BookPDF Available

Names of Cereals in the Turkic Languages

January 2008

Publisher: Księgarnia Akademicka
ISBN: 978-83-7188-098-8

Authors:

Jagiellonian University

The work presents etymologies of the Turkic names for the seven most important cereals: barley, corn, millet, oats, rice, rye and wheat. Altogether, 106 names are discussed. As yet, this subject has not been dealt with as a whole. Propositions for etymologies of various names in single languages are scattered in dictionaries and articles, usually only accompanied by a brief explanation. Here, the author tries to provide a possibly comprehensive commentary. Each entry presents a list of phonetic variants of the word, an overview of previous etymologies and the author’s standpoint expressed as exhaustively as possible but without loquacity. The work closes with an enumeration and brief commentary of the most common naming patterns and semantic types which can be distinguished in the presented material.

Content uploaded by Kamil Stachowski

Content may be subject to copyright.



Księgarnia Akademicka

Studia Turcologica Cr acoviensia

K amil Stachowski

Names of Cereals

in the Turkic Languages

K. Stachowski Names of Cereals in the Turkic Languages

STC

Kamil Stachowski

(born 1981) is an assistant lecturer in the Chair of

Languages of Central Asia and Siberia at the Jagiel-

lonian University. His main elds of interest are ety-

mology and historical linguistics. He studied Turkish

philology at the Jagiellonian University. He published

seven articles (one currently in print), took part in

two international conferences and held a lecture at

the Polish Academy of Sciences.

Names of Cereals in the Turkic Languages

e work presents etymologies of the Turkic names

for the seven most important cereals: barley, corn,

millet, oats, rice, rye and wheat. Altogether, 106 names

are discussed.

As yet, this subject has not been dealt with as a whole.

Propositions for etymologies of various names in sin-

gle languages are scattered in dictionaries and arti-

cles, usually only accompanied by a brief explanation.

Here, the author tries to provide a possibly compre-

hensive commentary.

Each entry presents a list of phonetic variants of the

word, an overview of previous etymologies and the

author’s standpoint expressed as exhaustively as pos-

sible but without loquacity.

e work closes with an enumeration and brief com-

mentary of the most common naming patterns and

semantic types which can be distinguished in the

presented material.

www.akademicka.pl

ISBN 978-83-7188-098-8

9 788371 880988

Studia

Turcologica

Cr acoviensia

Jagiellonian University · Institute of Oriental Philolology

Studia

Turcologica

Cr acoviensia

Edited by

Stanisław Stachowski

Kraków 2008

Jagiellonian University · Institute of Oriental Philolology

Kamil Stachowski

Names of Cereals

in the Turkic Languages

Kraków 2008

Recenzja wydawnicza:

prof. dr hab. Henryk Jankowski

Korekta:

Kinga Maciuszak

Projekt okładki:

Kamil Stachowski

Kamil Stachowski and

Księgarnia Akademicka,

Kraków 2008

Książka doﬁnansowana przez

Wydział Filologiczny

Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

ISBN 978-83-7188-098-8

Księgarnia Akademicka

ul. św. Anny 6, 31–008 Kraków

tel./fax: (012) 431·27·43

tel.: 422·10·33 wew. 11·67

akademicka@akademicka.pl

www.akademicka.pl



Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Millet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Rye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Index of non-Turkic forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

I

A  S  T W

e aim of this work is to work out the etymologies of the names of the seven most im-

portant cereals (barley

Hordeum

L., corn

Zea mays

L., millet

Panicum

L., oats

Avena

L., rice

Oryza Sativa L., rye Secale Cereale L., and wheat Tr it icum L.) in the Turkic languages.

e current, rather uneven state of comparative dialectology and lexicography of the

Turkic languages does not allow us to perform full comparisons. We have therefore lim-

ited ourselves to literary names, and only included selected dialectal forms. For the same

reason, the names of subspecies and varieties have been excluded.

S  A  S

Our subject has not as yet been dealt with as a whole. Of the papers in the Turkic languages

that are devoted to the names of plants (not just cereals) the most detailed has been written

L.V. Dmitrieva (). is, however, only contains an extremely limited commentary. Ety-

mological propositions for various names in single languages are scattered in etymological

dictionaries, generally only accompanied by a brief explanation, and in numerous articles

where a more comprehensive commentary is usually provided.

e bulk of the sources used in this paper are dictionaries, mainly Russian post-rev-

olutionary ones (abbreviated RKirgS, TuwRS &c.), also etymological dictionaries (an

especially large amount of data is to be found in ÈSTJa), various articles and publications

devoted to the vocabulary and/or grammar of single languages, and descriptions of dialects

(mainly Turkish).

S   E

– Alphabetical list of forms ordered by pronunciation

Enables a preliminary investigation of the phonetical diversity of names. All variants

are ordered alphabetically and linked with a system of cross-references.

– Alphabetical list of forms ordered by languages

Presents the diversity of the names in one language. Comparing the stock of names in

languages from one group can help to nd out which forms should be treated as the

standard ones.

– Brief overview of previous etymologies

For lesser investigated words, we have tried to summarise the entire literature available

to us. For those which are better known, we have only selected the most important

works. All papers have been treated equally, including the ones which we cannot be

ready to accept, given the present state of art.

– Commentary

e commentary consists of a discussion with the propositions summarised before and

a presentation of our own views.

 INTRODUCTION

T

We have tried to present all Turkic forms in a unied, phonological transcription. e dis-

tinction between palatal

: velar

has only been preserved for OUyg., Uyg. and Uzb.,

as in all the other languages it is unequivocally determined by the position. By the same

token, we have abandoned the marking of labialization of

a in Uzb. (as resulting system-

atically from the orthography) and of spirantization of s and z in Trkm.; however, we

have preserved it in Bšk. where it has a phonological signicance. Apart from this, a dual

transcription has been employed for

e: wide ä vs narrow e for languages where they are

separate phonemes, and neutral

e for the others.

T

I am grateful to many people for helping me in various ways. Most of all, I would like to

express my special gratitude to (alphabetically):

– Professor Árpád Berta (Szeged, Hungary) for expert advice and access to his working

materials,

– László Károly, MA (Szeged, Hungary) for helping me access some of the more inac-

cessible literature,

– Doctor Kinga Maciuszak (Cracow, Poland) for professional advice and Iranistic help,

– Professor Andrzej Pisowicz (Cracow, Poland) for professional advice and Iranistic help,

– Professor Marek Stachowski (Cracow, Poland) for a great amount of help and time without

which this work would not be completed,

– Professor Alexander Vovin (Honolulu, USA) for Sinological help.



hordeum .

Barley was one of the rst domesticated cereals in the world. e oldest grains of spelt are

thought to be nine thousand years old, and have been found in Jarmo, Kurdistan from

where it probably originates. Its cultivation had spread westwards from this region around

the 

millennium BC, to Mespotamia, Egypt and elsewhere.

Domesticated barley (

Hordeum vulgare) is believed to have originated from the eastern part

of the Central Asian Centre, from where it spread West and South-West, i.e. to India, Persia,

Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt, and later to Greece and Italy (

c. BC) and even further.

e area between Siberia and the Pacic is now used for the cultivation of barley, but

the plant was only introduced there in the 

Compared to other cereals, especially to wheat which is equally old, or perhaps even

older, barley has very few varieties:  species, including  stable, but they already existed

in the second half of the 

millennium BC. In the ancient world, barley was very popular;

almost every higher culture cultivated it.

Names for ‘barley’ are most uniform in the Turkic languages. Almost all languages have

the word arpa, and all the other names only have a very limited range. Interestingly, barley

is quite oen identied or confused with oats, and while Tel. sula ‘barley’ < ‘oats’, all the

other examples of this confusion display just the opposite direction of development. is

is understandable given the chronology of domestication of these two cereals – cf. com-

mentary on

julaf (point ), and arpakan and harva ‘oats’, and footnote .

:

apa  arpa

arba  arpa

arbaj  arpa

arpa

arpä  arpa

arpagan

arpagān  arpagan

arpakan  arpagan

arva  arpa

arvaj  arpa

aš  as

erpe  arpa

harva  arpa

jačmeń

köče

köže  köče

nečimien  ǯehimien

nehimien  ǯehimien

ńečimien  ǯehimien

ńesemen  ǯehimien

orpa  arpa

sula

ša‘īr

tak-tak

urpa  arpa

žesemen  ǯehimien

ǯeh

ǯehimien  ǯehimien

ǯesemen  ǯehimien

:

Az.: arpa

Blk.: arpa

Brb.: aš

Bšk.: arpa

Com.: arpa

Crm.: arpa

CTat .: arpa

Čag.: arpa

Čuv.: orpa, urpa

Gag.: arpa

Kar.: arpa

KarC: arpa

 arpa || BARLEY

AR PA

:

apa Uyg.: Raquette , ÈSTJa, Dmi trieva 

arba Khak.: Dmitrieva , ÈSTJa, Dmi trieva , Çevilek  || Küär.: R I t,

Räsänen : , Joki , Eren  || Kyzyl: Joki ,  || MTkc.MK: Egorov

 || MTkc.Zam: Egorov  || Oyr.: R I t, Räsänen : , Joki ,

Egorov , RAltS, VEWT, Dmitrieva , ÈSTJa, Dmitrieva , Eren ,

Çevilek  || Sag.: Joki  || Tel.: R I t, Räsänen : , Joki ,

Ryumina-Sırkaşeva/Kuçigaşeva , Eren 

arbaj Tuv. : RTuwS, Egorov , Tata rincev –, Çevilek 

arpa Az.: Räsänen : , Joki , RAzS, Egorov , Dmitrieva ,

ÈSTJa || Blk.: ÈSTJa || Bšk.: RBškS, Egorov , Dmitrieva , ÈSTJa, Eren

 || Crm.: Joki  || CTat.: Zaatovъ , ÈSTJa || Čag.: Räsänen : , Joki ,

VEWT || Gag.: ÈSTJa || Kar.: Joki  || KarC: KRPS, Levi  || KarH: Mard-

kowicz , KRPS || KarT: Kowalski , KRPS || Khal.: Doerfer/Tezcan ,

Doerfer  || Kirg.: Mašanovъ , RKirgS-Ju, RKirgS-Ju, Egorov ,

Dmi trie va , ÈSTJa, Eren  || Kklp.: RKklpS-BB, RKklpS-ST, Ego rov ,

RKklpS-B, Dmitrieva , ÈSTJa, Eren  || Kmk.: Räsänen : , Joki ,

RKmkS, Egorov , Dmitrieva , ÈSTJa || Krč.Blk.: RKrčBlkS, Dmitrieva

 || Kzk.: RKzkS-, Räsänen : , Joki , RKzkS-, Ego rov , Dmitrieva

, ÈSTJa, DFKzk, Eren  || MTkc.: Räsänen :  || MTkc.H: () Houtsma

 || MTkc.IM: VEWT || MTkc.KD:  Golden  || MTkc.MK: Joki ,

Danko/Kelly – || MTkc.Zam: Egorov , Dmitrieva  || Nog.: RNogS,

Egorov , Dmitrieva , ÈSTJa || Oghuz.Ir.: Doerfer/Hesche  || OTkc.: Räsänen

: , Joki , Dmitrieva  || Ott.: () Wiesentahl , Räsänen : ,

Joki , VEWT || OUyg.: Çevilek  || Tat.: Voskresenskij , Imanaevъ ,

 Tanievъ , Räsänen : , Joki , RTatS-D, Egorov , Dmitrieva

KarH: arpa

K a rT: arpa

Khak.: arba, as, köče

Khal.: arpa

Kirg.: arpa, arpakan

Kklp.: arpa

Kmk.: arpa

Krč.Blk.: arpa

Küär.: arba

Kyzyl: arba

Kzk.: arpa, tak-tak

MTkc.: arpa

MTkc.H: arpa

MTkc.IM: arpa

MTkc.KD: arpa

MTkc.MA: arba, arpa

MTkc.MA.B: arpä

MTkc.MK: arba, arpa,

arpagān

Nog.: arpa

Oghuz.Ir.: arpa

OTkc.: arpa, arpagan

Ott.: arpa, ša‘īr

OUyg.: arpa

Oyr.: arba

Sag.: arba

SarUyg.: arva, harva

Šr.: aš

Tat.: arpa, arpagan

Tat.Gr.: arpa

Te l .: arba, sula

Tksh.: arpa

Tksh.dial.: ǯeh

Tof . : jačmeń

Trkm.: arpa, arpagan

Tu v. : arbaj, arvaj, köže

Uyg.: apa, arpa, erpe

Uzb.: arpa

Yak.: nečimien, nehimien,

ńečimien, ńesemen,

žesemen, ǯehimien,

ǯesemen

BARLEY || arpa 

, ÈSTJa, RTatS-G || Tat.Gr.: Podolsky  || Tksh.: Egorov , Dmitrieva ,

ÈSTJa, Çevilek  || Trkm.: Alijiv/Böörijif , Räsänen : , RTrkmS, Nikitin/

Kerbabaev , Ego rov , Dmitrieva , Eren , Dmitrieva  || Uyg.: Raquette

, Räsänen : , Joki , RUjgS, Egorov , VEWT, ÈSTJa, Dmitrieva

, , Jarring : , Çevilek  || Uzb.:  Nalivkinъ , Lapin , Smo-

lenskij , RUzbS-A, Egorov , RUzbS-Š, Dmitrieva , ÈSTJa

arpä MTkc.MA.B: Borovkov : 

arva SarUyg.: Çevilek 

arvaj Tuv. : ÈSTJa, Dmitrieva 

erpe Uyg.: Çevilek 

harva SarUyg.: Çevilek 

urpa Čuv.: Nikolьskij , RČuvS-D, RČuvS-E, Egorov , VEWT, RČuvS-A,

Dmitrieva , , Eren 

:

Az.: arpa || Blk.: arpa || Bšk.: arpa || Com.: arpa || Crm.: arpa || CTat.: arpa || Čag.: arpa

|| Čuv.: orpa, urpa || Gag.: arpa || Kar.: arpa || KarC: arpa || KarH: arpa || KarT: arpa ||

Khak.: arba || Khal.: arpa || Kirg.: arpa || Kklp.: arpa || Kmk.: arpa || Krč.Blk.: arpa ||

Küär.: arba || Kyzyl: arba || Kzk.: arpa || MTkc.: arpa || MTkc.H: arpa || MTkc.IM: arpa

|| MTkc.KD: arpa || MTkc.MA: arba, arpa || MTkc.MA.B: arpä || MTkc.MK: arba,

arpa || Nog.: arpa || Oghuz.Ir.: arpa || OTkc.: arpa || Ott.: arpa || OUyg.: arpa || Oyr.:

arba || Sag.: arba || Tat.: arpa || Tat.Gr.: arpa || Tel.: arba || Tksh.: arpa || Trkm.: arpa

|| Tuv.: arbaj, arvaj || Uyg.: apa, arpa, erpe || Uzb.: arpa

:

: Räsänen: : limits himself to a comparison with Mo. arbaj, Ma. arfa,

Afgh. ōrbūšah, Gr. ὀλφα [sic; cf. KWb  and Steblin-Kamenskij ]

: Joki: the Altaic forms belong to the same group as Afgh. and Gr., ‘but not directly’

against uniting PIE *

albhi-, Gr. ἄλφι and Alb. eľp [eľbi]

: TMEN : Tkc. > Mo. (> Sal., Tuv.; Ma.), Hung. et al.

against the possibility of PIE *

albhi- > Ir. *arpa-, but does not exclude the pos-

sibility of IE origin in general

: Egorov: limits himself to enumerating forms from various Tkc. languages

: VEWT: limits himself to providing bibliography and remarking that Hung. árpa

‘barley’ < Čuv. urpa

: Clauson: ? < IE (? Toch.) (referring to TMEN )

: ÈSTJa: limits himself to summarizing previous propositions

: KWb: puts together Tkc.

arpaj and Ma. arfa, Afgh. ōrbūšah, Gr. ἀλφι

: Dmitrieva f.: < OIr. or old IE; or common in Alt. and IE

MTkc.MA

arbaj, Tuv. arvaj < Mo.

: Steblin-Kamenskij: puts together Afgh.

orbəši, urbeši et al. < ? *arpasyā- (aer

EVP) and maybe Gr.

ἄλφι, ἄλφιτον ‘(pearl) barley (porridge); our’

: Róna-Tas: : quotes the comparison with Gr.

alton, Alb. eľp and Ir. *arb/pa

allowing the possibility of < Ir. *

arb/pa, but remarks that the Ir. form has only

been reconstructed basing on the Tkc. ones; Ma.

arfa, Mo. arbaj < Tkc.

 arpa || BARLEY

: EWU: probably from some IE language

Hung.

árpa ‘barley’ from some Tkc. language, cf. Uyg., Com. arpa, Čuv. urpa,

orpa &c.

: Jarring: : probably < IE (? Toch.)

: Eren: limits himself to summarizing previous propositions

: Tatarincev: *

ar- ‘to multiply oneself, to be numerous’ + -p intens. + -a

Joki’s  proposition not grounded suciently

: Tietze: limits himself to quoting Doerfer’s :  opinion on borrowing from

Mo. to Tkc.

: NEVP: unclear expression: ‘if Pashto

orbəša et al. < *arpasyā, then cf. Tkc. arpa’

: Çevilek: accepts Clauson’s  proposition

:

is word is unusually common in the Tkc. languages, and, at rst glance, the phonetic

diversity of all its forms is surprisingly small.



is commonality might be understood

as a sign that the Tkc. people became acquainted with barley very early on, perhaps as

one of the rst cereals. e uniformity of the sounding should probably be attributed

to the phonetically very simple structure of the word, which does not provoke any seri-

ous changes by itself.



e meaning of the word is the same everywhere, too, except for

. SarUyg. harva which means both ‘barley’ and ‘oats’ (cf.), . for an obvious inuence

of Russ. in Bšk., Tat. and Tksh. meanings of ‘stye’ (aer ÈSTJa; see also VEWT), and

. for a simple semantic shi in Az.dial. ‘ladies’ barley grain shaped decoration’ &c.

(aer ÈSTJa).

e name is also present in the Mo. and Ma. languages, where it is probably a loan-

word from Tkc. cf. ÈSTJa for further bibliography.

Almost all the etymologists dealing with this word limit themselves to quoting previ-

ous works (oen quite inaccurately) about the possible Ir. origin.



Only some of them

add their own commentary, which is usually not particularly innovative.

 Perhaps Sal. arfa and Tuv. arva deserve a bit more interest, as the spirantization of p could be

regarded as a trace that these forms are not a continuation of OTkc. *arpa, but rather borrowings

from one of the Mo. languages (cf. Klmk.dial. arva – however, meaning ‘oats’), or alternately,

though this does not seem very probable due to cultural-historical reasons, from Ma.

arfa

‘oats;

barley’ (cf.

julaf

‘oats’). However, it might be equally probable that the spirantization is a trivial

innovation in these languages, cf. SarUyg. harva ‘oats’.

Also Sal. ahrun ‘barley our’ < arfa un (Kakuk : ) has a strange sounding which does

not seem to be explicable by any regular phonetic law.

 However, beyond the Tkc. languages the situation is not so simple any more. A Ma. form

arfa

quoted by Räsänen and Ramstedt is not entirely clear phonetically. Cincius : f. gives

two examples of such a correspondence: Ma.

gabta

- ‘shoot a bow’ = Even, Evk., Nan., Sol.,

Ulč. -rp-, Mo. -rv- and Ma. arfuku ‘мухогонка’ = Even, Evk., Ulč. -rp-, both qoted by Benzing

: ; but the derivation, and additionally the word gabta- are marked with a question mark

(although the entire expression is unclear).

 It seems to us that this proposition is relatively improbable. e word is not found beyond

eastern Ir. languages, has no etymology there, and apparently no cognates, either. See below.

BARLEY || arpagan 

To our knowledge, the only exception here has been made by Tatarincev – who

submitted his own – and more importantly a very probable – proposition: *ar- ‘multiply

oneself, be numerous’ + -p intensication + -a, cf. OTkc. arka ‘multitude; collection;

crowd; group’, Mo.

arbin ‘plentiful’ et al.

Possibly, an interesting addition to this hypotheses might be made of OJap. *

apa

‘millet’ (Martin : , Omodaka )



which, it seems, may be genetically related

to the Tkc. form – and then to the Mo. and Ma. ones, too. If this was indeed true, it

would give added weight to Tatarincev’s proposition.

It remains to be determined whether Pashto

orbəša &c. are borrowings from Tkc. (not

very plausible for cultural-historical reasons but denitely not impossible



), another

realization of a much older cultural wanderwort of unknown origin (which seems to be

quite probable but is absolutely impossible to determine, at least for now)



, or whether

the similarity of these words is a pure coincidence. e current state of art does not

allow for a nal answer.

AR PAGA N

:

arpagan OTkc.: Dmitrieva  ‘wild barley’ || Tat.: ÈSTJa ‘wild barley; a plant similar to

barley’, Dmitrieva  || Trkm.: Dmitrieva  ‘agropyron’

arpagān MTkc.MK: Danko/Kelly – ‘a plant similar to barley’

arpakan Kirg.: ÈSTJa ‘wild barley; common wild oat (Avena fatua)’

:

Kirg.: arpakan || MTkc.MK: arpagān || OTkc.: arpagan || Tat.: arpagan || Trkm.:

arpagan

:

: ÈSTJa: < arpa ‘barley’ + -gan

:

is form has a very clear structure. -gan is quite a popular sux for plant names, here

with a distinct meaning of ‘similar to, such as’. Cf.

arpakan ‘oats’.

e MTkc.MK long -

ā in the sux is supposedly a transcription of alef, and not

an actual length of the vowel, otherwise completely incomprehensible.

 is word is attested as early as the oldest Jap. monument, Man’yōshū (

c.). Interestingly

enough, it is written with the 粟 sign, nowadays used for Mand. sù < MChin. sjowk > OTkc.

and others sök ‘millet’ (cf.).

 If so, then probably from a PxSg form (in a compound?).

 Such a solution should also be considered for Hung.

árpa, whose origin from Čuv. is not likely

for phonetic reasons (Čuv. o/u- vs Hung. á-). From among the possible sources quoted in EWU,

Com. arpa seems to be most probable phonetically and cultural-historically but perhaps other

sources with non-Čuv. sounding can not be entirely excluded, too.

 as || BARLEY

:

as Khak.: Dmitrieva 

aš Brb.: R I b || Šr. R I b

:

Brb.: aš || Khak.: as || Šr.: aš

:

: ÈSTJA: < Ir. āš ‘soup’

:

Corresponds with Tkc. aš ‘food’ et al., including Khak., Kmk. ‘cereal’; Oyr., Tat.dial.

‘cereal in ears and the like’; Khak., Oyr. ‘grain’, presumably < Ir. (ÈSTJa). e word appears

in many Tkc. languages in dierent meanings (ÈSTJa) which can be reduced to three

groups: . ‘soup’, ‘pila’; . ‘food, nourishment’, and . ‘cereal’, ‘grain’. ÈSTJa believes the

rst group to be a Čag. innovation (even though such a meaning is attested in MIr. where

the word originates from), the second group represents the original meaning (this is the

only meaning attested in older Tkc. monuments), and the third one to be a later concre-

tization of meaning . (it only appears in Brb., Khak., Kmk., Oyr., Tat.dial. and Šr.).

In the oldest monuments, the word is only attested in the meaning of ‘food, nour-

ishment’ (ÈSTJa). However, it does not seem to be very probable that such a meaning

would evolve into ‘cereal’, ‘grain’ and so on in Khak., Kmk., Oyr., Tat.dial. &c. We

would rather believe that it is these languages that preserved the original meaning

from before the OTkc. period. is hint, together with the commonness of the word

in Tkc. could suggest that its relationship to Ir.

aš ‘kind of soup’ has just the opposite

direction than the one suggested by ÈSTJa. However, the Ir. word has an established

etymology: Pers.

āš < Skr. āśa ‘food, nourishment’ (Turner –: ), Skr. aca- in

prataraca- ‘breakfast’, Av. kahrkasa- ‘Hühnerfresser’ (Horn : ). us, we should

probably accept the slightly strange evolution from ‘food’ to . ‘soup’, . ‘cereal’, where

. must have come into existence still in the OTkc. period.

Whether Khak. has evolved the meaning of ‘barley’ from ‘cereal; grain’, or independ-

ently (i.e. from the original ‘food, nourishment’), cannot be determined with certainty.

e latter seems, however, to be more plausible because: . it has almost always been

wheat and not barley, that was the most important cereal for the Tkc. peoples, and

so we would rather expect ‘cereal; grain’ to evolve into ‘wheat’, rather than ‘barley’;

. barley was an important part of nourishment in the form of a gruel or a pulp; also,

beer was made from it (Tryjarski : , ) which seems to point to the evolution

from the meaning of ‘soup’ rather than ‘cereal; grain’.

Cf.

aš(lyk) ‘wheat’.

JAČMEŃ

: jačmeń To f. : RTofS

: as yet not discussed

: < Russ. jačmenь id.

BARLEY || köče 

KÖČE

:

köče Khak.: RChakS, ÈSTJa, Tata rin cev 

köže Tu v. : RTuwS, Tatarincev 

:

Khak.: köče || Tuv.: köže

:

: ÈSTJa s.v. köǯe: < Pers.  gouǯe ‘Prunus divaricata Ledeb. [species of plum]’

: Tatarincev: < *

köč- ‘to reduce (oneself)’

:

is word is quite common in the Tkc. languages in dierent meanings. Almost all

of them are names of various dishes or their components (most oen, our) made of

cereals (barley, corn, millet and wheat, very occasionally rice and sorghum as well), and

only in a few cases of cereals or grains. In dialects other meanings sporadically appear,

too (see below). A comprehensive list can be found in ÈSTJa.

e geographical distribution of the meanings does not seem to contribute much to

our understanding. Only Tksh. dialects have all four meanings of the most important

cereals at once, and only in eastern Siberia is there no other meaning present but ‘barley’.

Apart from Tksh. dialects, ‘barley’ appears in the North and East, ‘corn’ in the South,

and ‘millet’ and ‘wheat’ in the centre, which corresponds quite precisely to the ranges

of cultivation of these cereals. When taking all of this into account, one could try to

suppose that all these meanings are relatively young, but it must not be forgotten that

the word is attested in the Tkc. languages from the 

c., and the choice of cereals

for cultivation is mainly inuenced by climate, which has not changed signicantly

in the last few centuries.

e etymology proposed by ÈSTJa does not seem to be grounded very well from the

semantic point of view, as it assumes the following evolution: Pers. ‘species of plum’ [> (a)

Tkc. ‘mulberry fruits our’ > (b) ‘our made of roasted barley or wheat’] > (c) ‘our

of various cereals’ > (d) ‘various dishes of cereals’ &c., which is only supported by the

following facts: . [in the Pamir. languages] ‘mulberry fruits our’ and ‘our made of

roasted barley or wheat’ was designated by one word; . Uzb.dial., Tksh.dial.

gȫǯә

kȫǯötūt

‘species of mulberry’; . Uzb.dial. gȫǯә ‘species of plum’. While (c) > (d) is trivial, (a) is

not very likely, and it must be remembered that (b) refers to the Pamir. languages, not

Tkc. Whether the information that mulberry fruits our became so popular in Pamir

that it ousted our made of cereals, also refers to Tkc. is unclear (cf. Steblin-Kamenskij

: , quoted by ÈSTJa). We believe that these diculties provide sucient reason

to discard the etymology. e still unclear forms . and . may be understood as a quite

strange evolution, probably under Pers. inuence, especially in the case of .

Tatarincev  is against this etymology, too.

Tatarincev’s proposition seems to be much more likely. He derives

köče < *köč-, and

supports this reconstruction with words like Tkc. g/küčük ‘puppy; young of an animal’,

 sula || BARLEY

also ‘bud’, köš/ček ‘young of a camel’, also ‘young of an animal’, and Tksh. güǯük ‘short;

without tail’, göč(k)en ‘(one year old) hare’ and so on.

As to the derivation, it might be regarded as being problematic, that the word has a

long vowel in Trkm. (kȫǯe). But a secondary evolution in Trkm. is possible, too – under

the inuence of Pers. gouǯe?

e reconstruction of *

köč- is very interesting but it seems to us that the examples

listed by Tatarincev point quite clearly to the original meaning of ‘to be small’ rather

than ‘to reduce (oneself)’. Actually, this seems to t

köǯe even better (barley grains are

quite small).

SULA

: sula Te l .: Ryumina-Sırkaşeva/Kuçigaşeva 

: see süle ‘oats’

:

is word is one of the examples of the quite common identifying/confusing of ‘barley’

and ‘oats’: cf. commentary on julaf (point ) and arpakan, harva and taγ arpasy ‘oats’.

Only the direction is unclear here: this is the only word where ‘barley’ < ‘oats’.

ŠA‘Ī R

: ša‘īr Ott.: () Wiesentahl , ša‘īr Redhouse 

: as yet not discussed

: < Arab. 







 ša‘īr ‘barley’.

TAKTAK

: tak-tak Kzk.: ‘wild barley’ DFKzk

: as yet not discussed

:

is name is completely obscure. Presumably, Kzk. tak ‘. throne; . odd number’ cor-

responds to Uyg.

taγ

‘. mountain; . odd number’, but the semantic relationship is

utterly unclear. Also, the word has a strange structure which we cannot explain.

Cf.

taγ-arpasy ‘oats’.

ǯEH

: ǯeh Tksh.dial.: Pisowicz : 

: : Pisowicz: : < Kurd. ǯeh ‘barley’

: We can see no aw in the etymology presented by Pisowicz : .

BARLEY || ǯehimien 

ǯEHIMIEN

:

nečimien Ya k.: Pekarskij –, Ani kin 

nehimien Ya k.: Anikin 

ńečimien Yak.: Pekarskij –, Slepcov : , , Anikin 

ńesemen [ɔ: -h-] Yak.: Pekarskij –, Anikin 

žesemen [ɔ: ǯehemen] Yak.: (

жэсэмэн

[ɔ:

дь

-]) Dmitrieva 

ǯehimien Yak.: RJakS, Anikin 

ǯesemen [ɔ: -h-] Yak.: Pekarskij –, Anikin 

:

: Slepcov: < Russ. jačmeń ‘barley’

: Dmitrieva: < Russ.

jačmeń ‘barley’

: Anikin: Russ.

jačméń (alternately. Sib. *jašméń) > Yak. ǯesemen > other forms,

cf. Ubrjatova :  for

ǯ- ~ n- / ń- , and indicates Russ. člen > Yak. čilien,

silien for -s- ~ -č- and refers to Slepcov : 

:

e etymology presented by Slepcov  and more comprehensively by Anikin 

is undoubtedly true in general. However, it is unclear to us why Anikin  believes

that

ǯesemen is the oldest form, from which ńesemen and ńečimien evolved by means

of assimilation.

It seems that his reasoning is based solely on the sounding of these forms, but it is

impossible to unambiguously settle the chronology of their borrowing, as assimilation

depends not so much on the time of borrowing, as on how well the borrower knew

Russian, and therefore it can only help to establish a chronology expressed in genera-

tions, not in absolute years; cf. Stachowski, M. b: . e dierences between the

forms are: . anlaut (

ǯ-, n-, ń-), . adaptation of Russ. -s- (-h-, -č-), . epentetic vowel

e-, -i-) and . yielding or not of the Russ. accent (-ie-, -e-). From among these features

only . lets us draw some conclusions regarding chronology: in the Tkc. languages

epentetic vowels are high



, and so -e- should be understood as a result of assimilation.

We believe therefore that

jačmeń

> Yak. *

JaČimien

JeČimien

JeČemen

. Regarding

phonetics, cf. ebies ‘oats’.

 is is a constant feature of the Tkc. languages; cf. e.g. the necessity of Tkc. mediation in Hung.

király ‘king’ << Southern Slav.dial. *kral’ь or similar (Helimskij : ). Cf. also aryš ‘rye’.

 BARLEY

arpa ‘barley’

Kar.

Gag.

CTat.

Tksh.

Krč.

Blk.

Az.

Nog.

Kmk.

Khal.

Čuv.

Tat.

Bšk.

Kklp.

Trkm .

Uyg.

Kirg.

Uzb.

Kzk.

Oyr.

Khak.

Tu v .

SarUyg.



zea mays .

Corn originates from the Mesoamerican centre. e rst traces of cultivation of corn were

found in the Tehuacán valley, Mexico. ey are dated around 

millennium BC, while

the domestication probably happened between 

and 

millennium BC. e oldest

remains of cobs of a cultivated form are dated – years BC and were found in the

ies in Bat Cave, Mexico (cobs from these period are just  mm long). e oldest pollen

of a wild form was discovered in the city of Mexico and is about  thousand years old. All

presently known forms of corn are domesticated; wild forms have not survived at all.

Corn was extremely important for all the cultures of Central and South America, and

was also known in North America. It appeared very oen, and it still does, as a motif in

art, and it played a role in mythology and religious rituals. Columbus mentioned it as early

as  November , and brought it to Europe a year later when he came back from his

rst voyage. From Spain (cultivations in Andalusia since ), it spread to Southern and

Central Europe (Fr.

blé d’Espagne, G. Welschkorn), and to Middle East and Anatolia from

where it diused further. Eastern and Central Europe (for the second time) learned about

it later, from the Turks (cf. e.g. Slvn. turščica; Cz. turkyně; Pol. pszenica turecka and Fr. blé de

Turquie, G. türkischer Weizen and türkisch Korn, It. granturco et al.). e Portuguese played

a great role in its circulation by delivering it to Java as early as , to Angola about ,

to China in  and to the Philippines in  (Nowiński : –.)

e Latin name is a compound of Lat.

zēa ‘type of grain’ + mays < Sp. maís, máis <

mahíz < Taino maisí, majisí ‘corn’. Fr. maïs and Eng. maize are borrowings from Spanish

(Lokotsch ).

In the Tkc. languages there are altogether  dierent names for ‘corn’. Nine of them are

compounds built of an attribute + name of another plant, or are an abbreviation of this

model. In three (four?) of them the attribute is a place name, always referring to an Arabic

country (Mäkke, Mısır, Şam, ? käbä bödoj).

:

aži bijdaj

ažy bijdaj  aži bijdaj

basadohan

bordoq

čüžgün qonaq

dary

gargydaly

habiž(d)aj

käbä bodaj  käbä bödoj

käbä bödoj

kargi-dali  gargydaly

kokoroz

köma qonaq  (kömme) qonaq

kömbö konok  (kömme)

qonaq

kömek  (kömme) qonaq

köme qonaq  (kömme) qonaq

kömme qonaq

kömür qonaq  (kömme)

qonaq

konag  (kömme) qonaq

kukkurus  kokoroz

kukurus  kokoroz

kukurūsa  kokoroz

kukurusь  kokoroz

kukuruz  kokoroz

kukuruza  kokoroz

makkažavari  meke žügörü

makkažŭxori  meke žügörü

makka(-)ǯuari  meke žügörü

 aži bijdaj || CORN

:

mäkke

mäkke žueri  meke žügörü

meke žügörü

mekgeǯöven

mekke ǯeven  mekgeǯöven

mokka-ǯavari  meke

žügörü

mysir bogdaj  mysyr

(bugdajy)

mysyr bogdaj  mysyr (bugdajy)

mysyr-bogdaj  mysyr

(bugdajy)

mysyr bugdaj  mysyr

(bugdajy)

mysyr (bugdajy)

nartük

nartux  nartük

nartüx  nartük

qonaq  (kömme) qonaq

sary

šam darysy

žasymyk

žügeri  žügörü

žügöri  žügörü

žügörü  žügörü

žŭxori  žügörü

ǯügeri  žügörü

Az.: gargydaly

Bosn.Tksh.: kukuruz

Bšk.: kukuruz || kukuruza

CTat .: mysir bogdaj

Čuv.: kukkurus || kukurusь

|| kukuruza

KarC: kokoroz ||

mysyr-bogdaj

KarH: basadohan || sary

Khak.: kukuruza

Kirg.: meke žügörü || žügöri

|| žügörü || ǯügeri

Kirg.dial.: kömbö konok

Kklp.: mäkke || mäkke žueri

Kmk.: habiž(d)aj

Krč.Blk.: nartux || nartüx ||

žügeri

Kzk.: žügeri

Kzk.dial.: žasymyk

Nog.: aži bijdaj || ažy bijdaj

|| nartük

Ott.: kokoroz || ? mysyr bogdaj

|| ? mysyr bugdaj || šam

darysy

Oyr.: kukuruza

Sal.: konag

Tat.: käbä bodaj || käbä bödoj

|| kargi-dali || kukurus ||

kukuruz || kukuruza

Tksh.: mysyr (bugdajy)

Tksh.dial.: dary || kokoroz ||

kukuruz

Trkm.: mekgeǯöven || mekke

ǯeven

Tu v. : kukuruza

Uyg.: bordoq || čüžgün qonaq

|| köma qonaq || kömek

|| köme qonaq || kömme

qonaq || kömür qonaq ||

qonaq

Uzb.: makkažavari ||

makkažŭhori || makka(-)

ǯuari || mokka-ǯavari ||

žŭxori

Yak.: kukurūsa || kukuruza

AŽI BIJDAJ

: aži bijdaj Nog.: RNogS || ažy bijdaj Dmitrieva : 

: : Dmitrieva: < ažy ‘bitter’ + bijdaj ‘wheat’

:

While it is not easy to present a convincing counterargument for the etymology pro-

posed in Dmitrieva , neither can one accept it without reservations. Semantics is

denitely its weak point. Grains of wheat might indeed have a sweetish taste when

compared to other cereals, but they certainly can not be regarded as sweeter than corn,

which has a very distinct sweet avour. Certainly it is not sweet enough to make it a

distinctive feature.

ough we are not able to present a counterproposition, we do not want to accept

Dmitrieva’s solution, either. Not at least, in so brief a form. Perhaps she knows of

more ethnographic data which could provide a more convincing argument in favour

of her proposition.

CORN || dary 

BASADOHAN

: basadohan KarH: KRPS , Mardkowicz  ‘. corn; . corn gruel, polenta’

: as yet not discussed

:

We believe that this word is a compound of basa ‘pasha’ + dohan < Hebr. ןחודּ dochan

‘millet’



. Millet is quite oen unied or confused with corn (cf. žasymyk). Such a com-

pound has a nice semantic parallel in Bulg.

carevica ‘corn’.

Cf.

cebedogon ‘millet’.

BORDOQ

: bordoq Uyg.: ‘roasted corn’

:

: ÈSTJa: Tkc. bürtük ~ bürčük ‘. grain; . bread; . little bite; . et al.’ < PTkc. *bürt-

‘come o, fall o’. e Uyg. form is not quoted here; all quoted forms (except

for Čuv.) have vowels

e, i, ö and ü

:

Despite phonetic diculties (front vs back vowels), we are convinced that this word

belongs to the family of

bürtük. A semantic shi from ‘grain’ to ‘species of cereal’ is

absolutely natural; cf. e.g. Witczak : –. Cf. also Trkm.

bürdük ‘oats’.

ČÜŽGÜN QONAQ

: čüžgün qonaq  [sic] Uyg.: Jarring :  ‘species of corn’

: : Jarring: : ž indicates a non-Tkc. origin; the word is enigmatic

:

Jarring :  only remarks that ž indicates a non-Tkc. origin, and that the word is

enigmatic. He also mentions

čüzgün ‘green bristlegrass (Setaria viridis)’ (aer Schwarz

: ) which is yet another example of calling ‘corn’ and ‘millet’ with one word

(cf.

dary, mysyr bugdajy, žasmyk and žügörü). It is not out of the question, that the word

is etymologically identical with

čigin, cf. čüzgün ‘green bristlegrass (Setaria viridis)’ in

chapter Millet.

DARY

: dary Tksh.dial.: Tietze –

: see dary ‘millet’

: See šam darysy ‘corn’.

 Although it could alternately be Hebr. ןגדּ dagan ‘cereal’.

 gargydaly || CORN

GARGYDALY

:

gargydaly Az.: RAzS, Dmitrieva : 

kargi-dali Tat.:  Tanievъ 

:

Az.: gargydaly || Tat.: kargi-dali

: : Dmitrieva: < gargy ‘reed’ + daly ‘its branch’

:

e structure of this word is so clear, and the similarity of corn to reed so obvious that

we can see no reason to question the etymology presented by Dmitrieva .

HABIŽDAJ

: habiž(d)aj Kmk.: Dmitrieva : , RKmkS

: as yet not discussed

:

is word is unclear morphologically. It is possible that -biž(d)aj corresponds to Tkc.

bugdaj

‘wheat’ (with a simplication of the consonant cluster). e

- in anlaut remains

however, utterly incomprehensible.

KÄBÄ BÖDOJ

: käbä bödoj Tat.: R IV t || käbä bodaj Voskresenskij 

: as yet not discussed

:

is name is not entirely clear. Its second element,

bödoj

raises no doubts about its Tkc.

origin (Tkc. bugdaj ‘wheat’), even though its vocalism is not quite so comprehensible.

As to

käbä, it seems most likely to us that it is in fact a place name, Kaaba. A very

nice semantic parallel for such a naming is provided by Trkm.

mekgeǯöven and similar

names in Kirg., Kklp. and Uyg., Tksh.

mysyr bugdajy and Ott. šam darysy. However,

front vowels in this form remain a mystery to us.

Possibly, although this does not seem very likely, this word is identical with Tksh.

kaba ‘simple, coarse’?

Naming one species of cereal with the name of another one, and an attribute raises

no doubts (corn was brought to the Tkc. peoples relatively late).

KOKOROZ

:

kokoroz KarC: ‘roasted corn grains’ Levi  || Ott.: R II b, MiklTürkEl

, Redhouse , || Tksh.: Eren 

kukkurus Čuv.: RČuvS-A

kukurus Tat.: Dmitrieva : 

CORN || kokoroz 

kukurūsa Yak.: Slepcov  (from )

kukurusь Čuv.: Nikolьskij 

kukuruz Bosn.Tksh.: R II m || Bšk.: Dmitrieva :  || Tat.: RTa tS -D, RTatS -G

|| Tksh.: Eren 

kukuruza Bšk.: RBškS, Dmitrieva  || Čuv.: Dmitrieva : , RČuvS-A,

RČuvS-D, RČuvS-E || Khak.: RChakS, Dmitrieva :  || Oyr.: RAltS ||

Tat.: Dmi trieva :  || Tu v.: Dmitrieva :  || Yak.: RJakS, Dmitrieva

: , Slepcov  (since )

:

Bosn.Tksh.: kukuruz || Bšk.: kukuruz, kukuruza || Čuv.: kukkurus, kukurusь, kukuruza

|| KarC.: kokoroz || Khak.: kukuruza || Ott.: kokoroz || Oyr.: kukuruza || Tat.: kukurus,

kukuruz, kukuruza || Tksh.: kokoroz, kukuruz || Tuv.: kukuruza || Yak.: kukurūsa, kukuruza

:

: Nikolić



: Tkc. [? ɔ: Tksh.] koku (or mum for the form mumuruz) ‘stink’ + uruz

‘rice’ > ‘rice of poor species’

is proposition is thoroughly false for the following reasons: . there is no such word

in the Tkc. languages as mum ‘st in k’; . there is no such word in the Tkc. languages

uruz ‘r ic e’; . a compound of two nouns in Nom. which would have this kind of

a meaning is impossible in the Tkc. languages; . to the best of our knowledge, the

Tkc. peoples never considered corn to be a worse kind of cereal (and neither did

the Slavic peoples, cf. e.g. Bulg.

carevica ‘corn’), in fact, the exact opposite was true;

. it is very hard to nd a major similarity between corn and rice, and we know of

no parallel for unifying these two meaning in the Tkc. languages.

: Dmitrieva: Tat.

kukurus

, Bšk.

kukuruz

; Bšk., Khak., Čuv., Yak., Oyr., Tat., Tuv.

kukuruza < Russ.

: Eren: Tkc. kokoroz from the Balkan languages; cf. Bulg. kukuruz, Serb. kukùruz,

Rom. cucurúz; ultimate source unclear

:

We believe that this word was borrowed to the Tkc. languages from Slav., as Dmi trieva 

and Eren  proposed it. In particular, the fact that the word has a very rich family in the

Slav. languages and absolutely no relatives in the Tkc., speaks in favour of this proposition.

e sounding does not allow for a precise determination of the Slav. source. We can only

make a guess based on historical and cultural-historical premises. In the case of Asian Tkc.

languages it was most probably Russ.; in the case of Bosn.Tksh. we may suspect a borrowing

from one of the Slav. languages of the Balkans or, less likely, from Tksh. (Ott.); and nally in

the case of Tksh. (Ott.) – history seems to support the idea of a borrowing from the Balkans

(as proposed by Eren ) rather than from Russ. (as Dmitrieva  wants it).

All this might seem somewhat strange given the fact that Europe (except for Spain

and Portugal



) has learned about corn from the Ottomans (see above). However, the

 Nikolić, Agronomski glasnik  and ; quoted aer Skok – s.v. kukuruz.

 From Spain corn spread to France among other regions, and from there to Germany, but it

only gained popularity later, probably under Turkish or Hungarian inuence.

 kokoroz || CORN

linguistic data does not allow for any other solution. Most probably, the whole thing

might be explained by the following facts:

. in Ott. (and later in Tksh.) the forms

kukuruz ~ kokoroz are dialectal; corn was more

popular among the Slavic people than it was among the Turks; in a limited area, a Slav.

word could oust its Tkc. equivalent, and then nd its way to the literary language

. a) all the other Tkc. languages where this word is present, have been under a strong

Russ. inuence

b) it is possible, that these Tkc. nations only learned about corn from Russians

e dierences in auslaut among the Tkc. forms (-

uz vs -uza) should probably be ex-

plained by variations in Russ. dialects (although Filin – only attests

kukuróz), or

by a borrowing from Tksh. (Ott.) rather than from Russ.

e only thing that might still be regarded as being problematic is that our word

has no established etymology in the Slav. languages. An overview of previous solutions

(chronologically) and our proposition is presented below.

Blr.:

kukurúza || Bulg.: kukurùz || Cz.: kukuřice, kukuruc (

c.; Jungmann –



) ||

Pol.:

kukurydza (

c.), kukurudza, kokoryca (

c.), kukuryza, kukuruca, kukuryca, kuku-

rudz (

c.) (SEJP) || SC: kukùruz, kukùruza, kùkurica, kukuriza, kokuruz (Skok –)

|| Slvk.:

kukurica, kukuruc || Slvn.: koruza || Ukr.: kukurúdza || USorb.: kukurica

. < Tkc. kokoroz, kukuruz ‘corn’

pro: Muchliński 



; MiklTEl, Karłowicz –



; Lokotsch ; Wei-

gand



; Holub/Lyer; Skok –; Witczak : 

contra: MiklTElN; SEJP; Bańkowski 

e word is incomprehensible on the Tkc. ground. Vast family in the Slav. languages.

No related words in the Tkc. languages.

. native word; cf. Slav.S.

kukurjav ‘. curly; . splayed out’ (from ‘hairs’ protruding

from corns)

pro: Berneker –



, Brückner ; Holub/Kopečný ; SEJP; Machek ;

Zaimov 



; Schuster-Šewc –; ESUM; Černych 

contra: Vasmer –

See below.

. < Rom.

cucuruz ‘. cone; . corn’

pro: ? MiklFremdSlav, BER; Marynaŭ –; ? Bańkowski 

See below.

. <

kukuru used when luring birds with corn grains

pro: Vasmer –

 Jungmann –; quoted aer Machek .

 Muchliński : ; quoted aer SEJP s.v.

kukurydza.

 Karłowicz –: ; quoted aer SEJP. s.v.

kukurydza.

 Weigand, G.:

Jahresbericht des Instituts für rumänische Sprache XVII-XVIII: f.; quoted aer SEJP.

 Berneker –: –; quoted aer SEJP s.v.

kukurydza.

 Zaimov : –: –; quoted aer SEJP s.v.

kukurydza.

CORN || kokoroz 

contra: SEJP

Very unlikely. Would require an assumption that the name for ‘corn’ only came

into existence aer its grain had been acquired in some way, and used to lure

birds while shouting (why?) kukuru. Apart from the above, it is not known which

language the proposition refers to.

. = ? Alb.

kúqur ‘baked; roasted’ or = ? Alb. kókërr ‘. grain of pea; . berry’

pro: Bańkowski 

Kókërr (< kokë ‘head; bulb; berry; grain’; Orel ) seems to be more probable,

but as a source of borrowing, rather than an equivalent. It also has, however,

a very likely Slav. proposition (see below), this coincidence should probably

be regarded as accidental. What is important, though, is the idea proposed

by Bańkowski  that the word might have been borrowed via two routes

(see below).

SEJP suggests that the word should be derived from PSlav. *

kokor-, a reduplicated form

of *

kor- (> *korenь), such as bóbr, gogołka or popiół; cf. also kąkol ‘corncockle (Agrostemma

githago)



’ and kuklik ‘Geum urbanum L.’



. In the Slav. languages there are very many

names of plants with a very similar sounding, cf. e.g. Bulg.

kukurják || Cz. kokořík ||

LSorb. kokrik || Pol. kokornak, kokorycz || Slvk. kokorík, kukurík || Ukr. kokorička || USorb.

kokorac (more examples e.g. in SEJP s.v. kokornak). e semantic basis were most probably

curly (crooked?) leaves or tendrils, or some kind of curls or ‘locks’ characteristic of the

given plant (cf. Machek ; SEJP). Cf. Slav.S.

kukurjav ‘curly(-headed)’



We believe that PSlav. *

kor- ‘bent’ can with quite a high degree of probability be

accepted as the root of our word: cf. also Russ.dial.

kokóra ‘trunk […] together with a

crooked root […]’, Hung.dial.

kukora ‘crooked; bent; […]’



, and Pol. and others krzywy

‘crooked’, maybe also Lat.

curvus.

Many Slavists point out phonetical diculties. Two routes of borrowing, proposed

by Bańkowski , seem to oer the best explanation. Only instead of the Alb. ety-

mons, we would rather assume native Slav. names either shied from another similar

plant, or neologisms created in the same way as the already existing names. Presumably,

some of the forms may be explained by a contamination of two (or more?) forms (for

Pol., cf. Bańkowski ).

 NB: Probably also Hung. kankalék ‘primrose’ (in the same way as konkoly ‘corncockle’) is a bor-

rowing from the Slav. languages – against EWU, where it is regarded as an ‘Abl[eitung] aus

einem ktiven Stamm, Entstehungsweise aber unbest[immt]’. Cf. also Lith. kãnkalas ‘(little)

bell, something clanging’ (Spólnik : ).

 From Cz., where it meant among others ‘monk’s hood’; cf. Spólnik : , though an

unclear expression.

 Also Hung.

kökürü ‘curly(-headed)’, which probably from the Slav. languages, too – against

EWU, where it is derived from kukora ‘crooked, bent, […]’, which is an ‘Abl[eitung] aus einem

relativen ktiven Stamm’.

 See footnotes –. Cf. Pol.

kąkol ‘corncockle (Agrostemma githago)’ of a very similar structure.

 (kömme) qonaq || CORN

Finally, we should also consider whether it would be desirable to assume a Paleo-

Europ. source, which could be connected with OBask. and Pre-Romance *

kuk(k)ur-

‘Kamm; Spitze’ (more: Hubschmid : ), and the Rom. form (originally ‘cone’),

instead of deriving it directly from Bulg. (cf. Cihac : II  vs. Cioranescu ).

An Ott. meaning attested by Redhouse : ‘any tall, ill-shaped thing’, might also be

used to support this idea. We suppose that Arm.

gogaṙ and the like. ‘hooks with two

points used for hanging pots over a re’ (Bläsing : ) could also belong to the same

family, such as nally. Tksh. kokoreç ‘meat dish roasted on spit’.

KÖMME QONAQ

:

köma qonaq Uyg.: (Turfan) Jarring : 

kömbö konok Kirg.dial.: ÈSTJa ‘corn’

kömek Uyg.: Jarring :  ‘special species of corn’

köme qonaq Uyg.: Jarring :  ‘special species of corn’

kömme qonaq Uyg.:  RUjgS, Jarring :  ‘special species of corn’

kömür qonaq Uyg.: Jarring : 

konag Sal.: ÈSTJa

qonaq  Uyg.: Raquette , ÈSTJa

:

Kirg.dial.: kömbö konok || Sal.: konag || Uyg.: köma qonaq, kömek, köme qonaq, kömme qonaq,

kömür qonaq, qonaq

:

: Jarring: : ? kömme < köme ~ kömer ‘coal’ (cf. kömür qonaq), or ? kömme < kömek ‘?’

:

:

Jarring’s :  proposition which is based on the form

kömür qonaq

, and derives

kömme

from kömür (~ Uyg. köme(r) ) ‘coal’ is interesting but, semantically, rather enigmatic.

It seems more plausible to us that kömme is a deverbal noun from the verb köm- ‘to bury,

dig in the ground’. Such an attribute may result from the way corn is planted: rather than

simply sowing seeds onto ploughed ground, its seeds are thrown into specially prepared

pits, and then covered with soil. For semantics, cf. also the somewhat enigmatic in this

regard,

sokpa

. Although this proposition does not explain forms with -

in auslaut, which

still remain incomprehensible to us, it still, nonetheless, seems be more plausible.

It is probable that the same root that can be found in Tkc.

kömeč ‘. bread; . pie;

dumpling’.

: See konak ‘millet’.

MÄKKE

: mäkke (plant and dish) Kklp.: RKklpS-B, RKklpS-BB, RKklpS-ST

: see meke žügörü and mekgeǯöven

CORN || mekgeǯöven 

:

Mäkke

as a name for ‘corn’ is certainly an abbreviation of

mäkke žueri

, created by the same

token as mysyr buğdajy > mysyr in Tksh. According to Dmitrieva’s  explanation,

it means ‘Mecca’ – cf. Kirg.

meke among others ‘Mecca’, and comes from Arab. makka

 (quoted by Dmitrieva as

Meke s.v. meke žügörü, and as Mekke s.v. mekgeǯöven).

Cf.

meke žügörü and mekgeǯöven, and mysyr buğdajy and šam darysy.

MEKE ŽÜGÖRÜ

:

makkažavari Uzb.:  Naliv kinъ 

makkažŭxori Uzb.: RUzbS-A, RUzbS-Š

makka(-)ǯuari Uzb.: Lapin , Smo lenskij 

mäkke žueri Kklp.: RKklpS-BB

meke žügörü Kirg.: Dmitrieva : , RKirgS-Ju, RKirgS-Ju

mokka-ǯavari Uzb.: Smolenskij 

:

Kirg.: meke žügörü || Kklp.: mäkke žueri || Uzb.: makkažavari, makkažŭhori, makka(-)ǯuari,

mokka-ǯavari

: : Dmitrieva: < Arab. Meke ‘Mecca’ + žügörü ‘corn’

:

:

See mäkke.

: See žügörü.

Cf.

mäkke, mekgeǯöven, and mysyr buğdajy and šam darysy.

MEKGEǯÖVEN

:

mekgeǯöven Trkm.: Dmitrieva : , Nikitin/Kerbabaev , RTrkmS

mekke ǯeven Trkm.: Alijiv/Böörijif 

: : Dmitrieva: < mekge < Arab. Mekke ‘Mecca’ + ǯöven

:

-:

See mäkke and mäkke žügörü.

-ǯ:

is word is etymologically unclear. ough not listed among equivalents by Eren ,

it is presumably the same word as Tksh.: çöven ‘kökü ve dalları sabun gibi köpürten

bir bitki’ <

çöğen Eren , dial. çoğan, çoğen, çovan, cöiven, çuvan DS || Az. çoğan ||

OKipč.

çoğan || Trkm. çoğan (kökü) ‘çöven’.

We believe that it might be closely related to

čigin ‘millet’, which unfortunately is

unclear, too. We should not completely discount the notion that its ultimate source

is Pers.

ǯou- ‘barley’ (see julaf ‘oats’), or alternately, that čigin < čüžgün – which would

probably rule out such a connection.

Cf.

mäkke, mekgeǯöven, and mysyr buğdajy and šam darysy.

 mysyr (bugdajy) || CORN

MYSYR BUGDAJY

:

mysir bogdaj CTat.: Zaatovъ 

mysyr bogdaj ? Ott.:  Wiesentahl 

mysyr-bogdaj KarC: Levi : 

mysyr bugdaj ? Ott.:  Wiesentahl 

mysyr (bugdajy) Tksh.: Dmitrieva : 

:

CTat.: mysir bogdaj || KarC.: mysyr-bogdaj || Ott.: ? mysyr bogdaj, ? mysyr bugdaj ||

Tksh.: mysyr (bugdajy)

:

: Dmitrieva: < Arab. Misr ‘Egypt’

: Eren: does not explain the word – presumably, because he assumes it is obvi-

ous – that this name is a compound of a place name + a name of another plant

(cereal), i.e.

mysyr bugdajy liter. ‘Egyptian wheat’

: Bańkowski s.v. kukurydza: Tksh. mysyr < common Europ. mais (Sp. maís,

Fr. maïs et al.)

:

Bańkowski’s  proposition seems to be deeply problematic for serious phonetical

and historical reasons. We think that a much better solution has been presented by

Dmitrieva, and we believe, that also Eren implied that he had the same solution.

Currently, an abbreviation of

mysyr bugdajy to mysyr caught on in Tksh., just as

Kklp.

mäkke žueri > mäkke. Cf. šam darysy, and mäkke, meke žügörü and mekgeǯöven.

An exact semantic parallel (a calque from Ott.?) is oered by Arm.

egipt-a-c’oren

‘corn’, liter. ‘Egyptian wheat’.

It remains somehwat enigmatic to us why this name has been formed with the help

of a word for ‘wheat’ if in all the other compounds of this kind, a word for ‘barley’ has

been used. Interestingly enough, in dialects mysyr bugdajy might actually mean ‘barley’,

too: cf. mysyr ‘barley’ and dary, jasymuk and jügür id.

NARTÜK

:

nartük Nog.: Dmitrieva : , RNogS

nartux Krč.Blk.: Dmitrieva : 

nartüx Krč.Blk.: RKrčBlkS

:

Krč.Blk.: nartux, nartüx || Nog.: nartük

: as yet not discussed

:

is word is etymologically incomprehensible. We can see two ways of trying to explain

it, but neither of them is anything more than a conjecture, and none of them is fully

clear. However, the rst seems to be more probable:

CORN || šam darysy 

. Osset. nartxor ‘corn’, liter. ‘food of the Narts’



Semantically, such a connection raises no doubts. It is, however, quite inexplicable

phonetically. One might believe that it is a Tkc. derivative from *

nart ‘Nart’ with

a meaning calqued from Osset.

nartxor

, but a non-harmonic vocalization undermines

this solution.

. common Europ.

nard

e word nard is present in many European languages (Lat. nardus, Eng., Fr., Pol.,

Russ. et al.

nard) but to the best of our knowledge, it has no etymology. e plant

originates from the region of India and Tibet, and has been known to Europeans

since antiquity as a material for perfume production. It does not look similar to corn,

but it should be remembered that ‘corn’ happens to be the same word for ‘millet’

(see čüzgün qonaq, mysyr bugdajy, žasymyk and žügörü), and that the popular terms for

‘millet’ might in fact mean various, not necessarily closely, related species (see com-

mentary on ‘millet’). A distant analogy is that

čikin ‘millet’ may also mean ‘French

lavender’



, and the word nard is not always entirely monosemantic as well, e.g. Gr.

νάρδος

, except for

Nardostachys Jatamansi

might in various compounds also mean

‘Valeriana Celtica’, ‘Cymbopogon Iwaraneusa’, or ‘nard oil’ (Lidell



) and others.

SARY

: sary KarH: KRPS

: as yet not discussed

: From corn’s extremely distinct colour.

ŠAM DARYSY

: šam darysy Ott.: Eren  s.v. mysyr

: as yet not discussed

:

Cf. mysyr buğdajy, and mäkke, meke žügörü and mekgeǯöven.

For a comparison to millet, cf.

dary and mysyr bugdajy, and čüzgün qonaq, žasymyk

and

žügörü.

 e Narts were a race of giants described in the mythology of the peoples of Caucasus, including

the Ossetians. According to the legends, a long time ago, out of pride they rose against God.

God punished them by sending upon them a terrible famine. At night, they would shoot with

their bows grains glittering in the sky and eat them but there were not enough, and eventually

the entire race starved to death. Aer that, the grains fell to the ground and corn sprouted

from them. (Dumézil : )

Other languages of Caucasus might also be taken into consideration, see Dumézil : :

‘Peut-être qu’on songe que dans une bonne partie du Caucase du nord […] le maïs, n’a d’autre

nom que « l’aliment des Nartes »’.

 e expression in Clauson  is not entirely clear to us: ‘

çiki:n […] () the name of a plant

called usṭūxūdūs ‘French lavender’ […]; çekin same translation; [….]’.

 žasymyk || CORN

ŽASYMYK

: žasymyk Kzk.dial.: ÈSTJa

: see jasymuk ‘millet’

:

For naming ‘corn’ and ‘millet’ with one word, cf.

dary

šam darysy

and

žügörü

, and

čüžgün qonaq.

ŽÜGÖRÜ

:

žügeri Krč.Blk.: Dmitrieva :  || Kzk.: Dmitrieva : , DFKzk, DKzkF,

RKzkS-, RKzkS-

žügöri Kirg.: Mašanovъ 

žügörü Kirg.: Dmitrieva : , RKirgS-Ju, RKirgS-Ju

žŭxori Uzb.: Dmitrieva : 

ǯügeri Krč.Blk.: RKrčBlkS

:

Kirg.: žügöri, žügörü, ǯügeri || Krč.Blk.: žügeri || Kzk.: žügeri || Uzb.: žŭxori

:

: Dmitrieva: only points to a connection with OTkc. jügür, jür, ügür, üjür and Čuv. vir

‘millet’, and with Oyr. üre ‘кашица из толчeной крупы’, Tat. öjrä, üre ‘кашица;

крупяной суп’, Mo.

ür ‘grain; seeds’, OTkc. jügürgün ‘plant similar to millet’

:

Žügörü as a name for ‘corn’ is presumably an abbreviation of meke žügörü (cf. also mekge-

ǯöven). Similarly mäkke.

However, the word is not entirely clear from the etymological point of view. e -

in auslaut is probably a possessive sux which originally created the so-called second

izafet in compounds such as Kirg.

meke žügörü – cf. Tksh.dial. cögür ‘species of grass’

DS, and Tksh.

mysyr bugdajy ‘corn’ and Ott. šam darysy id. Eren , Tksh.dial. dary

TS. We believe that Dmitrieva’s  proposition to connect the word with OTkc.

ügür &c. has much to commend it (see ügür ‘millet’).

Cf.

meke žügörü.

CORN 

kokoroz ‘corn’

KarL

Tksh.

Čuv.

Tat.

Bšk.

Trkm .

Oyr.

Khak.

Tu v .

Ya k .

 CORN

mäkke, meke žügörü and mekgeǯöven ‘corn’

Trkm .

Kklp.

Uzb.

Kirg.

Uyg.



panicum .

Millet is one of the rst plants ever to be cultivated by mankind. It is understandable then,

that the name for ‘millet’ encompasses in colloquial use many dierent, and not necessarily

closely related species (see below). India, Central Asia, China and Africa’s tropical savan-

nahs are considered to be the homeland of millet. An exact dating of the beginnings of

cultivation is very dicult, as distinguishing separate species in the archeological materials

raises serious problems. In Europe, which is not the homeland of this cereal (or rather,

cereals), it has been discovered in neolithic nds, and in China it had already been one of

the ve most important cereals sown by the emperor himself during the vernal equinox as

early as in the 

c. BC.



Proso millet has been traditionally cu

Names of Cereals in the Turkic Languages

Abstract