PHONOLOGICAL AND ETHNO-LINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOURCE LANGUAGE OF "CHUVASH" BORROWINGS IN MARI 1

The article considers the question of which of the actually attested languages can be identified with the source of Mari loanwords. The ancestor of the Chuvash language is traditionally considered to be the language of the Volga Bulgars, recorded in epitaphs of the XIX century. The author compares the systems of vocalism and consonantism in the Mari loanwords and in the Volga-Bulgarian epitaphs. As a result of comparison of linguistic and archaeological materials, it was revealed that the source language of Mari loanwords is the ancestor of the language of Volga-Bulgarian epitaphs. It follows that the study of Mari loanwords provides a new rich material for studying the Bulgar branch of the Turkic languages.

Chuvash loanwords in the Mari language have repeatedly attracted the attention of scientists [Mudrak, 1994; Fedotov, 1968; 1920; Veke, 1933; Veke, 1935; Bereczki, 1992-1994; Räsänen, 1920]. Traditionally, it is assumed that most of the Mari loanwords came from the modern Chuvash language (see Mudrak, 1994; Bereczki, 1992-1994) or from Late Bulgarian, whose phonetic system was largely identical to modern Chuvash (Räsänen, 1920). However, the development of vowel phonemes in Mari loanwords, according to some scholars [see, in particular: Bereczki, 1992 - 1994], does not lend itself to a systematic description. This is usually explained by later Mari innovations in the vocalism system. Here is just one example illustrating the ambiguity of phoneme correspondences in words of the Chuvash language and in words borrowed from it in the Mari language. The Chuvash reduced phoneme e in borrowed words can correspond to any Pramari reduced vowel:

mar. l. küvar 'bridge'; 'floor'; mar. g. 'bridge' < chuv. 'most' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 276];

mar. g. inzyk, 'suck' < chuv. 'suck' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 149];

mar. l. šupaš; mar. g. šinaš 'to offer, to regale' < chuv. 'compel, impose' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 43].

Based on this, G. Berecki concludes that the Mari reduced phonemes arose after the collapse of the Pramari language and the influx of Chuvash loanwords. In his opinion, it was precisely the penetration of Chuvash loanwords into the Mari language that provoked the appearance of reduced or super-short vowel phonemes in the latter.

But it is important that not only reduced phonemes, but also vowels of full formation in Mari loanwords ambiguously correspond to modern chu-

1 This work was supported by the Program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Adaptation of peoples and Cultures to changes in the natural environment, social and technological transformations" and grant RGNF 08-04-00201a. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to A.V. Dybo for his advice on Turkic etymologies. I would also like to thank the Foundation for Assistance to Russian Science for its grant in the nomination "Candidates of Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences" for 2008.

page 42
vash phonemes, for example, Chuvash i can correspond to pramariyskomu *e or

It seems likely that the source of borrowing was not modern Chuvash, but a language in which the phoneme system was different from modern Chuvash. It is reconstructed as if at the junction of the Proto-Turkic (PT) and Chuvash phonetic systems, and the reliability of its reconstruction is confirmed by Mari borrowings. Below is an inventory of vowel phonemes in this system.

Fri *e, bulg. *a> mar. chuv. a.

FRI *a, *o > bulg. *about > mar. chuv. o.

Fri Bulg. mar. chuvv.

FRI *I, *y, *o, * - ö - > bulg. *and > mar. chuvv.

FRI * - ö -, *-ö -, *ü, *o > bulg. * ü > mar. chuvv.

FRI *-ö -, *ü > bulg. * ö > mar. *ö, чув. *ü.

(FRI *ö - > bulg. * vi > mar. *vi, чув.

FRI *e > bulg. *i > mar. *i, чув. i.

FRI *a > bulg. *a > mar. *e, chuv. i,

FRI *ej > bulg. *e > mar. *e, chuv. i.

The following are illustrative examples of words with the specified phonemes in the first syllable. I would like to emphasize that I analyzed a complete sample of words from the dictionary [Fedotov, 1996]. The following groups of words were previously excluded from the analysis, although they have a mark in the dictionary: "chuvash. borrowed from Mar.", but these words were not taken into account in my analysis:

1) Obvious cases when the Chuvash word is not a reflex of the Proto-Turkic word, which is given in the corresponding article in the dictionary [Fedotov, 1996], but is borrowed from Tatar, which is evident from phonetic reflexes, for example: Chuvash ash- 'walk on water, snow, mud' [Fedotov, 1996,1, p. 75], borrowed from Chuvash to Mari: mar. l. ashash 'to run at a trot' - is not a reflex of PT: * el - 'to walk, wander, amble': other-Turk. eš -; kar. eš-; tat. [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, p. 316; Clauson, 1972, p. 255; Stachowski, 1993, p. 129]. The correct reflex of the Proto-Turkic *e is Chuvash i, which is represented in the Chuvash verb i; š - 'walk, wander', which is the reflex of PT: *el - 'walk, wander'; chuv. ash - 'to walk on water, snow, mud', probably borrowed from the Tatar äšt - (dial.) 'walk, wander'.

The number of such examples is easily multiplied. In this paper, in order to save space, it seems impractical to give a complete list of them. In total, this group of words that were borrowed from Tatar to Chuvash, and then, probably, from Chuvash, and, perhaps, directly from Tatar to Mari, has about forty lexemes.

2) A group of words in which the Chuvash language presents an absolutely irregular reflex of the Proto-Turkic vowel 3. Here are some examples of such etymologies (there are about twenty of them in total):

2 The existence of a separate phoneme for this series of correspondences seems unlikely, since such correspondences occur exclusively at the beginning of the word and are additionally distributed with inflaut reflexes PT *ö.

3 When making a decision about the illegality of the Chuvash reflex of the Proto-Turkic vowel, we were guided primarily by the works of [Mudrak, 1994; Comparative Historical Grammar..., 2006]. In addition, the following aspect of this problem is particularly important for this work: if any Proto-Turkic-Chuvash vowel ratio occurred three or more times, words with this ratio were further analyzed. If it occurred less than three times and the position of occurrence of such a reflex is unclear, it seemed irrational for one or even two exceptions to postulate a special Bulgarian phoneme. It seems more likely that such cases are late Chuvash innovations proper.

page 43
Mar. l. tutynash 'to stutter' < chuv. tyt - 'to hold' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 268] < FRI: *tut -'to hold, to grasp': other-Turk, tut -; car. tut-; tat. tot-; turk. tut -; yak. tut -; tuv. tu't -; toph. tu't - [Egorov, 1964, II, pp. 268-269; Fedotov, 1996, II, pp. 268-269; Clauson, 1972, pp. 451; Räsänen, 1969, pp. 502; Stachowski, 1993, p. 233].

Mar. g. šajlánaš 'rave in a dream' < chuv. suilan [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 54] < Fri: *söb- 'to speak': tat. süjlä -, dial. sövle -, sevle -; Turk. söjle -; yak. ülä -; tuv. sögle- [Fedotov, 1996, II, pp. 54-55; Räsänen, 1969, p. 429].

3) The third group of words that were not included in the analysis are lexemes that are presumably borrowed from the Chuvash language into the Mari language, but for which the Mari protoform is not restored 4, i.e. dialect forms are not reducible to each other, for example:

Mar. l. 'bright; brisk, dashing, efficient'; mar. malm. 'sparkling, bright'; Mar. g. 'bright'; 'brisk, efficient'; mar. koz. 'lightning'; < ? chuvv. 'burn brightly, shine' [Fedotov, 1996, 1, p. 182].

In total, according to the dictionary [Fedotov, 1996], there are no more than ten such cases. How do I interpret them? There are several possibilities: first, it is possible that we are dealing with late borrowings not directly into Pramari, but into separate Mari dialects from the Chuvash language. Secondly, it seems likely that there were some late phonetic transitions in one of the dialects that have not yet been studied, which made it impossible to reconstruct the Mari protoform.

Analysis of the remaining Mari loanwords from the Chuvash language in the dictionary (Fedotov, 1996) (about 400 words) gave an amazing result: they have a minimum number of exceptions (19 words). according to reflexes, the vowels of the first syllable in the Proto-Turkic, Chuvash and Pramari languages are distributed in the above nine rows, which presumably correspond to the nine Bulgarian phonemes.

Nineteen exceptions in about half of the cases can be explained: 1) as borrowings into the Mari language not from the Chuvash type, but from the Tatar language; 2) in the Proto-Turkic language, a special combination of vowels of the first syllable is reconstructed in their etymon, which is reflected in a specific way in a number of modern Turkic languages.

Fri *e, bulg. *a > mar. chuv. a.

Mar. l. kavulem 'chew' < chuv. kavle - 'chew' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 210] <5 pt: * geb- 'chew': car. kev; tat. küšä-; турк. 'cud'; як. tuv. Pacific Fleet. [Sevortyan, 3, pp. 5-7; Clauson, 1972, p. 687; Räsänen, 1969, p. 244].

Mar. l. 'bend; give a curved shape' < chuv. ab - 'bend' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 24] < pt: * eg -'bend': other-Turk, eg -; car. eg -; turk. eg -; yak. iex - [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, 2, p. 19; Clauson, 1972, p. 99; Räsänen, 1969, p.37; Stachowski, 1993, p. 122]. (yak. iex- < *eg-ik-.)

Mar. l. 'omut' < chuvv. 'omut' [Fedotov, 1996,1, p. 27] < PT * egir- 'twisting, spinning'; Uygh. egir -; chag. egir- [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, p. 227-231; Fedotov I, p. 27; Clauson, 1972, p. 112; Doerfer, 1965, 2, p. 192; Stachowski, 1993, p. 122].

Mar. l. a. k. a. 'older sister; younger maternal aunt'; mar. g.: 'older sister' < chuv. aka 'elder sister' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 31] < pt: * eke 'elder sister': other-Turk. eke; kar. eke; ege-t 'female servant of bride'; turk. [Yegorov, 1964, 2, pp. 91-92;

4 The inventory of Pramari phonemes is taken from the works of [Bereczki, 1992-1994].

5 Here and later, to save space, we quote reflexes not in all Turkic languages, but in Old Turkic, Karakhanid, Turkmen, Yakut, Tuvan, Tofalar, Tatar, and Chuvash.

page 44
Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, pp. 222-224; Clauson, 1972, pp. 100, 102; Doerfer, 1963, 1, p. 190; Räsänen, 1969, p. 38].

Mar. l.: kaván 'baggage'; 'a stack of bread'; mar. g. 'baggage' < chuv. kapan 'stack, stack' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 225] < FRI: *gepen 'stack': tat. [Sevortyan, 5, p. 15].

FRI *a, *o > bulg. *about > mar. chuv. o.

Mar. l. pojáš 'get rich, get rich'; poján'rich'; 'rich man'; Mar. v. pájaš 'to grow rich'; pájan 'rich' < chuvstv. pui -, poi - 'to grow rich' [Fedotov, 1996, 1, p. 440] < fri: (1) 'rich, noble' (2)' many, numerous': other-Turk, baj (1); kar. baj (1); tat. baj (1), bajtaq (2); Turkish. (1); як. baj (1); tuv. baj (1) [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, 2, pp. 27-29, 36; Comparative Historical grammar..., 2006, pp. 304, 332; Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 440; Clauson, 1972, p. 384; Doerfer, 1965,2, p. 259; Räsänen, 1969, p. 56; Stachowski, 1993, p. 55, 56].

Mar. l. šojá 'lie, fiction; fairy tale, fable'; mar. g. šája 'speech'; 'rumor'; 'story'; 'sentence'; 'empty conversation, fiction' < chuv. sue, suya ' lie '[Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 54] < PT: * saj- (1)' slander, lie '(2)' slander, lie': hack. (1) [Sevortyan, 7, p. 150; Räsänen, 1969, p. 395].

Mar. l. šólo 'raft' < chuv. 'raft' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 59] < FRI: 'raft': car. sal; tat. sal; Turkish. sal; як. tuv. sal [Sevortyan, 7; Comparative Historical Grammar..., 2006, p. 537; Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 59; Clauson, 1972, p.824; Räsänen, 1969, p. 397].

Fri Bulg. mar. chuvv.

Mar. L. 'kovyl' < chuvash kalkan 'kovyl' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 250] < FRI: qan - 'ear of corn': tat. 'kovyl' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 250].

Mar. v. ugut 'superstition' < chuv. 'slander' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 86]: 'omen; superstition': tat. turk. tuv. 'poor health' [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, p. 666; Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 86; Clauson, 1972, p.197; Räsänen, 1969, p. 166].

FRI *I, *o, *- d - > bulg. *and > mar. * th, chuvash.

Mar. l. kúmyl 'mood; inspiration, inspiration; desire, wish; location (to someone); temper'; mar. g. kúmyl 'mood; inspiration, inspiration; desire, wish; location (to someone); temper' < chuv. kamal ' the heart '[Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 251] < FRI: 'heart, spirit': others-Turk, kar. tat. turk. gövün; як. 'desire, freedom'; toph. [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, 3, p. 75-77; Comparative Historical Grammar..., 2006, p. 274; Clauson, 1972, p. 731; Räsänen, 1969, p.291; Stachowski, 1993, p. 156].

Mar. l. sukash 'get on your knees' < chuv. 'fall' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 91] < FRI: (1) 'kneel down', (2)' sink down, sink down', (3)' sit down, squat down': other-Turk, (2); car. (1); tat. (1); turk. (1, 2) [Yegorov, 1964, 2, p. 205; Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 90-91; Clauson, 1972, p. 413-414; Doerfer, 1967, 3, p. 120-122; Räsänen, 1969, p.117].

Mar. l. sur 'gray'; 'gray'; mar. v. suriy 'drone'; mar. g. shyre 'drone' < chuv. 'gray', 'drone' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 29]: 'grey, brown'; tat. [Sevortyan, 7; Doerfer, 1967, 3, p. 287].

Mar. l. tuvruš 'basement, attic under the roof' < chuv. 'land '[Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 194] < pt: * topr-Ak'land, soil': other-turk, topraq; kar. topraq; tat. tufraq; turk.

6 The authors [Sevortyan, Levitskaya, vol.5] associate the first syllable vowel breakage observed in a number of languages with the subsequent labial consonant, but do not exclude a genetic connection with kaz. köbe 'kopna'.

7 In Chuvash, in this position, Proto-Turkic *and the first syllable are represented in three cases by the reflex in two cases before siv PT: 'stretch'.

page 45
topraq; yak. toburax; tuv. dovuraq; tof. to ' praq [Comparative historical grammar..., 2006, p. 99; Clauson, 1972, p. 443, 444; Räsänen, 1969, p.489].

FRI * - ö -, *ü, *o > bulg. * ü > mar. chuvv.

Mar. l. 'thick rope' (for tying cattle to pasture, etc.); mar. g. veran 'thick rope' < chuv. veren 'thick rope' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 117] < pt ' weave, knit': turk. 'knit'; tat. ür 'weave'; tuv. [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 117; Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, p. 544].

Mar. l. küvár 'bridge; floor'; mar. g. 'bridge' < chuv. 'bridge '[Fedotov, 1996,1, p. 276] < fri: *köpür,- üg 'bridge': other-turk, köprüg; car. köprüg; tat. küper, küpre; турк. köpri; tuv. kö'vürüg; toph. köprig [Sevortyan, 5, p. 112-114; Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 276; Räsänen, 1969, p. 292].

Mar. l. kürén 'brown, brown'; mar. g. 'brown' < chuv. 'pink' [Fedotov, 1996,1, p. 278] < FRI: 'horse color, shades of brown that turn reddish': tat. kepp; yak: [Sevortyan, 5, p. 146; Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 278].

Mar. l. tîlnäš 'to dream, to dream' < chuv. 'dream, ghost' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 214] < FRI: 'dream': other-Turk, tül; tü she - 'to dream'; kar. tüš; tüše - 'to dream'; tat. töš; turk. 'dream'; tuv. duš; toph. duš [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, 3, p. 323-324; Clauson, 1972, p. 559, 561, 490; Doerfer, 1967,3, p. 211; Räsänen, 1969, p. 507; Stachowski, 1993, p. 234, 236].

FRI *-ö -, *ü > bulg. * ö > mar. *ö, чув. ü.

Mar. l. tör 'equal'; 'even, straight'; 'truthful, just'; mar. g. ' immediately, immediately; 'straight' < chuv. tr, tr, 'straight' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 263] < FRI: (1) 'smooth', (2)' arrange': other-Turk. tat. toph. dus [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, 3, p. 309-312; Clauson, 1972, p. 571, 572; Räsänen, 1969, p. 508].

Mar. lрrke 'grumbling, discontent'; mar. g érkalaš 'take offense' < chuvstv. 'obida' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 300] < pt: * легкоеrke 'lung; anger': other-Turk. кеrke; car. öрkе, öfke; тат. üрkä; турк. öjken; tuv. okre; toph. Севkre [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, p. 540-541; Comparative Historical grammar..., 2006, p. 276-277; Clauson, 1972, p. 9; Räsänen, 1969, p. 373].

FRI *ö- > bulg. * vi> mar. *vi, чув.

Mar. l.'carrion' < chuv. vile, 'dead man, dead man, dead' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 122] < PT: * öl-(1) 'to die', (2)(*öl-tür -)'to kill': other-turk. öl - 1, ölür- 2; кар. öl - 1, öldür- 2; тат. ül - 1, üter-2; Turkish. öl- 1, öldür- 2; як. öl - 1, ölör- 2; тув. öl - 1, ölür- 2; тоф. öl-1, ölür-2; [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, pp. 525-527; Doerfer, 1965, 2, pp. 112, 162-3; Clauson, 1972, p. 125 - 126, 133 - 134, 151; Räsänen, 1969, p. 371; Stachowski, 1993, p. 199].

Mar. l. visá 'scales'; visáš' 'hang, weigh; measure, measure' < chuv. 'hang, weigh' [Fedotov, 1996,1, p. 126]: 'measure': tat. turk. [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, p. 529,632; Clauson, 1972, p. 142; Räsänen, 1969, p.371; Stachowski, 1993, p. 250].

Mar. l. vitaráš 'to penetrate, to penetrate; to annoy', vitaryšán 'intently'; mar. g. vitäräš 'to penetrate, to penetrate' < chuv. vit- 'to penetrate, to cut in' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 127] < fri: * öt-'to pass by, to pass through': others are Turkic. öt -; car. öt-; tat. tüt-; Turkish. öt-; як. öt-; тув. öt -; [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, p. 554-555; Clauson, 1972, p. 39; Räsänen, 1969, p. 376].

FRI *e > bulg. *i > mar. *i, чув. i.

Mar. l. sitáš 'to be sufficient, to grasp' < chuv. 'reach, reach' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 123] < fri * jet-8 reach': al-Turk. jet-; car. jet-; tat. turk. jet-; як. sit-;

8 In the Uyghur Umlaut, the I in the second syllable should be reconstructed.

page 46
Tuv. [Sevortyan, 1985, 4, p. 193-194; Clauson, 1972, p. 884-885; Räsänen, 1969, p. 199; Stachowski, 1993, p. 105].

FRI *a > bulg. *a > mar. *e, chuv. i,

Mar. g. ' go down, get off (about the skin); climb, fall, fall out (about hair, wool, feathers)'< chuv. 'take, take, take off' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 164] < pt: *al -'take': al-turk, al -; kar. al -; tat. al -; Turk. al -; yak: tuv.: al - [Yegorov, 1964, p. 68; Sevortyan, 1985, I, p. 127-128; Comparative historical grammar..., 2006, p. 336, 337; Clauson, 1972, p. 124-125; Räsänen, 1969, p. 14-15; Stachowski, 1993, p. 259].

Mar. l. seryp 'weighty, heavy'; mar. g. 'weighty, heavy' < chuv. 'strong, strong' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 123] < PT: * jarpV - 'strong, strong': other-Turk. jarp 'durable, strong' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 123].

Mar. l. šeklanáš 'observe, watch, watch; beware, fear; suspect' < chuv. sykh, 'cautious' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 77]: (1) 'careful, vigilant', (2) 'be careful, take care'': car. sag (1), (2); tat. sag (1); turk. saq (l, 2); tuv. (2) [Räsänen, 1969, pp. 395-396].

Mar. l. eré 'clean'; ernáš 'clean'; mar. g. 'clean' < chuv. 'dobry' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 474] < PT: *ari- (1)' clean, to be clean', (2)' to clean': other-Turk. (2); car. tat. am (1); Turkish. (1), art- (2); як. 'sorting berries'; tuv. (2) [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, p. 184-186; Mudrak, 1994, p. 182; Clauson, 1972, p. 198, 213; Räsänen, 1969, p.27; Stachowski, 1993, p. 261].

Exceptions 9:

Mar. l.: 'pulp for hemp, flax; hand pump for pumping liquid'; tuláš 'crush (hemp, flax); pump, pump (water)'<chuvash tyl, tyla, tyla [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 266] < FRI: * talkX -'soft cloth for leather dressing': tat. [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 266].

Mar. l. tuná 'heifer; netel' < chuvash tyna, tynashka 'heifer' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 267] < FRI: 'chick' (< ir.dhaenu): Turkmenistan. dial. tat. * tana- [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 267].

FRI *ej10> bulg. *e > mar *e, chuv. i.

Mar. l. éryk 'freedom, freedom; expanse, freedom'; érkyn 'quiet, slow, unhurried'; mar. v. egka 'sissy'; érkyn 'free, free'; mar. g. iryk 'will, freedom; expanse, freedom' < chuv. 'freedom, will' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 170] < PT: * ejrVk'will, desire': other-Turk, erk 'will'; turk. erk 'volya' [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, p. 295; Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 170].

Mar. G. kéral 'necessary, necessary' < chuv. 'necessary' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 298] < pt: * gejr-(1) 'to need', (2) 'necessity, necessary', (3) 'not to dare': al-turk, kerge-1, kergek 2; kar: kerge- (l), kerek (2); tat. kiräk (2); турк. gerek (2); як. kerej- (3), kerex (2); tuv. xerek (2); toph. xerek (2) [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, 3, p. 25-26; Clauson, 1972, p. 742, 743; Räsänen, 1969, p. 256; Stachowski, 1993, p. 145].

Mar. l. em 'medicine'; etláš 'treat' < chuv. im 'cure' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 166] < pt: * ejm'medicine': al-turk, am; turk. et; tuv. ет; як. et; tat. im [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, I, p. 270; Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 166].

Mar. v. sektyrma 'pothole, pit' < chuv. sic - 'jump' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 49] < pt: * sejk- 'jump, jump': kar. sekri -; tat. siker -; turkish. segre -, 'gallop'; yak.

9 Exceptions to this correspondence are of the same type. Perhaps we are not talking about exceptions, but about later borrowings.

10 Following A.V. Dybo [Dybo, 2007], the Proto-Turkic combination *ej is postulated here to explain a special series of correspondences in the Turkic languages: Oguz *e, Yakut a, Chuvash i -; Khaladzhsk a.

page 47
ekkirie- [Sevortyan, 7; Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 48-49; Clauson, 1972, p. 822; Räsänen, 1969, p. 408; Stachowski, 1993, p. 44].

The question arises as to which of the actually attested languages can be identified as the source of the Mari loanwords.

The ancestor of the Chuvash language is traditionally considered to be the language of the Volga Bulgars, recorded in epitaphs of the XIV century. M. Erdal's book [Erdal, 1993] analyzes in detail the language of these epitaphs and the history of their study. However, as M. Erdal also notes, the system of vowel phonemes in the language of Volga epitaphs is insufficiently studied, since the inscriptions are made in Arabic, where short vowels are not systematically marked.

Thus, to identify the language of the Volga Bulgars and the source of Mari loanwords, an analysis of the consonantism system is necessary.

We have carried out a complete analysis of this system based on the material of borrowings in the Mari language collected in the dictionary (Fedotov, 1996).

As a result of the work done, the following result was obtained. The consonantal system in Mari loanwords is very similar to the consonantal system in both Volga-Bulgarian and modern Chuvash. 11 The exception is the development of five Proto-Turkic phonemes: PT * - g -, *j -, *q -, *s.

Based on the study of the reflexes of these phonemes in the language of epitaphs, in the modern Chuvash language, and in loanwords in the Mari language, we came to the following conclusion.

In the Bulgarian-Mari borrowings, it is proposed to distinguish two stages::

Mar. 1-borrowing in the XIV century simultaneously with the creation of Volga-Bulgarian epitaphs;

Mar. 2-borrowing later than the 14th century.

Comparison of consonants in Mari loanwords from the Bulgarian language with Volga-Bulgarian epitaphs

The table shows that it is advisable to divide Bulgarian borrowings in the Mari language into two stages based on the reflection of PT *j -, *K -, *s in their source language. In the source language of earlier borrowings in the Mari language, the reflexes of these phonemes were probably almost identical to the reflexes of PT *j-, *K-, *s in the language of Volga-Bulgarian epitaphs. In the later layer of borrowings, the reflexes of these phonemes in the source language are similar to their counterparts in the modern Chuvash language.

Let's look at these cases in more detail.

The PT *j-reflex is the Volga-Bulgarian phonemes and in the source language of the earlier layer of Mari loanwords, the PT *j-reflex would probably also be-

11 For a very detailed analysis of the reflexes of Chuvash consonantism in Mari loanwords, see [Räsänen, 1920].

page 48
whether that was reflected in Mari as š (it is necessary to take into account the absence of a voiced anlaut in the Mari language

FRI *j-

Mar. 1. -

Mar. l. shтtlash 'to make a hole' < chuv. 'tear' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 114] < FRI: 'tear up': tour. [Sevortyan and Levitskaya, 1989, vol. 4, pp. 203-204; Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 114; Clauson, 1972, p. 955; Räsänen, 1969, p. 198].

Mar. l. 'star'; mar. g. 'star' < chuv. 'star, meteor '[Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 93] < PT: 'star': al-turk, jultuz; car. julduz; tat. turk. yak. sulus; tuv. [Clauson, 1972, pp. 922-923; [Sevortyan and Levitskaya, 1989, vol. 4, pp. 279-280; Comparative Historical Grammar..., 2006, p. 53; Doerfer, vol. 3, 1967, pp. 260-261; Räsänen, 1969, p. 210; Stachowski, 1993, p. 111].

In the later layer of borrowings, the Mari s12:

Mar. 2 s

Mar. l. solym; mar. g. sálym 'flame' < chuv. 'flame' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 133] < PT: * jal-(Xn) (1) 'burn, burn', (2) 'flame': other-Turk, jal- (1), (2); car. jal- (l), (2) [Sevortyan and Levitskaya, 1989, vol. 4, pp. 106-107; Comparative Historical grammar..., 2006, pp. 23, 356-357, 363; Fedotov, 1996, II, pp. 133-134; Clauson, 1972, pp. 918, 929 Doerfer, 1967, 3, p. 187; Räsänen, 1969, p. 181].

Mar. l. solkém 'block, stump of a log'; mar. g. cárkem 'split block' < chuv. sur, sor 'to break in two' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 139]: (1) 'dissect, split', (2)' crack, crack': al.-turk, jar (1); kar. jar- (1); tat. jar- (1); turk. (1); tuv. (1) [Sevortyan and Levitskaya, 1989, vol. 4, pp. 135-137; Fedotov, 1996, II, pp. 139; Clauson, 1972, pp. 954-955; Räsänen, 1969, pp. 188-189; Stachowski, 1993, 209].

Mar. l. ' collar; female decoration made of coins (hung on the chest with the forked end down)'< chuv. [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 146] < FRI: * jaka 'collar; edge': other-Turk. jaga; kar. jaqa; tat. jaqa; Turkish. [Sevortyan and Levitskaya, 1989, vol. 4, pp. 82-84; Fedotov, 1996, II, pp. 146-147; Clauson, 1972, pp. 898; Räsänen, 1969, pp. 180, 82-83].

The reflex of PT *s is the Volga-Bulgarian phoneme s, and in the source language of the earlier layer of Mari loanwords, the reflex of PT *s was probably also the phoneme s, which was reflected in Mari as š, similar to Finno-Ugric *s > mar. š13.

FRI *-s-.

March 1).

Mar. l. kašká ' ridge (thick log)'; 'lying, decaying log'; mar. g. 'ridge, log' < chuv. kas - [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 233] < PT: *kes- 'to cut': other-turk, kes -; kar. kes-; tat. kis-; turk. kes -; chuvash. kas-; як. tuv. ke's [Sevortyan and Levitskaya, 1989, vol. 5, pp. 55-57, 58; Räsänen, 1969, p. 257].

Mar. g .шshnash 'remember' < chuv. (as 'memory') [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 61] < pt: * es(1) 'memory, reason', (2) 'regret, regret': al-turk, es (1); car. es (1), esirge- (2); Tat. is (1); Turk. es (1) [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, vol. I, p. 310; vol. 2, p. 33, 61; Clauson, 1972, p. 252; Räsänen, 1969, p. 49-50].

Mar. l. šólo 'raft' < chuv. 'raft' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 59] < FRI: 'raft': kar: sal; tat. sal; Turkish. tuv. sal [Sevortyan, Levitskaya, vol. 7; Comparative Historical Grammar..., 2006, p. 537; Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 59; Clauson, 1972, p.824; Räsänen, 1969, p. 397].

12 A similar chronological division into two layers of borrowings, depending on the reflexes of the senses. s in the Mari language is suggested in [Räsänen, 1920, p. 33].

13 M. Räsänen (1920, p.28) comes to a similar conclusion in his work.

page 49
And in the later layer of Mari borrowings, when the transition process is probably *s > mar. š was completed, the Bulgarian s was reflected as s:

Mar. 2 s.

Mar. l. saplyk 'latka, patka' < chuv. sapla- 'fix, sew a patch' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 14]: * sep- (1) 'add, equip', (2)' supplement, dowry': other-Turk. sep- (1); car. sep (2); tat. sip (2); Turkish sep-li 'with a dowry'; yak. ep-1, 'more, more' [Clauson, 1972, p. 783-784; Räsänen, 1969, p. 410; Stachowski, 1993, p. 43].

Mar. L. soga 'gills' < chuv. sukha, sakha (Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 68) < PT: * sakak (1) 'place between the neck and chin', (2) 'gills', (3) ' beard (axe)': car. saqaq 1; tat. (3); turk. saqaq (1) [Sevortyan, Levitskaya, vol. 7, p. 147; Comparative Historical Grammar..., 2006, p. 220-222; Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 68; Clauson, 1972, p.807-808].

The reflex of PT *K - in post-ordinary words is the Volga-Bulgarian phonemes x-. In the Mari language, there are three types of reflexes: 1) mar. l. 0-/g. 0 -, 2) mar.l. 0-/g. x-, 3) mar.l. k-/g. x -.

FRI *K-.

mar. 1 l. 0 - /g. 0-

Mar. l. olno 'kalym; bride price'; mar. g. olny 'bride price, kalym' < chuv. 'kalym' [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 354] < FRI: 'bride price': al-turk, qalan; kar. [Sevortyan, Levitskaya, vol. 5, pp. 239-240; Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 354; Doerfer, vol. 3, 1967, pp. 399, 488; Räsänen, 1969, p. 226].

Mar. l. ' skalitsa, skalno (for winding threads on the handguard for a duck); block (for lifting weights)'; mar. g. 'rolling pin'; (tech.) 'block' < chuv. [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 356] < FRI: * KaltXra - 'tremble': car. kaldra - 'rustle'; tat. kaltra [Fedotov, 1996, II, p. 356].

In later borrowings in the Mari language, two types of reflexes are observed: mar. l.0-/g. x -.

Thus, the analysis of the reflexes of PT * j -, * q -, *s shows that the source of the earlier layer of Mari loanwords in terms of reflexes of these consonant phonemes was identical to the Volga-Bulgarian.

PT is also reflected identically in the source language of Mari loanwords and in the Volga-Bulgarian language of epitaphs, as opposed to Chuvash P.

Fri

Mar. l. 'council'; mar. g. < chuv. kanash 'sovet' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 223] < FRI: (1) 'advise', (2)' advise': other-Turk. 'to settle one's affairs with someone', kene š (2), (1), (2) [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, vol. 3, pp. 21-22; Clauson, 1972, pp. 727, 734; Doerfer, 1967, vol. 3, pp. 613-614; Räsänen, 1969, p. 253].

The only major difference between the reflexes of Proto-Turkic consonants in the Volga-Bulgarian language of epitaphs and the source language of Mari loanwords concerns PT * - g-. In the Volga-Bulgarian language, according to M. Erdal, it is reflected as j_V per, w_V back.

14 In the work of M. Stakhovsky, it is noted that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the reflex is felt. p, m < pt is mar. r/, five etymologies of words are given, which, in his opinion, represent later borrowings from Chuvash to Mari, and in them Chuvash p, t< PT corresponds to mar. n, m [Stachowski, 1993, p. 42]. Without giving a full analysis of these comparisons, I note that most of these examples seem unconvincing, since in some cases the Chuvash word does not have a reliable Turkic etymology, in other cases the origin of the Mari word from Chuvash should be questioned, since a reliable Ural etymology is proposed for it in the specialized literature [Redei, 1986-1988].

page 50
In the source language of Mari loanwords-as in. (In modern Chuvash, this is V.)

FRI *-g-.

Mar. l. 'bend'; 'give a curved shape' < chuv. ab - 'bend' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 24] < pt: * eg -'bend': other-Turk, eg -; car. eg -; turk. eg -; yak. iex- [Yegorov, 1964, 2, p. 19; Sevortyan, 1974-1980, vol. I, p. 330-332; Clauson, 1972, p. 99; Räsänen, 1969, p. 37; Stachowski, 1993, p. 122]. (Yak. iex- < *eg-ik-.)

Mar. l. 'omut' < chuvv. 'omut' [Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 27] < PT: * egir -'twist, spin': uygh. egir -; chag. egir- [Sevortyan, 1974-1980, vol. I, pp. 227-231; Fedotov, 1996, I, p. 27; Clauson, 1972, p. 112; Doerfer, vol. 2, 1965, p. 192; Stachowski, 1993, p. 122].

Thus, from the point of view of linguistic analysis, it turns out that the source language of Mari loanwords and the Volga-Bulgarian language of epitaphs were very similar.

It is interesting to turn to the materials of archeology and try to find answers to a number of questions that arise when studying the contacts of the Mari people with the Volga Bulgars. Are there any specific characteristics of the Volga-Bulgar ethnic group from the point of view of archeology? Is there any evidence of contacts between the Volga Bulgars and Mari people from the XI-XIV centuries? (during the creation of Volga-Bulgarian epitaphs)?

K. A. Rudenko (2005) shows that most of the Bulgar monuments of the XI-XIV centuries are characterized by a common Bulgar clothing complex, which includes::

1) circular common bulgarian tableware;

2) traditional ceramics (stucco or corrected on a circle) in the form of a kind of triad: dishes with an admixture of chamotte from the Salt-Mayak sources, with an admixture of crushed shells with stamped-combed and rope ornaments, coarse sand-the "juketau"type;

3) iron padlocks of the "Bulgar type";

4) iron arrowheads;

5) jewelry: silver free-woven wire bracelets and grivnas, as well as filigree jewelry - three-spring temporal pendants.

K. A. Rudenko emphasizes that the general Bulgarian clothing complex was not monolithic. He identifies the Volga (Tankeyevka-Bulgar region), Kama, Sheshma, Sviyazhsk, and Kazan-Vyatka provinces that have specific archaeological material.

The problems of interaction between Finno-Ugric Peoples and Turks in the Volga and Ural regions have repeatedly attracted the attention of archaeologists. They were studied in the works of S. G. Klyashtorny, A. P. Smirnov, M. G. Ivanova, E. A. Savelyeva, A. Kh. Khalikov, T. A. Khlebnikova, M. A. Belavin, V. A. Ivanov, and E. P. Kazakov.

But it is significant that the question of contacts between the Volga-Bulgar ethnic group and the Mari people has only been studied in detail in recent years by T. B. Nikitina and A. P. Rudenko.

According to these authors, contacts between the Bulgars and the Mari were very active, moreover, it was the Mari who became one of the culture-forming ethnic groups in the north-western regions of Volga Bulgaria. Most likely, some types of jewelry, in particular bronze plate bracelets, as well as twisted bracelets with "tied" ends, got and spread to the Bulgars through the Mari.

In the necropolises of the Mari Volga region of the XI-XII centuries, a number of objects were found that mark the Bulgar-Mari common ties: finds of bronze belt sets, noisy skate pendants, dart bracelets with circular ornaments, "mustachioed" rings, sub-triangular wire earrings, belt bags with metal overlays.

page 51
In general, K. A. Rudenko (2005) identifies three stages in relations between the Bulgars and Finno-Ugric tribes according to the degree of intensity of contacts.

The first one corresponds to the time of the Khazar Khaganate's existence and dates back to the IX-beginning of the X century. This is a period of ethnic mixing within the state borders of Khazaria, especially in the southern, forest-steppe regions.

As the Khazars weakened in the middle and second half of the tenth century, the Volga Bulgars became isolated and ethnoconsolidation processes began among the Mari and Mordvins, stimulated by the trade and economic activities of Bulgarian merchants and active state-building processes in the Bulgar region, which marked the second stage. The Mari substrate base of the Volga region is indicated in archaeological materials by the spread of universal jewelry of the Volga appearance (noisy jewelry, a number of types of bracelets, etc.).

The third period of the XI-XII centuries is characterized by the weakening of ties between the Bulgarian and Mari ethnic groups.

Thus, it turns out that the archaeological materials directly confirm our hypothesis about active linguistic contacts between the Volga Bulgars and Mari people.

Archaeological data on the different degrees of intensity of contacts between the Mari and the Bulgars during the XI-XIV centuries allow us to return to the interpretation of the different reflection of PT * - g - in the language of epitaphs and in the source language of Mari loanwords. From the point of view of linguistics, two hypotheses are equally probable: 1) borrowings took place earlier than the XIV century, the source language of the ancient layer of Mari loanwords was the ancestor of the Volga-Bulgarian language of epitaphs; 2) according to M. Erdal, the Volga-Bulgarian language of epitaphs was the language of urban Bulgars, and the real ancestor of modern Chuvash was a very close dialect of forest Bulgars, which was not recorded in writing. It can be assumed that the Mari loanwords just came from the language of the forest Bulgars, in which the PT *-g-reflex was presented as a symbol.

However, archaeological data showing that the most intense contacts between the Mari and the Bulgars took place in the XI century, i.e. before the period of creation of the Volga-Bulgarian epitaphs, allow us to prefer the first hypothesis that the source language of the ancient layer of Mari loanwords was the ancestor of the Volga-Bulgarian epitaph language.

In conclusion, we note that the study of Volga-Bulgarian loanwords in the Mari language, the number of which exceeds 400 according to the dictionary [Fedotov, 1996], provides new material for the history of the formation of the Chuvash language, the significance of which is difficult to overestimate. The Chuvash language is the most archaic and earliest separated from the Turkic languages, and data on its history have so far been limited to a very small number of Volga-Bulgarian epitaphs. Our hypothesis that the source language of Mari loanwords was the ancestor of the Volga-Bulgar epitaph language is in full agreement with archaeological data and opens a new page in the study of the Bulgar branch of Turkic languages.

list of literature.

Dybo A.V. Linguistic contacts of early Turks. Lexical Fund, Moscow, 2007.
Egorov V. G. Etymological dictionary of the Chuvash language. Cheboksary, 1964.

Mudrak O. A. Isolated language and the problem of reconstruction of the proto-language. Dis.... doct. Philol. nauk, Moscow, 1994.

Normanskaya Yu. V. Reconstruction of the Bulgarian phoneme system based on Chuvash borrowings in the Mari language // Collection of materials of the conference "Sources and periodization of the history of the Chuvash language". Cheboksary, 2006.

page 52
Rudenko K. And the processes of ethno-cultural interaction in the Volga-Kama region at the end of the X-XIV century. according to archaeological data. Dis. ... doct. philol. sciences. Kazan, 2005.

Comparative historical grammar of the Turkic languages. The Proto-Turkic language is the basis. World picture of the Pratyurk ethnos according to the language data. Moscow, 2006.

Fedotov M. R. Chuvash-Mari language interrelations in historical coverage. Tallinn, 1968.

Fedotov M. R. Etymological dictionary of the Chuvash language. In 2 volumes Cheboksary, 1996.

Sevortyan E. V. Etymological dictionary of the Turkic languages, vol. I-III, Moscow, 1974-1980. [Sevortyan E. V., Levitskaya L. S.] Etymological dictionary of the Turkic languages( ESTYA): common Turkic and inter-Turkic bases on the letters "Zh, ""Zh", " Y " / Author of el. articles E. V. Sevortyan, L. S. Levitskaya. Moscow, 1989; further volumes - in the manuscript. When referring to a volume of a COMMENT, the year of publication of the volume is indicated. The absence of an indication of the year of publication of the volume (often the volume number is indicated) indicates that the reader is referred to the materials of volumes that have not yet been published).

Century Ago. Zu den tschuwassischen Lehnwörtern der tscheremissischen Sprache //MSFOu 67, 1933.

Century Ago. Zur lautgeschichte der tschuwassischen Lehnwortern im Tscheremissischen // FUF 23, 1935.

Bereczki G. Grundzüge der tscheremissischen Sprachgeschichte I, II // Studia Uralo-altaica, 34, 35, 1992 - 1994.

Clauson G. An Etymological Dictionary ofPre-Thirteenth-Century. Oxford, 1972.

Erdal M. Die Sprache der wolgabolgarischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden, 1993.

Rédei K. Uralisches Etymologisches Worterbuch. Budapest, 1986 - 1988.

Räsänen M. Die tschuwassischen Lehnworter im Tscheremissischen. Helsinki 1920. (MSFOu 48).

Räsänen M. Versuch eines etymologisches Worterbuchs der Türksprachen. Helsinki, 1969.

Stachowski M. Geschichte des Jakutischen Vokalismus. Krakow, 1993.

Doerfer G. Tuerkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. Wiesbaden, 1963. I; Wiesbaden, 1965. II; Wiesbaden, 1967. III.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

az. - Azerbaijani

bash. - bashkir

bulg. - Bulgarian

dial. - dialect

others are Turkic. - ancient Turkic

ir. - Iranian

kar. - karakhanidsky

Mar. - Mari

mar. v. - eastern dialect of the Mari language

mar. l. - meadow dialect of the Mari language

mar. g. - mountain dialect of the Mari language

mar. malm. - dialects of the Malmyzh district of the Mari language

mar. koz. - dialects of the Kozmodemyansk district of the Mari language

FRI-pratyurksky

tat. - Tatar

tof. - tofalarsky

tuv. - Tuvan region

tour. - turkish

turk. - Turkmen language

Uyghur - Uyghur

khak. - khakassky

Chuvash - Chuvash

yak. - Yakut

Permanent link to this publication: