Turkic Dialects

The paper deals with the means of expressing the apprehensive in languages of the Oghuz branch of Turkic languages using Cypriot Turkish (CT) as an example. The treatment is based on language materials which were collected by the author during field studies in Cyprus. Grammatical and lexical markers which are used by the speaker of CT to express the apprehensive are not similar to those used in Standard Turkish. The different lexical and grammatical model for expressing the apprehensive in CT is considered in previous studies as non-Tur-kic and contact-induced under the influence of Cypriot-Greek language. For the purpose of comparative description apprehensive creation formulas in the related Oghuz languages such as Turkmen, Azerbaijanian and Turkish will be given. Based on these morphologic-semantic analogies found it is argued that the CT apprehensive model is not necessarily a result of Turkish-Greek language contacts. Moreover, it seems that it probably existed already in the Turkic inventory of native speakers before their migration to the island after its conquest by the Ottoman Empire in 1570/1571.

ÖZET Bu çalışmada Eski Türkçede-oıña biçimiyle görülen ekin tarihi gelişimi incelenerek günümüz Türk lehçelerinde ve Türkiye Türkçesi ağızlarındaki kullanımı, işlevi, yaygınlığı ve görünümü üzerinde durulmuştur. Anahtar Kelimeler:-oıña eki, Türkçe, Eski Türkçe, Türk lehçeleri, Türkiye Türkçesi ağızları
In this study, the usage, function, frequency and the presence of the affix, which is observed as "-qıña" in the Ancient Turkish, in today's Turkic dialects and the dialects of Turkey Turkish is dealt with by being examined in terms of its periodical development. Key Words: The affix-qına, Turkish, the Ancient Turkish, Turkic dialects, the dialects of Turkey Turkish

The condition of hundred verbs and saving their Uzbek language and dialects of the Ali-Shir Navai’s “Muhakamat ul-Lughatayn”

Abstract
Several research reports about “Muhakamat al-Lughatayn” by Ali-Shir Navai have been published so far. Some of them were focused on the problem of preserving words from mentioned text in modern Turkic languages. Linguists argue that a big part of Navai’s list of 100 Turkic verbs is preserved in modern languages such as Uzbek, Uygur, Turkmen, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and a small part was archaized. During the study significant efforts to clarify the accurate amount of cognates of mentioned verbs (90 %) in modern Uzbek language took place from my part.