{"id":3724,"date":"2015-12-28T10:20:18","date_gmt":"2015-12-28T10:20:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=3724"},"modified":"2016-02-09T08:51:04","modified_gmt":"2016-02-09T08:51:04","slug":"the-turkic-and-mongol-lexical-units-in-dairy-cattle-terms-as-used-in-the-mongol-languages","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol8no2\/the-turkic-and-mongol-lexical-units-in-dairy-cattle-terms-as-used-in-the-mongol-languages\/","title":{"rendered":"The Turkic and Mongol Lexical Units in Dairy Cattle Terms as Used in the Mongol Languages"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

Several generations of the Altaic scholars managed to find many similarities between the classical Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongol) and the Manchu-Tungus ones. It should be mentioned that most of these similarities were detected not in grammar but rather in vocabulary, however the final list of all these correspondences has not been made yet. At the same time many scientists stress out that the Turkic and Mongol languages have the biggest number of lexical and grammatical similarities. Thus, the Altaic scholar V.L. Kotvich [1962] pointed out that no less than 50% common elements of the Turkic and Mongol languages were found in their grammatical systems, while only 25% of them were traced in the vocabulary. Unfortunately, V.L. Kotvich did not make a list of such similarities, although it would be essential for further Altaic studies. In our opinion, the Altaic study aims at finding and analysing common lexical elements firstly between the Turkic and Mongol languages, and then among other Altaic languages. Linguists focus their attention on the lexical similarity between the Turkic and Mongol languages because they possess the biggest amount of common units in their vocabularies. This fact determined and promoted the hypothesis of a Turkic-Mongol protolanguage and later stipulated the formation and development of the Turkic-Mongol linguistics as a special field of comparative and Altaic studies.<\/p>\n

We are convinced that the common vocabulary of the Turkic and Mongol languages should be analysed within thematic groups which embrace certain lexical units describing the key characteristics of the Turkic and Mongol ethnoses. At the moment all the necessary conditions have been formed for unraveling the Turkic-Mongol similarities as there are plenty of dictionaries of the Mongol and Turkic languages which contain full information on their current lexical status. Since the four-volumed \u201cMongol-Russian big academic dictionary\u201d was published [2001; 2002] it became possible to obtain update lexical material on the modern Khalkha-Mongol language. The two-volumed \u201cBuryat-Russian dictionary\u201d [2010] also added new valuable information to K.M. Cheremisov\u2019s \u201cBuryat dictionary\u201d [1973] and enabled scholars to have a better look at the modern Buryat language. The data on the modern Kalmyk language was taken from the \u201cKalmyk-Russian dictionary\u201d [1977]. The source of information on the Ordos Mongolian language was A. Mostaert\u2019s reprinted \u201cOrdos dictionary\u201d [2009]. In its turn, the lexical data on the languages of Inner Mongolia were obtained from B.Kh. Todaeva\u2019s book \u201cThe language of Inner Mongolia\u201d [1981], on the Dagur language \u2013 from B.Kh.\u00a0Todaeva\u2019s work \u201cThe Dagur language\u201d [1986] and \u201cAbridged Dagur-Russian dictionary\u201d [2014]. The ancient written Mongol language was restored from the dictionaries of O. Kovalevskyi [1844-1849], K.F. Golstunskyi [1938] and F.D. Lessing [1960]. Due to the Mongol expansion and the reign of the Yuan dynasty from the 13th<\/sup> to 14th<\/sup> centuries almost every Turkic language got influenced by the Mongol language. Hence the modern Turkic languages are insufficient to pinpoint Turkic-Mongol parallels. Only the ancient Turkic works remained intact by the Mongol language, with their vocabulary fixed in the \u201cAncient Turkic dictionary\u201d [1969].<\/p>\n

If a lexical unit was present in the ancient Turkic language, is still used in the modern Turkic languages and has a Turkic protoform, it is most certainly a loanword from the Turkic languages and the foregoing factors serve as objective criteria for determining such borrowed lexical units.<\/p>\n

Main body<\/strong><\/p>\n

This article dwells upon the Turkic-Mongol parallels as exemplified in dairy cattle terms currently used in the Mongol languages. The dairy cattle terminology comprises reproductive cattle names, cattle handling, distant pastures, forage grasses and watering points.<\/p>\n

First of all, we should mention that the word mal<\/em> (cattle), presented in the ancient Mongol language, dates back to the ancient Turkic word mal <\/em>(property, fortune, wealth, goods) and is used in the modern Khalkha-Mongol, Buryat, Kalmyk languages, as well as the languages of Inner Mongolia (Chahar, Ordos and Dagur languages). The \u201cAncient Turkic dictionary\u201d [1969, p. 335] states the Arabic origin of this word. When this word was acquired by the ancient Mongol language, its meaning changed to express the life of nomad cattle breeders who regarded cattle as their property, wealth and goods. This word is widely used in all Turkic languages in the meaning \u201cgoods\u2019. The word mal<\/em> in the Siberian Turkic languages which were influenced by the Mongol language acquired the meaning \u201ccattle\u201d.<\/p>\n

The ancient Mongol word \u00fcker <\/em>and its modern Khalkha-Mongol and Buryat counterpart \u00fckher <\/em>stand for \u201ccattle, bull, cow, ox\u201d. In the western Buryat dialects and the Kalmyk language this word usually denotes a \u201ccow\u201d.<\/p>\n

In the Mongol languages of Inner Mongolia (including Chahar and Ordos) the word \u00fckher <\/em>denotes \u201ccattle\u201d. In the Dagur language B.Kh. Todaeva [1986, p.\u00a0179] has found the lexical unit khukur<\/em> which means \u201ccattle, cow, bull\u201d. In the \u201cAbridged Dagur-Russian dictionary\u201d [2014, p. 191] the word khukur<\/em> is used solely for \u201ccattle\u201d. In the ancient Turkic language there is a lexical analogue \u04e7k\u00fcz<\/em>, \u04e7g\u00fcz<\/em> (bull, ox). The \u201cComparative grammar of the Turkic languages. Vocabulary\u201d [2001, p. 439-440] states that this word is widely used in all Turkic languages. The Altaic scholars compare it with the Mongol form \u00fcker<\/em> which goes back to the Turkic protoform *(\u04bb<\/em>)\u04e7kez<\/em>. The Mongol and other Bulgar languages within the Turkic group rhotacized this Common Turkic word. Since the modern Chuvash language has the lexical unit v\u0103k\u0103r (bull, ox) and the Hungarian language possesses the similar word \u00f6k\u00f6r<\/em>, the ancient Bulgar language also had this word form. We can assume that the ancient Mongols adopted this word from one of the ancient Bulgar languages along with other dairy cattle terms.<\/p>\n

A stud bull is described in the Mongol languages in the following way: buqa<\/em> in ancient Mongol, bukh <\/em>in Khalkha-Mongol and the languages of Inner Mongolia, bukha <\/em>in Buryat and Ordos, bukh<\/em> [bukh\u0103<\/em>] in Kalmyk and bak <\/em>in Dagur, according to B.Kh. Todaeva [1986, p. 123]. In the ancient Turkic language this Common Mongol word correlates with buqa<\/em> (stud bull). Thus, this lexical unit is present in all Turkic languages in different forms: bu\u03b3a<\/em>, pu\u03b3a<\/em>, buqa<\/em>, poqa<\/em>, bo\u03b3a<\/em>, po\u03b3a<\/em>, b<\/em>\u0457<\/em>qa<\/em> and stands for a \u201cstud bull\u201d [Sevortyan, 1978, pp. 230-232]. The Turkic protoform *buqa<\/em> has been restored in \u201cThe comparative grammar of the Turkic languages. Vocabulary\u201d [2001, p. 437-438]. All Altaic scholars usually compare these Turkic and Mongol words.<\/p>\n

A reproductive milk cow is called \u00fcnijen <\/em>in ancient Mongol, in Khalkha-Mongol and the languages of Inner Mongolia, \u00fcnee <\/em>in Chahar and Ordos, un\u00b4ee <\/em>in Dagur according to B.Kh. Todaeva [1986, p. 171], \u00fcneen <\/em>in literary Buryat, \u00fcneen<\/em> in the Elyut dialect of the Kalmyk language as stated by G.J. Ramstedt [1935, p. 458] or \u00fcngn<\/em> [\u00fcng<\/em>\u04d7n<\/em>] as it is given in the \u201cKalmyk-Russian dictionary\u201d [1977, p. 551]. The latter form denotes \u201ca female of wild animals, birds; a female fox\u201d, while \u201ca first-calf cow\u201d is its archaic meaning. The Mongol protoform of this word is *\u00fcnigen<\/em>. On the one hand, it consists of the root *\u00fcni-<\/em> and the affix –gen <\/em>(for instance, the Mongol word temegen<\/em> (camel) goes back to the ancient Turkic teb\u00e4<\/em> and has the same affix). On the other hand, it is built from the root *\u00fcnig<\/em> and the affix –en <\/em>which is usually added to nominal stems in most Mongol languages. In the ancient Turkic language the meaning \u201ca cow\u201d or \u201ca female turtle\u201d was conveyed by the forms in\u00e4k<\/em> or i\u014b\u00e4k. <\/em>The first meaning was adopted by all Turkic languages and then phonetically changed into the following lexical units: inek<\/em>, in\u00e4k<\/em>, nek<\/em>, ijnek<\/em>, ijneg<\/em>, enek<\/em>, \u0457nakh<\/em>, annakh<\/em>, ingek<\/em>, inkek<\/em>, i\u014bek<\/em>, \u0115ne<\/em> [Sevortyan, 1974, pp. 358-359].<\/p>\n

E.V. Sevortyan expresses different opinions on the etymology of this lexical unit but comments that this Turkic word is usually compared with the Mongol one \u00fcnigen<\/em> [1976, pp. 359-360]. He also mentions the Hungarian word \u00fcn\u00f6<\/em> for \u201ca cow\u201d which is similar to the Chuvash one \u0115ne. <\/em>This etymological source and the protoform *in<\/em>(i<\/em>)g\u00e4k<\/em> have been proved by the \u201cComparative grammar of the Turkic languages. Vocabulary\u201d [2001, pp. 436-437].<\/p>\n

In the ancient Mongol language a calf crop or young stock was called t\u00f6l. <\/em>The same form t\u00f6l<\/em> still remains in Khalkha-Mongol, Kalmyk and the languages of Inner Mongolia, including Chahar and Buryat (though, it is pronounced as t\u00fcl<\/em>).<\/p>\n

This Mongol word should be compared with the ancient Turkic noun t\u00f6l<\/em> \u201cthe time of delivery; a calf\u201d which is derived from the ancient Turkic verb t\u00f6r\u00fc= <\/em>\u201cto descend from, appear, be born, emerge, give birth to someone\u201d. Besides, this ancient Turkic verb \u201cto give birth, be born, apper, emerge\u201d has several analogues in kindred languages: t\u00f6r=<\/em> in Khalkha-Mongol, t\u00fcre= <\/em>in Buryat, t\u00f6r= <\/em>in Kalmyk, t\u00f6r\u00fc <\/em>in ancient written Mongol and t\u00f6r<\/em>\u04e7<\/em> in all the languages of Inner Mongolia.<\/p>\n

A calf from birth till one year, regardless of its sex, is described as tu\u03b3ul<\/em> in ancient written Mongol, tugal<\/em> in Buryat, tugl<\/em> in Kalmyk, tugal<\/em> in Khalkha-Mongol and the languages of Inner Mongolia (including Chahar), tugul<\/em> in Ordos, tokul<\/em>\u00b4 in Dagur according to the \u201cAbridged Dagur-Russian dictionary\u201d [2014, p. 157].<\/p>\n

We did not manage to trace this word in the ancient Mongol language. However, we can suppose that this lexical unit originated from the Turkic languages. For instance, the root –tuq <\/em>derives from the Common Turkic verb to\u03b3 \/\/<\/em> tu\u03b3 <\/em>\u201cto be born\u201d (from ancient Turkic to\u03b3<\/em> \u201cto be born, emerge, appear, rise\u201d), while the affix –ul <\/em>is a lambdaistic variant of the word-building affix –\u0457<\/em>\u0161<\/em>\/-u\u0161<\/em> which is used to convert verbs into nouns in Turkic languages. These lambdaistic variants are common for all Turkic languages within the Bulgar group. We can prove this viewpoint by analysing the word to\u03b3u\u0161 <\/em>(a roe deer calf), recorded by V.V. Radov in the language of Barabinsky Tatars [Radlov. Vol. III, p. 1165].<\/p>\n

A calf older than one year, regardless of its sex, is called bira\u03b3u<\/em> in ancient Mongol, burun<\/em> in Buryat, bjaruu<\/em> in Khalkha-Mongol and the languages of Inner Mongolia, beruu<\/em> in Kharchin, biruu<\/em> in Ordos. In the Kalmyk language the word b\u00fcr\u00fc<\/em> means \u201ca bull-calf from one year till two\u201d. The archetype of this Mongol word is *b<\/em>\u0457ra\u03b3u. <\/em>This word form should be regarded as a rotacised analogue of the ancient Turkic lexical unit buza\u03b3<\/em>, buza\u03b3u<\/em> (a calf). Rotacised analogues are typical of the Bulgar group within the Turkic languages: p\u0103rau <\/em>(a calf) in modern Chuvash, b<\/em>\u0457zau<\/em> in Tatar and b<\/em>\u0457<\/em>\u0499au<\/em> in Bashkir. E.V. Sevortyan speaks about the Turkic etymology of this word and stresses out its homogeneous connection with the Mongol form bira\u03b3u <\/em>[1978, pp.\u00a0239-242]. This Common Turkic word is widely used in different phonetic forms like buza\u03b3u<\/em>, buza\u03b3<\/em>\u0457<\/em>, buza\u03b3<\/em>, buzaq<\/em>\u0457<\/em>, buzavu<\/em>, b<\/em>\u0457za\u03b3u<\/em>, b<\/em>\u0457za\u03b3\u0457<\/em>, buzaa<\/em>, puzaa<\/em>, puzuu<\/em>, b<\/em>\u0457zaa<\/em>, p<\/em>\u0457zaa<\/em>, \u00a0boza\u03b3u<\/em>, boozu<\/em>, pozou<\/em>, pozu<\/em>, bozu<\/em>, buzu<\/em>, buzav<\/em>, buzau<\/em>, b<\/em>\u0457zau<\/em>, b<\/em>\u0457zov<\/em>, buzuv<\/em>, buzoo<\/em>, b<\/em>\u0457zoo<\/em>, bozov<\/em>, muzov<\/em>, muzoo<\/em>, p\u0103rau<\/em> and etc. The same information is given in the \u201cComparative grammar of the Turkic languages. Vocabulary\u201d where *buza\u03b3u<\/em> is stated as the Turkic archetype for this word [2001, pp. 438-439].<\/p>\n

Since an udder is the most distinctive characteristic of a cow which produces milk, its name should also be analysed in all Mongol languages. Thus, a cow\u2019s udder is called dele\u014b<\/em> in ancient Mongol, Khalkha-Mongol and all the languages of Inner Mongolia (including Chahar), delen(g)<\/em> in Buryat, del\u014b<\/em> in Kalmyk, delin<\/em> in Dagur according to the \u201cAbridged Dagur-Russian dictionary\u201d [2014, p. 63]. This Mongol term correlates with the ancient Turkic one jelin<\/em> (an udder). E.V. Sevortyan proves that this word is widely used in all Turkic languages in the following forms jelin<\/em> \/ \u01f0elin<\/em> and is similar to the Mongol word dele\u014b<\/em> [1989, pp. 180-181]. The same viewpoint is expressed in the \u201cComparative grammar of the Turkic languages. Vocabulary\u201d, with *jelin<\/em> given as the Turkic protoform.<\/p>\n

The main function of a cow is giving milk, for this purpose it should be milked. This activity is described in the ancient written Mongol language with the help of the verb sa\u03b3a. <\/em>The similar verb form saa=<\/em> is used in Khalkha-Mongol, Kalmyk, the languages of Inner Mongolia (including Chahar and Ordos) and Dagur according to B.Kh. Todaeva\u2019s works [1986, p. 161] and the \u201cAbridged Dagur-Russian dictionary\u201d [2014, p. 138]. This word is pronounced as haa<\/em> in Buryat and taa<\/em> in the languages of Inner Mongolia Durbet and Jalait, respectively [Todaeva, 1981, p. 188]. The Mongol form corresponds with the ancient Turkic one sa\u03b3<\/em> (to milk). Its Common Turkic character and connection with the Mongol word sa\u03b3a<\/em> is explained in the \u201cEtymological dictionary of the Turkic languages\u201d [2003, pp. 137-140].<\/p>\n

Generally, cows are bred for producing milk. This product (milk) is known as s\u00fcn<\/em>, \u00fcs\u00fcn<\/em> in ancient Mongol, s\u00fc\u00fc<\/em>(n) in Khalkha-Mongol, the languages of Inner Mongolia (including Chahar), t\u00fc\u00fc<\/em> in Jalait and Durbet, \u00fcs\u00fc<\/em> in Ordos, \u04bb<\/em>\u00fcn<\/em> in literary Buryat, \u00fc<\/em>\u04bb<\/em>e<\/em>n<\/em> in the western Buryat dialect, \u00fcsn<\/em> in Kalmyk and suu<\/em> in Dagur according to B.Kh. Todaeva\u2019s works [1986, p. 164] and the \u201cAbridged Dagur-Russian dictionaty\u201d [2014, p. 146]. This Mongol word form can be compared with the ancient Turkic one s\u00fct<\/em> which is typical of all Turkic languages. Its connection with the Mongol word s\u00fcn<\/em> is stated in the \u201cComparative grammar of the Turkic languages. Vocabulary\u201d [2001, pp. 448-449]. The Common Turkic protoform for this word looked like *s\u00fc:t<\/em>.<\/p>\n

During year-first spring lactation cows give colostral milk which is called u\u03b3ura\u03b3<\/em> in ancient Mongol, uurag<\/em> in Khalkha-Mongol, Buryat, the languages of Inner Mongolia (including Chahar and Ordos), uurg<\/em> in Kalmyk. The Turkic analogue of this Mongol form is the ancient Turkic word o\u03b3uz<\/em> (the first milk, colostrum). The Mongol form comprises two elements: the affix –a\u03b3<\/em> and the root u\u03b3ur<\/em>. The latter one is a rotacised variant of Turkic o\u03b3uz. <\/em>This linguistic feature is typical of the ancient Turkic languages within the Bulgar group and shows that this word was probably borrowed from them. E.V. Sevortyan mentions that this word is connected with the Mongol form uurag<\/em> and is widely used in the modern Turkic languages: obuz<\/em>, oguz, ag<\/em>\u0457z<\/em> [1974, pp. 405-407].<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s analyse the terms which are concerned with cattle handling. Although they originated from the ancient Turkic language, they are still used in Mongol languages. For example, the Kalmyk word otlg<\/em> [otl\u0103g<\/em>] (a cattle creep for feeding) has the ancient Turkic analogue otluq<\/em> (a washtub for forage). This word is derived from the ancient Turkic form ot<\/em> (grass, greens used as forage) with the help of the Turkic affix –luq<\/em>.<\/p>\n

There is qashija <\/em>(a fence, hedge, pale, household, courtyard, cattle handling) in ancient Mongol, khashaa(n)<\/em> in Khalkha-Mongol, khashaa<\/em> in languages of Inner Mongolia, gashaa<\/em> in Ordos, khashaa<\/em> in Buryat, khasha<\/em> in Kalmyk, khashi <\/em>which is derived from the Mongol verb qashi <\/em>(to surround, enclose) in Dagur according to B.Kh. Todaeva\u2019s works [1986, p. 175]. The Mongol protoform is *qas<\/em>\u0457\u03b3a, <\/em>with the root *qas<\/em>\u0457 <\/em>correlating with the ancient Turkic word qas<\/em>\u0457 <\/em>(a stall made of sticks). According to the \u201cComparative grammar of the Turkic languages. Vocabulary\u201d [2001, pp. 525-526], the Turkic noun qas<\/em>\u0457<\/em> is derived from the hypothetical Turkic verb *qas<\/em> which is distantly connected with the Mongol one qashi<\/em>. The modern Turkic forms: qashaa<\/em>, qa\u017eaan<\/em>, qashaga<\/em>, qa\u017eagan<\/em>, qasha<\/em>, khaza <\/em>(a\u00a0stockyard, fence) are loanwords borrowed from the Mongol language.<\/p>\n

Cattle drive to summer pastures is a key event in the life of nomad cattle breeders. There are several lexical units to describe a herd of cows: s\u00fcr\u00fcg<\/em> in ancient Mongol, s\u00fcreg<\/em> in Khalkha-Mongol, the languages of Inner Mongolia (including Chahar), t\u00fcreg <\/em>in Jalait and Durbet, s\u00fcr\u00fcg<\/em> in Ordos, h\u00fcreg<\/em> in Buryat, s\u00fcrg<\/em> [s\u00fcr\u0115g<\/em>] in Kalmyk. Its ancient Turkic analogue s\u00fcr\u00fcg<\/em> (a herd) is derived from the ancient Turkic verb s\u00fcr<\/em> (to lead, ride, follow; be engaged in, produce, carry out; pull, drag, live, tear off, tie up). There is no derived stem in the Mongol languages, therefore the word s\u00fcr\u00fcg<\/em> is definitely originated from Turkic.<\/p>\n

The two forms otur<\/em> in ancient Mongol and otor<\/em> in Khalkha-Mongol stand for \u201ccattle grazing on distant pastures; fresh spring grass; a pasture; cattle enclosing\u201d. The word otor <\/em>conveys the meaning \u201ccattle grazing on distant pastures\u201d in the languages of Inner Mongolia, including Chahar. The lexical unit otor <\/em>is used in the meaning of \u201ca summer stall; hunters\u2019 lodge; a summer farm; a distant pasture\u201d in the Kabansky dialect of the Buryat language. The word otor <\/em>means \u201ca fishers\u2019 hut on the bank of Lake Baikal\u201d in the Kudarinsky dialect of the Buryat language. The form otr <\/em>[ot\u0103r<\/em>] denotes \u201ca distant place (about a pasture)\u201d in Kalmyk. This Mongol word can be compared with the Turkic one otar<\/em> (a pasture; a pasture which is far from a village; cattle grazing; a meadow; a farm; a flock). The Mongol form can vary from otar<\/em> to otor<\/em>, odar<\/em>, odor<\/em> and utar<\/em>. E.V. Sevortyan has revealed its Turkic etymology and marked the Turkic root ot <\/em>(grass) [1974, pp. 487-488].<\/p>\n

It is worth mentioning that houses of Mongol shepherds located on distant summer pastures are called alcag. <\/em>In the ancient Mongol language this building was described as alcha\u03b3<\/em> and stood for \u201ca shelter, hut, cabin, booth\u201d. The word alachu<\/em> with a similar meaning (a tent, pavilion) has been found in \u201cThe secret tale of Mongols\u201d written in 1240 [Kozin, 1941, p. 580]. This Mongol word has the Turkic analogue alachu <\/em>(a pavilion) which has several phonetic variants in the Turkic languages: ala\u01f0<\/em>\u0457<\/em>q<\/em>, ala\u01f0uq<\/em>, alach<\/em>\u0457<\/em>q<\/em>, alachuq<\/em>, alach<\/em>\u0457<\/em>kh<\/em>, alas<\/em>\u0457<\/em>q<\/em>, \u0457<\/em>lash<\/em>\u0457<\/em>q<\/em>, ulachiq<\/em>, alash<\/em>\u0457<\/em>q<\/em>, alac<\/em>\u0457<\/em>q<\/em>, alanch<\/em>\u0457<\/em>q<\/em>, ala\u01f0<\/em>\u0457<\/em>, alachu<\/em>, lash<\/em>\u0457<\/em>q<\/em> (a tent, pavilion, felted tent, small felted tent, reindeer skin tent, pole for a reindeer skin tent, nomads\u2019 tent, hut, cabin, shepherds\u2019 house made of branches and straw mats, hayshed, cowshed, cattle yard and etc.) [Sevortyan, 1974, p. 130-132]. More information on the word *alachu<\/em> in the Turkic languages can be obtained from the \u201cComparative grammar of the Turkic languages. Vocabulary\u201d [2001, p. 497].<\/p>\n

Shepherds on distant pastures used a hearth for cooking their meals. Basically, they gathered three stones and put a cauldron with boiling water on their top. This tool is called ocog<\/em> in Khalkha-Mongol or \u043e\u010du\u03b3<\/em> in ancient Mongol. In the ancient Turkic language there were the similar forms ot\u010duq<\/em>, \u043e\u010duq<\/em>, o<\/em>\u010daq<\/em> (a hearth, oven) which had been derived from the Common Turkic stem ot <\/em>(fire). E.V.\u00a0Sevortyan dwelled upon its etymology and the Common Turkic features in the \u201cEtymological dictionary of the Turkic languages\u201d [1974, pp. 422-425].<\/p>\n

In our opinion, the list of cattle dairy terms should be expanded with words denoting distant pastures which are used for grazing cattle during summer. Among these terms there are the names of basic forage grasses since they grow on pastures and are of great importance for cattle breeders. Thus, wheatgrass and its sorts, particularly sedge, are regarded as one of the most nutritious forage grasses. These grasses have different names in the Mongol languages: kija\u03b3<\/em> in ancient Mongol, khjag<\/em> in Buryat, khiag <\/em>in Khalkha-Mongol, kh\u00b4aag<\/em> in the languages of Inner Mongolia (including Chahar) according to B.Kh. Todaeva\u2019s works [1981, p. 233], sh\u00b4aag<\/em> in Jarud, Aru-Khorchin, Naiman, Tumut, kaag <\/em>in Ordos (sedge or wild rye). The protoform of this Mongol word has been reconstructed in the following way: *q<\/em>\u0457ja\u03b3<\/em>. Its Turkic analogue q<\/em>\u0457jaq <\/em>is widely used in all Turkic languages but conveys such different meanings as ling, sedge, wheatgrass or ragged leaves of graminaceous plants. This Turkic noun is derived from the Common Turkic verb q<\/em>\u0457j= <\/em>(to cut aslant). The \u201cetymological dictionary of the Turkic languages\u201d reveals the Turkic-Mongol parallels and stresses out their etymological sources.<\/p>\n

Ling is another sort of grass which grows in humid climate and has good nutritious characteristics. It is known as \u04e7l\u00fc\u014b <\/em>(common ling; dense grass) in ancient Mongol, \u04e7l\u04e7n <\/em>in Khalkha-Mongol, \u04e7l\u00f6\u014b<\/em> in the languages of inner Mongolia (including Chahar), \u00fclen \u00fcbhen<\/em> in Buryat, \u04e7ln ca\u03b3an \u00f6vsn <\/em>in Kalmyk. F.D. Lessing gives the form \u04e7le\u014b<\/em> and defines it as \u201csoft grass; dense grass; ling\u201d [1960, p. 633], G.J. Ramstedt gives the word \u00f6l\u014b <\/em>(fresh grass; a meadow) in his Kalmyk dictionary [1935, p. 295], S. Kozin mentions the form ola\u014b<\/em> (grass sward) in the \u201cSecret tale\u201d [1941, p. 585]. This Mongol word form to the ancient Turkic lexical unit \u00f6l\u00e4\u014b<\/em> (a lawn; grass). E.V. Sevortyan emphasises the Common Turkic origin of the Mongol word \u04e7le\u014b<\/em> (grass, soft grass; non-nutritious grass which grows in places without flowing water; ling; a pasture, meadow, cattle grazing) in his \u201cEtymological dictionary of the Turkic languages\u201d [1974, pp. 527-528]. The \u201ccomparative grammar of the Turkic languages. Vocabulary\u201d gives the archetype *\u04e7l\u04e7\u014b <\/em>(grass; a meadow, lawn; ling; mat-grass; a graminaceous plant) and proves that it originated from the hypothetical Turkic verb *\u04e7l<\/em> which is homogeneous with the Common Turkic adjective \u04e7l<\/em> (damp, humid).<\/p>\n

Steppe pastures are covered with other sorts of plants which do not belong to the group of forage grasses. Their Mongol names have the Turkic parallels and etymological sources. For instance, the ancient Mongol word baldar\u03b3ana<\/em> ~ bal\u010dir\u03b3ana<\/em> (cow parsnip) correlates with the Turkic one balt<\/em>\u0457<\/em>r\u03b3an <\/em>which is derived from the Turkic noun balt<\/em>\u0457<\/em>r<\/em> (shin, calf). The ancient Mongol form qil\u03b3ana<\/em> (mat-grass) has also the Turkic analogue q<\/em>\u0457<\/em>l\u03b3an<\/em> which is derived from q<\/em>\u0457<\/em>l <\/em>(horse hair).<\/p>\n

Natural points for cattle watering are considered to be rivers and springs. The Mongol word for a river \u03b3ol<\/em> has the ancient Turkic parallel qol <\/em>(a valley, especially a river valley), while the Common Mongol name of a spring bula\u03b3<\/em> has the ancient Turkic analogue bulaq<\/em> (a spring; canal; irrigation channel).<\/p>\n

Artificial watering points are mostly represented by wells which are the only place in a steppe or desert to water cattle. A well is called qudu\u03b3<\/em> in ancient Mongol, khudag<\/em> in Khalkha-Mongol and the languages of Inner Mongolia (including Chahar), khuduk<\/em> in Ordos, khudag<\/em> in Buryat, khudg<\/em> in Kalmyk. This Mongol word correlates with the ancient Turkic one qudu\u03b3<\/em> (a well) which has two phonetic variants qu\u03b4u\u03b3<\/em> and quju\u03b3<\/em>. In its turn, the Turkic word is derived from the verb qud\/\/quj<\/em> (to pour, fill with water).<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The comparative analysis of Turkic-Mongol dairy cattle terms conducted above has shown that this lexical group is truly diverse since it comprises reproductive cattle names, cattle physical characteristics connected with the ability to give milk and milk as the product of this process, cattle handling and grazing terms, special words for shepherds\u2019 houses, the food cooked over the campfire, forage grasses and watering points. The research is based on the study of many Mongol languages which are characterised by traditional historical development and took after their ancient forms influenced by the Turkic languages from the Bulgar group. The above-mentioned dairy cattle terminology is the result of this influence. We have excluded such post-Yuan Mongol languages as Mongour, Dongxiang, Bonan and the languages of Afghan Mongols since these languages were greatly influenced by the languages of local people \u2013 Tibetans, Chinese, Afghans and many others. As a result, we had to refer to the ancient Turkic language in order to find the Turkic-Mongol parallels in the dairy cattle terminology. This analysis has revealed the Turkic character and etymology of these terms and enabled us to conclude that these terms were borrowed from the Turkic languages. The data given above proves that ancient Mongols adopted dairy cattle breeding and its rich terminology from ancient Bulgar tribes. In the future this thematic group should include terms for cattle economic use and dairy products. This expansion will give more thorough understanding of the Turkic influence on the Mongol languages. To sum it up, we would like to express our gratitude to the Mongol colleagues, particularly the member of the Academy of Sciences L. Bolda, for providing us with the necessary data on the Mongol languages.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Mongol-Russian big academic dictionary. Volume <\/em>I<\/em>, <\/em>II<\/em>, <\/em> (2001). Moscow.<\/li>\n
  2. Mongol-Russian big academic dictionary. Volume IV.<\/em> (2002). Moscow.<\/li>\n
  3. Golstunskyi, K.F. (1938). Mongol-Russian dictionary<\/em>. Leningrad.\u00a0Old Turkic dictionary.<\/em> (1969). Leningrad.<\/li>\n
  4. Munieva, B.D. (Ed.). (1977). Kalmyk-Russian dictionary.<\/em><\/li>\n
  5. Radlov, V.V. (1888-1911). The dictionary of Turkic dialects. Vol. <\/em>I<\/em>–<\/em> Saint Petersburg.<\/li>\n
  6. Kovalevskyi, O. (1844-1849). Mongol-Russian-French dictionary. Vol. <\/em>I<\/em>–<\/em>III<\/em>.<\/em><\/li>\n
  7. Kozin, S.A. (1941). A secret tale. The Mongol chronicles of 1240 entitled Mongol-un ni\u03b3u\u010da tob\u010diyan. <\/em>\u042e\u0430\u043d\u044c<\/em> \u0447\u0430\u043e<\/em> \u0431\u0438<\/em> \u0448\u0438<\/em> (Yuan chao bi shi). The collection of the Mongol everyday life stories.<\/em> Moscow; Leningrad.<\/li>\n
  8. Kotvich, V. (1962). The research of the Altaic languages.<\/em><\/li>\n
  9. Abridged Dagur-Russian dictionary.<\/em> (2014). Ulan-Ude.<\/li>\n
  10. Sevortyan, E.V. (1974). The etymological dictionary of the Turkic languages (stem vowels in the Common Turkic language and other languages within its group). <\/em>Moscow: Science.<\/li>\n
  11. Sevortyan, E.V. (1978). The etymological dictionary of the Turkic languages. B-stems in the Common Turkic language and other languages within its group. <\/em>Moscow: Science.<\/li>\n
  12. The comparative grammar of the Turkic languages.<\/em> (2001). Vocabulary. Moscow.<\/li>\n
  13. Todaeva, B.Kh. (1981). The language of Inner Mongolia. The data and dictionary. <\/em><\/li>\n
  14. Todaeva, B.Kh. (1986). The Dagur language<\/em>. Moscow.<\/li>\n
  15. Cheremisov, K.M. (1973). Buryat-Russian dictionary.<\/em><\/li>\n
  16. Shagdarov, L.D., & Cheremisov, K.M. (2010). Buryat-Russian dictionary in two volumes. Volume <\/em>I:<\/em> A-N. Volume: <\/em>II<\/em> O-Z. <\/em>Ulan-Ude.<\/li>\n
  17. The etymological dictionary of the Turkic languages. L-M-N-P-S-stems in the Common Turkic language and other languages within its group.<\/em> (2003). Moscow: Science.<\/li>\n
  18. Lessing, F.D. (1960). Mongolian-English Dictionary.<\/em> Berkley; Los Angeles.<\/li>\n
  19. Mostaert, A. (2009). Dictionnaire Ordos. Troisieme edition A-\u017d Tables alphabetiques.<\/em><\/li>\n
  20. Ramstedt, G.J. (1935). Kalm\u00fckisches W\u04e7rterbuch.<\/em> Helsinki.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction Several generations of the Altaic scholars managed to find […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol8no2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3724","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3724"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3724\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6330,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3724\/revisions\/6330"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}