Reconstruction talk:Proto-Turkic/ayran
Add topicI think "milk drink" < "to separate (fat from milk)" + deverbal suffix "*-an" is a pretty good etymology in the semantics department, given by Räsänen, Róna-Tas & Árpád Berta and Nişanyan - but it fails to address Karakhanid اَیْرانْ (*aδran is expected), Khakas айран (*az´ran is expected) and alike. R-T and AB explain the *ayran < > *adïr- inconsistency with alluding to the consonant cluster -dr- in the supposed *adran. They, however, explicitly give the proto-form as <<PT *ayrag>> and <<WOT [West Old Turkic] *iraɣ < *ayraɣ>> and not *adran.
Clauson rejects this etymology, <<prob. merely a false etymology>>, giving the unlikeness of *-d- turning into a *-y- in the Karakhanid form. Altaicists on the other hand don't even connect this word to a verbal root.
So given the situation, how should this page be? *ayran or *adran? Please comment your thoughts in this thread! AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- The theory that it is caused by the consonant cluster makes no real sense, *kudruk and *üdre- both contain the cluster but by no means become -y- by Karakhanid. That being said Clauson's rejection being based on the unlikely sound change actually contradicts what he says elsewhere in the book about other etymologies such as stating that *kïy- comes from earlier *kïd- and Old Uyghur pwy (boy, “paint”) comes from earlier *bod.
- I do think the phonology is suspicious, it is possible that, like Nişanyan suggests, it was spread from a y-Turkic language such as Oghuz. This would also circumvent the problem with morphology, simply put if this etymology were to be a correct *adïrkan would've been expected from Old Turkic, however if it was derived in Oghuz it'd explain the shape ayran as the suffix had become -(y)An.
- As for the Oghur word, the word by no means need to go back to a *-y-, as Agyagasi (2019) also points out, a Chuvash y can develop from *d if there is/was an *r in the word (although there are some instances where this happens without *r cf. *bodu-). It is also perhaps possible it comes from ayraŋ since *ŋ -> g can happen in Oghur (cf. *teŋri) which could then come from Oghuz ayran (nasals within Turkic languages are relatively unstable) but this is probably a stretch.
- I think due to the speculative nature of its origin, the entry should remain *ayran with an etymology section detailing the proposals akin to *badram (Excellently written btw, I love the way you write etymologies.) Yorınçga573 (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like *ayran should stay, then. Nişanyan's proposal <<Oğuz dil alanından diğer Türk dillerine yayılmış bir kültür sözcüğü olduğu muhakkaktır.>> seems the most promising of all etymologies, and it explains all the problems with the phonology. I will do some more digging (especially 'Agyagasi (2019)') and will try to finish the page by tonight.
- Thanks for replying and your insight -- and also for your kind words at the end :) AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Ardahan Karabağ Blueskies006 BurakD53 Yorınçga573
References:
1. Clauson, Gerard (1972) “”, in An Etymological Dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish, Oxford: Clarendon Press, page 276
2. Räsänen, Martti (1969) Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen (in German), Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura, page 12
3. Róna-Tas, András, Berta, Árpád, Károly, László (2011) West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian (Turcologica; 84), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pages 464-470
4. Nişanyan, Sevan (2002–) “Proto-Turkic/ayran”, in Nişanyan Sözlük