10.07.2015 Views

Names of Cereals in the Turkic Languages - Wydział Filologiczny UJ

Names of Cereals in the Turkic Languages - Wydział Filologiczny UJ

Names of Cereals in the Turkic Languages - Wydział Filologiczny UJ

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Rice || pir<strong>in</strong>č 65a couple <strong>of</strong> times, as is <strong>in</strong>dicated by <strong>the</strong> different assimilations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> vowels (u-u, ü-ü,ü-i and <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>comprehensible forms with ö 40 and Kklp. u-i) and consonants (g-(n)č,g-(n)ǯ, g-š, k-č, k-š) but <strong>the</strong> exact routes <strong>of</strong> its penetration 41 are impossible to reconstruct,not at least with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> current state <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> historical phonetics <strong>of</strong><strong>in</strong>dividual Tkc. languages.The comparison to MTkc. kuršek proposed by VEWT seems realistic phonetically,but a little odd on <strong>the</strong> semantic side. To <strong>the</strong> best <strong>of</strong> our knowledge, <strong>the</strong>re are no parallelsfor one word hav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> ‘rice’ and ‘millet’ at <strong>the</strong> same time. 42Cf. pir<strong>in</strong>č.pir<strong>in</strong>čforms:bir<strong>in</strong>ǯ Khal.: Doerfer 1987 || Uzb.: ‘groats’ Lap<strong>in</strong> 1899, Smolenskij 1912birińč KarT: KRPSbryndz KarH: KRPSbür<strong>in</strong>č Trkm.: Alijiv/Böörijif 1929bürünč Trkm.: RTrkmS, Dmitrieva 1972? buryž Nog.: RNogS, Dmitrieva 1972čeltik pir<strong>in</strong>ǯi Ott.: برجنی)‏ ‏(چلتك ‘unhusked rice’ Redhouse 1921pir<strong>in</strong>č Gag.: Dmitrieva 1972 || Ott.: ‏(پرنچ)‏ Wiesentahl 1895 || Tksh.: Dmitrieva 1972pir<strong>in</strong>ǯ Ott.: Redhouse 1921pr<strong>in</strong>č CTat.: Zaatovъ 1906 || KarC: Levi 1996 || Krč.Blk.: RKrčBlkS, Dmitrieva 1972languages:CTat.: pr<strong>in</strong>č || Gag.: pir<strong>in</strong>č || KarC.: pr<strong>in</strong>č || KarH.: bryndz || KarT.: birińč || Khal.:bir<strong>in</strong>ǯ || Krč.Blk.: pr<strong>in</strong>č || Nog.: buryž || Ott.: čeltik pir<strong>in</strong>ǯi, pir<strong>in</strong>č, pir<strong>in</strong>ǯ || Tksh.: pir<strong>in</strong>č|| Trkm.: bür<strong>in</strong>č, bürünč || Uzb.: bir<strong>in</strong>ǯetymology:1972: Dmitrieva: Gag. pir<strong>in</strong>č, Krč.Blk. pr<strong>in</strong>č, Nog. buryž, Trkm. bürünč, Tksh. pir<strong>in</strong>č< Ir. pir<strong>in</strong>č ‘rice; латунь’ 431999: Eren: < Pers. bir<strong>in</strong>ǯcommentary:Dmitrieva’s 1972 proposition seems very plausible. We can only add, that Pers.bir<strong>in</strong>ǯ ~ gur<strong>in</strong>ǯ < Skr. vrīhí or Afgh. vriže (Laufer 1919: 393). Laufer also believes thatreconstruct<strong>in</strong>g Av. *verenǯa (Horn 1893: 208) or Ir. *vr<strong>in</strong>ǯi-? *vriži-? (Hübschmann1897: 27) is wrong for historical reasons: accord<strong>in</strong>g to his sources, rice only ga<strong>in</strong>ed40 The evolution ö > ü is natural <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tkc. languages; <strong>the</strong> opposite is not.41 At least some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forms were probably borrowed with <strong>the</strong> mediation <strong>of</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r Tkc. language.42 Tüvi &c. ‘rice’ = tögü ‘millet’ is an exception here. However, <strong>in</strong> this example <strong>the</strong> differentiation<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> semantics results from <strong>the</strong> source <strong>of</strong> this word: *tög- ‘to beat, to hit’, be<strong>in</strong>g absolutelyneutral with regard to species.43 The miss<strong>in</strong>g “

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!