Chakhar Mongolian: Difference between revisions

Chakhar
Chakhar
Chahar
ᠴᠠᠬᠠᠷ
Pronunciation	[ˈt͡ɕʰɑχə̆r]
Native to	Inner Mongolia
Ethnicity	Chahars
Native speakers	100 000 (2003, Chakhar proper)
Language family	Mongolic Central Mongolic Buryat–Mongolian Mongolian Peripheral Mongolian Chakhar; ; ; ; ;
Writing system	Traditional Mongolian
Official status
Official language in	China Inner Mongolia;
Regulated by	Council for Language and Literature Work
Language codes
ISO 639-3	–
Glottolog	chah1241
IETF	mn-u-sd-cnnm
	Subdivisions of Xilingol (orange) and Ulanqab (green) in which Chakhar is spoken (lighter shade).

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:43, 23 June 2024

Chakhar^[a] is a variety of Mongolian spoken in the central region of Inner Mongolia. It is phonologically close to Khalkha and is the basis for the standard pronunciation of Mongolian in Inner Mongolia.

Location and classification

There are three different definitions of the word Chakhar. First, there is Chakhar proper, spoken in Xilingol League in the Plain Blue Banner, Plain and Bordered White Banner, Bordered Yellow Banner, Taibus Banner in Dolonnuur, and in Ulanqab in Chakhar Right Rear Banner, Chakhar Right Middle Banner, Chakhar Right Front Banner, Šaŋdu and Quvadė, with a number of approximately 100,000 speakers.^[2]

In a broader definition, the Chakhar group contains the varieties Chakhar proper, Urat, Darkhan, Muumingan, Dörben Küüket, Keshigten of Ulanqab.^[3] In a very broad and controversial definition, it also contains the dialects of Xilingol League such as Üjümchin, Sönit, Abaga, and Shilinhot.^[4] The Inner Mongolian normative pronunciation is based on the variety of Chakhar proper as spoken in the Shuluun Köke banner.^[5]

Phonology

Excluding the phonology of recent loanwords, Chakhar has the pharyngeal vowel phonemes /ɑ/, /ɪ/, /ɔ/, /ʊ/ and the non-pharyngeal vowel phonemes /ə/, /i/, /o/, /u/ that adhere to vowel harmony. All have long counterparts and some diphthongs exist as well. /ɪ/ has phoneme status only due to its occurrence as word-initial vowel in words like ɪlɑ̆x 'to win' (vs. ɑlɑ̆x 'to kill'),^[6] thus /i/ (<*i) does occur in pharyngeal words as well. Through lexical diffusion, /i/ <*e is to be observed in some words such as /in/ < *ene ‘this’, rather than in /ələ/ 'kite (bird)'. However, long monophthong vowels also include /e/ < *ei.^[7] The maximal syllable structure is CVCC.^[8] In word-final position, non-phonemic vowels often appear after aspirated and sometimes after unaspirated consonants. They are more frequent in male speech and almost totally disappear in compounds.^[9] The consonant phonemes (again excluding loanwords) are

		Labial		Alveolar		Palatal	Velar
		Normal	Palatalised	Normal	Palatalised	Palatal	Normal	Palatalised
Nasal		m	mʲ	n	nʲ		ŋ
Plosive	Voiced	b	bʲ	d	dʲ		ɡ	ɡʲ
Plosive	Voiceless	p		t	tʲ		(k)^[b]
Fricative				s	ʃ		x	xʲ
Affricate				t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ
Liquid		(w)^[b]		l	lʲ	j
Trill				r	rʲ

Palatalized vowels have phoneme status only in pharyngeal words.^[11]^[12]

Word classes and morphology

The case system of Chakhar has the same number of morphemes as Khalkha with approximately the same forms. There is a peculiar Allative case suffix, -ʊd/-ud, that has developed from *ödö (Mongolian script <ödege>) 'upwards' and that seems to be a free allomorph of the common -rʊ/-ru. The reflexive-possessive suffixes retain their final -ŋ (thus -ɑŋ<*-ban etc., while Khalkha has -ɑ).^[13]

Large numbers are counted according to the Chinese counting system in powers of 10.000. Collective numerals can be combined with approximative numeral suffixes. So while ɑrwɑd 'about ten' and ɑrwʊl 'as a group of ten' a common in Mongolian, ɑrwɑdʊl 'as a group of about ten' seems to be peculiar to Chakhar.^[14]

The pronominal system is much like that of Khalkha.^[15] The colloquial form of the 1. person singular accusative (in which the idiosyncratic accusative stem is replaced) can be nadï instead of nadïɡ, and the alternation of i ~ ig does occur with other pronominal stems as well. This does not lead to confusion as the genitive is formed with mid-opened instead of closed front vowels, e.g. the 2. person singular genitive honorific is [tanɛ] in Chakhar and usually [tʰanɪ] in Khalkha. The 3. person stems don't employ any oblique stems. The 1. person plural exclusive man- has an almost complete case paradigm only excluding the nominative, while at least in written Khalkha anything but the genitive form <manai> is rare.^[16]

Chakhar has approximately the same participles as Khalkha, but -mar expresses potentiality, not desire, and consequently -xar functions as its free allomorph.^[17] On the other hand, there are some distinctive converbs such as -ba (from Chinese 吧 ba) 'if' and -ja (from 也 yè) 'although' which seem to be allomorphs of the suffixes -bal and -bt͡ʃ of common Mongolian origin.^[18] The finite suffix -la might have acquired converbal status.^[19] Finally, -xlar ('if ... then ...') has turned into -xnar, and the form -man ~ -mand͡ʒï̆n 'only if', which is absent in Khalkha, sometimes occurs.^[20] Chakhar has the same core declarative finite forms as Khalkha, but in addition -xui and -lgui to indicate strong probability.^[21]

Lexicon

Most loanwords peculiar to the Chakhar dialect are from Chinese and Manchu.^[22]

Notes

^ /ˈtʃæhər, -kər/; Mongolian script: ᠴᠠᠬᠠᠷ, Cyrillic: Цахар, Latin: Cahar, [ˈt͡ɕʰɑχə̆r] ([ˈt͡sʰaχə̆r] in Khalkha Mongolian); simplified Chinese: 察哈尔; traditional Chinese: 察哈爾; pinyin: Cháhā'ěr or Cháhār
^ ^a ^b while [k] (<*k) and [w] (<*p) that occur in loanwords and native words alike are only allophones of /x/ and /b/ in native words.^[10]

References

^ "Mongγul kele bičig-ün aǰil-un ǰöblel". See Sečenbaγatur, 2005: 204.
^ Sečenbaγatur (2003): 6
^ Janhunen (2003): 179-180
^ Janhunen (2003): 179, Sečenbaγatur (2003): 7; judging from a map provided by Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): 565, this extension relates to administrative areas in the following way: next to Xilin Gol and Ulanqab, Chakhar in its broadest extension would be spoken in Bayannur, Baotou, the northern part of the Hohhot area and the very western part of the Ulanhad.
^ Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): 85
^ The analysis used in this article follows Svantesson et al. (2005): 22-25 in assuming that short vowels in non-initial syllables are non-phonemic.
^ Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): 209-213
^ Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): 224
^ Köke and Sodubaγatur (1996): 10-14. They assume voicedness and not aspiration to be distinctive and give the following rations: males after voiceless consonants: 94% (n=384; “n” is the number of appropriate words uttered by speakers during a phonetic test), after voiced consonants: 53% (n=371), females after voiceless consonants: 87% (n=405), after voiced consonants: 38% (n=367). In contrast: only 7% of words in compound uttered by informants of both sexes contained such vowels. The authors try to link this with historical vowels, but as they don’t take into account that aspirated consonants were historically disallowed in word-final position, this line of argument is not very convincing.
^ Norčin 2001: 148
^ MKBAKKSKND (2003): 31-35
^ MKBAKKSKND 2003: 30
^ Sečenbaγatur 2003: 43-44, 49-50
^ Sečenbaγatur (2003): 70, 75
^ Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): 390
^ Sečenbaγatur (2003): 92-95, 100 for Chakhar; see Poppe (1951): 71-72 for Khalkha. He also gives ~tanä and a full paradigm (excluding nominative) for man-, but at least the full exclusive paradigm is exceedingly rare at least in writing and not reproduced in more recent (while somewhat prescriptive) grammars, e.g. Önörbajan (2004): 202-217. The exceedingly frequent form [natig] (instead of <namajg> doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.
^ Sečenbaγatur (2003): 126-127
^ Sečenbaγatur (2003): 130-131
^ Sečenbaγatur (2003): 134 asserts this, but doesn't provide conclusive evidence. However, compare Ashimura (2002) for Jarud where such a process has taken place
^ Sečenbaγatur (2003): 132-133
^ Sečenbaγatur (2003): 140-141; forms like <-lgüi dee> are quite frequent in Khalkha, but it is difficult to assess their exact grammatical status without some research.
^ Sečenbaγatur (2003): 16-18

Bibliography

Ashimura, Takashi (2002): Mongorugo jarōto gengo no -lɛː no yōhō ni tsuite. In: Tōkyō daigaku gengogaku ronshū 21: 147-200.
Janhunen, Juha (2003): Mongol dialects. In: Juha Janhunen (ed.): The Mongolic languages. London: Routledge: 177–191.
Köke and Sodubaγatur (1996): Čaqar aman ayalγun-u üge-yin ečüs-ün boγuni egesig-ün tuqai. In: Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli 1996/3: 9-20.
Mongγul kelen-ü barimǰiy-a abiyan-u kiri kem-i silγaqu kötülbüri nayiraγulqu doγuyilang (2003): Mongγul kelen-ü barimǰiy-a abiyan-u kiri kem-i silγaqu kötülbüri. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.
Norčin (2001): Barim/ǰiy-a abiy-a - Čaqar aman ayalγu. Kökeqota: öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.
Önörbajan, C. (2004): Orčin cagijn mongol helnij üg züj. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol ulsyn bolovsrolyn ih surguul'.
Poppe, Nicholaus (1951): Khalkha-mongolische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
[Sečenbaγatur] Sechenbaatar (2003): The Chakhar dialect of Mongol - A morphological description. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian society.
Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): Mongγul kelen-ü nutuγ-un ayalγun-u sinǰilel-ün uduridqal. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Anna Tsendina, Anastasia Karlsson, Vivan Franzén (2005): The Phonology of Mongolian. New York: Oxford University Press.

[2] /ˈtʃæhər, -kər/; Mongolian script: ᠴᠠᠬᠠᠷ, Cyrillic: Цахар, Latin: Cahar, [ˈt͡ɕʰɑχə̆r] ([ˈt͡sʰaχə̆r] in Khalkha Mongolian); simplified Chinese: 察哈尔; traditional Chinese: 察哈爾; pinyin: Cháhā'ěr or Cháhār

[kandw-12] while [k] (<*k) and [w] (<*p) that occur in loanwords and native words alike are only allophones of /x/ and /b/ in native words.^[10]

[1] "Mongγul kele bičig-ün aǰil-un ǰöblel". See Sečenbaγatur, 2005: 204.

[3] Sečenbaγatur (2003): 6

[4] Janhunen (2003): 179-180

[5] Janhunen (2003): 179, Sečenbaγatur (2003): 7; judging from a map provided by Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): 565, this extension relates to administrative areas in the following way: next to Xilin Gol and Ulanqab, Chakhar in its broadest extension would be spoken in Bayannur, Baotou, the northern part of the Hohhot area and the very western part of the Ulanhad.

[6] Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): 85

[7] The analysis used in this article follows Svantesson et al. (2005): 22-25 in assuming that short vowels in non-initial syllables are non-phonemic.

[8] Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): 209-213

[9] Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): 224

[10] Köke and Sodubaγatur (1996): 10-14. They assume voicedness and not aspiration to be distinctive and give the following rations: males after voiceless consonants: 94% (n=384; “n” is the number of appropriate words uttered by speakers during a phonetic test), after voiced consonants: 53% (n=371), females after voiceless consonants: 87% (n=405), after voiced consonants: 38% (n=367). In contrast: only 7% of words in compound uttered by informants of both sexes contained such vowels. The authors try to link this with historical vowels, but as they don’t take into account that aspirated consonants were historically disallowed in word-final position, this line of argument is not very convincing.

[11] Norčin 2001: 148

[13] MKBAKKSKND (2003): 31-35

[14] MKBAKKSKND 2003: 30

[15] Sečenbaγatur 2003: 43-44, 49-50

[16] Sečenbaγatur (2003): 70, 75

[17] Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): 390

[18] Sečenbaγatur (2003): 92-95, 100 for Chakhar; see Poppe (1951): 71-72 for Khalkha. He also gives ~tanä and a full paradigm (excluding nominative) for man-, but at least the full exclusive paradigm is exceedingly rare at least in writing and not reproduced in more recent (while somewhat prescriptive) grammars, e.g. Önörbajan (2004): 202-217. The exceedingly frequent form [natig] (instead of <namajg> doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.

[19] Sečenbaγatur (2003): 126-127

[20] Sečenbaγatur (2003): 130-131

[21] Sečenbaγatur (2003): 134 asserts this, but doesn't provide conclusive evidence. However, compare Ashimura (2002) for Jarud where such a process has taken place

[22] Sečenbaγatur (2003): 132-133

[23] Sečenbaγatur (2003): 140-141; forms like <-lgüi dee> are quite frequent in Khalkha, but it is difficult to assess their exact grammatical status without some research.

[24] Sečenbaγatur (2003): 16-18

[1]

[a]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[b]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[10]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|Mongolian variety of Inner Mongolia, China}}
-The '''Chakhar''' ([[Mongolian script|Mongolian]]: {{MongolUnicode|ᠴᠠᠬᠠᠷ}} ''Čaqar''; {{zh|c=察哈爾|p=Cháhār}}) [[dialect]] is a variety of [[Mongolian language|Mongolian]] spoken the central region of [[Inner Mongolia]]. It is phonologically close to [[Khalkha Mongolian|Khalkha]] and is the basis for the standard pronunciation of Mongolian in Inner Mongolia.
+{{Infobox language
+| name             = Chakhar
+| familycolor      = Altaic
+| altname          = Chahar
+| nativename       = {{lang|mn-Mong|{{MongolUnicode|ᠴᠠᠬᠠᠷ}}}}
+| pronunciation    = {{IPA|[ˈt͡ɕʰɑχə̆r]}}
+| states           = [[Inner Mongolia]]
+| region           =
+| ethnicity        = [[Chahars]]
+| speakers         = 100 000
+| date             = 2003, Chakhar proper
+| ref              =
+| fam1             = [[Mongolic languages|Mongolic]]
+| fam2             = Central Mongolic
+| fam3             = [[Buryat language|Buryat]]–[[Mongolian language|Mongolian]]
+| fam4             = [[Mongolian language|Mongolian]]
+| fam5             = [[Mongolian language in Inner Mongolia|Peripheral Mongolian]]
+| ancestor         =
+| ancestor2        =
+| dia1             =
+| dia2             =
+| stand1           =
+| script           = [[Mongolian script|Traditional Mongolian]]
+| nation           = {{CHN}}
+*[[Inner Mongolia]]
+| minority         =
+| agency           = Council for Language and Literature Work<ref>"Mongγul kele bičig-ün aǰil-un ǰöblel". See Sečenbaγatur, 2005: 204.</ref>
+| isoexception     = dialect
+| linglist         =
+| lingua           =
+| ietf             = mn-u-sd-cnnm
+| image            =
+| imagealt         =
+| imagecaption     =
+| map              = Chakhar.png
+| mapcaption       = Subdivisions of [[Xilingol League|Xilingol]] (orange) and [[Ulanqab]] (green) in which Chakhar is spoken (lighter shade).
+| glotto           = chah1241
+| glottorefname    = Chahar
+}}
+'''Chakhar'''{{efn|{{IPAc-en|ˈ|tʃ|æ|h|ər|,_|-|k|ər}}; [[Mongolian script]]: {{lang|mn-Mong|{{MongolUnicode|ᠴᠠᠬᠠᠷ}}}}, [[Mongolian Cyrillic alphabet|Cyrillic]]: {{lang|mn-cyrl|Цахар}}, [[Mongolian Latin alphabet|Latin]]: {{lang|mn-latn|Cahar}}, {{IPA-mn|ˈt͡ɕʰɑχə̆r|}} ({{IPA-mn|ˈt͡sʰaχə̆r|}} in [[Khalkha Mongolian]]); {{zh|s=察哈尔|t=察哈爾|p=Cháhā'ěr or Cháhār}}}} is a variety of [[Mongolian language in Inner Mongolia|Mongolian spoken in the central region of]] [[Inner Mongolia]]. It is phonologically close to [[Khalkha Mongolian|Khalkha]] and is the basis for the standard pronunciation of Mongolian in Inner Mongolia.
-==Location and classification==
+== Location and classification ==
+There are three different definitions of the word '''Chakhar'''. First, there is Chakhar proper, spoken in [[Xilingol League]] in the [[Plain Blue Banner (Inner Mongolia) |Plain Blue Banner]], [[Plain and Bordered White Banner]], [[Bordered Yellow Banner, Inner Mongolia|Bordered Yellow Banner]], [[Taibus Banner]] in [[Duolun County|Dolonnuur]], and in [[Ulanqab]] in [[Qahar Right Rear Banner|Chakhar Right Rear Banner]], [[Qahar Right Middle Banner|Chakhar Right Middle Banner]], [[Qahar Right Front Banner|Chakhar Right Front Banner]], [[Shangdu County|Šaŋdu]] and [[Huade County|Quvadė]], with a number of approximately 100,000 speakers.<ref>Sečenbaγatur (2003): 6</ref>
-There are three different definitions of the word '''Chakhar'''. First, there is Chakhar proper, spoken in the banners Shuluun Köke, Shuluun Köböötü Chagaan, Höböötü Shira, Taipusi, Chakhar Right Wing Rear, Chakhar Right Wing Middle, Chakhar Right Wing Front, Shangdu, Dolonnur and Huade with a number of approximately 100.000 speakers.<ref>Sečenbaγatur 2003: 6</ref> In a broader definition, the Chakhar group contains the varieties Chakhar proper, Urat, Darkhan, Muumingan, Dörben Küüket, Keshigten of [[Ulanqab]].<ref>Janhunen 2003: 179-180</ref> In a very broad and controversial definition, it also contains the dialects of [[Xilin Gol]] such as Üjümchin, Sönit, Abaga, Shilinhot.<ref>Janhunen 2003: 179, Sečenbaγatur 2003: 7; judging from a map provided by Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 565, this extension relates to administrative areas in the following way: next to [[Xilin Gol]] and [[Ulanqab]], Chakhar in its broadest extension would be spoken in [[Bayan Nur]], [[Baotou]], the northern part of the [[Hohhot]] area and the very western part of the [[Chifeng|Ulanhad]].</ref> The [[Southern Mongolian]] normative pronunciation is based on the variety of Chakhar proper as spoken in the Shuluun Köke banner.<ref>Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 85</ref>
+In a broader definition, the Chakhar group contains the varieties Chakhar proper, Urat, Darkhan, Muumingan, Dörben Küüket, Keshigten of [[Ulanqab]].<ref>Janhunen (2003): 179-180</ref> In a very broad and controversial definition, it also contains the dialects of [[Xilingol League]] such as Üjümchin, Sönit, Abaga, and Shilinhot.<ref>Janhunen (2003): 179, Sečenbaγatur (2003): 7; judging from a map provided by Sečenbaγatur ''et al.'' (2005): 565, this extension relates to administrative areas in the following way: next to [[Xilin Gol]] and [[Ulanqab]], Chakhar in its broadest extension would be spoken in [[Bayannur]], [[Baotou]], the northern part of the [[Hohhot]] area and the very western part of the [[Chifeng|Ulanhad]].</ref> The [[Mongolian language in Inner Mongolia|Inner Mongolian]] normative pronunciation is based on the variety of Chakhar proper as spoken in the Shuluun Köke banner.<ref>Sečenbaγatur ''et al.'' (2005): 85</ref>
-==Phonology==
+== Phonology ==
+Excluding the [[phonology]] of recent [[loanword]]s, Chakhar has the pharyngeal [[vowel]] [[phonemes]] {{IPA|/ɑ/, /ɪ/, /ɔ/, /ʊ/}} and the non-pharyngeal vowel phonemes {{IPA|/ə/, /i/, /o/, /u/}} that adhere to [[vowel harmony]]. All have long counterparts and some diphthongs exist as well. {{IPA|/ɪ/}} has phoneme status only due to its occurrence as word-initial vowel in words like {{IPA|ɪlɑ̆x}} 'to win' (vs. {{IPA|ɑlɑ̆x}} 'to kill'),<ref>The analysis used in this article follows Svantesson ''et al.'' (2005): 22-25 in assuming that short vowels in non-initial syllables are non-phonemic.</ref> thus {{IPA|/i/}} (<*i) does occur in pharyngeal words as well. Through [[lexical diffusion]], {{IPA|/i/}} <*e is to be observed in some words such as {{IPA|/in/}} < *ene ‘this’, rather than in {{IPA|/ələ/}} 'kite (bird)'. However, long [[monophthong]] vowels also include {{IPA|/e/}} < *ei.<ref>Sečenbaγatur ''et al.'' (2005): 209-213</ref> The maximal syllable structure is CVCC.<ref>Sečenbaγatur ''et al.'' (2005): 224</ref> In word-final position, non-phonemic vowels often appear after aspirated and sometimes after unaspirated consonants. They are more frequent in male speech and almost totally disappear in compounds.<ref>Köke and Sodubaγatur (1996): 10-14. They assume voicedness and not aspiration to be distinctive and give the following rations: males after voiceless consonants: 94% (n=384; “n” is the number of appropriate words uttered by speakers during a phonetic test), after voiced consonants: 53% (n=371), females after voiceless consonants: 87% (n=405), after voiced consonants: 38% (n=367). In contrast: only 7% of words in compound uttered by informants of both sexes contained such vowels. The authors try to link this with historical vowels, but as they don’t take into account that aspirated consonants were historically disallowed in word-final position, this line of argument is not very convincing.</ref> The [[consonant]] phonemes (again excluding loanwords) are
+{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
-Excluding the [[phonology]] of recent [[loanword]]s, Chakhar has the pharyngeal [[vowel]] [[phonemes]] {{IPA|/ɑ/, /ɪ/, /ɔ/, /ʊ/}} and the non-pharyngeal vowel phonemes {{IPA|/ə/, /i/, /o/, /u/}} that adhere to [[vowel harmony]]. All have long counterparts and some diphthongs exist as well. {{IPA|/ɪ/}} has phoneme status only due to its occurrence as word-initial vowel in words like {{IPA|ɪlɑ̆x}} ‘to win’ (vs. {{IPA|ɑlɑ̆x}} ‘to kill’),<ref>The analysis used in this article follows Svantesson et al. 2005: 22-25 in assuming that short vowels in non-initial syllables are non-phonemic.</ref> thus {{IPA|/i/}} (<*i) does occur in pharyngeal words as well. Through [[lexical diffusion]], {{IPA|/i/}} <*e is to be observed in some words such as {{IPA|/in/}} < *ene ‘this’, rather than in {{IPA|/ələ/}} ‘kite (bird)’. However, long [[monophthong]] vowels also include {{IPA|/e/}} < *ei.<ref>Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 209-213</ref> The maximal syllable structure is CVCC.<ref>Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 224</ref> In word-final position, non-phonemic vowels often appear after aspirated and sometimes after unaspirated consonants. They are more frequent in male speech and almost totally disappear in compounds.<ref>Köke and Sodubaγatur 1996: 10-14. They assume voicedness and not aspiration to be distinctive and give the following rations: males after voiceless consonants: 94% (n=384; “n” is the number of appropriate words uttered by speakers during a phonetic test), after voiced consonants: 53% (n=371), females after voiceless consonants: 87% (n=405), after voiced consonants: 38% (n=367). In contrast: only 7% of words in compound uttered by informants of both sexes contained such vowels. The authors try to link this with historical vowels, but as they don’t take into account that aspirated vowels were historically disallowed in word-final position, this line of argument is not very convincing.</ref> The [[consonant]] phonemes (again excluding loanwords) are
+! rowspan=2 colspan=2|
+! colspan=2| Labial
+! colspan=2| Alveolar
+! rowspan=2| Palatal
+! colspan=2| Velar
+|-
+! Normal
+! Palatalised
+! Normal
+! Palatalised
+! Normal
+! Palatalised
+|-
+! colspan=2| Nasal
+| {{IPA link|m}} || {{IPA link|mʲ}} || {{IPA link|n}} || {{IPA link|nʲ}} || || {{IPA link|ŋ}} ||
+|-
+! rowspan=2| Plosive
+! Voiced
+| {{IPA link|b}} || {{IPA link|bʲ}} || {{IPA link|d}} || {{IPA link|dʲ}} || || {{IPA link|ɡ}} || {{IPA link|ɡʲ}}
+|-
+! Voiceless
+| {{IPA link|p}} || || {{IPA link|t}} || {{IPA link|tʲ}} || || ({{IPA link|k}}){{efn|name=kandw|while [k] (<*k) and [w] (<*p) that occur in loanwords and native words alike are only allophones of /x/ and /b/ in native words.<ref>Norčin 2001: 148</ref>}} ||
+|-
+! colspan=2| Fricative
+| || || {{IPA link|s}} || {{IPA link|ʃ}} || || {{IPA link|x}} || {{IPA link|xʲ}}
+|-
+! colspan=2| Affricate
+| || || colspan=2| {{IPA link|t͡ʃ}}, {{IPA link|d͡ʒ}} || || ||
+|-
+! colspan=2| Liquid
+| ({{IPA link|w}}){{efn|name=kandw}} || || {{IPA link|l}} || {{IPA link|lʲ}} || {{IPA link|j}} || ||
+|-
+! colspan=2| Trill
+| || || {{IPA link|r}} || {{IPA link|rʲ}} || || ||
+|}
+[[Palatalization (phonetics)|Palatalized]] vowels have phoneme status only in pharyngeal words.<ref>MKBAKKSKND (2003): 31-35</ref><ref>MKBAKKSKND 2003: 30</ref>
-{{IPA|/n/, /nʲ/, /ŋ/, /b/ /bʲ/, /p/, /x/, /xʲ/, /ɡ/, /ɡʲ/, /m/, /mʲ/, /l/, /lʲ/, /s/, /ʃ/, /t/, /tʲ/, /d/, /dʲ/, /t͡ʃ/, /d͡ʒ/, /j/, /r/, /rʲ/}}<ref>MKBAKKSKND 2003: 30</ref>
-while [k] (<*k) and [w] (<*p) that occur in loanwords and native words alike are only allophones of /x/ and /b/ in native words.<ref>Norčin 2001: 148</ref> [[Palatalization|Palatalized]] vowels have phoneme status only in pharyngeal words.<ref>MKBAKKSKND 2003: 31-35</ref>
-==Word classes and morphology==
+== Word classes and morphology ==
 The [[case system]] of Chakhar has the same number of [[morpheme]]s as Khalkha with approximately the same forms. There is a peculiar [[Allative case]] [[suffix]], ''{{IPA|-ʊd/-ud}}'', that has developed from *ödö ([[Mongolian script]] <ödege>) 'upwards' and that seems to be a free [[allomorph]] of the common {{IPA|-rʊ/-ru}}. The reflexive-possessive suffixes retain their final {{IPA|-ŋ}} (thus {{IPA|-ɑŋ}}<*-ban etc., while Khalkha has {{IPA|-ɑ}}).<ref>Sečenbaγatur 2003: 43-44, 49-50</ref>
-Large numbers are counted according to the Chinese counting system in powers of 10.000. Collective [[Numeral (linguistics)|numerals]] can be combined with approximative numeral suffixes. So while ''{{IPA|ɑrwɑd}}'' 'about ten' and ''{{IPA|ɑrwʊl}}'' 'as a group of ten' a common in Mongolian, ''{{IPA|ɑrwɑdʊl}}'' 'as a group of about ten' seems to be peculiar to Chakhar.<ref>Sečenbaγatur 2003: 70, 75</ref>
+Large numbers are counted according to the Chinese counting system in powers of 10.000. Collective [[Numeral (linguistics)|numerals]] can be combined with approximative numeral suffixes. So while ''{{IPA|ɑrwɑd}}'' 'about ten' and ''{{IPA|ɑrwʊl}}'' 'as a group of ten' a common in Mongolian, ''{{IPA|ɑrwɑdʊl}}'' 'as a group of about ten' seems to be peculiar to Chakhar.<ref>Sečenbaγatur (2003): 70, 75</ref>
-The [[pronoun|pronominal]] system is much like that of Khalkha.<ref>Sečenbaγatur et al. 2005: 390</ref> The colloquial form of the [[Grammatical person|1. person]] [[Grammatical number|singular]] [[Accusative case|accusative]] (in which the idiosyncratic accusative stem is replaced) can be ''{{IPA|nadï}}'' instead of ''{{IPA|nadïɡ}}'', and the alternation of ''i'' ~ ''ig'' does occur with other pronominal stems as well. This does not lead to confusion as the genitive is formed with mid-opened instead of closed front vowels, e.g. the 2. person singular [[genitive]] [[honorific]] is {{IPA|[tanɛ]}} in Chakhar and usually {{IPA|[tʰanɪ]}} in Khalkha. The 3. person stems don't employ any oblique stems. The [[Clusivity|1. person plural exclusive]] ''man-'' has an almost complete case paradigm only excluding the [[nominative]], while at least in written Khalkha anything but the genitive form <manaj> is rare.<ref>Sečenbaγatur 2003: 92-95, 100 for Chakhar; see Poppe 1951: 71-72 for Khalkha. He also gives ''~tanä'' and a full [[paradigm]] (excluding [[Nominative case|nominative]]) for ''man-'', but at least the full exclusive paradigm is exceedingly rare at least in writing and not reproduced in more recent (while somewhat prescriptive) grammars, e.g. Önörbajan 2004: 202-217. The exceedingly frequent form [natig] (instead of <namajg> doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.</ref>
+The [[pronoun|pronominal]] system is much like that of Khalkha.<ref>Sečenbaγatur ''et al.'' (2005): 390</ref> The colloquial form of the [[Grammatical person|1. person]] [[Grammatical number|singular]] [[Accusative case|accusative]] (in which the idiosyncratic accusative stem is replaced) can be ''{{IPA|nadï}}'' instead of ''{{IPA|nadïɡ}}'', and the alternation of ''i'' ~ ''ig'' does occur with other pronominal stems as well. This does not lead to confusion as the genitive is formed with mid-opened instead of closed front vowels, e.g. the 2. person singular [[genitive]] [[honorific]] is {{IPA|[tanɛ]}} in Chakhar and usually {{IPA|[tʰanɪ]}} in Khalkha. The 3. person stems don't employ any oblique stems. The [[Clusivity|1. person plural exclusive]] ''man-'' has an almost complete case paradigm only excluding the [[nominative]], while at least in written Khalkha anything but the genitive form <manai> is rare.<ref>Sečenbaγatur (2003): 92-95, 100 for Chakhar; see Poppe (1951): 71-72 for Khalkha. He also gives ''~tanä'' and a full [[paradigm]] (excluding [[Nominative case|nominative]]) for ''man-'', but at least the full exclusive paradigm is exceedingly rare at least in writing and not reproduced in more recent (while somewhat prescriptive) grammars, e.g. Önörbajan (2004): 202-217. The exceedingly frequent form [natig] (instead of <namajg> doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.</ref>
-Chakhar has approximately the same [[participle]]s as Khalkha, but ''-mar'' expresses potentiality, not desire, and consequently ''-xar'' functions as its free allomorph.<ref>Sečenbaγatur 2003: 126-127</ref> On the other hand, there are some distinctive [[converb]]s such as ''-ba'' (from Chinese 吧 ba) 'if' and -ja (from 也 yè) 'although' which seem to be allomorphs of the suffixes ''-val'' and ''-wc'' of common Mongolian origin.<ref>Sečenbaγatur 2003: 130-131</ref> The finite suffix ''-la'' might have acquired converbal status.<ref>Sečenbaγatur 2003: 134 asserts this, but doesn't provide conclusive evidence. However, compare Ashimura 2002 for Jarud where such a process has taken place</ref> Finally, ''-xlar'' ('if ... then ...') has turned into ''-xnar'', and the form ''-man'' ~ ''-{{IPA|manjï̆n}}'' 'only if', which is absent in Khalkha, sometimes occurs.<ref>Sečenbaγatur 2003: 132-133</ref> Chakhar has the same core declarative finite forms as Khalkha, but in addition ''-xui'' and ''-lgui'' to indicate strong probability.<ref>Sečenbaγatur 2003: 140-141; forms like <-lgüj dee> are quite frequent in Khalkha, but it is difficult to assess their exact grammatical status without some research.</ref>
+Chakhar has approximately the same [[participle]]s as Khalkha, but ''-mar'' expresses potentiality, not desire, and consequently ''-xar'' functions as its free allomorph.<ref>Sečenbaγatur (2003): 126-127</ref> On the other hand, there are some distinctive [[converb]]s such as ''-ba'' (from Chinese 吧 ba) 'if' and -ja (from 也 yè) 'although' which seem to be allomorphs of the suffixes ''-bal'' and ''-bt͡ʃ'' of common Mongolian origin.<ref>Sečenbaγatur (2003): 130-131</ref> The finite suffix ''-la'' might have acquired converbal status.<ref>Sečenbaγatur (2003): 134 asserts this, but doesn't provide conclusive evidence. However, compare Ashimura (2002) for Jarud where such a process has taken place</ref> Finally, ''{{lang|mis|-xlar}}'' ('if ... then ...') has turned into ''{{lang|mis|-xnar}}'', and the form ''-man'' ~ ''-{{IPA|mand͡ʒï̆n}}'' 'only if', which is absent in Khalkha, sometimes occurs.<ref>Sečenbaγatur (2003): 132-133</ref> Chakhar has the same core declarative finite forms as Khalkha, but in addition ''-xui'' and ''{{lang|mis|-lgui}}'' to indicate strong probability.<ref>Sečenbaγatur (2003): 140-141; forms like <-lgüi dee> are quite frequent in Khalkha, but it is difficult to assess their exact grammatical status without some research.</ref>
 ==Lexicon==
+Most [[loanword]]s peculiar to the Chakhar dialect are from [[Chinese language|Chinese]] and [[Manchu language|Manchu]].<ref>Sečenbaγatur (2003): 16-18</ref>
+== Notes ==
-Most [[loanword]]s peculiar to the Chakhar dialect hail from [[Chinese language|Chinese]] and [[Manchu language|Manchu]].<ref>Sečenbaγatur 2003: 16-18</ref>
+{{notelist}}
 == References ==
 {{reflist}}
@@ Line 36: / Line 111: @@
 * Janhunen, Juha (2003): Mongol dialects. In: Juha Janhunen (ed.): ''The Mongolic languages''. London: Routledge: 177–191.
 * Köke and Sodubaγatur (1996): Čaqar aman ayalγun-u üge-yin ečüs-ün boγuni egesig-ün tuqai. In: ''Öbür mongγul-un yeke surγaγuli 1996/3'': 9-20.
-* {{unicode|Mongγul kelen-ü barimǰiy-a abiyan-u kiri kem-i silγaqu kötülbüri nayiraγulqu doγuyilang}} (2003): ''{{unicode|Mongγul kelen-ü barimǰiy-a abiyan-u kiri kem-i silγaqu kötülbüri}}''. {{unicode|Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.}}
+* Mongγul kelen-ü barimǰiy-a abiyan-u kiri kem-i silγaqu kötülbüri nayiraγulqu doγuyilang (2003): ''Mongγul kelen-ü barimǰiy-a abiyan-u kiri kem-i silγaqu kötülbüri''. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.
-* Norčin (2001): ''{{unicode|Barim/ǰiy-a abiy-a - Čaqar aman ayalγu''. Kökeqota: öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.}}
+* Norčin (2001): ''Barim/ǰiy-a abiy-a - Čaqar aman ayalγu''. Kökeqota: öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.
 * Önörbajan, C. (2004): ''Orčin cagijn {{Not a typo|mongol}} helnij üg züj''. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol ulsyn bolovsrolyn ih surguul'.
 * [[Nicholas Poppe|Poppe, Nicholaus]] (1951): ''Khalkha-mongolische Grammatik''. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
 * [Sečenbaγatur] Sechenbaatar (2003): ''The Chakhar dialect of Mongol - A morphological description''. Helsinki: [[Finno-Ugrian society]].
-* Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): ''{{unicode|Mongγul kelen-ü nutuγ-un ayalγun-u sinǰilel-ün uduridqal''. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.}}
+* Sečenbaγatur et al. (2005): ''Mongγul kelen-ü nutuγ-un ayalγun-u sinǰilel-ün uduridqal''. Kökeqota: Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a.
 * [[Jan-Olof Svantesson|Svantesson, Jan-Olof]], Anna Tsendina, Anastasia Karlsson, Vivan Franzén (2005): ''The Phonology of Mongolian''. New York: Oxford University Press.
+{{Mongolic languages}}
 {{DEFAULTSORT:Chakhar Dialect}}
 [[Category:Agglutinative languages]]
-[[Category:Mongolic languages]]
+[[Category: Mongolic languages]]
+[[Category:Central Mongolic languages]]