Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region Peter Sauli Piispanen Piispanen, Peter Sauli 2019. Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region. journal name, xx–xx. [EARLY DRAFT PAPER VERSION] ABSTRACT. In this study, over a dozen new lexical borrowings related to fauna in the Altay-Sayan region are presented and suggested between Turkic, Tungusic, Mongolic, Yeniseian and Samoyedic languages, with specific focus on individual Samoyedic languages. Interestingly, two specific groups of borrowings do indicate ancient substrate effects in two of the Samoyedic languages: Mongols and Selkup-speakers did interact, as did Ewenki and Nenets-speakers. Keywords: Lexical borrowing, fauna, Samoyedic, Yeniseian, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Russian Peter Sauli Piispanen, Department of Slavic and Baltic Languages, Finnish, German and Dutch, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: peter.piispanen@finska.su.se 1. Introduction The Altai-Sayan region of Russia is culturally very diverse comprising Russian, Mongolic, Sinitic, Turkic, Samoyedic and Yeniseian groups. All in all, its biological, landscape, cultural, historical and religious diversity is unique. The region itself covers more than one million square kilometers, with a total population of around 5-6 million inhabitants. With some 3726 vascular plants and some 680 animal species (77 fishes, 8 amphibians, 25 reptiles, 425 birds and 143 mammals; World Wildlife Fund) it is easy to see how terminology pertaining to such richness in flora and fauna could lend itself to extensive lexical borrowings between the various languages in the region. This study of new fauna loanwords in the area focuses on the languages of Nenets, Enets, Yurats, Nganasan, Kamassian, and Selkup (Uralic-Samoyedic languages), Mansi (a Uralic-Ugric language) Tofalar and Old Kipchak (Turkic languages), Ewenki (a Tungusic language), Written Mongolian (a Mongolic language), and Ket (a Yeniseian language). Further notes are also made for numerous other related languages used in the comparisons and argumentations. Sinitic languages are excluded from this study as this author does not have sufficient competence to carry out such comparisons. 2 Peter Sauli Piispanen The Samoyedic languages belong to the Uralic languages and are spoken in widely spaced areas of Siberia. In this paper, I will mainly focus on lexical borrowings into individual Samoyed languages from various sources. In a manner, this is a natural continuation of earlier done research into Turkic borrowings into Proto-Samoyed (Piispanen, P.S. 2019). Indeed, this study of later borrowings into individual Samoyed languages is inspired by Helimski’s similarly focused earlier studies (Helimski, E. 1986; 1995). It is important to realize that all documented Samoyedic languages have been presented under different names over the years, and so, for the sake of the reader, a quick summary of language nomenclature follows with the modern name first given followed by the older names given within brackets: Mator (Taigi, or Karagas Samoyed, now extinct but was spoken in the northern region of the Sayan Mountains close to the Mongolian north border), Kamas (Koibal Samoyed), Selkup (Ostyak Samoyed), Nenets (Yurak), Enets (Yenisei Samoyed) and Nganasan (Tavgi) (well summarized, for example, in Peler, G.Y. 2019). In some literature, the older names are used to denote specific dialects of the main language, while others still have names that are easily confused, such as Yurats, an extinct Samoyed language that was intermediate between Enets and Nenets, and which is distinct from Yurak, the older name for Nenets. Several Turkic borrowings, mainly from Tuvan and closely related languages, into the Samoyed languages of Mator, Koibal, Karagas, and Kamassian are previously known. Further, specifically Toha & Tofalar borrowings into Mator are also known. Helimski has excellently summarized some specific Samoyed borrowings in Turkic, and vice versa (Helimski, E. 1995:75-95), while recently Turkic borrowings into Proto-Samoyed were summarized and new ones were suggested elsewhere (Piispanen, P.S. 2019). Less work has been done on the identification of borrowed names for flora or fauna, partly because such have been less extensively documented in the smaller languages. Indeed, there are scores of non-etymologized flora and fauna names in Selkup, Kamass, Mator, Nganasan, Enets, Nenets (=Samoyedic), Tofalar, Tuvan (=Turkic) as well as the Yeniseian languages. Here, I will therefore add some materials not only from the Turkic languages, but also from the Mongolic, Tungusic and Yeniseian languages, into a few of the Samoyedic languages, which to the best of my knowledge, are new loanword etymological suggestions. Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region 3 Additionally, I will also suggest a few other fauna borrowings between some other languages in the area.1 2. SOME TURKIC BORROWINGS INTO SAMOYED 1. Turkic *aŋyt > Nganasan ŋaŋuode & Mongolic *aŋat > Kamassian aŋat Kamassian aŋat ‘полярная утка = polar duck (Anas rutila)’ and Nganasan ŋaŋuode ‘утка = duck’, are, to the best of my knowledge, non-etymologized. Interestingly, there are several similar roots for various species of ducks present in both Turkic and Mongolic (and elsewhere; Anikin, A.Ye. 2000:70), and some of these have been borrowed from Turkic into Mongolic, or vice versa (as summarized well in Khabtagaeva, B. 2019:48). There are several very similar Turkic and Mongolic roots related to ‘duck’ to keep apart in the fairly complex analysis. First, there is Proto-Turkic *Ăŋ(k)ɨt ‘wild duck (дикая утка)’ (EDAL 305), which elsewhere is reconstructed as *aŋyt ‘a species of wild duck’ (reflecting all old sources) > Old Uyghur aŋyt ’a rather large bird predominantly red; ruddy goose (Anas casarca)’; Karakhanid Uyghur aŋyt; Yellow Uyghur aŋit ‘wild duck with yellow feathers’; Middle Kypchak aŋyt; Chagatai ankud; Turkish angut ‘огарь (Tadorna ferruginea)’, dial. Turkish ankɨt; Middle Turkic anqud; Azeri anGutboGaz ‘длинношеий = long-necked’; Turkmen aŋk ‘red duck’; Uzbek anɣirt ‘red duck’; Kumyk haŋkut; Karaim anqɨt~ankit ‘ostrich, vulture, dragon’; Saryg-Yughur aŋɨt; Khakas āt ‘турпан = scoter’; Shor āt ‘wild duck’ (Leksika 172; VEWT 21; EDT 176; TMN 2 129). The Turkic form is phonologically characterized by the final -t. Different languages thus give the meaning as ‘морянка; чернядь; красная утка; турпан = long-tailed duck; a species of duck; red duck; scoter’. Some Turkic borrowings are then found in Mongolic from this form (see below). several of the Turkic forms indeed suggest that the proto-form should be reconstructed with the plosive after the engma although as the EDAL seemingly correctly suggests some Turkic forms may have been contaminated by Mongolic sources. It is noteworthy 1 My colleagues Juho Pystynen [xxx insert rest later] as well as two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged for their valuable input much improving the details of my argumentation during manuscript preparation. All remaining errors are, of course, my own, including the probable oversight of any non-mentioned etymology for the here handled fauna names in older literature. 4 Peter Sauli Piispanen that all old sources attested have no plosive, and it may suggest that one group of Turkic languages have the plosive, while another group does not. Secondly, the Mongolic sources cited pertain to a parallel *aŋgir ‘scooter’, attested as Written Mongol aŋgir ‘нырок = canvas-back, a kind of yellow duck’ (Lessing, F.D. 1960:44-45) (also attested as Middle Mongol anggir~aŋgir ‘yellow, reddish-yellow; a kind of yellow duck (Tadorna ferruginea)’; Khalkha aŋgir ‘ruddy shelduck’; Buryat aŋgir ‘scoter (Tadorna ferruginea)’; Kalmück äŋgṛ; Ordos aŋgir ‘yellow’, and Khamnigan angir). It should be noted that all of these Mongolic sources have a final –r. These etymologies are discussed in the VEWT 21 and Leksika 2001:172, etc. The Mongolic form is also borrowed as Ewenki aŋir ‘выпь’ (Doerfer, G. 1985:68). Thirdly, the above Mongolic form correctly appears to be borrowed into some Turkic languages (as suggested in the EDAL 305, contrary to TMN 2, 129) with Oyrat aŋar ‘a water bird, smaller than a goose with reddish yellow chest’, aŋɨr ‘a kind of red duck’; Tuvan aŋgɨr ‘scoter’; Chylum aŋnan ‘a kind of eagle’; Yakut aŋɨr ‘bittern (Botaurus stellaris)’; dial. Yakut aŋɨr ‘owl’; Kazakh aŋgar ‘a kind of duck’, etc. Fourth, there is also a puzzling local variant with Tofalar oŋɣuq ‘diver duck’ (Rassadin 2005:73), where the final sound is instead an –q. Considering the above, it would at first glance seem as if an originally Turkic form was responsible for the borrowing into Kamassian. After all, the Kamassian form seems to reflect a Turkic borrowing on account of the final –t (as opposed to the final –r of native Mongolic, see above). The change of –y- > -a- in the Kamassian word could be ascribed to progressive assimilative effects. However, and this changes the analysis considerably, there is also Written Mongolian angat; Buryat angata ‘Ruddy shelduck’, which in themselves are Turkic borrowings (Leksika 172), which are actually, both due to correct vocalism and the final –t(a), the direct donor language(s) of Kamassian aŋat (< Mongolic *aŋat)! Then, there is Nganasan ŋaŋuode ‘утка = duck’ (Kosterkina, Momde & Zhdanova 2001:131), which, on the other hand suggests a Turkic origin, with what can be segmented as ŋ-aŋu(o)d-e < Turkic *aŋyt, and which therefore is not of Uralic origin either (as erroneously given in UEW 13). The vowel –u- in Nganasan must represent an original –y- here. The word-initial engma in Nganasan is regularly prothetic for vowel-initial roots, while the final –e should have been added due to prosodic reasons (i.e. paragoge to have a root-final vowel). These phonological as well as the semantic differences therefore suggest that the borrowings into Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region 5 Kamassian and Nganasan were made independently from a Mongolic and Turkic source, respectively. Importantly, there is also Proto-Uralic (PU) *aŋV ‘Schneehuhn; Polarente = Harelda glacialis; Anas hiemalis’ (UEW 13), with a few agreeable Samoyed representatives (including Kamassian uŋa ‘Rebhuhn’; Taz & Ket Selkup uu ‘Schneehuhn’, Nenets ŋaŋu~ ŋaŋo ‘утка-нырок’ (Xomitch, L.V. 1958:48; Tereshchenko, N.M. 2005:83); Enets ŋau ‘утка = duck’ (Sorokina, I. P. & Bolina, D.S. 2001:28, 228), but the final syllable and other matters of both the Kamassian and Nganasan words above suggest that these should be considered borrowings instead of being of Uralic etymological origin. Rédei therein indeed mentions the Turkic root, but presents no conclusions whatsoever from the comparison, and I am hoping to here have clarified the matters more fully. 2. Turkic *taburɣa > Rus. кабарга > (Ewenki kabarga; Buryat kabarga >) Nenets xabarta; Enets xabarta; Yurats gabórta The musk-deer is a Siberian horned mountain animal of the deer species. Anikin (2003:226-227) notes that the Russian word кабарга ‘musk-deer’ (which in the Siberian dialects has the meaning небольшой безрогий олень; козочка, безрогое сибирское животное из семьи оленей, от самца коего, из подбрюшной сумочки, получается кабаргиная, кабарожья или кабарговая струя) is borrowed as Ewenki kabarga ‘кабарга = musk-deer’; Buryat kabarga ‘кабарга; мускусная косуля= musk-deer; musk roe deer’. The Russian form, however, is ultimately assumed to be borrowed from Turkic, and subject to irregular phonological changes, cf. Turkmen, Shor, etc. taburɣa ‘мускусная косуля = musk roe deer’; Tuvan toŋurɣau~torɣu ‘кабарга = musk-deer’, a thesis that seems fairly likely. However, previous research appears to have completely overlooked the Samoyed forms, which should be borrowed as well, as strongly suggested both by the phonology and semantics, from Ewenki or Buryat, or even dial. Russian, as Nenets xabarta ’moose, elk’ (Xomitch, L.V. 1958:87); Enets xabarta ’elk’ (Sorokina, I.P. & Bolina, D.S. 2001:149); Yurats gabórta ‘alce = elk’. The semantically shifted meaning of ‘elk’ likely arose with the borrowing, and given that the source is either Russian, or the Ewenki or Buryat forms (there is no way to distinguish between them) – which have been borrowed from Russian – these words cannot be very old in Samoyed, but must predate the 19th century when Yurats became extinct. Phonologically, the final –arga irregularly changed into –arta in Samoyed for an unknown reason, but all matters being weighed this is to be considered a secure borrowing suggestion. 6 Peter Sauli Piispanen 3. SOME YENISEIAN BORROWINGS INTO SAMOYED There are already a number of known Yeniseian borrowings into Samoyed. For example, Werner’s dictionary notes Yenisei ál’ga ‘schwarze Ente = black duck’ (2002a:31), borrowed as Selkup alky ~ alqy ‘черная утка; турпан = black duck, scoter’ (Irikov, S.I. 1988:4). Below, I will present one borrowing from Ket into Nenets, as well as another one in the other direction, from Selkup or Nganasan into Ket. 3. Ket bǝˀn > Nenets pun’’nū Nj. Tundra Nenets pun’’nū ‘Polartaucher = black-throated loon, aka. arctic loon aka. black-throated diver (Gavia arctica)’, Lj. pi̮ n’’nū, P p·ȋ ̣n’’nū (Lehtisalo 1956:367, missing from Tereschenko 2005), borrowed from Proto-Yeniseian *bǝˀn ’duck’ > Arin ponja ~ punä ’duck’, as well as Ket n’i. bΛˀn ‘diver duck’ (Werner 2002a:26), bΛˀn ‘утка = duck’ (Ket and Selkup online documentation), etc. As to the best of my knowledge, the Tundra Nenets word is seemingly nonetymologized. It is documented perhaps only in Lehtisalo’s Juraksamojedisches Wörterbuch, missing from other Nenets sources (including Xomitch, L.V. 1958 & Tereshchenko, N.M. 2005), and any and all obvious cognates in the other Samoyed languages are missing. The standard Samoyedic word for loon is derived from Proto-Samoyed *ńuǝnä ‘loon’ (SW 112): Forest Enets néni ’гагара = loon’ (Sorokina, I.P. & Bolina, D.S. 2001:80); Tundra Enets ńuńa ’loon’; Nenets ńuńa ’гагара = loon’ (Xomitch, L.V. 1958:42); Nganasan ńuony ’гагара = loon’ (Kosterkina, N.T. 2001:125); ?Tym Selkup ńȧ`n ~ ńen ‘loon’. Thus, Nenets already has a native word for a standard loon, but with this borrowing we have a loon subspecies, the arctic loon. Now, interestingly, there is a noteworthy similarity between the phonological form of the Tundra Nenets word for arctic loon and the various forms found for duck in the Yeniseian languages. It is unclear why the meaning of duck would have been changed into arctic loon. There are, however, many species of ducks and some are fairly similar in looks, habitat and behavior (in particular the diving duck) to the arctic loon so the semantic change is certainly within the range of possibilities. Phonologically, the Nenets form well reflects the Yeniseian root. For example, in Ket the plural of this root, bə̌ntân‘mallard ducks’, is pronounced with a rising highfalling tone, and in Arin (where devoicing is common), the form used to be ponja ~ punä, which is exceptionally close to Nenets pun’’nū. The exact donor Yeniseian Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region 7 language cannot be identified in this case, and neither can the chronological details be secured, but phonological considerations, as well as a limited geographic spread in Nenets suggests that it is not a very old borrowing. Tundra Nenets is spoken from the Kanin Peninsula to the Yenisei River, and there, along the Yenisei River, the language must have been in contact with the Yeniseian languages, the area also being their ancestral home. Hence, I suggest that this borrowing must have taken place close to the Yenisei River area. 4. Selkup küla or Nganasan kulǝ > Ket qul’, qul’ǝŋ In this case, the direction of borrowing is not from Yeniseian into Samoyed, but vice versa, which is evident from the solid Uralic etymology for the involved Samoyed words. I suggest: PU *kulV(-kV) ’raven’ > PS *kulǝjǝ ’raven’ (SW77) > Taz Selkup küla ’raven; crow’, etc. (& Enets kúreke ’raven’; Tundra Nenets xulli ~ kuly ’raven’; Forest Nenets kuLī ’raven’; Kamass kuli ~ küli ‘raven (Corvus corax)’; Nganasan kulǝ ~ kula ~ kula’’a ‘raven’ (Kosterkina, N.T., Momde, A.Č. & Zhdanova, T.Ju. 2001:72); Koibal kullae ~ kule ’raven’) > Ket qolät ~ qɔľet ’Krähe, ворона = crow’, qul’ ‘crow’, qul’ǝŋ ‘crows’ (Ket and Selkup online documentation); Yugh xôlatn~xolateŋ ’crows’ (Werner 2002b:384, marked for plural). The donor language for the borrowing into Ket and Yugh should have been Selkup or Nganasan based on the vocalism of the Yeniseian forms. Population genetic studies do indicate fairly strong ancient ties through Haplogroup Q-M242 between the ancestors of the modern Ket, Yakuts, Selkups and Oyrats (Karafet, T.M. 2002), possibly indicating that this Samoyed borrowing into Ket was made from Selkup specifically. 4. SOME MONGOLIC BORROWINGS INTO SAMOYED Here no less than three Mongolic borrowings into Selkup are suggested: 5. Proto-Mongolic *kerije > Written Mongolian kerije(n) > Selkup kerja The non-etymologized Selkup word kerja ‘raven’ is most certainly a Mongolic borrowing. I suggest Proto-Mongolic *kerije ‘crow, raven’ (EDAL 691; *kerie ‘crow’ in Nugteren, H. 2011:411) > Written Mongolian kerije(n) (хэрээ(н)) ‘crow; raven, rook’ (Lessing, F.D. 1960:458) > Selkup kerja ‘ворон = raven’ (Irikov, S.I. 1988:23). With this borrowing, both the phonology and semantics are in strong agreement and it is to be considered secure. With this suggestion, I counter 8 Peter Sauli Piispanen Janhunen’s previous etymology for the Selkup word (in SW 170), where he hesitantly connected it as a derivative PS *wǝr-ǝjǝ- ‘Krähe = crow’; phonologically it was untenable. The Mongolic word is also, as the different phonology will attest, independently borrowed as Ewenki kerê (according to Doerfer, G. 1963-67:464, 1985:96; Rozycki, W. 1994:138). The form is entirely missing in Enets, Nenets, and Nganasan which instead use native Uralic forms for this bird name. 6. Proto-Mongolic *kürene > Written Mongolian kürene > Selkup kury Proto-Mongolic *kürene ‘хорек, ласка = ferret, weasel’ > Written Mongolian kürene (хүрнэ) ‘skunk, polecat; weasel’, čagan kürene ‘weasel’ (Lessing, F.D. 1960:504) > Selkup kury ‘горностай = ermine’ (Irikov, S.I. 1988:122). The ermine is very similar to the ferret and weasel in appearance, size and manner, and differs only in color; the arctic ermine is white, but in the summer-time they can be brown and white. There is a similar word found in Yakut kyrsa ‘ласка = weasel’, which may have been borrowed as Ewenki kirsa ‘ласка; песец = weasel; arctic fox’ (Vasilevič 1958:605), but due to phonological reasons these are not connected to the Selkup form. 7. Proto-Mongolic *sïnkor > Written Mongolian singqur > Selkup seŋkjata Selkup seŋkjata ‘сокол = hawk’ (Irikov, S.I. 1988:67) would appear to be nonetymologized, as I know of no similar form in any of the other Uralic languages. It may be compared to Proto-Mongolic *sïnkor ‘falcon’ (Nugteren, H. 2012:66) > Written Mongolian singqur ~ šongqur ~ šongqor ‘falcon, gerfalcon’ (Lessing, F.D. 1960:712, 756); Buryat (našan) šonqor ‘gerfalcon, Falco rusticolus intermedius’ (Čeremisov, K.M. 1951:699); Khalkha monqor ‘кречет, сокол = gerfalcon, falcon’; Kalmück šoŋqr ‘Falco rusticolus’ (Nominhanov 1975; Bardajev, E. Č. 1983; Mandzhikova, B.B 2007), etc., and it is therefore another likely Mongolic borrowing. The root is also found with Uyghur sıŋqur ‘Falke Lob’, where it must also be a Mongolic borrowing, as it is also found as Mongolic borrowings in Turkmen & Kazakh suŋqar, Karakalpak suŋgar, Uzbek šunkor, Oyrat šonkor, Chagatai sunkur ‘gerfalcon, falcon’. Phonologically, however, a number of details need to hammered out, in particular regarding the vocalism. One could assume morphological reasons for the different ending of –ta, instead of –r. In Selkup, if a root ends in a consonant, in the plural form the original consonant is exchanged with the plural suffix –t (Helimski, E. 1998:557), or, alternatively, the genitive marker -t. This might partly explain the Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region 9 Selkup form if a plural form was borrowed, which is not entirely uncommon with bird name borrowings (i.e. something like *siŋqur > *siŋqut > seŋkjata). However, the origin of the sound –ja- is left unexplained, as is the final -a. Another hypothesis is to assume direct suffixation by *-ta directly to the root, which would give us *siŋqur-ta > *siŋkuta > seŋkjata, which includes irregular phonological changes and an assimilation (because the cluster –arta would not be prosodically valid in Selkup, while –ata certainly is, but there are no other Selkup words with –jata so that too is odd, and perhaps indicative of borrowing). Actually, when comparing Mongolic and Turkic forms for various birds, the Mongolic form often ends in –r and the Turkic form in –t, but no Turkic representatives of this root are known to me that could be the prospective donor language. These phonological difficulties makes this etymological suggestion less certain, but it is probably still to be considered valid. In Selkup there are also Selkup seŋky ‘глухарь = wood grouse’ (Irikov, S.I. 1988:67) and čiŋky ‘swan’ (Irikov, S.I. 1988:91), but neither of these can have anything to do with the Selkup word treated above due to phonological reasons. Below I will also present one Mongolic borrowing into Turkic Tofalar and two Mongolic borrowings into Yeniseian Ket. 8. Proto-Mongolic *bataɣana > Buryat bataɣana > Tofalar bataɣana Not surprisingly, a Mongolic word for ‘mosquito’ is borrowed into Tofalar. The Altai-Sayan region is known for being heavily mosquito-infested, and borrowing such words therefore comes most naturally between local populations. I suggest the following borrowing: Buryat bataɣana ~ bataɣanaa(n) ‘муха; комар; мошкара = fly; mosquito; midge’ (Čeremisov, K.M. 1951:97) (& Written Mongolian bataɣan-a ‘gnat, fly; mosquito’ (Lessing, F.D. 1960:91);; Khalkha batgana ‘fly’; Kalmück batχanv ‘fliege = fly’ (KW 36) > Tofalar bataɣana ‘комар = mosquito’ (Rassadin, V.I. 2005:20). The exact donor language is difficult to distinguish, but it was most likely Buryat both due to geographic and phonological considerations. An agreeable Proto-Mongolic reconstruction for this has been given elsewhere as *bata-ɣana‘mosquito’ (Sandzheev, G.D., Orgovskaja, M.N. & Ševernina, E.V. 2015:79), and so the direction of borrowing must clearly be into Tofalar, which indeed is known to be a recipient of many Mongolic borrowings. 9. Proto-Mongolic *kajil- > Written Mongolian qajilaɣan > Ket ka:jlɔŋ Proto-Mongolic *kajil- ‘морская чайка; жаворонок = sea gull; lark’ > Written Mongolian qajilaɣan ‘sea gull’ (& Middle Mongolian qajiruqana ‘Weissfedervogel 10 Peter Sauli Piispanen (e. Drosselart)’; Khalkha xajlgana ‘sea gull’; Buryat xajlgana ‘sea gull’, xajrgana ‘sea gull; lark’) > Ket ka:jlɔŋ ‘речная чайка = river gull’ (Ket and Selkup online documentation). I also note the similar Nenets xalev ‘gull’ (Xomitch L.V. 1958:88), which appears to be non-etymologized, and which may be either a Mongolic or Ket borrowing. 10. Proto-Mongolic *hötü ~ *hödü ~ *hötüg > Ket utyɣ I suggest that Ket utyɣ ‘worm’ was borrowed from Mongolic as per: Proto-Mongolic *hötü ~ *hödü ~ *hötüg ‘larva, maggot; worm’ (Nugteren, H. 2011:362) > Ket utyɣ ‘червь = worm’ (Ket and Selkup online documentation). The form found in Ket strongly does suggest an original Mongolic form of *hötüg; this form is also suggested by Dahejia (or Jishishan) Baoan hodǝg ‘worm’ (Bökh & Liú 1982:84) and Ñantoq subdialect of Tongren Baoan x’ötǝg ‘maggot in meat’ (Chén et al. 1985:158), as well as perhaps Minhe Monguor xotu ‘worm’ (Junast & Lĭ 1982:476). There are also Written Mongolic ötü(n) (Lessing, F.D. 1960:646); Khakas öt(ön); Ordos ütü; Buryat üte(n); Kalmück ötn; Dagur xud, but all of these lack the final –g that was borrowed into Ket. The exact Mongolic donor language is therefore not readily attested, and as Nugteren notes: “Several older forms must have existed, apparently none of them attested in older sources”, and we may conclude that a Mongolic language, in which where the root-initial h- had already been lost at the time of borrowing, but which had retained the final –g (i.e. likely *ötüg ‘worm’), must have been the donor for the Ket word. 5. SOME TUNGUSIC BORROWINGS INTO SAMOYED No less than five Tungusic borrowings into individual Samoyed languages can be presented. 11. Proto-Tungusic *ābu- > Nenets ńabu An interesting early Tungusic borrowing into Nenets. Proto-Tungusic *ābu- ’a kind of duck: утка-морянка = long-tailed duck’ (TMS 1 10) (> Ewenki āwụldụqa) > Nenets ńabu ’утка = duck’ (Xomitch, L.V. 1958:43); Yurats njawétjä ‘anas = duck’. In Nenets, vowel-initial roots receive an epenthetic engma, ŋ, regularly. In this case it has an irregular root-initial prothetic consonant ń instead of the expected ŋ. This may have one parallel, however, with Proto-Uralic *aŋtV ~*oŋtV ‘horn’ > Nenets ńāmt (O) ‘Horn, Geweih (u. a. des Renntiers)’ (UEW 12-13), although in this case the various Proto-Samoyed forms suggest *ämtǝ ‘horn’, which may be entirely Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region 11 unrelated the the PU form. The phonological difficulties clearly makes this a less secure borrowing etymology. 12. Proto-Tungusic *kukti > Proto-North Samoyed *kukti > Nenets xutij; Nganasan kotï Here I suggest the borrowing chain of: Proto-Tungusic *kukti ‘cuckoo’ (TMS 426) > Pre-Ewenki *kukti > Proto-North Samoyed *kukti > Nenets xutij ‘cuckoo’ (Xomitch, L.V. 1958:95); Nganasan kotï ‘cuckoo’ (Kosterkina, N.T., Momde, A.Č. & Zhdanova, T.Ju. 2001:70). The -t- in the Samoyed forms is very revealing as it must go back to the -t- of the Ewenki form, a -t- that is lacking in most other Tungusic languages attesting this root. In other words, something like Pre-Ewenki was likely the donor language in this case. Indeed, any early cluster of *-kt- is regularly reduced to -t- in both Nenets and Nganasan (in contrast to Kamass and Selkup which both usually retain said cluster); cf. Proto-Uralic *kakta ~ *käktä ‘two’ > Nenets s’id’e ‘two’ & Nganasan siti ‘two’ (UEW 118-119) & Proto-Uralic *mäkte ‘hill’ > Nenets ḿet (Nj.) ‘Rasenhöcker, Bülte’ (UEW 266) & Proto-Uralic *tuktV ‘cross-beam’ > Nenets tade (O) ‘Querholz im Kanu’ (UEW 534). The following lenition of the initial k- → x- is also fully regular in Nenets. Therefore, this borrowing is both early and regular. The borrowing could, in fact, be early enough to classify as Proto-Northern Samoyed *kukti ‘cuckoo’, which seems quite likely considering the attested Nganasan and Nenets forms. Again, as suggested by the archaism of this borrowing, the Tungusic languages would seem to be older than generally believed. Another hypothesis, although much less likely, would be to instead assume borrowing in the other direction, namely from Proto-North Samoyed into ProtoTungusic, which might be possible, but such are both less known or evaluated. 13. Proto-Tungusic *kūku > Nenets xoxorej, Yurats kugórre Nenets xoxorej ‘лебедь = swan’ (Xomitch, L.V. 1958:94), as well as Yurats kugórre ‘cygnus = swan’, appear to have no Uralic etymology and I will here suggest a loanword etymology from Tungusic for them. There has been reconstructed ProtoTungusic *kūku ~ *xūku ‘лебедь = swan’ (EDAL 733, based on TMS 1 426-427). The first Tungusic form is attested in Oroch, Udege, Ulch, Orok and Nanai, perhaps suggesting that it is mainly South Tungusic (TMS 1 426-427), while the second form, perhaps more North Tungusic, is attested in Ewenki, Ewen, Negidal, etc. (TMS 2 336). This latter second form looks to me more like *xūk-si ‘swan’, and the entry is confused with several words that actually instead should belong with *kūku 12 Peter Sauli Piispanen above (TMS 1 426-427). I suggest that Nenets xoxorej ‘swan’ (Xomitch, L.V. 1958:94), as well as the neighboring Yurats form, are both borrowed from a Tungusic source. Yurats, as a language, seems to be intermediary with features of both Nenets and Enets, and it is possible that this borrowing was early enough to have entered an early common Proto-Enets-Nenets stage of the language, in which case the word could perhaps also be found in Enets, but, alas, there I only know of the form dédju ’лебедь = swan’ (Sorokina, I.P. & Bolina, D.S. 2001:26). Again, the lenition of the initial k- → x- is fully regular in Nenets. The ending of -rej looks prosodically to have originated from the Tungusic languages of Ewenki or Ewen (as derived from the (mostly) nominal derivational suffixes *-rā, *-rē or *-rī, or other similar variants; Vasilevič 1958:786-787), and it probably carried over with the borrowing as there is to the best of my knowledge no such suffix or morphological structure in native Nenets. The problem, however, is, that there is no exact corresponding form *kūkurej attested in neither Ewenki nor Ewen, but it is possible that it used to exist and has since fallen out of Tungusic use; Helimski adopted a similar thinking regarding borrowings to or from Mator and the Turkic languages, where the donor Mator form could sometimes not be attested, but instead other Uralic, or more specifically, Samoyed correspondences were given (Helimski, E. 1995). Furthermore, there is also a comparandum with Proto-Turkic *Kugu ‘лебедь = swan’ (VEWT 275, EDT 609, TMN 3, 533-534, Лексика 171, ЭСТЯ 6, 101, Stachowski 159) but due to the presence of the Tungusic-looking ending of –rej, a Turkic donor language is less likely in this case. Despite these problems, this would appear a believable loanword etymology for Nenets and Yurats. 14. Proto-Tungusic *pige ~ *piage > Pre-Ewenki *piɣen > Kamass phigije Previously, the UEW has, probably due to phonological reasons, hesitantly connected Kamass phigije ‘сокол = falcon’ to PU *päke ’a.k. of bird of prey’ (UEW 361). Instead a Tungusic loanword etymology can be suggested for this Kamass word. I suggest Proto-Tungusic *pige ~ *piage ‘коршун = kite’ (EDAL 1073, based on: TMS 2 322-323) > Pre-Ewenki *piɣen ‘kite’ (> Ewenki hiɣen ‘kite’) > Kamass phigije ‘falcon’. Phonological details follow: with the borrowing, the final *-n has probably been interpreted as a genitive marker in Kamass and therefore been deleted, and we can therefore posit Pre-Ewenki *piɣen > *piɣe > *phige > Kamass phigije. It is possible that the word-initial p- changed to ph- under the influence of the second syllable ɣ, which then subsequently changed to the, for Kamass phonologically more comfortable, g. Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region 13 15. Proto-Tungusic *kāŋgu > Nganasan kaŋgü’’o To the best of my knowledge, Nganasan kaŋgü’’o ‘гусь-гуменник = bean goose’ (Kosterkina, N.T., Momde, A.Č. & Zhdanova, T.Ju. 2001:61) remains nonetymologized. I will herewith present it as a Tungusic borrowing as per: ProtoTungusic *kāŋgu ‘вид утки = a kind of duck’ (TMS 1 373-374, 410) > Ewenki kaŋalas ‘гусенок = gosling’; Oroch kangu ‘wild duck’; Negidal kaŋgu̇ ‘уткаостронос; крохаль’; Ulcha qaŋgu̇ lï ‘гагара = loon’; Nanai qāŋɣo ‘утка-крохаль’, etc. > Nganasan kaŋgü’’o ‘гусь-гуменник = bean goose’. We may have expected Ewenki as the source of borrowing in this case, but the Ewenki form is somewhat different from the reconstructed Proto-Tungusic form (attested in other languages); this makes the identification of exact donor language difficult. The Ewenki form is borrowed as Yakut xaŋalas ‘гусь-стервятник’, kōŋālān ‘black duck’ (according to: Vasilevič 1958:191, 209). Semantically, the Tungusic root denotes various types of ducks throughout the Tungusic languages, and the meaning of bean goose in Nganasan is therewith also acceptable; interestingly, the Ewenki form, albeit phonologically different, means gosling, which is very close to the Nganasan bean goose. Perhaps there used to be a form closer to *kāŋgu in Pre-Ewenki, which meant goose. 6. MORE NEW LOANWORD ETYMOLOGIES OF INTEREST 16. Proto-Turkic *kari:- > Old Kipchak qar Old Kipchak qar ’defect’ is considered a hapax legomenon (Jankowski, H. 2015:283) and not connected to any form in any other language, and thus nonetymologized. However, I will suggest that it is related to Proto-Turkic *kari:- ‘to be or to become old’ and thus of Turkic etymology. The Turkic form has been borrowed from Pre-Yakut into (suffixed) Tundra Yukaghir qarpil’e- ‘to go to ruin, to be destroyed, to tumble down’ (< *qari-pə-l’ə-)(Piispanen, P.S. 2013), cf. Yakut kɯrɯj- ‘to become old, to age’ (JRS 211). The meaning in Yukaghir is semantically similar to that found in Old Kipchak. Cf. also Turkish kart ‘old, wizened, dry’. Indeed, semantically, something old or wizened can easily be considered defect. 14 Peter Sauli Piispanen 17. Proto-Turkic *palga-n > Mansi (KU KM KO) pɔ̄̈ĺkǝnt, (So.) pāl’kat, etc. The following suggestion materialized due to a very productive etymological discussion held with my colleague J. Pystynen, who clarified several informed matters for me. Mansi pɔ̄̈ĺkǝnt ‘kleine Klaue bei der Kuh, dem Elentier, dem Rentier’ has previously been hesitantly compared to Moksha Mordvin pil’gä ‘foot’, Erzya Mordvin pil’ge ‘foot’, which resulted in a Proto-Finno-Ugric reconstructed form of *päl’kV ‘foot’ (UEW 364). Rédei, however, noted that the reconstruction is most uncertain due to the possibly distant relationship between the Ugric and Mordvin forms. He likely also meant that the forms are poorly attested. He also suggested the phonological change of *ä > i in Mordvin due to the assimilative influence of the following –l’-, suggesting a Proto-Mordvin form of *päl’gä ‘foot’; such a phonological development, however, has no parallels, and it is to be considered untenable. Instead, the Proto-Mordvin form must have been *pil’gǝ. This leaves the Mordvin forms non-etymologized, but, surprisingly, the Mansi form can be etymologized through external comparanda as a lexical borrowing. The Mansi form is well-attested, as shown by: Mansi (KU KM KO) pɔ̄̈ĺkǝnt, (So.) pāl’kat (UEW 364); (N) paľkänt, (LM) paľkėnt, (P) pøľk, (K) på̄ ľkėn ‘patás állatok kis, felső patái = die kleinen Klauen der Huftiere’ (Munkácsi, Bernát & Kálmán, Béla 1986). Note that the materials of the latter source were collected by Bernát Munkácsi in 1888-1889, and so the Mansi dialectal distribution of this borrowing can be considered secure. The comparison of interest is to Proto-Tungus-Manchu *palga-n ‘foot; sole’ > Ewenki halgan ‘нога, ступня; копыто; ладонь = leg, foot; hoof; palm’ (< PreEwenki *palgan)(Vasilevic 1958:467, attested in most dialects), xalgadā-mī ‘идти пешком = to walk by foot’, xalgamagin ‘копытница (болезнь копыт у оленей); боль (в ногах) = a hoof disease; pain (in the legs)’ and other derivatives; Ewen halgъ̣n ‘ступня, стопа; шаг; пешеход = sole, foot; step; pedestrian’; Negidal xalgan ‘foot, sole’; Ulcha palǯa(n) ‘foot, outsole’; Orok palǯa(n) ‘foot’; Nanai palgã ‘foot, outsole’; Oroch xaga ‘paw’; Udighe xaga 'paw; bear's trace'; Solon alɣã ‘foot; sole; palm; threshold’; Manchu falaŋɣu ‘palm’ (ТМS 2 312). These forms clearly show that the reconstructed form must indeed be *palga ‘foot, sole, paw; palm’ (additional meanings have been added by me as they are evenly attested in various languages), with an added *–n in North Tungusic. Therewith, I suggest that Mansi (KU KM KO) pɔ̄̈ĺkǝnt, (So.) pāl’kat ‘kleine Klaue bei der Kuh, dem Elentier, dem Rentier = small claw of cow, reindeer, deer’ (< Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region 15 *pääl’kant), etc. are borrowed from Pre-Ewenki *palgan ‘leg, foot; hoof’. According to Rédei –kǝnt and –kat are compound suffixes in Mansi. It appears as if the Tungusic word has been reinterpreted as containing one or the other native suffix in Mansi when it was borrowed. Indeed, Ewenki is the most westward Tungusic language, and this word should be another Tungusic borrowing into the Ugric languages, many others already being known. Semantically, the specific location of the small bovine claw is, of course, located at the general sole area of the hoof, which well agrees with the meanings given in Tungusic. Most Mansi forms appear to have nativized vocalism. From this borrowing we can perhaps assume that Tungusic reindeer herders were in early contact with Mansi populations. Additionally, Pystynen noted that Mansi also has *poľkəs ‘boot’ and *paaľək ‘tail’, which, while not directly relatable to ‘dewclaw’, could perhaps constitute parallel substrate loanwords from the same sources. Semantically, a comparison with ‘tail’ really seems more promising than with ‘sole’: even in reindeer, the dewclaws are not actually used for carrying the weight of the animal on even ground, and they're found distinctively behind the hoof proper (and in most other deer species they're quite far from the sole indeed), which lends to the meaning of tail. This does not need to eliminate a comparison with Tungusic entirely, but with the above a straight-forward loaning from there to Mansi may not be the the case, and an intermediary language is possible here. 18. Turkic *qulun > Ket qo:n This borrowing suggestion complements that of another old one given elsewhere (Khabtagaeva, B. 2019:73), which mentioned Kott, Arin, and Assan forms meaning ‘foal’ as being borrowed from Turkic sources, cf. Turkic *qulun ‘foal’. With Ket qo:n ‘лошадь = horse’ (Ket and Selkup online documentation, missing from Werner, H. 2002b) we have another Yeniseian form borrowed from the same sources. The form has phonologically undergone assimilation, and the meaning is generalized to ‘horse’ from ‘foal’. Given the very extensive spread within Yeniseian it is safe to say that this is a very early borrowing. Yeniseian already has numerous equestrian borrowings from the east (Turkic and Mongolic), and this complements the other ones well. OTHER COMPARISONS AND ETYMOLOGICAL THOUGHTS It should be kept in mind that when making lexical comparisons it is very easy to assume loanword etymologies at a first glance when instead there are good internal etymologies existing. For example, at first, I believed that Nenets tevasi~tevăsi 16 Peter Sauli Piispanen ‘заяц = hare’ (Xomitch, L.V. 1958:83; Tereshchenko, N.M. 2005:144) would have been a Turkic borrowing, cf. Proto-Turkic *tawšan ‘hare’, but the Nenets form actually has an internal etymology because the word literally means ‘бесхвостый = tailless’, a meaning also given in Tereshchenko, N.M. 2005:144; cf. tevă ‘хвост = tail’, which is of Uralic origin. Selkup tjoka ‘goose’ (Irikov, S.I. 1988:71), Taz Selkup tööka ‘гусь = goose’ (Ket and Selkup online documentation), appears to be non-etymologized and could perhaps be compared to the rare Turkic form of Kharakanid juɣaq, allegedly, but not very believably, from Proto-Turkic *juɣaq ‘a kind of water bird: diver, goose’ (VEWT 243, EDT 901, Лексика 171). The origin the Kharakanid form is not known, and its isolation would speak for it being a borrowing there or even a hapax legomenon, and the similarities with the Selkup form are therefore likely coincidental only. Selkup qjarys ‘kite’ could be a Russian borrowing, cf. Rus. koršun (коршун) ‘kite’, which would presuppose a metathesis of the final vowel. I do not know if this borrowing etymology has been previously suggested, nor if it is actually correct or reasonable because while the semantics are identical the phonology would be aberrant. Nenets xanavej ’ястреб, сокол = hawk, falcon’ (Tereshchenko, N.M. 2005:155; Xomitch, L.V. 1958:89) and Enets xanavej ’ястреб = hawk’ (2001:149) both clearly belong together, seemingly having originated in a form *kanabej. I note that such a form has a decidedly Mongolic look to it, but there are no such words, to the best of my knowledge, attested in any of the Mongolic languages. I am therefore unable to trace the origin of the Nenets and Enets form, but it is possible that a very obvious solution exists, including a form of similar phonology and possibly including a semantic shift, if one just looks in the right direction. 7. SUMMARY As can be seen demonstrated individual lexical borrowings into the respective Samoyed language have several different sources (Yeniseic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Turkic, etc.), and this suggests different substrate effects for different Samoyed speakers. This same conclusion was reached by J. Pystynen in one of his online blog posts (Pystynen, 2019), and I am certain that earlier researchers have also seen this to be fact. Of particular interest is perhaps the three found Mongolic borrowings into the Selkup language, and three Tungusic borrowings into the Nenets language, specifically, both groups appearing to hint at distinct substrate effects; Mongols and Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region 17 Selkup-speakers did interact, as did Ewenki and Nenets-speakers. The remainder of the presented borrowings are fairly random, and no further information can be cleaned about the contacts leading to those borrowings. In a very high likelihood additional flora and fauna borrowings can and will be found between these languages in the future. 8. References Anikin, A. Ye. (2000) Этимологический словарь русских диалектов Сибири. Заимствования из уральских, алтайских и палеоазиатских языков [An Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Dialects of Siberia. Borrowings from Uralic, Altaic and Paleoasiatic Languages]. Rossiskaja akademija Nauk, Sibirskoje otdelenije institut filologii. Moscow-Novosibirsk: Nauka. Anikin, A. Ye. (2003) этимологический словарь русских заимствований в языках сибири [Etymological dictionary of Russian borrowings in the languages of Siberia]. Rossiskaja akademija Nauk, Sibirskoje otdelenije institut filologii. Novosibirsk: Nauka. Bardajev, E. Č. (1983) Названия птиц в калмыцком языке, in: Ономастика Калмыкии, Elista. p. 123-141. Bökh & Liú Zhàoxióng (1982) Băo’ānyŭ jiănzhì [Concise grammar of Bao’an]. Peking. Chén, Năixióng, et al. (1985) Boo An kelen-ü üges / Băo’ānyŭ cíhuì [Vocabulary of Bao’an]. Hohhot. Čeremisov, K.M. (1951) Burjat-mongol’sko-russkij slovar’ [Бурят-монгольско-русский словарь]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoje izdatel’stvo inostrannyx i natsional’nyx slovarej. Doerfer, Gerhard (1985) Mongolo-Tungusica. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. EDAL = Starostin, Sergei & Dybo, Anna & Mudrak, Oleg (2003) An etymological dictionary of Altaic languages. Leiden: Brill. EDT = Clauson, Gerhard Sir (1972) Etymological dictionary of prethirteenth century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon. ЭСТЯ = Sevortjan, Ervand Vladimirovič (1974–2000) Ėtimologičeskij slovar‘ tjurskix jazykov [An etymological dictionary of Turkic languages]. Moscow. Helimski, E. (1986) Etymologica 1-48 (materialy po etimologii matorsko-tajgijskokaragasskogo jazyka). Nyelvtudományi Kózleméyek, 88, p. 119-143. Helimski, E. (1995) Samoyedic loans in Turkic: Check-List of etymologies, in: Laut- und Wortgeschichte der Türksprachen – herausgegeben von Barbara Kellner-Heinkele und Marek Stachowski. Turcologica, 26. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 75-95. Helimski, E. (1998) 18 Selkup, in: The Uralic Languages, Abondolo, D. (ed.), Routledge Language Family Descriptions. London and New York: Routledge, p. 548-579. Irikov, S.I. (1988) Sel’kupsko-russkij – russko-sel’kupskij slovar’ [селькупско-русский русско-селькупский словарь]. Leningrad: <Prosveshchenije> Leningradskoje otdelenije. Jankowski, H. (2015) Reconstruction of Old Kipchak. In: Proceedings of the 12th Seoul International Altaistic Conference. Multicultural understandings of languages and cultures of Altaic people. The Altaic Society of Korea. Institute of Altaic Studies, SNU. p. 271292. Junast & Lĭ Kèyù (1982) Tŭzúyŭ Mínhé fāngyán gàishù [General overview of the Mínhé dialect of Monguor]. Mínzú Yŭwén Yánjiū Wénjí. 458-487. Xīníng. 18 Peter Sauli Piispanen Karafet, T.M. (2002) High Levels of Y-Chromosome Differentiation among Native Siberian Populations and the Genetic Signature of a Boreal Hunter-Gatherer Way of Life, Human Biology, December 2002, 74(6), p. 761–789. Ket and Selkup online documentation = http://siberian-lang.srcc.msu.ru/ [retrieved 2019-0608]. Website of the project Minority languages of Siberia as our cultural heritage [12-0412049B], handled by the Moscow State University. Khabtagaeva, B. (2019) Language Contact in Siberia – Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic Loanwords in Yeniseian. The Languages of Asia Series, volume 19. Leiden-Boston: Brill. Kosterkina, N.T., Momde, A.Č. & Zhdanova, T.Ju. (2001) Nganasansko-russkij – russkonganasanskij slovar’ [нганасанско-русский - русско-нганасанский словарь]. SanktPetersburg: Filial izdatel’stva <Prosveshchenije>. KW = Ramstedt, Gustaf John 1935. Kalmückisches Wörterbuch. Helsinki: SuomalaisUgrilainen Seura. Lehtisalo, Tapani (1956) Juraksamojedisches Wörterbuch. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XIII. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura. Leksika = Tenišev, Ėdxjam Raximovič (ed.) 1997. Sravnitel’noistoričeskaja grammatika tjurskix jazykov. Leksika [Comparative historical grammar of the Turkic languages: Leksika]. Moscow: Akademia Nauk. Lessing, Ferdinand D. (1960) Mongolian-English dictionary. Los Angeles & Berkeley: University of California Press. Mandzhikova, B.B. (2007) Kalmytsko-russkij terminologičeskij slovar‘. Rossiskaja akademija nauk – Kalmytskij institut gumanitarnyx issledovanije. Munkácsi, Bernát & Kálmán, Béla (1986) Wogulisches Wörterbuch, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Nikolaeva, Irina (2006) A historical dictionary of Yukaghir. (Trends in Linguistics Documentation 25.) Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nominhanov, Ts.D. (1975) Материалы к изучению истории калмыцкого языка. Калмыцкий научно-исследовательский институт языка. литературы и истории при Совете министров Калмыцкой АССР. Москва: Издательство «Наука», Главная редакция восточной литературы. Nugteren, Hans (2012) Notes on the Turkic borrowings in Kangjia. Studia uralo-altaica, 49, p. 341-349. Peler, G.Y. (2019) Some thoughts on the disappearance of some varieties of Samoyedic. Siberian Research, 1, p. 116-121. Piispanen, P.S. (2013) Further lexical borrowings from (Pre-)Yakut into the Yukaghiric languages. Turkic Languages 17, 115–139. Piispanen, P.S. (2019) Turkic lexical borrowings in Samoyed. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 14(3), p. 357-384. Pystynen, Juho (2019) Probing the roots of Samoyedic. Blogpost at: https://protouralic.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/probing-the-roots-of-samoyedic/ . Retrieved 2019-05-25. Rassadin, V.I. (2005) Tofalarsko-russkij i russko-tofalarskij slovar’ [тофаларско-русский и русско-тофаларский словарь]. Sankt-Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo <Drofa>. Rozycki, William (1994) Mongol elements in Manchu. Indiana, Bloomington: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies. Fauna loanwords in the Altai-Sayan region 19 Sanzheev, G.D., Orlovskaja, M.N. & Shevernina, Z.V. [Г.Д. Санжеев, М.Н. Орловская, З.В. Шевернина] (2015) Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ mongol’skix jazykov [Этимологический словарь монгольских языков], Tom I: A-E, Moscow: Rossiskaja Akademija Nauk Institut Vostokovedenija. Sorokina, I.P. & Bolina, D.S. (2001) Enetsko-Russkij – russko-enetskij slovar’ [энецкорусский - русско-энецкий словарь]. Sankt-Petersburg: Filial izdatel’stva <Prosveshchenije>. Tereshchenko, N.M. (2005) Словарь ненецко-русский и русско-ненецкий: Пособие для уч-ся 1-4 кл. общеобраз. учрежд.- 3-е изд., испр. и доп.- СПб.: филиал изд-ва «Просвещение>>. TMN = Doerfer, Gerhard 1963–1967. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. Wiesbaden: Steiner. UEW = Rédei, Károly 1988–1991. Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. VEWT = Räsanen, Martti (1969) Versuch eines etymologisches Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Werner, Heinrich (2002a) Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Jenissej-Sprachen. Band 1:A-K. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Werner, Heinrich (2002b) Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Jenissej-Sprachen. Band 2:L-Š. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. World Wildlife Fund = http://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/altai_sayan_mountain/ [accessed 2019-06-07]. Xomitch, L.V. (1958) Nenetsko-russkij slovar’ [ненецко-русский словарь]. Ленинград: государственное учебно-педагогическое издательство министерства просвещения рсфср ленинградское отделение.