Тhe processes of growth and decay are natural to development of language. So, the analytical form, a complex system of verb formation is developed in English, but the system of the declination and personal endings of the verb is decayed, the words from the vocabulary are dropped, the new ones are appeared by borrowing or tumors [2, 56]. While Ancient English was not so strongly inflected language ​​like Sanskrit, Greek or Latin, it had a complex system of declension and conjugation. Because nouns persisted case endings, many relationships can be expressed without the help of prepositions, in contrast to the modern English language.

The process of withering away of the inflections accelerated in the inflective Ancient English, extends from north to south, explained by the proximity in the dictionary against the conquerors and the Anglo-Saxon language, which could contribute to linguistic confusion with its usual consequences in the field of morphology [1, 134].

The peculiarity of Greek word formation was to preserve certain types of word formation, the presence, in many cases synonymous suffixes and prefixes and suffixes ambiguity. Parts of speech in the ancient Greek  differ in the way of word formation and activity of a word-formation process. So, derivative nouns have more verbal formations and adjectives – denominative; the names used suffixation, and the verbs in the main – prefixing.

Most Greek words are derivatives formed using archaic, productive or later productive ways of word formation. Archaic methods of derivation are prosodic derivation and flexion (morphological) derivation. The most productive way of derivation is an affixation, which has its own characteristics in the ancient Greek.

Turning to the inflection (morphological) derivation, we can say  following: the crossing processes of word formation and morphogenesis were typical for the Indo-European language. The relics of this state are preserved in ancient Greek. So, the endings ο / ε and α of the basics of nouns, in many cases could not only be an indicator of various types of declinations (morphological variability), but also the act as word-formation suffix that left a trace in the form of a significant number of doublets: τρόπος – τροπή, βόλος – βολή.

Some of them have the same value (for example, τρόπος, τροπή «turn”), and part has a difference in meaning, either in use (maybe it’s later distinction): morphological variation, being excessive, became accompanied by a semantic difference. Comp .: ‘ρόος «tax file» -’ ροή «wearing, harvest». [3, 218]. Comp. in Russian: цеп и цепь.

If we consider affixed derivation, then it includes suffixation: verbal nouns (indicating the protagonist – σωτήρ «savior» from σώζω «save», an action or state – δεσμός «node» from δέω «associate», the result of – γνώμη «knowledge» by γιγνώσκω «know», with a value of instruments or means – λύτρον «buy» from λύω «buy back»), denominative (with a value of quality – φιλία «friendship» from φίλος «other», pet names – βιβλίον «book» from βίβλος «book» magnifying – χείλον «wrasse (fish)» from χε ~ ιλος « lip », denoting the offspring of ancestors, parents Δανα ~ ις« Dana “from Δαναός «Danaets» denoting the place of action – ο’ινός «Wine Warehouse» from ο ‘ίνος «Wine», a man name of the area – Σύριος «Syrian” from Συρία «Syria»); adjectives formed from nouns – λίθινος «stone» from λίθος «stone» verbs – φυγάς «runaway» from φέυγω «runaway», adverbs – χθές «yesterday» from χθεσινός «yesterday»; adverbs and suffixes – ‘άλλοθι «elsewhere» from’ άλλος «other».

Thus, the cause of the historical transformation of Morphosyntax was the loss (to varying degrees) case forms, substitute synthetic means and paradigmatic order [4, 268]. Of course, this process is not instantaneous. On the contrary, it lasted for many centuries and was the result of many factors, including the following: 1) the tendency to active expansion of prepositions; 2) preference for a system of analytical forms of expression that talker felt more simple, predictable and regular than literary inflected; 3) some weaknesses declinable classes, as well as the presence of a number of tokens indeclinable; 4) certain phonetic changes, which led to the destruction of the classical image of the overwhelming mass of words.

The problem of lexical homonymy in the Turkmen language has been studied by a group of linguists such as P.Azymov [1], Y.Chongayev[5], A.Borjakov[3], A.Geldimyradov[4], K.Babayev[2]. The authors answered many questions, such as identifying the phenomenon that occurs at the lexical level, explaining its origin, giving a definition, and distinguishing it from the lexical synonymy and antonymy phenomena that are close to it. Based on the analysis of linguists, the cases of homonymy, synonymy, and antonymy of suffixes can be considered independent but interrelated problems of grammatical semantics, which are of great importance for the study of the grammar of the modern Turkmen language.

Recently, the study of the grammatical structure of the Turkmen language has been deepening. In connection with this situation, the grammatical category of affixes have not been specifically analyzed in the grammar department, but it is based on the unique features of the grammatical means used in the language, which have not been examined before. Homonymy of affixes, as one of the situations that reveal the semantic specificity of grammatical means, attracts the attention of many linguists as an urgent problem that has just begun to be studied in the Turkmen language.

“Unlike lexical homonyms, synonyms, and antonyms, which are concerned with the semantic aspects of the facts of language, word-formation … involves the structural aspect of artificial units in addition to semantics. In the case of homonyms, synonyms and antonyms, the root words must be similar and the affixes must be different. Unlike lexical homonyms, synonyms, and antonyms, word-formation homonymy, synonymy, and antonymy are typical. However, these phenomena are related because homonymy, synonymy, and antonymy in word formation occur in words, and words refer to facts of word formation and lexicon at the same time” [3, p. 21].

In the analysis of the phenomenon of homonymy, they are divided into lexical homonymy, word-formation homonymy, and grammatical homonymy. The origin of homonymy in each of these is not the same. “If the word in lexical homonymy has two or more meanings without any grammatical features (bag-agaç, bag-ýüp; sag-janly, sag- sag tarap; gök- asman we gök reňk we ş.m.), the grammatical form of a word is similar in form to another form.

Grammatical homonymy, particularly syntactic homonymy, has been of interest to scholars studying various languages. Because to determine the grammatical category of the suffixes that perform similar but different syntactic functions, to determine the grammatical meaning they create, if necessary, to determine the type according to the function of a certain suffix, and so on. and it is considered necessary to explain which word group they can be added to.

R.D. Magerramov’s article “О “грамматической” – синонимии, омонимии и антонимии /На материале азербайджанского языка” [5] has been studied for a long time in Azerbaijani linguistics and Russian linguistics from the lexical and semantic-stylistic point of view. It is noted that the homonymic, synonymous and antonymic meaning becomes the main formal sign in the creation of some grammatical image. It is said that the new meaning can be interpreted in different ways, and they involve grammatical devices as well as lexical units. Studying semantic categories only at the lexical level leaves their grammatical features out of focus. Therefore, linguists focus on their grammatical aspect.

Linguists who have studied the issue consider the formation of homonymous affixes belonging to different word groups as a way of word formation. In particular, this method of word formation is discussed in the articles of U. T. Tursunova and N. R. Radjabova, “Из истории изучения омонимов в узбекском литературном языке”, Z. Muhammedova ” Предварительные значения в словаре «heлли –лугати- чагатаj”, A. Kaidarov, G. Azerbaijani linguist R.D. Magerramov notes that Sadvakasov and A. Talipov’s book “Modern Uighur Language” contains information. However, homonymous suffixes in the Turkmen language are not only word-forming suffixes. Based on the examples of the Turkmen language, it can be seen that homonymy of suffixes appears more often in image-forming and word-modifying suffixes. This happens in two different ways:

a)   Homonymy occurs when the suffixes used in the language come into play: although suffixes -yş/-iş; -uş/-üş; -ş; -laş/-leş are similar in appearance, they belong to different categories and homonymy occurs: Tan(a)- yş – partnership degree of the verb and oýlan-yş – image forming suffix; gör-üş -  partnership degree of the verb and pikirlen-iş – image forming suffix; adjective forming suffix -y/-i  (taryhy, medeni, gazaky) and third person conjugation suffix –y/-i  are homonyms (gülküsi, topy, öýi)  and so on.

b) secondly, the same suffix loses its former function and takes on a different function, and homonymy occurs: -dyr/-dir: Gelipdir (suffix of the past tense of the verb)– çagadyr(a verb suffix added to the end of a noun phrase); -myş/-miş: dolmuş (past participle) and dolupmyş (past tense suffix to the story) and so on.

Thus, the homonymous use of suffixes in the Turkmen language forms the following groups:

1. The homonymy of the suffix of the insufficient verb -dyr/-dir; -dur/-dür and causative verb suffixes -dyr/-dir; -dur/-dür;
2. The homonymy of the suffix of the nouns -dyr/-dir; -dur/-dür to make up a predicate and causative verb suffixes -dyr/-dir; -dur/-dür;
3. The homonymy of the suffix of the adjectives -dyr/-dir; -dur/-dür to make up a predicate and causative verb suffixes -dyr/-dir; -dur/-dür;
4. The homonymy of the suffix of the modal words -dyr/-dir; -dur/-dür to make up a predicate and causative verb suffixes -dyr/-dir; -dur/-dür;
5. The homonymy of the suffix of the insufficient verb –dy/-di and the suffix of the past tense of verbs –dy/-di;
6. The homonymy of the suffix of the nouns -dy/-di  and the suffix of the past tense of verbs –dy/-di;
7. The homonymy of the suffix of the adjectives -dy/-di and the suffix of the past tense of verbs –dy/-di;
8. The homonymy of the suffix of the insufficient verb –dy/-di added to modal words and the suffix of the past tense of verbs –dy/-di;
9. The homonymy of the suffix of partnership degree of the verbs -yş/-iş; -uş/-üş; -ş; -laş/-leş and image forming suffix -yş/-iş; -uş/-üş; -ş; -laş/-leş;
10. The homonymy of the suffix of partnership degree of the verbs -yş/-iş; -uş/-üş; -ş; -laş/-leş and noun suffixes yş/-iş; -uş/-üş; -ş; -laş/-leş;
11. The homonymy of the suffix of partnership degree of the verbs -laş/-leş and image forming suffix -laş/-leş;      
12. The homonymy of the suffix of partnership degree of the verbs yş/-iş; -uş/-üş; -ş  goşulmasy bilen  şekil ýasaýjy yş/-iş; -uş/-üş; -ş goşulmasynyň omonimdeşligi;
13. The homonymy of the past participle suffix –myş/-miş and noun suffix –myş/-miş;
14. The homonymy of the noun suffix –myş/-miş and adverb suffix -yp/-ip with the suffix of the past tense of verbs –myş/-miş;
15. The homonymy of the past participle suffix –an/-en and the suffix of the past tense of verbs to the story –an/-en;
16. The homonymy of the suffix of adverb in negative form –ma:n/-mä:n and the suffix of future indefinite tense of verbs –man/-men;
17. The homonymy of the suffix –ma/-me of nouns and imperative mood;
18. The homonymy of the future participle sufiix –jak/-jek and noun making suffix –jak/-jek;     
19. The homonymy of the suffix of subjective evaluation of the adjective –jak/-jek and the suffix of  future definite tense of verbs–jak/-jek;
20. The homonymy of the suffix of adverb –jyk/-jik and noun making suffix  –jyk/-jik;
21. The homonymy of the suffix of subjective evaluation of the adjective –jyk/-jik; -ja/-je and the suffix added to interrogative pronouns –jyk/-jik; -ja/-je;
22. The homonymy of the suffix of third person singular of nouns–y/-i; -ny/-ni and suffix of objective case of nouns –y/-i; -ny/-ni;
23. The homonymy of the suffix of adverbs –a/-e and suffix of objective case of nouns –a/-e;
24. The homonymy of the suffix of third person singular of nouns –y/-i and adjective making suffix –y/-i.

Thus, in the Turkmen language, the suffixes that are part of the homonymous relationship can be presented in the following groups according to their service:

1. Homonymous image formative suffixes;
2. Homonymous modifiers;
3. Homonymous word forming suffixes.

Special scientific study of the phenomenon of homonymy of suffixes in the Turkmen language is of theoretical importance. The results of the research can provide additional information in the study of the “Word Formation”, “Morphology” and “Stylistics” of the Turkmen language.