INGLIZ XALQ TABOBATIDA ISHLATILADIGAN FITONIMLAR

Аннотация

In the process of studying phytonyms of any language it is impossible without taking into account their historical features and new genesis. Initially, plants were given names to distinguish them from each other, like any other lexemes, they were elementary payo. Later, some phytonomic names, firmly established in a certain language, became terms. But at the same time, many words expressing the realities of the plant world, passed into the passive reserve (ceased to be used in the language and gave way to neologisms). In this regard, the phytonomic vocabulary of the English language is very important. Keywords: phytonyms, V. Humboldt, A.V. Superanskaya, I.A. Baudouin. Annotatsiya. Fitonimlarni har qanday tilda o‘rganish jarayonida ularning tarixiy xususiyiyatlarini, yangi genesisini hisobga olmasdan mumkin emas. Dastlab o‘simliklarga ularni bir-biridan ajratish uchun nomlar berilgan, boshka har qanday leksemalar kabi, elementar ravishda payo bo‘lgan. Keyin, ma’lum bir tilda mustahkam o‘rnashgan ayrim fitonomik nomlar terminlarga aylangan. Ammo shu bilan birga o‘simlik dunyosining realiyalarini ifodalagan ko‘plab so‘zlar passiv zaxiraga o‘tgan (tilda ishlatilishdan to‘xtab, neologismlarga o‘rin berishgan). Bu jihatdan inglis tiling fitonomik leksikasi juda ahamiyatlidir. Kalit so‘zlar: fitonimlar, V.Gumbolt, A.V. Superanskaya, I.A.Boduen. Introduction. Scientific comparative research, on the one hand, aims to determine the individual characteristics of a particular language and, on the other hand, to reveal its common features with other languages. This idea is confirmed by the words of I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay: "... it is scientifically impossible to see the categories of another language in a given language without any limitations; science should not impose foreign categories on an object but should search for those that exist within it and determine its structure and composition" [1,68]. This once again confirms that the comparative method has great theoretical value, as it allows for a deeper understanding of language universals and the nature of language as a social phenomenon through the unique characteristics of the compared languages. Results and discussions. In modern linguistics, the main shift in contemporary science is the focus on philosophical culture and anthropological issues. When https://scientific-jl.com/wsrj 3 3 Volume-38_Issue-1_April-2025 World scientific research journal studying language and its figurative representations, understanding the anthropological basis of language has become crucial. Examining language and its qualities has increased interest in interdisciplinary issues within the humanities, leading to the concept of the "man-language-culture" unity. The linguistic worldview is shaped alongside language. V. Humboldt and his followers, who formulated the concept of language as a system of intrinsic values, emphasized that language creates an intermediary world between human society and reality. For this reason, F. de Saussure argued that diachronic and synchronic approaches should not be mixed when studying language. He criticized the notion of a logical unit of human cognition while highlighting the significant semantic differences in the structures of various languages. This perspective has influenced the study and development of multiple fields of semantics, including the "field" approach in linguistics (J. Trier, L. Weisgerber, G. Ipsen, V. Porzig, etc.). Several linguistic scholars have studied phytonyms for years. In linguistics, plant names are referred to as phytonyms. The term phytonym is derived from the Greek words "phyton" (plant) and "onyma" (name, title), meaning plant names. This term was first introduced into linguistics by A.V. Superanskaya in her book "General Theory of Proper Names" [2, 30-34]. Phytonyms are defined as units of folk botanical nomenclature, while phytoterms refer to scientific plant names based on botanical characteristics [3, 34-37]. Words belonging to this lexical group have important characteristics that must be considered during research. U. Krishke noted that the analysis of phytonyms should be conducted at the intersection of three disciplines: linguistics, philosophy, and botany. From a philosophical perspective, plants represent natural species—objects naturally grouped together not by human intention but by inherent characteristics. Therefore, phytonyms, as terms denoting natural species, reflect real properties of plants and, unlike other lexical groups, are not arbitrary but well-thought-out names. In this regard, phytonyms are closely related to anthroponyms and toponyms, as they also denote real people and real objects. However, unlike these lexical groups, phytonyms do not refer to specific individuals or places but to entire classes of plants with shared characteristics. Linguistic scholars such as T.R. Pisarskaya, N.E. Yakimenko, and L.F. Pucileva explained the naming of phytonyms as follows: "All names of objects are base