Isn't there any positive legacy of the Mongolian occupation in Russia?

Isn't there any positive legacy of the Mongolian occupation in Russia?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

In the BBC radio 4 series The Wild East, the history of Russia after the Mongolian occupation is described as if all the bad things happend subsequently had been caused by the legacy of that era. Isn't there any positive legacy of the Mongolian occupation in Russia ? For example, didn't the newly opened up trade route to the east benefit the economy of Russia ? Wasn't the cultural influence from the east one of the appeals of the Russian music to the West European audiences in the early 20th century ?

Interesting question and highly creative conjectures but ultimately the answer is no. The trade routes didn't play much of a role: Russian trade remained oriented on Western Europe; as for the great Russian music, it was the product of the 19-20th centuries and followed and developed, once again, Western patterns.

So, to sum up: I can't think of any positive influence the Mongol overlordship had (it's a more accurate term then occupation, in this context). The negative legacies are legion.

EDIT: I was asked to provide references. Right now on the fly I found this chapter (in Russian) from a recent (2001) book called "Ten centuries of Russian mentality". I'll quote a bit in the original:

Татарское владычество наложило свою печать на характер русских князей: сознание постоянной опасности довело до высшей степени свойственные им недоверчивость и осторожность. Резко изменился и образ их жизни. С появлением татар князья и их окружение стали запирать своих жен в теремах, прятать свои сокровища в церквах и монастырях. Н. Карамзин писал об этом периоде: "Забыв гордость народную, мы выучились низким хитростям рабства, заменяющим силу в слабых; обманывая татар, более обманывали и друг друга; откупаясь деньгами от насилия варваров, стали корыстолюбивее и бесчувственнее к обидам, к стыду, подверженные наглостям иноплеменных тиранов. От времен Василия Ярославича до Иоанна Калиты (период самый несчастнейший!) Отечество наше походило более на темный лес, нежели на государство: сила казалась правом; кто мог, грабил; не только чужие, но и свои; не было безопасности ни в пути, ни дома; татьбы сделались общею язвою собственности"13. Ему вторил А. Герцен, писавший позднее: "У преследуемого, разоренного, всегда запуганного народа появились черты хитрости и угодливости, присущие всем угнетенным: общество пало духом " 14.

For lack of time I'll have to make do with a slightly-edited Google Translate translation:

Tatar domination has left its mark on the character of the Russian princes: consciousness constant danger brought to the highest degree the inherent distrust and caution. Dramatically changed their way of life. With the Tatar princes and their entourage were locked in a mansion of their wives, hide their treasures in churches and monasteries. Karamzin wrote about this period: "Forgetting the people's pride, we learned the low cunning of slavery, which substitutes for force in the weak, deceiving the Tatars, a cheat, and each other, buying off the the violence of the barbarians, became greedy and insensitive to insults and the shame, exposed to the rapacity of foreign tyrants. From the time of Basil Yaroslavich until John Kalita (during the most miserable!) our motherland was more like a dark forest, rather than a state: might was right, and who could, robbed, not only strangers, but also his own people, there was no security neither on road nor in home; seizure of property became a common plague" He was seconded by Alexander Herzen, who wrote later: "The persecuted, ruined, always frightened people acquire the features of cunning and obsequiousness, common to all the oppressed: the society has fallen in spirit".

I would recommend reading Lev Gumilëv works if you'd like to look onto positive sides of Mongol (or Tartar-Mongol) occupation, starting with this assay (1)[in Russian] and its main source (2). One of his points is that Mongols were allies in fight against Teuton and Livonian orders.

As to neutral impact, one should first of all look at the numerous loanwords from Turkic languages, such as e.g. 'Kreml'

1) Луков Д. Особенности позиции Л.Н. Гумилева по проблеме Русь и татаро-монголы. Томский Политехнический Университет

2) Гумилёв Л.Н. От Руси к России. - М.: Прогресс.

Also Karamzin, who was mentioned above, is of Turkic origin (name coming from Turkic 'Kara Murza', Black Prince).

The biggest positive effect that the Mongols had was the unification of Russia into a more or less centralised state under a single ruler. Russia had long been divided in city-states with varying degrees of political association and cooperation. The Mongols broke the power of most of these city-states. With the big powers such as Kiev and Vladimir taken out, smaller cities such as Moscow managed to prosper.

The city of Vladimir never recovered as well as Moscow did from the blow it had been dealt, and eventually it was eclipsed by Moscow in importance. Especially when Moscow became the religious capital of Russia. Vladimir had been the seat of the metropolitan of Kiev (the religious leader of Kievan Rus'), but in 1325 this seat was moved to Moscow.

Moscow prospered even more after the khan started to directly support its domination of Russian lands in an effort to counter the rising power and influence of Lithuania. Eventually Moscow grew powerful enough to defeat the Mongols and unite most of the cities of Russia in a single state. That is probably the only real positive effect the Mongols had on Russia.

my guess is that cultural transfer from mongols to russians was huge.

no that they teach russians to build ships, calculate trade and play flute, but consider this:

sophisticated 'honour' system between lords distinguish russian from european mentality until now. and allow russians to survive many turbulent periods. mongol operation of masses and armies was more eye-eye, body-body contact and feeling to feeling, rather than western word-by-word, paper-by-paper approach. and russians seem learned that from mongols to my vision. russians will follow the leader that will breathe and blink at a proper rate rather than the one who speaks right words about freedom.

even these days this approach allows putin to consolidate forces around kremlin. this is definetly positive if existance of russia is considered positive.

then russians learned about asia from mongols, which later allowed to extend small country to the pacific, to persia and to china borders. is that positive?

yes the idea that russia those days was not occupied but rather like a state within US is accepted by many russians. then invasions should be called local suppression.

above someone mention religion-tolerance. yes, seems to me, russian culture in this area is also seem to be mongol-like. russian will not follow religious rituals in detail but would try to achieve God's(or ancestor or spirit) support in their activites. Russians for centuries would base their strategic decisions on their religion experience. Last czar planned WW1 activities based on "advices from god" he received while praying or from prophets (like rasputin).

just like mongols russians will support or leave alone those who pray the 'right god', and cast away or kill those who pray to a 'wrong gods'. this is quite positive, in some sense. as western style of religion-tolerance is to leave alone anybody who claims to do praying.

of course mongol unwritten 'honor system' or 'the way to communicate and cooperate efficiently in sophisticated manner across large areas in long term over generations without breaking apart in small fractions' is what holds russia together until now. this is most positive outcome. I cannot see how russia would survive so close to burning europe without that "we are huge together" mentality of mongols.

Scientists Finally Know What Stopped Mongol Hordes From Conquering Europe

In 1206, Genghis Khan, a fierce tribal chieftain from northern Mongolia, began to take over the world. The khan’s ruthless tactics and loyal horde swept across Asia.

One territory after another fell under the overwhelming force of the Mongol Empire, which would eventually stretch from the eastern shores of China. A series of successful forays in Hungary and Poland made even Europe seem within reach of conquering.

But this unstoppable wave of victories in Europe suddenly ended. Almost as soon as the Mongols set their sights set on Austria, they abruptly returned to Asia.

Historians could only guess why until now, since written accounts from the point of view of Mongol military leaders are sparse. But a new study in the journal Scientific Reports looked at a different kind of record to solve the mystery of the horde’s abrupt exit from central Europe: tree rings.

This wooden chronicle revealed that a cold and wet period set in for years, leading "to reduced pastureland and decreased mobility, as well as hampering the military effectiveness of the Mongol cavalry", according to a press release.

Here’s how the Mongols rose to power - and how natural climate change may have forced them to cut their losses and stop a fearsome war of attrition.

Before Hungary

When Genghis Khan died in 1227, he left his son, Ogodei, a territory that extended from northeast China to the Caspian Sea, just north of modern-day Iran. In total, it measured an astounding 11 million square miles (28 million square km).

"Whether measured by the total number of people defeated, the sum of the countries annexed, or by the total area occupied, Genghis Khan conquered more than twice as much as any man in history," writes historian Jack Weatherford in his book, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.

After Genghis’ death, Ogodei Khan carried forward his father’s legacy. The khanate expanded to the east and west, conquering the remainder of northwest China and pushing into Russia, aided by a wet period that allowed the Mongol armies to bring thousands of horses across the largest desert in Asia: the Gobi.

By 1240, Kiev had been sacked and the horde was rapidly advancing west. Their cavalry and siege tactics were laying waste to the cities of Europe, and, perhaps more importantly, they brought along Chinese gunpowder.

This series of unqualified successes brought the vast Mongol army to Hungary in March 1241. King Bela IV fled his palace in Pest (now Budapest), and Ogodei’s armies slaughtered an estimated 1 million Hungarians: Troops, clerics, nobles, knights, and peasants. It was one of the bloodiest defeats of the medieval period.

In December of 1241, Ogodei Khan died unexpectedly. Some historians have argued that Batu, Ogodei’s nephew who had been leading the western campaign, turned back toward the Mongol capital of Karakorum for the election of a new leader.

But Batu never returned returned to Mongolia, instead remaining in southern Russia to rule the Golden Horde. Meanwhile, Ogodei’s wife, Toregene, took power as the Great Khatun.

An abrupt end

The following year, everything changed. The horde suddenly turned south, moving through modern-day Serbia, and then headed back through Russia. Though subsequent khans staged occasional raids on European cities, the major war campaign was over.

Several hypotheses exist as to why the army abandoned their western front, but, the authors of the new paper argue, none are fully sufficient to explain the change in course.

The authors sampled wood from five regions of Eurasia to track what the weather was like during the period of the Mongols’ most extensive reach.

Sarah Kramer

Trees are especially sensitive to small changes in climactic conditions: in wet years, they add thick layers of bark to their trunks. In dry years, the rings are thinner, reflecting the lack of water to a tree.

They found the climate in Hungary and its surroundings were unusually cold and wet for about three years, from 1238 to 1241. The extra moisture and early spring thaw turned the Hungarian plains into marshes and swampland - unsuitable terrain for moving the thousands of horses the Mongol armies relied on for transportation and warfare.

The last year of the eastern European campaign, 1242, they note, was especially damp. This led to crop spoilage, further reducing the food supply for the khan’s hordes. Famine later set in and killed thousands in the region.

It’s likely that Ogodei’s commanders chose a southern route because of its relatively drier conditions, the authors write, directing them away from Europe.

What happened to the Mongols afterward? Ogodei Khan’s death kicked off a spate of power struggles among Genghis’ sons and grandsons, fracturing the Mongol Empire into pieces that never reunified.

His lineage, however, continued to found dynasties in India, China, Persia, and Siberia. The Mongol people continue to live in China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and modern-day Mongolia, where Genghis Khan’s portrait appears on currency, vodka, and cigarettes, and his name even graces Ulaanbaatar’s international airport.

As scientists gain the ability to examine the climate record in greater detail, we’re discovering more about how climate shaped history. Unusual climates probably allowed Polynesians to spread out across the South Pacific, led to the fall of an ancient metropolis in pre-colonial Mexico, and encouraged Attila the Hun’s campaign of terror against the Roman Empire 800 years before Genghis Khan.

The authors conclude that their study of the Mongolian withdrawal from Hungary, "illustrates the incidence of even small climate fluctuations upon a historical event".

It also hints at a lesson for our climate future: a few degrees is all it takes to change the course of human history.

This article was originally published by Business Insider.

2. He had a rough childhood.

From an early age, Genghis was forced to contend with the brutality of life on the Mongolian Steppe. Rival Tatars poisoned his father when he was only nine, and his own tribe later expelled his family and left his mother to raise her seven children alone. Genghis grew up hunting and foraging to survive, and as an adolescent he may have even murdered his own half-brother in a dispute over food. During his teenage years, rival clans abducted both he and his young wife, and Genghis spent time as a slave before making a daring escape. Despite all these hardships, by his early 20s he had established himself as a formidable warrior and leader. After amassing an army of supporters, he began forging alliances with the heads of important tribes. By 1206, he had successfully consolidated the steppe confederations under his banner and began to turn his attention to outside conquest.


Mongolian is the official national language of Mongolia, where it is spoken (but not always written) by nearly 3.6 million people (2014 estimate), [6] and the official provincial language (both spoken and written forms) of Inner Mongolia, China, where there are at least 4.1 million ethnic Mongols. [7] Across the whole of China, the language is spoken by roughly half of the country's 5.8 million ethnic Mongols (2005 estimate) [6] However, the exact number of Mongolian speakers in China is unknown, as there is no data available on the language proficiency of that country's citizens. The use of Mongolian in Inner Mongolia, has witnessed periods of decline and revival over the last few hundred years. The language experienced a decline during the late Qing period, a revival between 1947 and 1965, a second decline between 1966 and 1976, a second revival between 1977 and 1992, and a third decline between 1995 and 2012. [8] However, in spite of the decline of the Mongolian language in some of Inner Mongolia's urban areas and educational spheres, the ethnic identity of the urbanized Chinese-speaking Mongols is most likely going to survive due to the presence of urban ethnic communities. [9] The multilingual situation in Inner Mongolia does not appear to obstruct efforts by ethnic Mongols to preserve their language. [10] [11] Although an unknown number of Mongols in China, such as the Tumets, may have completely or partially lost the ability to speak their language, they are still registered as ethnic Mongols and continue to identify themselves as ethnic Mongols. [6] [12] The children of inter-ethnic Mongol-Chinese marriages also claim to be and are registered as ethnic Mongols. [13] In 2020, Chinese government required three subjects — language and literature, politics, and history — to be taught in Mandarin in Mongolian language primary and secondary schools in the Inner Mongolia since September, which caused widespread protests among ethnic Mongol communities. [14] [15] These protests were quickly suppressed by the Chinese government. [16]

Mongolian belongs to the Mongolic languages. The delimitation of the Mongolian language within Mongolic is a much disputed theoretical problem, one whose resolution is impeded by the fact that existing data for the major varieties is not easily arrangeable according to a common set of linguistic criteria. Such data might account for the historical development of the Mongolian dialect continuum, as well as for its sociolinguistic qualities. Though phonological and lexical studies are comparatively well developed, [17] the basis has yet to be laid for a comparative morphosyntactic study, for example between such highly diverse varieties as Khalkha and Khorchin. [18] [19]

The status of certain varieties in the Mongolic group—whether they are languages distinct from Mongolian or just dialects of it—is disputed. There are at least three such varieties: Oirat (including the Kalmyk variety) and Buryat, both of which are spoken in Russia, Mongolia, and China and Ordos, spoken around Inner Mongolia's Ordos City. [20]

There is no disagreement that the Khalkha dialect of the Mongolian state is Mongolian. [21] Beyond this one point, however, agreement ends. For example, the influential classification of Sanžeev (1953) proposed a "Mongolian language" consisting of just the three dialects Khalkha, Chakhar, and Ordos, with Buryat and Oirat judged to be independent languages. [22]

On the other hand, Luvsanvandan (1959) proposed a much broader "Mongolian language" consisting of a Central dialect (Khalkha, Chakhar, Ordos), an Eastern dialect (Kharchin, Khorchin), a Western dialect (Oirat, Kalmyk), and a Northern dialect (consisting of two Buryat varieties). [23] Additionally, the Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice Since 1949, states that Mongolian can be classified into four dialects: the Khalkha dialect in the middle, the Horcin-Haracin dialect in the East, Oriat-Hilimag in the west, and Bargu-Buriyad in the north. [24]

Some Western scholars [25] propose that the relatively well researched Ordos variety is an independent language due to its conservative syllable structure and phoneme inventory. While the placement of a variety like Alasha, [26] which is under the cultural influence of Inner Mongolia but historically tied to Oirat, and of other border varieties like Darkhad would very likely remain problematic in any classification, [27] the central problem remains the question of how to classify Chakhar, Khalkha, and Khorchin in relation to each other and in relation to Buryat and Oirat. [28] The split of [tʃ] into [tʃ] before *i and [ts] before all other reconstructed vowels, which is found in Mongolia but not in Inner Mongolia, is often cited as a fundamental distinction, [29] for example Proto-Mongolic *tʃil , Khalkha /tʃiɮ/ , Chakhar /tʃil/ 'year' versus Proto-Mongolic *tʃøhelen , Khalkha /tso:ɮəŋ/ , Chakhar /tʃo:ləŋ/ 'few'. [30] On the other hand, the split between the past tense verbal suffixes - in the Central varieties vs. - dʒɛː in the Eastern varieties [31] is usually seen as a merely stochastic difference. [32]

In Inner Mongolia, official language policy divides the Mongolian language into three dialects: Southern Mongolian, Oirat, and Barghu-Buryat. Southern Mongolian is said to consist of Chakhar, Ordos, Baarin, Khorchin, Kharchin, and Alasha. The authorities have synthesized a literary standard for Mongolian in whose grammar is said to be based on Southern Mongolian and whose pronunciation is based on the Chakhar dialect as spoken in the Plain Blue Banner. [33] Dialectologically, however, western Southern Mongolian dialects are closer to Khalkha than they are to eastern Southern Mongolian dialects: for example, Chakhar is closer to Khalkha than to Khorchin. [34]

Besides Mongolian, or "Central Mongolic", other languages in the Mongolic grouping include Dagur, spoken in eastern Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang, and in the vicinity of Tacheng in Xinjiang the Shirongolic subgroup Shira Yugur, Bonan, Dongxiang, Monguor, and Kangjia, spoken in Qinghai and Gansu regions and the possibly extinct Moghol of Afghanistan. [35]

As for the classification of the Mongolic family relative to other languages, the Altaic theory (which is increasingly less well received among linguists [36] ) proposes that the Mongolic family is a member of a larger Altaic family that would also include the Turkic and Tungusic, and usually Koreanic languages and Japonic languages as well.

List of dialects Edit

Juha Janhunen (2003: 179) [37] lists the following Mongol dialects, most of which are spoken in Inner Mongolia.

  • Tongliao group
    • Khorchin (Qurciv)
    • Jasagtu (Jasaqdu)
    • Jarut (Jarut)
    • Jalait (Jalajit)
    • Dörbet (Tuirbat)
    • Gorlos (Qhurlus)
    • Aru Khorchin (vAru Qurciv)
    • Baarin (Baqhariv)
    • Ongniut (vUvgniqhut)
    • Naiman (Naimav)
    • Aokhan (vAuqav)
    • Kharachin (Qaraciv)
    • Tümet (Tuimat)
    • Chakhar (Caqar)
    • Urat (vUrat)
    • Darkhan (Tarqav)
    • Muumingan (Muumivgqhav)
    • Dörben Küüket (Tuirbav Gaugat)
    • Keshigten (Gasigdav)
    • Üdzümüchin (vUiczumuciv)
    • Khuuchit (Qaqhucit)
    • Abaga (vAbaqhe)
    • Abaganar (vAbaqhanar)
    • Sönit (Suinit)

    Juha Janhunen – 'Mongolian' book – from 2012 Edit

    In Juha Janhunen's book titled "Mongolian", he groups the Mongolic language family into 4 distinct linguistic branches: [38]

    • the Dagur branch, made up of just the Dagur language, which is spoken in the northeast area of Manchuria in China, specifically in Morin Dawa Daur Autonomous Banner of Hulunbuir, and in Meilisi Daur District of Qiqihar, Heilongjiang.
    • the Moghol branch, made up of just the Moghol language, spoken in Afghanistan, and is possibly extinct.
    • the Shirongolic (or Southern Mongolic) branch, made up of roughly 7 languages, and which are spoken in the Amdo region of Tibet.
    • the Common Mongolic (or Central Mongolic – see Mongolic languages) branch, made up of roughly 6 languages, and which are spoken centrally in the country of Mongolia, as well as Manchuria and Inner Mongolia to the east, Ordos to the south, Dzungaria to the west, and Siberia to the north.
    Shirongolic/Southern Mongolic (part of a Gansu–Qinghai Sprachbund) Edit

    The Shirongolic branch of the Mongolic language family is made up of roughly 7 languages, grouped in the following way: [38]

    Common Mongolic/Central Mongolic Edit

    The Common Mongolic (or Central Mongolic – see Mongolic languages) branch of the Mongolic language family is made up of roughly 6 languages, grouped in the following way: [38]

      (Xalx), or the Khalkha group of dialects, are spoken centrally in the country of Mongolia, but some dialects, e.g. Chakhar are also spoken in the Inner Mongolia region of China. (Xorcen), or the Khorchin group of dialects, are spoken to the east, in the eastern part of Inner Mongolia and Manchuria. (Ordes), is spoken to the south, in the Ordos city of Inner Mongolia. (Oired), is spoken to the west, in Dzungaria. (Xamyen'gen), or Khamnigan Mongol, is spoken to the northeast, in the northeast of the country Mongolia, and also in northwest of the Manchuria of China. (Bouryaad), is spoken to the north, in the Republic of Buryatia of Russia, as well as the Barga (Bargu) region of Hulun Buir League in the Inner Mongolia region of China.

    The following description is based primarily on the Khalkha dialect as spoken in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia's capital. The phonologies of other varieties such as Ordos, Khorchin, and even Chakhar, differ considerably. [39] This section discusses the phonology of Khalkha Mongolian with subsections on Vowels, Consonants, Phonotactics and Stress.

    Vowels Edit

    The standard language has seven monophthong vowel phonemes. They are aligned into three vowel harmony groups by a parameter called ATR (advanced tongue root) the groups are −ATR, +ATR, and neutral. This alignment seems to have superseded an alignment according to oral backness. However, some scholars still describe Mongolian as being characterized by a distinction between front vowels and back vowels, and the front vowel spellings 'ö' and 'ü' are still often used in the West to indicate two vowels which were historically front. The Mongolian vowel system also has rounding harmony.

    Length is phonemic for vowels, and each of the seven phonemes occurs short or long. Phonetically, short /o/ has become centralized to the central vowel [ɵ] .

    In the following table, the seven vowel phonemes, with their length variants, are arranged and described phonetically. The vowels in the Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet are:

    IPA (International
    а, аа [a, aː] a, aa
    и, ий/ы [i, iː] i, ii
    о, оо [ɔ, ɔː] o, oo
    ө, өө [ɵ, oː] /o, oː/ ö, öö
    у, уу [ʊ, ʊː] u, uu
    ү, үү [u, uː] ü, üü
    э, ээ [e, eː] e, ee
    Front Central Back
    Short Long Short Long Short Long
    Close i u
    Near-Close ʊ ʊː
    Close-Mid e ɵ
    Open-mid ɔ ɔː
    Open a

    Khalkha also has four diphthongs: /ui, ʊi, ɔi, ai/ . [40] Vowels can also combine to form a further three diphthongs, and so seven in total: ia (иа), ʊa (уа) ei (эй). For example: aй in далай (sea), иа in амиараа (individually), ой in нохой (dog), уа in хуаран (barracks), уй in уйлах (to cry), үй in үйлдвэр (factory), эй in хэрэгтэй (necessary). [41]

    ATR harmony. Mongolian divides vowels into three groups in a system of vowel harmony:

    +ATR ("front") −ATR ("back") Neutral
    IPA Characters e, u, o a, ʊ, ɔ i
    Mongolian Cyrillic characters э, ү, ө а, у, о и and й

    As mentioned, for historical reasons these have traditionally been labeled as "front" vowels and "back" vowels. Indeed, in Romanized transcription of Mongolian, the vowels /o/ and /u/ are often conventionally rendered as ⟨ö⟩ and ⟨ü⟩, while the vowels /ɔ/ and /ʊ/ are expressed as ⟨o⟩ and ⟨u⟩ (this is also the case in the nonphonological sections of this article). However, for modern Mongolian phonology, it seems more appropriate to instead characterize the two vowel-harmony groups by the dimension of tongue root position. There is also one neutral vowel, /i/ , not belonging to either group.

    All the vowels in a noncompound word, including all its suffixes, must belong to the same group. If the first vowel is −ATR, then every vowel of the word must be either /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 contain an archiphoneme /A/ that can be realized as /a, ɔ, e, o/ . For example:

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

    Other suffixes can occur in /U/ being realized as /ʊ, u/ , in which case all −ATR vowels lead to /ʊ/ and all +ATR vowels lead to /u/ . For example:

    If the only vowel in the word stem is /i/ , the suffixes will use the +ATR suffix forms. [42]

    Rounding harmony. Mongolian also has rounding harmony, which does not apply to close vowels. 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/ . E.g. ɔr-ɮɔ came in, but ɔr-ʊɮ-ɮa inserted. [43]

    Vowel length. The 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. A long vowel has about 208% the length of a short vowel. In word-medial and word-final syllables, formerly long vowels are now only 127% as long as short vowels in initial syllables, but they are still distinct from initial-syllable short vowels. Short vowels in noninitial syllables differ from short vowels in initial syllables by being only 71% as long and by being centralized in articulation. As they are nonphonemic, their position is determined according to phonotactic requirements. [44]

    Consonants Edit

    The following table lists the consonants of Khalkha Mongolian. The consonants enclosed in parentheses occur only in loanwords. [45]

    Labial Dental Velar Uvular
    plain pal. plain pal. plain pal.
    Nasal m n ŋ
    Plosive voiceless/voiced p t ɡ ɡʲ ɢ
    voiceless aspirated ( pʰ ) ( pʲʰ ) tʲʰ ( kʰ ) ( kʲʰ )
    Affricate voiceless ts
    voiceless aspirated tsʰ tʃʰ
    Fricative central ( f ) s ʃ x
    lateral ɮ ɮʲ
    Trill r
    Approximant w̜ʲ j

    A striking and rare feature among the world's languages, Mongolian lacks the voiced lateral approximant, [l] instead, it has a voiced alveolar lateral fricative, /ɮ/ , which is often realized as voiceless [ɬ] . [46] In word-final position, /n/ (if not followed by a vowel in historical forms) is realized as [ŋ] . The occurrence of palatalized consonant phonemes seems to be restricted to words that contain [−ATR] vowels. [47] Aspirated consonants are preaspirated in medial and word-final contexts, devoicing preceding consonants and vowels. Devoiced short vowels are often deleted. [48]

    Syllable structure and phonotactics Edit

    The maximal syllable is CVVCCC, where the last C is a word-final suffix. A single short vowel rarely appears in syllable-final position. If a word was monosyllabic historically, *CV has become CVV. [ŋ] is restricted to codas (else it becomes [n] ), and /p/ and /pʲ/ do not occur in codas for historical reasons. For two-consonant clusters, the following restrictions obtain:

    • a palatalized consonant can be preceded only by another palatalized consonant or sometimes by /ɢ/ and /ʃ/
    • /ŋ/ may precede only /ʃ, x, ɡ, ɡʲ/ and /ɢ/
    • /j/ does not seem to appear in second position
    • /p/ and /pʲ/ do not occur as first consonant and as second consonant only if preceded by /m/ or /ɮ/ or their palatalized counterparts.

    Clusters that do not conform to these restrictions will be broken up by an epenthetic nonphonemic 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 [saːrmăɢ] . 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 nonneutral vowel earlier in the word and a postalveolar or palatalized consonant will be followed by an epenthetic [i] , as in [atʃĭɮ] . [49]

    Stress Edit

    Stress in Mongolian is nonphonemic (does not distinguish different meanings) and thus is considered to depend entirely on syllable structure. But scholarly opinions on stress placement diverge sharply. [50] Most native linguists, regardless of which dialect they speak, claim that stress falls on the first syllable. Between 1941 and 1975, several Western scholars proposed that the leftmost heavy syllable gets the stress. Yet other positions were taken in works published between 1835 and 1915.

    Walker (1997) [51] proposes that stress falls on the rightmost heavy syllable unless this syllable is word-final:

    HˈHLL [pai.ˈɢʊɮ. ɮəɢ.təx] to be organized
    LHˈHL [xon.ti.ˈru.ɮəŋ] separating (adverbial)
    LHHˈHL [ʊ.ɮan.paːtʰ.ˈrin.xəŋ] the residents of Ulaanbaatar
    HˈHH [ʊːr.ˈtʰai.ɢar] angrily
    ˈHLH [ˈʊitʰ.ɢər.tʰai] sad

    A "heavy syllable" is here defined as one that is at least the length of a full vowel short word-initial syllables are thereby excluded. If a word is bisyllabic and the only heavy syllable is word-final, it gets stressed anyway. In cases where there is only one phonemic short word-initial syllable, even this syllable can get the stress: [52]

    LˈH [ɢa.ˈɮʊ] goose
    ˈLL [ˈʊnʃ.səŋ] having read

    More recently, the most extensive collection of phonetic data so far in Mongolian studies has been applied to a partial account of stress placement in the closely related Chakhar dialect. [53] [54] The conclusion is drawn that di- and trisyllabic words with a short first syllable are stressed on the second syllable. But if their first syllable is long, then the data for different acoustic parameters seems to support conflicting conclusions: intensity data often seems to indicate that the first syllable is stressed, while F0 seems to indicate that it is the second syllable that is stressed. [55]

    The grammar here is also based primarily on Khalkha Mongolian. Unlike the phonology, most of what is said about morphology and syntax also holds true for Chakhar, [56] while Khorchin is somewhat more diverse. [57]

    Forming questions Edit

    When asking questions in Mongolian, a question marker is used to show a question is being asked. There are different question markers for yes/no questions and for information questions. For yes/no questions, уу and үү are used when the last word ends in a short vowel or a consonant, and their use depends on the vowel harmony of the previous word. When the last word ends in a long vowel or a diphthong, then юу and юү are used (again depending on vowel harmony). For information questions (questions asking for information with an interrogative word like who, what, when, where, why, etc.), the question particles are вэ and бэ , depending on the last sound in the previous word.

    1. Yes/No Question Particles - уу/үү/юу/юү (uu/üü/yuu/yuü)
    2. Open Ended Question Particles - бэ/вэ (be/ve)

    Basic interrogative pronouns - юу (yuu 'what'), - хаана (khaana 'where'), хэн (khen 'who'), яагаад (yaagaad 'why'), яаж (yaaj 'how'), хэзээ (khezee 'when'), ямар (yamar 'what kind')

    Verbs Edit

    In Mongolian, verbs have a stem and an ending. For example, бай , сур , and үзэ are the stems and take the following endings: х , ах , and х respectively: байx , сурax , and үзэx . These are the infinitive or dictionary forms. [58] The present/future tense is formed by adding either на , но , нэ , or нө to the stem. These do not change for different pronouns, so сурна (I/you/he/she/we/you all/they study) will always be сурна . байна is the present/future tense verb for to be. уншина is to read. үзнэ is to see. The final vowel is barely pronounced and is not pronounced at all if the word after begins with a vowel, so сайн байна уу is pronounced sain bain uu. [58]

    1. Past Tense - сан/сон/сэн/сөн (san/son/sen/sön)
    2. Informed Past Tense (any point in past) - в (v)
    3. Informed Past Tense (not long ago) - лаа/лоо/лээ/лөө (laa/loo/lee/löö)
    4. Non-Informed Past Tense (generally a slightly to relatively more distant past) - жээ/чээ (jee/chee)
    5. Present Perfect Tense - даг/дог/дэг/дөг (dag/dog/deg/dög)
    6. Present Progressive Tense - ж/ч байна (j/ch baina)
    7. (Reflective) Present Progressive Tense - аа/оо/ээ/өө (aa/oo/ee/öö)
    8. Simple Present Tense - на/но/нэ/нө (na/no/ne/nö)
    9. Simple Future - х (+болно) (kh (+bolno))
    10. Infinitive Tense - х (kh)

    Negative form Edit

    There are several ways to form negatives in Mongolian. [59] For example:

    1. биш (bish) – the negative form of the verb 'to be' ( байх baikh) – биш means 'is/are not'.
    2. - гүй (güi). This suffix is added to verbs, for example явах (yavakh – go/will go) becomes явахгүй (yavakhgüi – do not go/will not go).
    3. үгүй (ügüi) is the word for 'no' in Mongolian
    4. битгий (bitgii) is used for negative imperatives, for example битгий яваарай (bitgii yavaarai – don't go)
    5. бүү (büü) is the formal version of битгий .

    Morphology Edit

    Modern Mongolian is an agglutinative, almost exclusively suffixing language, the only exception being reduplication. [60] Mongolian also does not have gendered nouns, or definite articles like "the". [61] Most of the suffixes consist of a single morpheme. There are many derivational morphemes. [62] For example, the word bajguullagynh consists of the root baj- 'to be', an epenthetic -g-, the causative -uul- (hence 'to found'), the derivative suffix -laga that forms nouns created by the action (like -ation in 'organisation') and the complex suffix –ynh denoting something that belongs to the modified word (-yn would be genitive).

    Nominal compounds are quite frequent. Some derivational verbal suffixes are rather productive, e.g. jar'- 'to speak', jarilts- 'to speak with each other'. Formally, the independent words derived using verbal suffixes can roughly be divided into three classes: final verbs, which can only be used sentence-finally, i.e. -na (mainly future or generic statements) or –ø (second person imperative) [63] participles (often called "verbal nouns"), which can be used clause-finally or attributively, i.e. -san (perfect-past) [64] 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). [65]

    Mongolian noun cases [72]
    Case Suffix English preposition Example Translation
    nominative nom book
    accusative - г (-g), - ийг (-iig) nomiig the book (as object)
    genitive - н (-n), - ы (-ii), - ий (-ii), - ийн (-iin), - ын (-iin), - гийн (-giin) of nomiin of (a) book, book's
    dative/locative - д (-d), - ад (-ad), - т (-t) on, to, at, in nomd in (a) book
    ablative long vowel + - с (-s) from nomoos from (a) book
    instrumental long vowel + - р (-r) with nomoor with (e.g. by means of a) book
    comitative -t–i, dependent on vowel, e.g. - тай (-tai), - той (-toi), - тэй (-tei) together with nomtoi with (e.g. alongside a) book

    The nominative case is used when a noun (or other part of speech acting as one) is the subject of the sentence, and the agent of whatever action (not just physically) takes place in the sentence. In Mongolian, the nominative case does not have an ending.

    The accusative case is used when a noun acts as a direct object (or just “object”), and receives action from a transitive verb. It is formed by adding one of the following endings: - ийг (-iig), - ыг (-iig), - г (-g).

    Genitive case Edit

    The genitive case is used to show possession of something. It is formed by adding one of the following endings: -н (n) -ы (i) -ий (ii) -ийн (iin) -ын (in) -гийн (giin). [73] For example:

    1. -н (n) is added to all words which end with a diphthong or ий (ii).
    2. -ы (i) is added to back vowel words ending in -н (n).
    3. -ий (ii) is added to front vowel words ending in н (n).
    4. -ийн (iin) is added to front vowel words ending in short vowels or consonants (except those ending in н), and to back vowel words ending in ж, ч, ш, г, ь, и, and the short vowel will be dropped.
    5. -ын (in) is added to all other back vowel words ending with short vowels or other consonants (except those ending in н).
    6. -гийн (giin) is added to all front and back vowel word ending with long vowels.

    Dative/locative case Edit

    The dative/locative case is used to show the location of something. It is formed by adding one of the following endings to the stem of a word: -д (d), -ад (ad), -ид (id), -т (t). [59] For example:

    1. -д (d) is added to words ending in a vowel, or -м, -н. -л.
    2. -ад (ad) is added to words ending in -д, -з, -ц, -с. -т, -х.
    3. -ид (id) is added to words ending in -ш, -ж or -ч.
    4. -т (t) is added to words ending in -р, -г, or -с (only when -c has a vowel before it).

    Plurals Edit

    Source: [74] Plurality may be left unmarked, but there are overt plurality markers, some of which are restricted to humans. A noun that is modified by a numeral usually does not take any plural affix. [75]

    There are four ways of forming plurals in Mongolian:

    1. Some plurals are formed by adding noːd or -nuːd (нууд or нүүд - nuud or nüüd). If the last vowel of the previous word is a (a), o (y), or ɔ (o), then -noːd (нууд) is used. For example, харx (kharkh - rat) becomes xapхнууд (kharkhnuud - rats). If the last vowel of the previous word is e (э), ʊ (ө), ü (ү), or i (и) then -nuːd (нүүд) is used: for example, нүд (eye) becomes нүднүүд (eyes - nüdnüüd).
    2. In other plurals, just -oːd or -uːd is added with no "n" included. For example, хот (city - khot) becomes хотууд (cities - khotuud), and ээж (mother - eej) becomes ээжүүд (mothers - eejüüd).
    3. Another way of forming plurals is adding -nar. For example, багш (teacher - bagsh) becomes багш нар (teachers - bagsh nar).
    4. The final way is an irregular form used: хүн (khün - person) becomes хүмүүс (khümüüs - people).

    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 particles, the last being rather numerous. [76]

    Personal Pronouns [77]
    Oblique stem
    (used for all other cases)
    1st person singular Би (bi) Намайг (namaig) Миний (minii) Над- (nad-)
    plural exclusive Бид (bid) Биднийг (bidniig) Бидний (bidnii) Бидн- (bidn-)
    inclusive Манай (manai) Ман- (man-)
    2nd person singular familiar Чи (chi) Чамайг (chamaig) Чиний (chinii) Чам- (cham-)
    polite Та (ta) Таныг (tanaig) Таны (tanii)
    plural Та Нар (ta nar) Танай/Та Нарын (Tanai/Ta Napriin) Тан- (tan-)
    3rd person singular Тэр (ter) Түүнийг (tüüniig) Түүний (tüünii)
    plural Тэд Нар (ted nar) Тэднийг (tedniig) Тэд Нарын (ted nariin)

    Negation is mostly expressed by -güi (-гүй) after participles and by the negation particle bish after nouns and adjectives negation particles preceding the verb (for example in converbal constructions) exist, but tend to be replaced by analytical constructions. [78]

    Syntax Edit

    Differential case marking Edit

    Mongolian uses differential case marking, being a regular Differential Object Marking (DOM) language. DOM emerges from a complicated interaction of factors such as referentiality, animacy and topicality.

    Mongolian also exhibits a specific type of Differential Subject Marking (DSM), in which the subjects of embedded clauses (including adverbial clauses) occur with accusative case. [79]

    Phrase structure Edit

    The noun phrase has the order: demonstrative pronoun/numeral, adjective, noun. [80] [68] Attributive sentences precede the whole NP. Titles or occupations of people, low numerals indicating groups, and focus clitics are put behind the head noun. [81] Possessive pronouns (in different forms) may either precede or follow the NP. [82] Examples:

    bid-nij uulz-san ter sajhan zaluu-gaas č

    we-GEN meet-PRF that beautiful FOC

    'even from that beautiful young man that we have met'

    The verbal phrase consists of the predicate in the center, preceded by its complements and by the adverbials modifying it and followed (mainly if the predicate is sentence-final) by modal particles, [83] as in the following example with predicate bičsen:

    ter hel-eh-güj-geer üün-ijg bič-sen šüü

    s/he without:saying it-ACC write-PRF PTC

    's/he wrote it without saying [so] [i.e. without saying that s/he would do so, or that s/he had done so], I can assure you.'

    For Khalkha, the most complete treatment of the verbal forms is Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987. However, the analysis of predication presented here, while valid for Khalkha, is adapted from the description of Khorchin by Matsuoka 2007.

    Clauses Edit

    Unmarked phrase order is subject–object–predicate. [86] [68] While the predicate generally has to remain in clause-final position, the other phrases are free to change order or to wholly disappear. [87] The topic tends to be placed clause-initially, new information rather at the end of the clause. [88] Topic can be overtly marked with bol, which can also mark contrastive focus, [89] overt additive focus ('even, also') can be marked with the clitic č, [90] and overt restrictive focus with the clitic l ('only'). [91]

    The inventory of voices in Mongolian consists of passive, causative, reciprocal, plurative, and cooperative. In a passive sentence, the verb takes the suffix -gd- and the agent takes either dative or instrumental case, the first of which is more common. In the causative, the verb takes the suffix -uul-, the causee (the person caused to do something) in a transitive action (e.g., 'raise') takes dative or instrumental case, and the causee in an intransitive action (e.g., 'rise') takes accusative case. Causative morphology is also used in some passive contexts:

    The semantic attribute of animacy is syntactically important: thus the sentence, 'the bread was eaten by me', which is acceptable in English, would not be acceptable in Mongolian. The reciprocal voice is marked by -ld-, the plurative by -tsgaa-, and the cooperative by -lts-. [92]

    Mongolian allows for adjectival depictives that relate to either the subject or the direct object, e.g. Ljena nücgen untdag 'Lena sleeps naked', while adjectival resultatives are marginal. [93]

    Complex sentences Edit

    One way to conjoin clauses is to have the first clause end in a converb, as in the following example using the converb -bol:

    bid üün-ijg ol-bol čam-d ög-nö

    we it-ACC find-COND.CVB you.FAM-DAT give-FUT

    'if we find it we'll give it to you'

    become.tired-PRF because sleep-WIT.PAST

    'I slept because I was tired'

    Finally, there is a class of particles, usually clause-initial, that are distinct from conjunctions but that also relate clauses:

    bi olson, harin čamd ögöhgüj

    I find-PRF but you-DAT give-IPFV-NEG

    '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 either a psych verb or a verb of saying. As a verbal noun like gedeg (with n' or case) it can form a subset of complement clauses. As gene it may function as an evidentialis marker. [96]

    Mongolian clauses tend to be combined paratactically, which sometimes gives rise to sentence structures which are subordinative despite resembling coordinative structures in European languages: [97] come-CVB I.ACC kiss-PRF

    Mongolian first adopted loanwords from many languages including Old Turkic, Sanskrit (these often through Uighur), Persian, Arabic, Tibetan, [101] Tungusic, and Chinese. [102] However, more recent loanwords come from Russian, English, [103] and Mandarin Chinese (mainly in Inner Mongolia). [104] Language commissions of the Mongolian state continuously translate new terminology into Mongolian, [105] so as the Mongolian vocabulary now has jerönhijlögč 'president' ("generalizer") and šar ajrag 'beer' ("yellow kumys"). There are several loan translations, e.g., galt tereg 'train' ('fire-having cart') from Chinese huǒchē ( 火车 , fire cart) 'train'. [106] Other loan translations include mön chanar (essence) from Chinese shízhì ( 实质 , true quality), khün am (population) from Chinese rénkǒu ( 人口 , person mouth), erdene shish (corn, maize) from Chinese yùmǐ ( 玉米 , jade rice) and bügd nairamdakh uls (republic) from Chinese gònghéguó ( 共和国 , public collaboration nation).

    • Sanskrit loanwords include shashin ( शशन sasana, religion), sansar ( सँसार sansāra, space), avyas ( अभ्यास abhyasa, talent), buyan ( पुण्य punya, good deeds), agshin ( क्षण kšana, instant), tiv ( द्वीप dvipa, continent), garig ( ग्रह graha, planet), tsadig (जातकjātaka, tales, stories), shüleg ( श्लोक šloka, poems, verses), badag (पदक| padaka, strophe), arshan ( रसायन rašayana, mineral water, nectar), shastir ( शास्त्र shastra, chronicle), bud ( बुध budh, Mercury), sugar ( शुक्र shukra, Venus), barhasvadi ( वृहस्पति vrihaspati, Jupiter) and sanchir ( शनि shani, Saturn).
    • Persian loanwords include anar (anar, amethyst), arkhi (aragh, brandy, from Arabic), baishin (pishiwan, building), bars (fars, tiger), bers (farzin, chess queen/female tiger), bold (pulad, steel), bolor (bulur, crystal), gunjid (kunjut, sesame), gindan (zindan, prison), dari (daru, powder/gunpowder), duran (dur, telescope), duranbai (durbin, telescope/microscope), devter (daftar, notebook), hurmast (Ohrmazd, high God), savan (savan, soap) sandal (sandali, stool), and tsom (jam, cup).
    • Chinese loanwords include banz (板子 bǎnzi, board), laa (蜡 là, candle), luuvan (萝卜 lúobo, radish), khuluu (葫芦 húlu, gourd), denlüü (灯路 dēnglù, lamp), chiiden (汽灯 qìdēng, electric lamp), biir (笔儿 bǐ'er, paintbrush), gambanz (斩板子 zhǎnbǎnzi, cutting board), chinjuu (青椒 qīngjiāo, pepper), juutsai (韭菜 jiǔcài, leek), moog (蘑菇 mógu, mushroom), tsuu (醋 cù, vinegar, soy sauce), baitsaa (白菜 báicài, cabbage), mantuu (馒头 mántou, steamed bun), naimaa/maimaa (买卖 mǎimài, trade), goimon (挂面 gùamiàn, noodles), dan (单 dān, single), gan (钢 gāng, steel), lantuu (榔头 lángtou, sledgehammer), tsonkh (窗户 chūanghu, window), buuz (包子 bāozi, dumplings), khuushuur (火烧儿 hǔoshāo'er, fried dumpling), zutan (乳脂汤 rǔzhītāng, cream soup), bantan (粉汤 fěntāng, flour soup), jan (酱 jiàng, soy), van (王 wáng, king), günj (公主 gōngzhǔ, princess), gün (公 gōng, duke), janjin (将军 jiāngjūn, general), taigan (太监 tàijiàn, eunuch), pyanz (片子 piànzi, recorded disk), guanz (馆子 guǎnzi, restaurant), lianhua (莲花 liánhuā, lotus), khuar (花儿 huā'er, flower, used in names), toor (桃儿 táo'er, peach), intoor (樱桃儿 yīngtáo'er, cherry), zeel (借 jie, borrow, lend, with Mongolian denominal verb suffix -l-), vandui (豌豆 wāndòu, pea), yanz (样子 yàngzi, manner, appearance), shinj (性质 xìngzhì, characteristic), liir (梨儿 lí'er, pear), bai (牌 páizi, target), jin(g) (斤 jīn, weight), bin(g) (饼 bǐng, pancake), khuanli (皇历 huángli, calendar), shaazan (烧瓷 shāocí, porcelain), khantaaz (砍兜肚 kǎndōudu, sleeveless vest), püntüüz (粉条子 fěntiáozi, potato noodles) and tsai (茶 chá, tea).

    In the 20th century there were numerous Russian loanwords concerning daily life: doktor (doctor), shokolad (chocolate), vagon (train wagon), kalendar (calendar), sistem, podvoolk (from futbolka, T-shirt), and mashin (car). In more recent times, due to socio-political changes, Mongolian has loaned various words from English some which have gradually evolved as official terms: menejment, computer, fail (file), marketing, kredit, onlain (online), mesej (message). Most of the latter are confined to the Mongolian state.

    Mongolian also gave out loanwords to other languages. Examples, with Mongolian in brackets, include the following. Persian: kheshikchi (kheshig, royal guard), Gūrkāniyān گورکانیان‎ (küregen, son-in-law), qarqavol قرقاول (girgawl, pheasant), jebe جبه (jebseg, iron armour), nokar نوکر (nökör, attendant), chedar چدار (chödör, hobble), daruge داروغه (darga, chief commandant), keyichi قیچی (kayichi, scissors). Uzbek orol (aral, island). Chinese hutong 衚衕 (gudum, passageway), zhanchi 站赤 (jamchi, courier/post station). Middle Chinese duk 犢 (tugul, calf). Korean sura 수라 (shüle, royal meal), akdae 악대 (agta, castrated animal), eobjin 업진 (ebchigün, chest of an animal). Old English cocer (köküür, container). Old French quivre (köküür, container). Old High German Baldrian (balchirgan-a, valerian plant). Köküür and balchirgan-a are thought to have been brought to Europe by the Huns or Pannonian Avars.

    Despite having a diverse range of loanwords, Mongolian dialects such as Khalkha and Khorchin, within a comparative vocabulary of 452 words of Common Mongolic vocabulary, retain as many as 95% of these native words, contrasting e.g. with Southern Mongolic languages at 39–77% retentions. [107]

    Mongolian has been written in a variety of alphabets, making it a language with one of the largest number of scripts used historically. The earliest stages of Mongolian (Xianbei, Wuhuan languages) may have used an indigenous runic script as indicated by Chinese sources. The Khitan large script adopted in 920 CE is an early Mongol (or according to some, para-Mongolic) script.

    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 supplementation.

    Between 1930 and 1932, a short-lived attempt was made to introduce the Latin script in the Mongolian state. In 1941, the Latin alphabet was adopted, though it lasted only two months.

    The Mongolian Cyrillic script was the result of the spreading of Russian influence following the expansion of Russian Empire. The establishment of Soviet Union helped the influence persisted, and the Cyrillic alphabet was slowly introduced with the effort by Russian/Soviet linguists in collaboration with their Mongolian counterparts. It was made mandatory by government decree in 1941. It has been argued that the introduction of the Cyrillic script, with its smaller discrepancy between written and spoken form, contributed to the success of the large-scale government literacy campaign, which increased the literacy rate from 17.3% to 73.5% between 1941 and 1950. [108] Earlier government campaigns to eradicate illiteracy, employing the traditional script, had only managed to raise literacy from 3.0% to 17.3% between 1921 and 1940. [108] From 1991 to 1994, an attempt at reintroducing the traditional alphabet failed in the face of popular resistance. [109] In informal contexts of electronic text production, the use of the Latin alphabet is common. [110]

    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. [111] There are two types of written Mongolian used in China: the traditional Mongolian script, which is official among Mongols nationwide, and the Clear Script, used predominantly among Oirats in Xinjiang. [112]

    In March 2020, the Mongolian government announced plans to use both Cyrillic and the traditional Mongolian script in official documents by 2025. [113] [114] [115]

    The earliest surviving Mongolian text may be the Stele of Yisüngge [ru] , a report on sports composed in Mongolian script on stone, which is most often dated at 1224 or 1225. [117] The Mongolian-Armenian wordlist of 55 words compiled by Kirakos of Gandzak (13th century) is the first written record of Mongolian words. [118] From the 13th to the 15th centuries, Mongolian language texts were written in four scripts (not counting some vocabulary written in Western scripts): Uyghur Mongolian (UM) script (an adaptation of the Uyghur alphabet), 'Phags-pa script (Ph) (used in decrees), Chinese (SM) (The Secret History of the Mongols), and Arabic (AM) (used in dictionaries). [119] While they are the earliest texts available, these texts have come to be called "Middle Mongol" in scholarly practice. [120] The documents in UM script show some distinct linguistic characteristics and are therefore often distinguished by terming their language "Preclassical Mongolian". [121]

    The Yuan dynasty referred to the Mongolian language in Chinese as "Guoyu" (Chinese: 國語 ), which means "National language", a term also used by other non-Han dynasties to refer to their languages such as the Manchu language during the Qing dynasty, the Jurchen language during the Jin dynasty (1115–1234), the Khitan language during the Liao dynasty, and the Xianbei language during the Northern Wei period.

    The next distinct period is Classical Mongolian, which is dated from the 17th to the 19th century. This is a written language with a high degree of standardization in orthography and syntax that sets it quite apart from the subsequent Modern Mongolian. The most notable documents in this language are the Mongolian Kangyur and Tengyur [122] as well as several chronicles. [123] In 1686, the Soyombo alphabet (Buddhist texts) was created, giving distinctive evidence on early classical Mongolian phonological peculiarities. [124]

    Changes in phonology Edit

    Consonants Edit

    Research into reconstruction of the consonants of Middle Mongol has engendered several controversies. Middle Mongol had two series of plosives, but there is disagreement as to which phonological dimension they lie on, whether aspiration [125] or voicing. [126] The early scripts have distinct letters for velar plosives and uvular plosives, but as these are in complementary distribution according to vowel harmony class, only two back plosive phonemes, */k/, * /kʰ/ (

    *[k], * [qʰ] ) are to be reconstructed. [127] One prominent, long-running disagreement concerns certain correspondences of word medial consonants among the four major scripts (UM, SM, AM, and Ph, which were discussed in the preceding section). Word-medial /k/ of Uyghur Mongolian (UM) has not one, but two correspondences with the three other scripts: either /k/ or zero. Traditional scholarship has reconstructed */k/ for both correspondences, arguing that */k/ was lost in some instances, which raises the question of what the conditioning factors of those instances were. [128] More recently, the other possibility has been assumed namely, that the correspondence between UM /k/ and zero in the other scripts points to a distinct phoneme, /h/, which would correspond to the word-initial phoneme /h/ that is present in those other scripts. [129] /h/ (also called /x/) is sometimes assumed to derive from * /pʰ/ , which would also explain zero in SM, AM, Ph in some instances where UM indicates /p/ e.g., debel > Khalkha deel. [130]

    The palatal affricates *č, *čʰ were fronted in Northern Modern Mongolian dialects such as Khalkha. * was spirantized to /x/ in Ulaanbaatar Khalkha and the Mongolian dialects south of it, e.g. Preclassical Mongolian kündü, reconstructed as *kʰynty 'heavy', became Modern Mongolian /xunt/ [131] (but in the vicinity of Bayankhongor and Baruun-Urt, many speakers will say [kʰunt] ). [132] Originally word-final *n turned into /ŋ/ if * n was originally followed by a vowel that later dropped, it remained unchanged, e.g. *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. [133]

    Only foreign origin words start with the letter L and none start with the letter R. [134]

    Vowels Edit

    The standard view is that Proto-Mongolic had *i, *e, *y, *ø, *u, *o, *a . According to this view, *o and *u were pharyngealized to /ɔ/ and /ʊ/ , then *y and 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 was rounded to *ø when followed by *y . VhV and VjV sequences where the second vowel was any vowel but *i were monophthongized. In noninitial syllables, short vowels were deleted from the phonetic representation of the word and long vowels became short. [135]

    E.g. *imahan ( *i becomes /ja/ , *h disappears) > *jamaːn (unstable n drops vowel reduction) > /jama(n)/ 'goat'

    and *emys- (regressive rounding assimilation) > *ømys- (vowel velarization) > *omus- (vowel reduction) > /oms-/ 'to wear'

    This reconstruction has recently [ when? ] been opposed, arguing that vowel developments across the Mongolic languages can be more economically explained starting from basically the same vowel system as Khalkha, only with *[ə] instead of *[e]. Moreover, the sound changes involved in this alternative scenario are more likely from an articulatory point of view and early Middle Mongol loans into Korean. [136]

    Changes in morphology Edit

    Nominal system Edit

    In the following discussion, in accordance with a preceding observation, the term "Middle Mongol" is used merely as a cover term for texts written in any of three scripts, Uighur Mongolian script (UM), Chinese (SM), or Arabic (AM).

    The case system of Middle Mongol has remained mostly intact down to the present, although important changes occurred with the comitative and the dative and most other case suffixes did undergo slight changes in form, i.e., were shortened. [138] The Middle Mongol comitative -luγ-a could not be used attributively, but it was replaced by the suffix -taj that originally derived adjectives denoting possession from nouns, e.g. mori-tai 'having a horse' became mor'toj 'having a horse/with a horse'. As this adjective functioned parallel to ügej 'not having', it has been suggested that a "privative case" ('without') has been introduced into Mongolian. [139] 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 [140] or -da and -a as dative and -dur as locative, [141] in both cases with some functional overlapping. As -dur seems to be grammaticalized from dotur-a 'within', thus indicating a span of time, [142] the second account seems to be more likely. Of these, -da was lost, -dur was first reduced to -du and then to -d [143] and -a only survived in a few frozen environments. [144] Finally, the directive of modern Mongolian, -ruu, has been innovated from uruγu 'downwards'. [145] Social gender agreement was abandoned. [146]

    Verbal system Edit

    Middle Mongol had a slightly larger set of declarative finite verb suffix forms [147] and a smaller number of participles, which were less likely to be used as finite predicates. [148] The linking converb -n became confined to stable verb combinations, [149] while the number of converbs increased. [150] The distinction between male, female and plural subjects exhibited by some finite verbal suffixes was lost. [151]

    Changes in syntax Edit

    Neutral word order in clauses with pronominal subject changed from object–predicate–subject to subject–object–predicate, e.g.,

    Kökseü sabraq ügü.le-run ayyi yeke uge ugu.le-d ta . kee-jüü.y

    Kökseü sabraq speak-CVB alas big word speak-PAST you . say-NFUT

    "Kökseü sabraq spoke saying, 'Alas! You speak a great boast. ' " [152]

    The syntax of verb negation shifted from negation particles preceding final verbs to a negation particle following participles thus, as final verbs could no longer be negated, their paradigm of negation was filled by particles. [153] For example, Preclassical Mongolian ese irebe 'did not come' vs. modern spoken Khalkha Mongolian ireegüj or irsengüj.

      : монгол хэл, mongol khel :
  • ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠣᠯ
  • ᠬᠡᠯᠡ , Moŋɣol kele
  • Image:
  • Citations Edit

    1. ^ ab Estimate from Svantesson et al. 2005: 141.
    2. ^"China". Ethnologue.
    3. ^
    4. "Törijn alban josny helnij tuhaj huul'". 2003-05-15. Archived from the original on 2009-08-22 . Retrieved 2009-03-27 . The decisions of the council have to be ratified by the government.
    5. ^ "Mongγul kele bičig-ün aǰil-un ǰöblel". See Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 204.
    6. ^ Gerard Clauson (1956). "The case against the Altaic theory". Central Asiatic Journal volume 2, pages 181–187
    7. ^ abc
    8. Janhunen, Juha (November 29, 2012). "1". Mongolian. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 11.
    9. ^
    10. Tsung, Linda (October 27, 2014). "3". Language Power and Hierarchy: Multilingual Education in China. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 59.
    11. ^
    12. Tsung, Linda (October 27, 2014). "3". Language Power and Hierarchy: Multilingual Education in China. Bloomsbury Academic.
    13. ^
    14. Iredale, Robyn Bilik, Naran Fei, Guo (August 2, 2003). "4". China's Minorities on the Move: Selected Case Studies. p. 84.
    15. ^
    16. Janhunen, Juha (November 29, 2012). "1". Mongolian. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 16.
    17. ^
    18. Otsuka, Hitomi (30 Nov 2012). "6". More Morphologies: Contributions to the Festival of Languages, Bremen, 17 Sep to 7 Oct, 2009. p. 99.
    19. ^
    20. Iredale, Robyn (August 2, 2003). "3". China's Minorities on the Move: Selected Case Studies. Routledge. pp. 56, 64–67.
    21. ^
    22. Janhunen, Juha (November 29, 2012). "1". Mongolian. John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 11.
    23. Iredale, Robyn Bilik, Naran Fei, Guo (August 2, 2003). "3". China's Minorities on the Move: Selected Case Studies. p. 61.
    24. ^
    25. Shih, Gerry (August 31, 2020). "Chinese authorities face widespread anger in Inner Mongolia after requiring Mandarin-language classes". The Washington Post . Retrieved 1 September 2020 .
    26. ^
    27. Qin, Amy (August 31, 2020). "Curbs on Mongolian Language Teaching Prompt Large Protests in China". The New York Times . Retrieved 1 September 2020 .
    28. ^
    29. Feng, Emily (16 September 2020). "Parents Keep Children Home As China Limits Mongolian Language In The Classroom". NPR . Retrieved 17 September 2020 .
    30. ^ See especially Rinčjen 1979, Amaržargal 1988, Coloo 1988 and for a general bibliography on Mongolic phonology Svantesson et al. 2005: 218–229.
    31. ^ See Ashimura 2002 for a rare piece of research into dialect morphosyntax that shows significant differences between Khalkha and Khorchin.
    32. ^ Janhunen 2003d: 189.
    33. ^ See Janhunen (ed.) 2003 and Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005 for two classificatory schemes.
    34. ^ For an exact delimitation of Khalkha, see Amaržargal 1988: 24–25.
    35. ^ Sanžeev 1953: 27–61, especially 55.
    36. ^ Quoted from Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 167–168.
    37. ^
    38. Zhou, Minglang Sun, Hongkai (2006-04-11). Language Policy in the People's Republic of China: Theory and Practice Since 1949. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN978-1-4020-8039-5 .
    39. ^ among them Janhunen 2003
    40. ^ Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 265–266.
    41. ^ Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 266 classify Alasha as a variety of Southern 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.
    42. ^ Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 166–73, 184–195. See also Janhunen 2003d: 180.
    43. ^ E.g., Svantesson et al. 2005: 143, Poppe 1955: 110–115.
    44. ^ Svantesson et al. 2006: 159–160 the difference between the [l]s might just be due to the impossibility of reconstructing something as precise as [ɮ] for Proto-Mongolic and imprecision or convenience in notation for Chakhar (Chakhar phonemes according to Dobu 1983).
    45. ^ E.g., bi tegün-i taniǰei I him know -
    46. past 'I knew him' is accepted and ?Bi öčögedür iregsen rejected by an Inner Mongolian grammarian from Khorchin (Chuluu 1998: 140, 165) in Khalkha, by contrast, the first sentence would not appear with the meaning attributed to it, while the second is perfectly acceptable.
    47. ^ 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 - in research work like Bayančoγtu 2002: 306.
    48. ^ "Öbür mongγul ayalγu bol dumdadu ulus-un mongγul kelen-ü saγuri ayalγu bolqu büged dumdadu ulus-un mongγul kelen-ü barimǰiy-a abiy-a ni čaqar aman ayalγun-du saγurilaγsan bayidaγ." (Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 85).
    49. ^ Janhunen 2003d.
    50. ^ Janhunen 2006, except that Mongghul and Mangghuer are treated as a sub-branch (Slater 2003) and that Kangjia has been added (Siqinchaoketu 1999). Khamnigan which Janhunen groups as a Central Mongolic language is usually not discussed by other scholars.
    51. ^ For a history of the Altaic theory, see Georg et al. 1999. Since then, the major pro-Altaistic publication Starostin et al. 2003 has appeared, which got mostly mildly negative to devastating reviews, the most detailed being Vovin 2005.
    52. ^ Janhunen, Juha. 2003. The Mongolic Languages, p.179. Routledge Language Family Series 5. London: Routledge.
    53. ^ abc
    54. Janhunen, Juha A. (2012). Mongolian. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 3. ISBN978-90-272-3820-7 .
    55. ^ See Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 249–384.
    56. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 22
    57. ^
    58. Sanders, Alan J. K. (2015-08-14). Colloquial Mongolian : the complete course for beginners. p. 13. ISBN978-1-317-30598-9 . OCLC919495714.
    59. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 43–50.
    60. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 46–47, 50–51.
    61. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 1–7, 22–24, 73–75.
    62. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 25–30.
    63. ^ Karlsson 2005: 17
    64. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 20–21, where it is actually stated that they are phonemic only in such words in Svantesson's analysis, [−ATR] corresponds to "pharyngeal" and [+ATR]—to "nonpharyngeal".
    65. ^
    66. Anastasia Mukhanova Karlsson. "Vowels in Mongolian speech: deletions and epenthesis" . Retrieved 2014-07-26 .
    67. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 62–72.
    68. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 95–97
    69. ^ elaborating on Bosson 1964 and Poppe 1970.
    70. ^ Walker's evidence is collected from one native informant, examples from Poppe 1970, and consultation with James Bosson. She defines stress in terms of pitch, duration and intensity. The analysis pertains to the Khalkha dialect. The phonemic analysis in the examples is adjusted to Svantesson et al. 2005.
    71. ^ Harnud [Köke] 2003.
    72. ^ Harnud 2003 was reviewed by J. Brown in Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 2006 Dec, 36(2): 205–207.
    73. ^ Harnud [Köke] 2003: 44–54, 94–100.
    74. ^ See Sečenbaγatur 2003
    75. ^ See Bayančoγtu 2002
    76. ^ ab
    77. Gaunt, John Bayarmandakh, L. Chuluunbaatar, L. (2004). Modern Mongolian: A Course-book. Psychology Press. pp. xv/13 (depending on ebook or physical / xvi/14. ISBN978-0-7007-1305-9 .
    78. ^ ab
    79. Gaunt, John. (2006). Modern Mongolian : a course-book. Routledge. ISBN0-7007-1305-0 . OCLC615102455.
    80. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 58–59.
    81. ^
    82. "Grammar". . Retrieved 2020-02-11 .
    83. ^ Sečen 2004.
    84. ^ Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 151–153, 161–163.
    85. ^ Hashimoto 1993.
    86. ^ Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 103–104, 124–125, 130–131.
    87. ^ Tsedendamba and Möömöö 1997: 222–232.
    88. ^ Guntsetseg 2008: 61. The exact conditions of use for indefinite specific direct objects have not yet been specified in detail, but they appear to be related to animacy and textual context.
    89. ^ abc
    90. Guntsetseg, Dolgor (January 2008). "Differential object marking in Mongolian". Research Gate . Retrieved 14 March 2020 .
    91. ^ Sečenbaγatur 2003: 32–46.
    92. ^ Tsedendamba and Möömöö 1997: 234–241.
    93. ^ For a pioneering approach to this problem, see Sajto 1999.
    94. ^
    95. "Mongolian". Languages Gulper . Retrieved 1 June 2019 .
    96. ^
    97. Gaunt, John. (2006). Modern Mongolian : a course-book. Routledge. pp. xxv (13 depending on ebook/physical book) / xxvi (14 depending on ebook/physical book). ISBN0-7007-1305-0 . OCLC615102455.
    98. ^
    99. "Mongolian Grammar - Linguistics 35". . Retrieved 2020-02-11 .
    100. ^ Tsedendamba and Möömöö 1997: 210–219, Sečenbaγatur 2003: 23–29.
    101. ^ This is a simplified treatment of word classes. For a more precise treatment within the descriptive framework common in Inner Mongolia, see Sečenbaγatur 2003.
    102. ^
    103. "Mongolian Grammar". . Retrieved 1 June 2019 .
    104. ^ For the historic background of negation, see Yu 1991. For a phenomenology, see Bjambasan 2001.
    105. ^
    106. Guntsetseg, Dolgor. "Differential Case Marking in Mongolian". Research Gate . Retrieved 16 March 2020 .
    107. ^ Guntsetseg 2008: 55.
    108. ^ Tserenpil and Kullmann 2005: 237, 347.
    109. ^ Svantesson 2003: 164–165.
    110. ^ See Mönh-Amgalan 1998.
    111. ^ Sečenbaγatur 2003: 167.
    112. ^ Hashimoto 2004
    113. ^ Guntsetseg 2008: 54.
    114. ^ Tserenpil and Kullmann 2005: 88, 363–364.
    115. ^ Apatoczky 2005.
    116. ^ Hammar 1983: 45–80.
    117. ^ Kang 2000.
    118. ^ Tserenpil and Kullmann 2005: 348–349.
    119. ^ Sečenbaγatur 2003: 116–123.
    120. ^ Brosig 2009.
    121. ^ Svantesson 2003: 172.
    122. ^ See Sečenbaγatur 2003: 176–182 (who uses the term "postposition" for both and the term "conjunction" for junctors).
    123. ^ Sečenbaγatur 2003: 152–153.
    124. ^ Johanson 1995.
    125. ^ Mizuno 1995.
    126. ^ Pürev-Očir 1997: 131.
    127. ^ Sečenbaγatur 2003: 36.
    128. ^ Temürčereng 2004: 86–99.
    129. ^ Svantesson 2003: 127.
    130. ^ Temürčereng 2004: 99–102.
    131. ^ Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli 2005: 792–793.
    132. ^
    133. Baabar (2008-12-09). "Yum bolgon nertei". Ödriin sonin. Missing or empty |url= (help)
    134. ^ Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli 2005: 828.
    135. ^ Rybatzki 2003a: 385–387
    136. ^ ab Batchuluun Yembuu, Khulan Munkh-Erdene. 2005. Literacy country study: Mongolia. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006. Literacy for Life. P.7-8]
    137. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 34, 40–41.
    138. ^
    139. Sühbaatar, B. "Mongol helnij kirill üsgijg latin üsgeer galiglah tuhaj". InfoCon. Archived from the original on 2009-01-29 . Retrieved 2009-01-03 .
    140. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 34, 40.
    141. ^ Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 398.
    142. ^
    143. "Mongolia to promote usage of traditional script". (March 19, 2020).
    144. ^Official documents to be recorded in both scripts from 2025, Montsame, 18 March 2020.
    145. ^Mongolian Language Law is effective from July 1st, Gogo, 1 July 2015. "Misinterpretation 1:Use of cyrillic is to be terminated and only Mongolian script to be used. There is no provision in the law that states the termination of use of cyrillic. It clearly states that Mongolian script is to be added to the current use of cyrillic. Mongolian script will be introduced in stages and state and local government is to conduct their correspondence in both cyrillic and Mongolian script. This provision is to be effective starting January 1st of 2025. ID, birth certificate, marriage certificate and education certificates are to be both in Mongolian cyrillic and Mongolian script and currently Mongolian script is being used in official letters of President, Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament."
    146. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 111.
    147. ^ E.g. Garudi 2002: 7. But see Rachewiltz 1976)
    148. ^ Djahukyan 1991: 2368
    149. ^ Rybatzki 2003b: 58
    150. ^ See Rachewiltz 1999 for a critical review of the terminology used in periodizations of Mongolic Svantesson et al. 2005: 98–99 attempt a revision of this terminology for the early period.
    151. ^ Rybatzki 2003b: 57"
    152. ^ Janhunen 2003a: 32.
    153. ^ Okada 1984.
    154. ^ Nadmid 1967: 98–102.
    155. ^ e.g. Svantesson et al. 2005
    156. ^ e.g. Tömörtogoo 1992
    157. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 118–120
    158. ^ e.g. Poppe 1955
    159. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 118–124.
    160. ^ Janhunen 2003c: 6
    161. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 133, 167.
    162. ^ Rinchen (ed.) (1979): 210.
    163. ^ Svantesson et al. 2005: 124, 165–166, 205.
    164. ^
    165. S. Robert Ramsey (1987). The Languages of China. Princeton University Press. pp. 206–. ISBN0-691-01468-X .
    166. ^ Svantesson 2005: 181, 184, 186–187, 190–195.
    167. ^ Ko 2011
    168. ^ Tümenčečeg 1990.
    169. ^ Rybatzki 2003b: 67, Svantesson 2003: 162.
    170. ^ Janhunen 2003c: 27.
    171. ^ Rybatzki 2003b: 68.
    172. ^ Garudi 2002: 101–107.
    173. ^ Toγtambayar 2006: 18–35.
    174. ^ Toγtambayar 2006: 33–34.
    175. ^ Norčin et al. (ed.) 1999: 2217.
    176. ^ Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 228, 386.
    177. ^ Rybatzki 2003b: 73, Svantesson 2003: 166.
    178. ^ Weiers 1969: Morphologie, §B.II Svantesson 2003: 166.
    179. ^ Weiers 1969: Morphologie, §B.III Luvsanvandan 1987: 86–104.
    180. ^ Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 126, Činggeltei 1999: 251–252.
    181. ^ Rybatzki 2003b: 77, Luvsanvandan (ed.) 1987: 126–137
    182. ^ The reconstruction of a social gender distinction is fairly commonplace, see e.g. Rybatzki 2003b: 75. A strong argument for the number distinction between -ba and -bai is made in Tümenčečeg 1990: 103–108 (also see Street 2008), where it is also argued that this has been the case for other suffixes.
    183. ^ Street 1957: 14, Secret History 190.13v.
    184. ^ Yu 1991.

    Sources Edit

    For some Mongolian authors, the Mongolian version of their name is also given in square brackets, e.g., "Harnud [Köke]". Köke is the author's native name. It is a practice common among Mongolian scholars, for purposes of publishing and being cited abroad, to adopt a surname based on one's patronymic, in this example "Harnud" compare Mongolian name.
    Some library catalogs write Chinese language titles with each syllable separate, even syllables belonging to a single word.

    List of abbreviations used

    TULIP is in official use by some librarians the remainder have been contrived for this listing.

    • KULIP = Kyūshū daigaku gengogaku ronshū [Kyushu University linguistics papers]
    • MKDKH = Muroran kōgyō daigaku kenkyū hōkoku [Memoirs of the Muroran Institute of Technology]
    • TULIP = Tōkyō daigaku gengogaku ronshū [Tokyo University linguistics papers]
    • ÖMAKQ = Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a [Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House]
    • ÖMSKKQ = Öbür mongγul-un surγan kümüǰil-ün keblel-ün qoriy-a [Inner Mongolia Education Press]
    • ÖMYSKQ = Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli-yin keblel-ün qoriy-a [Inner Mongolia University Press]
    • ŠUA = [Mongol Ulsyn] Šinžleh Uhaany Akademi [Mongolian Academy of Sciences (MAS)]
    • (in Mongolian) Amaržargal, B. 1988. BNMAU dah' Mongol helnij nutgijn ajalguuny tol' bichig: halh ajalguu. Ulaanbaatar: ŠUA.
    • Apatóczky, Ákos Bertalan. 2005. On the problem of the subject markers of the Mongolian language. In Wú Xīnyīng, Chén Gānglóng (eds.), Miànxiàng xīn shìjìde ménggǔxué [The Mongolian studies in the new century : review and prospect]. Běijīng: Mínzú Chūbǎnshè. 334–343. 7-105-07208-3.
    • (in Japanese) Ashimura, Takashi. 2002. Mongorugo jarōto gengo no -lɛː no yōhō ni tsuite. TULIP, 21: 147–200.
    • (in Mongolian) Bajansan, Ž. and Š. Odontör. 1995. Hel šinžlelijn ner tom"joony züjlčilsen tajlbar toli. Ulaanbaatar.
    • (in Mongolian) Bayančoγtu. 2002. Qorčin aman ayalγun-u sudulul. Kökeqota: ÖMYSKQ. 7-81074-391-0.
    • (in Mongolian) Bjambasan, P. 2001. Mongol helnij ügüjsgeh har'caa ilerhijleh hereglüürüüd. Mongol hel, sojolijn surguul: Erdem šinžilgeenij bičig, 18: 9–20.
    • Bosson, James E. 1964. Modern Mongolian a primer and reader. Uralic and Altaic series 38. Bloomington: Indiana University.
    • Brosig, Benjamin. 2009. Depictives and resultatives in Modern Khalkh Mongolian. Hokkaidō gengo bunka kenkyū, 7: 71–101.
    • Chuluu, Ujiyediin. 1998. Studies on Mongolian verb morphology. Dissertation, University of Toronto.
    • (in Mongolian) Činggeltei. 1999. Odu üj-e-jin mongγul kelen-ü ǰüi. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ. 7-204-04593-9.
    • (in Mongolian) Coloo, Ž. 1988. BNMAU dah' mongol helnij nutgijn ajalguuny tol' bichig: ojrd ajalguu. Ulaanbaatar: ŠUA.
    • (in English) Djahukyan, Gevork. (1991). Armenian Lexicography. In Franz Josef Hausmann (Ed.), An International Encyclopedia of Lexicography (pp. 2367–2371). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    • (in Chinese) [Dobu] Dàobù. 1983. Ménggǔyǔ jiǎnzhì. Běijīng: Mínzú.
    • (in Mongolian) Garudi. 2002. Dumdadu üy-e-yin mongγul kelen-ü bütüče-yin kelberi-yin sudulul. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ. , Peter A. Michalove, Alexis Manaster Ramer, Paul J. Sidwell. 1999. Telling general linguists about Altaic. Journal of Linguistics, 35: 65–98.
    • Guntsetseg, D. 2008. Differential Object Marking in Mongolian. Working Papers of the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context, 1: 53–69.
    • Hammar, Lucia B. 1983. Syntactic and pragmatic options in Mongolian – a study of bol and n'. Ph.D. Thesis. Bloomington: Indiana University.
    • [Köke] Harnud, Huhe. 2003. A Basic Study of Mongolian Prosody. Helsinki: Publications of the Department of Phonetics, University of Helsinki. Series A 45. Dissertation. 952-10-1347-8.
    • (in Japanese) Hashimoto, Kunihiko. 1993. <-san> no imiron. MKDKH, 43: 49–94. Sapporo: Dō daigaku.
    • (in Japanese) Hashimoto, Kunihiko. 2004. Mongorugo no kopyura kōbun no imi no ruikei. Muroran kōdai kiyō, 54: 91–100.
    • Janhunen, Juha (ed.). 2003. The Mongolic languages. London: Routledge. 0700711333
    • 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.
    • Janhunen, Juha. 2006. Mongolic languages. In K. Brown (ed.), The encyclopedia of language & linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 231–234.
    • Johanson, Lars. 1995. On Turkic Converb Clauses. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 313–347. 978-3-11-014357-7.
    • (in Korean) Kang, Sin Hyen. 2000. Tay.mong.kol.e č-uy uy.mi.wa ki.nung. Monggolhak [Mongolian Studies], 10: 1–23. Seoul: Hanʼguk Monggol Hakhoe [Korean Association for Mongolian Studies].
    • Karlsson, Anastasia Mukhanova. 2005. Rhythm and intonation in Halh Mongolian. Ph.D. Thesis. Lund: Lund University. Series: Travaux de l'Institut de Linguistique de Lund 46. Lund: Lund University. 91-974116-9-8.
    • Ko, Seongyeon. 2011. Vowel Contrast and Vowel Harmony Shift in the Mongolic Languages. Language Research, 47.1: 23–43.
    • (in Mongolian) Luvsanvandan, Š. 1959. Mongol hel ajalguuny učir. Studia Mongolica [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 Japanese) Matsuoka, Yūta. 2007. Gendai mongorugo no asupekuto to dōshi no genkaisei. KULIP, 28: 39–68.
    • (in Japanese) Mizuno, Masanori. 1995. Gendai mongorugo no jūzokusetsushugo ni okeru kakusentaku. TULIP, 14: 667–680.
    • (in Mongolian) Mönh-Amgalan, J. 1998. Orčin tsagijn mongol helnij bajmžijn aj. Ulaanbaatar: Moncame. 99929-951-2-2.
    • (in Mongolian) Nadmid, Ž. 1967. Mongol hel, tüünij bičgijn tüühen högžlijn tovč tojm. Ulaanbaatar: ŠUA.
    • (in Mongolian) Norčin et al. (eds.) 1999. Mongγol kelen-ü toli. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ. 7-204-03423-6.
    • Okada, Hidehiro. 1984. Mongol chronicles and Chinggisid genealogies. Journal of Asian and African studies, 27: 147–154.
    • (in Mongolian) Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli. 2005 [1964]. Odu üy-e-yin mongγul kele. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ. 7-204-07631-1. . 1955. Introduction to Mongolian comparative studies. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.
    • Poppe, Nicholas. 1970. Mongolian language handbook. Washington D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    • (in Mongolian) Pürev-Očir, B. 1997. Orčin cagijn mongol helnij ögüülberzüj. Ulaanbaatar: n.a. . 1976. Some Remarks on the Stele of Yisuüngge. In Walter Heissig et al., Tractata Altaica – Denis Sinor, sexagenario optime de rebus altaicis merito dedicata. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. pp. 487–508.
    • Rachewiltz, Igor de. 1999. Some reflections on so-called Written Mongolian. In: Helmut Eimer, Michael Hahn, Maria Schetelich, Peter Wyzlic (eds.). Studia Tibetica et Mongolica – Festschrift Manfred Taube. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag: 235–246.
    • (in Mongolian) Rinchen, Byambyn (ed.). 1979. Mongol ard ulsyn ugsaatny sudlal helnij šinžlelijn atlas. Ulaanbaatar: ŠUA.
    • Rybatzki, Volker. 2003a. Intra-Mongolic Taxonomy. In Janhunen 2003: 364–390.
    • Rybatzki, Volker. 2003b. Middle Mongol. In Janhunen 2003: 47–82.
    • (in Mongolian) Sajto, Kosüke. 1999. Orčin čagyn mongol helnij "neršsen" temdeg nerijn onclog (temdeglel). Mongol ulsyn ih surguulijn Mongol sudlalyn surguul' Erdem šinžilgeenij bičig XV bot', 13: 95–111.
    • (in Mongolian) Sanžaa, Ž. and D. Tujaa. 2001. Darhad ajalguuny urt egšgijg avialbaryn tövšind sudalsan n'. Mongol hel šinžlel, 4: 33–50.
    • (in Russian) Sanžeev, G. D. 1953. Sravnitel'naja grammatika mongol'skih jazykov. Moskva: Akademija Nauk USSR.
    • (in Mongolian) Sečen. 2004. Odu üy-e-yin mongγul bičig-ün kelen-ü üge bütügekü daγaburi-yin sudulul. Kökeqota: ÖMASKKQ. 7-5311-4963-X.
    • Sechenbaatar [Sečenbaγatur], Borjigin. 2003. The Chakhar dialect of Mongol: a morphological description. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian society. 952-5150-68-2.
    • (in Mongolian) Sečenbaγatur, Qasgerel, Tuyaγ-a [Туяa], Bu. Jirannige, Wu Yingzhe, Činggeltei. 2005. Mongγul kelen-ü nutuγ-un ayalγun-u sinǰilel-ün uduridqal [A guide to the regional dialects of Mongolian]. Kökeqota: ÖMAKQ. 7-204-07621-4.
    • (in Chinese) Siqinchaoketu [=Sečenčoγtu]. 1999). Kangjiayu yanjiu. Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe.
    • Slater, Keith. 2003. A grammar of Mangghuer. London: RoutledgeCurzon. 978-0-7007-1471-1. , Anna V. Dybo, and Oleg A. Mudrak. 2003. Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages, 3 volumes. Leiden: Brill. 90-04-13153-1.
    • Street, John C. 1957. The language of the Secret History of the Mongols. New Haven: American Oriental Society. American Oriental series 42.
    • Street, John C. 2008. Middle Mongolian Past-tense -BA in the Secret History. Journal of the American Oriental Society 128 (3): 399–422. . 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. 0-19-926017-6.
    • (in Mongolian) Temürcereng, J̌. 2004. Mongγul kelen-ü üge-yin sang-un sudulul. Kökeqota: ÖMASKKQ. 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. 7-80722-206-9.
    • (in Mongolian) Tömörtogoo, D. 1992. Mongol helnij tüühen helzüj. Ulaanbaatar.
    • (in Mongolian) Tömörtogoo, D. 2002. Mongol dörvölžin üsegijn durashalyn sudalgaa. Ulaanbaatar: IAMS. 99929-56-24-0.
    • (in Mongolian) Tsedendamba, Ts., Sürengijn Möömöö (eds.). 1997. Orčin cagijn mongol hel. Ulaanbaatar.
    • Tserenpil, D. and R. Kullmann. 2005. Mongolian grammar. Ulaanbaatar: Admon. 99929-0-445-3.
    • (in Mongolian) Tümenčečeg. 1990. Dumdadu ǰaγun-u mongγul kelen-ü toγačin ögülekü tölüb-ün kelberi-nügüd ba tegün-ü ularil kögǰil. Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli, 3: 102–120.
    • Vovin, Alexander (2005). "The end of the Altaic controversy (review of Starostin et al. 2003)". Central Asiatic Journal. 49 (1): 71–132.
    • Walker, Rachel. 1997. Mongolian stress, licensing, and factorial typology. Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-172.
    • (in German) Weiers, Michael. 1969. Untersuchungen zu einer historischen Grammatik des präklassischen Schriftmongolisch. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Asiatische Forschungen, 28. (Revision of 1966 dissertation submitted to the Universität Bonn.)
    • Yu, Wonsoo. 1991. A study of Mongolian negation (Ph.D. thesis). Bloomington: Indiana University.
    • Janhunen, Juha A. 2012: Mongolian. (London Oriental and African Language Library, 19.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1382-3485. 978-90-272-3820-7

    220 ms 15.7% Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::preprocess 120 ms 8.6% Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getExpandedArgument 120 ms 8.6% loader 40 ms 2.9% safe_join 40 ms 2.9% (for generator) 40 ms 2.9% Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getEntityStatements 40 ms 2.9% type 40 ms 2.9% Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction 40 ms 2.9% [others] 420 ms 30.0% Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 1/400 -->

    Map of the various ethnicities of the Soviet Union - National Geographic, 1976

    Generally it's a nice map, but it has quite a few mistakes and simplifications.

    It definitely underrepresents Astrakhan's diversity. Astrakhan Oblast is shown as mostly Russian with a few smallish Kazakh pockets. In reality the majority-Kazakh area is bigger and there are also majority-Tatar and majority-Nogai areas, as well as a couple Kalmyk villages. There are a few more significant diasporas in the region, but they mostly live in cities, so they wouldn't need to be shown anyway.

    That's not the only mistake in Russia. For example, the map ignores the Seto/Estonian area in Pskov Oblast, a Mari area in Sverdlovsk Oblast etc. Most Dagestani ethnicities aren't shown at all.

    Many things went wrong in core Central Asia too, the map doesn't show Yaghnobis and various Pamiri ethnicities in Tajikistan, a couple Dungan areas in Northern Kyrgyzstan aren't shown, and the spread of Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan is drastically underestimated. I don't see any Bukharan Jews in Uzbekistan either.


    Timur began his rise as leader of a small nomad band and by guile and force of arms established dominion over the lands between the Oxus and Jaxartes rivers (Transoxania) by the 1360s. He then, for three decades, led his mounted archers to subdue each state from Mongolia to the Mediterranean. He was the last of the mighty conquerors of Central Asia to achieve such military successes as leader of the nomad warrior lords, ruling both agricultural and pastoral peoples on an imperial scale. The poverty, bloodshed, and desolation caused by his campaigns gave rise to many legends, which in turn inspired such works as Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine the Great.

    The name Timur Lenk signified Timur the Lame, a title of contempt used by his Persian enemies, which became Tamburlaine, or Tamerlane, in Europe. Timur was heir to a political, economic, and cultural heritage rooted in the pastoral peoples and nomad traditions of Central Asia. He and his compatriots cultivated the military arts and discipline of Genghis Khan and, as mounted archers and swordsmen, scorned the settled peasants. Timur never took up a permanent abode. He personally led his almost constantly campaigning forces, enduring extremes of desert heat and lacerating cold. When not campaigning he moved with his army according to season and grazing facilities. His court traveled with him, including his household of one or more of his nine wives and concubines. He strove to make his capital, Samarkand, the most splendid city in Asia, but when he visited it he stayed only a few days and then moved back to the pavilions of his encampment in the plains beyond the city.

    Timur was, above all, master of the military techniques developed by Genghis Khan, using every weapon in the military and diplomatic armory of the day. He never missed an opportunity to exploit the weakness (political, economic, or military) of the adversary or to use intrigue, treachery, and alliance to serve his purposes. The seeds of victory were sown among the ranks of the enemy by his agents before an engagement. He conducted sophisticated negotiations with both neighbouring and distant powers, which are recorded in diplomatic archives from England to China. In battle, the nomadic tactics of mobility and surprise were his major weapons of attack.

    Timur’s most lasting memorials are the Timurid architectural monuments of Samarkand, covered in azure, turquoise, gold, and alabaster mosaics these are dominated by the great cathedral mosque, ruined by an earthquake but still soaring to an immense fragment of dome. His mausoleum, the Gūr-e Amīr, is one of the gems of Islamic art. Within the sepulchre he lies under a huge, broken slab of jade. The tomb was opened in 1941, having remained intact for half a millennium. The Soviet Archaeological Commission found the skeleton of a man who, though lame in both right limbs, must have been of powerful physique and above-average height.

    Timur’s sons and grandsons fought over the succession when the Chinese expedition disbanded, but his dynasty (see Timurid dynasty) survived in Central Asia for a century in spite of fratricidal strife. Samarkand became a centre of scholarship and science. It was here that Ulūgh Beg, his grandson, set up an observatory and drew up the astronomical tables that were later used by the English royal astronomer in the 17th century. During the Timurid renaissance of the 15th century, Herāt, southeast of Samarkand, became the home of the brilliant school of Persian miniaturists. At the beginning of the 16th century, when the dynasty ended in Central Asia, his descendant Bābur established himself in Kabul and then conquered Delhi, to found the Muslim line of Indian emperors known as the Great Mughals.

    The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica This article was most recently revised and updated by Adam Augustyn, Managing Editor, Reference Content.

    Isn't there any positive legacy of the Mongolian occupation in Russia? - History

    The Mongol Empire expanded through brutal raids and invasions, but also established routes of trade and technology between East and West.

    Learning Objectives

    Define the significance of the Pax Mongolica

    Key Takeaways

    Key Points

    • The Mongol Empire existed during the 13th and 14th centuries and was the largest land empire in history.
    • The empire unified the nomadic Mongol and Turkic tribes of historical Mongolia.
    • The empire sent invasions in every direction, ultimately connecting the East with the West with the Pax Mongolica, or Mongol Peace, which allowed trade, technologies, commodities, and ideologies to be disseminated and exchanged across Eurasia.
    • The Mongol raids and invasions were some of the deadliest and most terrifying conflicts in human history.
    • Ultimately, the empire started to fragment it dissolved in 1368, at which point the Han Chinese Ming Dynasty took control.

    Key Terms

    • tributary states: Pre-modern states subordinate to a more powerful state.
    • Pax Mongolica: Also known as the Mongol Peace, this agreement allowed trade, technologies, commodities, and ideologies to be disseminated and exchanged across Eurasia.
    • High Middle Ages: A time between the 10th and 12th centuries when the core cultural and social characteristics of the Middle Ages were firmly set.

    Rise of the Mongol Empire

    The Mongol Empire: Expansion of the Mongol empire from 1206 CE-1294 CE.

    During Europe’s High Middle Ages the Mongol Empire, the largest contiguous land empire in history, began to emerge. The Mongol Empire began in the Central Asian steppes and lasted throughout the 13th and 14th centuries. At its greatest extent it included all of modern-day Mongolia, China, parts of Burma, Romania, Pakistan, Siberia, Ukraine, Belarus, Cilicia, Anatolia, Georgia, Armenia, Persia, Iraq, Central Asia, and much or all of Russia. Many additional countries became tributary states of the Mongol Empire.

    The empire unified the nomadic Mongol and Turkic tribes of historical Mongolia under the leadership of Genghis Khan, who was proclaimed ruler of all Mongols in 1206. The empire grew rapidly under his rule and then under his descendants, who sent invasions in every direction. The vast transcontinental empire connected the east with the west with an enforced Pax Mongolica, or Mongol Peace, allowing trade, technologies, commodities, and ideologies to be disseminated and exchanged across Eurasia.

    Mongol invasions and conquests progressed over the next century, until 1300, by which time the vast empire covered much of Asia and Eastern Europe. Historians regard the Mongol raids and invasions as some of the deadliest and most terrifying conflicts in human history. The Mongols spread panic ahead of them and induced population displacement on an unprecedented scale.

    Impact of the Pax Mongolica

    The Pax Mongolica refers to the relative stabilization of the regions under Mongol control during the height of the empire in the 13th and 14th centuries. The Mongol rulers maintained peace and relative stability in such varied regions because they did not force subjects to adopt religious or cultural traditions. However, they still enforced a legal code known as the Yassa (Great Law), which stopped feudal disagreements at local levels and made outright disobedience a dubious prospect. It also ensured that it was easy to create an army in short time and gave the khans access to the daughters of local leaders.

    The Silk Road: At its height these trade routes stretched between Europe, Persia, and China. They connected ideas, materials, and people in new and exciting ways that allowed for innovations.

    The constant presence of troops across the empire also ensured that people followed Yassa edicts and maintained enough stability for goods and for people to travel long distances along these routes. In this environment the largest empire to ever exist helped one of the most influential trade routes in the world, known as the Silk Road, to flourish. This route allowed commodities such as silk, pepper, cinnamon, precious stones, linen, and leather goods to travel between Europe, the Steppe, India, and China.

    Marco Polo in a Tatar costume: This style of dress, with the fur hat, long coat, and saber, would have been popular in regions in and around Russian, Eurasia, and Turkey.

    Ideas also traveled along the trade route, including major discoveries and innovations in mathematics, astronomy, paper-making, and banking systems from various parts of the world. Famous explorers, such as Marco Polo, also enjoyed the freedom and stability the Pax Mongolica provided, and were able to bring back valuable information about the East and the Mongol Empire to Europe.

    The Empire Starts to Fragment

    Tatar and Mongol raids against Russian states continued well into the later 1200’s. Elsewhere, the Mongols’ territorial gains in China persisted into the 14th century under the Yuan Dynasty, while those in Persia persisted into the 15th century under the Timurid Dynasty. In India, the Mongols’ gains survived into the 19th century as the Mughal Empire.

    However, the Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260 was a turning point. It was the first time a Mongol advance had ever been beaten back in direct combat on the battlefield, and it marked the beginning of the fragmentation of the empire due to wars over succession. The grandchildren of Genghis Khan disputed whether the royal line should follow from his son and initial heir Ögedei or one of his other sons. After long rivalries and civil war, Kublai Khan took power in 1271 when he established the Yuan Dynasty, but civil war ensued again as he sought unsuccessfully to regain control of the followers of Genghis Khan’s other descendants.

    By the time of Kublai’s death in 1294, the Mongol Empire had fractured into four separate empires, or khanates. This weakness allowed the Han Chinese Ming Dynasty to take control in 1368, while Russian princes also slowly developed independence over the 14th and 15th centuries, and the Mongol Empire finally dissolved.

    5. Vlad the Impaler (Ottoman Empire)

    We have heard much about the cinematic Dracula, but only a few know that his character was inspired by a real-life person. Vlad the Impaler, as the name suggests, was known to kill his enemies by impaling their bodies on blunt stakes. He spent much of his life avenging the murder of his father and older brother, a mission he executed without mercy. He never gave his enemies a quick death. They would die slowly in excruciating pain inflicted by stakes that would pierce through their abdomens and chests. And here is the catch, no matter what felony you committed – a murder, or just stealing some bread – death by impalement was the only punishment.

    The tales of his notoriety don’t end there. At one time, there was great sickness among the locals living in the city of Tirgoviste (then capital of Vlad’s empire, Wallachia). Vlad the Impaler decided to address the situation and clean up the diseased streets. He invited all the sick and poor to one of his castles for a great feast. Once everyone was done, Vlad quietly excused himself, locked the entire place from the outside and then burned it to the ground while everyone was still inside. Unlike Bram Stocker’s Dracula, he did not suck the blood out of his victims’ necks. Eating breadcrumbs dipped in their blood was more his style.

    US launches over 50 cruise missiles at Syrian airfields over chemical attack

    Posted On April 02, 2018 09:45:38

    The US Navy has reportedly launched 59 cruise missiles at airfields controlled by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in response to a chemical attack that killed at least 80 people in the northwestern part of the country on Monday.

    Tomahawk missiles were launched from two Navy warships stationed in the Mediterranean according to CNN, and NBC News.

    No casualties have yet been reported but officials tell NBC News that no people were targeted.

    Missiles hit runways and military infrastructure used by Syrian and Russian forces, who the US blames for using chemical weapons in the attack on Monday.

    Several prominent GOP Senators and Representatives urged strikes on Syria after evidence of chemical attacks surfaced. The strike, while not targeting troops themselves, carried a high risk of killing Syrian and Russian servicemen in collateral damage.

    This story is developing. Click here for updates.


    Isn't there any positive legacy of the Mongolian occupation in Russia? - History

    I took slightly over year IIRC for basically everything written in Romanian to go from Cyrillic script to Latin script. And it was very, very hard on many people, especially middle age and older. As various government jobs switched to Latin script, quite a few people where let go because they couldn't adapt to the new system quickly enough.

    I was in school at the time, and I remember that even for us it took some adjustment. I think it took me at least several months to fully switch (I'm not a native speaker, and we Romanian was a mandatory class from second grade up).

    A friend of my mother's, a native Moldovan with roots back to time immemorial, still struggles with Latin script even though it's been 30 years since the change.

    Which is not surprising given that Soviets always had put a special focus on strong educational system. They failed in many areas, but they did "liquidate illiteracy" everywhere they could ([2])

    The Western drive to assume that people in poorer countries are all uneducated seems to me to reflect something Hannah Arendt wrote about Soviet totalitarianism, namely that once Soviet propaganda had claimed that the Moscow metro is the only working metro in the world, there emerged a need to conquer the whole world, just so all other metros could be shut down to ensure the truth of the ideology.

    Mongolians had surnames (strictly speaking, clan names) before the Soviet takeover. The Soviets abolished them, as part of an effort to get rid of the old aristocracy. Since then, Mongolians have been known officially either by a single personal name or by using their father's name in combination with their own.

    In the 90s, there was an attempt to bring back surnames. People were given a free choice of which surname to adopt. Some people either still knew the surname their family had had before the Soviet era (because it had been passed down in secret), or were able to find it in local records. But a lot of people chose a name that had no history in their family, either because they didn't know their old surname, it had an unflattering meaning (like "Thief" or "Seven Drunkards"), or they simply wanted a different one.

    The attempt was unsuccessful, in part because huge numbers of people chose to adopt Borjigin (Genghis Khan's clan name) as their surname.

    Also the name Julius Ceasar would have to be spelled differently without the letter J in the Classical Latin script.

    The capital letter V was used for both the vowel u and for the consonant u (usually written "w" in English).

    Many hundreds of years later when the alphabets that are the ancestors of the modern small Latin letters were developed for writing on parchment with a pen (i.e. goose feather), the small letter corresponding to the capital letter "V" was "u".

    So, for some time, Latin was written using the pair capital "V" and small "u" for both the vowel and consonant "u".

    However, in all Romance languages the consonant "u" (English "w") had changed its pronunciation to the fricative "v", so when writing modern languages there was a need to distinguish "u" and "v". That lead to the creation of the capital "U" and of the small "v", and "Vv" were assigned to the fricative, while "Uu" were assigned to the vowel.

    As another detail of the "U" writing history, the letter "F" was used in Greek to write the consonant "u" (English "w").

    However the Latin language had the fricative "f", which did not exist in Greek, and there was a need to have a letter for it. The Romans chose "F" for the fricative "f", which forced them to reuse "V" (previously used only for vowel "u"), for both the vowel and consonant "u".

    So, the modern Latin alphabet has five letters that were originally used to write some variant of "u": F, U, V, W and Y.

    ("w" was introduced in English because they still had the consonant "u", unlike the Romance languages, where "v" was assigned to the fricative sound "Y", a different graphic form of "V", was introduced by the Romans to write Greek words, because the Greeks no longer pronounced the vowel "u" like the Romans, but they pronounced it like the German "u" Umlaut or the French "u").

    How do UIs handle the script? For example mobile chat applications.

    Well, not quite. That was the situation until very recently. It's now mostly horizontal. Almost everything on a computer is horizontal. The first Korean newspaper to switch to horizontal text did so in 1988. It was universal by the mid-90s. Japanese is probably the most resistant and has its traditionalist holdouts in novels and some print newspapers. But horizontal text is ascendant there too.

    While those languages are basically compatible with writing in any direction, this shift is mostly because software can't handle vertical text. It was terrible when computer typesetting first took off. Even today for publication quality, it probably requires specialized software. So the answer is that UI's don't handle it. It's almost always a disaster in software. The traditional writing system of several major world languages is simply not properly supported by most software, and much still fails completely.

    An observation to close with: perhaps ironically, the Mongolian script is from the Syriac alphabet that went along the silk road route, and is distantly related to the Latin alphabet. It was rotated 90 degrees probably for no other reason than because it works well alongside vertical Chinese. It seems that rotating to get along is a recurring theme.

    Chinese (and Japanese and Korean), when written vertically, the collums are written right to left. In the Mongolian script, the columns are left to right, so I don't know how well it works with Chinese.

    > Japanese is probably the most resistant and has its traditionalist holdouts in novels and some print newspapers

    Almost every book I have in Japanese, including Japanese-Japanese dictionaries, Kanji dictionaries, kids science books, temple books and even a bilingual Japanese and English Shogi book are written with vertical text (English is horizontal in this last one). My Japanese cookbooks have text in both directions.

    Manga text is written vertically, to the point even most translated manga has their pages going right-to-left as their Japanese counterparts.

    I also frequently see very recent Japanese lessons texts and questions all vertically.

    So it's definetly not just on novels and some newspapers.

    You are correct about the smart phone apps and software in general though.

    > this shift is mostly because software can't handle vertical text.

    Yes it can. I remember being able to print vertical Japanese almost 20 years ago.

    > So the answer is that UI's don't handle it. It's almost always a disaster in software

    edits: orthography, added mention to ebooks

    Mongolian is, I suppose, the combination of everything tricky in text display. Ligatures and joining forms, vertical, left-to-right. I think it's the only living writing system with this particular combination.

    I always thought bracket quotes looked exactly like what they are, a container for words: -- For example, this sentence is written in "vertical Chinese". (Screenshot generated with LibreOffice Write, which can just about handle basic documents in vertical format.)

    Most of the time, major or more sophisticated apps will just use Cyrillic (in Mongolia) or be written in Mandarin (in Inner Mongolia, CN). There are, however, web pages in the traditional script, which you can look at to get a sense of how a UI layout for a vertical script might work [0][1][2]. I also found a website with a full list, with many broken links [3].

    From an encoding perspective, Unicode historically hasn't meshed well with Mongolian script, because of a surfeit of homographs. From what I can gather, Menksoft supports the most widely used alternative encoding method, which isn't Unicode-compatible. This apparently makes searching and indexing traditional Mongolian pages hard.

    It's a bit disappointing that the British Library was unable to write the titles in their catalogue in Mongolian script.

    "ᠮᠣᠩ᠋ᠭᠣᠯ ᠤᠯᠤᠰ ᠤᠨ ᠶᠡᠷᠦᠩᠬᠡᠢᠢᠯᠡᠭᠴᠢ ᠬ"

    Moldovan was declared a language similar to, but different from Romanian, and was given a Cyrillic script [1]. Even though Moldovan is at most a dialect of Romanian.

    The Soviet Union was very direct but also very effective in changing entire cultural substrates of millions of people over a very short period of time. Giving languages under its influence Cyrillic scripts was a part of that.

    Note: it's not all bleak and bad, as many indigenous people got their alphabets for the first time in history.

    If you've got a bilingual society I can imagine it makes life easier if both languages use the same alphabet, particularly in the days of mechanical typewriters. But think too about road signs, for example, which could be written in the local language but still mostly comprehensible for Russian speakers who don't know the local language if it's the same alphabet (though there's still the classic problem of "Why are half the streets round here called Einbahnstraße?"). Learning to read a new alphabet at speed is surprisingly difficult. I'm surprised by how hard it is for me, anyway.

    For speakers of the USSR’s Turkic languages (Kazakh, Tatar, Crimean Tatar, etc.), latinization was therefore seen as harmful, because these languages are often fairly mutually intelligible with Turkish of Turkey, and a common-ish Latin alphabet would mean these peoples would be susceptible to anti-Soviet ideas coming from Turkey. Therefore, the Stalin-era language authorities not only gave them a new Cyrillic orthography, they gave each language a different Cyrillic orthography than the rest to fragment them even further.

    In the case of Mongolian, Cyrillic helped better separate Mongolian of Mongolia from the mutually intelligible dialect of Mongolian spoken across the border in China.

    That doesn't seem correct to me. Different languages require different orthographies because they have different phonetics. Compare the Latin script when used for English to German to Vietnamese to Turkish. Same thing with the Arabic script with Persian and Urdu. When tailored orthographies aren't used, the written representation becomes a poor representation of speech. Though even then it might not have been a perfect fit in the first place, requiring digraphs or diacritics. Or the spoken language can diverge.

    For example, Turkic languages typically feature front𯮬k vowel harmony where stops are velar before front vowels and uvular before back vowels. This is represented differently in the Stalin-era Cyrillic orthographies for Karachay Balkar (к/къ), Kazakh (к/қ) and Tatar (just к with the following vowel letter showing the distinction). Bashkir neighbors both Tatar and Kazakh and is mutually intelligible with them, and it doesn’t differ at all in this feature, but its orthography was given к/ҡ just to make it different from the other two.

    I am sorry for his choice, and your note gives the impression you are too, but I think it’s a perfectly decent example.

    A certain amount of people still presume that people in that wave were all Soviet dissidents, intelligentsia, and repressed jews, and etc.

    It only came to New Yorkers years later that whom they let in were faaaar from being some poor average Soviet citizens. CPSU members themselves, mafia, ex-spooks.

    Back in nineties, an average Russian citizens would need to save for years just to buy a one way ticket to US, and legal paperwork.

    Nobody, no regular person in early nineties Russia had money to just to fly to US, and buy a NYC apartment for cash.

    A price of a NYC apartment was a few lifetimes worth of savings for even best paid people in union's government.

    FWIW I have a friend from Azerbaijan who saw a lot of the USSR as well. I don't know the details, and there will likely be people here on HN with first-hand USSR experience who can tell me why my memory makes no sense. But his story was that there was money but you couldn't use it for much, except train tickets. They saved it up and then took epic train trips through the USSR, once up to Estonia and once east towards Kyrgyzstan (not sure they got that far though), stopping in every republic along the way.

    His parents were a craftsperson and a high school teacher. Don't make assumptions about strangers on the internet.

    Not necessarily ruling but definitely highly privileged. You definitely could not just travel on a whim inside the USSR. You needed special permission from the government, which was most commonly (but not exclusively) given to people whose job depended on travel.

    The restrctions might have been somewhat more relaxed in the middle of nowhere in Asia, but they were extremely strict for example in occupied Estonia where I'm from. You couldn't even travel inside the whole capital city of Tallinn, even if you yourself lived there. The city was divided into zones and there were border guards protecting these zones. You can only go to a zone that has a shoreline when you directly reside there. Otherwise you might try to escape the utopia. -- The restrictions of course go way beyond just Tallinn. Want to visit one of the 1500 islands of Estonia? Too bad, not allowed unless you live on the specific island. Want to just explore the countryside? Might be somewhat possible, but better be careful not to get close to any of the secret closed cities or any of the numerous missile silos, unless you want to be labled as a threat to the USSR.

    No, you did not need permission to travel inside the USSR. I don't know about Estonia, but we were living in Tashkent and before I was 13 I have visited Moscow, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Alma-Ata, Vilnyus, and several other places. All that travel was pretty much leisure. My parents were engineers - very not elite. On business my mom traveled to Tbilisi, Talinn, Baku and god knows where else. And yes, we lived in "the middle of nowhere in Asia" (aka Tashkent) and had been in pretty much every corner of a huge country.

    MMhh OK, lets not ignore the fordable settlement that literally wiped out the majority of the wealth of the steppe and and killed or starved to death up to 50% of people while inducing severe starvation and malnutrition on the rest of them.

    It basically was basically genocide that attempted to destroy a whole culture.

    And then forced to do basically forced labor on state farms for the next couple of decades on low efficiency state farms.

    The elites of those groups were moved to the gulags in large numbers as well.

    I understand that your experience are from a decades after that and a lot had changed.

    But while the mass death of Ukrainians is in the news often because of Crimea, the much higher % of death Kazakhs is basically ignored.

    Your comment would have been much better without the unnecessary dig, which was also wrong.

    Of course someone from Uzbekistan is quite different from an an American with a vaguely Asian looking face, both culturally and economically. Any yet the parent comment author's brain automatically filed them in the same bucket. This kind of automatic thinking is exactly how propaganda works.

    Say what you want, there are countries that achieved way more than USSR, not to mention Mongolia, without mass killings, man made famines, slavery camps, serfs (1960s was the year when Soviet "collective farmers" were salaried for the first time and got a right to get a passport and leave their "farms").

    I'm sure that you have excellent reasons for feeling the way that you do on this topic. Nevertheless it's not cool, on this site, to rush into ideological or political battle when strong feelings are activated. If you wouldn't mind reviewing and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, weɽ be grateful.

    If you or anyone want more explanation, this set of past comments might be helpful for understanding what we're looking for:

    Still, I hate it with a passion that anytime someone dares to mention some good points of what happened in the "socialist" Eastern countries, and on a purely human level there is plenty even on the system level, comes up with this whataboutism normally thrown at others.

    Yes those systems had to go. But there was plenty of good stuff there, and rebuking anyone who dares mention some is unhelpful. It's such a random uncontrolled reflex.

    Slavery, colonialism, war mongering, etc. not exclusive to USSR. Well they lost the competition and the winning side likes to warp the reality.

    I don’t want to take any side. It’s just that I really don’t believe in absolutes.

    someone posted this[0] a few days ago.

    Do you believe that absolutely?

    On a more serious note, how can you lump the Soviets (and socialist regimes like the CCP) with everything else? It's like conversing with someone who, having been told that Bob murdered Alice, responds by saying that everyone makes mistakes and that, on a good day, Bob could be a nice guy. Communist regimes were at a whole different level of evil. The sheer number of people murdered, the social and cultural destruction and dysfunction it wrought, the deeply warped wordlview it imposed through the tyrannical apparatus of the almighty and pervasive state. The list goes on. I guess dissidents were just being ungrateful, eh? They didn't appreciate the good parts!

    I will agree that Americans and others should engage in more self-criticism because American culture and its establishment are degenerate and share some eerie similarities with their Soviet counterparts. But this sort of whataboutism doesn't dismiss the glaring truth about the Soviet regime. For someone who says he doesn't believe in "absolutes", you basically demonstrated that you actually do. We're talking about different magnitudes and variety of evil here. People made lasting friendships in concentration camps and gulags, they even found their calling in those awful places[0] in a kind of metaphor for life in general, but no one would say "Eh, you know, it wasn't so bad. There were some good things in those gulags. And after all, American public schools are traumatic and soul-destroying, so. "

    I mean, "good old" Soviet Union was a prison for all of it's population throughout it's existence, but it was also a prison within a prison for 37% of it's population till as late as 1974. Human existence there could hardly be called a modern life at any point of it.

    The USSR also took a lot of educated modern lifestyle people and sent them to Siberian forced labor camps. The whole thing was very much a calculated plan to replace the educated upper and middle class with new people that would be more loyal to Stalin.

    Right, more bacteriological weapons is what the world needs.

    I noticed that the top line of the compared newspaper parts also appears to change, but it's so badly rendered and so small as to be almost unreadable.

    Aside, whilst it says "Copyright British Library Board" the content is/should be free-gratis and free-libre reproducible under the Reuse of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015. Really it should have a better imprint, something like "free distribution and reuse allowed under this policy" with a link. Even better would be if theyɽ adopted a more widely recognised license.

    Cyrillic was created 1100 years ago in Bulgaria for Christian lithurgy among Slavs, it's unfair and sad that it's now mainly associated with communism and USSR in Westerm countries.

    I'm a product of brutal attempts at nation building by the American war machine. I wouldn't be speaking English otherwise. But that doesn't mean that this language isn't mine. If I were forced to speak and write differently because of some political initiative, it wouldn't be a return to authenticity. It would be forcing me to reject a part of me that's already been irreversibly changed.

    For example, Icelandic, which in the 19th century had speakers who worked on replacing Danish loanwords with Icelandic neologisms, and today a good amount of effort is put into coining Icelandic words rather than loaning English ones.

    Norwegian had something similar albeit with less success. There are two official written standards for Norwegian, Bokmål and Nynorsk. Bokmål retains more Danish influence, and reflects Norwegian dialects with more Danish influence (especially urban centres like Oslo), while Nynorsk is more 'pure' Norwegian, favouring more traditional grammar. Notably, the three gender system features more prominently in Nynorsk, where it is mandatory, as opposed to Bokmål, where the feminine can optionally be given masculine determiners, which is similar to how Swedish and Danish have collapsed the masculine⿾minine genders into a single common gender. The movement for Nynorsk was also in the 19th century, powered by Norwegian nationalism, but only about 10-15% of Norwegians use it.

    Notably, though, in both cases the efforts to revert foreign influences on the language came from a grassroots, bottom-up approach, rather than a change from the top. And for the more successful case of Icelandic, well, linguistic reform is probably easier if only 300,000 people (probably much less a hundred years ago) speak it.

    In the end, I believe we should consider each word separately. If a loanword is used by select few, they only hinder communication. (In the worst case, imagine a legal document that's inscrutable to most people.) On the other hand, if a loanword is already understood by everyone, there's no point in removing it: trying to removing it will in fact make communication harder.


  1. Gazshura

    Oh we got on with this

  2. Gagore

    I absolutely agree with you. The idea is good, I support it.

  3. Gabbar

    In my opinion, you admit the mistake. I can defend my position. Write to me in PM.

  4. Christofer

    Credit, senks to the author

  5. Leith

    Surely. I join all of the above.

  6. Heber

    What do you need after all?

  7. Floinn

    Of course, I apologize, but could you please describe in a little more detail.

Write a message