On the changes of quantitative numerals 11-19 in caucasian persian (tat) and northern talyshi

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

On the changes of quantitative numerals 11-19 in caucasian persian (tat) and northern talyshi

A. Tonoyan

PhD (Linguistics), Associate Professor

Yerevan State University, Faculty of Oriental Studies

Institute of Oriental Studies, NAS of the Republic of Armenia

Yerevan, Avchyan

PhD (Linguistics), Associate Professor

Yerevan State University, Faculty of Oriental Studies



А. Тоноян, Г. Авчян

ПРО ЗМІНИ КІЛЬКІСНИХ ЧИСЛІВНИКІВ 11-19 У КАВКАЗЬКІЙ ПЕРСЬКІЙ (ТАТСЬКА) ТА ПІВНІЧНОТАЛИШСЬКІЙ МОВАХ

Дві із західноіранських мов, поширених на території сучасної Азербайджанської Республіки, кавказька перська (тат) і північноталишська, що належать до південно-західної та північно-західної гілок іранських мов відповідно, мають багато спільних фонетичних і граматичних рис. Ці спільні риси зумовлені генетичним зв'язком між ними (корінна іранська спадщина), а також мовними контактами та взаємодією між ними, ймовірно, протягом певного історичного періоду. Крім того, існує ще одна важлива обставина, яка призвела до обумовлення деяких із цих спільних рис, а саме суперстративний вплив азербайджанської мови, яка набула статусу домінантної мови в регіоні протягом останнього століття. Хоча вплив азербайджанської мови на кавказьку перську мову та її вплив на північноталишську мову деякі дослідники досліджували як окремі теми, схожі зміни в кавказькій перській і талишській мовах, спричинені впливом “домінантної” мови, дотепер не досліджено. Пропонована робота є спробою заповнити цю прогалину, а також створити прецедент для подальшого вивчення деяких граматичних спільностей між двома мовами з цієї точки зору. У цій статті розглядається зміна складу кількісних числівників 11-19, що відбувається. Стаття має на меті висвітлити причини цієї зміни в двох іранських мовах шляхом їх дослідження за допомогою порівняльно-типологічного методу. З огляду на те, що кавказька перська та північноталишська мови класифікуються ЮНЕСКО як мови, що перебувають під загрозою зникнення [Moseley 2010, map 11--12], дослідження піддатливості цих мов, впливу на них нерідної домінантної мови, його сили та швидкості, витіснення рідних форм, є дуже важливим і, можливо, одним із найважливіших завдань сучасної іранської діалектології та іранської лінгвістики.

Ключові слова: кількісні числівники, кавказька перська мова, тат, північноталишська, суперстративний вплив, мовний контакт, курдська мова, зазакі, дімлі, тюрко-іраніка



Yerevan, Two of the Western Iranian languages spoken in the territory of the current Azerbaijan Republic, Caucasian Persian (Tat) and the Northern Talyshi, belonging to the southwestern and northwestern branches of Iranian languages, respectively, have many common phonetic and grammatical features. These commonalities are due to the genetic relationship between them (indigenous Iranian heritage), as well as the language contacts and interactions between them, presumably during a certain historical period. In addition, there is another important circumstance that has led to the conditioning of some of these commonalities, namely the superstrative influence of the Azerbaijani language, which has acquired the status of a dominant language in the region during the last century. Although the influence of the Azerbaijani language on the Caucasian Persian and its influence on the Northern (https://creativecommons.org/li- censes/by-nc/4.0/).

Talyshi have been investigated as separate topics by some researchers, similar changes in these languages caused by the influence of the “dominant” language have not been studied till now. This work is an attempt to fill this gap and also to create a precedent for further examination of some grammatical commonalities between the two languages from this point of view. The presented article is a case study on the ongoing change in the composition of the series of quantitative numerals 11-19. It aims to highlight the reasons for this change in the two Iranian languages by examining the languages using the comparative-typological method. Given that both Caucasian Persian and Northern Talyshi are classified as endangered languages by UNESCO [Moseley 2010, map 11-12], the study of the prominence of these languages, the influence of the non-native dominant language on them, their strength, and the rate of displacement of native forms is very crucial and perhaps one of the most important tasks of modern Iranian dialectology and Iranian linguistics.

Keywords: Quantitative numerals, Caucasian Persian, Tat, Northern Talyshi, superstrative influence, language contact, Kurdish, Zazaki, Dimli, Turco-Iranica



Introduction

Caucasian Persian (Tat) is a southwestern Iranian language [Gryunberg 1961a, 106-114] that is spoken in various parts of historical Shirvan The term Caucasian Persian defines the group of Southwestern Iranian dialects spoken in the historical Shirvan area, which are best known in the field of Iranian linguistics and dialectology in two different ways: Muslim- Tat language (Russian: мусульманско-татский язык) and Christian-Tat language (Russian: язык татов-христиан) or Armeno-Tat language (Rus-sian: армяно-татский язык). Juhuri, which is spoken in the northern bor-der of historical Shirvan and in the areas north of it, is better known to Ira-nologists as the Judeo-Tat language. Although this language belongs to the southwestern group of Iranian languages and shares common phonetic, grammatical, and lexical features with Caucasian Persian, in professional li-terature, it is considered as one of the two separate dialects of one common Tat language, the northern one. The southern dialect of it is identical to the language defined by the term Caucasian Persian [Tonoyan 2021, 167-168]. (the Absheron Peninsula, as well as Khizi, Siyazan, Shabran, Quba, Khachmaz, Shamakhi, and Ismayilli administrative regions). Northern Talyshi is a northwestern Iranian language [Pireyko 1991, 91-175] that is spoken mainly in the five southern administrative regions of Azerbaijan (Lenkoran, Lerik, Astara, Masali, Yardimli) and partly also in the administrative regions of Bilasuvar and Jalilabad. These two languages have been under the dominant influence of the Azerbaijani language for the past hundred years. This strong influence has led to several changes in the phonetic system, vocabulary, and grammatical system of these Iranian languages. Although various scholars have addressed this issue of Azerbaijani influence on both Caucasian Persian [Gryunberg 1961b, 11 -23; 1963, 112-114; Sokolova 1953, 131-135; Schmitt 1994, 16-17; Windfuhr 2006, 261, Tonoyan 2015, 3-12] and Northern Talyshi [Sokolova 1953; Miller 1953, 129; Schulze 2000, 26; Pireyko 1991, 133], the similarity in the grammatical and typological changes in Caucasian Persian and Northern Talyshi caused by the influence of Azerbaijani and the continuity of that process remains unexplored. Given that both Caucasian Persian and Northern Talyshi are highly endangered [Moseley 2010, map 11-12] See also [Haberl (in press), 15, 50]., documenting and studying different aspects of these languages seems to have practical importance for Iranian linguistics and dialectology.

A similar example is the change of the series of quantitative numerals 11-19 in both languages. In Caucasian Persian, there was an almost complete loss of the historically inherited type of composition and a transition to a new type of composition. In Northern Talyshi formation of a new type occurred, which is now used together with the existing historical native type of composition. From a sociolinguistics point of view, this newly formed type will most likely push out the historically inherited type of the series in the future.

The aim of this article is twofold: first, to identify and highlight the linguistic phenomenon under examination, and second, to understand the direction of ongoing structural changes.



Historical background (comparative-historical aspect)

For the quantitative numbers of the series 11-19, the Indo-European languages, with some exceptions for the numbers 11 and 12, have a structural type of composition in which the word ten is placed after the numbers 1-9 (cf. English: thirteen, fourteen, fifteen etc., German: dreizehn, vierzehn, funfZehn, etc., Ukrainian: тринадцять, чотирнадцять, п'ятнадцять etc., French: treize, quatorze, quinze etc., Old Armenian: ЬрЬртшишЬ, упрЬртшишЬ, ІіЬдЬтшишЬ etc., Old Greek: rpeiamiSem, гєааарєокаіЗєт, nsvxsKaiSsKa etc., Latin: tredecim, quattuordecim, quindecim etc.)3. As Iranian languages are also Indo-European languages, they too use the same type of structure. Among the Middle Iranian languages, both Middle Persian, which is continued by Caucasian Persian as a Southwestern Iranian language, and Parthian, which is continued by Talyshi as a Northwestern Iranian language in the new Iranian linguistic period, show forms specific to the main Indo-European, including Iranian structural type for series 11-19 (see Table 1).

The structural type of composition used in Middle Persian is continued in New and Modern Persian (cf. yazdah “eleven”, davazdah “twelve”, sizdah “thirteen”, cahardah “fourteen”, panzdah “fifteen”, sanzdah “sixteen”, hefdah “seventeen”, hejdah “eighteen”, nuzdah “nineteen”). Likewise, in the new northwestern Iranian or so-called Parthian-type languages such as Kurdish [Kurdoyev 1961, 37]4, Ba- lochi [Jahani & Korn 2009, 658], Gilaki [Rastorguyeva 1971, 84] and elsewhere, the preservation of the so-called pure Iranian forms of the numerals is still under discussion.

The Numerals 11-19 in Caucasian Persian and Northern Talyshi (change and transformation)

Among the dialects of the Caucasian Persian language, the historical type of the composition mentioned is preserved only in the Surax- ani dialect, spoken in Absheron Peninsula (see Table 2). In the remaining dialects, such as the dialects of Quba, Shamakhi, and La- hij, there are recorded forms that deviate from the inherited Iranian forms of composition of the series. In these dialects, the word “ten” does not follow the numbers 1-9, but comes as a prefix (see Table 2). An interesting exception to this style is the number “twelve” in the Lahij dialect, duzdah / duzdahto (cf. New Persian: davazdah), which should be considered here as lexical archaism and evidence of the fact that in these dialects, the series 11-19 had earlier native Iranian appearance and today's forms, in which the word ten precedes 1-9. This is the result of secondary development and change.

Table 2. Quantitative Numerals 11-19 in Caucasian Persian (Tat) dialects

	Suraxani dialect8 (Absheron)	Madrasa dialect9 (Shamakhi)	Lahij dialect10 (Ismayilli)	Qonaqkend dialect11 (Quba)
11	vonna	daivek	dahvek // dahvekto	davak
12	donza	daidu	duzdah // duzdahto	dadu
13	sinza	daisa	dahsa // dahsato	dase
14	carda daicar	daicar	dahcor // dahcorto	dacar
15	ponza	daipanj	dahpanj // dahpanjto	dapanj
16	sonza	daises	dahses // dahsesto	dases
17	hovda daihaft	daihaft	dahhaft // dahhaftto	dahaf
18	ijda daihast	daihast	dahhast // dahhastto	dahas
19	nonza dainuv	dainuv	dahnih // dahnihto	danu

This usage is almost identical in the Talyshi language with only one difference being that if in any dialect of the Caucasian Persian language, the simultaneous presence and use of two types of composition of the numerals of the 11-19 series is not attested, then in the northern dialects of the Talyshi language, there is such a reality. In Boris Miller's famous study of Northern Talyshi, which, although published in 1953, is based on the materials written during his fieldwork in Lankaran in 1925 [Miller 1953, 3], only one form of composition is recorded for the numerals under study, the so-called “native Iranian” See: [Mammadova 2017, 76]. See: [Galt`axcyan 1970, 99]. See: [Huseynova 2002, S3]. See: [Haciyev 1971, 67]. type of composition (see Table 3). However, new research on the Northern Talyshi language, conducted mainly in the 21st century, records the emergence of the so-called “non-Iranian” type and parallel usage with forms belonging to the “native Iranian” type. Moreover, this ongoing grammatical change is applicable for the entire distribution area of the Northern Talyshi language (see Table 3), the southern border of which is the `Anbarani dialect spoken in Iran [Avchyan 2016, 72-73]. The spread of this phenomenon stops where the zone of the strong influence of Persian begins (see Table 3). The central and southern dialects of Talyshi indicate that the direction of this ongoing structural change should be evaluated from north to south. The last mentioned circumstance also reduces the possibility of finding a solution to the problem in grammatical analogy, particularly the possibility that the reason for the change in the native forms of the series 11-19 may be the influence of the series 21-99, wherein the inherited Iranian form of composition of the words “20”, “30”, “40” etc. precedes the unit (cf. Persian: bistodo “twenty-two”, Talyshi: visti penj “twenty-five”, Caucasian Persian: si-car “thirty-four”, etc.).



Table 3. Quantitative Numerals 11-19 in Talyshi dialects

	Northern Talyshi (Lankarani dialect)	Northern Talyshi (`Anbarani dialect)12	Central Talyshi (Asalemi dialect) See: [Avhcyan 2016, 72-73]. See: [Yarshater 1996, 91; Redayati 2011; 43].	Southern Talyshi (Fumani dialect) The provided data were collected from Yaser Karamzadeh, a native speaker of Southern Talyshi who resides in the village of Alyan (Gilan, Fu- man district). See: [Miller 1953, 128; Abboszoda 2019, 67]. See: [Abboszoda 2019, 67; Avchyan & Voskanian 2022, 52]. Only the Iranian type is recorded in the Central dialect of Talyshi, and no example of the non-Iranian type has been found in this dialect yet. Similar to the Central dialect of Talyshi, the Southern dialect also ex-clusively features the Iranian type without any examples of the non-Iranian type found.
	Iranian	Non-Iranian	Iranian	Non-Iranian	Iranian	Iranian
	forms15	forms16	forms	forms	forms17	forms18
11	vynza	davi i	vynza	davii	vanza	vonza
12	donza	davi di	donza	davidi	danza	donza
13	senza	davi se	sinzn	davine	sinza	sinza
14	corda	davi co	curda	davicur	carda	carda
15	oonza	davi zenj	ounza	davizenj	panza	punzz
16	sooza	davi sas	Ounza	davisas	sanza	sunza
17	havda	davi haft	havda	davihaft	havd'a	hifda
18	hazda	davi hast	hazda	davihast	hazd'a	hazda // hizda
19	nonza	davi nav	nonza	davinav	n'uzd'a	nizda

Identifying the origin of changes and transformations in Caucasian Persian and Northern Talyshi (areal linguistics and typological aspect)

The examination of similar changes in the Caucasian Persian and Talyshi languages and the search for their causes cannot be limited only to the framework of historical-comparative linguistics. This is because, as mentioned above, for the composition of this series of numerals in inherited Iranian, the word ten is postposed, just as it is preserved in today's modern Persian language. Therefore, in a certain sense, the reason for this change should be sought from the historical and current contacts of the given languages or from the linguistic formulation in the context of areal linguistics and areal typology.

The language that has been in closest contact with Caucasian Persian and Talyshi during the last hundred years in the territory of Azerbaijan is the Azerbaijani language. Azerbaijani holds the status of a “titular language” and therefore exerts an overwhelmingly superstra- tive influence on Caucasian Persian and a slightly milder influence on the more peripherally spread Northern Talyshi. In general, in the Altaic language family, including the Oghuz sub-branch, the type in which the word ten (Turk. on) has a preposition to the numbers 1-9 is native to the composition of the 11-19 series (see Table 4).

Table 4. Quantitative Numerals 11-19 in Oguz group of Turkic languages

	Turkish	Azerbaijani	Turkmen
11	on bir	on bir	on bir
12	on iki	on iki	on
13	on uc	on uc	on
14	on dort	on dord	on dort
15	on bes	on bes	on bas
16	on alti	on alti	on alty
17	on yedi	on yeddi	on vedi
18	on sekiz	on sokkiz	on sekiz
19	on dokuz	on doaauz	on dokuz

Therefore, there is a high probability that the change in the composition of the numerals 11-19 in Caucasian Persian and Northern Talyshi, particularly the gradual expulsion of the native Iranian type and its replacement by a non-Iranian type, is the result of the super- strative influence of Azerbaijani, which is one of the Turkic languages. The reason for this change is the Azerbaijani language itself, as agreed by Schmitt for Juhuri, a language closely related to Caucasian Persian [Schmitt 1994, 15], Tonoyan for Caucasian Persian [Tonoyan 2015, 3-12] and Avchyan for the `Anbarani dialect of Northern Talyshi [Avchyan 2016, 72-73]. These researchers have confirmed that the influence of the Azerbaijani language is the reason for the changes in the languages that they studied.

Other Cases

The Iranian and non-Iranian languages that have been or are still in active contact with Turkic languages, particularly Turkish and Azerbaijani, speak in favor of looking for a solution to the problem in the domain of language contacts and interactions.

Iranian languages

An example of this is the northern Kurdish language (Kurmanji) spoken in Artsakh, which Vil'chevskiy called “the language of the Kurds of Karabakh” [Vil'chevskiy 1938, 69]. Vil'chevskiy conducted field work in Artsakh in 1931 to collect data for his research. According to him, in the language of Artsakh Kurds, both Iranian and non- Iranian forms were used simultaneously for the numerals 11-19 (see Table 5). By the 60s of the 20th century, the non-Iranian type had completely pushed out the native Iranian forms. Bakaev's field material, collected in 1960-1962, documents the use of only one non-Iranian form in Artsakh Kurdish [Bakaev 1965, 112]. It is interesting that in some northern Kurdish dialects spoken in Turkey as well, there is a simultaneous use of two forms (Iranian and non-Iranian) for the numbers 11-19, which was reported by R. Schmitt [Schmitt 1994, 15].

Among the Iranian languages that are currently in contact with Turkic languages, Zazaki exhibits a similar phenomenon [Todd 2008, 34]. In Zazaki, which is spoken in the Dersim area, there is a parallel use of both Iranian and non-Iranian types of the number series in question (see Table 5).

In the case of Northwestern Iranian dialects, the same phenomenon is also found in Harzandi, one of the New Azari dialect islands

spoken in Iran, which should again be considered as a result of Turkic influence (cf. doh-o-i “eleven”, doh-o-do “twelve”, doh-o-here “thirteen”, doh-o-co “fourteen”, doh-o-pinj “fifteen”, doh-o-sos “sixteen”, doh-o-hoft “seventeen”, doh-o-hazda “eighteen”, doh-o-nov “nineteen”)25. The Turkic language, which became dominant in Atropatene from the 16th-17th centuries, had exactly the same influence on the local New Azari dialects as the Transcaucasian Turkish had on the Caucasian Persian and Northern Talysh languages.

It should be noted that although in some New Azari dialects, such as Harzandi and Karingani, the transition to the Turkish type has occurred, in the case of Xalxali, the Iranian type continues to be preserved [Asefi 2020, 30].

Table 5. Quantitative numerals 11-19 in some dialects of Kurdish and Zazaki (Dimli)

Kurdish dialect of Artsakh	Some northern dialects of the Kurdish language (Turkey)	Zazaki or Dimli (Turkey)
	Iranian forms See: [Vil'chevskiy 1938, 73].	Non-Iranian forms See: [Vil'chevskiy 1938, 73; Bakayev 1965, 112]. The examples given by Bakaev were limited to the numerals 11, 13 and 14. The authors of this lines also gave 13 and the numerals following 14, i.e. 15-19, according to the extracted pattern, using the [...] sign.	Iranian forms The data were extracted from Schmitt's article, given according to Mukri and other dialects of Kurmanji [Schmitt 1994, 15].	Non-Iranian forms The examples, given under one general form for the Northern Kurdish dialects of Azerbaijan and Turkey, are taken from the work of R. Schmitt [1994, 15].	Iranian forms See: [Paul 1998, 61].	Non-Iranian forms See: [Todd 2008, 54].
11	yanzdah	Oavuyak	vaz(d)a	dehyek	zondes	desujew
		t'sw Vsk	vanzde(h)
12	dvanzdah	Oav u du	duazda	dehdu	diwes	desudidi
	danzdah	[t'sw do]	donzde(h)
13	senzah	Oav u se	sezda	dehse	hires	desuhire
	sezdah	t'sw se (/sa)	sezde(h)
14	tardah	Oav u tar	cuarda	dehcar	carer	desuge'har
		t'sw car	carde(h)
15	panzdah	Oav u vani	pazda	dehpenc	ppajes	desupanj
		[t'sw venil	vanzde(h)
16	sanzdah	Oav u sas	sazda	deh§e§	siyes	desU§e§
		[t'sw sesl	sanzde(h)
17	havdah	Oav u hafB	hawda	dehhevt	hewtes	desu'hewt
		[t'sw haftl	hivde(h)
18	hijdah	Oav u has0	hazda	devhey§t	hestes	desu'he§t
		[t'sw hastl	hiide(h)
19	nonzdah	Oav neha	nozda	devne(h)	[newes]	desunew
	nozdah	[t'sw nah]	nozde(h)

Non-Iranian languages

Two types of composition of the numerals 11-19 were used during different periods of the development of the Armenian and Greek languages. Both ancient Armenian and ancient Greek have used the forms of composition typical for Indo-European languages in which ten follows the numerals 1-9 (see Table 6). Whereas, in modern Greek (except for the numbers “eleven” and “twelve”) and modern Armenian, the second form of the composition of the series are used, in which the number ten precedes the numbers 1-9 (see Table 6).

Table 6. Quantitative numerals 11-19 in Armenian and Greek languages

	Armenian	Greek
	Old Armenian	Modern Armenian	Old Greek	Modern Greek
11	metasan	tasnmek	evbera	evbera
12	erkotasan	tasnerku	5ю5єка	5ю5ека
13	erek`tasan	tasnerek`	T0єюкa^5єкa	5екатоек
14	corek`tasan	tasncors	тєттаоєс каі 5єка	5екатєссаоес
15	hngetasan	tasnhing	nevreKaiSem	5екапетте
16	vestasan	tasnvec`	єк^5єка	5екаєЈ
17	ewt`newtasn	tasnyot`	єптaкa^5eкa	Ьекаалта
18	ufewtasn	tasnut`	6ктожш5ека	5екаоктю
19	innewtasn	tasnim	evvea^SeKa	Ьекаа^'єа

25 The assumption that this change is caused by the Turkish influence during the last few decades, is also evidenced by the data found in earlier researches, particularly in the 50s of the 20th century, in which some numerals in Harzandi show the Iranian archaic type of composition, i.e. corda “fourteen” [Karang 1954, 57].

heoretically, it can be assumed that these changes are due to the influence of language contacts. But the example of Armenian complicates this claim, as the change in Armenian began to take place in the 11th-12th centuries itself As examples can be mentioned tasnewinn “nineteen” attested in the writings of Hovhannes Sarkavag Imastaser (1045-1129), tasn ew min “ele-ven” attested in the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa (11^th century - 1144), as well as tasnewcors “fourteen” and tasnewut` “eighteen” both used once in Mkhitar of Her's (12<sup>th</sup> century)jermanc`mxit`arowt`iwn [Lazaryan & Aveti-syan 2009, 750].. This is also a period of qualitative change and transition in the history of the Armenian language and the beginning of Middle Armenian. The first Seljuk raids into Asia Minor took place only in the 11th-12th centuries. There is no other linguistic basis, even insignificant, to assume that Armenian came into contact with the Turkic languages immediately from that period. The fact that there were no lexical borrowings, made grammatical copying, which is more complex and requires longer contact, tangible dominance of the source language for copying, etc.

Hrachya Acharyan, an outstanding specialist in the history of the Armenian language, gives a simple explanation to the problem, considering that the formation of the second form in Middle Armenian is related to the law of generalization (analogy). According to Acharyan, the change in Armenian occurred due to the influence of the numerals 21-99 [Acaryan 1952, 249]. And what is more interesting is that Acharyan gives examples of the second type of usage in Armenian even from the pre-Middle Armenian period, which, however, are not found independently, but in formations with the numerals hundred and thousand, such as hariwr tasn ew erku “hundred and ten and two”, hazar tasn ew ewt'n “one thousand ten and seven” etc. [Acaryan 1952, 249].



Conclusion

The replacement of the native Iranian form of composition of the numerals of the 11-19 series with a new one has not yet been fully completed and is still in progress. Among the dialects of the Caucasian Persian language, only the Absheron dialect group (Suraxani dialect) has resisted this change, owing to the traditionally strong presence of the literary Persian language in that area until the first quarter of the 20th century. Unlike Talyshi, in which the process started much later (probably late 20th century to early 21st century), in Caucasian Persian, it started earlier. This is indicated by the parallel existence of two types of composition of the numerals 11-19 and the use of old forms alongside new ones. In Caucasian Persian dialects spoken in Mountain Shirvan (Shamakhi, Ismayilli) and Quba, only new forms are used, which shows the completed state of grammatical change. The picture is different in the Talyshi language, where the process of this grammatical change is new and dynamic. The parallel existence of old and new forms is proof of the change. It will still take decades for the newly created form to gain dominance over the first one and finally be able to push it out of the language.

When discussing the issue from the standpoint of areal linguistics, it is obvious that similar changes are taking place in other Iranian languages that are in active contact with Turkic languages. Moreover, when speakers are bilingual, in addition to their native language, they also speak Turkish or some other Turkic language as a second language (see, for example, the examples of Zazaki and Kurdish in Table 5).

The reason for the discussed grammatical changes in the Caucasian Persian and Northern Talyshi languages, in all probability, is the strong superstrative influence of the Azerbaijani language as the new dominant language of the Eastern Transcaucasia (since the first half of the 20th century). This is also evidenced by the direction of the spread of this change - from north to south, stopping where the central and southern dialects of the Talyshi begin and, consequently, their protection by the dominant Iranian language environment.

Література

Аббосзодэ Ф. Ф. Толышэ Зывон (фонетика, морфологщэ, синтаксис). Минск, 2019.

Бакаев Ч. Х. Язык азербайджанских курдов. Москва, 1965.

Вильчевский О. Л. Вигезимальный счет в курдском // Памяти академика Н. Я. Марра / Ред. И. И. Мещанинов. Москва - Ленинград, 1938.

Грюнберг А. Ц. К вопросу о языковом взаимодействии (на материале языка североазербайджанских татов) // Краткие сообщения Института народов Азии. 1961. Вып. XL.

Грюнберг А. Ц. О месте татского среди иранских языков //

Вопросы языкознания. 1961. № 1.

Курдоев К. К. Курдский язык. Москва, 1961.

Миллер Б. В. Талышский язык. Москва, 1953.

Пирейко Л. А. Талышский язык. Диалекты Тати Ирана // Основы иранского языкознания. Новоиранские языки: северозападная группа I / Ред. В. С. Расторгуева. Москва, 1991.

Расторгуева В. С. (отв. ред.) Гилянский язык. Москва, 1971. Соколова В. С. Очерки по фонетике иранских языков, I, белуджский, курдский, талышский, татский языки. Москва - Ленинград, 1953.

Bazin M. Le Talech. Une region ethnique au nord de l'lran.

Tome II. Paris, 1980.

Beeks R. S. P. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an introduction, 1st ed. Amsterdam - Philadelphia, 1995.

Cahani K. & Korn A. Balochi // The Iranian Languages / Ed.

L. Windfuhr. London - New York, 2009.

Durkin-Meisterenst D. Grammatik des Westmitteliranischen (Parthisch und Mittelpersisch). Wien, 2014.

Emmerick R. E. Iranian [numerals] // Indo-European numerals / Ed. Gvozdanovic J. Berlin - New York, 1992.

HaciyevM. І. Tat dilinin Qonaqkand lahcasi. Baki, 1971.

Haberl Ch. G. (in press), Endangered Languages of the Middle East and North Africa // Encyclopedia of the World's Endangered Languages / Ed. Ch. Moseley. London-New York, available at: https://www.academia.edu/27190965.

Huseynova G. І. Lahic tatlarinin dili. Baki, 2002.

Mammadova N. Elements de description et documentation du tat de l'Apsheron, langue iranienne d'Azerbai'djan. Diss. PhD. Paris, 2018.

Moseley Ch. (ed.) Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger,

3rd ed. Paris, 2010.

Paul L. Zazaki: Grammatik und Versuch einer Dialektologie.

Wiesbaden, 1998.

Schmitt R. Die Zahlreihe zwischen “10” und “20”, zum Beispiel im Iranischen // Historische Sprachforschung. 1994. Vol. 107/1. Schulze W. M. Northern Talysh. Munchen, 2000.

Todd T. L. A Grammar of Dimill (also known as Zaza). Electronic pub., 2008. 1st pub. Ann Arbor, 1985. 2nd pub. Stockholm, 2002.

Tonoyan A. A. Some Remarks on the Origin of the Iranian Stratum of Caucasian Persian (Tati) Lexicon // Bulletin of the Institute of Oriental Studies. 2021. Vol. 1/1.

Windfuhr G. L. Language change and modeling modal axes: Irano- Turkic convergence // Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: historical and linguistic aspects / Eds. Johanson L. & Bulut Ch. Wiesbaden, 2006.

Yarshatet E. H. The Taleshi of Asalem // Studia Iranica. 1996. Vol. 25.

И^шп]шЬ 2. 2. Ь^шЦштшр рЬршЦшЬпгэдпгЬ hшJng phq^, hшmnp 1: ЬрЬшЬ, 1952:

И^ушЬ 2.2. Рш^ЬрЬЬ^ ИЬршршЬ^ ршрршпр (рЬЦЬшЬпг- шЦшЬ штЬЬш^пипгэдпгЬ): ЬрЬшЬ, 2016:

Иф]шЬ 2. 2., ПиЦшЬ)шЬ Ч. U. Рш^ЬрЬЬ^ цшишд^рр:

ЬрЬшЬ, 2022:

ЧшqшpJшЬ О. U., И^Ьт^и]шЬ 2. U. U^p^b hш]hphЬ^ ршпшршЬ: ЬрЬшЬ, 2009:

Чш^рш^ушЬ U. Р. Ошцршишд^ЬЬр^ ршрЬрЬЬ ]_^П^Ь (рЬЦЬшЬпгшЦшЬ штЬЬш^питр-]тЬ): ЬрЬшЬ, 1970:

SnЬnJшЬ U. U. Чп^ЦшщшЬ щшриЦЬрЬЬпгЬ р^шЦшЬЬЬр^ ЦшqЬmp¦]шЬ прп2 шnшЬ&ЬшhшmЦntp¦JntЬЬhp^ 2nLP2 // Ор^ЬЬтшфш: 2015, hшm. 16:

.m.



References

Abboszoda F. (2019), Tolysha zyvon (fonetika, morfologiya, sin- taksis), ed. by Abilov I., Medisont, Minsk. (In Talyshi).

Acaryan H. (1952), Liakatar k`erakanut`yun hayoc` lezvi, Vol. 1, Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk Armyanskoy SSR, Yerevan. (In Armenian).

Asefi N. (2020), Xastgah-e zabani-e mohajeran-e Harzan (vaka- vi-ye nazanye-ye Henning), in PazUhesha-ye Iransenasi, Vol. 9/2, Tehran, pp. 19--34. (In Persian).

Avchyan H. and Voskanian V. (2022), T`alisereni dasagirk`, YSU Publishing House, Yerevan. (In Armenian).

Avchyan H. (2016), T`alisereni Anbarani barbard, Ph.D. thesis defended at the Institute of Language after Hr. Acharyan NAS RA, Yerevan. (In Armenian).

Bakayev Ch. (1965), Yazyk azerbaydzhanskikh kurdov, Nauka, Moscow. (In Russian).

Bazin M. (1980), Le Talech. Une region ethnique au nord de 1'Iran, Tome II, Association pour la diffusion de la pensee fran^aise (ADPF), Paris.

Beeks R. (1995), Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an introduction, 1st ed., John Benjamin's Publishing Company, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.

Cahani K. and Korn A. (2009), “Balochi”, in WindfUhr G. (ed.), The Iranian Languages, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 634-92.

Durkin-Meisterenst D. (2014), Grammatik des Westmitteliranis- chen (Parthisch und Mittelpersisch), Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien.

Emmerick R. (1992), “Iranian [numerals]”, in Gvozdanovic J. (ed.), Indo-European numerals, Vol. 57 in the series Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, pp. 289-345 (= Chapter 8).

Galt`axcyan S. (1970), Madrasac`ineri t`at`eren lezun, Ph.D. thesis defended at the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR, Sector of Oriental Studies. (In Armenian).

Gryunberg A. (1961a), “O meste tatskogo sredi iranskikh yazykov”, in Voprosy yazykoznaniya, Vol. 1 (10), pp. 106-14. (In Russian).

Gryunberg A. (1961b), “K voprosu o yazykovom vzaimodeystvii (na materiale yazyka severoazerbaydzhanskikh tatov)”, in Kratkie soobshcheniya Instituta narodov Azii, Vol. XL, Moscow, pp. 11-23. (In Russian).

Haciyev M. (1971), Tat dilinin Qonaqkdnd hhcdsi, Elm, Baki. (In Azerbaijani Turkish).

Haberl Ch. (in press), “Endangered Languages of the Middle East and North Africa”, in Encyclopedia of the World's Endangered Languages, ed. by Moseley Ch., Routledge, London-New York, Rout- ledge, available at: https://www.academia.edu/27190965, pp. 1-63.

Huseynova G. (2002), Lahic tatlarinin dili, Nurlan, Baki. (In Azerbaijani Turkish).

Karang A. (1954), Tati va Harzani, do lahja az zaban-e bastan-e Azarbayjan, Esma'il Va'ezpur, Tabriz. (In Persian).

Kurdoyev K. (1961), Kurdskiy yazyk, Izdatel'stvo vostochnoy lite- ratury, Moscow. (In Russian).

Lazaryan R. and Avetisyan H. (2009), Mijin hayereni bararan, 2nd revised ed., YSU Publishing House Yerevan, 1st ed. Vols. 1-2, 1987-1992 (Academy Press, Yerevan). (In Armenian).

Mammadova N. (2018), Elements de description et documentation du tat de l'Apsheron, langue iranienne d'Azerbai'djan, Ph.D. thesis defended at the Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales (INALCO), Paris.

Miller B. (1953), Talyshskiy yazyk, Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow. (In Russian).

Moseley Ch. (ed.) (2010), Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger, 3rd ed., UNESCO Publishing, Paris.

Paul L. (1998), Zazaki: Grammatik und Versuch einer Dialektolo- gie, Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, Wiesbaden.

Pireyko L. (1991), “Talyshskiy yazyk. Dialekty Tati Irana”, in Ras- torguyeva V. (ed.), Osnovy iranskogo yazykoznaniya. Novoiranskiye yazyki: severo-zapadnaya grupa, chast' I, Nauka, Moscow. (In Russian).

Rastorguyeva V. (ed.) (1971), Gilyanskiy yazyk, Nauka, Moscow. (In Russian).

Redayati K. (2011), Zaban-e Talesi (tousif-e guyes-e markazi), cap-e dovvom (virayes-e mojaddad), Nasr-e Ilya, Rast. (In Persian).

Schmitt R. (1994), “Die Zahlreihe zwischen `10' und `20', zum Beispiel im Iranischen”, in Historische Sprachforschung, Vol. 107/1, pp.12-29.

Schulze W. (2000), Northern Talysh, Lincom Europa, Munchen.

Sokolova V. (1953), Ocherki po fonetike iranskikh yazykov, chast'I, beludzhskiy, kurdskiy, talyshskiy, tatskiyyazyki, Moscow and Leningrad. (In Russian).

Todd T. L. (2008), A Grammar of Dimili (also known as Zaza), electronic pub., 1st pub. 1985 (Ann Arbor, University of Michigan), 2nd pub. 2002 (Stockholm, Iremen Forlag).

Tonoyan A. (2015), “Kovkasyan parskerenum t`vakanneri ka- zmutyan oros aranjnahatkut`yunneri surf', in Orientalia, Vol. 16, Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies, Yerevan, pp. 3-12. (In Armenian).

Tonoyan A. (2021), “Some Remarks on the Origin of the Iranian Stratum of Caucasian Persian (Tati) Lexicon”, in Bulletin of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Vol. 1/1, Varm Printing House, Yerevan, pp. 167-78. DOI: 10.52837/27382702-2021-34.1-167.

Vil'chevskiy O. (1938), “Vigezimal'nyy schyot v kurdskom”, in Meshchaninov I. (ed.), Pamyati akademika N. Ya. Marra, Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow and Leningrad, pp. 67-76. (In Russian).

Windfuhr G. (2006), “Language change and modeling modal axes: Irano-Turkic convergence”, in Johanson L. & Bulut Ch. (eds), Turkic- Iranian Contact Areas: historical and linguistic aspects, Turcologica, Vol. 62, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp. 252-82. quantitative numeral northern talyshi

Yarshater E. (1996), “The Taleshi of Asalem”, in Studia Iranica, Vol. 25, pp. 83-113.Размещено на Allbest.ru/