Download THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEVERBAL NOMINALS AND

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEVERBAL NOMINALS AND PARTICIPLES IN
THE LANGUAGE OF ORKHON INSCRIPTIONS
Aysel Ahmadova
Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences Institute of Linguistics
PhD student, researcher
Abstract
Although inflection and derivation are two different morphological processes, there is not
a strict distinction between them. Even in the modern Turkic languages some inflectional
suffixes can be used for word-formation purposes and vice versa. Diachronic analysis of Orkhon
Inscriptions and modern Turkic languages illustrates transformation processes from inflectional
to derivational suffixes. However, it is not the only possibility, because with the increasing of
productivity and grammaticalization of meaning, derivational suffixes, especially deverbal
nominal forming suffixes in the language of Orkhon Inscriptions began to be used as the means
of verbal inflection in the modern Turkic languages. This article focuses on the
grammaticalization of the deverbal nominal suffixes in Turkic languages, and argues that the
beginning of this process was registered in the language Orkhon Inscriptions.
There are some researches on the use of the suffixes of participle as derivational suffixes,
but nearly all of them regard this process as a transformation from inflection to derivation.
However, this study aims to prove that many suffixes of participles were originally derivative
suffixes making nouns and adjectives from verbs.
Keywords: word-formation, Turkic languages, Old Turkic, suffix, grammaticalization,
lexicalization
1
1. Introduction.
Being among the oldest written monuments of Turkic languages, Orkhon Inscriptions are
very important for turkological studies. The language of the Inscriptions demonstrates some
interesting word-formation features including lexicalization and grammaticalization of derivative
suffixes. These processes are found especially in deverbal noun and adjective forming suffixes.
Analyses show that some of the deverbal derivative suffixes in Orkhon Turkic are used as the
suffixes of infinitive and participle in the later stages of the history of the Turkic language family.
Many turkologists mention change from inflectional to derivational suffixes in Turkic
languages when they talk about the use of the suffixes of participles as derivational suffixes
(Salman 1999: 190; Bašdaš: 2), although the material of Orkhon Inscriptions proves an opposite
process.
The suffixes of participles are not always seen as inflectional suffixes (Salman 1999: 192),
because they are close to derivational suffixes for some of their peculiarities. That’s why some
researches give them as transitional suffixes among inflectional and derivational ones (Erdem
2011: 78). However, in this paper, we are not going to show the properties of these morphemes
that are close to derivational ones, we are going to talk about their usage as regular derivational
suffixes in Orkhon Inscriptions and compare it to their functions in modern Turkic.
“The possibility that inflectional morphology can originate from derivational morphology
was mentioned in Kuryłowicz’s classical definition of grammaticalization” (Kibrik 2005: 6).
Lykova also mentioned the possibility of the transition from one class to another (Abdullina
2008: 7).
We look at this process as a special type of grammaticalization. But most of the
researchers focus on the change from words and word roots to suffixes when they talk about
grammaticalization, they do not usually mention the change from lexical suffixes to grammatical
ones, i.e. derivation to inflection (Kibrik 2005: 6).
Some suffixes that functions as indicators of participles in modern Turkic are used to
make nouns from verbs in Orkhon Turkic. This process occurs as these suffixes become more
common and began to be added to every verb regardless their meaning. These suffixes include
not only basic suffixes like -γan, -γu, but also complex suffixes, namely -γučï and -maqčï.
2. The suffix -γan.
-γan is one the main suffixes of participle and past tense in the modern Turkic languages,
except Oghuz group. Although there were no participles with -γan in Orkhon Inscriptions, it was
still the suffix registered in the Inscriptions, not as an inflectional suffix as it is today, but as a
deverbal noun and adjective forming suffix.
2
In the languages of Orkhon Inscriptions the words with -γan include the following:
Qapaγan ‘conqueror’, ‘personal name’:
Qapaγan
Eltäris qaγan eli-ŋ-ä
qïlïn-tï-m (Ongin front 4)
Conqueror
Elteris kaghan state-POSS.3.SG-DAT
be_brought_up-PST-1.SG
‘I was brought up for the state of conqueror Elteris kaghan’
...Qapaγan
qaγan türk
bodun yämä, kisi
sir
yämä idi
bodun yer-in-tä
yok er-täči
bod
yämä,
tribe
too
erti (Tonukuk 60)
Kapaghan
kaghan turk
sir
people place-POSS.3.SG-LOC
people too
person too
owner destroy-FUT AUX-PST
‘…Kapaghan kaghan would destroy the tribes, people, person, owner who were in the
place of turk sir people’
In the first sentence, qapaγan is an adjective and acts like the attribute of Elteris kaghan,
whereas in the second one, it depicts the name of the second ruler of the Second Kokturk Empire.
T.Tekin read this word as qapγan (Tekin 2003: 90). In both cases, the suffix -γan is
obvious. It is also known that there is a complex morpheme -aγan in the modern Turkic
languages which is made from -γan, e.g. xoyuγan ‘coward’ (Tuvan), duraγan ‘stagnant’, učaγan
‘flying’, tutaγan ‘catching’ (Turkmen), pariγan ‘going’, kiligän ‘coming’ (Khakas), pĕlägän
‘knowing’ (Chuvash) (Scherbak 1977: 167); qačaγan ‘running’ (Azerbaijan). There are different
explanations for the element -a in the suffix, such as P.M.Melioranskiy’s thought of -a making
“intensive” word-stems (Scherbak 1977: 167) or N.K.Dmitriyev’s idea of accepting -a as a
converbial suffix (Sevortyan 1966: 320). As it is not possible to add the suffix of participle or
deverbal adjective making morpheme after the suffix of converb, the second opinion is dubious.
The main difference between the words with the suffixes -aγan and -γan is the expression of a
permanent property and a temporary feature. This proves that the element -a adds intensity to the
morpheme -γan. Qapaγan also depicts a permanent property, that’s why the first idea given
above is more accurate. There is a word qopaγon in Uzbek language with a different meaning
(‘biting’), but with the same root and the same suffix (Sevortyan 1966: 322). It also confirms that
the word analyzed above is qapaγan.
Qurγan ‘fortress’:
yaš-ï)m-a
...(qïrq
yut
Maγï qurγan
qïšla-duqda
Maghi fortress
spend_winter-CVB
bol-tï (Bilge Kaghan east 31)
...(forty
age)-POSS.1.SG-DAT
yut be_PST
‘…when I was forty while we spent winter in the Maghi fortress yut occurred there’
3
This word also has two interpretations: qurγan ‘a place that was built’ and qorïγan ‘a
place to protect people’. According to T.Tekin the root of this word is qorï- ‘to protect’ (Tekin
2003: 90). However, E.V.Sevortyan insisted that the older meaning of qur- is ‘to fortify’, and
qurγan comes from this meaning. … This word is used as qurγan in modern Turkic languages,
and the meaning that E.V.Sevortyan gave for this word confirms that it is from the verb qur-.
Tabïsγan ‘hare, rabbit’:
Keyik yi-yü,
tabïsγan
yi-yü
olur-ur
er-ti-miz (Tonukuk 8)
Deer
hare
eat-CVB
sit-PRST
AUX-PST-1.PL
eat-CVB
‘We were sitting and eating deer and hares’
Although it is not easy to define the root of this word, it is clear that tabïsγan is related to
the words tavra- ‘to move’, tavran- ‘to hurry’, tavraq ‘fast’ (Drevnetyurkskiy 1969: 542-543),
dābıra- ‘to jump, to gallop’ (21, 212), tabrïš- ‘to jump along’, tabrït- ‘to make to jump’ (Clauson
1972: 444-445). It can be assumed that all of this words come from the root *tap-/*tab- ‘to move
quickly, to gallop, to jump’, and *tabïs-/*tabïš- is the cooperative voice of that verb. The
meaning ‘rabbit, hare’ is also associated with the verb depicting ‘to run, to jump’ in other
languages, for instance, in Manchu-Tungusic languages toqsakī (Negidal), toqsa (Nanai), tuqsan
(Oroch) ‘rabbit, hare’ comes from the verb tuqsa- (Evenki), toqsa- (Negidal) ‘to run, to jump’
(Etimologičeskiy 1977: 208).
Participles with the suffix -γan are very common in the modern Turkic languages, for
examples, ǯaqšï bilgen ‘knowing good’, mektepke ketken oquuču ‘the student who went to
school’, ǯasay turgan išterim ‘my works to be done’, menim tartqan ǯabïrïm ‘the torment that I
experienced’ (Kirgiz) (Turgunbayer: 273-282).
The derivational function of -γan still exists in some Turkic languages, such as
Azerbaijani, Turkish, Turkmen, Gagauz where it could not gain inflectional function and did not
turn into the suffix of participle, e.g. čalïšgan ‘hard-working’, burulγan ‘whirlpool’, aγlaγan
‘crybaby’, yarγan ‘ravine’ (Azərbaijani), unutqan ‘forgetful’, yapïšqan ‘sitcky’ (Turkish). Even
in the other languages where -γan is the suffix of participle it can also make nouns and adjectives
from verbs, like talqan ‘oat’, korγan ‘fortress’ (Karakalpak) (Baskakov 1952: 398); qabγan
‘trap’, ǯarïlγan ‘cleft’ (ǯarïl- ‘to cleave’), ǯaratxan ‘creative’ (ǯarat- ‘to create’), alǯaγan ‘mad’
(alǯa- ‘to go mad’), auruγan ‘ill’ (auru- ‘to ache’) (Karachai-Balkar) (Xabichev 1971: 216-217);
uhuskan ‘sleepy’ tutbaγan ‘captive’ (Salar) (Teres 2013: 341). The grammaticalization of the
morpheme -γan began not so late, in Chaghatai, it was used as a suffix of participle, e.g. alγan
‘buying, bought’, kelgen ‘coming, came’, and even as a suffix of past tense:
Samarqand-nï
Iskender
binā
qïlγandïr
Samarqand-ACC
Iskender
building
do-PST-3.SG
4
‘Iskender established Samarqand’ (Eckmann 1988: 53).
It is regarded as the period in which -γan began to be used as the suffix of past tense
(Turgunbayer: 271).
Some turkologists claim that the derivational function of the morpheme -γan is older than
its inflectional function (Sravnitelno 1988: 446). To our opinion, the morpheme -γan became the
suffix of participle, because as a derivational suffix, it also depicted the subject of the action.
3. The suffix -γu.
-γu, though not being a very productive suffix, was still used to make nouns mainly
depicting subject of the action in the language of Orkhon Inscriptions. However, there is not a
final decision regarding this suffix among the linguists. The following examples might make this
statement clear. While A.N.Kononov demonstrate this suffix as morpheme semantically related
to future participle (Kononov 1980: 90), T.Tekin claims that it makes the nouns meaning the
name of the action and its subjects (Tekin 2003: 90). According to A.M.Scherbak one of the
meanings given by this suffix is present-future tense (Scherbak 1977: 159). J.Eckmann called it a
suffix
with
the
meaning
‘requirement-future’
(Eckmann
1988:
54).
Ultimately,
B.A.Serebrennikov and N.Z.Hajiyeva had different thoughts on this matter. In their research the
original meaning made with -γu is considered to be possibility of the action.
In Orkhon Inscriptions, this suffix was used in the following instances:
Qor(ï)γu ‘guard’:
Qorγu eki-üč
kisiligü
täz-ip
bar-dï (Bilge Kaghan east 41)
Guard two-three
men
run-CVB
go-PST
‘He ran away with two or three guards’
This noun comes from the verb qorï- ‘to protect’, and the function of -γu is to depict the
subject of the action.
Kürägü ‘rebel, runaway’:
üčün, igidmiš
Küregü-ŋ-in
barmïš
edgü
eliŋ[e]
bilgä
qaγanïŋïn
kentü yaŋïltïγ,
ermiš
yablaq
kigürtüg (Kul tigin east 23)
PST
Rebel-POSS.2.SG-ACC
for
raise-PTCP
be-PTCP
good
state-POSS.2.SG-DAT
bad
go-PTCP
wise
kaghan-POSS.2.SG-ACC
own
be_mistaken-
bring-PST
‘As you were rebels, you were mistaken, and brought harm to the state of your wise
kaghan who raised you’
Although T.Tekin read this word as küregüŋin, there were also other interpretations of
this lexical unit. For example, H.N.Orkun read it as körgünin, while E.Recebov gave it as
5
kərgüŋin, both of them explained the meaning of the word as ‘as he obeyed’ (Orkun 1994: 40,
Räcäbov 1993: 73, 80). In both cases the word is a noun made from the verb with the suffix -γu.
In the first interpretation the root of the noun is the word küre- ‘to run away’ which is also the
root of the word kürek in Qutadgu bilig which has exactly the same meaning: ‘runaway’
(Drevnetyurkskiy 1969: 328). In the second one, the root is the very common Turkic verb kör‘to see’, and according to H.N.Orkun and E.Recebov the sentence should be translated as the
following: ‘You were mistaken, and brought harm to your wise kaghan who raised you for your
obedience, and to your good state’.
The both interpretation are acceptable due to the meaning of the sentence, nevertheless, to
our opinion, the first one is more accurate, and the use of the word kürek in Qutadgu bilig proves
that küregü is more possible than körgü which was not registered in any other Turkic written
monument.
Qaraγu ‘guard’:
Arquy qaraγu-γ
guard-ACC
ulγart-dï-m... (Tonukuk 53)
raise-PST-1.SG…
‘I built intelligence towers…’
Yelmä,
qaraγu edgüti ur-γïl,
basït-ma, –
ti-mis
guard well
be_defeated-NEG
say-
(Tonukuk 34)
Intelligence_group
beat-IMP.2.SG
PST
‘Set up the intelligence groups and guards well, do not be defeated, said he’
This noun is formed from the verb qara- ‘to look’ which is very common in modern
Turkic languages, except Oghuz group. It is the only trace of the verb qara- in Orkhon Turkic so
far, because as most researchers declared, it was not used until Chagatay language (Clauson
1972: 645; Etimologičeskiy V 1997: 289).
-γu continued its life as a derivative suffix in the later stages of Turkic language history
which is proved by written monuments. Here are some examples: urunγu ‘fighter’ (urun- ‘to beat
yourself’), bälgü ‘sign’ (bäl-gür- ‘to be seen’), bïčγu ‘knife’ (Gabain 1988: 52), bïčγu ‘saw’,
sorγu ‘saw’, bergü ‘tax, loan’, bilägü ‘grindstone’, külgü ‘laughter, humor’, keẑgü ‘cloth,
garment’ (Äskär 2008: 136). Nevertheless it is the only reason why -γu is used. This simple
suffixal morpheme was used as an indicator of future participle beginning from the same written
monuments, like qïlmaqu qïlïnč ‘the work that will not be done, must not be done’, qutqarqu
tïnlïγlar ‘the creatures that will be rescued, might be rescued’ (Gabain 1988: 56), yürügüdä turur
‘goes in front of the army’ (The Legend of Oghuz Kaghan, 13th century); ičkü yegü bilä mäšγul
ärmiš ‘was busy with drinking and eating’ (Old Uzbek language) (18, 159). And this process
6
continued until now, as in modern Uzbek and Uighur languages. There are also some examples
from other languages: mingi at ‘a horse to ride’ (Karakalpak) (Baskakov 1952: 406).
The information given above does not deny the role of -γu as a derivative suffix in
modern Turkic languages belonging to Oghuz, Kipchak and Siberian groups (Sevortyan 1966:
227), e.g. bölgü ‘distribution’, duyγu ‘sense’ (Azerbaijani), burγu ‘brace’, bilgi ‘knowledge’
(Turkish), ǯaγï ‘scythe’ (Kirgiz), tuyγu ‘to be able’, külgü ‘laughter’ (Uighur) (Scherbak 1977:
160-161), pïčqï ‘saw’ (pïč- ‘to cut’) (Tatar) (Serebrennikov 1979: 109), durqu ‘threshing-floor’,
kültkü, külkü ‘laughter’, ačïtxï ‘yeast’ (Karachai-Balkar) (Xabichev 1971: 62-63).
4. The suffix -γučï.
-γučï is another suffix that was used to make nominals from verbs in Orkhon Inscriptions.
Ayγučï ‘adviser’:
Qaγan-ï
alp
er-mis,
ayγučï-sï
bilgä
er-mis
adviser-POSS.3.SG
wise
AUX-PST
(Tonukuk 10)
Kaghan-POSS.3.SG brave AUX-PST
‘Their kaghan was brave, their adviser was wise’
An-ta
ayγučï yämä ben
ök
That-LOC
adviser too
PTCL AUX-PST-1.SG
I
er-ti-m (Tonukuk 49-50)
‘I myself was adviser there, too’
Ayγučï is from the verb ay- ‘to say’. As this noun used beside kaghan it can be assume
that ayγučï also referred to an official title. In the Inscription of Tonukuk, ayγučï was used to
indicate Tonyukuk himself.
It was different from the suffixes above, because it was also used as the suffix of
participle in the word itgüči ‘making’:
Barq
it-güči
bediz
yarat-ïγma
Tabγač
qaγan čïqan-ï
Building
make-PTCP
Tabghach
kaghan nephew-POSS.3.SG Chang Sengun
Čang Sengün
bitig
taš
it-güči
kelti (Kul Tigin north
13)
ornament
create-PTCP writing stone make-PTCP
come-PST
‘Tabghach kaghan’s nephew Chang Sengun who makes buildings, creates ornaments,
makes written monuments came’
In this sentence itgüči is used together with the participle yaratïγma ‘creating’, and the
suffix -γučï is added the second parts of the constructions barq it-güči ‘making building’ and
bitig taš it-güči ‘making written monuments’ which is typical for the participle making
inflectional suffix. Therefore, itgüči can be considered as a participle in this instance.
7
Even though there were traces of it as a derivational suffix, e.g. ölürgüči ‘murderer’,
qolγučï ‘beggar’ (qol- ‘to ask, to beg’) (Gabain 1988: 53), čihišguǯi ‘thief’ (Salar), satγuǯï
‘seller’, čörulγuǯi ‘sly’ (Teres 2013: 341-342); bileuču ‘grinder’, ǯazuuču ‘writer’, ǯïrlauçï
‘singer’ (Karachai-Balkar) (Xabiçev: 228); -γučï and its modern phonetic variation -uvčï
continued their function as the suffixes of participle in the later stages of Turkic language
history:
qïnaγučï
‘torturing’
(qïna-
to
torture’)
(Gabain
1988:
53),
tapïnγučï
‘obeying’(M.Kashghari), deguvči ‘saying’, olip borγuvči ‘taking’ (Uzbek) (Scherbak 1977: 160161); alïp satqučï ‘merchant’, degüči ‘story-teller’, kezgüči ‘traveller’ (Chagatai) (Eckmann
1988: 54).
-γučï is a complex suffix made from -γu and -čï which is a derivative suffix making nouns
from nouns. According to the common idea in linguistics inflectional suffixes finish the word,
and derivational suffixes cannot be added after the inflectional ones (Erdem 2011: 79). It speaks
in favor of the suffix -γu being a derivative suffix, otherwise, the derivative -čï could not be used
after it.
5. The suffix -maqčï.
There is the complex suffix in the word armaqčï ‘liar’. This suffix also became the suffix
of participle in modern period, for instance, kälmäkši adam ‘a man who will come’ (Kazakh),
aolmaoqči bulip ‘decided to buy’ (Uzbek) (Scherbak 1977: 162); ǯiymekši ‘the one who will eat’,
bolmaqšï ‘the thing which will happen’, išpekši ‘the one who will drink’ (Karakalpak) (10, 436).
In some modern Turkic languages it functions even as a suffix of future tense: barmaqčïman ‘I
will go’ (Kirghiz), uqĭmaqčĭmĭn ‘I will read’ (Tatar) (Scherbak 1977: 162).
-maq/-mek is the main suffix of infinitive in modern Turkic. However, in the earlier
stages of the development of the Turkic languages, it did not form infinitive and served as a
morpheme making nouns from verbs. It was only used once in Orkhon Inscriptions, in the noun
armaq ‘lie’ which was the part of armaqčï ‘lier’:
...tabγač bodun täbligin kürlig üčün, armaqčïsïn üčün… (Kul Tigin east 6)
…Tabghach people … sly for lier-POSS.3.SG for…
‘…because Tabghach people were … and sly, because they were liers…’
It is from the verb ar- ‘to lie, to deceive’:
Süçig sabın, yımşak ağın arıp ırak bodunığ ança yağutır ermis (Kul tigin south 5)
Sweet word-INS valuable gift-INS far people-ACC that bring_closer-PRS AUX-PST
‘They brought the people that were far away with their sweet words and valuable gifts’
The noun armaq was registered in the other written monuments in the construction ezük
armaq ‘lie, mistake’ (Drevnetyurkskiy 1969: 192).
8
There are a lot of nouns made from verbs in the Old Turkic language, for example,
uqmaq ‘mind, wit’ (uq- ‘to understand’), tüzülmäk ‘silence’ (tüzül- ‘to get right’), tutmaq ‘handle’
(Gabain 1988: 53). It is also typical for Divanu lughat it-turk: čaqmaq ‘flint’, boγmaq ‘shirt
button; necklace’, qïsmaq ‘lasso’, toqïmaq ‘mallet’ (DLT: 132). But it is not uniqe for Old
Turkic, as this suffix is also used in some modern Turkic languages as a deverbal noun making
suffix, i.e. qospaq ‘combination’ (qos- ‘to connect’), ǯarïspaq ‘contest, competition’ (ǯarïs“yarışmaq”) (Karakalpak) (Baskakov 1952: 391); batmaq ‘marsh’ (bat- ‘to sink’) (KarachaiBalkar) (Khabičev 1971: 221); atïšmaq ‘exchange of fire’, üyšmek ‘assembly’ (üyš- ‘to gather’)
(Turkmen) (Sevortyan 1966: 305); yemäk, čaxmaq (Azerbaijani).
Many turkologists including E.V.Sevortyan assume that the derivative function of the
suffix -maq comes before its grammaticalization (Sevortyan 1966: 221). The condition of the
suffix -maq in most modern Turkic languages, except Azerbaijani and Turkish (Scherbak 1977:
159), proves that it was a derivative suffix originally. It also leads the idea that infinitive was not
developed in the early stages of Turkic languages (Sravnitelno 1988: 483), and it is only typical
for the languages of Oghuz group (Dmitriyev: 170).
6. Conclusion.
Grammaticalization of the derivative suffixes is possible for the Turkic languages, just as
the lexicalization of the inflectional one. While the reason of the transformation from inflection
to derivation is petrifying of the grammatical form as an independent word, the main reasons of
the change from derivation to inflection is increase in the productivity of the suffix. As a suffix
begins to be added to every word from the same class, its derivational meaning disappears and
turns into a grammatical one. This is a common process in the suffixes of participle and the
earliest traces of this process in the Turkic languages belong to Orkhon Turkic.
There is also another opinion on this matter which claims the similarity of the functions
of inflectional and derivational suffixes in the earliest texts of the Turkic languages (Bašdaš: 5).
This is proved with the examples given from Orkhon Inscriptions.
References
Abdullina G.R. (2008). O razgraničenii formoobrazuyušix i dlovoizmenitel'nïx kategoriy v
baškirskom yazïke, Vestnik Čelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, № 21, pp. 5-11.
Äskär R. (2008). Mahmud Kašγarinin “Divanu luγat-it-türk” äsäri üzrä biblografik vä grammatik
göstärici. Baku: MBM, 192 pp.
Baskakov N.A. (1952). Karakalpakskiy yazïk. Tom II. Fonetika i morfologiya. Čast' pervaya. Časti
reči I slovobrazovaniye. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo AN SSSR, 544 p.
Bašdaš,
Cahit.
Türkčede
Üčüncü
http://turkoloji.cu.edu.tr/DILBILIM/cahit_basdas_ara_ekler.pdf.
9
Grup
(Ara
Ekler),
Clauson G. (1972). An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 989 pp.
Drevnetyurkskiy slovar'. (1969). Leningrad: Nauka, 677 pp.
Eckmann J. (1988). Čaγataycada isim-filler, Türk Dili Araštïrmalarï Yïllïγï Belleten – 1962, TDK
Yay.: 217, Ankara, pp. 51-60.
Erdem, Mevlüt. (2011). Türkčede Čekim ve Yapïm Eklerinin Özellikleri ve Sïnïrlarï, Bilig, sayï: 58,
pp. 71-90.
Etimologičeskiy slovar' tungusskix yazïkov. (1977). II. Leningrad: Nauka, 472 pp.
Etimologičeskiy slovar' tyurkskix yazïkov. (1978). II. Moskva: Nauka, 349 pp.
Etimologičeskiy slovar' tyurkskix yazïkov. (1980). III. Moskva: Nauka, 395 pp.
Etimologičeskiy slovar' tyurkskix yazïkov. (1989). IV. Moskva: Nauka,, 298 pp.
Etimologičeskiy slovar' tyurkskix yazïkov. (1997). V. Moskva: Yazïki Russkoy Kul'turï, 364 pp.
Gabain A. von. (1988). Eski Türkčenin Grameri. Translated by M.Akalin. Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu Basimevi, 313 pp.
Khabičev M.A. (1971). Karačayevo-balkarskoye imennoye slovoobrazovaniye. Čerkessk, 269 pp.
Kibrik, Andrey A. (2005). Inflection versus Derivation and the Template for Athabaskan Verb
Morphology, S. Gessner (ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 Athabaskan Languages Conference. Fairbanks: ANLC,
pp. 67-94.
Kononov A.A. (1980). Grammatika yazïka tyurkskix runičeskix pamyatnikov (VII-IX vv.). Leningrad:
Nauka, 256 pp.
Orkun H.N. (1994). Eski Türk Yazïtlarï. Ankara: Yükseköγretim Kurulu Matbaasï, 963 pp.
Räcäbov Ä., Mämmädov Y. (1993). Orkhon-Yenisey abidäläri. Baku: Yazïčï, 400 pp.
Salman, Ramazan. (1999). Türkčede Sïfat-fiil Eklerinin Kalïǯï Isim Olušturma Išlevler, Türk Dil
Araštïrmalarï Yïllıγï-Belleten, pp. 189-223.
Scherbak A.M. (1977). Očerki po sravnitel'noy morfologii tyurkskix yazïkov: imya. Leningrad: Nauka,
188 pp.
Serebrennikov B.A., Gadjiyeva N.Z. (1979). Sravnitel'no-istoričeskaya grammatika tyurkskix yazïkov.
Baku: Maarif, 304 pp.
Sevortyan E.V. (1966). Affiksï imennogo slovoobrazovaniya v azerbayǯanskom yazïke: opït
sravnitel'nogo issledovaniya. Moskva: Nauka, 436 pp.
Sravnitel'no-istoričeskaya grammatika tyurkskix yazïkov. Morfologiya. (1988). Moskva: Nauka, 560
pp.
Tekin T. (1998). Orhon Yazïtlarï. Kül Tigin, Bilge Kaghan, Tonyukuk. Istanbul: Simurg, 129 pp.
Tekin T. (2003). Orhon türkčesi grameri. Istanbul, 272 pp.
Teres, Ersin. (2013). İli Salır Türkçesi’nde yapım ekleri, Uluslararasï Sosyal Araštïrmalar Dergisi,
Cilt: 6, Sayı: 24, s. 332-347.
10