Agyagási, Klára

Acta Orientalia

DEA University of Debrecen Electronic Archive

Acta  Orientalia  Academiae  Scientiarum  Hung.  Volume  69  (4),  391 – 396  (2016) DOI: 10.1556/062.2016.69.4.3  0001-6446 / $ 20.00  ©  2016  Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest ON SOME ORIENTAL ELEMENTS IN OLD NOVGORODIAN 1 AND OTHER OLD RUSSIAN DIALECTS 2 KLÁRA AGYAGÁSI 3 University of Debrecen, Faculty of Arts, Institute of Slavic Studies 4 4002 Debrecen, Pf. 400, Hungary 5 e-mail: klara.agyagasi@gmail.com 6 The author is aiming to interpret the historical connection between Old Russian kamka and Old 7 Novgorodian õàìú ‘textile of silk damask’. She comes to the conclusion that the former is a borrow-8 ing from East Old Turkic qamqï, while the latter is a loan from West Old Turkic χamï. Both Old 9 Turkic words are of Chinese origin. 10 Key words: Turkic–Russian language contact, Volga Bulgarian, West Old Turkic loanwords in Rus-11 sian, Wanderworts of Oriental origin. 12  13 The focus of the present paper is on the word meaning ‘silky Chinese textile; variegated 14 woven linen; damask’, which has been known in a variety of forms in East Old 15 Turkic and Old Russian sources since the 12th century onward, as well as in modern 16 Turkish and its regional dialects, while its derived forms can be traced in regional dia-17 lects of Russian. This word is found in Russian, designating an expensive trade item 18 brought from far away, having been borrowed into Old Russian from Old Turkic, 19 where, however, it was an earlier borrowing from the Orient. It is enough to call back 20 the history of the Russian words žemčug ‘mother-of-pearl’ (cf. Dobrodomov 1966, 21 pp. 57–64; Menges 1970, pp. 94–100; Róna-Tas – Berta 2011, pp. 402–404) or kniga 22 ‘book’ (cf. Kniezsa 1955, p. 872; Dobrodomov 1971; Komoróczy 1976, pp. 28–29; 23 Trubačev 1987, pp. 203–204; Agyagási 1994; Róna-Tas – Berta 2011, pp. 590–593).1 24 However, while in these examples the source dialect of Old Turkic can be identified 25 with reasonable certainty only as Bulgar Turkic (or, using a more modern designation, 26  1 For the history of research regarding Oriental elements of the Russian lexicon until 1970, see Dobrodomov – Romanova (1970), for the words of Turkic origin from later on, see Dobrodo-mov (1976; 1985); Šipova (1976); Vásáry (2013; 2016); Agyagási (2015).   392 KLÁRA AGYAGÁSI Acta Orient. Hung. 69, 2016 the Ogur dialect of West Old Turkic), in the case of the word under investigation I want 1 to argue for multiple sources of the Russian variants of the word.  2  The history of the Russian word kamka was first mentioned by Ogienko 3 (1915/2015, p. 29) in the Russian literature on lexicology, who lists it together with 4 words that, according to him, were borrowed into Russian from Persian at various 5 times, but he does so without providing the Persian form in question. Šipova (1976, 6 pp. 156–156) discusses the historic occurrences of the Russian word kamka, specifi-7 cally detailing those from the 18th century, quoting Ogienko’s opinion about the Per-8 sian origin of the word, but without expressing her individual stance regarding the 9 details of the borrowing process. The second, Russian language edition of Vasmer’s 10 dictionary (Fasmer 1986/2, pp. 174–175) states that the source of the Russian word 11 could be any of the known Turkic languages, where the word can be regarded to be 12 of Chinese origin. But he does not provide the original Chinese source of the word.  13  The geographical distribution of the forms meaning ‘damask’ and the etymol-14 ogically likely related variant forms were analysed in earlier Orientalist research.2 15 The earliest occurrence of the word is in Arabic language sources: Ḫurdāδbih (8th cen-16 tury) kimḫā ‘soie damassée’; Balāδurī (892) kīmḫāw ‘soie damassée’; Ṭabarī (10th 17 century) kamḫāna ‘pannus sericus’ (cf. Doerfer 1967, p. 603). After a hiatus of a few 18 centuries, it occurs in Persian: kimḫā (1401) ‘Brokat der Arten Nasīğ’ (Doerfer 1967, 19 p. 603). In the correspondence of the emperors of the Ming dynasty and Timurid Šāh-20 ruḫ it is found in two variant Persian forms with two different meanings: kamḫā or 21 kamḫāb ‘pannus pictus unius coloris’, and kimḫā or kimḫāb ‘pannus pictus versi-22 color; silk worked with gold or silver flowers, brocaded silk, brocade, velours’ (Doer-23 fer 1967, p. 604).  24  Beginning with the early 14th century (following Marco Polo’s journey to 25 China), it appears in several languages of mediaeval Europe (French camocas and its 26 variants, Italian camucca, English camaca, mediaeval Latin camoca, Spanish camo-27 can, camucan ‘textile of silk damask woven in all colours, sometimes with stripes of 28 gold and silver, the designs mainly birds’ (Pelliot 1959, pp. 145–146). It is known in 29 Greek (καμουχάς), in the Balkan languages, in Georgian (χanχa ‘Gewebe’; k‘amχa 30 ‘Art Seidengewebe’), and from the 18th century onward variants of the word also 31 appeared in India (Hindi kamkhvāb, Bengali kimkhvāb ‘gold brocade’: Pelliot 1959, 32 pp. 145–147), from where it was borrowed into Tibetan and Malay (Doerfer 1967, 33 pp. 604–605). 34  As can be seen, the various variants of the word are found all over Eurasia, in 35 a web of borrowing processes acting in various directions. All variants of the word 36 can be traced back to two forms: kimḫā and kamḫā, and the word may or may not 37 have a syllable-final b at the end. Both Pelliot (1959, p. 147) and Doerfer (1967, pp. 38 604–605) concluded that the ultimate source of these forms is Chinese. After a lengthy 39 discussion, criticising and finally rejecting the results of earlier Sinologist research 40 regarding Chinese words meaning ‘damask, brocade, silk’, Pelliot opts for Y. Yule’s 41  2 I am grateful to Imre Hamar and Gábor Kósa for making the Orientalist literature cited be-low available to me.    ORIENTAL ELEMENTS IN OLD NOVGORODIAN AND OTHER OLD RUSSIAN DIALECTS 393  Acta Orient. Hung. 69, 2016 explanation as the most plausible. Accordingly, the forms borrowed into the various 1 languages of the Eurasian region are closest to the Chinese expression chin-hua 2 (*kÇäm-χwa) ‘gold flower’, which had gone through a series of semantic changes 3 since the 9th century. The word became the designation of valance in Southern China, 4 where Arabic and Persian merchants became familiar with it. Following its Chinese 5 pronounced form, they probably wrote it down as kīmḫāw (Pelliot 1959, pp. 149–6 150). However, the Cantonese pronunciation of the first part of the compound was 7 kam (Pelliot 1959, p. 148), which form must have found its way to the west through 8 other merchants. This would explain the two parallel phonetic variants of the word in 9 the languages of Eurasia. 10  Both researchers attempted to provide a detailed explanation for the historical 11 relationship of the forms occurring in many languages of the enormous Eurasian 12 region. They agreed that the main mediatory language was Persian, which could have 13 transmitted both phonetic variants. They also agreed that the word was borrowed into 14 Turkic and Slavic languages via Persian, but Pelliot also provides a detailed train of 15 thought as an explanation: in his opinion, borrowing via Persian had to be posited 16 because there was not a single Old Turkic source, beginning with Kāšγari through 17 Uygur to the Mongol Period, which historically documented the result of the direct 18 borrowing from Chinese into Turkic and from Turkic into Slavic. 19  At this juncture, I would like to return to the original train of thought of Pel-20 liot’s paper to specify Pelliot’s stance, since after his work had been published, an 21 East Old Turkic written source using Uygur writing (from the 12th–14th centuries) 22 was found in which the word in question occurred. It was first published in the Drev-23 netjurkskij slovar’, ten years after Pelliot’s work. Also, the Old Novgorodian birch 24 bark charter has become widely known only recently, which contains the investigated 25 word dating from the 14th century and can be directly connected with the Old Turkic 26 variant. The data are as follows:  27 Turkic data: 28 East Old Turkic (12th–14th centuries) qamqï ‘kamka, šelkovaja materija’ (DTS p. 29 416); Saγay kamġï ‘kamka, kitajskaja šelkovaja materija’ (Radlov 1893–1911, II, p. 30 490); Alt., Tel., Kir. kamka ‘id.’ (Radlov ibid.); Kirg. kamka ‘kitajskij šelk’ (Yudahin 31 1966); Crimean Tatar kimxa ‘damast, šelkovaja materija’ (Radlov II, p. 1405); Kazan 32 Tat. kamka (ust.) ‘kamka’ (TRS 1966, p. 219); Bashk. qamqa ‘raznovidnosť kitaj-33 skogo šelka’ (Uraksin 1996, p. 344); Turkish kemha ‘rod šelkovoj tkani’ (TRS 1977, 34 p. 531). 35 Slavic data: 36 Old Novgorodian (cca. 1310–1330) õàìú ‘polotno’ (Zaliznjak 2004, p. 541); Old 37 Russian (1486) ÊÀÌÊÀ ‘šelkovaja cvetnaja tkan’ s uzorami’ (Sreznevskij 1989, I, pp. 38 1186–1187); (15th–16th century ~ 1472) ÊÀÌÊÀ ‘šelkovaja cvetnaja uzorčataja tkan’’ 39 (Filin 1980, p. 48); Russian dial. хамовник (star.) ‘tkač, polotnjanščik, skatertnik’; 40 хамовное (дело) ‘tkackoe, polotnjanoe i branoe’ (Daľ 1881/1989 Vol. IV, p. 542) 41 Missing from the References.  394 KLÁRA AGYAGÁSI Acta Orient. Hung. 69, 2016  Polish (15th–17th centuries) kamcha ‘nazwa drogiej materji, adamaszku’ 1 (Brückner 1957, p. 215); bolg. kámúha ‘edinstroj koprinjana tkan’ (Gerov 1976, p. 2 344). 3  4   The East Old Turkic word qamqï can be the directly borrowed variant of the 5 Chinese chin (*kÇäm-χwa) (pronounced in the Cantonese way) plus ch’i (*k’jie)3 com-6 bined as a compound, with the meaning ‘brocade’. This word, however, was borrowed 7 directly not only into East Old Turkic but also into West Old Turkic. Although the lat-8 ter is not documented in early written sources, the speakers of this variety of Old 9 Turkic got into direct contact with several communities speaking a wide range of 10 other languages between the 5th century and the Mongol invasion of Europe. The 11 lexical items borrowed from these languages were mostly retained in the languages 12 of the communities they were in contact with. The most detailed source of early West 13 Old Turkic is the group of Old Turkic loanwords in the Hungarian language, recently 14 treated by Róna-Tas and Berta (2011) in detail. Volga Bulgars achieved a prominent 15 role among the speakers of West Old Turkic varieties. From the 10th century onward 16 they controlled the east–west river trade, soon founded their empire, and traded with 17 various peoples themselves, among them the merchants of the Old Novgorodian city 18 state.4 However, since in Chuvash, the language of the only direct descendants of the 19 Volga Bulgars still living today, this word has not been preserved, the West Old Turkic 20 equivalent of East Old Turkic qamqï should be sought in the lexicon of the Old Nov-21 gorodian dialect. 22  In the West Old Turkic equivalent of the 12th–13th-century East Old Turkic 23 form qamqï a q- > χ- change must have taken place, since this change started already 24 in the 7th century (for details, see Róna-Tas – Berta 2011, pp. 1100–1101). The q of 25 the second syllable, however, became voiced and soon underwent spirantisation (q > 26 ġ > γ), and finally it was dropped (γ > Ø). The first part of the process (i.e. the secon-27 dary voicing of the non-first syllable -q) is traceable in one Volga Bulgarian loan-28 word in Old Russian: Volga Bulgarian buraq ‘beer’ > *buraġ > buraγ → Old Russian 29 bъraga ‘id.’, cf. East Old Turkic boza ‘a kind of beer’ (Agyagási 2010). The deletion 30 of the voiced spirant is exemplified by an early West Old Turkic loanword in Hungar-31 ian: West Old Turkic *bergü > *berγü > *berü → Ancient Hungarian bērü (> Hung. 32 bér ‘wage, rent’), cf. East Old Turkic bergü ‘something which ought to be given, gift, 33 tax’ (Róna-Tas – Berta 2011, pp. 115–118).  34  The word-final -ï of the form qamqï could not be preserved when borrowed 35 into Russian for morphological reasons: after having been borrowed, the Turkic word 36 had to fit one of the Old Russian noun classes. However, the Old Russian noun de-37 clension system did not have a class for hard ï-stems. The word occurring on the cited 38 birch bark charter has a -u final genitive partitive case marker, which means that the 39 West Old Turkic/Volga Bulgarian variant was adopted by the speakers of the Old 40  3 In earlier literature, Philips mentioned the existence of such a lexical structure in Chinese (cf. Pelliot 1959, p. 148). 4 Contacts between Volga Bulgarians and Old Novgorodians were also mentioned often-times in the 1st Novgorodian Annals.   ORIENTAL ELEMENTS IN OLD NOVGORODIAN AND OTHER OLD RUSSIAN DIALECTS 395  Acta Orient. Hung. 69, 2016 Novgorodian dialect as a masculine *-ŭ stem, monosyllabic, Class IV noun. Consid-1 ering all this, the history of the borrowing of the West Old Turkic (Volga Bulgarian) 2 word can be reconstructed as follows: 3  West Old Turkic *qamqï ‘silk damask’ > *χamġï > *χamγï > *χamï → Old 4 Novgorodian χamъ ‘damask’. 5  The Old Novgorodian noun, however, did not remain isolated: this Russified 6 stem served as a base for the word xamovnik ‘weaver’, a nomen agentis derived with 7 the Russian ov+nik denominal complex suffix, and the adjectival equivalent of the 8 word was also created by attaching the -ov possessive adjectival derivational suffix to 9 the stem. 10  The variants with the phonological form kamka, attested in other Old Russian 11 dialects from the 15th century onward, were borrowed into Russian either from East 12 Old Turkic or from Persian. If the word is regarded as a later borrowing from the East 13 Old Turkic qamqï, the word-final -ï was replaced by the feminine -a ending, again  14 for morphological reasons. However, if the Persian form kamḫā was the source of the 15 Russian word, a replacement of -ḫ with -k in the second syllable has to be posited. 16 References 17 Agyagási, K. (1994): Weitere Beiträge zur Aufdeckung eines internationalen Wanderwortes (Das 18 Wort ‘Buch’ im Volgagebiet). In: Baldauf, I. – Friedrich, M. (Hrsg.): Bamberger Zentral-19 asienstudien. Konferenzakten ESCAS IV. Bamberg 8–12. Oktober 1991. Berlin, pp. 29–36. 20 Agyagási, K. (2010): Loanwords as Data in Historical Linguistics: An Areal Linguistic Study. In: 21 Agyagási, K. (ed.): Data in Historical Linguistics. Münster (A special issue of Sprachtheorie 22 und germanistische Linguistik, 22.2), pp. 197–222. 23 Agyagási, K. (2015): K ėtimologii čalyj ’seryj – o masti lošadi’ s pozicii areaľnoj lingvistiki. Slavi-24 ca Vol. 44, pp. 31–36. 25 Brückner, A. (1957): Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Kraków. 26 Daľ, V. (1881/1989): Tolkovyj slovar’ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka. 4 vols. Moskva. 27 Dobrodomov, I. G. (1966): O metodah issledovanija drevnejših tjurkizmov v sostave russkogo slo-28 varja (K istorii slova žemčug). Izvestija Akademii nauk SSSR. Serija literatury i jazyka Vol. 29 25, No. 1, pp. 57–64.  30 Dobrodomov, I. G. (1971): Kniga. Russkaja reč’ No. 5, pp. 83–91. 31 Dobrodomov, I. G. (1976): Voprosy hronologii tjurkskih zaimstvovanij v slavjanskih jazykah. So-32 vetskaja tjurkologija No. 6, pp. 24–37. 33 Dobrodomov, I. G. (1985): Bulgarskie zaimstvovanija v drevnerusskom i drugih slavjanskih jazy-34 kah kak istočnik dlja problemy ėtnogeneza čuvašej. In: Pavlov, I. P. (red.): Voprosy istorii 35 čuvašskogo jazyka. Čeboksary, pp. 29–50. 36 Dobrodomov, I. G. – Romanova, G. Ja. (red.) (1970): Bibliografija osnovnoj otečestvennoj literatu-37 ry po izučeniju orientalizmov v vostočnoslavjanskih jazykah. In: Menges (1970, pp. 211–38 238). 39 Doerfer, G. (1967): Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. Unter besonderer Be-40 rücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Ti-41 muridenzeit. Band III. Wiesbaden. 42 DTS: Nadeljaev, V. M. – Nasilov, D. M. – Tenišev, Ê. R. – Ščerbak, A. M. (red.): Drevnetjurkskij 43 slovar’. Leningrad, 1969.  44  396 KLÁRA AGYAGÁSI Acta Orient. Hung. 69, 2016 Fasmer, M. (1986–1987): Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. 4 vols. Perevod s nemeckogo i 1 dopolnenija O. N. Trubačeva. Moskva. 2 Filin, F. P. (gl. red.) (1980): Slovar’ russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. Vyp. 7. Moskva. 3 Gerov, N. (1976): Rečnik na bъlgarskija ezik. Čast vtora. Sofija. 4 Iudahin, K. K. (1965): Kirgizsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. 5 Kniezsa, I. (1955): A magyar nyelv szláv jövevényszavai [The Slavic loanwords in Hungarian].  6 2 vols. Budapest. 7 Komoróczy, G. (1976): A sumer–magyar nyelvrokonítás. Adalékok egy jelenség természetrajzá-8 hoz [Sumerian–Hungarian language affinity. Contributions describing the nature of this 9 phenomenon]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények Vol. 78, pp. 3–38. 10 Menges K. G. (1970): Vostočnye ėlementy v »Slove o polku Igoreve«. Leningrad. 11 Ogienko, I. I. (1915): Inojazyčnye ėlementy v russkom jazyke. Kiev. Reprint: Moskva.  12 Pelliot, P. (1959): Notes on Marco Polo. Vol. I. (Ouvrage posthume, publié sous les auspices de 13 l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres et avec le Concours du Centre National de la 14 Recherche Scientifique). Paris, pp. 145–150. 15 Radlov, V. V. (1893–1911): Opyt slovarja tjurkskih narečij. 4 vols. Sankt-Peterburg.  16 Róna-Tas, A. – Berta, Á. (2011): West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian. 2 vols. Wies-17 baden. 18 Sreznevskij, I. I. (1989): Slovar’ drevnerusskogo jazyka. 4 vols. Reprintnoe izdanie. Moskva.  19 Šipova, E. N. (1976): Slovar’ tjurkizmov v russkom jazyke. Alma-Ata. 20 TatRS (1966): Osmanov, N. N. (red.): Tatarsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. 21 TRS (1977): Baskakov, A. N. – Golubeva, N. P. – Kjamileva, A. A. – Ljubimov, K. M. – Salimzja-22 nova, F. A. – Jusipova, R. R. (red.): Turecko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. 23 Trubačev, O. N. (1987): Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskih jazykov. Vyp. 13. Moskva.  24 Uraksin, Z. G. (red.) (1996): Baškirsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. 25 Vásáry, I. (2013): Integration of Turkic Loan Words with Final Plosives (-k/-g) into the Russian 26 Grammatical Paradigm. Turkic Languages Vol. 17, pp. 197–215. 27 Vásáry, I. (2016): Medieval Russian Terms for ‘Armor’ of Oriental Origin. In: Zimonyi, I. – Kara-28 tay, O. (eds): Central Eurasia in the Middle Ages. Studies in Honor of Peter B. Golden. 29 Wiesbaden, pp. 435–445. 30 Zaliznjak, A. A. (2004): Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. Vtoroe izdanie, pererabotannoe s učetom ma-31 teriala nahodok 1995–2004 gg. Moskva. 32  33 

On some oriental elements in old Novgorodian and other old Russian dialects

Klára Agyagási

Crossref

On some oriental elements in Old Novgorodian and other Old Russian dialects

AKJournals (Akadémiai Kiadó)

Repository of the Academy's Library

Acta  Orientalia  Academiae  Scientiarum  Hung.  Volume  69  (4),  391 – 396  (2016) DOI: 10.1556/062.2016.69.4.3  0001-6446 / $ 20.00  ©  2016  Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest ON SOME ORIENTAL ELEMENTS IN OLD NOVGORODIAN AND OTHER OLD RUSSIAN DIALECTS KLÁRA AGYAGÁSI Institute of Slavic Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Debrecen 4032 Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1., Hungary e-mail: klara.agyagasi@gmail.com The author is aiming to interpret the historical connection between Old Russian kamka and Old Novgorodian õàìú ‘textile of silk damask’. She comes to the conclusion that the former is a borrow-ing from East Old Turkic qamqï, while the latter is a loan from West Old Turkic χamï. Both Old Turkic words are of Chinese origin. Key words: Turkic–Russian language contact, Volga Bulgarian, West Old Turkic loanwords in Rus-sian, Wanderworts of Oriental origin.  The focus of the present paper is on the word meaning ‘silky Chinese textile; variegated woven linen; damask’, which has been known in a variety of forms in East Old Turkic and Old Russian sources since the 12th century onward, as well as in modern Turkish and its regional dialects, while its derived forms can be traced in regional dia-lects of Russian. This word is found in Russian, designating an expensive trade item brought from far away, having been borrowed into Old Russian from Old Turkic, where, however, it was an earlier borrowing from the Orient. It is enough to call back the history of the Russian words žemčug ‘mother-of-pearl’ (cf. Dobrodomov 1966, pp. 57–64; Menges 1970, pp. 94–100; Róna-Tas – Berta 2011, pp. 402–404) or kniga ‘book’ (cf. Kniezsa 1955, p. 872; Dobrodomov 1971; Komoróczy 1976, pp. 28–29; Trubačev 1987, pp. 203–204; Agyagási 1994; Róna-Tas – Berta 2011, pp. 590–593).1 However, while in these examples the source dialect of Old Turkic can be identified with reasonable certainty only as Bulgar Turkic (or, using a more modern designation,  1 For the history of research regarding Oriental elements of the Russian lexicon until 1970, see Dobrodomov – Romanova (1970), for the words of Turkic origin from later on, see Dobrodo-mov (1976; 1985); Šipova (1976); Vásáry (2013; 2016); Agyagási (2015).   392 KLÁRA AGYAGÁSI Acta Orient. Hung. 69, 2016 the Ogur dialect of West Old Turkic), in the case of the word under investigation I want to argue for multiple sources of the Russian variants of the word.   The history of the Russian word kamka was first mentioned by Ogienko (1915/2015, p. 29) in the Russian literature on lexicology, who lists it together with words that, according to him, were borrowed into Russian from Persian at various times, but he does so without providing the Persian form in question. Šipova (1976, pp. 156–156) discusses the historic occurrences of the Russian word kamka, specifi-cally detailing those from the 18th century, quoting Ogienko’s opinion about the Per-sian origin of the word, but without expressing her individual stance regarding the details of the borrowing process. The second, Russian language edition of Vasmer’s dictionary (Fasmer 1986/2, pp. 174–175) states that the source of the Russian word could be any of the known Turkic languages, where the word can be regarded to be of Chinese origin. But he does not provide the original Chinese source of the word.   The geographical distribution of the forms meaning ‘damask’ and the etymol-ogically likely related variant forms were analysed in earlier Orientalist research.2 The earliest occurrence of the word is in Arabic language sources: Ḫurdāδbih (8th cen-tury) kimḫā ‘soie damassée’; Balāδurī (892) kīmḫāw ‘soie damassée’; Ṭabarī (10th century) kamḫāna ‘pannus sericus’ (cf. Doerfer 1967, p. 603). After a hiatus of a few centuries, it occurs in Persian: kimḫā (1401) ‘Brokat der Arten Nasīğ’ (Doerfer 1967, p. 603). In the correspondence of the emperors of the Ming dynasty and Timurid Šāh-ruḫ it is found in two variant Persian forms with two different meanings: kamḫā or kamḫāb ‘pannus pictus unius coloris’, and kimḫā or kimḫāb ‘pannus pictus versi-color; silk worked with gold or silver flowers, brocaded silk, brocade, velours’ (Doer-fer 1967, p. 604).   Beginning with the early 14th century (following Marco Polo’s journey to China), it appears in several languages of mediaeval Europe (French camocas and its variants, Italian camucca, English camaca, mediaeval Latin camoca, Spanish camo-can, camucan ‘textile of silk damask woven in all colours, sometimes with stripes of gold and silver, the designs mainly birds’ (Pelliot 1959, pp. 145–146). It is known in Greek (καμουχάς), in the Balkan languages, in Georgian (χanχa ‘Gewebe’; k‘amχa ‘Art Seidengewebe’), and from the 18th century onward variants of the word also appeared in India (Hindi kamkhvāb, Bengali kimkhvāb ‘gold brocade’: Pelliot 1959, pp. 145–147), from where it was borrowed into Tibetan and Malay (Doerfer 1967, pp. 604–605).  As can be seen, the various variants of the word are found all over Eurasia, in a web of borrowing processes acting in various directions. All variants of the word can be traced back to two forms: kimḫā and kamḫā, and the word may or may not have a syllable-final b at the end. Both Pelliot (1959, p. 147) and Doerfer (1967, pp. 604–605) concluded that the ultimate source of these forms is Chinese. After a lengthy discussion, criticising and finally rejecting the results of earlier Sinologist research regarding Chinese words meaning ‘damask, brocade, silk’, Pelliot opts for Y. Yule’s  2 I am grateful to Imre Hamar and Gábor Kósa for making the Orientalist literature cited be-low available to me.    ORIENTAL ELEMENTS IN OLD NOVGORODIAN AND OTHER OLD RUSSIAN DIALECTS 393  Acta Orient. Hung. 69, 2016 explanation as the most plausible. Accordingly, the forms borrowed into the various languages of the Eurasian region are closest to the Chinese expression chin-hua (*kÇäm-χwa) ‘gold flower’, which had gone through a series of semantic changes since the 9th century. The word became the designation of valance in Southern China, where Arabic and Persian merchants became familiar with it. Following its Chinese pronounced form, they probably wrote it down as kīmḫāw (Pelliot 1959, pp. 149–150). However, the Cantonese pronunciation of the first part of the compound was kam (Pelliot 1959, p. 148), which form must have found its way to the west through other merchants. This would explain the two parallel phonetic variants of the word in the languages of Eurasia.  Both researchers attempted to provide a detailed explanation for the historical relationship of the forms occurring in many languages of the enormous Eurasian region. They agreed that the main mediatory language was Persian, which could have transmitted both phonetic variants. They also agreed that the word was borrowed into Turkic and Slavic languages via Persian, but Pelliot also provides a detailed train of thought as an explanation: in his opinion, borrowing via Persian had to be posited because there was not a single Old Turkic source, beginning with Kāšγari through Uygur to the Mongol Period, which historically documented the result of the direct borrowing from Chinese into Turkic and from Turkic into Slavic.  At this juncture, I would like to return to the original train of thought of Pel-liot’s paper to specify Pelliot’s stance, since after his work had been published, an East Old Turkic written source using Uygur writing (from the 12th–14th centuries) was found in which the word in question occurred. It was first published in the Drev-netjurkskij slovar’, ten years after Pelliot’s work. Also, the Old Novgorodian birch bark charter has become widely known only recently, which contains the investigated word dating from the 14th century and can be directly connected with the Old Turkic variant. The data are as follows:  Turkic data: East Old Turkic (12th–14th centuries) qamqï ‘kamka, šelkovaja materija’ (DTS p. 416); Saγay kamġï ‘kamka, kitajskaja šelkovaja materija’ (Radlov 1893–1911, II, p. 490); Alt., Tel., Kir. kamka ‘id.’ (Radlov ibid.); Kirg. kamka ‘kitajskij šelk’ (Iudahin 1965); Crimean Tatar kimxa ‘damast, šelkovaja materija’ (Radlov II, p. 1405); Kazan Tat. kamka (ust.) ‘kamka’ (TatRS 1966, p. 219); Bashk. qamqa ‘raznovidnosť kitaj-skogo šelka’ (Uraksin 1996, p. 344); Turkish kemha ‘rod šelkovoj tkani’ (TRS 1977, p. 531). Slavic data: Old Novgorodian (cca. 1310–1330) õàìú ‘polotno’ (Zaliznjak 2004, p. 541); Old Russian (1486) ÊÀÌÊÀ ‘šelkovaja cvetnaja tkan’ s uzorami’ (Sreznevskij 1989, I, pp. 1186–1187); (15th–16th century ~ 1472) ÊÀÌÊÀ ‘šelkovaja cvetnaja uzorčataja tkan’’ (Filin 1980, p. 48); Russian dial. хамовник (star.) ‘tkač, polotnjanščik, skatertnik’; хамовное (дело) ‘tkackoe, polotnjanoe i branoe’ (Daľ 1881/1989 Vol. IV, p. 542)  394 KLÁRA AGYAGÁSI Acta Orient. Hung. 69, 2016  Polish (15th–17th centuries) kamcha ‘nazwa drogiej materji, adamaszku’ (Brückner 1957, p. 215); bolg. kámúha ‘edinstroj koprinjana tkan’ (Gerov 1976, p. 344).    The East Old Turkic word qamqï can be the directly borrowed variant of the Chinese chin (*kÇäm-χwa) (pronounced in the Cantonese way) plus ch’i (*k’jie)3 com-bined as a compound, with the meaning ‘brocade’. This word, however, was borrowed directly not only into East Old Turkic but also into West Old Turkic. Although the lat-ter is not documented in early written sources, the speakers of this variety of Old Turkic got into direct contact with several communities speaking a wide range of other languages between the 5th century and the Mongol invasion of Europe. The lexical items borrowed from these languages were mostly retained in the languages of the communities they were in contact with. The most detailed source of early West Old Turkic is the group of Old Turkic loanwords in the Hungarian language, recently treated by Róna-Tas and Berta (2011) in detail. Volga Bulgars achieved a prominent role among the speakers of West Old Turkic varieties. From the 10th century onward they controlled the east–west river trade, soon founded their empire, and traded with various peoples themselves, among them the merchants of the Old Novgorodian city state.4 However, since in Chuvash, the language of the only direct descendants of the Volga Bulgars still living today, this word has not been preserved, the West Old Turkic equivalent of East Old Turkic qamqï should be sought in the lexicon of the Old Nov-gorodian dialect.  In the West Old Turkic equivalent of the 12th–13th-century East Old Turkic form qamqï a q- > χ- change must have taken place, since this change started already in the 7th century (for details, see Róna-Tas – Berta 2011, pp. 1100–1101). The q of the second syllable, however, became voiced and soon underwent spirantisation (q > ġ > γ), and finally it was dropped (γ > Ø). The first part of the process (i.e. the secon-dary voicing of the non-first syllable -q) is traceable in one Volga Bulgarian loan-word in Old Russian: Volga Bulgarian buraq ‘beer’ > *buraġ > buraγ → Old Russian bъraga ‘id.’, cf. East Old Turkic boza ‘a kind of beer’ (Agyagási 2010). The deletion of the voiced spirant is exemplified by an early West Old Turkic loanword in Hungar-ian: West Old Turkic *bergü > *berγü > *berü → Ancient Hungarian bērü (> Hung. bér ‘wage, rent’), cf. East Old Turkic bergü ‘something which ought to be given, gift, tax’ (Róna-Tas – Berta 2011, pp. 115–118).   The word-final -ï of the form qamqï could not be preserved when borrowed into Russian for morphological reasons: after having been borrowed, the Turkic word had to fit one of the Old Russian noun classes. However, the Old Russian noun de-clension system did not have a class for hard ï-stems. The word occurring on the cited birch bark charter has a -u final genitive partitive case marker, which means that the West Old Turkic/Volga Bulgarian variant was adopted by the speakers of the Old  3 In earlier literature, Philips mentioned the existence of such a lexical structure in Chinese (cf. Pelliot 1959, p. 148). 4 Contacts between Volga Bulgarians and Old Novgorodians were also mentioned often-times in the 1st Novgorodian Annals.   ORIENTAL ELEMENTS IN OLD NOVGORODIAN AND OTHER OLD RUSSIAN DIALECTS 395  Acta Orient. Hung. 69, 2016 Novgorodian dialect as a masculine *-ŭ stem, monosyllabic, Class IV noun. Consid-ering all this, the history of the borrowing of the West Old Turkic (Volga Bulgarian) word can be reconstructed as follows:  West Old Turkic *qamqï ‘silk damask’ > *χamġï > *χamγï > *χamï → Old Novgorodian χamъ ‘damask’.  The Old Novgorodian noun, however, did not remain isolated: this Russified stem served as a base for the word xamovnik ‘weaver’, a nomen agentis derived with the Russian ov+nik denominal complex suffix, and the adjectival equivalent of the word was also created by attaching the -ov possessive adjectival derivational suffix to the stem.  The variants with the phonological form kamka, attested in other Old Russian dialects from the 15th century onward, were borrowed into Russian either from East Old Turkic or from Persian. If the word is regarded as a later borrowing from the East Old Turkic qamqï, the word-final -ï was replaced by the feminine -a ending, again  for morphological reasons. However, if the Persian form kamḫā was the source of the Russian word, a replacement of -ḫ with -k in the second syllable has to be posited. References Agyagási, K. (1994): Weitere Beiträge zur Aufdeckung eines internationalen Wanderwortes (Das Wort ‘Buch’ im Volgagebiet). In: Baldauf, I. – Friedrich, M. (Hrsg.): Bamberger Zentral-asienstudien. Konferenzakten ESCAS IV. Bamberg 8–12. Oktober 1991. Berlin, pp. 29–36. Agyagási, K. (2010): Loanwords as Data in Historical Linguistics: An Areal Linguistic Study. In: Agyagási, K. (ed.): Data in Historical Linguistics. Münster (A special issue of Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik, 22.2), pp. 197–222. Agyagási, K. (2015): K ėtimologii čalyj ’seryj – o masti lošadi’ s pozicii areaľnoj lingvistiki. Slavi-ca Vol. 44, pp. 31–36. Brückner, A. (1957): Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego. Kraków. Daľ, V. (1881/1989): Tolkovyj slovar’ živogo velikorusskogo jazyka. 4 vols. Moskva. Dobrodomov, I. G. (1966): O metodah issledovanija drevnejših tjurkizmov v sostave russkogo slo-varja (K istorii slova žemčug). Izvestija Akademii nauk SSSR. Serija literatury i jazyka Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 57–64.  Dobrodomov, I. G. (1971): Kniga. Russkaja reč’ No. 5, pp. 83–91. Dobrodomov, I. G. (1976): Voprosy hronologii tjurkskih zaimstvovanij v slavjanskih jazykah. So-vetskaja tjurkologija No. 6, pp. 24–37. Dobrodomov, I. G. (1985): Bulgarskie zaimstvovanija v drevnerusskom i drugih slavjanskih jazy-kah kak istočnik dlja problemy ėtnogeneza čuvašej. In: Pavlov, I. P. (red.): Voprosy istorii čuvašskogo jazyka. Čeboksary, pp. 29–50. Dobrodomov, I. G. – Romanova, G. Ja. (red.) (1970): Bibliografija osnovnoj otečestvennoj literatu-ry po izučeniju orientalizmov v vostočnoslavjanskih jazykah. In: Menges (1970, pp. 211–238). Doerfer, G. (1967): Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. Unter besonderer Be-rücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Ti-muridenzeit. Band III. Wiesbaden. DTS: Nadeljaev, V. M. – Nasilov, D. M. – Tenišev, Ê. R. – Ščerbak, A. M. (red.): Drevnetjurkskij slovar’. Leningrad, 1969.   396 KLÁRA AGYAGÁSI Acta Orient. Hung. 69, 2016 Fasmer, M. (1986–1987): Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. 4 vols. Perevod s nemeckogo i dopolnenija O. N. Trubačeva. Moskva. Filin, F. P. (gl. red.) (1980): Slovar’ russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. Vyp. 7. Moskva. Gerov, N. (1976): Rečnik na bъlgarskija ezik. Čast vtora. Sofija. Iudahin, K. K. (1965): Kirgizsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. Kniezsa, I. (1955): A magyar nyelv szláv jövevényszavai [The Slavic loanwords in Hungarian].  2 vols. Budapest. Komoróczy, G. (1976): A sumer–magyar nyelvrokonítás. Adalékok egy jelenség természetrajzá-hoz [Sumerian–Hungarian language affinity. Contributions to describing the nature of this phenomenon]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények Vol. 78, pp. 3–38. Menges K. G. (1970): Vostočnye ėlementy v »Slove o polku Igoreve«. Leningrad. Ogienko, I. I. (1915): Inojazyčnye ėlementy v russkom jazyke. Kiev. Reprint: Moskva.  Pelliot, P. (1959): Notes on Marco Polo. Vol. I. (Ouvrage posthume, publié sous les auspices de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres et avec le Concours du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). Paris, pp. 145–150. Radlov, V. V. (1893–1911): Opyt slovarja tjurkskih narečij. 4 vols. Sankt-Peterburg.  Róna-Tas, A. – Berta, Á. (2011): West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian. 2 vols. Wies-baden. Sreznevskij, I. I. (1989): Slovar’ drevnerusskogo jazyka. 4 vols. Reprintnoe izdanie. Moskva.  Šipova, E. N. (1976): Slovar’ tjurkizmov v russkom jazyke. Alma-Ata. TatRS (1966): Osmanov, N. N. (red.): Tatarsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. TRS (1977): Baskakov, A. N. – Golubeva, N. P. – Kjamileva, A. A. – Ljubimov, K. M. – Salimzja-nova, F. A. – Jusipova, R. R. (red.): Turecko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. Trubačev, O. N. (1987): Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskih jazykov. Vyp. 13. Moskva.  Uraksin, Z. G. (red.) (1996): Baškirsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. Vásáry, I. (2013): Integration of Turkic Loan Words with Final Plosives (-k/-g) into the Russian Grammatical Paradigm. Turkic Languages Vol. 17, pp. 197–215. Vásáry, I. (2016): Medieval Russian Terms for ‘Armor’ of Oriental Origin. In: Zimonyi, I. – Kara-tay, O. (eds): Central Eurasia in the Middle Ages. Studies in Honor of Peter B. Golden. Wiesbaden, pp. 435–445. Zaliznjak, A. A. (2004): Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. Vtoroe izdanie, pererabotannoe s učetom ma-teriala nahodok 1995–2004 gg. Moskva.  

English

https://dea.lib.unideb.hu/dea/bitstream/handle/2437/233520/AOrient_69_2016_4_03_391_396_AgyagasiK_V.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

On some oriental elements in old Novgorodian and other old Russian dialects

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DEA University of Debrecen Electronic Archive

Crossref

AKJournals (Akadémiai Kiadó)

Repository of the Academy's Library