Complex Tatar words are examples. Difficult words
Full text of the dissertation abstract on the topic "Compound words in the modern Tatar language: problems of lexicography and spelling"
As a manuscript
Tagirova Fyaridya Insanovna
Compound words in the modern Tatar language: problems of lexicography and spelling
10.02.02 - Languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation (Tatar language)
dissertations for the degree of candidate of philological sciences
Kazan-2004
The work was done in the Department of Lexicology and Lexicography of the Institute of Language, Literature and Art named after A.I. G. Ibragimova Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan
Official opponents:
Khisamova Fagima Mirgalievna (Kazan)
Doctor of Philology, Professor
Arslanov Leonid Shaysultanovich (G. Elabuga)
Lead Institution:
Chuvash State Institute for the Humanities
The dissertation defense will take place on March 30, 2004. at 13 o'clock at a meeting of the dissertation council D 022.001.01 at the Institute of Language, Literature and Art. G.Ibragimov of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan.
Address: 420111, Kazan, Lobachevsky st., 2/31, PO box 263.
The dissertation can be found in the Central Library of the Kazan Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Kazan, Lobachevsky st., 2/31).
Scientific Secretary of the Dissertation Council:
Candidate of Philological Sciences - Saberova G.G.
The relevance of research. “Composition is a very natural, very common way of creating new words in one language, while its role is very small in another. If for German language words like kleinburgertum "petty bourgeoisie", morgendummerung "dawn" are normal, even Slavic languages do not show a great propensity for this type of neoplasms ”(Bulakhovsky, 1953, 94). As for the Turkic languages, V.V. Radlov in this respect believed that “the confluence of some nominal and verbal stems in the Turkic languages to designate one concept is a universal phenomenon.” Now more and more researchers are coming to the conclusion that this phenomenon is typical, if not for all, then for most of the languages of the world and is very ancient. So, according to experts, composites existed in the Proto-Slavic (Filin, 1977, 15), Old Turkic (Makhmatkulov, 1973, 409), Altai and Sumerian (Tuna, 40). It is no coincidence that complex words are recorded in all ancient Turkic monuments. So, in only one "Kutadgu bilig" there are 2830 compound words, of which 268 are names. The study of compound words as a linguistic phenomenon also has a long history. Scientific interest in them is found already among the authors of the very first grammars and dictionaries. The history of the study of complex vocabulary in Turkic studies, in turn, has already become the object of description (Garipov, 1954; Abdurakhmanov, 1975; Ganiev, 1982, etc. From later authors - Akhmedov, 1991).
But, despite the fact that compound words are one of the most studied subjects in Turkic studies and quite successfully developed in Tatar linguistics, there is an urgent need to consider the problem of compound words, especially those aspects that are associated with the practical implementation of these units in the language. For example , the problem of identifying complex lexemes remains not fully resolved.Since in practice there is a lack of distinction between complex words and similar constructions.This problem is directly related to another - with
At present, there is an inconsistent shaping of “similar compound words, not only in different languages of the same system, but also in the same language. This situation in spelling, in turn, entails problems in lexicography, consisting in the absence of consistent principles of selection and presentation and, consequently, inadequate reflection of complex words in dictionaries. In this context, this study, in our opinion, is devoted to a very relevant topic.
The relevance of the study is also explained by the fact that theoretical research on this problem both in Turkology and Tatar linguistics, with rare exceptions, is limited to the 50-70s. 20th century The renewal of scientific interest is observed in the Western languages of the Slavic group (for example, the works of Goverdovsky, Bliharsky, Grzhigorzhikova, Handke, Jeziorsky, Miodek, etc.). There is a need to revise some issues, taking into account the current level of development of the theory of language.
Research objectives:
To achieve these goals, the following tasks were defined:
Reveal the most typical mistakes in the translation of complex Christmas trees and submission in translation dictionaries;
To analyze the existing spelling of compound words in the Tatar language and in other Turkic languages, on the basis of which to develop recommendations for its improvement.
The material of the study is the complex words of the Tatar language, selected by continuous sampling from the 3-volume Explanatory Dictionary of the Tatar language and partly from other dictionaries, with a total of about seven thousand items. Compound words of other Turkic languages served as a comparative material. The object of the analysis was explanatory and translation dictionaries of the Tatar language and other Turkic languages.
Descriptive method;
The theoretical significance of the study is determined by the fact that as a result, an integral idea of the level of theoretical and
practical development of the problem of compound words in Turkology and Tatar linguistics, a solution to a number of problems of spelling, lexicography and identification of compound words is proposed. The results obtained can serve as a basis for determining the general patterns of development of complex vocabulary and. for< решения других, теоретических вопросов по соответствующей проблематике.
The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the results of the study can be used to improve the spelling rules of compound words, to compile explanatory and translation dictionaries of the Tatar language, to improve and unify them, and can also be useful* in the theory and practice of translating from Russian into Tatar and from Tatar to Russian.
Approbation of work. The main provisions of the dissertation were set out in. speeches at the final scientific "conferences of the IYALI named after G. Ibragimov of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan (1993-2003), at international and regional scientific conferences: at the terminological conference under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan (Kazan, 1993)," The linguistic situation in the Republic of Tatarstan: state and prospects "(Kazan, 1998), "Problems of the history, culture and development of the languages of the peoples" of Tatarstan and the Volga-Ural region" (Kazan, 2000), "Word formation in the Turkic languages" (Kazan, 2001), "Actual problems of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric philology: theory and experience of studying "(Elabuga, 2002), at the international symposium "Formation and development of the literary languages of the peoples of the Volga region" (Izhevsk, 2003), etc. A total of 19 reports were read. The main content of the work is reflected in 13 publications.
Chapter 1. General theoretical issues of studying compound words in the modern Tatar language is devoted to the most general issues of studying compound words. In the introductory remarks, the history of the study of compound words in Turkic studies and in Tatar linguistics is briefly given. Some composites are already given in the grammar of F. Meninsky (1680). M.A. Kazembek dwells on the formation of compound words, especially verbs. M. Terentiev draws attention to some words formed by stratification. N.I. Ashmarin examines complex words in some detail, both names and verbs. N.F.Katanov draws attention to the complex ("compound") verbs in the Tuvan language. A. Samoilovich and N.P. Dyrenkova also dwell on the formation of compound words. Such Turkologists as V.A.Gordlevsky, V.M.Nasilov, N.K.Dmitriev, N.A.Baskakov, A.N.Kononov, cover many issues of composition in the Turkic languages. Later, E.V. Sevortyan, A.T. Kaydarov, M.I. Adilov, T.M. Garipov, R.A. Agashga, R. Berdyev, B.O. M.A. Khabichev, N.M. Mamatov, A.Yu. Boziev, D. Madaliev and others.
In Tatar linguistics, no less attention was paid to complex words. Already in the first grammars of the Tatar language, examples of compound words are given, although they are not studied in detail. So, I. Giganov gives a definition of a compound word, but believes that there are very few compound words in the Tatar language. M. Ivanov also divides words into simple and complex. G. Makhmudov and H. Feyzhanov find only compound verbs ("compound"). K. Nasyri in his grammar (1860) gives paired words. And then all famous linguists in their grammars or special works turn to compound words. it
Sh.Akhmerov, AkhMaksudi, G.Nugaybek, G.Ibragimov, J.Validi, M.Kurbangaliev, I.K.Badigov, G.Alparov, Sh.A.Ramazanov, V.N.Khangildin and others. differently, and the further, the more successfully, questions of composition, classification of compound words are investigated. Later, the work of F.S. Faseev, Kh.R. Kurbatov, F.A. Ganiev and others was devoted to the problem of compound words.
In our work, we are based on those theoretical provisions that were developed by previous authors. In this section, the unit studied in the work is defined - a compound word. We use the term compound word (kushma suz) as a generic term, i.e. to denote all structural types of compound words. This term gradually established itself in Turkology as a generic term in the 70-80s. after a long period of confusion in terms. The international word of the composite is its equivalent. As specific terms, we use the terms proper compound word (saf kushma suz), compound word (tezme suz), paired word (parly suz).
In Tatar linguistics, there were classifications of compound words according to the methods of formation, according to the relationship of components, and some other features. Since compound words are a common language phenomenon, the classifications of compound words are mainly applicable to different languages. We found it possible to expand the classification through new classification features used in other languages: by correlation - incompatibility with the phrase - syntactic and asyntactic compound words; according to the location of the components - contact and distact; according to the dominance of one of the components - progressive and regressive; according to the degree of semantic cohesion of components or idiomaticity and non-idiomaticity - direct and indirect; according to the structural features of the components - primary, secondary and aggregative; according to the morphological belonging of the components and the word - exocentric and endocentric, etc.
Judging by the history of the study of composites, the level of research of different structural types is not the same. This may be due to objective reasons, since the object of research is usually aspects containing unresolved problems. So, in this chapter, we considered it possible to ignore the actual compound words, since their spelling, presentation in dictionaries and identification differ little from a simple word and do not cause problems. Other aspects - methods of education, types and models of education, morphological, semantic and other features - are described in some detail, for example, in the work of F.A. Ganiev (1982), in Tatar Grammar (1993). Other structural types; those. we consider paired and compound words in more detail, since, due to their structural features, they are similar to other constructions or require spelling improvements.
First section. Compound words in the grammars of the Turkic languages is devoted to the analysis of the main grammars of the Turkic languages. We considered the appeal to them legitimate, since, in our opinion, grammars are a kind of indicator that reflects the general theoretical level of particular linguistics. We were interested in the degree of development of the problem of compound words in different languages of the Turkic system, their differences and commonality with the grammars of the Tatar language. In this aspect, the modern grammars of the Tatar, Bashkir, Karachay-Balkarian, Karaite, Uzbek, Turkmen, Turkish and other languages of the leading Turkologists were analyzed. The analysis shows that in general, in all grammars, quite a lot of attention is paid to complex words, their various classifications are given, especially according to education models. Some of the above models, in our opinion, are also of interest in practical terms, since they can be used to term creation in the Tatar language.Despite the fact that there is a certain inconsistency or vagueness in some issues (for example, mixing in the classification of complex words the part of speech components, the semantic relations of the components
and syntactic functions of the components), erroneous consideration of structures that are not complex words, etc., in general, the basic grammars of the Turkic languages are of interest both in practical and theoretical terms.
Obviously, grammars reflect the degree of development of the problem of compound words in each language separately and in Turkic studies in general, and demonstrate a clear trend towards improvement.
Second section. Paired words as a kind of compound words. Paired words, despite the many scientific works devoted to them, often raise doubts about their status, spelling, translation. Therefore, we have devoted a separate section to them. The study shows that such a linguistic phenomenon as paired words is typical not only for Tatar, but also for all Turkic languages, as well as the languages of the Ural-Volga region. Moreover, they are observed in almost all languages of the world, although not everyone uses them equally widely. According to some linguists, the leading typological feature in the Tatar language, as in all Turkic languages, is the presence of paired words, which make up 40% of the number of nominal composites of the Tatar language (Sadykova, 1992, 10). It is no coincidence that a huge number of works are devoted to the study of paired words, and not only in Tatar linguistics. In Russian linguistics, this topic was covered by such scientists as A.A. Potebnya, V.V. Vinogradov, A.M. Shcherbak, G.V. Stepanov and others. In Turkology, this problem was considered by N.I. , A.N. Kononov, N.K. Dmitriev, N.A. Baskakov, A.G. Kaidarov, R.A. Aganin, B.O. Oruzbaev,
V.G.Egorov, M.A.Khabichev, Z.B.Urinbaev, M.I.Adilov, N.M.Mamatov,
S.N.Muratov, T.M.Garipov, T.B.Kalabaeva? and others. In Mongolian studies, G.S. Bitkeeva, P.I. Bertagaev, L. Beshe, U.Zh.Sh. Dondukov, A.A. Darbeeva and others devoted their works to paired words. According to the abundance of works, paired words can be considered the most studied subject.
In Tatar linguistics, this problem was paid more or less attention in their works by V.N. Khangildin, Z.M. Valiullina,
K.3.3innatullina, L.Zalyay, D.G.Tumasheva, F.S.Faseev, Kh.R.Kurbatov, F.Akhaniev and others. Paired words are perhaps the most ancient form of compound words. They were widely represented in the language of the Orkhon monuments of the ancient Turkic writing of the 8th century: arkysh, tgrkesh "embassies"; kyz, kuduz "women"; begyar1, buduny (had eaten the beks and the people) "all the people"; ai, yegiat (finished, brothers-nephews) "relatives, relatives" (Aidarov, 1971).
GI Ramstedt gives examples from the ancient Turkic language of the MP acSH type, "younger and older brothers", bagli and budunly "beks and people"; from other* Uighur Shn11 YiI "night and day", tanrili jirli "heaven and earth", as well as from modern languages, for example, Kazakh: erteli kec "day and night", erli qatun "husband and wife", where the formant is i is translated as "and", "as..., so...", "and... and...". He argues that these constructions in the Tatar, Kazakh, Chuvash, Yakut and many other languages and dialects are quite common and are very ancient and date back to the Tungus-Manchurian-Mongolian-Turkic unity (1957.46). Particularly ancient, in our opinion, are onomatopoeia, which have developed from simple imitation to fulfilling the function of a term. In general, the study shows that paired words have been mastered by the Tatar language for a long time; in addition to the collective meaning characteristic of them, in some cases they can convey specific and abstract meanings, and even perform the function of a term; actively used as part of * phraseological units of the Tatar language; as in Tatar, so. and in other Turkic languages there are cases of fusion, i.e. transformation of a paired word into a simple one; paired words, as well as simple ones, can serve as a word-formation basis. In addition, they penetrated" into the neighboring languages of the Volga region.
Third section. Distinguishing compound words from similar constructions. “The compound word, being a successful means of compressing semantic and syntactic information into the most compact form, especially clearly shows the complexity of relationships
multilevel units. The peculiar location of the compound word in the general system of the language (between morphology and syntax, grammar and vocabulary, speech use and the language system) determines the "hardships that arise when determining the status of a compound word" (Sadykova, 2000, 3). Moreover, for well-known reasons , the so-called fused, spliced, that is, fused proper-syllable words, as well as paired ones, do not cause difficulty in their identification. We are talking about the difference between compound words from syntactic or phraseological combinations. And the definition of Sadykova A.G. is most suitable specifically for compound words Other authors also pay attention to such an intermediate position of compound words, IV Nikitenko (1999,90-92) calls them "ugly" super-verbal > nominative means" and "synlexes".
The need to distinguish composite from similar or syntactic constructions is dictated not only by theoretical considerations. The current indistinguishability of compound words leads to inadequate reflection and description of language units both in theoretical works and in dictionaries.
In theoretical terms, this problem is considered in some detail. In the works of Shcherba L.V. on the example of the Russian language, Bozieva A.Yu. on the. example of Karachay-Balkar, Mamatova IM. - on the example of Uzbek, Muratova S.N. - on the example of the Bashkir, Ganiev F.A. - on the example of the Tatar language, this problem is considered in different aspects. And some authors in sufficient detail > develop criteria for distinguishing compound words from similar constructions. But different researchers evaluate the value of individual criteria differently or lose sight of some of them.
So, the following are most often cited as distinguishing features of compound words: 1) semantic integrity, idiomaticity;
2) accentological integrity, i.e. single, centralizing stress;
3) morphological wholeness; 4) syntactic, i.e.
functional integrity; 5) graphic integral design; 6) nominative integrity; 7) impermeability, i.e. impossibility of insertion; 8) the impossibility of inversion, i.e. strict sequence of components, etc. However, the analysis shows that none of these criteria is universal, the only true and sufficient for all cases. Even a few features may not be enough to establish the identity of a compound word, so it is more legitimate to talk about a complex of such features. Bobrik G.A., Sadykova A.G., Semenova G.N. adhere to the same view. In general, since a compound word is a structural variety of a word in general, the criteria for distinguishing it, in our opinion, are the main features of the word.
Chapter 2. Placement of compound words in dictionaries is devoted to a review of explanatory and translation dictionaries of the Turkic languages and the Tatar language, generalization of the principles for selecting units for lexicographic description and the principles of their placement, as well as related problems of interpretation and translation. Due to their external, (structural and graphical) and internal features, compound words differ from simple words, therefore they have specific features when presented in dictionaries.
First section. Submission of complex words in the dictionaries of Turkic languages. Turkic lexicography in general has a rich centuries-old history. One has only to mention “Devon Lugot-it-Turk” by Mahmud Kashgari, Mukhaddimat al-adab (Borovkov, 1971,96-111), Turkic-Arabic Dictionary (Kuryshzhanov, 1970,196), Codex Comamcus (RadlofF, 1887) and others. And it should be emphasized that in all of them compound words are presented. But in this case, taking into account the objectives of our work, we limited ourselves to more or less modern dictionaries of the Turkic languages.
We analyzed the dictionaries of the Turkic languages in order to find out: firstly, how saturated the dictionaries are with compound words in general; secondly, on what principles they are placed in one or another
dictionary; thirdly, how are the constructions most widely used in the Turkic languages arranged - together or separately; (L, finally, to compare with the dictionaries of the Tatar language and derive ways of placing compound words that are most acceptable for the Tatar language.
Thus, the explanatory and translation dictionaries of the Bashkir, Chuvash, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Azerbaijani, Turkish, Nogai, Karachay-B&Chkar, Kumyk, Turkmen, Uzbek, Uighur, Yakut and other languages related to the period of the 5090s were analyzed. This made it possible to identify the existing principles for the selection of compound words and ways of presenting them in dictionaries, to determine the most successful and unsuccessful of them, to identify the most frequent and characteristic shortcomings. By the number and variety of complex words presented, as well as by the sequence in the presentation, dictionaries of the Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Turkish languages can be distinguished. According to the complexity of the principles of presentation and inconsistency, the dictionaries of the Kyrgyz and Uighur languages stand out.
Based on the analysis of the dictionaries of the Turkic languages, it is possible to identify some general trends in the choice of principles for presenting compound words, patterns in approaches to the choice of vocabulary, the main advantages and disadvantages:
In all the considered dictionaries of the Turkic languages, all structural varieties of compound words are presented: compound, proper compound and paired; all parts of speech, although quantitatively uneven: most of all nouns and adjectives are included, and less often - verbs;
All subsequent dictionaries of the Turkic languages tend to take into account the experience of previous dictionaries and clearly demonstrate the gradual improvement of the lexicographic aspect in terms of the presentation of complex words;
Many of the shortcomings made in the dictionaries of the Turkic languages when submitting the composite are due to objective reasons, such as
theoretical underdevelopment (at the time most dictionaries were compiled) of criteria for distinguishing compound words from similar structures and principles of spelling compound words.
The main shortcomings of the Turkic dictionaries in terms of presentation of the composite are the following:
a) non-compliance with a single principle in the submission of separately formatted, that is, compound words - filing either by the first component, then by the second, or by both at the same time;
b) different - continuous, separate and hyphenated - spelling of compound words within the same dictionary;
c) complex cross-references that make it difficult to use the dictionary;
d) mismatch of translation or interpretation of the same unit placed in different places within the same dictionary.
In the second section Submission of compound words in Tatar language dictionaries, Tatar language dictionaries are considered, also with the aim of analyzing the principles of selection and ways of presenting complex units. We chose the Tatar-Russian Dictionary as the subject of analysis (N.Isanbet, Gazizov R.S., Ishmukhametov G., Kazan, 1950); Tatar-Russian Dictionary (Kazan Institute of Language, Literature and History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow: Sov. Ents., 1966); Tatar-Russian Dictionary (author, writer F.A. Ganieva, Kazan, 1988); Tatar-Russian Educational Dictionary (author, writer Ganieva F.A., Moscow, 1992); Explanatory dictionary of the Tatar language - Tatar calf atzlatmaly suzlege (USSR Fenner Academy Kazan branches Tel, edebiyat bem tarikh institutes, Kazan, 1977-1981).
We do not consider earlier dictionaries for a number of reasons: firstly, in terms of the presentation of compound words, it is difficult to see in them more or less stable principles and patterns or features of the metalanguage; secondly, dictionaries of the late XIX - early XX centuries. has already been the subject of research by other authors.
Thus, taking into account the existing wealth of dictionaries of the Tatar language, we have analyzed a relatively small number of dictionaries published over a relatively short period of time from 1950 to 1992. But to fulfill the task before us of determining the features of the placement of compound words, we considered this sufficient. Indeed, the review of these dictionaries clearly reveals existing trends, on the basis of which we have come to the following conclusions:
All dictionaries of the Tatar language demonstrate not only the presence of complex words, but also their diversity;
There is a gradual improvement in the principles and forms of presentation of compound words, which is reflected in the macrostructure of the dictionary, * for example, the selection of vocabulary and its inclusion in the dictionary corpus. Thus, earlier dictionaries are inferior to later ones in terms of the quantity and quality of presentation of compound words, but at the same time they also include undesirable constructions;
The microstructure of the Tatar language dictionaries also tends to improve in terms of the presentation of complex words: the types of definitions, interpretations and translations, the location within the dictionary entry, etc. are honed;
During its history, Tatar lexicography has created its own metalanguage of dictionaries. This is also a set of typical formulas when describing the meanings of words, for example: words of the type object noun. + n. in -gych are interpreted as a tool, a device for influencing an object indicated in the first component, etc. In addition to formulas, the metalanguage of dictionaries includes explanations, labels, types of abbreviations, conventional signs, a variety of fonts, etc. Many elements of the metalanguage serve specifically to designate compound words and distinguish them from phraseological units and free syntactic combinations, for example, the D rectangle sign and font variation;
The sign rectangle D, introduced in later dictionaries of the Tatar language to denote compound words, is an innovation,
distinguishing them from other dictionaries. Turkic languages, where there is none;
Shortcomings in the presentation of compound words, which are available in earlier dictionaries of the Tatar language, are characteristic of all Turkic dictionaries, such as: a) mixing of compound words when presented with free syntactic combinations; b) mixing with phraseological units; c) submission of separately executed components in two articles for both components; d) less often different interpretation(or translation) when submitting one word in different articles; e) double spelling within the same dictionary; g) due to separate design, a large percentage of complex lexical units are not presented as vocabularies, but remain in the main word article.
Most of the above shortcomings in the dictionaries of the Tatar language compiled in recent years have been eliminated, for example, compound words are separated from free ones, phrases and phraseological units when submitted: illustrative - the material is given in italics, compound words - in bold and after the special sign rectangle D, and phraseological turns - in bold type after the rhombus sign 0. When submitting, the principle of the first component is also observed. The few cases of indistinguishing compound words from other complex structures are explained by the difficulty of determining their nature.
The third section, Improving the presentation of compound words in the Tatar language dictionaries, is devoted to developing recommendations for improving the presentation of compound words in the Tatar language dictionaries. Dictionaries, being a universal tool designed to perform informative, communicative and normative functions, must meet certain requirements. “The dictionary of the literary language, on the one hand, should set itself the task of scientifically describing the word usage of a given language in a given period, on the other hand, it should serve as the most authoritative legislator of word usage norms” (Guzeev, 1985, 16). Dictionaries of the Tatar language today, mainly
Thus, they perform only the first task - the description of word usage. As for the second task - to dictate norms, to serve as an authoritative legislator of norms, then the current dictionaries cope with it only partially. Since, due to objective reasons, graphic norms lag behind development! language, a situation arises when dictionaries do not dictate norms, but fix the already established norms of the language. And modern realities, objective changes in the language, the development of the theory of linguistics and lexicography * - all this dictates the need for their improvement. At the moment, in all dictionaries of the Tatar language - both explanatory and translation - there is one single principle of selection, complex constructions: only whole-formed and paired (formulated with a hyphen) constructions are singled out in a separate dictionary entry. That is, only simple and paired words are vocables. Thus, many separately designed constructions remain in the articles of simple words, although in many cases they have lost any semantic connection with them. Meanwhile, almost all separately formed compound words are terms, carry an independent, clearly defined semantic load, and in their significance more than other words deserve an independent article. The current placement of compound words is inconvenient and impractical. Since, firstly, it makes it difficult for the user to find the right word; secondly, the number of lexical units is indicated less than it actually is; thirdly, it introduces some semantic confusion into the dictionary entry (for example, the word sukyr kychytkan "motherwort" is included in the entry of the word sukyr "blind", although the sum of the meanings of sukyr "blind" + kychyyaisaya "nettle" does not give the meaning "motherwort") (TRUS , 1993, 241). Therefore, we fully adhere to the point of view expressed by Skvortsov M.I.: “The so-called compound words, even if they are written separately, it is advisable to classify them as integral words and enter them into the register of capital words. Spelling disorder and undeveloped criteria
distinguishing between a compound word and a phrase makes it difficult, but cannot serve as a fundamental obstacle to the implementation of such a technique ”(Skvortsov, 1971). We considered it possible to propose some changes in the presentation of the composite:
In addition to the composite previously presented in the dictionaries - fused and paired - it is necessary to arrange together and provide independent articles with some compound words that were previously written separately;
Should be included in the vocabulary. separately formed compound words - tezme suzler, the selection of which should be based on the criteria for distinguishing compound words from other complex structures;
Not all constructions that previously took place in the structure of the dictionary can unconditionally be included in the dictionary as a vocable, i.e. careful selection of units subject to lexicographic description is necessary.
All the changes provided for in this section, in the presentation of the composite, are aimed, firstly, to bring the spelling of the complex words presented in the dictionaries to the maximum extent possible, or at least bring them closer to the modern norms of the literary language, ”as a result of which the dictionaries will be able to perform their normative function. This will make it possible to perform another task - streamlining the presentation of complex words, determining their place in the structure of dictionaries. And this, in turn, will lead to the most adequate reflection of the rich lexical composition of the language, which is important, since previously complex words remained in the shadows. And, finally, work with the dictionary will be easier for the reader." Thus, dictionaries * of the Tatar language will be able to objectively reflect both the current state of the Tatar language itself and the current level of development of the theory of language and, thus, meet the requirements of today.
The fourth section Submission of compound words in translation dictionaries and the problem of "standard translation" covers the issues of translation of compound words when presented in translation dictionaries of the Tatar language. Due to external
and internal differences between compound words and simple ones and, conversely, similarities with phrases and phraseological phrases, the translation of compound words is often accompanied by errors. “Translation consists in conveying the meaning of the source language by the target language. This is carried out by passing from the form of the first to the form of the latter by referring to the semantic structure” (M.L. Larson, 1993.3). Thus, a translation dictionary is a dictionary where one meaning is conveyed by the forms of two (or more) languages. And since the lexical composition of different languages is not the same, there cannot be a complete correspondence between their units. And the further the languages are from each other genetically and typologically, the more difficult it is to find the corresponding lexical equivalents. This is the peculiarity of translation, and hence the translation dictionary. But, if in the case of simple words1 the difficulty can arise only in the accuracy of the transfer of meaning due to the mismatch of the semantic fields of the units of different languages, then in the case of composites, the main difficulty lies not in this, more precisely, not only in this. The fact is that compound words with unity of semantics formally consist of two (or more) components. And this leaves room for translation, including erroneous ones.
And the variety of compound words is so great that it is almost impossible to bring them to a common denominator. Therefore, the expression "standard translation" should be understood somewhat conditionally, since it is not applicable to all composites. It is only about those that are similar. by model, function, etc. or formed using the same components, and most importantly, they retained the direct meaning of these components, that is, a literal translation of at least one of the components is allowed. It is during their translation that consistency, uniformity, that is, a typical translation, must be preserved. For example, words formed with the help of - components - syman, gomum-, ardent-, beten-, as well as components-numerals and adjectives such as kup-, az-, tits-, tours-, etc.
In general, when translating complex words and similar structures, in our opinion, one should proceed from their semantic features, since a form that is not characteristic of the language, mechanically transferred from another language, rather obscures the meaning, which is unacceptable in dictionaries, since the main The task of the translation dictionary is the most accurate transfer of meaning. Even within the framework of one language, it can be enclosed in different carriers - forms. And in different languages, these forms rarely coincide.
Thus, compound words of one language can be translated by simple words of another language and vice versa, simple words can be translated into complex ones. Some units allow literal translation, more precisely, the literal translation coincides with their actual meaning.
Most compound words are idiomatic in nature and cannot be translated literally, that is, we do not actually translate them, but give their ready-made equivalents that already exist in the language. In fact, this applies to all translatable units. It is all the more important to give the exact equivalent of each lexical unit in the translation dictionary.
Chapter 3. Spelling of compound words in the Tatar language. The introductory word indicates linguistic and extralinguistic factors that dictate the need to revise the spelling of compound words. The study of this problem in Turkology and Tatar linguistics is highlighted. First of all, the range of spelling issues that need to be addressed is outlined, the very “blank spots” in the spelling of compound words:
Currently, a double design is allowed - continuous and separate writing of the same lexical units without any reason;
Compound words are written in two ways, almost identical in terms of the method and model of formation, morphological and other features, while in the language there is a certain tradition of writing them;
Complex constructions are erroneously formed (separately instead of fused, fused instead of separate, hyphenated instead of fused or separate, etc.) by analogy with language units of other languages (mainly Russian) due to their incorrect translation into Tatar.
Compound words are erroneously formed (more often - separately instead of fused, less often - fused instead of separate) due to a false analogy with other similar constructions, that is, compound words that should be written together are mixed with syntactic combinations written separately.
In general, about the existing spelling* of complex words? all researchers speak almost the same way. Thus, the Turkish linguist M. Tulum writes: “The spelling of compound words is the most difficult and confusing problem that has existed for a long time” (Titum, 1986, 28). “At present, the spelling of compound words in our language is often based not on certain rules, but on the so-called “linguistic sense”, which is not the same for different people and, therefore, varies depending on a particular person” (1m1a Mla "matL988D7).
Ganiev FA. implies the same, stating: “In Turkology there is a great discord and subjectivism in the spelling of complex words” (1982,129).
In Turkology, certain information on the spelling of compound words can be obtained from the works of Garipov T.M. (1959), Sadvakasova G.S. (1956), Mamatova N.M. (1976, 1982), Bozieva A.Yu. (1965), Oruzbayeva B.O. (1994), Guzeeva Zh.M. (1980), Khabicheva M.A. (1981) and others.
But there are no special monographic works devoted to the spelling of compound words either in Tatar linguistics or in Turkic studies. However, there are articles where this problem is considered, for example, Khangildina V.N. Kushymchalar pem kushma suzler yazylyshi (1953,108-125), Kurbatova H.R. Tatar telende kushma suzler yazilyshi (1959,123-132), Ganieva F.A. On the spelling of compound words in the Turkic languages (1979,36-40), several more Turkologists on the example of other Turkic languages, but they date back to 40-50 years. 20th century
In addition, the problem of spelling compound words is addressed in works devoted to more general issues, for example, Faseeva F.S. (1969, 1957,1961), Ganiev (1982) and others. However, the current spelling requires a new analysis and evaluation.
In studies devoted to the norms of the literary language, the following signs of normativity are distinguished: 1 Stability, stability of the linguistic fact; 2) its prevalence; 3) its compliance with the laws and trends of the language, that is, the presence of similar phenomena in the language; 4) the principle of expediency and 5) the authority of the source. The principle of expediency implies, firstly, efficiency for understanding the statement, and secondly, suitability and justification (Guzeev, 1985). These principles should be the same for all language levels, that is, they should be taken into account when developing spelling standards. This applies to no lesser extent to the spelling of complex words. We also tried to take into account these principles of normativity when developing spelling rules.
The first section Spelling of complex words correlated with isafet combinations. As examples from the Tatar literary language and from dialects show, the compound words of this model, although they are perceived as merged, continue to take shape in two ways. This can be explained by two reasons. Firstly, the most frequently and widely used words are usually written together. Secondly, words with more or less compact components. However, this applies to all
compound word patterns. However, in general, in our opinion, this model has a clear inclination towards a continuous design, one can even speak of an established tradition. This is confirmed by the opinion of experts. So, regarding this problem, Faseev F.S. writes: “Tartym kushshchasy teshu belen, kushma suzge everelu zhineley: kulbash (kulbashy), ashyaulyk (ash yaulygy), almagach (alma agachy), kvnchygygi (ken chygyshy). Khvzer do kaiber tartymly tezme - aerim, tartymsyz kushylyp yazyl: saban tue - sabantuy, bal kashygy - balkashyk, kuke bashy - kukebash ^6.
With the loss of the possessive affix, the transformation into a compound word is facilitated; kulbash "shoulder" of products), almagach "apple tree" (alma agachy tree of apples), kvnchygysh "east" (kvn chygyshy sun sunrise). And now some combinations with attraction are written separately, without attraction - together: saban tue - sabantuy "holiday", kashygy ball - balkashyk "teaspoon", kuke bashy - kukebash "lungwort" (kul bashy the beginning of the hand), ashyaulik "tablecloth" (ash the most common types of compound words, in the spelling of which there is inconsistency or unreasonableness, are also analyzed. suggestions are made for ordering the spelling of this type of compound word.
The problem of spelling of complex words, correlated * with the second form of izafet, is solved by almost all linguists in favor of separate spelling. So, Kurbatov Kh.R. adheres to this opinion.
Faseev F.S., as already mentioned, mainly supports separate design: “Tartymly tezmalar kushyluny totkarly, chenki kushymcha, guyaks, songy suzne berenchesennen aerip tora”. Combinations with attraction delay the merger, since the ending, as it were, separates the last word from the first.
Ganiev F.A. also adheres to this opinion: "This type of complex nouns - composites correlative with the second form of izafet - as a rule, are written separately and this spelling, in our opinion, is scientifically justified" (Ganiev, 1982, 132).
Isafet constructions, as you know, make up the vast majority of compound words, especially terms. Most of them are currently written separately. However, in the Tatar literary language there are a number of words formed according to the second type of isafet, which are perceived as a single whole and are pronounced and written together: yaubashy "leader, commander1, yvzbashy" centurion", imebashy "ambassador, head of the embassy", subashy "commander" , ishegaldy "yard", Ashkazan "stomach", eyaldy "canopy", etc.
In the Turkic languages, the problem of spelling compound words associated with type II izafet is actively discussed, especially in Turkish. Many researchers are inclined to the need for continuous writing, for example, Banguoglu T., Genzhan T., Hatiboglu N., etc. However, there are also supporters of separate writing, for example, M. Tulum and MMansuroglu. In practice, they continue to be written in two ways.
So, at present, in the Tatar language, as in most other Turkic languages, the composites associated with the second type of izafet are written separately, although there are ancient common Turkic words that are formed together almost everywhere. This is a gradual process and, as F.S. Faseev rightly noted, it is hardly possible to stimulate it artificially, shaping together those units that are not sufficiently polished by the language itself. Thus, this type of composite remains arranged mainly separately, although this should not affect their status in dictionaries.
The situation is quite different when these words act as a definition. They, of course, should be written together. In them, the possessive affix no longer carries its original grammatical load.
For example, suasti qymese "submarine", otqupacmu sulary "underground, groundwater", tufragasty sulary "subterranean waters", shireste cellere "underground targets1", yarbuye korylmalary "coastal structures1", saylaualdy kamiyase "pre-election campaign1, etc.
The second section Spelling of compound words with the attribute relation of components.
At present, in the Tatar language, compound words with an attributive relation of components, formed according to the type of adj. + n., are formed in two ways. Some are written separately, for example, kara balyk "lin", kuk e/silek "blueberry", ak balchyk "kaolin", kuk susyn "iris1", kyzyl kaz "flamingo", ak altyn "platinum", tile bodai "tares", etc. .d., while others are written together, for example, akkurgash "tin", kyzylbash "bloodpot", kyzylkoyryk "redstart", asyltash "precious stone", yamanat "ill fame", aksakal "elder1", pomrybash "round-headed lizard", etc. dL
As the examples show, with continuous - separate writing, no motives that affect the spelling of the composite - neither semantic cohesion, nor the compactness of the segments, nor the nature of the relationship of the components are taken as the main criterion. It seems that this is why the given words, which are practically the same in all positions of the composites, are designed differently, in other words, such a difference in spelling is not justified by a certain criterion. The same situation is observed in the Turkic languages.
On the spelling of words with an attributive relation of components Ganiev F.A. writes: “The principle of continuous spelling of this type of compound words follows, firstly, from the fact that the attributive connection is the closest type of connection, the spelling of complex nouns with this type of component connection should reflect this feature, and secondly, from the need to mark complex words from correlative free phrases ... ”(Ganiev, 1982, 132).
Although in all Turkic languages the dual form of compound words of this type is preserved, nevertheless they all demonstrate a persistent general tendency towards continuous spelling. It seems that the Tatar language is also subject to this general trend, and composites of this type should be written together.
The third section Spelling of complex, words1 with the object relation of components. Compound words with an object relation of components, formed according to the type "noun + adverb", according to the established tradition, are written together. And all researchers agree that it is the continuous spelling that is the most rational.
Perhaps that is why in practice the least mistakes are made in the design of this model of compound words. Especially long-used in the language, such as: ilgizer "traveler", balimer "honey badger", yonkoyar "runets", eztabar "tracker", maltabar "merchant", eshsvyar "hard worker", kyrmyskaashar "anteater", etc. At present, there is even an activation of this model by word formations and updating of meanings. For example, shanatar "fanboy, admirer", shirsvyar "farmer", shansatar "traitor", yortbasar "burglar", etc. This model also has a variant with a negative affix -mae: yorttotmas "careless owner", eshevymes "lazy man", serbirmes "secret", kvnkurmes "hateful", sertotmas "talkative", etc.
Composites with an objective relationship of components, formed with the help of the suffix -gych/-kych, in our opinion, are the most numerous in the entire corpus of compound words. They make up a particularly significant share in terminology, in particular technical, where they are very actively used at the present time. - Spelling of this type of compound words by theorists is decided in favor of continuous spelling. So, Faseev F.S. considers: “Katlauly beremleknets andkenche eleshene -ar/-er, -gychAgech, ~kych/-kech kushymchasy yalgangan bulsa, mondy suzler, kagyyda bularak, kushylyp yazyluga omtylalar.” If the endings -ar / -sp, -gychAgech, -kychAkech are attached to the second component of complex units,
such words, as a rule, tend to be fused. However, until now, there has been inconsistency in their spelling in the Tatar language: suutpkergech "water pipeline", gazutkergech "gas pipeline1,
takta yargych "sawmill, sawmill, tavygyalgych" receiver, sound receiver, sound-receiving", tavyshyotkych "silencer, sound absorber, sound absorber", tavyshtotkych "sound catcher", tashkiskech "stone cutter", tagi vatkych "stone crusher, stone crusher1, etc. It should be noted that such a discrepancy in the spelling of identical units exists not only in TTAS, from which the above examples are taken, but in others, in particular, in terminological dictionaries that have appeared relatively recently. For example, bozkiskech "lodor cutter", but balchyk kiskech "clay cutter", paryasagych "steam generator", but steam bulgech "steam distributor", etc. (Shakirzyanov, 1992,518).
In the Tatar language, there are classic examples confirming the continuous spelling of such words: alyapkych "apron", chechurgech "braid", kulyugych "washstand, washbasin", chebentotkych bot. "flycatcher", bashvatkych "puzzle *, etc. Therefore, apparently, one should only adhere to the opinion of specialists and the existing tradition and arrange these composites together.
Fourth section Principles of spelling compound words
The design of compound words, like spelling in general and any other phenomenon in the language, is prone to gradual change;
All changes in the spelling of compound words occur from separate spelling of components to a single one. Thus, in no language has there been a case where parts of a simple word (or derivative) acquired an independent meaning and were subsequently divided into independent words. There is just the opposite trend: simple
words form complex ones, acquiring a single meaning - merge, simplify, words turn into endings, etc .;
Almost all types of compound words with a subordinating relation of components, except for type II izafet, tend to be spelled together;
An erroneous or inconsistent (double) design of a composite occurs under the influence of, firstly, objective reasons, for example, due to the difficulty of determining the status of a complex structure or the lack of spelling rules in a particular case; secondly, subjective, usually due to non-compliance with already existing "orthographic norms;
Tradition plays a significant role in spelling, so the spelling of some models and types of compound words does not obey existing rules - despite the opinion of experts, it continues to be written according to tradition.
As the analysis shows, in the current orthography, none of the criteria proposed by experts is the only necessary "and sufficient for determining the spelling of compound words. Moreover, different authors prefer different arguments.
In our opinion, the criteria for determining the spelling of compound words are the same features that serve to distinguish compound words from free combinations. These signs, in fact, serve as a means of identifying the word, defining the boundaries of the word, that is, they are the main properties of the word. It is known that not all words equally possess all the features of a word. Rakhtichiya in spelling should partly be explained precisely by this circumstance. Therefore, the more features of a word a compound word has, the more reasons for its continuous spelling.
In general, solving the problem of spelling compound words, in our opinion, one should proceed from a number of factors:
1) take into account general language trends;
2) one should approach the design of lexical units taking into account the criteria put forward by the theory of the word, which serve to distinguish words from other units of the language;
3) take into account the tradition of writing similar constructions that exists in the language, in colloquial speech, in dialects, in other related languages, etc.
4) adhere ~ to the principles of pragmatic expediency, simplicity.
There are many more or less significant factors that affect the spelling rules for complex lexical units. And only taking into account all these factors, it is possible to develop the most legitimate and optimal spelling.
In the Conclusion, the results of the dissertation work are summed up and the conclusions obtained during the study are summarized, the prospects for studying complex vocabulary are noted. In particular, the following conclusions can be drawn:
Identification of compound words should be based not on a single criterion, but on a set of features, consisting, first of all, of the main features of the word;
In the diachronic aspect, in the spelling of complex words of the Tatar language, as well as of the Turkic languages in general, there is a tendency towards continuous spelling;
The criterion for spelling compound words should also be the main features of the word;
Tatar lexicography has the most developed means of macro- and microstructure and the metalanguage of the dictionary, which are necessary when presenting complex words.
1. To improve the spelling of the Tatar language on the example of paired words // Actual environmental problems of the Republic of Tatarstan. -Kazan: Tat.kn.izd-vo, 1996.-S.353-354
2. About one model of formation of adjectives // Problems of lexicology and terminology of the Tatar language. - Kazan: Tat.kn.izd-vo, 1994.-S.84-92
3. On the problem of compound words in the grammars of the Turkic languages // Problems of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language. Issue Z. - Kazan: Fiker, 1998.-S.94-99
4. On the features of the placement of compound words in the dictionaries of the Turkic languages // Problems of word formation in the Turkic languages (Materials of the conference). - Kazan: Fiker, 2002. - S.47-56.
5. On the presentation of complex nouns in Tatar dictionaries I "Problems of lexicology and terminology of the Tatar language. - Kazan: Tat.kn.izd-vo, 1993.-S.87-95.
6. On the spelling of compound words of some models // Problems of the history, culture and development of the languages of the peoples of Tatarstan and the Volga-Ural region. - Kazan: OitapIagua, 2002. - S.86-89.
7. On the principles of giving complex names in the dictionaries of the Tatar language // Language situation in the Republic of Tatarstan: state and prospects. Ch.P. - Kazan: Master Line, 1999. - S.193-195.
8. On the principles of giving complex names in the dictionaries of the Turkic languages // Problems of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language. - Kazan: Fiker, 2001. -S.7-10.
9. Paired words as the most ancient lexical layer // Problems of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language. Kazan: Fiker, 1999. -p.27-32.
10. The problem of compound words and its reflection in the grammars of the Turkish language // Problems of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language. -Issue 2. - Kazan: Tat.kn.izd-vo, 1995. - P.79-88.
11. Compound words and their reflection in the fundamental four-volume "Explanatory dictionary of the Tatar language" // Problems of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language. - Issue 6. - Kazan: Fiker, 2003. - P.40-44.
12. Compound words in Turkic and Tatar lexicography // Languages of Eurasia: Ethnocultural context. Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Theoretical Conference November 19-20, 2003 dedicated to the 75th anniversary of Professor, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus T.M. Garipov. - Ufa: Publishing house "Vostochnyun-t", 2003. - S. 128-130
13. On the issue of selecting complex structures for lexicographic description // II International Baudouin Readings: Kazan Linguistic School: Traditions and Modernity (Kazan, December 11-13, 2003): Proceedings and materials: In 2 volumes. T.1 - Kazan: Publishing House of Kazan State University. - pp. 183-186
Printed from the finished original layout in the printing house of the Publishing Center of Kazan State University
Circulation 100 copies. Order 2/79 420008, Kazan, st. University, 17 Tel. 38-05-96
Chapter 1. General theoretical questions of compound words in the modern Tatar language.
Introductory remarks.
1.1. Compound words in grammar.
1.2. Features of paired words as a structural variety of compound words.
1.3. Distinguishing compound words from similar constructions.
Chapter 2. Placement of compound words in dictionaries.
Introductory remarks.
2.1. Submission of complex words in the dictionaries of Turkic languages.
2.2. Submission of complex words in the dictionaries of the Tatar language.
2.3. Ways to improve the presentation of complex words in the dictionaries of the Tatar language.
2.4. Submission of complex words in translation dictionaries and
The problem of "standard translation".
Chapter 3. Spelling of compound words.
Introductory remarks.
3.1. Spelling of complex words correlated with isafet combinations.
3.2. Spelling of compound words with attributive relation of components.
3.3. Spelling of complex words with the object relation of components.
3.4. Principles of spelling compound words.
Dissertation Introduction 2004, abstract on philology, Tagirova, Fyaridya Insanovna
The relevance of research. “Composition is a very natural, very common way of creating new words in one language, while its role is very small in another. If for the German language such words as kleinburgertum "petty bourgeoisie", morgendummerung "dawn" are a normal occurrence, then even the Slavic languages do not show a great propensity for this type of neoplasms" (Bulakhovsky, 1953, 94). As for the Turkic languages, V.V. Radlov in this respect believed that "the confluence of some nominal and verbal stems of the roots in the Turkic languages to designate one concept is a universal phenomenon." Now more and more researchers are coming to the conclusion that this phenomenon is typical, if not for all, then for most of the languages of the world and is very ancient. So, according to experts, composites existed in the Proto-Slavic (Filin, 1977, 15), Old Turkic (Makhmatkulov, 1973, 409), even in the Altai and Sumerian (Tuna, 40). It is no coincidence that complex words are recorded in all ancient Turkic monuments. So, in one only "Kutadgu beat ig" 2830 compound words are noted, of which 268 are names. The study of compound words as a linguistic phenomenon also has a long history. Scientific interest in them was already found among the authors of the very first grammars and dictionaries. The history of the study of compound words in Turkology, in turn, has already become the object of description (Ganiev, 1982, Garipov, 1954, Abdurakhmanov, 1975 and others. Of the later authors - Akhmedov, 1991).
But, despite the fact that compound words are one of the most studied problems in Turkic studies and quite successfully developed in Tatar linguistics, there is an urgent need to consider the problem of compound words, especially those aspects that are associated with the practical implementation of these units in the language. For example, the problem of identifying complex lexemes remains unresolved. Since in practice there is an indistinguishability of complex words from similar constructions. This problem is directly related to another - the problem of spelling. So, at present there is an inconsistent shaping of similar compound words not only in different languages of the same system, but also in the same language. This situation in spelling, in turn, causes problems in lexicography, which consist in the absence of consistent principles of selection and presentation, and, therefore, in inadequate reflection of complex words in dictionaries. In this context, this study, in our opinion, is devoted to a very relevant topic.
The relevance of the study is also explained by the fact that theoretical research on this issue in Tatar linguistics, with rare exceptions, is limited to the 50-70s. 20th century Meanwhile, the renewal of scientific interest in explaining the essence of the composite is observed, in particular, in the languages of the West Slavic group (for example, the works of Goverdovsky, Bliharsky, Grzhigorzhikova, Handke, Jeziorsky, Miodek, etc.). In this regard, there is an urgent need to revise some aspects of this problem both in Tatar linguistics and in Turkic studies, taking into account the current level of development of language theory.
Research objectives:
Determine the features of the existing spelling of compound words and the most general trends in its development in the Turkic languages in general and in the Tatar language in particular;
Summarize the experience of Turkic and Tatar lexicography in the reflection of complex words and outline the possibilities for its improvement;
Determine the scientific basis for the identification of complex lexemes in the Tatar language.
The goals should be achieved by solving the following tasks:
Analyze the dictionaries of the Turkic languages in order to identify common features in the supply of compound words;
Consider the dictionaries of the Tatar language in order to identify the existing principles for the selection and presentation of compound words;
Determine the criteria for distinguishing compound words from similar constructions;
Identify the most common mistakes in translating complex words and presenting them in translation dictionaries;
To analyze the existing spelling of compound words in the Tatar language and in other Turkic languages, on the basis of which to develop proposals for its improvement.
The material of the study is the complex words of the Tatar language, selected by continuous sampling from the 3-volume Explanatory Dictionary of the Tatar language and partially from other dictionaries, a total of about seven thousand. Compound words of other Turkic languages served as a comparative material. The object of the analysis was the explanatory and translation dictionaries of the Tatar language, as well as other Turkic languages.
The following research methods were used in the work:
Descriptive method;
Analytical observation method followed by generalization;
Benchmarking method;
Method of component analysis.
The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that for the first time in Tatar linguistics, theoretical and practical issues of spelling, lexicography and identification of compound words are subjected to a comprehensive analysis.
The theoretical significance of the work is determined by the fact that as a result of the study, an integral idea is formed about the level of theoretical and practical development of the problem of compound words in Turkic studies and in Tatar linguistics. The results obtained can serve as a basis for determining the general patterns of development of complex vocabulary and for solving the problems of their identification, spelling, as well as other theoretical issues on the relevant issues.
The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the results of the study can be used to improve the spelling rules of compound words, to compile explanatory and translation dictionaries of the Tatar language, to improve and unify them, and can also be useful in the theory and practice of translating from Russian into Tatar and from Tatar to Russian.
Approbation of work. The main provisions of the dissertation were presented in speeches at international and regional scientific conferences: at the terminological conference under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan (Kazan, 1993), "Linguistic situation in the Republic of Tatarstan: state and prospects" (Kazan, 1998), "Problems of history, culture and development languages of the peoples of Tatarstan and the Volga-Ural region" (Kazan, 2000), "Word formation in Turkic languages" (Kazan, 2001), "Actual problems of Turkic and Finno-Ugric philology: theory and experience of studying" (Elabuga, 2002), at the international symposium "Formation and development of the literary languages of the peoples of the Volga region" (Izhevsk, 2003), at the All-Russian scientific and theoretical conference "Languages of Eurasia: ethnocultural context" (Ufa, 2003), at the II International Baudouin readings: Kazan linguistic school: tradition and modernity (Kazan , KSU, 2003) and at the final scientific conferences of the IYALI named after G. Ibragimov of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan (1993-2003), etc. A total of 19 reports were read. The main content of the work is reflected in 16 publications.
Work structure. The work consists of introduction, three chapters, conclusion, bibliography.
The introduction substantiates the relevance of the topic, defines the purpose and objectives of the study, its theoretical and methodological basis, reveals the scientific novelty and practical significance of the work.
Conclusion of scientific work thesis on "Compound words in the modern Tatar language: problems of lexicography and spelling"
CONCLUSION
Ganiev F.A. It has been pointed out more than once that the Tatar language, in addition to agglutination, is also characterized by analyticity. Analytical constructions are observed both in the grammatical and lexical system of the Tatar language.
In this work, we made an attempt to study the complex vocabulary of the Tatar language, mainly in those aspects where, in our opinion, there were both theoretical and practical gaps.
Consideration of the grammars of the Turkic languages gave a complete picture of the general theoretical level, the degree of study of this problem in different languages of the Turkic system.
In general, in all grammars, quite a lot of attention is paid to compound words, their various classifications are given, especially according to education models. Some of the above models, in our opinion, are also of interest in practical terms, as they can be used for term creation in the Tatar language. Despite the fact that there is a certain inconsistency or vagueness in some issues (for example, mixing in the classification of complex words of the part of speech of components, semantic relations of components and syntactic functions of components), the erroneous consideration of structures that are not such as compound words, etc., in general, the main grammars of the Turkic languages are of interest both in practical and theoretical terms.
When studying the structural varieties of compound words, the fact was taken into account that actually compound words are most thoroughly studied and described by types and models, by semantic relations of components, etc., as a result of which they cause the least difficulty in terms of distinction, spelling and entering in dictionaries. What can not be said about paired and compound words. A detailed study of the former showed that they have long and firmly attracted the interest of linguists, and not by chance. Paired words are perhaps the most ancient in the language, in any case - imitative. There are examples of gradual acquisition or independent lexical meaning, assertion as a term. In our opinion, paired words also confirm the general trend towards gradual merging.
Compound words were considered by us primarily from the point of view of their identification. After analyzing the opinions of experts on this matter and summarizing the theoretical premises, we came to the conclusion that among the features that distinguish compound words from phrases and phraseological units, the main features are semantic, nominative, morphological, phonetic and functional (syntactic) integrity. Basically, all compound words meet all these criteria. The only exception is the principle of graphic wholeness, which is not subject to all composites.
Of practical interest was the study of the presentation of complex words in the dictionaries of the Turkic languages. At the same time, we have found some general trends in the choice of principles for presenting complex words, patterns in approaches to the choice of vocabulary, the main advantages and disadvantages that can be taken into account when compiling Tatar language dictionaries.
In all the considered dictionaries of the Turkic languages, all structural varieties of compound words are presented: compound, self-syllable and paired; all parts of speech, although quantitatively uneven: most of all nouns and adjectives are included, and less often - verbs. All subsequent dictionaries of the Turkic languages tend to take into account the experience of previous dictionaries and clearly demonstrate the gradual improvement of the lexicographic aspect in terms of the presentation of complex words. Many of the shortcomings made in the dictionaries of the Turkic languages when submitting the composite are due to objective reasons, such as the theoretical underdevelopment (at the time of compiling most of the dictionaries) of the criteria for distinguishing compound words from similar structures and the principles of spelling of compound words.
The main shortcomings of the Turkic dictionaries in terms of presentation of the composite are: non-observance of a single principle in the presentation of separately formatted, that is, compound words - filing either by the first component, then by the second, or by both at the same time; different - continuous, separate and hyphenated spelling of the same compound word within the same dictionary; complex cross-references that make it difficult to use the dictionary; mismatch of translation or interpretation of the same unit placed in different places within the same dictionary.
In the same way, we analyzed the dictionaries of the Tatar language. Tatar lexicography has a deep history and stands out against the background of Turkic lexicography in a positive way. All dictionaries of the Tatar language demonstrate not only the presence of complex words, but also their diversity. There is a gradual improvement in the principles and forms of presentation of compound words, which is reflected in the macrostructure of the dictionary, for example, the selection of vocabulary and its inclusion in the dictionary corpus (for example, earlier dictionaries are inferior to later ones in terms of the quantity and quality of presentation of compound words, but at the same time they also include unwanted constructs). The microstructure of the Tatar language dictionaries also tends to improve in terms of the presentation of complex words (types of definitions, interpretations and translations, location within a dictionary entry, etc.). During its history, Tatar lexicography has created its own metalanguage of dictionaries - this is also a set of typical formulas for describing the meanings of words, for example: words like object noun. + n. in -gych are interpreted as a tool, a device for influencing an object indicated in the first component, etc. In addition to formulas, the metalanguage of dictionaries includes explanations, labels, types of abbreviations, conventional signs, a variety of fonts, etc. Many elements of the metalanguage serve specifically to designate complex words and distinguish them from phraseological units and free syntactic combinations, such as the rectangle sign □ and font variation. The rectangle symbol □, introduced in later dictionaries of the Tatar language to designate compound words, is an innovation that distinguishes them from dictionaries of other Turkic languages, where this is not available.
Shortcomings in the presentation of compound words, which are available in earlier dictionaries of the Tatar language, are characteristic of all Turkic dictionaries, such as: a) mixing compound words with free syntactic combinations when lexicographing; b) mixing with phraseological units; c) submission of separately executed components in two articles for both components; d) less often - a different interpretation (or translation) when submitting one word in different articles; e) double spelling within the same dictionary; g) due to separate design, a large percentage of complex lexical units are not presented as vocabularies, but remain in the main word article.
Most of the above shortcomings in the dictionaries of the Tatar language compiled in recent years have been eliminated, for example, compound words are separated from free phrases and phraseological units during submission: illustrative material is given in italics, compound words in bold and after the special rectangle sign □, and phraseological turns in bold in font after the diamond symbol 0. When submitting, the principle of the first component is also observed. The few cases of indistinguishing compound words from other complex structures are explained by the difficulty of determining their nature.
Summarizing the results of the study of Turkic and Tatar dictionaries in terms of the presentation of complex words, we considered it possible and necessary to develop some recommendations aimed at streamlining and improving the lexicography of the composite of the Tatar language. At the same time, we also relied on the need to correct the spelling of some types of complex lexemes.
So, we propose, in addition to the composites previously presented in dictionaries - actually complex and paired ones - to draw up together and provide independent entries for some types of compound words that were previously written separately or in two ways, for example, compound words with an attributive and object relation of components, the components of which allow continuous writing. Also include separately formed compound words (tezme suzler) in the vocabulary, the selection of which should be based on the criteria for distinguishing compound words from other complex structures (see section 1.3.).
Not all constructions that previously took place in the structure of the dictionary can unconditionally be included in the dictionary as a vocabulary.
All the planned changes in the presentation of the composite are aimed, firstly, to bring the spelling of the complex words presented in the dictionaries into maximum compliance or at least bring them closer to the modern norms of the literary language, as a result of which the dictionaries will be able to perform their normative function. This will make it possible to perform another task - streamlining the supply of complex words, determining their place in the structure of the dictionary. And this, in turn, will lead to the most adequate reflection of the rich lexical composition of the language, which is important, since previously complex words remained in the shadows. And, finally, the work with the dictionary will be easier for the reader. Thus, the dictionaries of the Tatar language will be able to objectively reflect both the current state of the Tatar language itself and the current level of development of the theory of language and, thus, meet the requirements of today.
If monolingual dictionaries require gradual changes mainly in lexicographic technique, then translation dictionaries need both to improve the principles of selection and presentation of composites, and to correct their translation. The Tatar-Russian and Russian-Tatar dictionaries analyzed by us testify to this. In addition, the correct translation of the composite is important not only for placement in dictionaries, but also for their further use.
The main task of the translation dictionary is the most accurate transfer of meaning. Even within the framework of one language, it can be enclosed in different carriers - forms. And in different languages, these forms rarely coincide. Thus, compound words of one language can be translated by simple words of another language and, conversely, simple words can be translated into complex ones. Some units allow literal translation, more precisely, the literal translation coincides with their actual meaning.
Most compound words are idiomatic in nature and cannot be translated verbatim, that is, we do not actually translate them, but give their ready-made equivalents that already exist in the language. In fact, this applies to all translatable units. It is all the more important to give the exact equivalent of each lexical unit in the translation dictionary.
Spelling continues to be one of the aspects of the problem of compound words that needs correction and is perhaps the most important. Despite the relative elaboration of the problem in both Turkic and Tatar linguistics, in practice there are moments that need to be addressed. So, at present, a double design is allowed - continuous and separate writing of the same lexical units without any reason; compound words are written in two ways, almost identical in terms of the method and model of formation, morphological and other features, while in the language there is a certain tradition of writing them; erroneously formed (separately instead of fused, fused instead of separate, through a hyphen instead of fused or separate, etc.) complex constructions by analogy with language units of other languages (mainly Russian) due to their incorrect translation into Tatar. Compound words are erroneously formed (more often - separately instead of fused, less often fused instead of separate) due to a false analogy with other similar constructions, that is, compound words that should be written together are mixed with syntactic combinations written separately.
Based on our attempt to analyze the spelling features of compound words, we can formulate some conclusions, identify existing patterns and trends:
The design of compound words, like spelling in general or any other phenomenon in the language, is prone to gradual change;
All changes in the spelling of compound words come from separate spelling of components to a single one. Thus, in no language has there been a case where parts of a simple word (or derivative) acquired an independent meaning and were subsequently divided into independent words. There is just the opposite trend: simple words form complex ones, acquiring a single meaning, merge, simplify, words turn into endings, etc. Although earlier, for example, Ubryatova E.I., Garipov T.M., Kurbatov Kh.R., the authors were mainly in favor of separate design, later researchers (for example, Ganiev F.A., Mamatov N.M. ., Khabichev M.A. and others) tend to be confluent.
The spelling of most models and types of compound words is supported by an established tradition in the language and is confirmed by the opinion of linguists;
Almost all types of compound words with subordinating components tend to be spelled together. The exceptions are words that are correlated with isafet combinations of the second type, although among them there are also units with continuous spelling;
An erroneous or inconsistent (double) design of a composite occurs under the influence of, firstly, objective reasons, for example, due to insufficient theoretical development of the problem, the difficulty of determining the status of a complex structure, or the lack of spelling rules in a particular case; secondly - subjective, usually due to non-compliance with already existing spelling norms;
In spelling, tradition makes itself felt, so the spelling of some models and types of compound words does not obey the existing rules, despite the opinion of experts, continues to be written according to tradition.
As the analysis shows, in the current orthography, none of the criteria proposed by experts is the only necessary and sufficient for determining the spelling of complex words. Moreover, different authors give preference to different arguments.
In our opinion, the criteria for determining the spelling of compound words are the same features that serve to distinguish compound words from free combinations. These signs, in fact, serve as a means of identifying the word, determining the boundaries of the word, i.e. they are the basic properties of the word. It is known that not all words equally possess all the features of a word. Differences in spelling must partly be explained precisely by this circumstance. Therefore, the more features of a word a compound word has, the more reasons for its continuous spelling.
In general, when solving the problem of spelling compound words, in our opinion, one should proceed from a number of factors:
1) take into account general language trends;
2) one should approach the design of lexical units taking into account the criteria put forward by the theory of the word, which serve to distinguish words from other units of the language;
3) take into account the tradition of writing similar constructions, proven by the theory and practice of the language and existing in dialects, in other related languages, etc.
4) adhere to the principles of pragmatic expediency, simplicity.
There are many more or less significant factors that affect the spelling rules for complex lexical units. And only taking into account all these factors, it is possible to develop the most legitimate and optimal spelling.
In this paper, we have made an attempt to analyze several aspects of the problem of compound words in the Tatar language. Basically, we limited ourselves to considering the current state of the theory and practice of solving these problems. The results of this work can serve as a basis for further development of this problem in Tatar linguistics and Turkic studies.
CONDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS az. - Azerbaijani language Bashk. - Bashkir language Eag. - Gagauz language Kaz. - Kazakh language Kar. - Karaite language K.-Balk. - Karachay-Balkar language Kirg. - Kyrgyz language Qom. - Kumyk language Mari. - Mari language of muzzles. - Mordovian foot language. - Nogai language Russian. - Russian language Tat. - Tatar language Tur. - Turkish Turkm. - Turkmen language Udm. - Udmurt language Uzbek. - Uzbek language Uig. - Uighur language Chuv. - Chuvash language Yakut. - Yakut language bot. dial. finished, zool. term of botany dialect verbatim term of zoology
RTS - Russian-Tatar dictionary see - see
TRS - Tatar-Russian Dictionary
TRUS - Tatar-Russian educational dictionary
TTAS - Tatar Telei anlatmaly suzlege
List of scientific literature Tagirova, Fyaridya Insanovna, dissertation on the topic "Languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation (indicating a specific language or language family)"
1. Abakshina G.M. Compound words in modern Russian: Principles of lexicographic codification: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences-L., 1982.-18 p.
2. Abdrakhmanov Nasir. Paired words in Turkic languages: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences-Alma-Ata 1975 -64 p.
3. Abdullaeva A.A. The system of repetitions in the Kumyk language: Dis. . cand. philol. Sciences.-Makhachkala, 1999- 187 p.
4. Aganin R.A. Repetitions and homogeneous pair combinations in the modern Turkish language.-M.: Izd-vo vost. literature, 1959.- 145 p.
5. Agmanov Egemberdi. Precisely-attributive phrase in the language of the monuments of ancient Turkic writing: Dis. . cand. philol. Sciences.-Alma-Ata, 1964.-233 p.
6. Agricola E. Micro-, medio-macrostructures as a meaningful basis of the dictionary // Questions of Linguistics 1984 - No. 2, - P. 72-82.
7. Adilov M.I. Systems of repetitions in the Azerbaijani language. - Baku, 1967.
8. Azaev K.G. Word formation and vocabulary of the Betlikh language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences.-Makhachkala, 1974.
9. Aidarov G. The language of the Orkhon monuments of the ancient Turkic writing of the 8th century: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences-Alma-Ata, 1971.- 24 p.
10. Aidarov G. The language of the Orkhon monuments of the ancient Turkic writing of the VIII century - Alma-Ata: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of Kaz. SSR, 1971.-380 p.
11. Alieva G.A. Lexicographic design of complex nouns in Russian-Kazakh dictionaries: Dis. . cand. philol. Sciences.-Alma-Ata, 1991.-180 p.
12. Altaeva A.Sh. Word-building potential of compound words in modern Russian: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences-Tashkent, 1987.- 27 p.
13. Arkhangelsk. Grammar of the Tatar folk language. - Orenburg, 1894.
14. Akhmanova O.S. On the distinction between words and phrases: Abstract of the thesis. dis. .Dr. Philol. Nauk.- M., 1954 54 p.
15. Akhmanova O.S. On the question of the difference between compound words and phraseological units // Tr. Institute of Linguistics T.4.- M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1954.- P.50-73.
16. Akhmedov B.B. Word-formation in dialects of the Azerbaijani language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. Dr. Philol. Sciences Baku, 1991.
17. Akhmetyanov R.G. Repetitions and reduplications in the Tatar language // Questions of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language Kazan: Tatar, book. publishing house, 1976.-p.5-15.
18. Akhunzyanov G.Kh. Regularly formed phrases as an object of a translation dictionary // Studies in the vocabulary and grammar of the Tatar language Kazan: Tatar, book. publishing house, 1986.- S. 146-150.
19. Akhtyamov M.Kh. Word structures in the modern Bashkir language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. Dr. Philol. Sciences Ufa, 1996 - 97 p.
20. Bazarbaev N. Complex phrases in Turkic languages: Dis. . cand. philol. Sciences Tashkent, 1969, - 220 p.
21. Barkhudarov S.G. Actual tasks of lexicography in the field of terms // Problems of definition of terms in dictionaries of various types L., 1976.-p.5-12.
22. Baskakov N.A. Karakalpak language. Phonetics and morphology - Kn.I: 4.1 parts of speech and word formation. - M: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1952. - 544 p.
23. Batyrmurzaeva U.M. Lexico-semantic structure of words in the Kumyk language: Dis. cand. philol. Sciences.-Makhachkala, 1996.- 160 p.
24. Bekmurzaeva S.I. Word formation of nouns in the modern Kumyk literary language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences.-Tashkent, 1981.-23 p.
25. Berkov V.P. Questions of bilingual lexicography (dictionary). - L.: Publishing house of Leningrad. un-ta, 1973.-192 p.
26. Berkov V.P. A word in a bilingual dictionary.- Tallinn: Valgus, 1977.-140s.
27. Berdyev R. Compound words in the modern Turkmen language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Nauk.- M., 1955. 16 p.
28. Bobrik G.A. To the definition of the signs of a compound word // Philological collection Issue 10. - Alma-Ata, 1971 - P.88-93.
29. Bobrik G.A. Compound words and phrases in relation to their common and distinguishing features: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences-Alma-Ata, 1974.-25 p.
30. Blanor V. Lexicology and lexicography // Questions of Linguistics-1985.-№3.- P.77-83.
31. Boziev A.Yu. Word formation of subject-qualitative names in the Karachay-Balkarian language. - Nalchik: Kabardino-Balkarian book. publishing house, 1965.-88 p.
32. Borovkov A.K. Names of plants according to the Bukhara list “Mukhaddimat al-adab” // Turkic lexicology and lexicography M.: Nauka, 1971.- P.96-111.
33. Budagov R.A. Introduction to the science of language. - M .: Uchpedgiz, 1958. - 435 p. Bulakhovsky L.A. Introduction to linguistics.- Ch.N.- M.: Uchpedgiz, 1953.-94 p.
34. Bulakhovsky JI.A. Introduction to linguistics 4.2.- M.: Education, 1954.- 178 p.
35. Bulakhovsky JI.A. Meaning of cognition. - Kyiv, 1962.
36. Buchkina B.Z., Kalakutskaya L.P. Compound words.- M.: Nauka, 1974.-151 p.1. W
37. Vahek I. Linguistic word formation of the Prague school / Per. from French, German, English and Czech. I.A. Melchuk and V.Z. Sannikov; Ed. and with preface. A.A. Reformatsky.-M.: Progress, 1964.-350 p.
38. Veigerova S.A. Compound words as a way to create imagery in works of art// Sat. scientific tr.- Issue. 174.- M.: Mosk. ped. in-t foreign lang. - S.127-139.
39. Voronin S.V. Boundary phenomena of word formation and phonetics (formation of haplological words of ingots and composites) // Philological Sciences - 1968.-№ 1.
40. Gadzhieva A.Z. Complication of nominal phrases in the modern Azerbaijani language. Dis. cand. philol. Sciences.- Baku, 1966.-219 p.
41. Gazizov R.S. Some issues of lexicographic work in the Turkic-speaking republics // Lexicographic collection - Issue III-1958.- P.103-113.
42. Ganiev F.A. Analytical morphology of the Turkic languages: problems and tasks // Sov. Turkology.- 1979 No. 1- S.3-8.
43. Ganiev F.A. On the issue of compound words in the modern Tatar language // Sov. Turkology. - 1976 No. 4 - S.31-37.
44. Ganiev F.A. Methods and principles of studying compound words // Sov. Turkology.- 1977 No. 4.- S.31-35.
45. Ganiev F.A. On the spelling of compound words in the Turkic languages // Sov. Turkology 1979 - No. 5 - P.36-40.
46. Ganiev F.A. Formation of compound words in the Tatar language M.: Nauka, 1982.- 150 p.
47. Ganiev F.A. Methods and types of formation of compound words in the modern Tatar language // Sov. Turkology 1983.- No. 2 - P.48-59.
48. Garipov T.M. Bashkir nominal word formation Ufa, 1959. -224p.
49. Gasimov M.Sh. The main ways of forming terms in modern. Azerbaijani literary language // Sov. Turkology.- 1972.- No. 4-S.23-31.
50. Giganov I. Grammar of the Tatar language SPb., 1801.- 187 p.
51. Goverdovsky V.I. Konnotemnaya structure of the word - Kharkiv: Higher. school., 1989.-92 p.
52. Godzhaliev O.M. Selection and lexicographic description of special terms in a bilingual dictionary: (Based on the material of the Great Azerbaijani-Russian Dictionary, edited by M.T. Tagiev): Dis. . cand. philol. Sciences.- Baku, 1979.- 203 p.
53. Gordlevsky V.A. Grammar of the Turkish language. - M., 1928 164 p.
54. Gorodetsky B.Yu. To the theory of a compound word // Word in grammar and dictionary-M .: Nauka, 1984.
55. Gochiyaeva S.A. Adverb in the Karachay-Balkarian language. - Cherkessk: Stavrop. book. publishing house, 1973 119 p.
56. Grammar of the Karachay-Balkar language. Phonetics, morphology, syntax / Ed. N.A.Baskakova.- Nalchik: Elbrus, 1976, 572 p.
57. Grammar of the modern Bashkir literary language - M .: Nauka, 1981. - 495 p.
58. Grammar of the modern Yakut literary language. Phonetics and morphology-M.: Nauka, 1982.-496 p.
59. Grammar of the Turkmen language. Phonetics and morphology / Ed. N.A.Baskakova, M.Ya.Khamzaeva and B.Charyyarova.- Part 1.- Ashgabat: Ylym, 1970.503 p.
60. Grigoriev V.P. Some questions of the theory of composition: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Nauk.-M., 1955.- 19 p.
61. Guzev V.G. Old Ottoman language. - M .: Nauka, 1979 95 p.
62. Guzeev Zh.M. Theoretical foundations of explanatory dictionaries of Turkic languages: Dis. Dr. Philol. Sciences. - Nalchik, 1985.-397 p.
63. Guzeev Zh.M. Problems of the dictionary of explanatory dictionaries of the Turkic languages-Nalchik: Elbrus, 1984 158 p.
64. Guzeev Zh.M. Derivative forms of words in general dictionaries of Turkic languages // Sov. Turkology 1985.- No. 4.- P.51-62.
65. Guzeev Zh.M. Fundamentals of Karachay-Balkar orthography - Nalchik: Elbrus, 1980 - 171 p.
66. Danilenko V.P. Contemporary Issues Russian terminology M.: Nauka, 1986.- 199 p.
67. Degtyareva T.A. Ways of development of modern linguistics.- M.: Thought, 1964.-136 p.
68. Degtyareva T.A. Ways of development of modern linguistics // Structuralism and principles of Marxist linguistics M.: Thought, 1964212 p.
69. Jafarova S.M. Word imitation in modern Turkic languages: (On the example of the Oguz group): Dis. . cand. philol. Sciences.- Baku, 1973.- 189 p.
70. Dmitrieva JI.B. Etudes on Turkic word formation // Sov. Turkology 1977.-No. 1.-S.61-73.
71. Egorov V.G. Compounding in Turkic languages // Structure and history of Turkic languages.-M.: Nauka, 1972-p.95-107.
72. Zhabelova L.Zh. Compound nouns in the modern Karachay-Balkar language. - Nalchik: Elbrus, 1986 110 p.
73. Ziyaeva M. Study of the monument of the XIX century. "Kitab at-tukhvat uz-zakiyya fillugat-it turkiya": (Vocabulary, morphology, word formation): Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. - Tashkent, 1972, - 28 p.
74. Ibatov A.M. Morphemic structure of the Kazakh word: (In comparison with the data of Turkic monuments): Dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences Alma-Ata, 1989.-337 p.
75. Ivanov M. Tatar Grammar.- Kazan: Type. Kazan, un-ta, 1842331 p.
76. Iskakov A.I. Morphological structure of the word and nominal parts of speech in the modern Kazakh language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences Alma-Ata, 1961.-188 p.
77. Studies on the grammar and vocabulary of the Mongolian languages Elista, 1985.- 140 p.
78. Ishbaev K.G. Problems of the word-formation system of the Bashkir language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. Dr. Philol. Sciences Ufa, 1996 - 37 p.
79. Kazembek M.A. Grammar of the Turkish-Tatar language. - Kazan, 1839.
80. Kazembek M.A. General grammar of the Turkish-Tatar language Kazan, 1846.-467 p.
81. Kaidarov A.T. Paired words in the modern Uighur language, Alma-Ata: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Kaz.SSR, 1958.- 168 p.
82. Kelmakov V.K. Udmurt language in typological and contactological aspects. - Izhevsk, 2000. - 72 p.
83. Kononov A.N. Grammar of modern Turkish literature of the language-M.-L.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1956.- 569 p.
84. Kononov A.N. Grammar of modern Uzbek literature in the languages of L.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, I960.- 446 p.
85. Kononov A.N. Grammar of the language of the Turkic runic monuments of the 7th-9th centuries - L .: Nauka, 1980. - 255 p.
86. Kochetkova T.I. Compound nouns in modern Russian-M., 1983.
87. Koshanov K.M. Word formation of nouns based on Russian and international words in the Karakalpak language // Sov. Turkology 1978-№4.- P.40-43.
88. Kungurov R. Structural analysis of complex words borrowed into Turkic from unrelated languages // Questions of Turkology 1985.- No. 3.
89. Kurbatov Kh.R. On improving the spelling of the Tatar language // Tr. Kazan, Phil. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Ser. humanit. Sciences Issue 2 - Kazan, 1959 - S.285-296.
90. Kuryshzhanov A.K. Research on the vocabulary of the "Turkic-Arabic Dictionary". - Alma-Ata, 1970. - 196 p.
91. Larson M.-L. Semantic translation: A guide to the theory of interlingual equivalence and its practical application.- St. Petersburg, 1993.-455 p.
92. Levkovskaya K.A. Theory of the word. Principles of its construction and aspects of the study of lexical material. - M .: Vyssh. school, 1962, 296 p.
93. Linguistic research 1976. Questions of lexicology and lexicography and applied linguistics: Sat. Art. / Rev. ed. R.P. Rogozhnikova - M., 1976 - 232 p.
94. Madaliev B. Compound words in the modern Uzbek language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences-Tashkent, 1956 15 p.
95. Mamatov N.M. Formation of proper compound words in the Uzbek language // Sov. Turkology 1982 - No. 1. - P. 67-76.
96. Mamatov N.M. On the difference between proper compound words and syntactic combinations // Sov. Turkology.- 1979.- №4.- P.42.
97. Mamatov N.M. On the classification of compound words in the Uzbek language // Sov. Turkology 1976 - No. 4 - P.38-45.
98. Makhmatkulov M. Analytical methods of word formation in the language of ancient Turkic monuments: Dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. - Tashkent, 1973.409 p.
99. Morphological structure of the word in Indo-European languages - M.: Nauka, 1970.-388 p.
100. Muratalieva D.M. On the presentation and disclosure of the meanings of words in standard dictionaries: (On mater, im. noun) // Sov. Turkology. - 1972. - No. 3. - P. 70-76.
101. Muratov S.N. Set phrases in Turkic languages.- M.: Izd-vo vost. literature., 1961.- 132 p.
102. Musaev K.M. Grammar of the Karaite language. Phonetics and morphology-M.: Nauka, 1966.-344 p.
103. Musaev K.M. Lexicology of Turkic languages M.: Nauka, 1984.- 226 p.
104. Mutallibov S. “Divanu-lugat-it Turk” by Mahmud of Kashgar (Translation, comments, research): Abstract of the thesis. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences-Tashkent: Fan, 1967.- 48 p.
105. Nazhimov A. Ways of forming paired and paired-repeated words in the Karakalpak language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. - Nukus, 1971, - 18 p.
106. Nasilov V.M. Ancient Uighur language. - M .: Publishing House of the East. literature, 1963.122 p.
107. Nasilov V.M. Some features of word formation in ancient Turkic monuments // Sov. Turkology. - 1978 No. 3 - P.3-6.
108. Nasilov V.M. The language of the Turkic monuments of the Uyghur writing of the 11th-15th centuries - M .: Nauka, 1974 101 p.
109. Nasyri K. A brief Tatar grammar set out in examples - Kazan, 1860.-80 p.
110. Nemchenko V.N. Modern Russian language. Word formation M.: Vyssh. school., 1984.-256 p.
111. Nikitevich V.M. Word formation and derivational grammar 41.-Alma-Ata: KazGU, 1978.- 64 p.
112. Nikitevich V.M. Word formation and derivational grammar.42.- Grodno: Grodn. un-t, 1982 94 p.
113. Nikitevich V.M. Some issues of comparative study of word structure in closely related languages // Questions of word formation and nominative derivation in Slavic languages Grodno, 1982- P.79-91.
114. Oruzbayeva B.O. Word formation in the Kyrgyz language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences Frunze, Il im, 1964 - 102 p.
115. Oruzbayeva B.O. Word: The structure of the word. - Bishkek: Ilim, 1994 259 p. (in Kyrgyz).
116. Orthography of Turkic literary languages in the USSR: Sat. Art. / Rev. ed. K.M.Musaev M.: Nauka, 1973.-302 p.
117. Osmanov U.Yu. Compound words in the Avar literary language: Dis. cand. philol. Sciences. - Makhachkala, 2000, - 147 p.
118. Plato. Cratyl. Antique theories of language and style / Ed. O.M. Freidenberg.- M.-JI., 1936.
119. Pokrovskaya JI.A. Grammar of the Gagauz language. Phonetics and morphology-M.: Nauka, 1964.-298 p.
120. Potebnya A.A. From notes on Russian grammar.-M.: Uchpedgiz, 1958536 p.
121. Potebnya A.A. Word and Myth: Supplement to the journal "Problems of Philosophy".-M.: Pravda, 1989.-623 p.
122. Ramazanov K.T. Paired words in the Turkic languages of the southwestern group (designation of features, qualities, states) // Sov. Turkology 1982. No. 5. - P.58-68.
123. Ramazanov K.T. Paired words in the southwestern group of Turkic languages (names denoting quantity) // Sov. Turkology № 3 - С.76-88.I
124. Ramazanov K.T. Semantic principles of the order of the components of paired words in the Turkic languages of the southwestern group: Dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences-Baku, 1985.-335 p.
125. Ramazanova D.B. Names of clothes and jewelry in the Tatar language. Kazan: Master Line Publishing House, 2002, 352 p.
126. Ramstedt G.I. Introduction to Altai Linguistics: Morphology M.: Izd. literature, 1957 - 253 p.
127. Rakhimova R.K. Vocabulary and dictionary of the Tatar jewelry language, Kazan: Fiker, 2002, 192 p.
128. Raciburgskaya L.V. Unique parts of the word: The problem of their isolation and morphemic status: Abstract of the thesis. dis. Dr. Philol. nauk.- M., 2000.- 35 p.
129. Ryashentsev K.L. On compound words in modern Russian.-Ordzhonikidze, 1976.-79 p.
130. Sadvakasov G.S. Word formation of nouns in the modern Uighur language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. - Alma-Ata, 1956.-16 p.
131. Sadigova S.A. Terminological phrases in the Azerbaijani literary language: Dis. cand. philol. Sciences.-Baku, 1986.- 161 p.
132. Sadykova A.G. Comparative and typological study of nominal composites in languages of different systems: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences Kazan, 1992 - 20 p.
133. Saparova E. Three-element object phrases in Turkmen and English: Dis. cand. philol. Sciences-Ashkhabad, 1987.-135 p.
134. Safiullina F.S., Gallyamov F.G. Repetitions as a grammatical tool in the modern Tatar language // Sov. Turkology. - 1984 No. 4-S.68-92.
135. Semenova G.N. Nominal composites in the Chuvash language of Cheboksary: Chuvash Publishing House, University, 2002 - 160 p.
136. Serebrennikov B.A., Gadzhieva N.Z. Comparative-historical grammar of Turkic languages.- Baku: Maarif, 1979.- 304 p.
137. Serebrennikov B.A., Gadzhieva N.Z. Comparative-historical grammar of Turkic languages. - 2nd ed. - M.: Nauka, 1986 301 p.
138. Siraeva S.N. Pair combinations in German and Turkic languages: (In structural and comparative terms): Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences.-Samarkand, 1977.-246 p.
139. Siraeva S.N. Pair combinations in German and Turkic languages: (In structural and comparative terms): Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences.-Tbilisi, 1978.-22 p.
140. Skvortsov M.I. About some features of the Chuvash folk names plants // Turkic lexicology and lexicography M., 1971.-p.264-275.
141. Modern Tatar literary language.- Part 1.- M.: Nauka, 1969.380 p.
142. Stepanova M.D. Word-formation of modern German languages Publishing house of foreign literature. lang., 1953.- 375 p.
143. Sundueva E.V. Appelative and proprietory word formation in the modern Mongolian language: Author's abstract: dis. cand. philol. Sciences.-Ulai-Ude, 2000.- 18 p.
144. Tagirova F.I. On the problem of compound words in the grammars of the Turkic languages // Problems of lexicology and terminology of the Tatar language. - Issue 2 Kazan: Tatar, book. publishing house, 1995 - S.94-99.
145. Tagirova F.I. On the features of the placement of compound words in the dictionaries of Turkic languages // Problems of word formation in Turkic languages: (Mater, conferences). - Kazan: Fiker, 2002. - P. 47-56.
146. Tagirova F.I. On the presentation of complex nouns in Tatar dictionaries // Problems of lexicology and terminology of the Tatar language-Kazan: Tatar, book. publishing house, 1993.-S.87-95.
147. Tagirova F.I. On the spelling of compound words of some models // Problems of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language.- Kazan: Fiker, 2001.- SL10-114.
148. Tagirova F.I. On the spelling of compound words of some models // Problems of the history, culture and development of the languages of the peoples of Tatarstan and the Volga-Ural region: Mater, scientific and practical. conf. (Kazan, May 18-21, 2000). - Kazan: Gumanitarya, 2002 P. 86-89.
149. Tagirova F.I. On the principles of giving complex names in the dictionaries of the Tatar language // Language situation in the Republic of Tatarstan: state and prospects-4.IL-Kazan: Master Line, 1999-S. 193-195.
150. Tagirova F.I. On the principles of giving complex names in the dictionaries of the Turkic languages // Problems of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language-Kazan: Fiker, 2001.-p.7-10.
151. Tagirova F.I. Paired words as the most ancient lexical layer // Problems of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language - Kazan: Fiker, 1999.- P.27-32.
152. Tagirova F.I. The problem of compound words and its reflection in the grammars of the Turkish language // Problems of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language Issue 2. - Kazan, 1995 - P.79-88.
153. Tagirova F.I. Compound words and their reflection in the fundamental four-volume "Explanatory dictionary of the Tatar language" // Problems of lexicology and lexicography of the Tatar language.- Issue 6 Kazan: Fiker, 2003.- P.40-44.
154. Tatar grammar: In 3 volumes - T.I. - Kazan: Tatars, book. publishing house, 1993584 p.
155. Tenishev E.R. The structure of the Saryg-Yugur language. - M .: Nauka, 1976 308 p.
156. Terentiev M. Grammar Turkish, Persian, Kyrgyz and Uzbek.-SPB., 1875-1876 205, 208 pp.
157. Troyansky A. A brief Tatar grammar in favor of the student youth. - St. Petersburg, 1914; Kazan, 1824, 1860.
158. Turkic lexicology and lexicography: Sat. Art. / Ed. N.A. Baskakova.-M.: Nauka, 1971.
159. Ubryatova E.I. Paired words in the Yakut language // Language and thinking.-Vyp.I.-M., 1948 P.297-328.
160. Urinbaev Z.B. About words-repetitions of the Uzbek language. - Tashkent: Fan, 1981.
161. Usmanov S. Morphological features of the word in the modern Uzbek language: Abstract of the thesis. dis. Dr. Philol. Sciences.-Tashkent, 1964 150 p.
162. Faseev F.S. About compound words in the Tatar language // Soviet mektebe.-1957.-№4.- P.55-61.
163. Feyzhanov X. Brief Tatar grammar. - St. Petersburg, 1862. Filin F.P. On the genetic and functional status of the modern Russian literary language // Questions of Linguistics 1977.- No. 4 - 15 p.
164. Khabichev M.A. Guzeev. Fundamentals of Karachay-Balkarian orthography / Sov. Turkology 1981-№4.- P.97-98.
165. Khabichev M.A. Nominal word formation and form formation in the Karachay-Balkar language: (Experience of comparative historical study): Abstract of the thesis. dis. Dr. Philol. Sciences Baku, 1972 - 67 p.
166. Khabichev M.A. Karachay-Balkar nominal word formation-Cherkessk: Stavrop. book. publishing house, 1971, 302 p.
167. Khairutdinova T.Kh. Everyday vocabulary of the Tatar language Kazan: Fiker, 2000 - 128 p.
168. Khalilov Yu.K. Structural and typological features of analytical constructions in the word-formation system of the language: (On the material of the German and Azerbaijani languages): Dis. . cand. philol. Sciences.- Baku, 1973.- 195 p.
169. Charekov C.JI. Evolutionary morphology. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999. - 20 p. Chernov M.F. Semantic types of compound terms in the modern Chuvash language // Sov. Turkology.- 1982.- No. 3.- P.37-44.
170. Shcherba JI.B. Experience of the general theory of lexicography L.: Nauka, 1969. Shcherba L.V. Language system and speech activity.- L.: Nauka, 1974.-428 p.
171. Yuldashev A.A. On the characteristics of Turkic compound words // Questions of linguistics. - 1969 No. 5. - P. 68-79.
172. Yuldashev A.A. Principles of compiling Turkic-Russian dictionaries.- M.: Nauka, 1972.-416 p.1. In Tatar:
174. Alparov G. Tatar telende kushma torler // Sailanma hezmetler-Kazan, Tatar, Chinese. neshr., 1945.-B. 169-188.
175. Alparov G. Shekli nigezde tatar grammatikas. Telebezne gylmi tiksherude ber tezhribe.-Kazan, 1926 164 b.
176. Akhunov G. Timerkhannyts kurgen-kichergennere. Documentary story-Kazan: Tatar kitaby, 1999 352 b.
177. Ekhetov G., Irgalina G. Tatar telende parly suzler // Council of mektebe, -1974 - No. 6 B.28-29.
178. Validi D. Tatar telenen grammatikas.- Kazan, 1919 175 b. (garep graph.).
179. Validi D. Tatar body imla em sarfi ve nehu kagyidelere. Kazan, 1915.
180. Valiullina Z.M., Zinnatullina K.Z., Segyytov M.A. Khozerge Tatars edebi body morphology-Kazan, 1972.- 206 b.
181. Ganiev F.A. Khezerge Tatars edebi tele. Suzyasalysh. - Kazan: Megarif, 2000.-271 b.
182. Gafuri M. Eserler zhyelmasy.- IV volume Kazan: Tatars, whale. Nash., 1949.- 170 b.
183. Gyilezhev A.M. Yegez, take the doga! Roman-khatire Kazan: Tatars, whale. Nash., 1997.-448 b.
184. Gyilezhev A.M. Eserler: A story. Roman.- Durt tomda.- 3 volumes-Kazan: Tatar, whale. N.S., 1994 567 b.
185. Zhelei JI. Tatar telelenen tarihi morphology (essay) .- Kazan: Fiker, 2000.- 288 b.
186. Ibrahimov G. Sailanma eserler. - 3 volumes - Kazan: Tatar, Chinese. N.S., 1956.470 b.
187. Ibrahimov G. Eserler: Terki em tatar tele beleme buencha hezmatler (1910-1930) Sigez tomda.- 8 volumes-Kazan: Tatar, Chinese. neshr., 1987.-431 b.
188. Ibrahimov G. Tatar sarfi.- Kazan, 1915.
189. Ibrahimov G. Tatar sarfi, betenley yatsadan ashlengen bishenche basmasy Kazan, 1918 (garep graph.).
190. Imanaev Sh. Tatar calf nehue ve sarfs Kazan, 1910 (garep graph.).
191. Gameli of sabaklar bodies: Gameli saryf-nehu / Collective -3 nche kitap-Kazan, 1923.
192. Korbangali M., Gabdelbadig X. Ana tele sarfy.- 2-nche basma.- Kazan, 1919.- 179 p. (garep graph.).
193. Korbangaliev M., Badigy X. Rus makteplere ochen tatar tele dereslege. - 1st night kitap Kazan: Tatizdat, 1926, - 79 b.
194. Korbangaliev M., Gaziz R. Ruslarga Tatar tele eiretu echen kullanma om dereslek.- Kazan: Tatar, matbugat neshr., 1925.- 136 b. (garep graph.).
195. Kurbatov Kh.R. Tatar tslende kushma suzler yazylyshi // Tatar tele em edebiyaty.-Kazan: Tatar, Chinese. N.S., 1959 B.123-132.
196. Kurbatov Kh.R. Tatar calf alphabet Em spelling tarihi Kazan: Tatar, whale. Nash., I960.- 132 b.
197. Maksudi E. Sarf graters. - Kazan, 1921 (garep graph.).
198. Mediev M. Sailanma eserler T.N.-Kazan: Tatar, Chinese. neshr., 1996.576 6.
199. Mekhiyarova R.Kh. XX gasyrnyts 80-90 ellarda tatar tele lexikasa. Dareslek-kullanma Yar Chally, 2000.- 192 b.
200. Nasyri K. Enmuzezh Kazan, 1895 - 87 b.
201. Nugeybek G. Terlek. - Kazan, 1921 82 b. (garep graph.).
202. Nugeyback G. Terlek Kazan, 1911.
203. Ramazanov Sh.A. Khezerge Tatars calf suzlek compositions // Tatar body buencha essay.-Kazan: Tatgosizdat, 1945.-B.146-181.
204. Safiullina F.S. Khezerge Tatar edebi tele: lexicology. Yugars uku yortlars studentslars echen Kazan: Heater, 1999.- 288 b.
205. Safiullina F.S., Gazizova F.M. Tatarcha-ruschatezme suzler suzlege.-Kazan: Tatar, whale. Nash., 2002.- 364 b.
206. Segdi G. Yatsa em zhitsel tortipte telebeznets saryfy Kazan, 1913.
207. Tumasheva D.G. Khezerge Tatar edebi body morphologyse-Kazan: Kazan University of Neshr., 1964 300 b.
208. Tumasheva D.G. Khezerge Tatars Odebi Tele. Morphology.- Kazan: Kazan University of Neshr., 1978.-221 b.
209. Tumasheva D. Khezerge Tatars edebi body morphology. - Kazan, 1964.
210. Faseev F.S. Tatar telende terminology nigezlere, - Kazan: Tatar, whale. N.S., 1969 200 b.
211. Feizullin R.A. Zhil Vakyt st. - Kazan: Megarif, 1996. - 287 b.
212. Feyzhanov G. Tatar telige kyskach gylme saryf. - Kazan: Printing Univ., 1887.- 32 b. (garep graph.).
213. Khangildin V.N. Tatar Tele Grammikas.- Kazan, 1954 151 6.
214. Khangildin V.N. Tatar body grammar: (Morphology em syntax).- Kazan: Tatar, Chinese. N.S., 1959-644 b.
215. Khangildin V.N. Tatar telende suzyasalyshy // Tatar telen ukytu mesyolelere buencha fanny-practitioner conference materials. Kazan, 1953. B.108-125.
216. Khangildin V.N. Em K.Nasyri. Tatar lexicography. Kazan: Tatknigoizdat, 1948.
217. Khangildin V.N. Kushymchalar em kushma suzler yazylyshi // Council of edebiyaty - 1954.-№2.
218. Kharis R. Totkasyz ishek: Shigyrler, poetalar. - Kazan: Tatar, whale. nesh., 1999 192 b.
219. Yusupov R.A. Edep bashi tel: Iketellelek shartlarynda dores svilam mesielelere. Kazan, 2000.-218 b.
220. In other Turkic languages:
221. Adilov M., Mamatov N. Uzbek tilida 1^ushma suzlar // Sov. Turkology.- 1983- №4 S. 100-103.
222. Ishbaev K.G. Bashkort calf Yuzyalyshi 0fo, 1994.- 284 b. Madaliev B. Khozirgi Uzbek tilida ^ushma suzlar. - Tashkent: Fan, 1966.-181 b.
223. Mamatov N.M. Uzbek tilida ^unsha suzlar. - Tashkent: Fan, 1982. - 236b.
224. Khozhiev A. Uzbek tilida kushma, zhuft in tacroriy suzlar Toshkent: Uzbek. SSR fanlar Acad. Neshr., 1963.- 148 b.
225. Choferov S. A3ap6ajiiaH dilindo cos japadychylygy.- Baki: ADU shr., I960.- 204 b.
226. Aijikgoz Halil. Tiirk9ede Biti§ik Kelime Meselesi Sayi 12 - Istanbul: Kubbealti Akademi Mecmuasi, 1987.
227. Banguoglu Tahsin. Tiirk9enin Grameri.- Ankara, 1990. Banguoglu Tahsin. Turk9eninGrameri-Istanbul, 1974. Deni Jean. Tiirk Dili Grameri: (Osmanh Leh9esi), 1921 Paris / Terciime: Ali Ulvi Elove.-Istanbul, 1941.
228. Hatiboglu V. Turk9enin yapisi ve ikili kokler // Tiirk Dili 1970.- No. 224-S.l10-115.
229. Kalfa Mahir. Ilk Ogretim Dil Bilgisi Kitaplannda Birle§ik Kelime Sorunu // Tiirk Dili. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi.-No. 592- Nisan, 2001 S. 396-404.
230. Mansuroglu M. Turkiye Turk9esi Soz Yapimi Uzerine Bazi Notlar1.tanbul, 1960. tt
231. Oner Mustafa. Bugunku Kip?ak Turk9esi. Tatar, Kazak ve Kirgiz Leh9eleri Kar§ila§tirmali Grameri-Ankara: Turk Dil Kurumu, 1998.-270 s.
232. Ozel Sevgi. Turkiye Turk9esinde Sozcuk Turetme ve Birle§tirme Ankara: TDK, 1977.
233. Pekel A.G. Turk9e Kelime Ureme YoIIan // Maarrif Vekaleti Istanbul,
234. Radloff W.W. Das turkische sprachmaterial des Codex Comanicus St.-Petersbourg, 1887.
235. Tekin Sinasi. Turk9ede kelime Turetme ve imkanlar. Turk Dili i^in.-1. Ankara: TAKE, 1966.
236. Tuna O.N. Sumer ve Turk Dillerinin Tarihi Ilgisi ile Turk Dili "nin Yagi
237. Meselesi Ankara: TDK Yayinlan, 1997.- 57 s.
238. Zulfikar Hamza. Terim Sorunlan ve Terim Yapma Yollan Ankara: TDK Yayinlan, 1991.-213 s.1943.
Compound words are words that have two (or more) roots in their composition. They are formed, as a rule, from independent parts of speech, keeping in their composition the whole word or part of it. (Text of the article according to the textbook of 1915) Contents 1 ... Wikipedia
DIFFICULT WORDS- words formed by adding two or more full-valued words or their stems (steamboat, carbon-containing); see Compounding... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
Difficult words- words formed by adding two or more full-valued words or their stems (“steamboat”, “carbon-containing”); see Compounding. * * * COMPOUND WORDS COMPOUND WORDS, words formed by adding two or more full-valued words or their stems ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
Difficult words- words that have at least two full-valued stems in their composition, forming a structural-semantic unity. They are formed either by combining two or more full-valued words or their bases into a whole-formed complex according to a certain ... ...
Compound words without a connecting vowel- 1. It is necessary to distinguish between compound words with connecting vowels and compound words without a connecting vowel. Compare: psychotherapy (psycho + therapy) - psychasthenia (psycho + asthenia). 2. In some compound words, the first part is ... ... Spelling and Style Guide
twin words- In lexical style: compound words and phraseological units formed by repetition, assonance or alliteration. Oh yeah, no… Educational dictionary of stylistic terms
- 'WORDS AND THINGS: the archeology of the humanities' ('Les mots et les choses: une archéologie des sciences humaines', 1966) Foucault's book. In his research, Foucault sought to isolate structures in the history of human society (according to Foucault ‘epistems’), ... ...
WORDS AND THINGS: archeology of the humanities- (Les mots et les choses: une archeologie des sciences humaines, 1966) Foucault's book. In his study, the author sought to isolate structures in the history of human society (according to Foucault, epistemes) that significantly determine the possibility ... ... Sociology: Encyclopedia
WORDS AND THINGS: archeology of the humanities- (Les mots et les choses: une archeologie des sciences humaines, 1966) Foucault's book. In his research, Foucault sought to isolate structures in the history of human society (according to Foucault, epistemes) that significantly determine the possibility of certain ... History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia
Compound words- a variety of compound words (See compound words); words that have arisen on the basis of compound names and terms by reducing all or part of the words that make them up. The main types of S. s .: 1) formed from initial sounds or names ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Books
- Compound words in Polish. , Los I.L. The book is a reprint edition of 1901. Despite the fact that serious work has been carried out to restore the original quality of the publication, some pages may ... Buy for 1489 rubles
- Compound words in Polish, I.L. Elk. From the collection of "Notes of the Faculty of History and Philology of the Imperial St. Petersburg University" . Part 62. Print-on-demand reprint edition from the original 1901.…
Introduction
Chapter 1. General theoretical questions of compound words in the modern Tatar language 12
Introductory remarks 12
1.1. Compound words in grammars 18
1.2. Features of paired words as a structural variety of compound words 28
1.3. Distinguishing compound words from similar constructions 36
Chapter 2 Placement of difficult words in dictionaries 45
Introductory remarks 45
2.1. Submission of complex words in the dictionaries of Turkic languages 46
2.2. Submission of compound words in Tatar language dictionaries 59
2.3. Ways to improve the presentation of complex words in the dictionaries of the Tatar language 65
2.4. Submission of compound words in translation dictionaries and the problem of "standard translation" 77
Chapter 3 Spelling of compound words 86
Introductory remarks 86
3.1. Spelling of compound words correlated with isafet combinations 92
3.2. Spelling of Compound Words with Attributive Relation of Components 99
3.3. Spelling of Compound Words with Object Relation of Components 108
3.4. Principles of spelling compound words
Conclusion 116
Conditional abbreviations 125
Bibliography
Introduction to work
The relevance of research. “Composition is a very natural, very common way of creating new words in one language, while its role is very small in another. If for the German language words like kleinburgertum"petty bourgeoisie", morgendummerung"dawn" is a normal phenomenon, then even the Slavic languages do not show a great propensity for this type of neoplasms ”(Bulakhovsky, 1953, 94). As for the Turkic languages, V.V. Radlov in this respect believed that "the confluence of some nominal and verbal stems of the roots in the Turkic languages to designate one concept is a universal phenomenon." Now more and more researchers are coming to the conclusion that this phenomenon is typical, if not for all, then for most of the languages of the world and is very ancient. So, according to experts, composites existed in the Proto-Slavic (Filin, 1977, 15), Old Turkic (Makhmatkulov, 1973, 409), even in the Altai and Sumerian (Tuna, 40). It is no coincidence that complex words are recorded in all ancient Turkic monuments. So, in one only "Kutadgu beat ig" 2830 compound words are noted, of which 268 are names. The study of compound words as a linguistic phenomenon also has a long history. Scientific interest in them was already found among the authors of the very first grammars and dictionaries. The history of the study of compound words in Turkology, in turn, has already become the object of description (Ganiev, 1982, Garipov, 1954, Abdurakhmanov, 1975 and others. Of the later authors - Akhmedov, 1991).
But, despite the fact that compound words are one of the most studied problems in Turkic studies and quite successfully developed in Tatar linguistics, there is an urgent
5 the need to consider the problem of compound words, especially those aspects that are associated with the practical implementation of these units in the language. For example, the problem of identifying complex lexemes remains unresolved. Since in practice there is an indistinguishability of complex words from similar constructions. This problem is directly related to another - the problem of spelling. So, at present there is an inconsistent shaping of similar compound words not only in different languages of the same system, but also in the same language. This situation in spelling, in turn, causes problems in lexicography, which consist in the absence of consistent principles of selection and presentation, and, therefore, in inadequate reflection of complex words in dictionaries. In this context, this study, in our opinion, is devoted to a very relevant topic.
The relevance of the study is also explained by the fact that theoretical research on this issue in Tatar linguistics, with rare exceptions, is limited to the 50-70s. 20th century Meanwhile, the renewal of scientific interest in explaining the essence of the composite is observed, in particular, in the languages of the West Slavic group (for example, the works of Goverdovsky, Bliharsky, Grzhigorzhikova, Handke, Jeziorsky, Miodek, etc.). In this regard, there is an urgent need to revise some aspects of this problem both in Tatar linguistics and in Turkic studies, taking into account the current level of development of language theory.
Research objectives:
to determine the features of the existing spelling of compound words and the most general trends in its development in the Turkic languages in general and in the Tatar language in particular;
generalize the experience of Turkic and Tatar lexicography in the reflection of complex words and outline the possibilities for its improvement;
Determine the scientific basis for the identification of complex lexemes in
Tatar language.
The goals should be achieved by solving the following tasks:
Analyze the dictionaries of the Turkic languages in order to identify common features in the supply of compound words;
to consider the dictionaries of the Tatar language in order to identify the existing principles for the selection and presentation of compound words;
determine the criteria for distinguishing compound words from similar constructions;
identify the most common mistakes in translating complex words and presenting them in translation dictionaries;
Analyze the existing spelling of compound words in
Tatar and other Turkic languages, on the basis of which to develop
suggestions for its improvement.
The material of the study is the complex words of the Tatar language, selected by continuous sampling from the 3-volume Explanatory Dictionary of the Tatar language and partially from other dictionaries, a total of about seven thousand. Compound words of other Turkic languages served as a comparative material. The object of the analysis was the explanatory and translation dictionaries of the Tatar language, as well as other Turkic languages.
The following research methods were used in the work:
descriptive method;
method of analytical observation with subsequent generalization;
comparative analysis method;
Method of component analysis.
The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that for the first time in Tatar linguistics, theoretical and practical issues of spelling, lexicography and identification of compound words are subjected to a comprehensive analysis.
The theoretical significance of the work is determined by the fact that as a result of the study, an integral idea is formed about the level of theoretical and practical development of the problem of compound words in Turkic studies and in Tatar linguistics. The results obtained can serve as a basis for determining the general patterns of development of complex vocabulary and for solving the problems of their identification, spelling, as well as other theoretical issues on the relevant issues.
The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the results of the study can be used to improve the spelling rules of compound words, to compile explanatory and translation dictionaries of the Tatar language, to improve and unify them, and can also be useful in the theory and practice of translating from Russian into Tatar and from Tatar to Russian.
Approbation of work. The main provisions of the dissertation were presented in speeches at international and regional scientific conferences: at the terminological conference under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan (Kazan, 1993), "Linguistic situation in the Republic of Tatarstan: state and prospects" (Kazan, 1998), "Problems of history, culture and development languages of the peoples of Tatarstan and the Volga-Ural region" (Kazan, 2000), "Word formation in the Turkic languages" (Kazan, 2001), "Actual
8
problems of Turkic and Finno-Ugric philology: theory and experience of studying”
(Elabuga, 2002), at the international symposium "Formation and development
literary languages of the peoples of the Volga region "(Izhevsk, 2003), at the All-Russian
scientific-theoretical conference "Languages of Eurasia:
ethnocultural context” (Ufa, 2003), at the II International Baudouin Readings: Kazan Linguistic School: Tradition and Modernity (Kazan, Kazan State University, 2003) and at the final scientific conferences of the IYALI named after G. Ibragimov of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan (1993-2003), etc. A total of 19 reports were read. The main content of the work is reflected in 16 publications.
Work structure. The work consists of introduction, three chapters, conclusion, bibliography.
The introduction substantiates the relevance of the topic, defines the purpose and objectives of the study, its theoretical and methodological basis, reveals the scientific novelty and practical significance of the work.
Compound words in grammars
In all grammars of the Turkic languages, quite great place difficult words. The purpose of this study is to identify how fully the following aspects of this problem are covered in grammars: 1) the formation of compound words of various parts of speech; 2) structural types of compound words (compound, proper compound, paired, fused); 3) methods and models of education; 4) the relationship of the components; 5) spelling.
In the grammars of different authors, the formation of compound words of various parts of speech is given unequal attention. Most grammars deal mainly with nominal parts of speech. For example, Kononov A.N. in his grammar of the Turkish language (Kononov, 1956) considers the formation of complex nouns, adjectives, pronouns, adverbs and verbs. In the grammar of the Uzbek language of the same Kononov A.N. (Kononov, 1960, 130-139) provides the formation of a composite of such parts of speech as nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and also - in some detail - compound verbs. In the grammar of the Gagauz language Pokrovskaya L.A. (Pokrovskaya, 1964, 99-103) we are talking about compound nouns, adjectives and adverbs. In the grammar of the Karaite language, Musaev K.M. (Musaev, 1966, 117) analyzes complex nouns, complex adverbs and complex numerals. In the grammar of the Turkmen language, edited by Baskakov N.A. (Grammar of the Turkmen language. Phonetics and morphology, 1970) analyzed compound words of such parts of speech as nouns (131-137), adjectives (144-145), numerals (152), pronouns (198-205) and adverbs ( 391).
In the grammar of the Karachay-Balkarian language, edited by Baskakov N.A. (Grammar of the Karachay-Balkarian language. Phonetics. Morphology. Syntax, 1976) Compound nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and compound verbs are considered. In the grammar of the Saryg-Yugur language Tenisheva E.R. (Tenishev, 1976, 67) only mentions compound nouns. In the grammar of the Yakut language, edited by Ubryatova E.I. (Grammar of the modern Yakut literary language. Phonetics and morphology, 1982) compound nouns (112-117, 120-122), adjectives (167-169), compound verbs (225), compound adverbs (349), figurative words (voicing imitative words) (383), interjections (390), conjunctions (471). In the grammars of the Turkish language, many authors distinguish compound words in mainly two parts of speech: nouns and verbs. Ediskun X. in his grammar of the Turkish language highlights compound nouns, adjectives and verbs. The grammar of the Turkmen language considers compound words - nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns, adverbs, i.e. almost all parts of speech. In the grammar of the Bashkir language, edited by Yuldashev A.A. (1981, 495) considered compound nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, imitative words, interjections, conjunctions, that is, almost the entire spectrum of parts of speech.
As can be seen from the examples, compound words of such parts of speech as pronouns, numerals, are rarely given in grammars or are mentioned in passing with one or two examples. And service parts of speech from the point of view of the word-formation structure are not considered at all. The grammars of the Tatar language are more detailed in this regard. Already in the Grammar of 1965, complex nouns, adjectives, numerals, adverbs and pronouns are considered. Not to mention subsequent grammars.
As for the structural types of compound words, they have also been studied to varying degrees. Compared with compound, fused and proper compound words, paired words have been studied in the most detail. Pokrovskaya L.A. divides the complex constructions of the Gagauz language into 2 types: compound words and paired words (without highlighting continuous and compound words). Tenishev E.R. in the grammar of the Saryg-Yugur language writes about compound and paired words proper and also does not mention compound and fused ones. Musaev K.M. speaks in general about compound words, without dividing them into types. Kononov A.N. in the grammar of the Uzbek language he writes: “A compound word in the Turkic languages is such a vocabulary unit that appears in the language in three structural varieties: a) in the form of continuous words that have the phonetic appearance of a simple word; b) in the form of actually compound words, the components of which retain their form and stress, forming a rhythmic-melodic unity; c) in the form of paired words, consisting of two components, having separate stresses and having a two-term rhythmic structure. Here, apparently, there is no mention of compound words. In the grammars of the Turkmen language, too, we are talking only about paired and proper compound words. And in the Yakut grammar, on the contrary, paired and compound are considered. In the grammar of the Karachay-Balkarian language Baskakov N.A. all structural types of compound words are included in the concept of "compound word", separating only paired words. And Kononov A.N. in the grammar of the Turkish language there is no division of compound words into structural varieties at all. In the grammar of the Bashkir language, all structural types of composites are carefully analyzed individually, including abbreviations. Analysis shows that in grammars structural types are not reflected in the same way, in many of them there is no definition of a compound word and there is no fundamental division of compound words according to their structural features.
Methods for the formation of compound words also did not receive sufficiently clear and specific coverage in grammars. So, Pokrovskaya L.A. does not divide compound words according to the ways of formation and mentions only one way - the lexicalization of the phrase. As an example, the following words are given: kyskardash sister (finished, girl + brother), dishi dana (finished, female + calf) heifer. The division is made on the basis of grammatical, semantic or other relations of the components, according to education models, etc. Moreover, in this classification, all these approaches are mixed. So, to the model app. + n. the following examples are given: altop (finished, pink ball) verbena, ilkyaz (finished, first summer) spring and here delikappy (finished, with violent blood) a guy, a bachelor. Or, for example, paired words are divided into compound 1) from two independent words that relate to each other in meaning as antonyms or synonyms; 2) from a double word; 3) from the word and its echo, the "word-echo", which does not have an independent meaning.
Tenishev E.R., like other authors, points to the coordinating and subordinating ways of forming compound words. Musaev K.M. the composite calls all the methods of formation addition: for example: tsats ipek (finished, hair - silk) velvet, karabas (finished, black head) maid, taspolmakh (becoming a stone) death, ai tolusu (finished, moon fullness) full moon, tar beryuvchyu ( eaten up, giving crampedness) enemy, etc. But the models of education are given in some detail. For example, such interesting models as noun. + verbal name pa - uvchu: altyn kaguvchu (finished, knocking gold) jeweler, n. + participle pa -gap: yer ishkyap (has finished eating, drinking land) agriculture, Akkap vakht (has eaten, current time) thaw, etc.
Features of paired words as a structural variety of compound words
According to some linguists, the leading typological feature in the Tatar language, as in all Turkic languages, is the presence of paired words, which make up 40% of the number of nominal composites of the Tatar language (Sadykova, 1992, 10). Paired words and repetition words are considered a phenomenon characteristic of almost all languages of the world, although not all languages use them equally widely. It is no coincidence that a huge number of works are devoted to the study of paired words, and not only in Tatar linguistics. In Russian linguistics, this topic was covered by such scientists as Potebnya A.A., Vinogradov V.V., Shcherbak A.M., Stepanov G.V. and others. In Turkology, this problem was considered by Ashmarin N.I., Denis Zh., Kononov A.N., Dmitriev N.K., Baskakov N.A., Kaidarov A.G., Aganin R.A., Oruzbaev B. .O., Egorov V.G., Khabichev M.A., Urinbaev Z.B., Adilov M.I., Mamatov I.O., Muratov S.N., Garipov T.M., Kalabaeva T.B. . and others. In Mongolian studies, Bitkeeva G.S., Bertagaev P.I., Beshe L., Dondukov U.Zh.Sh., Darbeeva A.A. devoted their works to paired words. and others. According to the abundance of works, paired words can be considered the most studied subject.
In Tatar linguistics, this problem was paid more or less attention to in their works by Alparov G.Kh., Khangildin V.N., Valiullina Z.M., Zinnatullina K.Z., Zalyai L., Tumasheva D.G., Faseev F.S., Kurbatov H.R., Ganiev F.A. etc. In the existing literature there is an incredible number of terms used to denote paired words and similar constructions. So in the "Grammar of the Tatar language" Giganov I. (1801) the words kapd-shakar, ash-tagam, yamgur-yagum are given and are called compound words. Radlov V.V. speaks of “confluences”, and also highlights repetitions (Wiederhollungen) and sound complexes (Laut-complexe), i.e. different types of paired words and repetitions. Melioransky P.M. uses the term "phrase" in his "Brief Grammar of the Kazakh-Kyrgyz Language". Dmitriev N.K. in relation to paired words, he uses the term "paired phrase". Foy K. uses the term Wortvolge - word order. Kononov A.N. simply highlights the composing type of compound words (which is true in itself). And so on until the last work. There are, for example, such terms for designating paired words and similar formations: “aggravation” (Potebnya A.A.), “word-echo”, “echo” (Pokrovskaya L.A. - gag.), “satellite words” (Ramazan K. - Uzbek), “repeating chains of words” (Ibrahim S, Rahman M. - Uzbek), “tekrarlar” - repetitions (Ergin M. - tour.), “ikilemeler” doubling (Tulum M., Ediskun X., Korkmaz 3. - tour.), "tacrorius suzlar" - repeated words (Khodzhiev A. -uzb.), "composita copulativa" - copulative composites, etc. etc.
Differences of scientists are not only in the choice of terms. The method of word formation of paired words is also interpreted differently. For example, Sadvakasov G.S. believes that paired and paired-repeated words are formed by means of a lexical-semantic method, since “... their prevailing semantics, their structure and a variety of phonetic features do not allow us to consider them in the context of the syntactic method of word formation, since in this respect they differ sharply from merged nouns, and most importantly, there is no syntactic connection between the components of paired and paired-repeated words (for example, yer-su land1, tsrik-konak millet-corn, etc.) ”(1956). Azerbaijani linguist Akhmedov B.B. (1991) speaks of cases of “convergence based on the semantic integration of synonymous words” from different dialects or languages and calls this “crossing”: posil-coj clan-tribe, sos-up voice, iuahwi-shupgar (finished, falcon-gyrfalcon) predatory birds, oziz-kiram dear.
The vast majority of researchers rightly consider paired words in the section “Syntactic way of word formation” (Kononov A.N. Grammar of the modern Uzbek language, 1966; Khangildin V.N. Tatar telegrammar; Tumasheva D.G. Khozerge Tatar edebi tele, 1978; grammars edited by Baskakov N.A., Zakiev M.Z., Ubryatova E.I., etc.).
From the above examples, it also clearly follows that they are formed in a syntactical way by composing. This is also evidenced by the belonging of paired words to the same part of speech, their identical grammatical form. Moreover, in more early period when the form of the paired word changed, both components changed, and even now similar cases remain: for example, ata-ana - atasy-apasy, kar-burap - karly-bursshly, irto-kich - irtolv-kichle. “The addition of affixes of inflection and word formation only to the last component of paired words in the modern language makes it possible for them to become one complex, more or less integral unit of vocabulary, and is a shift in their formation and a kind of morphological polishing - the acquisition of the form of a single word” (Kidarov A.T. .). On the syntactic method of forming compound words Khangildin V.N. wrote that, firstly, the composition does not give a soldered, fused word. Therefore, paired words stand between a compound word and a phrase and are written with a hyphen. Secondly, this method is not productive in the modern Tatar language, more precisely, it is less productive compared to other methods of word formation. This is confirmed by the fact that almost all words formed in this way have existed in the language for a long time. It seems to us that paired words were the earliest form of compound words. They were widely represented in the language of the Orkhon monuments of the ancient Turkic writing of the 8th century: arkish.tirkesh of the embassy; kyz, kuduz women; beglerі.budupі (finished, beks and people) all the people; ipі.yeg shіt (done, brothers-nephews) relatives, relatives (Examples from the book of Aidarov G., 1971). GI Ramstedt gives examples from the ancient Turkic language of the type /i/7/ acili younger and older brothers, bagli budunly beks and people; from other Uighur tunli kunli night and day, tanrili jirli heaven and earth, as well as from modern languages, for example, Kazakh: erteli kes day and night, erli qatun husband and wife, where the formant - / is translated as “and”, “like ..., so and ... "," and ... and ... ". He argues that these constructions in Tatar, Kazakh, Chuvash, Yakut and many other languages and dialects are quite common and are very ancient and date back to the Tungus-Manchurian-Mongolian-Turkic unity (1957, 46).
The facts from the Tatar language also indicate that the formation of paired words was mastered a long time ago. This is confirmed by many examples of paired words, where the components are not used independently in the language, or are considered archaisms, or their etymology is not traced at all. For example, the girl's kyz-kyrkyp (had eaten, a captive girl, a slave?); eget-oisilop guys (finished, guy-oilcapchok impetuous, playful?), mal-tuar cattle, living creatures (finished, cattle-cattle), savyt-saba utensils (finished, utensils-skins), where the second components are not used independently in modern language and their etymology is difficult to trace. By the way, the last example is interesting in this regard.
Submission of complex words in the dictionaries of Turkic languages
Turkic lexicography in general has a rich centuries-old history. One need only mention “Devon Lugot-it-Turk” by Mahmud Kashgari, Mukhaddimat al-adab (Borovkov, 1971, 96-111), Turkic-Arabic Dictionary (Kuryshzhanov, 1970, 196), Codex Comanicus (Radloff, 1887) and others. And it should be emphasized that all of them contain complex words. But in this case, taking into account the objectives of our work, we limited ourselves to more or less modern dictionaries of the Turkic languages.
We decided to analyze the dictionaries of the Turkic languages in order to find out: firstly, how saturated the dictionaries are with compound words in general; secondly, according to what principles they are placed in this or that dictionary; thirdly, how are the constructions most widely used in the Turkic languages arranged - together or separately; and, finally, to compare with the dictionaries of the Tatar language and derive ways of placing compound words that are most acceptable for the Tatar language.
From the point of view of saturation with complex words, one of the very first places, in our opinion, is rightfully occupied by dictionaries of the Azerbaijani language. They represent a huge number of complex structures. Secondly, all varieties of composites common in the Turkic languages are observed here. For example, in the Azerbaijani-Russian dictionary golomgaby pencil case, golomgash thin-browed, galelu opan sharpener, birkezlu one-eyed, one-room, agtorpag belozem, dava-dalash scandal, dirsokalty armrest, olidolu with gifts.
The Explanatory Dictionary of the Azerbaijani Language also contains a large and varied corpus of complex constructions. Most of their models are designed together and are independent vocables. For example, usupkirpikli with long eyelashes, saatbasaat over time, umumdusha universal, tarikh/azap chronicler, usuisurop long, cigar-shaped cigarabonsor, jorkupluk daily, sabai-sabai early in the morning, etc.
Spelling dictionaries were of interest to us from the point of view of how - together or separately - these or those models of compound words are designed. In the Spelling Dictionary of the Azerbaijani Language, the vast majority of compound word models are designed together: ]arshdagylmysh half-destroyed, іarіmdairo semicircle, white-bearded agsagalli, one-act birbolumlu, mortal bir/ashar, ]eddiaіlіg seven months old. Remarkably, type II izafet is also designed in one piece: suzanbagy, sabakkulu, hapymotu plant names.
All the listed types of compound words in all types of dictionaries are designed together (including isafet constructions), and therefore all are put forward in vocables and there is no discord in their presentation.
The Kyrgyz-Russian dictionary contains much fewer complex units, and there is inconsistency in their placement. So, we found at least four ways to submit. The first is when a compound word in a fused form is put forward as a headword, and a sectioned version is given next in brackets, and then a dictionary entry follows. For example, akbash (or ak bash) biting biting (disease in horses)
The second way: a fused compound word serves as a vocable, then a link is made to the same word, issued separately, and from it, in turn, the next link to one of the components (and not necessarily to the first one). For example, akkatsky is the same as ak katsky (see katsky) katsky: ak katsky (or akkatsky) er Mongolian saddle
As you can see, this method is especially confusing and inconvenient for the user due to endless references, especially since the dictionary consists of two volumes, which further complicates the reader's task. The third way: a simple word is given as a vocable, then a colon and a separately formed compound word and its article. For example, kunas: kara kunas stork chardak: ak chardak gull The fourth way, when complex words are simply given in the article of a simple word. For example, kene... kono castor bean sesame In addition, illustrative examples, phraseological constructions and compound words are no different here. The Karachay-Balkar-Russian dictionary differs from the previous one in a large number of complex words presented and their diversity. So, it has a lot of pair constructions, superlatives of adjectives: jap-jap'y is completely new, jan-jashil green-very green, etc.; onomatopoeia: dugur-mugur, duqur-mukur, etc.; collective: toy-kuuanch (finished, feast, wedding + joy) fun, feast, kalam-kagyt (finished, pen + paper) writing instruments etc. Consolidated ones are also diverse: achyg'auuz (finished, open mouth) razinya, sutbashy (finished, milk head) sour cream, karatoru (finished, black-bay) karakovy, dark bay, etc. There is no single principle in the presentation of separately formed compound words. The first way: in the article of the main word, through, as well as illustrative material, for example: cheb blade of grass ... bashy bot. bonfire, calamus bashi bot. couch grass chabak fish... calamus cancer, ala trout, etc. Another way is in the article of the main word, after 0: echkichi goat herder... 0 kush lamb (hawk) tulkyu fox... ak polar fox... 0 kuiruk wild millet In the last example, we see two ways of serving at once. At the same time, it should be noted that when submitting compound words, the principle of the first component is not observed and lexical and phraseological units are mixed. The explanatory dictionary of the Kazakh language is also heavily saturated with complex words. Many paired, especially imitative designs. Many complex words are framed together and are capital words. These are mainly zoological and botanical terms. For example, akkez, atartsa names of fish, aktyrats, akmamyk names of plants1, akkulak, the name of an animal, akbas the name of a disease.
Spelling of compound words correlated with isafet combinations
The spelling of complex words formed according to the type of isafet constructions, at first glance, is quite ordered. But in practice this is not quite the case. It is known that there are compound words formed according to type I and II izafet. Some linguists believe that words formed according to type II isafet gradually, as the components merge semantically, lose their grammatical indicator of possessiveness and represent type I isafet: tukrap bashy - tukrapbash. However, we adhere to the opinion of researchers who argue that type I izafet has long been used in the language. Thus, L. Zalyai writes: “Kul-Togin tekstynda bu form tartylysh tep urynny alyp tora... Berenchedvn, bugenge Tatar teleidege grammatik tozelesh formalarynsch bik boryngy chordan uk kilue achyklana; ikencheden, amorphous tartylyshnyts khozerge odebi telende aktivlashui kuren...”. In Kul-Tegin's text, this form of attraction occupies the main place... Firstly, the antiquity of the forms of the grammatical structure of the modern Tatar language is clarified, and secondly, the activation of amorphous attraction in the modern literary language is obvious... (Zheley, 2000, 35).
The scientist also explains the reasons for the activity of the amorphous form of izafet and sees it in the fact that in the Tatar language, as in all Turkic languages, nouns do not need a grammatical indicator when they enter into an attributive connection, but are connected only by a contact arrangement.
Thus, both forms of izafet - type I and type II - have long been used in the language in parallel, with the same activity. In the modern Tatar language, many lexical units are used in parallel in both forms: oiqup e/dilege - oidroidilzh strawberry, saban tue - sabantui sabantuy, tamchy gele - tamchygol fuchsia, bal kashygy - balkashyk teaspoon.
Moreover, colloquial, everyday, everyday speech tends more towards an amorphous form. Perhaps this is due to considerations of articulation economy. But it is quite possible that this is a manifestation of an ancient tradition. In any case, there are a lot of compound words in the Tatar language that correlate with type I izafet, for example: neuruzgol primula, tychkan koyryk mousetail, kazayak buttercup, ishekkolak comfrey, balta borchak chin, achkych ulen viperwort, kyrsabyp mylnyanka, orchykbash spinner, etc. . Dialects of the Tatar language also prefer the form Izafet of type I: apara chilek kvashnya (Chet. smithy), chey tobacco saucer, pich takta (temi., smithy, khvl.) oven damper, balayak (Chet. Mel., Serg.) sourdough, dishes for honey, etc. (Khairutdinova, 2000, 128), yakabash neck decoration, chechtetske monisto (Ramazanova, 2002, 352). This form is also used in fiction: ... yapgap kalememe ... min mets tapkyr kuzyash yaudyrdym a thousand times I watered my burning pen with tears. (R.Haris)
It should be noted that among other languages there are those that use a predominantly amorphous form, ignoring the II form of izafet, for example: Kumyk: kyr tavuk (finished, field chicken) pheasant, gechekush (finished night bird) bat, bale / sibin (finished , honey fly) bee, etc., Nogai: balmysyk (finished, honey cat) lynx, balkamys (finished, honey cane) sugar cane, etc.
As examples from the Tatar literary language and from dialects show, the compound words of this model, although they are perceived as merged, continue to take shape in two ways. This can be explained by two reasons. Firstly, the most frequently and widely used words are usually written together. Secondly, words with more or less compact components. However, this applies to all models of compound words. However, in general, in our opinion, this model has a clear inclination towards a continuous design, one can even speak of an established tradition. This is confirmed by the opinion of experts. So, regarding this problem, Faseev F.S. writes: “Tartym kushymchasy teshu belen, kushma suzge everelu zhitseloy: kulbash (kulbashy), ashyaulyk (ash yaulygy), almagach (alma agachy), konchygysh (ken chygyshy). Khezer do kaiber tartymly tezme - aerim, tartymsyz kushylyp yazyl: saban tue - sabantuy, bal kashygy - balkashyk, kuke bashy - kukebash h.6. With the loss of the possessive affix, the transformation into a compound word is facilitated: kulbash shoulder (kul bashi beginning of the arm), ashyaulik tablecloth (ash yaulygy scarf, cover of products), almagach apple tree (alma agachy tree of apples), konchygysh east (end chygyshy sun sunrise). And now some combinations with attraction are written separately, without attraction - together: saban tue - Sabantuy holiday, kashygy ball - balkashyk teaspoon, kuke bashy - kukebash lungwort. If we turn to examples from other Turkic languages, we also find a double design. For example, in Kumyk: gecherag'ach os, bashbav leash, tav oіsairan chamois, bav oіsilek strawberry, etc.; in Uzbek: buinbog tie, kulhunar handicraft, needlework, aueuplfuek kind of plant1, etc.; in Nogai: atkulak horse sorrel, atshabys horse races, bass yavlyk shawl, eralma potato; in Uig. toge kuiruk thistle, togo hum the name of the flower, tayadigul amaranth, kaz. count ar glove, doya go ostrich; head sabapkort cockchafer, ustabap palm, syyyrshalkap turnip, etc. Although in almost all Turkic languages there is a double spelling of compound words of this model, however, some languages show a tendency towards continuous spelling, for example, Uzbek, Azerbaijani, Nogai. Thus, the emerging trend in the literary language, examples from dialects and other Turkic languages, as well as the opinion of specialists - all these factors add up in favor of the continuous design of compound words formed according to type I izafet.
It is interesting that in German there are countless compound words similar to izafet: vaterland homeland, apfelbaum apple tree, tageslicht daylight, etc. Researcher Marr N.Ya. considered the ease of formation of compound words, along with the weak development of adjectives, a sign of the archaic structure of the German language, belonging to the pre-Indo-European stage. He considers the first component of definitive compound nouns, based on a comparison of German with some non-Indo-European languages, as an unformed name - a semi-noun, a semi-adjective that performs the function of an attribute. Paul G., Wilmanns W., Feist S. are in similar positions. In fact, many compound words with a determinative relation of components, especially those formed according to type I isafet, are akin to the above German words, since their first component also represents something indifferent between the noun and adjective. The reason for this is that nouns in the Turkic languages, as is known, are able to perform the function of defining with another noun, without taking on any indicators.
§ 10. Some derivational types of the Tatar language
10.1. The agglutination of the Tatar language contributes to the fact that most affixes carry the same meaning. The same enviable constancy can be observed among the Tatar derivational affixes. Each productive affix of the Tatar language replaces several, and sometimes more than ten word-building means of the Russian language. This will save you a lot of time when learning the Tatar language, if you immediately pay due attention to these affixes.
For example, the Tatar derivational affix -chy / -che, which expresses the meaning of a person related to what is indicated by the generating basis, in Russian corresponds to more than ten word-forming affixes:
cyclist - cyclists;
glazier - piyalachi;
carpenter - Baltachy;
lozhkar - kashykchy, etc.
rabbit breeder - kuyanchy;
linguist - telche.
As you can see, the affix -chy/-che is attached both to native Tatar words and to borrowings and new words. And at present, the process of forming new words due to this affix continues:
racketeer - rackets;
programmer - programmers.
It is necessary to pay attention to other high-performance affixes of the Tatar language that form nouns.
The affix -lyk/-lek can designate a place, material, device, device, spiritual qualities of a person or the name of an association of people, depending on what is indicated in the generating base:
mustache (aspen) - mustache (aspen);
kaen (birch) - kaenlyk (birch forest);
idan (floor) - idanlek (floor material);
kuz (eye) - kuzlek (glasses);
coat - coat lyk (material for a coat);
dus (friend) - duslyk (friendship);
kart (old man) - kartlyk (old age);
decadent - decadentlyk (decadence);
khan - khanlyk (khanate), etc.
The affix -lyk/-lek, forming nouns, is attached to adjectives and verbs. The main thing for you: try to understand the semantic relationship between the generating base and the derived word:
sukyr (blind) - sukyrlyk (blindness);
biek (high) - bieklek (height);
yuka (thin) - yukalyk (thinness);
ak (white) - aklyk (white);
kuakly (bushy) - kuaklylyk (bushiness);
berenche (first) - berenchelek (primacy);
ashau (eat) - ashamlik (product);
yagu (burn) - yagulyk (fuel), etc.
The affix -dash/-dәsh/-tash/-tәsh always indicates a person who has the quality of joint action with someone:
avyl (village) - avyldash (fellow villager);
yash (age) - yashtash (peer);
course - kurtash (classmate);
әңgәmә (conversation) - әңgәmәdәsh (interlocutor), etc.
The affix -ly/-le in the formation of nouns is also very productive:
Americans (American); maskәүle (Muscovite); Permle (Permyak); latviale (Latvian); litvaly (Lithuanian), etc. (When forming the plural of derivatives of these adjectives, the affix -ly / -le is usually omitted: amerikaly - amerikalar (Americans); maskәүle - maskәүlәr (Muscovites) - see lesson 8 of the Basic Course)
ike (two) - ikele (two); tugyz (nine) - tugyzly (nine), etc.
The affix -ly/-le is also active in the formation of adjectives:
yam (beauty) - yamle (beautiful); belem (knowledge) - belemle (literate); koch (strength) - kochle (strong); transistors (transistor); emulsion (emulsion), etc.
Our task is not to acquaint you with all the derivational affixes of the Tatar language. We want you to constantly search and find derivative words and productive affixes. This is of great importance when learning any language, and especially agglutinative languages, in which affixes are conservative (i.e., do not go out of fashion, as in Russian), are few and carry a huge load in the formation of new words.
AN EXERCISE
Attach the appropriate affix to the word and translate:
Chy/-che: harvester; salmon (fish); bakir (copper); җinayat (crime); tap; kumer (coal); lachyn (falcon); kuyan (hare, rabbit); museum;
Lyk/-lek: min; yuk; kata (hard); patsha (king); aksak (lame); ata (father); rector; ris (chairman); җyly (warm);
Ly/-le: Africa; Kazan; Russia; Omsk (After the base on -sk, a connecting vowel is added and: Omsk - Omskils.); Kursk; Permian; Arkhangelsk;
Ly/-le: achu (anger); kaigy (woe); җil (wind); soyak (bone); sot (milk); muscle; armor; square; sagynu (longing).
10.2. Another peculiarity of the Tatar language is the presence in it of a large number of paired words, which is not quite usual for the Russian reader. The components of paired words can stand both in synonymous and antonymous relations. The second component can also be an echo word, which currently has no semantic meaning. In these words, where you can guess the meaning of individual components, there is a logic that you should try to understand:
khatyn-kyz (khatyn - wife; kyz - girl) - a woman;
ata-ana (ata - father; ana - mother) - parents;
ashau-echu (ashau - eat; echu - drink) - food;
kөn-tөn (kөn - day; tөn - night) - always.
Now you have understood the main features of the Tatar language, you just need to penetrate into its features, understand its specifics, its ways of conveying reality common to all people, universal human logic.
Compound nouns are formed as a result of combining two words connected by a subordinating relationship, and are always written together:
alma(apple) + agach(tree) = almagach(Apple tree)
cool(hand) + yalyk(handkerchief) = kulyaulyk(handkerchief)
Compound nouns are formed according to the following patterns:
adj. + noun: carabodai(buckwheat, buckwheat), accosh(swan), terekömesh(mercury);
noun + noun: cognac(south), tonyak(north), ashyaulik(tablecloth);
num. + noun: өchpochmak(triangle), bishbarmak(bishbarmak: "five fingers" - the name of the dish), durtpochmak(quadrilateral);
pronoun + noun: үzaң(self-awareness), uzidara(self management);
noun + verb: escouar(dealer) urynbasar(deputy), Ilsoyar(Ilsiyar).
The second component of a compound word can be expressed by a derivative word: al yapkych(apron), kon Batysh(west), kon chygysh(east), su saklagych(reservoir).
There are many borrowed compound words in the Tatar language. They are formed using truncated components auto-, agro-, aero, bio-, bicycle-, geo-, hydro-, zoo-, cinema-, micro-, mono-, moto-, radio-, TV-, photo-, electro- and mainly refer to scientific and technical terminology: agrotechnique,velosport,hydroMechanics,zooa park,moviepainting,microclimate,bodymovie. The second component is a native Tatar word: radiodulkyn(radio wave), electroutkargech(electrical wire), bodycooper(teleconference), a photorәsem(photocard).
Compound words with components of Persian origin are also used. -han(room, room, house) -name(letter): ashkhan(canteen), kitapkhan(library), giftkhan(pharmacy), sәyakhətname(description of the trip), vysyatname(will).
Paired nouns
Paired nouns consist of two components and are used to express plurality, collectiveness, to expand or enhance the meaning of words. Paired nouns according to the relationship of components are classified as follows:
components are synonyms or words that are close in meaning: saulyk-salamatlek(health), isanlek-saulyk(health), shatlyk-kuanych(joy), Khatyn-kyz(woman), yort-qir(house, farm), goref-gadat(custom);
components are antonyms, i.e. words opposite in meaning: ati-ani(parents), abi-babai(grandmother and grandfather), ut-su(Fire and Water), җir-kuk(earth and sky) kiem-salym(clothes), kon-ton(day and night);
the first word has a real meaning, and the second is used in modern Turkic languages or Tatar dialects in the meaning of the first component: bala-chaga(children), savyt-saba(tableware), ir-at(the male);
the first word has a real meaning, and the second is only a phonetic version of the first: әbi-chabi(old ladies) Malay Shalay(boys) imesh mimesh(rumors);
none of the components is used separately, only together they have a real meaning: әkәm-tөkәm(snail), enger-menger(twilight), ygy-zygy(fuss, bustle) shaw-shu(noise), ybyr-chybyr(little, petty).
8 noon March könnekhatyn-kyzlarga chәchәk bүlak itәlәr. On March 8, women and girls are given flowers.
February 23, könne khärbilärne genä tүgel, barlykir-atlarns yes bәirәm belәn kotlylar. February 23 congratulations on the holiday not onlykomilitary, but also all men.
9 o'clock maidaabi-babaylarga aerucha zur igtibar kүrsаtәlәr. On May 9, grandparents are given especially great attention.
Ulym, sonyort-җirgә kuz-kolak blvd. Son, you look after the house.
Camila, kyzym, sinnewspaper-magazine Yep bar! Camille,daughter, you collect newspapersandmagazines.
