Background of borrowed words in the English language and their translation

The English and Literature department


« Background of borrowed words in the English language and their translation »


















     
Introduction
     
     Borrowing as a means of replenishing the dictionary of a modern Kazakh is much more important and relatively active only in the field of scientific terminology and socio-political terminology, since many terms often consist of borrowed morphemes, mostly morphemes from classical languages.
     Part of the borrowings in the vocabulary of the language depends on the history of each given language, due to direct linguistic contacts and political, economic and cultural relations between peoples. The history of Kazakhistan contains countless cases for all types of such contacts. This is the vocabulary system of each language, which is especially sensitive to any changes in the life of the talking community.
     The development of contacts between peoples and the dominance of the English language as a business language cause a large flow of words into the Kazakh language, thereby enriching his vocabulary.
     The influence that English has had on our language is manifested in all aspects of life, social, political and hardly any kind of a walk, not affected by it. The first point to emphasize is that here we are not dealing with completely new ideas introduced from another type of civilization and culture, but rather by imposing by their dominant race their own terms for ideas that were already familiar with the objective race. This state of things obviously means that there will be a pair of words of the native and foreign term for the same idea and a struggle for survival between them, so that one of the words eventually gets lost from the language or preserved only with some differentiation of meaning.
     Borrowed words were called "Milestones of Philology," said Esperson, "because they allow us (to show us) to fix the dates of linguistic changes with confidence. They show us the course of civilization and give us information about the peoples. " The well-known linguist Shukhard said: "No language is completely clean," that all languages ??are mixed. Borrowed words enter the language as a result of the influence of the two main causes of the factors; linguistic and extralinguistic.
     Borrowed words were considered in many scientific works, monographs and publications. But a detailed analysis of words borrowed in Kazakh from the English language has not yet been done.
     The main component of the lexical system of any language is formed by borrowed words. Only borrowed words that were borrowed from English into Kazakh were considered in the qualifying article.
     The relevance of the qualification article is determined by the increased interest of linguistics in the study of the origin of words and the source of borrowing. There is much to explore.
     The purpose of the qualification document is to identify borrowed words that were borrowed from English into Kazakh, and to determine the origin and source of them.
     The objectives of the investigation include:
     • Identify English borrowings in Kazakh.
     • determine the reasons for enriching the vocabulary of any language.
     • Investigate the ratio of borrowing to native words.
     The task considered in the qualification paper has a certain theoretical value, for everything, it is based on the principles of the approach that is revealed at all stages of the study. The results of the research are of interest for a number of areas of modern linguistics: linguistic typology, translation theory, tomania, lexicology, theoretical grammar, lexicography.
     The practical significance of the results of the study is that they can be used in:
     1. Teaching English for Kazakh and Russian students.
     2. when drawing up practical English courses.
     3. when compiling bilingual dictionaries.
     4. writing lectures on lexicology and translation theory.
     The studies were conducted on a vast linguistic material, based on lexicographic sources. We used mostly monolingual, bilingual and encyclopedic dictionaries.
     Structure of the qualification work.
     It includes introduction, chapters, conclusion, list of used literature.
     Chapter I "Borrowed words and their properties" is devoted to the study of borrowed words, their origin and their significance.
     In the second chapter, the problem of assimilating borrowed words was discussed.
     
     1. Borrowed words and their properties
     
     1.1 Etymological survey of the word-stock of a language
     
     Etymologically, the dictionary of any language consists of two groups - native words and borrowed words. For example, in its 15-year history recorded in written manuscripts, English has found itself in a long and close contact with several other languages, mostly Latin, French and Old Norse (or Scandinavian). Etymological linguistic analysis has shown that the borrowed stock of words is a lager than its own stock of words. The Kazakh language as well as the English language were in close and close contact with other languages, mainly Arabic, Persian, Russian.
     The native word is the word that belongs to the original stock. The English native word is a word belonging to Anglo-Saxon origin. To our native words we include words from the common Germanic language and from the Indo-European stock.
     A borrowed word, credit word or borrowing is a word taken from another language and changed in a phonemic form, spelling, paradigm or meaning in accordance with the standards of the language.
     Native words in English are further subdivided into diachronic linguistics into Indo-European and general German. The native words of the Kazakh language belong to the Turkic language family, whose origin is based on the manuscripts of the Altai-Yenisei. It was noticed that native words easily fall into certain semantic groups. Among them we find the conditions of kinship: father ota, mother she, son ugil, daughter kiz, brother aka, etc. D; words, calling the most important objects and phenomena of nature: the sun, the moon, the yulduz star, the wind chamol, the water suv; names of animals and birds: bull khukiz, cat musuc, goose goat; parts of the human body: the hand of the kul, the ear of the puppet, the eye of the cousin, the heart of the yurak
     Words related to subsets of the native word - the stock, for the most part are characterized by a wide range of lexical and grammatical valence, high-frequency meaning and developed multi-valuedness; they are often monosyllabic, show great strength of the word and create a lot of expressions, for example. g., watch DE Weccan is one of the 500 most common English words. It can be used as a verb in more than ten different templates of sentences, with and without object modifiers and adverbial modifiers and in combination with different classes of words.
     1.2 Borrowed words, kinds of borrowed words
     
     Borrowed words are words taken with other languages. Many linguists believe that foreign influence plays the most important role in the history of any language.
     But the grammar and phonetic system are very stable and they are often not affected by other languages.
     For example, in its 15-year history written in written manuscripts, English has found itself in a long and close contact with several other languages, mainly Latin, French and Old Norse. A large influx of borrowing from these sources can be explained by a number of historical reasons. Because of the great achievements of Roman civilization, Latin has long been used in England as a language of instruction and religion. The Old Norse language was the language of the conquerors, who were on the same level, and this was easily easily pushed by the local population in the 9th, 10th and first 11th centuries. French (Norman dialect) was the language of other conquerors. Who brought with him many new peoples of a higher social order, developed feudalism, this was the language of the upper classes, official documents and school instructions from the mid-11th century to the end of the fourteenth century.
     The Kazakh language also develops under the pre-Persian, Arabic and later Russian languages. The Persian language spread to our territory in 500-300 years. BC, since that time the peoples of Central Asia were in close contact with Iran, the birthplace of the Persian language. Until the 15th century it was "Fashion", and it is desirable to write poetry and prosaic works in Persian, although the old folk language was also used among the nation, mostly by ordinary people. In the VII century, the Arabs conquered Central Asia, carrying their religion and language to the people. Thus, the Arabic language prevailed until the XI-XII centuries. The books were also written in Arabic. such as outstanding scientists and scholars Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Farabi, Beruni created their works in Arabic. Only in the XV century, the great writer and statesman Alisher Navoi proved the beauty and significance of the Turkic language, beginning to write his best masterpieces in this language, although he knew the Persian and Arabic languages. Since the XVIII century the Kazakh language has fallen into the Russian language. When studying the borrowed element in English, the main emphasis is usually set on the average English period, and in Kazakh - medium Turkic.
     The borrowings of later periods became the trace of the investigation only in the years of indignation. These studies showed that the flow of borrowing was steady and continuous. They belong to different areas of socio-political, scientific and cultural life. Most of them (41%) are scientific and technical terms.
     When we talk about the roles of native and borrowed words in a language, we should not take into account only their number, except for their semantic, stylistic nature, ability to construct a word, frequency, ability to collaborate (valence) and productivity of their word-building.
     If we come to the study of the role of native and borrowed words with such points of view, we see, although native words are not numerous, they play an important role in English and Kazakh. They have value, an excellent power of word formation, a broad coincidence of high frequency, many meanings, and they are stylistically neutral. Almost all words of native origin belong to very important semantic groups. The number and nature of borrowed words tell us about the relations between peoples, the level of their culture, etc. It is for this reason that borrowings are often called milestones of history.
     The well-known linguist Shukhard said: "No language is completely clean," that all languages ??are mixed.
     Note that although the common historical reasons for borrowing with different languages ??have been studied depending on purely pure borrowing forces, they are still open to investigation. The number and nature of borrowing does not depend on the state of the conditions, on the nature and duration of contacts, but also on the degree of genetic and structural auxiliary languages. The closer the languages, the deeper and more universal the influence.
     Borrowed words include the following consequences: linguistic and extralinguistic. The economic, cultural, industrial, political relations of native speakers with other countries are extralinguistic factors.
     For example, because of the great achievements of Roman civilization, Latin has long been used in England as a language of instruction and religion. Ancient Scandinavian Scandinavian tribe was the language of conquerors. The French (Norman dialect) was the language of other conquerors, who brought with them many new ideas about the higher social system, developed feudal
     1.3 The influence of borrowings on the vocabulary of the language
     
     The number of borrowings in the old English language was meager. In the Middle English period, there was an influx of loans. It is often argued that, as the borrowing of the Norman conquests was the main factor in enriching the English vocabulary, and as a result, there was a sharp decline in productivity and the role of word formation. Historical evidence, however, to report that, whatever they were, if they were, (in English), based on verbal words, written words recorded in the dictionary, it is easy to overestimate the influence of foreign words, since the number of native words is extremely small in comparison with the number of borrowings recorded. The only true way to estimate the relation of the native to the borrowed element is the solution of the two, as actually corresponding in the speech. If we assume that I do not know how. On this account, each writer uses much more native words than borrowing. Shakespeare, for example, has 90%, Milton - 81%, Tennyson - 88%. This shows how important this comparatively small core of native words is. Different borrowings are marked by a different frequency value. Those who have well proven themselves to be as frequent in speech as their own words, while others are very rare. A large number of borrowings in English left some imprint on the language. The first effect of external influence is observed in the volume of its vocabulary. Because of its history, English, more than any other modern language, absorbed extraneous elements in its mode. But the solution of foreign words should not be understood as a change in quantity. Any import into a lexical system leads to semantic and stylistic changes in the words of this language and changes in its synonymous groups.
     It was, therefore, that when the borrowed words were identical in meaning to those already in English, the word used very often displaced the native word. However, in most cases, borrowed words and synonymous native words (or words borrowed earlier) remained in the language, becoming more or less differentiated in meaning and use. As a result, the number of synonymous groups in Russian significantly increased. Synonymous groups became voluminous and acquired many rarely used words. This led to an increase in the share of stylistic synonyms.
     As a result of the differentiation of meanings between synonymous words, many native words or words borrowed earlier narrowed their meaning or scope.
     The abundant borrowings were strengthened by the separation between the word "literary national language and dialects", and also between English and American English. On the one hand, a number of words were borrowed in the literary national language, which does not occur in dialects. In which cases they were replaced by borrowings in the literary language. On the other hand, a number of words that have been borrowed in dialects are not used throughout the country.
     Despite the numerous external linguistic influences and etymological heterogeneity of his vocabulary, English still has significant characteristics of the Germanic language. He retained the basic work of Germanic words and grammar. A comparative study of the nature and role of native and borrowed words shows that borrowing has never been the main theoretical replenishment of the English vocabulary. Word formation and semantic development throughout the history of the English language were much more productive than borrowing. In addition, most native words are marked by higher frequencies. A large number of borrowings, bringing with them new phonon-morphological types, new phonetic morphological and semantic features, left its mark on the English language. On the other hand, the approach of the borrowed word element, already in English, to some extent changed their semantic structure, ability to collect, frequency and word formation. Borrowing also greatly expanded English vocabulary and led to the fact that in synonymous groups in Russian, in the distribution of the English vocabulary through the scope of application and in the lexical divergence between the two variants of the literary national language and its dialects.
     The Kazakh language is also under constant borrowing. We live in an era of progress and technology. New discoveries of new inventions, the emergence of new concepts that are accepted by languages, as well as the Kazakh language. Words related to the development of technologies, sports terms, everyday words, penetrate into the Kazakh language
     1.4 Recent Translation Theory and Linguistic Borrowing in the Modern Sino-Chinese
     
     Fascinating developments in the new field of translation studies may help us advance our understanding of the evolving vocabulary of the Chinese Revolution in the twentieth century. Indeed, there has been an unconscious theoretical convergence between translation studies outside the China field and modern Chinese cultural history. The key concept is «culture» writ large in both cases.
     Translation theory has been virtually unknown in China until recent times. It is not that the Chinese historically have never been forced to confront the issue; on the whole, however, until the later decades of the nineteenth century, most of those who came to China were prepared to communicate in Chinese. The important exceptions were the nativization of the Buddhist canon and the undoubtedly extensive use of Manchu during the early decades of the Qing dynasty. Since the Western nations only tagged on to the long parade of countries coming to China over the centuries, we need to look first at the other countries of East Asia for clues about translation theory in an ideographic context. Literary Chinese was the lingua franca of the East Asian world for two millennia. Although the Japanese invented a native script as early as the tenth century, the Vietnamese in the thirteenth, and the Koreans only in the fifteenth, in all of these cases Chinese remained the primary domestic language for politics and high intellectual culture until the dawn of the twentieth century. We shall return to this issue below.
     There have been several traditions of translation theory in the West. The oldest and most long-lasting of them–the transmission of holy scripture into lands in which its language was impenetrable–interestingly parallels developments in East Asia. The story of the Septuagint graphically typifies a whole conception of translation. When the community of Greek rabbis was called upon, ostensibly, to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek, seventy rabbis separately assumed the task. They reconvened to discover that all seventy Greek translations were identical. The implication is that only one true and correct–and implicitly divinely inspired–translation existed of this text and accordingly any text. The veracity is thus guaranteed if the translator is properly trained and equipped for the task. In the case of Bible translation, the translator performs a semi – divine function–working with God–to spread the holy word to those unable to master the original, for via translation they will now be assured of the equivalent experience. God may have spoken in Hebrew, but He also guided the Greek translators to the one and only possible translation of His word. By the same token, translation errors were, on occasion, regarded as blasphemy and punished accordingly.
     This conception of translation bespeaks a word-by-word transmission of a text from one context into another. It was not important that the Greek rabbis merely conveyed the general meaning of the Hebrew Bible nor that they simply had the sentences more or less in the same order. The telling points were two: first, that every word was the same in all seventy translations, and second, that the unique translation was the equivalent (though not the equal) of the original1.
     Despite the multilingual nature of literate culture in Europe through the turn of the nineteenth century, no specific theory of translation was forthcoming. Many would write in Latin or translate their ideas mentally from the vernacular into Latin rather than write them down in the mother tongue. Few needed translation. George Steiner has suggested one possible reason for the lack of translation theory: «The epistemological and formal grounds for the treatment of `meaning' as dissociable from and augmentative to `word' are shaky at best.» In spite of the absence of theory, translation not only continued, but was deeply intertwined with the evolution of modern languages: «The evolution of modern German is inseparable from the Luther Bible, from Voss's Homer, from the successive versions of Shakespeare by Wieland, Schlegel, and Tieck.»
     Translation theory began to undergo a radical transformation in the nineteenth century, as translation began to involve a conscious manipulation to «move the author toward the reader,» to make literary texts as palatable in the target language and culture as they were in the source language and culture. This development marks the effective realization that precise translation, especially in the case of literary works, was inconceivable without regard for norms of the target language and culture. It is also cotemporal with the widespread emergence of vernaculars as literary mediums, where in the past Latin would have been more frequently employed. As people became less and less multilingual and as Latin declined in generic use, the multilingual knowledge necessary for remaining abreast of «world» literature made translation all the more crucial.
     We have here the emergence of a new understanding of the relationship between source text (and perhaps author) and target text (and translator). No longer was a work worthy of translation approached as a long string of words, but as an entire text. The translator now performed the all-important function of bringing into one universe a text from another which often might have remained unknown. Without English or French translations of their work, it is highly unlikely, for example, that the writings of Ibsen or Strindberg or Kierkegaard or Tolstoy or, in more recent times, I.B. Singer would have been known outside the realm of native speakers of their mother tongues; it is inconceivable, as well, that Singer would have won the Nobel Prize.
     This development has now reached the point that readers outside the native languages of such authors have ceased thinking of their writings as foreign. The same is true of the King James Bible. Translation has actually energized the target languages with new themes and genres deriving from the source languages. The phrase, «Yea, that I walk through the valley of the shadow of death» – despite the fact that it is not an entirely correct translation–has so fully entered our discourse as to make ordinary mortals believe King David spoke English.
     Advances over the past two decades in translation studies have evolved from this trend. We are now in the midst of a «cultural turn.» The important unit for translation is now seen not as a series of words or sentences between languages nor even as a text moving from one setting to another. Rather they themselves are now seen as emblematic of their contexts, as cultural entities that emerge from one distinctive cultural universe. Without an appreciation of that enveloping context, translation into the target language loses much. But traditional bemoaning of what is «lost in the translation» should also not consume our efforts excessively, for there are countless instances in which translation can clarify or elucidate a cryptic original, in which the target language rises above the source language. Generations of Germans have turned to the English translations of Kant's critiques to understand them, and you have not lived until you have read Tsubouchi Shy's translations of Shakespeare: «Yo ni aru, yo ni aran. Sore ga gimon jya!»
     Translators now speak not of source and target languages alone, but of source and target cultures as well, and the target culture is now beginning to loom almost as large as the source. There is as well less talk of good versus bad translations or faithful versus unfaithful ones. This particular extension of the development of translation studies has a profoundly dangerous aspect to it. In the hands of theorists influenced by postmodernist literary criticism, everything becomes relativized. All texts, translations as well as originals, emerge on an even plain. While it strikes me that there certainly is much room for nuance and uncertainty in translation, there are also certain definable criteria, if not absolutes, that must remain in play. War is not peace, and love is not hate.
     Responsible members of the community of translation studies, however, are fully aware of such potential pitfalls while remaining sensitive to the new directions in their field. As Jir? Lev? had noted: «A translation is not a monistic composition, but an interpretation and conglomerate of two structures. On the one hand there are the semantic content and the formal contour of the original, on the other hand the entire system of aesthetic features bound up with the language of the translation.»
     The new realization, then, is that translation is not simply the transference of meaning from one language system into another with the able use of dictionary and grammar. Language is at the heart of culture; it gives voice to culture, and translators must see the source text within its surrounding cultural context. Texts have images in cultures and these are not always the same in the source and the target. Images in turn have power through language.
     In this conection, Susan Bassnett-McGuire has argued: To attempt to impose the value system of the SL [source language] culture onto the TL [target language] culture is dangerous ground, and the translator should not be tempted by the school that pretends to determine the original intentions of an author on the basis of a self-contained text. The translator cannot be the author of the SL text, but as the author of the TL text has a clear moral responsibility to the TL readers. 
     Mary Snell-Hornby goes this one half-step further. She notes that, as we move toward an understanding of translation that sees it as more a cultural (rather than a linguistic) transfer, the act of translation is no longer a «transcoding» from one context into another, but an «act of communication.» Texts are part of the worlds they inhabit and cannot be neatly ripped from their surroundings. The new orientation in translation studies is toward the «function of the target text» rather than the «prescriptions of the source text.» Hans J. Vermeer has argued that translation is first and foremost a «crosscultural transfer.» Thus, the translator must not only be bilingual – that's a given – but effectively bicultural as well. «Translation is not the transcoding of words or sentences from one language to another, but a complex form of action, whereby someone provides information on a text (source language material) in a new situation and under changed functional, cultural, and linguistic conditions, preserving formal aspects as closely as possible.»
     With the misgivings expressed above, I believe that the cultural turn in translation studies marks a major stride forward, and it can be especially useful to those of us trying to understand the evolution of the new vocabulary of the Chinese Revolution. We should note in passing that the identification of language with culture is elemental in East Asia where the two words share the same root. This is, of course, not to say that Chinese and Japanese cultures are the same. Especially (though not exclusively) at the elite level, however, Neo-Confucian culture–a core canon of texts, a shared tradition of commentaries on them, specific family and societal values deriving from them, and the like–had become strikingly similar in both countries from at least the seventeenth century forward. Significant differences in social organization and particularly in the procedures by which men were chosen for political decision-making jobs remained, making the Japanese and Chinese cultural contexts similar as opposed to identical, different strings on the same guitar, different variations on the same theme2.
     The Japanese descendents of these elite men of the Edo period, men from the bakumatsu (late Edo) and Meiji eras who were trained initially in the Confucian classics, would later in their careers learn Western languages and take upon themselves the formidable tasks of transmitting Western concepts into Japanese. Had it been the mid – to late twentieth century, they would surely have conveyed–as their own descendents have–the new ideas from the West into katakana expressions taken largely from English. There are two reasons for this shift: English now enjoys the reputation of an international language, and the new «coiners» lack the training in Kanbun (literary Chinese) of their forefathers. A brief trip to any electronics store in Japan will reveal just how dependent on English the new Japanese terminology is. Because these new terms are not written in Chinese characters, they cannot easily be imported (let alone reimported) into China now, as was the case with the Chinese-character compounds coined by Japanese earlier.
     In the Meiji period, however, the only appropriate language for transmitting new philosophical, literary, and scientific terms was Chinese. Many of these creators of new terms were famous in their own right for composing works in literary Chinese. One of the most famous case is undoubtedly the great liberal thinker, Nakae Chmin (1847–1901), who translated Rousseau's Social Contract into Kanbun in the 1880s. Via such routes, numerous new words were coined in Chinese for the literate Japanese reading public. Because the terms then existed in Chinese ideographs, they were ready made for transport into Chinese. The second stage began roughly from the turn of the century, and, although not all terms were renativized into Chinese, the carriers were usually Chinese studying in Japan or those who had taken refuge there.
     To make matters even more complicated, the Japanese coiners frequently derived their neologisms from traditional Chinese texts. The research of Sanet Keish and its further development in the research of Tam Yue-him has now documented over 1000 such terms, usually two – or four-character expressions. Many of these same terms also entered the Korean and Vietnamese languages in the early decades of the twentieth century.
     Although it is not completely exceptional, an ideographic language like Chinese–and the other East Asian languages that used Chinese and developed their own vernaculars later–may require a variety of qualifications in discussing translation, either to or from. Achilles Fang overstated the case, though he raised some important considerations.
     Another fetish of a group of Sinologists who still think Chinese (classical Chinese) is a «language» in the conventional sense is their firm conviction that a perfect dictionary will smooth their way. Alas, they are whoring after false gods. First, such a dictionary is impossible to make; next, what earthly use is a two-hundred-volume dictionary to anyone? After all is said and done, the meaning is determined from the context in the largest sense of the word, and there no dictionary will avail him. Moreover, a dictionary is no help if the wrong entry is chosen.
     A great deal of research has been done on the entrance into Chinese and Japanese of the Meiji-period Japanese neologisms, though it remains scattered. An entire generation of intellectuals in China tried to read Yan Fu's Chinese renderings of Western concepts in his translations of Mill, Smith, Spencer, and Huxley, though most of his neologisms simply did not stick. For example, perhaps his most famous term, tianyanlun as a translation for the «theory of evolution,» was soon replaced in the new Chinese lexicon by the Japanese created term, shinkaron (Ch., jinhualun). Why such terms did not «take» in China cannot simply be stuffed off on the fact that they were too literary or assumed too profound a knowledge of classical Chinese lore. When Yan Fu was writing, there was no widespread vernacular Chinese language in use, and most of those who were able to read his translations undoubtedly understood his allusions (even if the Western ideas behind them remained partially obscured). Was Yan Fu aware of the Japanese translations by Nakamura Keiu of the same texts he labored over? Has anyone ever compared the vocabularies devised by Nakamura and Yan to render Western philosophical, political, and economic concepts?
     There is a widespread, but extremely thin understanding of the process by which the abovementioned 1000 or so Japanese coinages were formed and entered Chinese. In fact, there are any number of actual, far more complex routes by which these terms were created and adopted into modern, vernacular Chinese. Sait Tsuyoshi has examined a number of fascinating cases in great detail in his major work, Meiji no kotoba (Meiji words). He is concerned primarily with how a discrete set of expressions was forged in Meiji Japanese and how it came to be part of the modern spoken and written Japanese language. Although most of the terms studied–such as Seiy (Ch. Xiyang, the West), shakai (Ch. shehui, society), kywakoku (Ch. gongheguo, republic), hoken (Ch. baoxian, insurance), and other philosophical and academic terms–also found their way into Chinese, Sait does not examine that phase of the process. He does, though, discuss many of the terms that were suggested and subsequently dropped for various Western political institutions and systems.
     In a series of fascinating studies that approaches a similar topic, though largely from the Chinese side of the picture, Mizoguchi Yz looks as the numerous Chinese terms that surround the complex of issues involved in laying out the modern distinctions drawn between the public (gong) and the private (si). He begins his analysis in Chinese antiquity and demonstrates the remarkable changes that transpired in the uses to which these terms were put over time. From the late nineteenth century, however, these terms became caught up in demands by Chinese intellectuals for Western-style political institutions. China's readiness for such institutions, such as representative government or democracy, were frequently justified on putative long traditions in which, for example, the «people were the basis» of the state.
     Let me conclude with one small case which should demonstrate succinctly just how thoroughly complicated this transmission process was: the particle de (J. teki), used in general to form adjectives from nouns, adverbs from adjectives, or to create the genitive case. In his unsurpassed study of the transmi.......................