| 1. |
- Csató, Éva Á., 1948-, et al.
(författare)
-
The verb in Northeastern Turkic
- 2024
-
Ingår i: The Languages and Linguistics of Northern Asia. - Berlin and Boston : Walter de Gruyter. ; , s. 919-1006
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 2. |
- Csató, Éva Á., Professor emerita, 1948-
(författare)
-
A karaim nyelv és nyelvjárásai
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nyelvelmélet és dialektológia 5. - Budapest : Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem. - 9789633084168 ; , s. 131-140
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aim of the paper is to demonstrate that the notion “Karaim language” and the status of its dialects exhibit a non-canonical language-dialect scenario. We speak today of a Karaim language which has three dialects: the Northwest dialect of the Lithuanian community (moribund), the Southwest dialect of the Galician community (practically extinct), and the Crimean dialect of the Crimean and Russian communities. The notion “Karaim language” has been established as the language of the Turkic-speaking followers of the Karaite religious confession and has become a significant element of Karaim identity across the communities.The relation between the dialects is characterized by some non-typical dialectal features. The dialects all go back to Kipchak Turkic varieties. Thus they are genealogically relatively closely related, which is a linguistic criteria for making them potential varieties of a language. The ancestor Kipchak varieties from which the dialects developed must have been different and the descendant dialects have maintained the original differences. The original language of the Crimean community is not known. The Turkic variety used by the Crimean Karaims converged with or was replaced by Crimean Tatar. This belongs to another subbranch of the Kipchak branch and is much influenced by Crimean Ottoman, an Oghuz Turkic language.No standard Karaim variety has been established; the communities have been motivated to maintain the dialectal distinctions. Thus no levelling of the dialects has taken place. The dialects are distinct; there is no fuzzy boundary between them. They have not been spoken in a contiguous dialect area, and speakers of different dialects do not easily understand each other’s dialects. Members of different communities communicate with each other in a dominating language of the area, Russian or Polish. The Karaim earlier had a common Hebrew script tradition used in Bible translation, but this was replaced in the twentieth century when the communities created their script systems. Their common religious traditions have promoted the diffusion of certain linguistic mostly lexical features, but this was mostly limited to the religious register. A linguistic description of the Karaim language comprises parallel descriptions of the Lithuanian and the Galician dialects. No unified account of their phonological and morphological systems is feasible. Their syntax share basic features due to their accommodation to the dominating typological characteristics of the area. In this respect these Karaim dialects are similar to other European Turkic languages, e.g. Gagauz.The Karaim case proves that the question what linguistic varieties are dialects of a language cannot be answered by using purely linguistic criteria. What is regarded a language most often depends on political, historical, sociological, and cultural factors. Linguistic features do, of course, play a substantial role in making varieties potential candidates for being dialects of a language. But other factors, as in case of Karaim the shared religious identity, can be decisive.
|
|
| 3. |
- Csató, Éva Á., Professor emerita, 1948-, et al.
(författare)
-
Code copying and the strength of languages
- 2022
-
Ingår i: The Art of Language. - Leiden : Brill Academic Publishers.
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter deals with the stability – in terms of strength and weakness – of indigenous languages. It focuses on Turkic, with its incredibly manifold language contacts. Moving beyond ahistorical universalism, the linguistic study of contact languages should now direct its attention to the specific historical circumstances under which codes have arisen, changed, and vanished. Key determinative factors are whether copied items are ‘taken over’ or ‘carried over’, if their codes are superstrata, substrata, or adstrata, and whether they appear as primary codes or secondary codes.
|
|
| 4. |
- Csató, Éva Á., 1948-
(författare)
-
Homage to the Last Speakers of Halich Karaim
- 2024
-
Ingår i: The Karaim Language in Use.. - Vilnius.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The article pays homage to the last fluent speakers of Halich Karaim, a Turkic language. Two of them lived in the traditional settlement, the Karaim Street in Halich. A further speaker moved to Trakai and stayed there the rest of her life with her sister. Thanks to favorable circumstances all of them could communicate in their daily life in Halich Karaim and maintain their full competence in their native language. Common to them all was their concern about the future of the language and their strong determination to transmit their linguistic competence to others, and especially to the younger Karaim generation.
|
|
| 5. |
- Csató, Éva Á., Professor emerita, 1948-
(författare)
-
Karaim, Northwest and Southwest
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Encyclopedia of Turkic Languages and Linguistics Online. - Leiden : Brill Academic Publishers.
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 6. |
- Csató, Éva Á., Professor emerita, 1948-
(författare)
-
Karaim, Northwest and Southwest
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Encyclopedia of Turkic Languages and Linguistics Online. - Leiden : Brill Academic Publishers.
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- As the name of a language, Karaim refers to West Kipchak Turkic varieties spoken in small religious communities situated in the territories of present-day Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. These communities are followers of the Karaite confession, which, according to the Karaim tradition, originates from a sect in the 8th-c. Jewish diaspora in Babylonia. The Karaites reject the authority of the Talmud and require their believers to read and interpret Biblical texts. This rejection has made it necessary to translate the Biblical texts into the non-Hebrew vernaculars of followers. For more about Karaitism, see Encyclopaedia Judaica (Lasker et al. 2007) and Polliack (2003).As applied here, the ethnonym Karaim refers to the Turkic-speaking groups that historically converted to Karaitism and settled in Eastern European territories. The circumstances of this conversion are not documented. The main Karaim communities are the Crimean Karaim community, which is still the most populous, the Galician/Volhynian or Halich/Luck community, and the Lithuanian community, also called the Trakai (Polish Troki) community. There are also Karaim communities today in Saint Petersburg, Moscow, and Poland. It is only in the Lithuanian community that the language is still spoken, or at least remembered. Little is known about the Crimean Karaim language, whose speakers long ago shifted to the dominant languages of the area, Crimean Tatar and Russian.
|
|
| 7. |
- Csató, Éva Á., Professor emerita, 1948-, et al.
(författare)
-
Kuman
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Encyclopedia of Turkic Languages and Linguistics online. - Leiden : Brill Academic Publishers.
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 8. |
- Csató, Éva Á., Professor emerita, 1948-, et al.
(författare)
-
Middle Kipchak
- 2022. - 2
-
Ingår i: The Turkic Languages. - London and New York : Routledge. - 9781003243809 ; , s. 152-159
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter discusses the major features of the Kipchak varieties spoken between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries in the south Russian steppe and in the Near East. The sources identified as Middle Kipchak are of heterogeneous origin. The collection of Middle Kipchak texts only reflect various Kipchak dialects; it also contains Oghuz and other elements, which sometimes differ significantly from the Kipchak material and are sometimes difficult to distinguish from it. One source written in Roman script has become known as Codex Cumanicus, compiled from the late thirteenth century to the first third of the fourteenth century. The Arabic script can clearly represent the distinctions between rounded and unrounded vowels and between high and low unrounded vowels. The theoretical introductory sections in Mamluk sources frequently use Arabic linguistic terms to describe the quality of Turkic sounds that differ from Arabic ones.
|
|
| 9. |
- Csató, Éva Á., Professor emerita, 1948-, et al.
(författare)
-
On the grammaticalization of two types of "ki" in Turkic
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Türkiyat Mecmuası / Journal of Turkology. - : Istanbul University. - 2651-3188. ; 31:1, s. 1-14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article outlines various grammaticalization paths of the two types of the Turkic particle ki: the modal particle ki and the copied junctor ki. The element ki has been employed in Turkic languages in all documented historical periods, serving various semantic and syntactic functions as particles and junctors, i.e., subjunctors, conjunctors or adjunctors. Typological studies often blur any distinctions between semantic and syntactic properties by giving priority to semantic/cognitive criteria, which are easily applicable in large-scale comparative studies, e.g., Cristofaro (2003). Cross-Turkic comparison of the grammaticalization of ki elements shows that structures sharing semantic/cognitive properties may be syntactically different. Ki plays a special role in high-copying Turkic varieties that have throughout replaced typical Turkic bound junctors by free junctors (Johanson 2000, 2002, 2010). Areal linguistic features have influenced the grammaticalization processes.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
