Türkic in English |
V.A. Terentiev (aka Terentyev) Ancient Türkic borrowings in languages of Europe Soviet Turkology No. 4, 1990, pp. 69-74 |
Posting Introduction |
||||||||
V.A. Terentiev may have been a first voice blurting “The emperor has no clothes!” The line of discoveries, however, trails at least to the Middle Ages. The miniscule article of V.A. Terentiev is one of the few that discretely and narrowly addressed the ancient Türkic borrowings in the languages of Europe. The timid selection lists some 6 words out of the thousands present. The use of unproved and unprovable antiquated methods of phonetic correlations between the initial unknown and a flock of daughter versions cautiously highlighted specks of the Türkic lexicon present in the European milieu. At its time, after the dissolution of the FUSSR, the publication was pioneering albeit not any more daring. Most needed was a recapitulation of the previous insights of the modern researchers and the related bibliographical compendium. Otherwise, the propagation of the defunct “Pra-language” concept leads to misleading conclusions. They are predicated by unstated faulty assumptions on the existence of individual “Pra-languages”. Phonetically, the speculations on phonetic transitions between a fantasy of “Pra-languages” and their descendents are utterly useless, since all Sprachbund vernaculars always had and still have a spectrum of areal variations. Any assumption on codified pronunciation during illiterate times is an arrogant delusion. For those times, a 200 km range for mutual intelligibility is suggested as a reasonable guess for a rough order of magnitude. Even during historical period, the influence of the Türkic phylum on surrounding languages was multi-layered, Cf. the influence of Ogur Hunnic and Oguz Kipchak, separated by a millennium, or Gk. vs. Lat. vs. Vulgar Lat. vs Gmc. vs. Fr. vs. Gmn. vs. English. There is no reason to suspect that the prior influences were any fainter. A credible analysis should include investigation of systemic vs. stochastic variations within the Türkic family, any variations between various constituents, and specific geographical procession in time and space determined independently by archeological and biological disciplines. An analysis can't be confused by incidental spellings relaying vocalizations, Cf. Eng. body “body” vs. Middle. Eng. bodi, which differ graphically but relay identical phonetics; ditto the Lat. ch vs. h and x, the Gmc. j (boj, iodine) and Eng. y (boy, iodine), etc.; the symbol y (boy), in addition to a semi-consonant, also transmits a vowel i (sit, iliac /i-lee-ak) imparting further confusion. The posting carries a slight frivolity in abbreviations, caused by absence of the known author's list of abbreviations. A trailing appendix depicts the Türkic-related bibliography in a chronological order. Page numbers are at the end of the page; they follow the pagination of the version published in Russian. Posting's notes and explanations, added to the original text and not noted specially, are shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes. |
||||||||
Etymological Contents | ||||||||
1. Türk. buka “bull” (Sp. vaca, vaquilla “cow, calf”) |
||||||||
V.A. Terentiev (aka Terentyev) Ancient Türkic borrowings in languages of Europe |
||||||||
To my dear teacher Elge Abramovna Divinskaya The literature on the oldest Hunnic, Avar, Old Bulgarian borrowings in the Europe languages is
quite extensive. Apparently it began with an etymology of the pra-Slavic word *buk “bull”. Four versions
exist today for the etymology of the name for this animal: G.I. Ramstedt offered an article on the Türkic origin of the Slavic *túrgú, Fin. Turku and other words from the Türk. torgu ~ torku “silk”, and at the same time of the Altaic origin of the Rus. falcon [9. p. 99-103]. In opposition, M. Räsänen more convincingly deduced Slavic *túrgú and other words from the Türk. turku ~ turgu “stop, stay” [10. p. 193-194]. The next step in this area became the hypothesis about the origin of the Gmn. Bier, Engl. beer and words with the same meaning “beer” in other languages from the Türk. Lora < *bora with development in Gmn. > *bujra > *biura and so on [11. p. 240-242]. At approximately the same time cane out the article of M. Räsänen [12. p. 190-201], with a cluster of borrowings from the Early Türkic into the languages of Europe, and two successful dissertations [13; 14]. Were published works on the Avar (Mongolian) borrowings in the European languages. They came with some chuckles. Thus, in the article of J. Hubschmid [15. p. 189-199] for Türkic is taken a Mongolian borrowing Köcher and the Old Fr. cuivre “quiver”. The above work of M. Räsänen [12. p. 200] points to the Pra-Mongolian origin of the Pra-Slavic *xomotú “yoke”, also repeated by Ya. Chekanovsky [16. p. 402, 405]. The book of G.G. Menges [17] cites examples of two Monolisms from the “Song of Igor's Campaign”: telega (òåëѣãà “wagon”) [17. p. 137-145] and horugv (õîðþãúâü “standard, flag”) [17. 157-166]. * * * First, let's look at two already known etymologies, with new comments. First, we invoke the Pra-Türk reconstructions and \70\ material from the Türkic descendant languages, then the corresponding Slavic lexemes in the same order. 1. Türk *buka: Old Türk., Old Uigur, Middle Türk. and others buka “bull”, Saryg-Uigur puka, pyka “ bull-producer”, Command., Balk., Türk. boɣa, Chagat., Uigur buɣa, Alt. and others puɣa, Bashkir böɣa [8. p. 87]. Slav *bykú: Bolg. bik “(uncastrated) bull”, Macedonian bik “bull”, Serb.-Chroat bik “bull”, Slovenian. bik “bull”, Czech, Slovak, byk “bull”, Upper Luj. byk “(breeding) bull”, Lower Luj. byk “bull”, Pol. byk “bull-producer”, “male of large cloven-hoofed animals”, Slovints. bïk “bull, ox”, Old Rus., OCS. byk, Rus. byk, Ukr. bik “bull (young, castrated)”, “deer”, “insect Lucamus cervus” stag-beetle”, Belarus. byk “bull” [3. p. 147-148]. The dropping of the final -a is connected with the masculine gender of the object. In the Slavic, of the masculine nouns, only nouns for humans had declension in -a. The transition of the Türk. u > Slav. y may be due to the fact that in the Slavic at the time of borrowing the process u> u was not yet realized, or with what was very open in the Slavic period, as evidenced by German borrowings in Slavic: Gmn. ö > Slav. u.
2. Türk. *bükäl: Türk. bükelik, büjälik, büvälik “blue or green fly”, Kaz. bügölük, büŋölük, bügöjök “gadfly”, Tat. bügälčän, Bashk. bügäläk, Saha (Yakut). bügüläx “wasp”, bügüjäx “horsefly”; ? Chuv., pəvan “horsefly” [18. p. 91]. Slav. *búčela, *büčela: Old Slav. búčela, büčela, Bulg. pčela, Macedon. pčela, Serb.-Croat. čela, pčela, Sloven. bčela, bečela, čbela, čebela, Czech, Slovak. včela, Upper Luj. pčola, wčola, Lower Luj. cola, Polab. pszczoła, Slov. pšuölä, Old Rus. búčela, büčela, bčela, Rus. pčela, Ukr. bdjola, Bielorus. pčala “bee” [3. p. 104-105,]. From the literature are known two etymologies for this Slavic word: The vacillation *ú ~ *ü in the Pra-Slavic wholly agrees with the initial quality of the vowel in the Türkic: ü is a median between u and i, which produced the Slav. *ú and *ü. As for the pčela, it is not entirely clear was the second consonant in the Türkic dull or sonorous. M. Räsänen is inclined to assume it to be sonorous.
Both words denote realities of a peaceful life “in contrast to moka and discussed below borrowings into Germanic languages. * * * We cite two suggested borrowings into Germanic languages, and two into Slavic. The proposed etymologies are disputable, and the author could object to them, as he does, but without those etymologies the cited words have no explanation at all, or have ones even less reliable. The Slavic words are given reconstructed, the Pra-Germanic reconstructions are not given since the Pra-Germanic language by that time had already split up.
3. Türk *boδ: the ancient Uigur bod “body”, Middle Türk. boδ “trunk, waist, physique”, Karagas
bot “personally”, Koibal boz, bos, Shor., Chagat., Kach, \71\ Koibal
pos, Saryg-Uigur poz “body”, Chagat. and others boy “body, physique, complexion, height”,
“main part, size, depth”, Alt. and others poj, Tat. buy, Chuvash porššə “size” [18. p. 77]. Gmc.: Eng. body “body”, Old Eng. bodig, Middle Eng. bodi, the OHG. potah, MHG botech “body” [21. p. 54]. It should be noted that in the Germanic languages that word could still have an all-German δ. The above etymology has the disadvantage that in Türkic the word is represented without a suffix. It is very possible that in Germanic languages it passed the semantic stage: “corpse”, “object of physical violence”.
4. Türk. *kyr “girl, maiden”. Obviously, a more correct reconstruction “is not the above-mentioned traditional, but *gyr, judging by Tuv. kys (and not **xys.) The difference between Pra-Türkic *ê and *g is usually restored on the basis of a comparison of the Tuvan-Karagas and Oguz: Tuv.-Karagas ê ~ Oguz g < Türkic *g, Tuv.-Karagas x ~ Oguz k < Türk. k. However, in this case the Oguz material can not be used for comparison, since in the Oguz *g and *k before the vowel of the non-front raw is neutralized [22]. Turkm. kyz, Saha (Yakut) kuz “girl”, Old Türk., Old Uigur, Middle Türk. and others kyz “girl, maiden, daughter”, Chagat., Uigur, Taranch. qiz, “Kutadɣu bilig”, Alt. and others kys; Chuv., xər the same [18. p. 269]. Gmc.: Eng. girl “girl, maiden”, Old Eng. gyrel, Middle Eng. gerle, girle, gyrle “child irrespective of gender”, Pra-Eng. *gur-wil [23]. Friz. gör “girl”, Pomeran. gîår “child”, OLG gor “child”, Swiss gurre, gurli “girl”, Norw. gorre, Sw. dialect. garrä, gurre “small child” [21. p. 213]. According to W. Skeet, the root is of unknown origin. Cf. Fr. garce “whore” which does not have etymology at all. Phoneme y, unknown to Germanic languages, was replaced by u. This etymology would be very good if not for the sometimes popping up in German dialects and in French the radical a and often encountered in Gmc. languages meaning “child irrespective of gender” [24. p. 960-963]. (A motivation for borrowing is that the Huns used European girls as hostages (concubines?)). In both latter cases, for Pra-Türkic is traditionally restored a long vowel, while in the Germanic words it is short. Perhaps, I.I. Peiros was right, suggesting that the Pra-Türkic distinguished not the lengths but the voicing [25. p. 79-81].
5. Türk *koŋur “beetle”: Old Uigur koŋuz, Middle Türk. koŋuz (Brokkelman kuŋuz), MA [26] kuŋuz, Chagat., Uigur, Kaz. koŋuz, Taranch. tomuz, Teleut. koŋyz the same, Tat. kuŋyz “beetle”, “May bug”, Kar. T. êîmuz “beetle, worm”, Oirot koŋos, Tuba, Teleut köz, Oirot koŋos, Chuvash xəmər, ? Saha (Yakut) xomur-duoz, xoŋurduoz, “lumberjack, scrinch, screecher”, cerambyx [18. 281]. Slav. *komarü/*komarü: OCS. komarú, komarú, Bolg. komar “mosquito”,
dialect. komar “ – dark brown beetle appearing in haymaking, “horsefly”, “mosquito”, kumúr
– the same, “mosquito”, Maced. komar “mosquito”, Serb.-OCS. komar-myshütza
(“mosquito-mouse”, or “mosquito-muscle”), Serb.-Croat. komar
“mosquito, Culex pipiens L.”, Kömar – surname, Sloven. komar, genetive on
-rja – the same, Czech komar “mosquito”, Slovak komar – the same, Upper Luj. komor
“mosquito, midge”, Old Lower Luj. komar “mosquito, Culex L.”, Old Pol. komar, komor
“mosquito”, Pol. komar, Old Pol. komor, dialect. kumor, chomor
“mosquito, Culex”, kamor, Old Rus. komarü “mosquito”, Rus. komar, dialect.
komar \72\ “ant”, komarü “mosquito”, “ant”,
kumarü “mosquito”, Ukr. komarü “mosquito”, dialect. komar “ant”, Byelorus.
kamar “mosquito” [27. pp. 169-171]. Several extant etymologies of this word are quite probable: Some difficulties are caused by correlations of the vowels. In Pra-Slavic is intriguing the vacillation rü ~ rü, which may indicate a softness of the r in Türkic, still preserved at that time. The intervocal m in the Slavic can indicate that in Bulgarian, the ŋ already then have produced m.
6. Türk muŋ, buŋ: Old Türk. buŋ, muŋ “misfortune”, Chagat. buŋ “limit, restriction”, Middle Türk. muŋ “effort, need”, Ibn-Muhanna mun, bun “shortage”, Old Uigur muŋ, myŋ, buŋ “need, grief”, Kumand. myŋ, Uigur, Taranch. and others muŋ “effort, suffering, care, grief, sorrow”, Tat. məŋ “torment, suffering”, Saha (Yakut) muŋ “limit, border”, Tur. bön “fool, limited, stupid” [18. p. 344]. Slav. moka: Rus. muka, Ukr. muka, Old Slav. muka, Bulg. múka, Serb.-Croat. myka, Sloven. mîka, Czech, Slovak. muka, Pol. meka. The connection established by M. Fasmer with muka, Lith. mankyti “press, crush, torture” and others is questionable [19. C. 6, 7; 28]. In Slavic, this word has adopted a suffix -ka, since abstract nouns lean to feminine or neutral gender. Muka can be explained as a Nostratic word. In addition, the suffix in the Slavic word has to be not *-ka, but *-úka, i.e. **munúka, as was pointed out by J.J. Warbot. In addition, a borrowing of abstract words over the head of concrete words is highly questionable. It remains to add that muŋ ~ buŋ – often encountered in Old Türkic monuments, – is almost a political term: eltä buŋ iok “ there are no ills in the tribal union [of the Türks]” [29]; özün edgü krtäči sen ebiŋä [ki]rtäči sen buŋsiz boltači s[en] “You will live happily, will live in your houses, will live heedlessly” [30]; ötükän ji olurip arqiš tirkiš isar näŋ buŋuɣ joq “As long as you [Türkic people] dwell in the Otüken land and send [merchant] trains [to neighboring countries], you have no concerns” [29].
* * * That the Huns were people of an Eastern origin is doubtless. The overwhelming majority of authors
find a continued connection between the Huns and the Hunnu (Sünnu, Hsiung) of the Chinese chronicles [31; 32; 33,
p. 222-243]. Nevertheless, no unity is on the question of the ethnolinguistic attribution of
the Huns-Hunnu. Some authors (majority) identify them with the Türks [31. p. 118; 32. p. 48],
others are skeptic to that theory [34] or negative [35. p. 63-104]. Pulleyblank [36. p. 206
-265], for example, considers the Hunnu to be Yeniseians on the basis of his analysis of the Hunnu
words words written in Chinese characters. But at the same time the couplet recorded by the Chinese
in the \73\ Hunnu language is easily read in Türkic [37.
p.
3-11]. In any case, even if the Hunnu were not the Türks, then their Turkification can be assumed during a passage through the territories inhabited by these peoples.
In conclusion, we sincerely thank E.A. Helimsky, who pointed the etymology of the word pchela (bee), S.A. Starostin who helped in analysis of the Hunnic words in the Chinese records (although the result of that work is not reflected in this article), I.G. Dobrodomov, who gave many valuable advices during preparation of this article and pointed to the available literature. NOTES 1 Preobrajensky A.E.
Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow, 1910. Vol. 1. 25 Peiros I.
Ðãîtotürkish vowel length: a possibility of reinterpretation? / / Estonian
papers in phonetics. Tallin, 1978. |
Chronological order of the Türkic-related bibliography |
The following random sampling from the V.A. Terentiev's article illuminates the degree of Türkological attention in the European linguistics. A 100-years enlightened century had produced 20 insights, or on average 2 per scientific decade. No wonder, such intellectual anemia has produced meager results. The 30-year span from 1912 to 1946 was a linguistic brain-dead period. In Russia, which probably is an absolute champion on the use of Turkisms, the linguistically brain-dead period lasted from 1910 to 1966, for more than half a century, though, the glory of the Russian science has not been impaired. The period was marked by apotheosis of the nation-state mentality, a self-adoration mightily blinded the ragtags and scientists. All in all, this puny in scope and depth article contains 5% of the entire 20th century Türkological scholarship on the Türkic substrate in the European languages. The article on the origin of six European words includes only the bibliography directly connected with the subject matter. A complete listing of works directly and indirectly related to the Türkic linguistic influence on the European and Asian languages would be orders of magnitude vaster, but the relative anatomy of the scientific activities would remain about the same. 6 Korsh Th., 1886, Anzeigez: Archiv für Slavische Philologie. Berlin; Leipzig. 9, H. 3-4. |
|