All Slavic languages: Turkic influence on grammar/phonology

jadeite_85

Senior Member
italian, slovene
We already have a topic about the influence of Turkic languages on the vocabulary of Slavic languages. I would like to discuss the influence on pronunciation and grammar (if it exists)

There are some similarities between Russian and Turkish in syntax. Coincidence or influence?

a) Both languages tend to omit the verb to be in the present.

Turkish
O rehber.

Russian
Он гид.

English
He is a tour guide.


b) Both languages don't use the verb "to have" to express possession, but use instead a construction with the genitive of the possessor and the expression "there is/there are".

Russian uses the third person singular of the verb "to be" in the meaning "there is/there are" - "есть", while Turkish expresses it with the expression "var" (which means "it exists"). The possessor in Russian is expressed with the preposition "У + genitive"; in Turkish the possessor is put in the genitive. The thing possessed it becomes subject in Russian, while in Turkish we add a suffix indicating that the thing is being possessed.

Turkish
Onun kedisi var.
Russian
У него есть кот.
English
He has a cat.

Turkish and Russian speakers please correct my errors. :)
 
  • jadeite_85

    Senior Member
    italian, slovene
    In Turkish there is a tendence not to pronounce the "-r" before a consonant and sometimes at the end of the word. Many Serbian words lost the final "-r", where Croatian preserved it.

    Sr. Cro
    juče jučer (yesterday)
    veče večer (evening)

    Another tendence in Turkish is the avoidance of the sound "h". "Mehmet" sounds as "Memet" and the expression "ne haber?" (colloquial for "how are you?") is pronounced as "naber?". Macedonian and (less) Serbian lost the "-h" in many words. Croatian preserved it.

    Sr. Cro.
    uvo uho (ear)
    suvo suho (dry)
    kuvati kuhati (to cook)

    "Hajde" in Serbian sounds like "Ajde" and "hoću" sounds like "oću".
     
    The Russian usage from your examples reflects the original Indo-European one, found e. g. in Sanskrit. In Latin, habēmus pāpam has replaced the original nōbīs est pāpa in the course of its history. Ancient Greek often omits the verb "to be" in Praes. Sg. 3, e. g. in the Bible.
     

    jadeite_85

    Senior Member
    italian, slovene
    The Russian usage from your examples reflects the original Indo-European one, found e. g. in Sanskrit. In Latin, habēmus pāpam has replaced the original nōbīs est pāpa in the course of its history. Ancient Greek often omits the verb "to be" in Praes. Sg. 3, e. g. in the Bible.

    So, is the "genitive + verb to be" construction a Slavic influence on Turkish?
    But why should have Russian been the only Slavic language that conserved this way of expressing possession? As far as I know no other Slavic language ever had something similar, because they all continued the Proto Slavic root jьměti. And the use of "иметь" is considered archaic or high register in Russian now to express posession.

    And about the omission of the verb "to be", could this be a Greek influence on both Russian and Turkish? Modern Greek however preserve the 3rd person singular in the present.
     
    Last edited:
    I can't comment the Russian influence on Turkish, but suspect it was close to zero (except maybe a few borrowed words). For centuries, there were virtually no contacts between these two nations other than on battlefields. To put things into a perspective, we should remember that Turkish is just one of several dozens of Turkic languages, like Slavic is one of many IE branches, and before discussing cross-familial influences, we should realize the situation in other members of each of these families.

    The Proto-Indo-European language lacked a verb "to have", or, at least, there is no evidence that it existed: every branch developed its own verb with this meaning, often in the same manner: a zero-graded root + ē-. The dichotomy found in Slavic exists in Baltic as well: Lithuanian uses "I have" (aš turiu) whereas Latvian uses "there is to me" (man ir). Celtic seems to lack this verb altogether. Russian иметь is rather borrowed: the instances where it occurs are either Old Church Slavonic citations or European, especially French, calques. Yet, the verb itself is inherited (but Russian has no traces of the Present jьmamь). Ukrainian and Belarusian seem to use both "to have" and "to be at", with Ukrainian prefering the former (я маю), and Belarusian the latter (у мяне ёсьць). Apparently, this is close to the Common Slavic situation, whereas other languages have chosen either variant more explicitly. And by the way, if we can speak of the foreign influence in Russian/Belarusian, it will be Finnic: Finnish minulla on "on me is" is closer to у меня есть "at me is" (the place in both cases) than the more traditional Indo-European "to me is" with the Dative (the direction). But these constructions are all so trivial and occur in zillions of languages, so that without very transparent evidence it is rather dangerous to speak of borrowing.
     
    But why should have Russian been the only Slavic language that conserved this way of expressing possession? As far as I know no other Slavic language ever had something similar, because they all continued the Proto Slavic root jьměti.
    Old Church Slavonic, Matthew 18: 12:
    If a man owns a hundred sheep…
    аще бѫдетъ оу етера чловѣка [100] овець… (Codex Assemanius — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Assemanius)
    етероу чловѣкоу (Codex Marianus — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Marianus)
    Cited from: Вайан А · 1952 · Руководство по старославянскому языку: 220 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJOHg3TnpWWnNlQUE&authuser=0)
     
    "One of the oldest uses of the Indo-European dative case is in constructions with *es- 'be' to express possession (Benveniste 1949, 1966a:188, 197; 1974; Watkins 1967, Allen 1964a:338). Constructions like Lat. mihi aliquid est 'I have something' (lit. 'to me is something'), cf. Hitt. tuqqa UL kuitki eszi 'you have nothing' (lit. 'to you is nothing'),21 Gk. estí soi khrusós 'you have gold' (lit. 'to you is gold') reflect an ancient Indo-European construction with possessive semantics.22 It is important to note that there was no verb 'have' for this semantic relation, as is typical of active languages (Klimov 1973:217; cf. also Saxokija 1974).
    The transformation of the construction type mihi aliquid est to habeō aliquid in the history of Latin reflects the appearance in the individual historically attested Indo-European dialects of a verb meaning specifically 'have', used both with independent possessive semantics and as an auxiliary verb23 (Benveniste 1966a, 1974). Such verbs develop from verbs meaning 'hold' , cf. Hitt. ḫark- 'hold', Lat. arceō 'hold, retain'; Gk. ékhō from PIE *seg̑ʰ- 'hold' (Skt. sáhate 'overcomes'); cf. also Lat. habeō 'have' beside inhibeō '(I) inhibit, retain' from PIE *gʰabʰ- (Olr. gaibid 'catches, takes').
    The possessive constructions with dative and the verb *es- semantically admit negation of this relation. The construction mihi est aliquid 'I have something' (lit. 'to me is something')24 takes the negation mihi non est aliquid 'I do not have something'".
    Gamkrelidze TV, Ivanov VV · 1995 · Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: 250–251 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJdUpTd05PZk1kV2s/view?usp=sharing)
     
    "La phrase nominale sert à affirmer qu'une qualité, une manière d'être, appartient à quelque chose. Ainsi, chez Homère :

    A 80 κρείσσων γὰρ βασιλεύς « car le roi est le plus fort ».
    174 πάρ' ἔμοιγε καὶ ἄλλοι « auprès de moi il y en a d'autres encore ».


    en vieux perse, manā pitā Vištaspa « mon père est Vištaspa »;
    en védique, R̥. V., II, 1, 2 táva... hotrám « à toi est à la qualité de hotar »; en latin, haec admirabilia, etc. Des phrases de ce genre ne comprennent aucune idée verbale, et aucun verbe n'y figurait sans doute en indo-européen là où il n'y avait à exprimer ni mode, ni personne, ni temps, c'est-à-dire là où un verbe éventuel serait à la 3e personne du présent de l'indicatif".
    Meillet A · 1908 · Introduction à l’ étude comparative des langues indo-européennes: 322 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJeUlEeTZMS3RjY2M&authuser=0)
     
    And, finally, the Russian omission of "to be" in other persons of the Present is indeed an innovation as suggested by the old texts. It has, however, parallels in Lithuanian, which allows both aš ne studentas, aš aspirantas and nesu studentas, esu aspirantas ​and even aš nesu studentas, aš esu aspirantas "I'm not a student, I'm a postgraduate'.
     

    Christo Tamarin

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    We already have a topic about the influence of Turkic languages on the vocabulary of Slavic languages. I would like to discuss the influence on pronunciation and grammar (if it exists)

    Let us consider the last 11 centuries only.

    I do not know about any influence of some Turkic language on the pronunciation in some Slavic language.

    A Turkish influence is supposed for the renarrative mood in Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian). Nothing else.
     

    Daniel.N

    Member
    Croatian
    Another tendence in Turkish is the avoidance of the sound "h". "Mehmet" sounds as "Memet" and the expression "ne haber?" (colloquial for "how are you?") is pronounced as "naber?". Macedonian and (less) Serbian lost the "-h" in many words. Croatian preserved it.

    Sr. Cro.
    uvo uho (ear)
    suvo suho (dry)
    kuvati kuhati (to cook)

    "Hajde" in Serbian sounds like "Ajde" and "hoću" sounds like "oću".

    Actually, all dialects in Serbia, and many in Croatia and Bosnia as well, have completely lost the h (/h/, /x/). Uvo (< uho) and snaja (snaha) are very common in many parts of Croatia (but not standard).

    It's just that the h was reintroduced in 19th century by Vuk St. Karadžić to promote one language for all...

    This could be Turkish influence, but the problem is that Muslims in Bosnia retained the h, and their Orthodox neighbors a village away (= Serbs) lost it. Any Turkish influence would have been bigger on speech of Muslims in cities than on Serbs in remote mountain villages.

    Also, there are some hints that h was lost in Serbia before any Turks arrived (I'm thinking about genitive -ьь in Medieval Cyrillic manuscripts, under assumption that it had originated from former loc. -ьxь).

    Disclaimer: I'm not a linguist.
     

    Christo Tamarin

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    Daniel.N is probably right: the lost of H/X is not a Turkish influence. Most Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian+Macedonian) dialects have also lost that sound. By the way, some Bulgarian dialects have later restored H/X and have introduced that sound in "wrong" places: (х)убав, (х)аресвам, etc.
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    We already have a topic about the influence of Turkic languages on the vocabulary of Slavic languages. I would like to discuss the influence on pronunciation and grammar (if it exists)

    I don't know something about influences between Indoeuropean and Ural Altaic languages in general, but I noticed some single simillarities between some South Slavic languages and Turkish representing Turkic languages:

    Semantics:

    • The presence of the verb pair има/няма in Bulgarian resembles (in my eyes) to Turkish var/yok
    Pronunciation/phonetics/phonology:

    • The transition of the phonemes ("g" > "h") according to the Turkish grapheme "ğ" resembles (in my eyes) to sime Slavic languages (heroj/geroj..., or e.g. German "Helmut", pronounced in Russian as "Gelmut")
    • The sound value of Turkish "ı" is prominently existent in Bulgarian (connected with grapheme "ъ") and other South Slavic languages, too. It may exist in similar manner in German e.g., but mainly limited to ablaut forms, if I'm not mistaken.

    But I'm not a linguist. This is just a private layman's impression.
     
    The Russian h>g is not a phonetic phenomenon. In the 17th century, after the acquisition of Kiev, the Russian church language fell under the influence of the Ukrainian tradition, which, in particular, implied the Ukrainian pronunciation of г as ǥ, supported also by a similar South Russian pronunciation. This persisted during some 100–200 years, and it meant that the letter г in the 17–18th centuries was read as g in everyday words and as ǥ in the elevated style. The foreign words with h thus could be transliterated with г as well, hence all these Гельмут, Ганс, Гуго, Гомер etc. Sometime in the first half of the 19th century, this artificial ǥ disappeared from the speech (compare the nasalized French vowels some people try to preserve in English and German), г in the elevated words returned to its original pronunciation as g, and so was the fate of г in foreign borrowings. After that time, the tradition to transliterate h with г persisted until the middle 20th century: Hitler was still Гитлер, but Honecker was already Хонеккер.
     

    Daniel.N

    Member
    Croatian
    There was definitely some Turkic (not Turkish) influence on Proto-Slavic, at least on the borrowing level.

    My favorite word is tumač (Croatian/Serbian/etc) "interpreter", Polish tłumacz, Russian толмач etc.

    Compare it to very similar nothern Turkic words for the same term. And the meaning is really interesting. But it means Slavic-Turkic contacts were of such a kind that an interpreter was frequently needed, and it was a specialist person.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a linguist.
     
    There was definitely some Turkic (not Turkish) influence on Proto-Slavic, at least on the borrowing level.

    My favorite word is tumač (Croatian/Serbian/etc) "interpreter", Polish tłumacz, Russian толмач etc.

    Compare it to very similar nothern Turkic words for the same term. And the meaning is really interesting. But it means Slavic-Turkic contacts were of such a kind that an interpreter was frequently needed, and it was a specialist person.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a linguist.
    Does the existence of the word die Ananas in German suggest a sensible Guaraní influence on this language?
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    There was definitely some Turkic (not Turkish) influence on Proto-Slavic, at least on the borrowing level.
    As far as I understood the question was related to
    the influence on pronunciation and grammar (if it exists)
    If we want to refer to the borrowing of terms (especially from Turkish to Slavic and Balkans languages) or even to the cultural contacts of the concerning people it would come to completely different dimensions, I guess. Just think about Cossacks and their ataman or think about the Tatars and the maidan in Kiev.

    Followup: I misunderstood Daniel.N. He was referring to the early middle ages, wheras I referred to high middle ages and later. My fault.
     
    Last edited:

    Daniel.N

    Member
    Croatian
    The borrowing of the word for "interpreter" from Turkic into Slavic tells you about the nature of contacts. These were contacts where an interpreter was needed. There were specialist interpreters, which indicates that there weren't many bilingual (Turkic/Slavic) people around. Slavic and Turkic people were not freely mixing.

    Since there were not many bilingual people around, there couldn't have been influences on grammar or phonology at that stage of Proto-Slavic.

    Of course, there were later influences on individual languages.
     
    In the early Middle Ages a considerable part of Slavs was subjugated by Avars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avar_Khaganate). The memory of this was still alive in the 11th century since this is mentioned in the East Slavic "Primary chronicle". Some of the common Slavic words of Turkic origin may come from the Avar period. Yet, I can't think of any common Slavic trait that can be ascribed to a Turkic influence. The suffix -čьjь (kъrmъčьjь/krъmъčьjь, kъnigъčьjь, zьdъčьjь etc.) is probably local.
     

    Christo Tamarin

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    I don't know something about influences between Indoeuropean and Ural Altaic languages in general, but I noticed some single simillarities between some South Slavic languages and Turkish representing Turkic languages:

    Semantics:

    • The presence of the verb pair има/няма in Bulgarian resembles (in my eyes) to Turkish var/yok
    Why Turkish? We have the same in Greek. No Turkish connection. Most probably, this is Balkanic, this is a Balkan sprachbund feature.

    Pronunciation/phonetics/phonology:

    • The sound value of Turkish "ı" is prominently existent in Bulgarian (connected with grapheme "ъ") and other South Slavic languages, too. It may exist in similar manner in German e.g., but mainly limited to ablaut forms, if I'm not mistaken.
    Why Turkish? We have the same sound in Romanian and Albanian.

    The Bulgarian Ъ is actually inherited from Old Slavic. No Turkish connection.

    In the following words, the same vowel Ъ has sounded for more than a thousand years:

    градът, носът, мирът, свѣтът, врагът, срамът, студът, снѣгът, etc.

    In the other Slavic languages, the old vowel Ъ (the big yer) has changed into O (Russian..), A (BCS), E (Czeck,Polish,..).
     
    In Macedonian and much of East Slavic ъ was definitely a back vowel, and since in any case it had arisen from the late common Slavic *u, it must have shifted to the middle row in the remaining Slavic languages, though it is hard to date this shift. The peculiarity of Bulgarian and partly Slovene and some Serbo-Croatian dialects is that this vowel has preserved its schwa-like timber lost in West Slavic and standard Serbo-Croatian.
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    Why Turkish? We have the same in Greek. No Turkish connection. Most probably, this is Balkanic, this is a Balkan sprachbund feature.
    I did not analyse, I just tried to describe. Note, I spoke about "some single similarities" (not about the genetic relationship) and I stressed, I'm speaking as a layman.
    Thanks for mentioning, that it exists in Greek, too. And thanks for the hint to Balkansprachbund. I didn't know about that classification, but I felt there has to exist something like this. By the way the German Wikipedia article states: "Das Türkische ist dabei einer der Einflussfaktoren, die zur Herausbildung dieses Sprachbundes beigetragen haben." So actually this supports (if Wikipedia is right with it) the presence of similarities between Southern Slavic (and other) languages with Turkish (even though Turkish isn't Indoeuropean), doesn't it? Don't feel offended, when I like to compare Turkish and Bulgarian. They both are two of the only few languages I have had some more contact with.

    Why Turkish? We have the same sound in Romanian and Albanian.
    I know the sound of Greek, Romanian, and Albanian only from the Balkans songs, but there I didn't realize a similar prominence of the sound value as it is connected with TR 'ı' and BG 'ь'. We have a similar sound value in German, too, but not in prominent position either. If you ask a German, he will say, that he doesn't use it at all, that he even doesn't know it at all. We even have no letter for it. But in Turkish and in Bulgarian you literally build your sentences on it. Anyway it was my private impression as a German, whose neighbours are Danish, Dutch, French, Italian people (all of them Indoeuropean; Czech and Polish, I don't know well enough), that the way Southern Balkan people speak in Turkey and Bulgaria has some conspicuous single similarities, compared with the mentioned Northern languages. But I'm not skilled to proove that in linguistic manner.
     

    Christo Tamarin

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    .. Note, I spoke about "some single similarities" (not about the genetic relationship) ..
    I have never thought you meant genetic relationship. However, you have specified in the thread title "grammar/phonology". If we were not restricted on grammar/phonology, if we consider just "some single similarities", e.g. some single words, some single lexical units, then the things would look very different.

    A great amount of loanwords from Turkish were in common use in Balkano-Slavic dialects. About 1850AD, its number could be estimated as up 8000. Until 1900AD, on the territory of Bulgaria, this number has been reduced, replacing the loanwords from Turkish by loanwords from Russian. Now, in modern Standard Bulgarian, there are still about 1000 loanwords from Turkish in common use.

    Please note: Loanwords from Turkish are considered. No loanwords from other Turkic languages. No influence from other Turkic languages onto Balkano-Slavic can be observed during the last millenium.

    Loanwords from Turkish exist in the other languages of the sprachbund, too.

    Despite the local phonetic differences, the great amount of loanwords from Turkish and the common Slavo-Balkanic grammar ensured total intelligibility all over the Balkano-Slavic dialects before 1850AD.

    By the way the German Wikipedia article states: "Das Türkische ist dabei einer der Einflussfaktoren, die zur Herausbildung dieses Sprachbundes beigetragen haben."
    I am afraid, this is not the exact truth. "Die Herausbildung dieses Sprachbundes" (the formation of the sprachbund: 1000..1300AD) occurred long before the arrival of Turkish (about 1400AD). Having arrived at the Balkans, Turkish found a full-featured Balkan sprachbund there. The Balkan sprachbund was actually the imperial sprachbund of Romania, a.k.a. Byzantium, а.к.а. East Roman Empire. Note: The modern Romania has usurped its name which should be a legacy name of all peoples on the Balkans. In the same sense, the name Macedonia is a legacy name of all peoples on the Balkans and should not be usurped by anyone.

    The dominance of Turkish (1400..1800AD) did not destroy the Balkan sprachbund, it did support it, rather. The Balkan sprachbund was destroyed by the nationalism of the 19th century.

    Don't feel offended, when I like to compare Turkish and Bulgarian.
    I so not feel offended at all.

    I know well the influence of Turkish, the dominant language in the Ottoman empire, onto Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian).

    I have already mentioned the great amount of loanwords from Turkish into Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian). Just to add: among them, some adjectives do not decline, do not conform to the rules of grammar.

    I have already mentioned the renarrative mood in Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian). Certainly, this was influenced by Turkish. The other Balkan or Slavic languages were not affected.

    This was about the grammar.

    Now about the phonology.

    Turkish has its C phonemic sound. Many loanwords from Turkish have that sound. Bulgarian, however, took that sound without assigning it phonemic status: in the Standard Bulgarian speech, the C (дж,џ) sound can be replaced by J (ж) without any consequences. Please compare: in the voiceless case, Ч cannot be replaced by Ш, both being Slavic legacy.

    Yes, Turkish perhaps influenced the phonetics of Bulgarian, but not the phonology.

    If you ask a German, he will say, that he doesn't use it at all, that he even doesn't know it at all. We even have no letter for it. But in Turkish and in Bulgarian you literally build your sentences on it.
    The German phonology does not contain this sound. The Turkish phonology and the Bulgarian phonology do.
    However, for the Bulgarian phonology, this sound is a Slavic legacy, and for the Turkish phonology, this sound is a Turkic legacy. There is no connection.

    This sound is met in the Albanian phonology and the Romanian phonology (and not in the Greek phonology). Nothing is known for sure about Albanian. As for the Romanian phonology, this sound is a Romance legacy,most probably. Please note that it is of greater importance for Romanian than it is for Bulgarian. Standard Bulgarian does not distinguish A and Ъ in an unstressed position, Romanian does.
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    Thanks for your explanations. They contain lots of information, which give interesting hints at this subject. I just cannot contribute with that level.

    Just one remark. You said:

    The German phonology does not contain this sound. [...]

    This sound is met in the Albanian phonology and the Romanian phonology (and not in the Greek phonology). Nothing is known for sure about Albanian. As for the Romanian phonology, this sound is a Romance legacy,most probably. Please note that it is of greater importance for Romanian than it is for Bulgarian. Standard Bulgarian does not distinguish A and Ъ in an unstressed position, Romanian does.

    According to German I want to explain my private impression once again: we don't "know" this sound here, but this does not mean in each case, that we don't "use" this or similar sounds in our language at all. I'm not tought in linguistic phonation, and it's difficult for me to distinguish (IPA) [ə], (IPA) [ɤ̞], and others. Probably we don't use the exact sounds in (standard) German as are used for the grapheme ъ in Bulgarian dialects.
    1. But if we want to express disgust, we often say "ä" (but not pronounced as usual for German grapheme "ä"), but more as known as the sound, that resembles to someone, who makes a sound to reject food or even to the sound of regurgitating it. If you tell some German the Bulgarian word фъндък or if you do so with the Turkish word fındık, I would guess, this German probably will call the sound of this word "not nice at all". It's not the kind of vowel we are used to regard as valid vowel. We like to extend our vowels aaa, eee, iii, ooo, uuu, äää, ööö, üüü. But this (IPA) [ə] or (IPA) [ɤ̞] from a (standard) German view seems to exist in a non-existing vowel. If a Czeck writes the name Schubert as Šubrt or a Serb calls his nation Srbija, this expresses the German view better then using a letter for a vowel like (IPA) [ə], (IPA) [ɤ̞], which we actually (maybe more or less unconsciously) don't regard as a real vowel.
    2. And especially in ablaut position we often use a similar sound (but not expressed by a own letter and probably in most cases not knowing, that we use it at all): imagine German words like Butter, Mutter, Maler. We've got a Schwa sound, but we are used to encounter it in non accented-way at the end of the word. (cf. e.g. Hilmar Walter & Elga Georgieva Kirjakova: "Lehrbuch der bulgarischen Sprache", VEB Leipzig, 1990, p. 20). Actually we average Germans are betraying ourselves using a Schwa-Laut and stating, we used the normal vowel expressed by our graphem "e". You even can detect a non-native German speaker, because he used the ablaut "e" as if it was a "real" "e". But we don't know what we are doing. And if you ask a Turk, if he said a "ş" after the word "hayır", he will deny it, even though he did it. It's already a often used running gag in Germany that Italians always add a "e" at the end of each word and then vehemently denying to do so...

    Sorry for getting off-topic. What I mainly want to say. As a German Bulgarian and Turkish (even though Bulgarian is grammatical familiar to Germans as Indoeuropean and Turkish is not at all) have some details common, which make them similar in this special aspects. One of them is the prominent use of this Schwa sound. Whether this is influenced by the neighborship of some centuries, I can't say. And I never stated it.
     
    Last edited:

    DarkChild

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    I don't know something about influences between Indoeuropean and Ural Altaic languages in general, but I noticed some single simillarities between some South Slavic languages and Turkish representing Turkic languages:

    Semantics:

    • The presence of the verb pair има/няма in Bulgarian resembles (in my eyes) to Turkish var/yok

    Няма (нема) is a contraction of не има. I don't see the resemblance to your Turkish example.
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    Няма (нема) is a contraction of не има. I don't see the resemblance to your Turkish example.

    I see, thanks, for the etymologic hint. I just see the existence (and therefore usage) of an independent verb for "there is/are not; not be, be gone (...)", that reminds me on Turkish. In German and many other languages it doesn't exist. But I don't know anything about causalities.
     
    Last edited:

    DarkChild

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    Speaking of няма...

    When I was in 7th grade, I had to write an essay for literature class. When the teacher gave it back to me, she had circled in red "не има" and put a big question mark. In reality, this combination doesn't exist in Bulgarian but I imagine I was trying to be really emphatic and highlight that there really ISN'T and wrote it like that. :D
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    [...]I was trying to be really emphatic and highlight that there really ISN'T [...]
    You seem to have been a German (maybe Germanic) in a previous life. I still have to rework each of my English posts, in order to substitute "is not" by "isn't". We Germans possibly are good in stressing that something "is not". Imagine you standing in front of Varus' legions: "Няма!"...
    no... it has to be "Ist nicht!"

    "не има", I liked it!
     

    DarkChild

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    You seem to have been a German (maybe Germanic) in a previous life. I still have to rework each of my English posts, in order to substitute "is not" by "isn't". We Germans possibly are good in stressing that something "is not". Imagine you standing in front of Varus' legions: "Няма!"...
    no... it has to be "Ist nicht!"

    "не има", I liked it!

    But "is not" is perfectly fine in English.
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    But "is not" is perfectly fine in English.
    I know, I went completely off-topic now. But as far as I can remember, once I saw a documentation in TV about a criminal case (in UK maybe?). In this case it helped finding the perpetrator because of his characteristic use of English language. One of this specific features was his mannerism to avoid the abbreviation of "not". He never wrote "isn't", "wasn't". It could have been me.
     
    the way Southern Balkan people speak in Turkey and Bulgaria has some conspicuous single similarities
    Actually, Turkish and to a lesser extent Azeri have a special oily sounding, quite different from the guttural one in the majority of Turkic languages, so it was most probably acquired from the speech of the non-Turkic ancestors of modern Turks and Azerbaijanis. I'd say, however, that to me the Balkanic languages lack this moment, though there is something similar indeed in the sounding of Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian and Romanian.
     
    Last edited:

    Daniel.N

    Member
    Croatian
    In Macedonian and much of East Slavic ъ was definitely a back vowel, and since in any case it had arisen from the late common Slavic *u, it must have shifted to the middle row in the remaining Slavic languages, though it is hard to date this shift. The peculiarity of Bulgarian and partly Slovene and some Serbo-Croatian dialects is that this vowel has preserved its schwa-like timber lost in West Slavic and standard Serbo-Croatian.

    Only in some dialects and then only in some (unstressed) positions. For example, kъsьno late is kesno in most dialects in Slovenia and some in Croatia.

    But the main feature of ALL Slovene, Croatian...and Serbian dialects is ъ = ь, and for a great majority of them, the long vowel turned into a, therefore it's dan day in the (Standard) Slovene.
     

    Maroseika

    Moderator
    Russian
    There was definitely some Turkic (not Turkish) influence on Proto-Slavic, at least on the borrowing level.

    My favorite word is tumač (Croatian/Serbian/etc) "interpreter", Polish tłumacz, Russian толмач etc.

    Толмач is too recent borrow from Turkic to refer it Proto-Slavic - Proto-Turkic contacts. It might come to Ancient-Russian from Pecheneg or some other Turkic language, but hardly before 11-12th centuries, which is 2000-3000 years after the Proto-Slavic epoch.
     

    Daniel.N

    Member
    Croatian
    Толмач is too recent borrow from Turkic to refer it Proto-Slavic - Proto-Turkic contacts. It might come to Ancient-Russian from Pecheneg or some other Turkic language, but hardly before 11-12th centuries, which is 2000-3000 years after the Proto-Slavic epoch.

    Quite the contrary, at least in my opinion, the word is found in Standard Croatian/Serbian tùmāč, Slovene tolmáč, Czech tlumočník, and even it found a way into German (with added German suffix for "person doing something, which was obviously not needed in Slavic) as Dolmetscher. It's a quite old borrowing.

    As per Proto-Slavic, I'm not aware that anyone places Proto-Slavic at that age. For instance, Wikipedia says:

    Proto-Slavic is the unattested, reconstructed proto-language of all the Slavic languages. It represents Slavic speech approximately from the 5th to 9th centuries AD
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic

    At the time you refer to (1000-2000 BC) there was probably just Balto-Slavic.
     

    Maroseika

    Moderator
    Russian
    Quite the contrary, at least in my opinion, the word is found in Standard Croatian/Serbian tùmāč, Slovene tolmáč, Czech tlumočník, and even it found a way into German (with added German suffix for "person doing something, which was obviously not needed in Slavic) as Dolmetscher. It's a quite old borrowing.

    As per Proto-Slavic, I'm not aware that anyone places Proto-Slavic at that age. For instance, Wikipedia says:

    Proto-Slavic is the unattested, reconstructed proto-language of all the Slavic languages. It represents Slavic speech approximately from the 5th to 9th centuries AD
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic

    At the time you refer to (1000-2000 BC) there was probably just Balto-Slavic.

    Even the article you linked mentiones the period they call Pre-Slavic (c. 1500 BC — 300 AD). In the Russian version of the article there are more details on this period. Many linguists refer the time of the Balto-Slavic community desintegration to 2000-1500 B.C.
    As for the Slavic cognates of Russian толмач, I don't know exact direction and time of the borrowings. Maybe somebody here knows?
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    Quite the contrary, at least in my opinion, the word is found in Standard Croatian/Serbian tùmāč, Slovene tolmáč, Czech tlumočník, and even it found a way into German (with added German suffix for "person doing something, which was obviously not needed in Slavic) as Dolmetscher. It's a quite old borrowing.
    As for German the Duden (Günther Drosdowski: "Etymologie: Herkunftswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache", in: "Der Duden: in 10 Bänden", Vol. 7, 2nd. Edition, 1989) writes (p. 132, format modified by me):
    • Dolmetscher, auch: Dolmetsch "berufsmäßiger Übersetzer": Mhd. tolmetsche stammt aus ung. tolmács, osmanisch-türk. tilmač "Mittler (zwischen zwei Parteien)". Letzte Quelle des Wortes ist gleichbed. talami der Mitannisprache in Kleinasien. Abl.: dolmetschen "übersetzen" (16. Jh.)
    This means, the German word Dolmetscher/Dolmetsch came in Middle High German ages (Duden explicitly refers for Middle High German to 12th to 15th century on page 9 and notes, that modern periodisations date it as 1050-1350, adding that there are flowing limits in the periods) by Hungarian influence (tolmács) from Ottoman-Turkish (tilmač), which as source Duden considers as conterminously with the Mitanni language (talami) in Asia Minor. Therefore - as far as I understand - you probably cannot take German to prove influences in Proto-Slavic times according to Dolmetscher.
     
    Last edited:

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    As for the Slavic cognates of Russian толмач, I don't know exact direction and time of the borrowings. Maybe somebody here knows?
    I didn't find something about Russian. But did you already consider Skok (Petar Skok: "Etimologijski Rječnik Hrvastkoga ili Srpskoga jezika", Vol. 3, "poni-Ž", Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb 1973, p. 521f)?:
    • tumač, gen. -aia m (Vuk, u spisima), sveslav. i praslav. (?) Іьітась (stcslav. пътась) »mterpres«. Pridjev na -ev tumačev. Denominal tumačiti, tumačim impf, (iz- 16. v., pro-, raz-), iterativ na -va- istumačevati, -ujem — istumačívati, s postverbalom na -ka istumačka (18. v.), Taj oblik posudiše Nijemci Dolmetsch, stvnjem. tolmetsche, Rumunji tumači = tâlmaciu, glagol a tălmaci = tumači, apstraktum tălmacitură »tumačenje«, i Madžari tolmács (14. v.). Iz madžarskog ili iz ruskog tolmai potječe taimai·, gen -ala m (Vuk), tolmačiti, tălmăcim (Vuk) (iz-} =(sa ol > o kao u Omu < Olmiš, otar < oltar, kobasica} tomačiti, -im (iz-} (Divković, Velikanović, Lastrić,-Matović, Kanižlić, Dubrovnik), istomalati, istomačivati, tomaiit, -ačim (Kosmet), tomačitelj, pridjev neistomaien, -čiv, -čljiv, -čnost. U hrv.-kajk. i slov. po zakonu asimilacije t — m > t — n tolnai (Jambrešić), tolnačiti, -im (is-, pre-}; taj oblik postojao je i u panonskoslav., odakle je madž. tanács »savjet«, tanácsolni, a odakle je opet natrag hrv.-kajk. i slov. kao posudenica tanac (ŽK, ŽU, najstarija potvrda 1573-1598) »1° savjet, Rat, Ratschlag, 2° razgovor (ŽK)«, s istim ol > o tonač (Vitezović), tonačiti (se} (Vramec); s denominálom utanačiti, -tànačím pf. »ugovoriti«, pridjev tolnačni, poimeničen na -ik, -ica tolnačnik m prema tolnačnica f »Ratgeber« = tonačnik m (Proroci, Vramec, Vitezović) »savjetnik«, tonaštvo (1648 — 9) »služba tonačnika« = tanačnik (Vitezović, 1573). Osim ovih oblika nalazi se u stcslav. tfakz m = tik psaltira (1463) »interpretatio, tumačenje«, tako i u bug., ukr. i rus., odatle iz crkvenog jezika tölkovati, -ujem (Vuk) (iz-, pro-}, bug. tuikuvam, tůlkovnik. Rum. tile i glagol na -ujo, > -ui a tîlcui, tîlcovnic »interprêt«, tîlcovanie. Balkanski je turcizam arapskog podrijetla (ar. tergeman > tur. tercüman, terziman) iz turske uredske terminologije terdžuman (bosanske narodne pjesme) = terđžoman (Milićević) = terdžuman m (Kosmet) »tumač«, bug. terdžumaninjtar-, rum. terginan, terziman, čine. tergiuman, apstraktum na -luk tergiumanlicke f. Odatle i evropski turcizam dragoman, koji se i kod nas upotrebljava već u 15. v., arb. dragoman. Oblik tumač = to(l}mač = to(l}nač potječe iz sjevernoturskih vrela, možda posredstvom Avara (upor. biljeg} < tilmač (kumanski, čagatajski, altajski i ujgurski). Taj turski oblik stoji u vezi s maloazijskim (mitanni) alami, koji se unakrstio sa tur. dil »jezik«. Oblik tlíkb Xsa / od tfom-} u daljoj je vezi sa ar. tergūm »objašnjenje« i dalje sa babilonskim (akadskim) targumanu »interpres«, hetitskim glagolom tarkumai, tarkumiya »tumači«, odatle ar. targuman > tur. tercüman. Upor. za takve veze s Malom Azijom knjiga. Upor. i stir. ad-tluch »zahvaliti«.
    I don't speak BCS, but Skok is also helpful because he cites his sources in detail (Vol. 3, p. 522; a key for the abbreviations you find in Vol. 1, 1971 p. XI-XXXVIII):
    • Lit.: ARj 2, 751. 4, 57. 73. 7, 858. 11, 756. 767. 12, 459. 464. 18, 77. 78. 228. 450-52. 455-56. 460. 892. 906-908. Elezović 2, 315. 326. Mladenov 629. 632. Mažuranu 1441. Marette 49. NJ 2, 56. MikMič 368. Holub-Ko- респў 386. Bruckner 572. Mladenov 644. Lokotsch 2033. 2073. REW> 8580. Tiktin 1553. 1579. 1589. 1590. Pascu 2, 169. Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter 1915. Stutervant, A Comparativ Grammar of the Hittite Language, Philadelphia, 1933, str. 38. 226. 227., § 457. Budimir, Rad 282, 17. i 19. IČ SAN l, 255- 261. GM 75. Štrekelj, DAW 50, 67. Rešetar, Slávia 8, 638-639. Vaillant, Zlătarii l, 290. WP l, 744. Uhlenbeck, PBB 20, 44. Blankenstein, IF 23, 134. Horák, ASPh 12, 299. Vasmer, RSl 6, 192.
     
    Last edited:

    Maroseika

    Moderator
    Russian
    I didn't find something about Russian. But did you already consider Skok (Petar Skok: "Etimologijski Rječnik Hrvastkoga ili Srpskoga jezika", Vol. 3, "poni-Ž", Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb 1973, p. 521f)?:

    Well, as far as I undersand, he also assumes different ways of borrowing for the German and Slavic words and Croatian word is supposed to come from Russian or Hungarian. In this case it coincides with the penetratin the word in Slavic languages from the Eastern Slavic group.
    But I also do not speak BCS, so I might miss some important details.
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    Well, as far as I undersand, he also assumes different ways of borrowing for the German and Slavic words and Croatian word is supposed to come from Russian or Hungarian. In this case it coincides with the penetratin the word in Slavic languages from the Eastern Slavic group.
    Yes, it did not help a lot for Russian.

    At least Skok gives a "praslavenski" or Proto-Slavic note for tumač: "sveslav. i praslav. (?) Іьітась (stcslav. пътась) »mterpres«".

    But I did not understand, in which context Skok describes the context between tumač and dragoman, when he says about the 15th century: "Odatle i evropski turcizam dragoman, koji se i kod nas upotrebljava već u 15. v., arb. dragoman." He mentions it is a Balkanic Turcism originating in Arabic (tergeman) over Turkish (tercüman, terziman), leading to the European Turcism Dragoman. And then he continues explaining the genesis of tumač, mentioning Avars as possible deliverers of the Turkic (or/and? Turkish) form tilmač, for which he enumertaes as languages Cuman, Abkhaz(ian?), Altaic and even Uyghur:
    • Oblik tumač = to(l}mač = to(l}nač potječe iz sjevernoturskih vrela, možda posredstvom Avara (upor. biljeg} < tilmač (kumanski, čagatajski, altajski i ujgurski). Taj turski oblik stoji u vezi s maloazijskim (mitanni) alami, koji se unakrstio sa tur. dil »jezik«. Oblik tlíkb Xsa / od tfom-} u daljoj je vezi sa ar. tergūm »objašnjenje« i dalje sa babilonskim (akadskim) targumanu »interpres«, hetitskim glagolom tarkumai, tarkumiya »tumači«, odatle ar. targuman > tur. tercüman.
    But I don't get the correlation to the form tlíkb, which he continues to explain then (mentioning connection with Babylonian-Akkadian and with Hittites) and which is leading to Arabic targuman and then turkish tercüman, finally resulting in "European" dragoman.

    Following Skok's references I looked up this dragoman hint in Lokotsch (K. Lokotsch, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der europäischen Wörter orientalischen Ursprungs. Heidelberg, 1927), who describes (paragraph 2033, p. 160) known facts to the Arabic origin:
    • Ar. targuman: 'Ausleger, Dolmetscher' [Vb. targama 'dolmetschen' aus syr. targem 'erläutern', vgl. targum 'Erläuterung, Erklärung'; beachte assyr. ragamu 'sprechen', rigmu 'Wort', eigentlich 'schreien, rufen'; Geschrei, Ruf', DelHWB 612a, sowie assyr. targumanu 'Dolmetsch', ebenda 713a]; hieraus it. it. dragomanno, turcimanno [mit Anlehnung an turco 'Türke'], prov. dragoman, frz. dragoman, drogman, trucheman, kat.sp. dragoman, trujaman, pg. dragoman, trugimao; engl. dragoman, dtsch. Dragoman, (älter) Drutzelmann, Trutschelmann; russ. dragoman. [DE 351. Equilaz 508, ML 8580, Kluge 96.
    I mention it, because Lokotsch does not cite толмач for Russian usage, but dragoman, but as mentioned I still don't understand the (etymological?) connection between tumač and dragoman, if there is any.
     

    Maroseika

    Moderator
    Russian
    I doubt Skok might mean any kind of kinship of толмач and драгоман. I hope that BCS natives will help us to figure all this out.
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    I doubt Skok might mean any kind of kinship of толмач and драгоман. I hope that BCS natives will help us to figure all this out.
    Yes, I agree and share this hope with you.

    One remark to the given quotes by Skok (1971-1973, reprint from 1988): I cited him by copying his text from a PDF. In this PDF I find some noticeable mistakes. For instance, for the work of Mladenov from 1941 ("Етимологически и правописен речник на българския книжовен език") this PDF cited a latin transcription, but instead of "Etimologičeski i pravopisen rečnik na bălgarskija knižoven ezik" (which would be a valid Romanisation) in the PDF they wrote "Etimologičeski i pravopisenb rečnikb na bblgarskija knižovenbezik-ь". I don't know the original print from 1971/1988, but it is possible that there occured lots of mistakles during digitalisation. So when I quoted above the term »mterpres« for example, it is possible that this actually has to be »interpres« and is just a digitalisation error. Not done by me, but earlier, when the PDF document was produced from the 1988 reprint of the 1971(-1973) print.
     
    Last edited:

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    I mention it, because Lokotsch does not cite толмач for Russian usage, but dragoman, [...].
    It was my fault. I overlooked the record in Lokotsch (Skok erroneously cited Lokotsch with paragraph 2073 instead of the correct paragraph number 2078 - maybe again a digitalisation error in the PDF of Skok's work). There (paragraph 2078, p. 162f.) Lokotsch writes (format and some Diakritika modified by me):
    • Tk. timač: 'Dolmetscher' [osm. veraltet dilmač Kelekian Kamus 600, vom Stamme til, dil 'schwatzen, reden, Zunge, Sprache', also čag. tilmanč, altaisch tilmeš, ujg. tilmeči eigentlich 'der Sprecher' > 'Dolmetscher', Vambery TktEtWb S. 175, Nr. 188]; hieraus russ. tolmač 'dass.', Vb. tolmacit, poln. tlumacz, čech. tlumač, klruss. Vb. tlmačiti, tumačiti, bulg. tlъmač, serb. tolmač, tomač; rum. tălmaciu, Vb. tălmăci; mhd. tolmetsche, dtsch. Dolmetsch, Dolmetscher.
    As sources he gives:

    • [Mikl SlEtWb 369a. Kluge 94. KSz XVII, 122. (Vgl. auch ZfAss VI, 55: kleinasiatische Mitannisprache talami 'Dolmetsch' im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.).
    This means, as expected Lokotsch does not treat timač and dragoman as related, but he lists them in separate records (different to Skok). And Lokotsch says, this Word is of "Turkish" (in broader sense) origin. He mentions the obsolet Ottoman expression dilmač, which leads back to til, dil (to talk, tongue, language) and refers to čag. (this is "čagatisch (osttk.)", which possibly points to the Čagatajski kanat) tilmanč, to Altaic tilmeš, to Uyghur tilmeči which actually means "the speaker" > "Dolmetscher". This (timač, I think, he means) then resulted in Russian tolmač (same meaning as German 'Dolmetscher'), to the verb tolmacit, to Polish tlumacz, to Czech tlumač, to kleinrussisch (ruthenisch oder ukrainisch) - this means Ruthenian or Ukrainian - tlmačiti, tumačiti, to Bulgarian tlъmač, to Serbian tolmač, tomač, to Romanian tălmaciu (Verb. tălmăci), to Middle High German tolmetsche and to German Dolmetsch, Dolmetscher.

    I don't know, whether this order even shall give hints to the way the word took from East to West. But if so, this would mean it came from Turcic languages to Russian, to Western and other Eastern Slavic langauges, to Southeastern Slavic languages, to Romanian and finally to German. Hungarian he did not mention at all here. I don't understand why Lokotsch does not mention the root dil as being Persian, even though he did in context with the term dilbär. (paragraph 519, page 41f, cf. thread Bulgarian: Dilmano, Dilbero, post #16).

    But - back to the subject "Turkic influence on grammar/phonology" - it is interesting, that Lokotsch call upon to compare with the article "kleinasiatische Mitannisprache talami 'Dolmetsch' im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr." (Mitanni language of Asia minor talami 'Dolmetsch' in the 2nd millennium B.C.), published in "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete" (Straßburg, Vol. 6, page 55), which suggests in its title that the word talami of the Mitanni language in Asia minor reaches back to the 2nd. Millennium B.C, being the root of German "Dolmetsch". When it came to the West, though, isn't said with this title only. But maybe it's a good idea to check this mentioned article.
     
    Last edited:

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    But - back to the subject "Turkic influence on grammar/phonology" - it is interesting, that Lokotsch call upon to compare with the article "kleinasiatische Mitannisprache talami 'Dolmetsch' im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr." (Mitanni language of Asia minor talami 'Dolmetsch' in the 2nd millennium B.C.), published in "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete" (Straßburg, Vol. 6, page 55), which suggests in its title that the word talami of the Mitanni language in Asia minor reaches back to the 2nd. Millennium B.C, being the root of German "Dolmetsch". When it came to the West, though, isn't said with this title only. But maybe it's a good idea to check this mentioned article.
    This article (Jensen, P.: "Vorstudien zur Entzifferung des Mitanniis: II", Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete, Volume 6 (1891), page 34-72), cited by Lokotsch, is free available (PDF Download). On page 55, in footnote 1 Jensen says (format slightly modified by me):
    • Das Vorstehende unverändert im Manuscript. - Bezold. - Dass talami "Dolmetsch" heisst, habe ich im letzten Sommer Herrn Prof. NÖLDEKE mündlich mitgeteilt. Ich habe damals bereits auf eine Verwandtschaft des deutschen, urspr. türkischen (? durch das Slavische zu uns gekommenen) Wortes mit dem mitannischen talami als immerhin nicht unmöglich hingewiesen.
    This means, Jensen considered it as possible (in private conservation in 1890; published in 1891), that Mitanni(an) talami (German meaning: "Dolmetsch") led to "Turkish" (Ottoman-Turkish is probably meant) and from "Turkish" (maybe via Slavic, he says with a questionmark) to German. Of course this article is more than 100 years old, but the modern Duden (Vol 7, 1989) still mentions Mitanni talami as (possible) root.

    So we got another hint, that the German form probably stands at the end of the row, maybe after "Slavic", and therefore is not suitable to prove Turkic to Proto-Slavic linguistic influences. The source suggests a transfer from "Turkish" to "Slavic", but gives no proof for it and no hint, when this possible transfer might have been happened.
     
    Last edited:
    The word толмач and its relatives must be an old, late Common Slavic, borrowing since the correspondences of the "vowel+l" are those found in inherited words, e. g. толстый (http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/толстый#.D0.AD.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.8F), and point to the proto-form *tъlmačь.

    If the original Turkic word had i before l (as suggested in #45), it may suggest some dialectal Slavic mediation, since the change *il>ьl>ъl in the closed syllables is characteristic of only a part of Slavic dialects, cp. the words for "wolf": Lithuanian vilkas, late Common Slavic *wьlkъ, Old Church Slavonic влькъ, Polish wilk, vs. the rest: Old East Slavic вълкъ, Macedonian волк, Bulgarian вълк, Czech and Slovak vlk, BDSM vuk, Slovene volk. Not all these mergers are ancient (cp. влькъ in OCS vs. its modern descendants волк and вълк), but the East Slavic one is, so we may hypothesize that the word was first borrowed to the dialect that had already shifted ьl>ъl or did it soon after the borrowing (otherwise Polish would have had **tilmacz) but at a period when the Slavic dialects still had ъl unchanged to ol/łu/lu etc., i. e. roughly between the 8th and the 10th centuries.
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    The word толмач and its relatives must be an old, late Common Slavic, [...]
    I did not argue against it, but equal how old the Slavic forms should be, the German form seems to be documented first for Middle High German. I add another source (from 1899 though: Friedrich Kluge: "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache", 6th edition, Trübner, Straßburg 1899) stating (page 80), that the word was then documented first in 13th century for German, borrowed from Hungarian or from Slavic in that time (format modified by me):
    • Dolmetsch M. mhd. tolmetsche tolmetze tulmetsche: ein türk. Wort (nordtürk. tilmač), das durch das Magyar. (tolmács) oder Slav. (aslov. tlumači, poln. tłumacz, böhm. tlumač) im 13. Jahrh. ins Mhd. entlehnt ist. Daneben auch tolc tolke (vgl. auch preuß. tolke, ndl. tolk) 'Dolmetscher' aus lit. tulkas, lett. tulks 'Dolmetscher' (aslov. tluku 'interpretatio').
    What we need here, seems to be a detailed Slavic etymology of this word. German borrowing probably does not help to proove an earlier stage than Middle High German times.
     
    But this word, being an obvious borrowing, cannot have any detailed Slavic etymology. The maximum we can get is a collection of earliest attestations per language. Anyway, I don't think it is of any relevance for the topic question: this, as well as a random set of other Turkic words, doesn't constitute what may be called influence on grammar/phonology. Let's take the Ukrainian steppes, populated by Turkics until the 18th century: these people were in constant contact for centuries with the Slavic population, and many became assimilated to Ukrainians, but despite all that there is hardly anything in the Ukrainian phonetics or grammar that can be ascribed to the Turkic substrate/adstrate.
     

    Freier Fall

    Member
    German
    But this word, being an obvious borrowing, cannot have any detailed Slavic etymology. The maximum we can get is a collection of earliest attestations per language. Anyway, I don't think it is of any relevance for the topic question: this, as well as a random set of other Turkic words, doesn't constitute what may be called influence on grammar/phonology.
    I just answered to the argument, that the German borrowing indicates or supports a Turcic to Proto-Slavic indluence (if I understand that argument well). The earliest documentations per language in Slavic use is exact, what is missing here. Whether this can support the subject of this thread or not, is not my idea. It was asked here, what way the Slavic distribution went. And some sources express assumptions. Miklošič (Franz Miklosich: "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen", Braumüller, Vienna 1886), for instance, already in 1886, suggested an order of burrowing (as time for the burrowing into German Miklošič gives explicitly the 13th century) on page 369 (format and some diakritika modified by me):

    • tulmači: asl. tlъmačь dolmetsch. nsl. tolmač, tolnač, tolmačiti habd. tomačiti trub. b. tlъmač. kr. tlmačiti, tumačiti. s. tolmač, tomač; tolmačiti, tomačiti, aus dem magy. č. tlumač. tlumačiti. tlumoch. tlumočnik. p. tłumacz. os. tołmač. wr. tłumač, peretłumačić, aus dem p. r. tolmačъ, tolmačitь, tolmašitь. - rm. tęlmač. magy. tolmács. nordtürk. tilmadž, tilmač. kuman. tolmač, telmač. "Dolmetsch" ist schon im dreizehnten jahrhundert, wohl aus dem č., aufgenommen worden: in das slav. ist tulmači aus dem türk. in der ersten periode eingedrungen.
    • Abrreviations: asl.= "altslovenisch", nsl.="neuslovenisch", b.="bulgarisch", kr="kroatisch", s.="serbisch", magy.=Hungarian, p="polnisch", os.="obersorbisch", wr.="weissrussisch", r="russisch", rm="rumunisch", nordtürk.="nordtürkisch".
    This means, Miklošič suggested in 1886 some directions of borrowing amid the Slavic langages. He also sugested, that German borrowed from Czech. And he suggested, that tulmači infiltrated from "Turkish" to "Slavic" - as he says - "in the first period".

    According to (Helmut Wilhelm Schaller: "Türkische Entlehnungen in den südosteuropäischen Sprachen - Linguistische und kulturhistorische Aspekte". In: Reinhard Lauer & Hans Georg Majer: "Osmanen und Islam in Südosteuropa", Walter de Gruyter, 2013, 193-210, here page 193f) Miklošič examined (Franz Miklosich: „Die türkischen Elemente in den südost- und osteuropäischen Sprachen (Griechisch, Albanisch, Rumänisch, Bulgarisch, Serbisch, Kleinrussisch, Großrussisch, Polnisch)“, in: „Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien/Phil.-hist. Klasse“, Volume XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVII, Wien 1884) "Turkish" loanwords in the Southeast- as well as in the Easteuropean languages and classified three periods for the influence of Turcic people onto Slavs. The "first period" refers to the time when the Slavs still stayed in their original homeland in Eastern Europe. "Gemeinslawische" loanwords from Turcic languages still witness loanwords from contacts in this first period. That means these loanwords were adopted before Slavs pushed to the Balkan peninsula in the 6th century:
    • Der im 19. Jahrhundert führende Wiener Slawist Franz Miklosich hatte 1884 in einer Untersuchung der türkischen Lehnwörter nicht nur in den südost-, sondern auch in den osteuropäischen Sprachen drei Perioden der Einflussnahme türkischer Völker auf die Slawen angesetzt, wobei die erste Periode auf die Zeitspanne zurückgeht, als die Slawen noch in ihrer Urheimat in Osteuropa saßen. Von diesen Berührungen zeugen noch Lehnwörter aus Turksprachen, die als gemeinslawisch zu betrachten sind, die also übernommen wurden, bevor die Slawen im 6. Jahrhundert im Rahmen ihrer Wanderungsbewegung auf die Balkanhalbinsel vorstießen.

    You may judge or discuss, whether this source still can be used, whether this declaration "in the first period" (before 6th century) is helpful for the subject of this thread or not. I don't know it. But maybe Miklošič(as cited above) helps here.
     
    Last edited:
    Top