Jump to content

Mongolian language

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by G Purevdorj (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 26 April 2009 (Unified the number of speakers (5.7 is a reasonable estimation as well, but it is explained below why 5.2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mongolian
Монгол (Mongol)
(Mongγol)
Native toMongolia, People's Republic of China
RegionAll of Mongolia and Inner Mongolia; parts of Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang provinces in China
Native speakers
5.2 million[1]
Mongolian script, Cyrillic
Official status
Official language in
 Mongolia
 People's Republic of China (Inner Mongolia)
Regulated byState Language Council (Mongolia),[3] Council for Language and Literature Work (Inner Mongolia)[4]
Language codes
ISO 639-1mn
ISO 639-2mon
ISO 639-3Variously:
mon – Mongolian (generic)
khk – Khalkha Mongolian
mvf – Peripheral Mongolian

The Mongolian language (, Mongγol kele; Cyrillic: Монгол хэл, Mongol khel) is the best-known member of the Mongolic language family. It is the language of most residents of Mongolia and of many of the Mongolian residents of the Inner Mongolia autonomous region of China, totalling about 5.7 million speakers. In Mongolia, the Khalkha dialect of Mongolian, written in Cyrillic, is predominant; in Inner Mongolia, the language is more dialectically 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 agglutinative language that relies on suffix chains in the verbal and nominal domains. While the basic word order is subject–object–predicate, the noun phrase order is relatively free, so functional roles are indicated by a system of about eight grammatical cases. Verbs can take several voice suffixes and are marked for aspect and some other notions belonging to the domains of tense, modality and evidentiality. In sentence linking, converbs play a special part.

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, long vowels developed, the case system was slightly reformed and the verbal system was restructured.

Classification

Geographic distribution of the Mongolic languages

Mongolian is a Mongolic language. Other languages in the Mongolic family include Khamnigan and Dagur, spoken in Eastern Greater Mongolia and in the vinicity of Tacheng in Xinjiang; Shira Yugur, Bonan, Dongxiang, Monguor, and Kangjia, spoken in China's Qinghai and Gansu regions; and the probably extinct Moghol of Afghanistan. Oirat (including the Kalmyk dialect) and Buryat – both spoken in Russia, Mongolia and China – are considered by some scholars to be major dialects of Mongolian, and by others as Mongolic languages in their own right. Ordos, spoken around Inner Mongolia's Ordos City, is regarded by most scholars as a dialect of Mongolian; a few consider it an independent language.[5] The Altaic theory proposes that the Mongolic family is a member of a larger Altaic family that also includes the Turkic and Tungusic languages.

Geographic distribution and dialects

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.[6] 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 5 million people of Mongolian nationality in China, but the use of Mongolian is declining, especially among younger speakers in urban areas due to the dominance of Mandarin Chinese.[7] The great majority of speakers of Mongolian proper in China live in Inner Mongolia, but there are also some speakers of the Kharchin and Khorchin dialects in areas of Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang that border Inner Mongolia.[8]

The delimitation of the Mongolian language is a much-disputed problem, whose resolution would probably require a set of comparable linguistic criteria for all major varieties. Such data might account for the historical development of the Mongolian dialect continuum, as well as its sociolinguistic qualities. Though phonological and lexical studies are comparatively well developed,[9] the basis for a comparative morpho-syntactic study, for example between such highly diverse varieties as Khalkha and Khorchin,[10] is not yet established.[11]

Byambyn Rinchen (1905–1977), famous Mongolian linguist and translator[12]

There is no disagreement that the Khalkha dialect of the Mongolian state is Mongolian.[13] After fixing this one point, however, classification problems arise. For example, the influential classification of Sanžeev (1953) proposed that Buryat and Oirat are independent Mongolic languages, but that such dialects as Chakhar and Ordos belong to a "Mongolian language".[14] On the other hand, Luvsanvandan (1959) proposed a "Mongolian language" consisting of a Central dialect (Khalkha, Chakhar, Ordos), an Eastern dialect (Kharchin, Khorchin), a Western dialect (Oirat, Kalmyk) and a Northern dialect (consisting of two Buryat varieties).[15] Some Western scholars propose that the relatively well researched Ordos variety is an independent language due to its conservative syllable and phoneme structure.[16] While the placement of a variety like Alasha, which is under the cultural influence of Inner Mongolia but historically tied to Oirat,[17] and of other border varieties like Darkhad must remain problematic in any classification,[18] 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.[19] The split of ʧ into ʧ before *i and ʦ before all other reconstructed vowels, which is found in Mongolia but not in Inner Mongolia, is often cited as a fundamental distinction,[20] for example Proto-Mongolic *ʧil, Khalkha [ʧiɮ], Chakhar [ʧil] 'year' versus Proto-Mongolic *ʧøhelen, Khalkha [ʦooɮəŋ], Chakhar [ʧooləŋ] 'few'.[21] On the other hand, the split between the past tense verbal suffixes -sŋ in the Central varieties vs. -ʤɛ: in the Eastern varieties[22] is usually seen as a merely stochastic difference.[23]

In Inner Mongolia, official language policy divides the Mongolian language into three dialects: Inner Mongolian, Oirat and Barghu-Buryat. "Inner Mongolian" is said to consist of Chakhar, Ordos, Baarin, Khorchin, Kharchin and Alasha; it is assumed that they jointly provide a standard grammar despite their internal grammatical differences. The authorities have established a standard pronunciation based on the Chakhar dialect as spoken in the Plain Blue Banner.[24] While the varieties of "Inner Mongolian" share a literary standard distinct from that of the "Outer Mongolian" Khalkha, a dialectological approach would see a sharper distinction between, for example, the "Inner Mongolian" varieties of Chakhar and Khorchin than between Chakhar and Khalkha.[25]

Phonology

The following description, based on Khalkha as spoken in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia's capital, differs considerably from the phoneme systems of varieties such as Chakhar, Ordos, Khorchin and Kharchin.[26]

Vowels

Front Central Back
Short Long Short Long Short Long
Close i iː u uː
Near-Close ʊ ʊː
Close-Mid e eː o oː
Open-mid ɔ ɔː
Open a aː

Short /o/ is phonetically central [ɵ]. Mongolian also has four diphthongs: /ui, ʊi, ɔi, ai/.[27]

Vowel length. Pronunciation of long and short vowels depends on the syllable's position in the word. In word-initial syllables there is a 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 non-initial vowels have been reduced to 71% the length of short word-initial vowels and become centralized, in the course losing their status as phonemes and becoming non-phonemic.[28]

Backness harmony. Mongolian divides vowels into two groups in a system of vowel harmony:

+ATR ("front") -ATR ("back") Neutral
e, u, o a, ʊ, ɔ i

For historical reasons, these have traditionally been labeled as "front" vowels and "back" vowels. However, an analysis of these groups under the rubric of advanced tongue root or +ATR and non-advanced tongue root or -ATR seems more appropriate. There is also one neutral vowel, /i/, which does not belong to either group.

All the vowels in a non-compound 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 /i/ or a -ATR vowel. Likewise, if the first vowel is a +ATR vowel, then every vowel of the word must be either /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 /a, ɔ, e, o/, following the last phonemic vowel in the word stem, in which case underlying /ʊ, u/ are realized as [a, e] respectively. For example:

orx ‘household’ + -Ar (instrumental) → orxor ‘by a household’
xarʊɮ ‘sentry’ + -Ar (instrumental) → xarʊɮar ‘by a sentry’

Other suffixes can occur in either /ʊ, u/, in which case all -ATR vowels lead to /ʊ/ and all +ATR vowels lead to /u/. For example:

aw ‘to take’ + -Uɮ (causative) → awʊɮ

If the only vowel in the word stem is /i/, the suffixes will use the +ATR suffix forms.[29]

Rounding harmony. Mongolian also has rounding harmony pertaining to open vowels only. If a stem contains /o/ (or /ɔ/), a suffix that is specified for an open vowel will have [o] (or [ɔ], respectively) as well. However, this process is blocked by the presence of /u/ (or /ʊ/) and /ei/. Eg ɔr-ɮɔ 'came in', but ɔr-ʊɮ-ɮa 'inserted'.[30]

Consonants

Labial Dental Palatal Velar Uvular
Plain Palatalized Plain Palatalized Palatalized Plain
Nasal m mʲ n nʲ ŋ
Plosive Voiceless aspirated (pʰ) (pʲʰ) tʰ tʲʰ (kʲʰ) (kʰ)
Voiceless p pʲ t tʲ
Voiced ɡʲ ɡ ɢ
Affricate Voiceless aspirated tsʰ tʃʰ
Voiceless (f) ts tʃ
Fricative s ʃ xʲ x
Lateral fricative ɮ ɮʲ
Trill r rʲ
Approximant w̜ w̜ʲ j

Mongolian lacks a true phoneme /l/; instead, it has a voiced alveolar lateral fricative, /ɮ/, which is often realized as [ɬ].[31] In word-final position, /n/ (if not followed by a vowel in historical forms) is realized as [ŋ]. The consonants in parentheses occur only in loanwords.[32] In the consonant system, the occurrence of palatalized consonant phonemes seems to be restricted to words that contain pharyngeal vowels.[33]

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, thus the syllables CV and V are avoided in any position that is not the first syllable of a word that contains at least two syllables. If a word was monosyllabic historically, *CV has become CVV. [ŋ] is restricted to codas (else >[n]), and /p/ and /pʲ/ don’t occur in codas for historical reasons. For two-consonant clusters, the following restrictions obtain:

  • a palatalized consonant can only be preceded by another palatalized consonant or sometimes /ɢ/ and /ʃ/
  • /ŋ/ may only precede /ʃ, x, g, gʲ/ and /ɢ/
  • /j/ doesn’t seem to appear in second position
  • /p/ and /pʲ/ don’t occur as first consonant and only as second consonant if preceded by /m/ or /ɮ/ or their palatalized counterparts.

Clusters that do not confirm to these restrictions will be broken up by a epenthetic non-phonemic vowel in a syllabification that takes place from right to left. For example, hojor 'two', ažil 'work', and saarmag 'neutral' are, phonemically, /xɔjr/, /atʃɮ/, and /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 [xɔjɔ̆r], [atʃĭɮ], and [saːrmăɡ]. The phonetic form of the epenthetic vowel follows from vowel harmony triggered by the vowel in the preceding syllable. Usually it is a centralized version of the same sound, with the following exceptions: preceding /u/ produces [e], /i/ will be ignored if there is a non-neutral vowel earlier in the word, and a postalveolar or palatalized consonant will be followed by an epenthetic [i], as in [atʃĭɮ].[34]

Stress

Stress in Mongolian does not distinguish between different meanings and is thus supposed to depend entirely on syllable structure. Beyond this, there is little agreement among scholars.[35] In one line of reasoning, stress falls on the rightmost heavy syllable unless this syllable is word-final:[36]

HˈHLL bai.ˈɡʊɮ. ɮəɢ.dəx "to be organized"
LHˈHL xon.di.ˈru.ɮəŋ "to separate (modal)"
LHHˈHL ʊ.lan.baːt.ˈrin.xəŋ "the residents of Ulaanbaatar"
HˈHH ʊːr.ˈtai.ɢar "angrily"
ˈHLH ˈʊit.ɡər.tai "sad"

A "heavy syllable" is defined here as one that is at least the length of a full vowel; short word-initial syllables are thus excluded. Therefore, if a word is bisyllabic and the only heavy syllable is word-final, it gets stressed anyway. However, in a case where there is only one phonemic short word-initial syllable, even this syllable can get the stress:[37]

LˈH ɡa.ˈlʊ "goose"
ˈLLL ˈʊnʃ.səŋ "having read"

There are other, widely divergent opinions: Most native linguists, independent of dialect, claim that stress falls on the first syllable. Between 1941 and 1975, several works by Western scholars proposed that the leftmost heavy syllable gets the stress.[38]

Grammar

The following description is based primarily on Standard Khalkha Mongolian (ie 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 Southern Central Mongolian, especially Chakhar.[39]

Morphology

Modern Mongolian is an agglutinative, almost exclusively suffixing language;[40] the suffixes are most often composed of a single morpheme. It has a rich number of morphemes to build up more complex words from simple roots. For example, the word <bajguullagynh> consists of the root <baj-> ‘to be’, an epenthetic <-g->, the causative <-uul-> (then ‘to found’), the derivative suffix <-laga> that forms nouns created by the action (‘organisation’) and the complex suffix <–ynh> denoting something that belongs to the modified word (<-yn> would be genitive).[41]

Nominal compounds are quite frequent. Some derivational verbal suffixes are rather productive, e.g. <jar’-> 'to speak', <jarilts-> 'to speak with each other'. Formally, verbal suffixes that create independent words can roughly be divided into three classes: final verbs, which can only be used sentence-finally, i.e. <-na> (mainly future or generic statements) or –ø (second person imperative);[42] participles (often called “verbal nouns”), which can be used clause-finally or attributively, i.e. <-san> (perfect-past)[43] or <-maar> (‘want to’); and converbs, which can link clauses or function adverbially, i.e. <-ž> (qualifies for any adverbial function or neutrally connects two sentences) or <-tal> (the action of the main clause takes place until the action expressed by the suffixed verb begins).[44]

Roughly speaking, Mongolian has eight cases: nominative (unmarked), genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, instrumental, comitative and directional.[45] A direct object must take the accusative if it is definite, while it may not take it if it is indefinite and unspecific.[46] In addition to case, a number of postpositions exist that usually govern genitive, ablative or comitative case or an oblique form, that is, the stem plus sometimes -Vn either for lexical historical reasons or analogy (thus maybe becoming an attributive case suffix).[47] Nouns can take reflexive-possessive clitics indicating that the marked noun is possessed by the subject of the sentence: <Bi najz(-)aa avarsan> I friend-reflexive-possessive save-perfect ‘I saved my friend’.[48] There are also somewhat noun-like adjectives that, however, seem to be only able to immediately take case suffixes in the case of ellipsis.[49] Plurality may be unmarked, but there are overt markers some of which are restricted to humans. A noun that is modified by a numeral usually doesn't take any plural affix.[50]

Personal pronouns exist for the first and second person, while the old demonstrative pronouns have come to form third person (proximal and distal) pronouns. Other word (sub-)classes include interrogative pronouns, conjunctions (which take participles), spatials and quite a few particles.[51]

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.[52]

Syntax

Phrase structure

The noun phrase has the order: demonstrative pronoun/numeral, adjective, noun.[53] Attributive sentences precedes the whole NP. Titles or occupations of people, low numerals indicating groups and focus clitics are put behind the head noun.[54] Possessive pronouns (in different forms) may either precede or follow the NP.[55] E.g. <bidnij uulzsan ter sajhan zaluugaas č> we-genitive meet-perfective that beautiful young_man-ablative focus ‘even from that beautiful young man that we have met’, <Dorž bagš maan’> Dorj teacher our ‘our teacher Dorj’.

The verbal phrase consists of the predicate’s complements and the adverbials modifying it in front of it and, mainly if the predicate is sentence-final, modal particles[56] behind it. For example, <Ter helehgüjgeer ünijg bičsen šüü> S/he without_saying it-accusative write-perfective particle ‘She wrote it without saying [i.e. that she would do so] (so I can assure you).’ In this clause the adverbial should precede the complement as it is itself derived from a verb and could take ‘it’ as its complement. If the adverbial was an adjective à la <hurdan> 'fast', it could immediately precede the predicate. There are also instances in which the adverb must immediately precede the predicate.[57]

The predicate itself may consist of a noun or an adjective with or without a copula.[58] Most often, of course, a verb is used. Auxiliaries that express direction and aktionsart among other meanings can with the assistance of a linking converb occupy the position immediately behind the verb, eg <uuž orhison> drink-CV leave-perfect 'drank up'. The next position is filled by converb suffixes in connection with the auxiliary <baj-> ‘to be’, eg <Ter güjž bajna> s/he run-converb be-nonpast ‘She is running’. Meanings expressed in this position are aspectual in nature, eg progressive and resultative. In the next position, participles followed by <baj-> may follow, eg <Ter irsen bajna> s/he come-perfect be-nonpast ‘He has come’. Here, an explicit perfect and habituality can be marked, which is aspectual meaning as well. This position can be occupied more than once in one 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.[59]

Clauses

Unmarked phrase order is subject–object–predicate.[60] While the predicate generally has to remain in clause-final position, the other phrases are free to change order or to wholly disappear.[61] The topic tends to be placed clause-initially, new information rather at the end of the clause.[62] Topic can be overtly marked with <bol> that can also mark contrastive focus,[63] overt additive focus ('even, also') can be marked with the clitic <č>,[64] overt restrictive focus with the clitic <l> ('only').[65]

Mongolian has passive and causative voice. In a passive sentence the entirely oblique agent takes either dative or instrumental case, the first of which is more common. The verb takes a suffix <-gd->. In the causative, the person caused to do something would take instrumental, or accusative, if the simple verb would have been intransitive, and the verb would take <-uul->. Causative morphology is also used in some passive contexts: <Bi tüünd čaduulsan> I s/he-dative fool-caustive-perfective ‘I was fooled by her/him’. Animacy is an important component, thus English 'The bread was eaten by me' would not be acceptable in Mongolian. <-ld-> (reciprocal), <-tsgaa-> (plurative) and <-lts-> (cooperative) are voice constructions as well.[66]

Mongolian allows for adjectival depictives that either relate to the subject or the direct object, eg <Ljena nücgen untdag> ‘Lena sleeps naked’, while adjectival resultatives are marginal.[67]

Complex sentences

One way to conjoin clauses is to have the first clause end in a converb. An example: <Bid üünijg olbol čamd ögnö> we it-accusative find-conditional_converbal_suffix you-dative give-future ‘If we find it we’ll give it to you’. Some verbal nouns in the instrumental or most often dative function very similar to converbs:[68] above sentence with <olohod> find-imperfective-dative ‘When I find it I’ll give it to you’. Quite often, postpositions govern complete clauses. In contrast, conjunctions take verbal nouns without case:[69] <jadarsan učraas untlaa> become_tired-perfective because sleep-witnessed_perfective 'I slept because I was tired'. Finally, there are usually clause-initial particles with relating meaning: <Bi olson, harin čamd ögöhgüj> I find-perfective but you-dative give-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 to iu. <ge-> literally means ‘to say’ and in converbal form <gež> precedes a psych verb or 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 evidentialis marker.[70]

Mongolian clauses tend to be arranged in a paratactic order, allowing for clauses that are syntactically subordinate, but resemble coordinated structures in European languages:[71] <Ter ireed namajg ünssen> that come-converb me_accusative kiss-perfect ‘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.[72] Subjects in either the ablative case marginally occur as well.[73] Subjects of attribute clauses in which the head has a function (as is the case for all English relative clauses) demand that if the subject is not the head it usually takes the genitive case,[74] eg <tüünij idsen hool> that_one-genitive eat-perfective meal ‘the meal that s/he had eaten’.

Lexicon

The Mongolian vocabulary includes historic loanwords especially from Old Turkic, Sanskrit (often through Uigur), Persian, Arabic, Tibetan,[75] Tungusic and Chinese[76] and keeps adopting more recent ones from Russian, English[77] and Chinese (mainly in Inner Mongolia).[78] Commissions in the Mongolian state have been busy translating new terminology into Mongolian,[79] so that Mongolian words such as 'president' <jerönhijlögč> ("generalizer") and 'beer' <šar ajrag> ("yellow kumys") exist. There are quite a few loan translations, eg <galt tereg> ('fire-having cart') 'train' from Chinese huǒchē (火车, fire cart) 'train'.[80]

Writing systems

Main article: Mongolian writing systems

Mongolian has been written in a variety of alphabets. The traditional Mongolian script was adapted from 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 Cyrillic script was declared as mandatory by government decree. From 1991 to 1994, an attempt was made to reintroduce the traditional alphabet which failed due to popular resistance.[81] In informal contexts of electronic text production, the use of Latin is common as well.[82]

In the People's Republic of China, Mongolian is a co-official language with 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.[83] There are two types of written Mongolian used in China: the classical script, which is official among Mongols nationwide, and the Clear script, used predominantly among Oirats in Xinjiang.[84]

The modified Cyrillic alphabet used for Mongolian is as follows:

Cyrillic Name IPA Transliteration Cyrillic Name IPA Transliteration
Аа а a a Пп пэ (pʰ ), (pʰʲ ) (p )
Бб бэ p,pʲ, b b Рр эр r,rʲ r
Вв вэ w,wʲ v Сс эс s s
Гг гэ ɡ,ɡʲ,ɢ´, k g Тт тэ tʰ,tʰʲ t
Дд дэ t,tʲ d Уу у ʊ u
Ее е jε~jɜ, e je Үү ү u ü
Ёё ё jɔ jo Фф фэ~фа~эф (f ) (f )
Жж жэ tʃ ž Хх хэ~ха x,xʲ h
Зз зэ ts z Цц цэ tsʰ ts
Ии и i i Чч чэ tʃʰ č
Йй хагас и i j Шш ша~эш ʃ š
Кк ка (k ), (kʲ ) (k ) Щщ ща~эшчэ (stʃ ) ( šč )
Лл эл ɮ,ɮʲ l Ъ ъ хатуугийн тэмдэг "
Мм эм m,mʲ m Ыы эр үгийн ы i y
Нн эн n,nʲ n Ьь зөөлний тэмдэг ʲ '
Оо о ɔ o Ээ э e e
Өө ө o ö Юю ю jʊ, ju ju
Яя я ja, j ja

Үү and Өө are sometimes also written as Її and Єє.[82]

Historical Mongolian

Edict of Yisüntemür (1328). Only the Phagspa script retains the complete Middle Mongolian vowel system.[85]

The earliest surviving Mongolian text is the Stele of Yisüngge, a report on sports in Mongolian script on stone, that is most often dated at the verge of 1224 and 1225.[86] Other early sources are written in Mongolian, Phagspa (decrees), Chinese (The Secret History of the Mongols), Arabic (dictionaries) and a few Western scripts.[87] These comprise the Middle Mongolian language that was spoken from the 13th to the early 15th[88] or late 16th century.[89] The documents in Mongolian script show some distinct linguistic characteristics and are therefore often distinguished by terming their language "Preclassical Mongolian".[88] The next distinct period is Classical Mongolian that is dated from the 17th to the 19th century. It 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[90] as well as several chronicles.[91] In 1686, the Soyombo script (Buddhist texts) was created, giving distinctive evidence on early classical Mongolian phonological peculiarities.[92]

Changes in phonology

Consonants

Middle Mongolian documents show only two velar plosives <g> and <k> (and one allophone for each), but in some instances the <g> disappeared and in others not. There is no hint as to how this might be related to contextual factors, and while there is a hypothesis that this is related to distinctive vowel length or stress,[93] it is disputed whether there is any factual evidence for this. Now there is a word-initial <h> that disappeared during the Middle Mongolian stage. This might be the same phoneme as one of the instances of <g> (possibly [x]). Thus, it is likely that x → h → Ø.[94] Eg Phagspa <haran>, Preclassical Mongolian <aran>, reconstructed in Proto-Mongolic as *haran ‘person’, became Modern Mongolian <aran>.[95] Phagspa čaqa’an, Preclassical čaγaγan,[96] reconstructed for Late Pre-Proto-Mongolic as *ʧʰagahan ‘white’, became Modern Mongolian /ʦʰagan/. As also apparent from this example, affricates were fronted in Northern Modern Mongolian dialects such as Khalkha. /kʰ/ was spirantized to /x/ in Ulaanbaatar Khalkha and the Mongolian dialects south of it, eg Preclassical Mongolian <kündü>, reconstructed as *kʰynty ‘heavy’, became Modern Mongolian /xunt/[97] (but in the vinicity of Bayankhongor and Baruun-Urt, many speakers will say [kʰunt]).[98] Originally word-final /n/ turned into /ŋ/; if *n was originally followed by a vowel that later dropped, it remained unchanged, eg *kʰen became /xiŋ/, but *kʰoina became /xɔin/. After i-breaking, *[ʃ] became phonemic. Consonants in words containing back vowels that were followed by *i in Proto-Mongolian became palatalized in Modern Mongolian. In some words, word-final *n was dropped with most case forms, but still appears with the ablative, dative and genitive.[99]

Vowels

Proto-Mongolic had *i, *e, *y, *ø, *u, *o, *a. First, *o and *u were pharyngealized to /ɔ/ and /ʊ/, then *y and *ø were velarized to /u/ and /o/. Thus, the vowel harmony shifted from a velar to a pharyngeal paradigm. *i in the first syllable of back-vocalic words was assimilated to the following vowel; in word-initial position it became /ja/. *e followed by *y was rounded to *ø. VhV and VjV sequences where the second vowel was any vowel but *i were monophthongized. Short vowels in any syllable but the first were deleted from the phonetic representation of the word; long vowels in these positions became short vowels.[100]

Eg *imahan (*i becomes /ja/, *h disappears) → *jamaːn (instable n drops; vowel reduction) → jama(n) ‘goat’

and *emys- (regressive rounding assimilation) → *ømys- (vowel velarization) → *omus- (vowel reduction) → oms- ‘to wear’

Changes in morphology

Nominal system

The Secret History of the Mongols is the only document that allows the reconstruction of gender agreement in Middle Mongolian.[101]

While most case suffixes did change somewhat in form, ie were shortened, most of the modern case system remained intact; important changes occurred with the comitative and the dative.[102] 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 of the stem from nouns, eg <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.[103] 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 dative[104] or <-da> and <-a> as dative and <-dur> as locative,[105] in both cases with some functional overlapping. As <-dur> seems to be grammaticalized from <dotur-a> ‘within’, thus indicating a span of time,[106] the second account seems to be more likely. Of these, <-da> got lost, <-dur> was first reduced to <-du> and then to /d/[107] and <-a> only survived in a few frozen environments.[108] Finally, the directive of modern Mongolian <-ruu> has been innovated from <uruγu> 'downwards'.[109] Gender agreement was abandoned.[110]

Verbal system

Middle Mongolian had a slightly greater set of declarative final verb suffix forms[111] and a smaller number of participles which were less likely to be used as finite predicates.[112] The linking converb <-n> became confined to stable verb combinations,[113] while the number of converbs somewhat increased.[114] The gender and number distinction exhibited by some final verbs got lost.[115]

Changes in syntax

Neutral word order in clauses with pronominal subject changed from object–predicate–subject to subject–object–predicate, eg

Kökseü sabraq ügü.le-run 'ayyi. yeke uge ugu.le-d ta ...' kee-jüü.y.
K. s. speak-converb alas big word speak-Past you say-nonfuture
'Kökseü sabraq spoke saying "Alas. You speak a great boast. ..."'[116]

The negation of verbs 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.[117] 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

Notes

  1. ^ estimation by Svantesson et al. 2005: 141
  2. ^ The existence of the Altaic family is controversial. See Altaic languages.
  3. ^ "Törijn alban josny helnij tuhaj huul". MongolianLaws.com. 2003-05-15. Retrieved 2009-03-27. The decisions of the council have to be ratified by the government.
  4. ^ "Mongγul kele bičig-ün aǰil-un ǰöblel". See Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 204.
  5. ^ See Janhunen (ed.) 2003 and Sechenbaatar et al. 2005 for two classificatory schemes.
  6. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 141, 143. On the other hand, Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 206 (an Inner Mongolian source) assume 4 million Inner Mongolians to be proficient in Mongolian.
  7. ^ Janhunen 2003d: 178.
  8. ^ Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 565.
  9. ^ See especially Rinčjen 1979, Amaržargal 1988, Coloo 1988 and for a general bibliography on Mongolic phonology Svantesson et al. 2005: 218–229.
  10. ^ See Ashimura 2002 for a rare piece of research into dialect morpho-syntax that shows significant differences between Khalkha and Khorchin.
  11. ^ Janhunen 2003d: 189.
  12. ^ Bajansan and Odontör 1995: 132–135.
  13. ^ For an exact delimitation of Khalkha, see Amaržargal 1988: 24–25.
  14. ^ Sanžeev 1953: 27–61, especially 55.
  15. ^ Quoted from Sechenbaatar 2005: 167–168.
  16. ^ For example all the works collected in Janhunen 2003 that address this question.
  17. ^ Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 265–266.
  18. ^ Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 266 classify it as a variety of "Inner 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.
  19. ^ Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 166-173, 184-195. See also Janhunen 2003d: 180.
  20. ^ For example Svantesson et al. 2005: 143, Poppe 1955: 110–115.
  21. ^ 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 ɮ for Proto-Mongolic and imprecision or convenience in notation for Chakhar (Chakhar phonemes according to Dobu 1983).
  22. ^ For example <Bi tegün-i taniǰei> I him know-JEI ‘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.
  23. ^ 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 -sŋ in research work like Bayančoγtu 2002: 306.
  24. ^ “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 saγuriöaγsan bayidaγ.“ (Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 85).
  25. ^ Janhunen 2003d.
  26. ^ See Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 206–384.
  27. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 22
  28. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 1–7, 22–24, 73–75.
  29. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 43–50.
  30. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 46–47, 50–51.
  31. ^ Karlsson 2005: 17
  32. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 25–30.
  33. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 20–21 actually state that they're phonemic only in such words.
  34. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 62–72.
  35. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 95–97.
  36. ^ Walker 1997 developing a line of argument first presented in Bosson 1964 and Poppe 1970.
  37. ^ Walker’s evidence is based on one 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 phoneme analysis in the examples is adjusted to Svantesson et al. 2005.
  38. ^ Some works published between 1835 and 1915 state other positions. Moreover, Köke 2003 seems to contain yet another, new position. See Svantesson et al. 2005: 95–97 and the literature cited there.
  39. ^ See Sechenbaatar et al. 2005 for Chakhar and Bayančoγtu 2002 for the somewhat more diverse Khorchin.
  40. ^ The only expection being reduplication; see Svantesson et al. 2005: 58–59.
  41. ^ For a detailed description of the derivational morphology of Mongolian, see Sečen 2004.
  42. ^ Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 151–153, 161–163.
  43. ^ Hashimoto 1993.
  44. ^ Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 103–104, 124–125, 130–131.
  45. ^ Cedendamba and Möömöö 1997: 222–232.
  46. ^ Guntsetseg 2008: 61.
  47. ^ Sechenbaatar 2003: 32–46.
  48. ^ Cedendamba and Möömöö 1997: 234–241.
  49. ^ For a pioneering approach to this problem, see Sajto 1999.
  50. ^ Cedendamba and Möömöö 1997: 210–219, Sechenbaatar 2003: 23–29.
  51. ^ Word classes are treated with some simplification here. For a more precise treatment within the descriptive framework common in Inner Mongolia, see Sechenbaatar 2003.
  52. ^ For the historic background of negation, see Yu 1991. For a phenomenology, see Bjambasan 2001.
  53. ^ Guntsetseg 2008: 55.
  54. ^ Tserenpil and Kullmann 2005: 237, 347.
  55. ^ Svantesson 2003: 164–165.
  56. ^ See Mönh-Amgalan 1998.
  57. ^ Sechenbaatar 2003: 167.
  58. ^ Hashimoto 2004 discusses differences between several types of predicative noun constructions.
  59. ^ 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.
  60. ^ Guntsetseg 2008: 54.
  61. ^ Tserenpil and Kullmann 2005: 88, 363–364.
  62. ^ Apatoczky 2005.
  63. ^ Hammar 1983: 45–80.
  64. ^ Kang 2000.
  65. ^ Tserenpil and Kullmann 2005: 348–349.
  66. ^ Sechenbaatar 2003: 116–123.
  67. ^ Brosig 2009.
  68. ^ Svantesson 2003: 172.
  69. ^ See Sechenbaatar 2003: 176–182 (who uses the term “postposition” for both and the term “conjunction” for junctors).
  70. ^ Sechenbaatar 2003: 152–153.
  71. ^ Johanson 1995.
  72. ^ Mizuno 1995.
  73. ^ Pürev-Očir 1997: 131.
  74. ^ Sechenbaatar 2003: 36.
  75. ^ Temürčereng 2004: 86–99.
  76. ^ Svantesson 2003: 127.
  77. ^ Temürčereng 2004: 99–102.
  78. ^ Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli 2005: 792–793.
  79. ^ Baabar (2008-12-09). "Jum bolgon nertej". Ödrijn sonin. News.mn. Retrieved 2009-04-21.
  80. ^ Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli 2005: 828.
  81. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 34, 40–41.
  82. ^ a b Sühbaatar, B. "Mongol helnij kirill üsgijg latin üsgeer galiglah tuhaj". InfoCon. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
  83. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 34, 40.
  84. ^ Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 398.
  85. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 111.
  86. ^ Eg Γarudi 2002: 7.
  87. ^ Rybatzki 2003: 58
  88. ^ a b Rybatzki 2003: 57.
  89. ^ Poppe 1964: 1.
  90. ^ Janhunen 2003a: 32.
  91. ^ Okada 1984.
  92. ^ Nadmid 1967: 98–102.
  93. ^ eg Tömörtogoo 2005.
  94. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 113, 119–124.
  95. ^ Today, /arn/ is somewhat unusual, but its plural /ard/ ‘people’ is common.
  96. ^ Adapted from Tömörtogoo 2002: 80.
  97. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 133, 167.
  98. ^ Rinchen (ed.) (1979): 210.
  99. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 124, 165–166, 205.
  100. ^ Svantesson 2005: 181, 184, 186–187, 190–195.
  101. ^ Tümenčečeg 1990.
  102. ^ Rybatzki 2003: 67, Svantesson 2003: 162.
  103. ^ Janhunen 2003c: 27.
  104. ^ Rybatzki 2003: 68.
  105. ^ Γarudi 2002: 101–107.
  106. ^ Toγtambayar 2006: 18–35.
  107. ^ Toγtambayar 2006: 33–34.
  108. ^ Norčin et al. (ed.) 1999: 2217.
  109. ^ Sechenbaatar et al. 2005: 228, 386.
  110. ^ Rybatzki 2003: 73, Svantesson 2003: 166.
  111. ^ Weiers 1966: 126–180, Svantesson 2003: 166.
  112. ^ Weiers 1966: 181–213, Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 86–104.
  113. ^ Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 126, Činggeltei 1999: 251–252.
  114. ^ Rybatzki 2003: 77, Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 126–137
  115. ^ The gender issue is fairly commonplace, see eg Rybatzki 2003: 75. A convincing argument for the number distinction between -ba and -bai is made in Tümenčečeg 1990: 103–108. She also argues that this has been the case for other suffixes.
  116. ^ Street 1957: 14, Secret History 190.13v.
  117. ^ Yu 1991.

Bibliography

  • Amaržargal, B. (1988): BNMAU dah’ mongol helnij nutgijn ajalguuny tol’ bichig: halh ajalguu. Ulaanbaatar: ŠUA. (in Mongolian )
  • Apatóczky, Ákos Bertalan: On the problem of the subject markers of the Mongolian language. In: Wú Xīnyīng, Chén Gānglóng (ed.): Miànxiàng xīn shìjìde ménggǔxué. Běijīng: Mínzú Chūbǎnshè. ISBN 7-105-07208-3: 334-343.
  • Ashimura, Takashi (2002): Mongorugo jarōto gengo no -lɛ: no yōhō ni tsuite. In: Tōkyō daigaku gengogaku ronshū 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: Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli-yin keblel-ün qoriy-a. ISBN 7-81074-391-0. (in Mongolian)
  • Bjambasan, P. (2001): Mongol helnij ügüjsgeh har'caa ilerhijleh hereglüürüüd. In: Mongol hel, sojolijn surguul: Erdem šinžilgeenij bičig 18: 9–20. (in Mongolian)
  • Bosson, James E. (1964). Modern Mongolian. Uralic and Altaic series (No. 38). Bloomington: Indiana University.
  • Brosig, Benjamin (2009): Depictives and resultatives in Modern Khalkh Mongolian. In: 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 ǰüi. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qorij-a. ISBN 7-204-04593-9. (in Mongolian)
  • Coloo, Ž. (1988): BNMAU dah’ mongol helnij nutgijn ajalguuny tol’ bichig: ojrd ajalguu. Ulaanbaatar: ŠUA. (in Mongolian)
  • [Dobu] Dàobù (1983): Ménggǔyǔ jiǎnzhì. Běijīng: Mínzú. (in Chinese)
  • Γarudi (2002): Dumdadu üy-e-yin mongγul kelen-ü bütüče-yin kelberi-yin sudulul. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. (in Mongolian)
  • Guntsetseg, D. (2008): Differential Object Marking in Mongolian. In: Working Papers of the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context 01: 53–69.
  • Hammar, Lucia B. (1983): Syntactic and pragmatic options in Mongolian - a study of bol and n'. Ann Arbor: Indiana University.
  • Hashimoto, Kunihiko (1993): <-san> no imiron. In: Muroran kōgyō daigaku kenkyū hōkoku 43: 49–94. (in Japanese)
  • Hashimoto, Kunihiko (2004): Mongorugo no kopyura kōbun no imi no ruikei. In: 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 (ed.): Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-014357-7: 313–347.
  • Karlsson, Anastasia Mukhanova (2005): Rhythm and intonation in Halh Mongolian. Lund: Lund University. ISBN 91-974116-9-8.
  • Luvsanvandan, Š. (1959): Mongol hel ajalguuny učir. In: 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)
  • Kang, Sin: Hyen.tay.mong.kol.e chem.sa č-uy uy.mi.wa ki.nung. In: Mongkolhak 10: 1–23. (in Korean)
  • [Köke] Huhe, Harnud (2003): A Basic Study of Mongolian Prosody. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. ISBN 952-10-1347-8.
  • Matsuoka, Yūta (2007): Gendai mongorugo no asupekuto to dōji no genkaisei. In: Kyūshū daigaku gengogaku ronshū 28: 39–68. (in Japanese)
  • Mizuno, Masanori (1995): Gendai mongorugo no jūzokusetsushugo ni okeru kakusentaku. In: Tōkyō daigaku gengogaku ronshū 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. (ed.) 1999: Mongγol kelen-ü toli. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. ISBN 7-204-03423-6. (in Mongolian)
  • Okada, Hidehiro (1984): Mongol chronicles and Chinggisid genealogies. In: Journal of Asian and African studies 27: 147–154.
  • Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli (2005 [1964]): Odu üy-e-yin mongγul kele. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. 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)
  • Rinchen, Byambyn (ed.) (1979): Mongol ard ulsyn ugsaatny sudlal helnij šinžlelijn atlas. Ulaanbaatar: Šinžleh uhaany akademi. (in Mongolian)
  • Rybatzki, Volker (2003): Middle Mongol. In: Janhunen 2003: 47–82.
  • Sajto, Kosüke (1999): Orčin čagyn mongol helnij "neršsen“ temdeg nerijn onclog (temdeglel). In: Mongol ulsyn ih surguulijn Mongol sudlalyn surguul' Erdem šinžilgeenij bičig XV bot': XIII devter: 95–111. (in Mongolian)
  • Sanžaa, Ž. and D. Tujaa (2001): Darhad ayalguuny urt egšgijg avialbaryn tövšind sudalsan n’. In: Mongol hel šinžlel 4: 33–50. (in Mongolian)
  • Sanžeev, G. D. (1953): Sravnitel’naja grammatika mongol’skih jazykov. Mosvka: Akademija nauk SSSR. (in Russian)
  • Sečen (2004): Odu üy-e-yin mongγul bičig-ün kelen-ü üge bütügekü daγaburi-yin sudulul. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un surγan kümüǰil-ün keblel-ün qoriy-a. 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. ǰirannige, U Ying ǰe (2005): Mongγul kelen-ü nutuγ-un ayalγun-u sinǰilel-ün uduridqal. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. ISBN 7-204-07621-4. (in Mongolian)
  • Street, John (1957): The language of the Secret history of the Mongols. 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, ǰ. (2004): Mongγul kelen-ü üge-yin sang-un sudulul. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un surγan kümüǰil-ün keblel-ün qoriy-a. ISBN 7-5311-5893-0. (in Mongolian)
  • Toγtambayar, L. (2006): Mongγul kelen-ü kele ǰüiǰigsen yabuča-yin tuqai sudulul. Liyuuning-un ündüsüten-ü keblel-ün qoriy-a. ISBN 7-80722-206-9. (in Mongolian)
  • Tömörtogoo, D. (2002): Mongol dörvölžin üsegijn durashalyn sudalgaa. Ulaanbaatar: IAMS. ISBN 99929-5-624-0. (in Mongolian)
  • Tsedendamba, Ts., C. Möömöö (ed.) (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 ǰaγun-u mongγul kelen-ü toγačin ögülekü tölüb-ün kelberi-nügüd ba tegün-ü ularil kögǰil. In: Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli 1990/3: 102–120. (in Mongolian)
  • Walker, Rachel (1997): Mongolian stress, licensing, and factorial typology. Rutgers Optimality Archive 184.
  • Weiers, Michael (1966): Untersuchungen zu einer historischen Grammatik des präklassischen Mongolisch. Bonn: Universität Bonn. (in German)
  • Yu, Wonsoo (1991): A study of Mongolian negation. Ann Arbor: Indiana University.
Mongolian edition of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Link FA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongolian_language&oldid=286274894"