AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
historical development of the Kipchak language. We are moving
away from the scheme of Turkic languages offered by N.
Baskakov and suppose that in the 11th – 13th centuries. Oguz
and Kipchak languages could be closer to each other than later
Oguz and Kypchak groups of Turkic languages. Many names of
Kipchak leaders have paralels in other Turkic languages, in
particular, Oguz, Karakhanid, Uigur, and Turkic “Codex
Cumanicus”. Mahmud al-Kashgari in his dictionary pointed to
the common Oguz-Kipchak and Karakhanid-Oguz-Kipchak
vocabulary. Common onomastics and vocabulary convince us of
the proximity of Oguz and Kipchak languages. (19-20) This
study allows researchers to look at the historical development of
the language not only from the point of view of the modern
linguistic classification of the Turkic languages but also from the
point of view of those who knew the Kipchaks directly and
could competently judge their language.
4 Conclusion
From generation to generation passing the public and social
experience, spiritual wealth as a national heritage, people create
a material and spiritual culture of society. Rethinking the facts of
human history, learning and absorbing the invaluable experience
of generations, new members of the community have the
opportunity to further develop at a higher level. (21) Traditional
ways of the people, positive character traits, especially the
national worldview, aesthetic perception, and psychology - all
periods of national development can be found in the language of
the written heritage. Old Kipchak language, during its former
prosperity Turkic language, was spoken in the community, was
office language and the language of international
communication. Already at that time “Kipchak language” had a
wide area of distribution and experienced many historical and
social upheaval. There is no it is classified as a dead language,
but Kipchak language is the foundation of Kipchak language
groups such as Kazakh, Karakalpak, Nogai, Tatar, Bashkir,
Kumyk, Karachay, which are currently raised to the level of
independent national languages. (22-23)
It is also indisputable that the linguistic point of view on
anthroponomy used in the Middle Ages, has played a significant
role in the Turkology, as a science in identifying ways of
formation and development of the literary language history,
areas constituting the history of language - historical phonetics,
historical grammar, syntax, historical, historical lexicology.
It seems to us, the study this character, based on comparative
work with anthroponyms, though raises doubts among
Turkologists of Eurasian continent, yet it could be solved.
Anthroponomy related Kipchak languages should be
investigated by the comparative-historical method, combined
with modern Kipchak language materials, capturing the ancient
Turkic language examples, examples of the modern language of
Turkic languages, through synchronous description, as well as
historical and diachronic aspect.
For theoretical and methodological foundations of the study
should be used monographs and articles of domestic and foreign
scientists in the field of Turkic studies, recent theoretical and
methodological achievements in modern Turkic philology,
which will expand the topic more fully clarifying the
ethnolinguistic and etymological continuity of language
formation relating to the Kipchak group. (24)
A distant scientific value of this work we see in consideration of
the close relationship of historical grammar and historical
lexicology of the Kazakh language, coupled with the problems
of Turkic studies. The additional use of materials from groups
related to Kipchak languages and linguistic comments made at
comparative aspect, meet the requirements of traditional Turkic
studies, but modern, unconventional approach prejudge the
relevance of the new vision at the present stage of development
of science.
In the study it is necessary to make an attempt change the angle
of view of the peculiarities of language development related
Turkic peoples, to reassess the structure, the cognitive value of
the remaining pearls of the word, making full use of the
comparative method study philosophy, culture, way of life, the
spiritual riches of the Turks, to reveal the nature of linguistic
phenomena by studying anthroponyms in the languages of
kindred peoples of the Kipchak group, considering account
differences in the historical development of ethnic groups.
Literature:
1. Nazarbayev NA. On a history crest. Almaty: Atamura; 1999.
2. Pylypchuk YV. Language of Kipchaks: Attempt of historical
characteristics. Central and Eastern European Online Library.
2018; 26(1):92-8.
3. Kashkari M. Turkish dictionary. Almaty: Khant; 1997-1998.
4. Budagov LZ. Comparative dictionary “Turkish-Tatar
adverbs”. Saint Petersburg; 1869.
5. Radlov VV. Experience of the dictionary of Turkic adverbs.
Saint Petersburg; 1893, 1899.
6. Makhpirov VU. Imena dalekikh predkov (istochniki
formirovaniya i osobennosti funktsionirovaniya drevnetyurkskoy
onomastiki) [The names of distant ancestors (sources of
formation and features of the functioning of the ancient Turkic
onomastics)]. Alma-Ata; 1997.
7. Alimbayev ME. XIV-
XV centuries. “Esкyі kipshak
аntroponimderi”. Almaty; 2010.
8. Musaev KM. Lexicology of Turkic languages. Moscow:
Science; 1984.
9. Asimov MS, Bosworth CE. History of Civilizations of Central
Asia. Dehli: First Indian Edition; 1998.
10. Golden PB. Proceedings from The International Scientific
Conference dedicated to the 1100th anniversary of the Kimek
State in the framework of the Days of Turkic Literature and
Culture. Kipchaks of Eurasia: history, language and written
monuments:
K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii plemennykh nazvaniĭ
kypchakov [To the question of the origin of the tribal names of
Kipchaks]. Astana: L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National
University; 2013: 22-35.
11. Garkavetz A. Kypchakskie jazyki: kumanskij i armjansko-
kypchakskij jazyki [Kipchak languages: Kuman and Armenian-
Kipchak languages]. Alma-Ata: Nauka AN KazSSR; 1987.
12. Garkavetz A. Kypchakskij slovar [Kipchak dictionary].
Almaty: Almatykitap; 2011.
13. Matveev AK. Onomatologiya [Onomatology]. Moscow;
2006.
14. Dzhanuzakov TD. Ocherk kazakhskoy onomastiki [Essay on
Kazakh onomastics]. Alma-Ata; 1982.
15. Schönig C. The internal division of modern Turkic and its
historical implications. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae. 1999; 52(1):63-95.
16. Musabekova UA. O nekotorykh aspektakh razvitiya
antroponimicheskoy sistemy tyurkskogo yazyka [On some
aspects of the development of the anthroponymic system of the
Turkic language]. Vestnik TGU. 2015; 20(10):206-13.
17.
Zhunisbek A. Қазақ фонетикасы [Kazakh phonetics].
Almaty: Arys; 2009.
18. Berta A. Middile Kipchak. In: The Turkic Languages. New
York: Routledge; 1998.
19. Ahinzhanov SM. Kypchaki v istorii srednevekovogo
Kazahstana [Kipchaks in the history of medieval Kazakhstan].
Almaty: Gylym; 1995.
20. Evstigneev JuA. Kypchaki/kumany/polovtzy: k probleme
etnicheskoj preemstvennosti [Kipchaks/Cumans/Polovtsy: To
the problem of ethnic continuity]. Saint Petersburg: Asterion;
2011.
21. Boswell A. The Kipchak Turks. The Slavonic Review. 1927;
6(16):68-85.
22. Kuryshzhanov AK. Research on lexicon “Turkic-Arab
dictionary”. Almaty; 1970.
23. Tekin T. A new classification of the Turkic languages. Türk
Dilleri Araştırmaları. 1990; 5-18.
24. Sabyr MB. Work of lexicon of middle Turkic and Kazakh
languages (on a written monument of XIV of the century).
Almaty; 2004.
Primary Paper Section: A
Secondary Paper Section: AB, AI
- 18 -