LE SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONAL LE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE. L ...

The Place of Dimitri Kantemiroglu... 77
keeps decreasing. the sentences by themselves, and in relation to the
combinations they form with other sentences, are outside the syntax of
today’s ‘conventional’ turkish.
It is obvious that these sentences address the intelligentsia familiar with
the level of theory and practice of the period’s classical turkish music.
In addition, a few language mistakes, such as discrepancy in conjugation,
frequency of repetition, unnecessary suffixes, 5 inadequacy of verbs and
subordination, 6 subject-verb disagreement 7 and the like, are detected. It is
also believed that the syntax of these first sentences in the book is different
from that of the rest of the book. yet, as an expert in turkish language,
any conclusions on relating these differences and small mistakes to the
fact that Kantemiroglu learned turkish as a second language have not
been derived. It is the least surprising to find similar mistakes with another
author whose mother-tongue is turkish. especially in translated works,
incomprehensible and different sentences which cannot be transformed
into today’s turkish, written by authors whose mother-tongue is turkish,
are commonly observed.
5. Conclusion: did Kantemir write the work?
there are not any outstanding elements to indicate that it was written
by a person who learned turkish as a second language, with respect to
the language, expression and style of the work. to put it differently, it
cannot be proven that this book is the product of a person whose mothertongue
is not turkish. As such, it can be suggested that the author learned
turkish as well as his mother-tongue, or that the work is edited by another
musician whose mother-tongue is turkish and who is at least as competent
in musicology as Kantemiroglu. however, it is impossible that a work
like this, which requires an advanced level of knowledge in music, and
skill in language and expression to reflect that knowledge, was written by
a common copyist. In order to be able to successfully apply the author’s
special notation system without any errors, a copyist specializing in
musicology would have been required. hence, if the quality of an artist’s
5 the ablative suffix in the expression ‘sazlardan cümlesinden’ should have only
appeared at the second word, the first word should have only gotten a genitive suffix, that
is, it should have been ‘sazların cümlesinden’ see Sample I.
6 the action bak- ‘to look’ requires the dative form of the noun it yields towards;
however, in the expression sazda bak-, the locative form is seen. see Sample I.
7 the subject of the first sentence is ‘tanbur didikleri sazdır’ the subject of the
second sentence at the same time; however, the subject and predicate of the first sentence
is singular but that predicate of the second sentence is plural (ederler). see Sample II.