Âàâà and other "strange" persian kin words: areal approach

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru//

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru//

Âàâà and other “strange” persian kin words: areal approach

Î. Ch. Kshanovsky

The paper presents the results of the analysis of the relictfeatures of the -vertical classification of relatives in Modern Persian, which is inherent in the languages of the Altaic areal, Turk, in particular: the term aqa designates “elder brother” and “the eldest brother in thefamily”, as well as the term dadash designates “an elder brother”; the use of the term babafor “father” and “grandfather”, the termsjaddfor “grandfather”, “great-grandfather” andniyafor “grandfather”, “great-grandfather” and “great-great-grandfather”; the dialectal use of the word aqafor “elder brother”, “the eldest brother”, “husband” (formal), “father s brother” and “granddad”. Key words: kinship terms, generational system of kinship, classification system of kinship, Persian language, semantics.

Êøàíîâñüêèé Î. ×. Baba òà ³íø³ «äèâí³» ïåðñüê³ ñëîâà íà ïîçíà÷åííÿ ñïîð³äíåíîñò³: àðåàëüíèé ï³äõ³ä. - Ñòàòòÿ.

Ó ñòàòò³ ïðåäñòàâëåíî ðåçóëüòàòè àíàë³çó â ïåðñüê³é ìîâ³ ðåë³êòîâèõ ðèñ âåðòèêàëüíî¿ êëàñèô³êàö³¿ ðîäè÷³â, ïðèòàìàííî¿ ìîâàì àëòàéñüêîãî àðåàëó, çîêðåìà òþðêñüêèì: ôóíêö³îíóâàííÿ òåðì³í³â aqa íà ïîçíà÷åííÿ «ñòàðøîãî áðàòà» òà «íàéñòàðøîãî áðàòà â ñ³ì ”³», dadash íà ïîçíà÷åííÿ «ñòàðøîãî áðàòà»; âæèâàííÿ òåðì³í³â baba íà ïîçíà÷åííÿ «áàòüêà» òà «ä³äà», jadd íà ïîçíà÷åííÿ «ä³äà» òà «ïðàä³äà», ï³óà íà ïîçíà÷åííÿ «ä³äà», «ïðàä³äà» òà «ïðàïðàä³äà»; âæèâàííÿ â ä³àëåêòíîìó ìîâëåíí³ ñëîâà aqa íà ïîçíà÷åííÿ «ñòàðøîãî áðàòà», «íàéñòàðøîãî ³ç áðàò³â», «÷îëîâ³êà (îô³ö.)», «áðàòà áàòüêà», «ä³äóñÿ». Êëþ÷îâ³ ñëîâà.: òåðì³íè ñïîð³äíåíîñò³, ãåíåðàö³éíà ñèñòåìà ñïîð³äíåíîñò³, êëàñèô³êàö³éíà ñèñòåìà ñïîð³äíåíîñò³, ïåðñüêà ìîâà, ñåìàíòèêà.

Êøàíîâñêèé Î. ×. Baba è äðóãèå «ñòðàííûå» ïåðñèäñêèå ñëîâà, îáîçíà÷àþùèåðîäñòâî: àðåàëüíûé ïîõîä. - Ñòàòüÿ.

 ñòàòüå ïðåäñòàâëåíû ðåçóëüòàòû àíàëèçà â ïåðñèäñêîì ÿçûêå ðåëèêòîâûõ ÷åðò âåðòèêàëüíîé êëàññèôèêàöèè ðîäñòâåííèêîâ, ïðèñóùåé ÿçûêàì àëòàéñêîãî àðåàëà, â ÷àñòíîñòè òþðêñêèì: ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå òåðìèíà aqa äëÿ îáîçíà÷åíèÿ «ñòàðøåãî áðàòà» è «ñòàðøåãî áðàòà â ñåìüå», dadash äëÿ îáîçíà÷åíèÿ «ñòàðøåãî áðàòà»; óïîòðåáëåíèå òåðìèíîâ baba äëÿ îáîçíà÷åíèÿ «îòöà» è «deda»,jadd äëÿ îáîçíà÷åíèÿ «äåäà» è «ïðàäåäà», ï³óà äëÿ îáîçíà÷åíèÿ «äåäà», «ïðàäåäà» è «ïðàïðàäåäà»;óïîòðåáëåíèå â äèàëåêòíîé ðå÷è ñëîâà aqa äëÿ îáîçíà÷åíèÿ «ñòàðøåãî áðàòà», «ñòàðøåãî èç áðàòüåâ», «ìóæ÷èíû (îôèö.)», «áðàòà îòöà», «äåäà».

Êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà: òåðìèíûðîäñòâà, ãåíåðàöèîííàÿ ñèñòåìàðîäñòâà, êëàññèôèêàöèîííàÿ ñèñòåìàðîäñòâà, ïåðñèäñêèé ÿçûê, ñåìàíòèêà.

Ways to convey kinship relationships in languages present one of the most popular research issues for linguists as well as for our scholars of anthropologic orientation. Today we can confidently assert that lexical-semantic systems of the world languages comprise, typologically, two big groups of elements which form the structure of the semantic field of kinship terms in a given language It is worth noting that the social structure ofkinship is not only reflected in lexical systems of the language. Grammatical sys-tem can also provide excellent examples of that. Thus, the Australian language Lardil has two forms for non-singular personal pronouns: one is used for persons of even generations with regard to the speaker and the other for persons of odd generations, for example, njari “we (1st person, dual number) and he (brother, grandfather, grandson, etc.)”, nja:ni “we and he (father, son, great-grandfather etc.)” [1, p. 12-13]. The first group of structural features reflects the so-called generational system of kinship. It can be found in all highly-developed communities in the world and is being actively adopted by other communities which are willing to incorporate into the process of globalization. Chronologically, these systems are of secondary order. The second group of structural features is not universal. These specific features are characteristic of some particular languages, groups of related languages, languages of common areal and dialects of a given language. They are relicts of primordial kinship systems, different from the traditional generational one.

The research of kinship systems in the primordial formation began in the 1870s with the investigation into the fact that, unlike the kinship systems of the secondary order (the Aryan, or European type), the primary systems are characterized by group, or classifying, nature [9] rather than individual one. These systems present the first ascending generation by one male term which includes father, father's brother and mother's brother, i.e. all these relatives are designated by one and the same word. This generation can be represented by two lexemes: father and father's brother are designated by one word, while mother's brother has a special name. These features can be found in present-day well-developed languages, but only as a relict with certain stylistic, generic and ritualistic functions, as well as in other, minor, less developed languages in which they form an entirely specific kinship term system of their own Similar identifications of, for example, a male cousin and a nephew, or a female cousin and an aunt, or a sister's husband and one's own husband, or a granddaughter and a niece, can be traced in the lexical-semantic systems of the languages of Central and Eastern Brazil [8, p. 128, 132, 135], Australia [5], and also in the Altai areal..

However, in both cases, these features transfer some important linguistic information together with that of social, economic and cultural value. The structural features of the second group reflect the ancient stages of ethnocultural history of contemporary highly developed societies. The present article aims to reveal and single out the non-generational kinship features in the Persian language of today and to explicate their existence and functioning in the typological and areal perspective. strange persian baba

The generational system of kinship terms. Kinship terms in most contemporary languages of highly developed communities are comprehensively determined by a number of common differential features It only concerns differential semantic features. The integral semantic indication of kinship is present in each of the terms and does not change its meaning within the semantic field under consideration, thus being immaterial for the differentiation of kin-ship terms. Conversely, this feature is very important for separating the semantic field of blood relatives from adjacent fields, for instance, that of affinity. So, the meaning of such words as Ukrainian bat'ko “father” and test' “father-in-law”, “one's wife's father”, or Russian mama “Mum” and kormilitsa “wet-nurse” and the like only differ by the presence/absence of the seme “blood relationship”. [H,p.7].

The first distinguishing feature in the functioning of kinship terms in modem languages is the indication of generation, which indicates to what generation a particular relative belongs. This feature presents the opposition of the following terms: 'Eagfish father - son, mother - daughter; French ð¸ãå - fils, ò¸ãå - fille; Spanish padre - hijo, madre - hija and the like. This semantic feature can be regarded as a universal and also as a typologically relevant characteristic, which allows determining the number of generations covered by kinship terms in every language. These oppositions, or lineal kinship degrees, number, as a rule, no more than two or three in the ascending line in modem languages, for example, Ukrainian^rad/d “great-grandfather”, did “grandfather”, bat'ko “father”; and as many in the descending line: Ukrainian syn “son”, onuk “grandson”, pravnuk “great-grandson”.

The second characteristic feature in the functioning of kinship terms in modem languages is the indication of biological sex. It accounts for the opposition of such terms as English father - mother, son - daughter; French ð¸ãå - ò¸ãå,Àê -fille; Spanish padre - madre, hijo - hija; Ukrainian did “grandfather” - baba “grandmother” and the like. The presence of this feature is obviously a universal, as well as a typologically relevant characteristic, which makes it possible to determine its relevance for particular degrees ofkinship.

The third characteristic feature in the functioning of kinship terms is the indication of lineality (collateral kinship), which discriminates between the direct and collateral kinship. This feature manifests itself in the opposition of terms English father - uncle, mother - aunt; French ð¸ãå - oncle, ò¸ãå - tante; Spanish padre - tio, madre - tia; Ukrainian syn “son” - nebiz “nephew”, äî÷êà “daughter” - neboha “niece” etc. The presence of this semantic feature is not universal, but it is still a typologically relevant characteristic, enabling to determine which kinship degrees possess it and which don't.

The fourth characteristic feature in the functioning of kinship terms in modem languages is the indication of the side direction, which gives the information about the kin person who provided the blood relationship that has a particular name: kinship through father, through mother, through son, through daughter etc. This feature makes the opposition to the terms like Danish farfader “father's father” - morfader “mother's father”, sonneson “son's son” - datterson 2 3 “daughter's son” etc. Obviously, the presence of this semantic feature in certain languages is not a universal mark, but it is a typologically relevant characteristic which helps to determine those kin representatives for whom the differentiation according to the direction of relationship is salient and meaningful.

The presence of this set of semantic features determines the structure of the semantic field ofkinship, as well as the number of lexemes to name blood relatives in a given language. Table 1 presents Azerbaijani and Persian lexemes ofkinship in comparison with English, with all the four above mentioned semantic features taken into account. The English language is chosen as a typical representative of the modem way to express generational system ofkinship, while Azerbaijani represents the historical areal of the spread of Persian.

The data presented in Table 1 prove that the lexical-semantic system of Modem Persian reflects, basically, the well-known contemporary generational system ofkinship. It is also easy to notice that different languages have similar structural and functional features in the semantic fields ofkinship.

Firstly, the structural semantic parceling of micro-fields within the field ofkinship is determined by the three types of semantic structures, similarly to European or Slavic languages [6].

In the first case, the micro-field comprises one term. For example, the micro-field grandson/granddaughter is expressed by one term in both Persian and Azerbaijani. In the second case, the micro-field comprises two terms Unlike Azerbaijani and Persian the Ukrainian language also has two terms in the micro-field grandson/granddaughter, depend-ing on the gender.. Unlike Azerbaijani and Persian the English language has two terms in the micro-field grandson/granddaughter. In the third case, the micro field comprises four terms. Thus, the micro field male cousin/female cousin is composed of four terms in Azerbaijani. A lexical micro-field can form, at times, a specific type of an asymmetrical structure. For instance, the Kurd dialect Kalhoryoffers three (!)terms to mark the micro-field uncle/aunt: òàòè “father's brother”, khalu “mother's brother”, mimeg “father's sister, mother's sister” [6].

Secondly, each of the languages has a very limited set of primordial kinship terms, such as English father, mother, son, daughter; Ukrainian did “grandfather”, bat'ko “father”, syn “son”, onuk “grandson”; Azerb. baba, ata, ogul etc; Persian pedar, pesar etc (these lexemes are given in bold). It is in the meanings of these lexemes that all the afore-mentioned differential semantic features are actualized (even if, like in Ukrainian, in the dialectal speech only). The rest of the words marking the representatives of the generations to follow +1, +2 in the ascending line and the generation after -1 in the descending line and after the generation -2 in the descending line are either partially borrowed lexemes, like Persian borrowings in Azerbaijani which indicate the kin representatives starting from the generation -2 in the descending line, or the lexemes with very transparent, even primitive etymology (i.e. internal borrowings), or descriptive phrases based on real foundation (e.g. Persian pedarbozorg from pedar and bozorg “big, elder”, jadd-e bozorg, jadd'ala (from Arabic alal “higher”) “great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather”, madarbozorg-e pedar “great-grandmother”; Azerb. ulu baba from ulu “great, outstanding” and baba, boytik ïýïý “great-grandmother”, mvsnin oglu literally, “grandson's son” and many others similar kinship terms, particularly, in the ascending line). For instance, the word kotuk is used in the modem language in the meaning “stump, root”. Taking into consideration that the Azerbaijani refer to their elderly relatives as evin kottiyi “root, or the foundation of the household”, the term êîØêñý can be understood as the diminutive form of kottik (+ñý - a diminutive suffix borrowed from Persian). The word yadica belongs to literary Azerbaijani and is derived from the stem yad meaning “memory” (borrowed from Persian) and “strange, alien”. Folk etymology links the form yadica with the meaning of “memory”, motivating its formation by the fact that a representative of that degree of kinship (generation) is difficult to remember, since “ego” who managed to live up to the birth of his great-great-grandson must be a very old man. Some scholars connect the form yadica with the meaning “stranger”, proceeding from the remoteness of this kinship degree (generation). Some dialects have preserved the form yetigs, which is related to the verbs yetmsk “achieve, be sufficient, reach a certain boundary” and yelimsk “grow, ripen”. The reasoning is as follows: the appearance of descendants of this kinship degree allows regarding one's life as long enough and fulfilled, so it's time to leave this world. The word ottics is a derivative from the verb otmsk “to pass, to finish, to overstep a boundary”. Its 4 Sometimes, the contents of one and the same micro field can be expressed by several terms at once: the micro field uncle/aunt can be expressed by two terms in the literary Ukrainian language and by four terms in dialect speech vuy “father's uncle”, stryy “mother's uncle”, vuyna “father's aunt”, stryyna “mother's aunt”. semantics is motivated in the following way: the kinship degree -6 in the direct line is the last one, since the next kinship degree is, actually, the boundary between relatives and non-relatives (strangers). The compound word yeddiarxadomn is derived from yed- di “seven”, arxa “back” òà domn “spinning, turning” (Participle I of the verb donmsk “turn, turn out”). Its semantic is motivated by the fact that representatives of this kinship degree belong to the seventh generation in the descending line from “ego”. The meaning of the Persian kinship term natije “great-grandson” is developed from the meaning “result, conclusion, achievement” and comes from the Arabic forms nati- jatun “result, completion” and nitajun “offspring, descendants”. The Persian language used to have a descriptive phrase^esar-e natije lit. “the concluding, final son”, but later only the form natije remained, and it was borrowed by Azerbaijani. This meaning is accounted for by the idea that a great-grandson crowns all, that he is the acme of human existence, its worthy outcome and vain achievement. The meaning of the Persian kinship term nadide comes from “unprecedented, (hitherto) unseen” (from Past Participle dide of the verb didan “see, look” and the negative prefix na-); the motivation is as follows: it is quite problematic for “ego”, who must be a very old man at the moment when his great-grandchildren are bom (to say nothing of representatives of higher kinship degrees, who have already died) to see his great-grandson, that's why the representative of this kinship degree is, as a rule, “unseen” or “invisible” [3].

Besides, as it has been pointed out above, most lexemes belonging to the large group of secondary kinship terms, particularly those which are either borrowings or newly-coined words with transparent semantics, only indicate the degree of kinship without any gender differentiation. Thus, neither Persian lexemes nave, natije, nabire, nor Azerbaijani mvs, ïýÈñý, kottikce and others discriminate the gender of the representatives of kinship degrees starting with -2. The presence in the Ukrainian language kinship terms to designate representatives starting with the seventh degree and on in the ascending line can be accounted for by the existence of the category of gender in Ukrainian, or, in other words, by grammatical rather than lexical-semantic or other factors. Another specific characteristic is that the differentiation between direct and collateral kinship is only observed in a part of primary terms, namely, for the generations +1,-1 and the “ego” generation.

All these distinguishing features (the non-indig- enous character of lexemes, new coinages and their descriptive nature, as well as the absence of seman-

Kinship Terms in Modern Azerbaijani, English and Persian tic indications of gender/sex and collateral kinship) in the group of lexemes of kinship of the secondary, later origin separate them distinctly from the group of primary kinship terms in various languages. The common ground of semantic fields of kinship is the distinct differentiation and contrast between the two groups of lexemes: the smaller number of primary kinship terms and the larger number (with all those “great-great”) of secondary kinship terms of later origin.

Table 1

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru//

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru//

The classification system of kinship terms. To counterbalance it, there are lexemes, which are functionally unstable in determining their own meaning, and it becomes an outstanding characteristic of various languages. For instance, Persian jadd means both “grandfather” and “great-grandfather”, niya means “grandfather”, “great-grandfather” and “great-great-grandfather”, baba is both “Dad” and “granddad”. This instability manifests itself at the interlingual level, too. Thus, nadide means “grandfather”, the representative of the fourth degree of kinship in the descending line in Persian and also the representative of sixth degree in Azerbaijani. Nane means “mother” in colloquial Persian, while ïýïý is used for “grandmother” in literary Azerbaijani. The similar situation is observed in Ukrainian, where nen'a, nen'ka means “mother” in dialectal speech, but in Hutsul vernacular ïàïà or nanashka designates one's “aunt”.

At the end of XIX century L. Sternberg, a famous Russian scholar in the field of Asiatic studies, was the first to find a most specific system of kinship among the Orochi of the Tatar Strait [10]. That system significantly differed from the kinship system in other languages. The Orochi kinship system incorporated in one common kinship category male (or female) representatives of two different generations - the “lower” part of a given generation (youngsters) and the upper part of the next generation (the elders), or,just the other way round, the upper part of some generation (the elders) and the lower part of the next generation (youngsters). In that fashion, the representatives of one generation (for example, “ego's” brothers or sisters) belonged to different kinship categories and had different denominations. In other words, one's elder brother and father were designated by one and the same word in that system, one's elder sister and mother likewise. The criterion for that differentiation is the relative age of “ego”, his mother and father, his grandparents and some other relations. The language speakers seem to build up some kinship lines (thence a widely-spread term - linear - to designate the Aryan kinship systems) in different directions from oneself: father, grandfather, great-grandfather (the ascending male line), daughter, granddaughter, great-granddaughter (the descending female line) etc. Later, similar “age-oriented” kinship systems were found in Turk, Mongolic, Tungus-Manchurian, Sa- modian and Finno-Ugric languages. Later still, it was revealed that the mixing of generations proceeding from the division of one generation into “elders” and “youngsters” exists in the systems of kinship terms of all peoples who speak Altaic and Uralic languages, which constitutes a remarkable feature of their lexical-semantic systems. It is amazing that this “age-oriented” classification should not be inherent in the languages of their eastern and northern neighbors - paleo-Asiatic peoples, the Chinese or Indo-Europeans [2].

This specific classification of relatives, according to scholars, is the result of the conscious re-organization of the system and the banning of marriages between father and daughter, between mother and son in the times of the tribal organization of society. At first, each generation was divided into the elder and the younger and it was followed be the ban for a woman to marry husbands of other women who were older than herself. Then, the elder representatives of one generation werejoined to the next generation, and its younger representatives were joined to the preceding generation, which resulted in banning a woman to marry her daughters' and her younger sisters' husbands. Such classification of relatives allowed, firstly, to exclude matrimonial relationships between parents and their children; secondly, and this is very important, it laid the foundation for singling out the terms father, mother, husband and wife and endowing them with individualized meaning only. In other words, this classification reflects a very important process in the social history: the disintegration of the tribal system and the formation of separate families within a mass of relatives. The very differentiation of the terms for father and mother occurred quite late in time, when the traditions of the tribal social order had already been ruined. So, the transformation (just transformation, since the present-day academics have rejected the term evolution [4, p. 231]) of kinship systems went on along the two interrelated ways: firstly, by changing the form of preferred marriage through introducing bans on more and more distanced kinship categories; secondly, by increasing the number of local groups to be involved in the kinship circle to solve marriage tasks and challenges. So, the appearance of secondary kinship systems is constantly increasing making the system of kinship term too cumbersome. Upon reaching a certain boundary of complexity, the kinship term system becomes too awkward, which is conducive to either its simplification through alteration (sometimes, cyclical) or to its replacement by a more convenient and less sophisticated one. Most world languages preserve the relict terms which reflect classifying kinship systems and exist alongside the linear system, thus performing various sanctioned, prohibited, correctional or stylistic-generic and ritual functions.

The ordinary tabulation of kinship systems can demonstrate the redundant character of idenological (from idenonym - “a term of kinship” [4]) typology. Almost all languages retain the traces of the stage when there were no individual terms to designate father and mother. This can be seen in the fact that the notions “father”, “grandfather”, “great-grandfather”, “ancestor” are, by and large, expressed by the lexeme of one and the stem within a descriptive phrase with the explaining word “grand”, “great”, “distant” and the like. That same group can number the terms for ego's' father's parents and his elder brothers; the same concerns the notion of mother. The emphasized instability of the terms for father and mother, grandfather and grandmother in kindred languages, adjacent languages and even in dialects of one language testifies to the fact that the individualization of the afore named terms is a later process. To express one and the same notion different terms can be frequently used, and the word derived from one stem can acquire a different meaning in different languages or dialects.

So, modem Persian is rich the relict features of the vertical classification of relatives [2, p. 245-246], which is inherent in the languages of the Altaic areal, Turk, in particular. They are as follows:

The division of the “ego” generation into its older and younger representatives. This accounts for the existence of two kinship degrees in these systems (+1 and -1), each comprising, in its turn, the two categories of blood relatives (the elder and the younger). The relict of this feature in Persian is the functioning of the term aqa to designate “elder brother” and “the eldest brother in the family”, as well as the term dadash to designate “an elder brother”. This principle is also intrinsic in the lexical systems of Malaysia and Australia languages, as well as in Chinese. However, if taken separately, this feature does not involve the age principle in the classification of relatives. Another feature is also obligatory;

The presence in these systems of one more ascending (+2) and descending (-2) kinship degree.

They comprise representatives of the ascending or the descending generation (i.e. grandparents and grandchildren, respectively), and also a part of the representatives of adjacent generations (i.e. a parent or both parents, a child or children, respectively). To be included to the next kinship degree it is the age of the representatives of adjacent generations that matter (that is, +1 and -1). The relict of this system in Persian is the use of the term baba for “father” and “grandfather”, the terms jadd for “grandfather”, “great-grandfather” and niya for “grandfather”, “great-grandfather” and “great-great-grandfather”. As a result, the system acquires its third, the most important feature;

The merging or mixing of the upper part of the elder representatives of the “ego” generation with the first ascending generation (+1) and the lower part (the younger representatives) of the second ascending generation (+2), and also the mixing of the lower part (the younger representatives) of the “ego” generation with descending generations. The rudiment of this system in Persian is the dialectal use of the word aqa for “elder brother”, “the eldest brother”, “husband” (formal), “father's brother” and “granddad”.

Table 2 sums up all the afore-discussed issues: the kinship term in modem colloquial Persian are presented in comparison with English and Azerbaijani. The five “strange” Persian kin words (baba, dadash, aqa,jadd, niya) are given in bold.

In other words, Persian indigenous kinship terms incorporated in the nucleus of the Persian lexical system have been adapted to the Turk system of designating kinship relations.

References

Belikov V.I. Avstraliyskiye yazyki I V.I. Belikov ll Lingvisticheskiy entsyklopedicheskiy slovar'. - M. : Sovetskaya entsyklopediya, 1990. -P. 12-13.

Bikbulatov N.V. Skol'z'ashiy schet pokoleniy v uralo-altayskikh sistemakh rodstva /N.V. Bikbulatov 11 Arealnyye issledovaniya v yazykoznanii ³ etnografii yazyk ³ etnos. - Leningrad : Nauka, 1983. - P. 240-247.

Dzafarov G. Î terminakh sed'moy-odinnadtsatoy stupeney rodstva po pr'amoy linii v azerbaydzanskom yazyke IG. Dzafarov 11 Sinkhronno-sopostavitelnyy analiz yazykov raznykh sistem. - M. : Nauka, 1971. - P. 234-239.

Dzibel G.V. Fenomen rodstva: Prolegomeny ê ideneticheskoy teorii I G.V. Dzibel. - SPb. : MAE, 2001. - 467 p.

Elkin A.P. Australian Aborigines I A.P. Elkin. - Sydney : Angus and Robertson, 1956. - 349 p.

Gheitury A. A note on Kalhory kinship terms I A. Gheitury, H. Yasami, K. Kazzazi ll Iranian Studies. - Vol. 43. - ¹4.- P. 533-547.

Kuznetsov A.M. Sopostavitelno-tipologicheskiy analiz terminov rodstva angliyskogo, datskogo, frantsuzkogo ³ ispanskogo yazykov I A.M. Kuznetsov ll Sinkhronno-sopostavitelnyy analiz yazykov raznykh sistem. -M. : Nauka, 1971. -P. 269-277.

Levi-Strauss C. Strukturnaya antropologiya I C. Levi-Strauss ; French transl. V.V. Ivanov. - M. : EKSMO-Press, 2001. -512 p.

Morgan L.H. Drevnee obshshestvo ili issledovaniye liniy chelovecheskogo progressa ot ikosti cherez varvarstvo ê tsyvilizatsyi I L.H. Morgan ; Eng. transl. M.O. Kosven. - Leningrad : Institut Narodov Severa CIK SSSRPress, 1935. - 350 c.

Sternberg L.Y. Semya ³ rod u narodov Severo-Vostochnoy Azii I L.Y. Sternberg. - Leningrad : Institut narodov Severa TsYK SSSR, 1933. - 187 p.

Wallace F.C. The Meaning of Kinship Terms ! F.C. Wallace, J. Atkins II American Antropologist. - I960. - Vol. 62. - ¹ 1. - P. 58-80.

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru