Home
Russian
Contents Türkic languages
Contents Türkic in English
Sources
Roots
Tamgas
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Religion
Coins

Datelines
Classification of Türkic languages
G. Ekholm Germananic Ethnology
C. Stevens Gmn.-Türkic traits
A. Toth German Lexicon
A. Toth Turkic and English
R. Mc Callister Non-IE in Gmc. languages
Türkic in English
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Türkic-Sumerian
Türkic-Etruscan
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
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”)
2. Türk bükäl (“bug”) (“midge”, A.-Sax. mycg) “blue or green fly”, “gadfly”, “wasp”, “horsefly”
3. Türk boδ, bod “body”
4. Türk. kyr “girl, maiden”
5. Türk koŋur “beetle”
6. Türk muŋ, buŋ (want “deficiency, lack”, wane “decline, ebb”) “misfortune”

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:
1) from the verb áû÷àòü (bychat “recently produce”) [1. 57; 2. p. 258; 3. p. 147-148];
2) from Türk. *buka [4; 5. p. 537 et seq .; 6. p. 493];
3) from the pra-Celtic “bukko [7. p. 87-88];
4) the latest theory of It. *bos [8. p. 63]. The author of that work traces a logical phonetic correspondence o ~ u: It. *ðàstî:rios ~ Slavic *pastyr, *bo:s ~ *buk explained by the absence of the phoneme o: at ancient Slavs and transition of It. o: > u > y. F.E. Korsh suggests a borrowing of the Rus. wolf and a goat.

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.

Since asterisked reconstructions are based on unproven and unprovable assumptions on the existence of a single and real “pra-language” confined to some isolated linguistic island in the neverland, the fanaticized reconstructions must be ignored in favor of attested forms.

The question of the -k-/-l transition must be addressed from historical realities largely based on archeological and genetical analyses. The -l form (bul, vol), as opposed to the -k form (buqa, bika), is shared by the western and eastern IE branches, consistent with their 3rd mill. BC Corded Ware origin. The sound change -k- to -l- is not typical for the multitude of the Türkic languages, suggesting that that was an idiosyncrasy within the Corded Ware constituent languages.

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:
1) from the Indo-European; Cf. Lat. fucus “drone” or Lith. bite, “bee”, etc., and
2) from the verb áû÷àòü (bychat “recently produce”) with the same argument as for the bull (3, p. 105, 19. p. 416) . Etymology we propose seems to be more reasonable, although erroneously referring to Z. Gombosz [20. p. 53, 54], M. Fasmer have already tried to reject the very idea of ​​a connection with the Türkic [19. p. 416].

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.

The connection of bükä-/büke-/büjä-/büvä- (the suffix -lik, Eng. -like, means like) is lit. bug-like, attesting to the Türkic origin of the Gmc. bug/buğ/bia (without the suffix -lik, and “of unknown origin” ), the Celtic (Ir.) båñh  “bee”, and its Sl. offshoot pchela  “bee” with a Gmc.-Sl. diminutive suffix -la that is indicative of the Celtic-Gmc.-Sl. areal Sprachbund. Within the IE paradigm, neither bug nor pchela find a shred of convincing etymology not driven by wanton phonetic travesty.

The transition b-/m- is ubiquitous among the Türkic languages. The Eng. “bug” and “midge” from the A.-Sax. mycg (the Romanized -cg apparently tried to convey a particular pronunciation of the k/g sound) reflect dialectal voicing of the bug as mug. The bug as mug alternation saliently and independently confirms the Türkic origin of the word “bug”.

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.

Since all developments of the IE languages, including a very thesis on the existence of PIE and Pra-Germanic language, are conjectural and come in a spectrum of scenarios, assumptions for particular events must be spelled out as crucial for any analysis.

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].
71

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”.

Dictionary entries list suffixed derivatives: bodsuz, bodun, boδum, boδluɣ, bo:dluğ, etc. The Türkic standard noun suffixes apply to bo:d like to any other noun, including the suffix -ig/-iɣ. The last comment is inexplicable.

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].

Since vowels are fluid, the -i-/-y- articulation is practically indistinguishable, and the -k/g- alternation is ubiquitous (Cf. Eng. call vs Sl. golos, glagol). The -r/-s alternation is the only one requiring analysis. The unexplained analysis is based on the typical -r/-s alternation between the Ogur and Oguz subfamilies, where the Ogur -r is routinely alternating with the Oguz -s. In practice, since the highly mobile Türkic pastoralists heavily intermixed on a tribal and personal level, the Ogur form is routinely encountered in the Oguz languages, and vice-versa.

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].
72

Several extant etymologies of this word are quite probable:
1) onomatopoeic, related to Lith. kamane “bumblebee”, kamine “wild bee”, Old Prus.. camus “bumblebee”, Slav. čümelü, Gmn. Hummel “bumblebee”, MHG hummen “buzz”;
2) from the verb ščemiti (Sl., Pol. “pinch”);
3) from the word *komú “lump, swarm, multitude”;
4) a related Hittite kammaraš “smoke”, “cloud”, “bee swarm”.
This comparison can be considered a fifth one.

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.

The “quite probable” etymologies in reality are quite improbable:
1. Echoic origin can be claimed only in relation to specific phonetic systems, since no positively unrelated systems relay the same noise with recognizably similar vocalizations.
2. Origin from a particular word (e.g. ) is viable only if paths from parental to daughter languages support its dispersion. Which is a daydream. The word has a Türkic suffix -t/-d in Sl. and Aryan adaptation (Sl. root ščip- “pinch”)
3. Both Sl. words, ščemiti and kom, have peculiar distribution in the European NW, do not have correspondents in the rest of the IE family, and have a basic meaning  “press, pinch”, of doubtful relevance other than phonetic resemblance.
4. Ditto the Hittite kammaraš “smoke”, “cloud”, “bee swarm”.

The fifth comparison ascends to the Türkic koŋra:- “make ringing noise”, from koŋ “bell, jingle”, perfectly suitable semantically and traceable phonetically, Cf.  Chuv. xəmər.

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].

Besides Sl., the Germanic Eng. has cognates of the buŋ “ill, misfortune”, “grief, sorrow, suffering, burden, care”: boondoggle, boondoggler “useless, wasteful”, etymology “of uncertain origin”. Unless the Tagalog origin of the boondocks, boonies “remote and wild place” can be documented other than an anecdotal evidence of a hearsay, they also appear to be cognates due to their negative connotations consistent with the negative sense of the part boon. Like other relicts of the Türkic lexicon (Cf. boss, chill, crunch, OK, toss, etc.) the boon was lurking in the “folk speech” and popped up late as an Amricanism.

*  *  *

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].
73

 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.

The reference to the Huns/Hunnu/Hsiung, dated by 1990, apparently serves as an attribution of the source in this study. In 1990, history stood at the outset of the crucial changes affecting contents and flow of science. The former USSR disbanded, releasing scientists to pursue their studies without gags of political subjugation, and the genetic studies had rocketed. The R1b Y-DNA “Indo-Europeans” were reconnected with their Timber Grave Türkic ancestors, and their ancestors were archeologically reconnected with the migrations of R1a and R1b people from the Central Asia. The flow of the R1a and R1b people to the Central and Western Europe found its explanation, and the European scenario of demographic, linguistic, and biological history had to be re-written. The late comers Tatars, Bulgars, and Huns were supplemented by the Sarmats, Scythians, and a series of the Kurgan waves from the Eastern Europe ascending as far back as the 4th millennia BC.

Although Huns played a dominant role in fashioning the Middle Age Europe, they can't be presumed as the sole contributors to the European languages. In particular, the Classical sources on the anabases of the Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmats positively connect them with the fates and languages of the Western Europe.

On the Hunnic couplet, see Kisamov N., The Hunnic Oracle // Journal Of Eurasian Studies, April - July 2014, Volume VI, Issue 2, Mikes International, The Hague, Holland, 2013, ISSN 1877-4199 http://www.federatio.org/joes/EurasianStudies_0214.pdf

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.
2 Vasmer M. Etymological Dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow: Progress, 1986. Vol. 1.
3 Etymological dictionary of the Slavic languages: Pra-Slavic lexical fund / / Ed. corr. member USSR AN O.N. Trubachev. Moscow, Nauka, 1976. Issue 3.
4 Writing Türk. q as k we follow M. Räsänen, for the difference of these sounds is not phonological.
5 Korsh F.E. On some daily words borrowed by ancient Slavs from the so-called Ural-Altaic languages / / Notes of Imperial Russian geographical Society Section Ethnography, 34 / Ed. A.D. Rudnev, Collection in honor of seventieth anniversary of Grigory Nikolaevich Potanin. St. Petersburg, 1909.
6 Korsh Th. Anzeigez: Archiv für Slavische Philologie. Berlin; Leipzig, 1886. 9, H. 3-4.
7 Shachmatov A. Zu den ältesten Slavisch-Keltichen Beziehungen // Archiv für Slavische Philologie. Berlin; Leipzig, 1912. 33.
8 Martynov V.V. Language in space and time: To the problem of glottogenesis of the Slavs. Moscow, Nauka, 1983.
9 Ramstedt G. I. Finnish Òurku, Swedish Torg, Danish and Norwegian Torv, a word from Central Asia // Neuphilologishe Miteilungen, Helsinki, 1949, 50, H. 5
10 Räsänen M. Nochmals fina. Òurku russ. torg  usw. / / Neuphilologishe Miteilungen, Helsinki, 1951. 52, Í. 7.
11 Idem. Disch. Bier usw. // ibid. Helsinki, 1952. 53.
12 Idem. Der Wolga bolgarische Einfluss im Westen im Lichte der Wortgeschitche // Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen. Helsinki, 1946. 29.
13 Dobrodomov I.G. History of lexicon of the Türkic origin in Old Russian language: (on the material of the “Tale of Bygone Years”): Abstract of dissertation in philological sciences. Moscow, 1966.
14 Idem. Problems of study of the Bulgarian lexical elements in Old Russian language: Doctor of Philology Thesis, Moscow, 1974.
15 Hubschmid J.  Air. “cuivre”, di “Köcher”, eine Wortfamilie hunischen Ursprungs // Essais de philologie moderne, 1951. Paris, 1953.
16 Czekanowski J. Wstep do historii slowian: Perspektivy antropologiczne, etnografczne, i jezykove. Na nowo oprac. Poznann, 1957. Wd. 2.
17 Menges K.G. Eastern elements in the “Song of Igor's Campaign”. Leningrad, Science, 1979
18 Räsänen M. Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen: Lexica Societates Fenno-Ugricae. Helsinki, 1969. 17, 1.
19 Vasmer M. Etymological Dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow, Progress, 1986, Vol. 3.
20 Gombocz Z. Die bulgarisch-türkischen Lenwörter in den ungarischen Sprache: Memoires de la Societe finno-ougrene. Helsinki, 1912. 30.
21 Sceat Z. A concise  etymological dictionary of the English language, New York, 1963
22 Illich-Svitych V.M. Altaian gutteral *k ', k, g // Etymology. 1964, Moscow, Science, 1965.
23 The diminishing suffix -wil cited by W. Skeath, is bewildering. Seems more reasonable to see here a suffix -il – the usual Old Germanic diminutive suffix.
24 Grimm J. u. W. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig, 1958. Âá. 4, I Àbt. 5. Òåil.
74

25 Peiros I. Ðãîtotürkish vowel length: a possibility of reinterpretation? / / Estonian papers in phonetics. Tallin, 1978.
26 Zajaczkowski A. Vocabularie arab-kipichak de l'epoque de l'etat Mamelouk. Warschau, 1954-1958.
27 Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages. Moscow, 1983, Issue 10.
28 Since the published issues of the ESSYa (Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages) by the time of writing this article have reached only the letter 1, here the Slavic material is given according to M. Vasmer.
29 Small inscription of Kul-tegin monument.
30 Mogylan Khan (Bilge-Kagan) monument.
31 Inostrantsev K.A. Hunnu and Huns. Leningrad, 1926.
32 Gumilev L.N. Hunnu: Middle Asia in ancient times. Moscow, 1960.
33Maenchen-Helfen O. Huns and Hsiung-Nu // Byzantion, American series, 3, 1944-1945. Vol. 17.
34 In this respect, is indicative the article [33]
35 Moor E. Zur Herkunft der Hunnen mit bessonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Namen-materials // Beitryeräge zur Namenforschung, Heidelberg, 1963. Bd. 14, H. 1.
36 Pulleyblank E.G. The Consonantal System of Old Chineese // Asia Major, London, 1962. V. 9, pt. 2.
37 Shervashidze I.N Forms of the verb in the language of the Türkic runic inscriptions. Tbilisi: Metsniereba, 1986.

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.
5 Korsh F.E., 1909, On some daily words borrowed by ancient Slavs from the so-called Ural-Altaic languages / / Notes of Imperial Russian geographical Society Section Ethnography, 34 / Ed. A.D. Rudnev, Collection in honor of seventieth anniversary of Grigory Nikolaevich Potanin. St. Petersburg.
1 Preobrajensky A.E., 1910, Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow. Vol. 1.
7 Shachmatov A., 1912, Zu den ältesten Slavisch-Keltichen Beziehungen // Archiv für Slavische Philologie. Berlin; Leipzig. 33.
20 Gombocz Z., 1912, Die bulgarisch-türkischen Lenwörter in den ungarischen Sprache: Memoires de la Societe finno-ougrene. Helsinki.
12 Räsänen M., 1946, Der Wolga bolgarische Einfluss im Westen im Lichte der Wortgeschitche // Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen. Helsinki. 29.
9 Ramstedt G. I., 1949, Finnish Òurku, Swedish Torg, Danish and Norwegian Torv, a word from Central Asia // Neuphilologishe Miteilungen, Helsinki, 50, H. 5
10 Räsänen M., 1951, Nochmals fina. Òurku russ. torg  usw. / / Neuphilologishe Miteilungen, Helsinki. 52, Í. 7.
15 Hubschmid J., 1951,  Air. “cuivre”, di “Köcher”, eine Wortfamilie hunischen Ursprungs // Essais de philologie moderne. Paris, 1953.
11 Räsänen M., 1952,. Disch. Bier usw. // ibid. Helsinki 53.
26 Zajaczkowski A. Vocabularie arab-kipichak de l'epoque de l'etat Mamelouk. Warschau, 1954-1958.
16 Czekanowski J., 1957, Wstep do historii slowian: Perspektivy antropologiczne, etnografczne, i jezykove. Na nowo oprac. Poznann. Wd. 2.
13 Dobrodomov I.G., 1966, History of lexicon of the Türkic origin in Old Russian language: (on the material of the “Tale of Bygone Years”): Abstract of dissertation in philological sciences. Moscow.
18 Räsänen M., 1969, Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen: Lexica Societates Fenno-Ugricae. Helsinki. 17, 1.
14 Dobrodomov I.G., 1974, Problems of study of the Bulgarian lexical elements in Old Russian language: Doctor of Philology Thesis, Moscow.
3 Etymological dictionary of the Slavic languages: Pra-Slavic lexical fund, 1976 / / Ed. corr. member USSR AN O.N. Trubachev. Moscow, Nauka. Issue 3.
25 Peiros I. Ðãîtotürkish vowel length: a possibility of reinterpretation? / / Estonian papers in phonetics. Tallin, 1978.
17 Menges K.G., 1979, Eastern elements in the “Song of Igor's Campaign”. Leningrad, Science.
8 Martynov V.V., 1983, Language in space and time: To the problem of glottogenesis of the Slavs. Moscow, Nauka.
2 Vasmer M., 1986, Etymological Dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow: Progress. Vol. 1, Vol. 3.
37 Shervashidze I.N., 1986, Forms of the verb in the language of the Türkic runic inscriptions. Tbilisi: Metsniereba.

 

Home
Russian
Contents Türkic languages
Contents Türkic in English
Sources
Roots
Tamgas
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Religion
Coins

Datelines
Classification of Türkic languages
G. Ekholm Germananic Ethnology
C. Stevens Gmn.-Türkic traits
A. Toth German Lexicon
A. Toth Turkic and English
R. Mc Callister Non-IE in Gmc. languages
Türkic in English
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Türkic-Sumerian
Türkic-Etruscan
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
10/27/2017
Ðåéòèíã@Mail.ru “” “” “” “”θδðĞŠšğññŋŋϓɣššÇČčäāáææēəɛӛӭ ï ıÖöōŪüūûӱ þþƕł ‡ “”~ Türkic ± ° □ –əöäüčŋšɣ