The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania by Anticus Multicultural Association

Taner Murat The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania The Golden Khwarezmian Language of the Nine Noble Nations

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania ...................... The Golden Khwarezmian Language of the Nine Noble Nations

Taner Murat

Anticus Press, Constanța, 2018

Asociația Multiculturală “Anticus” Editura Anticus Press Constanța www.anticusmulticultural.org press@anticusmulticultural.org

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României MURAT, TANER The Sounds of Tatar spoken in Romania : the golden Khwarezmian language of the Nine Noble Nations / Taner Murat. - Constanţa : Anticus Press, 2018 ISBN 978-606-94509-4-9 81 Coperta: Elif Abdul

Servind scriitorul, salvăm patrimoniul Serving the writer, saving the heritage

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

Contents Preface to The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania: Toward the Sun ................ 7 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 13 1.1. Aims and scope .............................................................................. 13 1.2. The literary Tatar spoken in Romania “Edebiy Tatarğa” ........................ 16 1.3. The agglutinative nature of Tatar spoken in Romania “Tírkeleşúw” ........ 17 2. Phonetic and phonotactic principles “Başkayideler” ................................... 19 2.1. The harmonic hierarchy principle “Awaz tertíbí” .................................. 19 2.2. The harmonic parallelism principle “Karşî turgan deñge” ...................... 19 2.3. The articulatory determinism principle “Belgílí buwunlî irtibat” .............. 20 2.4. The musicality principle “Ses zewukî” ................................................ 21 2.5. The least effort principle “Eñ az zahmetlí telaffuz” ............................... 21 2.6. The sonority sequencing principle “Ótíş tertíbí” ................................... 22 2.7. The least effort of sylabification principle “Eñ az zahmetlí eğíkleme” ...... 22 3. The phonetic context............................................................................. 23 3.1. The classification of speech sounds by their role ................................. 23 3.2. The tongue-root classification of speech sounds .................................. 25 3.3. The Khwarezmian syllable and the law of intrasyllabic harmony “Eğík íşí ses uyîmî” ............................................................................................. 27 3.4. The golden nature of the Khwarezmian syllable and the law of intersyllabic harmony “Eğík tíşí ses uyîmî”................................................................... 30 3.5. The role of the determinant sounds ................................................... 32 4. The extended Latin alphabet of Tatar spoken in Romania........................... 33 4.1. Letters denoting determinant sounds ................................................ 33 4.1.1. The tongue root groups of the determinant sounds and their harmonic parallelism ......................................................................................... 34 4.2. Letters denoting determined sounds.................................................. 37 4.2.1. The tongue root groups of the determined sounds and their harmonic parallelism ......................................................................................... 37 4.3. Sound description and pronunciation of Latin characters ...................... 43 5. Syllabification ....................................................................................... 47 5.1. The role of jaws and lips in articulating determinant sounds ................. 47 5.1.1. The classification of the determinant sounds by jaw position .......... 47 5.1.2. The classification of the determinant sounds by lips position .......... 48 5.2. The sonority hierarchy ..................................................................... 49 5.3. Maximum syllable weight ................................................................. 49 5.4. Syllable types ................................................................................. 50 5.5. Al-Kwarizmi law of syllabification ...................................................... 50 5.6. Accent ........................................................................................... 51 6. Dissonances and cacophonies................................................................. 56 6.1. Dissonance “Şîñlamama” ................................................................. 56 6.1.1. The dissonance of the academic sounds ....................................... 56 6.1.2. The dissonance of some voiced closed sounds .............................. 56 6.1.3. The dissonance of the closed sound /ñ/ ....................................... 57 6.1.4. The dissonance of the determinant sound /i/ ................................ 57

Taner Murat 6.1.5. The dissonance of the determinant sounds /u/ and /ú/ .................. 57 6.1.6. The dissonance of the determinant sounds /o/ and /ó/ .................. 57 6.1.7. The dissonance of the rounded suffixes ....................................... 57 6.2. Cacophony “Kagîşma” ..................................................................... 57 6.2.1. Complex syllable onset “Múrekkep talaw” .................................... 58 6.2.2. Complex coda clusters “Múrekkep kuyruk” ................................... 58 6.2.3. Hiatus “Alákasîzlîk” ................................................................... 59 6.2.4. The cacophonous group [ey] ...................................................... 60 6.2.5. The cacophonous groups [bîp] and [bíp] ...................................... 60 7. Phonetic changes in words and sequences of words .................................. 61 7.1. Naturalization “Alîştîruw” ................................................................. 61 7.2. Final devoicing “Ses kîstîruwî” .......................................................... 61 7.3. Voicing “Ses arttîruwî” ..................................................................... 62 7.3.1. Extended voicing or jamaat “Ğemayet” ....................................... 62 7.4. Epenthesis “Ziyadeleme” ................................................................. 63 7.4.1. Prothesis “Başseslí ziyadeleme” .................................................. 63 7.4.2. Anaptyxis “Araseslí ziyadeleme” ................................................. 64 7.4.3. Excrescence “Yarîseslí ziyadeleme” ............................................. 64 7.4.4. Paragoge “Uzatuw” ................................................................... 64 7.5. Elision “Ses atlamasî” ...................................................................... 65 7.6. Assimilation “Ses uşatmasî” ............................................................. 65 7.6.1. Regressive assimilation “Art sesníñ uşatmasî”............................... 65 7.6.2. Progessive assimilation “Ald sesníñ uşatmasî”............................... 66 7.7. Dissimilation “Ses deñíştírmesí” ........................................................ 66 7.8. Vowel reduction “Kîskartuw” ............................................................ 66 7.9. Dilatation “Keñiytúw” ...................................................................... 67 7.10. Delabialization “Erínsízleştírúw” ...................................................... 68 7.11. Pairs of sounds “Koşak dawuşlar” .................................................... 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 71 Annex ...................................................................................................... 72

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

Preface to The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania: Toward the Sun

“Drawing is speaking to the eye; talking is painting to the ear.” – Joseph Joubert Parisian Essayist of the Classical Era

As an American growing-up just outside of Detroit – then, the car manufacturing mecca of the world – in the 1960s, I was afforded the opportunity to study German at my local junior high school. I was in eighth grade and terribly naïve, academically. Over the course of that year, during one class hour per day, I was taught the rudiments of the German language (technically, High German, the “standard” dialect). I learned its basic grammar, phonetics, syntax, and morphology, even though these latter two terms were never used as descriptors of what we were doing. At least half of the class time each day was dedicated to “lab” work, which meant that we sat in semi-isolated work areas and listened to “real” Germans speaking the language via recordings through our own personal headsets. This was all brand new to me and very exotic. At this point in my life, I had only heard my brother-in-law’s grandmother speak Polish as she prepared us lunch one day; that was the extent of my exposure to other cultures. We also chose a new name, a name that would be used in the classroom and when speaking to our fellow “German” students outside of class. I chose “Ludwig.” It was simply a name on a list of authentic German names available to us. I loved the unusual sound of the “u” and the fact that the “w” was pronounced like a “v” – very few people knew these distinctions in Taylor, Michigan. My peers and I were very much alike. We were all white, none of our parents were college educated, all our parents worked at one of the “Big Three” automakers or industries that supported the “Big Three.” We were 7

Taner Murat

what they call in America, “blue collar kids.” Only later did I learn the importance of “Ludwig” regarding the study of music and, much later, regarding the study of language. Ludwig van Beethoven’s symphonies had yet to reach my ears. By the end of the year, however, I was playing his “Ode to Joy” from his Ninth Symphony – a simple version, on guitar. And, of course, our teacher also exposed us to the iconic opening of his Fifth Symphony. Dah-da-da dum! Those sounds, the sounds of Beethoven’s music and the sounds of the words and phrases of a foreign language were rich, full, and so very different from anything I had heard before. At a time in which English is rapidly becoming the unofficial language of the globe, it is encouraging to note that there is at least one man – somewhere – attempting to preserve a dying language, a language now spoken by fewer than thirty thousand people. That man is Taner Murat. That language is Tatar. His latest effort to save this language, his language, is the book you hold in your hands. Most would agree that any specific culture is undeniably tied to the language or languages that created that culture; that to preserve the distinctive aspects of a specific culture, the specific language or languages that created that culture must be preserved. Murat states that he undertook this work in order “to better understand, in its depth, my native tongue.” He also is very transparent regarding his audience, noting that his work here is mostly for specialists and students. And, for such a small book, there is much to learn here. But, even for such a novice as myself, someone who only speaks one language fluently, I can now say “mother” in Tatar, and “sold,” and “give.” My pronunciations of these words, I am sure, are not spot-on but I have taken Murat’s instruction to mind, and into my heart, and have attempted to take in this ancient language, shape these words carefully in my mouth, and speak them out into the world. There is much to learn from these sounds. Murat speaks with great confidence about agglutination, harmonic hierarchy, the musicality principle, phonetics, and the careful positioning of the tongue, lips, and jaw when forming the most basic components of Tatar, which then become words. Behind the veil of this work are equally important issues, however. While reading about the minutiae of this language, one cannot help but think of what else may be on Murat’s mind. Something, perhaps, that I may attempt to disclose here. A reasonable perspective, I 8

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

think. Murat takes such an extraordinarily detailed approach in describing just how to form these sounds into words, through astute illustrations and comparisons, that one cannot help but think of the value of all indigenous languages and what is at stake if we do not share Murat’s passion. The cultural homogenization of the world, primarily through the gradual widespread acceptance of the American democratic/capitalist model is now kicking into high gear. The proliferation of social media usage through the internet has increased this movement toward widespread “sameness.” One could argue that this is a good thing. Democracy is a good thing. Capitalism is a good thing, perhaps. The accessibility of knowledge and social connections through the internet via the World Wide Web is a good thing. Also true, perhaps. But, there are caveats. Every time I visit Europe, on average every other year for the past fourteen years, I see more and more bits and pieces of “old” Europe being replaced with iconic international brands: McDonalds, Ford, Starbucks, English speakers. All this globalization through corporate and political marketing makes my travels much easier but it also makes me less tappedin to the uniqueness of the regions I visit. Munich without Starbucks was much more attractive than Munich with Starbucks. Venice with fewer English speakers was much more stimulating than Venice with more English speakers. To encourage even a modest sense of protective nationalism is currently not fashionable; however, appealing to one’s sentiment of historical pride that comes with being different seems admirable. The preservation of languages helps to preserve that history and difference, the unique cultures that countries may offer to the world. Similarly, one should not “allow” Starbucks to put the indigenous coffee shop out of business. There is nothing wrong with adding another language to one’s repertoire. It is, indeed, a gateway to understanding different cultures, which is an extraordinarily rewarding endeavor. But, one should never lose hold of one’s native tongue. One should never allow a language from another culture to become the dominate language in their culture. Darrin McMahon, in his book Divine Fury: A History of Genius, speaks of individual genius and its own “elevated soul, [its] own beautiful mind.” Perhaps, nations and regions could retain the same. Perhaps, it is “a dangerous blessing,” perhaps not. Murat is attempting to preserve, I believe, through the preservation of the language of Tatar, the elevated soul and beautiful mind of Tatar culture. It is a worthy cause, indeed. Murat has translated several of my poems 9

Taner Murat

from English into Crimean Tatar, and the poems of numerous other poets as well, and he has written poems in both languages. From what I have seen, Murat is an intelligent man, a peaceful man, a spiritual man, a man with a good soul. Translation is a worthy endeavor; it gently forces the meeting of two worlds, a blending that creates something new. Better two languages than just one. Better many languages than just a few. But, one must always continue to fan the flames of one’s native language. The cultural critic and historian Peter Gay sees “high culture” being threatened by “advancing technology,” stating in his book Modernism: The Lure of Heresy that “the commercial manufacture of culture has become ever more influential an activity,” resulting “in an age of musical comedies.” There is nothing wrong with laughter but the serious work of cultural preservation in every culture is necessary now more than ever. Murat’s efforts in the preservation of Tatar via a book that instructs one in how to actually speak the language is a treasure, a treasure that may help to increase that language’s hold on the region. Languages are fluid and everything in a culture is, indeed, in flux. Changes are to be expected, because of inside forces and outside forces, but a respect for the past and its continued influence should be expected as well. This too makes Murat’s work incredibly valuable. Another aspect of advancing technology threatening culture and, therefore, also threatening a necessary attention to language, is addressed by Mark C. Taylor in his book Speed Limits: Where Time Went and Why We Have So Little Left. Taylor reminds us that speed kills. Our rapid paced world and its focus on efficiency is a killer. Sameness is more efficient; the unification of languages into one language is efficient. Murat is engaged in an activity which forces one to slow down and appreciate the sounds of language, which indirectly permits Romanians and others to slow down and take stock of their culture as represented through their language. Learning to speak a language, any language other than one’s native language is beneficial. To learn how to speak an endangered language, like Tatar, or to just read about that language, in general, demonstrates an empathy for cultural truths that first emerged through the spoken word. To create a book that speaks so specifically about how one should form the words in one’s mouth of an ancient language, is a noble act indeed; and, a transformative one.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

The Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said “The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for.” Similarly, the much debated Sapir-Whorf hypothesis claims that the language we learned when we first became speakers determines our thoughts or, at least, influences our thoughts and thought processes. Attempting to learn another language must have an effect on our thoughts as well. I know attempting to learn German as an eighth grader changed me; and, I am certain that my thought processes continued to change when I took additional German courses as an undergraduate. I know that what little Tatar I know now has changed me. The beauty of language and the power of words shape our lives in ways we do not totally comprehend. When I was young, I looked toward the traditional pillars of the history of Western Civilization for inspiration – toward Germany, France, and Italy. Or, when feeling particularly domestic, I looked toward California in my own country. Now, thanks to Taner Murat’s work here and elsewhere, I look more toward the east, even more toward the Sun, toward Romania, and say:

Taner Murat

SPEAK Shape the phrase in your mouth, touch it with tongue and teeth, birth it into the air, carry it to me and lay it in my arms. I will hold it, gently. I will caress the vowels of its cry. I will open my ears. Our skin will melt, flake, fly off in patches toward the sun. The scratching and stretching of letters can bring us no closer than this. Kevin Marshall Chopson, M.F.A. Teacher/Poet/Guide English Department Chair, Davidson Academy, Nashville, Tennessee Adjunct Professor, Volunteer State Community College, Gallatin, Tennessee March 29, 2017 (From Istoricheskaya Etnologiya. 2017. Volume 2, issue 1. ISSN 2587-9286)

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

1. Introduction

1.1. Aims and scope

Tatar is a generic voluntarily accepted by some Turkic populations. There are several groups of Tatar ethnics. “Tatar ethnic identity is formed on the basis of the following factors: their language (Tatar language), religion (Islam) and an awareness of common origin and common historical destiny… An important constructive role in building and maintaining Tatar ethnicity is the image of the past.” (Yankova, 2018, p.22) Tatar language spoken in Romania today has resulted from the recent fusion of two dialects: the Northern Nogai spoken north of Constanta since the first part of the second millennium and the Southern Crimean, which was spoken south of the city to Bulgarian Dobruja, likely since the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire. Today there is no longer a sharp distinction between these dialects. “The mother tongue, the Tatar language is the natural, sensitive, poetic and rational connection of the members of the Tatar community, it is the means of expression, communication and spiritual-cultural creation of the Tatar ethnic, it is a factor of unity, solidarity, and brotherhood including with the diaspora Tatars” (Ibram, 2017, pp.170-171) But “the territory of today’s Romania has been home to Turkic peoples since the 6th century CE onwords” (Hotopp-Riecke, 2017, p.112) Then, “Under the Bolgar Tsar Chaka, in the 13th century Petscheneks and Kumans were allowed to settle. At the time of the Serljuk dynasty in 1263, approximatively 10.000 Turkmen from Anatolia settled in the area of Dobrudja. Since 1393 Dobrudja is an Ottoman area and the Ottoman

Taner Murat Sultan Beyazid I colonized the Babadağ area with Tatars, much like his successor, Muhammad I. Settlers from 16th century in Dobrudja: Budjak-, Nogay-, and Crimean Tatars. After the conquest of the Crimean Khanate (1783) by Russia, a mass exodus of the Crimean Tatars followed in the direction of Dobrudja and from there later on to Asia Minor. Around 1880 Romanians made up 28 percent of the total population of Dobrudja. After Tatars and Turks were expropriated and expelled in Romania around 1885, another mass expulsion respectively mass escape of 80.000 Turks and Tatars to Anatolia took place in 1918 due to the war (Gibatdinov; Hotopp-Riecke; Theilig, 2016, pp.76-77). When the Germans began to settle in Dobruja at the end of the nineteenth

century and in the first half of the 20th century “almost all the German villages of Dobrudja in eastern Romania were formerly Tatar settlements” (Gibatdinov; Hotopp-Riecke; Theilig, 2016, p.76) “In the inter-war from 1919 to 1939 the demographic development changed in favor of the Romanian population: Tatars and Turks had emigrated, Romania’s national territory almost doubled. After the escape, expulsion and resettlement in the Second World War and the mass migration after 1990, only a few dozen people of the former 60.000 Germans are still living in Dobrudja and today some 23.000 Tatars live there.” (Gibatdinov; Hotopp-Riecke; Theilig, 2016, p.77) At the beginning of WWII, Dobruja was divided between Romania and Bulgaria. “The last establishment of the Bulgarian-Romanian state borders in 1940 has had a stronger impact on community development as its members have been divided. Being citizens of two states with two specific policies, their cultural heritage has been preserved in different ways and their unity was destroyed by the discontinuance of the marriage, kin and social relations. During the so-called ‘socialist period’ the policy towards the Crimean Tatars in Bulgaria and Romania was inconsistent and had specific aspects.” (Erolova, 2018, p.10)

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania Tatars in Romania also call themselves “The Nine Noble Nations” as in legend Edege Batîr (Mahmut; Mahmut, 1988). Statistics point out that today in Romania live 22,000 Tatars while the community in Bulgaria is 6,000. The language is one of the severely endangered languages in Europe, which means that it is spoken only by the oldest generations while middle-aged generations understand it without regularly using it and the younger generations do not understand it (Moseley, 2010). As there are no projects aimed at promoting education and revitalizing Tatar language spoken in Romania, the loss of this tongue seems to be just a matter of years. Unfortunately, “as a result of a dominant modern perspective, the eastern part of Europe and the Muslims residing there for centuries are often deprived of the world’s attention” (Theilig, 2017, p.83) Still, there is a characteristic feature rendering Tatar spoken in Romania extremely interesting and attractive: the high degree of intelligibility of other Turkic languages to its speakers. For example, even if Turkish and Kazakh sound pretty different, it is fairly easy to a Tatar in Romania to understand both languages without formal education. “As our people settled between Europe and Asia, the Tatar language became an intermediary between other Turkic languages” (Oner; Yusupova, 2017, p.177).

Figure 1 “The Tatar language and lyrics in Dobruja have many similarities as phonetics,

morphology,

and

syntax,

and

thematic

and

poetic

construction with the Tatar language and literature everywhere: Uzbeks, Kyrgyz,

Kazakhs,

Turkmen,

Bashkir,

Caucasian

Karaçhay-Malkars,

Taner Murat Daghestan Kumyks, Nogai Tatars, Kazan Tatars and Crimean Tatars.” (Ibraim; Ibram, 2014, p.18) This study is the result of my effort to better understand, in its depth, my native tongue, the Tatar language spoken in Romania. In this booklet I will propose the investigation of its sounds. As the vocabulary of this language has been heavily influenced by Arabic and Persian loanwords through its historic roots, I will also seek to investigate and clarify the use of such loans. Because it carries serious phonetic residua from Romanian and Turkish, the Tatar language as spoken in Romania by the middle-aged natives will be left out of this study. Therefore, in this book I will not use the term “native speakers.” Instead, I will apply the statement “authentic speakers” and I will refer solely to the Tatar spoken by the septuagenarians and octogenarians. I sincerely hope that interested students, ethnologists, historians and researchers find this work of some use in their endeavor of better understanding and learning the Tatar language spoken in Romania. Meanwhile, if any linguist specialized in Turkic languages spends some time with this booklet, I would be happy to know that he found it an interesting reading.

1.2. The literary Tatar spoken in Romania “Edebiy Tatarğa” Tatar spoken in Romania has two distinct facets existing, interweaving and forming together the literary Tatar language "edebiy Tatarğa". One of these aspects is the authentic Tatar called "ğalpî Tatarğa" or "ğalpak Tatarğa" and the other is the academic Tatar language called "muwallímatça". The phonetic system of the authentic Tatar lacks some phonemes largely spread in Indo-European languages, such as sound /f/ represented by the letter ⟨F⟩. There is no genuine Tatar word containing this sound. Therefore, often living in isolated social contexts, Tatars have been almost always unable to pronounce this sound and occasionally encountering such words they used to replace sound /f/ and letter ⟨F⟩ with sound /p/ respectively letter ⟨P⟩. Authentic Tatar language means writing and pronouncing words, including those of Arabic and Persian origin, by strictly adapting them to the own phonetic system.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania Academic

language

means

writing

and

pronouncing

Arabic

and

Persian

neologisms - occurring mostly in science, religion, literature, arts or politics - in their original form.

Figure 2 The literary Tatar language spoken in Romania is the summation of authentic and academic. Namely, it consists of authentic sentences and phrases that sometimes include words expressed in academic way, a process quite similar to Bollywood movies that are spoken in Hindi stuffed with words in plain English.

1.3. The agglutinative nature of Tatar spoken in Romania “Tírkeleşúw” The most characteristic feature of Tatar is that it is an agglutinative language. Agglutination – “Tírkeleşúw” means that suffixes are attached to the end of root words in a regular and predictable way to do the work of grammatical features enhancing and broadening the meaning of the root, which may convey the sense of a complex word, sentence or a phrase. For example: Urumlîlaştîrîlmaganlardanmîz, which roughly translates as: “We are of those who couldn’t be Romanized”

Urum Rome -lî

Roman (“with Rome”)

-la

to Romanize (“to make Roman”)

-ş

to Romanize himself

-tîr

to determine to Romanize himself 17

Taner Murat -îl

to be determined to Romanize himself

-ma

not to be determined to Romanize himself

-gan

was not determined to Romanize himself

-lar

were not determined to Romanize themselves

-dan

of those who were not determined to Romanize themselves

-mîz

we are of those who were not determined to Romanize themselves

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

2. Phonetic and phonotactic principles “Başkayideler” I found that the classification of the speech sounds and the rules of the phoneme sequences in Tatar language spoken in Romania are governed by a set of principles – “başkayideler” that I will try to define bellow.

2.1. The harmonic hierarchy principle “Awaz tertíbí” Speech sounds are strictly ranked in harmonic scales.

I think the less-than or greater-than signs, a podium or a musical scale would be good models describing the harmonic hierarchy – “awaz tertíbí,” but the reader could imagine many better representations of this principle.

Figure 3

2.2. The harmonic parallelism principle “Karşî turgan deñge” Any speech sound is part of a harmonic parallelism, which means that it has a balancing sonorous aspect, a concurrently similar, opposite and complementary sound peer. I believe that the left right arrow, the balance and the yin and yang duality could equally be very good models for the harmonic parallelism – “karşî turgan deñge.” The reader can imagine many other suitable models for this principle.

Taner Murat

Figure 4

2.3. The articulatory determinism principle “Belgílí buwunlî irtibat” The pronunciation of each sound in a sequence is strictly linked to its neighboring sounds either determining or being determined by them. Linking arrows or vectors, the joints of interlocking Lego bricks or jigsaw puzzles would be some good models describing the articulatory determinism principle – “belgílí buwunlî irtibat.”

Figure 5

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

2.4. The musicality principle “Ses zewukî” In a phonetic combination it is perceived as consonant, esthetic and euphonic only the speech sound which is not at variance with the contextual pitch, tone and harmony. There are many ways to plot the musicality principle – “ses zewukî.” Mathematical symbols tilde used for similarity and almost equal to as well as not equal to would probably give a good depiction of the harmony or dissonance of the sounds.

Figure 6

2.5. The least effort principle “Eñ az zahmetlí telaffuz” Sequences of sounds are easier to pronounce with the minimal movement of the tongue root, which is the main articulator, and its assistants, the lips and jaws. Consequently, compared to languages in which the least effort principle – “eñ az zahmetlí telaffuz” does not seem to operate, for example contemporary Turkish, the effort for the movement of the tongue root, lips and jaws is significantly reduced in Tatar spoken in Romania.

Taner Murat

Figure 7

2.6. The sonority sequencing principle “Ótíş tertíbí” Any syllable is structured around a determinant sound constituting its nucleus and representing a sonority peak that can be preceded and/or followed by a sequence of segments with progressively decreasing sonority values.

2.7. The least effort of sylabification principle “Eñ az zahmetlí eğíkleme” In any sequence of syllables the minimum intersyllabic effort is ensured by the maximum intrasyllabic load on the final syllable.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

3. The phonetic context I have noticed that the Tatar spoken in Romania has a particular phonetic context that I will attempt to outline as follows.

3.1. The classification of speech sounds by their role I would classify the speech sounds of Tatar spoken in Romania into two main categories: 1.

determinant sounds - “baş sesler”, which have a leading speech role mastering, inter alia, the position of the tongue root in pronunciation and triggering the generation of a syllable. The determinant sounds are pronounced with an open vocal tract so that there is no build-up of air pressure at any point above the glottis. I would also call them open extensible sounds and I specify that they correspond to vowels – “sozîk awazlar”.

In Figure 8 I have imagined a puzzle model of the determinant sounds.

Figure 8

Taner Murat

determined sounds - “belgílengen sesler”, uninvolved in positioning the tongue root, they are just additional sounds not generating syllables but serving to enhance their margins; their place and manner of articulation changes with the tongue root position of the determinants. II would also call them attachable sounds.

Determined sounds are divided into two subclasses: a.

closed sounds – “kapalî sesler”, which correspond to consonants – “tartîk awazlar” and have a constriction or closure at some point along the vocal tract.

half-open sounds – “yarîm-açîk sesler”, which correspond to semivowels - “yarî-sozîk awazlar” being non-syllabic sounds produced quite similar to the vowels without much of a constriction in the vocal tract.

In Figure 9 you can find puzzle models for both closed and half-open determined sounds.

Figure 9

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

Then, if we want a simple presentation of this classification, perhaps the vector model in Figure 10 would give a decent image.

Figure 10

3.2. The tongue-root classification of speech sounds Tongue root is the main articulator of the determinant sounds in Tatar spoken in Romania that pronounces vowels either with an advanced position of the tongue root which involves the expansion of the pharyngeal cavity by moving the base of the tongue forward, or with retracted position implying the withdrawing of the base of the tongue in the pharynx during the pronunciation. Therefore, tongue root position also influences the pronunciation of the “attached” determined sounds.

Taner Murat

Figure 11 There are different degrees of advancing and retracting the tongue root, but I would group sounds in two major classes as follows: 1.

Retracted tongue root(RTR) sounds, grouped in: a.

RTR determinant sounds (RTR vowels) produced with a rather retracted tongue root. I also call them hard determinant sounds.

RTR determined sounds (RTR consonants and semivowels) serving and adjoining RTR vowels to form syllables. I also call them hard consonants and semivowels.

Figure 12 1.

Advanced tongue root (ATR) sounds, grouped in: a.

ATR determinant sounds (ATR vowels) corresponding to a rather advanced tongue root. I would also name them soft determinant sounds.

b. ATR

determined

sounds

(ATR

consonants

and

semivowels)

serving and adjoining ATR vowels to form syllables. I would also name them soft determined sounds.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

Figure 13 In its consequences, the tongue root sorting of the speech sounds is fundamental for the development of any further phonetic structure and for the study of the Tatar language spoken in Romania.

3.3. The Khwarezmian syllable and the law of intrasyllabic harmony “Eğík íşí ses uyîmî” A syllable(σ) – “eğík” in Tatar language spoken in Romania is a unit of organization for a sequence of speech sounds, typically made up of a determinant sound, which is the nucleus(ν) – “ózek” of the syllable, with optional initial and final margins of determined sounds called onset(ω) – “talaw” and coda(κ) – “kuyruk.” A segmental model would give an acceptable portray of this structure.

Figure 14

Taner Murat Considering the rhyme – “kafiye”, which consists of nucleus and coda, namely the portion from the determinant sound to the end, a hierarchical model would also be useful sometimes in describing the structure of the Tatar syllable.

Figure 15 However, the previous models only briefly describe the Tatar syllable, which has a bewildering structure. I use to call it Khwarezmian syllable. Languages

with

non-Khwarezmian

syllables

contemporary

Turkish,

for

example, have no problem in forming syllables by connecting ATR and RTR vowels and consonants, which may come with the cost of additional intrasyllabic articulatory efforts for repositioning the tongue root.

Figure 16

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania On the contrary, the Khwarezmian syllable finds it impossible to attach nonharmonized determined sounds to the determinant sounds. What prevents its structure from such disharmony is the least effort principle. This is a distinctive feature of the Khwarezmian syllable, an intrasyllabic assimilatory phonological process regarding the tongue position class of the determinant sounds, a redundancy feature constraining determined sounds in onset and coda to harmonize with the determinant sound in nucleus. In other words, a Khwarezmian syllable can be either entirely hard or soft. I call this the law of intrasyllabic harmony, but you might find that it was already defined by linguists under a different name.

Figure 17

Probably, a better description of the Khwarezmian syllabic structure would be given by a vector hierarchical model as follows:

Figure 18

Taner Murat The final effect of the law of intrasyllabic harmony is that Tatar spoken in Romania is dealing with two classes of Khwarezmian syllables, either RTR hard or ATR soft syllables, each requiring minimal tongue root effort for articulating the sounds.

3.4. The golden nature of the Khwarezmian syllable and the law of intersyllabic harmony “Eğík tíşí ses uyîmî” In turn, at intersyllabic level 2.5.

The least effort principle “Eñ az zahmetlí

telaffuz” applies once again preventing the concatenation of incompatible syllables in terms of tongue root. I would call this the law of intersyllabic harmony, but you might find it defined by the linguists under a different name. This law is another distinctive feature of the Khwarezmian syllable resulting from the particularities of its ATR and RTR determinant sounds.

Figure 19 The law of intersyllabic harmony is the intersyllabic assimilatory phonological process regarding the tongue position class, which is a redundancy feature constraining each syllable to harmonize with the preceding one. In other words, in any sequence of syllables in the agglutination process the preceding syllable masters the pronunciation of the subsequent in terms of tongue root resulting in words entirely hard or soft. On the ability of handing its tongue root feature to

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania the next syllable, I use to call the determinant syllable altan or altay, which means “golden” or “Altaic” syllable.

Figure 20 And the vector hierarchical model of the concatenation of the Khwarezmian syllables would be:

Figure 21

Taner Murat The final effect of the Khwarezmian law of intersyllabic harmony is having authentic words with uniform phonetic note which are articulated with minimal tongue root effort and they are grouped in two classes: - RTR or hard words, incorporating exclusively RTR syllables. - ATR or soft words, incorporating exclusively ATR syllables.

3.5. The role of the determinant sounds Summarizing, the main functions of the determinant sounds in Tatar spoken in Romania are: - defining syllables - determining the position of the tongue root - mastering the intrasyllabic process of pronunciation - mastering the intersyllabic process of pronunciation

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

4. The extended Latin alphabet of Tatar spoken in Romania We will turn to account the alphabet used at the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures from the University of Bucharest (Vuap-Mocanu, 1985). In addition to the system of 28 graphemes representing authentic phonemes, the Latin alphabet of Tatar spoken in Romania is extended with 4 graphemes representing academic phonemes, thus having a total of 32 graphemes.

b ç d e

g ğ

k l

m n ñ o ó p r

s ş t

u ú

w y z

Academic

Letter

Authentic

Table 1

4.1. Letters denoting determinant sounds There is a total of 10 letters used to represent determinant sounds of which 9 mark authentic determinant sounds: a, e, i, î, í, o, ó, u, ú while the letter á is used for an academic vowel.

Taner Murat

4.1.1. The tongue root groups of the determinant sounds and their harmonic parallelism In terms of tongue root position, the letters standing for determinant sounds denote phonemes belonging to two distinct clusters so we pack them into two groups as RTR or hard, and ATR or soft vowels. The vowel diagram in Figure 22, which gives a general sound description, can be used to show the separation of these groups. Hard RTR vowels: Table 2 Letter Phoneme

/ɑ/

/ɯ/

/o/

/u/

Soft ATR vowels: Table 3

Letter Phoneme

/æ/

/e/

/i/

/ɨ/

/ɵ/

/ʉ/

Figure 22 The harmonic parallelism between the determinant sounds in terms of tongue root is showed below:

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania Table 4 RTR (hard) ATR (soft)

a áe

î i

o ó

u ú

a↔á a↔e î↔i î↔í o↔ó u↔ú

Figure 23 Using a keyboard model one can acquire another interesting representation of the tongue root harmonic parallelism between vowels. The most common modernday keyboard layout for Latin script is the QWERTY design, which has its name from reading the first six keys appearing on the top left letter row of the keyboard from left to right. This keyboard layout has five buttons corresponding to the 5 vowels in English: A, E, I, O, U. But let’s take Turkish which has 8 vowels divided, similarly to Tatar, in two backness classes: Table 5 Back Front

a e

ı i

o ö

There is a harmonic parallelism in Turkish as follows: a↔e ı↔i o↔ö u↔ü

u ü

Taner Murat Should the keyboards for Turkish language be equipped with 8 vowel keys? Probably not, Turkish would require a keyboard with 5 minimal keys: A , I , O , U and SB (shift backness) while writing its 8 vowels would run as follows:

a: A ı: I o: O u: U e: SB + A i: SB + I ö: SB + O ü: SB + U In the same way, the ten Tatar vowels would need 6 keys: A , Î , O , U , STR , (shift tongue root) and Ctrl (control), while a keyboard model for the harmonic parallelism would be: a: A î: Î o: O u: U e: STR + A á: STR + Ctrl + A i: STR + I í: STR + Ctrl + Í ó: STR + O ú: STR + U

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

4.2. Letters denoting determined sounds The writing system registers authentic consonants with 17 letters: b, ç, d, g, ğ, j, k, l, m, n, ñ, p, r, s, ş, t, z and has three signs standing for the academic consonants: f, h, v. There are also two authentic semivowels: y, w. I would like to stress that, although an old authentic Turkic consonant, the sound /ç/ represented by the letter ⟨Ç⟩ is rarely heard because authentic speakers of Tatar spoken in Dobruja spell it /ş/ as letter ⟨Ş⟩. As the written language most often follows the spoken language shifting ⟨Ç⟩ to ⟨Ş⟩, the result is that in Tatar spoken in Romania letter ⟨Ç⟩ and sound /ç/ are often treated as academic.

4.2.1. The tongue root groups of the determined sounds and their harmonic parallelism As previously stated, the determined sounds are grouped as hard and soft. But the

Khwarezmian

nature

the

syllable

prevents

their

non-harmonized

articulation to vowels. Thus, while having the same appearance, each Latin consonantal grapheme is associated with at least two phonemes, usually a pair of a hard and a soft phoneme, its reading depending on its mastering determinant sound. These pairs of phonemes are, in turn, in harmonic parallelism, as for most of them was already evidenced by the old runic script of the Tatars’ ancestors. In this study I chose to represent hard phonemes with underlined fonts and soft ones with strikethrough fonts.

Taner Murat

Table 6 Letter

b ç d f g ğ h j k Closed (Consonants)

l m n ñ

Half-open (Semivowels)

Hard Runic Phoneme grapheme

B C D p G J k J Qkx L m N y

/b/ /t͡ʃ/ /d/ /f/ /ʁ/ /d͡ʒ/ /h/ /ʒ/ /q/ /l/ /m/ /n/ /N/

/v/

/z/

/y/

/p/ /r/ /s/ /ʃ/ /t/

/w/

Harmonic parallelism

Soft Runic Phoneme grapheme

↔

/b/

↔

/t͡ʃ/

↔

/d/

↔

/f/

↔

/ɟ/, /g/

↔

/d͡ʒ/

↔

/χ/

↔

/ʒ/

KqX

↔

/c/, /k/

↔

/l/

↔

/m/

↔

/n/

↔

/ŋ/

↔

/p/

↔

/r/

↔

/s/

↔

/ʃ/

↔

/t/

↔

/v/

↔

/z/

↔

/y/

/w/

The chart in Table 7: The determined sounds of the Tatar extended alphabet gives a schematic description of the determined speech sounds.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

Nasals Voiceless

ñ /ŋ/ ñ /N/

/m/

/n/

/p/

/t/ t

/p/

/t/

/b/

/d/

d /d/

/t͡ʃ/

Voiceless

/b/

Affricates

/t͡ʃ/

Voiced

/d͡ʒ/ c /d͡ʒ/

k /c/

k /k/

g /ɟ/

g /ɡ/

k [q]

Glottal

Uvular

/n/ n

Velar

Palatal

alveolar

Post-

Alveolar

Dental

dental

velar Labio-

/m/

Voiced

Stops (Plosives)

Labio-

Bilabial

Table 7: The determined sounds of the Tatar extended alphabet

Taner Murat

Voiceless

/f/

/s/

Voiced

Fricatives

/ʃ/ ş

h /χ/

/f/

/s/

/ʃ/

/v/

/z/

/ʒ/

z /v/

j /z/

h /h/

g /ʁ/ /ʒ/

Trill

/r/ r

approximants

Semivowels

Lateral

/r/

/l/ l /l/

/w/

/j/

y /w/

/j/

A keyboard model for the tongue root harmonic parallelism of the determined sounds would look as follows:

b (hard): B b (soft): STR + B ç (hard): Ç

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania ç (soft): STR + Ç … g (hard): G g (soft palatal): STR + G g (soft velar): STR + Ctrl + G … k (hard): K k (soft palatal): STR + K k (soft velar): STR + Ctrl + K … y (hard): Y y (soft): STR + Y w (hard): W w (soft): STR + W It might be interesting to try such keyboard model on some Khwarezmian words which, as previously found, are grouped as hard and soft. taraklardan “from the combs” (hard word): T A R A K L A R D A N

Taner Murat tereklerden “from the trees” (soft word): STR + T STR + A STR + R STR + A STR + K STR + L STR + A STR + R STR + D STR + A STR + N This second result seems quite uncomfortable, but if we imagine having on our keyboard a SLTR key (shift lock tongue root), like the CapsLock key on our keyboard, it will significantly simplify showing similarity to positioning the tongue only once at the beginning of articulation: SLTR T A R A K L A R D A N

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania 4.3. Sound description and pronunciation of Latin characters Table 8

Latin character Aa

Áá

Hemzelí A

Name

Sound description and pronunciation This letter represents the low unrounded RTR or hard vowel /ɑ/ as in ana [ɑnɑ] ‘mother’ This letter occurring in a limited number of Arabic and Persian loanwords represents the near-low unrounded ATR or soft vowel not belonging to authentic Tatar language /æ/ as in sát [sæt] ‘hour’, ‘clock’ This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiced bilabial stop /b/ as in bal [bɑl] ‘honey’ and the soft voiced bilabial

Çç

Çe

stop /b/ as in bel [bel] ‘waist’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiceless palato-alveolar affricate /ç/ as in ça-ça [t͡ʃɑt͡ʃɑ] ‘cha-cha’ and the soft voiceless palato-alveolar affricate /ç/ as in çeçen [t͡ʃet͡ʃen] ‘chechen’. Common to Turkic languages, these sounds are quasi non-existent in Tatar spoken in Dobruja

where they have shifted from ⟨Ç⟩ to ⟨Ş⟩. Therefore, although authentic, these sounds could be equally

treated as academic. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: hard voiced dental stop /d/ as in dal [dɑl] ‘branch’ and the soft voiced dental stop

/d/ as in deren [deren] ‘deep’. This letter represents the mid unrounded ATR or soft vowel /e/ as in sen [sen] ‘you’. This letter occurs only in loanwords for it represents sounds that do not belong to authentic Tatar language. In authentic reading the foreign sound is naturalized and the letter reads as letter ⟨P⟩. In academic reading it represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiceless labio-dental fricative /f/ as in fal [fɑl] ‘destiny’ and the soft voiceless labio-

dental fricative /f/ as in fen [fen] ‘technics’. This letter represents the soft voiced palatal stop /ɟ/ as in gene [ɟene] ‘again’, ‘still’ with its

allophone the soft voiced velar stop /ɡ/ as in gúl [ɡul] ‘flower, rose’. It also represents the

hard voiced uvular fricative /ʁ/ as in gam

Taner Murat

Ğğ

Ğe

[ʁɑm] ‘grief’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiced palato-alveolar affricate /d͡ʒ/ as in ğar [d͡ʒ ɑr] ‘abyss’ and the soft voiced palato-alveolar affricate /d͡ʒ/ as in

ğer [d͡ʒer] ‘place’, ‘ground’. Representing sounds that do not belong to authentic Tatar language this letter occurs only in loanwords. Most often, in authentic reading, when it reproduces the Arabic or Persian ‫ ه‬it is a silent letter or, if it is located at the beginning or end of the word, the sound is usually naturalized and the letter reads as letter ⟨K⟩. When it reproduces

‫ ح‬or ‫خ‬

the sound is usually

naturalized as /q/. In academic reading it represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiceless glottal fricative /h/ as in taht [tɑht] ‘throne’ and the soft voiceless 11

Íí

Hemzelí I, Kıska I, Zayıf I

uvular fricative /χ/ as in heşt [χeʃt] ‘eight’. This letter represents the high unrounded ATR or soft vowel /i/ as in biñ [biŋ] ‘thousand’. This letter representing the high unrounded half-advanced ATR or soft vowel /i/ as in bír

[bir] ‘one’ is specific to Tatar. At the end of the word it is pronounced with half open mouth undergoing 7.9. Dilatation “Keñiytúw” and becoming mid unrounded halfadvanced ATR or soft /ə/, also known as

Îî

Kalpaklî I, Tartuwlî I

schwa, as in tílí [tilə] ‘his tongue’ This letter represents the high unrounded RTR or hard vowel /ɯ/ as in îşan [ɯʃɑn] ‘mouse’. At the end of the word it is pronounced with half open mouth shifting through 7.9. Dilatation “Keñiytúw” to mid unrounded RTR or hard /ɤ/, close to schwa, as in şîlapşî [ʃɯlɑpʃɤ] ‘trough’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiced palato-alveolar fricative /ʒ/ as in taj [tɑʒ] ‘crown’ and the soft voiced palato-alveolar fricative /ʒ/ as in bej

[beʒ] ‘beige’. This letter represents the soft voiceless palatal stop /c/ as in kel [cel] ‘come!’ and its allophone the soft voiceless velar stop /k/ as in kól [kol] ‘lake’. It also represents the hard voiceless

uvular stop /q/ as in kal [qɑl] ‘stay!’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania sounds: the hard alveolar lateral aproximant /l/ as in bal [bɑl] ‘honey’ and the soft alveolar 17

lateral aproximant /l/ as in bel [bel] ‘waist’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard bilabial nasal /m/ as in maga [mɑʁɑ] ‘to me’ and the soft bilabial nasal /m/

as in men [men] ‘I’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard dental nasal /n/ as in ana

[ɑnɑ] ‘mother’ and the soft dental nasal /n/ as 19

Ññ

Eñ, Dalgalî Ne

in ne [ne] ‘what’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard uvular nasal /N/ as in añ [ɑN] ‘conscience’ and the soft velar nasal /ŋ/ as in

eñ [eŋ] ‘most’. This letter represents the mid rounded RTR or

Óó

Noktalî O

hard vowel /o/ as in bo [bo] ‘this’. This letter represents the mid rounded half-

advanced ATR or soft vowel /o/ as in tór [tor] ‘background’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal

sounds: the hard voiceless bilabial stop /p/ as in ğap [d͡ʒ ɑp] ‘close!’ and the soft voiceless 23

bilabial stop /p/ as in ğep [d͡ʒep] ‘pocket’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard alveolar trill /r/ as in tar [tɑr] ‘narrow’ and the soft alveolar trill /r/ as in ter

[ter] ‘sweat’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ as in sal [sɑl] ‘raft’ and the soft voiceless

Şş

Şe

alveolar fricative /s/ as in sel [sel] ‘flood’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiceless palato-alveolar fricative /ʃ/ as in şaş [ʃɑʃ] ‘spread!’ and the soft voiceless palato-alveolar fricative /ʃ/ as in

şeş [ʃeʃ] ‘untie’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiceless dental stop /t/ as

in tar [tɑr] ‘tight’, ‘narrow’ and the soft voiceless

dental stop /t/ as in ter [ter] ‘sweat’. This letter represents the high rounded RTR or

Úú

Noktalî U

hard vowel /u/ as in un [un] ‘flour’. This letter represents the high rounded halfadvanced ATR or soft vowel /u/ as in sút [sut]

Taner Murat ‘milk’. In the vicinity of semivowel y, which occurs rarely, its articulation shifts to high rounded ATR or soft /y/, close to Turkish pronunciation, 29

as in súymek [symec] ‘to love’. This letter occurs only in loanwords for it represents sounds that do not belong to authentic Tatar spoken in Romania. In authentic reading the foreign sound is naturalized and the letter reads sometimes as ⟨W⟩, sometimes as ⟨B⟩. In academic reading it represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiced labiodental fricative /v/ as in vals [vɑls] ‘waltz’ and

the soft voiced labio-dental fricative /v/ as in 30

ve [ve] ‘and’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard labio-velar semivowel /w/ as in taw [tɑw] ‘forest’, ‘mountain’ and the soft

labio-velar semivowel /w/ as in tew [tew] ‘central’, ‘fundamental’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard palatal semivowel /y/ as in tay [tɑy] ‘foal’ and the soft palatal semivowel

/y/ as in yer [yer] ‘place’, ‘ground’. This letter represents two distinctive consonantal sounds: the hard voiced alveolar fricative /z/ as in taz [tɑz] ‘bald’ and the soft voiced

alveolar fricative /z/ as in tez [tez] ‘quick’.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

5. Syllabification

5.1. The role of jaws and lips in articulating determinant sounds While the role of tongue root is decisive in the Khwarezmian articulation of the determinant sounds, consequently, in the articulation of syllables, the jaws and lips seem to have a secondary involvement with lower consequences.

5.1.1. The classification of the determinant sounds by jaw position By the position of the jaws in pronunciation, I would group the determinant sounds of Tatar spoken in Romania in two classes of openness: a) Open determinant sounds, which are articulated with open mouth; b) Close determinant sounds, which are produced with closed mouth; The openness groups and the harmonic parallelism in terms of jaws could be shown as below:

Table 9 Open Close

a î

á í

e i

o ó

ó ú

a↔î á↔í e↔i o↔ó u↔ú Compared to tongue position classification the jaws classification is of lower consequences due to 2.5.

The least effort principle “Eñ az zahmetlí telaffuz”.

However, it helps to identify the close vowels to which sometimes contextual phonetic changes apply.

Taner Murat 5.1.2. The classification of the determinant sounds by lips position By the position of the amount of rounding in the lips during articulation, I would divide the determinant sounds of Tatar spoken in Romania in two series of labialization or roundedness classes: a) Rounded determinant sounds, which are articulated with the lips rounded; b) Unrounded determinant sounds, which are produced with the lips unrounded; The labialization groups and the harmonic parallelism in terms of lips are shown below: Table 10 Rounded Unrounded

ou aáî

óú eií

o↔î o↔a o↔á u↔î u↔a u↔á ó↔í ó↔e ó↔i ú↔í ú↔e ú↔i Compared to tongue position classification the lips classification is of lower consequence due to 2.5. The least effort principle “Eñ az zahmetlí telaffuz” which causes 7.10.

Delabialization, but it helpes to elucidate the rounded vowels to

which contextual phonetic changes apply.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

5.2. The sonority hierarchy The internal structure of the Khwarezmian syllable built in accordance with the phonetic principles of Tatar language spoken in Romania was shown earlier. However, to ease the spelling, these principles bring even more restrictions at the infrastructural level of the syllable and the most important of them will be listed here. The Khwarezmian syllable strictly adheres to 2.6.

The sonority sequencing

principle “Ótíş tertíbí” stating that the sonority falls as you move away from the determinant sound toward both edges of the syllable. The sonority values of segments are determined by a sonority hierarchy as in the following table: Table 11 vowels

syllabic:

approximants (semivowels and liquids)

nasals

approximant: sonorant:

fricatives

affricates

stops

continuant:

delayed release:

As shown above, sound types are the most sonorous on the left side of the scale, and become progressively less sonorous towards the right (e.g., fricatives are less sonorous than nasals). The labels on the left refer to distinctive features. For instance, vowels are considered [+syllabic], whereas all consonants (including stops, affricates, fricatives, etc.) are considered [−syllabic].

5.3. Maximum syllable weight In Tatar language spoken in Romania there are specific phonotactic constraints defining the permissible syllable structure. The Khwarezmian syllable does not allow branching nucleus, therefore the syllable has no diphtongs. Also, it does not

Taner Murat allow consonant clusters in onsets but only mono consonant onsets. And it does not allow more than two consonants in coda. Under such circumstances, the maximum weight of the Khwarezmian syllable of the Tatar spoken in Romania is limited to four sounds of CVCC type.

5.4. Syllable types The maximum syllable weight shown in the preceding section mathematically restricts syllables to six types: 

V (o, a-na, e-lek, o-rak, î-rak, a-ket-mek, ú-mít)



VC (az, el, it, at, in-ğe, er-kek, al-tî, ót-mek)



CV (bo, şo, ke, ba-bay, te-rek)



CVC (men, tór, kúl, kum, mî-şîk, ta-wuk, ko-lay, ot-lak)



VCC (ant, îrk, ast-ta, art-mak, úst-ke)



CVCC (ğurt, dórt-lep, tart-mak, kart-lar, kurt-lar, ğu-mart, dú-rúst)

5.5. Al-Kwarizmi law of syllabification Tatar spoken in Romania has both monosyllabic and polysyllabic words. According to 2.7. The least effort of sylabification principle “Eñ az zahmetlí eğíkleme”, the minimum intersyllabic effort is ensured by the maximum intrasyllabic load on the final syllable. If the intrasyllabic load of a syllable is determined by its weight, further considering the limited number of syllable types, the syllabification of a word can be found moving through an algorithmic process from the golden syllable to its head. So a distinctive feature of the Khwarezmian word in Tatar spoken in Romania is that its syllabification requires minimum articulatory effort and it represents the unique solution of a deterministic algorithm. I like to call this rule the Al-Kwarizmi law of syllabification. Putting this law into practice there is a script in Annex that I designed to divide in syllables any Khwarezmian word of Tatar language spoken in Romania. It was written in AutoIt scripting language and if you like playing with scripting I invite you to improve it and to automate Khwarezmian syllabification. The script corresponds to file Syllabification.au3 which extracts input data from the files

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania Vowels.txt, Consonants.txt and SyllableTypes.txt that you can modify in accordance with your needs. You can freely download, modify and distribute these files that you can find along with the executable Syllabification.exe. Download as zip here: https://sites.google.com/site/tanermuratkitap/archive/Syllabification.zip?attredire cts=0&d=1

5.6. Accent Accent is the phonetic prominence given to a particular syllable in a word. In Tatar spoken in Romania this is produced through a greater dynamic force called stress. Since in the syllabification process the marginal sounds of syllables may shift to the neighboring syllables, the determinant sound or the nucleus of the accented syllable shows to be the exclusive carrier of the stress: al – “take” (imperative, the second person singular) a-lî-ñîz – “take” (imperative, the second person plural) Sometimes grammatical information is conveyed solely by stress: ket-ken-ler – “they went” ket-ken-ler – “those who went” Sometimes, in addition to the features described above, stressed syllables may carry distinctive changes in pitch leading to words differentiated solely by tone. It is the case of differentiating between the conditional and the politeness imperative. The latter is a tense specific to Tatar spoken in Romania, a tense lacking in Turkish: al-sa-ñîz – “if you take” (the conditional tense, the second person plural; accented syllable –sa- carries the conditional tonality) al-sa-ñîz – “please, take” (the polite imperative, the second person plural; accented syllable –sa- carries the tonality expressing a polite invitation) In Tatar language spoken in Romania authentic non-suffixed polysyllabic words have fixed stress falling on the ultimate syllable. In suffixed words resulting from agglutination the position of the stress may change, but it is still predictable as suffixes can be grouped as follows:

Taner Murat

1. tonic, suffixes having the ability to attract the stress ana (“mother”) + lar (tonic suffix for plural) = analar (“mothers”) analar (“mothers”) + ga (tonic suffix for dative or direction case) = analarga (“to mothers”) I think a graphical representation including a magnet might be a pretty good model for the tonic suffixes.

Figure 24

2. atonic, suffixes not having the ability to attract the stress kelír (“will come”) + men (atonic verbal suffix for first person singular) = kelírmen (“I will come”) satkan (“sold”) + lar (atonic verbal suffix for third person plural) = satkanlar (“they sold”) Atonic suffixes may be represented by a simple syllable.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

Figure 25 3. posttonic, suffixes preventing stress to travel through toward the end of the word. ber (“give”) + dí (tonic verbal suffix for definite past tense) = berdí (“he/she gave”) ber (“give”) + me (posttonic verbal suffix for negation) + dí (tonic verbal suffix for past tense) = bermedí (“he/she did not give”) A sealant wall might be a good suggestion for the behaviour of posttonic suffixes.

Figure 26 4. overtonic, suffixes attracting the stress by overcoming the opposition of posttonic suffixes:

Taner Murat bat (“sink”) + ma (posttonic verbal suffix for negation) + z (overtonic verbal suffix for the habitual future tense) = batmaz (“it will/would not sink”) A larger magnet might point out the capacity of overtonic suffixes to attract the stress by overcoming the opposition of the preceding postonics.

Figure 27 5. generative, suffixes generating a new stress and multiple stressed words. al (“take”) + ma (posttonic verbal suffix for negation) + gan (tonic suffix for indefinite past tense) + lar (generative suffix for third person plural) = almaganlar (“those who have not taken”)

Figure 28

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania Note that in polysyllabic words, when a vowel changes from a stressed to an unstressed position in the process of agglutination, 7.5. Elision “Ses atlamasî” of the vowel may occur.

Taner Murat

6. Dissonances and cacophonies

6.1. Dissonance “Şîñlamama” “Şînlamama” - Dissonance is either the unpleasantness, the lack of harmony or the pronouncing difficulty of a certain sound in a certain position of a syllable or word.

6.1.1. The dissonance of the academic sounds Regardless of their position in the word, academic sounds are dissonant to authentic Tatar language spoken in Romania. If you are not in the appropriate cultural environment, it is a matter of courtesy not insisting with the academic spelling. On the other hand, at any time the reader might choose to authentically spell the academic letters through 7.1. Naturalization “Alîştîruw”.

6.1.2. The dissonance of some voiced closed sounds The voiced consonants ⟨B⟩, ⟨G⟩, ⟨D⟩, ⟨Ğ⟩, ⟨V⟩ in the following voicing parallelisms are dissonant at the end of the word. However, the academic nature of the final two consonants shown here makes them very little productive. p↔b k↔g t↔d ç↔ğ f↔v Note that the dissonance of these voiced closed sounds at the end of the word triggers 7.2. Final devoicing which affects loanwords. It should be also noted that at the end of the word voiceless consonants ⟨P⟩, ⟨K⟩, ⟨Ç⟩, ⟨F⟩ of the above pairs will trigger 7.3. Voicing “Ses arttîruwî”.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

6.1.3. The dissonance of the closed sound /ñ/ Word-initial consonant /ñ/ is dissonant, there are no words beginning with letter ⟨Ñ⟩.

6.1.4. The dissonance of the determinant sound /i/ Word-final vowel /i/ is dissonant. There are no authentic words ending with letter ⟨I⟩, but with the reduced vowel ⟨Í⟩. Loans ending in vowel /i/ will trigger either 7.8. Vowel reduction “Kîskartuw” or 7.4.4. Paragoge “Uzatuw”.

6.1.5. The dissonance of the determinant sounds /u/ and /ú/ Word-final vowels /u/ and /ú/ are dissonant. There are no authentic words ending with letters ⟨U⟩ or ⟨Ú⟩, but with their unrounded counterparts ⟨Î⟩, respectively ⟨Í⟩. Loans ending in vowels /u/ and /ú/ will be adapted through 7.10. Delabialization “Erínsízleştírúw” or 7.4.4. Paragoge “Uzatuw”.

6.1.6. The dissonance of the determinant sounds /o/ and /ó/ Vowels /o/ and /ó/ are harmonious only in the first syllable triggering the 7.10. Delabialization “Erínsízleştírúw” of the next syllable. Word-final vowel /ó/ is dissonant.

6.1.7. The dissonance of the rounded suffixes Rounded vowels /o/, /ó/, /u/, /ú/ are dissonant in suffixes. There are no suffixes containing letters ⟨O⟩, ⟨Ó⟩, ⟨U⟩ or ⟨Ú⟩.

6.2. Cacophony “Kagîşma” ”Kagîşma” - Cacophony is a cluster of sounds which is either harsh, disagreeable or impossible to pronounce.

Taner Murat 6.2.1. Complex syllable onset “Múrekkep talaw” Complex syllable onset is cacophonous. Tatar accepts at most one determined sound as onset. The importance of this rule becomes obvious when it comes to loans or names, especially from European languages, starting with consonant clusters, which make them impossible to pronounce to authentic Tatar speakers. These combinations of consonants at the beginning of the word can be avoided through 7.4.1.

Prothesis “Başseslí ziyadeleme” and 7.4.2.

Anaptyxis “Araseslí

ziyadeleme”.

6.2.2. Complex coda clusters “Múrekkep kuyruk” Complex coda clusters are cacophonous except for the concatenation of two determined

sounds

admitted

under

the

condition

following

the

2.6.

The sonority sequencing principle “Ótíş tertíbí” and 5.2. The sonority hierarchy. Looking at the sonority hierarchy one can see that approximants can never be the ending part of these clusters while stops can never initiate them. Here is a model that some determined sounds can follow in order to gain the attaching ability to previous determined sound and form clusters in codas.

Figure 29

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania 6.2.3. Hiatus “Alákasîzlîk” “Alákasîzlîk”

Hiatus

the coming together of two immediately adjacent determinant

is sounds in

consecutive syllables of a word and such vicinity is cacophonous in Tatar spoken in Romania. As represented in Figure 30, determined sounds in onset and coda will prevent hiatus acting much in the same way the wagon buffers would absorb the shocks of a mechanical system. As for the Arabic and Persian loans, in most cases, an 7.4.3. Excrescence “Yarîseslí ziyadeleme” will break the original hiatus.

Figure 30

Taner Murat 6.2.4. The cacophonous group [ey] While other Turkic languages may appear comfortable concatenating the sequence of sounds [ey], to Tatar language spoken in Romania this is an inadmissible cacophony so its avoidance is mandatory. Mostly, this cacophony is avoided by 7.6.1. Regressive assimilation “Art sesníñ uşatmasî” as in the event of the negative form of ATR verbs, which is the most productive case of this danger. Sometimes the cacophony is avoided through 7.5. Elision “Ses atlamasî” or 7.7. Dissimilation “Ses deñíştírmesí”.

6.2.5. The cacophonous groups [bîp] and [bíp] Most of the authentic speakers consider these sequences cacophonous and avoid it through 7.7. Dissimilation “Ses deñíştírmesí”.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

7. Phonetic changes in words and sequences of words

7.1. Naturalization “Alîştîruw” ”Alîştîruw” - Naturalization is shifting the spelling of academic speech sounds to authentic

sounds

following

the

patterns

below,

where

a greater-than

sign indicates that one sound changes to another. f>p v>w v>b ç>ş ç>j h > Φ (skip over) h>k h>y h>w

7.2. Final devoicing “Ses kîstîruwî” ”Ses kîstîruwî” - Final devoicing is a mandatory sound change triggered by the dissonance of the voiced consonants ⟨B⟩, ⟨G⟩, ⟨D⟩, ⟨Ğ⟩, ⟨V⟩ at the end of the word and requiring the shift of these consonants into their devoiced counterparts in loanwords. arab > arap “Arab” murad > murat “wish” tağ > taç “crown”

Taner Murat

7.3. Voicing “Ses arttîruwî” ”Ses arttîruwî” - Voicing is a mandatory sound change where one of the voiceless consonants ⟨P⟩, ⟨K⟩, ⟨Ç⟩, ⟨F⟩ becomes voiced due to the influence of its phonological environment. Note that while consonants ⟨P⟩ and ⟨K⟩ are very productive the other two are representing academic sounds rarely occurring in such environments. There is a regressive or progressive voicing. Regressive voicing occurs when a suffix initiated with a vowel is added to one of the word-final voiceless consonants ⟨P⟩, ⟨K⟩, ⟨Ç⟩, ⟨F⟩ triggering the shift of these consonants into their voiced counterparts. ayak + îm > ayagîm “my leg” kasap + îñîz > kasabîñîz “your butcher” Progressive voicing occurs when a word ending with a vowel receives a suffix initiated with consonant ⟨K⟩ triggering the shift of this consonant into its voiced counterpart. Note that there are no suffixes starting with voiceless consonants ⟨P⟩, ⟨Ç⟩ or ⟨F⟩. ana + ka > anaga “to mother” It should also be noted that in Tatar spoken Romania the stop ⟨T⟩ is not affected by voicing. murat + îm = muratîm “my wish”

7.3.1.

Extended voicing or jamaat “Ğemayet”

”Ğemayet” - Extended voicing or jamaat is an optional voicing process specific to Tatar spoken in Romania expanded across word boundaries, when sequences of two neighboring words are run together as if the first would be a root-word while the second an agglutinating suffix. The two words participating through such contraction to the voicing environment form a jamaat whose orthography should include a hyphen. Similarly, there is a regressive and a progressive jamaat. Neğip akay > Neğib-akay “Mr. Nejip” – regressive extended voicing Kara kóy > Kara-góy “Black Village” – progressive extended voicing

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania 7.4. Epenthesis “Ziyadeleme” ”Ziyadeleme” – Epenthesis is the addition of one sound to a word without changing its meaning. There are four particular cases of epenthesis arising through determinant and determined sound additions.

7.4.1. Prothesis “Başseslí ziyadeleme” ”Başseslí ziyadeleme” - Prothesis is the addition of a vowel at the beginning of a word in order to avoid complex syllable onsets occurring in loans starting with consonant clusters. Prothesis does not change the word's meaning or the rest of its structure. The prothetic vowel is selected from the pair î-/í- through regressive harmonization in accordance with the tongue root characteristic of the first vowel in the word. scan > ísken “scan” Stalin > Îstalin “Stalin” Stockholm > Îstokolm “Stockholm” One can also use the stationary prothetic vowel i- without harmonization: Stalin > Istalin “Stalin” Stockholm > Istokolm “Stockholm” In a few cases, optional prothetic vowels u-/ú- may be used at the beginning of monosyllabic loans built around determinant sounds /u/ or /ú/: Rus > Urus “Russian” Rum > Urum “Roman”

Taner Murat

7.4.2. Anaptyxis “Araseslí ziyadeleme” ”Arasesí ziyadeleme” - Anaptyxis which consists of a vowel added into the starting consonant cluster is another way of avoiding complex syllable onsets that can occur at the beginning of the loans. Once again, the prothetic vowel is selected from the pair î-/í- through regressive harmonization with the first vowel in the word. scan > síken “scan” Stalin > Sîtalin “Stalin” Stockholm > Sîtokolm “Stockholm”

7.4.3. Excrescence “Yarîseslí ziyadeleme” “Yarîseslí ziyadeleme” - Excrescense is the insertion of a semivowel, y or w, in order to serve as binding phoneme between the adjacent vowels of a hiatus in a loan. şair > şayir “poet” tabiat > tabiyat “nature, character” muallim > muwallím “teacher” muamele > muwamele “method, procedure” Note that loans with sequences of identical vowels are accepted as they are and they do not require semivowel insertion. şiir = şiir “poem” fiil = fiil “verb” faal = faal “active” matbaa = matbaa “printery”

7.4.4. Paragoge “Uzatuw” ”Uzatuw” – Paragoge is the addition of a sound to the end of a loanword when it would otherwise end in a forbidden sound. It is a semivocalic epenthesis characteristic to academic language. Thus, the dissonance of the determinant

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania sound /i/ at the end of the word can be avoided by a paragogic semivowel /y/, while vowels /u/ and /ú/ should be followed by semivowel /w/. medeni > medeniy “civilized” arzu > arzuw “wish”

7.5. Elision “Ses atlamasî” “Ses atlamasî” - Elision is the opposite of epenthesis consisting in the omission of one or more sounds in a word or phrase without changing its meaning. Sometimes sounds are elided to avoid a cacophony: selam aleykúm > selam alekúm “peace be unto you” Elision also occurs to shorten a word on behalf of an easier pronunciation. It is the case of words consisting of two or three syllables from which, if a shorter syllabification is allowed, the stressed vowel in final position losing its stress may be optionally elided when the word is suffixed bízden bírí + sí > bízden bír’sí “one of us” onlarnîñ alayî + sî > onlarnîñ alay’sî “all of them”

7.6. Assimilation “Ses uşatmasî” ”Ses uşatmasî” - Assimilation is the phonological process within a word by which one sound becomes more like a nearby sound.

7.6.1. Regressive assimilation “Art sesníñ uşatmasî” ”Art sesníñ uşatmasî” - Regressive assimilation occurs when a sound segment assimilates to a following sound most commonly breaking a cacophony. ketmeymen > ketmiymen “I don’t go” reys > riys “chief, president” óltírmek > óttírmek “to kill”

Taner Murat 7.6.2. Progessive assimilation “Ald sesníñ uşatmasî” ”Ald sesníñ uşatmasî” - Progressive assimilation occurs when sounds assimilate to a preceding one. añlamak > añnamak “to understand” mañlay > mañnay “forehead”

7.7. Dissimilation “Ses deñíştírmesí” ”Ses

deñíştírmesí”

Dissimilation

phonological

process

opposed

assimilation whereby similar sounds in a word become less similar. It is much less productive than assimilation. One of the contexts where phonetic dissimilation may take place is where a cacophony must be broken. reys > rays “chief, president” tabîp > tawîp “finding” sebíp > sewíp “sprinkling”

7.8. Vowel reduction “Kîskartuw” ”Kîskartuw” - Vowel reduction is the transformation of an ATR vowel into a reduced or weak vowel involving a centralization of the tongue root place in pronunciation by retraction from advanced to half-advanced position. In loans, vowel reduction applies very often to /i/ which in Tatar spoken in Romania becomes /ɨ/ as shown in Figure 31, but it also affects authentic words, in both stressed and unstressed environments. In authentic Tatar, always at the end of word, almost always in final syllables with coda, and often at the beginning and in the middle of the word, vowel /i/ as it appears in other Turkic languages is reduced to /ɨ/. Vowel /i/ continues to exist just in some loanwords or as a result of the regressive assimilation.

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

Figure 31 Tatar spoken in Romania also pronounces vowels /o/ and /u/ with half-advanced tongue root, which compared to their strong correspondents in Turkish /œ/ and /y/ could be regarded as a vowel reduction. Vowel reduction is a consequence of 2.5.

The least effort principle “Eñ az

zahmetlí telaffuz” and it manifests showing a short distance between the RTR vowels and their ATR counterparts.

7.9. Dilatation “Keñiytúw” ”Keñitúw” - Dilatation is the characteristic change in pronouncing close vowels /ɨ/ and /ɯ/ at the end of the word, which most often is a stressed environment, by half enlarging the opening of the mouth resulting in the elimination of certain distinctive features of the phonemes and their change to schwa or to something approaching schwa. This acoustic quality alteration is known as neutralization. In dilatation, stressed close vowel /ɨ/ is neutralized and transformed to stressed mid central unrounded schwa /ə/, while stressed close vowel /ɯ/ becomes stressed mid back unrounded [ɤ], which is something close to schwa as shown in Figure 32. Neutralized sounds are allophones of their phonemes.

Taner Murat

Figure 32

7.10. Delabialization “Erínsízleştírúw” “Erínsízleştírúw” - Delabialization is the change in the roundness of the syllable chain shifting from rounded to unrounded at some point, which usually occurs in the second syllable following vowels /o/ or /ó/, in word-final position following vowels /u/ or /ú/, as well as in all suffixes. torîn “grandson” kurî “dry” arzuw + îm > arzuwîm “my wish”

7.11. Pairs of sounds “Koşak dawuşlar” “Koşak dawuşlar” - Pairs of sounds are speech sounds that Tatar language spoken in Romania considers fairly similar and associates in harmonic parallelisms shifting them without changing the meaning of the word. Pairs of sounds sometimes give rise to synonymous words having very close form and pronunciation. For example, Tatar spoken in Romania admits two variants for the word ‘ship’. The first one is “kemí”, which is close to Kazakh, Uzbek and

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania Kyrgyz and the other one is “gemí”, which is close to Turkish, Azerbaijani and Turkmen. In other cases, pairs of sounds represent shifting algorithms which are designed to comprehend and adapt words in other languages, Khwarezmian or nonKhwarezmian, to the phonetic particularities of Tatar spoken in Romania such as shifting ⟨Ç⟩ to ⟨Ş⟩ or shifting ⟨F⟩ to ⟨P⟩. e–i şeşek (“flower” Tatar) – çəçək (“flower” Kazan Tatar) - çiçek (“flower” Turkish) o–u bo (“this” Tatar) – bu (“this” Uzbek, Turkish, Azerbaijani) u–î tolî (“full” Tatar) – doly (“full” Turkmen) – dolu (“full” Turkish) f-p kiyp (“mood” Tatar) – keyf(“mood” Azerbaijani, Turkish) v-w watan (“homeland” Tatar) - vətən (“homeland” Azerbaijani), vatan (“homeland” Uzbek, Turkish) y – ğ (at the beginning of a word) ğurt

(“yurt,

homeland”

Tatar)

–

yurt

(“yurt,

homeland”

Tatar,

Turkish,

Azerbaijani, Uzbek) t-d túrbe (“tombstone” Tatar) – dúrbe (“tombstone” Tatar) tatay (“elder sister” Tatar) – daday (“elder sister” Tatar) ç–ş şeşek (“flower” Tatar) – çəçək (“flower” Kazan Tatar) - çiçek (“flower” Turkish) şoban (“shepherd” Tatar) – çoban (“shepherd” Azerbaijani, Turkish)

Taner Murat s-ş şáş (“hair” Tatar) – şaş (“hair” Kazakh) – saç (“hair” Turkish, Azerbaijani) – soç (Uzbek) m–b men (“I” Tatar, Uzbek, Kazakh, Turkmen, Kyrgyz) - mən (“I” Azerbaijani) – ben (“I” Turkish) These were only a few examples, but Tatar spoken in Romania has a large number of pairs of sounds including: - the harmonic parallelisms of the determined sounds in terms of tongue root, lips and jaws. - the voiceless-voiced pairs in the table of determined sounds. - other pairs that are not apparent in the table of the determined sounds. Pairs of sounds are an interesting feature common to Khwarezmian and Turkic languages. On one hand, they exhibit the heterogeneity of the tribal origin of these languages emanating from a multitude of dialects, and on the other hand, they seem to show the degree of intelligibility between these closely related languages. Khwarezmian and Turkic languages are mutual intelligible, but in different degrees. For example, the large number of pairs of sounds in Tatar spoken in Romania seems to lead some turkologists to consider it a hybrid language. But it also seems to determine the high degree of intelligibility of other Turkic languages to authentic speakers of Tatar language spoken in Romania. At the same time, the limited number of pairs of sounds in some Turkic languages or dialects appears to make the other Turkic languages minimally intelligible to their speakers. I am of the belief that practicing the grammar and the pairs of sounds of the Tatar tongue spoken in Romania could render other Turkic languages as Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkish, Uzbek or Uighur, much more intelligible and easier to learn. ***

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania

Bibliography

Vuap-Mocanu, Şukran (1985). Curs practic de limba tătară. Bucureşti: Universitatea din Bucureşti (Romanian) Mahmut, Nedret; Mahmut, Enver (1988). Bozcĭgĭt: Dobruca Tatar masalları. Bucureşti: Kriterion Kerim, Altay; Kerim, Leyla (1996). Dicționar Tătar-Turc-Român; Tatarca-TürkçeRomence Sözlĭk; Tatarca-Türkçe-Romence Sözlük. Bucureşti: Kriterion Emin, Emel (2008). Curs practice de limba turcă. Constanța: Golden (Romanian) Akmolla, Güner (2009). Tatarlar. Constanța, NewLine (Tatar) Moseley, Christopher (2010). Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger. 3rd ed. Paris: UNESCO Publishing Ibraim, Neriman; Ibram, Nuredin (2014). Din lirica tătarăĭ. Constanța: Imperium (Romanian) Williams, Brian Glyn (2015). The Crimean Tatars. London: Hurst & Company Ibram, Nuredin (2017). Tătarii din România. Constanța: Muntenia (Romanian) Hotopp-Riecke, Mieste (2017). Germans and Tatars between migration, integration and solidarity: The trans-cultural regional awarness of the Dobrujanians. Tatarica: Kazan Federal University, 2(9), pp.111-122 Oner, Mustafa; Yusupova, Alfiya Shavketovna (2017). A New Book: Tatar-Finnish Dictionary. Tatarica: Kazan Federal University, 2(9), pp.177-181 Theilig, Stephan (2017). The Prussian Tatars: Migration and transformation process in the Prussian army in the early modern period (1795-1800), based on the history of Lipka Tatars. Tatarica: Kazan Federal University, 2(9), pp.82-101 Erolova, Elis (2018). (Re) Invented traditions – Reconstructed identities (Case studies from Bulgarian-Romanian border region of Dobrudzha). In: The 1st Annual Kurultai of the Endangered Cultural Heritage. Constanța: Anticus Press, pp.8-21 Yankova, Veneta (2018). The Tatars in Bulgaria and their oral history: The migration from Crimea. In: The 1st Annual Kurultai of the Endangered Cultural Heritage. Constanța: Anticus Press, pp.22-31

Taner Murat

Annex

#include-once #include <file.au3> #include <Array.au3> $Run = "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run" $regSyl = "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Syllabification" ; Read Word $MyWord = InputBox("Tatar spoken in Romania: Syllabification", "Enter your word:", "", "") $MyLen = StringLen($MyWord) $MyPattern = $MyWord RegWrite($regSyl, "Word", "REG_SZ", $MyWord) ; Read into array lines of SyllableTypes text file until the EOF is reached and sort the array Dim $SyllableTypes If Not _FileReadToArray("SyllableTypes.txt",$SyllableTypes) Then MsgBox(4096,"Error", " Error reading log to Array error:" & @error) Exit EndIf $SyllableTypes[0] = "0" & $SyllableTypes[0] For $i = 1 to $SyllableTypes[0] $SyllableTypes[$i] = StringLen($SyllableTypes[$i]) & $SyllableTypes[$i] Next _ArraySort($SyllableTypes) For $i = 0 to $SyllableTypes[0] $SyllableTypes[$i] = StringRight($SyllableTypes[$i], StringLen($SyllableTypes[$i]) - 1) Next ; Read into array lines of Consonants text file until the EOF is reached Dim $Consonants If Not _FileReadToArray("Consonants.txt",$Consonants) Then MsgBox(4096,"Error", " Error reading log to Array error:" & @error) Exit EndIf

The Sounds of Tatar Spoken in Romania ; Read into array lines of Vowels text file until the EOF is reached Dim $Vowels If Not _FileReadToArray("Vowels.txt",$Vowels) Then MsgBox(4096,"Error", " Error reading log to Array error:" & @error) Exit EndIf ; Find the Pattern of the Word For $i = 1 to $Consonants[0] $MyPattern = StringReplace($MyPattern, $Consonants[$i], "*") Next $MyPattern = StringReplace($MyPattern, "*", "C") For $i = 1 to $Vowels[0] $MyPattern = StringReplace($MyPattern, $Vowels[$i], "V") Next ; Check Pattern $str = $MyPattern $str = StringReplace($str, "V", "") $str = StringReplace($str, "C", "") If StringInStr($str, " ") > 0 Then MsgBox(0, "Wrong input (a single word expected): ", $MyWord) Exit EndIf If StringLen($str) > 0 Then MsgBox(0, "Wrong input: ", $MyWord & " / " & $MyPattern) Exit EndIf ; Count Syllables $str = $MyPattern $str = StringReplace($str, "C", "") $CountSyllables = StringLen($str) ; Divide Word into syllables $DividedWord = $MyWord $DividedPattern = $MyPattern $DividedCount = $CountSyllables Dim $Syllable[$DividedCount+1] Dim $lenSyllable[$DividedCount+1]

Taner Murat $Syllable[0] = $DividedCount $lenSyllable[0] = $DividedCount For $i = 1 To $DividedCount $lenSyllable[$i] = 0 $Syllable[$i] = "" Next While $DividedCount > 0 For $i = $SyllableTypes[0] To 1 Step -1 For $j = $SyllableTypes[0] To 1 Step -1 $EndPattern = $SyllableTypes[$i] If $DividedCount > 1 Then $EndPattern = $SyllableTypes[$j] & $EndPattern EndIf If $lenSyllable[$DividedCount] = 0 Then If StringRight($DividedPattern, StringLen($EndPattern)) = $EndPattern Then $lenSyllable[$DividedCount] = StringLen($SyllableTypes[$i]) $Syllable[$DividedCount] = StringRight($DividedWord, $lenSyllable[$DividedCount]) $DividedWord = StringLeft($DividedWord, StringLen($DividedWord)-$lenSyllable[$DividedCount]) $DividedPattern = StringLeft($DividedPattern, StringLen($DividedPattern)-$lenSyllable[$DividedCount]) ExitLoop EndIf EndIf Next If $lenSyllable[$DividedCount] > 0 Then ExitLoop EndIf Next $DividedCount = $DividedCount - 1 WEnd $DividedWord = "" For $i = 1 To $CountSyllables If $i = 1 Then $DividedWord = $Syllable[$i] Else $DividedWord = $DividedWord & "-" & $Syllable[$i] EndIf Next ; Show Result MsgBox(0, "Resulted Syllabification", $DividedWord) 74