Summary of the PhD thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) on specialty 6D020500 - Philology

Meirambekova Lyazat Kasymovna

Monosyllabic base of Kazakh and modern Kipchak group languages.

General specification of study This research is devoted to the study from historical point of view of words of the from the common Turkic layer and original Kazakh words, namely, stems of words denoting movement in the Kipchak context. The relation of verbal monosyllabic words in Kazakh and Nogai, Karakalpak, Tatar, Bashkurt, Kumyk and Karaiym languages, belonging to Kipchak group has been analyzed. Besides, common features of these verbal monosyllabic words belonging to Kipchak group languages in phonological structure as well lexical and semantic levels have been thoroughly considered. While analyzing monosyllabic verbs, attention was paid to spot the most productive model among V, СV, VС, СVС, VСС, СVСС types and also to identify comparatively lexical semantic characteristic of monosyllabic verbs in the . The phenomenon of lexical productivity and synonymy of root verbs has also been touched upon in the study. Relevance of study It is known that the world outlook, linguistic and ethnocultural identity of the Turkic peoples, which was the basis of nomadic culture for centuries, has undergone a great variety of historical and social changes that have influenced the quality of life of people. The modern Kipchak group of languages, which originally arose from the common Turkic language, in the process of historical development, alongside with features of ancient languages of the Karluk and Oguz, preserved the signs of other languages with which it was in close contact. The modern form of language is a regular phenomenon of linguistic evolution, which once again emphasizes the need to differentiate historical and evolutionary character of the modern lexical composition of common Kipchak languages. Monosyllabic base of the Tatar, Bashkurt, Karaiym, Karashai-Bulgarian, Kyrymshak, Nogai, Kazakh and Karakalpak languages, which are the basis of modern , is one of the linguistic sources that reveal the differences and similarities in the morphological and grammatical structures and the lexical composition of these languages. A comparative analysis of the structure of monosyllabic verbs to reveal the nature of historical changes occurred under the influence of extra-linguistic factors in each of Kipchak languages defines current importance of the study. At the end of the XIX century, kinship relations of the Turkic languages were thoroughly studied in the context of the comparative-historical paradigm, along with classification of Turkic languages. 50-ies of the XX century was distinguished

1 by creating a general lexical carcass of definite languages, and the study of the structural nature of monosyllables became subject of etymological research at common Turkic languages and the present Turkic inter-language levels. Nevertheless, in general Kazakh linguistics and Kipchak studies, the study of verb root bases separately from monosyllables from phonological and lexical-semantic aspects have not been carried out yet. Therefore, this work directed at the level of the Turkic languages in the context of Kipchak languages is to be relevant and timely. The study of monosyllabic root structures that form the basis of Turkic vocabulary, the identification of level of presence in roots of Kazakh words, as well as the definition of the boundaries of semantic derivation from the Kipchak language in monosyllabic verbs determine the relevance of this study. Comparative analysis of monosyllabic root structures of verbs of related languages from the point of view of phonetic and grammatical composition provides an opportunity for scientific enrichment of such important sections of Kazakh linguistics as theoretical phonetics, lexicology and grammar. In addition, there is the possibility of a detailed study of the ethno-linguistic features of the Kipchak basics of the Kazakh language and relations of modern Turkic languages that are part of Kipchak group of languages. Level of study The first information on Kazakh and other related languages of Kipchak group as Nogai, Karakalpak, Tatar, Bashkir and Kumyk and others was found in Russain-Kirgyz dictionary by P.S.Pallas published in the 18th century and in “Descriptions of Kirgyz and Kaisak hords and steppes” by A. Levshin in the first part of 19th century. Comparatively full contrastive analysis of documentary material was provided in “Experience of Turkic dialects lexis” by V.V.Radlov (I˗IV, 1893, 1899, 1905, 1911).There were significant studies on morphological structure of verb as a separate part of speech in the languages of Kipchak group. For example, the beginning of the XIX century evidenced considerable studies on verbs in Tatar. Some aspects of the Tatar verb had been mentioned in grammar books by I.Giganov, I.Halfin, A.Troyanskii, M.Ivanov, A.Kazembek, Sh.Akmerov, K.Nasyr and others, where there were given great variety of examples. Linguist A.A.Yuldashev studied semantic structure of verbs in the and also made a statistical analysis of root verbs and verb roots, which resulted in theoretically valuable conclusions. The verbal word of the Bashkir language is based on the words of A.A.Yuldashev "The word of Bashkortostan and the classification of verbs" (1958), by M.H.Akhtiyamov "Modern Bashkir Language. Formation of verbs in the Bashkir language became the subject of study in the works by A.Yuldashev “Word formation in Bashkir language and classification of verbs” and M.Kh.Akhtyamov “Modern Bashkir language.Affixal word formation” (1994). A.Kolesnikova in her dissertation paper “Affixation formation of verbs in Altai Languages” compared current to the ancient Turkic language. In these languages the problem of verb roots is related to verb formation and verb categories. Studies of the semantic morphonological and lexicon and semantic

2 nature of the verbs in all modern languages that form the Kipchak group are considered to be incomplete. The category of verb was reflected both in the early works of scientists (N.I.Ilminsky “Materials for the study of the Kirghiz dialect” (1861), V.V.Katarinsky “Grammar of the Kirghiz language (phonetics, etymology and syntax)” (1888), M.Melioransky “Brief grammar of the Kazakh-” (1894-1895), and in modern scientific works on grammar, phonetics and morphology of the modern Kazakh language. For example, A.Baytursynov in his “Manual on language”, published in the city of Orenburg in 1914, gives the following formulation of the verb: “Some words determine action of objects; e.g: art, tart, al, ur, saba, sok, koryk, kures, manyra, sok, suz, tasta, shyk, zhyk, аs, al, toz and others. Such words are called verbs. And in 1915 the same definition sounds differently: Verb is a word expressing actions performed or not performed by a subject. In his 3 textbooks published in 1925 in Kyzylorda A.Baitursynov tells about the system of Kazakh sentence and their forms, exposing the function of verb as predicate, defining categories of transitive/intransitive verbs and voice. Verb categories had been considered as object of research in the work of: N.Sauranbayev “Synctactic function of Participle” (1943), S.Amanzholov “Some aspects of Kazakh dialectology” (1947), A.Iskakov “Grammar of Kazakh language (1967), T.Kordabayev “Tense categories of verbs in Kazakh (1953), K.Akhanov “Basics of grammar theory” (1972), A.Khasenova “Common root verbs in Kazakh language” (1959), I.E.Mamanov “Modern Kazakh language. Verb” (1966), N.Oralbayeva “Analytical forms of verbs in modern Kazakh language” (1971), M.Sergaliev “Synonymy of predicative sentences (1991). Problems of verb roots had attracted some considerable attention in Kazkah etimologic researches of 70-80ties of ХХ century, started by K.Zhubanov, N.Sauranbayev, I. Kenesbayev, S.Amanzholov and G.Musabayev. In Kazakh linguistics common roots verbs aspect had studied from Turkic context. Kazakh linguistist as A.Khaidarov, R.Syzdykova, Sh.Sarybayev, M.Tomanov, A.Kuryszhanov, A.Ibatov, B.Sagyndykov, T.Zhanuzakov, A.Abdrakhmanov, A.Nurmuganbetov, K.Khussainov, Zh.Mankeva, E.Kazhybekov, M.Eskeeyeva, A.Salkynbay and others inspected the problem of word roots in depth. A.Kaidarov, for example, in his research “Structure of monosyllabic roots and stems in Kazakh language” described common phonologic, morphemic and semantic features of monosyllables in Kazakh language relying on existed linguistic documents of Kazakh language. E.Z.Kazhybekov by morphemic analysis in his “Verbal and Nominal correlation of homogeneous roots in Turkic languages” tried renovating existed archetypical model of word production. “Renewal to archetype roots of Kazakh language” by Zh.Mankeev and “Monosyllabic base of Archetypical Turkic and Modern Kipchak languages” by M.Eskeyeva had also contributed to developing theoretical and methodological grounds of linguistic Turkology and Turkic stems and root production studies in particular. Nevertheless, in these researches, the basic meanings of verbs were

3 generalized in terms of Turkic languages. Root verbs in the Kazakh language were not specifically taken into consideration in the kipchak context. Study goals and tasks. The main purpose of the study is to develop phonological& structural and lexical-grammatical, semantic comparative characteristic of monosyllabic root verbs in the Kazakh and other Kipchak group languages of one and the same root verbs, from the standpoint of “Turkic root” in linguistic Turkology. To achieve the goal, following tasks have been set: - to actualize the historical prerequisites of the comparative-comparative analysis of Kazakh language and other modern languages of Kipchak group; - to determine the similarities in phonological structure of types of root verbs of the Kazakh and other modern languages of Kipchak group - to define frequency, semantic independence and form correlation of V, CV, VC, VCC, CVC, CVCC models of root verbs in Kazakh and other modern Kipchak group languages; - to identify the commonality and peculiarities of lexical-semantic level of monosyllabic root verbs in Kazakh and other modern Kipchak group languages; -to analyze the levels of changes in initial meaning of root verbs of the Kazakh and other modern languages of Kipchak group in the process of their semantic development. Object of research: monosyllabic root verbs in Kazakh and other modern Kipchak group languages. Subject of research: phonological structure and lexical and semantic nature of root verbs of Kazakh and other modern Kipchak languages. Scientific novelty of research: − for the first time in linguistic Turkology and Kazakh linguistics, single- root verbs in the Kipchak context have been considered as an object of comparative analysis; − for the first time, a comparative description of the phonological structure of the Kazakh and Nogai, Karakalpak, Tatar, Bashkir, Kumyk and Karaiym root verbs has been made, and correlations of а≈ә≈е, е≈и, о≈у, ө≈ү, ұ≈у, ү≈у, ы≈и, i≈и, in anlaut and inlaut positions, correlation of е≈и in auslaut position in the vocalic system, correlations of ж≈й, к≈г; ш≈ч≈с in anlaut and қ≈х, с≈ш, с≈ш, с≈һ, ш≈ч≈с, ш≈ч correlation in auslaut of consonantal system of single root verbs, have been determined as basis for Kipchak corpus; − for the first time a lexical-semantic comparative description of single-root verbs in the Kazakh, Nogai, Karakalpak, Tatar, Bashkir, Kumyk and Karaiym languages has been made, − phenomena of synonymy, antonymy, syncretism and homonymy have been first studied on the basis of single- root verbs in the context of Kipchak languages. Study materials. Theoretical and methodological base of the study has been supported by works of prominent representatives of Russian School in Turkic studies such as E.D.Polivanov, S.E.Malov, V.A.Bogoroditskyi, N.K.Dmitriyev, E.N.Nadzhip, M.Nasilov, E.V.Sevortyan, K.K.Yudakhin, N.A.Baskakov, A.N.Kononov,

4

E.I.Ubryatova, I.A.Batmanov, V.V.Reshetov, A.M.Scherbak, E.R.Tenishev, B.A.Serebryannikov, M.Zakiyev and others; of well-known altayists: (R.Rask, M.Muller, M.A.Kastren, V.Shott, G.Derfer, M.Nomury, K.Thomson, G.Y.Raamstedt, N.Poppe, A.M.Scherbak, A.Dilyachar, D.M.Nasilov, A.M.Pozdneyev, T.M.Rozin, O.P.Sunik, V.A.Avrorin, D.Shinor, N.A.Baskakov, T.A.Bertagayev, G.D.Sanjeyev, V.I.Rassadin, B.Kh.Todayeva, A.Rona-Tash, V.I.Tsintsius, A.G.Shaikhulov, S.A.Starostin, L.R.Kontsevich, A.B.Dybo and O.V.Mudrak. Researches made by Т.Теkin, S.Еkеr, M.F.Kirişçioğlu, N.Haciemnoglu and others, aimed at exploring the Turkic grammar in comparizon with the Turkic inter˗languages. Researches made by A.Amanzholov, G.Aidarov, A.Khaidarov, R.Syzdyk, Sh.Sarybayev, M.Tomanov, A.Kuryszhanov, A.Ibatov, B.Sagyndykuly, A.Zhangabylov, K.Khusainov, Zh.Mankeva, E.Kazhybekov, G.Sagidolda, M.Eskeeyeva, A.Salkynbai and others, aimed at exploring history of Kazakh language served as theoretical background of the study. Factual material base comprised of explanatory dictionaries of Turkic languages: 1 Comparative dictionaries: L.Z. Budagov “Contrastive dictionary of Turkish- Tatar dialects” (1869, Т.1; 1871, Т.2.); Kazakh˗Russain dictionary by R.G.Syzdykova, K.Sh.Khusayn (2008); Russain-Kazakh dictionary by N.T.Sauranbayeva, G.G.Musabayeva and Sh.Sh.Sarybayeva (2005); Russian- Bashkirian dictionary В ІІ v. Bashirian Ensyclopedia, A-O by Z.G.Uraksin (2005); Bashkirian-Russain, Russian-Bashkirian Academic dictionary by L.Slaykhova, M.Usmanova (2000); karayim-Russain-Polish dictionary by N.Baskakov, A.Zaionchkovskyi, S.Shapshal (1974); Nogai-Russian dictionary by N.Baskakov, (1963); Russian-Kumyk dictionary by Z.Bammatova (1960); 2 Dictionaries on ancient and medieval vocabulary of Turkic languages: M.Kashgari “”«Devonu lugat-it turk”» (Mutalobov, 1960, Т.1; 1961, Т.II; 1963, Т.III); E.V.Sevortyan “Etymological dictionary of Turkic languages” (1974, Т.I; 1978, Т.II; 1980, Т.III, 1989, Т.IҮ); L.S.Levitskaya, A.B.Dybo, V.I.Rassadin Etymological dictionary of Turkic languages. IV˗VII volumes. Commonturkic and inter-turkic stems on Җ, Ж, Й, К, Қ, Л, М, Н, П, С» (1989˗2003); V.M.Nadelyaeva, D.M.Nasilova, E.R.Tenisheva, A.M.Scherbak “Ancient turkic dictionary”(1969); Marcel Erdal « Word Formation»; Clauson, Sir Gerard «An Etymological dictionary of Pre˗Thirteenth Century Turkish» (1972). 3 Achievements in lexicography of each of languages from Kipchak group: Kazakh, Tatar, Bashkirian, Nogai, Karakalpak Kumyk and Karayim: Explanatory dictionary of Kazakh language, 10 volume (1974, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1985, 1986); Dictionary of Kazakh dialectology (1996); Explanatory dictionary of Kazakh language (2008); R.Akhmetyanov Historic and etymological short dictionary of (2001); T.M.Garipov Historic- etymological dictionary of Bashkir language First edition, Root words with vowel initials (2007); “Bashkortostan: Short encyclopedia” (1996) and (1997); Башҡорт теленең һүҙлеге: 55 мең һүҙ. Ике томда» I том (А˗М). (1993); II volume (Н-Я). (1993); Karakalpak tilinin tusindirme sozdiligi (1984). Study laboratory and methods.

5

Laboratory works of scientific research have been conducted in the field expedition, libraries, and archival funds. In particular: 1) In March 2016, at the Gazi University Library in Ankara, Turkey; 2) In the archive fund of the Semipalatinsk Regional Museum; 3) part of work related to collection of materials on research topic has been conducted at the archive of rare manuscripts of National Library of Kazakhstan. In April 2016, a scientific expedition to the village of Akyn, where the Nogai people live, was organized. The study was conducted with a help of comparative method as main tool for studying language history. Etiological analysis, descriptive and reporting methods were used to achieve real results. Also methods applied in conclusions and suggestions made in the works of local and foreign Turkic studies researchers of the Middle Ages, as well as various etymological dictionaries based on the materials of Turkic languages, and dictionaries of general and special dictionaries have been taken into consideration during our study. Actually, various types of linguistic research methods have been used in the study, but the main ones were traditional methods of characterization, historical-comparative, synchronic descriptive and typological, morpheme-compositional analysis, methods of historical, etiological as well etymological, semasiological and cognitive analysis. Final statements to be defended: − Comparative analysis of monosyllabic root verbs on the Kipchak interlanguage level is one of the linguistic sources that make up the basis of the structure of linguistic content. The analysis allows us to more deeply reveal the nature of the related languages of Kazakh, Nogai, Karakalpak, Tatar, Bashkurt, Kumyk and Karaiym, to determine the historical path of development to each of them. - The study of the monosyllabic corpus of verbs, which form the most important part of the basic vocabulary in the context of kipchak languages makes it possible to determine the level of preservation of common Turkic language spells (relic) in each of modern Kazakh, Nogai, Karakalpak, Tatar, Bashkir, Kumyk and Karaaim languages, to identify specific linguistic peculiarities intrinsic for kipchak period of development and features of proto-language inherited by individual ones during the process of their development. - Despite the presence of changes in the lexical and semantic structure of verbs in the course of the natural development of any language, the integral body of verbal roots is characterized by the preservation of its general Kipchak basis and ability of word formation. − V, CV, VC, CVC, VCC, CVCC models comprise main phonological structure of monosyllabic verbs in Kazakh and other Kipchak group languages. Vowel and consonant harmony of V, CV, VC, CVC, VCC, CV models of monosyllabic root verbs of Kipchak corpus may be presented as follows: in anlaut position of vocalic system (а≈ә≈е VСС; е≈и V, VС; о≈у VС; ө≈ү VС; ұ≈у VС; ү≈у VС; ы≈и VС; i≈и VС) in inlaut position (а≈ә≈е СVСС; е≈и CVC; о≈у СVС; о≈у СVСС; ө≈ү СVС; ө≈ү СVСС; ұ≈у СVС; ү≈у СVСС; i≈и СVС), in auslaut

6 position (е≈и СV), besides, in anlaut position of consonant system (ж≈й СV, к≈г СVС; ш≈ч≈с СVСС), auslaut position (қ≈х СVС; с≈ш VС; с≈ш СVС; с≈һ СVСС; ш≈ч≈с VС; ш≈ч СVС). - Meaning of process or action of monosyllabic root verbs serving as a foundation for formation of other meanings may not coincide with etymological meaning. The reason is that some languages initially preserved its original forms and meanings, while other languages underwent considerable changes in types and meanings of monosyllabic root verbs. - The phenomena of synonymy and antonymy, syncretism and homonymy are peculiar to the monosyllabic root verbs of the languages of Kipchak group. Among them, homonymy occurs in a hidden or conserved form. − Monosyllabic root verbs semantic structure is characterized by polysemantic word formation, in some cases it may vary within two or five meanings. Polysemy went beyond its limits and invaded the system of homonymy and antonymy in Kazakh, Nogai and Karakalpak languages. Theoretical importance of study results Theoretical and scientific value of the study is: − a thorough analysis of the lexical fund and semantic categories of the modern Kazakh language directs to a considerable degree the historical development and formation of sources of enrichment and reproduction, and the acceleration of historical ties with other languages; − to some extent contribute to the development of theoretical and methodological basis of new scientific areas of Morphology, Historical lexicology and Historical morphology of Kipchak languages, which should be undertaken in the field of linguistic Kipchak studies; − expands the ways and notions of historical development of the Kazakh language, theoretical apparatus of scientific researches, linguistic geography of recognition of the Kazakh language and history, the territorial limits of “ethnos history and language history”. Practical significance of study. Practical results of the study can be applied as supplementary course to university lectures on Historical Grammar of Kazakh Language, Historical Lexicology, Turkological Studies, History of writing and Kipchak language for students of philology departments. Besides, materials of the study can serve as base to special publications in Turkology, precisely in the area of Kipchak studies for researchers or people interested in this philological matter. Considerable volume of the material selected on monosyllabic verbs gives an opportunity to compose dictionaries of Kazakh and other Turkic languages. Approbation of dissertation results: 13 scientific articles have been published relating to study topic: 5 articles in the issues recommended by Control committee of Ministry of Education and science of RK, 5 reports in the collection of materials of international science congresses, symposiums and conferences, 3 articles in Scopus included journals: “American journal of Аpplied sciences”, “Social Sciences” and “Man in India”.

7

On the topic of study, its directions and conclusions the following articles have been published in collections of materials of republican and international scientific and practical conferences and symposiums: “Historic background of studies in Kipchak language” (Semey, 2014); “Ethnic and cultural lexis in Kazakh and Nogai languages” (Astana-Kazan, 2015); “The importance of studying the history of the Turkic languages in relation to the history of their ethnic formation” (Australia, 2015); “Some aspects of valence in Kazakh and modern Kipchak languages” (Moscow, 2015); “Altay ve Türk dilleri arasinda köken ilişkisi: sifat˗fiil ve zarf˗fiil eklerinin tarihî gelişim seyri” (Ankara, 2016). − in the editions recommended by Control Committee in the sphere of education and science of the Republic of Kazakhstan: “To the problem of contrastive study of common Turkic lexis in modern Kipchak languages” (Vestnik ENU, Astana, 2015), “To the problem of study of Turkic root stem” (Vestnik ESI Astana, 2016), “Verb and its root stem (on material of Altai languages)”, (Kazakh Academy of Education publications, Astana, 2016), “Verb and its root stem in the Kazak and Turkic languages” (Vestnik PSU, Pavlodar, 2016); “Semantic structure of monosyllabic root verbs in Kazakh and Kipchak group of languages” (Herald ENU, Astana, 2017); − in journals and editions included in Scopus data base: “On the history of vocabulary study of Kipchak languages group” American Journal of Applied Sciences (USA, 2016), “General lexicological fund of Turkic languages” Social Sciences (Pakistan, 2016) және “The VС structural model of monosyllables in ancient Turkic and Kipchak languages” Man in India (India, 2017). Structure of study: Research paper consists of introduction, two chapters, conclusion, list of literature and appendix. CONTENT OF RESEARCH PAPER Relevance of study and scientific novelty, main tasks and objectives, object and subject of study, conclusions, theoretical and practical significance of study, references and research methods have been set in introduction of research paper. are set. Relevance of study and scientific novelty, main tasks and objectives, object and subject of study, conclusions, theoretical and practical significance of study, references and research methods have been set in the introduction of research paper. The theoretical and methodological foundations of the Turkic root studies are analyzed in the first chapter of the dissertation entitled “Monosyllabic root verbs in the Kazakh and other languages of Kipchak group: comparative characteristics of the morphological level. In the first chapter of dissertation Monosyllabic root verbs in the Kazakh and other languages of Kipchak group: comparative characteristics of the morphological level. First part of the first chapter Historical preconditions of comparative analysis Kipchak group languages gives detailed characterization of scientific papers

8 starting from early classification of Turkic languages by Kashgari and other researchers’ studies in the field of Turkology and Kipchak languages. About 40 Turkic languages emerged from one basis, developed over many years with their own peculiarities, continuously interacting with each other. The way of development and formation of each language is also different. That is why the relation of languages to each other is connected to the genealogical classification of languages. There were many of researches devoted to historical development, interlingustic relations and classification of Turkic languages in native and foreign Turkology. Studies made by scholars as M.Kashkari (XII), I. Berezin (1848), N.I. (1861), A.Mueller (1896), N.A.Aristov (1896), A.N. Kononov (1903), F.E. Korsh (1910), G. Ramsted 1917), Y. Nemet (1917), A.N. Samoylovich (1922, 1926), P.I.Ivanov (1928), R. Aratt (1929), A.E.Krymsky (1930) Bogorodtsky (1934, 1953), L.Logeti (1941), K.Menges (1949), I.Benzing (1943), I.A. Batmanov (1947), A.Amre (1949), S.E. Malov (1952, 1960), M.Riasen (1955), E.R. Tenishev (1963), N.Poppe (1965), A.Kuryshenov (1958, 1971), S.Amanzholov (1971), G. Aidarov (1971), M.A. Tomanov (1971), K.M. Mussayev (1984), G. Dörfer (1971, 1987), T.Tekin (1990), A.V.Dybo (2007), О.А. Mudtrak (2009) and many others’ were aimed at analyzing historical processes of the development of the Turkic languages. Well-known native Kipchap scholar B.Komekov stated: “Emergence of Kipchak khanate on the territory of Kazakhstan marked the end of historic and cultural complex development of ancient nomad Turkic traditions and the beginning of Kipchak era. Changes in Ethno political situation gave birth to ethno geographic term of Deshti Kipchak i.e. Kipchak steppe in literature. Political foundations of Khannate in the middle of ХІ century when Kipchak and Kuman tribes had settled on the Black sea areas adjoining to Byzantium were substantially strengthened. From that time political influence of military and tribal feudal power spread over the vast territory from Irtysh to Dniester. As a result of Kolchak khanate supremacy a new ethnic and political structure appeared in Eurasian space, in the frame of which administrative, military and political and cultural Turkic traditions kept developing. Intensive integration processes on Kipchak space resulted in appearance of historical and ethnographic union. Massive immigration of Turkic tribes in ХІІ century was said to be influenced by Kipchak factor. The biggest by territorial supremacy Kipchak khanate split into East and West ethnic unions separated by Volga River. With the development of East Kipchak khanate ethnic processes in ХІ˗ХІІ century Kazakh ethnos had established its basis. In the period of ХІ − ХІІІ centuries the kipchak tribes composed of various ethnic groups and the Kipchak community, besides its four Kipchak tribes (Turkic, Toksba, yitnoba, durtoba), transferred the Turkic language to the Kekek, Kuman, Oguz, ancient Bashkir, Pechenek tribes and Iranian-speaking ethnicities. Common the common literary language contributed greatly to formation of Kipchak people. The fact that medieval Kipchak originated in one way and became a great nation was directly linked to the Kazakh ethnogenesis” [1, 45p.].

9

The part of the first chapter entitled “Verb in the languages of the Kazakh and Kipchak group and study of its root stems” is devoted to the research of verb and root bases of the Kazakh and Kipchak group languages. It is known that monosyllabial and dissyllabic orientation was formed on the basis of different opinions on the sound composition of the original roots in Turkic languages. V.V.Radloff, V.L.Kotvich, E.V.Severortyan, A.N.Kononov, N.A.Baskakov and A.Zayonchkovski suggested V, CV, VC, VCC, CVC, CVCC models of composition of original Turkic roots, but there were scholars who supported the idea that the first Turkic roots were either of two syllables or were used together with one and two syllables (K.Menges, V.Bang, G.I.Ramstedt, B.D.Vladimirtsov, N.K.Dmitriev and others) [2, 144˗145 p.]. A.N.Kononov, who considers the last consonant at the affix at CVC model, indicates that the smallest model of the Turkic root is a result of the morphological analysis of models V, CV, VC [3, 108p.]. E.A.Makaev proposed the use of chronological stratigraphy as a way of resolving disputed views on Turkic root structure [4, 21-25p.], I.V.Kormushin treats CV model in the first stage, but CV (CV + C) he suggests for the next stage, at the following stage he proposes omitting of some final consonants [5, 11˗13p.]. Scientists G.I.Ramstedt, E.V.Sevarian, A.M.Scherbak, A.N.Kononov, B.M.Simonov, who first suggested that prototype of the Turkic root could be a CV model, Yunusaliev, V.Kotvich and others do not doubt the historicity of VC, V models. Western scholar G.Baberi who considered the structure of root and root embroidery in the Turkic languages at the end of the nineteenth century, commented that CVC was initial model to recognize and CV model was to separated from it. His opinion was widely discussed by the linguists in the twentieth century. If one group of scholars justified the idea of G.Baberi, the next group of linguists, recognizing that the direction of development of the Turkic root is unilateral, seen from the linguistic data as well, and recognized V, CV as a primary root. The third group of researchers recommends that all V, CV, VC, VCC, CVC, CVCC models be equally historical. The first review of the phonetic structure of root morphemes in Turkic languages, by N.ABaskakov is based on the data [6, 101-105], related to the fact that Turkic root is open two syllabic. V.Kotvich argues that as an argument against the theory of stereotypes, it can not explain the true nature of the Turkic root. The third group of scholars suggested to consider V, CV, VC, VCC, CVC, CVCC models equally as historical roots. N.A.Baskakov explored phonetic structure of root morphemes in Turkic languages from different sides, and introduced his idea based on researches of karakalpak language. He againsted V.Kotovich’s theory which claimed turkic root to be open and two- syllabic, proposing that long vowels cannot reveal true nature of turkic root stems [7, 17 p.]. A.N.Baskakov supported his theory by further researches, spotting the importance of CV models in reaviling turkic root nature. Nevertheless,by quantitative index CVC model prevailed and as he ponted out it constituted historical root stem. One third of all ancient and modern turkic languages monosyllables are composed of CVC type [8, 145˗146 p.]. A.Zaionchakovskyi

10 opposed to A.N. Baskakov stating that in the language of ancient monuments CV model prevailed and other types as V, VC, CV, CVC were also in use [9, 28˗29 p.]. Problems of root studies in Kazakh linguistics have been discussed and thoroughly analyzed in the works of researchers A.Kaidar, M.Tomanov, B.Sagandykov, A.Ibatov, K.Husain, A.Hassenova, E.Kazhibek, J.Mankeeva, A.Salkkynbay, M.K.Eskeeva, Zh.Tekturkul, Sh.Zhalmakhanov, M.Sabir and others. Obviously, word-formation is considered to be one of the key phrases in terms of meaning and grammatical form. The fact that almost half of the words of the Kazakh language, as well as of other Turkic languages, contain verbs is justified. That is why the study of verbs in Turkology is of special significance. The study of morphological structure of each of the Kipchak group languages is to be considered an urgent matter. A comparative study of the structure of verb monosyllabes, in turn, leads to the study of the nature of historical changes that have emerged under the influence of internal factors in each of the Kipchak languages. In the next part of the first chapter titled “Comparative characteristics of the phonological structure of monosyllabic verbs” V, CV, VC, CVC, VCC, CVCC, which are the structural types of root morphemes in the Kazakh and modern Kipchak group, are analyzed in terms of frequency of use, semantic independence and model conformity. It also identifies the typical patterns of phonological structure of root verbs, as well as differentiation of the anlaut, inlaut and auslaut by specific linguistic data. V, CV, VC, CVC, VCC, CVCC types are the basis of the phonological structure of the monosyllabic root verbs of Kazakh and other Turkic languages forming the modern Kipchak group. In “kipchak” corpus of monosyllabic root verbs, in the system of vocalism it is necessary to use in anlaut position (а≈ә≈е VСС; е≈и V, VС; о≈у VС; ө≈ү VС; ұ≈у VС; ү≈у VС; ы≈и VС; i≈и VС) in inlaut position (а≈ә≈е СVСС; е≈и CVC; о≈у СVС; о≈у СVСС; ө≈ү СVС; ө≈ү СVСС; ұ≈у СVС; ү≈у СVСС; i≈и СVС), in auslaut position (е≈и СV) typical models. For example, when comparing the Kazakh language with the modern Kipchak group in the vocalism system on “quasi-corpus” of the root verbs one can see the following fundamental phonetic differences:: Changing а≈ә≈е conformity of root verbs in vocal system: among the languages of the Kipchak group – in position of anlaut and inlaut VСС, СVСС types are found. а≈ә≈е conformity of VCC type of monosyllabic verbs in anlaut position in Kazakh language can be found as “айт” and in kipchak group of languages as “әйт”, “ейт”. а≈ә≈е conformity in anlaut position: «а»:қаз., ноғ., қкал., құм. айт˗/ajt˗; «ә»:≈ тат., баш. әйт˗/äjt˗; «е»:≈ қар. ейт˗/ejt˗; In Kipchak group languages among VCC typed monosyllabic root verbs corresponding to а≈ә≈е conformity “ait” root verb is found in Sevortyan’s dictionary at inter-linguistic level as follows:

11

Айт˗/Ajt˗ турк., тур., ктат., кум., кбал., кир., каз., ног., ккал., уз., сюг., лоб., алт., хак., саг., Малов356, KW32, Т VI174, Houtsma57, Deny Arm. C.4, AФ076, Qutb6, Y. Ve Z.II; ейт˗/ejt˗ кар.к., уйг., Y. Ve Z.II; әйт˗/äjt˗ тат., баш., уз. диал., уйг.; ыйт˗/ıjt˗ чув.; ет˗/et˗ [ср. edişmek (eytişmek) «спорить», «препираться»] тур. диал. DD 2506, уз. диал. Шоабдурахмонов303 и др. диал., Y. Ve Z.II; әт˗/ät˗ * (< әйт˗, так же, как ет˗ из ейт˗) як.; айда˗, ajda˗ тур. диал. DD I135; айта˗/ajtа˗ тур. диал. DS I425,419. (ESTYa І – 111 б.). а≈ә≈е conformity of СVСС type of monosyllabic verbs in inlaut position: “shansh” root verb in Kazakh corresponds to Kipchak languages “шанш”, “чанч”, “сәнс”, “чәнч” and “сенч”. а≈ә≈е conformity in inlaut position: “а”:kz. шанш˗/šanš˗; nogai., karakalpak. шанып˗/šanıp˗; kumyk чанч˗/çanç˗; «ә»:≈ tatar чәнч˗/çänç˗; bashkir сәнс˗/säns˗; «е»:≈ karayim сенч-/senç˗; In Kipchak group of languages among а≈ә≈е conformed VCC type of monosyllabic verbs, root verb “shansh”in E.Sevortayn’s dictionary at Turkic interlinguistic level refers to: САНЧ˗/SANÇ˗ турк., тур. диал. ТДГДС156, тур., кар.к., уз., уйг. диал., Le Coq92, Р IV309(др.˗тюрк., чаг., вост. тюрк.), Буд. І616 (тур., аз.), ДТС483; Мал.419, Мал. ПМК102, Ork.96, An.In.497, ТТ МІІІ97, ТТ Х49, ТТ Х49, ВТТ ІІ97, ВТТ ІХ106 (s'nc˗), Caf.EUS 196, Brock. 170, Diz. 98, Бор.ЛТ. 262, KW 213, Houts. 80, Тарж. 110,Abū H. 86, El˗Idr. 39, Ettuh. 232, Из. Дар 371, Tel. 321, Zaj.Bulğ. II 69, Мел.ÀФ 094, Ibnü M. 58, Qutb 152˗153, Хор.П. II 251, Tryj. 664, TS V 3300, YTS 180, Erg. 258, Şey. 80; санж˗ аз., халадж. Doer. – Tez. 184, Zen. II 574 (тур.), Ros. 384 (ср. Erg.); чанч˗ тур. диал. DS III 1067, кар.т., кум., бал. Aпп. 75, кир., уйг.диал. Мал.УЯ 193, лоб.; цанц˗ кар.г.; шанш˗ P IV 949 (кир. = каз.); шанып˗ ккал.; сач˗ Верб. 294 (аб.); сас˗ хак., хак.диал. Инк. 80, Верб. 294 (аб.); чач˗ уйг.диал. Мал.УЯ194; чаш˗ Верб. 425 (н.˗аб.), Р III 1912 (сой.); шаш˗ Верб. 446 (к.), тув., Р IV 974 (шор.); ас˗ як.; сенч˗ кар.; чәнч˗ тат., уйг.диал. Мал.УЯ194, лоб., Р III 1965 (казан., кюэр.), Буд. I 465, 616 (лоб., баш.); чäніч˗ Р III 1961 (казан.); сәнс˗ баш.; чәч˗ тат. диал. ДСT 504, бар. Дм.ЯБТ 196, Р III 1986 (кюэр.); чäш˗ уйг.диал.. Мал.УЯ194; цәц˗ тат. диал. Тум.ЗС 225; šе:š˗ тоф. Рас.231; Unchangeble phoneme а vocalic system: can be found in anlaut and inlaut positions of VC, VCC, CVC and CVCC types among Kipchak group of languages. а phoneme of VC monosyllabic verbs in anlaut position in Kazakh “az”, “ak”, “al”, “as”, “at” and “ash” monosyllabic verbs do not change in Kipchak group of languages. а phoneme in anlaut position: − kz,karaaim, nogai,karakalpak, tatar. аз˗/аz˗; bash.. аҙ˗/аδ˗; − kz., nog., k.kar., tat., bash., kar., kum. ақ˗/аq˗; − kz., nog., k.kar., tat., bash., kar., kum. ал˗/аl˗; − kz., nog., k.kar., tat., bash., kar., kum.ат˗/аt˗; − kz., nog., k.kar., tat., bash., kar., kum.. ас˗/аs˗; − kz., nog., k.kar. аш˗/аš˗; bash. ас˗/аs˗; tat., kar., kum. ач˗/аč˗;

12

In “Kipchak” corpus of monosyllabic verbs in consonantal system in anluat position (ж≈й СV, к≈г СVС; ш≈ч≈с СVСС), in anslaut position (қ≈х СVС; с≈ш VС; с≈ш СVС; с≈һ СVСС; ш≈ч≈с VС; ш≈ч СVС) V, CV, VC, CVC, VCC, CVCC models are typical. In the second chapter entitled “Monosyllabic verbs of Kazakh language and languages of Kipchak group: comparative analysis of semantic structure” processes inherent to semantic structure of monosyllabic verbs have been analyzed. In the part “processes inherent to semantic structure of monosyllabic verbs” the originality of Kipchak meaning preserved in all other languages’ semantic structure, its internal differentiation from general to specific and vise versa and even appearance of stable meaning developed according to lexical and semantic laws of each language have been shown out. E.g.: in Kazakh language ар(ы)˗/ar(ı)˗ root: has meanings 1) to be tired; 2) to lose weight (KLED І − Б. 693) On general turkic level а:р˗/а:r˗ reveals as follows: А:Р˗/А:R˗ tur., turkic dialect. DS I 328, ДТС50; ар˗/аr˗ turkic dialect. DS І328, tat., Р І244, Budagov І34 (чаг., казан.), Zenker I30, ДТС50, Malov356, Brock.10, Kāšğ. D30, Atebet.IV, KW39, Houtsma45, Ettuhfet.41, Zajaczkowski Bulgat. II42, İbnü M.11, Zajaczkowski St. I103, Abushka11, Pav. C.16, Vambery CSpr.207; ха:р˗/ha:r˗ P II1748,1749; хар˗/har˗ turk. dialect. Durdymuradov150, uig.., Vambery CSpr.343; haj˗ uigur dialect. Jarring115; ары˗/arı˗ turk.dialect. DS I 320, kum.., kabar.balkar., kirg., kz., nog., bash., dialect. Yusupov asin.175, алт., P I266, 267 (bar., tob., kazan., kuman., kar.l.), Budagov І34 (чаг., kazan.), Zenker I30, Gabain295, АФ066, Abu H.12, TS I205, Tryjarski72; хары˗/ harı˗ hari˗ ккал.; хари˗/һаri˗ уз., ыр˗/ır˗ turk dialect. DD 2774 , як., чув.; Zajaczkowski Bulgat. II42; ы:р˗/ı:r˗ Pekarskyi III3803 (ДП). ары˗/arı˗ Tryjarski72 (ESTYa І – Б.160). General turkic а:р˗/а:r˗ in kipchak context are presented like this : kz., nog. ар(ы)˗/ar(ı)˗; k.kar. хар(ы)˗/har(ı)˗/har(i)˗; tat. ар˗/аr˗; bash. ар(ы)˗/ar(ı)˗; kum., kar. ар(ы)˗/ar(ı)˗ . nog. ар(ы)˗/ar(ı)˗: 1. To be tired; to be weakened (RNS); k.karp. хар(ы)˗/har(ı)˗/har(i)˗: 1. To tired, (QqТТS); tat. ар˗/аr˗:1. To be tired; 2. To weakened; 3. To be ill (ТТТES); bash. ар(ы)˗/ar(ı)˗: 1. To be tired (RBС); kum. ар(ы)˗/ar(ı)˗: 1. To be tired (RКumS); kar. ар(ы)˗/ar(ı)˗: 1. To be tired (КRPS). Monosyllabic verb ар˗/аr˗ has original meaning of loosing weight, but meaning of to be tired was reconsidered by people’s thinking and acquired changeable meaning. Thus, if to look inside of ар˗/ар(ы)˗ semantic roots historic meaning of poor domestic breed or loosing weight is clealy seen. Comparative characteristics of А:Р˗/А:R˗: In sementic corpus of а:р˗/а:r˗ root direct meaning is typical for all languages. Synonimy of а:р˗/а:r˗root can be found in all kipchak languages, but in tatar language the level of synonymy is higher (more than 3 meanings. General meaning of а:р˗/а:r˗ root in kipchak languages: to become poor(about domestic cattle), to lose weight, but in tatar language it has meaning of to be ill.

13

Second chapter, “The semantic meaning of monosyllabic root verbs " focuses on identifying the semantic stereotypes of monosyllabic root verbs and identifying trends specific to the semantic structure of one root verb. The semantic comparative description of the monosyllabic verbs of the Kazakh, Nogai, Karakalpak, Tatar, Bashkir, derived from monosyllabic verbs of Kipchak group of languages has reveled relation to the root's original meaning, and commonality of their semantic structure. Here, the names of movements in the general vocabulary of monosyllabic verb forms of "Kipchak" corpus serve not only as lexico-grammatical batches of the main and primary semantic content of the word treasure of every language, but also serve as a basis for the development of each language and word formation. In Kazakh language ақтар˗/аqtar˗ root verb has 9 meanings: 1) to search; 2) to dig; 3) turn over the pages; 4) to spit ; 5) А. To understand someone’s thoughts; 6) А. To tell out; 7) to check up 8) to speak up; 9) to tell secrets. On common turkic level а:ғдар˗/a:ydar˗ has following forms: А:ҒДАР˗/A:YDAR˗ turk., agdar˗ turk.dialect. DS I77,78; ағдар˗/aγdar˗ уз., Р І178; о ағда(р)˗/aγda(r)˗ уйг.; Vambery CSpr.405; ав дар˗/awdar˗ tat., kar.k., kz., о о o nog., k.kal., tat., Р І642 (ктат.); а в дар˗/a wdar˗ uzb.dialect. Mirsogotov.189; о о о:дар˗/o:dar˗ kir., ав дур˗/awdur˗ k.bal.; ав дыр˗/awdır˗ nog.; aγtar˗ ДТС23, Brockelmann5, Kāšğ. D13; ақтар˗/aqtar˗ kz., Р І117 ( osm., kir.=kz., tat.), ДТС49, Gabain295, Gabain В. Нü410, Usp.261, Ettuhfet.137; Zenker I76, ; ахтар˗/аxtar˗ turk.dialect DS I134, kar., Р І137 (tat., chag., az, east-turk., kar.l.g.), ДТС71, Brockelmann16, АФ066, İbnü M.8 (ahtarılmak), Deny Arm.C.43, Zajaczkowski Bulgat I41(ahtur˗); ’akdar˗turk.dialect. Aksoy Gaziantep.35; Zenker I76; аңтар˗/аņtar˗ uzb.dialect. Abdullayev Khor. Ш.358; аңдар˗/аņdar˗ alt., khak., tuv., Р І194 (alt., tel.); аңдыр˗ Р І195 (койб., кач., саг.); еңтер˗/еņtеr˗ turk.; еңдер˗alt. ГАЯ159 (ESTYa І − Б.77). а:ғдар˗/a:ydar˗ in kipchak context has forms: kz., nog., kkalp., tat., bash. ақтар˗/аqtar˗; kum., kar. ахтар˗/аxtar˗ (ESTYa І − Б. 57). nog. ақтар˗/аqtar˗: 1. To search,; 2. To investigate; 3. А. To bother (RNS); kkalp. ақтар˗/аqtar˗: 1. To search; 2. To investigate; (QaТТS); tat. ақтар˗/аqtar˗:. To search; 2. To investigate; (ТТТES); bash. ақтар˗/аqtar˗:1. . To search,; 2. To investigate; (RBS); kum. ахтар˗/аxtar˗:. To search,; (RKumS); kar. ахтар˗/ахtar˗:. To search,; 2. To investigate; (KRPS). ak˗, ag, ˗ok is an original meaning of the word. By E.Sevortyan’s opinion semantic evolution of agtar verb was “to destroy”, then “turn over”, and “to reconsider” was the latest meaning [138, 77p.]. *ak˗, *ag, ˗*ok – root acquired morphemes and gramatic fronties and definite semantics, thus as a result it got inner and interlinguistic meanings. kz., nog., k.kar., bash., tat. ақтар˗/аqtar˗; kum., kar. ахтар˗/ахtar˗ has got specific semantic correlation and new meaning. *ak˗, *ag, ˗*ok – monosyllabic verb in kipchak group kz., kar., kum., nog., and kkalp., tat., bash. has meaning of “to flow [138, с. 118], but by adding “˗tar” to the main root it acquire other new meanings “to reconsider” or ”search” . semantic scope of *ak˗, *ag, ˗*ok – root verb is widened.

14

ақтар˗ /аqtar˗ root in Kazakh and Kipchak languages has one common meaning of “to search, but in “to be depressed”. In the chapter titled “Semantic categories of monosyllabic root verbs” synonymy, antonyms and homonymy phenomena, which are typical of the root verbs of the Kipchak group, are considered. In Kazakh language аш˗/аš˗ root stem has meanings of: 1) to open; 2) to remove; 3) to separate; 4) to unfold; 5) to relock; 6) to disclose; 7) to investigate; 8) А. To establish; 9) to describe; 10) А. To open a meeting or smth (ҚӘТС II − Б. 249˗250) . On general Turkic level ач˗/аč˗ has following expressions: АЧ˗/АČ˗ turk., tur., az., gag., ktat., kar.k., kum., k.bal., kirg., tat., uig., sug., lob., alt., ДТС3, Malov353, Malov ПМК91, Gabain292, Brockelmann2, Kāšğ. D.2, Atebet.I, T IX40, T X40, Analyt, In.462, KW27, Houtsma44, Zajaczkowski Bulgat. II4, АФ065, İbnü M.7, о Korkut1, Seyhi1, Pav. C.6; а ч˗/аč˗ uzb.; аш˗/аš˗ turk.dialect. Kurenov Stavr.253, kz., / / nog., kkalp., АФ068; аш˗/аš˗ tub.; ас˗/аs˗ bash., khak., yak.; ац˗/ас˗ kar,g; ус ˗/us ˗ chuv. (ESTYa І − Б. 209). ач˗/аč˗ in Kipchak context presented in the forms of: kz., nog., kkalp. аш˗/аš˗; kum., kar., tat. ач˗/аč˗; bash. ас˗/аs˗ (ESTYa І − 209). nog. аш˗/аš˗:1. To open,; in medical term- to cut, to uncover, to unrup; 2. To disclose (RNS); kkalp. аш˗/аš˗:1. To open; to unfold, to uncover; (QqТТS); tat. ач˗/аč˗:1. To open 2. To disclose; 3. To start (story, process, war) (ТТТES); bash. ас˗/аs˗:1. To open, to cut, to uncover, to unfold 2. To disclose; (RBS); kum. ач˗/аč˗:1. To open, to cut, to uncover, to unfold 2. To disclose; 3.to prove 4. To start (story, process, war); (RKumS); kar. ач˗/аč˗:1. To open (KRPS). General meaning of аш˗/аš˗ root verb is ”to open “. Developments of the meaning are closely connected to its original variant and influence its semantic structure. Thus, аш˗/аš˗ root verb denoted common notion, but then it acquired specific meanings according to contexts. So, in Kipchak languages аш˗/аš˗ root verb widened its meaning. General meaning of аш˗/аš˗ roots in kipchak languages : “to open”, but specific meaning in Nogai and Bashkir is “to disclose a secret” and in Kumyk languages “to decide something”. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions can be drawn when demonstrating the morphonological and semantic comparative nature of the single- root verbs in the Kazakh and other Kipchak group languages:  the study of the relationship between the language groups and subgroups, and the history of the formation of individual languages that constitute the ethnogenesis of the Turkic peoples and the Kipchak group;  comparative study of single root verbs in the “Kipchak inter-language” level, which is one of the lingual sources of the textual structure of the language, in its turn is associated with the genealogical classification of the Turkic languages, such as modern Kazakh, Nogai, Karakalpak, Tatar, Bashkir, Kumyk and Karaiym,

15 a deeper understanding of the nature of languages of nearest kinship, the way to the historical development of each of them  the study of the monosyllabic body of verbs, which form the most important part of the basic vocabulary in the context of Kipchak languages, define the linguistic features c of the period in the historical development of the "general- prior mother tongue”, the modern Kazakh, Nogai, Karakalpak, Tatar, Bashkir, Kumyk and Karaiym helps to determine the level of survival in each of the exsisted languages, and to distinguish language labels on the basis of which it is divided into individual languages;  studies on the interpretation of ideas, roots and certain aspects of the basics in the Turkic linguistics are based on the formation and development of the lower level of the language in phonetics, which is based on the close interaction of phonologic, morphological, semantic and onomaciological phenomena, and a deeper root necessity to consider the morphemes' external identity and internal content;  when viewed from the lexical point of view, the number of single root joints in verbs is considerably smaller than that of two syllabic ones, but these groups are basic for all verbs. All V, CV, VC, CVC, VCC, CVCC models, which are structural types of root morpheme system in the Kazakh language, are typical for modern Kipchak group, but have different identity with their usage frequency, semantic independence, versions of the Kazakh and modern Kipchak group;  phonological basis of monosyllabic verbs of Kazakh and other languages relating to Kipchak group comprise V, CV, VC, CVC, VCC and CVCC types In Kipchak corpus of monosyllabic verbs in vocalic system in anlaut position (а≈ә≈е VСС; е≈и V, VС; о≈у VС; ө≈ү VС; ұ≈у VС; ү≈у VС; ы≈и VС; i≈и VС), in inlaut position (а≈ә≈е СVСС; е≈и CVC; о≈у СVС; о≈у СVСС; ө≈ү СVС; ө≈ү СVСС; ұ≈у СVС; ү≈у СVСС; i≈и СVС), auslaut position (е≈и СV), besides in consonant system in anlaut position (ж≈й СV, к≈г СVС; ш≈ч≈с СVСС), auslaut position (қ≈х СVС; с≈ш VС; с≈ш СVС; с≈һ СVСС; ш≈ч≈с VС; ш≈ч СVС) vocalic and consonantal conformity correspond to V, CV, VC, CVC, VCC and CVCC types of models;  sound correlations of related languages, together with the phonological versions of “root words”, lead to the deterioration of their original meaning. As a result of this phenomenon, several phonological and morphological variants of one word appear with different meanings and different syntax functions;  words, derived from one root verb of the Kipchak group of languages, together with their original meaning preserve their connection with their initial semantic structure, and constitutes an unity;  the ability to designate action of monosyllabic verbs of Kipchak body entering the common Turkic vocabulary, forms not only the core of vocabulary and semantic meaning of each language, but also is the basis for word-formation process of each language of the group;  during the process of analysis of root meaning, monosyllabic root verbs precisely, preservance of originated common meaning, its internal differentiation 16 from general to specific or vica versa, definite linguistic features of each language specific unchanged meaning have been exposed;  meaning of action or process of root verbs, which is the basis of all other meanings, may be incomplete or incompatible with the etymological original meaning of monosyllabic verbs because some of them are preserved in their “original” and in some languages are subjected to modifications; semantic field of the other root morpheme is expanded. It is impossible to define the initial nominal meaning of meanings and its second, variable meanings precisely;  despite the minor changes in the vocabulary system (morphonological, monosemic, polysemic) in the course of personal development of each language, the whole composition of verb forms of modern Kipchak group preserved the basis of its own "submissiveness" and is distinguiedand by ability of word formation; − new generation of grammatical formulas with one root verbs, with a particular semantics, which results in subtle and inter-language versions of words; − the meaning of action of monosyllabic verbs and their initial meaning may be different or the same. The reason is that some languages retained the original meaning of verb action, and in other languages monosyllabic verbs underwent various modifications; − the semantic branching, which is the sequence in the development of meanings, is typical of the indigenous Turkic categories, as well as single-root verbs of the Kipchak group. All derivative values of one or the same root morpheme are preserved in parallel with their original meaning, and in their semantic structure they form a whole unity; − synonymy, antonymy, syncretism and homonymy is characteristic in those single-root verbs of the Kipchak group. Here, especially, the homonymia is hidden and is characterized by a "loose and stabilized" meeting. However, in language practice, there are no obstacles and difficulties to understand and apply them; − the semantic structure of the single-root verbs in the Kipchak group is characterized by a tendency for polysemy, which is sometimes excessive: reaching the amplitude of oscillations between two and five meanings. Polysemy sometimes enters the omonimic system, which in some cases has an antonymic meaning, especially in Kazakh, Nogai, and Karakalpak languages.

List of literature 1 КomekovB.Е. Qazaq memletettiliginin tarihy jane Qazaq handygy. – Аlmaty. 2015. –45 b. 2 ЕskeevaМ.K.Тurki tilderi zhuesindegi qazaq tilinin tarihi orny. Моnografiya. –Аstana: Каntana Press, 2011. –420 b. 3 КоnоnоvА.N. Grammatika yazyka tyirkskih runicheskih pamyatnikov (VII-IX vv.). –Leninigrad: Nauka, 1980. –S.225. 4 МаkаеvE.А. Voprosy postroeniya sravnitel’noi grammatiki tyirkskih yazykov // Sovetskaya tyirkologiya. 1971. № 2. –S. 21-25. 5 КоrmushinI.V. Leksiko-semanticheskoe razvitie *qa v аltaiskih yazykah // Tyirkskaya leksikologiya i leksikografiya. –Моskva: Nauka, 1971. –С. 11-13.

17

6 BaskakovN.А. Каrakalpakskii yazyk. Ch. 1. − Моskva: Izdatel’stvo АNSSSR, 1952. – 542 s. 7 BaskakovN.А. Predislovie//V.Коtvich Issledovaniya po altaiskim yazykam. – Моskva: Nauka,1962. – S. 17. 8 BaskakovN.А. Vvedenie v izuchenie tyirkskih yazykov. – Моskva:: Nauka, 1969. –384 s. 9 ZaionchkovskiiА.К. Voprosu o structure kornya v tyirkskih yazykah: glagol’nye osnovy monosillabicheskie (оdnoslozhnye) tipa С+V (soglasnyi + glasnyi) // Voprosy yazykoznaniya. – 1961. № 2. – S. 28-29.

18