The paper gives an analysis of possession manifestations in Teleut and Chulym-Turkic by means of ... more The paper gives an analysis of possession manifestations in Teleut and Chulym-Turkic by means of noun constructions. Possessive relations in the focus languages form a functional-semantic field, with a grammar core composed of the third-type ezafe constructions as well as combinations of possessive pronouns and nouns marked with possessive affixes. This marking is discourse-featured and optional in case of the 1st and 2nd person possessor, but inalienable possession is manifested by the regular head marking of the personal pronominal possessive constructions. Also non-ezafe and non-possessive usage of the 3rd person possessive affix is featured, which is presumably affected by its article-like function. On the periphery of the possessiveness functional-semantic field there are adyective affixes *-lɨɣ and *-ɣɨ, which imply the possession of an obyect, quality or a feature, or manifest the idea of their accumulation and concentration.
The article analyzes means of expressing possession relations with constructions not belonging to... more The article analyzes means of expressing possession relations with constructions not belonging to nominal ones in Chulym Turkic. Based on new field data, examples of predicative possession constructions in use are considered, locational, comitative, topical and transitive possession types are analyzed. It is proven that topical possession constructions in Chulym Turkic also include genitive possession constructions in which the logical subject (i.e. topic) is realized in the form of the possessive case. This very construction is the most frequent one in expressing category of possession through relations of predication in Chulym Turkic.
This study encourages a multidisciplinary research to identify parallels in the group belonging a... more This study encourages a multidisciplinary research to identify parallels in the group belonging and chronology of South Siberian Turkic (Chulym Turkic and Bachat Teleut) and Yakut. There is solid evidence that the ancestors of modern Yakuts and their language originate from the Central Asian steppe Proto-Turkic community of the 1 st century BC. South Siberian Turkic varieties have not been studied as thoroughly, but they are expected to have traces of some non-Turkic language substratum. The analysis of the Teleut gene pool has revealed two different components of the Turkic and non-Turkic nature, which gives reason to consider non-Turkic elements in Teleut as aboriginal. The gene pool study of the Chulym Turks is expected to contribute to the issue of language history and Chulym Turkic lexicon which is etymologically vague from the Turkic viewpoint.
Chulym Turks are an indigenous people group inhabiting the middle flow of River Chulym in
the Tom... more Chulym Turks are an indigenous people group inhabiting the middle flow of River Chulym in the Tomsk Region and Krasnoyarsk Territory who were officially recognized only in 2000. Some scholars claim the Chulym Turks to be part of the Khakass people, however, this is not considered justified (see works by A. P. Dul’zon, E. L. L’vova etc.) due to this becoming an excessively generalized grouping of ethnic groups detached historically and quite differing linguistically. There are several criteria possibly satisfying the demand for identifying an indigenous group: etymology of (last) names, sociological characteristics, language, etc. Nevertheless, the Chulym Turkic linguistic varieties have never been normalized, the system of writing has not been introduced which strongly hinders the ‘objective’ analysis of the quality of language use among the community. Moreover, the questions on language use in the All-Russian censuses of 2002 and 2010 demanded answers based on the population’s self-estimation only and did not provide a specification of the terms used (especially regarding language). The author suggests that the term native language (Russian родной язык) used in the questionnaire of the censuses actually implies a traditional ethnic language whereas the population’s understanding of the former term makes direct parallels with the original lexeme from which the term native (Russian родной) is derived: a ‘clan, family, kin’. Thus, when claiming the Chulym Turkic language to be a native language the respondent must not necessarily have reflected the language they were fluent at, while their selection of nationality (Russian национальность) may have been the result of preference in favor of this or that community with a strong economic and social motivation. In this light, the author believes that the drastic decrease of the Chulym Turkic population from 656 in 2002 to 355 in 2010 is accounted for the transformation of ethnolinguistic selfidentification rather than any ‘natural’ reasons.
The language of the Chulym Turks is local only to some territories of the Tomsk region and the Kr... more The language of the Chulym Turks is local only to some territories of the Tomsk region and the Krasnoyarsk territory. Recent surveys indicate the number of fluent speakers to be under fifteen. Chulym Turkic still bears the status of a colloquial tongue. Several attempts have been made to create a writing system of the language (though the language itself presently consists of two sub-dialects, each with unique phonemic fluctuation). This paper addresses problems occurring at creating methodic materials in Chulym Turkic and, above all, connected with the phonemic variations in the Chulym Turkic language that lead to difficulties in compiling a dictionary of the consultants’ mother tongue (Chulym Turkic). Such variations occur, on the one hand, due to the widespread tendency of phoneme reduction in an unstressed position and at the word end; on the other hand, they occur under the laws of the phoneme alternation range in the conditions of a language system not ultimately formed.
The Tutal sub-dialect of the Middle Chulym dialect;
Tegul’det District, 1970s.;
Speaker V. M. Bud... more The Tutal sub-dialect of the Middle Chulym dialect; Tegul’det District, 1970s.; Speaker V. M. Budeev, born 1901; Recorded by M. A. Abdrahmanov; Glossing, translation and formatting by V. M. Lemskaya, 2009-2010; Source: Jazyki i toponimija Sibiri. Vol. II. Tomsk, 1970. Pp. 58-60.
The Melet sub-dialect of the Middle Chulym dialect;
Pasechnoye village, Tyukhtet District, Krasno... more The Melet sub-dialect of the Middle Chulym dialect; Pasechnoye village, Tyukhtet District, Krasnoyarsk Krai, 1970s.; Speaker M. A. Skoblina, born 1911; Recorded by R. M. Birjukovich; Glossing, translation and formatting by V. M. Lemskaya, 2011-2012; Source: Birjukovich R. M. Prilozhenie k dissertacii «Stroj сhulymsko-tjurkskogo jazyka» [Illjustrativnye materialy]. M., 1980. – pp. 53-62.
Archived at Department of Siberian lndigenous Languages, TSPU;
Published in: Birjukovich R. M. Le... more Archived at Department of Siberian lndigenous Languages, TSPU; Published in: Birjukovich R. M. Leksika chulymsko-tjurkskogo jazyka. Posobie k speckursu. Saratov: Izdatelstvo Saratovskogo universiteta, 1984. Pp.77-86. Tutal sub-dialect of Middle Chulym dialect. Speaker: V. M. Budeev, born 1901. Recorded by R. M. Birjukovich (1970?s) Glossed and translated into English: V. Lemskaya.
This paper aims at making a critical analysis of the data presented in a recently published book ... more This paper aims at making a critical analysis of the data presented in a recently published book (Li et al. 2008) on one of the two sub-dialects of the Middle Chulym dialect of the Chulym Turkic language, one of the highly endangered languages of Siberia. The main point of discussion is some data and occasional analytical issues in this book (phonology, morphology, vocabulary, etc.) in the context of those presented in other publications on the language, and compared with my own fieldwork carried out mostly with speakers in the community neighboring the one whose sub-dialect is described in the reviewed publication.
Annotated Folk and Daily Prose Texts in the Languages of Ob-Yenissei Area. // Аннотированные фольклорные и бытовые тексты обско-енисейского языкового ареала., 2021
The paper gives an analysis of possession manifestations in Teleut and Chulym-Turkic by means of ... more The paper gives an analysis of possession manifestations in Teleut and Chulym-Turkic by means of noun constructions. Possessive relations in the focus languages form a functional-semantic field, with a grammar core composed of the third-type ezafe constructions as well as combinations of possessive pronouns and nouns marked with possessive affixes. This marking is discourse-featured and optional in case of the 1st and 2nd person possessor, but inalienable possession is manifested by the regular head marking of the personal pronominal possessive constructions. Also non-ezafe and non-possessive usage of the 3rd person possessive affix is featured, which is presumably affected by its article-like function. On the periphery of the possessiveness functional-semantic field there are adyective affixes *-lɨɣ and *-ɣɨ, which imply the possession of an obyect, quality or a feature, or manifest the idea of their accumulation and concentration.
The article analyzes means of expressing possession relations with constructions not belonging to... more The article analyzes means of expressing possession relations with constructions not belonging to nominal ones in Chulym Turkic. Based on new field data, examples of predicative possession constructions in use are considered, locational, comitative, topical and transitive possession types are analyzed. It is proven that topical possession constructions in Chulym Turkic also include genitive possession constructions in which the logical subject (i.e. topic) is realized in the form of the possessive case. This very construction is the most frequent one in expressing category of possession through relations of predication in Chulym Turkic.
This study encourages a multidisciplinary research to identify parallels in the group belonging a... more This study encourages a multidisciplinary research to identify parallels in the group belonging and chronology of South Siberian Turkic (Chulym Turkic and Bachat Teleut) and Yakut. There is solid evidence that the ancestors of modern Yakuts and their language originate from the Central Asian steppe Proto-Turkic community of the 1 st century BC. South Siberian Turkic varieties have not been studied as thoroughly, but they are expected to have traces of some non-Turkic language substratum. The analysis of the Teleut gene pool has revealed two different components of the Turkic and non-Turkic nature, which gives reason to consider non-Turkic elements in Teleut as aboriginal. The gene pool study of the Chulym Turks is expected to contribute to the issue of language history and Chulym Turkic lexicon which is etymologically vague from the Turkic viewpoint.
Chulym Turks are an indigenous people group inhabiting the middle flow of River Chulym in
the Tom... more Chulym Turks are an indigenous people group inhabiting the middle flow of River Chulym in the Tomsk Region and Krasnoyarsk Territory who were officially recognized only in 2000. Some scholars claim the Chulym Turks to be part of the Khakass people, however, this is not considered justified (see works by A. P. Dul’zon, E. L. L’vova etc.) due to this becoming an excessively generalized grouping of ethnic groups detached historically and quite differing linguistically. There are several criteria possibly satisfying the demand for identifying an indigenous group: etymology of (last) names, sociological characteristics, language, etc. Nevertheless, the Chulym Turkic linguistic varieties have never been normalized, the system of writing has not been introduced which strongly hinders the ‘objective’ analysis of the quality of language use among the community. Moreover, the questions on language use in the All-Russian censuses of 2002 and 2010 demanded answers based on the population’s self-estimation only and did not provide a specification of the terms used (especially regarding language). The author suggests that the term native language (Russian родной язык) used in the questionnaire of the censuses actually implies a traditional ethnic language whereas the population’s understanding of the former term makes direct parallels with the original lexeme from which the term native (Russian родной) is derived: a ‘clan, family, kin’. Thus, when claiming the Chulym Turkic language to be a native language the respondent must not necessarily have reflected the language they were fluent at, while their selection of nationality (Russian национальность) may have been the result of preference in favor of this or that community with a strong economic and social motivation. In this light, the author believes that the drastic decrease of the Chulym Turkic population from 656 in 2002 to 355 in 2010 is accounted for the transformation of ethnolinguistic selfidentification rather than any ‘natural’ reasons.
The language of the Chulym Turks is local only to some territories of the Tomsk region and the Kr... more The language of the Chulym Turks is local only to some territories of the Tomsk region and the Krasnoyarsk territory. Recent surveys indicate the number of fluent speakers to be under fifteen. Chulym Turkic still bears the status of a colloquial tongue. Several attempts have been made to create a writing system of the language (though the language itself presently consists of two sub-dialects, each with unique phonemic fluctuation). This paper addresses problems occurring at creating methodic materials in Chulym Turkic and, above all, connected with the phonemic variations in the Chulym Turkic language that lead to difficulties in compiling a dictionary of the consultants’ mother tongue (Chulym Turkic). Such variations occur, on the one hand, due to the widespread tendency of phoneme reduction in an unstressed position and at the word end; on the other hand, they occur under the laws of the phoneme alternation range in the conditions of a language system not ultimately formed.
The Tutal sub-dialect of the Middle Chulym dialect;
Tegul’det District, 1970s.;
Speaker V. M. Bud... more The Tutal sub-dialect of the Middle Chulym dialect; Tegul’det District, 1970s.; Speaker V. M. Budeev, born 1901; Recorded by M. A. Abdrahmanov; Glossing, translation and formatting by V. M. Lemskaya, 2009-2010; Source: Jazyki i toponimija Sibiri. Vol. II. Tomsk, 1970. Pp. 58-60.
The Melet sub-dialect of the Middle Chulym dialect;
Pasechnoye village, Tyukhtet District, Krasno... more The Melet sub-dialect of the Middle Chulym dialect; Pasechnoye village, Tyukhtet District, Krasnoyarsk Krai, 1970s.; Speaker M. A. Skoblina, born 1911; Recorded by R. M. Birjukovich; Glossing, translation and formatting by V. M. Lemskaya, 2011-2012; Source: Birjukovich R. M. Prilozhenie k dissertacii «Stroj сhulymsko-tjurkskogo jazyka» [Illjustrativnye materialy]. M., 1980. – pp. 53-62.
Archived at Department of Siberian lndigenous Languages, TSPU;
Published in: Birjukovich R. M. Le... more Archived at Department of Siberian lndigenous Languages, TSPU; Published in: Birjukovich R. M. Leksika chulymsko-tjurkskogo jazyka. Posobie k speckursu. Saratov: Izdatelstvo Saratovskogo universiteta, 1984. Pp.77-86. Tutal sub-dialect of Middle Chulym dialect. Speaker: V. M. Budeev, born 1901. Recorded by R. M. Birjukovich (1970?s) Glossed and translated into English: V. Lemskaya.
This paper aims at making a critical analysis of the data presented in a recently published book ... more This paper aims at making a critical analysis of the data presented in a recently published book (Li et al. 2008) on one of the two sub-dialects of the Middle Chulym dialect of the Chulym Turkic language, one of the highly endangered languages of Siberia. The main point of discussion is some data and occasional analytical issues in this book (phonology, morphology, vocabulary, etc.) in the context of those presented in other publications on the language, and compared with my own fieldwork carried out mostly with speakers in the community neighboring the one whose sub-dialect is described in the reviewed publication.
Annotated Folk and Daily Prose Texts in the Languages of Ob-Yenissei Area. // Аннотированные фольклорные и бытовые тексты обско-енисейского языкового ареала., 2021
Uploads
constructions. Possessive relations in the focus languages form a functional-semantic field, with a grammar core
composed of the third-type ezafe constructions as well as combinations of possessive pronouns and nouns marked
with possessive affixes. This marking is discourse-featured and optional in case of the 1st and 2nd person possessor,
but inalienable possession is manifested by the regular head marking of the personal pronominal possessive
constructions. Also non-ezafe and non-possessive usage of the 3rd person possessive affix is featured, which is
presumably affected by its article-like function.
On the periphery of the possessiveness functional-semantic field there are adyective affixes *-lɨɣ and *-ɣɨ, which
imply the possession of an obyect, quality or a feature, or manifest the idea of their accumulation and concentration.
nominal ones in Chulym Turkic. Based on new field data, examples of predicative possession constructions
in use are considered, locational, comitative, topical and transitive possession types are analyzed.
It is proven that topical possession constructions in Chulym Turkic also include genitive possession
constructions in which the logical subject (i.e. topic) is realized in the form of the possessive case. This
very construction is the most frequent one in expressing category of possession through relations of
predication in Chulym Turkic.
the Tomsk Region and Krasnoyarsk Territory who were officially recognized only in 2000. Some
scholars claim the Chulym Turks to be part of the Khakass people, however, this is not considered
justified (see works by A. P. Dul’zon, E. L. L’vova etc.) due to this becoming an excessively
generalized grouping of ethnic groups detached historically and quite differing linguistically.
There are several criteria possibly satisfying the demand for identifying an indigenous group:
etymology of (last) names, sociological characteristics, language, etc. Nevertheless, the Chulym
Turkic linguistic varieties have never been normalized, the system of writing has not been
introduced which strongly hinders the ‘objective’ analysis of the quality of language use among
the community. Moreover, the questions on language use in the All-Russian censuses of 2002
and 2010 demanded answers based on the population’s self-estimation only and did not provide
a specification of the terms used (especially regarding language).
The author suggests that the term native language (Russian родной язык) used in the questionnaire
of the censuses actually implies a traditional ethnic language whereas the population’s
understanding of the former term makes direct parallels with the original lexeme from which the
term native (Russian родной) is derived: a ‘clan, family, kin’. Thus, when claiming the Chulym
Turkic language to be a native language the respondent must not necessarily have reflected the
language they were fluent at, while their selection of nationality (Russian национальность) may
have been the result of preference in favor of this or that community with a strong economic and
social motivation.
In this light, the author believes that the drastic decrease of the Chulym Turkic population
from 656 in 2002 to 355 in 2010 is accounted for the transformation of ethnolinguistic selfidentification
rather than any ‘natural’ reasons.
territory. Recent surveys indicate the number of fluent speakers to be under fifteen. Chulym Turkic still bears the
status of a colloquial tongue. Several attempts have been made to create a writing system of the language (though the
language itself presently consists of two sub-dialects, each with unique phonemic fluctuation). This paper addresses
problems occurring at creating methodic materials in Chulym Turkic and, above all, connected with the phonemic
variations in the Chulym Turkic language that lead to difficulties in compiling a dictionary of the consultants’ mother
tongue (Chulym Turkic). Such variations occur, on the one hand, due to the widespread tendency of phoneme
reduction in an unstressed position and at the word end; on the other hand, they occur under the laws of the phoneme
alternation range in the conditions of a language system not ultimately formed.
Tegul’det District, 1970s.;
Speaker V. M. Budeev, born 1901;
Recorded by M. A. Abdrahmanov;
Glossing, translation and formatting by V. M. Lemskaya, 2009-2010;
Source: Jazyki i toponimija Sibiri. Vol. II. Tomsk, 1970. Pp. 58-60.
Pasechnoye village, Tyukhtet District, Krasnoyarsk Krai, 1970s.;
Speaker M. A. Skoblina, born 1911;
Recorded by R. M. Birjukovich;
Glossing, translation and formatting by V. M. Lemskaya, 2011-2012;
Source: Birjukovich R. M. Prilozhenie k dissertacii «Stroj сhulymsko-tjurkskogo jazyka» [Illjustrativnye materialy]. M., 1980. – pp. 53-62.
Published in: Birjukovich R. M. Leksika chulymsko-tjurkskogo jazyka. Posobie k speckursu. Saratov: Izdatelstvo Saratovskogo universiteta, 1984. Pp.77-86.
Tutal sub-dialect of Middle Chulym dialect.
Speaker: V. M. Budeev, born 1901.
Recorded by R. M. Birjukovich (1970?s)
Glossed and translated into English: V. Lemskaya.
Chulym Turkic language, one of the highly endangered languages of Siberia. The main point of discussion is some data and occasional analytical issues in this book (phonology,
morphology, vocabulary, etc.) in the context of those presented in other publications on the language, and compared with my own fieldwork carried out mostly with speakers in
the community neighboring the one whose sub-dialect is described in the reviewed publication.
constructions. Possessive relations in the focus languages form a functional-semantic field, with a grammar core
composed of the third-type ezafe constructions as well as combinations of possessive pronouns and nouns marked
with possessive affixes. This marking is discourse-featured and optional in case of the 1st and 2nd person possessor,
but inalienable possession is manifested by the regular head marking of the personal pronominal possessive
constructions. Also non-ezafe and non-possessive usage of the 3rd person possessive affix is featured, which is
presumably affected by its article-like function.
On the periphery of the possessiveness functional-semantic field there are adyective affixes *-lɨɣ and *-ɣɨ, which
imply the possession of an obyect, quality or a feature, or manifest the idea of their accumulation and concentration.
nominal ones in Chulym Turkic. Based on new field data, examples of predicative possession constructions
in use are considered, locational, comitative, topical and transitive possession types are analyzed.
It is proven that topical possession constructions in Chulym Turkic also include genitive possession
constructions in which the logical subject (i.e. topic) is realized in the form of the possessive case. This
very construction is the most frequent one in expressing category of possession through relations of
predication in Chulym Turkic.
the Tomsk Region and Krasnoyarsk Territory who were officially recognized only in 2000. Some
scholars claim the Chulym Turks to be part of the Khakass people, however, this is not considered
justified (see works by A. P. Dul’zon, E. L. L’vova etc.) due to this becoming an excessively
generalized grouping of ethnic groups detached historically and quite differing linguistically.
There are several criteria possibly satisfying the demand for identifying an indigenous group:
etymology of (last) names, sociological characteristics, language, etc. Nevertheless, the Chulym
Turkic linguistic varieties have never been normalized, the system of writing has not been
introduced which strongly hinders the ‘objective’ analysis of the quality of language use among
the community. Moreover, the questions on language use in the All-Russian censuses of 2002
and 2010 demanded answers based on the population’s self-estimation only and did not provide
a specification of the terms used (especially regarding language).
The author suggests that the term native language (Russian родной язык) used in the questionnaire
of the censuses actually implies a traditional ethnic language whereas the population’s
understanding of the former term makes direct parallels with the original lexeme from which the
term native (Russian родной) is derived: a ‘clan, family, kin’. Thus, when claiming the Chulym
Turkic language to be a native language the respondent must not necessarily have reflected the
language they were fluent at, while their selection of nationality (Russian национальность) may
have been the result of preference in favor of this or that community with a strong economic and
social motivation.
In this light, the author believes that the drastic decrease of the Chulym Turkic population
from 656 in 2002 to 355 in 2010 is accounted for the transformation of ethnolinguistic selfidentification
rather than any ‘natural’ reasons.
territory. Recent surveys indicate the number of fluent speakers to be under fifteen. Chulym Turkic still bears the
status of a colloquial tongue. Several attempts have been made to create a writing system of the language (though the
language itself presently consists of two sub-dialects, each with unique phonemic fluctuation). This paper addresses
problems occurring at creating methodic materials in Chulym Turkic and, above all, connected with the phonemic
variations in the Chulym Turkic language that lead to difficulties in compiling a dictionary of the consultants’ mother
tongue (Chulym Turkic). Such variations occur, on the one hand, due to the widespread tendency of phoneme
reduction in an unstressed position and at the word end; on the other hand, they occur under the laws of the phoneme
alternation range in the conditions of a language system not ultimately formed.
Tegul’det District, 1970s.;
Speaker V. M. Budeev, born 1901;
Recorded by M. A. Abdrahmanov;
Glossing, translation and formatting by V. M. Lemskaya, 2009-2010;
Source: Jazyki i toponimija Sibiri. Vol. II. Tomsk, 1970. Pp. 58-60.
Pasechnoye village, Tyukhtet District, Krasnoyarsk Krai, 1970s.;
Speaker M. A. Skoblina, born 1911;
Recorded by R. M. Birjukovich;
Glossing, translation and formatting by V. M. Lemskaya, 2011-2012;
Source: Birjukovich R. M. Prilozhenie k dissertacii «Stroj сhulymsko-tjurkskogo jazyka» [Illjustrativnye materialy]. M., 1980. – pp. 53-62.
Published in: Birjukovich R. M. Leksika chulymsko-tjurkskogo jazyka. Posobie k speckursu. Saratov: Izdatelstvo Saratovskogo universiteta, 1984. Pp.77-86.
Tutal sub-dialect of Middle Chulym dialect.
Speaker: V. M. Budeev, born 1901.
Recorded by R. M. Birjukovich (1970?s)
Glossed and translated into English: V. Lemskaya.
Chulym Turkic language, one of the highly endangered languages of Siberia. The main point of discussion is some data and occasional analytical issues in this book (phonology,
morphology, vocabulary, etc.) in the context of those presented in other publications on the language, and compared with my own fieldwork carried out mostly with speakers in
the community neighboring the one whose sub-dialect is described in the reviewed publication.