Analytical Verbs and Verb Idioms in Altai and Khakas (Compared to Other Languages)

In the following article, we analyze the verb-based analytical formations in Turkic languages, as well as the possible principles of distinction between analytical verbs and phraseological combinations. Both of these have fairly well-defined core elements that fully correspond to all typical markers of such constructions, as well as peripheral elements, where the components may be more or less loose. For example, in certain peripheral units, one may observe one or two, and sometimes even three, markers of word-groups (syntactic independence, permeability, and separateness); they are close to idioms, namely phraseological combinations. However, in many Turkic combinations which do not correspond to some principles of complex word distinction, the inner connection between their elements appears to be tighter than that in Russian phraseological combinations. This is particularly true for the formations including auxiliary verbs эт= / ит= and бол= / пол=, possibly due to their highly generalized semantics. In some cases, these constructions may be hard to distinguish. The main criterion of their distinction is the absence of several markers of complex words or phraseological combinations, as well as analytical type of meaning. In our article, we analyze the transitional cases between analytical verbs, phraseological combinations, and idioms. We also analyze an important trait of phraseological combinations, namely their ability to carry lexical-grammatical, word-formative and paradigmatic meanings (as noted by V. G. Gak) which are not expressed by individual words that serve as their synthetic parallels (denoting phases of action and genus relations). This function is performed by the partially desemantisized verb component, while the nominal component serves as the semantic key, the basic word. As our study shows, in various Turkic languages, the models of formation of analytical verbs and phraseological combinations are largely the same. In some cases, one may observe corresponding constructions with similar semantics and differing in mutual or similar components, meaning that these models are generally quite stable in Turkiclanguages.