144 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education Volume 02, Issue 10, 2024 ISSN (E): 2993-2769 Linguistic Maintenance of the Database of Meronyms of the National Corpus of the Uzbek Language Asqar Eshmuminov Termez State University, Termez, Uzbekistan Abstract. This article is based on the study of the phenomenon of meronymy in linguistics and that it is exactly the same as the phenomenon of partonymy. Linguists have commented on their research on meronymy. Key words: Meronim, partonim, holonim, part-whole relationship. I. INTERODUCTION A meronym (ancient Greek mĭros - "part" and ónomo – “name”) is a combination that is an integral part of another. Meronim in another sense as partonim (Latin Pars, r. P. - partis – “part”). Holonim (Greek. As part of the first). The term meronymy (partonymy) is Uzbek is a term of a new field in both linguistics and European linguistics, and appears for the first time in the scientific literature in the Theses of Systemic Lexicology [1]. The term meronymy in Uzbek linguistics was introduced under the name of partonymy in the 90s of the XX century by representatives of the Bukhara School of Linguistics [2]. Words in the group of partonymic lexical meanings are divided into two types, such as whole and part: tree - whole, root, body, branch, leaf - part. In the group of partonymic lexical meanings of "man", 4 parts, such as head, body, arms, legs, are combined in a certain order and according to the rules, forming a system - the relative integrity of "man". A comparative study of words in groups of partonymic lexical meanings helps to deepen the meaning of lexical units [3]. It is well known that the meaning of a lexeme is the perception of events in the human mind, so the basis of the whole-individual relationship in the system of meanings is, in fact, the need to express the whole-individual relationship in existence in language [4]. II. METHODS Meronymy and holonymy are contradictory as semantic relations. For example, the terms engine, wheel, and bonnet are synonymous with the term car. The term car, in turn, is synonymous with the terms engine, wheels, and bonnet [5]. In linguistics, the term meronymy was first introduced to science by the Russian scholar MV Nikitin to describe the meaning of a part [6]. H. Nematov and R. Rasulov [8], who were the first to use the term meronymy in Uzbek linguistics by linguists B. Kilichev [7] and A. Sobirov [9], also commented on this phenomenon. Professor A. Sobirov explains the phenomenon of meronymy as follows: The whole "house" consists of the foundation, walls, floor, roof, doors, windows. If we separate the "roof" from them and create a square based on the words related to it, the "roof" will be the whole name for the beam, slate, ceiling, tarnov, attic [10]. In our linguistics, the phenomenon of meronymy is studied under the name of partonymy. According to M.V. Nikitin, a well-known semantics scholar, meronymic relations are an important factor in the 145 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us semantic ordering of dictionaries, so they appear as an integral hierarchical structure. An example of this is the scientist's description of the phenomenon of meronymy. They include things of varying degrees of complexity — parts, whole, elements that lead to different levels of the hierarchy of the system. These relations are general and global” [11]. By studying the phenomenon of meronymy, it can be concluded that the whole being: thing, object, thing as a whole, of course, it is divided into components, into parts. As the linguist B. Kilichev points out, even an electron that is indivisible for modern science is assumed to be infinitely divisible. Since structural complexity and fragmentation are the general laws of the construction of things, this law must and must be reflected in the language through the mind [12]. From the above, it can be concluded that every whole has its parts, and the parts have small parts. The whole (meronymy-partonymy) relationship is reflected in the language, but not theoretically different in linguistics. However, in practice, linguists, linguists, and linguists often refer to this issue [10]. In particular, Professor B. Mengliyev described the partonymic (meronymic) relationship as follows: partonymic relationship - the relationship of the whole to the part, the part to the whole [13]. III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The concept of relationship is also broad and encompasses several situations. For example: APPROACH [مناسبت appropriateness, conformity; permissibility; kinship; relevance]. 1. Interaction between people, organizations, countries. Purchases and transactions; connection with life, material and spiritual life. 2. The principle of approach, approach to reality, things in reality, events. 3. A philosophical concept that describes the nature of the location of elements in a particular system and their interrelationships. 4. Something that is related to an action, action, speech ; Cause, included. For this work it doesn’t matter what you say [13]. The third of the above definitions is the essence of the problem we are analyzing. The years in the usage of linguistic corpus made it much easier for the linguists to learn the presence of observation, sample / evidence collection, comparison, and conclusions facilitated this study [14]. Each language is made up of thousands of special characters arranged in a specific order. There is also the rule of links outside the alphabet, because not all the chain of characters in a particular alphabet belongs to a language. Symbols can be combined in an elementary construction of language - a word or a lexeme. Based on them, a relatively more complex construction - sentences are formed. Both cases are considered a chain of characters and follow the rules of construction [15]. IV. CONCLUSION The meronymy (Partonymy) is a whole and part relationship between language units. It consists of a unit of whole parts. The part is an integral part of the whole. The objective world has the nature of a whole system, which is gradually divided into parts. The whole universe, from galaxies to elementary particles, is in a whole. In a language that is the opposite of the universe, whole-part relations are also important, indicating that language is a whole with a hierarchical structure of parts: text-sentence, sentence-phrase, phrase-word, word - morpheme, morpheme - phoneme. Whole-part relations, along with hyponymic relations, ensure the integrity of the lexical system. It is known that everything in the objective universe consists of parts. Based on this, partonymy relationship is often found in noun lexemes that are their names. For example, lexemes man, head, neck, body, leg, hand form a meronymic relationship. Man is whole, head, neck, body, legs, hands are parts. Although hyponymy and partonymy are categories that reflect the main features of the objective world, the hyponymic relationship is more obvious than the meronymic relationship in language. For example, it is not important for the speaker that the teapot consists of a belly, a nose, a lid, and a holder (partonymy: the whole — a kettle, part — a belly, a nose, a lid, a holder), but that it is a kitchen item (a hyponymy: a hyperonym — kitchen utensils, a hyponym — a kettle). . Definition and classification of the lexeme is also done on the basis of hyponymy. A kettle is a kitchen appliance used for boiling and steeping water for tea. It is an element of the "kitchenware" lexical-semantic group. But the meronymic relationship can also be important in the formation of some lexemes. An example of this is the lexical- semantic group of nouns of time measurement: second, minute, hour, week, month, season, year, century. 146 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us This group was created on the basis of gradation of meronymic relationship. Taking this group as a small microsystem, it consists of nine smaller microsystems: «second-minute», «minute-hour», «hour-day», «day-week», «week-month», "month-season», «month-year», «season-year»,«year- century». These nine microsystems are formed on the basis of meronymic relationship. For example, in the «second-minute» microsystem, the second part, the whole minute, in the «minute-hour» microsystem, the minute part, the hour whole. The lexeme minute can be defined as: a measure of time consisting of 60 seconds. An hour is a measure of time consisting of 60 minutes. The meronymic relationship, i.e., organization, in the nouns of the time measure is also evident in the semantic structure of the lexeme. In other words, the structure of the lexeme's meaning is formed on the basis of the meronymic relationship. That is, a century is made up of a year (a century is a whole, a year is a part), a year is a season (a year is a whole, a season is a part), a season is a month (a season is a whole, a month is a part) and is formed in this way. This can also be seen in the table below” [16]: We can observe similar examples in the world of fauna. Taking this group as a small microsystem, it consists of seven smaller microsystems: "cell-tissue", "tissue-organ", "organ-organism", "organism- species", "species-category", "category-family", "family-class" These seven microsystems are formed on the basis of meronymic relationship. For example, in a "cell-tissue" microsystem, a cell is a part, a tissue is a whole, in a "tissue-organ" microsystem, a tissue is a part, an organ is a whole. The lexeme "tissue" can be defined as follows: a system of cells similar in origin, structure and function. An organ is a functional unit within an organism that is distinct from other functional units of the organism. Meronymy relationship is given in the figure I. Figure I. “cell-class” meronymic system T/r Butun (semema)\ qism (sema) T o ʻq im a o rg a n o rg a n iz m tu r tu rk u m o il a si n f 1 hujayra + 2. toʻqima + 3. organ + 4. organizm + 5. tur + 6. turkum + 7. Oila + From the point of view of the text, it is possible to analyze on the basis of microfields as follows. Taking this group as a small microsystem, it consists of five smaller microsystems: "sound-syllable", "syllable-word", "word-word combination", "word combination-sentence", "sentence-text". These six microsystems are meronymic relations. formed on the basis of For example, in the "sound- syllable" microsystem, a sound is a part, a syllable is a whole, in a "syllable-word" microsystem, a syllable is a part, a word is a whole. The lexeme "syllable" can be defined as a syllable in linguistics is a small part of a word that can be pronounced separately. The word is the most important structural unit of the language that serves to name things and events, processes and properties. You can see this meronymic relationship in figure II. figure II. “sound-text” meronymic system T/r Butun (semema)\ qism (sema) b o ʻg ʻi n so ʻz so ʻz b ir ik m a si g a p ju m la /m a tn 1. tovush/harf + 2. boʻgʻin + 147 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us 3. soʻz + 4. soʻz birikmasi + 5. gap + From the point of view of information unit, it is possible to analyze on the basis of microfields as follows. Taking this group as a small microsystem, it consists of eleven smaller microsystems: "bit- byte", "byte-kilobyte", "kilobyte-megabyte", "megabyte-gigabyte", "gigabyte-terabyte", "terabyte- petabyte" , "petabyte-exabyte", "exabyte-zettabyte", "zettabyte-yottabyte", "yottabyte-brontobyte", "brontobyte-geopbyte" These eleven microsystems are formed on the basis of meronymic relationship. For example, in the "bit-byte" microsystem, "bit" is part, "byte" is whole, in "byte- kilobyte" microsystem, "byte" is part, "kilobyte" is whole. The lexeme "Byte" can be defined as follows: a unit of digital information storage and processing; a set of bits. "Kilobyte" is a unit of measurement of the amount of information; a set of bytes. You can see this meronymic affair in Figure III. Figure III. “bit-geopbyte” meronymic system References 1. E. Begmatov, H. Nematov, R. Rasulov Leksik mikrosistema va uning tadqiq metodikasi. //Oʻzbek tili va adabiyoti. 1989. 6-son. – B. 35-40. 2. H. Neʼmatov, R. Rasulov Oʻzbek tili sistem leksikologiyasi asoslari. – T.:Oʻqituvchi. 1995. -127 b.; B.E.Qilichev Partonimik qator va koʻp maʼnolilik. Oʻzbek tili doimiy anjumani uchinchi yigʻinining tezislari. –T.: Oʻqituvchi, 1995. -138 b. 3. E. Qilichev Hozirgi oʻzbek adabiy tili. Oʻquv qoʻllanma. – Buxoro, 1999. – B. 77. 4. H. Jamolxonov Hozirgi oʻzbek adabiy tili: Darslik. – Toshkent: Talqin, 2005. – B. 187. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meronim_i_xolonim. 5. A. Sobirov Oʻzbek tilining leksik sathini sistemalar sistemasi tamoyili asosida tadqiq etish. – Toshkent: Maʼnaviyat, 2004. –b-142. 6. H.Nematov, R.Rasulov. Oʻzbek tili sistem leksikologiyasi asoslari. – Toshkent: Oʻqituvchi, 1195. –128 b. 7. B. Qilichev Oʻzbek tilida partonimiya. Filol.fan.nomz...diss. avtoreferati. – Toshkent, 1997. 8. A. Sobirov Oʻzbek tilining leksik sathini sistemalar sistemasi tamoyili asosida tadqiq etish. – Toshkent: Maʼnaviyat, 2004. –154 b. T/r Butun (semema)\ qism (sema) b a y t k il o b a y t m eg a b a y t g ig a b a y t te rr a b a y t p et a b a y t ek za b a y t ze tt a b a y t y o tt a b a y t b ro n to b a y t g eo p b a y t 1 bit + 2 bayt + 3 kilobayt + 4 megabayt + 5 gigabayt + 6 terrabayt + 7 petabayt + 8 ekzabayt + 9 zettabayt + 10 yottabayt + 11 brontobayt + https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мероним_и_холоним 148 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us 9. A. Sobirov Oʻzbek tilining leksik sathini sistemalar sistemasi tamoyili asosida tadqiq etish. – Toshkent: Maʼnaviyat, 2004. –154 b. 10. M.V.Nikitin Kurs lingvisticheskoy semantiki. Uchebnoye posobiye dlya studentov, aspirantov i prepodavateley lingvisticheskix dissiplin v shkolax, litseyax, kolledjax i vuzax. SPb.: Nauchnыy sentr problem dialoga, 1996. – C. 442. 11. B. Qilichev Leksikada soʻzlararo butun-boʻlak munosabati. Monografiya. Toshkent. 2019. – B. 22. 12. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, 2019, 8(5 Special Issue 3), stranisы 388–391 13. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 2021, 17(1), stranisы 558–564 14. M. Hakimova Semasiologiya oʻquv qoʻllanma. Toshkent. 2008. B. 81 p.