Alternative Historical Linguistics
Site menu

Total online: 1
Guests: 1
Users: 0
Login form
Etymological Table Database.


Often visited sites

The Urheimat of the Nostratic Languages

The Relationship of the Altaic and Turkic languages. Origin and development.


            The conclusion about the presence of the Turkic peoples in Eastern Europe in the Bronze Age contrary to many established views of science. The Turkic languages are traditionally included in the Altaic family on the warrant of the typological relationship (affinity) with the Mongolian languages. Moreover, according to M. Erdal, N. Poppe, O. Pritsak and some others believed that "the Bulgar-Chuvash branch is somehow intermediate between the Turkic and Mongolian languages" . (Marcel Erdal, 2005, 126). Such views are not shared by all scholars, but it is believed that all Turks, including the Bulgars, arrived in Europe from Asia. Considering the Chuvash language in comparative historical perspective, V. Yegorov wrote:

            Far traces of Chuvash first in the vicinity of the Mongolian tribes and then in the upper reaches of the Irtysh and Yenisei rivers – in the vicinity of the Altaic Turks and Central Asian Iranian tribes are good found in the Chuvash language. The Chuvash language has are many Mongolian words, and almost all of them are of ancient origin

            However, such views are not in full accepted. For example, K. Menges believed that the Chuvash language has very little Altaic words. Likewise the above quoted author said in the same paper that the Mongolian words are present in "an insignificant amount". Once again this confirms how vague and subjective evaluation have the words "many", "little" without quantitative comparison with other related languages. Nevertheless, at first glance it might seem that even small amounts of Mongolian words in Chuvash can be enough for the evidence of the contacts between the ancestors of the modern Chuvash and Mongols:

            The Chuvash language has a number of Mongolian words being not found in other Turkic languages. They are above all other pronouns… The rest of the Chuvash Mongolic matches is in few number, but sufficient to prove the coexistence of the Proto-Chuvash and Mongol peoples in the far past – long before the Mongol invasions (AKHMETIANOV R.G. 1978: 119).

            R. Akhmet'yanov gives in his work except pronouns only six or seven Chuvash words, which have analogues only in the Mongolian language, but that does not mean that they are or always were absent in the other Turkic languages, or never existed in the Old-Turkic language. A similar phenomenon can be observed also in the Tatar and even in the Hungarian language, where there are separate Hungarian-Mongolian vocabulary matches. On this occasion, the famous Hungarian linguist Z. Gombots wrote: "The fact that in some cases, matches to the Hungarian words can be detected only in Mongolian .., has no really matter, as the ancient Turkic vocabulary is known to us in its entirety"” . On the other hand, some of Chuvash-Mongolian matches absolutely can not be ancient on warrant of the meanings of words ("tin", "shawl"). The borrowings from the Middle-Mongolian language confuse greatly the picture being taken for more ancient loan-words. However, the genetic relationship can only be said by the most common and, therefore, the most ancient words which were in daily circulation still at a primitive level of development of languages. Namely, examples of such common words between the Chuvash and Mongolian languages are absent.
            Hungarian linguist A. Rona-Tas, considering in light of the Altaic theory Mongolian matches in the Chuvash, on the example of three dozen of Chuvash borrowings from the Middle-Mongolian language, comes to the conclusion that the source of the borrowing of other words having similar phonology could also be Middli-Mongolian. In his view, the presence of a word even in the three groups of the Altaic languages can not be proof of its Altaic origin. He sees the following reasons which may explain the facts of linguistic community:
            - historical contacts;
            - areal convergence;
            - typological parallels;
            - convergence of the units of independent origin;
            - a coincidence;
            - genetic relatedness.
            As you can see the reasons are different and the very existence of matches between the Chuvash and the Mongolian language is not talking about genetic kinship of the Turkic and Mongolian languages. (RONA-TAS ANDRAS. 1987-2: 6.)
            The Chuvash and Mongolian phonology has also correspondences in favor, if not of genetic relationship, the old neighborhood of the Bulgars and the Mongols. For example, the loss of final k in stems of words is common feature for Chuvash and Mongolian but it is secondary development . The Chuvash language has the spirant γ on the place of Old Turkic – k, -g which fell out in the end of words in more late time. This can be affirmed by Hungarian loan-words from Chuvash: Hung borz "a badger" out of Chuv *borsuγ, Hung kút "a well" out of Chuv kutuγ.. Such phenomenon is not a peculiarity of the Hungarian language as the more old Turkic loan-words have final k: árok "a ditch", hurok "a loop", köldök "a navel" . According to our study the ancestors of Chuvash and Hungarians came in contact not earlier as in the 1st mill BC.
            Other Mongol-Chuvash correspondences can be as follows:
            • the consonant r in the Chuvash and the Mongolian languages corresponds in most cases s/z in the other Turkic languages ;
            • the consonant l in the Chuvash and Mongolian languages corresponds š in most other Turkic languages.
            Turkologists divide all Turkic languages into two groups – the group “r/l-languages" and the group “z-languages”. The group r/l consist of only Chuvash as the modern language, but it is assumed that other r/l-languages existed earlier too. The nature of the phonetic correspondence r/lš/s/z is one of the most mysterious phenomena of the Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungus) and remains poorly studied:

            Our knowledge of r/l Turkish is so fragmentary and discontinuous that is better not to attempt to trace its history in detail remarking merely that the difference between r/l Turkish and standard languages was primarily in the pronunciation of certain sounds and probably only to a small extent in matters of word structure, grammar, and vocabulary:what is said below about the general structure of standard Turkish is equally applicable to r/l Turkish

            This topic is considered in an article about a hypothetical Nostratic sound RZ more detailed.
            The ancestors of the Bulgars lost the language contact with their linguistic cousins after going to the right bank of the Dnieper. The rest of the Turks stayed together in close proximity for a long time, during which their languages have acquired a lot of common phonetic, lexical and morphological features, unusual Chuvash. After the settlement of Turks on the vast territory from the North Caucasus to the Altai most of them came into contact with peoples of the Altaic language family and made a great influence on them. Together with lexical borrowing could have been accepted also some phonetic features, in particular, the archaic sound rz. Gradually, the bulk of the Turkic languages have been lost some archaic features, but they remained on the periphery of the Turkic world. This also can explain the common features possessed by the Chuvash and Mongolian languages, and that mislead scientists. The Chuvash language preserved archaic Turkic language phenomena, just because for a long time developed without direct contact with the other Turkic, and some of these linguistic phenomena can be transferred by the Turks in the Mongolian languages when they first came into contact with the Mongols. Mongolian language could also save these archaic linguistic phenomena, which can have very different reasons. If the Chuvash language would have many correspondences with the Mongolian, then it had much more similarities with Yakut, undoubtedly akin genetically, but about any particular facts of this similarity is not mentioned anywhere.
            It is sometimes considered that, in addition to Bulgar, the Oghur, and Avar languages also were language were r-languages (RONA-TAS ANDRAS. 2005: 115). The ethnonyms Oguz, Ogur, and Avar, without a doubt go back to one common source of Iranian awara “vagabond, nomad” (Afg. avāra, etc.) and therefore could not be self-designation. Accordingly, the same people could be called by different names Oguz, Ogur, and Avars in different languages. We associate the modern Gagauz people of z-language with Oghuz. Thus, we became contradiction, which is again solved by the existence of the sound rz, which was changed to z in the language of the Gagauz that are the descendants of Oghuz-Ogur-Avars relatively recently, in the historical period (possibly under the influence of the Kipchak language). In this case, to put in one row the Oghur and Bulgar languages is not warranted.
           In addition to all the other facts, the genetic relatedness of the Turkic and other Altaic languages is contradicted by the complete absence of similarity between the Turkic and Mongolian numerals, which should be one of the most ancient layers of vocabulary.
            During the mass crossing of the Bulgars on the right bank of the Dnieper Indo-Europeans still stayed on their old habitats therefore the cultural exchange between the newcomers and local population contributed to the development of linguistic connections. This language contacts of the Bulgars with Indo-Europeans are evidenced by lexical correspondences between the Chuvash language, on the one hand, and individual Indo-European languages, on the other. Herewith, the Italic-Bulgarish language connections were chronologically earliest of all, since just Ancient Italics were the first which the Bulgars met on countries of the Dnieper right bank.
            We have already mentioned that the Turks were at a higher level of cultural development than the Indo-Europeans what is affirmed by the words of the economic meaning of the Turkic origin in their languages. Cf.:

            Gr αγροσ, Lat ager, Germ Acker “field” – common Turkic ek- (Chuv ak, akăr) “to sow”;
            Gr αλφι “barley”, αλφη “barley meal” – common Turkic arpa “barley”;
            Gr ηθμοσ “sieve” – Chuv atma “fishnet”.
            Gr κορβανοσ "temple treasure-box" – Chuv kărman "basket";
            Gr λισγαριον, λισγοσσ “mattock” – Crim-Tat ülüskär, Kaz lesker “mattock”;
            Gr μηκον “poppy” – Chuv măkăn’ “poppy”;
            Gr παστη “pasta” – Karach, Balk basta “porridge, gruel”;
            Gr χορτοσ “kraal”, Lat hortus “garden”, OG gardon “garden” – Cuv karta “fence”;
            Lat arca “a box” – Chuv arča “a chest”;
            Lat cama “a short board, plank bed, shelf” – Chuv khăma “board”;
            Lat. casa “a house” – Chuv. kasă “a street” which had formerly meaning “settlemen
            Lat cupa “a bucket, barrel” – Tur, Turkm kova, Chag qopa etc “a bucket”;
            Lat ius, iuris “soup” – Chuv jaška – “soup”, juškăň “slime”;
            Lat scopula “a broom” – Chuv šăpăr “a broom”;
            Lat sĕrra “a saw” – Chuv sĕr “to rub, saw”;
            Lat torta “round twined bread” – Chuv tărta “to twine, to nest”. The Latin word has no sure etymology (W.)

            You can find Turkish influence in the spiritual realm. Some matches between the Bulgars and Italians are seen in religious issues. Latin abbās "abbot" is considered to be borrowed through Greek from the Aramaic (abbā "father") and is not considered in the etymological dictionary of Latin (Walde A.1965). First, the alleged word was used in prayer in the sense of "my father" (Kluge Friedrich. 1989, 7). However worthy surprise that Latin and Greek words are corresponded with Cuv. apăs "priest," which originated from the ancient Turkic word for the immediate family, including the father (aba/apa). When borrowing from Aramaic and using in prayers word abbās should be used referring to God, not to his servants, and therefore Bulgar source of borrowing should be preferred. More such lexical parallel: Lat. vapor "steam, smoke, fire" – Cuv Vupăr "ghost, spirit" may be included to religious topics too. The word, of course, has a Turkic origin (Turkic bu "steam" and Chuv pyr, which among other senses has also "to come" or par/pǎr "to give, give out"). Surprising is also the similarity of the Greek πανδουρα "kithara", Latin pandura "three-stringed lute" and a number of Chuvash words of close sense: pănt – imitation of ringing broken string, păntăr-păntăr – imitation of string strum, păntărtat – 1. "to thrum, to give strum sounds" (on stringed instruments), 2. "to crack, rattle" (on drums). As Chuvash words have a more general meaning, evidences that a stringed musical instrument of ancient Italians was borrowed from the Bulgars, but not vice versa. There is spread in Central Asian stringed instrument tanbur and it is assumed that its name has Arabic origin (Ar tanbūr "stringed instrument"). However Chuv tĕmpĕr "imitation of drum sound" and tĕmpĕrtet "to thunder, boom" compel to doubt of such assumption. Also the people of the Caucasus have musical instruments with names similar Chuvash words, but the source of their loans is difficult to define. The evidence of Turkic cultural influences could be also be loan-words of an abstract sense. For example, the Chuvash word pinĕsh "thousand" has Latin match finis "end, limit". The specific meaning of the Chuvash word that originates from the Turkic biŋ "thousand" suggests that when the Turks have learned counting at least till thousand, Indo-Europeans who have no common words for so many, understood Turkic word as a finite number.
            Here more examples from the whole list of Latin-Chuvash Lexical Correspondences:

            Lat amicus “a friend” – Chuv. ami “a friend, brother”;
            Lat delirium “delirium” – Chuv tilěr, Tat tile “madman";
            Lat cura “care” – Chuv khural “protection”.
            Lat. fàbulare “to speak” – Chuv. pavra “to chatter, to talk”.
            Lat publikare “to publish” – Chuv puple “to talk”.
            Lat usus “use” – Chuv usă “use”.

            It is worth recalling that the Chuvash language has no letters for voiced consonants in native Chuvash words, so Chuvash p may correspond to Latin b or v. Maybe some part of these examples originated still from the ancient times, when all the Turks populated the territory between the Dnieper and the Don, but separate later isolated Bulgarish-Italic connections and more ancient Turkic-Italic ones is not yet possible. It is only clear, that of all Turkic the Chuvash language has most connections with the Italic languages well reflected in Latin. This indicates that prolonged proximity the Bulgars and Italics until that time when the latter migrated to Apennines. An interesting evidence of this neighbourhood can be Chuv păyaxam “brother-in-law”. It is impossible to explain this word by means the modern Chuvash language , but if you use other Turkic languages and Latin, then it can be understood as a "sister's husband" (Latin homo “man, male”, Turkm bajy "husband’s sister" Tur bacı "sister"). Truth to tell, păyaxam means “husband’s brother”. The discrepancy of the made interpretation can be explained by the fact that the names of relatives may be different depending on the side of kinship, which often leads to a change of the meaning of the same word.
            The contacts between the Bulgars and Italics may be indicated also by extra-linguistic facts, if you search them on purpose, but in the meantime we can only speak of chance finds of this kind. For example, it is interesting that the theme of fighting vultures with people and animals, present on the images of objects found in Scythian burial mounds are also repeated in the reliefs on sarcophagi of the 4th cen BC, found during excavations near Tarentum in Southern Italy (BONGRAD-LEVIN G.M., GRANTOVSKIY E.A. 1983: 80). We shall see farther that the Scytians had Bulgarish origin.
            We hypothesized that after leaving their Urheimat Italics, their area was settled by the Thracians, who came here from the left bank of the Dnieper. Some group of ancient Greeks delayed during their migration somewhere south of the river Ros’, while most of them retreated to the Peloponnese. Obviously, the Phrygians and ancient Armenians settled further south. In this case, the Bulgars had to move further west, staying in the neighborhood with all of them. When the Germanic tribes moved south and east to the Dnieper River, the Bulgars became an opportunity for language contact with the Germans. Because we do not have enough lexical material of the Thracian and Phrygian languages and the Armenian words of Turkic origin can be borrowed from Turkish at historical time, convincing evidence for the presence of the Bulgars in the Western Ukraine can be only Chuvash-Greek and Chuvash-Germanic linguistic parallels.
            Examples of Greek-Bulgar lexical correspondences can be next:

            Gr αρωμα "smell, odour" – Turk aram/erem (Chuv erĕm) "wormwood";
            Gr αρσην “man, male” – Chuv arçyn “man”;
            Gr κηροσ “wax, honeycombs” – Chuv karas “honeycombs”;
            Gr λακκοσ, Lat lacus, OIr loch a.o. “pool, lake, pit” – Chuv lakăm “pit”;
            Gr πυροσ “wheat”, Lit pūraĩ "winter wheat" a.o. IE – Chuv pări “spelt, the kind of wheat”;
            Gr σαρδινη “herring” – Chuv çărtan “pike (fish)”;
            Gr θαλασσα“sea” – Turkiq talaj, talaš (Chuv talaj) “sea”;
            Gr χολη “bile, gall” – Chuv xăla “light-yellow”.

            There is also a small group of Chuvash words phonetically very similar to the Greek, but the semantic connection between them is not certain, for example: Chuv atala "to evolve" – Gr αταλοσ "young"; Chuv kěle "heel" – Gr κηλη "tumor"; Chuv mănas "proud" – Gr μονασ "lonely."
            The full list of Greek-Chuvash Lexical correspondences is reported separately.
            The tracks of binary Bulgar-German contacts appear in numerous lexical correspondences between the German and the Chuvash language, which are so numerous that they can be the subject of a separate investigation. Below are some examples of them:

            Chuv ătăr “an otter” – OG *utra, Eng otter , Germ Otter.
            Chuv ăvăs “asp, aspen” – OG *apso, OE æps, Germ Espe “asp, aspen”.
            Chuv avlan “to marry” – OE ǽwnian, ǽwan “to marry”.
            Chuv čětre “to tremble” (common Turkic root titr) – Germ zittern “to tremble”.
            Chuv jěkel “acorn” – OG *aikel, Germ Eichel “acorn”.
            Chuv kavle “to chew” – Germ kauen “to chew”.
            Chuv kěrt “flock” – OG *herdo, Germ Herde, Eng herd, Sw hjord “herd, flock”.
            Chuv palt “fast, quick” – OG *balþa, “bold, courageous”, eng. bold, Germ bald “fast, soon”.
            Chuv săpsa „wasp” – OG * wabso “wasp” (OE wæfs, wæps, Germ Wespe), (here also Sl osa “wasp”).
            Chuv sěre „very” – Middle High Germ sēre, OE sāre, Germ sehr “very”.
            Chuv çirěp “stark”, Sir Gerard Clauson restores Turkic *jarp (jarpuz) as “herb” (Uzb jalpiz, Kaz žalbyz the plant mint (Mentha L.), Xakani- jarp “firm, solid”, etc”) – Eng herb, Germ herb.
            Chuv tu “to do” – Germ tun, Eng to do, Dt doen “to do”.
            Chuv turǎ “god” (from Turkic teŋgri) – OG þunre “thundergod, Thor”.
            Chuv vak “wake” – OG *wakwo, Germ Wake, Eng wake, Sw vak “wake”.
            Chuv větel “a double-snipe” – Ger Wachtel (O.H.G wahtel) “a quail”.
            Chuv vulǎ “trunk, stem” – OE wala, walu “stick, staff”.
            Chuv xaltară “to freeze” – OG *kalda, Germ kalt, Eng cold “cold”.
            Chuv xatăr “cheerful” – OE hador, Germ heiter “cheerful”.
            Chuv xitren “good, fine” – OE cytren “beautiful”.
            Chuv xüte “defence” – OG *hoda, Germ Hut, Eng hood, hat, Swhatt “defence”.
            Chuv ytla “superfluous” – West Germ. *ídla “insignificant, vain”, Germ eitel, Eng idle, Dt ijdel.

            The existence of the German-Chuvash lexical parallels was previously pointed out by some experts, in particular by G. Kornilov. In one of his papers, he cited several German-Chuvash lexical similarities, but did not give them a convincing explanation . Targeted searches give us more and more examples. In accordance with made localization, the boundary between the Teutons and the Bulgars took place along the watershed of the basin of the Pripyat and the Dniester. Since it was enough feebly, the language contact between the population were pretty close, and that affected multiple lexical correspondences between the modern German and Chuvash languagee.
            Similarly, cultural exchange was also intense. In particular, the Indo-Europeans were acquainted with many metals over the Bulgars, as evidenced by the etymology of their names, considered by the author in the article "The names of metals in the Indo-European and Turkic languages".
            Also, many Indo-European names of plants have Turkic origin. This topic is considered in the article "Common Turkic and Indo-European lexical inheritance in the names of plants." Here two matching names of herbs are very interesting. The first of these is: Chuv armuti "wormwood" and Ger Wermut "the same". In the etymological dictionary of German (KLUGE FRIEDRICH. 1989), the German word derived from the WGmc *wermada, which allegedly has a distant lexical parallels in Celtic – *swerwo "bitter". However, taking into account the Chuvash form, the close parallel has to be Lat artemisia "wormwood", which could be borrowed from Old Bulgar with metathesis of the consonants. Chuvash word armuti itself is a modification of the two Chuvash words erĕm (another name of wormwood) and ută "grass", ie, literally, "wormwood-grass." Turkic origin of the word has no doubt, because such words exist in other Turkic languages: Tat erem, Uz erman, Yak erbehin - all "wormwood". Greek αρωμα "smell, scent", taken later in many languages, also has Turkic origin.
            The second match in the name of grasses: Cuv pultăran "hogweed, cow parsnip" – Ger Baldrian "valeriana". Hogweed and valeriana are quite similar to each other, so the transfer of names is possible.The Latin name of the plant Valeriana obviously was changed under the influence of Lat valere "to be strong". German word phonetically is more like Tur baldiran "hogweed". The name of these plants, of course, has Turkic origin, as these words are also found in other Turkic languages. When and wich Indo-European language was borrowed these words is unclear. By Title grass is relevant and The following example has also relation to grass name. Sir Gerard Clauson restores the ancient Turkic word *jarp (jarpuz) meaning "rough, tart" on warrant of Uzb jalpiz, Kaz žalbyz “mint”, Xakani jarp "strong, solid". Chuvash çirěp "strong", Eng. herb, Ger herb “tart" can be related to them.
            Some German-Chuvash Lexical parallels have matches in Greek and Latin. F. Kluge allowed the relation Germ Harz "wood tar, turpentine" to Gr κηρασ “cell of honeycomb”. In that case, Chuv karas "honeycomb" applies here too.. Obviously, the word has Indo-European origin, since this root is not fixed in other Turkic languages, In the Kluge’s dictionary Ger Volk "people" with matches Eng folk, Sw volc "the same", is marked as "no opportunity to compare". Meanwhile, you can compare them with Chuv pulkkǎ "flock". Bulgar, the ancient name of the Turkic tribe, the ancestors of the Chuvash, derived from the same root. Latin words vulgus "people", "flock", "crowd", vulgaris "ordinary", was obviously borrowed from the Bulgar language. It is not clear from any Indo-European language borrowed Chuv karta "fence" The words of this root existed in the Greek, Latin and Germanic languages: Gr χορτοσ "enclosure, fence “, Lat. hortus"garden", Gmc. *gardon, Ger Garten, eng. Garden. Another example is the following isogloss: Chuv măkăn – Ger Mohn (an ancient form *mæhon) – Gr μηκων "poppy". Search of the origin of this word attention was drew to the Arm makan “stem, twig”. Perhaps the name oh the poppy comes from its high stem. Then it must have origin in Turk. baqan “pillar” which previously could have extended sense "stalk, stem".
            There is another little studied area of science that can also attest to the presence of the Bulgars in the Western Ukraine. Biologists know that folk names of the of the same biologic species can vary greatly in different localities. At the same time similar names may be used for different but similar kinds of plants, fish, birds and beasts, while for the same species can be used different names. Folk names of species are literally treasure trove for historical linguistics, but already started work on the collection and systematization of such names has not yet been deployed in due measure. This particularly applies to the names of plants due to their big quantity, though the first botanical dictionary in the Ukraine and Russia were published 150 years ago (VOLIAN V. 1854.б ANNENKOVЪ N. 1878). Recently a solid vocabulary of Yu. Kobiva (KOBIV Yu. 2004.) was pyblished but it did not cover the entire set of Ukrainian folk names of plants and do not always contain information about the spread of a word on regions of the Ukraine. Namely, this is extremely important for historical linguistics. Nevertheless, this dictionary has been used successfully to search for possible Bulgarish traces among the folk names. Let us consider them in turn:

            Chuv armuti "wormwood" – Ukr. dial. armitka (Huzulschyna) – "mountain arnica". As wormwood and arnica have a strong stimulating effect.
            Chuv kăškar “horse-sorrel” – Ukr kăškara "Carpathian rhododendron". In view of the absolute dissimilarity of plant names, the coincidence of sounds of words can be random.
            Chuv kepçe used as the common name for plants with hollow stems – Ukr. kipets is spread mainly in the steppes of Ukraine for cereals Koeleria.
            Chuv saran is used as the common name of edible bulbs, Tat sarana "lily" – V. Volian recorded in the 19th century the word sarana for a specie of a lily (Lilium martagon) in the Western Ukraine, so it can not be borrowed from the Russian language, as this is noted in the etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language (MELNYCHUK O.S., 1982-1989: 181). N. Annenkov noted that the above form lilies are eaten raw and baked (ANNENKOVЪ N. 1878). He also pointed out that this word was recorded in the Vyatka province. Obviously, this is Chuvash or Tatar loan-word.
            Chuv çepçe “vetch” (Vicia cracca), perennial with climbing stems and bluish-purple flowers – Ukr. čepčyk “thymus” (Thymus serpilium), perennial shrub with purple flowers. Similar names Russian. čabrets, Ukr čtbrets’, čebryk’, Bulg čuber, Cz čabr, Pol cząbr and others are widespread in many Slavic languages for different kinds of thyme. M. Vasmer believed that the Slavic form is impossible to reconstruct. Obviously, they all have the Bulgar origin in the design of the Slavic suffixes.
            Chuv tyrsa “feather grass” (Stipa), in other Turkic languages have been recorded – Rus tyrsa “a specie of stipa” was considered by M.Vasmer as "dark" . Ukr tyrza, tyrsa are wide-spread as common name for various species of feather grass (Stipa) and sedges (Carex), including the Western Ukraine (Volhyn, Transcarpathian region, the Middle Dniester).
            Chuv xăyax "sedge" (Carex), this word exist in many other Turkic languages in the form qyjaq – Ukr kyyak, kiyah, kiyašina, kiyašnik, kіyaški used for name of inula (Carlina), sweet flag (Acorus), cattail (Typha) and even maize in the Carpathians. Sedge by leaf shape is similar to water or bog plants sweet flag and cattail and also grows on wet, marshy ground. Judging by the shape of Ukrainian words, one can say with confidence that the borrowing happened from the ancient Bulgarish language but not from other Turkic.
Cuv xăvăš "honeysuckle", similar words in other Turkic languages were not found – Ukr. xabz, xaboz, xabuz, xabzina are used for names of different species of elder, sow-thistle and different weed at all . The possibility of borrowing from the Bulgar uncertain.
            Chuv tyrsa “feather grass” (Stipa), in other Turkic languages have been recorded – Rus tyrsa “a specie of stipa” was considered by M.Vasmer as "dark" . Ukr tyrza, tyrsa are wide-spread as common name for various species of feather grass (Stipa) and sedges (Carex), including the Western Ukraine (Volhyn, Transcarpathian region, the Middle Dniester).
            Chuv xăyax "sedge" (Carex), this word exist in many other Turkic languages in the form qyjaq – Ukr kyyak, kiyah, kiyašina, kiyašnik, kіyaški used for name of inula (Carlina), sweet flag (Acorus), cattail (Typha) and even maize in the Carpathians. Sedge by leaf shape is similar to water or bog plants sweet flag and cattail and also grows on wet, marshy ground. Judging by the shape of Ukrainian words, one can say with confidence that the borrowing happened from the ancient Bulgarish language but not from other Turkic.
            Chuv xăvăš "honeysuckle", similar words in other Turkic languages were not found – Ukr. xabz, xaboz, xabuz, xabzina are used for names of different species of lilac, elder, sometimes sow-thistle.
            Chuv čeček, çeçke "flower", similar words are present in many Turkic languages, including the Crimean Tatars – Ukr. čіčka "flower" is especially common in the Carpathians.

            Interference of the Bulgars and the neighboring Germanic peoples reflected not only in vocabulary but in beliefs and customs. This is the theme of individual studies, but some examples can be already provided. Chuvash name of deity tură can be compared with the German name of the god Thor (Donar), the son of Odin. German name, originally meant "thunder", had the form *þunra, resembling the name of the supreme deity of the Turks Täŋri (literally "sky"), from which Chuv tură originated. Without a doubt, this deity has been borrowed by the Germans from the Bulgars as many other mythical creatures. For example, Bulgarish mythical character, who is still preserved in the Chuvash folklore as Ulăp "giant, hero" and has a match in most of the tales of the Turkic peoples (Tur, Uzb alp, Tat., Kaz alyp, etc.), can be connected with German character of a different nature: Ger Alp, Alb «goblin, evil spirit," Eng elf. Giving an awesome value for other people's deities or mythical character is quite understandable. If desired, such examples can be found in the mythology. In the Ukraine, long since children has been calmed down by frightening with some scary "Babay", which is quite possible to correspond with Papay, mainly Scythian god.
            Anticipating somewhat, we note that the Bulgars were in the Western Ukraine before coming here Slavs in the late 1st mill. BC. Linguistic contacts of the Slavs and Bulgars are considered separately, but here we give just "mathematical" proof of contact between the Bulgars and Slavs, namely the ancestors of the Czechs and Slovaks, and this contact could occur only near Urheimat of the latter. It was found the phonetic and semantic likeness of lonely among Turkic languages Chuv. salat "to scatter, throw about" and Slvk. sálat’ "to radiate, flare", Cz. sálat "to flare". V. Machek submitted these words with ancient meaning házeti, metati "to throw". We shall try to count up probability of such coincidences for this concrete case. For this purpose, we need to know the certain laws of word-building in Chuvash. 2100 Chuvash words have been taken for the analysis of such laws. Approximately 210 words of them begin with the letter s, i.e. the probability of that any Chuvash word will begin with the letter s is equaled 210 : 2100 = 1/10. Having analyzed all words with initial s, we can find probability of that the second letter of a word with initial s will be the letter a. This probability is equaled 1/6. In such a way we find the probability of that the third letter will be l, and the fourth again a. Accordingly these probabilities are equaled 1/12 and 1/8. Having analysed all words of a type kalax, salax, palax, valax where the second a is any vowel, and х is any consonant, it is possible to find the probability of that the like word will end by t. This probability is equaled 1/10. Having multiplied all these values of separate probabilities, we can find out the approximate value of the probability of arising the word salat in Chuvash: 1/10x1/6x1/12x1/8x1/10 = 1/57600. Now it is necessary to count up the probability that the word salat will have meaning close to sence "to throw". All 2100 Chuvash words present in our list can be shared into groups of words which can correspond to one certain general semantic units. Such division is subjective as the borders between semantic fields are always very dim in the certain measure. However, probably, nobody will object to that division of all 2100 words into 100 conditional semantic units is sufficient that the semantic field of each of these units in extremely small degree could overlay other semantic field. Then the probability of that the Chuvash word salat can make sense, close to value "to throw, scatter, quickly to move, take off outside” etc. will be equaled, at least no more as 1/100. Accordingly, the probability that a Chuvash word like to Slvk. sálat ’ and Cz. sálat‘ was arisen, is equaled 1/5760000. If we have some such "coincidences", then the probability of their casual occurrence in different languages can be determined by unity with several tens zeroes after a point in the denominator. Practically it means that the one of words of unrelated languages having good phonetic and semantic likeness and five and more phonemes was borrowed by any way. Though this is fairly if words have no onomatopoetic character what does probable occurrence of similar words in different languages independently. For example, the widespread Slavic word duda, dudka “a pipe” is like Trc. düdük "a pipe". F. Miklošič and S. Berneker asserted this Slavic word was borrowed from Turkic but M. Vasmer and A. Brückner thought that the consonance of these words was "mere chance" (VASMER M. 1964-1974). Clearly, that doubts about borrowing of the Slavic word from Turkic are substantiated, therefore Slav. duda cannot be included in set of doubtless loan-words.
            The presence of the ancient Bulgars in western Ukraine, and Poland, and Hungary has been confirmed by new additional place names, ethnography, and sometimes even completely unpredictable facts, such as, for example, the Turkic runic signs in the cave temple on the Dniester. Such a coincidence has a negligible probability which practically can not ignored.

Free counter and web stats             Яндекс.Метрика            
«  April 2017  »
Site friends
  • Create a free website
  • Online Desktop
  • Free Online Games
  • Video Tutorials
  • All HTML Tags
  • Browser Kits