1Docent, Candidate of Philological Sciences, Department of Uzbek Philology, National University of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
2Professor, Doctor of Philology, Department of Uzbek Philology, National University of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, Email id: zulxumor-uzmu@mail.ru
3Doctor of Philological Sciences (PhD), Teacher of Department of Uzbek Linguistics, Bukhara State University, Uzbekistan, Email id: dildona@mail.ru
4Docent, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Department of Uzbek Philology, National University of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Online published on 24 September, 2020.
The peculiarities of the Turkic languages in the later stages of development were kept at different levels in the later stages. The independent development of the Turkic languages is determined by the socio-political processes and the influence of fraternal and non-fraternal languages. Observing changes in phonetic-phonological, lexical, grammatical levels, comparative analysis of categorical symbols, paradigmatic and syntagmatic means of communication allows for practical solution of the disputable problems of turkology. This article deals with the category of compromise in Turkish, grammatical meaning and grammatical forms. Comparative forms in the Uzbek and Turkish languages are compared, and the semantics of head, arrow, receipts, departure, time, and exit arrangements are highlighted. The versions of the case forms based on the singularity law are analyzed using examples. The Uzbek and Turkish languages were compared by the system of compromises, the number of compromises, and the extent of variants of compromise forms. The role of the covenants in the syntactic formulation of words and in the maintenance of the syntactic relationship is shown. The methodological features between the synonyms of the syllables, the synonyms of the consonants and the auxiliaries, and the grammatical meanings are analyzed. It is commented that there are calculation of the case system from the ancient category in Turkic grammar, its active use in securing syntactic relations, the absence of consensus in the morphological classification of certain grammatical forms, and its evaluation rather than the difference between language facts; differences in interpretation and that such differences are due to the complex morphological and syntactic nature of the compromises. Recommendations on generalization of classification of Turkic languages, in particular Uzbek and Turkish languages, achievement of uniformity in grammatical analysis of consonant forms, normalization of consonant forms preserved in the dialect.
Ancestral Language, Social Factor, Geographical Factor, Grammatical Category, Morphological Category, Negotiation Category, Possessive Category, Singarmonism, Categorical Character, Paradigmatic And Syntactic Communication, Classical Celtic Classics, Orthographic Form, Orthographic Form
