Names of Cereals in the Turkic Languages - Wydział Filologiczny UJ

56 süle || Oatslanguages:Brb.: soly || Bšk.: holo, hölö, hŭlŭ, huly || Com.: sulu || Čuv.: sĕlĕ, sölĕ, sölö, śĕlĕ, śĕlĕlli ||Kar.: sülü || Khak.: sula || Kirg.: sulu, sulū, suly || Kklp.: sully, suly || Kmk.: sulu, suly ||Koyb.: sula, sulu || Krč.: sula || Kyzyl: sulu || Kzk.: sulu, suly, sūly || Leb.: sula || Nog.:suly || Oyr.: sula || Sag.: sula, sulu || Šr.: sula || Tat.: solo, sölö, sōlō, soly, sŭly || Tel.: sula ||Tob.: sulu || Trkm.: süle, süli || Tuv.: sula || Uyg.: sula, sulu || Uzb.: suli, sülietymology:1920: Räsänen: ~ Mo. suli1952: Joki: ~ or rather < Mo. suli &c.; Uzb. suli ‘common wild oat (Avena fatua)’,Trkm. süle < Mo.; Čuv. = or < Tat.further etymology unclear; maybe a common PAlt. name1969: VEWT: Čuv. sĕlĕ, sölĕ < Tat. sölö; Trkm. süle, Uzb. suli < Mo. suli1972: Clauson: < suv ‘water’1974: ÈSTJa: limits himself to summarizing and commenting previous propositions:against Clauson 1972 and Dmitrieva TÈ 97–8 (quoted after ÈSTJa), who < suv‘water’ + -lu (phonetics)1976: KWb: expression unclear; perhaps = Mo. suli &c.commentary:This word is also common in the Mo. languages, usually meaning various wild speciesof grass. As it is supposed by Joki 1952, this is most probably the original meaning,which is understandable since oats were for a long time considered to be a weed, and itscultivation only began at the beginning of the Common Era; cf. also Genaust 1976.The proposition of Clauson 1972 and Dmitrieva TÈ 97–8 (quoted after ÈSTJa)is, as it is noted by ÈSTJa, deeply problematic for phonetic reasons (cf. Khak., Tuv.sula, Uyg. sulu, Uzb. suli instead of expected *suvluk, *suglug if they were to comefrom *sug/vlug). Dmitrieva’s attempt at explaining the semantics by stating thatoats are a fodder liked by horses, and that they salivate when eating it (for ‘water’ >‘saliva’ cf. Tksh. ağız suyu and others), is even more problematic than ÈSTJa ratesit. However, it needs to be noted in defence of this proposition, that Khak., Tuv.,Uyg. and Uzb. forms could actually be borrowed from other Tkc. or Mo. languages.Still, this would by no means solve the difficulties with the semantics. For more onthe phonetics cf. below.Unfortunately, to date this is the only full etymology that has been presented. Joki’s1952 suggestion that the word might originate from the times of the PAlt. union 36 appearsto be very pertinent but does not in fact explain anything. It merely moves the questionback in time. We cannot, however, offer a more exhaustive explanation, either.We believe that the original form of our word should have sounded *solo, andeven this statement can we only support by guesses: 1. the Mo. forms indicate a frontvocalism; the fluctuations in Tkc. are apparently the result of the as yet undescribedalternation front ~ back vocalism; 2. it is rather improbable that the u in the first36 Or at least from the period of close contacts between the Tkc. and Mo. languages, i.e. of arealunion, were a genetic relationship to never have existed.