Uzbek affixes in Northern Tajik

Summary

Affix function number of borrowed affixes

Description

Information and examples are from Doerfer (1967), who mainly analyzes data from Rastorgueva (1964), see also Boretzky (2004:1651). Information on the etymology of stems was provided by Don Stilo (personal communication 2013).

2 nominalizers

  • -či ‘agent noun’, e.g. χizmat-či ‘servant’, “productive” according to Doerfer (1967:54)
  • -lik ‘abstract noun’, e.g. χoǧa-lik ‘farm, estate’

5 case suffixes (out of 6 Northern Tajik case suffixes). Some of the borrowed case markers seem to be used alternatively with native case markers, the genitive/accusative case is the only case for which there is only a native, and no borrowed case marker (Doerfer 1967:62).

  • -ga ‘dative’, e.g. χåna-ga ‘to the house’, used alternatively to χåna-va, with a native Persian case marker. -ga is maybe only used with Persian verbs and nominalized verbs, but there is a clear tendency that it is on the rise (Doerfer 1967:62).
  • -dan ‘ablative’, e.g. yakom klasašdan (first/class-3sg.possessor-ablative) ‘from the first class/grade’ (Doerfer 1967:54)
  • -nda ~ -da ‘locative’, e.g. inǧanda ‘here’ (Doerfer 1967:54)
  • -gača ‘terminative’, e.g. tå bist-u-haftom sål-gača ‘up to the 26th year’ (Doerfer 1967:54)
  • -dak ‘equative/comparative’ (Doerfer 1967:16, 56), no examples given, but described as part of a borrowed paradigm of case markers (Doerfer 1967:62)

2 derivational suffixes combining with numerals

  • -gina ‘quantitative limiter’, e.g. yak som-gina ‘one Ruble more ［e.g. more expensive, cheaper］’
  • -la, -lamiš ‘collective numeral formation’, e.g. duttalamå ‘both of us’, čårtalamiš ‘(with) all four’

2 suffixes not related to other borrowed morphology

  • -ča ‘adverbializer’, e.g. urus-ča ‘in Russian’
  • -råq ‘comparative’, used together with the native Tajik comparative suffix, e.g. tez-tar-råq or tez-råq-tar ‘faster’

Doerfer (1967:18, 19, 25, 39, 56) mentions four other cases of morphological borrowing. They are not counted here for the following reasons: First, two of these appear to be free forms, although maybe derived from Turkic affixes: ikin ‘dubitative’ and či ‘emotional particle’. Second, the remaining two markers are explicitly described as combining only with Turkic stems: inči ‘ordinal number formation’ and miš ‘verbal noun formation’.