Compiled by G. D. Sanzheev, M. N. Orlovskaya, and Z. V. Shevernina. Science. Edited by L. R. Kontsevich, V. I. Rassadin, and Ya. D. Lehman. In 3 vols. Vol. 1 (A-E). Moscow: IV RAS, 2015. 224 p.
If we assume that the Dictionary was completed in 1973, then its path to the reader turned out to be very long. M. N. Orlovskaya (1926-2016) and Z. V. Shevernina (1928-2002) re-corrected and supplemented the Dictionary in 1996. According to M. N. Orlovskaya, she included in it all the latest materials for that time, including those from the published works of B. Kh. Todaeva (1915-2015). At the beginning of 2000, in order to process all the materials for publication, the work on the Dictionary was transferred to a student of G. D. Sanzheev (1902-1982), a Korean scholar and philologist L. R. Kontsevich. L. R. Kontsevich developed the structure of the dictionary entry, developed methods for constructing dictionaries and dictionary entries, which are reflected in the structural and microstructural parts of the main body of the Dictionary (p. 5-7).
Then the Dictionary was handed over to the publishing house "Vostochnaya Literatura", where about half of the original file was entered by computer. The printout of the files was sent by the publishing house for editing to a major specialist in Turkic and Mongolian languages, Professor V. I. Rassadin (IMBT SB RAS, Ulan-Ude), who performed partial verification of them, and in some cases supplemented them with his own data on Chinese, Persian and other parallels. However, the publishing house was not able to carry out the publication for financial reasons, as there were no funds to pay for such a complex and lengthy work. The dictionary, preserved for many years, containing a unique rich material, remained inaccessible to specialists. Thus, the Finno-Ugric scholar V. V. Ponaryadov complained that "there is no manual on the Proto-Mongolian vocabulary" [Ponaryadov, 2011]; S. Starostin, A. Dybo, O. Mudrak could not use the valuable data of the Dictionary when compiling their "EDAL".
In early 2011, L. R. Kontsevich returned the Dictionary file to the Department of Languages of Asian and African Peoples of the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In addition, the publishing house handed over to the Department files with the materials of the first half of the Dictionary (letters A-M), their printouts with numerous editorial edits and various changes in the design of dictionary entries. Many files were corrupted. Omissions were found in some passages of the Dictionary. The Department decided to publish the Dictionary as close as possible to the author's manuscript, as it is presented in the original file, with minor text changes.
G. D. Sanzheev wrote a lengthy "Introduction" for the Dictionary (pp. 7-26), in which he considered the theory of morphology of Mongolian languages, clarified the question of the root (indecomposable) bases of words of closely related Mongolian languages in world Mongolian studies. According to G. D. Sanzheev, the key point in Mongolian (historical and modern) lexicology is
RADNAEV Vladimir Erdynievich-Candidate of Philological Sciences, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
page 217
the question of morphemic articulation of words that have now become indecomposable. The study of this issue will allow comparativists to compare Mongolian words with the corresponding words of other languages of the Altai family on a more reliable basis. Lexemes from ancient Turkic, Tungus-Manchu and other languages are analyzed on a large factual basis, taking into account the patterns of phonetic and morphological substitutions. G. D. Sanzheev analyzed the words of the Mongolian, Buryat and Kalmyk languages in transcriptions, found out the accuracy and approximation of their spelling in modern languages.
The author of" Introduction " refers to the Uyghur alphabet, which existed in Mongolia before 1945, as Old Mongolian. The Dictionary mainly deals with transcription patterns in modern Mongolian languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet. Languages and dialects of Inner Mongolia are considered in the Dictionary occasionally, only in comparison with the Khalkha-Mongolian language.
During the period of accelerated Sovietization in the USSR, the Buryat and Kalmyk languages were declared young-written, which fundamentally contradicted the actual history of the development of the written language of these peoples. This was done to avoid the territorial disintegration of Russia, which led to the introduction of Khalkha-Mongols into the system of the socialist camp and the strengthening of ties between the USSR and Mongolia.
The dictionary, whose core is Latin transcription as an organizing factor in the structure and arrangement of dictionary texts, is addressed primarily to Buryats, Kalmyks and Mongols (Khalkha-Mongols).
The annotation to the Dictionary states that such a publication "is the first experience of an etymological dictionary of root words of Mongolian languages." However, this is not entirely true. From the archive data of the scientific heritage of Prof. It is known that O. M. Kovalevsky (1801-1878) of the Kazan University was the first to compile the "Experience of the Mongolian Kornilov". This dictionary is anonymous. The name of the author was established by the Mongol historian G. N. Rumyantsev (1903-1968) on the basis of studying the manuscripts of the Kazan Mongol scholar. The manuscript previously belonged to the Kazan Theological Academy, to which it was handed over after O. M. Kovalevsky left for Warsaw. G. N. Rumyantsev described the dictionary as follows: "This is a thick notebook in a green cardboard cover, 25.5×20 cm in size, with 307 pages of text. The manuscript is well preserved" [Rumyantsev, 1947, pp. 139-142]. The manuscript of O. M. Kovalevsky is now kept in the Institute of Biotechnologies of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
G. N. Rumyantsev, referring to the structure of the dictionary, wrote as follows: "The" Experience of the Mongolian Kornilov " is constructed. Root words are given in the usual alphabetical order for Mongolian dictionaries and are provided with numerous references to the corresponding words of Turkish, Mongolian, Ugro-Finnish, Chinese, Manchu and other languages" (Rumyantsev, 1947, p.141). Further, for clarity, he quoted dictionary words from Korneslov. The principles of dictionary entries in Korneslov are identical to the ideas of the reviewed Dictionary.
O. M. Kovalevsky was the largest lexicographer in Mongolian philology. No sponsors were found for the publication of its terminology dictionary, and the work was stopped. O. M. Kovalevsky was a deep connoisseur of the Mongolian vocabulary in its historical aspect. In this respect, he left far behind all the nineteenth-century Mongolists. His Korneslov was the first etymological dictionary of the Mongolian language. Much time has passed since then, and O. M. Kovalevsky's "Experience of the Mongolian Kornelov" has not lost its scientific significance.
The preface says that the editors do not have any lexicographic sources of the publication at their disposal. I think that if we delve deeper into the content of G. D. Sanzheev's "Introduction" and examine in detail the dictionary entries, dictionaries and rybv litters, we can completely restore these unnamed sources. If we examine the lexicographic sources of long-published dictionaries, then, probably, the picture of the issue will become clearer.
Unfortunately, the Dictionary was compiled by different compilers and editors, and all this ultimately affected its quality. In general, the Dictionary is not made in its full form: this is the main drawback of the publication. Perhaps it would be more correct to call it "Materials for the Etymological Dictionary of Mongolian languages", which corresponds to the results obtained. The compilers do not take into account etymological dictionaries published in Ulaanbaatar by Kook-khoto and others after the death of G. D. Sanzheev. V. V. Ponaryadov's "Experience of Reconstruction of the Ural-Mongolian proto-language" and the comparative works of Nikolai Poppe (1983) would be useful.
Nevertheless, the publication of the Dictionary for Mongolian Studies in Russia will be a step forward, an incentive for the appearance of larger publications on comparative studies.
page 218
The dictionary was created in the Soviet era. This is clearly seen in its construction, which preserves the ideological paradigms of a bygone era. To multiply the value of the Dictionary, in my opinion, it was necessary to provide the main body of the Dictionary with indexes in the Uyghur-Mongolian script in accordance with Latin transcriptions. It is known that such indexes of German and Russian words are available in the" Mongolian-German Russian Dictionary " by Academician Ya. I. Schmidt (1835), which were highly appreciated by B. Laufer [Laufer, 1927, p.5-6], taking into account their convenience when working with the dictionary.
list of literature
Kovalevsky O. M. Opyt mongolskogo korneslovogo [Experience of the Mongolian root canal]. XIX century, manuscript. 307 p.
Laufer B. Ocherk mongol'skoy literatury [An Essay on Mongolian Literature]. and with a preface by B. Ya. Vladimirtsova, L.: LVI, 1927.
Ponaryadov V. V. Experience of reconstruction of the Ural-Mongolian proto-language (Report at the meeting of the Presidium of the Komi Scientific Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences). Syktyvkar: KSC Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2011. 43 p., tab.
Rumyantsev G. N. Neizvestnye rukopisi O. M. Kovalevskogo [Unknown manuscripts of O. M. Kovalevsky]. Ulan-Ude: Burmontiz, 1947, pp. 137-142.
Sanzheev G. D. Sravnitel'naia grammatika mongol'skikh yazykov [Comparative grammar of Mongolian languages], vol. 1, Moscow, 1953, 239 p.
Sanzheev G. D. Comparative grammar of Mongolian languages. Glagol. M.: 1963. 266 p. (2nd ed. 1964) 266 p.
Sanzheev G. D. Glagol // Grammatika buryatskogo yazyka [Grammar of the Buryat language]. M.-L., 1962. pp. 154-266.
Yudakin A. P. Ural-Altaic (Turkic-Mongolian) linguistics. Encikl. Moscow: 2001, pp. 442-443.
Poppe N. The Ural-Altaic Affinity // Symposium Sacsulare Societatis Fennj-Ugrical (MSFOu 104, 1). Helsinki, 1952.
Starostin S., Dybo A., Mudrak O. An Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages: 3 vols. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2003. [EDAL].
page 219
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2023-2025, LIBRARY.KG is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Kyrgyzstan |