ᠠᠩᠭ᠍ᠯᠢ ᠨᠣᠮ᠄ ᠠᠯᠲᠠᠢ ᠬᠡᠯᠡᠨ ᠤ ᠦᠭᠡ ᠶᠢᠨ ᠭᠠᠷᠤᠯ ᠤᠨ ᠲᠤᠯᠢ An Etymological Dictionary Of Altaic Languages.pdf

S. A. Starostin, A. V. Dybo, O. A. Mudrak An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages S. A. Starostin, A. V. Dybo, O. A. Mudrak (with the assistance of I. Gruntov and V. Glumov) An Etymological Dictionary of Altaic Languages CONTENTS Preface. . 7 Introduction 11 Chapter one. The problem of interlingual borrowings in Altaic languages 13 Chapter two. Comparative phonology of Altaic languages 22 Chapter three. Comparative and historical phonologies of Altaic subgroups. 136 Chapter four. Elements of a comparative morphology of Altaic languages 173 Chapter five. Classification of Altaic languages and dating of Proto-Altaic 230 Structure of the dictionary and adopted conventions . 237 Selected bibliography and abbreviations of quoted literature 241 Abbreviations of periodical editions 265 Abbreviations of language names 267 Dictionary 271 Indices. 1558 PREFACE This is a first attempt at an etymological dictionary of Altaic languages. The history of Altaic comparative studies is a difficult one. Even now there is still no consensus among scholars on the very problem of the existence of Altaic as a genetic unit. We sincerely hope that this publi- cation will bring an end to this discussion, which has lasted for more than 30 years. The dictionary presented below should by no means be regarded as final and conclusive. We have tried to collect all existing etymologies that seem to be semantically reliable and fit the established system of phonetic correspondences. Among the 2800 etymologies presented ap- proximately half are new, developed by our team during more than 10 years of preparatory work. New etymologies will most certainly fol- low, while some of those presented will doubtlessly be rearranged or even refuted in the course of future research. The current reconstruc- tion will also inevitably change - as it happened with Indo-European, Uralic and most of the other established language families during the decades of their investigation. Nevertheless, we regard it as a valid starting point, worth presenting to the general academic audience, and look forward for criticism, suggestions and corrections. Wherever necessary we give references to etymological literature, although we decided to keep the discussion as short as possible. Many existing etymologies are not mentioned in this dictionary because they contradict the system of correspondences followed in the present vol- ume or because we think we have found better solutions. It would be futile, e.g., to struggle with some of the etymologies linking words with Jpn. *p- to those with Altaic *k῾-, since we do not believe that such a correspondence exists at all. We must say, however, that most of the etymologies presented in the classical works of G. Ramstedt and N. Poppe, as well as very many Japanese etymologies of R. Miller and S. Martin, have been preserved, which in itself shows that the proposed phonological reinterpretation of the Proto-Altaic system is just an ex- tension of previous research. The Altaic family as a genetic unity of Turkic, Mongolian and Tun- gus-Manchu languages had been proposed as early as 1730 by F. J. v. PREFACE 8 Stralenberg. Until the early 20th century, however, there was no clear idea about the classification or comparative grammar of Altaic. The few scholars that studied the languages regarded them rather as part of a common Ural-Altaic family, together with Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic languages - an idea now completely discarded. The undebatable father of scientific Altaic studies was Gustaf John Ramstedt. He started his research in the very beginning of the century, and made a huge contribution both to Altaic studies as a whole and to the study of individual subgroups of Altaic. His research was con- cluded by the fundamental “Einführung in die Altaische Sprachwis- senschaft” published in 1952, two years after his death in 1950. Ramstedt formulated many basic phonetic rules of correspondences between the Altaic languages, laid the foundations of Altaic compara- tive grammar, and finalized the subclassification of the Altaic family by separating Uralic from Altaic and adding Korean and Japanese to its classic “Western” core. Other scholars whose contributions to the Altaic field were really substantial are N. Poppe, K. Menges, V. Tsintsius, V. Illich-Svitych, S. Martin and R. A. Miller. A full account of their achievements would deserve a special study, but suffice it to say that due to their efforts a basic reconstruction of Common Altaic was already available by the late fifties / early sixties of the 20th century. A reaction started in the sixties. A number of scholars (for some rea- son, primarily Turcologists) initiated what seemed at that time a counter-Altaic revolt. The names of the main anti-Altaicists are G. Clauson, G. Doerfer and A. Shcherbak. Among them G. Doerfer should be distinguished as the most consistent, most fruitful, and most vigor- ous in his anti-Altaic efforts. Although the arguments of anti-Altaicists were many - from pho- netic to lexico-statistical - their basic argument can be summed up as follows: the relationship between the Altaic languages is not what a genuine genetic relationship should be. All the numerous resemblances between them were explained as a result of secondary convergence within a “Sprachbund” of originally unrelated languages. The whole idea of the original Proto-Altaic unity was very seriously threatened. Simultaneously the Eastern branch of Altaic - Korean and Japanese, or Korean-Japanese - was brought under heavy suspicion. No serious alternative for Korean was proposed, but an active search for non-Altaic relatives of Japanese began. Distinguished scholars like S. Murayama (who always hesitated between the Altaic and Austronesian affinity of Japanese) and P. Benedict started searching for Japa- PREFACE 9 nese-Austronesian parallels, with Benedict (following mainly the Japa- nese scholar Kawamoto) finally proclaiming the inclusion of Japanese - without Korean and Altaic - into his Austro-Thai family. After a critical evaluation of the problem we came to the conclusion that Altaic should be still characterized as a genetic unity, probably forming a branch of the larger Nostratic macrofamily, but certainly a separate family on its own. The very fact that it is possible to compile a dictionary of common Altaic heritage appears to be a proof of the va- lidity of the Altaic theory. The work on the dictionary started in the late 80’s. Initially we worked together with I. Shervashidze, who later switched to different projects, and the work was continued by S. Starostin, A. Dybo and O. Mudrak. We must gratefully mention our numerous younger col- leagues and students who helped at various stages of compiling the dictionary, and especially Ilia Gruntov, Vladimir Glumov, Vasiliy Chernov and Martine Robbeets. The work was sponsored by grants from the Soros (“Open Society”) foundation, from the Russian Foun- dation of Fundamental Research and the Russian Foundation of Hu- manities; since 1997 the research was supported by the Investor Group “Ariel” within the framework of the “Tower of Babel” project. All the work was conducted within the STARLING database cre- ated by S. Starostin. The Altaic database is constantly available on line at the Web address http://starling.rinet.ru. Special thanks go to pro- grammers: Ph. Krylov who designed the Windows version of STARLING software, Yu. Bronnikov who designed the scripts for the Internet site; and to S. Bolotov who designed the fonts for this compli- cated edition. We would like also to express deep gratitude to colleagues who had read the manuscript and given us many valuable suggestions, both stylistical and etymological: Bernard Comrie, Alexander Lubotsky and Cormack McCarthie. INTRODUCTION (by S. A. Starostin) CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM OF INTERLINGUAL BORROWINGS IN ALTAIC LANGUAGES Since the gist of the anti-Altaic criticism is the idea that what Ramstedt and Poppe regarded as common Altaic heritage is in fact a result of later borrowings, it is this problem that we shall tackle first in the in- troduction. This problem is of utmost importance for the whole Altaic theory. We must be able to distinguish between commonly inherited mor- phemes and borrowed ones - since interlingual borrowing was very widely practiced during the final stages of the development of Altaic languages. There are two basic contact zones in the Altaic area: the Turko-Mongolian and the Mongolo-Tungus. There had also been some contacts between Tungus and Korean, Korean and Mongolian, Korean and Japanese - but they are relatively insignificant in comparison with the very intense Turko-Mongolian and Mongolo-Tungus contacts. 1.1. Turko-Mongolian contacts. It has been convincingly demonstrated by several authors (in a most detailed way by Clark 1980) that there are no (or almost no) Mongolian loanwords in Early Old Turkic, i.e. before the 13th century A.D. How- ever, already in the Secret History of Mongols (13th c.) we find a number of identifiable Turkic loanwords. Logically enough, in Late Old Turkic, Middle Turkic and modern Turkic languages we also find a large number of Mongolisms. This can only mean that Turko-Mongolian contacts started in the 13th century, and there were no direct contacts before that time. But there is also a large number of Turko-Mongolian matches that cannot be explained as post-13th century loans. This fact was acknowl- edged by most critics of the Altaic theory, and a bold attempt was made by Doerfer to explain such matches as being prehistoric loans from Turkic into Mongolian (for Altaicists, of course, such matches rep- resent rather common inherited vocabulary). Let us formulate the criteria that distinguish early Turkic borrow- ings in Mongolian loans from the inherited vocabulary ( = prehistoric loans in Doerfer’s terminology). INTRODUCTION 14 1. The words involved are attested in Turkic before the 13th century; 2. They appear in Mongolian in a form typical for 13th century Uy- ghur/Karakhanide Turkic The latter criterion means that in the donor language the following changes occurred, compared with Proto-Turkic: a) voiced *d-, *g- *t-, *k-; b) *ĺ, *ŕ *š, *z; c) long vowels and diphthongs disappeared. The most obvious criterion here is b), since the correspondences Turk. *ĺ (š) : Mong. s and Turk. *ŕ (z): Mong. z, ǯ, s only occur within this layer of loanwords (see Clark 1980). Let us take a closer look at such cases: PT *jāĺɨl ‘green, greens’ (OT jašɨl): WMong. jasil ‘buckthorn’ PT *gEŕik ‘turn, order’ (OT kezik): WMong. kesig ‘wake, turn’ (already in MMong. as kešik) PT *gEŕ- ‘to walk, walk through’ (OT kez-): WMong. kesü-, kese- ‘to wander, roam’ PT *eĺi ‘lady, beg’s consort’ (OT iši): WMong. esi ‘empress’ (MMong. esi) PT *seŕik ‘feeling’ (OT sezik): WMong. sesig PT *(i)āĺ-ru ‘exceedingly’ (OT ašru): WMong. asuru PT *dūĺ- ‘to meet’ (OT tuš-): WMong. tus(u)- PT *kīĺ ‘sable’ (OT kiš): WMong. er-kis ‘male sable’, ebsi-gis ‘female sable’ PT *Koĺ ‘pair’ (OT qoš): WMong. qos(i) (MMong. qoši) id. PT *Koĺ ‘hut, camping’ (MK qoš ‘family’): WMong. qos(i) (also qošlɨɣ WMong. qosiliɣ) PT *jüŕüm ‘grape’ (OT üzüm, jüzüm) WMong. üǯüm PT *jmiĺč ‘vegetable(s)’ : MMong. (HY) ǯemiši PT *Kạĺčɨ- ‘to scrape’ (OT qašɨ-), *Kạĺčɨ-gu ‘scraper’ (e.g. Chag. qašaɣu): MMong. qaši’ur ‘scraper’ PT *biĺč-, *bɨĺč- (OT biš-) ‘to become boiled’, *bɨĺč-lak ‘smth. boiled’ WMong. bis(i)laɣ, basilaɣ ‘a k. of home cheese’ PT *Kar-ĺɨ ‘opposite’ (OT qaršɨ) WMong. qarsi PT *uluĺ ‘country, city’ (OT uluš) WMong. ulus PT *jạĺ- ‘blaze’, *jạĺɨn ‘lightning’ (OT jašu-, jašɨn) WMong. jašin id. PT *jEŕ ‘copper’ WMong. ǯes id. PT *boĺ ‘free, empty’, *boĺan- ‘to become empty, poor’ (OT boš, bošan-) WMong. busani- id.; *boĺug ‘permission’ (OT bošuɣ) WMong. bošuɣ id. PT *aŕɨg ‘fang’ MMong. *aǯuɣ (ačuɣ in Uygh. script) PT *bogaŕ ‘pregnant’ (OT boɣaz) : WMong. boɣus PT *KĀĺ ‘jade’ (OT qaš): WMong. qas(i) (MMong. qaši) PT *diĺ ‘vessel’ (OT eδiš): WMong. idis(i) id. PT *Kebiŕ ‘carpet’ (OT kebiz): WMong. kebis id. PT *keleŕ / *keler ‘lizard’ (OT keler): WMong. keles CHAPTER ONE 15 PT *arbɨĺ ‘magic’ (OT arvɨš): WMong. arbis ‘knowledge’ PT *duĺa- ‘to hobble’, *duĺak ‘hobble’ (OT tuša-, tušaq): WMong. tuša-, tusi- ‘to hobble’, MMong. tušaɣa ‘hobble’ PT *Kaĺaŋ ‘lazy’ (OT qašaŋ): WMong. qašaŋ id. PT *Köĺi- ‘to screen’, *Köĺi-ge ‘shadow’ (OT köši-, köšige): MMong. köši-, köšige From these loans we may infer that: 1. OT š ( kese-, kesü-; tuš- tus(u)-); this is explained by the fact that Mong. has very few monosyllabic verbal stems. b) polysyllabic nominal stems usually do not, but occasionally also add one (tušaq tušaɣa); c) monosyllabic nominal stems never add a vowel (except the parasitic -i after -s- - to render Turkic š); 6. vowels are usually quite faithfully retained - except ɨ which is regu- larly rendered by i (of course there is occasional variation between o and u, and of weak vowels in the non-initial syllable); 7. voiced intervocalic consonants are rendered as voiced (notably -g- is rendered as -ɣ- -0- in boɣaz boɣus, cf. Kalm., Dag. bōs). Now if we investigate the loans from Mongolian into modern Turkic languages we find a very similar system of correspondences: WMong. sibaɣu(n) ‘bird’ (MMong. šiba’un) : Chag. šibaɣun WMong. qaɣurai ‘dry’ Tat. qawrai WMong. qaŋsiɣar ‘beak, nose’ Uzb. qanšar WMong. dabaɣan, MMong. daba’an ‘mountain pass’ Chag. taban WMong. ɣaɣursu (Khalkha gūrs) ‘chaff’ Kirgh. qaursu WMong. qara- ‘look’, qaraɣul ‘patrol’ (MMong. qara’ul) Chag. qara-, qarawul INTRODUCTION 16 WMong. egeči, MMong. egeči ‘elder sister’ Chag. egeči WMong. ǯabsar, MMong. ǯab(u)sar ‘gap, interval’ Kirgh. ǯapsar WMong. girɣaul, ɣurɣuul (MMong. xurqa’ul) ‘pheasant’ Chag. qɨrɣavul WMong. ɣura(n) ‘roebuck’ (MMong. qura-ltuq) Oyr. quran WMong. silegüsü(n) ‘lynx’ (MMong. šile’usun) Kum. silewsün WMong. soqur (MMong. soxar, soqor) ‘blind’ Koman soqur WMong. ǯuuqa ‘stove’ Leb., Kumd. joqqɨ WMong. šigüder, MMong. ši’uder(en) ‘dew’ Chag. šüdürün etc. Of course the system slightly differs: Mongolian voiced initial con- sonants are usually rendered by voiceless Turkic ones (since voiced consonants are only retained in Oghuz languages that had hardly any direct contacts with Mongolian and obtained all their Mongolisms through Kypchak and Karluk intermediaries). But in general we see that both loans from Turkic into Mongolian and vice versa reflect gen- erally a single socio-linguistic situation: intensive Turko-Mongolian contacts after the 13th century, with loanwords flowing in both direc- tions - a situation quite consistent with what we know about the his- tory of Turkic and Mongolian peoples. A well-known fact, however, is the existence of a large number of different Turko-Mongolian matches, frequently doublets to those in- vestigated above. Thus we have OT azɨɣ ‘fang’ (PT *aŕɨg) corresponding to WMong. araɣa, arija, MMong. ar