ORTA ASYA KIPÇAK TÜRKÇELERİNDE OTURMA ODASI EŞYALARININ İSİMLERİ ÜZERİNE SÖZCÜKSEL-SEMANTİK ARAŞTIRMA
A LEXICAL-SEMANTIC STUDY ON THE NAMES OF LIVING ROOM FURNITURE IN CENTRAL ASIAN KIPCHAK TURKIC LANGUAGES

Summary/Abstract: This article examines the names of household items belonging to the guest room in the Central Asian Kipchak languages, namely Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Karakalpak, from a comparative perspective. In the study, room items are classified according to their functional characteristics, and the lexical units related to the guest room are analysed as a separate semantic group. The terms килем [kʲiˈlʲem]/ғалы [ʁɑˈlɯ]/қалы [qɑˈlɯ]/гилем [ɡʲiˈlʲem], сандық [sɑnˈdɯq]/сандык [sɑnˈdɯk], орындық [ɔrɯnˈdɯq]/орундук [ɔrunˈduk]/отырғыш [otɯrˈʁɯʃ]/олтургуч [olturˈɡut͡ʃ]/отургуч [oturˈɡut͡ʃ], перде [perˈde]/парда [pɑrˈdɑ], and сыпырғыш [sɯpɯrˈʁɯʃ]/сыпыртқы [sɯpɯrtˈqɯ]/шыпыргы [ʃɯpɯrˈɡɯ] are examined comparatively across the three languages. The analysis focuses on the phonetic variants, structural formation, and semantic development of these lexical units. The term килем and its phonetic variants demonstrate differentiation according to material, size, and quality. The lexical unit сандық denotes not only a concrete household object but also acquires figurative and symbolic meanings in various contexts. The group of lexical forms representing the concept of seating furniture (орындық, орундук, отырғыш, олтургуч, отургуч) illustrates different derivational models while preserving a common semantic basis. Similarly, the word перде shows semantic extension from a concrete household object to anatomical and metaphorical domains, while the lexical forms derived from the root сыпыр reflect the systematic formation of terms related to cleaning implements. The study demonstrates that the lexicon of guest-room household items in the Central Asian Kipchak languages is based on a shared Turkic lexical heritage. At the same time, phonetic variation, derivational patterns, and semantic expansion reveal language-specific developments. These features highlight both the historical unity of the Turkic lexical layer and the internal evolution of the Kipchak languages.

• Details
• Contents