Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/toy. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/toy, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/toy in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/toy you have here. The definition of the word Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/toy will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofReconstruction:Proto-Turkic/toy, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Whether this root had a long or short vowel is a matter of contention. Here, it is taken as with a short vowel following the short voweled variants found in modern reflexes.
Etymology
Uncertain. Some etymologies listed in the literature include:
Yegorov (1964) ascribes Chuvash туй(tuj) to "12th century Turkish" (Middle Turkic) *tuy ("assembly, crowd, congregation") and refuses a connection with *to-(“to be satiated”) for Chuvash.
Doerfer (1968) - and citing him, Clauson (1972) - suggests a semantic shift of "royal tent camp" > "aggregation" > "feast" > "wedding" / "marriage" to explain the two different meanings associated with this root. In Doerfer's work, the etymology suggested by Räsänen (different than the one referenced in this page) is declared untenable, citing historical forms for Old Turkic.
In the same entry, a potential linking of this root to *tuy(“clay, loam”) is discussed. This supposed etymology is seconded with the potential parallel of supposed Old Turkic𐽼𐽰𐾁𐽶𐽲(pʾlyq/balïḳ/, “city, settlement”)<*balïk(“mud”). This potential relation assumes a priori that two meanings are related.
Räsänen (1969) assumes two meanings to belong to different roots and derives düğün(*doń-gün) from this root.
Nişanyan (2002-) suggests a derivation from *to-(“to be satiated”).
In Dīwān Lughāt al-Turk (1072), Maḫmud al-Ḳašġarî writes down that Oghuz people do not know this This is most likely the case due to Oghuz branch not preserving the primary sense of military camp, which is what the Karakhanid word translates to in Arabic.
al-Kashgarî, Mahmud (1072–1074) Besim Atalay, transl., Divanü Lûgat-it-Türk Tercümesi (Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları; 521) (in Turkish), 1985 edition, volume 3, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurmu Basımevi, published 1939–1943, page 141
Doerfer, Gerhard (1967) “1352. طوی (ṭōi̯)”, in Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur: Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission; 20) (in German), volume 3, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, pages 352-355
Jegorov, V. G. (1964) “ТУЙ (I)”, in Etimologičeskij slovarʹ čuvašskovo jazyka (in Russian), Cheboksary: Čuvašskoje knižnoje izdatelʹstvo, page 255
Räsänen, Martti (1969) “toń”, in Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen (in German), Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura, page 488
Nadeljajev, V. M.; Nasilov, D. M.; Tenišev, E. R.; Ščerbak, A. M., editors (1969), “TOJ (I, II)”, in Drevnetjurkskij slovarʹ (in Russian), Leningrad: USSR Academy of Sciences, Nauka, page 572