Historical Grammar of the Kyrgyz Language. Phonetics
One of the arguments in favor of the hypothesis of Central Asian origin of the Kyrgyz and their language lies in the linguistic material.
The languages of the Yenisei Kyrgyz and the modern Tian Shan Kyrgyz are in a position of distant kinship within the Turkic language family.
However, if it is possible to demonstrate their sequential connection, then, obviously, one can also show an ethnic connection. The modern Kyrgyz language (both literary and dialectal types) is well-known enough, which, naturally, cannot be said about the language of the Yenisei Kyrgyz, as their folk (dialectal type) language disappeared along with the ethnic group from the arena of history. The only way left is to restore the vanished language.
In linguistics, experience in reconstructing languages that no longer exist has already been accumulated. There are two possible directions for this linguistic work: the restoration of individual features of the language and the reconstruction of entire blocks in phonetics and paradigmatic series in morphology (i.e., the reconstruction of “the whole language”).
The difference between the two paths is purely quantitative. The methodology is the same. Everything depends on the state of the sources. If the sources preserve only some relic phenomena, it is possible to restore only individual features of the language. However, if the sources contain entire structures, it is possible to recreate extensive language fragments with their help.
In the second case, by operating with mutually related units, the linguist can use the rule of correlation of phenomena, which increases the accuracy and reliability of reconstructions. The reconstruction of the main structural links of the now non-existent language of the ancient Kyrgyz follows the second direction. The literary (more precisely: ritual) language of the ancient Kyrgyz (VIII—XII centuries) is known from monuments of runic writing in the Yenisei basin. By classification criteria, it was a 5-language (adaq ‘foot’ and kod- ‘to put’).
The theory of literary languages asserts that the literary language is not always identical to the colloquial (dialectal type): it may be a language of the same system as the colloquial one, but not of close kinship, or it may be a language of a completely different system.
There are grounds to believe that among the ancient Kyrgyz, the literary and colloquial languages did not coincide but occupied positions of distant kinship: if the literary language was a 5-language, then the colloquial language was a z-language (azak ‘foot’, koz- ‘to put’). What did the colloquial language of the ancient Kyrgyz represent? In 1952, while publishing Yenisei texts, S. E. Malov wrote that none of the Turkologists had ever expressed thoughts about the relationship between the folk and written language of the ancient Kyrgyz; there is no material for this.
I believe that such material already exists at present. This is primarily the language of the Kyrgyz of the Fuyuy province (China), descendants of the ancient Kyrgyz (who migrated here from the Khakas Altai), which serves as the main source for reconstruction. Additional sources include the language of the Saryg-Yugurs, who undoubtedly adopted the language of the ancient Kyrgyz, and the related languages of the Khakas, Shors, and Chulym Turks.
There is quite enough material to obtain a clear understanding of the colloquial language of the ancient Kyrgyz, who were the dominant ethnic group in their state (VII—VIII centuries) and subsequently became part of several Turkic-speaking peoples: Khakas, Tuvans, Kyrgyz, and others.
The following tasks arise:
1 — to restore the main links of the phonetic and morphological structure of the ancient Kyrgyz language;
2 — to trace the development of the ancient Kyrgyz language into the Middle Kyrgyz language and the connection of these languages with the modern Kyrgyz language;
3 — to answer the question of the possibility of the ancient Kyrgyz ethnic group participating as a main component in the process of forming the ethnic group of modern Kyrgyz based on language data.
The ancient Kyrgyz language of the dialectal type was characterized by a set of the following structural features.
In the area of phonetics:
1. Long vowels a, ы, o, u, ё, i, в, u. Long vowels are found in the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy: аас ‘mouth’, жцит ‘young man’, муус ‘horn’. This type of length (derivative) exists in Saryg-Yugur, Khakas, and Shor languages.
2. Consecutive palatal harmony and the beginnings of strong labial harmony (labialization of broad non-labials). This state of vowel harmony has been preserved in the language of the Fuyuy Kyrgyz. The same can be seen in the language of the Saryg-Yugurs. In the Khakas language, palatal harmony of vowels manifests itself both in the root and in the word form, while labial harmony is limited to narrow u, u and acts only within the root. The same state is characteristic of the Shor language: consecutive palatal harmony and limited labial harmony (only narrow labials and syllable boundaries).
3. At the beginning of words before narrow and broad vowels, there was a voiced affricate ж. The language of the Fuyuy Kyrgyz: щир ‘land’, жуп- ‘to wash’, жеерин ‘gazelle, джейран’, щаан ‘elephant’ (exceptions are rare). For the Saryg-Yugur language, an initial й is characteristic, and as an exception, ж appears only before front vowels (жицне ‘needle’), — in this case, Saryg-Yugur preserved й from the ancient Uyghur language. In the Khakas language, at the beginning of words, there is an affricate ч, which is a stage of the voicing of ж; in the Shor language, at the beginning of words, there is also an affricate ч, which sometimes (in the dialect of the Shors of the Kondoma River) alternates with the plosive т’ (т’ок/чок ‘no’).
4. Before broad vowels (of the back row?), there was a sonant н. Initial н is found in the language of the Fuyuy Kyrgyz: номуртга ‘egg’, намур ‘rain’, нан- ‘to return’. In the Saryg-Yugur language, this feature is absent, which was also characteristic of the ancient Uyghur language (й instead of к). Initial н is found in the Khakas and Shor languages in the same group of words as in the language of the Fuyuy Kyrgyz.
5. In the middle of names, a voiced з occurred. In this position, з is present in Fuyuy-Kyrgyz: гозын ‘hare’, азах ‘foot’, in Saryg-Yugur: азгыр ‘stallion’, пезык ‘big’, езер ‘saddle’, the same in Khakas, Shor, and Chulym-Turkic languages.
6. Voiced г in the middle of words (between vowels) fell out, causing secondary length. The medial г has been preserved only in Saryg-Yugur, apparently as a contribution from the ancient Uyghur substratum: агыр ‘heavy’, ахыс ‘mouth’.
7. At the end of verbal stems, a voiced з should be allowed. Final з in verbal stems is found in the language of the Fuyuy Kyrgyz: гиз ‘to dress’, in Saryg-Yugur: к,оз- ‘to pour’, кез- ‘to dress’, in Shor — кес- ‘to dress’.
8. In the final position of words, there was a voiced г. Voiced г at the end of words is found in the language of the Fuyuy Kyrgyz: дах~даг ‘mountain’, in Saryg-Yugur: йаг ‘oil’, таг ‘mountain’, in Shor: таг ‘mountain’, улуг ‘big’, in Chulym-Turkic: чазаг ‘on foot’.
Historical Grammar of the Kyrgyz Language. Morphology
1. The plural is marked by -лар/-лер, -дар/-дер, -тар/-тер.
In the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, the plural is formed in the same way: -лар/-лыр, -дар/-дыр, -тар/-тыр. In the Saryg-Yugur language, this series is supplemented by variants with an initial -н, but variants with a narrow vowel are absent: -лар/-лер, -дар/-дер, -тар/-тер, -нар/-нер. In the Khakas and Shor languages, the number of variants is smaller: -лар/-лер, -тар/-тер, -нар/-нер.
2. The possessive form with personal markers:
Plural
-быс/-бус
-ырар/-уцар, -ицер/-ууур -ы/-сы, -у/-су
In the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, the possessive paradigm has the following form:
-(ы)быс
-(ы)цар/-(ы)цыр -(з)ы
In the Saryg-Yugur language, under the influence of the Chinese language, the possessive paradigm has been deformed — only forms II and III person remain:
I -Н
II -н
III -ы/-сы, -и/-си
The possessive form for the I person (-м) has only been preserved in folklore. In the Khakas language, the possessive paradigm coincides with that of the Fuyuy-Kyrgyz. In the Shor language (in the dialect of the lower reaches of the Mrasu River), there is labialization of the vowel affix, and the II person plural is formed according to the scheme: -лар + ын. Labialization of the vowel affix occurs in the Chulym-Turkic language.
3. Declension: indefinite, genitive, dative, locative, and ablative cases:
1) The indefinite case in ancient Kyrgyz had no formal expression, as in the languages of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, Saryg-Yugurs, Khakas, Shors, Chulym Turks, and other Turkic languages;
2) The genitive case, marked by -нын,/-ниц, -дыц/-диц, -тын,/-тин, -нун,/нуц, -дун,/-дун, -тун,/-тун. In the Fuyuy-Kyrgyz language, the genitive case is six-variant: -ныц/-нин, -дын,/-дин, -тыц/-тиц. In the Saryg-Yugur language — the same markers. In the Khakas literary language, the genitive case is formed in two variants along the consonantal line and two along the vowel line: -ныц/-ниц, -тыц/-тиц. In the Sagai dialect, this series is supplemented by affixes with an initial -д (-дыц/-диц), while in the Kachin dialect — variants with narrow labials у, у (-нуц/-нуц, -туц/-туц). In the Shor language, the genitive case affix has twelve variants: -ныц/-ниц, -нуц/-нуц, -дъщ/ диу, -дуц/-дуц, -тын/-тин, -тун/-тун. In the Chulym-Turkic language, there are eight variants, half of which have labial vowels.
3) The dative case with markers -ка/-ке, -га/-ге, -а/-е. The language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy has two series of variants along the lines of broad and narrow vowels: -га/-гы, ха/-хы, -а/-ы. In the Saryg-Yugur language — six variants: -га/-ге, -ка/-ке, -к’а/-к’е. In the Khakas and Shor languages, the dative case affixes are similar: -га/-ге, -ка/-ке, -а/-е, the same in Chulym-Turkic.
4) The accusative case with affixes -ны/-ни, -ды/-ди, -ты/-ти, -ну/-ну, -ду/-ду, -ту/-ту. In the Fuyuy-Kyrgyz language, the markers of the accusative case are -ны/-ни, -ды/-ди, -ты/-ти. In the Saryg-Yugur language, the markers coincide with the previous one. In the Khakas language, the pair -ды/-ди is absent. In the Shor language, there is an abundance of variants: -ны/-ни/-ну/-ну, -ды/-ди/-ду/-ду, -ты/-ти/-ту/-ту.
5) The locative case has markers -да/-де, -та/-те. In Fuyuy-Kyrgyz, there are variants along the line of narrow vowels: -да/ды, -та/-ты. In the Saryg-Yugur, Khakas, and Shor languages, the markers are the same: -да/-де, -та/-те. In the Chulym-Turkic language — eight variants, half of which have labial vowels.
6) The ablative case with two series of affixes (along the lines of broad and narrow vowels): -дан/-ден, -тан/-тен, -нан/-нен, and -дын/-дин, -тын/-тин, -нын/-нин. In the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, only one series with narrow vowels is presented. In the Saryg-Yugur language, both series of affixes exist, but the series with narrow vowels is rarely found. In the Khakas and Shor languages, the case markers end in -ц: -дац/-дец, -тан/-тен, -нац/-нец. This is an isogloss of the local southern Siberian area. In the Chulym-Turkic language, the case affix is expressed in eight variants: -дын/-дин, -дун/-дун, -тын/-тин, -тун/-тун.
In the languages under consideration, there are also forms related to cases. In the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy — this is the directional case with -cap/-сарых. In the Khakas language, it is represented by four variants: -cap/-сер, -зар/-зер. In the Kachin dialect of the Khakas language, the affix has a truncated form: -са/-сё, -за/-зё, while in the Sagai dialect, on the contrary, it is complete: -сары/-сери, -зары/-зери. The last variant sheds light on the origin of the affix: -сары is an independent word meaning “side” in the role of a postposition, see: ancient Turkic сары. The isogloss of the directional case in Fuyuy-Kyrgyz and Khakas has a limited, southern Siberian character and cannot be reconstructed in ancient Kyrgyz.
The comparative nature of the case system is also characterized by the comparative case with -даг/-дег in Saryg-Yugur and Shor and the instrumental case with -пыла/-па in Shor and -была/-пыла in Chulym-Turkic languages.
4. Conjugation: tenses — past, present, future. To express past action — three forms:
1) Past categorical tense with the affix -ды/-ди/-ду/-ду, -ты/-ти/-ту/-ту + personal endings (-м, -у; -быс, -уар), in III person plural -шты.
In the language of the Fuyuy Kyrgyz, the past categorical tense is formed using the affixes -ды/-ди, -ты/-ти;
Singular Plural
I бардым ‘I went’ бардыбыс
II бардыц бардыцар
III барды барды/лар) - барышты
In the Saryg-Yugur language, under the influence of the Chinese language, personal marking has disappeared: the person is indicated analytically.
The Khakas paradigm completely repeats the Fuyuy one, except for one detail: in the III person plural, the form like барышты is absent.
In the Shor language, the marker of the past categorical tense has variants with labial vowels, except in the dialects of the Shors of the Kondoma River and the upper reaches of the Mrasu River, where labialization of the vowel affix is weakened, optional.
2) Past indefinite tense with the marker -ыптар/-иптир, -уптур/-уптур + personal endings (-мын, -сыу; -быс, -същар).
In the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, the paradigm of time is presented with truncated components:
Singular
I бартырмин ‘I went’
II бартырсын,
III бартыр
The original composition of the form was бар- (root) + ып (gerund) + тур- (auxiliary verb) + мин (personal marker). In the language of the Fuyuy Kyrgyz, the following process could have occurred: барыптурмин > барыттурмин > барытыр- мин > бартырмин (the marker of the gerund -п disappeared). In the Saryg-Yugur language, due to the absence of personal endings, the paradigm was reduced to the form типажен сатыптро ‘I sold’. The past tense on -ыптыр with a complete paradigm is also represented in the Khakas language as a form of past “zaglaznogo” on -тыр;
3) Past resultative tense on -ган/-ген, -кан/-кен + personal affixes (-мын, -сыц; -быс, -сыцар).
In the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, the paradigm of time has the following form:
Singular Plural
I барганмин ‘I went’ барганбыс > баргабыс
II барганзыц барганзыцар
III барган барган
In the Saryg-Yugur language, the paradigm of time consists of one word form of the type мен оцшегантро ‘I read’.
In the Khakas language, the past resultative tense is formed using the affixes -сан/-ген (after roots with vowels and voiced consonants, except г, г, н), -хан/-кен (after roots with final voiceless consonants) and -ан/-ен (after roots with final г, г, н).
In the Shor language, the affixes -сан/-ген, -кап/-кен serve to form the past resultative tense; the same in the Chulym-Turkic language;
4) Past continuous on -чух/-чух + personal affixes (-пын/-сыц; -пыс, -сыцар). In the Khakas language, this time is formed using the affixes -чых/-чик, -ч,ых/-ч,ик, as seen from the following paradigm:
Singular
I тастачуыхпын ‘I threw’
II тастауыхсыу
III тастачуых
The past tense on -чык in the Tuvan language is formed in the same way.
The origin of this tense form is linked to the ancient Uyghur form of the past tense on -йук. Forms of the ordinary past on -чан in the Khakas and Shor languages, the definite past on -чатхан in Khakas, and the form of perfect action on -галах in Khakas and -галак in Shor and Chulym-Turkic languages are geographically limited and cannot be traced back to ancient Kyrgyz.
To express an action taking place at the present moment, the following form is used. The present tense of this moment follows the scheme: root + gerund -ып + auxiliary verbs ж,ур-/ж,ат-/отур-/тур- + tense affix -а + personal markers (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сыцар).
In the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, the paradigm of time has the following form:
Singular Plural
I бартурмин ‘I am going’ бартурбыс
II бартурсиу бартурзыуар
III бартур бартур
The full form should be as follows: бар- ‘to go’ + affix -а + тур- ‘to stand’ + affix -а + мин > баратурамин > бар- турмин (the second and fourth syllables, being in an unstressed position, were reduced).
In the Saryg-Yugur language, one of the forms of the present tense is formed in the type мен мацыппар ‘I am going (now)’. In the Khakas language, the form suitable for this type of present tense is on -ча/-че or -чадыр/-чедир and -а/-е + -дыр/-дир. In the Shor language, forms of the present tense are also formed using auxiliary verbs чат-, тур-, одур-, чер-. Other forms of the present tense, such as Fuyuy-Kyrgyz бардымин/ бардамин (<барудамын), Saryg-Yugur габ/-гек and бган, are isolated and probably could not have existed in the language of the ancient Kyrgyz.
To express an action that is about to occur, the following forms were used:
1) Future definite tense on -а/-е + personal affixes (-мын, -сыц; -быс, -сыцар).
In the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, the paradigm of this tense is formed using the affix -и:
Singular Plural
I барим ‘I will go’ барибис
II баризиц баризицар
III бари бари
In the Khakas language, exactly the same paradigm (but for the present tense) is derived from the temporal marker up: парим (< пар-ир-бин) ‘I am going’; паризин, (пар-ир- зыц) etc.
2) Future indefinite tense with the marker -ар/-ер + personal affixes (-мын, -сын; -быс, -същар).
In the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, this form is formed using the affix -ыр:
Singular
I гилирмин ‘I will come’
II гилирзиц
III гилир
In the Saryg-Yugur language, the paradigm of time is built using the affixes -ар/-ер, -ыр/-ир, -р: мен парар ‘I will go’. The same form of time exists in the Khakas and Shor languages.
Forms of future tense on -гьии, -гы, -гыр in the Saryg-Yugur language and future possible on -гадыр in the Shor language, as isolated forms, cannot be traced back to the ancient Kyrgyz language.
Phonetic Structure of the Ancient Kyrgyz Language
The summary of reconstructions provides the following outline of the structure of the colloquial language of the ancient Kyrgyz (VIII—XII centuries)
1. In the system of vocalism, there were long vowels: а, ы, б, у, ё, U, в, р. They were of secondary origin — due to the loss of intervocalic consonants and the contraction of vowels.
2. Palatal harmony of vowels was implemented consecutively. Labial harmony — labialization of broad non-labials — was at an initial stage.
3. At the beginning of words before narrow and broad vowels, there was a voiced affricate ж.
4. A sonant н preceded broad vowels (of the back row?).
5. In the middle of names, a voiced з occurred (type азак ‘foot’).
6. Voiced г in the intervocalic position fell out, causing contraction and length of vowels.
7. At the end of verbal stems, there was a voiced з (type коз- ‘to put’).
8. In the final position of words, there was a voiced г (type таг ‘mountain’).
Morphological Structure of the Ancient Kyrgyz Language
1. The plural was expressed through markers -лар/-лер, -дар/-дер, -тар/-тер.
2. The possessive paradigm had the following form:
Singular Plural
I. -ым/-ум, -им/-ум -быс/-бус, -бис/-бус
II -ыц/-уц, -иц/-уц -ыцар/-уцур, -ицер/-уцур
III -Ы/-СЫ, -у/-су, -U/-CU, -у/-су -Ы/-СЫ, -у/-су, -и/-си, -у/-су
3. The declension paradigm consisted of six cases with their markers.
Indefinite case: zero form.
Genitive case: -ныц/-ниц, -дыц/-диц, -тыц/-тиц.
Dative case: -га/-ге, -ца/-ке, -а/-е.
Accusative case: -ны/-ни, -ды/-ди, -ты/-ти, -ну/-ну, -ду/-ду, -ту/-ту.
Locative case: -да/-де, -та/-те.
Ablative case: -дан/-ден, -тан/-тен, -нан/-нен (-дын/-дин, -тын/-тин, -нын/-нин).
4. The conjugation paradigm consisted of a series of forms for past, present, and future tenses.
Forms of Past Tense:
1) Past categorical tense with the marker -ды/-ди, -ду/-ду, -ты/-ти/-ту/-ту + personal markers (-м, -д; -к, -уар); in III person plural — -шты.
2) Past indefinite tense with the marker -ыптыр/-иптир, -уптур/-уптур + personal endings (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сыцар).
3) Past resultative tense with the marker -сан/-ген, -цан/-кен, -гон/-ген, -к,он/-кин + personal markers (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сыцар).
4) Past continuous with the marker -чух/-чух and personal markers (-пын, -сын; -пыс, -сыцар).
The present tense of the moment of action was formed according to the type: root + gerund -ып + auxiliary verbs (щур-/щат-/отур-/тур-) + tense affix -а + personal markers (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сыцар).
Forms of Future Tense:
1) Future definite tense with the marker -а/-е, -о/-в + personal markers (-мын, -сыц; -быс, -сыцар).
2) Future indefinite tense with the marker -р, -ар/-ер, -ор/-вр + personal markers (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сыцар).
In the XII—XIII centuries, the ancient Kyrgyz, under the pressure of warring tribes of the Kidan and Nayman, moved westward. During the migration, they came into contact with Turkic peoples, whose languages were mainly of the Kipchak type. For a long time, the Kyrgyz were in Altai and had strong contact with Turkic-speaking Altaians. As a result of linguistic interconnection, an updated basis of the language of the ancient Kyrgyz was formed — the colloquial (dialectal type) Middle Kyrgyz language. A real representative of such a language is the language of the population of Lake Lobnor in the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region of China. The ancestors of the Lobnor people can be assumed to have separated in the XIV—XV centuries from the conglomerate of Kyrgyz-Altai tribes and migrated south — to the region of Turfan and Hami, and then settled on the western shores of Lake Lobnor.
Research on the Lobnor and Ancient Colloquial Language of the Kyrgyz
The first researcher of the language of the Lobnor people, S. E. Malov, believed that “the Lobnor language is the ancient colloquial language of the ancient Kyrgyz” and rightly associated it with the language of the Yellow Uyghurs (Saryg-Yugurs). A long period of coexistence of the Lobnor people and Uyghurs did not pass without a trace for the Lobnor language. In its present form, it appears as a mixed language, the Uyghur part of which is easily separable. This includes й at the beginning of words, г in the middle and at the end of words, and III person future tense -адо/-едо. Using ancient Kyrgyz reconstructions and material from the Lobnor and Altai languages, one can restore the outlines of the Middle Kyrgyz language.
In the area of phonetics:
1. Long vowels а, ы, б, у, е, и, в, у. In the Lobnor language, secondary length due to the loss of medial and final г, г is absent — the Lobnor language adopted the Uyghur feature: the presence of г and г in the middle and at the end of words. Ancient Kyrgyz length was supported by the length of the same origin in the southern dialects of the Altai language: уул ‘son’, уур ‘heavy’, туу ‘mountain’, аю [айу] ‘bear’.
2. Consecutive palatal harmony and strong labial harmony (labialization of broad non-labials). The tendency towards strong labial harmony was laid down in ancient Kyrgyz. Under the influence of southern dialects of the Altai language, labialization of broad vowels а, е after broad labials о, в developed in Middle Kyrgyz: алт. тогус ‘nine’, болбогондор ‘not existing’.
In the Lobnor language, after labial vowels, not only narrow but also broad vowels are labialized: квцлвк ‘shirt’, вртендекв ‘located at the inn’, болор ‘will be’.
3. At the beginning of words before narrow and broad vowels, there was a voiced affricate ж. In ancient Kyrgyz — the affricate ж. In the Lobnor language, under the influence of Uyghur, a palatal й has established itself; the affricate лс has been preserved in a group of words: жацыла- ‘to renew’, щигийме ‘twenty’, журу- ‘to live, to walk’. In the southern dialects of the Altai language, at the beginning of words, there is a voiced affricate дъ: дъети ‘seven’, дьок ‘no’, дъорго ‘inochodets’.
4. Initial н before broad vowels disappeared.
Initial н is a feature of the ancient Kyrgyz language. In the Lobnor language, words with initial н are mainly borrowed from other languages; the same can be said about the Altai language. Apparently, in Middle Kyrgyz, there was a reorientation of vocabulary: moving away from the ancient Siberian type, it approached the Central Asian type.
5. In the middle of names, the voiced з has been preserved, but in some cases as a relic — a legacy of the ancient Kyrgyz language.
The available vocabulary in the Lobnor records does not contain words with з, the same applies to the Altai vocabulary. Some support in this case is found in the toponymy and ethnonymy of the modern Kyrgyz language.
6. Voiced г in the middle of words fell out, forming length.
In ancient Kyrgyz — the same. The medial relic г is represented only in the Lobnor language — as a consequence of Uyghur influence: агыл ‘barn, yard, settlement’, агыз ‘mouth, lips’.
7. At the end of verbal stems, voiced з occurred only as a relic — a legacy of the ancient Kyrgyz language.
Neither the Lobnor nor the Altai languages provide material confirming the preservation of final з in Middle Kyrgyz.
8. Final voiced г, disappearing, gave length or a diphthong.
In ancient Kyrgyz - final г. In the Lobnor language, under Uyghur influence, final relic г is also represented: йаг ‘lard, oil’, таг ‘mountain’.
In the area of morphology:
1. The plural was formed by the marker -лар with variants along the lines of vowels (а~е, о~в) and consonants (л~д~т~н).
In ancient Kyrgyz — variants only with non-labials. In the Lobnor language, the plural affix is represented by an abundance of variants along the lines of vowel harmony and consonant assimilation.
In the Altai language — twelve variants of the plural marker.
2. The possessive form consisted of affixes with narrow non-labials and labials: -м, -ц, -ы/-сы; -быс, -ыцар.
In ancient Kyrgyz — the same. The same paradigm is presented in Lobnor.
3. Declension: indefinite, genitive, dative, locative, and ablative cases;
1) The indefinite case — without marking;
2) The genitive case had twelve variants along the lines of narrow non-labials and labials and initial н~д~т.
In ancient Kyrgyz — the same paradigm. In the Lobnor language, the genitive case coincided in form with the accusative. In the Altai language — eight variants, affixes with narrow labials are absent;
3) The dative case with markers in twelve variants along the lines of non-labials and labials and initial к~к~г~г.
In ancient Kyrgyz — only variants with non-labials. In the Lobnor language — twelve variants, in Altai — eight;
4) The accusative case with twelve markers along the lines of non-labials and labials and initial н~д~т.
In ancient Kyrgyz — the same. In the Lobnor language — an abundance of variants. In Altai — six variants;
5) The locative case with eight variants along the lines of non-labials and labials and initial н~д~т.
In ancient Kyrgyz — variants only with non-labials. In the Lobnor language — an abundance of variants with non-labials and labials. In the Altai language — eight variants with labials and non-labials;
6) The ablative case with twelve variants along the lines of non-labials and labials (only broad) and initial н~д~т. In the Lobnor language, the markers of the ablative case are only with narrow vowels, as in Uyghur, while in the Altai language, the marker of the ablative case is as in the southern Siberian languages. Markers with broad vowels were preserved in ancient Kyrgyz, where there were two series of affixes — with broad and narrow vowels.
4. Conjugation: tenses - past, present, future:
1) Past categorical tense with the marker -ды/-ди and -ты/-ти/-ту/-ту + personal endings (-м, -д; -к, -уар); in III person plural — -шты. In ancient Kyrgyz — a similar paradigm, except for one detail: in I person plural, the affix -быс. In the Altai language — the same paradigm, but in I person plural, both -быс and к can be used. In the language of the Lobnor people, with the same paradigm, I person plural contains only one personal marker -к;
2) Past indefinite tense with the affix -ып- тыр/-иптир, -уптур/-уптур + personal endings (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сынар). In ancient Kyrgyz — the same form. In Altai, one of the forms of the past tense is formed using the marker -ыптур/-иптур + affix -ды + personal endings (-м, -д; -к, cap), another — according to the scheme: -ыптур/-иптур + affix ур/-р + personal affixes (-м, -д; -к, -cap).
3) Past resultative with the affix -сан/-ген, -кан/-кен, -сон/-гин, -к,он/-кин + personal affixes (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сынар).
The ancient Kyrgyz language has the same form of time. In the Altai language, the paradigm of this time is the same, except for two series of personal markers: -ым, -зын; -ыбыс, -ысар;
4) Past continuous with the marker -чух/-чух + personal affixes (-пын, -сын; -пыс, -сынар). In the ancient Kyrgyz language, this form of past tense is formed according to the same scheme. In the Altai and Lobnor languages, the past on -чух is not marked.
The present tense of this moment is formed according to the scheme: root + gerund -ып + auxiliary verbs (лсур-/жат-/отур-/тур-) + tense affix -а + personal markers (-мын, -сын; -быс, -същар).
In ancient Kyrgyz — the same paradigm. In the Lobnor language, a form with the verb йат- is noted: киливйатадо ‘he does’. In the Altai language, in this case, forms with auxiliary verbs дъур-/дъат-/отур-/тур- + tense affix -ыр + personal markers (-м, -ц; -быс, -гар) are used.
Future tense was expressed by two forms:
1) Future definite tense with the marker -а/-е, -о/-в + personal markers (-мын, -сыц; -быс, -сыцар). In ancient Kyrgyz, the tense marker was two-variant — only with non-labial vowels. In the Lobnor language, the tense marker contains not only broad but also narrow vowels — ы, и, у, у, the III person form — as in the Uyghur language: цыладо ‘he does’, келэдо ‘he comes’. The form of the I person singular and plural has an additional affix -ди (as in the Komul dialect of the Uyghur language): барадимэн ‘I will go’ and баралмайдибис ‘we will not be able to go’. But the same form of tense exists in Altai: барадым ‘I usually go, I will go’ and барадыбыс ‘we usually go, we will go’;
2) Future indefinite tense formed using the affix -р, -ар/-ер, -ор/-вр + personal affixes (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сыцар). In the ancient Kyrgyz language, the tense marker had only non-labial vowels. In the Lobnor language, the tense marker has broad and narrow vowels: алтун бейейвис ‘we will give gold’, йигит туйуй ‘(there) stands a young man’. The form of time in the Altai language consists of the root + tense affix -р, -р/-ер, -ор/-вр + personal affixes (-м, -ц; -бис, -ыгар).
In summary, the outline of the Middle Kyrgyz language (XIII—XIV centuries) has the following form:
PHONETIC STRUCTURE
1. The system of long vowels (of secondary origin): а, и, б, у, ё, U, в, у.
2. Alongside consecutive palatal harmony, there was also a strongly expressed labial harmony (labialization of broad vowels).
3. At the initial position of words before narrow and broad vowels, there was a voiced affricate ж.
4. Initial н before broad vowels disappeared.
5. In the middle of names, the voiced з was preserved in a relic state.
6. Voiced г in the medial position between vowels fell out, causing contraction and length of vowels.
7. In the final position of verbal stems, there was a voiced з, but as a relic.
8. Final voiced г, disappearing, gave length or a diphthong.
MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE
1. The plural was formed by the marker -лар with variants along the lines of vowels (а~е~о~в) and consonants (л~д~т~н).
2. The possessive paradigm consisted of affixes with narrow non-labial vowels (-им/-ум; -ыц/-уц; -и/-у, -бис/-бус; -ыцар/-уцар).
3. The declension paradigm consisted of six cases.
Indefinite case: zero form.
Genitive case: -нъщ/-ниц/-нуц/-нуц; -дыц/-диц/-дуц/-дуц; -тын,/-тин,/-туц/-туц.
Dative case: -га/-ге, -к,а/-ке, -а/-е, -го/-ге, ко/кв, -о/-в.
Accusative case: -ны/-ни, -ды/-ди, -ты/-ти, -ну/-ну, -ду/-ду, -ту/-ту.
Locative case: -да/-де/-до/-де, -та/-те/-то/-те.
Ablative case: -дан/-ден/-дон/-двн, -тан/-тен/-тон/-твн.
4. The conjugation paradigm consisted of a series of forms for past, present, and future tenses.
Forms of Past Tense:
1) Past categorical tense with the marker -ды/-ди/-ду/-ду and -ты/-ти/-ту/-ту + personal markers (-м, -ц; -к,, -уар); in III person plural — -шты.
2) Past indefinite tense with the affix -ыптыр/ -иптир, -уптур/-уптур + personal endings (мын, -сын; -быс, -сынар).
3) Past resultative tense with the affix -сан/-ген, -цан/-кен, -гон/-ген, -к,он/-кин + personal affixes (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сынар).
4) Past continuous with the marker -чух/-чух and personal affixes (-пын, -сын; -пыс, -сынар).
The present tense of the moment of action was formed according to the type: root + gerund -ып + auxiliary verbs (щур-/ щат-/отур-/тур-) + tense affix -а + personal markers (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сыцар).
Forms of Future Tense:
1) Future definite tense with the marker -а/-е, -о/ -в + personal markers (-мын, -сыц; -быс, -сыцар).
2) Future indefinite tense with the marker -р, -ар/-ер, -ор/-вр + personal markers (-мын, -сын; -быс, -сыцар).
After the Altai period, the Kyrgyz settled across Tian Shan, leading to the formation of the Kyrgyz nationality and the modern Kyrgyz language with a system of territorial dialects (new Kyrgyz language). The Kyrgyz penetrated into Tian Shan, probably earlier, but the main resettlement occurred during the Altai period, which ultimately shaped both the people and the language of the Kyrgyz.
The process of language development can be observed by comparing the reconstructed phonetic and morphological structures of ancient and middle Kyrgyz, and for clarity — the modern literary Kyrgyz language (it would be appropriate to reconstruct it based on dialects).
PHONETIC STRUCTURE
1. The system of long vowels of the ancient Kyrgyz and middle Kyrgyz languages has been fully preserved in the modern Kyrgyz language, being of derivative origin а, ы, о, у, ё, и, в, у.
2. Ancient Kyrgyz palatal harmony has retained its strength in the modern Kyrgyz language. Labial harmony in ancient Kyrgyz spread only to narrow vowels. During the Altai period, the language of the ancient Kyrgyz received a stimulus for further development of labial harmony from the language of the Altai tribes — it began to spread to broad non-labial vowels.
3. The ancient Kyrgyz voiced affricate ж, before narrow and broad vowels has been preserved in middle Kyrgyz and in the modern Kyrgyz language.
4. The ancient Kyrgyz sonant н before broad vowels was not adopted by either middle Kyrgyz or modern Kyrgyz: ж,амгыр instead of намур ‘rain’.
5. Voiced з in the middle of names of the ancient Kyrgyz language has been completely replaced by the sonant й, in middle Kyrgyz and in modern Kyrgyz: айак instead of азак ‘foot’. In the modern Kyrgyz language, only relic forms have been preserved:
a) in toponymy: Ызык Квл (modern Ысык Квл) ‘Sacred Lake’, Ызык Ата (modern Ысык Ата) ‘Holy Father’, Жазык Бел ‘Spacious Pass’;
b) in ethnonymy: азык ‘bear’;
c) in general vocabulary: суу кудук or зуу кудук (< ызык кудук) ‘sacred well’ and боз щигит ‘young man’ (cf.: бой лсигит).
6. Final г of the ancient Kyrgyz language in middle Kyrgyz and in modern Kyrgyz has disappeared, causing length: то < *таг ‘mountain’, жо < жат < йат ‘oil, fat’.
MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE
1. The plural in the modern Kyrgyz language has received additional variants of the marker due to the labialization of broad vowels in middle Kyrgyz, i.e., it has become twelve-fold: -лар/-лер, -дар/-дер, -тар/-тер, -лор/-лер, -дор/-двр, -тор/твр.
2. The possessive paradigm in the modern Kyrgyz language completely coincided with the ancient Kyrgyz and middle Kyrgyz paradigms.
3. In the Altai period, in the declension paradigm, compared to ancient Kyrgyz, additions mainly of phonetic variants occurred. In the modern Kyrgyz, the genitive case acquired twelve variants (four of which are with labial narrow vowels), the final ц became н. The dative case coincided with the middle Kyrgyz form: -га/-ге, -ка/-ке, -го/-гв, ко/кв, -а/-е, -о/-в, the accusative — with the ancient and middle Kyrgyz form: -ны/-ни, -ды/-ди, -ты/-ти, -ну/-ну, -ду/-ду, -ту/-ту, the locative — with the middle Kyrgyz: -да/-де/-до/-дв, -та/-те/-то/-те. The ablative case retained a variant only with broad vowels (as in middle Kyrgyz): -дан/-ден, -тан/-тен, -нан/-нен, -дон/-двн, -тон/-твн, -нон/-нвн.
4. Conjugated forms in past, present, and future tenses.
Forms of past tense:
1) Past categorical tense on -ды has completely preserved its form, as in middle Kyrgyz (in ancient Kyrgyz, in I person plural, the personal marker was -быс);
2) Past indefinite tense on -ыптыр has been completely preserved from ancient and middle Kyrgyz and in the modern Kyrgyz language;
3) Past resultative tense on -ган has also been fully preserved from ancient and middle Kyrgyz in the modern Kyrgyz language;
4) Past continuous tense in modern Kyrgyz has acquired the marker -чу/-чу (<*-чух) and the meaning of categorical action, unlike ancient and middle Kyrgyz -чух/-чух.
Forms of present tense:
The present tense of the moment has the same form as in ancient and middle Kyrgyz.
Forms of future tense:
1) Future definite tense on -а repeats the ancient and middle Kyrgyz scheme;
2) Future indefinite tense on -ар is the same as in ancient and middle Kyrgyz.
Results of the Study of the Ancient Kyrgyz Language
In conclusion, it can be said that ancient and middle Kyrgyz languages, by interacting with related languages, mainly acquired phonetic innovations: labial harmony intensified — broad vowels underwent labialization, adapting to labialized narrow ones, initial к did not survive; voiced з in the middle of names was replaced by й along with the influx of new words (only relic forms remained); final г vocalized and gave length or a diphthong; in the case system, there were only phonetic innovations due to the addition of broad labial variants of affixes; in the tense forms of the indicative, the forms of past, present, and future tenses retained their appearance. All this was adopted and developed by the new Kyrgyz language.
In conclusion, we note the following:
1) The ancient Kyrgyz colloquial language of dialectal type was a language -з and, thus, the closest relative to the language of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, as well as to Saryg-Yugur, Khakas, Shor, and Chulym-Turkic;
2) The language of the ancient Kyrgyz played a significant role in the formation of the modern Kyrgyz language, and therefore the ancient Kyrgyz ethnic group became part of the ethnic group of Tian Shan Kyrgyz and defined its type;
3) Historians of the Kyrgyz language in their constructions should consider three periods in the history of the Kyrgyz language: Yenisei-Irtysh (VIII—XII centuries) — ancient; Altai (XIII—XIV centuries) — middle; Tian Shan (XV—XVI centuries) — new.
4) Since labialization processes played an important role in the change of the ancient Kyrgyz language, and they mainly took place in Altai, the middle, Altai period in the transformation of the ancient Kyrgyz language into the modern Kyrgyz language should be considered the main one;
5) The conducted analysis cannot be considered exhaustive: further detailing is necessary through in-depth study of the languages of the Kyrgyz of Fuyuy, Saryg-Yugur, and Lobnor, as well as attracting dialectal material from Khakas, Shor, Chulym-Turkic on one side, and the Kyrgyz language on the other; in other words, a monographic study of the proposed topic is necessary;
6) It is necessary to conduct comparative studies of the ancient Kyrgyz language with the language of the epic “Manas”, in particular, to compare labial harmony and clarify the correspondence of й — з in the middle of names and at the end of verbal stems. The material of the epic may shed additional light on the process of transformation of the ancient Kyrgyz language into the modern Kyrgyz;
7) Conclusions of an ethnogenetic nature should be supported by historical, ethnographic, and archaeological material.
In “Kyrgyzstan Madaniyaty” (1988. No. 36), an article by Cholponbay Nusupov “Where the Kyrgyz Came From” appeared, in which the author criticizes and instructs some compilers of Volume I of the “History of the Kyrgyz SSR” (4th ed. 1984). We acknowledge the scheme of B. M. Yunusaliev — it is real. However, the linguistic material has only been accessible until now for the Tian Shan and Altai periods; data on the Kyrgyz and Altai languages of the Yenisei period remained unilluminated. This gave Nusupov reason to think that the Yenisei Kyrgyz are thus only connected with the Khakas.
Reconstruction of Fragments of Text from the Epic “Manas”
Based on the text of the epic “Manas” (book 4, M., 1995), reconstructions of its fragments are presented according to two slices described above — ancient Kyrgyz and middle Kyrgyz. The basis of the description consists of phonetic and morphological features. The vocabulary of the Kyrgyz language has not yet undergone reconstruction according to historical slices, therefore, the reconstruction of texts as a whole is conditional.
I. Ancient Kyrgyz
акимсиген канкорга минтип
бир козалук билинип.
Кырк жигитин кызратып,
кыз-катынын ыглатып,
кысырагын туйлатып,
бошаганын чыйратып,
босагасын кызратып,
боздагы малый жыгнатып,
боз угланын ыглатып,
болбаган койге салалы!
Middle Kyrgyz
акимсиген канкорго минтип бир коёлук билинип!
Кырк жигитин кызратып, кыз-катынын ыглатып,
кысырагын туйлатып, бошогонун чыйратып,
босогосун кызратып, боздогу малый жыгнатып,
боз уланын ыглатып, болбогон койгё салалы!
Modern Kyrgyz
Акимсиген канкорго
Минтип бир коёлук билинип!
Кырк жигитин кыйратып,
Кыз-катынын ыйлатып,
Кысырагын туйлатып,
Бошогонун чыйратып,
Босогосун кыйратып,
Боздогу малый жыйнатып,
Боз уланын ыйлатып,
Болбогон койгё салалы!
Translation
To the bloodthirsty, who considers himself a lord,
This is how we will show our essence,
We will disperse his forty young men,
Make their wives and daughters weep,
Make his barren mares rear,
Let’s round up the ones that have broken loose,
Let’s smash his door frames,
Drive his cattle from the plateaus,
Make his youths groan,
We will inflict unheard-of hardships upon them.
II. Ancient Kyrgyz
Баарынарга эп болсо,
Баатырын айткан сав болсо,
Каспандын кара тагында,
Капкалуг Бээжин агызында,
Чок Табылгы жайлаган,
Чон кара атын баглаган,
Жав дегенде шайланган,
Алтымыш жайсан иниси,
Алооке кандын кенжеси,
Калдайдын оглу набызга.
Middle Kyrgyz
Баарынарга эп болсо,
Баатырын айткан соо болсо,
Каспандын кара тоосында,
Капкалуг Бээжин оозунда,
Чок Табылгы жайлаган,
Чон кара атын баглаган,
Жоо дегенде шайланган,
Алтымыш жайсан иниси,
Алооке кандын кенжеси,
Калдайдын углу жабызга.
Modern Kyrgyz
Баарынарга эп болсо,
Баатырын айткан кеп болсо,
Каспандын кара тоосунда,
Капкалуу Бээжин оозунда,
Чок Табылгы жайлаган,
Чон кара атын байлаган,
Жоо дегенде шайланган,
Алтымыш жайсан иниси,
Алооке кандын кенжеси,
Калдайдын уулу капырга
Translation
If you all agree,
If you want to obey your hero,
In the black mountains of Kaspana,
In the suburbs of Beijina with many gates
Lived Chok Tabylgy,
There he tied up a big black horse,
He was chosen before the face of the enemy,
He is the younger brother of sixty Jaisans,
He is the firstborn of Aloo-Khan,
To this infidel son of Kaldai.
III. Ancient Kyrgyz
Тогуз найза бозлабайт,
Айбанбоз атты калкытып,
Асабасы жалп этип,
Айгайлаган кытайлар, —
Аркасынан жав жетип,
Намгырдай кылып наа тартып,
Налгыз эрди надатып,
Мондердей кылып ок атып,
Жазайыл менен топ атып,
Каптыган набыз калын кол —
Middle Kyrgyz
Тогуз найза бойлобойт.
Айбанбоз атты калкытып,
Асабасы жалп этип,
Айгайлаган кытайлар, —
Аркасынан жоо жетип,
Жамгырдай кылып жаа тартып,
Жалгыз эрди жадатып,
Мондурдой кылып ок атып,
Жазайыл менен топ атып,
Каптаган набыз калын кол —
Modern Kyrgyz
Тогуз найза бойлобойт.
Айбанбоз атты калкытып,
Асабасы жалп этип,
Айгайлаган кытайлар, —
Аркасынан жоо жетип,
Жамгырдай кылып жаа тартып,
Жалгыз эрди жадатып,
Мондурдой кылып ок атып,
Жазайыл менен топ атып,
Каптаган капыр калын кой —
Translation
That even [having thrust] nine spears, [to the bottom] cannot be reached.
[Manas] set afloat Aybanboz-horse,
His bunched tail splashed [in the water],
The Kytai, raising a noise,
[These] enemies are catching up with him from behind,
Arrows are pouring down like rain from bows,
It was hard for the hero alone,
Bullets are pouring down like hail,
They shoot from [guns] of jazzail and cannons,
Innumerable armies of infidels surged.
History of the Kyrgyz Literary Language
Ancient Manuscript Tradition in Kyrgyzstan
Ancient Kyrgyz Language. Morphology
Kyrgyz Language. Part - 1