East Kazakhstan toponyms development and stratigraphy

Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №3 - 2011

Author: Biyarov Berdibek, East Kazakhstan State University in honor of S. Amanzholov, Kazakhstan

The attempt to determine the ancient border of the peoples’ settlement and the language areas has become habitual in science. However, from the diachronical point of view it is impossible to divide toponyms that evolved and exist now into groups by epoch of appearance. In this respect onomastics is close to folklore: there is no data on who and when created proverbs and sayings, epic literary works, and it is even more difficult to find out who and when created toponyms. Even the Chinese chronicles, which registered everything without exception, failed to explain the meaning of many historical onomasticons, to say nothing of the nomads who had no written language. Both the French and the Russians fail to explain the etymology of Paris and Moscow though they have well-established science and history. Nevertheless, toponymy of each country has its own achievements in determining the periods of language layers development. The accent is made not on determining the age of each geographical name, but on the study of toponyms “which provide information on the history of a certain place, its language and nature” (1, 162).

In the study of ancient language layers an important role is assigned to studying the etymology of appellatives which gave rise to toponyms. Many of them belong to the group of onyms, i.e. words which passed from the group of common names to the group of proper names. They can be traced back to the times when the human language was monosyllabic. Thus, geographical names belonging to the semantic group denoting “salient forms of the Earth relief” indicate their ancient origin, for example: тө/то (hill, upland, height, etc.) means “high”, “round”, “salient”, чө / шо – pointed hill, mound, area covered with hummock and etc.

V.A. Nikonov compares topoformants with “labeled atom” and believes that with their help it is possible to trace resettlement of the nations. But he admits that it is difficult to determine the age of the name and that accuracy of ± 100 years is quite rare (2, 98). This method is convenient for the Slavonic languages where toponyms are formed with the help of affixes, but it is not always suitable for the Turkic languages where toponyms are mostly formed by composition of two roots.

There is no common opinion in the study and stratigraphy of the Turkic languages. Thus, Y.Koishibayev divides toponyms of Kazakhstan into five groups, A.Abdrakhmanov singles out two big language layers.

In research works there are several groups mentioned: 1. Ancient Turkic; 2. Ogyz-kipchak; 3. Foreign; 4. New. The groups vary depending on peculiarities of toponyms of each region of the republic. In the general Turkic toponymy, including the Kazakh toponymy, it is reasonable to distinguish three groups: 1. Of undetermined origin; 2. Ancient Turkic; 3. Foreign (3, 197).

K.M. Mussayev’s classification can be modified in the following way: 1. The ancient group; 2. The foreign group; 3. The new group. This is convenient for studying common language groups by subgroups, taking into consideration peculiarities of each region. For example, the group of ancient toponyms can be divided into: а) ancient Turkic; б) a group of languages of Altaic origin and etc.; the group of foreign words can be divided into subgroups by the historical peculiarities of the region. Thus, it is not necessary to divide language groups of East Kazakhstan into Ural-Altaic and Arabian-Persian. Toponymy of this region is comprised by Mongolian and Russian language layers; among closely related languages there are elements of the East Kipchak languages.

South Altai is the region on the borders of Kazakhstan, Russia, China, and Mongolia. This is a sacred place where all Turkic speaking peoples with a very rich history came from. Such historical and geographical conditions could not but leave the mark in the toponymy of the region.

Dialectologist Z. Bolatov believed that in East Kazakhstan, which is separated from other places by the Irtysh River, people speak Kazakh which is quite different from the Kazakh language spoken in other places. But the result of a research showed that it is not actually so, because Kazakhs started returning to East Kazakhstan after downfall of Dzungaria, i.e. in 1755-1788. Naimans and Kereys who were deprived of their historical homeland due to expansionist policy of Genghis Khan and dzungars, returned to their homelands after the laps of five centuries. During all this time they lived among Kazakhs in Ulytau, Syr Darya, Saryarka. Thus, if certain language peculiarities did exist, they smoothed away during these five centuries. The fact that Mongols and Mongolian speaking tribes of Dzungaria translated toponymical names of the region into their language is a natural phenomenon. For example Lake Beyneteniz (see-like) or just teniz turned into Zayssannor, and Barkytbel Mountain turned into Tarbagatay.

Kazakhs returning to their lands changed the geographic names, but some of the Mongolian toponyms were assimilated. It is at that time when, following Kazakhs, Russian people started arriving at Altai which previously was not possible due to presence of Dzungars in the region.

The Kazakhs settled at nice pastures located on the windy territories with little snow south of the Bukhtarma River. At the right bank of the Bukhtarma River which had been deserted due its worthlessness as a pasture, there started to appear Russian villages and khutors; Russian migrants were given a name of “masons” or “Poles”. A. Printtsa, who studied their life, mentions that among those Russians there were old believers, soldiers, people who were trying to escape hard work at a factory, criminals, exiles, schismatics, who were persecuted due to their religious views. /4.9/. N.V. Alekseyenko, the researcher of the demography of East Kazakhstan, wrote: “…these fugitives started to arrive since 1760” /5.31/. mostly Russian migrants started to arrive in large quantities in 1870s.

Such migration of the population in XVII-XIX centuries could not but influence the toponymy of South Altai.

1. Ancient layer (substratum)

Toponyms of any region are developed on the basis of one or several languages and undergo historical and linguistic changes. For correct determination of linguistic stratigraphy in a diachronic analysis of the regional toponymy it is necessary to ground the research, first of all, on the history and then on the etymology of the toponym.

Substratum toponyms include in most cases names of unclear semantics and unproved etymology. Thorough research may prove them to belong to the Turkic language, to the Turkic-Mongolian language community, to the Altai epoch, and in some cases to the group of Nostratic languages.

A. Abdrakhmanov ascribes one of such disputable groups of toponyms to the Altai period, but warns about the conditionality of such classification /6.14/. this group of geographical names of East Kazakhstan includes Altai, Arkat, Burkat, Bakanas, Yertis, Zerendi, Katonkaragai, Kokidaba, Kalba, Karagem, Taraty.

Even if we take into account the fact that all abovementioned names refer to the Altai period because they have ancient roots or relict affixes, multiple proofs are still needed, since the very notion of “the Altai period” is yet a hypothesis. Scientists G. Ramstedt, N. Poppe, V. Kotvich and others who offered “the Altai hypothesis” based on the commonality of vocabulary, phonetic and morphological peculiarities (vocalic harmony, agglutination) of the words of Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus languages. Some specialists in Turkic philology (A. Shcherbak, O. Sunik and other) deny the Altai hypothesis, saying that these languages do not have common important words and related names. In their opinion Altai languages are not related; they blended as a result of coexistence on the same territory for many centuries.

As a result of many years of research of Turkic and Tungus languages using the method of comparative historical analysis G. Ramstedt laid the foundations of Altaistics (the science studying Altai). Later he proved that the Korean language is also genetically related to these languages.

E.V. Sevortyan proves that Turkic-Mongolian languages are related and 10% of word stems in Tungus languages coincide with Turkic words /7.97/.

V.I. Tsintsius who used comparative historical analysis in his study of Tungus languages, B. Bazylkhan, who compared grammar structures of Kazakh-Mongolian languages, and other scientists have no doubts about Altai languages being related. For example, V.I. Tsintsius, analyzing a Tungus word kalzanu meaning “badger”, compared Tungus kalzanu, Mongolian khalzan, ancient Turkic kalga/kaska and found out that the three words are used in the meaning of “naked”, “bare”, “bare ground” or “marked head”. The reason for that is a white band on the badger’s head. In Kazakh the word for badger – “borsykh” – is connected with its unpleasant smell. In such a way V.I. Tsintsius compared many similar words in Tungus, Mongolian and Turkic languages /8.82/.

Following the scientists who stick to the Altai hypothesis we decided to start the analysis of gathered material with the Turkic layer. The main reason for that is the difficulty of determining the age of the names and the fact that the Altai period dates back to quite an ancient time (8-6 millenniums back). Use of retrospective analysis (from new to old) in revealing the etymology of a toponym is proved to be effective. It is very interesting when a name referred to the Turkic period gets a wider interpretation from the point of view of Turkic-Mongolian languages, the Altai period or foreign languages. However, it is a difficult process and requires profound versatile evidence. For example, from the etymological point of view some geographical names get a new meaning when considered in comparison with related Altai languages and foreign languages. Thus, a geographical term bas meaning “head”, i.e.e. “mountain top”, “uplands of the river” and so on can be found in all Turkic languages. In Ramstedt’s opinion Evenki bastan - “the first”, “introduction”; Nanai balsa – “face”, “head” (ТМС.I.76), and also mari – “head” in Korean are close to Turkic bas – “head”. V.M. Illich-Svitych writes that many Indo-European and Dravidian languages have the variant of the word bas: mel «mountain», mas «mountain», mare «hill», mash «hill, mound» (9, 51).

Despite of the fact that toponyms with the elements of the Mongolian language are referred to as belonging to the foreign layer, toponyms of Turkic-Mongolian languages are treated as “common names” or the names of “Turkic-Mongolian community”. We do not have enough linguistic evidence to single them out into a separate group (of the Altai period, of the Turkic-Mongolian community period). We can only approximately define the language the words came from and the period when they were coined. A.P. Dulzon considering the Ket variants of formants ses, sas, sys, ash, occurring in names of many rivers, believes that such hydronyms came from the Ket language to the Turkic and then to the Russian languages (10, 3-9). Reminding that names of the rivers with formants ses, sash, ash are common for all Turkic-speaking territories, K.M. Mussayev gives an opposite opinion: “In this case Turkic languages do not perform the function of a mediator (from Ket to Russian), but that of a source for a geographical name” (3, 197).

It is a proved fact in linguistics that a special role in the spreading of a language is played by the size of the territory and the number of people speaking this language. Among the Altai languages the leading position belongs to the Turkic people. Consequently we can assume that Turkic made a huge impact on Ket, Mongolian and Samoyedic languages.

The Kazakh language belongs to the central Kipchak group of Turkic languages, that is why speaking about Kazakh toponyms it is justified to refer to them as Turkic toponyms or Turkic names. It is true to say that, if we do not take into account phonetic distinctions, a certain part of the vocabulary of the Turkic languages including the geographical names shows certain similarities. Comparing Turkic languages is of great significance for revealing the semantics of substratum toponyms. For example, O.T. Molchanova, who studied toponymy of Gorno-Altai region of Russia bordering on the South Altai, mentions that toponyms of that region cannot always reveal their meaning with the help of the Altai language, some of them can be studied with the help of ancient Turkic language, the other is connected with Kirghis, Kazakh, Khakass, Shor, Tuvinian languages /11.5/.

Rock inscriptions in ancient Turkic and M. Kashgary dictionary give enough information about the linguistic system of that period and indicate the way of analysis of ancient geographical names. They provide us with the information that the first ancient roots were in the form of an open syllable, followed by syncretic (homonym) roots in the form of verbal names, and finally by affixation word building. For example, orographical term tau “mountain” which is considered to be the root originates in the ancient roots та/тө (ta/toe) which means “height”. It formed the derivative appellatives tau, tobe, tompeshik, dones (mountain, hill, elevation, mound respectively).

Analysis of some ancient names such as Muztag, Khantag, Baitag makes it possible to assume that the term tau “mountain” sounded as tag. Studying ancient Turkic literary texts, for example M. Kashgari dictionary, confirms the idea of root alteration: йайлаг-жайлаг-жайлау (yaylag – zhaylag - zhaylau); кышлаг кыстаг - қыстау (kyshlag – kystag - khystau) “winter cabin”. Such examples are numerous (12, 19).

The reason that this article does not consider a group of “Kazakh oronyms” is in the fact that Kazakh toponyms belong to the Turkic layer of the language an there is no necessity to analyze Kazakh geographical names with clear semantics from the point of view of their etymology. That is why we attribute geographical names with unclear semantics or having ancient formants to this layer.

Altybaity is a zhailau (pasture) in Markakol region. To determine the etymology of the word we need to single out the formant –ty in its structure. G. Konkashbayev believes that formant ty/ti in the structure of such geographical names as Almaty “rich in apples”, Arshaty “rich in juniper” and others is nothing else as the suffix of relative adjectives ly/li which does not conform to the law of vocalic harmony (13, 15). This opinion is supported by S. Amanzholov, T. Nomikhanov, A. Abdrakhmanov. Y. Koishibayev believes that ty is a modifiedform of the geographical term tu/ty “tau - mountain”: Almaty = alma + tau; Arshaty + arsha + tau and other (14, 90-91).

Both of these contradicting opinions deserve attention. According to the first opinion, if Almaty < Almaly, Arshaty < Arshaly, then to which of them we should refer oronyms of the South Altai Akty, Altybaity, Kosnarty? Following the first opinion Акты – «ағы мол» (Akty – “aghy mol”), meaning “having much white color”, Altybaity – “rich in Altybai”, Kosnarty – “rich in Kosnar”. In the second case formant –ty means “tau-mountain” then Ақты/ Ақтау (Akty/ Aktau) (white mountain), Алтыбайты/ Алтабайтау (Altybaity/ Altybaitau), Коснарты/ Коснартау (Kosnarty/ kosnartau) become synonyms. Similar geographic names can be found in the Altai language: Baitu (Baity) – Baitau (rich mountain), Tuuratu (turaty) – Ken tau (wide mountain) (11, 146, 139). In Turkic languages there is a possible shortening tau> tuu> tu> ty, Altaic tu in the Kazakh language sounds as –ty: Baitau > Baity. The geographical term of the modern Yakut language tya “forest covered mountain” proves the existence of the appellative –ty with the meaning of “mountain”.

In the Kazakh toponymy we often find names with the affix –ty which means existence or abundance. In the South Altai we simultaneously come across the names Karagandy (winter cabin, Katonkaragai region) and Karaganty (mountain, uplands of the Black Irtysh River).

Thus, if a word-forming suffix –ty means existence or abundance in something (Kairakty, Sharbakty, Sogeti, Temirti and others), performs the function of a suffix of an adjective, describes appearance or relief of an object, then it is an ancient Turkic variant of the appellative “tau - mountain” (Akty, Altybaity, Kosnarty and others).

2. Foreign layer

In linguistics there is a term “a loan word”. Dictionaries give the following definition for this term: “words, word combinations, and word-building affixes that come from other languages” (15, 124).

Foreign layer of the Kazakh language includes Arabic, Iranian, Mongolian and Russian words (16, 88). The Kazakh toponymy is one of the structural parts of vocabulary, that is why it also contains foreign words. the fact that these four language layers are unequally spread in the toponymy can be seen in each region. For example in the toponymy of East Kazakhstan Arabian and Iranian words cannot be singled out in a separate layer. An orographic term dara which some linguists consider to be of Iranian-Tajik origin, can be viewed as a Kazakh word meaning a solitary mountain or the vicinity of a mountain where a solitary man resides. For example: Мәкиле дарасы (Moekile darassy), Бапы дарасы (Bapy darassy), Шолақдара (Sholakhdara), Қарабие дарасы (Kharabiye darassy) – are the names of the mountains located separately, outside the mountain ranges. Even if the word dara is of Iranian origin together with its variants derel, darby cannot form a separate language layer. There is no evidence that Iranian-Persian people ever lived in the Altai region. Some names could be brought by Naiman people, who migrated back from Ulytau and Sir Darya to their historical homeland 250-300 years ago.

K. Konkabayev, who studied the toponymy of South Kirghizia, points out that the Iranian language layer can be found in the vicinity of Osh, and becomes sparse farther to the North (17, 10). In the South of Kazakhstan there prevail toponyms of Arabian, Persian, Sogdian and Tajik languages; in the North there are many Russian toponyms, in the East – Mongolian.

Among the world languages which are directly or indirectly connected with Turkic languages a significant role is played by Mongolian and Russian languages. There are many research works devoted to Turkic-Slavic and Turkic-Mongolian language relations. These works include studies of Turkic-Mongolian languages from the point of view of the Altai theory. Speaking about inter-language relations, which, first of all, are reflected in the vocabulary we need to mention that they are found in onomastics as an integral part of vocabulary. The most dynamic among all onomastic groups is anthroponymy, while toponymy is characterized by endurance and stability. That is why toponyms are often used as examples in the research of a foreign language layer.

In the course of time, functioning in the dominant language, foreign names go through the process of assimilation and undergo phonetic changes. Thus, the Kazakh language has a power to “digest” words, and, like other languages of Altai origin, it subordinates words belonging to other type languages to its norms. For example: Kazakh Сөгір (Soegir) – Russian Согра (Sogra), Kazakh Мақсым (Makhsym) – Russian Максим (Maksim), Kazakh Матабай (Matabai) – Russian Матвей (Matvei), Kazakh Боласа (Bolassa) – Russian Полоса (Polossa), Kazakh Бекет (Beket) – Russian Пикет (Piket) and others. This fact indicates the following peculiarities of the system of the Kazakh language:

- The effect of vocalic harmony (Russian Согра (Sogra) – Kazakh Сөгүр (Soegir));

- Alteration of vowels and consonants (Russian Матвей (Matvei) – Kazakh Матабай (Matabai));

- Occurrence of voiced consonants in the beginning of the word частота (Russian Полоса (Polossa) – Kazakh Боласа (Bolassa), Russian Пикет (Piket) – Kazakh Беккет (Bitet)) and others.

Identification of such peculiarities in the structure of toponyms is realized on the basis of etymological research. B.A. Serebrennikov believes that etymology of toponyms should be studied in isolation from common names or any words at all. He says that “toponyms, although they comprise quite a big layer in the language, are created and developed in their own way” (18, 29).

The main peculiarity of toponyms as opposed to anthroponyms and appellatives is a direct connection of signification and denotation. Some toponyms directly describe the object they name. That is why when performing the etymological analysis we have to consider physical-geographical characteristics of the names, i.e. ethnic-linguistic conditions or motivation of a geographical name.

A.P. Dulzon who studied etymology of Siberian toponyms says that most of the Turkic geographical names are of the Ket origin (10, 4). For example, he believes that the second part of the hydronym Yertis (Irtysh) tsis (Irtsis) appeared in the language in the ancient times, and is an appellative “river” of the Ket language. This proposition of A.P. Dulzon lacks two pieces of information:

1. Did the Ket tribes live on the territory of Kazakhstan?

2. What was the meaning of the first part of the toponym er/ ir in the Ket language?

We cannot treat the hydronym Irtysh as of the Ket origin without answering these two questions.

Many researchers do not pay enough attention to these questions and believe that the etymology is connected with the popular opinion of M. Kashgari: Irtysh (Ertishmak) – “let’s see who will cross it faster”, but this is almost the only evidence which can be used in determining etymology of the word. Let us consider this opinion from the extra-linguistic and linguistic points of view:

1) from the extra-linguistic (motivational) point of view the first problem of the river which heads in the mountains and flows across the continent is the ford (oetkel). It was very difficult to cross a high water river of a considerable width (120-150 m) riding a horse. It is no accident that “The Mongols Chronicles” says that defeated by Genghis Khan troops of Kushilik sultan drowned in the Irtysh river (19, 68).

2) when performing etymological analysis it is important to take into consideration the explanation given in M. Kashgari’s dictionary: Ertishti – crossed competing each other, crossed on a bet; Yertushir – yertushmek – a place which can be crossed on a bet; wanted to cross on a bet (12, 273). Yertti – crossed; swam across. Yerter – yertmek: will go (lead) – will not go (lead) (12, 565).

This examples demonstrate that in the 11th century the Turkic verb “yert” (“lead”) was used in the meaning of “oet” (“cross”). Irtysh in the old Renat’s map and in the Schmid’s dictionary is spelt as Erzizch, in the encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron as Erchis /Irtsis, in the Mongolian language - Irtsis, in Chinese – Ertszis (20, 53). In all names the second part of the word has an affix tsysh/chis/tsis/czis, which corresponds to and is pronounced as the suffix of a relative adjective -syz, -siz. If we accept the explanation that the verb өт (oet), which is given in M. Kashgari as ерт (yert) has a meaning “crossing, cross by swimming”, then the form Yert + siz – “oetkelsiz” (“without crossing”) means a river which is difficult to cross.

In the ancient Turkic written works suffix –syz/ -siz is quite productive: тонсыз (tonsyz) “without a fur coat”; йолсыз (yolsyz) “trackless”; білігсіз (biligsiz) “having no education, knowledge” and others (21, 80).

Thus proper name Yertsiz > Yertis underwent phonetic changes in the course of history which proves that this hydronym was created on a basis of the Turkic language, not Ket, Mongolian or Chinese.

Study of the South Altai oronyms allows to single out two foreign layers in the language – Mongolian and Russian. The fact that despite Kazakhstan and China are neighboring countries but there are no Chinese toponyms in the Kazakh language testifies to the following: first, that Chinese and Turkic languages are not related; second, Chinese people never lived on the Altai territories. Chinese names seldom occur on territories in the basin of the Black Irtysh river up to the Great Chinese Wall, to say nothing of Kazakhstan.

REFERENCES

1. Саттаров Г.Ф. Топонимия края и некоторые вопросы этногенеза казанских татар // Татар тел белеме мәсьәләре, кн. ІІІ. – Казань, 1969. – 204 с.

2. Никонов В.А. Введение в топонимику. - М.: Наука, 1965. – 175с.

3. Мусаев К.М. Лексикология тюркских языков. - М.: Наука, 1984. – 227 с.

4. Принтца А. Каменьщики. - Омск, 1863. – 25 с.

5. Алексеенко Н.В. Население дореволюционного Казахстана. - Алма-Ата, 1981. – 245 с.

6. Абдрахманов А. Историко-этимологическое исследование топонимов Казахстана. (Научный доклад). - Алма-Ата, 1991. – 58 с.

7. Севортян Э.В. Этимологический словарь тюркских языков. (Общетюркские и межтюркские основы на гласные). – М., 1974. – 767 с.

8. Цинциус В.И. Этимологии Алтайских лексем... //Алтайские этимологии. - Л.: Наука, 1984. - С. 17-129.

9. Иллич-Свитыч В.М. Опыт сравнения ностратических языков Т. І-ІІ. - М., 1971, 1976. – 1210 с.

10. Дульзон А.П. Общее название реки у кетоязычных народов // Учен. зап. Дальневосточн. ун-та, 1962, - вып.5. - С. 3-9.

11. Молчанова О.Т. Топонимический словарь Горного Алтая. - Горно-Алтайск, 1979. – 398 с.

12. Қашқари М. Түрiк тілінің сөздiгi (Диуани лұғат-ит-түрк). 3 томдық шығармалар жинағы /ауд. А. Егеубай. - Алматы: ХАНТ, 1997. – 1353 с.

13. Конкашпаев Г.Н. Названия гор // Изв. АН. Каз ССР. Серия географическая, 1948, № 58, вып 2. - С. 10-18.

14. Қойшыбаев Е. «Алматы» және «ты» қосымшасы жайлы // Қазақстан мектебi, № 8, 1963. - Б. 90-91.

15. Сүлейменова Э., Мәдиева Г. т.б. Тіл білімі сөздігі. - Алматы: Ғылым, 1998. – 544 с.

16. Болғанбаев Ә. Қазақ тілінің лексикологиясы. - Алматы: Мектеп, 1979. – 176 б.

17. Конкобаев К. Топонимия Южной Киргизии. - Фрунзе: Илим, 1980. – 172 с.

18. Поспелов Е.М. Топономика в школьной географии. - М.: Просвещение, 1981-144 с.

19. Кычанов Е. Жизнь Темучина, думавшего покорить мир. 2-е изд. с изм. – Алма-Ата: Жалын, 1992. – 128 с.

20. Попова В. Н. Структурно-семантическая природа топонимов Казахстана (сравнительно - историческое исследование) // Автореф. дисс. докт. филол. наук. Алматы, 1997. С. 62-63.

21. Айдаров Ғ. Көне түркі жазба ескерткіштерінің тілі. - Алматы: Мектеп, 1986. – 182 с.



Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №3 - 2011

  
Main
About journal
About KAFU
News
FAQ

   © 2017 - KAFU Academic Journal