• Jumayev Tursunali Associate Professor of the Karshi State University. City Karshi


The article deal with the problems of morpheme structure of the Uzbek language which has many complexities, with examples of the preservation of relict remains in suffixes. The study of languages in a comparative-historical aspect is one way of determining the right state of written monuments or modern living languages. It is in the process of this comparison that the ancient features of language are preserved in modern language, this linguistic remnant called as linguistic relics.

It also highlights the variation of morphorelective units and the linguistic phenomena that give rise to them, the ability of word-forming morphological units to form words that inherited from the ancient Turkic language as well as the development of languages continues in a way that absorbs their most ancient states in one way or another.

Characteristically, the modern form of language provides information not only about its current state, but also about its ancient features. On this issue, it is appropriate to divide the development of a language into high-synchronous and low-diachronic stages. At the upper, i.e., synchronous stage, a certain boundary really emerges only when approached based on the earlier characteristics of the language. Only when these two stages relate to each other in a consistent manner will it be possible to find solutions to the problematic situations in its modern state.

The principle of examining certain aspects of the modern form of language by linking it with its historical manifestations becomes the basis for determining a reliable diachronic foundation of language, the past and future of language cannot be studied separately. It is not up to the learner to decide. Hence, determining the synchronous structure of a language through its long past is the basis of dialectical cognition.

Uzbek is one of the oldest Turkic languages. It has gone through several stages of development on a regular basis as a living language to this day. No matter how much language develops, no matter how far it goes from its origin, it retains some of its oldest features, which may have partially or completely changed its appearance, but still retains historical-primitive-relicts.

The article highlights the morphological relicts preserved in the Uzbek language, their variation to the modern Uzbek literary language, the idea that the solution of existing problems at its level can be solved in relictolinguistic analysis.

Keywords: relict, etymology, variant, synharmonism, correlation, historical, non-productive, word-builder, productive suffix, turkology, formal shaping, word, suffix, plural suffixes.


Akhmedova D.B, Mengliev B. Semantic tag categories in corpus linguistics: Experience and examination // International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 2019, 8(3 Special Issue). Стр. 208-212.

Gombosz Z. Az altaji nyelvek hangtörténetéhez. – NyK, XXXV, 1905. P. 249.

Németh Hy. Török jövevényszók. Отд. Оттиск из: “Emlékkönyv Melich János hetvenedik születésenapjára”, – Budapesht, 1942. P.370.

Mengliev B., Shahabitdinova Sh., , Khamroeva Sh., Gulyamova Sh., Botirova A. The morphological analysis and synthesis of wordforms in the linguistic analyzer // Linguistica Antverpiensia, 2021, 2021(1). стр. 703-712.

Mengliyev B., Shahabitdinova S., Khamroeva S., Gulyamova S., Botirova A. The morphological analysis and synthesis of word forms in the linguistic analyzer // Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 2021, 17(1). Pp.558-564.

Ramstedt G. J. Studies in Korean etemology. – Helsinrku, 1949. P. 265.

Segerstråle S.G. On the Immigration of the Glacial Relicts of Northern Europe, with Remarks on their Prehistory. – Helsinfors, 1957. Pp. 8-117.

Vámbéry H. Etymologiches Wörterbuch der Turko-tatarichen Sprachen. Leipzig, 1878. P.378.

Abaev N.B. The basis of the theory of writing – relictology. =79

Abdurahmonov G. From the history of Uzbek phonetics // Issues of Uzbek language and literature, №2, Tashkent, 1962. №4. Стр. 52-58.

Alibek. Alisher Navoi on space and time agreements // Issues of Uzbek language and literature, – Tashkent, 1967. – №3. Pр. 29-34.

Bazarova D.B. Speech usage and methodological features of variant units in Uzbek language: filol. fanl. doct. (PhD) diss. – Karshi, 2020. P.132.

Ancient Türkic dictionary. – Moscow: The science, 1969. P. 680.

Kairjanov A.K. Comparative-historical grammar of the Turkic languages. Tutorial. – Astana, 2016. P.170.

Mahmud Kashgari. Devonian dictionary Turkish. Volume 1. – Toshkent, 1960. Р. 46.

Mirzaqulov T. Linguistic bases of grammar teaching. Tashkent: Teacher, 1994. P. 256.

Mironova E.A. Place names of Okinawa – relics of the proto-language // Scientific thought of the Caucasus, 2009. – № 31. Рp. 113-117.

Muhammadjonov Q. Genesis of place and exit agreements // Issues of Uzbek language and literature, 1989. – №4. Pp.31–33.

Malov S.E. Monuments of ancient Turkic writing. − M.; −L.: The science, 1951.

Ne'matov H. On the functional exchange of the suffixes in -g`a and -da // Issues of Uzbek language and literature, 1973. – №4. Pp.44-46.

Potebnya A.A. From notes on Russian grammar, t. I – II. – M., 1958. P.86.

Russian-Uzbek dictionary. M.K. A team of authors chaired by Kushjanov. 2 volumes. Volume II. – Tashkent: Uzbek Soviet Encyclopedia, 1984. – P. 352.

Sevortyan E.V. Etymological dictionary of Turkic languages. T. II. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. P.105.

Usmonova M. Simplification of word morpheme structure in Uzbek language: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) dissertation in philological sciences. – Samarkand, 2018. P.135.

Shcherbak A. M. Grammar of the Old Uzbek language. − М. − Л., 1962. P. 277.

Valiev U.N. On the formation of the affix -ri / -rï in “Devonu lug'otit turk” // Issues of Uzbek language and literature, 1964. – №3. Pp. 74-76.

Mahmudov Q. Some morphological features in “Hibatul Haqoiq” // Issues of Uzbek language and literature, 1963. – №5. Pp. 44-49.

Rustamov T. From the history of the “uzra” assistant // Issues of Uzbek language and literature, 1974. – №6. Pp. 72-74.

Hojiyev A. et al. Modern Uzbek literary language. – Tashkent: Teacher, 1980. P. 181.

Hojiyev A. Uzbek word formation system. – Tashkent: Publishing House “Teacher”, 2007. P. 81.

Modern Uzbek literary language. – Tashkent, 1976. P. 210.




How to Cite

Tursunali, J. (2021). RELICTS AND VARIATION AT THE MORPHOLOGICAL LEVEL OF THE UZBEK LANGUAGE. ANGLISTICUM. Journal of the Association-Institute for English Language and American Studies, 10(5), pp.79–90. Retrieved from



Volume 10, No.5, May 2021