The Full Wiki

Mongolian language: Map


Wikipedia article:

Map showing all locations mentioned on Wikipedia article:

{{Infobox Language
|name          = Mongolian
|nativename    = Монгол (Mongol)
(Mongγol) |pronunciation = |states = Mongoliamarker, People's Republic of Chinamarker |region = All of Mongolia and Inner Mongolia; parts of Liaoningmarker, Jilinmarker, and Heilongjiangmarker provinces in China |latd= | latm= | latNS = |longd= |longm= |longEW = |speakers = 5.2 million |iso1 = mn |iso2 = mon |iso2b = |iso2t = |iso3 = |lc1 = mon |ld1 = Mongolian (generic) |ll1 = none |lc2 = khk |ld2 = Khalkha Mongolian |ll2 = none |lc3 = mvf |ld3 = Peripheral Mongolian |ll3 = none |familycolor = Altaic |fam1= Altaic |fam2 = Mongolic |fam3 = Eastern |fam4 = Oirat-Khalkha |fam5 = Khalkha-Buryat |xfamily = |script = Mongolian script, Cyrillic |rank = |nation =
(Inner Mongolia) |agency = State Language Council (Mongolia),{{cite web|url=|title=Törijn alban josny helnij tuhaj huul’||date=2003-05-15|accessdate=2009-03-27}} The decisions of the council have to be ratified by the government. Council for Language and Literature Work (Inner Mongolia)"Mongγul kele bičig-ün a{{IPA|ǰ}}il-un {{IPA|ǰ}}öblel". See Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 204. |extinct = |signers = |creator = |date = |setting = |posteriori = |caption = |image = |map = }} The '''Mongolian language''' ( [[Image:Monggol kele.svg|17px]], ''{{lang|mvf-Latn|Mongγol kele}}''; [[Cyrillic alphabet|Cyrillic]]: {{lang|khk-Cyrl|Монгол хэл}}, ''{{lang|khk-Latn|Mongol khel}}'' ) is the best-known member of the [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic language family]]. It has about 5.7 million speakers, including over 90% of the residents of [[Mongolia]][ Ethnologue, Mongolia page] and many of the [[Mongols|Mongolian]] residents of the [[Inner Mongolia]] [[autonomous region of China]]. In Mongolia, the [[Khalkha dialect]] of Mongolian, written in Cyrillic, is predominant; in Inner Mongolia, the language is more [[dialect]]ally diverse and written in the traditional [[Mongolian script]]. Mongolian has [[vowel harmony]] and a complex syllabic structure for a Mongolic language that allows up to three syllable-final consonants. It is a typical [[Agglutination|agglutinative language]] that relies on suffix chains in the verbal and nominal domains. While the basic word order is [[Subject Object Verb|subject–object–predicate]], the noun phrase order is relatively free, so functional roles are indicated by a system of about eight [[grammatical case]]s. There are five [[Grammatical voice|voices]]. Verbs are marked for voice, [[Grammatical aspect|aspect]], [[Grammatical tense|tense]], and [[Linguistic modality|epistemic modality]]/[[evidentiality]]. In sentence linking, a special role is played by [[converb]]s. Modern Mongolian evolved from "[[Middle Mongolian]]", the language spoken in the [[Mongol Empire]] of the 13th and 14th centuries. In the transition, a major shift in the vowel harmony paradigm occurred, [[Vowel length|long vowels]] developed, the case system was slightly reformed, and the verbal system was restructured. == Geographic distribution == Mongolian is the national language of the state of [[Mongolia]], where it is spoken by about 2.5 million people, and an official language of China's [[Inner Mongolia]] region, where it is spoken by 2.7 million or more people.Svantesson et al. 2005: 141, 143. On the other hand, Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 206 (an Inner Mongolian source) assumes four million Inner Mongolians to be proficient in Mongolian. The exact number of Mongolian speakers in China is hard to determine, as there is no data available on Chinese citizens' language proficiency. There are roughly five million [[Ethnicity|ethnic]] Mongolians in China, but the use of Mongolian is declining among them, especially among younger speakers in urban areas, due to the dominance of [[Mandarin Chinese]].Janhunen 2003d: 178. The great majority of speakers of Mongolian proper in China live in Inner Mongolia; in addition, some speakers of the [[Kharchin dialect|Kharchin]] and [[Khorchin dialect]]s live in areas of [[Liaoning]], [[Jilin]], and [[Heilongjiang]] that border Inner Mongolia.Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 565. == Classification and dialects == [[Image:Mongols-map.png|thumb|right|350px|alt=Topographic map showing Asia as centered on modern-day Mongolia and Kazakhstan. A red lines shows the extent of the Mongol Empire. Some places are marked in red. This includes all of Mongolia, most of Inner Mongolia and Kalmykia, three enclaves in Xinjiang, multiple tiny enclaves round Lake Baikal, part of Manchuria, Gansu, Qinghai, and one place that is west of Nanjing and in the south-south-west of Zhengzhou|Geographic distribution of Mongolic people]] The delimitation of the Mongolian language is a much disputed theoretical problem, one whose resolution would probably require a set of comparable linguistic criteria for all major [[variety (linguistics)|varieties]]. Such data might account for the [[historical linguistics|historical]] development of the Mongolian [[dialect continuum]], as well as for its [[sociolinguistics|sociolinguistic]] qualities. Though phonological and lexical studies are comparatively well developed,See especially Rinčjen 1979, Amaržargal 1988, Coloo 1988 and for a general bibliography on Mongolic phonology Svantesson et al. 2005: 218–229. the basis has yet to be laid for a comparative [[morphology (linguistics)|morphosyntactic]] study, for example between such highly diverse varieties as [[Khalkha dialect|Khalkha]] and Khorchin.See Ashimura 2002 for a rare piece of research into dialect morphosyntax that shows significant differences between Khalkha and Khorchin.Janhunen 2003d: 189. Mongolian belongs to the [[Mongolic languages]]. Other languages in this grouping include Khamnigan and [[Daur language|Dagur]], spoken in Eastern [[Greater Mongolia]] and in the vicinity of [[Tacheng]] in [[Xinjiang]]; [[Eastern Yugur language|Shira Yugur]], [[Bonan language|Bonan]], [[Dongxiang language|Dongxiang]], [[Monguor language|Monguor]], and [[Kangjia language|Kangjia]], spoken in China's [[Qinghai]] and [[Gansu]] regions; and the probably extinct [[Moghol language|Moghol]] of Afghanistan. The status of certain varieties in the Mongolic group—whether they are languages distinct from Mongolian or just dialects of it—is disputed. There are at least three such varieties: [[Oirat language|Oirat]] (including the [[Kalmyk language|Kalmyk dialect]]) and [[Buryat language|Buryat]], both of which are spoken in Russia, Mongolia, and China; and [[Ordos dialect|Ordos]], spoken around Inner Mongolia's [[Ordos City]].See Janhunen (ed.) 2003 and Sechenbaatar et al. 2005 for two classificatory schemes. The Altaic theory proposes that the Mongolic family is a member of a larger [[Altaic languages|Altaic family]] that would also include the [[Turkic languages|Turkic]] and [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]], and usually [[Korean language|Korean]] and [[Japonic languages]] as well.For a history of the Altaic theory, see Georg et al. 1999. Since then, the major pro-Altaistic publication Starostin et al. 2003 has appeared, which got mostly mildly negative to devestating reviews, the most detailed being Vovin 2005. [[File:Byambyn Rinchen.jpg|right|thumb|200px|alt=shoulders and face of an old, white-haired man with a long moustache wearing a deel. He seems to show a slight smile.|[[Byambyn Rinchen]] (1905–1977), famous Mongolian [[linguist]] and [[translator]]Bajansan and Odontör 1995: 132–135.]] There is no disagreement that the Khalkha dialect of the Mongolian state is Mongolian.For an exact delimitation of Khalkha, see Amaržargal 1988: 24–25. Beyond this one point, however, agreement ends. For example, the influential classification of Sanžeev (1953) proposed a "Mongolian language" consisting of just the three dialects Khalkha, [[Chakhar dialect|Chakhar]], and Ordos, with Buryat and Oirat judged to be independent languages.Sanžeev 1953: 27–61, especially 55. On the other hand, Luvsanvandan (1959) proposed a much broader "Mongolian language" consisting of a Central dialect (Khalkha, Chakhar, Ordos), an Eastern dialect (Kharchin, Khorchin), a Western dialect (Oirat, [[Kalmyk language|Kalmyk]]), and a Northern dialect (consisting of two Buryat varieties).Quoted from Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 167–168. Some Western scholarsamong them Janhunen 2003 propose that the relatively well researched Ordos variety is an independent language due to its conservative syllable structure and [[phoneme]] inventory. While the placement of a variety like [[Alasha dialect|Alasha]],Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 265–266. which is under the cultural influence of Inner Mongolia but historically tied to Oirat, and of other border varieties like [[Darkhad dialect|Darkhad]] would very likely remain problematic in any classification,Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 266 classify Alasha as a variety of "South Mongolian" according to morphological criteria, while Svantesson et al. 2005: 148 classify it as a variety of Oirat according to phonological criteria. For a discussion of opinions on the classification of Darkhad, see Sanžaa and Tujaa 2001: 33–34. the question of how to classify Chakhar, Khalkha, and Khorchin in relation to each other and in relation to Buryat and Oirat remains the central problem.Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 166-173, 184-195. See also Janhunen 2003d: 180. The split of {{IPA|[tʃ]}} into {{IPA|[tʃ]}} before *i and {{IPA|[ts]}} before all other reconstructed vowels, which is found in Mongolia but not in Inner Mongolia, is often cited as a fundamental distinction,E.g., Svantesson et al. 2005: 143, Poppe 1955: 110–115. for example Proto-Mongolic ''{{IPA|*tʃil}}'', Khalkha {{IPA|/tʃiɮ/}}, Chakhar {{IPA|/tʃil/}} 'year' versus Proto-Mongolic ''{{IPA|*tʃøhelen}}'', Khalkha {{IPA|/tsooɮəŋ/}}, Chakhar {{IPA|/tʃooləŋ/}} 'few'.Svantesson et al. 2006: 159–160; the difference between the [l]s might just be due to the impossibility of reconstructing something as detailed as {{IPA|[ɮ]}} for Proto-Mongolic and imprecision or convenience in notation for Chakhar (Chakhar phonemes according to Dobu 1983). On the other hand, the split between the past tense verbal suffixes -''{{IPA|sŋ}}'' in the Central varieties vs. -''{{IPA|dʒɛː}}'' in the Eastern varietiesE.g., ''{{unicode|bi tegün-i taniǰei}}'' I him know-{{smallcaps|past}} ‘I knew him’ is accepted and ?''Bi öčögedür iregsen'' rejected by an Inner Mongolian grammarian from Khorchin (Chuluu 1998: 140, 165); in Khalkha, by contrast, the first sentence would not appear with the meaning attributed to it, while the second is perfectly acceptable. is usually seen as a merely [[stochastic]] difference.See, for example, Činggeltei 1959. Notice that this split is blurred by the school grammar, which treats several dialectal varieties as one coherent grammatical system (for example Činggeltei 1999 [1979]). This understanding is in turn reflected in the undecided treatment of -''{{IPA|sŋ}}'' in research work like Bayančoγtu 2002: 306. In Inner Mongolia, official language policy divides the Mongolian language into three dialects: [[South Mongolian language|South Mongolian]], Oirat, and Barghu-Buryat. "South Mongolian" is said to consist of Chakhar, Ordos, [[Baarin dialect|Baarin]], Khorchin, Kharchin, and Alasha. The authorities have synthesized a literary standard for Mongolian in China whose grammar is said to be based on "South Mongolian" and whose pronunciation is based on the Chakhar dialect as spoken in the [[Eight Banners|Plain Blue Banner]].{{unicode|“Öbür mongγul ayalγu bol dumdadu ulus-un mongγul kelen-ü saγuri ayalγu bolqu büged dumdadu ulus-un mongγul kelen-ü barimǰiy-a abiy-a ni čaqar aman ayalγun-du saγurilaγsan bayidaγ.“}} (Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 85). Dialectologically, however, western "South Mongolian" dialects are closer to Khalkha than they are to eastern "South Mongolian" dialects: for example, Chakhar is closer to Khalkha than to Khorchin.Janhunen 2003d. == Phonology == In this section, the Khalkha dialect as spoken in [[Ulan Bator|Ulaanbaatar]], Mongolia's capital, is described. The phonologies of other varieties, e.g., Ordos, Khorchin and Kharchin, differ considerably from Khalkha phonology.See Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 249–384. The phoneme inventory of Khalka is tabulated below; the slash symbols standardly used to indicate a phoneme are omitted ("i" instead of "/i/"). === Vowels === :{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;" ! ! colspan="2"|[[Front vowel|Front]] ! colspan="2"|[[Central vowel|Central]] ! colspan="2"|[[Back vowel|Back]] |- ! ! Short ! Long ! Short ! Long ! Short ! Long |- ! style="text-align: left;" | [[Close vowel|Close]] | {{IPA|i}} | {{IPA|iː}} | | | {{IPA|u}} | {{IPA|uː}} |- ! style="text-align: left;" | [[Near-close vowel|Near-Close]] | | | | | {{IPA|ʊ}} | {{IPA|ʊː}} |- ! style="text-align: left;" | [[Close-mid vowel|Close-Mid]] | {{IPA|e}} | {{IPA|eː}} | {{IPA|o}} {{IPA|[ɵ]}} | | | {{IPA|oː}} |- ! style="text-align: left;" | [[Open-mid vowel|Open-mid]] | | | | | {{IPA|ɔ}} | {{IPA|ɔː}} |- ! style="text-align: left;" | [[Open vowel|Open]] | | | {{IPA|a}} | {{IPA|aː}} | | |} Short /o/ is [[phonetics|phonetically]] the [[Close-mid central rounded vowel|central vowel]] {{IPA|[ɵ]}}. Khalkha also has four [[diphthong]]s: {{IPA|/ui, ʊi, ɔi, ai/}}.Svantesson et al. 2005: 22 '''Vowel length.''' The pronunciation of long and short [[vowel]]s depends on the [[syllable]]'s position in the word. In word-initial syllables there is a [[phoneme|phonemic]] contrast in length. Here, a long vowel has about 208% the length of a short vowel. In word-internal and word-final syllables, formerly long vowels have been reduced to 127% the length of short word-initial vowels, thus becoming short phonemes, but still being separate from word-initial short vowels as "full vowels". Short noninitial vowels have been reduced to 71% the length of short word-initial vowels and become centralized, in the course of which losing their status as phonemes and becoming nonphonemic.Svantesson et al. 2005: 1–7, 22–24, 73–75. '''Backness harmony.''' Mongolian divides vowels into two groups in a system of [[vowel harmony]]: :{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;" ! +ATR ("front") ! -ATR ("back") ! Neutral |- | {{IPA|e, u, o}} | {{IPA|a, ʊ, ɔ}} | {{IPA|i}} |} For historical reasons, these have traditionally been labeled as "front" vowels and "back" vowels. However, it seems more appropriate to instead characterize them by the dimension of tongue root position, as [[Advanced and retracted tongue root|advanced tongue root]] or +ATR and non-advanced tongue root or -ATR. There is also one neutral vowel, /i/, which does not belong to either group. All the vowels in a noncompound word, including all its suffixes, must belong to the same group. If the first vowel is -ATR, then every vowel of the word must be either {{IPA|/i/}} or a -ATR vowel. Likewise, if the first vowel is a +ATR vowel, then every vowel of the word must be either {{IPA|/i/}} or a +ATR vowel. In the case of suffixes, which must change their vowels to conform to different words, two patterns predominate. Some suffixes can occur with {{IPA|/a, ɔ, e, o/}}, following the last phonemic vowel in the [[word stem]], in which case underlying {{IPA|/ʊ, u/}} are realized as {{IPA|[a, e]}} respectively. For example: :{| | ''{{IPA|orx}}'' ‘household’ || + || ''{{IPA|-Ar}}'' (instrumental) || → || ''{{IPA|orxor}}'' ‘by a household’ |- | ''{{IPA|xarʊɮ}}'' ‘sentry’ || + || ''{{IPA|-Ar}}'' (instrumental) || → || ''{{IPA|xarʊɮar}}'' ‘by a sentry’ |} Other suffixes can occur in either {{IPA|/ʊ, u/}}, in which case all -ATR vowels lead to {{IPA|/ʊ/}} and all +ATR vowels lead to {{IPA|/u/}}. For example: :{| | ''{{IPA|aw}}'' ‘to take’ || + || ''{{IPA|-Uɮ}}'' (causative) || → || ''{{IPA|awʊɮ}}'' |} If the only vowel in the word stem is {{IPA|/i/}}, the suffixes will use the +ATR suffix forms.Svantesson et al. 2005: 43–50. '''Rounding harmony.''' Mongolian also has rounding harmony pertaining to open vowels only. If a stem contains {{IPA|/o/}} (or {{IPA|/ɔ/}}), a suffix that is specified for an open vowel will have {{IPA|[o]}} (or {{IPA|[ɔ]}}, respectively) as well. However, this process is blocked by the presence of {{IPA|/u/}} (or {{IPA|/ʊ/}}) and {{IPA|/ei/}}. E.g. ''{{IPA|ɔr-ɮɔ}}'' 'came in', but ''{{IPA|ɔr-ʊɮ-ɮa}}'' 'inserted'.Svantesson et al. 2005: 46–47, 50–51. === Consonants === The consonants in parentheses occur only in loanwords.Svantesson et al. 2005: 25–30. {| class="wikitable" ! colspan="2" rowspan="2"| ! align="center" colspan="2"|[[labial consonant|Labial]] ! align="center" colspan="2"|[[Dental consonant|Dental]] ! align="center" rowspan=2|[[Palatal consonant|Palatal]] ! align="center" colspan="2"|[[Velar consonant|Velar]] ! align="center" rowspan=2|[[Uvular consonant|Uvular]] |-class=small align=center ! Plain ! [[Palatalization|Palatalized]] ! Plain ! [[Palatalization|Palatalized]] ! [[Palatalization|Palatalized]] ! Plain |- ! align="left" colspan="2"|[[Nasal consonant|Nasal]] | align="center"|{{IPA|m}} | align="center"|{{IPA|mʲ}} | align="center"|{{IPA|n}} | align="center"|{{IPA|nʲ}} | | | align="center"|{{IPA|ŋ}} | |- ! align="left" rowspan=3|[[Plosive consonant|Plosive]] ! [[Voiceless consonant|Voiceless]] [[Aspiration (phonetics)|aspirated]] |align="center"|({{IPA|pʰ}}) |align="center"|({{IPA|pʲʰ}}) | align="center"|{{IPA|tʰ}} | align="center"|{{IPA|tʲʰ}} | | align="center"|({{IPA|kʲʰ}}) | align="center"|({{IPA|kʰ}}) | |- ! [[Voiceless consonant|Voiceless]] | align="center"|{{IPA|p}} | align="center"|{{IPA|pʲ}} | align="center"|{{IPA|t}} | align="center"|{{IPA|tʲ}} | | | | |- ! [[Voiced consonant|Voiced]] | | | | | | align="center"|{{IPA|ɡʲ}} | align="center"|{{IPA|ɡ}} | align="center"|{{IPA|ɢ}} |- ! align="left" rowspan=2|[[Affricate]] ! [[Voiceless consonant|Voiceless]] [[Aspiration (phonetics)|aspirated]] | | | align="center"|{{IPA|tsʰ}} | | align="center"|{{IPA|tʃʰ}} | | | |- ! [[Voiceless consonant|Voiceless]] | | | align="center"|{{IPA|ts}} | | align="center"|{{IPA|tʃ}} | | | |- ! align="left" colspan="2"|[[Fricative consonant|Fricative]] | align="center"|({{IPA|f}}) | | align="center"|{{IPA|s}} | | align="center"|{{IPA|ʃ}} | align="center"|{{IPA|xʲ}} | align="center"|{{IPA|x}} | |- ! align="left" colspan="2"|[[Lateral consonant|Lateral]] [[fricative]] | | | align="center"|{{IPA|ɮ}} | align="center"|{{IPA|ɮʲ}} | | | | |- ! align="left" colspan="2"|[[Trill consonant|Trill]] | | | align="center"|{{IPA|r}} | align="center"|{{IPA|rʲ}} | | | | |- ! align="left" colspan="2"|[[Approximant consonant|Approximant]] | align="center"|{{IPA|w̜}} | align="center"|{{IPA|w̜ʲ}} | | | align="center"|{{IPA|j}} | | | |} Mongolian lacks the voiced lateral approximant, {{IPA|[l]}}; instead, it has a [[voiced alveolar lateral fricative]], {{IPA|/ɮ/}}, which is often realized as voiceless {{IPA|[ɬ]}}.Karlsson 2005: 17 In word-final position, {{IPA|/n/}} (if not followed by a vowel in historical forms) is realized as {{IPA|[ŋ]}}. The occurrence of palatalized consonant phonemes seems to be restricted to words that contain pharyngeal vowels.Svantesson et al. 2005: 20–21, where it is actually stated that they are phonemic only in such words. ===Syllable structure and phonotactics=== The maximal syllable is CVVCCC, where the last C is a word-final suffix. A single short vowel rarely appears in syllable-final position. If a word was monosyllabic historically, *CV has become CVV. {{IPA|[ŋ]}} is restricted to codas (else > {{IPA|[n]}}), and {{IPA|/p/}} and {{IPA|/pʲ/}} don’t occur in codas for historical reasons. For two-consonant clusters, the following restrictions obtain: * a palatalized consonant can be preceded only by another palatalized consonant or sometimes by {{IPA|/ɢ/}} and {{IPA|/ʃ/}} * /ŋ/ may precede only {{IPA|/ʃ, x, ɡ, ɡʲ/}} and {{IPA|/ɢ/}} * /j/ does not seem to appear in second position * {{IPA|/p/}} and {{IPA|/pʲ/}} do not occur as first consonant and as second consonant only if preceded by /m/ or {{IPA|/ɮ/}} or their palatalized counterparts. Clusters that do not conform to these restrictions will be broken up by an [[epenthesis|epenthetic]] nonphonemic vowel in a syllabification that takes place from right to left. For example, ''hojor'' 'two', ''ažil'' 'work', and ''saarmag'' 'neutral' are, phonemically, {{IPA|/xɔjr/}}, {{IPA|/atʃɮ/}}, and {{IPA|/saːrmɡ/}} respectively. In such cases, an epenthetic vowel is inserted so as to prevent disallowed consonant clusters. Thus, in the examples given above, the words are phonetically {{IPA|[xɔjɔ̆r]}}, {{IPA|[atʃĭɮ]}}, and {{IPA|[saːrmăɢ]}}. The phonetic form of the epenthetic vowel follows from vowel harmony triggered by the vowel in the preceding syllable. Usually it is a [[Relative articulation#Centralized vowels|centralized]] version of the same sound, with the following exceptions: preceding {{IPA|/u/}} produces {{IPA|[e]}}; {{IPA|/i/}} will be ignored if there is a nonneutral vowel earlier in the word; and a postalveolar or palatalized consonant will be followed by an epenthetic {{IPA|[i]}}, as in {{IPA|[atʃĭɮ]}}.Svantesson et al. 2005: 62–72. ===Stress=== Stress in Mongolian is nonphonemic (does not distinguish different meanings) and thus is considered to depend entirely on syllable structure. Beyond this, there is little agreement among scholars on the description of stress in the language.Svantesson et al. 2005: 95–97. Walker (1997)elaborating on Bosson 1964 and Poppe 1970. proposes that stress falls on the rightmost heavy syllable unless this syllable is word-final: :{| | H'''ˈH'''LL || ''{{IPA|pai.ˈɢʊɮ. ɮəɢ.təx}}'' || 'to be organized' |- | LH'''ˈH'''L || ''{{IPA|xon.ti.ˈru.ɮəŋ}}'' || 'separating (adverbial)' |- | LHH'''ˈH'''L || ''{{IPA|ʊ.ɮan.paːtʰ.ˈrin.xəŋ}}'' || 'the residents of Ulaanbaatar' |- | H'''ˈH'''H || ''{{IPA|ʊːr.ˈtʰai.ɢar}}'' || 'angrily' |- | '''ˈH'''LH || ''{{IPA|ˈʊitʰ.ɢər.tʰai}}'' || 'sad' |} A "heavy syllable" is here defined as one that is at least the length of a full vowel; short word-initial syllables are thereby excluded. If a word is bisyllabic and the only heavy syllable is word-final, it gets stressed anyway. In a case where there is only one phonemic short word-initial syllable, even this syllable can get the stress:Walker’s evidence is collected from one native informant, examples from Poppe 1970, and consultation with James Bosson. She defines stress in terms of pitch, duration and intensity. The analysis pertains to the Khalkha dialect. The phonemic analysis in the examples is adjusted to Svantesson et al. 2005. :{| | L'''ˈH''' || ''{{IPA|ɢa.ˈɮʊ}}'' || 'goose' |- | '''ˈL'''L || ''{{IPA|ˈʊnʃ.səŋ}}'' || 'having read' |} There are other, widely divergent opinions.Svantesson et al. 2005: 95–97 Most native linguists, independent of dialect, claim that stress falls on the first syllable. Between 1941 and 1975, several Western scholars proposed that the leftmost heavy syllable gets the stress. Other positions were taken in works published between 1835 and 1915. Most recently, a partial account of stress placement in the closely related Chakhar dialect has been advanced by Harnud [KökeKöke is the author's native name. "Harnud" is a surname based on the [[Patronymic]], adopted for purposes of publishing and being cited abroad, a practice common among Mongolian scholars, compare [[Mongolian name]].] (2003).This book was reviewed by J. Brown in ''Journal of the International Phonetic Association'', 2006 Dec, 36(2): 205-207. Based on the most extensive collection of phonetic data so far in Mongolian studies, the conclusion is drawn that di- and trisyllabic words with a short first syllable are stressed on the second syllable. But if their first syllable is long, then the data for different acoustic parameters seems to support conflicting conclusions: [[Intensity (physics)|intensity]] data often seems to indicate that the first syllable is stressed, while [[Fundamental frequency|F0]] seems to indicate that it is the second syllable that is stressed.Harnud [Köke] 2003: 44-54, 94-100. == Grammar == The following description is based primarily on Standard Khalkha Mongolian (i.e., the standard written language as formalized in the writing conventions and in the school grammar, as distinct from actual research into the linguistic behaviour of certain groups of individuals), but much of it is also valid for spoken Khalkha and other Mongolian dialects, especially Chakhar.See Sechenbaatar et al. 2005 for Chakhar and Bayančoγtu 2002 for the somewhat more diverse Khorchin. === Morphology === Modern Mongolian is an [[agglutination|agglutinative]], almost exclusively suffixing language;The only exception being reduplication; see Svantesson et al. 2005: 58–59. most of the suffixes consist of a single [[morpheme]]. It has a rich number of morphemes to build up more complex words from simple [[root (linguistics)|roots]]. For example, the word ''bajguullagynh'' consists of the root ''baj''- ‘to be’, an [[epenthesis|epenthetic]] -''g''-, the [[causative]] -''uul''- (then ‘to found’), the [[Derivation (linguistics)|derivative]] suffix -''laga'' that forms nouns created by the action (like -''ation'' in ‘organisation’) and the complex suffix –''ynh'' denoting something that belongs to the modified word (-''yn'' would be [[genitive case|genitive]]).For a detailed description of the derivational morphology of Mongolian, see Sečen 2004. Nominal [[compound (linguistics)|compounds]] are quite frequent. Some derivational verbal suffixes are rather [[productivity (linguistics)|productive]], e.g. ''jar’''- 'to speak', ''jarilts''- 'to speak with each other'. Formally, the independent words derived using verbal suffixes can roughly be divided into three classes: final [[verb]]s, which can only be used sentence-finally, i.e. -''na'' (mainly future or generic statements) or –''ø'' (second person imperative);Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 151–153, 161–163. [[participle]]s (often called “verbal nouns”), which can be used clause-finally or attributively, i.e. -''san'' ([[perfect aspect|perfect]]-[[past tense|past]])Hashimoto 1993. or -''maar'' (‘want to’); and [[converb]]s, which can link clauses or function [[adverbial]]ly, i.e. -''ž'' (qualifies for any adverbial function or neutrally connects two [[sentence (linguistics)|sentences]]) or -''tal'' (the action of the main [[clause]] takes place until the action expressed by the suffixed verb begins).Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 103–104, 124–125, 130–131. Roughly speaking, Mongolian has eight [[grammatical case|cases]]: [[nominative case|nominative]] ([[markedness|unmarked]]), [[genitive case|genitive]], [[dative case|dative]], [[accusative case|accusative]], [[ablative case|ablative]], [[instrumental case|instrumental]], [[comitative case|comitative]] and [[allative case|directional]].Cedendamba and Möömöö 1997: 222–232. If a direct object is [[definiteness|definite]], it must take the accusative, while it must take the nominative if it is [[Specificity|unspecific]].Guntsetseg 2008: 61. The exact conditions of use for indefinite specific direct objects have not yet been specified in detail, but they appear to be related to animacy and texual context. In addition to case, a number of [[Preposition and postposition|postpositions]] exist that usually govern genitive, ablative, or comitative case or a form of the nominative that has sometimes -Vn either for lexical historical reasons or [[analogy]] (thus maybe becoming an attributive case suffix).Sechenbaatar 2003: 32–46. [[Noun]]s can take reflexive-possessive [[clitic]]s indicating that the marked noun is possessed by the [[subject (grammar)|subject]] of the sentence: ''bi najz(-)aa avarsan'' I friend-{{smallcaps|reflexive-possessive}} save-{{smallcaps|perfect}} ‘I saved my friend’.Cedendamba and Möömöö 1997: 234–241. There are also somewhat noun-like [[adjective]]s that, however, seem to be only able to immediately take case suffixes in the case of [[ellipsis (linguistics)|ellipsis]].For a pioneering approach to this problem, see Sajto 1999. [[Plural]]ity may be left unmarked, but there are overt plurality markers, some of which are restricted to humans. A noun that is modified by a numeral usually does not take any plural affix.Cedendamba and Möömöö 1997: 210–219, Sechenbaatar 2003: 23–29. [[Personal pronoun]]s exist for the first and second person, while the old [[demonstrative pronoun]]s have come to form third person (proximal and distal) pronouns. Other word (sub-)classes include [[interrogative pronoun]]s, [[grammatical conjunction|conjunctions]] (which take participles), [[spatials]] and quite a few [[grammatical particle|particles]].Word classes are treated with some simplification here. For a more precise treatment within the descriptive framework common in Inner Mongolia, see Sechenbaatar 2003. [[negation (linguistics)|Negation]] is mostly expressed by ''-güj'' after participles and by the negation particle ''biš'' after nouns and adjectives; negation particles preceding the verb (for example in converbal constructions) exist, but tend to be replaced by analytical constructions.For the historic background of negation, see Yu 1991. For a phenomenology, see Bjambasan 2001. === Syntax === ==== Phrase structure ==== The [[noun phrase]] has the order: demonstrative pronoun/[[number names|numeral]], adjective, noun.Guntsetseg 2008: 55. Attributive sentences precede the whole NP. Titles or occupations of people, low numerals indicating groups, and [[topic-comment|focus]] clitics are put behind the head noun.Tserenpil and Kullmann 2005: 237, 347. [[Possessive pronoun]]s (in different forms) may either precede or follow the NP.Svantesson 2003: 164–165. Examples: :{| style="width:60%; height:70px" |''bid-nij''||''uulz-san''||''ter''||''sajhan''||''zaluu-gaas''||''č'' |- |we-{{smallcaps|genitive}}||meet-{{smallcaps|perfect}}||that||beautiful ||{{smallcaps|ablative}} ||{{smallcaps|focus}} |- |colspan=6|‘even from that beautiful young man that we have met’ |} :{| style="width:18%; height:55px" |''Dorž''||''bagš''||''maan’'' |- |Dorj||teacher||our |- |colspan=3|‘our teacher Dorj’ |} The verbal phrase consists of the [[Predicate (grammar)|predicate]] in the center, preceded by its [[complement (linguistics)|complements]] and by the adverbials modifying it and followed (mainly if the predicate is sentence-final) by [[modal particle]]s,See Mönh-Amgalan 1998. as in the following example with predicate ''bičsen'': :{| style="width:52%; height:65px" |''ter''|| ''hel-eh-güj-geer'' ||''üün-ijg'' ||''bič-sen'' ||''šüü'' |- |s/he ||without:saying ||it-{{smallcaps|accusative}} ||write-{{smallcaps|perfect}} ||{{smallcaps|particle}} |- |colspan=5 |‘s/he wrote it without saying [so] [i.e. without saying that s/he would do so], I can assure you.’ |} In this clause the adverbial, ''helehgüjgeer'' 'without saying [so]' must precede the predicate's complement, ''üünijg'' 'it-{{smallcaps|accusative}}' in order to avoid syntactic ambiguity, since ''helehgüjgeer'' is itself derived from a verb and hence an ''üünijg'' preceding it could be construed as its complement. If the adverbial was an adjective such as ''hurdan'' 'fast', it could optionally immediately precede the predicate. There are also instances in which the adverb obligatorily immediately precedes the predicate.Sechenbaatar 2003: 167. The predicate itself may consist of a noun or an adjective with or without a [[copula (linguistics)|copula]].Hashimoto 2004 discusses differences between several types of predicative noun constructions. Most often, of course, it consists of a verb. [[coverb|Auxiliaries]] that express direction and [[aktionsart]] (among other meanings) can with the assistance of a linking converb occupy the immediate postverbal position, e.g. ''uuž orhison'' drink-{{smallcaps|converb}} leave-{{smallcaps|perfect}} 'drank up'. The next position is filled by converb suffixes in connection with the auxiliary, ''baj-'' ‘to be’, e.g. ''ter güjž bajna'' s/he run-{{smallcaps|converb}} be-{{smallcaps|nonpast}} ‘she is running’. Suffixes occupying this position express [[grammatical aspect]], e.g., [[progressive aspect|progressive]] and [[resultative]]. In the next position, participles followed by ''baj-'' may follow, e.g., ''ter irsen bajna'' s/he come-{{smallcaps|perfect}} be-{{smallcaps|nonpast}} ‘he has come’. Here, an explicit [[perfect tense|perfect]] and habituality can be marked, which is aspectual in meaning as well. This position may be occupied by multiple suffixes in a single predication, and it can still be followed by a converbal Progressive. The last position is occupied by suffixes that express tense, evidentiality, modality, and aspect.The most complete treatment of the verbal forms mentioned here for Khalkha is Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987. However, the analysis of predication presented here, while valid for Khalkha, is adapted from Matsuoka 2007, who describes Khorchin. ==== Clauses ==== Unmarked phrase order is [[subject (grammar)|subject]]–[[object (grammar)|object]]–predicate.Guntsetseg 2008: 54. While the predicate generally has to remain in clause-final position, the other phrases are free to change order or to wholly disappear.Tserenpil and Kullmann 2005: 88, 363–364. The topic tends to be placed clause-initially, new information rather at the end of the clause.Apatoczky 2005. Topic can be overtly marked with ''bol'', which can also mark contrastive focus,Hammar 1983: 45–80. overt additive focus ('even, also') can be marked with the clitic ''č'',Kang 2000. and overt restrictive focus with the clitic ''l'' ('only').Tserenpil and Kullmann 2005: 348–349. The inventory of [[Grammatical voice|voices]] in Mongolian consists of passive, [[causative]], [[reciprocal (grammar)|reciprocal]], [[plurative]], and cooperative. In a passive sentence, the verb takes the suffix -''gd''- and the agent takes either dative or instrumental case, the first of which is more common. In the causative, the verb takes the suffix -''uul''-, the causee (the person caused to do something) in a transitive action (e.g., 'lift') takes dative or instrumental case, and the causee in an intransitive action (e.g., 'walk') takes accusative case. Causative morphology is also used in some passive contexts: :{| style="width:40%; height:50px" |''Bi''||''tüün-d''||''čad-uul-san.'' |- |I||{{smallcaps|dative}}||fool-{{smallcaps|causative-perfect}} |- |colspan=3 |‘I was fooled by her/him’. |} The semantic attribute of [[animacy]] is syntactically important: thus the sentence, 'the bread was eaten by me', which is acceptable in English, would not be acceptable in Mongolian. The reciprocal voice is marked by -''ld''-, the plurative by -''tsgaa''-, and the cooperative by -''lts''-.Sechenbaatar 2003: 116–123. Mongolian allows for adjectival depictives that relate to either the subject or the direct object, e.g. ''Ljena nücgen untdag'' ‘Lena sleeps naked’, while adjectival resultatives are marginal.Brosig 2009. ==== Complex sentences ==== One way to conjoin clauses is to have the first clause end in a converb, as in the following example using the converb ''-bol'': :{| style="width:70%; height:50px" |''bid''|| ''üün-ijg'' ||''ol-bol'' ||''čam-d'' ||''ög-nö'' |- |we ||it-{{smallcaps|accusative}} ||find-{{smallcaps|conditional.converbal.suffix}} ||you.{{smallcaps|familiar}}-{{smallcaps|dative}} ||give-{{smallcaps|future}} |- |colspan=5 |‘if we find it we’ll give it to you’ |} Some verbal nouns in the dative (or less often in the instrumental) function very similar to converbs:Svantesson 2003: 172. e.g., replacing ''olbol'' in the preceding sentence with ''olohod'' find-{{smallcaps|imperfective-dative}} yields ‘when we find it we’ll give it to you’. Quite often, postpositions govern complete clauses. In contrast, conjunctions take verbal nouns without case:See Sechenbaatar 2003: 176–182 (who uses the term “postposition” for both and the term “conjunction” for junctors). :{| style="width:50%; height:60px" |''jadar-san'' ||''učraas'' ||''unt-laa'' |- |become.tired-{{smallcaps|perfect}} ||because ||sleep-{{smallcaps|witnessed;past}}Note on notation: the semicolon in the [[interlinear gloss]], {{smallcaps|witnessed:past}} indicates that multiple semantic features are simultaneously expressed by a single, unanalyzable affix. |- |colspan=3 |'I slept because I was tired' |} Finally, there is a class of particles, usually clause-initial, that are distinct from conjunctions but that also relate clauses: ''bi olson, harin čamd ögöhgüj'' I find-{{smallcaps|perfect}} but you-{{smallcaps|dative}} give-{{smallcaps|imperfective-negation}} ‘I’ve found it, but I won’t give it to you’. Mongolian has a [[complementizer]] [[auxiliary verb]] ''ge''- very similar to [[Japanese language|Japanese]] ''to iu''. ''ge''- literally means ‘to say’ and in converbal form ''gež'' precedes either a psych verb or a verb of saying. As a verbal noun like ''gedeg'' (with ''n’'' or case) it can form a subset of complement clauses. As ''gene'' it may function as an [[evidentiality|evidentialis]] marker.Sechenbaatar 2003: 152–153. Mongolian clauses tend to be combined [[parataxis (grammar)|paratactically]], allowing for clauses that are syntactically subordinate, yet resemble coordinated structures in European languages:Johanson 1995. :{| style="width:45%; height:60px" |''ter''||''ir-eed''||''namajg''||''üns-sen'' |- | || come-{{smallcaps|converb}} || I.{{smallcaps|accusative}} ||kiss-{{smallcaps|perfect}} |- |colspan=4 |‘S/he came and kissed me.’ |} In the [[subordinate clause]] the subject, if different from the subject of [[main clause]], sometimes has to take accusative or genitive case.Mizuno 1995. There is marginal occurrence of subjects taking ablative case as well.Pürev-Očir 1997: 131. Subjects of attributive clauses in which the head has a function (as is the case for all English [[relative clause]]s) usually require that if the subject is not the [[head (linguistics)|head]], then it take the genitive,Sechenbaatar 2003: 36. e.g. ''tüünij idsen hool''{{smallcaps|genitive}} eat-{{smallcaps|perfect}} meal ‘the meal that s/he had eaten’. == Loanwords and coined words == In distant times Mongolian adopted [[loanword]]s from [[Old Turkic]], [[Sanskrit]] (these often through [[Old Turkic|Uighur]]), [[Persian language|Persian]], [[Arabic language|Arabic]], [[Tibetan language|Tibetan]],Temürčereng 2004: 86–99. [[Tungusic languages|Tungusic]], and [[Chinese language|Chinese]].Svantesson 2003: 127. Recent loanwords come from [[Russian language|Russian]], [[English language|English]],Temürčereng 2004: 99–102. and Chinese (mainly in Inner Mongolia).Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli 2005: 792–793. Language commissions of the Mongolian state have been busy translating new [[terminology]] into Mongolian,{{cite web|author=Baabar|url=|title=Jum bolgon nertej|work=Ödrijn sonin||date=2008-12-09|accessdate=2009-04-21}} so that the Mongolian vocabulary now has ''jerönhijlögč'' 'president' ("generalizer") and ''šar ajrag'' 'beer' ("yellow kumys"). There are quite a few [[calque|loan translations]], e.g. ''galt tereg'' 'train' ('fire-having cart') from Chinese huǒchē (火车, fire cart) 'train'.Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli 2005: 828. == Writing systems == {{main|Mongolian writing systems}} Mongolian has been written in a variety of alphabets. The traditional [[Mongolian script]] was adapted from [[Uyghur alphabet|Uyghur script]] probably at the very beginning of the 13th century and from that time underwent some minor disambiguations and supplementations. Between 1930 and 1932, a short-lived attempt was made to introduce the Latin script in the Mongolian state, and after a preparatory phase, the [[Mongolian Cyrillic script]] was declared mandatory by government decree. From 1991 to 1994, an attempt at reintroducing the traditional alphabet failed in the face of popular resistance.Svantesson et al. 2005: 34, 40–41. In informal contexts of electronic text production, the use of Latin is common.{{cite web|author=Sühbaatar, B|url=|title=Mongol helnij kirill üsgijg latin üsgeer galiglah tuhaj|publisher=InfoCon|accessdate=2009-01-03}} In the [[People's Republic of China]], Mongolian is a co-official language with [[Standard Mandarin|Mandarin Chinese]] in some regions, notably the entire [[Inner Mongolia]] Autonomous Region. The traditional alphabet has always been used there, although Cyrillic was considered briefly before the [[Sino-Soviet split]].Svantesson et al. 2005: 34, 40. There are two types of written Mongolian used in China: the traditional Mongolian script, which is official among Mongols nationwide, and the [[Clear script]], used predominantly among [[Oirats]] in [[Xinjiang]].Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 398. ==Historical Mongolian== "Old Mongolian" is a name given to the reconstructed language which was the immediate ancestor of the language represented by the first two centuries of texts in a Mongolian language.Svantesson et al. 2005: 98. [[Image:Phagspa imperial edict dragon year.jpg|thumb|left|350px|alt=White page with black Phags-pa characters and two seals, one being in the middle of and one on the right sight of the text. All lines start at the top of the page|Edict of [[Yesün Temür Khan, Emperor Taiding of Yuan|Yisüntemür]] (1328). Only the [[Phagspa]] script retains the complete "[[Middle Mongolian language|Middle Mongolian]]" vowel system.Svantesson et al. 2005: 111.]] The earliest surviving Mongolian text may be the Stele of Yisüngge, a report on sports composed in [[Mongolian script]] on stone, which is most often dated at 1224 or 1225.E.g. Garudi 2002: 7. However, de Rachewiltz (1976) argues that it is unlikely that the stele was erected at the place where it was found in the year of the event it describes, suggesting that it is more likely to have been erected about a quarter of a century later, when Yisüngge had gained more substantial political power. If so, the earliest surviving Mongolian text would be an edict of [[Töregene Khatun|Töregene]]. From the 13th to the 15th centuries, Mongolian language texts were written in four scripts (not counting a few texts written in Western scripts): Uighur Mongolian (UM) script (an adaptation of the [[Uighur language|Uighur]] alphabet), [[Phagspa script|Phagspa]] (Ph) (used in decrees), [[Chinese character|Chinese]] (SM) (''[[The Secret History of the Mongols]]''), and [[Arabic alphabet|Arabic]] (AM) (used in dictionaries).Rybatzki 2003: 58 In scholarly practice, the texts in the latter three have been called "[[Middle Mongolian language|Middle Mongolian]]" (which Poppe maintained continued to be spoken until the late 16th centuryPoppe 1964: 1). However, Svantesson, ''et al.'' propose that "Middle Mongolian" is not a genetically valid classification.Svantesson, ''et al.'' 2005: 98 The documents in UM script show some distinct linguistic characteristics and are therefore often distinguished by terming their language "Preclassical Mongolian".Rybatzki 2003: 57" The next distinct period is [[Classical Mongolian language|Classical Mongolian]], which is dated from the 17th to the 19th century. This is a written language with a high degree of standardization in orthography and syntax that sets it quite apart from the subsequent Modern Mongolian. The most notable documents in this language are the Mongolian [[Kanjur]] and [[Tanjur]]Janhunen 2003a: 32. as well as several chronicles.Okada 1984. In 1686, the [[Soyombo script]] (Buddhist texts) was created, giving distinctive evidence on early classical Mongolian phonological peculiarities.Nadmid 1967: 98–102. ===Changes in phonology=== ====Consonants==== The research into the reconstruction of the consonants of Old Mongolian has yielded several controversies. Old Mongolian had two series of plosives, but there is disagreement as to which phonological dimension they lie on, aspiration The position of Svantesson et al. 2005 and basically also of Poppe 1955, despite Svantesson et al.'s assertion or voicing.The position of Tömörtogoo 1992 The early scripts have distinct letters for velar plosives and uvular plosives, but as they are in complementary distribution according to vowel harmony class, only two back plosive phonemes, *''/k/'', *''{{IPA|/kʰ/}}'' (~ *''[k]'', *''{{IPA|[qʰ]}}'') are to be reconstructed.Svantesson ''et al.'' 2005: 118-120 A prominent long running disagreement concerns certain correspondences of word medial consonants among the four major scripts (UM, SM, AM, and Ph, which were discussed in the preceding section). Between [[Uyghur]] Mongolian words indicating the phoneme ''/k/'' in word medial position and cognates in SM, AM, and Ph, there are two sets of correspondences with UG ''/k/'' either corresponding to /k/ or to zero in the other scripts. Traditional scholarship has in both instances reconstructed *''/k/'', arguing that *''/k/'' got lost in some instances, which begs the question of what the conditioning factors were that led to its Poppe 1955 More recently, it has been assumed that the cases where ''/k/'' as indicated by UG corresponds with zero as indicated by the other scripts point to an independent phoneme, ''/h/'', which would correspond to the word-initial phoneme ''/h/'' which is present in SH, AM and Ph.Svantesson ''et al.'' 2005: 118-124. Sometimes, ''/h/'' (sometimes also called ''/x/'') is assumed to go back to *''{{IPA|/pʰ/}}'' which would also explain the loss of some instances where UG indicates /p/, eg ''[[Deel (clothing)|debel]]'' > Khalkha ''deel''.Janhunen 2003c: 6 The palatal affricates *''č'', *''čʰ'' were fronted in Northern Modern Mongolian dialects such as Khalkha. {{IPA|*''kʰ''}} was [[spirantization|spirantized]] to {{IPA|/x/}} in Ulaanbaatar Khalkha and the Mongolian dialects south of it, e.g. Preclassical Mongolian ''kündü'', reconstructed as ''{{IPA|*kʰynty}}'' ‘heavy’, became Modern Mongolian {{IPA|/xunt/}}Svantesson et al. 2005: 133, 167. (but in the vicinity of [[Bayankhongor]] and [[Baruun-Urt]], many speakers will say {{IPA|[kʰunt]}}).Rinchen (ed.) (1979): 210. Originally word-final *''n'' turned into /ŋ/; if *''{{IPA|n}}'' was originally followed by a vowel that later dropped, it remained unchanged, e.g. ''{{IPA|*kʰen}}'' became {{IPA|/xiŋ/}}, but ''{{IPA|*kʰoina}}'' became {{IPA|/xɔin/}}. After i-breaking, {{IPA|*[ʃ]}} became phonemic. Consonants in words containing back vowels that were followed by ''{{IPA|*i}}'' in Proto-Mongolian became [[Palatalization|palatalized]] in Modern Mongolian. In some words, word-final ''{{IPA|*n}}'' was dropped with most case forms, but still appears with the ablative, dative and genitive.Svantesson et al. 2005: 124, 165–166, 205. ====Vowels==== Proto-Mongolic had ''{{IPA|*i, *e, *y, *ø, *u, *o, *a}}''. First, ''{{IPA|*o}}'' and ''{{IPA|*u}}'' were [[pharyngealization|pharyngealized]] to {{IPA|/ɔ/}} and {{IPA|/ʊ/}}, then ''{{IPA|*y}}'' and ''{{IPA|*ø}}'' were [[velarization|velarized]] to {{IPA|/u/}} and {{IPA|/o/}}. Thus, the vowel harmony shifted from a velar to a pharyngeal paradigm. ''{{IPA|*i}}'' in the first syllable of back-vocalic words was [[Assimilation (linguistics)|assimilated]] to the following vowel; in word-initial position it became {{IPA|/ja/}}. ''{{IPA|*e}}'' was rounded to {{IPA|*ø}} when followed by ''{{IPA|*y}}''. VhV and VjV sequences where the second vowel was any vowel but ''{{IPA|*i}}'' were monophthongized. In noninitial syllables, short vowels were deleted from the phonetic representation of the word and long vowels became short.Svantesson 2005: 181, 184, 186–187, 190–195. E.g. ''{{IPA|*imahan}}'' (''{{IPA|*i}}'' becomes {{IPA|/ja/}}, ''{{IPA|*h}}'' disappears) → ''{{IPA|*jamaːn}}'' (unstable ''n'' drops; vowel reduction) → /jama(n)/ ‘goat’ and ''{{IPA|*emys-}}'' (regressive rounding assimilation) → ''{{IPA|*ømys-}}'' (vowel velarization) → ''{{IPA|*omus-}}'' (vowel reduction) → /oms-/ ‘to wear’ ===Changes in morphology=== ====Nominal system==== [[Image:Secret history.jpg|thumb|right|250px|alt=white page with several lines of black Chinese characters running top-down and separated into small groups by spaces. To the left of some of the characters there are small characters such as 舌 and 中. To the right of each line, groups of characters are indicated as such by a "]]"-shaped bracket, and to the right of each such bracket, there are other medium-sized characters|''[[The Secret History of the Mongols]]'' is the only document that allows the reconstruction of gender agreement in Middle Mongolian.Tümenčečeg 1990.]] In the following discussion, in accordance with a preceding observation, the term "Middle Mongolian" is used merely as a cover term for texts written in any of three scripts, Uighur Mongolian script (UM), Chinese (SM), or Arabic (AM). The case system of Middle Mongolian has remained mostly intact down to the present, although important changes occurred with the comitative and the dative and most other case suffixes did undergo slight changes in form, i.e., were shortened.Rybatzki 2003: 67, Svantesson 2003: 162. The Middle Mongolian comitative -''luγ-a'' could not be used attributively, but it was replaced by the suffix -''taj'' that originally derived adjectives denoting possession from nouns, e.g. ''mori-tai'' ‘having a horse’ became ''mor’toj'' ‘having a horse/with a horse’. As this adjective functioned parallel to ''ügej'' ‘not having’, it has been suggested that a “privative case” (‘without’) has been introduced into Mongolian.Janhunen 2003c: 27. There have been three different case suffixes in the dative-locative-directive domain that are grouped in different ways: -''a'' as locative and -''dur'', -''da'' as dativeRybatzki 2003: 68. or -''da'' and -''a'' as dative and -''dur'' as locative,Garudi 2002: 101–107. in both cases with some functional overlapping. As -''dur'' seems to be grammaticalized from ''dotur-a'' ‘within’, thus indicating a span of time,Toγtambayar 2006: 18–35. the second account seems to be more likely. Of these, -''da'' was lost, -''dur'' was first reduced to -''du'' and then to -''d''Toγtambayar 2006: 33–34. and -''a'' only survived in a few frozen environments.Norčin et al. (ed.) 1999: 2217. Finally, the directive of modern Mongolian, -''ruu'', has been innovated from ''uruγu'' 'downwards'.Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 228, 386. Gender agreement was abandoned.Rybatzki 2003: 73, Svantesson 2003: 166. ==== Verbal system ==== Middle Mongolian had a slightly larger set of declarative final verb suffix formsWeiers 1966: 126–180, Svantesson 2003: 166. and a smaller number of participles, which were less likely to be used as finite predicates.Weiers 1966: 181–213, Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 86–104. The linking converb -''n'' became confined to stable verb combinations,Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 126, Činggeltei 1999: 251–252. while the number of converbs increased.Rybatzki 2003: 77, Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 126–137 The gender and number distinctions exhibited by some final verbs were lost.The gender issue is fairly commonplace, see e.g. Rybatzki 2003: 75. A strong argument for the number distinction between -''ba'' and -''bai'' is made in Tümenčečeg 1990: 103–108, in which it is also argued that this has been the case for other suffixes. ===Changes in syntax=== Neutral word order in clauses with pronominal subject changed from object–predicate–subject to subject–object–predicate, e.g., :{| style="width:80%; height:60px" |Kökseü||sabraq||ügü.le-run||ayyi||yeke||uge||ugu.le-d||ta||...||kee-jüü.y'' |- |K.||s.||speak-{{smallcaps|converb}}||alas||big||word||speak-{{smallcaps|past}}||you||...||say-{{smallcaps|nonfuture}} |} :"Kökseü sabraq spoke saying, 'Alas! You speak a great boast....' "Street 1957: 14, ''Secret History'' 190.13v. The syntax of verb negation shifted from negation particles preceding final verbs to a negation particle following participles; thus, as final verbs could no longer be negated, their paradigm of negation was filled by particles.Yu 1991. For example, Preclassical Mongolian ''ese irebe'' 'did not come' vs. modern spoken Mongolian ''ireegüj'' (modern written Mongolian ''irege ügei'') 'did not come (yet)' or ''irsengüj'' 'did not come (then)'. ==See also== *[[Mongolian names]] ==Notes== {{reflist|2}} == Bibliography == ''For some Mongolian authors, the Mongolian version of their name is also given in square brackets.''
''Some library catalogs write Chinese language titles with each syllable separate.'' List of abbreviations used. ''TULIP'' is in official use by some librarians; the remainder have been contrived for this listing.
*''KULIP'' ''Kyūshū daigaku gengogaku ronshū'' [Kyushu University linguistics papers] *''MKDKH'' ''Muroran kōgyō daigaku kenkyū hōkoku'' [Memoirs of the Muroran Institute of Technology] *''TULIP'' ''Tōkyō daigaku gengogaku ronshū'' [Tokyo University linguistics papers] Publishers
*ÖMAKQ Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a *ÖMSKKQ Öbür mongγul-un surγan kümü{{IPA|ǰ}}il-ün keblel-ün qoriy-a *ÖMYSKQ Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli-yin keblel-ün qoriy-a *ŠUA [Mongol Ulsyn] Šinžleh Uhaany Akademi [Mongolian Academy of Sciences (MAS)] {{refbegin|3}} * Amaržargal, B. 1988. ''BNMAU dah’ mongol helnij nutgijn ajalguuny tol’ bichig: halh ajalguu''. Ulaanbaatar: ŠUA. ''(in Mongolian )'' * Apatóczky, Ákos Bertalan. 2005. On the problem of the subject markers of the Mongolian language. In Wú Xīnyīng, Chén Gānglóng (eds.), ''Miànxiàng xīn shìjìde ménggǔxué'' [The Mongolian studies in the new century : review and prospect]. Běijīng: Mínzú Chūbǎnshè. 334-343. ISBN 7-105-07208-3. * Ashimura, Takashi. 2002. Mongorugo jarōto gengo no -l{{IPA|ɛ}}: no yōhō ni tsuite. ''TULIP'', 21: 147–200. ''(in Japanese)'' * Bajansan, Ž. and Š. Odontör. 1995. ''Hel šinžlelijn ner tom’’joony züjlčilsen tajlbar tol’''. Ulaanbaatar. ''(in Mongolian)'' * Bayančoγtu. 2002. ''Qorčin aman ayalγun-u sudulul''. Kökeqota: ÖMYSKQ. ISBN 7-81074-391-0. ''(in Mongolian)'' * Bjambasan, P. 2001. Mongol helnij ügüjsgeh har'caa ilerhijleh hereglüürüüd. ''Mongol hel, sojolijn surguul: Erdem šinžilgeenij bičig'', 18: 9–20. ''(in Mongolian)'' * Bosson, James E. 1964. ''Modern Mongolian; a primer and reader''. Uralic and Altaic series; 38. Bloomington: Indiana University. * Brosig, Benjamin. 2009. Depictives and resultatives in Modern Khalkh Mongolian. ''Hokkaidō gengo bunka kenkyū'', 7: 71–101. * Chuluu, Ujiyediin. 1998. [ ''Studies on Mongolian verb morphology'']. Dissertation, University of Toronto. * Činggeltei. 1999. ''Odu üj-e-jin mongγul kelen-ü {{IPA|ǰ}}üi''. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ. ISBN 7-204-04593-9. ''(in Mongolian)'' * Coloo, Ž. 1988. ''BNMAU dah’ mongol helnij nutgijn ajalguuny tol’ bichig: ojrd ajalguu''. Ulaanbaatar: ŠUA [Academy of Sciences, Institute of Language and Literature]. ''(in Mongolian)'' * [Dobu] Dàobù. 1983. ''Ménggǔyǔ jiǎnzhì. Běijīng: Mínzú.'' ''(in Chinese)'' * Garudi. 2002. ''Dumdadu üy-e-yin mongγul kelen-ü bütüče-yin kelberi-yin sudulul''. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ. ''(in Mongolian)'' * Georg, Stefan, Peter A. Michalove, Alexis Manaster Ramer, Paul J. Sidwell. 1999. Telling general linguists about Altaic. ''Journal of Linguistics'', 35: 65–98. * Guntsetseg, D. 2008. [ Differential Object Marking in Mongolian]. ''Working Papers of the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context'', 1: 53–69. * Hammar, Lucia B. 1983. ''Syntactic and pragmatic options in Mongolian - a study of'' bol ''and'' n’. Ph.D. Thesis. Bloomington: Indiana University.
  • [Köke] Harnud, Huhe. 2003. A Basic Study of Mongolian Prosody. Helsinki: Publications of the Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki. Series A; 45. Dissertation. ISBN 952-10-1347-8.
  • Hashimoto, Kunihiko. 1993. <-SAN> no imiron.</-SAN> <-SAN>MKDKH, 43: 49–94.</-SAN> <-SAN>Sapporo: Dō daigaku.</-SAN> <-SAN>(in Japanese)</-SAN>
  • Hashimoto, Kunihiko. 2004. Mongorugo no kopyura kōbun no imi no ruikei. Muroran kōdai kiyō, 54: 91–100. (in Japanese)
  • Janhunen, Juha (ed.). 2003. The Mongolic languages. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7007-1133-3.
  • Janhunen, Juha. 2003a. Written Mongol. In Janhunen 2003: 30–56.
  • Janhunen, Juha. 2003b. Para-Mongolic. In Janhunen 2003: 391–402.
  • Janhunen, Juha. 2003c. Proto-Mongolic. In Janhunen 2003: 1–29.
  • Janhunen, Juha. 2003d. Mongol dialects. In Janhunen 2003: 177–191.
  • Johanson, Lars. 1995. On Turkic Converb Clauses. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 313–347. ISBN 978-3-11-014357-7.
  • Kang, Sin Hyen. 2000. Tay.mong.kol.e č-uy uy.mi.wa ki.nung. Monggolhak [Mongolian Studies], 10: 1–23. Seoul: Hanʼguk Monggol Hakhoe [Korean Association for Mongolian Studies]. (in Korean)
  • Karlsson, Anastasia Mukhanova. 2005. Rhythm and intonation in Halh Mongolian. Ph.D. Thesis. Lund: Lund University. Series: Travaux de l'Institut de Linguistique de Lund; 46. Lund: Lund University. ISBN 91-974116-9-8.
  • Luvsanvandan, Š. 1959. Mongol hel ajalguuny učir. Mongolyn sudlal, 1. (in Mongolian)
  • Luvsanvandan, Š. (ed.). 1987. (Authors: P. Bjambasan, C. Önörbajan, B. Pürev-Očir, Ž. Sanžaa, C. Žančivdorž) Orčin cagijn mongol helnij ügzüjn bajguulalt. Ulaanbaatar: Ardyn bolovsrolyn jaamny surah bičig, setgüülijn negdsen rjedakcijn gazar. (in Mongolian)
  • Matsuoka, Yūta. 2007. Gendai mongorugo no asupekuto to dōji no genkaisei. KULIP, 28: 39–68. (in Japanese)
  • Mizuno, Masanori. 1995. Gendai mongorugo no jūzokusetsushugo ni okeru kakusentaku. TULIP, 14: 667–680. (in Japanese)
  • Mönh-Amgalan, J. 1998. Orčin tsagijn mongol helnij bajmžijn aj. Ulaanbaatar: Moncame. ISBN 99929-951-2-2. (in Mongolian)
  • Nadmid, Ž. 1967. Mongol hel, tüünij bičgijn tüühen högžlijn tovč tojm. Ulaanbaatar: Šinžleh uhaany akademi. (in Mongolian)
  • Norčin et al. (eds.) 1999. Mongγol kelen-ü toli. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ. ISBN 7-204-03423-6. (in Mongolian)
  • Okada, Hidehiro. 1984. Mongol chronicles and Chinggisid genealogies. Journal of Asian and African studies, 27: 147–154.
  • Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli. 2005 [1964]. Odu üy-e-yin mongγul kele. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ. ISBN 7-204-07631-1. (in Mongolian)
  • Poppe, Nicholas. 1955. Introduction to Mongolian comparative studies. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
  • Poppe, Nicholas. 1964 [1954]. Grammar of Written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Poppe, Nicholas. 1970. Mongolian language handbook. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
  • Pürev-Očir, B. 1997. Orčin cagijn mongol helnij ögüülberzüj. Ulaanbaatar: n.a. (in Mongolian)
  • Rachewiltz, Igor de. 1976. Some Remarks on the Stele of Yisuüngge. In Walter Heissig et al., Tractata Altaica - Denis Sinor, sexagenario optime de rebus altaicis merito dedicata. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. pp. 487-508.
  • Rinchen, Byambyn (ed.). 1979. Mongol ard ulsyn ugsaatny sudlal helnij šinžlelijn atlas. Ulaanbaatar: ŠUA. (in Mongolian)
  • Rybatzki, Volker. 2003. Middle Mongol. In Janhunen 2003: 47–82.
  • Sajto, Kosüke. 1999. Orčin čagyn mongol helnij "neršsen“ temdeg nerijn onclog (temdeglel). Mongol ulsyn ih surguulijn Mongol sudlalyn surguul' Erdem šinžilgeenij bičig XV bot' , 13: 95-111. (in Mongolian)
  • Sanžaa, Ž. and D. Tujaa. 2001. Darhad ayalguuny urt egšgijg avialbaryn tövšind sudalsan n’. Mongol hel šinžlel, 4: 33–50. (in Mongolian)
  • Sanžeev, G. D. 1953. Sravnitel’naja grammatika mongol’skih jazykov. Moskva: Akademija nauk SSSR. (in Russian)
  • Sečen. 2004. Odu üy-e-yin mongγul bičig-ün kelen-ü üge bütügekü daγaburi-yin sudulul. Kökeqota: ÖMASKKQ. ISBN 7-5311-4963-X. (in Mongolian)
  • Sechenbaatar. 2003. The Chakhar dialect of Mongol - A morphological description. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian society. ISBN 952-5150-68-2.
  • [Sechenbaatar] Sečenbaγatur, Qasgerel, Tuyaγ-a, B. irannige, U Ying e. 2005. Mongγul kelen-ü nutuγ-un ayalγun-u sin ilel-ün uduridqal. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ. ISBN 7-204-07621-4. (in Mongolian)
  • Starostin, Sergei A., Anna V. Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak. 2003. Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages, 3 volumes. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 9004131531.
  • Street, John C. 1957. The language of the Secret History of the Mongols. New Haven: American Oriental Society. American Oriental series; 42.
  • Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 2003. Khalkha. In Janhunen 2003: 154–176.
  • Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Anna Tsendina, Anastasia Karlsson, Vivan Franzén. 2005. The Phonology of Mongolian. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-926017-6.
  • Temürcereng, . 2004. Mongγul kelen-ü üge-yin sang-un sudulul. Kökeqota: ÖMASKKQ. ISBN 7-5311-5893-0. (in Mongolian)
  • Toγtambayar, L. 2006. Mongγul kelen-ü kele üi igsen yabuča-yin tuqai sudulul. Liyuuning-un ündüsüten-ü keblel-ün qoriy-a. ISBN 7-80722-206-9. (in Mongolian)
  • Tömörtogoo, D. 1992. Mongol helnij tüühen helzüj. Ulaanbaatar. (in Mongolian)
  • Tömörtogoo, D. 2002. Mongol dörvölžin üsegijn durashalyn sudalgaa. Ulaanbaatar: IAMS. ISBN 99929-5-624-0. (in Mongolian)
  • Tsedendamba, Ts., C. Möömöö (eds.). 1997. Orčin cagijn mongol hel. Ulaanbaatar. (in Mongolian)
  • Tserenpil, D. and R. Kullmann. 2005. Mongolian grammar. Ulaanbaatar: Admon. ISBN 99929-0-445-3.
  • Tümenčečeg. 1990. Dumdadu aγun-u mongγul kelen-ü toγačin ögülekü tölüb-ün kelberi-nügüd ba tegün-ü ularil kög il. Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli, 3: 102–120. (in Mongolian)
  • Vovin, Alexander. 2005. The end of the Altaic controversy (review of Starostin et al. 2003). Central Asiatic Journal, 49(1): 71–132.
  • Walker, Rachel. 1997. Mongolian stress, licensing, and factorial typology. Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-172.
  • Weiers, Michael. 1966. Untersuchungen zu einer historischen Grammatik des präklassischen Mongolisch. Dissertation. Bonn: Universität Bonn. (in German)
  • Yu, Wonsoo. 1991. A study of Mongolian negation. Ph. D. Thesis. Bloomington: Indiana University.

External links

Embed code:

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address