Among the attendees were also KazNU scientists who participated in collection compilation, Professor ZINOL-GABDEN BISENGALI, Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor MUBARAK UMBETAYEV, LYAILA MUSALY, PAZYL BISENBAYEV, BAKYTKOZHA BAYAZITOV and other scientists.

The scholars noted that these books are a great contribution to the science of Abay Studies, and they thanked developers, the director of Abay Institute and outstanding literary critic ZhankaraDadebayev.

Laila Mussaly, Associate Professor KazNU

The thirty-second volume includesDoctor of Philology, Baltabay Abdigaziuly’s work”The World of Abay and Shakarim”. Thescientistmentionsthe work of Shakarim Kudaiberdiyev, the great philosopher, who continued Abay’s literary tradition.

The thirty-third volume contains Professor Y. M. Paltore’swork. The interrelation of Abay’s creativity with medieval Turkic monuments is analyzed there. The words of Arabic origin used by Abai in his works are contextually connected and devoted to the text of the Holy Quran and hadith. They played an important role in the linguistic and cultural interpretation.

The thirty-fourth volume contains additional information about Abay’s biography, as well as the works, conclusions and gratitude of the employees of the state historical-cultural and literary-memorial museum-reservation “Zhidebay-Baryli” dedicated to Abay, in Semey.

In the thirty-fifth volume of “Abay Studies. Selected Works”publication,the main results of interdisciplinary study of Abay’s creative heritage were generalized and differentiated. The volume consists of introduction, nine chapters, conclusion, used sources and applications.

Attention in this work is mainly paid to the actual problems of Abay’s studies. The works included in this volume are intended forAbay scholars, graduate and doctoral students, young people undertaking to closely familiarize themselves with the heritage of Abay, and the interested public. The volume 3979 / GF4 was prepared and published within the framework of “Interdisciplinary study of Abay Kunanbayev’s creative heritage”program.

Musaly L. Zh., associate professor of al-Farabi KazNU

The International Student Conference “UN Model – New Silk Way” is the largest simulation of the UN work in Central Asia. The UN model provides an opportunity for students to practice and acquire diplomatic, leadership, speaking and language skills, and also serves as a network platform for young leaders. The international conference is held with the support of the US Consulate General and the UN Public Information Department on the basis of the Kazakh National University named after al-Farabi.

Representatives of the United Nations as well as UN agencies: UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, OCHA were invited to the plenary session. Also Administration of Almaty akimat, representatives of the Fund of the First President of the Republic of Kazakhstan – Leader of Nations and KazNU named after al-Farabi took part in it. Representatives of the MFA of the RK and the diplomatic corps of Kazakhstan, ambassadors and consuls of the USA, Germany, France, Russia, India, Italy, Afghanistan, Hungary and other countries took part in the conference.

At the opening ceremony the rector of the University Galymkair Mutanov noted the importance of holding this event in KazNU. He empasised that it should be reminded that the initiative “Model UN-New Silk Way” showed the Kazakh National University named after al-Farabi in autumn 2013, as a national and regional center to unite all students and stakeholders who are interested in the work of the UN system and sustainable development as the global agenda as well as to create an international platform for discussion and resolution of issues related to sustainable development.

Participating students from foreign countries also expressed their gratitude to the organizers of the event. “The youngsters from Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are very similar. For example, they are all very open, hospitable and very cheerful. Therefore, I’m confident that I quickly got used to Kazakhstan”, – said a student from the Kyrgyz-Turkish University “Manas”, that participated for the first time in this conference.

During two days of the conference, professional trainers conducted a training seminar in Russian and in English languages for participants in the directions: UN Security Council – “Drug Trafficking as a Threat to Security in Central Asia”, UN General Assembly – “Global Migration as the reflection of employment challenges as well as other (SDG-4, SDG-8), UN Human Rights Council – “Modern Slavery and the Issue of Forced Labor (SDG-10)”, UNESCO – “Freedom and Influence of the Homeland Self-awareness of the People (SDG-16)”, Environmental Assembly – Pollution in Central Asia (SDG-13, SDG-14, SDG-15) “, International Court of Justice -” Legal Regulation of Cyberspace (SDG-16) “. Guests had the opportunity to visit the sights of Almaty. The conference lasted until April 30.

Press Centre

KazNU named after al-Farabi

During his prelections Jonathan Mahoney introduced general and major characteristics of a good lecturer, such as presenting the material in a clear, obvious, precise, rational and coherent sequence; making the material accessible and procurable, comprehensible and luminous, relevant and meaningful; covering the subject matter sufficiently; pacing the lecture properly; illustrating the practical applications of the theory given; show impetuosity for the subject; generating interest about lecture material early in the lecture. Lectures are probably the first-rate teaching method in many circumstances and for many apprentices; eminently for communicating theoretic, conceptual knowledge, and where there is a significant and serious knowledge gap between lecturer and listeners. Positively, Jonathan Mahoney’s lectures can impart much.

 Zhaparova A.Zh.

]]> https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?feed=rss2&p=254 0 https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?p=251 https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?p=251#comments Tue, 03 Jun 2014 05:58:00 +0000 Nurdaulet https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?p=251 Upbringing implies raising, rearing, nurture, education, training received during childhood, throughout a person’s formative years. It is common knowledge that upbringing is the most important, responsible, enormous duty a person can face. The main factors of personality are a biological heredity, physical environment or surroundings, culture, group and individual experience. Good upbringing leads to formation of a person, who is well-bred, well-mannered, courteous and refined. Generosity, kindness, attentiveness, politeness, esteem, friendliness, amiability, cordiality, sympathy, affability or having good demeanor manners are  are all about respecting others and yourself. Etiquette is about considering the aesthesis or feelings of other people, and being the charitable, humanitarian, eleemosynary person that others will like, revere and look up to. There is a golden rule that reads «Always do to others as you would wish them to do to you if you were in their place». Good manners can be applied everywhere, when one is at home, at work or university, at the table, on the phone, in the shops, even at the beach.

On the occasion a person shows mannerliness far and wide, high and low, here and there he steps, then he is more likely to encourage and hearten, embolden and cheer others to behave in the same way towards him. By and large, good manners include the following things such as being helpful and cooperative to others; saying «please», «excuse me», «thank you»; cleaning up after yourself; greet by saying good morning or afternoon if you are walking past an adult who you know; returning things that you have borrowed; waiting your turn before you speak; respecting other people, being condescending and gentle to others.

Here is the poem by professor Niamat Ali called «Good behavior», which is quite to the point and most welcome here.

Good Behaviour

Good behaviour is the greatest virtue
That is ever green and ever true.
Learn good deeds from smiling folwers
Pleasure will go higher than towers.

Learn good deeds from the innocent bird
Their sweet chirping you might have heard.
Learn good action from leaves of trees
They serve others and play with breeze.

Learn good thought from silent roots
They bury themselves alive for others’fruits.
Learn good lesson from sparkling stars
Who againt Darkness are ever at wars.

Learn good service from flowing water
That absorbs evil but clears other’s matter
Learn good sermon from the cuckoo
Who pleases other in her woe.

Learn good lesson from the patient earth
That makes plans others’ every mirth.
Learn good lesson from the hot tear
That does not let any one its pain hear.

Spread a good lesson in your journey
Grow roses in the valleys called stoney.

Zhaparova A.Zh.

]]> https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?feed=rss2&p=251 0 https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?p=248 https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?p=248#comments Tue, 03 Jun 2014 04:54:26 +0000 Nurdaulet https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?p=248 Upbringing is the most significant factor that can influence, effect and impact on people. The important and major aspects in shaping the personality are upbringing, environment and heredity. There are great deals of quotations, proverbs, sayings about this influential aspect called upbringing.  This quotation was said by Leo Tolstoy, a Russian writer and philosopher, «Everything depends on upbringing». According to Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch Renaissance humanist, Catholic priest, social critic, teacher, and theologian, «Young bodies are like tender plants, which grow and become hardened to whatever shape you’ve trained them». One more quote from Johnny Depp, an American actor, film producer, and musician, «My upbringing made me as I am now. But I can become merry and happy at once. There were many years I was feeling at a loss about my life or how I grew up. I couldn’t understand what is right or what is precious. At that time, I was so miserable and self-defeating. I was feeling angry with various things. My anger came up to the surface then. I don’t say such tendency has disappeared. Even now there are anger and the dark side in myself. But it’s the first time I’ve been so close to the light».

Everyone develops differently, and “share” of the influence of heredity and environment, upbringing can be also various, peculiar, sundry.

Influence of heredity and environment are adjusted by rearing, it is recognized as the main force capable of giving a full personality to society. Effectiveness of educational impact is focused on systematic and skilled, qualified control. The role of upbringing is estimated and assessed at variance: from the approval of its complete powerlessness and meaninglessness (we are speaking about unfavorable heredity and bad influence of the environment) to the recognition of this concept as the only way of changing human nature. Education can achieve a lot, but it is quite impossible to change a person completely.

Upbringing subordinates human development to the aimed target. Nurture is filling in the gaps in genetic program of human development. One of the most important tasks of a properly organized raising is identifying aptitudes and talents and development of abilities and capabilities in accordance with the individual characteristics of a person. Nurture depends on development itself, it is always based on the achieved level of development. This is the complex dialectic relationship development and education as goal and means. Efficiency of upbringing leans on the preparedness level to human perception of the educational impacts from heredity and environment.

Zhaparova A.Zh.

]]> https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?feed=rss2&p=248 0 https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?p=243 https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?p=243#comments Sun, 28 Oct 2012 06:38:50 +0000 Nurdaulet https://abai-inst.kz/eng/?p=243 M. T. Kozhakanova, L.Zh.Mussaly, I.K.Azimbayeva, K.T.Abdikova

Abstract—Abai Kunanbayev (1845-1904) was a great Kazakhpoet, composer and philosopher. Abai’s main contribution to Kazakhculture and folklore lies in his poetry, which expresses greatnationalism and grew out of Kazakh folk culture. Before him, mostKazakh poetry was oral, echoing the nomadic habits of the people ofthe Kazakh steppes. We want to introduce to abroad our country, itshistory, tradition and culture. We can introduce it only throughtranslations. Only by reading the Kazakh works can foreign peopleknow who are kazakhs, the style of their life, their thoughts and soon. All information comes only through translation. The mainrequirement to a good translation is that it should be natural or that itshould read as smoothly as the original. Literary translation shouldbe adequate, should follow the original to the fullest. Translatorshave to be loyal to original text, they shouldn’t give the way to liberty.

Keywords—concept, literature, unit, semantics, tracing, phenomenon.

I. INTRODUCTION

A phraseological unit is a complex linguistic phenomenon.Understanding the phraseological units’ artistic role inpoetry, their identification and transfer to another language isnot an easy task. The transfer of meaning and the artistic

function of the phraseological units of great poets such asByron, Pushkin and Abai to other languages require from a

skilled translator deep knowledge and poetic talent. There areseveral objectives for the translator: knowledge of the basicissues of the phraseology theory; the same deep knowledge of

the phraseological units’ values of two languages; and anadequate transfer of their meanings, semantics, expressive andstylistic features in the translation. The practicalimplementation of these objectives depends on the level of

pre-translation analysis and interpretation of a phraseological

unit by a translator. Even at early stages of the phraseologicalunits’ pre-translation analysis, the translator starts facing manydifficulties. The main ones are the following: definition of the

phraseological units’ structure; understanding their textual,contextual and hidden meaning, content, idea; determiningtheir artistic and aesthetic functions; finding the phraseological

units’ full and appropriate alternatives in the target language;finding the closest alternative of the phraseological units in thelanguage of translation; descriptive transfer of thephraseological units’ values in translation, etc. Each of thesetasks corresponds to a certain stage of phraseology translation[1].

Addressing issues revealed during the initial stages of greatimportance. The translator who does not know fully both

languages can easily make mistakes. There are frequent errorsfound in current translations of Abai’s phraseology in Russianand English. These fall into several types.

First, the translatoris not taking the entire phraseological unit as a stableindivisible phrase, but rather is dividing and translating itword by word. This distorts the meaning of the phrase.

Second, the translator cannot find in the Russian languageexisting equivalents of the original’s given phraseologicalunits.

Third, he perceives the figurative units used in theoriginal language as phraseological units and translates them

as they are. Therefore, in such cases we can’t say that thecontent, meaning and artistic features of the original are

conveyed adequately.

The main requirement is that the translator should strive totranslate a phraseological unit using similar phraseology of theother language. However, in most cases translators don’tmanage to find appropriate phraseological units in the target

language. In such cases a translator has to use otherrecognized translation methods such as: tracing, descriptive,

lexical, selective translation and contextual replacement.

We believe that the lexical, grammatical and semantictransformations can be used during translation of phraseology

if they are used in convenient and suitable places.

This old Kazakh phraseological unit “kara kyldy kakzharu” translates as cutting a horse’s tail in half. However, itsfigurative meaning refers to a sense and method of distributingjustice fair and even-handed. This phraseological unit hasexisted with Kazakhs for a long time. The phraseological unitis used to refer to the high level of figurative justice exhibitedmainly in the proceedings, in the settlement of varioushousehold, social and other conflicts between individuals,groups, tribes and ‘uluses’ (nations), which has been handledin the past mainly by the Biis and Aksakals (elders) [2]. In his

poem “So Here is Old Age, Sad Thoughts, Sensitive Sleep”,Abai used this old, well-known Kazakh phrase. In the poemtext it serves for deeper understanding of the justice and

fairness concept.

D.Brodsky translates this line into Russian asfollows:

“A wise person keenly penetrates deep into things,

Breaks the hair into forty pieces”[3].

The translation conveys the meaning of the original to acertain extent. We cannot deny that. But it is impossible notto notice the presence of extra, extraneous words. You cannotnegate the fact that they do not prevent disclosure of the versemeaning. But the extra, extraneous words still have had theirinfluence on the nature of the original and on the creativeindividuality of the author. The single line “Akyldy kara kyldykyrykka bolmek” phraseological unit in the original (literally:a clever person would divide the horse hair into forty pieces),

in the translation of D.Brodsky takes two lines. The extrawords used in the translation “Zorko pronikayet v glube

veshey” (keenly penetrates deep into things) are words that thetranslator added himself. In the Kazakh-Russian dictionarythe word “kyl” is translated as “hair of a horse tail ormane”[8]. In D. Brodsky’s translation the unit associated withthe “horse” has been missed. Not horse hair but a piece of

human hair is presented to a reader. Therefore, in order tomake it more understandable to the reader, the translatorshould have used not just “hair” but “horse hair”. In addition,

the translator omitted the “kara” (black) epithet which waspresent in the original. Perhaps this is due to the fact that thetranslator has not considered the word “black” in the originalas important enough to translate. In the language system of theoriginal, “black” has a specific meaning. If it is removed thephraseological unit loses its meaning. The result is thediminished meaning of the poet’s thought, as well as theartistic originality and the aesthetic impact of descriptive and

expressive means of the poem. Additionally, in literarytranslation a connotative, i.e. a hidden meaning of a word,plays an important role. In Kazakhstan, we believe that itwould be more effective if the translator conveyed thephraseological unit used by the author into the Russianlanguage by finding a similar equivalent in Russian.After identifying and studying phraseological combinationsin a text of a poem, the translator must first search for asimilar phraseological unit in a target language that carries anequivalent sense.To return to our example, in the history of any people therewere fair and honest leaders. Take for example, KingSolomon, who remained in history thanks to his wise and justmanagement, his name is still known to many people today.

There is a well-established combination of words “theSolomonic decision” in the Russian language associated with

the name of this king, and this phraseological unit still exists.

In other words, if a translator uses such consolidated phrasesthat are understandable to the reader, it would be thetranslator’s more appropriate decision.

A. Kodar translates this verse as follows: “A reasonableperson would think all sides”[5]. The translator conveyed theidea of the original not word for word, but in such a way that

the reader could easily understand it. In this case, although thegeneral meaning of the original phraseological unit was

conveyed, the phraseological unit itself has completelydisappeared. Two translators translated one phraseological

unit in two ways: if A. Kodar conveyed the meaning of thephraseological unit in his translation, D. Brodsky translated

the phraseological unit word for word.

Yu. Kuznetsov could not be drawn away from the order thatD. Brodsky was sticking to, and at the level of a word forword translation he created the following: “Umnyi mozhet

rassech vdol na sorok chastey” (A Smart person can cut intoforty parts). The translator did not show the subject to be cut(horse hair), in this line. However, he added a second line in

which he wrote “tonky volos”, (thin hair), which then madethe translation of the original content understandable. Weknow that this is a common inversion that is met in translatedpoems. But the fracture of the author’s figurative structure isapparent. In addition, the conceptual meaning of the originaltext has not been properly conveyed in the translated version.

In the original version there is information about the colourof the horse hair but it is not known whether it is thin or thick.

But the translator uses a “thin hair” combination. We believethat the word “thin” is not necessary in the translated text. Theconcept of “thin” is already incorporated within the meaning

of the word “kyl” (horse hair). Although the translator is tryingto convey the exact meaning of the line, he hasn’t reached asubstantial result. The line meaning is close to the original to a

certain degree. The translator tries to convey exactly themeaning of the poet’s poem and seeks every possible way toreconcile with the meaning of the original. This is why it istranslated word for word.None of the translators who have translated thephraseological units into Russian has not been able to

accurately convey the meaning of “en adil” (most fair) whentranslating to Russian. Instead, they have focused on thethickness of the hair, the action of cutting hair, missed thesubtlety of the meaning conveyed the colour of the hair… andin the process, missed adequately conveying the concept of

justice that the poet was relaying.

Now let’s pay attention to the English version of the poemline as translated by D.Rottenberg using Brodsky’s Russiantranslation:

«Beneath the surface looks the keen-eyed sage.

He splits a hair in four times forty parts»[6].

D.Rottenberg composed the lines of the poem in the samesequence as Brodsky’s translation. Splitting the hair by fortypieces is similar to the “rascheplyaet volos na sorok chastey”

(splits the hair into forty pieces) of the Russian translator.

Rottenberg’s understanding of the Russian translator’s phrase

“pronikayet v glube veshey” (penetrates deep into things)actually is more like another Russian phrase “uvidit to, chto

nakhoditsa pod vami” (sees what’s beneath you). By doingconsecutive translation of the original text but using theRussian version as a basis, D. Rottenberg makes the samemistakes that have been made by the translator into Russian.

As a result, the made in the Russian language mistakes arerepeated in English. Also the made by D. Rottenbergomissions are added to this. All this has had an opposite effect

on the translation quality.

In Abai’s poem “Oh, Kazakhs, my poor people” one of thelines entirely consists of a phraseological unit “Auzymen orakorgan onkey kyrtyn” (literally: you windbags mow everybodywith your mouth)[4]. “Auzyben orak oru” (literally: to mow

harvest with one’s mouth) is a figurative phraseological unit.

This phraseological unit is translated by S. Lipkin in thefollowing way: “Rezhet vsekh bez razbora tvoi serp yazyk”

(your sickle language mows everybody withoutconsideration). There is “auyzben orak oru” (to mow harvest

with one’s mouth) phraseological unit in the literary Kazakhlanguage, and there are also people referred to as “orak auyz”(literally: “sickle-like mouth”), which has a totally different

meaning. “Orak auyz” means an eloquent, wisecracker man.But the “auyzben orak oru” words combination generates themeaning of “a windbag person who does nothing”. Thetranslator has destroyed the “auyzben orak oru” (to sickleharvest with a mouth) concept of the original and used theconcept similar to the “orak auyz” (sickle-like mouth) instead.

The used in the translation “serp yazyk” (sickle language)corresponds to the Kazakh “orak auyz” (sickle-like mouth).

Instead, the two phraseological units “molot yazykom” (togrind with a tongue) and “palets o palets ne udarit” (not to doa hand’s turn) in the Russian language form the full content ofthe “auyzben orak oru” phraseological unit of the original.Coordination of these units and their use in maximum

accordance with the original depends on the translator’s skilllevel.

The word “kyrt” (talker, windbag) to which the poet iscritical, in the translated version is given as “perfect, eloquentman”. Lack of sufficient knowledge of the original meaning,

the poet’s native language, the peculiarities of verbal speech inthe poem creation system led the translator to such significanterrors.

Let’s pay attention to the translation made by Yu.Kuznetsov: “A tvoiy pustozvony gremyat yazykom” (And

your windbags rattle with their tongues). If we compare thetranslation of Yu.Kuznetsov with the work of other translators,his version is most similar to the meaning of the original. But

even here there is no precision and clarity, nor the work effortto attempt to uncover the national peculiarities of the poem. A.Kodar translates this line this way: “Pogryazshiy v pustom

suyesloviy sbrod” (the mired in an empty idle talk rabble).There are contours of semantic content in A. Kodar’stranslation. But he also could not find a full analogue in the

target language, or at least a similar phraseological unit asused in the original. M.Adibayev translated the same line asfollows: “Nesete vzdor, kosite vsekh podryad” (you talknonsense, mow everybody). It seems that the general meaningof translation is somewhat similar to the original. But if youlook closely, it becomes obvious that the translator was unableto convey the figurative colors of the poet’s thoughts.R. McCain translated the line into English like this: “Andyou rattle your tongue with idle talk”. The meaning of theoriginal text is preserved. But there is a similar phraseological

unit that exists in English. For example, the «Great cry andlittle wool» “All talk, and no action”phraseological units

which could be used instead of descriptive translation of R.McCain. In other words, the descriptive method used byMcCain is acceptable translation of the meaning. However we

suggest that if there is a corresponding phraseological unit inthe target language, that the translator use this so that thefullest meaning is conveyed in the context of the reader’s own

language.

In this Abai’s poem you can see the “B³r urty mai b³r urtykan” (Fat on one cheek, blood on the other) phraseologicalunit. This unit is used to describe a man in whom live thediametrically opposite, contradictory, contrasting qualities, i.e.it is about the type of people who are capable to do goodthings with one hand while doing the evil things with theother.

S.Lipkin translates this phraseological unit this way:

“Zlo na levoi sheke, na pravoi dobro” (The evil on the leftcheek, the good on the right one). The poet’s “fat on one

cheek, blood on the other” idea has been given by thetranslator as “the evil on the left cheek, the good on the right

one”. The notions of right and left do not harm the meaning ofthe original, but you cannot see meaningfulness of thetranslator’s thoughts, his ability to think artistically.

Yu.Kuznetsov carries this line as follows: “Gde dobro ili zlo, um

li tvoi razberyot” (Where is the good and the evil, would yourmind be able to distinguish?). In the original the idea is notgiven as a question sentence. The fact that the translator hastranslated the phraseological unit not with a phraseologicalunit but with the questioning sentence has led to distortion ofthe original’s meaning. Therefore this translation cannot be

attributed to translations which accurately convey the meaning

of the original.

 A. Kodar translated this line as follows: “Vkrovi i obzhorstve ni den i ne god” (not a single day without

blood and gluttony). The thoughts that are present in theoriginal have also undergone great changes here. The used

combination of words “not a single day without blood andgluttony” is out of place. The poet did not refer to any

meaning associated with a season: there is nothing about theday or the year in the original. Using meanings, concepts andideas in translation that are not available in the original bringsa shadow on the author’s poetic art and creative individuality.In the translation of M. Silchenko this line is translated: “Naodnoi sheke u tebya krov, na drugoi maslo” (blood on your

one cheek, oil on the other)[7]. Although the translator carriedthe line’s meaning, he could not disclose the value in the sameexciting, visual, deep sense way as does the author of theoriginal.

R. McCain has translated the line into English as: «Nowyou have blood on one cheek and grease on the other». Theconsecutive translation of Richard McCain was based on M.Silchenko’s translation: the line corresponds to M. Silchenko’stranslation word for word.

In the deepest sense, Abai is referring to the opposing sidesofcharacter that can exist in an individual and the contrastingperiods of good times (“fat”) and bad or hard times (“blood”)that have existed in the history of the Kazakh people. WhenKazaks read Abai’s poetry, they understand this deep and dualmeaning of the phrase. It is the difficulty of the translator intoRussian and again into English to capture this fullest sense ofthe poem and in an artistic manner as well.

II. CONCLUSION

We tried to cover the translation of phraseological units ofAbai’s poems in this article. None of the translators could findin English and Russian languages appropriate phraseological

units that would be similar to the author’s phraseology. Thisis due to the fact that it is extremely hard to translate Abai’spoems into foreign languages. Not every translator, only thetrue masters of their craft can convey to a target language theunique originality of the poetic genius of Abai. Magnetic fieldof Abai’s poetry does not open up all of a sudden. It is notclearly showed in the text. It is embedded in the subtext orsupertext. It is the translator’s task to find out which variant is

closer to the original.

REFERENCES

[1] S.Bassnett, “Translation studies”, Revised Edition. London and New

York, 1992, pp. 18-19.

[2]A.Kaidar,“Kazakh-Russian phraseological dictionary”, Astana: Bilge, 2003, pp. 123-124.

[3] A.Kunanbayev. Selected poems. Almaty, 1996, pp. 166-167.

[4] A.Kunanbayev.Book of words. Almaty, 2009, pp. 256-258.

[5] A. Kunanbayev. Thirty seven poems. Almaty, 2006, pp. 58-60.

[6] A.Kunanbayev. Poems. / Designed by V.Chistyakov. Moscow, 1971,

pp.125-127.

[7] Ì.Silchenko.Abai’s creative biography.Àlmaty, 1957, pp.56 -57.

[8] R.Syzdykova. Kàzakh-Russian dictionary. Àlmaty, 2008, pp.43-44.

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Issue 65 2012. Published in USA. pp 504-506.

pISSN 2010-376x

eISSN 2010-3778

M. T. Kozhakanova, L.Zh.Mussaly, I.K.Azimbayeva, K.T.Abdikova

Zh. D. Dadebayev, M.T. Kozhakanova, I.K.Azimbayeva

Abstract—The issue of human anthropology took an important role in the last epochs and still hasn’t lost its importance. Scientists of different countries were interested in investigating the appearance of human being and the idea of life after death. While writing this article we noticed that scientists who made research in this issue, despite of he different countries and different epochs in which they lived, had similarities in their opinions. In given article we wrote great Kazakh poet AbaiKunanbayev’s philosophical view to the problem of human anthropology.

Keywords—anthropology, concept, human, nature, phenomenon.

I. INTRODUCTION

The human kind is described comprehensively in the works of the great Kazakh poet Abai Kunanbayev (1845-1904). He described human’s character, soul, body, mind and sense: if he is cleveror ignorant, merciful or villain, impartial,audacious or coward, generous or stingy, hardworking or lazy, conscientious or dishonorable, free or dependent. In Abai’s drawing of conclusions and estimating human’s activities, he suggested deep thoughts about human being and the meaning of human life. There are three human dignities: vigorous strength, bright mind, warm heart[2]. Abai told that those three dignities are eternal and which never emaciate. In the poet’s works, life’s phenomenons and human beings are

estimated according to these dignities. The poet showed forcefully through his words the state humans will be in while using those dignities for good purposes, and the state of being when humans can’t achieve those dignities.

Abai knew the thoughts about soul and body, of those principles, conclusions and deductions of poets who lived before him. Abai collected his poetical thoughts on the basis

of the social truth of his time. The social truth of his time and eternal intrinsic values are integrated as one aesthetic phenomenon in the poet’s thoughts and opinions about soul and body. When Creater created the human body from soil, he breathed life and soul into the body. The soul has an advantage over the body, in that when the body becomes old,it dies[1]. However, the soul doesn’t die.Creater created the soul to govern the body. Soul received the order from Creater to “Return to your Creator”. The process of this separating of soul from the body was deeply investigated in well-known

scientists’ works, which led to important scientific deductions

and principles.

The idea that “knowing about returning to his owner, soul doesn’t fall to other purposes” is known from artistic works of world literature. In the history of anthropology such

phenomena and dignities of soul were realized (and are still being realized) in different periods. If we read the works of scientists of last epoch there are similarities with Abai’s thought: Body returns to soil; soul returns to Creator. There is a deep meaning in the passage “The ignoramuses called death, the parting between “I” and “mine”[2]. For Abai “I” is body,“mine” is soul. Abai’s opinion is interrelated with Plato, Aristotle, Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina’s opinions. Plato explains the death as a separation of soul from body[3]. Abaicriticized

Plato’s understanding of death as separation of soul from body. In Abai’s opinion the process of separation soul from body can not be called death, because soul is immortal. Abai’s poetical comprehension of human’s “I” is his mind and soul.

Human’s humanity is in his mind and soul. Referring to those findings, Abai wrote his next deduction: Nature can die, but humans are immortal; human’s mind and soul never die.

Abai’s poetical thoughts are different from Plato’s, Aristotle’s and Ibn Sina’s. To find human’s humanity from soul and mind, to consider human’s immortality from immortality of mind and soul was uniquely the thoughts of Abai. In Abai’s opinion, if human wants to achieve their purposes while they are alive they shouldn’t forget of the existence of the Creator.

Abai wrote “the life is like a strained bow”. The head (top) of two sides of strained bow are in the Creator’s hand. Abai’s thought is given in figurative way and it has subtext. The Creator put the human soul to the one side of strained bow and takes it from another side. The understanding that the Creator takes back the soul, which was given before by him to the human being, came from that meaning.

“When Aristotle in his work “About Soul” weighed the thoughts of geniuses of the past and of his contemporaries, he considered the knowledge about the concept of soul to be a distinguishing mark of the most advanced thinkers”. Such kind of thoughts appeared in works of Turkish geniuses who lived between the time of Aristotle and Abai.

We shouldn’t divide the knowledge about soul to strictly religious or scientific spheres. There is no difference between Abai’s view and the religious, general human knowledge. That is why it is impossible to understand or explain Abai’s view about mind and soul in one way. Abai’s view about soul and

body is based on general theory and scientific values conglomerated from the existence of the universe.

Plato told about different images human can own after

death. The soul who served to satisfy the body’s messy and bad requests, himself becomes dirty and can be considered as injured. Soul can’t get rid of this even after separating from

the body. The souls of humans, who don’t think about honor and shame, who don’t know when to stop living life enjoying only for today without thinking about tomorrow will go to the coffin in the appearance of donkey, pig or animals like them.

The souls of the unjust, power-seeker and thief will get the appearance of predators like wolf, hawk and kite. According to Al-Farabi the souls of such a human will stay depending on

matter, they meet their death when matter will be destroyed[11]. When Abai says “no future” he means of such people.That idea of Al-Farabi’s came to our epoch through written

information.

Abu Hamid Muhammed al-Gazali at-Tusi divided human nature into four parts. The first nature is

likened to animals: to drink and eat, to sleep, to propagate. The second is concerned with the predator’s actions: to kill, attack, breach, eat. The third nature is like the devil’s desire:

selfishness, cunning, meanness. The fourth is a kind to an angel who respects the Creator’s dignity [4]. Also Rumi wrote about such thoughts. “Human’s body is as a dense rock, where are gathered a large number of predators. There are thousand

wolves and pigs in our soul and thousand pure, messy, glorious and vile characters inside us. If one of those characters dominates, we will depend on it. In one time human

becomes a devil, another time into angel, another into predator[5].

Al-Zhilani abdal-Kadyr (1077-1166) showed four kinds of

human

1. Human has not heart or tongue;

2. Human has tongue, but no heart;

3. Human has heart, but no tongue

4. This human should be called the greatest of Creator’s palace, as for the Creator; there is not human being without heart and tongue. Sinful, stupid, proud are those people. Educated people have to show them the way of truth. Human who has tongue, but no heart pretends to be on the side of mind, but when they have to do things which are characteristic to mind they turn their backs. They can invite with the help of a tongue to the way of Justice, when in fact they are far away from justice.

We should steer clear of such hypocrites. Human who has heart, but no tongue is on the path of justice. All good and blessings of the world go with them. Educated people who give their knowledge to another have an angel’s character [6].

In Abai’s creativity a human who wants to stay human has to receive knowledge, give received knowledge to others, and wish other people to achieve the success which was achieved before by him.

The poet offers important rules a) not to confuse those who are in a right way or on the right path, and b) to reform those who in a wrong way.

According to these rules, an opinion has been formed about a person who is confusing or leading astray people who arealready in a right way and a person trying to reform those who

are in a wrong way. This opinion is given like this: “The person who has committed one hundred bad deeds is not worth a person who has made one good deed”. There are valuable thoughts devoted to human nature and sense of life in the works of thinkers of the past. Nowadays, the historical and theoretical value of Aristotle’s, Al-Farabi’s and Ibn Sina’s thoughts don’t lose their importance. Al-Gazali’s, al-Zhilani’s and Rumi’s opinions are based on the opinions of thosethinkers. Ibn Sina’s ideas had influence on the formation of many cultural figures’ points of view, as had influence of Aristotle to Al-Farabi, and Al-Farabi to Ibn Sina.

Rumi, in developing this idea, rose to the top of poetic art. In the culture of Islam, after Kuran and the Prophet’s Khadis (story), Rumi’s works are in great demand [7].

Representatives of Persian literature saw Rumi’s poem “Masnavi” as Kuran in Persian language[8]. These traditional rules which began from Aristotle have found their continuation in the works of Abai, Zhalalad-Din Dauani(1467-1502),Yu.Balasagun(XI),A.Yassaui(XII-XII), M.Khorezmi (XIY), Nizami, Navaii, Abdirakhman Zhami, and Saadi, Hafiz. There is assonance in the ideas of those scientists. The difference is not in content but in form. If one scientist’s word is exact, the next one’s word has concealed

meaning. But all scientists had the general idea: Humanity begins when person looks inside of himself and tries to learn the origin and secrets of character and human nature. In Abai’s

opinion, human who wants to know the secrets of nature, truth and to feel justice should convince themselves that external and internal nature of human are different things. Human’s

external nature is body, and internal nature is soul. In scientific literature “desire”, “spirit”, “heart” or “soul” all

mean one concept. In spite of this, it is difficult to give the definition of the word “spirit”. Scientists give different

definitions such as fire, heat, movement, or source of movement. According to Democrates, mind and soul are the same. According to Plato, out of spirit cannot be either mind or

rationality. The soul is created before body; therefore it

surpasses a body. Soul is the governor and the owner of a body. Aristotle agreed with Plato and he underlined that the governor of soul is mind. The soul is neither matter nor substratum, it is another concept with what we feel, think and live. If matter is opportunity, the form is its execution [10].

Human’s soul consist of those two bases. Aristotle’s principles about “strong-minded soul”, “stupid soul”, ability of soul to know the truth (feel, imagine, think or intuition, opinion, knowledge, mind), and five ways of recognizing or denying truth (art, science, practice, wisdom, mind) were

conducive to Abai’s thoughts about soul and body [9]. Abai underlined the distinction of soul and body, mind and feeling, that what distinguishes human being from beast is that soul

and body exist in with the concepts of mind and sense.

Aristotle in his “Nicoma aesthetics” wrote if human has excessive passion they become like animal. In his work he showed three kinds of existence for human. The lowest kind is to live like animal. According to Al-Farabi, there are people who have the courage and judgment to fulfill the wish of the

mind. Such kind of people we call free man. Human who hasn’t those two dignities are called human like animals[11]. Human who has mind, but not courage is called slave. Such

kind of issues of soul and body are written in the works of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Blaise Paskal (1623-1662), Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677).

Paskal defined human greatness with ability of mind.

Theoretical rule has a profound meaning in the work “aesthetics” and other works of Spinoza [14]. Abai’s social ethical thoughts and philosophical views about the soul, body, mind, sense have much in common with the principles of East

and West scientists. Abai’s thought about people of his time “Many people are not perverted because of stupidity; they are perverted because of lack of resolve, and the courage in the heart to understand the words of an intelligent”, have much in common with opinions of those scientists[12]. If they told about people who have or have not sanity and will power to

do things peculiar to the mind, Abai told about people who have or have not, the heart, determination and courage to understand the intelligent person’s words.

Plato’s, Aristotle’s, Al-Farabi’s, IbnSina’s, F.Bacon’s, R.Deskarte’s, B.Paskal,’s B.Spinoza’s, and Abai’s opinion about certain phenomenon are similar. Differences are not in opinions and thoughts; differences are in methods and means used to substantiate those opinions and thoughts.

II. CONCLUSION

Al-Farabi in his work “civic politics” described human nature as Aristotle “like beasts”, “like wild animal”, “like

predator”. Those thoughts of Al-Farabi, Aristotle and Abai’s “if there is no light in mind, you live like predator”,; “if there is no light in the heart, of what are you made any better than the beast”, with Aristotle’s and Al-Farabi’s characterization of

human “like beasts”, “like wild animal”, “like predator” and

Abai’s description of human behavior “to live like predator” of what you’d be better than a beast” have accordance. There is no contradiction in the description of scientists who lived in different epochs with Abai’s description about the three human dignities: “vigorous strength”, “bright mind”, and “warm heart”. We can’t say that Abai knew and read Socrates’, Plato’s, Aristotle’s, Ksenefont’s, Al-Farabi’s, Ibn Sina’s, Ph. Bacon’s, R.Deskarte’s, B.Paskal’s, or B.Spinoza’s work. In spite of this, in Abai’s world, his view and thoughts

have correspondence with those scientists. We can say that Abai made deep, rich thought about the concepts of soul and body.

REFERENCES

[1] Plato. Worksin 4 volumes. Volume III._Part I.-St.Petersburg, 2007, p.22.

[2] Àbai Kunanbayev. Works in 2 volumes. Volume I. – Àlmaty, 1977, pp265-266.

[3] Plato. Works in 4 volumes. Volume II. St.Petersburg, 2007, p.48

[4] Àl-Gazali, Àbu Hamid. Instructionsforrulers. – Ì., 2008, p. 86.

[5] Rumi, Zhalalad-din, Muhammed. Massnavi-Manavi (Poem about hiding

meaning). St.Petersburg, 2010

[6] Àl-Dzhilani, abdàl-Êàdir. Disclosureofhidden: Ñollection of 75 sermons. Ì., 2008, pp 141.

[7] Zhan Sh.Mevliana Dzhalaleddin Rumi (Life, person, thoughts).

St.Petersburg, 2007, p. 9.

[8] A.Hismattullin. Fromeditor//Rumi. Jalalad-din, Muhammed Masnavi-

Manavi (Poemabouthiddenmeaning). Translated from Persian. St.

Peterburg, 2009, p.13.

[9] Àristotle. Ethics, Aesthetics, Policy- Minsk, 2011, pp 45-50.

[10] Àristotle.Poetics. Rhetoric. Aboutsoul / translatedby Â. Appellort, N.Platonova, P.Popov. – Ì., 2009, pp.309-315.

[11] Al-Farabi. Social-ethical tractates. Àlmaty, 1975, p.49

[12]A.Kunanbayev.Works in two volumes.Volume2.Almaty,1977, p.219.

[13] Aristotle. Mistery. Library of ancient Rus. Volume 9. http://

www.pushkinskijdom.ru

[14] B. Spinoza. Ethics. http://www.erols.com/nbeach/spinoza html

[15] S.Lukanov .Selected works. Volume ² . – Àlmaty, 1980.

 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Issue 66, June 2012.  Published in USA.

pp1409-1411.

pISSN 2010-376x

eISSN 2010-3778