Languages have borrowed interrogative or relative pronouns through intense language contact
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against
Linguistic evidence demonstrates that certain languages, such as Turkish and Dravidian varieties, have historically borrowed interrogative and relative structures or pronouns through intensive language contact and translation.
Turkish compound sentences, specifically relative clauses with "kim", first appeared in the Old Uygur Turkish period when Turkish had been influenced by a number of foreign languages. In particular, Turkish interrogative pronouns such as "kim, ne, kayu were borrowed from Indo-European languages like Soghdian and Sanskrit, when such constructions were translated into Turkish. This kind of sentence structure continued to appear in the first Islamic Period Turkish texts. It is noteworthy that the Divanü Lügat-ü-Türk (DLT) did not include such patterns although all Karakhanid texts had compound sentences with -Kim. While the consructions with -Kim could be observed in Kutadgu Bilig published approximately at the same period, it is attention-grabbing that Mahmud Kashgari did not explain such structures or even give an example for similar structures in his work. Instead of such borrowed compound forms, he prefered using original Turkish sentences and supply a different Turkish structure (Ol- constructions) alternative to the sentences with -Kim consciously or not. In our study, we aim to explain this alternative structure under the heading Ol- constructions without -Kim and compare the variants in Köktürk, Old Uighur, and Karakhanid Turkish Periods.
One of the most challenging and interesting notions in descriptive and theoretical linguistics is finiteness. In Telugu, it doesn’t contribute towards direct analysis and is a complicated phenomenon. This paper explores how different grammatical theories represent the finiteness; the nature of the finiteness in relation to Telugu relative clauses; and how morpho-syntactic and semantic properties decide whether a clause is finite or non-finite. It also investigates the notion of finiteness and formulates criteria to decide it in Telugu. It further explains two types of relative clauses namely Dravidian (Dr) type and Indo-Aryan (IA) type and takes up the Indigenous Dr type first and sees to what extent it meets the criteria for finiteness. Second, the IA type that Telugu and Dr Languages borrowed from Sanskrit is in some ways different from the original IA correlative although it is modelled on that pattern. Dr correlative is always pre-nominal and it uses an interrogative pronoun unlike the correlatives in Hindi and other IA languages which use relative pronouns. However, based on theoretical and empirical evidence, this paper provides a description of both these Telugu relative clauses and explores how finiteness is realized in terms of formal and functional perspectives.
Everything we examined (2)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.