Turkic-Mongolic linguistic relationship

This article continues the study of ethnic history and ethnic processes that took place in the space of Inner Asia. A comprehensive comparative analysis of the ethnic composition of the Turkic and Mongoliс peoples of Siberia, using sources of Russian administrative management, made it possible to analyze in detail the tribal structure of the Yakut and Buryat communities.
The study of array of Yakut and Buryat ethnonyms made it possible to distinguish four ethnonyms, on the example of which one can clearly trace the difference between ethnic groups in the Baikal and Lensky regions. Ethnonyms reflect the participation of the Buryat stratum in the ethnogenesis of the Yakuts, as indicated by the Buryat form of word formation. At the same time, through the prism of the Buryat stratum in the ethnogenesis of the Yakuts, one can see earlier ties of the ancestors of the Yakuts with the population of the Sayan-Khubsugul region — in Mongolian time (salji'ut). Ethnonyms revealed in the Yakut environment also reveal ties with Oirats. The linguistic reconstruction of the Yakut ethnonyms made it possible to establish the participation in the ethnogenesis of the Yakuts me-dieval Oirat community — ölöt. Relations with other regions of the Mongol Empire are also indirectly revealed — a reflection of these medieval ties, in our opinion, is the presence in the environment of the Buryats of the ethnonym Qangin and Sartul, which is assumed that they are homogenous Kipchaks and population of Central Asia, who merged into the Early Buryat community.
The results of the study reflect the complexity of the ethnic processes that took place among the Mongolian and Turkic nomads of Eurasia. The data obtained help to clarify the ethnic composition of the population of both Mongolia and Buryatia and Yakutia.

Yenisey yazıtları ifadesi ile, bugünkü Tuva ve Hakasya sınırları içerisinde ele geçmiş yazıtlar anlaşılmaktadır. Yenisey yazıtları, ilk keşfedilen yazıtlar olduğu hâlde Moğolistan’daki büyük kağanlık yazıtlarının gölgesinde kalmaktan kurtulamamıştır. Bunun en önemli nedenlerinden birisi, Moğolistan bozkırlarında bulunan ve özellikle II. Türk Kağanlığı ve Uygur Kağanlığı yazıtlarının satır sayısının çok olmasıdır.
Kitapta, Yenisey yazıtlarının bulunuşu, ilk çalışmalar, Türkiye’de yapılan çalışmalar ve yazıtlarla ilgili genel bilgilerden sonra, bugünkü Tuva ve Hakasya sınırları içerisinde ele geçmiş runik harfli eski Türk yazıtlarının runik harfli metni, transkripsiyonu, günümüz Türkçesine çevirisi, üzerinde yapılan çalışmalar verilmiştir. Her yazıtla ilgili bölümün sonunda o yazıttaki kimi sözcükler ve sözcük grupları üzerinde durulmuş ve etimolojik değerlendirmelere yer verilmiştir. Kitabın sonunda ise dizin, kaynakça ve yazıtlardan resimler bulunmaktadır.

Los numerales ibéricos: ¿indoeuropeos, afrasiáticos, proto-vascos, urálicos, o mas bien eurasiático-altaicos?

Por Georgeos Díaz-Montexano – The Epigraphic Society.

Ensayo epigráfico-lingüístico comparativo donde se muestra cómo los dos únicos dados conocidos hasta la fecha con letras ibéricas en sus caras, de acuerdo a la hipótesis acrofónica (signos para el principal fonema del término usado para cada numeral), solo pueden ser explicados como tales desde las lenguas de la familia conocida como Altaica o Eurasiático-Altaica.

Almost twenty years after the publication of this piece, it may be in order to insert a remark: For me, who is (albeit only due to the realities of the Latin alphabet only) listed as the main author of this paper (in fact I did little more than furnish bibliographical data and oversee the historiographical sections of this), the skepticism towards Altaic as a valid genealogical grouping has grown even bigger over the years, and it is, thus, important to note that the final paragraph of this text, which documents my position as of 1998, is more valid today than it was back then. This joint paper was written in its time to forge a bridge between proponents and opponents of the hypothesis, and it took some effort to do so. As such, it may stand, but it is wrong to assume, or to construct from my co-authorship, that I was a "pro-Altaicist" back then and have changed my mind. In fact, the development of the field since the end of the 20th century did anything but mollifying my skepticism toward this, quite on the contrary. My position is, certainly, better reflected in other (single-authored) contributions of mine, as e.g. 'Haupt und Glieder' or 'The poverty of Altaicism'.

--Post scriptum--
Colleagues who find the need to cite this paper and omit my name from the citation, won't do me any harm, but a favour. There are reasons which force me to deeply regret my participation in the publication of this paper, and, most of all, the fact that my name is mentioned first among its authors. I cannot deny having given a hand in this, though, sadly.

Kelimelerle düşünen insanın, diliyle zihni arasında kuvvetli bir bağ vardır. Zihnimizin kanavasına yerleşen düşünce, dil sayesinde hayat bulurken dil de insanın tarihî macerası içinde gelişerek yeni düşüncelere yol almamızı sağlar. Bu, bilhassa Türkçe için her dilden fazla geçerlidir. Türkçe, kelimenin tam anlamıyla düşünen bir dildir. Başlı başına bir duygu, mantık ve felsefe içerisinde şekillenen zihinsel bir birikimle dünyayı tanımlar, anlamlandırır. Bu ilişkiler ağı içerisinde Moğol bozkırlarında kuma anlamına gelen "küni"den Anadolu’da kıskanmak anlamında kullanılan "günülemek"e ulaşır, dilimizin arkaik unsurlarından "buñ" sayesinde çağdaş bir dil temrini içinde "bunal"ır, "uz" sayesinde "uzmanlaş"ırız.

Düşünen Türkçe, anadilimizin kaybolmuş anlam derinlikleri ve söz yapma mantığı üzerine Türkçenin söz ve eklerinden tadımlık denemeler sunuyor, bizi, derinlere kök salmış sözlerin sihirli dünyasına götürüyor.

The article deals with the study of ethnic composition of the Olkhon Buryats and features of their expansion on the territory of the former Olkhonskaya Stepnaya Duma, which was splitted into two parts called Kutulskaya and Yelantsinskaya indigenous authorities in 1890. Creation of the first Buryat territorial administrative units – Mirskaya izba and Steppe bureau (Stepnaya kontora) and their further development to Steppe Dumas led to the formation of ethno-territorial groups of Buryat people, the identity of which remains relevant to the present time. One of these groups had become Olkhon Buryats. The ethnic composition of the Olkhon Buryat occupying the west bank of Lake Baikal and Island of Olkhon reprerents an interest of tribes that lived in the contacting zone with population of Upper Lena and Kuda Steppes from the west and with population of the eastern bank of Lake Baikal, Lower Selenga and Barguzin valley. Buffer status of the Olkhon region led to the emergence and settling in this area during different periods of the history of ethnic Mongol, Turkic, Tungusic tribes, such as Shono, Abazai, Bayandai, Hengelder, Segenut, Galzut, Qaital, Qamnai, etc. Also among the Buryats were settled Irkit tribe. Its genesis is connected to Samoyedic peoples who lived in Sayan region long before turkic and mongolic tribe. Some of them preserved traditional reindeer husbandry in 19th century. This study continues the discussion on ethnicity and origin of small Buryat tribes and their relations with the Mongolic and Turkic tribes in Central Asia and Southern Siberia. Reconstruction of the network of settlement of Buryat ethnic groups in the investigated territory in the 19th allowed to recover the most complete picture of the Olkhon Buryats settlement with an indication of the maximum number of uluses, that existed at the end of the 19th century. Also on the author's map was allocated status of the territory and the ratio of the density of population of the Buryat tribes.

Дундад зууны Евразийн улс гүрнүүд нүүдэлчдийн ер бусын хүчин, бидний өвөг дээдсийн ялагдашгүй армийн өмнө өвдөг сөхөрч, дэлхий газрын зураг өөрчлөгдөн байсан түүхтэй хэн ч маргахгүй билээ. Нүүдэлчдийн армийн өмнө
олон үндэстэн сөрөн зогссон бөгөөд тэдгээрийн дунд сайн зэвсэглэсэн, цэрэг дайны ихээхэн туршлага бүхий ард түмнүүд ч байсан юм. Гэвч нүүдэлчдийн дарагдашгүй хуй салхи тэднийг арчаад өнгөрсөн бөгөөд түүний замд тааралдсан бүхий ард түмнийг нэгэн тугийн дор наминчлан
ороход хүргэсэн байдаг. Энэ бол Евразийн өргөн уудам нутгийг анх удаа байлдан дагуулсан явдал биш бөгөөд бүр монголчуудын эртний өвөг дээдэс Хүннүгийн үеэс улбаатай. Ийнхүү дэлхийг донсолгосон нүүдэлчдийн ер бусын хүчин юунд оршин байв? Энэ бол Монгол нутагт ээлж дараалан оршин тогтнож байсан эртний нүүдэлчин улс, гүрнүүдийн улс төр, цэрэг зэвсгийн уламжлал, хөгжил, хувьслын үр дүн бөгөөд үе үеийн манлайлагчдын удирдан зохион байгуулах
авъяаслаг чадвар, хатуу чанд удирдлага, цэрэг армийн зэвсэглэл, нүүдэлчдийн тэсвэр хатуужил, байлдах арга, ухаанд оршин байв.

Монография представляет специальное исследование по истории расселения бурят в XIX в. в составе Российской империи. Работа дополнена анализом этимологии бурятских макро- и микроэтнонимов. Важнейшим результатом являются этнические карты Прибайкалья, отражающие административный статус
территорий, расселение и этнический состав бурят, бурятские населенные пункты конца XIX в., численность населения и другие сведения.
Для широкого круга читателей.

Данная работа представляет собой исследование живущей на северо-востоке КНР малоизученной монголоязычной народности. Основу книги составили полевые исследования автора, а также российские и зарубежные источники. В книге рассматриваются вопросы расселения, численности, происхождения, родового состава дауров, особенности хозяйства, культуры.

ÖZET Kayıtların çok az olduğu bir dönemde seyrek bir nüfusu besleyebilmesiyle bilinen bozkır bölgesinde hâkim olan Köktürkler ve bağlı Türk boylarının nüfusu hakkındaki veriyi, alan uzmanlarının günümüzden yaptıkları ve tamamen tahmine dayanan izdüşümlerin dışında, birkaç örnekte Türk yazıtlarından ve daha fazla örnekte de Çin ve İslam kaynaklarından öğrenebiliyoruz. Başta Bizans olarak, diğer kaynaklarda da bunları destekleyici bilgiye rastlanmaktadır. Bunlar beklendiği gibi asker sayısıyla ilgili kayıtlardır. Ancak sayılarda büyük tutarsızlıklar görülmektedir. Burada psikolojik etmenler öne çıkıyor. Bir yapının kendini dış dünyaya güçlü olarak sunma çabası, galibiyette aslında büyük bir düşman ordusunun yenildiğini vurgulamak veya mağlubiyet ve mağduriyette düşmanın ne kadar güçlü olduğunu mazeret olarak sunmak için yapılan abartılar göze çarpmaktadır. Bu bildiride bilgi kaynağının tutumu göz önüne alınarak verilen rakamlar irdelenmekte, güvenilir bir ortalama tespiti için çabalanmaktadır. ABSTRACT The population data on the Kök Türks and their dependent tribes, whose habitation was the Eastern and Central Eurasian steppes at all, which is known for its lack of capacity to feed great numbers of human and animals, can be derived from Türk inscriptions in a few cases, and from Chinese and Islamic sources to a greater degree, in a time when sources are scanty, besides some projections of the experts of the area, based on projections and approximations. Some other sources, mainly the Byzantine ones, also provide supporting information. But the given numbers are contradictory within themselves. Psychological factors are visible in making of those numbers: Presenting oneself mighty to the outer World or rivals in diplomatic relations, exaggeration of number of enemy in order to boast for telling how to vanquish a great enemy, or in order to find an excuse for being defeated by how a great army in cases of defeats.

The present study takes as a starting point the question of whether Proto-Turkic had an onset *h- or *p- and aims at reconstructing its consonantism. The answer to the initial question is searched for in the fourteen Turkic lexical loans of adjacent languages such as Mongolic, Kitan, Yeniseian, and Samoyedic. At first sight, the data provided by these loanwords seem ambiguous. However, once it is demonstrated that both the daughter languages of Proto-Turkic, namely Proto-Bulgar Turkic and Proto‑Common Turkic, had the historically unattested initials *d2- and *ń-, these data can be taken to point to the existence of *p- in these languages as well as in Proto-Turkic. The discussion is extended with the question of rhotacism and lambdacism. As regards the rhotacism, Proto-Turkic is assumed to have two rhotic consonants, phonologically denoted as */r1 r2/. The lambdacism, on the other hand, turns out to be a tougher problem. Based on several lexical borrowings into and from Turkic, a further consonant */t2/ is posited for Proto-Turkic. This consonant, originally of affricate and probably later of fricative pronunciation, yielded /š/ in Common Turkic and /l/ in Bulgar Turkic. Thus, the Proto-Turkic consonantism is reconstructed as having a series of consonants */t2 d2 r2/ that underwent serious changes in historical Turkic. Finally, */k2/ is added to this series to explain the correspondence of k- and vocalic onset between some Turco-Mongolic cognates. In addition, significant sound changes in the prehistory of Turkic are dated through external evidence.

Key words: Proto-Turkic, onset consonant, lexical borrowing, consonantism

This monograph dicsusses phonetic, morphological and semantic features of the 'Altaic' Sprachbund (i.e. Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic) elements in Yeniseian languages (Kott, Assan, Arin, Pumpokol, Yugh and Ket), a rather heterogeneous language family traditionally classified as one of the 'Paleo-Siberian' language groups, that are not related to each other or to any other languages on the face of the planet. The present work is based on a database of approximately 230 Turkic and 70 Tungusic loanwords. A smaller number of loanwords are of Mongolic origin, which came through either the Siberian Turkic languages or the Tungusic Ewenki languages. There are clear linguistic criteria, which help to distinguish loanwords borrowed via Turkic or Tungusic and not directly from Mongolic languages. One of the main outcomes of this research is the establishment of the Yeniseian peculiar features in the Altaic loanwords. The phonetic criteria comprise the regular disappearance of vowel harmony, syncope, amalgamation, aphaeresis and metathesis. Besides, a separate group of lexemes represents hybrid words, i.e. the lexical elements where one element is Altaic and the other one is Yeniseian. This book presents a historical-etymological survey of a part of the Yeniseian lexicon, which provides an important part of the comparative database of Proto-Yeniseian reconstructions.

La dos únicas voces Euskaras para 'arar, surcar la tierra' que no han sido explicadas por ninguna otra lengua conocida son iruli y exar. Pues bien, iruli se puede relacionar con lenguas de la macrofamilia Transeurasiática-Altaica1 y exar con lenguas Afrasiáticas.2 Por otra parte, el término euskara para 'sembrar', erein, erin, erain, no creo que sea una mera contracción de eragin "promover, sembrar" que a su vez sería un factitivo de egin 'hacer' como sugiere Michel Morvan, más bien podría ser al revés, siendo eragin una forma verbal derivada de erain, aglutinada con egin, por ejemplo. Tanto erein, erin, erain como iruli podrían en realidad derivar o compartir una proto-lengua ancestral con algunos de los mismos términos transeurasiáticos-altaicos para 'surco, surcar', tales como *ī́ŕu, *iru-n, *ir- o *ìráŋ, que darían origen a las citadas formas euskéricas para 'arar' y ‘sembrar’. Es decir, que el mismo concepto transeurasiático-altaico para ‘surcar la tierra’ los pre-proto-euskaras lo usarían para la creación de ambas actividades agrícolas de 'arar' y 'sembrar', tan estrechamente relacionadas entre si, y esto sería señal inequívoca de que adquieren el conocimiento de 'sembrar' y 'arar' la tierra de una misma fuente eurasiática altaica, aunque más tarde recibieran otro término (exar) para 'arar' mediante el contacto con pueblos neolíticos afrasiáticos,3 quizá por vía bereber o chádica, aunque sin descartar la vía de los mismos granjeros agricultores que desde el Creciente Fértil, ya sea pasando por Anatolia o directamente por navegación costera e insular, llegan a la península ibérica hace unos 7800 años, dado que muy probablemente sería el mismo Afrasiático su idioma principal.

Parece claro que al no tomar los pre-proto-euskaras de los afrasiáticos un término para 'sembrar', sino otro más para 'arar' -quizá por adoptar de estos un sistema de arado diferente- queda claro que la idea de 'sembrar' y de 'arar', por tanto, la agricultura en si misma, la adoptan por vía transeurasiática-altaica. De modo que, una de dos, o bien la lengua que podríamos denominar Pre-Proto-Euskara se origina en una zona muy cercana a los lugares donde tradicionalmente han vivido los pueblos que hablaban lenguas transeurasiáticas-altaicas desde hace aproximadamente unos 7700 años (fecha estimada para el origen del Proto-Altaico), no migrando hacia el occidente hasta después de que en dichas regiones se conociera la agricultura, o bien la lengua que llegó a Iberia con los granjeros provenientes de Turquía o Anatolia pertenecía a la misma macrofamilia Transeurasiática-Altaica y no indoeuropea como aún proponen la mayoría de los actuales arqueólogos y lingüistas, aunque para el citado paleolingüista francés Michel Morvan está claro que esos primeros granjeros agricultores no eran indoeuropeos, por mucho que esta siga siendo la tesis más seguida y convertida ya casi en dogma académico. Morvan se basa en otros términos euskéricos relacionados con las actividades de los granjeros y ganaderos (términos para ‘vaca’, ‘buey’, ‘cabra’, ‘puerco’, ‘oveja’) que no hallan explicación alguna como adopciones lingüísticas desde el indoeuropeo, sino que sus mejores correlatos se encuentran en otras lenguas eurasiáticas no indoeuropeas4 y a los que podríamos añadir también otro término como el Proto-Euskara *a=hari ‘oveja, carnero’, cuyo mejor correlato hallamos en este caso en el Proto-Afrasiático: *hVr- ‘oveja, cabra’ y en el Proto-Afrasiático: *ʔaruy-.5

Si se llegara a demostrar algún día que la lengua que llega a Iberia con los primeros granjeros anatólicos era realmente indoeuropea, entonces solo cabría optar por la primera hipótesis, es decir, que el Pre-Proto-Euskara se origina en una zona muy cercana a los lugares donde tradicionalmente han vivido los pueblos hablantes de lenguas transeurasiáticas-altaicas, y lo mismo de no resultar la lengua de los granjeros neolíticos indoeuropea sino afrasiática, de nuevo la hipótesis primera sobre un origen altaico o muy cercano al mundo altaico de la lengua Pre-Proto-Euskara seguiría siendo la mejor explicación. Dicho de otro modo, tan solo con aceptar que la lengua de los granjeros neolíticos anatólicos que llega a la península ibérica hace unos 7800 años era transeurasiática-altaica no sería necesario buscar la matria de la lengua Euskara en las regiones nativas de las lenguas transeurasiáticas-altaicas, ni en un lugar cercano a estas, puesto que en este caso el Pre-Proto-Esukera sería una lengua esencialmente transeurasiática-altaica que se mezclaría con la paleoeuropea proto-eurasiática (posiblemente el mismo Eurasiático/Nostrático o una descendiente) que ya se hablaría en Iberia al menos desde el Mesolítico. Esto explicaría las semejanzas morfo-tipológicas, gramaticales y léxicas (aunque pocas) entre el Euskara y el Ibero, pareciendo la segunda mucho más cercana a las lenguas altaicao-túrquicas que a la misma Euskara, quizá por tratarse de una rama altaica que en su paso por Europa a través de culturas como las de Unetice, de los Túmulos y de los Campos de Urna, adopta parte del léxico de las culturas europeas locales hablantes de antiguas lenguas pre-indoeuropeas e indoeuropeas mismas, antes de arribar a la península en torno al 1200 a. C., aunque pienso que no debería descartarse un posible arribo en fecha anterior, quizá junto con algunos de los grupos con ancestría esteparia de eurasiáticos-altaicos (antiguos eurasiáticos del norte) que llegaron hace unos 4500 años.

Veamos en la página siguiente algunas de las voces euskéricas relacionadas con actividades agrícolas y animales de granja que no son de origen indoeuropeo y solo pueden ser relacionados con términos transeurasiáticos-altaicos.