Traces of language contacts in the vocabulary of Turkic and Indo-European languages. The degree of study of the problem and the historical prerequisites for the penetration of Turkic vocabulary into the Russian language Studies in the lexicology of Turkic languages

Despite the fact that F. Zeynalov not consistently worked on the vocabulary of Turkic languages, it showed its position in this area. He touched in his articles such questions that have not yet been resolved.

Keywords: vocabulary of Turkic languages, linguistic terms, dialects and sub-dialects.

Despite the fact that the field of linguistics, which F. Zeynalov was engaged in, was morphology Turkic languages, he was always interested in the problems of the vocabulary of the Turkic languages. His articles "The need to create a dictionary of comparative linguistic terms of the Turkic languages" and "On the issue of Turkic-Mongolian lexical parallels" are of particular interest from this point of view.

The article "The need to create a dictionary of comparative linguistic terms of the Turkic languages" was published in Istanbul. In this article, the author raises questions that have not been resolved to this day. The creation of a common Turkic language, a comparative dictionary of linguistic terms and today are topical problems of Turkic studies. Modern Turkic languages ​​use linguistic terms that express one concept in different words.

F.R. Zeynalov notes that research works written in national languages ​​were known only in certain circles, remained in a closed frame. In his opinion, the reason for this is the lack of one abstract journal and common comparative linguistic terms. The author notes that the linguistic terms in the Turkic languages ​​should either be artificially formed, or in many closer Turkic languages ​​they could be common (for example, Oguz, Kypchak, Karlug, etc.). So, linguistic terms in the Turkic languages ​​should be formed either on the basis of native Turkic words or on the basis of the words of one of their Turkic languages. It can also be borrowed commonly used words that obey the rules of the Turkic languages.

This article discusses different forms of linguistic terms expressing the same concepts in the Turkic languages. It also talks about terms that in one sense or another coincide with each other. It is observed that in the Oghuz group of the Turkic languages, the terms naming auxiliary parts of speech almost coincide. F.R. Zeynalov talks about the need to compile a comparative dictionary of linguistic terms. He considers this necessary because the researchers could get acquainted with the linguistic literature in different national languages.

He suggests taking the following principles as a basis when compiling a dictionary:

1) The choice of frequently used words of terms, 2) It would be advisable if one version of the dictionary was compiled in Russian, 3) First you need to compile a Russian dictionary, and then find the correspondence of words in different Turkic languages, 4) After publishing one version of the dictionary then, based on this option, you can print it in a specific Turkic language. 5) In order to use the dictionary effectively, you can give indexes at the end of the dictionary.

The article gives comparative examples of linguistic terms related to different groups of Turkic languages. Here, special attention is paid to the terms that are used in the Oguz, Kypchak, Karluk, Uighur-Oguz and Kirghiz-Kypchag language groups. So F.R. Zeynalov creates an example of the first comparative dictionary of language terms in the Turkic languages. Unfortunately, after F.R. Zeynalov in Turkology there were no attempts to create such a dictionary, not even any Turkologist dealt with this problem.

And the author's article "On the issue of Turkic-Mongolian lexical parallels" refers to the correspondences in the lexical composition of the Turkic and Mongolian languages. The author analyzes this issue in the historical aspect. Since, most of the words common in both language groups (Mongolian and Turkic language groups) are of Turkic origin. It is observed that the correspondences in the composition of the dictionary are mainly related to communication and are of a regional nature. F.R. Zeynalov emphasizes that when determining correspondences in Turkic and Mongolian words, it is necessary to rely on ancient monuments. Since, the comparison of modern languages ​​greatly complicates the identification of this similarity. That is why the author correctly considers the historical principle to be the basic principle of research.

Some words that are historically common in the Turkic languages ​​have undergone very strong changes, but in the Mongolian language they have been preserved in the primary version or have undergone not very significant changes. The author notes that, given the historical process of development of each language group, it is necessary to know well the specific features, grammatical and phonetic structure of each language, the ways of their development and change. In his opinion, in order to determine the common layer of the lexical composition of the Turkic and Mongolian languages, it is necessary to involve in the comparison of words and terms related to various areas of these languages. As you know, the lexical composition of these languages ​​is conditionally divided into 3 groups: words expressing a name, attribute or quality, action. F.R. Zeynalov, speaking with this position, compared the Turkic and Mongolian words within the areas of their distribution.

The group of Turkic-Mongolian general terms denoting a name includes plant names, human names, names of years, months, and days. He shows that most of the common Turkic-Mongolian terms denoting a name are of Turkic origin, and they were borrowed by the Mongolian, Tungus and Manchu languages. It is noted that most of these words are observed in the ancient Turkic written monuments, but are not found in the monuments of Mongolian writing. F.R. Zeynalov, with some such significant facts, proves that the words common to both languages ​​are of Turkic origin.

F.R. Zeynalov analyzes each group of terms separately, gives examples, gives an explanation of some words. The fact that there are no parallels among the auxiliary parts of speech in the Turkic and Mongolian language groups gives the author reason to come to the conclusion that these languages ​​do not have the same genealogical roots.

As you know, there are linguists who attribute the Turkic languages ​​to the Ural-Altaic family, and sometimes to the Altaic group of languages. F.R. It is with this article that Zeynalov claims that the Turkic languages ​​do not belong to the above family of languages, they should be considered a separate language family.

F.R. Zeynalov explores the lexical problems of the Turkic languages, while he also talks about the lexical problems of the Azerbaijani language. His articles “On Word Formation” and “Some Observations on the Appearance of Socio-Political Words in the Azerbaijani Language in Soviet times are dedicated to this issue.

Despite the fact that F.R. Zeynalov was not consistently engaged in the study of the vocabulary of the Turkic languages, he, as a scientist, a Turkologist, showed his position in this area.

Bibliography

1. Zeynalov F.R. Dialects of the Arpachay villages. Scholars Notes, Language and Literature Series. ASU, 1977. No. 6, s. 24-31, 1978-#1, p. 8-14.

3. Zeynalov F.R. Some remarks on the formation of socio-political words in the Azerbaijani language in the Soviet period. ASU, Notes of the Faculty of Philology, Baku, 1958. pp. 105-110.

4. Zeynalov F.R. The need to create a dictionary of comparative linguistic terms of the Turkic languages. Scientific Notes of ASU Series of Language and Literature, 1973 no. 4, p. 90-95.

5. Zeynalov F.R. On the issue of Turkic-Mongolian lexical parallels. Lexico-morphological structure of the Turkic languages. ASU, 1981.

6. Zeynalov F.R. On the issue of Turkic-Mongolian lexical parallels International Turkological Congress. Istanbul, 1973.

Turkic languages ​​are a family of languages ​​spoken by numerous peoples and nationalities of the USSR, Turkey, part of the population of Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia, China, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Albania. The question of the genetic relationship of these languages ​​to the Altaic languages ​​is at the level of a hypothesis that involves the unification of the Turkic, Tungus-Manchu and Mongolian languages. In the Altaic literature, the typological similarity of the Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungus-Manchu languages ​​is sometimes mistaken for a genetic relationship.

Formation:

The formation of individual Turkic languages ​​was preceded by numerous and complex migration their carriers. In the 5th c. the movement of Gur tribes from Asia to the Kama region began; from the 5th-6th centuries began to move into Central Asia Turkic tribes from Central Asia (Oghuz, etc.); in 10-12 centuries. the range of settlement of the ancient Uighur and Oghuz tribes expanded (from Central Asia to East Turkestan, Central and Asia Minor); at the beginning of the 2nd millennium, the Kyrgyz tribes from the Yenisei moved to the current territory of Kyrgyzstan; in the 15th century consolidated Kazakh tribes.

By modern geography distribution, the Turkic languages ​​\u200b\u200bof the following areas are distinguished: Central and Southeast Asia, Southern and Western Siberia, the Volga-Kama, the North Caucasus, Transcaucasia and the Black Sea region.

Classification schemes of Turkology:

V.A. Bogoroditsky:

- northeastern: Yakut, Karagas and Tuvan languages;

- Khakass: Sagai, Beltir, Koibal, Kachin and Kyzyl dialects of the Khakass population of the region;

- Altai: southern branch- Altai and Teleut languages, northern branch- dialects of the so-called. black Tatars and some others

- West Siberian: all dialects of the Siberian Tatars;

- Volga-Urals: Tatar and Bashkir languages;

- Central Asian: Uighur, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Karakalpak languages; - - southwestern: Turkmen, Azerbaijani, Kumyk, Gagauz and Turkish.

V.V. Radlov:

- eastern: languages ​​and dialects of the Altai, Ob, Yenisei Trocs and Chulym Tatars, Karagas, Khakass, Shor and Tuvan languages;

- western: dialects of the Tatars of Western Siberia, Kyrgyz, Kazakh, Bashkir, Tatar and, conditionally, Karakalpak languages;

- Central Asian: Uighur and Uzbek languages;

- southern: Turkmen, Azerbaijani, Turkish, some southern coastal dialects of the Crimean Tatar language;

A.N. Samoilovich:

- Bulgarian;

- Uighur, otherwise northeastern;

- Kypchak, otherwise northwestern;

- Chagatai, otherwise southeastern;

- Kypchak-Turkmen;

- southwestern, or Oguz.

Typologically, the Turkic languages ​​are classified as agglutinative languages.. The root (basis) of the word, not being burdened with class indicators (there is no class division of nouns in the Turkic languages), in it. n. can act in its pure form.

The presence of vowel harmony and the associated opposition of front-lingual consonants to back-lingual ones, the absence in the original Turkic words of combinations of several consonants at the beginning of a word, at the junctions of morphemes or in the absolute outcome of a word, a special typology of syllables determine the relative simplicity of the distributive relations of phonemes in the Turkic languages.

The so-called Oguz languages ​​allow voiced stops in anlaut; the Kipchak languages ​​allow occlusions in this position, but voiceless occlusions predominate.

In the process of changing consonants in the Turkic languages, sounds with more or less complex articulation were subjected to simplification or turned into sounds of a different quality. There are common cases of voicing of consonants in the intervocalic position (characteristic of the Chuvash language and especially of the Turkic languages ​​of Siberia), numerous assimilation of consonants, especially in affixes, transition to > h and t > h before front vowels.

- nominative,

- genitive,

- accusative,

- dative-directive,

- local,

- original.

In all Turkic languages the plural is expressed with the affix -lar/-lêr, with the exception of the Chuvash language, where this function has the affix -sem.

Numerals include lexical units to denote the numbers of the first ten, for the numbers twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand; for the numbers sixty, seventy, eighty and ninety, compound words are used, the first part of which is the phonetically modified names of the corresponding units of the first ten.

Demonstrative pronouns in the Turkic languages ​​reflect 3 plans for the arrangement of objects in space:

- closest to the speaker;

- more remote;

- the most remote.

The paradigm of personal pronouns includes forms of three persons singular. and many others. h., with their declension in a number of languages, the vowel of the stem changes in the dative-directive case in the singular. Reflexive pronouns are based on independent nouns.

In all Turkic languages, except for the Chuvash language, there is an indicator -yr/-ar for the future tense (present-future). The Oguz languages ​​are characterized by the form of the future categorical tense in -adzhak/-achak, it is also common in some languages ​​of the southern area (Uzbek, Uighur).

Turkic languages ​​have active, passive, reciprocal and imperative voices.

Models of formation of the main types of phrases both attributive and predicative in Turkic languages ​​they are united; the dependent member precedes the principal. A characteristic syntactic category in the Turkic languages ​​isizafet : this type of relationship between two names permeates the entire structure of the Turkic languages.

A simple sentence in the Turkic languages ​​is the predominant syntactic structure; it tends to include such substitute clauses.

Various subordinating relations are conveyed by participial, participle, verb-nominal constructions.

In the structure of the Turkic languages, conditions were laid for the development of allied proposals. In development complex sentences of the allied type, the influence of the Arabic and Persian languages ​​played a certain role. Constant contact of speakers of Turkic languages ​​with Russians also contributed to the development of allied means (eg, in the Tatar language).

In the word-formation of the Turkic languages, affixation prevails. There are also ways of analytical word formation: paired names, reduplication, compound verbs, etc.

The oldest monuments of the Turkic languages ​​date back to the 7th century BC. The writing of all the Turkic languages ​​of the USSR since the late 30s - early 40s. based on Russian graphics. Turkish uses a Latin-based alphabet. Throughout their history, the Turks used the Turkic runic (ascending, apparently, to the Sogdian script), Uighur script (later passed from them to the Mongols), Brahmi, Manichaean script, and Arabic script. At present, writings based on Arabic, Latin and Cyrillic are common.

• Specialty HAC RF10.02.02
• Number of pages 160

CHAPTER 1. PROBLEMS OF STUDYING ETHNOCULTURAL LEXIS

OF TURKIC ORIGIN IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

1.1. Issues of onomastics in Russian and Turkic languages

1.2. Features of vocabulary in the onomastics of the Turkic languages

1.3. Origin and development of Turkic borrowings

1.4. Comparative study of Russian and Turkic vocabulary

CHAPTER II. CONCEPT-THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF ONOMASTIC VOCABULARY OF TURKIC ORIGIN IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

2.1. General ethnocultural vocabulary of Turkic origin in Russian

2.2. Anthroponyms of Turkic origin in Russian

2.3. Oronyms and oikonyms of Turkic origin in the vocabulary of the Russian language

2.4. Toponyms and ethnonyms in the vocabulary of the Russian language

2.5. Mythonyms of Turkic origin in Russian

CHAPTER III. SEMANTIC-MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

ONOMASTIC VOCABULARY OF THE TURKIC ORIGIN IN

IN RUSSIAN

3.1. Synonymy in the onomastics of the Russian language

3.2. Homonymy in the system of mythological onomastics

3.3. Morphological structure of onomastic vocabulary of Turkic origin

Recommended list of dissertations

• Onomastic Vocabulary of Azerbaijani Mythoepics 2004, candidate of philological sciences Shabanova, Shakhnaz Gilalovna

• Conceptual-thematic and morphological features of the vocabulary of the Kumyk language in religious and mythological texts 2006, candidate of philological sciences Sheygasanova, Galina Muzhaidovna

• Functional features of Arabic lexemes in the Kumyk language: based on epic works 2012, candidate of philological sciences Murtazalieva, Laila Anvarovna

• Development in the Russian language of Turkisms with unclear foundations 2004, candidate of philological sciences Korkmazova, Lyalya Manafovna

• Lexico-grammatical development of Kumyk borrowings by the Salatav dialect of the Avar language 2007, candidate of philological sciences Makhmudova, Patina Murtazalievna

Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "Ethnocultural vocabulary of Turkic origin in the Russian language"

This dissertation work is devoted to a systematic and complex study of borrowed Turkic lexemes of ethno-cultural content in the Russian language. A comprehensive study of ethno-cultural elements, their lexical and morphological structure is one of the urgent tasks of linguistics, because their comparative and comparative historical analysis can answer many unclear questions of the morphological and lexical composition and the historical past of the Russian language. Issues of semantic, lexical and etymological development of the ethno-cultural components of the Russian language are considered in the dissertation in conjunction with the problems of their origin and classification.

The study, first of all, is focused on the fact that the vocabulary and morphology in the Russian language have not yet been sufficiently studied in the comparative historical aspect and in its relation to the Turkic languages. A comparative historical study of ethnocultural terms requires the allocation of a significant layer of borrowings from the Turkic languages, which is a rather complex and time-consuming task. The complexity of this problem is evidenced by the fact that in existing works, the opinions of various researchers on the problem of the origin of Orientalisms and the definition of a specific language - the source of Turkisms diverge in many respects. For this reason, an attempt was made in the dissertation to broadly cover the issue of the origin of Turkisms with the involvement of data on the Turkic and Indo-European languages.

The vocabulary of any language is divided into words denoting universal concepts, and words with national ethno-cultural meanings.

Words with universal meanings include, firstly, service parts of speech, numerals, pronouns and some categories of adverbs, and secondly, names and verbs denoting universal, practically timeless and extraspatial concepts, for example, "young", "old", "good", "bad", "child", "man", "water", "sky", "eat", "sleep", "walk", etc.

Ethnocultural vocabulary includes: 1. Names of natural phenomena, characteristic of the area where native speakers of a given (certain) language live. 2. Vocabulary of material culture. 3. Vocabulary of spiritual culture: a) terms of kinship and family relations and gender and age classification of people; b) terms of public relations; c) words relating to the spiritual life of people (music, art, entertainment), education and upbringing; d) words characterizing people in the system of social relations and values; e) words related to mythology, folklore and rituals (Akhmetyanov, 1981, 52).

The need for research in the totality of the ethnocultural vocabulary of Russian and Turkic peoples dictated by the material itself: data on individual languages ​​complement each other and make it possible to determine the genesis and development of a number of concepts and expressions. Russian and Turkic languages ​​and peoples over the last millennium, i.e. during the period of their formation in the form in which we see them today, developed in the same or very similar socio-political and economic and economic conditions, were part of the same state formations: Bulgaria (Volga Bulgaria), Golden Horde, Kazan Khanate and the Russian Empire. This circumstance predetermined intensive mutual influence.

At the same time, the Turkic regions of Russia, which were weakly separated geographically, were subject to strong external influences. Special meaning At the same time, all the Turkic peoples of the Russian state were included in the widest circle of closely related Turkic peoples who were in continuous cultural communication due to ethnic, linguistic, religious and other ties.

The disappearance of the Turkic states on the territory of Russia and the creation Russian Empire, the resettlement of Russians further complicated ethno-cultural relations. Whenever it changed government, cultural attitudes changed, i.e. orientation to certain sources and standards of culture, and this led to a reassessment of values, which was reflected in the fate of words expressing concepts related to mythology, folklore, rituals and other ethno-cultural concepts. All this makes the etymological study of words common to the Russian and Turkic languages ​​difficult and important, especially considering that the history of these peoples is not sufficiently covered in written monuments.

The relevance of the research topic is due to a number of circumstances. First of all, it should be noted that the Russian language is characterized not only by a number of specific phonetic and grammatical features, but also by the presence in its vocabulary of peculiar characteristics due to historical contacts with other languages, both genetically related and unrelated.

A significant place in the vocabulary of the Russian language is occupied by Turkisms. Although some aspects of Turkisms in the Russian language are to some extent touched upon in scientific articles and monographs of various researchers, however, in general, Turkic vocabulary has not yet been subjected to a comprehensive monographic study. Meanwhile, the Turkisms are characterized by bright specific features of the phonetic, semantic and morphological order. On the material of Turkisms, one can trace various sound processes, lexico-semantic phenomena, morphological changes, which, of course, is of considerable interest for the study of Russian and other Slavic languages.

For the Russian language, the results of a comprehensive study of Turkisms, especially ethnocultural vocabulary, can serve as an invaluable source of restoration of individual fragments of its history.

The object of the study is the identification of lexical units of Turkic origin associated with various aspects of the life and way of life of the Slavic peoples. Insufficient knowledge of Russian orientalisms in an intercultural perspective requires complex analysis ethnocultural terms of Turkic origin in Russian.

The subject of the study is the ethno-cultural lexical components of Turkic origin in the Russian language.

Material and sources of research. The main source was the material of the Russian literary language and folklore. In addition, the material of dialects of the Russian language, as well as other related Slavic languages, is involved. We also used data from a number of old-written monuments and materials from dictionaries for Russian and contact languages.

The theoretical and methodological basis of the work was the works of well-known domestic and foreign linguists in Slavic, Turkic, Arabic, Persian and Indo-European languages ​​on similar issues.

The degree of study of the topic. The lexico-semantic and etymological aspects of the borrowed ethno-cultural vocabulary of the Russian language in the monographic aspect are studied in a comprehensive manner for the first time by us. The paper attempts to highlight the ways of penetration of Turkisms into the Russian language and show the degree of adaptation of lexemes by the borrowing language.

The following provisions of the study are defended:

1. A significant part of the ethno-cultural vocabulary of Turkic origin in the Russian language is presented in the form of connected roots in the composition of stems containing common roots, but having different morphological design.

2. The identification of three main lexico-semantic layers (anthroponyms, toponyms, ethnonyms) in Russian borrowed onomastics allows us to imagine the nature of Turkic onomastics, its distinctive and common features with other languages.

3. Many Turkic anthroponyms in the Russian language remain connected with Turkic ethnonyms, act as correlative pairs, differing in vocalism and consonantism. The etymological analysis of Turkic homonyms in Russian makes it possible to assume that in ". in most cases, the primary terms go back to a common etymon, which is the basis for further semantic changes.

4. Many Türkic homonyms are borrowed by contact languages, * represent derivative forms due to the further morphological development of Türkic roots and stems.

5. The results of lexico-thematic and lexico-semantic studies of the mythological and onomastic vocabulary of the Russian language indicate that borrowed lexemes have features characteristic of all Turkic languages.

Purpose of the study. The main goal of our study is to identify and comprehensive, systemic and complex description of the ethno-cultural elements of the Russian language. Achieving this goal requires setting and solving a number of specific tasks:

Analysis of the lexical structure of Turkic ethno-cultural lexemes in the Russian language;

Establishment and identification of archetypes and proto-forms in the system of Turkic ethno-cultural vocabulary in the Russian language;

Revealing the conceptual-thematic and lexical-semantic categories of ethno-cultural Turkisms and determining their place in the lexical system of the Russian language;

Comparative historical analysis of individual lexemes in terms of resolving the problems of their origin;

Characterization of phonetic, semantic and morphological changes of Turkisms in the system of the Russian language and, if possible, their causal justification.

Scientific novelty of the research. This work is a comprehensive multi-aspect monographic study of ethno-cultural terms of Turkic origin in the Russian language. It consistently examines the phonetic, morphological and lexical-semantic features of the ethno-cultural elements of the Russian language. The problem of the origin of Turkisms is one of the rather complex and controversial problems. In this regard, the dissertation provides a broad coverage of this issue with the involvement of data on the Turkic, Semitic, ^Arabic^ and Indo-European languages. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that various phonetic, semantic and morphological processes characteristic of the Turkisms of the Russian literary language and its dialects are defined and covered in detail.

The theoretical significance of the work lies in the fact that the study of primordial elements and orientalisms at the phonetic, lexical-semantic and morphological levels is of paramount importance for the development of issues of descriptive and comparative historical phonetics, lexicology and morphology of the Russian language. The results of the study of Turkic lexemes and morphemes shed light on a number of unexplained issues of phonetics, morphology, vocabulary and semantics of the Russian language in the system of Turkisms, which makes it possible to trace the history of the development of its many structural patterns at different levels. The solution of such problems is impossible without highlighting a significant layer of Turkisms and their comprehensive and systematic study.

The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the materials and results of the study of ethno-cultural elements in the Russian language can be used: 1) in the practice of teaching the Russian language at school and at the university (special courses and special seminars on lexicology); 2) when compiling textbooks and teaching aids for students in the relevant sections, 3) when compiling various kinds of dictionaries, including when compiling an etymological dictionary of the Russian language; 4) in research on history, ethnography and sociology.

Research methods. The dissertation work mainly uses comparative-historical, comparative-comparative and typological methods with historical and comparative appeals to closely related languages ​​and dialects of Slavic languages. Attempts to clarify the etymology of a number of lexical units required a wide application and methods of comparative historical analysis. In a number of cases, the results of synchronic analysis are covered in the aspect of diachrony, and the method of typological analysis is also involved.

Approbation of work. The main provisions and conclusions of the dissertation research were discussed at a meeting of the Department of Karachay and Nogai Philology and the Department of the Russian Language of the Karachay-Cherkess State University (2001-2005), as well as at the scientific final conferences of teachers and graduate students of the Karachay-Cherkess State University (2002-2005), the results of the study were applied and teaching and working with students. On the topic of the dissertation, articles and abstracts have been published, which reflect the main provisions and results of the study.

Structure and scope of the study. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of used literature and conditional abbreviations.

Similar theses in the specialty "Languages ​​of the peoples of the Russian Federation (indicating a specific language or language family)", 10.02.02 VAK code

• Agrobotanical vocabulary of the Alkhodzhakent dialect of the Kumyk language 2006, candidate of philological sciences Abdullaeva, Umamat Abdullaevna

• Phonetic-morphological and lexical-semantic features of the Yersin dialect of the Azerbaijani language 2006, candidate of philological sciences Magomedova, Elmira Galimovna

• Native and borrowed vocabulary of the Yersin dialect of the Derbent dialect of the Azerbaijani language 2012, candidate of philological sciences Gadzhieva, Narmina Gyulagaevna

• The system of adaptation of borrowed vocabulary of Turkic and Finno-Ugric origin in modern Russian dialects of the Oka-Volga-Sura region 2005, Doctor of Philology Syvorotkin, Mikhail Mikhailovich

• Turkic lexical borrowings in the system of North Caucasian languages 2006, Doctor of Philology Tadinova, Roza Abdumanapovna

Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Languages ​​of the peoples of the Russian Federation (indicating a specific language or language family)", Bauchieva, Zainef Borisovna

CONCLUSION

A comparative typological study of the borrowed onomastic vocabulary of the Russian language shows that it contains several layers of different chronological levels. A significant part of the mythological vocabulary of the Russian language includes words borrowed from the Turkic languages. It contains several sections: a) Oguz-poly-regional onomastics, i.e. onyms characteristic not only for the Turkic languages, but also for some Altaic languages. Most of this vocabulary is presented in the form of connected roots, i.e. as part of the bases containing common roots, but having a different morphological design; b) Oghuz-common Turkic onomastics, i.e. words known within the Oguz and other Turkic languages, but not common in other Altaic languages; c) Oguz-Inter-Turkic onomastics, i.e. words common mainly in the Oguz languages, but also available in some other groups of Turkic languages; d) proper Oghuz onomastics is typical only for the Oghuz languages ​​and is absent in other Turkic languages ​​(absent in other Neo-Oghuz Turkic languages^.

The identification of three main lexical-thematic layers in Russian borrowed onomastics: anthroponyms, toponyms, ethnonyms - gives a sufficient idea of ​​the nature of Turkic onomastics, its distinctive and common features with other languages.

As part of a number of Russian anthroponyms borrowed from a Turkic source, there is an opposition of hard-row and soft-row vowels: -a-= -e- = -i-, which performs a semantic function;

A number of borrowed anthroponyms in the Russian language have been preserved only as part of the passive vocabulary, have become archaisms and are not used in the literary language. Anthroponish in Russian preserve vocative, or vocative, forms of Turkic primary sources. A number of anthroponyms retain forms with an affectionate or diminutive meaning, expressed in the Turkic primary source with the help of various suffixes.

Many Turkic onyms in the Russian language are polysemantic. Many Turkic anthroponyms of the Russian language remain connected with Turkic ethnonyms. Some Turkic anthroponyms in Russian act as correlative pairs, differing in vocalism or consonantism, where one of the components is used as an anthroponym in the male line, the other - in the female line.

In the formation of the Turkic onyms of the Russian language, the phrases play a certain role: a) a combination of antonyms; b) a combination of synonyms; c) defining combinations; d) collective combinations.

The etymological analysis of the Turkic onyms of the Russian language makes it possible to assume that in most cases the primary terms go back to a common etymon, which is the basis for further semantic modifications. The structure of many onyms is determined by the features of not only semantic processes, but also phonetic ones. Peripheral phonetic features of Turkic terms in the system of mythological onomastics have a significant impact on the disclosure of the etymological structure of Turkic mythological terms.

The restored original semes of a number of Turkic onyms of the Russian language receive typological confirmation on the material of other Turkic and Altaic languages. Many Turkic onyms of Russian mythology were borrowed by the contact languages. For the most part, Turkic onyms are derivative forms.

Many Turkic onyms of the Russian language represent a further morphological development of Turkic roots and foundations. The presence in Russian onomastics of a significant number of various specific terms and, in particular, the names of peoples, indicates their acquaintance from ancient times with many other ancient ethnic groups.

The etymological analysis of the Turkic onyms of the Russian language is completely based on their lexical material, which indicates the originality of the main components of this lexical-thematic category.

Russian onyms of Turkic origin, having phonetic-semantic distinctive features, at the same time have common features with some Mongolian parallels. Many onyms are the result of the semantic development of certain lexemes. Some Russian onyms of Turkic origin have passed into the category of archaisms.

In terms of historical morphology, it should be noted that many Turkic onyms of the Russian language are the result of morphological development. A comparative typological study of Russian mythology and onomastics allows us to establish that many terms in the indicated lexical and thematic categories have a direct genetic connection with the corresponding terms of the Mongolian and Tungus-Manchu languages.

The phonetic structure of the Turkic elements of Russian mythological onomastics fully corresponds to the phonetic features of the Turkic languages. At their core, the Turkic variants in the phonetic aspect are secondary forms, since they are almost always the result of natural phonetic changes.

The semantic structure of the Turkic onyms of Russian mythology and onomastics is characterized by a significant branching of sememes connected with each other by various semantic relations. All lexical and thematic categories of onyms analyzed in this work are closely related to each other.

The paper provides an etymological description of a number of Russian mythological terms of Turkic origin. In some cases, our opinion coincides with the assumptions of previous researchers, in all other cases a new etymological interpretation is given. Concerning the problem of native and borrowed vocabulary of the Russian language, it should be noted that among the terms we studied, some can be classified as borrowings, but in the vast majority of cases these terms are native Turkic. The results of the lexico-thematic and lexico-semantic study of the mythological and onomastic vocabulary of the Russian language allow us to assert that all these borrowed lexemes have all the features that are characteristic of all Turkic languages.

Morphological features of the mythological and onomastic vocabulary of the Russian language are clearly revealed on the material of nominal and verbal word formation. In the system of Turkic mythological and onomastic word-formation, the most characteristic suffixes are: -з;-т; -dyz// -holes; -ki; -kyu: -sh; -n; -ur; -kar, -gar.

These are the main results of the first experience of the descriptive-typological study of the mythological and onomastic vocabulary of Turkic origin in the Russian language, the further study of which is an urgent task of modern Russian and Turkic linguistics.

List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Philological Sciences Bauchieva, Zaynef Borisovna, 2005

1. Abaev V.I. Ossetian language and folklore. M.-L., 1949. - T. I.

2. Adilov M. S. Difficult words in modern Azerbaijani language: Abstract of the thesis. diss. cand. philol. Sciences. Baku, 1958.

3. Azerbaev E.G. Issues of Turkic-Japanese language relations: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences.-Alma-Ata, 1982.

4. Aleksandrov L.S. On the concept of synonymy // Lexical synonymy. -M., 1967.

5. Azimov P. Turkmen language (Word-building affixes). - Ashgabat, 1950.

6. Aleksanyan Zh.S. Historical and functional-stylistic characteristics of Russian phraseological units of biblical origin. Abstract dis.cand. philol. Sciences. Makhachkala, 2002.

7. Aleksanyan Zh.S. Biblical phraseological units in the organization of special classes at the university // Humanitarian sciences and new education technologies. Abstracts. report Makhachkala, 2001.

8. Aliev F.F. Essays on the vocabulary of the language of the Turks of Kazakhstan. - Alma-Ata, 1973.

9. Amanzholov S. A. Questions of dialectology and history of the Kazakh language - Alma-Ata, 1959.

10. Amirov G.S. Synonyms in the works of G. Tukay. // Turkic lexicology and lexicography. M., 1971.

11. Amosova M.N. Word and context // Uchenye zapiski Leningrad State University. L., 1958.

12. Antonov N. K. Research on the historical vocabulary of the Yakut language: Abstract of the thesis. diss. Dr. Philol. Sciences. -Yakutsk, 1973.

14. Arakin V.D. Compound nouns with the first adjective component of color in Turkish. // Turcolodika. To the 70th anniversary of Academician A.N. Kononov. JL, 1976.

15. Aslanov V.I. Historical lexicology of the Azerbaijani language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences-Baku, 1973.

16. Aslanov V.I. On lexical parallels in "Kutadgu Bilik" and in the Azerbaijani language. // ST, 1970. No. 4.

17. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M., 1966.

18. Akhmetyanov R. G. General vocabulary of the spiritual culture of the peoples of the Middle Volga.-M., 1981.

19. Akhundov A. The experience of phonetic generalization and grammatical description of body parts in the Azerbaijani language // ST, 1976, No. 5.

20. Akhundov A. Names of parts of the human body ending in -z in the Azerbaijani language // Soviet Turkology. Baku, 1978. - No. 3.

21. Baghirov G. Lexico-semantic development of the verb in the Azerbaijani language: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . Dr. Philol. Sciences. -Baku, 1966.

22. Basel Ch. E. Linguistic typology // Principles of typological analysis of languages ​​of various systems. M., 1972.

23. Bazilkhan B. Brief comparative-historical grammar of the Mongolian and Kazakh languages. Alma-Ata, 1974.

24. Bayramov G.A. Fundamentals of the phraseology of the Azerbaijani language: Abstract of the thesis. diss. Dr. Philol. Sciences. -Baku, 1970.

25. Bakirov M.Kh. Genesis and ancient forms of pan-Turkic poetry. Abstract of the thesis. Ph.D. thesis Sciences. Kazan, 1999.

26. Bakirov M.Kh. Mythology, folklore genrelars Bem shigyr gyyleme buencha mekaleler seriase (Series of articles on mythology, folklore genres and theory of verse) // Edebiyat beleme suzlege (Dictionary literary terms) .-Kazan, 1990 .

27. Bakirov M.Kh. Sak belen Sok kaylardan quile? (Where did Sak28 come from

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

Common lexical elements of Turkic and Armenian, Greek and Latin languages.

If we talk about the Turkic-Indo-European lexical correspondences, then in many respects this area of ​​linguistics still remains largely unexplored. The results of studies carried out by the graphic-analytical method allow us to look at the relationship between the Indo-European and Turkic languages ​​from a new angle. The work proposed here is only the first step of such an approach, and, of course, some part of the given Turkic-Indo-European correspondences is accidental. But the author considered it his duty to cite doubtful cases as well, for it is better to take into consideration all the possibilities than to immediately discard something interesting or even important. Over time, when there are other explanations for individual correspondences, they will be excluded from the list. It should be borne in mind that the list was compiled only to confirm the European ancestral home of the Turks and is not an etymological guide. Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of such "critics" who, having seen one or two erroneous cases, immediately cross out the entire list. This is the logic of the "Stone Age", but, oddly enough, is quite widespread in our time.

Undoubtedly, in the Turkic and Indo-European languages ​​there is a certain number of roots that can be attributed to those times when the ancient ancestors of the Turks and Indo-Europeans inhabited neighboring areas in the interfluve of the Kura and Araks in Transcaucasia.

Contacts between the ancient Turks and the ancient Indo-Europeans continued after the migration of both ethnic groups from Transcaucasia to Eastern Europe. The closest neighbors of the Turks in Eastern Europe were the proto-Armenians. Accordingly, quite a lot of words of Turkic origin were found in the Armenian language, although, obviously, not all of them. Through the ancient Armenian part of the Turkic words even got into the ancient Greek. Below are the Turkisms in the Armenian language, which sometimes have correspondences in Greek and Latin.

arm. altiur“damp lowland, meadow, swamp” - Tur., Tat., Karach., Balk. alt"bottom", "lower", etc.

arm. asu"channel" - rasp. Turk. aryk"ditch".

arm. acux"coal" - sp. Turk. o:ž "ak"furnace" (Chuv. vucax, tour. okak etc.), in addition, Turkmen. cog, tour. Sovg, Kaz. sok, Uzbek čůg hot coals, etc.

arm. alap' aŕnem"rob" - Chuv. ulap“giant”, D. Turk. alp, tat alyp and others “hero, hero”, tour. alp"hero", "brave".

arm. alik'“wave”, “shaft” (another meaning is “gray beard, gray hair”, Gyubshman connects both meanings, which is unconvincing), gr. αλοζ “furrow” – Tur. oluk, eider. xolluk, Chuv. valak“chute” Karach., Balk. uuaq"wavy".

arm. antas"forest" - eider. andyz“shrub, grove”, tour. andIz"elecampane". There are also similar words in other Turkic languages, but they all mean different plants. Only in Armenian and Gagauz do they mean "forest".

arm. atkhi"leg" - Society. Turk. ajaq/adaq"leg".

arm. garš-i-m“disdain, abhor” - Turkm. garsy, eider. karsy, tour. karsi, Chuv. xirs"against".

arm. gjul"village" - gag. kuu"village"

arm. gor"lamb" - rasp. Turk. gozy/qozy"lamb".

arm. helg"lazy" - Society. Turk. jalta/jalka“lazy” (Karach, Balk. jalk, Chuv. julxav, tat. jalkau, Kaz. žalkau and etc.)

arm. ji, gr. ιπποσ “horse”, lat. equa, rum. iapa"Mare" - Society. Turk. jaby, jabu"horse", Turkm. jaby, Chuv. jupax. In Armenian, in the intervocalic position, the sound R disappears. Hubschman connects the arm. word with skr. haya“horse”, phonetically distant.

arm. kamar"vault", gr. καμαρα “vaulted room”, lat. camurus"twisted, vaulted", camerare"form a vault" - tour. kubur“case, trumpet”, Uzbek. dial. qumur, Kaz. dial. quvyr"chimney" Obviously, Turkish words are a derivative of kopur“bridge” (see below).

arm. kamurj'"bridge", gr. γαφυρα "dam, bridge" - commonly. Turk. kopur"bridge" (ch. keper, Karach., Balk. kopur, tat. kuper and etc.). Sir Gerard Clawson suggests the origin of the Turkic word from the root kop-"foam, boil", which is completely unconvincing. Perhaps, Armenian, Greek and other Indo-European words with the meaning “goat” (lat. caper, Celt. caer, gabor etc.) Later, in some Germanic languages, words appeared with a meaning close to the meaning of the bridge, but already a borrowing from Latin (goal. keper, German Kapfer beam head, etc.)

arm. sta-na-m"to buy" - Chuv. sut"sell", tour. satin“purchase”, Balk., Karach. satyb"purchase" etc.

arm. Seł"oblique", gr. σκολιοσ “curve” – Chuv. Calas“bevel, slope”, Tat. culak, tour. calIk"crooked".

arm. tal, gr. γαλωσ, lat. glos"daughter-in-law" - Turk. gellin"bride-in-law".

arm. tarap'"rain" - Chuv. tapar"waterhole".

arm. teleli"place" - Chuv. tl"place".

arm. t"uk""saliva" - Turkm. tujkulik, Karach., Balk. tukuruk"saliva", eider. tukurmäa"spit", etc.

arm. thosel"fly" - Turk. dus- "fall".

Not all Turkisms have been preserved in the Armenian language, and some have not yet been discovered, so there is a group of Turkic roots present only in Greek. There is no doubt that for some of them, over time, correspondences can be found in Armenian. A separate group among the Greek-Turkic lexical correspondences are Greek-Chuvash, which occur from a later time. The ancient Bulgars, staying in the Black Sea region for a long time, borrowed a certain number of words from Greek, but Armenian correspondences are not necessary for them. They are on the same list.

gr. αγροσ, lat. age, German Acker"field" - Turk. ek-(Chuv. ak, akăr) "sow". Frisk considers Indo-European words to be borrowed.

gr. αιτεω “to ask, demand” – Chuv. viten"begging", tour. otunmek"to ask, to bother", D. Turk. ajit- “ask”, etc. Frisk does not give a reliable etymology of the word.

gr. ακακια, lat. acacia; "acacia" - Society. Turk. agoc"wood". Frisk considers the Greek word "foreign".

gr. αλφι "barley", αλφη "barley groats" - commonly. Turk. arpa"barley".

gr. αμα "medicine" - Society. Turk. em-“medicine, treat” (turkm., gag., tur. em).

gr. αραχνη, lat. araneus"spider" - Chuv. eresmen, eider. orumzak, az. horumcək"spider". Frisk becomes possible kinship with αρκυσ "network", which does not have a reliable etymology.

gr. αρμα, "cart" – dist. Turk. Araba, arba"cart".

gr. αρωμα "smell" - Türkic. aram/erem(Chuv. erem) "wormwood". See also Chuv. armuti. Frisk marks the word as "inexplicable".

gr. αρσην “man” – Chuv. arcyn"Human". There are identical, according to Frisk, Iranian words Av., Other Persian. arsan-, there is also a similar word in Armenian - asn(from ancient arsn). However, judging by phonetics, the Chuvash word was borrowed from Greek.

gr. αρταω “hang up, hang up” – Chuv. urtan"hang", tour. tat., kaz. art- “hang”, etc. Frisk considers the Greek word derived from αειρω, which is doubtful. This is a borrowing from Turkic.

gr. αταλοσ "young" – Chuv. atalan"develop".

gr. δεω "bind" - Society. Turk. duv- "knot" (turkm. duvun, Chuv. tEvE and etc.). Frisk connects the Greek word with OE. dita- "connected".

gr. ηθμοσ “sieve, sieve” – Chuv. atma"net for catching fish, birds." Frisk does not give a reliable etymology for the Greek word, but it comes from ηθεω "sift through a sieve". Obviously the Chuvash word is borrowed from Greek.

gr. κηλη "tumor" – Chuv. kele"heel"

gr. κηλησισ “bewitching power” – Chuv. kělě "prayer". Doubtful parallel.

gr. κηροσ “wax, honeycombs” – Chuv. Karas"honeycombs". The source of borrowing into Chuvash is unknown, since the root of the word is of Indo-European origin and is present in many languages.

gr. κορβανοσ "temple treasury" – Chuv. kărman"body".

gr. κορωνη "any curved object" – Chuv. xuran"cauldron, cauldron".

gr. λακκοσ, lat. lacus, irl. loch etc. “pit, puddle, lake” – Chuv. lakam"pit",

gr. λισγαριον (λισγοσ) “hoe” – Crimean-Tat. uluskar, Kaz. lesker"hoe". Frisk does not find a reliable explanation for the word.

gr. λάτρις "servant", λατρεύς "servant", lat. latro 1. "servant". 2. "robber", OE loddere"beggar", Dr.-V.-N. lotar"empty, vain", German. Lotterbube"lodar" - Chuv. lutra"short".

gr. μηκον “poppy” – Chuv. măkăn'"poppy".

gr. μηλον “small cattle, sheep” - commonly. Turk. mal"livestock, property".

gr. μονασ “proud” – Chuv. manas"lonely".

gr. μόσσυν “wooden tower” – Chuv. maš"tower".

gr. παλτον “spear, dart” – commonly. Turk. balta"axe".

gr. παστη “dough” – Karach., Balk. basta"porridge".

gr. πυργοσ “tower”, lat. burgus“castle, tower” - D. Turk. barq“house, building”, Chuv. purak“(cylindrical) box”, germ. * burg(German Burg“burg, city), Alb. burg"prison". Frisk considers it possible to borrow a Greek word from a Germanic one. Obviously, the word common in many languages ​​\u200b\u200bcan be attributed to this root barrack obscure origin.

gr. πυροσ “wheat”, lit. pūraĩ"winter wheat", rus. wheatgrass- Chuv. pări"spelt". The word is of Indo-European origin. The source of borrowing into Chuvash is unknown.

gr. σακκοσ “bag”, lat. saccus"bag" - Chuv. sak“top”, Ukrainian, Russian, sak“fishing tackle in the form of a bag” and other Slavic words of this type.

gr. σαρδινη “herring” – Chuv. çărtan"pike".

gr. θαλασσα “sea” – dist. Turk. talaj, talaš"sea".

gr. υλη “forest” – Chuv. ulax"water meadow".

gr. φιλεω “to love” – Chuv. pĕl“to know, to be able, to pay attention, to feel”.

gr. χαρτησ “papyrus map”, lat. carta “paper, sheet” – Chuv. xărta"patch". Frisk notes the word as being of unclear origin.

gr. χολη “bile” – Chuv. xala"Bulany" (light yellow). The word is of Indo-European origin, but the Greek form is closest to the Chuvash.

gr. χορτοσ “pen, hedge”, lat. hortus garden, germ. gardon"garden" - Chuv. karta"fence, fence"

From the third millennium BC. part of the ancient Turks, known as carriers of the culture of battle axes and corded ceramics, moved to the Right Bank of the Dnieper and further to Central Europe. We do not know how many and which of the Turkic tribes crossed the Dnieper. It is only known for sure that most of them assimilated among the Indo-Europeans and pre-Indo-European natives. Only one Turkic tribe, namely the tribe of the ancient Bulgars, retained its ethnic identity. The first with whom the Turks came into linguistic contact on the Right Bank were the bearers of the Trypillia culture. Obviously, some words from the Trypillian language have been preserved in the language of modern Chuvash, who are descendants of the ancient Bulgars. In addition, the ancient Bulgars must have had contacts with the Italics and Illyrians in those days. Since that time, lexical parallelisms have been found in the Latin and Chuvash languages. Naturally, in the examples given, most of the Chuvash words:

lat. abbas"abbot" - Chuv. apas"priest". In the etymological dictionary Latin (Walde A.1965). this word is not considered and is considered to be borrowed through Greek from Aramaic ( abba"father"), At first, this word was allegedly used in prayers in the meaning of "my father" ( Kluge Friedrich. 1989, 7). However, Chuv. apăs"priest", which comes from an ancient Turkic word for close relatives, including father ( aba/apa), as a source of borrowing, should have an advantage, because when borrowing from Aramaic and using in prayers, the word abbas should have been used when referring to God and not to His servants.

lat. alga"algae", Norv. dial. ulka“tina” – Chuv. jalma"mud, silt, slime". Kornilov also parallels Chuv. jylxa"duct".

lat. amicuc"friend", amō"I love" - ​​Chuv. dial. ami friend, brother. The Latin word is considered to be borrowed from an unknown language (W.);

lat. arca"box" - Chuv. arca"box". The Latin word comes from arceō“I close”, akin to the Greek αρκεω “I save” (W.);

lat. artemisia"wormwood" - Chuv. armuti"sagebrush". German Wermut"wormwood" is also here. In the etymological dictionary of the Latin language, this word is not considered.

lat. cama“short board, bunks, shelf” – Chuv. khama"board". The Latin word is considered to be borrowed from the Celto-Iberian. (W.);

lat. candere"to be red-hot", gr. κανδαροσ "hot coals, heat", etc. I.-e. - Chuv. kǎntǎr"noon, south".

lat. casa“house, hut” – Chuv. kasa"street", previously meant "settlement". The Latin word belongs to the words of a common root kat- with the meaning "house";

lat. caudex, cōdex“trunk, stump” - Turkish, eider. kutuk"trunk, stump". It is believed that the Latin word is derived from cudere"beat" (W.);

lat. cicuta"hemlock" - Chuv. kiken"hellebore". Both plants are poisonous. The Latin word does not have convincing I.-e. parallels (W.);

lat. citare"to move" cito"fast" - Chuv. xytă"strong", "fast", karach., balk. qaty"fast";

lat. cocles, literally, “crooked, one-eyed” – Chuv. kuklek“curve”/ The Latin word has no reliable etymology, possibly borrowed from Greek (W.);

lat. cupa"bucket, barrel" - Turkish, Turk. kova, chag. qopa and other similar “buckets”. Indo-European words of a similar meaning do not quite correspond phonetically (see W.);

lat. cura"care" - Chuv. xural"security". The connections of the Latin word are doubtful (see W.);

lat. delirium"nonsense" - chuv tiler, tat. tiles"crazy". The Latin word has no etymology (W.);

lat. fabula"gossip" - Chuv. pavra"talk, talk" The Latin word has no close parallels in the Indo-European languages, but it is believed that it comes from I.-E. * bha- “to speak” (W.);

lat. * falterna plant of the family kirkazonovyh ( Aristolochia) - Chuv. věltěren"nettle" ( Urtica Gen) - the Latin word is restored by Meyer-Lübke on the basis of the French fauterne and Old Provencal fauterna with the note “Woher?” (where?). One can assume the ancient Bulgarian origin of the word;

lat. farnus"ash tree" - Chuv. verene"maple". The supposed Etruscan origin of the word is unfounded (W.);

lat. faux"throat" - gag. buaz Kirg. buvaz, Tur., Kaz., Karach., Balk. bogaz etc. “throat, pharynx”. The Latin word has no reliable parallels in the Indo-European languages ​​(W.);

lat. felix"fertile" - Chuv. pulǎx"fertility";

lat. finis"end, limit" - Chuv. pinĕš"one thousand";

lat. homo“man, man, husband” - the word borrowed from the Italians by the ancestors of the Chuvash subsequently lost, but its traces were preserved in the second part of the Chuv. pajaxam"brother-in-law". The first part of the word meant "sister". It is also lost in Chuvash, but is present in other closely related Turkic languages: Turkm. bajy, “husband's sister”, tour. bacI"sister". In general, the word stands for "sister's husband", but the brother-in-law is the husband's brother. This discrepancy is explained by the fact that the relationship of the same person's kinship may be different depending on the side of kinship, which often leads to a change in the meaning of the same word. Perhaps Chuv. xǎrxǎm"slave", which can be translated as "cowardly person" ( xǎra"cowardly").

lat. ius, iuris 1. right - Chuv. jărăs"straight", tour. yasa“law, charter”, Karach. džoruq“law”, etc. The assignment of the Latin word to the Indo-Aryan words with the meaning “healthy, sacred” (Other Ind. voh) is very doubtful (div. W).

lat. ius, iuris 2. soup, ear - Chuv. jaska- the general name of the first dishes, juskăň"silt, mud." The assignment of the Latin word to the I.-E root iūs “multiply” looks doubtful (see W.)

lat. lacuna“swamp, deepening, failure” – Chuv. lakham"pit". The Latin word refers to the I.-e root * lacu"wet lowland" (W.)

lat. lama"swamp" - Chuv. lam"moisture, dampness". The Latin word is associated with ltsh. lama“low place, puddle”, lit. lama“low place on the field”, Bolg. crowbar “pit, cellar” (W.)

lat. mel"honey" - Turkic. ba:l“honey” is represented in the Gagauz, Turkish, Kazakh, Uzbek, Kyrgyz and other languages. Sir Gerard Clauson writes in his work: “It is generally accepted that this word (Turkic - V.S.) is a very early borrowing from some Indo-European language, which can be dated to the period when m was unacceptable at the beginning of a word and was therefore replaced by b . The closest parallel is lat. mel; Sanskrit form - madhu» ( Clauson Gerard, 1972, 330). However, the Sanskrit form belongs to the Indo-European root * medhu(see Pokorny). Gr. μελι "honey" and other similar words found in Germanic, Celtic, Armenian are the best matches, but the origin of this word is difficult to determine.

lat. mutare"change, change" - Chuv. mutala"confuse, confuse"

lat. noxa"loss, harm" - Chuv. nusa"trouble, misfortune."

lat. order“row”, “order”, “order of battle”, “detachment” - Society. Turkic orda"army" (turkm., kaz. orda, Chuv. urta tour., az. order etc.) The Latin word can be attributed to I.-e. * ar- "to connect, to determine." In this case, it is an ancient Nostratic root.

lat. pandura"three-stringed lute" - Chuv. păntăr-păntăr- imitation of strumming, strumming of strings, păntărtat- 1. strum, strum, make strumming, strumming sounds ( about stringed instruments), 2. crack, rumble ( about the drum)

lat. publicare"to publish" - Chuv. puple"interpret, talk, converse"

lat. pudis"Lice" - Society. Turk. bit"louse" (Chuv. pyjta, the rest - bit/pit). In the etymological dictionary of the Latin language, this word is not considered.

lat. puris"pus" - Chuv. pur"pus". Word of Indo-European origin (*pu- “rot”);

lat. quattuar"four" - Chuv tăvattă“four” in this form is borrowed from the Italians (in other Turkic languages ​​- dort/cake).

lat. Roma"Rome" - Chuv. uram, car. oram"the street". The origin of the name of the city from “Asia Minor” is not excluded * rōme"village". As you know, Rome developed from one street (see W.);

lat. saliva“saliva” is most likely borrowed from Turkic (Chuv. selleke, Turkm. selki, tat. silegej etc. “saliva”), and not related to Celtic words of distant meaning and form (for example, other Irish. sail). See W.;

lat. sapa“juice”, north-germ. safe and other similar Germanic “juice – Chuv. sapakh"ooze". Indo-European words do not have a satisfactory etymology (see W.);

lat. sāpa, -ōne, eng. soap, German Seife and others similar germ. "soap" - Chuv. supan"soap".

lat. sarda, sardine“different types of fish” – Chuv. çărtan"pike";

lat. scopula"broom" - Chuv. šăpăr“broom, broom”;

lat. sĕrra“saw” – Chuv. sĕr"to rub, to saw".

lat. sollicitare"Shake" - Society. Turk. (Chuv. sille, Turkm. selkildemek, tour. silkmek etc. “shake”). It is believed that the Latin word comes from ciēre “to move, force, agitate” (W.), which is phonetically flawed.

lat. taberna"tavern" - Chuv. tavar"salt". As noted in previous works ( Stetsyuk Valentin, 1998, 57), for the Bulgars, salt was the main export item and therefore acquired the meaning of “commodity”. In Armenian tavar means "sheep" and "flock of sheep", in the Turkic languages ​​it corresponds to tuuar"herd", tour. tavar"property", "livestock", Balkar., kr. tat. t u'ar"the same" In many Iranian languages ​​there are words tabar/teber/tevir“ax”, while in the Finno-Ugric words of this root they mean “cloth” (Sami. tavar, Mar. tuvir, hunt. tagar). All these things were objects of exchange and trade. Latin word * taber of unknown meaning has disappeared, but a derivative remains taberna, whose origin is inferred from trabs“beam, beam”, which is unconvincing. Similarly unconvincing borrowing from the Etruscan language (W.)

lat. (Sabine) teba"hill, hill" - Society. Turk. (Chuv. tupe, tour. tepe, Kaz. tobe etc. “mountain, peak”).

lat. tergus"back" - Chuv. tĕrke"knot, skein, armful."

lat. tortus“winding, twisted” – Chuv. tarta"twist, bridge a nest." The Latin word has no reliable etymology (W.)

lat. torus"elevation" - Chuv. tără"vertex". In the etymological dictionary of the Latin language, the word is not considered in this sense (W.)

lat. tuba"pipe" - Chuv. tupă"a gun".

lat. tunica“type of clothing” – Chuv. tum"coverage, cover"

lat. ūsus, ūtor“benefit, use, custom” – Chuv. usa"benefit". Indo-European parallels to numerous Latin words of this root are doubtful (W.)

lat. vacca"cow" - Chuv. văkăr"bull". The Ukrainian language has a word Waqar"shepherd of cattle." It is considered to be borrowed from the Romanian văkar “the same”, which comes from lat. * vacarius associated with lat. vacca (Melnychuk O.S. 1982, 321). Lat. vacca contacts other ind. vasa "calf cow" (W.);

lat. Vallis"valley" - Chuv. valak"gutter".

lat. vapor“steam, smoke, fire” – Chuv. Vupăr"unclean spirit"

lat. vetare“not to allow, forbid, contradict” – Chuv. vit"cover, protect, overcome."

lat. villa"country house" - Chuv. velle"hive".

lat. virga“branch, twig” without correspondences in other Indo-European languages ​​(see W.) – Old Turk. berga“rod, rod, whip”, Haqqani, Uighur berge"whip". Gerard Clauson writes: "This is supposed to be a borrowing from the Latin virga‘rod, stick’ adopted through Middle Persian, but there are no traces of this word in Persian, and the theory is unfounded” ( Clauson Gerard, 1972, 363). This also includes Hungarian. virgacz“twig, rod”, whose borrowing from Latin is doubtful. In this case, Hung can be compared to them. virgin“agile, nimble, lively”, which has a correspondence in the Chuvash - virken"rush". Obviously, this is a wandering word, traces of which in different, but close meanings can be found in many languages ​​(for example, Erzya verka"quick", Russian tag and other similar Slavic ones with the meanings “twig”, “tree earring”, etc., German. Birke and other similar German "birch", Hung. virag"flowers", marie vurgo"stalk", Kurd. wurg"alive"). If the carriers of the Trypillian culture were Semites, then the fundamental principle of all these words may be a word close to ar. firh and other Hebrew. perax"flower". Then lat. virgo“virgin” of unclear origin (W.) should be included here (cf. “defloration”).

lat. vulgus, volgō, vulgus“people”, “herd”, “crowd”, lat vulgaris“ordinary, simple” – Chuv. pulkka“herd”, “flock”, “crowd”, Bulgars- the name of one of the Turkic tribes, German. Volk, eng. folk, "people", other ind. vargah"group", a few Celtic words and an ethnonym wolves also belong here (W.)

Literature

Melnichuk O.S. (Ed.) 1982-1989 - . Etymological dictionary of Ukrainian language. Kyiv.

Nadelyaev V.M., Nasilov D.M., Tenishev E.R., Shcherbak A.M. 1969. Ancient Turkic Dictionary. Leningrad.

Vasmer Max. 1964-1974. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow. "Progress".

Clauson Gerard, Sir (1972). An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford.

Frisk H. (1970). Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg.

Hübschman Heinrich (1972). Armenische Grammatik. Erster Teil. Etymology. Hidelsheim - New York.

Kluge Friedrich (1989). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin-New York.

Meyer-Lübke W. (1992). Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg.

Pokorny J. (1949-1959). Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern.

(W.) - Walde A. (1965). Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg.