The Hybridization of Turkic and Mongolic-Origin Toponyms in Kazakhstan

2025

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.47526/2025-3/2664-0686.236
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The study of Turkic-Mongolic toponyms in the geo-historical space of Kazakhstan holds significant cultural and historical value. It is well known that issues concerning Turkic-Mongolic toponyms in Kazakh onomastics are quite extensive. This article focuses on a specific subset of this topic: hybrid toponyms formed from elements of the Turkic (Kazakh) and Mongolic languages. The aim of the study is to analyze the etymology of Turkic (Kazakh)-Mongolic toponyms and to clarify the reasons behind their hybrid formation. As empirical material, selected hybrid hydronyms and oronyms were examined to provide concrete examples. The selected names were classified and described from a lexico- semantic and structural perspective. The study identifies and etymologically explains several types of hybrid toponyms: (1) those with a Kazakh first component and a Mongolic second component; (2) those with a Mongolic first component and a Kazakh second component; (3) those formed by adding Kazakh suffixes to Mongolic roots; (4) those constructed based on a binary opposition structure; and (5) those in which the first component is a Mongolic word and the second is Turkic-Mongolic – or vice versa. It was demonstrated through specific examples that hybrid toponyms generally consist of two-root, and occasionally three-root, components. The analysis also revealed that in the toponym formation process, suffixes play an active role alongside root elements. The principle of binary opposition – a significant feature observed in hybrid toponyms, wherein names are constructed based on semantic contrast – was also explored as part of the research material.