On October 3, 2008, the Institute of Asian and African Countries of Moscow State University hosted the regular Dmitriev Readings, which are held annually by the Department of Turkic Philology of the ISAA of Moscow State University. This time they were dedicated to the 110th anniversary of the birth of N. K. Dmitriev (1898-1954) .1
Corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, full member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR, Professor N. K. Dmitriev was an outstanding linguist and philologist-turkologist of the first half of the XX century, a teacher, organizer and creator of science, after the death of Academician A. N. Samoilovich in 1938-the head of the new Turkological school, the developer of linguistic foundations for teaching non-native Research Institute of National Schools of the APN of the RSFSR.

The scientist of the "field warehouse", who received at one time a double training in Slavic studies and Turkology, as A. N. Samoilovich wrote about him, "thanks to his exceptional linguistic abilities, he conducted simultaneous research of a number of Turkic languages - Turkish, Azerbaijani, Gagauz, Turkmen, Crimean Tatar, Bashkir, Tatar, Kumyk, and these extensive research centers were used to study the history of the world. his knowledge made him a particularly valuable employee of the All-Union scale, who is also well-known among foreign Turkologists." After the death of N. K. Dmitriev, in a note dated 22.12.1955, sent to the organizing committee for honoring the memory of the scientist, V. A. Gordlevsky wrote:: "The teacher is proud of his student, who overtook him, barely mastering elementary knowledge."

The organizer of the special school of Turkic dialectology, N. K. Dmitriev, as a result of numerous expeditions led by him, created the main scientific fund for the study of various Turkic languages and dialects that were not previously studied or poorly understood. The study of the most important issues of dialectology and the structure of the Turkic languages allowed him to develop his own grammatical concept and, based on it, the principles of scientific description of a particular Turkic language. These principles were applied by him in those grammars (Kumyk and especially full - Bashkir languages) that became the standard of such a description.

Relying on the language data fund he created, N. K. Dmitriev laid the scientific foundations of the comparative grammar of Turkic languages, which was developed by a team of Turkologists of the Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences under his leadership, and partly with his participation. N. K. Dmitriev's scientific work actually determined the main directions of research in modern Turkic linguistics.

Students of N. K. Dmitriev (graduates of 1948-1958), E. A. Grunin, I. V. Borodin, G. F. Blagov (Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences), D. M. Nasilov, G. A. Gorbatkin (IMLI RAS) and students of his students took part in the meetings of the linguistic and Literary studies sections, which were held in parallel - corresponding member. RAS A.V. Dybo, Yu. V. Shcheka, M. M. Repenkova, E. A. Oganova and others. Below is an overview of the reports and presentations made at the meeting of the linguistic section. A number of reports were related to the linguistic topics of N. K. Dmitriev.

In the report of the head of the Ural-Altaic Languages Department of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, A.V. Dybo, concerning the topic of Turco-Slavica, partly Turco-Balcanica, attention is drawn to an in-depth linguohistorical study of ancient Turkisms in South Slavic languages. The report gives an important place to borrowings from the Danubian-Bulgarian language (VIII - IX centuries) in the South Slavic languages. The speaker believes that the borrowings in the South Slavic languages came from the same source from which the layer of Bulgarisms penetrated into the Hungarian language, where this layer is recognized as late. According to A.V. Dybo, Bulgarian vocalism, in particular primary longitudes, is revealed in the Hungarian and Slavic languages. Various transitions and correspondences in the vocalism of the compared languages of different systems deserve special study.

N. K. Dmitriev's ideas about "ethnographic folklore studies" and "literary folklore studies", the close connection between the field work of turkologists-linguists and folklorists (if it is necessary to master the linguistic method for both) were in demand at the beginning of the XXI century. Like other linguofolcloristic notes of the scientific archive of N. K. Dmitriev, these provisions were developed in relation to the study of the Russian language.

1 See about him: The East (Oriens). 1999. N 2. pp. 165-167; 2002. N 6. pp. 162-164.

page 160
in the report of G. F. Blagova "N. K. Dmitriev and linguofolcloristic approach to the problems of anthroponymy". The material is based on the Turkic personal names included in the mythological and associative block of bad weather (bulut 'cloud', jaTmur 'rain', kar 'snow', boran 'storm'), on the one hand, and on the other - names associated with such an object of material culture as a button (other-Turk. tiryma, wed-Uygh. twytna). The history of the button has not yet been studied by ethnographers, although it is important to build a pre-Turkic picture of the world that the names of the button are represented in the Turkic anthroponymy; in the Khakass epic, a button on formal clothing (at the collar) is considered a sign of an adult youth.

E. A. Grunina in her report "On the problems of modern Turkish dialectology" recalled what promising plans Academician A. N. Samoilovich made in the 1930s in his archival review "The Study of Anatolian-Rumelian-Turkish language", what hopes he pinned on N. K. Dmitriev as a Turkologist, considering that it was he, having experience and deep knowledge, he will be able to organize the study of Anatolian-Turkish in the USSR in a variety of its dialects.

E. A. Grunina noted that the tasks that A. N. Samoilovich failed to accomplish are now being performed by modern Turkish dialectologists: their efforts have examined and described a significant part of the Turkish dialect space. Monographic studies have been published in this area, which is new to Turkish linguistics, but the tasks outlined by A. N. Samoilovich more than 70 years ago are still far from complete.

Nevertheless, according to the speaker, thanks to the material collected so far, it becomes possible to understand the nature of the division of the dialect space of the Turkish language, which was formed starting from the XI century. in the process of penetration into the territory of Anatolia by different waves of nomadic tribal associations from the Central Asian Two Rivers. The type of dialect zones that emerged was also determined by the natural conditions of the sedimentation sites. Isolated character in dialect units in the mountainous regions of eastern Anatolia is considered in the Terekem dialect.

In his report, D. M. Nasilov reviewed the information provided by Mahmud of Kashgar in the dictionary "Divan Lugat-at Turk" regarding the dialect features of the language of the Turkic tribes, united by the term Kipchak. Comparison of phonetic, morphological and lexical data of the dictionary shows that Makhmud Kashgar records the dialect forms of two tribal groups of Kipchaks - north-western and north-eastern. The language of the latter group is closely related to the peculiarities of the Oghuz language in Mahmud Kashgar (apparently, these Kipchaks were one of the Oghuz tribal divisions, as evidenced by historical data). The Western Kipchaks, whose information is fragmentary and rather contradictory, were obviously less well known to the author of the dictionary, but they are characterized by linguistic characteristics as carriers of features comparable to modern Kipchak dialects.

A new aspect of studying the Turkic category of declension - using the material of ancient non-Turkic runic monuments - was discussed in the report of M. E. Dubrovina (St. Petersburg State University). The model of the evolution of case forms proposed by her is the opposite of that which can be traced in inflectional languages. Grammatical cases of inflectional languages (accusative and genitive) in the model of the general Turkic category of the case did not have a material indicator, their content was expressed by the juxtaposition of words as the most economical grammatical way of expressing official information. The so-called main case, which researchers traditionally find in the declension category paradigm by analogy with the nominative case of European languages, does not apply to Turkic languages.

A. I. Chaykovskaya (Tallinn Pedagogical Institute). al-KawaHUH al-kullyya li-dabt al-lugat at-turkyya, an anonymous monument of the 15th century, which belongs to the group of philological works of the Mamluk period and is still little known in the Russian Turkological literature. Of particular interest is the fact that the author managed to get acquainted with this monument in the original, stored in the world-famous Suleymaniye book depository in Istanbul. Textual analysis of the manuscript made up the content of the report.

K. N. Bicheldey (MSPU) addressed the issues of studying the intonation of the Khakass language, as well as the intonation features of its dialects and dialects. The research is based on the construction of the most important rhythm and intonation models. Yu. V. Shcheka, who spoke during the discussion, noted the danger of absolutizing the so-called relevance principle in the study of intonation, since various nuances in melody, subtle shades of speech can often express all the basic semantics and pragmatics of the utterance. It was also emphasized

page 161
the need to return to the traditional study of speech music, its not only melodic, but also fret features.

I. Ya. Selyutina's report (Institute of Philology SB RAS, Novosibirsk) is devoted to phonetic processes in the languages of the peoples of Siberia (about forty languages, dialects and dialects are covered - Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchurian, Samoyedic, Ob-Ugric, Yenisei and Paleoasiatic). The study of these processes is based on instrumental research and is aimed at developing problems of typology of the corresponding phonological systems, as well as at identifying ethno-cultural, in particular linguistic, interactions. The results obtained indicate that the boundaries of phonic and phonological processes may not coincide with the boundaries of languages and even language groups. As a result of various ethno-cultural contacts, phonetic transformations, involving certain parts of different language families, acquire an areal character, as a result of which the differences between genetically related languages may be more significant than between languages that do not have a common root, but are part of the same language union.

Subject of the message: T. V. Loseva-Bakhtiyarova (MSU ISAA) proper names associated with the names of weapons in the Turkic languages appeared. This phenomenon reflects the problem of motivating the choice of proper names that a child is called, wanting to see him as a strong and invincible successor of the family. Along with well-known names such as kylych 'sword', 'sabre', temir 'iron', balta 'axe', ok 'arrow', etc., the report also examines anthroponyms that arise due to the metaphorization of the meaning of weapon names, which was characteristic especially of ancient and medieval Turkic languages.

M. M. Klycheva (MGIMO University) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation) focused on the difficulties of teaching correct Turkmen pronunciation to Russian-speaking audiences, the peculiarities of implementing a number of Turkmen consonants in different phonetic positions, and the issues of assigning certain typical implementations to allophones of the same phoneme or to different phonemes. In her opinion, the most adequate reflection of Turkmen phonetics is presented in the works of A. P. Potseluyevsky. During the brief exchange of views, it was noted that, on the one hand, any linguistic description is somewhat conditional and should be based on a system of concrete examples, and that, on the other hand, teaching Turkmen as a foreign language should be based on the theoretical foundation developed, in particular, in Russian Turkology and reflected in such texts. such works as" The Turkmen Language " by E. A. Grunina (Moscow, 2005).

In the report "To defend the Altaic hypothesis and substantiate the genetic relationship of Altaic languages" by the Head of the Department of Turkic Philology of the ISAA of Moscow State University, Yu.V. Shcheki, it was stated that the denial of the Altaic hypothesis is not accidental, but rather a very objective reflection of the unsatisfactory situation in Altaistics. If we draw on a broad interdisciplinary picture of language evolution, which is based, in particular, on the formation of rhythmic-prosodic levels of speech, we can naturally explain: a) the so-called primary longitudes in a number of Turkic and Mongolian languages as a reflection of speech syncopation in the Altaic proto-language, b) the fundamental inconsistency of the opposition of genetic kinship and borrowing (the essence of proto-linguistic syncretism It consisted precisely in the constant mutual exchange of forms both within and between the Altaic pradialects; this exchange also turns out to be a deep basis for later modern borrowings, since they are only a continuation of the proto-linguistic syncretic unity that lasted for many tens of thousands of years) and c) the genetic unity of both the Altaic and Ural-Altaic languages, which in the light of this general theoretical picture, it is quite proven and for which there is simply no other reasonable alternative.

To date, seven issues of "Questions of Turkic Philology" have been published, containing the materials of the annual Dmitriev Readings; the materials of the 2008 refereed readings will form the content of the next issue.

Permanent link to this publication: