Discussion

When interested persons attain allocating huge sums of money for the preparation and realization of flights to other planets for the purpose of space exploration, this seems unreasonable since we have not yet sufficiently explored our Earth. Here we are talking not only about the origin and history of the development of this space object, but also about the appearance of people on it and their spiritual and physical development, that is, about the sciences that are involved in the formation and development of human civilization in its various forms. All these sciences are lagging behind the accelerated development of technology, and this disharmony suggests that a big bias has formed in our worldview that may lead to such a situation that space will become uninteresting to us and questions of survival will force us to do what we previously neglected. Avoiding such a misfortune is possible if at least one hundredth of the funds allocated for space research will be directed to the development of the humanities to attract capable youth and search for new research methods. Their effective using would bring us closer to the answer to the fundamental questions of the world order and the existence of human in it. In this article I want to show how, for decades, in one of the branches of science, inertia dosn't allow solving a problem that contains a political aspect and, therefore, significantly affects relations between peoples and states on Earth. It will be a question of a specific issue of historical linguistics, but a similar situation occurs in other humanities interconnected by the common goal of restoring historical truth. Therefore, the narration will inevitably deviate from the topic and estimate the state of affairs in academic science and existing research methods.

When reviewing the latest publications of Turkologists of different countries, the unconditional attribution of Turkic languages to Altaic and the confident localization of the ancestral home of the Turks is somewhere far away in Asia is noteworthy. Such views were formed at the dawn of comparative historical linguistics. As A.M. Schcherbak noted, one of the founders of the Altaic theory of the origin of Turkic languages ​​was Rasmus Rask (1787 – 1832), and the term "Altai" was first used in the middle of the XIX cent. by W. Schott and M.A. Castrén, who suggested that "Altai was the ancestral home of many close languages of the northeastern part of Europe and Siberia" (SHCHERBAK A.V. 1959: 51). The nature of the material and structural proximity of the Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungus-Manchu languages led to the emergence of the Altai hypothesis, postulating the existence of the Altaic parent language, which determined their genetic relationship (SHCHERBAK A.V. 1966: 21). However, having carefully studied the nature of the lexical relationships between these languages, A.M. Shcherbak quite clearly expressed the lack of reliable signs of genetic kinship in them:

As for the discrepancies, it is significant that if there are many common words denoting secondary concepts and often completely coinciding, the numbers from 1 to 10, which, as a rule, are tremendously stable, in the Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungus-Manchu languages do not coincide and cannot be deduced from uniform preforms. Almost all words that traditionally relate to the main, or basic, lexical foundation, do not coincide either (Ibid, 23).

The final result is A.M. Shcherbak came to the conclusion that "it is not possible" to talk about the genetic relationship of the Turkic, Mongolian and Tungus-Manchu languages (Ibid, 35). Three years later, the British scientist Sir Gerard Leslie Clawson came to the same conclusion: "Altai theory is wrong" (more on this below). One of the German Turkologists, an adversary of the Altai theory, took an active part in the discussion of those years, and argued that research methods tested on the material of Indo-European languages are hardly applicable to Altai:

… altaistics cannot be likened to Indo-European studies. They have completely different contents, and much of what can be quite effective in the Indo-European languages, absolutely not related to Altai languages (DOERFER G. 1972: 58)

G. Doerfer point by point showed errors of the Altaiists, proving the kinship between the Turkic and Mongolic languages, and came to the conclusion that "the similarity found at first glance still does not prove anything" (Ibid, 60-66). However, the conclusions of well-known Turkologists did not convince the apologists of the Altaic hypothesis, and after 50 years we again have to return to the same problem. It seems obvious that for a start it is enough to solve a simpler problem – to prove the lack of genetic kinship between the Mongolian and Turkic languages. Genetic language kinship supposed that they must have sufficiently large number of the most ancient words which simultaneously for the most part are also most useful in modern languages. Of course, not all originally appeared words kept in the language to our time. Some of them due to the varying conditions of life are completely out of use, and some part is replaced with new ones. American scientist Morris Swadesh, recognizing that the bulk of the vocabulary of any language changes over time, claimed that these changes take place very slowly, and with the constant speed. The essence of the theory Swadesh briefly defined as follows:

1. A certain part of the vocabulary of all languages is relatively stable, and forms the basic lexical core that is common to all languages.

2. The degree of persistence of lexical elements of the core is constant at all times.

3. The percentage of loss of the basic core of words is about the same in all languages.

4. If you know the actual percentage of the surviving of genetically close elements of the basic lexical core of any pair related languages, it is possible to calculate the time elapsed from the moment when these languages have begun the process of divergence. (ZVEGINTSEV V.A. 1960, 12).

Morris Swadesh compiled the list of words of the basic core vacabulary of 100 words, but later expanded it to 200. Grounding on the hypothesis of a constant rate of change, he was trying to determine the start time of the divergence of two related languages (MORRIS SWADESH, 1960-1, 28-45). This method was later named glottochronological, but a part of linguists completely rejected it, and others are trying to improve it. The very existence of the basic core vocabulary in each language has no doubt and it should consist of the most ancient words that emerged at the beginning of its formation. Since the biological nature of man is the same, then his psychological features are basically the same too, so the first words arisen in all languages have the same meaning. However, the formation of language is affected by the world around us, so the lexical structure of the core cannot be universal, and in different languages it can be more or less different from Swadesh list. The more closely related genetically languages, the more common words have they in their core.

Based on this, an attempt was made to find matches to 200 words of the standard lexical nucleus in the Proto-Türkic and Proto-Mongolic languages so that when comparing them to set the number of available similar pairs of words they have. The words of these proto-languages were restored on the basis of the vocabulary of the modern Türkic and Mongolic languages. It was taken into account only common words of those languages, as the most ancient. Common words were recognized ones present in similar forms in all languages, or at least in the vast majority of them. As it turned out, standard core vocabulary hade matching among common words of the Türkic and Mongolian languages not always. This meant that corresponding them native words in proto-languages were absent and have emerged as neologisms or borrowing in child languages after the dismemberment of a proto-language or a native common word has disappeared in some languages with time and been replaced by a new one. Whatever it was, as a result it was found that words of basic core vocabulary have matvhing in both the Türkic and Mongolian languages only in 140 cases (see Core Vocabulary of the Türkic and Mongolic Languages). Among all these pairs only 20 ones listed in the table below can be considered common to both languages:

Twenty pairs of common words in the Türkic and Mongolian languages from 140 taken into consideration, account for only 14% of the basic core vocabulary of these languages. It is not enough to speak confidently about their genetic relationship. Using more carefully the same method to test the genetic relationship of the Altai languages, Sir Gerard Clawson came to the following conclusions:

1. During the historical period the Mongolian languages remained exceptionally resistant to changes, and the Turkic languages remained super-stable. There is hardly any reason to suppose that this stability is a recent phenomenon.

2. Türkic and Manchu languages, in all evidence, are not genetically related, since their basic vocabulary does not coincide.

3. After the exclusion of words that can certainly be considered borrowed, common elements in the Turkic and Mongolian basic dictionary will amount to no more than 2% of the main dictionary…

4. After similar exceptions, the common elements in the Mongolian and Manchu basic vocabulary will not exceed 3.5% of the total lexical composition, and these words can be more easily explained as borrowing than as evidence of genetic links… Even if we assume that the minimum correspondence between the main dictionaries of the Mongolian and the Turkic languages ​​and Mongolian and Manchu languages, respectively, give a certain prima facie evidence of genetic ties, Mongolian languages ​​can not be genetically related to both already because Turkic languages ​​are not associated with the Manchu language. Consequently, the "Altaic" theory is illegal. (CLAUSON G. 1969: 40-41).

However, methodologically, the work of the British orientalist was not perfect. G. Doerfer considered that "by the means by which G. Clauson tried to do this, the theory of Altai proto-linguistic kinship cannot be refuted" (DOERFER G. 1972: 50). It is not surprising that the calculations of G. Clauson did not convince Lajos Ligeti either. He recalled that both the Chuvash and Mongolian languages contain sounds r and l, where in other Turkic languages they have matches z and š. He explains this phenomenon by the fact that sounds r and l are referred to the Altaic community of the Turkic and Mongolian languages (LIGETI L. 1971, 21-22). We will dwell on this question below. When Ligeti turns to vocabulary, he shows the imperfection of the method of lexicostatistics with the given examples, and finally comes to the conclusion that this method is not suitable for confirming or, conversely, refuting linguistic affinity (Ibid, 23-33).

Ten years after a critical assessment of Clauson' method, Doerfer presented an improved version of it with the division of the basic layer of vocabulary into nuclear basic words and peripheral ones. Studying the frequency of their appearance in different languages, he came to the following conclusion:

The method of G. Clauson was too simple, since it was purely quantitative in nature, and using quantitative methods alone can neither refute nor prove linguistic kinship. Quantitative methods must be supplemented with analysis, i.e., all words should be divided into nuclear basic and peripheral basic vocabulary, and then lexico-statistical methods should be applied. Applying the indicated improved method, we find that the common or Altaic vocabulary in no particular case represents an ancient kinship, all these are only the oldest pre-language borrowings (DEORFER G. 1981: 43)

However, this time too, the supporters of Altaic theory could not be convinced. Applying Dorfer's method on Indo-European languages, Leningrad linguists, not without humor, declared:

From the foregoing, it should be concluded:
1) either new IE languages ceased to be related to each other;
2) either G. Durfer’s concept is incorrect (ANDREYEV N.D., SUNIK O.P. 1982: 34).

A skeptical attitude to the possibilities of lexicostatistics compels us to look for other evidence of the lack of genetic kinship between the Turkic and Mongolian languages. First of all, it is the localization of the ancestral home of the Turks, using the graph-analytical method not in Altai, but in Transcaucasia (see section The Urheimat of the Nostratic Languages. The migration of Turkic tribes in the interfluve of the Lower Dnieper and the Don, where the Proto-Turkick language collapsed, is considered in the sectionThe Türkic Tribes. Here the Türks became the creators of the Seredniy Stih and Yamna cultures, on the basis of which the Corded Ware Culture developed, the carriers of which were the ancient Bulgars, distant relatives of the modern Chuvashes.

Meanwhile, L. Ligeti and many other linguists have found a special affinity between the Chuvash and Mongolian languages, what should support the concept of Altaic ancestral home not only of the Chuvashes, but all Türks:

… while not specifying the exact location of the Chuvash language among related languages, we can conditionally consider it as an intermediary between the Mongolic and Türkic languages (POPPE N.N., 1925: 8).

Far traces of Chuvashes first in the vicinity of the Mongolian tribes and then in the upper reaches of the Irtysh and Yenisei rivers – in the vicinity of the Altaic Türks and Central Asian Iranian tribes are good found in the Chuvash language. The Chuvash language has are many Mongolian words, and almost all of them are of ancient origin (YEGOROV V.G. 1971: 7).

However, such views are not generally accepted even among supporters of Altai theory. For example, K. Menges believed that the Chuvash language has very little Altaic words (MENGES K.H. 1979: 51). Another recognized Turkologist, speaking of Mongolian borrowings in the Turkic languages, nowhere notes their presence in Chuvash and notes that most of them are present in the northeast (Southern Siberia and Tuva) and the north-central (Kazakh and Kyrgyz) groups of languages and at the same time they most refer to medieval times (CLAUSON GERARD, 2002, IX).

The above quoted author said in the same paper that the Mongolian words are present in "an insignificant amount" (YEGOROV V.G. 1971: 105). Once again this confirms how vague and subjective evaluation have the words "many", "few" without quantitative comparison with other related languages. Nevertheless, at first glance it might seem that even small amounts of Mongolian words in Chuvash can be enough for the evidence of the contacts between the ancestors of the modern Chuvashes and Mongols:

The Chuvash language has a number of Mongolian words being not found in other Türkic languages. They are above all other pronouns… The rest of the Chuvash Mongolic matches is in few number, but sufficient to prove the coexistence of the Proto-Chuvash and Mongol peoples in the far past – long before the Mongol invasions (AKHMETIANOV R.G. 1978: 119).

R. Akhmet'yanov gives in his work except pronouns only six or seven Chuvash words, which have analogues only in the Mongolian language, but that does not mean that they are or always were absent in the other Türkic languages, or never existed in the Old-Türkic language. A similar phenomenon can be observed also in the Tatar and even in the Hungarian language, where there are separate Hungarian-Mongolian vocabulary matches. On this occasion, the famous Hungarian linguist Z. Gomboc wrote: "The fact that in some cases, matches to the Hungarian words can be detected only in Mongolian .., has no really matter, as the ancient Türkic vocabulary is unknown to us in its entirety" (GOMBOC ZOLTAN. 1985-1: 29). On the other hand, some of Chuvash-Mongolian matches absolutely can not be ancient on warrant of the meanings of words ("tin", "shawl"). The borrowings from the Middle-Mongolian language confuse greatly the picture being taken for more ancient loan-words. However, the genetic relationship can only be said by the most ancient words which were in daily circulation still at a primitive level of development of languages. Usually such words are most used but examples of just such common words between the Chuvash and Mongolian languages are absent.

The other Hungarian linguist A. Rona-Tas, considering in light of the Altaic theory Mongolian matches in the Chuvash, on the example of three dozen of Chuvash borrowings from the Middle-Mongolian language, comes to the conclusion that the source of the borrowing of other words having similar phonology could also be Middli-Mongolian (RONA-TAS A. 1975: 201-211). In his view, the presence of a word even in the three groups of the Altaic languages can not be proof of its Altaic origin. He sees the following reasons which may explain the facts of linguistic community:

- historical contacts;

- areal convergence;

- typological parallels;

- convergence of the units of independent origin;

- a coincidence;

- genetic relatedness.

As you can see the reasons are different and the very existence of matches between the Chuvash and the Mongolian language is not talking about genetic kinship of the Türkic and Mongolian languages. (RONA-TAS ANDRAS. 1987-2: 6). It should be pointed out that N. Poppe, debating with the Hungarian linguist, had to agree with this his conclusion (POPPE NICHOLAS, 1975: 114).

The Chuvash and Mongolian phonology has also correspondences in favor, if not of genetic relationship, the old neighborhood of the Bulgars and the Mongols. For example, the loss of final k in stems of words is common feature for Chuvash and Mongolian but it is secondary development (ERDAL MARSEL. 2005: 127). The Chuvash language has the spirant γ on the place of Old Türkic – k, -g which fell out in the end of words in more late time. This can be affirmed by Hungarian loan-words from Chuvash: Hung borz "a badger" out of Chuv *borsuγ, Hung kút "a well" out of Chuv kutuγ. Such phenomenon is not a peculiarity of the Hungarian language as the more old Türkic loan-words have final k: árok "a ditch", hurok "a loop", köldök "a navel" (PALLO MARGIT K. 1985: 80). According to our study the ancestors of Chuvashes and Hungarians came in contact not before as in the 1st mill BC.

Other Mongol-Chuvash correspondences can be as follows:

• the consonant r in the Chuvash and the Mongolian languages corresponds in most cases s/z in the other Türkic languages ;

• the consonant l in the Chuvash and Mongolian languages corresponds š in most other Türkic languages.

Turkologists divide all Türkic languages into two groups – the group “r/l-languages" and the group “z-languages”. The group r/l consist of only Chuvash as the modern language, but it is assumed that other r/l-languages existed prior too. The nature of the phonetic correspondence r/l ↔ š/s/z is one of the most mysterious phenomena of the Altaic languages (Türkic, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungus) and remains poorly studied:

Our knowledge of r/l Turkish is so fragmentary and discontinuous that is better not to attempt to trace its history in detail remarking merely that the difference between r/l Turkish and standard languages was primarily in the pronunciation of certain sounds and probably only to a small extent in matters of word structure, grammar, and vocabulary (CLAUSON GERARD, 2002, 26-27).

This topic is considered in an article about a hypothetical Nostratic sound RZ more detailed.

The ancestors of the Bulgars lost the language contact with their linguistic cousins after going to the right bank of the Dnieper River. The assumption that the Chuvashes very early separated from the rest of the Türks, with the result that their language was developed independently, exested during long time (POPPE N.N. 1925: 5). The rest of the Türks stayed together in close proximity for a long time, while their languages have acquired a lot of common phonetic, lexical and morphological features, unusual Chuvash. A detailed study of the differences between the Chuvash and the rest of the Türkic languages confirms this conclusion:

… when common Türkic language was more or less unitary language, the Chuvash (ancient Chuvash) already went their own ways of development (POPPE N.N. 1925: 31).

The ancient Bulgars could not have any contact with the Mongols also for the reason that the pantheon of Chuvash deities, of which there are more than two hundred, has no connections not only with Mongolian, but even with Turkic mythology, so remote were the places of their habitats (BASILOV V.N. 1992: 538). It seems very surprising that linguists do not take this fact into account.

After the Türks occupied the vast territory from the North Caucasus to the Altai most of them came into contact with peoples of the Altaic language family and made a great influence on them. Together with lexical borrowing could have been accepted also some phonetic features, in particular, the archaic sound rz. Gradually, the bulk of the Türkic languages have been lost some archaic features, but they remained on the periphery of the Türkic world. This also can explain the common features possessed by the Chuvash and Mongolian languages, and that mislead scientists. The Chuvash language preserved archaic Türkic language phenomena, just because for a long time developed without direct contact with the other Türkic, and some of these linguistic phenomena can be transferred by the Türks in the Mongolian languages when they first came into contact with the Mongols. Mongolian language could also save these archaic linguistic phenomena, which can have very different reasons. If the Chuvash language would have many correspondences with the Mongolian, then it had much more similarities with Yakut, undoubtedly akin genetically, but about any particular facts of this similarity is not mentioned anywhere.

It is sometimes considered that, in addition to Bulgar, the Oghur, and Avar languages also were language were r-languages (RONA-TAS ANDRAS. 2005: 115). The ethnonyms Oguz, Ogur, and Avar, without a doubt go back to one common source of Iranian awara “vagabond, nomad” (Afg. avāra, etc.) and therefore could not be self-designation. Accordingly, the same people could be called by different names Oguz, Ogur, and Avars in different languages. We associate the modern Gagauz people of z-language with Oghuz. Thus, we became contradiction, which is again solved by the existence of the sound rz, which was changed to z in the language of the Gagauz that are the descendants of Oghuz-Ogur-Avars relatively recently, in the historical period (possibly under the influence of the Kipchak language). In this case, to put in one row the Oghur and Bulgar languages is not warranted.

The significance of the nature of the considered Chuvash-Mongolian phonetic correspondences is so great that their explanation should finally discard the Altai theory. According to Ligeti, if we exclude from consideration the Chuvash and Mongolian words with the corresponding sounds r and l, then "there will be almost no lexical material on which the Turkic-Mongolian and, moreover, Altai language kinship could be based" (LIGETI L. 1971: 22).

The closest neighbors of the Turks in Eastern Europe were Proto-Armenians. Accordingly, quite a lot of words of Turkic origin were found in the Armenian language, although, obviously, not all. Also a part of Turkic words fell into other Indo-European languages through the ancient Armenian. During the mass transition of the Bulgars to the right bank of the Dnieper, the Indo-Europeans still remained in the places of their old settlements and the cultural exchange between the aliens and the local population contributed to the development of linguistic ties. Traces of Contacts between the Türks and Indo-Europeans in Vocabularies constitute a separate topic of research and the general list of Turkic-Indo-European correspondences is constantly replenished and adjusted. Examples of these correspondences in this text are taken just from it. The following are Turkisms in the Armenian language, which sometimes have matches in Greek and Latin.

The closest neighbors of the Turks in Eastern Europe were Proto-Armenians. Accordingly, quite a lot of words of Turkic origin were found in the Armenian language. It should be noted that the long Armenian aŕ is well consistent with the Turkic rz. Through the ancient Armenian part of the Turkic words even got into the ancient Greek. The following are Turkisms in the Armenian language, which sometimes have correspondences in Greek and Latin: The origin of the Armenian words was checked according to the etymological dictionary, all of them do not have clear correspondences in the Indo-European liguages (HÜBSCHMANN HEINRICH. 1972).

Arm. acux “coal” – common Türkic očak/ očok “heart, fire-place” (Chuv vučax, Tur ocak a.o.), moreover Türkm čog, Tur şövg, Kaz šok, Uzb čůg “red-hot coal” a.o.

Arm. alik’ “wave”, “billow”, Gr αλοζ “furrow”, Lat. vallis "valley" – Türkic oluq “gutter” (Tur oluk “trough”, Chuv valak “trough”, Karach, Balk uuaq “wavy”).

Arm. antaŕ “forest” – Gag. andyz “grove, bushes”, Tur andîz “kind of weed”. Similar words are present in other Türkic languages but all they have a meaning of severel plants. Only Armeinan and Gagauz words have the meaning of the forest. It should be noted that the long Armenian aŕ is well consistent with the Turkic rz.

Arm. gjuł “village” – Gag. küü “village”.

Arm. goř “lamb” – Turk. gozy/qozy “lamb”.

Arm. hełg “lazy, idle” – common Türkic jalta/jalka “lazy, idle” (Karach, Balk jalk, Chuv julxav, Tat jalkau, Kaz žalkau a.o.)

Arm. ji, Gr ιπποσ “horse”, Lat equa, Rom iapa “mare” – common Turk jaby, jabu “horse”, Turkm. jaby, Chuv jupax. In the Armenian language in the intervocal position, the sound p disappears. Hübschman connected Arm. word with Skt. haya “horse” what stays far away phonetically .

Arm. kamurj’ “bridge”, Gr γεφυρα “dam, bridge” – common Türkic köpür “bridge” (Chuv kěper, Karach, Balk köpür, Tat küper a.o.). Sir Gerard Clauson supposed the origin of Türkic word from the root köp- “to swell, foam, boil over”. But Armenian, Greek, and other IE words (Lat caper, Celtic caer, gabor a.o. “he-goat”) can give an evidence about Indo-European origin of the word. Türks borrowed the word from Indo-Europeans with meaning “he-goat” but became it back with new meaning “bridge”. Some later IE words with meaning near to „bridge“ (Dutch keper, Germ Käpfer a.o.) originated from Lat caper.

Arm. tal, Gr. γαλωσ, Lat. glos „the daughter-in-law, sister-in-law“ – OT. kelin „the daughter-in-law, sister-in-law“.

Arm. tarap’ “downpour, gush” – Chuv tapăr “watering place”.

Arm. teli “place” – Chuv těl “place”.

Arm t'uk “saliva” – Türkm tüjkülik, Karach, Balk tükürük “saliva”, Gag. tükürmää “spit” a.o.

Arm. thošel “to fly” – common Türk düš- “to fall”.

The first people with whom the Turks came into direct contact on the right-bank Ukraine were the Italics, and this was evidenced by numerous Turkic-Latin correspondences. In these correspondences, the origin of the Latin words was checked according to the etymological dictionary of the Latin language (WALDE ALOIS, HOFMANN J.B., BERGER ELISBETG. 1965) and for the most part, the etymology turned out to be unknown, doubtful or not considered at all. See below:

Lat. amicus “a friend” – Chuv. ami “a friend, brother”;

Lat cama “short board, plank bed, shelf” – Chuv khăma “board”. The Latin word considered to be borrowed from some Celtic-Iberian language (W).

Lat candēre "to be incandescent", Gr κανδαροσ "embers" and other IE – Chuv кǎнтǎр "midday, south".

Lat. casa “house” – Chuv. kasă “street” which had formerly meaning “settlement”. The Latin word is referred belonging to the spread root kat- “a house”.

Lat caudex, cōdex “trunk, stump” – Tur, Gag kütük “trunk, stump”. The Latin word considered to be derived from cūdere “to beat” (W.);

Lat. cura “care” – Chuv khural “protection”.

Lat. delirium “delirium” – Chuv tilěr, Tat tile “madman";

Lat. fàbulare “to speak” – Chuv. pavra “to chatter, to talk”.

Lat faux “throat” – Gag. buaz Kyrg buvaz, Tur, Kaz, Karach, Balk boğaz a.o. “throat”. The Latin word has no sure matches in Indo-European.

Lat felix "fruitful, fertile" – Chuv pulǎx "fertility";

Lat. publikare “to publish” – Chuv puple “to talk”.

Lat. usus “use” – Chuv usă “use”.

Compared with the Indo-European languages, among the Turkic words, we find a significantly larger number of words with meanings that indicate a higher level of culture and social relations of the Turks. Such words could be borrowed by neighboring Indo-Europeans. Cf.:

Gr. αγροσ, Lat ager, Germ Acker “field” – common Türkic ek- (Chuv ak, akăr) “to sow”;

Gr. αλφι “barley”, αλφη “barley meal” – common Türkic arpa “barley”;

Gr. ηθμοσ “sieve” – Chuv atma “fishnet”.

Gr. κηροσ “wax, honeycombs” – Chuv karas “honeycombs”;

Gr. κορβανοσ "temple treasure-box" – Chuv kărman "basket";

Gr. λισγαριον, λισγοσσ “mattock” – Crim-Tat ülüskär, Kaz lesker “mattock”;

Gr. μηκον “poppy” – Chuv măkăn’ “poppy”;

Gr. παστη “pasta” – Karach, Balk basta “porridge, gruel”;

Gr. πυροσ “wheat”, Lit pūraĩ "winter wheat" a.o. IE – Chuv pări “spelt, the kind of wheat”;

Gr. χορτοσ “kraal”, Lat hortus “garden”, OG gardon “garden” – Cuv karta “fence”;

Lat. arca “a box” – Chuv arča “a chest”;

Lat. cama “a short board, plank bed, shelf” – Chuv khăma “board”;

Lat. casa “a house” – Chuv. kasă “a street” which had formerly meaning “settlemen

Lat. cupa “a bucket, barrel” – Tur, Turkm kova, Chag qopa etc “a bucket”;

Lat. ius, iuris “soup” – Chuv jaška – “soup”, juškăň “slime”;

Lat. scopula “a broom” – Chuv šăpăr “a broom”;

Lat. sĕrra “a saw” – Chuv sĕr “to rub, saw”;

Lat. torta “round twined bread” (from tortio – torqere "to twirl") – Chuv tărta “to twine, to nest”.

The cultural superiority of the Turks over the Indo-Europeans in those days is indicated by the etymology of many metal names in Indo-European languages of Turkic origin. This topic is discussed in detail in the separate article, The full list of Greek-Chuvash and Latin-Chuvash Lexical correspondences is given separately too.

You can find Türkic influence in the spiritual realm. Some matches between the Bulgars and Italians are seen in religious issues. Latin abbās "abbot" is suggested to be borrowed through Greek from the Aramaic abbā "father" and is not considered in the etymological dictionary of Latin (WALDE ALOIS a.o. 1965). At first, this word was supposedly used in prayers in the meaning "my father" (KLUGE FRIEDRICH, SEEBOLD ELMAR. 1989, 7). However, it is surprising that Latin and Greek words are well matched Chuv. apăs "priest" which originated from the ancient Türkic word for designating close relatives, including father (aba/apa). When borrowing from Aramaic and using in prayers word abbās should be used referring to God, not to His servants, and therefore Bulgar source of borrowing should be preferred. More such lexical parallel: Lat. vapor "steam, smoke, fire" – Cuv Vupăr "ghost, spirit" may be included to religious topics too. The word, of course, has a Türkic origin (Türkic bu "steam" and Chuv pyr, which among other senses has also "to come" or par/pǎr "to give, give out").

Surprising is also the similarity of the Greek πανδουρα "kithara", Latin pandura "three-stringed lute" and a number of Chuvash words of close sense: pănt – imitation of ringing broken string, păntăr-păntăr – imitation of string strum, păntărtat – 1. "to thrum, to give strum sounds" (on stringed instruments), 2. "to crack, rattle" (on drums). As Chuvash words have a more general meaning, this evidences that a stringed musical instrument of ancient Italians was borrowed from the Bulgars, but not vice versa. There is spread in Central Asian stringed instrument tanbur and it is assumed that its name has Arabic origin (Ar tanbūr "stringed instrument"). However Chuv tĕmpĕr "imitation of drum sound" and tĕmpĕrtet "to thunder, boom" compel to doubt of such assumption. Also the people of the Caucasus have musical instruments with names similar Chuvash words, but the source of their loans is difficult to define. The evidence of Türkic cultural influences could be also be loan-words of an abstract sense. For example, the Chuvash word pinĕsh "thousand" has Latin match finis "end, limit". The specific meaning of the Chuvash word that originates from the Türkic biŋ "thousand" suggests that when the Türks have learned counting at least till thousand, Indo-Europeans who have no common words for so many, understood Türkic word as a finite number.

It is worth recalling that the Chuvash language has no letters for voiced consonants in native Chuvash words, so Chuvash p may correspond to Latin b or v. Maybe some part of these examples originated still from the ancient times, when all the Türks populated the territory between the Dnieper and the Don, but separate later isolated Bulgarish-Italic connections and more ancient Türkic-Italic ones is not yet possible. It is only clear, that of all Türkic the Chuvash language has most connections with the Italic languages well reflected in Latin. This indicates that prolonged proximity the Bulgars and Italics until that time when the latter migrated to Apennines. An interesting evidence of this neighbourhood can be Chuv păyaxam “brother-in-law”. It is impossible to explain this word by means the modern Chuvash language , but if you use other Türkic languages and Latin, then it can be understood as a "sister's husband" (Latin homo “man, male”, Turkm bajy "husband’s sister" Tur bacı "sister"). Truth to tell, păyaxam means “husband’s brother”. The discrepancy of the made interpretation can be explained by the fact that the names of relatives may be different depending on the side of kinship, which often leads to a change of the meaning of the same word.

We hypothesized that after leaving their Urheimat Italics, their area was settled by the Thracians, who came here from the left bank of the Dnieper. Some group of ancient Greeks delayed during their migration somewhere south of the river Ros’, while most of them retreated to the Peloponnese. Obviously, the Phrygians and ancient Armenians settled further south. In this case, the Bulgars had to move further west, staying in the neighborhood with all of them. When the Germanic tribes moved south and east to the Dnieper River, the Bulgars became an opportunity for language contact with the Germans. Because we do not have enough lexical material of the Thracian and Phrygian languages and the Armenian words of Türkic origin can be borrowed from Turkish at historical time, convincing evidence for the presence of the Bulgars in the Western Ukraine can be only Chuvash-Greek and Chuvash-Germanic linguistic parallels.

The full list of Greek-Chuvash Lexical correspondences is reported separately.

The tracks of binary Bulgar-German contacts appear in numerous lexical correspondences between the German and the Chuvash language, which are so numerous that they can be the subject of a separate investigation. Below are some examples of them:

Chuv ătăr “an otter” – OG *utra, Eng otter , Germ Otter.

Chuv ăvăs “asp, aspen” – OG *apso, OE æps, Germ Espe “asp, aspen”.

Chuv avlan “to marry” – OE ǽwnian, ǽwan “to marry”.

Chuv čětre “to tremble” (common Türkic root titr) – Germ zittern “to tremble”.

Chuv jěkel “acorn” – OG *aikel, Germ Eichel “acorn”.

Chuv kavle “to chew” – Germ kauen “to chew”.

Chuv kěrt “flock” – OG *herdo, Germ Herde, Eng herd, Sw hjord “herd, flock”.

Chuv palt “fast, quick” – OG *balþa, “bold, courageous”, eng. bold, Germ bald “fast, soon”.

Chuv săpsa „wasp” – OG * wabso “wasp” (OE wæfs, wæps, Germ Wespe), (here also Sl osa “wasp”).

Chuv sěre „very” – Middle High Germ sēre, OE sāre, Germ sehr “very”.

Chuv çirěp “stark”, Sir Gerard Clauson restores Türkic *jarp (jarpuz) as “herb” (Uzb jalpiz, Kaz žalbyz the plant mint (Mentha L.), Xakani- jarp “firm, solid”, etc”) – Eng herb, Germ herb.

Chuv tu “to do” – Germ tun, Eng to do, Dt doen “to do”.

Chuv turǎ “god” (from Türkic teŋgri) – OG þunre “thundergod, Thor”.

Chuv vak “wake” – OG *wakwo, Germ Wake, Eng wake, Sw vak “wake”.

Chuv větel “a double-snipe” – Ger Wachtel (O.H.G wahtel) “a quail”.

Chuv vulǎ “trunk, stem” – OE wala, walu “stick, staff”.

Chuv xaltară “to freeze” – OG *kalda, Germ kalt, Eng cold “cold”.

Chuv xatăr “cheerful” – OE hador, Germ heiter “cheerful”.

Chuv xitren “good, fine” – OE cytren “beautiful”.

Chuv xüte “defence” – OG *hoda, Germ Hut, Eng hood, hat, Swhatt “defence”.

Chuv ytla “superfluous” – West Germ. *ídla “insignificant, vain”, Germ eitel, Eng idle, Dt ijdel.

The relationship between Chuv tăm "clay" and German words of the same sense having phonetic similarity is rather complex. According to F. Kluge Ger Ton “clay” originates from Gmc. *þahon/þanhon in accordance with OE þō(he) and Goth þāho. Then the old Germanic word can be borrowed from Türkic where clay is named by such words as Chuv tuyăn, Gag tuyan, Tat. duen. One way or another, but the similarity of the names of the clay in the German and the Türkic languages should also be taken into account. The Chuvash language has also words which German origin is though not certainly, but possible. An example can be Chuv eran "boundary", similar to Ger Rain "border", but similar words are also found in Iranian languages. The following parallel can be taken into account too: Chuv hěrt "to warm" – WGmc * herta "stove" (Germ Herd, Eng. hearth, a Dt haard).

The existence of the German-Chuvash lexical parallels was previously pointed out by some experts, in particular by G. Kornilov. In one of his papers, he cited several German-Chuvash lexical similarities, but did not give them a convincing explanation . Targeted searches give us more and more examples. In accordance with made localization, the boundary between the Teutons and the Bulgars took place along the watershed of the basin of the Pripyat and the Dniester. Since it was enough feebly, the language contact between the population were pretty close, and that affected multiple lexical correspondences between the modern German and Chuvash languagee.

Similarly, cultural exchange was also intense. In particular, the Indo-Europeans were acquainted with many metals over the Bulgars, as evidenced by the etymology of their names, considered by the author in the article "The names of metals in the Indo-European and Türkic languages".

Also, many Indo-European names of plants have Türkic origin. This topic is considered in the article "Common Türkic and Indo-European lexical inheritance in the names of plants." Here two matching names of herbs are very interesting. The first of these is: Chuv armuti "wormwood" and Ger Wermut "the same". In the etymological dictionary of German (KLUGE FRIEDRICH, SEEBOLD ELMAR. 1989), the German word derived from the WGmc *wermada, which allegedly has a distant lexical parallels in Celtic – *swerwo "bitter". However, taking into account the Chuvash form, the close parallel has to be Lat artemisia "wormwood", which could be borrowed from Old Bulgar with metathesis of the consonants. Chuvash word armuti itself is a modification of the two Chuvash words erĕm (another name of wormwood) and ută "grass", ie, literally, "wormwood-grass." Türkic origin of the word has no doubt, because such words exist in other Türkic languages: Tat erem, Uz erman, Yak erbehin - all "wormwood". Greek αρωμα "smell, scent", taken later in many languages, also has Türkic origin.

The second match in the name of grasses: Cuv pultăran "hogweed, cow parsnip" – Ger Baldrian "valeriana". Hogweed and valeriana are quite similar to each other, so the transfer of names is possible.The Latin name of the plant Valeriana obviously was changed under the influence of Lat valere "to be strong". German word phonetically is more like Tur baldiran "hogweed". The name of these plants, of course, has Türkic origin, as these words are also found in other Türkic languages. When and wich Indo-European language was borrowed these words is unclear. By Title grass is relevant and The following example has also relation to grass name. Sir Gerard Clauson restores the ancient Türkic word *jarp (jarpuz) meaning "rough, tart" on warrant of Uzb jalpiz, Kaz žalbyz “mint”, Xakani jarp "strong, solid". Chuvash çirěp "strong", Eng. herb, Ger herb “tart" can be related to them.

Some German-Chuvash Lexical parallels have matches in Greek and Latin. F. Kluge allowed the relation Germ Harz "wood tar, turpentine" to Gr κηρασ “cell of honeycomb”. In that case, Chuv karas "honeycomb" applies here too.. Obviously, the word has Indo-European origin, since this root is not fixed in other Türkic languages, In the Kluge’s dictionary Ger Volk "people" with matches Eng folk, Sw volc "the same", is marked as "no opportunity to compare". Meanwhile, you can compare them with Chuv pulkkǎ "flock". Bulgar, the ancient name of the Türkic tribe, the ancestors of the Chuvashes, derived from the same root. Latin words vulgus "people", "flock", "crowd", vulgaris "ordinary", was obviously borrowed from the Bulgar language. It is not clear from any Indo-European language borrowed Chuv karta "fence" The words of this root existed in the Greek, Latin and Germanic languages: Gr χορτοσ "enclosure, fence “, Lat. hortus"garden", Gmc. *gardon, Ger Garten, eng. Garden. Another example is the following isogloss: Chuv măkăn – Ger Mohn (an ancient form *mæhon) – Gr μηκων "poppy". Search of the origin of this word attention was drew to the Arm makan “stem, twig”. Perhaps the name oh the poppy comes from its high stem. Then it must have origin in Turk. baqan “pillar” which previously could have extended sense "stalk, stem".

Interference of the Bulgars and the neighboring Germanic peoples reflected not only in vocabulary but in beliefs and customs. This is the theme of individual studies, but some examples can be already provided. Chuvash name of deity tură can be compared with the German name of the god Thor (Donar), the son of Odin. German name, originally meant "thunder", had the form *þunra, resembling the name of the supreme deity of the Türks Täŋri (literally "sky"), from which Chuv tură originated. Without a doubt, this deity has been borrowed by the Germans from the Bulgars as many other mythical creatures. For example, Bulgarish mythical character, who is still preserved in the Chuvash folklore as Ulăp "giant, hero" and has a match in most of the tales of the Türkic peoples (Tur, Uzb alp, Tat., Kaz alyp, etc.), can be connected with German character of a different nature: Ger Alp, Alb «goblin, evil spirit," Eng elf. Giving an awesome value for other people's deities or mythical character is quite understandable. If desired, such examples can be found in the mythology. In the Ukraine, long since children has been calmed down by frightening with some scary "Babay", which is quite possible to correspond with Papay, mainly Scythian god.