The relationship between the Türkic and Mongolic languages remains a hot topic, although the discussion could have tapered down two centuries ago, after publication of the Chinese annals by J. de Mailla (1669-1748), who in the 18-th century published a French translation in 12 volumes: Histoire générale de la Chine, ou Annales de cet Empire; traduit du Tong-kien-kang-mou par de Mailla, Paris, 1777-1783. The annals made known a key fact: in 93 AD, 500,000 Huns (or 100,000 families, or 15% of the Hunnic state population) joined an unknown number of the Syanbi Mongols. Through the centuries, Mongols are known to be a not numerous group compared with all their neighbors. Manipulating Türkic and Mongolic demographic data, it is not hard to come to a conclusion that the Türkic tribes of the Hunnic Confederation outnumbered Mongolic tribes by a factor of at least 10:1. Nowadays the ratio is about 10:1, with 120 mln vs. 12 mln speakers, and there are many ways to come up with an order of magnitude estimate for the past 2000 years. Calibrated by numerous historical data and historical events, and crosschecked with the accepted demographic growth factors, estimates would invariably fall into this ballpark range. Another event replaced the western Mongol tribes which could be way more Türkic than Mongolic, with the eastern Mongols, whose language we call Mongolic today, and which was not as much Turkified or Mongolised ias the western Mongolic. There are way more reasons to seek Türkic in Mongolic than the other way around.

The genetic data weightily corroborates the demographic trend. Genetically, the Türkic and Mongolic people come from entirely different genetic trunks, both on the male and female lines. As far as the original languages, the two unrelated trunks of the Türkic and Mongolic people could not have a common “pra-Altaic” language. Not any more than any other genetic lines that are not direct descendents one from the other. Here the genetics sides with the party that argues for cultural influence against a genetic connection. Under a pan-Altaic hypothesis, the Türkic - Mongolic - Tungusic genetic unity is stipulated with no reservations, and the Korean and Japanese are added as a footnote, under a qualifier “possible”. The archeology contravenes the genetic connection, definitely so in the China-controlled territories, and extrapolates its findings to the Korean and Japanese origins. Archeology has detected an influx of the Scythian-type horse nomadic tribes into the Far East, into the area of the modern Northern China, extending as far south as the southern watershed of the Yellow river and as far east as the Liaoang bay coast of the Northern China, deep into the Mongolic and Tungusic lands of the late 3rd mill. BC. In the Central China, these Scythians go under a codename Zhou 周, starting from 2000 BC, without much amalgamation they coexisted with the local agricultural population, and culturally influenced the Far Eastern tribes. That influence predates the first Koreans and Japanese by at least a millennium. At their birth, the Koreans and Japanese already carried into their incipient cultures a load of amalgamated linguistic influence. The archeological finds also corroborate the thesis of the immense and mutual nomadic cultural and biological influence on the sedentary tribes of the Far East, and contravene the linguistic genetic connection. The linguistic Ursprache Family Tree model conflicts with the historical and physical records, which outright support the Wave model of the historical linguistics.

The following extract from the introductory section of the E.V. Sevortyan's Etymological Dictionary of Türkic languages lays out linguistic considerations that conflict with the paradigm of the Türkic - Mongolic genetic connection. The work remains an outstanding and ongoing work in Turkology, and these considerations remain acutely valid. The very fact that for the past two centuries the partisans of the genetic connection could not assemble a convincing paradigm, while the opposing side is attracting more and more interdisciplinary materials, argues against their position.

31
Verb-nominal stems

From the vocabulary of different languages have long been known that designations for many vital priority concepts, without which people could not do in the early stages of their social life, are derivatives derived from the nominal and verbal stems, i.e. the words that could have arisen in the language community only in a relatively late era of its existence. However, this did not attract a special attention and did not cause significant amendments to the theory of word formation. The general idea on the derivation of many word units in the ancient common Indo-European lexical fund remained essentially unchanged. And if the recognition of the verb special role in the history of the word formation characteristic of the earlier stage in the morphological studies of the Indo-European linguistics ¹²⁾ in the first decades of our time was replaced by advancing the nominals to the front ¹³⁾, nothing has changed in principle, since remained unresolved the incompatibility of the antiquity of the many realities indicated by the words with the relative newness of the morphological structure of these words.

In this regard the Türkic linguistics is no exception, although the state of the latter it is not identical to the situation in the Indo-European linguistics. In contrast, only in the first decades of this century in Turkology were formulated provisions for relative weight of the verb and the noun in the structure of the Türkic languages.

The classic Türkic linguistics, represented by the W.W.Radloff school, was limited by the recognition of the historical division of the lexical stems of the Türkic languages into nominal and verbal without further elaboration, that generally remained in the later time and was repeatedly formulated in theoretical works.

At the beginning of the 1920s prof. Jean Deny in his “Grammaire de la langue turque” ¹⁴⁾ put forward a position according to which the dominant position of the nominal is a specific feature of the Türkic languages. These observations were summarized in the area of the Türkic grammar, mainly morphology, and largely syntax, accumulated since the second half of the 19th century first of all in the Russian Turkology. These observations have identified the actual fact of the dominant role of the noun in the historical formation of the verbal paradigm, therefore, throughout the grammatical structure of the Türkic languages.

12) A.Pick. Vergieichendes Worterbuch der indogermanlschen Sprachen. Ein sprach-geechichtlicher Versucb. Abt. I.Göttingen, 1870, pp. 934-935. “was a time when the language, still unable to form names, consisted of verbal roots, or pra-verbs...” Much later the same wrote A.Meye, “The form with zero degree of the root meant the action itself, expressed with the root...”. Citing examples of Sanskrit vak “word” and Lat. uox “voice”, Lat. 1ux “light”, the author continues: “Here is disclosed the very essence of the Indo-European roots, which primarily denoted the action” ( A.Meye. Introduction to the comparative study of Indo-European languages. Leningrad, 1938, p. 268. First edition; Paris, 1903).
13) In modern times, this idea was developed in detail by E.Benvenist, “Of all the proposed theories on the verb and verb endings, the Hirt theory (see Indogermaniache Forschungen, XVII, p. 36 et seq.), which leads to a conclusion about the origin of their name, agrees best with our preliminary observations and the general principles that led to them” (E.Benvenist. Indo-European nominal formation. M., 1955, p. 204).
14) J.Deny. Grammaire de la langue turque (Dialecte Osmanli). Paris, 1920, p. 13 , note 2.
32

The J.Deny's position was later developed in the K.Grönbech study “Der turkische Sprachbau” ¹⁵⁾, which soon became the Western European theoretical platform of Turkology.

However, neither the grammar of the prof. J.Deny, nor the study of K.Grönbech gave an answer to the question about the ancient relationship between the noun and the verb, as both of them first of all had in mind the position of a nominal in a sentence, in a phrase, but not in the parts of speech system.

Another Turkologist sought an answer to this question - prof. W.Bang. In accordance with the ideas common in the Indo-European linguistics, W.Bang as a unifying idea proposed a verbal noun, which in his opinion combined verbal and nominal properties. ¹⁶⁾

Still in the middle of the last century (19th c.) to the concept of a verbal noun came close G.Kurtsius, but especially deeply and thoroughly this question was developed in the Russian linguistics in the works of A.A.Potebnya. ¹⁷⁾

However, it is not difficult to see that to resolve the issue of the role of noun and verb at the ancient steps of the word-formation process, the idea of the verbal noun can not be a guideline, because the lexical, and also grammatical base of the verbal noun is all the same verb, and its nominal properties have not a lexical, but a grammatical content.

Meanwhile, some facts from the Türkic lexus open other possibilities, different direction, or a path for study and finding a solution to the issue. In Türkic linguistics has long been noted monosyllabic homoform stems with both nominal and verbal meaning. So for example, L.M.Melioransky in his master's thesis noted that “...in antiquity the division of the roots onto verbal and nominal was not so clear in the Turkish (i.e. Türkic) languages as it is now”, that “...now too are roots with double meaning - verbal and nominal”. ¹⁸⁾ More than half a century later, one of the recognized Altaic theorists prof. G. J. Ramstedt also noted that “the name may be, so to speak, “conserved”, i.e. used as a verb and without with any particular ending, as is often a case, eg., in English language”. ¹⁹⁾

15) K.Grönbech. Der türkische Sprachbau. Köbenhavn, 1936.
16) W.Bang. Studies zur vergleichendea Grammatlk der Türksprachen. 2, Stück. Über das Verbum al- ’nehmen' als Hilfszeitwort. - SPAW, Jahrgang 1916, Harbband 2, 1916, p. 918.
17) A.A.Potebnya wrote: “So, the primitive nominal-participle could equal the present participle minus categories of time and mood.., in a language supposedly consisting in addition to pronouns of only participles and verbs (i.e. verbtum finitum - E.S.), both members of the sentence were differentiated much less than noun and verb in the current language. A noun was, so to speak, much more predicative” (A.A.Potebnya. From notes on Russian grammar. I. Introduction. II Components of the sentence and their equivalents. 2nd ed. rev. and edited. Kharkiv, 1888, p. 89).
18) Monument in honor of Kül-Tegin. - ZVORAO, XII, issue 2-3. SPb., 1899, note 22.
19) G. J. Ramstedt. Introduction to Altaic linguistics. Morphology. Мoscow, 1957, p. 179.
33

Even earlier W.Bang noted the facts of  the verbal-noun homonymy, ²⁰⁾ and later on the monument material noted K.Brokelman ^{21 )} and other authors.

As a result of observations conducted in multiple languages and numerously repeated, the Türkic linguistics has accumulated a certain amount of verbal-nominal homoforms, with mostly monosyllabic stems, which include cited in grammatical descriptions noun köch 'coaching' and the verb köch-  'coach, trek', noun toi 'feast', etc. and the verb toi- 'satiate', noun shish 'buldge, tumor' and the verb shish- 'swell', tyn 'breath' and tyn- 'to calm, rest', and a number of other homoforms with similar correlative relationships, i.e. the designation of the subject/phenomenon and parallel designation with the same form inextricably associated process/action.

The number of such homoforms cited in grammatical descriptions usually does not exceed several dozen. In the special studies, where this type of vocabulary is given a special place, their number reaches only 70 units, no more. However, a closer comparison of words forming homogeneous series, their number rapidly increases and continues to grow steadily with deepening of the morphological analysis of the homogeneous words.

The etymological analysis of common Türkic and intra-Türkic stems with obscured morphemic composition shows that in most cases a constant result of etymological research of the Türkic stems is homoform pair, often consisting of monosyllabic nominal and verbal stems. Among them are the roots, which phonetic shape probably has not changed much in the course of history. Almost regular character of this phenomenon raises a natural question: what we're dealing with?

The material accumulated to date and observations lead to a legitimate conclusion that monosyllabic verb-noun stems, primarily the roots, apparently form a large number of monosyllabic lexical stems, forming the base underlying the array of common Türkic and intra-Türkic lexicon.

In Türkic studies the lexical root and its concept significantly differ from what was said and is said about that in the Indo-European linguistics. During the 19th c. the question of lexical root remained among the central problems of the Indo-European linguistics, and researchers were returning to it every time again and again, as soon as science received new evidence on the already known or newly discovered Indo-European languages.

The concept of the lexical root in the Indo-European languages is known to have changed several times. For the linguistics' theoretical concepts in the first half of the 19th c., with the linguistic recognition of different structural types of languages (isolating, agglutinative, inflectional) as evolutionary stages from lower to higher levels was typical an understanding of the lexical root as a real word in the history of the Indo-European languages. This view on the root was repeatedly formulated in general linguistics, it is clearly laid out, in particular, by Max Myuller. ²³⁾

20) W.Bang. Vöm Köktürkischen zum Osmanischen. 2. Mitteilung. Über einiğe schallnachahmende Verba... Zweiter Anhang. - APAW, phdl.-hist. K1., No 5, 1919, page 35
21) C.Brockelmann. Oettürkische Grammatik der ielamiechen Litteratursprachen Mittelasiena. Leiden, 1954, § 147 d
22) B.M.Yunusaliev. Krigiz lexicology (Kirgiz?), Part 1 (development of root words). Frunze, 1959, p. 69 -78.
23). “Now, if we assume, - he wrote, - that each language of the highest form (inflected) passed through the lower forms, the root and spines, it seems to me, this implies that there was a time when the simplest elements of inflectional languages, and specifically the roots, were real words and were used for all purposes both in language and in thought processes” (M. Miller. Science of language (New series of Max Moller readings in United Kingdom Royal Institute, 1863). Voronezh, 1868 p.86).
“Adoption roots as the Indo-European, and especially Greek, Slavic, and others, does not involve slightest contradictions. Generally, they are quite similar. The first, the Indo-European, are real words not to a greater extent than the second, because neither the first one nor the others are in essence the words. They are extractions, but extracted not from the entire family of words... but only from the oldest family member in a separate language, as eg., in Greek or in the whole Indo-European” (A.A. Potebnya. From notes on Russian grammar, I, p.21).
34

By the time of inception of the neo-philological (young-grammatical) direction, that view was badly shaken and subsequently abandoned. In the Indo-European linguistics firmed and gained almost universal acceptance as a scientific abstraction a conception of a lexical root as a product of comparative historical analysis. In Russian linguistics, of the first papers relating to the matter under consideration, this view has its most complete formulation in A.A.Potebni.. ²⁴⁾ In our time, the Indo-European linguistics returns again to the idea of the historical roots as words. ²⁵⁾

The second important issue related to the Indo-European root, its initial verbal or nominal nature, was addressed above (see footnotes 12, 13). Unlike the Indo-European linguistics, no question has arisen in Turkology about a historical reality of the Türkic root, its lexical function as a unit of the Türkic dictionary. In Turkology, the lexical root has always been seen as a word equal with the other units of the dictionary, but with certain, when necessary, amendments concerning morphemic composition of the monosyllabic stems (such as bi-ch- 'pattern, cut', yiu-k 'burden', tso-p- 'fear', ör-t 'steppe fire', etc.).

Since the morpheme structure of many monosyllabic stems remains unclear, the term “root” is not devoid of conditionality. ²⁶⁾ Therefore, strictly speaking, in the considered case is legitimate to use the term “monosyllabic lexical stem.” A large part of such monosyllabic stems probably are the the roots and among them the verbal-nominal homophonic root pairs that constitute the central point of this section.

It is a good place to dwell on some semantic issues of such homoform pairs.

24) E.Benvenist, who advanced his theory of Indo-European nominal root, does raise the issue of its historical reality. However, the entire course of the author's evidence and arguments allows to see projection of real historical processes for the lexemes in the reconstructed developmental stages from a grammatically amorphous root with neither nominal nor verbal nature to the nominal and then to the verbal stem (E.Benvenist. Indo-European nominal word formation, pp. 201-204)
25) "The terms "root", "primal word" and "non-derivative word" have conditional and temporary significance. Despite the transparency of the Türkic morphological system, the comparative grammar of Altai language has not progressed enough to always know for sure whether an element belongs to a root or it forms a dead morpheme (not perceived by a speaker as a suffix)" (J.Deny. Principea de grammaire turque. Paris, 1955, § 226).
On the structure of the Turkic and Turkic-Mongolian lexical roots see detailed data at V.Kotvich (V.Kotvich. Study on Altaic languages. Translation from Polish. Moscow, 1962, p. 33-46).
35

Two points appear most important and principal:
I) the relationship between nominal and verbal members of the homoform pair and
2) the relationship of the homoform pair to the derivative stems formed from its members.
Between the verbal and nominal members of the homoform pairs exist the same relationship as between the verb of any affixal structure and the noun derived from it.

The derivative noun with respect to the producing verbal stem can have the following typical functions: name of the action/process or its attribute, name of the subject, object, instrument, result, place and form of the action or attribute of these categories.

Exactly the same semantical relationship exist in the the Indo-European word formation between a producing stem of a verb and a derived from it nominal, which was noted in the last century ²⁷⁾ and then numerously repeated in the scientific literature. Here are a few illustrations of the material from the Türkic  languages.

[Unedited paragraph, light font]

In Root homoformsah OQ - Lob-nor in § ion in all other Türkic languages, the verb means “ strelyat2 and noun - an instrument of action” otrela “ more modern ' pulya3 ; homoformsah in s and s in the Tuva - in several languages the verb means “ to bend “ name - “ slope “, in homoformsah kadh and kadh-(Kâsg. D.247) and ** ® means “ snowy byurya “, “ blizzard disastrous for the people *, the verb - “ to die from a blizzard “(in the Yakut - hi- “ Snowbound * Baking in homoformsah yen and yen - name means “ direction * verb - “ directed” (Yusuf ve Zeiiha, xxttr); homoformsah in CPC and syts name means in a number of languages “ frequent “, “ heavy “, the verb means “ squeeze” ; homoformsy and Har Har- in Chuvash means “ dry” and “ dry up “, “ die “, and uh jx- in Khakassia mean “ hear” and “ ear “, etc.

In view of the massive described facts no longer can be argued a random coincidence of the nominal and verbal roots, as believed K.Grönbech ²⁸⁾ and G. Ramstedt ²⁹⁾, who along with that recognized the “conversion“ of a noun into a verb (see above). We are not dealing with random coincidences, but in all probability with а system of word-formation belonging to the ancient state of the Türkic languages. Of the historical productivity of the considered system testify: the first - the borrowing, the second - coexistence of the verb-noun homonymy with agglutination, otherwise - with affixation, and the third - the semantical relationship of the root homoforms and derivative stems formed from them.

I. In ancient borrowing into the Türkic languages with definite regularity is observed the same trend as with the verbal-nominal homoforms of the Türkic proper. Next to the borrowed nominals (nouns or adjectives) is often found a verb in the same form, although the source language does not have that verb in that form. So, next to ash “porridge, food”, apparently borrowed from Middle Persian, some monuments of the south-western languages have the verb ash- “eat, to give food”; along with an Arabic noun ay(y)ash “playboy, jolly” (Baranov) in the Bulgarian Turkish (i.e. Türkic) dialects is found the verb  ayyash “rejoice, have fun“, absent in this form in the Arab language language;

36

[Unedited paragraphs, light font]

near Arbab Arab ' state counselors “(“ gentlemen “, “ head “ Baranov ^ ^) in starouzbekskom (Chagatai) language arbad - marked verb “ to give wise counsel, “ which is not in Arabic language, along with language borrowed from peroidskogo agaz “ beginning” (Pts / j ^ = jl * T * ^ ojUJ “start” GAFFAROV 147), widespread in the Türkic  literary monuments of the Middle Ages, in the comments to the Quran in the CD -XIII centuries. azraz the verb - “ start “ (Borovkov LT ^) along with borrowing from peroidskogo prilagatelnsh dilpur ' saddened ', ' sorry ' CJJj GAFFAROV I344) in a large number of Türkic languages (turk., kar.t.u kir., legs. kcal., kaz. tat., bash. etc.) common verb delmur - ~ - telmir Telmer, etc. with a meaning of “ miss “, “ sad * “ “ bored “, etc. along with a common Türkic monuments xrv-xrx centuries. Persian couple “ piece “, “part “, “ torn “ (GAFFAROV Ij2s) in the “Tale of the Prophets “ Rabguzi (XIV c.) The verb - grant “ break apart “, along with well-known in the Türkic languages prilagatelnsh Azat “ free", borrowed from Persian, in the same medieval monuments can be found verb azat - “ free", along with the widespread Arab borrowing Asik ^ ashuk, etc. “ Love", “ lover” in the dictionary Mahmud Kashgar given verb aşuk-» crave meeting, meeting with smb.  Etc.

II. There still are  more examples of parallel existence of the word-forming method of the root homonymy with agglutinative word-formation.

The parallel existence or coexistence means that at the last stage of its functioning, the verb-noun homonymy continued producing for some time a dictionary material, not the roots, but already in the form of the non-monosyllabic stems, formed by affixation.

[Unedited paragraphs, light font]

Wed : katy - “ hardening” (Ettuhfet.ıee) and kata “ solid “ from the base of the root - cat - “ congeal “, “ freeze “ in executions., Kir., Knots. and others ; jagH “enemy” and “ enmity “ (Malov HMKg5); tary ” Grain” and tary-»(for) sow” (Zaj ^ czkowski Qutb-i72) î eiders. yaky - “ approach “ and yakyn “ close “ in some yazykov formed from the verbal root is yakg heh meaning “ closer “ in the dictionary Mahmud Kashgar (KâSfe. d.751) j jVy aulak ► far “, “ remote “and aulalpıak “ deleted * (vâmbery ÖSpr.226 ^uiag “mount “ (any) and jUNy uiaijma ^ * to go, “ “ to sit on the horse “, “ travel” (v & nbery b8rg.22b); ati ^ ' known ',” famous “and jLL; 1 atikmak “have known “, “ to be known” (vAabery dspr.204); TYTYH- * Smoke “ in the dictionary Mahmud Kashgar (KSSğ. D.gyş) and mezhtyurkskoe tytyh» qui “ from the root verb here, also means “ smoke “; sen. hyayra * grindstone, “ “ bit - juice “[ cf. jJ ka ^ yr “Flint “, “ pebble “, “ round timber” Houtama ^., Tuv. hayyr “ salt marsh “ (in the mountains), yak. hayyr “ solid rock *, “ cobble “. “ rock “ Baking SH3249Z and Khair “ sharpen “, “ rub (something) on the surface of the wine press * (sr.hak. hayyr, “ sharpen “, “ edit “ “ beat “ - about spit); tyad »» every pole stuck in the ground, eg., hitching post “(etc.) and Kipchak. KZDA, “ drive “, “ hammer “ (LA Malov - grandfather); içkin “escape", “ sprout “ and içicin-» replant young trees * tour. dial. dd 2uy ; tour. etc. - utan “ ashamed “ and noun utan in several languages, a common root - ut “ shame” in Turkish and others; tour. usan-» I'm never bored “ and usan * S1dgka “etc.

The formation for the loanwords of the verbal meanings next to the nominal meanings, and coexistence of the root and agglutinative methods of derivation are fundamentally different from the pure root formation of word in its most ancient phase. The difference is that the verb-noun homonymy apparently covered during the era of its domination the entire proto-Türkic  language, whereas in the era of the Arab-Persian borrowing the system of the root homonymy already faded, and its declining productivity lived out its days in individual languages or dialects. At large, as a system it no longer existed.

37

III. The third proof of the historical reality of the root verb-noun homonymy can be seen in the semantics of the derived words formed from the root homoforms which usually includes their meanings or simply repeats the notions of the homophonic roots.

[Unedited paragraphs, light font]

A few examples. Noun Otsu ~ ~ eye of the oxy, etc. “ * read in Turkish, Azerbaijani, etc. verb oyug - oku ~ ^ - oxy -, etc. “read * formed from root homoforms 03” scream “and 05 - “ read “ (P 1 ^ 4) - ANCA “ gape “in several languages derived from the root homoforms ag ' yawning ' and au - “ yawn “; ora derivative with a meaning of “ pit", “ * moat in several languages and monuments formed from the verbal member homophonicoy couple 0 £ ~ - op, which also means a registered member of the “ pit “, “ ditch “and verbal'02 - “ dig “(pit, etc.); oyuts meanings “ depression “, “ hole “, “ recess “ is derived from the verb roots member homophonicyh oh ~ ' hollowing ', ' dig ', “ dig “and the second “ * depression, “ depression “, “ pothole “, etc.

Thus, the collapsing system of the root verb-noun homonymy was transferring the accumulated meanings to the derived forms. This is a general trend of the Turkish (i.e. Türkic) dictionary, the tendency to preserve in the lexicon the vital meanings, also manifested in the modern derivation.

The overlaping of the meanings of the root and its immediate derivative opens a possibility of revising the traditional views in the Mongolistics on the relationship between the common Türkic-Mongolian root bases. According to this widely known view, which was numerously repeated and illustrated in the works of the Mongolists and Altaists, numerous Türkic monosyllabic roots ascend to the two-syllable roots, preserved in the Mongolian language. Examples are well known.

However in the Türkic languages can be enumerated many dozens of the root stems, next to which in the same or another language and often in several languages are the same root stems with an additional vowel and without a slightest change in the meaning of the root stems. Many of these stems with additional vowel clearly ascend back to monosyllabic verbal or nominal roots. It is therefore possible that the disyllabic Mongolian stems coinciding with the monosyllabic Türkic roots should be regarded as derivatives, formed from monosyllabic verbal-nominal homoforms.

Unfortunately, the limited time did not allow the author to study the material of the Altaic languages under the considered perspective. But even a fleeting perusal of the recent lexicographical works on the Mongolian language, the F.Lessing's Mongolian-English dictionary ³³⁾ immediately furnished of a number of verbal-nominal homoforms, often late in the time of their formation education, which include:
38

[Unedited paragraphs, light font]

oil • swirl “, and “ a bunch of hair “ and oil-» circle “ “ form a swirl” (Lessing ^); * ty (n) / a “ worms “, “ larva “ and ^ ty-/ eteh “ develop", “ appear “ (larvae of) '(Lessing ^); th “ place “, “ B “, etc. and oru-» go “, “ go to Ryuto ',/come to a state/status ' (tai same, 620); uvzi' horn/bottle feeding AJ ' (Kladentsi) and uYzl -' feed the baby from a bottle * (ibid., 865); «■ to ? (duck)/UNH * 1uook “ ' kuoochek ', ' sip * and in the same form of the verb with enache -| | BEM ' lay in the mouth * ' capture mouth * ' * accumulate, ' collect * (ibid, p. 1313, “ 1007), etc.

Such examples from the Mongolian demonstrate that in Mongolian lexicon can be found lexical relations analogous to those formulated above.

Fairly many verbal-nominal homoforms are found in the Lamut (Evenk) language ³⁴⁾.

How should be viewed the described root verb-nominal  homonymy, the system of the verbal-nominal roots in Türkic languages, how is to be defined its historical position? It could be proclaimed to be just a Türkic version of the conversion process, among the Indo-European languages represented in most developed form in English, but also known in some other European languages, albeit in an incomplete form.

According to popular belief, the conversion (from the Frisian-Anglo-Saxon morphology) in English began at the end of the 13th century, and developed gradually, reaching its present state. ³⁵⁾ The conversion in English is growing, and not dying, phenomenon. In Türkic languages, the picture is quite the opposite. The greatest development and domination of the verb-nominal homonymy dates back to the deep antiquity., Therefore it is not surprising that most of the verbal-nominal root homoforms сan be reconstructed only by comparative or etymological analysis.

Towards our time, the role of the root homonymy decreases. It retains some productivity during the Middle Ages, and then as a tool of word formation gradually weakens and erodes. The remains of the last phase are found in the monuments or in modern languages with their dialects.

Thus, the described system operated at a stage of grammatical development of the Türkic languages when the elements of the verbal paradigm were only evolving, the modern conversion is impossible without it.

The ancient verbal-nominal homonymy in Türkic languages can not be seen as a specifically Türkic trait. On a larger scale and more regularly, the verbal-nominal homonymy as a living, still currently active system is innate (besides English) to a number of genealogical communities. The science has long known, at least since the time of W. Humboldt, ³⁶⁾ and repeatedly was described, though not in great detail, theverbal-nominal homonymy system in the Austronesian languages. In a number of grammars or grammatical works, for example on the Indonesian language, published in Russia and abroad, this phenomenon is noted as so far current system along with the aggutination.

34) J.Benzing. Lamutische Grammatik mit Bibliograpiıie Sprachproben und Glosear. Wiesbaden, 1955, pp. 139-248.
35) H.H.Amosova. Etymological stems of the modern English vocabulary. Moscow, 1959, p.83 ; S.M.Kostenko. Conversion as a method of forming verbs from nouns in English. PhD thesis. M., 1955, p. 11. - There are opinions about earlier origin of the English conversion.
36) W.von Humboldt, Über die Kawi-Sprache auf der Ineel Java... Bd; 1-3.Berlin, 1836, 1838, 1839. - In the middle of the last century M. Müller wrote, “In Polynesian languges almost every verb can be used as a noun or as an adjective without any external changes...  (M. Müller. Ibid., p. 84). See also: G.von der Gabel entz. Die Sprachwissensehaft, ihre Auf gabe, Method en und bisherige Ergebnisse. Leipzig, 1891. - The recent works emphasize the idea of a need for a more flexible approach to the concepts of the verb and noun  in the living languages, where such a division is highly conditional (see A.Martinet. Elements de linguistique generale. 24d. Paris, 1961, p. 142).
39

On the verb-nominal homonymy in in the Türkic languages can be legitimately said that as a system of word formation it belongs to the distant past of the Türkic languages; it would better to see it not as a conversion, but as an expression of  lexico-morphological syncretism inherent to the earlier stages of the Türkic languages structure. Can not however be excluded a possibility that the ancient verbal-nominal homonymy in the later periods in some Türkic languages (Turkish dialects, Old Uzbek, etc.) may had a tendency to grow into a conversion, but the conversion has not progress there.

Since the root verb-nominal homonyms can be considered as an underlying backbone of the agglutinative type Türkic vocabulary, it would be justified to class it as a phenomenon of pre-agglutinative word formation, which in such case should correspond an other, pre-agglutinative state of the Türkic  languages.

Additionally, the stratigraphy of large mass of common Türkic and intra-Türkic lexicon should begin with the tier of verbal-nominal roots, on which rest the following lexical layers.

Тhe foregoing contains the answer to the question posed in the beginning about the contradiction between the social and biological realities of high priority and the reflecting them concepts (or views), on the one hand, and their relatively late polysyllable verbal designation in the lexicon of the Türkic languages on the other hand. The root verb-nominal homonymy of the described type removes this contradiction, since under a layer of relatively late formed words conveying the essential notions is uncovered their verbal- nominal cradle.

The stated above about the ancient root verb-nominal homonymy justly follows a conclusion that at the etymological analysis of the Türkic stems the verbal-nominal roots should constantly be within a field of attention.

Еtymological analysis

The main task and the main result of etymological study is to locate the original morpho- semantic composition and structure of the studied stem, its most ancient forms and meanings, or its linguistic origin (source). Both the first and the second is associated with certain difficulties. The difficulties are diverse, many of them are occasional, however some problems are permanent, because require adherence to certain basic requirements, the most important of which are:
1) identification of a distinctive feature which formed the name of the reality;
2) identification of the internal form, or semantic structure named by the reality;
3) identification of the root morpheme of the etymologized base, very often unclear.

As for the candidate affixal morpheme in the etymologized base, almost always it is possible to find a corresponding marker in the word-formation models known to the science.

[End of citation]