Names of Cereals in the Turkic Languages - Wydział Filologiczny UJ

Barley || köče 15köčeforms:köče Khak.: RChakS, ÈSTJa, Tata rin cev 2000köže Tuv.: RTuwS, Tatarincev 2000languages:Khak.: köče || Tuv.: köžeetymology:1974: ÈSTJa s.v. köǯe: < Pers. گوجه gouǯe ‘Prunus divaricata Ledeb. [species of plum]’2000: Tatarincev: < *köč- ‘to reduce (oneself)’commentary:This word is quite common in the Tkc. languages in different meanings. Almost allof them are names of various dishes or their components (most often, flour) made ofcereals (barley, corn, millet and wheat, very occasionally rice and sorghum as well), andonly in a few cases of cereals or grains. In dialects other meanings sporadically appear,too (see below). A comprehensive list can be found in ÈSTJa.The geographical distribution of the meanings does not seem to contribute much toour understanding. Only Tksh. dialects have all four meanings of the most importantcereals at once, and only in eastern Siberia is there no other meaning present but ‘barley’.Apart from Tksh. dialects, ‘barley’ appears in the North and East, ‘corn’ in the South,and ‘millet’ and ‘wheat’ in the centre, which corresponds quite precisely to the rangesof cultivation of these cereals. When taking all of this into account, one could try tosuppose that all these meanings are relatively young, but it must not be forgotten thatthe word is attested in the Tkc. languages from the 14 th c., and the choice of cerealsfor cultivation is mainly influenced by climate, which has not changed significantlyin the last few centuries.The etymology proposed by ÈSTJa does not seem to be grounded very well from thesemantic point of view, as it assumes the following evolution: Pers. ‘species of plum’ [> (a)Tkc. ‘mulberry fruits flour’ > (b) ‘flour made of roasted barley or wheat’] > (c) ‘flourof various cereals’ > (d) ‘various dishes of cereals’ &c., which is only supported by thefollowing facts: 1. [in the Pamir. languages] ‘mulberry fruits flour’ and ‘flour made ofroasted barley or wheat’ was designated by one word; 2. Uzb.dial., Tksh.dial. gȫǯә, kȫǯötūt‘species of mulberry’; 3. Uzb.dial. gȫǯә ‘species of plum’. While (c) > (d) is trivial, (a) isnot very likely, and it must be remembered that (b) refers to the Pamir. languages, notTkc. Whether the information that mulberry fruits flour became so popular in Pamirthat it ousted flour made of cereals, also refers to Tkc. is unclear (cf. Steblin-Kamenskij1982: 87, quoted by ÈSTJa). We believe that these difficulties provide sufficient reasonto discard the etymology. The still unclear forms 2. and 3. may be understood as a quitestrange evolution, probably under Pers. influence, especially in the case of 3.Tatarincev 2000 is against this etymology, too.Tatarincev’s proposition seems to be much more likely. He derives köče < *köč-, andsupports this reconstruction with words like Tkc. g/küčük ‘puppy; young of an animal’,