Bulletin of the KIH of the RAS, 2016, Vol. 23, Is. 1

Copyright © 2016 by the Kalmyk Institute for Humanities of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Published in the Russian Federation Bulletin of the Kalmyk Institute for Humanities of the Russian Academy of Sciences Has been issued since 2008 ISSN: 2075-7794; E-ISSN: 2410-7670 Vol. 23, Is. 1, pp. 156–165, 2016 DOI 10.22162/2075-7794-2016-23-1-156-165 Journal homepage: http://kigiran.com/pubs/vestnik

UDC 811.512.1 V Structural Models of Monosyllables in Inscriptions and Modern Magripa K. Yeskeeva1 1 Ph. D. of Philology, Professor of Department at L. N. Gumilyev Eurasian National University (Astana, the Republic of ). E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract Though studying of the problem of root word is the classical sphere with its established tradition and principles, specifi c purpose and objectives, the nature of monosyllabic words which forms the basis of the language is not fully disclosed. The actuality of the problem of root is connected with the multistage and contradictory complex nature of the Turkic roots which originates from the appearance of a sound language. As B. M. Yunusaliev says about monosyllabic forms “…monosyllabic root- stem often looks like a repetition of an undulating agglutination”, though development of the forms of Turkic words from simple to complex is a basic feature of , the problems like the inverse processes (contraction, reduction, elision etc.) according to phonetic rules and its re- complication make it diffi cult to determine the nature of the root [Yunusaliev 1959: 185]. According to the principle of economy, phonetic phenomena, haplology and reduction generate a new compatibility of the sound and new phonological situation. It leads to positional change of sounds, loss of sounds, emergence of one sound instead of two sounds and according to the principle of conservation of communicative isolation, cumulation of changing sounds will support the new formation of the phonetic system. The changes in the phonetic system may affect monosyllabic forms and simple phonetic changes may affect the phonological structure during the semantic development. As the cognition of the nature of words demands cohesive review of a form and meaning, interrelations of semantic development of monosyllabic forms is, as a phenomenon, directly connected with human consciousness and worldview, the basis of the general Turkic vocabulary with psycho physiological processes according to the multilateral principles of semasiological system, complicate the issue. The author of this paper takes an attempt to expand the nature and semantics of V structural models of monosyllables in Orkhon, Yenisei, Talas and the Kipchak languages. Keywords: Turkic Languages, Old Turkic written monuments, Modern Kipchak Languages, моnosyllabic, root, phonomorphology, phonosemantics, phonology, sound compliances.

156 LINGUISTICS Introduction the long vowels as an example cannot disclose The explanation of the development way the nature of Turkic root [Baskakov 1962: 17]. of lexical system of any language and the lev- Noting that all the Turkic roots were used in el of relationship with other languages is pri- the form of a closed syllable of three sounds, marily based on clarifying the structure of the he formulates his thoughts as “All other two root. Therefore the fi rst research works were sounds or monotonous roots in the Turkic also aimed at determining the structure of the languages are a rare exception and historical root and there were two directions about the ones date back to three sound roots with the lost sound structure of the root of Turkic or Alta- as a result of the phonetic development of an ic languages: on the basis of 1. Monosyllabic initial or fi nal or both consonants” [Baskakov (V. V. Radlov, G. Vambery, J. Kloson, V. Kot- 1969: 89]. vich etc.); 2. Disyllabic (V. Bang, К. Menges, The scholar considers сυсс models are B. Y. Vladimirtsov, N. К. Dmitriev etc.) Turkic made by adding dead affi xes to CVC form or languages there is a theoretical basis to consid- as a loan word, V models like ö ‘to think’, u er the fi rst syllable indisyllabic and monosyl- ‘sleep’, ï ‘plant’ which consists of only one labic forms to be the main form through mor- vowel contracted from CVC to υс, and then to phemic, component, semantic, logical methods υ model (ï < γi < jig ‘thick, frequent, dense’, ö of analysis. So the monosyllabic direction was < ög ~ ök ~ oj ~ oj ~ od < *bög ‘think, refl ect’). supported by many scholars (N. Sauranbaev, In his latest works N. A. Baskakov deepened B. Yunusaliev, A. M. Scherbak, E. V. Sevorty- his theory about the root structure, and he paid an, A. N. Kononov, A. T. Kaidar, A. Ibatov, attention to the importance of the open syllable M. Tomanov, B. Sagindikuli etc.), and though roots in determining the nature of Turkic the results of the research of Turkic languages roots, but digitally CVC outperforms and he accept the structural model which forms the acknowledged that this form is the historic root. system of root and root-stem — V, VC, VCC, According to the researcher’s statistics three CV, CVC, CVCC as a basic form, the theme quarters of all monosyllabic forms of modern of the dispute is the problem which one of these Turkic languages consists of CVC models models is the fi rst (etymon root, etymological [Baskakov 1979: 145–146].A. Zayonchkovski root, arch root, dead root, old root, initial root says that CV model occur many times in etc.). the language of the medieval monuments Western scholar G. Vambery’s, who and the historic Turkic root was used in the expressed the view about the structure of form V, VC, CV, CVCand that was against root and root-stems in the late XIX century, N. A. Baskakov’s view [Zayonchkovski 1961: recognition CVC form as the fi rst among 28–29]. the Turkic languages and giving examples If we consider the linguistic data and the that CV model was detached from this form structure of root words in the language of (Handwritten preface to the Etymologisches ancient written manuscripts very carefully, Wörterbuch der Turko-tatarischen Sprachen. “historical category shows that division of Leipzig, 1878) was analysed by linguists in the monosyllabic roots into components can be XX century. Some scholars pointed the validity noticed on the basis of one language materials” of G. Vambery’s view and some of them noted [Yuldashev 1958: 24] and possible occurrence recognize V, CV model as the fi rst saying that of derivatives in monosyllables can not be from the linguistic data we can see reverse denied. Kirghiz scholar B. M. Yunusaliev, processes and the development of Turkic one of the fi rst researchers who studied the languages doesn’t recognize one-sidedness. The theme about the remained dead roots in the third group of researchers suggests considering monosyllabic lexemes together with disyllabic V, VC, VCC, CV, CVC, CVCC models or polysyllabic words said “Deadrootsdo not equally as a historical root. N. A. Baskakov, disappear. They lost only lexical independence, who studied the phonetic structure of root but their sound material survives in one form morphemes in Turkic languages from different or another at the base of newly formed root sides, gives his fi rst view that Turkic roots are words” and even “derivative forms can lose in the form of сυс on the basis of Karakalpak their independence” [Yunusaliev 1959: 63]. language [Baskakov 1952: 101–105] and as an The scholar considers that based on the root argument against the V. Kotovich’s theory that words in the language of Orkhon monuments, turkic root is open syllable which consists of sа ‘number, to count’ and others are dead two sounds, N. A. Baskakov says that giving roots *bа form of the lexemes baγ, baw, ban 157 Bulletin of the KIH of the RAS, 2016, Vol. 23, Is. 1 in modern Turkic languages [Yunusaliev 1959: root structure, “it is known that the formation 29, 43]. of secondary diphthongs and long sounds bring One of the scholars, who paid attention to the root structure to other phontic features” the problems of simultaneous use of the no- [Tomanov 2002: 140] and he says that these tions like root, main root, stem or root-word given phenomena have no relation with the and their different names, A. Khasenova in her initial structure of the root. One of the Kazakh monographs based on the lexical-grammatical scholars A. Ibatov, who notes that monosyllabic characteristics of the verb and the established words can belong to derivatives on the basis of language features like the use of exchange of the language of the medieval monuments and sound places in a word in the Turkic languages V, VC, CV, VCV, CVC, VCC, VCVC, CVCC (üirek, urγan, örän, urγat, örät; qapuγ, qapqa, form roots and root-stems are characteristic to qaqpa etc.), being more or less not only last the language of monuments of the XIV century sounds but also the fi rst ones (Kaz. l. nanu [Ibatov 1983: 67]. ‘to believe’; Uzb. l. inon-moq, išon-moq etc.; Analyzing the previous views and Kaz. l ‘to rely’; Uzb. l. inon-moq, išon-moq conclusions about the root structure, etc.), the Kazakh verbs ending in consonant academician A. T. Kaidar who takes the were deformed and changed into b, u, m sounds monosyllabic roots and root-stems as the object (žap ‘close’: žabadï, žauïp, žamïl, žapqan etc.), of study and studies the nature of the root from she casts doubt on the theoretical conclusions formal, statistical and semantic point of view, proposed by A. Zayonchkovski and B. M. Yu- expresses his opinion about the formation of nusaliev. According to A. Khasenova “This closed monosyllables of three sounds: “Firstly, phenomenon is connected with propensity of because the changes and shifts in the structure some sounds in the word or fi nal sounds to of the roots are diverse and multi-directional: drop” [Khasenova 1971: 72]. The results of the CVC theoretically and practically in language research works of recent years clarify the facts development can be converted into V Cor against the scholar’s view. E. A. Makaev sug- CV, in the same way as the latter may, on the gests to use the method of chronological stra- contrary, go to the CVC. In each case, they may tigraphy as a solution of controversial views have their reasons. ...Secondly, any change of about the structure of Turkic roots [Makaev root morphemes in the direction of expansion 1971], I. V. Kormushin’s assumption is that and contraction of their structure are the result CV form corresponds to the fi rst period of of quite a natural phono-morphological factors language development, (CV + C>) CVC cor- operating throughout the historical development responds to the second period and in the next of the Turkic languages” [Kaidarov 1986: period the fi nal consonants of the root may 14]. The scholar studied the nature of the be omitted again [Kormushin 1971: 11–13]. Turkic root thoroughly on the basis of Kazakh The scholars G. I. Ramstedt, E. V. Sevortyan, language, he has been attaching importance to A. M. Scherbak, A. N. Kononov, B. M. Yu- the undetermined distinction of the terms root nusaliev, V. Kotvich and others deepened and and stem and suggests the scientifi c defi nition specifi ed V. V. Radlov’s view, who fi rst said with special features of these notions. Based that CV model is the prototype of Turkic root. on specifi c information and opinions of The researchers in this direction do not doubt famous linguists headed by V. V. Radlov he the historicity of VC, V models. came to conclusion that “decomposability M. Tomanov who separates the forms қар of monosyllabic root-stems of the Turkic ‘snow’, ай ‘moon’ forms as the morphemes languages ... a very real fact” [Kaidarov 1986: and recognizes the forms -т, -йа, -i, -т, -ыс, 14]. Evidence based on the views of the scientists -қайas the elements which has no relation to the fund of linguistic intelligence and defi ned the root structure in Kazakh words қарт, theoretical conclusions which show that in қария ‘old man’, кəрi ‘old, elder’; айт ‘say’, Turkic languages monosyllables together with айтыс ‘saying’, айқай ‘shout’ etc. concludes dissylables are the result of a long agglutinative “…this analysis of a few group of facts (in process in language development. E. Kajibek only one language), shows that some groups who studied homogeneous monosyllables in of words considered as an indivisible single Turkic languages from voice and nominal root divided into “meaningless” roots and homonymy point and found out the theoretical “unknown” additions” [Tomanov 2002: 140]. characteristics of the phenomenon of And also he indicates that prosthetic sounds, syncretism, saying that “in Turkic languages the the matter in controversy in determining the traces of syncretism of parts of speech are seen 158 LINGUISTICS in the grammatical level and also in the level experienced this structure. Now everybody of verbal-nominal homonymy of derivatives knows its agglutinative position” [Sagyndykov or derivational affi xes” he points out the 1994: 5] he shows veracity of fl exional, importance of the latter that is in the verb with synthetic periods in the development of Turkic suffi x, nominal monosyllables there may be languages before agglutinative. The researcher random coincidences [Kazhybekov 1986: 244]. fi gured out that the main feature of fl exional The scholar considered the multifunctionality of structure is that roots are composed of one roots on the basis of the nature of monosyllabic vowel and one consonant sillabofonemas and syncretism as a method of word formation came to conclusion “As some sillabofonemas which was in use till agglutinative period and are homonymous, the vowel and the consonant said “From semasiological point, syncretic in the sillabofonema sounded different like in semantics of Turkic root is the piece of Chinese. The vowel’s position before or after the semantic system of the most ancient language. consonant, its omission and other combinational Therefore in differentiating the vocabulary changes play the important role in transferring a of Turkic languages diachronically it is notion, concept. Internal fl exion regulated how necessary to pay attention to the development much emphasis to give to the sounds… Single of the Turkic word meaning from general to consonants were the names of things, actions, concrete” [Kazhybekov 1986: 244]. In his state and qualities. And vowels gave different next work aimed at the defi nition of semantic semantic changes, colours” [Sagyndykov nature of Turkic word the researcher analyses 1994: 157]. In one of his recent papers he the phono-morpho-lexico-semantical structure offered to name sillabofonemas as an arch and points out the importance of studying root and pointed out “How many consonants monosyllabic level fi rst in solving the complex in a word, so many arch roots” [Sagyndykuly linguistic problems [Kazhybekov 1988: 51]. 2006: 199–205]. B. Sagindikuli’s opinions in J. Mankeeva determined a lot of dead roots general are in harmony with the principles of in the verbs of our language in the course phonological theory, with the idea phone ideas of morphemic-competent analysis and she of the imperative theory and clarifi es the phono- recognizes the componenet t in the imperative semantic phenomenon in general lexicon. ait ‘say’, art ‘load’, ket ‘go’, as a historical Bashkir scholar A. Shaikhulov who suffi x [Mankeeva 1985: 55; 1991: 42]. The considers the necessity of adherence of the new researcher distinguished 35 models of word- theoretical-methodological principles together formation except imitative verbs and came to with traditional methods in researching the conclusion that “In our modern language we problem of root study of Turkic languages, conditionally consider many words root words. concluded that in analyzing monosyllables Actually they are historically derived roots in the language of Turkic people, reside in which consist of the “dead” root and addition” the territory of the and Ural from the [Mankeeva 1988: 68]. phonetic, morphological, phono-semantical The Kazakh scholar B. Sagindikuli’s point the half of more than 4000 root-stems in research work aims at the reconstruction of the languages of Kipchak group are the units the roots and additions used in ancient times. with unclear etymology and lost independence He followed the traditional comparative- [Shaikulov 2000: 56; 2004: 95]. The scholar historical methods and mathematical methods focused on that giving the structural namely the theory of equation in reconstructing characteristic to Turkic roots will be successful the ancient forms of modern Turkic words. if it is researched in three levels (phonological, In using mathematical methods, the researcher morphological, and semantical). From his makes use of the method of component conclusions we notice that he follows the analysis. The researcher supports the validity theoretical-cognitive direction and connects of hypothetical idea that not only dead roots immanent and cognitologic analysis. He gives but modern additions also were used in his thoughts that it is possible to distinguish lexemic level with their separate meaning and the traces of worldview in the languages in saying that “Turkic languages experienced the Altaic group on the basis of Tatar, Chuvash, period of fl exional structure. Traces of internal Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu materials at the fl exion are left in some monosyllabic roots. root level “…in the language worldview of After that the period of polysynthetic structure the Altaic group languages we can distinguish (root language) came. Many well-known the general structural-semantic core which turkologists recognize that Turkic languages expresses not only the existence of common 159 Bulletin of the KIH of the RAS, 2016, Vol. 23, Is. 1 root bases but also motivating signs that languages in comparison with the paronymous allow to combine into groups and semantic monosyllables in ancient Turkic languages is slot and further to consider them within the actual problem which enables to understand the ideographic paradigmatic” [Shaikulov the nature of Turkic monosyllables. 2004: 95]. The scholar’s opinion tends to The monosyllables which compose the the correspondence of semantic features of vocabulary of the ancient scripts language are the translingual lexical parallels (all Altaic) not so many. It is about 10 times less than the development which consist of separate and monosyllables in modern Turkic languages. reconstructed monosyllables to the idiographic If there are about 3000 (2704) monosyllabic features covering their general substantial, words in [Kaidarov 1986: onomasiological properties. We can see the 183]. A. G. Shaikhulov pointed out that about important views and conclusions about root 4000 monosyllables can be distinguished in study in Kazakh language in recent years, from Kipchak languages of Ural-Volga [Shaikulov A. Salkinbai’s works who investigates historic 2004: 56], and 1160 lexemes are registered process of word-formation from semantic point, as the root words in the work edited by Sh. Zhalmakhanov’s works about the problems I. A. Batmanov “Ancient Turkic dialects and of semantic derivation, M. Sabir’s works who their refl ection in the modern languages”. The studied the medieval monuments connecting authors of the dictionary covered grammatical with the vocabulary of Kazakh language and forms of a word (adïr, adïrt, adïrïl, adïrïlmaj, U. Isabekova’s works, who differentiates the adïrïn etc.) and also paronymous derived words way of development of paronyms [Salkynbai (bat, batïm, batsïk etc.) [Batmanov 1971: 108– 1999; Zhalmakhanov 2003; Sabir 2004]. 112]. The views and thoughts about root study In G. G. Levin’s work aimed at the in Kazakh language, the results of studying language of Orkhon monuments and the lexico- some aspects of the roots and root-stems and semantic structure there are 498 root-stems, comprehensive study shows that the formation the registration of the paronymous words like and development of root level in the language bar, barïm, barï, barčaetc. [Levin 2001: 168] are based on the close relationship of phonetic- is connected with the author’s aim to show phonological, morphologic, semantic, separate monosyllables and polysyllables onomasiological phenomena and studying which cannot be conjugated from synchronic the external form and internal content in point. If we consider it from monosyllabic conjunction in order to understand the nature of point only about 350 monosyllabic roots and the root. So the monosyllables, which compose root-stems were used in Orkhon, Yenisei, Talas the basis of lexical richness, are a linguistic written manuscripts. and ontological structure, which defi nes the Discussions and Results importance of the language in human life and It is clear that a small number of monosyllabic provides the different spiritual-functional models cannot reveal the root system, which quality. The variable and fl exible nature was the basis of the lexical foundation of of constantly evolving language system is our ancestors’ language. The volume of the characterized by the direction of the structural monosyllables in the language of ancient models of monosyllables, the possibility of monuments are smaller than the monosyllables harmonies of phono-correlates, distribution of modern Turkic languages because fi rstly, area, phono-morphologic, phono-semantic, they haven’t been read completely; secondly, idiophone, idiosegmental sides. it is connected with the individual authors’ and The defi nition of the sound structure of printer’s (on the rock) use of words, richness of root words in all-Turkic continuum which the language and individual style; thirdly, the has been the object of study and the basis of infl uence of 1300 years natural law of language dispute based on modern and medieval Turkic development. Though thee monosyllables language together with the language of the in the language of ancient manuscripts are VI–VIII centuries. The roots and root-stems small in number, they enable to determine in Kipchak languages which is one of the the main features of the ancient language and largest branches of the study of Turkic roots outline collection of roots and root-stems, is considered in the area of common structural and its informational value is important in and stands out for its peculiar phonetic- differentiating the nature of root in modern phonological characteristics. Therefore to Turkic languages. Though all the models of study the monosyllables of modern Kipchak “the classical six”, which constitute the system 160 LINGUISTICS of root and root-stems of Turkic languages, ‘thought, refl ection’, uqïw ‘reading, study’; is characteristic to ancient Turkic language, Kaz. oj, ujγar, uγïm, uq, ügit, üjrenetc. In the its frequency of use, signifi cant autonomy, language of old Kipchak monument “Кitabu appropriateness of forms with modern Kipchak Medgmu-u Terdjuman Turki уа ’Adjami уа language are different. Mogoli уа Farsi’ ök ‘mind, soul, spirit’, öküš V form monosyllables. It is known from ‘upbringing’, örenle ‘to think, believe’, ojna many studies that one component model V, ‘to play, joke’ [Kuryszhanov 1970: 175, 179] consists of vowels, and covers only fi ve- lexemes from the root ö were used. six words in the ancient Turkic manuscripts u ‘sleep’ [Ancient Turkic Dictionary [Kononov 1980: 76; Sherbak 1970: 196– 1969: 603]: Ertis ügüzig keče jorïdïmïz, turgis 198]. These words, which are considered budunïγ uda bastïmïz “We crossed the river the phenomenon of the fi rst period of Turkic Irtysh and caught Turgis people while they languages development, were used as the were sleeping’ КТg. 37 [Aidarov 1995: 179]. words with individual meaning in the VII–IX In Kipchak languages *uj ≈ *oj remained in centuries, and in modern Turkic languages, the root-stems: old Kipch. *uj: ujïγïl ‘to sleep, among them in , they to go to bed’, ujïtqïl ‘to lull’, ujuqla ‘to fall survived only in the root-stems. In Kazakh asleep’ [Kuryszhanov 1970: 208]; Tat., Bask. language 8 of а form, 11 interjection meaning jokla; Nog. ujkla; Kkalp. ujqïla; Kaz. ujqï, of ä form, 6 interjection meaning and 1 verb ujïqta. Ancient Turkic root u in Tat., Bask. meaning of е, are registered [Kaidarov 1986: languages was changed metathesically with the 40–41]. monosyllable jo. е ‘to be’ Tal. III [Batmanov 1971: 86] u ‘to be able, to bear’ [Ancient Turkic the verb e from Talas monuments means the Dictionary 1969: 603]: jаγï bolïp, itinü auxiliary verb in past tense in modern Kipchak jaratunu umadïq, janï ičikmis ‘As the enemy languages. In spoken language tense form they could not do anything and gave up’ КТg. can be omitted and also be combined with 10 [Aidarov 1995: 173]. One of the ancient possessive endings directly. For example, in roots, diffi cult to distinguish its outline from Kazakh language: e → edim → em, e → ediņ the basic vocabulary of Modern Turkic → eņ; e → edi → et and e → ken. Usually the languages is u. B. Sagindikuli showed the form е in Kazakh language extends from general meaning of the monosyllable uγ as ‘the owner Turkic monosyllable er/*är/*ip. In Orkhon of powerful force and motion’ in the word uγan monuments the form er is widely used: tabγač ‘almighty, god’, А. N. Baskakov relying on the budun sablï süčik, aγïsï jumčaq ermis ‘the fact that the meaning of the word u is closer to words of the Tabgach people are sweet, and ‘to know, to understand’ said ‘the verb u ‘to their treasure is precious’ КТk. 5 [Аidarov be able, to tolerate’ is genetically related to 1995: 169]. As the forms е, er were used in one the verb uq ‘to understand’ (with derivatives period to determine their archaeological form uq — uš ‘intelligence, conception’), which in is still needs deep investigation. other languages has, moreover, the meanings ö ‘to think, to consider’ [Ancient Turkic in Karakalpak uq ‘to delve into the essence, to Dictionary 1969: 375]: ačsïq tosïq ömezsen bir digest’ and so on” [Baskakov 1988: 41–42]. todsar ačsïq ömezsen ‘You do not understand The opinions which connect the lexeme u with hunger when fed, if you are fed, you do not infi nitive producing grammatical form suffi x think about hunger’ КТk. 8 [Аidarov 1995: -uare substantiated. uz ‘master, handyman’ 169]. In the language of monuments there which you can see in Yenisei monuments are some root-stems from the root ö: ö → ög Y. 31 [Batmanov 1971: 75], monosyllable uz → ögüt ‘advice, instruction, [Ancient Turkic ‘skillful, experienced, skilled’ which were Dictionary 1969: 382], ö → ög → ögle ‘to used in V. Kashgari’s works [Kashgari 1960: discuss’ [Aidarov 2000: 102]; ö → ök → ökün 46], and it is noticeable that Kazakh word usta ‘to repent, to regret’ [Ancient Turkic Dictionary ‘blacksmith’ is of the same origin with ancient 1969: 382]. The way of development, changes Turkic root u. in form and meaning of general Turkic o ≈ u ‘to increase’ El. 1 [Batmanov 1971: 74]. ö ≈ u ≈ ü root are widely discussed problem In the language of ancient manuscripts the use [Sevortian 1974: 428–432; Baskakov 1988: of the root u with the meaning ‘to increase’ 40–41; Kazhybekov 1986: 179]. In Modern as an individual lexeme can occur in the Kipchak language all the forms of the given monuments found near locality Elegest in Tuva roots preserved: Bashk. ögöt ‘instruction’, uj region. In other scripts like Orkhon, Yenisei, 161 Bulletin of the KIH of the RAS, 2016, Vol. 23, Is. 1

Talas root-stem*ul which is from this root is languages shows that their historical formation used: ulga ‘to grow, to become more’ Y. 29; had taken their origin from ancient languages Y. 7 [Batmanov 1971: 76]; ulgat ‘to grow’ times. The root ï together with the meaning HB [Batmanov 1971: 76]; uluγ/ulug ‘big, ‘wood’ has the meaning ‘generally plant’ and it important, senior’ Y. 47, Тоn. 5, КCh. 3, КТg. is important in defi ning the etimological basis 28, 34 [Batmanov 1971: 76]. In old Kipchak of the names of plants arša, ïpγaj, arpa etc. in ulaldur ‘to increase, to multiply’, ulu ‘large’ Kazakh language. [Kuryszhanov 1970: 209]; Bashk. оlo; Tат. оlï/ ï ‘to sent, to erect’ [Batmanov 1971: 83]: olü; Kkalp. ullï; Kaz. ulï/ulïq ‘great, large’. In Ötuken jir olurup, arqïš tirkiš ïsar, neņ buņuγ Turkic language the word ülken ‘large’ is also joq ‘There is no sorrow if you sent a caravan of the same root with u form: ü → ül → ülken. being in Otuken’ КТk. 8 [Аidarov 1995: 161]. According to the data of the Kipchak languages In the language of monuments individual u, ü, o variants of the ancient Turkic root u are lexemes formed of this root ïd ‘to send, to allocated. direct, to throw’ Оn. I, 2, КТg. 6, МCh. II, 22, ï ‘plant’ [Ancient Turkic Dictionary ït ‘to send’ КТk. 12, Тоn. 42 [Batmanov 1971: 1969: 603]: ï bar bas asdïmïz ‘crossed the 83, 85] are in use. In modern Kipchak language top with bushes’ Тоn. 26 [Аidarov 2000: 52]. the form ï is not used as an individual lexeme. N. А. Baskakov said about ï monosyllable From the structure of the Kazakh words ‘to “... the root у, which can be found mainly in move, to stir’ which kept its seme ït ‘to quit, paired words like y — yγač ‘any vegetation’, to send’, ïsïr ‘to move, to remove’, ïbïr (ыбыр- y — taryγ ‘sowing of cereals’, y — taš ‘bushes жыбыр/қыбыр-жыбыр — fi dget/hustle) ‘to and rocks (stones)’ and therefore seems move, unnecessary movement’ we can notice either borrowed from other languages, or ancient Turkic word ï and at ‘to shoota gun, graphically defective issued, or phonetically run away heartbeat, to gush out (water) etc.’ reduced” [Baskakov 1988: 39] and doubts the old Kipch. at ‘to throw, to cast’ [Kuryszhanov individual lexemic ability and Turkic nature of 1970: 88]; Nog., Bashk., Kum., Tат., KKalp., ï form. The separate use of ï form in Tonikuk Kirg. аt ‘to shoot, to throw’; atta ‘overstep’, monument: Atïγ ïqa bajur ertimiz ‘We tied his adïm ‘step, stride’ and other lexemes we can horse to a branch’ Тоn. 27 [Aidarov 2000: 109] distinguish correspondence а ≈ ï and the same shows that the given monosyllable was used as content widely used in Turkic languages. a word with an individual meaning in ancient With the help of these examples we defi ned Turkic languages, and also as the graphic sign the archesemes of general Turkic *ï/a former of the sound ï was drawn so clearly (in both root meant ‘general movement’. If so, the sentences) we cannot say that it is a drawback number of homogeneous monosyllables at≈ad in graphical decoration. The researchers headed ≈aš≈ač≈až≈az≈aj≈aq≈aγ... which retained by I. А. Batmanov point the meaning ‘wood’ the meaning ‘to separate, to part’ also can of the word ï [Batmanov 1971: 83]. So we can be grouped with the complex of words come notice that on the basis of the general Turkic from archeroot ï/a. B. Sagindikuli studied the lexemes ïγaš/ïγač/aγaš/agač/jïγaš there is the monosyllable at with the meaning ‘horse’, root ï. The word ïγač: ïγač tutunu aγturtum ‘We ‘name’ coordinating with the verbs ït/at, his go out (go up) with sticks’ used in Tonikuk pointing the semes of the verb at connected monument Тоn. 25 [Aidarov 2000: 109] was with movement; compulsion of movement; formed with а form in Kipchak languages: old quick movement; separation as a result of Kipch. jïγač/aγas/aγač ‘wood, timber, forest’ the movement; repetition of movement is [Kuryszhanov 1970: 77]; Kum., Tат., Kаr. based on the general meaning of the verbs аγač; Nog., Kkalp., Kaz. aγaš; Bashk. аγas. in at/ï/t [Sagyndykov 1994: 40–41]. A. Salkinbai Makhmud Kashgari’s works the word ïγač is deepened the scholar’s view about the verb at formed as jïγač ‘dense tree’ [Kashgari 1961: and she expands homogeneous monosyllables 25], i. e. in the meaning ‘jungle, wildwood’. on the basis of the data in the system of other The lexeme jïš ‘mountain, wood, forest’ languages together with Kazakh language [Аidarov 1995: 163] is also used in the language [Salkynbai 1999]. of monuments: Ötuken jïšqa jig idi joq ermis In connection with rare appearance of ‘There was not a good owner in Otuken jungle’ V formed monosyllables in ancient Turkic КTk. 4. It is clear that the form*jï is genetically languages and their nonuse as an individual related to the monosyllables ï, ïγ. Simultaneous lexeme in modern Turkic languages use of the homogeneous monosyllables in the N. A. Baskakov considers them as a form ancient period of the development of Turkic shortened from two-three compound roots, 162 LINGUISTICS unable to be an initial root, with a long way have in learning its inwardness and defi ning of development from the phonetic and the historical way of development. In general semantic point: “It is clear that the stem (С) V if the importance of spiritual value increases (С) in Turkic language is the latest structure it is more diffi cult to learn and estimate it. genetically formed from rather complete root Language is also as the most important human morphemes (С) VС < СVС” [Baskakov 1988: value becoming more complicated, in the 43]. To consider V structural monosyllables developed sound language only remainders and given in the language of monuments as a some slight traces of its initial position stay. derivative form cannot be approved by the Model V monosyllables in Turkic language data. Pointing out that V formed languages also should be accepted as relict roots (mostly interjection) with the vowels а, signs and outline of ancient lexical fund. In ä, е, о give about 30 semantic meaning and Kazakh language the common content and the also that V formed roots are used A. Kaidar similarity of forms of the monosyllables ös, ön, says “Comparing with the modern Turkic ör ‘to advance, multiply, products, intensify, languages widespread occurrence of this type fl ourish’ cannot be a random phenomenon, it of monosyllabic root-stems in the language of is clear that the vowel ö keeps the common ancient monuments proves that they formed in content. ancient times. Model V which represents the We know that the idea ‘to develop, to breed, ancient period of Turkic language development to appear’ was preserved in the monosyllable formed the new types of monosyllabic root- *ur (urpaq ‘descendant’, ru ‘genus’, ur ïq stems like VС, VСС and disyllabic stems ‘seed’, ur γašï ‘female’). and accepted the elements of agglutinative B. Sagindikuli considers the forms ör, *ur structure” [Kaidarov 1986: 41]. as homogeneous monosyllables [Sagyndykov Use of separate vowels (with their 1994: 111]. The conservation of the general allophones), which originate from the period content of the form* ur in monosyllables * ür of the development of human language, (ürim-butaq ‘descendant’, ürpi ‘nipple’), *oγ/ with a defi nite idea eventually will change uγ ← oγul, um (Umai), *ul (ul ï ‘great’, ul γ aju in form through accepting the consonants ‘to increase’, ulasu ‘to continue’), *ül (ül ken and the combination of sounds with peculiar ‘large’) etc. shows the ideological ability of the idiosegment meaning, polysemantic feature voels u, ü. So we have the chance to distinguish is concretized in accordance with the form V formed monosyllables *u, *ü, *о, *ö as the and the initial content is likely to have certain hypothetical previous root of homogeneous properties of conditionality. It is clear that words that begin with u, ü, o, ö which kept the more abstract-conditional properties have the idea ‘to appear, to develop, to continue, to language elements, the more complication they multiply’ in Turkic languages.

Abbrevations Inscriptions Languages BK — Bilgekagan Kaz. — Kazakh language Y — Yenissei Inscriptions KKalp. — IA — Ihe-Ashat Inscription Nog. — KTg — Kultegin great text КТs — Kultegin small text Kum. — Kumuk language KH — Kanmiildig Hovu monument Tat. — KCh — Kulli Chor monument Tur. — Turkish langauge MCh — Moiun Chur monument Kirg. — Kirgiz On — Оngin monumant Bashk. — Оrh — Оrhon inscriptions CTat. — The language of Crimean S — Sudgi inscription Uig. — Uighur language Таl—Таlas inscriptions Hak. — Hakass language Тоn—Тоnikuk monument Chuv. — HB — Herbis Baar inscription Yak. — HT — Hoito Tamir inscription Sh — Shu inscriptions El — Eleges inscriptions 163 Bulletin of the KIH of the RAS, 2016, Vol. 23, Is. 1

References Makaev E. A. Problems of construction of com- Aidarov G. Kultegin monumant. Almaty: Ana tili, parative grammar and Turkic languages. Soviet 1995, 232 p. Turkology, 1971, no. 2, pp. 20–28 (In Russ.). Aidarov G. The language of Tonikuk monumant Makhmud Kashgari. Devonu Lugot it turk. (VIII C.). Almaty: Kazakhstan, 2000, 120 p. S. M. Mutalibov. : Publ. House of АS Ancient Turkic dialects and their refl ection in the UzSSR, 1961, vol. ІI, 427 p. modern languages. Edited by I. A. Batmanov. Mankeyeva Zh. A. Methods for the isolation of dead Frunze: Ilim, 1971, 194 p. (in Russian). roots in the disyllabic verbs-imperatives. Prob- Ancient Turkic dictionary. Edited by lems of Turkic linguistics. Alma-Ata, Nauka V. M. Nadelyaev, D. M. Nasilov, E. R. Tenishev, Publ., 1985, p.50–62 (In Russ.). A. V. Scherbak. L.: Nauka, 1969. 676 p. (in Mankeyeva Zh. A. Morphological analysis Russian). of disyllabic verbs-imperatives in Kazakh. Baskakov N. A. Historical and typological morpho- Problems of historical lexicology of Kazakh logy of Turkic Languages (structure of words language. Almaty, Gylym Publ., 1988, pp. 61– and the mechanism of agglutination). Moscow, 75 (In Russ.). Nauka Publ., 1979, pp. 145–146 (In Russ.). Mankeyeva Zh. A. Reconstruction of the primary Baskakov N. A. Historical typological phonology of root verb stems of Kazakh language. Alma-Ata, languages. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1988, 207 p. Gylym Publ., 1991, 255 p. (In Russ.). (In Russ.). Sabir М. The interconnection of Middle Turkic Baskakov N. A. Introduction to the Study of Turkic and Kazakh language vocabulary (on the basis Languages. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1969, p. 89 of 14 century written manuscripts). Almaty, (In Russ.). Kazakh Univ., 2004 (In Kazakh). Baskakov N. A. Karakalpak language. Part. 1. Sagindikov B. Etymological basis of the development Moscow, Publ. house of АS USSR, 1952, of Kazakh lexicology. Almaty, Sanat Publ., pp.101–105 (In Russ.). 1994, 166 p. (In Russ.). Baskakov N. A. Preface by V. Kotvich. Studies of Sagindikuli B. Arch root-language unit. Modern Altaic languages. Moscow, Publ. House of East Turkology: theory, practice and objectives. The Literature, 1962, p. 17 (In Russ.). second International conference of Ibatov A. Morphological structure of words. Turkology, part I. , Turan Publ., Almaty, Gylym Publ., 1983, p. 67 (In Russ.). 2006, pp. 199–205 (In Kazakh). Kaidarov A. T. The structure of monosyllabic roots Salkinbai A. Historic word-formation (semantic and stems in the Kazakh language. Alma-Ata, aspect). Almaty, Kazakh Univer., 1999, 340 p. Nauka Publ., 1986, 323 p. (In Russ.). (In Kazakh). Kazhybekov E. Z. The meaning of the Turkic word. Sevortyan E. V. Etymological dictionary of Turkic Interlevel conjugacy problem. ADD. Alma- Ata, Til. Bilimi, 1988. 63 p. (In Russ.). languages. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1974, vol. I, Kazhybekov E. Z. Verb-Noun correlation of homo- 768 p. (in Russian). geneous roots in the Turkic languages. Alma- Shaikhulov А. Altaic civilization and world view Ata, Nauka Publ. 1986. 270 p. (In Russ.). refl ected in the Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu- Khasenova А. Lexico-grammatical characteristics Tungus languages (based on them on the of the verb. Almaty, Gylym Publ., 1971, 306 p. monosyllabic root bases). Turkology, (In Russ.). 2004, no. 5, pp. 92–100 (In Russ.). Кononov A. N. Grammar of Turkic Runic Shaikhulov A. The problem of root words in Turkic inscriptions of the 7–9 centuries. Moscow, languages. Turkology, 2004, no. 2, pp. 50–61 Nauka Publ., 1980, 256 p. (In Russ.). (In Russ.). Kormushin I. V. Lexical-semantic development of Shaikhulov А. The structure and ideographic qain Altaic languages. Turkic lexicology and paradigm of monosyllabic root bases in lexicography. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1971, Kypchak languages of Ural-Volga region in pp. 10–18 (In Russ.). the continuum of areal, Interturkic and all Kuryshzhanov A. K. Research on lexis of Old Turkic vocabulary: Synopsys and taxonomy Kipchak inscription of 12 c. Turkic-Arabian of cognitive sphere “Nature (non-living and dictionary. Alma-Ata: Nauka Publ., 1970, living)”. Ufa, BashGU, 2000, 392 p. (In Russ.). 232 p. (in Russ.). Sherbak A. M. Comparative phonetics of Tur- Levin G. G. Lexical-semantic parallels Orhon- kic languages. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1970, Turkic and Yakut languages: in comparance with 201 p. (in Russian). Altai, Hakass, Tuva languages. Novosibirsk: Tomanov M. Studying the history of language. Nauka Publ., 2001, 190 p. (in Russian). Almaty, Gylym Publ., 2002, 614 p. (In Kazakh). 164 LINGUISTICS Yuldashev А. А. The system of word-formation Zayonchkovski А. On the structure of roots in in the conjugations of the verb in Bashkir Turkic languages: verb stems monosyllabic language. Moscow, Publ. House of АS USSR, (one syllable) type C + V (consonant + vowel). 1958, 195 p. (In Russ.). Problems of Linguistics. 1961, no. 2, pp. 21–29 Yunusaliev B. M. Kyrgyz lexicology: Development (In Russ.). of root words. Part. І. Frunze, Publ. House of Zhalmakhanov Sh. Semantic derivation of Kazakh Kyrgyz State Educational and Pedagogical, lexics. Karagandy, KarMU, 2003, 552 p. (In 1959, 248 p. (In Russ.). Kazakh).

УДК 811.512.1

СТРУКТУРНЫЕ МОДЕЛИ МОНОСИЛЛАБОВ Г В ДРЕВНЕТЮРКСКИХ НАДПИСЯХ И СОВРЕМЕННЫХ КЫПЧАКСКИХ ЯЗЫКАХ Магрипа Кайнарбаевна Ескеева1 1 доктор филологических наук, профессор кафедры тюркологии Евразийского национального университета им. Л. Н. Гумилева (Астана, Республика Казахстан). E-mail: [email protected]

Аннотация. Хотя изучение проблемы корня слова является классической сферой с устоявшимися традициями и принципами, конкретными целями и задачами, природа односложных слов, которая формирует основу языка, не полностью раскрыта. Актуальность проблемы корня слова связана с многоступенчатостью и противоречивостью характера тюркских корней, который возникает с момента появления звука в языке. Б. М. Юнусалиев говорит об односложных формах: «...односложная корневая основа часто выглядит как волнообразное повторение процессов агглютинации», хотя развитие форм тюркских слов от простого к сложному является основной особенностью тюркских языков, некоторые преграды, такие как инверсия (сокращение, редукция, элизия и т. д.), из-за фонетических правил и их усложненности не позволяют определить природу корня [Юнусалиев 1959: 185]. В соответствии с принципом экономии фонетические явления — гаплология и редукция — порождают новую совместимость звука и новую фонологическую ситуацию. Это приводит к позиционному изменению звуков, их потере, появлению одного звука вместо двух, и в соответствии с принципом сохранения коммуникативной изоляции аккумуляция изменяющихся звуков будет поддерживать новое формирование фонетической системы. Изменения в фонетической системе могут влиять на односложные формы, а простые фонетические изменения — на фонологическую структуру в ходе семантического развития. Так как познание природы слов требует полного пересмотра формы и смысла, то в основе общей тюркской лексики с психофизиологическими процессами в соответствии с многосторонними принципами семасиологической системы лежит взаимосвязь семантического развития односложных форм как явления, напрямую связанного с человеческим сознанием и мировоззрением, что усложняет вопрос. Автор статьи предпринял попытку расширить характер и семантику структурных моделей Г моносиллабов в орхоно- енисейском, таласском и кыпчакском языках. Ключевые слова: тюркские языки, древнетюркские письменные памятники, современ- ные кыпчакские языки, односложный, корень, фономорфология, фоносемантика, фонология, звуковое согласие.

165