Reconstruction talk:Proto-Turkic/tog-
Should there be an Entry for this?[edit]
Both Yegorov and Fedotov suggest that it's from earlier тăв (tăv) for which they suggest an evolution from*tog- (“to be born”) or *togur- (“to give birth”).[1][2] Yegorov also notes and gives examples toward the original meaning being "to give birth". Fedotov also suggests that it is a variation of *ẹ̄t- (“to do”) (comparing Chuvash ат (at))[1]. In short it may not have its own unique proto form.
That being said neither explains the form Bulgar طن (tan-) (< *tavn- < *tun-?) seen in Bulgar, my guess would be that the suffix *-n was added, however I do not know why the meaning would then be transitive. That being said, as far as I'm aware there is no known case of *-n disappearing in Chuvash anyway, so this is definitely a weird case.
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Fedotov, M. R. (1996) “ту”, in Etimologičeskij slovarʹ čuvašskovo jazyka [Etymological Dictionary of the Chuvash Language] (in Russian), volume II, Cheboksary: Chuvash State Institute of Humanities, pages 240-241
- ^ Jegorov, V. G. (1964) “ту”, in Etimologičeskij slovarʹ čuvašskovo jazyka [Etymological Dictionary of the Chuvash Language] (in Russian), Cheboksary: Čuvašskoje knižnoje izdatelʹstvo, pages 254-255
Yorınçga573 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- It should, actually it is pretty controversial. Tekin claims it is from *etin-. Also, the transition from the meaning of being born or giving birth to the meaning of to make is not that convincing. tan- is common in Volga Bulgar inscriptions, there is no *ta-. BurakD53 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- The semantics is by all definition logical if you think about it as "to be brought into existence" -> "to be made" -> "to make". Please also check out Yegorov's examples on it. Tekin's claim goes back to Fedotov's and ultimately also leads to a variation of a word anyway. Rasanen also suggests an evolution from *tog- (“to be born”).[1] Compare also Chuvash тăвăн (tăvăn, “to gather, rise”) (< *togun-) and Chuvash тăван (tăvan, “relatives”) (< *togun).
- The form tan- is still weird regardless, there is no other instance of *-n deletion within verbs right? And even if so, why not reconstruct it as *tan-? There are also no other academic books/articles that accept it as an entirely different word are there (with the exception of EDAL)?
- I think discussion on this word should simply be in the Chuvash entry.
Yorınçga573 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- I created it as an entry because it seemed like the possibilities could be evaluated here. I'm thinking of creating an entry for *kü as well.
- It can be done as you say. It may be on the Bulgar page, the Chuvash page can be linked to the Bulgar one. Because it is a extinct language and will mostly be reached through Chuvash. BurakD53 (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- The problem with making an entry here is due to the fact that most, if not all sources suggest different words altogether and that there are no exterior parallels (not even in Hungarian or Mongolian), which probably suggests that this isn't a standalone word but an evolution of another one, so it'd be more appropriate to evaluate it at the modern language's page. I suggest moving this page to another proto-word and changing the word. Yorınçga573 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)