International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 4 (2022) 75–99 JEAL brill.com/jeal Book Reviews ∵ On Difficulties Encountered in Etymologizing the Turkish Lexicon Marek Stachowski, Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch der türkischen Sprache. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2019. 379 pp. ISBN 978-83-8138-158-1. The book under review is an etymological dictionary of Turkish, the standard language of modern Turkey. A small number of dialect words are included, the author says in his introduction, when he found them useful for etymology or interesting for some other reason. Not all standard words are mentioned, however; the very common hep ‘invariably, always’, peş ‘behind, after’ or becermek ‘to do well, accomplish’ are missing, for example.1 Reconstructions do not target Proto-Turkic but what the author calls Common Turkic, the language, he says, spoken by the Turkic tribes after the departure of the Proto-Bulgarians, between the 5th and the 7th–8th centuries. Beside the entries there is a 30-page bibliography and, at the end, indices of German and Polish terms. Stachowski is wonderful with loans, documenting with infinite erudition all the Islamic, eastern and western European, Slavic and Caucasian sources: He is at home with the lexical connections between Arabic and Persian as well as Armenian and Persian, between Greek and Italian and within the Balkan 1 becermek cannot be related to başarmak, as has generally been assumed, because no ʃ > ʤ process exists in this language and because harmony classes are phonological in Turkic. Its source might be Persian bajā ‘in place, right, proper’. The only reason for the appearance of the name of the medieval Khazars in an entry Hazar seems to have been that the author fancied the etymology of this name from a verb kaz- which he translates as ‘to wander, to wander about’; but there is no such verb. The Caspian Sea is known as Hazar denizi in Turkish, but that is not mentioned in the dictionary. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/25898833-00410021 JEAL_004_01_07_Book Reviews.indd 75 7/1/2022 2:13:54 PM 76 Book Reviews contact area; with varieties of Italian, with the integration of French loans beside the Turkish language reform and with the history of Greek. The only complaint one can have here is that the author generally quotes Greek as it is spelled – archaically, with hardly any concessions to pronunciation. But Greek sounded ‘modern’ probably already half a millennium ago, and that is what the Turks borrowed. The Greek recourse to mp for [b] and nt for [d] is especially bizarre in this work, when e.g. Turkish bezelye ‘pea’ is said to come from Greek mpizélia2 or ha(y)di ‘go ahead, come on’ from Greek ánte – pronounced as [áde], with Greek ágete as source. Reading half of the book, I noted only two words which Stachowski did not recognize as loans: devre ‘circuit, cycle, period’ comes from Arabic dawra ‘turn’ and is not related to Old Turkic tägrä ‘around, surrounding’, although this latter survived into Old Anatolian Turkish and is still in use in Turkmen.3 Secondly, ağa ‘chief, senior’ (dealt with again below) is a loan from Mongolic aqa ‘elder brother, senior’. Concerning bedava ‘for free, on the house’, Stachowski does not accept the proposed etymologies but has nothing else to suggest. I think the adjective is likely to come from Persian bī which, when prefixed to nouns, signifies ‘without’ (e.g. in bi-idrāk ‘unintelligent’), plus a loan from Arabic dacwa, which can also signify ‘claim, demand’. Unfortunately, it is difficult to praise the work where the lexemes are of Turkic stock, for several reasons: Firstly, the author consistently disregards the material of the huge Old Turkic corpus, as if one e.g. disregarded Sanskrit when writing an etymological dictionary of an Indo-Iranian language. He should have seen in Clauson 19724 that the source of güvey5 ‘bridegroom, son in law’6 is not *küδeg but küdägü,7 and realized that gerçek ‘true, real’ should come from *kertü+çek (kerti ‘true, truth’ survived in Karaim). He should not 2 If you want to find a bar in Greece, look for a μπαρ. 3 dawra is related to the source of Turkish devir ‘era; cycle; transfer’. As eğri ‘bent, skew’ or değirmen ‘mill’ show, *g is not labialized in this position. A triviality concerning the entry gravyer: French Gruyère is not the name of the Swiss company making the cheese but of a wonderful little place on the Bern-Lausanne highway, from where the cheese comes. 4 This wonderful dictionary is mentioned in the bibliography, but the author does not seem to have used it at all. 5 This word is in fact güveyi, as we see in the Türk Dil Kurumu 2011 dictionary (güveyi+si with possessive suffix); the Mongolic synonym of Old Turkic küdägü is küregen, highly likely its cognate. 6 I thought it would serve the reader better if I translated Stachowski’s lexeme meanings into English and did not copy the original German, even if the result may, on occasion, not perfectly correspond to the source. 7 The sound in Khâqânî Turkic written with the letter dhāl belongs to the phoneme /d/; I will from here on not be referring to the Old Turkic phoneme as δ, as Stachowski does, but as d. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 4 (2022) 75–99 JEAL_004_01_07_Book Reviews.indd 76 7/1/2022 2:13:54 PM Book Reviews 77 have suggested Persian as the source of bakır ‘copper’ since Clauson quotes it from Old Uygur8 and from a South Siberian inscription. Stachowski thinks that ‘yesterday’ is the primary meaning of the lexeme dün (< tǖn) and ‘night’ its secondary meaning, with the argument that this latter is in use in marginal areas and not in the center of the Turkic world; however, it is typical for innovations to emerge in the center, leaving archaicities to the margin. The idea would have hardly come up if the author knew of tünäk ‘dark place, prison’, tünär- ‘to be or get dark’, the common tünärig ‘dark’ or tünlä ‘at night’. Some features of Turkish are archaic, even more archaic than Old Uygur, also e.g. in preserving the non-labialized dip ‘bottom part’ versus Old Turkic tüp, as pointed out in Doerfer 1965; the author is unaware that labial consonants often labialize vowels both preceding and following them according to different specific distributions, and wrongly thinks that this is a case of delabialization caused by the possessive suffix. Stachowski derives büyü ‘magic’ from hypothetical *büg- ‘to know’, which is said to be the base of Old Uygur bügün- ‘to know’ and bügüş ~ bögüş ‘knowledge’. However, we know at least since Wilkens 2021 that Old Uygur bökün- and böküş and their base bök- have /k/; in fact, this consonant survives in Khakas in lexemes with the appropriate meaning. bäzä‘to decorate’ and Türkmen beϑle-, a cognate of Turkish besle- ‘to nourish’, are here derived from a nonexistent *bes ‘decoration’; however, bäzä- comes from bädiz+ä-, as does Turkmen beδe-. bädzä-t- ‘to have decorated’ and bädizçi ‘decorator’ are attested since the Orkhon inscriptions (Clauson 1972: 310, 390). The author derives hani ‘where is, then, …?’ from *kā+yan+ı ~ *kay+yan+ı which he translates as ‘which side of it?’. The Old Turkic interrogative kanı, attested since the Orkhon inscriptions with exactly the same pragmatic use as Turkish hani, is not even mentioned (see Erdal 2004: 517). As the entries doğmak and doğru show, Stachowski is unaware that Common Turkic tug- ‘to be born; (of the sun and moon) to rise’ and tog- ‘to cross, traverse’ are two distinct verbs (see e. g. Clauson 1972: 465). doğru comes from the converb of the causative of Common Turkic tog-, not tug-. The source of dayı ‘maternal uncle’ is given as *tāy, but tagay ‘maternal uncle’ is widely attested in Old Uygur, in the Dîvân Luġâti ’t-Turk (Dankoff & Kelly 1982–85), in Chaghatay and in the Codex Cumanicus (Grønbech 1942). There are many more cases in this book where disregarding early sources has led to wrong etymologies. 8 Clauson prepared his dictionary half a century ago, and most research on Old Turkic was carried out after its publication; many more instances of bakır have come up in the meantime. With the appearance of Wilkens 2021 we finally have an adequate representation of the Old Turkic word stock. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 4 (2022) 75–99 JEAL_004_01_07_Book Reviews.indd 77 7/1/2022 2:13:54 PM 78 Book Reviews One general remark concerning low second syllable vowels where the first syllable has /o/ or /ö/ will be in order. As most writing systems used for Old Turkic do not distinguish between /u/ and /o/ and between /ü/ and /ö/, the first editors of Old Turkic sources followed their knowledge of Ottoman to read all second-syllable labial vowels as u and ü respectively, and never as o and ö. However, the Brāhmī and Tibetan alphabets, also used for writing Old Turkic, do distinguish between these vowels, so we need to learn the pronunciation of Old Turkic labial vowels from them. In texts written in these two scripts we find, among others, the words köŋöl ‘heart’, ordo ‘army camp’, sögöt ‘tree’, tokoz ‘nine’, yogon ‘thick’, ogol ‘son’, otoŋ ‘wood’ and gögös ‘breast’, whose Turkish cognates show /u ü/ in the second syllable, and orto ‘middle’, toko ‘belt buckle’, töpö ‘hilltop’, törö ‘teaching’ and bodo- ‘to paint’, whose Turkish cognates have /a ä/; the reason for both processes is that /o ö/ is blocked outside the first syllables of Turkish stems.9 Stachowski is unaware of all this; he therefore thinks, e.g., that Turkish töre and Old Turkic törǖ (as he reads it) are distinct derivates from an imaginary root *tör or tör-. See below for his problems with boya- ‘to paint’. Secondly, Stachowski wantonly invents suffixes and stems for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Here are some of the problematic entries. The source of aya ‘palm of the hand’ cannot be *āδa from a verb *āδ- despite Yakut ıtıs10 ‘paw’ and Tuvan adıš with /t/ and /d/ respectively; these two in fact come from an (here unmentioned) Common Turkic lexeme which appears in Old Uygur as adut ‘a handful’ (Clauson 1972: 44): Common Turkic [δ] would not give y in Khâqânî Turkic or Old Uygur, where aya is abundantly attested, but remains unchanged. Besides, the only Common Turkic -A11 suffix forms converbs and not nouns. Stachowski did not assign any meaning to the hypothetical verb *āδ- but the entry for ayı ‘bear’ has a different *āδ- translated as ‘to grow old’: He thinks the second *āδ- was the base of an Old Turkic lexeme which he spells as adug12 and assumes to come from Common Turkic *aδug ‘old’, a semantic connection which he explains through taboo. A third invented proto-stem *āδappears in the entry for aygır ‘stallion’ (corresponding to Old Turkic adgır), 9 10 11 12 See Erdal 2004: 89. This latter process is a rule in Modern Uyghur: Many first syllable /o ö/ words which, in other languages, have /u ü/ in their second syllable show /a ä/ in that language. The spelling of the vowel which the author writes as y (the Polish igrek) is here changed in favor of modern Turkish practice. I use “-” for verbal and “+” for nominal juncture, and capital letters for archiphonemes. X is the fourfold vowel alternation i ~ ı ~ u ~ ü; letters put into brackets appear under certain regular circumstances but not under others. The Old Turkic ‘bear’ lexeme is adıg and not adug (Clauson 1972: 45–46). Moreover, Old Turkic had the suffixes -(X)g and -(O)k but no suffix -Ug (vowels were as distinctive as consonants). International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 4 (2022) 75–99 JEAL_004_01_07_Book Reviews.indd 78 7/1/2022 2:13:54 PM Book Reviews 79 which is given the translation ‘to get excited; to mount (an animal)’. The fact that stallions mount mares does not justify the creation of a verb stem. Common Turkic had ād- ‘to get sober or clear of mind; to be surprised, astonished’ and ad- ‘to change (intr.)’ but nothing which could be connected to the lexemes of these three entries. esirmek ‘to be drunk, crazy or furious’ is here derived from an imaginary verb *es- ‘to lose one’s self-control’ from which *esür- is said to be a causative/intensive derivate.13 Although Old Uygur äsür- looks like a causative, it clearly isn’t one, though, as it is intransitive, and Old Turkic causatives never express “intensive” content. bile ‘(together) with; even’ is here said to come from a converb form *birilä ‘getting connected’, from bir ‘one’, but that is quite impossible: Turkic languages have no denominal formative +il-, there never was one, and the converb suffix of the deverbal verb formative variant -ilis -ü, not -ä. In fact, birlä shows the common derivational suffix +lA, which was productive even in Ottoman Turkish well into the 16th century; in Old Turkic it is found also in ‘tägirmilä’ all around’, oŋarula ‘clockwise’, üzälä ‘over’, tünlä ‘at night’, arala ‘in the meantime’, tiriglä ‘in one’s lifetime’, yaŋıla ‘anew’, in yänälä and ikilä, which both signify ‘again’, and in many more derivates (see pp. 403– 406 in Erdal 1991, another work mentioned in the bibliography but apparently not used very much). While the ghost-formative +il- is said to derive verbs, the author also offers a ghost-formative +il deriving nouns: He ‘discovers’ it in ağıl ‘halo’ (the optical phenomenon), which he derives from *ak ‘white’ (though halos need not be white). The primary meaning of ağıl is ‘an enclosure’, and the semantic expansion to ‘halo’ would actually be the same as found in German Hof or Swedish gård, which also have both meanings. The author says that boya ‘paint’ cannot come from boya-g because the Turkmen cognate is also boya without /g/, whereas the coda /g/ of ϑag < *sag ‘healthy and well’ is preserved there. The /g/ is preserved also in Turkish sağ, so the reference to Turkmen is unnecessary, the rule for Oguz languages being that coda /g/ is dropped in words of two or more syllables but not in single-syllable ones. Stachowski’s solution to this problem is the assumption of a derivate with +a from the root *boδ, beside verb derivates with +ā- giving Turkish and Turkmen boya- ‘to paint’ and with +ū- to account for its Old Turkic synonym bodu-. But there is no Early Turkic denominal noun suffix +a and bodu- is a misreading for bodo-, as discussed above: This verb and its very common derivate bodog come from boda-, the first vowel having assimilated the second. The same non-existent +a props up again in Stachowski’s suggestion to derive ağa ‘elder 13 An Old Uygur cognate özür- is also mentioned but does not exist (see Clauson 1972: 251). In fact, Old Uygur /z/ would never correspond to Turkish /s/, and backward rounding with ä > ö is a Modern Uyghur though not an Old Uygur feature. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 4 (2022) 75–99 JEAL_004_01_07_Book Reviews.indd 79 7/1/2022 2:13:55 PM 80 Book Reviews brother; mister’ (an evident loan from Mongolic) from *āk ‘white’, because old people’s beards are white (but many ağas are not old). akçe ‘money’ is, on the other hand, likely to come from Common Turkic *āk ‘white’, an etymology accepted by venerable scholars such as Tietze 2002. The author dismisses it because of its Ottoman spelling with ghain, apparently unaware of consonant voicing regular in Oguz languages after long vowels; note the spelling aġ in Ottoman texts between the 14th and 16th centuries and the derivate ağarmak ‘to get white’. A verb āg- ‘to get toppled’ in use in Turkmen but not attested in Old Turkic is brought in to account for both agır ‘heavy, difficult’ and aksak ‘lame’. The semantic connection looks unlikely for both lexemes but, more importantly, there is no deverbal suffix -sA-; also, the vowel of the proposed source is long whereas the vowel of aksa- ‘to limp; to function improperly’ is short. For güvenmek ‘to trust’ Stachowski mentions nonexistent Old Uygur küben-, which he takes to come from a noun *küb ‘trust, hope’. Old Uygur has küvän- ‘to be proud’ and küväz ‘proud, pride’, which must come from *küväClauson (1972: 690–692); but *küvä- can very well be a simple, underived verb! Turkic çärig ‘troops drawn up in battle order’, mentioned in the entry çeri ‘army’, should not be taken to come from *çär- ‘to fight’ when there is no evidence for such a verb: çärig could very well be a simplex or a borrowing. There is, of course, a suffix -(X)g, but not all words which look like derivates need to be derivates: This is one of the most central principles of etymology. Turkish (and Turkmen) el ‘hand’ is said to come from Common Turkic *äl ‘hand’ while synonymous Yakut älī ~ ilī, Yellow Uygur elıγ as well as Old Uygur and Chaghatay älik14 and Lobnor älik ~ ilik ‘finger’ are said to have been formed with a suffix; but there is no such denominal suffix. Rather, älig is the source: ‘finger’ being an inalienable concept, the 3rd person possessive suffix was linked to the stem and its second vowel was syncopated (Bang 1921 and Erdal 2010); the dropping of the /g/ of *älg+i is regular for Oguz Turkic. The source of dolamak ‘to wind round, enwrap, whirl’ is tolgamak, attested with similar meanings in Old Uygur and Khâqânî Turkic (Clauson 1972: 497); we just mentioned the regular /g/drop. There is not the slightest evidence for Old Uygur tola-, which the author postulates. He invents a common Turkic *tol- from which tolgā- and tolā- are supposed to have been derived, but there are no deverbal verb formatives -gāand -ā-. Nor can getir- ‘to bring’ be related to götür-, whose original meaning was ‘to lift up’; such vowel alternations are not possible in the early Turkic 14 The coda in hundreds of examples of Old Uygur elig ‘hand’ is not a /k/ but a /g/. I changed Stachowski’s spelling of the low front unrounded vowel from e to ä because e is in scientific Turcological publications used for the middle-high front unrounded vowel. But in this lexeme the onset vowel is /e/, not /ä/. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 4 (2022) 75–99 JEAL_004_01_07_Book Reviews.indd 80 7/1/2022 2:13:55 PM Book Reviews 81 languages. avunmak ‘to be comforted, consoled, distracted’ and avutmak ‘to console’ are supplied with a Common Turkic source *āb- which, the author says, exists in Old Uygur av- ‘to enjoy something’. Old Uygur has no such verb; it has av- ‘to crowd around somebody’, often used in unfriendly and even threatening contexts (see Wilkens 2021). Since the base of Old Turkic avın- ‘to enjoy oneself’ and avıt- ‘to console, to pamper’ is not attested anywhere, it is unclear whether it had one syllable, or two (as has been proposed because of a possible Hungarian cognate). değişmek ‘to change’ is here derived from deŋ, said to be the Oguz variant of *teŋ ‘value, quality; equal’. But verbal suffixes like -(X) ş-, which expresses cooperation, vying and parallel behavior, do not, in Turkic languages, get added to nominal bases (beside the incompatibility of the meaning). banmak ‘to dip something in a liquid’ cannot be related to batmak ‘to sink, go down’ by assuming a base *bā- (otherwise attested with the meaning ‘to bind’) if there are no parallels to such suffixation: -n- forms intransitive derivates and -t- causative ones and never the opposite: Turkic derivational morphology is a consistent and rule-governed system. Thirdly, there needs to be a reasonable phonological and semantic similarity between words and their suggested sources. Therefore, änük ‘cub’ cannot be connected with Uygur yeni- ‘to become light’, the base of yenig ‘light’, as proposed by Stachowski – although Maḥmûd (and only he) gives this verb also with the meaning ‘to bear’ – stating that this is only about women and not animals (pp. 492–3; Dankoff & Kelly 1984): Both vowels of these words are different, and the verb has an onset /y/ which the noun does not have (no variation in either word). For the same reasons, erimek ‘to melt’ cannot be related to Altay Turkic, Kırgız and Uzbek iri- ‘to sour, get acidic, rot’ because this latter comes from yirü- ~ irü- and is related to yiriŋ ‘pus’. Old Turkic ärü- ‘to melt’ and (y)irü- ‘to rot, putrify’ cannot be connected semantically; nor can ısır- ‘to bite’ and ısıt- ‘to heat’. The meanings of bayram ‘merriment, feast’ and bayrak ‘flag’ (both originally with a dental instead of the /y/) are too distant for a connection: Old Uygur badrok, Khâqânî badrak was a halberd or a lance, and a piece of silk could be attached to its head to serve as a flag (see Clauson 1972 for all of this). davranmak ‘to act’ and its source tavranmak ‘to hurry, try hard, be zealous’ cannot come from a verb *tāp- ‘to stamp or tread on something, kick it’ (in spite of Turkmen dābıra- ‘to run, go fast’) because the Common Turkic verb with this meaning is not tap- but täp- and synharmonism classes are phonemic; beside, of course, the semantic incompatibility between tavranand täp-, the unexplained -ra-, and the phonemic opposition between the two labial consonants. The author derives geyik ‘deer’ from Sogdian keδ ‘strange’ over Common Turkic *kēδik defined as ‘wild; wild animal, wild game’ with the assumption (needed for the Sogdian connection) that the adjective ‘wild’ is its International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 4 (2022) 75–99 JEAL_004_01_07_Book Reviews.indd 81 7/1/2022 2:13:55 PM 82 Book Reviews primary meaning. There are hundreds of examples of käyik ‘non-domesticated living being’ with y in Old Turkic15 including the Toñukuk inscription; it appears with y (or with a long vowel after contraction) in all Turkic languages (whereas *δ would have given z, d or t in some of them) and in various Middle Turkic sources, and the Dîvân Luġâti ’t-Turk has 27 examples with y (referred to in Dankoff & Kelly 1985). The base of Stachowski’s hypothesis is the 11th century Kutadgu Bilig, where ms. C in two of the five instances has δ where the two other mss. have y while in a third instance the same two mss. have y while C has z. In a fourth instance, ms. C is missing but A has y whereas B has δ. The mss. also feature two poems also said to be written by Yūsuf; an instance in a poem in ms. C has d whereas, in another poem instance, C has y whereas A appears to have s instead (see Arat 1947). While these details of the Kutadgu Bilig mss. need an explanation, they cannot serve as a solid base for a Common Turkic etymology against all other available evidence, especially since the meaning mentioned for the Sogdian word (I did not find it in the Sogdian dictionaries which I consulted) does not really accord with that of käyik. The worst etymology I have come across is, I think, that of evirmek ‘to change, invert, alter, to turn over or around’, which is derived from *eb ‘house’ through *ebür-; the original meaning of the verb would then, according to Stachowski, be ‘to go around the house’. However, the meaning ‘house’ is by no means part of the meaning of the verb in any Turkic language at any stage of history. Old Turkic ävir- ‘to go around; alternate, change, translate’ is attested since the Orkhon inscriptions. Its inscriptional and Old Uygur instances all have /i/ in its second syllable; the /ü/ is not primary but comes up in Khâqânî Turkic, through regular influence of the /v/ (Clauson 1972). Turkic languages have no denominal suffix +ür- (or indeed +ir-); as has been pointed out, deverbal suffixes (like the causative suffix, which the author here has in mind) do not get added to nouns. I think the main reason for the failure of this work with many Turkic etymologies is the author’s near-absolute reliance on Sevortjan 1974–; the reference ÈSTJa to that compilation of utter ignorance is found in practically all relevant entries. The author has written a textbook on etymology, which has even been translated into Turkish (Stachowski 2011). It was therefore doubly important to get into all this detail here, to warn the uninitiated user to be careful: The review of such a work can’t possibly mention everything. Marcel Erdal AQ 1 merdal4@gmail.com 15 Mostly but not exclusively the ones which are hunted; käyikçi ‘wild game hunter’ is also rather common. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 4 (2022) 75–99 JEAL_004_01_07_Book Reviews.indd 82 7/1/2022 2:13:55 PM Book Reviews 83 References Arat, R. R. 1947. Kutadgu Bilig. I. Metin. Istanbul. Bang, W. 1921. ‘Vom Köktürkischen zum Osmanischen. Vorarbeiten zu einer vergleichenden Grammatik des Türkischen 4. Mitteilung: Durch das Possessivsuffix erweiterte Nominalstämme.’ Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1921, Nr. 2. Berlin. Clauson, G. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford. Dankoff, R. & Kelly, J. (eds.) 1982–1985. Maḥmūd al-Kāšγarī. Compendium of the Turkic dialects, 3 parts. Harvard. Doerfer, G. 1965. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Erdal, M. 1991. Old Turkic Word Formation: A Functional Approach to the Lexicon, 2 vols. Wiesbaden. Erdal, M. 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden & Boston. Erdal, M. 2010. ‘Inalienability and Syncopation in Turkish’. In: H. Boeschoten & J. Rentzsch (eds.) Turcology in Mainz – Turkologie in Mainz. Turcologica 82. Wiesbaden. 147–153. Grønbech, K. 1942. Komanisches Wörterbuch: Türkischer Wortindex zu Codex Comanicus. Kopenhagen. Kurumu, Türk Dil. 2011. Güncel Türkçe Sözlük. Ankara. (Online version continuously updated.) Róna-Tas, A. & Berta, Á. (mit Unterstützung von Károly L.). 2011. West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian, 2 vols., Wiesbaden. Sevortjan, È. V. & al. 1974–. Ètimologičeskij slovaŕ tjurkskich jazykov, vol. I–, Moskva. Stachowski, M. 2011. Etimoloji. Ankara. Tietze, A. 2002. Tarihi ve etimolojik Türkiye Türkçesi lugati. Sprachgeschichtliches und etymologisches Wörterbuch des Türkei-Türkischen, vol. 1. İstanbul & Wien. Wilkens, J. 2021. Handwörterbuch des Altuigurischen. Altuigurisch – Deutsch – Türkisch. Göttingen. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 4 (2022) 75–99 JEAL_004_01_07_Book Reviews.indd 83 7/1/2022 2:13:56 PM