Abstract

Bu çalışma, tarihî Kıpçak sözlüklerinde tespit edilen ve literatürde Moğolcadan doğrudan ya da aracı bir dil üzerinden geri ödünçleme ile ilişkilendirilen söz varlığı unsurlarını incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Moğolca unsurlar pek çok çalışmada çeşitli yönlerden ele alınmıştır. Bu araştırmada ise tarihî Kıpçak Türkçesinde tespit edilen ve geri ödünçleme ile ilişkilendirilen kelimelere odaklanılmış, bu kelimelerin biçim ve anlamları tarihî Kıpçak ve Moğolca sözlükler ile diğer ilgili kaynaklardaki veriler temelinde karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. İncelenen unsurlar, Moğolcadan doğrudan geri ödünçlemenin yanı sıra aracı bir dil üzerinden dolaylı aktarımı da içeren farklı aktarım yolları göstermektedir.

Bu incelemede tarihî Kıpçak Türkçesi sözlüklerinde tespit edilen argımak, bahādur, bakşı, bürgüt ve çak kelimeleri üzerinde durulmuştur. Bu kelimeler geri ödünçleme olgusu çerçevesinde hem biçimsel hem de anlamsal yönleriyle ele alınmıştır. Her bir ögenin söz konusu sözlüklerdeki biçim ve anlamı, Moğolca kaynaklardaki karşılıkları ve etimolojik kaynaklardaki açıklamaları verilmiş, sonuç bölümünde ise bu kelimelerin kısa analizleri yapılmıştır.

Geri ödünçleme çalışmalarında, geri ödünçlenen bir kelimenin yeni bir anlam kazanıp kazanmadığının belirlenmesi ve geçirdiği biçimsel değişimlerin ortaya konulması önem taşımaktadır. Mevcut literatürde geri ödünçlemelere yönelik müstakil çalışmaların sınırlı sayıda olduğu dikkate alındığında, bu araştırmanın alana katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Sonuç olarak, Türk-Moğol dil ilişkileri çerçevesinde şekillenen geri ödünçleme olgusu, örnekler üzerinden ele alınarak ilgili araştırmacıların dikkatine sunulmuştur.

Abstract

This study aims to examine lexical items identified in historical Kipchak dictionaries that have been discussed in the literature in relation to re-borrowing from Mongolic, either directly or through an intermediary language. Although Mongolic elements have been addressed from various perspectives in numerous studies, this research specifically focuses on words identified in historical Kipchak Turkic that have been discussed in relation to re-borrowing. The forms and meanings of these words are analyzed comparatively on the basis of data from historical Kipchak and Mongolic dictionaries and other relevant sources.

The examined items reflect different routes of transmission, including direct re-borrowing from Mongolic as well as indirect transmission through an intermediary language. This study focuses on the words argımak, bahādur, bakşı, bürgüt, and çak, as found in historical Kipchak Turkic dictionaries. These words are evaluated in terms of form and meaning within the framework of re-borrowing. The study presents the form and meaning of each word in the relevant dictionaries, its corresponding form and meaning in Mongolian sources, explanations from etymological references, and an etymological evaluation of each word.

In studies on re-borrowing, determining whether a re-borrowed word has acquired a new meaning and identifying the formal changes it has undergone are of particular importance. Given the limited number of dedicated studies on re-borrowing in the current literature, this research is expected to make a contribution to the field. Ultimately, the phenomenon of re-borrowing, shaped within the framework of Turkic-Mongolic language contact, is presented through selected examples for the consideration of interested scholars.

Structured Abstract:

The term borrowing refers to the process whereby one language adopts lexical items from another. Occasionally, a borrowed word may return to its original language, sometimes after undergoing formal or semantic changes. This phenomenon is known as re-borrowing. The process, which may involve formal, semantic, or functional transformations, often emerges as a result of multifaceted contact between languages. The intensifying interactions between Turkic and Mongolic, particularly from the thirteenth century onward, resulted not only in shared and borrowed lexical items but also in cases of re-borrowing.

This study explores elements that have been discussed in the literature in relation to re-borrowing into Turkic, either directly from Mongolic or through intermediary languages. These elements, identified in historical Kipchak dictionaries, are examined in terms of both their formal and semantic features. Dedicated studies on re-borrowing are relatively limited in the existing literature. However, especially in regions characterized by cultural contact, re-borrowing can be analysed not only in terms of phonological or morphological adaptation but also in terms of semantic transmission, as it provides valuable insights into interlingual interaction.

This article is based primarily on the main lexicographical sources that document the vocabulary of historical Kipchak Turkic. The analysed texts include Codex Cumanicus, Kitāb al-ʼidrāk li-lisān al-ʼatrāk, Kitāb tarğumān turkī wa-ʿarabī wa-muġalī, Kitāb at-tuḥfa az-zakiyya fī l-luġa at-turkiyya, Kitāb bulġa al-muštāq fī luġa at-turk wa-l-qifğaq, al-Qawānīn al-kulliyya li-ḍabṭ al-luġa at-turkiyya, and ad-Durra al-muḍīʼa fī l-luġa at-turkiyya. These sources serve to trace lexical items discussed in the literature in relation to re-borrowing into Turkic and to examine their formal and semantic features in the context of Turkic-Mongolic language contact.

The study focuses on five lexical items: argımak, bahâdur, bakşı, bürgüt, and çak. Each of these words is evaluated comparatively by analysing its forms and meanings in historical Kipchak dictionaries and Mongolic sources. The analysis is carried out in four main dimensions: (1) the form and meaning of the word in historical Kipchak sources; (2) its corresponding form and meaning in Mongolic; (3) etymological interpretations in the relevant literature; and (4) an etymological evaluation of each word.

For instance, the word arḳun, attested in early Turkic texts, has been associated by some scholars with argımak. According to Kincses-Nagy, the word may have passed from Turkic(?) arġumaq into Middle Mongolian as *arġamaġ and from there into Chagatai. In the Kipchak source Kitāb at-tuḥfa az-zakiyya fī l-luġa at-turkiyya, however, the word is attested with the meaning ‘a well-bred dog’. Similarly, the word bakşı, probably of Chinese origin and attested in Old Uyghur with the meaning ‘teacher’, passed from Old Uyghur into Mongolic and was later re-borrowed into Kipchak and Chagatai Turkic, with ‘scribe’ among its later meanings. This semantic shift illustrates the multidimensional nature of re-borrowing. The word bahādur reflects different routes of transmission: alongside forms associated with Mongolic baġatur, Persian-mediated forms are also attested in historical Kipchak Turkic. The word bürküt passed from Turkic into Mongolic as bürgüt/bürgüd and was later re-borrowed into Turkic in the form bürgüt, illustrating a formal change in the process of re-borrowing. Finally, two main views have been proposed regarding the origin of çak (or çağ) and the direction of its transmission: while some scholars regard it as a Mongolic loanword in Turkic, others consider it to be of Turkic origin and argue that it passed into Mongolic and was subsequently re-borrowed by some Turkic languages.

This study seeks to contribute to the field of Turkic linguistics by examining re-borrowing through selected lexical items and by emphasizing its formal and semantic dimensions.