Derivation Patterns of Mongolian Onomatopoeic Verbs

Introduction. The article deals with Mongolian verbs derived from onomatopoeias by means of suffixes and specific verbs (using the analytical method). Goals. The study seeks to list up the suffixes and verbs in question, and find out whether there can be any kind of variability in their choice. Materials and methods. The research material was collected from Mongolian language dictionaries using the continuous sampling method. Results. It has been found that Mongolian onomatopoeic verbs (within the outlined boundaries) can be formed following one of the three patterns: 1) with the use of the suffixes -лА-, -нА-, -гА-, -чи-, -хирА-, -жигнА-, -чигнА-, -ги-, -ши- (moreover, verbs derived from command cries directed at animals are formed only with the suffix -лА-); 2) as a result of conversion (the only verb registered is бавна- ‘to bleat’ < баван баван ‘bleating of a goat’); 3) through the analytical method, i.e. with the use of the verbs хий- ‘to do’, гэ- ‘to speak’, дуугара- ‘to make a sound, to resound’. Verbs formed by means of suffixation often, in addition to the direct meaning, also have a figurative meaning based on metaphorical transfer. No obvious semantic distinction has been found between the onomatopoeias used with the verbs хий- ‘to do’, дуугара- ‘to make a sound, to resound’, and гэ- ‘to speak’. Four onomatopoeias are used with both the verb хий- ‘to do’ and the verb дуугара- ‘to make a sound, to resound’, and the meanings of the phrases either coincide or differ slightly. However, no coincidences of onomatopoeic roots in combinations with гэ- ‘to speak’ and дуугара- ‘to make a sound, to resound’ have been registered in the dictionaries. Conclusions. Derivation of Mongolian onomatopoeic verbs is characterized by regularity (there is a limited number of the possible suffixes and verbs used in analytical constructions; verbs from exclamation commands for animals are formed only with the suffix -лА). The process of grammaticalization and semantic bleaching of verbs used in analytical constructions has not completed yet, which explains why they cannot be fully interchangeable.

1. Pyurbeev G. Ts. (ed.) Unabridged Academic Mongolian-Russian Dictionary. In 4 vols. Vol. 1: A–Г. Moscow: Academia, 2001. 520 p. (In Mong. and Russ.)

2. Pyurbeev G. Ts. (ed.) Unabridged Academic Mongolian-Russian Dictionary. In 4 vols. Vol. 3: Ө–Ф. Moscow: Academia, 2001. 440 p. (In Mong. and Russ.)

3. Pyurbeev G. Ts. (ed.) Unabridged Academic Mongolian-Russian Dictionary. In 4 vols. Vol. 4: Х–Я. Moscow: Academia, 2002. 532 p. (In Mong. and Russ.)

4. Battulga Ch. How Are You? A Reader in Mongolia’ Regional Geography. Vol. 4. Ulaanbaatar: Mönkhiin Üseg, 2006. 125 p. (In Mong.)

5. Yanzhindolgor O. A. (comp.) Explanatory Dictionary of the Mongolian Language. Kh. Bayarsaikhan (ed.). Ulaanbaatar: Monsudar, 2011. 1890 p. (In Mong.)

6. Tsydendambaev Ts. B. Imitatives in Buryat. In: Sanzheev G. D. (ed.) Philology and History of the Mongolic Peoples. In Memoriam Boris Ya. Vladimirtsov. Moscow: Oriental Literature Press, 1958. Pp. 136–151. (In Russ.)

7. Tsydendambaev Ts. B. Imitatives in the Mongolic languages. In: Gafurov B. G. (ed.) Twenty Fifth International Congress of Orientalists. Proceedings (Moscow, 9–16 August 1960). Vol. 3. Sections 10, 11, 13. Moscow: Oriental Literature Press, 1963. Pp. 412–417. (In Russ.)

8. Shagdarov L. D. Imitatives in Modern Buryat. Ulan-Ude: Buryatia Book Publ., 1962. 149 p. (In Russ.)

9. Ramstedt G. J. Über onomatopoetische Wörter in den altaischen Sprachen. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne. 1951. Vol. 55. Pp. 106–112. (In Germ.)

10. Tserenpil D., Kullmann R. Mongolian Grammar. Ulaanbaatar: Admon, 2008. 448 p. (In Eng.)