KHAKASS LEXICOGRAPHY: IT'S PAST AND PRESENT

В статье рассматривается история развития хакасской лексикографии. Фиксация лексических материалов по хакасскому языку была начата научными экспедициями, снаряженными в Сибирь для сбора комплексного материала в целях исследования России в естественно - историческом плане. Первым печатным изданием стал словарь Н. Г. Катанова «Хакастан орыс т1ллэр1н1н' сос шчИ», опубликованный в 1928 году. В годы становления и развития С С С Р развивается и хакасская лексикография. Стали возможными подготовка и опубликование как школьных словарей, так и академических словарей: «Хакасско - русский словарь» (1953), «Хакасско - русский словарь» (2006), «Русско - хакасский словарь» (1961). Хакасская лексикография сегодня располагает отраслевыми словарями. В 2020 году выпущен первый том «Толкового словаря хакасского языка». The article examines the history of the development of Khakass lexicography. The fixation of lexical materials on the Khakass language was started by scientific expeditions sent to Siberia to collect complex material for the purpose of studying Russia in the natural - historical plan. The first printed edition was the dictionary of N. G. Katanov «Khakastang orys tillerining soes pichigi», published in 1928. During the years of the formation and development of the USSR, Khakass lexicography was also developing. It became possible to prepare and publish both school dictionaries and academic dictionaries: «Khakass - Russian dictionary» (1953), «Khakass - Russian dictionary» (2006), «Russian - Khakass dictionary» (1961). Today Khakass lexicography has specialized dictionaries. The first volume of "The Explanatory Dictionary of the Khakass Language" was published in 2020.

ABOUT SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARISE DURING A TEXT EDITOR'S WORK

Статья посвящена проблемам варьирования норм современного хакасского литературного языка, выявляющимся в процессе работы редакторов с текстами. Справочной литературой, на которую опираются редакторы, являются такие словари хакасского языка, как «Хакасско - русский словарь», «Орфографический словарь хакасского языка». Автор статьи приводит факты наличия словообразовательных вариантов с пересекающимися значениями, которые подаются в словарях как стилистически нейтральные и соответствующие нормам хакасского литературного языка. Выделены также варианты названий одних и тех же понятий, относительно которых пока что не выработаны единые нормы их применения. Обращается внимание на бытование многовариантной записи собственных имен как на хакасском, так и на русском языках. Также привлекается внимание к проблеме отражения на письме долгих гласных хакасского языка. The article is devoted to the problems of varying the norms of the modern Khakass literary language, which are revealed in the process of editors' work with texts. The reference literature that the editors rely on is such dictionaries of the Khakass language as the Khakass - Russian Dictionary and the Spelling Dictionary of the Khakass Language. The author of the article presents the facts of the presence of word - forming variants with overlapping meanings, which are presented in dictionaries as stylistically neutral and corresponding to the norms of the Khakass literary language. There are also variants of the names of the same concepts, for which no uniform rules for their application have yet been developed. Attention is drawn to the existence of multivariate writing of proper names in both Khakass and Russian languages. Attention is also drawn to the problem of reflecting the long vowels of the Khakass language in writing.

Prokhor Kolomiatin’s Turkic Dictio­nary among the Narrative Monuments from the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries Related to Crimea

Research objectives: To analyze the genre-typological and stylistic peculiarities of the narrative parts that accompany the actual dictionary entries of the Turkic-Russian dictionary, and thus to add a new source to the group of narrative monuments from the fourteenth to seventeenth centuries centuries which pertain to Crimea. Research materials: The Turkic-Russian dictionary (“Kniga Elihv”) included in the manuscript miscellany (“Tsvetnik”) that was compiled by the hieromonk, Prokhor Kolomiatin, in 1668. The manuscript is kept in the collection of the State Historical Museum (Muzeyskoe sobr., No. 2803). Results and novelty of the research: The Turkic-Russian dictionary included in Prokhor Kolomiatin’s miscellany is one of the earliest examples of a Turkic lexicography in the Cyrillic tradition. Along with the records of lexemes and word collocations, it contains lengthy narratives concerning religion, geography, and ethnography of Crimea. The nature of the information provided suggests that the author of the dictionary was living in Crimea for some time, most likely as a prisoner, although having a certain privileged status. Having little opportunity to travel outside the peninsula, he received knowledge, including information about other countries, from verbal communication with the local inhabitants made up of different national and social groups. Analysis of the content of the narrative material allows us to state that the text has its own degree of originality, although it naturally finds thematic and genre parallels with the well-known medieval narratives concerning Crimea.

MORPHOLOGICAL-SYNTACTIC AND LEXICAL SIGNIFICANCE IN LEXICOGRAPHIC BILINGUALISM (Based on the materials of the edited Lezghin-Russian Dictionary)

This article touches on some morphological-syntactic and lexical issues related to the category of gender, number and case in nouns and issues of the syntactic connection of control and coordination, both in the Lezghin and in the Russian parts of the Lezghin-Russian dictionary we are editing. Based on factual material, the existing problems on the above issues are demonstrated and the importance of compliance with all language standards in practice is emphasized.

Results of the international project on publishing the works of Gertsel’ Shklyar

At late December 2017, in pursuance of the previously concluded international agreement on cooperation between Kostroma State University and the Centre for Research of Belarusian Culture, Language and Literature of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, a three-year work plan was approved. It included a project aimed at systematisation, scientific interpretation and preparation for publication of the heritage of Gertsel Shklyar, a talented linguist who, in the mid-20th century, contributed a lot to Belarusian linguistics, Russian linguistics, hebraistics. In the course of the project, previously unknown facts of Gertsel’ Shklyar’s biography, summary of the results of his scientific activities during his work at the Belarusian Academy of Sciences (the 1930s) and Kostroma Pedagogic Institute (the 1940s–60s) were disclosed. The linguistic scientist worked actively in the field of Belarusian studies – he participated in the compilation of the Belarusian-Russian and Russian-Belarusian dictionaries, studied Polonisms in the Belarusian language, worked on amending the existing Belarusian-language spelling, on the creation of university textbooks on the modern Belarusian language. Together with Sof’ya Rokhkind, he created the USSR’s first “Yiddish-Russian Dictionary (Jewish-Russian Dictionary)ˮ. Research in the field of the Russian language was mainly dialectological. Gertsel’ Shklyar laid the foundations for the card index of Kostroma regional dictionary. The article examines the results of the international project, highlights the events dedicated to the presentation of the book of selected works by Gertsel’ Shklyar.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ETHYMOLOGICAL FACTOR IN THE ENGLISH TEACHING PROCESS OF THE STUDENTS AT A TECHNICAL FORESTRY UNIVERSITY

For a deep understanding of special terminology, it is not enough to find Russian correspondences of terms in the English-Russian dictionary. It is important not only to know what a particular term is called in Russian, but also to understand why it is called that. And for this you need to know what its constituent components are. If you know, for example, the meaning of a suffix or a prefix, then the meaning of not only this term, but also a number of other terms ending with the same suffix or beginning with the same prefix, becomes clearer. The question of the origin of technical or scientific terms is of great importance in the process of teaching a foreign language. Knowing the meaning of morpheme terms in source languages provides a clue to understanding modern terminology, because the languages of ancient Greece and Rome form the basis of Western languages. To explore the structure of a term, it is important to remember the difference between root and stem. The root is the common origin of all words of the same family, and the stem is the direct origin of a part of words, i.e. one branch of a given word family. The root is shorter and less complex than the stem; the root is primary, the base is secondary. The meaning of the roots of the English language should be studied in ancient Greek and Latin, from where a significant part of the components of the structure of English technical terminology is borrowed. The etymological understanding of the peculiarities of the terminological structure is intended to make it easier and more interesting for students to read and translate special texts.

The Role of Domenico De Vivo in Developing Russian and Italian Language Studies in the Second Half of 19th Century

Very little is known about Domenico De Vivo (1839-1897). He was a disciple of the Italian linguist Giacomo Lignana and worked as a professor of Russian and English language at the Asiatic College in Naples from 1868 to 1870, and then as an Italian language lecturer at the universities of Dorpat and Odessa in the Russian Empire from 1879 until his death in 1897. De Vivo championed his ideas on language teaching and learning in his books Grammatica della lingua russa [Russian Grammar for Italians] (Dorpat, 1882) and Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo dlya izucheniya ital’yanskogo yazyka [A Practical Guide to Learning Italian] (Odessa, 1886; Odessa, 1890), and in his Dizionario Italiano-Russo. Slovar’ ital’yansko-russkiy [Italian-Russian Dictionary] (Odessa 1894). The purpose of this article is to examine De Vivo’s life and works, which represent the first recorded attempt – in De Vivo’s own words – “to promote Russian language learning in Italy and Italian language learning in Russia.”

SEL’KUP-KHAMNIGAN-BURYAT LEXICAL CORRESPONDENCES

Статья описывает наличие самодийско-монгольских языковых контактов на примере нарицательной лексики селькупского, хамниганского говора бурятского языка и литературного бурятского языка. Обнаружились как лексические, так и семантические соответствия селькупских, хамниганских и бурятских слов, что наводит на необходимость постановки проблемы изучения природы данных соответствий, как в аспекте этноязыкового субстрата, так и в плане языковых заимствований как результата длительных контактов. Перспективным оказалось привлечение лексики из Хамниганско-русского словаря, составленного, в том числе, и на основе полевых записей известного бурятского просветителя Цыбена Жамцарано, изданных в виде сборника «Улигеры ононских хамниган» в1911 г. Т. н. «к-говор» хамниган позволяет предполагать, что этот говор представляет собой «промежуточный» язык или пространственно-временной предел в историческом развитии бурятского языка. К примеру, сопоставление хамниганского күбкэ(н), көбкө(н) ‘лесной мох’ и бурятского хубхээ(н) ‘мох’ обнаруживает чередование к- // х-, типичного и для селькупского қальдерқо ~ қальтырықо ‘ходить; бродить; бегать’ и бурятского халтирха ‘поскальзываться; скользить; кататься на санках’. При этом результаты исследования ономастической лексики Восточного Забайкалья позволяют обозначить все-таки субстратное начало селькупско-бурятских соответствий нарицательной лексики. В отечественной науке пока не разработана область межъязыковых диахронных контактов, которая смогла бы объяснить подобного рода соответствия в области лексики исследуемых языков. Промежуточным звеном средневековых этноязыковых параллелей, объясняющим попутно этногенетическое начало монголоязычных бурят, является т.н. «хамниганское» прошлое бурят, т. е. самодийское. Детальное изучение соответствий нарицательной лексики двух неродственных языков (что не исключает гипотезы урало-алтайского языкового союза) позволяет, во-первых, иметь в виду и наличие тюркоязычной основы как общей, возникшей преимущественно в средние века, во-вторых, подтверждает наличие типологически обусловленных языковых явлений как селькупского, так и бурятского языков в области фонологии и грамматики. The article describes the presence of Samoyed-Mongolian language contacts on the example of the common vocabulary of the Sel’kup, Khamnigan dialect of the Buryat language and the literary Buryat language. Both lexical and semantic correspondences of Sel’kup, Khamnigan and Buryat words were found. This suggests the problem of studying the nature of these correspondences, both in terms of the ethno-linguistic substrate and in terms of language borrowings as a result of long-term contacts. The lexica taken from the Khamnigan-Russian dictionary, compiled and being based on field records of well-known Buryat educator Tsyben Zhamtsarano’s collection of folklore texts “Sacred tales of the Ononsky khamnigans” in1911. We reveal the problem through phonological correlations. The so-called “K-speech” of Khamnigans suggests that this dialect represents the “intermediate” language, or the “space-time bor-der” in the historical development of the Buryat language. For example, a comparison of khamnigan kubke (n), kobko(n) ‘forest moss’ and Buryat khubhe(n) ‘moss’ reveals an alternation of k- // x-, typical for Sel’kup kalderko ~ kaltyryko ‘walk; wander; run’ and Buryat haltirkha ‘slip; slide; sledge’. The results of the Samoyedic onomastic substrate of Eastern Transbaikalia allow us to confirm thesis of the tribal names Samoyed and Khamnigan as one and the same onoma. We suppose the so-called “khamnigan” past of the Buryats, i. e. Samoyed, is an intermediate link, which simultaneously explains the ethnogenetic origin of the Mongolian-speaking Buryats. A detailed study of the correspondence of the common vocabulary of two unrelated languages (which does not exclude the hypothesis of the Ural-Altaic language union) allows, first, to keep in mind the presence of the Turkic-language basis as a common one, and secondly, confirms the presence of typologically determined linguistic phenomena of both Sel’kup and Buryat languages in the field of phonology and grammar.

How much is Historical Knowledge Present in Bilingual Dictionaries?

During the development of structuralist semantics, there was a strong emphasis on distinguishing encyclopaedic and linguistic dictionaries. In the latter, any reference to encyclopaedic knowledge should be absent or kept to a minimum. Later it was realised that it is impossible to write a dictionary without using any encyclopaedic explanations. Those explanations make a dictionary more attractive, more interesting to read, and therefore more usable. This is particularly important when preparing bilingual dictionaries because it is two languages and two cultures that are being aligned and compared. As lexica related to cognitive fields (physics, medicine, botany, etc.) is incorporated into the nomenclature of modern dictionaries, relevant encyclopaedic information is then added by way of explanation. Accordingly, this article examines, based on analytical and descriptive methods, how historical knowledge is presented in the micro-and partly macro-structures of four dictionaries: The Great Lithuanian-English Dictionary (2006), Lithuanian-Russian Dictionary (2015), The Great Lithuanian-French Dictionary (2012) and Lithuanian-Norwegian Dictionary (2016).