The Caucasian language material
in Evliya Çelebi's “Travel book”
A Revision
Jost Gippert
When in 1934, Robert Bleichsteiner published the Caucasian language specimina contained in the “travel book” of the 17th century Turkish writer Evliya Çelebi1, he was struck by the amount of reliability he found in Evliya's notations: “(Die Sprachproben) sind, von einzelnen Mißverständnissen abgesehen, und wenn man die falschen Punktierungen und Irrtümer der Kopisten abrechnet, außerordentlich gut, ja zuweilen mit einem gewissen phonetischen Geschick wiedergegeben, was der Auffassungsgabe und dem Eifer Evliyas ein hohes Zeugnis ausstellt. Man muß bedenken, wie schwer das arabische Alphabet, ohne weitere Unterscheidungszeichen, wie sie die islamischen Kaukasusvölker anwenden, die verwickelten, oft über 70 verschiedene Phoneme umfassenden Lautsysteme wiederzugeben imstande ist. Wenn trotzdem die Entzifferung der Sprachproben zum größten Teil geglückt ist, so muß man der ungewöhnlichen Begabung des türkischen Reisenden und Gelehrten schrankenlose Bewunderung zollen” (85).
Bleichsteiner's judgment must be seen under the aspect that the material he had to rely upon was far from being apt for a thorough linguistic analysis: As is widely accepted today, neither the first edition (by Ahmet Cevdet), published in Istanbul between 1896 and 19012, nor Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall's translation, which had appeared half a century earlier3, offer a sufficient basis for detailed studies, both being based on late and incorrect manuscripts only. Now, however, we are in a happier position, since Evliya's original autograph has been identified in the so called Bağdat Köşkü series of Istanbul manuscripts4. On the basis of this autograph, a reconsideration of the Caucasian language material, which in the case of Abkhaz, Ubykh, Circassian, and Megrelian represents the oldest cohesive material available at all, suggests itself. Having Evliya's manuscript at hand, Bleichsteiner's judgment must, as we will see, not only be sustained but even reinforced. No longer having to face the “wrong punctuations and errors of the copyists”, we are in the position to elucidate quite a lot of problematical words and phrases in the language specimens of interest to us here. In addition, even some new material can be adduced.
In the following treatise, Evliya's Caucasian material is arranged in the order he himself presents it: It starts with Abkhaz (in Evliya's words: lisān-i ՙacīb u garīb-i Abāza, i.e. “the strange and peculiar language of the Abaza”; as is well known, Abkhaz was Evliya's mother's tongue) and Ubykh (lisān-i Ṣadşa-Abaza, “language of the Sadşa-Abaza”), both appearing in pag. 258b f. of manuscript Bağdat 304, within the second book of the Seyāhat-nāme. Later on in the same book, we find the Georgian (Şawşad Gürcileriniŋ lisānı, “the language of the Şawşat=Šavšeti – Georgians”) and the Megrelian (Megrel kavminiŋ lisānları, “the languages of the Megrel tribe”) specimen, on pag. 320a and 332b, respectively. The Circassian (lisān-i Çerākize-yi māmalūqa, “language of the Mamluk-Circassians”) specimen is contained in pag. 157b of the manuscript Bağdat 308 within the seventh book.
Of the five specimina, the Ubykh alone deserves no further exhaustive study, because it was the object of a detailed investigation by Elio Provasi5 recently who did use the autograph manuscript (although he seems not to have recognized its actual value). It will be included here for the sake of completeness only.
For all five languages, Evliya's material will be presented in the following way: For all single entries, first the Turkish equivalent is given both in (Osmanist) transcription and in Evliya's original Arabic-Ottoman notation. Then, former interpretations of the Caucasian word or sentence in question are quoted for comparison; except for Ubykh, where G. Dumézil's study is used as a reference6, this is normally R. Bleichsteiner's interpretation. Next, for all languages but Ubykh, an equivalent of Evliya's entry in today's “normal” language (and orthography) as well as a phonological interpretation is proposed. Every entry closes with Evliya's original notation of the words he heard, together with a “Turkicizing” transcription, which is intended as a means of linking the — most often ambiguous — Arabic notation with what can be assumed as its contents. In the transcription, I make use of the methodic principles as developed by R. Dankoff for his “Evliya Çelebi Glossary” of “Unusual, Dialectal and Foreign Words in the Seyahat-name”, the preparation of which gave rise to the present study7. Especially the following rules should be kept in mind here: Arabic alif ( ا ) is transcribed as a or ä, the mark of a-vocalization, fatḥa ( ـَ ), as e or á, Arabic yā ( ى / ي ) and the mark of i-vocalization, kasra ( ـِ ), as i or é, Arabic wāw ( و ) and the mark of u-vocalization, ḍamma ( ـُ ), as o, u, ö, or ü, according to the sounds they are likely to represent. For some of the languages, additional principles have turned out necessary; these are explained in the introduction to each treatise. Whenever a single entry deserves an explicite commentary, this is added immediately after it.
For all five specimina, the part of the manuscript containing it is presented here as a facsimile in order to allow for an examination of the readings. Note that in his second book, Evliya chose an interlinear arrangement for the foreign material and its Turkish translation (each pair of lines belonging together is marked by an additional brace, here), whereas the Circassian is arranged in a succeeding way (except for the numbers).
No attempts will be made here to deal with a four (half-)verse poem within Evliya's material that was formerly regarded as Laz8: The poem, contained in page 253a of the second volume of Evliya's book, occurs in a nearly identical shape in vol. 8 (336b) again, where it forms part of the specimen of the Trabzon Greek dialect, and there are only Greek elements to be detected in it; cf. Dankoff's glossary (114) for this.
Maybe some readers will find that the translation of Evliya's examples sounds a little bit too rough or straightforward at times; to them, we may quote as an apologia what Evliya felt necessary to state himself on behalf of his Megrelian material:
سياحلره بوكونه شُتُوملرى دخي بلمك لأزمدر كم كندويه سُوكدكلري معلوم اولوپ
اول محلده هركسله حُسنالفت ايدوپ بر تقريب ايله جانب سلامته چيقه
seyyāḥlara bu gūne şutūmları daxı bilmek lāzımdır kim kendüye sögdükleri maՙlūm olup
ol maḥalde herkesle ḥüsn-i ülfet ėdüp bir taqrīb ile cānib-i selāmete çıqa.
“Travellers must know such insultings too, so that they may understand what they were insulted with and may find safety from danger in a certain way by keeping friendly relations with everybody in this region.”9
My thanks are due to Robert Dankoff, Klaus Kreiser and Semih Tezcan, who checked all readings and contributed many improvements, especially for the Turkic part, as well as Winfried Boeder and George Hewitt, to whom I owe many ideas and corrections in the Caucasian part. It goes without saying, that all errors and shortcomings of the present study are mine.
Abkhaz:
In the phonological spelling, aspirated consonants are marked by ՙ, glottalized ones by ՚. Palatalization is marked by ̾, labialization by °. Vowel length is marked by :. Word accent is only indicated, by ̍, where I am sure. Morpheme boundaries are represented by hyphens. In the “Turkicizing” transcription of Evliya's notations, necessary additions (mostly of vocalizations) are given in parentheses, whereas necessary deletions (mostly of prothetic or epenthetic vowels and the like) are given in square brackets; notations of a vowel in a position where phonologically an ə may be assumed, are indicated by braces. When other corrections are necessary, an asterisk is used.
| Turkish | meaning | Bleichsteiner | today | phonologically | reading | ||
| (bir) | ١ | 1 | ak՚a | акы́ | ak՚̍ə | aqı | آقِ |
| (iki) | ٢ | 2 | ՙw-ba | ҩба́ | ՙ°(ə)b̍a | w{ü}ba | وُبا |
| (üç) | ٣ | 3 | ḫ-pՙa, ḫə-pՙa | хҧа́ | (ə)xpՙ̍a | {ı}xpa ? | اِخْپَا |
| (dört) | ٤ | 4 | pՙš'ə-ba | ҧшьба́ | pՙš̰(ə)b̍a | b{ı}şba | بِشبَا |
| (beş) | ٥ | 5 | ḫvə-ba | хуба́ | x°(ə)b̍a | xuba | خُوبَا |
| (altı) | ٦ | 6 | f-ba | фба́ | f(ə)b̍a | f{ı}ba | فِبَا |
| (yedi) | ٧ | 7 | bž'-ba | бжьба́ | b(ə)ž̰b̍a | b{ı}zba | بِزْبَا |
| (sekiz) | ٨ | 8 | ā-ba | ааба́ | a:b̍a | ՙába | عَبَا |
| (doquz) | ٩ | 9 | ž'v-ba | жәба́ | ž°(ə)b̍a | j{ı}ba | ژِبَا |
| (on) | ١٠ | 10 | žva-ba | жәаба́ | ž°ab̍a | *ju(a)ba ? | زوُبَا |
Today's forms z°ba “9” and ž°aba “10” have the same initial consonant, a labialized
ž; so Evliya's ز <z> in the latter word must stand for a ژ <ž> as in the first one; cp. the
following two entries too. If “10” had the medial -a- at his time already, he must have
confused ḍamma and fatḥa additionally; but cp. the following two entries.
| (on bir) | ١١ | 11 | žvejza | ! жәе́иза | ž°̍aiza ! | [aqı zu(a)ba] | آقِ زُوبَا |
| (on iki) | ١٢ | 12 | žvaՙwa | ! жәа́ҩа | ž°̍aՙ°a ! | [w{ü}ba ju(a)pa] | وُباژُوپَا |
As against today's forms, Evliya's Abkhaz numerals for “11” and “12” are arranged in
reverse internal order, viz. “one-ten” and “two-ten” instead of “ten-and-one, ten-two”;
cf. already Bleichsteiner (105: 11). I have no sources that indicate Evliya's combinations as possible variants; even Baron Uslar in the first Abkhaz Grammar (Ėtnografija
Kavkaza I, Tiflis 1887, p. 98) gave only today's forms. Cp. the Ubykh and Megrelian
numbers too.
| gel | كَلْ | “come” | u-āj | уааи | w-̍a:-i | waՙ(e)y | وَ اع يْ |
Evliya's ՙayn written above the elif seems to be correct, because “to come”, inf. аа́и-ра
a:y-ra, contains the sound /a:/, written <аа> today, which is assumed to have developed by the loss of a voiced intervocalic pharyngal fricative similar to arab. ՙayn. Cp.
the spelling of the numeral a:ˈba “eight” above. Note that the word اماله imāle “flexion”
is written above the ي <y> in this entry which might indicate a higher articulation of
the vowel denoted by the kasra; cp. the first Georgian entry for this. — The form given
here is possibly contained in Evliya's Megrelian specimen, too, as a borrowing.
| git | كِيتْ | “go” | u-ća, u-ca | уце́и (?) | w(ə)-cՙ̍a-i (?) | uç(é)y (?) | اوُچِيْ |
I do not see a reason for a -i in this form (inf. “to go”: а-ца-ра́ a-cՙa-rˈa), unless it be
the “suffix of categoriality” as, more probably, in the following item. The form would
have to be read as ucՙe-i or ucՙe-y (уце-и) in this case, the kasra perhaps denoting a
close pronunciation of the -e-, which is due to an “umlaut” caused by the -i itself. A.N.
Genko (O jazyke Ubyxov; in: Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Otdelenie Gumanitarnyx
Nauk, 1928, 242) pointed to the Bzyb variant wəϑ̦̇a, i.e. ucՙ̰a, with a palatal affricate,
for Evliya's spelling; together with the suffixed -i, this would yield ucՙ̰ˈe-i as G.
Hewitt states (letter dated 22.7.91; the grammar of the “Bzybskij dialekt abxazskogo
jazyka” by X.S. Bgažba, Tbilisi 1964, is not available to me so far). Compare umçin
“don't go”, below. Note that there is a sukūn above the final ي <y>.
| oṭur | اوطُور | “sit” | u-t՚və | утәе́-и | w(ə)-t՚°ˈa-i | ut(u)wey (?) | اوُتُوي |
The vocalization mark above the تو <tu> in this word seems rather to be a ḍamma
than a fatḥa, Evliya thus probably denoting the labial -t՚°-. In addition, the word imāle
is noted above the ى <y> again; this might indicate the raised pronunciation of the
root-internal -a- (cf. the infinitive а-тәа-ра́ a-t՚°a-rˈa) as -e- due to the following -i
which will be the so-called “суффикс категоричности”, cf. the Grammatika abxazskogo jazyka, Suxumi 1968, p. 117.
| qalq | قالق | “get up” | u-gəl | угы́л | w(ə)-g̍əl | uqıl | اوُقِلْ |
| gitme | كِتمَه | “don't go” | u-m-ć-ən | умцан | w(ə)-m-cՙa-n | umçın (?) | اوُمچين |
Compare uç(é)y, above. Bleichsteiner gives an -ə- in the “Prohibitiv” instead of the
radical -a-, but the Abkhaz Grammar (118) has the form у-м-ца-н u-m-cՙa-n for “не
ходи” only. Evliya's -i- is clear, however; possibly, there is an additional kasra below
the چ <ç>. So this may rather be a variant as used in the Bzyb dialect again, where
a form умц̾ы́н u-m-cՙ̰ˈə-n is possible according to G. Hewitt (l.c.). — By the way,
all imperative forms so far have a masculine agent indicated.
| oġlan | اوغلان | “boy” | àrpՙəźba | а́рҧыс | ̍arpՙəs | arp(ı)ş | اَرْپش |
As against Evliya's notation, which well represents today's standard form, Bleichsteiner's àrpՙəźba which he obviously owed to N. Marr's Abkhaz dictionary (Abxazsko-russkij slovar', Leningrad 1926, 71: à-rϕəz̡ba “юноша”), is enlarged with a
suffix -ba otherwise used in building family names, and derived from аҧа apՙa “son”
according to the Abkhaz grammar (47). Genko (l.c.) points to the Bzyb variant, àrϕəs̡,
i.e. ̍arpՙəs̰, once again to cope with Evliya's ش <ş>.
| giderim | كِيده رم | “I go” | sə-ć-ap՚ | сцап | scՙap՚ | s(ı)çab | سِيچَاب |
This is a future form, better translated as “I shall go”; cf. already Bleichsteiner (105:
19). Note that Evliya writes it with a final ب <b> instead of a پ <p>.
| ՙavret | عورت | “wife” | a-pՙhvəs, a-pՙhvə̀ś | аҧхәы́с | apՙx°̍əs | apxw(ı)ş | ابخوُشْ |
According to my sources, аҧхәы́с apՙx°ˈəs means both “жена” and “женщина”. — As
for Evliya's ش <ş>, Genko (l.c.) points to the Bzyb variant again, which ends in a
palatal -s̰; cp. ˈarpՙəs “boy”.
gitmem كِتمم “I don't go” sə-kՙvə-ć-am
сыгьцуам (?) sə-g̰(ə)-cՙ-wˈa-m (?) sık{ı}ç(w)am (?)
سِكِچَامْ
In today's literary Abkhaz, “I don't go” would be сцом s(ə)-cՙo-m in the present or сцарым s-cՙa-rə-m in the future, the latter may be from earlier *s-cՙa-m. As against these forms, Evliya's entry contains an additional element -ki- which must be some kind of infix. Bleichsteiner (105: 21) obviously thought of -қу- -kՙ°(ə)-, meaning “up”, but the new dictionary (Аҧсуа бызшəа ажəар / Slovar' abxazskogo jazyka, I, Аҟуа / Suxumi 1986, 375) gives the transitive meaning “сгонять откуда-н.” for а́-қуцара only (as well as Marr, 94: “отгонять”). The same holds true for а-кацара́ a-kacՙar̍a “угонять” (Aжəар, 304 / Marr, 111). Perhaps we have here the element -g̰- “at all”, which is regularly found in negated forms in Abaza. The insertion of this element into a Bzyb negated present would produce s-eg̰-cՙ̰-wˈa-m for “I'm not going”. Alternatively, we could note Chirikba's suggestion that, since the speakers of the Ashkharəwa dialect of Abaza were still resident in Abkhazia during Evliya's time, this form could be Abaza. Today the same element appears in Abaza regularly in a reduced form to produce such corresponding words as сы-гь-цу-м sə-g̰-cՙˈə-w-m for the present and сы-гь-ца-ры́-м sə-g̰-cՙa-rˈə-m for the first future; cf. A.N. Genko, Abazinskij jazyk, Moskva 1955, 160 and K.V. Lomtatidze, Abazinskij jazyk, in: Jazyki narodov SSSR, 4, Moskva 1967, 136.niçün gitmezsiŋ oġlan? نچون كتمزسک اوغلان “Why don't you go, boy?”
u-zə-m-ćo-z-uej arpՙəźba узымцози / -зеи а́рҧыс
wə-zə-m-cՙa-wa-zəy / -zay ˈarpՙəs uzumçoz[iw]iy arp(ı)ş
اوُزُمْچُوزِوِىْ اَرْپشْ
Evliya's -ziwiy seems to mean today's interrogative suffix -зи -zəy / -зеи -zay for which cp. the Abkhaz grammar (120); Evliya's -w- is not clear like this, as Bleichsteiner remarked (106: 22). For ˈarpՙəs see above.ben bilirim بَن بلِيرِمْ “I know” sara i-z-dər-vejt՚
сара́ изды́руеит sar̍a yə-z-dˈər-wa-yt՚ sérá izdırwey(t)
سِيرَه اِزْدِرْوِي
According to the meaning (better: “I know it”), this must be a finite form which has the suffix -yt՚ today. If Evliya's spelling is correct, he either didn't hear the final -t՚ or it was not (yet) present; cf. already Bleichsteiner (106: 23) as well as Genko, who explained the lack of a final -t՚ (or, at least, its missing explosion) as a feature of the Bzyb dialect (l.c.). The non-finite equivalent of изды́руеит, as the present absolutive meaning “I knowing it ..” or the like, would be изды́руа yə-z-dˈər-wa today; there may be some confusion with the forms discussed in the third entry to follow too.sen ne bilirsiŋ سَن نَه بِلِرسِك “what do you know?” uara i-u-dər-va
уара́ иуды́руа war̍a yə-w-dˈər-wa orá yudırva
اوُره يُودِرْوا
We should expect one of the interrogative suffixes, -и -əy, -зи -zəy, -зеи -zay, if this is really a question; according to G. Hewitt (l.c.), one way of saying “what do you know?” would be warˈa yə-w-dˈər-wa (∅)-z-a-k՚°ə-wə-y, lit. “that which you know, what is it?”. уара́ иуды́руа alone would be the non-finite form again (“You knowing it ..” or “[that] what you know ..”). Cf. already Bleichsteiner (106: 24). — Note that the word imāle is written above the first ر <r> in this entry again.cānım gözüm جانِم كوُزوُمْ “my soul my eye” u-xaźə̀ si-pՙsə
?? ?? w{ı}xaç fıssı
وخَاچْ فِسّـِي
The words in question seem to be а-хаҿы́ a-xač՚̍ə “face, mouth” and а-ҧсы́ a-pՙs̍ə “soul”. wxaç, then, could mean ухаҿы w(ə)-xač՚̍ə “your face”, and fissi, у-ҧсы w(ə)-pՙsə, “your soul”. This would lead to a reading w(ı)xaç (wı)pՙsı. Bleichsteiner, who read uḫaǰ ksi (106: 25), presumed u-xaźə as “für dich”, lit. “for (-źə) your head (wə-xə-)”, and sə-pՙsə, “my soul”, which seems to be more understandable, but it is hard to believe that Evliya denoted a z by چ <ç>.benim bildigim بنم بلديكم “what I know” sara i-z-dər-va
сара́ и́здыруa sar̍a yˈə-z-dər-wа sérá izdırva
سِيرَه اِزدِرْواه
The expected form would be издыруа meaning either “(that) what I know” (this form called “participle” in Abkhaz grammar, “Relativform” by Bleichsteiner) or “I knowing it ..” (called “absolutive”), depending on the word accent; as G. Hewitt states (l.c.), we will have the former here, which is accented yˈə-z-dər-wa. Note that Evliya writes an alif above the final ه <h>, surely in order to indicate an -a-sound; if he had heard an -e, the form could mean “What do I know?” as a question which would be изды́руеи yə-z-dˈər-wa-y.baŋa yeter باكَه يتر “(it) suffices me” sara i-sə-źx-ejt՚, i-sə-zx-ejt՚
сара́ исызхеит sar̍a yə-sə-zxa-yt՚ sérá isızqe(y)t
سِيرَاِسِزْقَتْ
Evliya seems to have noted a so-called “aorist” form here which would have to be rendered as “it sufficed me”. The present would be исызхоит yə-sə-zxa-wa-yt՚ today. There is no need of reading an -a- in the ending, if the fatḥa can represent an -e- standing for the diphthong -ey- as developed from /-ay-/. If we had to read -qát instead, we could think of the Abaza equivalent of the Abkhaz aorist, ending in -a-t՚ with verbs in -a-, but this is excluded here because the Abaza present form йсызхъапI y(ə)-sə-zχa-p՚ “it suffices me” (cf. e.g. the Russko-abazinskij slovar' / Урышв-абаза словарь, Moskva 1956, 545 s.v. хватить) shows that the verb is “statical” in this language so that we cannot expect an aorist ending in -t՚ at all.böyle niçin söylersiŋ بوُيله نچِنْ سُويْلَرسِکْ “Why do you talk like this?”
arś i-z-u-ḥva-z-uej *арис изуҳәо́зи / -зеи *arəys yə-zə-w-ħ°a-wˈa-zəy / -zay (?)
aris izuḥ[u]waz[iw]iy
اَرِسْ اِزوُحُوَه زِوِيْ
A word corresponding to Evliya's aris is not attested in today's dictionaries, but it would be the regular adverbial form built from ари arəy “this (here)”; cf. already Marr, Dictionary 6 with ars̡ || ars “такъ, сякъ”, and Bleichsteiner (107: 28). Today's normal word for “so” would be ас as. The verb form rather represents the present изуҳәоз(е)и yə-zə-w-ħ°a-wˈa-zə/ay “Why do you say it?” than the aorist изуҳәазеи yə-zə-w-ħ°a-z-ə/ay meaning “Why did you say it?”; for Evliya's spelling cf. the fourth entry to follow. For the interrogative suffix see above.ṣayıqlar mısın صَايقلَر مِسِن “are you raving?” j-u-b-va-ma / j-u-b-va / j-u-b-va-zii (??)
?? ?? wawbuzwá
وَاوْبُزْوَهْ
According to Bleichsteiner, “das fragliche Verbum ist sicher a-bə-rà, `sehen'”, but this is a mere guess. G. Hewitt (l.c.) proposes to see a verbal complex w-ay-vˈə-s-ma (уеивы́сма) here which looks as though it means “Did you pass beside each other?” (from а́-вс-ра ˈa-vəs-ra “to pass by”), though this cannot be the case as the subject is singular; the reciprocal element -ay- is thus devoid of its basic meaning, and the form colloquially means “Are you mad?”. However, this is still quite distinct from what Evliya wrote. The actual Abkhaz verb meaning “to rave (sc. because of a fever or the like)” would be апатара a-p՚at՚a-ra (cf. e.g. the Аурыс-Аҧсуатә Жәар / Russko-abxazskij slovar' by X.S. Bgažba, Aҟуа / Suxumi 1964, 62 s.v. бредить).ne söyleyiyorum نه سُيله يي يوُرم “What am I saying?” i-s-ḫva-z-uej
и́сҳәози / -зеи yˈə-s-ħ°a-wa-zəy / -zay isḥwáz[iw]ey
اِسْحُوَه زِوِيْ
This is most probably the present form и́сҳәози / -зеи yˈə-s-ħ°a-wa-zə/ay “What do I say?” as against the aorist исҳәази / -зеи yə-s-ħ°a-zə/ay “what did I say?” again; cp. the second entry to follow.ben bilmem بن بلمم “I don't know” sara səź-dər-am
сара́ исыздыруам sar̍a yə-sə-z-dər-wa-m sérá isızdır(w)am
سِرَه اِسِژدِرَمْ
This is obviously the so-called “potentialis”, lit. “I cannot know this”, which according to G. Hewitt (l.c.) is the obligatory way of building negated forms of the verb “to know”. A wāw seems to be missing, but cp. the fifth entry to follow.seniŋ söyledigiŋ سنک سُويلديكك “what you say” uara i-u-ḥv-ua
уара́ иу́ҳәо war̍a yˈə-w-ħ°a-wa orá yuḥ[u]wa
اوُرَه يُوحُووَاه
This seems to be the present и́уҳәо yˈə-w-ħ°a-wa “(that) what you are saying” rather than the aorist иуҳәа yə-w-ħ°a “(that) what you said”, as Evliya's spelling with double و <w> after the ح <ḥ> indicates. According to G. Hewitt (l.c.), we may have a feature of the Bzyb dialect here again, where the present form is “contracted” to yˈə-w-ħ°-wa. Having this at hand, we can assume a present form lying behind Evliya's spellings in the last but one and last but three sentences too. Note that Evliya writes an alif above the final ه <h> again.sen bilirsiŋ سَن بلرسك “you know” uara i-u-dər-va
уара́ иуды́руа war̍a yə-w-dˈər-wа orá yudırwá
اوُرَه يُودِرْوَه
This, again, is more likely to be the non-finite form “you knowing it .., as you know” or the “participle” “(that) what you know” than the finite present which would be иудыруеит yə-w-dər-wa-yt՚ today; cf. already Bleichsteiner (107: 33).аmmā seniŋ ՙaqlıŋ yoqdur امَاسنک عقلک يوقدر “but you have no sense” axà uara u-q-ovp՚
аха́ уара́ уха́гоуп ax̍a war̍a wə-xˈaga-w-p՚ aqá orá uqáxoub
آقَه اوُرَاه اُوقَه خُوبْ
While аха́ axˈa “but” and уара́ warˈa “you” are clear, uqáxob should in my opinion rather be identified with у-ха́гоуп, wə-xˈaga-w-p՚, “you are crazy, wicked” (from а-ха́га, a-xˈaga, “сумасшедший”), than with Bleichsteiner's aga .. u-q-ovp՚ “du bist ein Dummkopf” (108: 34), in spite of the unexpected spelling of the -g-. Note the combination of alif and ه <h> in orá, again.allāhım ve xalq ḥaqqıyçün اللّهِم و خلق حقچُون “for the sake of my God and the people”
ancva-g'ə a-ὁvə-g'ə a-d-nəś анцәагьы ауаагьы рныс
ancՙ°a-g̰ə awa:-g̰ə rnəs anç(wa)gı awՙagı [ı]rnışs
آنچكِي اَوعَكِي اِرْنِشْ س
In the form noted here, the formula would mean “by God and men”, literally. анцəа́ anՙ°ˈa “God” is perfectly clear, awՙa- fits well with ауаа awa: “men, people” (plural of ауаҩы awaՙ°ə “man, Mensch”; for -аа- see above), and -гьы .. -гьы -g̰ə .. -g̰ə is the conjunction “as well .. as ..”. For the rest, this leaves r- as the marker of a third person plural possessor (“their”), and -niş seems to stand for the word -nə̀s̡ -nəs used in swearing as noted in Marr's dictionary (64; the word is kept distinct from a-nə̀ш = а-ны́шь a-nˈəš̰ “лодка” and a-nə̀ш⃘ = а-ны́шə a-nˈəs° “земля” here); cf. also Bleichsteiner (108: 35). According to the new dictionary (488: а-ны́с a-nˈəs), this is a verb (“аҟаҵ[арба́]”) meaning “клясться”; it constitutes idioms such as ажəлар рныс až°lar rnəs “by the people!” exactly matching with what Evliya has here. The single س <s> in the final position is a little bit exposed and is possibly intended as a correction for the ش <ş>, Evliya thus trying to cope with a palatal pronunciation of an -s̰ as denoted by Marr's -s̡. Note that анцәа́ “god” originally was a plurale tantum in Abkhaz, so that the plural possessive marker -r- is correct in the following entries too (cf. already Genko, l.c.). — In the Turkish equivalent, we certainly read xalq, not maxlūqāti as in Dankoff's treatise (Glossary, 121).bir şey bilmem vallāhi بر شي بلمم واللّهي “I know nothing, by God”
ak՚ə sə-ź-dər-om ancvinəś акгьы сызды́руам, анцәa-рныс
ak՚g̰ə sə-z-dˈər-wa-m ancՙ°а r-nəs á(k)gı sızdır(w)am, anç(w)arnış
اگِي سِژْدِرَم آنْچَرنِش
ági obviously represents ак-гьы, ak՚-g̰ə, meaning “one (thing) even”; for сыздыруам sə-z-dˈər-wa-m “I cannot know” see above. As for the formula anç(w)arniş, cp. the preceding item; the fatḥa seems to belong to the چ <ç> (where it should belong) rather than the ر <r>.incitme baŋa yazıqdır انجتمه بكه يَزِقدر “Don't hurt me, it's a shame”
usùxva sə-rəcḥovp՚ усмы́сын хуҷы́ срыцҳап (?)
wə-s-mˈə-sə-n xuč՚̰̰ə sərəcՙhap (?) u(smı)sın quç(ı) sırısḥáb (?)
اوُسِنْ قوُچْ سِرِسْحَبْ
If usin really stands for усмы́сын, wə-s-mˈə-sə-n, “Don't hit me!”, as G. Hewitt proposes (l.c.), we have to assume that Evliya's spelling usın is haplographical; this is in any case more probable than Bleichsteiner's usùxva “hilf mir”. sirisḥab obviously contains a-ры́цҳа-, a-r̍əcՙha- “бедняга, несчастный”, which in connection with хуҷы́, xuč՚̰̍ə, “small, little” could mean something like German “ich bin (doch) nur ein armer Schlucker”. With Bleichsteiner (108: 37), we should expect a present form ending in -oup՚ here; Evliya's spelling may represent a dialectal variant of the Abaza type instead, where the present of a static verb with a stem in -a ends in -a-p՚. For Abaza рыцхIа rəcħa “бедняк, нищий” cf. the Abaza-russkij slovar' / Абаза-урышв ажвар by V.B. Tugov, Moskva 1967, 327.ya ben bir şey mi söyleyiyorum يَا بَن برْ شيمي سويليي يورم “Am I saying anything?”
sara akՙre u-s-ḥv-wan сара́ акы́р ус исҳәо́н (?)
sar̍a ak՚̍ər wəs yə-s-ħ°a-wˈa-n (?) sérá aqır [a]wıs (i)sḥwon ?
سِيرَه آقِرْاَوُسّحُون
In the way indicated here, the sentence could mean something like “I (сара́) said (исҳәо́н) something (акы́р) thus (ус)”; the latter word, which is proposed by G. Hewitt (l.c.), is the better choice as against ааҩс a:ՙ°əs “aside” which would fit quite well with Evliya's spelling. Note that there is neither a marker of interrogation nor one of negation, cp. Bleichsteiner's translation “ich sprach beinahe zu dir”. Possibly, the assertive form could be used in interrogations without additional markers, exceptionally. For Evliya's spelling of the verb in question, cp. the Abaza variant which would be йысхIвун yə-s-ħ°ə-w-n.vallāhi abaza qarnım açdır واللهي آبازه قرنِم آجدر “By God, Abaza, I am hungry”
ancvineš apՙśua amla səpՙśvojt՚ анцәа-рныс, а́ҧсуа, а́мла сыҧсуеит
ancՙ°a r-nəs, ̍apՙswa, ̍amla sə-pՙs(ə)-wa-yt՚
anç(wa)rnış ap[ı]ş(wa) amlá sıps{ı}w(e)y(t)
آنچرْنِشْ آپِش آمْلَه سِپْشِويْ
For anç(wa)rniş, see above. “Abaza” should be аҧсуа, apՙswa, which seems to be defective here if it is not simply apiş reflecting аҧсы́, аpՙs̍ə, “soul” (or а́рҧыс ˈarpՙəs “lad” again, as G. Hewitt [l.c.] supposes). а́мла сыҧсуеит ˈamla sə-pՙs(ə)-wa-yt՚ means “I am dying (of) hunger”, literally; cf. already Bleichsteiner (109: 39).giderim paṣṭa yerim كيده رم پَصْطَه يرم “I am going to eat paṣṭa”
səčap՚ p՚asta jufvam сцап, паста иуфарым / -ма (?)
s(ə)cՙap, pasta iufarəm / -ma (?) s{ı}çab, páṣṭá yuf(a)rım(a) (?)
سِچَاب پَصْطَه يوُفِرْمْ
While сцап s-cՙap՚ is clearly the future form “I shall go”, the second verbal form, yufirm, is hardly anything like “(in order) to eat”; the prefix -u- rather indicates a second person singular, which would lead to the negative иуфарым, iufarəm, “you will not eat it”, or, more probably, the interrogative иуфарыма, iufarəma, “will you eat it?”, although Evliya's vocalization is not in favour of this solution. Bleichsteiner's present form, jufvam, “du ißt (keine Pasta)” is less likely. — The following items were not known to Bleichsteiner:ṭaşaġım ye طشاغم يه “Eat my testicles” сҕыргуы иуф
s-ġə-r-g°(ə) yə-w-f ṣıġırġu yuf
صِفِرْغو يُوفْ
This is one of the words for “testicle(s)”, which are not present in today's dictionaries, given to me as (a-)ġə-r-g°(ə) by G. Hewitt (l.c.) — the other is a-q°՚altˈas; according to him, this is a compound consisting of (a-)ġə “penis” (cp. Marr's dictionary, 89 with a-ǧə̀ “id.”), and r-g°ə, lit. “their heart” (cp. а-гуы́ a-g°ˈə in the new dictionary, 169), which implies that the word for “penis” is “singular for plural” in Abkhaz. In Evliya's ṣıġırġu, we have the compound combined with a prefix s-, being the first person singular marker of inalienable possession what is what we expect with parts of the body. As for the imperative “eat (it/them)”, Evliya's form is also correct, as G. Hewitt confirms, because а́-фа-ра ˈa-fa-ra “to eat” belongs to those Abkhaz verbs which in the imperative lose their (unaccented) root vowel.anaŋı sikeyim انكي سيكيم “Let me fuck your mother” уан дыскуы́ст
w-an də-s-k°՚ˈəs-t՚ wan dısqusṯ
وَاندِسْ قوست
For this entry, too, the correct analysis is provided by G. Hewitt (l.c.). уан represents w-an “your mother”, Evliya's -dıs belonging to the following verbal form as the prefix complex of a first person singular agent (-s-) combined with a second person singular feminin patient (d-). The verb must be акусра̀ a-k°՚əs-r̍a as given in Marr's dictionary with the meaning “coïtus” (48: a-k⃘srà). This has to be preferred to а-кра́ a-k՚-rˈa which means “to hold, to grasp” generally, but which a secondary meaning “coire” is attributed to in the same dictionary (49). The form in question must be the aorist дыскуы́ст də-s-k°՚ˈəs-t՚ “I fucked your mother” although we have to state a modal and temporal difference as against Evliya's Turkish translation like this.Ubykh:
The phonological spelling follows the same principles as with Abkhaz. In addition, apical sibilants and affricates are marked by a dot above (e.g. ṡ) and pharyngealized consonants by a stroke above (e.g. x̄) as in Dumézil's notation.
| Turkish | meaning | Dumézil | phonolog. | reading | ||
| (bir) | ١ | 1 | za | (za) | wá ? | زَه |
Provasi (o.c., 310), expecting za as the normal form of the numeral “one” in Ubykh,
assumes a misspelling with Arabic و <w> instead of ز <z> as did Bleichsteiner
(111: 1) and, implicitly, Dumézil (59: 1). But note that in the numeral “eleven” too,
a wāw appears.
| (iki) | ٢ | 2 | t՚q՚°a | t՚q՚°a | t{u}q(w)a | تُقَا |
| (üç) | ٣ | 3 | ṡa | ṡa | şá | شه |
In this word, Bleichsteiner (111: 3) and Dumézil (59: 3) had to cope with an
internal k which is not present in the autograph at all; cf. Provasi (312: 3.) too.
| (dört) | ٤ | 4 | p՚λ՚ə | p՚ɬ՚ə | plı | پلي |
| (beş) | ٥ | 5 | šˈχə | š̰x̰ə | [e]ş(x)u | اَشوُ |
| (altı) | ٦ | 6 | f.ōn(ə) | fˈ-ōnə | fon | فوُنْ |
According to Dumézil (60: 6) this is the numeral for “six” in the instrumental, not in
the oblique case as Bleichsteiner proposed (111: 6).
| (yedi) | ٧ | 7 | blə | blə | [ı]plı | اِپْلِي |
| (sekiz) | ٨ | 8 | γ°a | γ°a | [u]ġ(w)a | اوُغَا |
| (doquz) | ٩ | 9 | bγˈə | bγ̰ə | [ı]pġı | اِپْغِي |
| (on) | ١٠ | 10 | ź°ə | ź°ə | zu | زوُ |
| (on bir) | ١١ | 11 | (ź°ə-za) | (ź°əza) | [wázu] | وَه زوُ |
| (on iki) | ١٢ | 12 | (ź°ə-t՚q՚°a) | (ź°ət՚q՚°a) | [t{u}q(w)azu] | تُوقازُو |
As with Abkhaz (and Megrelian), Evliya's Ubykh numerals for 11 and 12 are arranged
in reverse internal order, viz. “one-ten” and “two-ten” instead of “ten-one, ten-two”; cf.
already A.N. Genko, O jazyke ubyxov (Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Otdelenie
Gumanitarnyx Nauk, 1928), 239, Bleichsteiner (111: 11/12), and Dumézil (60).
| ekmek | اكمک | “bread” ?? | ṡ°ə́ḇa ? ṡ°əq՚á ? caxˈ.q՚á ? | ?? | sáxá | سَخَا |
Evliya's notation yields no new arguments for deciding between the three words as
considered by Dumézil, meaning “bread”, “smear”, and some kind of “pie”, resp.
et
اَتْ
“meat”
γˈa
γˈa
ġá
غَه
ṣu
صُو
“water”
bzə
bzə
b{ı}zı
بِزِي
peynir
پَينِر
“cheese”
fa(čˈ՚ə́) (?)
fa (?)
fá
فَه
Dumézil (60: 16) was surely right in proposing that the normal word for “cheese”,
fač̰՚ˈə, is a compound, Evliya's fa, which is confirmed by the autograph now, representing the first member alone; cf. Provasi (313: 16) who points to the doublet
fačˈ՚əbzə̀ / fabzə̀, both denoting “jus de fromage”. S. Tezcan proposes to see some
kind of haplography here, because the following word starts with a چ <ç> as expected
in fač̰՚ə (personal communication).
| yoġurd | يُوغوُرد | “yoghurt” | čˈa-t°՚a.(q)՚á ? | č̰ՙa-t°՚a(q)՚ˈa | çá(t)wa՚á | چَه واه |
In Evliya's notation, the alif seems to be added later. — For the structure of the Ubykh
word to be analyzed as meaning “milk having become sour” as proposed by Dumézil,
compare the Circassian entry for “yoghurt” below.
| armud | آرمُودْ | “pear” | xˈa | χ̰a | xá | خَه |
| üzüm | اوُزوُم | “grape” | məś°ə́ | məś°ˈə | musuw | مُسوُوْ |
| encīr | انجير | “fig” | lạxˈ-mə́qˈ՚ | la:χ̰-mˈəq̰՚ | láxmáq | لَخمَقْ |
| kestāne | كستَانَه | “chestnut” | á-šˈχə | š̰x̰ə | [e]şxu | اَشخوُ |
That Evliya's alif reflects the definite article, a-, as Bleichsteiner (112: 21) and
Dumézil (61: 21) presumed, is hardly probable. In Evliya's notation, we should expect
a prothetic vowel before a word-initial consonant cluster as š̰x̰- in any case, for which
compare the number “five” above. Note that the autograph has the expected š-letter.
| ṭuz | طُوز | “salt” | laqˈá ? | laq̰ՙˈa | láqá | لَقَه |
That Evliya heard not a word for “salt” but laq̰ՙˈa “stone” as Bleichsteiner (112: 22)
proposed, remains probable. “Salt” is ǯ̰ə in Ubykh according to H. Vogt (Dictionnaire
de la langue oubykh, Oslo 1963, 233 sq.).
| gel | كل | “come” | wə.y.kˈ՚á | wə-y-k̰՚ˈa | weyká | وَيكَه |
| oṭur | اوُطُور | “sit” | wə.t°՚ás | wə-t°՚ˈas | ut(w)ás | اوُتَس |
| qalq | قالق | “get up” | wə.dat°ə́ | wə-dat°՚ˈə | udátuw | اوُدَه تُو |
| gitme | كِتمَه | “don't go” | wə.m.kˈ՚á | wə-m-k̰՚ˈa | umká | اوُمْكَه |
| giderim | كيدَه رِم | “I shall go” | sə.y.kˈ՚ṓ | sə-y-k̰՚ˈo: | sıyk[á]wá | سِيكَوَه |
If this is really a future form “que j'aille, je vais ou dois aller” matching the Turkic
“aorist” as Bleichsteiner (113: 27) and Dumézil (62: 27) proposed, we have to note
Evliya's spelling of the final vowel with double fatḥa for which compare the second
entry to follow.
nereye gidersin نره يه كِدرسِن “Where are you going?”
sạ́ba wə.y.kˈ՚á.n sˈa:ba wə-y-k̰՚ˈa-n sábuykan ?
سَبُويكن
According to Bleichsteiner (113: 28), Dumézil (62: 28) and Provasi (313: 28), this does not mean “where do you go?” but “why you come” as a non-finite form. In Evliya's writing, the first vocalization mark seems to be a ḍamma as in the second syllable rather than a kasra, requiring a reading subuykan.işim var giderim اِشِم وَار كيده رم “I have something to do, I am going”
ś°wa‿s.q՚ạ́.γ, s(ə).kˈ՚ṓ ś°wa s-q՚ˈa:-γ sə-k̰՚ˈo: s[á]wuw sqáġ s{ı}kwá
سَوُو سْقَغْ سِكْوَه
This sentence has to be rendered as “j'ai une affaire, que je m'en aille” according to Dumézil (62: 29). Note that the first letter in the second word is a س <s> with a sukūn, matching the expected sound of an s-, rather than a ش <š> as in the printed edition. The vocalization of the first word is strange, if it really represents Ubykh ś°wa.bir qız getir بر قيز كَتِر “bring a girl”
za-pxˈádək°՚ wə́ za-pՙχ̰ˈadək°՚ wə zábḥáduquw
زَبْحَه دُوقُو
For this sentence, which was omitted in the printed edition but was available through J. von Hammer's, Evliya's autograph exactly reveals the reading expected by Bleichsteiner (116: 37) as against Genko's (241, fn. 1). According to Dumézil (65: 37), the imperative wə means not “amène, getir” but “emmène, götür”.qız bulmadım ammā bir oġlan getirdim قيز بولمدم امّا بر او گلان كتردم
“I didn't find a girl but I brought a boy” za-pxˈádək°՚ (a.)la.mə́.t za-náynś°-ʒ̇ayt՚ (?)
za-pՙχ̰ˈadək°՚ la-mˈə-tՙ za-nanˈə wə-χ°adˈa (?)
zábḥáduq{u}lám(ı)t zánánı uxád
زَبْحَه دُوقُلَمتْ زَنَنِي اوُخَدْ
This sentence, too, was omitted in the printed edition. Dumézil translated it as “il n'y a pas de jeune fille, c'était un jeune homme” (65: 38); trying to cope with the spelling zeni for the word for “boy”, naynś°, he proposed that a pronunciation nęyś° with a nazalized ä could be reflected here. As against this, Evliya's autograph presents a clear reading with a double ن <n> in the word. Provasi reads it as “<nansiy>, où <s> est écrit avec un long trait au lieu de la forme ﺳ, ce qui est usuel dans les manuscrits” (313: 31). In my opinion, the position of the dot of the second <n> makes this reading improbable; if we read زَنَنِي zánánı instead, this can possibly reflect a stem nanˈə as assumed as the basis of náynś° regarded as a compound by Dumézil himself (66: *nan(ə́)-ś° with -ś° “petit”). As for the last word, Evliya's اوُخَدْ uxad can hardly represent Dumézil's “copule suffixe d'identification”, ʒ̇ayt՚, as Provasi correctly states; as against his own propposal, a.z.γ°áwə.yt՚ “je l'ai trouvé”, Bleichsteiner's u-xod “kaufe!” (116: 38), to be corrected in wə.x°adá according to Dumézil, is still very much nearer to Evliya's spelling except for the final د <d> bearing a sukūn. As for the sense of the sentence, seeming “étrange” to Dumézil and Provasi, we can compare one of Evliya's Georgian phrases where “boys” are the object of “buying” too.gel eve gidelim كَلاَواه كيدَه لِم “come let's go home” s-fa.γá šˈ.kˈ՚á.n.ō [wə.y.kˈ՚á]
s-fa-γˈa š̰-k̰՚ˈa-n-o: wə-y-k̰՚ˈa s{ı}fáġá s{ı}kıçuw wıyk(á)
سِفَاغَه سِكِجُو وِيكه
As against Dumézil's interpretation, to be rendered as “allons chez-moi, viens” literally, we have to note that in Evliya's spelling, the second word has an initial س <s>, not ش <š>, that the vocalization mark of its second letter is a kasra, not a fatḥa, and that its third letter is a clear چ <č>, not a ن <n>. Compare the following entry too.gideriz eve كيدَه رِز اَواه “We are going home”
šˈ.kˈ՚á.nō sə́-dakˈ՚a ? š̰-k̰՚ˈa-n-o: sˈə-dak̰՚a ? sıkánoġ suwká ?
سِكَه نوُغ سُوكَه
Here again, Evliya has a س <s> instead of the ش <š> expected. Dumézil's sə́-dakˈ՚a presupposes that Evliya erroneously wrote a و <w> instead of a د <d> which is not impossible; cf. Provasi (314: 33) too.ne avladıŋız نه آولديكز “What did you hunt?”
ṡa-z°.γ°áwə.yt՚ (Provasi) sa-z°-γ°ˈawə-yt՚ sázxod
سَزْ خُودْ
Both Bleichsteiner's sa-svəx-ōtՙ “Was wird euch gehören?” (114 sq.: 32) and Dumézil's ṡəd.o ṡ°.x°ə.γa, a Circassian sentence meaning “qu'êtes-vous devenus?” (63 sq.: 32), were based upon the reading ne oldunuz “what did you become?” for the Turkic equivalent. As Provasi correctly states (314: 34), we have to depart from the question ne avladıŋız meaning “What did you hunt?” instead, to which the following entry represents a good answer. Evliya's notation sázxod may then reflect a second person plural preterite form, combined with the interrogative prefix sa- “what?”, of the verb -γ°aw- “to find, trouver”, which is contained in the following sentence, too, in the first person plural. With Provasi, we have to realize, however, that Evliya's spelling of the verb is quite different in both sentences, and that the usual plural marking is missing.bir domuz yedik بر دُومُوز يدک “We ate a pig” x̄°a žˈ.γ°áwə.yt՚ a.šˈ.fə́.yt՚
x̄°a ž̰-γ°ˈawə-yt՚ a-š̰-fˈə-yt՚ xo jġáwid áşfid
خُوژ غَوِدْ آشفِدْ
As against Bleichsteiner (115: 33), Dumézil (64: 33) was right in identifying two verbal forms in this sentence, which thus means “nous avons trouvé du cochon, nous l'avons mangé”. The last but one letter may in my opinion well be read as a ﻔ <-f-> instead of a ﻐ <-ġ-> as Provasi did (310: 35); compare the last Ubykh entry for this.domuz semiz mi idi دوموز سمزمي ايدي “Was the pig fat?” a.w.f.a.mə.t šˈə-x̄°á ? ?? x̄°a ázqámıd já xo
اَزقَامِدْ ژَه حُو
Here again, Bleichsteiner's (115 sq.: 34) and Dumézil's (64: 34) considerations are based upon a wrong Turkic equivalent: Instead of domuzumuz-mı yedi meaning “did he eat our pig?”, Evliya's question was whether “the pig was fat”; cf. already Provasi (315: 36), who seems not to be sure about this, because for him, the third m is missing. In any case, all assumptions that the verbal form to be seen here could belong to the root f- “to eat”, are unnecessary, all the more since the word contains a clear ق <q>, not a ف <f>. We cannot decide with certainty, however, whether the second letter is a ز <z> or a ر <r> with a sukūn above. Thus, the actual verb form, which seems to contain the negative infix -m-, remains unclear. The same holds true for the element žá which can hardly represent a first person plural possessive marker š̰ə-, because it is written with an undoubtful fatḥa above; besides, there is no need for a first person plural marker in this sentence at all. Should it reflect the interrogative particle š̰a(y) as in the fourth entry to follow?xırsızlıġa gideriz خِرسِزلِغَه كيدَه رِزْ “We are going to do a theft”
wəċ:ạ́y:la šˈ.kˈ՚á.n.ō wəċˈa:yla š̰-k̰՚ˈa-n-o: wıç(á)ylá ş{ı}kánoġ
وِچيلَه شِكَنوُغْ
According to Dumézil, the exact meaning of this sentence would be “allons voler de nouveau, complètement, allons poursuivre et terminer le vol” (64 sq.: 35).nereye gitdiŋiz نريه كتديكز “Where did you go?”
mạ:kˈ՚ȃṡ°.kˈ՚a.q՚á.na(-y) ?? nálá ş{ı}káġádid
نَه لَه شِكَه غَدِد
Dumézil's proposal is the attempt to reconstruct a sentence meaning “où êtes vous allés?” and thus matching the Turkic equivalent. As Provasi states (315: 38), this is not further supported by Evliya's autograph, because it shows a second د <d> as the final letter as against the ambiguous ه <h> of the printed edition; can this be a reflex of the preterite marker, -yt՚? — The following four sentences have been omitted in the edited text, probably because in the autograph, they are divided from the rest by a page break; these sentences were dealt with by Provasi for the first time.Aridler vilāyetine gitdik آردلر ولايتنه كِيدِک
“We went to the country of the Arids”
ard-γa-ṡ s°(ə).kˈ՚a.q՚a.n(a) ard q̄aṡˈə š̰-k̰՚aq՚a-yt՚ (??)árıd xáş ş{ı}káġádd
آرِدْ خَشْ شِكَه غَدْد
As against Provasi (315 sq.: 39) who proposed that Evliya's <ḫaš> could reflect the locative postposition -γa combined with the interogative particle ṡ, the present word may well represent Ubykh q̄aṡˈə meaning “village” (cf. Vogt, Dictionnaire, 172) as an equivalent of Turkish vilāyet. Like this, the sentence need not be recognized as a question “êtes-vous allés à Ard” but may well be the reply to the preceding sentence. The verbal form may then be different from the one of the question before; as we have to assume different personal prefixes in both cases, Evliya's š- must represent the second person plural prefix s°- in the first and the first person plural prefix š̰- in the second one. The verbal ending, here written with two ds, the first with a sukūn above, remains unclear; can it be a preterite in -yt՚ again? — The locality named here must be today's Адлер, which according to Evliya was neighbouring with the “Sadşa”-Ubykh (on this, cf. already Genko, O jazyke ubyxov, 237 and Bleichsteiner, 125).ne getirdiŋiz نه كتِرديكز “What did you bring?”
sa-y.z°.wə.yλ-šˈa(y) (?) sa--y-z°-wə-yɬ--š̰a(y) sáyuwzıl şa
سَيُوزِل شَا
For this entry, Provasi's proposal (316: 40) is convincing: The initial sa- reflects the interrogative particle “What?” again, the final şa represents the enclitic interrogative particle š̰a(y), and the verbal form is a second person plural preterite of yə-wə- “to bring” (cf. Vogt, Dictionnaire, 216), the whole sentence meaning “qu'avez vous apporté?”. This is confirmed by the following sentence to be regarded as an answer to it.bir ṣıġır getirdik بر صِغِر كتردک “We brought one cow”
za-g°əma (a.)y.žˈ.wə.yt՚ za-g°əmˈa y-ž̰-wə-yt՚ jáqumá ijwid
ژَقُمَه اِژوِدْ
Here again, Provasi's interpretation (316: 41) can be sustained, Evliya's notation exactly matching with what has to be expected for “one cow” (za-g°əmˈa, cf. Vogt, Dictionnaire, 129) and “we brought it” (a-y-ž̰-wə-yt՚, cf. Vogt, 216: yə-wə-).neylediŋiz نيله ديكز “What did you do?”
sa-y.s°.š̰.a.ná.yλ sa-y-s°-š̰- -yɬ ?? şáyujdıl
شَيُوژْدِلْ
Provasi's sa-y.s°.s̰.a.ná.yt՚ “que faisiez-vous” fits exactly with the Turkic translation, but it bears some problems in comparison with Evliya's spelling, as the author himself states: First, Evliya wrote a clearly distinguishable ش <š> for the interrogative sa- here, which may be tolerated. If the verb in question is really yə-š̰- “to do” (cf. e.g Vogt, Dictionnaire, 215), the second person plural marker must be regarded as assimilated to the š̰- (as against Vogt's áys°š̰an “vous faites”), the resulting sound being written with a ژ <ž>, which would be noteworthy at least. For the plural marker -na- represented by a د <d>, Provasi points to the same phenomenon in the last but four entry, which does not speak in favour of a mere misspelling; can we assume that Evliya heard a different morpheme in these cases?yedik يَدِکَ “we ate” ašˈfə̀yt՚ a-š̰-fə-yt՚ işfid
اِشْفد
With Provasi (317: 43), this obviously represents the Ubykh verbal form a-š̰-fə-yt՚ meaning “we ate it”. Note that the initial alif has a kasra, not the fatḥa expected. The last but one letter may be the expected ﻔ <-f-> as against Provasi's ﻐ <ġ> again.Georgian:
In the phonological spelling, aspirated consonants are marked by ՙ, glottalized ones by ՚. Word accent is not indicated. In the “Turkicizing” transcription of Evliya's notations, necessary additions (mostly of vocalizations) are given in round brackets, whereas necessary deletions (mostly of prothetic or epenthetic vowels and the like) are given in square brackets. In addition to Dankoff's transcription of the vocalization marks, ä is used for a fatḥa plus alif representing Georgian e, and ë for a fatḥa representing a high vowel; å is used for a fatḥa plus alif standing for a Georgian o. When other corrections are necessary, an asterisk is used.
| Turkish | meaning | Bleichsteiner | today | phonologically | reading | ||
| (bir) | ١ | 1 | ertՙi | ერთი | ertՙi | ert(i) | اَرت |
As against Bleichsteiner (91: 1), the vocalization intended by Evliya was clearly not
آ (alif-madda) or اِ (alif with kasra) but اَ (alif with fatḥa). The final -i of today's
nominative form is missing, anyway, unless it be indicated by the notation of imāle, lit.
“flexion”, written below the ت <t>; the meaning of this word, a verbal noun of the
Arabic root māla “to bend”, in grammatical literature is described as “giving to fatha
a sound like that of kasra” (cf. e.g. F. Steingass, Persian-English Dictionary, London
61977, 97 b). For the lack of a final -i in some of Evliya's Georgian forms, Winfried
Boeder (letter dated 17.9.91) thinks of a Megrelian influence. Could Evliya's informant
for Georgian have been a Megrelian bilingual?
(iki)
٢
2
ori
ორი
ori
ori
اوُرِي
(üç)
٣
3
sami
სამი
sami
sami
سَامِ
(dört)
٤
4
otՙḫi
ოთხი
otՙxi
otxi
اوُتخي
(beş)
٥
5
ḫutՙi
ხუთი
xutՙi
ḥuti
حُوتِ
(altı)
٦
6
ekՙwsi
ექვსი
ekՙvsi
ek(w)si
اَكسِي
(yedi)
٧
7
šwidi
შვიდი
švidi
şüdi
شُدِيْ
(sekiz)
٨
8
rvaj
რვა(ჲ)
rva(y)
r[u]way
رُوَايْ
Evliya's form clearly indicates a final consonantal -y as against today's standard form,
rva; cf. already Bleichsteiner (91: 8). This is attested as a feature of the Gurian
dialect (West-Georgia) by S. Žġenṭi (Guruli ḳilo / Gurijskij govor gruzinskogo jazyka,
Ṭpilisi 1936, 58).
| (doquz) | ٩ | 9 | cḫraj | ცხრა(ჲ) | cxra(y) | ç[ı]xray | چِخراَي |
For the final -y, cf. the preceding item.
| (on) | ١٠ | 10 | atՙi | ათი | atՙi | ati | آتي |
| ekmek | اكْمک | “bread” | p՚uri | პური | p՚uri | puri | پُورِي |
| ṣu | صو | “water” | c՚qali | წყალი | c՚q՚ali | ç[ı]qal(i) | چِيقَالْ |
Note that there is no indication whatsoever of the nominative ending -i in Evliya's form.
| et | اَت | “meat” | ḫorci | ხორცი | xorcՙi | xorci | خُرجِ |
In contrast to the preceding form, this one has a final -i indicated by a kasra below
the ج <c>.
| şarāb | شراب | “wine” | ḡwino | ღვინო | ġvino | ġ(w)inå | غِينَه |
| kiraz | كراز | “cherry” | bali | ბალი | bali | bal(i) | بَالْ |
Bleichsteiner (91: 15) was right in postulating bal- instead of the printed form bak;
cf. already S.S. Džikia, Ėvlija Čelebi o mingrel'skom i gruzinskom jazykax, Sovetskoe
jazykoznanie 1936/2, 123, according to whom the manuscript Pertev Paşa 458 which he
used has the wrong spelling باك bak, too. The ك <k> seems to have arisen out of the
combination of lām with sukūn. — Note that the nominative -i is missing as in c՚q՚al-.
| armud | آرمودْ | “pear” | pՙsḫali | ფსხალი | pՙsxali | p[ı]sxal(i) | پِسْخَالْ |
As Bleichsteiner correctly stated (91: 16), pՙsxali is a dialectal variant of the word
for “pear” in Georgian, the normal form being msxali as in K. Tschenkéli, Georgisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch, 2, 1970, 845; according to S. Žġenṭi, the form is familiar to
the Gurian dialect of West-Georgia once more (Guruli ḳilo, 247). — As in all words with
a stem ending in -(a)l- so far, the nominative -i is missing here again.
| qabaq | قباق | “gourd, pumpkin” | k՚waḫi | კვახი | k՚vaxi | q[u]wax(i) | قوُوَاخ |
This is a dialectal word, too; cf. Tschenkéli, who quotes it for the Imereti, Rač̣a and
Lečxumi dialects (1, 575), or A. Ġlonṭi, according to whom it is Gurian, too (Kartul
ḳilo-tkmata siṭq̇vis ḳona, Tbilisi 21984, 285). — There seems to be no indication of a
final -i in this form, either.
| encīr | انجير | “fig” | leḡwi | ლეღვი | leġvi | leġüy | لَغُي |
| üzüm | اوزوم | “grapes” | qurđeni | ყურძენი | q՚urʒeni | qurzeni | قُورزَنِي |
| fındıq | فندق | “hazelnut” | tՙḫili | თხილი | tՙxili | [i]txili | اِتخِلي |
| qavun | قاون | “melon” | neswi | ნესვი | nesvi | nes[u]w(i) | نَسُو |
Here again, there is no marking of a nominative -i. Džikia read the word as neswu
(120: 21).
| nār | نار | “pomegranate” | broc՚euli | ბროწეული | broc՚euli | p[u]roçö[ġ]uli | پُرُوچُوغوُلي |
| qarpuz | قرپوز | “watermelon” | ḫarbuzak՚i | ხარბუზაკი | xarbuzak՚i | xárbucáqi | خَرْبوُجَقِ |
| dud | دُود | “mulberry” | bžola | ბჟოლი | bžoli | p[ı]zoli | پِزُولي |
The form bžoli with a nominative in -i and a consonantal stem is Gurian and Ač̣arian as
against Bleichsteiner's bžola (92: 24) which is Imeretian, Rač̣ian and Lečxumian; cf.
Ġlonṭi's dialect dictionary, 86. Evliya's material is clearly exposed as Southwest
Georgian, like this. Note that Džikia's manuscript has the expected ژ <ž> (126, l. 10
from below).
| qız | قز | “girl” | gogo | გოგო | gogo | qoqo | قُوقُو |
| qarı | قري | “old woman” | kՙali | ქალი | kՙali | qal(i) | قَالْ |
Again, the nominative -i is missing after a stem ending in -al.
gel oġlan ekmek yeyelim كل اوغلان اكمک ييه يلم “Come boy let's eat bread”
akՙ modi bič՚o p՚uri č՚amos (?) აქ მოდ(ი), ბიჭო, პურ(ი) ჭამოს
akՙ mod(i), bič՚o, p՚ur(i) č՚amos aq[i] mod(i) bico pur(i) camos
آقِ مُودْ بِجُو پوُر جَامُوسْ
Bleichsteiner (93: 28) was right that č՚amos is a third person singular optative, “he ought to eat”; cf. Džikia, too, who translated the form as “пусть кушает хлеб” (120, fn. 2). Note that p՚ur as the direct object has no nominative ending -i indicated; if it were present (as in the fourth entry to follow) one could think of a passive p՚uri ič՚amos “bread should be eaten”. — The kasra in aqi as rendering Georgian აქ akՙ “here, hither” is unexpected unless we have a dialectal variant akՙi here which could have been influenced by Megrelian akՙi, akՙə (W. Boeder's proposal [l.c.]; for the Megrelian word cf. e.g. I. Kipšidze [Q̣ipšiʒe], Grammatika mingrel'skago (iverskago jazyka s xrestomatieju i slovarem, S.-Peterburg 1914, 197 f.). Džikia's manuscript seems to have a sukūn, instead. But cp. the fourth entry to follow.oṭur oġlan اوُطور اوغلاَن “sit boy” daǰed bič՚o
დაჯედ ბიჭო daǯed bič՚o dacéd bico
دَاجِد بِجُو
დაჭედი dač՚edi must be a misprint for დაჯედი daǯedi in Džikia's list (121: 29). The form without -i is a morphological variant within Georgian. Note that today's standard form is daǯekՙ(i) (with -kՙ- in analogy to -dekՙ(i) “stand”).vālideŋi kelbler siksin والده كي كلبلر سِكسن “May dogs fuck your mother”
đaḡlma deda mot՚qnas (Deeters) ძაღ(ლ)მა დედა მოგიტყნას (?)
ʒaġ(l)ma deda mogit՚q՚nas (?) caġmá dedá moq(i)t(q)[a]n(a)s ?
جَغْمَه دَه دَه مُقتانِسْ
As against Bleichsteiner's own analysis who took the sentence as two entries (93: 30-31), seeing in the last word an equivalent of seksen “80” instead of siksin, Deeters' solution as quoted by Bleichsteiner has to be preferred; cf. also Džikia, 127. According to Deeters, the verbal form is a third person singular optative and must be read as mot՚q՚nas. As Bleichsteiner assumed, in the context given here a form mogit՚q՚nas with a second person singular objective marker (“to you”) would fit better. Both proposals do not match completely, however, with Evliya's spelling, esp. in his vocalizations. Taking his form as it is, we should expect it to be a third person singular of the Old Georgian iterative (ending: -is), meaning “the dog used to fuck your mother”, but this should have no -a- in the root, -t՚q՚n-, either. Maybe this is a dialectal variant not attested elsewhere. — For the missing -l- in caġma “dog” cf. Žġenṭi, Guruli ḳilo, 55; in any way, in the Georgian sentence, the “dog” is singular as is the verbal form.gitme yabana كتمه يَابَانَه “don't go out”
ar c՚awides (ḫšam) ?
არ წავიდეს აქიდამ (?) ar c՚avides akՙidam (?) ar sáwides xitnam (?)آر سَوِيدَسْ خِتنامْ
Bleichsteiner (94: 32) was surely right in interpreting ar sáwides as ar c՚avides, “he should not go out”; Džikia made the same proposal (121: 31). The last word, however, remains unclear, although the reading xitnam is better than Bleichsteiner's ḫšam which was “unverständlich” to him; Džikia read خْشَام, as well, and to him it was equally “непонятно” (123). Taking “out” as the sense to be looked for, we would expect one of the adverbs ending in -dam such as šignidam “out from inside” or, rather, akՙidam “out from here” or ikՙidam “out from there”. Possibly, Evliya's x- is a reflex of the -kՙ- in one of the latter two words, the aspirated pronounciation being perceived as a spirantization. In any way, Evliya's form would lack the first vowel, and the consonant cluster -tn- is not what we would expect as a transcription of the Georgian -d-. Maybe we have the reflex of an older variant of the forms here, which can be restored as *akit-gam(o) and *ikit-gam(o), resp.gel aġa ekmek yeyelim كل اغا اكمک يه يلم “Come sir let's eat bread”
akՙ bat՚ono puri č՚amos აქ ბატონო პური ჭამოს
akՙ bat՚ono p՚uri č՚amos aq[ı] patoni puri čamos
آقِ پَاتُونِ پوُرِي چَامُوسْ
As above, Georgian აქ akՙ “here” has a final -i indicated. Instead of the expected vocative ending, -o, Evliya's patoni clearly shows the nominative ending, -i; I have no indication that the substitution of the vocative by the nominative is regular in any Georgian dialect, but this may be due to Megrelian influence again as W. Boeder proposes (l.c.). As for the first consonant in this word, note that Evliya's p- may well represent the older form of the word which was p՚at՚ron-i originally (a borrowing from a Romance language); in this case, the dissimilation of p՚-t՚- to b-t՚- must have occurred later than Evliya's time, at least dialectally, unless the p՚- be due to Megrelian influence again as G. Hewitt presumes (letter dated 22.7.91; for Megrelian p՚at՚oni cf. e.g. Kipšidze's Grammar, 297). — For p՚uri č՚amos, lit. “he should eat bread”, cf. above.| eydir | ايدر | “it is good” | iri | რიგზეა (??) | rigzea (??) | (r)ibzéà (?) | ابِزِي |
In the form written in the manuscript, this can hardly be a Georgian word, not even a
dialectal one; Džikia, who rendered it as اِىِ (126, l. 6 from below), stated that this
“one word or sentence allows for a decipherment neither in the Georgian text nor in its
Turkish translation” (121, fn. 3). Given the spelling in the autograph and the meaning
of Turkish eydir, we could think of რიგზეა rigzea, meaning “(it) is in order” which
could lie behind Evliya's spelling if his ا (alif) stands for a ر <r>, if the final ي <i>
can be read as an -a-vowel, and if Evliya's ب <b> can represent the Georgian -g-. For
the latter proposal, cp. the word xitnam above if it means (a)kitgam. As it is,
Evliya's form strongly reminds one of the Abkhaz word for “good”, абзиа a-bzia,
which we would expect in a finite form such as и-бзиоуп i-bzioup՚ “it is good” to
match with Evliya's translation. Whether Evliya can have heard an Abkhaz word within
the Georgian context is not clear to me. — R. Dankoff (letter dated 3.7.91) wonders
whether the Turkish word could be eder “he makes”, perhaps in the secondary sense of
“he fucks”, instead of eydir; but this would not help for the Georgian word.
gel gitme كل كتمه “come don't go” akՙ mod(i), ar c՚awides
აქ მოდ, არ წავიდეს akՙ mod, ar c՚avides aq[i] mod(i), ar sáwides
آقِ مُودْ آرْ سَويِدَسْ
As for the final -i indicated in aqi, see above. Note that ar c՚avides is a third person singular form “he should not go”, again; cf. also Džikia who translated the clause as “иди сюда, пусть не уйдет!” (121, fn. 4).otur aġa اَوتوُر اغا “sit sir” daǰed, bat՚ono
დაჯედ, ბატონო daǯed bat՚ono dacéd paton(o)
دَاجِدْ پَاتُون
Here, the word for “Sir” seems to have no ending although we should expect the vocative -o again. If this is not due to Megrelian influence, it could be explained by a writing problem here, because the ن <n> itself did not fit into the line anymore, so that the vocalization marker might have been omitted; but cp. the next entry too. Džikia's manuscript seems to have a kasra below the ن <n>, again (126, l. 6 from below). For the p-, see above.aġa bir iki oġlanım var durur alırmısın اغا بر ايكى اوغلانم وار دُورر آلرمِسِن
“Sir, I have one or two boys, stay, will you buy?” paton ert (! ...)
ბატონო, ერთი ორი ბიჭი მყავ(ს) დაჯედ იყიდოს (?)
bat՚ono, ertՙi ori bič՚i mq՚av(s), daǯed, iq՚idos (?)
paton(o) erti ori *bice mxav(s) dacéd *iġ(i)dos (?)
پَاتُونْ اَرتِ اوُرِي بِجَمْ خَازْ دَاجِدْ آغْدُوسْ
Bleichsteiner had the first two words only (95: 38); Džikia saw three single sentences here, the first one ending with ertՙi, the second one with mq՚avs. As for paton, the -n is clearly marked as final, this time, by a sukūn again; so this may indeed be a (dialectal) variant of the vocative expected. The word for “boy” should be bič՚i in the nominative, not bič՚e, but this may be a dialectal (or “Megrelized”) variant, too (see below). The -m surely belongs to the following verbal form, which, according to the context, should be mq՚avs, “I have (with me)”, xar being a second person singular “you are” only; Džikia posited mq՚avs, too (121: 37). If Evliya did mean mq՚avs, he must have confused و <w> and ر <r> in his notebook, which is easy to assume, and must have omitted the final -s which is a general feature of today's colloquial speech as W. Boeder underlines (l.c.). dacid might be the imperative daǯed “sit down” once again (cp. Džikia: 121, fn. 5), better transcribed as dacéd as in the preceding clause; it corressponds to the Turkic durur. The last word is problematical. If we assume the sense of “will you buy”, we expect the verb -q՚id- which means “to buy” as well as “to sell”, depending on preverbs and “versions”. The form that comes nearest to Evliya's spelling would be იყიდოს iq՚idos which means “he should (or will) buy”. If this is the form needed (for the third person, cp. some of the preceding sentences), Evliya's آ (alif-madda) must be corrected into اِ (alif with kasra) and his ġayn should have a kasra too, no sukūn. As a different solution, we could think of Evliya's آ reflecting the Georgian negative particle, ar; the word would thus have to be interpreted as a question a(r) (i)q̇(i)dos “won't he (you?) buy”. In this case, Evliya must have omitted the r (ر with sukūn) as present in the third entry to follow. Džikia did not try to identify the word (121: 38).baqayım küçük mi باقيم كوچكمي “Let me see, is he little” akՙ im pat՚aria
აქ, იმ(ე) პატ(ა)რაჲ-ა akՙ, im(e) p՚at՚(a)ray-a aq-im(e) pát(a)ráyá
آقِيمْ پَتْرَيَه
As against Džikia who gave no solution for aqim (121: 39), Bleichsteiner may have been right in separating it into akՙ plus im, the first word being the adverb “here” (95: 39). im would be the oblique form of the demonstrative pronoun is, igi “that (one)” in standard Georgian, which is unexpected in a nominal sentence like “he is small” or “is he small”, though. So it may rather represent an abbreviated form of the interjective ime, which Tschenkeli notes as a Gurian word in his dictionary (1, 525), attesting it the meaning of “ei! nicht möglich! ja was!” in German. The whole sentence could be paraphrased as “here, (look,) how small he is!” like this. As a different solution, W. Boeder (l.c.) proposes to separate aqim into akՙi, the variant of standard Georgian akՙ we had in several sentences before, and the first person singular pronoun me, here being used as an equivalent of standard Georgian čՙemtՙvis “for me”; the sentence could thus mean “is he (too) little for me”. — The predicative adjective in the form Evliya spells it is p՚at՚ra- as against standard p՚at՚ara-, “small, little”; the “syncopated” form is listed in Ġlonṭi's dialect dictionary (436), but not for Gurian. Note that Evliya clearly records a nominative ending -y before the short copula -a.yoq büyükdür يوق بيوكدر “No, he is big” didi aris
დიდი არის didi aris didi aris
دِيدِي آرِسْ
There is no equivalent of Turkish yoq in this sentence, didi aris meaning “(he) is big” simply.| almam | آلمام | “I won't buy” | ar ḫdos (?) | არ იყიდოს | ar iq՚idos | ar (i)ġidos | غِدُوسْ آرْ |
The kasra written below the ġayn clearly excludes Bleichsteiner's ar ḫdos “er soll
nicht (ab)nehmen” which is improbable from a semantic point of view, too, as Džikia
stated (128). Instead, we should look for a form of the verb q՚id- again. “I shan't buy”
would be ar viq՚ido, which seems to exclude itself, however. As it is, ar ġidos could
represent ar q՚idos “he should not sell” or, rather, ar iq՚idos “he should not / won't
buy” as, perhaps, in the last but one entry; the latter form is preferred by Džikia, too
(122: 41).
vallāhi eyi oġlandır واللّهي اي اوغلاندر “By God, he is a fine boy” /
ღვთის მად(ლ)მა, კაი ბიჭე(ჲ)ა gvtՙis mad(l)ma, k՚ai bič՚e(y)a
(ġw)tis mádma q(a)y b(i)ceya
تِسْ مَدْمَا قي بجَيَا
This entry was omitted in Bleichsteiner's treatise. tis medma most probably represents the common formula ġvtis madlma, lit. “(by) God's mercy”, the meaning of which is given as “bei Gott” in Tschenkeli's dictionary (I, 705); cf. Džikia, too, for this solution (122: 42). For the missing -l- in mad(l)ma, cp. the notation of ʒaġ(l)ma “dog”, above. Less probable is the formula ġmertma icՙis or, rather, icՙis ġmertma “God knows”, because the rendering of the affricate -cՙ- by a <t> would be curious as well as the missing -r-. Other proposals are still less probable, take, e.g. ġvtis dedama “God's mother” (in the ergative) which we should expect with a finite verb beside. qy is k՚ai, the shortened form of k՚argi “good” as in the following entry. Note that the word for “boy”, bič՚i, has a stem in -e indicated once again, which speaks in favour of this being a dialectal variant.eyi degildir fenādır ايي دكلدر فنادر “He is not good, he is bad” k՚arg(i) ar aris, glaḫa-a
კაი არ არის, გლახაა k՚ai ar aris, glaxa-a qai araris q[ı]láxa(a)
قَايِ آرَارِسْ قِلَخَا
As against Bleichsteiner (95: 42), the first word is the shortened k՚ai, again, not the full stem k՚argi; cf. already Džikia, 128. Note that glaxa-a “he is poor, bad” has no nominative -y indicated as against p՚at՚ra-y-a, above.| at | آت | “horse” | cḫeni | ცხენი | cՙxeni | ç[ı]xén(i) | چِيخَنْ |
There is a clear sukūn above the final ن <n> in this word, excluding the expected
nominative form cxeni.
| qaṭır | قاطِر | “mule” | ǰori | ჯორი | ǯori | çori | چُورِي |
| eşek | اشک | “donkey” | wiri | ვირი | viri | wiri | وِرِي |
köpek yaramaz كوپك يراماز “the dog is naughty” đaḡli k՚udiani
ძაღლი კუდიანია ʒaġli k՚udiania caġli qudyan(ia)
جَاغلي قُوديَان
If Evliya really meant a sentence “the dog is naughty” here, qudyan must represent the form k՚udiania “he is naughty” (lit. “geschwänzt”, from k՚udi “tail”), but there is no indication of either the nominative -i or the shortened copula, -a. Note that there is a composite ʒaġlik՚uda, lit. “dog's tail”, in Georgian too, which denotes a bad person; cf. T. Saxoḳia, Kartuli xaṭovani siṭq̇va-tkmata, Tbilisi 21979, 833 sq. For Džikia, these were two entries, the second being the simple adjective k՚udiani “хитрый, дурной” (122: 48). Note that in his Turkish translation, Evliya uses köpek, not kelb, here, which could point to the meaning of an invective as K. Kreiser suggests (personal communication).Megrelian:
Today's forms are given according to I. Kipšidze (Q̣ipšiʒe), Grammatika mingrel'skago (iverskago) jazyka s xrestomatieju i slovarem, S.-Peterburg 1914 (Materialy po jafetičeskomu jazykoznaniju, 7.). The principles of the phonological spelling and of the “Turkicizing” transcription are the same as with Georgian.
| Turkish | meaning | Bleichsteiner | today | phonologically | reading | ||
| (bir) | ١ | 1 | arti | ართი | artՙi | arti | آرتي |
| (iki) | ٢ | 2 | žiri | ჟირი | žiri | j(i)ri | ژرى |
| (üç) | ٣ | 3 | šumi (!) | სუმი | sumi | sumi | سُومي |
I. Kipšidze (321) and Bleichsteiner (98: 3) quoted Evliya for the Megrelian number
“three” in the form šumi, which would match well with R. von Erckert's šumi (Die
Sprachen des Kaukasischen Stammes, Wien 1985, Repr. Wiesbaden 1970, 23) with š-
against today's sumi which might be influenced by Georgian sami. This cannot be maintained, given the clear reading سُومي sumi in the autograph. In the case of Erckert's
notation (šumi is put beside sumi here), there may be doubts, too, as to whether it can
be relied upon, because the older word-lists have only sumi such as J. Güldenstädt's
(cf. the edition of G. Gelašvili, Giuldenšṭedṭis mogzauroba sakartveloši / Putešestvie
Gjul'denštedta po Gruzii / Johannes Gueldenstaedtius, Peregrinatio Georgica, II, Tbilisi
1964, 305), and J. von Klaproth's (in: Kaukasische Sprachen. Anhang zur Reise in
den Kaukasus und nach Georgien. Halle u. Berlin 1814, 270; quoted in G. Rosen,
Über die Sprache der Lazen, Berlin 1845, 11). In “Asia polyglotta” (Paris 1823, 122),
Klaproth has Megr. S̄umi (and “S̄uanisch” S̄emi) as against Georgian Sami, but his s̄
means just a word initial voiceless s-.
| (dört) | ٤ | 4 | otՙḫi | ოთხი | otՙxi | otxi | اوُتخِ |
| (beş) | ٥ | 5 | ḫutՙi | ხუთი | xutՙi | xuti | خوُتي |
| (altı) | ٦ | 6 | (amšwi) | ამშვი | amšvi | (a)p[i]škuy | پِشكوُي |
Cf. already Bleichsteiner (98: 6) for a discussion of this word. That the -k- is not due
to an influence of the following numeral but is an authentic feature, is indicated by the
form apch'schui (= apxšvi) given in the list of Megrelian numerals in Klaproth's
“Kaukasische Sprachen”, 270. Klaproth's Megrelian form is quoted as apxhшui in
his own “Asia polyglotta” and as apchs῾ui in G. Rosen's “Über die Sprache der Lazen”,
11. Güldenstädt, however, had today's amschi already (Gelašvili's edition, 305).
Taking Klaproth's form as granted, we can interpret Evliya's pişkuy as *apՙšxvi or,
rather, apՙškՙvi. For S.S. Džikia (Ėvlija Čelebi o mingrel'skom i gruzinskom jazykax,
Sovetskoe jazykoznanie 1936,2, 113), the -k- was still unexplainable (“во всяком
случае присутсвие в этом слове ك теперь не объяснимо”).
| (yedi) | ٧ | 7 | škՙwit՚i | შქვითი | škՙvitՙi | [i]šküti | اشِكوُتِي |
This numeral is given as schqwithi in Klaproth's word-list (270) and as s῾qwithi in
Rosen's (11). Evliya's i- is a prothetic vowel provoked by the consonant cluster; cf.
already Džikia, 123, according to whom this is a normal feature of Turks starting to
speak Megrelian (or Georgian). Güldenstädt's skwiti (with s- instead of sch-: 305)
may be an error.
| (sekiz) | ٨ | 8 | ruo | რუო | ruo | ruwo | رُووُو |
| (doquz) | ٩ | 9 | čḫoro | ჩხორო | čՙxoro | ç[o]ġor(o) | چُوغوُرْ |
There is a clear sukūn above the final -r, but the -o vocalism of today's form must be
authentic. Güldenstädt gives rua “8” and tschchora “9” with a final -a, but this is not
attested elsewhere.
| (on) | ١٠ | 10 | witՙi | ვითი | vitՙi | w(i)ti | وتي |
| (on bir) | ١١ | 11 | witՙaartՙi (!) | (ვითაართი | vitՙa artՙi) | [artՙi w(i)tՙi] | آرتي وزي |
As Bleichsteiner pointed out (99: 11), Evliya notes the numbers 11 and 12 in Caucasian languages universally with reverse order of their elements. As for Megrelian, this
“error” was first mentioned in Kipšidze's grammar (XXIII). Güldenstädt had the
“normal” form witarti, already (305).
| ekmek | اكمک | “bread” | kՙobali | ქობალი | kՙobali | kobal(i) (?) | كوبال (؟) |
This word is hardly legible in the autograph. If there is really no indication of a final
-i, we can compare Evliya's Georgian words with a stem in -al. Cf. Kipšidze's grammar, already, for a discussion of this word as attested in the published text of Evliya's
travel book (XXIV). As against Bleichsteiner, Megr. kobali cannot be identified
etymologically with Georgian pՙkՙvili “flour” but rather with Georgian xorbali “wheat”
(cf. Arn. Čikobava, Č̣anur-megrul-kartuli šedarebiti leksiḳoni, Tbilisi 1938, 175,
quoting I. Ǯavaxišvili). Cp. Kipšidze, who denotes kobali as “пшеница” as well as
“пшеничный хлѣбъ” (345), and Güldenstädt who has Megr. xorbali for “triticum”
and tschkomi for “bread” (309/310). Curiously, Klaproth notes kobali as the Megrelian word for “Kuh” in Asia polyglotta (117); this must be due to a confusion of
Georgian pՙuri “cow” and p՚uri “bread”.
| āteş | آتش | “fire” | dačḫiri | დაჩხირი | dačxiri | dacxir(i) | دَاجْخِرْ |
In the autograph, Evliya seems to have corrected himself with respect to the medial
خ <x>, so that it is not completely clear whether there is a kasra below both the ج <c>
and the ر <r> or whether there is one kasra, only. The final ر <r> seems to have a
sukūn, too, which would exclude a nominative -i. Güldenstädt has datschche
for “ignis”, but the lack of a final -r must be a mistake.
| qalqan | قلقان | “shield” | pՙori (Deeters) | ფორი ? | pՙori ? | por(i) | پوُرْ |
Cf. Bleichsteiner (99: 14) for a discussion of this word. It is true that the regular
sound equivalent of Georgian pari “shield” would be pՙori in Megrelian as Deeters
assumed, but this is unexpected in an Iranian loanword unless the Megrelian form be
remodelled after the Georgian according to rules of interdialectal sound correspondances
as W. Boeder proposes (letter dated 17.9.91: “dialektale Umsetzungsregeln”). The
word seems not to be attested in any one of the older sources.
| qoyun | قيون | “sheep” | šḫuri | შხური | šxuri | [u]şxuri | اُشخوُرِي |
Note that there is a clear indication of a final (nominative) -i in this word (as against the
two preceding ones). — The initial اُ (alif with ḍamma) seems to be a “turkicizing”
prothetic vowel (to be read as u- for the sake of vowel harmony) to avoid the consonant
cluster šx-.
quşaq قوشاق “waistband” ort՚q՚apՙu
(დო) ორტყაფუ (?) (do) ort՚q՚apՙu (?) *dortqap(u) (?)
دُرْقَاتْ
Cf. already Bleichsteiner (99: 16) for an attempt to join Evliya's spelling with the Megrelian word for “girdle”, ort՚q՚apՙu. The initial d- might be the remnant of an older form with a prefix do- building verbal nouns instead of today's o- or, more probably, the reflex of Megr. do “and” contracted with the word initial o- as W. Boeder proposes (l.c). If we can assume that Evliya changed the final ت <t> for a پ <p> and that the medial -t՚- in the verbal root rt՚q՚ was lost due to a simplification of the consonant cluster -rt՚q՚-, we can well assume today's form as lying behind Evliya's dorqat. Note, that there is a clear sukūn above the final letter which is more easily explained if this represented -pՙu. We cannot exclude, however, that Evliya's form stands for a different word such as, e.g., *durt(u)qi or the like; cf. Džikia (113), who grouped دَرْقَات in the words “которые совсем не читаются или читаются, но представляют непонятный комплекс звуков”.| baş | باش | “head” | dudi | დუდი | dudi | dudi | دُودِي |
| odun | اوُدوُن | “wood” | diškՙa | დიშქა | diškՙa | dişká | دِشكهَ |
This word is noted as dischcha in Güldenstädt's word-list (310: “lignum”).
| köpek | كوپک | “dog” | ǰoḡori | ჯოღორი | ǯoġori | çoġor(i) | چُوغوُر |
There is no vocalization mark at all for the final ر <r> in this word.
| ṣıġır | صغر | “cattle” | ḫoǰi | ჩხ(ო)უ | čՙx(o)u | c[u]xu | جُوخوُ |
According to Bleichsteiner (99: 20), Evliya must have confused the punctuation
marks of ج <c> and خ <x> in this word if he really meant ხოჯი xoǯi “steer”. For
the clearly indicated rounded vowel in the final position, we would have to assume an
-ü due to progressive assimilation to match with the -i expected. Much more probably,
Evliya's word is ჩხუ čxu, however, which means “корова” according to Kipšidze
(368); Kipšidze has the variants čxuu for the Eastern (S= Senak-) and čxou for the
Western dialect (MZ= Sa-Murzakan / Zugdidi). For this equation cf. already Džikia
(115 and 128). Güldenstädt has chodǧi, already, for “bos” (308, fn. 14). ჯოხო ǯoxo
would mean “name” in Megrelian (Kipšidze, 416: имя); according to G. Hewitt
(letter dated 22.7.91) the dialect of Očamčira has ǯoxo only as a verbal form meaning
“X is called Y” (Georgian hkvia), whereas for “name” it has the Georgian saxeli.
| buzaġı | بوزاغي | “calf” | geni, gini | გენი / გინი | geni / gini | gin(i) | گِنْ |
According to Kipšidze, geni belongs to the Eastern dialect (S), while gini is the form
noted in the West (MZ: 215). As Evliya normally denotes a -i- by kasra, he will have
heard the latter one (but cp. the second entry to follow). Güldenstädt has geni (308:
“vitulus”) as well as Klaproth (Kaukasische Sprachen, 267). Džikia read گيين
<giin> in his manuscript (128).
| ṭuz | طوز | “salt” | ǰimu | ჯიმუ | ǯimu | [i]cim(u) | اجِمْ |
For the unexpected initial ا alif cf. already Bleichsteiner (99: 22) and Džikia (128).
That this is a combination with e “that”, as Bleichsteiner presumed, is hardly
believable; according to Džikia, there is a kasra below the alif in his manuscript, which
would render Bleichsteiner's solution even less probable, but there is no kasra in the
autograph. Anyhow, as in the following word, the initial ا will rather be due to a simplification of a word initial consonant (cluster). Güldenstädt has Ǧumi (311, fn. 4)
which shows the reverse order of the vowels as against today's form. Evliya's spelling
of the final م with sukūn may mean today's -mu rather than Güldenstädt's -mi.
at
ات
“horse”
cḫeni
ცხენი
cՙxeni
[i]çxen(i)
اِچْحِنْ
For the initial ا, see the preceding word. Megrelian cՙxeni, which is surely a borrowing
from Georgian, is attested in Pallas' edition of Güldenstädt's word-list, but not in
Güldenstädt's material itself, cf. Gelašvili's edition, 308, fn. 15. Klaproth (Asia
polyglotta, 118) has Zcheni.
domuz
دومُوز
“pig”
ġeǰi
ღეჯი
ġeǯi
ġäc(i)
غَاجْ
As there is no variant like ġaǯi attested anywhere, Evliya's -a-, clearly indicated by alif
plus fatḥa, is unexpected. Even Güldenstädt has Gedǧi alone (309, fn. 5), as well as
Klaproth (Asia polyglotta, 119), who writes it Gedжi. The sukūn above the final ج <ǧ>
is quite faint in the autograph.
| eşek | اشک | “donkey” | girini, gərəni | გირინი / გϩრϩნი | girini / gərəni | *gır(ı)ni | گـِقر تِ |
Of the two forms as given in Kipšidze's grammar (218), the first one belongs to the
Eastern dialect (S), the latter to the Western dialect (MZ), again (but cf. Džikia, 112,
according to whom გირინი girini is not met with in Eastern Megrelia at all). Evliya
must have confused ت <t> and ن <n> here if we presume today's form. The qāf
written above the kāf is perhaps meant to indicate a non-palatal pronunciation which
could point to the Western ə instead of the Eastern i. Güldenstädt has Girin (308), as
well as Klaproth (Asia polyglotta, 113).
| ayı | آيي | “bear” | tՙuntՙi | თუნთი | tՙuntՙi | tut(i) | توُتْ |
Evliya's form is nearer to the Laz equivalents of Megrelian tՙuntՙi, viz. tՙutՙi and
mtՙutՙi, than to today's Megrelian word itself. As the -n- is regarded as a secondary
element in Megr. tՙuntՙi (and similar cases; cf., e.g., K.H. Schmidt, Studien zur
Rekonstruktion des Lautstandes der südkaukasischen Grundsprache, Wiesbaden 1962,
89 sq.), Evliya may well have heard an older form.
| peynir | پينر | “cheese” | ՙwali, ՙwai | ϱვალი, ϱვაი | ՚vali, ՚vai | qol(i) | قوُلْ |
As against today's form, Evliya's qwal seems to represent an older stage as attested by
Laz q՚vali, which still has the initial q՚, agreeing with Georgian q՚veli. Güldenstädt,
too, has Kwali for “caseus” (310). For the rendering of today's -va- by و <w> with
ḍamma, cf. Džikia (128), according to whom this must be read qol; is this a dialect
variant? For the missing -i, cp. kobal(i) above.
yoġurd يُغوُردْ “sour milk” marc՚weni
მარწვენი, მარწვინი marc՚veni, marc՚vini márcwän
مَرجوَان
Evliya's vocalization is unexpected. Pallas, in his edition of Güldenstädt's word-list, gives Madsoni as the Megrelian word for “lac coagulatum” but this is clearly the Georgian word; the same holds true for Klaproth's Madsoni (Asia, 117).| zeker | زكر | “penis” | pՙuči | ფუჩი | pՙučՙi | fuc(i) | فُوجْ |
Bleichsteiner's proposal that this is Megrelian pՙučՙi (= Georgian pՙicՙi) meaning
“oath” would be quite convincing if we could assume that Evliya asked for ذَكَر ẕeker,
which is likely because of the following words (and, as Džikia stated, because Evliya
never asked abstract terms at all: 128), but that ذِكر ẕikr was understood by his informants (in the sense of “invocation of God's name”). That Evliya rendered the aspirated
pՙ as ف <f> would not be surprising. I do not see, however, that Megrelian pՙučՙi can
have the meaning of “penis”; as G. Hewitt (l.c.) reports, there is a Megr. pՙučՙi which
“is used of a girl's private parts when talking to children — i.e. it's less suggestive than
čuri [for which see the next entry]. But it can't be used of a penis”. — A different
solution is offered by Džikia who reads the word as قوج <quc> and interprets this as
Megrelian ϱვაჯი ՚vaǯi meaning “мужское яичко” (115, fn. 1; cf. Kipšidze, 418, who
gives the meaning “шулятное яицо”, i.e. “testicle”). That Megrelian ՚ was heard as
a q՚ by Evliya is further suggested by the word for “cheese” above; the same holds true
for the rendering of -va- by وُ (wāw with ḍamma). As for the missing -i, we can cp.
ġäc(i) “pig” in any case.
| ferc | فرج | “vagina” | čuri | ჩური | čՙuri | çur(i) | چُورْ |
For the missing -i, cp. çoġor(i) above.
| ṭaşaq | طشاق | “testicles” | / | ხოდი (?) | xodi (?) | xodi | خُودِي |
I cannot verify this word in the published material; Bleichsteiner omits it. It is possible, that Megrelian once possessed a word xodi, equivalent to Georgian xvadi “male
(animal), male dog, stallion” etc.; cp. Kipšidze (405) who notes a verbal root xod-
meaning “coire” which he compares with Georgian xvadi, too. For Džikia, it is just this
verb in the imperative, equivalent to Latin “coi”, not a word for “testicles” (115, fn. 2);
cp. several entries below for this. That Evliya's xodi conceals a variant of the normal
word for “testicle”, ϱვაჯი ՚vaǯi, as discussed in the last but one entry, is less probable.
| gel | كل | “come” | (mortՙi) | ვაი (?) | vai (?) | way | وَاي |
Bleichsteiner, in regarding way as an interjection, obviously thought of Kipšidze's
ვაი! meaning “woe!” (“ой, о горе!”). Possibly, this is the Abkhaz word for “come”,
уааи wa:i, borrowed into Megrelian as some kind of interjection, in this sense; cf.
already Džikia (115 and 123) for the same assumption.
| adam | آدم | “man” | č՚aš (Svan. ?) | წიე ? | c՚ie ? | çay ? | چَايْ |
Bleichsteiner was right that there is no Megrelian word meaning “man” which would
match with Evliya's çay (100: 32). It is highly improbable, however, that Evliya heard
the Svan word č՚äš, here, because the same form is recorded several times in the same
spelling in clear Megrelian sentences, later on. Džikia (116) proposes Megrelian წიე c՚ie,
instead, which means “мальчик” according to Kipšidze (378) and which seems a
better solution, though not without problems. Note that in contrast to the preceding
item, çay is written with a sukūn above the final ي <y>.
| oṭur | اوطور | “sit” | doḫod | დოხოდი | doxodi | dåxod(i) | دَاخوُد |
Cf. Bleichsteiner (100: 33) for the right analysis. Surprisingly, Evliya spells the first
-o- with fatḥa plus alif (cf. already Džikia, 124), which may be due to an influence of
the frequent Georgian preverb da- equivalent to Megrelian do-. According to G.
Hewitt (l.c.), this word is problematical in Megrelian “because of the association of
do-xod-i with the meaning `fuck X!'”. This is why “the meaning `sit down!' is usually
represented by a doubling of the preverbs do-do-xod(-i) (assuming the polite do-zoǯ(-i)
is not used), though do-xod(i) can still mean `sit down!'.” Maybe, the “Georgianization”
of the preverb was another way to avoid the conflict.
| git | كِت | “go” | melaulə (?) | მელეულϩ ? | meleulə ? | meläwlı | مَلاَوْلي |
As against Dankoff's edition (Glossary, 122), the Turkish equivalent in the autograph
is clearly git “go”, not the negative gitme “don't go”. Like this, we could easily assume
a verbal compound mele-ulə meaning “you go over there” here, consisting of mele- “по
ту сторону” (Kipšidze, 278 s.v. 2.me) and the second person singular present form
ulə/u “you go” (Kipšidze's root 2.l, 264). In this case, Bleichsteiner's proposal
(100: 34) that we have a reduced form of today's prohibitive particle nəmə plus elaulə
“geh nicht vorbei!” here could be disposed of. The identification of Evliya's meläwlı
with the positive Turkish git is problematical, however, because the same Megrelian
form corresponds to the negative gitme in two other sentences below. So we have to
face the possibility that Evliya's Turkish form was misunderstood as gitme by his
informant and that his answer is a negative form anyhow. In this case, we can accept
an explanation given by G. Hewitt (l.c.), according to whom the form represents a
Megrelian mele- “over there” plus va “not” plus ulə/u “you go” which would fit well
with Evliya's writing.
| qız | قيز | “girl” | tՙena | თინა | tՙina | tina | تِينةَ |
Bleichsteiner's proposal (100: 35) that this is not a word meaning “girl” but a
demonstrative pronoun “diese” is quite convincing, although one should prefer tՙina
“that one” to tՙena “this one”, because of Evliya's kasra below the ت <t>; cf. Džikia,
too (128). We can not exclude totally, however, that Evliya's spelling means the
Megrelian word for girl, ცირა cՙira, instead, the ن <n> being used erroneously for a
ر <r> and the ت <t> representing a cՙ, as in Evliya's tis if this represents Georgian icՙis
(cf. the Georgian specimen for this).
yeyelim
يَه يَلم
“let's eat”
o-w-č՚k՚om-atՙ
ოჭკომ(ი) (?)
oč՚k՚om(i) (?)
oçqom(i)
اوُچقوُمْ
Bleichsteiner's form (101: 36) would be the exact rendering of “let's eat” in Megrelian, but he himself wonders whether this can be represented by Evliya's spelling. His
proposal that we have o-č՚k՚om-u “das was zu essen ist” here, instead, is not convincing
either. A better candidate seems to be the form oč՚k՚omi which is the second person
singular aorist “you ate” and which would be used as the imperative “eat!” as well; this
solution is preferred in Džikia (116, fn.2) too. The final -i might have been omitted in
spelling as in many other Megrelian words listed here, or it was absent due to morphological variation comparable to the Georgian aorist; according to G. Hewitt (l.c.)
such vowels are generally lost in the Megrelian dialect of Očamčira which speaks in
favour of the latter solution. Cp. the second entry to follow too.
| gel adam | كل آدم | “come man” | (waj čai) | ვაი წიე ?? | vai c՚ie ?? | way çay | وَاي چَايْ |
For both words, see above. Note that there is a sukūn above the ي <y> in the latter
word only, again.
| buraya | بُورَايَا | “hither” | ašo mortՙi | აშϩ მორთი | ašə mortՙi | aş(ı) mort(i) | آش مُورت |
As against Bleichsteiner (101: 40) it seems easier to presume that Evliya's aş represents Megr. ašə than ašo, both meaning “here, hither”; cp. the second entry to follow
too, where the same word is written with a final ي <i>. As for the imperative mortՙi,
the final -i seems to be missing again, but cp. the second entry to follow. Note that the
sentence means “come here”, not just “here, hither” (cp. Džikia, 116, fn. 3).
gitme adam كتمه آدم “don't go man” ([nə]mə elaulə čai)
(მელე-ვა-ულϩ წიე ??) mele-va-ulə c՚ie ?? mélawlı çay
مِلاَوْلي چَايْ
For both words, see above. Note that çay has a sukūn above the ي <y> again.paṣṭa var gel baba پاصطه وار كل بابا “There is paṣṭa, come father”
ašə mortՙi, wai mamaw აშϩ მორთი, ვაი ? მამავ ?
ašə mortՙi, vai ?? mamav ? aşı *mor[i]t(i) way *mamaw
آشي مُورِنْ وَايْ مَامَادْ
Cp. the last but one entry for the first two words. As for mortՙi, it is obvious that Evliya confused ن <n> and ت <t> in the final position here; possibly, the kasra noted below the ر <r> stood below the final ت <t>, originally. As for way, note that this word has a sukūn above the final ي <y>, this time. With respect to Evliya's mamad, Bleichsteiner was right in stating that this must be the Georgian form of the word for “father”, mama, as against Megr. muma or mua, and that it must show a reflex of the Georgian vocative particle, -o/-v, the د <d> being written for a و <w>, erroneously; cf. Džikia (124) for the same assumption. Megrelian has no vocative of its own. Note that the sentence means “come here, come, father” and that there is no equivalent for “there is paṣṭa” at all (cf. already Džikia, 116, fn.4).| gel ana | كل آنا | “come mother” | wai dias! | ვაი ? დიას ? | vai ? dias ? | way diyas | وَايِ دِيَاسْ |
way has a sukūn here, once again. As for dias, this is not the expected form, the word
for “mother” being dia (or dida) in the nominative. Bleichsteiner (101: 41) presumes
that this is the dative case instead, provoked by way which he interprets as an interjection, the whole sentence meaning something like “weh, Mutter”. Such a syntactical
behaviour of the interjection ვაი vai is not attested anywhere else, however. Džikia
seems to doubt the -s too, rendering Evliya's entry as “waay დია (?)”.
bir domuz yeyelim بر دُومُوز يه يلم “let's eat a pig” artՙi ḡeǰi oč՚k՚omu
ართი ღეჯი ოჭკომ(ი) artՙi ġeǯi oč՚k՚om(i) arti ġäç(i) oçqom(i)
ارتى غاچ اوُچْقوُمْ
As against Bleichsteiner (101: 42) this will be the second person singular aorist = imperative oč՚k՚om(i), again, a sentence like “ein Schwein (ist) zu essen” hardly representing normal Kartvelian syntax; cf. Džikia, again, for the right solution (116, fn. 5). Besides, I am not sure whether očՙkՙomu “das was zu essen ist” does exist in Megrelian at all, because Kipšidze gives oč՚k՚omali as the deverbal noun in this sense only (391). If Evliya's oçqom is the imperative form “eat!”, instead, the nominative object artՙi ġeǯi is exactly what we have to expect. Note that the word for “pig” is written with alif plus fatḥa again.kelpler anaŋı ve babaŋı ve seni yef ՙallesin
كلپلر اناكي و باباكي و سني يفعلّله سِن
“May dogs fuck your mother and your father and you” ǰoḡori (! ...)ჯოღორქ დია-სქანი მიგიშახოდ(ას) ?? ǯoġorkՙ dia-skՙani migišaxod(as) ??
coġor(k) diyaskan(i) migişa[y]xod(as) ??
جوغوُرْ دِيَاس كَانْ مِكِي شَايِ خُودْ
Bleichsteiner (101: 43) treated only the first word of this sentence, ǰoġori “dog”; Džikia (117: 44) read it as ჯოღორი დიასქან მიქი.. ǯoġori diaskan miki.., but did not try an explicit interpretation. Taking Evliya's translation as a basis, we can arrive at the following suggestions: The verb in question must be -xod- for which see above; this is obviously contained in Evliya's خُودْ -xod-. In the modal sense of “May he do sth.!” we would expect a third person optative (= aorist subjunctive), which would be xod-as. The subject of this form must be in the ergative case, which would be ǯoġor-kՙ “a dog” in the singular or ǯoġor-epՙ-kՙ “dogs” in the plural. The object “your mother” would have to be in the nominative, dia-skՙani, which may well be preserved in Evliya's diyaskan. If the verbal form were not an optative but a subjunctive present (or future), it would have to be something like xod-u/ən-das; we would expect the “dog(s)” in the nominative then (ǯoġori / ǯoġorepՙi) and “your mother” in the dative (dias-skՙans). It is clear that this solution can be excluded. As it is not likely that Evliya could have overheard the optative ending -as, we have to think of a third possibility. This is offered by G. Hewitt (l.c.) and W. Boeder (l.c): As Hewitt states, “one sometimes finds the simple Aorist where you would expect a subjunctive expressing a wish, cf. ღორონთ-ქ დო-რ-ხვამ-ეს [ġorontՙ-kՙ do-r-xvam-es] `God blessed you (Pl.)' for expected `God bless you!' = დო-რ-ხვამ-ან [do-r-xvam-an]” (cf. Kipšidze's grammar, 0139, § 146 and W. Boeder, “Über einige Anredeformen im Kaukasus”, in: Georgica 11, 1988, 12 for the same phenomenon). Like this, Evliya's xud could be a third singular aorist ხოდ(-უ) xod(u) simply, the final -u being omitted as otherwise. — In any case, we are left with the two words miki şay which can hardly be identified with “your father”, mua-skՙani, and “you”, si. Instead, I would prefer to see a complex of verbal prefixes here, such as, e.g., mi-gi-ša-. This could consist of the compound preverb mi-ša- meaning “into the middle, in between” (cf. Kipšidze's grammar, 0120), and the objective marker of the second person, -gi-, “for you, to you”, which would be coreferential to the notion of skՙan- “your” here. There is a difficulty, however, in the fact that the normal order of the elements would be miša-gi-, but as Kipšidze admits, objective markers “sometimes” (“иногда”) are met with in an intermediate position within compound preverbs too (Grammar, 0106, § 111 and 090, § 101, примечание). G. Hewitt (l.c.) makes two further objections to this analysis: first, the marker of the objective version would be pleonastic, when a possessive pronoun is present, and second, the -g- of the “would tend to disappear within a verb form, and, because of syncope in verbs, it is unlikely that migišaxod(as), even if it ever existed, would have been so pronounced” (l.c.). A different solution would take Evliya's يْ <y> in şay as the marker of the so-called “subjective version”, meaning “for himself” as correlative to the subject of the action, which would exclude -ki- as an objective marker. In this case, I could only think of an inversed complex, kՙi-miša-, kՙi- being a phonetic variant of the perfective particle kՙo- as in kՙi-miša-mi-bogi “build a bridge for me in the middle” (Kipšidze, Grammar, 0121, § 120). I wonder, however, whether the verb in question could have a subjective marker at all. G. Hewitt again thinks of the second person objective marker, -gi-, reduced to -i- within a complex mik՚i-še-(g)i-xod(-u) “X fucked Y inside for you”, with mik՚i “all around” (variant of muk՚i “кругом”, cf. Kipšidze, 280 / 283), which would fit quite well with Evliya's notation. The problem of the “pleonastic” objective marker persists like this, however.dilerim ḥaq seni ṭaş eylesin oġlan ṣıġır
ديلرم حق سني طَاش ايلسن اوغلان صِغِر
“I wish God would turn you to stone, boy steer” šeni tՙawi nacw(l)ad ḫat՚ma kՙwa ...(?)ტანი ბიჭო, ქუათ მაϱუაფუ, ბიჭო ჩხოუ ? t՚ani bič՚o, kuatՙ ma՚uapՙu, bič՚o č՚xou
táni yawo (?) biçowo ḥatmá ġáfá biçowo c[u]xu ?
تَنِي يَاوُو بِچوُوُ حَاتْمَه غَفَه جُخُو
This sentence was regarded as Georgian by Bleichsteiner, but his interpretation, which was obviously invoked by ḥatma identified with the Georgian ergative xat՚-ma “the icon”, is quite improbable, at least because of the rendering of kՙva “stone” by ġfa and because of the reading nac(w)lad “instead of” for “baǰwad”, which turns out to be the vocative bič՚o “oh boy”, spelt as بِچوُوُ by Evliya. Although this vocative is Georgian, the whole sentence may be Megrelian as was the case with mamav “oh father” above; but it remains hard to analyze even so. Starting from Evliya's translation (note that we have eylesin, not etsün as in Dankoff's “Glossary”, 122), again, we may presume in حَاتْمه غَفَه a combination of the word for stone, being kՙua in Megrelian as in Georgian, in the adverbial case (ending -tՙ with a vocalic stem), and the verbal form ma՚uapՙu < *maq՚uapՙu, meaning “he/she/it will be as a stone for me” (for the adverbial case, cp. German “er wird zu Stein werden”). The second person singular would be ma՚uapՙu-kՙ “you will be for me” (for the verbal forms, cf. Kipšidze's grammar, 099). The third person would be right if the first word is t՚ani “the body”, which has no equivalent in Evliya's translation, however. The second word, yawo or the like, remains unclear in any case; we should expect something meaning “I'd beg God”. There is but little chance that Evliya's first word represents tՙini, which means “right, righteous” in Megrelian and which could be a literal equivalent of Evliya's ḥaq. It is not certain even that we are right in reading تَنِي táni, because there seems to be a second ت <t> instead of a ن <n> rather. Džikia's transcript of his manuscript has شتى šati, even (125, l. 2 from below). — “I'd beg” would be pՙtՙxia, “to wish” would be -ndom- or -nat՚r- in Megrelian, none of which seems to lie behind Evliya's notation. — The last two words, clearly representing bič՚o “oh, boy” and čxou “cow”, again, seem rather to belong to the following phrase, as Džikia's notation supposes (117: 45-46).seni kesem سنى كسم “I'll cut you (?)” /
ვა (ნ)გიხოდი va (n)gixodi wángi xodi?
وَنكِي خوُدي
This sentence was omitted in Bleichsteiner's treatise. Džikia added the preceding two words as well as the following აჯღვადრი aǯġvardi (?) but he did not give an interpretation of the whole phrase, translating only “парень, бык тебя ..”, “boy, a bull .. you”. There is a difference, however, in his reading because his second word is not čxou “cow” but ხოჯი xoǯi “bull” for which see above; this reading can now be excluded, the autograph showing a clear جُخوُ to be read as c[u]xu. As for the following words, we may look for a verbal form of the root -xod-, again, as in the last but one sentence. We would come very near to Evliya's spelling if we could presume va gixodi which would give the whole sentence a meaning of “boy, I did not fuck (your cow)”, gi- being the objective-possessive marker “for, to you”, again, and va being the regular negation particle. Evliya's -n- would have to be a secondary phonetic element developed before the -g- in intervocalic position, a phenomenon, which is styled “frequent” in Kipšidze's grammar (07: § 3f) but which I have not noted in a verbal complex like this, so far. Note that the kasra must belong to the ک <k>, not to the ن <n>, if my solution is right. — A different analysis could interpret the first word as the verb neba “to damage” in the first person singular present, vonəkՙ, meaning “I (will) damage” (cf. Kipšidze, 285, s.v. 2.n). As this verb is intransitive in Megrelian (a so-called relative passive), we should expect an indirect object in the dative, which would be čxous for “the cow”. This interpretation would leave xudi unexplained, however, unless it could be a noun meaning “membrum virile” or the like, as was proposed before. This solution seems to be excluded if the “cow” really belongs to the same sentence.sikdiler eşegimi domuzumı sikdi oġlan سكديلر اشكمي دُومُوزمي سكدي اوغلان
“They fucked my donkey, the boy fucked my pig” /
ეთეშϩ (მი)ხოდი გϩრϩნი ე?? ღეჯი ეთეშϩ ვხოდა ბიჭო ??
etՙešə (mi)xodi gərəni, e ?? ġeǯi et՚ešə vxoda, bič՚o
açġıwadi[ri] gırın(i) ye ġäç(i) *açġıwad bico
آچْغِوَادِرِي كِرِنْ يَه غَاچْ آچَغِوَارْ بِجُو
This sentence was omitted in Bleichsteiner's treatise too. Džikia attributed the first word to the preceding sentence; his interpretation was limited again: “осел или свинья ... парень”, “a donkey or a pig ... boy” (117: 47). This rules girin = gərən(i) “donkey”, ġaç = ġeǯ(i) “pig” and bič՚o “boy” out. As the last word is in the (Georgian) vocative again, it cannot be the subject of the verbal form expected, which, according to Evliya's translation, should contain the root -xod-, once more. This may be concealed behind the spellings غِوَاد and غِوَار (if Evliya confused د <d> and ر <r> here), but the difference as against the usual spelling خُود deserves an explanation anyway, all the more since the remaining elements such as the ending -ri, the double aç- and the conjunctional ye are far from being clear either. My proposal is that aç- renders a colloquial form of the coordinate conjunction etՙeši/ə ... etՙeši/ə meaning “wie ... so ...”, “так ... как ...”, and that ye represents an element e- meaning “thus”. The whole sentence could mean “In the way you fucked (my) donkey, in this way I shall fuck (your) pig, boy”, if the first verbal form were an aorist xodi “you fucked” or mixodi “you fucked for me” and the second were an optative vxoda “I shall fuck” or gixoda “I shall fuck for you”. “They fucked for me” would be mixodes, and “he fucked for me”, mixodu/ə. — Several different solutions are possible; for example, aç- could represent the preverb აწო/ϩ- ac՚o/ə- meaning “forward” (“впереди, прочь”: Kipšidze, Grammar, 0118), and the verb in question could be -xvad- “to meet” which, in comparison with Georgian -xvedr-, may well have had a root final -r- earlier (*-xvadr-), matching with Evliya's notation.gel adam yaṭ gitme qoyun ekmek yeyelim كل آدم ياط كتمه قيوُنْ اكمک يه يلم
“come man lie down don't go let's eat sheep and bread”
wai čai, donǰira [nu] midaulə, šḫuri, k՚obali oč՚k՚omu
ვაი წიე ? დინჯირ მელე-ვა-ულϩ შხური ქობალი ოჭკომი
vai c՚ie ? dinǯir, mele-va-ulə, šxuri, kՙobali oč՚k՚omi
way cay dën[e]cir mélawlı [u]š[e]xuri kobal(i) oçqom(i)
واَيْ چَايْ دَنَجِر مِلاَوْلِي اشَحُورِي كوُبالْ اُوچْقوُم
According to Džikia (113), دنجر is a misspelling for ديجر დიჯირ diǯir “ложись”. As the ن <n> is perfectly clear in the autograph, this may rather be dinǯir, which would be a second person singular aorist = imperative “lie down” too, although Evliya's vocalizations suggest the transitive donǯire “lay (sb.) down”. Bleichsteiner's donǯira would be the action noun “lying down”, which he seems to analyze as a complement of “midaulə” (= melawlı for which see above) “geh nicht”; but as in Georgian, this would be no normal syntax in Megrelian. The imperative is more probable because of the following entry too. For the other words, see above. Note that Evliya seems to have confused fatḥa and sukūn twice.gel adam oṭur peynir ekmek yoġurd yeyelim كل ادم اوطور پينر اكمک يُوغوُرد يه يلم
“come man sit let's eat cheese bread yoghurt”
wai čai, (!!) ՙwali, kՙobali, marc՚weni oč՚k՚omu
ვაი წიე (?) დოხოდი, ϱვალი, ქობალი, მარწვენი ოჭკომ(ი)
wai c՚ie (?) doxodi, ՚vali, kՙobali, marc՚veni oč՚k՚om(i).
way cay dåxodi qoli kopal(i) marcwän(i) oçqom(i)
وَايْ جَايْ دَاخُودِ قُولِ كوُپَالْ مَرجْوَان اوُچقوُمْ
For all words appearing here, see above. The verbal form will represent the second person singular imperative “eat”, again. Note that dåxodi “sit down”, which is missing in Bleichsteiner's treatise, and qoli = ՚vali have a clearly indicated final -i, and that kobali “bread” is written with a پ <p> instead of a ب <b>.dön beri öp beni babaŋiŋ başiyçün olsun
دُون برى وُپ بني باباكك باشيچون السُون
“Turn this way, kiss me, by your father's head”gadmobrunde / damikoce (!) mama(w), da(h)k՚ar čongu(r)
გადმობრუნდე და მაკოცე, მამა დაგ(ი)რჩება-ო ??
gadmobrunde da mak՚ocՙe, mama dag(i)rčՙeba-o ??
qádmobrundé damáqoçe mama *dagërçepá-(ġ)o ?
قَدْمُوبْرُونپدِي دَامَه قوُچَه مَامَادَاكَرچَپَغوُ
As Bleichsteiner (102: 47-48) and Džikia (124) correctly stated, this sentence is not Megrelian but Georgian. Bleichsteiner was right in identifying the first verb as gadmobrunde “turn this way”. The second part of the sentence, however, can hardly be damikoce, because the verb in question, -k՚ocՙ- “to kiss”, has an -n- following the root when it has the preverb da- plus an objective version marker attached to it; the form da-mi-k՚ocՙ-n-e would mean “kiss (sc. feet) for me, kiss my (sc. feet) several times”. As Evliya wrote the second syllable with a fatḥa plus ه <h>, not with a kasra, we should rather presume the vowel of the superessive version here. As the verb in this version does not take the preverb da-, this may be the conjunction da “and” instead as G. Hewitt suggests. — As for the third formula, Džikia was right that Bleichsteiner's interpretation mama(w) da(h)k՚ar čongu(r) “Vater spiel die Zither” is far from being probable. Džikia's own proposal (128) was the Georgian blessing mama dagirčes, lit. “may (your) father be sustained for you”, which is convincing semantically in the given context. A crucial point remains, however, in Evliya's spelling of the last word to be rendered as dagerçepeġu. One solution I see is that we have not an optative (= aorist subjunctive) here but a future subjunctive which would be dag(i)rčebodes and which might have been spelt دَگِرچَپوُدَسْ in Evliya's notebook (for the پ <p> instead of a ب <b> cp. the preceding sentence); this subjunctive would fit as well with the given meaning. The final س <s> would be missing in this case, anyhow. W. Boeder (l.c) proposes to explain this by assuming that the person referred to by mama “father” is identical with the speaker so that the verbal form could be a first person singular dagirčebode “ich, dein Vater, möge dir erhalten bleiben” (for such cases, cf. his paper “Verbal person marking, noun phrase and word order in Georgian”, in: Configurationality, ed. L. Marácz / P. Muysken, Dordrecht 1989, 178). — A second, perhaps more probable solution, would take the word in question as a third person singular future dagirčeba “he will be sustained for you”, additionally marked with a suffixal -o as a marker of indirect speech, the whole sentence thus meaning “.. kiss me (with the words) `your father will be sustained for you'”. For the hiatus between the final -a of the verbal form and the -o-marker rendered by -ġ-, cp. Evliya's writing puroçöġuli of the Georgian word for “pomegranate”, broc՚euli.Circassian:
The phonological spelling follows the same principles as with Abkhaz. Kabardian forms are normally noted for single words only, and only if they differ from their Adyge equivalents. In addition to Dankoff's transcription of the vocalization marks, ë is used for a fatḥa representing a high vowel.
| Turkish | meaning | Bleichsteiner | today | phonologically | reading | ||
| (bir) | ١ | 1 | zə | зы | zə | zı | زِ |
зы zə is the attributive form of the numeral “one” in Adyge and Kabardian. Evliya's
spelling could also represent the quantitative numeral зэ ze “once”, cf. already Bleichsteiner (119: 3), but the vocalization of this and most of the following entries speaks in
favour of the cardinal number.
| (iki) | ٢ | 2 | t՚u, t՚vu | тIу | t՚°ə | t[u]qu | توُقُ |
Evliya's spelling obviously represents an earlier or dialectal variant of today's Adyge
and Kabardian standard forms; cp., e.g., A.K. Šagirov, Ėtimologičeskij slovar'
adygskix (čerkesskix) jazykov, [II]: П-I, Moskva 1977, 86 f. who notes тIкъIу̂ы, i.e.
t՚q՚wə, as the form of the Xakuča-dialect. Cf. already Bleichsteiner (119: 2), who
quotes E(rckert's) Abadzex and Šapsuġ-forms. There seems a second ḍamma-mark of
u-vocalization as expected by the authentic forms to be present above the q letter. —
“Twice” would be тIо / тIеу, i.e. t՚we / t՚ew.
| (üç) | ٣ | 3 | śə | щы | š̰ə | sı | سي |
“Three times” would be щэ s'e.
| (dört) | ٤ | 4 | pՙλ՚ə | плIы | pՙɬ՚ə | p[ı]lı[h] | پِلِه |
“Four times” would be плIэ pՙɬ՚e.
| (beş) | ٥ | 5 | t՚fu | тфы / тхуы | tՙfə / tՙx°ə | t[u]ffe (?) | توُفَّه |
Here, Evliya's material is clearly recognizable as Adyge (West-Circassian), not Kabardian, because of the regular correspondance between Adyge f and Kabardian x°. — “Five
times” would be тфэ / тхуэ tՙfe / tՙx°e, which could be indicated by Evliya's -e (fatḥa
plus final h) if this is intended.
| (altı) | ٦ | 6 | ḫə | хы | xə | şı | شِيْ |
As Bleichsteiner pointed out, “ḫ erinnert stark an š”. He possibly thought of the
characteristic sibilant of the Pashto language in Afghanistan, which is something
between ʃ and χ, too, and which is sometimes spelt as -(k)kh- as in the name of the
language itself (Pakkhto). — “Six times” would be хэ xe.
| (yedi) | ٧ | 7 | blə | блы | blə | b[ı]lı | بِلِي |
“Seven times” would be блэ ble.
| (sekiz) | ٨ | 8 | i, jə | и | yə | yı | يِي |
“Eight times” should be ye in both written languages but the form is not contained in the
dictionaries.
| (doquz) | ٩ | 9 | bḡu | бгъу / бгъуы | bġ°ə | b[u]ġu | بُوغُو |
“Nine times” would be бгъо / бгъуэ bġ°e which, again, seems to be excluded by
Evliya's spelling using ḍammas only.
| (on) | ١٠ | 10 | p՚ś՚ə | пшIы / пщIы | pՙš՚ə / pՙš̰՚ə | p[ı]sı | پِسِي |
“Ten times” would be пшIэ pՙš՚e / пщIэ pՙš̰՚e. Possibly, Evliya's س <s> is a misspelling for ش <š>. The Turkish equivalent is clearly the numeral ١٠ “10”, not ٢٠ “20”
as in Dankoff's treatise, the horizontal stroke not belonging to the first digit but to the
Circassian word above as a kasra. — Bleichsteiner discusses the words اللّه اسمي allāh
ismi “der Name Gottes” following after this entry with no Circassian equivalent and
states that “God” should be something like tՙħa. Possibly, Evliya meant the word пщы
pՙš̰ə “князь” here, which surely, notably in the expression табыу-уа-пщи “mercy, o
Lord”, could be used as an address of God, too (the expression as a whole was borrowed
into Ossetic, cf. V.I. Abaev, Istoriko-ėtimologičeskij slovar' osetinskogo jazyka, 3,
1979, 219: tabuafsi. Compare Russian спаси-бо[г]). If Evliya meant this word, he
could have added it to the numeral “10” because of its similar sounding. But note that
there is enough space for a Circassian tħe or the like between pısı and allāh ismi.
| ekmek | اكمک | “bread” | č՚ak՚o | кIакъу / щIакхъуэ | č̰՚aq°ə / š̰՚aqՙ°e | çaqu | چَاقوُ |
Today's usual word for “bread” in Adyge is хьалыгъу ħaləġ°ə.
| ṣu | صو | “water” | pՙsə | псы | pՙsə | p[ı]sı | پِسِي |
| et | ات | “meat” | lə | и-л ? ы-л ? | i-l ? ə-l ? | il[l] ? ıl[l] ? | اِلّ |
If Evliya really wrote اِلّ = ill here (the reading is not sure), this must be a possessive
form of the word for “meat”, the stem of which is simply лы lə in the written languages. This could be и-л il or ы-л əl, both meaning “his, her, its meat”. The difference
in both forms lies in the distinction of alienable and non-alienable possession. Preferably, Evliya's form is the non-alienable ы-л əl. The spelling with tašdīded l is noteworthy, but cf. the third and fourth entry to follow.
peynir
پينر
“cheese”
qՙo(j)
къуае / кхъуей
q°aje / qՙ°e:j
qoye
قوُيه
xinzīr
خِنزِير
“pig”
qՙo
къо / кхъуэ
q°e / qՙ°e
qo
قُ
qoyun
قيون
“sheep”
mel
мэл
mel
mel[l]
مَلّ
keçi
كچي
“goat”
pՙčen
пчэны / бжэн
pč̰ՙenə / bžen
p[i]çen[n]
پِچَنّ
The spelling with -nn reminds one of the double l in the preceding words.
| quzu | قوزو | “lamb” | śəne | шъынэ / щынэ | ŝəne / š̰əne | sıne | سِنَه |
| at | آت | “horse” | šə | шы | šə | šı[y] | شِيْ |
| eşek | اشك | “donkey” | šədə | щыды / шыд | š̰ədə / šəd | şıdı | شِدِي |
| qāṭır | قاطر | “mule” | kadər ? | къыдыр-хэ ? | qədər-xe ? | qadır-ġe | قَادِرْغهَ |
The -ġe, whose meaning was “unerfindlich” to Bleichsteiner, could be the plural
morpheme -хе. As for the word-final vocalism, there is no difference in marking as
against, e.g., sıne “lamb”, the -e being written with fatḥa plus ه <h> in both cases. The
first vowel in the word is clearly indicated as an a by fatḥa plus ا alif, so that this
might represent an older form of the word, viz. qadər, still closer to Turkish qaṭır
which is assumed to be its original; cp. J. v. Klaproth's “Kaukasische Sprachen”,
237, who notes kadir as a “Tat[ar]” loanword for Circassian.
| küçük domuz | كُوچُوک دُومُوزْ | “piglet” | qՙolou | лэу | lew | lew | لَوْ |
The form is not “verstümmelt” as Bleichsteiner meant (120: 23). Both the Adyge-Russian dictionary (Адыгабзэм изэхэф гущыIалъ / Tolkovyj slovar' adygejskogo
jazyka, Majkop 1960, 390) and the Kabardian-Russian dictionary (Kabardinsko-russkij
slovar' / Къэбэрдей-Урыс словарь, Moskva 1957, 245) contain a word лэу with the
meaning “свинья, поросенок”, the Kabardian form being marked as obsolete
(“уст.”). Bleichsteiner's Kabardian qՙolou, which he obviously owed to L. Lopatinskij's Russko-kabardinskij slovar' (Tiflis 1890, 123: k῾oloy), is likely to be a compound къо-лэу q°e-lew “pig-piglet”, cp. qo above.
bir ṭaՙāmdir kim aŋa abazalar şilxirçi dirler
بِر طَعامدر كم آكَه ابازلر شِلْحِرچي دِرْلر
“a food which the Abkhazians call şilxirci” ḡomilгъомыл / гъуэмылэ ġ°eməl / ġ°eməle ġomıl
غُومِل
Adyg. гъомыл g°eməl is “пища, продовольствие” in general as well as “дорожная пища” in particular (Tolkovyj slovar', 71). Kabardian гъуэмилэ ġ°eməle is “провиант” according to the Russian-Kabardian dictionary (Russko-kabardinsko-čerkesskij slovar' / Урыс-къэбэрдей-шэрджэс словарь, Moskva 1955, 636; the form is missing in the Kabardian-Russian dictionary).(edepde) qıṣraq filān edeyim ادپده قِصرَق فِلان ايده رم “(begging pardon) I'll fuck the mare”
šəbzə-šḫa juwakaḡ ? шыбзы / шыбз .. ? šəbzə / šəbz ..
şıbzı çıxa yuwakaġ
شِبزِي چِحا يُووَاكَاغْ
Except for the word for “mare”, шъыбзы šəbzə / шыбз šəbz, no part of this entry can be verified in the published dictionaries. Bleichsteiner's proposal that “çḫa” has to be identified with шъхъэ š̰χe / щхьэ š̰ħe “head” is not convincing. His assumption that the verbal prefixes point to a second person agent and that the ending -ġ marks a preterite form is right, however. Note that the second alif in yuwakaġ is very faint.yoġurdيُوغُورد “yoghurt” š'e-ḡep՚čaḡ(e) (Deeters) щэгъэпцIагъ / шэ пцIа
š̰e-ġepc՚aġ / še pc՚a şe ġebçaġ
شَغَبْ چَاغْ
From the Adyge and Kabardian forms given here (taken from the Russian-Adyge dictionary, Russko-adygejskij slovar' / Урыс-адыге гущыIалъ, Moskva 1960, and the Russian-Kabardian dictionary, s.v. простокваша) it is clearly the first one which is represented by Evliya's spelling. As against his own guesses, Bleichsteiner quoted D(eeters) for the right analysis: The form has to be divided into š̰e “milk” and ġepՙc՚aġ as the participle form of a verb. The verb in question means “to let sth. become sour” and is given in the preterite form as ы-гъэпцIагъ ə-ġepՙc՚aġ in the Adyge-Russian dictionary (92); so what we have here is the preterite participle, not the present participle as with Bleichsteiner. The Kabardian form contains the same verb, albeit not in the causative (with Adyge prefix гъэ- ġe-) but as an intransitive “to become sour”; the meaning is “milk that has become sour” as against the Adyge “milk that has been let become sour”.| bal | بال | “honey” | šowu | шъоу / фо | ŝ°ew / fo | şo[w]u[w] | شَووُوْ |
Note the regular sound correspondance between Adyge шъу ŝ° and Kabardian ф f.
Evliya's form is clearly recognizable as a West Circassian once again.
| getir | كَتِر | “bring” | (k՚o) | къа ? | qa ? | qá | قَه |
The Adyge Tolkovyj slovar' (271) gives къа qa not only as a verbal prefix meaning
“hither” (сюда) but also as a separate word meaning “give!” (дай) which might be
identical with the prefix, cp. German “her (damit)!”. The explicit form for “bring!”
would be къысэт qəsetՙ (lit. “bring-to-me”), used as an equivalent of 2къа in the
dictionary. Bleichsteiner erroneously thinks of the verb “to go” (confusing Turkish
getir and gider).
nerede idiŋ نره ده ايدکْ “where were you?” tՙəde u-śiՙaḡ
тыде ущыIагъ-a / дэнэ ущыIащ-a tՙəde wə-š̰ə՚a-ġ-a / dene wə-š̰ə՚a-š̰-a
tëd(e) uş(ı)áqá (?)
تَدُوشقيَ
In comparison with the following item, the verbal form present here seems to be vocalized in the way that there is a final -a which can easily be explained as the interrogative marker -a used in the literary Adyge language; cf. e.g. Г.В. Рогава / З.И. КIэрэщэ (Keraševa), Адыгабзэм играмматик / Grammatika adygejskogo jazyka, Krasnodar/Majkop 1966, 354 with examples such as .. тыде къэкIыгъ-а təde qe-k՚əġ-a “where did it (the snow) arise from” showing that this particle is even used in connection with interrogative pronouns such as тыдэ “where”. In the verbal form noted by Evliya, this would leave the q as a reflex of the verbal ending -гъ -ġ to be expected in the preterite. As against today's form of the verb “to be, to live”, Adyge щыIэн š̰ə՚en, there seems to be no indication of the glottal stop forming the central consonant of the root. It is less probable that in Evliya's form, the q could substitute the radical ՚ although some scholars think that the glottal stop here reflects an older къI, i.e. q՚; cp. Šagirov's etymological dictionary, where dialectal forms are discussed too (2, 150). In Evliya's notation, the consonant of the verbal prefix -щы- -š̰- seems to be indicated by س <s> plus fatḥa rather than by ش <š> without vocalization.evde idim اوده ايدم “I was at home” t-un se-siՙaḡ
тиунэ сыщыIагъ / диунэ сыщыIащ tՙi-une sə-š̰ə՚a-ġ / di-une sə-š̰ə՚a-š̰
tiwne sış(ı)áq[ı]
تِونَسِي سَقي
As against Bleichsteiner, the correct form for “our house” is not tՙ-une but тиуне tՙi-une, here clearly indicated by a kasra below the ت <t>, because a house is an alienable possession. Bleichsteiner was right, however, in assuming that -sı (in his transcript, -se, which is not better) should be part of the following verbal form, viz. the first person singular prefix. For the spelling with q, cf. the preceding item as well as the following one. The final vowel mark could indicate the remainder of a former -e in the preterite suffix yielding -гъ, i.e. -ġ < *-ġe, as it is generally assumed in Adyge grammar, cf. Rogava / Keraševa, 181. By the way, we should expect the oblique case, тиунэм tՙiune-m, for “in our house”, but the m seems to be missing.(edepde) eşek filān etdim (domuz)
ادپده اشک فِلان اتدم دُومُوز
“(begging pardon) I fucked the donkey (pig)” šəd sə-pՙic՚-əḡ шыды сыпIэсыгъšədə sə-p՚esə-ġ şıdı spesıq[o]
شِدِسْ پسيقُ
As шыды šədə “donkey” is clear, the final -s of şıdıs should be regarded as the verbal prefix belonging to the following verbal form, cf. already Bleichsteiner (121: 31). The verb itself, given as pՙic՚ by Bleichsteiner after Trubetzkoy, cannot be verified in the published dictionaries. Starting from Evliya's spelling, we could think of пыс-ын pՙəs-ən “to sit (upon)” or пэс-ын pՙes-ən “to sit (before)”, both being used in a metaphorical way; cp. German “besteigen”. According to G. Hewitt (letters dated 11.9. / 15.9.91), the actual verb is p՚esˈən, however. The form in question then must be сы-пIэси-гъ(э) sə-p՚esəġ(e). Compare the fifth entry to follow, too. For the preterite suffix, cp. the preceding items; the vocalization mark seems to be a ḍamma, here. — Note that Evliya adds the word domuz “pig” after his Turkish sentence; R. Dankoff (letter dated 3.7.91) proposes that Evliya understood the final -qo as the word for “pig”. Bleichsteiner's explanation that this domuz represents the comment of a scribe cannot be maintained anymore.xoş geldiŋ خُوش كلدکْ “welcome” švə-fə-sapՙ-śə
шIуфэсапщи (?) š°՚ə-fes-a-pš̰əy ? şüfaşap[i]s(i) ?
شُوفَاشَاپِسْ
For this entry, Bleichsteiner quoted Trubetzkoy according to whom this is a complex švə-fə-sapՙ-śə meaning “euch sei gutes Glück” and containing the second person plural marker švə, i.e. Adyge шъу- ŝ°ə- (as against Kabardian фы- fə-). Neither Trubetzkoy's translation nor the grammatical statement can be taken for granted, however. On the basis of today's sources, we have to start from a word фэсапщи fesapՙš̰i given in the dictionaries with приветствие “greeting” as its Russian equivalent (cf. the Tolkovyj slovar', 596); the Адыгэ-урыс гущыIалъ / Adygejsko-russkij slovar' by Ж.А. Шъаукъо (Šaov, Majkop 1975) translates it even with “добро пожаловать”, i.e. “welcome” (360). The question is, how this word has to be analyzed itself and whether it can be combined with a second person plural prefix as Trubetzkoy proposed. I don't see that it can mean something like “gutes Glück” as it is, which would be насыпышIу nasəpՙəš°՚ə instead (given with the meaning “счастливый” in the Tolkovyj slovar', 420). This consists of the word for “luck”, насып nasəpՙ, which is hardly anything else but Arabic naṣīb “portion, (good) fortune”, and the postponed adjective шIу š°՚ə “good”. For фэсапщи, we have to compare a second word meaning “привет, приветствие” instead, namely шIуфэс š°՚əfes (to this word, my attention was drawn by W. Boeder [letter dated 17.9.91]; it is mentioned e.g. in the Tolkovyj slovar', 663). This is clearly a compound consisting of шIу “good” and an element fes identical with the first part of фэсапщи. Although fes is not attested as a single word anywhere — Adyge фэс meaning “fez” excludes itself, of course — we can suppose that it is a substantive; фэсапщи may then represent a syntagma comparable to the expression табыу-уа-пщи “mercy, o Lord” as mentioned above. I wonder whether such a syntagma could combine with a second person plural marker, verbal or possessive, at all; in the latter case, we would even have to accept that the possession were inalienable. So I propose that Evliya's şüfaşapıs represents a word шIуфэсапщи instead, containing not the simplex fes but the compound шIуфэс. As for Evliya's entry, it is not clear whether he intended to write the last syllable as پِسْ -pis or as پْسِى -psi(y).| gidelim | كيده لم | “let's go” | tՙək՚on | тыкIон | tՙə-k՚°e-n | t[u]qon | توُقوُنْ |
Bleichsteiner was right in positing tՙək՚on as the first person plural of the second
future of the root -кIо- -k՚°e- “to go”. There is but a minor problem in Evliya's spelling
of the first syllable where a -u-vowel is clearly indicated by ḍamma plus و <w>. As
no preverb -u- seems to exist in Circassian, this must be due to some kind of sporadic
“umlaut” caused by the following -k՚o-; such “anticipations” of labial vowels are often
present in Evliya's notations.
gitmemكتمم “I won't go” sə-k՚on-epՙ сыкIонэп sə-k՚°e-ne-pՙ sıqonep
سِي قوُنَپْ
(edepde) eşek filān edici اَدپده اَشَک فلان اَدِيجِي“(begging pardon) one who fucks donkeys”
šəd-č'e pՙic՚e шыды зы-пIэсы ? šədə zə-p՚esə ? şıdı s(ı)-pesı ?شِدِسْ پَسِي
As against Bleichsteiner, the final -s of şıdıs is more easily explained as the prefix of a relative agent in a so called participle form, meaning “who (does sth.)”. This requires the verb to be transitive which is true for the verb p՚esən as G. Hewitt confirms (letter dated 11.9.91). šədə “donkey” has no plural marker so that a translation “one who fucks a donkey” would fit better for the Circassian sentence.puştپوشت “catamite” ḡuaśā ? ?? ?? waşt ?
وَاشْت
Bleichsteiner's proposal to think of a word for “whore” is not convincing, all the more since for his ḡuaśā, better g°aš̰e (гуащэ), only positive meanings such as “княжна, свекровь, супруга” are given in the dictionaries.edebde vālideŋi filān edeyim
اَدَبده والدكي فلان ايدَه يم
“(begging pardon) I'll fuck your mother” u-jane gudə sə-wak уянэ (?) гуды (?) сэ- (?)wə-jane gudə s-e- (?) uyane gudı sewék (?)
اُويَانَه كُدِي سَوِک
uyane is not the usual form of “your mother” in Adyge today; cp. the Tolkovyj slovar' which gives ны nə for “mother” (422), leading to ун un for “your mother”. But the same dictionary has ян yan for “his mother” (678), too, which might have been yane earlier; cp. Kabardian анэ ane “mother” (Kabardian-Russian dictionary, 18). Maybe uyane reflects this form marked with the second person possessive prefix additionally. As for gudə “cunnus” cf. Trubetzkoy apud Bleichsteiner (123: 37); the form cannot be verified in today's printed sources but appears in Klaproth's “Kaukasische Sprachen” (236) in the form gut. sewék may represent the same verb as yuwakaġ above, but with a first person singular agent prefix (s- / sı-) and in the present, not in the preterite. In this case, Evliya's spelling with a kasra instead of a fatḥa in the root remains noteworthy.senden qorqarmıyım niçin söylemem
سنْدن قوُرْقَارميم نچِن سُويْله مَمْ
“Should I fear you? Why shouldn't I say?” (u-)śḥa s-šəna, səd k՚əsməՙvaшъуфэсщына, сыд фэсмыкъIуагъ? (?)
ŝ°ə-fe-s-š̰ən-a, səd fe-s-mə-q՚°a-ġ? (?)
şüfaçına şıd fesmuqaġ (?)شُفَاچِنَا شِدْ فَسْمُقَاغْ
Bleichsteiner was probably right in analyzing çına as s-šəna, i.e. с-щына s-š̰əna meaning “do I fear” in a question. The first word, now to be read as şüfa instead of šḡa, cannot be śħa “head” but is rather the “versional” prefix фэ fe combined with the marker of a second person plural, шъу- ŝ°ə-, thus meaning “for you” or, in the given context, “from you”. şid must be сыд səd “what”, the ş- being due to a (perseverating?) misspelling rather than a dialectal variant, cp. Kabardian сыт, sət, too. The final verbal form is not completely clear. As for the root, this seems to be a variant of Adyge -Iо- -՚°e- “to speak”, namely a form like Xakuča къIŷэн q՚°en given in Šagirov's etymological dictionary (2, 159). This would yield us -smuqaġ as a preterite form -s-mə-q՚°a-ġ “I did not speak (it)”. fe- could be the “versional” prefix again, which in connection with the interrogative pronoun could have meant something like “what didn't I speak it for”; but Deeters (apud Bleichsteiner, 38) was right in expecting a participle construction like ar səda zəfəsməkՙvenər for today, to be paraphrased as “what (is it) that I should not speak that for?” If the construction as proposed here was possible at Evliya's times, we still keep missing the modal component.edepde avradıŋı filān edeyim
اَدَپده اَوْرَادِيكِي فلاَن ايدَه يِم
“(begging pardon) I'll fuck your wife” u-švəz sə-pՙic՚ ушъуз сэпIэс ?wə-ŝ°əz s-e-p՚es ? (w)uşız sepés ?
وُوشِزْ سَه پِسْ
Note that у-шъуз wə-ŝ°əz “your wife” has the marker of inalienable possession. For the verb which seems to be in the present tense here, see above; for the kasra written below the پ <p>, cp. sewék above.niçün böyle yava söylersin xırsız
نچون بُويْله يَاوَه سُويْلَرسِن خِرسِز
“Why are you swearing like this, thief?” səda p՚ՙva tՙeḡu сыда фэокъIуа (?) тыгъуsəd-a fe-we-q՚°-a (?) tՙəġ°ə sıda fewqa tëġu
سِدَا فَوْقَاتَغوُ
сыда səda is a variant of сыд səd “what” as above, enlarged with the interrogational -a. For fe-we-q՚°-a cp. fesmuqaġ, above; here, we expect a present form, second person singular agent, with a second interrogative particle attached, meaning “what do you speak for, thief” or, rather, “why do you say `thief'”. For uncomposed тыгъу tՙəġ°ə, the dictionaries give the meaning “воровство”, not “вор”; but Šagirov in his etymological dictionary seems to consider “вор” as the original meaning. Maybe, this was still preserved in Evliya's time.cadı köpek eti ye جَادي كُوپك اَتِي يَه “Witch, eat dog meat” ude ḥel šḫə
уды, хьэл(ы) шхы ? wədə, ħe-l(ə) šxə ? udë xél (l)ëş ?
اوُدَه حِلْ لَشْ
While уды wədə “witch” and хьэл ħe-l(ə) “dog meat” are clear, the verbal form should be шхы šxə “eat”, possibly written as ş only. Unless le- be a prefix or the like — the reading is not beyond doubt —, it could be due to some kind of liaison with the preceding хьэл, e.g. in a form ħel(ə)šx(ə) where the medial vowel could be the remnant of the original final vowel of лы lə “meat” normally lost in composition. But cp. the following entry:köpek etin sen yersin baŋa ye dersin
كوپك اَتن سَن يرسن بكَا يَه دَرسِن
“You eat the dog meat, you tell me to eat” o ḥel ušḫə, səd se o k՚əsuՙvaо хьэл ошхы (?), сыд сэугущыIагъа (?) we ħe-l w-e-šxə, səd se-w-g°əš̰ə՚a-ġ-a (?)
we xel weş sëd[ı] s(e) wuġ(u)ş(a)xa (?)
وَحَلْ وَشْ سَدِسْ وَغسْخَا
The initial وَ we is the second person singular pronoun, о = we, and has to be separated from xel = ħel “dog meat” for which compare the last entry. weş must represent a verbal form meaning “you eat” in the present for which we should expect ошхы w-e-šxə “you are eating (it)”; as for the spelling of the root -шх- -šx-, cp. the last entry. The rest of the sentence is more problematical. If sed- represents the interrogative pronoun сыд(a) səd(a) once again, as Bleichsteiner assumed, the following -s must belong to the following verbal complex as the first person singular prefix. According to the sense, this must be the oblique object marker, the subject of the verb being the second person singular. In the way proposed here, the whole complex would be сыд сэугущыIагъ-а səd se-w-g°əš̰ə՚a-ġ-a, i.e. “what (or: why) did you say (that) to me?” If this is correct, there are some different readings necessary: the kasra should not belong to the -d- but to the -s, whereas the -d- should have a sukūn, not the s. The vowel sign above the wāw in the second word should not be a fatḥa but a ḍamma, giving it the sound of (w)u-, and the -s- with sukūn (سْ) should be a -š- (ش). The final xa seems to represent the preterite marker, -гъ -ġ, plus the interrogative particle -a again. Bleichsteiner thinks of the other word for “speaking”, -Io-, which we had in fesmuqaġ and fewqa, above, but this leaves at least the -ġs- unexplained.niçün baŋa puşt dersin نيچون بكَا پوُست دَرسِن “Why do you call me a catamite?”
sədə-śħa k՚usaՙva сыд ?? къысэокъIуа? (?) səd ?? qə-se-w-e-q՚°a? (?)
sıd usiħħ (?) quṣew(u)qa
سِدْ اُسِحّ قُصَا وُقا (!)
As against Bleichsteiner, usiħħ is not likely to be a reflex of шъхьэ ŝħe “head” because the parallel he had found in şüfa above has to be dismissed. Instead, we have to look for a word for “catamite” here; can we think of Iусыгъэ- ՚°əsəġe “расположившийся”? The word final consonants seem to be a ligature -tḥ- تح rather than tašdīded -ḥ- حّ, which does not help. The verb can be -къIуэ- -q՚°e- “to say” once again, as in fesmuqaġ and fewqa above, with an additional preverb къы- qə- “hither”, the whole verbal complex meaning something like “(why) do you say .. in my direction?”.