The active suffixes of intercategorial word-formation in the Khanty language (the Kazym dialect)

This study is devoted to the description of word-formative suffixes of the actional type in the Kazym dialect of the Khanty language. The aim of the work was to consider the formation of verbs with the help of actional suffixes from other parts of speech. The tasks were to identify the list of active suffixes participating in inter-categorical word formation and to define productive word-formation models and their specialization according to the types of producing bases. The relevance and novelty of this study are that the material of the Kazym dialect of the Khanty language was not investigated on the issue concerned: the researchers have described the verbal word-formation, confining themselves to a list of verb-forming suffixes. As a result of the study, we have identified productive and unproductive active suffixes participating in inter-categorical word formation and have defined the specialization of suffixes by types of producing word stems. Actional suffixes join the stem of onomatopoeic words, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, and pronouns. With their help, the verbs can be formed with the following meanings: «to produce a sound that is indicated by the stem», «to implement what is indicated by the stem», «to perform the action using the object designated by the stem as a tool», «to display or acquire quality indicated by the stem», «to experience the state indicated by the stem or the state caused by what is indicated by the stem», «to be and to act like the one indicated by the stem», «to be covered by what is indicated by the stem», etc. 33 productive word-formation models for the formation of verbs from other parts of speech with the help of actional suffixes were revealed. Most often verbs are formed from nouns, much less often from adverbs and pronouns. The most productive is the suffix =εmə= , having produced 48 different verbs from different types of stems. The suffix =a= , having formed three verb units, is unproductive. The comparative analysis of the Kazym and Shuryshkar dialects revealed the discrepancies in the vocabulary, but the suffixes (except some) and the word-formation models are mostly general. Semantically and materially, these suffixes are almost similar.

Keywords

Authors

References