Etymological Studies of Common Turkic Etymons «bad», «kob»

Many lexical units of the language and their meanings need etymological analysis in relation to the origin and history of certain words. Etymology as a branch of lexicology explores the theoretical foundations and methodological improvement of the analysis. In order to find out the purpose of determining the origin and history of a certain word or words, it is necessary to find out: the primary meaning of some words, and in other words secondary, i.e. derived meanings, in third lexemes, the meaning of lexical phraseological phrases, in winged expressions, sayings and proverbs, as a result of collecting and analyzing materials and draw certain conclusions. The setting of such goals and objectives has existed since the formation of the science of language. Because the origin and history of words and their meanings interested the population for practical purposes, and scientists for scientific purposes. The main object of the research is the history of the semantics of words, so the article uses such techniques and methods as diachrony-synchrony, analysis-synthesis, induction-deduction, component and complex analysis of the retrospective method. The article takes into account all lexical, stylistic and grammatical meanings, grammatical forms in the form of root and derived morphemes, as well as semantics in the composition of lexical and stable word combinations of the common Turkic root words «hob», «bad». The analyses were carried out and covered the linguistic materials of the Turkic written monuments and modern Turkic languages. Etymological analyses of the etymons «hob», «bad» are theoretically based on the 5 principles of etymological theory developed by us: word semantics – semantic derivation – derivational process – types of reconstruction and semantic reconstruction – comparative bases of word etymology. Etymological analysis of the words «hob», «bad» is carried out at the phonemic, morphemic, lexemic and syntagmatic levels, i.e. it is subjected to a comprehensive analysis. As a result of comprehensive consideration of the Turkic etymon «ot» in aspects of the semantics of root words, derived words semantics and the semantics of the complex words we can conclude that archiseme of the etymon «hob» – value is «hollow, convex», that archisemes of the etymon «bad»: in the Turkic languages «face», in Arabic «desert, thirst», in persian «bad».

Etymological Studies of Common Turkic Etymons «bad», «kob»

Many lexical units of the language and their meanings need etymological analysis in relation to the origin and history of certain words. Etymology as a branch of lexicology explores the theoretical foundations and methodological improvement of the analysis. In order to find out the purpose of determining the origin and history of a certain word or words, it is necessary to find out: the primary meaning of some words, and in other words secondary, i.e. derived meanings, in third lexemes, the meaning of lexical phraseological phrases, in winged expressions, sayings and proverbs, as a result of collecting and analyzing materials and draw certain conclusions. The setting of such goals and objectives has existed since the formation of the science of language. Because the origin and history of words and their meanings interested the population for practical purposes, and scientists for scientific purposes. The main object of the research is the history of the semantics of words, so the article uses such techniques and methods as diachrony-synchrony, analysis-synthesis, induction-deduction, component and complex analysis of the retrospective method. The article takes into account all lexical, stylistic and grammatical meanings, grammatical forms in the form of root and derived morphemes, as well as semantics in the composition of lexical and stable word combinations of the common Turkic root words «hob», «bad». The analyses were carried out and covered the linguistic materials of the Turkic written monuments and modern Turkic languages. Etymological analyses of the etymons «hob», «bad» are theoretically based on the 5 principles of etymological theory developed by us: word semantics – semantic derivation – derivational process – types of reconstruction and semantic reconstruction – comparative bases of word etymology. Etymological analysis of the words «hob», «bad» is carried out at the phonemic, morphemic, lexemic and syntagmatic levels, i.e. it is subjected to a comprehensive analysis. As a result of comprehensive consideration of the Turkic etymon «ot» in aspects of the semantics of root words, derived words semantics and the semantics of the complex words we can conclude that archiseme of the etymon «hob» – value is «hollow, convex», that archisemes of the etymon «bad»: in the Turkic languages «face», in Arabic «desert, thirst», in persian «bad».

___

  • 1. Filin F.P. O leksike drevnerusskogo iazyka [About the vocabulary of the Old Russian language] // Voprosy iazykoznaniia. – 1982. – №2. – S. 3–17. [in Russian]
  • 2. Sherbak A.M. Sostoianie raboty i zadachi sostavleniia etimologicheskih slovarei tiurkskih iazykov [The state of work and tasks of compiling etymological dictionaries of Turkic languages] // Sovetskaia tiurkologiia. – 1975. – №4. – S. 3–10. [in Russian]
  • 3. Stepanov Iu.S. Metody i principy sovremennoi lingvistiki [Methods and principles of modern linguistics]. – Moskva: Nauka, 2017. – 311 s. [in Russian]
  • 4. Veinreih U. Opyt semanticheskoi teorii [Experience of semantic theory] / Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike, Vyp. X. – Moskva: Progress, 1981. – S. 50–177. [in Russian]
  • 5. Shmelev D.N. Problemy semanticheskogo analiza leksiki [Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary]. – Moskva: Vysshaia shkola, 2020. – 232 s. [in Russian]
  • 6. Kondratiev V.G. Grammaticheski stroi iazyka pamiatnikov drevnetiurkskoi pismennosti VІІІ–XІ vv. [Grammatical structure of the language of monuments of ancient Turkic writing of the XIII–XI centuries.] – Leningrad: Leningradski universitet, 1981. – 191 s. [in Russian]
  • 7. Salqynbai A. Tarihi sozjasam (Semantikalyq aspekt) [Historical word formation (semantic aspect)]. – Almaty: Qazaq universitetі, 2018. – 309 b. [in Kazakh]
  • 8. Voprosy metodiki sravnitelno-istoricheskogo izucheniia indoevropeiskih iazykov [Questions of methodology of comparative historical study of Indo-European languages]. – Moskva: Izdatelstvo AN SSSR, 1956. – 323 s. [in Russian]
  • 9. Ivanov S.K. O sohranenii v stroe iazyka ego prezhnih sostoiani [About the preservation in the structure of the language of its former states] // Sovetskaia tiurkologiia. – 1973. – №6. – S. 9–16. [in Russian]
  • 10. Slavski F. Iz opyta raboty nad etimologicheskim slovarem polskogo iazyka [From the experience of working on the etymological dictionary of the Polish language] // Voprosy iazykoznaniia. – Moskva: Nauka, 1976. – №4. – S. 55–59. [in Russian]
  • 11. Kaidarov A.T. Struktura odnoslozhnyh kornei i osnov v kazahskom iazyke [The structure of monosyllabic roots and bases in the Kazakh language]. – Almaty: Gylym, 2019. – 323 s. [in Russian]
  • 12. Nadzhip E.N. O srednevekovyh literaturnyh tradiciiah i smeshannyh pismennyh iazykah [About medieval literary traditions and mixed written languages] // Sovetskaia tiurkologiia. – 1970. – №1. – S. 38–46. [in Russian]
  • 13. Alekseev A.A. O principah semasiologii «kulturnyh slov» (Istoriia slova «chinovnik» v russkom iazyke XVІІІ v.) [On the principles of semasiology of “cultural words” (The history of the word “official” in the Russian language of the XVII century)] / Sistemnye otnosheniia v leksike i metody ih izucheniia, Mezhvuzovski nauchnyi sbornik. – Ufa: BGU, 1983. – S. 98–105. [in Russian]
  • 14. Korovanenko T.A. Semanticheskie osnovy vydeleniia mnogoznachnyh slov i omonimov v dialektnom slovare [Semantic foundations of the allocation of polysemous words and homonyms in a dialect dictionary] / Issledovaniia po istoricheskoi semantike. – Kaliningrad: KGU, 1980. – S. 14–24. [in Russian]
  • 15. Omіraliev Q., Ibatov A., Zhubanov E. Tіl tarihy – tіldіn oz qoinauynda [The history of the language is in the bowels of the language itself] // Qazaq tіlі men adebietі. – 1991. – №3. – B. 64–70. [in Kazakh]