Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology

Е Е Е Ь Е Ч Е Е Е « Е Е Е Е Е Е Е Е ( Е Ь ЧЕ Е ) ЧЕ ЧЕ Е 2013 4 (6) 2014 2014 Е Ь Е Е » Е Г а А. ы . а : , Ph. D. Linguistics Р а ая я: а а, а а ау , ( . . а . а а а); . .А а , ау , А. . ау , ау , И у а . а -На , Dr. habil., И у а -у /у а ,у . а а, Ph. D. Linguistics, а а - а . , Ph. D. Linguistics, ( А. А. - а , ау , Е. Г. а, ау , у Е. А. а, а а ау , а ау Н. . Лу а, ау , . На , а , у а ау , Л. . ё а, . А. у , ау , РАН, Н. . а, а а ау , а ау Н. А. Ту а, а а ау , Л. И. Ш а, ау , . а а, Ph. D. Linguistics, Н а . . На ы а А. В . , 60, ч ы : : , 634061. , ТГ ; РАН (Н . Га у а (Г а ); у а ( ША); ); ТГ ; у а( а); у , ТГ ; ТГ ; . ( ); ТГ ; И РАН ( а); у , ТГ ; ТГ ; НИ ТГ ; ( ). а: а ч » . (3822) 52-17-58. , 49, , , 634061. : .: (3822) 52-12-93 , ( No щ © 77-52641 : 14.11.2014 . . .- . .: 8,25. : « ); : , 60, , , 634061. (3822) 52-17-93. E-mail: vestnik@tspu.edu.ru . . (3822) 52-17-94, . а . а « ы НИ Т : . . : . C. : 17.11.2014 . : 1000 .Ц . . ) 25.01.2013. : . . : 60×90/8. . : . . . », 2014. : : 834/ . . щ щ . MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION Tomsk State Pedagogical University (TSPU) TOMSK JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS AND ANTHROPOLOGY Published since 2013 ISSUE 4 (6) 2014 TOMSK 2014 Editor in Chief: A. Yu. Filchenko, Ph. D. Linguistics Editorial Board: O. S. Potanina, Kandidat Nauk, Philology, associate professor, National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University (acting Deputy Editor in Chief); S. S. Avanesov, Doctor of Philosophy, professor, Tomsk State Pedagogical University; А. V. Baulo, Doctor of History, Institute of Archeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences (Novosibirsk); А. А. Kim-Maloney, Doctor of Philology, professor, Tomsk State Pedagogical University; Е. G. Kotorova, Doctor of Philology, professor, University of Zielona Góra (Poland); E. A. Kryukova, Kandidat Nauk, Philology, associate professor, Tomsk State Pedagogical University; N. V. Lukina, Doctor of History, professor, Tomsk State Pedagogical University; Zoltán Nagy, Doctor of Anthropology, professor, University of Pecs (Hungary); L. . Pletneva, Doctor of History, professor, Tomsk State Pedagogical University; V. А. Plungian, Doctor of Philology, professor, Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow); Edward J. Vajda, Ph. D. Linguistics, professor, Western-Washignton University (USA); Beáta Wagner-Nagy, Dr. habil., Linguistics, professor, University of Hamburg (Germany); N. V. Poljakova, Kandidat Nauk, Philology, associate professor, Tomsk State Pedagogical University; N. A. Tuchkova, Kandidat Nauk, History, associate professor, Tomsk State Pedagogical University L. I. Sherstova, Doctor of History, professor, National Research Tomsk State University. Scientiﬁc Editor of the Issue: A. Yu. Filchenko. Founder: Tomsk State Pedagogical University Address: ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061. Tel. +7 (3822) 52-17-58 Address for Correspondence: ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061. el. +7 (3822) 52-17-94, fax +7 (3822) 52-17-93. E-mail: vestnik@tspu.edu.ru Printed in the TSPU publishing house: ul. Gerzena, 49, Tomsk, Russia, 634061. Tel. +7 (3822) 52-12-93 Certificate of registration of mass media The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Communications (Roskomnadzor) PI No FS77-52641, issued on 25.01.2013. Approved for printing on: 14.11.2014. Submitted for printing: 17.11.2014. Formate: 60×90/8. Paper: offset. Printing: screen. Edition: 1000. Price: not settled. Order: 834/ Production editor: L. V. Dombrauskayte. Text designer: O. A. Turchinovich. Cover designer: . S. Pechenkin. Proofreading: G. V. Kruglikova. © Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 2014. All rights reserved. Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) .................................................................................................... И И 7 И А . . ( Е. ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 9 ..................... 13 ?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 . . - ......... 32 Т . ., . . 2013–2014 ................................................................................................ 35 . . ( Ш. C e e А . ). . . 43 / ? ............................................................................................. 49 ИЯ Е. . Т . А. . « - , ......................... 59 …» ( ) ......................................................... 64 . . : XVII – XX ............................. 74 ..................... 78 (03.08.1941–19.08.2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Ы............................................................................................ 83 OUR AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 . ., Ш А Я И А А ИА Е. А. : Е —5— Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) CONTENTS From the Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 LINGUISTICS Lemskaya V. M. Problems of Determining the Lexeme’s Phonemic Invariant When Compiling a Dictionary of One’s Mother Tongue (Based on Chulym Turkic Data). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Moiseeva E. Yu. “Hen” and “Cock” in Folk and Academic Botanical Terms in Russian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Normanskaya Yu. V. Whether it is Possible to Reconstruct Proto Selkup Phonological Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Seljutina I. Ja. Variation in Articulation of Palatal Synharmonism in Territorial Idioms of Altai-Kizhi Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Тokmashev D. M., Fedotova N. L. On Sociolinguistic Features of Teleut Language (Based on 2013–2014 Field Studies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Mekheda M. I. Informativeness in Nonce Word Formation Process (Based on Terry Pratchett’s Nonce Words) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Szeverényi S. Derivational Sufﬁxes as/or Classiﬁers? – The Word-Formation of the Nganasan Adjectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 ANTHROPOLOGY Pichugina E. N. Administrative Transformations in the Territory of the Basin of the Ket River in the XVII–XX Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Tuchkov A. G. «In the Old Days There Were no Gardens at all, and now Even Two Gardens Ain’t Enough…» (Towards Integration of Agriculture in the Hunting-Fishing Culutre of Middle-Ob Selkups) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Ryabova M. E. Axiological Dominant Ideas of the Mordvinian and German Ethnic Groups: the Similarities and Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Demidov N. V., Schmidt Е. А. Anthropology of Labor Law: Setting of a Research Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 IN MEMORIAM Jaroslav Andreevich Gluxij (03.08.1941–19.08.2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 AUTHORS (In Russian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 AUTHORS (In English). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 —6— Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Л а а а а, а. Hockett Ch. Man’s place in nature. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. P. 675 а « » 2013 - . . щ , щ ( – – – – – , ): щ ; ; ; ; ( , ( ), ). - щ – – – – : ; ; ; ( - ); – ( - ) ; – – – ; ; , . щ . щ , , . , . - , , ( щ ( - ). ) . а ч а а « а ы 82719 —7— а ы» А а" А ". Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Linguistics without anthropology is sterile, anthropology without linguistics is blind. Hockett Ch. Man’s place in nature. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. P. 675 From the Editors ‘Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology’ was founded in 2013 by Tomsk State Pedagogical University. Three-four issues are released annually. The Journal invites submissions from authors specializing in a variety of research issues in linguistics and anthropology (with a special emphasis on Siberia in both cases), including: – documentation, description and preservation of indigenous languages of Russia and world-wide; – typological research of languages of Russia and worldwide; – linguistic theory and methodology of linguistic research; – cultural and regional linguistics; – social and cultural anthropology (including archeology, ethnology (ethnography) as well as physical anthropology and ethnogenetics). The members of the editorial board review the submissions based on the following criteria: – relevance of the submission’s content to the subject matter of the Journal; – academic novelty of research; – independence and originality of research content (previously not published data must take up not less than one third of the submission); – submission must reflect author’s knowledge of research state-of-the-art in the area; – adherence to citation rules; – correspondence of the submission to academic writing conventions; – if a submission is in a foreign language, or contains a foreign language text (abstract), it must adhere to the respective language grammar and style conventions. The acceptance decision is made based on blind reviews. If the article corresponds to the main selection criteria but it has minor comments that can easily be resolved, it is sent back to the author for brief correction with due considerations. Submissions in Russian, English and German are accepted. Please note that the editorial board is not responsible for the quality of translation of the publication or the English language abstracts and kindly asks the authors to ensure appropriate translation (advising a check with a native speaker or a respective translation specialist). In case of submission’s persistent inadequacy in content or translation, the editorial board reserves the right to decline the publication without further explanations. —8— Л а . у . а а а а а а а ... ая . М. Е Е Е ЧЕ Е ( Е ЕЧ Е ) , щ Е ( , , - ) , , , - . , – . К ч ы Ч а: у - - ( ) , …, 1991: 3–4; . 1000 ( . ( . а ) ( : щ щ ) щ . .Ч , 2007: 22). Ч - ) а , ( , , (3 щ , 2014; Ч а , щ , 1980: 2; 355 а , ( ( . 10 . - .: - ) ( , , 2013). …, 1991). : . 30 )( , , 1973). , , . - щ . . , 1981) , ( , 1979 ) ( , 1984), - ( . , 1979; . «Ч , . - щ ( » , - щ 2006–2007 . . - . ) . ( ; - ., 2014). – . . 1952 . .) , ( – . . - . . . «ё, ( ( . . 2) , . /q/) . . 1); - , , , , «ғ» ( 2014). щ «ӓ» ( , 2010; . . . щ ( , »( . щ - , . , . . /ɣ/) «ҥ» (/ŋ/) (Anderson, Harrison, 2006: 62; , , . . /æ/), «ӧ» (/ø/), «ӱ» (/y/), «ғ» (/ɣ/), «қ» (/q/), «ӊ» (/ŋ/) , 2014). —9— Т жу а ЛИНГ . . АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) . 1. . . . 2. . . , . ( …, 2014) ( , 2007–2010) . - , . , ( . 2 000 . / 2007 . , , . - щ , . ( щ « . - , , /qïs/. : /qïz-ï/. - . щ « » щ , 1980). , ), . щ » +(S)I :қ щ қ , . , - . , , « , , 1966 .), .. ʧ..–.. ʃ..–..s../ ( 2010). , , щ » – . , , , 2007–2010, 2014). щ щ, ( . /ʧ/ , 1975), , , ’ щ щ /ts/: /tsats/ ( /ʃ/ ( ‘ щ щ . , 1973: 16). /ʧ/, /ʃ/. Э ( . , . /..ts..– , 2007– - ( , щ - , 2012). , , . - , щ . , , , . - / — 10 — . , - Л а . у . а а а а и . . 1966. . II. . 7–42. и е а ) // . . - . . : - : . . . . - . Ч. I. . . - . Ч. II. а ... . . .: , . ., 1979 . 202 . . : - . - , 1984. 88 . : : . . - . - .- . . ., 1979. 91 . - , 1981. 184 . // . . 2. , 1975. . 274–279. . . - : Ч . . . . ... - . . ., 1980. 404 . . 1973. № 2. . 16–29. // : . chulymtsev-i-ikh-yazyk/ ( 2. , 26.04.2014. URL: http://www.tv2.tomsk.ru/video/zhizn- : 01.10.2014). . . . 10 (125). . 98–103. 2012. а ы ( . .: а - ( ) // . . . - (TSPU Bulletin). . . [Э ]. 2007–2010. . . // : . .- : . / . . . . : « », 2010. . 363–370. . . [Э . .Ч . . . . ., II . : - (Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology). 2013. .- . Э. . .« - « . . . // - : . - », 2007. . 17–24. : - - : : . ., : // . 2 (2). . 50–55. 2007 . ». Ч. ., // . Ч. I. ]. 2014. . . . XIV . .- : . / . . . - - , 2014. . 129–131. . / Э. . , . . , . . . : - . - , 1991. 246 . Anderson G. D. S., Harrison D. K. Ös tili: towards a comprehensive documentation of Middle and Upper Chulym dialects // Turkic Languages. Vol. 10 (1). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006. P. 47–72. . ., а ы а ч . , 60, , , 634061. а а ы а . , 30, , , 634050. E-mail: lemskaya@tspu.edu.ru , . . ч . а а у а 14.10.2014. Lemskaya V. M. PROBLEMS OF DETERMINING THE LEXEME’S PHONEMIC INVARIANT WHEN COMPILING A DICTIONARY OF ONE’S MOTHER TONGUE (BASED ON CHULYM TURKIC DATA) The language of the Chulym Turks is local only to some territories of the Tomsk region and the Krasnoyarsk territory. Recent surveys indicate the number of fluent speakers to be under fifteen. Chulym Turkic still bears the status of a colloquial tongue. Several attempts have been made to create a writing system of the language (though the language itself presently consists of two sub-dialects, each with unique phonemic fluctuation). This paper addresses problems occurring at creating methodic materials in Chulym Turkic and, above all, connected with the phonemic variations in the Chulym Turkic language that lead to difficulties in compiling a dictionary of the consultants’ mother tongue (Chulym Turkic). Such variations occur, on the one hand, due to the widespread tendency of phoneme reduction in an unstressed position and at the word end; on the other hand, they occur under the laws of the phoneme alternation range in the conditions of a language system not ultimately formed. Key words: the Chulym Turkic language, phonemic invariant, writing system. — 11 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) References Baskakov N. A. Tyurkskie yazyki (obshchie svedeniya i tipologicheskaya harakteristika) [Turkic languages (basic data and typological characteristics)]. In: Yazyki narodov SSSR. Tyurkskie yazyki [USSR people’s languages. Turkic Languages]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1966. Vol. II. Pp. 7–42 (in Russian). Biryukovich R. M. Zvukovoy stroy chulymsko-tyurkskogo yazyka (metodicheskoe posobie) [Sound system of Chulym Turkic (a methodical manual)]. Moscow, 1979. 202 p. (in Russian). Biryukovich R. M. Leksika chulymsko-tyurkskogo yazyka. Posobie k spetskursu [Chulym Turkic lexicon. A manual for special course]. Saratov, Izdatel'stvo Saratovskogo universiteta Publ., 1984. 88 p. (in Russian). Biryukovich R. M. Morfologiya chulymsko-tyurkskogo yazyka [Chulym Turkic morphology]. Part I. The category of noun (methodical materials). Moscow, 1979. 91 p. (in Russian). Biryukovich R. M. Morfologiya chulymsko-tyurkskogo yazyka [Chulym Turkic morphology]. Part II. Saratov, Izdatel'stvo Saratovskogo universiteta Publ., 1981. 184 p. (in Russian). Biryukovich R. M. O nekotoryh istoricheskih cheredovaniyah v chulymsko-tyurkskom yazyke [On some historical alternations in Chulym Turkic]. In: Problemy altaistiki i mongolovedeniya [Problems of Altaic and Mongolic studies. Vol. 2. Linguistics series: Materials of the All-Union conference, Elista, 17–19 May, 1972]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoy literatury, 1975. P. 274–279 (in Russian). Biryukovich R. M. Stroy chulymsko-tyurkskogo yazyka [The system of the Chulym Turkic language]. Thesis of doctor of philol. sci. Moscow, 1980. 404 p. (in Russian). Dulzon A. P. Dialekty i govory tyurkov Chulyma. [Dialects and sub-dialects of the Turks at the Chulym]. Sovetskaya tyurkologiya – Soviet turkology, 1973, vol. 2, pp. 16–29 (in Russian). Materialy e'tnolingvisticheskih e'kspeditsiy kafedry yazykov narodov Sibiri TGPU po nizhnechulymskomu i srednechulymskomu dialektu [The life and language of Chulym Turks]. Report by: Yuliya Korneva. TV2 News agency. Tomsk, 26.04.2014. URL: http://www.tv2.tomsk.ru/video/zhizn-chulymtsevi-ikh-yazyk/ (Accessed: 01 October 2014) (in Russian). Lemskaya V. M. Aktsional'nost' v chulymsko-tyurkskom yazyke (v tipologicheskoy perspektive) [Aktionsart in Chulym Turkic (from a typological perspective)]. TSPU Bulletin, 2012, no. 10 (125), pp. 98–103 (in Russian). Lemskaya V. M. Lower and Middle Chulym materials of ethnolinguistic expeditions by the department of indigenous languages of Siberia, TSPU [Electronic resource]. 2007–2010 (in Russian). Lemskaya V. M. Opyt obucheniya rodnomu yazyku sredi chulymskih tyurkov [An experience of teaching the mother tongue among the Chulym Turks]. Regiony Rossii dlya ustoychivogo razvitiya: obrazovanie i kul'tura narodov Rossiyskoy Federatsii. Materialy mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii [Russia regions for sustainable development: education and culture of peoples in Russian Federation]. Ed. by Ilona Graf et al. Novosibirsk, ZAO IPP “Ofset” Publ., 2010. Pp. 363–370 (in Russian). Lemskaya V. M. Polevye materialy po srednechulymskomu dialektu lingvisticheskih e'kspeditsiy [Middle Chulym ﬁeld notes of linguistic expeditions]. [Electronic resources]. 2014. Lemskaya V. M. Chulymskie tyurki: sokrashchenie chislennosti naseleniya kak rezul'tat transformatsii e'tnoyazykovogo samosoznaniya [Chulym Turks: population decrease as a result of ethnolinguistic self-identity transformation]. Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology, 2013, no. 2 (2), pp. 50–55 (in Russian). Lemskaya V. M., Mindiyarova E. R. Rezul'taty lingvisticheskih e'kspeditsiy 2007 g. k vostochnym hantam i chulymskim tyurkam [Results of linguistic expeditions (Year 2007) to Eastern Khanty and Chulym Turks]. Materialy II Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii «Inostrannye yazyki i mezhkul'turnaya kommunikatsiya v razvivayushchemsya obrazovatel'nom prostranstve: teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty» [Foreign languages and cross-cultural communication in the developing educational area: theoretical and applied aspects]. Tomsk, Veter Publ., 2007. Pp. 17–24 (in Russian). Naazhan Ch. V., Lemskaya V. M., Kondiyakov A. F. Razrabotka uchebno-metodicheskih materialov po chulymsko-tyurkskomu yazyku: opyt i perspektivy [Elaborating methodic materials on Chulym Turkic: experience and perspectives]. Yazyk i mirovaya kul'tura: vzglyad molodyh issledovateley: sbornik nauchnyx trudov XIV Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii [Language and culture: a view of young scholars]. Ed. by N.A. Kachalov. Part I. Tomsk, 2014. Pp. 129–131 (in Russian). L’vova E. L., Dremov V. A., Aksyanova G. A. et al. Tyurki taezhnogo Prichulym'ya. Populyatsiya i e'tnos [Turks of the taiga Chulym basin. Population and ethnos]. Tomsk, 1991, 246 p. (in Russian). Anderson G. D. S., Harrison D. K. Ös tili: towards a comprehensive documentation of Middle and Upper Chulym dialects. Turkic Languages. Vol. 10 (1). Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006. Pp. 47–72. Tomsk State Pedagogical University. Ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061. National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University. Pr. Lenina, 30, Tomsk, Russia, 634050. E-mail: lemskaya@tspu.edu.ru — 12 — а Е. а . а , М а . ау Ч у , . а, Е . у - , щ , ... . , Е Е а - . , . К ч ы а а: а , , а , а а у а, а , а а а. а а , а щ , . , , , - , . , ( , , , – ), ( …, 2004; …, 2009). , у ( / у ), . , , . у , (Capsella bursa pastoris (L.)), (Ranunculus polyanthemus L.) у . у : у у а; у щ 86 . у (Stellaria media L.), , щ ( . , . щ – . .Э - , , . , - . а, / у , у . у / у а , у 20 . . , щ а, у 67 - а а, , : (Galeopsis tetrahit L.), (Galeobdolon luteum Huds.). , у ), , у - 32 (Myosotis L.), , » а, , ». . « а, у а, у ( . 37 %) 1 . . , . , « , , , , , у - . . , , а ( . . . у а , (Ranunculus acris L.), (Trollius europaeus L.) . (Chelidonium majus L.), 1 , . , 34 ( , 2009: 101), , . — 13 — Т жу а ЛИНГ ). щ . АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) . , , , »( , 2000: 118). , : . а у а ( , 1971: 309); .ж ( , 1991: 263); . щ ( Hottonia palustris L.), щ , »( а( у у Anemone sylvestris L.) Caltha palustris L.) Caltha palustris L.), у ( . …, 2014). .Э , . , , »→« ), ( ( , 1991: 263); (Э а а 11 ), (3 ), « 2 ( 1 - ,2 . , щ , , . щ , . у « , (Hemeralopia), . . , , а . ( ( « ( 32 , 18 Viola arenaria DC.) , 1876: 381); (Ranunculus polyanthemus L.) Ranunculus acris L.) ( , , )» ( у ( « , , 2009: 100). . - ..., 2014), , ( , » - а, , » », - , 5 , ), , , …, 2004: 58). :„ , а: « ,« , ё »( . у щ , “, , . . :« »( , , , 2009: 101). : »( , 14 »( , 2000: 118); « »( , - , , 2000: 117); « , , , , - , , у , . у . а , , 2000: 117–118). , , а а, , , , 2000: 117–118). ( ,7 щ , , у / . , 23 , , ( у - , 1876: 78). . . . « у , (6 « щ , а щ ) , , щ , . 27 % , . . . - . - , - , у ( ( , - ), — 14 — , 1967: 31), а Е. а . , communis L., L.), . у ( , . у ( у ( а , ау , щ , . ( Gladiolus imbricatus L.), . у ( Iris pseudacorus L.2), . ( Dianthus deltoids L.), Campanula trachelium L.) Rhinanthus crista-galli L.). а ... . Gladiolus Iris sibirica , , . ( …, 2009: 31). , щ ( ), : . ( . у ( Gymnadenia conopsea Tragopogon pratensis L.3), (L.) R. Br.), . у ( Linaria vulgaris Mill.), . у ( щ Dracocephalum nutans L., Lepidium ruderale L.) ( , 2006: 94–95), . у ( Galeopsis versicolor L.), . у ( Onobrychis viciifolia L.). (Calla palustris 4 ( …, 2014), , , L.), , щ . . . , « у а , у а , , , ., . у ‘ щ щ ’, . у ‘ ; ’, . ‘ ’» ( , 1967: 136). щ , , . , . у ( Gentiana cruciate L.) щ ( , 1991: 245), . а у ( Cypripedium macranthon Sw.) ж у ( щ Cypripedium calceolus L.) , , ( , 1876: 397). ( , щ ), . щ – . (Orchis L.), щ ( , 1876: 233; , 2009: 253). , , . у (Orchis L.). , . , ( , ) , . . . , , . у ( Mercurialis perennis L.), . а ( Phlomoides tuberosa (L.) Moench), ., . у ( Peucedanum cervaria (L.) Lapeyr., Primula pallasii Lehm.) ( , 2007: 97) . у( Centaurea montana L.). / , . у а а у . , , щ . , . . , (Calla palustris L.) (Nymphaea alba L.) . у( , 1967: 31–32). . . : ., . 2 . . (Iris L.) ( 3 , 1876). ( 4 – »( , / …, 2014). , …, 2009: 28–29). — 15 — . .« - Т жу а ЛИНГ у ( Cypripedium guttatum Sw.) ( , ( Rosa L.) ( . – , 1992: 255) – …, 2009: 31). АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) . у Nymphaea alba L.), , 1876). щ , , 1992: 254) , щ , ( . . : , – , , , - а а, , ( - а а, ( / . у , ( щ , 2000: 66); . у ( щ , . у , , , . : . Iris setosa Pall.), . « , ( Iris sanguinea Donn.); у Chrysaspis aurea (Pollich) Greene); / у ( Melampyrum . , ( Geum rivale L.) christatum L.); ( Vicia cracca L.). (Galeopsis tetrahit L.), , / ( ), . . у а( . у ( Galeopsis ), у , . ladanum L.) . у ( Galeopsis tetrahit L.5) . (Galeopsis bifida Boening) . у ж ( , 2006: 85). щ , . ( )( …, 2009: 29), « », . : , , , , ( ), , , щ . ( , . .) : , , щ , щ , ( …, 2004: 65–66). ; , , ( …, 2004: 66), (Stellaria media L.), щ . у а, ( …, 2014). (Malachium aquaticum (L.) Fr.) ( . у а . ) (Turritis glabra L.) ( )– . , (Sonchus oleraceus L.) ( …, 2014) – . у (Potentilla tormentilla L.) ( …, 2014; , 1991: 113–114) – . у . (Euphorbia L.) , . . у ( Mercurialis perennis L.) . у ( Mercurialis annua L.) ( …, 2014). ., ., ., . у а ( Euphorbia L.) . у ( Euphorbia palustris L.) , , , ( , 1992). , щ , . у а( Primula officinalis L.) . у , у ( Leonurus cardiaca L.). , ( …, 2014), – , щ , »( . 5 . . ( — 16 — , 1876). а Е. а . а , ау а ... . ( , Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.), . у Stellaria media L.). а( . , 1983: 295). у / ( , . Calamagrostis langsdorfii L.) , rhoeas L.), у . .« (. ( . а , а а; , « у . , . . , , - ) щ - )» ( ). ». (Papaver , . . . « »: « [ ] ,щ щ »( , 1994: 757–758). , « » , . , щ )„ щ “ , »( …, 2004: 173). , , . . . : а а , ;[ а] а а у, . . а а а ( , 1994: 757–759)), , . . . – »/« – » , , . у . , . , у ( Nuphar lutea (L.) Sm.) , , , . щ . , , ( ). , . . . , , , щ , . , . . . « . , . а ( ( – у - у ?“. . , , а- , щ , щ . у , 1989: 59). :„ , . а ( , :« ( - у ( Polygonum aviculare L.) ( а. ) - , , , . 2 ( ) .Ч , ( / / ) , . - . , . ( . — 17 — : , , 2013: 69–74) Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) , , - , . и .– .– аще и , , .– , .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– .– , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . и ( и е а ы ). ( . URL: http://www.tiensmed.ru/news/lapchatka-ri1.html#nov2 : 25.09.2014). . . . ., 1876. . . . . 1: . . .: . . ., . ., ., 1983. . 295. . ., - . ., – . : - . . 2: – . : - . . . . . . ( . . - , 2006. . 85, 94–95. . - , 2007. . 77. - ): . , . : . 1–4. . 2: – . .: . « »: « : . . , 1989. . 59. », 1994. . 757–759. . .: . ., : 20.09.2014). .Э . . . . . 3. . URL: http://www.unn.ru/folklore/ipredm.htm ( . ., . , 2009. . 100–101, 253. , 2000. . . . ., 1992. . 254–255. . . URL: http://medicalherbs.sci-lib.com/herbs120.html ( . ( : 25.09.2014). ). URL: http://xn--80aafblca0bhza6aﬁpf5mf.net/ ( . . : 25.09.2014). . .: . . . . . 5- ., . : 15.09.2014). , 1992. URL: http://lechebnik.info/lekarstvennye/5/17.htm ( . .: , 1967. . : . . on-line. , 1991. . URL: http://www.plantarium.ru/ ( : 01.10.2014). . . - (Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology). 2013. . osota-ogorodnogo-v-narodnoy-medicine.html ( : 5 - . . . / . . . . . . 3: ( )– ( ). .: . ). : .: . . URL: http://www.sadowodstwo.ru/poleznye-rasteniya/189-primenenie: 25.09.2014). : , 2004 ( // . 2 (2). . 69–74. : 5 , 2009 ( - / ). — 18 — . . . . . . 4: ( )– ( ). а Е. а . . а , ау . URL: http://2med.org/index.php ( . . . 3- Э 24.09.2014). ., . : .- а ... : 24.09.2014). . . - , 1971. . 309. . URL: http://www-sbras.nsc.ru/win/elbib/atlas/ﬂora/908.html ( . . , ., , . а ы а ч . , 60, , , 634061. E-mail: egyptcat17@gmail.com . URL: http://www.yadﬂora.narod.ru/yadﬂora/41.html ( : : 25.09.2014). . . а а у а 14.10.2014. Moiseeva E. Yu. “HEN” AND “COCK” IN FOLK AND ACADEMIC BOTANICAL TERMS IN RUSSIAN The article deals with nominational and ethnographical features of Russian plant names derived from such bird names as kuritsa ‘hen’ and petukh ‘cock’. There are 20 such names in Russian, which denote 86 plants from 67 botanical families. A huge amount of plants and a small number of names used for them can be both explained by the fact of botanical homonymy. Therefore one name (along with its variations) is used for denoting a number of plants. The biggest groups of homonyms are built by plant names as kurinaya slepota ‘night blindness’ (literally ‘hen blindness’) and petushok ‘little cock’. The other phenomenon is the one of botanical synonymy. Thus a number of dialectal plant names can denote only one plant. However there are not so many botanical synonyms among the studied plant names. The study of plant names etymology and the analyzing of ethnographical data concerning birds as hen and cock in Russian traditional culture allow categorizing the plant names according to their nominational features. There were determined the following nominational features: plant habitus, medical and household use of plant (like for hen feed), playing or ritual use of plant, plant injuriousness for people or birds. Also some plant names were given in connecting with features that hen or cock has in Russian traditional culture, for example plants with phallic racemes or long narrow leaves are called cock plants because the cock symbolizes manliness. It should be also noted, that the nominational features or origin of some plant names can’t be found out. The most common reason is that some mistakes occurred by rewriting or while compelling the botanical dictionaries. Despite that fact the ethnographical approach proves itself as a very efficient one and can provide some useful information, which usually isn’t present in linguistic sources. Key words: plant name, bird name, nominational features, botanical synonymy, botanical homonymy, botanical terminology. References Kalgan (lapchatka pryamostoyachaya). Svoystva i primenenie v narodnoy meditsine. [Galangal (tormentil). Properties and application in folk medicine]. URL: http://www.tiensmed.ru/news/lapchatka-ri1.html#nov2 (Accessed: 25 September 2014) (in Russian). Annenkov N. I. Botanicheskiy slovar’ [Botanical dictionary]. St. Petersburg, 1876 (in Russian). Aryanova V. G. Slovar’ ﬁtonimov Srednego Priobya [Dictionary of phytonims of Middle Ob]. Vol. 1: A – K. Tomsk, TGPU Publ., 2006. Pp. 85, 94–95 (in Russian). Aryanova V. G. Slovar’ ﬁtonimov Srednego Priobya [Dictionary of phytonims of Middle Ob]. Vol. 2: L – T. Tomsk, TGPU Publ., 2007. P. 77 (in Russian). Gammerman A. F., Kadaev G. N., Yatsenko-Khmelevskiy A. A. Lekarstvennye rasteniya (Rasteniya-tseliteli): Sprav. posobie. 3-e izd., pererab. i dop. [Medicinal Plants (Plants-healers): Reference book, 3rd ed., revised. and ext.]. Moscow, Visshaya shkola Publ., 1983. P. 295 (in Russian). Grisyuk N. M., Grinchak I. L., Yelin Ye. Ya. Dikorastushchie pishchevye, tekhnicheskie i medonosnye rasteniya Ukrainy [Wild food, technical and honey plants in Ukraine]. Kiev, Urozhay Publ., 1989. P. 59 (in Russian). Dal’ V. Tolkovy slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka: T. 1–4. T. 2: I – O [Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language: Vol. 1-4, Vol. 2]. Moscow, Progress, Univers Publ., 1994. Pp. 757–759 (in Russian). Igry s razhlichnymi predmetami [Games with various objects]. URL: http://www.unn.ru/folklore/ipredm.htm (Accessed: 20 September 2014) (in Russian). Kolosova V. B. Leksika i simvolika slavyanskoy narodnoy botaniki. Etnolingvisticheskiy aspekt [Vocabulary and symbols of Slavic folk botany. Ethnolinguistic aspect]. Moscow, Indrik Publ., 2009. Pp. 100–101, 253 (in Russian). Konovalova N. I. Slovar’ narodnykh nazvaniy rasteniy Urala [Dictionary of Common names of plants of the Urals]. Ekaterinburg, 2000 (in Russian). — 19 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Kuznetsova M. A., Reznikova A. S. Skazaniya o lekarstvennyh rasteniyah [Tales of medicinal plants]. Moscow, 1992. Pp. 254–255 (in Russian). Lekarstvennye rasteniya. Pervotsvet vesenniy [Medical plants. Primula veris]. URL: http://medicalherbs.sci-lib.com/herbs120.html (Accessed: 25 September 2014) (in Russian). Lekarstvennye travy. Zvezdchatka srednyaya (mokritsa) [Medical herbs. Chickweed (woodlouse)]. URL: http://xn--80aafblca0bhza6aﬁpf5mf.net/ (Accessed: 15 September 2014) (in Russian). Makhlayuk V. P. Lekarstvennye rasteniya v narodnoy meditsine [Medical plants in folk medicine]. Moscow, Niva Rossii Publ., 1992. URL: http:// lechebnik.info/lekarstvennye/5/17.htm (Accessed: 25 September 2014) (in Russian). Merkulova V. A. Ocherki po russkoy narodnoy nomenklature rasteniy [Essays on Russian folk nomenclature of plants]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1967 (in Russian). Minaeva V. G. Lekarstvennye rasteniya Sibiri. 5-e izd., pererab. i dop. [Medical Plants of Siberia. 5th ed., revised. and ext.]. Novosibirsk, Nauka. Sib. Otdelenie Publ., 1991 (in Russian). Opredelitel’ rasteiy on-line. Otkrytyy atlas sosudistyh rasteniy Rossii i sopredel’nyh stran [The on-line plants determinant. Open atlas of vascular plants of Russia and adjacent countries]. URL: http://www.plantarium.ru/ (Accessed: 01 October 2014) (in Russian). Polyakova N. V. Kontseptualizatsiya atmosfernyh osadkov v selkupskom yazyke v sopostavlenii s russkim [The conceptualization of atmospheric precipitation in the Selkup language in comparison with the Russian language]. Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology, 2013, no. 2 (2), pp. 69–74 (in Russian). Poleznye rasteniya. Primenenie osota ogorodnogo v narodnoy meditsine [Useful plants. Application of Sonchus oleraceus in folk medicine]. URL: http://www.sadowodstwo.ru/poleznye-rasteniya/189-primenenie-osota-ogorodnogo-v-narodnoy-medicine.html (Accessed: 25 September 2014) (in Russian). Slavyanskie drevnosti: Etnolingvisticheskiy slovar’ v 5 t. Pod obshchey redaktsiey N. I. Tolstogo. T. 3: K (Krug) – P (Perep’elka) [Slavic Antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 vol. Under ed. N. I. Tolstoy. V. 4]. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ., 2004 (in Russian). Slavyanskie drevnosti: Etnolingvisticheskiy slovar’ v 5 t. Pod obshchey redaktsiey N. I. Tolstogo. T. 4: P (Pereprava cherez vodu) – S (Sito) [Slavic Antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 vol. Under ed. N.I. Tolstoy. V. 4]. Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya Publ., 2009 (in Russian). Sovremennye lekarstvennye sredstva. Vyazhechka gladkaya [Modern drugs. Arabis glabra]. URL: http://2med.org/index.php (Accessed: 24 September 2014) (in Russian). Telyat’ev V. V. Lekarstvennye rasteniya Vostochnoy Sibiri. 3-e izd., dop. [Medical plants of East Siberia. 3rd ed., ext.]. Irkutsk, Vostochno-Sibirskoye knizhnoye izdatel’stvo Publ., 1971. P. 309 (in Russian). Elektronnyy katalog sosudistyh rasteniy Aziatskoy Rossii [Electronic Catalogue of the vascular plants of Asian Russia]. URL: http://www-sbras.nsc.ru/ win/elbib/atlas/ﬂora/908.html (Accessed: 24 September 2014) (in Russian). Yadovitye rasteniya. Prolesnik mnogoletniy, odnoletniy [Poisonous plants. Mercurialis perennial, annual]. URL: http://www.yadﬂora.narod.ru/ yadﬂora/41.html (Accessed: 25 September 2014) (in Russian). Tomsk State Pedagogical University. Ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061. E-mail: egyptcat17@gmail.com — 20 — Н а а ж . . Н Е у а а ая Ь а у а у а ? . . Е Ь Е Е Е Е Е?1 , , – ( . ) , у а , , . а К ч ы - а: у а , а ,а а а , ж а а , а . « » , 2 ( , 2012). , 3 – . . ( . . ( , , o ep o o o a (p , o , ., 1980: 138–141) ) : « I. p pa o, . o e щ co o o cy : ― , ( oo щe) - o ). – – – II. , : : щ , ; щ ... , ; ... щ , .“ - щ , . , , “ - , ” ” , , ( щ . ) . , III. « “ 2Sg. , щ , - , щ ) – , - , , , № 14-04-12019. - 1 00496. Э 2 : 3 ), . . ( , ( , – ( щ , ... <...> ” . ... oĺ, aĺ... ...» , ( . . , – № 14-04). . . ( , 2000), ), ( - ). . - , , , : 1) , ( 2) ) , ; ( )( , 2000). — 21 — - Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) , , ». , , . – .Ц , , ( ., 1980: 138–41)? ? - ? , , . I. Ка ы а 1. И 1.1. ы а а а а а ая а ых а я а а ы я а ы х а а а , щ , . , . , ) ; 2) , ( , щ . ) . ( . . ( , : щ 4 . . . . . . . . ) . . Sound Forge 10.0, Praat, Speech Analyser ( - ). : щ Multispeech. . а , 1) ( а ах щ , ы 5 ) ( , 2011). ( 6 . ) - : , . : ) , « ( »; ) ), – , ,– ,– « ,– - , « , : ) ». »; ) ». « , - щ 1) - , щ , : , , – , ; , 2 ) ; 2 ) , . 4 . . , . 5 . . 10 000 . . 6 . . . . « , . . ( )– . ». . . . (Sölkupisches…, 2004), , , , . . . , . — 22 — Н а а ж . . у а а у а у а ? , + –. а 1.2. а а ых а х а, . а А. щ . а . . . . . . . ( 2011 .) ( 2008 .), - , . щ . . , , . . , , - щ : 1) ), . 2) – . . ( ( – . ( - ); ( ). - 25), . , ( ) – , - . , , : , , . . , , , , , – . а 1.3. Н. . Г . ы а . XIX ., –« , . XIX . . - . . . я яы а ы . А. » . ых ы , , 2007) ы а ы , . ,– , 2007). Э ( , , . » х ( . - « . ( , . . . щ . , , , ), - , , а 1.4. C яы . а я а . . ых а х , ых 50- , а ах М. А. . XIX ., , : . а а а , , , , , . , , . . , , . . . 100 ) ( . ( . . ). , ( . 10 000 ), — 23 — 50 - » . щ , . . « 150 , - Т 2. х .Ц – – (1) – – (4) . – – (5) – – (6) жу а ЛИНГ а а яа , АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) ых ых а ых а яы а щ : : : . , (2) . , (3) . ; : ; . : : . - 1) ; ( .Ч ): ( ). щ , . щ : , , – , ; , 2 ) ; 2 ) , . , , - . , . , щ , », . . – , « – , . , щ , , щ , ). , – ( , - , щ , , ( . ), , , , – . , ( , . . 1). .1 , щ . – щ . , Ч , - - . ,– - . .2 . ( , : , у, , ǝ), –, Ч +, : , a), . - ( Ч +, , Ч , . ( ) . щ ( . , Ч , - , , ) , , , . — 24 — - щ - Н а а ж . . у а а у а у а ? 1 ( . + -а + -( / )- у – + ) ( . ) ( . ) . Ч . + + + – ? + + + + – + + + + + + + – * -( / ) - у/ - у – – + - /а - у + + - /а - - у + – + - /а -җӭ/- - у + – + : 1. 2. + ? – + + ? + + + + + ? + + + + + ? + + + + - , , . . . ( . 3. , , , , , . . , 2012). - . * , 2002) , , . ( . , – . , . - , , : , , - , . ( , 2002) , - . 2 ( . ) + -а + -( / )- у – + -( / ) - у/ - у – – + - /а - у + + - /а - - у + – + - /а -җӭ/ - у + – + -( ) - у- у + – + - Ч ) ( + + + + + – + – + + + + + ? ( , 2012) , . , щ щ - , ( – , ), . , . - . щ — 25 — , 2013 . . . . . , , - Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) щ щ , щ , , 400 . . а II. а , а а , , , . , , - , , , . . ýу ; (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 137): . tūqo ; ., ; (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 254): . quqo ; ( , ); . ýу ; ; (Alatalo, 1998: 206): . cuqo , ; . ý ( ), ; . 'ö é у у , 'ý у у / 'ý у ỳ ; , 'ý у у ; ’ (Alatalo, 1998: 208): . cüqo ; ; . 'у ' ý , ; . 'ö у , ? 'ó у у ; ; . öу (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 140): . tüqo , ; ; ; (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 1): . ūqo ‘ , ’; .ý у ; 1) *tūvs. . tūŋäš 2) *kū; vs. . quŋäš 3) *ću'ỳ уý vs. . cuŋäš 4) *ćǖ- ‘ / 'ó у у vs. . cüäš 5) *tǖ. ÿу vs. . tüŋäš 6) *ū; vs. . ūŋäš ; 7) *ē (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 1): . ̄qo , ; ; .ḗ у vs. . έŋäš ; 8) *ī(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 3): . īqo ; .’ ý/ú ` у ,ū у ,ú ' уу vs. . íŋäš ; 9) *ćō(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 206): . cōqo , ( ) , 'ṓ/ у , ɣ ý vs. . cṓŋäš, cṓŋäš . , ( , .ū у ; , ; ; - .), ( , ; .ý у . ’é у ; , ; . 'ó у ; . 'ó у , . ýу ); .ú у ; , - ; . , , , . К а а : 7 (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 107; Janhunen, 1977: 90): . mֿֿɔt1 , ; . á 1) *māt , , á а ; . á а ; . ā а ;Ч á а ; vs. . m ֿ̄ɔttäš ; 2) *ćuətə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 215; Janhunen, 1977: 39): . ēktiqo ( ); ﬞ .ﬞ ' ë у ‘ , ’; . ' ; . é ' ; у ' é ' , ' é а жу у ;Ч é ; ; vs. . cǝ̄täš 3) *ćūrǝ(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 229): . cūriqo ; . 'ý а ; . ý ; . ý у ; 'ӯ у ; .ﬞ ӱ а , ӱ¨ уý ; vs. . cūräš ; 4) *k˛ uən> *k˛ uəntə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 291): . qeknqo , , , , ; . ý у , у , ( .) kwó у ﬞ ; . é у ; 7 (Sölkupisches…, 2004). — 26 — . , у . Н а а . . ж у а а у а у а ? kwé у / ý , а ý ; . é ; . kwá у ; wá у ; . é у ; vs. . qənäš ; 5) *pōlǝ- ‘ ’ (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 99): ., . ó у ;Ч ó у ; vs. . pṓläš ; ; . у , у 6) *tuələ(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 188): . tēliqo ﬞ ﬞ, é у ; . é у ; . él у ; vs. . tǝ̄læš ; 7) *k,uərə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 326): . qēkriqo ~ qekriqo ~ qekrqo , , ﬞ /ﬞ é уﬞ ; . у , ( ); . wé у ; . w ý ﬞ ﬞ уу ;Ч у ; vs. . qəräš ; 8) *k˛ āńə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 303): . qǝ̄nʹäqo , ; . ká у / kа y ; . kā́ у ; . ká у ; vs. . qǝ̄ńäš ; (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 381): . šērqo ; ( , ); 9) *śēr( . .) ; . ' 'ý/ á у ; . ḗ у , 'ḗ ' уу ; . ḗ у ; . ḗ у , ' 'ѐ ' ý ; vs. . šḗräš ; (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 376): . sösi ; ; . 'é ж у ; 10) *süǝs͟ǝﬞ . h'ḗ 'ж' у ; . wé ' уу ; vs. . sö́säš ; 11) *śǟsŋk˛ ǝ(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 374): . šäqqiqo ; . é у , ﬞ éɣ у ; . é у ; vs. . šä́kkäš ; (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 381): . šērqo , ’; . é у/ ỳ , 12) *śēré ' уу ; . ḗ у , é ; vs. . šḗräš ; 13) *sǖt- / *śüt(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 357): . šütqo ; . ȫ́ ӱ , ӱ́ у ; ; . ö́ ỳ , ó у , ö́ уу vs. . šǘtäš ; 14) *ī( . ī-) (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 3): . īqo ; , ; ( , ); . ’ ỳ / ú у , ū́ у , ú ' у у ; . ū́ у ; vs. . īŋä́š ; 15) *mē’ (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 105): . mēqo ; ; ; , ; . 'ḗ у ; . éу ; vs. . mēgä́š, mḗŋäš ; 16) *k,apə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 258): . qֿɔpiqo ; . á у ; ﬞ . kā́ а у . kа а ý / ká а ỳ , kа ý ; / а á у / á у , á а у , ká уу ; . á у , а ý ; vs. . qֿɔ́päš ; 17) . sֿɔtiqo , ; , ; . á ж у ; . ﬞ á жу у ; . á жу ; vs. . sֿɔ́täš ; ; . ý у 18) *kūnǝ(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 297): . kūniqo , , ﬞ ; . ý у ; vs. . kū́näš ; 19) *āmti(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 10): . ֿɔmti qo ; ( ); , ﬞ у ( ); .á у ; .á ; vs. . ֿɔ́mtäš ; ; . 20) *ālćə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 51): . al'ciqo ; , ; ﬞ á ' жу/ ỳ , á ' ж уỳ , al 'é ; . á ' 'у у , á ' ж уу ( ) , ál ' уу , ál 'é у у / al 'é у у ; vs. . aĺcä́š, aĺcä́š ; — 27 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) 21) *k˛ āčči(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 275): . qֿֿɔttiqo ; . kà у ; . ká уу , á уу ; ﬞ vs. . qֿֿɔ́'ttäš ; (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 209): . cֿֿɔpiqo ; 22) *ćāp͟ǝá у ; . á уу , 'ā́ уу ( )ﬞ , vs. . cō'p(p)äš ; 23) *ćātǝ(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 214): . cֿֿɔtiqo , ( , / ā́ у , , , ﬞ , á у 'а уỳ / 'ó уỳ , 'á уу ; . á уу , , á уỳ , á уу ( ) , ' á ( vs. . cֿֿɔ́täš ; 24) *ǖtə, (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 22): . ǖtiqo , ﬞ , ; . ӱ́ у ; . ӱ́ уу / ӱ é уу ; . ӱ́ у у , ӱ́ у , ӱ́ у , ӱ́ уу vs. . ǖ́tä́š , ; 25) *pȫst(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 61): . pötqo ; ; . 'ö́ у у 'ö á жу у / 'ö́ а жу у , 'ö́ у у ; vs. . pö́tpäš , pö́ttæš . уý , . ā́ у ; , ká ч : 1) *küśe (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 322; Janhunen, 1977: 77): öж у , ӱ , ӱ ́ ; vs. . küšä́š ; (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 276): . qättiqo 2) *k2uֹətuﬞ , kа ý / ké у ; . а ý , é уу , ḗ уу , уу , kwá у , 'éɣ w аɣу , ḗ у , vs. . qättä́š . ); , á , ) ; ; ; а é ; ; , ; . 'ö́ а жу у . ӱж ; , ö́ у у . è уу уу , . wа ý / К а а : 1) *k˛ ali(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 336): . qaliqo , ; . а ý ﬞ . kál у . kа ý , kálы ( ); , kа é у у . kā ý ; vs. . qaläš ; , , , 2) *mačə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 108): . mātiqo , ; . а ж ý , а жý ﬞ ; . ’ 'é á жу у а жý , а 'é у у ; vs. . mā́tæš , mattæš ; 3) *minə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 117): . miniqo ; . ý ; ﬞ; ﬞ ﬞ vs. . mynä́š ; 4) *temə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 152): . temiqo ; . аw ý ﬞ ﬞ аw ý ﬞ ; vs. . təmäš, təmä́š ; 5) *püčə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 70): . pütiqo , ; ; . ö ), ( ); . 'ý , ӱ ж'é у у ﬞ , 'ö ж ỳ , 'ö ж ỳ ; vs. . pütä́š ; 6) *ćōntə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 217): . cōntiqo , , ﬞ , 'ó ' уý , 'ò у ý ; . ' уý vs. . cōntä́š ; (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 222): . cikkiqo ~ cekkiqo, tō cikkiqo ~ (cekkiqo) 7) *ćikkəﬞ ﬞ ﬞ ; . ' ﬞ ý / 'ú у у ; . ' / é жу у ,ﬞ ' ﬞ é у у ﬞ vs. . əkkæš ; — 28 — . а ỳ , , ; , , ӱ' у у ; . küši ; ﬞ . у́ж ; ; à é уу/ é у у é у ; ; tō mātiqo / ’ ﬞ 'é . ы ; . ( жé , уу ; . ; ; Н а а ж . . у а а у а у а ? 8) *ćaččə, (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 216): . cattiqo ‘ ; ﬞ , а жу ý ’; . а ý , а жý , а жé у , ( ó) ж'а ē ý , 'а 'é у ý , 'á ē ý ; , 'á у ý , 'é у у , á ж у , а él у 'á у у ; . жу ý ; . á уу ; 'ā́жу у ; . 'ä́ у , 'ä́ ж ý < *jā(j) ; vs. . cattæš . ч 1) *am- ; , 'á . á у у , , : (Sölkupisches…, 2004: 7): . amqo ; . .( ); ( ); .а ; . а 'é у у ,а ý ; . а 'é у у ; а vs. . amtäš ; 2) *āččə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 15): . ֿɔttiqo , ; .á у у ); ( ) ; . ’а у ỳ ﬞ vs. . ō'ttäš ; 3) *k˛ ntə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 295): . qontiqo ; ó у у/ ó у/ ý , á 'ж ỳ ,ﬞ á у . á уу , á 'ж у , k é уу ; k ál жу у ; vs. . qontäš ; 4) *čak͟ə(Sölkupisches…, 2004: 172): . tāqiqo ~ taqiqo ﬞ ﬞ ý ; . áɣ у / áɣ ỳ ; vs. . tā́qäš . , , , ỳ ý , ; .á , ( ; ; , ; . ó ó уỳ , ; . , , ; . а у/ ; - . , ( . , 1985), - , « » щ щ , . , , , щ 1980: 138–141). . ., ( . щ , ( . , . 33 ,6 - ; , c . . 1) аще ия ы .– – .– , , . . , . . . , . , .– - , .– , .– . . , . . . , . - , .– . . , . . . 2009 . , - , .– – , . , — 29 — , . - Т жу а ЛИНГ .– .– , .– АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) [Helimski, 2007] . . , . . . . , . - , .– . . , . щ .– . и е а . . - // - . а . Ч. I. . 2011. № 2 (5). . 7–39. - . Ч. II. . . . 2012. № 1 (6). . 7–55. . . // : . . - - . . 1. ., 2000. . ., 1985. . . . 1 (29). . 43–46. // . ., . ., . . : . . // . . . . // . . - (TSPU Bulletin). 2002. . Ч. I. . 2012. № 1 (6). C. 117–149. . . // . / . . . . . ., 1980. , : . ., 2000. . 68–79. . Hamburg, 2001. (HSFUM. 2001, 4.) - . 2011. № 2 (5). . 76–88. - Sölkupisches Wörterbuch aus Aufzeichnungen von K. Donner, U. T. Sirelius und J. Alatalo / Zusammengestellt und hrsg. von J. Alatalo. Helsinki, 2004. Janhunen J. Samojedischer Wortschatz. Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien. Helsinki, 1977. (Castrenianumin toimitteita, 17). ы . ., а . ., 1/1, E-mail: julianor@mail.ru , А . , щ . , 125009. а а у а 9.10.2014. Normanskaya Yu. V. WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO RECONSTRUCT PROTO SELKUP PHONOLOGICAL ACCENT Within the project of Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Accent characteristics of the Selkup language” a number of publications in which we investigated rules of statement of an accent in the southern and central dialects of the Selkup language was prepared (Normanskaya, 2012). In them it was shown that in all southern and central dialects a paradigmatic accent. The place of its statement depends on type of a root and a suffix. In Taz (northern) dialect of the Selkup language it was investigated for a long time. It is arranged essentially differently than in the southern and central Selkup dialects. In article the only verbal form of Taz dialect of the Selkup language, in which authors (OChSYa 1980, is analyzed: 138–141) phonologically significant accent, – an imperative mood is noted. As a result of comparison of rules of statement of an accent in an imperative mood of Taz (northern) dialect and in verbal forms of the southern and central dialects of the Selkup language. In the article it is shown that in 33 cases marking in verbal roots in all Selkup dialects coincides, 6 bases are exceptions. It is represented that existence of exceptions was initially predictable as A. A. Zaliznyak specifies in (Zaliznyak, 1985), any quantity of word forms will always not submit to rules therefore expediency of the description by means of the simple rule of "accent markings" is defined by statistics of the cases submitting to the rule. As it is possible to see from the carried-out analysis, in case of the Selkup language the statistics specifies that an accent in forms of the second person of singular of an imperative of the Taz verbs, really, is a fragment of archaic proto selkup system (OChSYa 1980, assumed: 138–141). In real time after the carried-out reconstruction of an accent on material of the southern and central dialects of the Selkup language manages to be proved this assumption. It becomes clear that in the proto selkup language the roots had accent markings which remained in Tazovsky dialect in the second person of singular of an imperative of the verbs and in forms with plus suffixes in the southern and central dialects of — 30 — Н а а . . ж у а а у а у а ? the Selkup language now. The conclusion is that it is possible to reconstruct the system of raznomestny phonologically significant accent and for the Proto Selkup language. Key words: the Selkup language, Taz dialect, southern and central dialects, accent, comparative-historical linguistics, contemporary records, field researches. Refernces Amelina M. K. Aktsentnye harakteristiki neproizvodnyh imen v tundrovom narechii nenetskogo yazyka. Chast' I. Yamal'skiy i kaninskiy dialekty. [Accent features of non-derived nouns in Tundra Nenets. Part I. Yamal and Kanin dialect]. Uralo-altayskie issledovaniya – Uralic-Altaic Studies, 2011, no. 2 (5), pp. 7–39 (in Russian). Amelina M. K. Aktsentnye harakteristiki imen v tundrovom narechii nenetskogo yazyka. Chast' II. Gydanskiy dialekt [Accent features of non-derived nouns in Tundra Nenets. Part II. Gydan dialect]. Uralo-altayskie issledovaniya – Uralic-Altaic Studies, 2012, no. 1 (6), pp. 7–55 (in Russian). Dybo V. A. Morfonologizovannye paradigmaticheskie aktsentnye sistemy: Tipologiya i genezis [Morphologized paradigmatic accent systems: Typology and Genesis]. Vol. 1. Moscow, 2000 (in Russian). Zaliznyak A. A. Ot praslavyanskoy aktsentuatsii k russkoy [From proto-Slavic accent system to Russian]. Moscow, 1985 (in Russian). Zyryanova E. V. Voprosy morfemnogo chleneniya sel'kupskogo glagol'nogo slova [Issues in morphemic make up of Selkup verb]. TSPU Bulletin, 2002, no. 1 (29), pp. 43–46 (in Russian). Normanskaya Yu.V. Prasamodiyskoe udarenie i ego vneshnie sootvetstviya. Chast' I. Raznomestnoe udarenie v tsentral'nykh i yuzhnykh dialektakh sel'kupskogo yazyka [Proto-Samoyedic accent and its external correspondances. Part I. Variable accent in central and southern Selkup dialects]. Uralo-altayskie issledovaniya – Uralic-Altaic Studies, no. 1 (6), 2012, pp. 117–149 (in Russian). Kuznetsova A. I., Helimskiy E. A., Grushkina E. V. Ocherki po sel'kupskomu yazyku: Tazovskiy dialekt [Survey of Selkup grammar: Taz dialect]. Moscow, 1980 (in Russian). Helimskiy E. A. K istoricheskoy dialektologii sel'kupskogo yazyka [Towards historical dialectology of Selkup]. In: Komparativistika, uralistika: Lektsii i stat'i [Comparative Uralic studies: lectures and papers]. Moscow, 2000. Pp. 68–79 (in Russian). Yuzhnosel'kupskiy slovar' N. P. Grigorovskogo. Obrab. i izd. Helimskiy E. A. [Southern Selkup dictionary by N. P.Grigorovsky. Edited and published by Eugene Helimsky]. Hamburg, 2001. (HSFUM. 2001, 4.) Sheshenin S. E. O nekotoryh osobennostyah vokalizma govora obskih chumyl'kupov sel'kupskogo yazyka v e'ksperimental'no-foneticheskom osveshchenii [On some vowel features of the Ob Chumylkup dialect of Selkup from experimental-phonetics perspective]. Uralo-altayskie issledovaniya – Uralic-Altaic Studies, 2011, no. 2 (5), pp. 76–88 (in Russian). Sölkupisches Wörterbuch aus Aufzeichnungen von K. Donner, U. T. Sirelius und J. Alatalo. Zusammengestellt und hrsg. von J. Alatalo. Helsinki, 2004. Janhunen J. Samojedischer Wortschatz. Gemeinsamojedische Etymologien. Helsinki, 1977. (Castrenianumin toimitteita, 17). Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences. B. Kislovskii per., 1/1, Moscow, Russia, 125009 E-mail: julianor@mail.ru — 31 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) а И. . Ь Е Ь Е Ь - . щ , К , - ч ы а, а а а: а - а - , . , а а а а , а а а , а щ а - , а . - . – – щ , - . щ щ . щ , - щ , . . – , – , , – (Ч . - , 1965: 10). , . . , ( ) , , . щ , « , - , ( , щ )» ( - , – щ , щ , 1990: 445). – , , , - . , , / . 1/ , – / (/ , щ , ( – / , ), ); ), . - ( – , – ; – . - щ , , ( , (Ч , 1978; ) ., 2012). . , -, - , . — 32 — - а И. . а а а «t» , щ , а а а а а а а , а ... , . щ , , - щ , -, - . «d» [t] [t:] [t]. - щ , : , - - , . . , - - , - . - , -, , . щ , « » , , , . - щ , - , . - [k]: «’/’kˈ– ’:’e"» ‘ ’ , 1- - , «’°/’a°/’k°» ‘ ‘ ’ «’a°/’k°» «’k°/’°» ’ ‘ - ’. / . , , щ , . - – щ , ( - – , [χ], щ - , [χ:] [i] , –щ - [ḵ] (  ’: ), ) , , , 2006). - – . ( =  ); (:  ’e: ). ( - – , (’:  ’e: ); щ . , – ( , 2006: 210). , щ / , , - ( , 1977: 42–49). , щ , щ . — 33 — щ , - Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) , , , - , - и . . и е а . ., 1990. . Ч. II. . . . , 2006. . ., ). . . , 2012. . . . Ч. - ( . . Ч , 1977. - . ., . . ы // . . Ч . : . , 2006. . ., 1965. ( . ., . . , 8, E-mail: siya_irina@mail.ru , , А . , 630090. ). , - , 1978. . а а у а 22.09.2014. Seljutina I. Ja. VARIATION IN ARTICULATION OF PALATAL SYNHARMONISM IN TERRITORIAL IDIOMS OF ALTAI-KIZHI LANGUAGE The paper reviews the features of articaulation of palatal vowel harmony in Ondugaj and Ust-Kan idioms of AltaiKizhi dialects. The analysis of experimental-instrumental data demonstrates that algorythms of production of Turkic velar harmony (consistently articulated in Ondugaj idiom) are not maintained in the articulatory-acoustic base of the Ust-Kan idiom speakers. Vowel harmony as a dominant typological feature, largely defining the phonetic make-up of the whole word, and consistent with the idealized harmonic model, has various articulatory specifics in each Turkic language. This articulatory variation adheres to strict systemic processes and mutual conditioning by segmental and suprasegmental levels. The main explanatory features are to be found in the historic aspects of individual languages, in their inter- and intraethnic interactions affecting the articulatory-acoustic bases of shaping the respective phonetic-phonological systems. Key words: Turkic languages of Siberia, palatal vowel harmony, consonants, experimental phonetics, MRI, digital X-ray diagnostics. References Vinoaradov V. A. Singarmonizm [Synharmonism]. In: Lingvisticheskiy enciklopedicheskiy slovar’ [Linguistic encyclopedia]. Moscow, 1990 (in Russian). Dyachkovskiy N. D. Zvukovoy stroy yakutskogo yazyka. Ch. II. Konsonantizm [Sound system of Jakut language. Part-II. Consonants]. Jakutsk, 1977 (in Russian). Kechil-ool S. V. Tipologicheskaya spetsiﬁka konsonantizma sut-hol’skogo govora v sisteme govorov i dialektov tuvinskogo yazyka [Typological features of consonantal system of Khol dialect in the context of Tuvan dialects]. Novosibirsk, 2006 (in Russian). Selyutina I. Ya., Urtegeshev N. S., Letyagin A. Y. Artikulyatornye bazy korennykh tyurkskih etnosov Juzhnoy Sibiri (po dannym MRT i tsyfrovoy rentgenograﬁi) [Articulatory bases of indigenous Turkic ethnic groups of Southern Siberia (based on the MRI and digital X-ray data)]. Novosibirsk, 2012 (in Russian). Subrakova V. V. Sistema soglasnyh sagayskogo dialekta hakasskogo yazyka: sopostavitel’nyy aspect [Consonant system of Sagay dialect of Khakass]. Novosibirsk, 2006 (in Russian). Cherkasskiy M. A. Tyurkskiy vokalizm i singarmonizm [Turkic vocalism and synharmonism]. M., 1965 (in Russian). Chumakaeva M. Ch. Soglasnye altayskogo yazyka (na osnove experimental’no-foneticheskih issledovaniy) [Consonants of Altai language (based on experimental-phonetic studies)]. Gorno-Altaysk, 1978 (in Russian). Institute of Philology, Siberian Branch Russian Academy. Ul. ac. Nikolaeva, 8, Novosibirsk, Russia, 630090. E-mail: siya_irina@mail.ru — 34 — Т а . а Н. Л. ., у а . М., ЧЕ Е а... а Н. . Е Е Е Е 2013–2014 щ . , – щ 2013–2014 ., . . , , , К ч ы а а: у а , а . , , а« , а а , щ 2013 . ( ( – , . Ч . ), , щ . , Ph.D., SOAS ELPD . . щ , , . , . щ . , , , . , ( . . ) щ , щ . ( .), ( ), , ( - щ , ), 12 .). . (ELAN, Fieldworks). , , , . , . Ч , , . . щ , » (SG 0277) (http://www.hrelp.org/grants/projects/index. , , . . « , php?projid=409). ( ж , ». ), , (1924–2003 . .), 46 (1998–2003 . .). . , щ щ , , « » http://corpora.iea.ras.ru/corpora. , щ щ . . щ . 1980- . щ - , щ »( , щ . - « . , 2013: 77) , , . , XVI 1609 . XVII . , , 1980: . ( 10). , . — 35 — - Т жу а ЛИНГ , , , АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) . Ч – , . , . . , , , .Э щ , , . « . ( Э 2013–2014 . .). , , . , , « », . щ щ . - ( , (http://cholkoi.ru/index.php?page=3#rus), Ч », , 1920–30, , , , Э . . . , , . - , , , , . . 1950. 1960–70. –а ӧ . , , 1998–2003 . . , , . . . . щ - , . . « » , 2002: 177). – - « , щ ( - - ) ( . »( - 1869 . 1923 . « , 1979: 237). », ( - ), щ , , - . . , « а а – ä äңä щ . » ж ‘ ’. , а а , ж . , а а а ‘ ~ , « » , ’, а а « , - ж – ä äңä а ‘ , , а а ». , - , ’, ж , - , щ , щ , , , .Э - щ щ , , щ - , . . , , , , — 36 — . - Т а . а Н. Л. ., у а... . . ( , 1952). . ‘ ’, ‘ ( – ’, ‘ . ’, ‘ ) , , ’, ( ‘ уу ‘ c ’ jаа ‘щ . . , . - , ’ ‘щ , . Altay Turkic )( аа ‘щ ’ , 1994). - ’ ’, , (Johanson, - 1998). , . . щ , , 12 , - щ , 3 , , ( 2013: 5). - щ , , ( . , 2008). ‘ ( . . . -* /-*қ 1. ö -jа-қ ~ . ö -ö- - )’; - - *– ( )’. ‘ . а -а - қ ~ : ., : . а -а - , , ( – , ) , , . . . , « ( . )». , « , , »( , 1997: 33). – , , . SVO. SOV, щ , . – – - , - . : 1) , 2) . , 1997). ( , . , - . , , – ., Э , , , XIX . , , , , щ . , , а а ча , ’, а ‘ ’, у а ‘ ‘ ‘ ’, а а ‘ ’< . а а, а а ‘ а , , а а а ‘ ’, ‘ ’, а у ‘ , ’, а а а (?), ‘ , ’, = ., а . . ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ . .; а а ы: а а ‘ ’< .‘ ( )’, а ‘ ’, а а ‘ . : — 37 — : ‘ ’, а ( )’ < ’, а а = ., = : а а‘ ’, ‘ , ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, а а ‘ ’< ‘ ’, а ‘ ’, ’, а а ‘ ‘ ’, а . у а ‘ ’, . . .; а а а‘ ’, а а ‘ ’< . ’, ‘ ’< ’, ‘ ’ а а ‘ ( )’ (? < . Т жу а ЛИНГ . ‘ ‘ ‘ , ’, ‘ ’, . ), а ‘ ‘ у ’, ’, ’ < . ‘ ж ‘ ’, уға ‘ ’, а а: а ‘ ’, ’, а ‘ ’, у а а‘ ’, ö ö ‘ ’ -‘ ’( .‘ ÿ‘ ’), щ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) ‘ ’, аа ‘ ’, у у ‘ ’, а ‘ а ‘ ’, а а а ‘ ’, у а ( а) ‘ ’ . .; а а а а ’, ‘ ’ қ ‘ ’, а ‘ а ‘ ’, а ‘ ’, у ‘ ‘ ’, ö ö ö ‘ ’, а ‘ ’, . . , ’), ÿ -‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, а ‘ ’, а ’, а : у у . .; ’, а а аа ‘ ’, , ’( ’, .‘ ‘ - ’. а а ( ’, , ‘ .) ~ ~ а , J қ ’, а а ( .) ~ а ’, а а ( .) ~ ‘ ‘ , ‘ ң , j ң ғ j ғ ң öң ö , - . ‘ . ( ‘ қ а , а а а, ) а а- ( у у уж ) у а уж а , ) а у, уж ’: у ӊ ÿ у а ) И а у. ( қ қ . , уж а а .( , уж а ) ö j қ ғ ö ö у ’: чақ а, чақ а ғ , , j . , -а у. (Ч ) , .( Ј , . .) ~ ’. . ) , ӊ ö ж уж А .( - . ақ ( .) ~ , у а( .) ~ ö ( .) ~ ‘ , щ ’, , ақ ( а, ажа ÿ . ÿ ‘ ’: j қ ң , . уж а, , .( а у. у 60 ) - , . . ’, қа а ‘ ’, щ - ‘ , ‘ . у а ’ а, : а ‘ ’, , ’, а ‘ , , . а , а , а а ‘ , , « , - 1) а у а> а , . , . . , » а щ ’ , а. - . а); , ( ж а > : , а а > а — 38 — ) ( а > а, Т а . а Н. Л. ., у 2) –[ ]>[ ~ ]( ), [ ] > [ ] ( а > а а , а а > а а ); 3) ( а > у а, > а , 4) ( > а , 5) ( у > уу , а> , ( > а , > а , а > а ); 6) ( VCC CVCC) ( у > у у ). : у а ‘ щ а‘ ’, а ‘ ’. ‘ ’, щ : а ‘ , , щ : 1) ( : а > > а а ); , жж > ) > ж ); – - V, VC, CVC, CV, ’ > ‘ ’. : а ’. - , - ыа а - а... ‘ ’. , ; 2) « , » .); 3) . , ’, а а ‘ ‘ , ’, ‘ . ’ у а ‘ , ’, . – , уж , , Ј , . , ,а , . ö ң, j ÿ , а , ң ч а ач а а … а- . ж , щ . ., а ы ң , а j Ну, а а у а . j j , j , ÿ ÿ … j j , а ы , а , , а а, , ау , а , , а у а у а , у, На у , у , .( у, у а- Р . ) а а , у а а у а а у, а … у а .( ) , SVO- а, : ң- . у , , . , : J қ ң j ң j ÿ - ғ . , қ , , , а . ң j ң , j , а ң а , , ж а Е а .( . , , j . ... ғ . , , а а . щ - а а а. а .( ) аж , а а аж .( ) а .Н , …А у а , . (Ч ) а , а ) . .Э , — 39 — - , , - , , Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) , - . . , , . ( , ) , « ң . ( , ң ÿÿ j ң j j . : ÿÿ j . , : а а у - » . j j ң , щ , . а, . . ж у . (Ч ) а а а - . ). щ а - / . ң ( . а а .( а аИ а а а а у а а а а а у а а а а . . j . . j : …», а а а ) а. а а а - . ң j ң а. а а а . а а. . у а . .( ) . j . ң . j . ң . ӊ j Вы 1. « - . j ң « j ). ң ( j ң : а , : j қ). ы: » . . щ 2. , щ ( ) ) , щ , 1999 . ., , . и )– )– )– )– ( ( , ( ( ( ( , щ ( ) . Э ) . и а .Ч . , 1940 . ., . . , 1946 . ., . Ч , 1949 . ., . — 40 — в . . Т а . а Н. Л. ., ( )– ( )– (Ч ) – Ч (Ч ) – Ч ( )– ( )– )– ( ( )– у , 1941 . ., . , 1937 . ., . Ч , 1999 . ., . . , 1939 . ., . Ч , 1943 . ., . Ч , 1933 . ., . Ч , 1943 . ., . Ч , 1999 . ., . . и и е а а... . . . . . . ы Johanson L. The History of Turkic // Lars Johanson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds). The Turkic Languages. L., N.Y.: Routledge, 1998. . ., . . // . - . . ., . . 82–83. . . ., - . 2013. . 1 (1). . 75–77. . ., . ., . ., - . // . ., . . . ., , 2013. 176 . : . - . . ., 1952. . . . XI. . 2. . 121–134. . . // . . . . .- . . . ., 1997. . 17–34. // : - . . . . : XVII–XVIII . . . .: Academia, 2002. . 177–180. // , 2008. . 147–152. . : . . . ., а а ы а . , 30, , E-mail: kogutei@yandex.ru а . ., а ы . , 28, , E-mail: nadia.krass@gmail.com : - , 1980. 296 . // . . К - , . .: , 1979. . 3. . 235–239. , 1994. 192 . ч . , 634050. ч , 650000. , . . а а у а 9.10.2014. okmashev D. M., Fedotova N. L. ON SOCIOLINGUISTIC FEATURES OF TELEUT LANGUAGE (BASED ON 2013–2014 FIELD STUDIES) The article characterizes the current state of the Teleut language, which belongs to the minority Turkic languages of Siberia. An analysis of the position of the Teleut language in existing classifications of Turkic languages is given. Fieldtrip linguistic data on Teleut collected by the authors in 2013–2014 allow to make certain conclusions about the extent of language preservation within different age groups as well as the main language use spheres. There is a significant influence of the Russian language expressing in a large number of loanwords displacing native Turkic words. Also the syntactic rules of Teleut are often being neglected as a result of Russian language impact. “The Teleut language” at the moment is a conditional term for the language of the indigenous Turkic population of Belovo district in Kemerovo region, South Siberia, Russia. In common Turkic languages classifications it is often referred to as a southern dialect of the Altai language. However, there are prerequisites to consider it as a separate language. Despite the genetic links Teleut language has with other Southern Altai dialects, forming together a national literary Altai language, Teleut has a clearly defined geographical location, which does not border on the Altai language area. It is also spoken by a separate and united ethnolinguistic community and has a separate writing and orthography, different from Altai literary language, which is of course still disputable since there are no stable literary rules for modern written Teleut. This allows us to consider the existence of a linguistic cluster comprising Altai and Teleut languages. However this thesis requires more empirical Teleut fieldtrip material with the subsequent analysis of all levels of the language system. — 41 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Currently Teleut is strongly influenced by Russian, mainly its lexicon and also simple, complex and compound sentence syntax. It’s typical for Russian loanwords in Teleut to undergo morphological and phonological adaptations in accordance with the rules of Teleut language. Syntactically Teleut sentences tend to follow the SVO pattern instead of placing the finite predicate in the absolute end of clause. Complex and compound sentences have become excessively rich in Russian loan conjunctions which are broadly used in favor of traditional Teleut postpositions normally linking the clauses in Turkic languages. These changes underscore the urgent need for documentation and further analysis of the Teleut language. Key words: Teleut language, Turkic languages of Siberia, idioms, language cluster, language bilateral influence, borrowing, the “language or dialect” problem. References Johanson L. The History of Turkic. Lars Johanson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds). The Turkic Languages. L., N.Y., Routledge, 1998. Pp. 82–83. Babenko I. I., Orlova O. V. Perspektivy issledovaniya minoritarnyh diskursivnyh praktik v regional'noy lingvistike i lingvokul'turologii [Proespects of studying the minority discoursive practices in regional linguistics and lore]. Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology, 2013, no. 1 (1), pp. 75–77 (in Russian). Bajyr-ool A. V., Dobrinina A. A., Ozonova A. A., Tazranova A. R., Tyuntesheva E. V., Fedina N. N., Shagdurova O. Yu., Shirobokova N. N. Materialy k sravnitel'nomu slovaryu glagol'noy leksiki tyurkskih yazykov Sayano-Altaya [Materials for comparative dictionary of verbal lexicon of Turkic laguages of Sayan-Altai]. Novosibirsk, Omega Print Publ., 2013. 176 p. (in Russian). Baskakov N. A. K voprosu o klassiﬁkatsii tyurkskih yazykov [Towards classiﬁcation of Turkic languages]. Bulletin of Academy of Sciences of SSSR. Literature and Languages, 1952, vol. XI, iss. 2, pp. 121–134 (in Russian). Gadzhieva N. Z. Tyurkskie yazyki [Turkic languages]. In: Yazyki mira. Tyurkskie yazyki [Languages of the world]. Moscow, 1997. Pp. 17–34 (in Russian). Nasilov D. M. Teleutov yazyk [Teleut language]. In: Yazyki narodov Rossii: Krasnaya kniga [Languages of the people of Russia: Red Book]. Moscow, Akademia Publ., 2002. Pp. 177–180 (in Russian). Tokmashev D. M. Zametki po leksike bachatsko-teleutskogo yazyka [Notes on the lexicon of Bachat-Teleut]. In: Istoriko-kul'turnoe vzaimodeystvie narodov Sibiri: Materialy mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakt. konf. [Historical-cultural interaction of the people of Siberia: Conference Proceedings]. Novokuznetsk, KuzGPA Publ., 2008. Pp. 147–152 (in Russian). Umanskiy A. P. Teleuty i russkie v XVII–XVIII vv. [Teleuts and Russians in XVII–XVIII centuries]. Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., 1980. 296 p. (in Russian). Fisakova G. G. Izuchenie yazyka bachatskih teleutov [Studies in Bachat Teleut language]. In: Yazyki narodov Sibiri [Languages of the people of Siberia]. Kemerovo, 1979. Iss. 3. Pp. 235–239 (in Russian). Shcherbak A. M. Vvedenie v sravnitel'noe izuchenie tyurkskih yazykov [Introduction to comparative studies of Turkic languages]. St. Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 1994. 192 p. (in Russian). Tokmashev D. M. National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University. Pr. Lenina, 30, Tomsk, Russia, 634050. E-mail: kogutei@yandex.ru Fedotova N. L. Kuzbass State Technical University. Ul. Vesennyaya, 28, Kemerovo, Russia, 650000. E-mail: nadia.krass@gmail.com — 42 — а . И. И а а а а а ... М х а М. И. Е ( Ь Е Ь ЧЕ . ) . , , , К ч ы а: а . а а , а а , , , . В , , , . ? , . Ч , . , , ? , ( , .Ч , ) ? , ? « »( щ , 2004: 393) . – . « щ « щ » ( (Crystal, 1995: 132). , »( , , , , щ , - , ), . . щ , щ щ , , ( – , 1996: 303). »( - « - , щ . (. . , , - ), , 1981: 21) - . . ) « » - . . , , , , щ : « щ – Э ( , щ »( « » .– . .) (Štekauer, 2000: 124). : , , , - , ), ( ( , щ , , . .), а ). ? , , , . — 43 — - , щ ( Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) , ), , ( , щ , , « » . щ , 2004). , « , . . , , , . . »( , 1974: 11). « , »( : 17). 1) , 2) ( . .). . .« 2004: 198). , а( , . , ( , щ , 3) , , , .), 4) , ), , , - »( щ , . ,« »– щ , « . , , . , » щ . :« , , , »( , 1997: 4). « , щ ( щ щ / , ) - - . … , ., 2009: 193). ) , - …» ( , ( , , » ( – , , « , 1996: 306). , щ . . Ма . , . , , щ а . , . , , щ . , , . , , , , , , , , , » , . . , , . — 44 — « » « - а . И. И а а , а а щ , а ... щ . щ ( щ щ , , щ , , . . .) . , , , , , 3) ( . ( : 1) , 2) ), 4) , , 5) , 6) ). А . а , , )( , , . . щ , 2004: 112). ( щ , , щ+ щ . , , . , ( -ity). , щ : «“As I understand it,” said Moist, “the gift of sausages reaches Offler by being fried, yes? And the spirit of the sausages ascends unto Offler by means of the smell? And then you eat the sausages?” “Ah, no. Not exactly. Not at all,” said the young priest, who knew this one. “It might look like that to the uninitiated, but, as you say, the true sausagidity goes straight to Offler. He, of course, eats the spirit of the sausages. We eat the mere earthy shell, which, believe me, turns to dust and ashes in our mouths.”» (Pratchett, 2008 : 345), “sausagidity” – « ». , , щ , . , , щ “sanctity” ( ) “dainty” ( ), -id, ( rigidity ( ), stupidity ( ), morbidity ( ) . .). щ : , , «-ee»: «“Yes, I suppose all he can do is ogle the young ladies.” There was some sniggering from the students. “So? They’re paid to be ogled at,” said Moist. “They are professional oglees. It’s an ogling establishment. For oglers.”» (Pratchett, 2008 : 395), “oglee” ( , ) щ. + -ee, щ : 1) , 2) . , “ogle”, щ , «-ee» . Ч , . . ( щ ): «“Is that him?” said Sister Mary, staring at the baby. “Only I’d expected funny eyes. Red, or green. Or teensyweensy little hoofikins. Or a widdle tail.” She turned him around as she spoke. No horns either. The Devil’s child looked ominously normal» (Gaiman, Pratchett, 2011: 24), hoofikins ( )– hoof – . , щ , , ( ), . , ы а : ‘Of course,’ said Vimes, though his don’tmindedness was entirely due to the way his wife’s question had been phrased and the subtle resonances that Miss Beedle’s attendance was a done deal” (Pratchett, 2011: 66), “don’tmindedness” – , — 45 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) щ -ness “I don’t mind” ( - - ). , . , , , : “Where would Nanny have gone? Agnes felt a pressing desire to be near her. Nanny Ogg radiated a perpetual field of it’ll-be-rightness” (Pratchett, 2008a: 270), “it›ll-be-rightness” – , (It’ll be right) + -ness ( ). , , . , , , : «“You think so? Father could send that coach right into the gorge in a moment if he wanted to,’ said the vampire. “But he won’t. We much prefer the personal touch.” “The in-your-neck approach,” said Agnes.» (Pratchett, 2008a: 271), «in-your-neck approach» – « ». ( ), . , . , , , . , , , , , ( , 2000: 211). , ( , , 2002: 37). , щ , щ щ : «“It is not often that a wailing woman rushes into a room and throws herself at a man. It had never happened to Moist before. Now it happened, and it seemed such a waste that the woman was Miss Macclariat... Moist reeled under her weight. She was dragging at his collar so hard that he was likely to end up on the floor, and the thought of being found on the floor with Miss Macclariat was-well, a thought that just couldn’t be thoughted. The head would explode before thoughting it.» (Pratchett, 2008b: 350), “be thoughted” “thoughting” – , щ “to thought”, щ thought ( ). « » щ щ “to think” ( ), , « ». , , . За ч щ , . - , ; щ , ( , , . .). . - . , , - , . и . . . . 1997. 84 . . . . : и е а : - . ы . . .: : . .: — 46 — . 3- . . ., 1974. 175 . . , 2000. 256 . : - , а . И. И а а а а а ... . . . . . .: : , 2004. 240 . . . : :Ч . . .: . , 2004. 560 c. . ., . . // . : . 2002. № 2. . 33–38. . . : . .: , 1981. 200 . . : . . .: , 2004. 228 . . . // : . . 70. . . ., 1996. . 303–308. . . . // Э . .: : , 2009. 825 . Crystal D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 585 p. Gaiman N., Pratchett T. Good Omens. HarperCollins, 2011. 432 p. Pratchett Terry. Carpe Jugulum. Random House, 2008a. 416 p. Pratchett T. Going Postal. Random House, 2008b. 496 p. Pratchett T. Making Money. Random House, 2008c. 480 p. Pratchett T. Snuff. Random House, 2011. 512 p. Štekauer P. English Word-Formation: a History of Research (1960–1995). Tübingen: Narr, 2000. 495 p. . ., E-mail: mmekheda@mail.ru , . а а у а 14.10.2014. Mekheda M. I. INFORMATIVENESS IN NONCE WORD FORMATION PROCESS (BASED ON TERRY PRATCHETT’S NONCE WORDS) The article deals with the informativeness of a nonce word as the main principle of the nonce word creation process. The informativeness of a lexical unit is treated as the information which the sign contains (Galperin I.). The value of the information received from the lexical unit can be acquired from such parameters as its frequency of occurrence (the more unique the unit the more valuable the information is) (Martine A.), from its form (some models of word formation are more marked iconically than others, also from its semantics. According to those parameters nonce words can be considered of great informative value due to their uniqueness, combination of formal and semantic characteristics, expressiveness and axiological value. The nonce words under consideration are taken from the works of world-famous British writer Sir Terry Pratchett, who is widely known as a master of wordplay. The chosen nonce words can be examined as examples of word formation potential models dwelling specifically on the mechanism of their creation and functioning. Having analyzed some of the examples it can be suggested that the informative value of a nonce word is of great importance during the creation process. The nonce word can influence the Recipient through the uniqueness of its form which is often the violation of a certain norm (for example, the norm of combination of phonemes or morphemes). The nonce word may function as an expressive and emotional center of the utterance due to its originality and sometimes articulatory complexity as well as unnaturalness. The amalgamation of elements (formal as well as semantic) make the nonce word highly loaded semantically combining separate meanings of parts of a complex word and mixing them with enforced expressiveness and often ironic connotation due to iconically marked models of word formation. All those characteristics make a nonce word a valid choice for a Speaker to express a new idea which probably had no verbal equivalent so far on the one hand, and on the other hand this new creation possesses all the elements to influence and persuade the Recipient. Key words: word formation, nonce word, informativeness, model, expressiveness. Reference Arakin V. D. Sravnitel’naja tipologija anglijskogo i russkogo jazykov: ucheb. posobie. 3-e izd. [Comparative typology of English and Russian]. Moscow, FIZMATLIT Publ., 2000. 256 p. (in Russian). Babenko N. G. Okkazional’noe v hudozhestvennom tekste. Strukturno-semanticheskij analiz: ucheb. posobie [Occasional usage in ﬁction. Structural and semantic analysis]. Kaliningrad, Izd-vo KGU Publ., 1997. 84 p. Gal’perin I. R. Information value of linguistic units [Informativnost’ edinic jazyka: ucheb. posobie dlja vuzov]. Moscow, Vysshaja shkola Publ., 1974. 175 p. (in Russian). Zemskaja E. A. Russkij jazyk kak inostrannyj. Russkaja razgovornaja rech’. Lingvisticheskij analiz i problemy obuchenija [Russian as a foreign language. Spoken Russian speech]. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka, 2004. 240 p. (in Russian). — 47 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Kubrjakova E. S. Jazyk i znanie: Na puti poluchenija znanij o jazyke: Chasti rechi s kognitivnoj tochki zrenija. Rol’ jazyka v poznanii mira [Language and Knowledge: On the way of getting knowledge of language. The role of language in cognition]. Moscow, Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury Publ., 2004. 560 p. (in Russian). Kubrjakova E. S., Gureev V. A. Konversija v sovremennom anglijskom jazyke [Conversion in modern English]. Vestnik VGU: Serija lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaja kommunikacija, 2002, no. 2, pp. 33–38. Kubrjakova E. S. Tipy jazykovyh znachenij: Semantika proizvodnogo slova [Types of linguistic meanings: Semantics of derived words]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1981. 200 p. (in Russian). Martine A. Basic linguistics. (Russ. ed.: Martine A. Osnovy obshhej lingvistiki: per. s fr.). Moscow, URSS, 2004. 228 p. (in Russian). Revzina O. G. Pojetika okkazional’nogo slova [Poetics of occasional word]. Jazyk kak tvorchestvo: Sbornik nauchnyh trudov. k 70-letiju V. P. Grigor’eva. Moscow, 1996, pp. 303–308 (in Russian). Skovorodnikov A. P. Vyrazitel’nye sredstva russkogo jazyka i rechevye oshibki i nedochety [Inter alia. Expressive means of Russian and speech errors]. Jenciklopedicheskij slovar’-spravochnik. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka Publ., 2009. 825 p. (in Russian). Crystal D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995. 585 p. Gaiman N., Pratchett T. Good Omens. HarperCollins, 2011. 432 p. Pratchett Terry. Carpe Jugulum. Random House, 2008. 416 p. Pratchett T. Going Postal. Random House, 2008. 496 p. Pratchett T. Making Money. Random House, 2008. 480 p. Pratchett T. Snuff. Random House, 2011. 512 p. Štekauer P. English word-formation: a history of research (1960–1995). Tübingen, Narr, 2000. 495 p. Mekheda M. I., independent researcher. E-mail: mmekheda@mail.ru — 48 — Szeverényi S. Derivational sufﬁxes as/or classiﬁers? – the word-formation of the Nganasan adjectives Szeverényi S. DERIVATIONAL SUFFIXES AS/OR CLASSIFIERS? – THE WORD-FORMATION OF THE NGANASAN ADJECTIVES The Nganasan langauge is rich in adjectival suffixes. Some of the adjectival suffixes simply have been considered as derivational suffixes of “adjectiveness” without any further function, however several earlier studies on the Nganasan language have previously mentioned some correlations of certain semantic domains and the morphology of their terms. The paper provides deeper analysis of the linguistic data and depicts its typological parallels and uniqueness. The domains referring and seem to appear as a part of the domain of and because of the low number of its members they have not became subjects of consideration. The correlation between domains and suffixes are not exclusive, e.g.: suffix of also occurs in and , e.g. kolsajkuə ‘long’ etc. Suffixes -əgə and ńəəgə clearly cover their own domain. Among the causes of the overlapings the different productivity of the suffixes, the different degrees of semantic transparency of the derivated forms and the unclear origin of the suffixes with their unclear etymology can also be mentioned. Although the correlations are strong and show strict tendencies, the suffixes can not been considered as classifiers because they dominate only their “own” domain, but not exclusively. Key words: Nganasan, adjectives, derivation. 1. Aims The aim of the paper is to present an interesting phenomenon of Nganasan. This language has numerous adjectival derivational suffixes, far more than any other Samoyedic (Nenets, Enets and Selkup) or other language in the area that has ever contacted Nganasan. Some of the adjectival suffixes simply have been considered as derivational suffixes of “adjectiveness” without any further function; however, several earlier studies on the Nganasan language have previously mentioned some correlations of certain semantic domains (e.g. ) and the morphology of their terms (e.g. the suffix -JKUə for colour). This paper presents a deeper analysis of the linguistic data (than in Szeverényi 2004) and discusses its typological uniqueness. I apply Dixon’s approach to the semantic domains of property concepts (1982, 1991), namely, the lexicalization of prototypical property concepts to see if there is any correlation between Dixon’s semantic types and the derivation of the adjectives in the Nganasan language. The Nganasan language belongs to the Samoyedic branch of the Uralic language family. Nganasan is one of the most endangered languages of the North-Siberian area. It has less than 125 speakers, and even the members of the oldest generation (above 50–60) use it rarely in everyday life. The analysis is based on the following sources: 1) published texts (Wagner-Nagy 2002, Labanauskas 2001, Gusev 2008 and other folklore text collections); 2) reference grammars (e.g. Boľdt 1989; Tereshchenko 1966, 1979; Wagner-Nagy 2001, 2002); and 3) the material of a 2008 fieldwork in Ust Avam (supported by OTKA Fund, Hungary). 2. Description: The derivation of Adjectives 2.1. Verbs vs. Adjectives Based upon their morphosyntactic features, adjectives and verbs form separate word classes in Nganasan. Adjectives are more closely related to nouns. Unlike verbs, adjectives cannot have direct markers of the TAMcategories. These can only be exhibited by the copula, mainly the verb of existence (i-sja [Inf]). At the same time, there are property concepts, which can become stative verbs (e.g. ďomiľir-sja [Inf] ‘jealous; be jealous of somebody/something’). Some lexical items may have both verbal or adjectival forms, e.g.: səŋku-tuə [PtPrs] ‘strong’ səŋkə-gəə [Adj] ‘strong’ 2.2. Nouns vs. Adjectives The inflectional properties of Nganasan adjectives “mainly” correspond to the properties of nouns: the adjectives can take number suffixes, but there are some restrictions with respect to case suffixes. In a predicative position, predicative suffixes can be added. The prototypical property concept words typically bear nominal characteristics. However, there are far more static verbs in the domain of . In the case of words expressing physical properties, there is a tendency for the same stem to have both verbal and adjectival forms. — 49 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) The most important distinction between nouns and adjectives lies in their derivation: there are moderative suffixes of gradable adjectives (e.g. hirəgəə ‘tall’ > hirə-Ɂľikü ‘a bit taller’) and pure adjectival suffixes. 2.3. Word formation of the core adjectives in Nganasan There are only a few – approximately a dozen – adjectives without derivational suffixes. Their ratio of occurrence is very limited; at the same time, the small range of relevant words makes it extremely difficult to define the word class of many lexemes. They characteristically consist of two syllables, and usually do not take moderative suffixes, so morphologically they cannot be separated from nouns. A smaller number of words of four syllables can be found with a seemingly foreign origin – this can be explained by the higher number of syllables and by their beginning with a vowel (e.g. ərəkərə ‘beautiful’). 2.4. “Adjectival” suffixes This category contains suffixes that are exclusively added to bound stems (Wagner-Nagy 2002: 86–87). A significant subset of these is non-productive and mainly expresses prototypical property concepts. 2.4.1. The suffix -əgə expressing various tastes and smells (‘it tastes like / smells like’) This suffix has not been mentioned in previous Nganasan grammar descriptions, even though it has always existed, because of our incomplete knowledge. The first data in print about such a suffix appeared in the Kosterkina-Momde-Zhdanova dictionary in 2001. It is exclusively connected to the domains of and (thus it can be described as a suffix of ). I analysed the data for and in (Szeverényi 2009), here I just mention relevant information. The etymology of the suffix is not clear, and it is especially significant from a typological point of view that it cannot be traced back to a word meaning a definite ‘taste’, ‘smell’ or to any word referring to any being or object bearing perceptually salient features. Such suffixes are difficult to find in other languages; at least those spoken in the surrounding area do not contain such a suffix at all. The interviews conducted with the native speakers (in Ust-Avam, 2008) confirm that it is productive and frequent, for example: bahi-əgə ‘smell and taste of wild deer’ bahi ‘wild deer’ ďebtu-əgə ‘smell and taste of goose’ ďebtu ‘goose’ ŋobtə-əgə ‘smell of an old person’ ŋobtə ‘smell’ The fact that it is used with Russian loanwords, too, proves its productivity: e.g. lukaagə ‘smells and tastes like onion’, see Rus. luk ‘onion’. The function of this suffix is ‘taste and/or smell of somebody/something’ or that ‘a thing tastes like and/or smells like somebody/something’. The following examples illustrate that it can express solely smells as well: Basu-tuə ŋanasa kintə-əgə ďindi-Ɂə. hear-A 3S hunt-P P man smog-Ntaste ‘The hunter smelled smoke.’ ŋüŋgə-tənu-ntu kintə-əgə čüńüɁə nostril-L -G P 3S smog-Ntaste feel-A 3S ‘He/She smelled smoke in his/her nostrils.’ 2.4.2. -ńəəgə ’something has the taste and/or smell of something’ Nganasan has a morpheme ńeəgəə meaning ‘something has the taste and/or smell of something’. It occurs exclusively as a suffix, never as a complete word. It can be connected to the word ńaagəə ‘good, fine, nice, tasty or tasteful’ e.g. sakïr-ńəəgə: ‘sugar’ + ’tasty’ > ‘sugary’, sïr-ńəəgə ‘salt’ + ‘tasty’ > ‘salty’ or ‘something tastes like salt’. Examples: ďirńəəgə ‘fatty (smell or taste of fat)’ bïńəəgə ‘1. taste of water, watery, 2. taste or smell of vodka’ kiriba ńeəgə ‘something tastes like bread’ čajńəəgə čaj ‘fine tea / a drink that tastes like tea’ The Nganasan–Russian dictionary by Kosterkina-Momde-Zhdanova (=KMZ, 2001) (one in which the abovementioned suffix occurs for the first time) contains this suffix as a separate entry, with the remark that it may as well be written solid with the preceding word. This fact also shows the uncertainty concerning its classification. — 50 — Szeverényi S. Derivational sufﬁxes as/or classiﬁers? – the word-formation of the Nganasan adjectives This affix has only one form, however there is a rare variant -ńəkə – but this form is a result of an immense process of grammaticalization. Regarding its function, the affix -ńəəgə is more likely to express tastes than the affix -əgə, and the latter rather refers to quality, but some counterexamples can be cited as well: bańəəgə ‘sg smells like a dog’, for dogs are rarely consumed by humans, and they do not have a positively pleasant smell… An interesting process of grammaticalization occurs in which these affixes are concerned. Besides noun phrases involving the suffix -əgə, verb phrases of the same meaning can also be formed, e.g.: hotə ‘onion’ hotəəgə hotə(Ɂ)itü bahi ‘wild reindeer’ bahiəgə bahi(Ɂ)itü The variant bahi(Ɂ)itü is formed in the following manner: bahi-(Ɂ)i-tü. The segment -(Ɂ)i- serves as a socalled sensitive suffix (Wagner-Nagy 2002: 131), to express likeness to a certain sensation; the suffix -tü- is an imperfective coaffix (-NTU) expressing time; and the 3rd person singular has a zero suffix. The following example demonstrates what happens to affixed forms with -ńəəgə if this particular affix should be supplied: ďir ’fat’ ďirńəəgə ďirńəintü The word ending -əgə is recognised as a suffix and this is what is omitted, irrespective of the stem. The following analyses are possible: ďir-ńə-i-ntü ďirńə-i-ntü or: fat-??-S -A 3S or: fat?-S -A 3S According to one of the variants, ďir is the stem, but -ńə- is supposed to be a suffix – which is completely unknown in the Nganasan language. In the other version, the stem is ďirńə-, but no stem like this is known in the language. So we are witnessing a re-analysis, in addition to a process of grammaticalization. It is obviously difficult to define a precise difference in function between these suffixes – this can be a reason for the creation of a variant such as ďirńəintü. The choice of the suffixes can be influenced by the phonological structure of the base word as well. I aim to support this statement with the following facts: (i) no suffix -əgə is connected to CVC stems (e.g. čaj, ďir, sIr); therefore the variants *čajəgə, *ďirəgə are not well-formed. In case the second consonant of the stem prohibits -ń- as a following consonant (e.g. -k- in Rus. luk)-, it excludes -ńəəgə as well. In such cases, -əəgə will be added (lukəəgə). (ii) CVV stems (e.g. taa) also make it impossible to add -əgə (*taa+əgə, *taagə). 2.4.3. The -Kəə suffix This suffix was already discussed by Tereshchenko (1979: 118–119), Wagner-Nagy (2001: 152; 2002: 86) and Helimski (1998: 497). It is mentioned by the most important sources in the following manner: Sufﬁx Castrén (19th c.) Tereshchenko Labanauskas Helimski (1998) KMZ (2001) -Kəə -gâ (= -gəə) -gə -gə -gəə -gə(ə) Notice that the sources have diverse opinions concerning the length of the vowel in the suffix – however, it must be added that the data provided by Castrén and Helimski are more reliable than the notes published by Labanauskas and Tereshchenko. The Nganasan dictionary reveals a conception that differs from the previously published ones: in adjectival forms, the regular form of the suffix is -Kəə, although the dictionary also mentions another version ending in a short vowel (-Kə). Words formed in this manner are nouns referring to abstract phenomena or people with these particular characteristics. The following pairs are listed in the dictionary: čejkəgəə ‘quiet, modest’ ~ čejkəgə ‘quiet, modest person’, česəgəə ‘cold’ ~ česəgə ‘coldness, freeze’, ďasəgəə ‘wet’ ~ ďasəgə ‘wetness’, hekəgəə ‘warm’ ~ hekəgə ‘warmth’, hojməgəə ‘dark’ ~ hojməgə ‘darkness’, ńersə(ə) gəə ‘hostile, enemy, full of hatred’ ~ ńersəgə ‘enemy’. Two different conclusions can be drawn here: the first one is that the suffix originally ended in a long vowel (as presented by Castrén) and its re-analysis was based upon the productive, relational adjectival suffix -ə and the lexicalization of forms with the suffix -gəə, e.g.: hekə-gəə ‘warm’ > hekəgə ‘warmth’ + -ə [N ] → ‘warm’. According to the other theory, the suffix – as Tereshchenko consistently suggests – originally ended in a very short central vowel (ə), and later the derived form acquired the suffix of relational adjectives: hekə-gə ‘warm’ > hekəgə ‘warmth’ → hekəgə-ə. — 51 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Since data provided by Castrén, Helimski and the KMZ-dictionary are more reliable from a phonological point of view than those given by Tereshchenko and Labanauskas, I wish to support the first theory here. I collected 45 lexemes consisting -gə(ə) suffix and expressing property concept, such as ďobtə-gə(ə) ‘thin’ (KMZ44), ďerə-gə(ə) ‘thick, fat’ (KMZ40), hirə-gə(ə) ‘tall, high’ (KMZ193), tantə-gə(ə) ‘wide’ (KMZ171), ďajsə-gə(ə) ‘noisy’ (T112), ďan(ə)-gə(ə) ‘hard’ (C52: janagâ), ďarsə-gə(ə) ‘favourite’ (KMZ56), ďühə-gə(ə) ‘soft’ (KMZ52), katə-gə(ə) ‘light, bright’ (KMZ63), kəsə-gə(ə) ‘clever, skilful’ (KMZ84), merə-gə(ə) ‘fast’ (KMZ97) etc. There are words where the suffix can definitely be separated from the stem, but there are no examples for adjectival use at all: ďarə-gə ‘sickness’ (T112, JN27), ďasə-gə ‘moisture, dampness, humidity’ (KMZ57), nujbəgə ‘sad, sombre (person)’ (KMZ120), hikə-gə ‘terror’ (Ma76). The stems of the adjectives exhibiting core adjectival suffixes are mostly bound stems. Many of these are of ancient origin, derived from Proto-Samoyedic and expressing property concepts. However, many words present a productive and semantically motivated stem, although the correlation between the stem and the derived form may be dubious, hence they are marked with a question mark): ďarsə-gə(ə) ‘favourite’ ďarsi- ‘to like’ (KMZ56) ďühə-gə(ə) ‘soft’ ? ďühi ‘blanket (for children on a sled) (KMZ52) ďürə-gə(ə) ‘deep’ ďüri ‘depth’ (KMZ50) hïlə-gə(ə) ‘dangerous, fearful’ hïlə ‘fearful (thing)’ (KMZ208) hirə-gə(ə) ‘high, tall’ hirə ‘height, degree, level’ (KMZ193) homə-gə(ə) ‘sharp’ ?? homa ‘edge; scythe’ (B44) horə-gə(ə) ‘tidy’ ?? horə ‘face’ (KMZ198) hurə-gə(ə) ‘steep’ ? hurajku ‘mound, hill, heap’ (KMZ206) katə-gə(ə) ‘shining, bright’ ka a-r ‘light, shine’ (KMZ60) merə-gə(ə) ‘fast’ merə ‘quickly; soon’ (KMZ97) ŋəmnə-gə(ə) ‘ﬁne, delicious’ ? ŋəmsu ‘meat’ (KMZ144), ŋəm- ‘eat’ (KMZ143) najbə-gə(ə) ‘long’ ńajbï ďa [Gen-PO(ALL)] ‘far away’ tonsə-gə(ə) ‘storm, energetic’ ?? tonsÏ ‘storm’ (KMZ175) ŋu(ŋ)kə-gə(ə) ‘many’ ŋu(ŋ)kə ‘quantity’ (KMZ137) ŋu(ŋ)kəgə ‘many’ (KMZ138) ďarə-gə(ə) ‘ill’ ďari ‘pain’ (KMZ56) ďarəgə ‘pain’ (KMZ57) The group of adjectives with the suffix -Kəə is not homogeneous either from a semantic or from a morphological point of view. At the same time there are some tendencies that have been unrecognised so far: (1) Dimensional adjectives characteristically take the suffix -Kəə and no other suffixes of core adjectives (the single exception is kolsajkuə ‘long’ – but this is not a central term with the meaning ‘long’). These usually belong to the positive pole, since dimensional adjectives of the negative pole have often been lexicalized with moderative or diminutive suffixes. (2) There are numerous adjectives expressing (such as weight, surface, temperature etc.): these do take the suffix in question, but the number and ratio of the dimensional adjectives is much higher (because of the higher degree of semantic heterogeneity of this semantic type): ďerə-gə(ə) ‘thick, fat’, ďobtəgə(ə) ‘thin, narrow’, ďürə-gə(ə) ‘deep’, hirə-gə(ə) ‘high, tall’, makə-gə(ə) ‘shallow, low’, najbə-gə(ə) ‘long’, tantə-gə(ə) ‘wide’ (3) While dimensional adjectives involving the suffix -Kəə do not have a verbal stem, adjectives depicting physical properties with the same suffix generally do: there can be only one form (nominal) of the dimensional adjectives involving the suffix -Kəə in attributive position, whereas adjectives of physical properties with the suffix -Kəə in attributive position may appear as present participles. This difference may arise from the fact that — 52 — Szeverényi S. Derivational sufﬁxes as/or classiﬁers? – the word-formation of the Nganasan adjectives participial forms express less permanent properties. Practical language use seems to prove that these forms are more common. Here are some examples: word class Nganasan DIMENSION ‘high, tall’ Adj hirəgəə ‘wide’ ‘thin, narrow’ ‘long’ ‘deep’ Adj Adj Adj Adj tantəgəə ďobtagəə najbagəə ďürəgəə Adj česəgəə PtImp česjitiə Adj hekəgəə PtImp hekutiə Adj tuďajkuə nosəgəə PtImp tuďaruə nosjüčüə Adj ńaməgəə Adj səŋkəgəə PHYSICAL PROPERTY. ‘cold’ ‘hot’ ‘hard’ ‘soft’ ‘heavy’ ‘easy’ ‘bitter’ PtImp səŋkutuə Adj holəgəə Adj tasəgəə PtImp tasjütüə Some adjectives exhibit the suffix -kəə on the surface: korsjiŋ-kəə ‘hearty, kind’ (KMZ69), labsə-kəə ‘smallest/youngest child in the family’ (KMZ85), ńalïn-kəə ‘joyful, brimming with life’ (HM39, HM71), ńim-kə ‘older, senior’ (KMZ116), ŋiľə-kəə ‘own, born, related to’ (KMZ132), ŋojbu-kəə ‘leader (shaman)’ (KMZ134), talaŋ-kəə ‘lucky, successful’ (KMZ170). Compared to the previous larger group, it is obvious that the stems in most of these cases have not become opaque: korsə ‘thought, mind, soul’ (KMZ69) labsə ‘cradle’ (KMZ85) ŋiľə ‘own’ (KMZ132) ŋojbu ‘main, head of, leader’ (KMZ134), see ŋojbuə ‘head’ (KMZ134) ńim ‘name’ (KMZ115) tala ‘success, luck’ (KMZ170) Apparently, wherever the stems are related to nouns, the function of the suffix is closest to that of the nomen possessoris (‘supplied with sg’) such as ‘luck’ > ‘lucky’, ‘head’ > ‘boss, head’, ‘cradle’ > ‘infant in a cradle’ → ‘the smallest/youngest child in the family’). The underlying forms of the stems in this group – except for the word talaN – reveal a CVCV structure, there is no nasal at the end of the stem; should any nasal be found, it positively belongs to the suffix. The words labsəkəə, ŋiľəkəə and ŋojbukəə seem to show a form of suffix -ŋkəə- weakened by rhythmic gradation. If the stem ends in an empty nasal (e.g. talaN), the suffix -ŋkəə is clearly possible. Since no precedent can be found for a nasal + nasal cluster (except mn), only a single nasal can appear on the surface, e.g., talaN + ŋkəə > talaŋkəə. Consequently, it is possible in terms of the material presented here that -Nkəə- forms a nomen possessoris even though it is very rare and seems to have become unproductive. 4.4.4. The suffix -NKuə ~ -JKuə This group consists of two suffixes and was treated separately by former linguistic descriptions of the Nganasan language. Chrestomathia Nganasanica separates two suffixes (Wagner-Nagy 2002: 86–87): (1) -Ka ~ -KaɁa (2) -NKuə ~ -JKuə — 53 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) This chart contains 55 words. This particular suffix generally appears in colour terms, e.g. ďabakuə ’red’ (KMZ52), ďenďa(j)kuə ‘colourless, transparent, light’ (KMZ38), ďirbakuə ‘grey(-haired)’ (KMZ43), ďoakuə ‘muddy (as color)’ (KMZ44), ďoďakuə ’muddy, grey’, hočajkuə ‘light, bright’ (KMZ199), kičajkuə ‘grey’ (KMZ65), toďakuə ‘yellow ~ (brown, grey)’ (KMZ174), tusajkuə ‘black’ (KMZ181), tumkakuə ‘sem-dark, opaque, dull’ (T79), but in another types as welll, e.g. ďabïjkuə ‘chattering, talkative’ (HM43), ďerbajkuə ‘thick’ (KMZ39), lomnajkuə ‘soft’ (KMZ88), mandajkuə ‘round’ (KMZ95), ńomsajkuə ‘sharp,’ (KMZ119), sjüma(j) kuə ’peaceful, calm’ (KMZ166), tïŋgajkuə ‘wide, spacious’ (KMZ183), tobsjiküə ‘uncommon’ (KMZ174) etc. The ratio of the words that can be considered as morphologically transparent – namely, where the stem can be recognised with an occasional productive feature – is higher. When segmenting these word forms, one may encounter a problem similar to that of the suffix -Kəə. Some of the cases might involve re-analysis, that is, the phoneme ə can be perceived as a relational adjectival suffix, and the stem be extended with the ending -jku/-ku. mandajkuə mandajku ‘round/circle’ (KMZ94, 95) lalujkuə lalujku ‘flat, round, oval sg (e.g. face)’ (KMZ86) salajkuə salajku ‘dirt, mud; muddy’ (KMZ147) kabtujkuə kabtujku ‘saucer; flatness, flat subject’ (KMZ58) From a synchronic point of view, they can really be treated as relational adjectival suffixes. However, in an overwhelming majority of the words with a productive stem, the situation is different: ďirba ‘white frost’ (KMZ43) sïr ‘1. salt; 2. white; 3. grey(-haired)’ (KMZ160) ‘calm, silence, stillnes of air’ (KMZ166) sjümü ? tïŋgüa ‘1. gap, 2. free time’ (KMZ183) ? tosu ‘new-born deer’ > toďakuə ’yellow ~ brown ~ grey’ (KMZ178) I am inclined to treat these two suffixes as allomorphs of a single suffix. Except for the words aniɁka ‘big’ and bəńďika ‘all’, hardly any word takes the suffix -Ka. The rest of the words call for the following analysis: I consider the suffix -NKUə ~ -JKUə to be a compound suffix: -NKU+ə ~ -JKU+ə, supposing a probable loss of productivity and re-analysis. Therefore, only the suffix ə is to be treated as such at the end of words (this is a productive and quite frequent relational adjectival suffix, Wagner-Nagy 2002: 87). The augmentative suffix (-Ɂə) is taken by the stem of the relational adjectival suffix ending in -ku. The above-mentioned augmentative suffix connects to the genitive stem. In the case of stems ending in U, a change of vowels u > a (e.g. sjirü ‘winter’ N > sjira P .G ) often occurs, and the ə of the augmentative suffix is assimilated. ‘restless, reckless’ norba-kuə = norba- (bound stem) + -NKUə ~ -JKUə norbaku-ə = norbaku- ’restlessness, recklessness’ + ə ‘restless, reckless’ norbaka-Ɂa = norbaku- + ɁƏ ‘restless, reckless’ The fact that a word can take only a single type of suffix of core adjectives is also important to mention. There are very few exceptions, e.g. nujbajkuə ~ nujbəgə ‘sad’. At the same time it is impossible to define an underlying form, and it is quite apparent that application of the suffixes to certain semantic types is tendentious, but not exclusive. 4.4.5. The suffixes -CsəKə and -Kə This suffix was first mentioned by Wagner-Nagy (2002: 87). She pointed out that the stems tend to be bound in these cases. Supporting her statement, the following lexemes were found: adjectival form other forms bəŋkə-səkə ‘happy, joyful’ (KMZ232) bəŋkə-btï-sï [V ďabtu-səkə ‘danger; dangerous’ (KMZ53) No other data kanduɁ-səkə ‘hurtful’ (KMZ61) ? kanduɁtəsa ‘to go down, to hide (sun)’ (KMZ61); kantuəďa ‘to hide (sun)’ (KMZ61); kantüürsja ’to hide’ (KMZ61) məńən-səkə ‘interesting’ (KMZ103) məńünsja ‘to like; to love’ (KMZ284) ńojkə-səkə ‘pretty, alluring’ (KMZ119) ] ‘to cheer up sy’ (KMZ32) ńojkə-btu-suəďəə-ińə [V -P P -P P S 1] ‘allure’ (HM103) ŋəńən-səkə ‘1. interesting; 2. surprised, wonderful’ (KMZ145, H65) ŋirmi-nti-sjiə [V -P -S 3] (MU35) ŋirmi ‘noise’ (KMZ133) ŋənün-sja [I ] ‘to be surprised’ (T177, T223) ŋənün-sja [N ] ‘astonishment’ (T47, T60, T65, T114, B61) hïïlən-səgə ‘fearful’ (KMZ209) hïï-:hïïmsï ‘to get frightened’ (KMZ209), hïï-msja ‘fright’(KMZ209) saləsəkə ‘difﬁcult’ (KMZ147) No other data ŋirmin-səkə ‘noisy’ (KMZ133) — 54 — Szeverényi S. Derivational sufﬁxes as/or classiﬁers? – the word-formation of the Nganasan adjectives A suffix -Kə can also be identified (Wagner-Nagy 2002:87): ďiľsjiti-kə ‘obedient’ (KMZ41) ďilsjiti-sji ‘to listen (to sy), to obey’ (T34, MU29, Ma74, KNS183, SN8, T37) ďamələ-kə ‘muddled, difﬁcult’ (KMZ55) No other data maansə-kə ‘interesting’ (KMZ93) maansjüčüə [P I ] (KMZ93); mansjündüɁ [P I -P ] (JN9); maansəgubtusa ‘to be interested in’ (KMZ93); maansə usa ‘to be interested in’ (KMZ93) ńəŋkərə-kə ‘guilty’ (KMZ111, HM125, C58, HM95) ńeŋkaru ‘guilt, guilty’ (B35) miiɁni-kə ‘neighboring, close’ (HM73, HM75) miiɁa ‘here, to this place’ (KMZ355) məńələ-kə ‘interesting’ (HM42) məńünsa ‘to like, to love’ (T29) məńeľütü V K -S 3 ‘to like, to love’ (JN47) ŋə iɁtə-kə ‘right, well’ (HM91) ŋə itəsï ‘to be right’ (HM51, HM59, HM60, HM89, HM106) təbkələ-kə ‘stiﬂing, sultry’ (KMZ183) təbkələŋkə ‘choking, heavy breathing’ (KMZ183) təbkəľisji ‘to be tight’ (KMZ183) The following can be stated in connection with the group of adjectives formed by the affixes -CsəKə and -Kə: (1) The meanings of the words involving the suffix -CsəKə are more abstract – they do not express prototypical property concepts – unlike those involving the suffix -Kəə. These belong to the semantic types set up by Dixon (1982, 1991) and labelled with higher ordinals, expressing qualities pertaining to the domain of (‘difficult’, ‘interesting’, ‘offending’, ‘right, well’, ‘strange’, ‘dangerous’) or they may refer to human properties (‘obedient’, ‘happy’, ‘surprised’, ‘kind’, ‘attractive’, ‘guilty’, etc.). (2) The meaning of the derived form does not always correspond to the meaning of the verb (e.g. ‘to see’; ‘to say’ > ‘interesting’), so the derivation is accompanied by semantic change. (3) The suffix ends in a single ə, but its relation to -Kəə is still to be clarified. 5. Conclusion In this paper, some correlations between semantic domains of property concepts and their morphological markers have been established: domain & suffix -əKə . PROP. examples kolɨəgə ‘smell and taste of fish’, hotəəgə ‘smell and taste of onion’ etc. -ńəəgə kiribańəəgə ‘bread-tasted’, sɨrńəəgəə ’salty’ etc. -Kəə hirəgəə ‘tall, high’, ďürəgəə ’deep’, tantəgəə ‘wide’ etc. -Kəə (or -NTUə [P I ]) hekəgəə ~ hekutiə ‘warm’, merəgəə ~ meritiə ‘fast’ etc. -JKUə tusajkuə ‘black’, ďabakuə ‘red’ etc. C -Kə, - SəKə maansəkə ‘interesting’, (but mostly stative verbs) ŋamnantuə ‘hungry’, nujbajčutuə ‘sad’ The domains referring to and seem to appear as part of the domain of but, because of the limited number of their members they have not been considered here. The correlation between domains and suffixes is not exclusive, they may overlap, when, for instance, a suffix of also occurs in — 55 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) and in , e.g. kolsajkuə ‘long’ etc. The suffixes -əgə and ńəəgə clearly have their own domain. Nevertheless, it is far more important to observe the ratio of occurrence of these suffixes (especially in the case of the suffixes -Kəə and -JKuə) in a given domain ( or ) rather than the number of domains where these suffixes may occur, e.g. the large majority of the dimensional adjectives of positive polarity take the suffix -Kəə, however, compared to the overall number of adjectives supplied with this suffix their number is not too significant, but they are still dominant in the domain of dimension. Among the causes of such overlapping, the different productivity of the suffixes, the different degrees of semantic transparency of the derived forms and the unclear origin of the suffixes with their unclear etymology can also be mentioned. Although the correlations are strong and show strict tendencies, the suffixes cannot be considered as classifiers because they dominate only their “own” domain, but not exclusively. The phenomenon is unique in North Siberia, in the Uralic and Altaic and Paleo-Siberian languages: typological parallels have not yet been detected. Abbreviations: A = aorist G = genitive I = infinitive L = locative N = nominative N P I P S S = relational adjectival suffix = imperfective participle = possessive suffix = sensitive = singular Abbreviations of sources: B = Boľdt 1989 Ba = Boľdt 1974 B76 = Boľdt 1976 C = Castrén 1855 FN = Labanauskas 1992 H = Helimski 1997 HM = Helimskij 1994 JN = Aron – Momde 1992 KMZ = Kosterkina et al. 2001 KNS L01 Ma MU SK SN SNa T = Kosterkina et al. 1997 = Labanauskas 2001 = Mikola 1970 = Cheremisina–Kovalenko 1986 = Skazki 1976 = Skazki 1980 = Gluhij et al. 1981 = Tereščenko 1979 References Boldt . P. Imennoe slovoobrazovanie nganasankogo jazyka [Nominal derivation in Nganasan]. Novosibirsk, Nauka, 1989. Castrén, Mattias Alexander. Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen. St. Petersburg, Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1854. Cheremisina . I., Kovalenko N. N. Metodicheskie ukazanija k kursu “Obschee jazykoznanie» (na materiale nganasanskogo jazyka)” [Methodology guidelines for the course in “General Linguiatics” (based on Nganasan data)]. Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk State University, 1986. Dixon R. M. W. Where have all the adjectives gone? and other essays in semantics and syntax. Berlin, Mouton, 1982. Dixon R. M. W. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford, Clarendon, 1991. Gluhij J.A., Susekov V. A., Sorokina I. P. Skazki narodov sibisrskogo severa [Tales of the people of Siberian North]. No. 4. Tomsk, 1981. Gusev V. 2008: Nganasan texts. ms Helimski E. Nganasan, in Abondolo, Daniel (ed.). The Uralic Languages. London – New York, Routledge, 1998, pp. 480–515. Helimskij Je. A. (ed.) Tajmyrskij etnolinguisticheskij sbornik [Tajmyr ethnolinguistic collection]. Moscow, RGGU. 1994. Kosterkina N. T., Momde A. Č., Ždanova T. Ju. Slovar nganasansko-russkij i russko-nganasanskij [Russian-Nganasan and Nganasan-Russian Dictionary]. St-Petergburg, Filial izdatel’stva “Prosveshenie”, 2001. Sobanski F., Kosterkina N. T., Nagy B. B. Über die Tiere auf der Erde. Ein nganasaniscshes Märchen nebst Übersetzung und morphologischem Wörterverzeichnis, Néprajz és Nyelvtudomány 38: 1997. pp.157–199. Labanauskas K. (szerk.) Nganasanskij folklor [Nganasan Folklore]. Folklor narodov Tajmyra, 1992, 3, Dudinka. Labanauskas K. Nganasanskaja folklornaja xrestomatija [Nganasan folk chrestomatie]. Folklor narodov Tajmyra, 2001, 6, Dudinka. Mikola T. Adalékok a nganaszan nyelv ismeretéhez. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények, 1970, 72, pp. 59–93. — 56 — Szeverényi S. Derivational sufﬁxes as/or classiﬁers? – the word-formation of the Nganasan adjectives Momde A. C., Aron N. M. Jazyk nganasan [The language of Nganasan]. Norilsk, Tvorcheskij Kollektiv Argish, 1992. Szeverényi S. 2007. Tulajdonságfogalmak lexikai kategorizációja a nganaszanban. PhD-dissertation. ms Skazki narodov sibisrskogo severa [Tales of the people of Siberian North] No. 2. Tomsk, 1976, pp.37–44, pp.107–123. Tereshchenko N. M. Nganasanskij jazyk [Nganasan Language]. Leningrad, Nauka, 1979. Wagner-Nagy-Wagner-Nagy B. Die Wortbildung im Nganasanischen = SUA 43. Szeged, SZTE Finnugor Tanszék, 2001. Wagner-Nagy B. (szerk.) Chrestomathia Nganasanica = SUAS 10, Budapest – Szeged, MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet – SZTE Finnugor Tanszék, 2002. Szeverényi S., PhD, Dr, assistant professor. University of Szeged, Dep. of Finno-Ugric Studies. 6722 Szeged, Egyetem str. 2. E-mail: szevers@hung.u-szeged.hu а Е / Е Ь у а 20.10.2014. Ш. C e e Е Ь а Е ? , “ ” - . - . . Ц Ч щ - , . , etc. Ц : -əgə Ч -ńəəgə kolsajkuə ‘ « » . , , . , ч ы а: c а а , . . , - , щ К ’ - , аа , и и е а . . а а а . ы : , 1989. Castrén M. A. Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen, St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1854. Ч . ., : . . - , 1986. . « »( ). - Dixon R. M. W. Where have all the adjectives gone? and other essays in semantics and syntax. Berlin: Mouton, 1982. Dixon R. M. W. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. . A., . ., . № 4. . . , 1981. Gusev V. Nganasan texts. ms. 2008. Helimski E. Nganasan, in Abondolo, Daniel (ed.) The Uralic Languages, London – New York, Routledge, 1998. . 480–515. / . ., . Ч., . . . . . . .: - , 1994. - . .: , 2001. Kosterkina N. T., Nagy B. B., Sobanski F. Über die Tiere auf der Erde. Ein nganasaniscshes Märchen nebst Übersetzung und morphologischem Wörterverzeichnis, Néprajz és Nyelvtudomány 38. 1997. . 157–199. — 57 — Т жу а ЛИНГ . (szerk.) АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) // . 1992. 3. . // . . 2001. 6. . Mikola T. Adalékok a nganaszan nyelv ismeretéhez. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények. 1970. 72. . 59–93. . ., . . . : ,1992. Szeverényi S. Tulajdonságfogalmak lexikai kategorizációja a nganaszanban. PhD-dissertation. ms. 2007. 2. . . . .: , 1976. . 37–44, 107–123. , 1979. Wagner-Nagy B. Die Wortbildung im Nganasanischen = SUA 43. Szeged: SZTE Finnugor Tanszék, 2001. Wagner-Nagy B. (szerk.) Chrestomathia Nganasanica = SUAS 10, Budapest – Szeged, MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet – SZTE Finnugor Tanszék. 2002. , а а Egyetem 2. 6722, Ce e . E-mail: szevers@hung.u-szeged.hu - . — 58 — у а Е. Н. А а а а а а а . а XVII – XX а . Н. Е Е Е XVII – XX Е . Е , - . щ , . Е . К ч ы , уж а: у , у а , , ,а а у,у , , , . щ щ . XV ., - . . :« , , , . , , .Э , »( , 1999: 294). . , 2 ( – 1596 . ( 1598 ., , 1901: 31–32). 1598 ., . 1601 . 1000 , , 1998: 6), ( , 1998: 6). . . , 1999: 295). . . . . . , , 20 щ - ( - , . , ( ; . . . , XVI .) »( , 1998: 6). « , , :« , . . , , . , 1999: 295). . , 10 . , , ( . , ( , ). , , , . . , , - ( щ щ , , « , , 1997: 244). , » »( , , , 1882: 250). щ . ( 1602 . . ) , . 1602 . . — 59 — , , . . , - Т жу а ЛИНГ , АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) « », , . - , , , ( , . , 1901: 33). . , , . , , ( 1999: 295). 1618 . . , , , , , 1941: 40–41, 260; , ( , », « , 1999: 449). – 1606–1610 1660–1661 , – , 1619 . - , XVII . , 1618 . , , 1960: 91). ( , щ : . Ч , . . . , 1632 – . , . - . , , . , , . – 2007: 144). , . – , – щ щ . щ . , 6 , , 11 щ 88 , 1705 ., , 6- , щ . , , 1625 . , . . 1630 . 34 , 18 ( 23 щ , 36 .Э . – 130 . . , 1960: 187). ( 1675 . 1711 . - , . . . 1740 . . 2 ,6 . , « ». ( , ), 1885 . ( ), , ( . а На а Р ), ( - , ), », - ж а а а . , « , 2006: . 61). , а а а а .1 1775 ., . ( ж у а , ; , ( — 60 — , 1901: 34). , - у а Е. Н. А а а а а а а . щ , 1785 . , – а XVII – XX « ». 14 ( , XVIII . - . , , , , , , , , . . щ – , 2 ). 13: , , , 1901: 246). ( , . XIX . . 1892 . , 2006: , ( 101). - , XIX – . , . 10 1903 . , щ , , . , , , щ . щ « щ , . . : , , , . , . , , . , , , , , 150- , , . , , , , , ». ( щ , 2006: 96). 1917 . , . ( ) . 1920 . . . , ( , , , ) ( , 2006: 153). . , 2006: . 1921 . 4 159). 1923 . , , 24 : , , . , Ч , . . - 1930 ( . ( щ ( . ) , ( ) , , 2001: 171). 1939 , ( . - . щ ( щ , 1925 . ) 1932 . , , 2001: 85). , 1944 . . . . 13 1944 . – . – , 20 ( . — 61 — . ) . ( . ), Т жу а ЛИНГ . ( АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) ) . . , XVII–XX – – - .: ; , - , ( )– – - ; , , – - – , щ , – - ; ; , , , – - ; , , ( ) - . и . и е а : . . . . .: ы . / , 2001. 895 . : 30- . XX .): ( . . . . XVIII .) // 1. . 144–147. : VI . . . . . . ( 2007 . , 5–6 XVI – , 2007. Ч. XVII . ., 1960. 590 . . . , 27 XVI – XX , 1998. . 6–10. 1997 . . . : 2 . .: - . . : 2- . .: . . . . ., // – : .- . ., , 1941. . 2. 637 . . :5 , 1901. 17 . « » , : , 1999. . 1. 630 . - / . . . . . // XIX – , 2006. 446 . . .: 1675 : . .- . ., . а ы . , 60, , E-mail: termitpich@mail.ru . а ч , 634061. 60- . , 1997. . 239–256. . а а у а 29.09.2014. Pichugina E. N. ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE TERRITORY OF THE BASIN OF THE KET RIVER IN THE XVII–XX CENTURIES Addressing the issue of establishment of the relationship between the Russian population and natives of Siberia at the initial stage of formation of the power of the Russian state in this territory allows to reveal the prerequisites for the ethnic processes happening in the local ethnic environment in the XVII–XX centuries. The inclusion of local population in the structure of the large state was accompanied by assignment of duties to the population. This sphere was controlled by local administration. In this work we attempt to mark out the features of formation of a management system in Siberia and the extent of the influence of these transformations on internal development of local ethnic groups on the example of the basin of the river Ket which is the territory of traditional residence of the Narym group of Selkups (sussykum). — 62 — у а Е. Н. А а а а а а а . XVII – XX а The study of the relationship of the Russian administration with the Selkups of the river Ket revealed its dualism – on the one hand the state initially tried to cause as little harm as possible to traditional life. That is confirmed by the principles of national policy. On the other hand it sought to develop the economic capacity of the region, involving economy of Ket river region in the All-Russian economy. The economic (industrial) development of the territory led to the reduction of the number of the indigenous people, assimilation processes, exogamy, language loss, resettlement to the mixed settlements and acquiring of the Russian way of life. Key words: the Selkups, the Russians, tribute, the Ket river, administrative division, district, county, parish, foreigners, service people. References Arhivy Rossii. Gosudarstvennyy arhiv Tomskoy oblasti: Putevoditel'. Arhivnoe upravlenie administratsii Tomskoy oblasti GATO. Sostavitel' T. A. Anishhenko i dr. [Archives of Russia. State Archive of Tomsk Oblast: GATO. Editor T. A. Anishenko]. Moscow, Zven'ya Publ., 2001. 895 p. (in Russian). Vekhi paternalizma: sud'by korennyh malochislennyh narodov tomskogo Severa v sisteme Rossiyskoy gosudarstvennosti (nachalo XIX – 30-e gg. XX v.): sbornik dokumentov i materialov [Milestones of paternalism: fates of indigenous minorities of Tomsk North within the Russian state system (early 19th cent. – 1930s of the 20th cent): collection of papers and documents]. Tomsk, 2006. 446 p. (in Russian). Dobzhanskiy V. N. Opredelenie uezdnyh granits i printsipy formirovaniya uezdnyh territoriy Zapadnoy Sibiri (konets XVI – nachalo XVIII v.) [Deﬁnitions of regional borders and principles of establishing the regional territories in Western Siberia (late 16th – early 18th cent.)]. Aktual'nye voprosy istorii Sibiri: Shestye nauchnye chteniya pamyati professora A. P. Borodavkina, 5–6 oktyabrja 2007 [Issues in the history of Siberia: the 6th academic conferences in memory of professor A. P. Borodaykin. 5–6 October, 2007]. Barnaul, 2007. Ch. 1. p. 144–147 (in Russian). Dolgikh B. O. Rodovoy i plemennoy sostav narodov Sibiri v XVII v. [Clan and tribal constitution of the people of Siberia in 17th cent.] Moscow, 1960. 590 p. (in Russian). Zinov'ev V. P. Narymskiy kray v XVI – nachale XX v. [Narym region in 16th – early 20th cent.]. In: Narymskiy kray – moe otechestvo. Materialy zonal'noj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii g. Kolpashevo, 27 ijunja 1997 [Narym region – my fatherland. Proceedings of the academic conference. Kolpashevo, 27 June, 1997]. Tomsk, 1998. Pp. 6–10 (in Russian). Miller G. F. Istoriya Sibiri: v 2 tomah [History of Siberia in 2 volumes]. Moscow, Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR Publ., 1941. Vol. 2. 637 p. (in Russian). Miller G. F. Istoriya Sibiri: 2-e Izd., dopolnennoe [History of Siberia. The second edition, supplemented]. Moscow, Izdatel'skaya ﬁrma “Vostochnaya literatura” RAN Publ., 1999. Vol. 1. 630 p. (in Russian). Plotnikov A. F. Narymskiy kray: 5 stan Tomskogo uezda, Tomskoy gubernii: istoriko-statisticheskiy ocherk [Narym region (5th precinct of Tomsk district of Tomsk region: historical-statistical review]. St. Petersburg, Tipograﬁya V. F. Kirshbauma Publ., 1901. 17 p. (in Russian). Spafariy N. G. Puteshestvie chrez Sibir' ot Tobol'ska do Nerchinska i granits Kitaya russkogo poslannika Nikolaya Spafariya v 1675 godu [Travel in 1675 by the Russian emissary Nikolay Spafariy across Siberia, from Tobolsk to Nerchinsk and the Chinese border]. In: Zemlya Verhneketskaya: sbornik nauchno-populyarnyh ocherkov k 60-letiyu obrazovaniya Verhneketskogo rayona [The land of Verhneketsk: collection of academic-popular reviews for the 60th anniversary of establishing the Verhneketsk region]. Tomsk, 1997. Pp. 239–256 (in Russian). Tomsk State Pedagogical University. Ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634041. E-mail: termitpich@mail.ru — 63 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) А. Г. Ь Е « Е ( Е Е Е Е Е Е Е Е Е Ч , Е Ь ЧЬЕ- …»1 Ь ЧЕ ) ( ) . , щ . - , щ , . , щ К а . щ . , ( ) , , - , . ч ы а у а: у а. у , а , а , , , , щ ( , 2009; , 1956; , 1960). , , ( .I .: - ., , , . . . .) , ( - , 1956: 34). , XVII . , . - : , - . , , ( , , , , ), – , , , , щ . , , . - , , ( , 1956: 34–35). . , - , , , ? . . - , XVII ., , )? , – ( , - , ? , , . , щ – . щ , щ , . , , XIX – XX ( . - , 2007, 2010, 2012). , , , »( , . , « , 2009: 210). . 1 . « , . ( , . …» – , 1992). — 64 — . . . , , , Ту А. Г. «Ра ,а а у а …»... Ч , Ч , , , ( , 1950: 50–51). , - ( – « » - . . , « , , , 1997: 255). »( , . , ), , , , … . ( . , 1966: 94). , , XVI ., , , – . . . , XVII . - , , , , , . XVIII . XVII . , ( , 1956: 247). – щ , , , , , , , , , , , , – щ . . , ( щ 1812 . , щ « - , 1956: 274, 284). XVIII . . XVII – . , , щ . »( . - ., 1968: 366). , . XVII – . . . « 2009: 210). XVIII . , Ч , ( , , , »( , - , , 1974: 130). )( . XVII . щ . .: , . . « , , щ – ( », , - .Э , щ , – ), - ; , . .« »; , 1992; ( ё , - , 2011: 93). щ 1630- . , . ( ), , 2 ( , 1956: 57). , . 2 .: щ 1640–1641 . XVIII . , XVIII . , . . . . ., 1956. . 57–58. — 65 — Т жу а ЛИНГ « АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) , … » , . , . ( 58, 263, 270–271). 1677 . ( , 1956: 58). щ . XVIII . 17 , щ . , , 20 , , (. . щ XIX . , 1845–1846 . ( . ) « щ , щ . - щ , ( , 1956: , »– ). 1859 ., …, 1868 : 27). . ( , . - , 1845 ., 1846 .). XIX ., , , - . , « , …» ( , 1999. . 2: 131). , - , , - , : . XIX . щ , . XIX .: щ . 1891 . « » : . щ , . щ ) ( , . , , , ( 1891: 63). , « . щ , . . , ». ,– …» ( ,–« , 1882. , XX . ( . щ ( , 2006: 72–80). 1910–1911 . (827,19 ( щ 1917 . .« , , ) – ) , 51 (835,38 ). ; , ) . ё - . ). . щ :« ), ; » ( , . . ,« ( ). — 66 — - . щ , . , 1994: . 9 . .9 ) .Э (1605,24 ) 1 (16,38 ) 4 (65,52 , ( .9 ; 98 . , – ) , ,– . »( . - , (384,93 . . ,– , . XX . 19 , 18 ; 23,5 . ,6 (98,28 …, 1927: 538). . ) 9 50,5 (581,49 ) (196,56 ) 35,5 12 . IV: 8). . , - , … … . , 1994: », , 1994: Ту А. Г. «Ра ,а а у а …»... . щ (4 095 . 250 . щ . , ( ) , - . 21 (1801,8 ) ( , . . 1910–1911 ., …, 1927: 449). , XX . . ( 1910–1911 ( ., 695 180 …, 1927: 383). , 1920. щ , , , 23 % , - , , , - щ щ . - . , . , , , , , 92 1910–1911 . 493 , , , . …, 1927: 442, 449)3. , XX . щ . 110 1910–1911 ., 1555 , . …, 1927: 376, 383). , . - , ; .( ) - , . . 1920– щ . . , , , , , « . , », , , – , « , » ,– щ щ 1924 . , …, 2006: 167–168). щ . . . . , …, 2006: 200). щ , . - ( – ( - , – …, 2006: 167–168). « ,– , …» ( - , . . 1932 . ), ( ( - , 1992). . , , щ « , , , …, 2006: 159,161), 1920- ., »( 1910 . : . 260 ( щ щ 3 , - щ . . 61 , , , 1928: 27). . , . . . ( щ щ , . .- . . . ) – , , , , . , . . — 67 — - . . . , , - Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) щ щ , 1927: 27). , , , « », ( , ( 1930- . . , 1928: 27). 27,81 1933 . 5,40 ( ..., 2006: 369). , 1935 . , 1935 . - , щ 27,17 . , ( - щ 1934 . – 10,25 . . . , щ …, 2006: 369). « , » - - . , « , , , »( , - – , …, 2006: 162). щ 1924 . - 1920- ( « …, 1929: . 40). . . . . , », (12–15 ) 14 9,20 , . 1934 . – 20,2 ( – …, 2006: 297). 1920- . . , , , , . ( щ 9,2 , , - , 2011: 78). 1933 . ( , . ( 1930- . . 1933 . …, 2006: 369). . щ . , , , - , щ - , 1928: 45). . 1930 . ( щ ) , щ ( . 1931 ., 8,5 1932 . , 5 . щ щ ( 5 …, 1931–1932: . 37, 40). ,2 . , , …, 1931–1932: . 40 . щ ( . , , , 42). – , 1,5 , , щ , ( . - - « “» ( - 0,5 500 , 5,7 щ 1 000 .). 1933 . , , . , 1932 . …, 1932: . 1–2 1932 . , , , . , , …, 1931–1932: . 5). …, 1931–1932: . 4). 1932 . . , , 400 . 10 . „ , 20 ) - ), щ щ ( ( ( . , . , 1996: 126). , — 68 — 1933 . : – Ту А. Г. «Ра , ,а , , а …»... щ …, 1933: . 2). 1933 ., ( , …, 2006: 322). . ( . у щ , ( 1930- а - ). - - . . « : « ,– ). 1933 . : –1 1 800 ( » ; »( - …, 1933: . 18. 100 , – 800 , –1 …, 1933: . 79). щ – 100 , 300 , –1 , – 1934 . - . . … ». , 1996: 127). ( :« щ , , , - щ . . . , , . 1 , 1,21 0,087 . . 1, 35 щ – 10,7 щ . 0, 076 , 1,07 0,056 . . – , . . . .Ч , 1 щ щ . щ . . ; . , ( …, 1941: 18–19). щ . 24 . . ( , . щ – 1,42 13 , , 1,22 1941 . щ ), . 2–4, 7–8 ., 10–15, , щ - , 1941 . ( ). 3 . . 1 , 1942 ., щ ;9 , , 1620 . , 600 Ч ») . щ щ , , , 1942: – 4,75 , 2 600 . 42, 43). щ . , –2 . щ , . 0,80 , – 1200 щ « ( , , . » , 1999: 127). – , 1385 – 2,6 144 1942 . щ « . . , 1942: , - ( 69,5 » . - – , — 69 — - щ ; 16,3 – 9,5 ( щ , 10 « . 2 65 . 42–44). ( 30,15 . 37). 5,4 …, 1941: , 1152 ; 2,2 - . –2 ( - Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) щ XIX . щ . , . щ . , - – щ - , - щ . , - - . . щ щ . . , щ - , , ( , , . щ ( - ), , щ , . ) , . - и . ., 1968. . 2. . 364–385. . ., . ., и е а а . . . . . XVII // . . . . - . XVII–XVIII . // . ., , 1950. . 112. . 23–210. // . , . 30- . XX .). ( 1942 // / ( . . . – 991. , . 1. . 22. . . . – 991. . 1. . 160. . 1931 ., , , ; . // . . .–214. . . . – 747. . »; . 1. . 98. - « - » . 1. . 53. / . . .–747. « , 1932 .) // 1929–1930 , 1932 . // . 1. . 130. / // . XIX . – , 2006. , 02.03.33 – 01.09.33 // 1928–1929 , , 1974. . . . 1.01.33 – 1.08.33 . . . – 991. . 29. . – 1941 28.06.41– 14.07.41 // ё . . ., . , . . . . ё // . . . (1845–1849). . . . – 991. . 1. . 155. . 1. . 159. / . . , . . , , 1999. (1932–1949) // . . XVIII–XX . , 1996. . , 1966. . ., 2009. : . 1910–1911 ., , 1927. . . , . . . 94–107. , . , 1928. // . 5 . . . – 991. . , 2011. . 64–94. . . . 116–135. . . // 1897 // ( . XIX . – 30- . XX .). , . , 2006. . 72–80. — 70 — 5- - Ту А. Г. «Ра . . ,а ). . - , 1891 ., - - . . XX .). . . ) // ( а …»... , , // . XIX . – 30- у , 1992, 1994. ( ( а , 2006. . 62–65. 1675 . , 1997. . 239–256. . 1859 / . . . . ., 1868. . 60. . - . . 1920–30(TSPU Bulletin). 2010. . // . . . 9 (99). . 138–44. . . 1920–30. . - (TSPU Bulletin). 2012. . . (TSPU Bulletin). 2007. . 3 (66). . 161–168. . . ( - . // . (XVII а ы . , 60, , E-mail: agtuchkov@rambler.ru ) а ч , 634061. , 1920–30) // Э ( . . . ., // . . 1 (116). . 130–135. // . . . . - , 2011. . 72–119. , 1882. ). ., 1956. . . а а у а 29.09.2014. Tuchkov A. G. «IN THE OLD DAYS THERE WERE NO GARDENS AT ALL, AND NOW EVEN TWO GARDENS AIN’T ENOUGH…» (TOWARDS INTEGRATION OF AGRICULTURE IN THE HUNTING-FISHING CULUTRE OF MIDDLE-OB SELKUPS) The paper explores the agricultural practices of middle-Ob (Narym) Selkups. The agricultural practices in question imply the cultivation of soil for cereals and garden cultures. The discussion reviews possible sources of agricultural tradition in local Samoyedic population, estimated length of adaptation of agricultural skills, and the initial results of cultivation of cereal and garden cultures. In the process of the study, it was identified that until the XVII cent. the middle-Ob Selkups did not practice agriculture. The original culture demonstrated the typical forest hunter-fisher culture. The initial introduction of agricultural technology can be dated to the initial settlement of Russian population in the Narym area in the XVII century. The analysis produced a set of conclusions: regardless of isolated attempts, cereal cultivation failed to integrate into the Selkup culture for a variety of reasons; garden cultivation, as another external innovation, managed to integrate solidly, occasionally at the expense of the dominant traditional hunter-fisher economy. Synchronically, garden cultivation can be considered a stable component of the traditional Selkup economy. Key words: Selkups, agriculture in Siberia, innovation, cereal cultivation, garden cultivation, traditional food production. References Bocharnikova V. I., Zhidkov G. P., Kudryavtsev F. A., Safronov F. G. Sel'skoe hozyaystvo i promysly. Krest'yanstvo [Selkup economy and food production]. In: Istoriya Sibiri [History of Siberia]. Leningrad, 1968. Vol. 2. Pp. 364–385 (in Russian). Boyarshinova Z. Ya. Naselenie Tomskogo uezda v pervoy polovine XVII v. [Population of Tomsk region in the ﬁrst half of XVII cent.]. In: Trudy Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Proceedings of Tomsk State University]. Tomsk, 1950. Vol. 112. Pp. 23–210 (in Russian). — 71 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Boyarshinova Z. Ya. Zaselenie i osvoenie russkimi territorii Tomskoy oblasti v XVII–XVIII vv. [Exploration and settlement of Tomsk region by Russians in XVII–XVIII cent.]. In: Rodnoy kray. Ocherki prirody, istorii, hozyaystva i kul'tury Tomskoy oblasti [Native Land. Survey of nature, history, economy and culture of Tomsk region]. Tomsk, 1974 (in Russian). Vekhi paternalizma. Sud'by korennyh malochislennyh narodov tomskogo Severa v sisteme Rossiyskoy gosudarstvennosti (nach. XIX v. – 30-e gg. XX v.) [Epochs of Paternalism. Fates of native minorities of the Tomsk North in Russian State (early XIX cent. – 1930-s)]. Tomsk, 2006 (in Russian). Postanovleniya plenuma rayispolkoma, protokoly obshhego rayonnogo sobraniya, partyacheyki; otmetki o rabote e'kspeditsii «Krasny chum»; svedeniya o kolhozah po rayonu 02.03.33 – 01.09.33 [Decisions of the regional executive committees, minutes of the general regional assembly of the party ofﬁce: notes on the expedition “Krasny Chum” – information on collective farms in the region 02.03.33 – 01.09.33]. GATO. F.R.– 991. Op. 1. D. 22 (in Russian). Postanovleniya Tymskogo rayispolkoma 1942 g. [Decisions of Tomsk regional executive committee 1942]. GATO. F.R. – 991. Op.1. D.160 (in Russian). Protokoly obshchih sobraniy zhiteley yurt t/soveta dek. 1931g., yanvar', may, iun', 1932 g. [Minutes of general assembly Dec. 1931, Jan, May, Jun. 1932]. GATO. F.R. – 747. Op. 1. D. 98 (in Russian). Informatsionnye otchety rayinspektorov Socvosa o rabote shkol za 1929–1930 uchebnyj god. Otchet shkoly–internata «Verte-Kos» za 1928–1929 uch. god [Information reports of regional inspectors on schools 1929–1930 academic year. Reports of the boarding school “Verte-Kos” 1928–1929 academic year]. GATO. F.R. – 214. Op. 1. D. 53 (in Russian). Dokumenty ob obrazovanii pri s/s sektsii svyazi, provedenii remonta zdaniy shkoly i obshchezhitiya 1932 g. O rabote v shkolah rayona [Documentation on education for the regional government – maintenance works on schools and dormitories 1932. On the schools of the region]. GATO. F.R. – 747. Op. 1. D. 130 (in Russian). Statisticheskie otchety o rabote s/s i rayispolkomov. Svedeniya po uchetu naseleniya i naselennyx punktov Tym. rayona. 1.01.33–1.08.33 [Statistical reports on the activities of local executive committees. Population statistics for Tym region] . GATO. F.R. – 991. D. 29 (in Russian). Protokoly zasedaniy prezidiuma Tymskogo rayispolkoma. Oktyabr'–dekabr' 1941 g. [Minutes of the meetings of presidium of Tym executive committee. Oct–Dec. 1941]. GATO. F.R – 991. Op. 1. D. 155 (in Russian). Zaklyuchitel'nye otchety ob itogah posevnyh ploshchadey 28.06.41–14.07.41 [Summary reports on planting acrage for 28.06.41–14.07.41]. GATO. F.R. – 991. Op. 1. D. 159 (in Russian). Golovnyov A. V., Tuchkova N. A. Khozyaystvo [Traditional Economy]. In: Sel'kupy. Ocherki tradicionnoy kul'tury i sel'kupskogo yazyka [Selkups. Surveys of traditional culture and language]. Edited: N. A. Tuchkova, S. V. Glushkov, E. Yu. Kosheleva, A. V. Golovnyov i dr. Tomsk, 2011. Pp. 64–94 (in Russian). Kastren M. A. Puteshestvie v Sibir' (1845–1849) [Travels to Siberia]. Tyumen', 1999 (in Russian). Markov V. I. Iz istorii Tymskogo tuzemnogo rayona (1932–1949) [From the history of Tym aboriginal region (1932–1949)]. In: Voprosy e'konomicheskoy istorii Rossii XVIII–XX vv. [Issues in the economic history of Russia XVIII–XX cent.]. Tomsk, 1996. Pp. 116–135 (in Russian). Miller G. F. Opisanie sibirskih narodov [Descriptions of Siberian peoples]. Moscow, 2009 (in Russian). Narymskiy kray: Materialy statistiko-e'konomicheskogo issledovaniya 1910–1911 gg., sobrannye i razrabotannye pod rukovodstvom i redaktsiey V. Ya. Nagnibedy [Narym area: Proceedings of the statistical-economic studies 1910–1911, collected and processed under the supervision of V. Ya. Nagnibeda]. Tomsk, 1927 (in Russian). Orlova E. N. Naselenie po rekam Keti i Tymu, ego sostav, hozyaystvo i byt [Population of the rivers Ket and Tym, constitution, economy and housholds]. Krasnoyarsk, 1928 (in Russian). Pelikh G. I. Dosamodiyskiy tip zhilishcha narymskih sel'kupov [Pre-Samoyedic dwelling types of Narym Selkups]. In: Voprosy arkheologii i e'tnograﬁi Zapadnoy Sibiri [Issues in archeology and ethnography of Western Siberia]. Tomsk, 1966. Pp. 94–107 (in Russian). Plotnikov A. Svedeniya ob inorodtsah Narymskogo kraya, sobrannye zemskim zasedatelem 5-go uchastka Tomskogo okruga dlya okruzhnogo ispravnika 5 dekabrya 1897 g. [Notes on aboriginal population of Narym area colleted by the local administrator of the 5th district of Tomsk region for the regional supervisor Dec. 5, 1897]. In: Vekhi paternalizma. Sud'by korennyh malochislennyh narodov tomskogo Severa v sisteme Rossiyskoy gosudarstvennosti (nach. XIX v. – 30-e gg. XX v.) [Epochs of Paternalism. Fates of native minorities of the Tomsk North in Russian State. (early XIX cent. – 1930-s)]. Tomsk, 2006. Pp. 72–80 (in Russian). Polevye materialy N. A. Tuchkovoy [Field Notes of Tuchkova N. A.] 1992, 1994 (in Russian). Sidonskiy Aleksandr (svyashchennik). Iz opisaniya poezdki preosvyashcheyneyshego Makariya, episkopa Tomskogo i Semipalatinskogo, v Narymskiy kray dlya obozreniya tserkvey i poseshcheniya inorodtsev, zhivushchih po r. Keti do Ob'-Eniseyskogo kanala v iule-avguste 1891 g., o prebyvanii v sele Ketnom [Sidonsky Aleksandr (priest). From the descriptions of the travel of the Archbishop of Tomsk and Semipalatinsk to the Narym area for observation of churches and visitation of aboriginal people along the rivers Ket up to the Ob-Yenissei channel, Jul–Aug 1891, on stationing in the village of Ketnoe. In: Vekhi paternalizma. Sud'by korennyx malochislennykh narodov tomskogo Severa v sisteme Rossiyskoy gosudarstvennosti (nach. XIX v. – 30-e gg. XX v.) [Epochs of Paternalism. Fates of native minorities of the Tomsk North in Russian State (early XIX cent. – 1930-s)]. Tomsk, 2006. Pp. 62–65 (in Russian). — 72 — Ту А. Г. «Ра ,а а у а …»... Spafariy N. G. Puteshestvie cherez Sibir' ot Tobol'ska do Nerchinska i granits Kitaya russkogo poslannika Nikolaya Spafariya v 1675 godu (fragment). Zemlya Verkhneketskaya. [Travels by the Russian Envoy Nikolay Spafariya in 1675 across Siberia from Tobolsk to Nerchinsk and up to the Chinese border]. Tomsk, 1997. Pp. 239–256 (in Russian). Spisok naselyonnykh mest Rossiyskoy imperii. Spisok naselyonnyx mest po svedeniyam 1859 g. Obrabotan V. Zverinskim [List of settlements of the Russian Empire. List of settlements for 1859. Edited by V. Zverisnkiy]. Tomskaya guberniya. SPb., 1868. Vol. 60 (in Russian). Tuchkov A. G. Innovatsii 1920–30-x gg. v hozyaystvennoy zhizni sel'kupov i ih posledstviya dlya traditsionnoy kul'tury [Innovations in 1920–30 in Selkup economy and their consequences for trandtional culture]. TSPU Bulletin, 2010, no. 9 (99), pp. 138–44 (in Russian). Tuchkov A. G. Traditsionnoe rybolovstvo sredneobskih sel'kupov v period radikal'nyh e'konomicheskih izmeneniy 1920–30-x godov [Traditional ﬁshing in middle-Ob Selkups during radical economic change 1920–30]. TSPU Bulletin, 2012, no. 1 (116), pp. 130–135 (in Russian). Tuchkov A. G. Faktory formirovaniya yazykovoy situatsii u yuzhnyh (narymskih) sel'kupov v 1920–30-e gody [Factors in the formation of language situation in southern (Narym) Selkups in 1920–30]. TSPU Bulletin, 2007, no. 3 (66), pp. 161–168 (in Russian). Shatilov M. B. Ostyako-samoedy i tungusy prinarymskogo rayona (Putevye zametki) [Ostyak-Samoyeds and Tungus people of trans-Narym area (Travelling notes)]. E'tyudy Severa. Tomsk, 2011. Pp.72–119 (in Russian). Shostakovich B. Promysly Narymskogo kraya [Food production in Narym area]. In: Zapiski ZSO RGO [Notes of ZSO RGO]. Omsk, 1882 (in Russian). Shunkov V. I. Ocherki po istorii zemledeliya Sibiri (XVII vek). [Surveys of agriculture in Siberia – XVII cent.]. Moscow, 1956 (in Russian). Tomsk State Pedagogical University. Ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061. E-mail: agtuchkov@rambler.ru — 73 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Ря ЧЕ Е а М. . Е Е ЕЕ Е : Е - щ . щ ( . щ , – - щ , , . ), - , . К ч ы а а: а , а а , а а, а а а , а а а, а щ , щ а а а, . щ - , , . , , , , - . , , , , , , щ . , . , . . , щ , , , - , , , , . щ , щ . , щ . щ , , , , , , , Ц щ ), , - , щ . , щ ( , - – . - .Ц щ щ . - , щ . , , . , Э щ « », щ , – . , , щ щ , . - . щ . , , - . щ . . , , . — 74 — , - , щ - Р а . .А а : , . щ щ , , , « » , . щ , ( , , , (« - щ щ щ », «Ч » ). щ , , , . .). , , , . . , , , , , щ : , . щ , - . , , , : , - , . . щ . . щ - , , щ щ , . . . . ) . щ щ , . , , », « « , » - ( , , . , - . , щ ё щ . , . щ « щ , , . - » (Erlkönig), . , , - , , . - . , , , , , . . , .Э , , , « » « . . , » , , . . « . , , »( , . .: щ , 2006) . щ , , - , . : , . . , - . ? , . , , — 75 — - Т жу а ЛИНГ . , , , . . щ , , ) ( , 2009). ( АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) , – ( - ). . ( , щ щ , . ) , , ) ( , , , . , , , , . : , :« , - , . - , , »( , 2005: 582). , , , - . , − , , . .Ч , , щ - щ , , - . , . щ . , - , . , , . , , , . щ « щ щ , » щ . , . , , - , . , , . , , , щ , ( , ). щ , . , , , щ , щ . , , , , . , , , , щ , - , , . , , , . - , , . , щ , , . , , . щ , . — 76 — - щ , Р а . .А а : , , . и . . . .: . . . Э., а ы . , 68, , E-mail: ryabovame@mail.ru ы , 2009. 336 . . .: / М и е а , 2005. 664 . . . . 2- , . . . . , ., . . : . - , 2006. 382 . а ё а. , 430005. а а у а 12.10.2014. Ryabova M. E. AXIOLOGICAL DOMINANT IDEAS OF THE MORDVINIAN AND GERMAN ETHNIC GROUPS: THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES The problem of axiological preferences of the Finno-Ugric ethnic group (Mordvinian) against cultural peculiarities of German ethnic group as exemplified in the folk tales is discussed. In the tale reality the axiological norms function as an ideal model of a person that has to stabilize the given type of the society. The guides and differences in the basic maxims of nationally marked axiological system of Mordvinian and German community are defined. Similarities are defined by close connection to the nature, the forest, special love to the tree (the oak). Specific features are embodied in the different world perception. For the Mordvinian people the forest is positively depicted because the forest, the nature, the person mean the life and the shelter from the disaster and the evil. German people take the forest as bearing hostility and even fatal danger. Syncretism in Mordvinian thinking brings syncretism in language categories and defines the person as not separated out from the outside forces. But in the German mentality autonomy of the individual who makes decisions himself confirms as the social value that is a condition of the happy life. The German tale creates the axiological model in which the person is a free individual not lacking in creation as an individual is in the fullness of existence. Axiological model of the Mordvinian tale is implemented in the idea about some force which includes magic that rules reality, can punish for unkind acts and reward for dignified behavior. Orientation of the person’s activity depends on preferences, meanings and existence values that although change from one epoch to another but are established by the traditions of ethnical communities. Key words: axiological system of the ethnical group, ambivalence, folk tale, world view, language categories, axiological preferences, program of the action. References Propp V. Ya. Istoricheskie korni volshebnoy skazki [The historical roots of the fairy tale]. oscow, Labirint Publ., 2009. 336 p. (in Russian). Sztompka P. Sotsiologiya. Analiz sovremennogo obshchestva [Sociology. Analysis of modern society]. oscov, Logos Publ., 2005. 664 p. (in Russian). Mordovskie narodnye skazki [Mordvinian folk tales]. Collected and processed K. T. Samorodov. Ed. 2nd, ext. and rev. Saransk, Mordovskoe kn. izd-vo Publ., 2006. 382 p. (in Russian). Ogarev Mordovia State University. Ul. Bolshevitskaya, 68, Saransk, Republic of Mordovia, Russia, 430005. E-mail: ryabovame@mail.ru — 77 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Н. ., Ш . А. Е : Е Е Ь . , . - - . К ч ы а а а: а а а ,а , , , - щ у а а, а, щ , , – щ . , , , щ :« , ? . 15). , . 2, . 15). [ , 2011: . 24, . 14). ... 1980). ( ( . 188) щ , »( :« . . ( . 189), , , . . ( . 228, 234, 239, 258, 261, 274). , , щ - , ], щ XVIII . . 26, 33), , , : ?» ( :« , Э , , 2011: »( ( , , , , « » , 2011: . 29, . . - у . , ( . 218, 267), , - щ - , . . . - . , . . щ , . « ( » ) - , , , , , - . , , . , « ( щ , щ ), , »( , щ . щ . — 78 — - , 2006: 68). - Н. ., Ш Е. А. А у а а... . , , , , . щ , .Э - - . , - , , . , щ , - . , , . , , . . , . , , , . . . , - , , щ ( - , ). . , - , . , . - щ , .Ч . . , , , - , ( ), , . , . - , . . . - . , , щ , , : , щ , . , . , , . . , , - , - . . . - . . , щ , . — 79 — - Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) щ , - . - . щ . , . « - » . ( , , 2005: 28). , . . , , - . .Э , . щ , , щ , . . - , щ . , - . и , .« , .« ». . : ». . ., . : . .: . ., ы , 30, : , . ., а , 55, а , а ы , 634050. . . . . .: . ., 1980. . I. 328 . . 2006. № 4. . 68–72. , , 634050. , 2011. 1408 . - , 2005. 688 . / а ы . , 2, , 634050. E-mail: fra_nickolas@list.ru . . .: : а , 2011. 1408 . . .: // а ы . . . а . и е а . . . . . - . а ч . , За а а . - . а а у а 25.11.2014. Demidov N. V., Schmidt . А. ANTHROPOLOGY OF LABOR LAW: SETTING OF RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE The article outlines the basic perspective research in anthropology of labor law as an independent branch of anthropology of law. In the article the most significant issues of concern are developed. The authors propose the thesis of bio-anthropological evolutionary factors of modern labor law and labor relations. Apart from contributing to the basic knowledge, the anthropology of labor law serves practical functions. The studies of labor law in human evolution allow to deduce the long-term tendencies in the development of labor law, including the correlations between legal norms and human biology, cognition and basic interactions with the environment, developing social networks. It is justified thus to state that the labor law is determined by anthropological — 80 — Н. ., Ш Е. А. А у а а... factors. The soft definition would state if not the determination, but at least the anthropological logic in the historical development and the modernity of legal regulation of social and labor relations. The understanding of such factors allows to solve the conflicts widespread in labor law, which are notoriously difficult within formal jurisprudence means. Key words: anthropology of law, anthropology of labor law, human evolution, history of labor legislation. References Vetkhiy zavet. Kn. “Bytie” [Old Testament, Vol. «Being»]. Quoted in: Bibliya. Sovremenniy russkiy perevod – Bible. Modern Russian translation. Moscow, Russkoe bibleyskoe obshchestvo Publ., 2011. 1408 p. Vetkhiy zavet. Kn. “Vtorozakonie” [Old Testament, Vol. «Deuteronomy»] Quoted in: Bibliya. Sovremenniy russkiy perevod – Bible. Modern Russian translation. Moscow, Russkoe bibleyskoe obshchestvo Publ., 2011. 1408 p. Dobrenkov V. I., Kravchenko A. I. Sotsial’naya antropologiya [Social Anthropology]. Moscow, INFRA-M Publ., 2005. 688 p. (in Russian) Zakony Hammurapi [Laws of Hammurabi]. Quoted from: Hrestomaiya po istorii drevnego Vostoka – Reader on the history of the ancient East. Ed. by M.A. Korostovtsev. Moscow, Vysshaya shkola Publ., 1980, vol. I. 328 p. (in Russian). Lebedev V. M. Sotsiologicheskaya shkola trudovogo prava [Sociological school of labor law]. Pravovedenie – Jurisprudence, 2006, no. 4, pp. 68–72 (in Russian). Demidov N. V. National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University. Pr. Lenina, 30, Tomsk, Russia, 634050. Western Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Justice Pl. Lenina, 2, Tomsk, Russia, 634050. E-mail: fra_nickolas@list.ru Schmidt E. A. Institute of Social-Humanities Technologies. Ul. Belinskogo, 55, Tomsk, Russia, 634050. — 81 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Ч ЕЕ Ч (03.08.1941–19.08.2014) . , , , , , , . - - . , , , - . - , , . - щ , , щ , , , щ . – щ , ё , щ , , - , , , - . , , , – щ щ , щ – , . - , , , . щ , , . , . . И. . а , Н. Н. Ш Л. А. Ша а, Н. . у И у а — 82 — а, И. . а а, А. А. а а, . . а, А. Е. А , , РАН Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) Ы . . – , , 30, Т . Т , 634050 , , . , 2, Т , 634050 E-mail: fra_nickolas@list.ru . . – , Т , 60, Т . , , 634061 Т , 634050 . , 30, Т , E-mail: lemskaya@tspu.edu.ru . . - – , E-mail: mmekheda@mail.ru Е. . – , Т . . , 60, Т , , 634061 E-mail: egyptcat17@gmail.com . . – А , . ., 1/1, E-mail: julianor@mail.ru Е. . – , Т . , 60, Т , E-mail: termitpich@mail.ru . . , 125009 , 634061 – , ё . . . . , 68, E-mail: ryabovame@mail.ru . . – , , , . . , 8, E-mail: siya_irina@mail.ru C e e Ш. Т . . – , А. . – – Т , 634050 , Т – Е. А. , 634061 , . , 28, , E-mail: nadia.krass@gmail.com Ш - , . , 60, Т , E-mail: agtuchkov@rambler.ru . . А , 630090 , Egyetem 2. 6722, Ce e E-mail: szevers@hung.u-szeged.hu . , 30, Т , E-mail: kogutei@yandex.ru Т , , 650000 – . , 55, Т Т , , 634050. — 83 — , 430005 Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) AUTHORS Demidov N. V. – National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University Pr. Lenina, 30, Tomsk, Russia, 634050 Western Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Justice Pl. Lenina, 2, Tomsk, Russia, 634050 E-mail: fra_nickolas@list.ru Fedotova N. L. – Kuzbass State Technical University Ul. Vesennyaya, 28, Kemerovo, Russia, 650000 E-mail: nadia.krass@gmail.com Lemskaya V. M. – Tomsk State Pedagogical University Ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061 National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University Pr. Lenina, 30, Tomsk, Russia, 634050 E-mail: lemskaya@tspu.edu.ru Mekheda M. I. – independent researcher E-mail: mmekheda@mail.ru Moiseeva E. Yu. – Tomsk State Pedagogical University Ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061 E-mail: egyptcat17@gmail.com Normanskaja J. V. – Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences B. Kislovskii per., 1/1, Moscow, Russia, 125009 E-mail: julianor@mail.ru Pichugina E. N. – Tomsk State Pedagogical University Ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061 E-mail: termitpich@mail.ru Ryabova M. E. – Ogarev Mordovia State University Ul. Bolshevitskaya, 68, Saransk, Republic of Mordovia, Russia, 430005 E-mail: ryabovame@mail.ru Schmidt E. A. – Institute of Social-Humanities Technologies Ul. Belinskogo, 55, omsk, Russia, 634050. Seljutina I. Ja. – Institute of Philology, SiberianBranch Russian Academy Ul. ac. Nikolaeva, 8, Novosibirsk, Russia, 630090 E-mail: siya_irina@mail.ru Szeverényi S. – PhD, Dr, assistant professor University of Szeged, Dep. of Finno-Ugric Studies 6722 Szeged, Egyetem str. 2 E-mail: szevers@hung.u-szeged.hu Tokmashev D. M. – National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University Pr. Lenina, 30, Tomsk, Russia, 634050 E-mail: kogutei@yandex.ru Tuchkov A. G. – Tomsk State Pedagogical University Ul. Kievskaya, 60, Tomsk, Russia, 634061 E-mail: agtuchkov@rambler.ru — 84 — Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) ВА К МА АВ М МК В« М К М К А ВА В А АМ, КА А К » : tjla@tspu.edu.ru. (docx/doc – 1- : ). ( 10 , – 2( ( . . . ), ( ). –1 ( ) ), , ), . . . , , ( - ( - , , e-mail; , , ( ) ( , pdf). , , ). : – 1- ( ). ( . . . , – 2–1 ( ( ). ), ), , ), . . . ( ) ( , , ( ) 10 , , , , e-mail; , , , ). : – 1- ( ). ( . . . ( ) 10 , – 2- ( ), ). , ( ( –1 ), 16 , , , , e-mail; , , . . . ( ) ( ( DOCX/DOC MS Excel, PDF. , Times, JPEG . , ). 4( .) 1,5) , ), , 14, TIFF – 2 , - , - . Ц ( ). : (Hajdu, 1970: 136). — 85 — - Т жу а ЛИНГ АНТР. Tomsk Journal LING & ANTHRO. 2014. 4 (6) REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE “TOMSK JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS AND ANTHROPOLOGY” Submissions for publication are accepted electronically in two formats (MS.DOC and Adobe.PDF) at tjla@tspu.edu.ru For the submissions in Russian: – the first file in Russian: Full Name of the author(s), Title of the paper, abstract (upto 10 lines), keywords, text of the paper, Bibliography (List of Sources), work address of the author(s), degree, academic titles, academic post, e-mail address. – the second file in English: Full Name of the author(s), Title of the paper, abstract (upto 1 page), keywords, work address of the author(s). For the submissions in English: – the first file in English: Full Name of the author(s), Title of the paper, abstract (upto 10 lines), keywords, text of the paper, Bibliography (List of Sources), work address of the author(s), degree, academic titles, academic post, e-mail address. – the second file in Russian: Full Name of the author(s), Title of the paper, abstract (upto 1 page), keywords, work address of the author(s). For the submissions in German: – the first file in German: Full Name of the author(s), Title of the paper, abstract (upto 10 lines), keywords, text of the paper, Bibliography (List of Sources), work address of the author(s), degree, academic titles, academic post, e-mail address. – the second file in Russian or English: Full Name of the author(s), Title of the paper, abstract (upto 1 page), keywords, work address of the author(s). The volume of the submission generally should not exceed 16 A4 pages (including Bibliography, Graphs, Tables, etc) and has to be formatted (Times New Roman, 14pt, line spacing 1,5, all margins 2cm), and saved as MS.DOC and Adobe.PDF files. Graphs, Figures are to be either in JPEG or TIFF formats, while Diagrams maybe in MS Excel format, all submitted as separate attached files. Cited bibliography and sources are to be listed alphabetically (Russian sources are accompanied by transliteration). References in the text are to show in Parentheses (e.g. (Hajdu, 1970: 136)). — 86 —

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology. Tomsk: TSPU-Press. №4(6), 2014. // Томский журнал лингвистических и антропологических исследований. Томск: ТГПУ. №4(6), 2014.

Tomsk Journal of Linguistics and Anthropology. Tomsk: TSPU-Press. №4(6), 2014. // Томский журнал лингвистических и антропологических исследований. Томск: ТГПУ. №4(6), 2014.

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS