Urdu Turkish Words
Urdu Turkish Words
Urdu Turkish Words
net/publication/263522873
CITATIONS READS
4 5,897
2 authors, including:
Mustafa Yapici
Oguzhan Vocational and Technical Anatolian High school
1 PUBLICATION 4 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
2ND VIRTUAL INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Isabel Maldonado Garcia on 14 November 2014.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Common Vocabulary in Urdu and Turkish Language: A Case of
Historical Onomasiology
Abstract: The current study must be framed within the discipline of applied and historical linguistics
and historical onomasiology. One hundred and fifty apparent cognates in Turkish and Urdu languages will
be analyzed in order to confirm their origin as well as lexical similarity through their distance. This
research work has the purpose of distinguishing whether the similar terms analized in this study are cognates
or rather loanwords that Turkish and Urdu have borrowed from different languages. In addition, the level
of similarity through etymological, lexical and semantic comparative analysis will be revealed with the same
purpose.
Keywords: Turkish, Urdu, loanwords, etymology, language contact, linguistic similarities, bilingualism,
lexical distance, historical onomasiology, historical linguistics.
*We thank the Directorate of Research, the Institute of Languages and the Vice-Chancellor,
University of the Punjab, Lahore, for providing financial support for this research. The
funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.
1. INTRODUCTION
This study is based on the phenomena of historical onomasiology. The purpose of this research is to analyze
150 sets of terms which Turkish and Urdu languages share. The sets present phonetic similarities as well as
common meaning. The rationale behind the comparison is to assist students of both languages with language
acquisition and to figure out whether the terms are cognates or loanwords.
TURKISH LANGUAGE
193
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
Turkish is a member of the Altaic family of languages. According to Ethnologue its classification is Altaic,
Turkic, Southern, Turkish and it is spoken by approximately 50 million people, not only in Turkey, where
it is the national language, but also in Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.1
During the Ottoman Empire which lasted more than 600 years, the Turkish language flourished as the
language of the administration, receiving loanwords from Arabic and Persian. The language was then
named Ottoman Turkish, actually a formal version of the everyday spoken Turkish of the time. Some of
Ataturk’s reforms included a new Turkish alphabet. However, “the aim of the Turkish language reform was to
eliminate the Arabic and Persian grammatical features and the many thousands of Arabic and Persian borrowings that
had long been a part of the language.” (1999, 2)3. The borrowing of Persian words was without any doubt of a
considerable paramount. Arabic on the other hand had a larger infiltration, due to two main factors; a
religious factor since it is the language of the Quran and the other because Persian language had itself
borrowed innumerable terms from Arabic and when an Arabic term was borrowed it brought with it the
194
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
complete family of that very term (1999, 6)4. The new Turkish as proposed by Atatürk, aimed to eliminate
the Persian and Arabic borrowings from the Turkish language. In this manner, Suleyman Pasha was the first
to publish a grammar of the new Turkish language which was titled Ilm-I Sarf-i Türki in 1874. Turkish
language also stoped being called Ottoman by virtue of the Constitution of 1876 and retained its official
status as Turkish language. The first dictionary of Turkish Language Kamus-i-Türki (1900) of two volumes
was written by Şemseddin Sami which was an attempt to rid Turkish language of its Arabic and Persian
elements.
Turkish had utilized a Perso-Arabic script for thousands of years. Şemseddin Sami with Abdul Bey, his
brother, created an alphabet composed by 36 letters from Latin and Greek. After this move, an Alphabet
Commission was created which took several steps for ridding all remains of Persian and Arabic from the
Turkish language by changing the pronunciation of the Arabic sounds. Another step taken by Atatürk was
to propose Turkish substitutes for the Arabic and Persian terms on the newspapers and let the public
comment on them. A Language Society was created in 1931 as well, following the wishes of Atatürk, and
its purpose was not only ridding the Turkish language from the Persian and Arabic influence it had enjoyed
until then. The aftermath of this linguistic reform was a modernization effort. The aim of this effort
included the thought that at some point in the future, when the new generations learnt the new script they
would be unable to read the old script and the works in the new script would be controlled by the
government. At the same time, since the old script would not be read, the old Islamic works in Arabic and
Persian would progressively lose their influence, achieving the modernization Atatürk so much craved. The
Language Society was to remain even after Ataturk’s government and for this reason, it was made a non-
governmental entity.
As the language reform achieved a substantial amount of objectives in a short span of time, it cannot be said
that it was not a successful attempt. However, a large number of terms from Arabic and Persian have
remained an essential part of the Turkish language and a considerable part of the rich Ottoman linguistic
heritage has forever been lost. It is perhaps due to this contradiction that Geoffrey termed the reform a
catastrophic success (1999).
195
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
URDU LANGUAGE
Urdu is a South Asian language from the Indo-European family, and within the central zone’s Indo-Iranian
branch. Ethnologue classifies it as Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Central zone, Western Hindi,
Hindustani5. It has 193, 238, 868 speakers in Pakistan where it is
the official language along with English, although other languages and dialects are spoken in the country
such as Punjabi, Sindhi, Saraiki, Pashto, Balochi, etc.6 Because of the neighborhood relationship in these
geographies, Turkish has lots of similar words with Urdu, Chinese, Persian, Arabic, and other languages.
In fact, the evolution of Urdu language started with contact with Persian and Arabic due to the invasions by
Persian and Turkic armies in the 11th century and afterwards. It continued from the Delhi Sultanate (1206
to 1526) and later on during the Mughal Empire (1526 to 1858). Already in 1908 Dowson said “Urdu
abounds with Arabic derivatives which have brought with them the grammatical powers of their original language”
(1908, 18)7.
Interestingly enough, the word Urdu, derives from the Turkish ordu, which means army. Urdu language is
written in utilizing the Persian alphabet, Nastaliq style.Both languages have received
Persian loanwords due to the closeness among the countries. Iran shares borders with Pakistan as well as
Turkey which facilitated the expansion of the Farsi terminology.
196
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
The expansion of Islam and Saudi Arabia’s proximity to both countries facilitated the spread of Arabic as the
language of Quran and a new form of life which included innumerable words for the new realities which
could only be named using the original term in Arabic.
Like in Turkish, there have been purists attempts which tried to rid Urdu of Persian and Sanskrit
loanwords. According to Maldonado (2013)9, the new vocabulary of Urdu is derived mainly from Persian,
Arabic and Sanskrit, although also from Prakrit with a minimum influence from other languages.
197
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
This map illustrates the closeness among Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Cognates or loanwords?
The main purpose of this study is to figure out whether the sets which will be analyzed in this study are
cognates or loanwords. For Whitley, “a given word W from Language X and a word W from Language Y are termed
cognates if and only if they have been inherited from the same ancestor language of X and Y”, and if their similarity is
a coincidence they are not considered true cognates (2002, 305)i. Holmes & Ramos define cognates as
“ítems of vocabulary in two languages which have the same roots and can be recognized as such” (1993, 88)ii.
On the other hand, “The best-known generalization about lexical borrowing is the constraint that core vocabulary is
very rarely (or never) borrowed”. (2009, 36)iii Of the same opinion are Hock & Joseph (1996)iv as well as
Thomason (2001)v. Loanwords can be recognized if their
form and meaning has considerable similarities with the form and meaning of a word in another language
from which it could have been received due to a possible historical possibility and scenario having in
consideration the exclusion the chance for descent from a common ancestor and if there is a source word to
which it can be traced or linked. (Haspelmath & Tadmor, 2009)vi. Thurgood (1999)vii adds to the equation
the similarity of the phonemes through which they can be recognized. Language contact does not require
complete bilingualism, or multilingualism either, rather, the utilization or presence of two languages in one
198
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
location, at the same time. For Maldonado (2013)10 one of the relevant aspects of semantic relations or
lexical solidarities apart from etymology is synonymy. Synonymy will play a vital role in the identification
process. In this case we will have to reveal whether the sets have a common origin or not and if they do,
whether they actually belong to the language itself or are in fact borrowings from the same language. At this
point we will proceed to the analysis of the Turkish-Urdu term sets.
2. METHODOLOGY
The sample object of our investigation consists of 150 sets of Turkish and Urdu terms. The degree of
similarity with reference to different aspects of linguistics will be assessed. These aspects include:
2. ETYMOLOGICAL ASPECTS. The etymology of each word in Turkish language will be extracted and
compared with its counterpart in Urdu language in order to contrast the origins of both terms and verify
whether, in fact, they are loanwords received from the same language directly, they have been received
through another language or rather, the terms are cognates.
3.1 Semantic analysis. Definitions will be compared in order to find out if the loanwords are synonymic or
not.
3.2 Phonetic analysis. The phonetics of the word pairs will be compared under the following parameters:
f. The Levenshtein distance will also be used as a factor to determine the level of phonetic similarity
among the loanwords.
199
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
3. RESULTS
The identification of the 150 sets of terms was performed during our interaction with Pakistani individuals
as well as students of Turkish language. One hundred and fifty pairs of terms were identified and selected
due to the fact thay they presented similarity in terms of semantics and phonetics in both languages.
203
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
2. ETYMOLOGICAL ASPECTS:
The origin of the terms will be a determining factor in revealing whether the terms are cognates or
loanwords. For this purpose an etymological analysis11 has been performed. The results are as follows:
204
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
206
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
Etymolo Etymology
Turkish Urdu Turkish Urdu gy of of Urdu
Phonetics Phonetics Turkish words
Etymology
Turkish Urdu Etymology of
Urdu of Urdu
Turkish Phonetics Phonetics Turkish
words
1 ferah فراخ [fɛrɛh] [fɛrʌkh] Arabic Persian
2.1 Semantic analysis: At this point the synonymy of the terms will be verified:
208
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
209
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
210
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
211
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
The phonetic analysis will be performed through the Levenshtein algorithm which indicates the difference
between two strings. The following diagram illustrates the algorithm:
212
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
Turkish Urdu
Turkish Urdu Distance
Phonetics Phonetics
1 aciz عاجز [ɑ:dʒɪz] [ɑ:dʒɪz] 0
2 adi عادی [ɑ:dɪ] [ɑ:dɪ] 0
3 ahval احوال [ahvɑ:l] [ahvɑ:l] 0
4 alem عالم [ɑ:lɛm] [ɑ:lɛm] 0
5 arif عارف [ɑ:rɪf] [ɑ:rɪf] 0
6 baki باقی [bɑ:ki:] [bɑ:ki:] 0
7 belki بلکہ [bɛlkɪ] [bɛlkɪ] 0
8 birader برادر [bɪra:dɛr] [bɪra:dɛr] 0
9 bülbül ُبلبل [bʊlbʊl] [bʊlbʊl] 0
10 cemaat جماعت [dʒɛmɑ:t] [dʒɛmɑ:t] 0
11 cerrah جراح [dʒɛrrʌh] [dʒɛrrʌh] 0
12 cumhur جمہور [dʒʊmhu:r] [dʒʊmhu:r] 0
13 cümle جملہ [dʒʊmlɛ] [dʒʊmlɛ] 0
14 delalet داللت [dɛlɑ:lɛt] [dɛlɑ:lɛt] 0
15 ders درس [dɛrs] [dɛrs] 0
16 destan داستان [dɛstɑ:n] [dɛstɑ:n] 0
17 emir امیر [ɛmi: r] [ɛmi: r] 0
18 emlak امالک [ɛmlʌk] [ɛmlʌk] 0
213
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
Turkish Urdu
Turkish Urdu Distance
Phonetics Phonetics
1 adil عدل [ɑ:dɪl] [ɑ:dəl] 1
2 afiyet عافیت [ɑ:fɪyɛt] [ɑ:fɪyət] 1
3 agah آگاہ [ɑ:gɒh] [ɑ:gɑ:h] 1
4 ahir آخر [ɑ:hɪr] [ɑ:khɪr] 1
5 akibet عاقبت [ɑ:qɪbɛt] [ɑ:qɪbʌt] 1
6 amel عمل [ʌmɛl] [ʌmʌl] 1
7 Arş ارض [ʌrʃ] [arz] 1
8 cellat جالد [dʒɛllʌt] [dʒɛllʌd] 1
9 çeşme چشمہ [tʃɛʃmɛ] [tʃʌʃmɛ] 1
10 diğer دیگر [di: ɛr] [di:gɛr] 1
11 ferah فراخ [fɛrɛh] [fɛrʌkh] 1
12 ferman فرمان [fɛrmʌn] [fʌrmʌn] 1
13 fert فرد [fɛrt] [fɛrd] 1
14 fitne فتنہ [fɪtnɛ] [fɪtnʌ] 1
15 haber خبر [hʌbɛr] [khʌbɛr] 1
16 han خان [hʌn] [khʌn] 1
17 hayrat خیرات [hʌyrɑ:t] [Kkhʌyrɑ:t] 1
18 hurma خرما [hʊrmʌ] [khʊrmʌ] 1
19 hüda خدا [hʊdɑ:] [khʊdɑ:] 1
215
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
Turkish Urdu
Turkish Urdu Distance
Phonetics Phonetics
1 alev االؤ [ʌlɛv] [ʌloʊ] 2
2 amele عملہ [ʌmɛlɛ] [ʌmlɑ:] 2
3 asuman آسمان [ɑ:sʊmʌn] [ɑ:smɑ:n] 2
4 azap عذاب [ʌzɑ:p] [ʌzʌb] 2
5 bazı بعض [bɑ:zə] [bɑ:z] 2
6 bohça بقچہ [bɒhtʃʌ] [bʊktʃʌ] 2
7 cemiyet جمعیت [dʒɛmɪyɛt] [dʒʌmɪyʌt] 2
8 cennet جنت [dʒɛnnɛt] [dʒʌnnʌt] 2
9 çünkü چونکہ [tʃʊnkʊ] [tʃu:nkɪ] 2
10 derece درجہ [dɛrɛdʒɛ] [dʌrɛdʒɑ:] 2
216
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
Turkish Urdu
Turkish Urdu Distance
Phonetics Phonetics
1 ehemniyet اہمیت [ɛhɛmnɪyɛt] [ɑ:hmɪyʌt] 4
1. ETYMOLOGYCAL ASPECTS.
The etymological analysis of the 150 terms yielded the following results:
217
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
Of the 150 sets of terms 106 sets present etymology in Arabic language. 37 sets present etymology in
Persian language. 3 sets present etymology in Turkish language and 1 set presents etymology in Arabic
language and arrived in Turkish and Urdu through Persian language (as discussed before Persian language
itself had received numerous loanwords from Arabic language) , 4 sets present differing etymologies.
2.1 Semantic analysis. Definitions were compared in order to find out if the sets are synonymic or not. The
analysis returned synonymy in the 150 sets.
2.2 Phonetic analysis. The forms in which Turkish and Urdu are written, are without any doubt completely
different. While Turkish utilizes Latin script, Urdu utilizes Arabic-Persian script, Nastaliq style. For this
reason the pairs do not share any orthographic characteristics. The form was then analyzed through the
phonetics of both languages. The string comparison was performed through the Levenshtein algorithm, in
order to find out how different the sets are from each other.
5. CONCLUSION:
Large percentages of vocabulary of Urdu and Turkish languages derive from Arabic and Persian. A sample
of shared vocabulary was extracted in order to reveal whether the similar sets were loanwords or rather
cognates. The etymological analysis revealed common etymology of Arabic in 106 of the sets, a common
etymology in Persian in 37 of the sets. The terms in both languages were borrowed by Turkish and Urdu
due to the geopolitical situation of the time. Three of the analyzed sets came directly into Urdu from
218
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
Turkish. 1 set with etymology in Arabic was taken by Turkish and Urdu through Persian language. Four sets
present differing etymologies in both languages.
The study has identified the terms as loanwords or borrowings, due mainly to the fact that Turkish and
Urdu do not belong to the same family of languages. This fact rules out the possibility of inheritance from
an ancestor language from which Turkish and Urdu could have been derived. The second factor when
considering the identification of language borrowings or loanwords is the language contact situation present
in both countries in the past.
In terms of semantics all the sets share common meanings. This means that the terms did not adopt other
meanings when they were borrowed and are in fact synonymic.
The string phonetic analysis revealed 76 sets with identical pronunciation in Turkish and Urdu. 46 sets
present only one difference in the string analysis, that is, a minor phonetic difference. 24 sets present 2
differences in sound in the string analysis, 3 sets present 3 differences and 1 set 4 differences. This means
81% of the sets present no difference or a slight difference, indicating none or slight evolution in both
languages after the term was borrowed.
The fact that the terms have survived in the recipient languages after so many years and planned linguistic
attempts to rid the languages of these borrowings indicate that the terms have become an integral part of
the recipient languages and are still utilized to this day. The identified terms will assist Turkish students of
Urdu and Pakistani students of Turkish language with vocabulary acquisition.
219
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
6. END NOTES
1
Lewis, M. Paul (2009) Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL
International. http://www.ethnologue.com/language/tur
2
Table created with information from: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The World
Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
(Available online at http://wals.info, Accessed on 2014-03-14
3
Lewis, Geoffrey (1999) The Turkish Language Reform. A Catastrophic Success. New York: Oxford University
Press. Pp.2
4
Ibid. Pp.6
5
Lewis, M. Paul (2009) Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Seventeenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL
International. http://www.ethnologue.com/language/urd
6
Cia World Facts https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/pk.html
7
Dowson, J. (1908): A Grammar of the Urdu or Hindustani Language. London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner
& Co. Pp. 18.
8
Maldonado García, María Isabel (2013) Comparación del Léxico Básico del Español, el Inglés y el Urdu.
Doctoral Thesis. Madrid: UNED. Pp. 501.
9
Ibid. Pp. 127.
10
Whitley, M.S. (2002) Spanish/English Contrasts: A Course In Spanish Linguistics. Second Edition.
Washington, Dc. Georgetown University Press. Pp. 305.
11
Holmes, J. & Ramos, R. (1993) False Friends And Reckless Guessers: Observing Cognate Recognition Strategies.
T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady. Second Language Reading And Vocabulary Learning. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex. Pp. 88
12
Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (2009) Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative
Handbook. Berlin. Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Pp. 35-54.
13
Hock, Hans Henrich & Joseph Brian D. (1996) Language history, language change, and language
relationship. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 257.
14
Thomason, Sarah Grey (2001) Language Contact. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Pp. 72.
15
Haspelmath, Martin & Tadmor, Uri (2009) Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative
Handbook. Berlin. Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Pp. 35-54.
220
Journal of Pakistan Vision Vol. 15. Issue 1. 2014
16
Thurgood, Graham (1999) From ancient Cham to modern dialects: two thousand years of language contact and
change. Honolulu: University of Hawai’s press. Pp. 44-45.
17
Maldonado García, María I. (2013) Estudio Etimológico de Cuatro Pares de Cognados en Español y Urdu.
Revista Iberoamericana de Lingüística. Vol.8. Valladolid. Pp. 64.
18
Etymology of Turkish terms. Nişanyan, Sevan (1995) Türkçe Etimolojik S www.nisanyansozluk.com.
Etymology of Urdu terms. Urdu Dictionary (2011) Urdu Encyclopedia. Islamabad, Ministry of Science and
Technology. http://www.urduencyclopedia.org/urdudictionary/
Etymology of Persian terms. Nourai, Ali (2013) An Etymological Dictionary Of Persian , English and other
Indo-European Languages. Exlibris Corporation. USA.
19
Levenshtein, V. I. (1966) Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Akademii
Nauk. Moscow, Soviet Physics Doklady. Pp. 708-709.
221