Introduction. The Armenian-Mongolian dictionary from Chapter 32 of the History of Armenia by Kirakos Gandzaketsi (13th century) is an oldest source on the medieval Mongolian language. It has been repeatedly published and commented on since the mid-19th century. However, the manuscript tradition of the dictionary (copies of the 16th–19th centuries) has experienced no systematic phylogenetic revision. Goals. The paper is aimed to construct a phylogenetic probability tree for manuscripts’ protographs and revise the obtained results through independent methods. Materials and methods. A total of 21 available copies of the History have been examined. A table of 248 lines with 58 translation equivalents (49 variable ones) with Proto-Mongolian and Proto-Turkic reconstructions has been compiled. Distances between the lists have been calculated using a weighted feature matrix (weight = 1 − proportion of copies with most frequent reading). The Tree’s pattern follows that of the neighbor-joining (NJ) method, rooted by the minimum phonetic distance to proto-forms; node support is that of Bootstrap (500 pseudo-samples). The results have been additionally checked using the maximum parsimony, Neighbor-Net and Leave-one-out methods. Results. The first part of the article describes the biography of Kirakos Gandzaketsi and analyzes in detail the history of the research and publication “The History of Armenia”. The manuscript tradition of the “History” begins in the 16th century, with the earliest copy dating back to 1594 — more than three centuries from the time of its composition. This inevitably affected the text, especially the spelling of foreign words, which could have changed not only as a result of scribal errors or dialectal transitions, but also as a result of deliberate editorial work. A description of the transliteration used to prepare the research material is provided. The second part of the article examines the results of constructing a phylogenetic tree, as well as the results of its verification using various statistical methods.
Introduction. The verbalization of virginity in Uzbek linguoculture at the turn of the 21st century is regulated by taboo, ritual practices, and institutional norms. Therefore, direct nominations are systematically replaced by euphemistic formulations that redistribute responsibility and the degree of public ‘visibility’ of the intimate. Goals. The article seeks to reconstruct the cognitive–frame organization of euphemistic nominations of virginity and to describe register- and pragmatics-based dynamics across four interrelated frames. Materials and methods. The study is based on a lexicographically mediated corpus compiled from a concise Uzbek euphemistic dictionary. On this basis, 149 euphemistic nominations pertaining to the sphere of maidenhood have been selected and normalized. Methodologically, the analysis relies on a cognitive–frame approach that models euphemistic nomination through event–role configurations and captures meaning re-profiling in the shift from direct to secondary naming. The interpretation further draws on Conceptual Metaphor and Metonymy Theory and pragmatic–discourse analysis, which accounts for the register sensitivity of euphemisms and their communicative orientations toward neutralization, normalization, juridification, and stigmatization. Results. The obtained data reveal a systematic shift in source domains along the event trajectory asfollows: the pre-event status is sacralized through botanical and protective imagery; the feature is reprofiled as value and resource via object- and packaging-based metaphoricity; the loss of status is construed as boundary rupture in veil- and fabric-based as well as procedural formulas; and post-event nominations range from neutralizing normalization to stigmatizing labeling. A recurrent cognitive nexus is the semiotics of boundary and its violation, while the key discourse effect is the dynamics of agency, whereby responsibility may be explicitly attributed to the perpetrator, blurred through proceduralization, or transferred onto the status bearer through collective sanction. Conclusions. Euphemization is conceptualized as an operational frame dynamic that integrates tropes, registers, and deontic regimes into a single model of managing public sensitivity. The four-frame model captures transitions between sacralization, neutralization, legal fixation, and stigmatization — and demonstrates how shifts in responsibility intensify traumatic and reputational pressure. The findings are applicable to comparative linguocultural research and to evaluating the ecological quality of public communication, while further validation of the model requires expanding the source base.
Introduction. The article deals with studies of set expressions in contemporary Chinese linguistics. Special attention is paid to the formation of the terminological system of Chinese paremiology, the description of the main types of set expressions, and the problem of correlating Chinese and Russian scholarly traditions. Goals. The study aims to analyze the terminological system of set expressions in Modern Chinese and to develop principles for their description within the framework of Russian-Chinese paremiology. To facilitate this, the article examines the main approaches to the study of Chinese set expressions, analyzes key terms of contemporary Chinese phraseology, and characterizes the main types of set expressions in Chinese. Materials and methods. The research material consists of culturally significant set expressions of Modern Chinese. The methodological basis of the study is the idea of the systemic nature of set expressions, including paremias. The research employs the comparative method, elements of cognitive-semantic analysis, a linguocultural approach, and interpretative analysis of set expressions from the perspective of intercultural description. Results. The study characterizes the main approaches to the description of Chinese set expressions, clarifies the correlation between the terms shuyu, xiyu, suyu, and yuhui, and identifies the core types of set expressions in Modern Chinese, including yanyu, chengyu, xiehouyu, and guanyongyu, as well as their peripheral types. The article proposes a unified metalanguage of Russian-Chinese paremiology, substantiates the possibility of using the term paremia as an umbrella concept for describing Chinese material in a comparative aspect, and formulates four principles for describing Chinese set expressions within the framework of contemporary paremiology. Conclusions. Chinese set expressions can be described within the framework of Russian-Chinese paremiology, provided that the specificity of the Chinese terminological tradition and the functional-semantic features of the material are taken into account. The development of a unified metalanguage contributes to a more accurate comparison of Russian and Chinese paremiological systems. The results of the study may be used in research on paremiology and linguoculturology.
Introduction. The 18th century occupies a special place in Mongolian medieval historiography. During this period, compilers of Mongolian chronicles departed from the canons of archaic tribal history and embraced individual creativity and critical understanding of events. While the 17th century witnessed only the emergence of these trends, and the 19th century their «ossification» and almost complete suppression by Buddhist thought, the 18th century represents the full-fledged process of establishing a national tradition of historical writing. Goals. The article seeks to analyze changes in medieval Mongolian historiography in the description of the history of the Mongol ancestral khans.Materials and methods. The article is based on Mongolian chronicles of the 17th–19th centuries, using methods of textual, comparative, and historical analysis. Results. The outcomes of the analysis show that in the 18th century, Mongolian chroniclers included critical reflections on the legends of the origins of the Mongol ancestral khans, Borte-Chino and Bodonchar, in their works. While 17th-century authors mostly cite all the myths about the khans known to them, often contradicting each other, 18th-century historians attempt to reconcile these myths, select those that seem most accurate, and explain the contradictions. In the 19th century, these myths gradually faded from the attention of historians, whose interest shifted to Buddhist ideas. Amid these evolutions, the myth of Bodonchar’s origin from a ray of light remains the most persistent, perceived by chroniclers as a reflection of the indigenous beliefs of the nomads of Central and East Asia about the nature of their ancestral khans.
Introduction. The present article provides insights into the ethnogonic myth of the Tsoros (Choros) nobility from historical and political perspectives. Goals. The work attempts an analysis of related elements of the myth with evidence from history, ethnography, philology, genetics, etc. for interpretations of the set of messages intertwined within the narrative and addressed to other Oirat and related/neighboring ethnopolitical groups. Materials and methods. The study focuses on cross-disciplinary sources, including Kalmyk historical chronicles, ethnographic data from works of P. S. Pallas, G. N. Potanin, S. P. Baldaev, Ts. B. Tsydendambaev and others. Methodologically, it rests on an interdisciplinary approach, with tools of systemic analysis, historical and linguistic reconstruction. Results. The work attempts to investigate folklore and historical elements as keys to understanding a set of messages once included into the myth’s structure. So, further consideration of the image of Bukha-Noyon and related plots and elements makes it possible to presume the latter might have shared common genesis with Bӧӧ-Khan of the Oirat within ethnopolitical groups of Eurasian nomads in the preceding period. Furthermore, this sets ground to identify some elements of the Oirat myth in natural and historical landscapes of the Buryat. Finally, the sacred Barkhan Uula is viewed as the place where the Tsoros progenitor was found and enthroned according to the text by B. Ya. Vladimirtsov, and altn tawzn širä can thus be understood as ‘golden altar on the elevated slope of mount [Baragkhan]’. Genetic, historical and linguistic evidence makes it possible to draw parallels between the Barghut, Naiman, Oghuz and Oirat that result in correspondences between three of four ancestral Oirat tribes — and those of the Toquz / Sekiz Oghuz. In this relation, efforts and messages of the Tsoros can sound as declaration of Sekiz Oghuz (Naiman) renaissance and even restoration of the khaganate-el. Meanwhile, Yoboghon-Mergen is consistently revisited as one with the title of Yabghu and the plot serve as reinterpreted history of how the Uyghur Khaganate helped the Tang Dynasty suppress mass uprisings with the archetypal figure of general Pugu Huaien. Finally, the very name of Bӧӧ-Khan seems to provoke a hint at Genghis Khan’s son-in-law Boyaohe of the Ongud, which made them equal to the Khoid princes who were actually in-laws of imperial Mongol rulers.
