CC BY
19
других частей речи некоторых союзов в турецком языке является особенностью выражения предшествования.
Помимо этого мы затронули тему формирования временных категорий в разных языках и установили, что выражение времени обусловлено особенностями восприятия этого понятия носителями языка. Каждый язык обладает своими языковыми средствами передачи разновременности. В статье рассмотрены случаи объективной и субъективной модальности в турецком и русском языках, раскрывающие специфику метода выражения концепта времени. Подчеркивается смысловая разница схожих по виду конструкций и важность контекста.
Библиографический список
Изучая особенности грамматики турецкого языка, в частности выражение временных отношений, и сопоставляя их с русским языком, можно сделать вывод, что для оптимального понимания языка и его структуры необходимо знать основы словообразований. Также для раскрытия темы о разновременности в сложноподчиненных предложениях можно отметить не только важную роль форм образования сложных предложений, но и правила образования необходимой формы слова. При этом стоит учитывать, что нет возможности ограничиться одним универсальным правилом, так как одно правило тесно взаимодействует с другим, как, например, закон гармонии гласных и согласных присутствует во всех формах образования слов.
1. Синтаксис: практическое пособие по русскому языку как иностранному. Санкт-Петербург: Златоуст, 2016.
2. Шаммасова У.С. Таксис предшествования в разноструктурных языках в контрастивном аспекте. Вестник Башкирского университета. Уфа, 2016: 996 - 1002.
3. Практическая грамматика русского языка для зарубежных преподавателей-русистов. Под редакцией H.A. Метс. Москва, 1985.
4. Панков Ф.И. Выражение временных отношений. Книга о грамматике. Русский язык как иностранный. Под редакцией AE. Величко. Москва: Издательство Московского университета, 2009: 209 - 235.
5. Векшин Н. Грамматика русского языка. Москва: Огни, 2016.
6. Поселенова АВ. Сложные предложения на начальном этапе обучения русскому языку как иностранному. European Journal of Literature and Linguistic. 2015; № 3: 53 - 56. У. Hengirnen M. Türkge Dilbilgisi. Engin Yayinevi, Ankara, 2015.
8. Özkrnmli A. Türk Dili: Dil ve Anlatim. Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayinlari. Istanbul, 2006.
9. Дубовик Е.Л. Сложное предложение в синтаксическом строе турецкого языка. Веснк БДУ. Серия 4: Филология. Журналистика. Педагогика. 2008; № 1: 41 - 45.
10. Гениш Эйюп. Грамматика турецкого языка. Фонетика, морфология, этимология, семантика, синтаксис, орфография, знаки препинания. Москва: Издательство ЛКИ, 2008; Т. 1.
11. Karahan Leyla. "Sonra, Önce" Kelimelerinin Edat Kategorisi içindeki Dummu. Uluslar Arasi TürklükAra§tirmalari Sempozyumu, 25 - 2У Nisan, Ecumm, Dil Araçtiïmalan. Ankara, 200У; Sayi: 1: 39 - 48.
12. Ko^maz Z. Türkiye T^kçesi Grameri. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari. Ankara, 2009.
13. Штанов AE. Модальность временных глагольных форм как важная составляющая предикативного содержания текста в переводе. Филологические науки в МГИМО: сборник научных трудов. 2002; № 9: 100 - 114.
14. Якобсон РО. Шифтеры, глагольные категории и русский глагол. Принципы типологического анализа языков различного строя. Москва, 19У2: 95 - 113.
References
1. Sintaksis: prakticheskoe posobie po msskomu yazyku kak inostrannomu. Sankt-Peteto^g: Zlatoust, 2016.
2. Shammasova U.S. Taksis predshestvovaniya v raznostrnktumyh yazykah v kontrastivnom aspekte. Vestnik Bashkirskogo universiteta. Ufa, 2016: 996 - 1002.
3. Prakticheskaya grammatika russkogo yazyka dlya zarubezhnyh prepodavatelej-rusistov. Pod redakciej N.A. Mets. Moskva, 1985.
4. Pankov F.I. Vyrazhenie vremennyh otnoshenij. Kniga o grammatike. Russkijyazyk kak inostrannyj. Pod redakciej A.V. Velichko. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo univereiteta, 2009: 209 - 235.
5. Vekshin N. Grammatika russkogo yazyka. Moskva: Ogni, 2016.
6. Poselenova A.V. Slozhnye predlozheniya na nachal'nom 'etape obucheniya msskomu yazyku kak inostrannomu. European Journal of Literature and Linguistic. 2015; № 3: 53 - 56.
У. Hengirnen M. Türkge Dilbilgisi. Engin Yayinevi, Ankara, 2015.
8. Özkrnmli A. Türk Dili: Dil ve Anlatim. Istanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayinlari. Istanbul, 2006.
9. Dubovik E.L. Slozhnoe predlozhenie v sintaksicheskom strae tureckogo yazyka. Vesnik BDU. Seriya 4: Filologiya. Zhumalistika. Pedagogika. 2008; № 1: 41 - 45.
10. Genish 'Ejyup. Grammatika tureckogo yazyka. Fonetika, morfologiya, 'etimologiya, semantika, sintaksis, orfografiya, znakiprepinaniya. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo LKI, 2008; T. 1.
11. Karahan Leyla. "Sonra, Önce" Kelimelerinin Edat Kategorisi içindeki Dummu. Uluslar Arasi Türklük Ara§tirmalari Sempozyumu, 25 - 27 Nisan, Ecumm, Dil Araçtiïmalan. Ankara, 200У; Sayi: 1: 39 - 48.
12. Ko^maz Z. Türkiye TürkQesi Grameri. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlari. Ankara, 2009.
13. Shtanov A.V. Modal'nost' vremennyh glagol'nyh fom kak vazhnaya sostavlyayuschaya predikativnogo sodechaniya teksta v perevode. Filologicheskie nauki v MGIMO: sbomik nauchnyh tmdov. 2002; № 9: 100 - 114.
14. Yakobson R.O. Shifted, glagol'nye kategorii i rnsskij glagol. Principy tipologicheskogo analiza yazykov razlichnogo stroya. Moskva, 1972: 95 - 113.
Статья поступила в редакцию 02.03.20
УДК 801.52
Bilalova Kh.A., Cand. of Sciences (Philology), senior lecturer, Dagestan State University (Makhachkala, Russia), E-mail: khadizha@inbox.ru
ADJECTIVES AS NOUNS IN THE LEZGIAN LANGUAGE (WITH COMPARATIVE DATA FROM THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE). The article explores the use of
adjectives as nouns in Lezgian and English. In the Lezgian language, however, they can assume a greater variety of forms than is possible in English, partly as a result of the loss of inflectional endings in English; e.g. Lezgian [adj.] акьуллу- akulludi, akulludaz, ak'ulludan, ak'ullubur, akulluburuv, etc versus English [adj.] intellectual - an intellectual, intellectuals, any intellectual's. Similarly, there are syntactic properties in which substantivized adjectives behave just like nouns. With regard to this phenomenon, specific language mechanisms for forming the meanings of substantivised adjectives are highlighted. The article also provides a classification of types of substantivisation in the Lezgian language. The investigation leads to a hypothetical conclusion that breaks with traditional concepts of rigid word-classes in favor of a theory of degrees of 'adjectiviness' and 'nouniness'.
Key words: substantivisation, adjectives, nouns, substantivized adjectives, predicative substantivisation, quasi-substantivisation, anaphoric use.
Х.А. Билалова, канд. филол. наук, доц., ФГБОУ ВО «Дагестанский государственный университет», г. Махачкала, E-mail: khadizha@inbox.ru
УПОТРЕБЛЕНИЕ ПРИЛАГАТЕЛЬНЫХ В КАЧЕСТВЕ СУЩЕСТВИТЕЛЬНЫХ В ЛЕЗГИНСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ (С ПРИВЛЕЧЕНИЕМ СРАВНИТЕЛЬНОГО МАТЕРИАЛА АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА)
В данной статье рассматриваются случаи субстантивного употребления прилагательных в лезгинском и английском языках. Для субстантивированных прилагательных в лезгинском языке, однако, характерно большее разнообразие форм, чем это возможно в английском языке, отчасти в результате потери флективных окончаний в английском языке; например, лезгинский [прил.] акьуллу - акьуллуди, акьуллудаз, акьуллудан, акьуллубур, акьуллубурув и т.д. по сравнению с английским [adj.] intellectual - an intellectual, intellectuals, any intellectual's. По аналогии с существительными, субстантивированные прилагательные повторяют синтаксические характеристики, свойственные данной части речи. В связи с этим выделяются специфические языковые механизмы формирования значений субстантивированных прилагательных. В статье также приводится классификация типов субстантивации в лезгинском языке.
Исследование приводит к гипотетическому выводу в пользу существования теории степеней 'прилагательное™' и 'существительное™' в противовес традиционным представлениям о наличии жестких границ между частями речи.
Ключевые слова: субстантивация, прилагательные, существительные, субстантивированные прилагательные, предикативная субстантивация, анафора.
It is well known that substantivisation is one of the most productive ways of word formation in different languages, even in languages of different structural types, such as, say, Russian and English. The characteristic of substantivisation as a language universal allows us to speak about the prevalence of this method of word formation in the Lezgin language. The universal nature of this phenomenon, in our opinion, is due to the fundamental openness of the language system, which is manifested in the instability of the boundaries between classes of linguistic elements, no matter what they are formed on.
In this study the focus is on adjectives used as nouns in the Lezgian language with ad hoc contributions from the English language.
In both languages adjectives can occupy the modifier slot in the noun phrase without further syntactic or morphological marking taking place inside the noun phrase. Following Rießler, such syntactic licensing means that the relationship between dependent and head is encoded purely structurally in terms of designated positions [1, p. 8]. The adjective obligatorily precedes the noun but is not marked otherwise, as in the following examples: иер руш - 'a pretty girl'; иер рушар (pretty girl-PL) -pretty girls'.
The bare adjective in both languages may not normally be used alone as a noun since the notion has no proper internal incidence. What limits the notion and gives it form and thus supplies it with the necessary internal incidence is the articles -a and -the in English and the substantivizing suffixes -di and -bur in the Absolutive case singular and plural in Lezgian respectively. Under the actualizing force and influence of the mentioned units these words become capable of expressing, not just a qualification, but the totality of the objects so qualified. Moreover, they can appear in any argument position, like other nouns: Экуьда (S) буьркьуьдаз (O) рехъ къалурда (Лезги ч1алан словарь). 'Л sighted one will show the way to a blind man'. They used force to banish the natives (O) from the more fertile land (Collins COBUILD).
Our analysis of the Lezgian language data shows that depending on the functions performed by substantivized adjectives, there are three types of substantivisation: 1) genuine substantivisation; 2) quasi-substantivization; 3) predicative substantivisation.
In Lezgian grammar, one can distinguish thematic groups of nouns for which substantivized adjectives are a productive means of their expansion. Any adjectival form that can become the name of a person or express a generalized abstract meaning is substantivized in the syntactic function typical of a noun. Thus, these are: a) names of persons characterized by a specific feature; b) names of abstract concepts.
а) Чаз Расул Аллагьди ... азарлудал кьил ч!угун ... эмирнавайди я (Къ. Меджидов). - Allah tells us to visit the sick (one).
б) Бадеди вичин хтулаз вич къекъевей шеки-ширвандакай, дуьньядин к1уь-цурудакай... суьгьбетар ийиз башламишна (Альманах). - The grandmother began to tell her grandson about the places she had been, about the good and the bad in the world.
Thus, Lezgian adjectives are easily substantivised if they refer to people. According to The Lezgian Language Dictionary in the vast majority of cases it is adjectives describing features and qualities of people that are used as nouns [2]. This is especially clear in such a folklore genre as proverbs and sayings where substantivisation of adjectives is widely represented:
Ч1ехиди рахадайла гъвеч1ида яб це. - When the elderly speak, the young,
listen.
Вичин вилевай тар такуна, масадан вилевай ч!ар аквазва. - You see the speck in your brother's eye, but you do not notice the log in your own eye.
Мукьвал алай къунши яргъал алай мукьадалай хъсан я. - A close neighbour is better than a distant relative.
Гишинди фуахъ къекъведа, тухди - бахтунихъ. - The hungry seek bread, and the well-fed seek happiness.
The proverbs presented here reflect the most productive category of substantivized adjectives - animate nouns referring to people. In addition, proverbs are a characteristic genre where substantives are the most common means of expressing the subject.
Adjectives in the Lezgian language are also substantivized when they denote an abstract entity, resulting in the formation of substantives with a generalized qualitative meaning: иерди 'the beautiful', ц1ийиди 'the new', куьгьнеди/искиди 'the old' и т.д.
This group substantives act as an abstract form of impersonal objectness. Due to the indefinite and unspecified nature of their significate, they are considered only as a singularity, which does not have a number opposition in the form of a plurality. The singularity here is represented as a complex that cannot be divided as its parts lack specificity. There are some illustrations in point:
Ик! хьайила, я писди, я хъсанди дагълара акун тавуна амукьдач (Къ. Меджидов) - In case this happens in the mountains everything is completely exposed: the bad (things) and the good (things).
Ignorance of people brings fear, fear of the unknown. (Collins COBUILD).
Except that the unreal seemed more real to me ... (Subtitles of movies/series)
The Lezgian and English languages differ in the distribution of substantivized adjectives referring to abstract things over semantic classes of countability / uncountabil-ity. In the Lezgin language, these substantivizations can appear in both singular and plural forms; however they cannot have distinct countability status depending on a number. In addition, the plural form here acts as a nonsemantic function, since it attaches to abstract names without changing the meaning of the word. For instance:
MHcaHpu3 6агbа6ур (valuable-PL) ywy3 aByHa, MHcaHpM3 yxy&ap (valueless-PL) "6arba" (Kb. MeflWHflOB). - They have devalued everything valuable to people and made everything valueless in their eyes important.
In our opinion, this is due to the fact that when expressing number, these words become similar to the category of abstract nouns. As you know, in English, s-plurals do not occur in abstract names, in contrast to the Lezgian language, where both number forms are used.
Table 1
Number inflection of abstract nouns
Singular Plural
whiteness (BE) -
лацувал (Lezg) лацувилер
ignorance (BE) -
тийижирвал (Lezg) тийижирвилер
weakness (BE) -
къуватсузвал (Lezg) къуватсузвилер
However, in the case of English, it is impossible to equate these substantivized adjectives to uncountable abstract nouns. The explanation is that the formers are characterized by the ultimate indivisibility of the complex, while the latters allow relative splitting in order to clarify single or multiple manifestations of what is conveyed by the content of an abstract noun. For example, abstract nouns can take lexical-grammatical means specifying the number (e.g. a bit, a piece, a stroke) which is unacceptable for the substantivized adjectives. You can say many pieces of delicacy; a bit of justice, a stroke of brilliance, but a piece of the general, a bit of the worst and similar combinations are not the norm for the English language. Moreover, if we look at substantivized adjectives from a semantic point of view, we can see that they differ from abstract nouns in this sense. It can be observed in the OED that goodness is either 'the goodness of persons or things' whereas the good (neut .adj., abstract) is 'good in itself' [3, p. 36]. In other words, they rather denote an amorphous non-numerical notion in which adjectival force is still felt.
As it is known, substantivisation is also accompanied by a change in the morphological and syntactic nature of the word. In the anaphoric use, a linguistic unit cannot be classified as a noun although it takes the position of a noun and often takes the valence properties and morphological indicators of this word-class. Nevertheless, it may have potential for developing to a fully lexicalized item. Quasi-substantivisation is based on omission; it is simply an elliptical noun phrase in which the missing noun can either be added by world knowledge or by the antecedent that was previously mentioned in the context:
- Гьихьтин чехир? Ч1улавди, я лацуди? Къиметар сад я (М. Гьажиев). -What kind of wine? A red one (lit. black) or a white one? The prices are the same.
Being context-dependent the semantics of these linguistic units consists of their primary meaning and the context that supplies their referents. The context sufficient to identify their semantics is "a fragment of the text with the unit chosen for analysis, which is necessary to determine the meaning of this unit and consistent with the general meaning of this text" [4, с. 238], within which the original unit is used in its direct meaning and new function. Thus, we can see a kind of expansion of the original lexical meaning of the word due to the newly acquired semantic and grammatical features, as well as the earlier or subsequent context; there is an overlap of grammatical and semantic potencies of different parts of speech within a single word. This type of substantivisations can claim a certain position in the system of means of conveying the concept of substantialness.
Adjectives of the Lezgian language can be used predicatively, i.e. in the function of the nominal part of the predicate that identifies or classifies the subject, for example: И шешел кьезил я 'This bag is light'. The nominal complement of the compound predicate allows the use of the substantivized adjective equally: И шешел кьезилди я 'This bag is light' with the only difference that in the first case it is only reported that the object has this property, which itself acts as a predicate, and in the second "along with the property, as it were, the object to which it is assigned is repeated. The focus is, therefore, on the property which seems inherent in the object. For Gadjiev there is a kind of identity of the substance that expresses this characteristic and the substance that carries it" [5, с. 62].
In this regard, of interest to the study is the fact that in the Lezgian language for all units that can be substantivized, substantivisation is a necessary precondition for
their predicative use. For instance, relative adjectives can be used predicatively only in the substantivized form. We may contrast гъулцин стол 'a linden table' with 'ат!а стол гъулцинди тир' 'that table was made of linden'. Hence, we share the viewpoint expressed by Alpatov: "If some lexemes act as a particular part of the sentence only in combination with a transpositor (a special grammatical indicator that signals a total or partial transition from one class to another), then such a function should not be considered typical for these lexemes" [6, с. 38]. In other words, if a new function is marked with a special formal tool, then the function's exponent is the formal tool, not the lexeme in itself.
An independent adjective in the Lezgian language, like any other substantivized unit, performs the function of a free member of the syntagma. Its stem specifies the properties or attributes (qualitative or relative) of a noun referent, while its suffixal formants -di, - bur have a morphological load: they act as substantivizing suffixes. Pointing to the referent, these suffixes act as its substitutes, repeating it along with its property, for example: Ич гъвеч/иди я 'The apple is small-it', Ичер гъвеч1ибур я 'The apples are small-they' [5, с. 62]. Predicative substantivized adjectives agree in number with the subject (which is their functional specificity), unlike plain adjectives, which do not take the plural morpheme suffix in the similar position, cf.: Ич гъвечШ я 'The apple is small'; Ичер гъвеч1и я 'The apples are small'. According to some sources, this is the only case of agreement in the Lezgian language [7, p. 112].
With regard to substantivizing affixes, there is an opinion in the literature on the Lezgian language that they belong to the disappeared class exponents [8; 9; 10; 11]. Hence, it can be assumed that in the pralezgian language, the sign of substantivisation for adjectives in singular was class determinants that expressed the implied referent, i.e., the substantivizing suffixes were indicators of the grammatical class of the implied name. This point of view is quite reasonable, if we take into account the common position in Dagestan linguistics that every inflection genetically goes back to a significant unit, which eventually passes into the morphological inventory of the language. It is proposed in Rizakhanova that Lezgian substantivizing inflections -di; -bur functionally correspond to the articles a and the in English [12, с. 146]. Cf.: The city is building new housing for the elderly. (Times, Sunday Times (2018)) - 'Шегьерди кьуьзуьбуруз ц!ийи к!валер ицигзава'. He must have supposed she haunted the attic floor like a ghost or a lunatic (Waters, Sarah / The Night Watch). - 'Адаз ама къавук яшамишзавай хъен я кимиди яз аквазвай хьтин тир'. To place an article alongside is to give form to the significate; without the article the significate remains vague, formless.
Thus, at the morphological level, substantivisation involves the acquisition by the substantive of the main morphological properties of the noun - the categories of number and case, so that transposed lexemes occur in the noun paradigm by taking its grammatical formants. However, the case exponent is not attached directly to the stem (except for the Absolutive case index), but to the substantivizing affix, thereby exhibiting a tendency towards agglutination.
An adjective that has undergone substantivisation becomes a carrier of a completely different semantics, other than its original meaning; it acquires a new functional status and passes into a special lexical and grammatical category. All the forms ending in -di have one thing in common: they are the result of the syntactic reduction of the head of a noun phrase, for example: к1аниди 'a beloved (one)' (someone who is beloved) instead of к1ани кас 'a beloved person', и к!арасар заланбур я 'this firewood is
Библиографический список
1. Rießler M. Adjective attribution. Studies in Diversity Linguistics 2. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2016.
2. Лезги ч1алан словарь. А - KI. I ктаб. Л - Я. II ктаб. Махачкала: ДГУ, 2003 - 2005.
3. Aschenbrenner A. Adjectives as nouns, mainly as attested in Boethius translations from Old to Modern English and in Modern German. München: Herbert Utz Verlag, 2014.
4. Языкознание. Большой энциклопедический словарь. Москва: Большая Российская энциклопедия, 1998 - 2000.
5. Гаджиев М.М. Синтаксис лезгинского языка. Простое предложение. Махачкала: Дагучпедгиз, 1954; Ч. 1.
6. Алпатов В.М. Предисловие. Из истории изучения частей речи. Принципы типологического описания частей речи. Знаменательные части речи в японском языке. Части речи. Теория и типология, Москва: Наука, 1990: 3 - 50.
7. Haspelmath M. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyeter, 1993.
8. Шаумян РМ. Следы грамматических классов (родов) в агульском языке. Язык и мышление. Москва, 1936, Т. V! - V!!: 220 - 227.
9. Гаджиев М.М. Следы грамматических классов в лезгинском языке. Уч. зап. ИИЯЛ. 1958; Т. V: 217 - 226.
10. Мейланова У.А. Еще раз о категории грамматического класса в лезгинском языке. Проблемы сравнительно-исторического исследования морфологии языков Дагестана. Махачкала, 1992: 87 - 92.
11. Гайдаров РИ. Система имени прилагательного в лезгинском языке. Спецкурс. Махачкала: ИПЦ ДГУ 2000.
12. Ризаханова З.З. Сопоставительное исследование частеречных признаков прилагательного в английском и лезгинском языках. Диссертация ... кандидата филологических наук. Махачкала, 2005.
References
1. Rießler M. Adjective attribution. Studies in Diversity Linguistics 2. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2016.
2. Lezgi chIalan slovar'. A - KI. I ktab. L - Ya. II ktab. Mahachkala: DGU, 2003 - 2005.
3. Aschenbrenner A. Adjectives as nouns, mainly as attested in Boethius translations from Old to Modern English and in Modern German. München: Herbert Utz Verlag, 2014.
4. Yazykoznanie. Bol'shoj 'enciklopedicheskij slovar'. Moskva: Bol'shaya Rossijskaya 'enciklopediya, 1998 - 2000.
5. Gadzhiev M.M. Sintaksis lezginskogo yazyka. Prostoe predlozhenie. Mahachkala: Daguchpedgiz, 1954; Ch. 1.
6. Alpatov V.M. Predislovie. Iz istorii izucheniya chastej rechi. Principy tipologicheskogo opisaniya chastej rechi. Znamenatel'nye chasti rechi v yaponskom yazyke. Chastirechi. Teoriya i tipologiya, Moskva: Nauka, 1990: 3 - 50.
7. Haspelmath M. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyeter, 1993.
8. Shaumyan R.M. Sledy grammaticheskih klassov (rodov) v agul'skom yazyke. Yazyk i myshlenie. Moskva, 1936, T. VI - VII: 220 - 227.
9. Gadzhiev M.M. Sledy grammaticheskih klassov v lezginskom yazyke. Uch. zap. IIYaL. 1958; T. V: 217 - 226.
10. Mejlanova U.A. Esche raz o kategorii grammaticheskogo klassa v lezginskom yazyke. Problemy sravnitel'no-istoricheskogo issledovaniya morfologii yazykov Dagestana. Mahachkala, 1992: 87 - 92.
11. Gajdarov R.I. Sistema imeni prilagatel'nogo v lezginskom yazyke. Speckurs. Mahachkala: IPC DGU, 2000.
12. Rizahanova Z.Z. Sopostavitel'noe issledovanie chasterechnyh priznakov prilagatel'nogo v anglijskom i lezginskom yazykah. Dissertaciya ... kandidata filologicheskih nauk. Mahachkala, 2005.
Статья поступила в редакцию 25.02.20
Table 2
The declension paradigm of Lezgian игриди 'fake'
Case Singular Plural
Abs. игри-ди игри-бур
Erg. игри-да игри-бур-у
Gen. игри-да-н игри-бур-у-н
Dat. игри-да-з игри-бур-у-з
Adess. игри-да-в игри-бур-у-в
Adel. игри-да-вай игри-бур-у-вай
Addir. игри-да-вди игри-бур-у-вди
Subess. игри-да-к игри-бур-у-к
Subel. игри-да-кай игри-бур-у-кай
Subdir. игри-да-кди игри-бур-у-кди
Postess. игри-да-хъ игри-бур-у-хъ
Postel. игри-да-хъай игри-бур-у-хъай
Postdir. игри-да-хъди игри-бур-у-хъди
Superess. игри-да-л игри-бур-а-л
Superel. игри-да-лай игри-бур-а-лай
Superdir. игри-да-лди игри-бур-а-лди
Iness. игри-да игри-бур-а
Inel. игри-дай игри-бур-ай
(Lezgian substantivised adjectives can form all eighteen cases according to the
second type of nominal declension)
heavy' < m Klapacap 3anaM Klapacap a 'this firewood is heavy firewood, etc. It is generally assumed that substantivisations have the advantage of being short and compact and thereby support language economy.
Linguists today have varying notions about the process of substantivisation: there have been numerous corpora analyses in order to compare and investigate adjectives that are used as nouns with the aim of classifying their linguistic status, i.e. whether they can be attributed to inflection, word-formation or syntax. It is safe to say, however, that in essence substantivisation in the compared languages is a phenomenon that is intermediate between word formation and syntax - syntactical formation. While various theories may choose to interpret this definition broadly or more narrowly, the basic notion of substantivisation, to our mind, is the formation of an occasional syntactic form of the noun phrase as a consequence of the syntactic reduction of this constituent core whose referential attribution is clear from the context. Hence, we will say that the classes of adjectives and nouns converge upon each other, and that this is manifested by the possibility of elements displaying adjectival and nominal features at the same time in different proportions.
