Middle Mongol, from the 13th century until the early 15th century[3] or late 16th century,[4] depending on classification spoken. (Given the almost entire lack of written sources for the period in between, an exact cutoff point cannot be established.) Again influenced byTurkic.
Standard Mongolian The standard Mongolian language has been in official use since 1919, and this form of the language is used in the economic, political, and social fields.
Pre-Proto-Mongolic is the name for the stage of Mongolic that precedes Proto-Mongolic. Proto-Mongolic can be clearly identified chronologically with the language spoken by the Mongols duringGenghis Khan's early expansion in the 1200-1210s. Pre-Proto-Mongolic, by contrast, is a continuum that stretches back indefinitely in time. It is divided into Early Pre-Proto-Mongolic and Late Pre-Proto-Mongolic.
Late Pre-Proto-Mongolic refers to the Mongolic spoken a few centuries before Proto-Mongolic by the Mongols and neighboring tribes like theMerkits andKeraits. Certain archaic words and features in Written Mongolian go back past Proto-Mongolic to Late Pre-Proto-Mongolic (Janhunen 2006).
Pre-Proto-Mongolic has borrowed various words fromTurkic languages.
In the case of Early Pre-Proto-Mongolic, certain loanwords in the Mongolic languages point to early contact withOghur (Pre-Proto-Bulgaric) Turkic, also known as r-Turkic. These loanwords precedeCommon Turkic (z-Turkic) loanwords and include:
Mongolicikere (twins) from Pre-Proto-Bulgaricikir (versus Common Turkicekiz)
Mongolichüker (ox) from Pre-Proto-Bulgarichekür (Common Turkicöküz)
Mongolicjer (weapon) from Pre-Proto-Bulgaricjer (Common Turkicyäz)
Mongolicbiragu (calf) versus Common Turkicbuzagu
Mongolicsiri- (to smelt ore) versus Common Turkicsiz- (to melt)
The above words are thought to have been borrowed from Oghur Turkic during the time of theXiongnu.
LaterTurkic peoples in Mongolia all spoke forms of Common Turkic (z-Turkic) as opposed toOghur (Bulgharic) Turkic, which withdrew to the west in the 4th century. TheChuvash language, spoken by 1 million people in European Russia, is the only living representative of Oghur Turkic which split from Proto Turkic around the 1st century AD.
Words in Mongolic likedayir (brown, Common Turkicyagiz) andnidurga (fist, Common Turkicyudruk) with initial *d and *n versus Common Turkic *y are sufficiently archaic to indicate loans from an earlier stage of Oghur (Pre-Proto-Bulgaric). This is because Chuvash and Common Turkic do not differ in these features despite differing fundamentally in rhotacism-lambdacism (Janhunen 2006). Oghur tribes lived in the Mongolian borderlands before the 5th century, and provided Oghur loanwords to Early Pre-Proto-Mongolic before Common Turkic loanwords.[5]
Proto-Mongolic, the ancestor language of the modern Mongolic languages, is very close to Middle Mongol, the language spoken at the time ofGenghis Khan and theMongol Empire. Most features of modern Mongolic languages can thus be reconstructed from Middle Mongol. An exception would be the voice suffix like -caga- 'do together', which can be reconstructed from the modern languages but is not attested in Middle Mongol.
The languages of the historicalDonghu,Wuhuan, andXianbei peoples might have been related to Proto-Mongolic.[6] ForTabghach, the language of the founders of theNorthern Wei dynasty, for which the surviving evidence is very sparse, and Khitan, for which evidence exists that is written in the two Khitan scripts (large andsmall) which have as yet not been fully deciphered, a direct affiliation to Mongolic can now be taken to be most likely or even demonstrated.[7]
Research into reconstruction of the consonants of Middle Mongol has engendered several controversies. Middle Mongol had two series of plosives, but there is disagreement as to which phonological dimension they lie on, whether aspiration[8] or voicing.[9] The early scripts have distinct letters for velar plosives and uvular plosives, but as these are in complementary distribution according to vowel harmony class, only two back plosive phonemes, */k/, */kʰ/ (~ *[k], *[qʰ]) are to be reconstructed.[10] One prominent, long-running disagreement concerns certain correspondences of word medial consonants among the four major scripts (UM,SM,AM, andPh, which were discussed in the preceding section). Word-medial/k/ of Uyghur Mongolian (UM) has not one, but two correspondences with the three other scripts: either /k/ or zero. Traditional scholarship has reconstructed */k/ for both correspondences, arguing that */k/ was lost in some instances, which raises the question of what the conditioning factors of those instances were.[11] More recently, the other possibility has been assumed; namely, that the correspondence between UM/k/ and zero in the other scripts points to a distinct phoneme,/h/, which would correspond to the word-initial phoneme/h/ that is present in those other scripts.[12]/h/ (also called/x/) is sometimes assumed to derive from */pʰ/, which would also explain zero inSM,AM,Ph in some instances whereUM indicates /p/; e.g.debel > Khalkhadeel.[13]
The palatal affricates *č, *čʰ were fronted in Northern Modern Mongolian dialects such as Khalkha.*kʰ wasspirantized to/x/ in Ulaanbaatar Khalkha and the Mongolian dialects south of it, e.g. Preclassical Mongoliankündü, reconstructed as*kʰynty 'heavy', became Modern Mongolian/xunt/[14] (but in the vicinity ofBayankhongor andBaruun-Urt, many speakers will say[kʰunt]).[15] Originally word-final *n turned into /ŋ/; if *n was originally followed by a vowel that later dropped, it remained unchanged, e.g.*kʰen became/xiŋ/, but*kʰoina became/xɔin/. After i-breaking,*[ʃ] became phonemic. Consonants in words containing back vowels that were followed by*i in Proto-Mongolian becamepalatalized in Modern Mongolian. In some words, word-final*n was dropped with most case forms, but still appears with the ablative, dative and genitive.[16]
Only foreign origin words start with the letterL and none start with the letterR.[17]
The standard view is that Proto-Mongolic had*i,*e,*y,*ø,*u,*o,*a. According to this view,*o and*u werepharyngealized to/ɔ/ and/ʊ/, then*y and*ø werevelarized to/u/ and/o/. Thus, the vowel harmony shifted from a velar to a pharyngeal paradigm.*i in the first syllable of back-vocalic words wasassimilated to the following vowel; in word-initial position it became/ja/.*e was rounded to*ø when followed by*y. VhV and VjV sequences where the second vowel was any vowel but*i were monophthongized. In noninitial syllables, short vowels were deleted from the phonetic representation of the word and long vowels became short;[18] e.g.*imahan (*i becomes/ja/,*h disappears) >*jamaːn (unstablen drops; vowel reduction) > /jama(n)/ 'goat', and*emys- (regressive rounding assimilation) >*ømys- (vowel velarization) >*omus- (vowel reduction) > /oms-/ 'to wear'
This reconstruction has recently[when?] been opposed, arguing that vowel developments across the Mongolic languages can be more economically explained starting from basically the same vowel system as Khalkha, only with*[ə] instead of*[e]. Moreover, the sound changes involved in this alternative scenario are more likely from anarticulatory point of view and early Middle Mongol loans intoKorean.[19]
The Secret History of the Mongols which goes back to a lost Mongolian script original is the only document that allows the reconstruction of agreement in social gender in Middle Mongol.[20]
In the ensuing discourse, as noted earlier, the term "Middle Mongol" is employed broadly to encompass texts scripted in either Uighur Mongolian (UM), Chinese (SM), or Arabic (AM).
The case system of Middle Mongol has remained mostly intact down to the present, although important changes occurred with the comitative and the dative and most other case suffixes did undergo slight changes in form, i.e., were shortened.[21] The Middle Mongol comitative -luɣ-a could not be used attributively, but it was replaced by the suffix -taj that originally derived adjectives denoting possession from nouns, e.g.mori-tai 'having a horse' becamemor'toj 'having a horse/with a horse'. As this adjective functioned parallel toügej 'not having', it has been suggested that a "privative case" ('without') has been introduced into Mongolian.[22] There have been three different case suffixes in the dative-locative-directive domain that are grouped in different ways: -a as locative and -dur, -da as dative[23] or -da and -a as dative and -dur as locative,[24] in both cases with some functional overlapping. As -dur seems to be grammaticalized fromdotur-a 'within', thus indicating a span of time,[25] the second account seems to be more likely. Of these, -da was lost, -dur was first reduced to -du and then to -d[26] and -a only survived in a few frozen environments.[27] Finally, the directive of modern Mongolian, -ruu, has been innovated fromuruɣu 'downwards'.[28] Social gender agreement was abandoned.[29]
Middle Mongol had a slightly larger set of declarative finite verb suffix forms[30] and a smaller number of participles, which were less likely to be used as finite predicates.[31] The linking converb -n became confined to stable verb combinations,[32] while the number of converbs increased.[33] The distinction between male, female and plural subjects exhibited by some finite verbal suffixes was lost.[34]
Kökseü sabraq ügü.le-run ayyi yeke uge ugu.le-d ta ... kee-jüü.y
Kökseü sabraq speak-CVB alas big word speak-PAST you ... say-NFUT
"Kökseü sabraq spoke saying, 'Alas! You speak a great boast....' "[35]
The syntax of verb negation shifted from negation particles preceding final verbs to a negation particle following participles; thus, as final verbs could no longer be negated, their paradigm of negation was filled by particles.[36] For example, Preclassical Mongolianese irebe 'did not come' v. modern spoken Khalkha Mongolianireegüi orirsengüi.
The Mongolic languages have no convincingly established living relatives. The closest relatives of the Mongolic languages appear to be thepara-Mongolic languages, which include the extinctKhitan,[37]Tuyuhun, and possibly alsoTuoba languages.[38]
Contemporary Mongolic languages are as follows. The classification and numbers of speakers follow Janhunen (2006),[45] except for Southern Mongolic, which follows Nugteren (2011).[46]
In another classificational approach,[48] there is a tendency to call Central Mongolian a language consisting of Mongolian proper, Oirat and Buryat, while Ordos (and implicitly also Khamnigan) is seen as a variety of Mongolian proper. Within Mongolian proper, they then draw a distinction between Khalkha on the one hand and theMongolian language in Inner Mongolia (containing everything else) on the other hand. A less common subdivision of Central Mongolic is to divide it into a Central dialect (Khalkha, Chakhar, Ordos), an Eastern dialect (Kharchin, Khorchin), a Western dialect (Oirat, Kalmyk), and a Northern dialect (consisting of two Buryat varieties).[49]
The broader delimitation of Mongolian may be based onmutual intelligibility, but an analysis based on atree diagram such as the one above faces other problems because of the close contacts between, for example, Buryat and Khalkha Mongols during history, thus creating or preserving adialect continuum. Another problem lies in the sheer comparability of terminology, as Western linguists uselanguage anddialect, while Mongolian linguists use theGrimmian trichotomylanguage (kele),dialect (nutuɣ-un ayalɣu) andMundart (aman ayalɣu).
Rybatzki (2003: 388–389)[50] recognizes the following 6 areal subgroups of Mongolic.
^Andrews (1999:72), "[...] believed that at least some of their constituent tribes spoke a Mongolian language, though there is still some argument that a particular variety of Turkic may have been spoken among them."
^see Vovin 2007 for Tabghach and Janhunen 2012 for Khitan
^The reconstruction of a social gender distinction is fairly commonplace, see e.g. Rybatzki (2003b): 75. A strong argument for the number distinction between -ba and -bai is made in Tümenčečeg (1990): 103–108, also see Street (2008) where it is also argued that this has been the case for other suffixes.
^Shimunek, Andrew (2017).Languages of Ancient Southern Mongolia and North China: a Historical-Comparative Study of the Serbi or Xianbei Branch of the Serbi-Mongolic Language Family, with an Analysis of Northeastern Frontier Chinese and Old Tibetan Phonology. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.ISBN978-3-447-10855-3.OCLC993110372.
^Vovin, Alexander. 2007. ‘Once again on the Tabɣač language.’ Mongolian Studies XXIX: 191-206.
^Chen, Sanping 2005. Turkic or Proto-Mongolian? A Note on the Tuoba Language. Central Asiatic Journal 49.2: 161–73.
^Rybatzki, Volker. 2003. "Intra-Mongolic taxonomy." In Janhunen, Juha (ed).The Mongolic Languages, 364–390. Routledge Language Family Series 5. London: Routledge.
Sechenbaatar, Borjigin (2003).The Chakhar dialect of Mongol – A morphological description. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne. Vol. 243. Helsinki:Finno-Ugrian Society.ISBN952-5150-68-2.
[Sechenbaatar] Sečenbaɣatur, Qasgerel, Tuyaɣ-a, B. ǰirannige, U Ying ǰe. (2005).Mongɣul kelen-ü nutuɣ-un ayalɣun-u sinǰilel-ün uduridqal. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ.
Starostin, Sergei A.; Dybo, Anna V.; Mudrak, Oleg A. (2003).Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof; Tsendina, Anna; Karlsson, Anastasia; Franzén, Vivan (2005).The Phonology of Mongolian. Oxford University Press.ISBN9780199260171.
Vovin, Alexander (2005). "The End of the Altaic Controversy: In Memory of Gerhard Doerfer".Central Asiatic Journal.49 (1):71–132.JSTOR41928378. (review of Starostin et al. 2003)
Vovin, Alexander (2007). "Once again on the Tabgač language".Mongolian Studies.29:191–206.JSTOR43193441.
![white page with several lines of black Chinese characters running top-down and separated into small groups by spaces. To the left of some of the characters there are small characters such as 舌 and 中. To the right of each line, groups of characters are indicated as such by a "]]"-shaped bracket, and to the right of each such bracket, there are other medium-sized characters](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aSecret_history.jpg)
