American Journal Of Philological Sciences
203
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
203-207
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue05-54
Persian-Tajik Izafa Constructions in The Uzbek
Language and Their Functional Scope
Mukhtorjon Amonov
Associate Professor, Fergana State University, Uzbekistan
Received:
23 March 2025;
Accepted:
19 April 2025;
Published:
21 May 2025
Abstract:
This article examines the syntactic and semantic features of Persian-Tajik izafa constructions within the
Uzbek language, focusing on their historical development, structural integration, and phonetic transformation.
Through examples drawn from classical Uzbek literature, particularly the works of Alisher Navoi and his
successors, the study explores how izafa constructions were adopted and adapted in Uzbek, often resulting in
idiomatic expressions with shifted meanings. The research also addresses the typological differences between
Uzbek and Tajik, as well as the implications of these structures for modern Uzbek phonology, lexicon, and stylistics.
The article argues that the prevalence of these constructions in both literary and spoken Uzbek highlights the
profound influence of Persian-Tajik on Uzbek linguistic and cultural identity.
Keywords:
Izafa constructions, Persian-Tajik influence, Uzbek language, compound expressions, historical
linguistics, phonetic transformation, lexical integration, Alisher Navoi.
Introduction:
The Uzbek and Tajik languages have long
shared a history of mutual influence, with structural
borrowing occurring at various linguistic levels. One of
the most notable syntactic imports into Uzbek from
Tajik is the izafa construction
—
a grammatical structure
that links two or more words, often indicating
possession or qualification. Despite its foreign origin,
this construction has become deeply rooted in both
literary and colloquial Uzbek, especially in expressions
of Persian-Tajik origin. As the analysis of classical texts
such as those by Alisher Navoi reveals, the use of izafa
forms a crucial component of poetic and rhetorical
expression. However, their modern usage presents
unique phonological, morphological, and semantic
features worthy of scholarly attention.
Literature Review
Scholarly research into izafa constructions in Uzbek
includes foundational work by Fattoh Abdullayev, who
classified their components by parts of speech, and
more recent studies on their lexicalization and phonetic
reduction. Other researchers such as M. Isaqova and
Sobir Abdulla have explored the role of izafa in
enriching Uzbek poetic diction and idiomatic
expression. In classical philology, the works of Navoi,
Babur, and Muqimi serve as empirical sources for
tracing the evolution of these constructions.
Comparative studies have also highlighted the
semantic shift and lexical fusion resulting from the
long-standing presence of izafa in Turkic languages.
METHODS
The research employs a descriptive-analytical
approach, incorporating both synchronic and
diachronic analyses. Textual data is drawn from a range
of Uzbek literary sources, with a focus on classical
ghazals, historical novels, and oral expressions.
Linguistic components are analyzed in terms of their
syntactic roles, phonological transformations, and
idiomatic functions. Comparative analysis with Tajik
and Arabic source structures is used to trace the origin
and transformation of izafa forms in Uzbek. Attention
is also given to language contact phenomena and
lexical reanalysis in contemporary usage.
The main part
The Tajik and Uzbek languages have exerted a profound
mutual influence, which can be observed across all
levels of linguistic structure. One notable example of
this influence is the adoption by the Uzbek language of
the izofa construction, a syntactic feature specific to
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
204
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Tajik (a non-Turkic language). This phenomenon alone
illustrates the intensity of linguistic contact and
interaction between the two peoples.
In modern Uzbek dialects, as well as in the literary
language, numerous Persian-Tajik izofa constructions
are commonly used, such as baloi nafs, koni ziyon, soyai
davlat, dardi bedavo and nuri diydah. These compound
expressions are seamlessly integrated into Uzbek
usage.
Unlike Uzbek compound structures, which are typically
formed
using
agreement,
agglutination,
or
government, izofa constructions do not conform to
these morphological patterns. In Tajik, the izofa marker
is the vowel -i (or -yi), which functions as a linker and
does not receive stress.
In the contemporary Uzbek literary language
(excluding Turkic izofa constructions), speakers often
lack clear awareness of the specific parts of speech that
constitute Persian izofa expressions. As Professor
Fattoh Abdullayev has emphasized, close observation
reveals that the components of Tajik izofa
constructions generally fall into the following three
major categories: noun, adjective, and participle.
Examples include:
•
Noun + Noun: tarjimai hol (“biography”), obi
hayot (“elixir of life”)
•
Noun +
Adjective: janobi oliy (“His Excellency”),
volidayi muhtarama (“respected mother”)
•
Noun + Participle: bulbuli goyo (“eloquent
nightingale”), sarvi ravon (“graceful cypress”), obi
ravon (“flowing water”)
Izofa constructions involving other parts of speech
occur relatively rarely in Uzbek usage.
The further we look into the past, the greater the
presence and quantitative proportion of Persian-Tajik
izofa constructions in the written literary language
—
particularly in poetic diction. In the works of Alisher
Navoi, the scope of their usage is notably broad.
Compared to his immediate predecessors such as Lutfi,
Atoi, and Sakkoki, Persian izofa constructions occur
more frequently in Navoi's texts. These earlier poets
employed such constructions to a lesser extent, while
Navoi made extensive and skillful use of them, thereby
enriching the stylistic and expressive potential of his
poetic language.
From Lutfi:
Bir qiyo boqsang zakoti husn uchun ey ko‘rkka boy,
Lutfii miskindin o‘lguncha o‘lguncha duo bo‘sun sanga.
From Atoi:
Yuzungdin ravzai rizvon bo‘lubdur,
Labingdin chashmai hayvon bo‘lubdur.
The volume and quantitative ratio of Tajik additions in
the works of poets who lived and worked after Alisher
Navoi is similar to the examples given by Lutfi and Atoi,
but it is much less than the amount of Tajik additions
used in Navoi's works, at least in the language of poetic
works.
From Babur:
Dilrabolardin yomonliq keldi mahzun ko‘ngluma,
Kelmadi jonimg‘a hech oromi jondin yaxshilig‘
From Munis:
Vodiiy mulki tariqat gar Nizomiydur manga,
Manzili ma’niga hizri rohi Jomiydur manga.
From Muqimi:
Mulki Hindu Marvdin kelsam topardim e’tibor,
Shul erur aybim Muqimiy, mardumi Farg‘onaman.
In the written literary language of the time of Alisher
Navoi, especially in the language of the great poet and
thinker's own works, the quantitative ratio of the
lexical layer borrowed from the Arabic and Persian-
Tajik languages, depending on the style and genre
characteristics, sometimes reached 60 percent. Also,
many grammatical elements of these languages were
used quite freely. This idea is especially true with
regard to the use of Tajik affixes. In any case, in Navoi's
scientific works, especially in such linguistic and
philosophical works as "Muhokamatul-lughatain" and
"Mahbubul qulub", the use of affixes gave rise to
structural features that were not characteristic of
Turkic languages at all. The very titles of the works
written by the great Navoi clearly indicate how freely
the Arabic and Tajik affixes were used.
The use of Persian-Tajik superlatives in the current
Uzbek literary language has significantly decreased.
However, given the existence of the phenomenon of
bilingualism, as well as the extremely widening of the
scope of the literary language, the concept of
“decreased” becomes relative. In particular, in
colloquial speech, in different dialects, the use of
superlatives varies to different degrees, while in
literature, depending on the characteristics of the
genre and the specifics of the language of the
characters, the number of such superlatives increases
or, conversely, sharply decreases. It should be noted
that the use of Persian-Tajik superlatives is more
common in poetic works written in the old style,
especially in ghazals written in the aruz meter, and in
historical novels.
From Sobir Abdulla:
Ahli suhbatlar o‘qing andoqki ma
dhi doston,
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
205
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Nazmi tabriklar yozay men qahramonlar nomiga.
Yangi yil, yangi xabar, yangi zafarlar keltirib,
Qo‘shdi ilhom Sobir Abdullo didi ilhomiga
Even in poems composed in barmoq (syllabic) meter,
such
constructions
occasionally
occur,
albeit
infrequently.
From Hamid Olimjon:
Oygulni bandi zindon
Qilgan chog‘idan buyon
In prose forms of literary literature as well, the
proportion is approximately the same:
“....janobingiz Buxoroyi sharifda necha yil o‘qib, nihoyat
mahallaga imom bo‘ldingiz”(A.Qodiriy). “Boyaqish
otang nuqul mehnat bilan o‘tib ketdi bu dunyoyi
g‘amxonadan” (Oybek). Indamasligim, qobilligim koni
ziyon bo‘ldi”(A.Qahhor). “Baholi qudrat shulardan bir
nechtasini bag‘rimizga oldik”(R.Fa
yziy).
The components that form the izofah construction
have historically consisted of original Tajik words: dardi
bedavo, obi dida, koni ziyon, xonai xurshid, ro‘yi rost,
ro‘yi jahon, taxti ravon, bandi zindon.
Both components are originally Arabic words: husni
jamol, baloyi nafs, zakoti husn, tavqi la’nat, jumlai
mo‘min, ayni muddao and others.
In modern Uzbek, most izofah constructions consist of
components of mixed origin: suhbati chor, madhi
doston, ayni zamon, kurrai zamin, nuri dida
(Arabic+Tajik). Due to the order, the opposite situation
(Tajik + Arabic) is rare: osmoni falak, xonai olam, charxi
falak. In the Persian-Tajik isofic constructions, it is
observed that there are few words of Turkish origin:
“...sadqai erkak keting”(A.Qahhor); “Onayi zor
achinib
dedi” (H.Nazir).
In our language, there are also compound expressions
in which the izofa marker is Tajik, while all components
are of Arabic origin. It is possible that the original Arabic
izofa was replaced by the Persian-Tajik izofa due to the
identical word order between Arabic and Persian-Tajik
izofa constructions and the relatively more convenient
pronunciation of the latter. For example, sukut alomati
rizo ("sign of silent consent") consists entirely of Arabic-
origin words. Originally, the izofa construction may
have had the Arabic marker: alomat ur-rizo, tavqul-
la'nat ("seal of curse"), which eventually transformed
into the Persian form tavqi la'nat. In these examples,
the Arabic izofa marker -ur / -ul was dropped, and
replaced by the Tajik izofa marker -i.
Most Tajik izofa constructions used in contemporary
Uzbek are employed as fixed expressions and possess
an idiomatic or phraseological character. In such
expressions, the original meaning of the components is
either entirely or partially metaphorized or shifted.
Examples include:
•
dardi sar (literally: "head pain")
—
used
idiomatically to mean "worry" or "trouble";
•
dardi bedavo (literally: "incurable pain")
—
used metaphorically for a complex, unsolvable
problem;
•
tarjimai hol
—
the standard term for
"autobiography";
•
gultoji xoruz (originally: "rooster with a crown
of flowers")
—
an idiomatic expression;
•
charxi falak
—
"the celestial sphere" or
metaphorically "the wheel of fate";
•
gumbazi davvor (literally: "rotating dome"
—
the sky)
—
used poetically to refer to the heavens.
These examples illustrate how izofa constructions in
Uzbek, often of Persian-Tajik origin, have been
semantically reanalyzed and incorporated into the
idiomatic core of the language.
As is well known, Tajik izofa constructions were
adopted into Uzbek as compound expressions.
However, due to structural and typological differences
between the languages, the majority of these
constructions are now perceived in Uzbek as single
lexical units. A closer examination of Tajik izofa
structures reveals that many components forming such
constructions are no longer used in contemporary
Uzbek.
For instance:
•
In the word bozorshab (market night), bozor is
a shared lexeme between Uzbek and Tajik, but shab
(night) is no longer in use in modern Uzbek.
•
The word margimush (a type of poisonous
plant, literally “death
-
mouse”) consists of marg (death)
and mush (mouse), both of which are unrecognizable
to the average Uzbek speaker today; thus, the
morphological composition of the word is opaque.
•
The word juvonmarg (a young person who dies
prematurely, literally “young
-
death”) presents a similar
case. The first component, juvon, still means “young
woman” in Uzbek, but it differs semantically from its
Tajik usage, and marg is unfamiliar to most speakers.
•
The word holvaytar might remind the listener
of holva (halva), but due to the obscure second
component and phonetic transformations over time, its
original form (holvai tar
–
“liquid halva”) has been lost.
Because the lexical-grammatical connections between
the components of such izofa expressions are often no
longer understood, some of these compounds have
been fully lexicalized in both Uzbek and Tajik. As a
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
206
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
result, they are perceived and used as indivisible lexical
units with a single stress, functioning as monolexemic
terms in speech.
Naturally, grammatical and semantic changes in the
structure of a compound expression inevitably alter its
formal characteristics. As a result, the emerging
“semantic opacity,” “indifference,” or “loss of
transpa
rency” can transform the surface structure of
the compound to such an extent that it becomes
virtually unrecognizable. In the Uzbek language, many
such constructions are perceived and treated as
compound words (qo‘shma so‘z) and are pronounced
with a single stress. For example, the average speaker
does not analyze the internal structure of the word
margimush (a poisonous plant, literally “death
-
mouse”). Consequently, the izofa element, which once
served as a grammatical connector between the two
components, goes unnoticed by the speaker. This
lexical unit is understood only in its holistic form,
conveying the meaning of “a poison that kills mice.” In
this way, margimush is not interpreted analytically but
rather processed as a monolexemic, semantically
opaque lexical item. The formal transformation
—
triggered by semantic shifts and the loss of component
transparency
—
results in the full lexicalization of the
construction, wherein its original grammatical
structure is effectively lost to contemporary speakers.
Therefore, in many Tajik izofa-based constructions
used in Uzbek written and spoken discourse, a certain
degree of phonetic transformation has taken place.
These changes
—
whether minor or more substantial
—
are often the result of natural language adaptation
processes
such
as
phonological
assimilation,
simplification, or reinterpretation of originally foreign
morphological elements within the Uzbek linguistic
system. As a result, while the overall structure of the
izofa phrase is retained, its phonetic form may undergo
modifications that reflect both phonotactic tendencies
of Uzbek and the speaker’s level of familiarity with the
original Tajik form.
а) the addition connecting the components of the
compound
–i/yi is dropped: gultojixo‘roz< guli toji
xo
‘roz, joynamoz<joyi namoz, choyshab< joyi shab,
bozorshab< bozori shab, holvaytar<halvoyi tar,
astoydil< az taxi dil, shurpeshona<sho‘ri peshona,
sohibjamol< sohibi jamol, xotirjam<xotiri jam, saxari
mardon<saxari mardon;
б) both are run as parallel for
ms: aksar vaqt - aksari
vaqt, non-nasiba - noni nasiba, sohibjamol
—
sohibi
jamol, ro‘yi rost—ro‘yrost;
в) In the assimilated Tajik suffixed compounds, under
certain phonetic conditions (risk of elision, avoidance of
consonant clusters, etc.), the Tajik suffix -i/yi is
naturally preserved. A certain number of compounds
are products of the written literary language and are
rarely or completely absent in the living language: fasli
bahor, bog‘i eram, ahli ayol, xurshidi tobon, tolibi ilm,
baloyi nogahon, ahli rasta.
г) The speaker naturally does not understand well
which word family the components belong to. From a
formal-grammatical point of view, the components of
Tajik compound words belong to the following three
main families
—
noun, adjective, and adjectival
categories: mardi maklayd, tarjimai hal (noun + noun),
halvoyi tar, janobi oli (noun + adjective), bulbuli guyo,
obi rason, khurshidi tobon (noun + adjective).
Compound words formed with the participation of
other word families are very rare. In addition, the poor
readability of the constituent part of the compound
word has changed the grammatical relationship
between the components: most of the time means
most of the time, but in a living language this
compound has become equivalent in meaning to the
phrase "most of the time".
The connection in such Tajik compounds as kalami
surkh, bachai nodon (“red pen”, “ignorant child”), of
course, cannot be included in the coordination, the
words in the compound are not connected by control,
and the so-called compound, which is called affixation,
is also not similar to this compound from the point of
view of its nature. In this example, the definite article
(kalam) brings an additional addition, which means that
the word that follows it is a determiner. The
determining element does not receive any addition
(surkh, nodon), only its place determines the
grammatical function of the word, from this point of
view, the compound is reminiscent of a construction
with affixation, but in this example there is a deviation
from the requirements of the method of affixation in
the literal sense - a special element -i/yi is used to
connect both words.
In some lexicalized word compounds in the Uzbek
language, the connecting suffix is dropped. In most
compound constructions, the grammatical connection
between the components of the compound has
disappeared and become imperceptible. While it is
customary to write such compound constructions with
a suffix in spelling, in some cases the connecting suffix
is preserved for convenience. For example:
A) mo‘yi lab
-
mo‘ylov, kabobi tok
- kavatak, halvoyi tar
- holvaytar, sari kor - sarkor, charxi falak - charxpalak,
az tahti dil - astoydil, guli toji xurus -
gultojixo‘roz.
B) dardi sar - dardisar, mardi kor - mardikor, shohi
mardon - shohimardon.
Some of these word combinations can be used both
with and without an adverb. For example: rizqi ruz //
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
207
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
rizq-ruz, ruyi rost // ruyrost. The abbreviated version of
such constructions without an adverb is mainly
characteristic of oral speech.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the reason for the frequent use of so
many Tajik adverbs in the modern Uzbek language is,
first of all, the tradition of the ancient Turkic language
and the modern Uzbek literary language, and secondly,
the desire of Uzbek writers to make the image solemn
and the speech expressive.
Persian-Tajik izafa constructions in the Uzbek language
represent a fascinating intersection of linguistic
contact,
structural
borrowing,
and
semantic
transformation. Their integration into Uzbek not only
reflects historical ties with Persian but also showcases
the adaptability and expressive potential of Uzbek as a
literary language. As many of these constructions have
become idiomatic, they now serve as carriers of
cultural meaning and stylistic nuance. The phonetic and
grammatical transformations they have undergone
highlight a broader process of lexicalization, whereby
foreign syntactic models are assimilated and
reinterpreted within a Turkic linguistic framework.
Future studies may further explore the pedagogical and
stylistic implications of izafa forms in modern Uzbek,
particularly in educational and lexicographic contexts.
REFERENCES
Omonov, M. (2019). MORPHOLOGICAL FORMS OF
PERSIAN IZAFET CONSTRUCTIONS IN" BABURNAME".
Theoretical & Applied Science, (11), 260-263.
Amonov, M. U. (2019). Accordance with the original of
isafetic combinations in “Baburnama”. Scientific
Bulletin of Namangan State University, 1(8), 239-244.
Umarovich, A. M. (2021). The proportion of arabic
isophical compounds in the “baburnoma” with the
original. Academicia: an international multidisciplinary
research journal, 11(2), 1554-1557.
Амонов, М. (2016). ТРАНСЛИТЕРАЦИЯ ИЗАФЕТНЫХ
СОЧЕТАНИЙ В" БАБУРНАМЕ". Актуальные научные
исследования в современном мире, (6
-1), 95-98.
Амонов, М. (2016). АЛИШЕР НАВОИЙ ҒАЗАЛЛАРИДА
ҚЎЛЛАНИЛГАН АРАБИЙ ИЗОФАЛАРНИНГ ТУРЛАРИ.
Актуальные научные исследования в современном
мире,
(6-1), 91-94.
С.И.Хушенова,
Изафетные
фразеологические
единицы таджикского языка, Душанбе, 1971, 36
-
бет.
Turdaliyevich, Z. M. (2023). Expression of Locality in
Text Syntax. Texas Journal of Philology, Culture and
History, 16, 34-37.
Zokirov, M. (2023). Comparative Study of Vocabulary of
Russian and Kazakh Languages. Best Journal of
Innovation in Science, Research and Development,
2(11), 351-355.
Zokirov, M., & Raimjonov, O. (2023). O ‘ZBEK
TILSHUNOSLIGIDA
FRAZEOLOGIK
BIRLIKLARNING
KOMPYUTER LINGVISTIKASI NUQTAYI NAZARIDA O
‘RGANILISHI.
BARQARORLIK
VA
YETAKCHI
TADQIQOTLAR ONLAYN ILMIY JURNALI, 3(3), 512-517.
Zokirov, M. (2024). ANTHROPOCENTRIC PARADIGM:
PROBLEMS, BASIC CONCEPTS AND PROVISIONS.
International Multidisciplinary Journal for Research &
Development, 11(01).
Zokirov, M. (2024). About Systems of Classification of
Languages of the World. American Journal of Language,
Literacy and Learning in STEM Education (2993-2769),
2(2), 37-43.
Zokirov, M. T., & Dadabayeva, S. S. (2020). ABOUT THE
ROLE
OF
LANGUAGES
CONTACTS
IN
THE
DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGES. Theoretical & Applied
Science, (4), 687-691.
