Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:47:02.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2021

Lars Johanson
Lars Johanson
Affiliation:
Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Germany
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Turkic , pp. 978 - 1021
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Abadi, S. H. & Karimnia, A. 2003. A sociolinguistic study of Kashkay Turkic and its gradual extinction. Turkic Languages 7: 144–145.Google Scholar
Abdullaev, F. A. 1980. Po povodu singarmonizma v tjurkskix jazykax [On the occurrence of synharmony in Turkic]. In Šukurov, Š. ed. Issledovanija po leksike i grammatike tjurkskix jazykov. Taškent: Federal’noj Agentstvo Novostej Uzbekskoj SSR. 3–22.Google Scholar
Abish, A. 2016. Modality in Kazakh as Spoken in China (Turcologica 107). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Abish, A. & Csató, É. Á. 2011. Recent developments in Kazakh as spoken in the People’s Republic of China. Turkic Languages 15: 275–290.Google Scholar
Adamović, M. 1983. Der tschuwaschische Plural -sem [The Chuvash plural -sem]. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 7: 21–27.Google Scholar
Adamović, M. 1985. Konjugationsgeschichte der türkischen Sprache [The Conjugational History of Turkish]. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Ağcagül, S. 2009. Aktionale Operatoren im Türkischen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Türkei- und Irantürkischen [Actional operators in Turkish with special reference to Turkish and Iran Turkic]. Doctoral dissertation. University of Mainz. http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-4482Google Scholar
Agyagási, K. 1997. The theoretical possibilities of the chronological interpretation of Cheremiss loanwords in Chuvash. In Berta, Á. ed. Historical and Linguistic Interaction between Inner-Asia and Europe (Studia uralo-altaica 39). Szeged: University of Szeged. 1–10.Google Scholar
Agyagási, K. 1998. On the characteristics of Cheremiss linguistic inference on Chuvash. In Johanson, L. et al. eds. The Mainz Meeting. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (Turcologica 34). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 667–682.Google Scholar
Agyagási, K. 2018. Chuvash Historical Phonetics (Turcologica 117). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2017. Commands. A cross-linguistic view. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. eds. Commands. A Cross-Linguistic Typology. (Explorations in Linguistic Typology). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–45.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. eds. 2013. Possession and Ownership. A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aksoy, Ö. A. 1945–1946. Gaziantep ağzı [The Dialect of Gaziantep]. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar
Allworth, E. 1971. Nationalities of the Soviet East. Publications and Writing Systems. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Amansaryev, Ž. 1970. Türkmen Dialektologijasy [Turkmen Dialectology]. Ašgabat: Türkmenistan.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. 2001. Subject version and object version in Tofa auxiliary verb constructions. Turkic Languages 5: 245–269.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. S. 2004. Present tense formations in Altai-Sayan Turkic: Khakas. In Anderson, G. D. S. ed. Auxiliary Verb Constructions in Altai-Sayan Turkic (Turcologica 51). Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz. 41–52.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. & Harrison, K. D. 1999. Tyvan (Languages of the World. Materials 257). München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. S. & Harrison, K. D. 2006. Ös tilı: Towards a comprehensive documentation of Middle and Upper Chulym dialects. Turkic Languages 10: 47–71.Google Scholar
Andrews, P. A. ed. 1989. Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey (Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B 60). Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Anhegger, R. 1980. Hurufumuz Yunanca. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der karamanisch-türkischen Literatur [Our letters are Greek. A contribution to the study of the Karaman literature]. Anatolica 7: 157–202.Google Scholar
Anhegger, R. 1983. Nachträge zu Hurufumuz Yunanca [Additions to Hurufumuz Yunanca]. Anatolica 10: 149–164.Google Scholar
Arat, R. R. 1979. Kutadgu bilig [Prosperous Knowledge]. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar
Arslanov, L. Š. 1997a. Astraxanskix nogajcev-karagašej jazyk [The Astrakhan Noghay-Karagash language]. In Tenišev, Ė. R. ed. Jazyki mira. Tjurkskie jazyki. Moscow: Indrik. 187–194.Google Scholar
Arslanov, L. Š. 1997b. Jurtovskix tatar jazyk [The Yurtov Tatar language]. In Tenišev, Ė. R. ed. Jazyki mira. Tjurkskie jazyki. Moscow: Indrik. 506–513.Google Scholar
Aslan Demir, S. 2018. Written and spoken Turkmen. In Csató, et al. eds. Building Bridges to Turkish (Turcologica 116). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 33–38.Google Scholar
Ašmarin, N. I. 1928–1950. Thesaurus linguae Tschuvaschorum. Slovar’ čuvašskogo jazyka 17 [Thesaurus of the Language of the Chuvash. The Chuvash Lexicon 17]. Kazan’: Izdanie narodnogo komissariata po prosveščeniju Čuvašskoj Avtonomnoj Sovetskoj Socialističeskoj Respubliki. [Reprint 1950: Čeboksary: Chuvašskoe Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo.]Google Scholar
Atwood, C. P. 2012. Huns and Xiōngnú: New thoughts on an old problem. In Boeck, B. J. & Martin, R. E. & Rowland, D. eds. 2012. Dubitando. Studies in History and Culture in Honor of Donald Ostrowski. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers. 27–52.Google Scholar
Atwood, C. P. 2015. The Qai, Khongai, and the names of the Xiōngnú. International Journal of Eurasian Studies 2: 35–63.Google Scholar
Aydemir, İ. A. 2009. Konverbien im Tuwinischen. Eine Untersuchung unter Berücksichtigung des Altai-Dialekts [Converbs in Tuvan. An Exposition Based on the Altai Dialect] (Turcologica 80). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Aydemir, İ. A. 2017. Tsengel tuvaları arasında bir alan araştırmaları: MOTUV-DER projesi ve ilk dilbilimsel sonuçları [A fieldwork among the Tsengel Tuvans: The MOTUV-DER Project and its first linguistic results]. In Aydemir, İ. A. & Erdem, Mevlüt eds. Tuva Araştırmaları. Tuvan Studies. Ankara: Grafiker.Google Scholar
Azmun, Y. 1966. Türkmen halk edebiyatı hakkında [On Turkmen folk literature]. In Reşid Rahmeti Arat için (Türk Kültürünü Araştırma Enstitüsü). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi. 32–83.Google Scholar
Bajčura, U. Š. 1959. Zvukovoj stroj tatarskogo jazyka 1 [The Sound System of Tatar 1]. Kazan’: Izdatel’stvo Kazanskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Bajčura, U. Š. 1971. Instrumentalnye dannye ob udarenii i intonacii v altajskix jazykax [Instrumental facts on accent and intonation in the Altaic languages]. In Problema obščnosti altajskix jazykov. Leningrad: Nauka. 279–292.Google Scholar
Balta, E. 1987a. Karamanlidika. XX’ siècle [Karaman Texts of the 20th Century]. Athènes: Centre d’Études d’Asie Mineure.Google Scholar
Balta, E. 1987b. Karamanlidika. Additions (1584–1900) [Karaman texts. Additions (1584–1900)]. Athènes: Centre d’Études d’Asie Mineure.Google Scholar
Balta, E. 1997. Karamanlidika. Nouvelles additions et compléments (Karaman texts. New additions and complements]. Athènes: Centre d’Études d’Asie Mineure.Google Scholar
Bang, W. 1917. Vom Köktürkischen zum Osmanischen. Vorarbeiten zu einer vergleichenden Grammatik des Türkischen 1 [From Köktürk to Ottoman. Preliminaries to a Comparative Grammar of Turkic 1] (Abhandlungen der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 6). Berlin: Verlag der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Bartens, R. 1979. Mordvan, tseremissin ja votjakin konjugaation infiniitisten muotojen syntaksi [Syntax of Infinite Forms of Conjugation in Mordvin, Mari, and Votjak] (Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen in Berlin 170). Helsinki.Google Scholar
Barthold, W. 1928 2. Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion. Oxford: Luzac & Co.Google Scholar
Barthold, W. 1945. Histoire des Turcs d’Asie Centrale [The History of the Turks in Middle Asia]. Paris: Librairie d’Amerique et d’Orient.Google Scholar
Barthold, W. 1956. Four Studies on the History of Central Asia. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Bartold, V. 1934. Sart. In Encyclopedia of Islam 4. Leiden & London. 175–176.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1940. Nogajskij jazyk i ego dialekty. Grammatika, teksty i slovar’ [Noghay and its Dialects. Grammar, Texts and Lexicon]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1951–1952. Karakalpakskij jazyk. Materialy po dialektologii [Karakalpak. Materials on Dialectology]. Moscow: Izdateľstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1952. K voprosu o klassifikacii tjurskix jazykov [On the Question of the Classification of Turkic]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1958. Altajskij jazyk [The Altay Language]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1959a. La classification des dialectes de la langue turque d’Altaï [The Classification of the Dialects of the Turkic language of Altay]. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 8: 9–15.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1959b. O proekte edinoj fonetičeskoj transkripcii dlja tjurkskix jazykov [On the Project of a Common Phonetic Transcription for Turkic]. Moscow: Institut Jazykoznanija, Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1966. Jazyki narodov SSSR 2: Tjurskie jazyki [The Languages of the Peoples of the SSSR, 2. The Turkic Languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1968. Türk dilleri genel fonetik transkripsiyonu üzerine [On a General Phonetic Transcription for Turkic]. In XI. Türk Dil Kurultayında okunan bilimsel bildiriler. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu. 53–59.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1969. Vvedenie v izučenie tjurkskix jazykov [Introduction to the Study of Turkic]. Moscow: Vysšaja Skola.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1972a. Dialekt kumandincev (Kumandy-kiži). Grammatičeskij očerk, teksty, perevody i slovar’: Severnyje dialekty altajskogo (ojrotskogo) jazyka [The Dialect of the Kumandins. Grammatical Structure, Texts, Translations, and Vocabulary: The Northern Dialects of the Altay (Oyrot) Language]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1972b. O sovremennom sostojanii i dalnejšem soveršenstvovanii alfavitov tjurkskix jazykov narodov SSSR [On the present situation and further development of the alphabets of the Turkic languages of the peoples of the SSSR]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 5: 33–46.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. ed. et al. 1975. Grammatika xakasskogo jazyka [Khakas Grammar]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1976a. Problema soveršenstvovanija i unifikacii alfavitov tjurkskix jazykov narodov SSSR [The problem of the development and unification of the alphabets of the Turkic languages of the SSSR]. In Sovetskaja tjurkologija i razvitie tjurkskix jazykov v SSSR. Tezisy dokladov i soobščenij. Vsesojuznaja tjurkologičeskaja konferencija, 27–29 sentjabrja 1976 g. Alma-Ata. 14–16.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. 1976b. O edinoj unificirovannoj fonetičeskoj transkripcii dlja tjurkskix jazykov (variant na latinskoj osnove) [On a Common Unified Phonetic Transcription for Turkic (Latin Variant)]. Alma-Ata.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. & Inkižekova-Grekul, A. I. 1953. Xakasskij jazyk [The Khakas language]. In Baskakov, N. A. & Inkižekova-Grekul, A. I. 1953a. Xakassko-russkij slovar’. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo inostrannyx i nacional‘nyx slovarej. 361–487.Google Scholar
Bazin, L. 1959a. Structures et tendances communes des langues turques [The Common Structures and Trends of Turkic]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 11–19.Google Scholar
Bazin, L. 1959b. Le Turkmène [Turkmen]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 308–317.Google Scholar
Bazin, L. 1961. Y a-t-il en turc des alternances vocaliques? [Does Turkic have vowel alternations?]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 33: 1–2.Google Scholar
Bazin, L. 1968. Le problème des consonnes géminées en turc ancien (avant l’introduction des caractères arabes) [The problem of geminated consonants in Old Turkic (before the introduction of Arabic letters)]. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 31: 65–70.Google Scholar
Bazin, L. 1991. Les systèmes chronologiques dans le monde turc ancien [The Chronological Systems in the Old Turkic World] (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 34). Budapest & Paris: Akadémiai & CNRS.Google Scholar
Bazin, L. & Bombaci, A. & Deny, J. & Gökbilgin, T. & İz, F. & Scheel, H. 1964. Philologiae turcicae fundamenta 2, edited by Boratav, P. N. Aquis Mattiacis: Steiner.Google Scholar
Beck, L. 1986. The Qashqai of Iran. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Beckwith, C. I. 2005. The Chinese names of the Tibetans, Tabghatch, and Türks. Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 14: 5–20.Google Scholar
Beckwith, C. I. 2011 Empires of the Silk Road. A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beckwith, C. 2016. The pronunciation, origin and meaning of A-shih-na in Early Old Turkic. In Zimonyi, I. & Karatay, O. eds. 2016. Central Eurasia in the Middle Ages. Studies in Honour of Peter B. Golden (Turcologica 104). Wiesbaden: Harrrassowitz. 39–46.Google Scholar
Bellér-Hann, I. 1995. A History of Cathay: A Translation and Linguistic Analysis of a Fifteenth-Century Turkic Manuscript. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1953a. Einführung in das Studium der altaischen Philologie und der Turkologie [Introduction to the Study of Altaic Philology and Turcology]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1953b. Remarques sur les langues tongouses et leurs relations avec les autres langues dites “altaiques” [Remarks on the Tungus languages and their relations to the other languages called ‘Altaicʼ]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 25: 109–118. [Reprinted in Johanson & Schönig eds. 1988: 49.]Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1955. Lamutische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Sprachproben und Glossar [Lamut Grammar with Bibliography, Samples and Vocabulary]. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1956. Die tungusischen Sprachen – Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik [The Tungus Languages. Attempt on a Comparative Grammar]. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1959a. Das Baschkirische [Bashkir]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 421–434.Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1959b. Das Hunnische, Donaubolgarische und Wolgabolgarische (Sprachreste) [Hunnic, Danubian Bolgar, Volga Bolgar (Language Rests)]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 685–695.Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1959c. Das Kumükische [Kumyk]. In Deny, Jet al. eds. 1959: 391–406.Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1959d. Das Tschuwaschische [Chuvash]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 695–751.Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1959e. Classification of the Turkic languages. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 1–10.Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1980. Review of Tekin, T. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Bloomington 1968. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 130: 116–120.Google Scholar
Benzing, J. 1983. Chwarezmischer Wortindex [Khwarezmian Glossal Index]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bereczki, G. 1979. Tschuwassische Kasussuffixe im Tscheremissischen [Chuvash case suffixes in Mari]. Gläser, In, Chr. & Pusztay, J. eds. Festschrift für Wolfgang Schlachter zum 70. Geburtstag (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 12). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bereczki, G. 1994. Grundzüge der tscheremissischen Sprachgeschichte 1 [Basic Traits of the Mari Language History] (Studia uralo-altaica 35). Szeged: University of Szeged.Google Scholar
Bérézin, J. 1848. Recherches sur les dialectes musulmans 1. Système des dialectes turcs [Studies on the Islamic Dialects 1. The System of the Turkic Dialects]. Kazan’: L’Imprimerie de l’Université.Google Scholar
Bergel’son, M. B. & Kibrik, A. A. 1987. Sistema pereključenija referencii v tuvinskom jazyke [The switch reference system in Tuvan]. Sovjetskaja Tjurkologija 2: 16–32; 4: 30–45.Google Scholar
Bergsträßer, G. 1918. Zur Phonetik des Türkischen nach gebildeter Konstantinopler Aussprache [On the phonetics of Turkish in the educated Constantinople pronunciation]. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 72: 233–262.Google Scholar
Berta, Á. 1989. Lautgeschichte der tatarischen Dialekte [Sound History of the Tatar Dialects] (Studia uralo-altaica 31). Szeged: University of Szeged.Google Scholar
Berta, Á. 1998a. West Kipchak languages. In Johanson & Csató eds. 1998: 301–317.Google Scholar
Berta, Á. 1998b. Tatar and Bashkir. In Johanson. L. & Csató, É. Á. eds. 1998: 283–300.Google Scholar
Bičeldej, K. A. 1999. Faringalizacija v tuvinskom jazyke [Pharyngalization in Tuvan]. Kyzyl: Tipografija Tyvinskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Bičeldey, K. A. & Nasilov, D. M. 2002. Tuvincev-todžincev jazyk [The Tuvan-Toja Language]. In Neroznak, V. P. ed. Jazyki narodov Rossii. Krasnaja kniga. Moscow: Nauka. 193–196.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. 1991. Typologische Grundlagen der Satzverkettung [Bases of clause linking]. Dissertation. University of Zürich.Google Scholar
Birjukovič, R. M. 1984. Leksika čulymsko-tjurkskogo jazyka [The Lexicon of the Chulym Turkic Language]. Saratov: Izdatel’stvo Saratovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Bisang, W. 1998. Structural similarities of clause combining in Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungusic and Japanese – A typological alternative to the hypothesis to a genetic relationship. In Johanson, L. ed. The Mainz Meeting. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 199–223.Google Scholar
Bläsing, U. 1984. Die finit-indikativischen Verbalformen im Kalmückischen: Untersuchungen ihrer Anwendung und ihrer Abgrenzung voneinander [The Finite Indicative Verb Forms in Kalmyk. Studies on Their Use and Delimitations] (Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission / Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur 36). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Bläsing, U. 1992. Armenisches Lehngut im Türkeitürkischen. Am Beispiel von Hemşin [Armenian Loans in Turkish. Examples from Hemshin]. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bläsing, U. 1995. Armenisch-Türkisch. Etymologische Betrachtungen ausgehend von Materialien aus dem Hemşingebiet nebst einigen Anmerkungen zum Armenischen, insbesondere dem Hemşindialekt [Armenian-Turkish. Etymological Considerations Based on Materials from the Hemshin Area and Notes of Armenian, Especially on the Hemshin Dialect]. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bläsing, U. 1998. Armeno-Turcica. Etymologische Untersuchungen anhand von Materialien aus dem Hemşingebiet [Etymological Studies to Materials from the Hemshin Area]. Studia Turcologica Cracoviensia 5: 41–63.Google Scholar
Bodrogligeti, A. 1970. A Fourteenth-Century Turkic Translation of Sa‛dī’s Gulistān. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Boeschoten, H. 1994. Chwaresmtürkisch als z-Türkisch [Khwarezmian Turkic as z-Turkic]. Journal of Turcology 1: 183–193.Google Scholar
Boeschoten, H. 2009. Alexander Stories in Ajami Turkic (Turcologica 75). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Boeschoten, H. & Johanson, L. eds. 2006. Turkic Languages in Contact (Turcologica 61). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Böhtlingk, O. 1851. Über die Sprache der Jakuten. Grammatik, Text und Wörterbuch (Dr. A. Th. v. Middendorff’s Reise in den äussersten Norden und Osten Sibiriens 3) [About the Language of the Yakuts. Grammar, Text, and Glossary (Middendorf’s Travel into the North and East Parts of Siberia)]. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. [Reprint 1964: The Hague: Mouton & Co. (Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series 35.)]Google Scholar
Bold, L. 1968. Osobennosti ujguro-urjanxajskogo jazyka [Features of the Uyghur-Uryangkhai language]. Avtoreferat. Ulan-Bator: Akademija Nauk, Institut Jazyka i Literatury.Google Scholar
Bombaci, A. 1952. Probleme der historischen Lautlehre der türkischen Sprache 1 [Problems of the historical phonetics of Turkic 1]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 24: 3–4, 89–105.Google Scholar
Borcakov, A. & Sarihanov, M. & Söyegov, M. & Hocayev, B. & Ärnazarov, S. 2000. Türkmen diliniñ grammatikası: Morfologiya [The Grammar of Turkmen: Morphology]. Ankara: Ruh.Google Scholar
Boretzky, N. 1978. Review of Symeonidis, Ch. 1976. Der Vokalismus der griechischen Lehnwörter im Türkischen. Amsterdam: Haekkert. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie 14: 208–2011.Google Scholar
Borovkov, A. K. 1952. Tadžiksko-uzbekskoe dvujazyčie i vzaimootnošenija uzbekskogo i tadžikskogo jazykov [Tajik-Uzbek bilingualism and the interrelations of Uzbek and Tajik]. Učenie Zapiski Instituta Vostokovedenija 4: 165–200.Google Scholar
Bozkurt, M. F. 1975. Untersuchungen zum Boǰnurd-Dialekt des Chorasantürkischen [Studies on the Khorasan Turkic dialect of Boǰnurd]. Dissertation. University Göttingen.Google Scholar
Brands, H. W. 1972. Studien zum Wortbestand der Türksprachen [Studies on the Lexicon of Turkic]. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Braun, F. & Haig, G. 2000. The noun/adjective distinction in Turkish. An empirical approach. In Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. eds. 2000. Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages (Turcologica 46). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 85–92.Google Scholar
Brendemoen, B. 1993. Pronominalsyntax in den türkischen Schwarzmeerdialekten – syntaktische Innovation oder Archaismus? [Pronominal Syntax in the Turkish Dialects, Black Sea, Innovation or Archaism?] In Laut, J. P. & Kl, Röhrborn. eds. 1993. Sprach- und Kulturkontakte der türkischen Völker. Materialien der zweiten deutschen Turkologen-Konferenz (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 37). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 51–73.Google Scholar
Brendemoen, B. 1996. Case merge in the Black Sea dialects. A Kartvelian substrate feature? In Berta, Á. & Brendemoen, B. & Cl, Schönig. eds. Symbolae Turcologicae. Studies in Honour of Lars Johanson. (Transactions 6). Stockholm: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. 41–59.Google Scholar
Brendemoen, B. 1999. Greek and Turkish Language Encounters in Anatolia. In Brendemoen, B. & Lanza, E. & Ryen, E. eds. Language Encounters Across Time and Space. Oslo: Novus. 353–378.Google Scholar
Brendemoen, B. 2002. The Turkish Dialects of Trabzon 1–2 (Turcologica 50). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Brockelmann, C. 1916 Zur Grammatik des Osmanisch-Türkischen [On the Ottoman Turkish Grammar]. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Brockelmann, C. 1917. ’Alī’s Qişşa’i Jūsuf, der älteste Vorläufer der osmanischen Literatur [’Alī’s Qişşa’i Jūsuf, the Oldest Forerunner of the Ottoman Literature]. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Brockelmann, C. 1954. Osttürkische Grammatik der islamischen Litteratursprachen Mittelasiens [East Turkic Grammar of the Islamic Literary Languages of Middle Asia]. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Buder, A. 1989 Aspekto-temporale Kategorien im Jakutischen [Aspect-Tense Categories in Yakut] (Turcologica 5). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Budup, B. K. 1979. O tuvinskix faringalizovannyx glasnyx [On Tuvan Pharyngialized Vowels]. In Problemy jazykov Azii i Afriki (fonetika, morfologija, sintaksis, semantika). Moscow: Nauka. 84–93.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache [Linguistic Theory. The Descriptive Function of the Language]. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Bulut, Chr. 1997. Evliya Çelebis Reise von Bitlis nach Van. Ein Auszug aus dem Seyahatname [Evliya Çelebi’s Travel from Bitlis to Van] (Turcologica 35). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bulut, Chr. 1998. Copied strategies of clause combining. Turkic Languages 2: 171–197.Google Scholar
Bulut, Chr. 1999. Klassifikatorische Merkmale des Iraktürkischen [Classificational Features of Iraq Turkic]. Orientalia Suecana 48: 5–27.Google Scholar
Bulut, Chr. 2003. Pronominal systems in the transitional varieties of the Turkic dialects in East Anatolia, Iraq and Western Iran. In Özsoy, S. ed. 2003. Studies in Linguistics, Turkish. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference in Turkish Linguistics. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. 321–335.Google Scholar
Bulut, Chr. 2005. Iranian influence in Sonqor Turkic. In Csató, É. Á. et al. eds. 2005: 241–269.Google Scholar
Bulut, Chr. 2006. Syntactic traces of Turkic-Iranian contiguity. In Johanson, L. & Bulut, Chr. eds. Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas. Historical and Linguistic Aspects. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 161–204.Google Scholar
Bulut, Chr. 2007. Iraqi Turkman. In Postgate, N. ed. Languages of Iraq, Ancient and Modern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 159–187.Google Scholar
Chr, Bulut. ed. 2018. Linguistic Minorities in Turkey and Turkic-speaking Minorities of the Periphery (Turcologica 111). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Čadamba, Z. B. 1974. Todžinskij dialekt tuvinskogo jazyka [The Toju Dialect of Tuvan]. Kyzyl: Tuvknigoizdat.Google Scholar
Čadamba, Z. B. 1983. Tuvinskie dialekty v ix otnošenii k literaturnomu jazyku [Tuvan dialects in their relation to the literary language]. In Sermavkina, V. ed. Voprosy tuvinskoj filologii. Kyzyl: Tuvinskij Naučno-Islsedovatel’skij Institut Jazyka, Literatury i Istorii. 18–23.Google Scholar
Caferoğlu, A. 1959. Die anatolischen und rumelischen Dialekte [The Anatolian and Rumelian Dialects]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 239–260.Google Scholar
Caferoğlu, A. & Doerfer, G. 1959. Das Aserbaidschanische [Azeri]. In Deny et al. eds. 1959: 280–307.Google Scholar
Çağatay, S. 1969. Tuba ağzında iyik [Iyik in the Tuba Dialect]. Türkiyat Mecmuası 15: 171–174.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 2011. Review of James Kari and Ben A. Potter eds. 2010. The Dene–Yeniseian Connection. A Special Joint Publication of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Fairbanks: Department of Anthropology and Alaska Native Language Center. International Journal of American Linguistics 77: 445–451.Google Scholar
Clark, L. 1996. The Early Turkic and Sarig Yugur counting systems. In Emmerick, R. et al. eds. Turfan, Khotan und Dunhuang. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 17–49.Google Scholar
Clark, L. 1998. Turkmen Reference Grammar (Turcologica 34). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Clauson, G. Sir 1956. The case against the Altaic theory. Central Asiatic Journal 2: 181–187.Google Scholar
Clauson, G. Sir 1957. The Turkish Y and related sounds. In Studia Altaica. Festschrift für Nikolaus Poppe zum 60. Geburtstag am 8. August 1957. (Ural-Altaische Bibliothek 5). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 33–45.Google Scholar
Clauson, G. Sir 1960 Sanglax. A Persian Guide to the Turkish Language (Gibb’s Memorial Series N.S. 20). London: Gibb.Google Scholar
Clauson, G. Sir 1962. Turkish and Mongolian Studies (Prize Publication Fund 20). London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Clauson, G. Sir 1966. Three notes on Early Turkish. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten. 1–18.Google Scholar
Clauson, G. Sir 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Clement, V. 1999. The Politics of Script Reform in Soviet Turkmenistan. Alphabet and National Identity Formation. M.A. Thesis. Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Collinder, B. 1939. Reichstürkische Lautstudien [Turkish Phonetic Studies] (Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1939: 1). Uppsala & Leipzig: Lundequistska Bokhandeln & Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1995. Review of Johanson, Lars: Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten [Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts] (Stuttgart, 1992). Rivista di Linguistica 7: 391–394. [Reprinted in Johanson, L. 2002. Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts, Curzon: Richmond, Surrey. vii–xii.]Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1996. Script reform in and after the Soviet Union. In Daniels & Bright eds. 1996: 781–784.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1997. Some problems in the theory and typology of numeral systems. In Palek, B. ed. Proceedings of LP ‘96. Typology. Prototypes, Item Orderings and Universals, Prague, August 20–22,1996 (Acta Universitatis Carolinae). Prague: Charles University Press. 41–56.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 2002. Introduction. In Johanson, L. Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts. Curzon. vii-xii.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 2018. Possessive chains and Possessor Camouflage. In Johanson, L. & Mazzielli, L. Fr. & Nevskaya, I. eds. Possession in the Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia (Studies in Language Companion Series 206). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 51–84.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 1985. A syntactic analysis of participle constructions in Modern Turkish. In Beşinci Milletler Arası Türkoloji Kongresi, 23–28 Eylül 1985. Tebliğler 1: Türk Dili. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi. 39–56.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 1990. Referential properties of some Turkish determiners. In Koç, Sabri (ed.) Studies on Turkish Linguistics. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 17–19 August 1988. Ankara: Middle East Technical University. 117–146.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 1995. Towards a typological classification of Turkish pro-forms. Orientalia Suecana 43–44: 83–92.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 2000. A syntactic asymmetry in Turkish. In Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. eds. 2000. Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages (Turcologica 46). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 417–422.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 2001a. Present in Kashkay. Turkic Languages 5: 104–119.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 2001b. Syntactic code-copying in Karaim. In Dahl, Ö. & Koptjevskaja, -Tamm, M. eds. The Circum-Baltic Languages: Their Typology and Contacts (Studies in Language Companion Series 54). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 265–277.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 2001c. Karaim. In Th, Stolz. ed. Minor Languages of Europe (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 30). Bochum: Brockmeyer. 1–24.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 2003. A typology of Turkish double-verb constructions. In Özsoy, S. ed. Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. 105–110.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 2005. On copying in Kashkay. In Csató, É. Á. & Isaksson, B. & Jahani, C. eds. Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion. Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic. London: RoutledgeCurzon. 271–283.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 2006a. Copying word order properties. In Boeschoten, H. & Johanson, L. eds. 2006. Turkic Languages in Contact (Turcologica 61). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 152–157.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 2006b. Gunnar Jarring’s Kashkay materials. In Johanson, L. & Bulut, Chr. eds. Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas. Historical and Linguistic Aspects (Turcologica 62). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 209–225.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 2010. Two types of complement clauses in Turkish. Boeschoten, In, H. & Rentzsch, J. eds. Turcology in Mainz, Turkologie in Mainz (Turcologica 82). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 107–122.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. 2019. On Turkish non-canonical possessives. In Johanson, L. & Mazzitelli, L. Fr. & Nevskaya, I. eds. 2019: 85–102.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. & Abish, A. 2015. Relators of comparison in Karaim and in Kazakh as spoken in China. Turkic Languages 19, 40–52.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. & Johanson, L. eds. 1993. On gerundial syntax in Turkic. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 46,2–3: 133–141.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. & Johanson, L. 1998. Turkish. In Johanson & Csató eds. 1998: 203–235.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. & Johanson, L. 2020. The Northwestern Turkic (Kipchak) languages. In Robbeets, M. & Savelyeyv, A. & Hübler, N. eds. The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 370–391.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. & Johanson, L. & Karakoç, B. eds. 2019. Ambiguous Verb Sequences in Transeurasian Languages and Beyond (Turcologica 120). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. & Isaksson, B. & Jahani, C. eds. 2005. Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion. Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Csató, É. & Uchturpani, M. A. 2010. On Uyghur relative clauses. Turkic Languages 14, 69–93.Google Scholar
Damourette, J. & Pichon, É. 1911–1936. Des mots à la pensée. Essai de grammaire de la langue française [From Letters to Thought. Essay to a Grammar of French]. Paris: D’Artrey.Google Scholar
Daniels, P. T. & Bright, W. 1996. The World’s Writing Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Danka, B. 2019. The ‘Pagan’ Oɣuz-nāmä. A Philological and Linguistic Analysis (Turcologica 113). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Dankoff, R. 1983. Wisdom of Royal Glory: A Turco-Islamic Mirror for Princes. (Publications of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies 16). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dankoff, R. 1995. Armenian Loanwords in Turkish (Turcologica 21). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Dankoff, R. & Kelly, J. 1982–1985. Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī. Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīwān Lugāt at-Turk) 1–3. Edited and translated with introduction and indices by R. Dankoff in collaboration with Kelly, J. (Sources of Languages, Oriental and Literatures 7). Harvard University Printing Office.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor. A Study of the Dialects of Sílli, Cappadocia and Phárasa, with Grammar, Texts, Translations and Glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Demir, N. 1992. Zur Verwendung der Hilfsverbverbindung -ip dur- in einem anatolischen Dialekt [The use of the auxiliary composition -ip dur- in an Anatolian dialect]. In Bethlenfalvy, et al. eds. Altaic Religious Beliefs and Practices. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University. 89–95.Google Scholar
Demir, N. 1993. Postverbien im Türkeitürkischen [Postverbials in Turkish] (Turcologica 17). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Demir, N. 1997. Die Vergangenheitsform auf -(y)ik in anatolischen Dialekten [The past tense form in -(y)ik in Anatolian dialects]. In Berta, Á. ed. Historical and Linguistic Interaction between Inner-Asia and Europe. Proceeding of the 39th Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIAC) Szeged. June 16–21,1996 (Studia uralo-altaica 39). Szeged: University of Szeged. 65–79.Google Scholar
Deny, J. 1921. Grammaire de la langue turque (dialecte osmanli) [Grammar of the Turkish Language (Ottoman Dialect)] (Bibliothèque de l’École des Langues Orientales Vivantes 5). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.Google Scholar
Deny, J. & Grønbech, K. & Scheel, H. & Togan, Z. V. eds. 1959. Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta 1. Aquis Mattiacis: Steiner.Google Scholar
Dešeriev, J. D. 1958. Razvitie mladopis’mennyx jazykov narodov SSSR [Evolution of the Young Written Languages of the Peoples of the SSSR]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Dešeriev, J. D. ed. 1959. Mladopis’mennye jazyki narodov SSSR [Young Written Languages of the Peoples of the SSSR]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 1, 19–80. [Revised version published as pp. 1–62 of Dixon 1982.]Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? and Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2003. A program for linguistics. Turkic Languages 7: 157–180.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. Adjective Classes in Typological Perspective. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, A. eds. 2004. Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology (Explanations in Linguistic Typology). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–49.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010–2012. Basic Linguistic Theory 1–3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dmitriev, N. K. 1940. Grammatika kumykskogo jazyka [Grammar of Kumyk]. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Dmitriev, N. K. 1955. Grammatičeskaja terminologija v učebnikax jazyka: tatarskix, baškirskix i čuvašskix [Grammatical Terminology in Textbooks of Tatar, Bashkir, and Chuvash]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Dmitriev, N. K. & Baskakov, N. A. eds. 1955–1962. Issledovanija po sravnitel’noj grammatike tjurkskix jazykov 1–4 [Studies on the Comparative Grammar of the Turkic Languages 1–4]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1963–1975. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit 1–4 [Turkic and Mongolic Elements in New Persian, Focused on Older New Persian Historical Sources of the Mongolic and Timurid Time 1–4] (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 16: 19–21). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1963. Bemerkungen zur Verwandtschaft der sog. altaischen Sprachen, [Remarks on the relationship of the so-called Altaic languages]. In Doerfer, G. 1963–1975, 1: 51–105.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1967a. Türkisch -n > tschuwaschisch -m? [Turkic -n > Chuvash -m?]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 39: 53–70.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1967b. Türkische Lehnwörter im Tadschikischen [Turkic Loans in Tajik] (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 37: 3). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1968a. Das Chaladsch – eine archaische Türksprache in Zentralpersien [Khalaj, an archaic Turkic language in Central Persia]. Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 118: 79–112.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1968b. Zwei wichtige Probleme der Altaistik [Two important problems in Altaistics]. Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne 69: 3–21.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1969. Die Turksprachen Irans [The Turkic Languages of Iran]. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten 302: 13–23.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1970. Irano-Altaistica. In Sebeok, Th. A. ed. Current Trends in Linguistics 6. The Hague & Paris: deGruyter Mouton. 217–234.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1971a. Khalaj Materials. With the collaboration of Wolfram Hesche, Hartwig Scheinhardt, Semih Tezcan (Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series 115). Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1971b. Gedanken zur Gestaltung eines idealen türkischen etymologischen Wörterbuchs [Thoughts on the creation of an ideal Turkic etymological thesaurus]. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 66: 437–454.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1971c. Bemerkungen zur Methodik der türkischen Lautlehre [Notes on the Methodology of the Turkic Sound Structure]. Orientalische Literaturzeitung 66: 325–344.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1973a. Bemerkungen zu den sojonischen Anlautklusilen [Notes on the Soyon initial stops]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 45: 254–260.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1973b. Lautgesetz und Zufall. Betrachtungen zum Omnicomparativismus [Sound Law and Chance. Notes on Omnicomparativism] (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 10). Innsbruck: Universität.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1973c. Tschuwaschisch -m < urtürkisch *-m (> gemeintürkisch -n) [Chuvash -m < Proto-Turkic *-m (> Common Turkic -n)]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 45: 174–212.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1975–1976. Proto-Turkic: Reconstruction problems. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten 433: 1–59.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1976. Das Vorosmanische. (Die Entwicklung der Oghusischen Sprachen von den Orchoninschriften bis zu Sultan Veled) [Pre-Ottoman. The development the Oghuz languages of the Orkhon inscriptions to Sultan Veled] (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları 433). Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten 1975–1976: 81–131.Google Scholar
Doerfer, 1977a. Das Sonqor-Türkische (ein vorläufiger Bericht) [Songor Turkic (a preliminary report)] Studia Orientalia 47: 43–55.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1977b. Zu türkisch: bana ‘mir’, sana ‘dir’ [On Turkish bana ‘to me’ and sana ‘to you’]. Central Asiatic Journal 21: 208–214.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1981. Turkish and Mongolian investigations in Iran and Afghanistan, undertaken by the University of Göttingen. The Bulletin of the International Institute for Linguistic Sciences (Kyoto, Sangyo University) 2, 1: 54–71.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1981–1982. Materialien zu türkisch h- [Materials to Turkic h-] Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher N.S. 1 (1981): 93–141; 2 (1982): 138–168.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1982. Nomenverba im Türkischen [Noun-verbs in Turkic]. Studia Turcologica Memoriae Alexii Bombaci Dicata. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale Seminario di Studi Asiaticii. 101–114.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1983. Ein türkischer Dialekt aus der Gegend von Hamadān [A Turkic dialect from the area of Hamadān] Acta Orientalia Hungarica 36: 99–124.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1984. Neues zum Imperativ des Chaladsch [New notes on the Khalaj imperative]. Journal of Turkish Studies 6: 63–82.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1985a. The Mongol-Tungus connections. Language Research 21: 135–144.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1985b. Kabulafscharisch und Chaladsch [Kabul Afshar and Khalaj]. Central Asiatic Journal 29: 166–175.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1985c. Zum Vokalismus nichterster Silben in altosmanischen Originaltexten (Veröffentlichungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur 37). Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1987b. Lexik und Sprachgeographie des Chaladsch 1–2 [Lexicon and linguistic geography of Khalaj 1–2]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1988. Grammatik des Chaladsch [Khalaj Grammar] (Turcologica 4). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1990. Die Stellung des Osmanischen im Kreise des Oghusischen und seine Vorgeschichte [The position of Ottoman in the Oghuz branch and its prehistory]. In Hazai ed. 1990: 13–34.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1993. Versuch einer linguistischen Datierung älterer osttürkischer Texte [Essay of a linguistic dating of older East Turkic texts] (Turcologica 14). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1994. Zu inschrifttürkisch ēle- [On ēle- in Turkic inscriptions]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher N.S. 13: 108–136.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1995. Türkische Farbbezeichnungen und Pferdezucht [Turkic color designations and horse breed]. Central Asiatic Journal 39: 208–227.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1996. Formen der älteren türkischen Lyrik [Forms of the older Turkic lyrics] (Studia Ural-Altaica 37). Szeged: Universitas Szegediensis de Attila József Nominata.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 1998. The Turkic languages of Iran [Turkic languages of Iran]. In Johanson, L. & Csató, É. Á. eds. The Turkic Languages. London & New York: Routledge. 273–283.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. 2015. Wortschatzbesonderheiten der Türksprachen [Lexical particularities of Turkic]. In Cruse, D. A. von & Hundsnurscher, F. & Job, M. & Lutzeier, P. R. eds. Lexikologie/Lexicology 2. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1034–1039.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. & Hesche, W. 1989. Südogusische Materialien aus Afghanistan und Iran [South Oghuz materials from Afghanistan and Iran]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. & Hesche, W. & Ravanyar, J. 1990. Oghusica aus Iran [Oghuz particularities from Iran]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Doerfer, G. & Tezcan, S. 1980. Wörterbuch des Chaladsch. Dialekt von Charrāb [Khalaj Lexicon. The Dialect of Kharrāb]. Budapest: Akadémiai.Google Scholar
Dolatkhah, S. 2012. Elements for a grammar of Kashkay. A Turkic language of Iran. Ph.D. thesis. Paris: École Pratique des Hautes Études.Google Scholar
Dolatkhah, S. 2016. Le qashqay, langue turkique d’Iran [Kashkay, a Turkic language in Iran]. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
Dolgopolskij, A. B. & Dybo, A. & Babaev, K. V. 2015–2016. Indoevropejskij slovar’ s nostratičeskimi ėtimologiami 1–3 [The Nostratic Etymologies of the Indoeuropean Lexicon]. Miami Book.Google Scholar
Dor, R. & Naumann, G. M. 1978. Die Kirghisen des afghanischen Pamir [The Kirghiz of the Afghan Pamir]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
Dul’zon, A. P. 1954. Terminy rodstva i svojstva v jazykax Narymskogo kraja i Pričulym’ja [Terms of kinship and property in the languages of the Narym krai and Middle Chulym]. In Učenye zapiski Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo instituta. Tomsk. 59–94.Google Scholar
Dul’zon, A. P. 1959. Tjurki Čulyma i ix otnošenie k xakasam [The Turks of Chulym and their relation to the Khakas]. In Učenye zapiski Xakasskogo naučno-issledovatel’skogo instituta jazyka, literatury i istorii 7. Abakan. 93–102.Google Scholar
Dul’zon, A. P. 1966. Ketskie skazki [Ket Fairy Tales]. Tomsk: Tomsk State University.Google Scholar
Dul’zon, A. P. 1973. Dialekty i govory tjurkov Čulyma [Dialects of the Chulym Turks]. Sovetskaja Tjurkologija 2: 16–29.Google Scholar
Dwyer, A. 1998. The Turkic strata of Salar: An Oghuz in Chaghatay clothes? Turkic Languages 2: 49–83.Google Scholar
Dwyer, A. 2000. Consonantalization and obfuscation. In Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. eds. Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages (Turcologica 46). Wiesbaden: Harrassoqwitz. 423–432.Google Scholar
Dwyer, A. M. 2007. Salar. A Study in Inner Asian Language Contact Processes 1. Phonology (Turcologica 37.1). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Dyrenkova, N. P. 1940. Grammatika ojrotskogo jazyka [Grammar of the Oyrot Language]. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Ebata, F. 2010. Sakha (Yakut). In Yamakoshi, Y. ed. Grammatical Sketches from the Field. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa and Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. 179–212.Google Scholar
Eckmann, J. 1950a. Anadolu Karamanlı ağızlarına ait araştırmalar 1. Phonetica [Studies on the Anatolian Karaman Dialects 1. Phonetics]. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 8: 165–200.Google Scholar
Eckmann, J. 1950b. Yunan harfli Karamanlı imlası hakkında [On the script of Karaman with Greek letters]. In Eren, H. & T. Halasi Kun, T. eds. Türk dili ve tarihi hakkında araştırmalar 1: 27–31.Google Scholar
Eckmann, J. 1959a. Das Chwarezmtürkische [Khwarezmian Turkic]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 113–137.Google Scholar
Eckmann, J. 1959b. Das Tschaghataische [Chaghatay]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 138–160.Google Scholar
Eckmann, J. 1964. Die karamanische Literatur [The Karaman literature]. In Bazin, L. et al. eds. 1964: 819–835.Google Scholar
Egorov, V. G. 1964. Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ čuvašskogo jazyka [Etymological Lexicon of Chuvash]. Čeboksary: Čuvašskoe Knižnoe Izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Ehlers, G. 1983. Notabilia zur alttürkischen Oberstufenzählung [Notabilia about the Old Turkic overstep counting system]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher N.S. 3: 81–87.Google Scholar
Ercilasun, A. B. et al. eds. 1991. Karșılaștırmalı Türk lehçeleri sözlüğü (Kılavuz kitap) [Comparative Lexicon of the Turkic Varieties] (Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları 1371; Kaynak eserler 54). Ankara: Bașbakanlık Basımevi.Google Scholar
Erdal, M. 1991. Old Turkic Word Formation. A Functional Appoach to the Lexicon 1–2 (Turcologica 7). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Erdal, M. 1993. Die Sprache der wolgabolgarischen Inschriften [The Language of the Volga Bulghar Inscriptions] (Turcologica 13). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Erdal, M. 1997. Review of: Lars Johanson, Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten [Structural factors in Turkic language contacts], Stuttgart, 1992. Mediterranean Language Review 9/10: 227–234.Google Scholar
Erdal, M. 2004. The Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Erdal, M. 2007. Group inflexion, morphological ellipsis, affix suspension, clitic sharing. In Fernandez-Vest, J. ed. Combat pour les langues du monde / Fighting for the world’s languages, Hommage à Claude Hagège (Collection Grammaire & Cogenition 4 & 5). Paris: L’Harmattan. 177–190.Google Scholar
Erdal, M. & Nevskaya, I. eds. 2006. Exploring the Eastern Frontiers of Turkic (Turcologica 60). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Erdal, M. & Nevskaya, I. & Menz, A. eds. 2012. Areal, Historical and Typological Aspects of South Suberian Turkic (Turcologica 92). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Erdal, M. & Nevskaya, I. & Nugteren, H. & Rind-Pawlowski, M. eds. 2013. Handbuch des Tschalkantürkischen (Turcologica 97, 1). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Erdödi, J. 1979. Die Fragepartikel mo des Tscheremissischen [The Mari interrogative particle mo]. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 43: 213–221.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı, E. E. 1984. The Function of Word Order in Turkish. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Press.Google Scholar
Ersen-Rasch, M. I. 2001. Türkische Grammatik für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene [Turkic Grammar for Beginners and Advanced]. Ismaning: Hueber.Google Scholar
Ersen-Rasch, M. I. 2009. Baschkirisch. Lehrbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene [Bashkir. Textbook for Beginners and Advanced]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Erten, M. 1994. Diyarbakır ağzı. İnceleme, metin, sözlük [The Dialect of Diyarbakır. Study, Text, Lexicon] (Türk Dil Kurumu yayınları 556). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar
Esipova, A. 2004. The experience of creation of the electronic corpus of the Shor texts. In İmer, K. & Doğan, G. eds. Current Research in Turkish Linguistics. Gazimaĝusa: Eastern Mediterranean University Press. 175–181.Google Scholar
Faseev, F. S. 1966. Kratkij grammatičeskij spravočnik tatarskogo jazyka [Short grammatical guide to Tatar]. In Tatarsko-russkij slovar’. Moscow: Nauka. 807–863.Google Scholar
Forsyth, J. 1992. A History of the Peoples of Siberia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortescue, M. 2013. North America: Eskimo‐Aleut linguistic history. In Ness, I. & Bellwood, P. eds. The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration 1. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 340–345.Google Scholar
Foy, K. 1903. Azerbajğanische Studien mit einer Charakteristik des Südtürkischen 1 [Azeri Studies with a Description of the Features of South Turkic 1] (Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen zu Berlin, Westasiatische Studien 6). Berlin: Reichsdruckerei. 126–193.Google Scholar
Foy, K. 1904. Azerbajğanische Studien mit einer Charakteristik de Südtürkischen 2 [Azeri studies with a characteristic of South Turkic 2] (Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen, Westasiatische Studien 7). Berlin: Reichsdruckerei. 197–265.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. A. 1999. The Romani language in the Republic of Macedonia: Status, usage, and sociolinguistic perspectives. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 46: 317–339.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. A. 2003. Turkish in Macedonia and Beyond. Studies in Contact, Typology and Other Phenomena in the Balkans and the Caucasus (Turcologica 52). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. A. 2006. West Rumelian Turkish in Macedonia and adjacent areas. In Boeschoten, H. & Johanson, L. eds. Turkic Languages in Contact (Turcologica 61). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 27–45.Google Scholar
Gabain, A. von 1941. Alttürkische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Lesestücken und Wörterverzeichnis, auch Neutürkisch [Old Turkic Grammar with Bibliography, Readings, and Glossary also in Modern Turkish] (Porta linguarum orientalium 23). Leipzig: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gabain, A. von 1945. Özbekische Grammatik [Uzbek Grammar] (Porta Linguarum Orientalium 25). Leipzig, Vienna: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gabain, A. von 1950. Alttürkische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Lesestücken und Wörterverzeichnis, auch Neutürkisch [Old Turkic Grammar with Bibliography, Readings, and Glossary also in Modern Turkish]. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gabain, A. von 1959a. Die Sprache des Codex Cumanicus [The language of Codex Cumanicus]. In Deny, et al. eds. 1959: 46–73.Google Scholar
Gabain, A. von 1959b. Das Alttürkische [Old Turkic]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 21–45.Google Scholar
Gabain, A. von 1961. Das uigurische Königreich von Chotscho, 850–1250 [The Uyghur Kingdom of Khocho, 850–1250] (Sitzungsberichte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst 1961, 5) Berlin.Google Scholar
Gabain, A. von 1970. Primäre und sekundäre Kasus im Alttürkischen [Primary and secondary cases in Old Turkic]. In Jakobson, R. & Sh, Kawamoto. eds. Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics. Tokyo: TEC Company. 131–137.Google Scholar
Gabain, A. von 1973. Das Leben im uigurischen Königreich von Qočo (850–1250) 1–2 [The Life in the Uyghur Kingdom of Qočo (850–1250) 1–2]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gabain, A. von, 1974 3. Alttürkische Grammatik [Old Turkic Grammar]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gabain, A. von & Veenker, W. 1969–1972. Radloff. Index der deutschen Bedeutungen [Radloff. Index of the German Meanings] (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 1–4.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, H. C. von der 1832. Élémens de la grammaire mandchoue [Elements of the Manchu Grammar]. Altenbourg: Comptoir de la littérature.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, G. von der 1861. Über das Passivum. Eine sprachvergleichende Abhandlung [On the passive. A comparative treatise]. In Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Classe der Königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 3: 449–546.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, G. von der, 1891/1984. Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse [Linguistics. Its Tasks, Methods, and Previous Results]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Gadžieva, N. Z. 1973. Osnovnye puti razvitija sintaksičeskoj struktury tjurkskix jazykov [Main Developments in the Syntactic Structures of Turkic Languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Geng, Sh. & Clark, L. 1993. Sarig Yugur materials. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 46: 189–224.Google Scholar
Giljarevskij, R. S. & Grivnin, V. S. 1961. Opredelitel’ jazykov mira po pis’mennostjam [Guide to the World’s Languages According to Scripts]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostočnoj literatury.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Godel, R. 1945. Grammaire turque. Genève: Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish. A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Göksel, A. & Özsoy, S. 2000. Is there a focus position in Turkish? In Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. eds. Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (Turcologica 46). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 219–228.Google Scholar
Golden, P. B. 1992. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples (Turcologica 9). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Golden, P. B. 2007. The Khazar sacral Kingship revisited. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 60: 161–194.Google Scholar
Golden, P. B. 2012. Oq and Oğur ~ Oğuz. Turkic Languages 16: 155–199.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 2000–2002. Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives: The Eurasiatic Language Family 1–2. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grønbech, K. 1936a. Codex Cumanicus. Cod. Marc. Lat. DXLIX. In Faksimile herausgegeben mit einer Einleitung von … (Monumenta Linguarum Asiæ Maioris 1). Kopenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Grönbech, K. 1936b. Der türkische Sprachbau 1 [The Turkic Linguistic Structure 1]. Kopenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Grønbech, K. 1955. Bemerkungen über das alttürkische Verbum [Notes on the Old Turkic verb]. Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 105: 69–70.Google Scholar
Grønbech, K. & Krueger, R. 1955. An Introduction to Classical (Literary) Mongolian: Introduction, Grammar, Reader, Glossary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Grønbech, V. 1902. Forstudier til tyrkisk lydhistorie [Preliminary Studies to a Turkic Sound Structure]. Kopenhagen: Lehmann og Stages.Google Scholar
Grousset, R. 1965 4. L’Empire des steppes, Attila, Gengis-Khan, Tamerlan [The Empire of the Steppes, Attila, Chinggis, and Timur]. Paris: Éditions Payot.Google Scholar
Grousset, R. 1970. The Empire of the Steppes [The Empire of the Steppes]. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Gürsoy Naskali, E. & Şahin, E. eds. 2008. Kültür tarihimizde gizli diller ve şifreler [Secret Languages and Ciphers in Our Cultural History]. İstanbul: Picus Yayınları.Google Scholar
Hahn, R. F. 1991. Spoken Uyghur. London & Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Jiànyè韓建業, Hán 1989 = Yībùlā Kèlìmù依布拉 克力木1989. Tán lìshǐshàng de sālāwén – tǔěrkèwén 談歷史上的撒拉文—土爾克文[On the historical Salar Turkic script], Yǔyán yǔ fānyì 語言與翻譯 3: 1–4.Google Scholar
Hanser, O. 1973–1974. Die Nebensatzgrammatik des Türkischen, untersucht an ausgewählten Beispielen [The subordinate clause of Turkic, studied on the basis of selected examples]. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 65/66: 155–218.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. D. 2000. Topics in the phonology and morphology of Tuvan. Doctoral dissertation. Yale University.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. D. 2003. Language Endangerment Among the Tofa. Cultural Survival Quarterly Fall: 53–55.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. D. & Anderson, G. D. S. 2003. Middle Chulym: Theoretical aspects, recent fieldwork and current state. Turkic Languages 7: 245–256.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. D. & Anderson, G. 2008. Tofa language change and terminal generation speakers. In Harrison, K. D. & Rood, D. & Dwyer, A. eds. Lessons from Documented Endangered Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 243–270.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, M. J. 1986. The Altaicization of Northern Chinese. In McCoy, J. & Light, T. eds. Contributions to Sino-Tibetan Studies (Cornell Linguistic Contributions 5). Leiden: Brill. 76–97.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian (Mouton Grammar Library 9). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1994. The tense system of Lezgian. In Thieroff, R. & Ballweg, J. eds. Tense Systems in European Languages (Linguistische Arbeiten 308). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 267–277.Google Scholar
Hatto, A. T. 1970. Shamanism and Epic Poetry in Northern Asia (School of Oriental and African Studies). London: University of London.Google Scholar
Hatto, A. T. 1977. The Memorial Feast for Kokotoy-Khan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hatto, A. T. 1990. The Manas of Wilhelm Radloff. Re-edited, newly translated and with a commentary by Arthur T. Hatto (Asiatische Forschungen 110). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Hauenschild, I. 1996. Tiermetaphorik in türksprachigen Pflanzennamen [Animal Metaphorics in Turkic Plant Names] (Turcologica 29). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Hauenschild, I. 2012. Farbbezeichnungen im Jakutischen. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Tierfarbenterminologie [Color Distinctions in Yakut, Based on the Consideration of the Terminology of Animal Colors] (Turcologica 92). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Hauenschild, I. 2016. Türksprachige Gräsernamen. Eine lexikographische Untersuchung nebst Glossar [Turkic Names of Grasses. A Lexicological Study with Glossary] (Turcologica 109). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Hayasi, T. 1997. Separated genitive construction in Modern Turkish. In Matsumura, K. & Hayasi, T. eds. The Dative and Related Phenomena. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. 227–253.Google Scholar
Hayasi, T. 2007. On the distribution of Eynu, a Modern Uyghur-based secret language spoken in South Xinjiang, China. In Boeschoten, H. & Stein, H. eds. Einheit und Vielfalt in der türkischen Welt. Materialien der 5. Deutschen Turkologenkonferenz, Universität Mainz, 4.-7. Oktober 2002 (Turcologica 69). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 182–192.Google Scholar
Hazai, Gy. 1973. Das Osmanisch-Türkische im XVII. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen an den Transkriptionstexten von Jakab Nagy de Harsány [Ottoman in the 17th Century. Studies on the Transcriptonal Texts of Jakab Nagy de Harsány (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 18). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Hazai, G. 1978. Kurze Einführung in das Studium der türkischen Sprache [Short Introduction to the Study of Turkish]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó & Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gy, Hazai. ed. 1990. Handbuch der türkischen Sprachwissenschaft 1 [Handbook of the Turkish Linguistics] (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 31). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Hebert, R. J. & Poppe, N. 1963. Kirghiz Manual (Indiana University Publications: Uralic and Altaic Series, 33). Bloomington: Indiana University. [Reprint 1997 Richmond: Curzon. (Research and Studies in Uralic and Altaic Languages, American Council of Learned Societies 22).]Google Scholar
Heine, B. 2009. Grammaticalization of cases. In Malchukov, A. & Spencer, A. eds. The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 458–469.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Helimski, E. 1995. Samoyedic loans in Turkic. Check-list of etymologies. In Kellner-Heinkele, B. & Stachowski, M. eds. 1995. Laut- und Wortgeschichte der Türksprachen. Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums Berlin, 7.-10. Juli 1992 (Turcologica 26). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 75–91.Google Scholar
Helimski, E. 1997. Selkup. In Abondolo, D. ed. The Uralic Languages. London & New York: Routledge. 548–579.Google Scholar
Helimski, see also Xelimskij.Google Scholar
Herkenrath, A. 2011. Wh-Konstruktionen im Türkischen [Wh-Constructions in Turkish] (Turcologica 87). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Heyd, U. 1954. Language Reform in Modern Turkey (Oriental Notes and Studies 5). Jerusalem: Israel Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. & Schultze-Berndt, E. ed. 2005 Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification. The Typology of Depictives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Höhlig, M. 2007. Kontaktbedingter Sprachwandel in der adygeischen Umgangssprache im Kaukasus und in der Türkei. Vergleichende Analyse des russischen und türkischen Einflusses in mündlichen adygeischen Texten [Contact-based Linguistic Differences in Spoken Adyghe in Caucasus and Turkey. Comparative Analysis of the Russian and Turkish Impact in Oral Adyghe Texts] (Lincom Studies in Caucasian Linguistics 03). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Honti, L. 1997. Numerusprobleme (Ein Erkundungszug durch den Dschungel der uralischen Numeri) [Numeral problems (An Exploration in the Jungle of the Ural Numbers]. Finno-Ugrische Forschung 54: 1–126.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in Universal Grammar. Language 60: 703–752.Google Scholar
Hovdhaugen, E. 1971. Turkish words in Khotanese texts. A linguistic analysis. Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap 24: 163–209.Google Scholar
Humphreys, A. & Mits, K. eds. 2001. The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire. Tallinn: NGO Red Book.Google Scholar
Ibrahimi, S. 1982. Ndikimi i gjuhës shqipe në rrafshin fonologjik të turqishtes së folur në Maqedoni dhe Kosovë [Influence of the Albanian language on the phonological level of spoken Turkish in Macedonia and Kosovo]. Studime filologjike 36, 2: 51–61.Google Scholar
Igla, B. 1996. Das Romani von Ajia Varvara [The Romani Language of Ajia Varvara]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Illič-Svityč, V. M. 1971–1984. Opyt sravnenija nostratičeskix jazykov 1–3 [An Experiment in Comparing the Nostratic Languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Imart, G. 1981. Le Kirghiz (Turk d’Asie Central Sovietique). Description d’une langue de littérisation récente [Kirghiz (Turkic of Central Soviet Asia). Description of a Language with Recent Literacy]. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Isanbaev, N. I. 1979. Voprosy istorii i dialektologii. Voprosy marijskogo jazyka [Questions of History and Dialectology. Questions of the Mari language]. Joskar-Ola: Marijskij naučno-issledovatel’skij institut.Google Scholar
Isanbaev, N. I. 1989. Mari-Turkic Language Contacts 1. Tatar and Bashkir Borrowings. Yoshkar-Ola: Mari Book Publishing House.Google Scholar
İslamov, M. İ. et al. eds. 1990. Azärbaycan Dilinin Dialektoloji Atlası [Dialectological Atlas of the Azeri Language]. Baku: Älm.Google Scholar
İșsever, S. 2003. Information structure in Turkish: The word order-prosody interface. Lingua 113: 1025–1053.Google Scholar
Isxakov, F. G. & Pal’mbax, A. A. 1961. Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija [Grammar of Tuvan. Phonetics and Morphology]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostočnoj literatury.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. 1955. Über die Betonungsverhältnisse in den finnisch-ugrischen Sprachen [On the accentuation in Finno-Ugric languages]. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1/2: 21–34.Google Scholar
Ivanics, M. & Usmanov, M. A. 2002. Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende: Däftär-i Cingiz-namä [The Book of the Genghis Legend] (Studia uralo-altaica 44). Szeged: Szegedi Tudományegyetem.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. ed. 1960, Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. 350–377.Google Scholar
Janhunen, J. 1996. Manchuria. An Ethnic History. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Janhunen, J. 1998. Samoyedic. In Abondolo, D. ed. The Uralic Languages. New York & London: Routledge. 457–479.Google Scholar
Janhunen, J. 2003. The Mongolic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Janhunen, J. 2005. The role of the Turkic languages in the Amdo Sprachbund. In Siemieniec-Golas, E. & Pomorska, M. eds. Turks and Non-Turks. Studies on the History of Linguistic and Cultural Contacts (Studia Turcologica Cracoviensia 10.) Kraków: Institute of Oriental Philology, Jagiellonian University. 113–122.Google Scholar
Janhunen, J. 2007. The changing faces of Amdo Qinghai. Studia Orientalia (Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society) 101: 501–510.Google Scholar
Jankowski, H. 2003. On the language varieties of Karaims in the Crimea. Studia Orientalia 95: 109–130.Google Scholar
Jankowski, H. 2019. Unmarked accusative and genitive after possessive suffixes in Tuvan. Central Asiatic Journal 62: 13–26.Google Scholar
Jankowski, H. & Aqtay, D. & Cegiołka, D. & Çulha, T. & Németh, M. 2019. The Crimean Karaim Bible 1–2 (Turcologica 119). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Janse, M. 2009. Greek-Turkish language contact in Asia minor. Études helléniques / Hellenic Studies 17: 37–54.Google Scholar
Jarring, G. 1933. Studien zu einer osttürkischen Lautlehre [Studies in Eastern Turkic Phonology]. Lund: Borelius.Google Scholar
Jarring, G. 1939. On the Distribution of Turk Tribes in Afghanistan. An Attempt at a Preliminary Classification. (Lunds Universitets Årsskrift, N.S. 1, 35: 4). Lund, Leipzig: Gleerup & Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Jarring, G. 1941. Zurufe an Tiere bei den Osttürken [Calls to Animals with the Eastern Turks]. In Jaeschke, G. ed. Festschrift Friedrich Giese aus Anlass des siebzigsten Geburtstags. Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Islamkunde. 46–52.Google Scholar
Jarring, G. 1964. An Eastern Turki-English Dialect Dictionary (Lunds Universitets Årsskrift. N.S. 1: 56:4). Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Jarring, G. 1989. Literary Texts from Kashgar, Edited and Translated with Notes and Glossary. Lund: Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet.Google Scholar
Jašar-Nasteva, O. 1970. Za makedonskite tajni jazici [On Macedonian secret languages]. Godišen zbornik na Filozofskiot fakultet na Univerzitetot vo Skopje 22: 553–569.Google Scholar
Jastrow, O. 2018. Semitic languages in Southeastern Turkey and Semitic-Iranian-Turkish language contacts. In Bulut ed. 2018: 231–240.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1971. Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems [Aspect in Turkish. Preliminary Studies for a Description of the Turkish Aspect System] (Studia Turcica Upsaliensia 1). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1973. Sprachbau und Inhaltssyntax am Beispiel des Türkischen [Linguistic structure and semantic syntax on the example of Turkish]. Orientalia Suecana 22: 82–106.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1974a. Zur Syntax der alttürkischen Kausativa [On the syntax of Old Turkic causatives]. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 2: 529–540.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1974b. Review of Weiers, Michael: Die Sprache der Moghol der Provinz Herat in Afghanistan. Acta Orientalia 36: 459–472.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1975a. Das tschuwaschische Aoristthema [The Chuvash aorist theme]. Orientalia Suecana 23–24: 106–158.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1975b. Some remarks on Turkic ‘hypotaxis’. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 47: 104–118. [Reprinted in Décsy, Gy. & Dimov-Bogoev, Chr. D. eds. 1977. Eurasia Nostratica 1–2 (Festschrift für Karl Heinrich Menges). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.]Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1976a. Zum Präsens der nordwestlichen und mittelasiatischen Türksprachen [On the present tense in Northwestern and Central Asiatic Turkic languages]. Acta Orientalia 37: 57–74.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1976b. Review of Nash, Rose: Turkish intonation. An instrumental study. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 71: 279–280.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1977a. Die Ersetzung der türkischen -t-Kausativa [The replacement of the Turkic -t-causatives]. Orientalia Suecana 25–26 (1976–1977): 106–133.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1977b. Bestimmtheit und Mitteilungsperspektive im türkischen Satz [Definiteness and information structure in the Turkic sentence]. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Supplement 3, 2: 1186–1203.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1979a. Alttürkisch als ‘dissimilierende Sprache’ [Old Turkic as ‘Dissimilating Language’] (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse 1979: 3). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1979b. Die westoghusische Labialharmonie [The West Oghuz labial harmony]. Orientalia Suecana 27–28: 63–107.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1981. Pluralsuffixformen im Südwesttürkischen [Plural Suffix Forms in Southwestern Turkic] (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1981: 9). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1984. Review of Sanjian, Avedis K. & Tietze, Andreas: Eremya Chelebi Kömürjian’s Armeno-Turkish poem ‘The Jewish bride’. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 79: 278–281.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1986a. Zur Konsonantenstärke im Türkischen [On consonant strength in Turkic]. Orientalia Suecana 33–35:195–209.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1986b. Reproduktion, Widerstand und Anpassung: Zur lautlichen Iranisierung im Türkischen [Reproduction, Resistance, and Adjustment]. In Schmitt, R. & Skjærvø, P. O. eds. Studia grammatica Iranica. Festschrift für Helmut Humbach. München: Kitzinger. 185–201.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1988a. Iranian elements in Azeri Turkish. In Yarshater, E. ed. Encyclopædia Iranica 3. London & New York. 248b–251a.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1988b. Grenzen der Turcia. Verbindendes und Trennendes in der Entwicklung der Türkvölker [The borders of Turcia: Connections and divisions in the development of the Turkic peoples]. In Ehrensvärd, U. ed. Turcica et Orientalia. Studies in Honour of Gunnar Jarring on His Eightieth Birthday 12th October 1987. Stockholm: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. 51–61.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1988c. On the renewal and reinterpretation of ‘instrumental’ gerunds in Turkic. Oriens 31: 136–153.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1989a. Substandard und Sprachwandel im Türkischen [Substandard and linguistic change in Turkic]. Holtus, In, G. & Radtke, E. eds. Sprachlicher Substandard 2. Standard und Substandard in der Sprachgeschichte und in der Grammatik (Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 44). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 83–112.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1989b. Aorist and present tense in West Oghuz Turkic. Journal of Turkish Studies 13: 99–105.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1990a. Zu den Grundfragen einer kritischen Altaistik [On the basic issues of a critical Altaistic]. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 80: 103–124.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1990b. Studien zur türkeitürkischen Grammatik [Studies on Turkish grammar]. In Gy, Hazai. ed. Handbuch der türkischen Sprachwissenschaft 1. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 146–278.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1991a. On syllabic frontness oppositions in Turkic. Varia Eurasiatica. Festschrift für Professor András Róna-Tas. Szeged: Department of Altaic Studies. 77–94.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1991b. Zur Typologie türkischer Gerundialsegmente [On the typology of Turkic converb segments]. Türk Dilleri Araṣtırmaları 1: 98–110.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1991c. Subjektlose Sätze im Türkischen [Subjectless clauses in Turkic]. In Brendemoen, B. ed. Altaica, Osloensia. Proceedings from the 32nd Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference. Oslo, June 12–16, 1989. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 193–218.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1992a. Zur Isochronie im Türkischen [On isochrony in Turkic]. In Bethlenfalvy, G. et al. eds. Altaic Religious Beliefs and Practices. Budapest: Research Group for Altaic Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 183–188.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1992b. Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten [Structural Factors in Turkic Linguistic Contacts] (Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 29:5). Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1992c. Zur Geltung türkischer Schriftsprachen und Schriftsysteme [On the validity of Turkic written languages and script systems]. Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları 30: 165–178.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1993a. Rūmī and the birth of Turkish poetry. Journal of Turkology 1: 23–37.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1993b. Code-copying in immigrant Turkish. In Extra, G. & Verhoeven, L. eds. Immigrant Languages in Europe. Clevedon & Philadelphia & Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 197–221.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1993c. Review of Sims-Williams, Nicholas & Hamilton, James: Documents turco-sogdiens du IXe-Xe siècle de Touen-huang. Acta Orientalia 54: 197–199.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1993d. Typen türkischer Kausalsatzverbindungen [Types of Turkic causal-clause linking]. Journal of Turkology (Szeged) 1: 213–267.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1994a. Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora [Turkish aspect tenses]. In Thieroff, Rolf & Ballweg, Joachim (eds.) Tense Systems in European Languages. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 247–266.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1994b. Ein türkisches Erzählsatzmuster [A Turkic pattern of narrative clauses]. In Bellmann, D. ed. Gedenkschrift Wolfgang Reuschel. Stuttgart: Steiner. 165–174.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1994c. Formal aspects of ʿaruḍ versification. In Johanson, L. & Utas, B. eds. Arabic Prosody and Its Applications in Muslim Poetry (Transactions 5). Stockholm: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. 7–16.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1994d. Funktion, Kompetenz und Etymon. Bemerkungen zu einer ost-alttürkischen Wortbildungslehre. Central Asiatic Journal 38: 160–178.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1995a. On Turkic converb clauses. In Haspelmath, M. & König, E. eds. Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 313–347.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1995b. Mehrdeutigkeit in der türkischen Verbalkomposition [Ambiguity in Turkic verbal compositions]. In Erdal, M. & Tezcan, S. eds. Beläk Bitig. Sprachstudien für Gerhard Doerfer zum 75. Geburtstag (Turcologica 23). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 81–101.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1995c. Wie ensteht ein türkisches Wort? [How does a Turkic word derive?] In Kellner-Heikele, B. & Stachowksi, M. eds. Laut- und Wortgeschichte der Türksprachen (Turcologica 26). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 97–121.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1996a. Kopierte Satzjunktoren im Türkischen [Copied clause juctions in Turkic]. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49: 39–49.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1996b. On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives. In Boretzky, N. & Enninger, W. & Th, Stolz. eds. Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 24). Bochum: Brockmeyer. 84–94.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1997a. A grammar of the “lingua turcica agemica”. In Kellner-Heinkele, B. & Zieme, P. eds. Studia Ottomanica. Festgabe für György Hazai zum 65. Geburtstag (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 47). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 87–101.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1997b. Kopien russischer Konjunktionen in türkischen Sprachen [Copies of Russian conjunctions in Turkic]. In Huber, D. & Worbs, E. eds. Ars transferendi. Sprache, Übersetzung, Interkulturalität. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 115–121.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1998a. The History of Turkic. In Johanson & Csató eds. 1998: 81–125.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1998b. The Structure of Turkic. In Johanson & Csató eds. 1998: 30–66.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1998c. Code-copying in Irano-Turkic. Language Sciences 20: 325–337.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1999a. Frame-changing code-copying in immigrant varieties. In Extra, G. & Verhoeven, L. eds. Bilingualism and Migration (Studies on Language Acquisition 14). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 247–260.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1999b. The dynamics of code-copying in language encounters. In Brendemoen, B. & Lanza, E. & Ryen, E. eds. Language Encounters Across Time and Space. Oslo: Novus Press. 37–62.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1999c. Typological notes on aspect and actionality in Turkic, Kipchak. In Abraham, W. & Kulikov, L. eds. Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity. Essays in Honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov (Studies in Language Companion series 50). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 171–184.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 1999d. Grenzbezogenheit in Aspekt und Lexik am Beispiel türkischer Postverbialkonstruktionen [Border relatedness in aspect and lexicon on the example of Turkic postverbial constructions]. In Breu, W. ed. Probleme der Interaktion von Lexik und Aspekt (ILA). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 129–139.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2000a. Linguistic convergence in the Volga area. In Gilbers, D. & Nerbonne, J. & Schaeken, J. eds. Languages in Contact (Studies in Slavic and General linguistics 28). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. 165–178.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2000b. Attractiveness and relatedness: Notes on Turkic language contacts. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, February 12–15, 1999. Good, J. & Yu, A. C. L. eds. Special session on Caucasian, Dravidian, and Turkic linguistics. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 87–94.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2000c. Viewpoint operators in European languages. In Dahl, Ö. ed. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 27–187.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2000d. Turkic indirectives. In Johanson, L. & Utas, B. eds. Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 61–87.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2001a. Discoveries on the Turkic Linguistic Map (Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, Publications 5). Stockholm: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2001b. On Bulgarian copies of Turkish suffixes. In Igla, B. & Th, Stolz. eds. ‘Was ich noch sagen wollte … ’. A multilingual Festschrift for Norbert Boretzky on occasion of his 65th birthday (Studia Typologica 2). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 177–180.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2001c. Vom Alttürkischen zu den modernen Türksprachen [From Old Turkic to the modern Turkic languages]. In Haspelmath, M. & König, E. & Oesterreicher, W. & Raible, W. eds. Language Typology and Language Universals 2: 2. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin & New York. 1718–1742.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2002a. Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts [With an introduction by Bernard Comrie]. London: Curzon.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2002b. Contact-induced linguistic change in a code-copying framework. In Jones, M. C. & Esch, E. eds. Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-Linguistic Factors (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 285–313.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2003a. Smaller Turkic languages. In Sherzer, J. & Th, Stolz. eds. Minor Languages: Approaches, Definitions, Controversies (Diversitas Linguarum 3). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer. 15–39.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2003b. Evidentiality in Turkic. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. eds. Studies in Evidentiality (Typological Studies in Language 54). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 273–290.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2004a. On the Turkic origin of Hungarian igen ‘yes’. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57: 93–104.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2004b. On Turkic transformativizers and nontransformativizers. Turkic Languages 8: 180–190.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2005a. Converging codes in Iranian, Semitic and Turkic. In Csató & Isaksson, & Jahani eds. 2005: 3–31.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2005b. Tuwinische Postverbien und chaladschische Imperative [Tuvan postverbials and Khalaj imperatives]. In Oelschlägel, A. Chr. & Nentwig, I. & Taube, J. eds. ‘Roter Altai, gib Dein Echo!’. Festschrift für Erika Taube zum 65. Geburtstag. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag. 183–186.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2005c. Participles in Caucasus Turkic. In Haug, D. & Welo, E. eds. Haptačahaptāitiš – Festschrift for Fridrik Thordarson (The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, B: 116). Oslo: Novus forlag. 151–156.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2006a. The borders of Turcia: Connections and divisions in the development of the Turkic peoples. In Çağatay, E. & Kuban, D. eds. The Turkic Speaking Peoples. 2000 Years of Art and Culture from Inner Asia to the Balkans. Munich & Berlin & London & New York: Prestel. 19–29.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2006b. On the roles of Turkic in the Caucasus area. In Matras, Y. & McMahon, A. & Vincent, N. eds. Linguistic Areas. Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 160–181.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2006c. Adjectives and nouns in South Siberian. In Erdal, M. & Nevskaya, I. eds. Exploring the Eastern Fontiers of Turkic in South Siberia (Turcologica 60). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 57–78.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2007a. Strong and weak codas in Turkic prime morphemes. In Öztopçu, K. ed. Festschrift in honor of András J. E. Bodrogligeti. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları 17: 191–199.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2009. Modals in Turkic. In Hansen, Bj. & de Haan, F. eds. Modals in the Languages of Europe. A Reference Work (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 44). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 487–510.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2010a. The high and low spirits of Transeurasian language studies. In Johanson & Robbeets eds. 2010: 7–20.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2010b. Three kinds of clause junctors. In Ziegelmeyer, G. & Cyffer, N. eds. Aspects of Co- and Subordination. Case Studies from African, Slavonic, and Turkic Languages. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. 9–14.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2011a. Why don’t they meet face to face? On hiatus-preventing allomorphy in Turkish and its relatives. In Erguvanlı Taylan, E. & Rona, B. eds. Puzzles of Language. Essays in Honour of Karl Zimmer (Turcologica 86). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 23–36.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2011b. Grammaticalizaton in Turkic languages. In Narrog, H. & Heine, B. eds. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 752–761.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2011c. Mood meets mood. In Th, Stolz. & Vanhove, M. & Urdze, A. & Otsuka, H. eds. Morphologies in Contact (Studia Typologica 10). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 203–211.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2012a. Pyramids of spatial relators in Northeastern Turkic and its neighbors. In Suihkonen, P. & Comrie, B. & Solovyev, V. eds. Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. A Crosslinguistic Typology (Studies in Companion, Language 126). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 191–210.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2012b. Notes on Turkic stance particles. In Erdal, M. & Nevskaya, I. & Menz, A. eds. Areal, Historical and Typological Aspects of South Siberian Turkic (Turcologica 94). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 51–58.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2013a. Written language intertwining. In Bakker, P. & Matras, Y. eds. Contact Languages. A Comprehensive Guide. Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 273–331.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2014a. A synopsis of Turkic volitional moods. Turkic Languages 18: 19–52.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2014b. Review of Aikhenvald A. Y. & Dixon R. M. W. eds. Possession and Ownership: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford Universiry Press. Language 90: 277–280.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2018a. Five dimensions of linguistic distance. Turkic Languages 22: 36–42.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2018b. Turkic indirectivity. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. ed. The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press. 510–524.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2019a. Review of Aikhenvald, A. Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. eds. Commands. A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Studies in Language 43: 752–756.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. 2020. The classification of the Turkic languages. In Robbeets, M. & Savelyeyv, A. & Hübler, N. eds. The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. ed. 1998. The Mainz Meeting. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (Turcologica 32). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. & Chr, Bulut. eds. 2006. Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas. Historical and Linguistic Aspects (Turcologica 62). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. & Csató, É. Á. eds. 1998 [20062]. The Turkic Languages (Routledge Language Family Descriptions). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. & Mazzitelli, L. Fr. & Nevskaya, I. eds. 2019. Possession in the Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia (Studies in Language Companion Series 206). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. & Ragagnin, E. 2006. Central Asia and Mongolia/Zentralasien und Mongolei. In Ammon, U. & Dittmar, N. & Mattheier, Kl. J. & Trudgill, P. eds. Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik 3. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 1889–1897.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. & Robbeets, M. eds. 2010a. Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance (Turcologica 78). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. & Robbeets, M. 2010b. Introduction. In Johanson & Robbeets eds. 2010: 1–5.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. & Cl, Schönig. eds. 1988. Kritische Beiträge zur Altaistik und Turkologie. Festschrift für Johannes Benzing [Critical contributions to Altaistics and Turcology [Festschrift for Johannes Benzing] (Turcologica 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Judaxin, K. K. 1965. Kirgizsko-russkij slovar’ [Kirghiz-Russian Lexicon]. Moscow: Sovjetskaja Ėnciklopedija.Google Scholar
Juldašev, A. A. 1977. Sootnošenie deepričastnyx i ličnyx form glagola v tjurkskix jazykax [The Correspondence of Converbal and Personal Verb Forms in Turkic]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Jusuf, S. 1987. Prizrenski turski govor [The Turkish dialect of Prizren]. Pristina: Jedinstvo.Google Scholar
Kahane, H. R. & Kahane, R. & Tietze, A. 1988. The Lingua Franca in the Levant. Turkish Nautical Terms of Italian and Greek Origin. Istanbul: ABC Kitabevi.Google Scholar
Kakuk, S. 1972. Le dialecte turc d’Ohrid en Macédonie [The Turkish dialect of Ohrid in Macedonia]. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 26: 227–282.Google Scholar
Kałużyński, St. 1961. Mongolische Elemente in der jakutischen Sprache [Mongolic Elements in Yakut]. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Kamali Aknoun Azad, B. 2011. Topics at the PF interface of Turkish. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kappler, M. 2002. Türkischsprachige Liebeslyrik in griechisch-osmanischen Liedanthologien des 19. Jahrhunderts [Turkish Love Poems in Greek-Ottoman Anthologies from the 19th century] (Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Turkvölker 3). Berlin: Klaus Schwarz.Google Scholar
Kappler, M. 2010. Turkish Language Contacts in Southeastern Europe. Articles in Italian, German, French, and English. (Analecta Isisiana: Ottoman and Turkish Studies 61). Istanbul: İsis.Google Scholar
Karahan, L. 1996. Anadolu ağızlarının sınıflandırılması [The Classification of the Anatolian Dialects]. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B. 2000. The finite copula bol- in Noghay and its functional equivalents in Turkish. In Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. eds. Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages (Turcologica 46). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 143–149.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B. 2002. Nogayca ve Türkiye Türkçesinde tümleç yan cümlelerinde yüklemleştiriciler. [Subordinators in Noghay and Turkish complement clauses]. In Demir, N. & Turan, F. eds. Scholarly Depth and Accuracy. A Festschrift to Lars Johnson. Lars Johanson Armağanı. Ankara: Grafiker Yayınları. 193–215.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B. 2005. Das finite Verbalsystem im Nogaischen [The Finite Verb System in Noghay] (Turcologica 58). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B. 2007. Ein Überblick über postverbiale Konverbien im Nogaischen [A Survey on the postverbial converb system in Noghay]. In Boeschoten, H. & Stein, H. eds. Einheit und Vielfalt in der türkischen Welt. Materialien der 5. Deutschen Turkologenkonferenz (Turcologica 69). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 215–229.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B. 2013. Types of copular clauses following ki in Old Ottoman Turkish. Turkic Languages 17: 38–64.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B. 2014. Non-past copular markers in Turkish. In Suihkonen, P. & Whaley, L. J. eds. On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia (Studies in Language Companion 164). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 221–250.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B. 2017a. Nogayca çokfiilli yüklemler: Fiillerden gelişmiş dilbilgisel biçimlere bütüncül bir bakış [Multiverbal Predications in Noghay. An Overview of the Complex Grammatical Morphemes Developed from Verbs]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (HÜTAD) 27: 189–216.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B. 2017b. Subordination of existence and possessive clauses in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. Turkic Languages 21: 199–233.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B. 2019a. Predicative possession in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. In Johanson, L. et al. eds. 2019: 125–148.Google Scholar
Karakoç, B. 2019b. Levels of potential ambiguity in Noghay verb sequences. In Csató & Johanson & Karakoç 2019: 175–198.Google Scholar
Károly, L. 2012. History of the intervocalic velars in the Turkic languages. Turkic Languages 16: 3–24.Google Scholar
Karșılaștırmalı Türk lehçeleri sözlüğü [Comparative Dictionary of Turkic]. See Ercilasun et al. eds. 1991.Google Scholar
Katanov, N. F. 1903. Opyt issledovanija urjanxajskogo jazyka s ukazaniem glavnejšix rodstvennyx otnošenij ego k drugim jazykam tjurkskogo kornja [Essay at a Research on the Uriankhay Language with its Genealogical Relations to Other Turkic Languages]. Kazan’, University.Google Scholar
Kelly, J. M. 1973. Remarks on Kāšɣarī’s phonology. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 45: 144–162.Google Scholar
Kennelly, S. D. 1997. The presentational focus position of nonspecific objects in Turkish. In Imer, K. & Uzun, N. E. eds. Proceedings of the VIIIth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Ankara: Ankara University Press. 25–36.Google Scholar
Kerimova, , 1966. Tadžikskij jazyk [Tajik]. In Vinogradov, V. V. ed. Jazyki narodov SSSR 1. Indoevropejiskie jazyki. Moscow: Nauka. 212–236.Google Scholar
Kerslake, C. J. 2003. A new look at conditional constructions in Turkish. In Özsoy, S. A. et al. eds. Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Istanbul: Bogazici University Press. 215–226.Google Scholar
Khabtagaeva, B. 2009. Mongolic Elements in Tuvan (Turcologica 81). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kincses Nagy, É. 2018. Mongolic Copies in Chaghatay (Turcologica 115). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kirchner, M. 2006. Relative clauses in an Old Ottoman Turkish interlinear version of the Koran. In Boeschoten & Johanson eds. 2006: 166–175.Google Scholar
Kirchner, M. 2010. Tatarisch in der Russischen Föderation. In Boeschoten, H. & Rentzsch, J. eds. Turcology in Mainz/Turkologie in Mainz. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 167–171.Google Scholar
Kissling, H.-J. 1960. Osmanisch-türkische Grammatik [Ottoman Turkish Grammar]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kılıçaslan, Y. 1994. Information packaging in Turkish. Dissertation. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kıral, F. 2001. Das gesprochene Aserbaidschanisch von Iran. Eine Studie zu den syntaktischen Einflüssen des Persischen [Spoken Azeri of Iran. A Study on the Syntactic Influences of Persian] (Turcologica 43). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kıral, F. 2005. Modal Constructions in Turkic of Iran. In Csató, É. Á. & Isaksson, B. & Jahani, C. eds. Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion. Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic. London & New York: RoutledgeCurzon. 285–295.Google Scholar
Kıral, F. 2006. Weiteres zum Imperativ in Chaladsch [More on the imperative in Khalaj]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 20: 183–198.Google Scholar
Kleinmichel, Sigrid (1997). Zu ekan und kin im Usbekischen. Kellner Heinkele, B. & Zieme, P. eds. Studia Ottomanica. Festgabe für György Hazai zum 65. Geburtstag Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 103–126.Google Scholar
Kljaštornyj, S. G. 2010. Runičeskie pamjatniki ujgurskogo kaganata i istorija Evrazijskix stepej [Runic Memorials of the Uyghur Kaganate and the History of the Eurasian Steppes]. Sankt-Peterburg: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie.Google Scholar
Kononov, A. N. 1951. Proisxoždenie prošedšego kategoričeskogo vremeni v turkskix jazykax [Origin of the past tense in the Turkic languages]. Tjurkologičeskij Sbornik 1: 112–119.Google Scholar
Kononov, A. N. 1956. Grammatika sovremennogo tureckogo literaturnogo jazyka [Grammar of the Modern Turkish Literary Language]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Kononov, A. N. 1960. Grammatika sovremennogo uzbekskogo literaturnogo jazyka [Grammar of the Modern Uzbek Literary Language]. Moscow, Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Kononov, A. N. 1980. Grammatika jazyka tjurkskix runičeskix pamjatnikov VII–IX vv [The Grammar of the Language of the Turkic Runic Memorials of the 7th–9th Centuries]. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Korkina, E. I. 1970. Naklonenija glagola v jakutskom jazyke [Verbal Moods in Yakut]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Korkina, E. I. & Ubrjatova, E. I. & Xaritonov, L. N. & Petrov, N. E. eds. 1982. Grammatika sovremennogo jakutskogo literaturnogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija [Grammar of the Contemporary Yakut Literary Language. Phonetics and Morphology]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Korkmaz, Z. 1962. Türkçede eklerin kullanılıș șekilleri ve ek kalıplașması olayları [The Ways of Using Suffixes in Turkish and Events of Attached Patterning]. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar
Kormushin, I. 2019. Yenisei runiform inscriptions and Turkic languages in the Yenisei Basin in the 8th–10th centuries. Turkic Languages 23: 153–162.Google Scholar
Kormušin, I. V. 1976. O passivnom značenii kauzativnyx glagolov [On the passive meaning of causative verbs]. Turcologica 1976: 89–93.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1990. Turkish and the Turkic languages. In Comrie, B. ed. The World’s Major Languages. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. 619–644.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. Descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kotvič, V. [= Kotwicz] 1962. Issledovanie po altajskim jazykam [Studies on the Altaic Languages] Moscow: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury.Google Scholar
Kowalski, T. 1921. Ze studjow nad forma poezji ludow tureckich 1 [Studies on the Form of Poetry of Turkic Peoples]. Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.Google Scholar
Kowalski, T. 1930. Einige Probleme der osmanisch-türkischen Dialektforschung [Some problems of the Ottoman dialect investigations]. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 7: 264–280.Google Scholar
Kowalski, T. 1933. Les Turcs et la langue turque de la Bulgarie du Nord-Est [The Turks and the Turkish Language of the Northeastern Bulgaria]. Krakow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.Google Scholar
Kowalski, T. 1934. Osmanisch-türkische Dialekte [Ottoman Turkish dialects]. In Enzyklopaedie des Islam 4. Leiden: Brill. 991–1010.Google Scholar
Kowalski, T. 1937. Sir Aurel Stein’s Sprachaufzeichnungen im Ainallu-Dialekt aus Südpersien. Zapiski Sir Aurela Steina w dialekcie Ainallu z południowej persji [Sir Aurel Stein’s Voice Recordings in the Ainallu Dialect of South Persia] (Prace Komisji Orjentalistycznej Polskiej Akademji Umiejętności w Krakowie 29). Kraków: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności.Google Scholar
Krippes, Karl A. 1996. Kazakh Grammar with Affix List. Kensington: Dunwoody Press.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, B. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krueger, J. R. 1977. Tuvan Manual (Uralic and Altaic Series 126). Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Kurenov, S. 1958. Nekotorye istoriko-lingvističeskie svedenija o severo-kavkazskix (stavropol’skix) turkmenax [Some diachronic linguistic information on the North Caucasian (Stavropol) Turkmens]. Izvestija Akademii Nauk Turkmenskoj SSR 4.Google Scholar
Kurenov, S. 1959. Osobennosti turkmenskogo govora Severnogo Kavkaza (Stavropol’ja) [Characteristic Features of the Turkmen Dialect of North Caucasia (Stavrolpol)]. Avtoreferat. Ašxabad.Google Scholar
Kürenov, S. 1995. Kafkasya Oğuzları veya Türkmenleri [The Caucasian Oghuz or Turkmens]. Istanbul: Ötüken.Google Scholar
Kuriłowicz, J. 1956. L’apophonie en indo-européen. Wroclaw: Polska Akademia Nauk.Google Scholar
Kutscher, S. 2008. The language of the Laz in Turkey. Contact-induced change or gradual language loss? Turkic Languages 12: 82–102.Google Scholar
Kuznecov, P. I. 1965. Forma na -dik i pridatočnye predloženija tjurkskogo tipa [The form in -dik and the subordinate clauses of the Turkic type]. Inostrannye jazyki 1: 105–131.Google Scholar
Kuznecov, P. I. 1976. K voprosu ob imeni prilagatel’nom v tureckom jazyke [On the question of the adjective in Turkish]. Sovetskaja Tjurkologija 1976, 6: 3–14.Google Scholar
Ladstätter, O. & Tietze, A. 1994. Die Abdal (Äynu) in Xinjiang [The Abdal (Äynu) in Xinjiang]. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Laude-Cirtautas, I. 1961. Der Gebrauch der Farbbezeichnungen in den Türkdialekten (Ural-Altaische Bibliothek 10). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Laut, J. P. & Röhrborn, K. eds. 2013. Vom Aramäischen zum Alttürkischen. Fragen zur Übersetzung von manichäischen Texten [From Aramaic to Old Turkic. Issues for Translating Manichean Texts] (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, N.S. 29). New York & Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
La Vaissière, E. de 2005. Huns et Xiōngnú [Huns and Xiōngnú]. Central Asiatic Journal 49: 3–26.Google Scholar
La Vaissière, E. de 2015. The steppe world and the rise of the Huns. In Maas, M. ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 175–192.Google Scholar
Lemskaya, V. 2010. Middle Chulym. The State of the Art. Turkic Languages 14: 113–126.Google Scholar
Levi, S. C. 2002. The Indian Diaspora in Central Asia and its Trade 1550–1900. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Levi, S. C. 2012. Early Modern Central Asia in World History. History Compass 10/11: 866–878.Google Scholar
Levickaja, L. S. 1969. Ob odnom vozmožnom ob’jasnenii sootvestvija čuvašskogo j obščetjurskomu Q [About one possible explanation of the relation between Chuvash j and Common Turkic Q]. In Issledovanija po tjurkologii. Alma-Ata: Nauka. 63–67.Google Scholar
Levickaja, L. S. 1976. Istoričeskaja morfologija čuvašskogo jazyka [Historical Morphology of Chuvash]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. 1974. The Book of Dede Korkut. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. 1975. Turkish Grammar (corrected edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. 1999. The Turkish Language Reform. A Catastrophic Success. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. 2000 2. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ligeti, L. 1957. Sur la langue des Afchars d’Afghanistan [On the language of the Afshars of Afghanistan]. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 7: 109–156.Google Scholar
Ligeti, L. 1971. A propos du ‘Rapport sur les rois demeurant dans le Nord’ [Regarding the ‘Report on the kings living in the North’]. In Macdonald, A. ed. Études tibétaines dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou (Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient). Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. 166–189.Google Scholar
Ligeti, L. 1975. Researches in Altaic Languages. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Luutonen, J. 2011. Chuvash Syntactic Nominalizers. On *-ki and its Counterparts in Ural-Altaic Languages (Turcologica 88). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics 1–2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyutikova, E. & Bonch-Osmolovskaya, A. 2006. A very active passive. Functional similarities between passive and causative in Balkar. In Kulikov, L. & Malchukov, A. & de Swart, P. eds. Case, Valency and Transitivity, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 393–416.Google Scholar
Maksjutova, N. H. 1976. Vostočnyj dialekt baskirskogo jazyka [The Eastern Dialect of Bashkir]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A. 1993. Adversative constructions in Even in relation to passive and permissive. In Comrie, B. & Polinsky, M. ed. Causatives and Transitivity (Studies in Language Companion Series 23). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A. 2006. Yakut interference in North-Tungusic languages. In Boeschoten, H. & Johanson, L. eds. Turkic Languages in Contact (Turcologica 61). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 122–139.Google Scholar
Malov, S. E. 1957. Jazyk želtyx ujgurov. Slovar’ i grammatika [The Language of the Yellow Uyghurs. Lexicon and Grammar]. Alma-Ata: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Kazaxskoj SSR.Google Scholar
Malov, S. E. 1976. Stroj sarygjugurskogo jazyka [The Structure of the Yellow Uyghur]. Moscow:Nauka.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. ed. 1995. Romani in Contact. The History, Structure and Sociology of a Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. 1996. Prozedurale Fusion: Grammatische Interferenzschichten im Romanes [Procedural Fusion: Grammatical Interference Layers in Romani]. STUF – Sprachtypologie und Universialienforschung 49, 1: 60–78.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. 2002. Romani. A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matras, Y. 2012. A Grammar of Domari (Mouton Grammar Library). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Maue, D. & Röhrborn, Kl. 1984. Ein “buddhistischer Katechismus” in alttürkischer Sprache und tibetischer Schrift 1 [A ‘Buddhist catechism’ in Old Turkic language and Tibetan script 1]. Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 134: 286–313.Google Scholar
Mawkanuli, T. 2001. The Jungar Tuvas: Language and national identity in the PRC. Central Asian Survey 20: 497–517.Google Scholar
Mawkanuli, T. 2005. Jungar Tuvan Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Mawkanuli, T. 2017. Jungar Tuvan revitalization: Text corpus building. In Aydemir, İ. A. & Erdem, M. eds. 2017. Tuva araștırmaları. Tuvaca variantların belgelenmesi ve tanımlanması [Tuvan Studies. Documentation and Description of Tuvan Varieties]. Ankara: Grafiker. 109–134.Google Scholar
Maxmutova, L. T. 1969. Fonetika. In Kurbatov, X. R. & Maxmutova, L. T. & Smoljakova, L. P. & Tenišev, Ė. R. eds. Sovremennyj tatarskij literaturnyj jazyk. Leksikologija, fonetika, morfologija. Moscow: Nauka. 81–99.Google Scholar
Maxmutova, L. T. 1978. Opyt issledovanija tjurkskix dialektov. Mišarskij dialekt tatarskogo jazyka [Essay to Investigate the Turkic Dialects. The Mishar Dialect of Tatar]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. 2007. Mandarin Chinese: “Altaicization” or “Simplification?”. In Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-Native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. A. 1998. Kurs obščej morfologii 2 [Course in General Morphology 2]. Moscow: Jazyki Russkoj Kul’tury.Google Scholar
Melioranskij, P. M. 1894. Kratkaja grammatika kazak-kirgizskago jazyka 1 [Short Grammar of Kazakh 1]. St. Petersburg: Tipografia Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Memtimin, A. 2016. Language Contact in Modern Uyghur (Turcologica 108). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Menges, K.-H. 1939. Einige Bemerkungen zur vergleichenden Grammatik des Türkmenischen [Some notes on the comparative grammar of Turkmen]. Archiv Orientální 11: 7–34.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1943. The function and origin of the Tungusic tense in -ra and some related questions of Tungus grammar. Language 19: 237–251.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1949. Zum Özbekischen von Nord-Afghanistan [On Uzbek of Northern Afghanistan]. Anthropos 41–44:673–710.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1951a. Research in the Turkic Dialects of Iran. Oriens 4: 273–279.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1951b. Vostočnye ėlementy v “Slovo o pъlku Igorevĕ” [The Oriental Elements in the Vocabulary of the Oldest Russian Epos ‘the Igoŕ Tale’]. Supplement to Word: Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York. Monograph 1, 7.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1955–1960. Die türkischen Sprachen Süd-Sibiriens 1–3 [The Turkic Languages of South Siberia 1–3]. Central Asiatic Journal 1955, 1: 106–136; 1956, 2: 161–175; 1959, 4: 90–129; 1960, 5: 97–150.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1957. Das Čaɣatajische in der persischen Darstellung von Mīrzā Mahdī Xān [Chaghatay in the Persian Presentation of Mīrzā Mahdī Xān] (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur; Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwisschenschaftlichen Klasse 1956, 9). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1959a. Das Sojonische und Karagassische [Soyon and Karagas]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 640–670.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1959b. Die aralo-kaspische Gruppe (Kasakisch, Karakalpakisch, Nogaisch, Kiptschak-Özbekisch, Kirgisisch) [The Aral-Caspian group (Kazakh, Karakalpak, Noghay, Kipchak Uzbek, Kirghiz]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 434–488.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1960. Morphologische Probleme 1. Zum Genitiv und Accusativ [Morphological Problems 1. On Genitive and Accusative]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1961. Altaische Studien [Altaic Studies]. Der Islam 37: 1–23.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1963. Die sibirischen Türksprachen [The Siberian Turkic languages]. In Handbuch der Orientalistik 5, 1 Turkologie. Leiden: Brill. 72–137.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1968a. The Turkic Languages and Peoples. An Introduction to Turkic Studies (Ural-Altaische Bibliothek 15). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1968b. Die Sprache der Udihe [The language of the Udihe]. In Spuler, B. ed. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1, 5: 3. Leiden & Köln: Brill. 129–171.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1990. Altajisch und Balto-Slawisch [Altaic and Balto-Slavic]. In Ivanov, V. & Sudnik, T. M. eds. Uralo-Indogermanica: The Baltic-Slavic Languages and the Problem of the Uralic-Indo-European Connections. The Materials of the 3rd Baltic-Slavic Conference 18–22 July 1990, 1. Moscow.Google Scholar
Menges, K. H. 1995 2. The Turkic Languages and Peoples. An Introduction to Turkic Studies (Ural-Altaische Bibliothek 15). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Meninski, M. 1780–1781. Lexicon arabico-persico-turcicum 1–4. Vienna: Typis Iosephi Nobilis de Kurzböck …. [First edition 1680.]Google Scholar
Menz, A. 1999. Gagausische Syntax. Eine Studie zum kontaktinduzierten Sprachwandel [Gagauz Syntax. A Study on Contact-Induced Linguistic Changes] (Turcologica 41). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Menz, A. 2003. Endangered Turkic Languages: The case of Gagauz. In Janse, M. & Tol, S. eds. Language Death and Language Maintenance. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 143–155.Google Scholar
Menz, A. 2011. The Turkic languages of Europe. In Kortmann, B. & van der Auwera, J. eds. The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin: DeGruyter. 159–178.Google Scholar
Menz, A. 2015. The Gagauz female marker -(y)ka. Turkic Languages 19: 53–62.Google Scholar
Meyer, G. 1893. Türkische Studien 1. Die griechischen und romanischen Bestandtheile im Wortschatze des Osmanisch-Türkischen [Turkic Studies 1. The Greek and Roman Parts of the Lexicon of OttomanTurkish] (Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaisierlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 128). Vienna. 1–96.Google Scholar
Meyer, I. R. 1965. Bemerkungen über Vokal- und Schriftsystem des Runentürkischen [Notes on the vowel and script system of Runic Turkic]. Acta Orientalia 29: 183–202.Google Scholar
Meyer, I. R. 1975. Kāšɣarī und einige Probleme der Vokallänge im Türkischen [Kāšɣarī and some problems of vowel length in Turkic] (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları 413). Bilimsel Bildiriler. Türk Dili Bilimsel Kurultayı 1972: 425–430.Google Scholar
Meyer, I. R. 1988. Das Funktionsverb “tun” im Wolgabolgarisch-Čuwasischen [The Function verb ‘to do’ in Volga Bolgar-Chuvash]. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 42: 93–110.Google Scholar
Miklosich, F. 1884–1890. Die türkischen Elemente in den südost- und osteuropäischen Sprachen (Griechisch, Albanisch, Rumunisch, Bulgarisch, Serbisch, Kleinrussisch, Grossrussisch, Polnisch) 1–2 with supplements [The Turkic Elements in the Southeastern and East European Languages (Greek, Albanian, Rumun, Bulgar, Serbian, Little Russian, Russian, Polish 1–2] (Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Classe 1850). Vienna: Tempsky.Google Scholar
Miller, R. A. 1971. Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miller, R. A. 1982. Japanese evidence for some Altaic denominal verb-stem derivational suffixes. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 36: 391–403.Google Scholar
Miller, R. A. 1996. Trk. *l2, *r2 and Korean. In Berta, Á. & Brendemoen, B. & Cl, Schönig. eds. Symbolae Turcologicae. Studies in Honour of Lars Johanson on His Sixtieth Birthday (Transactions 6). Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. 157–167.Google Scholar
Miržanova, S. F. 1979 . Južnyj dialekt baškirskogo jazyka [The Southern Dialect of Bashkir]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Mollova, M. 1962. Les ga-dialectes Turcs dans les Balkans et leur rapport avec les autres langues Turkes [The Turkic ga-dialects in the Balkans and their relation to other Turkic languages]. Linguistique Balkanique 4: 107–130.Google Scholar
Mollova, M. 1968. Parler turc de Florina [Turkic speech in Florina]. Balkansko ezikoznanie 13: 95–127.Google Scholar
Mollov, R. & Mollova, M. 1966. Parlers turcs des Rhodopes de l’Ouest au point de vue slavic [Turkic Talk of the Western Rhodopes from a Slavic point of view]. Balkansko ezikoznanie 11: 121–136.Google Scholar
Monastyr’ev, V. D. 2008. Die Geschichte der Entwicklung der jakutischen Schrift [The history of the development of the Yakut script]. Turkic Languages 12: 194–202.Google Scholar
Monastyr’ev, V. D. & Vasilieva, N. N. & Ammosova, I. V. 2019. Explanatory dictionary of the Yakut language, 1972–2018. Turkic Languages 23: 250–264.Google Scholar
Monteil, V. 1956. Sur le dialecte turc de l’Azerbâydjân iranien [On the Turkic dialect of the Iranian Azerbaijan]. Journal Asiatique 244: 1–77.Google Scholar
Moriyasu, T. 1980. La nouvelle interpretation des mots Hor et Hor-yo-hor dans le manuscrit Pelliot tibetain 1283. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 34: 171–184.Google Scholar
Moschkoff, V. A. 1904. Narěčija bessarabskix gagauzov/Mundarten der bessarabischen Gagausen [Dialects of the Bessarabic Gagauz]. In Radloff, W. 1904. Proben der Volkslitteratur der türkischen Stämme 10. St. Petersburg.Google Scholar
Muhamedowa, R. 2016. Kazakh. A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Müller, F. M. 1855. The Languages of the Seat of War in the East. With a Survey of the Three Families of Language, Semitic, Arian, and Turanian. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Mundy, C. S. 1954. The -E/-Ü gerund in Old Ottoman 1. Formal analysis. Bulletin of the School of Asian and African Studies 16: 298–319.Google Scholar
Mundy, C. S. 1955. Turkish syntax as a system of qualification. Bulletin of the School of Asian and African Studies 17: 279–305.Google Scholar
Mundy, C. S. 1957. Evet, evet ki and geyise. In Studia Altaica: Festschrift für Nikolaus Poppe. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. 118–125.Google Scholar
Musaev, K. M. 1964. Grammatika karaimskogo jazyka [Karaim Grammar]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nadeljaev, V. M. & Nasilov, D. M. & Tenišev, Ė. R. & Ščerbak, A. M. eds. 1969. Drevnetjurkskij slovar’ [The Proto-Turkic Lexicon]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nash, R. 1973. Turkish Intonation. An Instrumental Study. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nasilov, V. M. ed. 1966. Voprosy tjurkskoj filologii [Questions of Turkic Philology]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Nasilov, D. M. 2005. Notes on -QAlAQ in Shor. Turkic Languages 9: 229–233.Google Scholar
Nasilov, D. M. & Isxakova, X. F. & Safarov, Sh. S. 2001. Imperative sentences in Turkic languages. In Xrakovskiy, V. S. ed. Typology of Imperative Constructions. Munich: Lincom Europa. 181–220.Google Scholar
Nauta, A. 1972. Rhotazismus, Zetazismus und Betonung im Türkischen [Rhotacism, zetacism, and accent in Turkic]. Central Asiatic Journal 16: 1–13.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, I. V. 1993. Causative-passive polysemy of the Manchu-Tungusic -bu/-v(u). Linguistica Antverpiensa 27: 193–202.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, V. P. 2002. Karachay-Balkar reciprocals. Turkic Languages 6: 19–80.Google Scholar
Németh, J. 1953. Zur Kenntnis der Mischsprachen (Das doppelte Sprachsystem des Osmanischen) [To the understanding of mixed languages. The double language system of Ottoman]. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 3: 159–199.Google Scholar
Németh, J. 1956. Zur Einteilung der türkischen Mundarten Bulgariens [On the Classification of the Turkish Dialects in Bulgarien]. Sofija: Bulgarische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Németh, J. 1965. Die Türken von Vidin. Sprache, Folklore, Religion [The Turks in Vidin. Language, Folklore, Religion] (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 10). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, I. A. 1998. The revival of literary Shor. Turkic Languages 2: 253–270.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, I. A. 2000. Shor-Russian contact features. In Gilbers, D. & Nerbonne, J. & Schaeken, J. eds. Languages in Contact. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 283–298.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, I. A. 2002. Evidentials, miratives and indirectives in Shor. In Demir, N. & Turan, F. eds. Scholarly Depth and Accuracy. A Festschrift to Lars Johanson. Ankara: Grafiker. 307–321.Google Scholar
Nevskaja, I. A. 2005. Komp’juternye bazy lingvističeskix dannyx kak osnova dlja soxranenija i vozroždenija korennyx tjurkskix jazykov Sibiri [Computer-aided linguistic databases as the basis for the preservation and revival of the indigenous Turkic languages of Siberia] In Obrazovanie i ustojčivoe razvitie korennyx narodov Sibiri. Novosibirsk: NGU. 90–99.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, I. A. 2008. Depictive secondary predicates in South Siberian Turkic. In Chr, Schroeder. & Hentschel, G. & Boeder, W. eds. Secondary Predicates in Eastern European Languages and Beyond (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia 16). Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky. 275–294.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, I. A. 2010. Inclusive and exclusive in Altaic languages. In Johanson & Robbeets eds. 2010: 115–128.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, I. A. 2015. Old Turkic runiform inscriptions of religious content in the Republic Altai: Myths and linguistic evidence. Ragagnin, In, E. & Wilkens, J. eds. Kutadgu nom bitig. Festschrift für Peter Laut zum 60. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 313–326.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, I. A. & Tazhibaeva, S. 2010. Depictive predicates in a comparative perspective. In Kincses Nagy, É. & Biacsi, M. eds. The Szeged Conference (Studia uralo-altaica 49). Szeged: Department of Altaic Studies. 331–339.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, I. A. & Tybykova, L. & Vavulin, M. & Zaytseva, O. & Vodyasov, E. 2018. 3D documentation of Old Turkic Altai runiform inscriptions and revised readings of the inscriptions Tuekte-V and Bichiktu-Boom-III. Turkic Languages 22: 194–216.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, I. A. & Tybykova, L. & Vavulin, M. 2019. Kuttu I, a recently discovered Old Turkic Altai runiform inscription and its reading and interpretation. Turkic Languages 23: 163–177.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56–119.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 2011. Forerunners to globalization: The Eurasian steppe and its periphery. In Hasselblatt, C. & Houtzagers, P. & van Pareren, R. eds. Language Contact in Times of Globalization. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 177–195.Google Scholar
Nugteren, H. 2003. Shira Yughur. In Janhunen, J. ed. The Mongolic Languages. London & New York: Routledge. 265–285.Google Scholar
Nugteren, H. 2010. On the origin of the narrative converb in Eastern and Western Yugur. In Johanson, L. & Robbeets, M. eds. Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance (Turcologica 78). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 129–139.Google Scholar
Nugteren, H. 2013. Postposed indefinite articles in Mongolic and Turkic Languages of the Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. In Robbeets, M. & Cuyckens, H. eds. Shared Grammaticalization. With Special Focus on the Transeurasian Languages (Studies in Language Companion Series 132). Amsterdam & Philadelphia. 227–250.Google Scholar
Nugteren, H. 2014. Amdo Altaic directives and comparatives based on the verb ‘to see’. In Robbeets, M. & Bisang, W. eds. Paradigm Change. In the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond (Studies in Language Companion Series 161). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 243–256.Google Scholar
Nugteren, H. & Korpershoek, M. 2007. The Oghuz verbalizer +(A)l and its classificatory implications. Turkic Languages 11: 59–81.Google Scholar
Nugteren, H. & Roos, M. 1996. Common vocabulary of the Western and Eastern Yugur languages. The Turkic and Mongolic loanwords. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 49: 25–91.Google Scholar
Nugteren, H. & Roos, M. 1998. Common vocabulary of the Western and Eastern Yugur languages. The Tibetan loanwords. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 3: 45–92.Google Scholar
Nugteren, H. & Roos, M. 2003. Common vocabulary of the Western and Eastern Yugur languages. The ethnonyms. Rocznik Orientalistyczny 61: 133–143.Google Scholar
Nugteren, H. & Roos, M. 2006. Prolegomena to the classification of Western Yugur. In Erdal, M. & Nevskaya, I. eds. Exploring the Eastern Frontiers of Turkic (Turcologica 60).Wiesbaden. 99–130.Google Scholar
Olach, Zs. 2013. A Halich Karaim Translation of Hebrew Biblical Texts (Turcologica 98). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Özçelik, Ö. 2015. Stress or intonational prominence? Word accent in Kazakh and Uyghur. Turkic Languages 19: 163–192.Google Scholar
Özsoy, S. A. 1983. Kendi-reflexivization in Turkish: A syntactic, semantic and discourse analysis. Dissertation. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Özsoy, A. S. 2017. The death of a language: The case of Ubykh. In Korkmaz, R. & Doğan, G. eds. Endangered Languages of the Caucasus and Beyond. Leiden: Brill. 151–166.Google Scholar
Özsoy, A. S. ed. 2018. Türk İşaret Dili özel sayısı [Special issue on Turkish Sign Language]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, B. 2007. Contact in the Prehistory of the Sakha (Yakuts): Linguistic and Genetic Perspectives (LOT 170). Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, B. 2014.Paradigm copying in Tungusic: The Lamunkhin dialect of Ėven and beyond. In Robbeets, M. & Bisang, W. eds. Paradigm Change. In the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond (Studies in Language Companion Series 161). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 287–310.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, B. & Novgorodov, I. N. 2009. Loanwords in Sakha (Yakut), a Turkic language of Siberia. In Haspelmath, M. & Tadmor, U. eds. 2009. Loanwords in the World’s Languages. A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 496–524.Google Scholar
Pedersen, H. 1903. Türkische Lautgesetze [Turkic Sound Laws]. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 57: 535–561.Google Scholar
Pekarskij, Ė. K. 1959. Slovar ́ jakutskogo jazyka 1–3 [Yakut Dictionary]. Jakutsk: Jakutskij filial AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Petrou, M. 2020. Der türkische Dialekt von West-Thrakien [The Turkish dialect of Western Thrace]. PhD dissertation. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Perry, J. R. 1979. Uzbek influence on Tajik syntax: The converb constructions. In Clyne, P. R. & Hanks, W. F. & Hofbauer, C. L. eds. The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, Including Papers from the Conference on Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 448–461.Google Scholar
Perry, J. R. 2005. Lexical areas and semantic fields of Arabic loanwords in Persian and beyond. In Csató et al. eds. 2005: 97–109.Google Scholar
Planhol, X. de 1961. Contribution à la dialectologie rurale de l’ Azeri [Contribution to the Rural Dialectology of Azeri]. Journal Asiatique 249: 411–425.Google Scholar
Poceluevskij, A. P. 1936. Dialekty turkmenskogo jazyka [Dialects of Turkmen]. [Reprinted in Poceluevskij, A. P. 1975. Izbrannye trudy. Asxabad: Ylym. 71–122.]Google Scholar
Pokrovskaja, L. A. 1964. Grammatika gagauzskogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija [Grammar of Gagauz. Phonetics and Morphology]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Pokrovskaja, L. A. 1978. Sintaksis gagauzskogo jazyka v sravitel’nem osveščenii [The Syntax of Gagauz in a Comparative Light]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Polivanov, E. D. 1922. Zvukovoj sostav taškentskogo dialekta [The sound system of the Tashkent dialect]. Nauka i prosveščenie (Taškent) 1: 17–19.Google Scholar
Pomorska, M. 2001. The Chulyms and their language. An attempt at a description of Chulym phonetics and nominal morphology. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları 11: 75–123.Google Scholar
Poppe, N. 1924. K konsonantizmu altajskix jazykov / Une question de consonantisme des langues altaïques [On consonantism in Altaic languages]. Doklady Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk 1924: 43–44.Google Scholar
Poppe, N. 1951. Khalkha-mongolische Grammatik, mit Bibliographie, Sprachproben und Glossar [Khalkha Grammar, with Bibliographie, Text examples, and lossar]. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Poppe, N. 1953. Zur Mittelmongolischen Kasuslehre. Eine syntaktische Untersuchung [On the Middle Mongol cases. A syntactic investigation]. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländische Gesellschaft 103: 92–125.Google Scholar
Poppe, N. 1955. The Turkic loan words in Middle Mongolian. Central Asiatic Journal 1: 36–42.Google Scholar
Poppe, N. 1959. Das Jakutische (einschließlich Dolganisch) [Yakut (including Dolgan)]. In Deny et al. 1959: 671–684.Google Scholar
Poppe, N. 1960. Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen 1. Vergleichende Lautlehre [Comparative Grammar of the Altaic Languages 1. Comparative Phonology]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Poppe, N. 1964 2. Grammar of Written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Poppe, N. 1965. Introduction to Altaic Linguistics (Ural-Altaische Bibliothek 14). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Poppe, N. 1973. Über die Bildungssuffixe der mongolischen Bezeichnungen der Körperteile [On the suffixes in the Mongolic designations of body parts]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 45: 223–243.Google Scholar
Prior, D. 2006. The Semetey of Kenje Kara. A Kirghiz Epic Performance on Phonograph (Turcologica 59). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Pritsak, O. 1955. Die Bulgarische Fürstenliste und die Sprache der Protobulgaren [The Bulgar List of Princes and the Proto-Bulghar Language]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Pritsak, O. 1959a. Das Kiptschakische [Kipchak]. In Deny et al. eds. 1959: 74–87.Google Scholar
Pritsak, O. 1959b. Das Abakan- und Čulymtürkische [Abakan- and Chulym-Turkic]. In Deny et al. eds. 1959: 598–640.Google Scholar
Pritsak, O. 1959c. Das Karatschaische und Balkarische [Karachay and Balkar]. In Deny et al. eds. 1959: 340–368.Google Scholar
Pritsak, O. 1959e. Das Karaimische [Karaim]. In Deny et al. eds. 1959: 318–340.Google Scholar
Pritsak, O. 1960. The Herkunft des tschuwaschischen Futurums [The origin of the Chuvash future]. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 56: 141–153.Google Scholar
Pritsak, O. 1961. Die Herkunft der Allophone und Allomorphe im Türkischen [The origin of the allophones and allomorphs in Turkic]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 33: 142–145.Google Scholar
Pritsak, O. 1963. Das Alttürkische [Old Turkic]. In Spuler, B. ed. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1. 5: 1. Leiden & Köln: Brill. 27–52.Google Scholar
Pritsak, O. 1964. Der “Rhotazismus” und “Lambdazismus” [‘Rhotacism’ and ‘Landacism’]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 35, 337–349.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. G. 1983. The Chinese and Their Neighbors in Prehistoric and Early Historic Times. In Keightley, D. ed. The Origins of Chinese Civilization. Berkeley, Los Angeles. 452–453.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. G. 1990 The Name of the Kirghiz. Central Asiatic Journal 34: 98–108.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. G. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Radloff, W. 1868. Proben der Volkslitteratur der türkischen Stämme Süd-Sibiriens 2: Die Abakan-Dialecte (der Sagaische, Koibalische, Katschinzische), der Kysyl-Dialect und der Tscholym-Dialect (Küerik) [Samples of the Folk Literature of the Turkic tribes of South Siberia (Saghay, Koibal, Kacha), the Kyzyl Dialect and the Chulym Dialect (Küerik)]. St. Petersburg: Akad. Nauk.Google Scholar
Radloff, W. 1866–1907. Die Sprachen der türkischen Stämme Süd-Sibiriens und des dsungarischen Steppe [The Languages of the Turkic Tribes of South Siberia and the Jungar Steppe]. St. Petersburg.Google Scholar
Radloff, W. 1882–1883. Vergleichende Grammatik der nördlichen Türksprachen. 1. Phonetik der nördlichen Türksprachen [Phonetics of the Northern Turkic Languages]. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel’s Verlag.Google Scholar
Radloff, W. 1893–1911. Versuch eines Wörterbuches der Türk-Dialecte 1–4 [Attempt at a Lexicon of the Turkic Dialects 1–4]. St. Petersburg: Akad. Nauk.Google Scholar
Radloff, W. 1896. Die Sprachen der nördlichen türkischen Stämme. 1: Proben der Volkslitteratur der nördlichen türkischen Stämme. 7: Die Mundarten der Krym [The Languages of the North Turkic Tribes. 1: Samples of the Folk Literature of the North Turkic tribes. 7: The Dialects of Crimea]. St. Petersburg: Akad. Nauk.Google Scholar
Radloff, W. 1899. Die alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. 2: Die Inschrift des Tonjukuk [The Old Turkic Inscriptions of Monglia. 2: The Tonyukuk Inscription]. St. Petersburg: Akad. Nauk.Google Scholar
Ragagnin, E. 2009a. A rediscovered lowland Tofan variety in northern Mongolia. Turkic Languages 13: 225‒245.Google Scholar
Ragagnin, E. 2009b. Sajantürkische Varietäten in der Nord-Mongolei [Sayan Turkic varieties in North Mongolia]. In Borlikov, G. M. & Slepcov, P. A. & Trofimova, S. M. & Sanžina, D. D. eds. 2009. Problemy mongolovednyx i altaističeskix issledovanij. Meždunarodnaja naučnaja konferencija, Elista, 11–13 nojabrja 2009 g. Naučnyj centr mongolovednyx i altaističeskix issledovanij. Elista: Kalmyckij Gosudarstvennyj Universitet. 245–247.Google Scholar
Ragagnin, E. 2010. O nekotoryx osobennostjax sajanotjurkskix narečij Severnoj Mongolii [On some specifics of the Sayan Turkic dialects of Northern Mogolia]. In Bičeldej, K. A. ed. Tuvinskaja pis’mennost’ i voprosy issledovanija pis’mennostej i pis’mennyx pamjatnikov Rosii i central’no-aziatskogo regiona. Materiali meždunarodnoj naučnoj konferencii, posvjaščennoj 80-letiju tuvinskoj pis’mennosti 1–4 ijulja 2010 g. Kyzyl: Tuvinskij institut gumanitarnyx issledovanij pri pravitel’stve Respubliki Tyva. 140–145.Google Scholar
Ragagnin, E. 2011. Dukhan, a Turkic Variety of Northern Mongolia. Description and Analysis (Turcologica 76). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ragagnin, E. 2013. Secluded in the valleys of Kubsugul and forgotten in Mongolian libraries. The Uyghur-Uriankhay language and its speakers. In Pang, T. & Raschmann, S.-C. & Winkelhane, G. eds. Unknown Treasures of the Altaic World in Libraries, Archives and Museums. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz. 358–363.Google Scholar
Ragagnin, E. 2016. Dukhan. In Eker, S. & Çelik Şavk, Ü. eds. Tehlikedeki Türk Dilleri 2 A: Örnek Çalışmalar [Endangered Turkic Languages 2 A: Case Studies]. Ankara & Astana. International Turkic Academy & Hodja Akhmet Yassawi International Turkish Kazakh University. 165–180.Google Scholar
Ragagnin, E. 2018. A Turcological gem. The Tuhan language of Northern Mongolia. Turkic Languages 22: 217–229.Google Scholar
Ramstedt, G. J. 1912. Zur Verbstammbildungslehre der mongolisch-türkischen Sprachen [On the study of building verb stems in Mongolic and Turkic languages]. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 28, 3: 1–86.Google Scholar
Ramstedt, G. J. 1924. Die Verneinung in den altaischen Sprachen. Eine semasiologische Studie [Negation in the Altaic languages. A semasiological study]. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 51: 196–215.Google Scholar
Ramstedt, G. J. 1939. A Korean Grammar (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 82). Helsinki Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Ramstedt, G. J. 1952. Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft 1. Lautlehre [Introduction to Altaic Linguistics 1. Phonology]. Edited and published by Pentti Aalto. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Ramstedt, G. J. 1957. Einführung in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft 2. Formenlehre [Introduction to Altaic Linguistics 2. Morphology]. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Raquette, G. 1927. The Accent Problem in Turkish. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Räsänen, M. 1920. Die tschuwassischen Lehnwörter im Tscheremissischen [The Chuvash Loans in Mari] Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 48.Google Scholar
Räsänen, M. 1923. Die tatarischen Lehnwörter im Tscheremissischen. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 50.Google Scholar
Räsänen, M. 1949. Materialien zur Lautgeschichte der türkischen Sprachen [Materials for the Phonetics of Turkic] (Studia Orientalia 15). Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica.Google Scholar
Räsänen, M. 1957. Materialien zur Morphologie der türkischen Sprachen [Materials for the Morphology of Turkic] (Studia Orientalia 21). Helsinki: Societatis Orientalis Fennica.Google Scholar
Räsänen, M. 1969. Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuch der Türksprachen [Essai of an Etymological Lexicon of Turkic (Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae 17, 1). Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Rask, R. K. 1834. Samlede tilldels forhen utrykte Afhandlinger [Selected, Partially Still Unprinted Theses]. København: Proppske Bogtrykkeri.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 1971. Fonetika i leksika tofalarskogo jazyka [Phonetics and Lexicon of Tofan]. Ulan-Udė: Burjatskoe knižnoe izdatel ́stvo.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 1978. Morfologija tofalarskogo jazyka v sravnitel’nom osveščenii [The Morphology of Tofan in Comparative Lighting]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 1980. Mongolo-burjatskie zaimstvovanija v sibirskix tjurkskix jazykax [Mongol-Buryat Loans in the Siberian Turkic languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 1995. Tofalarsko-russkij slovar’. Russko-tofalarskij slovar’ [Tofan-Russian lexicon. Russian-Tofan lexicon]. Irkutsk: Vostočno-sibirskoe knižnoe izdatel ’stvo.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 2003. Sojotsko-burjatsko-russkij slovar’ [Soyot-Buryat-Russian Lexicon]. Ulan-Ude: Burjatskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 2005a. Ob okinskix sojotax i ix jazyke [On the Soyots on the Oka and their language]. In Birtalan, Á. & Rákos, A. eds. Bolor-un Gerel. Kristályfény. Essays Presented in Honour of Professor Kara György’s 70th Birthday 1–2. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Inner Asia Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Group for Altaic Studies. 635–640.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 2005b. Bukvar’. Učebnik dlja 1 klassa tofalarskix škol [Primer. Textbook for the First Class of Tofan Schools]. St. Petersburg: Drofa.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 2006. Sojotsko-russkij slovar’ [Soyot-Russian Lexicon]. St. Petersburg: Drofa.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 2009. Bukvar’. Učebnoe posobie po sojotskomu jazyku dlja učaščixsja 1 klassa [Primer. Training in Soyot for Learners of the First Class]. St. Petersburg: Drofa.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 2010a. O jazyke sojotov Burjatii [On the language of the Soyots in Buryatiya]. Turkic Languages 14: 127–138.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 2010b. Soyotica (Studia uralo-altaica 48). Szeged: Szeged University.Google Scholar
Rassadin, V. I. 2014. Tofalarskij jazyk i ego mesto v sisteme tjurkskix jazykov [The Tofan Language and its Place among the Turkic Languages]. Elista.Google Scholar
Rastorgueva, V. S. 1952. Očerki po tadžixskoj dialektologii 2. Severnye tadžikskie govory polosy Sajdan, Ast, Cust, Kassansaj [Studies on Tadjik Dialectology 2. North Tajik Dialects of Sajdan, Ast, Cust, Kassansay]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Rastorgueva, V. S. 1964a. Opyt sravnitel’nogo izučenija tadzikskix govorov [An Experiment in a Comparative Study of the Tajik Dialects]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Rastorgueva, V. S. 1964b. A Short Sketch of Tajik Grammar. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Reichl, K. 1983. Syntactic interference in Afghan Uzbek. Anthropos 78: 481–500.Google Scholar
Reichl, K. 1992. Turkic Oral Epic Poetry: Tradition, Forms, Poetic Structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Reichl, K. 2001. Das usbekische Heldenepos Alpomish (Turcologica 48). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Reichl, K. 2007. Edige. A Karakalpak Oral Epic as Performed by Jumabay Bazarov (FF Communications 293). Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Reichl, K. 2016. Oral epics into the twenty-first century: The case of the Kyrgyz epic Manas. The Journal of American Folklore 129: 327–344.Google Scholar
Rentzsch, J. 2005. Aspekt im Neuuigurischen [Aspect in New Uyghur] (Turcologica 65). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Rentzsch, J. 2010. Zur Modalität im Türkischen [On modality in Turkic]. In Boeschoten, H. & Rentzsch, J. eds. Turcology in Mainz, Turkologie in Mainz (Turcologica 82). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Rentzsch, J. 2011a. Modality in the Baburnama. Turkic Languages 15: 78–125.Google Scholar
Rentzsch, J. 2011b. Issues of grammaticalisation in Turkic modal constructions. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 64: 453–474.Google Scholar
Rentzsch, J. 2015. Modality in the Turkic Languages. Form and Meaning from a Historical and Comparative Perspective (Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Turkvölker 18). Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag.Google Scholar
Rind-Pawlowski, M. 2014. Text types and evidentiality in Dzungar Tuvan. Turkic Languages 18: 159–188.Google Scholar
Rind-Pawlowski, M. 2017. Nebensatzbildung im Dzungar-Tuwinischen [The Structure of Non-main Clauses in Dzungar-Tuvan]. Dissertation. Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Ritter, H. 1921. Aserbeidschanische Texte zur nordpersischen Dialektkunde 1 [Azeri texts on North Persian dialectology 1]. Der Islam 11: 181–212.Google Scholar
Ritter, H. 1939. Aserbeidschanische Texte zur nordpersischen Dialektkunde 2 [Azeri texts on North Persian dialectology 2]. Der Islam 25: 234–268.Google Scholar
Robbeets, M. I. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? (Turcologica 64). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Robbeets, M. I. 2007a. The causative-passive in the Trans-Eurasian languages. Turkic Languages 11: 235–278.Google Scholar
Robbeets, M. I. 2007b. Koguryo as a missing link. In Breuker, R. ed. 2007. Korea in the Middle. Festschrift for Boudewijn Walraven. Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies CNWS. 118–141.Google Scholar
Robbeets, M. I. 2007c. How the actional suffix chain connects Japanese to Altaic. Turkic Languages 11: 3–58.Google Scholar
Robbeets, M. 2017a. Diachrony of Verb Morphology. Japanese and the Transeurasian Languages (Trends in Linguistics 291). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Robbeets, M. 2017b. The language of the Transeurasian farmers. In Robbeets, M. & Savelyev, A. eds. Language Dispersal Beyond Farming. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 93–116.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine 2020a. The Transeurasian homeland. Where, what, and when? In Robbeets et al. eds. 2020: 772–783.Google Scholar
Robbeets, M. & Janhunen, J. & Savelyev, A. & Korovina, E. 2020. The homelands of the individual Transeurasian proto-languages. In Robbeets et al. eds. 2020: 753–771.Google Scholar
Robbeets, M. & Savelyev, A. & Hübler, N. eds. 2020. The Oxford Guide to the Transeurasian Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Röhrborn, K. 1972. Kausativ und passiv im Uigurischen [Causativ and passive in Uyghur]. Central Asiatic Journal 16: 70–77.Google Scholar
Röhrborn, K. 1977–. Uigurisches Wörterbuch. Sprachmaterial der vorislamischen türkischen Texte aus Zentralasien [Uyghur Lexicon. Materials of the Preislamic Turkic Texts of Central Asia]. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Romaskevič, A. A. 1925. Pesni kaškajcev [Songs of the Kashkays]. Sbornik Muzeya antropologii i ėtnografii imeni Petra Velikogo pri Akademii Nauk SSSR 5. Leningrad. 573–610.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1956. Tally-stick and divination-dice in the iconography of Lha-mo. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 6: 163–179.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1970. Some problems of Ancient Turkic. Acta Orientalia 32: 209–229.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1971. On the Chuvash guttural stops in the final position. In Ligeti, L. ed. Studia Turcica. Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 17. Budapest: Akadémiai. 389–399.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1974. Tocharische Elemente in den altaischen Sprachen? [Tokharian Elements in the Altaic language?]. Hazai, In, G. & Zieme, P. eds. Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der altaischen Völker (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 5). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 499–504.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1976. Some Volga Bulgarian words in the Volga Kipchak languages. In Káldy-Nagy, Gy. ed. Hungaro-Turcica: Studies in Honour of Julius Németh. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem. 169–175.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1980. On the earliest Samoyed-Turkish contacts. Congressus Quintus Internacionális Fenno-Ugristarum 3. Turku: Suomen Kielen Seura. 377–385.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1982a. The periodization and sources of Chuvash linguistic history. In Róna-Tas, A. ed. 1982. Chuvash Studies (Asiatische Forschungen 79, Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 28). Budapest: Akadémiai. 113–170.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1982b. Loan-words of ultimate Middle Mongolian origin in Chuvash. Studia uralo-altaica 17: 66–134.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. ed. 1982c. Studies in Chuvash Etymology 1 (Studia uralo-altaica 19). Szeged: University of Szeged. 66–134.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. ed. 1982d. Chuvash Studies (Asiatische Forschungen 79, Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 28). Budapest: Akadémiai.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1986. Language and History. Contributions to Comparative Altaistics (Studia uralo-altaica 25). Szeged: University of Szeged.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1988a. Turkic influence on the Uralic languages. In Sinor, D. ed. Handbuch der Orientalistik 8, 1. The Uralic Languages. Leiden: Brill. 742–780.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1988b. In der Hauptstadt der Wolgabolgaren. In Tatarische Etymologische Studien 2 (Studia uralo-altaica 30). Szeged: József Attila Tudományegyetem Szeged. 61–88.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1991. An Introduction to Turkology. Szeged: University of Szeged.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1998a. Western Old Turkic. In Johanson, L. et al. eds. The Mainz Meeting. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. August 3–6, 1994 (Turcologica 32). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 619–626.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1998b. The reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the genetic question. In Johanson & Csató eds. 1998: 67–80.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 1999. Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages: An Introduction to Early Hungarian History. Budapest: Central European University Press.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. 2011. Recent trends in Mongolic studies. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 64: 221–238.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, A. & Berta, Á. 2011. West Old Turkic West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian (Turcologica 84). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Roos, M. 1998. Preaspiration in Western Yugur monosyllables. In Johanson et al. eds. 1998: 28–41.Google Scholar
Roos, M. 2000. The Western Yugur (Yellow Uygur) language. Grammar, texts, vocabulary. Dissertation. Leiden University.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, M. & Bengtson, J. D. 1998. Global etymologies. In Ruhlen, M. On the Origin of Languages. Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 277–336.Google Scholar
Saarinen, S. 1997. Borrowed vocabulary in Mari and Udmurt dialects. Hahmo, In, S.-L. & Hostra, T. & Honti, L. & van Linde, P. & Nikkilä, O. eds. 1997. Finnisch-ugrische Sprachen in Kontakt [Finno-Ugric Languages in Contact]. Maastricht: Shaker. 191–196.Google Scholar
Sadvakasov, G. 1976. Jazyk ujgurov ferganskoj doliny 2: Leksika, morfologija i jazykovaja interferencija [The Language of the Uyghurs in the Ferghana Valley. 2: Lexicon, Morphology and Linguistic Interference]. Alma Ata: Izdatel’stvo Nauka Kazaxskoj SSR.Google Scholar
Šamina, L. A. 1987. Vremennye polipredikatyvnye konstrukcii tuvinskogo jazyka [Temporal Multipredicate Constructions in Tuvan]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
Šamina, L. A. & Čeremisina, M. A. 1982. Pričastie na -galak (-kalak) v tuvinskom jazyke [The participle in -galak (-kalak) in Tuvan]. In Ubrjatova, E. I. ed. Grammatičeskie issledovanija po jazykam Sibiri. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 57–69.Google Scholar
Samoljovič, A. N. 1922. Nekotorye dopolnenija k klassifikacii tureckix jazykov [Some additions to the classification of the Turkic languages]. Institut Živyx Vostočnyx Jazykov 4. Petrograd.Google Scholar
Sanjian, A. K. & Tietze, A. 1981. Eremya Chelebi Kömürjian’s Armeno-Turkish Poem ‘The Jewish Bride’. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Sat, Š. Č. 1955. Tuvinskij jazyk [Tuvan]. In Pal’mbax, A. A. ed. Tuvinsko-russkij slovar’. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo inostrannyx i nacionalnyx slovarej. 613–721.Google Scholar
Sat, Š. Č. 1966. Tuvinskij jazyk [Tuvan]. In Baskakov, N. A. ed. Jazyki narodov SSSR 2: Tjurkskie jazyki. Moscow: Nauka. 387–402.Google Scholar
Sat, Š. Č. 1987. Tïva dialektologiya [Tuvan Dialectology]. Ḳïzïl: Tïvanïŋ nom ündürer čeri.Google Scholar
Ščerbak, A. M. 1960. On the methodics of studying parallels: in connection with the Altaic hypothesis. 25. International Congress of Orientalists: Papers Presented by the USSR Delegation. Moscow: Oriental Literature.Google Scholar
Ščerbak, A. M. 1961. Grammatičeskij očerk jazyka tjurkskix tekstov X-XIII vv. iz Vostočnogo Turkestana [Grammatical Structure of the Language of the Turkic Texts of the 10th–13th Centuries from East Turkestan]. Moscow & Leningrad: Akademija Nauk.Google Scholar
Ščerbak, A. M. 1962. Grammatika starouzbekskogo jazyka [The Grammar of the Old Uzbek Language]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ščerbak, A. M. 1964. Tjurkskij konsonantizm [Turkic consonantism]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 13: 16–35.Google Scholar
Ščerbak, A. M. 1970a. Sravnitel’naja fonetika tjurkskix jazykov [Comparative Phonetics of the Turkic Languages]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ščerbak, A. M. 1970b. Enisejskie runičeskie nadpisi [The Yenisei runic inscriptions]. Tjurkologičeskij sbornik. Moscow. 111–134.Google Scholar
Ščerbak, A. M. 1977. Očerki po sravnitel’noj morfologii tjurkskix jazykov. Glagol [Works on Comparative Morphology of Turkic. The Verb]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ščerbak, A. M. 1981. Očerki po sravnitel’noj morfologii tjurskix jazykov. Imja [Works on Comparative Morphology of Turkic. The Adjective]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Schaaik, G. J. van 1996. Studies in Turkish Grammar (Turcologica 28). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Schaaik, G. J. van 2020. The Oxford Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schamiloglu, U. 2017. The rise of Runiform Turkic as the first Turkic vernacular literary language. Turkic Languages 21: 161–177.Google Scholar
Scharlipp, W.-E. 1994. Introduction to the Old Turkish Runic Inscriptions. Nicosia: Nicosia University.Google Scholar
Scharlipp, W.-E. 1995. Türkische Sprache, arabische Schrift. Ein Beispiel schrifthistorischer Akkulturation [Turkic Language, Arabic Script. An Example of Acculturation in the Script History] (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 44). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Scherner, B. 1977. Arabische und neupersische Lehnwörter im Tschuwaschischen. Versuch einer Chronologie ihrer Lautveränderungen [Arabic and New Persian Loans in Chuvash. Attempt at a Chronology of the Phonetic Changes] (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 29). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Schiefner, F. A. 1853–1862. ed. M. Alexander Castrén’s Nordische Reisen und Forschungen 1–12 [M. Alexander Castrén’s Nordic Travels and Researches 1–12]. St. Petersburg: Buchdr. der Kaiserlichen Akad. der Wiss.Google Scholar
Schönig, Cl. 1984. Hilfsverben im Tatarischen. Untersuchungen zur Funktionsweise einiger Hilfsverbverbindungen [Auxiliary Verbs in Tatar. Investigations into the Functions of Some Auxiliary Combinations] (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 35). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Schönig, Cl. 1988. Materialien zur Stellung des Lenatürkischen unter den Türksprachen [Materials on the status of Lena Turkic among the Turkic languages]. Materialia Turcica 14: 41–57.Google Scholar
Schönig, Cl. 1989. Zur Normalisierung von Aorist- und Gerundialvokal im Sajantürkischen [On the normalization of aorist and converb vowels in Sayan Turkic]. In Sagaster, K. ed. Religious and Lay Symbolism in the Altaic World and Other Papers (Asiatische Forschungen 105). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 324–340.Google Scholar
Schönig, Cl. 1990. Classification problems of Yakut. In Dor, R. ed. L’Asie centrale et ses voisins. Paris: INALCO. 91–102.Google Scholar
Schönig, Cl. 1997–1998. A new attempt to classify the Turkic languages. Turkic Languages 1: 117–133, 2: 262–277, 3: 130–151.Google Scholar
Schönig, Cl. 1998. South Siberian Turkic. In Johanson & Csató eds. 1998: 403–416.Google Scholar
Schönig, Cl. 1999. The internal division of Modern Turkic and its historical implications. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 52: 63–95.Google Scholar
Schott, W. 1849. Über das altaische oder finnisch-tatarische Sprachengeschlecht [On the Altaic or Finno-Tatar Linguistic Relatedness]. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Chr. 1999. The Turkish Nominal Phrase in Spoken Discourse (Turcologica 40). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Chr. 2008. Adverbial modification and secondary predicates in Turkish: A typological perspective. In Schroeder, Chr. & Hentschel, G. & Boeder, W. eds. Aspects of Secondary Predication (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem. 339–358.Google Scholar
Schulz, P. 1978. Verbalnomina und Konverbien als adverbiale Ergänzungen im Alttürkischen [Verbal nouns and converbs as adverbial supplements in Old Turkic]. Dissertation. University of Giessen.Google Scholar
Schütz, E. 1968. An Armeno-Kipchak Chronicle on the Polish-Turkish wars in 1620–1621 (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 11). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Schütz, E. 1976. Armeno-Kiptschakisch und die Krim [Armenian Kiphak and Crimea]. In Káldy-Nagy, Gy. ed. Hungaro-Turcica. Studies in Honour of Julius Németh. Budapest: Loránd Eötvös University.Google Scholar
Schütz, E. 1998. Armeno-Turcica. Selected Studies. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Seegmiller, S. 1996. Karachay. Munchen: Lincom.Google Scholar
Serebrennikov, B. A. 1956. Problema substrata [The problem of the substratum]. Doklady i soobščenija Instituta Akademii Nauk 3: 33–56.Google Scholar
Serebrennikov, B. A. 1960. O nekotoryx spornyx voprosax sravniteľno-istoričeskoj fonetiki tjurkskix jazykov [On some selected questions of the comparative-historical phonetics of Turkic languages]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1960, 4: 62–72.Google Scholar
Serebrennikov, B. A. 1964. Dva voprosa istoričeskoj fonetiki čuvašskogo jazyka [Two questions of historical phonetics in Chuvash]. Učenye zapiski ČNII 27: 133–138.Google Scholar
Serebrennikov, B. A. 1971. O nekotoryx problemax istoričeskoj morfologii tjurkskix jazykov [On some problems of the historical morphology of Turkic]. Sevortjan, E. ed. Struktura i istorija tjurkskix jazykov. Moscow: Nauka. 276–288.Google Scholar
Serebrennikov, B. A. & Gadžieva, N. Z. 1984. Sravniteľno-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskix jazykov: Fonetika [Comparative-Historical Grammar of the Turkic Languages: Phonetics]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Sevortjan, B. A. 1962. Affiksy glagoloobrazovaniya v azerbajdžanskom jazyke. Opyt savrintel’nogo issledovanija [Verbalizing Affixes in Azeri. An Experiment in Comparative Study]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Vostočnoj Literatury.Google Scholar
Sevortjan, B. A. et al. eds. 1974. Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ tjurkskix jazykov 1–3 [Etymological Lexicon of the Turkic Languages 1–3]. Moscow:Nauka.Google Scholar
Sezer, E. 1981. On non-final stress in Turkis. Journal of Turkish Studies 5: 61–69.Google Scholar
Shimunek, A. 2017. Languages of Ancient Southern Mongolia and North China. A Historical-Comparative Study of the Serbi or Xianbei Branch of the Serbi-Mongoic Language Family, with an Analysis of Northeastern Frontier Chinese and Old Tibetan Phonology. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Siemieniec-Gołaś, E. 2002. Foreign elements in Karachay-Balkar. Turkic Languages 6: 192–198.Google Scholar
Simonian, H. H. ed. 2007. The Hemshin. History, Society and Identity in the Highlands of Northeast Turkey. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, N. 1981. The Sogdian sound-system and the origins of the Uyghur script. Journal Asiatique 269: 347–360.Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, N. & Hamilton, J. 1990. Documents turco-sogdiens du IXe–Xe siècle de Touen-huang[Turco-Soghdian Documents of the 9th–10th Century from Touen-huang]. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Sinor, D. 1963. Introduction à l’étude de l’Eurasie Centrale [Introduction to the Study of Central Eurasia]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Širaliev, M. Š. & Sevortjan, Ė. V. eds. 1971. Grammatika azerbajdžanskogo jazyka. Fonetika, morfologija i sintaksis [Grammar of Azeri. Phonetics, morphology, and Syntax]. Baku: Elm.Google Scholar
Širäliyev, M. Š. 1967. Azärbayǰan dialektologiyasïnïn äsaslarï [The Fundaments of Azeri Dialectology]. Bakï: Elm. 213–220.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, A. F. 1962. The Phonology of Standard Uzbek. In Poppe, N. ed. American Studies in Altaic Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University. 237–262.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, A. F. 1963. Uzbek Structural Grammar (Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series 18). Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Skribnik, E. 2003. Buryat. In Janhunen, J. ed. The Mongolic Languages. London, New York: Routledge. 102–128.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. 1988. The development of clause chaining in Turkish child language. Koç, S. ed. Studies on Turkish Linguistics. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Ankara: Middle East Technical University. 27–54.Google Scholar
Soper, J. D. 1987. Loan syntax in Turkic and Iranian: The verb systems of Tajik, Uzbek, and Qashqay. Dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Soper, J. D. 1996. Loan Syntax in Turkic and Iranian: The Verb Systems of Tajik, Uzbek, and Qashqay (Eurasian Language Archives 2). Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua.Google Scholar
Stachowski, M. 1993. Geschichte des jakutischen Vokalismus [History of the Yakut Vocalism]. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński.Google Scholar
Stachowski, M. & Menz, A. 1998. Yakut. In Johanson & Csató eds. 1998: 417–433.Google Scholar
Starostin, S. & Dybo, A. V. & Mudrak, O. A. 2003. An Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages 1–3. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Stein, H. 2015. Modalkonstruktion des Wollens in irantürkischen Texten der Safawidenzeit [Modal construction of Willing in Iran Turkic texts of the Safavid Era]. In Kellner-Heinkele, B. & Raschmann, S.-Chr. eds. Opuscula György Hazai Dicata. Beiträge zum Deutsch-Ungarischen Workshop aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von György Hazai [Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Türkvölker 19). Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag. 109–122.Google Scholar
Strahlenberg, Philip Johann von 1730. Das Nord- und Ostliche Theil von Europa und Asia, in soweit solches das gantze Russische Reich mit Siberien und der grossen Tartarey in sich begreiffet … Nebst einer noch niemahls ans Licht gegebenen Tabula Polyglotta von zwey und dreyssigerley Arten Tatarischer Völker Sprachen und einem Kalmuckischen Vocabulario, sonderlich aber einer grossen richtigen Land-Charte … Stockholm: in Verlegung des Autoris.Google Scholar
Sultanzade, V. 2009. Turkish – Azerbaijani dictionary of interlingual homonyms and paronyms. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Swadesh, M. 1971. The Origin and Diversification of Language. Published posthumously.Google Scholar
Swift, Ll. B. 1963. A Reference Grammar of Modern Turkish (Indiana University publications. Uralic and Altaic Series 19). Indiana & The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Symeonidis, Ch. 1973. Griechische lehnwörter im Türkischen [Greek loans in Turkish]. Balkan Studies 14: 167–200.Google Scholar
Symeonidis, Ch. 1976. Der Vokalismus der griechischen Lehnwörter im Türkischen [The Vocalism of the Greek Loans in Turkish]. Salonika: Institut for Balkan Studies.Google Scholar
Szapszał, H. S. 1935. Próby literatury ludowej Turków Azerbajdżanu perskiego [Samples of Turkic folk literature in Persian Azerbaijan]. Kraków: Polska Akademija Umijętnosći.Google Scholar
Tadmor, U. 2009. The Leipzig-Jakarta list of basic vocabulary. In Haspelmath, M. & Tadmor, U. eds. 2009. Loanwords in the World’s Languages. A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 68–75.Google Scholar
Tarama sözlüğü 1–8 [Dictionary of the Lexical Stock 1–8]. 1965–1977. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar
Tatarincev, B. I. 1976. Mongol’skoe jazykovoe vlijanie na tuvinskuju leksiku [Mongolic Language influence on the Tuvan lexicon]. Kyzyl: Tuvinskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Tatarincev, B. I. 2000. Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ tuvinskogo jazyka [Etymological Lexicon of Tuvan]. Novosibirsk: Tuvinskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Tekin, T. 1967. Determination of Middle-Turkic long vowels through ‘arūḍ. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 20: 151–170.Google Scholar
Tekin, T. 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic (Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series 69). Bloomington: Indiana University. The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Tekin, T. 1969. Zetacism and sigmatism in Proto-Turkic. Acta Orientalia Scientiarum Hungaricae 22: 51–80.Google Scholar
Tekin, T. 1972. Notes on an introduction to Turkic studies, Karl H. Menges 1968. The Turkic languages and peoples. An introduction to Turkic studies. Finnish-Ugrische Forschungen 39: 351–365.Google Scholar
Tekin, T. 1990. A new classification of the Turkic languages. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları 1990: 5–18.Google Scholar
Tekin, T. 1993. Irk Bitig. The Book of Omens (Turcologica 18). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Tekin, T. 1995. Türk dillerinde birincil uzun ünlüler [The Primary Long Vowels in Turkic Languages] (Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları 13). Ankara: T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale [Elements of Structural Syntax]. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tenišev, Ė. R. 1963. Salarskij jazyk [The Salar Language]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tenišev, Ė. R. 1964. Salarskie teksty [Salar Texts]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tenišev, Ė. R. 1976a. Stroj saryg-jugurskogo jazyka [The Structure of Golden Uyghur] Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tenishev, Ė. R. 1976b. Mongolische Entlehnungen in der Sprache der ‘Shir-a Uighuren’ [Mongolic loans in the language of the ‘Shir-a Uyghurs]. In Heissig, W. ed. 1976. Tractata Altaica. Denis Sinor sexagenario optime de rebus Altaicis merito dedicata. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 633–640.Google Scholar
Tenishev, Ė. R. 1976c. Stroj salarskogo jazyka [The Strucure of Salar]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Teodosijević, M. 1985. Yugoslavija’da konuşulan Türkçenin sadeleştirilmesi ve eşanlamlı kelimelerin yanlış kullanılması [Simplified Turkish spoken in Yugoslavija and the misuse of synonymous words]. In Beşinci Milletler Arası Türkoloji Kongresi 1. Türk Dili. Istanbul: Istanbul Üniversitesi. 261–265.Google Scholar
Teodosijević, M. 1987. Yugoslavya Türkleri’nin basın dili üzerine lengüistik bir araştırma [A linguistic study on the written language of the Turks in Yugoslavija]. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten 1984: 167–213.Google Scholar
Teodosijević, M. 1988. Jezik štampe turske narodnosti u Jugoslavii (List ‘Tan’) [The language of the Turkish nation in Yugoslavia (newspaper ‘Tan’)]. Prilozi za orientalnu filologiju 37 [1987]: 91–118.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. 1989. A discourse approach to the cross-linguistic category ‘adjective’. In Corrigan, R. & Eckman, F. & Michael Noonan, M. eds. Linguistic Categorization (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 4. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 61). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 254–265.Google Scholar
Thomsen, K. 1963. Bemerkungen über das türkische Vokalsystem der zweiten Silbe [Notes on the Turkic vowel system of the second syllable]. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 16: 313–318.Google Scholar
Thomsen, V. 1893. Déchiffrement des inscriptions de l’Orkhon et de l’Iénisséi. Notice préliminaire [Deciphering of the inscriptions of the Orkhon and the Yenissei. Preliminary notice]. Bulletin de l’Academie Royale du Danemark 1893: 285–299.Google Scholar
Thomsen, V. 1896. Inscriptions de l’Orkhon déchiffrées [Deciphered Orkhon inscriptions] (Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 5). Helsinki: Imprimerie de la Société de Littérature Finnoise.Google Scholar
Thomsen, V. 1913. Une lettre méconnue des inscriptions de l’Iénissei [An undiscovered letter in the Yenissei inscriptions]. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 30 (4): 1–9.Google Scholar
Tietze, A. 1952. Die formalen Veränderungen an neueren europäischen Lehnwörtern im Türkischen [The formal changes to newer European loanwords in Turkish]. Oriens 5: 23–268.Google Scholar
Tietze, A. 1955. Griechische Lehnwörter im anatolischen Türkisch [Greek loans in Anatolian Turkish]. Oriens 8: 204–257.Google Scholar
Tietze, A. 1957. Slavische Lehnwörter in der türkischen Volkssprache [Slavic loans in the Turkish vernaculars]. Oriens 10: 1–47.Google Scholar
Tietze, A. 1958. Der freistehende Genitiv im Türkeitürkischen [The freestanding genitive in Turkish]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 30: 183–194.Google Scholar
Tietze, A. 1962. Einige weitere griechische Lehnwörter im anatolischen Türkisch [Some other Greek loans in Anatolian Turkish]. In Eckman, J. ed. Julius Németh Armağanı (Türk Dil Kurumu yayınları 191). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu. 373–388.Google Scholar
Tietze, A. 1964. Persische Ableitungssuffixe im Azerosmanischen [Persian derivative suffixes in Azerottoman]. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 59/60: 154–200.Google Scholar
Tietze, A. 1989. Formen und Funktion des standard-azerbaidschanischen [Forms and functions of Standard Azeri]. Materialia Turcica 13: 29–39.Google Scholar
Tietze, A. 1990. Der Einfluß des Türkischen auf andere Sprachen. Die Veröffentlichungen seit etwa 1950 The influence of Turkish on other languages. Publications since about 1950]. In Gy, Hazai. ed. Handbuch der türkischen Sprachwissenschaft 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 119–145.Google Scholar
Tietze, A. 2002. Tarihi ve etimolojik Türkiye Türkçesi lugatı. Sprachgeschichtliches und etymologisches Wörterbuch des Türkei-Türkischen 1: A–E [Historical and Etymological Lexicon of Turkish 1: A–E]. Istanbul & Vienna: Simurg.Google Scholar
Tietze, A. 2009. Tarihi ve etimolojik Türkiye Türkçesi lugatı. Sprachgeschichtliches und etymologisches Wörterbuch des Türkei-Türkischen 2: F–J [Historical and Etymological Lexicon of Turkish 2: F–J]. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Trippner, J. 1964. Die Salaren, ihre Glaubensstreitigkeiten und ihr Aufstand 1781 [The Salars, their faith disputes and their uprising in 1781]. Central Asiatic Journal 9: 241–276.Google Scholar
Trombetti, A. 1905. L’unità d’origine del linguaggio [The Unity of the Origin of Language]. Bologna: Luigi Beltrami.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie [Basics of Phonology] (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7). Prague.Google Scholar
Tryjarski, E. 1985. Die armeno-kiptschakische Sprache und Literatur – ein Beispiel für kulturellen Synkretismus [The Armenian Kipchak language and literature: An example of cultural syncretism]. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher N.S. 5: 209–224.Google Scholar
Tryjarski, E. 1968–1969. Dictionnaire Armeno–Kiptchak d’après trois manuscrits des collections Viennoises 1–3 [Armeno-Kipchak Vocabulary on the Basis of Three Manuscripts Held at Collections in Vienna]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawn Naukowe.Google Scholar
Tumaševa, D. G. 1969. Glagol. In Sovremennyj tatarskij literaturnyj jazyk. Leksikologija, fonetika, morfologija [The Modern Tatar Literary Language. Lexicology, Phonetics, Morphology]. Moscow: Nauka. 210–244.Google Scholar
Tura, S. S. 1986. -DIr in modern Turkish. In Aksu Koç, A. & Erguvanlı Taylan, E. eds. Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceeding of the Second International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. 145–159.Google Scholar
Turan, F. 2000. Adverbials and Adverbial Constructions in Old Anatolian Turkish (Turcologica 45). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Tybykova, L. & Nevskaya, I. & Erdal, M. 2012. Katalog drevnetjurkskix runičeskix pamjatnikov Gornogo Altaja (A Catalogue of Old Turkic Runic Written Monuments of the Altai Republic). Gorno-Altajsk: Gorno-Altajskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
Tzitzilis, Ch. 1987. Griechische Lehnwörter im Türkischen (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der anatolischen Dialekte) [Greek Loans in Turkish (with Special Focus on the Anatolian Dialects)] (Schriften der Balkankommisssion, Linguistische Abteilung 33). Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Tzitzilis, Ch. 1989. Zu den griechisch-türkischen Sprachbeziehungen [On the Greek-Turkish linguistic relations]. Linguistique Balkanique 32: 185–197.Google Scholar
Chr, Tzitzilis. & Kh, Symeonidés. eds. 2000. Valkanikē glōssologia: sygxronia kai diaxronia [Balkanlinguistics: Synchrony and Diachrony]. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Ubrjatova, E. I. ed. 1961. Istoričeskoe razvitie leksiki tjurkskix jazykov [Historical Development of the Lexicon of the Turkic Languages]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ubrjatova, E. I. 1976. Issledovanija po sintaksisu jakutskogo jazyka 1–2 [Studies on the Syntax of Yakut 1–2]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ubrjatova, E. I. ed. 1982. Grammatika sovremennogo jakutskogo literaturnogo jazyka 1. Fonetika i morfologija [The Grammar of the Modern Yakut Literary Language 1. Phonetics and Morphology]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ubrjatova, E. I. 1985. Jazyk noril’skix dolgan [The Language of the Norilsk Dolgans]. Novosibirsk: Nauka, Sibirskoe otdelenie.Google Scholar
Ubrjatova, E. I. & Čeremisina, M. I. eds. 1991. Jazyki narodov Sibiri. Grammatičeskie issledovanija. Sbornik naučnyx trudov [The Languages of Siberia. Grammatical Studies. Digest of Research Works]. Novosibirsk: Izdatel’stvo Nauka, Sibirskoe otdelenie.Google Scholar
Vajda, E. J. 2004a. Ket (Languages of the World Materials 204). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Vajda, E. J. 2004b. Languages and Prehistory of Central Siberia. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 262.) Bellingham: Western Washington University.Google Scholar
Vajda, E. J. 2010. A Siberian Link with Na-Dene Languages. In Kari, J. & Potter, B. 2010. The Dene-Yeniseian Connection (Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska. New series 5). Fairbanks: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Department of Anthropology. 33–99.Google Scholar
Vámbéry, Á. 1885. Das Türkenvolk in seinen ethnologischen und ethnographischen Beziehungen [The Turkic Peoples and their Ethnological and Ethnographic Relations]. Leipzig: Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Vásáry, I. 2016. On the role and function of Mongolian and Turkic in Ilkhanid Iran. In Csató, É. Á. & Johanson, L. & Róna-Tas, A. & Utas, B. eds. Turks and Iranians. Interactions in Language and History (Turcologica 105). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Vasil’ev, D. D. 1983. Korpus tjurkskix runičeskix pamjatnikov [Body of the Turkic Runic Memorials]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Voinov, V. 2016. Politeness Devices in the Tuvan Language (Turcologica 101). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Waterson, N. 1980. Uzbek-English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Werner, H. 2004. Zur jenissejisch-indianischen Urverwandtschaft [On the Jenissei-Indian Cognateness]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Y. 1924. Etymologisches aus den permischen Sprachen [Etymology of the Permic languages]. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 14: 29–63.Google Scholar
Windfuhr, G. L. 1990. Persian. In Comrie, B. ed. 1990. The World’s Major Languages. New York & Oxford. 523–546.Google Scholar
Winkler, H. 1921. Die altaische Völker- und Sprachenwelt [The World of the Altaic Peoples and Languages]. Leipzig & Berlin: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Wurm, St. 1945. Der özbekische Dialekt von Andidschan. Phonetische und morphologische Studien, Texte [The Uzbek Dialect of Andijan. Phonetic and Morphological Studies] (Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte). Brno, Munich, Vienna: Rudolf M. Rohrer.Google Scholar
Wurm, St. 1959. Das Özbekische [Uzbek]. In Deny, J. et al. eds. 1959: 489–524.Google Scholar
Wurm, St. 1996. Indigenous lingue franche and bilingualism in Siberia (beginning of the twentieth century). In St, Wurm. & Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon, T. eds. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 975–978.Google Scholar
Wylie, T. V. 1977. Etymology of Tibetan bla-ma. Central Asiatic Journal 21: 145–148.Google Scholar
Xamidova, S. M. 1985. Russkie slovarnye edinicy v uzbekskoj razgovornoj reči (k postanovke voprosa) [Russian glossal units in spoken Uzbek (on staging the issue)]. Sovetskaja Tjurkologija 1: 20–29.Google Scholar
Xamzaev, M. Ja. 1970. Grammatika turkmenskogo jazyka. Turkmen dilinin grammatikasy [Turkmen Grammar]. Aschabad: Ylym.Google Scholar
Xaritonov, L. N. 1960. Formy glagol’nogo vida v jakutskom jazyke [Forms of Verbal Actionality in Yakut]. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Xaritonov, L. N. 1963. Zalogovye formy glagola v jakutskom jazyke [Voice Forms of the Verb in Yakut]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Xelimskij, E. A. 1987. ‘Russkij govorka mesto kazat’ budem’ (Tajmyrskij pidžin) [I shall say it in the Russian speech]. In Vardul’, I. F. & Belikov, V. I. eds. Vozniknovenie i funkcionironivanie kontaktnyx jaxykov. Materialy rabočego soveščanija. Moscow: Nauka. 84–93.Google Scholar
Xelimskij, E. A. 1996. ‘Govorka’ – the pidgin Russian of the Taymyr Peninsular area. In Wurm, St. A. & Mühlhäusler, P. & Tryon, D. T. eds. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia, and the Americas 2 Texts (Trends in Linguistics. Documentation 13). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 1033–1034.Google Scholar
Yakup, A. 2005. The Turfan Dialect of Uyghur (Turcologica 63). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Yakup, A. 2009. Necessity operators in Turkish and Uyghur. International Journal of Central Asian Studies 13: 479–492.Google Scholar
Yüce, N. 1999. Gerundien im Türkischen: Eine morphologische und syntaktische Untersuchung [Converbs in Turkish: A Morphological and Syntactic Study]. İstanbul: Simurg.Google Scholar
Zajączkowski, A. 1958. Najstarsza wersja turecka Ḫusräv u Šīrīn Quṭba 1–2 [The Oldest Turkish Version of Ḫusräv u Šīrīn Quṭba 1–2] (Prace Orientalistyczne 6, 8). Warszawa: Polska Akademia Nauk, Komitet Orientalistyczny.Google Scholar
Zajączkowski, A. 1961. K voprosu o strukture kornja v tjurkskix jazykax [On the question of the structure of the root in the Turkic languages]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1961, 2: 28–35.Google Scholar
Zekeriya, N. 1976. Dilimizi severim: Sinif 3. [We are fond of our language. Class 3]. Skopje: Prosvetno Delo.Google Scholar
Zhang, D. 2004. Xiàndài hāsàkè yŭ shĭyòng yŭfă [A Practical Grammar of Modern Kazakh]. Beijing: Chinese Minzu University Press.Google Scholar
Zieme, P. 1969. Untersuchungen zur Schrift und Sprache der manichäisch-türkischen Turfantexte [Investigations on the script and language in the Manichean Turkic Turfan texts]. Dissertation. Humboldt-Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Zieme, P. 1992. Religion und Gesellschaft im Uigurischen Königreich von Qoco. Kolophone und Stifter des alttürkischen buddhistischen Schrifttums aus Zentralasien [Religion and Society in the Uyghur Kingdom of Kocho. Colophons and Founders of Old Turkic Buddhist Writings from Central Asia] (Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 88). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. 1976. Some constraints on Turkish causativization. In Shibatani, M. ed. The Grammar of Causative Constructions (Syntax and Semantics 6). New York & San Fransisco & London: Academic Press. 399–412.Google Scholar
Zimonyi, I. 1990. The Origins of the Volga Bulghars (Studia uralo-altaica 32). Szeged: József Attila Tudományegyetem.Google Scholar
Žirmunskij, V. M. 1961. Vvedenie v izučenie ėposa ‘Manas’ [Introduction to the study of the ‘Manas’ epos]. In Bogdanova, M. et al. eds. Kirgizskij geroičeskij ėpos ‘Manas’. Moscow. 85–196.Google Scholar
Žukovskaja, N. L & Oreškina, M. V. & Rassadin, V. I. 2002. Sojotskij jazyk [Soyot language]. In Neroznak, V. P., ed. Jazyki narodov Rossii. Moscow: Academia. 164–170.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Lars Johanson, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Germany
  • Book: Turkic
  • Online publication: 13 August 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.060
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Lars Johanson, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Germany
  • Book: Turkic
  • Online publication: 13 August 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.060
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Lars Johanson, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Germany
  • Book: Turkic
  • Online publication: 13 August 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704.060
Available formats
×