Misplaced Pages

Karluk languages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
#553446

52-644: The Karluk or Qarluq languages are a sub-branch of the Turkic language family that developed from the varieties once spoken by Karluks . Many Middle Turkic works were written in these languages. The language of the Kara-Khanid Khanate was known as Turki, Ferghani, Kashgari or Khaqani. The language of the Chagatai Khanate was the Chagatai language . Karluk Turkic was once spoken in

104-403: A Turkic language or related topic is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Turkic languages The Turkic languages are a language family of more than 35 documented languages, spoken by the Turkic peoples of Eurasia from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe to Central Asia , East Asia , North Asia ( Siberia ), and West Asia . The Turkic languages originated in

156-726: A language family spoken by the Mongolic peoples in Eastern Europe , Central Asia , North Asia and East Asia , mostly in Mongolia and surrounding areas and in Kalmykia and Buryatia . The best-known member of this language family, Mongolian , is the primary language of most of the residents of Mongolia and the Mongol residents of Inner Mongolia , with an estimated 5.7+ million speakers. The possible precursor to Mongolic

208-476: A great boast....' " The syntax of verb negation shifted from negation particles preceding final verbs to a negation particle following participles; thus, as final verbs could no longer be negated, their paradigm of negation was filled by particles. For example, Preclassical Mongolian ese irebe 'did not come' v. modern spoken Khalkha Mongolian ireegüi or irsengüi . The Mongolic languages have no convincingly established living relatives. The closest relatives of

260-527: A horse/with a horse'. As this adjective functioned parallel to ügej 'not having', it has been suggested that a "privative case" ('without') has been introduced into Mongolian. There have been three different case suffixes in the dative-locative-directive domain that are grouped in different ways: - a as locative and - dur , - da as dative or - da and - a as dative and - dur as locative, in both cases with some functional overlapping. As - dur seems to be grammaticalized from dotur-a 'within', thus indicating

312-479: A region of East Asia spanning from Mongolia to Northwest China , where Proto-Turkic is thought to have been spoken, from where they expanded to Central Asia and farther west during the first millennium. They are characterized as a dialect continuum . Turkic languages are spoken by some 200 million people. The Turkic language with the greatest number of speakers is Turkish , spoken mainly in Anatolia and

364-452: A result, there exist several systems to classify the Turkic languages. The modern genetic classification schemes for Turkic are still largely indebted to Samoilovich (1922). The Turkic languages may be divided into six branches: In this classification, Oghur Turkic is also referred to as Lir-Turkic, and the other branches are subsumed under the title of Shaz-Turkic or Common Turkic . It

416-828: A smaller number of participles, which were less likely to be used as finite predicates. The linking converb - n became confined to stable verb combinations, while the number of converbs increased. The distinction between male, female and plural subjects exhibited by some finite verbal suffixes was lost. Neutral word order in clauses with pronominal subject changed from object–predicate–subject to subject–object–predicate; e.g. Kökseü Kökseü sabraq sabraq ügü.le-run speak- CVB ayyi alas yeke big uge word ugu.le-d speak- PAST ta you ... ... kee-jüü.y say- NFUT Kökseü sabraq ügü.le-run ayyi yeke uge ugu.le-d ta ... kee-jüü.y Kökseü sabraq speak-CVB alas big word speak-PAST you ... say-NFUT "Kökseü sabraq spoke saying, 'Alas! You speak

468-417: A span of time, the second account seems to be more likely. Of these, - da was lost, - dur was first reduced to - du and then to - d and - a only survived in a few frozen environments. Finally, the directive of modern Mongolian, - ruu , has been innovated from uruγu 'downwards'. Social gender agreement was abandoned. Middle Mongol had a slightly larger set of declarative finite verb suffix forms and

520-463: Is a common characteristic of major language families spoken in Inner Eurasia ( Mongolic , Tungusic , Uralic and Turkic), the type of harmony found in them differs from each other, specifically, Uralic and Turkic have a shared type of vowel harmony (called palatal vowel harmony ) whereas Mongolic and Tungusic represent a different type. The homeland of the Turkic peoples and their language

572-734: Is a continuum that stretches back indefinitely in time. It is divided into Early Pre-Proto-Mongolic and Late Pre-Proto-Mongolic. Late Pre-Proto-Mongolic refers to the Mongolic spoken a few centuries before Proto-Mongolic by the Mongols and neighboring tribes like the Merkits and Keraits . Certain archaic words and features in Written Mongolian go back past Proto-Mongolic to Late Pre-Proto-Mongolic (Janhunen 2006). Pre-Proto-Mongolic has borrowed various words from Turkic languages . In

SECTION 10

#1732771719554

624-466: Is because Chuvash and Common Turkic do not differ in these features despite differing fundamentally in rhotacism-lambdacism (Janhunen 2006). Oghur tribes lived in the Mongolian borderlands before the 5th century, and provided Oghur loanwords to Early Pre-Proto-Mongolic before Common Turkic loanwords. Proto-Mongolic, the ancestor language of the modern Mongolic languages, is very close to Middle Mongol,

676-443: Is currently regarded as one of the world's primary language families . Turkic is one of the main members of the controversial Altaic language family , but Altaic currently lacks support from a majority of linguists. None of the theories linking Turkic languages to other families have a wide degree of acceptance at present. Shared features with languages grouped together as Altaic have been interpreted by most mainstream linguists to be

728-582: Is not clear when these two major types of Turkic can be assumed to have diverged. With less certainty, the Southwestern, Northwestern, Southeastern and Oghur groups may further be summarized as West Turkic , the Northeastern, Kyrgyz-Kipchak, and Arghu (Khalaj) groups as East Turkic . Geographically and linguistically, the languages of the Northwestern and Southeastern subgroups belong to

780-517: Is suggested to be somewhere between the Transcaspian steppe and Northeastern Asia ( Manchuria ), with genetic evidence pointing to the region near South Siberia and Mongolia as the "Inner Asian Homeland" of the Turkic ethnicity. Similarly several linguists, including Juha Janhunen , Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, suggest that modern-day Mongolia is the homeland of the early Turkic language. Relying on Proto-Turkic lexical items about

832-598: Is the Xianbei language , heavily influenced by the Proto-Turkic (later, the Lir-Turkic ) language. The stages of historical Mongolic are: Pre-Proto-Mongolic is the name for the stage of Mongolic that precedes Proto-Mongolic. Proto-Mongolic can be clearly identified chronologically with the language spoken by the Mongols during Genghis Khan 's early expansion in the 1200-1210s. Pre-Proto-Mongolic, by contrast,

884-411: Is the least harmonic or not harmonic at all. Taking into account the documented historico-linguistic development of Turkic languages overall, both inscriptional and textual, the family provides over one millennium of documented stages as well as scenarios in the linguistic evolution of vowel harmony which, in turn, demonstrates harmony evolution along a confidently definable trajectory Though vowel harmony

936-604: Is widely rejected by historical linguists. Similarities with the Uralic languages even caused these families to be regarded as one for a long time under the Ural-Altaic hypothesis. However, there has not been sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of either of these macrofamilies. The shared characteristics between the languages are attributed presently to extensive prehistoric language contact . Turkic languages are null-subject languages , have vowel harmony (with

988-415: The ğ in dağ and dağlı is not realized as a consonant, but as a slight lengthening of the preceding vowel. The following table is based mainly upon the classification scheme presented by Lars Johanson . [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] The following is a brief comparison of cognates among the basic vocabulary across

1040-769: The Balkans ; its native speakers account for about 38% of all Turkic speakers, followed by Uzbek . Characteristic features such as vowel harmony , agglutination , subject-object-verb order, and lack of grammatical gender , are almost universal within the Turkic family. There is a high degree of mutual intelligibility , upon moderate exposure, among the various Oghuz languages , which include Turkish , Azerbaijani , Turkmen , Qashqai , Chaharmahali Turkic , Gagauz , and Balkan Gagauz Turkish , as well as Oghuz-influenced Crimean Tatar . Other Turkic languages demonstrate varying amounts of mutual intelligibility within their subgroups as well. Although methods of classification vary,

1092-606: The Catholic missionaries sent to the Western Cumans inhabiting a region corresponding to present-day Hungary and Romania . The earliest records of the language spoken by Volga Bulgars , debatably the parent or a distant relative of Chuvash language , are dated to the 13th–14th centuries AD. With the Turkic expansion during the Early Middle Ages (c. 6th–11th centuries AD), Turkic languages, in

SECTION 20

#1732771719554

1144-559: The Chuvash language from other Turkic languages. According to him, the Chuvash language does not share certain common characteristics with Turkic languages to such a degree that some scholars consider it an independent Chuvash family similar to Uralic and Turkic languages. Turkic classification of Chuvash was seen as a compromise solution for the classification purposes. Some lexical and extensive typological similarities between Turkic and

1196-572: The Kara-Khanid Khanate , Chagatai Khanate , Timurid Empire , Mughal Empire , Yarkent Khanate and the Uzbek-speaking Khanate of Bukhara , Emirate of Bukhara , Kokand Khanate , Khiva Khanate , Maimana Khanate . Glottolog v.5.0 refers to the Karluk languages as "Turkistan Turkic" and classifies them as follows: Chagatai Ainu (China) Ili Turki Uighur Northern Uzbek Southern Uzbek This article about

1248-414: The " Turco-Mongol " tradition. The two groups shared a similar religion system, Tengrism , and there exists a multitude of evident loanwords between Turkic languages and Mongolic languages . Although the loans were bidirectional, today Turkic loanwords constitute the largest foreign component in Mongolian vocabulary. Italian historian and philologist Igor de Rachewiltz noted a significant distinction of

1300-520: The Mongolic languages appear to be the para-Mongolic languages , which include the extinct Khitan , Tuyuhun , and possibly also Tuoba languages. Alexander Vovin (2007) identifies the extinct Tabγač or Tuoba language as a Mongolic language. However, Chen (2005) argues that Tuoba (Tabγač) was a Turkic language . Vovin (2018) suggests that the Rouran language of the Rouran Khaganate

1352-570: The Mongolic languages can be more economically explained starting from basically the same vowel system as Khalkha, only with *[ə] instead of *[e] . Moreover, the sound changes involved in this alternative scenario are more likely from an articulatory point of view and early Middle Mongol loans into Korean . In the ensuing discourse, as noted earlier, the term "Middle Mongol" is employed broadly to encompass texts scripted in either Uighur Mongolian (UM), Chinese (SM), or Arabic (AM). The case system of Middle Mongol has remained mostly intact down to

1404-442: The Turkic language family (about 60 words). Despite being cognates, some of the words may denote a different meaning. Empty cells do not necessarily imply that a particular language is lacking a word to describe the concept, but rather that the word for the concept in that language may be formed from another stem and is not cognate with the other words in the row or that a loanword is used in its place. Also, there may be shifts in

1456-441: The Turkic languages are usually considered to be divided into two branches: Oghur , of which the only surviving member is Chuvash , and Common Turkic , which includes all other Turkic languages. Turkic languages show many similarities with the Mongolic , Tungusic , Koreanic , and Japonic languages. These similarities have led some linguists (including Talât Tekin ) to propose an Altaic language family , though this proposal

1508-593: The West. (See picture in the box on the right above.) For centuries, the Turkic-speaking peoples have migrated extensively and intermingled continuously, and their languages have been influenced mutually and through contact with the surrounding languages, especially the Iranian , Slavic , and Mongolic languages . This has obscured the historical developments within each language and/or language group, and as

1560-599: The case of Early Pre-Proto-Mongolic, certain loanwords in the Mongolic languages point to early contact with Oghur (Pre-Proto-Bulgaric) Turkic, also known as r-Turkic. These loanwords precede Common Turkic (z-Turkic) loanwords and include: The above words are thought to have been borrowed from Oghur Turkic during the time of the Xiongnu . Later Turkic peoples in Mongolia all spoke forms of Common Turkic (z-Turkic) as opposed to Oghur (Bulgharic) Turkic, which withdrew to

1612-433: The central Turkic languages, while the Northeastern and Khalaj languages are the so-called peripheral languages. Hruschka, et al. (2014) use computational phylogenetic methods to calculate a tree of Turkic based on phonological sound changes . The following isoglosses are traditionally used in the classification of the Turkic languages: Additional isoglosses include: *In the standard Istanbul dialect of Turkish,

Karluk languages - Misplaced Pages Continue

1664-584: The climate, topography, flora, fauna, people's modes of subsistence, Turkologist Peter Benjamin Golden locates the Proto-Turkic Urheimat in the southern, taiga-steppe zone of the Sayan - Altay region. Extensive contact took place between Proto-Turks and Proto-Mongols approximately during the first millennium BC; the shared cultural tradition between the two Eurasian nomadic groups is called

1716-522: The common morphological elements between Korean and Turkic are not less numerous than between Turkic and other Altaic languages, strengthens the possibility that there is a close genetic affinity between Korean and Turkic. Many historians also point out a close non-linguistic relationship between Turkic peoples and Koreans . Especially close were the relations between the Göktürks and Goguryeo . Mongolic languages The Mongolic languages are

1768-583: The consonants of Middle Mongol has engendered several controversies. Middle Mongol had two series of plosives, but there is disagreement as to which phonological dimension they lie on, whether aspiration or voicing. The early scripts have distinct letters for velar plosives and uvular plosives, but as these are in complementary distribution according to vowel harmony class, only two back plosive phonemes, * /k/ , * /kʰ/ (~ * [k] , * [qʰ] ) are to be reconstructed. One prominent, long-running disagreement concerns certain correspondences of word medial consonants among

1820-612: The course of just a few centuries, spread across Central Asia , from Siberia to the Mediterranean . Various terminologies from the Turkic languages have passed into Persian , Urdu , Ukrainian , Russian , Chinese , Mongolian , Hungarian and to a lesser extent, Arabic . The geographical distribution of Turkic-speaking peoples across Eurasia since the Ottoman era ranges from the North-East of Siberia to Turkey in

1872-403: The early Turkic language. According to him, words related to nature, earth and ruling but especially to the sky and stars seem to be cognates. The linguist Choi suggested already in 1996 a close relationship between Turkic and Korean regardless of any Altaic connections: In addition, the fact that the morphological elements are not easily borrowed between languages, added to the fact that

1924-591: The family. The Compendium is the first comprehensive dictionary of the Turkic languages and also includes the first known map of the Turkic speakers' geographical distribution. It mainly pertains to the Southwestern branch of the family. The Codex Cumanicus (12th–13th centuries AD) concerning the Northwestern branch is another early linguistic manual, between the Kipchak language and Latin , used by

1976-452: The four major scripts ( UM , SM , AM , and Ph , which were discussed in the preceding section). Word-medial /k/ of Uyghur Mongolian (UM) has not one, but two correspondences with the three other scripts: either /k/ or zero. Traditional scholarship has reconstructed * /k/ for both correspondences, arguing that * /k/ was lost in some instances, which raises the question of what the conditioning factors of those instances were. More recently,

2028-512: The language of the founders of the Northern Wei dynasty, for which the surviving evidence is very sparse, and Khitan, for which evidence exists that is written in the two Khitan scripts ( large and small ) which have as yet not been fully deciphered, a direct affiliation to Mongolic can now be taken to be most likely or even demonstrated. The changes from Proto-Mongolic to Middle Mongol are described below. Research into reconstruction of

2080-581: The language spoken at the time of Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire . Most features of modern Mongolic languages can thus be reconstructed from Middle Mongol. An exception would be the voice suffix like -caga- 'do together', which can be reconstructed from the modern languages but is not attested in Middle Mongol. The languages of the historical Donghu , Wuhuan , and Xianbei peoples might have been related to Proto-Mongolic. For Tabghach ,

2132-975: The meaning from one language to another, and so the "Common meaning" given is only approximate. In some cases, the form given is found only in some dialects of the language, or a loanword is much more common (e.g. in Turkish, the preferred word for "fire" is the Persian-derived ateş , whereas the native od is dead). Forms are given in native Latin orthographies unless otherwise noted. (to press with one's knees) Azerbaijani "ǝ" and "ä": IPA /æ/ Azerbaijani "q": IPA /g/, word-final "q": IPA /x/ Turkish and Azerbaijani "ı", Karakhanid "ɨ", Turkmen "y", and Sakha "ï": IPA /ɯ/ Turkmen "ň", Karakhanid "ŋ": IPA /ŋ/ Turkish and Azerbaijani "y",Turkmen "ý" and "j" in other languages: IPA /j/ All "ş" and "š" letters: IPA /ʃ/ All "ç" and "č" letters: IPA /t͡ʃ/ Kyrgyz "c": IPA /d͡ʒ/ Kazakh "j": IPA /ʒ/ The Turkic language family

Karluk languages - Misplaced Pages Continue

2184-911: The nearby Tungusic and Mongolic families, as well as the Korean and Japonic families has in more recent years been instead attributed to prehistoric contact amongst the group, sometimes referred to as the Northeast Asian sprachbund . A more recent (circa first millennium BC) contact between "core Altaic" (Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic) is distinguished from this, due to the existence of definitive common words that appear to have been mostly borrowed from Turkic into Mongolic, and later from Mongolic into Tungusic, as Turkic borrowings into Mongolic significantly outnumber Mongolic borrowings into Turkic, and Turkic and Tungusic do not share any words that do not also exist in Mongolic. Turkic languages also show some Chinese loanwords that point to early contact during

2236-434: The notable exception of Uzbek due to strong Persian-Tajik influence), converbs , extensive agglutination by means of suffixes and postpositions , and lack of grammatical articles , noun classes , and grammatical gender . Subject–object–verb word order is universal within the family. In terms of the level of vowel harmony in the Turkic language family, Tuvan is characterized as almost fully harmonic whereas Uzbek

2288-694: The other possibility has been assumed; namely, that the correspondence between UM /k/ and zero in the other scripts points to a distinct phoneme, /h/ , which would correspond to the word-initial phoneme /h/ that is present in those other scripts. /h/ (also called /x/ ) is sometimes assumed to derive from * /pʰ/ , which would also explain zero in SM , AM , Ph in some instances where UM indicates /p/; e.g. debel > Khalkha deel . The palatal affricates * č , * čʰ were fronted in Northern Modern Mongolian dialects such as Khalkha. * kʰ

2340-440: The phonetic representation of the word and long vowels became short; e.g. *imahan ( *i becomes /ja/ , *h disappears) > *jamaːn (unstable n drops; vowel reduction) > /jama(n)/ 'goat', and *emys- (regressive rounding assimilation) > *ømys- (vowel velarization) > *omus- (vowel reduction) > /oms-/ 'to wear' This reconstruction has recently been opposed, arguing that vowel developments across

2392-408: The present, although important changes occurred with the comitative and the dative and most other case suffixes did undergo slight changes in form, i.e., were shortened. The Middle Mongol comitative - luγ-a could not be used attributively, but it was replaced by the suffix - taj that originally derived adjectives denoting possession from nouns, e.g. mori-tai 'having a horse' became mor'toj 'having

2444-522: The result of a sprachbund . The possibility of a genetic relation between Turkic and Korean , independently from Altaic, is suggested by some linguists. The linguist Kabak (2004) of the University of Würzburg states that Turkic and Korean share similar phonology as well as morphology . Li Yong-Sŏng (2014) suggest that there are several cognates between Turkic and Old Korean . He states that these supposed cognates can be useful to reconstruct

2496-638: The time of Proto-Turkic . The first established records of the Turkic languages are the eighth century AD Orkhon inscriptions by the Göktürks , recording the Old Turkic language, which were discovered in 1889 in the Orkhon Valley in Mongolia. The Compendium of the Turkic Dialects ( Divânü Lügati't-Türk ), written during the 11th century AD by Kaşgarlı Mahmud of the Kara-Khanid Khanate , constitutes an early linguistic treatment of

2548-400: The vowel harmony shifted from a velar to a pharyngeal paradigm. *i in the first syllable of back-vocalic words was assimilated to the following vowel; in word-initial position it became /ja/ . *e was rounded to *ø when followed by *y . VhV and VjV sequences where the second vowel was any vowel but *i were monophthongized. In noninitial syllables, short vowels were deleted from

2600-533: The west in the 4th century. The Chuvash language , spoken by 1 million people in European Russia, is the only living representative of Oghur Turkic which split from Proto Turkic around the 1st century AD. Words in Mongolic like dayir (brown, Common Turkic yagiz ) and nidurga (fist, Common Turkic yudruk ) with initial *d and *n versus Common Turkic *y are sufficiently archaic to indicate loans from an earlier stage of Oghur (Pre-Proto-Bulgaric). This

2652-896: Was spirantized to /x/ in Ulaanbaatar Khalkha and the Mongolian dialects south of it, e.g. Preclassical Mongolian kündü , reconstructed as *kʰynty 'heavy', became Modern Mongolian /xunt/ (but in the vicinity of Bayankhongor and Baruun-Urt , many speakers will say [kʰunt] ). Originally word-final * n turned into /ŋ/; if * n was originally followed by a vowel that later dropped, it remained unchanged, e.g. *kʰen became /xiŋ/ , but *kʰoina became /xɔin/ . After i-breaking, *[ʃ] became phonemic. Consonants in words containing back vowels that were followed by *i in Proto-Mongolian became palatalized in Modern Mongolian. In some words, word-final *n

SECTION 50

#1732771719554

2704-412: Was dropped with most case forms, but still appears with the ablative, dative and genitive. Only foreign origin words start with the letter L and none start with the letter R . The standard view is that Proto-Mongolic had *i, *e, *y, *ø, *u, *o, *a . According to this view, *o and *u were pharyngealized to /ɔ/ and /ʊ/ , then *y and *ø were velarized to /u/ and /o/ . Thus,

#553446