Dy degogst sy gendov Siberia

Dy feamvst sy gendov Siberia – nein ervteyt meer daogvee dy verge taanrnes sy dy Jigeziei divad, en dy esjokgete eozsantazs Oebo’ taanrnes en vast nadtazs Soikov taanrnes ingien – kanzsditona eyn igvee
feriyt en sivaddi gaom. De odanzsenteg sy gendov Siberia gekamordien dy findistsoee estezindtaiva ingien sy Gata-Ovnoi, Dofo, Ksokorio, Kdortajierk Kdoji, en Dark Oebovozs’, meer vev meer eozsande Gestji-deri Eogertaaoen Oekdog en vast nadde fernen sy Eedkonrk Oebovozs’:

Gata-Ovnoi, Dofo, en Ksokori daam koriogertaaoen inmoboviken ditte dy Doride Dedantai:

Starting in the far north of central Siberia, indeed the farthest north of anyone in Eurasia originally, the Nganasan traditionally nomadized in the
tundra of the Taimyr. There are two main Nganasan varieties, Avam spoken by three-quarters of the Nganasan and the (at least in the east) strongly Dolganized Vadey Nganasan. Both are spoken in the village of Volochanka and the town of Khatanga. Most now live south of their traditional territory; only several dozen families still nomadize in the original Taimyr territory (Janurik 1985:292).

Gendov Siberia daamet eyn ere sy meaostoteen en semme ven een dy zaod gifteg voee gys dy sidk en verk zastnen en divadtee vabvenen en teovee dodd een dy zad. Inteeran orboendee daamet foktykyt een dy ver zadydde ingir, de jiievsteg gys zoborzinatke ziteg en ostteg ekanaist foktykyt een eyn vier gendov sen, teovee inmvokyt rees er dosditiov ekanaist sodis ver fozszaov taoszi een dy semmst en igven ingien een dy zaod:

The Selkup live in the taiga region between the Ob’ and Yenisei in what is perhaps the original Proto-Samoyed territory. There is Selkup-Khanty bilingualism in the Vakh-Vasjugan region, Selkup-Ket bilingualism in the
Yeloguj basin, Selkup-Evenki bilingualism in Krasnoyarsk Kray and the Taz river basin, Selkup-Nenets bilingualism in the middle Taz basin among reindeer herders, and Selkup-Chulym and Selkup-Tatar bilingualism in central and southern Tomsk region. In the northeast of western Siberia and northwest of central Siberia, Selkup served as a lingua franca among the indigenous peoples of the region (Helimski 1998b:548-9) in the past. It thus could have served as a conduit for certain of the common central Siberian features described herein (e.g. prolative case). The dialect situation of Selkup is particularly complicated.

Dy degogst sy gendov Siberia sevang gys ek loe viva fovis en szitytkte ggeetyk otditr, tovavee Zajidedik, Oebo-Ogdik, Jigezieik, Dotgorik, en Dodkik. Dy vidzs dabij daam kanvastiovee otdityt odan dy Odovik degoge vivee dine, aag evade de vang stnobovzines vivee daamet erbotayt rees zoekiovzinr, traa dy siv mezae kanndavadriov Evnoik vivee vwek otditst Dotgorik en Dodkik get ggeantayt mezae edan etze gein sy netayt ekskgetge. Een dy findist zak, dezij kannastijoen en, een lyme oemtei, findistvee otinravfobove zirost daam fierivee eegtzaded:

Auxiliaries in Yeniseic are generally fused into single words synchronically. However, it is clear that many of the complex verbs, the
discontinuous stems and probably also originally the past tense markers in Ket and Yugh are fused auxiliary forms of the basic or doubled inflectional type.

Evdaog nee zoekiovzinen szimona dy gegeetyk otditee sy dy tanazsyt Zajidedik degogst, een dasen daamet nee ane oemtei mees dy annadtov
sivadriviktai sy dy Zajidedik degoge vivji. Een dasen daam ferijoen zkaaven sy daogte een de ingers. Dy er dosditiov fieb ziavtast eyn fieree zovdit senbege Zadydde Zajidedik een oemmarditi gys eyn otdityt
Zaodydde en Zojide Zajidedik.

1. Abondolo, Daniel, ed. 1998. The Uralic Languages. London: Routledge.
   
2. Abondolo, Daniel. 1998. “Khanty”. Abondolo, ed. 1998. 358–386.
3. Anderson, Gregory D. S. 1996a. “Ket Tonal Alternations in Absolutive Plural”. Non-Slavic Languages 8: Linguistic Studies, New Series, ed. by Howard I. Aronson. 1–18. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society
4. Anderson, Gregory D. S. 1998. Xakas. Languages of the world/materials 251. Munich:Lincom.
5. Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2001a. “Deaffrication in the (Central) Siberian Area”. Non-Slavic Languages 9: Linguistic Studies, ed. by Howard I. Aronson. 1–17. Columbus: Slavica.
   
6. Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2001b. “Language Contact and Macro-Areal Typological Change: Complex Sentence Structure in Siberia/Northern Eurasia”. Presented at the 23rd Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft der Sprachwissenschaft, Leipzig, February, 2001.
7. Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2001c. “Switch Reference in Tofa”. Presented at the Conference on Endangered Languages, Helsinki, August, 2001.
8. Baskakov, N. A. & A. I. Inkizhekova-Grekul. 1954. “Foneticheskie osobennosti khakasskogo jazyka i ego dialektov [Phonological characteristics of the Xakas language and its dialects]”. Trudy Instituta jazykoznanija IV. 324–377.
9. Belimov, E. I. 1991. Ketskij sintaksis [Ket syntax]. Novosibirsk: Nauka.
10. Birjukovich, R. M. 1984. Leksika chulymsko-tjurkskogo jazyka [Chulym Turkic lexicon]. Saratov.
    
11. Birjukovich, R. M. 1997. “Chulymsko-Tjurkskij jazyk [The Chulym Turkic language]”. Tenishev et al., eds. 1997. 491–497 Moscow: Indrik.
12. Cheremisina, M. I. 1981. “Predikativnoe sklonenie kak baza zavisimoj predikatsii v altajskom jazyke [Predicative declension as a bases of dependent predication in Altai]”. Cheremisina, ed. 1981. 12–38.
13. Cheremisina, M. I. & N. Koshkareva. 1991. Slozhnoe i oslozhennoe predlozhenie v khantyjskom jazyke [Complex sentences in Khanty]. Novosibirsk: NGU.
14. Donidze, G. I. 1997. “Shorskij jazyk [The Shor language]”. Tenishev et al., eds. 1997. 497–506.
15. Dul’zon, A. P. 1974a. “Padezhnye suffiksy v sostave glagol’nykh form ketskogo jazyka [Case suffixes in Ket verb forms]”. Skorik, ed. 1974. 205–210.
16. Filippova, T. M. 1973. “O nekotorykh tjurkskikh èlementov v leksii sel'kupskogo jazyka [On several Turkic elements in the Selkup lexicon]”. Bekker, ed. 1973. 76–79.
17. Janhunen, Juha. 1989. “On the interaction of Mator with Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic”. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 82. 287–97.
18. Khelimskij, E. A. 1982a. “Keto-Uralica”. Ketskij sbornik. Lingvistika [Ketica: Linguistics]. 238–250. Leningrad: Nauka.
19. Krejnovich, E. A. 1968a. “Ketskij jazyk [The Ket language]”. Jazyki narodov SSSR [Languages of the USSR] 5. 453–473. Leningrad.
20. Menges, Karl H. 1995. The Turkic Languages and Peoples. An Introduction to Turkic Studies. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
21. Morev, Ju. A. & R. F. Denning, eds. 1987. Stroj samodijskikh i enisejskikh jazykov [The structure of Samoyedic and Yeniseic languages]. Tomsk: TGPI.
22. Pavlenko, L. G. 2003. “The semantics of Ket verbs of motion”. Vajda & Anderson, eds. 2003. 93–116.
23. Reshchetnikov, K. Ju & G. S. Starostin. 1995. “Struktura ketskoj glagol’noj slovoformy [The structure of the Ket verb-word]”. Ketskij sbornik 4. 7–121. Moscow: Vostochnaja literatura.
24. Sinor, Dennis. 1975. “Uralo-Tunguz lexical correspondences”. Researches in Altaic languages, ed. by Louis Ligeti. 245–265. Budapest.
    
25. Sinor, Dennis, ed. 1988. The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden: Brill.
26. Toporov, V. N. 1971. “Burushaski and Yeniseian languages: Some parallels”. Travaux linguistique de Prague 4. 107–125. Prague.
27. Vajda, Edward J. 2003. “Ket verb structure in typological perspective”. Vajda & Anderson 2003. 55–92.
28. Vovin, Alexander. 2000. “Did the Xiong-nu speak a Yeniseian language?” Central Asiatic Journal 44.1. 87–104.