Liberal Arts in Russia EN-rus logo
russian flagRussian
ISSN 2305-8420 (Print)
ISSN 2312-6442 (Online)
Current Issue

Comparative analysis of the participle of the Tatar and Turkish languages

Liberal Arts in Russia. 2018. Vol. 7. No. 5. Pp. 424-430.
Get the full text (Russian)
Sagdieva R. K.
Kazan Federal University, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication
2 Tatarstan Street, 420021 Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia
Email: ramsag777@rambler.ru
Husnutdinov D. H.
Kazan Federal University, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication
2 Tatarstan Street, 420021 Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia
Sibgatullina I. K.
Kazan Federal University, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication
2 Tatarstan Street, 420021 Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia

Abstract

An important element of the ethnic affinity of the Tatar and Turkish people is the similarity of linguistic elements, traditions, folk art. Such works as, for example, “Kutadgu belek” are of great importance for these languages and form the basis of Tatar and Turkish literature. Religious identity is also an important factor in the interconnection and mutual understanding of these two peoples. The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by the need to study the morphological features of two related languages. The scientific novelty of this article is in systematization of participles of the Tatar and Turkish languages through comparative analysis. Participle in the Tatar language has three tense forms: the present, the past, and the future tenses. In Turkish, the participle has four tense forms: the present, the past, the present-future, and the future tenses. In Tatar language, the tense forms of participles are formed by synthetic and analytical ways. In Turkish, the forms of temporary relations are divided into two categories: simple and complex. By their meaning and form, they basically coincide with the synthetic forms of participles of the Tatar language. Participle is a commonly used form of the verb in Tatar literary language, as well as in contemporary Turkish. The study reveals a number of specific features of these languages and their differences, despite the fact that they are representatives of one language family. At the same time, the influence of the Turkish on the Tatar is observed.

Keywords

  • • verb
  • • participle
  • • tense
  • • voice
  • • affix
  • • semantics
  • • form
  • • sentence
  • • Tatar
  • • Turkish

References

  1. Serebrennikov B., Gadzhieva N. Sravnitel'no-istoricheskaya grammatika tyurkskikh yazykov [Comparative-historical grammar of Turkic languages]. Baku, 1979.
  2. Agliullin M. M. Tyurkskii mir i islamskaya tsivilizatsiya: problemy yazyka, literatury, istorii i religii: IX Mezhdunarodnaya tyurkologicheskaya konferentsiya. 2018. Pp. 247-249. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=34985492.
  3. Gallyamov F. G. SWorld: Sb. nauchnykh trudov. 2013. Vol. 22. No. 1. Pp. 86-89. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=18989838.
  4. Kononov A. N. Grammatika sovremennogo turetskogo literaturnogo yazyka [Grammar of contemporary Turkish literary language]. Moscow, 1956.
  5. Sәg''dieva R. K., Khөsnetdinov D. Kh. Mirovaya tyurkologiya i Kazanskii universitet: materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii (Kazan', 26-28 aprelya 2018 g.). Kazan': Izd-vo Kazan. un-ta. 2018. Pp. 339-343.
  6. Tatar grammatikasy. Morfologiya. Kazan, 2002. Vol. 2.
  7. Tumasheva D. G. Tatarskii glagol [Tatar verb]. Kazan', 1986.
  8. Khisamova F. M. Prichastie v sovremennom tatarskom literaturnom yazyke: avtoref. diss. ... kand. filol. nauk. Kazan', 1970.
  9. Khisamova F. M. Tatar teleneң tarikhi grammatikasy. Kazan, 2017.
  10. Khisamova F. M. Tatar tele morfologiyase. Kazan, 2015.
  11. Yasin S. Nauka, novye tekhnologii i innovatsii Kyrzystana. 2017. No. 12. Pp. 194-196. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32871040.
  12. Giniyatullina A. Yu., Garaeva M. R. Kazanskaya nauka. 2018. No. 2. Pp. 38-40. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32826817.
  13. Pavlova L. M. Obrazovanie i nauka v sovremennykh usloviyakh. 2015. No. 1(2). Pp. 252-253. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24918104.
  14. Yasin S. Nauka, novye tekhnologii i innovatsii Kyrzystana. 2017. No. 12. Pp. 200-203. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32871042.
  15. Husnutdinov D. H., Akalin S. H., Giniyatullina L. M., Sagdieva R. K. Astra Salvensis. 2017. No. 20. Pp. 639-646. URL: http://revista.sangregorio.edu.ec/index.php/REVISTASANGREGORIO/article/view/526.
  16. Tatarskaya grammatika. Morfologiya [Tatar grammar. Morphology]. Kazan', 1997. T. II.
  17. Dzhavdet-zade Kh., Kononov A. N. Grammatika sovremennogo turetskogo yazyka (Fonetika, morfologiya i sintaksis) [Grammar of contemporary Turkish (Phonetics, morphology, and syntax)]. Leningrad, 1934.
  18. Baykurt F. Sakarca - bir çocuk masalı. İstanbul, 1978.
  19. Kaleli Y. Dönek. Öyküler. Yeni günya. İstanbul, 1978.
  20. Yarullin F. G. Җilkәnnәr җildә synala: Povest'lar. Kazan, 1986.