Rysbek Alimov
My principal research interests lie in the field of Old and Medieval Turkic languages, historical and comparative study of Turkic with emphasis on Kipchak languages. More specifically I focus on the problems of Turkic runic writing and inscriptions, the etymology of Turkic heritage lexicon and the history of Turkic tribes of the early medieval period. Broadly, I am interested in the linguistic contact and historical lexicon of Turkic languages in the context of the Altaic language family.
less
InterestsView All (35)
Uploads
Mongolian led to the exchange of a large number of lexical and grammatical elements. The number and analysis of lexical copies show that linguistic contact developed in favor of Turkish until the XIIIth century and in favor of Mongolian between the XIII - XVIth centuries. As in the case of Mongolian loan words in Turkic languages, it is possible to trace the distinctive phonetic features of the Turkish of the relevant period and the phonotactic constraints of Mongolian in the
same period.
The majority of the words from Old Turkic into Mongolian are of Old Uyghur origin. However, the phonetic features of some lexical copies dated to the Old Turkic period in Mongolian indicate that they are not of Orkhon Turkic or Old Uyghur y- type, but of an Old Turkic variant of ǰ- type. This article argues that such words passed into Mongolian from the language of the Yenisey Kyrgyz, who had intensive contact with the historical Mongolian tribes
The author of the paper offers numerous, especially phonological, criteria, for identifying Western Mongolian loanwords in Kyrgyz, and provides examples that meet these criteria.
The fact that Mongolian loanwords from the late period are more prevalent than those from earlier layers, and that they also include examples related to Lamaism, Mongolian culture and ethnography, suggests that the Oirat-Kalmyk and Kyrgyz tribes had more intensive interaction than is often recognized.
of many lexical and grammatical (including morphological and syntactic) elements between Turkish and Mongolian. Historical and linguistic evidence shows that the contact and interactions between these two language groups are more intense and longer-lasting in Central Asia and Southern Siberia compared to other contact areas, and Kyrgyz is one of the critical links of this situation. However, apart from a few indirect studies, no research has been conducted on the effect of Turkic and Mongolian language contacts on Kyrgyz. The author is currently conducting a study that deals with the lexical effect of Mongolian on Kyrgyz language and Turkish-Mongolian language
relations from the Kyrgyz perspective, and this study aims to fill the gap in the field. According to the author's determination based on lexicographic studies on Kyrgyz, there are nearly three thousand Mongolian-origin words in today's Kyrgyz language. This number also includes back-borrowings, of which there are many examples in Kyrgyz. In this paper, the author will share the preliminary findings obtained in his related study. It will provide information about the phonetic, morphological, semantic, and etymological criteria used in the detection of Mongolian lexical copies in Kyrgyz, as well as their citation chronology and semantic fields.
This paper is devoted to the linguistic attitude of semi-speakers of the Teleut language which is a part of the South Siberian Turkic cluster and at risk of falling out of use.
Currently, the number of those who are able to communicate in Teleut is about 1000. However, only 20-30 of them are fluent in their mother tongue, while the others, who have a low competency in it, speak this language occasionally. The impact of the latter group of speakers who are transitional bilinguals toward Russian on Teleut grammar and its consequences are the main questions to which the author seeks an answer.
Here are some changes in the language of semi-speakers of Teleut: (a) Word order changes from typical Turkic (SOV) to as it is in Russian (SVO), e.g. Men d’uulaşkam rodina üçün [I fight–PST–1P.S fatherland for] “I fought for the fatherland”; Enezi nayımnıŋ keldi [Mother-3PS friend-1POSS.S-GEN come-PST-Ø] A friend of mine’s mother came; (b) Using of analytical forms of the verbs [Russian noun + et-] instead of synthetic ones. F. ex. duš prinyat’ et- [bath take < Ru. принять + et-]; (c) Morphological simplification. F. ex. Sen d’anarga moješ [You + turn back + able to< Ru. “можешь”, “Can you turn back?]; (d) Many affixes are no longer reproductive, e.g. derivative suffix +čI; (e) ambiguity in the meaning of words, e.g. qoltï “a bride” > “a bride and a groom” etc.
This paper is based on the linguistic data gathered during the field research in 2012 and 2015 in Kemerovo province of the Russian Federation. In order to find out the consequences of the impact of Russian on the Teleut language the author also used materials of W. Radloff and others gathered at the end of 19th century.
The games using the anklebones (astragalus) of domestic animals date back to the Neolithic era. Such games are also known as one of the traditional games among the Turkic and Mongolian peoples. The anklebone used for games has four sides. Although it carries many different names in Turkic and Mongolian languages, alčï, tava, bök and čik stand out as archetypes. The author examines the origin and meaning of these words. Based on the etymological and semantic analysis of them, the author concludes that the two vertical sides of the bone had the meaning of “horse/donkey”, “ox/calf", and the horizontal sides of “sheep” and “goat” respectively. The author
also claims that these names, which matches with the names for the anklebone's sides in Mongolic languages, should have been the very ancient words used in Turkic for astragalus used in the ankle bone flicking game.
dokümantasyonu yanı sıra bu dili kaybolma eşiğine getiren sebepler de irdelenmiştir. Demografik tabanın zayıflığı gibi evrensel etkenler yanı sıra yalnızca Teleütlerin için geçerli olan hususi yerel etkenlerin olduğu göze çarpmıştır. Bildiride bu etkenler ayrıntılı bir şekilde ele alınacaktır. Aynı zamanda dili tekrar canlandırma stratejilerinden biri olarak Teleütlerin benlik saygısı ve bununla ilişkili olarak ana dil prestijini artırma yöntemleri ve bu doğrultudaki çabalar üzerinde de durulacaktır.
The loss of languages has become one of the most important issues of modern linguistics. According to researchers only 600 of approximately 7,000 languages spoken today will survive in the next 100 years, while others will be lost. There is a large number of Turkic languages in danger that increasingly are losing their speakers. Many Turkic idioms spoken in Siberia will lose their last speakers in the coming future and be disappeared. One of them is the language of the Teleuts. The number of the Teleut people is 2643, but only 975 of them are able to speak their native language. Since the Teleut language has not a written form, documentation and description of it can be classified as one of the most urgent problems of Turkic studies. In 2012 and 2015 the author conducted field research in the region populated mainly by the Teleuts. One of the objectives of the field research was to find out the reason of not using the mother tongue by the Teleuts. The lack of demographic base which is universal for language disappearance is one of the reasons, while there are some other specific reasons for the region and the Teleut people. All the reasons are examined in the paper in details. The author also focuses on the strategies for the revival of Teleut language.
This paper is an attempt to review the features regarded as ones that belong to the Yenisei Kyrgyz language that constitutes the substrate of contemporary Kyrgyz. The author focuses on (a) phonological, (b) morphophonological and (c) morphological isoglosses of Sayan-Altay Turkic dialect continuum seen in Kyrgyz. The key Yenisei Kyrgyz isophones and isomorphs are given as follows: primary and positional vowel lengths in Kyrgyz, secondary vowel length in the position V(back) + C(y/g/ġ/n) + Vback and morphological markers such as -čU, -GXlA, -šDX etc.
The author also argues that during the Yenisei Kyrgyz dominance (8th-12th century) the linguistic situation in Southern Siberia was not homogeneous and its reflexes can also be traced in the language of modern Kyrgyz.
The aim of the study is to provide linguistic data for the reconstruction of Yenisei Kyrgyz through the comparative method of those linguistic features which are typical for both Kyrgyz and the languages of Sayan-Altay Turkic dialect continuum.
Keywords: The Tien-Shan Kyrgyz language, Yenisei Kyrgyz, Turkic, Old Turkic, language reconstruction.
Mongolian led to the exchange of a large number of lexical and grammatical elements. The number and analysis of lexical copies show that linguistic contact developed in favor of Turkish until the XIIIth century and in favor of Mongolian between the XIII - XVIth centuries. As in the case of Mongolian loan words in Turkic languages, it is possible to trace the distinctive phonetic features of the Turkish of the relevant period and the phonotactic constraints of Mongolian in the
same period.
The majority of the words from Old Turkic into Mongolian are of Old Uyghur origin. However, the phonetic features of some lexical copies dated to the Old Turkic period in Mongolian indicate that they are not of Orkhon Turkic or Old Uyghur y- type, but of an Old Turkic variant of ǰ- type. This article argues that such words passed into Mongolian from the language of the Yenisey Kyrgyz, who had intensive contact with the historical Mongolian tribes
The author of the paper offers numerous, especially phonological, criteria, for identifying Western Mongolian loanwords in Kyrgyz, and provides examples that meet these criteria.
The fact that Mongolian loanwords from the late period are more prevalent than those from earlier layers, and that they also include examples related to Lamaism, Mongolian culture and ethnography, suggests that the Oirat-Kalmyk and Kyrgyz tribes had more intensive interaction than is often recognized.
of many lexical and grammatical (including morphological and syntactic) elements between Turkish and Mongolian. Historical and linguistic evidence shows that the contact and interactions between these two language groups are more intense and longer-lasting in Central Asia and Southern Siberia compared to other contact areas, and Kyrgyz is one of the critical links of this situation. However, apart from a few indirect studies, no research has been conducted on the effect of Turkic and Mongolian language contacts on Kyrgyz. The author is currently conducting a study that deals with the lexical effect of Mongolian on Kyrgyz language and Turkish-Mongolian language
relations from the Kyrgyz perspective, and this study aims to fill the gap in the field. According to the author's determination based on lexicographic studies on Kyrgyz, there are nearly three thousand Mongolian-origin words in today's Kyrgyz language. This number also includes back-borrowings, of which there are many examples in Kyrgyz. In this paper, the author will share the preliminary findings obtained in his related study. It will provide information about the phonetic, morphological, semantic, and etymological criteria used in the detection of Mongolian lexical copies in Kyrgyz, as well as their citation chronology and semantic fields.
This paper is devoted to the linguistic attitude of semi-speakers of the Teleut language which is a part of the South Siberian Turkic cluster and at risk of falling out of use.
Currently, the number of those who are able to communicate in Teleut is about 1000. However, only 20-30 of them are fluent in their mother tongue, while the others, who have a low competency in it, speak this language occasionally. The impact of the latter group of speakers who are transitional bilinguals toward Russian on Teleut grammar and its consequences are the main questions to which the author seeks an answer.
Here are some changes in the language of semi-speakers of Teleut: (a) Word order changes from typical Turkic (SOV) to as it is in Russian (SVO), e.g. Men d’uulaşkam rodina üçün [I fight–PST–1P.S fatherland for] “I fought for the fatherland”; Enezi nayımnıŋ keldi [Mother-3PS friend-1POSS.S-GEN come-PST-Ø] A friend of mine’s mother came; (b) Using of analytical forms of the verbs [Russian noun + et-] instead of synthetic ones. F. ex. duš prinyat’ et- [bath take < Ru. принять + et-]; (c) Morphological simplification. F. ex. Sen d’anarga moješ [You + turn back + able to< Ru. “можешь”, “Can you turn back?]; (d) Many affixes are no longer reproductive, e.g. derivative suffix +čI; (e) ambiguity in the meaning of words, e.g. qoltï “a bride” > “a bride and a groom” etc.
This paper is based on the linguistic data gathered during the field research in 2012 and 2015 in Kemerovo province of the Russian Federation. In order to find out the consequences of the impact of Russian on the Teleut language the author also used materials of W. Radloff and others gathered at the end of 19th century.
The games using the anklebones (astragalus) of domestic animals date back to the Neolithic era. Such games are also known as one of the traditional games among the Turkic and Mongolian peoples. The anklebone used for games has four sides. Although it carries many different names in Turkic and Mongolian languages, alčï, tava, bök and čik stand out as archetypes. The author examines the origin and meaning of these words. Based on the etymological and semantic analysis of them, the author concludes that the two vertical sides of the bone had the meaning of “horse/donkey”, “ox/calf", and the horizontal sides of “sheep” and “goat” respectively. The author
also claims that these names, which matches with the names for the anklebone's sides in Mongolic languages, should have been the very ancient words used in Turkic for astragalus used in the ankle bone flicking game.
dokümantasyonu yanı sıra bu dili kaybolma eşiğine getiren sebepler de irdelenmiştir. Demografik tabanın zayıflığı gibi evrensel etkenler yanı sıra yalnızca Teleütlerin için geçerli olan hususi yerel etkenlerin olduğu göze çarpmıştır. Bildiride bu etkenler ayrıntılı bir şekilde ele alınacaktır. Aynı zamanda dili tekrar canlandırma stratejilerinden biri olarak Teleütlerin benlik saygısı ve bununla ilişkili olarak ana dil prestijini artırma yöntemleri ve bu doğrultudaki çabalar üzerinde de durulacaktır.
The loss of languages has become one of the most important issues of modern linguistics. According to researchers only 600 of approximately 7,000 languages spoken today will survive in the next 100 years, while others will be lost. There is a large number of Turkic languages in danger that increasingly are losing their speakers. Many Turkic idioms spoken in Siberia will lose their last speakers in the coming future and be disappeared. One of them is the language of the Teleuts. The number of the Teleut people is 2643, but only 975 of them are able to speak their native language. Since the Teleut language has not a written form, documentation and description of it can be classified as one of the most urgent problems of Turkic studies. In 2012 and 2015 the author conducted field research in the region populated mainly by the Teleuts. One of the objectives of the field research was to find out the reason of not using the mother tongue by the Teleuts. The lack of demographic base which is universal for language disappearance is one of the reasons, while there are some other specific reasons for the region and the Teleut people. All the reasons are examined in the paper in details. The author also focuses on the strategies for the revival of Teleut language.
This paper is an attempt to review the features regarded as ones that belong to the Yenisei Kyrgyz language that constitutes the substrate of contemporary Kyrgyz. The author focuses on (a) phonological, (b) morphophonological and (c) morphological isoglosses of Sayan-Altay Turkic dialect continuum seen in Kyrgyz. The key Yenisei Kyrgyz isophones and isomorphs are given as follows: primary and positional vowel lengths in Kyrgyz, secondary vowel length in the position V(back) + C(y/g/ġ/n) + Vback and morphological markers such as -čU, -GXlA, -šDX etc.
The author also argues that during the Yenisei Kyrgyz dominance (8th-12th century) the linguistic situation in Southern Siberia was not homogeneous and its reflexes can also be traced in the language of modern Kyrgyz.
The aim of the study is to provide linguistic data for the reconstruction of Yenisei Kyrgyz through the comparative method of those linguistic features which are typical for both Kyrgyz and the languages of Sayan-Altay Turkic dialect continuum.
Keywords: The Tien-Shan Kyrgyz language, Yenisei Kyrgyz, Turkic, Old Turkic, language reconstruction.
The monograph consists of 7 chapters and appendix. Chapter 1 is Introduction and begins with a general overview of the Turkic Runic inscriptions before proceeding to look at the history of the inscriptions of Tien Shan region and a detailed review of the literature written on this topic. Chapter 2 discusses and examines the palaeographical features of the inscriptions and concludes that palaeographically the Tien Shan region is the continuation of the Altay ecole with Orkhonic features. Chapter 3 focuses on the orthographic characteristics of the inscriptions where the author argues that the orthographic chaos that can be observed in the other centers of the Turkic runic writing has no cases in the Tien-Shan inscriptions. Chapter 4 focuses on the issue of the dating of the Tien Shan inscriptions. Using archaeological, historical and linguistic data related to the inscriptions the author shows that these inscriptions were recorded in the 8th century (C.E.) during the period of the Turgesh Khaganate. The palaeographic analysis of graphemes, which was done for the first time in this study, supported these results; the inscriptions of this region were recorded in the same period as the canonic Old Turkic inscriptions of Mongolia. Chapter 5 looks at the inscriptions found in the Talas region of today’s Kyrgyzstan. It consists of a detailed description and the history of research of each inscription, the corrections of the mistakes made in previous works in the identification of the runic letters, transliteration, transcription, and translation as well as commentaries. The author's success here lies in the fact that for the first time he was able to decipher the texts of all the inscriptions found in the region and give convincing interpretations on the basis of the grammar of the Turkic language of that time. Chapter 6 is devoted to the inscriptions found in the Issyk-Kul region. In spite of the fact that only two inscriptions were found in the region, each of them is, in the author's opinion, very important. Thus, the inscription from Ak-Ölöng, both in its paleographic features and content, clearly gives clues about strong relations between the Turkic tribes of the Tien Shan and the Yenisei (in this case between the Turgesh and the Eastern Turks). The second inscription from the Koy-Sary is bilingual, except for the Turkic inscription there are two lines made by the Arabic script of Qufi style. This is the first evidence that Arabic writing was in use during the Turgesh Khaganate. Chapter 7 is devoted to the inscriptions of Kochkor, the first of which was found in 1998 and the last in 2008. According to the author, many of them are customary law documents that confirm the ownership of the territory where these inscriptions were located. In this chapter, as in two previous ones, the author gives a detailed description of each inscription and dwells on the history of research and evaluates their outcomes. Then there is a section where the author, based on the results of his field research, tries to correct the mistakes made by previous researchers in the identification of the runes. It has paramount importance for correct reading, understanding, and interpretation of the inscriptions. After that, the author gives transliteration, transcription, and translation into Turkish of each inscription. Each section ends with commentaries where the author explains his point of view about the text of each inscription in detail.
The appendix provides glossary and bibliography. The author also gives rubbings and pictures with high resolution of each inscription. These supplements give the readers a control on the author's transliteration, transcription, and reading of the inscription by themselves.
This paper is devoted to Mongolic back borrowings of ultimate Turkic origin, which are numerous in Kyrgyz.and focuses on certain phonetic criteria that facilitate the identification of back borrowings from Mongolic based on similar phonetic changes which such words have undergone.
It proposes to divide such borrowings into three main chronological groups: a) back borrowings of pre-Old Turkic origin; b) back-borrowings of Old Turkic origin and c) back borrowings of Early Middle Turkic origin.
Based on the findings of this paper, it is claimed that a great number of Mongolian elements in Kyrgyz, including back borrowings, can be explained by the long-lasting Turkic-Mongolian bilingualism in the Tien-Shan region that ultimately ended up in favor of Turkic, as well as a local Turkic-Mongolian sprachbund.