Papers by Halil İbrahim Usta
Первая всероссийская научная конференция «Рукописное наследие Востока»: тезисы материалов конференции, посвященной памяти М. И. Воробьевой-Десятовской (1933–2021)., 2022
Лексические элементы как показатели языковых напластований (на материале
Среднеазиатского тафсир... more Лексические элементы как показатели языковых напластований (на материале
Среднеазиатского тафсира)
Как известно, А.К. Боровков в свое время опубликовал «лексику» среднеазиатского тэфсира. Я тоже изучал текст среднеазиатского тафсира и подготовил на эту тему магистерскую диссертацию в 1989 г. Я переводил «Лексику Боровкова» на турецкий язык как критическое издание. В 2011 г. опубликовал транскрипцию текста тафсира в Турции. В этот раз хочу
сообщить коллегам о лексических элементах в тексте среднеазиатского тафсира как показателях языковых напластований.
Шведский тюрколог Ларс Йохансон (2001) высказался по этому поводу так: «Язык отражает социальные обстоятельства, исторические изменения, историю культуры и расселения, а также созвездия политического господства. Таким образом, лингвистические данные могут помочь восстановить исторические факты. Проблемы возникновения и развития разновидностей заставляют обратить внимание на взаимодействие с экстралингвистическими фактами». Тема моего доклада позволяет выявить ареал распространения традиционных идеологий, степень их трансформации в зависимости от региона.
Опора на четкое разграничение внутренних, присущих самому языку, законов его развития и внешние, социальные факторы, обусловливающие это развитие, а также анализ языковых изменений, показывая действие как тех, так и других, позволяет отнести исследование к диахронической социолингвистике. Применение данной методологии в тюркологии в области социальной стратификации, выявлении ее причин и проявлений в рамках исторического текста представляет несомненный научный интерес.
Modern Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi /Journal of Modern Turkish Studies, 2010
ÖZET Bu yazının birinci bölümünde sözlükçülük (leksikografi) alanının sınırlarını belirlemek amac... more ÖZET Bu yazının birinci bölümünde sözlükçülük (leksikografi) alanının sınırlarını belirlemek amacıyla farklı kaynaklardaki tanımlarına yer verilmekte; leksikografinin teorisi, alanı, terminolojisi ve hedefleri üzerinde durulmaka; Türkiye'de bu alandaki çalışmalar ...
Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 2009
... Mübahase için Türkçe Sözlük'te sadece konuşma denilere... more ... Mübahase için Türkçe Sözlük'te sadece konuşma denilerek yetinilmişken (1998:1600), Örnekleriyle Türkçe Sözlük'te 1. Bir iş hakkında iki kişi arasında söylenen söz; çeşitli konular hakkında karşılıklı konuşma. 2. Bahse girme; bahis; iddia. karşılıkları verilmiştir. ...
Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 2006
... yüzyılın başında ise Batı modeli sözlükçüğü çok iyi bilen ve bunu Türkçeye uyarlayan kişi, Şe... more ... yüzyılın başında ise Batı modeli sözlükçüğü çok iyi bilen ve bunu Türkçeye uyarlayan kişi, Şemseddin Sami (Fraşeri) olmuştur. ... Çünkü ekşi olan diğer yiyecekler (elma, erik, kiraz, vişne) göz önünde bulundurulduğunda bunların sirke ve limon tadında olmadığı görülür. ...
Journal of Turkish Studies, 2015
bildirinin yeniden düzenlenmiş ve geliştirilmiş biçimidir. Bu makale Crosscheck sistemi tarafında... more bildirinin yeniden düzenlenmiş ve geliştirilmiş biçimidir. Bu makale Crosscheck sistemi tarafından taranmış ve bu sistem sonuçlarına göre orijinal bir makale olduğu tespit edilmiştir.
Marife Dini Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2014
Kutsal metinlerdeki imge, fikir ve motiflerin çok anlamlı ve çok boyutlu oldukları bilinmektedir.... more Kutsal metinlerdeki imge, fikir ve motiflerin çok anlamlı ve çok boyutlu oldukları bilinmektedir. Kutsal kitaplar poetiğinin bu özelliği, onların anlaşılma ve yorumlanmasındaki temel hareket noktalarından biridir. Ayrıca, her bir inanç sistemi tarafından kendince yorumlanmış olan ortak motifler dağarcığı, Ortadoğu'da ortaya çıkmış olan üç büyük dinin çok derin akrabalığının timsalidir. Her defasında bazı anlamsal sınırlar kazanan veya kaybeden kavramların karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi, hem İncil hem de Kur'ân metinleri araştırmaları için verimli bir yöntemdir. Bu çalışmada biz, İncil'in imge sisteminde de çok önemli bir yer tutan ve bir motif grubunun odak noktası olan taş kavramının Kur'ân'daki yorumlarını gözden geçireceğiz. 1 Eski ve Yeni Ahit'te tamamen farklı biçimde yorumlanan taş konusu, Kur'ân'da da son derece özgün bir biçimde karşımıza çıkmaktadır. 2
Turkish-Russian Bilingual Dictionaries, 2000
Reform of the Ottoman Language, 1995
Turkish Language as Lingua Franca and Mağcan Cumabayev, 1999
Central Asian Quran Interpretation Dictionary, 2002
Modern Azerbaijani Poetry, 1996
ABOUT PHONOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF DIALECTS
ABOUT PHONOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF DIALECTS
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
In all scient... more ABOUT PHONOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF DIALECTS
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
In all scientific studies, take it to prepare documents and sort of issues should be the first and primary task. This principle also applies to grammar studies. In general language, specifically the classification of the dialect researches, of course, is not a job to be done very easily. But instead of considering this job to avoid difficulties, measures should be identified and action should be taken in this direction. Dialectology studies have become a tool of sociolinguistics. Rather serious and extensive studies on the use for this purpose.
The papers presented in previous years, and we examine the articles published are only found in the opinion on the classification of the dialects in several studies. Dialect studies, have reached levels that could pose a major corpus of theoretical studies but remained few. The reasons for this situation are several factors that complicate their dialect research.
In these studies, we do not see a common understanding and shared vision dialectologists. Statistics, which is made in 1991, supports our view that the criteria of dialectologists not fully match the criteria of other dialectologists’ quantity and content. This shows it is too early to talk about traditions in dialectological works.
It is already clear that they were not so thoughtful about how to choose the criteria. When we look at the criteria for the classification of Turkic languages, then we see that they have such characteristics as small numbers, generality and selectivity. Unfortunately, unusual approaches hold in the Turkish dialectology: chosen some features of the dialect and they are sorted as criteria.
On the other hand, it must be observed difference between the groups and subgroups of dialects. The reliability of the classification of dialects depends on the criteria that agree to the above difference.
In the works of dialectology is another important issue is the fact that some features to oppose modern Turkic languages to the peculiarities of the Turkish dialects, it does not give results. So it cannot be the main pillar of such phonological equivalence as shown by the uniformity of the Turkic languages; because these languages were influenced by migration, high level of education, means of communication, cultural bundles, regional languages, etc. In other words, we should not disregard the fact that some features of Turkish dialects may occur under the influence of the local environment and others may arise sociological or psychological background and in the last they can be factors such as human flaws.
I adhere to the view that dialectology will use synchronous methods, so there is no need to compare with the findings of studies on the old Turkish language, because it leads us to a dead end. On the other hand there is evidence of the fact that scientists have found large differences between the features of the dialects of the Turkish language from the old Turkish language. So if we cannot find an equivalence between the features of the dialects of the Turkish language with phonological characteristics of the old Turkish language which can be found in the manuscripts, it is not possible to use in the classification of dialects as criteria.
In Turkish dialectology for a long time was the traditional approach, which is characteristic only of comparative historical research: to find similarities between the phonological features of dialects of the Turkish language with the characteristics of those tribes who moved into Anatolia in the 11th century. But while there are still unresolved problems, we cannot offer such equivalents as criteria.
Phonological features identified in relation to the dialect, "general" heading are converted into the criteria. But every "feature" distinctive "criteria" is not, cannot. In the case does not meet the general line "of unknown cause" is called. Classification of the features cannot be seen in the dialect movement. Their conversion to a certain extent should be restated in a way that may be at least substantially. And a certain number of criteria must be distinctive.
In conclusion we can say that the above problems constitute an obstacle to the search for true and stable criteria for the classification of dialects.
Phonological changes seen in everyday speech, so far, have used as criteria by which to classify dialects of Turkish language. In other words, diachronic conclusions, considered the most important and take advantage of research, in the final analysis did not take into account the dialectologists. We should fully discuss this paradox, because it does not give any benefit to the young researchers.
Semantics of Stone-motifs in the Quran, Apr 1, 2014
Straipsnių rinkinys, parengtas pranešimų, skaitytų tarptautinėje mokslo konferencijoje, skirtoje ... more Straipsnių rinkinys, parengtas pranešimų, skaitytų tarptautinėje mokslo konferencijoje, skirtoje 615-osioms totorių ir karaimų apgyvendinimo Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje metinėms, pagrindu. Konferencija vyko Vilniaus universitete 2013 m. gegužės 29-31 d.
Özet Biri öncekinden farklı uygarlık çevrelerinde yaşamış olmalarından dolayı Türkler, VIII. yüzy... more Özet Biri öncekinden farklı uygarlık çevrelerinde yaşamış olmalarından dolayı Türkler, VIII. yüzyıldan itibaren çeviri işi ile ciddi bir biçimde ilgilenmişlerdir. Bu yüzden, Türkçe sözlükçülüğün temel sorunlarından biri, XIX. yüzyıla kadar hep iki dilli sözlükler üzerinde yoğunlaşmış olmaktır. XX. yüzyılın başlarında düzenlenen Türkçe sözlükler ise, iki dilli sözlükçülük geleneğinin izlerinden kurtulamamıştır. Günümüzde Türkçe sözlük hazırlayanların yaşadıkları büyük çelişkinin sebeplerinden biri de budur. Sözlükbilimi dalında Türkiye'de yapılmış olan akademik çalışmaların azlığı, bilimsel ve uluslararası değere sahip ilkelere yeterli önemin verilmemesine sebep olmaktadır. Bu yazıda Türkçe Sözlük (TDK, 2005) üzerinde bu ilkelerin uygulanmamış olmasından doğan yöntem hataları incelenmiş, örneklendirilmiştir. Türkiye Türkçesi söz varlığını yetkin bir biçimde değerlendirememek ve sürekli olarak sözlükteki maddelerin niceliği üzerinde yoğunlaşmak, hazırlayıcıların "yöntem" konusuna yeterince eğilmelerini engellemiş; Türkçe Sözlük, içindeki birçok değerlendirme ve örneklendirme hatası yüzünden işlevselliğini yitirmiştir. Oysaki sözlüklerde, "tanımlayıcı, açıklayıcı, doğrulayıcı, önerici, örneklendirici" yönlerin ağırlıkta olması gerekir. Sözlüğün hazırlanış amacı ve hedef kitlesinin netleştirilememiş olması da önemli bir etkendir.
Uploads
Papers by Halil İbrahim Usta
Среднеазиатского тафсира)
Как известно, А.К. Боровков в свое время опубликовал «лексику» среднеазиатского тэфсира. Я тоже изучал текст среднеазиатского тафсира и подготовил на эту тему магистерскую диссертацию в 1989 г. Я переводил «Лексику Боровкова» на турецкий язык как критическое издание. В 2011 г. опубликовал транскрипцию текста тафсира в Турции. В этот раз хочу
сообщить коллегам о лексических элементах в тексте среднеазиатского тафсира как показателях языковых напластований.
Шведский тюрколог Ларс Йохансон (2001) высказался по этому поводу так: «Язык отражает социальные обстоятельства, исторические изменения, историю культуры и расселения, а также созвездия политического господства. Таким образом, лингвистические данные могут помочь восстановить исторические факты. Проблемы возникновения и развития разновидностей заставляют обратить внимание на взаимодействие с экстралингвистическими фактами». Тема моего доклада позволяет выявить ареал распространения традиционных идеологий, степень их трансформации в зависимости от региона.
Опора на четкое разграничение внутренних, присущих самому языку, законов его развития и внешние, социальные факторы, обусловливающие это развитие, а также анализ языковых изменений, показывая действие как тех, так и других, позволяет отнести исследование к диахронической социолингвистике. Применение данной методологии в тюркологии в области социальной стратификации, выявлении ее причин и проявлений в рамках исторического текста представляет несомненный научный интерес.
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
In all scientific studies, take it to prepare documents and sort of issues should be the first and primary task. This principle also applies to grammar studies. In general language, specifically the classification of the dialect researches, of course, is not a job to be done very easily. But instead of considering this job to avoid difficulties, measures should be identified and action should be taken in this direction. Dialectology studies have become a tool of sociolinguistics. Rather serious and extensive studies on the use for this purpose.
The papers presented in previous years, and we examine the articles published are only found in the opinion on the classification of the dialects in several studies. Dialect studies, have reached levels that could pose a major corpus of theoretical studies but remained few. The reasons for this situation are several factors that complicate their dialect research.
In these studies, we do not see a common understanding and shared vision dialectologists. Statistics, which is made in 1991, supports our view that the criteria of dialectologists not fully match the criteria of other dialectologists’ quantity and content. This shows it is too early to talk about traditions in dialectological works.
It is already clear that they were not so thoughtful about how to choose the criteria. When we look at the criteria for the classification of Turkic languages, then we see that they have such characteristics as small numbers, generality and selectivity. Unfortunately, unusual approaches hold in the Turkish dialectology: chosen some features of the dialect and they are sorted as criteria.
On the other hand, it must be observed difference between the groups and subgroups of dialects. The reliability of the classification of dialects depends on the criteria that agree to the above difference.
In the works of dialectology is another important issue is the fact that some features to oppose modern Turkic languages to the peculiarities of the Turkish dialects, it does not give results. So it cannot be the main pillar of such phonological equivalence as shown by the uniformity of the Turkic languages; because these languages were influenced by migration, high level of education, means of communication, cultural bundles, regional languages, etc. In other words, we should not disregard the fact that some features of Turkish dialects may occur under the influence of the local environment and others may arise sociological or psychological background and in the last they can be factors such as human flaws.
I adhere to the view that dialectology will use synchronous methods, so there is no need to compare with the findings of studies on the old Turkish language, because it leads us to a dead end. On the other hand there is evidence of the fact that scientists have found large differences between the features of the dialects of the Turkish language from the old Turkish language. So if we cannot find an equivalence between the features of the dialects of the Turkish language with phonological characteristics of the old Turkish language which can be found in the manuscripts, it is not possible to use in the classification of dialects as criteria.
In Turkish dialectology for a long time was the traditional approach, which is characteristic only of comparative historical research: to find similarities between the phonological features of dialects of the Turkish language with the characteristics of those tribes who moved into Anatolia in the 11th century. But while there are still unresolved problems, we cannot offer such equivalents as criteria.
Phonological features identified in relation to the dialect, "general" heading are converted into the criteria. But every "feature" distinctive "criteria" is not, cannot. In the case does not meet the general line "of unknown cause" is called. Classification of the features cannot be seen in the dialect movement. Their conversion to a certain extent should be restated in a way that may be at least substantially. And a certain number of criteria must be distinctive.
In conclusion we can say that the above problems constitute an obstacle to the search for true and stable criteria for the classification of dialects.
Phonological changes seen in everyday speech, so far, have used as criteria by which to classify dialects of Turkish language. In other words, diachronic conclusions, considered the most important and take advantage of research, in the final analysis did not take into account the dialectologists. We should fully discuss this paradox, because it does not give any benefit to the young researchers.
Среднеазиатского тафсира)
Как известно, А.К. Боровков в свое время опубликовал «лексику» среднеазиатского тэфсира. Я тоже изучал текст среднеазиатского тафсира и подготовил на эту тему магистерскую диссертацию в 1989 г. Я переводил «Лексику Боровкова» на турецкий язык как критическое издание. В 2011 г. опубликовал транскрипцию текста тафсира в Турции. В этот раз хочу
сообщить коллегам о лексических элементах в тексте среднеазиатского тафсира как показателях языковых напластований.
Шведский тюрколог Ларс Йохансон (2001) высказался по этому поводу так: «Язык отражает социальные обстоятельства, исторические изменения, историю культуры и расселения, а также созвездия политического господства. Таким образом, лингвистические данные могут помочь восстановить исторические факты. Проблемы возникновения и развития разновидностей заставляют обратить внимание на взаимодействие с экстралингвистическими фактами». Тема моего доклада позволяет выявить ареал распространения традиционных идеологий, степень их трансформации в зависимости от региона.
Опора на четкое разграничение внутренних, присущих самому языку, законов его развития и внешние, социальные факторы, обусловливающие это развитие, а также анализ языковых изменений, показывая действие как тех, так и других, позволяет отнести исследование к диахронической социолингвистике. Применение данной методологии в тюркологии в области социальной стратификации, выявлении ее причин и проявлений в рамках исторического текста представляет несомненный научный интерес.
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
In all scientific studies, take it to prepare documents and sort of issues should be the first and primary task. This principle also applies to grammar studies. In general language, specifically the classification of the dialect researches, of course, is not a job to be done very easily. But instead of considering this job to avoid difficulties, measures should be identified and action should be taken in this direction. Dialectology studies have become a tool of sociolinguistics. Rather serious and extensive studies on the use for this purpose.
The papers presented in previous years, and we examine the articles published are only found in the opinion on the classification of the dialects in several studies. Dialect studies, have reached levels that could pose a major corpus of theoretical studies but remained few. The reasons for this situation are several factors that complicate their dialect research.
In these studies, we do not see a common understanding and shared vision dialectologists. Statistics, which is made in 1991, supports our view that the criteria of dialectologists not fully match the criteria of other dialectologists’ quantity and content. This shows it is too early to talk about traditions in dialectological works.
It is already clear that they were not so thoughtful about how to choose the criteria. When we look at the criteria for the classification of Turkic languages, then we see that they have such characteristics as small numbers, generality and selectivity. Unfortunately, unusual approaches hold in the Turkish dialectology: chosen some features of the dialect and they are sorted as criteria.
On the other hand, it must be observed difference between the groups and subgroups of dialects. The reliability of the classification of dialects depends on the criteria that agree to the above difference.
In the works of dialectology is another important issue is the fact that some features to oppose modern Turkic languages to the peculiarities of the Turkish dialects, it does not give results. So it cannot be the main pillar of such phonological equivalence as shown by the uniformity of the Turkic languages; because these languages were influenced by migration, high level of education, means of communication, cultural bundles, regional languages, etc. In other words, we should not disregard the fact that some features of Turkish dialects may occur under the influence of the local environment and others may arise sociological or psychological background and in the last they can be factors such as human flaws.
I adhere to the view that dialectology will use synchronous methods, so there is no need to compare with the findings of studies on the old Turkish language, because it leads us to a dead end. On the other hand there is evidence of the fact that scientists have found large differences between the features of the dialects of the Turkish language from the old Turkish language. So if we cannot find an equivalence between the features of the dialects of the Turkish language with phonological characteristics of the old Turkish language which can be found in the manuscripts, it is not possible to use in the classification of dialects as criteria.
In Turkish dialectology for a long time was the traditional approach, which is characteristic only of comparative historical research: to find similarities between the phonological features of dialects of the Turkish language with the characteristics of those tribes who moved into Anatolia in the 11th century. But while there are still unresolved problems, we cannot offer such equivalents as criteria.
Phonological features identified in relation to the dialect, "general" heading are converted into the criteria. But every "feature" distinctive "criteria" is not, cannot. In the case does not meet the general line "of unknown cause" is called. Classification of the features cannot be seen in the dialect movement. Their conversion to a certain extent should be restated in a way that may be at least substantially. And a certain number of criteria must be distinctive.
In conclusion we can say that the above problems constitute an obstacle to the search for true and stable criteria for the classification of dialects.
Phonological changes seen in everyday speech, so far, have used as criteria by which to classify dialects of Turkish language. In other words, diachronic conclusions, considered the most important and take advantage of research, in the final analysis did not take into account the dialectologists. We should fully discuss this paradox, because it does not give any benefit to the young researchers.
языковых напластований. Шведский тюрколог Ларс Йохансон (2001) высказался по этому поводу так: «Язык отражает социальные обстоятельства, исторические изменения, историю культуры и расселения, а также созвездия политического господства. Таким образом, лингвистические данные могут помочь восстановить исторические факты. Проблемы возникновения и развития разновидностей заставляют обратить внимание на взаимодействие с экстралингвистическими фактами». Тема моего доклада позволяет выявить ареал распространения традиционных идеологий, степень их трансформации в зависимости от региона.
Опора на четкое разграничение внутренних, присущих самому языку, законов его развития и внешние, социальные факторы, обусловливающие это развитие, а также анализ языковых
изменений, показывая действие как тех, так и других, позволяет отнести исследование к диахронической социолингвистике. Применение данной методологии в тюркологии в области
социальной стратификации, выявлении ее причин и проявлений в рамках исторического текста представляет несомненный научный интерес.