Turco-Mongolic relations: the case of particles. In: Erdal, M. & Menz, A. & Nevskaya, I.(eds.) Areal, typological and historical aspects of Siberian Turkic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 105-117. 2012 [Turcologica 94.]

Table of contents Table of contents .................................................................................................. v Preface .................................................................................................................. vii Gregory D. S. Anderson Auxiliary verb constructions in Old Turkic and Altay-Sayan Turkic ................... 1 Ahmet Aydemir Zu Postverbialverbindungen im Altai-Tuwinischen ............................................. 37 Alisa V. Esipova Varianten und Veränderungen von Wortbildungsaffixen im Schorischen ........... 45 Lars Johanson Notes on Turkic stance particles ........................................................................... 51 Astrid Menz The conditional in South Siberian Turkic ............................................................. 59 Hans Nugteren Diagnostic anomalies? Unusual reflexes of *d in South Siberian Turkic and Western Yugur ............................................................................................... 75 Bajlak Ooržak Die perzeptive Verbform -AdIr im Tuwinischen .................................................. 91 Ajana A. Ozonova Modale Konstruktionen mit der Semantik der Notwendigkeit im Altaitürkischen 97 Elisabetta Ragagnin Turco-Mongolic relations: the case of particles ................................................... 105 Monika Rind-Pawlowski Pragmatische Funktionen des Akkusativs bei der Redewiedergabe im Schorischen ..................................................................................................... 119 Marti Roos Western Yugur in the Qīnghăi-Gānsù linguistic area ........................................... 135 vi Table of contents Irina Seljutina Consonant systems in the Turkic languages of South Siberia: the problem of typology ....................................................................................... 145 Irina Seljutina South Siberian Turkic vocalism as a reflection of language contacts .................. 159 Ol’ga Šagdurova Vergleichende Analyse der Semantik des Verbs tur- ‘stehen’ im Chakassischen und in den anderen südsibirischen Türksprachen ................................................ 171 Ljudmila A. Šamina Bipredicative constructions with infinite verb forms in South Siberian Turkic ... 181 Saule Tažibaeva Polypredicative constructions of cause and consequence in Kazakh compared with Altay Turkic and Tuvan .............................................................. 203 Alena R. Tazranova Zu einigen altaitürkischen synthetischen Verbformen ......................................... 217 Elena Tjunteševa Phraseologische Parallelen in den Türksprachen Südsibiriens, im Kasachischen und Kirgisischen ...................................................................... 223 Nikolaj S. Urtegešev Ejective and injective consonants in Shor: the substrate question ....................... 231 Index of languages .............................................................................................. 245 Turco-Mongolic relations: the case of particles Elisabetta Ragagnin 1. Introduction Turkic and Mongolic languages display several common features, some of which may be considered as part of a common genetic inheritance, whereas some others are products of language contact. A challenging interactive area is surely the Khövsgöl region in north-western Mongolia, where various peoples of Turkic and Mongol origin—among other less documented ones—have been roaming, following each other in the linguistic and cultural mapping of the area. This paper deals with the copular particle iyǝk in Dukhan, a Sayan Turkic variety, and the structurally and functionally corresponding item asən in Darkhat, an Oirat-Mongolian variety whose speakers are said to be of Turkic origin. The present paper is based on fieldwork materials collected by the author in the Tsagaan Nuur County of the northwestern Khövsgöl region, an area bordering the Republic of Tuva in the west and the Republic of Buryatia in the northeast. 2. Dukhan Dukhan is presently spoken by approximately 500 people. Roughly half of them live in the taiga areas surrounding the village of Tsagaan Nuur and follow a lifestyle based on reindeer herding and hunting. They are geographically divided into two groups: those of the East Taiga and those of the West Taiga. Historically, the households of the East Taiga came from the Toju region of present day Tuva in the 1950s, whereas those of the West Taiga moved from the Tere-Khöl region of Tuva approximately at the same time. The other half of the Dukhan people live in the village of Tsagaan Nuur and in neighboring river-areas, where they raise the traditional livestock of Mongolia (horse, camel, ox, sheep and goat). Formerly, these households used to be reindeer herders too. Dukhan is a non-written language. It represents the ‘in-group’ language and it is spoken in a narrow family circle. On the other hand, the language that serves for all spheres of communication outside the Dukhan community is Darkhat-Mongolian (see below). Whereas all Dukhans master Darkhat-Mongolian, Darkhat people very rarely acquire any knowledge of the Dukhan language. Linguistically, Dukhan belongs to the Taiga subgroup of Sayan Turkic together with Tofan, the Toju variety of Tuvan and some varieties of the Tere-Khöl area as 106 Elisabetta Ragagnin well as Soyot of Buryatia. For details on Dukhan and for its position within the Sayan varieties, see Ragagnin (2006) and (in print). Dukhans refer to themselves and to their language as duha, a phonetic variant of tuva/tuba, a designation common to all Sayan Turkic speakers and also various groups in the neighbouring areas. This term is usually connected with Tu-po, a name documented in the Chinese Sui-Shu annals (581–618). However, their Mongol neighbours refer to them using the term tsaatan ‘reindeer people’, аhich clearlв refers to their occupation, and Uriankhay. The latter is an ancient and quite enigmatic term of the area which is generally used to define all Sayan Turkic speakers and other groups; further see Schönig (2006: 234), de Rachewiltz (2006: 256, 277) and Wilhelm (1957)1. Besides, to the East of Khövsgöl Lake four other groups are called Uriankhaв. Three of them, namelв the нvör Širkheten Uriankhaв (literallв the Uriankhay of the southern flea), the Arig Uriankhay (from the name of the adjacent river Arig), and the Görööčin Uriankhaв (literallв the hunting Uriankhaв) are speakers of Mongol varieties, whereas the Uygar-Uriankhay are speakers of Sayan Turkic. They identify themselves as tuha and their language is a lowland Tofan variety; further see Ragagnin (2009). 3. Darkhat The Darkhat people inhabit the area within the counties of Ulaan Uul, Bayan Zürkh, Renčlkhümbe and Tsagaan Nuur to the West of the Khövsgöl area and to the South of the Eastern Sayan range. The actual number of Darkhats is approximately 15,000 (Batbayar 2008: 153). The position of Darkhat (ISO–639–3: DRH) within the Mongolic language family is controversial. Older classifications such as Doerfer (1964: 42) and Poppe (1991: 6) outline Darkhat as a mixed central Mongolian variety displaying Khalkha, Oirat and Buryat features. The Buryat elements have, however, been often overestimated; cf. Sanžeev (1931: 42–43). As a matter of fact, Darkhat does not show the characteristic sound developments of Buryat. More recent classifications place Darkhat within the central group of eastern Mongolic. Janhunen (2003: 179) classifies Darkhat as one of the six main dialects of the Outer Mongolian group, along with Khalkha, Khotogoit, Tsongol, Sartul and Dariganga. Svantesson et al. (2005: 142) regard Darkhat as a Khalkha dialect, con- 1 The historв compiled bв Rašīd ad-Dīn in the 14th centurв distinguishes between Uriangqat proper and forest Uriangqat. The latter used to live in the taiga, were dressed in animal skins and used to eat the meat of their “mountain cattle” and drink their milk. For these forest people to guard sheep cattle was considered a humiliation (Semenov & Xetagurov 1952: 123). They might thus be the ancestors of both the Dukhan people, as well as the other Taiga Sayan Turks. Turco-Mongolic relations: the case of particles 107 sidering as the classificatory parameter the absence of the characteristic sound developments of Buryat. Darkhat shares with both Oirat and Buryat the personal marking of indicative verbal forms and is close to Oirat for the absence of low rounded vowels beyond the prominent syllable, i.e the first syllable of the word, e.g. ööree ‘self’, zöndee ‘much’ vs. modern Khalkha-Mongolian ööröö and zöndöö, respectively. However, unlike both Oirat and Buryat, Darkhat does not consistently show the so-called unstable n. This is already seen in the material of Sanžeev (1931), e.g. narăŋ ‘sun’ (cf. аritten Mongolian naran, Kalmuk narn, Buryat naran, Khalkha-Mongolian nar) but nyʉd ~ nʉd ‘eвe’ (cf. аritten Mongolian nidün, Kalmuk nüdn, Buryat nyüden, KhalkhaMongolian nüd). An interesting feature of Darkhat is a peculiar melodic tone which is especially ear-catching among the Darkhats nomadizing in the area of the Tengis river, northwest of Tsagaan Nuur. The Arig Uriankhay, just mentioned above, also display a similar kind of intonation as I could hear myself in my 2009 fieldwork experience. Besides, Darkhat-Mongolian has caught the attention of sociolinguists as one of those rare languages in the world where male and female speech is distinguished on the sound level; cf. Trudgill (2000: 68). In Darkhat, the back rounded vowels u and o of men’s speech correspond to the mid voаels ʉ and ɵ of females’ speech. Similarlв, male ʉ and ɵ correspond to the female variants y and ø (Sanžeev 1931: 17, Gпspпr 2006: 26). A comparable phenomenon is the special words used by Kalmuk women as substitutes for certain eбpressions in men’s speech (Poppe 1987: 135). The origins of the Darkhat people are still obscure and much speculation hovers above their name. The general view among scholars is that the people who identify themselves with the name Darqad are of Turkic origin and that their language and customs have become Mongol in the past few centuries. 2 Etymologically, darqad is a plural form from darqan ‘artisan, craftsman3’ and ‘person free from taбes and official duties’ (Lessing 1995: 236a). Historicallв, a cognate of this term, namely tarxwan, is already documented in the Bugut inscription of the first Turkic Kaganate and represents an honorific title (Moriyasu & Ochir 1999: 124). The term tarqan also occurs many times in the runic inscriptions of the second Turkic Kaganate. On Turkic tarqan, Mongolic darqan and their pre-Turkic origin see Doerfer (1965: 460–474) and Rybatzki (2006: 424–426). However, it is in a Manchu document from the year 1805 (Badamkhatan 1986: 24) that a people bearing the name darqad in the Khövsgöl area is first mentioned. It 2 3 For analogies between the shamanistic phenomena of the Mongol-speaking Darkhats and the taiga Sayan Turkic speakers, see Diószegi (1963). For the meaning ‘ironsmith’ of the term darxan in Kalmuk and other Mongolic languages, see Rybatzki (2006: 423a) 108 Elisabetta Ragagnin is reported that the Khar Darkhat 4 people were made subjects of the Öndör Gegen 5 in the year 1688 (Žamcarano 1991: 61, Badamkhatan 1986: 24). As a result of this, they became darqad ‘privileged’ i.e. independent of their previous lords and at the same time hereditary lay subjects (unagan šabi) of the Jebtsundamba Khutuktus. The Darkhat pastures аere thus incorporated in the Šabi вaman, the Khutuktu’s administrative office (Bawden 1968: 69). Žamcarano also documented the eбpression “Adaв Darqad”, аhich аas mostlв employed by Uriankhay people (1991: 65). This expression might refer to Darkhat clans who assimilated linguistically to Mongol considering that aday in Uygar-Uriankhaв means ‘Mongol’. The links of this term with Khakas aday ‘dog’ and the homograph term aday documented in Old Uyghur bearing the meaning ‘Junges (für Tiere)’ (Röhrborn 1988: 259a) need further linguistic investigation. Moreover, Žamcarano (1991: 73) also reports that the forest Uriankhaв of Eastern Khövsgöl used to call both themselves and the Darkhat „Uigur“. Carruthers (1994: 200) in his detailed account on the Uriankhays, mentions the Darkhat people as near neighbors of the Tobas, who live on the shores of Lake Khövsgöl together with the Uriankhay, the latter calling themselves Uigur. He states further on that the Darkhat are of the same race of the Uriankhay, but speak the Mongol language. The Uygar-Uriankhay (Tuhan) people of East Khövsgöl lake use the expression “Hončin Soв t”, literallв ‘sheep-herding Soвit’, to refer to Darkhat people. The term Soyït, a plural form of the geographic mountain name Soyan, is otherwise used to refer to Sayan Turkic speakers of Mongolia, Tuva as well as Buryatia. Soyan is the most widespread among the Tuvan clan names and is present among all the populations that bear the ethnonym tuva/tuba. The eбpression “Hončin Soв t” thus refers to soyït people who, most probably, abandoned a lifestyle based on reindeer herding in the taiga and became herders of sheep, i.e. lowland cattle. In this process they, apparentlв, sаitched from Taiga Saвan Turkic to Mongol. The eбpression “Hončin Soв t” bears derogative shades of meaning. In this respect, it is also important to note that at the time of the historical Mongols, as reported bв Rašīd al-Dīn, one of the worst humiliations for the women of the above mentioned forest Uriangqat was to be married to a sheep herder (Semenov & Xetagurov 1952: 123–124). Another challenging matter is the relationship between the Khövsgöl Darkhat and the Darkhat in charge of the cult of Chinggis Khan in Ordos in Inner Mongolia, who are also ‘privileged’. In this respect, note that the keepers of the tomb of Chinggis Khan were also previously called Uriankhay (Wilhelm 1957). 4 5 On the clan name Khar Darkhat, see Badamkhatan (1986: 43–46). This eбpression literallв means ‘Loftв Brilliance’. It is a term used to designate the First Jebtsundamba Khutukhtu, the head of the Lamaist church. Turco-Mongolic relations: the case of particles 109 Toponyms and hydronyms as well as some clan names yield clear evidence of the historical Turkic presence in this area.6 For instance tilan (cf. Sayan Turkic čïlan ~ ǰïlan ~ djïlan ‘snake’) is a term referring to a place аith snakes, аhereas ušbaš (cf. Sayan Turkic üš baš ‘three heads’) denotes a place аith three peaks. The hвdronвm ivid is formed by ivi, the general term used for referring to reindeer in Sayan Turkic, plus the Mongol denominal adjectival suffix -t. The toponym Xazanadag can be analyzed as the composition of xazana < CT *qaδïn ‘birch’ and dag < CT *da ‘mountain’. It thus refers to a place provided аith birch trees. The element xazana clearly shows phonological features of Yenisey Turkic varieties (CT *δ > г).7 An open question is whether the element dag in this toponвm refers to ‘mountain’ as in Yenisey and Saвan Turkic, or to ‘forest’ as in Lena Turkic. Further evidence of Turkic is shown by the following Darkhat clan names: Balïkč, Huular and Uigur (Badamkhatan 1986: 46). Balïkč goes back to CT *balïq ‘fish’, plus a reduced form of the agentive suffiб -*či, whereas Huular originates from CT *quu ‘sаan’8 plus the plural suffix -lAr.9 The historical movements of the Huular clan from Tora-Khem in Tuva in the eighteenth century towards their present headquarters have been investigated in detail by Diószegi (1963). During this time they changed the type of animal husbandry, i.e. they abandoned reindeer herding and began to raise cattle and horses. At that time they probably also assimilated linguistically to Mongol. Probably at this time the spirantization of q also occurred, so that quular became huular. In both the Sayan varieties of Khövsgöl area the word for swan is quu displaying an initial velar stop. As for the clan name Uigur, it was the name of the dominant tribe of the T’ieh-lê confederation in the East (Golden 1992: 146). 4. The Dukhan particle iyǝk The particle iyǝk is an assertive copula particle and originates from *er- plus the assertive suffix -J K (also cf. Johanson, this volume). For further traces of *eramong Turkic languages, see Johanson (2000a). In the Dukhan verbal finite system there is contrast among the past marker -D-, the terminality marker -GAn, the indirective markers -(X)ptXr and -GAndIr and the assertive postterminality marker -J K. The main function of the last suffix is to 6 7 8 9 The toponyms and hydronyms collected by Badamkhatan (1986: 63–65) wait for a thorough etymological investigation. On the other hand, Sayan Turkic displays the corresponding form xadïn, (Räsänen 1969: 218b) showing the development CT *δ > d. The clan name quu exists among the Turkic peoples of the Altai Republic as well (Pritsak 1959). A complete list of the clan names collected by Sanjeev in 1931, Ceveen in 1934 and Badamkhatan in 1965 is found in Badamkhatan (1986: 42-43). 110 Elisabetta Ragagnin express assertive epistemic modality. It expresses thus the commitment of the speaker to the truth of the proposition and is used exclusively in vivid and direct speech. This suffiб has cognates in Tuvan (Isбakov & Pal’mbaб 1961: 375–379, Tatarincev 2002: 355–356), Tofan (Rassadin 1978: 212–216) and Khakas (Baskakov 1975: 220–222). The oldest occurrence of this suffix is documented in Old Uyghur (Erdal 2004: 240). The assertive/confirmative value is common to all these languages (Nasilov 1966: 92–104). Within Oghuz Turkic, Southern Anatolian dialects show traces of this suffix; see Demir (1997). The particle iyik expresses the same kind of strong assertion as expressed by the inflectional suffix -J K. Sentences provided with the particle iyik are often uttered by the speaker after discovering a fact which is contrary to his/her knowledge or expectation. In these situations the speaker strongly and categorically asserts his/her view. Additionally, utterances marked with iyik maв also bear the meaning ‘oh, вes, I remember…’, though displaвing an ambiguous temporal connotation between past and non-past. The assertive copula particle iyǝk precedes personal pronouns used as personal markings and co-occurs with the verbal nominal10 suffixes -Vr and -GAn. Some examples are presented below: (1) Jaen in summer palǝk fish tïkka amthannǝɣ very taste-ADJ.DER iyǝk PRTC ‘I remember that fish аas verв tastв in summer.’ (2) Gombo Gombo aŋdan tüün gelgen iyǝk. game-ABL yesterday come-POST.VBN PRTC ‘Gombo came back from the hunt вesterdaв, I believe.’ (3) Ïnda amǝdǝrap that-LOC live-CB olǝrɣan iyǝk. sit-POST.VBN PRTC ‘Sure, she used to live there.’ (4) Men I Badamnǝ ak purgon Badam-ACC white van pla with ǰorǝtkan send-POST.VBN iyǝk PRTC men. I ‘I (assure you that I) sent Badam (to Moron) in the white van.’ (5) Udaan sleep-POST.VBN iyǝk PRTC men. I ‘But I really slept! (How come I am so tired again?)’ 10 In this paper the term verbal nominal is used for ‘Verbalnomen’, thus including both verbal nouns and verbal adjectives (participles). Turco-Mongolic relations: the case of particles (6) Batǝ Batï ihšpes gihšǝ drink-INTRA.VBN person araha vodka 111 iyǝk. PRTC ‘Batǝ is surely somebody who does not drink! (after hearing from somebody that Batǝ was wandering around as drunk as a lord).’ (7) Irey bear on bir ayda eleven month- LOC peer give-INTRA.VBN uyasǝnga gire nest-POSS3-DAT enter-CB iyǝk. PRTC ‘The bear (indeed) enters its lair in month eleven, as far as I know.’ (8) Irey bear peš five ayda month-LOC turǝp geer stand-CB come-INTRA.VBN iyǝk. PRTC ‘The bear gets up (from the winter sleep) in month five, as far as I know.’ (9) Ooŋ gadayǝ that-GEN wife-POSS3 tïkka uxannǝ very intellect-ADJ.DER iyǝk. PRTC ‘His wife is/was very intelligent, as far as I know.’ (10) Ńeškǝdǝ wood-DIR hünnǝn-ne day-ADV.DER ǰoroor move-INTRA.VBN iyǝk. PRTC ‘He goes, indeed, every day to get wood.’ (11) Ïndǝ such ǰer place adaar name-V.DER-INTRA.VBN iyǝk. PRTC ‘There should be a place called like this, I believe.’ The marking of both the third and other persons with the enclitic element -Vl < *ol is optional. See the two examples below: (12) Sen ekkǝ you good ïrlaar iyǝk sen-ǝl. song-V.DER-INTRA.VBN PRTC you-PRTC ‘You used to sing well, as far as I know. (How come you tell us that you can not sing?!)’ (13) Sĩĩge mün you-DAT soup pergen give-POST.VBN ‘But the soup аas alreadв given to вou!’ iyǝk-ǝl. PRTC-PRTC 112 Elisabetta Ragagnin Between the verbal noun and iyik the particle lA can occur. (14) Pis We ihšer le drink-INTRA.VBN PRTC araha vodka iyǝk PRTC pis. we ‘We used to drink vodka (together)’ (Hoа come вou don’t drink anвmore noа?)’ Very often the particle iyǝk fuses with the question particle -BA into the item iyikpe, creating tag-questions. See the illustrative examples below: (15) Batǝ Batǝ gelgen iyǝkpe? come-POST.VBN PRTC-Q ‘Batǝ has arrived, hasn’t he?’ (16) Po this üyede aldǝ örtektǝɣ time-LOC sable price-ADJ.DER turar stand-INTRA.VBN iyǝkpe? PRTC-Q ‘Nowadays sables are expensive, aren’t theв?’ In these examples the speaker clearly expects a positive answer, that is, a confirmation of what (s)he has just said. Finally, the particle iyǝk often occurs in sentence final position in both realis and irrealis/counterfactual conditional constructions. See the examples below: (17) Aht horse par existent ǰoroor move-INTRA.VBN polsa tããrta become-COND3 tomorrow Šagay Šagaв aŋ game iyǝk PRTC ‘Tomorroа Šagaв аill surelв go hunting, if there are horses available.’ aŋšǝ game-ADJ.DER (18) Men ekkǝ I good göhhey many irey bear polgan become-POST.VBN aŋnaar game-V.DER-INTRA.VBN iyǝk PRTC bolzam become-COND1SG men. I ‘If I had been a good hunter, I аould have shot manв bears.’ (19) Taygada taiga-LOC monǝ this-ACC aŋ ehtǝ game meat-POSS3 par existent polgan become-POST.VBN pïhškǝnnap ǰiir ripe-V.DER-INTRA.VBN eat INTRA.VBN iyǝk PRTC polsa be-COND3 pis. we ‘If there had been аild animal meat in the taiga, аe аould have roasted it on a stick.’ Turco-Mongolic relations: the case of particles 113 According to my informants, the particle iyik can be replaced by bolgan in the last two examples. Finally, the above outlined functions of iyik are common to the other Sayan varieties; cf. the examples below: (20) Sen you moon this-ABL bolur become-INTRA.VBN čoruy barzïŋza move-CB go-COND2.SG deere better iyik. PRTC ‘If вou moved aаaв from here, it аould indeed be better.’ (Standard Tuvan, Nasilov 1966: 98)’ (21) Men ada ǰoqqa I father inexistent-DAT iyik PRTC ada father bolur giži become-INTRA.VBN person men. I ‘Ich bin doch einer, der dem Vaterlosen ein Vater аerden аird.’ (Altai Tuvan, Aydemir 2009: 25) 5. The Darkhat particle asən The copula particle asən originates from the defective verb *a- ‘to be’ plus the postterminal verbalnominal suffix -(U)gsAn. Asən is marked for person with reduced forms of the personal pronouns. Functionally, asən shows close similarities to iyik, expressing strong assertion. In the available grammatical descriptions of Darkhat the particle asən is not mentioned.11 Some examples: (21) Ter nadad that I-DAT tus help bolaagää become-IMPF.VBN12-NEG asəna. PRTC-3SG ‘He did not help me, as a matter of fact!’ (Sentence uttered аith a clear level of anger and disappointment) 11 Sanžeev (1931: 32–36) under the title “participles” mentions the compound form -xasan (Perfectum Futuri), -dagsan (Perfectum Usus), -sansan (Plusquamperfectum), which contain the element -san < *agsan. 12 Following Poppe (1991: 94) the Darkhat suffix -AA is defined as ‘imperfect verbal nominal’. It corresponds to Johanson’s PAST(+POST(-INTRA)), an intraterminal type which takes part in both a postterminal and an intraterminal opposition (2000: 170–171). 114 Elisabetta Ragagnin (23) Bi I čamd xool you-DAT food avčərč ögəsǝn bring-CB give-POST.VBN asənba. PRTC-1SG ‘Actuallв, I have alreadв given вou food.’ (Hoа come вou are so demanding and hungry again?!) (24) Čamd you-DAT ögəsǝn give-POST.VBN xool food asəna. PRTC-3SG ‘But food аas alreadв given to вou!’ (25) Ter xoyor olon ǰil that two many year xamt together amədəraagää asəna. live-IMPF.VBN-NEG PRTC-3SG ‘Those tаo have not been living together for a long time, as far as I knoа.’ (26) Či xool you food idəsen eat -POST.VBN asənča PRTC-2SG ‘But вou have alreadв eaten!’ (27) Ter yavəsan that move -POST.VBN asəna PRTC-3SG ‘He has indeed left.’ (28) Bidner arxi uuǰ-l we-PL vodka drink-CB-PRTC bäädəg be-INTRA.LF.VBN asənbide. PRTC-1PL ‘But аe used to drink vodka together, as I can well remember! (How come вou tell me вou don’t drink anвmore?)’ (29) Ta in You this üləgeriig ömən tale-ACC before bääsan be-POST.VBN yarədəg-l speak-INTRA.LF.VBN-PRTC asənta PRTC-2PL ‘You used to tell this tale previously! (How come you seem not to know it anв more?)’ However, unlike Dukhan, the Darkhat particle asən is also used for expressing an imaginary strong desire, as seen in the example below: (30) Bi I zagasand fish-DAT yavax asənb(a). move-INTRA.NF. PRTC-1SG ‘Hoа much I’d love to go fishing!’ Turco-Mongolic relations: the case of particles 115 In Dukhan, in such a situation it would not be possible to use the particle iyik. Instead the particle ergen13 would be employed as seen in the example below: (31) Men eht I meat ǰiir eat -INTRA.VBN ergen PRTC men! I ‘Hoа much I’d love to eat meat!’ That asən functionally corresponds to both iyǝk and ergen might be explained by the fact that whereas Darkhat displays only one postterminal verbalnominal -san (<-*AgsAn), Sayan Turkic displays both the posterminal item -GAn and the postterminal assertive item -J K. In Khalkha Mongolian, on the other hand, to express this kind of imaginary desire the constructions [verbal stem-(V)x + yumsan] or [verbal stem-xsan] are used. Both forms contain a reduced form of the element *agsan. For the element -san occurring after verbal nominals and the element asan occurring in the formation of compound аords bearing the meaning ‘eб, former’ in Khalkha-Mongolian, see Poppe (1951: 83), Vietze (2008: 39b) and Tumurtogoo & Bat-Ireedui (2008: 556a). Abbreviations ADJ.DER ABL ACC CB COND CT GEN IMP IMPF INTRA LF LOC adjectival derivation ablative accusative converb conditional Common Turkic genitive imperative imperfect intraterminal low-focal locative N.DER NF NEG PAST POSS POST P.REFL VBN V.DER VOL X nominal derivation non-focal negative past possessive posterminal possessive-reflexive verbal nominal verbal derivation voluntative any verbal stem 13 The particle ergen is also a specific indirective reportative marker of the epic/folklore genre; also see Johanson (this volume) and Ragagnin (in print). 116 Elisabetta Ragagnin References Aydemir, A. 2009. Zum Aorist im Altai-Tuwinischen. In: Csató, É. Á., Ims, G., Parslow, J., Thiesen, F. & Türker, E. (eds.) Turcological letters to Bernd Brendemoen. Oslo: Novus Press. 21–28. Badamkhatan, S. 1960. Khövsgöl aymagïn Tsaatan (Uriankhay) ardïn garlïn asuudal. Šinǰelekh Ukhaan Setgüül 1, 30–35. —. 1962. Khövsgöliyn Tsaatan ardïn aǰ baydlïn toym. Studia Ethnographica II–1, 1–66. —. 1986. Les chamanistes du Bouddha vivant. Études mongoles et sibériennes 17. [Translation and adaptation of Badamkhatan, Sandagsürengiyn 1965, Khövsgöliyn Darkhat yastan by Marie-Dominique Even] —. 1987. Le mode de vie des Caatan, éleveurs de rennes du Xövsgöl. Études mongoles et sibériennes 18, 99–127. [Translation and adaptation of Badamxatan 1962 by Hamayon, Roberte & Beffa, Marie-Lise] Baskakov, N. A. 1975. Grammatika xakasskogo jazyka. Moskva: Nauka. Batbayar, S. (ed.) 2008. Mongolia: the official year book of Mongolia. Ulaan Baatar: Montsame. Bawden, C. R. 1968. The modern history of Mongolia. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Benzing, J. 1985. Kalmückische Grammatik zum Nachschlagen. (Turcologica 1.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Carruthers, D. 19942. Unknown Mongolia. A record of travel and exploration in north-west Mongolia and Dzungaria. New Delhi, Madras: Asian Educational Services. Demir, N. 1997. Die Vergangenheitsform auf -(y)ik in anatolischen Dialekten. In: Berta, Á. (ed.) Historical and linguistic interaction between Inner-Asia and Europe, Proceedings of the 39th Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Szeged, Hungary: June 16ĭ21, 1996. (Studia uralo-altaica 39.) 65–79. Diószegi, V. 1963. Ethnogenic aspect of Darkhat Shamanism. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 16, 55–81. Doerfer, G. 1964. Klassifikation und Verbreitung der mongolischen Sprachen. In: Mongolistik (Handbuch der Orientalistik 5,2). Leiden, Köln: Brill. —. 1965. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen II. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Erdal, M. 2004. Old Turkic grammar (Handbuch der Orientalistik 8,3) Leiden: Brill. Gáspár, Cs. 2006. Darkhat. (Languages of the World/Materials 419.) München: Lincom Europa. Golden, P. B. 1992. An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples. (Turcologica 9.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Turco-Mongolic relations: the case of particles 117 Isxakov, F. G. & Pal’mbaб, A. A. 1961. Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo vostočnoj literaturв. Janhunen, J. 2003. Mongol dialects. In: Janhunen, J. (ed.) The Mongolic languages. London, New York: Routledge. 177–192. Johanson, L. 2000a. Traces of a Turkic copula verb. Turkic Languages 4, 235–238. —. 2000b. Viewpoint operators in European languages. In: Dahl, Ö. (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. (Empirical approaches to Language Typology EUROTYP 20–6). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 27–187. —. (this volume). Notes on Turkic stance particles. Lessing, F. D. 19953. Mongolian-English dictionary. Bloomington: The Mongolia Society. Moriyasu, T. & Ochir, A. 1999. Provisional report of researches on historical sites and inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998. Osaka: The Society of Central Eurasian Studies. Nasilov, D. M. 1966. Prošedšeje vremja na -jük/-juq v drevneuigurskom jazyke i ego refleksy v sovremennyx jazykax. In: Tjurkologičeskii sbornik. Moskva: Nauka. 92–104. Poppe, N. 1951. Khalkha-Mongolische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Steiner. —. 1955. Introduction to Mongolian comparative studies. Helsinki: SuomalaisUgrilainen Seura. —. 1991. Grammar of written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pritsak, O. 1959. Das Altaitürkische. In: Deny, J. et al. (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta I. Aquis Mattiacis: Steiner. 568–598. de Rachewiltz, I. 2006. The Secret History of the Mongols 1ĭ2. Leiden, Boston: Brill. Ragagnin, E. 2006. The position of Dukhan among the Tuvan dialects. In: Erdal, M. & Nevskaya, I. (eds.), Exploring the eastern frontiers of Turkic. (Turcologica 60.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 153–156. —. 2009. A rediscovered lowland Tofan variety in northern Mongolia. Turkic Languages 13, 225–245. —. (in print) Dukhan: a Turkic language of Northern Mongolia: Description and analysis. (Turcologica 76.). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rassadin, V. I. 1978. Morfologija tofalarskogo jazyka v sravnitel’nom osveščenii. Moskva: Nauka. —. 1995. Tofalarsko-russkij slovar’. Russko-tofalarskij. Irkutsk: Vostočno sibirskoe knižnoe iгdatel’stvo. Röhrborn, K. 1988. Uigurisches Wörterbuch. Sprachmaterial der vorislamishen türkischen Texte aus Zentralasien. Lieferung 4. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Rybatzki, V. 2006. Die Personennamen und Titel der mittelmongolischen Dokumente. Eine lexikalische Untersuchung. (Publications of the Institut for Asian and African Studies 8.) Helsinki: Yliopistopaino Oy. 118 Elisabetta Ragagnin Sanžeev, G. D. 1931. ϊarxatskij govor i fol’klor. Leningrad: Iгdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Schönig, C. 2006. Südsibirisch-türkische Entsprechungen von Völker- und Stammesnamen aus der Geheimen Geschichte der Mongolen. In: Erdal, M. & Nevskaya, I. (eds.), Exploring the eastern frontiers of Turkic. (Turcologica 60.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 211–242. Trudgill, P. 2004. Sociolinguistics. An introduction to language and society. London: Penguin. Semenov, A. A. (ed.) & Xetagurov, L. A. (transl.) 1952. Sbornik Letopisej I, II. Moskva: Akademia Nauk SSR. Svantesson, J.-O., Tsendina, A., Karlsson, A. & Franzén, V. (eds.) 2005. The phonology of Mongolian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tatarincev 2002. ϋtimologičeskij slovar’ tuvinskogo jazyka II (ϊ, Jo, I, J). Novosibirsk: Nauka. Tumurtogoo, D. & Bat-Ireedui, J. 2008. English-Mongolian / Mongolian-English pocket dictionary. Ulaan Baator: Oxford U. P. & Monsudar Publishing. Vietze, H-P. 2008. Wörterbuch Mongolisch-Deutsch. Mongol-German tol’ bičig. Berlin: DAO. Wilhelm, H. 1957. A note on the migration of the Uriangkhai. In: Studia Altaica. Festschrift für Nikolaus Poppe zum 60. Geburtstag am 8. August 1957. Wiesbaden. 172–176. Žamcarano, C. Ž. 1991. The Darqad and the Uriyangqai of lake Köbsögöl. East Asian History 1, 55–80.