From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 18 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <371a3f79.4770940@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> <370d1b3e.17350739@news.yale.edu> <7en7q2$1t8@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang VassIl Karloukovski communicated to me: > >Next, if there is a non-iranian layer, why compare it only to turkic? this is not true. >He showed >that some words have greater similarities with tungus, etc. Which does actually this thread had started as an offshoot of of the question as to why the huns were regarded more as ancestors of turks or as one had put it "more on the turkic side". the chuvash type languages (chuvash, volgabulghar, the language underlying hungarian and the altaic portion danubebulghar) can be explained, excluding borrowings from neighboring languages, for the great majority of their vocabulary with turkic taking into account certain regular sound changes. they also confirm certain archaicisms such as the presence of proto-turkic long vowels. there is no problem with the cardinal numbers, but similarities between the cardinal numbers amongst the other altaic languages is indeed quite weak. among some words common to mongol or tungus, the chuvash group generally has the form morphologically more similar to turkic rather than mongol or tungus (mongol soemtimes has extra suffixes). linguists have no problem with a genetic relationship between the chuvash group and c. turkic (they are estimated to have split around the CE, give or take some centuries), while there are dissenting voices as to the altaic unity. nevrtheless one could quibble about nomenclature like "hunnic" and "turkic" within "hunno-turkic" etc. for those that believe in the altaic theory the chuvash group represents an archaic bridge between c. turkic on one hand and mongol and tungus on the other. for those don't, it is presumed that mutual borrowings took place between mongol, tungus and a chuvash type language ancestral to turkic. OTOH the chuvash group shares with mongolic and tungus the following sound correspondences: c. turkic /z/ chuvash /r/ (< *r2) c. turkic /*sh*/ chuvash /l/ (< *l2) these developments are also seen in mongol and tungus: c. turkic /t + palatal/ chuvash group /*ch*/ c. turkic /s + palatal/ chuvash group /*sh*/ (these later led to special developments in chuvash proper) also an archaic form of the chuvash type (incl. the element in danube bulghar) had d- (as in mongol, tungus) or */*dh*/- in intitial position while in c. turkic this is y-. these occur in words that are not found in mongol or tungus, but are only found in turkic as well. nevertheless, there is considerable material that may indifferently belong either to c. turkic or the chuvash group and dating the loans is the only way. the altaic elements in old slavic, old bulgarian and hungarian attributable specifically to mongol (I don't know of any concerning tungus) are few. even the chinggisids didn't bring all that much mongol material. this is because by the time the mongolic hordes arrived in eastern europe they had incorporated various turkic (or those of the chuvash group) into their hordes. in some cases the higher degree of social organisation of some turkic groups led to their employement in the upper echolons. the avars are considered to be of mongolic origin. in slavic one has tele~ga "cart" mongol and manchu, tungus tergen, terge (considered an archaic loan - ? - from turkic). while turkic has tegrek / tekrek (kashgari) "wheel", and many other words from verbs to mean "to turn around" (see menges "... igor tale") hung. teker= "to twist etc." tiku"r, tu"ker, to"ko"r ("mirror" i.e. "round object"), chuvash te~ke~r ("mirror") danube bulghar seems to have mongol morin (horse) underlying the word for horse in the nominalia. nevertheless it would always be legitmate to invoke mongol or tungus to explain a word as an archaicism in the chuvash group. >not in >any way contradict to the history of central asian peoples moving into >Bactria, >etc. (the formation of the kushans). > ? interesting. please elaborate. >