Nominals: Noun Inﬂection

22

Nominals: Noun Inflection

22.1 Introduction

Nouns take on certain inflectional markers, combined according to specific agglutin-

ative rules. Common Turkic follows the ordering number-possessive-case, e.g. Tatar

ḳïz-lar-ïm-nan, Turkish ‹kız|lar|ım|dan› ⟨girl-pl-poss1sg-abl⟩ ‘from my daughters’.

Chuvash displays, like some other Transeurasian languages, the ordering possessive-

number-case, e.g. χịr-ịm-sän-jän ‹хӗр|ӗм|сен|чен› ⟨girl-poss1sg-pl-abl⟩ ‘from my

daughters’. Substantivized adjectives take on noun inflection, e.g. Kirghiz ǰaḳšï-lar-dï ‹жакшы|лар|ды› ⟨good-pl-acc⟩ ‘(the) good ones’, Turkish ‹ölü|ler|imiz|e› ⟨dead-pl-

poss1pl-dat⟩ ‘to our deceased ones’.

22.2 Plural Markers

Nouns are declined for number by means of productive markers. Common Turkic

{+lAr} has no generally accepted etymology but may go back to an aorist form *u-la-

r < *u-la-yụr ‘joining’← u-la- ‘to join’. Several attempted explanations are mentioned

in Räsänen (1957: 52–54).

The marker is relatively loosely connected to its stem. It may be shared by syntactic-

ally parallel nouns and attached to the last of them (group inflection under § 20.3), e.g.

Turkish ‹anne ve baba|lar› ‘mothers and fathers’, Ottoman baɣ ve bostan-lar ‘gardens

and parks’; cf. Persian ‹bāɣ u bostān-hā›.A few languages, Turkish, Azeri, Khalaj, and Uyghur, show plural suffixes of the type

{+lA2 r}, Turkmen has {+lA4 r}, comprising the variants -lar, -lär, -lor, -lör. See also

other types in Table 22.1.

Peripheral Yakut dialects and Dolgan also use {+(A)t-tAr}, e.g. ïal-at-tar ← ïal

‘neighbor’, küöl-ät-tär ← küöl ‘lake’.

The final -r is dropped in Karachay-Balkar except before possessive suffixes, e.g.

adam-la ‘men’, at-la ‘horses’, el-le ‘villages’, ǰol-la ‘roads’, köl-le ‘lakes’, üy-le

‘houses’, vs. at-lar-ïm ‘my horses’, at-lar-ïŋ ‘your horses’, el-ler-ị ‘their villages’.

452

of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 65.21.228.167, on 10 Nov 2021 at 22:50:00, subject to the Cambridge Core terms

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022

https://www.cambridge.org/core

The genitive-accusative form is {-le-ni}, the dative form {-le-ge}. The Bakhsan dialect

exhibits {+lAr}, the Chegem dialect {+lA}, the Khulam-Bezinga dialect {+lAr} ~

{+lA}. In Kumyk, -r is dropped before case markers, e.g. yol-la-ɣa ⟨road-pl-dat⟩ ‘to

the roads’.

Chuvash exhibits the idiosyncratic plural marker {+säm}, e.g. śïn-säm ‘persons’,

with the oblique form {+sän} before case suffixes. Upper Chuvash has the harmonic

suffix {+sAm}, e.g. śïn-sam. The marker is a late innovation of unknown origin,

possibly connected with Mari {+šaməč} ‹шамыч› ‘person’.On copied plural suffixes, see Bereczki (1979), Adamović (1983), and Honti (1997).

Frequential copying in the sense of increased use of plural markers may be typical of

Turkish as spoken in northwestern Europe.

22.3 Collective Markers

The earliest documented stages of Turkic exhibit severalmarkers that are claimed to be plural

suffixes though theymay rather be collectivemarkers referring to sets of entities. Themarker

{+An}, used in designations of persons such as är-än ‘warriors’ ← är ‘man’ and oɣ°l-an

‘sons’, ‘princes’← oɣ°l ‘son’, is probably a petrified collective marker. Some Turcologists

accepts {+An} as a Proto-Turkic suffix, whereas others regard it as copied from Iranian;

cf. Persian ‹-aːn›. See Clauson (1972: 83–84, 192, 232), Kononov (1980: 146), Erdal

(1991: 91–92). A similar formation is boːδ-°n ‘people’, ‘tribes’← boːδ ‘tribe’.

The markers {+s} and {+t} are limited to titles of non-Turkic origin (Ščerbak 1961:

131; 1970a: 92, 94; cf. Clauson 1972: 257, 483). Thus, ïšβara-s ‘lords’, ‘princes’

ultimately goes back to Sanskrit ‹īśvara›. Remnants of {+t}, of Soghdian origin, are

Table 22.1 Plural markers

{+lA2 r} Azeri ev-lär ‘houses’, at-lar ‘horses’, Uyghur bali-lar ‘children’, köz-lär ‘eyes’{+lA4 r} Turkmen čay-lar ‘teas’, käːθe-ler ‘bowls’, ot-lor ‘herbs’, gün-lör ‘days’, öy-lör

‘houses’, Türkmän-lär ‘Turkmens’, all written with the vowels a and e in theorthography

{+L2A2 r} Gagauz ḳïz-lar ‘girls’, gün-när ‘days’, Tatar ḳụlaḳ-lar ‹кoлак|лар› ‘ears’, kün-när‹көн|нәр› ‘days’, uram-nar ‹урам|нар› ‘streets’

{+L4A2 r} Bashkir at-tar ‘horses’, bülmä-lär ‘rooms’, ḳala-lar ‘cities’, kül-där ‘lakes’, yịr-δär‘places’, taw-δar ‘mountains’

{+L3A2 r} Kazakh at-tar ‘horses’, bala-lar ‘children’, žer-ler ‘places’, say-lar ‘ravines’, taw-lar‘mountains’, köz-der ‘eyes’

{+L3A2 r} Dukhan ay-lar ‘moons’, but-tar ‘legs’, diːŋ-när ‘squirrels’, duha-lar ‘Dukhans’,ïr-lar ‘songs’, oːl-lar ‘sons’, hap-tar ‘sacks’, höl-lär ‘lakes’, hün-när ‘days’,χäm-när ‘rivers’, ulus-tar ‘peoples’

{+L4A4 r} Yakut bölöχ-tör ‘groups’, büör-där ‘livers’, kus-tar ‘ducks’, oron-nor ‘beds’,siräy-där ‘faces’, taba-lar ‘reindeers’, tiːŋ-när ‘squirrels’

22.3 Collective Markers 453



https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


found in the titles tarχat← tarχan ‘free man’ and tegit← tegin ‘prince’ (Clauson 1972:

257a, 483). Kononov (1980: 147) considers tarḳït a loan from Soghdian. Poppe (19642:

168) considers these forms as Altaic plurals, identical to the Mongolic plural in ‹-d› and

Tungusic collective formations containing the element *‹-ta›. Note that Slavic has

a similar plural, e.g. Russian ‹телята› ‘calves’, singular ‹теленок› ‘calf’. Ligeti

(1975: 48) shows that the “wholly un-Turkish plurals” tarχat and tegit are Soghdian

forms already documented in the sixth century; cf. earlier Soghdian *tarχant ‘free of

taxes’. See also Doerfer (1963–1975, 2: 460–474 and 533–541). East Old Turkic has

a similar suffix used together with {+lA2 r}, e.g. bäg-it-lär ‘lords’ (Erdal 2004: 158); cf.

Yakut {+(A)t-tAr}, mentioned under § 22.2.

East Old Turkic {+(A)GỤn} and similar forms are found in ini-gün or iniyi-gün

‘younger brothers’, käliŋün = kälin-gün ‘daughters-in-law’ ← kälin ‘wife of one’s

younger brother or son’ (Clauson 1972: 719b). The Karakhanid hendiadys ḳaδïn

ḳaδna-ɣun means ‘a woman’s and a man’s relations by marriage’ ← ḳaδïn ‘related by

marriage’ (Clauson 1972: 603b). The marker may derive from Proto-Turkic *gün

‘people’; see Doerfer (1963–1975: 656–657). Forms in {+AGỤt} denote members of

certain social groups, e.g. baːy-aɣụt ‘rich merchant’ ← baːy ‘rich’ (§ 21.3.3). The

ethnonym Un-oɣ-un-dur may contain two collective suffixes, {+Vn} and {+dVr}

(Golden 2012: 187).

A later collective marker is the invariable Turkish suffix {+gil}, used in colloquial

styles and added to personal names, titles, and nouns denoting relatives, e.g. ‹Ahmet|gil›

‘Ahmet and his family’. A possible possessive suffix precedes the collective suffix, e.g.

‹dayı|m|gil› ⟨uncle-poss1sg-coll⟩ ‘my uncle’s family’; cf. standard Turkish ‹dayı|m|

lar› ⟨uncle-poss1sg-pl⟩. A neologistic suffix {+gil} is now used in Turkish names for

plant and animal families. Khalaj displays a similar marker, probably copied from

Oghuz, e.g. ġiːz-ịm-yịl ‘the family of my daughter’. Chuvash possesses both the

collective suffix and the free lexeme kil ‘house’, from which it originates.

Another collective suffix denoting familiar relationship is Tuvan {+(Ị)šKỊ-(lAr)} ~

{+lỊšKỊ-(lAr)} (Isxakov & Pal’mbax 1961: 171–172), with correspondences in the Toju

dialect (Čadamba 1983: 22) and Tofan (Rassadin 1978: 63, 66). Dukhan displays

formations such as ada-lịškị-lar ‘father and his children’ ← ada ‘father’, aβa-lịškị-lar‘mother and her children’ ← aβa ‘mother’, duŋma-lịškị-lar ‘younger brothers and/orsisters’ ← duŋma ‘younger brother or sister’ (Ragagnin 2011: 88).

The element {+z}, e.g. in ekːi-z ‘twin’ ← ekːi ‘two’, which has been mistaken for

a dual marker, occurs in a handful of words denoting body parts such as köːz ‘eye’ and

tiːz ‘knee’ (nomina dualitatis), in the personal pronouns biz ‘we’ ⟨1pl⟩ and siz ‘you’

⟨2pl⟩, and in 1pl and 2pl possessive markers. It has even been claimed to occur in

ethnonyms such as oɣuz ‘Oghuz’ (Kononov 1980: 145).

454 Nominals: Noun Inflection



https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


Nouns denoting paired body parts may have been derived by means of a Proto-Turkic

element *r’* (Ramstedt 1952: 143; see also § 18.8.2).

There have also been fruitless attempts to detect a dual suffix in words such as yaŋaḳ‘cheek’ < *yaːn-ɣaḳ ← yaːn ‘cheekbone’, ‘side’ and in agreement markers of the

possessive type (Kononov 1951: 117–118).

22.4 Possessive Markers

Turkic possessive suffixes, which correspond to possessive pronouns in English, are

added to nouns and noun phrases, representing three grammatical persons and their

plural. In the nominal morpheme chain, the suffixes follow plural markers and precede

case markers. As mentioned, however, Chuvash possessive suffixes precede both plural

and case markers, e.g. kil-ịm-sän-jän ‹кил|ӗм|сен|чен› ⟨house-poss1sg-pl-abl⟩ ‘frommy houses’ (see Tables 22.2–22.9).

Varying graphic shapes in the runiform script suggest that some 2p forms may be

interpreted as containing g/ɣ instead of ŋ. Both {-(Ị)ŋ} and {-(Ị)G} are found in later

languages. Notations in the inscriptions suggest that the near-high vowel of the

3p marker is invariably [+front].

Examples: äl-üm ‘my hand’, baš-ụŋ ‘your head’, at-lar-ụm-ụz ‘our horses’, göz-ị ‘itseye’, ḳapu-sï ‘its door’. Again, certain notations suggest that the near-high vowel of the

3p markers is invariably [+front].

Table 22.2 East Old Turkic possessive markers

1sg {+(Ị)m} 1pl {+(Ị)mỊz}2sg {+(Ị)ŋ} 2pl {+(Ị)ŋỊz}3sg {+(s)Ị(n)} 3pl {+lAr-Ị(n)}

Table 22.3 Chaghatay possessive markers

1sg {+(Ị)m} ~ {+(Ụ)m} ~{+(Ị)m} 1pl {+(Ị)mỊz} ~ {+(Ụ)mỊz}, rarely {+(Ụ)mỤz}2sg {+(Ị)ŋ} ~ {+(Ụ)ŋ} 2pl {+(Ị)ŋỊz} ~ {+(Ụ)ŋỊz}, rarely {+(Ụ)ŋỤz}

Table 22.4 Ottoman possessive markers

1sg {+(Ụ)m} 1pl {+(Ụ)mỤz}2sg {+(Ụ)ŋ} 2pl {+(Ụ)ŋỤz}3sg {+(s)Ị(n)} 3pl {+lAr-Ị(n)}

22.4 Possessive Markers 455



https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


1sg ‹gül|üm›, ‹baba|m› 1pl ‹gül|ümüz›, ‹baba|mız›2sg ‹gül|ün›, ‹baba|n› 2pl ‹gül|ünüz›, ‹baba|nız›3sg ‹gül|ü›, ‹baba|sı› 3pl ‹gül|ler|i›, ‹baba|lar|ı›

Table 22.5 Modern Turkish possessive markers with sampleparadigms (← ‹gül› ‘rose’, ‹baba› ‘father’)

1sg {+(Ị4)m} 1pl {+(Ị4)mỊ4z}2sg {+(Ị4)n} 2pl {+(I4)nỊ4z}3sg {+(s)Ị4(n)} 3pl {+lA2 r-Ị2(n)}

Table 22.6 Standard Azeri possessive sampleparadigm (← süd ‘milk’)

1sg süd-üm 1pl süd-ümüz2sg süd-ün 2pl süd-ünüz3sg süd-ü 3pl süd-lär-ị

Table 22.7 Turkmen possessive markers

1sg {+(Ị4)m} 1pl {+(Ị4)mỊ4δ}2sg {+(Ị4)ŋ} 2pl {+(Ị4)ŋỊ4δ}3sg {+(θ)Ị4(n)} 3pl {+lAr-Ị4(n)}

Table 22.8 Uzbek possessive markers with sample paradigms (←üy ‘house’, båbå ‘grandfather’)

1sg {+(ị)m} 1pl {+(ị)mịz}2sg {+(ị)ŋ} 2pl {+(i)ŋịz}3sg {+(s)ị} 3pl {+lȧr-ị}

1sg üy-ịm, båbå-m 1pl üy-ịmịz, båbå-mịz

2sg üy-ịŋ, båbå-ŋ 2pl üy-ịŋ-iz, båbå-ŋịz

3sg üy-ị, båbå-sị 3pl üy-lȧr-ị, båbå-lȧr-ị




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


Standard Azeri has identical suffixes.

In Azeri nonstandard dialects, the 2p suffixes mostly contain ŋ instead of n.

Plurality of 3p possessors is often expressed without the plural suffix. The addition of

1p and 2p suffixes to Turkmen stems ending in {-A} and {-I} mostly yields the long

vowels {Aː} and {Iː} except after some basic kinship terms, e.g. eǰe-m ‘my mother’.

Stem-final vowels remain short before 3p suffixes.

Certain loans, copied from forms ending in long vowels, take on 1p or 2p suffixes

with initial y-, e.g. pȧrvå-yịm ‹parvo|yim› ‘my attention’← pȧrvå ‹parvo›. A few loans

of the same kind, written with final -y, take on the postvocalic 3p suffix, e.g. dåhiy-sị

‹dohiy|si› ‘its leader’.

Vowel assimilations produce somewhat irregular paradigms. Examples (← bala

‘child’, bäl ‘waist’, taɣ ‘mountain’)

1sg bala-m, bel-ịm, teɣ-ịm 1pl balị-mịz, bel-ịmịz, teɣ-ịmịz2sg bala-ŋ, bel-ịŋ, teɣ-ịŋ 2pl bala-ŋ-lar, bel-ịŋ-lär, teɣ-ịŋ-lar2sg polite balị-ŋịz, bel-ịŋịz, teɣ-ịŋịz 2pl polite balị-ŋịz-lar, bel-ịŋịz-lär, teɣ-ịŋịz-lar3p balị-sị, bel-ị, teɣ-ị

Possessive markers added to bala-lar ‘children’

1sg balị-lịr-ịm 1pl bali-lịr-ịmịz2sg balị-lịr-ịŋ 2pl balị-lịr-ịŋ-lar2sg polite bali-lịr-ịŋịz 2pl polite balị-lịr-ịŋịz-lar3p balị-lịr-ị

In loans ending in long vowels, the vowel length is lost and y is inserted before 1p and 2p

markers, e.g. balaː-yịm ‘my disaster’← balaː (cf. bala-m ‘my child’← bala), bahaː-yịm

‘my price’← bahaː, kinoː-yụm ‘mymovie’← kinoː, daːšöː-yüm ‘my university’← daːšöː⟸ Chinese ‹dàxué›. In spoken language, r may be inserted instead, e.g. bahaː-rịm ‘my

price’← bahaː (cf. bahar-ịm ‘my springtime’). The 3sg forms are bahaː-sị ‘its price’ and

bahar-ị ‘its springtime’. However, dialects of the Ferghana Valley in Uzbekistan show 3sg

forms such as baha-rị ‘its price’ and bahar-ị ‘its springtime’ (Sadvakasov 1976: 108–110).

The Chuvash equivalent to the Common Turkic 3sg marker is {+ị//+(Ø)i}, e.g. tus-ị

‹тус|и› ‘his/her/their friend’, ur-ị ‹ур|и› ← ura ‹ура› ‘foot’, ịn-ị ‹ӗн|и› ← ịnä ‹ӗне›‘cow’, kịnägị ‹кӗнек|и› ← kịnägä ‹кӗнеке› ‘book’, pul-ːi ‹пулл|и› ← pulï ‹пулӑ›

Table 22.9 Uyghur possessive markers with sample paradigms

1sg {+(ị)m} 1pl {+(ị)mịz}2sg {+(ị)ŋ}, polite {+(ị)ŋịz} 2pl {+ŋ-lAr}, polite {+(ị)ŋịz-lAr}3p {+(s)ị}

22.4 Possessive Markers 457



https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


‘fish’. The marker is always [+front] and may thus have preserved the situation

reflected in the East Old Turkic runiform inscriptions. Lexicalized forms containing

the allomorph {+šị} denote family relationship, e.g. apːa-šị ‹аппа|шӗ› ← apːa ‹аппа›‘elder sister’. Irregularities such as strengthening of stem consonants cannot be

discussed here.

In a large area comprising NWW, NWN, NEN, 2pl markers of the type {+(Ị)G-Ịz} are

used instead of {+(Ị)ŋ-Ịz}, e.g. Tatar {+(Ị)G-Ịz} as in at-ïɣïz ‹ат|ыгыз› ‘your horse’. Asmentioned, East Old Turkic may already have had both {-(Ị)ŋỊz} and {-(Ị)GỊz}. Several

languages of the northern parts of Turcia show 1pl markers of the type {+(Ị)bỊz} instead of

{+(Ị)mỊz}, e.g. Bashkir {+(Ị)bỊδ}, Kirghiz {+(Ị)bỊz}, Altay, Khakas, Shor {+(Ị)bỊs}, Tuvan

{+(Ị)βỊs}, Yakut {+BỊt}, as in Khakas čir-ịbịs ‹чир|ібіс› ‘our land’, Yakut aɣa-bï t ‘ourfather’.

The plural segment {+(Ị)z} is replaced by {+LAr} and its variants in some South

Siberian languages, e.g. 2pl Chulym {+(Ị)ŋ-nAr}, Shor {+LAr-Ịŋ}, Khakas, Tuvan,Tofan {+(Ị)ŋ-Ar}, Altay {+(Ị)G-Ar}.

The origins of the possessive markers are partly obscure. Numerous opinions are

mentioned in Räsänen (1957: 18, 22). Some markers are obviously of pronominal

origin. Thus, 1sg markers of the type {-(Ị)m} might go back to bän/män ‘I’.

However, 2sg markers of the type {-(Ị)ŋ} cannot be easily derived from sän ‘thou’.

A development *sän > *sn > *hn > ŋ has been assumed (Ramstedt 1952: 72); cf. the shift

of suffix-initial s > h in the Bashkir 3sg poss marker {+(h)Ị}.

Table 22.10 Chuvash 1p and 2p possessive markers with sample paradigms (← tus‹tус› ‘friend’, kil ‹кил› ‘house’, χịr ‹хӗр› ‘daughter’, ịnä ‹ӗне› ‘cow’)

1sg {+(Ị2)m} 1pl {+(Ị2)mỊ2 r}2sg {+(Ø)Ụ2} 2pl {+(Ø)Ị2 r}

1sg tus-ïm, kil-ịm, χịr-ịm, ịnä-m 1pl tus-ïmïr, kil-ịmịr, χịr-ịmịr, ịnä-mịr2sg tus-ụ, kil-ü, χịr-ü, ịn- ü 2pl tus-ïr, kil-ịr, χịr-ịr, ịn-ịr

Table 22.11 Yakut possessive markers with sample paradigms (← at‘horse’, aɣa ‘father’, äbä ‘grandmother’)

1sg {+(Ị4)m} 1pl {+B3Ị4 t}2sg {+(Ị4)ŋ} 1pl {+G4Ị4 t}3sg {+(t)A4} 3pl {+L4A4 r-A4}

1sg at-ïm, aɣa-m, äbä-m 1pl at-ïbït, aɣa-bït, äbä-bịt2sg at-ïŋ, aɣa-ŋ, äbä-ŋ 2pl at-ïɣït, aɣa-ɣït, äbä-git3sg at-a, aɣa-ta, äbä-tä 3pl at-tar-a, aɣa-lar-a, äbä-lär-ä




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


22.5 Pronominal n

In Old Uyghur, Karakhanid, and Khorezmian Turkic, third-person possessive suffixes

exhibit a so-called ‘pronominal n’ in front of case suffixes, e.g. äːv-ịn-dä ⟨house-

poss3sg-loc⟩, at-ïn-da ⟨horse-poss3sg-loc⟩. It was abandoned in Chaghatay and

is absent in Uyghur and Uzbek, e.g. Uzbek åt-i-gȧ ⟨horse-poss3sg-dat⟩, ånȧ-si-dȧ

⟨mother-poss3sg-loc⟩; cf. Turkish ‹at|ın|a›, ‹anne|sin|de›.

22.6 Uses of Possessive Markers

Forms provided with possessive markers may cause various ambiguities.

In some languages, there is ambiguity between 3sg and 2sg after consonant stems,

e.g. Turkish ‹ev|in|de› ⟨house-poss3sg-loc⟩ ‘in its house’ vs. ⟨house-poss2sg-loc⟩

‘in your house’.

3pl markers cause more general types of ambiguity. A marker such as {+lAr-Ị}, which

is composed of a plural and a 3sg possessive suffix, can refer to the plural of the stem noun

or to its possessor. Since two plural suffixes in sequence are not permitted, forms such as

Bashkir, Noghay bala-lar-ï or Turkish ‹çocuk|lar|ı› ⟨child-pl-poss3⟩ are ambiguous

between (1) ‘their child’, (2) ‘their children’, (3) ‘his/her children’. Yakut at-tar-a

means (1) ‘their horse’, (2) ‘their horses’, (3) ‘his/her horses’. A form *at-tar-dar-a

⟨horse-pl-pl-poss3⟩ ‘their horses’ is illicit.

Disambiguation is possible by means of corresponding possessive pronouns. Thus

Chuvash employs preposed pronouns to distinguish un(ïn) ịn-ị ‘his/her cow’ from vị-sän

(än) ịn-ị ‘their cow’. A plural suffix is not, however, employed if the plurality of the

possessor is already signaled by a pronoun. Thus Turkish ‹on|lar|ın evi› only means

‘their house’, and ‹on|lar|ın ev|ler|i› only means ‘their houses’.

Some word forms contain two consecutive 3sg possessive markers, e.g. Ottoman

häp-ị-sị ‘all of it’ (cf. Turkish ‹hep|si›), Bashkir bịr-ị-hị ‹бер|е|һe›, Turkish ‹bir|i|si›

⟨one-poss3sg-poss3sg⟩ ‘one of (them)’, Khakas pịr-sị ‹пір|сі›), Uzbek köp-ị-sị

⟨much-poss3sg-poss3sg⟩ ‘most of it/them’. Examples of the Turfan dialect of

Uyghur are found in Yakup (2005: 935–96).

Words containing a 3sg marker have sometimes been subject to morphological

metanalysis (false segmentation). This holds for monosyllabic Arabic loans with

stems ending in consonant clusters. In forms such as Ottoman ḳϊsm-ï-sï ‘part of it’,

a consonant cluster has been dissolved by means of an epenthetic vowel that belongs to

the lexeme stem. In Bashkir, loans ending in certain consonant clusters take on {Ị-hỊ}

instead of {-Ị}, since they end in a vowel (in vernacular pronunciation), e.g. kiosḳï-hï

‹киоскы|hы› ⟨kiosk-poss3sg⟩ ← kiosḳ ‹киоск›. Some Yakut stems copied from

22.6 Uses of Possessive Markers 459



https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


Russian and ending in a consonant cluster exhibit an additional vowel before the 3sg

possessive suffix, e.g. očärka-ta ‹очерка|та› ⟨outline-poss3sg⟩ ← ‹очерк› ‘outline’.In some languages including Yakut, nouns referring to entities viewed as inalienable,

i.e. permanently and necessarily possessed, usually require a possessive form. They are

mainly words indicating kinship and body parts. Peripheral Yakut dialects tend to

lexicalize poss3sg forms, e.g. tums-a ‘(its) beak’ ← tumus ‘beak’.

a 3sg suffix often refers anaphorically to a preceding element in a discourse, e.g.

Kirghiz baːr-ï ‘all of it/them’, Turkish ‹bașka|sı› ‘the other one’. This function is not

identical to that of a definite article, as has been claimed (K. Grönbech 1936b: 90–101).

3sg markers often refer to multiple possessors, especially in casual speech. This is

mostly the rule in South Siberian Turkic. Yellow Uyghur and Salar normally do not

distinguish singular and plural by means of possessive markers.

The use of polite possessive forms is determined by varying rules, which cannot be

treated in detail here. Often, already in Chaghatay, {+(Ị)ŋỊz} marks an honorific plural

for single persons. Modern Uyghur uses the informal 2sg marker {+(Ị)ŋ} and the formal

2sg marker {+{Ị}ŋỊz}. The informal 2pl marker is {+(Ị)ŋ-lAr}, whereas the formal 2pl

marker is {+(Ị)ŋỊz-lAr}. Kirghiz employs the informal 2sg marker {+(Ị)ŋ}, and the

formal 2sg marker {+(Ị}ŋỊz}. The informal 2pl marker is {+(I)ŋ-Ar}, and the formal

2pl marker is {+(Ị)ŋỊz-dAr}, e.g. baš-ïŋ, baš-ïŋ-ïz, baš-ïŋ-ar, baš-ïŋïz-dar ← baš‘head’.

Turkic use of possessive suffixes has also influenced neighboring languages.

Possessive suffixes came to be common in New Persian, which therewith moved

typologically nearer to Turkic. The type ‹ketaːb-am› ‘my book’ has become the

normal possessive construction in Tajik Persian. Also most modern Mongolic

varieties have converged with Turkic by developing possessive suffixes (Doerfer

1963: 88). Older Mongolic employed constructions such as ‹nidün minu› ‘my

eyes’, with ‹minu›, genitive of ‹bi› ‘I’, whereas the Khalkha counterpart is ‹nüde-

min›.

22.7 Case Markers

Turkic nominatives (absolutives) are markerless. There are no traces of a Turkic dis-

tinction nominative vs. casus indefinitus as in Older Mongolic (Doerfer 1963: 88).

Grammatical case markers, mostly corresponding to English prepositions, are added

to singular and plural stems in the simple declension, and to possessive stems in the

possessive declension. They indicate relations between clause constituents and mark

arguments and adverbial functions in locational, temporal, instrumental, and other

phrases.




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


General issues are discussed in Räsänen (1957), Kotvič (1962), Tenišev (1964,

1976a), Roos (2000), Janhunen (2003), Erdal (2004), Nugteren & Roos (2006); cf.

Heine & Kuteva (2002) and Heine (2009).

The number of markers varies across languages and according to different definitions

of the notion of ‘case’. Old case markers that have fallen out of use often survive in

petrified adverbial forms.

Case markers show, as in other Transeurasian languages, higher and lower degrees of

independence. Some are rather loosely attached to the preceding stems. In most East Old

Turkic manuscripts, particularly older ones, case markers are written unconnected with

the stem (Gabain 1950: 86).

22.7.1 Core Cases

Core and noncore cases may be distinguished. The markers of the core cases are

accentuable, not combinable with each other, and of obscure origin. Core cases have

wide functional areas, leaving more specific notions to be indicated by postpositions.

The functions of Turkic core cases can be roughly sketched as follows.

The nominative is used for subjects in main clauses, preverbal nonspecific direct

objects, and adverbial complements.

Genitive, accusative, and dative markers fulfill abstract-relational functions.

Genitives mark possessors in possessive constructions and subjects in several types of

nonmain clauses. Accusatives are used for specific direct objects in immediately

preverbal position, objects in not immediate preverbal position, and in certain types of

adverbial complements.

Datives, locatives, and ablatives cover both concrete and abstract meanings. Datives

mark indirect objects, recipients or beneficiaries of actions, complements expressing

direction, destination (‘movement to’), and aim (‘purpose’) of actions. In South Siberian

languages, datives may also serve to denote location. Locatives mark static spatial and

temporal complements, place and time of actions (‘in’, ‘at’, ‘on’). Ablatives mark

adverbial complements expressing origins, i.e. starting points of movements (‘from’,

‘out of ’), temporal starting points (‘since’), paths of motion (‘through’, ‘along’),

standards of comparison (‘than’), causes (‘owing to’), materials (‘made of’), etc.

In most subbranches belonging to NW and SE, the genitive suffix is {+nỊŋ}, theaccusative {+nỊ}, the dative {+GA}, and the ablative {+DAn}. NES languages exhibit

genitive {+NỊŋ}, accusative {+NỊ}, and ablative {+DAn}. SW markers lack suffix-

initial consonants after consonant-final stems; thus, the genitive suffix is {+(n)Ịn} or

{+(n)Ịŋ}, the accusative suffx {+(y)Ị}, and the dative suffix {+(y)A}. Turkish has the

following core case markers in the simple declension: genitive {+(n)In}, accusative

{+(y)I}, dative {+(y)A}, locative {+DA}, ablative {+DAn}. Khalaj exhibits some

22.7 Case Markers 461



https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


special markers which show the independence of its case system from that of its SWW

neighbors. The dative marker is {+KA}, as in East Old Turkic, the locative marker is

{+čA} instead of {+DA}, and the old ablative marker {+DA} is preserved.

22.7.1.1 Genitive

The normal East Old Turkic genitive marker in inscriptional texts is {+(n)°ŋ}. Theassumption that it goes back to an Altaic element *-n (Ramstedt 1952: 25, Räsänen

1957: 56–58, Menges 1960: 15–20) seems implausible (Poppe 1953: 5).

The inital n of the postvocalic form has been taken for a hiatus-preemptory “buffer

consonant”, but it may rather have emerged in analogy to pronominal markers, as

a combination of the pronominal n (§ 22.5) with {+(°)G}. A pronominal genitive such

as biz-°ŋ ⟨we-gen⟩ ‘our’ < *biz-°n°g may have led to analogous forms such as at-°ŋ⟨horse-gen⟩. Orkhon Turkic runiform inscriptions show the archaic genitive marker

{+(°)G}, e.g. boδ°n-°ɣ← boδ°n ‘people’. The dissimilative variant {+Ịn} appears after

stem-final -ŋ, e.g. ḳaɣan-°ŋ-°n ⟨emperor-poss2 g-gen⟩. The form {+n°ŋ} occurs in

most Old Uyghur manuscripts, and Karakhanid also displays {+n°G}. Later languages

such as Middle Kipchak and Chaghatay exhibit {+nỊŋ}, sometimes {+nỊ} instead.

Modern NW, SE, and NES languages display the types {+nỊŋ} and {+NỊŋ} (Table

22.12).

Kirghiz {+NỊn} ends in -n, not in -ŋ, as in the neighboring languages, e.g. adam-nïn

← adam ‘man’, köz-dịn ← köz ‘eye’, tas-tïn ← tas ‘stone’, аba-nïn ← aba ‘air’.

Oghuz has preserved markers of the types {+(n)Ịŋ} and {+(n)Ịn}. The Ottoman

marker is {+(n)Ụŋ}, e.g. ḳïz-ụŋ← ḳïz ‘girl’. Turkish, Gagauz, and Azeri exhibit {+(n)

Ịn}, e.g. Azeri ev-ịn← ev ‘house’, ata-nïn← ata ‘father’. SomeGagauz nouns that have

lost their stem-final -ɣ and thus end in long secondary vowels exhibit {+yỊn} instead of

{+nỊn}, e.g. baː-yïn ← baː ‘garden’ < baɣ, buː-yun ← buː ‘steam’.

Table 22.12 Variants of genitive markers in NW, SE, and NES languages

Crimean Turkic at-nïŋ← at ‘horse’, ata-nïŋ← ata ‘father’Tatar at-nïŋ← at ‘horse’, äti-nịŋ← äti ‘father’, urman-nïŋ← urman ‘forest’Bashkir at-tïŋ← at ‘horse’, bala-nïŋ← bala ‘child’, yịr-δịŋ← yịr ‘earth’, urman-dïŋ←

urman ‘forest’Noghay bala-dïŋ← bala ‘child’, at-lar-dïŋ← at-lar ‘horses’, terek-tịŋ← terek ‘tree’,

ḳoyan-nïŋ← ḳoyan ‘hare’Kazakh adam-nïŋ← adam ‘man’, köz-dịŋ← köz ‘eye’, tas-tïŋ← tas ‘stone’, aya-nïŋ←

aya ‘air’Uzbek ḳoŋši-lȧr-nị(ŋ) ← ḳoŋši-lȧr ‘neighbors’Uyghur bali-nịŋ← bala ‘child’, köl-nịŋ← köl ‘lake, ḳuš-nịŋ← ḳuš ‘bird’Dukhan iβi-nịŋ← iβi ‘reindeer’, sïldïs-tïŋ← sïldïs ‘star’




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


The final velar nasal -ŋ is preserved in Kashkay, e.g. ušaɣ-lar-ïŋ ← ušaɣ-lar ‘chil-dren’, and it has also remained in the Turkmen marker {+(n)Ị4ŋ}, e.g. at-ïŋ← at ‘horse’,

diːš-ịŋ← diːš ‘tooth’, göδ-üŋ ‹göz|üň›← göδ ‹göz› ‘eye’, orn-ụŋ← orụn ‘place’, öy-üŋ← öy ‘house’, toy-ụŋ← toy ‘party’. Stem-final vowels are lengthened, e.g. eǰäː-niŋ←eǰe ‘mother’, ġapïː-nïŋ ← ġapï ‘door’, kinoːnïŋ ← kino ‘movie’, köčäː-niŋ ← köče‘street’. The postvocalic form {+ŋ} is preferred in the spoken language.

The Khalaj genitive marker has different shapes such as äl-üːn, äl-üːy, äl-iː, äl-iːn←

äl ‘hand’ (Doerfer 1988: 79).

Chuvash exhibits {+Ịn} after stem-final consonants, e.g. kil-ịn← kil ‘house’. It shows

{+nỊn} ~ {+n} after stems in -a/-ä, e.g. ịnä-nịn ‹ӗне|нӗн› ~ ịnä-n ‹ӗне|н› ← ịnä ‹ӗне›‘cow’, laša-nïn ‹лашa|нӑн› ~ laša-n ‹лашa|н› ← laša ‹лашa› ‘horse’, χula-nïn ‹хула|нӑн› ~ χula-n ‹хула|н› ← χula ‹хула› ‘city’ and {+yịn} ~ {+n} after stems in -i, e.g.

šaši-yịn ‹шаши|йӗн› ~ šaši-n ‹шаши|н›← šaši ‹шаши› ‘mouse’. When {+Ịn} is added

to stems in ï , this vowel is dropped, and the preceding consonant is mostly lengthened,

e.g. al-ːïn ‹ал|лӑн› ← alï ‹алӑ› ‘hand’, yït-ːt-ïn ‹йыт|тӑн› ← yïtï ‹йытӑ› ‘dog’. Afterstems in -u/ü, this vowel is replaced by -Ịv, e.g. tïv-ïn ‹тӑв|ӑн› ← tu ‹ту› ‘hill’,

‘mountain’, pịv-ịn ‹пӗв|ӗн› ← pü ‹пӳ› ‘height’.Yakut lacks the genitive marker, but it has allegedly preserved a residue of it

(Stachowski & Menz 1998: 428). On the marker {-(t)Ịn}, see § 52.1.6.

Genitive markers have merged with accusative markers in the NWW languages

Karachay-Balkar and Kumyk, in SE varieties such as Uzbek dialects and Ferghana

Uyghur, as well as in the Lop variety, e.g. Karachay-Balkar üy-nü ← üy ‘house’, Kumyk

at-nï ← at ‘horse’, taw-nụ ← taw ‘mountain’. Under Uzbek influence, genitive and

accusative markers have coincided in northern Tajik. This kind of merger is also

common in modern Mongolic. However, the Turkic languages of the Amdo region

have preserved their distinct suffixes in spite of the Mongolic neighborhood (Nugteren

2014).

22.7.1.2 Accusative

The East Old Turkic accusative marker is {+(°)G}, e.g. Orkhon Turkic hat-°ɣ ← hat

‘horse’. This has sometimes led to the assumption that the accusative and the genitive go

back to the same Proto-Turkic case. Also in the conservative language Khalaj, the

accusative and genitive markers largely coincide, almost totally in stems ending in

vowels. The postvocalic alternants are mostly -y ~ -y(i)n, e.g. baːba-y ~ baːba-yn ←

baːba ‘father’, postconsonantal alternants mostly -i, e.g. häv-i ← häv ‘house’, in some

dialects also -u/-ü.

Later East Old Turkic and Middle Turkic varieties usually exhibit {+nỊ}, i.e. forms

with a suffix-initial consonant, e.g. Middle Kipchak, Chaghatay baš-nï ← baš ‘head’,




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


kiši-nï ← kiši ‘man’, ḳul-nï ← ḳul ‘slave’, ‘servant’. These markers may have emerged

analogically through morphological metanalysis of pronominal and possessive forms

ending in -n. In some languages, accusative after poss3 suffixes is marked with -n,

a residue of the pronominal n, e.g. at-ïn ⟨horse-poss3sg.acc⟩.

Variants of these markers are found in many NW, SE, NES languages (Table 22.13).

The type {+(n)Ị} is found in some SW languages, e.g. Azeri äv-ị ‹evi›← äv ‘house’,

meyvä-nị ‹meyvə|ni›← meyvä ‘fruit’, Turkmen öy-ị← öy ‘house’. Lengthening occurs

after stem-final vowels, e.g. Turkmen eǰäː-nị ← eǰe ‘mother’, ġapïː-nï ← ġapï ‘door’,köčäː-nị ← köče ‘street’.The type {+(n)Ị} also occurs in NEN, e.g. Yakut äyä-nị ← äyä ‘peace’, uot-ụ ← uot

‘fire’. The type {+(y)I} is found in Ottoman, modern Turkish and Gagauz, e.g. Turkish

‹yol|u› ← ‹yol› ‘road’, ‹masa|yı› ← ‹masa› ‘table’.

22.7.1.3 Dative

The East Old Turkic dative marker is {+KA}. According to an older opinion, it goes

back to two Proto-Turkic elements, *K* and *A*, thus an instance of alleged ‘double

declension’. The latter element has been compared to the Mongolic dative-locative

marker {+A} (Tekin 1968: 130). Doerfer (1977b) sees the origin of {+KA} in an

independent word *ḳa ‘near(ness)’; cf. ḳa-t ‘side’, ḳa-t- ‘to join’. This proposal means

that the marker was originally a back suffix, a “quite hypothetical proposal concerning

Proto-Turkic” (Erdal 2004: 173). Khalaj is the only modern language that has retained

{+KA}, e.g. häv-kä ‘to the house’, suv-χa ‘to the water’, taːɣ-ḳa ‘to the mountain’.

The change from{+KA} to {+GA} is observable in old Yenisei inscriptions of the

tenth century. The dative marker of most later languages, e.g. Chaghatay, NWW, NWN,

NWS, SEW, NES, northern Khalaj, Yellow Uyghur, and Salar, is {+GA} with variants

such as -gä, -kä, -ḳa, -ɣa.

A few examples: Middle Kipchak displays forms such as yol-ɣa ‘to the road’, toy-ɣa

‘to the feast’. Tatar {+GA} has suffix-initial g-/ġ- after stems ending in vowels, glides,

Table 22.13 Some variants of accusative markers in NW, SE, and NES languages

Kumyk, Karachay-Balkar, Crimean Tatar

at-nï ← at ‘horse’, ata-nï ← ata ‘father’

Northwest Karaim aχča-nï ← aχča ‘money’Tatar äti-nị ← äti ‘father’Bashkir bala-nï ← bala ‘child’, urman-dï ← urman ‘forest’, yịr-δị← yịr ‘earth’Noghay bala-dï ‘child’, ḳoyan-dï ‘hare’, terek-tị ‘tree’Uyghur bali-nị ← bala ‘child’, köl-nị ← köl ‘lake, ḳuš-nị ← ḳuš ‘bird’Dukhan dayɣa-nï ← dayɣa ‘taiga’




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


and voiced consonants, e.g. awïl-ġa ‹авылга›← awïl ‘village’, ir-gä ‹ир|гә›← ir ‘man’,

kino-ġa ‹кино|гa› ‘to the cinema’, urman-ġa ‹урман|га› ← urman ‘forest’, üy-gä ‹өй|гә› ← üy ‘house’. Otherwise the suffix-initial velar is k-/ḳ-, e.g. at-ḳa ‹aт|кa› ← at

‘horse’, balïḳ-ḳa ‹балык|ка›← balïḳ ‘fish’. Bashkir {+GA} is realized as -gä, -ɣa, -kä,

-ḳa e.g. yịr-gä ‹ер|гә› ← yịr ‘place’, at-ḳa ‹ат|ка› ← at ‘horse’ (see Table 22.14).

The Uzbek marker is {+Gȧ}.

South Siberian markers display long postvocalic vowels as a result of contractions.

Dukhan exhibits normal forms such as ġïs-ḳa ← ġïs ‘girl’. After stems ending in -m,

however, the Dukhan marker shows initial b-, e.g. häm-bä ← häm ‘river’ instead of

häm-gä (Ragagnin 2011: 119).

SWW languages exhibit {+(y)A}. The postvocalic form {+yA} has developed from

{+GA} and does not, as sometimes claimed, contain a hiatus-preemptory ‘bridging’ or

‘binding’ consonant y, inserted between stem-final vowels and vowel-initial markers.

Examples: Turkish ‹at|a› ← ‹at› ‘horse’, ‹baba|ya› ← ‹baba› ‘father’, ‹ev|e› ← ‹ev›

‘house’, ‹anne|ye› ← ‹anne› ‘mother’. Stems ending in so-called ‘soft g’ behave like

consonant stems, though they have lost the consonant, e.g. Turkish daː-a ‹dağa›← daː

‹dağ› ‘mountain’. Gagauz, however, has forms such as daː-ya ‹daa|ya› ← daː ‹daa›

‘mountain’.

Azeri examples: ev-ä ‹ev|ə› ← ev ‘house’, ġapï-ya ‹qapı|ya› ← ġapï ‹qapı› ‘door’,otaɣ-a ‹otağ|a›← otaġ ‹otaq› ‘room’. Turkmen employs {+A} after stem-final conson-

ants, e.g. at-a← at ‘horse’, diːš-e← diːš ‘tooth’, öy-e← öy ‘house’, toy-a← toy ‘feast’.

The postvocalic {+Aː} is the result of contraction, e.g. daːyaː← daːyï ‹daýy› ‘maternal

uncle’, düyäː ← düyö ‹düýe› ‘dromedary’, köčäː ← köčö ‹köçe› ‘street’. After stem-

final -a and -o, the marker is reduced to Ø and represented by vowel length only, e.g.

kinoː ← kino ‘cinema’, ataː ← ata ‘father’.

22.7.1.4 Accusative-Dative

Chuvash possesses an accusative-dative case marker {+(n)A}, realized as {+nA} after

stems in -a/-ä, e.g. χula-na ‹хула|на› ← χula ‹хула› ‘city’, laša-na ‹лаша|на ← laša‘horse’, ịnä-nä ‹ӗне|не›← ịnä ‘cow’, and as {+A} after stem-final consonants, e.g. kil-ä

‹кил|e›← kil ‹кил› ‘house’. {+A} also appears after stem-final -ï and -u/ü. Stem-final -Ị

Table 22.14 Variants of dative in {+GA}

Noghay ḳoyan-ɣa ← ḳoyan ‘hare’, terek-ke ← terek ‘tree’Kirghiz ǰer-ge ← ǰer ‘place’, ḳazan-ɣa ← ḳazan ‘kettle’, bala-ɣa ← bala ‘child’Uyghur köl-gä ← köl ‘lake’, köz-gä ← köz ‘eye’, ḳiz-ɣa ← ḳiz ‘girl’, ḳuš-ḳa ← ḳuš ‘bird’,

täräp-kä ← täräp ‘side’, bali-ɣa ← bala ‘child’, töpi-gä ← töpä ‘peak’, taɣi-ɣa ←taɣa ‘uncle’




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


drops, e.g. ut-a ‹ут|a› ← utï ‹утӑ› ‘hay’, and the preceding consonant is mostly

lengthened, e.g. alː-a ‹алл|a› ← alï ‹алӑ› ‘hand’. Stem-final -u/ü is replaced by -Ịv,

e.g. tïv-a ‹тӑв|a›← tu ‹ту› ‘hill’, ‘mountain’. The variant -yä is added to stems in -i, e.g.

šïši-yä ‹шӑши|йе› ← šïši ‹шӑши› ‘mouse’. Plural markers preceding the accusative-

dative case marker take oblique forms, e.g. χịr-sän-ä ‹хӗр|сен|е› ⟨daughter-pl-acc.dat⟩ ← χịr-säm ‹хӗр|сем› ⟨daughter-pl⟩.

22.7.1.5 Locative

The East Old Turkic locative marker is {+DA}, realized as {+δA} and {+dA}, i.e. with

an initial lenis dental (Johanson 1979a). It is similar to the Mongolic dative-locative

marker ‹da›. There have been fruitless attempts to explain it as a case of ‘double

declension’, a combination of two markers *{+t} and *{+A} (Räsänen 1957: 61–62;

Gabain 1970). However, {+t} only exists as a derivative suffix (Menges 1968a: 110),

and an element *{+A} is unknown.

Orkhon Turkic {+DA} is a locative-ablative marker. A locative marker {+DA},

realized as {+dA} ~ {+dA} ~ {+tA}, is used in Middle Old Turkic, Chaghatay,

Ottoman, and in almost all modern languages (see Table 22.15).

The Turkish marker is {+D2A2}. The Turkmen marker displays {+D2A4}, i.e. with

fourfold vowel variation.

In Tatar, the suffix-initial consonant is d- after stems ending in vowels, glides, and

voiced consonants, otherwise t-, e.g. taw-da ← taw ‘hill, mountain’, urman-da ←

urman ‘forest’, ayaḳ-ta ← ayaḳ ‘foot’.

In Bashkir, the suffix-initial consonant is l- after stems ending in vowels, d- after

voiced consonants, t- after voiceless consonants, and δ- after glides, -δ, -r, e.g. bülmä-lä

← bülmä ‘room’, ḳala-la ← ḳala ‘city’, taw-δa ← taw ‘hill’, ‘mountain’, yalan-da ←

yalan ‘steppe’, at-ta ← at ‘horse’.

The Uzbek marker is {+Dȧ}. The Uyghur marker {+DA} has alternants such as bali-

da ← bala ‘child’, köl-dä ← köl ‘lake’, ḳuš-ta ← ḳuš ‘bird’.The Chuvash marker is {+RA}. The allomorph {+rA}, corresponding to EOT {+δA},

occurs after stem-final vowels andmost consonants, e.g. ḳun-ra ‹кун|ра›← ḳun ‘day’, χula-

ra ‹хула|ра› ← χula ‘city’. The allomorph {+dA}, corresponding to EOT {+dA}, occurs

Table 22.15 Variants of locative in {+DA}

Karachay-Balkar stol-da ← stol ‘table’, ǰïl-da ← ǰïl ‘year’Noghay bala-da ← bala ‘child’, ḳoyan-da ← ḳoyan ‘hare’, terek-te ← terek ‘tree’Turkish ‹yol|da›← ‹yol› ‘way’, ‹anne|de›← ‹anne› ‘mother’, ‹süt|te›← ‹süt› ‘milk’,

‹taș|ta› ← ‹taș› ‘stone’




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


after the stem-final sonorants -l and -r, e.g. kil-dä ‹кил|те›← kil ‘house’, śul-da ‹ҫул|та›←śul ‘year’. After plural markers, the suffix-initial consonant is a media lenis, e.g. χịr-sän-jä

‹хӗр|сен|че›← χịr-säm ‘daughters’.

The old ablative function is preserved in Khalaj, which instead displays a new

locative marker {+čA}, developed from the equative marker.

In Yakut, the old locative-ablative is used as a partitive, but the old locative function is

still operative in the adjective suffix {+TAː-gỊ}. It is also preserved in local pronominal

expressions such asman-na ‘here’← bu ‘this’ and in possessive adverbial forms such as

baːr-b-ïna ‘in my presence’ ← baːr ‘existing’, suoχ-χ-una ‘in your absence’ ← suoχ

‘non-existing’ (Korkina et al. 1982: 151).

22.7.1.6 Dative-Locative

Adative-locative marker {+GA} has emerged in NEN, e.g. Yakut aḳ-ḳa← at ‘horse’, at-

tar-ga ← at ‘horses’, aːŋ-ŋa ← aːŋ ‘door’, äyä-ɣä ← äyä ‘peace’, ïnaχ-χa ← ïnaχ

‘cow’, ḳïːs-ḳa ← ḳïːs ‘girl’, oχ-ḳo← oχ ‘arrow’, taba-ɣa ← taba ‘reindeer’, uoḳ-ḳa ←

uot ‘fire’. It has replaced the old locative-ablative marker {+DA}, which had developed

into a partitive marker (§ 22.7.1.8). The merger is probably the result of an innovation

under Mongolic influence. A corresponding merger is found in the Tungusic language

Evenki.

The dative-locative permits nondynamic and dynamic interpretations, i.e. expresses

location (place) and adlocation (goal) according to the meaning of the predicate, e.g.

ġuoraḳ-ḳa ‘in/to the town’, ǰiä-ɣä ‘in/into the house’, uː-ġa ‘in/into the water’.

22.7.1.7 Ablative

Some functions of the ablative have beenmentioned. The case denotes materials in Turkish

‹ateș|ten gömlek› ‘shirt of fire’, Chuvash yïvïś-ran tu-nï pürt ‹йывӑҫ|ран ту|нӑ пӳрт›‘house made of wood’, Khalaj suv-da toḳ ‘saturated with water’, etc. It can have partitive

use, indicating an amount from which a quantity is partitioned (§ 22.7.1.8) or prolative

(prosecutive) use (route of movement, ‘through’, ‘along’), e.g. ‹bu yoldan› ‘along this

road’, often indicating an affected body part, e.g. Turkish ‹kol|un|dan yaka|la-› ‘to grab by

the arm’. Northwest Karaim has constructions such as ḱüń ḱüń-däń ⟨day day-abl⟩ ‘day

after day’. For discussions of the forms, see Ramstedt (1952), Poppe (1953: 7), Räsänen

(1957: 62–63), and Menges (1968a: 110).

As noted (§ 22.7.1.5), Orkhon Turkic {+DA} is a locative-ablative marker. In other

East Old Turkic texts, it has exclusively locative functions, whereas {+DAn} is

restricted to ablative functions. In Old Uyghur of the Tienshan-Tarim area and in

Karakhanid, the normal ablative marker is {+DỊn}, a result of vowel raising.




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


Middle Kipchak prefers {+DAn}, e.g. yaman-dan← yaman ‘evil’, ölüm-dän← ölüm

‘death’. {+DỊn} occurs in some Mamluk sources, e.g. χaːm-dïn ← χaːm ‘leather’, ǰild-dịn← ǰild ‘hide’, ‘skin’. Chaghatay mostly prefers {+DỊn}, but {+DAn} occurs in some

of its varieties.

Among the modern languages, only Khalaj uses the ablative marker {+DA},

However, {+DAn} is found in a few of its varieties.

Kipchak and Oghuz languages display {+DAn} (see Table 22.16).

There are several other types of consonant assimilation. The allomorphs of the

ablative markers mostly match those of the locative markers, but they are sometimes

different. Thus, after stems in -m, -n, and -ŋ, the Kazakh ablative marker is {+nAn}

instead of {+DAn}.

Chuvash displays {+RAn}, e.g. ḳun-ran ‹кун|ран›← ḳun ‘day’, χula-ran ‹хула|ран›← χula ‘city’, kil-dän ‹кил|тен› ← kil ‘house’, śul-dan ‹ҫул|тан› ← śul ‘year’,

χịr-sän-ǰän ‹хӗр|сен|чен› ← χịr-säm ‘daughters’.

In Siberia, Sayan Turkic exhibits {+DAn} and Yakut displays {+tAn} after conson-

ants and {+tːAn} after vowels, e.g. at-tan ← at ‘horse’, äyä-tːän ← äyä ‘peace’,

küöl-tän ← küöl ‘lake’, oχ-ton ← oχ ‘arrow’, χaːr-tan ← χaːr ‘snow’, taba-tːan ←

taba ‘reindeer’, uot-tan ← uot ‘fire’.

South Altay, Khakas, and some Chulym Turkic varieties present the deviant form

{+DAŋ}, e.g. Altay tuː-daŋ← tuː ‘mountain’, aɣaš-taŋ← aɣaš ‘tree’. After stem-final

nasals, the Khakas ablative marker is identical to the instrumental-comitative marker (§

22.8.1). The form aŋ-naŋ thus means ‘from the beast’ or ‘with the beast’.

The Southeastern branch prefers the type {+DỊn}, e.g. Uyghur bali-dịn ← bala

‘child’, köl-dịn ← köl ‘lake’, ḳuš-tịn ← ḳuš ‘bird’, kün-dịn ← kün ‘day’, öy-dịn ← öy

‘house’. Uzbek dialects show similar forms, though standard Uzbek now displays

{+Dȧn}. Some varieties of Chulym employ {+DỊn}, Yellow Uyghur partly {+Dịn}.

22.7.1.8 Partitive

The NEN languages and NES Tofan possess partitive markers identical to the Orkhon

Turkic locative-ablative suffix marker {+DA}. Yakut thus employs {+TA}, e.g. at-ta←

Table 22.16 Variants of Kipchak and Oghuz ablative in {+DAn}

Azeri ata-dan ← ata ‘father’, ev-dän ← ev ‘house’Tatar at-tan ← at ‘horse’, äti-dän ← äti ‘father’, inä-dän ← inä ‘mother’, Ḳazan-nan ←

Ḳazan, urman-nan ← urman ‘forest’Bashkir yịr-δän← yịr ‘place’, yalan-dan← yalan ‘steppe’, bala-nan← bala ‘child’, bülmä-nän

← bülmä ‘room’, ḳala-nan ← ḳala ‘city’, taw-δan ← taw ‘mountain’Noghay bala-dan ← bala ‘child’, ḳoyan-nan ← ḳoyan ‘hare’Kazakh üy-den ← üy ‘house’, žaḳ-tan ← žaḳ ‘side’




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


at ‘horse’, at-tar-da← at-tar ‘horses’, äyä-tä← äyä ‘peace’, oχ-to← oχ ‘arrow’, uot-ta

← uot ‘fire’, χaːr-da← χaːr ‘snow’, taba-ta← taba ‘reindeer’, uː-ta← uː ‘water’. The

partitive is an object case used with imperatives and necessitatives, e.g. Yakut Uː-ta

aɣal! ‘Bring [some] water!’; cf. French ‹Apporte de l’eau!›. It is an innovation, probably

the result of Tungusic contact influence. The old spatial functions have partly been taken

over by the dative-locative case (§ 22.7.1.6). The functions of the Dolgan partitive case

seem to have been influenced by the Evenki indefinite accusative.

In other Turkic languages, partitive meanings can be expressed with ablative +

possessive suffixes, e.g. Turkish ‹adam|lar|dan bir|i› ⟨man-pl-abl one-poss3sg⟩ ‘one

of the men’, genitive constructions, e.g. ‹adam|lar|ın bir|i› ⟨man-pl-gen one-poss3sg⟩

‘one of the men’, or simply possessive suffixes, e.g. ‹bir|imiz› ⟨one-poss1pl⟩ ‘one

of us’.

22.7.2 Noncore Cases

Most Turkic languages exhibit noncore or peripheral cases, which are not recognized as

cases in all grammars. Some grammarians use the label ‘case’ for both peripheral cases

and postpositions (Gabain 1950: 86). Noncore cases are mostly expressed by nonac-

centuable enclitic markers. They often clearly go back to independent lexical words.

Some have developed from derivational markers and postpositions. Many are petrified,

unproductive, and only preserved in adverbial relicts. A few have been copied in contact

situations with Iranian, Mongolic, Tungusic, and other languages.

22.7.2.1 Instrumental-Comitative

East Old Turkic possesses relicts of an instrumental case expressed by {+(Ị)n}, e.g. yaδaɣ-

ïn ‘on foot’, ol öδ-ün ‘at that time’, tün-ün kün-ün ‘by day and by night’. In later

languages, it is preserved in a few lexicalized forms functioning as temporal adverbs

and provided with nonaccentuable suffixes of the type {+(Ị)n}, e.g. Turkish ˈyáz-ïn ‹yaz|

ın› ‘in summer’, ˈḳḯš-ïn ‹kıș|ın› ‘in winter’, Karaim yaz-ïn ‘in summer’, Bashkir yaδ-ïn ‘in

spring’, irtä-n ‘early’, Yellow Uyghur äyin < *yayïn ‘in summer’ (Nugteren 2003), Yakut

say-ïn ‘(in) summer’, kïh-ïn ‘(in) winter’, küh-ün ‘(in) autumn’. The Turkmen marker

displays a long vowel, e.g. ġïš-ïːn ‘in winter’, gün-iːn ‘on one day’, yaːδ-ïːn ‘in summer’.

Instrumental-comitative markers indicating by what or with what an action is per-

formed (‘by means of’, ‘together with’) occur as innovations in many Turkic languages,

mostly developed from the postposition *bir-lä(n) ‘with’. They can also have prolative

usages, e.g. Kirghiz bul ǰol menen ‹бул жол менен› ‘along this road’, and coordinativeusages, e.g. Turkish ‹A ile B›, Tatar A bịlän В, Kazakh A men В, Kirghiz A menen В,Chuvash A-bа B, Tuvan А bilä B ‘A and B’.




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


Northwest Karaim displays forms such as ertäń-bä ‘in the early morning’. Yakut

possesses a comitative case expressed by {+LIːn} < {+l°G°n} and denoting accompani-

ment (‘together with’, ‘in company with’), e.g. taba-lïːn ‘with the reindeer’, at-tar-dïːn

‘with the horses’; cf. the Mongolic comitative suffix {+lUGA}. A comitative suffix

employed with kinship terms is {+nAːn}; cf. Khakas {+nAŋ}. The use of this comitative

is probably influenced by Mongolic and Tungusic patterns.

22.7.2.2 Equative, Comparative, Similative

The East Old Turkic equative marker {+čA}, which may go back to an old postposition

(Gabain 1950: 89), is used for equation and comparison (‘like’, ‘as’, ‘in the manner of’,

‘according to’), e.g. taɣ-ča ‘like a/the mountain’. It also serves prolative functions, e.g.

yol-ča ‘along a/the road’. Its counterparts in later languages are unaccentuated and oftennonharmonic. Some markers, e.g. Turkish {+JA}, are preceded by the pronominal

n (§ 22.5), whereas others are not, e.g. Khalaj {+čA}. Forms in {+čA} are sometimes

capable of governing core cases.

The forms frequently serve to derive various manner adverbs, e.g. Chaghatay özgä-čä‘differently’, Turkish ‹yalnız|ca› ‘alone’, ‘by oneself’, Uzbek ȧtråfli-čȧ ‘extensively’,

dost-čȧ ‘friendly’, Salar yan-ǰa ‘on the side’. They often express ‘in accordance with’,

‘in a manner conforming to’, e.g. Karachay-Balkar börü-ča ‘like a/the wolf’. They are

also used in lexemes denoting languages, e.g. Bashkir bašḳụrt-sa ‹башҡорт|са› ‘(in)Bashkir’, Karaim ḳaray-čä ‘(in) Karaim’.

Equatives are also used for quantitative comparison. Prolative functions are common

in NES, e.g. Khakas {+JA} ‘through’, ‘along’ as in čol-ǰa ‘along the road’, tayɣa-ǰa‘through the taiga’. Directive functions are predominant in Sayan markers such as

Tuvan {+čä} (Isxakov & Pal’mbax 1961: 137–141) and Tofan {+šA} (Rassadin 1978:

46). Markers of the type {+čA} often have terminative functions, specifying a spatial or

temporal limit (‘up to’, ‘until’). The equative and other comparative functions may

derive from this concrete function, e.g. ‘as tall as X’ < ‘tall up to X’ = ‘tall enough to

reach X’s tallness’. The unaccentuated marker {+čA} is the Khalaj locative marker, e.g.

sanduḳ-ča ‘in a/the box’; cf. Turkish ‹sandık|ta›.Equatives are also part of terminative suffix of the type {+GA-čA} ‹dat-equ›

(‘until’, ‘up to’) such as Uyghur {+Gi-čä} ‘until’ and Uzbek {+Gȧ-čȧ} ‘as far as’,

‘until’, e.g. uy-ġȧ-čȧ ‘up to a/the house’, yaḳin-ġȧ-čȧ ‘until recently’.

Markers of the type {+ǰA-n} are sometimes added to dative markers to form termi-

natives, e.g. Azeri bu vaχt-a-ǰan ‘until this time’; cf. Kashkay {+(y)änčä}. A few Azeri

dialects employ {+(y)A-tAn} instead.

Some Turkic languages possess similative markers, functionally corresponding to

English ‹-like› or ‹-esque›. They express likeness or resemblance and are thus very close




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


to equatives. Examples: Karachay-Balkar {+lAy}, e.g. suw-lay ‘water-like’, küräk-läy

‘similar to a shovel’, Bashkir {+DAy}, e.g. taw-δay ‘mountain-like’, Chuvash {+lA},

e.g. ädäm-lä ‹этем|ле› ‘human-like’. Yakut grammarians reckon on a so-called adver-

bial case in {+lI}, e.g. kihi-lị ‘in a human way’, oɣo-lụ ‘childish’, nuːčːa-lï ‘in Russian’,saχa-lï ‘in Yakut’. All these markers go back to denominal verbs in {+lAː-} plus

a converb in {-(y)Ụ}, e.g. *kiši-läː-yü ‘behaving like a human being’, EOT böri-läː-

yü ‘like a wolf’.

22.7.2.3 Directive

Some Turkic languages possess a peripheral directive (lative) case, mostly meaning

‘towards’, in East Old Turkic expressed by {+GArỤ}, e.g. (h)äːβ-gärü ‘homewards’,

kün-gärü ‘southwards’ ← kün ‘sun’, il-gärü ‘forwards’, yoḳ-ḳarụ ‘upwards’ ← yoḳ

‘high ground’. The marker has been thought to be a combination of the dative marker

{+KA} and {+rỤ} (Räsänen 1957: 63–66, 1970b). The form {+GArỤ} is, however,

attested before {+KA} developed to {+GA}. The marker has left traces in many later

languages, e.g. Turkish ‹il|eri›, Khalaj il-gär ‘forward(s)’, Yellow Uyghur soŋ-ġar‘afterwards’ < *soŋ-ġaru; cf. also Turkmen yoḳarïḳ ‘upward(s)’ with an additional

element -k, possibly going back to {+KA}.

EOT {+rA} has been mistaken for a directive marker, though it denotes both location

and adlocation, e.g. öŋ-rä ‘in the east’ and ‘eastwards’, taš-ra ‘outside’ and ‘out’. In

later languages, öŋ-rä is used with local and temporal functions, translatable as ‘in

front’, ‘forwards’, ‘formerly’, ‘before’ (Clauson 1972: 189a). Similar suffixes occur in

Mongolic and Hungarian. The nonaccentuable suffix {+rA} is found in West Oghuz

adverbs such as Turkish ‹son|ra› ‘after(wards)’, which may even be followed by core-

case suffixes, e.g. ‹sonra|dan› ⟨after-abl⟩ ‘later’. EOT {+rA} has a dissimilated variant

{+yA}, which occurs after stems containing an r, e.g. ber-yä ‘on this side’, ‘in the

south’, yïr-ya ‘in the north’, ḳurï-ya ‘in the west’; cf. ḳurï-ɣaru ‘westwards’ (Clauson

1972: 178, 189a, 645a). Khalaj has maintained this marker, e.g. bär-yä ‘northern’.

Later Turkic languages possess other directive markers. The directive usages of Sayan

markers of the type {+čA} have been mentioned (§ 22.7.2.2). Several NES languages

display adlocational markers that express movement towards a goal without suggesting its

attainment. Since they are highly characteristic of the area, they may be the result of contact

influence. The western dialects of Tuvan, including Altai Tuvan in China and Mongolia,

exhibit {+DIβA}, originally a converb of tïp- ‘to find’, e.g. ög-düβä ‘towards the house’

(Isxakov&Pal’mbax 1961: 137–141). The Tuvan Toju dialect, Dukhan, and Tuhan possess

the enclitic directive suffix {+GỊdỊ}, e.g. dayɣa-gịdị ‘towards the taiga’ (Čadamba 1974: 98,

Sat 1987: 66, 71). The Dukhan directive suffix has an initial b- after stems in -m, häm-bịdị

‘towards the river’ (Ragagnin 2011: 60); cf. dative häm-bä ‘to the river’ (§ 22.8.3).




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


In modern NE languages, the lexeme sïŋar ‘side’ has developed into a case-like

element meaning ‘in the direction of’. It has turned into the Khakas directive marker

{+SAr}, e.g. ib-sär ‘towards the house’.

The Chuvash directive marker {+(n)AlːA} consists of the accusative-dative marker

{+(n)A} and the above-mentioned suffix {+lA}, which forms adverbs of manner, e.g.

mal-a-lːa ‹мал|алла› ‘forward’ ← mal ‘front’, χula-na-lːa ‹хула|на|лла› ‘toward the

city’ ← χula ‘city’.

22.7.2.4 Sociative, Privative

Some languages are said to possess sociative-proprietive and privative cases based on

suffixes of the types {+lỊG} ‘provided with’, ‘together with’ and {+sỊz} ‘without’; cf.

Mongolic {+lUGA}. Yakut displays the marker {-LAːχ}. The marker {+sỊz} usually

forms denominal privative adjectives. Chuvash grammarians reckon on a privative or

abessive case in {+sỊr}.

22.7.2.5 Causal-Purposive

Chuvash is also thought to possess a causal-purposive case in {+šỊn} ‘for’, ‘because of’,e.g. mir-šịn ‹миршӗн› ‘for peace’, a bound form of the prodessive postposition üčün‘for’; cf. Ottoman {+(y)čün}.

22.7.2.6 Distributive

Some scholars assume a Chuvash distributive case in {+särän}, meaning ‘(for) each one’,

‘every time’, e.g. kil-särän ‹кил|серен› ‘per house’, ‘for each house’, kun-särän ‹кун|серен›‘every day’, ‘daily’, säχät-särän ‹сехет|серен› ‘every hour’, ‘hourly’, śul-särän ‹ҫул|серен›‘every year’, ‘annually’. A dialectal variant is sayran. On the Common Turkic counterparts

see (§ 26.3.5). The case is used to indicate each member of a set, ‘one by one’, ‘each (one)

separately’, or frequency in time. Compare similar markers in Finnish, e.g. ‹päiv|i|ttäin›

‘each day’ and in Hungarian, e.g. ‹fej|enként› ‘per head’, ‹eset|enként› ‘in some case’, ‹het|

enként› ‘once a week’, ‹tíz|perc|enként› ‘every ten minutes’.

22.8 Possessive Declension

Combinations of possessive markers with case markers have produced specific variants

in many Turkic languages.

22.8.1 Genitive Forms

The genitive forms of the possessive declension are relatively regular (Table 22.17).




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


Uyghur has forms such as yurt-ị-nịŋ ⟨home-poss3sg-gen⟩.

Confusion and merger of genitive and accusative markers is found in several lan-

guages (Johanson 1998b: 39) and observed from early Chaghatay on, e.g. oḳ-ï-n instead

of oḳ-ï-nïŋ ⟨arrow-poss3sg-gen⟩. Karachay-Balkar shows forms in {-Ị}, identical to

the accusative forms, e.g. poss1sg at-ïm-ï . The Malkar dialect has preserved a suffix-

initial nasal, e.g. at-ïm-mï . In the Chegem and Khulam-Bezinga dialects of Balkar, the

poss1sg suffix has fused with the genitive marker in forms such as ata-mï ⟨father-

poss1sg.gen⟩ < *ata-m-nï(ŋ). As noted (§ 22.7.1.2), the formal similarity of some

variants of East Old Turkic genitive and accusative markers has led to the assumption

that both cases go back to the same Proto-Turkic case.

Absence of accusative and genitive markers after possessive markers in Tuvan was

discussed by Katanov (1903: 770–711, 775–776, 784). Jankowski (2019) has returned

to this topic and claims that absence of genitive markers occurs with first-person plural

nouns, but the genitive is used when the possessed item has the third-person suffix and is

‘definite’.

22.8.2 Accusative Forms

Accusative forms have developed in specific ways. East Old Turkic displays 1sg forms

such as boδ°n-ïm-ïŋ ~ boδ°n-ïm-ïɣ ⟨tribe-poss1sg-acc⟩.

Later languages display forms such as those shown in Table 22.18.

3sg forms include Turkish ‹taș|ın|ı› ← taš ‘stone’, Turkmen ata-θïn-ï ← ata

‘grandfather’.

A short 3sg marker {+(s)Ịn}, ending in the pronominal n, is typical of the NW branch,

e.g. Noghay üy-ịn← üy ‘house’, Tatar at-ïn← at ‘horse’, Bashkir bala-hïn← bala ‘child’.

Ottoman shows both taš-ï-nï and taš-ï-n ← taš ‘stone’.The marker {-nỊ} is typical of the SE branch, e.g. Uyghur yurt-ị-nị ← yurt ‘home’.

The 3sg markers {+(s)Ị-n} and {+(s)Ị-nỊ} compete in some languages, e.g.

Chaghatay suy-ï-n ~ suy-ï-nï ← su ‘water’.

Standard Kirghiz displays forms such as bala-sïn ⟨child-poss3sg.acc⟩, whereas the

southern dialects prefer bala-sïn-ï ⟨child-poss3sg-acc⟩. Some Chulym dialects also

exhibit forms of the latter kind.

Table 22.17 Genitive forms of the possessive declension (← at horse, bala ‘child’, taš ‘stone’)

1sg Bashkir at-ïm-dïŋ, bala-m-dïŋ, Tatar at-ïm-nïŋ, Turkish ‹taș|ım|ın›2sg Tatar at-ïŋ-nïŋ, Tebriz Azeri at-ụw-ụn, Bashkir at-ïŋ-dïŋ, bala-ŋ-dïŋ, Turkish ‹taș|ın|ın›3sg Tatar at-ï-nïŋ, Bashkir at-ïn-ïŋ, bala-hïn-ïŋ, Ottoman taš-ïn-uŋ, Turkish ‹taș|ı|nın›1pl Tatar at-ïbïz-nïŋ, Bashkir at-ïbïδ-δïŋ, bala-bïδ-δïŋ, Turkish ‹at|ımız|ın›2pl Tatar at-ïġïz-nïŋ, Bashkir at-ïɣïδ-δïŋ, bala-ɣïδ-δïŋ, Turkish ‹at|ınız|ın›

22.8 Possessive Declension 473



https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


Chuvash poss3sg suffixes merge with the accusative-dative marker into {+ịn-ä} ~

{+nä}, e.g. ïvïĺ-ńä ‹ывӑл|нe› ⟨son-poss3sg.acc.dat⟩ < *ïvïl-ịn-ä. Note that the cor-

responding merger with poss2sg suffixes yields {+nA} after stem-final consonants, e.g.

ïvïl-na ‹ывӑл|на› ⟨son-poss2g.acc-dat⟩ < *ïvïl-ịn-a.

22.8.3 Dative Forms

East Old Turkic displays forms with the dative-locative marker {+A} after possessive

markers.

The type 1sg {+(Ị)m-A} < {+(Ị)m-GA} yields forms such as oɣl-ụm-a← oɣ°l ‘son’,

öːz-üm-ä← öːz ‘self’, yïlḳï-m-a← yïlḳï ‘cattle’. Later dative forms are Bashkir at-ïm-a,

bala-m-a ← bala ‘child’, Khalaj äl-üm-ä ← äl ‘hand’, Turkish ‹taș|ım|a› ← ‹taș›

‘stone’.

The type 2sg {+(Ị)ŋ-A} < {+(Ị)ŋ-GA} yields forms such as (h)äːβ-ịŋ-ä ← (h)äːβ

‘house’, ‘home(land)’. Later dative forms are Middle Kipchak yan-ïŋ-a ← yan ‘side’,

Karachay-Balkar iš-ịŋ-ä ← iš ‘work’, Bashkir at-ïŋ-a ← at ‘horse’, bala-ŋ-a ← bala

‘child’, Noghay yüräg-ịŋ-ä← yüräk ‘heart’, Kumyk, Crimean Tatar, Northwest Karaim

at-ïy-a ‘to your horse’, Khalaj äl-ün-ä← äl ‘hand’, Tebriz Azeri at-ụw-a← at ‘horse’.

{+(Ị)ŋ-A} has developed to {+(Ị)n-A} in many languages, e.g. Turkish ‹taș|ın|a›.Plural forms have developed in similar ways, e.g. 1pl Tatar at-ïbïz-ġa, Turkish ‹at|

ımız|a, 2pl Tatar at-ïġïz-ġa, Turkish ‹at|ınız|a›.3sgmarkers originally included the pronominal n. East Old Turkic displays 3sg {+(s)

Ịn-GA}, e.g. atïŋa← at ‘horse’. There are homonymous forms such as 2sg elịŋä ← el

‘state’, containing the marker *{+ŋ-A}, and 3sg elịŋä, containing the marker

*{+n-GA}. The type 3sg {+(s)ỊŋA} is found in Old Uyghur, Karakhanid, and

Khorezmian Turkic, e.g. at-ïŋa ← at ‘horse’, köz-ịŋä ← köz ‘eye’. It has developed to

{+(s)Ịn-A} in many languages, e.g. Karachay-Balkar, Tatar at-ïn-a ← at ‘horse’,

Bashkir bala-hïn-a ← bala ‘child’, Noghay ata-sïn-a ← ata ‘father’, Khalaj äl-ịn-ä

← äl ‘hand’, Turkish ‹taș|ın|a›← ‹taș› ‘stone’. Some older languages display both 3sg

{+(s)Ịŋ-A} and 3sg {+(s)Ịn-A}. The postconsonantal variants 3sg {+Ịŋ-A} and

{+Ịn-A} have largely become homophonous with the corresponding 2sg markers.

Table 22.18 Accusative forms of the possessive declension (← at ‘horse’, bala‘child’, taš ‘stone’)

1sg Bashkir at-ïm-dï , Tatar at-ïm-nï , Turkish ‹taș|ım|ı›2sg Bashkir bala-ŋ-dï , Tatar at-ïŋ-nï , Tebriz Azeri at-ụw-ị, Turkish ‹taș|ın|ı›1pl Bashkir at-ïbïδ-δï , bala-bïδ-δï , Tatar at-ïbïz-nï , Turkish ‹taș|ımız|ı›2pl Bashkir at-ïɣïδ-δï , bala-ɣïδ-δï , Tatar at-ïġïz-nï , Turkish ‹taș|ınız|ı›




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


The SE branch has mostly lost the pronominal n, a process that started in Chaghatay.

Uzbek thus displays 3sg dative forms such as åt-ị-gȧ ← åt ‘horse’, kȯz-ị-gȧ ← kȯz

‘eye’, uy-ị-gȧ ← uy ‘house’, åtȧ-sị-gȧ ← åtȧ ‘father’. Uyghur has similar forms, e.g.

öy-ị-gä ← öy ‘house’, yurt-ị-ɣa ← yurt ‘home’.

22.8.4 Locative and Ablative Forms

The locative and ablative markers of the possessive declension are usually the same as

those of the nonpossessive declension.

The markers are mostly built in analogous ways, e.g. Tebriz Azeri loc 2sg at-ụn-da,

abl 2sg at-ụn-dan ← at ‘horse’. Turkish has locatives and ablatives such as the

following (← ‹taș› ‘stone’): 1sg ‹taș|ım|da›, ‹taș|ım|dan›, 2sg ‹taș|ın|da›, ‹taș|ın|dan›,3sg ‹taș|ın|da›, ‹taș|ın|dan›. The form ‹taș|ın|da› is thus ambiguous between ⟨stone-

poss2sg-loc⟩ ‘on your stone’ and ⟨stone-poss3sg-loc⟩ ‘on its stone’. The corres-

ponding Azeri forms are similar. Third-person locatives and ablatives mostly contain

the pronominal n, e.g. Noghay šaɣ-ïn-da ‘in its time’. The n also appears before

Chuvash markers, e.g. 3sg χul-ịn-jä ‹хул|ин|че› ‘in its city’, 3sg χul-ịn-jän ‹хул|ин|чен› ‘from its city’ ← χula ‘city’.

Locative and ablative markers of the possessive declension are sometimes different.

In languages that have preserved the pronominal n, some 3sg forms have undergone

assimilations of the type {+n-dAn} > {+n-ːAn}, e.g. Noghay töbä-sịnː-än ‘from its top’

(see Table 22.19).

Locative and ablative markers are sometimes different in the third person (see Tables

22.20 and 22.21).

Table 22.19 Tatar locative and ablative forms of the possessive declension (← at ‘horse’)

⟨loc⟩ ⟨abl⟩ ⟨loc⟩ ⟨abl⟩

1sg at-ïm-da at-ïm-nan 1pl at-ïbïz-da at-ïbïz-dan2sg at-ïŋ-da at-ïŋ-nan 2pl at-ïgïz-da at-ïgïz-dan3sg at-ïn-da at-ïn-nan 3pl at-tar-ïn-da at-tar-ïn-nan

Table 22.20 Bashkir locative forms of the possessive declension (← at ‘horse’, bala‘child’)

1sg at-ïm-da, bala-m-da 1pl at-ïbïδ-δa, bala-bïδ-δa2sg at-ïŋ-da, bala-ŋ-da 2pl at-ïɣïδ-δa, bala-ɣïδ-δa3sg at-ïn-da, bala-hïn-da 3pl at-tar-ïn-da, bala-lar-ïn-da




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


The loss of the pronominal n has affected 3p locative and ablative forms, e.g. Uzbek

ånȧ-sị-dȧ ⟨mother-poss3sg-loc⟩, Uyghur yurt-ị-da ⟨home-poss3sg-loc⟩. Under SE

influence, the n is also lost in southern Kirghiz dialects. It is, however, preserved in the

NES languages and in Yellow Uyghur, e.g. Altay änä-zịn-dä ⟨mother-poss3sg-loc⟩,

Khakas aln-ïn-da ‘in front of’.

22.8.5 Noncore Case Forms

In possessive declension, there are noncore case forms of different shapes, which cannot

be dealt with here: instrumental forms such as Tebriz Azeri 2sg at-ụw-ïnan ‘with your

horse’, Shor 3sg aḳča-zï-ba ‘with its money’, or directive forms such as Khalaj 1sg

{+(Ị)m-ArỤ}, 2sg {+(Ị)ŋ-ArỤ}, 3sg {+(s)Ịŋ-ArỤ}, e.g. äv-ịm-ärü ‘towards my house’.

22.8.6 Yakut Possessive Case Forms

Yakut lacks genitive markers, but it exhibits, in its possessive declension, a third-person

marker {+(t)Ịn}, used in constructions in which other Turkic languages employ {+(s)Ị-

nỊŋ}, e.g. saχa tïl-ïn gramːatiḳa-ta ‹cаха тыл|ын грамматика|тa› ‘grammar of the Yakut

language’, corresponding to Kazakh yaḳụt tịl-ị-nịŋ gramːatika-sị ‹якут тіл|ін|іңграмматика|сы› or Turkish ‹Yakut dil|in|in gramer|i› ⟨Yakut-language-poss3sg-gen

grammar-poss3sg⟩ (§ 52.1.6).

Yakut combinations of possessive and case markers produce unusual forms charac-

terized by contractions and assimilations (see Tables 22.22–22.28).

Examples: 1sg ap-ːïn ‹ап|пын›, 2sg aḳːïn ‹ак|кын›, 3sg at-ïn ‹ат|ын› ← at ‘horse’.

The coordinative accusative marker {+LAr-Ị} denotes direct objects plus associated

objects, e.g. at-ï ïŋïːr-dar-ï ⟨horse-acc saddle-pl-acc⟩ ‘the horse and (together with)

the saddle’ (Korkina et al. 1982: 139).

Examples: 1sg ap-ːar ‹ап|пар›, 2sg aḳːar ‹ак|кap›, 3sg atïġar ‹атыгap›← at ‘horse’.

Examples: 1sg ap-ːïtːan ‹ап|пыттан› ‘frommy horse’, 2sg aḳ-ːïtan ‹ак|кыттан›, 3sgat-ï-tːan ‹ат|ы|ттан›.Examples: 2sg čäy-gịnä ‹чэй|гинэ› < *čäy-ịŋ-ị-nä ‘of your tea’.

Table 22.21 Bashkir ablative forms of the possessive declension (← at ‘horse’, bala‘child’)

1sg at-ïm-dan, bala-m-dan 2sg at-ïŋ-dan, bala-ŋ-dan1pl at-ïbïδ-δan, bala-bïδ-δan 2pl at-ïɣïδ-δan, bala-ɣïδ-δan3sg at-ï-nan, bala-hï-nan 3pl at-tar-ï-nan, bala-lar-ï-nan




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


Table 22.22 Yakut poss + accusativemarkers

1sg {+BỊn} 1pl {+BỊtỊn}2sg {+GỊn} 2pl {+GỊtỊn}3sg {+(t)Ịn} 3pl {+LArỊn}

Table 22.23 Yakut poss + dative-locativemarkers

1sg {+BAr} 1pl {+BỊtỊGAr}2sg {+GAr} 2pl {+GỊtỊGAr}3sg {+(t)ỊGAr} 3pl {+LArỊGAr}

Table 22.27 Yakut poss + comitative markers

1sg {+BỊnIːn} 1pl {+BỊtỊnIːn}2sg {+GỊnIːn} 2pl {+GỊtỊnIːn}3sg {+(t)ỊnIːn} 3pl {+LArỊnIːn}

Table 22.24 Yakut poss + ablative markers

1sg {+BỊtːAn} 1pl {+BỊtỊtːAn}2sg {+GỊtːAn} 2pl {+GỊtỊtːAn}3sg {+(t)ỊtːAn} 3pl {+LArỊtːAn}

Table 22.25 Yakut poss + partitive markers

1sg {+BỊnA} 1pl {+BỊtỊnA}2sg {+GỊnA} 2pl {+GỊtỊnA}3sg {+(t)ỊnA} 3pl {+LArỊnA}

Table 22.26 Yakut poss + instrumental markers

1sg {+BỊnAn} 1pl {+BỊtỊnAn}2sg {+GỊnAn} 2pl {+GỊtỊnAn}3sg {+(t)ỊnAn} 3pl {+LArỊnAn}




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


Examples: 1sg apːïnan ‹ап|пынан› ‘by means of my horse’, 2sg aḳːïnan ‹ак|кынан›,3sg at-ïnan ‹ат|ынан›.Examples: 1sg apːïnïːn ‹ап|пыныын› ‘with my horse’, 2sg aḳːïnïːn ‹ак|кыныын›,

3sg atïnïːn ‹ат|ыныын›.Examples: 1sg apːïnaːɣar ‹ап|пынаaҕар› ‘compared to my horse’, 2sg aḳːïnaːɣar

‹ак|кынаaҕар›, 3sg atïnaːɣar ‹ат|ынаaҕар›.

22.9 Contact-Induced Innovations

The case systems have often undergone contact-induced innovations. Many Balkan

Turkish varieties have been influenced by the surrounding languages.

Cases of merger between genitive and dative are observed in Turkish dialects as

members of the Balkan sprachbund. Some varieties tend to confuse dative and locative

functions, e.g. Sälanik-tä git- ‘to go to Saloniki’ (Kakuk 1972: 245), Biz-dä ǵäl ‘Come

to us’. West Rumelian Turkish has been influenced by Albanian, Macedonian, and

Serbian contact varieties that express location and adlocation using the same preposi-

tions or case markers. Dative forms instead of expected locatives occur less commonly.

Instances of accusative instead of dative complements have been observed in Turkish

as spoken by newly arrived immigrants in northwestern Europe, e.g. ‹Adam|ı sor|du|m›

‘I asked the man’ ⟸ German ‹Ich fragte den Mann›. The merger of dative and

accusative forms has, however, mostly phonetic reasons.

Turkic has exerted a certain impact on neighboring languages. The elimination of

Persian nominative suffixes was probably supported by Turkic patterns. Semantic and

combinational features have been copied onto Persian items. Northern Tajik has thus

come to use the Iranian particle ‹ba› ~ ‹va› as a dative suffix. Tatar has influenced the

case system of eastern Mari dialects (Isanbaev 1979).

Table 22.28 Yakut poss + comparative markers

1sg {+BỊnAːGAr} 1pl {+BỊtỊnAːGAr}2sg {+GỊnAːGAr} 2pl {+GỊtỊnAːGAr}3sg {+(t)ỊnAːGAr} 3pl {+LArỊnAːGAr}




https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.022


Documents

Nominals: Noun Inﬂection