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.

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.