Names of Cereals in the Turkic Languages - Wydział Filologiczny UJ

Rice || čeltik 63aryšforms: aryš Tat.: Voskresenskij 1894commentary: as yet not discussed in the meaning of ‘rice’etymology:Aryš is a common name for ‘rye’ in the Tkc. languages. We know of no other wordthat has both these two meanings simultaneously. Perhaps, the similarity of soundingto Russ. ris was of some significance here; at any rate a separate/repeated borrowingmust be ruled out as then the prothesis could not be expected to sound *a-:it would have to be at least *y- or more probably *i-(ris) (cf. aryš ‘rye’). Perhaps thena contamination?čeltikforms:čeltik Ott.: چلتیك ‘unhusked rice and others’ R III 1980m, ‘rice field’ Wiesentahl 1895;چلتك Tat.: ‘rice field; rice on the field; unhusked rice’ Redhouse 1921 || لتیك,‏ چلتكTanievъ 1909čeltik pirinǯi Ott.: برجنی)‏ ‏(چلتك ‘unhusked rice’ Redhouse 1921čeltuk Ott.: چلتوك ‘provincial for ‏’چلتیك Redhouse 1921čeltük Čag.: چلتوك id. R III 1980mčeltūk arpasy Ott.: Tietze 2002– s.v. çeltikčiltik Ott.: چيلتيك ‘rice on the field’ R III 2139mšeltūk Ott.: شلتوك vulg. چلتیك ‘rice field; rice on the field’ Redhouse 1921languages:Čag.: čeltük || Ott.: čeltik, čeltik pirinǯi, čeltuk, čeltük arpasy, čiltik, šeltūk || Tat.: čeltiketymology:1999: Eren: < Pers. šaltūk ‘unhusked rice’; for Pers. š- > Tksh. č- cf. Tksh. çakal2002: Tietze: < Pers. šaltūk ‘unhusked rice’; for Pers. š- > Tksh. č- cf. Tksh. çorbacommentary:We can see no reason to doubt Eren’s 1999 proposition. A few details, however, remainto be explained. The Pers. form has a different anlaut and vocalism than the Tkc. ones.Presumably, the change in the anlaut happened during or very shortly after the borrowingsince there are no š- forms in Tkc. 38 As for the vowels, we have two contradictory hints:1. Ott. čeltūk arpasy indicates that the front harmony of the Tkc. forms results fromthe infuence of palatal č-, and a secondary ‘reharmonization’ of the whole word: Pers.šaltūk > ? Ott. ? Pre-Ott. *čaltuk > čeltuk > čeltük > čeltik or čeltuk > čeltük, čeltik. Thisroute is also pointed to by Tksh.dial. čeltük.2. Russ. čaltyk ‘çeltik’, due to the initial č- should be considered a borrowing from Tkc.rather than Pers. 39 In such case, however, the following chain of changes should be38 Though not attested, in theory a MPers. *č- form could be assumed, too, as it would still yieldš in NPers.; cf. e.g. Maciuszak 2003: 94.39 Also Vasmer 1959, even if without giving a reason, derives the Russ. word from Tksh. or Az.