From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 21 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <371d2763.85542673@news.yale.edu>
References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$qi0$1@whisper.globalserve.net> <369F52FE.2B6@sbu.ac.uk> <77rc86$auj$1@brokaw.wa.com> <36A444B3.F3B70F1C@alum.mit.edu.-> <7827sb$269$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36A52D70.9E372DD2@alum.mit.edu.-> <36A556AB.9927BD29@montclair.edu> <36a63533.58309714@news.yale.edu> <7866ud$i9m$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36cdb21e.883120019@news.wxs.nl> <36A7FCC8.79790A6B@earthlink.net> <36d77e23.1000882888@news.wxs.nl> <36a8d455.81661202@news.yale.edu> <78pl3c$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu> <78v30o$vl6@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b34d7c.60430113@news.yale.edu> <794e84$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3744d12a.1873763068@news.wxs.nl> <796m95$eq2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <375c0ea6.1954957123@news.wxs.nl> <79fo99$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <371a3f79.4770940@news.yale.edu> <7fhmfc$h91@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <371d2390.84564126@news.yale.edu>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:02:25 GMT, cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
wrote:


>
>this is discussed by pritsak in his work on the nominalia. (p. 60)
>chuvash has yIta~, which may point to a lost velar (in this
>case q > x). the suffix (or word ending) is discussed and
>compared to ju"rjen *indaxu*ng* and manchu indaxu:n, which
>the other tungus forms are based.
>
>>turkic "tauk", but also the tungus "togo"; etc.) could have been a north 
>
>in this case the contraction is quite common in turkic (the form 
>above is a contraction itself, as well as the common development 
>from the diphthong au > o), especially in northwestern languages. 
>nevertheless the tungus forms, as well as the mongol) are mentioned 
>by prtisak p. 60-61. the word seems to be quite common in altaic.
>
>>central asian legacy?
>
>if so it forms a peculiar subset of tungus in common with turkic!
>however, it is not unusual for the og~uric group to display
>many characteristics that form a bridge between common turkic 
>and the other altaic languages.
>

this is soemthing I noticed about dobrev's methodology. he seems to
have an aversion to language recontstruction and the concept of
languages developing. he prefers to stick to something he can look up
in a dictionary (i.e. if it is "turkic" then it means a turkish
dictionary). he views the languages he looks up as static - for
example his ommission in not weeding out the arabic vocabulary in
iranian languages. however for many finding a reconstructed form in
the records of an ancient language makes the identification even more
convincing. for example finding "dilom" for the usual "yIlan", i.e.
finding an archaic d- for y- in turkic. dobrev's reaction on the other
hand is "how can you do it!"