Yeskeyeva М.K.,
MONOSYLLABIC SYSTEM OF THE TURKIC LANGUAGES
Key words: Turkic languages, Kipchak languages, Turkic monosyllables, the vocabulary of the
ancient scripts language, ancient monuments.
The definition of the sound structure of root words in all-Turkic continuum
which has been the object of study and the basis of dispute based on modern and
medieval Turkic languages together with the language of the VI-VIII century. The
roots and root-stems in Kipchak languages, which is one of the largest branches of
the Turkic roots study is considered in the area of common structural and stands
out for its peculiar phonetic-phonological characteristics. Therefore to study the
monosyllables of modern Kipchak languages in comparison with the paronymous
monosyllables in ancient Turkic languages is the actual problem which enables to
understand the nature of Turkic monosyllables.
There are not so many monosyllables which compose the vocabulary of the
ancient scripts language. It is about 10 times less than the monosyllables in the
modern Turkic languages. If there are about 3000 (2704) monosyllabic words in
Kazakh language (Кайдаров 1986, 183), A.G.Shaikhulov pointed out that about
4000 monosyllables can be distinguished in Kipchak languages of Ural-Volga
(Шайхулов 2004, 56), and 1160 lexemes are registered as the root words in the
work “Ancient Turkic dialects and their reflection in the modern languages” by
I.A.Batmanov. The authors of the dictionary covered grammatical forms of a
word (adïr, adïrt, adïrïl, adïrïlmaj, adïrïn etc.) and also paronymous derived words
(bat, batïm, batsïk etc.) (ДТД, 108-112). In G.G.Levin’s work, aimed at the
language of Orkhon monuments and the lexico-semantic structure, there are 498
root-stems, the registration of the paronymous words like bar, barïm, barï, barča
etc. (Левин 2001,168] is connected with the author’s aim to show separate
monosyllables and polysyllables that cannot be conjugated from synchronic point.
If we consider it from monosyllabic point only about 350 monosyllabic roots and
root-stems were used in Orkhon, Yenisei, Talas written manuscripts. It is clear
that a small number of monosyllabic models cannot reveal the root system, which
was the basis of the lexical foundation of our ancestors’ language. The volume of
the monosyllables in the language of ancient monuments are smaller than the
monosyllables of the modern Turkic languages because firstly, they haven’t been
read completely; secondly, it is connected with the individual authors’ and
printer’s use of words, richness of the language and individual style; thirdly, the
influence of 1300 years natural law of language development. Though thee
monosyllables in the language of ancient manuscripts are small in number, they
enable to determine the main features of the ancient language and outline
collection of roots and root-stems, and its informational value is important in
differentiating the nature of root in modern Turkic languages.
Though all the models of “the classical six”, which constitute the system of
root and root-stems of Turkic languages, is characteristic to ancient Turkic
language, its frequency of use, significant autonomy, appropriateness of forms with
the modern Kipchak languages are different.
It is known from many studies that one component model V, consists of
vowels, and covers only five-six words in the ancient Turkic manuscripts
(Кононов 1980, 76; Щербак 1970,196-198). These words, which are considered
the phenomenon of the first period of Turkic languages development, were used as
the words with individual meaning in the VII-IX centuries, and in modern Turkic
languages, among them in Kipchak language, they survived only in the root-stems.
In Kazakh language 8 of the form а, 11 interjection meaning of the form ?, 6
interjection meaning and 1 verb meaning of е, are registered (Кайдаров 1986,4041).
е «to be» Tal. III (ДТД, 86) the verb e from Talas monuments means the
auxiliary verb in past tense in modern Kipchak languages. In spoken language
tense form can be omitted and also be combined with possessive endings directly.
For example, in Kazakh language: e → edim → em, e → ediņ → eņ; e → edi → et
and e → ken. Usually the form е in Kazakh language extends from general Turkic
monosyllable er/*?r/*ip. In Orkhon monuments the form er is widely used: tabγač
budun sablï süčik, aγïsï jumčaq ermis «the words of tabgach people are sweet,
and their treasure is precious» КТs. 5 (Айдаров 1995, 169). As the forms е, er
were used in one period to determine their archaeological form is still needs deep
investigation.
ö «to think, to consider» (ДТС, 375): ačsïq tosïq ömezsen bir todsar ačsïq
ömezsen «You do not understand hunger when fed, if you are fed, you do not think
about hunger» КТs. 8 (Айдаров 1995, 169). In the language of monuments there
are some root-stems from the root: ö → ög → ögüt «advice, instruction, praise»
(ДТС, 382) ö → ög → ögle «to discuss» (Айдаров 2000, 102); ö → ök → ökün
«to repent, to regret» (ДТС, 382). The way of development, changes in form and
meaning of general Turkic o ≈ ö ≈ u ≈ ü root are widely discussed problem
(Анесов 1985,77-80; Баскаков 1988,40-41; Кажыбеков 1986,179). In Modern
Kipchak language all the forms of the given roots preserved: Bashk. ögöt
«instruction», uj «thought, reflection», uqïw «reading, study»; Kaz. oj, ujγar, uγïm,
uq, ügit, üjren etc. In the language of old Kipchak monument «Китаб-и меджму-у
терджуман түрки уа аджеми уа моголи уа фарси» ök «mind, soul, spirit», öküš
«upbringing», örenle «to think, believe», ojna «to play, joke» (Курышжанов
1970, 175, 179) lexemes from the root ö were used.
u «sleep» (ДТС, 603): Ertis ügüzig keče jorïdïmïz, turgis budunïγ uda
bastïmïz «We crossed the river Irtysh and caught Turgis people while they were
sleeping» КТg. 37 (Айдаров 2000, 179). In Kipchak languages *uj ≈ *oj
remained in the root-stems: old Kipch. *uj: ujïγïl «to sleep, to go to bed», ujïtqïl
«to lull», ujuqla «to fall asleep» (Курышжанов 1970, 208); Tat., Bask. jokla;
Nog. ujkla; Kkalp. ujqïla; Kaz. ujqï, ujïqta. Ancient Turkic root u in Tat., Bask.
Languages was changed metathesically with the monosyllable jo.
u «to be able, to bear» (ДТС, 603): jаγï bolïp, itinü jaratunu umadïq, janï
ičikmis «As the enemy they could not do anything and gave up» КТg. 10
(Айдаров 1995, 173). One of the ancient roots, difficult to distinguish its outline
from the basic vocabulary of Modern Turkic languages is u. B.Sagindikuli showed
the meaning of the monosyllable uγ as «the owner of powerful force and motion»
in the word uγan «almighty, god» (Сағындықұлы 1994,46), А.N.Baskakov
relying on the fact that the meaning of the word u is closer to «to know, to
understand» said «the verb u «to be able, to tolerate» is genetically related to the
verb uq «to understand (with the derivatives uq – uš «intelligence, conception»),
which in other languages has, moreover, the meanings in Kara kalpak uq «to delve
into the essence, to digest» and so on. » (Баскаков 1988, 41-42). The opinions
which connect the lexeme u with infinitive producing grammatical form suffix -u
are substantiated. uz «master, handyman» which you can see in Yenisei
monuments Y. 31 (ДТД, 75), monosyllable uz «skilful, experienced, skilled»
which were used in M.Kashgari’s works (МҚ). I, 46), and it is noticeable that
Kazakh word usta «blacksmith» is of the same origin with ancient Turkic root u.
u «to increase» El. 1 (ДТД, 74). In the language of ancient manuscripts the
use of the root u with the meaning «to increase» as an individual lexeme can occur
in the monuments found near locality Elegest in Tuva region. In other scripts like
Orkhon, Yenisei, Talas root-stem *ul which is from this root is used: ulga «to
grow, to become more» Y. 29; Y. 7 (ДТД, 76); ulgat «to grow» HB (ДТД, 76);
uluγ/ulug «big, important, senior» Y. 47, Тоn. 5, КCh. 3, КТg. 28, 34 (ДТД, 76).
In old Kipchak ulaldur «to increase, to multiply», ulu «large» (Курышжанов 1970
209); Bashk. оlo; Tат. оlï/olü; Kkalp. ullï; Kaz. ulï/ulïq «great, large». In Turkic
language the word ülken «large» is also of the same root with u form: ü → ül →
ülken. According to the data of the Kipchak languages u, ü, o variants of the
ancient Turkic root u are allocated.
ï «plant» (ДТС, 603): ï bar bas asdïmïz «crossed the top with bushes» Тоn. 26
(Айдаров 2000, 52). N.А.Baskakov said about ï monosyllable «... the root у,
which can be found mainly in paired words like y – yγač «any vegetation», y –
taryγ «sowing of cereals», y – taš «bushes and rocks (stones)» and therefore seems
either borrowed from other languages, or graphically defective issued, or
phonetically reduced» (Баскаков 1988, 7) and doubts the individual lexemic
ability and Turkic nature of ï form. The separate use of ï form in Tonikuk
monument: Atïγ ïqa bajur ertimiz «We tied his horse to a branch» Тоn. 27
(Айдаров 2000, 109) shows that the given monosyllable was used as a word with
an individual meaning in ancient Turkic languages, and also as the graphic sign of
the sound ï was drawn so clearly (in both sentences) and we cannot say that it is
drawback in graphical decoration. The researchers headed by I.А.Batmanov point
the meaning «wood» of the word ï (ДТД, 83). So we can notice that on the basis
of the general Turkic lexemes ïγaš/ ïγač/aγaš/agač/jïγaš there is the root ï. The
word ïγač: ïγač tutunu aγturtum «We go out (go up) with sticks» used in Tonikuk
monument Тоn. 25 (Айдаров 2000, 109) was formed with а form in Kipchak
languages: old Kipch. jïγač/aγaš/aγač «wood, timber, forest» (Курышжанов 1970,
77); Kum., Tат., Kаr. аγač; Nog., Kkalp., Kaz. аγaš; Bashk. аγas. in Makhmud
Kashgari’s works the word ïγač is formed as jïγač «dense tree» (МҚ. II, 25), i.e. in
the meaning «jungle, wildwood». The lexeme jïš «mountain, wood, forest»
(Айдаров 1995, 163) is also used in the language of monuments: Ötuken jïïqa jig
idi joq ermis «There was not a good owner in Otuken jungle» КTs. 4 (Сартқожа
2003, 259). It is clear that the form*jï is genetically related to the monosyllables ï,
ïγ. Simultaneous use of the homogeneous monosyllables in the ancient period of
the development of Turkic languages shows that their historical formation had
taken their origin from ancient languages times. Көне түркi тiлiндегi The root ?
together with the meaning «wood» has the meaning «generally plant» and it is
important in defining the etimological basis of the names of plants arïa, ïrγaj, arpa
etc. in Kazakh language.
ï «to sent, to erect» (ДТД, 83): Ötuken jir olurup, arqïš tirkiš ïsar, neņ buņuγ
joq «There is no sorrow if you sent a caravan being in Otuken» КТs. 8 (Айдаров
1995). In the language of monuments individual lexemes formed of this root ïd «to
send, to direct, to throw» Оn. I, 2, КТg. 6, МCh. II, 22, ït «to send» КТs. 12, Тоn.
42 (ДТД, 83, 85) are in use. In modern Kipchak language the form ï is not used as
an individual lexeme. From the structure of the Kazakh words «to move, to stir»
which kept its seme ït «to quit, to send», ïsïr «to move, to remove», ïbïr (ïbïr žïbïr /qïbïr - žïbïr - fidget/hustle) «to move, unnecessary movement» we can notice
ancient Turkic word ï and at (mïltïqt atuw «to shoot a gun» , žüregi atqaqtaw «
runaway heartbeat», suw atïlaw « to gush out (water)» etc.) old Kipch. at «to
throw, to cast» (Курышжанов, 88); Nog., Bashk., Kum., Tат., KKalp., Kirg. аt
«to shoot, to throw»; atta «overstep», adïm «step, stride» and other lexemes we
can distinguish correspondence а ≈ ï and the same content widely used in Turkic
languages. With the help of these examples we defined the archesemes of general
Turkic *ï/a former root meant «general movement». If so, the number of
homogeneous monosyllables at≈ad ≈aš≈ač≈až≈az≈aj≈aq≈aγ.... which retained
the meaning «to separate, to part» also can be grouped with the complex of words
come from archeroot ï/a. B.Sagindikuli studied the monosyllable at with the
meaning «horse», «name» coordinating with the verbs ït/at, his pointing
(Сагындықулы 1994,40-41) the semes of the verb at connected with movement;
compulsion of movement;
quick movement; separation as a result of the
movement; repetition of movement is based on the general meaning of the verbs
at/ït. A.Salkinbai deepened the scholar’s view about the verb at and she expands
homogeneous monosyllables on the basis of the data in the system of other
languages together with Kazakh language (Салкынбай 1999,117-120).
In connection with rare appearance of V formed monosyllables in ancient
Turkic languages and their nonuse as an individual lexeme in modern Turkic
languages N.A.Baskakov considers them as a form shortened from two-three
compound roots, unable to be an initial root, with a long way of development from
the phonetic and semantic point: «It is clear that the stem (С)V(С) in Turkic
language is the latest structure genetically formed from rather complete root
morphemes (С)VС < СVС» (Баскаков 1988, 40-43). To consider V structural
monosyllables given in the language of monuments as a derivative form cannot be
approved by the language data. Pointing out that V formed roots (mostly
interjection) with the vowels а, ä, е, о give about 30 semantic meaning and also
that V formed roots are used A.Kaidar says «Comparing with the modern Turkic
languages widespread occurrence of this type of monosyllabic root-stems in the
language of ancient monuments proves that they formed in ancient times. Model V
which represents the ancient period of Turkic language development formed the
new types of monosyllabic root-stems like VС, VСС and disyllabic stems and
accepted the elements of agglutinative structure» (Кайдаров 1986, 41).
Use of separate vowels (with their allophones), which originate from the
period of the development of human language, with a definite idea eventually will
change in form through accepting the consonants and the combination of sounds
with peculiar idiosegment meaning, polysemantic feature is concretized in
accordance with the form and the initial content is likely to have certain properties
of conditionality. It is clear that the more abstract-conditional properties have
language elements, the more complication they have in learning its inwardness and
defining the historical way of development. In general if the importance of spiritual
value increases it is more difficult to learn and estimate it. Language is also as the
most important human value becoming more complicated, in the developed sound
language only remainders and some slight traces of its initial position stay.
Model V monosyllables in Turkic languages also should be accepted as
relict signs and outline of ancient lexical fund. In Kazakh language the common
content and the similarity of forms of the monosyllables ös, ön, ör (örle, örbi,
önim, örši, örkende) cannot be a random phenomenon, it is clear that the vowel ö
keeps the common content. We know that the idea «to develop, to breed, to
appear» was preserved in the monosyllable *ur (urpaq, ruw, urïq, urγašï).
B.Sagindikuli considers the forms ör, *ur as homogeneous monosyllables
(Сагындыкулы 994, 111). The conservation of the general content of the form* ur
in monosyllables * ür (ürim-butaq, ürpi), *oγ/uγ ← oγul, um (Umai), *ul (ulï,
ulγajuw, ulasuw), *ül (ülken) etc. shows the ideological ability of the vowels u, ü.
So we have the chance to distinguish V formed monosyllables*u, *ü, *о, *ö as the
hypothetical previous root of homogeneous words that begin with u, ü, o, ö which
kept the idea «to appear, to develop, to continue, to multiply» in Turkic languages.
Though two part monosyllables consisting of the vowels and consonants were
widely used in both ancient Turkic and modern Kipchak languages as the lexeme
with an individual meaning, there is not any consistent view about it. Most of the
researchers (A.Zayonchkovski, E.V.Sevortyan, A.N.Kononov, A.M.Scherbak,
B.M.Yunusaliev, A.Iskakov, A.T.Kaidar and others) from the very beginning
recognized open-syllable monosyllables as a language unit in use, and based on
V.V.Radlov’s work about prosthesis nature of anlaut vowels, G.I.Ramsted’s
opinions about the impact of the Sandhu Law on anlaut vowels, and on the works
of the researchers like M.I.Peglio, G.Derfer, V.A.Serebryannikov A.N.Baskakov
considers the concept about the primacy of VС model unreasonable and suggests
to study it in the range of СVС model (Баскаков 1988, 47-54).
We can notice that some of the two-part VС model monosyllables in the Turkic
languages came from the one-part V model, for example:
*aγ→aγït «to repel, to disperse» (ДТС, 20): Oza kelmis süsin Kültegin
aγïtïp, Toņra bir oγuš alpaγu on erig toņatigin joγïnta egirip ölürtimiz «Kultegin
pursued overtaking enemies, we kill ten fellows of the genus Tongra when we
buried Tongategin» КТg. 47 (Айдаров 1995, 181). The monosyllable *aγ is
remained in the Kazakh verbs aγït wich mean «to release, to let go»: qulïndï aγït
«let a colt-sucker or a calf go, unharness the horse», tüjmeŋdi aγït «undo buttons»;
suwdï aγït «let the water» etc.; Kirg., KKalp. aγït. The ancient Turkic word aγït is
given in the meaning «separate, untie, release, let go» (Айдаров 1995, 206).
*ad→adaγ/adaq «foot» (Левин 2001, 43): Türk budun adaq qamaštdi «The
Turkish people’s leg is tired» КТg. 47 (Айдаров 1995, 181) ~ in old Kipchak
language – adaq/ajaq (Курышжанов 1970, 79), azaq (МҚ. I, 66); Tат., Bashk.,
Kum., Nog., KKalp., Kaz. ajaq.
*ad→adïnčïγ «other, another» (ДТС, 10) «special»: Aņar adïnčïγ barq
jaraturdïm «I build special housing for them» КТs. 12 (Айдаров 1995, 170) ~ o.
Kipch. *aj/ej → ajruq/ejriki (Курышжанов 1970, 81); KKalp. ajrïq, Kaz.
ajrïqša/erekše.
*ad→adïrïl «to break away» (ДТД, 32): Qara Čur esiz ... özüge ujalarïna
adïrïlmiš «Poor Kara Chur, lost the nests and the relatives» Таl. 2 (Аманжолов
1996, 44) ~ old Kipch. aj→ajrïl (Курышжанов 1970, 81); Bashk., Nog., Kar.,
Kkalp., Kaz. ajïrïl; Tат. ajerïl: The ancient Turkic monosyllable *ad is remained
in the combination adïra qal, in the lexeme adïr (hilly place) of Kazakh language.
*ad→adγïr «stallion» (ДТД, 40): Kültegin Bajïrqunïņ aq adγïrïγ binip
oplaju tеgdi «Kultegin took the white stallion of old times and came into the
attack» КТg. 35 (Айдаров 1995, 179) ~ old. Kipch. *aj→ajγïr, *az→azγïr
(Курышжанов 1970, 80); Bashk., Nog., Tат., Kum., KKalp., Kaz. ajγ?r. Түркiмонғол тiлдерiне ортақ The lexeme adγïr common to Turkic-Mongolian
languages make the complex of paronymous words *ad ≈ *az ≈ *až ≈ *at ≈ *as ≈
*ax ≈ *aj ≈ *oj ≈ *öj according to Altaic languages.
*az→azman «nickname of a horse» (ДТС, 73) Kültegin azman aqïγ binip op
laju tegdi «Kultegin went on the attack on his castrated white stallion» КТg. 45
(Айдаров 1995, 181) ~ Kaz. az(ban); KKalp. az(man) «stallion».
The monosyllables *aγ «to separate», *ad «leg», *ad «strange», *ad «to
separate», *ad «stallion», *az «castrated» are the derivative forms which are in the
general Turkic complex of homogeneous monosyllables aq ≈ аγ ≈ at ≈ ad ≈ az ≈a ž
≈ aj ≈ aw etc. with the idea «to move, movement, to separate», their hypothetical
previous root is *a/ï formed V model.
*aņ→aņla «to learn, to understand, to grasp» (СДЕ, 209); aņa «to perceive,
understand» (ДТС, 46): Anïγ ol öz aņlar «this insidious person can catch (notice)
himself» ~ Tat., Kar., KKalp., Nog. aņla; Bashk. Aņnan; Kaz. aņla, aņγar. In old
Kipchak Language aņ→aņγïl «to keep in mind, to remember» (Курышжанов
1970, 85). The words aņγal, aņqaw in Kazakh language was formed on the basis of
the monosyllable aņ. The monosyllable *an in the word *an→anïγ used in the
language of monuments is also the phonetic variant of the form aņ. In ancient
Turkic dictionary the word anïγ is given in the meaning «evil, bad» (ДТС, 45).
But in the language of Tonikuk monument G.Aidarov pointed the meaning «clever,
crafty» of the lexeme anïγ мағыналарын көрсетедi (Айдаров 2000, 100, 111).
The use of the word anïγ in oppositional meaning is the phenomenon formed on
the basis of cognoscibility. It is natural that the cunning and craftiness is also
intelligence. The monosyllable *aņ/an belongs to the form showing the phoneticsemantic development of the complex «thought → to think» (Кажыбеков 1986,
111).
ög «mind, intellect» КТg. 49 (Левин 2001, 173); Тоn., 20 (ДТД, 77): Ol üč
qaγan öglesip Altun jïš üze qabïsalïm timis «He suggested these three khagans to
consult and unite in hollows Altun» Тоn., 20 (Айдаров 1995, 107). It is known
that in the modern Turkic languages the form ö «to think» (ДТС, 375) of the
ancient
Turkic
lexeme
ög
which
is
included
to
the
ög≈ök≈üg≈ük≈uγ≈uq≈oj≈öj≈uj≈üj etc. formed complex of monosyllables is
remained. Peculiarities of the form and semantic range of the monosyllable ög was
thoroughly researched. On the basis of form paradigme and semantic derivation of
the given homogeneous monosyllables we suppose that the ancient lexeme ög is a
derived word.
*ök→ökün «to regret» КТg. 40; BK. 38; «sorrow» Е. 28 (ДТД, 77): Antaγ
ödke ökünün «regretted at that time» КТg. 40 (Айдаров 1995, 179) ~ Kar., Kirg.
ökün; Kaz., KKalp., Nog. ökin; Tat., Bashk. ükin. The word ökun is considered as
the intensive form of the reflexive voice of the lexeme ö «to think» (ЭСТЯ I,
524). Therefore the monosyllable ök also cannot be a historical root. Compare: öt
→ ötiniš «request».
ur «son, descendant» El. II, Y. 26: ur+uγ «descendants», ur+ï «generation,
descendant» КТg. 10, 24 (ДТД, 77): Beglik urï oγlïn qul boltï «your descendants,
strong sons were salves»; ölürejin, uruγsïratajïn «let’s die, remain without
progeny» (Айдаров 1995, 173). Semantic derivation of the monosyllable ur is
analyzed widely (ЭСТЯ I, 605, 604). Kaz., Kirg., KKalp., uruw, Bashk. ïruw; Nog.
ïrïv. In the modern Kazakh language the monosyllable ur in the lexemes urïq
«semen», urpaq «descendant», ruw
«clan», urγаšï «female», ürim-butaq
«posterity», ürpi «nipple» is used in the ancient Turkic manuscripts as «boy
(male)» and this can show its genealogical relationship with the words oγuš «clan,
tribe», oγul, oγulan «son, descendant» in the language of the manuscript. The
retention of the semes «semen, seed», «to grow, to develop», «to give birth to
offspring» in the general Turkic monosyllables makes it clear that VС form
monosyllables also have the ability to break up intrinsically, and the initial stem
can be the monosyllable consisting of only vowels; ös, ön, ör (örken«generation»,
örkende «blossom out», örle «to advance» etc.) Retention of the semes «to breed,
to grow, to be descended, to continue, to increase» of the monosyllable *ül/ul (to
increase, to continue, to grow) shows that it is the archaic phenomenon which
needs to consider the formation of ur, uγ forms in connection with Turkic
glottogenez. Mong. ür «seed, semen, grain», «child, descendant» (МҚС, 538).
uč «to fly (to die)» КТg. 16; МCh. I, 12 (ДТД, 77); učuq «bird»: jaγïmïz
tegire učuq teg erti «the enemies around like birds of prey» Тоn. 8 (Aйдаров II,
105); uča bapmïs «flied» КТg. 16 (Aйдаров I, 174) ~ Kaz. u?; Nog., KKalp., Kirg.
uš; Tat. оč; Bashk. os. In the ancient Turkic language the derived word učuq in the
meaning «bird» is used as the equivalent to the word a plane in Kazakh and
Turkish languages: Tur. učak; Kaz. ušaq. Compare: *uz→aw «to move away»,
*uz→ïn «long», ör→lew «to rise», ör→kendew «to develop» etc.
üz→üze «to the top, overhead» КТg. 1, 10, 16; Тоn. 16; BK. 3; Y. 32 (ДТД,
78): Üze kök teņri, asra jaγïz jir qïlïntuqta ekin ara kisi qïlïnmïs «When the
Heavenly deity was created overhead and the earth below, the human came
between them» КТg. 1 (Айдаров 1995, 171) ~ Kaz., Nog., KKalp. üsti; Kirg. üstü,
Tat. üzre, öst; Bashk. ös, östö. Considering the lexeme üst as the derived word
from the root-stem üs E.Sevortyan says, «An earlier form of үс is, apparently үз,
for which mid.Turk.dialect üz dermek «to remove from the top (about crops) ...
(ЭСТЯ I, 639). In the language of the medieval monuments the forms üzere, üct
are used simultaneously. The meaning «to rise» of the ancient Turkic word üze «to
rise» is remained in the word üzengi the equipment of a saddle with accessories:
Kaz. üzengi; Tat., Bashk. özäņgi; KKalp. üzeņgj. We can also distinguish the
monosyllable üz from the equipment of yurta (nomad's tent) the lexeme üzik «felt
cover for the upper part of the yurta (nomad's tent)».
üz «to break, to interrupt» Тоn. 13, 4: jinčge eriklig üzgeli učuz «It is easy to
break thinness» (Айдаров 2000, 106). Kaz., KKalp., Nog., Kirg. üz; Tat., Bashk.
öz.
ïr→ïraq «to move off» (ДТД, 84) G.Aidarov translates the word as «far»:
ïraq erser, jablaq aγï berün, jaγuq erser, edg? aγï berür «If at a distance he
would give a bad gift, if near a good gift would be given» КТs. 7 (Айдаров 1995 ,
169) ~ Kaz. žïraq; KKalp. ïraq/žïraq. In the medieval monuments and in the most
modern Turkic languages it is performed as jïraq, the researchers recognize the
monosyllable jïr as the initial form (ЭСТЯ IҮ, 386). A.N.Kononov connects the
word jïraq /žïraq with the words jïraja «left side, to the left, the north» used in the
ancient Turkic manuscripts. (Кононов 1980, 38).
The seme «to be separated,
isolated, to keep away» is also seen in the monosyllables üz and *ïr, it can be
connected with ideophone quality of the arch-form *üz/ïr.
On the basis of VC models with similar meanings and forms, we can see that
they came from V models consisting of vowels or half-long consonants.
Here, we should remember first, it is impossible to put the phono-modifiers
with certain word-formative power in one level with the derivational affixes
distinguished from the roots of the developed agglutinative period, and to consider
them as the grammatical indicator with a specific function; secondly, the reverse
process that occurs in connection with internal laws of the linguo-evolution and
external influences lead to a reduction of CVC, CVCC, VCC model structures
again. V, VC, CV, CVC , VCC, CVCC models of Turkic roots are phenomena
which were used in the Turkic parent language period. We know that the language
existed before the parent language period, before the inflexional, polysynthetic,
agglutinative period of the language structure which are known to us and we can
not deny that the structural formation of language units with certain idea-meaning
passed the process sound  combination of sound  combinations of sound 
combination of sound  sound.
LITERATURE
1. Айдаров Ғ. Күлтегiн ескерткiшi. –Алматы: Ана тiлi, 1995. –232 б.
2. Айдаров Ғ. Тоникуқ ескерткiшiнiң (ҮIII ғасыр) тiлi. –Алматы: Қазақстан,
2000. –120 б.
3. Аманжолов А. Түркi филологиясы және жазу тарихы. –Алматы: Санат,
1996. –127 б.
4. Анесов Г. Семантическое развитие производных основ образованных от
гомогенных корней // Вопросы тюркского языкознания. –Алма-Ата:
Наука, 1985. –С. 77-80.
5. Баскаков Н.А. Историко-типологическая фонология тюркских языков. –
Москва: Наука, 1988. -207 с.
6. Кайдаров А.Т. Структура односложных корней и основ в казахском языке.
–Алма-Ата: Наука, 1986. –323 с.
7. Кажыбеков Е.З. Глагольно-именная корреляция гомогенных корней в
тюркских языках. –Алма-Ата: Наука, 1986. –270 с.
8. Кононов А.Н. Грамматика языка тюркских рунических памятников IХ вв.
–Ленинград: Наука, 1980. –256 с.
9. Курышжанов А.К. Исследование по лексике старокыпчакского
письменного памятника ХII в. «Тюркско-арабского слваря». –Алма-Ата:
Наука, 1970. –232 с.
10.Левин Г.Г. Лексико-семантические параллели Орхонско-тюркского и
якутского языков: (В сравнительном плане с алтайским, хакасским,
тувинским языками). –Новосибирск: Наука, 2001. –190 с.
11. Сагындыкулы Б. Қазақ тiлi лексикасы дамуының этимологиялық
негiздерi. –Алматы: Санат, 1994. –166 б.
12. Салкынбай А. Тарихи сөзжасам (семантикалық аспект). –Алматы: Қазақ
университетi, 1999. –309 б.
13.Сарткожа К. Орхон мұралары. –Астана: K?ltegin, 2003. –392 б.
14. Шайхулов А. К проблеме корневых слов в тюркских языках //
Түркология. 2004, № 2. –С. 50-59.
15.Щербак А.М. Сравнительная фонетика тюркских языков. –Ленинград:
Наука, 1970. –201 с.
ABBREVIATIONS
Literature and Dictionaries
ДТС
Ancient Turkic Dictionary. Edited by V.M.Nadelyaev,
D.M.Nasilov, E.R.Tenishev, A.V.Scherbak. – Leningrad: Nauka,
1969. –676 p. (in Russian)
ДТД
Ancient Turkic dialects and their reflection in the modern
languages. Edited by I.A.Batmanov.–Frunze: Ilim, 1971.-194 p.
(in Russian)
МҚ I
M.Kashgari Девону луғот ит турк. S.M.Mutalibov. Vol І.
Tashkent: UzSSR Фанлар академияси нашриетининг
боспахонаси, 1960. -499 p
МҚ ІІ
M.Kashgari Девону луғот ит турк. S.M.Mutalibov. Vol ІI.
Tashkent: UzSSR Фанлар академияси нашриетининг
боспахонаси, 1961. -427 p
МҚС
Bazilkhan B. Mongolian-Kazakh Dictionary. – Ulan Bator, 1987.
–885 p.
Sevortyan E.V. Etymological Dictionary of Turkic Languages. –
Moscow: Nauka, I-III v. 1974, 1978, 1980 (IҮ v. Co-author
Levitskaya L.S.), 1989. –767, 349, 395, 292. (in Kazakh)
ЭСТЯ
Monuments
BK
Y
KTs.
КТg
КCh
МCh
Оn.
Оrkh.
Таl.
Тоn.
El.
Bilgekagan
Yenisei manuscripts
Күлтегiн, small scripts
Kultegin, great scripts
Kuli Chor monuments
Moyiun Chur monuments
Ongin monuments
Оrkhon manuscripts
Talas manuscripts
Tonikuk monument
Eleges manuscripts
Languages
Azerb.
Bashk.
old Kipch.
K.balk.
Kaz.
Kar.
KKalp.
C.Tat.
Kum.
Kirg.
Mong.
Nog.
Tat.
Azerbaijani
Bashkir
Old Kipchak
Karachai-Balkar
Kazakh
Karaite
Kara-Kalpak
Crimean Tatar
Kumyk
Kirghiz
Mongolian
Nogai
Tatar