Humanity has an unstoppable drive to learn or invent where we came from. It started with inventions, and now is transitioning to learning. Linguistics was circling the subject like Mercury is circling the Sun, too hot to approach, too bright to look at. This posting offers analysis that posits that Latvian and Russian languages grew out of Türkic languages, and thus identifies Balto-Slavic proto-language with Türkic language. Galina Shuke expresses an opinion that “Türkic language stands closest to the mankind's cradle than any other language”, elaborated in her work. In essence, that assertion equates the hypothetic Nostratic language with Türkic languages, and  by extension with the Germanic languages. Holistic approach by the researcher bears fruits flung by partial studies.

The offered citation from the work of Galina Shuke is a work of practicing polyglot linguist that does not trail the formulaic family tree model that ascribes all phonetic changes to internal development, and instead approaches languages with full understanding that life was intermixing languages and people, and different people mutually shaped genetics and communications in largely stochastic evolutionary process. That the ethnically Russian natively Latvian author gained a special appreciation of the Turkish language is certainly noteworthy, it gives a credence to her objectivity and openness of her mind, and adds a dimension of unencumbered creativity to her study. The process of abandoning the family tree model is promising to be protracted and painful, not any easier than was the abandoning the Aristotle's universe, and for many years we are going to see the rear ends of the crouched linguists peeking to see what lays beyond the rim of the world; but the tools in their disposal fall far short from the orthodox pundits who resorted to proclaiming anathema to the unbelievers. The family tree model, which took Eurasia as some remote isolated island in the World Ocean, will probably cloister in linguistic convents and ultimately survive, regurgitating with nostalgia the old asterisked *reconstructions that were once sold as canonic knowledge.

The miracle of the current European etymology is not less amazing than walking barefoot on water. The etymological blinds limit horizon to Latin and Greek like they were Noah's children, and from there start the Biblical-like asterisked *reconstructions serving as linguistic Adam and Eve. The Russian etymology follows the epitome, but stops at the limit of Slavic records, something around the 10th c., with strenuous efforts to get to the holy Sanskrit against all odds. In most cases, the flexive nature of the European languages, and the peculiar variety of the original local vernaculars create variations remote enough from the underlying superbly rigid Türkic root morphemes, allowing the blinded and less inquisitive not to see the obvious substrate. The etymological house of cards, however, can be easily disturbed by an innocent observer, and it would suffice to detect a single substrate of a single European language to bring the whole Eurocentric linguistics crushing down. Where the etymological definitions ended hanging up in the air, like was the case with the Germanic branch, the blanks can be filled with the substrate Türkic language, closing the loop without any tentative *reconstructions. This amazing miracle can be easily rationalized by simply dropping the mental blinds. Instead of the slew of dead ends and pranks, we follow the guidance of genetics, and in an instant, etymology becomes as rational as a palm of our hand.

 This linguistic work requires some understanding of the basics used in the discourse. Lexis is all meaningful word forms and grammatical functions of the language. Lexicon is a set  of words in the  language. If lexis is a building with all its distinction and beauty, lexicon is a pile of various bricks that built that building, irrespective of the mortar, interconnections, and ornaments. A study of lexicon to understand language is like a study of a brick pile to understand building. It is customary in Eurocentric linguistics to ignore the morphology as as whole, and meaning-carrying suffixes in particular. Morphology is a practice of forming words, for example in English morphological suffixes produce different meanings and different grammatical functions: teach (v.) => teacher (n.), teach (v.) => teaching (n.), teach (v.) => teacherless (adj.); the suffixes carry standard function, -er/-ar makes a person (and so does -er/-ar in Türkic), -ing produces verbal noun (and so does -in in Türkic), -less produces negation (and so does -siz in Türkic). The stem “teach” can be replaced with another stem, the grammatical result would be the same: kick, kicker, kicking, kickerless. Not all suffixes in English are Türkic, some came from Romance group, some were innovations. With stable suffixes, coming up with new words is a child's play, they keep appearing daily, as the life requires new names for new realities. A different story is with phonetics, or sounds of  speech. Sounds are fluid, they change with time, with geography, with migrations and admixtures, and who knows what else. Moskov becomes Moscow, tomato becomes tomeito, New York becomes New Yok. Some trends in phonetical changes can be formalized, but most don't fall into any pattern, making the discovered “phonetical laws” nothing more than gut-feel trends. The flimsiness of the  “phonetical laws” is manifested by the fact that they are unidirectional looking backwards; nothing in these laws (lately renamed to “rules”) tells what would happen in 100 years under conditions unrestricted by media, print, and standardized broadcast, i.e. none of the founders could have written a phrase in the native language in 1870 that would have predicted how the phrase would sound by the year 2010 AD. And without predictive capacity, it is forensics, not some laws.

Comparing lexicons and trying to get to the prehistoric level is fraught with lots of noise, like in signal-to-noise relationship. To keep enthusiastic linguists from free flight, linguistics has devised a system of checks and balances that help to put brakes on the flight of fantasy. With the growth of computer literacy grows acceptance of the mathematical methods in linguistics, abhorred by the old linguistic schools. For the lexicon, the Swadesh method, which is equally applicable to the Genetic Tree and Wave models, is used for qualitative analysis of the established kinship, reasonable criteria for establishing kinship were formulated by G.Doerfer , and evaluation of statistical chance resemblances is offered by M. Rosenfelder . These criteria do not apply to the morphology, but with consistent transparency in application and similarity in function, it would take a sly idiot to deny continuity between the English dimension and Latin dimensione, or Türkic baiyar, Russian boyar, and Indian Boyar (caste).

The author is analyzing the modern Russian language, with an eye to commonalities between the Latvian and Russian that have baring on their common past, when neither Latvian, nor Russian have yet existed. Thus, the references to Russian before the 10th c. should be understood as Slavic, before the 6th c. as a branch of Balto-Slavic, and prior to the new era as Baltic. In the work, Russia and Russian are at times also used as geographical terms, referring to the territory of the modern state before the decomposition of the USSR, and accordingly in such cases they include the linguistic areas of Belorussia and Ukraine.  The term Latgal/Latgalian refer to the ancestors of the modern Lats (Latvians), and their form of the Latvian language.

Transcriptions [piʃmek]

Yellow highlight - problems

Tables in alphabetical order

Semantical disconnects - explanations

Borrowings into Turkish - criteria

Translate for Drozdov

The posting follows the original English-language publication, with minor typing, semantical and stylistic corrections. The Turkish -in hali case is genitive, possessive, genitival, genitive case, loosely rendered as “genitive case” in this posting. In square-bracketed Latvian phonetizations j stands for y, as in York, so soya would be phonetized [soja]. The Turkish c stands for j like in jet and is transcribed as j, Turkish ç/č stands for ch like in church and is transcribed as ch,  Turkish ğ is silent like gh in light.

Page numbers are shown at the beginning of the page. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author are shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers.

Introduction

The world's languages, are they related and how? Scientists divide them into families and groups, but haven't found the common denominator yet.

What was the first language of humanity, that basic mother tongue? The answer to this question seems to be the most important for solving the great number of linguistic mysteries.

Progressive scientists of the world have develop a theory of monogenesis. According to it, humanity is one and the same species, and human races are subdivisions within the species that sprang as a result of human's life in different geographical zones of the world. The theory of monogenesis proves that peoples rise from a common parental source and their languages rise from their ancestral language.

A Finnish linguist and ethnographer of the 19th century Mathias Alexander Castren has explored languages and ethnography of Finno-Ugric, Tunguso-Manchurian and Paleo-Asiatic peoples and has composed grammars and dictionaries for twenty languages. He suggested the theory of kinship of Finno-Ugric, Samodian (Nenets), Türkic, Mongolian, and Tunguso-Manchurian languages. In the 1960s a Russian scientist V. M. Illich-Svitich analyzed similarities of Altaic, Dravidic, Indo-European, Cartvel, Semitohamitic and Uralic language families. He confirmed the scientific base of the Nostratic theory that was proposed by the Dutch scientist H.Pedersen, who wrote: “boundaries for the Nostratian world of languages cannot yet be determined, but the area is enormous, and includes such widely divergent races that one becomes almost dizzy at the thought. (...) The question remains simply whether sufficient material can be collected to give this inclusion flesh and blood and a good clear outline.”¹ The data given in V.M.Illich-Svitich's works show that in each language family there are dozens of elements that coincide with corresponding elements of other compared language families. Moreover, regardless of their distant relationship, most of the languages preserve some of the most stable systems of morphemes of identical origin. (Illich-Svitich V. M./Иллич-Свитыч, 1964, 5)

Studying a map of the world, we can be surprised at the great number of geographical names that sound and look alike. For example, in Russia there is a city in the Siberian region called Kemerovo. In Latvia is a chain of health resorts on the coast of the Baltic Sea, one of them bearing a name Kemeri. On the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in Turkey there is a resort town with the name Kemer.

The name of a tributary of the Dnieper is Tsna, the same name has the river of the Oka basin Tsna.

The name of a town in the Perm region (Russia) is Usolye, we find the same name for a town in the Irkutsk region in Siberia.

Everybody knows the river Visla in Poland, but we find a river with the similar name Vizla in Latvia.

Crimea is the name of the peninsula in the Black Sea. In Latvia there is a town with the name Krimulda.

Keeping in mind kinship of languages, we should try to look at the geographical names from a new angle, and try to decipher them with the help of the Turkish language.

In Turkish the word kemer means “belt”, the word tıs - “hissing”, usul - “roots, ancestors, forefathers”, Turkish vız means “buzz, hum”, kırım – “slaughter, carnage, cutting (of a forest)”.

Why do we turn specifically to the Turkish language? What distinguishes it from other languages? What is special about it? The Turkish language is one of the Türkic languages, the group that comprises more than 50 living languages.

Turkologists particularly note the archaic age of the Oguz Türkic languages. The name Oguz apparently is made up of the words ak “white, grey” and uz, the most ancient ethnonym of Türkic tribes, and means “old and respectable Türks”. Compare it with the Türkic word aksakal “beard” calling old men and bearing a sense of politeness and respect. One of the most ancient Oguz Türkic languages is Turkish.

1 “Holger Pedersen (linguist)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki (2010.22.03)
3

The Turkish language has one and the same word “Türk” for both the terms “Turkish” and “Türkic” that testifies to close relationship of the words.

The area of Türkic languages is extremely vast in its size and geography. Even nowadays we find a people of East Europe that speak the Oguz Türkic language and live alongside Slavic peoples. They are Gök Türks, the Gagauz people. The languages of the peoples of Turkmen and Turkey are also Oguz Türkic. It means that these peoples of Europe, Asia Minor and Central Asia speak in closely related languages.

One cannot help being surprised at the antiquity of the Türkic runic writing and the area of its spread. The Latvian geographer and journalist Juris Paiders writes that Türkic runes are found all over East Europe and Central Asia. Scientists affirm that the resemblance between Germanic runes (that gave birth to Scandinavian runic writing) and Türkic runes is striking (Paiders, 2003, 54 – 55).

Linguists prove the presence of Türkic stem morphemes and word formation affixes in the languages of the Basques and American Indians, the languages of the Sumerians and Etruscans, the ancient peoples whose contribution to the world culture is well known. (Zakiev/Закиев, 2002)

With the help of Türkic languages specialists managed to read the Glozel writing found in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glozel, Inscription Corpus).

It is surprising that we can find Türkic root morphemes in the names of many peoples and countries of the world. Compare the Turkish word eski “ancient” and the ethnonym of the ancient people of the world Eskimo, the word ırak “far, distant, remote” and the name of the country Iraq, the word uğramak “ to call (at a place) and the name of the Ugric people, the verb bürümek/bürütü “to clothe/clothed, to wrap/wrapped” and the name of the Buryat people that live in Russia and in N. Mongolia as well, the word acar “energetic, fearless” and the name of the Ajar people of Georgia.

Impressive is the number and geography of mountain ranges of the world containing Türkic stems: the Ands, the Alps, the Carpat, the Crimea, the Balkans, etc. (And the most popular generic Türkic word for the mountains, tau/tag/dag covers the whole Eurasia, form Tavr to Taurus, and most of the written history).

All the mentioned facts make us pay especially close attention to the Türkic languages in an attempt to discover the first language of the humanity, its mother tongue.

Having started studying the Turkish language, the author of the research came across an astonishing phenomenon: many words of her native Russian language appeared to be originated of Türkic stem morphemes. Studying the Turkish grammar gave awareness of Turkish word-forming affixes and word-forming models that helped to understand the models used in word formation of the Russian language. The knowledge of the Turkish affixes impelled the author to pay attention to the meaning of numerous Latvian geographical names that cannot be explained with the help of the Latvian language, though they can be easily deciphered by means of the Turkish language.

The Latvian language is not the author's mother tongue, nevertheless she has been teaching it for many years. The look at the Latvian language through the prism of the Turkish language revealed deep links of the Latvian language with Turkish. The relationship of these languages rises to those remote times when the territory of the modern Latvia was released from ice and started to get settled by humans. The discovery of Türkic roots of the Latvian language motivated the author to conduct this research: to analyze the stages of the mankind's development, to examine the place of the origin of the human culture, to look at the time of people's arrival on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea, to study the development of the human language and the connection of that language with the environment.

The discovery of the toponyms of Türkic origin in the territory of the modern Latvia, the elements of Türkic substratum lexis and common symbols of the Latvian and Türkic folklore gave rise to the hypothesis of the birth of the Latvian language on the substrate of Türkic in the territory of the modern Latvia during the Mesolithic period. The Russian language that also has Türkic /4/ substrate started its development in the nearby territory around the same time. It took a lot of lexis from the developing Latvian language, for a certain period it was evolving beside the Latvian language in a parallel way, and then followed its own path without losing its links with the Türkic language, while the Latvian language at a certain time lost its connection with Türkic, only retaining possibility of borrowing Türkic words from the Russian language.
4

The goal of the work is to show the Türkic roots of both the Latvian and Russian languages, and discover stages of their development on the Türkic substrate.

First of all we shall turn to the world history to trace the roots of the Türkic language, its place in the history of the world languages, answering the question when and how the arrival of the Türkic language on the Baltic Sea coast could become possible, and what was the historical period when the formation and developing of the Latvian language on the Türkic substrate could happen. Then we shall have a close look at the geographical map of the world in order to understand better the outstanding role of the Türkic language in the history of peoples and languages of the world. After that, we shall make the analysis of grammatical system of the Latvian language in order to understand how the Latvian language could spring and develop on the substrate of the Türkic language. Turning to the Russian language, we shall examine its connection with the Türkic. Uncovering and comparing the developmental stages of the Latvian and Russian languages, we shall determine the degree of their relationship to one another, and to the Türkic language.

1. Hypothesis on the Origin of the Eastern European Substratum

Linguists state that Indo-European languages in the territory of Europe have elements of non-Indo-European origin. That is so called substratum that leaves its imprints not only in lexis, but in the grammar structure of European languages as well.

Let's turn to the history of the humanity in order to examine the circumstances and figure the appearance time of substratum lexis in the territory of Eastern Europe.

1.1. The Role of Asia in the History of Europe

The unique role of Asia in the history of Europe was ascertained long ago. The Russian historian and writer of the beginning of 19th century N. M. Karamzin says that the opinion that Asia is a cradle of peoples seems to be fair, as all European languages, regardless of a variety of changes, retain the similarities with the ancient Asiatic (Карамзин,1995, 51).

Archaeological discoveries (With. paleogenetics and investigative genetics) of recent years concluded that Africa is a motherland of humanity, due to its geographical position and climate, and one of the centers of birth and development of human culture, and that it subsequently spread to other regions via Asia Minor. A revolutionary stage in the history of humanity was the period of Neolithic. In Asia Minor it ended several thousands years earlier than in Europe.

The Neolithic period is the highest stage of the Stone Age, characterized by new technologies in making stone tools and production of clay articles hardened by heat, the ceramics. This stage is a transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture and farming, and consequently to the settled lifestyle: permanent settlements, sturdier dwellings, so-called country lifestyle.

The foundation of a new, basically different economy was a long and complex process that had independent and original character only in few centers of the world. According to the modern data, Europe didn't belong to any of them, but it was situated close enough to one of them, West Asian, the ancient centre of agriculture and farming.
5

1.2. Who Were the Ancient Inhabitants of Asia Minor?

About the ancient inhabitants of Syria and Palestine, researchers tell us the following. The Bible contains a number of dim memories about prehistoric tribes. The ancient inhabitants are /5/ depicted at times as giants speaking a completely strange language, at times as spirits of the dead. More realistically, they sometimes are called “cave people”. All of them are contrasted with the Jews and Canaanites, the later Semitic inhabitants (Udaltsova Z.V. et al./Удальцова З.В и др., 1988, 97).

In his monumental research work the famous Turkologist M.Z. Zakiev gives a detailed description of the ancient areas of the Türks, mentioning the names of ethnic groups populating the areas, and explaining their names with the help of the Türkic language. As the most ancient region inhabited by Türks the scientist names the region of the West Asia, with a part of Asia Minor and Caucasus. He points out that examining Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Urartu sources allowed to show the ancient history of West Asia in a new way. So the Azerbaijan linguist Firidun Agasioglu Djalilov, having studied the above mentioned sources, ascertains that in the 4th-3rd millenniums BC between Assyria and Urartu, near the upper course of the river Tiger, were residing the Türkic-speaking Subar people (sub- “river”, ar – “people” that means “people of the river”). A little downstream were the Türkic-speaking Kumans, further on were the Türkic-speaking Guti and Lulu, and on the southern shore of the Lake Urmia were settled the Türkic-speaking Turuks. These groups also included Türkic-speaking Kumugs, Kashgays, Salurs, and other tribes.

The existence of the Türkic-speaking areas of West Asia and Asia Minor is also proved by the geographical objects bearing Türkic proper names that were common names in ancient times.

M. Z. Zakiev reflects on the roots of the Sumerians, the people famous all over the world as inventors of writing, creators of first civilization, etc.

In the Akkadian sources the region south of modern Bagdad was called Kienkir (Kangar), it was populated by Sumerians. The Sumerian people didn't call themselves “Sumerians”, but “Kangars”. “Kangar” is a Türkic ethnonym. The Kangars could live there before the arrival of the Sumerians, or the Sumerians could be the Kangars themselves. If the Sumerians were Türks in 4th millennium BC they were undergoing assimilation by the Semitic-speaking Akkadians. In that case, the Türkic words of their language are not derivations, but a Türkic substratum, i.e. the remains of the Türkic language, native speakers of which switched to the Akkadian speech (Zakiev/Закиев, 2002).

The great number of the Türkic tribes living in Asia Minor in 4th-3rd millenniums BC, the Türkic toponyms and hydronyms preserved in this area, and references to the ancient non-Semitic inhabitants of this region in the Bible allow to reckon that the original language of the earliest inhabitants in this area could be entirely Türkic.

1.3. Ancient Inhabitants in the Territory of the modern Latvia

Archaeological explorations in the territory of Latvia show that first people arrived there at the end of the 9th millennium BC. Remains of their presence were found near the old estuary of the river Daugava. Anthropologists describe anthropological phenotype of the first inhabitants in the East Baltic region ² as ancient Mediterranean type of southern origin (Moora et al./Моора и др., 1959, II, 146).

Archaeologists found two Mesolithic settlements that can be attributed to the 6th millennium BC. One of them was situated on the shore of Lake Burtnieku, near the mouth of the river Rūja. Nearby, is a Mesolithic burial ground. Until present this is the only burial ground that has been found in the East Baltic region. Red ochre was used in the burial ritual, a very very important fact, as it shows cultural roots of the first inhabitants. They lead to the burial grounds in the territories of Iraq and Czech Republic, where red ochre was already used in 10th-9th millenniums BC.

Not far from the Mesolithic burial ground in Latvia there is also a Neolithic burial ground, where red ochre was also used, though in smaller quantities.

2. The area of the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea.
6

In the territory of the modern Latvia, Neolithic sites were found alongside the Mesolithic ones. Archaeological discoveries prove the continuity in economic and cultural life between the ancient people in the territory of the modern Latvia. For example, first evidence of using harpoon is dated to the end of the Paleolithic. In the period of Mesolithic the same kind of harpoon was used by the ancient people in the territory of the modern Latvia. Fish-hook of the same kind occurred in the Mesolithic and also inn Neolithic, that is another evidence of the uninterrupted continuity.

The Mesolithic settlements in the territory of the modern Latvia belong to the warm Atlantic period, when the life on the coast of the Baltic Sea became possible. Historians state that about 7th millennium BC, people of Europe acquired skills in making boats of hollowed out trees. At that time the Baltic Sea was a huge basin of fresh water abutting a vast territory of swamps. Rivers flowing from the territory of the Carpathian Mountains brought their waters to the Baltic Sea. To move from place to place people used rivers, and settled not far from them. Archaeologists confirm that people reached the dense woodlands by rivers.

The warm Atlantic period made people more active than they were in the previous climatic period. Till the beginning of the Neolithic period the population of settlements in the territory of the modern Latvia increased meaningfully.

Fragments and whole ceramic objects found in the territory of the modern Latvia testify that the art of ceramics didn't arise there. It was brought to the Latvian territory from southwestern or southeastern regions, and there it was highly developed.

1.3.1. Folklore Symbols Testify

Symbolic depictions left by first inhabitants of the East Baltic on implements and then on ceramics remind the tribal symbols of the ancient Türks.

Depiction of comb is an ornamental element after which the East Baltic comb-pit ceramics was named. The symbolic sign tarak “comb” is one of the tribal symbols of the ancient Türks.

Symbolic depiction of the world eternity and sun in the ancient ornaments of Baltic settlers is completely identical to the symbolic signs of ancient Türks called bersh and baybakti.

The Türkic sign kocey is depicted as a vertical line. In Latvian ornamental drawings a vertical line is an ancient symbol of force and fortitude. A horizontal line known in Latvian ornamental art from time immemorial as a symbol of constancy and peace is reminiscent of the Türkic sign “bura”.

Latvian symbolic depiction of the sky and home completely coincides with the depiction of the Türkic sign “cherkesh”.

The sign of light and fire, energy and happiness depicted like a cross, known in the territory of the modern Latvia since the Palaeolithic, is reminiscent the ancient Türkic sign “bagana”.

The symbol of the sky, the universe, the God is known in Latvian ornamental art as an equilateral triangle with the tip upward. It is known to the Türks as a sign called “tumar”. In Latvian ornamental drawings, the Türkic sign “tumar”, depicted as a triangle with the tip downward, is known as a symbol of earth and fertility.

Both the Türks and Latvians depicted the sign of “fire cross” connected with four parts of the world.

The sign depicted in the territory of the modern Latvia on sacred stones and later on ceramic objects is reminiscent two horses” or cocks” heads or twin cereal spikes. Since ancient times it has been known to both the Türks and Latvians as a symbol of fertility, wealth and happiness, decorating roofs of dwellings.
7

1.3.2. Language of Ancient People in the territory of the modern Latvia

Investigators of ethnic anthropology of the East Baltic region find ethnic links of the ancient inhabitants of this territory with the Europoid (I.e.Caucasoid) southern tribes. They hold that in the past /7/ on the European coast of the Mediterranean Sea lived multiple non-Indo-European peoples, and the same in the North (e.g. Scotland) which induces them think of similar ethnic groups in other parts of ancient Europe, for example, in the territory of the modern Baltic. Scientists note influence of non-Finno-Ugric and non-Indo-European languages on the languages in the East Baltic and nearby territories (Moor/Моoра, 1959, II, 153 – 155).

We have already mentioned Sumerians, the people that occupy a distinguished place forging knowledge and culture in Asia Minor. The Sumerians called themselves “Kangars”. “Kangar” is the name of the ancient Türkic ethnos in Mesopotamia. That allows scientists to suggest a Türkic origin of the Sumerians, which was corroborated by the analysis of their language.

It is fascinating that in the geographical center of Latvia we find the name Kangarkalni that translated from Latvian means “Kangars' mountains”.

Some distance from the sea we find a chain of towns. One of them bears the name Kangari. Other names of this chain attract one's attention by ending with –ži (-ji): Ainaži, Ropaži, Suntaži (Ainaji, Ropaji, Suntaji), etc.

Turning to the Turkish language we can see that with the help of the affix -çi (-chi) [chi] and its phonetic variants are formed Türkic words for a man by his occupation, inclination, or connection. For example, in Turkish kundura means “shoes”, kundura-çi (kundurachi) “shoe-maker”, demir “iron”- demir-çi (demirchi) “blacksmith”. With the help of Turkish stem morphemes we decipher the names of these Latvian towns:

Ainaži: in Turkish aynacı means “one who makes or sells mirrors”. We must point out that obsidian mirrors were produced in the territory of modern Turkey in the 6th millennium BC (Masliychuk/Маслийчук, 2006, 18).

Ropaži: in Turkish rop means “female gown without sleeves” (English robe). Adding the affix -ci [δΖi], people could call a woman-maker or seller of gowns;

Suntaži: sunta in Tukish means “hardboard”, accordingly its maker should be called suntacıi (sunta is an old word, hardboard is a novelty, thus hardboard is a semantical extension meaning);

Limbaži: in Turkish the word limba means “barge”, with the help of -çi [δΖi] could be called its maker or seller;

Kirbiži: in Turkish kırba means “waterskin”, its maker or seller is called kırbaçı;

Allaži: the Turkish word allık/allığı means “blush powder”, to make a name for a maker/seller we must add the affix -çi;

Pabaži: in Turkish pabuç – means “shoe”, pabuçı - “shoemaker, who makes and sells shoes”.

Surprisingly, we did find a number of towns that received their names after the goods that were made or sold there.

From the Latvian language we can't explain  the names of the places and other geographical locations in the territory of the modern Latvia where were found Mesolithic and Neolithic settlements.

Looking at them through the prism of the Turkish language, we can conjecture that the name Osa, one of the two Mesolithic settlements, could initially have the name Osı. The Türkic phoneme [ı] (Like “i” in “sit, bit”) could have transformed into [а] (Interchangeability of the back vowels). The words “As, Os” are ancient Türkic ethnonyms (Zakiev/Закиев, 2002).

The name of the river Iča [itʃ≅] that flows near the settlement cannot be explained with the help of Latvian either. In Turkish the word iç/içi [itʃ/itʃi] means “inside, inner, inland”, and also “heart, soul”; the verb içmek and verbial noun içe mean “to drink/drinking”.

The name of the river Rūja, where was situated the second Mesolitic settlement, in Turkish means “dream” (rüya).
8

River Rūja feeds into a lake named Burtnieku, which is consonant with the Turkish verb burtmak “to twist” (With allophones bükmek, burmak, bükülmek, burkmak, burkulmak, all “to twist”). In Latvian the verb burt means “make magic gesticulations, motions to reach a desired”. The  Türkic word burt “beehive' apparently grew into the Russian word “бортник” [bortnik] – collector of forest bees' honey.

In the Latvian Mesolithic settlements, were found in great numbers three types of bone harpoons, a sledge runner 2.1 m long, a bone hoe, a bone knife with handle in a form of an elk's head, and other objects.

The Latvian names of these articles resemble the corresponding Turkish stems and sound so similar that the origin of these Latvian words from the Turkish stems could be asserted:

• the Latvian kamanas “sledge” is sonorous with the Turkish keman “curve”;
• sledge runners were attached to the first pair of uprights ³; the Latvian word ilkss “shaft (draft)” is sonorous with the Turkish word ilk “first”;
• the Latvian word žebērklis “harpoon” finds a sonorous stem morpheme in the Turkish words cebretmek/cebren “to force/by force”, while -ki/-k and -li are frequently used Turkish affixes meaning “which” and “with” respectively;
• the Latvian kaplis “hoe” is close in its meaning and sound to the Turkish verb kapamak “to cover, to bury, to hide”, –li is the Turkish affix “with”, so the word “kaplis” could initially have a meaning “covering”.

As the result of ecological changes that took place in the post-glacial period, Mesolithic population of the Eastern Europe mainly engaged in fishing and hunting individual animals (Udaltsova/Удальцова 1988, 66)

• The name of the animal that was one of the main nutritional and economic resources of the first people in the territory of the modern Latvia is surprisingly connected with the Turkish verb аlımak “to be taken, catch”, аlı is the verbal noun “taking, catch”. The Latvian name of this animal is alnis “elk”.

Thus, the findings and research corroborate that the culture inherited by the Latvians came to the modern Baltic territory, and to the territory of Central and Eastern Europe, from the south. That indicates that the language brought by the first settlers was the language of people in the south. The great number of Türkic ethnic groups in the ancient population of Mesopotamia makes indicates that first residents of the South-Eastern Europe were ethnic groups speaking Türkic, because probably at that time no other language even existed. The detected connection of Latvian geographical names, Latvian names for the objects used by ancient people, and surrounding  them nature, animals, and plants with the Türkic language allow to formulate that the language of the most ancient inhabitants in the territory of the modern Latvia is rooted in the Türkic language.

The recognized mastery, knowledge, and culture that Sumerians probably inherited from their ancestors, tentatively a Türkic ethnos called Kangars, forces to think that with their knowledge, mastery, and culture the Latvians are obliged to the fortuitous event of coming in the Metholoitic period by Kangar or some other developed Türkic ethnic group on the banks of the Baltic Sea.

“traditions, religion and symbols of folk songs and arts of Lithuanians and Latvians are saturated with the past… The Pre-Christian layer appeared to be so old that it undoubtedly arises to the prehistorical times” (Gimbutas M./Гимбутас, 2004, 187).

3 The rods that fasten a sledge seat to the runners.
9

The only Mesolithic burial found in the Eastern Baltic near lake Burtnieku testifies of the ancient peoples' permanent presence. That allows to surmise that with time their knowledge, mastery, and culture were shared with other newcomer settlers to the neighboring regions.

That the substratum lexicon of the Latvian language initially belonged to an ethnos of high culture is confirmed by the archeological finds of workshops in the Latvian territory that testify to the high production technologies. The modern Latvia retained its mastery of hide tanning and production of leather objects, production of ceramics, wattle weaving, and other crafts.

Historians testify to high spiritual culture of the ancient Latvians. The religious knowledge of Latvian priests enjoyed respect of the neighboring tribes, they propagated far from the Latvian settlements. On the power of their knowledge, connected with the laws of nature, is evidenced by the preserved among the modern Latvians spiritualization of nature, extensive use of folklore symbolism, following the ancient traditions, and the transfer of the spiritual culture, knowledge, and mastery to the younger generations.

2. Geographical Names of Türkic Etymology

From historical sources we know that at the beginning of the Common Era peoples in Europe were polyethnic. Scientists affirm that among Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmatians had more Türkic tribes than the tribes of any other ethnic background living in Europe today (Zakiev/Закиев, 2002).

The aim of this chapter is to point to the endless list of the Türkic toponyms we find not only in Europe, but all over the world. This indicates that apparently at some time the humanity didn't speak any other language but Türkic.

The territory of the modern Latvia is remarkable for its numerous ancient toponyms and hydronyms of Türkic etymology that have been preserved there. This attests that inhabitants of that region, notable for their initial high spiritual culture, preserved their cultural heritage and zealously safeguarded it.

Knowing the rules for composing and stringing together the Türkic words allows to perceive and recognize them in geographical names, linguistic lexicons, etc.

What distinguishes Türkic words and why it can be easily spotted?

1. Affixes of the Türkic language are almost unvarying. Each affix has a fixed unequivocal meaning and is easily discerned.

2. Türkic words have distinct inner form with readily detectable semantics.

3. Türkic words can be easily parsed into morphological units.

4. Türkic word roots are laconic and unchangeable.

5. Many Türkic words carry phonetic symbolism, i.e. the words often arouse live images and sensations: dırdır is “annoying chattering”, tırtık is “nubbiness, serration”.  This particularity of the Türkic language is the brightest evidence of the exceptional antiquity of the language that takes us to that stage in the development of human's language which stands close to the definition of “language of children”.
10

2.1. Türkic Toponyms and Hydronyms on the World Map

It's not surprising that we find lots of Türkic toponyms and hydronyms on the map of Central and Middle Asia. Obviously, the name of the continent itself ascends to the ancient Türkic ethnonym As.

Maybe the origin of the word асe that we find in some languages (in Turkish as means “person who excels in some activity”) (This Türkic word is spelled Ace in English) is also connected with the ethnonym аs. Then the word Asia should be translated “toward Aces” (the final -а (-a/–e) is the affix of the Turkish genitive case that indicates a direction of an action).

The geographical name Siberia also corresponds with the Türkic ethnonym sabır, but the Turkish meaning of the word sabır is “patience” (The form Suvar found among Suvar linguistic decedents in Tatarstan and in Classical records gives the definition: Suv + ar = Warter/river + people).

On the geographical map of America, the name of the Central American plateau Ozark catches our eye. It is reminiscent of a combination of the Turkish words öz ark that means “primary irrigation channel”. The name of the Andes corresponds to the Turkish word аnt/andı “oath”. The name Canada has apparently originated from the Turkish kanat/kanadı “wing, flank”.

In the geographical centre of Australia is a mountain Uluru, sacred for aboriginals. Its name may sprung from the Türkic stem morphemes ul “great”, ur “outgrowth, swelling” and the Türkic affix of the 3-rd person -u (Another sacral term found in Polynesia is the word for divinity Tangaroa = “Great Tanga” = Hawaian Kanaloa, cognate with the Sumerian Dingir and Türkic Tengri) (The Fennic ur = mountain is apparently a form of Türkic ör = upland, present in Türkic Ural = Urals, originally aplied only to the Southern Ural uplands).

In the Nicaragua territory is an island Оmetepe where were found the first traces of farming. The second part of the word must be the Türkic word tepe “hill”. The geographical map of Turkey has lots of compound names with tepe: Kızıltepe “Red Hill”, Gültepe “Rose Hill”, Göktepe “Heavenly Hill”.

In the Pacific and Indian Oceans are numerous islands with Türkic etymology. On one of them, Sulavesi, live the Kayan people. The people believe that the motherland of humanity Tanatova lives on their island. They believe that life started in the sacred forest where appeared first people and where they live now, so nobody is allowed to enter that sacred forest (Kayi is one of the oldest known Türkic ethnonyms, originated from the word “snake”; it is known in a number of forms, one of which is another word for the snake, “ilan/yilan/djilan”, hence Herodotus' Gelons and Persian Gilans; Tanatova must be another form of Polynesian Tangaroa - Tengri). Drawings of red ochre paint on steep lime cliffs of the island attest that people settled there 30,000 years ago (Enigma, 2008, 67).

The name of the island contains the Türkic stem morpheme su – “water” and the Türkic word-forming affix -la meaning “with”.

The name Tanatova consists of three Turkish stem morphemes: tan atmak “(for day) to break, to dawn”, ova – “grassy plain, meadow” and means “plain where it dawns”.

One of the meanings of the Turkish verb kaymak is “to escape”, kayan is the form of the present participle, hence the name of the people can mean “escapees”.

The Turkish – Russian dictionary explains the words kara yel as “Northwestern wind” (Yusipov/Юсипов, 2005, 316). Literally, kara yel means “black wind”. In the Baltic, “black wind” in winter is a serious test for the animals. The geographical name Karelia could have derived from these words, then it may be translated as “to the black wind”, because the Turkish affix –а (-ya) indicates the direction of an action (Kara also denotes western direction, like in Kara Dingez = Western Sea, which is synonymous with Black Sea, thus Karelia ~ Western Wind).

The name of the Donegol plateau in the northwestern Ireland can be translated from the Turkish as “icy lake”. It is reminiscent of the compound name of the Bingöl plateau in Turkey meaning “thousand of lakes”. This place in Ireland is connected with Celtic legends about the aborigines of the island, the Great People of the Goddess Danu (in Old Türkic dana means “wise” (Enigma, 2008, 38) (Don/ton is also icy, hence the Greek name of the river Don/Tanais, the tautological “Icy Tanais”).

Kaldra, the name of the ancient graveyard on the Boa island in Ireland, corresponds to the Turkish verb kaldırmak that means “to bury according to the rituals”, and the name of the island correlates with the Turkish verb boğmak “to torture, to torment psychologically”.

In ancient times the name of the Latvian river Daugava (Aka Western Dwina) was Duna, which corresponds to the Turkish word dun meaning “low, lower”. Remarkably, in ancient times the name of the river Danube was Duna, too (And the form Danube is the apparent adoptation of the old Türkic name Duna. The upper portion of the river Danube, “Ister”, could very well have a Türkic meaning too).

The names of the Visla, Oka, Volga, Kama, and Enisey also stem from the Türkic language.

It's noteworthy that the geographical names of Türkic etymology are connected with the traces of the ancient people, with the known stories of the most ancient history of the world. In one or another way they are connected with stories about ancient tribes and peoples. It allows to conclude that the Türkic language stands closest to the mankind's cradle than any other language.
11

2.2. Türkic Toponyms and Hydronyms of Latvia

Having heard to his question “Where are you from?” the answer “I”m from the Baltic”, a Turkmen asked: “Baltic, is it a swamp?” Linguists hypothesized, connecting the name “Baltic” with the Rumanian word balta “swamp, pond, lake”, Albanian balte “mud”, Lithuanian and Latvian bala “puddle”, Old Slavic блато[blato] “swamp” (Dini, 2000, 29).

In Turkish the word balçık (balchik, balchug) means “clay” (“swamp”). Taking into consideration the importance of clay in the Neolithic, we can imagine that the name Baltic originated from the word balçık [baltʃık].

As was noted earlier, the words of Türkic origin are “given away” by distinctive form and stable meaning of their affixes.

Examining the Latvian toponyms and hydronyms we find some of them ending in -dа (-tа). Let's try to translate them keeping in mind that the Türkic morpheme -dа (-tа is a voiceless form) points to the local case and means “to be/to be located at some place”.

The geographical name Dagda that we find in East Latvia would mean “on the hill” (Turk. dağ means “highland, mountain”), and the town Dagda is really situated on a high hill. The name of the river Amata would mean “at blind's”, i.e. “blind”, as ama in Turkish means “blind”, and the countless windings of this river prove its name: going down this admired by the tourists river is not an easy task.

The Turkish morpheme –le (-la) shows instrumental case and means “with, together with, by means of, by”, then the name of the Latvian river Memele may be translated “with mother's breast” (Turk. meme “breast, udder”) (And how come that the Sakha Yakuts have meme for breast, did they learned it in Latin universities: “mammal - L.L. mammalis “of the breast”, from L. mamma “breast”, perhaps cognate with mamma”; etymology stops at the Latin like at a brick wall).

The name of the Latvian river Mūsa is reminiscent the Prophet's name Musa who later in Judaism and Christianity received the name Moses. The name of the highest peak in the Balkans is Musala meaning “with/by Musa”. Maybe the name of the sacred town Musasir of the ancient state Biainili (Urartu) is also connected with the name of the Prophet Musa.

With the help of the Turkish language we can decipher innumerous names on the geographical map of Latvia:

Mustkalni - “hills where an exciting message was received”, as muştu (mushtu) in Turkish means “pleasing news” (English message);
Kalupe - “river that stays at a place” (Turk. kalmak “to stay”);
Durupe - “river that doesn't move”, in Turkish durmak means “to remain at a place;
Balupe - “honey river”, Turk. bal –“honey”;
Kurma (lake) - in Turkish kurma means “building”;
Iča (Icha) (river) – in Turkish içmek means “to drink”, iče is the form of present participle;
Sabīle, the name of the town may be related to the Turkish word sap “bundle of cornstalks”, the affix -le means “with”, i.е. “with bundles of cornstalks”;
Talsi, the name of the town corresponding to the Turkish tali – “secondary, subordinate”, -si the affix of the 3rd person;
Īkšķele (Īkshķele), iskele in Turkish means “pier, port”, from history we know that this town used to be a significant port on the river Daugava;
Bulduri, the name of this health resort on the coast of the Baltic Sea may ascend to the Turkish verb buldurmak “to make somebody remember something”; Sigulda, in Turkish sığlık/sığlığı (sığlık/sığlığı ~ sılık/sılıı with silent ğ, like in Siğnor) means “shallow”, the affix – da means “on, in”, so the name of the town can be read as “on the shallow (place)”;
Rūjena, Turk. rüya “dream”, –n is the affix of the 2nd person (affix of belonging), –а is the affix of dative case (oblique case), the compound means “dream to/for you”;
Koknese, Turk. köken “native (place), motherland”, - si is affix of the 3rd person, i.е. “their motherland” (Cockney - an interesting English word without transparent etymology, the etymologies of “milksop, simpleton; effeminate man; Londoner”, as well as “spoiled child, milksop; cock's egg; runt of a clutch” all appear to be based on late phonetical folk etymologies; the semantics of “domestic (language)” <  “motherland” seems to be the most suitable survival from the forgotten past; all folk etymologies date from late Middle Ages, a thousand years after the collapse of the substrate language)
Atašiene (Atashiene), Turk. ateş (atesh) “fire”, ateşine (ateshine) - “to your fire” (-in affix of the 2nd person, –е is affix of direction);
Kamalda, Turk. kama “fortification”, -la > l “with”, -da “in”, i.e. “in fortification > fortified”;
Krimulda, Turk. kırım of kırmak “to exterminate, to break, to destroy, to cut down (trees)”, –da is affix “in”: the name may be explained “in a clearing”.
Azanda, Turk. az “little”, -ın (ı > a) is affix of genitive case ⁴, – da is affix “in”; the name can be explained “in small (number, quantity), in shortage”;
Džindžas [jinjas], Turk. cinci [jinji] “sorcerer (bringer of evil spirit)”;
Jērsika [yersika], the name of the town apparently derives from the Turkish yer [yer] “place (earth)”, -si is affix of the 3rd person, -ki is affix “that, which”, so the name means “belonging to that place; of that place”. Compare this with the Russian ecclesiastical term “ересь” [jeres']  (heresy) which means “opposite to common viewpoint/understanding”, usually belonging to a certain place; the “heresy” originates from the same Turkish morphemes.

Kente, the name of the first fortified town in the territory of the modern Latvia, surprisingly coincides with the Turkish word kent “town”. As there is the Türkic affix –te meaning “in”, the name probably meant “in the fortified place”.

4 Corresponds to the genitive
12

The Russian historian and writer of 19th century N.М. Karamzin spoke about Slavic pagans that had the same gods with the tribes in the territory of the modern Latvia. He  believes that the name of the Russian tribe Krivichi proves that the tribe regarded the Latvian priest Krive to be a head of their faith (Karamzin N.М./Карамзин, 1995, I, p. 91).

The name of the Latvian town Krivanda may arise from the name Кrive, but the Turkish affixes -n- (3rd person) and – da “in, at” allow to translate it “at Кrivе's (people)”.

Oziņīki, Turk. özini “place abundant with water”, -ki “that”. The name of the town could mean the “place that is abundant with water”.

The etymology of the Latvian city Rezekne apparently can be explained with the help of the Turkish word rızk/rızkını (form of 2nd or 3rd person, accusative) meaning “one's daily bread”. Compare it with the Russian verb рыскать [ryskat], that means “hunt down”.

The name Užava may be derived from the Turkish word uça “high” and ova “plain”.

One of the Türkic ethnic names is Kangali. It is reminiscent of the Baltic ethnic names Zemgali and Latgali (Kangar = Kangly > Kangaly; -g is a part of nasal ng and is not a word-producing morpheme).

The Turkish word göl “lake” can be found in geographical names of Turkey: Bingöl, Karagöl, Gölpazar.

The name of the Latvia region Letgola may ascend to the Turkish word göl “lake” and mean “lakes of Letts”; the name of the Latvian region Zemgale may originate from the Turkish word cemi “all” and göl and mean “all the lakes”.

The Baltic ethnic name žemaiti [Ζemaiti] corresponds to the Turkish word  that has the following meanings: “group, crowd, religious community”.

2.3. Baltic Hydronyms on the Map of Europe, or “Problem of Pan-Baltic”

In  the 1960s linguists started addressing innumerable hydronyms of origin in the vast territory of East Europe. A further research work led expansion of the Baltic hydronyms area so far that explorers couldn't stop being surprised. Because of this phenomenon, a number of Lithuanian scientists ventured to trace the border of the ancient Baltic peoples to the Urals. As to their western border, it was earlier demarcated alongside the river Visla, but then it stretched much further west, which is vigorously discussed. An Italian specialist of Baltic philology P.U. Dini points out that this surprising spread of Baltic elements requires to follow strict methods in the research work on hydronyms, not to create a comfortable panacea for pan-Baltism as a simplest solution of all questions (Dini, 2000, 34).
13

A Latvlian scientist A.Breidaks wrote that linguists had discovered innumerous Baltic - Old Balkan onomastic parallels. One third of Latgalian names for the rivers have similarities with the Old Balkan names, partially with Central European and Asia Minor onomastics as a whole, and with hydronymy in particular (Breidaks, 2002, 3540).

As has already been shown, a great number of ancient Baltic hydronyms and toponyms corresponds to the Türkic lexis and can be easily deciphered with the help of Turkish stem morphemes. Their semantics is very close to the semantics of the Turkish stems. Moreover, Turkish stems always provide underlying descriptions for them.

Let us look for some more geographical European names that could arise from the Türkic stems.

The map of the Central and Eastern Europe has a great number of geographical names that in Latvian end in –ava/-ova: Daugava, Kuprova, Varšava, Maskava (Turk. Moskova). In Turkish language the word ova means “plain, meadow”, then the name Varšava (Varshava) could mean “suburb meadow” (Turk. varoş “suburb”). Compare this with the geographical name Yeşilova (Yeshilova) “green meadow” that we find in Turkey.

One of the earliest names of the river Daugava/West Dvina, as well as the name for the North Dvina, was Duna. İt can be explained with the Turkish dun “low, lower”.

In Turkish the word vızlamak means “to buzz, to hum, to keep on complaining”. The name of the river Visla is reminiscent of the Turkish word vız “buzz, hum”, the Turkish affix -la means “with”, so the name can be translated as “with buzzing, or noisy”. We find a river with the same name Vizla in Latvia as well.

The name of the river Volga in Russia (on its banks even now live many peoples whose languages are not understandable for the Russians) may correspond to the old Turkish name of a kind of a fishing net volı ağı (Turk. yulga “river, body of water” > Volga “Волга” “river”, also > vlaga “влага” “water”, and numerous Sl. derivatives).

The name of the Danube tributary Tisa resembles the Turkish verb tıslamak “to hiss”. The name of the river Nеmunas (Niemen), with widely open phoneme “е” (I.e. ə) in the Lithuanian language, may arise from the Turkish stem nam “glory, reputation, fame” (Turk./IE stem nam ~ name is one of those Nostratic words, but why anybody would call a river “Name”?).

The name of Мazuria (North Poland) that once was a part of Prussia can have its origins in the Turkish word mazur “excused, excusable”.

Both in Europe and in the Urals we find rivers with the same name Kuma that could spring from the Turkish word kum “sand”.

A great number of geographical names of Türkic etymology in the territory of Europe must be attributed to the times when Neolithic inhabitants of Asia Minor were settling uninhabited territories of Europe. They were bringing their knowledge, culture, and their language, the stem morphemes of which served to produce new lexis with their ancestors, gods and people, geographical objects, animals, plants, and nature, parts of human's body, clothes, activities, fruits of labor, terms of social life, and so on.

Remarkably, the Russian scientist Y. N. Drozdov, depicting panorama of Europe in the first centuries AD, finds a countless number of Türkic ethnic names on that territory. The scientist also explains  the names of modern European countries by means of the Türkic language: Austria – “Country of As ⁵ Sowers”, England – “Country of Quick-witted men”, Russia – “Country of As Men”, etc., etc. (Drozdov Y. N./Дроздов, 2008, 366) (Austria = Celtic nor-  “east” or “eastern” > Roman Noricum > Germ. Bavarian Ostar- = “east” or “eastern” > Latinized  Austr.+ ia; of that, only -ia = “possession” is Lat. borrowing fr. Türkic; the Germ. reich and Lat. regis and rex ascend to the same Türkic aryg = “ noble, respected, pure, sacred”).

5 The word “As” is the most ancient Türkic ethnonym.
14

3. Discovery of the Türkic Substratum in the Latvian language

So, the great number of Latvian geographical names read with the help of the Turkish language leads to unveiling and deciphering of the substratum lexis in the Latvian language.

 Since the revealed substratum lexis constitutes a great body of words in the Latvian language, it is possible to compile words into groups according to their meanings.

3.1. Ancestors, Gods, Names of People, Symbols

Probably, preserving traditions of polytheism helped Latvian people to save words that present a greatest interest for a linguist. In the Latvian language spirits of dead are called veļi, urguči, iļģi, elki. In Turkish the word veli means “patron, saint”, the word uruk/urğu means “tribe, clan”, the Turkish affix –сi/çi (-ji/-chi) is used to produce occupational nouns with nominal stem's meaning. The Turkish word ilgi with the corresponding Latvian word iļģi means “relation, connection”. The Latvian word elki is reminiscent of the Turkish word el which means “hand”, the affix ki means “that”. But more likely, the word elki (with open phoneme [е] (I.e. [ə]) in the first syllable) formed from the stem morpheme of the verb almak “take” and the affix –ki, and had a form alki meaning “taker”, because according to the beliefs the spirits of ancestors take gifts brought over by living people. Compare elki with the name of the Latvian river Alkupe (Engl. “river elki”, i.e. “river of gifts taker”).

In Lithuanian the word alkas means “hill or another place for sacrificing”. The famous archeologist М. Gimbutas, describing pagan rituals of the Baltic tribes, writes that their sacred grottoes usually were situated on a hill called Alka ( М.Gimbutas/Гимбутас, 2004, 192). In Poland, not far from the Belorussian border, is a town called Elk.

The Latvian word urguči for the spirits of ancestors attracts a special attention, it was still used at the end of the 19th c., in the modern Latvian language it has fallen into disuse.

It must be pointed out that the words of substratum lexis are the most ancient words of the Latvian language, and they gradually disappear.

The name of the ancient Latvian god Ūsiņš (Usinsh) could derive from the Turkish word us “reason, intellect”. Compare it with the Russian idiom “мотать на ус” (wind on us) that means “understand and remember” (Equivalent to Eng. “fix in mind”) where the word “ус” [us] appear to be of the same origin.

The most popular and beloved Latvian name is Jānis [ja:nis] (Yanis). It is celebrated with a greatest Latvian holiday, that coincides with the day of summer solstice, and is preceded by a night of bright fires set on the lake shores, river banks, and on the sea coast. It is called a “Day of Jānis”. In Turkish the word yan [jan] means “burning”, it is connected with the verb yanmak [janmak] “to burn”.

The Latvian name Krišjānis (Krishyanis) apparently arises from the Turkish karşı yan “opposite fire”. The etymology of the Russian name Ульян [Uljan] can be explained with the help of the Turkish words ulu yan “great fire” (Yan is a Türkic name like Yan Arslan ~ Fiery Lion, Yan is a popular Old Slavic name that retained its popularity to the present, Chinese annals document a subordinated to Kangar state/tribe Yan in the Urals-Aral area, later Alan; yan has an Ogur counterpart yar which means “reverent, sacred, eager ~ fiery” and was a popular component of early Slavic names like Yaropolk ~ Türk. “Fiery Warrior” or “Reverent Warrior”).

There is a line of popular Latvian male and female names Guna, Gunta, Guntis, Gunārs, having the same stem with the Turkish words gün [gyn] ⁶ “day”, güneş [gynesh] “sun”. In the Latgalian language, a language related to Latvian, the word guņs means “fire”, in the Latvian language “fire” is uguns, in Russian “огонь/ogon”. In the English language we also find the corresponding word gun (The etymological source of the Sl. огонь/ogon from the Türkic yangın is obvious; Vasmer cites Anc. Indian agníṣ and Lat. ignis, which points to the Nostratic origin and also ultimately connects to the Türkic root gün in respect to Sun).

The Latvian names Ainаrs, Aigars, Aivars may ascend to the Turkish word ау [aj] “moon”. Compare them with the Turkish names Ayla “with the moon”, Nuray “full moon”. As the Turkish word var means “is” the Latvian name Aivars can be read “in moonlight”. In the dictionary of Latvian names we find an old female name Aila, totally identical with the Turkish female name Ayla (Siliņš, 1990).

6 In this work the Turkish vowel represented by “ü” is transcribed as [y].
15

The etymology of both the Latvian female name Sarma and the word sarma “hoarfrost” may originate from the Turkish verb sarmak “to embrace, to cover”. The verb has also a meaning “to interest, to captivate”, so the name Sarma can be connected with that meaning.

The Turkish verb oymak [ojmak] “to scoop out, to engrave, to carve” and its participle oyar [ojar] “carving, engraving, scooping out” could produce the Latvian male name Оjās.

The Latvian male name Egils can stem from the Turkish verb eğilmek “to get down to (a job)”.

The etymology of the Latvian male name Varis can arise from the Turkish word varis meaning “inheritor” (Turk. varmak “to have”).

For both the Türks and Latvians, the symbolic depiction of objects they worshipped was of great importance. Numerous Latvian folkloric symbols correspond to the Türkic mythological symbols.

The Latvian word jumis [jumis] for the symbol of family success and fertility corresponds to the Turkish word yom [jom] “bringing luck, good news”.

The Bulgarian Türks depicted the symbol of dawn, home and family success as a two-headed bird ergi “eagle”. The Latvian word erglis “eagle” must be connected with the Türkic word ergi (Turk. -li means “with”) (That is how this symbol became the symbol of the Türkic clans, then the symbol of their dynasties,  then the symbol of European dynasties, and finally the emblem of a  number of the modern states).

In the pre-historic times ornaments of amber were made in the territory of the modern Latvia. They were believed to have magic power. The Latvian word dzintars means “amber”. It can be explained with the help of the Turkish words cin [chin] “evil spirit” and ters “opposite, contrary”, so the word calls the object “opposing or fighting evil spirits”. The etymological dictionary of the Latvian language gives a version of the word “dzintars” with the second syllable –ters: dzinters (Karulis, 2001, 255).

3.2. Man, Earth, Water

The Latvian word cilvēks (chiveks) “man” and dzīve (jeeve) “life” correspond to the Turkish words civelek [chivelek] “lively, vivacity, communicative” and civcivli [chivchivli] “lively, crowded, busy” that makes us notice the initial connection between the Latvian words cilvēks (chiveks) and dzīve (jeeve). It is clear that both the Turkish and Latvian words have the same stem morpheme civ. It's worth to point out that once the Latvian verb dzīvot (jeevot) “to live” was used with the word darbs “work”, and dzīvot darbu meant “to work”.

The Russian historian and writer of the 19th c. N.M.Karamzin, speaking about the pagan religion of Old Slavs, mentions their Goddess of Life named Сива [Siva] or Жива [zhiva] (Karamzin N.M./Карамзин 1995, I, 89).

The Latvian word dzīsla “vein” (Turk. –la means “with”) corresponds to the Turkish word cisim [chisim] “body”.

The Latvian words sen “long ago” and sencis “ancestor” relate to the Turkish sene “year”. The Latvian adjective sensens “very old, ancient, immemorial” is composed by doubling the root morpheme. In Turkish this type of word formation is used in making adjectives expressing a high degree of a quality, for example, güzel güzel “very beautiful”, büyuk büyuk “very big”, etc.

The Latvian word zeme coinsides with the Turkish word zemin with the same meaning “earth, ground, beneath”. Latvian has the words zem “under”, zems “low” and the verb of the /16/ same stem pazemot “humiliate, demean”. In Turkish, the verb zemmetmek means “reprove, condemn, blaspheme, vilify”, and it is formed of the words zem “reproach” and etmek “to do, to make” (In Slavic, “earth, ground” is zemlya, with a root zem, suffix -l, and variable endings, which makes it an exact Türkic match. In Russian, the word expanded its semantics to numerous derivatives rooted in the concept of common land: Zemlya = planet Earth, zemsvo = district council, zemlyak = ountryman, zemlya = plowland, etc.).
16

The name of the sacred well Zemzem (Engl. Zamzam) of Kaaba in Mecca draws attention in this connection as well.

We find the Turkish stem morpheme su “water” in the Latvian word sula “juice”, where the Turkish affix -la means “quality defined by stem morpheme”, and which corresponds to the Turkish word sulu meaning “juicy”. The Latvian map has many geographical names containing the Turkish stem morpheme su, for example, Sudarbe, where the Turkish word darbe means “blow, stroke”, therefore the name Sudarbe can be read as “water blow”. Perhaps, the Latvian word darbs “labour” ascends to the Turkish word darbe, and it is not accidental that the Russian language has an expression “ударный труд” (Ударный = udarnyi = prefix u- + dar + sufix -n- + various endings). In the Bulgarian language the word darba means “labor” as well.

The name of the town Subate could be derived from the verb batmak “to sink, to go below the surface”. In Latvia are streams with the names Sulka, Suda, Sumulda, Sumanka, etc. containing the root morpheme su and the Turkish affixes –la/-l, -da, -ki/-ka, therefore they can also be deciphered.

We can find the Turkish root morpheme su in many geographical names not only in Latvia. So, near the Polish–Belorussian border is a town Suvalki, its name could ascend to the Turkish vali “governor” with affix -ki “that”, and mean “water administrator”. The name of the river Daugava tributary Suražki could be composed of the words su “water” and raşe “tremble, quiver, ripple” and mean “water ripple”. Poles fondly called their town Suvalishki. The common Slavic affix -ishk- probably also goes back to the Turkish diminutive affix -işk-.

The Turkish word valide “governor” corresponds to the Latvian verb valdīt “to rule” (Actually, valide has a constellation of meanings centered around “ruler”: governor, mother, proconsul, prefect, dey, ban, exarch, chief magistrate. Via cognates in Baltic valdīt and in Slavic volodet of the Türkic valide “ruler” and of the Türkic mir/pir “ruler” was formed the Slavic tautological title-name Vladimir = vladi ~ “ruler” + mir ~ “ruler”, the title-name Volodar ~ “Ruler”, and the title-name Vladislav ~ “Slavic ruler”, and other clones. Vladimir may also be a form of Evlad = children, i.e. originally generic collective term that grew to become a proper name).

The Latvian word sauss “dry, waterless” must have its origin in the Turkish adjective susuz that has the same meaning (the affix –suz in Turkish shows absence of quality) (And the Slavic, Greek, Illirian, Balkan Albanian, Baltic, Hindu, Avestan hushka, all ascend to the Türkic su = water and a form of negation cognate with –suz. The Avestan hushka demonstrates the s/h transition that in s dialect is sushka, an exact match to the Russian word sushka; the Middle Asian s/h transition is found in the words Huar < Suar = Turk. “Water People” and toponym Huaras = Suaras =  “Water People As” > Chuarasm = Horezm. The spread of the semantics “not watery” = “dry” points to Nostratic origin based on the Türkic su = water in the noun, adjective, and verbal forms. The Nostratic commonality was facilitating transactions between the Türkic and local vernaculars).

The Latvian word ūdens “water” with open phoneme [e] (I.e. [ə]) stands closest to the Turkish word sudan “out of water, from water, with the help of water”. In the Russian language we find the words удить [udit] “to fish”, уда [uda] “fishingrod” and вода [voda] “water” (Vasmer has homophonic verb удить [udit] with semantics “to ripen”, but none for удить [udit] with semantics “to fish”, which thus hangs up in the air. The Latvian form for water ūdens and Žemaite (Jemaite, a Lithuanian tribe) unduo appear to be transitional between the Türkic sudan and Slavic voda).

The etymology of the Latvian word jūra “sea” must be connected with the Turkish verb üremek “to increase”, when the Latvian ezers “lake” arise from the Turkish ezer “melting” that is a present participle of the Turkish verb ezmek “to melt, to run over”.

In Turkish there is a verb akmak “to flow, to run (water), efflux”. The Latvian word aka “well” can be connected with this verb. The name of the Latvian town Akniste associates with the Turkish word akın “torrent, stream” (with Turk. affix of the 3rd person –sı and affix of the locative case -te ⁷), and must mean “in the stream”.

The Latvian word “dibens” has a corresponding word “dip/dibi” in Turkish that has the same meaning “bottom”.

In Turkish upuzun means “very long”; the word consists of up and uzun “long”. In Latvian the word upe means “river”. The morpheme up can be found in the Latvian words lejup “down, downwards”, augšup “up, upwards”, malup “at/on/to the side”.

The Latvian word urga “stream” could be derived from the Türkic root morpheme ur and the Türkic affix –ga. The Turkish word ur means “outgrowth”, in the Tatar language ур [ur] means “ditch, dyke”, ургыл [urgıl] “rapid, gush”, ургылу [urgılu] “seethe”. In Latvia is a river called Ura. We find the Turkish affix -ga in the Turkish words yonga “chip, shaving (of wood)”, kavga “fight, quarrel”. The Turkish word kavga corresponds to the Latvian verb kauties “to fight”.

7 In Turkish it is -de hali, the case expressing location.
17

3.3. Home, Parents, Holidays

In Turkish there are two words maya, one of them means “female of a herd animal”, another word means “origin, blood”. The Latvian word māja “home” may originate from one of them. In the Bulgarian language the word мaйкa (maika) [majka] means “mother”.

The word nams “house” apparently appeared later than the word māja “home, house” and it is probably connected with the Turkish word nam meaning “name, fame, reputation”, too. The origin of the Latvian word istaba “room” could arise from the Turkish verb ısıtmak (isitbak, isitba with m/b alteration and with Ogur truncation) “to heat, to warm”. This name could appear when people had learnt to build houses with a room heated by a clay stove (Ķēniņš, 2003, 198) (Among numerous cognates of the Latvian word  istaba in numerous European languages are some that are closer to the Türkic substrate than more reprocessed versions: Sl. and OCS ist'ba, Czech jistba (with trace of j/i alteration, j being the Ogur version), Luj. jstwa, Germanic stubа. Phonetically, no explanation without Türkic origin is able to account for the initial i. The predominant independent semantics in numerous languages of “bathhouse, heated room” is consistent with the Türkic origin of the word, pointing to the source of the semantical drift).

The (later) Russian word изба [izba] “house, a hut” must have descended from the Latvian word istaba: *ısıtba > istaba > izba.

The Latvian language has a colloquial word ata “So long! See you!”(aka Hasta la vista). The etymology of this word may arise from the Turkish word at “horse” in the form of the dative case ⁸ meaning “mount horses!” The Latvian verb jāt “to ride a horse” must also arise from the Turkish word at, where the phoneme [j] was added (Jat would be an Ogur version of Oguz at).

The Latvian words tēta “father” with the open phoneme [ē] (I.e. [ə]) (compare it with the Russian тятя [t'at'a] (tyatya) ⁹ “father”) and mamma “mother” may originate from the Turkish words ata “father” and meme “breast, udder”. Nowadays one can hear a Latvian calling a capricious child memmes dēls “mother's son”, i.e. “suckling”.

In Turkish the word kem means “evil, sinister”. In the Latvian language the word ķēms means “scarecrow, bogey”.

In the Latvian language masked people going all round the village with jokes and songs (that was connected with the ritual of blessing and fertility) are called budēļi (sing. budēlis). In Turkish also is a word budala meaning “fool, foolish, crazy (about)”, for example, moda budalası “crazy about fashion”. Turkish has some more words of the same stem: budalaşmak (budalashmak) “to become stupid/crazy”, budalalık “stupidity, foolishness, craze”.

If the Latvian word egle “fir-tree” (Russ. ель [jel']) arise from the Turkish verb eğlemek “to amuse”, the custom of decorating New Year tree ascends to remote past. It becomes clear why in the Russian is another word (calque) for a decorated fir-tree веселка, meaning “amusement”, of the same stem with the word веселить “to amuse”. In a book of Latvian folksongs we find a description of a Latvian burial ritual, where after a burial the deceased's family is flogged with a fir branch and a rant “Don't die! Don't die!” (Jansons, 1942, 184).

3.4. Parts of Human Body, Objects, Actions

Latvian language has words for parts of a human body stemming from the Turkish words. So, in Turkish the word açmak means “to open”, in Latvian the word acs/ačele (aks/acheno) (dim. form) means “eye”. In the Latvian etymological dictionary we find an old word ačka (achka) that had two meanings: “one-eyed” and “clever, mysterious person” (Karulis, 2001, 55) (Açmak is a polysemantic word with a dictionary's 83 meanings, centered around “uncover”, an unlikely substitute for an eye in any language, but the connection discover/uncover ~ observe ~ reveal ~ make visible suggests a viable path).;

The Latvian word elkonis “an elbow” is connected with the Turkish el “hand”. The Latvian word is created with the help of the Turkish affixes -ki and –n and its meaning is “related to hand”. The Russian word локоть [lokot] “elbow” came to the Russian language from Latvian having had some phonetical changes.

8 In Turkish this is –e genitive case, indicating direction
9 Here the soft variant (labilized) of the Russian consonant represented by “т” is transcribed as [t']
18

The Latvian word kāja [ka:ja] (kaya) “leg” could relate to the Turkish ayak [ajak] “leg” with transposition of syllables. It could also correspond to the Turkish verb kaymak “to slip, to slide, to skid”, кayak “skies”. It is remarkable that the most ancient depictions of skiers have been found on the cliffs of the east shore of Lake Onega and the west coast of the White Sea. They date to the Neolithic (Artsikhovsky/Арциховский, 1954, 56) (Dating of petroglyphs require isotope technology that still is not used in the former USSR space, so all published datings are purely speculative).

It seems evident that the Turkish word aya “palm (of the hand)” gave birth to the Latvian verb aijāt “to lull (to sleep)”.

The origin of the following words also seems to be connected with the Turkish stems: the Latvian zarnas “intestines, gut” with the Turkish zar “membrane, pellicle”, the Latvian galva “head” with the Turkish kelli “head”, the Latvian dzīsla “vein” with the Turkish cisim “body”.

The Latvian word dūdas “bagpipe” corresponds to the Turkish words dudu “hum, buzz, drone” and dudak “lip”. Dūdiņa is Latvian affectionate appellation for a child.

Latvian language has a word pastalas “pastalas (piece of sole-leather formed as simple foot-wear)”. In Turkish post means “skin”, postal is “gaiter” (Slavic postoly).

Turkish word уaka [jaka] means “collar”, the Latvian jaka [jaka] is “parka”.

The Latvian word kapuce [kaputse] “hood” could arise from the Turkish word кар “cover, top”. The Turkish word карut means “greatcoat”. The Latvian word kapliča “crypt” corresponds to the Turkish verb kaplamak “to cover” and the adjective kaplı “covered” (The Türkic kapmak (v.) and kap (n.) 1. “container, vessel, box”, 2. cover; and all the compounds from the “vessel” and “cover” are most productive, they produced 39 derivatives listed in a small Turkish dictionary, they are innate to Germanic languages, and are mirrored in the European languages, from cap to cup and far beyond. Moreover, derivatives like hood ~ bonnet cap, a trademark of the Scythian, Sarmatian, and Türkic dress across millennia called kapşon (kapshon) in Türkic, retained both its Türkic stem and Türkic affix in loanwords: Engl. capuche, Germ. Kapuze,  Spanich capucha, French capuchon, Lat. kapuce, Russian капюшон kapushon, Arm. կապոտ kapot, It. Church capuccino (Order of St. Francis), and so on).

The Latvian verb durt “to stub, to prick” corresponds to the Turkish dürtmek “to prod”.

The words dūre “fist' and piedurkne “sleeve” of the Latvian language apparently have their origins in the Turkish verb dürmek “to roll up”.

Dikmek means “sew” in Turkish, the corresponding word diegs in the Latvian means “thread, cotton”.

In Turkish lüle lüle means “with curls, curly”, the Latvian words lelle “doll” apparently arose from Turkish lüle ile “with curls, curly”. The Latvian verb lolot “to cherish, to pet” can be connected with the word lüle, too. Compare it with the Russian word люлька [l'ul'ka] “cradle”. In Russian folklore is a personage of “Golden-haired Lel” (Russ. Златокудрый Лель) (Vasmer has homophonic noun люлька [l'ul'ka] with semantics “smoking pipe”, from Türkic lülä = “smoking pipe” but none for люлька [l'ul'ka] with semantics “cradle”, which thus hangs up in the air).

In Latvia there is a town Lielvārde. The name is reminiscent of the Turkish words lüle vardı “there was a spring”, as the word lüle also means “spring”. There are cases when residents of Latvia build a house over a spring. The spring remains under the house, and only the house owners can use it.

The Latvian word ķipars “doll, baby” coincides with the Turkish kıpar “blinking one's eyes”, it is the present participle form of the Turkish verb kıpmak “to blink”.

The Turkish word içer [itʃer] (icher) “drinks” (içmek “to drink”) is reminiscent of the Latvian dzer “drinks” (dzert -“to drink”). There is a river in Latvia called Iča [itʃa] (Icha), toos

The Latvian verb ēst “to eat” must have its origins in the Turkish verb yemek “to eat”. Compare the Russian dialectal form йист [jist] (yist) “eats” with the Turkish. yiyor [jijor] (yiyor) “eats” (The linguistical spread of ye/et/ed/es from Türkic to Germanic to Slavic to Latin and Greek and Armenian and Avestan for verbs, nouns, and adjectives for edibles and eat points to the Nostratic origin and consequently can't be linked to any particular language).

In Turkish burtmak means “to make twist”, in the Latvian language the verb burt means “to conjure, to practice magic” (In Turkish “twist” has 13 verbs and 19 nouns, apparently the Türks engaged in lots of different twisting, with different particular semantics and numerous derivatives and idiomatic expressions, one of which could easily be “conjuring” picked up by Balts).

More words belonging to this group are shown in Table 1.
19, 20

Table 1

The Enlish word “tart” (an open pastry containing jam, etc.) is connected with the Old French “tarte” and Latin medieval “tarta” with unknown origin. ¹⁰ Both “tarte” and “tarta” resemble the Turkish “turta” consisting of the root morpheme tur and locative case affix -ta.

3.5. Animals, Plants, Nature

Table 2

10 Swannell, 1995, p.120.
11 Remember the story about the Kayan people that believe that the life started in the sacred wood.
21

 The history testifies that the ancient inhabitants of the East Baltic region worshipped oak growths where they believed the God of justice Prove was dwelling (Karamzin N.M./Карамзин, I, 1995, 85).

The Latvian name of oak is ozols that corresponds to the Turkish word özеl “special”. Some special treatment of oaks (trees that are witnesses of the human history) on behalf of the Latvians we can watch nowadays as well.

12 “Man/men” is the Turkish root morpheme of compound wards indicating a person or an object.
21, 22

3.6. Abstract Objects

The table contains Latvian words that correspond to Turkish root or stem morphemes. The words meaning is also connected with the corresponding Turkish words.

Table 3

     The Latvian folksongs and fairy-tales contain lots of substratum lexis. The older the word is, more likely is detection of its Türkic roots.

“Meži rūca, meži šņāca,
Bites gāja kumuriem.”

For example, in two lines of this Latvian folksong we find the word kumuriem, unusual for the modern Latvian language. Turning to the Turkish dictionary, it has a Turkish word küme “pile, heap, mound”, küme küme means “in heaps/groups”. Knowing that Turkish ordinals are created from the numerals with the help of the affix –(ş)er: birer “one apiece”, ikişer “two at a time”, üçer “three apiece”, etc. “bir”, “iki”, üç, etc., we can deduce that the Latvian word kumuriem was composed with the help of the affix –er (-er > -ur), and the word means “in a group”: kümе > kumuriem. The vowel in the affix has changed according to the Türkic vowel harmony rule. ¹³

Researcher Irek Bikkinin in his scientific work addresses the most ancient English lexis borrowed from Türkic language.

“For example, in English the old Türkic word tapor was superseded by the Germanic axe. Remarkably, this word was borrowed by Arabic, Persian and Russian languages. and is active now there and in eastern Türkic languages. The word tapor stems from the Türkic tapa “to cut”. In western Türkic languages, for example in Turkish, the word tapor was superseded by the word balta with the same meaning. In the Tatar language the word remains in the form tapagych (тапагыч) [tapagytʃ] meaning “vegetable chopper”.” ¹⁴

We can add that Turkish has the word tapa “stopper” that can be connected with the Türkic tapa “to cut”, exactly the same word with the same meaning tapa “stopper” is in the Latvian language. Turkish also has a word çapa (chapa) “hoe”, while the Russian has the word тяпка [tyapka], probably also connected with the Türkic tapa “to cut”.

13 Synharmony of vowels: vowel morphemes of affixes depend on vowel morphemes of the stem; it's a kind of progressive assimilation
14 “Тюркизмы в английском языке.” www.karabakh – doc. (“Татарская газета” №13. 25.12.1998)// Tjurkizmy v angliyskom yazyke” www.karabakh – doc.(“Tatarskaya gazeta” №13. 25.12.1998)
23

4. Türkic Grammatical Rudiments in Latvian language

The rudiments of the Türkic grammar found in the Latvian language, their systemic regularity, and ability to trace the Türkic roots of the grammatical categories in the Latvian language, further convince of the non-accidental connection between these now seemingly unrelated languages​​.

4.1. Phonetics

The phonetic system of the Latvian language, like the phonetic system of the Turkish language, is characterized by simple and clear articulation of morphemes. The phonetic system of the Latvian language qualitatively doesn't differ significantly from the Turkish sound system.

The Latvian and the Turkish languages belong to different geographical zones with the following typical changes:

• In Latvian language is stressed the first syllable, while people in the South usually stress the last syllable; in the case of Turkish, the tressed is predominantly on the last syllable, apparently because people speak faster.

• In Latvian language have appeared long vowels, which is natural for the slower speech of the northerners vs. southerners. Notably, the drawn-out articulation of Latvian vowels helps to preserve their clarity, preventing truncation.

The length of the Latvian vowels allows to preserve a clear articulation of the phomemes.

Due to particularities of the Latvian phonetic system, it underwent certain phonetic changes.

4.1.1. Changes in the System of Vowels

The phonetic systems of Turkish and Latvian languages don't contain reduced vowels. Consequently, Latvian vowels experienced no significant changes, although the following modifications are observable:

• The Turkish front rounded vowel [ü] has changed to the diphthong [ie] or to the mid front vowel [е]: dün > diena (> dena), or to the back vowel [u]: güneş > uguns, dürtmek > durt; (The easy explanation for multiple outcomes of the same process is polyethnicity and polylinguality of the indigenous population; this effect is very visible in the territory of the modern Russia, where Slavic dialects greatly vary with geographical territory, and in the Caucasus, where Russification is very young, and the forms of Russisms, Sovietisms, and Internationalisms vary greatly from valley to valley and from vernacular to vernacular; in English it is a phenomenon of tomato vs. tomeyto; standardization process did not begin before the age of genocide, radio, and TV)

• The Turkish front rounded vowel [ö] has changed to the diphthong [uo]: kök > koks (> kuoks), özel > ozols (> uozols), or to the mid front vowel [е]: böbür > bebris;

• The Turkish back vowel [ı] (like i in dip) has changed to the back vowel [а], or to the mid front vowel [е], because articulation of the vowels is almost the same: Rızkını < Rezekne, algı < alga, or to the front vowel [i] (like in deep): sırma > sirms, kıpar > ķipars (English preserved the distinction between front [ı] and back [i] vowels);

• The  Turkish front vowel [i] has changed to the diphthong [ie]: mihr > miers, içine > iekšiene;

• The Turkish mid front vowel [e] has changed to the diphthong [au]: yeni [jeni] > jauns [jauns], or to the back vowel [a]: keman > kamanas, kedi > kaķe, or to the front vowel [i]: tek > tikai, or to the diphthong [ie]: devasa > dievs;

• The Turkish back vowel [u] (u in bush) changed to the long back vowel [ū] (oo in pool): duman > dūmaka, dūmi; sur > sūrs; kuka > kūka, us > ūsiņš;

• The Turkish back vowel [а] has changed to the open vowel [9] ([ə]) that is close to the  back vowel [a]: almak > elki;

• The Turkish back vowel [o] has changed to the back vowel [u]: yom > jumis.

• The Turkish short vowels in single syllable words became long vowels: sur – sūrs, ya – jā, zil – zīle, sik – sīks, yuk – jūgs.
24

Formation of the substrate lexis in the Latvian language went on according to vowel harmony principle characteristic for the Türkic language:

• When changes involve vowel substitution, all vowels of the word change exclusively to the vowels of the opposite pattern: Turk. dokumak “weave” > Latv. deķis “blanket”;

• We can see cases of ideal adherence to the principle of vowel harmony, where the Turkish words deviating from the vowel harmony are even corrected to follow the principle: Turk. keman “curve” > Latv. kamanas “sledge”.

There are words of substrate lexis where is observed appearance of consonants at the beginning of the words (see Table 4).

Table 4

 

4.1.2. Changes in the Consonant System

• The Turkish phoneme “c” (ch) has changed in the Latvian into the phoneme [j] (dj): Turk. civcivli [chivchivli] – Latv. dzīve, Turk. cisim [chisim] – Latv. dzīsla, or into the phoneme ž [zh] (ж) ¹⁵: Turk. celal [chelal] > Latv. žēlot, Turk. cebretmek [chebretmek] > Latv. žebērklis, or into the phoneme [ts]: Turk. civelek [chivelek] > Latv. cilvēks [tsilvēks].

• Sometimes the Turkish phoneme “ç” [tʃ] has changed into [ʃ]: Turk. içine > Latv. Iekšiene, or into “z” : Turk. çiçek > Latv. zieds, or into [ts]: Turk. çiçek > zieds [ziets], Turk. açmak > Latv. acs, although  [tʃ] does not change before the front vowels: Turk.açmak > Latv. acs/ačele [atʃele].

• The voiceless consonant “k” in the auslaut (end position) has changed into the voiced “g”: Turk. yuk – Latv. jūgs, Turk.dik – Latv. diegs. Sometimes such a change takes place at the beginning of the word as well: Turk. kelle > Latv. galva (galva = Baltic predecessor of Slavic glava, golova).

25

4.2. Word Formation

4.2.1. Numerous words of the Latvian substratum lexis are similar with the words found in Turkish. They have similar phonetics and the same or almost the same meaning (see Table 5).

Table 5

The Turkish words that formed this substrate vocabulary, primarily consist of Turkish root morphemes: sene, meme, ilk. The substrate vocabulary formed from Turkish words that have easily distinguished motivational stems and derivational formants: aklı, susuz, algı, içine.

4.2.2. A great part  of the Latvian substratum lexis has been formed according to the structural-semantical models active in the modern Turkish language. The meaning of the words depends on the meaning of the Türkic root or stem morphemes and the word-forming affixes.

Turkish affixes that we find in substratum lexis are affixes (with their phonetic versions) productive in the modern Turkish language: –ki (-kı, -ku, -kü, -gi, -gı,-gu,-gü) , -li (-l, -lı, -lu, - lü), -da (-ta, -de, -te), -n (-in, -ın, -un, -ün), -si, - i (-ı, -u, -ü), -e (-a, -ye, -ya), etc. Combinations of these affixes were widely used in forming substratum lexis. The same phenomenon we can observe in the modern Turkish language.

The inner form of the words of the substratum lexis is easily determined due to the fixed meaning of the Turkish affixes. Table 6 shows the word-forming types of substratum lexis in the Latvian language. The Turkish words are motivating words for the Latvian substratum lexis.

Table 6

26

4.2.3. In Turkish, verbal nouns are formed by complete or partial truncation of the infinitive affix:

 In the Latvian is found the same model of forming verbal nouns, by truncation of the infinitive affix and adding ending:

        Many nouns of substratum lexis were produced according to this model, Table 7.

Table 7

27

4.2.4. Nouns of substratum lexis are also derived from the participles and past forms of the Turkish verbs:

Turk. asmak/asar “to evade/evading” – Latv. asaris Zool.“perch”
Turk. asmak/astı “to hang/hung” – Latv. aste “tail”
Turk. oymak/oyar “to scoop out, to carve/scooping out/carving” –. Latv. Ojārs male name
Turk. karmak/karıp “mix/have mixed” – Latv. karpa Zool. “carp”
Turk. boymak/boyar “to paint/painting” - Latv. bajārs “boyar(d)”
Turk. ezmek/ezer “melt/melting” - Latv. ezers “lake”
Turk. кipmak/kipar “to blink/blinking (one's eyes)” - Latv. ķipars “doll, clown”, fig. “baby”.

4.2.5. The origin of some words in the substratum lexis can be understood by perceiving combinations of the Turkish words:

Turk. üstüne varmak “to suppress”– Latv. varmacība “violence”
Turk. küme küme “in groups” – Latv. kumuriem “in groups”
Turk. lüle lüle “curly” - Latv. lelle “doll”
Turk. gün ağarıyor “it's dawning” –Latv. agri “early”
Turk. uğur ki “that is a good luck” - Latv. gurķis “cucumber”
Turk. cin “evil spirit”, ters “opposite” – Latv. dzintars “amber”

4.2.6. Some words of substratum lexis have prefixes in front of the Türkic roots, obstructing the spotting of the words in the substratum lexis, since Turkish does not have prefixes:

Tur. dürmek “to roll up” – Latv. piedurkne “sleeve”
Tur. zemmetmek “to speak ill” - Latv. pazemot “to humble, to abase”

4.2.7. In Turkish can be found nouns that explain the origin of some Latvian verbs:

Turk. teke “he-goat” – Latv. tecēt “to trot”
Turk. resim “drawing”– Latv. rasēt “to draw”
Turk. vali/valide “ruler/mother” – Latv. valdīt “to govern, to rule”

4.2.8. In Latvian can be found names of plants that were created by translating names of plants in Turkish (calque):

Turk. unutmabeni “forget-me-not (don't forget me!)” – Latv. neaizmirstulīte “forget-me not”, Russ. – незабудка [nezabutka] “forget-me-not” (calque);
Turk. horoz mantarı “chanterelle (cock's mushroom)” – Latv. gailenīte (little rooster) “chanterelle”, Russ. – лисичка [lisichka] “chanterelle (Fr. little fox)”;
Turk. itburnu “dog rose (dog's nose)” – Latv. suņu roze “dog-rose (dogs' rose)” Russ. – шиповник [shipovnik] “briar”
28

4.3. Morphology

The morphology and syntax of the Latvian language, and its phonetics and word forming morphology contain rudiment of the Turkish grammar.

4.3.1. The forms of passive and reflexive verbs of the Turkish language are created with the help of the affix -in/-n agglutinated to the verbal stems:

almak “to take” - alınmak “to be taken”
yıkamak “ -yıkanmak “to wash oneself”

In the Latvian language, the affix -in is used to create transitive verbs from intransitive verbs:

degt “to burn” – dedzināt “to burn
veikt делать  - vecināt способствовать
augt “to grow” – audzināt “to bring up”
drebē “to tremble” – drebināt “to shake”

4.3.2. The Latvian demonstrative pronouns šī (chee) (fem.) “this ”, šis (chis) (masc.) “this” are homophonic with the Turkish demonstrative pronoun şu (chu) “that, this” (The forms chi and chis are not too far from the English pronouns she (shee) and this, not only pointing to the common origin, but also pointing to the possible original form).

4.3.3. The forms of the Latvian personal pronouns es “I” – manis (gen.) “me”, man (dat.) “to me/me”, mani (acc.) “me” match Turkmen forms of the personal pronouns men “I”: menin (gen.) “my/mine', mena (dat.) “me”, meni (acc.) “me”.

4.3.4. Latvian accusative case form of the personal pronoun viņš/viņa - viņu (third person singular) coincides wit the Turkish accusative case form of the personal prooun о – onu (third person singular). It's remarkable that there is one and the same form of feminine and masculine gender in both languages:

Turk. onu – Latv. viņu
Turk: onu tanıyorum. I know him/her. - Latv.: Es viņu pazīstu. I know him/her.

The Russian (I.e. Slavic) dialect form of the personal pronoun in the accusative case ону [onu] (third person, singular, both fem. and masc.) sounds precisely like the Turkish form.

4.3.5. The Latvian adverbs divatā “two together”, trijatā “three togrther”, četratā “four together” and so on have been created of the Latvian cardinal numerals “divi”, “trī”, “čtri” with the help of the Turkish affix -ta, the affix of the locative case.

4.3.6. The Turkish affix -gen is used to form qualitative adjectives from verbal stems, e.g. çekinmek “to be timid” – çekingen “timid”. In Latvian the same function performs affix –īg:

kautrēties “to be timid” - kautrīgs “timid”
baidīties “to be afraid” –bailīgs “easily frightened”
smaidīt “to smile” –smaidīgs “smiling”

4.3.7. The Latvian noun flections of the third person singular -s, -is may have arisen from the Turkish affix –si that expresses belonging of an object or subject to a 3rd person singular:

Turk. annesi “his/her mother”, babası “his/her father” – Latv. tētis “father”, brālis “brother”

4.3.8. The feminine noun ending with -ija found in both Latvian and Russian parallels the Turkish affix of the third person -i and the dative case (-e hali) affix -e/-a/-ye/-ya. An example of this is the name Karelia, which probably originated from a combination of Turkish words kara "black" yel "wind" in the dative case (-e hali) form, indicating direction of action: *Karayeliya - “toward the black wind”. The Turkish –e hali marks direction of action: kara yel > *Karayeliya - “to the black wind”.

4.3.9. It is striking that verb forms encouraging action in both Latvian and Turkish have the same final affix:

Turk. gidelim! – Latv. brauksim! – Let's go!
Turk. sevişelim! - Latv. mīlēsim!– Let's love!

4.3.10. The Latvian verb ir “to be” in 3-rd person both singular and plural forms may have derived from an ancient Turkish verb er- preserved in the Turkish affix -dir:

Turk. iyidir. – Latv. viņš ir labs. – He is nice (2 out of 3 are Türkic forms: viņš ir < onu + -(d)ir)
Turk. işimdir –Latv. tas ir mans darbs. – This is my job (2 out of 3 are Türkic forms: tas ir < šis + -(d)ir)

29

4.3.10. The Latvian suffix -ul- used in forming nouns from adjective and verbal stems is reminiscent of the Turkish postposition ile/-le meaning “with” and expressing presence of a quality indicated by the root. This model of word forming is productive both in the modern Turkish and in the modern Latvian languages:

skaists – skaistule “beautiful” – “beauty”
smuks – smukule “pretty” – “pretty female”
bailes - bailule “fear, fright” – “person that can be easily frightened”
pīkstēt – pīkstule “to squeak” – “squeaker, whiner”

4.4. Syntax

4.4.1. Both in the Turkish and Latvian languages nouns are widely used in the attributive function, preceding the noun described (Like the English expressions coat hanger and apple sauce). For example: Turk. çocukluk arkadaşı –Latv. bērnības draugs – “friend of one's childhood”. If a word has several nouns in the attributive function (Like coat hanger closet and apple sauce blender filter) it can be difficult for a foreigner to understand the meaning of such word combination. This phenomenon is typical for both the Latvian and Turkish languages.

Latv. pavasara beigu posms – Turk. ilkbaharın sonun dönemi – “last period of spring”

4.4.2. Like in Turkish, in Latvian are sentences where a subject of a sentence is not the subject of the participle clause of the sentence. Compare:

Latv. Mazgājot logu, uz paklāja sabira gruži. “When I was cleaning the window some rubbish fell on the carpet”.
Тurk. Ateş olmayan erden duman çıkmaz. İf there is no fire, there is no smoke either.

4.4.3. In Turkish, postposition is placedd after the word it refers to. In Latvian are some prepositions that are placed after nouns, like the Turkish postpositions:

Turk. benim için - Latv. manis dēļ – “for my own sake”

Moreover, Latvian has so called adverbs placed after nominal parts of speech and in a certain cases they are used as prepositions. As a rule, such adverb can be replaced with a preposition placed before the noun (Like Where are you from? vs. From where are you?). Compare:

Turk. рarası peşine – Latv. naudai pakaļ (adv.) – pēc naudas (prep.) - for money (to get money) (peşine > pakaļ ~ pēc ≈ after)
Turk. ormandan – Latv. mežam cauri (adv.) - caur mežu (prep.) – through the forest (Turk. (Ogur) mishè = forest > Latv. mežu ~ mežam)
Turk. dostlar arasında – Latv. draugu starpā (adv.) - starp draugiem (prep.) – among/between friends

The Latvian prepositions may have arose from adverbs that switched to the front part of the sentence.

4.4.4. The coincidence of verbal accordance in the Turkish and Latvian languages is striking: The Latvian аkuzatīvs (accusative) corresponds to the Turkish -i hali (accusative):

Turk. seni görmek – Latv. tevi redzēt – “to see you”

Even the same final vowel -i appears in the pronouns of both languages.In Turkish and Latvian are also found nouns that end in similar final vowels. Nouns also have the same end. In Turkish a direct object is usually placed before the noun, in Latvian it usually stands after the verb, although in the case of emphatic expression, it can be placed before the verb:

Turk. yarayı sarmak – Latv. pārsiet brūci – “to bandage a wound”

İn Latvian language the dative case corresponds to the Turkish –e hali case (Turkish dative/genitive case). For example:

Turk. Bu habere inanmam. – Latv. šai ziņai neticēšu – I can't believe this news.
30

4.4.5. Turkish has a postposition of joint action or tool for producing action ile (-la, -le), meaning “with”, “by”. In Latvian language, the preposition ar has the same meaning:

Turk. arabayla – Latv. ar auto – “by car”
Turk. çakışıyla - Latv. ar nazi – “with a knife”

4.4.6. The Latvian words sen “long ago”, sencis “an ancestor” are connected with the Turkish word sene “year”. The Latvian adjective sensens “ancient” is formed by doubling the stem. In Turkish this word-forming model is used in creating adjectives of a high degree of quality expressed by its stem: güzel güzel “very beautiful”, büyuk büyuk “very big”.

4.4.7. In Latvian language, after the verbs iet “go on foot”, braukt “go (by)” expressing motion, the nouns indicating direction can be used in a locative case. This phenomenon must have arose from the Turkish –e hali case, i.е. the Turkish dative case. Compare:

Turk. İstambula gidelim! Let's go to Istanbul! – Latv. Brauksim Rīgā! Let's go to Riga!

We have discussed a number of the Latvian grammar traits testifying on the initial kinship of the Latvian and Turkish languages, i.e. origin of the Latvian language on the substrate of the Türkic language. To prove this hypothesis, could be given more examples.

5. Türkic Roots of the Russian Language

Speaking of Türkic substratum lexis in the Latvian language we couldn't escape comparing it with the similar Russian lexis, as both Latvian and Russian started to form approximately in the same place and at the same time. The next chapter compares the substratum lexis of these languages to understand better their relation to the Türkic language, the connection between the Latvian and Russian languages, and their role in forming other East European languages.

The author of the research didn't aim to conduct a scrupulous exploration of the Russian grammar to show the Türkic substrate of the Russian language. In this chapter we shall just trace the Türkic origin of suffixes in the Russian language that can serve as clearest evidence on the Türkic roots of the Russian language.

The famous saying that there is half of Türkic blood in Russian people may sound strange, but the knowledge of Turkish enables discovery of a surprising subject: a great quantity of Russian words have Türkic roots. For example, the word багульник [bagul'nik] (in Russian transcriptions apostrophe marks a palatalized consonant) (name of a herb) has a corresponding word in Turkish, the verb boğulmak “to suffocate” (and its derivatives), and the herb really has a special suffocative odor. The word уют [ujut] “comfort” rises from the Turkish verb uyutmak “to put to sleep, to soften”.

The knowledge of the Turkish grammar allows to spot countless words in Russian with Türkic roots, because the Turkish word-forming models used in forming the Russian language vocabulary can be clearly seen.

Türkic substratum lexis and Türkic grammar rudiment in the Russian language witness of a long path in formation of the Russian language on the Türkic substrate.
31

5.1. Türkic Word-Forming Models in Russian Language

In Turkish word formation, affixes have distinct and permanent meaning. They are widely used in Turkish word formation. For example, the affix –ki (and its phonetic variants) is intensively used in forming nouns of verbal stems:

кеsmek “to cut” - keski “coulter”
chisel” basmak “to press” - baskı “press”
saymak “to respect” - saygı “respect”.

The meaning of the affix –ki is “that, the one that”, i.е. the one that is connected with the action named by the verbal stem. The Russian language takes Türkic verbal stems and with the help of the affix -ki forms its own lexis:

Turk. şaşmak “to lose (one's way)” – Russ. шашки [ʃaʃki] “checkers, draughts”
Turk. şişmek “to swell, to get swollen” - Russ. шишка [ʃiʃka] “cone, bump”
Turk. koşmak “to chase” - Russ. кошка [koʃka] “pussy-cat”
Turk. susmak “to keep silent” - Russ. суслик [suslik] “gopher, ground squirrel” ¹⁶
Turk. koymak “to put, to place” - Russ. койка [kojka] “bed'
Turk. kısmak “to lessen, to reduce” - Rus. кусок [kusak] “piece, bit”
Turk. kaymak “to slip, to slide”- Russ. colloq. каюк [kajuk] “ruin, death, the end”
Turk. kırmak “to break” –Russ. кирка [kirka] “pick-(axe)”

As Turkish word–forming models are clear and simple we can found lots of Russian words made on this model, when the affix –ki is attached to the Turkish word stem:

Table 8

The particle –ki/kа is widely used in the modern Russian colloquial speech, i.e. it stays popular nowadays as well. As is seen from the examples below, the affix –ki/-ka can be attached to any part of speech:

Пить-ки хочешь? (The particle –ki is attached to the verb)
Теперь-ка схожу в огород. (The particle –ki is attached to the adverb)

In the modern Russian language we can observe the endless creation of new words with the suffix –ki, for example:

• спасибки [spasibki] (inform. from спасибо “thanks”);
• роднулька [rodnul'ka] (compare with the Turkish word benimki “mine (about husband, children)” from benim “my” and –ki “that”).

Russian children can easily make words attaching the affix –ki/kа to verbal stems, e.g. “бояка” [bojaka] (from the verb бояться “to be afraid”).

It should be noted that obviously the Russian affixes –k, -ok, as well as the Russian particle - ki, have sprung from the Türkic affix –ki.

16 Turkish affix –li “with” has also been used in forming this word.
17 Turkish “sobaki evdeki” means “all the family (those on the stove ledge and in the house)”
32

The Russian language has plenty of words created from probably the most ancient and simple Türkic affixes and Türkic stem morphemes. For example, the Old Russian word mleko “milk” was derived from the Turkish meme “breast” and the affixes –le “with” and –ki “that” and meant “that of the breast”: mleko < *memeleki. The word “судак” [sudak] “pike-perch” may ascend from the Turkish stem morpheme su “water” and affixes -da “in” and –ki “that” and meant “that in the water”. The word “буран” is participle buran “twisting” of the verb burmak “to twist”, an so on

Türkic Roots of Russian Suffixes

Turk. -in – Russ. -ин [-in]

In Turkish the affix -in is the affix of –in hali, i.e. the genitive case:

sen “you” – senin “your/yours”
annem “mother” – annemin “my mother's”.

In Russian –ин is the suffix of the genitive case, too:

мама mother –мамин [mamin] “mother's”
папа father - папин [papin] “father's”

Turk. –ar (-ır [ır]/-ir/-r/-ur/-ür) [yr]/-r – Russ. –ар (-арь,-яр,-ярь)/-ыр (ырь)/- ир(ирь) [-ar/-ar'/-jar/-jar'/-ır /-ır'/-ir/-ir'] ¹⁸

The affix of the Turkish language –ar serves for making participles of present-future tense. Substantive participles have the meaning “that or the one that constantly performs the action named by the stem”:

yazmak – yazar “to write – writer”
okumak – okur “to read – reader”
gelmek – gelir “to come – income”

In the Russian language the suffix –ar (-ır [ır]/-ir/-r/-ur/-ür) [yr]/-r – ар (-арь,-яр,-ярь)/-ыр(ырь)/-ир(ирь) is widely used in forming verbal nouns that name a person performing or that can perform the action called by the stem:

доить – дояр [doit'- dojar]' “to milk – milkman/milker”
пахать – пахарь [pahat'- pahar'] “to plough – ploughman”
пасти – пастырь [pasti - pastır'] “to graze/pasture cattle – shepherd/herdsman”
водить – поводырь [vodit'- povodır'] “to lead (a blind man, a state, a campaign) – guide”

The great number of phonetic variants of this Russian suffix gives away its Türkic origin.

Turk. –а (-ya)/- е (-ye) [-a/-ja/-e/-je] – Russ. –а(-я) [-a/-ja]

The Turkish affix –a/-e serves to form present participles from verbal stems:

konuşmak – konuşa “to talk – talking”
şakalaşmak – şakalaşa “to joke – joking”

In the Russian language we found exactly the same phenomenon, i.e. the formation of present participles with the help of the affix –a/-ja:

шептать – шепча [sheptat'- sheptʃa] “to whisper – whispering”
кричать – крича [kritʃat'-kritʃa] “to shout – shouting”

18 In this work the soft (palatalized) variant of the Russian consonant “р” is transcribed as [r'].
33

Turk.-an – Rus. –ан [-an]

The Turkish affix –an is used to form present–future participles of verbal stems. Substantive participles have the meaning “something or somebody that performs an action named by the stem”:

kapmak – kapan “to seize – trap”
burmak – buran “to twist – whirlwind”

In Russian, the suffix –ан [-an] is used to form nouns:

смута – смутьян [smuta – smut'jan] “trouble - trouble-maker”
интрига – интриган [intriga – inrigan] “intrigue – schemer”

It seems that the Turkish kalça “hip” in Russian is associated with the word “колчан” (kolchan) - quiver.

Turk. –cak/-cık/-cik/-cek/-cuk/-çuk/-çük/çik [-chak/- chyk/- chik/- chek/-chuk/-tʃuk/- tʃ”uk/- tʃik] –
Russ. –чок/-чек/-чик/-чек/-чук/-ок/-ик/-ек [tʃok/-tʃek/-tʃik/-tʃuk/-ok/-ik/- ek]
(this cacophony of suffixes is equivalent to the English diminutive endings -y and -ie, like Tom - Tommie, Kate - Katie, ball - bally and ballie)

In Russian language are found numerous diminutive suffixes that correspond to the diminutive suffixes of the Turkish language. Compare the following Turkish and Russian diminutive word forms:

kuzu – kuzucak “lamb – lambie”
köpek – köpekcik “dog – doggie”
göz – gözcek “eye – eyelet”
kuş – kuşçuk “bird – birdie”

In the Russian language are found the following examples:

барабан – барабанчик “drum –drummy”
вокзал – вокзальчик “station – little station”
барин – барчук “landowner – landowner's little son”

When a stem ends in –k the regressive assimilation of morphemes takes place:

знак – значок “sign – badge”
крюк – крючок “hook – dim. form'

When a stem ends in –ч [tʃ] the confluence of morphemes takes place:

ключ – ключик “key – little key”
мяч – мячик “ball – ballie”

Both in the substrate Turkish (I.e. Türkic) and Russian languages we found a great number of variants of this affix that is explained by vowels harmony of the Turkish language.

Russian has suffixes with phoneme [tʃ], not with the phoneme [j], which is not typical for the Russian language.

Turk. -çi/-çi/-cu/-çu [-chi/-tʃi/-chu/-tʃu] – Russ. –чий, -ец/-лец [-tʃij/-ets/-lets] ¹⁹

In Turkish the affix -çi with its phonetical versions is used to form a noun naming a person that produces an action:

nahır - nahırcı “herd of cows - herdsman”
barut – barutçu “gunpowder – powdermaker”'

The Old Russian word зодчий [zotʃij] “an architect” is a best example of creating words according to this Turkish word formation model: зьдъ [zd] “clay” > зьдчии [zdtʃii] “pot-maker”

19 In this work, the Russian consonant represented by “ц” is transcribed as [ts].
34

The suffix of a person performing an action –чий is not a productive in the modern Russian language, though it has a number of old words containing this suffix:

певчий [p'evtʃij] “singer in a church choir”
кравчий “one who helped the Russian tsar at the dinner table”
стряпчий “person organizing performance of household duties at the tsar palace” (Otkupshchikov/Откупщиков,1986, 9).

The Russian affixes -ец/-лец [-ets/lets] must have arisen from the Turkish affix -çi. The Russian affixes -ец/-лец [-ets/lets] are used in forming nouns naming persons who perform actions expressed by the word stems. These suffixes are added to the verbal stems as well:

шить – швец [ʃit' - ʃvets] “to sew – a tailor”
жить – жилец [zhit' – zhilets] “to live – a lodger”
читать – чтец [tʃitat' - tʃtets] “to read – a reader”

The Russian suffix – щик/-льщик (-shchik/-lshchik) that also indicates a person performing an action probably appeared some time later. It looks like a combination of the Turkish affixes -ci/çi and –ki “that/which” where the Turkish -ci/çi [chi]/[tʃi] was substituted by the Russian [ʃtʃ] that is something in between the Turkish morphemes [ch] и [tʃ]:

камень – каменьщик

In the Russian, this suffix is used to produce nouns from verbal stems as well, which appears that Russian uses its beloved Türkic suffixes as much as possible:

наклеить – наклейщик [nakl'eit'- nakl'ejstʃik] “to stick – a person that sticks”
набить – набойщик [nabit'- nabojstʃik] “to heel a shoe – a person who heels shoes”
сеять – сеяльщик [s'ejat'- s'ejal'stʃik] ²¹ “to sow – sower (a person )”

Turk. –aç [atʃ] – Russ. –ач [atʃ]

In Turkish the affix –aç (-ach) is used for creating nouns naming instruments, tools or means for performing actions by attaching it to verbal stems:

saymak – sayaç “to count – meter, counter”
tıkmak – tıkaç “to cram, to jam – stopper”

The Russian suffix –ач [atʃ] is used to create nouns of the same meaning as in Turkish. It also forms nouns denoting a person that performs an action that is expressed by the stem. This remains a productive suffix in the modern Russian language:

пугать – пугач [pugat'-pugatʃ] “to frighten – a toy that looks like a pistol”
рвать – рвач [rvat' - rvatʃ] “to tear – a greedy person that thinks only of personal profit”
ткать – ткач [tkat' - tkatʃ] “to weave – a weaver”

In Russian, the affix –ач forms nouns from adjectives as well:

богатый – богач [bogatıj - bogatʃ] “rich – a rich person”
ловкий – ловкач [lovkij - lovkatʃ] “quick to take advantage – sharp fellow, a sharper”
сильный – силач [sil'nıj -silatʃ] “strong – a strong person”
строгий - строгач strogiy - strogatʃ]  “stern – a stern person”

В турецком языке мы тоже находим существительное, образованное с помощью аффикса -aç от именной основы:

kul раб, слуга - kulaç  “stern – a stern person”

тур.-ak - рус. -ак/-аг/-яг

In Turkish, we also find nouns formed with this affix from the noun base:

kul раб, слуга - kulaç  “arm span, wingstop”

Turk. -ak – Russ. -ак/-аг/-яг [-ak/-ag/-yag]

In Turkish the affix –ак forms nouns from verbal stems indicating place of an action, the subject or object of an action:

sığınmak – sığınak “to take shelter – shelter”
uçmak - uçak “to fly – a plane”
korkmak - korkak “to be afraid – coward”

In Russian, the suffix -ак serves to form nouns with the equivalent meaning:

лежать – лежак [l'ezhat' – l'ezhak] “to lie – bench sleeper”
черпать – черпак [tʃerpat' - tʃerpak] “to scoop – a scoop”

The Russian suffix –аг/-яг must be a voiced variant of the affix –ак:

бродить – бродяга [brodit' – brod'aga] ²² “to wander – wanderer”
работать – работяга [rabotat' – rabot'aga] “to work – hard working person”

In Russian, nouns with suffix –ак can be formed from adjectives as well:

бедный – бедняк [b'ednıj – b'edn'ak] “poor – a poor person”
холостой – холостяк [holostoj – holost'ak] “single, bachelor – bachelor”

20 [n'] and [m'] are soft versions of the Russian morphemes [n] and [m].
21 [s'] is a soft variant of the Russian phoneme [s].
35

Turk. –ıt [ıt] - Rus. –от [ot]

The Turkish affix –ıt is attached to a verbal stem to form a noun:

yapmak – yapıt “to make – work (of art)”
kalmak - kalıt “to stop, remain – inheritance”

The Russian word калитка [kalitka] “gate” probably has been created of the Turkish verb kalmak with the help of the Turkish affixes –ıt and –ki and means “latch (cattle stopper)”.

Russian has an affix –от [ot] that corresponds to the Turkish affix –ıt:

грохотать - грохот [grohotat' – grohot] “to thunder – thunder”
хохотать – хохот [hohotat' hohot] “to laugh – laughter”

Turk. –ç [tʃ] – Russ. –ч(а), –ищ(е) [-tʃ/-iʃtʃ]

In Turkish, the affix –ç is used to produce nouns from verbal stems that name an object or a phenomenon:

kazanmak – kazanç “to earn – earnings”

The Russian homophonic suffix –ч(а) [-tʃ(a)] has the same function and sounds alike:

подать – подача “to give, to serve – service”
добыть – добыча “to manage to get, to gain – prey”

The Russian suffix –ищ(е) [istʃ(e)] that sounds a little bit different though has the same function and must have the same origin:

играть – игрище [igrat' - igristʃe] “to play – folk amusement (games)”
позорить – позорище [pozorit' - pozoristʃe] “to put to shame – shame”

Turk. –ık [ık] – Russ. – их(а), ух(а) [-ih/-uh]

The Turkish affix –ık forms nouns indicating objects or phenomena that denote result of an action defined by the verb:

aksırmak – aksırık “to sneeze – sneeze”

Russian has corresponding affixes -их(а), -ух(а):

шуметь – шумиха [ʃum'et' - ʃumiha] “to make noise – noise”
голодать – голодуха [golodat' – goloduha] “to starve – starvation”

Turk. –ış (-iş/-uş/-üş) [-ıʃ/-iʃ/-uʃ/-yuʃ] – Russ. –ыш [-ıʃ]

The Turkish affix –ış (-iş/-uş/-üş) forms nouns from verbal stems expressing a manner or a mode of performing an action:

bakmak – bakış “to look – look, glance”
oturmak – oturuş “to sit – way of sitting”

The Russian suffix –ыш forms nouns naming a phenomenon or a object that is the result of an action expressed by a verbal stem:

проиграть – проигрыш [proigrat' - proigpıʃ] “to lose (a game) – loss”
вкладывать – вкладыш [vkladıvat' - vkladıʃ] “to put (into) – inset, supplement”.

22 [d'] is the soft variant of the Russian phoneme [d].
36

5.3. Phonetic Correspondences

In conclusion of this chapter are examined some phonetic similarities of the Russian and Turkish languages that vividly show kinship between these languages.

Almost all phonemes of the Russian language have corresponding phonemes in Turkish. Moreover, the Turkish language makes clear why Russian has paired vowels:

Both the Turkish and Russian languages have the uniquely specific phoneme ы [ı] that forms a distinguishing meaning:

Turk. kır – kir “field – dirt”
Russ. лыко – лик [lıko - lik] “bast – countenance, face”
(English has the same phonemes with the same distinguishing meaning, which invariably baffles its learners:
boot - butane, cool- cue, moolah - mule, moor - mure
biff - beef, kip - keep, sit - seat, tick - teak
jog - jerk, mall - murk, mot - merge, pall - purge)

The Turkish morpheme c [dj] in the substratum lexis of the Russian language has changed to the morpheme ч [tʃ] (ch) or the morpheme ж [j] ²³ (Or the Sarmatian more labial pronunciation has survived to the present, if it is observed in both Balic and Slavic languages):

Turk. civelek[djivelek] “lively, playful ”– Russ. человек [tʃelovek] “man, human”
Turk. civcivli [djivdjivli] “lively, busy”– Russ. жизнь [jizn'] “life”

The phoneme [h] in the old Russian words бог [boh] “god”, господи [hospodi] (addressing the God) as well as the phoneme [h] in some Russian dialects and also in the Belorussian and Ukrainian languages corresponds to the Turkish phoneme [h].

The morpheme ц [ts] of the Russian language apparently arises from the Turkish morpheme ç [j] ([j] is voiced, [tʃ] is voiceless). Compare:

çiçek [jijek] – цветок [tsvetok] –“flower”

In dialects of the Russian language the morpheme ч [tʃ ] of the standard Russian language is substituted with the phoneme ц [ts]:

англичане – англицане [anglitʃan'e – anglitsane] “English people”
псковичане – псковицане [pskovitʃan'e – pskovitsane] “Pskov inhabitants”

The Russian morpheme щ [ʃtʃ] (shch, voivced) could arise both from the Turkish morpheme ç [tʃ] (ch) and the Turkish phoneme [ʃ] (sh, voiceless), which is much softer than the Russian morpheme ш [ʃ], and therefore phonetically resembles the Russian morpheme щ [ʃtʃ].

So, we can conclude that the great variety of the Russian suffixes is the consequence of the fact that historically, the Russian suffixes sprang from numerous phonetic variants of the Turkish affixes. The phenomenon of attaching a number of different affixes to the word stems in Turkish produced the Russian suffixes that appear to be combinations of Turkish affixes. Notably, not only simple affixes of the Turkish language were used in forming the words of the Russian language. Different meaningful combinations of the Turkish affixes were transformed into suffixes of the Russian language, where in few cases they lost their original meaning. Now they continue their existence as postfixes of the Russian language.

23 The Russian voiced consonant “ж” is usually transcribed as [j] or [dz]. It has corresponding voiceless consonant ш [ʃ] (sh).
37

Clearly traceable are not only the earliest, but also the more recent Turkish affixes used to derive new words are used by the Russian language.

The observed links between these languages point to the organic relation of the Russian with the Turkish language, of the Russian linguistical development from the Türkic language substrate.

6. Comparison of Substrates in the Latvian and Russian Languages

Numerous words of substratum lexis in both the Latvian and Russian languages arose from the Türkic language, making possible direct lexical comparisons.

Arranged in chronological order, the lexis stratifies in approximately six groups: 1) earliest substratum lexis of the Latvian language, 2) early substratum lexis of the Russian language, 3) similar substratum lexis of the Latvian and Russian languages, 4) substratum lexis of the same meaning that produced from different Türkic stems in the Latvian and Russian languages, 5) substratum lexis of the Latvian language of the period during stabilization of the territorial boundaries, 6) substratum lexis of the Russian language of the late period. Comparing the lexises group by group affords an opportunity to uncover connections between the Latvian and the Russian languages, and to trace stages of their development from the Türkic substrate.

6.1. Early Substratum Lexis of the Latvian language

The first group of the substratum lexis includes the earliest lexis of people who settled in the East Baltic about eight thousand years ago. These are words for ancestors, gods, symbols, people's names, objects and phenomena of the nature. Among them are words naming objects connected with human activities, such as harpoon, hoe, sledge, and the names for elk, which was a main object of hunting in this region. There is also the word māja for a human dwelling. Turkish has two words that could give birth to this Latvian word.

Table 9

38

Juxtaposing this table with the table of the Russian substratum lexis (see Table 10), we won't found many words corresponding to the first substratum lexis of the Latvian language.

The table of the Latvian language earliest substratum lexis has Latvian words for ancestor spirits: elki, veļi, urguči, iļģi, senči. We do not found these words Among the early Russian (I.e. Slavic) substratum lexis. The only word in Russian (and also Lithuanian ) is the word Alka that corresponds to the Latvian word elk “ancestor”. Slavic and Lithuanian people called places for sacrifices, usually high hills, “Alkas”.

Latvian substratum lexis contains numerous words arising from the Turkish lexicon for the sun, moon, nature phenomena, and human activities. In the Latvian language they often serve to create proper names. This tradition that roots in the ancient past continues to exist in the modern Latvian culture, too. The same tradition of naming people after the sun, moon, and other objects of nature stay alive in the Turkish culture as well. (What about Slavic names in the pre-Christian Rus?)

The Russian substratum lexis has names Ivan and Uljan. The first name ascends to the Latvian name Jānis, the second name probably was created later from the Turkish stems ulu “great” and yan “fire”. The Russian pagan God Ivan was revered by Slavic people as much as the God Jan was revered by the pagan ancestors of the Latvians; the name Ivan was a form of the Latvian Jan, while the Latvian Jan apparently is the verbal noun yan “burning” from the Turkish verb yanmak “to burn”.

The Russian early substratum lexis does not have a name of the early Latvian pagan God Ūsiņš (Norse Udin and Odin), which probably stems from the Turkish word us “reason”; nevertheless, the Russian has a phraseological idiom мотать на ус (motat na us) “to understand and remember” that could have arisen much later from the same Turkish stem.

The above-mentioned observations provide reasons to believe that the early substratum lexis of the Latvian language belongs to the Stone Age period, when descendants of the first groups of Mesolithic people, who settled in the territory of the modern Latvia, had to name new phenomena, objects, concepts, etc. They were living in a new territory, isolated from the Türkic language of the southern regions, where their ancestors had come from.

The earliest lexis of the Latvian language, with the Türkic stems and centered around naming ancestors, gods, a and personal names undoubtedly  shows a high spiritual culture of the tribes from which the forthcoming Latvian language started to be developed.

6.2. Early Substratum Lexis of the Russian Language

This group of substratum lexis contains words of the Latvian and Russian languages for the natural phenomena, world of animals, parts of human body, human actions and fruits of labor, abstract objects, etc.

Here we can see substratum lexis of the Latvian language given in a comparison with substratum lexis of the Russian language. See Table 10.
39

Table 10

The Latvian substratum lexis for this group is determined by Turkish stem morphemes and word-forming affixes. The Latvian words sound very similar to the Turkish stems they have sprung from. The words of the Russian substratum lexis of this group have the same meaning with the Latvian words, but they sound differently. We can observe transposition of syllables, and changes of vowels and consonants. That evidences that the substratum lexis of the Latvian language gave birth to some part of the Russian language substratum lexis. This implies that the incipient Russian (I.e. Slavic) language probably started its independent development later than the incipient Latvian language. It can also testify that the tribes where the future Latvian language was developing played a leading role in respect to the tribes that settled nearby. This also indicates that apparently the tribes who formed and developed the Latvian lexicon played for some time during that epoch a leading role among people living nearby, who absorbed the vocabulary of the developing Latvian language.
40

6.3. Similarity in Substratum Lexises of the Latvian and Russian Languages

Lexises of this group contains words that belong to a later time period, when contacts between tribes apparently became more regular. Pronunciation of these Latvian and Russian words is very similar, and they mostly refer to the same objects or close concepts. See Table 11.

Table 11

41

6.4. Parallel Development of the Latvian and Russian Languages from the Türkic Substrate

This lexical group demonstrates that in their developmental process, the Latvian and Russian languages formed their lexises using different Türkic roots and stems for the same objects. Such phenomenon could occur in a territory with widely spread Türkic languages. Archaeologists have found numerous Neolithic settlements in the modern Latvia and surrounding territories. Apparently, newcomers from the East and South did not speak any other but the Türkic languages.

The lexis of this group was created according to the word formation models found in the modern Turkish language.

The words formed from the Turkish verbs kaşımak “to scratch” and burmak “twist, whirl” exemplify the variety of words that derive from Türkic stems and affixes in both the Latvian and the Russian language independently one from another.

Table 12

24 The Türkic affix –tan forces to think that the word could have the meaning “remedy against cough” that is really so.
42

6.5. Substratum Lexis of the Latvian Language in the Period of Demarcation

The late lexical substrata in both the Latvian and Russian attests that development of these languages from Türkic vernaculars continued for a long of time, lasting for several thousand years. The likely scenario suggests that Türkic speakers with new Türkic lexicons kept migrating to the region. To supply a rich base for the developing of the Latvian and Russian languages, the Türkic languages had to be widespread in the region.

The words of this late lexical substrate group relate to abstract objects and human activities connected with later period in the formation of the Latvian language.

The words belonging to the late lexical substrate demonstrate that this lexicon belong to people of a class society: slave, violence, whip, battle, wage, etc.

We do not found a matching lexicon in Russian. This leads to suggestion that that lexicon belongs to the period of demarcation the territorial boundaries of the respective states.

Table 13

25 Harnessed humans for towing boats against current
43

6.6. Russian Substratum Lexis of the Later Period

This group of words contains Russian lexicon derived from Türkic stems. These words do not have parallels in Latvian.

Here are found synonyms of earlier lexicon (око – глаз “eye”, тятя – батя “father”) that also originate from the Turkish (Or Türkic) stem morphemes. This phenomenon provides evidence for the great length of the period when the Russian language was emerging from the Türkic substrate.

Table 14

26 “не-” is the negative prefix of Russian adjectives; also spelled недалекий [nedalekij].
27 Chaga is regarded to be a remedy for living a long life.
46

6.7. Conclusions of the Comparative Analysis

The comparative analysis of the Latvian and Russian substratum lexises allows to formulate the following conclusions and conjectures:

1. Both Latvian and Russian (I.e. Slavic) languages arose and started developing in the modern Baltic territory from the Mesolithic-period Türkic language.

2. Substratum lexis of the Latvian language names ancestors, gods, and human's names, attesting to a rich spiritual life of the communities (and later tribes) in the territory of the emerging Latvian language.

3. In the earliest formative period, the Latvian language was a leader, probably demonstrating uneven pace of development, because the earliest substratum lexis of the Russian language has words that the incipient Russian (I.e. Slavic) language borrowed from the incipient Latvian language.

4. The earliest substratum lexises of both the Latvian and Russian (I.e. Slavic) languages include such words as “water”, “sea”, “lake”, “sea-gull”, “mole”, “mist”, “fir-tree”, etc. attesting that both languages emerged in the same geographical zone.

5. The Latvian and Russian (I.e. Slavic) lexicons attest that they formed from different Türkic stem morphemes used for the same objects, demonstrating that the developmental process of the Latvian and Russian languages from the Türkic substratum was long and independent.

6. The words like “peace”, “yoke”, “beautiful”, “harsh”, “greedy”, “sickle”, etc. point to a continuous contact between the Latvian and Russian (I.e. Slavic) languages.

7. Probably, other Baltic and Slavic languages appeared and developed not only on the substrate of the Türkic language, but in a great degree, on the substrate of the Latvian and Russian languages that started their forming earlier than other Baltic and Slavic languages.

8. With the end of the warm Atlantic period (9 ka – 7.5 ka BP, ka = kiloannum, BP = before present) archaeologists trace people moving from the territories of the Eastern Europe to Southern Europe, which apparently induced participation of the Baltic and Slavic languages in shaping languages in other parts of Europe and Asia. That could explain the observed connection of Baltic and Slavic languages with Sanskrit (Genetical tracing identified tentatively proto-Sanskrit speaking agriculturist migrants moving eastward across Eastern Europe toward the Indian subcontinent in 2nd millennium BC, 4000 ka BP, and tentatively Türkic-speaking nomadic animal husbandry migrants associated with Kurgan Culture moving in opposite direction, westward, from the Eastern Europe to the Western Europe, and independently from the Eastern Europe to the Western Europe via Middle East and Northern Africa, starting in 5th millennium BC, 7000 ka BP).

9. Apparently, in the East Baltic region the Latvian-type language was a first language that arose from the Türkic language. The Russian (I.e. Slavic) language followed it. From the Türkic, Latvian, and Russian (I.e. Slavic) languages sprang and developed other East European languages, like Lithuanian, Latgalian, Belorussian, Polish, Ukrainian, etc. Pra-Baltic and Proto-Slavic languages, which are attempted in vain to be reconstructed, apparently never existed. In the eastern Baltic, from the Turkic language emerged Latvian and Russian (I.e. Slavic) languages. On the substrates of Turkic, Latvian, and Russian languages ​​formed and developed the other Balto-Slavic languages.

7. Polyethnonyms “Aestes”, “Slavs”, “Ruses” ²⁸ and Others.

First historical descriptions of peoples name residing in the same territory tribes with different languages, and with different cultures and traditions, by using common names, i.e. polyethnonyms polito-ethnonyms (Or topo-ethnonyms).

Tacitus in his work “Germania” calls the people settled on the east coast of the Baltic Sea “Aestes”. As we know, the ancient Türkic word “ais” is connected with the name of the God Tangri (Or Tengri). The polyethnonym “Aesty” may originate from the name of that Türkic Supreme God.

Tacitus identifies the cultures and traditions of the tribes called Bastarns and Veneds ²⁹ with cultural traditions of the Sarmatians. The Sarmatians were Türkic (horse husbandry nomadic) tribes in the East Baltic region. Apparently, being first or just more organized settlers in that territory, they were paid homage by newcomers. The name “Bastarn” may arise from the Turkish verb bastırmak “to suppress, to surpass, to go unannounces”. (bastırmak = suppress, repress, quell, put down, stifle, drown subdue depress quench allay alleviate smother quash settle appease, hold down, stamp, strangle, silence, assuage, whelm, choke, squelch, pocket, extinguish, throttle down, weigh, restrain, overtake, whip, push down, compress, weigh down, bear against, squash, gulp, smother up, settle in, beat down, set in, keep under, submerge, overbear, flow, crucify, swallow, burke, outtalk, bottle up, throttle back, keep in, gulp down, keep down)

The later names of East Baltic tribes “Estons” and “Lettons” contain Türkic word “ön” that indicates space in front of something. So, the word “Estons” could mean “Ests and lands around them”, “Lettons” – “Letts and surrounding lands”. Later, appeared the words “Estonia” and “Lettonia”. The ending of the names [ya] resembles the affix –e(-ye)/-a(-ya) of the Turkish -е hali case expressing direction of action. So the words “Estonia” , “Lettonia” could mean “toward Ests or Letts”.

28 Engl. “Aesti”, “Slav”, “Rus”.
29 Engl. “Bastarnae”, 'Veneti”.
47

It may be that the name “Slav” appeared from the Turkish verb islemek “to smoke”, than islev could mean “one who smokes fish or meat” for winter time and could refer to numerous of tribes living in the cold zone.

A thesis states that the word “Ruses” was initially used for the participants of the polyethnic trade expeditions to the East by the northern people (Normans, Vikings, Varyags). (Busha I./Буша, 2006). Then, the name of the Belorussians could mean “Swamp Rus” (in the Lithuanian language bala means “puddle, pool”). The name of the ethnos “Pruses” ³⁰ could mean “Experienced Ruses”, because in Turkish pir means “aged experienced person, master, expert” (in Türkic -mer/-mir/-pir is “ruler” , it is known from Middle Age records in the form mir and pir, which would make a dubious semantics of  “puddle ruler”, and also conflict with the explicit Middle Age form “Belaya Rus” = “White Rus”, which is a calque of the Türkic “Ak Rus”, a complement to the Kyiv Rus in the “black”  southwestern lands of the “Black Bulgars” = “Western Bulgars”  that ascends to the western wing (Kötur ~ opposite ~ black ~ Kara) of the Hunnic European state).

The origin of the word бояр [boyar] (Pl. бояре [boyare]) “boyar(s)” could be connected with the Turkish verb boyamak/boyar “to paint, to dye, to color/painting, dyeing, coloring”. Historical works note that advanced ancient peoples had a tradition to paint their bodies and hair. The more affluent people were more painted, so painting reflected wealth (Akathyrsi, Issyk kurgan, Pazzyryk , Arjan kurgans) (Stasulevich M.M./Стасюлевич, 1999, 156).

The name of the ethnos “Galindes” ³¹ could arise from the Turkish word gali “kind of flat-bottomed vessel”. The name of the ethnos “Sudes” ³² could arise from the Turkish word form suda, which means “in the water”.

Conclusion

The human history attests that the human culture was born in Asia.

Scientific works are proving that in the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, Türkic tribes bearing different names resided in Asia Minor.

The arrival of the people on the shores of the Baltic Sea became possible after retreat of the ice. At the end of 9th millennium BC, fishers and hunters stated leaving their imprints in the territory of the modern Latvia.

Mesolithic settlements and a burials in the territory of the modern Latvia are dated to 6th millennium BC. In the Neolithic, the number of the settlements increased. Archaeological investigations attest a continuity in both the methods of making tools and in the burial traditions. The unbroken succession attests that the people were apparently speaking one and the same language.

In the chapter “Hypothesis on the Origin of the Eastern European Substratum” we suggested that the language of first Mesolithic inhabitants in the territory of the modern Latvia was the language of the people with high Neolithic culture from Asia Minor. Presumably, most of the population at that time spoke one and the same language. The language of the Neolithic migrants from the Asia Minor the to the East Baltic region was distinguished by rich vocabulary that contained words for new concepts, phenomena and objects. After coming to the new unpopulated territory, and torn off from its links with the places of origin, the language was evolving gradually. The new geographical environment induced phonetic changes. Life demanded evolvement of new words. Formation of the new words went with the already familiar Türkic roots and word-forming affixes. From the Türkic language had arisen new grammatical categories and effects.

In the chapter “Discovery of the Türkic Substratum in the Latvian language” we have shown that the language developing in the territory of the modern Latvia had Oguz Türkic stem morphemes and affixes. The phonetic and grammatical structure of the modern Latvian language preserves the rudiments of the substrate language, i.e. the substrate language from which the Latvian language was developing, till it was finally transformed into a new language that retained its connections with its substrate language. The people speaking the germinating Latvian language not aware of their appreciation of knowledge that came with the language, the knowledge of astronomy and astrology, nature and humans, crafts and farming, and so on. They continued their religious traditions, spiritualizing everything surrounding them. That helped the people not only to survive, but also to better understand the objects of their interest and respect.

30 Engl. “Prussians”.
31 Engl. “Galindians”.
32 Engl. “Sudovians”.
48

The chapter “Comparison of Substratum Lexicons in the Latvian and Russian Languages” exhibited the substratum lexis of the Latvian language that became the lexis of the Russian language, i.e. how it was adopted by the people who arrived in the territory of the East Baltic region by their own path, and speaking the same language, apparently didn't possess the knowledge and vocabulary that had the first inhabitants of the modern Latvia territory.

Extending this line of research will enable tracing of how the Latvian and Russian languages, in their turn, influenced the neighboring languages: Lithuanian, Polish, and Belorussian. It would be interesting to learn how and where Finno-Ugric languages, that differ to a great degree one from another, arose and developed on the Türkic substrate, to trace through the prism of Türkic the development of German and Celtic languages, and many other problems.

The ever presence of the Türkic languages beside the developing languages of Europe is attested by the later substratum lexises in the Latvian and Russian languages. It should be expected that Türkic language would also borrow some words from the daughter languages. Perhaps:

•  the Turkish verb irkilmek “to be startled, start” and ayırmak/ayrılmak “to leave, depart” (-il is an affix of passive voice) echo the Latvian verb irt “to row” (These words have semantic clusters of 6, 65, and 61 meanings respectively, which definitely indicates that they are not cultural borrowings).

•  турецкое существительное kavga “ссора”, в свою очередь, ассоциируется с латышским глаголом kauties - “драться, бороться”;

•  The Turkish word tırpan “scythe” has a Latvian corresponding verb cirpt [tsirpt] “to shear, to clip”.

•  The Latvian words nags “hoof”, nagla “hobnail” (Turkish -la means “with”) and matching Turkish word nal “horseshoe” also attract attention.

•  The Turkish words namuskar “honest”, bestekar “composer”, koçkar “fighting ram” correlate with the Latvian word kārs “greedy, devouring” (-kar is a popular suffix found across Eurasia).

But it could also happen that the Turkish just has lost the initial root words of the mentioned words, while the Latvian managed to preserve them.

Both the Latvian and Russian languages grew out of the Türkic language, and in the first stage the development of the Latvian language overtook the development of the Russian language. Thanks to the earliest substratum lexis of the Russian language we can watch how the Russian language forms some of its early lexis on the substrate of Latvian.

When the settlements and then principalities became fortified, started isolation of languages, attested by the substratum lexises of the Latvian and Russian in the of later period. Both languages continued enriching their vocabulary and develop their Türkic-based grammar, but they did it separately, i.e. each one took its own path.

Like the Latvian, which is a prominent example of the Baltic languages, the Russian also is  a prominent example of the Slavic languages, and uncovering a Türkic substratum in these languages allows to postulate a Türkic substratum in the Balto-Slavic languages (Russian language is distinguished by massive influx of the mostly Kipchak Oguz lexicon, predicated by the historical events connected with the Mongol expansion in the 13th c., which largely left the western and southern Slavic languages unaffected until the rise of the Slavic principalities and ensuing ethnic linguistic cleaning that in some cases replaced old Türkisms with new Türkisms copied from the Russian language).

In the oldest lexicon of the European languages researchers find lexical layers related to the Turkic languages. Above was mentioned an extract form an article about Türkic lexicon in the English language. The connection of European languages with Türkic can be seen even when examining any of them for the first time. For example, Dutch language has the word taale “language”, which is close to the Turkish word dil “language” (In English, the Dutch taale is representedd by talk, tell, tale, and numerous cognates and derivatives). In Finnish language, the word keel “language” corresponds to the Turkish word kelime “word”.

The Türkic grammatical rudiment in European languages attests of their initial kinship with Türkic languages. For example, the English verbal nouns ending in -er (worker, writer) remind us of Turkish present-future participles: eder “doing, making”, alır “taking”, yazar “writing”, etc. Probably, in English such participles substantivized, and the suffix -er became a suffix for nouns naming persons, animals, or objects producing an action expressed by the motivating stem.

49

The English adverbial suffix -ly [li] used in creating adverbs from adjectives apparently springs from the Türkic affix -li meaning “with”, still productive in Türkic languages. For example, from the Turkish word içki “drink” formed the word içkili “intoxicated”, “licensed to sell (serve) alcoholic drinks”; from the word ev “house” formed evli “married”, “having a house”. The English adverbs formed from adjectives ending in –ly also express certain characteristic or quality: bright – brightly “with brightness”, nice – nicely “with beauty”.

The final Lithuanian –ai found in geographical names (e.g. Trakai, Druskininkai, Šalčininkai, etc.) could have originated from the Türkic affix –ay, used in forming nouns denoting space (yan “side” > yanay “transverse section/cross-section”). In Lithuania, we find a large number of geographical names with this morpheme: Trakai, Druskininkai, Salcininkai, etc.

Numerous Lithuanian geographical names have another popular ending -iškiai [iʃk] (e.g. Akmeniškiai, Apekiškiai, Dubiniškiai, etc.) that is a clone of the Turkish affix –işk [iʃk].

Apparently, the Belorussian name of the harvest feast “Kirmash” springs from the Turkish word kır “field” (the phoneme [ı] of the Turkish affix “mış” (mish) has transformed into phoneme  [а]. Remarkably, in the 1950s the word “kirmash” was used by Russian peasants in Latgalia to name an agricultural market (Belorussian may have used the word with the form maş (mash) in its original form taken from a particular Türkic dialect, unless Belorussian routinely converts Türkic ı i into Belorussian a).

At the end of the 20th – beginning of 21st cc., a Latvian linguist A. Breidaks proved that the Latgalian language is not a dialect of the Latvian language, but a language that has had its own path of development (Breidaks, 2002). Notably, Latgalian language has the word guņs “fire' that stands closer to the Turkish gün “day” than the Latvian word “uguns” and Russian “огонь” (ogon).

Some scientists suggest that Finno-Ugric languages appeared on the shores of the Baltic Sea not earlier than the Late Neolithic period. The Finno-Ugric linguists advocate a hypothesis that the ancestors of the Sami people spoke non-Finno-Ugric languages (Моора , II, 1959,152 - 153). A comparison of the Latvian substratum lexis with the lexicon of the modern Estonian language noted Estonian words jumal “God”, maja “house”, sula “thaw”, vara “wealth”. They obviously originated from the same Türkic stems as the Latvian words “Jumis”, “māja”, “sula”, “Varis”, and they are very homophonic, though they apparently were acquired later than the corresponding Latvian words.

The scientists working on reinstruction of Pro-Indo-European languages encounter a problem of substratum lexis. The analysis of the substratum lexises of the Latvian and Russian languages leads to a conclusion that the Baltic substratum is nothing else but the Türkic language, which evolved into the Latvian and Russian languages, and launched their independent development. The Latvian and the Russian languages belong to the Balto-Slavic linguistic group, and it can be posited that the other Balto-Slavic languages also sprang from the Türkic languages, and followed their particular paths developing into the distinct languages of today.

Language researchers' work can't be useless. Even a smallest discovery is a great input in the way leading to the main outcome – uncovering the substrate language, i.e. the mother tongue of the humanity most ancient languages. Scientific research work is approaching the humanity to the discovery of its first language that obviously was the only language of the humanity for an extended period of time. Research in the field of linguistics brings humanity closer to the discovery of its first language, which may for a long time have remained the only language spoken by the small human community of the Earth.

Identification of substrate vocabulary for the Latvian and Russian languages ​​is another step toward identifying the language that served as a substrate for the emergence and development of the ancient languages ​​of the world.

Abbreviations

acc. - accusative
adj. - adjective
adv. –adveb
af. - affix
Bot. – Botany
50

colloq. - colloquial
dat. - dative
dial. - dialect
dim - diminutive
Engl. - English
fem. – feminine
fig. – figurative(ly)
gen. – genitive
Geol. - Geology
Gk. - Greek
Hist. – History
hist. – with historical reference
masc. – masculine
N. - North
n. – noun
prep. - preposition
reg. - regional
Russ. - Russian
sing. - singular
sl.- slang
smb. - somebody
smth. - something
Turk. – Turkish
v.n. – verbal noun
Zool. – Zoology

Bibliography

Apals, J. (1977) Latvijas PSR Arheoloģija. Rīga: Zinātne.
Palmers, A. (2007) Baltijas jūras valstu un tautu vēsture. Rīga: Atēna. Breidaks, А. (2007) Darbu izlase. Rīga: LU.
Kraukle, D. (2008) Latviešu ornaments. Rīga: Jumava. Dini, P.U. (2000) Baltu valodas. Rīga: Jāņa Rozes apg. Guļevska, D. (1987) Latviešu valodas vārdnīca. Rīga: Avots.
Endzelin, J. (1934) Papildinājumi un labojumi K. Mülenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīcai. Rīga: Kultūras fonda izdevums.
Jansons, J.A. (1942) Sidraba vītols. Rīga: K.Rasiņa apgāds. Abens, K. (1967) Igauņu-latviešu vārdnīca. Rīga: Liesma. Karulis, K. (2001) Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca. Rīga: Avots. Siliņš, К. (1990) Latviešu personvārdu vārdnīca. Rīga: Zinatne. Ķēniņš, I. (2003) Latvija gadsimtu lokos. Rīga: RaKa
Akdikmen, R. (1996) Langenscheidt's Standard Dictionary of the English and Turkish
Languages. Istanbul: Inkılap Kitabevi.
(1981) Latviešu – krievu vārdnīca. Rīga: Liesma. (1977) Latvijas PSR Arheoloģija. Rīga: Zinātne. (1995) Lietuviešu – latviešu vārdnīca. Rīga: Zinātne.
Loze, I. (2006) Neolīta apmetnes Ziemeļkurzemes kāpās. Rīga: LVI.
Bergmane, A. (1959) Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika. Rīga: AN. Paiders, J. (2003) Senlatviešu rakstības noslēpumi. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC. Swannell, J.1995) Oxford Modern English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
51

Арциховский А. (1954) Основы археологии. Москва: Государственное издательство политической литературы.// Arcihovskij A. (1954) Osnovy arheolgii. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoje izdatelstvo politicheskoj literatury.
Бахши Иман. (1994) Джагфар тарихы. Оренбург.// Bahshy Iman. (1994) Dzhagfar Tapihy. Orenburg.
Бонгард-Левин Г.М. (2001) От Скифии до Индии. С.-Петербург: Алетейя.// Bongard-Levin G.M. (2001) Ot Skifjii do Indii. S.Peterburg: Alteja.
Буша И. (2006) “Русы и их экспедиции”. Starptautiskās konferences XV zinātnisko lasījumu matriāli. Daugavpils: DU// Busha I. (2006) “Rusy i ih ekspedicii”. Starptautiskas konferences XV zinatnisko lasijumu materiali. Daugavpils: DU.
Гимбутас М. (2004) Балты. Москва: Центрполиграф.// Gimbutas M. (2004) Balty. Moskva: Centrpolograf.
Гладкий В.Д. (1997) Древний мир. Энциклопедический словарь. Донецк: МП «Отечество».// Gladkij V.D. (1997) Drevnij mir. Enciklopedicheskij slovarj. Doneck: MP “Otechestvo”.
Гумилев Л.Н. (1993) Древние тюрки. Москва: Клышников-Комаров и Ко. // Gumilev L.N. (1993) Drevnije Türks. Moskva: Klyshnikov-Komarov i Ko.
Денисова Р.Я. (1977) Этногенез латышей. Рига: Зинатне.// Denisova R. (1977). Etnogenez latyshej. Riga: Zinatne.
Дроздов Ю.Н. (2008) Тюркская этнонимия древнеевропейских народов. Москва: Опора.// Drozdov J.N. (2008) Tjurkskaja etnonimija drevnejevropejskih narodov. Moskva: Opora. Enigma (2008) Магические места планеты. Москва: Мир книги.// Enigma (2008) Magicheskije mesta planety. Moskva: Mir knigi.
Закиев M.З. (2002) Происхождение тюрков и татар. Москва: Инсан.//.Zakijev M.Z. Proishozhdenije tjurkov i tatar. Moskva: Insan.
Иллич-Свитыч В. М. (1964) Опыт сравнения ностратических языков. Москва// Illich- Svitych V.M. (1964) Opyt sravnenija nostraticheskih jazykov. Moskva.
Карамзин Н.М. (1995) История государства Российского. Ростов-на-Дону: Феникс.//
Karamzin N. M. (1995) Istorija gosudarstva Rossijskogo. Rostov-na-Donu: Feniks.
Кузищин В.И. (1980) Древний Восток и античный мир. Москва: Русский двор.// Kuzischin V.I. (1980) Drevnij Vostok i Antichnij mir. Moskva: Russkij dvor.
Маслийчук В.Л. (2006) Хронологический словарь всемирной истории. Москва: Эксмо//
Maslijchuk V.L. (2006) Hronologicheskij slovarj vsemirnoj istorii. Moskva: Eksmo. Моора Х.А. и др. (1959) Вопросы этнической истории народов Прибалтики. Том 2, Москва: АН// Moora H.A. (1959) Voprosy etnicheskoj istorii narodov Pribaltiki. Moskva: AN. Никитин А. (1950) Хождение за три моря. Москва: Гослитиздат.// Nikitin A. (1950) Hozhdenije za tri morja. Moskva: Goslitizdat.
Ожегов С.И. (1986) Словарь русского языка. Москва: Русский язык. // Ozhegov S.I. (1986) Slovarj russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Russkij jazyk.
Откупщиков Ю.В. (1986) К истокам слова. Москва: Просвещение.// Otkupschikov J.V. (1986) K istokam slova. Moskva: Prosveschenije.
Прохоров А.М. (1999) Большой энциклопедический словарь. Москва: Большая Российская энциклопедия.// Prohorov A.M. (1999) Boljshoj enciklopedicheskij slovarj. Moskva: Boljshaja Rossijskaja enciklopedija.
Редер Д.Г. (1979) История древнего мира Часть I. Москва: Просвещение.// Reder D.G. (1979) Istorija drevnego mira. Chastj I. Moskva: Prosveschenije.
Скржинская М.В. (2001) Скифия глазами эллинов. С.-Петербург: Алетейя.// Skrzhinskaja M.V. (2001) Skifija glazami ellinov. S.-Peterburg: Alteja.
Стасюлевич М.М. (1999) История средних веков. С-Петербург: Полигон.// Stasulevich M.M. (1999) Istorija srednih vekov. S.-Peterburg: Poligon.
52

Удальцова З.В. (1988) История Европы. Москва: Наука.// Udaljcova Z.V. Istorija Jevropy. Moskva: Nauka.
Фасмер М. (2007) Этимологический словарь русского языка. Москва: Астрель.// Fasmer M. (2007) Etimologicheskij slovarj russkogo jazyka. Moskva: Astrelj.
Юсипова Р.Р. (2005) Турецко-русский словарь. Москва: Русский язык медиа.// Jusipova P.P. (2005) Turjecko-russkij slovarj. Moskva: Russkij jazyk media.
“Turkish_phonology” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki (2010.09. 03) “Holger Pedersen (linguist)
“Turkish_grammar” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki (2009.11.08)
“Latvian phonology” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki (2010.03.04