About Transformation Formulas of the Most Ancient Roots in Eurasian Languages

The article compares the root morphemes of common lexemes of a number of languages of Eurasia, which have identical origins. Facts of the Turkic languages are used as the main material. Research on transformation formulas of Eurasian languages ancient roots is made by reconstruction, comparative historical, comparative typological and transform modeling methods. Etymological analysis of facts has been carried out from the standpoint of altaistics and nostratics. It shows that the Chinese language, under the influence of the open syllable rule, lost its final consonants, which were preserved in the Altai and other languages of Eurasia.


Introduction
The object of the article is common words of a number of language families be-longing to the Nostratic macrofamily of languages (Dolgopolskiy, 1964;Dolgopolskiy, 1967;Illich-Svitych, 1976;Starostin et al., 2016;Napolskikh, 2018). Here, the root morphemes and derivative words from Altaic (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu, Korean and partly Japanese), Chinese, Caucasian (Kartvelian, Dagestan, etc.), Uralic, Indo-European, Afrasian and partly Dravidian languages were compared from not linguogenetic point of view. The question about their ethnogenetic unity is discussed on limited materials.
The subject of research is more specific and has clearly delimited features. The paper considers those phonetic patterns that are uniform, regular and stable for the compared facts of different languages and serve as the basis for identifying their origin and those phonetic processes that have led to an increase in sound differences in etymologically identical words of former cognate languages. Sometimes there are such sound divergences in single-root morphemes that are even unimaginable for a simple observer and do not fit in the consciousness of a representative of traditional comparative studies. Here we show some preliminary examples.
For example, we have all reasons to believe that the English word hot, in Kyrgyz word ot "fire" and in Chinese word huǒ "fire, heat; red; hot temper; to get angry, to boil, to explode" are etymologically identical and are raised to the single ancient root (Cheremisina, 2017;Cheremisina, 2019). We represent this prototype as *hot "fire". At first sight, this reconstruction of the most ancient root seems absurd, illogical and motivated only from the point of view of semantics. A broader approach to the origin of these three words convincingly proves that their formal and phonetic differences are secondary and have been arisen under the influence of different phonological processes and regularities. In the historical phonetics of Hanyu, there was a well-known open syllable law, which assumed that the final parts of Chinese syllables were open, rhymed, and could only have consonants -n, -ng, -ı, which did not violate the harmony of the words' sound. As a result, the most ancient root *hot "fire" undergoes an apokopa drop of the final -t and the transformation of the sound combination -ot into the diphthong -uǒ. There are a lot of similar facts in the Chinese and Kyrgyz languages (Zulpukarov, 2016). The reconstructed protoform is confirmed in a wide variety of languages. For example, it has transformations in the Yenisei languages: Arin qot, qott, kӧt "fire", Assamese hat "fire", Kot hhot, hot "fire" etc. (Toporov, 1968). These languages are now dead, but the examples are preserved, have come down to our time and are not exceptional. We present similar facts from Indo-European languages: Dutch heet, Icelandic heitt, Swedish het, German heiß, English hot "hot", which also indicate the validity of the prototype we are reconstructing. And how is the Kyrgyz fire nominee related to it? The connection is direct-apheresis has occurred, i.e. the initial back-lingual consonant has been thrown away. It is known that the Kyrgyz cannot articulate the sound h in any position, so many foreign words with this sound were subjected to dieresis: the Arabic anthroponym Hasan-Kyrgyz Asan, the Arabic haram is in Kyrgyz aram "forbidden". The most ancient root *hot "fire" also lost its initial con-

Research Methods and Materials
In this article, reconstruction aimed at recreation and systematization of linguistic forms, semantics, phenomena by comparing correlative units from efficient language that functioned in different periods (Bogacheva, 2009); comparativehistorical built on simple comparison or description of literary phenomena, explaining the similarity of genetically unrelated phenomena with similar conditions of social development, considering similar phenomena as a result of their genetic relationship and subsequent historically determined discrepancies and establishing genetic links between phenomena based on cultural interactions (Morgacheva, 2016); comparative typological, highlighting one or different object in linguistics (Kozhaeva, 2008); transform modeling methods according to propositional models, schematic models of images, metaphorical and methodological models (Pankina, 2006;Zulpukarov et al., 2021) were utilized.

Results and Discussions
In this section results obtained after analysis of reflexes of most ancient roots expressing meanings, representations in the Indo-European languages, scheme models showing the development course of most ancient root along three lines: Turkic and Iranian, German and Khalaj, Chinese and Kyrgyz languages were described.
It should be noted that the reflexes without the initial hrepresented in the Indo-European languages-ancient and modern: the ancient Indian atharvā "priest of fire", Avestan atar "fire", Irish aith "oven" etc., in Slavic languages: Ukrainian vandtrand "fire" Serbo-Croatian vandtrand "fire", Polish watra "hearth, fire, smoldering ashes" (Fasmer, 1986). As you can see, in the Slavic examples, the presence of a prothetic labialized consonant is noted, and in the Indo-Iranian, the labial vowel of the root is transformed into a-. Thus, by comparing words of different language families that do not have common sound characteristics, we have established their genetic identity. The ratio of the most ancient root and its reflexes can be represented in the diagram as shown in Figure 1.

Transformation Form of Word Kul in Eurasian Languages
The Kyrgyz word kul "servant, slave" has an equivalent in Chinese in the form kŭlì "laborer, servant, porter; to do not spare effort in work, work hard in heavy work" The semantic and formal commonality of the two compared words is obvious. Here we do consider a Chinese lexeme primary on the grounds that the Chinese language motivates the semantic structure of a word, as it consists of two mutually agreed independent syllables: 1) kŭ "heavy, painful, pitiful, poor; to torment, suffer, bitterness, suffering, torment, misery" and 2) lì "to subject, Tatar; 3) gul-Turkish dialects, Kyrgyz (in compound words-anthroponyms, for example, Toktogul literally "stop + slave"); 4) hul-Tofalar, Khakass; 5) köle-Turkish; 6) ҟulut-Yakut (Levitskaya et al., 1997).
In the Yakut word ҟulut "slave, servant, knave", the second part (-ut) is considered borrowing from the Mongolian languages and a sign of plurality (Levitskaya et al., 1997: p. 120). The meaning of "knave", conveyed by the Yakut word ҟulut and the Tuvan word ҟul, has a semantic analogue in the Mongolian language, where bool means "slave, serf, thrall, Jack (in cards)". There are several hypotheses about the origin of the common Turkic name Raba.
1) The word ҟul is etymologically related to the common Turkic lexeme ҟulaҟ "ear" (A. Vamberi). Let's say right away that such an assumption has neither a semantic nor a derivational basis. The hypothetical root *ҟul-"to listen, listening" could not possibly be the archetype of the slave's name.
2) It has also been suggested that the most ancient root *ҟul "slave" is related by origin to the noun ҟol "hand" and to the verb ҟıl "to do" (A.N. Bernshtam).
In this case, an analogy is given: in Russian, the name of a slave "rab" corresponds to the verb nominee of the work: rab, rabotat, rabota, where the common root combines a non-derived noun with derivatives-a verb and a noun denoting the actions and activities of the denotation-subject expressed in the original form of the root. And this idea is recognized by scientists G. Derfer, L.S. Levitskaya, etc.) as unfounded from the point of view of etymology.
3) Another hypothesis was proposed and proved by us (Zulpukarov, 2016: p. 494;Zulpukarov & Amiraliev, 2017a: p. 31;Zulpukarov & Amiraliev, 2017b: p. 85;Zulpukarov & Amiraliev, 2018: p. 47). We consider this root to be common Open Journal of Modern Linguistics Eurasian and erect it to the Chinese archetype. Among the Turkic languages, only Turkish has preserved the archiform köle "slave", without being subjected to apocope. 4) In the European and American linguoethnocultural space is found the lexeme kuli "porter, hired worker". Its origin is not precisely determined. Some linguists associate it with Tamil, while others associate it with Bengali (Petrov, 1989: p. 272). We hold the view that it has Chinese origin.

Transformation Forms of Other Words in Eurasian Languages
Consonant matches in anlaut are natural: compare, for example, the nominees of the meanings "pleasant smell, aroma, musk" in the following languages: Kyrgyz zhıpar, Turkish dialects yıpar, Yakut sıbar/sımar, etc. The loss of the initial consonant is also not an exceptional phenomenon. Outstripping of the interconsonant vowel ı > i occurs under the influence of the medio-lingual y-. These words express meanings: 1) year-in all languages; "a year in the twelve-year animal cycle"-the Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Saryg-Yugur; 2) the "year of life"-the Turkish dialects, Kyrgyz; "age"-ancient Uyghur; 3) "new harvest"-Uyghur dialects (Shcherbinin et al., 2006: p. 275).
We compare these examples with (1) Mongolian: Buryat zhel, Dagur zhil, Kalmyk zhil, Mogor zhir, Khalkha-Mongolian zhil "year" (Sanzheev, 2016: p. 74) and Tungus-Manchu: Solon zhil "year" (Tsintsius, 1975: p. 257). The latter, rather, is a borrowing from the Mongolian languages. J. Clawson considers the primary meaning "year in the twelve-year animal cycle", the secondary-meaning "year". And to give the meaning "year of life, age; live" in the Turkic languages is used a word that functions in the variants yash/zhash/yaash etc. in both verb and substantive forms. Compare the Kyrgyz on zhash "ten years" and zhash-a "live". Open Journal of Modern Linguistics We believe that the outcome in Mongol-Turkic names of the year is a Chinese two-syllable word rìlì [zhıli] "calendar" (Levina, 2012: p. 291, 643), which is semantically motivated by its parts: rì [zhı] "sun, sunshine, day, daytime; day, date, number, time of day, every day, constantly; day by day, every day; once (in the past), upon a time; some time (in future), another time; to speculate on the sun" and lì "calendar, era; experience, life experience" (Levina, 2012: p. 291, 219). The combination of members of these two semantic paradigms acquired a more specific meaning and served as the basis for the emergence of a complex word. See also jiùlì "lunar calendar (style)" (Imin et al., 2001: p. 480). Chinese calendar names are borrowed by the West Altaic languages and became nominees of the year, undergoing apocope, which led to a reduction in the volume of the sign and the formation of a closed syllable: zhıli/zhıl/yıl. This fact can serve as an analog for explaining the etymology of the road name in the Turkic languages. Kyrgyz zhol "road, path, track, distance, space, track, trail, lane, exit, passage" can be compared with Chinese lexemes: 1) zhù/zhuó "track, trail, path, legacy, affair, deed, pattern, example"; 2) zhé/chè "trail, wheel track, path, road, pattern, exit, post, rhyme class". Here we are dealing with interchange in Chinese initials in the form zh-/ch-, matching the Kyrgyz initial zh-. The endings are different: Chinese -ú/-uó/-é/-è = Kyrgyz -ol. The latter could be explained as the correspondence of the Kyrgyz closed syllable to the Chinese open syllable and here we recognize as the primary the more developed, i.e. Kyrgyz form (zhu/zhuo/zhe/chе from zhol), because there were no examples in the Chinese language which significantly complement and explain these comparisons: 1) Chinese zǒulù "to walk on the road, travel", consisting of the syllables: zǒu "to walk (on foot), go, stroll, move" and lù "road, overland, by land, by dry way"; 2) Chinese jùlì "space, distance, clearance, gap, distance (of action), range, reach", consisting of the syllables: jù "large, huge, enormous" and lì "distance, at a distance; to diverge, move away, push apart, remove"; 3) Chinese yīlì "all the way, the same way, together, along the way, with the move, along with the move"; 4) Chinese yóulì "to traveling, travel", yóulè "to go for a walk, enjoy yourself, have a good/jolly time", which probably consist of syllables: yóu "to walk, stroll, take a tour, get around, go around, go about, roam, wander, travel" on the one hand, and on the other lì "distance, at a distance" and lè "joy, merriment, pleasure; to enjoy, have fun, to live in joy; to delight, entertain; a joyful, funny".
The initials of these syllables z-, jand yrelate to the initials zhand chof the first two syllables as alternating and can be identified with the Kyrgyz initial zhin the word zhol. The correlation of the given roots can be represented schematically in the following form ( Figure 3).
Chinese monosyllabic (4) and two-syllable (5) lexemes are united by the common meaning "path, to be on the way, movement on the way", which is also characteristic to their Kyrgyz analog. We make the assumption Kyrgyz zhol, probably derived and consists of two parts: the first part-syllable zho-, comparable with the Chinese monosyllabic lexemes, and the second part-initial -l,