Yaghnobi: an example of a language in contact

Yaghnobi: an example of alanguage in contact* Ľubomír novák Charles University in Prague ABSTRACT: Yaghnobi, an Eastern Iranian language spoken in northern Tajikistan, shares many important features with Sogdian and is generally believed to be descended from anonliterary dialect of Sogdian. The language has historically been in intensive contact with Tajik and more recently with Russian; in addition, some features connecting Yaghnobi with the Pamir language area may be identified. Contact with Tajik has introduced thousands of lexical items, many of which have become an integral part of the Yaghnobi lexicon. There are also examples of Tajik grammatical loans: some of these features, such as the izafet construction or past participles in -gí, have become part of the Yaghnobi grammatical system, while other features, such as the direct object marker -ro or verbal imperfective prefix me-, are usually used in Tajik-dominated mixed speech communities. The intensity of language contact nowadays differs in the various areas inhabited by the Yaghnobis; the present article is based on material recorded in the Yaghnobi-speaking community in the Lower Varzob area, north of the Tajik capital Dushanbe. KEYWORDS: Yaghnobi, Sogdian, language contact, Tajik, Tajikistan, contact linguistics 1. HISTORY OF YAGHNOBI AND ITS LANGUAGE CONTACTS Yaghnobi (yaɣnōb� zivk) is an Eastern Iranian language spoken in areas of northern Tajikistan. Originally the language of the Yaghnob (Yagh. Yáɣnōb) valley, at present the language is also spoken in the Zafarobod district, in the Ziddeh and Takob valleys in Upper Varzob, in Lower Varzob, in Dushanbe, in the Hisor and Kofarnihon valleys, and in the Ghonchī region (see Figure 1). We may suppose that in past centuries the language was spoken in awider area of the Yaghnob and Zeravshan valleys, as documented by some place-names and Tajik dialectal lexicon shared with Yaghnobi.1 According to Hromov, some settled the southern slopes of the Hisor Range in * Iwould like to thank Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst, Viktor Elšík, Jan Bičovský and Ronald Kim for proofreading and valuable comments. This article was made possible thanks to the support of the Charles University Grant Agency, Project Nr.51807: “Electronic Lexical Database of Yaghnobi. 1 Mallickij observed that some of the Tajik-speaking inhabitants of Takfon used numerals ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’ and ‘5’ similar to those found in Yaghnobi: дуаи, тираи, туфор, пондж (Mallickij 1924), cf. Yagh. du, saráy / tiráy, tafr / tufr, panč, Taj. du, se, čor, panj. These archaic numerOPEN ACCESS ĽUBOmíR nOvák 27 the 16th-17th centuries (Hromov 1972: 6); some Yaghnobis probably also settled in the Ghonchī region at the same time (Buzurgmehr 2005: 121). Much later, in the 1950’s, they migrated to areas in the vicinity of Dushanbe and to Dushanbe itself. In 1970–71, the Yaghnobis were forced by the Soviet government to leave the Yaghnob valley and to settle in the Zafarobod district;2 after the 1980s, some of them moved back to the Yaghnob valley. According to the data provided by Sayfiddin Mirzozoda, aYaghnobi scholar of the Tajik Academy of Sciences, there are at present about 12,500 Yaghnobi speakers in Tajikistan (Mirzozoda, pers. comm.). For the external history of the Yaghnobi people, Irecommend the following works: Buzurgmehr 2005; Bashiri 1997; Loy 2005; Mirzozoda 2007; Junker 1930; Panfilov 1991, Milovskij 1991; and Yorzoda 2007. The Yaghnobi language is considered to be adescendent of Sogdian by many scholars (cf. Bogoljubov 1956; Klimčickij 1935), and both languages share many similar features in lexicon, grammar and phonology. However, the direct relationship of Yaghnobi to literary Sogdian has not been proven, the main difference between Yaghnobi and Sogdian being the different development of stress and the operation of the so-called Rhythmic Law in Sogdian, but not in Yaghnobi (cf. Sims-Williams 1989: 173; Bielmeier 1989: 480). It seems that Yaghnobi developed from an unattested dialect of Sogdian. There is asuggestion that Yaghnobi could be adescendent of adialect of ancient Ostrushana (Hromov 1987: 645; Buzurgmehr 2005: 117), although we have no exact idea how that dialect differed from the Sogdian literary language.3 After the fall of Sogdiana, the language fell under the influence of the Persian language, but we cannot tell precisely when Persian influence began; according to Vinogradova, heavy influence of Persian on Yaghnobi began in the second half of the 19th century (Vinogradova 1999: 309). In the present stage of knowledge of the language, very strong influence from Persian can be observed especially in the lexicon, but some grammatical features have been borrowed as well. In addition to Persian, Yaghnobi also has many borrowings from other surrounding languages, including Arabic, Uzbek and Kyrgyz, and in the 20th century from Russian and, via Russian, internationalisms from Western languages. als are no longer used in Takfon, but they raise the possibility that some other dialects related to Yaghnobi might have been spoken also in the vicinity of the Yaghnob valley in the past. 2 The Yaghnobis often refer to Zafarobod as Zahfarōbd; the name was changed by folk etymology to represent the unwillingness of the people to live there (zah means ‘mud’ or ‘filth’ in Yaghnobi and Tajik). For the people who used to live in the high mountain valleys with clean water and fresh air, it was extremely difficult to adjust to the steppe conditions of Zafarobod with hot weather and muddy water. 3 Only three short Sogdian texts are known from the territory of Ostrushana from the fortress of Chilhujra south of Shahriston, Tajikistan. There is no dialectal difference between these three short texts and texts in “literary” Sogdian; they may be compared with contemporary documents from Mount Mugh near Xayrobod (cf. Livšic 2003). The Yaghnob valley was a part of the southern region of Ostrushana called Buttám or Buttam�n (Sogd. pyttm’n, Arab. مّتب or نامتب). OPEN ACCESS 28 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2018 Figure 1.Main areas populated by the Yaghnobis in Tajikistan: a– Yaghnob valley, b1— Ziddeh valley (Upper Varzob), b2— Takob valley (Upper Varzob), c— Zafarobod, d— Lower Varzob, e— city of Dushanbe, f1— Hisor valley, f2— Kofarnihon valley, g— Ghonchī region. (Shading indicates relative proportion of the Yaghnobi population in agiven area.) The etymological research on Yaghnobi is still in its beginnings. There are only three main sources utilizable for etymological studies: aYaghnobi-Russian dictionary by Andrejev— Livšic— Pisarčik (1957) published together with Yaghnobi texts (Andrejev— Peščereva 1957); the Yaghnobi glossary of Salemann (Benveniste 1955); and an outline of historical grammar by Hromov (1987). In the two above mentioned dictionaries and also in asmall dictionary attached to Hromov’s Yaghnobi grammar (Hromov 1972), brief etymological notes are given. However, for the lexicon shared with Tajik precise etymologies are not given, so in some cases we have to undertake further study to distinguish words of Arabic or Uzbek origin. In this paper, Iwill discuss the Yaghnobi language as an example of alanguage in contact, atopic which did not receive much attention in previous studies. Some basic data can be found in Hromov’s Yaghnobi grammar in ashort chapter dealing with the issue of bilingualism among the Yaghnobis (Hromov 1972: 105–118). To address this problem, it is necessary to focus on several questions concerning other languages which have been in contact with Yaghnobi. Ihave specified some of those languages in previous paragraphs. Let’s have alook at them in greater detail: OPEN ACCESS ĽUBOmíR nOvák 29 a) Persian/Tajik: Tajik4 may be considered the main influence on Yaghnobi today. Contemporary Tajik may be divided into four main dialectal groups: the South-eastern/Darvoz type, the Southern type, the Central/Zeravshan type and the Northern type (Rastorgujeva 1964). In the case of Yaghnobi, the Central/Zeravshan type is the relevant dialectal group. The dialects of this type are divided into two main subtypes, the dialects of the Mastchoh area and those of the Falghar region. For the Yaghnobi-speaking settlers in Upper Varzob, it is necessary to focus also on the possible relations with the Varzob dialect of the Northern dialectal group. Astudy of the Tajik dialects in comparison with the historical development and lexicon of Yaghnobi yields some interesting results. In particular, the Zeravshan-type dialects share many features with Yaghnobi, so that their precise study can offer an outline of some possible mutual influences and be compared with the historical development of Yaghnobi. This question will be discussed below in section 2. b) Arabic: The extent of Arabic borrowings in Yaghnobi is comparable to that of Arabic borrowings in Tajik: many cultural words were borrowed that cover many semantic fields of the lexicon, mainly connected with religion and law. The influence of the Arabic lexicon on the Central Asian languages is considerable. Many of these loanwords are no longer considered to be borrowings, partly because they have been phonologically adapted to the borrowing language, partly also because the replacement of the Perso-Arabic alphabet by the Latin and later the Cyrillic alphabet caused the loss of some etymological information.5 In addition, many typical features of Arabic (mainly the so-called broken plurals) were lost or replaced by the grammatical structure of the borrowing language, e.g. Yagh. pl. kitbt (sg. kitb ‘book’) instead of the Arabic broken plural kutub (sg. kitāb), cf. Taj. pl. kitobhó, Pers. pl. kitābh� (or kutúb), Uzb. kitåbłar, but Chaghatay pl. kütüblär. In contrast to Tajik, Yaghnobi preserves the distinct pronunciation of Arabic w, which merges with vin Tajik. Yaghnobi and the Northern and Central Tajik dialects also distinguish both pharyngeal sounds ḥ and ʕ, while in standard Tajik ḥ merged with h. The Arabic sounds ʔ and ʕ merge into ʕ in Tajik, but this sound is preserved only before or after aconsonant; word-initially and between vowels it is lost.6 c) Other Iranian languages (mainly Pamir languages): Some Yaghnobi words appear to be of native Iranian origin, but have no generally accepted Sogdian equiva4 Iuse the term Tajik to denote the Tajik dialects of (Classical) Persian with their specific dialectal features that differ from the development of Persian in Iran and Afghanistan. By Persian Imean Classical Persian (i.e. fārs�-yi dar�); when speaking about its modern variant in Iran Iwill refer to it as to Farsi. 5 In comparison to the original Perso-Arabic alphabet used for writing Persian/Tajik or Chaghatay/Uzbek, the Cyrillic letter ҳ represents ه and ح in Arabic, the letter з can represent as many as four letters of the Arabic script: ز, ذ, ض, ظ and so on. The Arabic letters ع, ء/ا are represented as ъ in Cyrillic or are omitted in writing altogether. 6 In colloquial Tajik, ʕ is phonetically usually [ʔ] or Ø. OPEN ACCESS 30 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2018 lent. Some of those words have an etymology consistent with one or more of the Pamir languages. This may be evidence of early contacts.7 d) Turkic languages: Words of Turkic origin also form amajor part of the borrowed lexicon of both Yaghnobi and Tajik. Many of these are early borrowings from the period of Turkic expansion in the 14th and 15th centuries. Turkic words also appeared in some numbers in Sogdian, but the majority of Turkicisms come from the later period of intensive contacts between Iranian speakers and the Karluk and Kypchak Turks. Because Yaghnobi has been recorded for less than 100 years, we can hardly tell whether Turkic words came into the language directly from Turkic languages or whether they were borrowed via Tajik: loans from Uzbek could have come into Yaghnobi directly, whereas Kyrgyz and also Kazakh or Uyghur words were probably borrowed via Tajik. Through Turkic, some Mongol words were also introduced into Tajik and Yaghnobi. e) Russian: Russian influences in Yaghnobi and Tajik became especially strong after the October Revolution in 1917. During the Soviet period, many words derived from Latin and Greek came in their Russian form into Tajik. Russian borrowings tend to keep their original pronunciation in Tajik, but are usually adapted to native pronunciation in Yaghnobi. The usage of Russianisms may differ among speakers of these languages due to their perceived prestige compared to native Yaghnobi or Tajik expressions. f) English and Western internationalisms: In the most recent period English has begun to play agreater role in the lives of many Central Asians. Nowadays its influence is visible in Tajik, and to alesser extent in Yaghnobi. Many English words are adopted via Russian in Russianised forms. 2. DOMAINS OF CONTACT 2.1 PHOnOLOGiCAL EvidEnCE FOR LAnGUAGE COnTACT Yaghnobi shares some phonological features with the Zeravshan dialect group of Tajik. The development of Proto-Iranian vowels and diphthongs in Yaghnobi is given in Tables 1 below, while Tables 2 and 3 shows the development Classical Persian vowels in Zeravshan Tajik and in the Tajik literary language: *ī *i *ē *a *a *ā *ō *ū *u ī i ē a a ō ū ү u Table 1.The development of Yaghnobi vowels.8, 9 7 Such lexicon is represented by words like ɣayk ‘girl, daughter’ (cf. Yazghulami ɣačáǵ and Shughni ɣāc ‘girl, daughter’), kišk ‘bull’ (cf. Ishkashmi kьjuk ‘bull’, Sarghulami kišó ‘cow’), dima ‘Saponaria plant’ (cf. Khufi wuδm), etc. OPEN ACCESS ĽUBOmíR nOvák 31 *ī *i *ē *a *ā *ō *ū *u ī i ē a ō ū u u Table 2.The development of vowels in the Zeravshan dialect group of Tajik.8, 9 10 *ī *i *ē *a *ā *ō *ū *u i e a o ů u Table 3.The development of standard Tajik vowels.11, 12 The question is whether Yaghnobi as asubstrate could have influenced similar changes in the Zeravshan Tajik dialects, or if the parallel development of the vowel system is aTajik dialectal feature which has influenced Yaghnobi. The same question arises in connection with other phonological features shared by the two languages. Thus Bielmeier suggests that the Yaghnobi change *δ > d and the raising of prenasal *ā > ō > ū 8 The development *ū > ү has not yet been successfully explained, but it seems that every historical stressed *� changed to ү . It also seems that this change has not taken place in all dialects (Mirzozoda, pers. comm.). On the other hand, Hromov notes that every Yaghnobi native ū is stressed (Hromov 1987: 649), so we can suppose that every *� gave ү in the dialects where this change appeared, but we see this change also in words of Tajik origin, e.g. kab�d : kab�d < Pers. kab�d ‘green, blue’. In words of Tajik origin, ү appears in the same places as ʉ in the neighbouring Zeravshan dialects of Tajik. 9 In Yaghnobi there are three short vowels: i, a, u; the other vowels (ī, ē, ō, ū, ү ) are all long. Short ior ucan be reduced in open syllables before astressed syllable: this is marked as i, u. Historical *a (or *ǟ) changes into ɛ in Eastern Yaghnobi, but remains a in the western dialect. 10 The sound Itranscribe ʉ is realised as [ʏ] in the dialects of Upper Mastchoh and in some dialects of Falghar, and as IPA [ʊ] in the dialects of Lower Mastchoh and in the majority of Falghar dialects (cf. Rastorgujeva 1964, 25–6; Ido 2009: 68). 11 The vowels i, a, uare underlyingly short, but they can be slightly lengthened under the influence of the word stress. The vowels e, o, ů are always long. This distinction of long and short vowels can be observed in some Tajik dialects, while in the standard literary language there is no difference at all (cf. Ido 2009). In the Tajik alphabet the letter ӣ (transliterated ī) is used to distinguish word-final (stressed) ifrom the iof the izafet. 12 The changes *� > e and *� > ů (IPA [ɵ ː ]) take place before h (i.e. *h or *ḥ) and ʕ (i.e. *ʔ or *ʕ) in closed syllables, e.g. kůhná < Pers. kuhná ‘old, ancient’; mehmón < Pers. mihm�n ‘guest’; růh < Arab. rūḥ ‘soul, spirit’; můʕmín < Arab. muʔmin ‘faithful’; eʕlón < Arab. iʕlān ‘announcement’; šabéh < Arab. šabīh ‘alike, equal’. This change was rarely documented in historical Perso-Arabic orthography, e.g. mehmón was written نامهیم instead of the more common نامهم. The change *ū > ů is also recorded in the vicinity of the Arabic pharyngealised consonants in some Tajik words, e.g. sůfī (Pers. ṣūf�) < Arab. ṣūfī ‘Sufi, dervish’, arůz (Pers. ʕar�z )< Arab. ʕarū ‘meter (in poetry)’. footn 8, 9 OPEN ACCESS 32 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2018 were triggered by contact with Tajik (Bielmeier 1989; 2006), and there is also asimilar development of the Iranian ending *-�k�- > -ain Yaghnobi and Tajik (cf. Sogdian *-aka- > *-�, *-ākā- > *-�). These changes show some phonetic similarities between Yaghnobi and Tajik, but they do not tell us whether the Yaghnobi changes were affected by Tajik or occurred independently. Regarding the change *δ > d, Hromov writes that we cannot posit *δ as apart of the early Yaghnobi sound inventory, because we would then expect different developments in Yaghnobi dialects: *δ > †z(E) : †d (W), cf. the documented change *ϑ > s(E) : t (W) (Hromov 1972: 121).13 The change of *δ > d has also taken place in the Persian borrowing guδar- : guδaštán > gudárak, Tajik guzar- : guzaštán ‘to pass’ (Farsi goz är- : goz äšt�n; cf. Andrejev— Livšic— Pisarčik 1957: 255). As for the alternation ō : ū < *ā before anasal, this phenomenon is observed not only in the Southern and Central Tajik dialect groups (Rastorgujeva 1964: 28), but also in many other modern Western Iranian languages and dialects.14 To take an additional example, the lowering of historical *ibefore *h in aclosed syllable in Yaghnobi is similar to the treatment in Tajik, so that the root of *díh-ak ‘to hit’ *dihchanged into dehbefore an ending beginning in aconsonant: man dih-mišt ‘Ihit’, ax déh-tišt ‘he hits’. In the contemporary Yaghnobi language this change has been completely generalised to all positions, so the root *dihhas been replaced by deh-.15 In contemporary Yaghnobi, the opposition of long vs. short vowels is disappearing under the influence of Tajik. Vowel length is related to word stress, similarly to contemporary Tajik (Vinogradova 1999: 291). Due to the shortening of historical long vowels, length is not consistently marked in Yaghnobi dictionaries and textbooks printed in Tajikistan (cf. Mirzozoda 2007; 2008; Mirzozoda— Alavī 2008; Mirzozoda— Qāsemī 1995). On the other hand, the disappearance of length did not influence the quality of the vowels. In the scholarly notation of the language, it is necessary to mark the (historical) length to signal the different vowel qualities in the archaic Yaghnobi pronunciation.16 13 We do not know the status of *δ in early Yaghnobi. Based on the observations of Junker (as one of the earliest scientific investigators of Yaghnobi), we can tell that the change *δ > d occurred earlier than the change *ϑ > t : s. Junker writes that the older generation in the Yaghnob valley kept the pronunciation ϑ, but the younger speakers substituted t in the western dialect and sin the eastern dialect for it, but he does not mention *δ (cf. Junker 1930, 128). These two sounds often do not behave as aclass: cf. Old Persian and the West Germanic languages. 14 The raising of prenasal *ā > ō > ū seems to differ in the Yaghnobi dialects. In the dialect of Gharmen (Eastern Yaghnobi), there are some words that have undergone the change, but in many other words ō has remained unchanged. On the other hand, in the pronunciation in the dialect of Zumand (Western Yaghnobi) Irecorded that this change has been fully realised, e.g. nūm, nūn, tafarmišt, m�nōmišt, °xna (Gharmen) : nūm, nūn, tifar�mišt, m�nūmišt, °x�na (Zumand) < *nām, *nān, *ϑβar�mišt, *m�nāmišt, (°)xāná ‘name, bread, Igive, Iput, house’; cf. nūm, nūn, xūná, dand�n < *nām, *nān, *xāná, *dand�n ‘name, bread, house, teeth’ in the Zeravshan dialects (Rastorgujeva 1964, 28). 15 Unfortunately this feature cannot be illustrated with other examples because the sound h is rare in genuine Yaghnobi words. 16 The quality of Yaghnobi short iand udiffers according to the adjacent consonants, but this is not the case for ī and ū. If the length marks were omitted, Yaghnobi words would be OPEN ACCESS ĽUBOmíR nOvák 33 The proto-Yaghnobi phonemic opposition of unvoiced stop vs. voiced fricative17 (*p : *v< *β, *k: *ɣ, *č : *ž but *t : *d < *δ) disappeared with the introduction of voiced stops due to numerous Tajik borrowings (cf. Bielmeier 2006). In contrast to Persian and Sogdian, the consonantal groups nd, ng, mb are not allowed in Yaghnobi, which has only nt, nk, mp. Place names of Sogdian or Yaghnobi origin in Tajikistan treat these groups as acombination of nasal and voiced stop, but we do not know whether these borrowings retain the original pronunciation or if they have undergone the process of voicing of stops that we know from the historical development of Persian. Some early borrowings from Tajik were assimilated to the Yaghnobi opposition of unvoiced stops vs. voiced fricatives. Hromov gives as examples two Tajik loans where we can observe the change of Tajik g into Yaghnobi k: kūr < Pers. gōr ‘barrow’; kuslak < Pers. gusl kardán ‘to send’ (Hromov 1987: 565). Other examples of devoicing of voiced stops are xapár (E) : xipár (W) < Pers. xabár < Arab. ḫabar ‘information’ (Hromov 1972: 85); lakát (E) : likát (W) < Pers. lagád ‘akick’; and ōtaškīrák < Taj. otašgirák ‘pincers’. Some words show the change b > m or m > b, such as kásim < Pers. kasb < Arab. kasb ‘craft, occupation’; mūs < Pers. bōsá ‘kiss’ (in the dialect of Mastchoh mūs); falaxbán < Pers. falaxm�n ‘sling’; tamassúm < Pers. tabassúm < Arab. tabassum ‘smile’; the change *m > b can also be found in the Yaghnobi word bidn ‘middle’, cf. Sogd. myδ’n */mɨδ�n/, Pers. miy�n < Iran. *madyāna-. Whether *d was borrowed as t we cannot tell with certainty. Based on these facts, it appears that the opposition *t : *δ changed to *t : *d at an earlier stage of the language (Bielmeier 1989: 482), so the voiced dental stop became an integral part of the phonetic system, but other voiced stops appeared in Yaghnobi much later. In the phonology of loans from Tajik into Yaghnobi, one observes atendency to change *š > č and *ž > j, e.g. ōč < Taj. oš ‘pilaf’; čapalq < Taj. šapalóq < Uzb. šapałåq ‘slap’; jla < Pers. žālá ‘hail’; míja < Pers. mižá ‘eyelash’. The change ž > j is also common in colloquial Tajik and in Uzbek. Aexample of an early borrowing may be čuɣrt / čurɣt ‘yoghurt’ < Pers. juɣr�t (dialect of Samarqand; Steingass 1892: 365), Taj. jurɣót / juɣrót (< Kypchak Uzbek *juɣråt); this example shows the change *j > č, whereas the variant jurɣt is due to recent contacts with Tajik. Another characteristic that Yaghnobi shares with Central Tajik dialects is the preservation of the pharyngeal sounds ḥ, ʕ in borrowings from Arabic.18 In many written in atranscription appropriate to the phonology, but some etymological information would be lost. In the ideal case, both the historical-etymological and phonetic transcriptions should be used, e.g. mrti ‘man’ [ˈmoːrtʰe], áwi pron. 3.sg. obl. [ˈʔaβ e], waš (W) / wēš (E) ‘grass’ [ˈβ aʆ] / [ˈβ eːʆ], mēt (W) / mēs (E) ‘day’ [ˈme ː tʰ] / [ˈme ː s], Yáɣnōb ‘Yaghnob’ [ˈjaʁnɔˑb ], ɣar ‘mountain’ [ˈʁɑˑr], sut�r ‘sheep’ [s ʊ  ˈtʰuːr], zindag� ‘life’ [zɪnda ˈɡʲi ː], zivk ‘language, tongue’ [zɪ ˈvoːkʰ], urk ‘wolf’ [ˈʔ o rkʰ], virt ‘younger brother’ [vɪ ˈroːtʰ], ēx ‘ice’ [ˈʔ ɪ ːχ], uxš ‘six’ [ˈʔoχʆ, ˈʔʊχʆ], vuz ‘goat’ [ˈvu z], kab�d ~ kab�d ‘green, blue’ [kʲʰaˈby ːd] ~ [kʲʰaˈbu ː d], kūprúk ‘bridge’ [kʰʊˑpˈr ʊ kʰ], šīr�n ‘sweet’ [ʆiˑˈriːn], tīk ‘again’ [tʲʰiːkʲʰ] etc. (cf. Sokolova 1953). 17 The voiced fricatives developed from Proto-Iranian voiced stops in Eastern Middle Iranian languages. An analogous situation can be observed in Byzantine Greek. 18 Sokolova reports that ḥ and ʕ appear in Upper Varzob Yaghnobi in the same words as in the neighbouring Varzob dialects of Tajik (Sokolova 1953). Asimilar feature is documented in the dialects of Mastchoh (Hromov 1962). OPEN ACCESS 34 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2018 texts, these consonants appear as an integral part of the phonetic system (cf. Hromov 1972: 13; Hromov 1987: 651; Bielmeier 1989: 482; Bielmeier 2006; Vinogradova 1999: 292). However, there is no difference between h and ḥ in the contemporary language, where both merge as h (Mirzozoda, pers. comm.). The pharyngeal sound ʕ is documented in just one Yaghnobi word, šaʕmák ‘soot’ (Mirzozoda 2008: 252); in other cases it disappears (jumá < Pers. jumʕá < Arab. ǧumʕaḧ ‘Friday’) or lengthens the preceding vowel (lāl� < Pers. laʕl� ‘bowl’; jām < *jaʕm < Pers. jamʕ < Arab. ǧamʕ ‘sum, amount’; cf. Hromov 1972: 12; see also tār�x < Pers. taʔr�x (Farsi tār�x, Taj. taʕríx) < Arab. taʔrīḫ ‘history, date’).19 According to Mirzozoda, ḥ and ʕ were pronounced only by mullahs who knew the Arabic language (Mirzozoda, pers. comm.), which would explain their disappearance in the contemporary language. The other possibility is that some Yaghnobi speakers pronounced the Arabic loans as they learned them from Tajik speakers of the Zeravshan dialects. Another interesting contact phenomenon is the different treatment of Arabic w, which in Tajik merges with vbut in Yaghnobi Arabic with historical *w, which in turn later changes to [β ]. We can also assume that many Arabic words (especially religious terms) kept their original pronunciation in an archaic form of Tajik.20 With reference to premodern Yaghnobi phonology, we may regard the consonants b, g, h, ḥ, j, l, q, ʕ and the clusters nd, ng, mb as non-native: their presence may be considered as an indicator of lexical borrowing. Some sounds are diagnostic of the language of origin, e.g. the pharyngeal sounds ḥ and ʕ point to Arabic, while the voiceless uvular stop q points to Arabic or Turkic. Only afew voiced stops appear in native words as aresult of voicing assimilation, e.g. budúfs- ‘‘to glue, to attach’’ < Sogd. pδwfs- */p(ǝ)δufs-/ < Iran. *upa-dubsa-; čágna ‘milking pail’ : čak- ‘to milk’ (Hromov 1987: 656). In the Yaghnobi word díndak, ‘tooth, teeth’, Hromov explains the voicing of *-nt- > -ndin *díntak > díndak (Sogd. δnt’k, δnt’kH */δáṁdək/) as influence of the first voiced dental stop (Hromov 1972: 128); another possibility is influence of Tajik dandón (ibid.). The status of -lis uncertain: it can originate from aProto-Iranian group *-ϑr-, but evidence for this change is rare. The only certain example is the development of Iran. *puϑra-ka- ‘son’ > púl(l)a‘boy’; less certain is the case of Iran. *āϑr > ōl° ‘fire’ in verb ōlxášak ‘to burn’, which could be aborrowing from Tajik (Hromov 1972: 127).21 19 Asimilar compensatory lengthening has occurred in the surrounding Tajik dialects of the Zeravshan group (Hromov 1962; Hromov 1972, 195) and also in the dialects of Varzob (Rastorgujeva 1952). 20 We can also assume that the Arabic words came into Yaghnobi through Tajik; the distinction w, ḥ, ʕ was kept because of the pronunciation of the mullahs. However, this hypothesis has not been proven, and it supposes adifferent kind of language contact. Ihave recorded just one exception in adifferent pronunciation of the Yaghnobi word waxt ‘time’, which is normally pronounced as [ˈβ ɑχt] or under Tajik influence also as [ˈvɑχt] < Arab. waqt (cf. Tajik vaqt, dialectal also vaxt). Asimilar situation can be seen in the word aw(w)ál ‘first’— [ʔaˈβ (ː)al] or also [ʔaˈv(ː)al] < Arab. awwál, Taj. avvál. In some Yaghnobi words the sounds [β ] and [v] are interchangeable, as is documented in the dictionary of Andrejev— Livšic— Pisarčik (1957). 21 Hromov notes that the verb ōlxášak could have been formed by reanalysis from Tajik aló/ olá/oló ‘fire’ (cf. Yagh. ōl from Tajik; cf. Hromov 1972: 127). OPEN ACCESS ĽUBOmíR nOvák 41 nal form. To explain why Idistinguish between phases 2 and 3, note that the earlier borrowings of Persian verbs were fully adapted to the Yaghnobi grammatical system, so verb stems ending in -archange to -ōrwhen the ending *-ϑ(-) (i.e. -t(-) ~ -s(-)), -t(-) or -či) is added; but in later borrowings this does not happen. Hence we find Yagh. várak ‘to carry’, *vrtišt ~ *vrsišt ‘you (pl.) carry’; gudárak ‘to pass by’, gudrči ‘he passes by’; but párak ‘to fly’, párči ‘he flies’ (not †prči), as the verb párak is arelatively new borrowing from Pers. parrīdán : parr- (Hromov 1962: 13). An interesting phenomenon may be seen in the case of Yaghnobi numerals. The native numerals from ‘1’ to ‘10’ have been preserved, but the full range of Tajik numerals was also borrowed (with Arabic and Russian loans for the number ‘zero’ and, via Tajik, Russian names for ‘million’, etc.). The use of Yaghnobi numerals is limited to counting things up to 10 units, whereas Tajik numerals are used when counting weights and lengths, when speaking about time and when counting in numbers greater than 10. With native numerals from ‘2’ up to ‘10’, the oblique case is used with the counted subject (ī vuz ‘one goat’, du ɣw-i‘two cows’, tufr mrti- ‘four men’, avd sut�r-i‘seven sheep’); this also happens when Tajik numerals are used (šiš r�z-i‘six days’, hašt sōát-i‘eight o’clock’, pōnzdáh ɣáyk-i‘fifteen girls’, b�st-use kitb-i‘twentythree books’, pinjh-uyag táxm-i‘fifty-one eggs’, sad sl-i‘ahundred years’). In some cases we can document the process of borrowing new words into Yaghnobi via Tajik over the last hundred years, whereby archaic words are no longer used and have been replaced by new words from (colloquial) Tajik, e.g. man ‘apple’ > sēb; kimr ‘red’ > surx; zrta ‘yellow’ > zard; šō ‘black’ > siyh; rōt ‘river’ > dayr ~ dar(i) y; dōn ‘seed’ > dna; yaɣd ‘wide’ > pahm; r�tistar ‘before’ > pēštár (Bogoljubov 1966: 359); ipōrá or ɣalbalá ‘much, many’ > bis(i)yr (Klimčickij 1940b); ētk ‘bridge’ (documented in texts but nowadays rarely used even in the Yaghnob valley) > kūprúk (cf. coll. Taj. kůprúk < Chaghatay köprük, Uzb. kůprik) or most (← Russ. мост);27 vur�k / vur�k ‘eyebrow’ > qōš (cf. coll. Taj. qoš < Uzb. qåš); šī ‘upper’ > bōl; and often mēs (E) : mēt (W) ‘day’ > rūz. Some words that also existed in Sogdian were later changed to “fit” the corresponding Tajik forms: Sogd. βɣš- */βəxš-/ ‘to forgive’ > baxš-; Sogd. β’ɣ */ β�ɣ/ ‘garden’ > bōɣ; Sogd. m’ɣ */m�x/ ‘month’ > mōh (Bogoljubov 1966: 359); Sogd. βym */β�m/ ‘fear’ > bīm. Many original Yaghnobi prepositions, postpositions and conjunctions have also been recently replaced by Tajik ones (Hromov 1972: 115–6). To document each borrowing into Yaghnobi is atask for future studies. At present, amore accurate study of the structure of the borrowed lexicon is the most urgent task. With increasing collections of reliable data, much more work can now be done.28 27 There is anative Persian word for ‘bridge’: Taj. pul (Pers. pul; Farsi pol), but this is not used very often in the colloquial language, perhaps because of confusion with the homophonous word pul ‘money’ < Pers. pūl (Farsi pūl). Instead, the word kůprúk of Uzbek origin is normally used; the younger generation also often uses the Russian word most. In Yaghnob only kūprúk is used (ētk in avery limited number of cases), while most can be used in the Lower Varzob area and in Dushanbe. 28 Ihave tried to include some basic etymological information on Yaghnobi words in my Yaghnobi-Czech Dictionary (Novák 2010), but afull etymological study of Yaghnobi remains atask for the future. OPEN ACCESS 42 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2018 3. YAGHNOBI AS ACONTACT LANGUAGE In the previous paragraphs Ihave tried to outline some basic features shared by Yaghnobi with Tajik. Several core domains of Tajik influence on Yaghnobi may be identified, although the task is complicated by several factors. Above all, it is difficult to examine borrowings from other language(s) in the absence of an up-to-date Tajik etymological dictionary. For Tajik etymological studies, the Farhang-izabon-itojikī (Šukurov— Kapranov— Hošim— Maʕsumī 1969) can be helpful for basic information about words of Arabic and Turkic origin. It may be supposed that Yaghnobi was originally spoken not only in the Yaghnob valley itself but, as mentioned above in §1, also in some other areas of north-western Tajikistan and perhaps also in the adjacent areas of Uzbekistan. Some Tajik place names appear to be of non-Persian Iranian origin, and were later adapted to the phonology of Persian. Unfortunately, we cannot tell whether those place names are of early Yaghnobi or Sogdian origin since those languages were close to one another. To take one example, the Tajik name of the river Varzób should be of pre-Persian, probably Sogdian, origin. Its form */βǝrz-�p/ ‘high water’ shows the Sogdian development of Iranian *br ź- (Av. bərəz- : barəz-; cf. OPers. br d° in the personal name Br diya-) to Sogd. βrz- */βǝrzí/ in contrast to Persian burz or bul[ánd] (Horn 1988: 46; Gharib 2004: 111), while Sogdian ”p */�p/ (Yagh. ōp) has been replaced by Persian āb (Taj. ob). Similarly, we can detect Yaghnobi/Sogdian elements in names such as Anzób (Iranian *anź�-āpa- ‘narrow water’; cf. Sogd. ’nz’βH), ɣarm (Sogd. ɣrm ‘warm’; cf. Pers. garm), Iskodár (Sogd. ’sk’tr), Urmetán (Sogd. *’wr-myδn), Farmetán (Sogd. prnmyδn), Falɣár (Sogd. prɣrh), Madm (Sogd. mδmh), Kum (Sogd. kwm), Darɣ (Sogd. δrɣH), Varz(-iMinor) (Sogd. βrz-; today Aynī), Rarz (Sogd. rzrh), Poxút (Sogd. p’ɣwt), Fatmév (Sogd. βtmyβH, ’βtmyβH), Falmoút (Sogd. ’βtm’wt, Yagh. Fatmōwūt), Xušekát (Sogd. ’ɣsyknδH, ɣsyknδH, ’ɣsykt), Panjaként (Sogd. pncyknδH, pncknδH, Yagh. Panjikát) and many others (cf. Bogoljubov— Smirnova 1963: 101–108). The comparison of the lexicon of Yaghnobi and Tajik reveals other similarities. The Tajik word naɣz ‘pretty, nice’ is considered to be of Sogdian origin. According to Farhang-izabon-itojikī, this word first appears in Firdausi’s Shahnameh and is regarded as native Persian/Tajik (Šukurov— Kapranov— Hošim— Maʕsumī 1969: 843); for aSogdian etymology see Gharib 2004: 238; Andrejev— Livšic— Pisarčik 1957: 289. Several other words have the same form in Yaghnobi and Tajik, but they differ from the Persian form. To consider the famous case of Taj. and Yagh. asp, Sogd. ’sp- */əspí/ vs. Pers. asb ‘horse’, there is aquestion whether the Tajik form might show influence of the earlier non-Persian pronunciation (cf. also Av. aspa-, Khwarezmian ’sp */asp/, Bactrian ασπο */aspɔ/, Yazghulami asp, Munji and Yidgha yasp). Note also that many archaic words of Sogdian origin can be found in the Persian dictionary Luɣat-iFurs by Abūmanṣūr ‛Alī ibn-iAḥmad Asadī-yi Ṭūsī. Some of the words recorded in this lexicon are still found in Yaghnobi, while others are used in the Tajik dialects of Mastchoh and Falghar (Hromov 1962: 83–4). Finally, the similarities in the phonology of Zeravshan Tajik and Yaghnobi can be interpreted in two ways: early Yaghnobi could have influenced the adjacent Tajik dialects or vice versa. The striking similarities in the development of Central Tajik and OPEN ACCESS ĽUBOmíR nOvák 43 Yaghnobi *ō > ū and Yagh. *� > ү and Zeravshan Tajik u> ʉ, as well as Tajik and Yaghnobi *ā > ō, may point to language contacts in earlier periods (cf. Ido 2009). In the Yaghnob valley there are now some Tajik-speaking villages whose inhabitants no longer use the Yaghnobi language, but whose speech is quite different from neighbouring dialects of Tajik. The Tajik dialect of Yaghnob belongs to the Zeravshan dialect group of Tajik, to which it is relatively close: they share similarities in phonology, but the inhabitants of the Yaghnob valley use Yaghnobi-based lexicon in part, which is unintelligible to those outside the valley. In the following examples, words of Yaghnobi origin are underlined: tīs, asoná-ra ɣūš dór ‘enter, listen to the fairytale’ (Taj. daró(y), afsoná-ro gůš dor; Yagh. tīs, ōfsna ɣūš dr); aNómitkon �rū avésom mégūt ‘we set off that side from Nomitkon, he says’ (Taj. az Nomitkón on rů(y) furómadem, mégůyad; Yagh. či Nmitkōn áwi nma awsōm, wči). This dialect is also used by Yaghnobi speakers when they communicate among themselves or with strangers. The main difference between this Yaghnob-Tajik and the other Zeravshan dialects is stress, which often shifts to the penultimate syllable if this is historically long, e.g. x�na / xóna vs. Taj. xoná, Zerav. xūná ‘house’. Yaghnob-Tajik shares this feature with Yaghnobi, where stress also falls on ahistorical long vowel in the root of averb, e.g. čorúq med�zad (Taj. čorúq médůzad) ‘he sews shoes’; gūspánd-amebínand (Taj. gůsfánd-ro mébinand) ‘they see the sheep’. The 1st person plural ending is not -em as in Tajik but -im, which corresponds to Yaghnobi -īm. Also, the 1st and 3rd person singular enclitics -im and -iš (same as in Yaghnobi) are used instead of Tajik -am and -aš. Further study of the Yaghnob-Tajik dialect is urgently needed, as until today only ashort outline with texts and adictionary has been compiled by Hromov in his dissertation (Hromov 1969: 305–23, 327–85, see also Hromov 1972: 118–9). 4. DOMAINS OF CONTACT The Yaghnobi language area can be divided into seven main groups: a) The Yaghnob valley itself. Today the Yaghnobi-speaking population lives in 12 villages. Four other villages in the valley are inhabited by Tajik-speaking Yaghnobis, while 14 villages have been abandoned since the 1970s. Following the forced migration of the Yaghnobis in 1970–71, some of the people returned back to their homeland after 1989. Before the beginning of the 20th century, we can suppose that the Yaghnob valley was populated entirely by Yaghnobi speakers. Later on, some villages of the area became Tajik-speaking and their inhabitants stopped using Yaghnobi completely. At present, the situation in the valley itself is quite complicated: when the people were forced to leave their homes and move to Zafarobod, the valley was deserted. From the late 1980s onwards, some of the Yaghnobis returned to their homes in the valley. Today, Yaghnobi is spoken in everyday conversation; the Tajik language may also be used. Tajik proficiency is higher among men in comparison to women and children, but almost everyone in the valley speaks both Tajik and Yaghnobi. The domain of OPEN ACCESS 44 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2018 Tajik is limited: it is mainly used when travelling outside of the valley or when speaking with astranger. Contact with Tajik is quite limited for these speakers, and people who do not travel out of the valley do not have much contact with Tajik speakers. The other source for Tajik language contact is television, owned by some families in Yaghnob (Paul et al. 2005: 79–82). Knowledge of Russian is very low among the younger inhabitants of the valley and among women, as there are no schools in Yaghnob and education is provided mainly by women. b) Upper Varzob, i.e. the valleys of Ziddeh and Takob. In this area there are four Yaghnobi-speaking villages. As in the Yaghnob valley, the Yaghnobi speakers in the Upper Varzob are also quite isolated from the outside world. This fact helps to preserve the language in its full form. Yaghnobi is the dominant language in these villages, and its domain appears to be similar to that of the language in the Yaghnob valley. On the other hand, proficiency in Tajik is higher than in Yaghnob due to the location of Yaghnobi speakers in aTajik-language area, where possibilities for contact are not so limited. In the Upper Varzob area there are some schools, which also leads to abetter knowledge of Tajik among the Yaghnobis (see Table 5.; Paul et al. 2005: 82–6). The inhabitants of Kůkteppa have more intensive contacts with the Yaghnob valley, as there is apath through amountain pass, through which atraveller can reach the village of Qůl or Gharmen after aday’s walking. Tajik domains Education (school and university) Religious ceremonies Speeches and formal occasions Television and radio broadcasts Written literature Trade Yaghnobi domains Conversation with friends and family at home Conversation with colleagues within the local area Oral literature (e.g. spoken poems and stories) Instruction to local workmen, children and so on Table 5.Domains of language use for Zumand, Upper Varzob (after Paul et al. 2005: 86) c) Zafarobod, the area to which the whole Yaghnobi population from the Yaghnob valley was moved in 1970–71. The Yaghnobi community in this area appears to be the largest in Tajikistan. This contributes to the linguistic viability of the population, but there are also many Tajik and Uzbek speakers who play their part in language contact. Here Yaghnobi is used mainly at home or when talking with friends, and Tajik when communicating with astranger. In this area there are many schools with education in Tajik, and proficiency in Tajik is higher than in the areas of the Upper Varzob and Yaghnob. On the other hand, the Yaghnobis who work at home do not have as much contact with Tajik as those who work outside of their homes (see Table6; Paul et al. 2005: 87–9). OPEN ACCESS ĽUBOmíR nOvák 45 Activity Home Arguing Work Yaghnobi Singing Yaghnobi & Other Writing TV Other Radio Reading Counting Government Table 6.Domains of language use in the Zafarobod area (after Paul et al. 2005: 89). d) Lower Varzob: there are some Yaghnobi speakers living in various villages of the Lower Varzob. The village Dughoba-yi Bolo may be regarded as one of the largest Yaghnobi-populated localities in the area, together with Varzob-GĖS on the opposite side of the river Varzob. The population in Dughoba-yi Bolo and Varzob-GĖS is of Tajik and Yaghnobi origin. Among the Yaghnobis, their mother tongue is used in everyday life with the family or when talking to Yaghnobi guests. On the streets, Tajik is the main language of conversation, but Yaghnobi can be used whenever the audience would understand it. There is aschool in Varzob-GĖS for pupils from both villages, but the Yaghnobi language is not taught there. Due to the proximity of Dushanbe, the situation of Yaghnobi speakers differs somewhat from the situation described above. Proficiency in and usage and accessibility of Tajik is even greater than in Zafarobod (Paul et al. 2005: 89–90). e) The city of Dushanbe: nowadays many Yaghnobis live in the capital of Tajikistan. According to the data available, the Yaghnobi community in Dushanbe is located mainly in the north-eastern part of the city. The community is quite homogenous, but Yaghnobi is limited mainly to family conversation, the Tajik language being the main language of communication. In Dushanbe there are also many other ethnic groups such as Russians, Uzbeks, Pamiris, and Roma. Russians use their language on an everyday basis (they often do not understand or speak any Tajik), while other ethnic groups do not often use their language outside of their homes. f) The Hisor and Kofarnihon valleys: when we look at amap representing the areas populated by Yaghnobis (Figure 1), an area in south Tajikistan seems to be largely populated by people of Yaghnobi origin. This is because of the relatively large spread of Yaghnobis in the towns and villages in the districts of Růdakī, Hisor, Vahdat, Shahrinav and Yovon. However, the Yaghnobi communities in those districts are quite small, and they are aminority among the Tajik population. Their use of Yaghnobi is limited: the language is spoken mainly at home, and its use on the street is rare. In 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% OPEN ACCESS 46 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2018 the southern areas populated by Yaghnobis (i.e. the Hisor and Kofarnihon valleys and the city of Dushanbe), Tajik influence can be of greater extent than in areas a) to d). g) Ghonchī: in this district there are some Yaghnobis living in eight villages, who count themselves as descendants of people from the Yaghnob valley; unfortunately, they do not use the language any more. An interesting feature is that in Ghonchī some of the Yaghnobi-populated villages have Yaghnobi names. This can be observed only in areas settled by Yaghnobis in an older period: apart from the Yaghnob valley itself, Yaghnobi place names are otherwise recorded only in the Upper Varzob area, whereas other places populated by Yaghnobis have Tajik or Uzbek names. According to Buzurgmehr, the Ghonchī region may have been settled by Yaghnobis in the 16th-17th centuries (Buzurgmehr 2005: 121). 5. CONCLUSION Throughout its history, the Yaghnobi language has been influenced by neighbouring languages, the main influence coming from Tajik. The Yaghnobis live their lives in quite intensive contact with Tajik; almost every Yaghnobi also speaks Tajik, though proficiency in Tajik differs from region to region, depending on the need to use Tajik in everyday life. Yaghnobi shares some features in its historical development with the Central Tajik dialectal group in particular. This Yaghnobi-Tajik contact has been so intense that it has affected not only the vocabulary of Yaghnobi but also some aspects of its grammar, as discussed above in §2. On the other hand, Yaghnobi has retained its own linguistic structure, and borrowings that do not fit its structure were adapted phonologically and morphologically, at least until recently. The Yaghnobi lexicon is composed of some 27% native vocabulary, while the remainder are loanwords from other languages, mainly from Tajik, Arabic and Uzbek. However, these numbers need to be treated with caution, as my analysis was done on material from various sources and no precise etymological information was available for some of the languages involved, including Tajik. It is also important to note that not every word of foreign origin is used frequently. Tajik and especially Arabic words are connected with legal, religious and educational domains, and their usage in daily life is less frequent. When Iwas learning the language as it is spoken in the Lower Varzob and in the Yaghnob valleys, Icame to understand that the usage of loanwords is not as high as it appears in the available lexica. Studies of lexical entries encompass all the words used by Yaghnobis in various (often limited) occasions (cf. Novák 2010), so astudy of the frequency of the lexemes within spoken corpora is needed to draw more accurate conclusions. As mentioned above, Tajik is dominant in many areas in which the use of Yaghnobi is very limited. For example, Yaghnobis often write in Tajik as Yaghnobi does not have an established written form, and many Yaghnobis did not have any opportunity to learn their native language at school. There are also few books in Yaghnobi; furthermore, radio broadcasting in Yaghnobi is rare, and there are no television programs in Yaghnobi. This situation is not conducive to the long-term survival of OPEN ACCESS ĽUBOmíR nOvák 47 the language. There are some attempts to print books about and in Yaghnobi, but this movement is still in its early stages. Yet the outlook appears to have improved in recent years for the preservation of the language. Most importantly, the language seems to have great prestige among its speakers. This is also supported by official recognition of Yaghnobi and the Pamir languages in the Tajik constitution as apart of the cultural heritage of Tajikistan. To summarise, the Yaghnobi language is influenced by Tajik in many respects, but it still retains its own distinct features that make it so different from Tajik, so that monolingual Tajiks often do not understand even if aYaghnobi is using Tajik vocabulary within aYaghnobi sentence. The core of the Yaghnobi lexicon and grammar, such as the pronominal and verbal system, remain distinct from that of Tajik, and there are no signs that this situation will change in the immediate future. LANGUAGE ABBREVIATIONS: Arab. Arabic Av. Avestan Iran. Iranian OPers. Old Persian Pers. Persian Russ. Russian Sogd. Sogdian Taj. Tajik Uzb. Uzbek Yagh. Yaghnobi Zerav. Zeravshan dialects of Tajik (E) eastern dialect of Yaghnobi (W) western dialect of Yaghnobi REFERENCES Andrejev— Livšic— Pisarčik (1957) М.С.Андреев— В.А.Лившиц— А.К.Писарчик: Словарь, in: М.С.Андреев— Е.М.Пещерева (eds.), Ягнобские тексты с приложением ягнобско-русского словаря составленного М.С.Андреевым, В.А.Лившицем и А.К.Писарчик. Москва— Ленинград: Издательство Академии Наук СССР, 215–391. Andrejev— Peščereva (1957) М.С.Андреев— Е.М.Пещерева: Ягнобские тексты с приложением ягнобско-русского словаря составленного М.С.Андреевым, В.А.Лившицем и А.К.Писарчик, Москва— Ленинград: Издательство Академии Наук СССР. van der Ark, R.— P.Mennecier— J.Nerbonne— F.Manni (2007) Preliminary Identification of Language Groups and Loan Words in Central Asia, in: P.Osenova et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the RANLP Workshop on Computational Phonology Workshop at the conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Phonology, Borovetz: RANPL, 13–20. OPEN ACCESS 48 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2018 Bashiri, I. (1997) The Yaghnobis. [online; http:// www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri/Tajling/ yaghnob.html, cited 08.11.2008] Benveniste, E. (1955) Un lexique du Yagnobi. Journal Asiatique CCXLIII/2, 139–162. Bielmeier, R. (1989) Yaghnōbī, in: R.Schmidt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 480–488. —. (2006) Yaghnobi, in: E.Yarshater (ed.): Encyclopædia Iranica. [online; http://www. iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/ot_ grp10/ot_yaghnobi_20060303.html, cited 18.10.2007] Bogoljubov (1956) М.Н.Боголюбов: Ягнобский (новосогдийский) язык. Исследование и материалы. Автореферат на соискание учёной степени доктора филологических наук. Ленинград: Ленинградский университет. —. (1966) Ягнобский язык, in: В.В.Виноградов (ed.): Языки народов СССР. Том первый: Индоевропейские языки. Москва: Наука, 342–361. Bogoljubov— Smirnova (1963) М.Н.Боголюбов— О.И.Смирнова: Хозяйственные документы. Согдийские документы с горы Муг. Чтение. Перевод. Комментарий. Выпуск III. Москва: Издательство восточной литературы. Borovkov (1959) А.К.Боровков: Краткий очерк грамматики узбекского языка. In: А.К.Боровков— С.Ф.Акабиров— З.М.Магруфов— А.Т.Ходжахонов: Узбекско-русский словарь. Ўзбекчарусча луғат. Москва: Государственное издательство иностранных и национальных словарей, 677–727. Buzurgmehr (2005) Б.Бузургмеҳр (Бурҳониддин Тӯраев): Яғнобиёни муқими Душанбешаҳр ва музофоти он, in: Ю.Шодипур— А.Абдуллоев: Душанбе дар масири таърих (Маҷмӯаи мақолаҳо). Душанбе: Студент, 117–128. Doerfer, G. (1967) Türkische Lehnwörter im Tadschikischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. —. (1990) Central Asia. xiv. Turkish-Iranian Language Contacts, in: E.Yarshater (ed.): Encyclopædia Iranica [online; URL: http:// www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/ v5f2/v5f2a017.html, cited. 25.08.2009] Gauthiot, R.— E.Benveniste (1929) Essai de grammaire sogdienne. Deuxième partie: Morphologie, syntaxe et glossaire. [Mission Pelliot en Asie centrale: Série petit in-Octavo, 3], Paris: Geuthner 1929. Geiger, W. (1898–1901) Über das Yaghnōbī, in: W.Geiger— E.Kuhn (eds.): Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, Erster Band, 2.Abteilung. Straßburg: Trübner, 334–344. Gharib , B. (1965) Analysis of the Verbal System in the Sogdian Language. Diss. University of Pennsylvania. —. (2004) Sogdian Dictionary (Sogdian — Persian — English). Tehran: Farhangan Publications. (یدغس گنهرف :بيرق نامّزلا ردب ۱۳۸۳ ،ناگنهرف :نارهت .)یسیلگنا — ىسراف — یدغس() Horn, P. (1988) Grundriß der neupersischen Etymologie. Sammlung indogermanischer Wörterbücher. Hildesheim— Zürich— New York: Georg Olms Verlag. Hromov (1962) А.Л.Хромов: Говоры таджиков Матчинского района. Гӯишҳои тоҷики райони Мастчоҳ. Труды, т. CVII. Душанбе: Издательство Академии наук таджикской ССР. —. (1969) Историко-лингвистическое исследование Ягноба и Верхнего Зеравшана. Дисcертация на соискание учёной степени кандидата филологических наук. Душанбе 1969. —. (1972) Ягнобский язык. Москва: Наука. —. (1976) Ягнобские архаизмы в топонимических названиях, in: В.С.Расторгуева (ed.): Иранское языкознание. Москва: Наука, 160–167. —. (1987) Ягнобский язык. In: В.С.Расторгуева (ed.): Основы иранского языкознания. Новоиранские языки II.— Восточная группа. Москва: Наука, 644–701. Ido, S. (2009) An analysis of the formation of the Tajik vowel system, in: A.Saxena— Å.Viberg (eds.): Multilingualism. Proceedings of the 23rd Scandinavian conference of linguistics. [Acta universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 8.], Uppsala: Uppsala University, 65–74. OPEN ACCESS ĽUBOmíR nOvák 49 Jefimov— Rastorgujeva— Šarova (1982) Валентин Александрович Ефимов— Вера Сергеевна Расторгуева— Е.Н.Шарова: Персидский, таджикский, дари. In: Вера Сергеевна Расторгуева (ed.): Основы иранского языкознания. Новоиранские языки I.— Западная группа, прикаспийские языки. Москва: Наука1982, pp.5–230. Junker, F.J. (1914) Drei Erzählungen auf Yaɣnabī. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. —. (1930) Arische Forschungen. Yaghnōbī-Studien I.Die Sprachgeographische Gliederung des Yaghnōb-Tales. Leipzig: Hirzel. Kerimova (1997) А.А.Керимова: Таджикский язык, in: Языки мира. Иранские языки I.— Юго-западные иранские языки. Москва: ИНДРИК, 102–133. Klimčickij (1935a) С.И.Климчицкий: Название Согдианы в топонимике Таджикистана, in: Записки института востоковедения академии наук VI., 9–13. —. (1935b) Ягнобско-согдийские соответствия, in: Записки института востоковедения академии наук VI., 15–25. —. (1940a) Ягнобская сказка, in: Академия наук СССР— Труды Таджикистанской базы, т. IX— 1938— История— язык— литература. Akademijaji Fanho SSSR: Asarhoji бazaji Toçikiston, çildi IX— Tarix— zaбon— adaбijot. Москва— Ленинград: Издательство Академии наук СССР, 94–103. —. (1940b) Ягнобцы и их язык, in: Академия наук СССР— Труды Таджикистанской базы, т. IX— 1938— История— язык— литература. Akademijaji Fanho SSSR: Asarhoji бazaji Toçikiston, çildi IX— Tarix— zaбon— adaбijot. Москва— Ленинград: Издательство Академии наук СССР, 137–139. Livšic (2003) В.А.Лившиц: Согдийские документы из замка Чильхуджра, in: Scripta Gregoriana. Сборник в честь семидесятилетия академика Г.М.Бонгард-Левина. Москва: Восточная литература 2003, 77–88. Livšic— Hromov (1981) В.А.Лившиц— А.Л.Хромов: Согдийский язык, in: В.С.Расторгуева (ed.): Основы иранского языкознания. Среднеиранские языки I.Москва: Наука, 347–514. Loy, T. (2005) Jaghnob 1970. Erinnerungen an eine Zwangsumsiedlung in der Tadschikischen SSR. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Mallickij (1924) Н.Г.Маллицкий: Ягнобцы, in: Известия Туркестанского отдела Географического общества (Ташкент), Том XVII. 174–178. Milovskij (1991) А.Миловский: Последние из шестнадцатой сатрапии. Вокруг света 1/ январь 1991; [online: http://www.vokrugsveta. ru/vs/article/2279/ cited 28.09.2009, 11:28] Mirzozoda (2007) С.Мирзоев: Суннатҳои маҳаллии мардуми Яғноб. Душанбе: Деваштич. —. (2008) Фарҳанги яғнобӣ-тоҷикӣ. Душанбе: Деваштич. Mirzozoda— Alavī (2008) С.Мирзозода— Б.Алавӣ: Дастури забони яғнобӣ. Яғнобӣ зивоки дастур. Душанбе: Деваштич. Mirzozoda — Qāsemī (1995) С. Мирзозода — М. Қосимӣ: Фарҳанги забони яғнобӣ. Душанбе: Пайванд (دوعسم — هدازازریم نيّدلا فیس ۱۳۷۴ ،دنویپ :هبنشود .یبانغي نابز گنهرف :یمساق.). Novák, Ľ. (2010) Jaghnóbsko-český slovník spřehledem jaghnóbské gramatiky. Яғнобӣ-чехӣ луғат яғнобӣ зивоки дастури феҳрастипӣ. Praha: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy vPraze. Panfilov (1991) О.Панфилов: Яғноб акунси вайрон. Фарҳанг 7/1991, 45–50. Paul, D.— Abbes, E.— Müller, K.— Tiessen, C. (2005) The Ethnolinguistic Vitality of Yaghnobi, in: John M.Clifton (ed.): Studies in languages of Tajikistan. Dushanbe— St.Petersburg: SIL, 65–105. Perry, J.R. (2002) Arabic Elements in Persian, In: E.Yarshater (ed.): Encyclopædia Iranica, [online: http://www.iranica.com/newsite/ articles/unicode/sup/Arab_Elements.html, cited 25.08.2009] —. (2005) ATajik Persian Reference Grammar. Leiden: Brill (Handbuch der Orientalistik 11.). Rastorgujeva (1952) В.С.Расторгуева: Очерки по таджикской диалектологии. Вып. 1— Варзобский говор таджикского языка. Москва: Издательство Академии наук СССР. —. (1964) Опыт сравнительного изучения таджикских говоров. Москва: Наука. OPEN ACCESS 50 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2018 Rzehak, L. (1999) Tadschikische Studiengrammatik. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Sims-Williams, N. (1989) Sogdian, in: R.Schmitt (ed.): Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 174–192. Sokolova (1953) В.С.Соколова: Ягнобский язык, in: В.С.Соколова: Очерки по фонетике иранских языков. Выпуск II. Осетинский, ягнобский и памирские языки. Москва— Ленинград: Издательство Академии наук СССР, 59–79. Steingass, F.J. (1892) AComprehensive PersianEnglish Dictionary including the Arabic words and phrases to be met with in Persian literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [reprinted New Delhi: Manohar, 2006] Šukurov — Kapranov — Hošim — Maʕsumī (1969) М. Ш. Шукуров — В. А. Капранов — Р. Ҳошим — Н. А. Маъсумӣ: Фарҳанги забони тоҷикӣ (аз асри X то ибтидои асри XX). Ҷилди I А — О. Ҷилди II П — Ҷ. یکیجات نابز گنهرف. Словарь таджикского языка (X — начало XX века). Москва: Совeтская энциклопедия. Vinogradova (1999) С.П.Виноградова: Ягнобский язык, in: Языки мира. Иранские языки III.— Восточноиранские языки. Москва: ИНДРИК, 290–310. Yorzoda (2007) Т.Ёрзода: Фолклори Яғноб (Маҷмӯаи илмӣ-оммавӣ). Yaɣdnovi folklor. Душанбе: Империал-Групп. OPEN ACCESS