# All Slavic languages: Turkic influence on grammar/phonology



## jadeite_85

We already have a topic about the influence of Turkic languages on the vocabulary of Slavic languages. I would like to discuss the influence on pronunciation and grammar (if it exists)

There are some similarities between Russian and Turkish in syntax. Coincidence or influence?

a) Both languages tend to omit the verb to be in the present.

*Turkish*
O rehber.
*Russian*
Он гид.
_*English*
He is a tour guide._

b) Both languages don't use the verb "to have" to express possession, but use instead a construction with the genitive of the possessor and the expression "there is/there are".

Russian uses the third person singular of the verb "to be" in the meaning "there is/there are" - "есть", while Turkish expresses it with the expression "var" (which means "it exists"). The possessor in Russian is expressed with the preposition "У + genitive"; in Turkish the possessor is put in the genitive. The thing possessed it becomes subject in Russian, while in Turkish we add a suffix indicating that the thing is being possessed.

*Turkish*
Onun kedisi var.
*Russian*
У него есть кот.
_*English*_
_He has a cat._

Turkish and Russian speakers please correct my errors.


----------



## jadeite_85

In Turkish there is a tendence not to pronounce the "-r" before a consonant and sometimes at the end of the word. Many Serbian words lost the final "-r", where Croatian preserved it.

Sr.     Cro  
juče juče*r*  (_yesterday_)
veče veče*r* (_evening_)

Another tendence in Turkish is the avoidance of the sound "h". "Mehmet" sounds as "Memet" and the expression "ne haber?" (colloquial for "how are you?") is pronounced as "naber?". Macedonian and (less) Serbian lost the "-h" in many words. Croatian preserved it.

Sr.    Cro.
u*v*o u*h*o (ear)
su*v*o su*h*o (dry)
ku*v*ati ku*h*ati (to cook)

"*H*ajde" in Serbian sounds like "Ajde" and "*h*oću" sounds like "oću".


----------



## ahvalj

The Russian usage from your examples reflects the original Indo-European one, found e. g. in Sanskrit. In Latin, _habēmus pāpam_ has replaced the original _nōbīs est pāpa_ in the course of its history. Ancient Greek often omits the verb "to be" in Praes. Sg. 3, e. g. in the Bible.


----------



## jadeite_85

ahvalj said:


> The Russian usage from your examples reflects the original Indo-European one, found e. g. in Sanskrit. In Latin, _habēmus pāpam_ has replaced the original _nōbīs est pāpa_ in the course of its history. Ancient Greek often omits the verb "to be" in Praes. Sg. 3, e. g. in the Bible.



So, is the "genitive + verb to be" construction a Slavic influence on Turkish? 
But why should have Russian been the only Slavic language that conserved this way of expressing possession? As far as I know no other Slavic language ever had something similar, because they all continued the Proto Slavic root *jьměti*. And the use of "иметь" is considered archaic or high register in Russian now to express posession.

And about the omission of the verb "to be", could this be a Greek influence on both Russian and Turkish? Modern Greek however preserve the 3rd person singular in the present.


----------



## ahvalj

I can't comment the Russian influence on Turkish, but suspect it was close to zero (except maybe a few borrowed words). For centuries, there were virtually no contacts between these two nations other than on battlefields. To put things into a perspective, we should remember that Turkish is just one of several dozens of Turkic languages, like Slavic is one of many IE branches, and before discussing cross-familial influences, we should realize the situation in other members of each of these families.

The Proto-Indo-European language lacked a verb "to have", or, at least, there is no evidence that it existed: every branch developed its own verb with this meaning, often in the same manner: a zero-graded root + _ē_-. The dichotomy found in Slavic exists in Baltic as well: Lithuanian uses "I have" (_aš turiu_) whereas Latvian uses "there is to me" (_man ir_). Celtic seems to lack this verb altogether. Russian _иметь_ is rather borrowed: the instances where it occurs are either Old Church Slavonic citations or European, especially French, calques. Yet, the verb itself is inherited (but Russian has no traces of the Present _jьmamь_). Ukrainian and Belarusian seem to use both "to have" and "to be at", with Ukrainian prefering the former (_я маю_), and Belarusian the latter (_у мяне ёсьць_). Apparently, this is close to the Common Slavic situation, whereas other languages have chosen either variant more explicitly. And by the way, if we can speak of the foreign influence in Russian/Belarusian, it will be Finnic: Finnish _minulla on_ "on me is" is closer to _у меня есть_ "at me is" (the place in both cases) than the more traditional Indo-European "to me is" with the Dative (the direction). But these constructions are all so trivial and occur in zillions of languages, so that without very transparent evidence it is rather dangerous to speak of borrowing.


----------



## ahvalj

jadeite_85 said:


> But why should have Russian been the only Slavic language that conserved this way of expressing possession? As far as I know no other Slavic language ever had something similar, because they all continued the Proto Slavic root *jьměti*.


Old Church Slavonic, Matthew 18: 12:
_If a man owns a hundred sheep…_
_аще бѫдетъ оу етера чловѣка [100] овець…_ (Codex Assemanius — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Assemanius)
_етероу чловѣкоу _(Codex Marianus — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Marianus)
Cited from: _Вайан А · 1952 · Руководство по старославянскому языку:_ 220 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJOHg3TnpWWnNlQUE&authuser=0)


----------



## ahvalj

_"One of the oldest uses of the Indo-European dative case is in constructions with *es- 'be' to express possession (Benveniste 1949, 1966a:188, 197; 1974; Watkins 1967, Allen 1964a:338). Constructions like Lat. mihi aliquid est 'I have something' (lit. 'to me is something'), cf. Hitt. tuqqa UL kuitki eszi 'you have nothing' (lit. 'to you is nothing'),21 Gk. estí soi khrusós 'you have gold' (lit. 'to you is gold') reflect an ancient Indo-European construction with possessive semantics.22 It is important to note that there was no verb 'have' for this semantic relation, as is typical of active languages (Klimov 1973:217; cf. also Saxokija 1974)._
_The transformation of the construction type mihi aliquid est to habeō aliquid in the history of Latin reflects the appearance in the individual historically attested Indo-European dialects of a verb meaning specifically 'have', used both with independent possessive semantics and as an auxiliary verb23 (Benveniste 1966a, 1974). Such verbs develop from verbs meaning 'hold' , cf. Hitt. ḫark- 'hold', Lat. arceō 'hold, retain'; Gk. ékhō from PIE *seg̑ʰ- 'hold' (Skt. sáhate 'overcomes'); cf. also Lat. habeō 'have' beside inhibeō '(I) inhibit, retain' from PIE *gʰabʰ- (Olr. gaibid 'catches, takes')._
_The possessive constructions with dative and the verb *es- semantically admit negation of this relation. The construction mihi est aliquid 'I have something' (lit. 'to me is something')24 takes the negation mihi non est aliquid 'I do not have something'"._
_Gamkrelidze TV, Ivanov VV · 1995 · Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans:_ 250–251 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJdUpTd05PZk1kV2s/view?usp=sharing)


----------



## ahvalj

_"La phrase nominale sert à affirmer qu'une qualité, une manière d'être, appartient à quelque chose. Ainsi, chez Homère :_
_
A 80 κρείσσων γὰρ βασιλεύς « car le roi est le plus fort ». 
174 πάρ' ἔμοιγε καὶ ἄλλοι « auprès de moi il y en a d'autres encore »._
_
en vieux perse, manā pitā Vištaspa « mon père est Vištaspa »; __en védique, R̥. V., II, 1, 2 táva... hotrám « à toi est à la qualité de hotar »; en latin, haec admirabilia, etc. Des phrases de ce genre ne comprennent aucune idée verbale, et aucun verbe n'y figurait sans doute en indo-européen là où il n'y avait à exprimer ni mode, ni personne, ni temps, c'est-à-dire là où un verbe éventuel serait à la 3e personne du présent de l'indicatif"._
_Meillet A · 1908 · Introduction à l’ étude comparative des langues indo-européennes:_ 322 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJeUlEeTZMS3RjY2M&authuser=0)


----------



## ahvalj

And, finally, the Russian omission of "to be" in other persons of the Present is indeed an innovation as suggested by the old texts. It has, however, parallels in Lithuanian, which allows both _aš ne studentas, aš aspirantas _and _nesu studentas, esu aspirantas _​and even _aš nesu studentas, aš esu aspirantas_ "I'm not a student, I'm a postgraduate'.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

jadeite_85 said:


> *Turkish*
> Onun kedisi var.
> *Russian*
> У него есть кот.
> _*English*_
> _He has a cat._


Literally, the Turkish expression is: His cat exists, which is not the case in Russian: There is a cat by him.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

jadeite_85 said:


> We already have a topic about the influence of Turkic languages on the vocabulary of Slavic languages. I would like to discuss the influence on pronunciation and grammar (if it exists)



Let us consider the last 11 centuries only. 

I do not know about any influence of some Turkic language on the pronunciation in some Slavic language.

A Turkish influence is supposed for the renarrative mood in Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian). Nothing else.


----------



## jadeite_85

Thank you for the explanation! It was very useful.


----------



## Daniel.N

jadeite_85 said:


> Another tendence in Turkish is the avoidance of the sound "h". "Mehmet" sounds as "Memet" and the expression "ne haber?" (colloquial for "how are you?") is pronounced as "naber?". Macedonian and (less) Serbian lost the "-h" in many words. Croatian preserved it.
> 
> Sr.    Cro.
> u*v*o u*h*o (ear)
> su*v*o su*h*o (dry)
> ku*v*ati ku*h*ati (to cook)
> 
> "*H*ajde" in Serbian sounds like "Ajde" and "*h*oću" sounds like "oću".



Actually, all dialects in Serbia, and many in Croatia and Bosnia as well, have completely lost the *h* (/h/, /x/). U*v*o (< uho) and sna*j*a (snaha) are very common in many parts of Croatia (but not standard).

It's just that the *h* was reintroduced in 19th century by Vuk St. Karadžić to promote one language for all...

This could be Turkish influence, but the problem is that Muslims in Bosnia retained the *h*, and their Orthodox neighbors a village away (= Serbs) lost it. Any Turkish influence would have been bigger on speech of Muslims in cities than on Serbs in remote mountain villages.

Also, there are some hints that h was lost in Serbia before any Turks arrived (I'm thinking about genitive -*ьь* in Medieval Cyrillic manuscripts, under assumption that it had originated from former loc. -*ьxь*).

Disclaimer: I'm not a linguist.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

Daniel.N is probably right: the lost of H/X is not a Turkish influence. Most Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian+Macedonian) dialects have also lost that sound. By the way, some Bulgarian dialects have later restored H/X and have introduced that sound in "wrong" places: (х)убав, (х)аресвам, etc.


----------



## Freier Fall

jadeite_85 said:


> We already have a topic about the influence of Turkic languages on the vocabulary of Slavic languages. I would like to discuss the influence on pronunciation and grammar (if it exists)



I don't know something about influences between Indoeuropean and Ural Altaic languages in general, but I noticed some single simillarities between some South Slavic languages and Turkish representing Turkic languages:

Semantics:


The presence of the verb pair _има_/_няма _in Bulgarian resembles (in my eyes) to Turkish _var_/_yok_
_Pronunciation/phonetics/phonology:_


The transition of the phonemes ("g" > "h") according to the Turkish grapheme "ğ" resembles (in my eyes) to sime Slavic languages (heroj/geroj..., or e.g. German "Helmut", pronounced in Russian as "Gelmut")
The sound value of Turkish "ı" is prominently existent in Bulgarian (connected with grapheme "ъ") and other South Slavic languages, too. It may exist in similar manner in German e.g., but mainly limited to ablaut forms, if I'm not mistaken.

But I'm not a linguist. This is just a private layman's impression.


----------



## ahvalj

The Russian _h>g_ is not a phonetic phenomenon. In the 17th century, after the acquisition of Kiev, the Russian church language fell under the influence of the Ukrainian tradition, which, in particular, implied the Ukrainian pronunciation of _г_ as _ǥ_, supported also by a similar South Russian pronunciation. This persisted during some 100–200 years, and it meant that the letter _г_ in the 17–18th centuries was read as _g_ in everyday words and as _ǥ_ in the elevated style. The foreign words with _h_ thus could be transliterated with _г_ as well, hence all these _Гельмут_,_ Ганс, Гуго, Гомер _etc. Sometime in the first half of the 19th century, this artificial _ǥ_ disappeared from the speech (compare the nasalized French vowels some people try to preserve in English and German), _г_ in the elevated words returned to its original pronunciation as _g_, and so was the fate of _г_ in foreign borrowings. After that time, the tradition to transliterate _h_ with _г_ persisted until the middle 20th century: _Hitler_ was still _Гитлер_, but _Honecker_ was already _Хонеккер_.


----------



## Freier Fall

ahvalj said:


> The Russian _h>g_ is not a phonetic phenomenon.[...].


I didn't know that. Thanks for explanation.


----------



## Daniel.N

There was definitely *some* Turkic (not Turkish) influence on Proto-Slavic, at least on the borrowing level.

My favorite word is *tumač* (Croatian/Serbian/etc) "interpreter", Polish *tłumacz*, Russian *толмач* etc.

Compare it to very similar nothern Turkic words for the same term. And the meaning is really interesting. But it means Slavic-Turkic contacts were of such a kind that an interpreter was frequently needed, and it was a specialist person.

Disclaimer: I'm not a linguist.


----------



## ahvalj

Daniel.N said:


> There was definitely *some* Turkic (not Turkish) influence on Proto-Slavic, at least on the borrowing level.
> 
> My favorite word is *tumač* (Croatian/Serbian/etc) "interpreter", Polish *tłumacz*, Russian *толмач* etc.
> 
> Compare it to very similar nothern Turkic words for the same term. And the meaning is really interesting. But it means Slavic-Turkic contacts were of such a kind that an interpreter was frequently needed, and it was a specialist person.
> 
> Disclaimer: I'm not a linguist.


Does the existence of the word _die Ananas_ in German suggest a sensible Guaraní influence on this language?


----------



## Freier Fall

Daniel.N said:


> There was definitely *some* Turkic (not Turkish) influence on Proto-Slavic, at least on the borrowing level.


As far as I understood the question was related to 





jadeite_85 said:


> the influence on pronunciation and grammar (if it exists)


If we want to refer to the borrowing of terms (especially from Turkish to Slavic and Balkans languages) or even to the cultural contacts of the concerning people it would come to completely different dimensions, I guess. Just think about Cossacks and their ataman or think about the Tatars and the maidan in Kiev.

Followup: I misunderstood Daniel.N. He was referring to the early middle ages, wheras I referred to high middle ages and later. My fault.


----------



## Daniel.N

The borrowing of the word for "interpreter" from Turkic into Slavic tells you about the _nature_ of contacts. These were contacts where an interpreter was needed. There were specialist interpreters, which indicates that there weren't many bilingual (Turkic/Slavic) people around. Slavic and Turkic people were not freely mixing.

Since there were not many bilingual people around, there couldn't have been influences on grammar or phonology at that stage of Proto-Slavic.

Of course, there were later influences on individual languages.


----------



## ahvalj

In the early Middle Ages a considerable part of Slavs was subjugated by Avars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avar_Khaganate). The memory of this was still alive in the 11th century since this is mentioned in the East Slavic "Primary chronicle". Some of the common Slavic words of Turkic origin may come from the Avar period. Yet, I can't think of any common Slavic trait that can be ascribed to a Turkic influence. The suffix -_čьjь_ (_kъrmъčьjь/krъmъčьjь, kъnigъčьjь_, _zьdъčьjь_ etc.) is probably local.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

Freier Fall said:


> I don't know something about influences between Indoeuropean and Ural Altaic languages in general, but I noticed some single simillarities between some South Slavic languages and Turkish representing Turkic languages:
> 
> Semantics:
> 
> 
> The presence of the verb pair _има_/_няма _in Bulgarian resembles (in my eyes) to Turkish _var_/_yok_


Why Turkish? We have the same in Greek. No Turkish connection. Most probably, this is Balkanic, this is a Balkan sprachbund feature. 



Freier Fall said:


> _Pronunciation/phonetics/phonology:_
> 
> 
> The sound value of Turkish "ı" is prominently existent in Bulgarian (connected with grapheme "ъ") and other South Slavic languages, too. It may exist in similar manner in German e.g., but mainly limited to ablaut forms, if I'm not mistaken.


Why Turkish? We have the same sound in Romanian and Albanian. 

The Bulgarian Ъ is actually inherited from Old Slavic. No Turkish connection. 

In the following words, the same vowel Ъ has sounded for more than a thousand years:

градът, носът, мирът, свѣтът, врагът, срамът, студът, снѣгът, etc.

In the other Slavic languages, the old vowel Ъ (the big yer) has changed into O (Russian..), A (BCS), E (Czeck,Polish,..).


----------



## ahvalj

In Macedonian and much of East Slavic _ъ_ was definitely a back vowel, and since in any case it had arisen from the late common Slavic *_u_, it must have shifted to the middle row in the remaining Slavic languages, though it is hard to date this shift. The peculiarity of Bulgarian and partly Slovene and some Serbo-Croatian dialects is that this vowel has preserved its schwa-like timber lost in West Slavic and standard Serbo-Croatian.


----------



## Freier Fall

Christo Tamarin said:


> Why Turkish? We have the same in Greek. No Turkish connection. Most probably, this is Balkanic, this is a Balkan sprachbund feature.


I did not analyse, I just tried to describe. Note, I spoke about "some single similarities" (not about the genetic relationship) and I stressed, I'm speaking as a layman. 
Thanks for mentioning, that it exists in Greek, too. And thanks for the hint to Balkansprachbund. I didn't know about that classification, but I felt there has to exist something like this. By the way the German Wikipedia article states: "_Das Türkische ist dabei einer der Einflussfaktoren, die zur Herausbildung dieses Sprachbundes beigetragen haben._" So actually this supports (if Wikipedia is right with it) the presence of similarities between Southern Slavic (and other) languages with Turkish (even though Turkish isn't Indoeuropean), doesn't it? Don't feel offended, when I like to compare Turkish and Bulgarian. They both are two of the only few languages I have had some more contact with. 



> Why Turkish? We have the same sound in Romanian and Albanian.


I know the sound of Greek, Romanian, and Albanian only from the Balkans  songs, but there I didn't realize a similar prominence of the sound  value as it is connected with TR 'ı' and BG 'ь'. We have a similar sound  value in German, too, but not in prominent position either. If you ask a  German, he will say, that he doesn't use it at all, that he even doesn't know it at all. We even have no letter for it. But in Turkish and in  Bulgarian you literally build your sentences on it. Anyway it was my private impression as a German, whose neighbours are Danish, Dutch, French, Italian people (all of them Indoeuropean; Czech and Polish, I don't know well enough), that the way Southern Balkan people speak in Turkey and Bulgaria has some conspicuous single similarities, compared with the mentioned Northern languages. But I'm not skilled to proove that in linguistic manner.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

Freier Fall said:


> .. Note, I spoke about "some single similarities" (not about the genetic relationship) ..


I have never thought you meant genetic relationship. However, you have specified in the thread title "grammar/phonology". If we were not restricted on grammar/phonology, if we consider just "some single similarities", e.g. some single words, some single lexical units, then the things would look very different.

A great amount of loanwords from Turkish were in common use in Balkano-Slavic dialects. About 1850AD, its number could be estimated as up 8000. Until 1900AD, on the territory of Bulgaria, this number has been reduced, replacing the loanwords from Turkish by loanwords from Russian. Now, in modern Standard Bulgarian, there are still about 1000 loanwords from Turkish in common use.

Please note: Loanwords from Turkish are considered. No loanwords from other Turkic languages. No influence from other Turkic languages onto Balkano-Slavic can be observed during the last millenium.

Loanwords from Turkish exist in the other languages of the sprachbund, too.

Despite the local phonetic differences, the great amount of loanwords from Turkish and the common Slavo-Balkanic grammar ensured total intelligibility all over the Balkano-Slavic dialects before 1850AD.



Freier Fall said:


> By the way the German Wikipedia article states: "_Das Türkische ist dabei einer der Einflussfaktoren, die zur Herausbildung dieses Sprachbundes beigetragen haben._"


I am afraid, this is not the exact truth. "Die Herausbildung dieses Sprachbundes" (the formation of the sprachbund: 1000..1300AD) occurred long before the arrival of Turkish (about 1400AD).  Having arrived at the Balkans, Turkish found a full-featured Balkan sprachbund there. The Balkan sprachbund was actually the imperial sprachbund of Romania, a.k.a. Byzantium, а.к.а. East Roman Empire. Note: The modern Romania has usurped its name which should be a legacy name of all peoples on the Balkans. In the same sense, the name Macedonia is a legacy name of all peoples on the Balkans and should not be usurped by anyone. 

The dominance of Turkish (1400..1800AD) did not destroy the Balkan sprachbund, it did support it, rather. The Balkan sprachbund was destroyed by the nationalism of the 19th century.



Freier Fall said:


> Don't feel offended, when I like to compare Turkish and Bulgarian.


I so not feel offended at all. 

I know well the influence of Turkish, the dominant language in the Ottoman empire, onto Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian).

I have already mentioned the great amount of loanwords from Turkish into Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian). Just to add: among them, some adjectives do not decline, do not conform to the rules of grammar.

I have already mentioned the renarrative mood in Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian). Certainly, this was influenced by Turkish. The other Balkan or Slavic languages were not affected.

This was about the grammar.

Now about the phonology.

Turkish has its C phonemic sound. Many loanwords from Turkish have that sound. Bulgarian, however, took that sound without assigning it phonemic status: in the Standard Bulgarian speech, the C (дж,џ) sound can be replaced by J (ж) without any consequences. Please compare: in the voiceless case, Ч cannot be replaced by Ш, both being Slavic legacy. 

Yes, Turkish perhaps influenced the phonetics of Bulgarian, but not the phonology.



Freier Fall said:


> If you ask a  German, he will say, that he doesn't use it at all, that he even doesn't know it at all. We even have no letter for it. But in Turkish and in  Bulgarian you literally build your sentences on it.


The German phonology does not contain this sound. The Turkish phonology and the Bulgarian phonology do. 
However, for the Bulgarian phonology, this sound is a Slavic legacy, and for the Turkish phonology, this sound is a Turkic legacy. There is no connection.

This sound is met in the Albanian phonology and the Romanian phonology (and not in the Greek phonology). Nothing is known for sure about Albanian. As for the Romanian phonology, this sound is a Romance legacy,most probably. Please note that it is of greater importance for Romanian than it is for Bulgarian. Standard Bulgarian does not distinguish A and Ъ in an unstressed position, Romanian does.


----------



## Freier Fall

Thanks for your explanations. They contain lots of information, which give interesting hints at this subject. I just cannot contribute with that level.

Just one remark. You said:



Christo Tamarin said:


> The German phonology does not contain this sound. [...]
> 
> This sound is met in the Albanian phonology and the Romanian phonology (and not in the Greek phonology). Nothing is known for sure about Albanian. As for the Romanian phonology, this sound is a Romance legacy,most probably. Please note that it is of greater importance for Romanian than it is for Bulgarian. Standard Bulgarian does not distinguish A and Ъ in an unstressed position, Romanian does.



According to German I want to explain my private impression once again: we don't "know" this sound here, but this does not mean in each case, that we don't "use" this or similar sounds in our language at all. I'm not tought in linguistic phonation, and it's difficult for me to distinguish (IPA) [ə], (IPA) [ɤ̞], and others. Probably we don't use the exact sounds in (standard) German as are used for the grapheme ъ in Bulgarian dialects. 

But if we want to express disgust, we often say "ä" (but not pronounced as usual for German grapheme "ä"), but more as known as the sound, that resembles to someone, who makes a sound to reject food or even to the sound of regurgitating it. If you tell some German the Bulgarian word _фъндък _or if you do so with the Turkish word _fındık_, I would guess, this German probably will call the sound of this word "not nice at all". It's not the kind of vowel we are used to regard as valid vowel. We like to extend our vowels aaa, eee, iii, ooo, uuu, äää, ööö, üüü. But this (IPA) [ə] or (IPA) [ɤ̞] from a (standard) German view seems to exist in a non-existing vowel. If a Czeck writes the name _Schubert _as _Šubrt_ or a Serb calls his nation _Srbija_, this expresses the German view better then using a letter for a vowel like (IPA) [ə], (IPA) [ɤ̞], which we actually (maybe more or less unconsciously) don't regard as a real vowel. 
And especially in ablaut position we often use a similar sound (but not expressed by a own letter and probably in most cases not knowing, that we use it at all): imagine German words like Butt*e*r, Mutt*e*r, Mal*e*r. We've got a Schwa sound, but we are used to encounter it in non accented-way at the end of the word. (cf. e.g. Hilmar Walter & Elga Georgieva Kirjakova: "Lehrbuch der bulgarischen Sprache", VEB Leipzig, 1990, p. 20). Actually we average Germans are betraying ourselves using a Schwa-Laut and stating, we used the normal vowel expressed by our graphem "e". You even can detect a non-native German speaker, because he used the ablaut "e" as if it was a "real" "e". But we don't know what we are doing. And if you ask a Turk, if he said a "ş" after the word "hayır", he will deny it, even though he did it. It's already a often used running gag in Germany that Italians always add a "e" at the end of each word and then vehemently denying to do so... 

Sorry for getting off-topic. What I mainly want to say. As a German Bulgarian and Turkish (even though Bulgarian is grammatical familiar to Germans as Indoeuropean and Turkish is not at all) have some details common, which make them similar in this special aspects. One of them is the prominent use of this Schwa sound. Whether this is influenced by the neighborship of some centuries, I can't say. And I never stated it.


----------



## DarkChild

Freier Fall said:


> I don't know something about influences between Indoeuropean and Ural Altaic languages in general, but I noticed some single simillarities between some South Slavic languages and Turkish representing Turkic languages:
> 
> Semantics:
> 
> 
> The presence of the verb pair _има_/_няма _in Bulgarian resembles (in my eyes) to Turkish _var_/_yok_



Няма (нема) is a contraction of не има. I don't see the resemblance to your Turkish example.


----------



## Freier Fall

DarkChild said:


> Няма (нема) is a contraction of не има. I don't see the resemblance to your Turkish example.



I see, thanks, for the etymologic hint. I just see the existence (and therefore usage) of an independent verb for "there is/are not; not be, be gone (...)", that reminds me on Turkish. In German and many other languages it doesn't exist. But I don't know anything about causalities.


----------



## DarkChild

Speaking of няма...

When I was in 7th grade, I had to write an essay for literature class. When the teacher gave it back to me, she had circled in red "не има" and put a big question mark. In reality, this combination doesn't exist in Bulgarian but I imagine I was trying to be really emphatic and highlight that there really ISN'T and wrote it like that.


----------



## Freier Fall

DarkChild said:


> [...]I was trying to be really emphatic and highlight that there really ISN'T [...]


You seem to have been a German (maybe Germanic) in a previous life. I still have to rework each of my English posts, in order to substitute "is not" by "isn't". We Germans possibly are good in stressing that something "is not". Imagine you standing in front of Varus' legions: "Няма!"... 
no... it has to be "Ist nicht!"

"не има", I liked it!


----------



## DarkChild

Freier Fall said:


> You seem to have been a German (maybe Germanic) in a previous life. I still have to rework each of my English posts, in order to substitute "is not" by "isn't". We Germans possibly are good in stressing that something "is not". Imagine you standing in front of Varus' legions: "Няма!"...
> no... it has to be "Ist nicht!"
> 
> "не има", I liked it!



But "is not" is perfectly fine in English.


----------



## Freier Fall

DarkChild said:


> But "is not" is perfectly fine in English.


I know, I went completely off-topic now. But as far as I can remember, once I saw a documentation in TV about a criminal case (in UK maybe?). In this case it helped finding the perpetrator because of his characteristic use of English language. One of this specific features was his mannerism to avoid the abbreviation of "not". He never wrote "isn't", "wasn't". It could have been me.


----------



## ahvalj

Freier Fall said:


> the way Southern Balkan people speak in Turkey and Bulgaria has some conspicuous single similarities


Actually, Turkish and to a lesser extent Azeri have a special oily sounding, quite different from the guttural one in the majority of Turkic languages, so it was most probably acquired from the speech of the non-Turkic ancestors of modern Turks and Azerbaijanis. I'd say, however, that to me the Balkanic languages lack this moment, though there is something similar indeed in the sounding of Bulgarian, Greek, Albanian and Romanian.


----------



## Daniel.N

ahvalj said:


> In Macedonian and much of East Slavic _ъ_ was definitely a back vowel, and since in any case it had arisen from the late common Slavic *_u_, it must have shifted to the middle row in the remaining Slavic languages, though it is hard to date this shift. The peculiarity of Bulgarian and partly Slovene and some Serbo-Croatian dialects is that this vowel has preserved its schwa-like timber lost in West Slavic and standard Serbo-Croatian.



Only in some dialects and then only in some (unstressed) positions. For example, kъsьno _late_ is *kesno* in most dialects in Slovenia and some in Croatia.

But the main feature of ALL Slovene, Croatian...and Serbian dialects is ъ = ь, and for a great majority of them, the long vowel turned into a, therefore it's *dan* _day_ in the (Standard) Slovene.


----------



## Maroseika

Daniel.N said:


> There was definitely *some* Turkic (not Turkish) influence on Proto-Slavic, at least on the borrowing level.
> 
> My favorite word is *tumač* (Croatian/Serbian/etc) "interpreter", Polish *tłumacz*, Russian *толмач* etc.



Толмач is too recent borrow from Turkic to refer it Proto-Slavic - Proto-Turkic contacts. It might come to Ancient-Russian from Pecheneg or some other Turkic language, but hardly before 11-12th centuries, which is 2000-3000 years after the Proto-Slavic epoch.


----------



## Daniel.N

Maroseika said:


> Толмач is too recent borrow from Turkic to refer it Proto-Slavic - Proto-Turkic contacts. It might come to Ancient-Russian from Pecheneg or some other Turkic language, but hardly before 11-12th centuries, which is 2000-3000 years after the Proto-Slavic epoch.



Quite the contrary, at least in my opinion, the word is found in Standard Croatian/Serbian *tùmāč*, Slovene *tolmáč*, Czech *tlumočník*, and even it found a way into German (with added German suffix for "person doing something, which was obviously not needed in Slavic) as *Dolmetscher*. It's a quite old borrowing.

As per Proto-Slavic, I'm not aware that anyone places Proto-Slavic at that age. For instance, Wikipedia says:

Proto-Slavic is the unattested, reconstructed proto-language of all the Slavic languages. It represents Slavic speech approximately from the 5th to 9th centuries AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic​
At the time you refer to (1000-2000 BC) there was probably just Balto-Slavic.


----------



## Maroseika

Daniel.N said:


> Quite the contrary, at least in my opinion, the word is found in Standard Croatian/Serbian *tùmāč*, Slovene *tolmáč*, Czech *tlumočník*, and even it found a way into German (with added German suffix for "person doing something, which was obviously not needed in Slavic) as *Dolmetscher*. It's a quite old borrowing.
> 
> As per Proto-Slavic, I'm not aware that anyone places Proto-Slavic at that age. For instance, Wikipedia says:
> Proto-Slavic is the unattested, reconstructed proto-language of all the Slavic languages. It represents Slavic speech approximately from the 5th to 9th centuries AD
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic​
> At the time you refer to (1000-2000 BC) there was probably just Balto-Slavic.



Even the article you linked mentiones the period they call Pre-Slavic (c. 1500 BC — 300 AD). In the Russian version of the article there are more details on this period. Many linguists refer the time of the Balto-Slavic community desintegration to 2000-1500 B.C. 
As for the Slavic cognates of Russian толмач, I don't know exact direction and time of the borrowings. Maybe somebody here knows?


----------



## Freier Fall

Daniel.N said:


> Quite the contrary, at least in my opinion, the word is found in Standard Croatian/Serbian *tùmāč*, Slovene *tolmáč*, Czech *tlumočník*, and even it found a way into German (with added German suffix for "person doing something, which was obviously not needed in Slavic) as *Dolmetscher*. It's a quite old borrowing.


As for German the Duden (Günther Drosdowski: "Etymologie: Herkunftswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache", in: "Der Duden: in 10 Bänden", Vol. 7, 2nd. Edition, 1989) writes (p. 132, format modified by me):

_Dolmetscher_, auch: _Dolmetsch _"berufsmäßiger Übersetzer": Mhd. _tolmetsche _stammt aus ung. _tolmács_, osmanisch-türk. _tilmač _"Mittler (zwischen zwei Parteien)". Letzte Quelle des Wortes ist gleichbed. _talami _der Mitannisprache in Kleinasien. Abl.: _dolmetschen _"übersetzen" (16. Jh.) 
This means, the German word _Dolmetscher/Dolmetsch_ came in Middle High German ages (Duden explicitly refers for Middle High German to 12th to 15th century on page 9 and notes, that modern periodisations date it as 1050-1350, adding that there are flowing limits in the periods) by Hungarian influence (_tolmács_) from Ottoman-Turkish (_tilmač_), which as source Duden considers as conterminously with the Mitanni language (_talami_) in Asia Minor. Therefore - as far as I understand - you probably cannot take German to prove influences in Proto-Slavic times according to _Dolmetscher_.


----------



## Freier Fall

Maroseika said:


> As for the Slavic cognates of Russian толмач, I don't know exact direction and time of the borrowings. Maybe somebody here knows?


I didn't find something about Russian. But did you already consider Skok (Petar Skok: "Etimologijski Rječnik Hrvastkoga ili Srpskoga jezika", Vol. 3,  "poni-Ž",  Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb 1973, p. 521f)?:

tumač, gen. -aia m (Vuk, u spisima), sveslav. i praslav. (?) Іьітась (stcslav. пътась) »mterpres«. Pridjev na -ev tumačev. Denominal tumačiti, tumačim impf, (iz- 16. v., pro-, raz-), iterativ na -va- istumačevati, -ujem — istumačívati, s postverbalom na -ka istumačka (18. v.), Taj oblik posudiše Nijemci Dolmetsch, stvnjem. tolmetsche, Rumunji tumači = tâlmaciu, glagol a tălmaci = tumači, apstraktum tălmacitură »tumačenje«, i Madžari tolmács (14. v.). Iz madžarskog ili iz ruskog tolmai potječe taimai·, gen -ala m (Vuk), tolmačiti, tălmăcim (Vuk) (iz-} =(sa ol > o kao u Omu < Olmiš, otar < oltar, kobasica} tomačiti, -im (iz-} (Divković, Velikanović, Lastrić,-Matović, Kanižlić, Dubrovnik), istomalati, istomačivati, tomaiit, -ačim (Kosmet), tomačitelj, pridjev neistomaien, -čiv, -čljiv, -čnost. U hrv.-kajk. i slov. po zakonu asimilacije t — m > t — n tolnai (Jambrešić), tolnačiti, -im (is-, pre-}; taj oblik postojao je i u panonskoslav., odakle je madž. tanács »savjet«, tanácsolni, a odakle je opet natrag hrv.-kajk. i slov. kao posudenica tanac (ŽK, ŽU, najstarija potvrda 1573-1598) »1° savjet, Rat, Ratschlag, 2° razgovor (ŽK)«, s istim ol > o tonač (Vitezović), tonačiti (se} (Vramec); s denominálom utanačiti, -tànačím pf. »ugovoriti«, pridjev tolnačni, poimeničen na -ik, -ica tolnačnik m prema tolnačnica f »Ratgeber« = tonačnik m (Proroci, Vramec, Vitezović) »savjetnik«, tonaštvo (1648 — 9) »služba tonačnika« = tanačnik (Vitezović, 1573). Osim ovih oblika nalazi se u stcslav. tfakz m = tik psaltira (1463)  »interpretatio, tumačenje«, tako i u bug., ukr. i rus., odatle iz crkvenog jezika tölkovati, -ujem (Vuk) (iz-, pro-}, bug. tuikuvam, tůlkovnik. Rum. tile i glagol na -ujo, > -ui a tîlcui, tîlcovnic »interprêt«, tîlcovanie. Balkanski je turcizam arapskog podrijetla (ar. tergeman > tur. tercüman, terziman) iz turske uredske terminologije terdžuman (bosanske narodne pjesme) = terđžoman (Milićević) = terdžuman m (Kosmet) »tumač«, bug. terdžumaninjtar-, rum. terginan, terziman, čine. tergiuman, apstraktum na -luk tergiumanlicke f. Odatle i evropski turcizam dragoman, koji se i kod nas upotrebljava već u 15. v., arb. dragoman. Oblik tumač = to(l}mač = to(l}nač potječe iz  sjevernoturskih vrela, možda posredstvom Avara (upor. biljeg} < tilmač (kumanski, čagatajski, altajski i ujgurski). Taj turski oblik stoji u vezi s maloazijskim (mitanni) alami, koji se unakrstio sa tur. dil »jezik«. Oblik tlíkb Xsa / od tfom-} u daljoj je vezi sa ar. tergūm »objašnjenje« i dalje sa babilonskim (akadskim) targumanu »interpres«, hetitskim glagolom tarkumai, tarkumiya »tumači«, odatle ar. targuman > tur. tercüman. Upor. za takve veze s Malom Azijom knjiga. Upor. i stir. ad-tluch »zahvaliti«. 
I don't speak BCS, but Skok is also helpful because he cites his sources in detail (Vol. 3, p. 522; a key for the abbreviations you find in Vol. 1, 1971 p. XI-XXXVIII):

Lit.: ARj 2, 751. 4, 57. 73. 7, 858. 11, 756. 767. 12, 459. 464. 18, 77. 78. 228. 450-52. 455-56. 460. 892. 906-908. Elezović 2, 315. 326. Mladenov 629. 632. Mažuranu 1441. Marette 49. NJ 2, 56. MikMič 368. Holub-Ko- респў 386. Bruckner 572. Mladenov 644. Lokotsch 2033. 2073. REW> 8580. Tiktin 1553. 1579. 1589. 1590. Pascu 2, 169. Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter 1915. Stutervant, A Comparativ Grammar of the Hittite Language, Philadelphia, 1933, str. 38. 226. 227., § 457. Budimir, Rad 282, 17. i 19. IČ SAN l, 255- 261. GM 75. Štrekelj, DAW 50, 67. Rešetar, Slávia 8, 638-639. Vaillant, Zlătarii l, 290. WP l, 744. Uhlenbeck, PBB 20, 44. Blankenstein, IF 23, 134. Horák, ASPh 12, 299. Vasmer, RSl 6, 192.


----------



## Maroseika

Freier Fall said:


> I didn't find something about Russian. But did you already consider Skok (Petar Skok: "Etimologijski Rječnik Hrvastkoga ili Srpskoga jezika", Vol. 3,  "poni-Ž",  Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb 1973, p. 521f)?:



Well, as far as I undersand, he also assumes different ways of borrowing for the German and Slavic words and Croatian word is supposed to come from Russian or Hungarian. In this case it coincides with the penetratin the word in Slavic languages from the Eastern Slavic group.
But I also do not speak BCS, so I might miss some important details.


----------



## Freier Fall

Maroseika said:


> Well, as far as I undersand, he also assumes different ways of borrowing for the German and Slavic words and Croatian word is supposed to come from Russian or Hungarian. In this case it coincides with the penetratin the word in Slavic languages from the Eastern Slavic group.


Yes, it did not help a lot for Russian.

At least Skok gives a "praslavenski" or Proto-Slavic note for _tumač_: "sveslav. i praslav. (?) Іьітась (stcslav. пътась) »mterpres«".

But I did not understand, in which context Skok describes the context between _tumač _and _dragoman_, when he says about the 15th century: "Odatle i evropski turcizam dragoman, koji se i kod nas upotrebljava već u 15. v., arb. dragoman." He mentions it is a Balkanic Turcism originating in Arabic (_tergeman_)  over Turkish (_tercüman_, _terziman_), leading to the European Turcism _Dragoman_. And then he continues explaining the genesis of _tumač_, mentioning Avars as possible deliverers of the Turkic (or/and? Turkish) form _tilmač, _for which he enumertaes as languages Cuman, Abkhaz(ian?), Altaic and even Uyghur:

Oblik tumač = to(l}mač = to(l}nač potječe iz sjevernoturskih vrela, možda posredstvom Avara (upor. biljeg} < tilmač (kumanski, čagatajski, altajski i ujgurski). Taj turski oblik stoji u vezi s maloazijskim (mitanni) alami, koji se unakrstio sa tur. dil »jezik«. Oblik tlíkb Xsa / od tfom-} u daljoj je vezi sa ar. tergūm »objašnjenje« i dalje sa babilonskim (akadskim) targumanu »interpres«, hetitskim glagolom tarkumai, tarkumiya »tumači«, odatle ar. targuman > tur. tercüman.
But I don't get the correlation to the form _tlíkb_, which he continues to explain then (mentioning connection with Babylonian-Akkadian and with Hittites) and which is leading to Arabic _targuman _and then turkish _tercüman_, finally resulting in "European" _dragoman_. 

Following Skok's references I looked up this _dragoman _hint in Lokotsch (K. Lokotsch, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der europäischen Wörter orientalischen Ursprungs. Heidelberg, 1927), who describes (paragraph 2033, p. 160) known facts to the Arabic origin:

Ar. _targuman_: 'Ausleger, Dolmetscher' [Vb. _targama _'dolmetschen' aus syr. _targem _'erläutern', vgl. _targum _'Erläuterung, Erklärung'; beachte assyr. _ragamu _'sprechen', _rigmu _'Wort', eigentlich 'schreien, rufen'; Geschrei, Ruf', DelHWB 612a, sowie assyr. _targumanu _'Dolmetsch', ebenda 713a]; hieraus it. it. _dragomanno_, _turcimanno _[mit Anlehnung an _turco _'Türke'], prov. _dragoman_, frz. _dragoman_, _drogman_, _trucheman_, kat.sp. _dragoman_, _trujaman_, pg. _dragoman_, _trugimao_; engl. _dragoman_, dtsch. _Dragoman_, (älter) _Drutzelmann_, _Trutschelmann_; russ. _dragoman_. [DE 351. Equilaz 508, ML 8580, Kluge 96.
I mention it, because Lokotsch does not cite толмач for _Russian _usage, but _dragoman_, but as mentioned I still don't understand the (etymological?) connection between _tumač _and _dragoman_, if there is any_._


----------



## Maroseika

I doubt Skok might mean any kind of kinship of толмач and драгоман. I hope that BCS natives will help us to figure all this out.


----------



## Freier Fall

Maroseika said:


> I doubt Skok might mean any kind of kinship of толмач and драгоман. I hope that BCS natives will help us to figure all this out.


Yes, I agree and share this hope with you.

One remark to the given quotes by Skok (1971-1973, reprint from 1988): I cited him by copying his text from a PDF. In this PDF I find some noticeable mistakes. For instance, for the work of Mladenov from 1941 ("Етимологически и правописен речник на българския  книжовен език") this PDF cited a latin transcription, but instead of "Etimologičeski i pravopisen rečnik na bălgarskija knižoven ezik" (which would be a valid Romanisation) in the PDF they wrote "Etimologičeski i pravopisenb rečnikb na bblgarskija knižovenbezik-ь". I don't know the original print from 1971/1988, but it is possible that there occured lots of mistakles during digitalisation. So when I quoted above the term »mterpres« for example, it is possible that this actually has to be »interpres« and is just a digitalisation error. Not done by me, but earlier, when the PDF document was produced from the 1988 reprint of the 1971(-1973) print.


----------



## Freier Fall

Freier Fall said:


> I mention it, because Lokotsch does not cite толмач for _Russian _usage, but _dragoman_, [...].


It was my fault. I overlooked the record in Lokotsch (Skok erroneously cited Lokotsch with paragraph 2073 instead of the correct paragraph number 2078 - maybe again a digitalisation error in the PDF of Skok's work). There (paragraph 2078, p. 162f.) Lokotsch writes (format and some Diakritika modified by me):

Tk. _timač_: 'Dolmetscher' [osm. veraltet _dilmač _Kelekian Kamus 600, vom Stamme _til_, _dil _'schwatzen, reden, Zunge, Sprache', also čag. _tilmanč_, altaisch _tilmeš_, ujg. _tilmeči _eigentlich 'der Sprecher' > 'Dolmetscher', Vambery TktEtWb S. 175, Nr. 188]; hieraus russ. _tolmač _'dass.', Vb. _tolmacit_, poln. _tlumacz_, čech. _tlumač_, klruss. Vb. _tlmačiti_, _tumačiti_, bulg. _tlъmač_, serb. _tolmač_, _tomač_; rum. _tălmaciu_, Vb. _tălmăci_; mhd. _tolmetsche_, dtsch. _Dolmetsch_, _Dolmetscher_. 
As sources he gives:


[Mikl SlEtWb 369a. Kluge 94. KSz XVII, 122. (Vgl. auch ZfAss VI, 55: kleinasiatische Mitannisprache talami 'Dolmetsch' im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.). 
This means, as expected Lokotsch does not treat _timač _and _dragoman_ as related, but he lists them in separate records (different to Skok). And Lokotsch says, this Word is of "Turkish" (in broader sense) origin. He mentions the obsolet Ottoman expression _dilmač_, which leads back to _til_, _dil _(to talk, tongue, language) and refers to čag. (this is "čagatisch (osttk.)", which possibly points to the Čagatajski kanat) _tilmanč_, to Altaic _tilmeš_, to Uyghur _tilmeči_ which actually means "the speaker" > "Dolmetscher". This (_timač, _I think, he means) then resulted in Russian _tolmač _(same meaning as German 'Dolmetscher'), to the verb _tolmacit_, to Polish _tlumacz_, to Czech _tlumač_, to kleinrussisch (ruthenisch oder ukrainisch) - this means Ruthenian or Ukrainian - _tlmačiti_, _tumačiti_, to Bulgarian _tlъmač_, to Serbian _tolmač_, _tomač_, to Romanian _tălmaciu_ (Verb. tălmăci), to Middle High German _tolmetsche_ and to German _Dolmetsch_, _Dolmetscher_.

I don't know, whether this order even shall give hints to the way the word took from East to West. But if so, this would mean it came from Turcic languages to Russian, to Western and other Eastern Slavic langauges, to Southeastern Slavic languages, to Romanian and finally to German. Hungarian he did not mention at all here. I don't understand why Lokotsch does not mention the root _dil _as being Persian, even though he did in context with the term _dilbär_. (paragraph 519, page 41f, cf. thread Bulgarian: Dilmano, Dilbero, post #16). 

But - back to the subject "Turkic influence on grammar/phonology" - it is interesting, that Lokotsch call upon to compare with the article "kleinasiatische Mitannisprache talami 'Dolmetsch' im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr." (Mitanni language of Asia minor talami 'Dolmetsch' in the 2nd millennium B.C.), published in "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete" (Straßburg, Vol. 6, page 55), which suggests in its title that the word _talami_ of the Mitanni language in Asia minor reaches back to the 2nd. Millennium B.C, being the root of German "Dolmetsch". When it came to the West, though, isn't said with this title only. But maybe it's a good idea to check this mentioned article.


----------



## Freier Fall

Freier Fall said:


> But - back to the subject "Turkic influence on grammar/phonology" - it is interesting, that Lokotsch call upon to compare with the article "kleinasiatische Mitannisprache talami 'Dolmetsch' im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr." (Mitanni language of Asia minor talami 'Dolmetsch' in the 2nd millennium B.C.), published in "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete" (Straßburg, Vol. 6, page 55), which suggests in its title that the word _talami_ of the Mitanni language in Asia minor reaches back to the 2nd. Millennium B.C, being the root of German "Dolmetsch". When it came to the West, though, isn't said with this title only. But maybe it's a good idea to check this mentioned article.


This article (Jensen, P.: "Vorstudien zur Entzifferung des Mitanniis: II", Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete, Volume 6 (1891), page 34-72), cited by Lokotsch, is free available (PDF Download). On page 55, in footnote 1 Jensen says (format slightly modified by me):

Das Vorstehende unverändert im Manuscript. - Bezold. - Dass _talami_ "Dolmetsch" heisst, habe ich im letzten Sommer Herrn Prof. NÖLDEKE mündlich mitgeteilt. Ich habe damals bereits auf eine Verwandtschaft des deutschen, urspr. türkischen (? durch das Slavische zu uns gekommenen) Wortes mit dem mitannischen _talami _als immerhin nicht unmöglich hingewiesen. 
This means, Jensen considered it as possible (in private conservation in 1890; published in 1891), that Mitanni(an) _talami_ (German meaning: "Dolmetsch") led to "Turkish" (Ottoman-Turkish is probably meant) and from "Turkish" (maybe via Slavic, he says with a questionmark) to German. Of course this article is more than 100 years old, but the modern Duden (Vol 7, 1989) still mentions Mitanni _talami _as (possible) root. 

So we got another hint, that the German form probably stands at the end of the row, maybe after "Slavic", and therefore is not suitable to prove Turkic to Proto-Slavic linguistic influences. The source suggests a transfer from "Turkish" to "Slavic", but gives no proof for it and no hint, when this possible transfer might have been happened.


----------



## ahvalj

The word _толмач_ and its relatives must be an old, late Common Slavic, borrowing since the correspondences of the "vowel+_l"_ are those found in inherited words, e. g. _толстый_ (http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/толстый#.D0.AD.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.BB.D0.BE.D0.B3.D0.B8.D1.8F), and point to the proto-form *_tъlmačь_. 

If the original Turkic word had _i_ before _l_ (as suggested in #45), it may suggest some dialectal Slavic mediation, since the change *_il_>_ьl_>_ъl_ in the closed syllables is characteristic of only a part of Slavic dialects, cp. the words for "wolf": Lithuanian _vilkas_, late Common Slavic *_wьlkъ_, Old Church Slavonic _влькъ_, Polish _wilk_, vs. the rest: Old East Slavic _вълкъ_, Macedonian _волк,_ Bulgarian _вълк_, Czech and Slovak _vlk_, BDSM _vuk_, Slovene _volk_. Not all these mergers are ancient (cp. _влькъ_ in OCS vs. its modern descendants _волк_ and _вълк_), but the East Slavic one is, so we may hypothesize that the word was first borrowed to the dialect that had already shifted _ьl_>_ъl_ or did it soon after the borrowing (otherwise Polish would have had **_tilmacz_) but at a period when the Slavic dialects still had _ъl_ unchanged to _ol/łu/lu_ etc., i. e. roughly between the 8th and the 10th centuries.


----------



## Freier Fall

ahvalj said:


> The word _толмач_ and its relatives must be an old, late Common Slavic, [...]


I did not argue against it, but equal how old the Slavic forms should be, the German form seems to be documented first for Middle High German. I add another source (from 1899 though: Friedrich Kluge: "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache", 6th edition, Trübner, Straßburg 1899) stating (page 80), that the word was then documented first in 13th century for German, borrowed from Hungarian or from Slavic in that time (format modified by me):

_Dolmetsch _M. mhd. _tolmetsche tolmetze tulmetsche_: ein türk. Wort (nordtürk. _tilmač_), das durch das Magyar. (_tolmács_) oder Slav. (aslov. _tlumači_, poln. _tłumacz_, böhm. _tlumač_) im 13. Jahrh. ins Mhd. entlehnt ist. Daneben auch _tolc tolke_ (vgl. auch preuß. _tolke_, ndl. _tolk_) 'Dolmetscher' aus lit. _tulkas_, lett. _tulks _'Dolmetscher' (aslov. _tluku _'interpretatio'). 
What we need here, seems to be a detailed Slavic etymology of this word. German borrowing probably does not help to proove an earlier stage than Middle High German times.


----------



## ahvalj

But this word, being an obvious borrowing, cannot have any detailed Slavic etymology. The maximum we can get is a collection of earliest attestations per language. Anyway, I don't think it is of any relevance for the topic question: this, as well as a random set of other Turkic words, doesn't constitute what may be called _influence on grammar/phonology_. Let's take the Ukrainian steppes, populated by Turkics until the 18th century: these people were in constant contact for centuries with the Slavic population, and many became assimilated to Ukrainians, but despite all that there is hardly anything in the Ukrainian phonetics or grammar that can be ascribed to the Turkic substrate/adstrate.


----------



## Freier Fall

ahvalj said:


> But this word, being an obvious borrowing, cannot have any detailed Slavic etymology. The maximum we can get is a collection of earliest attestations per language. Anyway, I don't think it is of any relevance for the topic question: this, as well as a random set of other Turkic words, doesn't constitute what may be called _influence on grammar/phonology_.


I just answered to the argument, that the German borrowing indicates or supports a Turcic to Proto-Slavic indluence (if I understand that argument well). The earliest documentations per language in Slavic use is exact, what is missing here. Whether this can support the subject of this thread or not, is not my idea. It was asked here, what way the Slavic distribution went. And some sources express assumptions. Miklošič (Franz Miklosich: "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen", Braumüller, Vienna 1886), for instance, already in 1886, suggested an order of burrowing (as time for the burrowing into German Miklošič gives explicitly the 13th century) on page 369 (format and some diakritika modified by me):


_tulmači_: asl. _tlъmačь _dolmetsch. nsl. _tolmač_, _tolnač_, _tolmačiti _habd. _tomačiti _trub. b. _tlъmač_. kr. _tlmačiti_, _tumačiti_. s. _tolmač_, _tomač_; _tolmačiti_, _tomačiti_, aus dem magy. č. _tlumač_. _tlumačiti_. _tlumoch_. _tlumočnik_. p. _tłumacz_. os. _tołmač_. wr. _tłumač_, _peretłumačić_, aus dem p. r. _tolmačъ_, _tolmačitь_, _tolmašitь_. - rm. _tęlmač_. magy. _tolmács_. nordtürk. _tilmadž_, _tilmač_. kuman. _tolmač_, _telmač_. "Dolmetsch" ist schon im dreizehnten jahrhundert, wohl aus dem č., aufgenommen worden: in das slav. ist _tulmači _aus dem türk. in der ersten periode eingedrungen. 
Abrreviations: asl.= "altslovenisch", nsl.="neuslovenisch", b.="bulgarisch", kr="kroatisch", s.="serbisch", magy.=Hungarian, p="polnisch", os.="obersorbisch", wr.="weissrussisch", r="russisch", rm="rumunisch", nordtürk.="nordtürkisch". 
This means, Miklošič suggested in 1886 some directions of borrowing amid the Slavic langages. He also sugested, that German borrowed from Czech. And he suggested, that _tulmači _infiltrated from "Turkish" to "Slavic" - as he says - "in the first period".

According to (Helmut Wilhelm Schaller: "Türkische Entlehnungen in den südosteuropäischen Sprachen - Linguistische und kulturhistorische Aspekte". In: Reinhard Lauer & Hans Georg Majer: "Osmanen und Islam in Südosteuropa", Walter de Gruyter, 2013, 193-210, here page 193f) Miklošič examined (Franz Miklosich: „Die türkischen Elemente in den südost- und osteuropäischen Sprachen (Griechisch, Albanisch, Rumänisch, Bulgarisch, Serbisch, Kleinrussisch, Großrussisch, Polnisch)“, in: „Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien/Phil.-hist. Klasse“,  Volume XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVII, Wien 1884) "Turkish" loanwords in the Southeast- as well as in the Easteuropean languages and classified three periods for the influence of Turcic people onto Slavs. The "first period" refers to the time when the Slavs still stayed in their original homeland in Eastern Europe. "Gemeinslawische" loanwords from Turcic languages still witness  loanwords from contacts in this first period. That means these loanwords were adopted before Slavs pushed to the Balkan peninsula in the 6th century:

 Der im 19. Jahrhundert führende Wiener Slawist Franz Miklosich hatte 1884 in einer Untersuchung der türkischen Lehnwörter nicht nur in den südost-, sondern auch in den osteuropäischen Sprachen drei Perioden der Einflussnahme türkischer Völker auf die Slawen angesetzt, wobei die erste Periode auf die Zeitspanne zurückgeht, als die Slawen noch in ihrer Urheimat in Osteuropa saßen. Von diesen Berührungen zeugen noch Lehnwörter aus Turksprachen, die als gemeinslawisch zu betrachten sind, die also übernommen wurden, bevor die Slawen im 6. Jahrhundert im Rahmen ihrer Wanderungsbewegung auf die Balkanhalbinsel vorstießen. 
 
You may judge or discuss, whether this source still can be used, whether this declaration "in the first period" (before 6th century) is helpful for the subject of this thread or not. I don't know it. But maybe Miklošič(as cited above) helps here.


----------



## ahvalj

As I have outlined in #49, the phonetic laws require a pretty narrow chronological range for this word within Slavic: if it were borrowed before the East Slavic (or similar) change _il_>_ul_, we would have got **_tilmacz_ in Polish, if it were borrowed (or spread further into other Slavic dialects) after the 11th century, we wouldn't have got the actual regular correspondences of _ol/l/lu_ etc., i. e. the later East Slavic _толмач(ь)_ couldn't have produced the attested West and South Slavic variants and vice versa.

The attestation in written sources doesn't necessarily help, because this word may have meant a special kind of translator or be stylistically colored (both are true e. g. for Russian, where _толмач_ is not a standard word).


----------



## Freier Fall

ahvalj said:


> As I have outlined in #49, the phonetic laws require a pretty narrow chronological range for this word within Slavic: if it were borrowed before the East Slavic (or similar) change _il_>_ul_, we would have got **_tilmacz_ in Polish, if it were borrowed (or spread further into other Slavic dialects) after the 11th century, we wouldn't have got the actual regular correspondences of _ol/l/lu_ etc., i. e. the later East Slavic _толмач(ь)_ couldn't have produced the attested West and South Slavic variants and vice versa.
> 
> The attestation in written sources doesn't necessarily help, because this word may have meant a special kind of translator or be stylistically colored (both are true e. g. for Russian, where _толмач_ is not a standard word).


Here is, what Miklošič said to this question (Franz Miklosich: „Die  türkischen Elemente in den südost- und osteuropäischen Sprachen  (Griechisch, Albanisch, Rumänisch, Bulgarisch, Serbisch, Kleinrussisch,  Großrussisch, Polnisch) - Zweite Hälfte)“, Volume XXXV, Wien 1884), on page 75:


tilmadž [...]tilmadž, dilmadž, nordt. Dolmetsch. 
aslov. _tlъmačь_. nslov. _tolmač_, _tolnač_. bulg. _tlъmač_. kroat. _tlmačiti_ bei Stipan Consul neben _tumačiti_. russ. _tolmačъ_. poln. _tłumacz_. čzech. _tlumač_. _tlumočnik_. rum. _tęlmač_. kuman. _telmač, tolmač (talamači)_ torcimanus 105. 286. 289. 327. magy. _tolmács_. nordt. _tilmäč_ Radl. 243. jak. _tülbas_. serb. _tolmač_, _tomač_ ist aus dem magy., wie _tolkovati_ aus dem russ. entlehnt. Mit aslov. _tlъkъ_, russ. _tolkъ_, mhd. _tolk_, _tolke_ (_tolk_ ist lit. _tulkas_), darf _tlъmač__ь_ nicht zusammengestellt werden. Das Wort ‚Dollmetsch‘ ist schon gegen Ende des XIII. Jahrhunderts in das Deutsche aus dem Slavischen, wohl aus dem Čechischen, aufgenommen worden. Wann ist das Wort in das Slavische eingedrungen? Die Verbreitung desselben bei allen slavischen Völkern und die Veränderung des _tilmadž_ nach den slavischen Lautgesetzen spricht für die erste Periode. Z. 333. 3 Matzen. 348. 
This means, Miklošič' answer to the question, when the word entered the Slavic language, is as follows: the distribution of the word in all Slavic peoples and the change of _tilmadž _by the Slavic phonetic laws speaks for the "first period" (before the beginning Balkan settlement of Slavs of 6th century).

It's the meaning and finding of the 19th century's leading Slavist. Of course this is only the history of one special term. And it's not about "influence on pronunciation and grammar". But you can read more in Miklosich 1884 about the subject. As for me, I consider this publication of Miklošič as relevant for our issue.


----------



## Freier Fall

ahvalj said:


> Anyway, I don't think it is of any relevance for the topic question: this, as well as a random set of other Turkic words, doesn't constitute what may be called _influence on grammar/phonology_. Let's take the Ukrainian steppes, populated by Turkics until the 18th century: these people were in constant contact for centuries with the Slavic population, and many became assimilated to Ukrainians, but despite all that there is hardly anything in the Ukrainian phonetics or grammar that can be ascribed to the Turkic substrate/adstrate.



I am no linguist. And you are right of course, it is a difference, whether we find a more or less high amount of borrowing/loaning word forms, or if we even find fertile adoptions of grammar elements (as from French to German with the construction "-ieren" for example). But since the discussion about single loan forms has been started here it might be useful to mention, what Schaller (2013, cited above, page 195, footnote 5) underlined: loanwords serve as objective criteria for the intension of foreign influences on the adopting populations, especially when historical sources are missing (which applies most for the "first period", I guess):

_Die Lehnwörter sind objektives Kriterium für die Intensität der fremden Einflüsse, denen das nehmende Volk ausgesetzt war, besonders wenn es keine historischen Quellen gibt._ 
And the example and "favorite word" of Daniel.N, _tumač_, which he carried in this thread, is not only explicitly mentioned as loan example of the "first period" sensu Miklošič by Miklošič (1885, as cited above). Miklošič even builds his classification of the three periods of influence of turcic tribes onto Slavs on only a small amount of exactly such examples (as far as I can judge as laiman) as _tumač_ is (Franz Miklosich: „Die  türkischen Elemente in den südost- und osteuropäischen Sprachen  (Griechisch, Albanisch, Rumänisch, Bulgarisch, Serbisch, Kleinrussisch,  Großrussisch, Polnisch: Erste Hälfte)“, in: „Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen  Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien/Phil.-hist. Klasse“,  Volume XXXIV, Wien 1884, page 3f):

Nach dem Zeugnisse der Sprachgeschichte haben die zahlreichen, unter verschiedenen Namen auftretenden türkischen Stämme auf die Slawen in drei von einander abstehenden Perioden eingewirkt.
Zuerst geschah dies in den ersten Jahrhunderten unserer Zeitrechnung, bevor die slavischen Völker von dem Wandertrieb nach dem Westen ergriffen wurden. In ihrer osteuropäischen Heimat hatten die Slaven im Osten türkische Völker zu Nachbarn. In dieser Zeit und in diesem Lande fand in die slavischen Sprachen das Wort _klobuk_ Eingang: aslov. _klobuk__ъ_, pileus. nsl. kroat. serb. _klobuk_. čech. _klobúk_ (_koblúk_). oserb. _kłobuk_. nserb. _kłobuk_, _kłobyk_. poln. _kłobuk_. russ. _klobuk__ъ_. Das Wort beruht auf dem türkischen kalpak [...], Mütze, oder einer diesem zu Grunde liegenden Form. Das hohe Alter der Entlehnung ergibt sich aus der nach den slavischen Lautgesetzen veränderten Form und aus dem Umstande, dass das Wort allen slavischen Sprachen bekannt ist: die weite Verbreitung desselben wird nur durch die Voraussetzung erklärbar, das Wort sei zu jener Zeit aufgenommen worden, wo die noch wenig zahlreichen Slaven ein Ganzes bildeten. Dasselbe Wort ward etwa ein Jahrtausend später aus der Sprache der osmanischen Türken entlehnt, ohne jedoch seine Form zu verändern und ohne wie _klobuk_ zu allen slavischen Stämmen zu dringen: bulg. serb. rum. _kalpak_. magy. _kalpag_. ngriech. [...]. lit. _kalpokas_. _klobuk__ъ_ ist nicht das einzige in jener Zeit aus dem Türkischen entlehnte Wort. Das persische _tabar_, _tavar_, _teber_, _tebr_, Hacke, Messer, Axtstock, dem armen. _topar_ gegenübersteht,.ist durch ein türkisches Medium allen Slaven mitgetheilt worden: aslov. _topors_, Axt. _topori__šte_, Handhabe. nslov. topor, _topori__šče_. bulg. _topor_. russ. _topor__ъ_, _topori__šče_. čech. _topor_, _topori__šte_. poln. _topor_, _toporzysko_. oserb. _toporo_, _topori__šćo_. Ebenso magy. _topor_. kuman. _taouar_. Kún 326. Man beachte auch kurd. _tefer_, _tevir_. 
Die zweite Periode, in der türkisches Sprachgut in das Slavische aufgenommen wurde, beginnt in der zweiten Hälfte des siebenten Jahrhunderts mit der Unterjochung der slovenischen Bewohner des rechten Ufers der unteren Donau durch die türkischen Bulgaren. [...] 
Die dritte Periode beginnt mit der bleibenden Festsetzung der Türken in Europa um die Mitte des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts. In diese Zeit fallen die zahlreichsten Entlehnungen der hier in Frage kommenden Sprachen aus dem Türkischen. 
Even though about 130 years old, these finding or theory of Miklošič is still newsworthy (cf. Schaller 2013, as cited above, page 194, footnote 3). Whether you use it to try a proof, that such a small amount of loan words in the "first period" shows, that probably no significant influence in grammar existed, or to try a proof, that such early influences affected the small and complete entity of Slavic speakers at once: in any case it's helpful to know that linguistic relevant contacts existed between Turcic people and Slavs before 6th century. And that later contacts left different traces, discriminable from the specifics of the first period Miklošič. So if we don't have evidence for influence of grammar, but we find loanwords, this is a result, too.

Addendum: Beside his lexicalic works Miklošič also published in 1890 an article (Franz Miklosich: "Über die Einwirkung des Türkischen auf die Grammatik der südosteuropäischen Sprachen", Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften / philosophisch-historische Classe, Volume 120 (Jahrgang 1889), Wien 1890, page 1-12), dealing with the influence of Türkish on the grammar od Southeuropean languages. He says (page 1):

Die Einwirkung der Türken auf ihre Nachbarn beschränkt sich nicht auf Wörter, sie umfasst auch die Grammatik und sociale und staatliche Einrichtungen.
Was die Grammatik anbelangt, so sind hier einige Erscheinungen der Stamm- und Wortbildungslehre und der Syntax zu behandeln. 
Even though this probably mainly or maybe even exclusively refers to the "third period" sensu Miklošič (he did not mention, when these grammatical influences happened in his view), I'd like to post it here for further reading.
According to influence on pronounciation I want to add, what Schaller said (as cited above, p. 199f):

Im Gegensatz zu den türkischen Lehnwörtern im Bulgarischen, die lautlich und morphologisch weitgehend adaptiert wurden, weisen diese im früheren Serbokroatischen und seinen heutigen Nachfolgesprachen eine konservativere Lautgestalt auf, was sich wohl auf ganz bestimmte historische Voraussetzungen zurückführen lässt. Die Bulgaren standen in engem Kontakt zu den Osmanen, der isch bis ins 19. Jahrhundert hinein fortsetzte. In Bosnien zeigte die islamische Herrenschicht dagegen einen konservativen Sprachgebrauch, so dass auch die Lehnwörter dort einem älteren Zustand des Türkischen entsprechen als dies im Bulgarischen der Fall ist. 
This means, it's necessary to know the specific conditions (historical, social, ...), which influenced the evolution of loanwords in different regions, social classes, in urban and rural conditions and so on. For me this means, we have to rely on elaborated results in scientific sources to the subject. Own layman's or semi-layman's considerations easily can mislead here.


----------



## Freier Fall

Freier Fall said:


> Z. 333. 3 Matzen. 348.


fwimc: main source for Miklošič's record (Miklosich 1884, p. 75, as cited above) was: Ant. Matzenauer: "Cizí slova ve slovanských řec̆ech" (~Loanwords in the Slavic speeches), Nákladem Matice moravskě, Brno 1870, page 348. Additional records (Arabic e.g.) came from Julius Theodor Zenker: "Türkisch-arabisch-persisches Handwörterbuch", Vol. 1 (Elif - Hâ), Engelmann, Leipzig 1866, page 333, column 3.


Freier Fall said:


> vom Stamme _til_, _dil _'schwatzen, reden, Zunge, Sprache', also čag. _tilmanč_, altaisch _tilmeš_, ujg. _tilmeči _eigentlich 'der Sprecher' > 'Dolmetscher', Vambery TktEtWb S. 175, Nr. 188]; [...] I don't understand why  Lokotsch does not mention the root _dil _as being Persian, even though he did in context with the term _dilbär_. (paragraph 519, page 41f, cf. thread Bulgarian: Dilmano, Dilbero, post #16).


Lokotsch' source is: Hermann Vámbéry: "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Turko-Tatarischen Sprachen; ein Versuch zur Darstellung des Familienverhältnisses des Turko-Tatarischen Wortschatzes", Brockhaus, Leipzig 1878, page 175, paragraph 188 (_Til_, _dil_), where he gives records for "uig."="uigurisch" (Uyghur), "čag."="čagataisch" (Chagatay), "kir.".?="Kirgisisch", "alt."="altaisch" (Altaic), "osman."="osmanisch" (Ottoman), "jak."="jakutusch" (Yakut), "kk."="koibal-karagassisch", "ćuv."="ćuvasisch" (Chuvash), "kaz."="kazanisch". I won't post the full record here, but it states the connection for instance in Uyghur, Chagatay, and Altaic:

_Til_, _dil_, Zunge, Sprache, Wort, reden, verlangen, bitten, betteln. 
_uig.   til _= Zunge, Sprache; _tilek_=Verlangen, Wunsch; tilekći=Bettler; tilekli=der ein Verlangen hat; tilmeći=Dolmetsch (eigentl. Sprecher).
čag.  til, tilek (wie oben); tilći=Spion, Berichterstatter: tilemek=reden, verlangen; tilenmek=sich etwas wünschen, betteln; tilmanć=Dolmetsch; tilmürmek=mit Verlangen nach etwas blicken.
[...]
alt.    tilmeś=Dolmetsch; tilmeśte=übersetzen, verdolmetschen; tilbilen, tilbirke=sehnsuchtsvoll sein oder blicken
[...] ​


----------



## Freier Fall

Maroseika said:


> As for the Slavic cognates of Russian толмач, I don't know exact direction and time of the borrowings. Maybe somebody here knows?


Probably I should have opened a new or searched an existing thread concerning толмач to add my comments according to its etymology here. As *ahvalj* already said, the value of the knowledge about loaning does not lead directly to our subject "All Slavic languages: Turkic influence on grammar/phonology". However, once started, I want to add an etymological record of an online database, complied recently (The tower of bable) by a Russian linguist (Sergej Starostin†):


Word: толма́ч,
Near etymology: род. п. -а́, _толма́чить_ "переводить", укр. _товкма́чити_ -- то же (под влиянием _толк_), др.-русск. _тълмачь_ "переводчик, толмач", _толмач_ (часто в XVI--XVII вв., Сказ. Мам. поб. 2; см. Шамбинаго, ПМ 9; Гагара 78; Котошихин и др.), хорв.-глаголич. _тльмачь_, болг. _тълма́ч_,  сербохорв. ту́ма̑ч, род. п. тума́ча, тума́чити, 1 л. ед. ч. ту̀ма̑чи̑м,  словен. tolmáč, tolmáčiti, 1 л. ед. ч. tolmȃčim, чеш. tlumač,  tlumočiti, слвц. tlmač, tlmоčit᾽, польск. tɫumacz, tɫumaczyć, в.-луж.  tоɫmаč, toɫmačić.​ Further etymology: Слав.  *tъlmačь является древним заимств. из тюрк.; ср. кыпч. tylmač, казах.  tilmäš, тел., алт. tilmäč, тур. dilmač, уйг. tilmäži (см. Радлов 3,  1091, 1390, 1770); ср. Юркянкаллио, Studiа Orientalia, Хельсинки, 1952,  17, I и сл.; Мi. ЕW 369; ТЕl. 2, 177; Младенов 644. Первоисточник всех  этих слов ищут в языке митанни -- talami "переводчик, толмач"  (см. Клюге-Гётце 109; Юркянкаллио, там же). Тюрк. происхождение  приводимого выше слова предполагает Менгес (Oriental Еlеm. 52). Из  какого-либо зап.-слав. языка или из венг. tolmács заимств. ср.-в.-н.  tolmetsche, нов.-в.-н. Dolmetsch -- то же; см. Клюге-Гётце, там же;  Локоч 162. Местн. н. укр. _Толмач_, польск. Тɫumасz, в Галиции (Барсов, Мат. 199), явно происходит от тюрк. племенного названия Тоlmаč; см. выше, _толковины_.​ Trubachev's comments: [Немет  ("Асtа Orientalia Hung.", 8, 1958, стр. 1 и сл.) в специальной работе  оспаривает этимологию Юркянкаллио, принимая во внимание толкование  Ларошем митаннийск. tal(a)mi-= "большой", и предполагает происхождение  из печенежск., ср. тюрк. tïl/til "язык". -- _Т_.]​I don't speak Russian, but it is first time I read the name (Wilhelm Radloff) in context with the etymoloy of толмач. Maybe you can find more about the direction and time of the borrowings, when you follow the sources given by "The Tower Of Bable".

To sum up: As *ahvalj* already pointed out, the Slavic "phonetic laws require a pretty narrow chronological range for this word within Slavic". This argument was already used by Miklošič (1884, 1885), explicitly in combination with the argument of the distribution of the word in all Slavic peoples. As far as we know, the "first period", Miklošič refers to, starts before 6th century. This is how old this loaning into slavic should be. As first record of loaning into German in contrast Miklošič gives the end of 13th century, maybe from Czech, other sources mentioned Hungarian. This is quite early, too, but hundreds, maybe about thousand years after Slavic burrowing of the word.

About the "exact direction and time of the borrowings" within Slavic I did not find a source, clarifying it. 

About the relevance of loan words for Turkic influence on grammar of (all) Slavic languages again Miklošič provided an early work (1890), but does not give time specifications. 

About Turkic influence on phonetics or even phonology of (all) Slavic languages I did not find any sources at all.


----------



## arn00b

I just wanted to add a few notes to the discussion.

A lot of times, the influence of Turkish is overstated.  "Turkish-influence" is a term used to describe a broad range of phenomena that might mean other Turkic-influence (Tatar, Mongolian), someone else possibly Turkic (Avar, Hun, Scythian), Finno-Ugric, Magyar and so on, and sometimes it is pure coincidence.   Sometimes these Turkic influences precede the Ottoman state, or even the Slavic migration to Europe, so it cannot be called "Turkish."

The Ottoman empire did influence neighbouring countries, but mostly with vocabulary.  It brought a lot of Persian/Arabic words to other places, but since the Turkic-based vocabulary was a minority, not all of these words could be called "Turkish."

To go back to the coincidences - the ones I see cited the most are the lack of "to be" in Russian (on est, ja jsem) and "odd" use of "I have".

In Russian, "Ja Russkii" "On Russkii" are complete sentences, not requiring a form of byt'.   Supposedly, Turkish is like that too.. Except it isn't.

"O Rus" is the short form, but the full form is "O Rustur" and in all forms the verb "to be" is there.  Sen Russun, (You are a Russian), Ben Russum (I am a Russian) and so on.

Arabic has the same structure (not needing a "to be")  Ena Rusi (I am a Russian, literally: I - Russian)  Enta Rusi (You are a Russian, literally: You - Russian).
This is not a Turkish influence.  Some languages are just like that.  This is a coincidence.  Proximity and history mean nothing when Arabic has writings using this way before Turks came to the Middle East....  

Now the "u menja est"  part.  As someone explained before me, in Turkish it is "mine exists" whereas Russian is "at/by me there is"
Arabic has the same usage as Russian "عندي تلفزيون"   
'indi telefizyon - almost meaning "near me is a television" - not a perfect translation but " 'ind " can be used as "nearby" in some versions of Arabic.
An older form of "I have something is"   -  "Li telefizyon"  which is "to me, a television"  (missing both "to be" and "to have" in one phrase)
In Russian this would be "мне телевизор" 

This is just to illustrate coincidence.  It is certainly not Turkish influence.  Saying something like that in Turkish would sound weird, just as it sounds weird in English.

Russian goes the extra step and does things such as "u menja mama umrla"  - Arabic, Turkish, BCS all do "my mother has died"  - and you would assume that Russians would have something like "moja mama umrla" (which is correct)... but to use "u menja" is very odd and this cannot be attributed to Turkish.

For reference: Turkish: (Benim) annem öldü ( My mum died).

Russian does seem to have some structures that are not in sync with the rest of the Slavic or European languages, but this cannot be attributed to the Ottoman state.  They could be the influence of any number of other people, they could have their roots in Proto-Slavic or they could have developed natively.    And coincidences happen...


----------



## Tesnogrydo plqmpalo

@Christo Tamarin

Христо съжалявам, че трябва да си говорим в чужд форум, но все пак искам да ти кажа някои неща. Всъщност някои от тях в по-различен вид казва и arn00b.

Така като те чета, оставам с впечатление, че си езиковед. В езикознанието има редица митове, както в други науки, а пък ние се намираме точно във века, когато заблудите се рушат и паралелно се творят нови. 

Това влияние на турският върху българският се надценява. Ще попреразкажа д-р Чилингиров, макар да не съм съвсем съгласен с всичко, което казва.

Когато пристигат тук, те са просто една дрипава шайка от получовеци. По същото време нашите деди са били високо културни, далеч над средното за Европа тогава. Та колко са можели тези жалки, изстрадали душици да ни повлияят? И са били десетки, ако не стотици пъти по-малко от нас.

Но Чилингиров прави съвсем емпирично наблюдение. Повечето от тези хиляда, осем хиляди или един милион „заемки“ посочени като турцизми от речника, в турският речник пише, че са… заемки в турският от персийски. 

Схващаш на къде бия. Турците не са ги дали. Те дори не са били дори проводник. Тези думи са си били тук много преди турчолята да бъдат доведени тук от гърците и останат векове. Ама нямало ги в малкото книги оцелели от тогава. Ами няма ги. Не означава, че не ги е имало тези думи, а само, че няма свидетелство. Но повечето да са турцизми или да са донесени от турците, е абсурдно.

Не ми се нрави и тезата ти, че името Румъния е общобалканско наследство. Кои са единствените латинизирани южни славяни? Те. Е кой трябва да наследи името?

По същият начин за макетата. Това не е моя теза. Да. Д-р Ганчо Ценов я изказва преди столетие. Същите хора живеят на същото място и се казват по същият начин, както по времето на Филип. Е кой трябва да носи името? 

А ама в учебниците пише, че траките били изчезнали от там и заменени от славяни, които на свой ред били се гътнали след век-два, заменени от българи. Само дето няма никакви археологически доказателства за подобни рокади. А да и поне 40% от гените ни са тракийски. На, какво да се обзаложим, че когато там най-после се направи генетично изследване, процента няма да се окаже по-малък, от този на нас българите? Ще се обзаложа дори, че ще е по-висок. Та македонци ли са макетата или не са? И кой точно друг има право на наследство върху Филип, разхайтеното му синче и развратната му щерка?


----------



## Christo Tamarin

@Tesnogrydo plqmpalo:

А бе Вие вярвате ли си или само тесногръдо плямпате?


----------



## Christo Tamarin

The thread was titled in this way: *All Slavic languages: Turkic influence on grammar/phonology*

First, the simple answer of the question in the thread title would be this: *The only case of Turkic influence on grammar/phonology of a Slavic language that can be identified is the renarrative mood in modern Bulgarian/Macedonian.* Most cases of Turkic influence is *on the vocabulary* which initially was not in the scope of the thread. 

Next, such a generalization is inappropriate. There have been many Turkic languages and many different peoples speaking Turkic languages. Please compare: it is inappropriate to generalize Icelandic and Urdu in similar topics based on the fact that both Icelandic and Urdu are IE-languages.

*We have to consider at least three waves*, representing very different languages and different peoples.

The first wave: before the 10th century. 

It is assumed some influence from *Ogur* Turkic language(s) on the Slavic language, basically on the vocabulary. It is worthy to mention the -chi affix (e.g. Russian _казначей_). 

Note_1. I wrote "the Slavic language" because there was a common Slavic language at that time, with its dialects on the different territories, of course.

Note_2. I wrote *Ogur* Turkic language(s). No such languages are actually attested. Hence, we cannot say if they influenced the phonology or the grammar of Slavic.

Note_3. Among the modern Turkic languages, there is just one language, Chuvash, which belongs to the group of the Ogur Turkic languages. This group is sometimes called Bulgar Turkic languages. However, I prefer the neutral term Ogur. On the one hand, if there were at some moment in the past some peoples called Ogurs, using the term "Ogur Turkic languages" does not claim that those hypothetical Ogurs really spoke a language belonging to the group of the Ogur Turkic languages. On the other hand, there might be a greater variety at that time. At that time, there might be several groups of Turkic languages as follows: "Ogur-1", "Ogur-2-preChuvash", "Ogur-3", "NonOgur-0", "NonOgur-1-preOguz", "NonOgur-2-preKipchak", "NonOgur-3-preKarluk", etc., and some of these groups did not survive. 

Note_4. The first way is not limited to Bulgarian or to South Slavic.

The second wave: after the 9th century, before 15th century. 

We have an attested Turkic language here: Cumanic, a Kipchak Turkic languages. No influence can be identified on the phonology or on the grammar of Slavic languages. The vocabulary, of course, experienced some influence (in Russian, e.g.: деньги, таможня, etc). If we consider Bulgarian/Macedonian, no such influence can be identified at all.

The third wave: after the 14th century. 

We have here the influence of Turkish to the South Slavic languages. Turkish is an Oguz Turkic language spoken by Muslims on the Balkans brought to the Balkans through Anatolia. As it has been already mentioned, the renarrative mood in modern Bulgarian/Macedonian can be identified as the only case of Turkic influence on the grammar of a Slavic language. No influence on the phonology can be identified. There was, however, massive influence on the vocabulary.


----------

