ABOUT KYRGYZ WORDS OF “IRANIAN” ORIGIN

Abstract

. The relevance of the topic of the article lies in the need to clarify the origin of individual words of the Kyrgyz language. It is known that the vocabulary of the Kyrgyz language, which is part of the Turkic family of languages, in etymological terms consists of several layers – Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu, Iranian, Semitic (Arabic), Sino-Tibetan, Russian, etc., which indicate cultural, trade, military-political and other ties of the Kyrgyz with other peoples. Kyrgyz lexicology provides a list of lexical units borrowed from Iranian languages (1343), which comprise 16 subgroups. An etymological analysis of these words showed that of these 552 words (41,1%) are non-Iranian in origin. The purpose of the article is to compare the primary roots of only seven Kyrgyz words, always elevated to an Iranian source, with similar root morphemes of Sino-Tibetan languages. The study found that these roots are common to Altai and Sino-Tibetan languages and indicate their likely belonging to Nostratic languages. The article argues the assumption that the corresponding lexical units are borrowed from the Chinese language from the Chinese language (hanyu) or act as reflexes more practical, common to a number of Eurasian language families. The facts of modern Iranian and Kyrgyz languages testify to the most ancient close contacts of their speakers both among themselves and with representatives of the Chinese nation (hanzu).The etymological identity of the studied Kyrgyz and Chinese words is established by comparison with the facts of other related or contacted languages. The novelty of the study is that it proves the position on not the Iranian, but on the Chinese origin of the analyzed words of the Kyrgyz language. The lexical units of the Chinese language convincingly demonstrate the derivative nature of a number of Kyrgyz words, which have always been regarded as non-derivative. The etymological excursions contained in the article additionally confirm the validity of the hypothesis about the linguo-ethnogenetic unity of the Altai and Sino-Tibetan peoples and allow the authors to support the point of view of the linguists, comparativists, who very widely represent the composition of Nostratic languages.