Keresés:      












E S S A Y S    O N    E A R L Y

HUNGARIAN-TURKIC

C O N T A C T S



Éva Csáki




ISBN 978-615-5167-65-2

© HUN-REN Research Centre for the Humanities, Institute for Musicology 2024

© Éva Csáki 2024


Technical preparation of the E-book: Adrienn Ádám
Programming: Zsolt Kemecsei



Using the E-book

Using the e-book is facilitated by a tool box in the lower left corner: after the search bar, the second icon jumps to the table of contents, while the third icon allows you to print the book or part of it.


Contents


      1. Preface to the Essays on Early Hungarian - Turkic Contacts
      2. The List of the Earliest Layer of Turkic Loan-words in Hungarian
      3. On the Importance of the First Layer Turkic Loan Words in Hungarian
      4. +nAn as Ablative Case Suffix in Hungarian and Turkic Langauges
      5. Early Turkic and Hungarian Connections
      6. Hints of the Pear Cult in the Caucasus
      7. Favoured numerals in the old religion of Turks and Hungarians in the pre-Islamic
          and pre-Christian period
      8. Hungarian Turkologists Among the Kazakh People
      9. Excerpts from our video collections

1. Preface to the Essays on Early Hungarian - Turkic Contacts

Having taken my doctor's degree of Altaic Studies in Szeged University I came to the conclusion that the influence of Turks that had been exerted on Hungarians (mainly between the 5th c. BC - 9th c. AC) was more manysided and multifold than we could understand at first sight.

In the long course of my researcher life I endeavour to lift up some of the mist from some of the fields of Hungarian culture touched upon, such as language history, traditions, beliefs, literature (oral and written) etc. with the help of comparative linguistics, and details of folk literature. This is the major topic of my university classes as well as my recent researches. I add my results and my list of publications for those interested in this field of studies.

The earliest sources concerning Hungarians are those of Muslim traders and travellers (9th c.). In one of the earliest Hungarian chronicles called Anonymus' Gesta Hungarorum (13th c.) we come across the same neighbours mentioned: Khazars, Kavars, Bulghars, Pechenegs, Alans. Each of the aforementioned were Turkic peoples except for the last one.

My list of publication

Books

1995 Török – magyar szótár. 340 p. Balassi Kiadó, Budapest.

1997 Magyar – török szótár. 421 p. Balassi Kiadó, Budapest.

2000 Török népdalok és vallási énekek 170 p. [Turkish folksongs and religious songs - unpublished PhD dissertation]

2001 Magyar - török szótár. Második, javított, bővített kiadás. Budapest: Balassi K. 397 p.

2001 Török - magyar szótár. Második, javított, bővített kiadás. Budapest: Balassi K. 379 p.

2006 Middle-Mongolian Loan-words in Volga Kipchak Languages. (Turcica 67) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 258 p.

2009 János Sipos – Éva Csáki: The Psalms and Folk Songs of a Mystic Turkish Order. The Music of Bektashis in Thrace. 665 p. + DVD, Budapest: Akadémiai K.

2012 Török – magyar szótár. Harmadik, javított, bővített kiadás. Budapest: Balassi K. 398 p.

2019 Török – magyar szótár. Negyedik, javított, bővített kiadás. [Turkish – Hungarian Dictionary. 4th revised and enlarged edition] Budapest: Balassi K. 398 p.

2019 Magyar – török szótár. Harmadik, javított, bővített kiadás. [Hungarian – Turkish Dictionary. 3rd revised and enlarged edition] Budapest: Balassi K. 397 p.

2021 Csáki Éva – Sipos Áron: Hetvenhét törökségi népmese. Budapest: Hagyományok Háza.

2021 Essays on Early Hungarian – Turkic Contacts. Ankara: Grafiker. 147 p.

2017 Csáki, É. – Ivanics, M. – Olach, Zs. (eds): The Role of Religions in the Turkic Culture. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Role of Religions in the Turkic Culture held on Sept. 9-11, 2015 in Budapest. Budapest: PPKE, MTA-SZTE.

2022 Csáki, É. (ed.): Macar Masallari. Istanbul: Alfa.

Articles published in books

1996 Volga boyu Kipçak lehçelerinde Orta Mogolca ödünç kelimeler. Uluslararasi Türk Dili Kongresi 1988. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 655) Ankara. pp. 143-146.

1999 Comments on the common characteristics in the prosody of Turkic and Hungarian folksongs. In: VII. Milletlerarasi Türkoloji Kongresi 8-12 Kasim 1999 Istanbul.

2001 Collecting in a Mongolian Kazakh mining village: Nalayh. In: Sipos, J. (2001): Kazakh folksongs form the two ends of the steppe. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 28-30.

2001a Türkçe ögretiminde dilbilgisinin yeri: zarf ya da belirteçlerden sonra ve kadar. In: Uluslararasi Dünyada Türkçe Ögretimi Sempozyumu Bildirileri 10-11 Mayis 2001 Izmir. pp. 2-5. Ankara.

2002 Turkic and Mongolian loan suffixes. A glimpse at the history of the research on Turkic and Mongolian loan suffixes. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Mongolists. 12-16 August 1997. Ulaanbaatar. pp. 302-312.

2002a A törökországi karacsájok közt tett kutatóutunkról és a karacsáj szókincs egyes sajátságairól. in: Birtalan Á. – Yamaji M. (eds): Orientalista Nap 2001. pp. 25-33.

2002b Favoured Numerals in the Old Religion of Turks and Hungarians in the Pre-Islamic and Pre-Christian Period. / Islam ve Hristiyanlik Öncesi Türk ve Macar Eski Inançlarinda Ragbet Edilen Rakamlar. In: Uluslararasi Türk Dünyasi Inanç Önderleri Kongresi Bildirileri. 23-25 Ekim 2001. (Tüksev Yayinlari Bilim Kültür Dizisi 2) Ankara. pp. 201-209.

2004 Buda’daki Gül Baba Türbesi ve Türk Halk Kültürü. In: Uluslararasi Türk Dünyasi Inanç Merkezleri Kongresi Bildirileri. 23-27 Eylül 2002 Mersin. (TÜKSEV Kültür Yayinlari Bilim Kültür Dizisi 5) Ankara. pp. 329-332.

2005 Középmongol eredetű jövevényszók a karacsáj-balkárban 2. A  lótartás szavai. In: Birtalan Ágnes - Rákos Attila (eds): Bolor-un gerel. Kristályfény. Crystal-splendour. Tanulmányok Kara György professzor 70. születésnapjának tiszteletére. Volume I-II. Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Belső-ázsiai Tanszék – Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Altajisztikai Kutatócsoport, Budapest, Vol. I. pp. 169-189.

2005a Türk dilleri ile Macarca’da ismin ablatif halinin paralel şekilleri ve kullanişi. In: V. Uluslararasi Türk Dili Kurultayi Bildirileri I-II. 20-26 Eylül 2004. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 855/I-II) Ankara. pp. 677-688.

2005b Macarlar’in eski tarihine, eski Türk – Macar Ilişkisine dair. In: Sipos, J.: Türk –Macar Halk Müziginin Karşilaştirmali Araştirmasi. /Comparative Research on the Folk Music of Turkic and Hungarian People. Ankara.

2007 Shamanistic features preserved in Bektashism. (Bektaşilikte korunan şamanistik özellikler) in: Kiliç, F. – Bülbül, T. (eds): 2. Uluslararasi Türk kültür evreninde Alevilik ve Bektaşilik bilgi şöleni bildiri kitabi. 1-2. C. Ankara: Grafiker pp. 421-442.

2007a +nAn as Ablative Case Suffix in Hungarian and Turkic Langauges.  In: Csepregi M. – Masonen, V. (eds): Grammatika és kontextus: új szempontok az uráli nyelvek kutatásában. Nemzetközi uralisztikai kongresszus ELTE 2004 április 4-7. (Urálisztikai tanulmányok 17.) Budapest. pp. 55-67.

2007b First Layer Turkic Loan-Words in Hungarian. In: IV. Uluslararasi Türk Dili Kurultayi Bildirileri I-II. 24-29 Eylül 2000. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 856/I-II) Ankara. pp. 341-354.

2008 Szentek és angyalok a trákiai bektasiknál. In: “Magyarország és Azerbajdzsán: a kultúrák párbeszéde” II. Nemzetközi Tudományos Konferencia 2007 november 6-8. Budapest. pp. 38-50.

2008a Összehasonlító azeri török nyelvi vizsgálatok. In: “Magyarország és Azerbajdzsán: a kultúrák párbeszéde” II. Nemzetközi Tudományos Konferencia 2007 november 6-8. Budapest. pp. 235-242.

2008b Bir Macar Türkologunun Gözüyle Trakya Bektaşiligi. In: 1. Uluslararasi Ahilik Kültürü ve Kirşehir Sempozyumu. Bildiri özetleri. 15-17 Ekim 2008. Kirşehir. pp. 85-86.

2009 On the Variability of Texts as Seen in Bektashi Nefes. In: Yilmaz, E. - Eker, S. - Demir, N (eds): Articles on Turcology. Festschrift to commemorate the 80th Anniversary of Prof. Dr. Talat Tekin’s Birth. International Journal of Central Asian Studies 13. Seoul. pp. 123-135. www.iacd.or.kr/pdf/journal/13

[2009a] Azeri szókészlet összehasonlító vizsgálata török közmondásgyűjtemény korpusza alapján. In: “Magyarország és Azerbajdzsán: a kultúrák párbeszéde” III. Nemzetközi Tudományos Konferencia (Előadások, cikkek és rezümék) 2008 november 18-20. I. kötet (történelem, néprajz, folklór, irodalom, nyelvészet) Budapest. pp. 251-262.

2010 Haci Bektaş Veli’nin Izinden. In: Kiliç, F. (ed.): Dogumunun 800. Yilinda Haci Bektaş Veli. (Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayini 399) Ankara, pp. 101-108.

2010a Irene Mélikoff (1917 november 7 – 2009 január 8). In: “Magyarország és Azerbajdzsán: a kultúrák párbeszéde” IV. Nemzetközi Tudományos Konferencia (Előadások, cikkek és rezümék) II. kötet (történelem, néprajz, folklór, irodalom, nyelvészet) Budapest. pp. 151-155.

2010b Haci Bektaş Veli’nin Kişiligi ve Felsefesi Türkçe Şiirlerde Nasil Yansitilmaktadir? In: Aytaş, G. – Dogan, Y. – Akman Yeşilel, D. B. (eds)(2010): Haci Bektaş Veli’nin Tarihsel Kimligi, Düşünce Sistemi ve Etkileri. Gazi Üniversitesi Türk Kültürü ve Haci Bektaş Veli Araştirma Merkezi III. Uluslararasi Türk Kültürü ve Haci Bektaş Veli Sempozyumu 30-31 Ekim 2009 Üsküp/Scopje. (G. Ü. Türk Kültürü ve Haci Bektaş Veli Araştirma Merkezi Yayinlari Araştirma Dizisi 12) Ankara pp. 181-186.

2010c Nefes: Bektaşilik ve sanatin kesişen yollari. In: Ecevitoglu, P. – Irat, A. M. – Yalçinkaya, A. (eds)(2010): Uluslararasi Haci Bektaş Veli Sempozyumu Bildirileri. Ankara. pp. 402-406.

2010d Macaristan: P. Pázmány Katolik Üniversitesi. In: Uzun, N.E. – Gökmen, M.E. – Kurt, C. (eds): Yabanci Dil Olarak Türkçe Ögretiminde Yeni Çalişmalar. 8. Dünyada Türkçe Ögretimi Sempozyumu Bildirileri. 6-7 Mart 2009, Ankara. pp. 42-44.

2011 Ninni ve agit: iki arkaik halk türküsü çeşidi. In: VII. Milletlerarasi Türk Halk Kültürü Kongresi Gaziantep 2006. E-kitap.kulturturizm.gov.tr/dosya/1-278157/h/66pdf pp. 1-23.

2011a Izmir 21-24 Kasim: T. C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanligi Araştirma ve Egitim Genel Müdürlügü: VIII. Milletlerarasi Türk Halk Kültürü Kongresi: Macar ve Türk Halk Edebiyatindaki Benzer Motifler Hakkinda 2.

2011b Türk ve Macar Halk Edebiyatindaki Benzer Motifler Hakkinda. In: Kazakistan Cumhuriyeti’nin Bagimsizliginin 20. Yil Dönümü Münasebetiyle. IV. Uluslararasi Türkoloji Kongresi 13-14 Mayis 2011. Türkistan. pp. 23-27. ISBN 978-601-243-337-1

2011c Seyyid Nesimi 14. századi azeri török költő. In: “Magyarország és Azerbajdzsán: a kultúrák párbeszéde” V. Nemzetközi Tudományos Konferencia (Előadások, cikkek és rezümék) 2010 nov. 22-25. (gazdaság, jogtudomány, történelem, néprajz, folklór, irodalom, nyelvészet) Budapest. pp. 210-216.

2012 Bektashi Ceremonies as a Way of Singing Communication. Cambridge 1-2 December: Popular Culture in Turkic Asia and Afghanistan. 3rd Symposium & Workshop of the ICTM Study Group on Music of the Turkic Speaking World.

2012a Bektaşilerin nefes gelenegine dair. Ankara 14-18 Kasim: 1. Uluslararasi Türk Dünyasi “Geleneksel Müzik” Günleri ve Bilgi Şöleni.

2012b A karacsáj-balkár szókészlet különleges jellemzői. In: Sipos J. – Tavkul, U.: A régi magyar népzene nyomában. A kaukázusi karacsájok népzenéje. Budapest. MTA BTK ZTI – L’Harmattan. pp. 302-310. A dalszövegek és magyar fordításuk. pp. 310-381.

2012c Türkülerin Metinlerine Dair. In: Öger, A. (ed.): 1. Uluslararasi Nevşehir Tarih ve Kültür Sempozyumu Bildirileri. 16-19 Kasim 2011 Nevşehir. 1-8 cilt (Nevşehir Üniversitesi Yay. 2.) Ankara: Grafiker. ISBN 978-605-4163-02-1. 3. Cilt ISBN 978-605-4163-06-9 pp. 87-92.

2013 dec. 7: Dobó István vármúzeum: A bektási eszmerendszerről. E-publication

2013a Eski Türk – Macar Ilişkilerinin Macarca’daki Izleri. Uluslararasi Türkiye – Macaristan Ilişkileri Sempozyumu. 20-24 Haziran Bp.

2013b Osmanli Nesrinde Degerler. Ankara (21-23 Mayis) TOBB: Osmanlinin Nesir Dilinde Degerler.

2013c MTA BTK – Fatih Üniv. Ist. – YE: Macar – Türk Ilişkileri. Május 3.: Macarca’daki Türk Etkisi.

2013d Türk Dünyasi’ndaki Türkülerin Benzer Motiflerinden. In: Nasrettinoglu, I. Ü. (ed.): IV. Uluslararasi  Türk Kültürü Kurultayi I-II. Fethiye 21-24 Mart 2013. (Halk Kültürü Araştirmalari Kurumu Yayinlari No. 49). pp. 849-858.

2014 Ondokuzuncu Asirdaki Kirgizlar Hakkinda. In: Čorotegin, T. K. (ed.) 15-16 nojabrja Biškek: II. Meždunarodnoj naučnoj konferencii “Kyrgyzskij kaganat v kontekste srednevekovoj gosudarstvennosti I kul’tury tjurkskih narodov”, posvjaščennoj 1170-letiju obrazovanija Velikogo Kyrgyzskogo kaganata v Central’noj Azii. Biškek. pp. 65-66.

2015 Peculiarities of the Karachay-Balkar Vocabulary. In: Sipos, J. – Tavkul, U.: Karachay – Balkar Folksongs. Institute for Musicology of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hung. Acad. of Sciences – L’Harmattan. pp. 303-311.

2015a Lyrics and their translation. In: Sipos, J. – Tavkul, U.: Karachay – Balkar Folksongs. Institute for Musicology of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hung. Acad. of Sciences – L’Harmattan. pp. 311-382.

2015b Macar Inanç Sisteminde Altay Geleneklerinin Izleri. Altay Dilleri Sempozyumu. Antalya.

2015c Hungarian – Turkish and Turkish – Hungarian Dictionary. In: II. International Symposium of Lexicography “e-Dictionaries”. 3-4 November 2015. Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. pp. 25-29. http://sozluksempozyumu.istanbul.edu.tr

2015d Similarities in Animal Husbandry (Karachay-Balkars and Hungarians). In: Dilek, I. – Türker, F. (eds): Türkmen Bilgesi. Fikret Türkmen Armagani. (Türk Kültürü Araştirmalari dizisi 19) Ankara: Türk Kültürü Araştirmalari Enstitüsü Yayinlari. Pp. 289-296.

2016 (2012): Türkçenin Macar Elçileri. In: Turan, F. [et al] (eds): Uluslararasi Türkçenin Batili Elçileri Sempozyumu Bildirileri. 5-6 Kasim Istanbul. (TDK Yayinlari 1172) Ankara: TDK. pp. 87-93.

2017 Sufism in Alevi and Bektashi Culture in Turkey. In: Ivanics, M. – Csáki, É. – Olach, Zs. (eds): (Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the) Role of Religions in the Turkic Culture held on September 9-11, 2015 in Budapest. Budapest. pp. 117-123.

2017a Macar ve Türk Kültüründeki Benzerliklere Dair. In: Ölmez, M. – Çulha, T. – Özçetin, K. (eds): Divanu Lugati’t –Turk’ten Senglah’a Türkçe. Dogumunun 60. Yilinda Mustafa Kaçalin Armagani. Istanbul: Kesit Yay. pp. 345-351.

2017b Eski dil ilişkilerinin peşinde. In: VIII. Uluslararasi Türk Dili Kurultayi. Ankara 22-26 Mayis 2017. Bildiri Özetleri p. 79.

2017c Vámbéry’nin Türk Dünyasi ve Türk Halklari Izlenimleri. In: Ölümünün 100. Yildinda Ármin Vámbéry Anma Toplantisi Bildirileri. 6-7 Eylül 2013 (Türk Dil Kurumu Yay. 1208) Ankara: TDK. pp. 31-36.

2017d  Macar ve Türk Halk Edebiyatindaki Benzer Motifler Hakkinda. In: 8. Milletlerarasi Türk Halk Kültürü Kongresi. 2. Türk Halk Edebiyati. (T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanligi Yay. 3520) Ankara. pp. 121-130.

2018 Türk Tasavvuf Geleneginde Bektaşilik: Macar, Türk Alevi ve Bektaşi Gelenegindeki Benzerliklere Dair. Bektashi Tradition in Turkish Islam Mysticism: On the Similarities in Hungarian and Turkish Alevi and Bektashi Tradition. In: Kurtoglu, O. – Çamkara Erginer, A. (eds)(2018): IV. Uluslararasi Alevilik ve Bektaşilik Sempozyumu. 1-2. c. (18-20 Ekim 2018, Ankara) I. c. pp. 213-8. E-ISBN 978-605-7893-03-1

2018a Handing over traditions to further generations. Köln. Alevi-Bektashi Conferenz 2019: Ahmet Yesevi'nin Hikmetlerine Icra Merkezli Bir Inceleme (Eski ve Yeni Metinler) In: 13-14 Aralik Izmir. Uluslararasi Alevi Ritüelleri Sempozyumu. p. 28.

2019 Török és magyar párhuzamok folklórszövegekben. In: Sipos J.: Keleti hatások és motívumok a magyar művészetben. Konferencia 2017 nov. 27-8. Budapest. (A Magyar Művészeti Akadémia konferenciafüzetei) Bp.: MMA. pp. 39-52.

2019a Osmanli kültürünün Macar kültürüne etkilerinden. In: III. International Congress New Tendencies in Ottoman Researches. Ottomans and the Balkans. 05-07 September 2019 Belgrade. pp. 29-30.

2019b A török népdalok szövege és fordításuk. In: Sipos J. (ed.): Bartók Béla: Török népzene Kis-Ázsiából. Magyar fordítás és kották. Budapest: L'Harmattan. pp. 211-251.

2019c Hungarian Turkologists among Kazakh Peoples. In: Ličnost’, tradicija, kul’tura v muzykal’noj étnografii. 6-7 ijunja 2019 goda. Meždunarodnaja naučno-praktičeskaja konferencija k 150-letiju Aleksandra Zataeviča. Almaty: Ministerstvo kul’tury i sporta Respubliki Kazahstan. pp. 172-175.

2020 Kaukázusi török népek kálváriája a népdalok tükrében. A migráns válság kapcsán. In: Zimonyi, I. (ed.) (2020): Ottomans - Crimea - Jochids. Studies in honour of Mária Ivanics. Szeged: MTA - ELTE - SZTE Silk Road Research Group pp. 47-58.

2020a Evlilikle Ilgili Terimler Örneginde Macar ve Türk Folkloründeki Benzerlikler. Türk - Macar Ilişkilerinin Izinde 20 Yil. Prof. Dr. Melek Çolak Armagani. Istanbul: Kitabevi. pp. 109-116.

2021 Törökségi hagyományok a magyar népmesékben. Korai török magyar kulturális kapcsolatok nyomában. In: Csáki É. - Sipos Á.: Hetvenhét törökségi népmese. Budapest: Hagyományok Háza. pp. 563-592.

2021a [2022] Some Notes on the Karachay-Balkar Word čök 'kinship celebration'. In: Nevskaya, I. – Şirin, H. – Agca, F. (eds): Ayagka Tegimlig Bahşi: Marcel Erdal Armagani. Journal of Turkish Studies. Harvard Univ. pp. 75-80.

2022 Türk Okurlar Için Macar Halk Masallari Hakkinda Bazi Bilgiler. In: Csáki É. (ed.)(2022): Macar Masallari. Istanbul: Alfa. pp. 9-49. ISBN 978-625-449-726-1

2022a Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Döneminde Macaristan – Türkiye Ilişkileri ve Iki Devletin Milli Marşlarinin Karşilaştirilmasi. In: Özcan, G. – Yel, S. – Civelek, Y. (eds): 100 Yilinda Kültür Çografyamizda Istiklal Marşi ve Mehmet Akif Ersoy. Ankara: TBMM Başkanligi. pp. 355-363. ISBN 978-605-2089-73-6

2022b Türk Tasavvuf Geleneginde Bektaşilik. Macar ve Türk Alevi ve Bektaşi Gelenegindeki Benzerliklere Dair. In: Malkoç, A. (ed.): Türkbilimde Arayişlar. Timur Kocaoglu Armagani. '. k. Kutlu Yay. pp. 411-416.

2022c Similarities in Hungarian and Turkish Folk Literature. Folktales. In: Khabtagaeva, B. (ed.): Historical Linguistics and Philology of Central Asia. Essays in Turkic and Mongolian Studies. Brill. Leiden. pp. 394-399. DOI: https//doi.org/10.1163/9789004499966_025

2023 Macar Türkolojisi ve Budapeşte’deki Türk Elyazmalari. In: Türkiyä Cumhuriyyätinin Yaranmasinin 100 Illiyi Münasibätilä „älyazma kitabi Azärbaycan – Türkiyä Elmi- Mädäni älaqälär Kontekstindä” Mövzusunda Beynälhalq Elmi-Näzäri Konfransin Materiallari. Baki: Elm ve tähsil. pp. 23-25.

2023a Türkiye’deki Araştirmalarimdan Hidrellez Türküleri. In: Ekici, M. (ed.): SOKÜM ve Türk Dünyasinda Hidirellez, Uluslararasi Sempozyum Bildiri Kitabi. Arnavutluk – Bulgaristan – Türkiye – Kosova – Kuzey Makedonya – Macaristan – Moldova. (Türk Dünyasi Araştirmalari Enstitüsü No. 19) Ege Üniv. Izmir. pp. 67-70.

2023b Macarcadaki yer adlarina ve ad verme geleneklerine dair. In: Şavk, Ü. Ç. – Garibova, J. [etc.] Cumhuriyet’in Yüzüncü Yilinda. Süer Eker [Armagani] Çagdaş Türkoloji’nin Izinde. Grafiker, Ankara. pp. 315-322.

2023c Old Turkic – As Reflected by Hungarian Language History. In: Yildiz, H. (ed.): Eski Türkçenin Izinde II. Mogol Istilasindan Önce Türklerin Dili. Akçag. Ankara. pp. 17-23.

2024 Ugor – Türk Dil Savaşi. Mugla Sitki Koçman Üniversitesi

Articles published in periodicals

1978 Középmongol eredetű jövevényszavak a kazáni tatárban. Acta Iuvenum, Sectio Linguistica T. II. Szeged. pp. 29–54.

1995 Türk ve Macar türkülerinin metinlerine dair. A.Ü. DTC Fak. Dergisi XXXVII:1–2. pp. 169-179. Ankara.

1995a István Mándoky’s unpublished Tatar wordlist from Bulgaria. Acta Orientalia Hung. 48:3. pp. 321-327.

1997 Turkish Suffixes in the Morphology of the Hungarian Language. In: 35th International Congress of Asian and North African Studies. Budapest 7-12 July 1997.

2001 Türk Kültüründe ayrintilar: tuz. Haci Bektaş Veli Araştirma Dergisi. Kiş 2001/20. pp. 231-235.

2002 Bűvös számok az iszlám előtti török és kereszténység előtti ősi magyar vallásban. Ethnica IV:1. pp. 36-38.

2002a Körtefa-kultusz a Kaukázusban. Ethnica IV:3. pp. 117-120.

2002b Traces of the Pear-Tree Cult in the Caucasus. Acta Orientalia Hung. 55:4. pp. 345-352.

2004 Macarlar‘in eski tarihine, eski Türk – Macar ilişkilerine dair. Haci Bektaş Veli Araştirma Dergisi 2004/30 pp. 187-191.

2004a Armut agaci inancinin Kafkasya’daki izleri. Haci Bektaş Veli Araştirma Dergisi 2004/30 pp. 213-222.

2004b Middle-Mongolian loan verbs as they appear in Karachay-Balkar. Inner Asian Survey  No. 2. pp. 7-35.

2006 Karaçay-Balkar’da Orta Mongolca Alinti Fiiller. Modern Türklük Araştirma Dergisi (2006:3-4), pp. 36-65.

2009 Irene Mélikoff (7 Kasim 1917 – 8 Ocak 2009). Türk Kültürü ve Haci Bektaş Veli Araştirma Dergisi 52 pp. 9-11.

2010 On Archaic Prayers of Bektashis, Alevis and Other European Peoples. /Eski Bektaşi, Alevi ve Diger Avrupa Halklari Dualari Üzerine. Forschungszeitschrift über Alevitentum und Bektaschitentum 2./Alevilik – Bektaşilik Araştirmalari Dergisi 2. pp. 62- 67.

2010a A török népdal és a szeretet próbája. In: Dévényi K. (szerk.): Varietas Delectat Tanulmányok Kégl Sándor emlékére. (Keleti Tanulmányok Oriental Studies 14). Budapest. pp. 99-114.

2012 Geleneklerimizde ortak iyi örneklerimizden Hizir ve benzerleri / Common Features of Pious Assistance in Hungarian and Turkic Tradition. Motif Akademi. Halkbilimi Dergisi 2012/1. pp. 113-118.

2012a Aladár Paasonen szobrának avatása Nagykőrösön. Finnugor Világ XVII:4. p. 36.

2013 Macarca’daki yer adlarina ve ad verme geleneklerine dair. Dil Araştirmalari 13. pp. 37-44.

2013a Terepmunkáim török népek közt. Keletkutatás 2012 tavasz, pp. 103-114.

2014 Macarlar’in Türkler’den Ögrendigi Boszorkány ’cadi’ Gelenekleri Hakkinda. Motif Akademi Halkbilimi Dergisi. pp. 141-152.

2016 Csáki, É. – Kamali, H. – Yildirim, R. S.: Macar Halk Oyunlarina Dair. Motif Akademi Halkbilimi Dergisi. pp.  94-98.

2016a A karacsájok népzenéje. (Sipos, J. – Tavkul, U.: Karachay – Balkar Folksongs. 2015)  Ethnologia 1:1-4. pp. 590-591.

2017 Macar Türkologlari’nin Balkanlardaki Alan Ara?tirmasinda Alevi ve Bekta?iler. Alevilik – Bekta?ilik Ara?tirmalari dergisi 16 Ki?. pp. 239-246.

[2017] 2016 Török népek között gyűjtött népdalszövegek. Ethnologia 1:1-4. pp. 312-340.

[2019] 2017-8 Két archaikus török népdaltípus: az altatók és a siratók. (Saját gyűjtéseinkből) Ethnologia 1:1-4. pp. 350-374.

2019 Török és magyar párhuzamok folklórszövegekben. In: Sipos J. (ed.): Keleti hatások és motívumok a magyar művészetben 2017 nov. 27-28. (A Magyar Művészeti Akadémia konferenciafüzetei) Bp.: MMA K. pp. 39-51.

2021 Macar Türkologlarina ve Araştirmalarina Dair. Türkbilig 41. pp. 83-94.

2021a Mustafa Kemal Döneminde Macaristan – Türkiye Ilişkileri ve Iki Devletin Milli Marşlarinin Karşilaştirilmasi. In: Yel, S. – Güngör, Ö. – Civelek, Y. (eds): 100. Yilinda Evrensel Boyutlariyla Istiklal Marşi ve Mehmet Akif Ersoy Kongresi Özet Kitabi. Ankara. pp.  32-33.

2. The List of the Earliest Layer of Turkic Loan-words in Hungarian

1 – Hungarian is the only present source of Western Old Turkic.

We do not consider Western Old Turkic equal with the proto-language of present day Chuvash, because e. g. szúnyog would have an initial š- if it was of Old Bulghar origin and it has an sz- [s] instead in Hungarian.

There are some 500 words (primary stems) in Hungarian reflecting Western Old Turkic.

2 – We could examine word-formation in Old-Hungarian and WOT. There are verb formatting suffixes -seamingly the same - attested in both languages with almost the same function yet it is possible to separate them from each other (see Róna-Tas in Journal of Turkology): -t-, -n-, -l-

3 – We analyze the Turkic background in time and space. What was borrowed and when?

There are areas (isoglosses) more important from the point of view of Hungarian e. g. Volga-district, the area where Turkic languages of Siberia is spoken, etc. (Consequently and relatively the Oghuz languages are of less importance from this point of view.)

4 – It is a well known fact that certain ideas are expressed wholly differently in Oghuz and Qipchak languages (e.g. güneş: quyaš). On what side Hungarian stood?

5 – Schönig’s article on the classification of Turkic languages offers a new solution.

Our list of Turkic loan-words in Hungarian obtained before the conquest is as follows. Archaic (= arch) words are included as well as dialectal (= dial) ones since they also appear now and then in Hungarian texts.

This list of words helps the reader to recall the endless semantic fields as a solid basis reflecting the nature of contact between Hungarians and Turks in that period. 

ács 'carpenter'. < T agaççi (WOT 53)

ágyú 'canon, catapult’ (WOT 55)

ákos, ágos dial ’stream, current’ (WOT 55)

ál 'false, imitation’ (WOT 58)

alacs 'pied (of animals’ coat)’ (WOT 59)

alma 'apple’. < OT, T elma (WOT 62)

általag, átalag 'a kind of barrel’ (WOT 63)

ápol 'to nurse, take care of’ (WOT 64)

áporodik  'decay, putrify, turn stale’(WOT 67)

apró 'small, tiny' (WOT 68)

arat 'to mow' (WOT 70)

árik arch 'to decay, go bad (of food, water)' (WOT 71)

árkány dialCum 'a type of lasso' (WOT 74)

árok 'ditch, canal'. < OT, ark in T (Eren 17) (WOT 76)

árpa 'barley'. < OT, arpa (Eren 19) (WOT 77)

árt  see árik (WOT 71)

ártány  'barrow' (WOT 79)

ászok 'gauntry (for supporting barrels)' (WOT 80)

báj 'charm' (WOT 83)

bakancs 'ankleboot' < boka/baka  (WOT 86)

balkány arch,dial 'flat marsh'. balkán, balkány < T,  The etymological Dictionary of Hungarian suggests a wrong background to the word. (WOT 86)

balta 'hatchet, axe'. < T or Serb We do not agree with Doerfer's opinion, but Ligeti says the same. < OChuv  Gombocz, Poppe, Aalto, Róna-Tas, Golden (WOT 87)

bán 'governor of Chroatia, governor of the southern marches' (WOT 93)

bán 'to regret' (WOT 96)

barág dialCum. 'hairy, brushy (of dogs)'. 'a hairy big dog (as noun and adj.)' < Cuman (WOT 98)

bárca 'label, tag' (WOT 99)

barom 'cattle, live-stock' (WOT 99)

bársony 'velvet'. < OT, T ibrişim, ipek (WOT 103)

baszik 'to fuck' (WOT 104)

bátor 'courageous, brave' < OT, bahadir T < Iranian (WOT 106)

becsül 'to estimate, esteem' (WOT 107)

béka 'frog' (WOT 109)

béklyó, békó 'hobble, shackle, leg-iron' (WOT 111)

bélyeg 'stamp, brand, mark' (WOT 113)

bér 'wage, rent' (WOT 115)

bercel 'name of a people' (WOT 118)

bertü, börtü techn 'grain or small globule of precious metal' (WOT 119)

bese 'a bird of pray' (WOT 120)

besenyő 'Pecheneg, name of a tribe' (WOT 121)

betű 'letter' (WOT 122)

bicsak, bicska 'pocket knife' < Cuman (mentiones only H bicsak) (WOT 125)

bika 'bull' (WOT 127)

bilincs 'shackles' < OT, T bilezik (WOT 128)

bíró 'judge' (WOT 130)

bocsánik arch 'to be forgiven' (WOT 133)

bocsát, bocsájt 'to forgive' (WOT 135)

bóda arch 'buckler with handle, handle of different arms' (WOT 136)

bog 'knot, bend' (WOT 138)

boglya 'stack (of hay)'  (WOT 140)

bojtorján 'burdock (Arctium sp.)' (WOT 144) 

boka 'ankle' (WOT 145)

bor 'wine' (WOT 147)

borít 'to cover, to overturn', borul 'to overturn into, to get overturned, get overcast', burok 'cover' (WOT 149)

borjú 'calf' < OChuv, T buzagi (WOT 151)

bors 'pepper' (WOT 152)

borsó 'pea (Pisum sativum)' (WOT 154) 

borz 'badger'. < OT, T porsuk (WOT 157)

boszorkány 'witch, sorcress' (WOT 158) 

bosszankodik 'to be annoyed', bosszant 'to annoy' (WOT 160)

bosszú 'revenge' (WOT 161)

bot 'stick, cane' (WOT 161) 

boza arch, dialCum. 'a kind of bier, alcoholic beverage' (WOT 164)

bő 'rich; abundant, roomy' (WOT 165) 

bögöly 'horsefly, gadfly' (WOT 167)

bögre 'pot, jar'

böjt 'fast(ing)' (WOT 169)

bölcs 'wise' (WOT 170)

bölcső 'cradle' < OT, T beşik, -l- in Hu. is secondary see gyümölcs (WOT 170)

bölény 'bison' (WOT 172) 

börtön 'prison, jail' (WOT 175) 

böszörmény 'a group of people of Moslim faith' (WOT 176) 

bú 'sorrow, grief' (WOT 178)

búcsú 'farewell, church-ale, pilgrimage, indulgence' (WOT 179)

buga dialCum. 'cattle without or with small horns, fool, stupid' (WOT 183)  

bular 'the name of the Volga Bulgars and their Empire in the Middle Ages' (WOT 184)

bús 'sad, bad tempered' (WOT 185)

búsz arch, dial. 'fume, vapour' (WOT 185)

búza 'wheat' < OT, T bugday (WOT 186)

buzogány 'mace, reed-mace' (WOT 188)

bükk 'beech (Fagussilvatica)' (WOT 190)

bűbáj 'charm, spell' (WOT 190)

bűn ’sin’< OT according to Thomsen (WOT 193)

bűvös 'magic(al), charming', bűvöl 'to bewitch'. see bölcs (WOT 197)

cigle 'a kind of willow' see csigolya2 (WOT 198)

cötkény 'a kind of wolf's milk, euphorbia' (WOT 201)

csabak 'a fish'. < Cuman, T çapak (WOT 206)

csákány 'pick-axe' (WOT 210)

csalán 'nettle' (WOT 215)

csalit 'ticket, brushwood' (WOT 220)

csanak 'a wooden laddle, bowl' (WOT 222)

csat 'clasp' (WOT 224)

csata 'battle' < see Ottoman çete, (Eren 1999: 87), (WOT 224)

csatak '(clinging) mud'

csatol 'to add, to join' (WOT 226)

csavar see csűr (WOT 231, 276)

csécs 'measle, smallpox, pocks' (WOT 231)

csekély see csökken (WOT 236, 261)

csepű,csöpű 'impurities' (WOT 236)

cserge 'a coarse woven cloth (used for tents, as carpet)'. Blk. > T, (Eren. 1999: 86)

csiga 'snail' (WOT 238)

csiger 'a wine of low quality, a fruit wine' (WOT 242)

csigla see csigolya2 (WOT 246)

csigolya1 'vertebra' see csiga (WOT 246)

csigolya1  (WOT 246)

csigolya2 'a kind of willow, used for baskets and in viticulture' (salix purpurea)' (WOT 246)

csipa 'secretion, mucus discharged by the eye' (WOT 246)

csolák, csollák dial 'squint eyed, blind on one eye, one-armed, one-legged' (WOT 249)

csomak 'ékfejsze' (WOT 252)

csődör 'stallion' (WOT 255)

csök1 'sexual organ of greater male animals, of a bull; a whip made of it' (WOT 258)

csök2 dial 'feast, christening feast' (WOT 259)

csökken 'to diminish, decrease', csökik 'to became smaller, remain smaller', csekély 'small, insignificant' (WOT 261)

csökönyös 'stubborn' (WOT 265)

csősz 'field-guard'. csausz (WOT 271)

csúnya 'ugly' (WOT 274)

csűr, csűr-csavar 'to twist, distort, wrest' (WOT 276)

daku dial 'a short fur coat' (WOT 283)

daksi dial 'excellent, worthless' (WOT 287)

dara 'grist, groats, soft hail'. < OT, T dari (WOT 287)

dél 'noon, south' (WOT 291)

dikics 'shoe-knife'

dió 'nut' < OT ya?ak,  T ceviz (WOT 294)

disznó 'pig' < OChuv. sisna, T çocuk (Eren 1999: 96, 118), (WOT 296)

dől 'to lean, topple over, stream down' (WOT 299)

dúl 'to ravage, devastate, pillage'

egyház 'church (building, organisation)' (WOT 307)

ék 'wedge' (WOT 311)

eke 'plough'. < OChuv, T saban (WOT 313)

enged 'allow, permit, concede; yield, give way' (WOT 317)

enő 'community work in agriculture' (WOT 320)

ér 'to reach, get to', érint 'to touch' (WOT 324)

érdem 'merit' (WOT 326)

erkölcs 'morals, morality' (WOT 330)

ernyed 'tire, loose vitality, slacken, relax' (WOT 333)

erő, ereje 'strength, power' (WOT 335)

eskü 'oath' (WOT 342)

ész 'reason, mind' (WOT 343)

etel 'name of a river, river' (WOT 345)

gaz 'weed' (WOT 348)

gödény 'pelican' (WOT 353)

gödölye 'kid (of goat)'

görény 'polecat' (WOT 355)

görhes, girhes, görhöny see kőrő

gügyü 'a bundle of short broken reed, swath' (WOT 358)

güzü 'gleaner mouse' (Mus spicilegus) (WOT 361)

gyaláz 'abuse, calumniate' (WOT 363)

gyalom 'drag-net, a kind of fishing net' (WOT 364)

gyalu 'plane'. < Chuv. yişik / yişak, debetable

gyanú 'suspicion, mistrust' (WOT 365)

gyapjú 'wool' < OT, Tu yapagi (WOT 366)

gyarapodik, gyarapszik 'to increase, to put on weight, grow stronger' (WOT 369)

gyarat 'to scratch, to clean (leather)' (WOT 370)

gyarló 'poor, frail, feeble' (WOT 370)

gyarmat 'colony' (WOT 374)

gyenge 'weak, feable' (WOT 378)

gyertya 'candle' (WOT 387)

gyékény 'bulrush, rush' (WOT 377)

gyom 'weed' (WOT 397)

gyomor 'stomach'. [T yumur, börkenek p. 61] (WOT 398)

gyónik 'to confess' (WOT 400)

gyopár 'cudweed, Gnaphalium sp., edelweiss' (WOT 401) 

gyöngy 'pearl' < OT, T inci (WOT 402)

gyötör 'to torture, to make suffer'(WOT 404)

győz 'to conquer' (WOT 406)  

gyúr 'to knead, pug' (WOT 411)

gyümölcs 'fruit'. < OChuv, (Eren 1999: 42, 49., 451), (WOT 417)

gyümölcsény 'a plant similar to the whitethorn, or elder etc.' < OT (WOT 419)

gyűjt 'to collect, gather sg.'

gyűlik 'to assemble, gather' (WOT 412)

gyűlöl 'to hate' (WOT 414) 

gyűr 'to crumple' (WOT 420)

gyűrű1 'a kind of tree similar to the maple or cornel' (WOT 421)

gyűrű2 'ring' < OChuv (WOT 422)

gyűszű 'thimble' < OT (WOT 423)

hajó 'ship, boat' < OT, T kayik (WOT 425)

harang 'bell' < OT kazan, T çan (WOT 426)

hatak arch 'stomach'

hattyú 'swan'

herjó 'a raptorial bird' (WOT 428)

hír 'news, information'

hitvány 'worthless, of inferior quality'

homok 'sand' < T kum (WOT 430)

horó arch. 'cook'

hurok ‘noose, loop, snare' (WOT 431)

idő 'time, weather' (WOT 437)

ige 'verb, word' (WOT 439)  

igy see egyház

ijeszt 'to frighten', ijed 'to take fright' (WOT 448)

iker 'twin'. < OChuv, T ikiz (WOT 450)

ildom 'tactful/proper behaviour' (WOT 452)

illik 'to be proper, to suit, to fit into' (WOT 453)

imád 'to adore, worship' (WOT 455) 

ing 'shirt' (WOT 457)  

ír 'to write' (WOT 459)

irdal 'to slit in (fish, bacon before roasting)'

irgalom 'mercy, compassion, pardon', irgalmaz 'to be mercyful, have pity etc.'

író 'buttermilk'. < T Doerfer is mistaken, agiz2, it is not clear (WOT 464)

irt 'extirpate, cut down, deforest', irtvány 'clearing, cleared woodland' (ort, ortvány).

isten 'god'

ispán 'a high dignity in the Middle Ages in Hungary'

izzik 'to glow, be hot', izgat 'to excite, instigate, fire (a crowd)', izzad 'to sweat' (WOT 470)

jász 'name of an ethnic group of Iranian origin in Hungary' (WOT 475)

kajtár dialCum. in: kajtármadár 'migrating bird, birds which come back every year' (WOT 478)

káka 'bulrush' (WOT 480) 

káliz 'an ethnic group of Muslim faith in Mediaeval Hungary' (WOT 482)

kalokány, kolokány 'a water plant (Stratiotes aloides)' (WOT 483)

kalóz 'pirat1 (WOT 484)

kamcsi dialCum 'whip, lash' (WOT 484)

kancsuka 'a whip with short handle' (WOT 486) 

kantár 'bridle'. < OT Cuman? T kantarma (WOT 487)

kanyaró 'measles' (WOT 489) 

kangyik dialCum 'saddle strap'

kapkány, kaptány 'trap, snare' (WOT 490)  

kapu 'gate'. < Ott. T kapi (WOT 491)

kar 'arm' (WOT 492)

karakán 'man of grit, a stout fellow' (WOT 496)

karám ‘sheepfold, cattlegrid, stockyard' (WOT 497) 

karambél dial 'name of several plants (from the Caryophilaceae: Stellaria holostea, cardamine pratensis etc.)' (WOT 501)

karha 'an old Hungarian title'.

karó 'stake, pale, stick'. < OT, T kazik (WOT 501)

kárókatona 'a bird of prey, cormorant' (WOT 506)

karvaly 'sparro-hawk (Accipitern.nisus)'. < OT (WOT 509)

katáng 'chicory (Cichoriumsp.)'. < Kipç. katagan, T. hindiba (WOT 511)

kazár 'the name of the Khazars' (WOT 513)

kecske 'goat' (WOT 518)

kék 'blue' (WOT 519)

kelengye 'trousseau, gift given with the bride or bridegroom' (WOT 521)

kende see kündü

kender 'hemp'. < OT (WOT 524)

kéneső arch 'mercury' (WOT 525)

kép 'picture' (WOT 527)

kepe 'shock, shook' (WOT 529)

kerep arch 'a kind of ship' (WOT 531)

kérődzik 'to ruminate (of bovines)' (WOT 532)

kert 'garden' (WOT 535)

keselyű 'vulture' (WOT 538)

késik 'to be, become late' (WOT 539)

ketreng arch, dial 'breast strap (of the horse harness)'

kéve 'sheaf' (WOT 541)

kicsi 'small'

kicsiny 'small' (WOT 541)

kikerics 'wild saffron (Colchicum automnale)' (WOT 545)

kiköcsény arch  'a bird similar to the falcon' (WOT 548)

kín 'pain' (WOT 548)

kis 'small, little' (WOT 550)

kobak 'gourd, calabash (Lagenaria vulgaris)' (WOT 550)

koboz 'lute' (WOT 552)

koldul 'to beg, to mendicate' (WOT 553)

koldus 'beggar'

kolokán see kalokány

komló 'hop'  (WOT 556)

komócsin 'timothy-grass, phlem (Phleum sp.)' (WOT 558)

komoly 'serious' see komor (WOT 559)

komondor 'a kind of dog' (WOT 559)

komor 'gloomy, sombre, dull-colored' (WOT 560)

koporsó 'coffin' (WOT 562)

kor 'age, period' -kor 'temporal suffix', korán 'early' (WOT 567)

korhány arch 'tomb' (WOT 570)

kóró 'dry stalk of plants, (dry) bush' (WOT 572)

korom 'soot' < OT (WOT 575)

korsó 'jug'

kos 'ram' < OT (WOT 576)

kozma 'burn' (WOT 577)

ködmön 'frock, sheepskin waistcoat' (WOT 579)

kökény 'blackthorn' (WOT 581)

kökörcsin 'pulsatilla sp., pratensis' (WOT 582)

kölcsön 'loan' (WOT 582)

köldök 'the navel'. < OT, T göbek (WOT 584)

kölyök 'young of an animal', kid, puppy, lad' < OChuv on its Turkic origin many have different ideas. Halasi-Kun, Golden does not consider it possible. (WOT 586)

kölyű 'pounder, beater, small mortar'. < OT, T dibek (WOT 588)

könyörül 'to show mercy'

köpcös 'stumpy' (WOT 593)

köpec dial 'a name of the komondor dog'.

köpönyeg 'cloak, gown, overcoat' (WOT 595)

köpű 'churn, bee-hive'. < OT, T gübü (WOT 597)

kőris 'ash tree (Frexinus sp.)' (WOT 599)

kőrő dial 'crumble, fragile (mainly of plants)' (WOT 601)

körte 'pear' see körtvély. < OT kertme (Eren 1999:18)

körtvély 'pear' (WOT 602)

kösöntyű 'decoration, pin on a dress'

köszön 'to greet, to thank' (WOT 603)

kötény 'apron'

kun 'the Cuman ethnic group in Hungary' (WOT 605)

kuvasz 'a kind of dog, a Hungarian breed of sheep dog' (WOT 611)

küllő1 'spoke (of wheel)' (WOT 616)

küllő2 'laughing bird (Picus viridis)' (WOT 613)

küllő3 'a fish living at the bottom of the river, gudgeon (Gobio fluviatilis)' (WOT 614)

kündü, kende 'old Hungarian title'

mónár köd dial 'dry summer fog, rainbow' (WOT 620)

nádorispán 'Hungarian title'

nándor arch 'the Hungarian name of the Danube Bulgars'.

nyak 'neck' < according to Ligeti it has no connection with T. yaka

nyár 'summer' <

nyargal 'to gallop'.

nyereg 'saddle'. < OT, T eyer

nyögér 'the name of a group of military people in Hungary' (WOT 623)

nyűg 'hobble (of rope)'

ócsárol   see olcsó (WOT 626)

ocsú 'tailings, refuse of grain' (WOT 626)

ocsúdik, ocsul 'to awake'

ok 'cause, reason', okos 'wise', oktat 'to teach' (WOT 629)

ól 'sty, cattle-pen, sheep-fold' (WOT 632)

olcsó 'cheap', ócsárol 'disparage' (WOT 635)

olló 'scissors, kid'. < OT (WOT 638)

ondó 'sperm, seminal fluid' (WOT 642)

ontok, ontog dial 'crumb (of bread), morsel, a small piece of bread' (WOT 645)

orosz 'Russian' (WOT 645)

oroszlán 'lion'. < OT, aslan < arslan (Eren 1999: 20), (WOT 647)

orsó 'spindle, whorl'.< OT urçuk, T agirşak (WOT 649)

ország see úr (WOT 653)

orv arch 'thief', orvul 'in a threacherous manner', oroz 'to steal' (WOT 653)

orvos 'physician' (WOT 656)

os in: ostábla 'chess-board, draught-board (tabula lusoria)' (WOT 659)

ökör 'ox'. < OChuv (WOT 663)

ölt 'to stich, to put on a dress' (WOT 667)

ölyv 'hawk, buzzard (Buteo sp.)' (WOT 667)

önik arch 'to elect, to select' (WOT 668)

őr1 'guard', őriz 'to guard' (WOT 672)

őr2 dial 'a thread going through the heddles and the slay'.

őre, őrje dial 'the best part of sthing, the fore part'.

öreg 'old'

őrém see őröl (WOT 675)

őriz see őr.

örmény1 'Armenian' (WOT 675)

örmény2 'whirpool, mill, milling product' (WOT 676)

örök 'eternal', örökség 'heritage' (WOT 676)

őröl 'to grind' (WOT 677)

örül 'to rejoice, to be glad', öröm 'joy' (WOT 677)

őrül, megőrül 'to become mad' (WOT 679)

örvény see örmény2 (WOT 681)

özön 'flood' (WOT 685)

sár 'mud, marsh' (WOT 689)

sár arch 'yellow' (WOT 691)

sárga 'yellow' (WOT 691)

sárkány 'dragon' (WOT 695)

sarló 'sickle' < Chuv śurla (WOT 697)

saru 'sandal, footwear' < T çarik (WOT 701)

sátor 'tent' < OT, T çadir (WOT 703)

sebes 'fast, quick' (WOT 706)

séd arch,dial 'spring, well; brook' (WOT 707)

sekély see csökken, see perhaps also OT sik 'shallow, scanty' (WOT 707)

seper, söpör 'to sweep, to broom' (WOT 707)

seprő, seprő1 'broom' (WOT 710)

seprő, seprő2 'lees, dregs of wine' < OT, T çöp (Eren 1999: 100), söpredék 'mob' (WOT 712)

sereg 'army, troops, crowd'. < OT  (WOT 716)

seregély 'starling (Sturnusvulg.)' < sereg Tu. sigircik

serke 'a nit' < OT (WOT 720)

serleg 'cup, goblet' (WOT 721)

serte, sörte 'bristle' < OChuv, Chuv şărt (WOT 723)

sertés 'hog, swine'

sima 'smooth' (WOT 726)

sír 'tomb, grave'

sólyom 'falcon (Falco sp.)'. < T çavli, is disputable (Eren 1999: 81), (WOT 735)

som 'cornel (Cornus)', in place names: somogy, somlyó. < OT çum see Munkácsi (WOT 737)

sör, ser 'beer' (WOT 738)

sőreg 'sterlet, surgeon (Acipenser stellatus, ruthenus)' (WOT 740)

süllő 'pike-perch, zander (Lucioperca)' < OChuv (WOT 743)

sűrű 'dense, thick (of wood, soup)' (WOT 749)

süv arch 'uncle, nephew, brother or sister-in-law' (WOT 751)

süveg 'a high fur cap'

szaka, szak 'uvula, the recurved point of fishing hook, of lance' (WOT 755)

szakáll 'beard'. < OT (WOT 758)

szál 'raft'. < OT (WOT 760)

szám 'number' (WOT 762)

szán1 'to have pity for, to regret' (WOT 766)

szán2 'to wish, to intend sg for sy/sg, to devote', szándék 'intention, plan' (WOT 771)

szán 'sledge'

szapu 'bucket, wooden pail' (WOT 774)

szatócs 'grocer, grand handler' (WOT 780)

szár arch 'light coloured, yellowish' (WOT 776)

szárny 'wing' (WOT 778)

szegény 'poor, destitute'

szenderedik, szenderít, szendereg 'to slumber,  to doze' (WOT 787)

szeplő 'freckle, sun-spot, stain' (WOT 790)

szer 'part of a village, street, group of people' < OT (WOT 793)

szesz 'fume, vapour, spirits, alcohol, humour' (WOT 797)

szék 'chair, seat, bench, throne' (WOT 783)

székely 'name of a Hungarian ethnic group living in Transylvania'

szél 'wind' < OChuv, Tu. yel (WOT 784)

szép 'beautiful' (WOT 788)

szérű 'treshing-floor (round)' (WOT 796)

(szid * K. Palló 1982: 163)

szín 'colour, face, external appearence, the best part of sthing, the upper part of sthing' (WOT 799)

szirony dial 'thin hide rope, strap (used for embroidery)' (WOT 802)

szirt 'rock, cliff, occiput' (WOT 806)

szó 'word' (WOT 808)

szongor arch 'a kind of falcon (pielfalcus, gyrfalco)’< Munkácsi: Far., Németh: < Tu (WOT 810)

szór 'to spread, to scatter, to winnow' (WOT 812)

szöcske see szökik (WOT 814)

szökik 'to leap, to jump, to escape', szöcske (< szök-cse) 'grasshopper', szökevény 'fugitive' (WOT 815)

szőlő 'grape, vine-grape' < OT, T çilek (WOT 818)

szúnyog 'mosquito' < T sinek, cibin (Eren 1999: 71), (WOT 822)

szűcs 'furrier' (WOT 825)

szűk 'narrow, tight'

szűnik 'to cease, to stop (intr.)' (WOT 829)

szűr 'to strain, to filter' (WOT 831)

szüret 'vintage'

szűz 'virgin, pure' (WOT 833)

tábor 'camp, military camp' (WOT 837)

(takar * K. Palló 1982: 171)

tákol 'to piece together, fabricate', ták arch, dial 'appendage, annex, added piece'.

táltos 'sorcerer, medicin-man' (WOT 841)

(támad *K. Palló 1982: 175)

tanács 'advice, counsel, council' (WOT 846)

tanú 'witness' <  Ligeti did not mention that it is a Mo. loan in T (WOT 848)

táplál 'to feed, to nurish', táp 'food'. ca. 1456 taplalta 'nutritus' (WOT 850)

tapló 'tinder, tinder fungus (Fomes fomentarius)'. < OT, T domalan (WOT 852)

tar 'bald', tarka 'spotted', tarol 'to devaste, to strip, to lay flat'. < OChuv, T daz > dazlak (WOT 856)

tár: tárház 'warehouse, magazine' (ház 'house'), társzekér 'waggon, cart, van' (szekér 'cart'), (WOT 860)

tárnok 'treasurer (of the king)' (WOT 866)

tarló 'stubble-field' < OT

társ 'companion, mate, comrade'.

tart 'to hold', visszatart 'to hold back' (WOT 867)

tatár 'Tatar' (WOT 872)

tátorján 'name of several kinds of plants (Anemosphoros, Bunias, Napus, Crambe tatarica)', (WOT 874)

tatrang see tátorján.

teher 'burden, load', terhes 'loaded, pregnant'.

teker 'to wind, to twist' (WOT 877)

teknő 'trough, wash tub, hutch' < OT (WOT 882)

telek1arch, ethn 'strap (on a whip, on a kind of a sandal)' (WOT 884)

telek2 'a piece of ground, field, parcel, patch' (WOT 886)

(telepedik * K. Palló 1982: 185)

(ténfereg * K. Palló 1982: 187)

teng 'to vegetate, to linger in misery' (WOT 887)

tengely 'axle' < OT, T. dingil (WOT 889)

tenger 'sea' < OChuv, T deniz (WOT 893)

tér 'to turn', térül-fordul, térít 'to turn (something), to convert', betér 'to turn in' (WOT 896)

térd 'knee'. < OChuv, T diz (WOT 898)

terel 'to drive (animals), to change the direction (of traffic, water etc.)', tereget 'to spread out, hang out (to dry)', terít 'to spread', see tér.

terem 'hall, chamber, great room' (WOT 901)

teve 'camel'. < OT deve (WOT 903)

tiló 'hemp breaker, swingle' (WOT 906)

tilt 'to forbid', tilos 'forbidden'.

tinó 'steer, young bullock'. < OChuv, T dana (WOT 909)

tojik 'to lay eggs' (WOT 911)

tok1 'harness'

tok2 'sturgeon (Acipenser sturio)' (WOT 914)

toklyó 'one year old lamb' < Kum., Tu. toklu ’male lamb from six months to one year old' (Eren 1999: 410), (WOT 915)   

tolmács 'interpreter'. < OT  Pecheneg, T dilmaç (WOT 917)

toportyán in toportyán féreg 'bear'

tor 'feast (in most cases funeral)'

torlódik 'to pile up, to become blocked', torlik, torol 'to pile up (trans)' (WOT 920, 922)

torma 'horse radish (Armoracia rusticana)' (WOT 920)

torontál 'a kind of small falcon (Falco columbarius aescalon)' (WOT 925)

tót 'Slovak' (WOT 926)

tökéletes 'perfect', tökél 'to perform', el-tökél 'to decide', ?tökít 'to torture, to destroy' (WOT 928)

tömény 'concentrated', töméntelen 'innumerable' (WOT 932)

tömérdek, temérdek 'innumerable'.

tör 'to break (also e.g. hemp), to crush' (WOT 935)

török 'Turk' (WOT 939)

történik 'to happen, to occur' (WOT 942)

törvény 'law' (WOT 944)

tőr 'snare, trap' (WOT 937)

tőzeg 'peat, turf' < Tu. (WOT 947)

tőzsér arch 'merchant'

tulok 'steer, young bullock, ox or cow' (WOT 950)

turul 'the totem bird of the Árpád dynasty, a bird of prey' (WOT 954)

túró 'cheese-curd' < OT dial. (WOT 951)

túzok 'bustard (Otis)' (WOT 956)

tüdő 'lungs'

tükör 'mirror' (WOT 959)

tűr1 'to endure, suffer, bear, stand' (WOT 960)

tűr2 'to roll (a scroll, sleeves up)' (WOT 962)

tyúk 'hen' < OT (WOT 965)

ug ~ ugu arch 'owl' (WOT 968)

unszol 'to urge'

úr 'lord, sir', ország 'country, Empire' (WOT 969)

üdül 'to refresh oneself, to rest' (WOT 975)

ügy see egyház

ül (ünnepet) 'to observe a feast' (WOT 978)

ünnep 'feast' (WOT 978)

ünő 'heifer'. < OT, T inek (WOT 978)

ürge 'souslik (Citellus spermophilus)' (WOT 981)

üröm 'artemisia' < OT, T yavşan otu (WOT 981)

ürü 'wether, sheep' (WOT 983)

üsti arch 'pied, many-coloured (of horse)'

üszög ~ üszök 'hot embers' (WOT 984)

üvecs dial 'female one year old sheep'. < OT, yet in Turkish its meaning is 'male sheep two-three years of age' (Eren 1999: 318), (WOT 987)

üveg 'glass'

üzekedik 'be on heat, rut (of female animal), excited (of male)'

váj 'to hollow out' (WOT 989)

vályú 'trough, tray' < T oluk (WOT 992)

ványad 'to wilt, droop'

varsány 'name of an ethnic group in Hungary'. see jász.

vejsze 'fishweir' (WOT 994)

vék 'a hole (in the ice)' (WOT 997)

vendég 'guest' (WOT 998)

*ver 'to beat'.

ver 'to plait' (WOT 1000)

verseng 'to compete', versenkedik, versent, verset 'competing'.

vért 'armour, cuirasse'.

vértelek arch, dial 'gable, frontispiece' (WOT 1003)

zászló 'flag'.

zerge 'chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra)'.  < T erkeç -> Ligeti, (WOT 1006)

References

Eren, H. (1999): Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlügü. 2. Baski, Ankara.

Palló M. (1982): Régi török eredetű igéink. (Studia uralo-altaica. Suppl. 1.) Szeged.

Ligeti L. (1986): A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban. Budapest.

Róna-Tas, A. (1999): On a Turkic word in the the work of Kirakos of Gandjak. in: Menges, K.H. – Naumann, N. (eds) Language and literature  - Japanese and the other Altaic languages. Studies in honour of Roy Andrew Miller on his 75th birthday. Wiesbaden. pp. 15-17.

Róna-Tas, A. - Berta, Á. (2011): West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian. (Turcologica 84) Wiesbaden (= WOT)

3. On the Importance of the First Layer Turkic Loan Words in Hungarian

[2007 First Layer Turkic Loan Words in Hungarian. In: IV. Uluslararasi Türk Dili Kurultayi Bildirileri I-II. 24-29 Eylül 2000. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 856/I-II) Ankara. pp. 341-354. ]

Many have dealt with the Turkic (= T) loan words of the Hungarian (= H) language with so different conclusions. What all agreed on was their importance from the point of language history on both Turkic and Hungarian sides. As member of the Hungarian Academy’s Research group on the Early History of the Hungarians I started to work on this topic under the guidance of Prof. A. Róna-Tas due to new data that have appeared since L. Ligeti’s final comprehensive work on this field was published (Ligeti 1986). I would speak about our observations, but let us cast a glimpse first at the early history of the Hungarians as well as the history of the research.

Historical background

The first appearance of the Hungarian people is after they had abandoned the Obi-Ugrian community that was about in 1000 - 500 B. C. This could have taken place somewhere in the easternmost part of Europe south to the Ural Mountains.

During the long wanderings towards the final conquering of the Carpathian Basin the Hungarians met and in some cases cohabited the western steppe region together with different Turkic tribes most probably speaking the Western Old Turkic dialects[1]. Our ancestors might have met the Oghur Turks around the 5th century AD. How about Kipchak and Oghuz Turks? The question remains where and when?

Because of Porphyrogennetos’s De administrando imperio Ligeti suggests that Khazar – Hungarian links lasted for at least 2-3 centuries. Most mention is made of the Kavars of Khazar origin. They taught the Hungarians the Khazar language and on the other hand, they learnt Hungarian. After they had revolted against the Khazars, they left them alone and joined the Hungarians instead. The result of which was the co-operation with Hungarians for centuries.

In his study Golden (1992: 259) stressed that the Turkic character of the early Hungarians is an unanswered question of Turkology. Róna-Tas (1988: 128) stated that in the period of the conquest the Hungarians spoke a Finno-Ugrian language but lived the Turkic way. The double kingship for instance (that of the H. gyula being the sacral leader: T. yula ’torch, lamp’, and H. kende the executive leader of the people: Kh. kündü) is a typical Khazar element in Hungarian administration (Golden 1992: 239). In the present day Hungarian Gyula is preserved as a favoured personal name for men.

Apart from Leo the Wise and later K. Porphyrogennitus in Byzantium we come across the Hungarians being called as Turks in Arabic sources: Ibn Hayyan (1075) and al-Bakhri authors of historical works referred to Magyars as Turks. The conquering Hungarians knew the ethnic name but they did not use it for themselves. They rather denominated with it the Turkic minority living with them. It also occurs in early Hungarian place-names e.g. ad lacum Turku (TAA 1055) etc.

It is still debated when the Hungarians arrived in their last homeland prior to the Carpathian Basin, called Etelköz ‘the land surrounded by rivers’ (where Etel is of Turkic origin meaning as much as ‘river’, the second part of the word is Hungarian köz meaning ‘the place between’) from where they conquered their final stage.

First layer Turkic loan words might help the Hungarians see clearly the most important as well as minor relations. Where and how long Hungarians stayed before the conquest? What was their social and political organization like?

Those years could not have passed without the mutual influence exerted on each other’s on different components of culture. At least we can see the Hungarian side: many many important parts of our culture bears the signs of Turkic influence. E.g. beliefs, customs, agriculture, music and most especially language. It was still this period of nomadism when our ancestors acquired writing in the form of runic script. The Hungarian word betű ’letter of the alphabet’ serves as an evidence, that we learnt it from a Turkic people bitig (Clauson 1972: 303) even if its meaning differs from that in Turkic languages, there it means ’inscription, book, document, writing’ rather than ’letter’.

Even if we have no epos in our folk literature that survived from those times yet we have the quality of the epic hero of Turkic origin, bátor is an adjective meaning ’brave, courageous, fearless’ in Hungarian. Many different motives of our folklore have parallels in Turkic and in other languages of Inner Asia.

Turks formed the Turkic Empire in the 8th century that was attested by their runic inscriptions and spoke a language known to us as Old Turkic spoken until the Mongolian era (13th century). The westernmost area of this Turkic world was also inhabited - and we should assume - with Turkic speaking people (e.g. Bulghars and Oghuz peoples). It is not possible yet to tell which Turkic dialect was spoken and where in Eastern Europe in this period, though for the early Hungarian history it would be of great importance.

Outlines of the research history

In the history of research, we should start with Ármin Vámbéry. Even though he was not the very first, he was the first of great importance, and after his entering to the field began the Ugric-Turkic battle between the linguists of the age in Hungary.

In his article Hungarian and Turkic-Tatar word accordance Vámbéry (1869: 109-189) assumes a relation between the two adding, that the older the linguistic layer is on the Turkic side the more it resembles Hungarian language yet considering the primary Finno-Ugrian (= FU) relation this can be only secondary. After the Hungarians had separated from the Finno-Ugrian relatives they intermingled with Turkic people, and therefore this relation is not minor but younger. Who was the dominant element in this fusion is a difficult question to answer but Vámbéry considers those of FU origin i.e. the Hungarians to be. The leading element is another question and it was indisputably the Turks. Vámbéry considers Konstantinus Porphyrogennitos’s work De administrando imperio (DAI) 'On ruling the Empire' a proof, for the author of DAI always mentions the people in question (the Hungarians) with the name of the Turks, and the area conquered by them is called Turkia.

Vámbéry enlisted 740 Hungarian words of Turkic origin in his list. His ability for speaking many different Turkic languages with ease and due to his erudition our present list of first layer Turkic loan words in Hungarian is almost included in his list. Yet there is a big difference in the explanation. He also included onomatopoetic, tone-painting words as well as those belonging to child-vocabulary – what we never consider relevant.

In the beginning of this century Zoltán Gombocz dealt with the question and he thought that Hungarians met Turks near the Volga – Kama rivers, and first layer Turkic loan-words entered Hungarian between 7-9th centuries. Later he changed his opinion and suggested that the connection started somewhere north to the Caucasus and earlier than the above date.

Gyula Németh again suggested that Hungarians got into contact with Turks approximately somewhere near the Kama and Belaya rivers. Some of his students surveyed the Bashkir tribal and place names as well as he himself took place in the investigation, but unfortunately, none of their results proved valid today.

Lajos Ligeti in his last book underlines that whatever the nature of the relation of Turkic peoples to Hungarians was the latter could retain its independence. Hungarian proved to be stronger than the language of the Kavards with which it operated in forming bi-lingualism, in the end the Kavards were assimilated in a longer period. The same happened to the Pecheneg and Cuman languages as well as later to the language of the Ismaelits and Besermyans.

This was the fate of the Hungarian groups that had not joined the main stream, but instead remained in the previous homelands. The Hungarian tribes e.g. Kürt and Gyarmat moved somewhat to the north to the later territory of Magna Hungaria, where friar Julianus met them on the eve of the Mongolian invasion.

First layer Turkic loan words in Hungarian were not affected by some of the consonant developments that had started still in the age of Ugrian unity but were active even in the first half of the Ancient Hungarian language period, such as for instance:

At the same time, first layer Turkic loan words in Hungarian were affected by several sound changes taking place in the Ancient Hungarian language period.

András Róna-Tas decided to publish a new etymological dictionary of the first layer Turkic loan words in Hungarian. In it he separates Ancient Hungarian into two periods with the help of gutturals in word final position. The later period of Ancient Hungarian is the time when Turkic – Hungarian contacts started. By this time, Old Turkic dialects had come into being and Oghur type dialect was separated from the rest of Turkic dialects. In the overwhelming majority of cases Hungarians borrowed words from the r type i.e. Oghur Turkic dialects. The question remains if these loan words help us to make a rough draft of the locations and history of Hungarian settlements before the conquest.

Generally, the Turkic loan words in Hungarian are divided into three chronological groups:

  1. pre-conquest
  2. after the conquest
  3. Ottoman loan-words[2] (Why we are not so much keen on the last group is because they don’t answer our question concerning the conquest, neither have they exerted much influence on Hungarian language.)

It is not always possible to tell first and second layer loan words from each other, yet we have criteria for grouping them as such (in details see Róna-Tas 1996: 95).

The etymological dictionary of Turkish written by Hasan Eren is an important contribution, for he knows the literature of the research in question. In most cases, Eren enlists and introduces the collected etymologies offered until our days. Naturally, his aim was not to solve the etymologies of Turkic loan words in Hungarian, but wherever he could, added some to the solution.

What is borrowing?

It is not possible that people keeping in close connection, living nomadic life on adjacent areas for so long would not become bilingual. If not the whole population, then the leaders at least, merchants those responsible for exchanging goods, etc..

We analyse the Turkic background in time and space. What was borrowed, when and where?

Lars Johanson mentioned on a Szeged Symposium held on Turkology in the fall of 1993, that borrowing is a misleading term for what we think had taken place in connection with loan words. He would suggest another term instead: copying would express with adequacy the situation. Indeed, if we borrow a word, we take it over and nothing remains in the original language, and perhaps later it should be given back. When we borrow something, we use it according to our wish for our purpose. Róna-Tas admitted that Johanson was right to a certain degree, but his suggestion: copying was not perfect either, because word borrowing is not a conscious action that could be planned in advance, while copying is a wholly conscious deed.

There are areas (isoglosses) more important from the point of view of Hungarian, as for Khazar we do not know much of its character. We do not know if our forefathers were influenced by the speakers of the language of the Oghuz name, Dede Korkut or those of the Karakhanid State – i.e. else than the subdued inhabitants of the Khazar Empire?

Using morphological units other, than one’s own is only possible when wholly understood. When one can divide the stem and the endings of a word and differentiate the functions of different suffixes.

In Hungarian, it is considered a criterion of antiquity if one and the same suffix can join both verbs and nouns. The same must be valid for Turkic, therefore  ±sXn for instance must be an old suffix (Vásáry 1993).

To give an example from Kaš?ari’s Divânü Lugati’t-Türk ’Agilda oglak togsa arikta oti öner’ (üner Cl. 1972: 169). The words oglak and arik are Old Turkic loan words in Hungarian.

In fact it could be three words, but for T. agil ‘koyun ve keçi sürülerinin geceledigi çit veya duvarla çevrili yer’ we have in Hungarian akól ’hayvanlarin gecelecegi yer’ and it is said to be mediated by Southern-Slav language into Hungarian akol in the Hungarian etymological dictionary prepared by Szarvas-Simonyi (1890: 43) it is reflected as disznó akól ’pigsty’, juh-akól ’koyun agili’, kecske-akól ’keçi agili’, ló akól ’at agili’.

In present day Turkish the word oglak means ‘keçi yavrusu’, while in present day Hungarian it survives only in dialects in the form of oglak > olló and it means ’yeni dogmuş kuzu’.

Arik in present day Turkish survives only in dialects in the form ark with the meaning ‘içinden su akitmak için topragi kazarak yapilan açik oluk, arik, hark, cetvel kanal’. In Hungarian árok has been very well known in the basic vocabulary ever since the conquest (Szarvas-Simonyi 1890: 101). It is to be found in one of the earliest Hungarian records the so called A tihanyi apátság alapítólevele or TAA (The foundation document of Tihany Abbey), dated 1055 (therefore we suppose it to be a pre-conquest Turkic loan word).

Even if it was written in Latin, there are some 58 Hungarian words and 33 word-formative suffixes to be found embed in the text, offering some hints even concerning Hungarian grammar of that time e.g. arukfee is a compound word meaning as much as ‘arik başi’, where fee is ’baş’ in Hungarian.

According to the rules of semantics, loan-words can reflect the original meaning of a word, but sometimes their meaning diminishes or widens, in this case the Hungarian word árok means ‘su götürecek küçük kanal’. The vehement corpus of Turkic loan words makes us believe that a bilingualism should be supposed in the case of our ancestors.

What about the Avars awaiting for the Hungarian tribes to arrive in Pannonia the well-known refugee for previous nomads (Huns and others) moving constantly westward? What language did they speak? Had not then the other inhabitants of Carpathian Basin the Slavs exerted by that time an irreversible influence on them? Could they still speak their own language? If yes, using it could they make themselves understood by the Hungarians or the Kavars? Did the Hungarians learn new lexicon from them? Are these new words acquired by the Hungarians from the Avars in the Carpathian Basin among our first layer Turkic loan words? Most probably they are.

Introducing our present work on the etymological dictionary

In fact the West Old Turkic dictionary is my prof. Róna-Tas's work. Á. Berta used to be his co-author, and many of us the old students helped them collecting, compiling data. I used to be a hired researcher in WOT for a certain period (1993-2002) of time.

Each item in the etymological dictionary called Turkic loan words in Hungarian consists of four parts:

a, the head: contains the Hungarian word with its present day form and meaning(s) in English, the date and form of its first occurrence with a segmentation into its stem and its Turkic or Hungarian suffix(es), the Old Turkic form that was or might have been borrowed with its proven or hypothetical form and meaning in English.

b, Turkic background: organized according to era (Old, Middle, New) and area: Ch (Chuvash), K (Kipchak), O (Oghuz), Kh (Khaladj), S (Siberian), T (Turki) etc.

c, remarks: concerning the data

d, literature.

csök2 dial 'feast, christening feast'. < *čök | T *čök

OT čök (Je36), cf. čökle-, čökšig;  MT  – (AOttTS), čök- ’die Knie beugen’ (CCG); NT Ch čük ’molenie s žertvoprinošeniem (u jazyčnikov)’(Chuv), čük ’Opfer, Opferung, Opferfest, der Geist der Opferung’ (ChuvP > KazR); K – (Tat, TatA, TatP), čük- ’leülepedni, leereszkedni, megszünni| sich setzen, sinken ablassen, aufhören’(TatB), – (Bashk, BashkD2, BashkP), – (Kaz), čük ’ein Volksfeiertag am Vorabend der Fasten vor Pfingsten’ (KazR), čök I ’okrik na verbljudov, zastavljajuščij ih opustit´sja na koleni’ (Kirg), čök- IV ’(o verbljude) opuskat´sja na koleni’ (Kirg), čögör- ’to kneel’ (Kirg. Manual); šoqiniu ‘molenie‘ [velar!], šögiü ‘opustit‘sja‘ (RKklp); O-, Kh -, T čök ’word used in bidding a camel go down on its knees (Zurufe p. 48), probably imp. of čök- ’to sink’, čöktür-,čökür- ’to cause to sink’ (Turki); S čok ’Ausruf während der Libationen; die Libation; die Bewirtung der Geister mit den ersten drei Löffeln der Speise, die Man geniessen will’ (AltR), cüg- 1.‘čügälä, prisest´ (Gig), 2. ‘vstat’ na koleni‘ (ST Radl. IV: 96).

The word is not well represented in either of the sides. In Turkic it originally means as much as ‘fire-offering’ for demons eating up all kinds of everything, and appears in an Old Turkic Buddhistic text.

-In the Yenisey inscription (No 36) the word is found in the sentence:

Tä?rim çök bizki/bizkä it is a verb in the imperative (I understand it as ‘Descend to us my God!’)

Vasil’ev, D. D. read the inscription (No 36) as yüz yašayin tä?rim čök bizkä (‘Let me live a hundred years descend to us my God’)

Malov on the other side read it as öčük bizkä, though there is no ö- in front of č in the runic inscription, and translates it as ‘Let heaven be our roof’

-in Müller’s Uigurica II 41:21:

kil?uluk čökä yangin is a kind of a genuflection that should be done

-also in Müller’s Uigurica 61:8-9:

ootqa čöklämiš-ig yitäčilär ‘those eating [anything including qua čečeg] sacrificed in the fire’

Considering the Hungarian side, the loan word must be a noun meaning ‘sg. devoted, sacrificed or offered’. The problem is that the noun is missing. However, we have enough hints to believe there was a noun like that and later the verb Uyg. čöklä- ‘çök-‘ (Caferoglu 1968: 65), čüklä- ‘opfern’ (Chuvash Paasonen) was created from it by adding the denominal verb-formative suffix –lA, as well as it formed the noun part of compound verbs like čök et-, čök tüš- (Clauson 1972: 413).

In Hungarian it is a dialectal word, its usage is restricted to the area once inhabited by Cumans. It was preserved for the ‘feast after the ceremony of baptizing’. Originally, the term might have belonged to pagans offering something for their Gods and afterwards they had a rich meal.

The Chuvash word seems to be a loan from Tatar.

We suspect it to be a second layer Turkic loan word in Hungarian, most likely borrowed from the western Kipchak people the Cumans, because of its initial č-. In the earlier period of the Hungarian language history, initial č’s became š (e.g. sajt [shayt] 'cheese').

We may not exclude the possibility for the word to be a nomen-verbum (since there is also another čök in Hungarian borrowed from Turkic), though for the time being I am not sure of it.

There is a probability, that this Hungarian word serves as a proof for its existence as a noun in Western Old Turkic.

A seldom borrowed group: the verbs

Nobody is surprised when someone describes a new concept or a newly introduced object with a new term. Verbs form a conservative layer of the vocabulary, one cannot dream of a foreign verb to express his activity with more adequacy than one of his mother tongue. Yet there are situations when the speaker and the listener agree on using one word for an action while their mother tongue is not the same. Maybe the verb agreed on has more aspects or much more meanings, therefore it can cast a light on a nuance wanted to be expressed.

In very special circumstances, this situation might occur e.g. in Old Hungarian.
Here follows the list of Hungarian verbs of Turkic origin:

ajnároz ~ ajnárol ’to fondle, pet, caress’ < OT oyna- ’to play with’

ápol ’to nurse, tend, look after’ < *op- + H deverbal (= DV) suff. -l

áporodik ’to decay, turn stale’ < OT opra- ’to grow old, decay’ + H DV suff.-d+H -ik

arat ’to mow’ < OT or(a)- + H DV suff. -t

árik ’to decay, go bad’ < *ar- + H V suff. -ik

bán ’to regret’ < *ba?in-

baszik ’to fuck’ < OT bas- + H V suff.  -ik

becsül ’to estimate, esteem’ < OT bičil-

bocsánik ’to be forgiven’ < *bošan- +H V suff.-ik

bocsát ’to forgive’ < *bošat-

borít ’to cover, overturn’ < *bur- + H V suff. -ít

bosszankodik ’to be annoyed’ < *busan- + H V suff. –kod, -ik

csatol ’to add, join’ < *čat- +HV suff. -l

csökken ’to diminish, decrease’ < *čök- +

csűr-csavar ’to twist, distort’ < OT čevir-

dől ’to lean, topple over’ < *tül-

dúl ’to ravage, devastate’ < *juli-

enged ’to allow, permit, let’ < *eng- +H suff. -d

ernyed ’to slacken, relax’ < *erin- + H suff -d

gyaláz ’to abuse’ < *jala- H denominal (= DN) suff. -z

gyarapodik ’to increase, grow stronger’ < *jarpa-  +H V suff. –d/s- -ik

gyárt ’to produce’ < *jarat-

gyónik ’to confess’ < *jun- + H V suff. -ik

gyötör ’to torture’ < * yirtür-

gyújt ’to light’ < *ja?il- H V suff -t

gyúr ’to knead’ < *ju?ur-

gyűjt ’to collect’ < *ji?il- H V suff -t

gyűlöl ’to hate’ < *ja?il- OT yagi ’enemy’ + T Pass. suff. –l

gyűr ’to crumple’ < *ju?ur-

ijeszt ’to frighten’ < *ayi-/ayi- + H suff. –d/-szt

illik ’to suit, fit’ < * il- +H suff -ik

imád ’to adore, worship’ < *vim- + H suff. -d

ír ’to write’ < *ir-

irdal ’to trace out, slit’ < *ir- + H suff. -dal

irt ’to destroy, extirpate’ < *ar(i)t-

izzik ’to glow, be red hot’ < *isi- + H suff. –ik, -gat, -d

kérődzik ’to chew the cud’ < *kewir- + H suff –d +-z+-ik

késik ’to be late’ < *keč- +H suff –ik

koldul ’to beg’ < *qoltu- + H suff. -l

könyörül ’to have mercy on’ < *könür- + H suff. -l

köszön ’to greet, to thank’ < *küsen-

nyargal ’to gallop’ < *yorga- + H suff. –(X)l

ölt ’to stitch’ < *il- + suff. –(X)t

önik ’to elect, select’ < *ün-

őröl ’to grind’ < *evir- + H suff. –l

örül ’to rejoice, be glad’ < *ögir- + H suff –l, -m

őrül ’to become mad’ < *evir- + H suff. -l

szán ’to have pity on, to regret’ < *sa:n-

szán2 ’to intend sg for sy’ < *sa:n-

szenderedik ’to take a nap’ < *söndür-

szór ’to sprinkle’ < *savur-

szökik ’to escape’< *sek- + H suff. -ik

szűnik ’to cease’ < *sön- + H suff. -ik

szűr ’to filter’ < *šür-

tákol ’to fabricate’ < *tayak + H suff. -l

táplál ’to feed, nourish’ < *tapla? + H suff -l

tart ’to hold, keep, consider’ < *tart

teker ’to wind, twist’ < *teker-

teng ’to vegetate’ < *te?

terel ’to drive, turn’< *tevir- + H suff. -l

tilt ’to prohibit, forbid’ < *tiyil-

tojik ’to lay egg’ < *tu?-

torlódik ’to accumulate’ < *tor(o)-

tör ’to break’ < *tügür-

történik ’to happen’ < *törüntün-

üdül ’to rest’ < *edü- + H suff. –l

üzekedik ’to be on heat’ < *üzeg- < *üdeg- + H suff. –ked –ik

váj ’to hollow out’ < *va:y-

verseng ’to compete’ < *vers- + H suff.

The older a loan word layer[3] is, the more the verb in it to be found as compared with nouns. As in our case, 10% of our first layer Turkic loan words, while only 1% in our Slavic loan words and only 0.3% in our German loan-words is verb (Róna-Tas 1978: 255).

In my dissertation on Middle – Mongolian loan words in Volga Kipchak languages I dealt with the same problem of borrowings between two agglutinative languages. There I established 24 verbs among the corpus of 118 loan words, that means the rate of verbs is even higher there.

An even more obstinate part of speech: suffixes

A lot of the Turkic loan-words in Hungarian have been borrowed together with their suffixes. It is not strange for us because just as if Hungarians Turks can also create new words agglutinating certain endings to a stem let it be absolute or relative. There are older and newer word formatting suffixes, some of them ceased to be active while some are used especially to create verbs or - on the contrary – nouns. It is considered a criterion of being archaic if a suffix can be added both to verbs and to nouns. It is typical that suffixes have special functions: turn a verb into a noun or vica versa, make a verb into another verb with a very different meaning, etc.

It has long been researched whether it is possible to borrow certain parts of a language. Many agreed upon the verb being one of the most stable part of any language. Therefore, we can seldom find loan-verbs, not to speak about numerals and smaller parts of a speech like suffixes. This is the case in general, but it is somewhat different in the case of languages with the same structure, and more especially when we have to think about peoples who had migrated and lived next to each other. As Doerfer puts it (Doerfer 1997: 103),...’language is very flexible and dependent on many parameters’. It is not enough to think about the language when thinking about language contacts but also of the speakers and their circumstances[4].

We can learn it from Kashghari, that Karakhanids spoke both Oghuz and Kipchak and additional languages. Examining Turkic languages in Central Asia and in the Near East[5] we can see that in most cases Turks speak besides their own mother tongue either Russian or Persian/Chinese or another koine, and another Turkic dialect. Therefore, it is easy to imagine how Turkic influenced Hungarian during their symbiosis.         

We could examine word-formation in Old-Hungarian and Western Old Turkic. There are suffixes - seemingly the same - attested in both languages with similar function yet it is possible to separate them from each other e.g. deverbal -n-, -l- (see Róna-Tas 1994: 110-116).

According to the latest results all the suffixes on Turkic loan-verbs in Hungarian (bán, bocsán-ik, bosszan-kodik, csökken, szán, szán2, szűn-ik, gyón, történ-ik) with the suffix –(X)n are of Turkic origin, since the usage of the similar Hungarian –(X)n was restricted exclusively for the formation of onomatopoetic verbs, while –(X)n in Turkic forms medial, reflexive and anti-transitive verbs.

The Turkic suffix –(X)l was borrowed by Hungarians in cases when its function is to form according to Erdal (1991: 651) ‘simple passive’ verbs, that ‘often have anti-transitive’ meaning. Therefore we consider the suffix on the Hungarian verbs of Turkic origin as Turkic: okul ‘learn by experience, draw a lesson from sg.’, borul ‘be overturned, fall over’, őrül ‘become mad, lose one’s mind’, örül ‘be glad, be delighted’, gyúl ‘be inflamed’, gyűl ‘be piling up’

Why are first layer Turkic loan words in Hungarian important for Turkic language history?

Since Old Turkic is not equal to East Old Turkic only and since the written sources, e.g. inscriptions of the Western Old Turkic dialects are so scant and short it is easy to understand why the loan-words borrowed by Ancient Hungarians can be considered a reliable source for reconstructing Old Turkic.

Because it is the largest reliable, documented material reflecting Western Old Turkic.

It is a well known fact that certain ideas are expressed totally differently in Oghuz and Qipchak languages (e.g. güneş : quyaš, gibi : keb). On what side Hungarian stood.

Vowel harmony was typical in both Ancient Finno-Ugrian and Old Turkic languages. After Hungarian had separated several changes took part in its ’independent’ period. Among others velar i disappeared and palatal i started to substitute for it. We all understand why the Turkic loanword kín 'pain' in Hungarian takes a back vocalic/velar ending e.g. plur. kín+ok 'pains'.

There started to appear words with mixed phonetic structure, in the former velar words palatal i and é started to be used. Similarly (but perhaps not wholly independently) the same changes can be noticed in Turkic, we can see how i and e crept into Turkic former velar words almost in the same period of time.

One of our best Slavists István Kniezsa wrote a study in 1938 on Hungary’s 11th century ethnic situation. The pioneer work on this field was a continuation of Melich’s work: Hungary during the conquest. While Melich only tried to enlist the different peoples inhabiting the Carpathian Basin, Kniezsa wanted to locate the major Hungarian settlements. Gyula Kristó in his article returned to the task: tries to give us a scientific description of the peoples, ethnic groups of the 11th century Hungary - knowing that due to the lack of written sources it is not possible to answer each question (Kristó 2000). Three of the enlisted 51 place-names is marked in his article as of Turkic common word origin, an additional four are mentioned as ones going back to Turkic personal names.

Ligeti (1986: 21) mentions that the initial Old Turkic j- [dž] is preserved only in Hungarian as attested in our first layer Turkic loan-words: Hungarian gyapjú ’wool’ ~ Common Turkic (= CT) yapa?u (Clauson 1972: 874-5), H gyarló ’poor, frail’ ~ CT yarli? (Cl. 1972: 967), H gyász ‘bereavement’ ~ CT yas (Cl. 1972: 973), H gyeplő ‘reins’ ~ CT yip(lik) (Cl. 1972: 870), H gyomor ‘stomach’ ~ CT yumur (Cl. 1972: 937), H gyöngy ‘pearl’ ~ CT yinčü (Cl. 1972: 944-5), H gyűlik ‘assemble’ ~ CT yi?il- (Cl. 1972: 901-2), H gyűszű ‘thimble’ ~ CT yüksük (Cl. 1972: 916).

There are several problems we have to consider. We have to find the right criteria to be able to decide for instance the origin of an ending. We also have to consider phonetic changes and language history on both sides.

The terminology is not settled yet, but we should like to make it clear that for us Western Old Turkic is the language spoken in the South-Eastern areas of Europe in the 7-13th centuries. In the given area we assume the presence of Oghur, Oghuz as well as Kipchak types of languages.

Unlike any other languages that has had contacts with Turkic there are some 450-500 well documented words (primary stems) in Hungarian reflecting Western Old Turkic. Not each of them has a safe etymology of the same value, not all of them belong to our present day Hungarian. Yet a corpus like this offers a good background for further researches.  

References

Bárczi G. – Benkő L. – Berrár J. (1967): A magyar nyelv története. Budapest.

Benkő L. (ed.) (1991): A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana. I. A korai ómagyar kor és előzményei. Budapest.

Clauson, G. (1972): An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth century Turkish. Oxford.

Doerfer, G. (1997): The suffix of the third person plural of the verb in Khorasan Turkic. in: V. Milletlerarasi Türk Halk Kültürü Kongresi genel konular seksiyon bildirileri. (Kültür Bakanligi Yayinari 1871) pp. 101-109. Ankara.

Erdal, M. (1991): Old Turkic word formation. A functional approach to the lexicon I-II.  (Turcologica 7) Wiesbaden.

Eren, H. (1999): Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlügü. Ankara.

Golden, P. (1992): An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples. Ethnogenesis and state-formation in medieval and early modern Eurasia and the Midle East. (Turcologica 9) Wiesbaden.

Gombocz Z. (1908): Honfoglaláselőtti török jövevényszavaink. (A Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság Kiadványai 7.) Budapest.

Gombocz, Z. (1912):  Die bulgarisch-türkischen Lehnwörter in der ungarischen Sprache. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne XXX. Helsinki.

Kakuk, Zs. (1975): Macar dilinde Osmanli-Türk unsurlari. I. Türk bilimsel kurultayina sunulan bildiriler. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 413) pp. 209-213. Ankara.

Kakuk Zs. (1993): Török jövevényszavaink kicsinyítő képzői. Eger.

Kyuchukov, H. (1994): The Turkic dialects of Muslim Roms (Gypsies) in Bulgaria. Journal of Turkology 2: 2. pp. 305-307.

Ligeti L. (1986): A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban. Budapest.

Palló M. (1982): Régi török eredetű igéink. (Studia uralo - altaica supplementum 1.) Szeged.

Rédei K. (1998): Őstörténetünk kérdései. (Magyar őstörténeti könyvtár 11) Budapest.

Róna-Tas, A. (1993): Marcel Erdal: Old Turkic Word Formation. Review. Journal of Turkology 1: 2. pp. 291-305.

Róna-Tas, A. (1994): Turkic verb-formative suffixes in Hungarian. Journal of Turkology 2: 1. pp. 101-118.

Róna-Tas A. (1996): A honfoglaló magyar nép. Budapest.

Róna-Tas, A. (1999): On a Turkic word in the work of Kirakos of Gandjak. in: Menges, K. H. – Naumann, N. (eds) Language and literature  – Japanese and the other Altaic languages. Studies in honour of Roy Andrew Miller on his 75th birthday. Wiesbaden. pp. 15-17.

Schönig, C. (1999): The internal division of Modern Turkic and its historical implications. Acta Orientalia Sc. Hung. 52: 1 pp. 63-95.

Szarvas G. – Simonyi Zs. (eds) (1890): Magyar nyelvtörténeti szótár I-II. Budapest.

TAA = A Tihanyi Apátság Alapítólevele 1055.

TESz = Benkő L. (1967), A magyar nyelv történeti – etimológiai szótára I-IV. Budapest.

Vásáry, I. (1993): ±sXn and its related suffixes. Studies in Turkic word formation and etymology. Journal of Turkology 1: 1 pp. 113-153.

4. +nAn as Ablative Case Suffix in Hungarian and Turkic Langauges

[2007a +nAn as Ablative Case Suffix in Hungarian and Turkic Langauges.  In: Csepregi M. – Masonen, V. (eds): Grammatika és kontextus: új szempontok az uráli nyelvek kutatásában. Nemzetközi uralisztikai kongresszus ELTE 2004 április 4-7. (Urálisztikai tanulmányok 17.) Budapest. pp. 55-67. ]

There are several similar phenomena present in the languages of both Uralic and Altaic language families due to the vehement, intensive and lasting contacts at different times of peoples speaking those languages in the past. The way they express three different directions (with the help of dative, locative, ablative cases) is only one of them. There are studies dealing with the mutual influences as well as with convergent developments. We are aware of loanwords present in both sides from the other group, whereas little is told about borrowed suffixes. Endings are considered as the most stable part of any language.

Therefore we want to underline the importance of the same forms and usage of ablative case Old Hungarian +nAn and Old Turkic +DAn (and its variant +nAt in Hungarian). We suppose it as a borrowed case marker in Hungarian that was used mainly in the form +nAn especially in Kipchak Turkic (among others Cumanian) lanuages.

Ablative Case in Ugrian and Turkic languages

There had been ablative case suffix in Uralic proto-language *+tA, which later became the locative suffix in Ugrian languages, giving rise to a need for a new ablative case suffix that was *+l.

As for late Old Hungarian we know about two different forms of the ablative case: +tÓl and +l, the latter having faded with time (Bereczki 1996: 81).
They are also attested in Hungarian codices from the 15th and 16th centuries from which I have chosen examples for illustration (e.g. JókK ...örökül örökké... ‘for ever since ever’). In several cases we can see that the older and newer (borrowed) forms were living contemporaneously. There is another ablative case marker in late Old Hungarian +nAn (and its phonetic variant +nAt) that was not put down in the earliest written records, yet it appeared after 1372 in many different instances.

The ablative case in Eastern Old Turkic was expressed by the suffix +DIn, its voiceless variant is +TIn. The vocal of the suffix could be –i-/-i-/-u-/-ü-. It is well attested on Old Turkic inscriptions with ruinic script from the 8th century on. E.g. on the inscription of Köl Tégin we find the following: kan+din ‘from where?’, taş+din ‘from outside’.

In the same time in Western Old Turkic +DAn serves as ablative suffix. Its regular variant is +TAn after voiceless final consonants in the stem. The major difference between the eastern and western forms is that the latter had only two variants: +DAn after velar stems and +DEn after stems with a final palatal vocal.

In Middle Turkic we find for instance different forms giving us the feeling that it was not settled yet: ö?din ~ ö?dün ‘ran’še’ (Fazylov 1971: 194).

As for present day Chuvash language the ablative is expressed by +rAn in most cases but after a nominal stem ending in –r/-l/-m/-n the suffix is +čEn.

We find +nAn in some of the western Turkic languages, especially, but not only Kipchak dialects: e.g. in Karachay-Balkar after an original or secondary final –m/-n/-?:

men ’I’+den > men+nen ‘from me’

sen ’you’+den > sen+nen ‘from you’

an ’he/she/it’+dan > an+nan ‘from her/him/it/there’

elim+den > el ‘village’+im (GenSing1)+nen ‘from my village’

üyüm+den > üy ‘house’+üm (GenSing1)+nen ‘from my home’

üyüng+den > üy ‘house’+üng (GenSing2)+nen ‘from your house’

keng ‘far’+den > keng-nen ‘from far’

ertden ‘morning’+den > ertden-nen ‘from morning’ – these examples show how sound assimilation takes place.

The phenomenon is also well demonstrated in Azeri belonging to the Oghuz Turkic group of languges.[6]

Ruhum beden+nen oynar (10a-1-14)

My soul is dancing out of my body...

Yurdunnan, togma torpaginnan diderkin düšen (11b-15)

‘The ones falling astray from their country and homeland’...

Ay, daglar havasinnan nefes alan millet... (11b-11)

Oh, people taking breath from the air of the mountains...

We see it also in the cases when it is used with personal pronouns:

Géderik o ölke sen+nen (15a-15)

‘We departure from you, oh country’

Ay Allah, bu+(n)+nan beş dene ver... (8a-9)

‘Oh, Allah give five of this...’

According to many linguists dealing with Hungarian language history, +nAn ~ +nAt serves to intensify the meaning of the stem in the case of innen ‘from here’ (Benkő 1993: 615), onnan ‘from there’ (Benkő 1994: 1063), onnan, onnén, onnat, onnét ‘from the place in question’ (Szabó T. 1997: 1088-1090), amonnan 1538 ‘von dorther’ (TESz 1: 146).

We suggest to consider +nAn (and its variant) ~ +nAt simply an ablative ending with the meaning ‘from’ on the solid basis of its function. It is not to be found in other Ugrian languages while it is well known in many Turkic languages in different periods. Therefore we consider it a loan suffix of Turkic origin. It is not recorded in the earliest written Hungarian records, therefore we consider it to be of Cuman (or other Kipchak Turkic) origin.

The stem of the Hungarian demonstrative and question pronouns is justly considered to be of Uralic origin e (~i)/ a (~o/u) and ho- (Bárczi – Benkő – Berrár 1967: 209). An anorganic –n- appears on the word final position before the ending. It is also a well known phenomenon in different Altaic including Turkic languages. There are several instances in Hungarian where the anorganic –n- appears on word finals before suffixes.[7]

According to D. Mátai (1991: 415-418) the earliest Hungarian pronoun stems like i-/o- as well as question stems like ho- were added prime suffexes. Both present day Hungarian itt ‘here’ and ott ‘there’ derives from the Uralic or Finno-Ugric era. Onnan and innen were formed with the „outside effect” analoguos to honnan, without any „inner reason”.

The palatal: velar opposition of pair words like in the case of demonstrative pronouns: ez ‘this’~ az ‘that’, ide ‘to this place’ ~ oda ‘to that place’, innen ‘from this place’ ~ onnan ‘from that place’ is a well known device both in Finn-Ugric and Turkic languages.

Hungarian honnan? ‘from where?’ goes parallel with hunnet? (Berrár-Károly 1984:    334) in early records offering us a proof for the different forms of the same ablative ending. The stem is the original pronoun.

Onnan is given as synonym of ~ onnét~ onnétlan ‘von dort’ (Berrár – Károly 1984: 542), the same concerns Hungarian másunnan ~ másunnat ‘von anderswo’ (Berrár – Károly 1984: 477).

Hungarian innen ~ innét(en) 1.‘von hier’; 2. ‘von der Zeit ab’; 3. ‘diesseits’; 4. daher, daraus’ (Berrár – Károly 1984: 354). It is also known in Transylvania in the following forms: innen ~ innend[8] ~ innet ‘from here, from this place, from now on’ (Szabó T. 1993: 673-5). The last word serves as a good example for the double usage of an adverbial, it is valid for both space and time – as we see it in different Turkic languages during different periods also in many cases.

The effective usage of +nAn in Hungarian could not be very long and lively and it was restricted. It was replaced by other ablative suffixes like +tÓl. In some instances we can still find the double usage of the ablative endings: e.g. on+nan+tól kezdve/fogva ‘starting from there’. In this latter example the old and hazy function of +nAn was strengthened by another ending +tÓl.

The suffix +nAn ~ +nAt often serves to help the meaning of the weakening ablative suffix +l as we find it in Late Old Hungarian together with other adverbials (D. Mátai 1992: 573). It went further on as we look at their history, because we can find an additional ablative suffix on them: onnan+tól, innen+től, etc. It is not a unic event, as we have seen it before, we can offer other examples where the older ending is added a newer one to word-final: ház > haz+ul+ról ‘from home’ – in this example the preserved old Uralic ablative suffix: -l was completed by a later Hungarian ablative suffix +rÓl.

Adverb of place

The case is well known in Crimean Tatar as we learn from the folksongs collected by I. Kúnos after I World War in the prisoners’ camp near Esztergom[9]:

Başlari tüşken

Ihre Köpfe sanken

gül kibik sunganlar

wie die Rose wurden sie gelb

bek kübisi bu âlinen

sehr viele von ihnen fielen

şeyit bolganlar

unter solchen Umständen

In Munich codex copied in 1466 in Tatros (now Romania) we have the forms meaning ‘from here’ innen (10va21, 14vb31), innet (45rb29), inneten (43ra24, 58ra9, 72va31), mindenünnen ‘from everywhere’ (78va43 with another stem but with the same ending 34rb45), onnan ‘from there’ (105vb18, 15va25, 16ra11, 37va12), onnaton ‘id’ (18rb15, 37va12, 71va59), egyebünnen ‘from another place’ (95vb1, 96ra8), honnan ‘from where?’ (19ra44, 20va54, 20va56). 

Munich codex 34vb39.

Az onnan muloc ke• karomlacuala ?tet

‘those passing from there cursed him’

In Jókai codex (XIVth c.) we find the following examples:

honnat te neked ennyi kevélységed... (p.42.)

‘this much presumption of yours, where does it derive from?’

... the form has not settled yet, there is another form with double final –tt of the same word, like ...honnatt... (p.56:13), (p.134:12).

honnan || honnét ~ hunnet (Berrár-Károly 1984: 334), innen ~| innét 1372 ‘von hier’ (Benkő 1993: 615), inneten, innentova (Berrár-Károly 1984: 354), másunnan ~ másunnat ‘von anderswo’ (Berrár-Károly 1984: 477), messzünnen ~ messziről ‘from far’

We see it on demonstrative pronouns pointing to both near and far:

... menjetek el innett jeles tolvajok... (80:23)

‘go away from here illustrious thieves’...

There is innet ‘from here’ present in Döbrentei codex (59: 4).

We also have the form onnatt ‘from there’ (p. 134: 17) and a special form with a so called augmentative element +lAn. (This element is also well known to Turkic language users in the same function.)

...[Szt. Ferenc bement egy várba, felmászott egy kőfalra és] onnattlan prédikála ott álló sokaságnak...(94:11)

...‘(St. Francis went into a castle, climbed a stone wall) from there he preached to the mass of people standing there’

We can also find this ablative form in the works of Heltai (1987), who was one of the most famous Hungarian protestant writer in the 16th century.

Mikorontan (Heltai 1987: 151)

We often find the ablative form +nAn and its variants (+nAt ~ +tAn) in Pázmány (=PP)’s works:

hon+nan PP. p. 19, hon ‘hol’

ifian+tan magtalan vala PP p. 36.

…ha együn+nen másuvá mehetne …PP p. 38.

régen+ten  PP  p. 41.

Eleitűl fogva végig elhat az ő gondviselése, azaz messzünnen kezdi, az mit véghez akar vinni; és az ő bölcsességével egybekapcsolja, egybehozza az messze vetett dolgokat. Innen vagyon főképen eredeti, hogy az emberek gyakran megütköznek az Istennek gondviselésében, mert messze nem néznek. PP p. 42.

Messzün+nen ne keressünk ez dologban bizonyságot! PP.

The Cuman Turkic people had escaped from the Mongols and as a result they settled into the Carpathean Basin in the thirteenth century. They were surrounded by Hungarians who considered them - due to their behaviour and physiognomy - to be the spies of the Mongols. After the Cumans had been baptized they all became Protestant[10]. The older generation still remembers that the Christian prayer Pater Noster belonged to the school material in the secondary schools of Cuman towns. It survived in at least sixty variants, some of them is preserved in the Hungarian National Library.

Let me cite one of its lines:

‘qutqar bizni ol jaman+nan’

‘[but] deliver us from evil’

The stem of the word is Old Turkic yaman ‘bad, evil’ (Clauson 1972: 937), it is not represented before the eleventh century. The initial Turkic y- is reflected unanimously by j- in Kipchak languages already in the 13th century and this concerns the ablative suffix, for we find it in the form of +nAn. It was also documented by Kúnos after World War I, e.g. in his text-collection of Mischer Tatar language published by Kakuk.

We find the word yakinnan ‘näher, aus der Nähe’ (Kakuk 1996: 185) it is also formed from the stem yakin ‘near’ with the suffix +nAn.

As for the double function of adverbs ending in +nAn we can state, that it can be used with adverbs of place and adverb of time also in Hungarian and Turkic languages lets see how it functiones in cases of adverbs of time

Adverb of time

Similarly to the Turkic cases locative and dative valid for both space and time: bura+da ‘here’, saat alti+da ‘at six o’clock’ the ablative case is also valid for both of them: ora+dan ‘from there’, bugün+den ‘from today’, iki+den ‘from two (o’clock)’. The same concerns Hungarian adverbs of time: tegnap+tól ‘from yesterday’, öt+től ‘from five o’clock’.[11]

In Jókai codex we find the following examples with +nAn ~ +nAt:

...És tehát fráter Rufen jelen+nen eszébe vevé, hogy...(128: 18)

...de maga yelen+nen monda...(198: 17)

...‘and so Brother Rufen from now on came to a decision, that’....

...‘but he himself from now on said, that’.....

...hogy yn+net+len Vylagy emberek...(192: 86)

...‘from now on secular people’...

In Döbrentei codex (1508) we see the form on+net+on (DK 4: 12):

..es on+net+on ezvilágra malasztnak özönét ontád...

...‘and form there you poured the shower of divine grace’...

In early (XIV-XVth c.) religious Azeri poetry we find the ablative siffix +nAn:

 In+nen béle qohum-qardaş meni görmez.

‘I will not be seen from now on by relatives or brothers’ (Sipos Az: 11b-15).

An example of its apperance in present day Turkish dialect spoken in Mersin southern Anatolia:

...o gün+nen bu yana...(SJ421 IÇE 7.1)

...‘from that day until now’...

azu+tán 1372 u./1448 k. ‘dann’ (TESz 1: 206) ~ az+tán, u+tán || Tu. ondan

Adverb of state

The following example is an unusual one even if it appears later again in Jókai codex (204: 6). The case is neither an adverb of place nor that of time, but rather adverb of state:

...Tehat legottan tytkon+nan elmene... (186: 25)

...‘And so immediately he went from there in secret’....

In Karachay Turkic language:

Tawlu tawlunu jürügenin+den tanir. (Tavkul 2001: 213)

‘The mountainer knows his fellow mountainer from his walking.’

Lexicalized forms and special usage of +nAn

In Old Anatolian Turkic ablative is also used in the sence ‘because of’.

Cahil šatir olma kim cahillik+den giši néče ziyanlara ugrar. (QN 36a)

‘Do not be an ignorant happy one because a person receives a number of losses due to ignorance.’ (Turan 2000: 82)

|| Hungarian butaság+ból ‘because of ignorance’

Iy padišah od issisin+den kimse qatina varinaz. QE 52b-5.

‘O king, no one can approach him because of heat of fire.’ (Turan 2000: 82)

|| Hungarian: a tűz melegé+től ‘because of the heat of fire’

Ki ol qorhu+dan quš dökeydi qanat

Qašanaydi a?ramagindan qan at. (SN 4070)

‘And the bird would cast off its feathers out of fear

And the horse would urinate blood because of its wallowing [too much].’ (Turan 2000: 82-3)

|| Hungarian félelem+ből ‘because of fear’

Here we also have Hungarian parallels: Mitől véres a lábad? ‘Why is your leg bloody?’, attól ideülhetsz, hogy én is itt vagyok, ‘you can take place here even if I am here’ stb.

In Azeri we find also examples of ablative case meaning ‘because of’:

Derd elin+nen erzečiyem men ... (ex9d2 7b-7)

‘I do complain because of my grief...’

Men de bu dert+nen ölsem, (v6-23)

‘If me too die from/because of this woe’...

...on+nan da ölmezsem...(ex32e 3b-9 Bayati)

...if I do not die either from that...

Ablative in comparison

Though in cases drawing comparison between two things Hungarian does not utilize ablative suffix any more (except for present day Hungarian dialects) yet we have examples of its vividity in Old Hungarian.

minden emberektől bűnösebb (Bécsi codex)[12]

...‘more sinful than any other people’...

mentől nagyobb (Érdy c. 511)

...‘the larger the better’...

tőlem nagyobb (Gl. 1470) (Benkő 1992: 469)

‘bigger than me’

ettől kisebb bűnökért (Birk. c. 3a) (Benkő 1992: 495)

‘for sins minor than this one’

ezektől nagyobb (Müncheni c. 89)

‘bigger than this’

Ablative when it is used in comparing two different things, is well documented in present day Turkic languages. We can find it in Karachay – Balkar language both in every-day expressions: tašdan, temirden küčlü ‘sil‘nej kamnja i železa’ (Tenišev 1989: 817), and we also find it in proverbs when comparing two different things to each other.

Köb bilgenden köb körgen igidi. (Karça-Koşay 1954: 134)

Better is the one who had seen a lot than the one who knows a lot.

Törümden körüm juwuk. (Tavkul 2001: 227)

‘My grave is nearer than my seat of honor.’

Boš jürügenden ese bošuna išle. (Tavkul 2001: 10).

‘You should rather work in vain than walk in wain.’

Sabiy konakdan tamada. (Tavkul 2001: 198)

‘A child is more important person than a guest.’

Söz sawutdan küčlü. (Tavkul 2001: 204)

‘Word is stronger than weapon’

Further lexicalized forms with the help of ablative suffix

In Hungarian, a great number of lexicalized form have developed with the help of adverbials.

fen+nen hirdet/hangoztat ‘proclaim aloud’, újon+nan érkezett ‘new arrival’,

men+ten ‘immediately’ (Szabó T. 1997: 107) < mi?+n+tAn ~ mentől is also used in comparison ‘the better the’ (Szabó T. 1997: 109)

As D. Mátai (2003: 411) explains the lexicalized usage of mire (or minek?) ‘why?’ (i.e. the dative case of Hungarian mi ‘what?’). It goes parallel with the usage of Turkish ne+den? ‘why?’ (i. e. the ablative case of Turkish ne ‘what?’).

Let’s take the example of Hungarian közelebb+ről ‘more precisely’ || Turkish yakin+dan ‘precisely’. The stem is ‘near’ in both langauges and this was completed by an ablative ending. Even though it is not exactly the same case – the Hungarian word is a comparative adjective, the Turkish can be an adjective, a noun and an adverb - the way they become a new word is exactly the same. There we find nominal endings in both languages that can serve as word formatting suffixes.

Idioms with ablative case

According to G. Bereczki (1996: 95) if we compare the usage of verbs of Finno-Ugrians with Indo-European ones we find that the latter expresses the place an action takes place. In Finno-Ugrian languages – even in the case of verbs not expressing motion – we mark the starting point or the direction the verb aims at. (The preferance of the usage of the locative case in Hungarian idioms is considered to be secondary and the result of Indo European effect.)

In present day Turkish we find the example: Tut elimden kaldir beni ‘holding my hand lift me up’ (form a religious song of Bektashi communities).

In present day standard Hungarian kézen fog ‘to hold sy’s hand’. But in Moldova, the Hungarian dialect spoken there knows the kéztől fog form as well.

Further examples from present day Turkish: yakin+dan ilgilen- ‘to pay close attention to’, dert+ten öl- ‘to die of woe’, yeni+den başla- ‘to start again’ etc..

Hungarian emlékezet+ből beszél ‘speak by heart’, tanul az esetből ‘learn from the case’, tud valahonnan valamit ‘knows sg. from somewhere’,

Turkish taş+tan yap- ‘to build of stone’,

Karachay - Balkar es+im+den čikti ‘I forgot it (literally: it went out of my memory)’

In a study Baskakov mentioned that Turkmen people living in the Caucasus expressed the ablative case with +nAn/dAn. The examples are taken from his text:

qoyunun ičinnen ’from the sheep’ (Baskakov 1949: 163),

šonu? ald?nnan ’before that time’ (Baskakov 1949: 163),

onnan so? ’from that moment on’ (Baskakov 1949: 163),

bagr?mnan dogan ogulum mennen suvvda (Baskakov 1949: 164)

bir neče zamannan so? (Baskakov 1949:164)

onnon yahš? (Baskakov 1949:168)

atamnan (Baskakov 1949:169)

jannan (Baskakov 1949:169)

hijrännän (Baskakov 1949:169).

Conclusion

Since Hungarian had developed under strong Turkic influence before the conquest, we should presume several common case markers and other suffixes apart from loan-words in great numbers.

If the Hungarian ablative case marker +nAn was borrowed from a Turkic language, it is not a unique phenomenon that a suffix could be borrowed. Under certain circumstances we justly expect bilingualism. We attest the presence of borrowed suffixes also in different Turkic languages from Middle-Mongolian during the period of the Golden Horde.

References

Kövesi M. (1953): Képzőtanulmányok a Sopron megyei nyelvjárásokból. (Magyar Nyelvjárások II). Budapest. pp.71-106.

Agyagási K. (2000): Egy régi probléma új megoldása. (A mari –la,-lä és a csuvas –lla/-lle határozói esetrag történetéhez). (Magyar Nyelvjárások XXXVIII) Debrecen pp. 19-23.

Balázs J. (ed.) (1981): Jókai-kódex XIV-XV. század. (Codices Hungarici VIII.) Budapest.

Benkő L. (1988): A történeti nyelvtudomány alapjai. Budapest.

Bárczi G. – Benkő L. – Berrár J. (1967): A magyar nyelv története. Budapest.

Baskakov, N. A. (1949): Ob osobennostjah severo-kavkazskih turkmenov. Jaz?ki severnogo Kavkaza i Dagestana. Sbornik lingvističeskih issledovanij 2. pp. 140-182.

Benkő L. (ed.) (1993-4): Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen I-II. Budapest.

Bereczki G. (1983): A Volga-Káma –vidék nyelveinek areális kapcsolatai. In: Balázs J. (ed.): Areális nyelvészeti tanulmányok. Budapest. pp. 207-236.

Bereczki G. (1996): A magyar nyelv finnugor alapjai. Budapest.

Bereczki G. (2002): A cseremisz nyelv történeti alaktana. Debrecen.

Bereczki G. (2004): A magyar nyelv és a Volga-vidék. In: Andrásfalvy B. – Domokos M.- Nagy I. (eds): Az Idő rostájában. Tanulmányok Vargyas Lajos 90. születésnapjára. I. Budapest. pp. 227-233.

Berrár J. – Károly S. (eds)(1984): Régi magyar glosszárium. Szótárak, szójegyzékek és glosszák egyesített szótára. Budapest.

Clauson, G. (1972): An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford.

Czuczor G. – Fogarasi J. (1864): A magyar nyelv szótára II. Pest.

Csűry B. (1937): Másalhangzónyúlás, ikerítődés a szamosháti nyelvjárásban MNy 33/78:201-216.

Mátai M. (1991): A határozószók. In: Benkő L. (ed.): A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana. I. kötet A korai ómagyar kor és előzményei. Budapest. pp. 401-441.

Mátai M. (1992): A határozószók. A határozószók morfematikai kérdései. Az egyszerű határozószók. In: Benkő L. (ed.): A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana. II/I kötet A kései ómagyar kor. Morfematika. Budapest. pp. 570-575.

Mátai M. (2003): Ragszilárdulás – lexikalizálódás. (Magyar Nyelvjárások XLI) Debrecen pp. 409-414.

Dmitriev, N. K. (1949): Materilay po istorii kum?kskogo jazka. Jaz?ki severnogo Kavkaza i Dagestana. Sbornik lingvističeskih issledovanij 2. pp. 183-247.

Erdélyi Zs. (1971): Archaikus és középkori elemek képi szövegekben. Ethnographia 1971:3. pp. 343-363.

Fazylov, É. (1966-1971): Starouzbekskij jazyk. I-II. Taškent.

Heltai G. (1987): Száz fabula. Budapest.

Gürsoy-Naskali, E. (1991): G. J. Ramstedt’s Kumyk materials. ed. and transl. by ~ . (Mém. de la Soc. Finno-Ou. 208) pp. 68-101. Helsinki.

Jakab L. – Bölcskei A. (2000): Balassi-szótár. Debrecen.

Kakuk, Zs. (1991): Ein Krimkaraimisches Wörterverzeichnis. AOH XLV:2-3. pp. 347-401.

Kakuk, Zs. (2001): Krimtatarische Soldatenlieder aus dem ersten Weltkrieg. AOH 54:4. pp. 509-517.

Kakuk, Zs. (1993): Kirim Tatar şarkilari. I. Kúnos’un derlemesinden yayimlayan ~. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 564) Ankara.

Kakuk, Zs. (1996): Mischärtatarische Texte mit Wörterverzeichnis. Aufgrund der Sammlung von Ignác Kúnos hrsg. von ~. (Studia Uralo-Altaica 38) Szeged.

Karça, R. – Koşay, H. Z. (1954): Karaçay – Malkar Türklerinde hayvancilik ve bununla ilgili gelenekler. (A. Ü. DTC Fak. Yayinlarindan No. 101) Ankara.

Károly S. (1965): A Bécsi kódex nyelvtana szótárszerű feldolgozásban. Morfológiai rész. (Grammatica Hungarica Codicis Vindobonensis Lexica Morphologia) Budapest.

Martinkó A. (1955): Rögtön. Nyr. 79:342-4.

Mándoky K. I. (1993): A kun nyelv magyarországi emlékei. (Keleti örökségünk 1.) Karcag.

Nyíri A. (ed.) (1971): A Müncheni Kódex 1466-ból. (Codices Hungarici VII) Budapest.

Nyíri A. (ed.)(1993): A Müncheni Kódex magyar-latin szótára. Budapest.

Nyirkos I. (1987): Az inetimologikus mássalhangzók a magyarban. Debrecen.

Rédei K. (1998): Őstörténetünk kérdései. (Magyar őstörténeti könyvtár 11) Budapest.

Róna-Tas A. (1978): Bevezetés a csuvas nyelv ismeretébe. Szeged.

Róna-Tas A. (1994): Turkic verb-formative suffixes in Hungarian. (Journal of Turkology 1:2) pp. 101-118.

Hámori A. (1995): Az alárendelő szerkezetek: a melléknévi, számnévi, határozói és határozószói szerkezetek. In: Benkő L. (ed.): A magyar nyelv történeti nyelvtana. II/2. A kései ómagyar kor. Budapest. pp. 426-473.

Szabó T. A. (ed.) (1993): Erdélyi Magyar Szótörténeti Tár V. He-Jü. Budapest - Bukarest.

Szabó T. A. (ed.)(1995): Erdélyi Magyar Szótörténeti Tár VII. Kl-Ly. Budapest - Bukarest.

Szabó T. A. (ed.)(1997): Erdélyi Magyar Szótörténeti Tár IX. Megy-Op. Budapest - Bukarest.

Somogyi M. (2000): Toldalékrendszerezésünk vitás kérdései. Segédkönyvek III. Budapest.

Tavkul, U. (2000): Karaçay – Malkar Türkçesi sözlügü. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 770) Ankara.

Tavkul, U. (2001): Karaçay – Malkar atasözleri. (T. C. Kültür Bakanligi Yayinlari 2570) Ankara.

Techert J. (1937): Csokonai nyelvi forrásai. MNy 33:12.

Tenišev, É. R. – Sujünčev, H. I. (eds)(1989): Karačaevo-balkarsko – russkij slovar’. Moskva.

Tezcan, S. (1994): Azerbaycan halk yazini örnekleri. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 445) pp. 464-551.

Turan F. (2000): Adverbs and adverbial constructions in Old Anatolian Turkish. (Turcologica 45). Wiesbaden.

Zübeyr, H. – Refet, I. (1932): Anadilden derlemeler. Ankara.

5. Early Turkic and Hungarian Connections

[I used to give some of my lectures in English while being a visiting/guest professor in Ankara (A.Ü. DTC, TOBB, etc.). These were one of my most visited ones.]

Uralic and Altaic Language Families, Periods of language history

What do we consider a language family?

The idea of linguistic relationship was first expressed by Sir William Jones in 1786, used in connection with Indo-European languages. Due to his ambitious studies of different classical languages as Latin, Greek, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew and Chinese, the founder of the Asiatic Society came to the conclusion that Greek, Latin and Sanskrit must have developed from the very same ancient language: the reconstructed *Proto Indo-European.

The languages of the same family are supposed to have separated from the same original mother tongue. In the course of time, each of them gets his own new forms, as a result of inner and outer effects, yet there is a certain layer the so called basic vocabulary that remains almost unchanged, at least it changes the slowest.

What do we consider a basic vocabulary? Numerals belong here, the names of the relatives by blood, names of the fauna and flora that was known in the supposed original location of the ancestors of the language family, the names of basic actions, simplest verbs, etc.

Typological classification is carried out on the basis of grammatical similarities e.g. agglutination in contrast to Indo-European ablaut (the latter performing systematic vowel changes in verb forms of Indo-European languages – as in drive, drove, driven).

However, the original genetic relationship between Uralic and Altaic languages can not be proved, many a linguist considered them to be related. This was due to linguistic phenomenon like the agglutinative character, lack of genders in both groups, the lack of consonant clusters in initial or word final position of words, the presence of vowel harmony in the suffixes etc.

Uralic languages

~ are determined by genetic relationships, meaning that all members are presumed to be descendants of a common ancestor the *Proto-Uralic.

Uralic languages first split up in around 4.000 BC when the Samoyed people migrated to the northernmost part of Siberia. Latest researchers of archaeology try to prove the uninterrupted presence of Finns in their present day location since 8000 years. This itself contradicting to the split has yet to be proved.

There remained the Finno-Ugrian group that further separated to the Permian and Ob-Ugrian branches in around 2.000 BC Ugrians were the ancestors of our ancestors. The Voguls (Manyshi) and Ostyaks (Chantis) were the closest relatives to Hungarians before they had been separated from them. This split took place between 1000 and 500 BC, some 3000 years ago. This is the datum when we expect the first independent Hungarian people to appear on the steppe southwest to the Ural Mountain. As we are informed in 839 by written sources[13] the region was ruled by different Turkic peoples. The much-debated character of the early Hungarians is an important problem for Turkology.[14]

Altaic languages

Manchu-Tungus - Mongolian - Turkic Languages

There are several ways accepted for classifying these languages, but let me look at the latter: the Turkic Languages.

Turks first appeared on the Huns’ trail around 350 AD on the Khazakh steppe after the Iranian era. The Huns crossed the Volga in 375 AD as unknown Asian people. Their migration brought Oghur Turkic nomads westwards into contact with the forefathers of the Hungarians. This contact is unknown, we have no sources on their meetings and co-operations, but we cannot exclude its possibility.

The Huns overran Eastern Europe and had their main stronghold north of the Caucasus in 395 AD. From that time on, they gradually moved to Pannonia, the future homelands of the Hungarians. For more than a century, they ruled European history. Attila’s premature death in 453 resulted in the falling apart of the Hun Empire. The remaining Huns withdrew to the northern slopes of the Caucasus where they might have survived until the Hungarians arrived there in 555 AD.

The beginnings of Magyar – Oghur, Onoghur, etc. connections might have started early in the 5th century, the result of which can be seen in the ethnic name Ungar, Hungarian and Eastern Slavic vengr.

Many a nomadic people came from the east prior to the Turks on the very same route. They determined law in the steppe region until the Mongol invasion in the 13th century.

It was not only the Oghurs (Ughors or Ughurs), Saraghurs Onoghurs, Khuturghurs who came first, but there might have been other Turkic tribes to appear, the majority of who even the names has been extinct since.

The Oghurs (~ Oghor) who were made mention of as famous fighters in Theophilaktus Simokattes’s History of the World (638 AD) settled from the east to the area that was surrounded by the River Don and Volga and Sea of Azov and the Caucasus in 463. “Their leading tribes were named as Var and Hun”. Later they fled to Europe and called themselves as Avars.

There came the Sabir Turks who formed an alliance with the Avars against the Ughurs.

There was a rebel against the centralized Khazar rulers in 830 AD. Some of the revolt peoples fled to the Hungarians finding refuge with them. The Hungarians organized the latter most probably of different ethnicity (Hwarezmians, Alans, Yas) under one name the Kabars as the eighth tribe. Their leader was Levente, Árpád’s son. Many of the early Hungarian place names (Berény, Örs, Varsány, Oszlár, etc.) still preserve the names of the conquering tribes or their fragments. Constantinos Porphyrogennetos who made notes of it after the Hungarian princes Bulcsú and Tormás had visited him in 950 AD.

Early wanderings of the Hungarians prior to the land taking

Where do Hungarians first appear in history?

-The area was most probably the south western part of Urals, on the steppe, the same corridor was used by the Huns who had crossed the River Volga in 375 and proceeded to the north Caucasus in 395. It is the location where they are made mention of in Muslim sources.

-Northern slopes of the Caucasus (Kuban – Don Area)

The stages of the migration (each in the wake of the Bulghar Turks):

We know that the Sabirs (a Turkic people who disappeared from view of the sources in the 570s.) appeared in Eastern Europe and they ruled it (between 506-555 AD). The Avar people subdued them in 555 and advanced to the Carpathian Basin, where together with their Longobardi allies they overpowered the Gepidae.

One of the Hungarian archeologists Gy. László claimed that there were two landtaking of the Hungarians in the Carpathean-Basin. In addition, the first one was that of the Avars who were mingling with Hungarians.

László (1999: 615) also supposed that Hungarians probably joined the Hun Empire, consequently the leaders; their families might have been of Hun origin. Additionally apart from Bulghars and Avars Huns mingled with Hungarians in great numbers. The question is much debated and László’s theory has never been accepted.

The area they had left between the Don and Kuban Rivers is open for the Hungarians who most probably stayed there between 555 – 670 AD.

Prior to the Hungarians the Bulghar Turks had lived in the same area, but they migrated from the Kuban region around the end of the 6th century.

Hungarians joined the Khazar Empire - that came into being in 670 - there they served as frontier defenses. It was in this era, that they accepted the Khazar variant of sacral kingship. The dual system of rulers included the kende < Khazar kündü ‘the executive king’ and the gyula < OT yula (Clauson 1972: 919) who was the sacral king, the ‘lamp for the people’.

We can divide the Conquest of the Carpathean Basin by the Hungarians into three main parts:

The first began in 895 and ended in 898

The second lasted from 899 to 900

The third concluding the events in 902

Three layers of Turkic loans in Hungarian. Criteria, methodology

In the long course of history, Hungarian language got into contact with many different Turkic languages borrowing some words from them. Some of those Turkic languages have been extinct since then. In some cases, it is impossible to define in each case properly the loaners, because the lexical stock of the Turkic languages is very similar. Therefore, we use the term Turkic, which refers to each extinct and living languages spoken by Turks.

  1. First layer can be defined as Old Turkic[15] - Ancient Hungarian contacts in short. Here we consider Old Turkic as the language of the not yet Islamized Turks that had many different and considerable written texts. While Ancient Hungarian is the period of Hungarian language without any written sources. Prior to the land taking (mainly but not exclusively from Bulghar Turks, Avars, Kabards, Khazars, Pechenegs, etc.)

There are many words of Turkic origin that had been borrowed still in the Ugrian era, therefore we consider them as Ugrian words (hattyú, hód, ló, szó, etc.). After the Hungarians had got separated from the Ugrians and wandered to the south western part of Ural they got acquainted with other Turkic peoples. This might have happened around 8th -5th centuries BC. This was the beginning of idependent Hungarian history.

  1. during the landtaking and afterwards (wandering traders of Uz, Besermyan, other origin, Cumans – kun in Hungarian, the latter being absent from early Russian and Byzantine sources)
  2. 1526 – Ottomans
  1. Phonetics

How do we make a distinction between our Turkic loans? There are different kind of criteria (phonetical, morphological, lexical, etc.) to help us in doing so. For serving as a proof in each case, we have to find a word that has no etymology in Hungarian but in any of the Turkic languages.

Let’s see a possible phonetically valid criterium:

Bearing in good mind that the original Hungarian words showed the structures of

CVCV (the majority of words belonged here)

VCV

CV

V

Any other form is most probably a loan. Each original Hungarian word had a V in word final position, therefore each loanword that ended in a C was given an additional –V in order to fit into Ancient Hungarian.

Linguistic criteria of Turkic loans in Hungarian prior the conquest can be divided into three groups:

A, the first group shows a Chuvash – type language

Rhotazism: there is a well known z : r opposition in the Turkic languages. Where the majority of Turkic languages have a z, Hungarian has an r: Eastern Old Turkic buzagu : *buragu > burgu > Hungarian borjú ‘calf’ ( rg > rj is a Hungarian change)

- Lambdazism: where in common Turkic there is an š, we find l in Hungarian: EOT köšek : *kölek > kölök ~ kölyök ‘kid’

-where in common Turkic there is an s before an i, we find š in Hungarian: EOT sirke : *sirke > Hungarian serke ‘nit’

-where in common Turkic there is an s before a long á, there we find š in Hungarian: EOT sáz : *sar >*siar > Hungarian sár ‘mud’

-where there is a y in common Turkic there is a s in Hungarian: EOT yél : sél > Hung. szél ‘wind’

B, indirect (not exceptionally Chuvash) criteria

C, the rest (without the criteria of the first two groups)

Convergent developments

The first period shows absolutely the most important Turkic influence on Hungarian. There are some 450 - 520 borrowed words belonging to this early period. They are not equally reliable as far as their etymology is concerned.

i- ~ yi- as a parallel phenomenon in both Turkic and Hungarian languages:

ihász ~ juhász, ihar ~ juhar

(Tekin 1989: 184) OT yitilsün ‘güdülsün’ yitil- ~ Trkm. idil-

(Tekin 1989: 186) OT yelwin ‘sihir, büyü’ Uyg. yilvi ~ Halha ilbe

(Tekin 1989: 190) OT ügüldi ‘yigilmak, toplanmak’ Uyg. yükmek ~ Trkm. üvmek-

(Tekin 1989: 264) OT yinçü ‘inci’

Old Chuvash a > i after the 10th century

There is an Old Chuvash inscription from 1307. On it there is a word barsa [T bar- ‘to go’], today they have it as pirsa (Róna-Tas 1992: 11).

Arab loanwords in Chuvash are not earlier than the 10th century [due to the spread of Islam] and not later than the 13th century [Mongolian invasion].

A –a- : OCh. –i- e.g. A mashara > Ch. miskara

There had developed a labial a in Old Chuvash that was used parallel with illabial a as the double reflections of OT a, already in the 8-9th century. The illabial a developed into i, while labial a is reflected as that [labial a] in Ancient Hungarian.

We can make mention of the development of word final -ß, -? > into diphthong together with the previous vowel in the original word: OT saß > AH sau > MH szó.

Each OT loan ending in –k/-g > -? resulted in long vowel in Hungarian.

-g/-k > -? > V (orsó, borsó, komló, tarló, szőlő, karó, gyűrű, etc.)

There are considerable parallels in similarities and differences as well (Csató – Johanson 2009: 145-7)

There are different convergent developments in FU and Altaic languages as well as there are convergent developments in Hungarian and Turkic languages and we have been aware of this fact at least since Ligeti’s manual (1986: 53) on early Hungarian Turkic contacts. These similarities can be observed on each level of languages like phonetics, morphology, vocabulary, syntax and semantics, yet I am going to deal with phonetics this time.

- closing movement e > i

-labialization: e > ö

-spirantization of explosives (-d- > ?)

- -g- : -?-/-w-/-b-

Ottoman loanwords were borrowed in huge numbers due to that of the conquerers needs. Mainly the words used in the administrations were introduced in large quantity, but as soon as the Ottoman Empire fell apart, the same words became useless (defterdár, vilájet, pasa, bajraktár, …).

The original [j] were replaced by [dzs] in Hungarian, that was not in use previously. We find it in such words as the name of tools, the weapons like handzsár, or findzsa.

Several words reflecting Turkish cousine, food and drink were borrowed. Turks also introduced the habit of drinking a cup of coffee after meals. The first written document of the Hungarian word kávé is from 1628.

Outlines of the Beginnings of the Hungarian Research History

Hungarians had been interested in the history of their forefathers for the beginnings of historiography, and I am one of them. How our culture came into being? What were the factors that mattered most in its development? Were there any co-operators?  How deep can a neighbouring people exert influence? What kind of historical changes of Hungarians can be detected with the help of a vocabulary?

In the history of research we should start with Ármin Vámbéry. Even though he was not the very first, he was the first of great importance. He was the first real milestone on the Hungarian side, and after his entering to the field began the Ugric-Turkic battle between the linguists of the age in Hungary.

In his article Hungarian and Turkic-Tatar word accordance Vámbéry (1869: 109-189) assumes a relation between the two adding, that the older the linguistic layer is on the Turkic side the more it resembles Hungarian language yet considering the primary Finno-Ugrian relation this can be only secondary. After the Hungarians have separated from FU’s they intermingled with Turkic people, and therefore this relation is not minor but younger. Who was the dominant element in this fusion is a difficult question to answer but Vámbéry considers those of FU origin i.e. the Hungarians to be. The leading element is another question and it was indisputably the Turks.

Vámbéry considers Constantinus Porphyrogennitus’s work De Administrando Imperio (On ruling the Empire) a proof, for the author of DAI always mentions the people in question (the Hungarians) with the name of the Turks, and the area conquered by them is called Turkia.

Vámbéry enlisted 740 Hungarian words of Turkic origin in his list. His ability for speaking many different Turkic languages with ease and also due to his erudition our present list of first layer Turkic loan-words in Hungarian is almost included in his list. Yet there is a vehement difference in the explanation. He also included onomatopoetic words as well as those belonging to child-vocabulary – what we never consider to be relevant in the long course.

Vámbéry was a much debated figure among Hungarian academicians, yet he was the starting point of Hungarian Turcology. In one of his articles[16] (Vámbéry 1885: 7) he tells that many of the early researchers of Hungarian language history had changed their minds in the long course of their researches.

Even though János Krcsmarik has not left much study behind, his article on Ottoman Turkish Folk-song from 1876 is remarkable.

József Thúry was one of the best students of Vámbéry, and was ever so diligent, his work on Turkic literature is very important. He was the first to introduce to the European public major Central-Asian masterpieces of early Turkic literature, but unfortunately he had a rather short life.

In the beginning of the twentieth century Zoltán Gombocz dealt with the early Turkic – Hungarian contacts and he thought that Hungarians met Turks near the Volga – Kama rivers, and first layer Turkic loan-words entered Hungarian between 7-9th centuries. Later he changed his opinion and suggested that the connection started somewhere north to the Caucasus and earlier than the above date.

Gyula Németh can be justly considered as the second milestone as someone with a strong affinity with Turkic peoples (he considered himself as of Cumanian origin, born in Karcag). He used to serve as head of the department of Turkic studies in Budapest University for fifty years. Many of the most famous universities teaching Ottoman or Turkic Studies had ever had his students as professors or head of departments. Let it be history, or linguistics, literature or folklore, he was interested in it, leaving his serious imprint on any important questions of Turkology.

He thought that Hungarians got into contact with Turks in the vicinity of Kama and Belaya rivers. Some of his students surveyed the Bashkir tribal and place names as well as he himself took place in the investigation.

Lajos Ligeti in his last book underlines that whatever the nature of the relation of Turkic peoples to Hungarians was the latter could stay independent. Hungarian proved to be stronger than the language of the Kabards with which it operated in forming bi-lingualism. Finally Kabards became assimilated in a longer period of time. The same happened to the Pecheneg and Cuman languages as well as later to the language of the Ismaelits and Besermyans.

(János Eckman, András Bodrogligeti, Tibor Halasi-Kun, Gyula Káldy Nagy, András Róna-Tas, Zsuzsa Kakuk, György Hazai, István Vásáry, István Mándoky-Kongur, Géza Dávid, Mária Ivanics, József Torma, Klára Agyagási, Árpád Berta, János Hóvári, etc. There is a much longer list I can not offer here with all the major activities. I also focus on my own teachers who were first of all linguists.)

What do the semantics of loanwords reveal in connection with the contact?

According to Telegdi[17]

What is the nature of loanwords?

In most cases they introduce new ideas, objects or activities, that had been unknown before (e.g. there came an immense number of names with the spread of computer, like floppy disc or winchester, printer, etc.).

In some instances they substitute for a superannuated lexical item.

OT bitig > H betű, || MT harf < Ar.

OT saw > H szó, || MT kelime < Ar.

The elements of the vocabulary have a loose system, therefore new elements are easily inserted, old elements are easily neglected even omitted.

Why are Turkic loans important in Hungarian?

The speakers of Eastern Old Turkic were writing mainly Runic and Uighur scripts as the latter is reflected in Buddhist texts especially, but we do not know much concerning Western Old Turkic. Therefore the importance of WOT loans in Hungarian can not be over exaggerated. Hungarian has preserved much precious details concerning each layers of WOT whereas we are aware of the fact how deep Persian and Arabic influenced WOT literary language.

There are five layers of languages:

Phonetics

Morphology

Lexicology/Vocabulary

Syntax

Semantics

Each five layers are changing all the time, but not at the same time and not to the same intensity.

Considering Turkic and Hungarian linguistic relations especially but not exclusively the third level was researched.

The most important method of historical linguistics is comparison, because it carries a concept of relation. There are the antecedents on the one hand and the outcome on the other.

Reconstruction in linguistics is also a well-known device. With the help of it - bearing in good mind the known change process - , we try to deduce original or at least earlier forms that had been used prior to the first written occurrence.

I/1. Considering the reconstructed phonetical stock for Ancient Hungarian (p, t, k, m, n, ny, -?-, ß, ?, sz, s, j, cs, (with its palatalized pair), l, r, -ly-, -mp-, -nt-, nycs-, ?k-) we can say, there was no opposition between voiced and unvoiced consonants. There were pairs of oral nasal explosives: p : m, t : n, k : ?. There were long and short consonants in intervocalic position: -p- : -pp-, -t- : -tt-, -k- : -kk-

In phonetics we have to make mention of the appearance of certain explosives. The presence of Old Turkic loans in Hungarian offers relative chronology to the consonant changes:

A, -mp- > -mb- > -b- U *kumpa > H hab ‘foam’

-nt- > -nd- > -d- FU *kunta > H had ‘army’

-?k- > -?g- > -g- FU *tu?ke > H dug ‘to hide’

By the end of Ancient Hungarian period we acquired voiced b, d, g as well as seven other consonants (f-, ?-, -z-, -?-, palatalized j) and lost forever the interdentally pronounced spirant ? as well as the palatalized č > that became either depalatalized č, or š.

2. Spirantization and becoming a voiced consonant in intervocalic position:

-p- > -b- > -ß- FU *rebäcz > raßasz > H ravasz ‘fox’

-t- > -d- > -z- FU *kota > ?oda > H ház ‘building’

-k- > -g- > -?- U *joke > *joge > H jó ’river’

3. Shortening of long consonants:

-pp- > -p- FU *säppä > H epe ‘bile’

-tt- > -t- FU *kutte > H hat ‘six’

-kk- > -k- FU *lükkä- > H lök ‘to push’

The event took place prior to the wanderings in the first part period of Ancient Hungarian (prior to 500 AD). Even if we cannot offer a concrete datum, we can be sure that the above changes had ended before the Turkic loans that were borrowed during the wanderings, because they do not show these above changes any more (kündü, tenger, gyöngy, csepű, kapu, betű, bátor, bika, iker etc.).

Therefore, we consider the spread of Turkic loans in Hungarian as a base for relative chronology. As well as original, Finno-Ugrian k- in back vocalic words became h- in Hungarian, but this change had happened before the Turkic influence. Most of the back vocalic Turkic initial q- sounds were borrowed as such in Hungarian (komló < qumla?, koporsó < qopurča?, kajak < qayiq, etc.).

b-, g- had not been wide spread before the Turkic influence in Hungarian, the latter unseen in the whole of AH. Nevertheless, we see them in many words later: betű, bátor, bika, barom.

Initial d- appears in the Turkic loans: dél, dől.

Original initial Turkic j- was substituted by gy- [dy] in H: gyárt, gyertya, gyón, gyúr, gyümölcs, gyűrű, gyűszű.

4. Neither in Hungarian, nor in Turkic do we overcome consonant nor vowel clusters in initial position. If there is such a loanword from some Slavic languages then it is changed into another structure, which is acceptable in the given language:

Slavic stol > Hung. asztal ‘table’

Sl. stol > Bashqort östäl ‘table’

5. There are certain chosen consonants that serve as a “filling sound” in intervocalic position: g/b/v are well known in both languages. The birth of long vowels is an important event in AH. They appear in the place of diphthongs that had born from a word final –ß or -?.

In word final position we know OT sab > AH szaw > szó

We see parallel tendencies in Turkic languages. There are forms in OT like yabiz ‘bad’ > MT yagiz

As for the vowel stock in AH:

i, u, o, a as for the back vocalic (velar) words,

i, ü, ë, e as for the front vocalic (palatal) words.

There were short vowels, dipthongs (ending in –i), the latter changed into long vowels still in AH resulting in í, é, á.  

OT * qiyin > H kín(os) ‘pain, torture’, *ildam > ildom(os) ‘tactful’,

We have to make mention of a phonetic change, a phenomenon present both in Turkic and Hungarian language valid from the very beginning until today. We call it the tendency of two open syllables. If there are two or more open syllables (= ending in a vowel) following one another in the same word, than it can omit the second or third vowel:

Halotti Beszéd hotolm < *?a-ta-lo-mu ‘power, might’

Ómagyar Mária Siralom šyrolm < *ši-ra-lo-mu ‘lamentation’

H ökör > ök(ö)röt, hurok > hur(o)kol

We are interested to know if the process of this kind of change was independent in Turkic languages or not, but anyway Tekin (1989: 5)[18] gives us enough early document.

T ö-mü-rüm > ömrüm ‘my life’

Middle Turkic kölege ~ kölige ‘gölge’ (K157), bagir +ina > bagrina (Toparli 2003: 73),

oglum, aklim, etc.

yagir ‘sirt, arka’ (TDES 439) + in diminutive nominal ending > yagrin ‘kürek kemigi’

If there is a need for a syllable [i.e. in verse]: Evlatlarimin ömürü uzun olsun (No 80), hepisinden (No 66), etc.

Azerb. darga < MMo. daruga

However, we are aware of the fact that this is not an isolated phenomenon, since it is present in the western part of the steppe region, the Russians of Kiev wrote their prince’s name as Vologyimer in the Ancient Chronicle written in 996. His full name was Nestor Vladimir Svyatoslavič.

II. In morphology, we also have ample data for the Turkic influence, let me mention just a few:

Regarding the typology, both Turkic and Hungarian are agglutinative languages. Therefore it is not a surprise, that stems were added similar word formatting endings, affixes like deverbal –t- (H bocsát ’let go’) with causative function, -n- (H bocsán ’to pardon’) expressing reflexivity, -vÁn expressing antecedence as adverbial participle; or denominal +sA ~ +csA (Marcsa ’little Mary’) with diminutive function.

There is a Hungarian word formative ending +sÁg that behaves rather like +lIk in Turkic. It is most probably the result of copying it from a Turkic language, for it behaves like the latter.

It can make from almost any adjective an abstract noun: H szép ‘beautiful’ +sÉg > szépség ‘beauty’ : T güzel ‘beautiful’ +lIk > güzellik ‘beauty’.

It can form from H magyar ‘Hungarian’ +sÁg > magyarság ‘Hungarians, the Hungarian people’ || T Türk +lÜk > Türklük ‘Turks, the Turkic people’

In the proper name Ormánság ’the place where forest is found’ is a well-known place name in Hungary. The stem of which is T orman ‘forest’ to which the ending +sÁg was added to.

Other inflexional endings and suffixes like +nAn (onna ’from there’) with Ablative function are loan suffixes (Csáki 2007: 55).

III. In lexicology there are very important researches on the Hungarian side (Vámbéry, Gombocz, Németh, Ligeti, Rásonyi, Róna-Tas, Vásáry, Mándoky, Berta, Agyagási, etc.) and some on the Turkic one, we have to mention Eren’s researches.

Many an OT word has been preserved in Modern Hungarian, while they are not known in Turkic any longer. Words like saß > szó, bitig > betű, are among them.

Calques

Calque is mainly used for lexical items, for semantic borrowings, we suspect that we can clearly understand and translate each part of it to our own language.

Is a translated (compound)word or expression, indicating, that the listener understood each component of the phrase as well as he was also able to translate them and replace by forms originating from his own language:

Derives from the Bulghar-Turkic *šil+li?  Chuv. šil ‘zub i zuby; zubnoj’ (Skvorcov 1982: 608).

ház+as : ev+li (Ligeti MNy 72: 132), (Bereczki 1983: 2)

gyarló+ság : Krch. carli+lik ‘destitute state’

nyom+ás ‘uncultivated part of the land’

egy+ház ‘church’ : OT edgü: ‘good’ in every sense of the word, (of  people) ‘morally good’

ünnep <*idnap we can find similar forms in present day Turkic languages:

Krch. Iyih kün ‘Pazar günü’ (Tavkul 2000: 226)

nyelvet fog : T dil al- (MNy 32: 45)

nyelvre kel : T dile gel- ‘start to speak’

szállás : T konak ‘shelter, abode, night refuge’

nap+kelet ‘East’, 

nap+nyugat ‘west’ : Krch. kün+batiş

napjától olta : T gününden beri ‘from its day on’ (Orbán 1982: 341)

földre hull/esik : Krch. jerge tüş-; T yere düş-

kimegy a fejéből : T kafasindan/esinden çik-

vagyon ‘mal, mülk’ = van arch. ‘is’ Sing3’ || MT var ‘mal, mülk’ PSA “barimi vereyim” ‘Let me give whatever I have’

  1. In syntax the original SOV change to > SVO can be dated to Ancient Hungarian, due to the appearance of more free elements on sentence level. With the birth of the Accusative suffix -t, the object could be placed freely to anywhere in the sentence.

Another speciality of Ancient Hungarian is the wide usage of gerunds:

Napsütötte, madárlátta, szélfútta, -like structures are opened up in the later periods: sütötte a nap és/akkor…; a madár is látta, ahogyan….; etc.

…”a felette levő dombon feküdöttnek hiszik e falu templomát,” …‘the church of this village is believed to lie on the hill above’

This is a well-known practice in any of the Turkic languages throughout language history.

  1. Semantics

There is a rare area in linguistics, the so called calques.

They are word-to word translations from one language to another (especially to the one used on the nearest areas). They can be considered as proofs of a longer period spent together.

If we study the details of the Hungarian and Turkic vocabulary, we come across many of them. To achieve this, a good field is offered by folklore texts like folk-tales, ballads, child-rhymes, lullabyes, folksongs, etc..

There are certain parts of the vocabulary, where we can be find the hints of the early Turkic influence, such as the terminology of wine-growing, marriage, certain crafts, religion, etc.

On language tipology

Considering all the languages ever spoken in the world we can always compare one language to those of the neighbours.

Due to their typology: constructions or grammar there are agglutinative languages, just like Turkish or Hungarian.

Synthetic languages are inflected.

Onomastics

-fő

Kútfő, vízfő ‘forrás’ this kind of placenames are well documented in Tatar, Bashkir, Karachay, Chuvash and other Turkic languages.

Szalafő, Aszófő, Disznófő, etc. : Krch. Adirsuvbaşi, Amanavuzbaşi, Azgekbaşi, Çegetqarabaşi (Tavkul 2020: 435)

-hely

Placenames ending in –hely ‘place’ had been also documented in Hungarian ever since the first written source: Disznóhely. : Krch. Tonguzorun (Tavkul 2020: 435), Tavuq orun  (Tavkul 2020: 345)

Hungarian phonetics influenced by Turkic languages

It is well known that not any consonant can take place in initial position in Old Turkic:

there could be only q-, s-, t-, y-, č-, p-, b-, d-.

In FU languages k-, t-, p-, s- was preferred to the rest of the consonants, and vowels were mainly back vocalic.

In the period of early Turkic influence on Ancient Hungarian, there occurred b, d, g mainly inside words. Among the words belonging to the Hungarian basic vocabulary there are only ten words starting with b-, four words with d-, and none with g-. As a consequence of the Turkic influence these consonants had widely spread:

bán, bocsát, bölcs, búcsú, bű, bűbáj, etc.

The structure of original words avoided double C/V-s both in initial and position both in FU and Altaic languages as well as the order of the endings is the same:

stem + word formatting suffix + (time in case of verbs) + personal suffix + adverbial suffixes (in case of nouns).

What other areas of Hungarian culture were influenced by Turks?

Old Turkic loanwords in Hungarian reflect almost any possible side of life showing that the contacts were strong and lasting. While in the Ugrian period, people had been forest dwellers collecting crops and hunting animals, as soon as they became independent the Hungarians proceeded to steppe-dweller nomads. Making themselves masters of a new civilization under the influence of steppe dweller Turks, we can find names that relate the kind of settlement or abode the forefathers of Hungarians had borrowed from them: sátor, karó, kapu, kút, szék, bölcső, kép, etc.

Ethnography

Horse breeding, as well as horse sacrifice, use and healing of horses, etc. has ever been an important field of research, since Hungarians as well as Turks were Nomadic people. The legend of a mare left pregnant from an eagle or an owl are stories known on the steppe region.

Religion, beliefs

There were long living tale traditions with totem animals as forefathers of Árpád’s dynasty. Among these animals, we can find deer (especially its female the hind), a magical hawk or eagle a predator bird whose name is turul[19] in Hungarian that was of special importance. We still have several huge turul sculptures, one for instance, next to the palace of the last Hungarian kings in Buda. They are considered as symbols favoured by nationalists. 

The Hungarians brought to the Carpathian Basin their traditions that were shaped under the influence of their neighbours: the Khazars, other Turkic people, Slavs and Byzantines.

Táltos ‘shaman’ : boszorkány ‘witch’

Hungarian folk beliefs underwent a major change after the Conquest.

Bölcs ‘wise man’ < bügüči < bögü ‘sage, wizard’ the word seems to connote both wisdom and mysterious spiritual power. An early loan in Mong. as bö’e/böge where it means ‘a male shaman’ as opposed to idugan ‘female shaman’ (a purely Mo. Word.) (Clauson 1972: 324).

Bűvöl ‘to bewich’, elbűvöl ‘to charm’; bűbáj ‘charm’

bölcs was the person who knew and practised bű ‘magic’

orvos ‘physician’, with táltos, javas and bölcs, and especially the rainmaker were important participants among the conquering Hungarians.

Mourning (gyász < OT yas, koporsó < Xak. qabirčaq ‘coffin’), burial of the deceased, rules of the grave (who can dig it, etc.). White linen cloth is spread in front of the coffin serving as a bridge to the under world (Kós 1981: 234).

Altayic people think about the underworld as the continuity of this world, but rather as it is reflected in a mirror. Therefore, the right side becomes left there and vica versa. This kind of burial is an ancient tradition, from the era prior to the great religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) prevailing over there.

The parts of the dwelling, furniture, fittings (bölcső ~ bécsű : beşik, bedena : badana, bojála : boyala-,), names of the yards with differnet functions, different gardens, location and parts of the farm-buildings, farming implements, (akol : agil, etc.)

Traditional domestic industry, terms of handicrafts, occupations (bacsó ~ bács ’dairy producer’, etc.).

Tengri ‘God of Heaven’ was adored like lonely trees, huge mountains, great rocks, etc. The branches of huge trees could reach out for Heaven helping shamans to the upper world. There was a thrifold image of the universe: this world was completed by the nether and upper worlds.

The memory of holy trees is mentioned by Anonymus as silva Igfon.

Igyfon is a compound word of Igy > egy : OT ädgü ‘sacred, holy’ + ház ‘house’. The same stem appears in ünnep (< id+nap). Fon ‘densely woven’ concerns ‘dense forest’. (Róna-Tas 1999: 366)

Literature: oral, written

Holy objects also included protective amulets, many of which bore inscriptions. The Hungarian word betű ‘letter’ exists in Chuvash in the form of petü. Its meaning is ‘amulet, protective writing’

Folktales

      There is ample material to be researched. It is enough to mention the starting formulae: Egyszer volt, hol nem volt… [Bir varmiş, bir yokmuş]. There is a closing section as well that can be compared. There are several stories, several heroes [Fehérlófia] and other characters that stand for comparison. Let me mention that boszorkány/or vasorrú bába[20] is one of them, There are magic numbers that can be found in both tradition as well as 

There are certain opening formulas that are very similar (can be considered as qalques) in Hungarian and Turkic folktales, the above mentioned starting formula is very typical and there are others like “sharpen ones’ teeth” in the sence of ‘lust after, long for’, or the ones in the famous Nart epic: “You are lucky to have addressed me as your grandmother”[21], “let me eat your heart/illness” (Nartok 89, 109, 297), “

The figure of the mythical stag of Hungarian legendary prehistory is well represented in Turkic folk literature.

The little magic table that can be full of delicious food in an instant, or the magic hat that can conceal the one wearing it, the miraculous pregnancy of leaders’ mothers, the unusual capacity of talking at infants and many many others one can not enlist easily.

Music

Turkic world is researched thoroughly by Hungarian ethnomusicologists like Bartók, Vikár and Sipos. The latter being my husband therefore I am very much involved in this research as far as texts are concerned. You can have a look at his archives: http://zti.hu/sipos_gyujtesek, there you can also take a glimpse at his results.

There are certain forms of tradition that do not change much by trends of fashion. Lullaby and laments are examples of them.

„The way of burials do not change according to fashion, at least its methods can be followed. …Treating the deceased is a tradition that has not shown changes for almost thousands of years.” (László 1943: 195)

Agriculture

The terminology of animal husbandry both nomadic and settled was influenced by Turkic languages. Terminology of animal keeping reflects this: bika, ökör, tinó, borjú, ünő, tulok, ürű, toklyó, kos, kecske, disznó, ártány, teve, etc.

As we can see the names of cerials: búza, árpa, borsó, kinder, komló, csalán, etc. Names of fruits like: alma, körte, dió, gyümölcs, etc.

Techniques of wine making, grape planting: szőlő, bor, seprő, szűr, etc.

Among the names of the techniques on fibre crop: tiló, csöpű, orsó, etc.

Among the names of processing plants, cultivating plants: eke, sarló, szérű, tarló, dara, őröl, etc.

There are further names e.g. that of wild plants that had been borrowed from Turkic languages: kökény, som, gyertyán, kőris, káka, gyékény, üröm, torma, bojtorján, kóró, kökörcsin, kikerics, gyom, etc.

Many other fields of life are marked by basic Turkic terms like OT erdem > H érdem ‘merit’, H örök ‘eternal’ : OT ürük, H törvény : OT *törü?en ‘law’, H bűn ‘sin’ : EOT mün, H gyón(ik) ‘confess’ : OT yun- ‘to wash oneself’, etc. etc.

References

Aksan, D. (1996): Türkçenin sözvarligi. Türk Dilinin Sözcükbilimiyle lgili Gözlemler, Saptamalar. Ankara.

Bárczi G. – Benkő L. – Berrár J. (1967): A magyar nyelv története. [History of Hungarian Language] Budapest.

Bereczki G. (1983): A török nyelvek hatása a magyarra. MSFOu 185. pp. 59-72.

Bereczki G. (1996): A magyar nyelv finnugor alapjai. [The Finno-Ugrian Background of Hungarian language] Budapest.

Bereczki G. (??): A cseremisz melléknév török kapcsolatai. NyK  97. pp. 150-154.

Csáki, É. (2000): Eren, H. (1999): Türk Dilinin Etimolojik Sözlügü. Review article AOH. 53:3-4, pp. 249-255.

Csáki, É. (2001): Favoured numerals in the old religion of Turks and Hungarians in the pre-Islamic and pre-Christian period. (Islam ve Hristiyanlik Öncesi Türk ve Macar eski Inancinda Ragbet edilen Rakamlar.) In: Uluslararasi Türk Dünyasi Inanç Önderleri Kongresi 23-28 Ekim 2001 Ankara. pp. 201-209.

Csáki, É. (2001a): Türk kültüründe ayrintilar: tuz. Haci Bektaş Veli Araştirma Dergisi. Kiş 2001/20. pp. 231-235.

Csáki É. (2002): Eren, H.: A magyarok etimológiai szótáráról. Magyar Nyelv XCVIII:4. pp. 385-395. (translation from the Turkish original)

Csáki, É. (2002a): Turkic and Mongolian loan suffixes. A glimpse at the history of the research on Turkic and Mongolian loan suffixes. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Mongolists. 12-16 August 1997 Ulaanbaatar. pp. 302-312.

Csáki, É. (2002b): On Turkic lexical stock. (reviews) AOH 55:4. pp. 417-422.

Csáki, É. (2004): Türk dilleri ile Macarca’da ismin ablatif halinin paralel şekilleri ve kullanişi. In: V. Uluslararasi Türk Dili Kurultayi Bildirileri I-II. 20-26 Eylül 2004. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 855/I-II) Ankara. pp. 677-688.

Csáki, É. (2004a): Macarlar‘in eski tarihine, eski Türk – Macar ilişkilerine dair. Haci Bektaş Veli Araştirma Dergisi 2004/30 pp. 187-191.

Csáki, É. (2007): +nAn as ablative case suffix in Hungarian and Turkic languages. In: Csepregi M. – Masonen, V. (eds): Grammatika és kontextus. Új szempontok az uráli nyelvek kutatásában. (Urálisztikai tanulmányok 17.) Bp. pp. 55-66.

Eker, S. (2009): Çagdaş Türk Dili. 5. baski. Ankara.

Glatz F. (ed.)(1996): A magyarok krónikája 2. kiadás. Budapest.

Golden, P. B. (1992): An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples. Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. (Turcologica 9) Wiesbaden.

Harmatta J. (1983): Az avarok nyelvének kérdéséhez. Antik Tanulmányok 30. pp. 71-84.

[Istvánovics E. - Kulcsár V. 2009] Nartok. Kaukázusi hősi mondák. (A világ eposzai 3) Budapest.

Johanson, L. – Csató, Á. É. (1998): The Turkic Languages. (Routledge Language Family Descriptions) London and New York.

Johanson, L. (2001): Discoveries on the Turkic Linguistic Map. (Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. Publications 5) Stockholm. [Türk Dili Haritasi Üzerinde Keşifler. Çeviri Nurettin Demir – Emine Yilmaz. Ankara. Grafiker Yayinlari]

Kiss J. – Pusztai F. (eds)(2003): Magyar nyelvtörténet. [History of Hungarian Language] (Osiris Tankönyvek) Budapest.

Kós K. – Szemtimrei J. – Nagy J. (1981): Moldvai csángó népművészet. [Folk Art of the Csángó People ’Hungarian-speaking native’ of Moldavia] Bukarest.

László Gy. (1943): A magyar őstörténet régészete. In: Ligeti L. (ed.) (1986): A magyarság őstörténete. (Az Akadémiai Kiadó Reprint Sorozata) Bp. pp. 191-207.

László Gy. (1999): Múltunkról utódainknak I-II. Magyarok honfoglalása - Árpád népe. Budapest.

Ligeti L. (1986): A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban. Budapest.

Ligeti L. (1986a): A pannóniai avarok etnikuma és nyelve. Magyar Nyelv 82. pp. 10-17.

Lükő G. (1934): Havasalföld és Moldva népei a X-XII. sz-ban. Ethnographia – népélet. Pp. 93-94.

Németh Gy. (1930):  A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása. Budapest.

Orbán B. (1982): A Székelyföld. Budapest.

Rásonyi L. (1981): Hidak a Dunán. Budapest.

Róna-Tas, A. (1988): Ethnogenese und Staatsgründung. Die türkische Komponente in der Ethnogenese der Ungartums. Reinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften 78. Studien zur Ethnogenese 2. pp. 33-45.

Róna-Tas, A. (1999): Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages. An Introduction to Early Hungarian History. Budapest.

Tekin, T. (1989): XI. yüzyil Türk şiiri. Divanu Lugati’t-Turk’teki manzum parçalar. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 541) Ankara.

Telegdi, Zs. (1963): Bevezetés a nyelvtudományba I. [Introduction to linguistics] Budapest.

Vámbéry Á. (1885): A magyarok eredete és a finn-ugor nyelvészet II. Válasz Budenz József bírálati megjegyzéseire. Budapest.

6. Hints of the Pear Cult in the Caucasus

 [Csáki, É. (2002): Traces of the pear-cult in the Caucasus. Acta Orientalia Hung. 55:4, pp. 345-353.]

  1. What is there to be found in connection with ~ in Karačay + Caucasus?
  2. What kind of tree-cult is there among Turkic peoples? (original/Iranian/none/etc.)
  3. What is its age? Old, for it is attested among T loanwords in Hung. (5-6th)

Hungarians moved to Etelköz[22] around 680-700, this offers chronology to the word

  1. It is not only a name of a fruit, but also of a tree that was worshipped (cult of trees)

Karachay-Balkar datum

I found an entry in a Karachay dictionary that put me on a way in quest of traditions in connection with pear. This datum is Ravbazi ‘Malkar’da şamanizm döneminde kutsal olduguna inanilan bir armut agaci’ (Tavkul 2000: 322). It also occurs in another dictionary, where Tenišev takes it for a Balkar word: rawbazi balk. ‘raubazi (derevo poklonenija balkarcev v period jazyčestva)’; tž. dža?iz terek Karachay (Tenišev 1989: 525). As for dža?iz terek ‘étn. derevo na beregu reki Hurzuk (kotoromu v period jazyčestva i daže prinjatija musul‘manstva poklonjalis‘ karačaevcy. Srubleno v 30-h godax XX-go v.) (Tenišev 1989: 227).

Having heard of the worship of the pear-tree in the Caucasus I wanted to collect what we know about pear in Karachay. In Karachay there is no word like armut or ahlat what we have in different Turkic dictionaries, instead they have kertme ‘gruša || gruševyj’ (Tenišev 1989: 328), kertme ‘armut’, kertme terek ‘armut agaci’ (Tavkul 2000: 256), kertme ‘armut’ (Karça-Koşay 1954: 133).

Middle Turkic: kertme (CC), kertmä ‘Birne’ (Gronbech), kertme ‘armut’ (Houtsma), New Turkic: Kum. gertme ‘gruša (lesnaja)’ (Bammatova 1969: 98), Kum. gertme ‘Holzbirne’ (Németh 1911: 113), Karachay kertme ‘armut’ (Karça-Koşay 1954: 133), Balkar kertme ‘Birne, Birnbaum’ (Pröhle 1914/15: 228).

It is also known as kertme terek ‘armut agaci’ in Karachay (Tavkul 2000: 256). It was also mediated to non-Turkic languages spoken in the Caucasus, e.g. into Osetic kerttu (Tavkul 2002/4 AOH). This makes it most probable that we also borrowed the word on that area. Ligeti also underlined its importance from the point of view of areal linguistics (Ligeti 1986: 292).

Most probably together with Karachay köget ‘meyva’- not present in Old Turkic (Clauson 1972), köget terek ‘meyva agaci’ (Karça-Koşay 1954: 134) the word kertme ‘pear’ belongs to the lexical stock of the Caucasus.

We have some other datum in connection with the tree-worship in the Caucasus. There is a prayer preserved in Karachay that was cited under the ‘lonely tree’ (Tavkul 1993: 241). It goes like this:

Sen tarkaymagan[23] terekse

Kögergenley, sargalmagan terekse

Senden kesingča uzun ömür tileybiz

Uzun čuppa[24] tiley kelgenbiz

Adamlarini ongdurgan terek

Kesin kimge da süydürgen terek

Adamlaga bolušhan terek

Altin čapirakla kimildaydila töppengde

Čoppa[25] etedile seni tögeregingde[26]

You are a tree that never dries out

Evergreen, that never becomes yellow

Please give us long life like that of yours

We came for a long feast to you

Tree making people happy

You made everybody love you

Tree helping people

Golden leaves motionless on top

Feast is organized around you.
  1. Kertme is not to be found in Old Turkic (= OT), while it is attested in Middle Turkic (= MT) as kertme ‘armut. Türkmencede armut da denir’ (Toparli – Çögenli – Yanik 2000: 8, 117).

No datum for ahlat, armut or kertme in OT (Clauson 1972),

MT - (Kavanî), there is no ahlat, but the latter two data in Toparli-Çögenli-Yanik 2000.

NT – (Bashk.)

Armut being a Persian loanword we see it in several Turkic languages:

MT armut ‘armut’ (Kavanî 101), armut Turkmen ‘armut’ (Toparli – Çögenli – Yanik 2000: 88.), armut is. Farisîye Yunanîden. Armut güllâbi. Envai akça, boz dogan, kiş armudu. Armut gibi nâ-puhte, ahlât’ (LO 22), NT – (KumR).

Ahlat

MT ahlat is. yabanî armut agaci, armudun kaki ki mübarek hoşavi olur kavun’ (LO 10).

NT – (KumR), etc.

I’d like to make mention of one of the songs collected by us among Turks in 1999 in Thrace, one belonging to the so called Hidrellez ‘the 40th day after the spring equinox’ songs. It used to be repeated with the name of seven different fruits.[27] It normally accompanies a circle dance or else the people queue up in two long lines face to face and sing it in question-answer form:

Ahlat agaci ahlat vermiş daller çekemez

Hoy hoy dallar çekemez

Yeşil yaprak, yeşil yaprak kervan kirmiş

Yagmur geçemez hoy hoy yagmur geçemez.

Wild pear grew on the wild pear tree, its twigs broke down, alas! They broke down

Caravan broke its green leaves

Rain can not pervade, rain can not pervade

There rose the question: why just ahlat[28]?

  1. Chronology of the first occurrence of kertme is offered by first layer Turkic loan-words[29] in Hungarian among which we find it.
  2. It is not much more valuable than a hypothesis that there was a pear-cult practised by Balkars in the Caucasus. The word rawbazi (see above) makes me think so. We also know about the cult of Dža?iz Terek ‘Lonely Tree’ the cult of trees. There are theories on shamanizm claiming, that the type of shamanizm practised in the western part of the steppe region is somewhat transitional (Voigt 1979: 211). It is seen among people who are not so much forest dwellers but rather nomads breeding and wandering with animals. Mention was made in 681 by Moses Dasxuranc’i of the religion of the North Caucasian Huns [= Khazars]. He clearly complains of their filthy heathen cult including fire-, water- and tree-worshipping, tengrizm, they themselves consider this a great religion. Tree worshipping is observed among other pagan Turkic peoples e.g. the Old Turks who descended from the Ötüken yiš being the holy forest of the Turks.

Hungarians had a sacred forest called Igyfon. The name is a compound of two elements: igy ( < id < Old Turkic ädgü) ‘holy’ + fon ‘densely woven’, therefore the name belonged to a dense forest in eastern Hungary, somewhere between the rivers Maros and Szamos (Róna-Tas 1999: 366). Hungarians worshipped trees.  

It is a well known fact that nomads adored nature. Besides the cult of the sky known as ‘tengrism’, they also worshipped enormous trees, rocks, springs etc. Juniper tree was one of the favoured cultic trees. Hungarians brought to their present land different traditions they had learnt from the Khazars or other Turks and neighbours. These traditions are represented by our first layer Turkic loanwords. 

There are certain names of vegatation that were borrowed by our forefathers around the Kuban river and northern shores of Black Sea region, because these plants grow in that area. This concerns the Hungarian words som ‘cornel cherry’, alma ‘apple’, dió ‘nut’ and körte ‘pear’ among others.

Körte is also indigenous in the Carpathian Basin and the Hungarians have a folksong called Körtéfa ‘pear-tree’. We know about the cult of lonely trees in the Northern Caucasus. In the old times when they still had shamans, they called pear tree Rawbazi that was considered as holy or saint.

Cult of natural phenomenon is well known to all, and nature worship is a must in shamanism. In ancient times people paid more attention to heaven, earth, sun, moon, big rocks, rivers and plants. Since shamans can travel in any dimensions it is also believed that anything reaching out towards the sky, big trees or birds flying high for instance are heavenly ladders and help people reach the upper regions. In ancient Tuva for instance these sacred trees were forbidden to be cut. Cedar, juniper, spruce and larch were considered as sacred trees.

Pear tree (Pyrus Piraster) is well known in Europe and also in Asia Minor, it has been recorded ever since we have written sources. It likes to grow especially at the edges of forests, and can be engrafted to turn into several other fruit trees. It is unassuming, can endure drought, bursts into bloom in May here.

Its name is well documented in early Hungarian sources, we consider it as an Old Turkic loan-word from the pre-conquest era: körtvély ‘pear’. 1055 kurtuel fa [‘tree’] < *kertßeli < *kertmeli < *kertmelig < *kertmelik | MT kertme ‘pear’, T *kertmelik ‘pear-tree’.

The value of mere descriptive folklore emerges with the passing of time contrary to analysis that loses value directly proportional to time. Therefore I should rather describe the mythological background of pear-cult that we suppose.

Nothing can be proved in connection with idol-worship in the case of our forefathers previous to their being christened. Nor can their old traditions in connection with their beliefs be denied.

It is well known to all, that after the Hungarians had settled in the Carpathian Basin they embraced Christianity. Our first king St. Stephen did not ban our previous religion but instead, he incorporated it into our new religion.

Neither the Western-Roman nor the Eastern-Roman (orthodox) Christian religion was the same as ours. It was recorded in the 22nd paragraph of the Ist part in Corpus Juris that our king St. Ladislaus inflicted a punishment on those offering up sacrifice in the vicinity of kút ‘well’, kő ‘rock’, forrás ‘spring’ and fa ‘tree’, and since there was prohibition there must have been practice.

This kind of sacrifice in nature-worship is well known to any Turkic people. Keeping in mind that Hungarians spent several centuries surrounded by different Turkic peoples (Khazars, Onoghurs, Bulghars, Avars, Oghuzs, etc.) we have a solid background of the old Turkic loan-words in our language. Just as well we can find a thread along which we can discover old Hungarian beliefs. Spending some time in the Northern area of the Caucasus before moving into Etelköz[30] 'the area between rivers' they borrowed different names of crops and fruits indigenous in that very area. We justly assume that there were traditions also we acquired in connection with these loan-words.[31]           

We can mention the respect of pear trees, a pear-cult here. However unusual as it was, a fruit tree in this case, …‘the roots of which reach the heart of the earth while its wings reach out to the sky, is linked with the creation of the universe in the world concept of the old Hungarians. Connecting depth with height it is apt to help even a shaman to deeper or higher regions.’ (Erdélyi 1978: 310).

In connection with forest-cult there are further data in Karachay. Carrying out field work among Karachays living in Turkey, I was told about mythological figures in Başhöyük. One of my informants D. Kanşay (52) made mention of agaç kişi ‘masallarda anlatilan orman devi, masallarda ormanda yaşayan cin’ – [giant demon of fairy tales living in forests]. It is also present in the Karachay dictionary (Tavkul 2000: 71).

Pear-tree is well represented in the text of Hungarian folksongs, old place- and family names alike in many forms: körtvély, körtve, körtvefa, körtövefa, körtvény, körtélyfa, körtvélyfa, körtesliget.

In connection with körtéfa ‘pear-tree’ Igaz M. writes in the Hungarian Encyclopaedia of Folklore (Ortutay 1980: 309), that it is a child-game in the shape of circle-dance accompanied by singing. It is sung in several variations: körtvélyfa, körtifa, körtvéfa. Péter Bornemissza makes a mention of this child-game with the name of köruelyes in his work Diabolical spirits written in 1578.

Kodály collected the following song in Ghymes (Nyitra) in 1906:

Körtéfa, körtéfa,

Gyöngyösi körtéfa

Sok gyalog katona

Megpihen alatta. (Bartók 1991: 706)

Pear-tree, pear-tree

Pear-tree in Gyöngyös

Many a foot-soldier

Rests underneath.

We sung Körtéfa the following way in the 1960-es in Vásárhely in the school yard, while dancing in a circle:

Körtéfa, körtéfa, kőrösi, kerepesi körtéfa

Városi gazda, gyöngyösi tánc,

Könnyűjáró kismenyecske dob szerda.

Pear-tree, pear-tree, pear tree in Kőrös, Kerepes

Farmer in town, dance in Gyöngyös,

Easy going young wife, drum Wednesday.

The word occurs in family names as well in the following forms: Körtvély (1461), Körtvélyes (1420), Körtvélyesi (1542), Körtvélyfái (1632) (Kázmér 1993:642).

It is often seen in the Hungarian onomastics: e.g. there is a place called Körtvélyes in Jászság, there is one in the vicinity of Vásárhely in the county Csongrád, there is a peninsula bearing the same name, formed by the river Tisza.

In the etymological dictionary of place names Kiss (1988: 798) gives the following explanation for Körtvélyes: ‘a hill as high as 480 m in Vértes in the west or north-west from Szár’. To the north from the hill there is a place called Körtvélyespuszta, the hill is named after it. Körtvélyes as a placename, derives from the Hungarian noun körtvély ‘pear’. Its wider meaning is ‘a place where there grow (wild)pear-trees’. See in further place-names: Alsókörtvélyes, Déskörtvélyes, Érkörtvélyes, Lajtakörtvélyes, Nyitrakörtvélyes, Ókörtvélyes, Szepeskörtvélyes, Újkörtvélyes.

The Hungarian historian György Györffy elaborated our place-names until the end of the Árpád-era (1301), and there it is witnessed from the whole Carpathian Basin either as an independent word or as part of a compound word. There is a place-name Körtvélyes in Baranyavármegye in 1093 (Györffy1963: 332), there is a Körtvélyes sziget ‘K. island’ in Biharvármegye in 1313 (Györffy1963: 655), there is Körtvélyestelek in Komáromvármegye in 1321 (Györffy1987: 434), a Körtvély(es)telke in Küküllővármegye in 1301 (Györffy1987: 555), a Körtvély(es) in Mosonvármegye in 1208 (Györffy1998: 155), a Körtvélyestelek in Nógrádvármegye in 1327 (Györffy1998: 262), and a Körtvélyes in Nyitravármegye in 1257 (Györffy1998: 415).

The word körtvélyes stands for ‘Garten mit Birnbaum’ in old Hungarian texts (Berrár – Károly 1984: 431) i.e. Turkish kertmelik. In the same work the stem of the word is shown as ‘körte’ and its variants are given as follows: keruel, kirtwe, kortuel, kewrtnel, kórthwely, vad kortoueli, etc.

Munkácsi made mention of its Turkic background, then Gombocz (1908) and Vámbéry (1914) dealt with it. Both Gombocz and Bárczi places it among the terms of agriculture. Ligeti called our attention to the fact that it is a loan also in Turkic languages, and there are several things that should be explained on both sides. (Ligeti 1986: 291-292).

  1. In most present day Turkic languages we see a metathesis in the form of the Iranian loan-word emrud, it survives as armut[32]. On the other hand we do not have this Iranian loan-word in different Turkic languages spoken in the Caucasus, but there survives another form perhaps from an extinct language:

MT kertme (CC), kertmä ‘Birne’ (Gronbech), kertme ‘armut’ (Houtsma), NT Kum. gertme ‘gruša (lesnaja)’ (Bammatova 1969: 98), Kum. gertme ‘Holzbirne’ (Németh 1911: 113), Krč. kertme ‘armut’ (Karça-Koşay 1954: 133), Blk. kertme ‘Birne, Birnbaum’ (Pröhle 1914/15: 228), rawbazi balk. raubazi (derevo poklonenija balkarcev v period jazyčestva)’ (Tenišev 1989)

It is also known as kertme terek ‘armut agaci’ in Karachay (Tavkul 2000: 256). It was also mediated to non-Turkic languages as well, e.g. into Osetic kerttu (Tavkul 2002/4 AOH). This makes it most probable that we also borrowed the word somewhere North to the Caucasus. Ligeti also underlined its importance from the point of view of areal linguistics (Ligeti 1986: 292).

The first occurence of the Hungarian word is kurtuel fa in the Deed of Foundation of Tihany Abbey in 1055. This rather early occurance enables us to assume that Hungarians also held their ritual under the pear-tree, the same way as at the kút, which was also considered to be a Turkic loan by Gombocz (1908: 69), though Ligeti (1986: 85) ruled it out.

  1. Körtefa was not only the name of a fruit-tree, but rather a place-marker, as is reflected by our old place-names present throughout in the whole Carpathian Basin.

The sacred körtéfa in the children’s song used to be perhaps the place of the rite, where people assembled on certain occasions.

Mention should be also made of the körtemuzsika, still sold in village fairs bearing another name: shaman’s pipe. This is a pear-shaped whistle made of clay, liked by children

The dance and drum appearing in the text of Körtéfa affirms us in beliving that it was performed on a shaman ritual. Drum and Wednesday is not just any Wednesday either. Drum is a well known shaman appliance, it serves as the ‘mount’ of the shaman during the ritual. The sleeping spirits awake to the noise of the drum and float forth to help the shaman. They help him in his entrancement, then help him on his trip to the other world, where he brings news back to those present. Drum and Wednesday may just as well be part of our old religion as bűvös ‘magical’, bájos ‘charming’, or bölcs that was borrowed from Turkic bügüči ‘shaman’ or the practice of the weather-magician. According to the legends this knowledge was also shared by St. Margaret daughter of King Béla the nun from the Dominic order. 

  1. We know of two traditions from the Caucasus. One of them is Dža?iz Terek ‘the respect of lonely trees that remained from the shamanistic era’. The other one is Rawbazi[33]‘it was the sacred pear-tree in Balkar during the shamanistic period’ (Tavkul 2000: 322) it is a proof of the presence of pear-cult among Balkars in the early times.

We can assume from all the above data that the Hungarian word körtefa belonged not only to the terminology of agriculture, but also to that of the old Hungarian religion (see above). Its original can be traced back to the Caucasus where it belonged to the terminology of old religion of the Balkars.

References

Bammatova, Z. Z. (ed.) (1969): Kumyksko – russkij slovar’. Moskva.

Bartók B. (1991): Magyar népdalok. Egyetemes gyűjtemény I. oszt. Budapest.

Berrár J. – Károly S. (eds) (1984): Régi magyar glosszárium. Budapest.

Birtalan Á. – Rákos A. (2002): Kalmükök. Egy európai mongol nép. (TEXTerebess No.1.) Budapest.

Csáki É. (2002): Bűvös számok az iszlám előtti török és kereszténység előtti ősi magyar vallásban. Ethnica IV:1. pp. 36-38.

Diószegi, V. (1978): Pre-Islamic shamanism of the Baraba Turks and some ethnogenetic conclusions. In: Diószegi, V. – Hoppál, M. (eds) (1978): Shamanism in Siberia. Bp. pp. 83-167.

Diószegi V. (ed.)(1978a): Az ősi magyar hitvilág. Válogatás a magyar mitológiával foglalkozó XVII-XIX. századi művekkel. (A magyar néprajz klasszikusai) Budapest.

Erdélyi Zs. (1978): Az életfa. In: Kis magyar méprajz a rádióban. Budapest. pp. 310-312.

Farkas F. (2000): A kender, a szőlő és a fa mint névalkotó tényező a jászsági földrajzi nevekben. (Magyar Nyelvjárások XXXVIII) Debrecen pp. 139-146.

Golden, P. (1980): Khazar studies. An historico-philological inquiry into the origins of the Khazars. (BOH XXV/1) Vol. I. Budapest.

Gombocz Z. (1908): Honfoglaláselőtti török jövevényszavaink. (A Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság Kiadványai 7) Budapest.

Györffy Gy. (1963): Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza I. Budapest.

Györffy Gy. (1987): Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza III. Budapest.

Györffy Gy. (1998): Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza IV. Budapest.

Hatto, A. (1985): Shamanism in the Yakut epic trilogy „Han Jargistai”. Ural Altaische Jb N.F. 5. Pp. 146-167.

Karça, R. – Koşay, H. Z. (1954): Karaçay-Malkar Türklerinde hayvancilik ve bununla ilgili gelenekler. (AÜ DTC Yayinlarindan 101) Ankara.

Kálmán B. (1980): Fejér megyei helynevek a 18-19. századból. (Magyar Nyelvjárások XXIII) Debrecen, pp. 58-95.

Kázmér M. (1993): Régi magyar családnevek szótára. XIV-XVIII. sz. Budapest.

Kiss L. (1988): Földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára. I. kötet A-K. Budapest.

Ligeti L. (1986): A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban. Budapest.

Ocak, A. Y. (1983): Bektaşi Menakibnamelerinde Islam Öncesi Inanç Motifleri. Istanbul.

Ortutay Gy. (ed.) (1980): Magyar Néprajzi Lexikon. III. K – Né. Budapest.

Ögel, B. (1984): Islamiyetten önce Türk kültür tarihi. Orta Asya kaynak ve buluntularina göre. 2. Baski. (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari VII. dizi) Ankara.

Pröhle V. (1914/15): Balkarische Studien. Keleti Szemle XV. pp. 165-276.

Róna-Tas, A. (1999): Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages. An introduction to early Hungarian history. Budapest.

Roux, J-P. (1966): Faune et flore sacrées dans les sociétés altaiques. Paris.

Sevortjan, É. V. (1974): Étimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskih jazykov. (Obščetjurkskie i mežtjurkskie osnovy na glasnye.) Moskva.

Sipos, J. (2001): Report on my expedition in the Caucasus. In: Károly, L. – Kincses Nagy, É. (eds): Néptörténet – Nyelvtörténet. Szeged.

Tavkul, U. (1993): Kafkasya daglilarinda hayat ve kültür. Karaçay-Malkar Türklerinde sosyo-ekonomik yapi ve degişme üzerine bir inceleme. (Kültür serisi 78) Istanbul.

Tavkul, U. (2000): Karaçay – Malkar Türkçesi sözlügü. (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari 770) Ankara.

Van Deusen K. (1998): Mongush B. Kenin-Lopsan: Shamanic songs and myths of Tuva. Shaman 6:1. pp. 63-72.

Vámbéry Á. (1914): A magyarság bölcsőjénél. A magyar – török rokonság kezdete és fejlődése. Budapest.

Voigt V. (1975): A szibériai sámánizmus. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 77:1. pp. 207-214.

7. Favoured numerals in the old religion of Turks and Hungarians in the pre-Islamic and pre-Christian period

[In: Uluslararasi Türk Dünyasi Inanç Önderleri Kongresi Bildirileri. 23-28 Ekim 2001. Ankara. pp. 201-209.]

Religion, being an important component of social life, has been studied from many possible angles. Since it combines modern thinking and everyday life with the core of inherited culture we justly consider it a very important part of self definition. Although Turks got acquainted with Islam in the early periods of 7th and 8th centuries they did not join it easily or immediately. It took them centuries and some have preserved pre-Islamic traditions even afterwards, until our days[34]. Since Hungarians have never joined the Islam religion yet had lived together for longer or shorter periods of time with different Turkic peoples before the final settling in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the ninth century - one justly asks: is there anything common in the old traditions of Turkic and Hungarian beliefs?

This is the reason why Hungarians are especially concerned with the heterodox Islam traditions of Turks because they have preserved the most from pre-Islamic tradition. Besides the well known Turkic loan-words in Hungarian concerning the dictionary of religious life there are other features that express something deep in common. It is surprising to see the importance of certain numerals often chosen to symbolise pious personages, the deeds of saints, or unusual events thus preserved in collective memory.

Key words: Pir Sultan Abdal, heterodox religion, mysticism, popular belief, numerals: three, four, seven, twelve, forty

When speaking about Islam we are aware of the fact that it is one of the latest big religion that came into being under the influence of Judaism, Christianity etc. and as a consequence it bears several characteristics of the aforementioned other beliefs. What is especially interesting for Hungarians is the pre-Islamic religion of the Turks. Much of them is preserved in the less influenced heterodox Islam e.g. Bekhtashism or other Sufi tarikats. Let me apply to Pir Sultan Abdal’s poetry for backing my statements. On the other hand I shall cite the secret prayers preserved by Hungarian individuals collected by. S. Erdélyi throughout the whole Hungarian speaking area in the Carpathian Basin from the pre-Christian era. 

Besides the presence of common Saints, features and events described in the holy books, there are distinguished numerals playing an important role in the old tradition of both parts. Let me offer a few examples:

Numeral three

In Hungarian folklore the so called ‘three healer women’ type of prayers must be of Oriental origin according to S. Erdélyi (1999).

IV.20. Fejem fölött három Mária, körülöttem ezer angyal ...  - ‘Three Marie’s above my head, thousands of angels around me’ (Erdélyi 1971: 352).

V.4. Jézus három vasszöge három ajtóm kilincsei ... - ‘Three iron nails of Jesus are the knobs of my three doors’. (Erdélyi 1971: 352).

VI.8. Vegyek le három szál gyertyát - ‘Let me take three candles’ (Erdélyi 1971: 352).

XV.11. Három csöpp vérit elejtették - ‘They dropped down three drops of his blood’ (Erdélyi 1971: 356).

As represented in Pir Sultan Abdal’s poetry:

Yemen ellerinde üç can gördüm PSA 46, (Nüzhet 1929: 46) - ‘I saw three souls in the country of Yemen’.

Üçler Yediler yardimcimiz olsun PSA 46, (Nüzhet 1929: 46) - ‘Let the Threes and Sevens be our helpers’.

Üç gözlü pinarin gözün ararsan PSA 74, (Nüzhet 1929: 58) - ‘If you try to find the source of the three sources spring’.

Has bahçede üç tomurcuk gülü var PSA 74, (Nüzhet 1929: 58) - ‘The Sultan has three rosebuds in his garden’.

Üç gün üç gicedir yagar yagişlar PSA 95, (Nüzhet 1929: 68) - ‘It has been raining three days and three nights’.

Numeral four

As represented in the old Hungarian prayers from the pre-Christianity era:

... Az Úrjézus szent keresztfája,

Lögyön e ház teteje,

Négy sarkára álljon a négy evangélista, (Erdélyi 1999: 188).

...The Saint crucifix of the Almighty

Be the roof of this house,

Let the four Evangelists stand on its four corners

...Házam négy sarkába

Négy szép szárnyas angyal, (Erdélyi 1999: 441)

...Four beautiful winged angels

Into the four corners of my house

...Négy sarkába négy szál gyertya[35](Erdélyi 1999: 486)

...Four single candles into its four corners

Négy évangélista álljon a házam négy szögletére... (Erdélyi 1971: 348)

Let the four Evangelists stand on the four angles of my house

As we can see it in Pir Sultan Abdal’s poetry:

Dört kitap’tan bir ders virdim kocama PSA 10, (Nüzhet 1929: 30) - ‘I have given a lesson to my husband from four books’.

Gözleyi közleyi gözüm dörd oldu PSA 18, (Nüzhet 1929: 33) - ‘While observing and watching my eyes became four’.

Dördüncü felekte Arslan olan Şah PSA 16, (Nüzhet 1929: 33) - ‘Shah being a lion in the fourth firmament’.

Dört kapudan kirk makamdan ararsan PSA 62, (Nüzhet 1929: 53) - ‘If you try to search for him behind four gates and in forty abodes’.

Nâcî dirler dört güruhun biriyim PSA 26, (Nüzhet 1929: 37) - ‘I am the one of the four who is saved’.

Dört kitab’in kalemini yazmali PSA 74, (Nüzhet 1929: 58) ‘Each items of the four books should be written’.

Dört kardaşiz bir gömlekte yatariz PSA 77, (Nüzhet 1929: 59) ‘We are four brothers passing the night in one and the same shirt’.

Hak’kin emri ile dört kitap indi PSA 78, (Nüzhet 1929: 60) ‘Due to God’s decree four books descended’.

Numeral seven

II.7. Hét köröszt alatt lefekszem,

8. Hét köröszt alatt fölkelek (Erdélyi 1971: 352)

I lie down under seven crucifixes,

I get up under seven crucifixes

II.53. Hét cső (sic) vére elcsöppent (Erdélyi 1971: 356)

Four drops of his blood dripped

XV.17. Héccer (sic) hét halálos bünit megbocsássa (Erdélyi 1971: 356)

Let his seven times seven deadly sins be remitted

XV.19. Abba meg héccer (sic) meg héccer van felszentelve (Erdélyi 1971: 356)

He is consecrated seven and seven times

As represented in Turkic religious poetry:

Yedi gün emegi geçti bu deme PSA 10, (Nüzhet 1929: 30) - ‘His work completed in seven days passed into this wine’.

Yedi yildir hasta düştüm yatirim PSA 33, (Nüzhet 1929: 40) - ‘I have been lying fallen sick for seven years now’.

Yardimcimiz olsun Üçler Yediler PSA 46, (Nüzhet 1929: 46) - ‘Let our helpers be the Threes, Sevens’.

Yedileriz birincimiz Ali’dür PSA 88, (Nüzhet 1929: 64) - ‘We are the sevens, the first of us is Ali’.

Alti kat kapudan girince içre, Yedinci kapuda Pîr’i gördün mü? PSA 97, (Nüzhet 1929: 68) - ‘Having entered six gates did you see the Old man in the seventh?’.

Numeral twelve

Numeral twelve is also well represented in both sides, e. g.:

...Tizenkét szál szentelt gyertyával megfoglak,

Tizenkét szál szentelt vesszővel megsujtlak,  (Erdélyi 1999: 120)

 

...I catch you with twelve blessed candles,

I strike a blow at you with twelve consecrated twigs

...Jézus ül az aranfán,

Arra mennek a tizenkét apostolok, (Erdélyi 1999: 319)

...Jesus sitting in the golden tree,

The twelve apostles were proceeding by

...Elmúltak már tizenkét martirok,

Tizenkét apostolok, (Erdélyi 1999: 321)

...Both twelve martyrs and twelve apostles have passed

...Én lefekszem én ágyamba,

Testi, lelki koporsómba,

Három angyal fejem fölött,

Egyik őriz, másik vigyáz,

Harmadik a bűnös lelkemet várja,

Tizenkét angyal velem van,... (Erdélyi 1999: 193)

...I lie down into my bed,

into my coffin for both body and soul,

Three angels above my head,

One guards, the other protects,

The third awaits my sinful soul,

Twelve angels take my side...

On Ikiler sirrina mahrem idim PSA 10, (Nüzhet 1929: 30) - I became confidential with the secret of the Twelve’s.

On iki Imam katarimiz PSA 25, (Nüzhet 1929: 37) - Our group is that of the twelve prayer leaders.

On iki Imam’in yolun sürene Arzulayip size geldim erenler PSA 73, (Nüzhet 1929: 58) - Longing for you I came to you who have arrived at the divine truth on the path of the twelve prayer leaders.

On iki Imam akar Cennet içine PSA 78, (Nüzhet 1929: 60) - The twelve prayer leaders flowing into Paradise.

Seher vakti on iki Imam sen yetiş PSA 91, (Nüzhet 1929: 66) - Be on hand in time twelve religious prayer leaders just before dawn.

12 disciples

Száz angyal, tizenkét tanítvány mondja, menj el a fekete föld szinére,

Hirdessétek az én számból származott szent igéket, ... (Erdélyi 1999: 225)

A hundred angels, twelve disciples say: go to the black earth,

Preach the sacred gospels originating from my mouth

Numeral forty

Negyven éjel (sic) negyven napal (sic) vélem fog leni (sic) fényes Menyországban. (Erdélyi 1999: 526)

Forty nights and forty days he will be with me in the glorious kingdom of heaven

Husvét után negyven napra,

Piros pünkösd hajnalára (Erdélyi 1999: 739)

Forty days after Easter,

At the eve of red Pentecost

Numeral forty stands for ’a lot, many’ in most of oral literature folk- or religious. In Bektashi communities during their religious ceremonies kirklar semahi is the part when anybody present can stand up for turning the semah. I witnessed it in a Bektashi festival held in Topçular, that huge crowds felt like taking part in it. 

Kapuyu çaldi kirklarin birisi

Birinden mestoldu cümle hepisi

Sarikaya dirler Şâh’in korusu

Konalim gazîler Imam aşkina PSA 3, (Nüzhet 1929: 26)

One of the forties knocked at the door

All of them became enchanted from one

Shah’s wood is called Sarikaya

Let’s make a night’s halt there ghazis for the sake of the prophet

Kirklar da Hu diyüp özün birledi PSA 32, (Nüzhet 1929: 40) - The forties saying Hu united themselves into one.

Esremiş kirklar’in içtigi meyden PSA 42, (Nüzhet 1929: 42) - Got drunk from the wine the forties drank.

Yunüs’ün deryaya daldigi zaman

Kirk gündüz kirk gice kaldigi zaman PSA 42, (Nüzhet 1929: 44)

When Jonah plunged into the ocean,

During the forty days and nights he remained

Kirklar meclisinde aşk meydaninda... PSA 42, (Nüzhet 1929: 44) - In the session of the Forty Saints on the open space for religious ceremony in a dervish convent...

Kirklar bu meydanda döner didiler PSA 55, (Nüzhet 1929: 50) - It is said that the Forties go round on this open space for religious ceremony in a dervish convent.

Dört kapudan kirk makamdan ararsan PSA 62, (Nüzhet 1929: 53) - If you search for him from four gates and forty abodes.

Kirklar’in durdugu dâr meydandadir PSA 82, (Nüzhet 1929: 62) - The difficulty the Forties are facing is on the open space for religious ceremony in a dervish convent.

Kirkimiz da bir katara dizildik PSA 88, (Nüzhet 1929: 64) - All forty of us have joined the same queue.

Kirk kapunun kilidiyem PSA 96, (Nüzhet 1929: 68)

Kirk kapinin kilidiyem PSA 11, (Gölpinarli-Boratav 1943: 89) - I am the lock of forty gates.

Kirklarin durdugu yeri gördün mü? PSA 97, (Nüzhet 1929: 68) - Have you witnessed the place the Forty Saints are standing at?

It is often used in other pieces of literature from the same era, as we come across it in Dede Qorkut for instance:

Uruz’un kirk yigidi attan indi (DK Gökyay 103). - The forty young brave men belonging to Urus dismounted their horses.

It is also well represented in the moon-worship of the Turks in the pre-Islam era (Golden 1998): ... Ay Ata went down to the land of good air, sweet water and he dwelt there for 40 years. Together with his wife they lived together for 40 years. Then his health has collapsed for 40 years. They had 40 children. After his death his wife lived for another 40 years...

Even in our days one can find hints of it e.g. in the village of Kocacik in Macedonia during the Hidrellez celebration. People collect forty different fresh spring flowers from the meadow at dawn. At home they throw them into a large kettle of boiling water together with an egg. They wash the little ones preferably next to a rose bush in the garden as well as the adults inside the house (Kartal 1997: 275).

Conclusion

It is a widely known fact that there are favoured or rather sacred numerals among Altaic people as well as in Hungarian tradition. We can see this from the short examples above that it was well known to these peoples and I suppose that it was also a steppe tradition. Therefore we can speak about a common knowledge shared by many, and it is well represented in both Pir Sultan Abdal’s poetry and in Hungarian pre-Christian religious songs. There are a lot of common characteristics present in the religious traditions - one has only to ask the right questions to investigate. It is enough to remember number nine so much represented in the famous 13th century Secret History of the Mongols[36].

References

Csáki, É. (2017): Macar ve Türk Kültüründeki Benzerliklere Dair. In: Ölmez, M. – Çulha, T. – Özçetin, K. (eds): Divanu Lugati’t – Turk’ten Senglah’a Türkçe. Dogumunun 60. Yilinda Mustafa S. Kaçalin Armagani. Istanbul: Kesit Yay. pp. 345-351.

Csáki, É. (2017a):       Eski dil ilişkilerinin peşinde. In: VIII. Uluslararasi Türk Dili Kurultayi. Ankara 22-26 Mayis 2017. Bildiri Özetleri p. 79.

Csáki, É. (2020): Evlilikle Ilgili Terimler Örneginde Macar ve Türk Folkloründeki Benzerlikler. In: Namal Y. (ed.): Türk - Macar Ilişkilerinin Izinde 20 Yil. Prof. Dr. Melek Çolak Armagani. Istanbul: Kitabevi. pp. 109-116.

Csáki, É. (2021 [2022]): Some Notes on the Karachay - Balkar Word čök 'kinship celebration'. In: Nevskaya, I. – Şirin, H. – Agca, F. (eds): Ayagka Tegimlig Bahşi: Marcel Erdal Armagani. Journal of Turkish Studies. Harvard Univ. pp. 75-80.

Csáki, É. (2022): Türk Okurlar Için Macar Halk Masallari Hakkinda Bazi Bilgiler. In: Csáki É. (ed.): Macar Masallari. Istanbul: Alfa. pp. 9-49.

Csáki, É. (2022a): Similarities in Hungarian and Turkish Folk Literature. Folktales. In: Khabtagaeva, B. (ed.): Historical Linguistics and Philology of Central Asia. Essays in Turkic and Mongolian Studies. Leiden: Brill. pp. 394-399.

Csáki, É. (2023): Macarcadaki yer adlarina ve ad verme geleneklerine dair. In: Şavk, Ü. Ç. – Garibova, J. [etc.] Cumhuriyet’in Yüzüncü Yilinda. Süer Eker [Armagani] Çagdaş Türkoloji’nin Izinde. Grafiker, Ankara. pp. 315-322.

Erdélyi Zs. (1971): Archaikus és középkori elemek képi szövegekben. [Elements of archaic character and those from the Middle Ages present in pictorial texts.] Ethnographia 1971:3. pp. 343-363.

Erdélyi Zs. (1999): Hegyet hágék, lőtőt lépék. Archaikus népi imádságok. [Archaic Hungarian prayers] Harmadik, bővített kiadás. Pozsony.

Golden, P. (1998): Religion among the Qipčaqs of Medieval Eurasia. CAJ 42:2. pp. 180-237.

Kartal, N. (1997): Kocacik’ta Hidrellez gelenekleri. in: V. Milletlerarasi Türk Halk Kültürü Kongresi. Gelenek, görenek, inançlar seksiyon bildirileri. (Kültür Bakanligi Yayinlari 1872) pp. 272-281. Ankara.

Katona I. (1997): A magyar honfoglalás mondaköre. [The epics concerning Hungarian conquest.] in: Kovács L. - Paládi-Kovács A. (eds)(1997): Honfoglalás és néprajz. (A honfoglalásról sok szemmel IV.) pp. 267- 273.

Kúnos I. (1906): Ada-kálei török népdalok. [Folk songs from Ada-Kale] Gyűjtötte, fordítással és jegyzetekkel ellátta ~. Budapest.

Ligeti L. (1962): A mongolok titkos története. Budapest.

Moravcsik, Gy. (2006): Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio. Greek text ed. by ~. English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins. New Rev. Ed. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks.

Nüzhet, S. (1929): XVIIinci asir sazşairlerinden Pir Sultan Abdal. (Türk Sazşairlerine ait metinler ve tetkikler III). Istanbul.

Ocak, A. Y. (1990): Islâm-Türk inançlarinda Hizir-Ilyas kültü. (Türk Kültürünü Araştirma Enstitüsü 113) Ankara.

Ocak, A. Y. (2000): Babaîler isyanindan Kizilbaşliga: Anadolu’da Islâm heterodiksinin doguş ve gelişim tarihine kisa bir bakiş. Belleten C. LXIV 9. pp. 129-159.

Pais D. (1975): A magyar ősvallás nyelvi emlékeiből. [From the linguistic monuments of the old Hungarian religion] Budapest.

Róna-Tas, A. – Berta, Á. (2011): West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian I-II. (Turcologica 84). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Sipos, J. (2000): In the wake of Bartók in Anatolia. (Bibliotheca Traditionalis Europae 2). Budapest.

Tanses, H. (1997): Ozanlarin dili. Istanbul.

8. Hungarian Turkologists Among the Kazakh People

[I read this paper in 2019 in Alma Ata at an International Congress on Zataevich organized by the Kazakh Academy]

Hungarians settled to their present day homeland in Central Europe in 896 A. C. Prior to that data they had spent sevaral centuries among different Turkic peoples (Khazars, Bulgar and Kipchak, etc.) in the southern steppe region. During that period Hungarians learned a lot of things from Turks, mingled with them, helped each others and the coexistence resulted in a mutual culture. The Western Old Turkic loan-words in Hungarian language are well preserved and the majority are still in use.

This underlines why Hungarians are interested in Turkic peoples. Turkology has been handled as part of our self research, kind of a national study. One of the forerunners in this field is Á. Vámbéry, whose first report was written as a result of his visit in Central Asia.A török faj ’Turkic race’ came out in Budapest in 1885 after he had widely travelled in Central Asia as a young man. In Europe Turkic Studies was first to be established in Budapest.

Even though the Cumans were not together with the main stream Hungarians, they joined us only in the 13th century just before the Mongolian invasion, they were given permission by the Hungarian king to settle. They had been assimilated by the end of the 17th century by the Hungarians, many different parts of their traditions and culture are preserved even today. Two of the best known Hungarian Turkologists like Gyula Németh who had been the head of the chair (in Turkic Studies of Budapest University), and István Mándoky Kongur an ardent field work researcher who is buried in Alma Ata were born in the largest Cuman town called Karcag. We also preserved some Cuman loan-words in Hungarian, yet they are much less in number, than the aforementioned West Old Turkic loans.

Vámbéry collected all the possible sources in his age in connection with the Kazakhs. Unlike we can read in Reichl’s Preface (p. 5.): „It should be noted that the Kazakhs were called "Kirghiz" in the 19th century and the Kirghiz "Kara-Kirghiz."– Vámbéry mentioned the Kazakh people as „Kazakh-Kirghiz”[37]. In his book on Turkic peoples he starts to write about the Kazakhs in the 3rd chapter starting on p. 338. Whatever he collected in connection with their origins and migrations is the result of his studies. What interested me most is his own findings as an ethnographer and linguist. There follow the results of his investigations until p. 379. Just one thing to be translated from the fourty pages: „We are surprised by the briskness of Kazakh people’s sense and memory. … Due to his unparalleled memory, it is impossible for a Kazakh to forget the features of the face of a foreigner, the tailoring of his attire as well as the colour of his horse throughout years. (p. 354.)”

Vámbéry described their folk literature starting with proverbs that he cited from an earlier collection of the Russian Terentjev. Than there is a part on the texts of  folksongs (kaim ölöng, uzatkan kizding ölöngü, etc.), folktales also taken from Radloff. In connection with religion Vámbéry mentioned that Islam reached the Kazakhs only in the 17th century, and even then it was only the elderly people who rarely prayed for 5 times a day. Shamanism was much more vivid in Vámbéry’s observations, shaman was still the well known healer. He also made mention of the palsi ’the fortune teller’. He described in details the so called „kumalak asadi” method of fortune telling. Vámbéry writes about the tradition of baranta (~ barumta) that was also advertised in my grandson’s school for a facultative afternoon activity in Budapest in September 2018.

Let me mention that it was not possible for anyone to just travel like that during the Soviet period.

István Mándoky (1944-1992) was not just one of the Hungarian Turkologists. As both of his parents were of Cuman origin, he wanted to research especially the Kipchak group of Turks. Therefore he travelled mainly to Kipchaks like the Tatars in Dobruja, Kazakhistan, Kirghizistan, later to the Caucasus, and even to the Uyghurs in China. His articles and results are also published in English with the obituary of the friend and colleague I. Vásáry.

Since Hungarian Turkology has international reputation, I am not going into the details of the researches. But let me underline the importance of the comparative method it utilises as a major characteristic features of it. Considering the best known language family the Indo-European one, we have to come to the conclusion, that Turkic languages are similar to each other. Well, how about their music as another major field of culture?

János Sipos another Hungarian Turkologist visited the Kazakh people several times with another kind of intention, he wanted to learn about their music. As he set it: ”Are there common layers in the folk tunes and texts of different Turkic peoples? Are there connections between certain Turkic and Hungarian folk music strata, and if there are, what can they be attributed to?” (Sipos 2001: 15)

Naturally he wanted to learn as one of the main question appealing to Hungarians is to see how Turkic folk music styles relate to layers of Hungarian folk music. It was still in the 1990ies that he first visited the huge country, then together with D. Somfai, while we went to the exiled Kazakhs of Bayan Ölgiy. We could visit them in Nalayh, Mongolia in 1996. Sipos’ first collected material came from the area of Mangkistaw, and together with that of Somfai’s earlier collection from the same area was the basis J. Sipos made his comparison.

There are not many field workers in Hungary, due to the hard work in unknown circumstances with unknown difficulties. There are other reasons as well, it is much more expensive, than working in libraries or archives, and it is much more difficult to get an official research permit. When finally all the obstacles are cleared away, then it comes to the problem of finding sources, etc., etc.

It was B. Bartók (1881-1945) Hungarian composer and ethnomusicologist who mentioned the difiiculties among Turks, i.e. it was impossible for him to collect from women. It was not planned, but came out later, how unhindered an ethnomusicologist and linguist could work together. It has been flowless since 1987 for J. Sipos and me, because women’d rather sing for me. All in all we established an unparalleled archive of the Turkic folk music at home. A considerable part of the collected material is also to be found on Sipos’s home-page: www.zti.hu/sipos_gyujtesek/index.asp

As for me, I work with original Turkic texts, translated several Tatar and Bashkir folktales, thousands of folksongs (Karachay-Balkar, Turkish, Azeri etc.) and religious songs as well. My question is if there is anything common in Turkic and Hungarian culture left? Are there hints traceable in the Hungarian belief system prior to Christianity and also in that of the Turks prior to Islam? My answer is yes, but this kind of research could be only carried out on an institutional level. Maybe Turkic Academy could give a background to it.

J. Torma a classmate and friend, both as a Turkologist and ambassador in Kazakistan used to travel to any part of the country and collect Kazakh folklore in the ninetees. He also published many articles on his findings. His untimely and unfortunate death robbed us from his further publications.

Summary

Having spent several decades as a researcher of Turkic culture I focused on tradition, religion and language as the most important source, because during its long history everything has been reflected in it. There are words, expressions, forms of sayings preserved in proverbs, folktales, ballads, poems epic or lyric, prayers etc. that help us describe heroic deeds as well as different values esteemed by people. They have been taught and handed over to younger generations in order to help them survive. This is what really matters.

As one of our famous forerunners B. Szabolcsi music historian told: „The Hungarians are the outermost branch spreading this way from the age-old tree of the great Asian musical culture rooted inthe souls of a variety of peoples, living from China through Central Asia to the Black Sea.”

Is not it our major task to reveal all the common features of the common heritage?

References

Almásy Gy. (1903): Vándor-utam Ázsia szívébe. (A K. M. Természettudományi Társulat LXXII.) Budapest.

Csáki, É. (2001): Collecting in a Mongolian Kazakh Mining Village: Nalayh. In: Sipos, J. (2001): Kazakh Folksongs. Bp. pp. 28-30.

Csáki, É. (2015): Similarities in Animal Husbandry (Karachay-Balkars and Hungarians). In: Dilek, I. – Türker, F. (eds): Türkmen Bilgesi. Fikret Türkmen Armagani. Ankara: Türk Kültürünü Araştirma Enst. Yay. pp. 289-296.

Csáki, É. (2015a): Peculiarities of the Karachay-Balkar Vocabulary. In: Sipos, J. – Tavkul, U.: Karachay – Balkar Folksongs. Institute for Musicology of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hung. Acad. of Sciences – L’Harmattan. pp. 303-311.

Csáki, É. (2015b): Lyrics and their translation. In: Sipos, J. – Tavkul, U.: Karachay – Balkar Folksongs. Institute for Musicology of the Research Centre for the Humanities of the Hung. Acad. of Sciences – L’Harmattan. pp. 311-382.

Csáki, É. (2015c): Macar Inanç Sisteminde Altay Geleneklerinin Izleri. Altay Dilleri Sempozyumu. Antalya.

Csáki, É. (2017): Macar Türkologlari’nin Balkanlar’daki Alan Araştirmasinda Alevi ve Bektaşiler. Alevilik – Bektaşilik Araştirmalari Dergisi 16. pp. 239-246.

Csáki, É. (2017a): Macar ve Türk Halk Edebiyatindaki Benzer Motifler Hakkinda. In: 8. Milletlerarasi Türk Halk Kültürü Kongresi. Türk Halk Edebiyati (T. C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanligi Yayinlari 3520) Ankara: pp. 121-130.

Csáki, É. (2017b): Vámbéry’nin Türk Dünyasi ve Türk Halklari Izlenimleri. In: Ölümünün 100. Yilinda Ármin Vámbéry Anma Toplantisi Bildirileri.Ankara 6-7 Eylül 2013. (TDK Yayinlari 1208) Ankara. pp. 31-36.

Csáki, É. (2018): Handing over traditions to further generations. II. Internationales Symposium Alevi – Bektaschi - Forschung 7-8 Sept. 2018. Universität Köln.

Mándoky Kongur, I. (2017): Newcomers from the East: Hungarians and Kipchak - Turks in Europe. Budapest: Molnar & Kelemen Oriental Publishers (Bibliotheca Turcica, I). 326 p., maps, 8 colour plates.

Reichl, K. (2018): Turkic Oral Epic Poetry. Traditions, Forms, Poetic Structure. (Routledge Revivals) New York: Taylor and Francis. (ebk).

Sipos, J. (2001): Kazakh Folksongs form the Two Ends of the Steppe. Budapest: Akadémiai K.

Sipos, J. – Csáki, É. (2009): The Psalms and Folk Songs of a Mystic Turkish Order. The Music of Bektashis in Thrace.665 p. + DVD, Budapest.

Somfai Kara D. (2006): A mongol és belső-ázsiai török népi hitvilág szókincsének összehasonlító nyelvi elemzése. [unpublished PhD dissertation] Budapest.

Vámbéry Á. (1885): A török faj ethnológiai és ethnographiai tekintetben. Budapest: MTA.

Vásáry I. (2012): A turkológus Mándoky Kongur István. In: Molnár Á. (ed.): Kunok és magyarok. (Török – Magyar Könyvtár I.) Budapest: Molnár K. pp. 9-16.

9. Excerpts from our video collections

Adige singer and orchestra, Russia, Verhnyaya Balkariya, Nalchik – concert hall, 30 Sept. 2000. Recorded by János Sipos, Gergely Agócs

Avar dance song performed on tambourine by Qallayev Feyzulla Muslum oglu (1949). Recorded in Azerbaijan, Zagatala, Makov, on 11 June 1999 by János Sipos

Avar epic song (Imam Shamil) played on stringed intstruments by Qacayer Saban Ehmed oglu. Recorded in Azerbaijan, Zagatala, Makov, on 11 June 1999 by János Sipos

Azeri religious song (zikir) performed by Azerbaijani women. Recorded in Azerbaijan, Shamahi, Sündi, on 27 May 1999 by János Sipos

Azeri „Shirvan gözellemesi” played on instrument balaban by Nezer Yareliyev Mecid oglu (1924). Recorded in Azerbaijan, Quba, Zerqava, on 03 June 1999 by János Sipos

Azeri ashik song song accompanied by bağlama by Ashiq Veleh Rahim oglu Hesenov. Recorded in Azerbaijan, Zaqatala, on 10 June 1999 by János Sipos

Karachay epic song on the hero Biynöger, accompanied by accordion. Performed by Zoya Gacieva (1952). Recorded in Russia, Verhnyaya Balkariya, Ogarı Malkar, on 30 September 2000, by János Sipos, Gergely Agócs

Karachay rain begging song called Kürek Biyche, performed by Zoya Gacieva (1952). Recorded in Russia, Verhnyaya Balkariya, Ogarı Malkar, on 30 Sept. 2000 by János Sipos, Gergely Agócs

Kazakh educational song (terme). Recorded in Kazakhstan, Mangkıstaw, on 18 September 1997 by János Sipos, Dávid Somfai Kara

Kazakh lament by Akles (1932). Recorded in Kazakhstan, Mangkıstaw, on 18 September 1997 by János Sipos, Dávid Somfai Kara

Kyrgyz Ramadan song accompanied by dombra, performed by Kencibek Orozaliyev (1938). Recorded in Kyrgyzstan, Isıq Köl, Barskoon, Kencibek’s house on 17 September 2002

Kyrgyz epic song from the epic Seketbay, accompanied by dombra, performed by Kencibek Orozaliyev (1938). Recorded in Kyrgyzstan, Isıq Köl, Barskoon, Kencibek’s house on 17 September 2002

Tatar folk song by Yakup Süzer (1934). Recorded in Turkey, Kayseri, Kuruhöyük on 30 August 2005 by János Sipos

Turkish folk song (lament) by Durum Gezer (1960). Recorded in Turkey, Osmaniye, Sülüklü yayla on 24 June 2006 by János Sipos, Éva Csáki

Turkish grievous folksong (Kozan Dağı Çatal Matal) by İrfan Ali Bekiroğlu (1929). Recorded in Turkey, Osmaniye, Alibekiroğlu mahallesi on 25 June 2006 by János Sipos, Éva Csáki

Turkish grievous folk song (Karacaoğlan) accompanied by bağlama. Performed by İbrahim Öztürk (1942). Recorded in Turkey, Osmaniye, Gökçeli on 30 June 2006 by János Sipos, Éva Csáki

Turkish religious song (nefes) accompanied by bağlama by Bektaş Bahtiyar (1953). Recorded in Turkey, İstanbul, Zeytinburnu on 29 June 2006 by János Sipos, Éva Csáki

Turkmen bahshi song accompanied by dutar, gidjak. Performed by Naz Halliyew (1939), Bayrammamet Dowudow (1962). Recorded in Turkmenistan, Balkan, Bereket on 3rd May 2011 by János Sipos

Turkmen lament sung by Gurbangül Nazarowa (1953). Recorded in Turkmenistan, Balkan, Bereket on 3rd May 2011 by János Sipos

Zahur- folksong sung by an Arerbaijani woman in Zagatala, Aşağı Tala on 10th June 1999. Collected by János Sipos

Zahur religious song sung by Ehmedova Cemile Misir qızı in Zagatala, Çobankol on 12th June 1999. Collected by János Sipos

Jewish song by Nisim Nisimov Hililovoc in Azerbaijan, Quba, Kırmızı Kasaba on 03 June 1999. Collected by János Sipos

Endnotes

[1] The Western : Eastern Turkic opposition started with the interruption of the Late Ancient Turkic period. Then started the westward migration of non-Bulghar tribes but they never remained isolated from those remaining. The isoglosses of Turkic language coming into existence in this period were interactive (Schönig 1999: 86).

[2] The most exhaustive study on Ottoman Turkic loan words in Hungarian has been written by Zs. Kakuk.

[3] There are some 1500 Ottoman Turkic loan words in Hungarian and only 30 of them are still in usage, there is no mention of verbs (Kakuk 1975: 209).

[4] In his study, Róna-Tas (1994: 102) cites the most probable criteria for word formative suffixes to be borrowed. Among others it is very important that the function of the ending be clear and the same stem should be borrowed with other endings as well.

[5] Similar is the case of the Muslim Roms (Gypsies) of Bulgaria. A lot of them are trilingual as Kyuchukov (1994: 306) lets us know. They speak their mother tongue (Romani), Turkish and the official language of Bulgaria.

[6] Data is cited from the material collected by J. Sipos in Azerbayjan in 2000.

[7] e.g. együnnen ‘from a place’, mostanig ‘till now’, mentől ‘from what’, estennen ‘from evening’ etc.

[8] The unvoiced pair of the anorganic +d appears e.g. on the Hungarian word rubin ~ rubint ‘ruby’.

[9] Both the transcription and the translation belongs to Zs. Kakuk (2001: 514).

[10] As we learn it from Mándoky Kongur (1993: 12) Christian ideas were introduced to them by wandering  preachers in Hungarian.

[11] There are lots of other examples from earlier as well as later periods of Hungarian language history: esten+nen ‘gegen Abend’ (Berrár - Károly 1984: 203) || ~ esten+den; esten+nen ‘in the evening, when it is evening’ || éjen+nen, napon+nan (Czuczor - Fogarasi 412), esten+dőn ‘around evening, in the evening; in time’ (Czuczor -Fogarasi 412), éj+ten-éjjel Nyr 79:343, hajdanán TESz: developed in Hungarian, jelennen ‘1. besonders, speziell; 2. offenbar, evident’ (Berrár - Károly 1984: 369), régenten ‘in/from old times’ (MünchK 17va21, 67rb13), régenten ‘einst, vorzeiten’ (Berrár - Károly 1984: 589), adverbial 1. ‘sometimes before; earlier; 2. once, sometime’ (Jakab – Bölcskei 2000: 352) || Mod. Turkish eski ‘old’+DEn ‘in old times, earlier, in the past, once, before this time’, reggel+den ‘from morning’ (Martinkó - Móra 1898), ~ reggel+ten Nyr 79:343, reg+ten ‘early’ (MNy 6:381), ~ rög+tön (Martinkó1955: 342) (TESz 455), újon+nan 1416 ‘again, once more’ (MünchK 64) (TESz 1028), tege+ten ‘yesterday’ (NyK 3: 349), etc.

[12] Károly S. published his thorough study in the shape of a dictionary on the morphology of Codex Bécsi 'Codex from Vienna', yet he did not find any instances of the suffix +nAn/+nAt.

[13] Mainly Muslim sources (Ibn Fadlan, Ibn Rusta, etc.) deal with the appearance of the Hungarians on the area.

[14] Both Róna-Tas (1988: 128) and Golden (1992: 258) spoke about it.

[15] Eastern Old Turkic and Western Old Turkic are different dialects. While we consider the latter as the forefather of Khazar and Bulgarian [i.e. Ogur-Turkic], Köprülü (2007: 224) thinks of it differently: ”Anadolu’da yerleşen Türklerin lisani, yukarida geniş ölçüde anlatildigi gibi, Oguz lehçesi dedigimiz Bati Türkçesi idi. Türkmence adi da verilen bu lehçe, Oguz Türklerinin kavmi istilasi altindaki alanlarin ve bilhassa Anadolu’nun yerli lisani olmuştu.”

[16] Schott considered Hungarian to be a Turkic language in 1839. Hunfalvy stated in 1854 that Hungarian is much nearer to Turkic than to Finno-Ugrian.

[17] Telegdi 1963: 25

[18] „Üç heceli kelimelerde vurgusuz orta hece ünlülerin (dar ünlülerin) düşmesi Türk dilinde genel bir kuraldir. Bu olaya daha çok r, l, ve n gibi ünlümsülerin (sonant) komşulugundaki dar ünlülerde görülür: Uyg. adril- < adiril-, ogl-i < ogul-i, oglan  < ogul-an, ötrü < ötür-ü, tegreki < tegirek-i vb. Gibi. Bu olay Türkçenin daha sonraki dönemlerinde daha da yayginlaşmiştir ve yalniz nazimda degil, nesirde de sik sik görülür: kiçigde katiglansa ulgadu sewnür ’(insan) küçüklükte çok çalişip çabalarsa, büyüyünce (buna) sevinir’ (sewnür < sevin-ür) (MK II, 268)… Nesirde bile örneklerine sik rastlanan bu ünlü düşmesi olayindan nazimda yararlanilacagi da pek dogaldir.”

[19] The Seljuk rurel Togril khan’s name is of the same origin. Eren (1999:409) translates the word as ’yirtici kuş, çakir dogan’ that derived from Orta Türkçe togril. Eski Türkçe’de kişi adi olarak Er To?rul, Dede Korkut Kitabinda ise Domrul olarak gördügümüz yaygin bir kelimedir.

[20] I have given several detailed lectures on this topic both in the university (ELTE), and published articles both in English and Turkish.

[21] Munkácsi 1931, Istvánovics - Kulcsár 2009: 72

[22] originaly Etel+küzü '[land] between the rivers'

[23] The verb is not found in Old Turkic. tarkay- ‘suyun azalmasi, sularin kuruyup çekilmesi; azal-, eksil-, tüken-, bit-’ (Karachay), - (Karachay Pröhle), tarqay- ‘abnehmen, fallen’ (Balkar), tarka- ‘razojtis’, rassejat’sja’ (Kirg.), - (Karakalpak), 
MT tarqa- ‘rashodit’sja, rasseivat’sja’ (ChagB149), PdC 197, tarkal ‘dagitma (kalabaligi), (ordunun) çözülmesi, gevşemesi’ (Nevayi1996: 46) < Mongolian tarqa- ‘to scatter, spread, be dispersed’ (Lessing 782), TMEN I 127

[24] There is no entry like this in either Tenišev’s or Tavkul’s dictionary. We find –čuppa parn. k uppa- (Tenišev 1989: 738) ~ ‘poceluj’ (Tenišev1989: 684).

[25] As for a proper name it is Čoppa ‘God of agriculture’, whereas čoppayir ‘Karaçay mitolojisinde dünyanin bulundugu orta alem’ (Tavkul 2000: 178) – perhaps connected somehow, but it is not clear yet. We also have džoppu in Karachay, meaning as much as ‘1. Topluluk, grup; 2. Salkim’ (Tavkul 2000: 157). This latter noun together with the word etedile is translated as ‘organized a feast’.

[26] tögerek ‘yuvarlak; çevre, etraf’ (Karachay), t‘ögerék ‘rund, Runde, Kugel’ (Karachay Pröhle), tögerek, tögörek ‘Umkreis’ (Balkar), tögerek ‘krug, kružok’ (Kklp), Noghay tögörök, tegerek, dögörök : tö?ere- ‘kerekedik’
MT tögerik ‘degre olan şey, degirmi, teker’ (Atalay 1945: 262)
< Mongolian tögerig, tögürig (L 832). The word seems to be a Middle-Mongolian loan in Karachay. It was also suspected to be an Old Turkic loan in Hungarian, but Ligeti (1986: 319) pointed out the problems in connection with the latter.

[27] Both fourty and seven are considered to be magic numbers (see Csáki 2002).

[28] ahlat Gk. 1. wild pear; 2. wild pear-tree

[29] Prior to the conquest in 896 A.C.

[30] The first part of the compound Etel < ätil 'a river, the River, the River Volga' (WOT 345). The second part is the Hungarian word köz 'the space/time between' < Old Hungarian küzü. Most of the Hungarian adverb suffixes are valid for both space and time, like in Turkish. The Karachay word közüv 'sira, zaman, esna' (Tavkul 2000: 278) might be connected with it.

[31] We observed the same in different Turkic languages in the case of Middle Mongolian loan-words, that were borrowed together with a certain habit. Let me me mention the traditional game with bones. The Karachay word alči ‘aşik kemiginin çukur tarafi’ (Tavkul 2000: 78) - i.e. ‘the hollow side of the ankle bone’, the word was borrowed together with the game played with it. Similar was the case of  the Middle Mongolian čilbugur > čilbur ‘long leather cord attached to the headstall of a halter or bridle’ (Lessing  182). The word belonged to the horse-breeding terminology, the long leather cord was replaced with a chain in cases, then it became the name of a chain-dance as it is reflected by the Bashkirian word silbir ‘igra v krug’ (Bashk. dial. II. 223). The latter being a Middle-Mongolian loanword (Csáki 2006: 78).

[32] In Türkçe Sözlük (1998: 135) we can learn its Latin meaning as well: Pirus Communis.

[33] The Iranian loan-word is a compound of the words raw ‘sigh; face’ (Steingass p. 591) and baze ~ bazi ‘game’.

[34] According to Ocak (2000: 131) it is a common failure of foreign researchers to misinterpret the history of Alevism. Therefore I intend to omit historical questions but instead, I choose the examination of the traditions as reflected in texts.

[35] Candle-torch : light-splendour belong to the Christ-allegory (Erdélyi 1999: 486). At the same time we should remember the motive of the candles at the head in the Kiz anasi -type folksongs: Kiz anasi, kiz anasi, başinda mumlar yanasi.... Turkic informants have not yet explained it clearly.

[36] Nine values more than ten in some cases, as it is a sacred number among Mongolian peoples (Ligeti 1962:25, 148).

[37]There was another famous expedition to Central Asia organized by Gy. Almásy (1903) in 1900. He also published a book on it, yet his aim was the study of nature, his observations concentrated mainly on geography. In his study he mentioned Kazakhs as such (Almásy 1903: 151).