To The Project Of The Methodology Of Integral Linguistic Analysis


The article discusses the possibility of combining comparative-historical, system-centrist and anthropocentric paradigms in modern linguistics, the degree of relevance of which increases in the light of "integrative" trends in modern "post-non-classical" science. The Russian researchers from the laboratory of linguistics, literature and cultural studies of the Integrated Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences develop a methodology for integral linguistic analysis. This methodology combines the comparative historical, comparative typological approaches and methods of seminal semasiology. Integral linguistic analysis consists of five stages. The article discusses the potential of the method of integral linguistic analysis for solving the problem of the inclusion of languages of one group or another into one or another language macro-system. This article is devoted to the origin of a number of animal names (zoonyms) in the Caucasus, mainly Nakh-Dagestan languages. The results of the first and second stages of integral linguistic analysis are presented. It is argued that the revealed facts create serious difficulties for the hypothesis about the entry of Nakh-Dagestan languages into the Sino-Caucasian macro family. Prospects for the remaining stages of the analysis are outlined, the implementation of which is possible within the framework of broad scientific international cooperation, which the authors call for. The theoretical significance of the research lies in concretizing and clarifying the question of the possible genetic affinity of the Nakh-Dagestan languages with Indo-European and, thus, clarifying and expanding the range of languages included in the Indo-European family.

Keywords: Paradigmetymologylinguistic analysisNakh-Dagestan


In modern linguistics, there are three paradigms: comparative-historical, system-centrist and anthropocentric. In the light of the tendencies towards the integration of scientific programs, disciplines and directions, as well as the fact that language is a systemic phenomenon, the question of combining the designated linguistic paradigms is currently topical.

Researchers at the Laboratory for Linguistics, Literature and Cultural Studies at the Comprehensive Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences continue to work on a project to create an integrated linguistic analysis methodology, which is the result of combining seminal semasiology methods (Makhayev, Polekhin, & Sternin, 2018a, 2018b) as well as comparative historical and comparative typological research methods (Vagapov, 2011).

The first results of the study were, in particular, presented in 2019 in the journal “European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences”

This article discusses the potential of the method of integral linguistic analysis for solving the problem of including the languages of one group or another into one or another language macro-system.

Problem Statement

One of the unresolved problems at the present time is the problem of the possible affinity of Indo-European and Nakh-Dagestan languages. In terms of distant affinity, Nakh-Dagestan languages ​​have recently been included in the Sino-Caucasian macro family. However, the results of our research create serious difficulties for the hypothesis about the entry of Nakh-Dagestan languages ​​into the Sino-Caucasian macro family. Since the Nakh-Dagestan languages ​​have a common vocabulary of the main vocabulary with the closest lexical parallels in the Indo-European languages, it is possible that the Nakh-Dagestan languages are part of the Nostratic macro family.

Research Questions

The subject of the article is the vocabulary of the Nakh-Dagestan and a number of Indo-European languages, denoting animals - zoonyms.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the article is to identify, using the methodology of integral linguistic analysis, the degree of affinity between Nakh and Dagestan and Indo-European languages based on the analysis of common animal names in these languages.

Research Methods

Integral linguistic analysis consists of five stages. 1) Compilation of the initial list of the units of languages X, Y, Z… 2) Etymological filtering 3) Component analysis of lexicographic values (the result is the unified lexicographical meaning of the ULM) 4) Component analysis of verbal associative reactions (the result is the psycholinguistic meaning) 5) Comparative analysis of the ULM and PLM.

In order to study the degree of affinity of the Nakh-Dagestan and Indo-European languages, at the first stage the initial list of zoonyms of the Chechen, Dagestan, Turkic, German and other languages was compiled.

Further, in the framework of the second stage, etymological filtering of the zoonyms was carried out – the zoonyms of the studied languages with lexical parallels were selected from the initial list.


The study revealed 30 lexical parallels between Nakh-Dagestan and Indo-European languages, among which 17 animal names, 6 bird names and 5 insect names included in the main vocabulary. Also established regular sound correspondences in the Nakh-Dagestan and Indo-European languages.

Animal names

Bula ‘bison, buffalo. Chechen proper, having parallels in Caucasian (dag. * bol’on / * bul’un : bezht. билъо , hunz. былъэ , hinukh. болъи , цез. болъа ‘common name for deer, mountain goats, etc.’ (Isakov, 1988); bezht. булIо ‘pig, boar’, khvarsh. булIу , akhvakh. болъон ‘pig’, avar. bul’on , andi. bol’on, bul’uni ‘pig, boar’ (Cybric, 1990); Adygei. blane ‘manly, energetic’, Kabardian. blane ‘strong’, ‘beast’, ‘doe’), Indo-European (MLG. bulle , OE. bula , bull ‘bull’, ON. boli, OHG. boln ‘big’, * bul - ‘swell up; big; bull’) and Turkic languages (turkic. * bolan ‘elk, deer). Goes back to form * bulun // * bulan ‘large, powerful animal’, related chech. b-ūla n ‘strain, blow up, charge’, Skrt. bala ‘strength’, balavant ‘strong’, bala-da ‘bull’. It is striking that the Germanic forms are phonetically and semantically closest to the Chechen ones.

Buož ‘goat leader’. Public. (Chech. dial. buog , ing. buog , ts-tush. b'ok' ), having reliable matches in Caucasian (kab. bžen ‘goat’, adyg. bž’e horn’, darg. bek’ , lak. bak’ ‘head, leader, guide’; svan. pik’w ‘neuter goat’ < ? * bik’w < * bak’w ) and Indo-European languages: ON. bokkr , OHG. boc , OIr. boc , pers. boz ‘goat’. * bog- ‘steep with curved horns’ (Pokorny, 1959; Watkins, 1985). All the listed forms are reduced to a single *bag archetype, restored on the basis of Nakh languages, compare chech. pl. bežaloj < bažiloj < * bag-iloj ). Similar phonetic changes occur during the formation of pl. numbers from буорз ‘wolf’– pl. берзалой < барз-илой and буорш ‘bull-calf’ – pl. бершалой < барз-илой (see below). Transition г ж in Chechen – typical phenomenon, ср. наж ‘oak’ < * наг , чуож ‘stomach’ < * чуог , чIаж ‘ravine’ < * чIаг , хьаж ‘forehead’ < хьаг , кI а жа ‘heel’ < кI а г etc. The foundation буож further related to chech. buoža ‘man’, pl. buožarij , buožaber ‘boy’ (lit. ‘man-child’), tab. baž ‘boy’, pl. bažar , lit. buože ‘head, hump’, buožis ‘big-headed man’. It is also interesting similarity to bezht. боц1и and ‘cumulative name for MRS and KRS’, guns. боц1и ‘cumulative name of the IFA’ (Oldia, 1988), which can be borrowed from the Nakh or Iranian languages.

Buorš ‘bull-calf’ (ing. buorš , ts-tush.. borš , pl. baršuj ). Corresponds to the ancient Indian vrşa - ‘bull’, vrşan male ’, varşati ‘ to rain ’, avestan varešna ‘ male ’, latin. * verses ‘wild boar’, lithuanian. veršis ‘calf’, latvian. versis ‘bull’. The original form is restored as barš ‘fertilizing’, as indicated by the genus forms baršan , pl. beršaloj < barshiloj , as well as chechen jett barše beana ‘cow in estrus’ and buoršalla fertilization, covering’. Perhaps this also applies to avar barši ‘maturity’, cham. baršila ‘ripening’, darg. бурхъа , lak. бурхь-ни-сса ‘male’.

Cicig // cick ‘cat’ (ing. Cisk). Formed by suf. -ig from the base of cica // cici (cr. жижи > жижиг ‘meat’), also presented in georg. cica, cvan. cicw, avar iciko ‘cat’, carats. itzyk ‘det. kitty ’, bezht., gunz., gin., tsez. цици ‘(det.) cat’ (Oldia, 1988), gin. цици-цици ‘inter. kitty kitty’, gunz. цицу-цицу ‘kit-and-kitty (calling the cat)’. It is unlikely that the accord of these words with Czech is accidental. dial čiča, cicka, slvts. cica, cicka ‘cat’, rus. pussy dial киця ‘cat’.

Pisu ‘pussy, kitty; interjection - calling the cat ’. General: Chech. dial pisi, pisav, ing. pisi, ts.-tush. piso ‘pussy’. It is considered a word of childish speech, georg. писо , lezg. Пси ‘word cat calling out ’, jab. dial. пси ‘cat’ (Ganieva, 2011), rut. бисай ‘cat’; tatars. песи ‘kitty’, eng. pussy, pussy-сat ‘pussy’, irl. pisin ‘kitty’, pers. pušuk ‘cat’ (Makovskii, 2005), afg. пушту пиш , пишай ‘cat’, пиши , пишо , afg. dari пишик ‘cat’, kurd. pis ‘kitty-kitty’, shugn. Пиш ‘cat’. Nevertheless, we are drawing closer to rus. motley, to motley, to write, write, painting, painted, lit. piešiu , piešti ‘draw’, avest. paēsa ‘decoration; ‘spotted’, dr.-ind. peças ‘shape, color’, pimçati ‘adorns, attaches to the image’ (Vasmer, 1971). The original meaning - ‘fluffy, spotty, variegated’.

Dingad ‘weasel’. Actually chechen (dial. Dingat, dinigad), consisting of two parts: din (mobile,) + gat // reptile (cat), lit. ‘agile, frisky cat’. Apparently, weasel so named for its exceptional briskness. The basis of gad // gat, presented in almost all Caucasian languages ​​in the meaning of 'cat, cat' (and. gedu, darg. gata, archin. gatu, tabas. gatu, rutul. gät, lezg. kkac, adyg. cab gedu, osset. gædy, georg. k'at'a, meg. k'at'u, ts.-tush. k'ujt'i, k'ot'o 'cat'), was preserved in chechen only in the form. Probably, this was partly due to the spread in the Chechen language of parallel synonyms of пису and цициг (see).

Din ‘horse, fast horse’ (Ing. din , c.-tush. don ). It corresponds with the chechen die ‘strength, power’, dönalla ‘endurance, resilience’ < dien-ulla . Comparable with the ancient Chechen dijna ‘agile, energetic, lively, whole’, din-gad // din-gat ‘weasel’ (literally ‘brisk, agile cat’), greek. dynamis ‘strength, power’, dynamikos strong, powerful ’, dynatos ‘strong’, valiisk. dyn , breton den ‘man’ <‘strong’, germ. dienen ‘to serve, to suit’, Diener ‘servant’ of worker, rabsila’. The literal meaning is ‘agile, lively, energetic, strong’. Semantically compare chechensk. govr ‘horse’ with Indo-European. * gaur - ‘large, strong’.

Ēra ‘non-emasculated, undistorted, tribal (ox, ram, etc.)’. General: chech. dial ari, ing. arh, ts.-tush. air`li ‘ram (producer)’ <* arli. Interesting from a cultural and historical point of view, the word. Pranah *āri ‘male (ram), leader’, ‘indomitable, unrestrained, heroic, militant’ has the widest connections: бежт. эрели ‘ram with fat tail’ (Oldia, 1988), lezg. jab гьер ‘ram’; * er - ‘1. ram; 2. set in motion, excite’ , *erei - // *ereu -‘ rush, onslaught, hero, wild ’, lat. aries ‘ram’ (Pokorny, 1959), basque. ar ‘male’, turk. эр // ар ‘man, husband’ (tur. эр , kum. эр. karach. эр , azer. эр ‘husband, courageous’, nogaysk. эр ‘make, эри ‘husband’). From chech. Аьрха ‘violent, obstinate, quick-witted’ - derivative with suf. –ха, буордаха beef (color) ’, дōраха ‘cheap’) from the base of āри . Phonetically āриха first changed into eriha, and after the reduction of the vowel и into аьрха . Here rus. eроха ‘stubborn’, ltsh. erka ‘courage, energy’, erceties ‘rage’.

Ēsa ‘calf, baby deer’. Common .: ing. ‘asa, c.-tush. as. Less indicator we bring together with dag* б-ас - ‘calf’: avar. бече <* б-есе , ahhvah. буша <* б-уса , bezht. бише <* б-исе (Oldia, 1988). Also carat. асю ‘calling calf name’. Outside of the Caucasian languages, similar forms are presented, in our opinion, in Teutonic languages: English ass, mid.engl. asse ‘donkey’. The original Nakh form is * ās // * āsi ‘heifer; calf, baby deer’.

Ħiex 1 ‘mountain tour’ (dialect ħiek , ing. ħagh , c.-tush. ħax ‘tur’, pl. ħaxar ). Dialectal data (cist. ħāх , plural ħōxаrij , itum. ħax , plural ħaxarij ) indicate the original form *ħax (< *ħak // *pħak ), inseparable, in our opinion, * p h ek u - ‘cattle’, iran. *pak ‘small nowt; sheep, ram' (avest. pasu - 'cattle', hotanosak. pasa ' sheep, small nowt’, pechl. pah , kurd. pas, pes , afg. psэ ‘sheep, small nowt’, oset. fys ‘sheep’). In Indo-European studies, the connection between is firmly established. * pheku - ‘nowt’ and * p h ek u - // * phek ‘ scratching wool; hair; sheep' (greek. pekos ' shorn wool; fleece', OHG. fahs 'hair', iran. *pas , oset. fasm ‘wool autumn haircut', fasyn ‘comp’), which allows us to attract here the nakh * phās- ‘fiber, wool, hair’ (> * pħāsa > chech. ħāsa [хьāса]). It is interesting to consider also the homonymous basis ħiex 2 ‘cave’ (dialect ħiek , ing. ħaxar , c.-tush. ħex ‘cave’). Goes back to the form * pħex <* pħek , pl. pħekar-š , inseparable from the cab. ħeku , adygei. ħakuy ‘stove’, Russian I bake, bake , Pechora , Old Russian. pechora ‘Cave’ (<*peke r), afg. pox ‘baked; mature’, alb. pjek ‘bake’, Iran * pak , * pek u - ‘stove, boil’ (Vasmer, 1971).

Ka ‘ram’. Common: kuoj , genus. sing. koman , ing. кa ‘ram’, c.-tush. kome n ‘male’, chech. куомах ‘dork’. The basis is widely represented in the Dagestan languages: avar. kuj ‘ram’, and kun, kumi , kar. kuni, lak.. ku ‘ram’ (> *ku > ču ‘man’), darg. kiha, kiva (Khaydakov, 1973), hin. ki ‘male’ (cf. avar. či ‘man’ <’male’), darg. chirah. ku ‘ram’, pl. kume , tsudah. čuj-meь . In terms of distant etymology from here, perhaps, the Ugro-Finnic is happening. * komi ‘man’: in the Komi language komi man, komi’, udm. кум ‘man , mansi хум ‘man’. Is it not from here that it is etymologically dark rus. кум ?

Masar ‘mountain goat’, ‘chamois’ (dial. mesar , ing. mosar , Ts.-tush. masor ‘chamois’, pl. maserč ). Probably from the nakh mas ‘hair, feather’ ( *mas - ‘hair, moss’, dag. * mix , * mux - ‘wool’), which implies the original meaning ‘woolly, long-wooded. Related to chech. māša ‘cloth’, Skrt. mēša , Av. maeša ‘sheep’, Shugn. mēхak ‘mountain ram’ < * maiša-aka. Nach. * qau ‘cattle droppings, cow dung, mullein’ > *qou > quo (сhechen. quo, ing. quo, ts.-tush. qo) * qou -, * qu - ‘cow manure; cow’, etc. in germ. kuo, chuo, etc in eng. ku, тох. And ko ‘cow’, arm. kov ‘cow’, ku ‘dung’, gen. kuoy, slav. *govuno ‘excrement’ < ‘cow dung’ (rus. govno), etc.-ind. gu-tha- ‘excrement’, avest. gu-tha- ‘dirt’ (Klimov, 1964), Pers. гоh ‘excrement’. Aryan –tha in gu-tha, most likely, reflects morphologically nakh class determinants da , combined with nakch. quo, chech. quo du, ing. quo da. It is also interesting to note the special proximity of the slav. forms with base genus. . цова-тушинского qujnon < * quvnon < * quvnon. In languages, the cow was named after one of its striking features is a put, anywhere, ‘large pellets, mulleins’.

Nakh. sag // stag // tag ‘deer’, ‘man’ (Chechen.-Ingas. sag // stag // tag ‘man’, saj ‘deer’, TS.-tush. sag ‘deer’, stak’ ‘man’) , has parallels in Caucasian (Gunz. suk'u, bezh. suk'o , cez. žek'u , khvarsh. žik'wa ‘man’, lak. ttukku ‘donkey’) and some other languages: hurr. taghe ‘male’, OE. secg ‘man’, E. stag ‘male-deer; bachelor’, oset. sag ‘deer’. The basis of sag ‘deer’ is formed by the suffix -g from nakh. * sa ‘angle, horn’ and literally means ‘horned (animal)’, compare typologically lat. ceruus ‘deer’, greek. keras ‘horn’, kar ‘head’, nah. * kar ‘head, horn’ > chech. kur , pl. karraš . From * sag ‘a deer, a buck’ is formed in a lexico-semantic way. sag ‘man’ (> stag > tag ). The transition of values ‘male animal’ - ‘male’ is a common phenomenon in the history of languages, compare, for example, i.e. * bog ’ ‘ goat’ , chech. buož ‘goat’ - buoža , buožarij ‘male’; avar. či ‘man’ - hin. ki ‘male’, ugro-fin. * komi ‘man’ with nah.-dag. * kome n // * kume n ‘male’ (from ka ‘ram’). In view of the above, borrowing nakh. sag from the Ossetian language is excluded.

Su // stu // tu ‘bull, ox’ (ing. ust , tsova-tush. pst'u ). Goes back to proto-archetype * sa(r) // * sta(r) // * ta(r) , the corresponding Indo-European *( s)taru // *(s)taur ‘bull, ox’ (L. taurus , Lith. tauras , OCS. turъ , OPrus. тур , albanian. tarok , gall. tarvos, OIr. tarb ‘bull’) and Semitic * stur ‘strong, tall’. The derived form is Chechen star -gha ‘bull’, Ingush sirgha , correlated with German * steur-ika (MHG. sterke ‘heifer’, OE. stierk , E. steur ‘calf’), formed by the diminutive suffix -ika from the German * steur ‘bull’ (Watkins, 1985).

Nakh. * var > vir : Chech. vir ‘donkey’, ing. vir, ts.-tush. vir. – vir: lat. vir ‘man’, Prus. vir ‘man’, lit. vyras, gotsk. wair ‘man’, etc.other eng. wer ‘man, husband; hero’ (Pokorny, 1959), Avest. vira, other.-ind. viras ‘man, hero’, varana- ‘camel’, toh. And wir ‘young’, yazgulyam. wir ‘male’. In the Caucasian languages, the word is not so clear, lac. вири-чу ‘hero’, pl. вир-ттал , hin. варйа ‘stallion’ (Comri, 2010). While the avar., lak. warani ‘camel’, lezg. lawar, darg. walri, dial. варли , варри ‘camel’ is more like borrowing, ind. varana- ‘camel’. The common semantic basis of these words, the man is a jackass is the value ‘male, strong (gender)’ (Gamkrelidze, 1984), typologically chech. саг ‘man’ from саг ‘deer’, буожа ‘man’ from буож ‘goat-leader’, мар ‘husband’ * мар ‘deer’, * ари ‘male’ from ари ‘not alter sheep’. The original announcement of the root, no doubt, is a, chech. pl. h варраш (< варнаш ), ing. вараш , ts.-tush. pl. варби , < nah. * вар -therefore georg. вири ‘donkey’ cannot be the source of the Nakh words. Apparently, the opposite is true. The idea of strength, size in a basis of вир is clearly visible in the georg. вир - тагви ‘rat’ (= ‘donkey-mouse’), megr. вири ‘donkey’, ‘rat’ > Oset. уыры ‘rat’.

Xersig ‘pig' (Chech. dial. xersi, xürsig, xürcig, ing. xursk). It is formed by means of reduction. suf. -ig from basics *xars, which also had a variant *xurs (neut. xürs-ig from xurs-ig). Building *xars // *xurs к *pxars // *pxurs, brings together the latest from * phorso // * phork'o ‘pig’: lat. роrcus ‘pig’, irl. *porc ‘young pig’, other in germ. Far, lit. paršas ‘pig', slav. *porsen ‘pig’, khotanosak. pasi < *pars-, kurd. purs (Pokorny, 1959; Vasmer, 1971). To correspondence of I.-E. *р - nah. pħ // *px // *x more slav. * penь , pečь ‘oven’, pečera ‘cave’ – nah. *xen ‘trunk’, *(p)ħek ‘cave’, chech. ħiex (see). * phork'o // * pherso ‘pig’ is explained as derived from I.-E. * phеrk'o // *pherso ‘variegated, spotted’ (Gamkrelidze, 1984) that supported nakh. *(p)ħarsin ‘bright, light brown, red, speckled’, *(p)ħarsan ‘to sprinkle, to sprinkle, to spray’, *(p)ħiersan ‘to sprinkle, to spray, to sprinkle’. According to another version, derived from I.-E. * regc' - // * phers - ‘to rend, to tear, to plow’ inner form ‘burrowing digger’ (Pokorny, 1959).

Bird names

Ärzu ‘eagle’. General nakh. (dial. arzuol, erdz, ing. erzi, ts.-tush. arc'iv). The similar name of a bird is widespread in the Caucasus and in adjacent regions: cham. эрцим ‘erne’, urart. arsibi, georg. арцIиви , ‘eagle’, arm. arciv, avest. erezifya, skr. rjipya, greek. argipios ‘falcon, eagle’ (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984). The original form is * арзив has undergone several phonetic changes: арзив > аьрзив > аьрзав > аьрзуо . Easily recognizable in this word root *ar-g- // *ar-z - etymologically, probably means ‘height, mountain, top’, which indicates, in particular, lak. барзу ‘eagle’ when барзунттив ‘height, mountain’ (b- class indicator), adyg. бгъэ 1 ‘eagle’ in бгъэ 2 ‘chest; the top’; germ. Aar ‘eagle’, Rus. eagle with Greek. oros ‘mountain’. Hence the internal form of арзив possible as ‘tall bird returns (incoming) boom with height. The concept of ‘the edge’ – ‘the top’ are interconnected, so arziv ‘eagle’ can be connected also with the chech. эрз ‘reed’ > ‘arrow’. udmurt. erdzi ‘eagle’, contrary to T. V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984), most likely, does not come from the mythical middle Iranian form of the avest type. ərəzi-fya ‘eagle’, and nakh * аьрзи // * иэрзи ‘eagle’.

Bād ‘duck’. Actually chech. A widespread word represented in the languages of different families: avar. salad. бад (Comri, 2010), годоб. бади ‘duck’, and. бадуши , чам. бēдиш / бедаш (neut. chech. pl. бēдаш ), hvarsh бедиш , bezht., гунз. бат1и , gin., cez. мат1и ‘goose’ (Olda, 1988), darg. батI , батIбатI ‘goose’, lezg. патI , tab. бадбад ‘duck’, arm. bad, kurd. bet, span. pato, arab. bat’ ‘duck’; georg. батIи ‘goose’. Nostratic stem * badh is probably associated with the turk. * bat - ‘dive’, i.e. * badh - // * bath - ‘dive’ (Pokorny, 1959), hence suggests etymon – ‘diving (bird)’. However, given some of the abstractness of this value, we offer to make ancient etymological meaning of one derivational step to the side of the seme ‘overweight, fat (poultry)’. This will allow us to draw to the comparison not only ie * bhad - ‘good’ < ‘good, burly, obese, plump’ (eng. better ‘better’, eng. batten ‘fatten’), but chech. dial. бадир ‘wing, thigh, side’, rus. hip, urart. bedэ ‘side’ (< ‘wing, side’), kryz. badow, будух. bod-e ‘next’ (< ‘next’), ruth. bejdi ‘close’, lezg. ppad ‘side’. Thus, the more ancient etymon for the duck is the value of ‘heavy, obese (bird)’. Native Tsova-Tushin батI ‘duck’, upward to form бад (Comri, 2010), in our view, superseded borrowed from the georgian word батIи ‘goose’ (< *a duck).

Buha ‘eagle owl, owl’. General.:ing. bov, ts.-tush. buih // buha. The most common point of view is that the word buha is explained as onomatopoeic. Note the similarity with the Caucasian (and. бугьу , godober., tind., carat., hvarsh., ginukh. бугьу , chamal. бугь , georg. бу був ) and ind-eur. forms (i.e. * bhu : new. germ. dial. Buhu, bolg. бух , ukr. бухало , greek. byas, lat. bubo ‘owl’, maked. був ‘owl’). In view of the above facts, contrary to I. Yu. Aliroev (Aliroev, 1978), it is not necessary to talk about borrowing from the Georgian language not only the form of бухIа (chech. ts-tush.), but also the forms of бов (maked. був ‘owl’). Akhv. буссе ‘owl’, dial. бусса resembles chech. буьйса ‘night’ (< * буйсе ), буса ‘night’. The alternation of h (x) // s in the Nakh-Dagestan languages is quite common.

Čovka ‘rook’ (ing. čħovka) ~ the Foundation can be traced to the Caucasus (bezht. чека , hinuch. цоко , tsez. цок , hvarsh. цук ‘rook’, georg. квав-и ‘the crow’), turkic (of Karach.b. чаука ‘rook’, tatas. чәүкә , Crim. чавке ‘jackdaw’) and Balto-Slavic languages (preslav. * kavъka > *čavka: bolg., macedon. чавка ‘jackdaw’, chesh., slvc. čavka, pol. kawka ‘jackdaw’, ukr. dial. кавка ‘rook’, каука ‘rook’, blr. кавка ‘jackdaw’; lit. kiauke ‘jackdaw’). The last attribute to the I.-E. echoic base * kau - ‘to shout, to gicat’ in Polish. old. kawa, ukr. dial. кава ‘jackdaw’, lit. kovas ‘jackdaw’, ‘rook’, etc. in germ. kâ ‘daw’, etc.-ind. kauti, kokuyati, lit. kaukti, greek. kokyo ‘scream’.

Č'uob ‘the little owl, the bittern’. Actually chech. comparable with rus. скопа ‘river eagle’, cкопец ‘kind of hawk’, dial. скопа ‘large bird of family hawk’, ukr. скопа ‘some kind of sea bird’, greek. skops, skopos ‘owls’, alb. shkapё ‘eagle, vulture’, phonetically chech. dial. чIоп . K. G. Krasnukhin (Krasnukhin, 2004) the same Greek material skōps translates as ‘eagle-owl (= looking)’ – skopós ‘guard’. Nakh ejective чI meets in anlaut slav. ск in other cases, neut. ‘candle; *oil’ – Rus. скором ‘fat, oil’, чIкъор ‘bark, skorka’ – rus. скора . Given that чIуоб // чIуоп is a night bird can bring to the comparison also

ЖагIжагIа ‘jackdaw’. Onomatopoeic word occurring in different languages: general-lezg. * чIагъ ‘jackdaw’ (lezg., tab., agul., bodoh. чIагъ , tsakh. чIиIгъаI , kryz. чIагъни , hin. чIаь ‘jackdaw, rook’ (Talibov, 1980), and. чIингъа , kar. чIчIигъа , zach. чIиIгъа , kryz. чIагъ ‘jackdaw’ (Oldia, 1988), kum. жагъа ‘jackdaw’, pers. zag'(i) ‘crow’, ‘magpie’, z'ag'-zag' ‘crack’, sogd. *zag' ‘the name of some bird’, oset. dzag'yndzag ‘magpie, afg. zhagh ‘sound, noise, voice’, ‘chirping’, arm. jag ‘bird’, I.-E. * ghag u h ‘bird name’ (Pakhalina, 1989); kum. жагъа ‘jackdaw’, karach.-b. чакъынджик ‘magpie’. In Chechen, Persian and Ossetian languages have undergone reduplication basis gag-, non-redundant basis is presented in chech. жагIа ‘pebbles, crushed stone, gravel’ (typologically rus. jackdaw and pebble). It is interesting to note that on the basis of the abruptivity of the anlaut, the Lezgin forms are phonetically closer to Chech. чIиегIаг ‘magpie’ than жагIжагIа ‘jackdaw’.

Name of insects and amphibians

Bumbari ‘bumblebee, hornet’. Vainakh (ing. bumbarg ‘bug’) that has a match in ind-eur. languages: serb. бумбара ‘bumblebee’, bolg. dial. бумбар ‘stag beetle’, maсed. bumbar ‘beetle’, lit. bambalas ‘bumblebee; beetle’, ltsh. bambals ‘beetle’, eng. bumblebee ‘bumblebee’, greek. bombylios ‘bumblebee’, etc.-ind. bambhara ‘bee’, afg. бамбәра ‘hornet’, munj. bamber ‘wasp’, I.-E. * bamb-ar - (Pakhalina, 1989). Also, gunz. барбари ‘bumblebee’, hin. бемб ‘fly’, georg. bumbuli ‘feathers, fluff’.

Gora /Boo/ ‘gadfly, horsefly’ (dial. garu). Avar. кIкIарá ‘mosquito’, pl. кIкIурби , tomur. кIкIирá ‘mosquito’, gid. dial. кIкIара ‘gadfly’, and. akhwah. кIкIара ‘ant’, cham., khvarsh. кIара ‘midges, the mosquito’, arch., inhokw. k’ara, tind. kkyara ‘mosquito’ (Kibrik, 1990), and chech. кIирдала ‘pinpoint, acquire skill, ing. кIирденна ‘staring’.

Neca ‘moth’. Vainakh.: chech. dial. nace, ing. nec. According to the Dagestan forms (neut. archin. * нисв , cham. йес , dial. реси , karat, bagv. реса , and. реси , lac. нувца ‘mothl’), c in nace goes back to s (*nase). Internal form could be understandable in the case of a probable connection with ie. * nek ` // * nes - ‘die, disappear’ (other-ind. nasayati ‘disappears’, avest. nasu- ‘corpse’, greek. nekys, lat. nex ‘death’): moth, apparently, got its name by the ability ‘to eat up, to shred, to turn wool into dust’. Also avar. неца ‘the gadfly’, нус ‘knife’, bezht. natso, gunz. нацə gin. ноце , zets. ноци , khwarsh. нуца / ноцо ‘louse’ (Oldia, 1988).

Polla ‘butterfly, butterfly’. Actually chech. (dial. pallu), which has a correspondence to the root of the Indo-Europ. languages: lat. pello, -puli ‘to beat, to push, to sway’, greek. pallo, ‘to shake, to brandish, to flutter, to beat, to throb, to fluctuate, to tremble’, rus. перепел // пелепел , пере - полох , вс-полош-иться bolg. плах ‘timid, fear’ serbohorv. плах “quick, sharp’, I.-E. * pel - ‘to move abruptly, in spurts’, ‘spin’ (Pokorny, 1959; Vasmer, 1971). Phonetically not derived from the kurd. pepole, georg. пIепIели ‘butterfly’ unlike ts.-tush. пIепIел . Semantically rus. мотылек when мотаться , метаться , lit. drugys ‘fever; butterfly’ under дрогнуть . дрожать . Probably related to chech. пиел in пиелвийла ‘to totter, to vacillate, to stumble’.

Sagal ‘flea’, dial. segal, ing. sagal, ts.-tush. psik’ ~ bezh. чIики , dial. цIике , cez. чIики , gunz. чIиге , lak. чIака , darg. цIика , tsud-tant. цIукI , цIукIе ‘flea’ (Comri, 2010), Neut. here rus. сиг ‘jump’, сигать ‘jump’, blr. сиг ‘big step’, сигаць ‘big walk’, anglos. higian ‘hurry’, ether ind. cighras ‘fast’) and turk. languages (*sek- ‘to jump; to roll, bumping over the ground’ > kalm. segl. ‘to jump, wiggle walking). Judging by ts.-tush. the form псикI , chech. сагал is suf. Formation (suf. -al, neut. . пхьаг-ал ‘hare’, цхьог-ал ‘fox’, тарс-ал ‘squirrel’, шорш-ал ‘thrush’) from the base of the sag-. Semantically eng. flea ‘flea’ – flee ‘to flee'.

T’uod ‘gadfly’ (ing. t'uod, ts.-tush. t'ut't’ ‘fly’) ~ cham. тIу н тI ‘fly; flies’, karat. тIу н тIу , ‘fly’, avar. t'ot’-, bezht. t'ot’-, gunz. тIотI ‘fly, bee’, darg. t'ent’, kryz. тIытI , ruth. дед , tsakhur. t'ot’, lezg. тет , udin. тат ‘fly’, тIатI ‘bee’ (Ganieva, 2011). Similar forms are found in the Indo-Europ. languages: shugn. тивд ‘mosquito’, other-ind. toda-s ‘one who stings’, toda ‘prick, bite; acute pain’, tudati, tundate ‘pushes, stings’ (,). The original Nakh-Daghestanian form – *dad // * t’ad ‘(sting) fly (gadfly, a bee)’.

Pħid 2 ‘frog’. General. (ing'. pħid, ts.-tush. pħit’) that have a match in Dagestan (bezh. гIотIе , darg. hyde. гIǝтIа , asht. хIǝтIа , urar. гъǝтIа ‘frog’ (Temirbulatova, 2012) < .-hyde. * пхIетI - avar. хIетIе ‘leg, foot’ (Khaidakov, 1973) and some indo-europ. languages: khett. piddai ‘run’, greek. pido ‘jump up’, other engl. pad ‘frog’ (Makovsky, 2005), swedish. padda ‘toad’. Formed lexical-semantic method from pħid1 ‘leg, thigh’ (= I.-E. *phed ‘foot’), rus. Лягать , ляга , ляжка лягушка (Vasmer 1973), other.-ind. pravate ‘jumps’, plava- ‘frog’ (Gamkrelidze, 1984). Frog got its name from the most characteristic feature – the method of movement jumps. The original form – * pħad , chech. dial. pħad, pl. pħadariš, pħadarčij.


Thus, on the basis of the above we can draw the following conclusions:

Of the 30 considered nakh animal names, all have Indo-European parallels or roots. Almost all 30 roots are being reconstructed initial vocalization, and (* ari ‘male; sheep; man,’ * asi ‘heifer’, * bal ‘wild bull, bison’ > * bul , * barš ‘male, manufacturer, bull’, * dan - ‘dynamic, horse’ > * din , * gat ‘cat’, * gaur ‘horse’, * ka ‘sheep’, * masar ‘chamois’, * phak ‘mountain tour’, * phars-ig ‘ pig’ > * phursig , * sag // stag // * tag ‘deer, man,’ * star ‘ox’, * stargh ‘bull’, * var ‘male, man; donkey’ > * vir ).

As a result of known phonetic processes, mainly assimilation, the root a goes into е // i // u // uo :

* ari ‘male; ram; man ’> era ‘ male, wild ’

* asi ‘heifer’> esa ‘calf’

* phars-ig ‘pig’> * phersig> hersig

* dan- ‘dynamic; horse ’> ...> * din

* var ‘male; donkey ’> ...> * vir

* bal ‘wild bull, bison’> * balu> ...> * bul

* gar ‘withers, scruff, mane’> * gaur horse ’> * gour> * gowr

* star ‘bull, ox’> * staru> * staur> * stur> * stu

* bag ‘goat’> * buog> * buož

* barš ‘ begetter; goby; impregnator > * buórš

Thus, the above facts create difficulties for the hypothesis about the occurrence of the Nakh-Dagestan languages in the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily.

Further, in the framework of the third stage of integral linguistic analysis, it is necessary to carry out a seminal analysis of the lexicographic meanings of the studied zoonyms in order to identify their unified lexicographic meanings (ULM). Then, at the fourth stage, it is necessary to conduct psycholinguistic associative experiments. According to the results of the experiments, an array of verbal associative reactions will be obtained, the semantic interpretation of which will allow us to reveal the psycholinguistic meanings of the zoonyms (PMZ) of the Nakh-Dagestan and Indo-European languages ​​- that is, meanings, actually presented in the linguistic consciousness of the speakers of the studied languages. And within the framework of the final, fifth stage, there is a need for a comparative analysis of the ULM and the PMZ to identify the degree of relevance of this in the linguistic consciousness of speakers of Nakh and Indo-European languages.

The authors of the study propose cooperation to colleagues from various countries in this direction.


  1. Aliroev, I. Yu. (1978). Comparative dictionary of the industry vocabulary of the Chechen language and dialects. Grozny: Chechen-Ingush book publishing house.
  2. Comri, B., & Khalilov, M. (2010). Dictionary of languages and dialects of the peoples of the North Caucasus. Leipzig: Makhachkala.
  3. Gamkrelidze, T. V., & Ivanov, V. V. (1984). Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans. Tbilisi: Tbilisi publishing house.
  4. Ganiev, F. A. (2011). Dialects and dialects of the Samur dialect of the Lezgin language. Makhachkala.
  5. Isakov, I. A., & Khalilov, M.Sh. (1988). Names of animals in Tsez languages. Makhachkala.
  6. Khaidakov, M. S. (1973). Comparative Dictionary of Dagestan languages. Moscow: Nauka.
  7. Kibrik, A. E., & Kodzasov, S. V. (1990). Comparative study of Dagestan languages. Name. Phonetics. Moscow: The Publishing House of Moscow State University.
  8. Klimov, G. A. (1964). Etymological Dictionary of the Kartvelian Languages. Moscow: Publishing house of academy of sciences of the USSR.
  9. Krasnukhin, K. G. (2004). Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. Moscow: The MGU Publishing House.
  10. Makhayev, M. R., Polekhin, N. A., & Sternin, I. A. (2018a). The degree of development of the toponym "Derbent" (according to the linguistic associative experiments). The Bulletin of the Social-Pedagogical Institute, 1, 44–51.
  11. Makhayev, M. R., Polekhin, N. A., & Sternin, I. A. (2018b). Voronezh and Derbent in the regional language consciousness. Communication culture and its formation. Voronezh: RHYTHM.
  12. Makovsky, М. М. (2005). Etymological Dictionary of the German Language. Moscow: Azbukovnik.
  13. Pakhalina, T. N. (1989). Comparative historical morphology of the Pamir languages. Moscow: Nauka.
  14. Pokorny, J. (1959). Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke Verlag.
  15. Temirbulatova, S. M. (2012). Industry vocabulary of the Dargin language. Makhachkala.
  16. Vagapov, A. D. (2011). Etymological Dictionary of the Chechen Language. Tbilisi: Meridiani.
  17. Vasmer, M. (1971). Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow: Progress.
  18. Watkins, C. (1985). The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Copyright information

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

About this article

Publication Date

28 December 2019

eBook ISBN



Future Academy



Print ISBN (optional)


Edition Number

1st Edition




Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society

Cite this article as:

Abdulvakhabova, L., Navrazova, K., Ovkhadov, M., Makhaev, M., & Vagapov*, A. (2019). To The Project Of The Methodology Of Integral Linguistic Analysis. In D. Karim-Sultanovich Bataev, S. Aidievich Gapurov, A. Dogievich Osmaev, V. Khumaidovich Akaev, L. Musaevna Idigova, M. Rukmanovich Ovhadov, A. Ruslanovich Salgiriev, & M. Muslamovna Betilmerzaeva (Eds.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism, vol 76. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 3265-3274). Future Academy.