Back
 OJML  Vol.11 No.6 , December 2021
About Transformation Formulas of the Most Ancient Roots in Eurasian Languages
Abstract: The article compares the root morphemes of common lexemes of a number of languages of Eurasia, which have identical origins. Facts of the Turkic languages are used as the main material. Research on transformation formulas of Eurasian languages ancient roots is made by reconstruction, comparative historical, comparative typological and transform modeling methods. Etymological analysis of facts has been carried out from the standpoint of altaistics and nostratics. It shows that the Chinese language, under the influence of the open syllable rule, lost its final consonants, which were preserved in the Altai and other languages of Eurasia.

1. Introduction

The object of the article is common words of a number of language families belonging to the Nostratic macrofamily of languages (Dolgopolskiy, 1964; Dolgopolskiy, 1967; Illich-Svitych, 1976; Starostin et al., 2016; Napolskikh, 2018). Here, the root morphemes and derivative words from Altaic (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu, Korean and partly Japanese), Chinese, Caucasian (Kartvelian, Dagestan, etc.), Uralic, Indo-European, Afrasian and partly Dravidian languages were compared from not linguogenetic point of view. The question about their ethnogenetic unity is discussed on limited materials.

The subject of research is more specific and has clearly delimited features. The paper considers those phonetic patterns that are uniform, regular and stable for the compared facts of different languages and serve as the basis for identifying their origin and those phonetic processes that have led to an increase in sound differences in etymologically identical words of former cognate languages. Sometimes there are such sound divergences in single-root morphemes that are even unimaginable for a simple observer and do not fit in the consciousness of a representative of traditional comparative studies. Here we show some preliminary examples.

For example, we have all reasons to believe that the English word hot, in Kyrgyz word ot “fire” and in Chinese wordhuǒ “fire, heat; red; hot temper; to get angry, to boil, to explode” are etymologically identical and are raised to the single ancient root (Cheremisina, 2017; Cheremisina, 2019). We represent this prototype as *hot “fire”. At first sight, this reconstruction of the most ancient root seems absurd, illogical and motivated only from the point of view of semantics. A broader approach to the origin of these three words convincingly proves that their formal and phonetic differences are secondary and have been arisen under the influence of different phonological processes and regularities. In the historical phonetics of Hanyu, there was a well-known open syllable law, which assumed that the final parts of Chinese syllables were open, rhymed, and could only have consonants -n,-ng,, which did not violate the harmony of the words’ sound. As a result, the most ancient root *hot “fire” undergoes an apokopa drop of the final -t and the transformation of the sound combination -ot into the diphthong -uǒ. There are a lot of similar facts in the Chinese and Kyrgyz languages (Zulpukarov, 2016). The reconstructed protoform is confirmed in a wide variety of languages. For example, it has transformations in the Yenisei languages: Arin qot,qott,kӧt “fire”, Assamese hat “fire”, Kot hhot,hot “fire” etc. (Toporov, 1968). These languages are now dead, but the examples are preserved, have come down to our time and are not exceptional. We present similar facts from Indo-European languages: Dutch heet, Icelandic heitt, Swedish het, German heiß, English hot “hot”, which also indicate the validity of the prototype we are reconstructing. And how is the Kyrgyz fire nominee related to it? The connection is direct—apheresis has occurred, i.e. the initial back-lingual consonant has been thrown away. It is known that the Kyrgyz cannot articulate the sound h in any position, so many foreign words with this sound were subjected to dieresis: the Arabic anthroponym Hasan—Kyrgyz Asan, the Arabic haram is in Kyrgyz aram “forbidden”. The most ancient root *hot “fire” also lost its initial consonant in other Turkic languages: 1) ot—Altai, ancient Turkic, Kazakh, Karagas, Karakalpak, Karachay-Balkar, Koibal, Nogai, Uzbek, Uyghur, Tuvan; 2) ut—Bashkir, Saryg-Yugur, Tatar, Tobolsk; 3) od—Azerbaijan, Turkish dialects; 4) oot—Turkic, Saryg-Yugur, Turkmen; 5) ood—Uzbek dialects; 6) öd—Turkish dialects; 7) uot—Yakut; 8) vud—Uyghur, Chuvash (in the last two examples has been appeared prosthetic sounds); 9) huot—Khalaj (where the initial h- was preserved). In these examples is obvious the interchange of vowels о/ö/u/оо/ and consonants t/d.

2. Research Methods and Materials

In this article, reconstruction aimed at recreation and systematization of linguistic forms, semantics, phenomena by comparing correlative units from efficient language that functioned in different periods (Bogacheva, 2009); comparative-historical built on simple comparison or description of literary phenomena, explaining the similarity of genetically unrelated phenomena with similar conditions of social development, considering similar phenomena as a result of their genetic relationship and subsequent historically determined discrepancies and establishing genetic links between phenomena based on cultural interactions (Morgacheva, 2016); comparative typological, highlighting one or different object in linguistics (Kozhaeva, 2008); transform modeling methods according to propositional models, schematic models of images, metaphorical and methodological models (Pankina, 2006; Zulpukarov et al., 2021) were utilized.

3. Results and Discussions

In this section results obtained after analysis of reflexes of most ancient roots expressing meanings, representations in the Indo-European languages, scheme models showing the development course of most ancient root along three lines: Turkic and Iranian, German and Khalaj, Chinese and Kyrgyz languages were described.

These reflexes of the most ancient root express meanings: 1) “fire”—in all languages; 2) “flame”—Kyrgyz, Uyghur, Chuvash, Yakut; “fire”—Kazakh, Karakalpak, Kuman, Nogai, Tatar, Chuvash; “war fire”—Tatar, Tuvan, Uzbek; 3) “heat”—Altai, Karachay-Balkar, Kyrgyz, Kuman, Yakut; 4) “fervor, desperation, desperate, dead-head (figurative meaning), shooting”—Uzbek; “shot”—Tuva; “gunpowder”—Kuman; 5) “light”—Tatar, Tuvan; “(sun/moon) light”—Yakut; “spark”—Chuvash; 6) “smoke”—Turkic; “the composition that removes hair”—Turkish. All of these meanings are in some way connected with each other. They identify different aspects of fire as a process that generates heat, emits light, and generates smoke when burning, and convey phenomena similar to any of the sides of fire—ray, lightning and spark. Only in one Khalaj language (the Oghuz group) we find the transformation of the most ancient root with the initial h-: huot “fire”, huotun “firewood”. We believe that this language has preserved the oldest sound of the word.

It should be noted that the reflexes without the initial h- represented in the Indo-European languages—ancient and modern: the ancient Indian atharvā “priest of fire”, Avestan atar “fire”, Irish aith “oven” etc., in Slavic languages: Ukrainian vandtrand “fire” Serbo-Croatian vandtrand “fire”, Polish watra “hearth, fire, smoldering ashes” (Fasmer, 1986). As you can see, in the Slavic examples, the presence of a prothetic labialized consonant is noted, and in the Indo-Iranian, the labial vowel of the root is transformed into a-. Thus, by comparing words of different language families that do not have common sound characteristics, we have established their genetic identity. The ratio of the most ancient root and its reflexes can be represented in the diagram as shown in Figure 1.

The scheme models the development course of the most ancient root along three lines: Turkic and Iranian (apheresis, sometimes prosthetics), German and Khalaj, and Chinese (apocope + diphthongization). This scheme can be extended to other similar cases. We can construct Kyrgyz word ır “song, poem, lyrics” (ır ırdoo “to sing a song” to one the most ancient root, where we are dealing with typologically similar repeat in the Kyrgyz and Russian languages) and Chinese shī “verse, poem, lyrics, rhyme; poetry, poetic, poem” “song, pleasure” with interchanging initial sounds (sh/y). At first sight, there are no common sounds in the Kyrgyz and Chinese examples, but only a common meaning. Appealing to the facts of other Turkic languages allows us to conclude that in the Kyrgyz word ır fell initial sound, matching to Chinese initial sh-/y: Kazakh zhır, Tatar zhır/yır “song” (zh/y), Uzbek sher “poem”, shonir “lyricist, the poet”, Kazakh zhırаu “singer”, Chinese shīrén “the poet, lyricist”. Examples of other Turkic languages serve as a basis for reconstructing the archetype *zhır/yır, preserved in the Tatar language, which lost the initial consonant sound in the Kyrgyz language and the final trembling sound in Chinese. Language facts confirm the prevalence ofsh/zh/y interchange in the Turkic and Sino-Tibetan languages. Schematically, the origin of the Kyrgyz word ıır is shown as follows in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Example of a figure caption (figure caption).

Figure 2. Example of a figure caption (figure caption).

As we can see, the examples of the four compared languages correlate with each other in different ways. According to our assumption, in the Tatar example, the original form is preserved, in Uzbek, the interconsonant vowel is transformed into a combination of two vowels, in Chinese the final -r has been dropped and in Kyrgyz—the initial consonant. Comparing these facts with examples from other Turkic languages, we see that the transformations of the common Turkic yır are more diverse than those that were given here: 1) yır—Azerbaijani, Barabinsk, Bashkir, Karaite (Galich, Crimean and Trakai dialects), Kuman, Kumyk, Nogai, Saryg-Yugur, Tatar dialects, Turkish, Turkmen dialects, Uyghur dialects; 2) zħır—Karachay-Balkar, Tatar, Turkish; 3) zhır—Balkar, Kazakh, Karakalpak; 4) zhir—Uzbek; 5) yir—Kuman dialects, Chagatai; 6) yer—Saryg-Yugur; 7) ir—Karaim (Trakai dialect); 8) ır—Kachin, Kyrgyz, Koibal, Sagai, Tatar dialects, Tofalar, Tuvan, Turkish dialects, Turkmen dialects, Khakass; 9) yür/hür—Salar; 10) der—Balkar; 11) zır—Balkar; 12) ırıa—Yakut; 13) yura—Chuvash. These examples express the following meanings: 1) “song”—in all languages, except Turkish dialects, Cuman dialects, Karakalpak; “mournful (humble) song, lamentation, improvisation without division into verses”—Kazakh, Tatar dialects; “singing with the music”—ancient Turkic; “singing”—Bashkir, Salar, Saryg-Yugur, Turkish dialects; “melody”—Karachay-Balkar, Kuman, Turkish; 2) “an epic poem”—Karakalpak; “poem”—Karaim (Trakai dialect); “epic”—Karakalpak, Cuman dialects; “legend in verse”—Kazakh; 3) “lyrics”—Karaite (Trakai, Galich dialects), Karachay-Balkar, Kyrgyz, Cuman, Turkish dialects;” “form of a poem with paired rhymes”—ancient Turkic (Sevortyan & Levitskaya, 1989). It is clear that the diverse reflexes of the common Turkic rootyır “song” are united by a common semantics and sound transformations and follow the model of phonetic transformations that we have constructed.

4. Transformation Form of Word Kul in Eurasian Languages

The Kyrgyz word kul “servant, slave” has an equivalent in Chinese in the form kŭlì “laborer, servant, porter; to do not spare effort in work, work hard in heavy work” The semantic and formal commonality of the two compared words is obvious. Here we do consider a Chinese lexeme primary on the grounds that the Chinese language motivates the semantic structure of a word, as it consists of two mutually agreed independent syllables: 1) “heavy, painful, pitiful, poor; to torment, suffer, bitterness, suffering, torment, misery” and 2) “to subject, submit, obey, belong; dependent, subordinate, subservient; servant, slave”. This two-syllable lexeme on a Kyrgyz basis lost its final vowel sound, undergoing reduction and turning into a closed syllable. All common Turkic transformations of the slave’s name with the final consonant -l can be summed up under this regularity: 1) ҟul—Azerbaijani, Altai, Balkar, Baraba, ancient Turkic, ancient Uyghur, Kazakh, Karaite (Galich, Crimean and Trakai dialects), Karakalpak, Kachin, Crimean Tatar, Koibal, Koman, Kuman, Lebedin, Lobnor, Nogai, Sagai, Saryg-Yugur, Tatar dialects, Turkish, Turkmen, Uzbek, Uyghur, Chagatai; 2) ҟul—Bashkir, Tatar; 3) gul—Turkish dialects, Kyrgyz (in compound words-anthroponyms, for example, Toktogul literally “stop + slave”); 4) hul—Tofalar, Khakass; 5) köle—Turkish; 6) ҟulut—Yakut (Levitskaya et al., 1997).

The most productive form is ҟul. Therefore the archetype of these transformations can be restored in the form of *kul “slave” (A.M. Shcherbak). Only in the Turkish language was represented the form köle “slave” (Shcherbinin et al., 2006: p. 469), which matches Chinese lexeme in syllable composition. The reflexes of the most ancient root *kul “slave” in modern languages express the meanings:

1) “slave”—in all languages, except Tofalar; “mamlyuk (soldier of the personal guard of the Egyptian sultans, recruited from Turkic and Caucasian slaves, in the middle of the XIII century. who seized power before the conquest of Egypt by Turkey; Arabianmamlük “slave”), a warrior from slaves, an infantryman, a janissary (a soldier of regular infantry in Turkey, recruited from prisoners of war, as well as from Christians converted to Muslims)—Turkish;

2) “servant”—Altaic, Kazakh, Karaite (Trakai, Galich dialects), Kachin, Kyrgyz, Koibal, Koman, Crimean Tatar, Lebedin, Sagai, Turkish dialects, Uyghur dialects; “farmhand”—Tofalar; “worker”—Karaite (Trakai, Galich dialects);

3) “muzhik, dude, peasant”—Karaite (Trakai, Galich dialects);

4) “servant of God, man (as a low being)—ancient Turkic, Kyrgyz;

5) “vassal”—ancient Turkic (according to G. Derfer);

6) “knave”—Tuvan, Yakut.

In the Yakut word ҟulut “slave, servant, knave”, the second part (-ut) is considered borrowing from the Mongolian languages and a sign of plurality (Levitskaya et al., 1997: p. 120). The meaning of “knave”, conveyed by the Yakut word ҟulut and the Tuvan word ҟul, has a semantic analogue in the Mongolian language, where bool means “slave, serf, thrall, Jack (in cards)”. There are several hypotheses about the origin of the common Turkic name Raba.

1) The word ҟul is etymologically related to the common Turkic lexeme ҟulaҟ “ear” (A. Vamberi). Let’s say right away that such an assumption has neither a semantic nor a derivational basis. The hypothetical root *ҟul- “to listen, listening” could not possibly be the archetype of the slave’s name.

2) It has also been suggested that the most ancient root *ҟul “slave” is related by origin to the noun ҟol “hand” and to the verb ҟıl “to do” (A.N. Bernshtam). In this case, an analogy is given: in Russian, the name of a slave “rab” corresponds to the verb nominee of the work: rab,rabotat,rabota, where the common root combines a non-derived noun with derivatives—a verb and a noun denoting the actions and activities of the denotation-subject expressed in the original form of the root. And this idea is recognized by scientists G. Derfer, L.S. Levitskaya, etc.) as unfounded from the point of view of etymology.

3) Another hypothesis was proposed and proved by us (Zulpukarov, 2016: p. 494; Zulpukarov & Amiraliev, 2017a: p. 31; Zulpukarov & Amiraliev, 2017b: p. 85; Zulpukarov & Amiraliev, 2018: p. 47). We consider this root to be common Eurasian and erect it to the Chinese archetype. Among the Turkic languages, only Turkish has preserved the archiform köle “slave”, without being subjected to apocope.

4) In the European and American linguoethnocultural space is found the lexeme kuli “porter, hired worker”. Its origin is not precisely determined. Some linguists associate it with Tamil, while others associate it with Bengali (Petrov, 1989: p. 272). We hold the view that it has Chinese origin.

The origin of the noun ҟul “slave” is not exclusive, not autonomous, but has several analogues. Here are some examples that are very similar to this word in their sound appearance and are motivated by the Chinese initial syllables. For example, the word yıl “year”. It is the common Turkic name for years and presented the following sounds: 1) yıl—Azerbaijani, Altai, Bashkir, Gagauz, ancient Turkic, ancient Uyghur, Karaites, Crimean Tatar, Kuman dialects, Lebedin, Nogai, Saryg-Yugur, Tatar, Teleut, Tobolsk, Turkish, Turkmen, Uzbek dialects, Khalaj, Chagatai; 2) zhıl—Karachay-Balkar, Kyrgyz, Tatar dialects, Uzbek dialects, Yakut; 3) zhil—Uzbek dialects, Uyghur; 4) zħıl—Balkar, Kazakh, Karakalpak; 5) yıl—Azerbaijani dialects, Kuman, Lobnor, Uzbek, Uyghur, Salar, Saryg-Yugur, Chagatai; 6) zıl—Balkar (zh-/z-); 7) dıl—Altai, Kachin, Koibal, Sagai (zh-/d-); 8) chıl—Koibal, Sagai, Khakass, Shor (zh-/ch-); 9) shıl—Khakass dialects (zh-/sh-); 10) sıl—Yakut (zh-/s-); 11) —Turkish dialects (with aphaeresis); 12) ıl—Turkish dialects (with aphaeresis); 13) iyil—Eastern Turkic (with prosthesis) (Shcherbinin et al., 2006: p. 275).

5. Transformation Forms of Other Words in Eurasian Languages

Consonant matches in anlaut are natural: compare, for example, the nominees of the meanings “pleasant smell, aroma, musk” in the following languages: Kyrgyz zhıpar, Turkish dialects yıpar, Yakut sıbar/sımar, etc. The loss of the initial consonant is also not an exceptional phenomenon. Outstripping of the interconsonant vowel ı > i occurs under the influence of the medio-lingualy-. These words express meanings: 1) year—in all languages; “a year in the twelve-year animal cycle”—the Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Saryg-Yugur; 2) the “year of life”—the Turkish dialects, Kyrgyz; “age”—ancient Uyghur; 3) “new harvest”—Uyghur dialects (Shcherbinin et al., 2006: p. 275).

We compare these examples with (1) Mongolian: Buryat zhel, Dagur zhil, Kalmyk zhil, Mogor zhir, Khalkha-Mongolian zhil “year” (Sanzheev, 2016: p. 74) and Tungus-Manchu: Solon zhil “year” (Tsintsius, 1975: p. 257). The latter, rather, is a borrowing from the Mongolian languages.

J. Clawson considers the primary meaning “year in the twelve-year animal cycle”, the secondary—meaning “year”. And to give the meaning “year of life, age; live” in the Turkic languages is used a word that functions in the variants yash/zhash/yaash etc. in both verb and substantive forms. Compare the Kyrgyz on zhash “ten years” and zhash-a “live”.

We believe that the outcome in Mongol-Turkic names of the year is a Chinese two-syllable word rìlì [zhıli] “calendar” (Levina, 2012: p. 291, 643), which is semantically motivated by its parts: [zhı] “sun, sunshine, day, daytime; day, date, number, time of day, every day, constantly; day by day, every day; once (in the past), upon a time; some time (in future), another time; to speculate on the sun” and “calendar, era; experience, life experience” (Levina, 2012: p. 291, 219). The combination of members of these two semantic paradigms acquired a more specific meaning and served as the basis for the emergence of a complex word. See also jiùlì “lunar calendar (style)” (Imin et al., 2001: p. 480). Chinese calendar names are borrowed by the West Altaic languages and became nominees of the year, undergoing apocope, which led to a reduction in the volume of the sign and the formation of a closed syllable: zhıli/zhıl/yıl. This fact can serve as an analog for explaining the etymology of the road name in the Turkic languages.

Kyrgyzzhol “road, path, track, distance, space, track, trail, lane, exit, passage” can be compared with Chinese lexemes: 1) zhù/zhuó “track, trail, path, legacy, affair, deed, pattern, example”; 2) zhé/chè “trail, wheel track, path, road, pattern, exit, post, rhyme class”. Here we are dealing with interchange in Chinese initials in the form zh-/ch-, matching the Kyrgyz initial zh-. The endings are different: Chinese /-uó// = Kyrgyz -ol. The latter could be explained as the correspondence of the Kyrgyz closed syllable to the Chinese open syllable and here we recognize as the primary the more developed, i.e. Kyrgyz form (zhu/zhuo/zhe/chе from zhol), because there were no examples in the Chinese language which significantly complement and explain these comparisons:

1) Chinese zǒulù “to walk on the road, travel”, consisting of the syllables: zǒu “to walk (on foot), go, stroll, move” and “road, overland, by land, by dry way”;

2) Chinese jùlì “space, distance, clearance, gap, distance (of action), range, reach”, consisting of the syllables: “large, huge, enormous” and “distance, at a distance; to diverge, move away, push apart, remove”;

3) Chinese yīlì “all the way, the same way, together, along the way, with the move, along with the move”;

4) Chinese yóulì “to traveling, travel”, yóulè “to go for a walk, enjoy yourself, have a good/jolly time”, which probably consist of syllables: yóu “to walk, stroll, take a tour, get around, go around, go about, roam, wander, travel” on the one hand, and on the other “distance, at a distance” and “joy, merriment, pleasure; to enjoy, have fun, to live in joy; to delight, entertain; a joyful, funny”.

The initials of these syllables z-,j- and y- relate to the initialszh- and ch- of the first two syllables as alternating and can be identified with the Kyrgyz initial zh- in the wordzhol. The correlation of the given roots can be represented schematically in the following form (Figure 3).

Chinese monosyllabic (4) and two-syllable (5) lexemes are united by the common meaning “path, to be on the way, movement on the way”, which is also characteristic to their Kyrgyz analog. We make the assumption Kyrgyz zhol, probably derived and consists of two parts: the first part—syllable zho-, comparable with the Chinese monosyllabic lexemes, and the second part—initial -l,

Figure 3. Example of a figure caption (figure caption).

comparable with the -,-lì and-lè in Chinese disyllabic lexemes, which lost the final vowel as a result of apocope action (Imin et al., 2001: p. 235, p. 746-748). Accordingly, we can say that all common Turkic lexemes—equivalents of this Kyrgyz word have arisen under the influence of the rules of dieresis at the end of the word. Here is a list of road names in Turkic languages: 1) yol—Azerbaijani, Altai, Eastern Turkic, ancient Turkic, ancient Uyghur, Gagauz, Karaites, Crimean Tatar, Kuman dialects, Lebedin, Nogai, Tatar, Turkish, Uzbek dialects, Uyghur, Chagatai; 2) yọl—Uzbek; 3) yul—Bashkir, Saryg-Yugur, Tatar; 4) zħol—Karachay-Balkar, Kyrgyz, Uzbek dialects; 5) zhul—Tatar dialects; 6) zhol—Balkar, Kazakh, Karakalpak; 7) zol—Balkar; 8) dol—Altai; 9) chol—Tofalar, Tuvan, Khakass; 10) shol—language Kyzyl; 11) yool—Turkmen, Croatian; 12) yuol—Khalaj; 13) euol—Yakut (prosthesis); 14) sul—Chuvash (Sevortyan & Levitskaya, 1989: pp. 217-218).

Scientists-turkologists restore the original form of these words in two ways: *yооl (G. Derfer) and *vооl (A.M. Shcherbak), marking out the length of the interconsonant sound to the first and foremost, although the form with a long vowel is represented only in three languages – Turkmen, Khorasan and Khalaj. We represent the protoform in the form *yol, taking into account the productivity of this reflex in languages. Reflexes of the most ancient root contain a rich system of modified meanings:

1) “road, way”—in all languages; “street”—Azerbaijani, Altaic, ancient Turkic, Crimean Tatar, Chagatai, Khalaj, Yakut;

2) “direction”—Bashkir dialects, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Kuman, Turkmen;

3) “trip”—Kyrgyz, Nogai, Turkmen; “journey, being on the road, road”—ancient Turkic; “flight”—Cuman, Nogai, Turkmen, Uzbek;

4) “course, speed”—Turkish; “course, exit”—Azerbaijani, Turkish; “passage—Kyrgyz, Turkish, Chuvash; “channel”—Chuvash; “canal, channel”—Turkmen, Turkish;

5) “stripe”—Altai, Kazakh, Karakalpak, Kyrgyz, Nogai, Teleut, Turkish, Uzbek; “line”—Altai, Kazakh, Karakalpak, Kyrgyz, Nogai, Teleut, Turkmen; “paragraph (line)”—Altai, Kazakh, Karakalpak, Kyrgyz, Nogai, Tatar, Uzbek, Uyghur;

6) “way (of achieving something)”—Bashkir, Kyrgyz, Kuman, Nogai, Tatar, Turkish, Turkmen; “method (way of existence)”—Turkic; “right path”—Kyrgyz, ancient Turkic; “reception”—Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Kuman, Nogai, Turkmen, Uzbek; “way”—Azerbaijani, Altai, Bashkir, Kyrgyz, Kuman, Nogai, Tatar, Turkmen; “tool”—Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Tatar, Turkish; “way out of (a situation)”—Azerbaijani, Kyrgyz, Cuman; “custom, rule, routine”—Altai, Kazakh, Kyrgyz; “order, rule, system”—Turkish; “mode/line of (actions)”—Azerbaijani, Altaic, ancient Turkic, Kyrgyz, Crimean Tatar, Teleut, Turkish; “manner”—Azerbaijani, Turkish;

7) “persuasion”—Azerbaijani; “leave, permission”—Karakalpak, Kyrgyz;

8) “fate”—Altaic, ancient Turkic, Kyrgyz, Crimean Tatar, Karaite, Saryg-Yugur, Tuvan, Turkish dialects, Chagatai; “happiness”—Saryg-Yugur, Tofalar, Tuvan; “share”—Tuvan; “luck”—Tofalar;

9) “time”—Azerbaijani, Altai, ancient Turkic, ancient Uyghur, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Crimean Tatar, Lebedin, Tatar dialects, Turkish, Uyghur, Khalaj, Chagatai;

10) “gift”—Kyrgyz; “monetary gift given at a wedding from a guy to a girl”—Turkish dialects, etc. (Sevortyan & Levitskaya, 1989: pp. 217-218).

The common Turkic *yol is compared to the Mongolian *zol “happiness, happy trip, good luck” (M. Ryasenen, G. Ramstedt, E. V. Sevortyan). Developing this idea, we will try to link common Turkic words with Mongolian ones. This takes into account the meaning of the word zhоl under No. 8. We see that the Turkic-Mongolian words intersect semantically: Buryat, Khalkha-Mongolian zol “happiness, luck”. From this word are formed:

1) Buryat zolbo, Kalmyk zolvng, Khalkha-Mongolian zolbin “homeless, wandering; strayed from the herd (about animals)”; they are compared with the ancient Turkic zhol/jol “road, way”, Yakut dol “happiness”;

2) Kalmyk zolchn “traveler” ( zholchu “guide, a person (new meaning) engaged in road repair; road repair master”);

3) Buryat, Khalkha-Mongolian zolgo-, Baoan zholǥe-, Kalmyk zolh-, Mongor zhuorgo- “to meet/meet each other” (ancient Turkic zholgır- “come across, meet”, Kyrgyz zholuk- “to meet, see each other”);

4) Kalmyk zoh-, Khalkha-Mongolian zolgo “to greet, wish someone happiness”; Mongor zhiorgo “to thank” (Sanzheev et al., 2016: p. 84).

It is clear that the Mongolian reflexes of the most ancient root have a narrower meaning than the Turkic ones, and reflect a group of figurative usages of the most ancient root. Read also: ancient Turkicat yol “glory, good luck”, Kyrgyz ak zhol “happy journey, successful trip”, zholu boldu “he was lucky”, zholung uzarsın “I wish you good luck and all prosperity”, Turkmen yооl bolsun “happy journey”; Kyrgyz zholdū “happy, lucky”, Kazakh zhollı, Nogai yollı “happy”.

Thus, the Turko-Mongol roots with final -l is etymologically connected with the Chinese disyllabic words: zǒulì,jùlì,yīlì,yóulì,yóulè and were arisen under the rules of apocope that led to the fall of the final vowel.

The Kyrgyz words kul and zhоl on its phonetic shape close to the wordchаl “old man, gray-haired, elderly man, white-haired old man”, which also from the point of view of the Chinese language is derived, and probably consists of two primary roots: jiu “old, ancient, in the ancient time, in the olden days; decrepit, used, worn, outdated, former, past, old friendship, tradition” and o “old, venerable, respected” The combination of these two syllables could form the syntagma jiù + o with pleonastic meaning. The loss of the final diphthong led to the appearance of the short word chаl/chоl/shаl “old man” in the Turkic languages.

6. Conclusion

In summary, deep-acting phonetic regularities revealed by comparing the facts of distantly related languages make it possible to bring together completely different-sounding words and establish their etymological identity (Amiraliev et al., 2020: p. 381; Zulpukarov et al., 2021: p. 106). In connection with the above examples, we can talk about compact ways in the language signs’ volume, which saves articulation efforts of speakers.

Cite this paper: Zulpukarov, K. , Amiraliev, S. , Aipova, G. , Zulpukarova, A. , Toichuev, T. , Joldosheva, A. , Apaeva, S. , Ryskulova, B. , Saparbaeva, A. , Abdykulov, M. and Abdullaeva, Z. (2021) About Transformation Formulas of the Most Ancient Roots in Eurasian Languages. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11, 907-918. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2021.116070.
References

[1]   Amiraliev, S. M., Saparbayeva, A. A., & Kayimova, F. M. (2020). Reflexes of the Most Ancient Root Deng “Equal” in the Languages of Eurasia. The World of Science, Culture and Education, 80, 380-383.

[2]   Bogacheva, M. V. (2009). Possibilities of the Reconstruction Method in Historical and Lexicological Research 1. Perm University Bulletin. Russian and Foreign Philology, 3, 42-51.

[3]   Cheremisina, T. I. (2017). Features of the Dynamics of Modern English-Chinese Language Contact. Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 7, 114-132.

[4]   Cheremisina, T. I. (2019). Chinese Borrowings in Modern English as an Element of Cultural and Linguistic Contacts. Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 6, 91-107.

[5]   Dolgopolskiy, A. B. (1964). Hypothesis of the Oldest Kinship of Eurasian Language Families from a Probabilistic Point of View. Problems of linguistics, 2, 53-63.

[6]   Dolgopolskiy, A. B. (1967). In Search of Distant Kinship. Russian Speech, 6, 95-112.

[7]   Fasmer, M. (1986). Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language in 4 Volumes. Volume I (A-D). Moscow Progress, 573 p.

[8]   Illich-Svitych, V. M. (1976). Experience in Comparing Nostratic Languages (Semitohamitic, Kartvelian, Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, and Dravidian): Comparative Dictionary. Nauka, 483 p.

[9]   Imin, C., Ien, Y., & Zhongbao, S. (2001). Chinese-Russian Dictionary. Veche, 1418 p.

[10]   Kozhaeva, O. S. (2008). Comparative Typological Studies at the Present Stage of the Development of Linguistics. Bulletin of the South Ural State University Series: Linguistics, 16, 3-6.

[11]   Levina, O. V. (2012). Big Chinese-Russian and Russian-Chinese Dictionary. Veche, 960 p.

[12]   Levitskaya, L. S., Dybo, A. V., Rassadin, V. I., & Blagova, G. F. (1997). Etymological Dictionary of the Turkic Languages: Common Turkic and Inter Turkic Lexical Bases on the Letters “K”. Languages of Russian Culture, 362 p.

[13]   Morgacheva, E. N. (2016). The Comparative Historical Method: An Overview of Approaches to Classification in the Social Sciences. RGGU Bulletin. Series: Psychology. Pedagogy. Education, 2, 102-114.

[14]   Napolskikh, V. V. (2018). On the Problems of Studying the Ancient Prehistory of Northern Eurasia (Nostratic Macrofamily of Languages). Ethnography, 1, 119-142.
https://doi.org/10.31250/2618-8600-2018-1-119-142

[15]   Pankina, M. F. (2006). Modeling as a Method of Knowledge in Linguistics. Topical Issues of Modern Philology and Journalism, 1, 98-102.

[16]   Petrov, F. N. (1989). Dictionary of Foreign Words. Russian Language, 624 p.

[17]   Sanzheev, G. D., Kontsevich, L. R., Rassadin, V. I., & Lehman, Y. D. (2016). Etymological Dictionary of Mongolian Languages in 3 Volumes. Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 232 p.

[18]   Sevortyan, E. V., & Levitskaya, L. S. (1989). Etymological Dictionary of the Turkic Languages. Common Turkic and Inter Turkic Bases on the Letters “Ж”, “Ж”, “Й”. Moscow, 293 p.

[19]   Shcherbinin, V. G., Fedosova, O. A., Kazakova, O. T., Rybalchenko, T. E. (2006). Large Russian-Turkish Dictionary: 100 000 Words and Phrases. Zhivoy Yazyk, 680 p.

[20]   Starostin, G. S., Dybo, A. V., Militarev, A. Y., & Peyros, I. I. (2016). To the Origins of Linguistic Diversity. Ten Conversations about Comparative Historical Linguistics with E.Ya. Satanovski. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration Publ., 584 p.

[21]   Toporov, V. N. (1968). Materials on Comparative Historical Phonetics of the Yenisei Languages. In S. Starostin (Ed.), Ket Collection: Linguistics (pp. 277-332). Vostochnaya Literatura.

[22]   Tsintsius, V. I. (1975). Comparative Dictionary of the Tungusic-Manzhur Languages. Leningrad, 670 p.

[23]   Zulpukarov, K. Z. (2016). Introduction to Chinese-Kyrgyz Comparative Linguistics. Biyiktik, 768 p.

[24]   Zulpukarov, K. Z., & Amiraliev S. M. (2017a). Dieresis in Sino-Kyrgyz Lexical Matches. Bulletin of the Jalal-Abad State University, 2, 26-36.

[25]   Zulpukarov, K. Z., & Amiraliev, S. M. (2017b). On the Motivation of the Semantics of Lexical and Grammatical Units in the Language. Scientific Methodological Journal of the Foreign Languages in Uzbekistan, 2, 74-92.

[26]   Zulpukarov, K. Z., & Amiraliev, S. M. (2018). Constants and Variables in Kyrgyz-Chinese General Morphemes. In E. P. Tkacheva (Eds.), New Paradigm of Social and Humanitarian Knowledge. Collection of Scientific Guides, Part I (pp. 44-50). Belgorod.

[27]   Zulpukarov, K. Z., Amiraliev, S. M., Zulpukarova, A. K., Akmatova, A. A., Zhoroeva, A., & Abdullaeva, Z. (2021). Reflexes of the Most Ancient Root *er “Male” in Eurasian Languages. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11, 104-119.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2021.111009

 
 
Top