Indo-European etymology *teter- Pok. 1079; HSak. (Hotan oasis) form closest to the Türkic c (This case calls for a closer look because of Median and Kirgiz coincidence; onomatopoeic is probably correct, but genetical connections shouldn't be casually dismissed in lieu of examination).<24. kebez 'cotton seed' Late. Anc. Uig., Krh.-Uig. MK, still remains in the Türkic languages of the region: New Uigur with dialects, Saryg-Yugur, Uzbek. See ESTYA 1997, 1913, Cl. 692. By phonetic form the best possible source corresponds to HSak. (Hotan oasis) kapaysa- 'cotton wool' Bailey 1966, 42. Also compare Wakhi kəbós 'wool, cotton', Shugn(i) čips, Yazg. Aəbés the same 244; Vershik. γupás, Burusho. gupΛs, Tib. kupās (Stebl.-Kam. Wakhi 214). In the region there is clearly a borrowing from the new Indo-Aryan languages: cf. Skr. karpāsa, Pali kappāsa, Kashm. kapas, Nepal kapās, kabās, Hindi kapās, in the Pamir languages - not later then Middle Iranian era (Edelman Geogr. 57-58), according to the palatalization of the initial k- and consequently from Middle Ind., see Mgst. ESh 26. Compare Pers. karbās, Taj. karbos, obviously borrowed in other ways.

244 Stebl.-Kam. NKR 53: "... the Pamir forms could not be borrowed from the Türkic languages (which have forms with the second a short). The first part of the statement is not disputed, because the early borrowing is justified by the Pamir palatalization, but the Turk. does not necessarily require a second short vowel in the source form, since it can be supported by the intra-Türkic synharmonism with the frontal raw with a vowel of the first syllable, ascending to the a short.

25. šatu 'ladder': Anc. Uig. Man., Krh.-Uig. šatu (QB), Chat. šatu Sangl., Anc. Uig. >  Relatively late inscribed Mong. šatu(n) 'ladder' (Doerfer TMN 3, 317): Written Mong. šatu(n) (L 754), Middle Mong. šatu (MA 407), Khalkha šat(an), Bur. šata, Kalm. šatə, Ordos šatu, Shira Yuig.  šatə, KWb 351, MGCD 710 245. In the new Türkic languages it is represented by Tuv. čada ( < Buryat) NUig.  šaty/u, which can be both inherited and Mongolism.sm.

Like presumes EDT 867, the word apparently was borrowed from the Moddle Iran. form of the eastern type *šatu < *sritā (*sr- > *s in HSak. (Hotan oasis), Sogd., Pashto, >  s- in Osset., u from the accusative case? compare HSak. (Hotan oasis), Sogd.). Traces of the borrowing source in Iranian languages: late Saka (Hotan oasis) šakye from *satV-ka Bailey 406, 511 as a gloss to Türk. catta [čatu, šatu]; in the "Zambasta Book" a prefix formation büşşäta f. < *abi-sritā. Compare Pashto šəl < sritā 'ladder', Yazg. xad < sritā, Osset. aşinä 'ladder' < *ā-srin-, ses 'wall' < *sraiša, Yidgha afsinγo 'ladder' < *abi-śrinaka. Bailey 300, Abaev I 76, 3 113-114.

Two southeastern Türkic words look like borrowings from some Eastern Iranian languages, but they do not coincide with any recorded Middle Iranian language:ge:<1. üjme 'mulberry' MK (= New Uig.  üjme) (Cl. 27: "the j suggests that it is an Iranian l.-w. (loan-word)") = Sarikol yjma, ůjma Stebl.-Kam. NKP 90 < *aizma-.
2. (?) ulyan 'edible root of a fragrant plant' MK (Cl. 154: "prob. a loan-word") - Yazg. lang 'coriander' Stebl.-Kam. Club 75.

Tocharian = > Türkic (i.e. Kuchean oasis ~ Tokhar A and Turfanian/Arsi oasis ~ Tokhar B; no relation to the Tokhars whatsoever)

1. 1. oxaq MK 'juice of crushed apricots, used as a cooler drink' (Cl. 83: "prob. an Iranian l.-w. (loan-word)") - apparently from Tokh. A (Kuchean), oko 'fruit' Adams 656 < PIE *og-;
2. čanač MK 'effeminate cowardly man', čanačlik 'effeminate, indulgent', čanačla- 'attribute effeminacy to smb.' (Cl. 425:?) - cf. Tokh. A (Kuchean) śna-spi adj. posess. 'femininus' Poucha 331, from säm 'woman', Tokh. B (Tarim) śana Adams 3440 < PIE *gwen-; (These śna-spi/säm/śana/*gwen- for 'femininus' do not seem to even get close to the Scythian Enareis (εναρεες) = effeminate men cited by Herodotus; these Tarim "Tocharians" spoke a different language from the annalistic Saka/Scythians)
3. jömerük kiši MK 'man with cloudy, watery eyes' (Cl. 424:?) - Tokh. A (Kuchean), B (Tarim) tsemp 'caerulius' (literally, "blue"), A (Kuchean) tsem-yok 'coloris caerulei', tsem-yokān asam 'caerulei oculi' (blue eyes), by Adams 4140, PIE, but likelier from Middle Ch. 青 chieng 'blue'). Interpretation *čemjok plus synharmonism and replacement ofg the phonetically unallowed sound combination with a help of  a frequent suffix (jömerük kiši could also be blue eyed people, blue eyed tribe, as would be noted by the people with exclusively dark eyes, either Chinese, Mongolians, Tunguses, Tibetians, Indians, Iranians, Bactrians, etc. Light eyes is a Siberian trait, Chinese annals noted that distinction for the Siberian Dinlin, Tele, and Kirgiz peoples. For light-eyed Türkic people there is nothing remarkable about blue eyes, and they would not have a derogatory term like cloudy, watery eyes about themselves, the jömerük part could only come from Ch, Indo-Iranians, and the like).

245 Contrary to EDAL, the Mong. forms should be excluded from the Altaic etymology EDAL 2024: PAlt. *sit'o 'ladder, grid wall': Mong. *sita, TM *sitki 'wall of the tent' SSTMYA 2, 99, Kor. *satari 'ladder' Nam 282, KED 870, Jap. *sitəmi 'awning, blinds' JLTT 528, see Ram.SKE 217. The Mong. word falls out for two reasons: 1) looks rather strained the presumption about Mong. borrowing in the ancient Uigur Manichaean text, 2) reconstruction *sita for suggested Mongolian forms is phonetically impossible, and in general their reconstruction is difficult: the reconstructed Proto-forms should have reasons for a-break in the first syllable, and simultaneous for the short u of the second syllable (sufficiently well attested forms from the MA and Ordos); *situa would have given *šoto (cf. *činua 'wolf'), *sitaγu would have given *šutuu (cf. *sibaγun 'bird').

Well-known Tocharian borrowings (i.e Kuchean oasis ~ Tokhar A and Turfanian/Arsi oasis ~ Tokhar B; no relation whatsoever to the Tokhars, Tuhsi, Bactrians, or their languages):

4. lešp 'snot': Anc. Uig. (Medical texts), MK (Cl. 764: < Tokh. A (Kuchean), B (Tarim) leüp same Adams 3046: < Prakrit) (i.e. Prakit = >  Kucha and Turfan = >  Anc. Uigur);
5. karšy 'royal palace': Late. Anc. Uig., MK, QB, Gag., Horezm-Türk. but not in the new Türkic languages; Türkic. >  Mong. xarši. C1. 664: Turk. < Tokh. B (Tarim) kercci (Adams 1046: < IE *ghord/t-).
6. (?) ermeli MK 'race horse': Cl. 232: cf. Tokh. B (Tarim) ramer; Adams 2887: 'hurriedly, quickly' < PIE *drem- 'run' (provenance in Türkic languages?).
7. madar Anc. Uig. 'monster' (none in C1.; Turk. >  Mong. madar) < Tokh. B (Tarim) mātar 'monster' or HSak. (Hotan oasis) mādara- (none in Bailey). Adams 2483: "TchA (Kuchean) mātār and B (Tarim) mātar are both ultimately from BHS (Bactrian?) makara-, perhaps through the intermediary of Hotanese madara-". About Turk. borrowing see Rona-Tas TE, 503.
8. nāg MK 'crocodile; cyclical sign': C1. 776: from Sogd. nāg/k 'dragon', from Skr. nāga 'large snake'. However compare Tokh. B (Tarim) nāk 'snake as a sign of cyclical', nāge 'dragon' (as a spirit of water) Adams 1781, 1787. The measurement of time by the animal cycle is not very typical for Sogdians (see Freiman 1962 on Sogdian calendar), so here is more likely a Tokharism (Kucheism? Tarimism? The only spreaders of the animal cycle calendar in the Tarim basin were occasional Chinese and permanent Türkic Uigurs, from before 2nd c. BC to their acceptance of Islam in the 9-10th C. AD).

Interestingly, the contacts between Sinkiang (East Turkestan, i.e. Uiguristan) Türkic, Hotan-Saka (Hotan oasis) and Tocharian "worked" in all directions, as evidenced by the presence of other borrowing directions.

Türkic =>  Saka (Hotanian) (we cite only tentative borrowings not noted in Bailey 246)

1. (?) HSak. (Hotan oasis) chā 'length measure' Bailey 107 (compared with HSak. (Hotan oasis) chei 'branch' < *chaša-), in reality (for example) = Ch. tşi 'foot' - compare Mongor. DZā 'gap between thumb and middle finger', i.e. open palm span, an equivalent of a foot in the Chinese system of the length measures, from the Ch. (Synin) tsa, Ch. zhā 'palm span' SM 69, Ch-DWb II1262, 7477 (the sources for the Middle Ch. words were not found). The etymology can be justified with a detection of an intermediary source between the Chinese borrowing and HSak. (Hotan oasis) form. Or the direction of borrowing is opposite (from Iran. into  Ch.)?

246 A number of Türkic loanwords into Saka (Hotanian) is well known; mostly they are proper names, titles and ranks, names for clothes, leather products, food and the like. Also compare Hovdhaugen, pp. 166, where is alleged that the Türkic words in Hotan-Saka (Hotanian) are not borrowings, but occasional words in connection with ostensibly weak interest of the Sakas to the contact with the Türks, at the same time in the article are absent a number of well-known "household" borrowing from the Türkic into the Saka (Hotanian) like the yaragaka ( < Türk. yargak 'leather'), yadama ( < Türk. yalma 'cloak') Bailey 258, and others (Anthropological investigation of the Tarim basin cemeteries shows biological admixture of the nomadic and sedentary people consistent with the cultural symbiosis and genetical studies. Per Chinese annals, the very tribe named Türk, and its dynastic clan Ashina, was a branch of the Saka tribe. If there were any resident Sakas in the Hotan and environs, they were kinfolks and tribesmen of the Türks; however, the Türkic admixture with the Hotan agriculturists most likely is of the Uigur, and not Türk descent).

2. (?) HSak. (Hotan oasis) kaşa 'belt' Bailey 56 - Bailey attributes to the Iranian *kaša-. The full etymology of this Iranian word is as follows: Av. (j) kaša- m. 'armpit' Bartholomae 461; north-west. Gilan. kəšə 'hug', Lur. bunkash, kashbun 'hug' Jukovky II133, Talysh kəsh 'wing, arm, sleeve', kəshə 'breast', keshəbyn 'armpit', Kurd, Kurmanji k'osh f. 'front of man from knees to the waist' Bakaev, koš 'lap (skirt)' Kurdoev, Sorani koš 'knees, groin', South Middle Pers. kaš, keš 'side, armpit' Abrahamian 169, Zor. p. dast-kaš 'arms under armpits' NPers. käš 'groin, armpit, chest, heart, hug', Taj. kash 'armpit'; Eastern HSak. (Hotan oasis) kasa 'belt' Wakhi kal 'embrace', kalbən 'side, bosom, armpit' Pahalina Wakhi 210, Gr. - Stebl.-Kam. 366, Mgst. IFL Π 525,247, Sogd. p-kšy 'side', Yagnob. kapaš, kepaš < *pəkaš < *upa-kaša 'bosom' Andreev-Peschereva 270; Pashtu kše 'in' Mgst. EPsh 72, Yidgha-Mungi avγuš 'bosom, hugs' Mgst. IFL II 144, Sanglechi-Ishkashim kašviš 'armpit' Mgst. IFL II 400 ( < Pers.) Shugn(i) bijuγ 'armpit' < *api-kaša Zarubin 112, Sarikol buxčo 'bosom' Pahalina Sar. 29, Bartang bijaw, bixčaw 'armpit, bosom' Sokolova Bart. 89, 90. But the meaning in the HSak. (Hotan oasis) looks far isolated among other Iranian meanings, so can be offered a Türkic source for HSak. (Hotan oasis) word (like in a number of other cases with the clothing names in HSak. (Hotan oasis)): Türk. *kel-č 'belt': Anc. Uig. keš, MK keš 'belt', Kirg. kešene 'sash' Chuv. kazan 'back, spine' VEWT 258, Cl. 752, Doerf. II 1697, ESTYA 1997, 60-61. The Türk. base has a suitable Altaic etymology: PAlt. *'l 'belt, waist': TM *xelgece 'waist; span' >  Evenk eŋene, Evenk eŋn 'waist' elg 'span', Negid. eŋene 'waist', Ulchi. xeŋgi 'waist', Oroch. xeŋgeje 'armpit' SSTMYA 2, 446, 458, Jap. *kəsi: Anc. Jap. kosi, Middle Jap. kosi, Modern Jap. kòshi JLTT 458 (三尺 ?All belt ?). See APiPYaYa 76, 289.
3. HSak. k. (Hotan oasis) sigä 'measure used in connection with bull hides' Bailey 398 ("Possibly fr. base sai- 'cut'") - from Ch. via Türk. (Räs. VEWT 107 wrongly associated it with *čakanak 'upper arm') *čig 'Chinese foot, measure around 33 cm': Anc. Uig. čigin tsunin 'measurement in feet and inches' U II, Suv. 136.8, tört čig '4 feet' (length of a picture) Suv. 544.5; čig 'Türkic elbow (foot), about two thirds of the normal elbow (foot)' MK; NUig.  či 'measure of 10 sun' < Ch. ch'i (脚 pin. jiǎo) 'foot' < ch'iek. See S1.404.
4. HSak. (Hotan oasis) simuşai 'spoon', like the NPers. čamčah 'wooden ladle, scoop', Bailey 400 produces with a suffix tool -uşaka, but from an unknown base, cf. Doerf. III 1121 - where from a Türk. *čöm-če 'scoop' (derivative of *čom-/*čöm- 'dive, to scoop'), MK čötče (Oguz.) Tur. čömče, Az. čömčä, Krh., Balk. čömüč, Kum. čömüč, Tat. čümeč, Bashk. sümes, Kaz., Nog., KKalp. šömiš, Kirg. čömüč, Uzbek čomič, NUig.  čömüč, Khak. somnax ( < *čomčaq), SUig. čomyš (Malov YAZHU). See VEWT 115, Doerf. 3, 95-99, Cl. 422, 319 Egorov. Also compare čam-čak/čam-ču- 'large spoon' (VEWT 98; < *čom-čak?). The verb *čom-/ *čöm- 'dive, scoop' has Altaic etymology: PAlt. *šmo- 'id.', Mong. *č 'scoop' KWb 431, Lessing 197, TM *šom- 'to scoop' SSTMYA 2, 406, 414, 429, Kor. *sam- 'to swallow, to penetrate', Middle Kor. samski-, samas-, sāmačh- Nam 287, 293, KED 874, 905, Jap. *səma- 'to immerse, to paint': Anc. Jap. soma-, Middle Jap. sóma-, Modern Jap. sòme- JLTT 755.

247 Morgensterne believes that the Wakhan form was borrowed from undetected Sanglech, like the Pers. dial. kalk 'side under armpit'.

5. (?) HSak. (Hotan oasis) tadrrvā Bailey 102 'krosna, backing (?)' (krosna/ = manual loom with started work) in the following context: tta bura pvaicai cu ttadrvā bāstadu padāmysa padāya pvaica tsvā sā 'these so many pvaica-coverings which we had drawn upon the looms(?), in the first way one pvaica-covering came' KT II 76, 3-4. Bailey produces the HSak. (Hotan oasis) word from *tantra, Skr. tantra 'krosna, backing', but the semantics is not too convincing. The cover pvaica appears repeatedly in combinations such as: yaragaka να pvaica 'cover for yargak' (where yaragaka < Türk. yargak 'hide (pelt)'), siyam pvaicām jsa jsā yadama 'yalma with white covers' (yadama < Türk. yalma 'cloak') Bailey 258, cf. in the same place a number of of contexts with the Türkic borrowings. It is possible to presume that ttadrvā is Türk. tatyrga MK1489 (hapax - C1. 460) 'white tanned leather' (Arabic al-qadam 'white parchment, leather tablecloth'), apparently related to tart- 'stretch', cf . another derivative from the sphere of leather terminology: tartqa/y 'scraper for leather' SIGTYA 1997, 361. (For the phonetic form of the HSak. (Hotan oasis) word compare HSak. (Hotan oasis) anahid ipabhutti in accordance with the Türk. ayag-alpaγut Bailey JRAS 1939).
6. HSak. (Hotan oasis) ttila 'thread, wire' Bailey 129. Etymology, suggested by Bailey: *tela < *tarθrya. Türk. forms (*tel: MK tili 'whip' Tur. tel, Az. tel, Turk. til 'wire, string' Chuv. tal 'braid' VEWT 471, C1. 491) Bailey considered to be Iranisms, compare NPers., Kurd., Osset. tel. NPers. tār < *tarθra (phonetically tār: tel = load, bari 'spade' < Iran. *barθra: NPers. bel < *barθva); compare also Germ.: Eng. thread, Germ. Draht. Nevertheless, the direct parallels for the HSak. (Hotan oasis) form are absent (see Abaev 3, 288, about Osset. form: it is not a reflex of Pra-Iranian state, and is likely a borrowing, the same is true about the Kurd. form), so conversely the Türk. word (being a  Pra-Türkic word, compare the existence of the Chuvash parallel) may be a source for the HSak. (Hotan oasis) and other Iranian forms. The Türkic word has Altaic etymology: PAlt. *telu 'bowstring; to stretch', Mong. *tele- 'to stretch, to stretch out (skin, clothing)', Written Mong. tele-, teli-(Lessing 797), Khalkha tele-, Buryat telür 'stretcher; stretching frame' Kalm. tel-, Ordos tele-, Mongor. terge- (SM 418), see KWb 390; TM *tel-: Evenk. telbe- 'arm (bow, crossbow)', telge- 'to skin, carve a carcass', Evenk telg-, Negid. telge-, Oroch, tegge-, Udege. tegesi-, Ulch. telzei- 'to skin, carve a carcass', Oroch. telde- 'to skin, carve a carcass', telbe 'spreader', Nanai telgeei- 'to skin, carve a carcass', see SSTMYA 2, 231; Jap. *turu 'bowstring': Anc. Jap. turu, Middle Jap. tsúrù, Modern Jap. tsurú, see JLTT 557 (This is a most amazing tracing of the Proto-Altaic *telu "bowstring, to stretch" spread into nearly every existing Eurasiatic language: English "thread", German "Draht", Mongolian "tele", Hotan "ttila", New Persian "tel", Kurdish "tel", Ossetian "tel", Khalka "tele", Buryat "telür", Kalmyk "tel-", Evenk "telbe-", Japanese "turu / tsurú", etc .).
7. HSak. (Hotan oasis) yola- 'lie, deceit', Bailey (Bailey 343) believes that the Turk. yablaq 'evil' and Tokh. B (Tarim) yolo 'bad, evil' are borrowed from this HSak. (Hotan oasis) words. However, the Iranian etymology he proposed is not too convincing (from *i-dab-ala- < *vi-dab-ala- with postulated dialect development). In respect to Tokh. (Kuchean) see Adams 2808 (the Tokh. (Kuchean) word is primary, and incorporated in Saka (Hotan oasis)). In reality, both Türkic and Tocharian (Kuchean) words semantically are too far from the Saka (Hotan oasis). We would suggest another source for HSak. (Hotan oasis) yola- 'lie, deceit': Turk. yala 'to slander, false accusation', recorded with Anc. Uig., see the MK, C1. 918-919, VEWT 181, 183, ESTYA 1989, 87, 91-92. Turk. >  Mong. jala (KWb 214). This Türkic base, represented in all Türkic groups, except for the Bulgar, has also Altaic etymology: PAlt. *žela- 'cheat', Mong. *žali 'cheat', Written Mong. žali (Lessing 1031: žali 'trick, cunning'), Khalkha "zali-, Bur. zal'xaj 'adulterous' Kalm. zälə 'trick, deceit', zal'xä 'cunning', Dagur. želleg 'cunning' KWb 465, 470, MGCD 427 (Mong. >  Manchu žali (see Doerf. MT 138, Rozycki 120), Oyrot. jalaq); TM *žele-, Evenk želum, Even želm, Negid. želum 'secret', Ulch. žele(n), Oroch. žele(n), Nan. žele, Manchu žele 'lie, deceit' SSTMYA 1, 284 (Ogur žela / yala = >  Oguz ela / ala / elag / alag = >  Germanic Lüge / Lage / liegen / lügen = >  English lie / to lie; Oguz = Proto-Altaic).

Tocharian =>  Saka (Amazingly, neither Tokharian is Tokharian, nor Saka is Saka, but these are the misleading euphemisms of the modern Indo-European philological science, distinct from the sciences where things are called with what they are. The right title reads Kuchean/Tarim =>  Hotan, i.e. common elements within the Tarim/Taklamakan basin)

1. Interestingly HSak. (Hotan oasis) puka 'elbow' (Bailey 242: to the Iran. *pank- 'pierce' and Greek πνγών 'elbow' - ςηεν in fact the latter is derived from the name of the fist, indicating a measure of length from an elbow to a palm contracted into a fist). Obviously, it is taken from Tokh. A (Kuchean) poke, B pokai 'forearm, elbow' (= Skr. bahu-, Av. bazu- < PIE *bhāg'hu-), see Adams 2191.
2. HSak. (Hotan oasis) krngga 'rooster' "Tokh. B (Tarim) kranko 'chicken' Adams 1129 ( < PIE *krek- 'produce loud noises') - Bailey (Bailey 64) considers HSak. (Hotan oasis) word to be primal, but the other Iranian forms (Av. kahrka-, Zor. n. kark, NPers. kark 'rooster', Vaneti čirag, Pashto čirg, Yazgulem k'arj, Vakh. kerk 'chicken', Shugn(i) čuš 'rooster', čaš' chicken') does not contain a nasal (Apparently, the sedentary agricultural Indo-Iranians who settled in the oases of the Tarim / Taklamakan basin did not need to borrow from their nomadic neighbors for their sedentary-specific lexicon, so no common points with the Ogur, Oguz, or any other variety of Proto-Altaic or Türkic languages).

Saka => "Tocharian (The right title reads Hotan =>  Kuchean/Tarim, i.e. common elements within the Tarim/Taklamakan basin)

The Adams dictionary contains about 100 such loans, often Indian through the Saka (Hotan oasis) (Rephrasing this to an object-oriented speech, the Indian-based lexicon of the Hotan settlers spread to the settlers in the Kucha and Tarim oases; no relation whatsoever to the Tokhars, Tuhsi, Saka, or their languages).

Türkic => Tocharian (The right title reads Türkic =>  Kuchean/Tarim)

In Tokh. B (Tarim) is known a number of the Türkic (Uigur) personal names and titles, for example, ārslam 'Arslan' Adams 9, ālp Adams 375, er Adams 582, el < Adams 600, tārhkāne Adams 1526. We provide here nominal words that can be interpreted as Türkic borrowing already into Tocharian B (Tarim), after its separation from the Tocharian A (Kuchean) (After Tarim basin oases accumulated enough changes to be different from the morphed Kucha oasis vernacular. There is no evidence that Kuchean and Arsi oases ever spoke a common language; they might be as close as a borsch and potato salad, both made with the same potatoes, but with different other ingredients and processed differently. The family tree model's "separation" may be an illusory consequence of the model that A.V. Dybo herself dismissed from the beginning).

1. Tokh. B (Tarim) iprer, eprer, A (Kuchean) eprer 'sky, air, firmament' Pouha 1940, Adams 568 ("Further relations are unknown. Certainly not ... from PIE *per- 'point'. Other proposed connections, a borrowing from Middle Iranian abra- 'cloud, 'or a relationship with Breton ebr 'heaven' founder either phonologically or morphologically (whence the final -r ?), or both") (What a great chance to peek into the lexicon of the Alans in Amorica, who in the 5th-7th cc intermarried extensively with the Celtic Britons in the Orica/Amorica, and who may have introduced elements of the Timber Grave lexicon into the Bactrian/Sogdian language a millennia prior to that). Indeed, the expected source of the Indo-European Tokh. B (Tarim) iprer - *nbh-ro-, the zero stage of *nebh- 'sky, cloud': Skr. abhrā-, Av. avra- 'cloud', Greek aphrys 'foam', Lat. imber 'rain' Pokorny 316, but a normal reflex of *n in is Tocharian - *än >  A (Kuchean) än, B (Tarim) an (Burlak 123), and both Tocharian forms can not be linked to ascend to the PIE root; moreover, the vowel correspondencies between the Tocharian A (Kuchean) and B (Tarim) forms do not allow to reconstruction of the common Pra-Tokhar form, so one of them should be taken as borrowed (this may be a literary borrowing from A (Kuchean) to B (Tarim), or a use a live form from B (Tarim) by a scribe who was creating a text in a dead A (Kuchean) language). Thus, the Tocharian forms do not have Indo-European etymology, and do not ascend to a Pra-Tocharian state. But the Türkic has *ebren 'dome, firmament, sky' >  MK evren 'dome', QB evren 'sky, firmament', Modern Turkish evren 'sky, world' C1. 13-14 (partially contaminated, but contrary to G.Clauson unrelated to the Türk. *ebren 'snake, dragon', which has Altaic etymology - see EDAL 1605), apparently a derivation from *ebür- 'turn', EDT 1914, VEWT 34, ESTYA 1974, 498-500, Egorov 20. The Tocharian forms can be borrowed from the Türkic with a replacement of a suffix (And this supposition neatly falls in with the historically documented Amorica Alans, and explains the oddity of why of all the Celtic languages only the Amorica Britons use this Türkic word).

2. (?) Tokh. B (Tarim) kakwār 'a type of food' Adams 743 ("Etymology unknown") = Türk. kagur- 'to grill' with derivatives of the type *kagur-ma, *kagur-dak and the like - all epithets for fried foods - see ESTYA 1997, 175-177, C1. 612;
3. Tokh. B (Tarim) kwaspo 'village' Adams 1217 ("Etymology uncertain", suggests links to otherwise isolated Pra-Germ. *husa- 'house' is phonetically inaccurate). Compare Turk. *kol' > *koš 'hut, settlement': Krh.-Türk. qoš 'family' (Tfs), Chag. qoš 'camp, settlement' (Pav.C), 'house, dwelling' (Sangl.), Turk. Goš 'parking', Tat. quš 'hut', Balk. qoš 'encampment', Kum. qoš 'hut', Kaz. Nog., KKalp. qos 'tent', Kirg. qoš 'camp, stopover', Tuv. qoš 'caravan' Chuv. xüžə 'hut', Yak. xos 'room', see VEWT 283, EDT 670, SIGTYA 1997, 491-492, Fedotov, 2, 375-376, ESTYA 2000, 90-94. Turk. >  Written Mong. qos, Kalm. xoš (KWb 189), Written Mong. qosi-lig (Clark 1980, 42). The root is conflated with the *Kol' 'couple, joint', but apparently they should be distinguished. The word has TM parallel *kuli-, *kuli-ti- 'fence in' SSTMYA 1, 428-429, probably ascending to PAlt. *kul'o 'enclosure' EDAL 913. The hypothesis of the Türk. word borrowed from the Tokh. (Kuchean) koşkiye 'hut' (which is borrowed from Iranian, see 1101) is discussed in Reinhart 1990, its acceptance leaves unexplained the absence of -k- in the Türkic form (This is another most amazing tracing of the Proto-Altaic *kol' > *koš "hut, settlement" spread into nearly every existing Eurasiatic language: English "house", German "*husa-", Mongolian "qos", Tarim "kwaspo", Kuchean "koşkiye", some Iranian form, Krh.-Türk. qoš, Chag. qoš, Turk. Goš, Tat. quš, Balk. qoš, Kum. qoš, Kaz. Nog., KKalp. qos, Kirg. qoš, Tuv. qoš, Chuv. xüžə, Yak. xos).
4. (?) Tokh. B (Tarim) pale 'designation of some domestic servant', example: "Then Purohita asked him: "Tell me, pala, will the prince ..." (Adams 1972: "Etymology unknown"). The solution of the problem may be assuming a development 'child' >  'servant', which at the least is not impossible (cf. Anc. Rus. čaga 'slave-girl' < Türk. čaga 'child' Menges SE 170); whereas Tocharian form can be either borrowing from the Türkic .*bāla 'child, baby' (in Anc. Türkic recorded only 'animal baby', but compare Altaic correspondences: Mong. *baleir 'baby', TM *baldi- 'give birth, be born', Jap. *barapa(i) 'baby 'APiPYaYa 289), or Skr. bālā- 'child' (Sanskrit and Ancient Türkic share child of the 100 Swadesh word list).
5. (?) Tokh. B (Tarim) peşke 'drawn butter (as a component of medicines)' (Adams 2180: "Probably a borrowing from some Middle Iranian source. Compare Modern Persian maske 'fresh butter' (Menges, 1965:131, VW: 637)"). New-Persian maske (borrowed into Chag. meske - Pav.C. 499, compare also Bud. I 231, - Uzbek maska), perhaps is an Eastern Iranian borrowing, derived from the verb *miš- 'mix, churn', Osset. misyn, Yagnob. mušin 'buttermilk' (Abaev II 123, Bailey 290), Skr. mikş-, Indo-Iran. < PIE *mikş- (Mayrhofer 373). A borrowing of the Tocharian (Tarim) form with p- from the form with m- seems doubtful. At the same time  compare the Türk. *bil'či- > *biši- 'mix, churn (milk, butter)': Türk. pišek 'whisk', pišek-le- 'to churn', Tat. peš- 'to churn' (Tumasheva Seeber 180), Bashk. beše- 'to churn, whisk', beškək 'whisk', Kaz. piš- 'to churn' Nog. piskek 'whisk' KKalp. pis-; piskek 'large whisk', Kirg. byš-/biš-; biškek 'whisk for whipping kumys', Uzbek piškak 'whisk for churning' Chuv. pəzer- 'beat, hit' Yak., Dolg. bis- 'to daub'. See ESTYA 1978, 309-310, Stachowski 61, Ashm. X, 241-242. Possible Alt. etymology: PAlt. *bile'i- 'to mix, knead', Mong. *bilea- 'become flat and wet, coat' KWb 45, (? > ) Manchu bilea- 'to knead dough, to glue' SSTMYA 1, 83, Kor. *pič- 'mix, brew', Middle Kor. *pič-, Modern Kor. pit-[pie-] Liu 417, KED 864, Jap. *pisipə 'type of soybean sauce, salted meat or fish', Anc. Jap. p(j)isip(w)o, Middle Jap. fisifo JLTT 409, see ED AL 128. The source of borrowing in the Tokh. B (Tarim) should be a derivative with -ke. This may also apply to the HSak. (Hotan oasis) biši 'buttermilk' (Bailey 290 ascends it to the above mentioned Iranian forms, but then the b- and -s-require a special explanation. The initial transition b- < *m- in the HSak. (Hotan oasis) is irregular, an another example of such development is biysma 'urine' (Bailey 287) < *miz-, but apparently there it is dissimilar - cf. miysai 'urine' (Bailey 332). The middle -s- Bailey explains from *-xš-, but a normal reflex there is -s-, see Middle Iranian languages 247, cf. HSak. (Hotan oasis) has- 'tell' < *-eğ-s- (Bailey 472). So the HSak. (Hotan oasis) form can be borrowed, or at least contaminated with the Türkic borrowing (It appears that the clear Modern Iranian borrowing from the Japanese/Korean/Altaic/Mongolian/ Türkic that Bailey holds as a primeval word is passed by without even noticing the oddity that the Modern Iranian, which reputedly belongs to the Indo-European family of languages, shares lexicon with such far-flung and contact-less languages as possible isolates Korean and Japanese. We need to put on specially designed Bailey blinds to hold Iranian as primeval and everybody else as trailing).

6. (?) Tokh. B (Tarim) miye 'some olive-type fruit?" = dimin. miyaske (Adams 2552:?). The context that allows to judge the meaning of the word is the following: [wsā re nek]cy[e]ne cwi miye paşkārro 'they were giving him at night miye and paşkārro'. The paşkārro presumably is 'linseed' (Adams 1978). Then we can assume that the miye is also a medicinal plant, and a good comparison for it may be a Türkic word meaning 'liquorice; goosefoot' *bynan: Chag. bijan, CCum. (Kuman?) bujan, Tur. bojan, mejan, Az. bijan, Turk. bujan, Tat. dial. myja, Kaz., Nog. myja, KKalp. bojan, Kirg. myja, Uzbek mija, NUig.  buja, Chuv. majan Egorov 131. Turk. >  Kalm. bujā 'licorice'. This word apparently ascends to PAlt. mina 'type of herbaceous plant' together with the Kor. *minari 'celery, parsley'.
7. Tokh. B (Tarim) tsaipau 'plaster' Adams 41150 ("Etymology unknown") - compare Turk. *čap- 'plaster, daub': Krh.-Uig. čap- (MK), Uzbek čapi-, NUig.  čap-li-, Kirg. čap-ta-, Kum. (aq) čap- 'to whitewash, plaster', Tuv. čap-ta- 'pour water, and tamp (earth)', Chuv. sop- 'to wrap a wrap pie'. VEWT 99, EDT 394, Ashm. XII, 248 (ascends to PAlt. *č'' 'glue, clay' together with Mong. *čabaγ(u) 'fish glue' TM *čapa 'roe, white clay' - see EDAL). The source of the Tocharian B (Tarim) form could be a standard verbal derivative *čapagu.

The demonstrated groups of borrowings that proceded in all directions and various semantical fields clearly show a situation of trilingual contacts that had to go on at a level of active daily communication, which situation can be dated by the 7th-9th centuries AD (Realistically speaking, neither a presumption that before the 7th. c. AD, or after the 9th. c. AD existed a meaningful period without active daily contacts on a family, social, trade, and intra-tribal communication is amiss. The symbiosis of local sedentary population and their nomadic neighbors extends through the records that first mention the Tarim basin settlements, and continued till present.)


This period is addressed in most general terms, since most of the main points have already been covered in the previous book of our edition, Regional Reconstructions. Significantly, none of the ancient glottochronological trees reflect a node that could be associated with the Karluk group of languages. Indeed, as we have attempted to demonstrate in the first section of the book, the main phonetical and morphonological isoglosses that unite the Karluk group turn out to be secondary. Most probable is an existence at some stage of the Karluk-Kypchak community coupled by several common phonetical and morphonological (morphophonemical) processes. Subsequently, after a divergence of the languages, but with preserved continuity of the dialect situation, a part of innovations impacted Oguz together with Kypchak languages, but the relevant processes can not be considered to be genetically identical.

The further development of the Karluk-Kypchak tree also shows some interesting correlations with the historical facts. For example, the two subgroups that first branched from the rest were Caucasian Kypchaks (780 AD) and Karaims (900 AD), which pretty well corresponds with the two waves of Kypchak infiltration into the Eastern Europe. The divergence of the Karaims into the Trakai-Halich (Galicia) branch in one hand, and the Crimean branch on the other hand is dated by 1220 AD, which surprisingly accurately  coincides with the date of the Mongol raid into the Northern Pontic steppes (1223), when Kypchaks were defeated and fled partly to the south, and partly to the east (to the future territory of Lithuanian Rus). Apparently, with the Mongol invasion can also be connected a bit later separation of the Balkar and Kumyk Languages (1300).

The following is a quotation from a discourse about the divergence of the Kypchak languages from the previous volume of our Grammar: "The split of the Pra-Kypchak community onto the western and eastern branches apparently started in the pre-Mongol era, and is associated with infiltration of the Polovechens of the Rus chronicles, or the Kumans of the Western authors, into the steppes of the south-eastern Europe. The remaining in the Asian steppes Kypchaks formed a base for the Kangly subgroup, and the part that invaded  the Northern Pontic formed a base for the Kuman subgroup. However, throughout the history of the Kypchak-speaking tribes the centrifugal divergence was constantly leveled by the centripetal convergent phenomena. The convergence of the eastern and western Kypchaks went on most intensively in the Kypchak Khanate period, then in the contact zone between two main branches formed a mixed language of the Nogai type with predominance of the western elements. The beginning of forming individual languages within the eastern and western branches belongs to the post-Kypchak Khanate era, apparently as a starting point should be taken the turn of the 14th - 15th cc. That is when the rebirth of the separate state entities, the Crimea, Astrakhan, Nogai, Uzbek, Kazakh juzes and other Khanates. Within these Khanates went on the final regroupping of the former tribal dialects.

A detailed analysis of the ethno-and linguogenesis for each individual modern Kypchak languages uncovers extremely complex and multi-component composition of the constituent ethnic elements, however for historical reasons in the west dominated one linguistic elements, and in the east dominated  other elements. For example, during a rise of the Nogai Khanate, in the ancestor of the Nogai language the initial western features were thoroughly replaced the eastern features. The ancestors of the Kazan Tatars who separated from the Nogai Horde before the rise in the language of the eastern elements (incidentally, the Kazakhs still call the Tatars Noγaj, i.e. Nogais), and the Balkars fell into the in western Kypchak milieu, but retained some features of the eastern Kypchaks (in particular, the "dj" type). A final formation of the Tatar language went on after a formation of the Kazan Khanate in the middle of the 15th century. The Bashkir language, most likely an Oguz in its base, was subjected to repeated Kypchakization: in the pre-Mongol era, during the Kypchak Khanate period, and finally, in a relatively late period from the Tatar and Kazakh languages. Thus, the final formation of the Bashkir language belongs to the era of the Kazan Khanate, or even to a later period. In the Ural subgroup of the Kypchak languages are traced features of both western and eastern Kypchak languages (SIGTYA 2002,258-259).

This quite complicated picture has really little in common with the divergent, tree-like development concept of the Türkic languages. But this picture also in some way correlates with the tree obtained by linguostatistic method. As can be now seen, the last nodes of our family tree from a historical perspective really date very believably, but these datings are obviously connected with the history of the literary traditions, so it is not excluded that they only characterize the connections between the dictionaries of the literary languages. Namely, the separation of the Tatar language from the Eastern Kypchak group (1390) may be associated with the formation of the so-called Khorezm-Türkic literary tradition, which is geographically connected with the territory of the Kypchak Khanate, and as is known, the contemporary Tatar literary language is partly a successor to that tradition. The branching of the Uzbek language from the languages of the Nogai subgroup is dated by 1630, which more or less corresponds to the final establishment of the Chagatai literary tradition.


In Russian
Contents Türkic languages
Classification of Türkic languages
Language Types
Lingo-Ethnical Tree
Indo-European, Arians, Dravidian, and Rigveda
Scythian Ethnic Affiliation
Foundation of the Scythian-Iranian theory
Türkic borrowings in English
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
8/20/2010 2010 A.V. Dybo