Browse results
Abstract
Multilingualism is a characteristic feature of Yiddish speakers in the Baltic region, and contact-induced language change is natural in this case. To date, some Baltic German impact on the local varieties of Yiddish has been discussed in the literature. This article focuses on the phonic impact of Estonian on Estonian Yiddish. The study is based on acoustic analysis of Estonian Yiddish sound recordings. The North Baltic area forms a separate region in the Baltic Sprachbund; Yiddish spoken in Samogitia and Courland as well as Estonian Yiddish exhibit several features typical of this language area. It is demonstrated that there is an overlap of basic prosodic categories with co-territorial languages, such as centralized stress and a quantity opposition. A distinctive feature common to Estonian and Estonian Yiddish is the limited reduction of vowels and a tendency to maintain stable durational ratios of the primary stressed syllable and following unstressed syllables.
Abstract
The paper discusses the etymological connection between Amuric *alr ‘berry’ and Mongolic *alïr-su/n ‘lingonberry’. The two items represent the common root *alïr and must reflect a trace of language contact. However, unlike several other lexical items shared by Amuric and Mongolic, this word is not attested in Tungusic, except as a very late and localized secondary borrowing from Mongolic. This means that the connection may be due to a relatively old direct contact between Pre-Proto-Amuric and Pre-Proto-Mongolic. This, in turn, has implications to the question concerning the prehistorical locations of the Amuric, Mongolic, and Tungusic language families in southern and central Manchuria.
Abstract
Manchu is the name of a people that has an important place in world history. While the list of etymologies of the name already encompasses several dozen proposals, none is widely accepted. The most promising etymology from a linguistic perspective can be characterized as the “riverside hypothesis”. It states that the name is that of the lower Amur that was later used for peoples living along that river. This paper takes a fresh look at this hypothesis, discussing previous approaches, rejecting earlier arguments against it, and evaluating the plausibility of the hypothesis by establishing a detailed semantic model and a list of sound laws. It concludes that, despite minor phonological issues, the hypothesis is very likely the correct one.
Abstract
The Mongolic languages have a rich terminology related to horse tack. The tack includes the bridle, horse’s bit, halter, lead rope, reins, saddle, horse blanket, stirrup, various straps and girths. They all have special names in Mongolic. The aim of this paper is to collect these specific terms from the Mongolic languages and discuss them from a morphological and etymological perspective. The latter is important because the vocabulary of animal husbandry in Mongolic was strongly influenced linguistically by the Turkic people.
Abstract
The Mongolian nomads’ way of life and perception of the outside world is directly reflected in their thinking and use of language. In the following article, I apply an ethnolinguistic approach to the study of the Mongolian language. I find the theoretical basis in the ethnography of communication (Dell Hymes 1962), which allows for the communication behaviour of nomads to be revealed. The given examples of idioms, phrases, sayings, and proverbs relate to cattle breeding, the essence of nomadic life, and reveal the linguistic means of their metaphorical expression. The article builds on my previous ethnolinguistic research on the colloquial language and is based on material collected during long-term field research, which was subsequently consulted in detail with native speakers.
Abstract
The present paper argues for two radical consonantal changes in Late Proto-Turkic, which can be formulated as *t₁ > g /V_iVr₁/₂ and *d₁ > g /V_iVr₁. Using this new sound law, some lexemes that have the phonemic shape /°VgVr/ or /°VgVz/ in Common Turkic are etymologised as being derived from verbs ending in °t- or °d-. The reconstructed Turkic forms are also partly supported by Mongolic data.
Abstract
Regardless of the modern settlement of their speakers, the South Siberian Turkic languages evidence the largest number of Mongolic loanwords. At the same time, the layer of the loanwords in these languages varies greatly. Interestingly, the Kirghiz language has quite a few Mongolic borrowings, following the number of borrowings from South Siberian Turkic languages. According to my preliminary compiled materials, more than 300 words are indisputably of Mongolic origin. Most of these Mongolic loanwords were most likely borrowed in the early Yenisei period. As with the South Siberian Turkic languages (Tuvan, Khakas, Yakut, etc.) in Kirghiz, it is difficult to distribute the Mongolic loanwords into earlier and later layers. For example, Kirghiz has an early characteristic feature in the length patterns -a