Morphological Expression Of Semantic Categories In The Pronouns Of Avar Language

Abstract

Pronouns Place names are combined into one part of speech and similarity to names is a common feature for all the words usually attributed to pronouns. The indirect basis has no class number correlates. The morphological indices of reasonableness and unreasonableness differ indirectly. The division on the basis of reasonableness and unreasonableness can be both semantic and morphologically expressed. The Semantic opposition to reasonableness in question pronouns takes place both in those Dagestani (and generally Caucasian) languages, in which there is no category of grammatical class, and in those in which it is presented. The indices of reasonableness//inadequacy presented in question pronouns in the position of indices of nouns' names' grammatical classes appeared earlier than the first gram class (i.e. "human class") was divided into "men's class" and "women's class". Initially, the "human class" and the "class of everything else" differed. Semantic contradiction of the concepts of "man//everything else" is considered to be more ancient in the Caucasian languages than the contradiction of "man/everything else". The indirect basis of the question pronoun has genetic parallels not only in the Avaro-Ando-Tsez languages, but also in other Caucasian languages.

Keywords: Avar languagemorphologypronounssemantic categories

Introduction

Pronouns are words that point to objects and attributes that result from a specific speech situation. Place names are considered to be an independent significant part of speech, combining words with index semantics. The unification of a certain grammatical class of words under the general name "Place names" is necessary in order to eliminate classification contradictions and the need for a systematic approach to words with similar index semantics.

Problem Statement

Taking into account the grammatical obviousness of the pronouns of the Russian language, many Russians note that the pronouns do not make up a special part of the speech and are distributed to other personal parts of the speech –the noun name, the name of the adjective and the name of the numeric. The most "close to the truth" is the scientifically grounded point of view of Vinogradov (2001). Unlike scientists who call all words with pronouns with pronouns semantics and those who do not consider pronouns as a separate, independent part of speech, he argued that in Russian there is a special part of speech "pronouns", but it is possible to include not all words with pronouns, but only pronouns with pronouns ("subject-personal"). Vinogradov (2001) determined the principal difference between morphological properties of pronouns and nouns, emphasizing their general categorical meaning (objectivity): the nouns have a category of inanimate animation, the subject-personal pronouns do not have it: I see it (table, elephant); I hear them (songs, artists); nouns often have endings (table, wall, window), subject-individual pronouns only syntagmatically, in the forms of agreed words: you wrote/written; who came? What happened? The number category of subject-personal pronouns is therefore not word-perhapshapshaps not word-perhapshapshaps word-perhapshaps, but lexical-grammatical classification and word-formation; subject-personal pronouns have a special grammatical category of the face that nouns do not have. It should be noted that in some works on the morphology of the Russian language (Yanko-Trinitskaya, 1982) pronouns of speech (where, when, where, where, where, from, somewhere, as, somewhere, once), which are not marked as pronouns in most works.

Research Questions

The pronouns of the Avar language have a morphologically pronounced category of reasonableness, nouns do not have it, there are only changing class parameters: the lljizza "by whom" (man) and the Sunflower "by what" (all others). The number of Avar nouns is a word changing category that does not change the lexical meaning of the word. Different lexemes are contrasted, which express the number purely semantically, not morphologically and not suppletively (as chIchIuzhu "woman" – streamchabi (many ch.) suppletive forms, differing only formally, not semantically, while nIlI "we" (incl.) and bottom (exclusive) do not mean a lot of "I" ("with you" or "without you"). As we can see, the pronouns of the Avar language in the Avar language have a certain set of categorical properties, which allows to qualify them (at least) as a separate part of speech (the categories of a person and animation/inanimate for the Avar language are uncharacteristic). A number of pronouns (dun 'ya', mun 'you', dir 'my', etc.) are materially common not only for the Avaro-Ando-Tsez languages, but also for other Dagestani languages; another number is common for the Avaro-Ando-Tsez languages (giab 'this', dob 'that', etc.). Some are characteristic only of the Avar language itself and have no common roots with the Andean languages (zhib "samo", kinab "what", etc.). A great variety of phonetic variants of pronouns are represented in the dialects of the Avar language. The morphological structure and semantics of pronouns by dialects also differ.

It can be assumed that some pronouns appeared in the language in the Soviet era as a result of the acquisition of local meanings by verbal forms of other parts of speech (the haleb "known", the khasab "general", the bihizabubub "specified", the haduseb "next", etc.).

The personal pronouns of the Avar language are as follows: doon ""I"", moon ""you"", bottom ""we"" (exclusive), nil1 "we" (inclusive), need "you". In the Avar language, the personal pronouns of the 3rd person are not represented, their functions are performed by the index pronouns. A characteristic feature of personal pronouns is their lack of grammatical class indicators.

Personal pronouns have morphologically expressed category of case. The category of number as for personal and for other pronouns is not word changing, but word forming, or lexical-semantic category. In indirect case forms of personal pronouns of the singular number of Dun "I" and Moon "you" the opposition in the form of a face is expressed by alternation of root vowels: d-i-tsaI l. – d-u-tsza II l. The final format of these pronouns in the form of a nominee is represented in the form of foreign languages, as well as in the Georgian language: and. din/din/day "I", min/day "you", year-round din/day "I", mi/day "you", ahv. din/day "I", min/day "you", min/day "you", cargo.mn (a) "I", sheng (a) "you", etc.

These pronouns in all cases, except the nominative ones, have the same root consonants. In the Nominative case, however, v is distinguished by the shape of the face through the root consonants (dun, moon). The Dun's pronoun has a base suffix and (d-i), the Moon's pronoun has a supple indirect base of the singular number (Moon-du-). Parental case of personal pronouns I and II of persons is decorated with suffix-p, which is considered an indicator of the former IVgru class. This suffix is also represented in the pronoun word chiyu-a-r "alien", formed, apparently, from the noun chi "man". It is noteworthy that this pronoun word has no form of nominative case. The chi-da-r form with an indirect basis – yes, preserved in all case-style forms – is considered to be an equally significant form.

According to Chikobava and Tsertsvadze (1962), in the Avar language the forms of the genitive case of this pronoun had an alternating final class index, which has not been preserved in any dialect. In the dative case, class forms take place in the Antsuh dialect (Chikobava, 1942). Of the Andean languages in the form of the Case of Genitive Case, the active class sizes remained in the Hodoberinic language (Saidova, 1973).

It is noteworthy that personal pronouns in plural forms also preserve the suffix of the genitive case of the singular without changing not only in Avar, but also in all Andean languages. Names of nouns form the forms of the genitive case of the plural with the help of the suffix – ul, where the finite l is identical, to the suffix of the plural of the nominative case (the ruck "earth" – ruck-al mn. h. – ruck-az-ul. p. mn. h., in the verb the class-numeric difference occurs through the class-numeric indexes in, b, y/r (vug, yigo, bugo-/r. "there is, there is").

The absence of a nominative case of a certain class of names is not uncommon (cf. the forms of pronouns of the Russian language, which do not take the form of a nominative case).

Many personal pronouns I and II of the face are represented by different forms of vowel elements: bottom//nilI "we" need "you". Unlike the forms of the singular number, the plural basis does not change in the forms of declension.

The exclusive form of the lower "we" ("themselves"), as well as the form of the second face, needs "you" ("yourself") are genetically related to the concepts of "self", "self", expressed in the Avar language. It is noteworthy that these pronouns have a common element g, represented, in the first case, by a suffix, and in the second case – by a prefix (or rather by the root morpheme).

The problem of formal structure of pronouns, as the analysis of special literature shows, is invariably in the field of view of dagestanologists, and more or less developed here we can name the following problems:

1. formation of pronouns, including the nature of source words, means of word formation, their interaction in the pronominal systems of specific languages. Although in general this aspect is present in almost all descriptive works, in one way or another affecting the pronoun, there are a number of special

formation of the Chamalinic language, emphasizing that "the main source of replenishment of the pronouns in the Chamalinic language is the question pronouns "who?", "what? (Magomedova, 1983). Abdullaev (1983) on the basis of the Cesian language showed the possibility of the formation of abstract names from personal pronouns using the suffix – ly.

2. Dialectonic features of the pronouns [cf. for example, the article about the pronouns of the Zakatala dialect of the Avar language by Saidova (1983), Suleymanov (1983) in the Agulian dialects and for the Andean language, Temirbulatova (1983) for the Haydak dialect, Ataev (1983) for the Avaro-Ando-Tsez languages.

3. Functioning of pronouns is considered in the work of Magomedova (2004).

4. Morphological expression of forms of question pronouns of reasonableness and unreasonableness was noted in the work of Magomedov (2011).

There are no question-relative pronouns in the Avar language. Saidov (1967) writes on this occasion: "In the Avar language there are no relative pronouns and none of the pronouns of other types never appear in the function of relative. The absence of relative pronouns is compensated by the rich development of the involved and de-private forms of the verb.

It should be noted that researchers of the Avar language do not have a common opinion on both semantic-grammar type of pronouns and on the number of lexical-grammar types of pronouns. Thus, Chikobava and Tsertsvadze (1962) considers the derivative forms of pronouns as deterministic, uncertain, negative, generalized, separate from personal, questioning, return and index forms, meaning some primacy of the latter in relation to the first. Abdullaev (1983), Suleymanov (1983) also distinguish personal, personally indicative, returnable pronouns, emphasizing their unproductive nature in comparison with other derivatives of the first.

The interrogative pronouns of the shiv (and, b), spared one basis in the Nominative Case and the other one, suppletive, in the Indirect Cases. The indirect basis has no class number correlates. The morphological indices of reasonableness and unreasonableness differ indirectly. The division on the basis of reasonableness and unreasonableness can be both semantic and morphologically expressed. Semantic opposition of reasonableness/inadequacy in question pronouns takes place both in those Dagestani (and Caucasian) languages in which there is no category of grammatical class, and in those in which it is presented. Lezgin, Agul, Udi and Georgian languages do not have a class category, and there is naturally no contradiction between the question pronouns in this category. But in the Tsezi languages, where the category of a civil class exists, the question pronouns also have no class opposition. In both types of languages, the indirect basis of these pronouns is supletive (except for Georgian).

The indirect basis of the ssun- is structurally identical to the forms of the personal pronouns of doon-me, mun- you. In the forms of genitive and dative case, the basis of the songs is increased – d- (song-du- d-), which is considered (Chikobava & Tsertsvadze, 1962) as an indicator of the old ergativ, now represented in the forms of southern dialect.

The pronouns of the Avar language have a morphologically pronounced category of reasonableness, nouns do not have it, there are only changing class indices: the lljizza "who" (man) and the son of a "what" (everything else).

The pronoun of Class III is "who can "bend over, and without formation of a supple base". Declension without changing the base is less common; it also coincides in form with the declension of the definite pronoun of the shibava (and, b, l) "everyone".

According to Chikobava and Tsertsvadze (1962), the indicators of reasonableness//impregnancy of lly- and ss- presented in question pronouns appeared in the position of indicators of grammatical classes of nouns' names earlier than the first grammatical class (i.e., "human class") was divided into "male class" and "female class". Initially, the "human class" and the "class of everything else" were different. But the former, unlike the latter, are used for the expression of the "class of a man" (ss) and everything else (lly), including, of course, the "class of women". The functional difference between the materially common formats is evident.

Semantically, the lly and ss formants in indirect forms are diametrically opposed to ergativa suffixes. If in the indirect forms of pronouns Lll participates in the transmission of the meaning of "man", and the cave affixes, which are the case forms of the index pronouns Av (erg.Ass) "this" Ikl., ai (erg. ally) "this" IIkl., ab, (erg. ally) "this" IIIkl. The same ratio and basis of the psung with the formatass. Semantic contradiction of the concepts of "man//everything else" (cf. Rus. who? What?) is considered to be more ancient in the Caucasian languages than the "man//everything else" opposition. The basis of Sunsun, as noted in special literature, has genetic parallels not only in Avaro-Ando-Tsezian, but also in other Caucasian languages, for example: lac. ssa-, darg. si-, batsb. steen-, adyg. sieg, and ancient cargo *ca-.

The semantics of the forms of pronouns of the plurality of the word "who" applies only to the "category of person", while in the plural the class differentiation is replaced by the numerical correlation in the names of the plural. As can be seen, pronouns retain a difference in the expression of reasonableness//inadequacy and in the plural. Irreasonable living beings and objects are denoted in the speech by the question pronoun "what (for) things", where the sting is the form of the plural in the name of a noun with a distracted generalized meaning of the noun "thing, object". Avar language does not have an analytical form of plural question pronoun that separately denotes unreasonable beings and objects in general. As it was said above, the question pronouns of shiv (Ikl.), shiv (Pkl.) and sorry (mn. number) have in the indirect cases one form of ljalitsa, which has no numerical correlation.

The parental case of the question pronouns of shiv (y, b) spared the "who", "what" is marked through the formant l, while the same genitive case is already at the attractive pronouns of dir "my", dir "your" is marked through the -r, which is considered as a fossil record of class IV. Abdullaev (1993) notes interesting features of marking the genitive question pronouns "who" and "what" in the Dargin dialects: "The historical division of names into active and inactive denotations reflected on the genitive questioning deytonimovich "who" and "what" in Hyurkilin. The question of cha, as it is known, is put in relation to a person, i.e. to a reasonable being, an active denotate. Therefore, the genitive from it is marked with the suffix -la: she-la. The question B is posed in relation to an inanimate object or an unreasonable being equated with it, i.e. an inactive denote. Therefore, it is genitively labeled as a long vowel: sese".

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of our work is to give a comprehensive description of the morphologically expressed category of reasonableness in the pronouns of the Avar language in order to establish relations of the concepts of man//everything else"//"man/everything else".

Research Methods

We used a descriptive method with diachronistic elements in our work.

Findings

In this study, we have managed to establish that the semantic contradiction of the concepts of "man/everything else" (cf. Russian, what?) in the Avar language is more ancient than the contradiction of "man/everything else". The basis of the Sunsun has genetic parallels not only in the Avaro-Ando-Tsez languages, but also in other Caucasian languages.

Conclusion

The category of activity//inactivity or historical division of names into active and inactive seems to go back to the generic concepts of male/female, rather than reasonable//inadequate. This opposition is reflected, in our opinion, in the forms of erguative nouns of the Avar language. Ergativ, as the subject of action has died, reflects the active beginning. The primary, real suffix of the Avar ergative language is the suffix-zza, as opposed to the suffixes -ass and -alla, which, in fact, are the suffixes of the indirect basis, ascending to the index pronouns.

References

• Abdullaev, A. K. (1983). On participation of pronouns in the sphere of motivating bases in Caesian word formation. Pronouns in the languages of Dagestan, 79–83.
• Abdullaev, Z. G. (1993). Darginsky language. 2. Morphology. Nauka.
• Ataev, B. M. (1983). Some remarks about the genesis of the forms of inclusion and exclusion in the Avaro-Ando-Tsez languages. Pronouns in the languages of Dagestan, 117–122.
• Chikobava, A. S. (1942). To the genesis of the second grammatical class in the mountain Caucasian languages. Messages of the Academy of Sciences of Georgia, USSR, 4, 373–380.
• Chikobava, A. S., & Tsertsvadze, I. I. (1962). Avar language. Metsniereba.
• Magomedov, M. A. (2011). Morphological Expression of Reasonableness. Ignorance (personality impersonality) in the pronouns of the Avar language. In Theoretical and practical aspects of the study of languages of the North Caucasus and other regions of the world, vol. 1, (pp. 22–23). Pyatigorsk.
• Magomedova, M. A. (2004). Functional characteristic of pronouns in the Avar language (Doctoral Dissertation). Makhachkala.
• Magomedova, P. T. (1983). Some questions of pronoun formation in the Chamalinic language (according to the speech of Nizhni Gakvari village). Pronouns in the languages of Dagestan, 84–90.
• Saidova, P. A. (1973). Godobrinsky language. IYALI of the USSR Acad. of Sci.
• Saidova, P. A. (1983). Pronouns in the Zakatala dialect of the Avar language. Pronouns in the languages of Dagestan, 22–29.
• Saidov, M. -S. D. (1967). Avar-Russian Dictionary. Nauka.
• Suleymanov, N. D. (1983). Dialectnye peculiarities of pronouns in the Agulian language. Pronouns in the languages of Dagestan, 91–102.
• Temirbulatova, S. M. (1983). Expression of spatial relations by the index pronouns of the Haydak dialect of the Dargin language, Pronoun in the languages of Dagestan, 103–107.
• Vinogradov, V. V., (2001). Russian language (Grammar teaching about the word). Russian language.
• Yanko-Trinitskaya, N. A. (1982). Russian Morphology. Russ. language.