CC BY
126
Bela Kempf
University of Szeged, Szeged
AN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE BURYAT LANGUAGE
In my paper I would like to give an overview on my ongoing project supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA PD 104312) entitled "An etymological dictionary of the Buryat language".
1. Context
The broader background of the project is provided by the Altaic Hypothesis, still one of the most debated questions of linguistic history and historical linguistics, arguing the existence or non-existence of the Altaic language family.
As regards this problem, in a nutshell we can state that for a long period, it was broadly accepted that the Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages comprise a language family. Later, it was postulated that Korean and Japanese also form part of this linguistic unity [Polivanov 1927; Ramstedt 1924, 1949-1953], and even the inclusion of Altaic into the Nostratic language family gained supporters [Illic-Svityc 1963, 1965].
From the mid-twentieth century, the Altaic theory was argued over by prominent scholars of the field [Clauson 1956, 1969; Doerfer 1963-1975; Scerbak 1961, 1966] claiming that the evidence presented in favor of the Altaic language family, is rather a result of long-term linguistic relationship.
The outcome of the attacks was that the main question of the Altaic debate, the genetic affiliation of these languages, remained somewhat on the sidelines, and research tended to concentrate mainly on the certain branches of the presumed language family.
In spite of the fact that the common ancestorship of the Micro-Altaic (including Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic) was not reassuringly proved, the question as to whether Japanese and Korean belong in Altaic or not remained a popular area of research until recent times [Miller 1971; Doerfer 1974; Menges 1984; Janhunen 1992, 1994a, 1994b;
Robbeets 2005]. While it is true that widening the spectrum of research is likely to facilitate the recognition of the genetic relationship of the Altaic languages, at the same time it increases the possibility of misinterpretation and over-permissiveness in accepting formal and semantic similarities as evidence.
The arguments relating to the main question of Comparative Altaic Studies have recently intensified again. The authors of the Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages [Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak 2003] concluded that the Altaic languages are definitely genetically related to each other, but their newly gained results evoked an intensive scientific dispute. There have been serious attacks on this work (cf. the reviews by [Miller 2003-2004; Georg 2004; Vovin 2005; Stachowski 2005; Kempf2008], and, connected to them, [Starostin 2005; Georg 2005]) and counter-attacks in its defense [Dybo, Starostin 2008]. In her approach Robbeets [2005] chose to sift the data in the EDAL, and to re-examine the results of its authors. Her work which similarly resulted in the conclusion that Japanese is genetically related to the other Altaic languages could not settle the dispute, and was criticized by many [Miller 2007; Georg 2008; Vovin 2009].
Thus, the scientific community today remains divided in judging the question of the genetic affiliation of the Altaic languages. While some scholars view it as an established language family, others argue against this.
Attainment of a definitive solution to the question is complicated by numerous factors. One of the most serious problems is that the research level on the different branches of Altaic is unbalanced. Best studied seems to be Turkic, where not only descriptions of the modern languages, but even historical-comparative works are available. In the next step these works made possible the compilation of well-grounded etymological dictionaries.
In turn, lack of such basic researches prevented the creation of an etymological dictionary of the Mongolic languages. Without a Mongolic etymological dictionary, however, lexical comparisons on an Altaic level are highly dubious.
The task of writing an etymological dictionary of the Mongolic languages formerly was taken at least two times.
First such an intention was initiated by Udo Posch who reported on the workings towards a Mongolic comparative and etymological
dictionary. After some works dealing with systematization and transcriptional questions [Posch 1955a, 1955b, 1956], the project was abandoned.
The paper of Gyorgy Kara [1965] looked like a serious preparatory work to write a Mongolic etymological dictionary. In this work the requirements for accomplishing such a dictionary were described by him accurately. Morals derived from this work will be intently considered. Some of such requirements are the historical and comparative examination of the Mongolic lexicon in general, mapping the different external relations of the Mongolic languages, and at the same time pondering the possibility of Common Altaic inheritance. Unfortunately, up today the task has not been performed.
Mention should be made here also about the dictionary of Secencoytu [1988]. His work is very close to that, what we can call an etymological dictionary. A very unfortunate shortcoming of this huge volume is that it was published in Uighur-Mongol script, so it is inaccessible for most historical linguists. Even more serious problems are meant by the facts that (1) etymological explanations are not exhaustive, (2) it does not tell anything about the history (first occurrences, and prevalence in different historical stages of the language) of the word, (3) the Altaic etymons or parallels of the Mongol words are not always reliable.
2. The Buryat language
The Buryat (formerly Buryat-Mongol) language belongs among the Mongolic languages. Together with Khalkha and Oyrat it forms the group of non-archaic languages.
Today it is spoken by about a half million people. Its speakers live in the territory of three countries: the Russian Federation (the Buryat Republic, the Aga National District of Chita Province and the Ust'-Orda National District of Irkutsk Province), Mongolia (northern and eastern parts), and China (northern parts of Inner Mongolia). There are different views present in the literature regarding the time from which Buryat can be considered to be an independent language. Among them we find suppositions like the fall of the Mongol Empire, but e. g. Sanzeev [1953: 9] thinks that the phonetic changes that distinguish Buryat from e. g. Khalkha happened at a relatively late period, in the 17th century.
Although there exist grammars of different Mongolic languages from earlier times, Buryat was the firstly described spoken Mongolic language [Castren 1857]. This was followed by several other descriptions, the most remarkable of which are those by Orlov [1878], Cybikov [1924], Poppe [1938, 1960, 1964], Sanzeev [1941; Sanzeev (ed.) 1962], Bertagaev [1968], Darbeeva [1997], Skribnik [2003].
The literature on specific topics of Buryat grammar is extensive as well.
Major works on the phonology and phonetics of Buryat were discussed by Buraev [1959, 1987], and Rassadin [1982].
Best works on Buryat morphology are those of Dondukov [1964] and Cydypov [1988].
Regarding its dialects, Buryat shows a quite diverse picture. Traditionally the dialects are divided into eastern and western ones, while their speakers are called in the literature Eastern and Western Buryats. Buryat dialects at the same time mirror the clan system of the Buryats, which was retained by them until recent times. It is important that this classification at the same time means remarkable cultural differences as well. The classification of the dialects does not strictly coincide with the geographic position of their speakers, as e. g. the Barguzin Buryats speak a western dialect, but live on the eastern side of the Lake Baikal. It is also worth noting that there are many classifications of the Buryat dialects, and they are not definitive, cf. the first classifications done by Vladimircov [1929: 7-8] and Poppe [1933: 18-19], in which the Barguzin dialect is listed among the eastern dialects. A similar indistinct situation is that of the southern Buryat dialects (Sartul and Congol), which are regarded by several scientists to rather be dialects of the Khalkha language but some consider them to be transitional dialects. Dialectal differences are so significant that handling Buryat as a single language is mainly due to extralinguistic reasons. The most important works in this field are those by Rudnev [1913-1914], Poppe [1933], Alekseev [1949], Budaev [1978, 1992], Rassadin [1996, 1999], Buraev [1996] and the essays in the two-volume book entitled Issledovanija burjatskix govorov [Cyden-dambaev, Buraev (eds.) 1965-1968]. In 1936, as a result of standartization intentions, the Khori dialect that belongs in the group of eastern dialects was chosen as the base of the literary language.
We are fairly well-equipped with bilingual dictionaries. Standard dictionaries include the Russian-Buryat dictionary by Cydendambaev [1954] and the Buryat-Russian dictionaries by Ceremisov [1973] and Sagdarov and Ceremisov [2006]. This latter work is a minor revision of Ceremisov's dictionary of 1973, and comprises about 60,000 entries. Others include the Buryat-Russian dictionaries by Ceremisov [1951], Cydenzapov [1991], and the Russian-Buryat dictionaries by Podgorbunskij [1909], Cydendambaev and Imehenov [1962], Babuskin [1993].
In comparison with other Mongolic languages, Buryat counts as a relatively well-attested and described language.
3. The project
The aim of my project is to establish an historical-etymological survey of the Buryat lexicon, which highlights the origin, the morphological structure, the phonetic and semantic changes, and if possible the internal and the external connections of the lexical items.
Workings on the etymological dictionary can be divided into preliminary tasks and substantial ones.
3.1. Preliminary tasks
Preliminary tasks do not form part strictly of the research, however, accomplishing them will facilitate the successful completion of the project. The tasks completed in this phase of the work (based mainly on secondary literature) will form the introduction of published work. Topics discussed here are:
— the brief history of the Buryat people;
— the brief history of the Buryat language, focusing on its origin, and its external contacts;
— determining the principles and methods followed during the substantial work;
— presenting the structure of the lexicon, and picturing the contents and system of the database, which serves for the comparative data;
— fixing the transcriptional system used during the workings;
— compiling the body of sources, which will be used to trace back the history of the words.
Regarding this last point it should be noted that it means most of all the material available from the Middle Mongol period. The inclusion
of the later material is possible if there are traceable critical text editions of the given source.
3.2. Substantial tasks
3.2.1. Compiling the database of the concerned Buryat lexical items. Since Buryat is a living language, the lexicon of which is almost infinitely extendible, it is not possible to include in an etymological dictionary all words of the lexicon.
The main bulk of the lexical items will be served by the standard dictionaries, most of all the standard Buryat-Russian dictionary. Apart from that, if there will be a possibility for a fieldwork to Ulaan-Ude, the card collection of the Buryat Scientific Centre (Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences) should be consulted.
During the selection of the words which need an etymology it is necessary to include (1) all monomorphemic words on the one hand, and (2) all loanwords on the other hand. Although loanwords of a language can often be treated as monomorphemic, the close relationship of Mongolic with Turkic warns us that some of the loanwords are analysable in the Buryat itself "because each of the elements of which they are composed have also been borrowed" [Durkin 2009: 44], not to speak here about the possibility of a genetic relationship.
The implication of the loanwords has some reservations, since I do not plan to include the very recent copies from other languages (mostly Russian), the phonetic shape and meaning of which practically coincide with that of the model's. See the word empiriokriticizm or gondolo, both listed in the Buryat-Russian dictionary, but probably never used by any Buryat people.
In the lexicon there will be included all Buryat words, with the exception of the morphologically transparent items. Under morphologically transparent words are meant those lexical elements which are further analyzable by means of the modern morphology of Buryat. Accordingly, of minimal interest will be those lexical items which were formed under a productive derivational process (e. g. the causative or passive verbs like alulxa (Caus.) ^ alaxa 'ubivat', umerScvljat'; kolot', rezat', zabivat' (skot)'; bolbosorulxa (Caus.) ^ bolbosorxo 'soversenstvovat', razvivat'sja'; xurengeztilxe (Caus.) ^ xurengezexe 'zakvasivat'sja (o molocnom napitke)'; abasagdaxa (Pass.) ^ abasaxa 'brat' s soboju (ili k sebe), unosit', uvodit', uvozit', otnosit', otvodit', otvozit''; gemnegdexe (Pass.) ^ gemnexe 'obvinjat', osuzdat'; delat' vygovor;
zurit'; vyrazat' nedovol'stvo'; oyogdoxo (Pass.) ^ oyoxo 'sit'; vjazat'; vysivat''; or diminutives formed by the nominal suffix +xAn3, like amaragxan (Dim.) ^ amarag 'ljubimyj, milyj, dorogoj'; bugltixen (Dim.) ^ buglti 'zakrytyj nagluxo, germeticeski zakrytyj (o sosude); gluxoj (o tajge)'; sagaxan (Dim.) ^ sagan 'belyj'), unless it shows such a significant semantic change in comparison with the etymon, that it can be considered to be a lexicalized form.
Beside of the words that are in general use, additional material could be the terminology pertaining to the traditional life, nomenclature and crafts of the Buryats, the dialect words, the archaisms, elements of folklore pieces the meaning of which became obscure. Since it is well known that Russian and Buryat scholars carried out large-scale linguistic expeditions, the material of which remained in manuscript (cf. [Kul'ganek 2000]), the collection of such items will require archival investigations both in Ulaan-Ude and St. Petersburg.
From the onomastic material the Buryat ethnonyms and the names of heavenly bodies (e. g. Solbon(g) 'Venera, Utrenn'aja zvezda'), should find their way into the dictionary.
As they cannot serve as evidence for underpinning scientific statements, it is not planned to include expressive and sound-imitating (onomatopoeic) words (e. g. ain; bag; dar; zeg; las), baby-words (bumbddei 'mizinec'; gaigai 'ptica', dudai 'losad'', humbei 'molocko'), luring words in the lexicon.
To sum up, the etymological dictionary of Buryat will contain all monomorphemic words; any word which has a form which is not explicable by the productive word-formation processes of the language; any word which is formally analyzable but semantically opaque; all remaining words with a non-predictable, institutionalized meaning, and all phrases and constructions with institutionalized meanings not readily predictable from the meanings of the words of which they consist.
3.2.2. Compiling the database of the comparative material. This involves two subtasks: (1) collecting the occurrences of the lexical items in historical sources, and (2) collecting the direct (if that is not possible, then the indirect) correspondences of the word from other modern Mongolic languages/dialects.
3.2.3. Exploring the literature. It means collecting all the available proposals regarding the history and etymology connected to the given lexical item.
Results of the research in Mongol etymology are scattered in the scientific literature, and many times they are unsystematic and haphazard. Richest sources of Mongolic etymology are different dictionaries of Mongolic languages, like the Kalmuck dictionary by Ramstedt [1935], the Ordos dictionary by Mostaert [1941] or the Literary Mongol dictionary by Lessing [Lessing (ed.) 1960]. Besides, several valuable data appear in the works by Vladimircov, Sanzeev, Ramstedt and Poppe. A great mass of data appears in monographs, papers and dissertations on Buryat historical lexicology and Buryat dialectology by some native scholars. Due to the fact that these publications at present are unattainable, this task requires working on the spot (Ulaan-Ude) and in St. Petersburg.
3.2.4. The next step is meant to be the critical examination of the suppositions and argumentation according to the accepted methodological principles pro or contra the proposed etymologies.
3.2.5. In case that there were no earlier etymologies for the word, or the earlier etymologies should be rejected, a task is to suppose a possible grounded etymology for the lexical item concerned. In the case of words which have a genuine Mongolic origin the proposed etymologies should enlighten the morphological built-up of the word, determining the way under which the derivational process happened, separating the traceable free (stem) and bound (suffix) morphemes in the word. If the stem of the word was found, a further task is to determine its (hypothetical) proto-form and original semantics. If it turns out that the given word is of foreign origin, the model language and etymon of the word should be clarified, determining the phonetic changes the word underwent, and if possible the chronology of the loan.
4. External contacts of Buryat
External contacts of the Buryat language and Buryat dialects are worth to examine from two points of view. The first, often neglected aspect refers to the formation of the ethnics who speak today Buryat. It is reasonably expected that the ethnogenesis of the Buryats will show traces of external contacts with Tungusic, Turkic and Uralic people. It is also highly probable that (1) these contacts left their traces in the language at least in the form of substratic phenomena and (2) they actively contributed to the appearance of Buryat as an independent
language. An interesting feature is that the buryatization process, i. e. the way in which the speakers of a non-Buryat language change their code to the Buryat, is observable even today (cf. the Barguzin Evenkis).
On the other hand, Buryat elements preserved in neighboring languages will serve as valuable material for gaining information about the linguistic history of Buryat. The periodization of these contacts encounters several problems, since some of them occurred continuously in the last millenium (or even earlier). Such Buryat elements are awaited to be found in different Tungusic languages [Khabtagaeva 2010], in Yakut [Kaluzynski 1961], in Soyot [Rassadin 2010] and in Russian [Anikin 2000; Jumsunova (ed.) 1999].
A different direction of contacts is mirrored by the Turkic elements of Buryat. As most of these elements are traceable in other Mongolic languages as well, the contacts which resulted in them probably happened prior to the Chinggisid era. On a dialectal level, recent Turkic elements are also found in Buryat [Rassadin 1999], e. g. Oka Buryat balyuhan 'small fry' ^ Turkic *baliq+sUn, cf. Old Turkic baliq 'fish' [Clauson 1972: 335]; Buryat habagsa 'thread' ^ Turkic *sap-Gci, cf. Old Turkic sap- 'to thread a needle' [Ibid.: 784]; Barguzin Buryat zoto 'shin of an animal' ^ Turkic *jota: cf. Old Turkicyota 'the thigh' [Ibid.: 886]; etc.
Less numerous are the Evenki loanwords of Buryat, e. g. Buryat zantaxi 'wolverine' ^ Evenki yantaki 'a dog, badger'; Buryat oro 'reindeer' ^ Evenki oron; Aga Buryat degtendi 'the case for sewing things' ^ Evenki dektende 'box, case', etc.
A specific layer of the Buryat lexicon is meant to be the Tibetan elements, which entered and spread in the first half of the 18th century together with Buddhism and mostly represent Buddhist terminology.
Loanwords from other, more distant languages (e. g. Chinese, Manchu, Sanskrit, Persian, Arab, German, French) came into Buryat via a mediator language, which in earlier periods could be a Turkic language, while later on either Khalkha (and its predecessor language) or Russian.
A very interesting layer consists of Russian loanwords, from which the earlier ones were adapted to the Buryat phonological system, accordingly they could be subject to significant formal change, e. g. Buryat xenige ^ Russian kniga 'book', Buryat pulad ^ Russian plat 'kerchief', Buryat xileme ^ Russian xleb 'bread'.
5. The structure of the lexicon
As the material of the present lexicon is based on the Buryat literary language, as it appears in the Buryat-Russian dictionary, headwords are cited in their Cyrillic form, together with their Russian meanings. As Russian, however, gradually becomes a less spoken language by the western scholarly community, these Russian meanings will be translated into English.
Headwords are arranged according to the Buryat alphabet.
The headword is followed by its scientific transcription in square brackets. Next one finds an abbreviated form which indicates, what part of speech the headword is.
This head of the lexical items is followed by two databases. The first of them contains the historical comparative data (HD) pertaining to the word concerned, while the database of synchronic comparative data (SD) lists the attestable counterparts of the concerned word in the other modern Mongolic languages.
The databases are followed by the etymological description of the word. This part gives information on the reconstructed form of the word (R), on the origin of the Buryat word (O), on the morphological structure of the word (M) and if needed some remarks are made on the phonology of the word (Ph). Under the abbreviation S a semantic typology is given on the basis of which valuable information on the early history and traditional way of life of the Buryats might be specified.
The etymological articles are closed by a section listing the bibliographic references (L) pointing to the relevant literature concerning the proposed etymology.
Accordingly, the structure of the etymological articles in the dictionary may be presented in the following scheme:
Headword [Transcription] | Part of speech | 'Russian meaning' | 'English meaning'
HD SD
R * Reconstructed form; | O Origin | M Morphological structure | Ph Remarks on phonology | S Semantical category.
L Literature
6. Expected results
Expected results of my project may be summarized in 3 points.
The first is that we will have a detailed history of the Buryat lexicon.
The second is that we will have a firm grounding for compiling the etymological dictionaries of other Mongolic languages.
Finally, the third is attaining new material in the form of new etymologies that we can use in the field of comparative Altaic linguistics.
7. Examples
All examples quoted below touch upon the field of Turkic-Mongolic language contacts.
The first example is the Buryat verb uxa which means 'to drink, to eat'.
Based on the data of the Mongolic languages, the Proto-Mongolic reconstruction of this word is *ugu-. This word up to now did not have any etymology.
In the etymological dictionary of the Buryat language, I will suggest to connect it with a Turkic verb, which appears in Old Turkic as op- and means 'to gulp down, swallow' [Clauson 1972: 4]. The Mongolic and the Turkic words are perfect examples of the phenomenon, when a Mongolic intervocalic guttural corresponds to a -p; e. g. Mongolic *taga-, cf. Literary Mongol taya- 'to find out' ~ Turkic tap- 'to find' [Ibid.: 435]; Mongolic *koge-, cf. Literary Mongol koge- 'to swell, distend, intumesce; to foam' ~ Turkic kop-, cf. Old Turkic kop- 'to swell, foam, boil over' [Clauson 1972: 687].
The possibilities we should ponder here are that (1) the word is of Mongolic origin, and a loanword in Turkic, or that (2) the word is of Turkic origin and a loanword in Mongolic. The third possibility is that the word is preserved from the Altaic heritage. The probability of such a possibility might be strengthened by the fact that the word itself belongs to the circle of basic lexicon.
The next example to quote here is the Buryat noun ur, meaning 'anger, wrath, malice'. We can reconstruct its Proto-Mongol form as *agur. This form, however, is a very likely counterpart of Turkic *agir, cf. Old Turkic agir 'heavy' [Clauson 1972: 88]. To confirm the semantic connection of these two words, please consider the Hungarian word nehez meaning 'heavy', and neheztel 'to be angry'.
It is quite surprising that a perfect phonetic and semantic Turkic counterpart of the Buryat verbyaxa 'cto delat', kak byt'' < *yaga-, was not recognized in the former literature. This Turkic verb is *yap- 'to do'.
What makes this etymology particularly interesting is that the Mongolic verb is clearly a derivation from the pronominal root * ya, that appears in interrogative pronouns like *yagun 'what', *yambar 'what kind of' and the interrogative verb *yaki- 'what to do'.
As the shift from an interrogative pronoun into a relative pronoun is quite prevalent, semantically there is no doubt that the meaning 'what to do' is the original one, from which the meaning 'to do' originates. Mongolic shows both meanings. The fact that the Mongolic verb has a clear etymology may cause us to reconsider some of our knowledge about the Turko-Mongolic language relationship.
The last etymology to mention here is the Buryat word namar < *namur, denoting 'autumn'. Neither there were attempts made to find an etymology for this word, nor to place the history of this word in the frame of the Altaic linguistics.
According to my opinion, the Mongolic word namur is a counterpart of Turkic *yagmur, cf. Old Turkic yagmur 'rain' [Clauson 1972: 903]. In turn Turkic *yagmur has its etymon in Turkic *yag-, cf. Old Turkic yag- 'to pour down; to rain' [Ibid.: 896].
Based on the Old Turkic words yagiz 'brown' [Ibid.: 909] and yaku 'a fur coat with the fur outside' [Ibid.: 898], both of which are present in Mongolic with an initial d- (cf. Middle Mongol dayir 'a term denoting colour of a horse's coat' and Literary Mongol daqu 'coat with fur outside'), Clauson supposed that the original initial of the word must have been d-. He also presumed that the word yagiz 'brown' is a deverbal noun from yag-. The semantics of the word was explained as follows: "originally meant 'poured upon, saturated' and so 'brown'". As the etymologies of some other Turkic colour terms let us think that yagiz contains a derivational element +gXr ~ +gXz [Kempf 2011], I find the deverbal origin of this word to be quite improbable.
Originating Old Turkic yaku from *yag- is not without problems as well. Most serious problems arose from semantic point of view. It is not clear how do we get a 'fur coat' from a verb meaning 'to pour down; to rain'. The authors of the EDAL considered this etymology to be a folk etymology [Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak 2003]. Indeed, it was
accepted as a valid one by Rona-Tas and Berta in their most recent work dealing with the Turkic loanwords in Hungarian [Rona-Tas, Berta 2011: 283-287].
In view of these facts an initial d- for the Turkic verb *yag-, is at least questionable. namur as a Turkic loanword in Mongolic at the same time implies that the original initial consonant of the Turkic verb could be a nasal. Since Rona-Tas writes that "Proto-Turkic y- has three antecedents in an earlier Proto-Turkic, namely y-, di-, and n -, reflected in Mongolian y-, di-, and ni- respectively" [Rona-Tas 1998: 71], I do not commit myself to judge whether this nasal was an n- or an n'.
A consonant cluster like -gm- is unknown for Mongolic, and appears only as an element of foreign words, cf. the word iraymad in the letter of Otemis (1262) or Maymad as a personal name in the letter of Uwayis bayatur (1358). Accordingly, the change -gm- > -m- is well explainable.
Of course, other languages do not serve as evidence, as a semantic parallel of this etymology cf. the English word fall meaning 'autumn'.
Bibliography
Alekseev 1949 — D. A. Alekseev. Dialekty burjat-mongol'skogo jazyka // Ucenye Zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 98, 1949. P. 161-202. Anikin 2000 — A. E. Anikin. Etimologiceskij slovar' russkix dialektov Sibiri.
Moskva — Novosibirsk: Nauka, 2000. Babuskin 1993 — S. M. Babuskin. Russko-burjatskij slovar'. Ulan-Ude:
Burjatskij gospedinstitut, 1993. Bertagaev 1968 — T. A. Bertagaev. Burjatskij jazyk // P. Ja. Skorik (ed.). Mongol'skie, tunguso-man'czurskie i paleoaziatskie jazyki [Jazyki narodov SSSR 5]. Leningrad: Nauka, 1968. P. 13-33. Budaev 1978 — C. B. Budaev. Leksika burjatskix dialektov v sravnitel'no-
istoriceskom osvescenii. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1978. Budaev 1992 — C. B. Budaev. Burjatskie dialekty: Opyt diaxroniceskogo
issledovanija. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1992. Buraev 1959 — I. D. Buraev. Zvukovoj sostav burjatskogo jazyka. Ulan-Ude: Burjatskij kompleksnyj naucno-issledovatel'skij institut SO AN SSSR, 1959. Buraev 1987 — I. D. Buraev. Stanovlenie zvukovogo stroja burjatskogo jazyka.
Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1987. Buraev 1996 — I. D. Buraev. Problemy klassifikacii burjatskix dialektov // V. I. Rassadin, L. D. Sagdarov, T. P. Bazeeva (eds.). Problemy burjatskoj dialektologii. Ulan-Ude: BNC SO RAN, 1996. P. 3-16.
Castren 1857 — M. A. Castren Versuch einer burjätischen Sprachlehre nebst kurzem Wörterverzeichnis [Nordische Reisen und Forschungen 10]. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1857.
Clauson 1956 — G. Clauson. The case against the Altaic theory // Central Asiatic Journal 2, 1956. P. 181-187.
Clauson 1969 — G. Clauson. A lexicostatistical appraisal of the Altaic theory // Central Asiatic Journal 13, 1969. P. 1-23.
Clauson 1972 — G. Clauson. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Cybikov 1924 — G. C. Cybikov. Grammatika buijat-mongol'skogo pis'mennogo jazyka. Verxneudinsk: Burjatskij ucenyj komitet, 1924.
Cydendambaev 1954 — C. B. Cydendambaev. Russko-burjat-mongol'skij slovar'. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo inostrannyx i nacional'nyx slovarej, 1954.
Cydendambaev, Buraev (eds.) 1965-1968 — C. B. Cydendambaev, I. D. Buraev (eds.). Issledovanija burjatskix govorov. Vyp. 1-2. Ulan-Ude: Burjatskoe kniznoe izdatel'stvo, 1965-1968.
Cydendambaev, Imexenov 1962 — C. B. Cydendambaev, M. N. Imexenov. Kratkij russko-burjatskij slovar' / Orod-buryat xelenei tobso slovar'. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo inostrannyx i nacional'nyx slovarej, 1962.
Cydenzapov 1991 — S.-N. R. Cydenzapov. Kratkij burjatsko-russko-mongol'skij slovar'. Ulan-Ude: Ob''edinenie detskix pisatelej Burjatii, 1991.
Cydypov 1988 — C. C. Cydypov. Buryad xelenei morfologi [Buryat morphology]. Ulaan-Ude: Buryadai nomoi xeblel, 1988.
Ceremisov 1951 — K. M. Ceremisov. Buryat-mongol-orod slovar' / Burjat-mongol'sko-russkij slovar'. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo inostrannyx i nacional'nyx slovarej, 1951.
Ceremisov 1973 — K. M. Ceremisov. Burjatsko-russkij slovar'. Moskva: Sovetskaja enciklopedija, 1973.
Darbeeva 1997 — A. A. Darbeeva. Burjatskij jazyk // V. N. Jarceva (ed.). Jazyki mira: Mongol'skie jazyki. Tunguso-man'czurskie jazyki. Japonskij jazyk. Korejskij jazyk. Moskva: Indrik, 1997. P. 37-51.
Doerfer 1963-1975 — G. Doerfer. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit. Bd. 1-4. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1963-1975.
Doerfer 1974 — G. Doerfer. Ist das Japanische mit den altaischen Sprachen verwandt? // Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 124, 1974. S. 103-142.
Dondukov 1964 — U-Z. S. Dondukov. Affiksal'noe slovoobrazovanie castej reci v burjatskomjazyke. Ulan-Ude: Burjatskoe kniznoe izdatel'stvo, 1964.
Durkin 2009 — Ph. Durkin. The Oxford guide to etymology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009. Dybo, Starostin 2008 — A. V. Dybo, G. S. Starostin. In defense of the Comparative method, or the end of the Vovin controversy: In memory of Sergei Starostin // A. V. Dybo, V. A. Dybo, O. A. Mudrak, G. S. Starostin (eds.). Aspekty komparativistiki 3 [Orientalia et Classica: Trudy Instituta Vostocnyx kul'tur i anticnosti 19]. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo RGGU, 2008. P. 119-258.
Georg 2004 — S. Georg. [Rev. on] Sergei Starostin, Anna Dybo, and Oleg Mudrak (eds.): Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages // Diachronica 21, 2004. P. 445-450. Georg 2005 — S. Georg. Reply [to Starostin 2005] // Diachronica 22, 2005. P. 455-457.
Georg 2008 — S. Georg. [Rev. on] Robbeets, Martine Irma (2005): Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? // Bochumer Ostasiatisches Jahrbuch 32, 2008. P. 247-278. Illic-Svityc 1963 — V. M. Illic-Svityc. Altajskie dental'nye: *t, *d, *ö //
Voprosy jazykoznanija 6, 1963. P. 37-56. Illic-Svityc 1965 — V. M. Illic-Svityc. Altajskie guttural'nye: *kc, *k, *g //
Ètimologija 1964. 1965. P. 338-343. Janhunen 1992 — J. Janhunen. Das Japanische in vergleichender Sicht //
Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 84, 1992. P. 145-161. Janhunen 1994a — J. Janhunen. Additional notes on Japanese and Altaic
(I) // Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 85, 1994. P. 236-240. Janhunen 1994b — J. Janhunen. Additional notes on Japanese and Altaic
(II) // Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 85, 1994. P. 256-260. Jumsunova (ed.) 1999 — T. Ju. Jumsunova (ed.). Slovar' govorov staroobrjadcev
(semejskix) Zabajkal'ja. Novosibirsk: Izdatel'stvo SO RAN, 1999. Kaluzynski 1962 — S. Kaluzynski. Mongolische Elemente in der jakutischen Sprache [Prace Orientalistyczne 10]. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1962.
Kara 1965 — G. Kara. Le dictionnaire étymologique et la langue mongole // Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 18, 1965. P. 1-32. Kempf 2008 — B. Kempf. [Rev. on] Starostin, Sergei — Dybo, Anna — Mudrak, Oleg (with assistance of Ilya Gruntov and Vladimir Glumov): An Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages // Acta Orientalia Scientiarium Academiae Hungaricae 61, 2008. P. 403-408. Kempf 2011 — B. Kempf. Ethnonyms and etymology — The case of Oyrat
and beyond // Ural-altaische Jahrbücher N. F. 24, 2011. S. 189-203. Khabtagaeva 2010 — B. Khabtagaeva. Mongolic elements in Barguzin Evenki // Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 63, 2010. P. 9-25.
Kul'ganek 2000 — I. V. Kul'ganek. Katalog mongolojazycnyx fol'klornyx materialov Arxiva vostokovedov pri SPbF IV RAN. Sankt-Peterburg: Peterburgskoe Vostokovedenie, 2000.
Lessing (ed.) 1960 — F. D. Lessing (ed.). Mongolian-English Dictionary. Berkeley — Los Angeles — London: University of California Press: Cambridge University Press, 1960.
Menges 1984 — K. H. Menges. Korean and Altaic — a preliminary sketch // Central Asiatic Journal 28, 1984. P. 234-295.
Miller 1971 — R. A. Miller. Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Miller 2003-2004 — R. A. Miller. [Rev. on] Starostin, Sergei — Dybo, Anna — Mudrak, Oleg with Assistance of Ilya Gruntov and Vladimir Glumov: Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages // Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher N. F. 18, 2003-2004. S. 215-225.
Miller 2007 — R. A. Miller. [Rev. on] Robbeets, Martine Irma: Is Japanese related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? // Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher N. F. 21, 2007. P. 274-279.
Mostaert 1941 — A. Mostaert. Dictionnaire ordos [Monumenta Serica: Journal of Oriental Studies of the Catholic University of Peking Monograph 5]. Peking: The Catholic University, 1941.
Orlov 1878 — A. Orlov. Grammatika mongolo-burjatskago razgovornago jazyka. Kazan': Izdanie Pravoslavnago Missionerskago Obscestva, 1878.
Podgorbunskij 1909 — I. A. Podgorbunskij. Russko-mongolo-burjatskij slovar'. Irkutsk: Carovaja tipo-litografija Makusina i Posoxina, 1909.
Polivanov 1927 — E. D. Polivanov. K voprosu o rodstvennyx otnosenijax korejskogo i 'altajskix' jazykov // Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR. Ser. 6 21, 15/17, 1927. P. 1195-1124. [Reprinted in Stat'i po obscemu jazykoznaniju. Moskva: Nauka, 1968. P. 156-164].
Poppe 1933 — N. N. Poppe. Burjat-mongol'skoe jazykoznanie [Trudy Instituta Vostokovedenija Akademii Nauk SSSR]. Leningrad: Akademija Nauk SSSR i Institut Kul'tury BMASSR, 1933.
Poppe 1938 — N. N. Poppe. Grammatika buijat-mongol'skogo jazyka. Moskva — Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1938.
Poppe 1960 — N. Poppe. Buriat Grammar [Indiana University Publications: Uralic and Altaic Series 2]. Bloomington: Indiana University —The Hague: Mouton, 1960.
Poppe 1964 — N. Poppe. Die burjätische Sprache // B. Spuler (ed.). Handbuch der Orientalistik. Abt. 1. Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten. Bd. 5. Altaistik. Abschn. 2. Mongolistik. Leiden—Köln: Brill, 1964. S. 108-114.
Posch 1955a — U. Posch. Remarks concerning a comparative dictionary of Mongolian languages // Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 27, 1955. S. 103-107.
Posch 1955b — U. Posch. Zur Orthographie und Transkription des Burjatischen // Central Asiatic Journal 1, 1955. P. 81-100.
Posch 1956 — U. Posch. Introduction to a comparative and etymological dictionary of the Mongolian languages and dialects // Davidson Journal of Anthropology 2, 1956. P. 99-137.
Ramstedt 1924 — G. J. Ramstedt. A comparison of the Altaic languages with Japanese // Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan. 2nd ser. 1, 1924. P. 41-54.
Ramstedt 1935 — G. J. Ramstedt. Kalmückisches Wörterbuch [Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae 3]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 1935.
Ramstedt 1949-1953 — G. J. Ramstedt. Studies in Korean Etymology [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 95]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 1949-1953.
Rassadin 1982 — V. I. Rassadin. Ocerki po istoriceskoj fonetike burjatskogo jazyka. Moskva: Nauka, 1982.
Rassadin 1996 — V. I. Rassadin. Prisajanskaja gruppa burjatskix govorov. Ulan-Ude: Izdatel'stvo Burjatskogo naucnogo centra SO RAN, 1996.
Rassadin 1999 — V. I. Rassadin. Stanovlenie govora nizneudinskix burjat. Ulan-Ude: Izdatel'stvo Burjatskogo naucnogo centra SO RAN, 1999.
Rassadin 2010 — V. I. Rassadin. Soyotica [Studia uralo-altaica 48]. Szeged: University of Szeged, Department of Altaic Studies, 2010.
Robbeets 2005 — M. I. Robbeets. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? [Turcologica 64]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005.
Rona-Tas, Berta 2011 — A. Rona-Tas, Â. Berta. West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian. Pt. 1-2. [Turcologica 84]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011.
Rona-Tas 1998 — A. Rona-Tas. The reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the genetic question // L. Johanson, É. Â. Csato (eds.). The Turkic Languages [Routledge Language Family Series]. London: Routledge, 1998. P. 67-80.
Rudnev 1913-1914 — A. D. Rudnev. Xori-buijatskij govor: Opyt izsledovanija, teksty, perevod i primecanija. 1-3. Petrograd: Fakul'tet Vostocnyx jazykov Imperatorskogo Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta, 1913-1914.
Sagdarov, Ceremisov 2006 — L. D. Sagdarov, K. M. Ceremisov. Burjatsko-russkij slovar'. Ulan-Ude: Respublikanskaja tipografija, 2006.
Sanzeev 1941 — G. D. Sanzeev. Grammatika burjat-mongol'skogo jazyka. Moskva — Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1941.
Sanzeev 1953 — G. D. Sanzeev. Sravnitel'naja grammatika mongol'skix jazykov. T. 1. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1953.
Sanzeev (ed.) 1962 — G. D. Sanzeev (ed.) Grammatika burjatskogo jazyka: Fonetika i morfologija. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo vostocnoj literatury, 1962.
Scerbak 1961 — A. M. Scerbak. Nazvanija domasnix i dikix zivotnyx v tjurkskix jazykax // E. I. Ubrjatova (ed.). Istoriceskoe razvitie leksiki tjurkskix jazykov. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1961. P. 82-172.
Scerbak 1966 — A. M. Scerbak. O xaraktere leksiceskix vzaimosvjazej tjurkskix, mongol'skix i tunguso-man'czurskix jazykov // Voprosy jazykoznanija 3, 1966. P. 21-35.
Secencoytu 1988 — Secencoytu. Mongyol üges-ün ijayur-un toli [Mongolian Root Word Dictionary]. Kökeqota: Öbör Mongyol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a, 1988.
Skribnik 2003 — E. Skribnik. Buryat // J. Janhunen (ed.). The Mongolic Languages [Routledge Language Family Series 5]. London — New York: Routledge, 2003. P. 102-128.
Stachowski 2005 — M. Stachowski. Turkologische Anmerkungen zum altaischen etymologischen Wörterbuch // Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 10, 2005. P. 227-246.
Starostin 2005 — S. Starostin. Response to Stefan Georg's review of the Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages // Diachronica 22, 2005. P. 451-454.
Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak 2003 — S. Starostin, A. Dybo, O. Mudrak, with assistance of I. Gruntov and V. Glumov. Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Vol. 1-3 [Handbook of Oriental Studies. Sec. 8: Central Asia 8:1-3]. Leiden — Boston: Brill, 2003.
Vladimircov 1929 — B. Ja. Vladimircov. Sravnitel'naja grammatika mongol'skogo pis'mennogo jazyka i xalxaskogo narecija: Vvedenie i fonetika [Leningradskij Vostocnyj Institut imeni A. S. Enukidze 33]. Leningrad: Leningradskij Vostocnyj Institut imeni A. S. Enukidze, 1929.
Vovin 2005 — A. Vovin. The end of the Altaic controversy: A review article of Sergei Starostin, Anna Dybo, and Oleg Mudrak's Etymological dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Leiden: E.J. Brill (2003) // Central Asiatic Journal 49, 2005. P. 71-132.
Vovin 2009 — A. Vovin. Japanese, Korean, and other 'Non-Altaic' languages // Central Asiatic Journal 53, 2009. P. 105-147.
