Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:57:05.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turkish Syntax As A System Of Qualification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

C. S. Mundy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This outline of the basic principles of Turkish syntax was originally intended as an introduction to my study on the syntactical relations of the -e/-ü gerund in Old Ottoman. I found that I could not give a satisfactory account of the very interesting syntactical features presented by that gerund without laying before the reader the premises upon which my conclusions were based. Once embarked upon this task, it soon appeared that no brief introduction would serve the purpose. There was no accepted body of syntactical doctrine to which the reader could be referred for more detailed information. Indeed, it was necessary to discuss fundamental principles which, so far as I am aware, no one has attempted to elucidate. It seemed best therefore to postpone publication of the study on the gerund, and instead to devote a paper to the fundamental syntactical principles of the language.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 1955 , pp. 279 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 283 note 1 This applies to the sentence already spoken, or already conceived as a whole but not yet spoken. In cases where a sentence is not a preconceived whole, but constructed piecemeal as it were, each separately enunciated part has at the moment of enunciation a certain range of potential relationships. These cannot be considered retrogressively.

page 284 note 1 See Collinder, B., Reichstürkische Lautstudien, Upsala and Leipzig, 1939.Google Scholar

page 287 note 1 Tarawa Sözlüğü III has ba’ga, quoted from Mihr ü Mü’teri, composed 891/1486.

page 290 note 1 Evin and mektubu could also be absolute nouns + suffix of possession, 2nd and 3rd pers respectively; but these forms would occur in different contextual situations.

page 293 note 1 Except when used descriptively, as mentioned previously.

page 295 note 1 Taking itmek, seyr in the sense of ‘wander about a place for pleasure’, cf. Fuziili, Seyr eyleydüm havâli-yi det (Leylâ ve Mecnûn, Stamboul, 1928, p. 280).Google Scholar

page 300 note 1 I make this suggestion with diffidence. Among the appended qualifiers which we find in Old Ott. partitive ablatives are relatively numerous, and for this there may be a reason which I have been unable to fathom.

page 302 note 1 This meaning of the term zarf is mentioned by Phillott, Higher Persian Grammar, p. 289.

page 304 note 1 From the printed edition of the Tezkire (Stamboul, 1314), supplementary page after p. 216. The passage has a whole series of sentences with appended -ince gerundial statements. The editors misunderstood the syntax of the passage and have mispunetuated it, detaching the gerundial statements from the sentences to which they really belong and attaching them in each case to the following sentence. Needless to say, this makes nonsense of the whole passage, which is an important one in Turkish literary history.

page 304 note 2 Such a piece of news, i.e. on hearing this important piece of news.

page 305 note 1 There are two grammatical points here, (a) Ba’lamak constructed with the ace. is found in Old Ott. with the meaning ‘ lead (an army) ’; with the meaning ‘ begin’ it is extremely rare. (b) Yek’enbe gün and ‘a'ban ay: this construction in the names of days and months was not unusual in Old Ott., cf. cüma gün ‘ Friday ’ (Kutbuddin and elsewhere).