Talk:бяруу

Via an Oghur language

This is a debated topic and I think it shouldnt be used in Mongolic entries that seem like borrowed from an Oghur language. Separation of Oghur and today's Common Turkic is 2000 years ago and before that is there is Proto-Turkic. Saying via an Oghur language sounds like there was no contact before then. --Anylai (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@AnylaiMaybe we could add "perhaps via an Oghuric language" so that we have a neat category of Mongolian word showing the r/l reflex?

Doing the same with z/š words by marking the with Common Turkic would also be good, but we don't have Common Turkic as a language category here. Crom daba (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crom daba Clauson mentions this as "a 1st period loanword in Mong." I told you he has 3 categories. Pre-Old Turkic, Old Turkic, and Turkic after Mongolic invasions. This means that the borrowing is from an unattested Turkic langauge that was once spoken and influenced Mongols (assuming oghurs were already separated and in Europe), he even has an idea who spoke this language, the Tabgach (Tuoba). But the Tuoba were long gone before earliest Turkic inscriptions too. His idea that Tabgach language being some sort of ancestor or very close relative of Oghuric is bad, and the true Turkic is the recorded one which was attested in 8th century. For this reason we may as well say "borrowed from Tabgach language", it would not be helpful. It would be like saying Finnish harras is borrowed via a Gothic type language. Unfortunately I can not even find Proto-Turkic reconstructions for basic numbers which are very solid even in Chuvash and have r/l reflexes compared to Common Turkic, so it will be hard for you to even say "Compare Turkish/Old Turkic "xxxx", from earlier "xxxx"..."

I can give you some r/l reflexes in modern Common Turkic langauges too. For example see Turkish del-, deş-, yıldız, yıldırım, düş, diz, dirsek. in Old Uyghur you have "tül" (dream) but "tüşe-" (to dream) instead of "tüle-". Then these must be some sort of interdialectal borrowings too. One must also be careful when identifying loanwords, Altaic is a very debated topic, and I agree with you anything can be borrowed but there is just too much relation especially between Mongolic and Turkic. If you read Doerfer's criticism of Altaic he even mentions that Mongolic first person singular pronoun can be Turkic, because in Middle Mongolian there are different forms starting with /n/ for dative, accusative forms or whatever.... I believe this can be as controversial as Altaic itself. --Anylai (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You make good points. I should note that presuming a separate Oghuric family seems to be common practice in Altaic studies and not just something Clauson made up. However, if we don't presume zetacism as original there's also no reason to presume that all lir languages belong to a common subgroup since as far as I know, Mongolian first period borrowings don't show any changes typical of Chuvash other than having r instead of z (some cases of Mongolic *i corresponding Turkic *a have been compared to Chuvash u with palatalization, but there are other cases of Mongolic *i corresponding to other Turkic vowels that can't be explained via Chuvash).

I'll go your way this time then, other Mongolian Oghuric etymologies should probably be changed as well (халбага (xalbaga) being one most likely to be borrowed pre-proto Turkic).Crom daba (talk)

But in Altaic studies people make use of Oghuric to reconstruct Proto-Turkic, whereas Clauson and many ignores it and thinks Mongolic 1st period loanwords are borrowed from a mysterious Oghur language which is the distorted language. There is like 800 years of empty space with no attestation of Turkic whatsoever after separation of what we call now Oghuric. Plus for (халбага (xalbaga) you can use this: kaĺpa, according to Scherbak and Doerfer Mongolic is borrowed from Turkic, but for others not. --Anylai (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)