|
YAGHNOBI,
term
used
as
a
noun
to
refer
to
a
people
and
as
an
adjective
to
designate
their
language
(ya©nob^´
zivo‚k
"Yaghnobi
language").
It
is
derived
from
the
name
of
the
Yaghnob
valley
and
the
Yaghnob
river,
which,
according
to
Khromov
(1987,
p.
644),
is
a
Tajik
adaption
of
the
Yaghnobi
phrase
ix-i
nou
"ice
valley
or
ravine."
The
more
traditional
interpretation
is
"ice
river"
(Benveniste,
1955,
p.
139,
note
1;
Andreev
and
Peshchereva,
1957,
p.
365).
Yaghnobi
is
a
Modern
East
Iranian
language
and
the
only
surviving
successor
of
a
Sogdian
dialect.
It
is
not
a
written
language,
but
is
used
for
daily
family
communication.
The
speakers
are
Sunni
Muslims.
When
the
language
was
discovered
in
the
19th
century,
it
was
spoken
in
the
central
part
of
the
remote
high
valley
of
the
Yaghnob
river.
This
valley
is
situated
in
Tajikistan,
about
100
km
north
of
Dushanbe.
Over
a
distance
of
120
km,
the
Yaghnob
river
runs
east-west,
parallel
to
the
Zerafshan
river,
between
the
Hissar
range
in
the
south
and
the
Zerafshan
range
in
the
north.
The
Yaghnob
river
eventually
turns
north
and
meets
the
Zerafshan
river
at
Aini.
Toponomastic
evidence
suggests
that,
in
the
past,
Yaghnobi
and
other
Sogdian
dialects
were
spoken
in
neighboring
valleys
as
well.
In
1913,
Junker
counted
about
2,200
native
speakers
of
Yaghnobi
in
21
settlements
(Junker,
1930,
pp.
114-21).
According
to
Khromov
(1987,
p.
644),
there
were
about
2,500
speakers
in
the
1960s;
1,500
of
these
native
speakers
were
living
in
22
settlements
within
the
Yaghnob
valley,
and
roughly
900
resided
outside
of
the
valley.
In
the
17th
century,
Yaghnobi
speakers
migrated
to
the
neighboring
valley
of
the
Varzob
river,
and
in
the
early
1950s
people
also
moved
to
the
Hissar
valley
and
to
Dushanbe.
In
1970,
however,
the
Soviet
authorities
forced
the
whole
population
of
about
3,000
people
to
leave
the
Yaghnob
valley.
Five
hundred
families
migrated
to
Zafarobod
in
northern
Tajikistan,
200
families
to
the
area
surrounding
Dushanbe.
Only
about
300
people
were
living
in
the
Yaghnob
valley
in
1990,
when
the
Dushanbe-based
Council
of
Ministers
passed
the
decision
to
re-establish
all
villages
whose
populations
had
been
resettled.
Besides
further
measures
such
as
the
re-opening
of
schools,
the
Tajik
Academy
of
Science
was
asked
to
support
the
preservation
of
the
Yaghnobi
language
(for
more
details
see
Badenkov
et
al.,
1994,
pp.
476-84;
Gunja,
1996,
pp.
68-69).
The
Russian
scholar
Alexander
L.
Kuhn
and
his
Tajik
companion
and
interpreter
Mirza
Mulla
Abdurrakhman
from
Samarkand
were,
during
their
Iskanderkul
expedition
of
1870,
the
first
who
made
recordings
of
the
Yaghnobi
language.
The
linguistic
material
collected
by
these
and
other
scholars
was
used
by
C.
Salemann
in
his
unpublished
Yaghnobi
studies
(Yagnobskie
etyudy),
on
which
W.
Geiger
based
his
description
"Über
das
Yaghno@b^"
(Geiger
1898-1901;
see
Oranskij,
1975,
I,
pp.
114-20,
and
Khromov,
1987,
p.
648,
for
more
details
on
the
history
of
these
early
expeditions,
including
their
research
and
publications).
The
scientific
community's
interest
in
the
study
of
Yaghnobi
grew
considerably
when,
at
the
beginning
of
the
20th
century,
documents
in
a
previously
unknown
Eastern
Middle
Iranian
language
were
found.
The
language
in
these
documents
was
identified
as
Sogdian,
which,
as
Salemann
was
able
to
show,
is
closely
related
dialectologically
to
Yaghnobi
(see
Oranskij,
1975,
I,
pp.
115-16).
However,
we
know
today
that
Yaghnobi
is
not
a
direct
descendant
of
the
linguistically
rather
uniform
variety
of
Sogdian
used
in
these
texts
(see
Sims-Williams,
1989,
p.
173),
but
that
its
origins
can
probably
traced
back
to
a
Sogdian
dialect
spoken
in
Osrushana
(q.v.
at
iranica.com;
Khromov,
1987,
p.
645).
Due
to
the
close
linguistic
connections
between
Yaghnobi
and
Sogdian,
leading
scholars
in
the
exploration
of
Sogdian
like
R.
Gauthiot
and
E.
Benveniste
took
up
the
study
of
Yaghnobi.
Thus,
in
1955,
Benveniste
published
a
glossary
from
Salemann's
Yaghnobi
Studies
on
the
basis
of
a
copy
made
by
Gauthiot
(Redard,
1970,
p.
102).
Unfortunately,
the
glossary
is
cut
short
in
the
middle
of
the
letter
k.
Salemann's
Yaghnobi
Studies
and
Geiger's
description
were
at
R.
Gauthiot
and
H.
Junker's
disposal
during
their
1913
expedition
to
the
Yaghnob
Valley
(see
Junker,
1930,
pp.
3-4,
107
with
note
1).
The
resulting
two
publications
by
Junker
(1914,
1930)
represented
an
important
step
forward
in
the
research
on
Yaghnobi.
To
date,
Andreev
and
Peshchereva
(1957)
contains
the
largest
published
collection
of
oral
folk
literature
and
the
most
exhaustive
glossary
with
references
to,
among
other,
Sogdian,
Ossetic,
and
the
Pamir
languages.
V.
S.
Sokolova's
research
on
the
phonetics
of
Yaghnobi
(Sokolova,
1953)
is
based
on
recordings
she
made
in
the
Varzob
Valley
in
1949.
An
overall
description
of
the
language
was
published
by
Bogolyubov
in
1966.
The
most
comprehensive
description
of
Yaghnobi
is
Khromov
(1972).
It
not
only
contains
a
detailed
grammar
(phonetics,
morphology,
syntax,
lexicon,
and
word
formation)
including
chapters
on
dialectal
differences,
bilingualism,
and
Yaghnobi-Sogdian
dialectal
relations,
but
also
33
texts
with
Russian
translations
and
a
supplementary
vocabulary
to
Andreev
and
Peshchereva
(1957).
A
newer
grammatical
sketch
of
Yaghnobi
is
Khromov
(1987),
in
which
the
chapter
on
the
Yaghnobi-Sogdian
dialectal
relations
of
Khromov
(1972)
is
replaced
by
a
systematic
description
of
the
sound
correspondences
between
Yaghnobi
and
Proto-Iranian
and
vice
versa.
Finally,
a
short
sketch
of
Yaghnobi
is
given
by
the
present
author
in
the
Compendium
Linguarum
Iranicarum
(Bielmeier,
1989).
Salemann
found
out
that
Yaghnobi
is
divided
into
a
western
and
a
eastern
dialect
variety
(see
Khromov,
1972,
p.
97
with
note
99).
This
view
is
shared
by
Geiger
1898-1901
and
has
become
the
opinio
communis,
even
though
Gauthiot
spoke
of,
and
Khromov
later
confirmed,
the
existence
of
transitional
varieties
between
the
two
poles.
Generally,
the
western
variety
shows
the
more
conservative
features,
e.g.:
(1)
western
ay
vs.
eastern
e
(wayæ/weæ
"grass");
(2)
t
vs.
s
<
*ƒ
(met/mes
"day");
(3)
tr-
vs.
sr-
<
*ƒr-
(tira‚y/sara‚y
"3");
(4)
verbal
ending
3rd
sg.
present
tense
-tiæt
vs.
-±i
(ku‚ntiæt/ku‚n±i
"he
makes");
(5)
verbal
ending
1st
pl.
preterite
tense
-om
vs.
-im
(akuno‚m/akuním
"we
made");
(6)
tira‚æ-
vs.
diví-
"to
fall,"
ru@n
vs.
ru@´nak
"lamb,"
etc.
(see
Junker,
1930,
pp.
123-29;
Khromov,
1972,
pp.
97-105;
Khromov,
1987,
pp.
647-48).
In
the
vowel
system
Sokolova
(1953,
pp.
64-70)
distinguishes
8
vowels
on
the
phonemic
level,
five
phonetically
long
vowels
e@,
o@,
^,
u@,
üÚ,
and
three
phonetically
short
vowels
a,
i,
u.
Therefore,
vowel
length
is
only
phonemic
with
i
vs.
^
and
u
vs.
u@
(tir
"go!"
vs.
t^r
"arrow"
or
uxta
"went
down"
vs.
u@xta
"brought").
It
does
not
have
to
be
noted
with
e,
o
and
ü.
The
phonemic
status
of
ü
is
unclear.
It
developed
from
u@
under
unclear
conditions
(cf.
Livshits,
1962,
p.
150;
Bogolyubov,
1966,
p.
344;
Khromov,
1987,
p.
655).
Generally,
there
is
quite
a
lot
of
variation
in
the
realization
of
the
vowels.
Vowel
length,
for
instance,
is
inconsistent;
o
and
u@
are
in
free
variation
under
Tajik
influence
(kom
beside
ku@m
"which");
and
ü
is
replaced
by
^
in
the
younger
generation
(xür
>
x^r
'sun")
(Sokolova
1953,
p.
63;
for
variation
due
to
the
speakers'
age,
see
also
Junker,
1930,
p.
124-25)
in
an
environment
where
Andreev
and
Peshchereva
(1957,
p.
363)
still
note
the
more
conservative
form
xu@r
"sun."
The
consonant
inventory
consists
of
p,
t,
k,
b,
d,
g,
v,
©,
±,
j,
f,
s,
æ,
z,
_,
w,
y,
m,
n,
r,
l,
x,
x°,
h,
q,
há,
¿.
The
consonant
system
is
characterized
by
the
phonemic
opposition
between
unvoiced
stops
and
voiced
fricatives,
the
latter
of
which
go
back
to
voiced
stops:
p
vs.
v,
k
vs.
©,
but
t
vs.
d
(<
’
under
Tajik
influence?).
On
the
synchronical
axis,
b,
g,
and
j,
which
first
appear
in
Yaghnobi
mainly
in
loans,
in
word-initial
position
before
vowels,
can
also
be
found
in
opposition
to
unvoiced
stops
and
voiced
fricatives,
forming
minimal
pairs.
Therefore,
they
have
to
be
considered
as
phonemes
as
well.
The
phoneme
l
occurs
mainly
in
loans,
the
phonemes
h,
q,
há,
¿
exclusively
in
loans.
As
there
are
no
initial
consonant
clusters,
the
x°,
which
only
occurs
word-initially,
has
to
be
considered
a
phoneme
(x°ar
"eat!"
vs.
xar
"donkey"
or
x°at
"self"
vs.
xat(t)
'writing"
vs.
wat
"there").
The
bilabial
glide
w
is
in
phonemic
opposition
to
v
(w^r
"man"
vs.
v^r
"find!"
or
wov
"speak!"
vs.
vow
"come!").
Stress
is
not
phonemic.
It
usually
falls
on
the
last
or
on
the
penultimate
syllable
with
a
phonetic
long
vowel
(cf.
Sokolova,
1953,
p.
64).
If
both
syllables
are
long,
the
penultimate
is
stressed.
If
both
are
short,
stress
falls
on
the
last
syllable
if
it
ends
with
a
double
consonant
(kuna‚nt
"they
may
do,"
far©u‚m±
"heifer")
or
if
the
first
vowel
is
a
Svarabhakti
(epenthetic)
vowel
(sita‚k
"bone").
Secondarily
suffixed
morphemes
usually
are
not
taken
into
account,
e.g.,
-iæt
(æawo‚m-iæt
"I
go,"
n^´dom-iæt
"I
sit
down").
Tajik
loans
usually
carry
final
stress,
but
sometimes
an
adaption
to
the
pattern
found
in
inherited
words
can
be
observed.
The
prefixed
verbal
negation
is
usually
stressed
(na‚nosomiæt
"I
don"t
take,"
but
©uæ
naku‚ntiæt
"he
did
not
listen"
from
the
Tajik
calque
©uæ
kun-
"to
listen";
see
Khromov,
1972,
p.
96).
The
prefixed
augment
is
never
stressed
(aæa‚w
"he
went").
For
stress
patterns
in
compounds,
see
Khromov
(1972,
pp.
16,
92-93).
There
is
no
grammatical
expression
of
gender
or
of
dual
number.
The
plural
is
marked,
in
a
manner
similar
to
that
of
Sogdian,
by
a
suffix
-t
(see
Sims-Williams,
1989,
p.
183),
and
a
preceding
-a
changes
to
-o
(_u@´ta
'son"
>
_u@´tot
'sons").
A
non-animated
plural
subject
requires
a
plural
predicate
(yaw-t
tim
garíb
aras-o‚r
"the
barley
crops
are
almost
fully
ripe").
The
case
system
is
reduced
to
an
unmarked
absolute
case
and
an
oblique
case,
characterized
by
a
suffixed
unstressed
-i,
which
is
reduced
to
-y
after
vowel
(eastern
-ay
>
-e).
The
case
marker
-i
follows
the
plural
morpheme
-t.
There
is
group
inflection
with
the
noun
phrase;
the
attribute
precedes
the
head.
The
adjective
remains
unchanged,
but
used
as
a
noun
it
is
also
formally
treated
like
a
noun.
The
preceding
numeral
^
"one"
functions
as
indefinite
article.
The
oblique
case
is
mainly
used
to
mark
nouns
functioning
as
attributes,
indirect
or
definite
direct
objects,
or
as
agents
in
ergative
constructions
with
past
tense
verb
forms
(Khromov,
1987,
pp.
663-64).
In
the
comparative
construction
the
compared
member
of
the
sentence
is
preceded
by
the
preposition
±i,
which
governs
the
absolute
or
the
oblique
case.
The
personal
pronouns
of
1st
and
2nd
person
have
an
oblique
case
different
from
the
absolute
case
only
in
the
2nd
pers.
sg.
(tu
vs.
taw).
The
other
forms
man
"I,"
mox
"we,"
and
æumo‚x
"you
(pl.)"
are
derived
from
earlier
genitive
forms
and
are
now
used
for
both
cases.
The
forms
of
the
3rd
pers.
sg.
ax,
iæ
(obl.
a‚wi,
it)
and
pl.
a‚xtit,
íætit
(obl.
a‚wtiti,
ítiti)
are
in
fact
forms
of
the
demonstrative
pronoun.
The
enclitic
forms
are:
1st
pers.
sg.
-m,
2nd
pers.
sg.
-t,
3rd
pers.
sg.
-æ,
1st
pers.
pl.
-mox,
2nd
and
3rd
pers.
pl.
–æint.
These
are
used
like
the
full
forms
as
possessive
pronouns,
to
express
the
indirect
and
direct
object,
the
agent
in
ergative
constructions
as
well
as
the
possessor
in
sentences
with
"to
have"
(^
©ow-æ
ast
'he
has
a
cow").
Used
as
direct
object,
an
enclitic
form
can
be
suffixed
to
a
full
pronominal
form
(mox-æint
awe‚nim
'we
saw
you").
In
the
system
of
demonstrative
pronouns,
two
degrees
of
proximity
are
distinguished:
sg.
iæ,
aníæ
(obl.
it,
anít),
pl.
íætit
(obl.
ítiti)
"this,"
ax,
(obl.
a‚w(i),
a),
pl.
a‚xtit
(obl.
a‚wtiti)
"that."
The
interrogative
pronouns,
also
used
in
indefinite
function,
differentiate
between
kax
(obl.
kay),
pl.
ka‚xtit
(obl.
ka‚ytit)
"who?"
and
±o
(obl.
±oy)
"what,
which?"
In
attributive
function
kom
beside
ku@m
(obl.
ko‚mi
beside
ku@´mi),
pl.
ku@´mtit
(obl.
ku@´mtiti),
or
±o
are
used.
The
reflexive
pronoun
x°at,
usually
followed
by
an
enclitic
pronoun
(x°a‚t-im
kuno‚m
'I
will
do
it
myself"),
is
used
as
a
noun.
The
reflexive
pronoun
xap/xep
can
also
be
used
as
an
attribute
(ax
xep
da‚sti
asino‚y
'he
washed
his
hands").
The
numerals
are
based
on
a
decimal
system
and
are
inherited
up
to
ten;
beyond
ten,
they
are
loans
from
Tajiki.
Beginning
with
"two,"
the
numerals
are
connected
with
the
obl.
sg.
of
the
noun
(tira‚y
©o‚wi
"three
cows").
There
are
traces
of
a
vigesimal
system
(see
Bogolyubov,
1966,
p.
347).
Yaghnobi
has
compound
verbal
stems
consisting
of
noun
and
verb
(ark
kun-
"to
work"),
like
Tajiki,
and
simple
verbal
stems
based
on
the
old
present
tense
stem
(æaw-
"to
go").
Extended
by
the
stressed
morpheme
-o‚n-
an
intransitive
stem
usually
becomes
transitive
or
causative
(puxs-
"to
cook,
ripen"
>
puxso‚n-
"to
cook,
fry,"
roy-
"to
cry"
>
royo‚n-
"to
make
[someone]
cry").
Present
and
past
tense
as
well
as
present
subjunctive
and
imperative
mood
are
derived
from
the
stem
by
adding
personal
endings.
Yaghnobi
is
the
only
Modern
Iranian
language
where
the
augment
is
still
kept
to
express
past
tense
(æa‚wom-iæt
'I
go"
vs.
a-æa‚wim
'I
went").
There
are
two
basic
sets
of
personal
endings:
sg.
-im,
-i,
zero;
pl.
-om/-im,
-ti/-si,
-or,
used
in
the
simple
past,
and
sg.
-om,
zero,
-ot,
pl.
-im,
-t/-s,
-ant,
used
in
the
present
subjunctive,
where
the
3rd
sg.
-ot
is
an
old
subjunctive
form
to
be
compared
with
Sogdian
-a@t
<
*-a@ti
(for
the
historical
development
of
the
verbal
endings
in
general,
see
Tedesco,
1923).
The
simple
past
is
the
usual
tense
in
narratives.
The
suffix
-iæt
(<
*hiæta-)
adds
a
durative
or
iterative
dimension.
If
that
same
suffix
is
added
to
the
present
subjunctive
in
either
the
1st
or
the
2nd
pers.,
the
resulting
form
is
a
present
tense.
In
the
3rd
person,
the
endings
of
the
present
are
sg.
-t-iæt
or
-±i,
pl.
-oæt
<
-or-iæt.
In
sentences
with
this
type
of
predicate,
the
unmarked
word
order
is
SOV
(man
diva‚r
ape‚nim
"I
opened
the
door").
Periphrastic
verb
formations
are
based
on
the
perfect
participle
(verbal
stem
+
-ta
or
shortened
-t).
Together
with
the
present
tense
forms
of
the
copula
(sg.
^m,
iæt,
ast(i)
beside
xast(i)
beside
-x,
pl.
om,
ot/os,
or),
the
perfect
participle
forms
a
resultative
perfect;
with
the
past
tense
forms
(sg.
oyim,
oy(i),
(x)oy,
pl.
iyom,
iyot,
iyor),
a
pluperfect
tense;
with
the
subjunctive
of
the
copula,
a
subjunctive
perfect
tense;
and
with
the
perfect
of
the
auxiliary
vu-,
it
expresses
secondhand
information
(Ava‚zi
xar
no‚ta
vu‚ta-x
"he
apparently
has
taken
Avaz'
donkey").
With
these
formations
we
find
ergative
(q.v.)
constructions.
If
the
predicate
is
based
on
an
intransitive
verb,
the
copula
agrees
with
the
subject;
if
it
is
based
on
a
transitive
verb,
the
copula
agrees
with
the
direct
object
and
not
with
the
agent.
If
the
direct
object
is
a
3rd
person,
the
copula
can
be
zero.
The
agent
in
the
oblique
case
is
often
expressed
by
a
noun
or
pronoun
placed
between
participle
and
copula
(pu‚±ta-t-x
"you
have
pinched
him")
or
a
pronoun
placed
between
negation
and
verbal
stem
(diva‚r
na-æ-pe‚ta-x
"he
has
not
opened
the
door
yet").
Extended
by
the
Tajik
suffix
-gi,
the
perfect
participle
can
be
used
as
predicate
(kabü´d
ru@ptagí
"the
green
[grass]
is
cut");
without
copula
it
can
also
take
on
attributive
function
(na-lakstagí
oda‚m
"a
person
who
did
not
get
around
at
all").
The
present
participle
with
the
copula
or
the
auxiliary
vu-
functions
as
a
predicate
expressing
the
intention
to
carry
out
a
certain
action
(nahíæ
©a‚ntum
man
ru@´bna
^m
"I
am
going
to
cut
this
wheat,"
±o
ark
ka‚rna
vot?
"what
work
is
he
going
to
do?");
used
with
the
3rd
pers.
perfect
forms
of
vu-,
it
includes
secondhand
information
(peæta‚r
mo‚rtit
tim
bozí
ka‚rna
vu‚tor
"earlier,
it
is
said,
men
played
as
well").
The
so-called
infinitive
(verbal
stem
+
-ak
or
simply
verbal
stem)
in
the
oblique
is
used
in
final
clauses
(nu@ni
pa±a‚ki
wa‚xti-æ
víta-x
"the
time
has
come
to
bake
bread").
The
simple
verbal
stem
in
the
oblique
followed
by
vu-
is
used
in
ingressive
clauses
(bozí
ka‚ri
avo‚r
"they
started
to
play").
Both
infinitive
forms
can
be
followed
by
the
modal
verbs
©aw-
"to
be
necessary"
or
ton-
"to
be
able"
(ark
kar
na‚-ton±i
"he
is
not
able
to
work").
Adverbs
are
not
usually
formally
characterized.
Many
of
them
and
most
of
the
pre-
and
postpositions
are
loans
from
Tajiki.
The
enclitic
conjunction
-(i)k
introduces
not
only
relative
clauses
(har
oda‚m-k...
"every
person
who...")
but
also
temporal,
conditional,
concessive,
possessive,
etc.
clauses.
The
nominal
compounds
comprise
mostly
determinative
(with
the
first
element
modifying
the
second:
Skt.
Tatpurusáa
and
Karmadha@raya)
compounds
but
also
adjectival,
inverted
possessive
(inverted,
Skt.
Bahuvr^hi)
compounds
(rax-pe‚ta
"whose
mouth
is
opened"
=
"who
stands
gaping").
A
kind
of
loose
copular
compound
is
found
with
enclitic
-at
"and"
(bod-at-havo
"wind
and
weather"
=
"climate")
or
with
the
conjunction
o
"and"
under
Tajik
influence
(peæ-o-peæ
"forward").
With
derived
nouns
the
unstressed
suffix
-(i)k
is
very
common
forming,
e.g.,
possessive
adjectives
(iæ
kat
ma‚n-ik-x
"this
house
is
my
one").
Relational
adjectives
are
derived
by
-^´na
(dork
"wood"
>
dork^´na
"wooden")
and
agent
nouns
by
-akí
(wayæ
"grass"
>
wayæ-akí
"he
who
carries
grass").
The
lexicon,
with
the
exception
of
verbs,
is
heavily
influenced
by
Tajiki,
through
which
also
Turkish
and
Russian
elements
entered
Yaghnobi.
Older
loans
from
Tajiki
are
phonetically
adapted.
The
loans
and
calques
are
found
even
in
the
basic
vocabulary.
Sometimes
we
find
the
inherited
word
and
the
corresponding
loan
side
by
side
(e.g.,
æowí
from
Tajik
siyohí
"darkness,"
wa‚xin
and
Tajik
xun
"blood,"
zoy
and
Tajik
zamín
"earth,"
in±
and
Tajik
zan
"woman").
The
so-called
secret
language
is
a
cant
known
from
certain
social
groups
who
use
different
words
(a‚rna
instead
of
xar
"donkey"),
insert
a
semantically
empty
syllable
between
the
syllables
of
the
text,
or
change
the
semantics
of
words
(see
Junker,
1930,
p.
125;
Khromov,
1972,
pp.
90-91,
Khromov,
1976).
Bibliography:
M.
S.
Andreev
and
E.
M.
Peshchereva,
Yagnobskie
Teksty
(Yaghnobi
Texts),
Moskva
and
Leningrad,
1957.
J.
Badenkov,
A.
Gunja,
and
P.
Lindner,
"Traditionelle
Wirtschaftsweise
und
Strukturwandel
in
einem
peripheren
Gebirgsraum
am
Beispiel
Jagnob/Tadschikistan,"
in
Mitteilungen
der
Fränkischen
Geographischen
Gesellschaft
41,
1994,
pp.
465-87.
E.
Benveniste,
"Un
lexique
du
yagnobi,"
JA
243,
1955,
pp.
139-62.
R.
Bielmeier,
"Yaghno@b^,"
in
R.
Schmitt,
ed.,
Compendium
Linguarum
Iranicarum,
Wiesbaden,
1989,
pp.
480-88.
M.
N.
Bogolyubov,
"Yagnobski¥
yazyk"
(Yagnobi
language),
in
Yazyki
narodov
SSSR
I:
Indoyevrope¥skie
yazyki
(Languages
of
the
people
of
the
USSR
I:
Indo-European
languages),
Moskva,
1966,
pp.
342-61.
W.
Geiger,
"I.
Die
Pa@mir-Dialekte,
Anhang:
Über
das
Yaghno@b^,"
in
Grundriss
der
Iranischen
Philologie
I,
2.
Abteilung,
VIII.
Kleinere
Dialekte
und
Dialektgruppen,
Strassburg,
1898-1901,
pp.
288-344.
A.
N.
Gunja,
"Ressourcen,
Risiken
und
Möglichkeiten
der
nachhaltigen
Nutzung
im
Jagnobtal
/Tadschikistan,"
in
Petermanns
Geographische
Mitteilungen
140,
1996/2,
pp.
67-94.
H.
F.
Junker,
"Drei
Erzählungen
auf
Ya©nåb^,"
in
Sitzungsberichte
der
Heidelberger
Akademie
der
Wissenschaften,
phil.-hist.
Klasse,
1914,
14.
Idem,
Arische
Forschungen,
Yaghno@b^-Studien,
I.
Die
sprachgeographische
Gliederung
des
Yaghno@b-Tales,
Leipzig,
1930.
A.
L.
Khromov,
Yagnobski¥
yazyk
(Yagnobi
language),
Moskva,
1972.
Idem,
"Uslovnye
yazyki
u
iranskikh
narodov"
(Secret
languages
of
the
Iranian
people),
Vostochnaya
filologiya
(Eastern
Philology)
4,
Dushanbe
1976,
pp.
3-19.
Idem,
"Yagnobski¥
yazyk"
(Yagnobi
language),
in
Osnovy
iranskogo
yazykoznaniya,
Novoiranskie
yazyki:
vostochnaya
gruppa
(Essentials
of
Iranian
linguistics,
New
Iranian
languages:
eastern
group),
Moska,
1987,
pp.
644-701.
V.
A.
Livshits,
"Yagnobski¥
yazyk"
(Yagnobi
language),
in
Narody
Sredne¥
Azii
i
Kazakhstana
(People
of
Middle
Asia
and
Kazakhstan)
I,
Moskva,
1962,
pp.
149-52.
I.
M.
Oranskij,
Die
neuiranischen
Sprachen
der
Sowjetunion
I-II,
The
Hague
and
Paris,
1975.
G.
Redard,
"Other
Iranian
Languages,"
in
Current
Trends
in
Linguistics
6,
The
Hague
and
Paris,
1970,
pp.
97-135.
N.
Sims-Williams,
"Sogdian,"
in
R.
Schmitt,
ed.,
Compendium
Linguarum
Iranicarum,
Wiesbaden,
1989,
pp.
173-92.
V.
S.
Sokolova,
"Yagnobski¥
yazyk"
(Yagnobi
language),
in
V.
S.
Sokolova,
Ocherki
po
fonetike
iranskikh
yazykov
(Sketches
of
the
phonetics
of
the
Iranian
languages),
Moskva
and
Leningrad,
1953,
pp.
59-79.
P.
Tedesco,
"a-Stämme
und
aya-Stämme
im
Iranischen,"
Zeitschrift
für
Indologie
und
Iranistik
2,
1923,
pp.
281-315.
(Roland
Bielmeier)
March
3,
2006 |