The significant expansion of relations with the Turkic peoples, especially the Republic of Turkey, over the past decades has led to a much more active study of the Turkish language. However, excessive pragmatism and haste in the preparation of textbooks in the Turkish language, shown by many publishing firms, who were trying to meet the growing demand as quickly as possible, led to the fact that the quality of the manuals produced often leaves much to be desired. This situation is unacceptable, since pragmatic considerations should not replace the treasury of our national traditions of studying Turkic languages. On the one hand, these traditions ensure the realization and development of the experience of many generations in teaching Turkish and other Turkic languages in the Russian-speaking audience and thus the most effective and optimal practical mastery of these languages, on the other hand, the achievements of domestic Turkology ensure the study of a particular Turkic language as a special object of research. Such a study implies the need for specialists-Turkologists to know at least a second Turkic language.

In all these respects, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the Turkmen language textbook by E. A. Grunina. This textbook, written by a leading linguist-turkologist of our country, implements the best traditions of domestic linguistic Turkology, at the same time it is conceived as a model for studying the second Eastern (Turkic) language in educational institutions of the corresponding profile of the CIS countries.

Traditional linguistic theory, which establishes and preserves the foundations of authentic linguistics [Shcheka, 2011(1), p. 239], relies primarily on the study of the literary language. At the same time, a literary language is understood not only and not so much as the language of literature, but rather as a single, universal language system that serves all areas of functioning and communication without exception. As for the languages that are not yet fully formed as literary ones, there is a noticeable influence of dialects in them. To some extent, such languages still reflect the features of the proto-linguistic fermentation of forms that lack the proper level of regularity and clarity of categories [Shcheka, 2011(2), p. 129]. Therefore, the study and description of these languages, on the one hand, is a serious challenge to the conceptual system of general linguistics, and on the other hand, it provides the necessary development of this system, designed to reflect the corresponding specifics.

The Turkmen language is characterized by "an amazing preservation of dialects", "a complex stratification of strata in the language system", which "remains one of the unsolved problems".-

problems of Turkology " (1, p. 5). Being an excellent dialectologist, E. A. Grunina writes about "enriching the literary language at the expense of... dialect vocabulary: in the field of agricultural terms from the Amudarya dialects, terms of irrigation technology - from the Mary dialect, viticulture - from the Akhal dialect, fishing - from the Western Muda dialect" (1, p. 6). The author of the textbook faced many complex problems related to the implementation of general linguistic concepts in relation to the features of the Turkmen language. E. A. Grunina coped with these problems with honor, creating a model for describing such Turkic languages and considering dialect manifestations as a valuable "linguistic treasure" (1, p. 6; 2, p.118). Some attention is also paid to the style of folk narration, the peculiarities of the language of fairy tales (2, pp. 21, 28, 100, 114).

This was concretely translated into the description of phonetics, which is given one of the central places in the textbook. So, in addition to a detailed phonetic introduction, a special phonetic section begins with 9 lessons out of 16. It is based on a description of the system sounds of the Turkmen language without any phonological theorizing. This is a development and affirmation of the traditional approach to the phonetics of Turkic languages, which is widely represented (although with different levels of depth and academicism) in the vast majority of Russian textbooks of Turkic languages.

Long vowels, which are a distinctive feature of the Turkmen language, are described as system speech sounds, called phonemes in this broad sense. Long vowels are mentioned as "phonemic" or "semantic" units only when they are first mentioned: bar/ba:r/ 'there is, there is' - bar 'go', etc. (1, p. 10). All the material described in the textbook actually clarifies not the sense-distinguishing, but simply the system-phonetic status of long vowels, which together with neighboring sounds form the material shell of language units. Thus, there is no "Complete correlation between the subsystems of" long and short vowels": the long phoneme/ ä: / corresponds not to the short /ä/, but to the short phoneme /e/. At the same time, the juxtaposition of /ä:/ and /ä/ is not significant for distinguishing the lexical meaning... The juxtaposition /ä:/ and /e / distinguishes the meaning" (1, p. 10). Thus, it is not the longitude itself that is important here, but the quality of the vowel.

When adding genitive and accusative affixes, affixes belonging to the 1st and 2nd person, the short vowel of the base becomes long: gapy 'door' > gapy:nyň, gapy > gapy: ny, ata 'father' > ata:myz 'our father' (1, pp. 31, 35). When the dative affix is added to the base for a vowel, this indicator is expressed by the vowel length: gapy > gapa: (1, p. 41). Explaining this, as well as the vowel length in the indicator of the present common tense uAg (-ua:g/ -uӓ:g), E. A. Grunina writes that "in affixes, longitude can be both primary and secondary", while secondary longitude "can be explained only etymologically, i.e. through a search the origin of this formant" (1, p. 40-41). However, the primary longitude also has its own explanation. It reflects the features of the stress rhythm of the syllables of the proto-language. This is largely analogous to the loss of a consonant in later states of proto-languages [Shcheka, 1992, p. 120]. The fact that long vowels are simply system sounds of the Turkmen language, which do not fit into the framework of phonological "semantic differentiation", is evidenced, in addition to the above, by many other examples of adding affixes to the bases of the vowel: the gerund-r (oka-oka:r 'having read'), the imperative mood of the 2nd person mn. numbers (diňle - diňlä:n' listen'), participle-An (gara - gara:n 'looked') (1, p. 65), future indefinite tense (diňle - diňlä:n 'will listen'), etc. (1, p. 74-75).

The author of the textbook does not use the term "syllable synharmonicity". However, the distinction between hard and soft consonant variants depending on the velar or palatal character of the vowel is clearly made when describing the consonancy of the Turkmen language: k-q, 1-G (1, p. 23), h - x (1, p.29), g - g' (1, p. 15). Due to the relatively noticeable reflection of the proto-linguistic fermentation of forms in the Turkmen language noted above, there are deviations both from the synharmonicity of the syllable and from other norms. Thus, the presence of variants of the sound /g / depends on the initial, middle or final position (1, p. 15), the softened G "does not always correspond to the rule of influence of the velar/palatal environment" (1, p.23). The rule for the appearance of a long vowel when attaching to a short vowel the basis of affixes belonging to the 1st and 2nd person does not apply in a number of kinship terms, such as ee 'mother', eje 'aunt', kaka 'father', etc. (1, p. 32). However, these features cannot cancel either the synharmonicity of the syllable or other relevant rules. Therefore, the example of bol 'be' and böl 'delhi' only seems to be an indubitable confirmation

the phonological principle of "semantic differentiation". In fact, there is a phonological case of additional distribution, since due to the hardness/softness of consonants, the syllables /o/ and /ö/ never occur in the same positions, i.e., according to the principle of phonology, they should not be separate system sounds, but only variants of one phoneme, which clearly contradicts the real state of affairs. A similar pattern is observed when /b/ -> /p/, /j/ -> /č/ is deafened at the end of a word (1, p. 17, 24) and the voiceless consonants /k/, /t/, /p/ are voiced in the intervocalic position (1, p.103). In these cases, there is also a case of additional distribution (the character of the consonant is determined by the position), which means that the corresponding voiced and deaf sounds should be variants, and not separate phonemes.

The peculiarities of Turkmen colloquial speech are studied in a number of texts with commentaries (2, p. 35, 57, 101). One of the defining manifestations of the formation of the literary language as a single, universal system (and not just as a language of literature) is the formation of colloquial speech as an integral functional variety of the literary language. In the Turkmen language, this process has not yet been completed, since its written and oral norms in some cases have mutually exclusive features. Thus, "in the Turkmen literary language, in its written norm, labial harmony is limited to the first two syllables; in oral speech in the Turkmen language, there is a greater advance of labial assimilation along the length of the word" (1, p. 12). There is a "discrepancy between the codified pronunciation (adopted in school and university education, on radio and television, in public speeches of state figures, etc.) and everyday speech, a colloquial language that retains echoes of dialects that were a specific feature of the Turkmen ethno-linguistic space in the past" (1, p. 64). This state of the language system is associated with the reflection in the modern language of the processes of formation of systemic speech sounds. This is manifested, in particular, in the difference between " pure labial vowels, i.e. labial vowels of the first syllable, from rounding in the form of sluggish lip work. These labial vowels are not perceived as identical sounds" (1, p. 64).

There is no consensus of informants regarding the sonority or deafness of the second sound in a combination of two deaf sounds of the type: sakkal > sakgal 'beard', tutdy 'he took it' (1, p. 103). The modern language also reflects the fermentation of proto-linguistic forms noted above. Thus, "the pronunciation norm allows for various kinds of deviations" from the rule of the impossibility of a labial vowel in the second open syllable (1, p. 24). There is a variation in the effect of labial harmony depending on the phonetic environment, the number of syllables in the word form (1, p. 63). There is a wide assimilation of the geldik consonants 'we have come' > gellik, boldy 'was, happened' > bolly, etc. (1, p. 54). "A narrow labial / and/ in the final open syllable is not allowed by the orthoepic norm, although this rule may not be observed in colloquial speech" (1, p. 53). In colloquial speech, the genitive case of personal pronouns of the 1st and 2nd person units can have a conjugated form: meň / meniň 'my', sein / senin 'your' (1, p. 31). It is possible to use the affix belonging to the 3rd person twice: talyplaryn köpüsi 'many students' (1, p. 32).

The linguistic approach to the problem of parts of speech, rather than just the semantic-logical one, deserves attention. So, speaking about the basis of the Turkmen word, the author of the textbook rightly notes: "The basis... It has morphological and syntactic independence, since it is a member of a certain grammatical category. Mektep 'school' - a member of the case paradigm, correlated with its other members. The basis of the verb yaz is 'write'... it is a member of the imperative paradigm: yaz 'write '" (1, p. 18).

In the textbook, participles are characterized as carriers of both properties of the action name: "participles in Turkmen, as in other Turkic languages, also have properties of the action name" (1, p. 59). In this regard, the problem of which divisions of parts of speech should include non-personal verb forms formed by the participle indicator and the affix of belonging is touched upon. It should be recalled that in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a broad discussion on this topic, which then reached a dead end and ended with the adoption of the term "poly-predicative construction (PPK)": "In order to avoid terminological disputes about the complexity or simplicity of certain constructions, disputes whose fruitlessness now seems obvious, we introduced the term" poly-predicative construction " into the study. the term "poly-predicative construction". At the same time, M. I. Cheremisina immediately adds that to describe structures "complicated by various kinds of "turns"... we need the whole system of concepts that has been developed in the syntax of a complex sentence and which will be further developed" [Cheremisina et al., 1984, p. 4]. It seems that the palliative term PPK satisfied everyone so much that another remark about the need to refine this problem was simply forgotten. It should be emphasized that here we are talking about

not only about terminological disputes, but also about one of the fundamental problems of linguistic Turkology, the unresolved nature of which is evident today, having a negative impact on both academic and applied science.

It has already been noted that currently there is a very noticeable decline in the quality of educational and theoretical literature on Turkic languages. Especially, in particular, this applies to the Turkish language. In all Turkish grammars, forms with the participle index plus the membership affix and plus the possible case affix are called participles. "Declension of participles", which appears in the title of the monograph by M. I. Cheremisina, L. M. Brodskaya, L. M. Gorelova and colleagues, is reflected in the mass distribution of this approach also in market manuals on the Turkish language (and other Turkic languages) published in our country and abroad. One of the many examples is the Turkish language textbook displayed on the Manisa Turkish Website. Its author, John Giese, is an engineer, not a linguist. It notes: "Most foreign grammars are written by linguists and grammarians. They tend to use classical terms such as the accusative, dative, locative, ablative, aorist, subjunctive, and so on. The textbook Manisa Turkish largely excluded classical grammatical terminology." According to Wikipedia, this is "the best site for learning Turkish with detailed explanations." The opinion of S. Jullian , a New Zealand citizen living in Istanbul, is also given: "Thank you so much, this site is perfect for me. I need someone to explain Turkish grammar in a language I understand. " [www.turkishlanguage.co.uk]. This manual not only, of course, refers to participles expanded turns with a participial indicator and an affix of belonging, but also in general abounds in near-scientific jargon: "Five cases: the case of possession, the case of a specific object, movement to the case, the case of static stay, movement from the case "(this is instead of cases, respectively genitive, accusative, dative, local, source). The consonant s in the affix belonging to the 3rd person of the unit number si is called a "buffer letter" (emphasis added)! Personal affixes of grammatical tenses turn out to be "personal pronouns of the second category". Words with the-ma/-me affix are "short infinitive verb names" and so on. Writing textbooks for a wide readership is even more difficult than writing an academic textbook, as it requires the author to have the highest professional skills. The mass displacement of applied science by market jargon bestsellers, along with other objective reasons, cannot but indicate serious flaws in today's linguistic Turkology itself.

In my opinion, this is specifically manifested, in particular, in the fact that from a number of non-personal verb forms in the form of a verbal name (action name), participle and gerund, a type of part of speech that is a characteristic feature of the Turkic languages has dropped out. This is a gerund, which is formed by adding the affix of belonging to the participle indicator and, unlike the listed forms, also expresses the modal category indicative, i.e. it expresses the attribution of the nomination to a real fact of the past, present or future. Forms like gelenim 'that I have come' are neither a participle nor an action name, since the participle "with the properties of the action name" or "in the function of the action name" (1, p.59, 66) is no longer a participle, but an essentially different variety of parts of speech.

In the era of proto-languages that had only a simple sentence, the predicate had many syncretic forms, which only later gave rise to both the actual finite verb and non-finite forms. "Forms of dependent predication"... they were forms of predication: "[Comparative-historical..., 1988, p. 386]. Modern echoes of the above-mentioned syncretism can, in our opinion, generate conceptual and terminological confusion and discord, which often overwhelm science. This is probably what lies behind the attitude to these problems as supposedly purely terminological and not very important. It has already been mentioned that M. I. Cheremisina and E. I. Ubryatova wrote about "predicative declension of participles". But participles - which are fundamentally different from the gerund-are not declined, and declension is not predicative. Gerunds convey the modal meaning of expressiveness, but they are not predicates of a sentence; they (being convolutions of simple sentences) do not have a "predicative character" at all [Cheremisina et al., 1984, p. 19]. We read about "declension of sentences" (Cheremisina et al., 1984, p. 35). But the suggestions don't tend to bend. Together with nouns and pronouns, only Turkic gerunds are inclined. They also talk about "predicative subjects, additions, or circumstances" (Cheremisina et al., 1984,

p. 17], but they do not happen - these expressions can only be perceived as jargonisms denoting the corresponding subordinate clauses. It is impossible to speak about conjugation of participles either in synchronous or diachronic terms, since it was not the participle that gave rise to the finite conjugation, but, on the contrary, as already noted, the participle arose from the syncretic proto-linguistic conjugation. Therefore, the statements are incorrect: "The basis of the future tense-jAk coincides with the participle of the future tense, which gave the basis to the conjugated form "(1, p. 69), "In the Tatar language, the tenses of verbs are based on the forms of the participle and gerund" [Safiullina, 1991, p.112]. "Nominal verb forms... they are the source of almost all temporal finite forms of the indicative mood" [Guzev, 2004, p. 24].

Statements about the conjugation of participles and adverbs are, in my opinion, a natural result of the noted terminological confusion. So, conjugation of participles is considered in the Kazakh language past tense na-gan / -kan (alganmyn 'I took'), future na-ar / - er (alarmyn 'I will take'). The conjugation of the adverbial parts is the past tense na-yp (alyppyn 'I took'), the present tense na-a/ - e (alamyn 'I take') [Makhmudov, 1989, pp. 436-440]. Unfortunately, the mentioned conceptual and terminological uncertainty is also reflected in the textbook by E. A. Grunina. Gerunds (forms with participle indicators plus the affix of belonging) are called either verb names, action names, or participles: "any verb name, such as-An...", "double status-An (-jAk-yAn, etc.) as a participle / action name" (1, p. 121), "present participle-uAp" (p. 58), "past participle-An" (1, p.66). As already noted, the gerund type under consideration can be neither a status nor a function of participles, it is a separate type of parts of speech.

Another critical remark is related to the author's assumption of the possibility of recognizing the main case, denoting direct addition, by the so-called unformulated accusative case. "Difference... it is determined by what is taken as the original: the form (main case) or one of its functions (direct complement)." In the latter case, " it is important to define the conditions for using a particular form. Both solutions are possible" (1, p. 45). But apart from special cases of reflection of specific features of evolution in modern languages, there are no unformed cases, since language units are generated by the unity of form and meaning. They cannot be generated only by a value (function). In our opinion, not only pragmatic factology is important, but also the consistency of the conceptual apparatus of science.

The comments made do not detract from the scientific and applied value of the "Textbook of the Turkmen language for the CIS countries" by E. A. Grunina. On the contrary, a work of such significance cannot fail to raise fundamental theoretical problems. The undoubted relevance of the publication of this work, which meets the highest academic requirements, is especially obvious in the context of the marked serious decline in the quality of many published manuals on Turkic languages. The textbook also implements the practical potential of Russian linguistic Turkology, related to the accumulated experience of teaching Turkic languages. E. A. Grunina's textbook is irreplaceable and unique as a model for studying the second Turkic language in the CIS countries.

list of literature

Guzsv V. G., Dsniz-Yilmaz O. Experience in constructing the conceptual framework of the theory of Turkish grammar. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 2004.

Makhmudov Kh. Kh. Kratkiy ocherk grammatiki kazhanskogo yazyka [A brief outline of the grammar of the Kazakh language]. Kazakh-Russian Dictionary. Alma-Ata: Kazakh Soviet Encyclopedia Publishing House, 1989.

Safiullina F. S. Tatar language. Kazan: Tatar Book Publishing House, 1991.

Comparative historical grammar of the Turkic languages. Morphology, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1988.

Chsremisina M. I., Brodskaya L. M., Gorelova L. M. et al. Predicative declension of participles in Altaic languages. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1984.

Shcheka Yu. V. Elements of the theory of syntactic communication and intonology in synchronic and diachronic illumination. 1992. № 5.

Shcheka Yu. V. Trubetskoy's phoneme as an extralinguistic (logical) simulacrum / / Lomonosov Readings. Oriental Studies, Moscow: Publishing House "Klyuch-S", 2011 (1).

Shcheka Yu. V. Praaltai language and the origin of past tense and negation categories // Questions of Turkic philology. Materials of Dmitrievsky Readings, Issue IX, Moscow: ISAA MSU, 2011 (2).

www.turkishlanguage.co.uk, December 2011.

Permanent link to this publication: