Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/tāĺ
 |
This Proto-Turkic entry contains reconstructed terms and roots. As such, the term(s) in this entry are not directly attested, but are hypothesized to have existed based on comparative evidence. |
Proto-Turkic
[edit]Alternative Reconstruction
[edit]Etymology
[edit]Unknown. Possibly onomatopoeic.
Etymological links to other "Altaic Languages", especially with Mongolian чулуу (čuluu, “stone”) and Korean 돌 (dol, “stone”) have been proposed by several authors, giving Chuvash чул (čul) as evidence. However, Turkic, Mongolic and Koreanic words for stone are most likely not related.
Doerfer (1965) presents the potential problems with problems with Poppe's (1927) and Räsänen's (1949) proposals that give way to a Mongolic cognate. He adds at the end that Proto-Mongolic *čïlaxun (earlier *čïlapun, which would point to a verb instead) may simply be an ancient loanword from Proto-Turkic, rather than a cognate. Vovin (2005) seconds this, giving that while a relation between Mongolic *čïlapun and Turkic *tāĺ definitely exists, it is most likely a loaning into Mongolic, rather than of shared inheritance.[1]
- In his book, Yegorov (1964) traces back the Chuvash чул (čul) to Khalkha Mongolian яилагун (jailagun) and чулун (čulun), Buryat шулуун (šuluun) and Kalmyk чолун (çolun) (cf. теермин чолун (teermin çolun, “millstone”), as given by his entry).
- In their rebuttal against Vovin, Dybo and Starostin (2008) reposit that basic vocabulary like 'stone' are usually not loaned into other languages, and when they do, it is often the result of heavy contact. Following this line of thought, they suppose that any Bulgar-Proto-Mongolic contact would be limited at best, and even so, add that "this gives [Proto-Mongolic] a very small amount of time to make *čilaɣu out of [Bulgar] *čol or *čul."[2]
Räsänen (1969) also compares Koreanic *tol (< *tal) (cf. 돌 (dol)), following Ramstedt (1952-1957), which is also called into doubt by Vovin (2005), giving accentological and historical data to support his contrary claim.[3]
Altaicists compare this word with the ones above, but also with Proto-Tungusic *ʒola (“stone”) (cf. Evenki дёло (ʒolo)) and Proto-Japonic *esoi (actually *(d)isi, according to the authors; cf. Japanese 石 (ishi).) Needless to say, such comparisons are not accepted by mainstream comparative linguistics.
Noun
[edit]*tāĺ
Declension
[edit]| Singular 3) | |
|---|---|
| Nominative | *tāĺ |
| Accusative | *tāĺïg, *tāĺnï1) |
| Genitive | *tāĺnïŋ |
| Dative | *tāĺka |
| Locative | *tāĺta |
| Ablative | *tāĺtan |
| Allative | *tāĺgaru |
| Instrumental 2) | *tāĺïn |
| Equative 2) | *tāĺča |
| Similative 2) | *tāĺlayu |
| Comitative 2) | *tāĺlïgu |
2) The original instrumental, equative, similative & comitative cases have fallen into disuse in many modern Turkic languages.
3) Plurality is disputed in Proto-Turkic. See also the notes on the Proto-Turkic/Locative-ablative case and plurality page in Wikibooks.
Descendants
[edit]- Arghu:
- Khalaj: tâaş
- Oghuz:
- Karluk:
- Kipchak:
- Kipchak: tas (tāš) (Codex Cumanicus)
- Mamluk-Kipchak: تاش (tāš), طاش (ṭāš)
- Kipchak-Bulgar:
- Kipchak-Cuman:
- Kipchak-Nogai:
- Kyrgyz-Kipchak:
- Siberian Turkic:
![[1]](https://bitig.kz/show_big.php?fn=sizes/2894.gif){kind=link}
See also
[edit]| Minerals in Proto-Turkic | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
stone: *tiāĺ |
 |
iron: *temür |
 |
silver: *kümüĺ |
_1_(17001285916).jpg) |
gold: *altun |
 |
copper: *bakïr |
.jpg) |
chalk or earth: *bōr |
_7_(29371452793).jpg) |
coal: *kömür |
_(Billianwala_Salt_Member,_Salt_Range_Formation,_Ediacaran_to_Lower_Cambrian;_Khewra_Salt_Mine,_Salt_Range,_Pakistan)_17.jpg) |
salt: *tūŕ |
 |
lead: *korguĺčïn |
References
[edit]- ^ Vovin, Alexander (2005): "The end of the Altaic controversy" [review of Starostin et al. (2003)]. Central Asiatic Journal volume 49, issue 1, pages 111-112.
- ^ Anna V. Dybo & Georgiy S. Starostin (2008): "In defense of the comparative method, or the end of the Vovin controversy." Aspects of Comparative Linguistics, volume 3, pages 194-195. RSUH Publishers, Moscow
- ^ Vovin, Alexander (2005): "The end of the Altaic controversy" [review of Starostin et al. (2003)]. Central Asiatic Journal volume 49, issue 1, pages 113.
- ^ Agyágasi, Klára (2019) Chuvash Historical Phonetics (Turcologica; 117), Wiesbaden: Harrssowitz, page 225
- ^ Agyágasi, Klára (2019) Chuvash Historical Phonetics (Turcologica; 117), Wiesbaden: Harrssowitz, page 225
- ^ Agyágasi, Klára (2019) Chuvash Historical Phonetics (Turcologica; 117), Wiesbaden: Harrssowitz, page 225
- Clauson, Gerard (1972) “ta:ş”, in An Etymological Dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish, Oxford: Clarendon Press, page 557
- Doerfer, Gerhard (1965) Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen [Turkic and Mongolian Elements in New Persian] (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur: Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission; 19)[2] (in German), volume 2, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, page 437
- Eren, Hasan (1999) “taş”, in Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlüğü [Etymological Dictionary of the Turkish Language] (in Turkish), Ankara: Bizim Büro Basım Evi, page 396
- Jegorov, V. G. (1964) “чул”, in Etimologičeskij slovarʹ čuvašskovo jazyka [Etymological Dictionary of the Chuvash Language] (in Russian), Cheboksary: Čuvašskoje knižnoje izdatelʹstvo, page 326
- Räsänen, Martti (1969) Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen (in German), Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura, page 466
- Sevortjan, E. V. (1980) Etimologičeskij slovarʹ tjurkskix jazykov [Etymological Dictionary of Turkic Languages] (in Russian), volume 3, Moscow: Nauka, page 167
- Starostin, Sergei, Dybo, Anna, Mudrak, Oleg (2003) “*diāĺ”, in Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages (Handbuch der Orientalistik; VIII.8), Leiden, New York, Köln: E.J. Brill
- Tenišev E. R., editor (2001), Sravnitelʹno-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskix jazykov: Leksika [Comparative Historical Grammar of Turkic Languages: Lexis] (in Russian), volume 4, Moscow: Nauka, page 638
- Vovin, Alexander (2005): "The end of the Altaic controversy" [review of Starostin et al. (2003)]. Central Asiatic Journal volume 49, issue 1, pages 111-113.