Noun Cases in the Language of the Sino-Mongol Glossary Dada Yu/Beilu Yiyu from the Late Ming Period

NOUN CASES IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SINO-MONGOL GLOSSARY DADA YU/BEILU YIYU FROM THE LATE MING PERIOD

Pavel Rykin Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences

Abstract The paper deals with the noun case system of the Dada yu/Beilu yiyu, a little known Sino-Mongol glossary dated between 1567 and 1603. Of seven grammatical cases commonly distinguished in Proto-Mongolic, only four are attested in the Mongol language material of the glossary: nominative (the unmarked basic stem), genitive, accusative, and dative. The forms, functions and grammatical meanings of these cases are thoroughly discussed in the paper. Some features may be considered to be ­linguistic archaisms, e.g. formal coincidence of the accusative marker +i with one of the morphonological allomorphs of the genitive, or the variant ending +in ~ +Un used after consonant stems. However, there are a number of clearly innovative devel- opments, such as the dative ending shape +DU < *+DU/r. In addition, some idiosyncratic features of the glossary can be distinguished as well, e.g. no overt morphosyntactic marking on the dependent in possessive phrases. A conclusion can be made that the case system of the language variety as attested in the Dada yu/Beilu yiyu may have reflected a transitional stage between Middle Mongol and Modern Mongolian.

1. introduction (Nikiforidou 1991: 159-164), (Lander 2009: 581), (Plung- jan 2011: 174, 238-239). By contrast, the accusative and The Dada yu/Beilu yiyu (further DDY/BLYY) is a the dative endings are found in a few scattered examples poorly known Sino-Mongol glossary dated between 1567 which do not allow their distribution and semantic func- and 1603 and falling into a category of Sino-Mongol tions to be fully characterized. vocabularies from the late Ming period, which have been intensively studied especially over the last decade, see e.g. (Apatóczky 2009), (Apatóczky 2016), (U Čing Quwa 2. Nominative 2013), (Wuyungaowa 2014), (Bürgüd 2015), (Bürgüd 2017), (Rykin 2016a). A number of linguistic features As in all Mongolic languages, the nominative has no found in this glossary have already been described in my overt morphological expression in the DDY/BLYY and previous publications (Rykin 2012a–b), (Rykin 2013), coincides with the basic nominal stem. In sentences, it (Rykin 2014), (Rykin 2015), (Rykin 2016b), and now a performs the syntactic functions of subject (1), direct critical edition of the monument is being prepared by me. object (2), predicative (nominal part of a predicate) in The present paper will concentrate on the noun case sys- copular constructions (3a) or with zero copula (3b), tem as represented in the DDY/BLYY, a topic which has dependent (possessor) noun in possessive phrases (4). not yet been dealt with in the scholarly literature and thus deserves ­special attention. (1) χura or-nam (rain enter-npst.prog) ‘it rains’ [4]1 It is commonly assumed that there were seven noun mündür oro-[ba] (hail enter-pst.fc) ‘it started hailing’ cases in Proto-Mongolic: nominative (the unmarked basic [18] χ stem) and six suffixally marked oblique cases: genitive, sara ar-ba (moon come.out-pst.fc) ‘the moon has risen’ [8] accusative, dative, ablative, instrumental, and comitative teŋgeri ari[l]-ba (sky clear.up-pst.fc) ‘the sky has (Poppe 1955: 185-187), (Janhunen 2003a: 13). Only four cleared up’ [22] of them are attested in the Mongol language material of the üde bol-bo (noon become-pst.fc) ‘it is noon’ [31] glossary: nominative, genitive, accusative, and dative. Apart from the nominative, the most frequently occurring case is the genitive, a basic adnominal case whose core 1 Here and elsewhere the figures in square brackets refer to the function is the expression of various possessive relations entry numbers in a critical edition of the glossary prepared by us.

Journal Asiatique 306.2 (2018): 229-234 doi: 10.2143/JA.306.2.3285613 230 PAVEL RYKIN

(2) a. ger üǰe-Ø (house see-imp) ‘look after the house’ (DOM) commonly present in the Mongolic languages, [654] where all direct objects can be either marked with the mini üge sonas-Ø (1sg.gen word listen-imp) ‘listen to accusative case ending or have an unmarked (= nomina- my words’ [660] tive case) form. The choice between two types of object mori bari-[l]ǰa-Ø (horse catch-soc-imp) ‘catch the marking depends primarily on such feature as definite- horse’ [658] ness (definite vs. indefinite), with the secondary role üker-ün e[b]čeü e[s]ke-ǰi ire-Ø (ox-gen chest cut-cvb. ipfv come-imp) ‘slice the beef brisket’ [392] played by some other factors, most notably specificity b. miχa a[b]čira-Ø bi ide-sü (meat bring-imp 1sg eat-opt) (specific vs. non-specific), topicality (topicalized vs. ‘bring [me] meat and let me eat [it]’ [400] non-topicalized), and animacy (animate vs. inanimate) budā a[b]čira-Ø ire-Ø ide-sü (porridge bring-imp (Guntsetseg 2008), (Guntsetseg 2009), (Guntsetseg 2016: come-imp eat-opt) ‘bring [me] porridge, come [here] 68-134), (Konošenko 2009). However, since the accusa- and let [me] eat [it]’ [402] tive markers are extremely rare in the DDY/BLYY (see seriwün šira usu a[b]čira bi ū-[su] (cool yellow water Section 4), the unmarked form can refer both to the defi- bring-imp 1sg drink-opt) ‘bring [me] cool tea and let nite/specific objects (2a) that require accusative marking me drink [it]’ [403] in Modern Mongolic, and, more expectedly, to what (3) a. ene ödür χala’un bol-ba (this day hot become-pst.fc) seems to be indefinite/non-specific contexts (2b). ‘it is hot today’ [173] teŋgeri küitön bol-bo (weather cold become-pst.fc) ‘the weather has turned cold’ [167] 3. genitive teŋgeri sayin bol-bo (weather good become-pst.fc) ‘the weather has improved’ [170] The genitive has the following allomorphs in the lan- b. ene ödür küitön (this day cold) ‘it is cold today’ [172] guage of the glossary: χ (4) arātu mi a (water.deer meat) ‘water deer venison’ –– +in ~ +Un after stem-final liquids /r l/ (6) [386] –– +yin after stem-final vowels and diphthongs aula toloχai (mountain peak) ‘peak of a mountain’ [63] (7) buγu miχa (deer meat) ‘venison’ [393] –– +i after stem-final /n/ (8) čino arasu (wolf skin) ‘wolfskin’ [290] χalau miχa (goose meat) ‘goose meat’ [394] (6) Genitive marker +in ~ +Un χoni ūča (sheep sacrum) ‘posterior part of a sheep’s a. After stem-final /r/ back’ [399] ger-in nurū (house-gen beam) ‘house beam’ [91] kitoχa bariul (knife handle) ‘handle of a knife’ [479] ger-in uni (house-gen rafter) ‘house rafter’ [92] mori miχa (horse meat) ‘horse meat’ [380, 397] üker-ün e[b]čeü (ox-gen chest) ‘beef brisket’ [398] takia miχa (chicken meat) ‘chicken meat’ [395] üker-ün miχa (ox-gen meat) ‘beef’ [392] taulai miχa (hare meat) ‘hare meat’ [396] b. After stem-final /l/ üker miχa (ox meat) ‘beef’ [379] übül-in γawun (winter-gen melon) ‘winter melon, wax gourd’ [422] Special attention should be paid to the examples given in (4) where we would expect the dependent nouns to be (7) Genitive marker +yin marked by the genitive case which is obligatory in a. After stem-final vowels γ χ inalienable possession constructions in both Middle bu u-yin mi a (deer-gen meat) ‘venison’ [381] ǰida-yin toloγai (spear-gen head) ‘spearhead’ [471] Mongol and the Modern Mongolic languages (Pjurbeev kitoχa-yin qui (knife-gen sheath) ‘knife sheath’ [483] 1993: 24-26). The absence of morphological marking of süke-yin caiǰa (hatchet-gen fort) ‘Jinglu Fort 靖虜堡’, the possessor in (4) thus constitutes an idiosyncratic fea- lit. ‘Hatchet Fort’ [354] ture of the Mongol idiom as attested in the DDY/BLYY. b. After stem-final diphthongs It is noteworthy that in some contexts the zero-marked taulai-yin bȫrö (hare-gen kidney) ‘chestnut’, lit. ‘hare possessor (5a) appears to be in free variation with the kidney’ [410] genitive-marked one (5b). taulai-yin miχa (hare-gen meat) ‘hare meat’ [385]

(5) a. χoni miχa kerči-ǰi ire-Ø (sheep meat chop-cvb.ipfv (8) Genitive marker +i come-imp) ‘slice the mutton’ [391] dūlχan-i *ʨi[beg]ǰin (helmet-gen earmuffs/visor) ‘hel- b. üker-ün miχa kerči-ǰi ire-Ø (ox-gen meat chop-cvb. met earmuffs or visor [?]’ [438] ipfv come-imp) ‘slice the beef’ [392] χalaun-i miχa (goose-gen meat) ‘goose meat’ [382] kö[b]čin-i kečir (bowstring-gen ends.of.a.bow) It should also be noted that the language of the glossary ‘notches at the ends of the bow limbs to which the does not have any traces of differential object marking bowstring is attached’ [?] [450] NOUN CASES IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SINO-MONGOL GLOSSARY DADA YU/BEILU YIYU FROM THE LATE MING PERIOD 231

noγosun-i miχa (duck-gen meat) ‘duck meat’ [384] b. numun-i helike (bow-gen belly) ‘belly (inside bend) of numun-i te[b]ke (bow-gen bone.knob.on.the.bow-tip. a bow’ [449] for.the.bowstring) ‘bone knob on the bow-tip for the numun-i kö[b]či (bow-gen bowstring) ‘bowstring’ bowstring’ [451] [447] sumun-i hödü (arrow-gen feather) ‘arrow feathers’ numun-i tašūr (bow-gen whip) ‘whip end (thin or [469] weak tip) of a bow’ [446] takian-i miχa (chicken-gen meat) ‘chicken meat’ [383] Most of the genitive constructions found in the glos- Genitives formed from the stems ending in conso- sary (19 out of 24 occurrences) are used to express nants other than /r l n/ are unattested in the DDY/BLYY, inalienable possession, more specifically part-whole rela- but according to Mongolic comparative data they should tions, cf. (Nikiforidou 1991: 160; Plungjan 2011: 243). have had the ending +in ~ +Un, as in (6). This ending The rest represent a metaphorical use of the genitive in a may have developed from Proto-Mongolic *+in ~ *+Un botanical term (taulai-yin bȫrö ‘chestnut’, lit. ‘hare kid- < Pre-Proto-Mongolic *+In ~ *+Un, where *I ~ *U can ney’), an appositive genitive as part of a place name be regarded as a connective vowel between the stem-fi- (süke-yin caiǰa ‘Jinglu Fort 靖虜堡’, lit. ‘Hatchet Fort’), nal consonant and the primary genitive suffix *+n, cf. as well as two examples of the genitive denoting purpose (Poppe 1955: 187-188), (Janhunen 2003a: 14). There is (kitoχa-yin qui ‘knife sheath’, kö[b]čin-i kečir ‘notches at a reason to believe that the Pre-Proto-Mongolic vowel the ends of the bow limbs to which the bowstring is system comprised only one high/close vowel phoneme attached’ [?]), and an instance of the qualitative genitive with the allophones *ï *i *u *ü opposed in backness and (übül-in γawun ‘winter melon, wax gourd’), as it is roundedness. On a synchronic level, it manifests itself as termed by Poppe (1953: 97), (1974: 144). unpredictable alternations between high vowels in lexical and grammatical morphemes of the Modern Mongolic languages. By analogy with the convention adopted in 4. accusative Old Turkic studies (see e.g. Erdal 2004: 46, 59-61), we can express this protophoneme by the symbol */X/ and, In the DDY/BLYY, the accusative markers are found accordingly, reconstruct the Pre-Proto-Mongolic genitive in just two examples, from which it can be inferred that marker used after consonant stems as *+Xn. However, they are used according to the rules also observed in this issue requires further investigation, which is beyond Written Mongol (Poppe 1974: § 288) and Middle Mongol the scope of the present paper. (Godziński 1985: § 149), (Гarudi 2001: 444-445): The use of the genitive suffix +yin < *+yin < *+yIn –– +yi after stem-final vowels (10а) after stems ending in diphthongs agrees with Written –– +i after stem-final consonants (10b) Mongol (Poppe 1974: § 281) and Eastern Middle Mon- gol (Godziński 1985: § 141), but differs from those (10) a. čina-qu-yi bara-’ul-Ø (boil-ptcp.npst-acc finish- of Western Middle Mongol in which diphthong stems caus-imp) ‘finish boiling!’ [390] take the genitive ending +n < *+n (Poppe 1938b: 71), b. üǰe-ǰi kǖn-i yabu-Ø (see-cvb.ipfv man-acc act-imp) (Godziński 1985: § 142), as in Written Oirat (Rákos ‘behave while looking at [other] people’ [?] [645] 2002: 18) and the modern forms of Common Mongolic, including Khalkha (Janhunen 2012: 106-107), Chakhar Particular attention should be given to the lack of dis- (Sechenbaatar 2003: 35-36), Ordos (Sečen et al. 2003: tinction between the accusative ending +i < *+i and one 127-128), Khamnigan (Yu 2011: 37-38) and Buryat of the genitive markers (see Section 3). The complete (Poppe 1938a: 119-121, 133-134). indistinction between the genitive and accusative cases Another remarkable feature of the Mongol idiom of the can be found in some Modern Mongolic languages, such DDY/BLYY is the alternation between the genitive mark- as Dagur (Namcarai & Qaserdeni 1983: 113-114), Moghol γ J ers +yin (9a) and +i (9b) after some stems ending in the (Böke 1996: 92-99), Eastern Yugur (Bulučila u & alsan unstable /n, which in this case becomes optional. This 1992: 154-158, 180), Mongghul (Faehndrich 2007: 94, kind of alternation is attested in Middle Mongol (Joriγtu 100), Mangghuer (Slater 2003: 173), Bonan (Chen Naix- & Elesünčečeg 2001: 21), but it is rather untypical for iong et al. 1987: 97-102), Kangjia (Siqinchaoketu 1999: Modern Mongolic where the stem-final /n is usually 96-98) and Dongxiang (Böke 1986: 93-95), while the retained in the genitive, except for some special contexts partial overlap is attested in Written Oirat (Rákos 2002: with an abstract and/or idiomatic meaning (Thompson 17-18) and the Western Buryat dialects (Poppe 1930: 2008: 127-131). 79-81), (Abašeev 1965: 16-17), (Rassadin 1996: 57-58, 60-61, 64), occasionally also in Middle Mongol (Godziński (9) a. numu-yin kičir (bow-gen ends.of.a.bow) ‘ends of a 1985: §§ 145, 149), (Гarudi 2001: 443-444) and Preclas- bow’ [444] sical Written Mongol (Weiers 1969: 65-70, 93-98), 232 PAVEL RYKIN

(Orlovskaja 2000: 40-44). Janhunen (2003a: 14), vowel has been reduced to a schwa, but this development (2003b: 86-87) holds that it should be accounted for by has not occurred in the idioms normally preserving Pro- the merger of the original genitive and accusative into a to-Mongolic non-initial vowels, such as Moghol (Böke new case termed by him the “connective”. However, the 1996: 99-102), Khamnigan (Janhunen 1990: 57), synchronic presence of this case in such geographically Mangghuer (Slater 2003: 167-169) and Ordos (Sečen distant idioms as Moghol, Dagur and the Qinghai-Gansu et al. 2003: 130-132). +dU seems to be a shortened languages can be regarded as strong evidence against its shape of the (Pre-)Proto-Mongolic dative marker *+DU/r independent development in each of these languages. and may be considered a colloquial influence, сf. (Orlovs- Rather, it allows us to support the idea of a common kaja 2000: 46), (Kiripolská 2001: 49), (Janhunen 2003a: genetic origin of the Mongolic genitive and accusative, 14-15). expressed by Sanžeev (1953: 162-163) and Bertagaev (1964). I believe that the genitive and accusative cases should have been developed from the single Pre-Pro- 6. conclusions to-Mongolic connective case in *+i < *+I, which may have been used to express both an adnominal and an Although the noun case markers have a rather limited adverbal dependency. At the Proto-Mongolic stage, the distribution in the DDY/BLYY, they provide important connective seems to have been split into two separate information on the Mongol idiom as reflected in the glos- cases, the genitive for marking adnominal dependents sary. A number of features may be considered to be lin- and the accusative for marking adverbal ones. The orig- guistic archaisms, e.g. formal coincidence of the accusa- inal situation has been preserved in the most archaic liv- tive marker +i with one of the morphophonological ing Mongolic languages, and its relic traces are found in alternants of the genitive, or the variant ending +in ~ Middle Mongol and Preclassical Written Mongol, as well +Un used after consonant stems. Others, on the contrary, as in the language of some later sources, such as the are best identified as innovative developments, e.g. the DDY/BLYY, the Altan tobči by Blo-bzaṅ bstan-’jin dative ending shape +DU < *+DU/r. In addition, some (Orlovskaja 1984: 24-25) or the Mongol version of the idiosyncratic features of the glossary can be distinguished Geser epic (Poppe 1926: 13-18, 19-22). as well, such as no overt morphosyntactic coding of the dependents in some possessive phrases, or the absence of differential object marking. All this leads us to the con- 5. dative clusion that the language of the monument may have reflected a transitional stage between Middle Mongol and There is only one example of the dative in the lan- Modern Mongolian, while having its own peculiarities guage of the glossary (11), where we find the ending that are of significant interest for Mongolic comparative +dU added to a nasal stem: studies.

(11) bütegei kü’ün-dü χarā-Ø (proh man-dat to.curse-imp) ‘do not curse someone!’ [661] Abbreviations

It should be noted that the suffix +dU < *+DU is 1sg first person singular virtually unattested in Written Mongol of both the Pre- acc accusative classical and Classical periods, as well as in Eastern Mid- caus causative dle Mongol, in which the dative markers +dUr/+tUr cvb converb < *+DU/r and +dA/+tA < *DA are used instead (Poppe dat dative 1955: 195-198), (Weiers 1969: 72-87), (Godziński 1985: fc factual § 146), (Orlovskaja 2000: 46-47), (Гarudi 2001: 445- gen genitive 447), (Qaserdeni et al. 2008: 173-174), (Zajaabaatar imp imperative 2011: 109-110). However, the ending +dU/+tU is ipfv imperfective npst non-past widely present in Western Middle Mongol (Poppe opt optative 1938b: 72), (Godziński 1985: § 147), and it is also com- prog progressive monly regarded as the original shape of the dative suf- proh prohibitive fixes in all the Modern Mongolic languages (Joriγtu & pst past Elesünčečeg 2001: 76), (Janhunen 2003a: 14), (Rybatzki ptcp participle 2003: 377). In most of them, the high rounded suffix soc sociative NOUN CASES IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SINO-MONGOL GLOSSARY DADA YU/BEILU YIYU FROM THE LATE MING PERIOD 233

References —, 2009. ‘Differential Object Marking in (Khalkha-)Mongo- lian’. In: Shibagaki, Ryosuke & Vermeulen, Reiko (eds.), Abašeev, Daniil A. 1965. ‘Tunkinskij govor’. In: Cydendam- Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguis- baev, Cybikžap B. & Buraev, Ignatij D. (eds.), Issledovanie tics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58. Cambridge MA: burjatskix govorov. Pt. 1. Ulan-Udė: Burjatskoe knižnoe MIT, pp. 115-129. izd-vo, pp. 3-34. —, 2016. Differential Case Marking in Mongolian. Tunguso-­ Apatóczky, Ákos Bertalan 2009. Yiyu 譯語 (Beilu yiyu 北虜 Sibirica 39. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 譯語): An Indexed Critical Edition of a Sixteenth-century Janhunen, Juha 1990. Material on Manchurian Khamnigan Sino-Mongolian Glossary. Languages of Asia 5. Folkestone: Mongol. Castrenianumin toimitteita 37. Helsinki: Vam- Global Oriental. malan Kirjapaino Oy. —, 2016. The “Translation” (譯部) Chapter of the Late Ming —, 2003a. ‘Proto-Mongolic’. In: Janhunen, Juha (ed.), The Lulongsai Lüe (盧龍塞略): Bilingual Sections of a Chinese Mongolic Languages. Routledge Language Family Series 5. Military Collection. Languages of Asia 14. Leiden: Brill. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 1-29. Bertagaev, Trofim A. 1964. ‘K genezisu nekotoryx padežej v —, 2003b. ‘On the taxonomy of nominal cases in Mongolic’. mongol’skix jazykax’. Kratkie soobščenija Instituta narodov Altai Hakpo 13: 83-90. Azii 83: 41-45. —, 2012. Mongolian. London Oriental and African Language Böke 1986. Düngsiyang kele ba mongγol kele = Dongxiangyu Library 19. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. he Mengguyu 东乡语和蒙古语 [Dongxiang and Mongo- Joriγtu, Гo. & Elesünčečeg 2001. Mongγol kelen-ü teyin lian]. Mongγol töröl-ün kele ayalγun-u sudulul-un čubu- ilγal-un sudulul [A Study of Noun Cases in Mongolian]. ril 007. Kökeqota: Öbör Mongγol-un arad-un keblel-ün Kökeqota: Öbör Mongγol-un surγan kümüǰil-ün keblel-ün qoriy-a. qoriy-a. —, 1996. Moγol kelen-ü sudulul = Mogeleyu yanjiu 莫戈勒语 Kiripolská, Marta 2001. King Arthasiddhi: A Mongolian 研究 [A Study of Moghol]. Kökeqota: Öbör Mongγol-un Translation of „The Younger Brother Don Yod“ (Introduc- yeke surγaγuli-yin keblel-ün qoriy-a. tion, Transcription with Notes and Facsimile of the Copen- Bulučilaγu & Jalsan 1992. Jegün yuγur kele ba mongγol kele hagen Manuscript Mong. 101). Asiatische Forschungen 140. = Dongbu Yuguyu he Mengguyu 东部裕固语和蒙古语 Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. [Eastern Yugur and Mongolian]. Mongγol töröl-ün kele Konošenko, Maria B. 2009. ‘Differencirovannoe markirovanie ayalγun-u sudulul-un čuburil 016. Kökeqota: Öbör Mon- objekta v kalmyckom jazyke’. Acta Linguistica Petropoli- gγol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. tana 5.2: 42-75. Bürgüd (Burigude), Kereidjin D. 2015. ‘A Study of the Lander, Yury 2009. ‘Varieties of genitive’. In: Malchukov, ­Chinese Characters Used for a Sino-Mongol Glossary Andrej & Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Known as the Bei-lu Yi-yu 北虜譯語’. International Journal Case. Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford of Language and Literature 3.1: 99-119. University Press, pp. 581-592. Bürgüd, Kereidjin D. 2017. A Study of a Sino-Mongol Glos- Namcarai & Qaserdeni 1983. Daγur kele mongγol kelen-ü sary Known as the Bei-lu Yi-yu 北虜譯語. Ulaanbaatar: qaričaγulul [A Comparison of Dagur and Mongolian]. Soyombo printing. Kökeqota: Öbör Mongγol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. Chen Naixiong 陈乃雄 et al. 1987. Boo an kele ba mongγol Nikiforidou, Kiki 1991. ‘The meanings of the genitive: A case kele = Bao’anyu he Mengguyu 保安语和蒙古语 [Baoan and study in semantic structure and semantic change’. Cognitive Mongolian]. Mongγol töröl-ün kele ayalγun-u sudulul-un linguistics 2.2: 149-205. čuburil 010. Kökeqota: Öbör Mongγol-un arad-un keblel-ün Orlovskaja, Maria N. 1984. Jazyk “Altan tobči”. Moskva: qoriy-a. Nauka. Erdal, Marcel 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Handbook of —, 2000. Jazyk mongol’skix tekstov XIII–XIV vv. Moskva: Oriental studies. Sect. 8: Central Asia 3. Leiden & Boston: Institut vostokovedenija RAN. Brill. Pjurbeev, Grigorij C. 1993. Istoriko-sopostavitel’nye issledo- Faehndrich, Burgel R. M. 2007. Sketch Grammar of the Kar- vanija po grammatike mongol’skix jazykov: Sintaksis long Variety of Mongghul, and Dialectal Survey of Mongg- ­slovosočetanija. Moskva: Nauka. hul. PhD Thesis. University of Hawai‘i. Plungjan, Vladimir A. 2011. Vvedenie v grammatičeskuju Гarudi 2001. Dumdadu erten-ü mongγol kelen-ü sudulul [A semantiku: grammatičeskie značenija i grammatičeskie Study of Middle Mongol]. Dumdadu ulus-un mongγol sud- sistemy jazykov mira: Učeb. posobie. Moskva: RGGU. ulul-un kömürge. Šenyang: Liyooning-un ündüsüten-ü Poppe, Nikolaus 1926. ‘Geserica: Untersuchung der sprach­ keblel-ün qoriy-a. lichen Eigentümlichkeiten der mongolischen Version des Godziński, Stanisław 1985. Język średniomongolski: Slowot- Gesserkhan’. Asia Major 3.1: 1-32, 3.2: 167-193. wórstwo. Odmiana wyrazów. Składnia. Warszawa: Poppe, Nikolaj N. 1930. Alarskij govor. Pt. 1. Materialy Komissii Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. po issledovaniju Mongol’skoj i Tannu-Tuvinskoj narodnyx Guntsetseg, Dolgor 2008. ‘Differential Object Marking in respublik i Burjat-Mongol’skoj ASSR 11. Leningrad: Izd-vo Mongolian’. In: Schäfer, Florian (ed.), Working Papers of AN SSSR i Gos. In-ta kul’tury BMASSR. the SFB 732 Incremental Specification in Context. Vol. 1. —, 1938a. Grammatika burjat-mongol’skogo jazyka. Moskva Stuttgart: OPUS, pp. 53-69. & Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR. 234 PAVEL RYKIN

—, 1938b. Mongol’skij slovar’ Mukaddimat al-Adab. T. 1-3. —, 2016a. ‘K izučeniju kitajsko-mongol’skogo slovarja ėpoxi Trudy Instituta vostokovedenija Akademii nauk SSSR 14. Min Dada guan zazi: predvaritel’nye zamečanija’. Vestnik Moskva & Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR. Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Ser. 13: Vostokovedenie. Poppe, Nikolaus 1953. ‘Zur mittelmongolischen Kasuslehre’. Afrikanistika 2: 41-53. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesell- —, 2016b. ‘The Sino-Mongolian Glossary Dada yu / Beilu yiyu schaft 103(n. F. 28).1: 92-125. and the Problem of its Dating’. In: Reckel, Johannes (ed.), —, 1955. Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies. Central Asian Sources and Central Asian Research: Selected Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 110. Helsinki: Proceedings from the International Symposium “Central Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Asian Sources and Central Asian Research”, October —, 1974. Grammar of Written Mongolian. 3rd printing. Porta 23rd–26th, 2014 at Göttingen State and University Library. Linguarum Orientalium. Neue Serie 1. Wiesbaden: Harras- Göttinger Bibliotheksschriften 39. Göttingen: Universitäts­ sowitz. verlag, pp. 147-163. Qaserdeni & Bayanbaγatur & Γarudi & Engkebaγatur Sanžeev, Garma D. 1953. Sravnitel’naja grammatika 2008. Erten-ü mongγol kele [Old Mongolian]. Bükü ulus-un mongol’skix jazykov. T. 1. Moskva: Izd-vo AN SSSR. degedü surγaγuli-yin ǰiγaqu materiyal. Kökeqota: Öbör Sečen, Č. & Baγatur, M. & Sengge 2002. Ordos aman Mongγol-un yeke surγaγuli-yin keblel-ün qoriy-a. ayalγun-u sudulul [Studies of the Ordos Dialect]. Kökeqota: Rákos, Attila 2002. Written Oirat. Languages of the World/ Öbör Mongγol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. Materials 418. München: Lincom Europa. Sechenbaatar, Borjigin 2003. The Chakhar Dialect of Mon­ Rassadin, Valentin I. Prisajanskaja gruppa burjatskix govo- golian: A Morphological Description. Mémoires de la Société rov. Ulan-Udė: BNC SO RAN. Finno-Ougrienne 243. Helsinki: The Finno-Ugrian Society. Rybatzki, Volker 2003. ‘Intra-Mongolic taxonomy’. In: Siqinchaoketu 斯钦朝克图 1999. Kangjiayu yanjiu 康家语 ­Janhunen, Juha (ed.), The Mongolic Languages. Routledge 研究 [A Study of Kangjia]. Zhongguo xin faxian yuyan Language Family Series 5. London & New York: Rout- yanjiu congshu 中国新发现语言研究丛书. Shanghai 上海: ledge, pp. 364-390. Yuandong chubanshe 远东出版社. Rykin, Pavel O. 2012a. ‘Kitajskaja transkripcija mongol’skix Slater, Keith W. 2003. A Grammar of Mangghuer: A Mongolic veljarnyx i uvuljarnyx soglasnyx v slovare Dada juj/Bejlu language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. Routledge- ijuj (konec XVI–načalo XVII v.)’. In: Vasiljev, Aleksandr Curzon Asian Linguistics Series. London & New York: D. & Dmitriev, Sergej V. (eds.), “Živem družno, “molodye” RoutledgeCurzon. raznogo vozrasta”: Sbornik statej v pamjat’ vostokoveda- Thompson, Mikael A. 2008. “A Study of the Analogical Exten- tjurkologa A. N. Samojloviča. Moskva: Probel-2000, sion of the Mongolian Hidden-n Declension in Colloquial pp. 87-120. Standard Khalkha”, PhD Thesis. Indiana University, Depart- —, 2012b. ‘On the principles of Chinese transcription of Mon- ment of Linguistics. golian sounds in the Sino-Mongolian glossary Dada yu/ U Čing Quwa 2013. “Lu lüng sai liuwei» bičig-ün orčiγulγ-a- Beilu yiyu (late 16th–early 17th century)’. Acta Orientalia yin bölüg-deki debisker üsüg-i kitad üsüg-iyer γaliγlaγsan Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 65.3: 323-334. ončaliγ” [Peculiarities of the Chinese transcription used for —, 2013. ‘K voprosu o principax kitajskoj transkripcii mon- syllable-final letters in the Translation chapter of the “Lulong- gol’skoj leksiki v kitajsko-mongol’skom slovare “Dada juj/ sai lüe”]. Dumdadu ulus-un Mongγol sudulul [­Mongolian Bejlu ijuj” (konec XVI–načalo XVII v.)’. In: Kul’ganek, studies in China] 41.6(250): 26-29. Irina V. (ed.), Mongolica-X. Sankt-Peterburg: Peterburgskoe Weiers, Michael 1969. Untersuchungen zu einer historischen Vostokovedenie, pp. 41-48. Grammatik des präklassischen Schriftmongolisch. Asiatische —, 2014. ‘O kitajskoj transkripcii mongol’skix affrikat v Forschungen 28. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. slovare Dada juj / Bejlu ijuj’. In: Salaev, Badma K. (ed.), Wuyungaowa 烏雲高娃 2014. Ming Siyi guan Dada guan Materialy Meždunarodnoj naučnoj konferencii “Aktual’nye ji «Huayi yiyu» dada “laiwen” yanjiu 明四夷馆鞑靼馆及 problemy sovremennoj altaistiki”, posvjaščennoj 75-letiju 《华夷译语》鞑靼“来文”研究 = A Study on the “Da Da so dnja roždenija i 55-letiju naučno-pedagogičeskoj Guan” of “Si Yi Guan” in Ming and Mongolian tribute-letters dejatel’nosti professora V. I. Rassadina (g. Elista, 10-13 of “Hua-I-I-Yü”. Guojia sheke jijin houqi zizhu xiangmu 国 nojabrja 2014 g.). Elista: Izd-vo KalmGU, pp. 296-300. 家社科基金后期资助项目. Beijing 北京: Zhongguo shehui —, 2015. ‘Chinese Transcription of Mongol Affricates in the kexue chubanshe 中国社会科学出版社. Sino-Mongol Glossary Dada yu / Beilu yiyu from the Ming Yu, Wonsoo 2011. A Study of the Mongol Khamnigan Spoken Period’. In: Dumdadu ulus-un dörbedüger quɣučaɣan-u in Northeastern Mongolia. Altaic Language Series 4. Seoul: mongɣol sudulul-un olan ulus-un erdem sinǰilegen-ü sudulun Seoul National University Press. yarilčaqu qural-un ögülel-ün emkidkel = Zhongguo disi jie Zajaabaatar, D. 2011. XIII–XVI zuuny mongol bičgijn durs- mengguxue guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwen huibian 中国第 galyn aviazüj, ügzüjn togtolcoo [Phonetic and Morphologi- 四届蒙古学国际学术研讨会论文汇编 = Proceedings of cal System of the Mongolian Written Monuments of the the Chinese Fourth International Symposium on Mongolian 13th–16th centuries]. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Ix Sur- Studies. Vol. 1. Huhhot: S. n, pp. 218-228. guul’, Mongol xėl sojolyn surguul’, Xėlšinǰlėlijn tėnxim.