Parallels Between
Central Asian Turkic and Mongolic
Past Tense Systems

Joshua Sims, Mia Gong, Jonathan Washington
Indiana University, UC Santa Cruz, Swarthmore College
MonSoc 2024
2024-10-05

Overview

Our talk in a nutshell

Mongolic and
Central Asian Turkic
languages'
past tense systems
show structural parallels
(not present in related languages) suggesting period of intense Mongolic-CA Turkic contact and bilingualism

The next ~18 minutes:

  • Background
    • Turkic, Mongolic, & their interaction
    • Past tense parameters
  • Past tense organisation
    • Mongolic
    • Non-Central Asian Turkic
    • Central Asian Turkic
    • Comparison
  • Negation
    • Mongolic
    • Non-Central Asian Turkic
    • Central Asian Turkic
    • Comparison
  • Our proposal
  • Future work

Background: Turkic, Mongolic, and their interaction

Loanwords

  • Early shared Turkic/Mongolic vocabulary (indistinguishable): qara black
  • Lots of relatively early Turkic loanwords in Mongolic: bilig knowledge
  • Mongolic loanwords in Turkic:
    • Lots in Siberian Turkic languages (early, and later): доозунtyv dust
    • Fewer in Central Asian (CA) Turkic languages (early): сілеусінkaz lynx
    • Even fewer in Volga- & North Caucasus-area Turkic languages (early): баҗаtat brother in law
    • essentially none in Turkish
  • Suggests early interaction between Mongolic and CA Turkic
    • No linguistic evidence for administrative or military relationship
    • Likely intermarriage and bilingualism; similar prestige
(Washington 2023)

Structural parallels

  • Parallels in past tense systems of Khalkha & CA Turkic previously noticed (Brosig 2014, Washington 2023)
  • Not yet systematically studied
  • Present study is initial attempt at that

Background: past tense parameters

proximity

  • proximal: a past event proximal to present
  • non-proximal: a past event no longer considered recent

confirmativity

  • confirmative: an event for which the speaker has direct evidence
  • non-confirmative: an event for which the speaker feels surprise, doubt, or lack of direct evidence (Straughn 2011)
    • i.e., includes evidential, dubitative, mirativity

Past tense organisation: Mongolic

Middle Mongol
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
-lUGA -bA -jUGU
ᠤᠤᠭᠤᠯᠤᠭᠠ ᠤᠤᠭᠤᠪᠠ ᠤᠤᠭᠤᠵᠤᠭᠤ
Khalkha
confirmativenon‑confirmative
proximal -lAA -jee
non‑proximal -sAŋ -sAŋ yum baina
уулаа уужээ
уусан уусан юм байна

Past tense organisation: Non-Central Asian Turkic

Old Turkic
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
-tI -mIş -mIş ärmiş¹ içtim içmiş män içmiş ärmiş män
Turkish
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
-DI -mIş -mIş( i)mIş içtim içmişim içmişmişim
Tatar
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
-DI -GAn -GAn ikän эчтем эчкәнмен эчкәнмен икән
¹ productively formed (cf. other forms with är-)

Past tense organisation: Central Asian Turkic

Kazakh
confirmativenon‑confirmative
proximal -DI -(I)p іштім ішіппін
non-proximal -GAn -GAn eken ішкенмін ішкен екенмін
Kyrgyz
confirmativenon‑confirmative
proximal -DI -(I)p(tIr) ичтим ичиптирмин
non-proximal -GAn -GAn eken ичкенмин ичкен экенмин
Uzbek
confirmativenon‑confirmative
proximal -dɨ -(ɨ)b ichdim ichibman
non-proximal -gan -gan ekan ichganman ichgan ekanman

Past tense organisation: Comparison

Comparison of languages

  • Three-way systems: Middle Mongol, Old Turkic, non-CA Turkic
  • Four-way systems: CA Turkic, Khalkha

Similarities across languages with four-way systems

  • past tense has 2 two-way distinctions: ±proximal, ±confirmative
  • parallels in non-confirmative forms
    • proximal — suppletion: -lAA / -jee, -DI / -(I)ptIr
    • non-proximal — non-confirmative based on confirmative:
      -GAn + eken, -sAŋ + yum baina
    • non-proximal historically formed based on participle
  • some similarities noticed by Brosig (2014)

Negation: Mongolic

Middle Mongol
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
Aff -lUGA -bA -jUGU
Neg ese _‑lUGA ese _‑bA ese _‑jUGU
ᠤᠤᠭᠤᠯᠤᠭᠠ ᠤᠤᠭᠤᠪᠠ ᠤᠤᠭᠤᠵᠤᠭᠤ ᠡᠰᠠ ᠤᠤᠭᠤᠯᠤᠭᠠ ᠡᠰᠠ ᠤᠤᠭᠤᠪᠠ ᠡᠰᠠ ᠤᠤᠭᠤᠵᠤᠭᠤ
Khalkha
confirmativenon‑confirmative
proximal Aff -lAA -jee
Neg -sAŋ-güi -(G)AA-güi baina
non-proximal Aff -sAŋ -sAŋ yum baina
Neg -(G)AA-güi -(G)AA‑güi yum baina
уулаа уужээ
уусангүй уусангүй байна
уусан уусан юм байна
уугаагүй уугаагүй юм байна

Negation: non-Central Asian Turkic

Old Turkic
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
Aff -tI -mIş -mIş ärmiş
Neg ‑mA‑tI ‑mA‑dUK ‑mA‑dUK ärmiş
içtim içmiş män içmiş ärmiş män
içmätim içmädük män içmädük ärmiş män
Turkish
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
Aff -DI -mIş -mIş( i)mIş
Neg -mA‑DI -mA‑mIş -mA‑mIş( i)mIş
içtim içmişim içmişmişim
içmedim içmemişim içmemişmişim
Tatar
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
Aff -DI -GAn -GAn ikän
Neg -mA‑DI -mA‑GAn -mA‑GAn ikän
эчтем эчкәнмен эчкәнмен икән
эчмәдем эчмәгәнмен эчмәгәнмен икән

Negation: Central Asian Turkic

Kazakh
confirmativenon‑confirmative
proximal Aff -DI -(I)p
Neg -GAn joq -MA-p
non-proximal Aff -GAn -GAn eken
Neg -GAn emes -GAn emes eken
іштім ішіппін
ішкен жоқпын ішпеппін
ішкенмін ішкен екенмін
ішкен емеспін ішкен емес екенмін
Kyrgyz
confirmativenon‑confirmative
proximal Aff -DI -(I)p(tIr)
Neg -GAn joq -BA-p(tIr)
non-proximal Aff -GAn -GAn eken
Neg -GAn emes -GAn emes eken
ичтим ичиптирмин
ичкен жокмун ичпептирмин
ичкенмин ичкен экенмин
ичкен эмесмин ичкен эмес экенмин

Negation: Comparison

Comparison of languages

  • Single-strategy systems: Middle Mongol, Old Turkic, CA Turkic
  • Multi-strategy systems: CA Turkic, Khalkha

Similarities across multi-strategy systems

  • Suppletion (in 1 to 3 cells): -lAA / -sAŋ-güi, -DI / -GAn joq
    (cf. -mA-DI, ese _-jUGU)
  • Proximal confirmative formed on non-proximal confirmative base:
    -sAŋ-güi, -GAn joq
  • morpheme order in novel negation forms:
    tense + neg (+ non-confirmativity):
    -GAn emes eken, -(G)AA-güi baina
    (cf. conservative systems: -mA-GAn ikän, ese _-jUGU)
  • some similarities noticed by Washington (2023)

Summary

Observations

  • Khalkha and CA Turkic past tense systems exhibit many similarities
    • Organisation: four-way ±confirmative, ±proximal
    • Negation: suppletion, formation, morpheme order
  • not present in older Mongolic or Turkic languages
  • not present in other modern Turkic languages

Our proposal

  • Parallels in the systems are the result of language contact
  • Likely involved sustained period of bilingualism
  • Borrowing in one or the other direction possible, but no obvious source
  • Systems may themselves be the product of contact

Our proposal

Old Turkic
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
Aff -tI -mIş -mIş ärmiş
Neg -mA-tI -mA-dUK -mA‑dUK ärmiş
Middle Mongol
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
Aff -lUGA -bA -jUGU
Neg ese _-lUGA ese _-bA ese _-jUGU
(intermediate stage) (intermediate stage)
Non-Central Asian Turkic
proximal non-proximal non-confirmative
Aff -DI -mIş -mIş( i)mIş
Neg -mA‑DI -mA‑mIş -mA‑mIş( i)mIş
Central Asian Turkic
confirmativenon‑confirmative
proximal Aff -DI -(I)p
Neg -GAn joq -MA-p
non-proximal Aff -GAn -GAn eken
Neg -GAn emes -GAn emes eken
Khalkha
confirmativenon‑confirmative
proximal Aff -lAA -jee
Neg ‑sAŋ‑güi ‑(G)AA‑güi baina
non-proximal Aff -sAŋ -sAŋ yum baina
Neg ‑(G)AA‑güi ‑(G)AA‑güi yum baina

Wrapping up

Conclusions

  • Predecessors of Khalkha & CA Turkic shared period of intense contact (cf. Washington, 2023)
  • The languages had a huge influence on one another
  • Past tense systems were affected

Future work

  • Closer look at semantic nuances
  • Look at specific trajectories from one system to the other:
    • Use of participles as base for novel forms
    • Use of copula forms and their grammaticalisation?
    • Intermediate historical languages: Chaghatay, Khwarezmian, etc.
  • Investigate variation, additional forms:
    • Khalkha -v
    • Tatar -GAn-[person] ikän ~ -GAn ikän-[person]
    • Kazakh/Kyrgyz -MA-DI/-BA-DI (vs. -GAn joq)
  • Compare to more languages:
    • Siberian Turkic, other Mongolic languages
    • Third-party source for similarities, lack thereof?

Selected References

  • Binnick, Robert I. (2012). The Past Tenses of the Mongolian Verb: Meaning and Use. Brill.
  • Brosig, Benjamin (2014). Aspect, tense and evidentiality in Middle Mongol. Урало-алтайские исследования №2(13).
  • Brosig, Benjamin (2014). Aspect, evidentiality and tense in Mongolian: From Middle Mongol to Khalkha and Khorchin. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
  • Brosig, Benjamin (2015). Negation in Mongolic. SUSA/JSFOu 95, 67-136.
  • Brosig, Benjamin (2018). Factual vs. evidential? - The past tense forms of spoken Khalkha Mongolian. In: Evidence for evidentiality. Benjamins, 45-75. doi: 10.1075/hcp.61.
  • Erdal (2004). A Grammar of Old Turkic. Brill.
  • Janhunen, Juha (2006).  The Mongolic Languages. Routledge.
  • Straughn, Christopher (2011). Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
  • Svantesson, Jan-Olof (1991). Tense, Mood and Aspect in Mongolian. Lund University Dept. of Linguistics Working Papers 38, 189-204.
  • Washington, Jonathan (2023). What Can We Learn From the Mongolic Material in Kazakh and Kyrgyz? In: Heritage and Identity in the Turkic World. De Gruyter, 217-258. doi: 10.1515/9783110720228-014.

Баярлалаа! Рақмет! Ыракмат! Рәхмәт! Rahmat!

Special thanks to: İlnar Salimzian, Tserenchunt Legden

 

slides available at
https://jonorthwash.github.io/2024-MongolicTurkicPast-MonSoc-presentation/presentation.html