BOOK 1, 2. Ulan-Ude: Publishing house "Buaryad unene", 2004. 287 p.; 270 p.

Ulzy-Zhargal Shoibonovich Dondukov (born in 1923) is a specialist in the field of Buryat, Mongolian and Russian linguistics, methods of teaching Russian at the national school, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Buryatia, author of more than 150 scientific works, including several monographs and textbooks*.

The reviewed monograph highlights the most important problems of word formation and lexicology in Mongolian languages. Word formation is considered by the author as an independent level of language and, accordingly, as a scientific discipline that has its own object of research, its own methodology of analysis and a system of concepts.

Modern word formation is based on the achievements of general linguistics, in particular on the position of language consistency and the idea of the need to study the content plan and the expression plan of language units. For derivatology, a clear distinction between word-forming and lexical meanings within a word is fundamental. As you know, the main unit of the word-forming system of a language is a derived word that implements the function of forming a new unit of nomination. The meaning of a derived word is formed as a result of the interaction of the meaning of the word-forming affix and the real-real meaning of the generating base.

The paper discusses a number of problems of the general theory of word formation concerning identity and difference in relation to word formation, activation of word-forming phenomena and processes, differentiation of synchrony and diachrony in the sphere of word formation. It is interesting and new for Mongolian linguistics to consider word formation in a dynamic aspect, which involves studying the internal mechanism of new word production, i.e., the transformation processes of all possible formal-semantic relations between generating and derived (motivated) words.

Objectively assessing the current state of word formation in Mongolian languages, the author rightly notes that there is still no generally accepted definition of complex word types in Mongolistics, criteria for distinguishing them from free phrases and phraseological units have not been developed, the boundaries of paired words have not been established, and techniques for terminologizing common words and methods of calculating them have not been sufficiently studied.

In order to identify a more complete range of meanings of living productive affix models, the author had to compare the Mongolian and Turkic materials, as a result of which he found that some unproductive models of word formation in Mongolian languages are closely related to the currently functioning productive models in Turkic languages. In this connection, the author dwells in some detail on the works of Altaists G. I. Ramstedt, V. L. Kotvich, Turkologists N. A. Baskakov, S. K. Kenesbayev, B. M. Yunusaliyev, B. O. Oruzbayeva, A. K. Antonov, D. A. Mongush and others. Among the works of Mongolists, the works of T. A. Bertagaev, who did a lot to study the vocabulary of Mongolian languages, are considered in particular detail. The monographic studies of Ts. B. Budaev, Ts. B. Tsydendambaev and L. D. Shagdarov are also critically reviewed. Speaking about the works of Mongolian scientists, the author notes that they have made a significant contribution to many areas of Mongolian linguistics: grammar, lexicology, lexicography and dialectology.

A significant part of the monograph (book 1, p. 113-284; book 2, p. 3-146) is devoted to identifying and systematizing word - forming affixes, describing models of formation of various types of words. The author draws on data from not only Mongolian, but also Turkic languages. Using

* The main ones are: "Affix word formation of parts of speech in the Buryat language "(Ulan-Ude, 1964); "Development of terminology in the Buryat language" (Ulan-Ude, 1970); "Influence of the Russian language on the development and enrichment of the lexical composition of the Buryat language" (Ulan-Ude, 1974); " Word formation Mongolian languages" (Ulan-Ude, 1993); "Lectures on Russian word formation" (Ulan-Ude, 1995); " Textbook of the Buryat language. Self-help guide" (Ulan-Ude, 1998) and others. He also wrote two books of memoirs: "From Moscow to Berlin on a war horse "(Ulan-Ude, 1995) and "War through the eyes of a soldier" (Ulan-Ude, 2000).

page 199

using the methods of comparative historical analysis, he comes to the conclusion that the division of the root base, which has fallen out of independent use in the Mongolian languages, into significant elements in many cases is possible only on the basis of the Turkic languages. In view of this, morphemic and word-formation analysis of models of affix word formation is carried out in the work, taking into account the material not only of the Mongolian languages and dialects themselves, but also of the Turkic ones. Therefore, the author is right, considering the mechanism of modern word formation to be closely related to the process of historical word formation.

The study shows that the enrichment of the vocabulary of Mongolian languages occurs mainly at the expense of own funds. The author distinguishes phonetic, affixal, lexical-semantic ways of word formation, as well as word composition and paired word combinations in Mongolian languages. Each of them is quite fully described in the paper.

According to U.-Zh. Sh. Dondukov, the phonetic method of word formation was active in ancient times. Based on the alternation of vowels and consonants, it was used in onomatopoeic and figurative words to express semantic differences. After 1917, this method was revived and became quite widely used in Mongolian derivation to create new terms. Identifying the main methods of using phonetic means of Mongolian languages in word formation, the author rightly notes that this method of word formation needs a special and comprehensive study.

Special attention should be paid to the assumption of U.-J. S. Dondukov that the now productive affixal method of word formation was preceded by the stage of so-called root verb-nominal homonymy, i.e. syncretism of parts of speech. He believes that the number of two-syllable (rarely one-syllable) words does not exceed two or three dozen homonymous verbal-nominal units, arguing that the two-syllable verbal-nominal bases of Mongolian and one-syllable verbal-nominal bases of Turkic languages form the base on which the main vocabulary of the general Mongolian-Turkic vocabulary is based.

It is known that there are different opinions on the problem of identifying the root morpheme in Mongolian languages. Thus, G. D. Sanzheev believed that the historical root of a word can be restored only by etymological analysis. For example, in such a non-derivative verb base from the point of view of the modern Buryat language as diile (from de-yi-le -)-"to win", as a result of etymological analysis, the root de-is found. The same root is found in the words deere (from de-ge-r-e) - "above", deeshe (from de-ge-gshi) - "above" and deezhe (from de-ge-zhi) - "selected, best".

Etymological analysis of such words shows that the historical root in Buryat and other Mongolian languages was monosyllabic. While agreeing that it is possible to restore the original roots in this way, U.-Zh.Sh. Dondukov believes that all of them are Turkic. For example, in his opinion, the verb zolgoho - "meet" was formed from the Turkic zol (yol, yul, jol) - "road"; sana - "think, count" from the Turkic sa - "think, count" , etc. (book 1, pp. 34, 41).

A fairly large place is occupied in the work by the description of the lexical and semantic method of word formation: rethinking the meaning of words, homonymy, antonymy, as well as techniques for terminologizing words and phrases. Word composition and paired combinations are considered in no less detail as very productive ways to create special names.

The final part of the study (book 2, pp. 146-246) discusses the problem of language contacts, which cannot be solved without taking into account specific external linguistic factors. A clear understanding of this initial methodological position helped the author to cover quite objectively the issues of the influence of the Russian language on the development and enrichment of the lexical composition of the Buryat language. A large amount of factual material shows the deep impact of the Russian language on the phonetic and semantic structure of words in Mongolian languages, the appearance of common word formation models in them.

Despite all the noted advantages of the peer-reviewed work, not all of the author's statements are indisputable. So, in our opinion, we can only speak about a single Russian graphic basis for modern literary Buryat, Kalmyk and Khalkha-Mongolian languages, but not about the "existence of a single written language" (Book 1, p. 115). In addition, it seems that the development of the vocabulary of modern literary Mongolian languages is somewhat direct.-

page 200

neino connects them with the periodization of the socio-political history of their native speakers, although we do not deny the role of social factors in the development of a particular language in general. While recognizing the semantic changes of the word through the alternation of vowels and consonants of root and affix morphemes, at the same time we are against the unjustified expansion of this technique. So, we do not see the phenomenon of alternating consonants l-r in the derivational morphemes-uul and-uur. In our opinion, they are independent word-forming affixes. Cf., for example, mong. рг rsuur - "handle (on a horse rake), lift" and θ rsuur-technical "jack" (book 1, p. 169). Some examples of the restoration of Turkic root elements in words of Mongolian languages are questionable. So, according to the author of the book, the verb ozo - "to kiss" was formed from the Turkic ooz - "lips", but the Mongolian verb does not have a long vowel o (book 1, p. 34).

In general, the monograph by U.-Zh. Sh. Dondukov is an interesting and rather in-depth study that combines a concrete analysis of the actual material and its theoretical understanding. It significantly enriches the methods of studying word-formation models of Mongolian languages in comparison with the Turkic ones, which increases the scientific value of this work. The work will certainly find appropriate application in research on word formation, morphology, lexicology, and terminology not only in Mongolian, but also in other Altaic languages.

Permanent link to this publication: