Lexical Units of the Ingush Language Missing in the Chechen

Language

Aza Sultanovna Tokaeva and Luiza Borzalievna Abdulvakhabova

Kadyrov Chechen State University, Grozny, Russia

Keywords: Genetic Kinship, Diminutive-Affectionate Nouns, Lexical Correspondences, Substantivized Adjectives and

Participles, Lexical Discrepancies, Archaism.

Abstract. The study was undertaken in order to describe the lexicographic features of the basic vocabulary of the

Chechen and Ingush languages. The work presents the result of the analysis of the main lexical fund of the

Chechen and Ingush languages to identify discrepancies and correspondences in the basic vocabulary of two

related languages. Despite the structural commonality and genetic kinship with the Chechen language, the

Ingush language reveals quite significant lexical discrepancies with it, including at the level of vocabulary

related to the primordial fund. The work also considers nouns in a diminutive-affectionate form, in the use

of which each language demonstrates its own characteristics. It should be noted that in the Chechen

language the suffixes for forming diminutive-affectionate nouns are not productive and the authors of on-

line dictionaries confuse them with the similar in form and very productive suffixes of substantivized

adjectives and participles.

1 INTRODUCTION

A linguist who is an expert on Chechen and Ingush

languages can never doubt their genetic relationship,

they are so close at all linguistic levels and in all

grammatical forms. However, today there are

scientists who deny the common origin of the

Chechen and Ingush languages.

In Chechen and Ingush there is a very limited set

of words that are missing in one of the related

languages. Ingush linguist A.S. Kurkiev very

carefully identified and recorded this list of 600

words (Kurkiev, 1978, 1979). Khalidov writes that

A.S. Kurkiev included into this list those words that

are available in the Chechen language, but in

colloquial speech their synonyms are more often

used as expressive vocabulary (Ing. borghal

“rooster” - Chech. n1aena/borghal) (Khalidov,

2003).

The topic of our work is not the re-enumeration

of lexical units that have no correspondences in one

of their related languages, but we will briefly touch

on this topic to supplement and clarify this list of

words. Also, diminutive-affectionate nouns are more

characteristic of the Ingush language as a distinctive

feature of Ingush language, while they are rarely

used in the Chechen language. It should be noted

that in the Chechen language the suffixes for

forming diminutive-affectionate nouns are not

productive and the authors of on-line dictionaries

confuse them with similar in form and very

productive suffixes of substantivized adjectives and

participles.

Due to the fact that the native languages of the

peoples of the North Caucasus are used, for the most

part, only in the spoken and everyday sphere

because they are not the languages of instruction at

schools, office work is not carried out in native

languages in state institutions, many words have

become useless or have turned into archaisms. Over

the past century, many archaic Chechen words had

completely fallen out of use, and they have been lost

by the language.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

In his recently published book "Comparative

analysis in the study and teaching of language," I.P.

Konopelko summarizes the goals and achievements

of comparative studies: "At present, there is a

steadily increasing interest of linguists and

176

Tokaeva, A. and Abdulvakhabova, L.

Lexical Units of the Ingush Language Missing in the Chechen Language.

DOI: 10.5220/0011609200003577

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Actual Issues of Linguistics, Linguodidactics and Intercultural Communication (TLLIC 2022), pages 176-180

ISBN: 978-989-758-655-2

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

methodologists in the problems of comparative

study of languages, which is associated with the

following main reasons:

− the needs of linguistic and cognitive research,

that are increasingly clearly coming to the fore

in modern linguistics;

− expanding studies of national specifics of

thinking, mentality of peoples;

− the need to identify universal features of

languages;

− the need to identify and describe the national

picture of the world of speakers of different

languages;

− the need to describe the national-cultural

specifics of language systems;

− the need to improve bilingual dictionaries,

where the task is to reflect the national-

specific features of semantics of translation

correspondences;

− expansion of the sphere of foreign languages

teaching, etc." (Konopelko, 2019).

Hugo Schuhardt correctly noted that in the

history of language the main attention should be

paid to the history of the words meanings: "The

substrate of a word is a thing, and the establishment

of the words correct meaning depends on its

knowledge. Ignorance of a thing often turns out to

be a huge obstacle in the work of a linguist

researcher. And therefore, the study of the words

history should go in parallel with the study of the

history of things" (Samarin, 2010). Today, before

our eyes, we see how modern languages are

changing. Similar synchronous language changes are

described in detail by linguists of different countries

in their publications in the international journal

Language Variation.

For example, over the past two years we have

been observing how the Chechen word vuo "trouble,

misfortune" (Ismailov, 2009) is pronounced by

modern speakers of the Chechen language with

violation of the phonetic structure of the word: for

example, instead of vuo, we hear ghuo everywhere.

In contrast to Young Grammarians, we will not be

able to explain this transition with any natural

phonetic changes. The only explanation for this

transition is the well-known provision adopted by

many linguists of the world that one of the reasons

for the change of language is the incorrect or

inaccurate assimilation by the new generation of the

language of their parents. The case of the phonetic

transition [wuo > ghuo] can also be explained by the

linguistic illiteracy of a new generation of the

Chechen language native speakers.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As for examples of lexical discrepancies in the basic

dictionaries of the Chechen and Ingush languages,

they are not always missing in one of the related

languages, but they are used in another meaning or

included in the list of little-used words or archaisms

(e.g.: Ing. b1aerchcha "whole" - Chech. dijna

“whole”). The Ingush word b1aerchcha "whole" in

the Chechen language is used only in the idiomatic

phrase baerchchie vakha "put in a prominent or

honorable place". In other meanings this word was

most likely used earlier, but it was lost by the

language, apparently because in its other meanings

its synonym began to be used and it was no longer

required. In other cases, if these are borrowed words,

then each language could borrow them from

different sources (e.g.: Ing. dulkha (pronounced

du:ha) "meat" - Chech. zhizhig “meat” (Chech. dilha

"body"; Ing. q’ijle/ts’enjuq’e "floor" - Chech.

ts’enq’a/laettie (Ismailov, 2009)).

3.1 Ingush Words Missing in Chechen

In some cases, it happens that in addition to the

Ingush and Chechen isogloss, there is another

uncommon lexeme synonymous with commonly

used words (for example, Ing. toa-toarch/ustagh/ka

"sheep" - Chech. ustagh/ka), which creates a false

idea of discrepancies in the designation of certain

objects and concepts. For example, both of the

following lexical versions of the "yawn" semanteme

(Ing. sottavar "yawn" - Chech. baga ghettajar

‘yawn’) are present in both languages, but each

language resorts to different lexical units to express

the same concept.

Ing. mekh ‘bread’, khallar ‘snack’ – Chech.

bepig/khallar (archaic) ‘bread’;

Ing. khij ‘barn’ - Chech. h’oevda;

Ing. otar ‘cowshed’ – bozhal/bedin (dial.);

Ing. Daehie – Dajmohk/Deghista;

Ing. v1aella ‘quite, at all’ – janni jats;

gi/fu ‘seed’ – hu;

dom ‘dust’ – chan;

kherilg ‘jewel’ – zhovhar;

k’oma "bilious" - Chech. stiman/d’aevshie;

zungat "mosquito" - Chech. chyrk (chech. zingat

‘ant’);

k’ormats "butterfly" - polla;

thovre "already" - hintsale;

Ing. tedar "cutting" - ha:dadar/ha:dayar ( Batsb.

tedar "cut");

hangi "bowl" - kad;

fijg "grain" - byrtig;

Lexical Units of the Ingush Language Missing in the Chechen Language

177

sottavar "yawning" - baga ghettayar;

Ing. sechol "marriage" - Chech. marie;

ts’imhara "frowned" - wu:savella/khoelina;

chopilg "button" - nyda;

oarkhilg "saucer" - hedar/boshhap;

Ing. dukhtavala "get to the bottom of it, inquire"

– t’aeh’akhia;

tahkar "study, search" - tallar;

loadam (boatsush) "insignificant" - paida

boatsush;

iqq’ "boots" - Chech. maehsii;

ovla "root" - Chech. orum;

Ing. ch’ega "lock" - Chech.dogha;

beq’a "pole, stake" - b1oghum;

t’elg/p1elg (from t’a) "finger" - p1elg, t’ara

"udder, slap";

yolhing "rake" - kagtuh (urg )/k’omsur (dial.);

k'otargiy "shrubs" - koelsh;

khalsag "woman" - zuda/khin "brother’s-in-law

wife";

ma1asag ‘man’- stag (boersha stag (common))";

Ing. k’uv "sealing wax" - baloz/pesht;

ovrash etta "bite" - Chech. yunash etta;

kinaza "church" - Chech. kils;

mara "only" - Chech. bay;

taka "line" - Chech. siz;

toa-toarch/ustagh "ram" - Chech.ka/ustagh;

shorttig "quietly" - Chech. mellash;

t’arjuq’ "palm" - Chech. kerayuq’ (Chech. t’ara

"slap in the face," "udder nipple");

ph’uk’oag "nape" – k’esirak’ag (Ozdoev, 1980).

3.2 Diminutive-Affectionate Nouns in

Chechen and Ingush

Diminutive-affectionate nouns as forms of

subjective evaluation with suffixes -g, -lg, -ng, -rg

are widely used in the Ingush language, while in the

Chechen language their use is very limited.

Malsagov Z.K. in the "Grammar of the Ingush

language" gives only nine words in a diminutive-

affectionate form.

Thus, Malsagov Z.K. writes: "Nouns of

diminutive (derogatory) meaning are formed by

ending -g (soft) or (a)-lg: govr-govrg" “horse-

horse”, "ts’a-ts1alg" “house-house”, peshk -

peshkalg “oven-stove". Some nouns are used only in

a diminutive form: larg (from la) "ear", b’arg (from

b’a) "eye", basalg (from buos ‘color’) "cheek", tserg

(from tsa) "tooth", t’elg or p’elg (from t’a) "finger",

kulg (from kug) "hand" etc." (Malsagov, 1963).

The last set of examples of Malsagov Z.K., in

our opinion, should not be attributed to diminutive-

affectionate nouns. The last nouns “used only in a

diminutive form”, according to Malsagov Z.K.,

completely coincide in form and meaning with their

Chechen equivalents – substantivized adjectives and

participles, with the only exception that the Chechen

p’elg "finger" does not have a second name t’elg,

although its meaning is understandable to the native

speaker of Chechen language, since t’ara is both

"slap" and "nipple of udder”, resembling a finger by

its form. In addition, also in the Chechen language

besni "cheek" (pl. besnish) does not have a

diminutive form (Malsagov, 1963).

In online dictionaries of the Ingush language

their number is excessively increased due to

substantivized or nominalized independent

adjectives and participles formed by adding suffixes

like -nig and -rg, which have been simplified and

transferred to -g both in Chechen and Ingush. In

most of the following nouns, formants - rg/-ig/-ag

go back to the variants of the suffixes -rg and -nig

of independent participles and adjectives, in which,

as a result of simplification, the sounds r, n dropped

out, after which their complete substantivisation also

occurred. In words such as (kyg "hand," b’arg "eye,"

lerg "ear," berge "hoof," ts’oga "tail"), the formant -

g in the ending of the word was desemanticized and

is not recognized so far as a suffix of substantivized

participles or adjectives, although this relation quite

naturally suggests itself, especially if you consider

single-root words with the word la "hearing," la

dogha "listen" (lit. "prick up one’s ears"), and lerg as

a substantivized participle has a meaning "a listening

device."

By the way, there is a very interesting parallel

from the point of view of etymology. In the on-line

dictionaries of Ancient Gaelic and Greek languages

there is a verb dark “watch” (as well as the nouns

dark "mouse," derk "hole" (MacBain, 1982);

compare: Chech. dakhk "mouse," ‘yrg "hole"),

which means that ancient people considered the eye

as a hole or a tubular organ. It seems that in the

Chechen word b’arg "eye" there was a transition [d

> b], i.e. the replacement of the plural class prefix

with the singular class prefix, since b’aerg belongs

to class b – b’arg bu "eye is" (in plural it is already

class d: b’aergash du "eyes are").

3.3 Diminutive-Affectionate Nouns of

Ingush Language in Comparison

With Their Equivalents in the

Chechen Language

e.g.: ing. z’amiga "small, young, small" - chech.

zhima;

ing. isting "colored felt" - chech. istang;

TLLIC 2022 - I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ACTUAL ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUODIDACTICS AND

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION"

178

ing. Ts’alg "house" - chech. ts’a;

ing. loalg "snowball" - luo "snow," lai chimash

"snowflakes";

ing. ph’agalg "hare" – ph’agal;

ing. zh’alig "dog" – zh’aela;

ing. goring "calf barn" - chech. k’aari;

ing. h’aqing "ankle" - chech. h’aqorig;

ing. ‘inzharilg "spleen" - chech. ‘onzhar;

ing. gargilg "fragment" - chech. gerig (pl.

giergash);

tsiyletorgilg "match" (plural - ts1yletorgish) -

чеч. sirmak (pl. sirmakash);

ch’egilg "a piece (bread, land, etc.)" - chech.

ch’eshilg "small brushwood or chips"; chech.

chemhilg "a piece of hay" (Ozdoev, 1980);

ch’agarg "swallow" - chech. ch’eghardig

(semantic decryption: ch’ogha g’ar diirg "making a

big noise");

ch’agargilg "swallow (diminutive)" –

ch’eghardig;

q’amarg "throat, larynx" – q’amq’arg;

k‘omarg "sore" – k‘omar;

akhkar "blister" - akhkar;

t‘echkilg - "bone" – da‘ahk/modern dae‘k;

basalg (from bos) “cheek” - besnij;

tsiskilg "cat" - tsitsig/tsitsk;

genarg "pit (fruit)" - lag;

kulgilg "hand" - kyg;

b‘argilg "eye" – b‘arg;

baq’ilg “foal” – beq’a;

galig "pouch" - pouch. galij;

Ing. fetting "braided buttonhole" – Chech. veta;

chopilg "button" - nyda;

bumbarg "bug" - bumbarij;

digilg "ax" - dig;

yolh’ing "rake" - kagtuh (urg )/k1omsur (dial.);

giig (giigish) "stomach, belly" - gaj "belly";

fashkarg "tick" - Chech. vechchalg (Ismailov,

2009);

hetolg "pod' - hu:tal;

peshkilg "furnace" – qierch;

pehkash “lungs” - pekhash (anat.);

pkhida k’orig “frog“ – pkhida k’orni;

sai k’orig

"young deer";

saerg "wire" – sara;

khabilg “pot” – khaba;

hetolg “stalk” hetolg dola “creeping"- khutal;

h’azilg “sparrow” – h’oza;

tsargilg “teeth” – tserg;

ni’ilg “door” door – ne’;

m’arga betta 'kick", m’arga tohar "kick" - mira

betta;

m’arilgash ekhka "pinch" - m1arash jikhka

"pinch" (Ozdoev, 1980).

But:

In Internet dictionaries, the following

independent forms of substantivized participles and

adjectives are ranked as diminutive-affectionate

nouns.

Compare: ing. luttarg "sieve" - chech. lytturg

(luttush yerg "a device that sieves");

nuvhashkhuvsarg "scoop (for garbage)" -

nekhashtosurg (nekhsh tosush jerg "the object that is

used for garbage disposal");

ch’ondarg "violin" - chech. ‘ad h’okhu puondar

"instrument played with a bow";

becarg "cuckoo" - huttut (class verb - beca (deca,

jeca, veka) "make noise", becarg "the (bird) that

sings");

sinadarg "blue" - sinayerg/sinaderg (what is

blue);

z’amigadarg "small" - zhimaerg/zhimaderg (what

is small);

khozadarg "beautiful" (what is beautiful) -

khazanig (substan. adjective);

zergiettarg "fish breed" - zergiettarg (biting -

substan. participle);

dättadettarg "funnel" - dättaduttarg "oil lubricant

or oil distribution device (Ismailov, 2009)".

At the same time, in the Ingush language,

independent substantivized adjectives and participles

have lost part of the suffix -rg, that is, the element -g

and are used with the clipped form of the suffix -r

(ing. baq’dar "what is truthful" - chech. baq’derg;

ing. duvtsar "what is said by someone" - chech.

dytsarg; ing. khalakhietar “unpleasant” - chech.

halakhietarg) (Ismailov, 2009). As can be seen from

the examples, in the Chechen language there is no

simplification of the suffix -rg.

4 CONCLUSIONS

As shown above, in the Ingush language, we have

identified 41 lexical units that have no

correspondences in the Chechen language. After

splitting the previously single Pranakh language into

several separate languages, natural changes began to

appear in all links of its structure under the influence

of many factors. With the exception of those 41

words that have no coincidence in the relative

languages, in almost every word of both languages

there has occurred a change in the phonetic structure

of the word, primarily this affected vowel sounds

Lexical Units of the Ingush Language Missing in the Chechen Language

179

and the entire vocalism system, consisting in

changing the timbre of vowels and their articulation.

Practical material demonstrates that in the use of

diminutive-affectionate nouns the Chechen language

lags far behind the Ingush language. It is known that

formants -ig, -g (in a slightly changed form after

simplification) in the Chechen language are dead

suffixes of substantivized adjectives and participles -

nig, and -rg, which were productive in the

prehistoric era as well.

The suffixes of substantivized adjectives -nig

and of participles -rg are very productive to this day,

literally from each adjective or participle you can

form a derivative using them, but they have nothing

to do with diminutive-affectionate nouns, although

they are outwardly similar to the formant of the last

(a) -lg.

A comparative study of two relative languages

was undertaken in order to describe the national

specifics of thinking, the mentality of peoples, as

well as the need to identify universal features of

languages. It is a common knowledge that a

language reflects the social experience and cultural

values of a particular community, their pragmatic

and subjective assessments. This indicates the

individuality of the figurative thinking of each

people.

REFERENCES

Ismailov, A. T., 2009. A Word (Dosh). Reflection on the

native language. p. 800.

Kurkiev, A. S., 1978. On the original vocabulary of the

Ingush language. pp. 172-204.

Kurkiev, A. S., 1979. The main issues of the lexicology of

the Ingush language. pp. 194-207.

Konopelko, I. P., 2019. Comparative analysis in the study

and teaching of the language. p. 226.

Malsagov, Z. K., 1963. Grammar of the Ingush language.

p. 160.

Ozdoev, I. A., 1980. Russian-Ingush dictionary. p. 832.

Samarin, D. A., 2010. The problem of mixing languages in

the concept of G.Schuhardt.

Khalidov, A. I., 2003. Nakh languages in typological

perspective. p. 312.

MacBain, A., 1982. An Etymological dictionary of the

Gaelic language. 0901771. 68. 6.

TLLIC 2022 - I INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "ACTUAL ISSUES OF LINGUISTICS, LINGUODIDACTICS AND

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION"

180