CC BY
18
УДК 81 367.5=512.1
Object lacking elliptical sentences in the work of Zhalairi Zhami' at-Tauarikh
Zhuintayeva Zamzagul Nagashybaevna
candidate of Philological Sciences, associate professor of Buketov Karaganda State University. 100028 Republic of Kazakhstan, Karaganda city, Universitetskaya str., 28. E-mail: E-mail: Zamza_bota@mail.ru
Zhumanbayeva Asem Imanbayevna
candidate of Philological Sciences, associate professor of Buketov Karaganda State University. 100028
Republic of Kazakhstan, Karaganda city, Universitetskaya str., 28. E-mail: Zhumanbaeva.asem@mail.ru
Tursunova Markhaba Akhmetkalievna
candidate of Philological Sciences, associate professor of Buketov Karaganda State University. 100028 Republic of Kazakhstan, Karaganda city, Universitetskaya str., 28. E-mail:: T_marhaba@mail.ru
Abstract. The article deals with object lacking elliptical sentences in the work of Kadyrgali Kosymuly Zhalairi «Zhami' at-Tauarikh». The reasons of direct and indirect objects' omission are proved by means of linguistic facts. Also authors dwell on the fact that a text is the reason of incompleteness. Authors mention incompleteness of the complex sentences in the historical text as well. Examples are provided to prove incompleteness of complex sentences due to the context as noticed in simple sentences. Contextual elliptical sentences are one of the text formative devices. The correlation of the artifact's language with modern Kazakh is also pointed.
Keywords: Elliptic sentences; contextual elliptical sentences; direct object; indirect object; historical text.
«Zhami' at-Tauarikh», i.e. «Collection of chronicles» of the Kazakh scholar, historian, statesman Kadyrgali Kosymuly Zhalairi who lived in the second half of the XVI century and at the beginning of the XVII century is considered to be a unique work in the cultural and spiritual history of the Kazakh people (Mingulov, Komekov, Oteniyazov 1997, P. 3). Among Kazakh scholars this work was first studied by Sh.Ualikhanov. The scholar speaks about the language of the given work. According to the scholar work is written in Chagatai language that is kindred to Kyrgyz (Kaisak) and narrated in an imaginative manner. A poem devoted to Boris is very understandable and written purely in Tatar language without Arabic, Persian words, some words and word combinations are still in use in modern Kazakh language (Valikhanov 1984, P. 244).
R. Syzdykova's work «Language of Zhalairi's Zhami' at-Tauarikh» written in 1989 has to be mentioned in this connection. Author in the given work writes about linguistic, grammatical, stylistic peculiarities of the chronicle, dwells on the remarks on writing and orthography and gives a transcribed text based on Arabic writing (Mingulov, Komekov, Oteniyazov 1997).
Zh. Saduakasuly in his dissertation work titled «Structural types of mononuclear sentences in Kazakh language» refers to B.P. Ardentov's view on elliptical sentences which sounds as follows: «Even though some concepts and notions are considered in thought, they may not be given by specific words. Parts of speech that are necessary for the completeness of the thought are considered to be in thought, they become known from preceding thought or meaning can be understood from the situation of mentioning them». He also refers to V.V. Babaytseva's words on the main criteria for incompleteness which according to her lies in not modifying the nature of the thought to be transferred, but rather depends on the context of the word within its structure. Noting that their views coincide with other scholars of Russian
and Turkic linguistics, based on this view he states that context and situation are one of the main signs of identifying incompleteness.
To be precise, he comes to the following conclusion: notional incompleteness of the clause is noticed when it is out of context and situation, and only in case there is a possibility of finding out the word that can complement it and if it doesn't distort meaning when being used in clause, these sentences can be called elliptical sentences (Saduakasuly 1997, P. 26).
We can notice incompleteness of elliptical sentences not only from omission of its principal part, but also through omission of any other part of the sentence. Moreover omission of the part of speech is related to the context, situation and stylistic purposes. Omission of objects is also connected with such situations.
Two types of object occur in «Tauarikh», both direct and indirect object. Words functioning as direct object similar to the modern literary language are given in the explicit and implicit form of accusative case ending, is linked up to the part deriving from transitive verb, especially to the predicate (Kordabayev 1964, P. 82). Incompleteness of the sentence due to the lack of object depends on the verbal sentence. For the verb requires a noun or any other substantiated noun to be given in one of indirect cases except nominative and genitive, thus being linked to the nouns (Zhakupov 1999, P. 76). Object lacking elliptical sentences can be related to the preceding context and to the subsequent context. For example: 1. Андын соц Огуз ол кыз ны кабул кылды уа дост тутды. 2. ©цгэлер ге бермедк 3. He4YK KiM худайны бiрлеп бтген ердк 4. Хак fa нийаз лык ердi - 1. Odan song Ogyz ol kyzdy shyn niyetimen kabyl etip dos kyldy (word-for-word translation: Afterwards Oghuz made friends with that girl sincerely accepting her as a friend). 2. Baskalarga bermedi (word-for-word translation: Didn't give to anyone). 3. Oitkeni kudaidy bir dep bilgen edi (word-for-word translation: For knew that God is the one). 4. Bul hakka shyn berilgendik edi (word-for-word translation: It was a sign of complete devotion to the God). 2-sentence in the extract is the object lacking elliptical sentence. «©цгэлэрге кiмдi бермегеы» - «Whom he didn't give» is noticed by being adjacent from the preceding sentence. And the sentence is complemented as «©цгэлэрге кызды бермедЬ» - «Didn't give the girl to others». Let's give some more examples from the artifact 1...Мыцар Байку, шул каум hушин ердк 2. Уа оц колны ол билYP ердк 3. Чицгиз ханда бу терт бек ма'лум турур. 4. Терт мыц лэшкэр бтэн Жочига бердк - 1. Mynger Baiku, sol hushin kauymynan edi (word-for-word translation: Myngar Baiku was from that hushin community). 2. Ong kolyn ol biler edi (word-for-word translation: He would have ruled right-hand man). 3. Shyngys khanda bul tort bek aigili edi (word-for-word translation: These four beks (representative of the dominant class of feudal society in Central Asia) were famous in Genghis Khan's land. 4. Tort myng askerimen Zhoshyga berdi (word-for-word translation: He gave Jochi with the army of four thousand people). In the last 4-sentence mentioning whom he gave Jochi (four beks) is understood through preceding sentence. Sentence is complemented as «Терт бект терт мыц лэшкэр бтэн Жочига бердЬ» (Tort bekti tort myng askerimen Zhoshyga berdi/word-for-word translation: Four beks were given Jochi with the army of four thousand people).
The lack of direct object in elliptical sentences can be defined not only by sentence, but by the adjacent sentence. For instance, based on «Tauarikh»: 1. ©кин Таркак уа 1памбакай ханны каум татар аны тутыб аца алыб батды лар. 2. Акаларым менщ атамныц жадд ердi лер. 3. ^на сыз елтYPдi. - 1. Keyin Tarkak zhane Khambakai khandi tatar kauymy ony ustap ogan (Altan khanga) alyp bardy (word-for-word translation: Later Tatars caught Tarkak and Khambakai khans and gave him). 2. Agalarym mening atamnyng babasy edi (word-for-word translation: My
brothers were ancestors of my grandfather). 3. Kinasiz oltirdi (word-for-word translation: Killed him groundlessly). The last sentence here is used as elliptical. 1-sentence reveals the one who was killed groundlessly. If to complement the sentence we will have the following sentence: «Таркак уа Хамбакай ханды юна сыз eлтYPдi». Therefore we recognize this sentence as a lacking sentence where direct object aimed at compressing the sentence impacted by the context.
In sentences with intransitive verbs in dative, locative, ablative and instrumental cases indirect objects can be found from context. Sometimes indirect object can be given by one word in another adjacent sentence, and can be understood from the general content of the context (Zhakupov 1998, P. 63). Let's consider some more examples from «Tauarikh». 1. Кыз жауап бердк 2. Мен худай ны еш^кеым йок, бтгеым йок, уа ликин сенщ сезщ дЫ уа форманыц ге мути болайын, сен не десец, аны кылайын тедк 3. Огуз айды. 4. КeцлYм ттеген сен турурсын, сен кабул кылдым тедi, уа андаг фарманладым сеце 6ip худайга иман келтYргiл уа мухиаб аца болгыл. - 1. Kyz zhauap berdi (word-for-word translation: A girl answered). 2. Men kudaidi esitkenim jok, birak sening sozingnen shykpayin zhane buyriginga riza bolayin, sen ne deseng sony kylayin, - dedi (word-for-word translation: I have not heard of God, but I will obey your words and will be content with your order, I will do whatever you wish, - said). 3. Ogyz aitty (word-for-word translation: Oghyz said). 4. Kongilim tilegeni (zhalgyz) sen, seni kabyl ettim, - dedi, buyrygym da, otinishim de sol, kudaiga iman keltir zhane basyngdy iy, shynymen beril (word-for-word translation: what I really wish is (only) you, I accepted you, -said, my only order and request is believe in God and truly be devoted to him). From the first sentence of the given extract we can see whom girl answered. Sentence is complemented as «Kyz Ogyzga jauap berdi» (word-for-word translation: A girl answered Oghuz), at the same time this sentence denotes interrelation between a dialogue replica, and the way she answered can be understood from the content of other sentences within context. Indirect object in ablative case that is not given in the elliptical sentence, can occur in both adjacent and sentences that are divided by several clauses, also in the general content of the context. For instance: 1. Атасы Кара хан ез атасы Кер хан дын туган гайат хуб сахиб жамал кызы бар ердк 2. Аны Огузга алды. - 1.Akesi Kara khan oz agasi Kor khannin ote ademi sulu kyzy bar edi (word-for-word translation: Kara khan's son, his brother Kor khan had a very beautiful daughter). 2.Sony Ogyzga aittyryp berdi (word-for-word translation: Married her to Oghuz). Last sentence is complemented by the word in ablative case given in the first sentence (Кер хан дын - Kor khannan (word-for-word translation: From Kor khan), i.e. by means of adjacent sentence. And the following examples point to distant connection: 1. YчYнчi Кубылай хан ныц (оглы) Мецлукан. 2. Бу hэм Чабун хатун дын тугуб ердк 3. Аныц улуг хатуны бар ердк 4. Аты Куту, каум конкырат. 5. Алчы нойан ныц оглыдын тугуб ердк 6. Аныц Y4 оглы бар ердк.. - 1. Kubylai khannyn ushinshi uly Mengli khan (word-for-word translation: The third son of Kubylai khan, Mengli khan). 2. Bul da Zhabun khatunnan tugan edi (word-for-word translation: He also is a son of Zhabun khatun). 3.Onyng uly khatuny bar edi (word-for-word translation: He had a senior wife). 4. Aty Kutui, kongyrat kauymynan (word-for-word translation: Named as Kutui, of kongyrat origin). 5. Yelshi noyannyng ulynan tuyip edi (word-for-word translation: Father is a son of an ambassador feudal lord). 6. Onyng ush uly bar edi (word-for-word translation: She had three sons )... Based on the 6-sentence here we can see who is the father of her three sons from the 1-sentence preceding it, i.e. complemented by Mengli khan.
Indirect object in the instrumental case is often linked by the verbs coming in the meaning of reciprocal voice. Indirect object in the instrumental case can occur in
both adjacent and sentences that are divided by several clauses. Based on «Collection of chronicles»: 1. Фзлер юм мен дЫ соц мен буйурган йасакны бузмацыз, езге амал чыкармацыз уа такы Чагатай бу йерде хазр тYГYл ДYP. 2.Менiц уасиатым ны аца турYЦYЗ. 3. Мубада кiм мен кечкен дЫ соц менiц сезYмнi такы мYлк де тамашамиши кылыцыз. 4. Фзлер hэм андаг болуцуз. 5. Ол халат да бу сезлэр н тамам кылган (соц) hэр екi оглы бiлэн, бiр бiрi бiлэн кучаклашты лар. 6. Уа 'да кылдылар. 7. Йана анларны кайтарды. 8. ©з улус мамлакат лaрi не йiбердi. 9. ©з лэшкэрi бiлэн Нигиас таба ЙYЗлендi. - 1. Sizder menen song men buyirgan zhasakty buzbangyzdar, ozge amal shygarmangyzdar zhane tagy Shagatay bul zherde zhok edi (word-for-word translation: Afterwards me don't dissolve the army I ordered, don't take any other measures and also there was no Shagatay here). 2. Mening osietimdi ogan zhetkzingizder (word-for-word translation: Tell him about my will). 3. Kenet men olsem, mening sozimdi tagi barine aityngdar (If I suddenly die, tell my words to others as well). 4. Sizder de solai bolyngdar dep (word-for-word translation: Wishing you will be like this too). 5. Ol zhagdaida bul sozdermen bitirgen song, ar eki ulymen, bir-birimen kushaktasty (word-for-word translation: In that situation finishing with these words they hugged each-other with both of his sons). 6. Duga kyldy (word-for-word translation: Prayed). 7. Zhane olardy kaitardy (word-for-word translation: And sent them). 8. Oz ulys memleketterine zhiberdi (word-for-word translation: Sent them to their home countries). 9. Oz askerimen Nigiyas zhakka attandy (word-for-word translation: Set out to Nigiyas with his army). The 6-sentence which says «Уа'да кылдылар» is incomplete. The adjacent sentence reveals with whom he prayed («уа'да кылганы -duga kylgany (word-for-word translation: prayed)», ею оглы бтэн - eki ulymen (word-for-word translation: with two sons)).
The degree of incompleteness of the pairs of complex sentence can be expressed by means of principal and subordinate parts of the sentence. It is defined either by means of the context within complex sentence or external context. Therefore incompleteness of complex sentences can also be seen from the context as in simple sentences. We can see it through examples in «Zhami'at-Tauarikh» 1.Уа аты, улагы уа келеурме туар карасы анларныц асайыш таба алмагай. 2.Ла чурм андаг атлары арыб, терiсi катыб елгей. - 1. Zhane atyn, malyn zhane tuar karalaryna (zhylkylarina) zhagday taba almasyn (word-for-word translation: May him not provide his horse and livestock). 2. Attaryn semirtip mine almasyn, kalzhyrap ondai attar aryp, terisi katyp olgei (word-for-word translation: May their horses be fat so that they cannot ride them, may these horses get tired and thin, and die from starvation). We can understand whose horses are mentioned in the 2-sentence from the sentence preceding it, i.e. theirs (анларныц /olardyng (theirs)). The sentence in the second component of it is complemented by means of the preceding component as well, i.e. «attarynyng terisi katyp olgei» (word-for-word translation: may their horses die from starvation).
1. Таг тYбYнде бiр улуг су акар ердк 2. Ол су йакасына туар карасын йыгар ердк 3. Ол су ныц йакасы толса, онда кецлi тынар ердi малым тYгэл деб. - 1. Tau tubinde bir uly su agatyn edi (word-for-word translation: There was a great water flowing next to the mountain). 2. Zhan-zhaktan malyn, tuar karasyn tau tubinen agyp zhatkan ulken ozen boyina zhinaitin edi (word-for-word translation: Used to gather his livestock all around along the big river flowing next to the mountain). 3. Ozen zhagasy tolsa, malym tugel dep kongili tynar edi (word-for-word translation: If the riverside gets packed, he would stay peaceful that his livestock is all there). The first component of the complex conditional clause here in the 3-sentence becomes complete as «what makes the riverside packed, i.e. livestock» by means of the
preceding sentence. Indirect object is omitted here. We can see adjacently linked contextual complex elliptical sentences from the given examples.
Бу шараб, тарсур маст еткучУ кецYл ЙYзi бтэн кермес уа йахшыларны уа мундак маст кылурлар. Айтмас лар: йаман турур йа йахшы. ^олыны маст етсе, та тутмак, алмак hенер дЫ калгай. Уа айагыны маст кылсалар, та шул харакат келмек дЫ калгай. Уа кецлYнi маст етсе, та кецес андишасыны жауаб айта алмагай. Уа жYмлэ хауас уилайат адрак ны шул iшлер дЫ йыгыл гай. Эгэр шуны очмек дЫ чарасы болмаса, андаг керек, юм бiр айда Y4 катла маст кылгай. НечYк шул Yч дiн етсе, хата болгай.. Эгэр бiр айда екi хатла маст болса, йахшырак. Уа эгiр езi iчмесе, андын йахшысы йок. - Karashylar ozderi sharap iship zharamas kylyktar zhasap zhane shekse, mas bolushyny kongil zhuzimen kormes zhane zhaksylardi mundai mas kylyktar etpes, zhaman turar alde zhaksy kolyn mas bolsa, sol kolyn ustai almas, onerden kalgai, ayagy mas bolganda, areket kyludan kalgai, kongili mas bolganda, kengesuge, zhauap kaitaruga hali bola almagai, barlyk konil-koyi sol isterden zhinalady (word-for-word translation: If working men drink wine, smoke and misbehave, they got drunk and good men wouldn't drink. A bad one can bear, but a good when gets drunk cannot stand. They want to distance themselves from art, any activity, when one is drunk he cannot even talk and all his mood depends on it). Eger sony ishuden bas tartuga sharasy bolmasa, bylai isteu kerek: bir ayda ush ret mas bolgai, oitkeni sol ush retten assa kata bolgai, eger bir ayda eki ret mas bolsa, zhaksyrak (word-for-word translation: If he is not able to refuse it, then he should do the following: drink wine three times in a month, for if he exceeds it's bad, if he gets drunk twice it's better). Eger ozi ishpese, onan zhaksysy zhok (word-for-word translation: It will be even much better if he doesn't drink). Here the last complex conditional clause «Эгер езi iчмесе, андын йахшы сы йок - Eger ozi ishpese, onan zhaksysy zhok» is elliptical sentence. Direct object of the sentence (if not to drink what? - wine) occuring in the 1-sentence is distantly linked.
Let's pay attention to the following extract. 1. Барс йыл алты ЙYЗ екще уа аки рэжэб айында. 2. Чицгиз хан бу йылда елл^ екще ердк 3. Уа нечYк аныц йаукында найман ныц пaдшahы Тайан хан уа жами енпн падш^ лар аныц бтэ бiрге ердк 4. Чицгиз хан анлар ныц барчасын урушуб качурды. 5. Барча падш^ларны елтYPдi. 6. Анлар ныц уотан лары(н), йуртлары ерд^ аца барды. 7. Тайан хан ныц токуз пайалы ак тукы бар ердк 8. Буйурды, аны ^кд (61). - 1. Barys zhyly alty zhuz ekide, bastaldy razhab ayinda (word-for-word translation: It began in the year of tiger in six hundred and two, in razhab month). 2. Shyngys khan bul zhyly elu ekide edi (word-for-word translation: Genghis khan was fifty two this year). 3. Onyng uakytynda Naimannyng patshasy Tayan khan zhane barlyk ozge patshalar onymen birge edi (word-for-word translation: That time king of the Naiman's Tayan khan and other kings were together with him). 4. Shyngys khan olardyng barshasyn urysyp kashyrdy (word-for-word translation: Genghis khan made all of them run away after the battle). 5. Barshasynyng patshalaryn oltirdi (word-forword translation: Killed all their kings). 6. Olardyng otandary, zhurttary bar edi, ogan bardy (word-for-word translation: All of them had their motherlands, countries, went there). 7. Tayan khannyng togyz shashakty ak tuyi bar edi (word-for-word translation: Tayan khan had a white flag with nine fringes). 8. Buyirdi, ony tikti (word-for-word translation: Ordered, and it was set up) (56). «Буйурды, аны ^кф» (Buyirdi, ony tikti (word-for-word translation: Ordered, and it was set up) within this context is elliptical sentence. We can see that several parts of the sentence are omitted. In order to complement the sentence we should pay attention to the context. Who ordered, whom he ordered, when he ordered? If to complement the sentence we'll have the
following sentence: «Wbi^fbic xaH 6apbic xbinbi OTanqapbiHa, xypTTapbiHa öyMbipflbi, OHb TiKTi» (word-for-word translation: Genghis khan in the year of tiger ordered motherlands, countries, set up it).
We can see that here subject, adverbal modifier, object are omitted. K.A. Mamatova distinguishes following features that are peculiar to contextual complementing:
1. Occurrence of the uncompensated sentences in the context;
2. Occurence of the speech forms in the sentence that are insufficient on the information level;
3. Meaning is not transferred through words when the component denoting blankness of the syntactic order (object or the adverbial modifier) is insufficient on the information level;
4. Occurence of the linguistic means capable of compensating syntactic aspects in the context. These issues can be seen from the work of Kadyrgali Kosymuly Zhalairi «Zhami' at-Tauarikh».
Therefore, contextual elliptical sentences are one of the ways of integrating independent sentences into complex syntactic unit. We noticed it from the language of the artifact. We can even notice that language of the given artifact is closely connected with the modern Kazakh language.
Эдебиеттер TißiMi/ ^исок литературы
1. Валиханов Ш. Собрание сочинений в 5 т. - Алма-Ата, 1984. - Т.1. - 431 с.
2. Жа^ыпов Ж. А. ^аза^ тшшщфукционалды синтаксис. - Almaty, 1999. - 226 с.
3. Жа^ыпов Ж.А. Сейлеу синтаксисшщ сипаттары:о^ульщ.- Караганды,1998.-158 б.
4. Кордабаев Т.Р. Вопросы исторического синтаксиса. - Алма-Ата: Наука, 1964. - 244 с.
5. Мингулов Н., Кемеков Б., ©тениязов C. Кдцыргали Жалайыр. Шежiрелер жинагы. - Almaty: Kazakhstan, 1997. - 128 б.
6. Садуакасулы Ж. Структурные типы мононуклеарных предложений в казахском языке: [Текст]: филол. гылым. д-ры ... дис. автореф. /Ж. Садуакасулы.- Алматы, 1997. - 54 с.
References:
Kordabayev 1964 - Kordabayev, T 1964, Issues of the historical syntax, Gylym, Almaty, 244 p. (in Rus). Mingulov, Komekov, Oteniyazov 1997 - Mingulov, N, Komekov, B, Oteniyazov, S 1997, Kadyrgali
Zhalayir. Collection of chronicles, Almaty, 128 p. (in Kaz). Saduakasuly 1997 - Saduakasuly, Zh 1997, Structural types of mononuclear sentences in Kazakh
language: An abstract of PhD thesis, Almaty, 54 p. (in Rus). Valikhanov 1984 - Valikhanov, Sh 1984, Abstracts from the collection of essays in 5 v., Alma-Ata, V.1., 431 p. (in Rus).
Zhakupov 1998 - Zhakupov, ZhA 1998, Features of spoken syntax, Karagandy, 158 p. (in Kaz). Zhakupov 1999 - Zhakupov, ZhA 1999, Functional syntax of Kazakh language. Doctoral thesis, Almaty, 226 p. (in Kaz).
Жалаиридщ Жами'ат^уарих енбепндеп толыктауышсыз эллиптикальщ
сейлемдер
Жуынтаева Зэмзэгул Нагашыбайкызы
филология гылымдарыныц кандидаты, Е. А. Букетов атындагы Караганды мемлекетпк
университетшщ доцентк 100028 Казахстан Республикасы, Караганды Университетская к-d, 28. E-mail: Zamza_bota@mail.ru
Жуманбаева Эсем Иманбайкызы
филология гылымдарыныц кандидаты, Е. А. Букетов атындагы Караганды мемлекетпк
университетшщ доцентк 100028 Казахстан Республикасы, Караганды Университетская к-d, 28. E-mail: Zhumanbaeva.asem@mail.ru
Турсынова Мархаба Ахметкаликызы
филология гылымдарыныц кандидаты, Е. А. Букетов атындагы Караганды мемлекеттiк университетшщ доцентi. 100028 Казакстан Республикасы, Караганды к., Университетская к-ei, 28. E-mail:: T_marhaba@mail.ru
ТYЙiн. Макалада Кадыргали К°сым¥лы Жалаиридщ «Жами'ат-Тауарих» ецбепндеп толыктауышсыз сейлемдер жайлы баяндалады. Тура жэне жанама толыктауыштардыц жок болу себептерi лингвистикалык фaктiлер аркылы дэлелденедг Сонымен катар авторлар мэтЫнщ аякталмауыныц eебептерiн накты дэлелдер аркылы тужырымдайды. Авторлар тарихи мэтiндегi толымсыз курмалас сейлемдер жайлы баяндайды. Сейлемдердщ толымсыздыгын дэлелдеу Yшiн жай сейлемдермен салыстыра отырып, мэтiн iшiнен накты мысалдар келтiредi. Контектiлердегi эллиптикалык сейлемдер мэтшнщ форма тудырушы курылымдары болып табылады. Сондай-ак кене мура ттшщ кaзiргi казак тiлiмен байланысы да карастырылады.
ТYЙiн сездер: эллиптикалык сейлемдер; контекст эллиптикалык сейлемдер; тура толыктауыш; жанама толыктауыш; тарихи мэтш.
Эллиптические предложения с отсутствующим дополнением в работе Жалаири Жами'ат-Тауарих
Жуинтаева Замзагуль Нагашыбаевна
кандидат филологических наук, доцент Карагандинского Государственного Университета им. Букетова. 100028 Республика Казахстан, г. Караганда, ул. Университетская, 28. E-mail: Zamza_bota@mail.ru
Жуманбаева Асем Иманбаевна
кандидат филологических наук, доцент Карагандинского Государственного Университета им. Букетова. 100028 Республика Казахстан, г. Караганда, ул. Университетская, 28. E-mail: Zhumanbaeva.asem@mail.ru
Турсунова Мархаба Ахметкалиевна
кандидат филологических наук, доцент Карагандинского Государственного Университета им. Букетова. 100028 Республика Казахстан, г. Караганда, ул. Университетская, 28. E-mail:: T_marhaba@mail.ru
Аннотация. В статье рассматриваются эллиптические предложения с отсутствующим дополнением в работе Кадыргали ^сымулы Жалаири «Zhami 'ат-Tauarikh». Причины отсутствия прямого и косвенного дополнения "доказаны с помощью лингвистических фактов. Также авторы подробно останавливаются на том факте, что текст является причиной незавершенности. Авторы также упоминают неполноту сложных предложений в историческом тексте. Приведены примеры, доказывающие неполноту сложных предложений в связи с контекстом, как замечено в отношении простых предложений. Контекстные эллиптические предложения являются одним из формообразующих устройств текста. Отмечается также соотношение языка артефакта с современным казахским языком.
Ключевые слова: эллиптические предложения; контекстные эллиптические предложения; прямое дополнение; косвенное дополнение; исторический текст.
