*HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF THE -KENT / -KET FORMANT IN THE NAMES OF ANCIENT TURKIC CITIES RECORDED IN CHINESE AND OTHER EASTERN SOURCES
Authors
-
*Marzhan Zhylkybaeva
Sh.Yesenov Caspian University of Technology and Engineering
-
Sholpan Saparbaykyzy
Sh.Yesenov Caspian University of Technology and Engineering
-
Saltanat Spatayeva
L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55808/1999-4214.2026-1.05Keywords:
kent, ket, toponym, oikonym, formant, Old Turkic cities, geolinguisticsAbstract
This article examines the linguistic nature and spatial distribution characteristics of the formants “-kent / -ket,” attested in the names of cities found in historical-linguistic and geographical sources from the Old Turkic period. The study highlights the etymological and historical-cultural significance of oikonyms concentrated in the territories of Central Asia and East Turkestan—regions historically inhabited by Turkic tribes. In certain cases, the origins, areas of dissemination, and phonetic adaptation of the formants -kent / -ket / -kand are identified by comparing data from ancient Arabic-Persian, Chinese, and Turkic written sources.
The article provides examples of historical oikonyms such as Tashkent, Khodzhent (Kozhend), Suekent (Sütkent), Nawakent (Navaket), Usbaniket (Arsubaniket, Subaniket), Zhetikent (Pers. Heft deh), Zhent, Zharkent (Yangikent; according to S. P. Tolstov, these two names refer to the same city), Barshynglykent, Bikent (Biket), Ordakent, Özkent (Özjand, Qaidar Dulat), and Jabghuket. Based on the analysis of these toponyms, the article reveals the functions and etymological meanings of the formants -kent / -ket / -kand (qand), as well as their role as an integrative indicator reflecting the interconnectedness of Turkic, Sogdian, and Iranian cultures. Continuity between archaeological, historical, and ethnolinguistic evidence is also traced throughout the study.
The analysis of the material presented in this study demonstrates that the formants -kent / -ket / -kand represent stable linguistic units that developed in the territories of Central Asia—specifically the Aral region, the Syr Darya basin, the Chu–Talas valleys, and the Zhetysu area. The work constitutes a comprehensive study conducted at the intersection of historical toponymy and geolinguistics, and it scientifically substantiates the significance of the “kent” component in the development of urban culture within the Turkic civilization.
