Emine Şahingöz

Tmesis is a peculiarity of Ossetic, an Iranian language spoken predominantly in the Caucasus: constructions where the preverb and verbal stem are split by clitic elements can be found in spoken as well as written language. However, tmesis is only encountered in Digor Ossetic, the more archaic Ossetian variety – Iron Ossetic does not allow clitic pronouns to stand in tmetic position. In tmetic constructions in Digor, up to five clitic elements can stand in such a position at once. It can be observed that hereby the word order of clitic pronouns plays a crucial role for polyvalent verbs since the indirect object follows the direct object. This article deals with the question to what extent tmesis affects the word accent in Ossetic.

Ossetic, an Eastern Iranian language spoken in the Central Caucasus, boasts a rich and intricate history influenced by various linguistic and cultural factors from the region. However, the absence of a written tradition has limited the availability of sources on the Ossetian language, leaving much of its early history and development veiled in mystery. Thankfully, there exist a number of publications from the early modern European period that contain word lists offering valuable insights into the linguistic evolution of Ossetian. The earliest of these publications dates back to 1705. These word lists provide a window into the language's lexicon and offer a glimpse of its linguistic progression, as they transmit the transcriptions compiled by researchers. Consequently, these sources hold significant importance for linguists interested in Ossetian and Iranian language history, as well as contact phenomena, as they can illuminate the ways in which linguistic changes occur in non-written languages over several centuries.
In this article, we delve into the linguistic development of the Ossetian language as evidenced in early modern European sources. We explore how this development can be traced back to later stages of language evolution. To achieve this, we initially provide an overview of relevant monographs published in past centuries that include studies on Ossetian language syntax or morphology, as well as language material, such as word lists and transcriptions from a time when the language lacked an established written tradition. Given the focus of this article on the linguistic development and features extracted from such material, we take a closer look at two lists of words: the "Circassian" glossary found in Nikolaes Witsen's work "Northern and Eastern Tartaria," and the Iron and Digor glossaries compiled by Simon Pallas. Witsen's glossary not only contains Circassian lexemes but also a significant number of Ossetian words, making its entries the oldest known written examples of modern Ossetian. Pallas' glossary on the other hand holds relevance for the comparative study of variants and dialects within the Ossetian language, as it provides evidence of established dialectal features in Iron, which can be inferred from the phonology of dictionary entries.

Minority languages, including many endangered ones, often face a lack of electronic resources, particularly dictionaries. Some languages that have received more attention from scholars now possess digital resources and even mobile applications, but these often fall short of meeting the expectations of today's technologically advanced youth. Our electronic dictionary, Bazuri ("wing"), presents innovative solutions aimed at overcoming these challenges, catering to the interests of the younger generation, and fostering an appreciation for their native language through language technology development. The dictionary has been designed to comply with modern standards, available in both mobile and web application formats.
The primary goal of this article is to introduce readers to the languages of the Caucasus and their degree of endangerment, as classified by the UNESCO Atlas of Endangered Languages. The second section of the article details the structure and functioning mechanism of the dictionary, while the third section focuses on the interactive function of the application, empowering Internet users to actively contribute to its development. Lastly, the fourth part of the paper outlines the primary stages of project implementation and future plans.

Up to this day, the Ossetian diaspora that had left their homeland in the second half of the 19th century managed to keep their language alive. A part of this diaspora is settled in today’s Turkey and passed their language orally since they have no writing tradition. Ossetic speakers are usually bilingual; speakers of Anatolian Ossetic have been influenced by Turkish whereas Ossetic speakers from the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania have been influenced by Russian. This influence includes e.g. borrowed words, mainly those designating inventions of the past century. Except for borrowed words, there are also slight grammatical differences between Anatolian Ossetic and Caucasian Ossetic. In spite of the differences, Ossetian speakers from these two regions can still communicate with each other and the varieties are mutually intelligible. This paper will discuss my observations of the differences and similarities of Anatolian and Caucasian Ossetic. Further, it will provide information about the less studied Anatolian Ossetic varieties.

In previous work on Ossetic preverbs, their function was examined in a number of areas. Another approach were the parallels with Kartvelian and Slavic, their spatial and grammatical (more precisely: aspectual) functions, and their functionality with in terms of historical and unproductive preverbs.
Since the previous research took place over a long period of time and includes observations of numerous independent researchers, this work shall also function as a timeline on the topics of previous research.
This work is the first part of a broad work on Ossetic preverbs. It displays topics such as the phonological phenomena that are caused by the preverbs, tmesis where elements stand between the preverb and the word stem, compound verbs and the spatial functions of the preverbs, also known as orienṭacia. Topics such as preverb combinations, prefix conversion, verbal aspect and Aktionsart expressed by preverbs and will be covered in the complementing papers.

Differential Object Marking (DOM) describes the phenomenon of marking direct objects in accordance with definiteness, animacy or information structure – or a combination of these. DOM patterns in different languages do not only differ with regard to conditioning factors but also morphologically, using case, adpositions or particles.
Ossetic uses opposite case marking to differ between animacy and definiteness (cf. Abaev 1964; Bagaev 1965; Belyaev 2010; Bossong 1985).
This allows us to group direct objects into four patterns: 1. {-animate, -definite}, 2. {+animate, -definite}, 3. {-animate, +definite} and 4. {+animate, +definite}. Based on the case opposition described in (1), direct objects matching the first pattern are unmarked, objects matching pattern 2 and 3 can be marked by both cases and those matching pattern 4 are always marked. A corpus-based  analysis shows that for example proper names of human referents and pronouns (long and short form) in object position always stand in the genitive (cf. (2)), while animate non-human referents are usually unmarked but can also be marked (cf. (3) & (4)). Hereby, the choice does not seem to depend on definiteness. With a few exceptions, inanimate objects are always unmarked.

In this talk I presented regularities found in a corpus-based analysis and discussed whether word order, verbal inflection or other factors play a role in the distribution of DOM and if Ossetian DOM is the result of a contact phenomenon.

For more than 150 years, a diaspora of Ossetians exists in Anatolia in today’s Turkish Republic. The diaspora has managed to preserve their language and their culture. In the first half of the last century, Süleyman Kazmaz visited some villages in the Eastern region of Anatolia – among them were Ossetian villages as well. His notes were later published as a book. One of his informants told him an anecdote about the Ossetian poet Kosta Khetagurov. This information will be discussed in this paper.