October 21-23, 2013 The Department of Languages of the Peoples of Russia of the Institute of Linguistic Research (ILI) organized an international scientific conference "Mongolian Languages: History and Modernity". The geography of participants is very extensive: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ulan-Ude and Elista, China and Japan, Hungary, Finland and Sweden.

N. N. Kazansky, Director of ILI RAS, a specialist in classical philology, spoke about the history of Mongolian studies at ILI (former Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences), associated with the names of V. M. Nadelyaev, L. A. Karabayeva, S. L. Charekov, and about the scientists who continue their work now.

The conference covered a number of thematic areas. Tsagaansar-Zheng Yue (Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China) made a report "One of the samples of the square letter monument, which was the state alphabet of the Yuan Dynasty (on the example of inscriptions on Tibetan coins)". She told about this find, its origin, the materials on which the text was applied. After classifying the coins, she identified four types of "khor-ig" - a Mongolian square letter composed by the Pagba Lama, and analyzed the features of its signs. The author has established a common tradition of writing the letters of this letter. The text is written vertically, and lines are drawn from left to right. There is an opinion that such a letter fell out of use with the fall of the Yuan dynasty. Tsagaansar believes that these coins functioned sporadically during the Qing Dynasty. The two iron coins she found were cast in 1840 during the last stage of the Qing rule.

Otgon Borzhigin (China) made a presentation " A brief introduction to the study of the passage on the "clear letter" - the manuscript "Thar-po chen-po "" The Great Liberator "(Mong. Yekedc

* For more information, see: Oriens. 2014. № 3.

tonilaychi "Going up")". The fragment was found in 1988 in the habitat of the Khoshut Mongols from Qinghai. The speaker described the discovery as follows: it consists of hundreds of scroll pieces with Buddhist text written by Kalam in "clear writing". It turned out that this fragment was known to the Hungarian scientist D. Kara, and even earlier - to the Russian scientist S. E. Malov, who discovered the "Golden Luster Sutra".

K. Higuchi (Yoshima University, Matsuyama, Japan) in his report "Linguistic and philological values of Mongolian Buddhist works" reviewed the Mongolian versions of "Ratnajali", studied the archaisms of this work in comparison with its later versions.

T. D. Skrynnikova (Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg) traced the history of adding Mongolian ethnonyms on the basis of Turkic components. So, she considered the word borjigan, on the basis of which the names of several genera arose: borjigan-Mongol-borjigan-kiyat; or masculine-feminine-Borte-Chino-Goa-Maral, in which the archetype is preserved.

Reports and presentations by A. M. Pevnov (St. Petersburg), Y. Yankhunen (Finland), N. S. Yakhontova (St. Petersburg) and M. Enkhbat (Ulaanbaatar) are devoted to the interrelationships of languages. In the report of A. M. Pevnov "On the Mongolian origin of the Manchu indicator of the dative case", the formants-de(1),- du (-du)(2) are considered. The author showed changes in these formants of the dative case based on grammatical, lexical and semantic factors.

The reports of N. S. Yakhontova and M. Enkhbat are based on the same source - the dictionary "Mirror of Manchu-Mongolian Literature" (1717), published under the supervision of the Kangxi Emperor. According to N. S. Yakhontova, the dictionary is ideographic and encyclopedic in nature. The author noted the advantages of the dictionary in contrast to others in that its dictionaries had mirror explanations reflecting the meaning of various knowledge in the history of the Qing dynasty. M. Enkhbat considered this lexicographic source only from the point of view of the grammar of the Manchu language in the light of the dynamics of parts of speech - nominal and verbal.

Yu. Yankhunen, in his report "Proto-Mongolian and pro-Mongolian loanwords in Jurchen-Manchu", emphasized that the interrelationships of these languages have a long period of development, which is probably why they have acquired related features.

A number of reports and presentations were devoted to the issues of historical phonology, grammar of Mongolian languages and oral speech.

P. O. Rykina (OR RAS, St. Petersburg) in her report "Some features of the use of affricates in the Middle Mongolian language" gave phonological characteristics of the Middle Mongolian affricates s and ji, traditionally recognized as reflexes of Proto-Mongolian *s and *j. She proposed a new approach to determining their phonemic status based on the linguistic material of the Secret History of the Mongols (1240); fragments of a bilingual (Mongolian-Uyghur) verse manuscript found in the territory of the Golden Horde (XIV c.); the Mongolian version of Choiji-Odser's Twelve Acts of the Buddha (XIV c.); and the Chinese-Chinese version of the Book of-Mongolian dictionary "Dada Guan tzazi" (second half of the 15th century); wall inscription from Dunhuang grotto in Uyghur-Mongolian script (1341-1368); Chinese-Mongolian dictionary "Huai yu" (1389); Mongolian monuments of square writing (13th-14th centuries); Mongolian translation of "Subhashitaratnanidhi" by Sakya Pandita (late 13th-early 14th centuries) and other Chinese-Mongolian lexicographic sources. The speaker explained the features of alternating affricates in modern Mongolian languages and concluded that Khitan and Proto-Mongolian languages were related to each other by a certain kinship that goes back to some common pre-Proto-Mongolian idiom.

N. B. Badmatsyrenova (Buryat State University, Ulan-Ude) in her report "On the issue of identifying the concessive mood in Mongolian languages" based on new research by V. I. Rassadin* clarified the form of concessionality that occurs with the help of adverbs and the concessive union. She examined the yielding mood in the Mongolian languages with appropriate examples using possessive affricates, using examples from colloquial speech. In her opinion, the question of this inclination remains open and requires further detailed research.

* Rassadin V. I. Essays on morphology and word formation of the Mongolian language. 2nd ed., ispr. and add. Elista, 2011. 103 p.

B. Brosit (Stockholm University, Sweden) in his report "Aspectology, tense and evidentiality in Khalkha and Khorchin (Mongolian languages)" analyzed the verbal forms of Mongolian languages based on the existing classification covering Middle Mongolian and modern languages. The author has identified the peculiarities of verbal forms in Khalkha-Mongolian in contrast to the Khorch dialect.

X. Umetani (Institute of Linguistics and Culture of Asia and Africa at the Tokyo University of Foreign Languages, Japan) made a report "Description of the suffix: xgujs in the Khalkha-Mongolian language". The author's research is based on examples of the modern Mongolian language in Cyrillic, which make its interpretation more understandable.

The audience was presented with similar reports based on the materials of modern Mongolian and Kalmyk languages.

In the report of A.V. Kurysheva (SPb.GU) "On the so-called subject indicators in the modern Mongolian language" questions of their function are considered. The term "subject indicator" has a traditional meaning in the grammatical theory of Mongolistics. Marking of the topic in Mongolian is optional, for which significant and service words are given. All topic metrics are divided into two groups. The author calls the first one "conditioned": bol, bolbol, bolboos, bogoos, gavel bol, the second "possessive": ny, chin. The latter have the value of juxtaposition.

V. V. Baranova (OR RAS) in her report "The verb gi- "to speak" in the Kalmyk language: discursive function, grammaticalization, use (according to corpus data)" analyzed semantic colors in direct and indirect speech using concrete examples.

The methodology of lexical borrowing criteria, the study of spontaneous Mongolian speech, and aspects of corpus linguistics make up the range of topical problems of modern linguistics. A. A. Burykin (OR RAS) in his report "On the criteria for identifying lexical borrowings in lexicology, general comparative studies, and Altaistics" divides lexical borrowings into: common heritage or borrowings; the result of interaction of several groups of Altaic languages and languages. inter-group loanwords; a consequence of the interrelationships of Altaic languages with non-Altaic ones; inter-group loanwords within the Altaic community. The author analyzed the latest research on Altaism, including the works of V. I. Rassadin*.

Yu. Rong-Khasmandal (China, Hohhot, University of Inner Mongolia) in her report "Corpus of Spontaneous Mongolian (CSM)" spoke about the peculiarities of spontaneous speech among Mongols, based on the materials obtained.

S. A. Krylov (IB RAS) spoke about the work on this project in the report "Database of the "Quantitative and implementation grammatical dictionary of the modern Mongolian language". The corpus contains 996 texts (1,155,583 words), and 97% of text word forms were analyzed. The corpus includes the following texts: fiction of the XX century (novels, novellas, short stories, essays); poetry of the XX century; translation of the "Hidden Legend of the Mongols" into modern Mongolian; materials from the newspaper "Dayar Mongol" ("Mongolian Globalization").

Bela Kempf (Budapest, Hungary) in his report "Etymological dictionary of the Buryat language" spoke about his project.

V. E. Radnaev (IB RAS) in his report "The words khutva and khudam in the Mongolian language: semantics and etymology" investigated the etymology of the proposed words. The words khudam bichig (khudam uzeg) and khutva are obviously close in semantics. The word khudam is well studied in Mongolian studies: in lexicology and lexicography. There are no reliable written sources regarding the word khutva yet.

A number of reports were devoted to the issues of Mongolian sociolinguistics, sociology and linguistic ethnopolitics.

G. A. Dyrheeva (Ulan-Ude, IMBT SB RAS) in her report "Buryats and the Buryat language in the mirror of statistics" presented data on the functioning of the Buryat language in Buryatia in recent decades. According to the 2010 census, more than 100 nationalities lived in the republic, including: Russians - 630,783 (66.1%), Buryats - 286,839 (30%), Tatars - 6,813 (0.7%), Ukrainians - 5,654 (0.6%), Soyots-3,579 (0.4%), Evenks-2,974 (0.3%). The main components of the language situation in Buryatia are Russian and Buryat. However, the socio-communicative system of functionally unequal languages is not balanced. Unlike the Russian language, which is used in all spheres of communication, the scope of application of Buryat

* Rassadin V. I. Essays on the history of the addition of the Turkic-Mongolian linguistic community. Tyurkskoe vliyanie na leksiku mongol'skikh yazykov [The Turkic influence on the vocabulary of Mongolian languages]. Ch. 1. Elista, 2007, pp. 22 et seq.

it is insignificant. The trend for 2013 is as follows: the share of Buryat speakers decreased not only among Buryats (43.6%), but also among Russians (0.4%), Tatars (6.6%), Evenks (4.2%), Ukrainians (0.2%), Soyots (92%).

E. Kobayashi (Yoima University, Matsuyama, Japan) in his report "Changes in the Mongolian language of Inner Mongolia as a result of its contact with Chinese" noted the influence of Chinese on Mongolian not only in lexical-semantic, but also in grammatical terms.

The scientific problems discussed at the conference are evidence of achievements in Mongolian linguistics.

Permanent link to this publication: