Rozyyeva Altyn1, Myradova Gurbangul1
1Dovletmammet Azadi Turkmen National Institute of World Languages, Candidate of Philological sciences, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Turkmen language

This article explores the concepts of synonymy and variation in Turkmen morphology, focusing on the role of word-modifying suffixes. While some linguists argue for the synonymity of these suffixes due to their similar functions, others emphasize their distinct characteristics like ability to create variants with subtle meaning changes or stylistic differences. The article discusses contrasting perspectives from scholars like Geldimyradov, Ibragimov, Babaev, and Chongayev, highlighting the ambiguity surrounding terminology and the need for further analysis. It concludes by emphasizing the importance of recognizing the nuanced functions of word-modifying suffixes beyond simply labeling them as synonyms or variants.

Keywords: morphology, synonymy, Turkmen language, variation, word-modifying suffixes

Category: 10.00.00 Philology

Article reference:
Rozyyeva A., Myradova G. Beyond Synonyms or Variants: Examining the Nuances of Word-Modifying Suffixes in Turkmen Morphology // Modern scientific researches and innovations. 2024. № 2 [Electronic journal]. URL:

View this article in Russian

Turkmen linguists [1] write that, just like phonetic units, separate morphological indicators – suffixes are added to words to express the same meaning, and note that they add to the same word and produce structurally different variants of the word. A. Geldimyradov says that “these types of synonyms, being a linguistic unit that has the same meaning, are similar to other linguistic units whose usage characteristics vary” [3], calling them “variant units” and “synonyms” used in the form of word-changing and image-forming suffixes is synonymous and it emphasizes that there is a closeness between the phenomena of possibility, and even that in some cases it slips into a unified concept.

S. M. Ibragimov in his analysis [5] notes that each of the syntactic semantic units and variants has its own characteristic signs, and on this basis, it is wrong to consider these grammatical phenomena as one thing.

The correctness of the use of the term polymorphism not only for word-forming suffixes, but also for word-modifying suffixes can be verified through the written works on the study of this issue in the Turkmen language. K. Babaev divides the synonyms in the Turkmen language into three categories and assigns them image-forming, level-forming and word-changing suffixes. He writes that in grammatical stylistics, the correct use of modifiers and modifiers, and the selective use of synonyms are of great importance.

Depending on the meaning of word-modifying suffixes in the Turkmen language, ambiguity can be observed in the use of terms. When modifying suffixes make a different form of a word, i.e. another variant, it is called a synonym. Indeed, the term “manydaşlyk” more fully and correctly reveals such a service of the suffixes when looking at it as a “variant”. For example, through variantization there is a small change in the structure of units and it does not involve changes in meaning. But the synonyms of word-modifying suffixes can give a different meaning to the previous meaning, or else they can differentiate it stylistically. Also, just as with adverbs, adverbial modifiers differ in whether they conform to the conventions of the literary language or differ in style.

The use of terms of variation and synonymy in the Turkmen language. According to Y. Chongayev, “When a word is variantized, it changes its external form (phonetically or grammatically) and does not change its internal content. That being said, the inner meaning of a word is closely related to its outer form. The change in shape reveals, at the very least, a stylistic twist. Therefore, when studying the variants of the word, considering its morphological structure and the use of suffixes, we should sort out their meanings” [4]. According to the linguist, when there is morphological variation, the structure of the word slightly changes its previous form, that is, the grammatical part of the word is reformed. For example: sensiň- sendirsiň, alypsyň- alypdyrsyň, gülýärsiň-gülýäň, ýazypmyş-ýazanmyş and etc.

A. Geldimyradov writes about the formal indicators characteristic of syntactic options, distinguishing them from syntactic parallels and synonyms, which are close linguistic phenomena, and notes that “Since the connection of phrases is the object of syntax, we consider the parallel use of morphological means that connect them to each other as syntactic options” [3]. Without taking into account that the author’s main goal here is not to find or determine morphological synonymy or variantization, it can be noted that his ideas in this regard are important in determining grammatical phenomena such as synonymy and variantization.

The author’s naming of the meaning of morphological means as a variant may be related to the fact that the meaning occurs only between words that have independent meanings. He says, “Morphological variants are also directly related to synonyms. The main signs of synonyms are that different words have the same meaning, and those signs can be seen in morphological variants. When morphological variants have the same meaning, as a rule, one of them suppresses the other from the language. creates the idea that the concepts of ‘option’ are equal or compatible.

The unique difference between the phenomena of alliteration and variation becomes even more clear in the use of morphological means – affixes. For example, algyly-algydar, günali – günakar, arabaçy – arabakeş, edepsiz – biedep, gaharly-gaharjaň, dawaçy – dawagar, gybatçy – gybarkeş, oyunjak- oynawaç, tutgyç – tutawaç, asgyç-asawaç, işçi-işgär,ynamly-ynamdar, wepaly-wepadar, rehimli-rehimdar, bilimli-bilimdar, bagtly-bagtyýar, biakyl-akylsyz, biedep-edepsiz, günäsiz-bigünä, näsag-nähoş, göwnejaý-göwnemakul, emakyl- akylsyz, bigadyr-gadyrsyz, binamys-namyssyz, umytsyz-näumyt, ynsapsyz-naynsap, gylykly-hoşgylyk, sabyrsyz-bisabyr, betgelşik-gelşiksiz, hoşniýetli- päkniýetli,  zyýanly-zyýankeş, tertipsiz-bitertip, zehinsiz-körzehin, sowatsyz-körsowat, rysgalsyz-kemrysgal, biperwaý-perwaýsyz, tarapdar-tarapgöý, dostlykly-dostana, wepasyz-biwepa.  In such synonyms, word-forming affixes give new meaning to the word, and such affixes do not create variation. These synonyms are often used with or without stylistic distinction. On the other hand, modifiers and formative affixes will change the original meaning of the word dal and create a different grammatical form of it. As a result, word forms are formed that do not undergo any change in meaning, and will form variants of the same suffixes by using them in different ways, often in abbreviated or full form. For example, daşary – daşaryk, ileri – ilerik,  ýokary-ýokaryk, öwüşgin-öwşün,  nirä-nirik, näçe-nije, bolar – bor, senin–seň, geljek-gelejek, şahyr-şahyra, agymtyl-agymtyk, turşumtyk-turşumtyl, ýazýaryn-ýazýan, gelýär-gelýä, gybatçy-gybatçyl, dawaçy-dawaçyl, oýat – oýar, demik – demjik, ýana – yanta, sygyr– sygdyr, sensiň-sendirsiň  and etc. Such alternative usage will occur mainly due to stylistic differences. Here, images are considered optional because they do not significantly affect word structure and meaning. Although the additions that form them do not create a new lexical meaning, they somehow have a new meaning, a stylistic feature, as well as a difference in grammatical form.

Linguistic culture and its standardization are also called semantic variants by semantic modifiers and image-forming affixes. Based on this, the fact that the suffixes used in Thai are called variants or synonyms with different names reveals the inseparable situation in the naming of these concepts.

The use of variant or synonymous word-modifying and word-forming affixes can become the object of analysis of linguistic scholars engaged in language culture and its normalization. In which case they are synonyms and in which places they are variants, and which variant or synonym becomes the norm of the literary language is a matter of direct attention of linguists interested in language culture.

  1. Azymow P. Türkmen diliniň meseleleri – Aşgabat, Ylym, 1969, 120 s.
  2. Babaýew K. Sinonimik morfemalar grammatik stilistikanyň esasy obýektleri. // Kitapda: Türkmen diliniň praktiki stilistikasy, -Aşgabat.1984, 14 s.
  3. Geldimyradow A. Türkmen edebi dilinde wariantlaşma, -Aşgabat, 1983.
  4. Çöňňäýew Ý. Häzirki zaman türkmen dili. Leksika. –Aşgabat, 1981. 131sah.
  5. Ибрагимов С. М. Функциональный – семантический принцип в определении синтаксических синонимов. //В кн.: Татарский язык: лексическая и грамматическая семантика. –Казань.1984, 9-96 с

All articles of author «author»

© If you have found a violation of copyrights please notify us immediately by e-mail or feedback form.

Contact author (comments/reviews)

Write comment

You must authorise to write a comment.

Если Вы еще не зарегистрированы на сайте, то Вам необходимо зарегистрироваться: