Who Were the *Kjet (羯) and What Language Did They Speak?1‌

WHO WERE THE *KJET (羯) AND WHAT LANGUAGE DID THEY SPEAK?1‌

Alexander Vovin – Edward Vajda – Étienne de la Vaissière EHESS/CRLAO, Western Washington University, EHESS/CETOBAC

1. Introduction Xiongnu could not be held responsible for the pillaging of Northern China in the 300’s, it would indeed weaken In a recent publication on the pages of the same jour- de la Vaissière’s whole demonstration, and that of a nal Shimunek, Beckwith et al. (further SB et al.) attempted political and partly cultural continuity between a late to resurrect the old theory (Shiratori 1900, Ramstedt Northern (i.e. Altay-Minusinsk) branch of the Xiongnu 1922, Bazin 1948, Gabain 1949) that the couplet in the and the Huns arriving on the Volga ca. 370 AD (2005: 羯 *kjet ( , MdC jié) language recorded in the biography 3-26, more recently 2014: 175-192). But such is not the 佛圖澄 of Futo Cheng ( ) in the volume ninety-five of the case and SB et al. could not quote any precise Chinese 晉書 Jìn shū ( , History of the Jìn Dynasty) is composed in text in favor of their reconstruction, as the texts say the a Turkic language (2015). We find this revision untenable opposite. To begin with: Shi Hu pillaging Ye in 307 AD? on historical, philological, and linguistics grounds, He was 12 years old … a very young general indeed! because it largely rests on its authors’ peculiar (and not A Chinese rebel took and destroyed Ye in 307 AD. Shi universally shared) ideas about Chinese history, Chinese Le (later the Jié leader) was during this period, and up historical linguistics and philology, and Turkic historical to 319 AD, only one of the several generals of the Liu linguistics. We essentially believe that de la Vaissière’s dynasty, rebelling against the Jìn (Jìn shū 104 and 105). analysis of the general historical situation (2005, 2014) Even is own troops are not described as Jié during this and Vovin’s demonstration that the said couplet was period in the Jìn shū (104.2708-2709), the earliest men- written in a Yeniseian language (2000, 2002) are correct, tion of Jié troops, associated with Xiongnu ones, being and we present our response below based on the state of dated 314 AD (Jìn shū 62.4460) and they became prom- art in Chinese history, Chinese historical phonology and inent only after 319 AD. The Sogdian Letter of 312 or philology, Turkic historical linguistics, and Yeniseian 313 AD, not foreseeing the future, does describe the Liu historical and descriptive linguistics. offensives against the Jìn armies: it were Liu troops, not Shi Le’s that took Luoyang, Chang’an and were close to 2. Historical background Ye. The Liu, by far and large the biggest players in the field up to 319 AD, titled Shanyu, and direct descendants Regarding the first historical part of the article, there of a whole line of Shanyu of the Southern Xiongnu, at is not much to say, except that it is entirely based on a the head of the five hordes of the Xiongnu, were undoubt- general anachronism, and several mistakes, all on a mere edly Xiongnu in the full meaning of the name, i.e. a half-page. SB et al.’s analysis of the situation preceding political and historical one. De la Vaissière is not dealing the Sogdian Letter of 312 or 313 AD — the only relevant with languages but with self-assigned identities, which part — is actually limited to the few following phrases: cannot be discarded so lightly, and SB et al. are them- “Chinese historians’ records of the events tell us specif- selves accepting that the Liu, in that case Liu Yao, are ically that the foreign people responsible for the deed heirs to the Xiongnu. The Liu had troops of various ori- 羯 were the Chieh or *Kɨr, not the Hsiung-nu. According gins, mainly Xiongnu, and also Chinese and marginally 晉書 to the Chin shu , the official dynastic history of the Jié (see for instance Jìn shū 102.2658-2659), but the period, a *Kɨr army led by Shih Hu, a general and rela- political identity of their leadership was Xiongnu. Liu tive of Shih Le, captured Yeh in 307 AD. In 311 AD, the Yuan, the head of the Liu dynasty, was an important 劉曜 *Kɨr and others, including Liu Yao (a Hsiung-nu member of the Jìn court, where he was sent as a hostage by ancestry) captured and sacked Loyang.” If the Southern from the Southern Xiongnu territory in Shanxi. He was offered the Shanyu title by the conspiracy of Xiongnu 1 We thank Mehmet Ölmez and Laurent Sagart for their comments nobles in 304 AD during the civil war of the Jìn princes. and for help with some materials otherwise inaccessible to us. All mis- It is exactly what the Sogdian trader wrote: “these (same) takes and shortcomings remain our own. Huns [who] yesterday were the emperor’s (subjects)!”

Journal Asiatique 304.1 (2016): 125-144 doi: 10.2143/JA.304.1.3146838

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 125 18/05/16 15:26 126 alexander vovin – edward vajda – étienne de la vaissière

The captured Jìn emperor was transported to the Liu Chinese reconstruction system, *kɨat (Pulleyblank 1991: court in 311 AD. There is not a single word to change to – AV et EV] 154): ‘people subject to Xiong-nu’). How- W. Henning’s analysis of these events (1948: 601-615). ever, the Chinese reconstructions used by the latter are The situation of the 320’s cannot be projected backwards not accurate enough for them to have drawn correct con- to the 300’s. clusions about the text or the name Chieh” (SB et al. 2015: 143, fn. 3). 3. The name of the 羯 (MdC jié) language and problems This footnote turns out to be full of incorrect and/or of Chinese reconstruction misleading statements: SB et al. reconstruct LOC2 *kɨr for the name of the a) Pulleyblank actually supposed that the ethnonym Jié 羯 language 羯 (MdC jié) and proclaim it to be the ‘Earliest reflects the Yeniseian word for ‘stone’ (1962: 246). Attested Turkic Language’ right in the title of their pub- It has already been explained in Vovin (2000: 91) that this is tenable only if Jié had the same fortition lication (2015). This reconstruction is apparently Beck- Ɂ with’s, easily enough identifiable by the anachronistic PY *č- > k-/__i as the Pumpokol does (PY *či s final *-r. But none of the five co-authors, including ‘stone’ > Pump. kit ‘id.’). Meanwhile Yeniseian linguis- Beckwith, managed to publish any systematic revision or tics made a big leap forward, and Werner now treats PY *qeɁs ~ *qeɁt ‘stone’ (Werner 2002.2: 85) and PY refutation of the mainstream Chinese reconstruction (Pul- Ɂ leyblank 1962, Starostin 1989, Baxter 1992, Coblin *t’ɨ s ‘stone’ (Werner 2002.2: 312) as separate etyma. 羯 5 1983, 1991, 1994, Sagart 1999, Schuessler 2009, Baxter The ethnonym Jié may reflect only the first. The et Sagart 2011, Sagart and Baxter 2012, Baxter and proposal that it is equally possible to connect with PY Ɂ 2 εɁ Sagsart 2014, etc.). All that has been done so far are bits *ke t ‘person, human being’ > Ket, Yugh k t, Kott and pieces of the new reconstruction. This was pre- hit ~ het ~ xit ~ kot, Arin kit ~ qit ~ k’it, Assan hit ~ sented with little discussion and/or evidence in Chapter 4 hɨt, Pumpokol ket ‘id.’ (Werner 2002.1: 420-421) ‘Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese’ of Beckwith’s belongs to Vovin (2000: 91), and was never referred to book on Koguryǒ (2004: 93-105) on about ten pages and by Pulleyblank. And Vovin’s judgment that Jié couplet is heavily dependent on Beckwith’s ad hoc reconstruc- is in a Yeniseian language is based “above all” on the tion of the Koguryǒ language,3 which in its turn forms reading of the said couplet in Yeniseian – evidence the basis for his Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese that SB et al. chose not to discuss, opting instead for reconstruction. Thus, the procedure turns out to be com- their own “Turkic” reading. pletely circular and methodologically unsound.4 How- b) Regarding the Jié couplet, Pulleyblank limited himself ever, on the basis of this reconstruction, SB et al. jump to a brief statement that -ŋ is a frequent verbal ending to the following conclusion inter alia: “…Turkologists in Yeniseian languages, but contrary to the statement Annemarie von Gabain and Louis Bazin, who conclude by SB et al., did not try to analyze the said couplet as that the language is Turkic, and much more recently the Yeniseian (1962: 263). East Asianists E. G. Pulleyblank and Alexander Vovin, c) Pulleyblank’s original reconstruction (1962) is indeed who conclude that the language is Yeniseian. The latters’ traditional. Moreover, it is presented as a whole sys- judgment is apparently based above all on the putative tem, and not just in bits and pieces that are more often similarity of the modern name Ket to the ‘Early Middle than not are based on bare ideas rather than on solid Chinese’ form of the name Chieh 羯 in the traditional facts. The later version of Pulleyblank’s reconstruction, which cannot be called traditional, since it deviates substantially from the mainstream Chinese recon- 2 SB et al. introduce confusing periodization of the Chinese lan- guage history, renaming LHC as EMC, and EMC as LMC (2015: 144, struction, was presented by Pulleyblank in (1984). fn. 16). We preserve traditional terminology here. One may agree or disagree with it, but again it is pre- 3 Beckwith’s reconstruction is based on Koguryǒ’s placenames, sented in a systematic way. Vovin 2000 utilizes the some of which potentially look like Japonic, with complete disregard Baxter 1992 reconstruction, which is a mainstream for much more important evidence, such as real Koguryǒ words and morphemes in inscriptions and Chinese dynastic histories and Koguryǒ one, and like Pulleyblank’s, it is done systematically. loanwords in neighboring languages, cf. Vovin (2005, 2006, 2007, However, both Pulleyblank 1962 and Baxter 1992 are 2013). As was cogently demonstrated by To Soo-hee in numerous pub- swept away by SB et al. in one single expression “not lications (1977, 1987-2000, 2005), the lion’s share of these placenames accurate enough” (2015: 143, fn. 3), without any dis- are actually not Koguryǒ, but Paekche placenames. Thus, these are cussion, references, or evidence presented. pseudo-Koguryǒ placenames, and assigning them to the actual Koguryǒ language has the same perilous basis of evidence as believing that Lon- d) Pulleyblank’s semantic gloss of the character 羯 jié is don has its roots in Old English, or Moskva ‘Moscow’ in Old Russian. not cited by SB et al. in a full form: they selectively 4 See Pellard 2005 for the evaluation of Beckwith Koguryǒ, Japa- nese and Chinese ‘reconstruction’ from the viewpoint of the mainstream 5 It is interesting to note that the surname of Shi2 Le4 (石勒) is, of of Japanese and Chinese historical linguistics. course, 石 (MdC shi2) ‘stone’.

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 126 18/05/16 15:26 who were the *kjet (羯) and what language did they speak? 127

cite ‘people subject to Xiong-nu’, but omit ‘castrated of *kar (干) (2004: 250). There is, however, zero internal ram’ (Pulleyblank 1991: 154). Meanwhile, it is Chinese evidence for that, because by the fourth century exactly ‘castrated ram’ that is important here: Chinese AD the merger *-r X *-n > *-n was certainly complete: had a long and well-established deliberate practice of the rhymes of the Jìn period do not offer any evidence choosing for the transcription of indigenous names of for the distinction between the codas *-r and *-n. Regard- other peoples of East and Inner Asia characters with ing the EMC -t > -r shift, it seems that Coblin is the only pejorative meaning, cf. 倭 (MdC wēi ~ wō), LHC mainstream Chinese historical linguist who cautiously *Ɂyai ~ *Ɂuɑi(C), EMC Ɂjwe ~ Ɂwâ(C) ‘Wa (Japan), lit. entertains the possibility of an earlier dating for it. Coblin midget’, 貉 (MdC hé ~ mò) LHC gɑk ~ mak, EMC maintains that the exact nature of Old Northwest Chinese ɣâk ~ mɐk ‘raccoon-dog, Mo tribe’6. Thus, there is a *-t is difficult to establish, but that in the Sui-Tang great degree of probability that the character 羯 jié Chang’an dialect it became *-r (1991: 67-70), (1994: represents a semantically pejorative-oriented tran- 55). He also considers the possibility that even Old scription of a native name. Chances are high that it Northwest Chinese might have *-r on the basis of the fact indeed means ‘human being’, or ‘real human being’ that this final could transcribe Sanskrit medial -r-, but because all outsiders were customarily considered this is unlikely for two reasons: if there was no -r, then non-human beings, sub-human beings, or at least not -t would be a close enough approximation, and then real humans7. ­Japanese Kan-on data that do not reflect -r are still unex- plained. Although Kan-on is much later than Chinese So, how was the character 羯 jié read in Jìn times? transcriptions of Sanskrit of the fifth-sixth centuries, it Schuessler has LHC *kɨat and EMC kjät (2009: 231) and still seems unconceivable to have a circular develop- Pulleyblank EMC kɨat (1991: 154). Baxter and Sagart do ment: Six Dynasties period -r > Sui-Early Tang -t (the not include this character, but they provide a reconstruc- stage reflected by Kan-on) > High Tang and later -r. tion of its near-homophone 竭 jié ‘to exhaust’ < EMC It would be more reliable to date the shift -t > -r by the gjet < OC *N-krat (2011: 66, 2014: 346), for which time of High Tang and later (reflected by three independ- Schuessler has LHC *gɨat and EMC gjät (2009: 231), ent pieces of evidence: Sino-Korean, Tibetan transcrip- and Pulleyblank EMC gɨat ~ giat (1991: 154). We can tions of LMC, and LMC loanwords in Old Turkic). Thus, see that the difference between Schuessler and Baxter- we conclude that the character 羯 jié had no final -r, but Sagart is minimal, but both differ a bit more from Pulley­ rather -t in Jìn period. blank. Nevertheless, all these three systems are remarka- Now we come to SB et al.’s *-ɨ- in their *kɨr. As we bly close, and what is more important, all three of them have seen above, this proposal is radically different from demonstrate systematicity. SB et al. propose their LOC the mainstream reconstructions, but again it is not sub- *kɨr without any discussion, and without providing a sin- stantiated by any hard-core evidence or the discussion of gle piece of evidence to justify their reconstruction. The thereof. As a matter of fact, there is compelling evidence only commonality with the mainstream Chinese recon- that mainstream reconstruction is correct, while SB et struction is the initial k-, and the rest is quite different. al.’s is wrong. It comes from the Jìn period rhymes. We The final -r in *kɨr is undoubtedly inspired by Beckwith’s would not expect, of course, such an unpoetic word as 羯 Koguryǒ and Archaic Northeastern Chinese circular kjät ‘castrated ram’ to appear in Chinese poetry, but its reconstructions (2004: 93, 101-102). Beckwith goes as near-homophone 竭 gjät ‘to exhaust’ is attested. Thus, in far as to claim that this -r is a “retention of Old Chinese the poetry of 傅玄 (Fù Xuán, 217-278 AD) 竭 gjät ‘to coda *-r” (2004: 93, 101). Two different phenomena are exhaust’ rhymes with 月 (LHC *ŋɨot ~ *ŋyɑt, EMC confused by Beckwith: the shift of OC *-r > EMC -n in ŋjwɐt) ‘moon’, 絶 (LHC *dzyat, EMC dzjwät) ‘break’, one of subclasses of the 元 yuán rhyme: cf., e.g., OC 干 髪 (LHC *puɑt, EMC pjwɐt) ‘hair’, 越 (LHC *wɑt, EMC *kân, 安 *Ɂân, 願 *ŋan < **kân, **Ɂân, **ŋan, but 單 jwɐt) ‘to cross’, and 闕 (LHC *khyɑt, EMC khjwɐt) ‘pal- *tân, 歎 *thân, 原 *ŋwǝn < **târ, **thâr, **ŋwǝr (Sta- ace, gate of the palace’ (Ting 1975: 189). In the poetry rostin 1989: 338-339),8 and completely unrelated and of 夏候淳 (Xià-hóu Chún, ?-? AD) 竭 gjät ‘to exhaust’ later shift EMC -t > LMC -r. Beckwith insists on recon- rhymes with 絶 (LHC *dzyat, EMC dzjwät) ‘break’, structing not only OC *-r, but also EMC *-r in the case 節 (LHC *tset, EMC tsiet) ‘joint’, and 察 (LHC *tṣhεt, EMC tṣhǎt) (Ting 1975: 189). Finally, in the poetry of 6 For the discussion of the second term, see Pulleyblank (1983: 陶潛 (Táo Qián, 365-427 AD) 竭 gjät ‘to exhaust’ 442-443). rhymes with 絶 (LHC *dzyat, EMC dzjwät) ‘break’, 拙 7 Cf. Ainu ‘Ainu = human being’, Nivɣŋ ‘Nivx = human being’, (LHC *tśuat, EMC tsjwät) ‘awkward, clumsy’, 悦 (LHC Luoravetlan ‘Chukchi = real human being’ 別 8 The original idea goes back to Karlgren (1954: 300-301). Baxter *juat, EMC jiwät) ‘to rejoice’, (LHC *pɨat, EMC pjät) and Sagart in their latest seminal work reconstruct even OC 干 as *kar, ‘different, to separate’, 滅 (LHC *miat, EMC mjät) ‘to and with less certainty 安 as *Ɂar (2014: 254-264). destroy, to be destroyed, to disappear’, 熱 (LHC *ńat,

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 127 18/05/16 15:26 128 alexander vovin – edward vajda – étienne de la vaissière

EMC ńźjät) ‘hot’, 劣 (LHC *lyat, EMC ljwät) ‘inferior’ erroneous interpretations” and “fundamental problems” (Ting 1975: 190). It is important that none of the char- are presented, and SB et al. discuss only one minor prob- acters rhyming with 竭 gjät ‘to exhaust’ have any evi- lem in Vovin’s translation (2000: 93-94), which has no dence for high vowels in the nucleus. Moreover, while effect whatsoever on the interpretation of the Jié cou- the rhymes found in early Jìn period of the late third plet, for the sake of argument we felt that it is necessary century AD tend to contain back vowels confirming thus to replicate the original text from the Jìn shū first, fol- that LHC reading of 竭 gjät ‘to exhaust’ was identical or lowed by Vovin’s (2000:93-94) and SB et al.’s (2015: close to *gɨat, the rhymes of the late Jìn of the late fourth 144) translations:10 century without exceptions all contain front vowel ä in the nucleus demonstrating that very early EMC reading Original text, Jìn shū 95: 2486 of the fourth century had undoubtedly the same vowel. 及曜自攻洛陽，勒將救之，其群下鹹諫以為不可。勒 Therefore, SB et al.’s *kɨr turns out to be teleological and 以訪澄，澄曰：「相輪鈴音云：「秀支替戾岡，僕穀 misleading, because there is no evidence from rhymes 劬禿當。」此羯語也，秀支，軍也。替戾岡，出 也。僕 supporting high central vowel ɨ. Consequently, the near- 谷，劉曜胡位也。劬禿當，捉也。此言軍出捉得曜 homophone 羯 kjät (or kjet in Baxter and Sagart’s recon- 也。」[又令一童子潔齋七日，取麻油合胭脂，躬自研 struction) ‘castrated ram’ of 竭 gjät ‘to exhaust’ also had 於掌中，舉手示童子，粲然有輝。童子驚曰：「有軍 a mid-vowel. Thus, its similarity with PY *keɁt, “putative” 馬 甚眾，見一人長大白晳，以硃絲縛其肘。」澄曰：「 or not, is undeniable, and most likely, it is not accidental. 此即曜也。」勒其悅，遂赴洛距曜，生擒之。] (Jìn Shū Needless to say, this fact alone does not and cannot ‘prove’ 95: 2486) by itself that the Jié spoke a Yeniseian language: ethnic names are borrowed and re-borrowed. All that it demon- Vovin’s translation (2000: 93-94): strates is that there was some kind of historical connection Then [Liu] Yao himself attacked Luoyang, and [Shi] Le between the Jié and Yeniseian peoples. For the linguistic was going to rescue it. All his retainers [tried] to per- identification of the Jié language we must look elsewhere, suade [Shi le] that [he] would not be able to do it. [Shi] and this inevitably brings us to the Jié couplet, unfortu- Le visited [Futo] Cheng with [this problem], and Cheng nately the only surviving linguistic evidence. said: “It is said in Xianglun Lingyin: “S(l)u(s)-ke thij- re(ts)-kang bok-kok Ko-thok-tang”. This is Jie lan- guage. S(l)u(s)-ke means “army”, thij-re(ts)-kang is “to 4. Interpretation of the Jié couplet and the surround- go out”. Bok-kok is the barbarian title of Liu Yao, ing context Ko-thok-tang means “to catch”. These words mean that army/armies will go out and capture [Liu] Yao”. [[Cheng] Before we do any linguistic analysis of the Jié cou- also ordered a young boy to purify himself and fast for plet, we must first engage in the philological interpreta- seven days, and [then] he mixed hemp oil with rouge, tion of it and the surrounding context. SB et al. claim: studied [the mixture] himself on his palm, and then showed “Due to the numerous erroneous interpretations in these his hand to the boy. It was clearly shining. The boy said previous studies – including fundamental problems with with surprise: “There are many war horses, and I see a the interpretation of the Chinese text (in the majority of man, tall and big, and clearly white (Liu Yao was an these studies)9, not to mention the interpretation of the albino – A.V.). His elbows are tied by a red rope”. Futo Chieh sentence transcribed in Chinese characters – we Cheng said: “This is definitely [Liu] Yao”. [Shi] Le rejoiced, following [that conversation] went to Luo[yang] to resist have relied on our own translation of this passage, and [Liu] Yao, and captured him alive.] present a new analysis of the Chieh sentence, based on an updated reconstruction of the early northeastern SB et al.’s translation (2015: 144) Middle Chinese dialect in which the sentence was tran- scribed” (2015: 144). We have already demonstrated When [Liu] Yao himself attacked Loyang, [Shih] Le was above that the “updated reconstruction of the early north- going to save it (i.e. the city), but all of his retainers eastern Middle Chinese dialect” is unreliable as far as remonstrated that this was not possible. [Shih] Le visited teleological reconstruction of *kɨr is concerned, and slightly [Fo-t’u] Ch’eng, and Ch’eng said: “The bells on the high minister’s [chariot] rang, saying: *su keter erkan going ahead we say that we will continue with the same bokluggu tuktaŋ”. This is in the 羯 *Kɨr language; *suke demonstration further below. But first thing is first: for means ‘army’, *tererkaŋ means ‘go out’, *boklug is Liu the moment we are going to address the originality of SB et al.’s “own translation” as well as “fundamental prob- lems with the interpretation in” the “previous studies”. 10 The reader should keep in mind that the passage from the Jìn shū Since no discussion and/or criticism of these “numerous cited by SB et al. is much shorter than the one presented in Vovin (2000: 93), The lacking part in SB et al.’s presentation is noted by brackets. The parts common to Vovin (2000_ translation and SB et al.’s 9 But we are not told which exactly. translation are underlined. The different parts are in bold.

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 128 18/05/16 15:26 who were the *kjet (羯) and what language did they speak? 129

Yao’s foreign title, and *gutuktang means ‘capture’. disappear completely in their translation. Cf. ‘These This means ‘army go out, capture [Liu] Yao’. words mean…’ in Vovin’s translation (2000: 93). Inci- dentally, if the Chinese word 言 ‘word’ really means If we disregard apparent stylistical, lexical and syntac- ‘word(s)’ in this context, it offers an important piece of tical differences, such as ‘rescue’ vs. ‘save’, ‘persuade’ vs. evidence against SB et al.’s analysis of the Jié couplet. ‘remonstrate’, ‘barbarian’ vs. ‘foreign’ as well as prob- More on this below. lems of reconstruction and analysis of the Jié couplet Third, SB et al. pointed out that 相輪鈴音 is not a (which we are going to address below), the translations name of the text11 as implicitly proposed in Vovin (2000: by Vovin 2000 and SB et al. 2015 are virtually identical. 93). Unlike everything else, their objections here are well Only three minor problems remain: an ungrammatical formulated, and demonstrate beyond any doubt that Futo translation by SB et al. 2015, a lexical omission by SB Cheng was able to tell fortunes according to the sounds et al. 2015, and misinterpretation by Vovin 2000, which of the bells, so 鈴音 líng yīn in this passage must indeed resulted in further misinterpretation by SB et al. 2015. refer to the sound of bells. While we agree with SB et None of these points have really direct bearing on the al.’s interpretation of the last two characters, the overall interpretation of the Jié couplet, but the presentation by interpretation of 相輪鈴音 as ‘bells on high minister’s SB et al. of their interpretation of the text as the only chariot’ is incorrect. There are no high ministers and correct one while claiming that the work of their prede- their chariots involved in this passage. Namely, 相輪鈴 cessors was fundamentally flawed has really forced us to xiāng lún líng refers to Buddhist ritual bells that have address these insignificant issues. their handles shaped like a pagoda spire (相輪 xiāng lún First, SB et al. translate Classical Chinese 勒以訪澄 ‘pagoda spire’), see, e.g., http://www.narahaku.go.jp/ as “[Shih] Le visited [Fo-t’u] Ch’eng” (2015: XX). But collection/1407-0.html for some early specimens preserved their translation would correspond simply to 勒訪澄, and in Japan. they disregard completely the instrumental preposition 以 yǐ with the meanings ‘because of’, ‘with’. Thus, it is not just a social visit to share a cup of rice wine, it has its 5. SB et al.’s reconstruction of the sound values of char- reason, which is indicated in the Chinese text by 以 yǐ. acters in the Chinese transcription of the Jié couplet Cf. Vovin’s translation ‘with [this problem]’ (2000: 93). Second, SB et al. translate 此言 in 此言軍出捉得曜 It is claimed that “Beckwith … has developed a sci- 也 as ‘this means’ (2015: 144). But this is not precise, entific methodology for the historical-comparative recon- because it causes the Chinese word 言 ‘word, speech’ to struction of Old Chinese and foreign languages tran-

Chart 1: Reconstructions of Chinese characters in the Jié couplet

Chinese character SB et al. EMC ONWC and EHC Late Han EMC (Baxter et Sagart) (Coblin) (Schuessler) (Pulleyblank) 秀 suw/su sjuwH sjok12 siuC suwh 支 ke tsye kie? kie tɕiǎ/tɕi 替 they thejH thiǝi-13 thes thεjh 戾 leyr/ler lejH/let liǝt/liǝi-14 les/let lεjh/lεt 岡 kaN kang kɑŋ kɑŋ kaŋ 僕 bok buwk bok bok bǝwk/bawk 谷 lok kuwk/luwk15/yowk16 iuok kok/lok/yok kǝwk/lǝwk/juawk 劬 gu gju gjuah/gjuaɣ17 guo guǝ̌ 禿 thuk thuwk18 ? thok thǝwk 當 taN tang tɑŋ tɑŋ[C] taŋ

11 Although we agree with SB et al.’s conclusion, we are puzzled 12 Coblin 1983: 201, #75. by the main philological foundation for it: “If 相輪鈴音 were 13 Coblin 1983: 242 #33, 255, #329 known to be a book title the editors of the Chung-hua shu-chü edition 14 Coblin 1983: 167, #306, #307, 210, #334. of the Chin Shu would have marked it as such with a wavy line” 15 Sagart 1999: 236. (2015: 144, fn. 11). If we solely rely on wavy and other lines intro- 16 Sagart 1999: 236, Baxter 2000. duced into the texts by modern commentators, this would be the end 17 Coblin 1983: 162: #141, 220, #29, 221, #57 of philology. 18 Baxter 2000: 137

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 129 18/05/16 15:26 130 alexander vovin – edward vajda – étienne de la vaissière

scribed in Chinese” (2015: 145). In 3. above we have own reconstructions are contradictory. Thus, on p. 145 already seen how “scientific” this methodology is on the we are given *ler for戾, which corresponds to the main- example of the teleological *kɨr ‘Jié’. So here we add our stream *let,20 but on p. 147 in Figure 1 it is *leyr, appar- analysis of more concrete data utilizing the reconstruc- ently contaminating two different readings of戾: *lejH tion of sound values of the characters offered by SB et and *let (in the mainstream Chinese reconstruction). al. in the Jié couplet and contrasting them with the really The most questionable of all is SB et al.’s invention of a scientifically based mainstream reconstruction of LHC chameleon reconstruction of final -N for the characters and EMC. 岡 (LHC and EMC kang) and 當 (LHC and EMC tang) We must also add that SB et al. present their new with the following sweeping statement: “The reconstruc- reconstruction based on “scientific methodology” with- tion of Old Chinese (Late Han to Early Middle Chinese out any discussion and/or justification. They also fail to in standard terminology -- A.V.) non-labial nasals is still present correctly or to the full extent the reconstruction a matter of uncertainty. In many instances it is not clear of other scholars they are citing. Thus, for example, they whether a given word had alveolar *n, velar *ŋ, or some- claim that Pulleyblank gives EMC tɕi for character 支 thing else. We represent this ambiguity with a capital (SB et al. 2015: 145). As a matter of fact, Pulleyblank *N” (2015: 145). No references to the discussion of this provides not only tɕi, but also tɕiǎ (1991: 404). In the “problem” are given. Should SB et al. look into Ting similar way, SB et al. maintain that Pulleyblank recon- 1975 seminal monograph on the reconstruction of rhymes structs EMC gu for 劬 (2015: 145), but the latter’s recon- during Wei-Jin period, they would undoubtedly see that struction is actually guǝ̌ (1991: 260). They choose their the contact rhymes between finals containing the *-n and *lok for 谷, which has three possible readings kuwk ~ *-ŋ codas are extremely rare, such as for example between luwk ~ yowk (in the Baxter-Sagart system), indicating 元 yuán and 耕 gēng rhymes (p. 162). It becomes quite that the reading *lok is attested for northern frontier dia- apparent further below, that SB et al. use this chameleon lects (2015: 145), but there are no references to the *-N to justify their Turkic reading of the Jié couplet, source of this information. We can argue indefinitely because in the case of 岡 kang they need Turkic -n, and in over the most appropriate reading out of these three pos- the case of 當 they need Turkic -ŋ. But they seem to miss sibilities, but by and large the reading kuwk is the most one very important point that was clear to all their prede- frequent and the only one for which the Shuōwén (説文) cessors: the Jié couplet was not called a ‘couplet’ without provides the fanqie (反切) reading 其虐 (SW 3.1: 2a).19 reason, since the two lines clearly rhyme. Also, SB et al. use outdated reconstructions of Baxter (1992) and Schuessler (1987), but make no notice of 6. SB et al.’s parsing of the Jié couplet Baxter-Sagart 2011, 2014 and Schuessler 2009, which leads to factual errors. These include SB et al.’s state- Essentially, SB et al.’ interpretation of the Jié couplet ment that “the dominant reconstructions of unperiodized takes us back to Bazin’s methodology when the text is ‘Old Chinese’ (Bax.[ter], Sag.[art], Sta.[rostin], and vivisected at one’s whim in spite of the fact that we have Sch.[uessler] do not treat” the character 禿, which is not word-to-word parsing embedded in the Chinese text, SB completely true (see Schuessler 2009: 157). No more et al. try to circumvent this problem by claiming that “It true is the statement found above that there are no ­foreign is likely that Fo-t’u Ch’eng gave the oral Chinese trans- transcriptions using 禿. (SB et al. 2015: 145). The char- lation of the sentence as a whole, but it is highly unlikely acter 禿 stands for [tu] or [tü] in the Chinese transcrip- that the monk uttered this sentence and then gave a word- tion in the Secret History of Mongols and in the Hua-yi by-word gloss. The glossing and segmentation of the Yi-yu. And the archaic reading of 支 as ki or ke in Sinox- individual wordforms is almost certainly a later addition enic writing systems is not Beckwith’s discovery as explic- by someone else …” (2015: 144, fn. 12). This is, unfor- itly stated in SB et al. (2015: 145, fn. 20, and 146), but has tunately, wishful thinking for several reasons: First, the been known for a long time, cf. e.g. OJ kî (formulated glossing is found between the Jié text and its translation. implicitly at least in the Heian period (794-1192 AD) Second, in no extant text of the Jìn shū known to us this commentaries on the Man’yōshū (ca. 759-785 AD and glossing appears as a later interpolation or a commentary explicitly in 1920-1930s by Hashimoto Shinkichi (1937: written in smaller size characters. SB et al. are apparently 60)), or OK ke or ki (Kim 1980: 73-75). misled by Zhonghua shuju edition that takes out these And, finally, SB et al.’s own proposed reconstruction interpolating glosses and/or commentaries and places is very unsystematic. Even their own citations of their

20 With a footnote reference (p. 145, fn. 21) to Shimunek’s disser- 19 Fanqie are, of course, late additions to the Shuōwén text, but, tation, which as we are told “presents an analysis of the Northern Wei nevertheless it is important that specifically only one reading was Chinese transcriptions of T’o-pa”, but, unfortunately, at the moment of chosen to be transcribed. writing remains unavailable from UMI.

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 130 18/05/16 15:26 who were the *kjet (羯) and what language did they speak? 131

them after a relevant passage. This becomes quite appar- 7. SB et al.’s reconstruction and reading of the Jié ent if one looks at the woodblock editions of the Jìn shū couplet and other Chinese dynastic histories. Third, before the arrival of Buddhism to China, it may seem that Chinese Given the numerous fallacies in both the Chinese were quite self-sufficient and did not care much about reconstruction and the philology, we could easily dismiss SB et al.’s attempt. But before doing so, let us look at foreign languages. This might be partially true, but there 22 are exceptions: as it is well known, the 史記 (Shǐ jì, their reconstruction and reading of the Jié couplet. Records of a Historian) provides quite a number of 秀 支替戾岡 僕谷劬 Xiong-nu glosses. The only exception where only the *su-Ø kete-r erkan boklug-gu translation (and no glossing) is given is the ‘Yue boat- army-NOM leave-AOR TEMP boklug-ACC men song’ from first century AD, with the reference to 禿當 (Zhengzhang 1991) article, which is given in SB et al.’s tukta-ŋ bibliography, but no mention and/or discussion of it as capture-2PL.IMP (SB et al. 2015: 147) proof of absence of glosses is provided in the text of their ‘When/as the army goes out, capture the Boklug!’ article. Fourth, after the advent of Buddhism to China and to the rest of East and Central Asia, it was quite SB et al. then present their “reconstructed wordforms customary to give both glossing and translations of a for- and comparative Turkic analysis” that we reproduce ver- eign text. The Chinese translations of Buddhist sutras are batim here for the sake of clarity followed by our word- full of glosses. This is even more true of the Sinoxenic to-word commentary: tradition, where both glossing and translation were nor- *su [秀] ‘army (軍)’ : OTrk. sü ‘id.’ mally done.21 One should have been at least aware of This is not different from Bazin’s interpretation, who the fact that the Secret History of Mongols includes both carved out 秀 from 秀支, which according to Futo Cheng glossing and translation. means ‘army’ or ‘armies’.23 But is OT sü ‘army’ really a In other words, once one deviates from the actual text, Turkic word? It is attested only in Eastern Old Turkic it is possible to read it as one wishes. If SB et al. parse and in Middle Turkic, but in no modern language except in their way, who can prevent someone else from parsing Yellow Uyghur compound su čeri ‘army’ (Räsänen it in a completely different way and read it with a right 1969: 434), (Clauson 1972: 781). Also, monosyllabic dose of imagination in Eskimo or Mayan? Furthermore, Old Turkic nouns of CV structure are extremely rare, SB et al. quote Vovin’s statement “the possibility of incor- most of them being loanwords. rect segmentation is almost non-existent” completely out of 出 its context (2015: 146). Vovin referred to segmentation of *ket- ‘go out ( )’ : OTrk. ket- ‘leave, depart’ words in the sentence already provided by Futo Cheng, not Just above SB et al. used *kete-, not *ket-. Which one to the segmentation of syllables, which should be quite clear is meant? But this is a minor problem in comparison from the discussion: the morphological segmentations *t-i- with a serious Turcological one. OT ket- ‘to go away, to r-ek-aŋ and *k-o-t-o-kt-aŋ presented in Vovin (2000: 100, disappear, to die’ (and more exactly Old Uyghur, because 102), demonstrate quite apparently that they do not follow it is not attested in Runic inscriptions) is very different Chinese syllabic boundaries, so with their statement “the semantically from OT bar- ‘to go, to depart’, which morphological and syllabic segmentation of the *Kɨr word- does not describe a movement in a specified direction. In forms do not correspond exactly to their Chinese tran- addition, even in Old Uyghur ket- ~ kit- ‘to be removed, scriptions” (2015: 146), SB et al. are tilting at nonexistent to be send away, to disappear’ is attested less frequently than bar- and it mostly occurs as the second verb in verbal windmills here. Recall that Futo Cheng referred very spe- 24 cifically to words: 此言 ‘these words’. But since SB et al. compounds: try to resurrect Bazin’s line of reasoning, the logic of fol- qïlïnč-lar tarïq-ar kit-är lowing the text without vivisecting it simply evades them. deed-PLUR scatter.PASS-AOR go.away-AOR Deeds are scattered [and] disappear (AY III.12a)25

21 See, for example abundance of glosses in man’yōgana and kana in the Nihonshoki (720 AD), as well as in Japanese editions of Chinese 22 Their main hypothesis that is placed as a cart in front of the classics and Buddhist texts, where both elements of translation, such as horse is that the language of the Jié couplet is Turkic: in other words, kaeriten (返り点) signs, rendering Chinese syntax into Japanese and the answer is already known to SB et al. before presenting the data. elements of translation, such as side-glossing in kana (仮名), furigana 23 Chinese glossing and translation 軍 does not provide us any clue (振り仮名), and kōketsu (口訣) were done. Ditto for Korean kwukyel whether singular ‘army’ or ‘armies’ are meant here. (구결) and later ǒnhae (언해) in hangeul (한글). SB et al. should have 24 We thank Mehmet Ölmez for his instructive consultation on this been at least aware of the fact that the Secret History of Mongols includes fact as well as pointing us to the following example. both the glossing and the translation, but Sino-Jurchen memorials present 25 Cited according to Ölmez 1988: 39 with a change of transcription only translations. and addition of an English translation.

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 131 18/05/16 15:26 132 alexander vovin – edward vajda – étienne de la vaissière

A difference in usage between OUig. kit-, ‘to go’ (aux- plausible, because the second of two /r/ found in one iliary) and bar- ‘to go’ can be further illustrated by the wordform often elides, cf., e.g., OT beriyä ‘to the south’ following example: < *beri+rä, and OT qurïya ‘to the west’ < *qurï+ra (Meh- met Ölmez, p.c.). If so, this presents further evidence that Ötrü šila aditi ilig bäg ögir-ü sävin-ü kit-ib öz ärgü-siŋä OT ärkän is a late innovation. Third, as SB et al. note bar-dï then Šiladitya ruler title rejoice-CONC rejoice-CONV themselves (2015: 147), their *erkan violates vowel har- go-CONV his.own dwelling-2psp.LOC go-PAST mony. Fourth, and most important, the reconstruction of 岡 Then the ruler Šiladitya rejoiced and went to his dwelling the second syllable as *-kan written by Chinese kaŋ is (XZ V.18.22-24) heavily dependent on SB et al.’s chameleon *-N, which as has been already stated above assumes the quality or Turkic ket- ‘to go’ is also marginally attested in West *-n or *-ŋ when it is dictated by Turkic data. Turkic as Chuvash kata ‘far, remotness’, a converb der- 僕谷 ivation of an obsolete verb *kat- ‘to go away’ < *ket- (cf. *boklug [ ] ‘Liu Yao’s Hsiung-nu title’, followed Mountain Mari käte ‘border, edge, extreme’ < pre-Chu- by a long footnote, where SB et al. suggest that “the vash *kete-) (Fedotov 1996.1: 238-239).26 Otherwise, word might be analyzable”, with a suggestion that “the Chuvash has pïr- ‘to go’, an apparent cognate of EOT *bok element could be a borrowing from Chinese ‘slave’, 僕 bar- ‘id.’ (Egorov 1964: 173), (Räsänen 1969: 63), i.e. early Middle Chinese bok. In that case the *Kɨr 谷 ­(Fedotov 1996.1: 465). Volga Bulgarian also has only suffix *-lug/*-luk [ ] could be cognate to OTrk. -lIG bar- ‘to go’ (Khakimzianov 1978: 95-96), (Erdal 1993: ‘having X’ or -lIK having the quality of X’, i.e. ATrk. 僕 163). The semantics in both OT and Chuvash support the *bok (slave) < MChi. ‘slave’, with *boklug meaning reconstruction of semantic distinction between PT *bar- approximately ‘one having slaves’ or a pejorative ‘slav- ‘to go’ and PT *ket- ‘to go away, to disappear, to die’. ish’ one” (2015: 147, fn. 28). In addition to the lack of 谷 Note that in the Jié couplet there is no implication that evidence that should be read as *luk, and not as *kuk 出 or *yuk (see above), we have additional problems here. armies are going to go away or disappear: they simply 30 ‘go out’, ‘exit’. The invention of an unattested ATrk. *bok ‘slave’ in order to explain things seems to be de rigueur in the new *-er ‘aorist’: OTrk -Ar- ~ -Ur-, -Ir-, -yUr-, ~ -r with “scientific methodology”, but cf. OT qul ‘male slave’, reference to Erdal 2004: 131.27 Such an aorist indeed well and solidly attested. Also, among SB et al.’s -lIG exists in OT, but it is meaningless to see it here in the and -lIK (-lXg and -lXk in more widely used Turcological light of what has been said above about the semantics of notation), OT -lXk apparently does not fit here function- OT ket-. ally, because it forms: a) “adjectives and adverbs point- ing to the future”, b) “adjectives denoting a status, use 28 *erkan: OTrk. ärkän (or possibly erkän) ‘temporal or function assigned or to be assigned to a human or any clausal marker’, again with reference to Erdal 2004: 254, other entity”, c) “places intended for entities as denoted 285. There are numerous problems here. First, ärkän is by the base noun, or where such entities are found in not found in Runic Old Turkic (where only ärkli is pres- abundance” (Erdal 2004: 147). In addition, “slavish one’ ent) and is attested only starting from Old Uyghur (men- seems to be a very strange choice for a title of a ruler. tioned in Erdal 2004: 285 and cited by SB et al.); there- Needless to say, titles cannot be used as evidence for any fore, such a distribution clearly demonstrates that ärkän kind of linguistic affiliation. E.g., Old Russian кнѧзь 29 cannot be very old. Second, SB overlooked Erdal’s ‘prince’ < Old Scandinavian konungr ‘king’ cannot prove suggestion that ärkän may come from *är-ür kän ‘exist- that Eastern Slavs were speakers of North Germanic, or AOR PT’ (2004: 288, fn. 479). From the point of view of OT tarqan, aristocratic title or MM daruɣa ‘chief’, both the phonological history of Old Turkic this is more than < Xiong-nu *tarƣwa (單于) ‘shanyu’ that Ancient Turks or Mongols were Xiong-nu speakers.

26 We thank András Róna-Tas for pointing out to us this Chuvash *-(g)u [劬] (accusative): OTrk. -(X)g ~ -nI. word. This is followed by the following statement: “If the 27 Actually, Erdal 2004: 132, not 131. word *boklug were attested in Old Turkic, the accusative 28 The evidence for ‘possible’ *erkän is not cited: if it were the case, we would expect an ä ~ i alternation in this word: ärkän ~ irkän, like in äki ~ iki < *eki ‘two’, äl ~ il ‘tribal union’ < *el (Tekin 2003: 47-48). 30 We are grateful to Róna-Tas, who pointed to us Khitan pú.u ku 29 Róna-Tas and Berta suggest that Chuvash ikken ‘it turns out ( ) ‘servant’, where ku ( ) is ‘person’, and pú.u ( ) may be that’m Tatar ikän ‘id.’ etc. are related to OT ärkän (2011.1: 441-444). a borrowing from Chinese 僕 ‘servant’ (Kane 2009: 115). However, If indeed there would be a cognate in Chuvash, this would prove the archaic the phonetic shape pú.u suggests that the word in Khitan was borrowed nature of OT ärkän. However, although this comparison is phonologi- directly from North-Western Chinese of the time that already lost its cally plausible, we remain skeptical on the issue because Chuvash ikken final -k, and not via OT. Thus, we have no evidence that this word was etc. clearly has evidential function, which is absent in OT. ever attested in OT.

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 132 18/05/16 15:26 who were the *kjet (羯) and what language did they speak? 133

form would be either *boklugug or *boklugnu, depend- some Turkic words underwent apocope is true (Róna-Tas ing on the dialect. There is a certain amount of literature 1998: 72-73), but it does not mean that all of them did, on the two forms of the accusative in Old Turkic” (SB et or that all CVC roots go back to CVCV̌. In other words, al. 2015: 147) (emphasis is ours -- authors). A reference we need either internal Turkic evidence (mostly from to Erdal (2004: 17)) regarding the distribution of these Chuvash, West Turkic loanwords in Hungarian, or other two forms is given (SB et al. 2015: XX9, fn. 30). But fragmentary pieces of West Old Turkic), or reliable evi- there are no references to any other literature discussing dence from loanwords to demonstrate that this is the case these two forms of accusative. Meanwhile, if SB et al. for each particular word. The evidence from SB et al.’s would read attentively at least what Erdal had to say *Kɨr language is, of course, inadmissible. The same is, about the distribution of these two suffixes, they would unfortunately, applicable to SB et al.’s reconstruction of not invent non-existing dialectal differences. Erdal states final *-a in in PT *tukta-. The problem is that there is quite clearly that -nI replaces -(X)g in the latest Uyghur zero evidence for reconstructing final *-a for this verb: sources (mostly after vowels), and that although -nI is no apparent loanwords proving final *-a in any neighbor- attested occasionally in the early texts as well, but mostly ing languages. Chuvash also has tït- ‘to take, to hold’, after loanwords, with which it starts to occur earlier than also without any traces of the final *-a. Since this is the with native words (2004: 170). Roughly the same infor- case, SB et al. try to provide the general evidence for the mation can be found in Gabain 1941: 87-88, who also apocope of the second syllable in this word. maintains that -nI might have originated from the pro- They start with giving five examples that in their nominal paradigm accusative (1941: 88). In Runic Old opinion represent not Old Turkic loans in Mongolian Turkic -(X)g rules almost supreme, although another (which is the current general wisdom in the field except accusative suffix, -(I)n (not mentioned by SB et al.) is for Altaicists and Nostraticists), but the other way around. used after possessive affixes, and -nI appears, as it seems, These examples merit their detailed discussion. We take only in two examples (Tekin 1968: 127-130), repeated the liberty to regroup them in two different sets, because also in the revised and updated Turkish edition (2003: they exhibit two distinct kinds of problems, though we 107-110). The same information about the accusative in preserve SB et al.’s numbering: Runic Old Turkic can be found in Kononov 1980: 151- Group #1: 153. The idea that the ‘pronominal’ -n is responsible for (1) MM anda ‘sworn brother’  PT *andǎ > OT and the origin of the accusative -nI is not new with SB et al., ‘oath’ as it was clearly put forward by Kononov (1980: 151).31 (5) MM ere ‘man, male’  PT *ärä̌ > OT är ‘man’ On the other hand, SB et al.’s suggestion that “-X(g) and -nI are later forms of */-gI/ and */-(I)n-gI/” is another SB et al. suggest that “given the phonology, they may teleological construct, not supported by any internal Tur- be opposite, i.e., early Serbi-Mongolic loanwords into kic evidence, and solely motivated by their interpretation Archaic Turkic” (2015: 148). Apparently, they missed of the Jié couplet. Finally, a comparison of Jié *-gu, two important points: a) Mongolic vowels in the second accusative, which is ad hoc carved out of the following syllable look like echo-vowels, and b) word-final -nd and word, as we have already seen, with OT -(X)g represents -nt are absolutely impossible phonotactic sequences in a classic case of an etymology by one phoneme. Middle Mongolian.33 They are also extremely rare in Old Turkic (Róna-Tas 1998: 73), and this led one of the pres- *tukta- ‘capture’ (捉得) ent authors to the suggestion that OT and ‘oath’ like OT OTrk. tut- ‘capture, grab, catch’32. This is followed by yund ‘horse’ is a loan from the Ruan-ruan language a footnote announcing that the authors independently (Vovin 2004: 128-129, including fn. 18). came to the same reconstruction as Tekin 1993: 52, and that this fact alone validates the reconstruction. Unfortu- Group #2 nately, this has no inherent validity: human minds can (2) WM düri ‘form, shape, complexion’  PT *düŕǐ find independent paths to the same enlightenment, but > OT yüz ‘face’ they also can err in quite similar ways. The fact that (3) WM ikire ~ ikere ‘twins’  PT *ikeŕǐ ~ *ikiŕě (cf. Chuvash yěkěr34 and Hungarian iker ‘id.’) > OT ikiz ‘twins’ 31 We would say that Gabain’s explanation (1941: 88) is more (4) WM bora ~ boro ‘gray’  PT *boŕǎ > OT boz ‘gray’ tenable, because pronominal -n appears to be involved in all oblique cases, while pronominal accusative -nI represents the same morpheme (albeit diachronically certainly derived from ‘pronominal *-n + -(X)g). 32 Actually, the primary meaning is ‘to hold, to take’. Apart from the small notice that semantics should be cited carefully, and not as the 33 If in doubt, see Vietze et al. 1969. most fitting to one’s purposes, we are not going to do more nit-picking 34 Actually, Chuvash yěkěr means ‘couple’ or ‘double’, while ‘twins’ here. are yěkěreš.

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 133 18/05/16 15:26 134 alexander vovin – edward vajda – étienne de la vaissière

Willingly or not, SB et al. with their reconstruction of The fact that the same picture is not found in the closely PT *-ŕ- rather than *-z- signed up to the pro-Altaicist related Bashkir should have been alarming, but in any paradigm by accepting the primacy of rhotacism over case reconstructing proto-languages on the basis of zetacism. The palatalized *-ŕ- seems taken from the ­evidence from the single language in the family (and ­pseudo-etymological dictionary of the non-existing especially on a very low node level) has been long ‘Altaic’ family (Starostin et al. 2003). Buckets of ink known as an unacceptable practice in comparative lin- have been spilled on this problem, and the present arti- guistics, because one needs at least two independent cle is not the place to review all the arguments for or pieces of evidence. In other words, a phenomenon against rhotacism. found exclusively in Russian or Panjabi would have no It is well known that West Turkic merged PT *z effect on and no consequences for the reconstruction of and *r, and that it also had initial *ǯ- (with the modern Indo-European. Chuvash reflex ç- and Volga Bulgarian ǯ-) corresponding The same tendency is found in SB et al.’s presentation to East Old Turkic y-. Thus, the example (2) by SB and of the data from Khotong, which also supposedly justify al. has two West Turkic features, not just one. Thus, the the reconstruction of the second syllable vowels lost in solution that it is a West Turkic loan in Mongolian is the rest of Turkic. Being located in northeastern Mongolia, inescapable. We must add that SB et al. have cited WM this language certainly is found in the heavy Mongolic düri, but have overlooked MM düri ‘appearance’ (MNT and Tungusic environment, with both language families §191, §224, JYGs). showing much more severe phonotactic restrictions on Neither Chuvash yěkěr ‘couple’, nor a Hungarian final consonants than Turkic does. It is also remarkable loan iker ‘twin’ from West Turkic *iker ‘twins’ show that out of seven cases cited, four clearly represent echo any traces of a vowel after final *-r, so SB et al.’s recon- vowels in the second syllable, and others can be explained struction of PT *ikeŕǐ ~ *ikiŕě is again teleological, and as general Turkic intolerance towards mid-rounded vow- once more we have two West Turkic features here, not els in non-initial syllables.36 Thus, after reviewing all the just one: *-r- instead of East Turkic *-z- and West Turkic evidence presented by SB et al. in favor of their putative *i- for East Turkic mid-high *e-. Once again, SB et al *-a, we arrive at the inescapable conclusion that it can be miss Western MM ikir ‘twins’ (Muqaddimat 19535). safely dismissed. Like in the previous two cases, with Mongolic bora ~ Another idea put forward by SB et al. is that the clus- boro ‘gray’, SB et al. again overlooked Middle Mongo- ter *-kt- can be reconstructed instead of *-t- for OT tut- lian forms, and here this is really crucial, because while ‘to take, to hold’ < PT *tukt-, and that it can be done MM bora ‘gray’ is exclusively attested in Western Middle independently of their interpretation of the Jié couplet. Mongolian (Muqaddimat 121, 130, 187, 220), MM boro The evidence presented by SB et al. largely relies on the is an Eastern Middle Mongolian form (NT §95, §200, comparison of Turkic at ‘horse’37 with MM aqta ‘geld- §205, §245, §260, §265; HYYY 4a.2, 21b.2; ZYYY ing’, an etymology proposed by Murayama (1958.11: 540). The Mongolic archetype must have been very 224),38 and also accepted by Poppe (1960: 121). There close to Eastern Middle Mongolian boro, where final -o are, however, grave objections against this etymology in is just an echo vowel, but since Middle Mongolian has modern Turcology (Doerfer 1963: 114-117). Quite sig- little tolerance for mid-rounded vowels in non-initial nificantly, Räsänen 1969: 30, DTS 65 and Tietze 2002: syllables this was apparently replaced by bora in West- 219 also do not provide any external etymologies. Let us ern Middle Mongolian. Thus, both Eastern and Western note in passing that Chuvash does not offer any evidence Middle Mongolian forms can be traced ultimately to for a vowel in the second syllable which would be expected West Turkic *bor, which, unfortunately, is not attested if the Turkic word had any connection with Mongolian: in Chuvash. Chuvash Upper Dialect has ut ‘horse’, and Chuvash Thus, we can dispense with these five examples: none lower dialect ot ‘id.’ No less important is the fact that of them offers any evidence for apocopated vowels in Proto-Turkic form is *hat ‘horse’ (see more on initial general, and no particular evidence for the final *-a in PT h- in Khalaj below), while MM aqta ‘gelding’ shows no predecessor of OT tut- to take, to hold’. traces of initial h-. The logic of the discussion in the next paragraph of SB et al.’s article largely evades us: it appears that the 36 There are, of course, exceptions, like in Qïrghïz, and some Sibe- authors are proposing a sweeping PT reconstruction of rian Turkic languages, but these are apparent secondary developments. the final *-a in their PT *tukta-, solely on the basis of 37 SB et al. gloss OT at as ‘riding horse’, but this is plainly no evidence from a single Turkic language, namely Tatar. more than an attempt to embellish the semantics of an etymology for one’s own purposes, because the word is just a name for a ‘horse’ in general, pace Clauson (1972: 33). 38 There is even earlier etymology by Melioranskii, tracing both 35 .’aχta ‘castrated ﺍﺧﺘﮦ Pages refer to Poppe’s edition (1938). Mongolic and Turkic words to Persian

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 134 18/05/16 15:26 who were the *kjet (羯) and what language did they speak? 135

Finally, SB et al. in attempting to prove that OT at to flow ahq- aq- ahq- ‘horse’ is from PT *akta, invoke the pharyngealization in empty ᶀɔhš boš bos Sayan Turkic (Tofalar and Tuvan) and Saryg-Ugur,39 and mix it up with initial h- in Khalaj. But Khalaj initial h- has nothing to do with pharyngealization in Sayan Turkic As we can see, while in the first five words pharyn- and Saryg-Ugur, because two of these phenomena reflect gealization is present in all three languages, in the sixth two different features in Turkic. While the source of Sayan word it is absent in Tuvan, and in the seventhit is absent Turkic and Saryg-Ugur pharyngealization is not yet quite in both Tuvan and Saryg-Ugur. Another complication is clear (although it is quite apparent that Sayan Turkic that even between closely related Tofalar and Tuvan, a pharyngealization originated due to the same phenome- far greater number of words do not agree in pharyngeal- non in Yeniseian languages that form a substratum for ization, which is normally present in Tofalar but absent Sayan Turkic (Rassadin 1971: 22, 93), it definitely has a in Tuvan, e.g.: strong correlation with short vowels in Proto-Turkic (Poppe 1929: 52-53), (Polivanov 1934: 153). The problem Chart 3: Pharyngealized vowels in Tofalar and non-pharyngealized in Tuvan is that there are only a few words where the pharyneali- zation is found in all three languages: Tuvan, Tofalar, gloss Tofalar Tuvan and Saryg-Ugur: to go down ᶀaht- bat-40 Chart 2: Pharyngealized vowels in Sayan Turkic to lie down čïht- čït- and Saryg-Ugur many kɔhp köp gloss Tofalar Tuvan Saryg-Ugur ice ᶁɔhš ᶁoš horse aht aht aht ~ hat to cross kehš- keš- grass ɔht oht oht to be afraid qohrt- qort- meat eht eht yeht arrow ɔhq ohq ohq ‘bow’ Another problem is that some sources on Tuvan pro- vide a pharyngealized vowel for a given word, and others head ᶀahš ᶀahš pahš ~ phaš non-pharyngealized, e.g.:

Chart 4: Discrepancies in pharyngealization between different sources on Tuvan41

gloss Tofalar Tuvan I42 Tuvan II Tuwan III head ᶀahš ᶀahš ᶀahš baš hat ᶀɔhrt ᶀöhrt ᶀört bört country čuhrt čuhrt čurt čurt how many qahš qahš qaš qaš bird quhš quhš quhš quš winter qïhš qïhš qïhš qïš horse aht aht aht aht meat eht eht eht eht grass ɔht oht oht oht

39 Reflexes of pharyngealization are sometimes realized as preaspi- ration (Tenishev 1976: 11ff). The pharyngealization is also reported for Proto-Turkic: WM baɣta- ‘to fit in’ in and Tofalar ᶀaht- ‘to go down’ Salar, but in the sources available to us it is not marked. The idea that (2015: XX11, fn. 42). pharyngealization reflects a lost velar is not original with SB et al., see, 41 Partially adapted from SIGTIaF 49, except from Tuvan III, and e.g. Iskhakov and Pal’mbakh 1961: 26. with further additions. 40 Incidentally, this discrepancy presents further evidence against 42 Data in Tuvan I are from Tenishev 1968, data in Tuvan II from SB et al.’s second etymology, where they offer to reconstruct *-kt- for Iskhakov et Pal’mbakh 1961, and data in Tuvan III from Ölmez 2007.

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 135 18/05/16 15:26 136 alexander vovin – edward vajda – étienne de la vaissière

As we can, see, while Tuvan I agrees with Tofalar, However, as we already mentioned above, pharynge- Tuvan II and Tuvan III do not agree completely with alization in Tofalar and Tuvan probably reflects the orig- either of them. Nor do they agree between themselves. inal Proto-Turkic short vowels. A brief presentation is in Thus, we are dealing here with pandemic irregularity, order: which is likely to have a recent origin that reflects the underlying Yeniseian substratum in these languages.

Chart 5: Pharyngealized and non-pharyngealized vowels in Sayan Turkic and their correlation with vowel length in Turkmen, Yakut, and Proto-Turkic gloss Tofalar Tuvan I Turkmen Yakut Proto-Turkic horse aht aht at at *hat name at at āt āt *āt grass ɔht oht ot ot *ot fire ɔt ot ōt uot *hōt head ᶀahš ᶀahš baš bas *baš wound ᶀaš ᶀaš bāš bās *bāš to open ahš- ahš- ač- as- *ač hungry aš aš āč ās *āč

Thus, there is no need to reconstruct *-k- in place of to Sayan Turkic pharyngealization.43 Namely, it reflects Sayan Turkic pharyngealization for Proto-Turkic, and SB PT *h- (< pre-PT **p-), a fact that has been known to et al.’s PT *tukta- is certainly reconstructed solely on the Turcologists since Doerfer’s first book on this language basis of their *Kɨr *tukta-, which, therefore represents (1971). We present below a simple demonstration that circular reconstruction and can be dismissed. it is not connected to Sayan Turkic pharyngealization, Finally, as also mentioned above, Khalaj initial h- rep- because Khalaj h- occurs before both short and long resents a completely different phenomenon, unconnected vowels, e.g.:

Chart 6: Initial h- in Khalaj gloss Tofalar Tuvan I Turkmen Yakut Khalaj Proto-Turkic horse aht aht at at hat *hat moon, month aỹ ay āy ïy44 hāay *hāyǎq thirty (učžon) (užen) otuz otut hottuz *hotuz fire ɔt ot ōt uot hūot *hōt foot (ᶀut) (but) ayaq atax hadaq *hadaq bee, wasp arï xarï (dial.) ārï ïŋïrïa hāarï *hārï

Therefore, SB et al.’s attempt to use Khalaj initial h- dependent on their preconceived concept to read the Jié as evidence for their PT *-k- is also disproven. couplet in accordance with Turkic. Also equally impor- tant is the fact that SB et al. misread Erdal (2004: 236- *-(V)ŋ (2p. imperative): OTrk. -(V)ŋ 237), and end up with presenting -(X)ŋ as a general Here SB et al.’s Chinese chameleon *-N, which as has marker of 2 p imperative. The usage of -(X)ŋ for polite been already stated above assumes the quality of *-n or address to the singular referent indeed exists in Old *-ŋ when it is dictated by Turkic data, appears in its cor- Uyghur, but this is certainly a honorific usage, which can rect form *-ŋ (LHC and EMC 當 taŋ), but this is again represent only secondary and late development in the

43 Khalaj data are from Doerfer 1971, Doerfer and Tezcan 1980, and Doerfer 1988. 44 Yakut ï reflects PT *ā (Stachowski 1993: 42).

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 136 18/05/16 15:26 who were the *kjet (羯) and what language did they speak? 137

general Turkic context. In Orkhon texts we find -(X)ŋ (2000, 2002) who specified a connection with the now exclusively used for plural, while singular 2p. imperative extinct Pumpokol language attested in 18th century word has either -Ø or -gIl.45 Since Erdal considers -gIl to be a lists compiled by travelers to Siberia (Khelimskii 1986; particle, it is discussed in a different place in his grammar Werner 2005). We believe Vovin’s identification of the (2004: 350). But it is useful to look at some other descrip- Jié couplet with a Yeniseian language form nearest to tions, where -gIl is considered to be a suffix (Gabain 1941: Pumpokol is correct, and this view has found support 110), (Nasilov 1960: 59), (Tekin 1968: 187), (Aidarov among other Yeniseianists (Werner 2004: 29-30; Anderson 1971: 226-227),46 (Shervashidze 1986: 78-79), (Kononov 2004: 13; Werner 2014: 82-101). Vovin’s earlier analy- 1980: 184),47 and (Tekin 2003: 179-180).48 sis was based on G. Starostin’s (1995) reconstruction of It also remains unclear in SB et al.’s interpretation, the Proto-Yeniseian verb, Reshetnikov and G. Starostin’s to whom the imperative in -(X)ŋ is directed: to Shi Le (1995) description of Ket verb morphology, and S. Sta- alone, or to Shi Le and his army? If this is the second, rostin’s (1995) Proto-Yeniseian phonology – works that this interpretation also does not square well with another remain valid today. Nevertheless, a reexamination is war- context in the biography of Futo Cheng, immediately ranted in light of new insights into Yeniseian morphology preceding the passage with the Jié couplet, which SB et over the past 15 years, notably (Vajda 2001, 2003, 2004, al. do not cite, but which is provided in Vovin 2000: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014 and forthcoming), 102-103. For the sake of argument, we are going to repeat Vajda and Zinn (2004), Werner (2005), and Georg (2007). it here: Each of these works analyzes the verb morphology in more detail or helps clarify the position of Pumpokol 劉曜遣從弟岳攻勒，勒遣石季龍距之。岳敗，退保石 樑塢，季龍堅柵守之。澄在襄國，忽歎曰：「劉岳可 within the family. 憫！」弟子法祚問其故，澄曰「昨日亥時，岳已敗被 Chart 7 presents the Jié couplet in Chinese ortho­ 執。」果如所言。 graphy, along with our revised Yeniseian interpretation. The Chinese reconstruction follows the most authorita- [Liu] Yao sent his second younger [Lie] Yue to attack [Shi] Le, and [Shi] Le sent Shi Jilong to deter him. [Liu] tive treatments of Middle Chinese phonology (Schuessler Yue defeated [Shi Jilong], and [the latter] retreated to the 2009, Baxter and Sagart 2014), none of which were protection of Shi Liang’s stockade. [Shi] Jilong strongly developed with any thought to how words in the Jié defended the fence. Cheng was [at that time] in Xiang ­couplet might be connected to this or that language. The country and said with a sigh: “I pity Liu Yue!” When his Chinese-based semantic glosses reflect the couplet’s disciple Fazuo asked him about the reason of this, Cheng translation in the original passage. replied: “Yesterday, at the hour of the boar, [Liu] Yue was The superscript numerals in the Yeniseian reconstruc- already defeated and captured by [Shi Jilong]”. It happened tion and morpheme breakdown correlate with the posi- [exactly] as he said. tion-class designations given for Ket in Chart 8 below. Thus, clearly combining the textual evidence from Two of the couplet’s four words are cultural vocabu- this passage and the next, we can see see that four armies lary that cannot be convincingly identified with any known (and not just one army) have set out: Liu Yue, Liu Yao, language, including Pumpokol. The barbarian title bokkok Shi Le, and Shi Jilong. And they are already in the field, can be interpreted in any number of fanciful ways, but so it is not a question of ‘when’. none is convincing. As for ‘army’, Yeniseian languages Unfortunately, in the light of multiple mistakes, share a verb root meaning ‘wage war’ or ‘fight a battle’: ħ mis-citations, wrong definitions and analysis, forced and/ Ket kal ~ kaːli, Yugh kaː r, Arin kel-, Kott hali, and Pum- or teleological reconstructions outlined above, we come pokol karɨ. The same root appears in Ket kalup ‘army’ and to the conclusion that SB et al.’s Turcology fares no Arin kel ‘army’. The Arin form partly coincides with the ­better than their Sinology and philology. Therefore, their second syllable of *śuke ‘army’ in the couplet, but this is attempt to utilize Turkic for interpreting the Jié couplet no more compelling than the Turkic etymologies critiqued certainly failed. previously. If the Jié people were indeed Pumpokol speak- ers who became part of the Xiongnu pastoral world, their word for ‘army’ would likely have been borrowed or 8. Back to Yeniseian ­otherwise innovated, since taiga hunting war parties and The idea that the Xiongnu Confederation included steppe pastoralist armies are vastly different entities. One Yeniseian speakers dates back to 1950, but it was Vovin defining feature of Pumpokol vis-à-vis all of the other Yeniseian languages (Ket, Yugh, Kott, Assan, and Arin) is the fortition of /s/ to /t/ in most words, as seen in Ket 45 -gIl may also be used towards plural referents. 46 Aidarov classifies -gIl as a a familiar emphatic form (1971: 227). sēs ‘river’ vs. Pumpokol tet ‘river’. However, some Pum- 47 Kononov considers -gIl to be a honorific form (1980: 184). pokol words retain a sibilant, usually but not always before 48 Tekin considers -gIl to be an emphatic imperative (2003: 179). a front vowel. These include Pumpokol cel ~ zell ‘sledge’,

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 137 18/05/16 15:26 138 alexander vovin – edward vajda – étienne de la vaissière

Chart 7: Analysis, reconstruction, and interpretation of the Jié couplet

Chinese 秀支 替戾岡 僕谷 劬禿當 reconstruction *sjuwH ke thejH lejH kaŋ bok kok guo thok taŋ glossing army go out [barbarian title] catch Yeniseian *śuke t5-il2-ek0-aŋ-1 bokkok got7-o4-kt0-aŋ-1 reconstruction out5-past2-go0- foot(?)7-3masc.sg.obj4-take0- morpheme divisions ? ? 3anim.pl.sbj-1 3anim.pl.sbj-1 army glossing they went out [barbarian title] they (will) catch (? armies) Translation ‘Armies went out and will catch Bokkok!’

salat ‘reindeer’, saːt ‘crucian (fish)’, which are cognate of Yeniseian verb morphology and of Pumpokol phono- with Southern Ket suul ‘snowsled’, sel ‘reindeer’, and sa’l logical and morphological features in particular, to which ‘crucian’. Because not all of these sibilants (or affricates) we now digress. occur before front vowels, Pumpokol must have con- The Yeniseian finite verb is based on a complex inter- tained a phoneme /s/ and therefore could have had a dependence of morpheme position classes completely word form like *śuke ‘army’. unlike the surrounding Turkic, Uralic, and Tungusic Given the futility of etymologizing the couplet’s two languages. The verb root occupies the “base” position items of cultural vocabulary, identifying it with Pum- (P0), located near the rightmost edge of the phonologi- pokol (or with any other language) hinges on analyzing cal verb. Modern Ket has the following string of posi- its two finite verb forms. This requires precise knowledge tion classes:

Chart 8: Ket finite verb structure (adapted from Vajda 2014): (sbj = subject, obj = object, anim = animate-class, inan = inanimate class, pl = plural, agr = agreement)

P8 P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1 P0 P-1 sbj person incor­porate obj or sbj thematic 3 anim agr + 3 inan tense mood 1,2 sbj or base anim pl sbj agr agr con­ tense/mood agr aspect obj agr or (verb root agr sonant(s) conjugation con-sonant stative­ often with marker resultative vestigial portmanteau prefix aspect suffix)

Vajda’s (2012, and forthcoming) interpretation of 2005: 149-153) show similarities with both Ketic (Vajda archaic affixal morphology associated with Modern Ket 2012) and Kottic (G. Starostin 1995), and the ultimate posi- positions P1 and P0 differs from that presented by G. Sta- tion of Arin vis-à-vis Ketic, Kottic and Pumpokolic within rostin (1995) but the differences are not relevant for inter- the family remains to be demonstrated convincingly. This preting the verb forms in the Jié couplet. All analyses of the unresolved problem need not concern us, since none of the Yeniseian finite verb agree that its structure is rigidly evidence that identifies the Jié couplet as Pumpokolic templatic, with roots, derivational elements, tense affixes, hinges on the position of Arin within Yeniseian. and agreement markers occupying specific morpheme slots, The example sets below juxtapose cognate finite or position classes, relative to one another. An important verbs in Ket (1) and Kott (2). These complex verb forms distinction separating the primary branches of Yeniseian are structurally homologous except for certain aspects of concerns the location of the subject agreement markers. The subject agreement (highlighted in bold). Ket has position ancestor of Ket and Yugh (Ketic languages) innovated a 8 subject person agreement proclitics. Kott has verb-final new subject person-marking series verb initially, while subject person and plural agreement in suffix position P-3, Kott and Assan (Kottic languages) added a new subject following the original animate plural subject agreement person and number agreement suffix at the opposite end suffix -n (Kott suffix position P-2). The animate-plural of the verb string. The few recorded Arin verbs (Werner subject agreement suffix -n, inherited from Proto-Yeniseian,

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 138 18/05/16 15:26 who were the *kjet (羯) and what language did they speak? 139

was retained in both Kott and Ket, despite the fact that redundantly duplicate its original animate-plural marking the new Kott subject agreement suffix series in P-3 function:

(1) Ket (2) Kott a. d8=b3-il2-bed0 a. b4-a3-la2-paj0-aŋ-3 1sbj8=inan.obj3-past2-make0 inan.obj4-past3/2-make0-1sg.sbj-3 ‘I made it.’ ‘I made it.’ b. k8=b3-il2-ged0 b. b4-a3-la2-pa0-u-3 2sbj8=inan.obj3-past2-make0 inan.obj4-past3/2-make0-2sg.sbj-3 ‘You (sg.) made it.’ ‘You (sg.) made it.’ c. d8=b3-il2-bed0 c. b4-a3-la2-pex0-Ø-3 3sbj8=inan.obj3-past2-make0 inan.obj4-past3/2-make0-3sbj-3 ‘He made it.’ ‘He made it.’ d d8=b3-il2-bed0-n-1 d. b4-a3-la2-pe0-n-2-toŋ-3 1sbj8=inan.obj3-past2 -make0-pl-1 inan.obj4-past3/2-make0-sbj.pl-2-1pl.sbj-3 ‘We made it.’ ‘We made it.’ e. k8=b3-il2-ged0-n-1 e. b4-a3-la2-pet0-n-2-oŋ-3 2sbj8=inan.obj3-past2-make0-pl-1 inan.obj4-past3/2-make0-sbj.pl-2-2pl.sbj-3 ‘You (pl.) made it.’ ‘You (pl.) made it.’ f. d8=b3-il2-bed0-n-1 f. b4-a3-la2-pet0-n-2-Ø-3 3sbj8=inan.obj3-past2-make0-pl-1 inan.obj4-past3/2-make0-sbj.pl-2-3sbj-3 ‘They made it.’ ‘They made it.’

Vajda (2012) explains the new subject agreement like Kott and Assan, also has subject suffixes rather than position classes – Ket-Yugh verb-initial prefixes and prefixes, but these suffixes differ morphologically from Kott-Assan verb-final suffixes – as innovations triggered those found in Kottic. Pumpokol innovated its new sub- by the partial erosion of the original Proto-Yeniseian ject agreement suffix position by extending the usage subject prefixes, which stood directly before the verb sphere of predicate agreement suffixes inherited from base (prefix position P1 in Modern Ket). Many vestiges Proto-Yeniseian. In Ket and Kott the same morphemes of the original subject prefixes remain in Ket-Yugh as mark subject agreement on predicate adjectives and well as Kott-Assan. For example, the change of -bed to numerals, but never on finite verbs; in Pumpokol (and -ged in the Ket forms in (1b) and (1e) reflects the 2nd possibly Arin), they are found on adjectives and numer- person prefix *k- that formerly occupied position P1 (see als, as well as finite verbs. Let us first examine the also Vajda, forthcoming). homologous predicate agreement paradigm in Ket and Innovations in verb-internal subject agreement are Kott (example sets 3 and 4), before turning to the same thus diagnostic of which daughter branch a given Yeni- markers used as subject agreement in Pumpokol finite seian language belongs to. The Pumpokol finite verb, verbs, shown further below in (5).

(3) Ket predicate adjective agreement (4) Kott predicate adjective agreement a. bɨd-di a. bik-taŋ strong-1sg.sbj strong-1sg.sbj ‘I am strong.’ ‘I am strong.’ b. bɨd-gu b. bik-u strong-2sg.sbj strong-2sg.sbj ‘You (sg) are strong.’ ‘You (sg) are strong.’ c. bɨd-du c. bik-tu strong-3masc.sg.sbj strong-3masc.sg.sbj ‘He is strong.’ ‘He is strong.’ d. bɨd-eŋ-dǝŋ d. bik-toŋ strong-adj.pl-1pl.sbj strong-1pl.sbj ‘We are strong.’ ‘We are strong.’ e. bɨd-eŋ-kǝŋ e. bik-oŋ strong-adj.pl-2pl.sbj strong-2pl.sbj ‘You (pl) are strong.’ ‘You (pl) are strong.’ f. bɨd-eŋ-aŋ f. bik-i’-jaŋ strong-adj.pl-3anim.pl.sbj strong-adj.pl-3anim.pl.sbj ‘They (anim) are strong.’ ‘They (anim) are strong.’

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 139 18/05/16 15:26 140 alexander vovin – edward vajda – étienne de la vaissière

The adjective suffix *-eŋ in plural forms was sporad- shown for Ket adjectives in (3) and Kott adjectives in (4) ically preserved by reanalysis with the common noun have become subject agreement markers in the Pum- plural suffix *-ŋ. In the above example sets, this element pokol finite verb. While predicate agreement on adjec- disappeared in the Kott 1st and 2nd plural forms but not tives was inherited from Proto-Yeniseian, only Pumpokol in the 3rd plural, but this fact is not relevant for analyzing (and possibly Arin) broadened its sphere of usage to the Jié couplet. The important point is that the Kott 3rd per- include finite verb subject agreement. This provides a son masculine singular predicative suffix –tu, which is key diagnostic for recognizing verb forms as Pumpokolic cognate with Ket predicative -du, differs from the zero (or possibly as Arin-Pumpokolic) rather than Ketic or 3rd person agreement suffix found in Kott finite verbs. Kottic. In (5), the orthography of the original 18th century The forms in (5), which represent the only recorded recording of Pumpokol informant speech appears on the Pumpokol finite verb paradigm (Khelimskii 1986: 211; left, while the morpheme breakdown and glosses on the Werner 2005: 171), make it clear that the same set of right are ours. The superscript numerals are homologous Proto-Yeniseian predicate adjective agreement suffixes with the Ket position classes in Chart 8. (5) Pumpokol finite verb paradigm a. itscha-dingdì ? [i]t5-š4-a1-diŋ0-di-1 ‘I stand’ 1sg.pron tc5-pres4-intrans1-stand0-1sg.sbj-1 b. úe-itchá-dingdu úe [i]t5-š4-a1-diŋ0-gu-1 [? dissim. *gu > du ?] ‘you (sg) stand’ 2sg.pron tc5-pres4-intrans1-stand0-2sg.sbj-1 c. ádu-itschá-dingdu ádu [i]t5-š4-a1-diŋ0-du-1 ‘he stands’ 3sg.masc.pron tc5-pres4-intrans1-stand0-3masc.sg.sbj-1 d. ádyng-it-scháding-dun ádǝŋ [i]t5-š4-a1-diŋ0-dun-1 ‘we stand’ 1pl.pron tc5-pres4-intrans1-stand0-1pl.sbj-1 e. ánjang-it-schádingan ánjaŋ [i]t5-š4-a1-diŋ0-gan-1 ‘you (pl) stand’ 2pl.pron tc5-pres4-intrans1-stand0-2pl.sbj-1 f. [not attested] ? ? [i]t5-š4-a1-diŋ0-aŋ-1 ‘they stand’ 3pl.pron tc5-pres4-intrans1-stand0-3anim.pl.sbj-1

In addition to lacking past-tense forms, the paradigm suffix form. The 3rd plural animate-class suffix -aŋ in fragment in (5) has two deficiencies that challenge our forms such as Pumpokol hineaŋ ‘two’ < hine-aŋ ‘there understanding of Pumpokol verb phrase structure. First, the are two of them’ is homologous with Ket ɨn-aŋ ‘there are 2nd singular agreement suffix form is -du rather than -gu, two of them’. This allows us to posit -aŋ for the missing the expected form based on regular sound correspond- Pumpokol 3rd person animate-class plural verb agreement ences between Pumpokol, Ket and Kott. The appearance as well, and reconstruct in (5f) a form that differs both of -du rather than -gu or -ku in the Pumpokol form úe-itchá- phonetically and morphologically from the generic ani- dingdu ‘you (sg) stand’ is probably due to dissimilation. mate-plural suffix -n shared by Ket and Kott. The question of the underlying form of Pumpokol 2nd sin- Also fortunate is the fact that the Pumpokol finite gular agreement suffix is not crucial for analyzing the verb verb stem in (5) shares cognate forms with both Ket and forms in the Jié couplet. By contrast, the lack of any Kott. Comparing the conjugated forms across three pri- recorded 3rd person plural verb form is important, as both mary branches of Yeniseian highlights which morpho- Jié verbs are plural forms. Fortunately, forms with predi- logical features are retentions from Proto-Yeniseian and cate agreement representing other Pumpokol word classes which are innovations characteristic of certain daughter attest the 3rd person animate-class plural subject agreement languages only.

(6) Ket (7) Kott a. d8=k5-[i]s 4-doqŋ0 a. dj5-a3-tek0-ŋ-3 1sbj8=upright5-pres4-be.suspended0 tc5-pres3-stand0-1sg.sbj-3 ‘I stay upright (in boat on water).’ ‘I stand.’ b. d8=k5-il2-doqŋ0 b. a3-la2-tek0-ŋ-3 1sbj8=upright5-past2-be.suspended0 past3/2-stand0-1sg.sbj-3 ‘I stayed upright.’ ‘I stood.’ b. k8=k5-[i]s 4-doqŋ0 b. dj5-a3-tek0-u-3 2sbj8=upright5-pres4-be.suspended0 tc5-pres3-stand0-2sg.sbj-3 ‘You (sg) stay upright.’ ‘You (sg) stand.’ c. k8=k5-il2-doqŋ0 c. a3-la2-tek0-u-3 2sbj8=upright5-past2-be.suspended0 past3/2-stand0-2sg.sbj-3 ‘You (sg) stayed upright.’ ‘You (sg) stood.’

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 140 18/05/16 15:26 who were the *kjet (羯) and what language did they speak? 141

The Kott morpheme classes do not match up perfectly subject marking morphology, we would expect a Pum- with those of Ket, due mainly to metathesis that affected pokolic form kat7-a4-qot0-aŋ-1 rather than got7-o4-kt0-aŋ-1. morphemes occupying positions 3 and 4 in Ket but not However, because no Pumpokol form meaning ‘catch’ in Kott (Vajda, forthcoming). Also, the Ket base -doqŋ0 was actually recorded, it is not possible to evaluate the contains a final ŋ, which is a vestigial aspectual suffix differences in voicing and labialization between the lost in Kott -tek0, where it would otherwise have occu- ­phonological reconstruction out of Middle Chinese and pied suffix position P-2. Pumpokol -diŋ0 also retains this the “expected” Pumpokol phonological form. What is element, where, as in Ket, it has fused with the verb root striking and incontrovertible is the similarity in mor- in the base position. None of these issues are germane to pheme breakdown, which we offer as strong evidence of interpreting the verb forms in the Jié couplet. the Yeniseian provenance of the given verb form. The Now it is possible to resume our analysis of the Jié Ket verb stem meaning ‘catch’ consists of a position 7 couplet itself. The couplet’s two verb forms show the form kas-, the original meaning of which is unproven 3rd person animate plural predicative suffix -aŋ, charac- though it may derive from an instrumental incorporate teristic only of Pumpokol, though other aspects of the *kis- ~ *kas- ‘foot’. The incorporate is followed by the structure of these forms is closely shared by other masculine singular third person object marker -a- and branches of Yeniseian, as well. then by the verb root -qos, which appears in many other The couplet’s first verb form ‘go out’ we interpret Ket verb stems meaning ‘catch, take, carry’. But in the contextually as ‘they went out’ or ‘they have gone out’, stem that specifically means ‘catch’, ‘capture’, ‘take pos- as it narrates the background event behind the future pre- session of and carry off’, the base -qos in Ket is invaria- dicted capture of the barbarian leader, narrated by the bly compounded with the incorporate kas-, with the object second verb, which we interpret as non-past. The first affix occupying a position between these two lexical verb form shows the morpheme breakdown t5-il2-ek0-aŋ-1 morphemes. The reconstructed Jié couplet verb form is or possibly t5-ir2-ek0-aŋ-1. Both are plausible since Middle therefore strikingly parallel with what is known about Chinese would have transcribed either /l/ or /r/ here as Pumpokol and Yeniseian verb morphology, despite the /l/. It is also unknown whether the preterite marker was incongruities of initial voiced /g/ where we would expect /il/ (as in Ket and Kott) or /ir/ (as in Yugh and probably /k/, and rounded /o/ where we would expect /a/. The in Arin), since there are no known attested past-tense presence of /t/ rather than /s/ in both got- and -kt- (cf. Ket Pumpokol forms. The position 5 thematic t- is a deriva- kas- and -qot-) is evidence that the form is specifically tional prefix meaning ‘out’. The position 2 morpheme Pumpokol, rather than Arin, even though we do not know il- (or ir-) is the past-tense marker, found in other Yeni- clearly whether Arin finite verbs would have used the seian languages in verbs meaning ‘go out’. The syllable -ek same 3rd person animate-plural subject suffix -aŋ-1. is the verb root ‘go’, and the suffix -aŋ marks third- Returning to the ethnonym jié, it is overwhelmingly person animate plural subject agreement, corresponding likely that Vovin (2000: 91) was correct in identifying it to the distinctive Pumpokol form already discussed with Pumpokol kit ‘man, human being’. The Modern Ket above. The cognate Ket finite verb stem ‘go out’ gener- cognate keɁt ‘human being’ (like the plural deɁŋ ‘peo- ates the form di8-ɣ5-aq0-in-1 ‘they go out’, which contains ple’) was typically used to refer to Ket people in contrast the position 5 thematic ɣ- ‘out’, probably < *xw ‘out’. In to other nationalities. And Pumpokol kit was likely pro- the Ket past-tense form, the thematic prefix disappears nounced with an analog of the abrupt, glottalized tone on the surface but colors the vowel from /i/ to /o/: d8-Ø5- found in Modern Ket keɁt, which makes the word sound ol2-aq0-in-1 ‘they go out’. Compare the following, mor- phonetically like [keˀet]. Such a pronunciation closely phologically related Ket verb forms, which lack a the- approximates the Chinese reconstruction of 羯 as [kjet]. matic consonant prefix meaning ‘out’: di8-aq0-in-1 ‘they Therefore, the Jie ethnonym itself provides a third piece go (in the sense of make a round trip)’, d8-il2-aq0-in-1 of evidence, alongside the couplet’s two complex finite ‘they went’. verb forms, in favor of accepting the Yeniseian linguistic The couplet’s second verb form ‘capture’ we interpret provenance of the Jie people. contextually as ‘they capture him’ or more likely ‘they Finally, the fact that Pumpokol rather than any other will capture him’. In any event, the form does not contain Yeniseian language is connected with the Jie finds a log- a preterite marker, and there is no difference in Yeniseian ical parallel in the distribution of Yeniseian substrate between present- and future-tense readings of non-past toponyms. River names containing phonetic variants of tense finite verb forms. A faithful reading of the Chinese the unique Pumpokolic formant -tet, -det, -tat, -dat reconstruction would be got7-o4-kt0-aŋ-1. The cognate Ket (< Pumpokol tet ‘river’ < Proto-Yeniseian ses ‘river’) are verb form meaning ‘they (will) catch him’ would be: found in northern Mongolia, near the core area of the d8-kas7-a4-qos0-n-1. With the characteristic Pumpokol Northern Xiongnu – and not only in Siberia, where the correspondence of /t/ to Ket /s/, and the differences in Yeniseian languages were actually documented (Maloletko

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 141 18/05/16 15:26 142 alexander vovin – edward vajda – étienne de la vaissière

2002: 109-114). River names representing all other CONC Concessive daughter branches of Yeniseian are found much farther CONV Converb north. Although the 18th century Pumpokol word lists IMP Imperative were in fact recorded far to the north near the Yenisei INAN Inanimate River, in an area also with -tet, -det river names that is INTRANS Intransitive LOC Locative adjacent to areas occupied at the time by speakers other MASC Masculine Yeniseian languages, substrate toponyms show that only NOM Nominative Pumpokol speakers occupied parts of Northern Mongo- OBJ Object lia. They must have continued to inhabite this area into p person the early historic period, long enough for their place PASS Passive names to be adopted by the Turkic- and Mongolic-speak- PAST Past ing peoples who replaced them. PL ~ PLUR Plural PRES Present PRON Pronoun 9. Conclusion pp person plural We believe that we have again demonstrated that the ps person singular psp person singular possessive Jié should not be identified with linguistic ancestors of SBJ Subject the Ancient Turks. Refinements in the analysis of tem- SG Singular platic Yeniseian morphology have helped to clarify cer- TC Thematic consonant tain speculative points presented in Vovin 2000. That the TEMP Temporal conjunction Jié belonged to the Pumpokol subgroup of Yeniseian is shown by idiosyncrasies in verb agreement morphology References coupled with the presence of /t/ in contexts where all other Yenisean languages (including Arin) would show Primary sources /s/. Although only two of the four words in the couplet can be etymologized as Pumpokolic, the complex structure of Chinese these verb forms and their intricate match with what is Shī Shī jīng, seventh century BC now known about Yeniseian morphology is compelling. SW Shuōwén, first century AD The analysis presented here is based on philological detec- Mongolian tive work that can only be further verified should new HYYY Hua yi yi yu, late 13th -- early 14th c. Pumpokol word lists come to light. In any event, the JYGs Jun yong guan small inscription, 1345 AD hypothesis that either the Xiongnu or the Jié people MNT Monggol Niuča Tobča’an, 1224 AD spoke a Turkic language must be abandoned, as argued Muqaddimat Muqaddimat al-Adab, 15th c. earlier in Vovin (2000 and 2002). ZYYY Zhi yuan yi yu, late 13th – early 14th c.

Old Turkic Abbreviations AY Altun Yaruq, tenth century AD Languages XZ Xuan Zang’s biography, tenth century AD EHC Eastern Han Chinese EMC Early Middle Chinese Secondary sources LHC Late Han Chinese Aidarov, Gubaidulla 1971. Iazyk orkhonskikh pamiatnikov LMC Late Middle Chinese drevnetiurkskoi pis’mennosti VIII veka. Alma-Ata: Nauka. MdC Modern Mandarin Chinese Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2004. ‘The languages of Central MM Middle Mongolian Siberia: Introduction and overview’. In: Edward J. Vajda ONWC Old North-West Chinese (ed.). Languages and Prehistory of Central Siberia. OT Old Turkic ­Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing OTrk. Old Turkic (SB et al.) Company, pp. 1-119. OUig. Old Uyghur Baxter, William H. 1992. Handbook of Old Chinese Phono- PT Proto-Turkic logy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. PY Proto-Yeniseian —, 2000. An Etymological Dictionary of Common Chinese WM Written Mongolian Characters. Internet publication, no longer accessible on www. Linguistic terms Baxter, William H. and Laurent Sagart 2011. Baxter-Sagart ADJ Adjective Old Chinese reconstruction, version of 20 February 2011. ANIM Animate agreement —, 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. New York: ACC accusative Oxford University Press.

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 142 18/05/16 15:26 who were the *kjet (羯) and what language did they speak? 143

Bazin, Louis 1948. ‘Un texte proto-turc de 4e siècle’. Oriens Kononov, Andrei N. 1980. Grammatika iazyka tiurkskikh 1: 208-219. runicheskikh pamitanikov VII-IX vv. Lenigrad: Nauka. Beckwith, Christopher I. 2004. Koguryǒ: The Language of la Vaissière, Étienne de 2005. ‘Huns et Xiongnu’, Central Japan’s Continental Relatives. Leiden: Brill. Asiatic Journal, 49-1, 2005, pp. 3-26. Clauson, Sir Gerard 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre- —, 2014. ‘The Steppe World and the Rise of the Huns’. In: Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Oxford University Maas, Michael (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Press. Age of Attila, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coblin, W. South 1983. A Handbook of Eastern Han Sound Nasilov, Vladimir M. 1960. Iazyk orkhono-eniseiskikh pamiat­ Glosses. Hongkong: the Chinese University Press. nikov. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostochnoi literatury. —, 1991. Studies in Old Northwest Chinese. Journal of Chinese Ölmez, Mehmet 1988. Altun Yaruk III. Kitap (5. Bölüm). Linguistics Monograph Series Number 4. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. —, 1994. A Compendium of Phonetics in Northwest Chinese. —, 2007. Tuwinischer Wörtschatz mit alttürkischen und mon- Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series Num- golischen Parallelen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ber 7. Maloletko, Aleksei M. 2002. Drevnie narody Sibiri, tom 2: Doerfer, Gerhard 1963. Türkische und mongolische Elemente Kety (2nd ed.). Tomsk: Tomskii gos. un-tet. in Neupersischen. B. 1. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. Melioranskii, Platon M. 1905. ‘Zaimstvovannye vostochnye —, 1971. Khalaj Materials. Bloomington and The Hague: slova v russkoi pis’mennosti domongol’skogo perioda’. Indiana University Publications and Mouton and Co. Izvestiia obshchestva russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti, X.4. Doefer, Gerhard and Semih Tezcan 1980. Wörterbuch des Murayama, Shichirō 1958. ‘Einige Formen der Stemmverkür- Chaladsch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. sung in den altaischen Sprachen’. Oriens 11. Doerfer, Gerhard 1988. Grammatik des Chaladsch. Wiesbaden: Pellard, Thomas 2005. Review of Beckwith 2004. Korean Stu- Harrassowitz. dies 29: 167-69. DTS – Drevnetiukskii slovar’.1969. Ed. by Nadeliaev, Vladimir Polivanov, Evgenii D. 1934. Review of: J. Jarring. Studien zu M., Dmitrii M. Nasilov, Edgem R. Tenishev, and Aleksandr einer osttürkischen Lautlehre. Sovetskaia nauka i tekh- M. Shcherbak. Leningrad: Nauka nika, 1-2. Egorov, Vasilii G. 1964. Etimologicheskii slovar’ chuvashskogo Poppe, Nikolai N. (= Poppe, Nikolaus) 1929. ‘Zametki po fone- iazyka. Cheboksary: Chuvashizdat. tike tannu-tuvinskogo iazyka’. Kul’tura i pis’mennost’ Erdal, Marcel 1993. Die Sprache der wolgabolgarischen Vostoka, IV. Baku: Bakinskoe knizhnoe izdatel’styvo. Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. —, 1938. Mongol’skii slovar’ Muqaddimat al-Adab. I-III. Mos- —, 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden & Boston; Brill. cow & Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Fedotov, Mikhail R. 1996. Etimologicheskii slovar’ chuvash­ —, 1960. Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. skogo iazyka. t. 1-2. Cheboksary: Chuvashskii gosudarst- Teil 1: Laullehre. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. vennyi institute gumanitarnykh nauk. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1962. ‘The consonantal system of Old Gabain, Annemarie, von 1941. Alttürkische Grammatik. Leip- Chinese’. Asia Major 9:58-144. zig: Otto Harrassowitz. —, 1983. ‘The Chinese and Their Neighbors in Prehistoric and —, 1949. Review of Louis Bazin ‘Un texte proto-turc de Early Historic Times’. In: David N. Keightly (ed.) The 4e siècle’. Der Islam 20: 244-246. Origins of Chinese Civilization. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Georg, R. Stefan 2007. A Descriptive Grammar of Ket. Part 1: and London: University of California Press. Introduction, Phonology, and Morphology. Folkestone: —, 1984. Middle Chinese: A Study in Historical Phonology. Global Oriental. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Hashimoto, Shinkichi 1937 (1980). Kodai kokugo no on’in ni Rassadin, Valentin I. 1971. Fonetika i leksika tofalarskogo tsuite. Tokyo: Iwanami. iazyka. Ulan-Ude: Buriatskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo. Helimskii, Evgenii A. 1986. ‘Arkhivnye materialy XVIII veka Räsänen, Martti 1969. Versuch eines etymologischen Wöter- po eniseiskim iazykam’. In: Skorik, Petr Ia. (ed.) Paleo­ buchs der Türksprachen. Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae aziatskie iazyki. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 179-213. XVII, 1-2. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. Henning, Walter 1948. ‘The Date of the Sogdian Ancient Let- Róna-Tas, András 1998. ‘The Reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and ters’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Stu- the Genetic Question’. In: Lars Johanson and Éva Á. Csató dies, 12.3-4: 601-615. (eds.). The Turkic Languages. London and New York: Iskhakov, Fazyl G. & Aleksandr A. Pal’mbakh 1961. Gram- Routledge. pp. 67-80. matika tuvinskogo iazyka. Fonetika i morfologiia. Moscow: Róna-Tas, András and Berta, Árpád 2011. West Old Turkic. izdatel’stvo vostochnoi literatury. P. 1-2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Kane, Daniel 2009. The Kitan Language and Script. Leiden & Sagart, Laurent 1999. The Roots of Old Chinese. Current Issues Boston: Brill. in Linguistic Theory, 184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Karlgren, Bernhard 1954. Compendium of Phonetics in Schuessler, Axel 2009. Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Ancient and Archaic Chinese. Bulletin of the Museum of Chinese. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Far Eastern Antiquities, 22. Shervashidze, Ivan N. 1986. Formy glagola v iazyke tiurkskikh Khakimzianov, Farid S. 1978. Iazyk epitafii volzhskikh bulgar. runicheskikh nadpisei. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Moscow: Nauka. Shimunek, Andrew, Christopher I. Beckwith, Jonathan North Kim, Wanjin 1980. Hyangga haedok pǒp yǒngu. Seoul: Seoul Washington, Nicholas Kontovas, and Kurban Niyaz 2015. taehakkyo chulphanbu. ‘The Earliest Attested Turkic Language: The Chieh 羯

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 143 18/05/16 15:26 144 alexander vovin – edward vajda – étienne de la vaissière

(*Kɨr) Language of the Fourth Century A.D.’ Journal Special issue of Anthropological Papers of the University Asiatique 303.1: 143-151. of Alaska, New Series, Vol. 5.1/2: 33-99. Shiratori, Kurakichi 1900. Über die Sprache des Hiung-nu —, 2012. ‘The persistence of complex verb templatic morpho- Stammes unde der Tung-hu Stämme. Tokyo: [n. p.]. logy in Yeniseian’. Presentation at the LSA Session SIGTIaF – Tenishev, Edgem R., Liia S. Levitskaia, Liudmila “The Diachronic Stability of Complex Templatic Morpho- A. Pokrovskaia et al. 1984. Sravnitel’no-istoricheskaia logy” 86th Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of grammatika tiurkskikh iazykov. Fonetika. Moscow: Nauka. America, Portland, OR, Jan. 6, 2012. Stachowski, Marek 1993. Geschichte des jakutischen Voka- —, 2014. ‘Yeniseian.’ In: Pavel Stekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds.), lismus. Kraków: Universitet Jagielloński. Handbook of derivational morphology. Oxford: Oxford Starostin, Georgii S. 1995. ‘Morfologiia ketskogo glagola i University Press, pp. 509-519. rekonstrukciia praeniseiskoi glagol’noi sistemy’. In: Sta- —, (forthcoming). ‘Patterns of Innovation and Retention in rostin, Sergei A. (ed.). Ketskii sbornik. Lingvistika. Mos- Templatic Polysynthesis. In: Michael Fortescue (ed.) cow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, pp. 122-175. Handbook of Polysynthesis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Starostin, Sergei A. 1989. Rekonstrukciia drevnekitaiskoi Vajda, Edward & Marina Zinn 2004. Morfologicheskii slovar’ fonologicheskoi sistemy. Moscow: Nauka. ketskogo glagola (na osnove iuzhno-ketskogo dialekta). —, 1995. ‘Sravnitel’nyi slovar’ eniseiskikh iazykov’. In: Staros- Tomsk: Tomskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut. tin, Sergei A. (ed.). Ketskii sbornik. Lingvistika. Moscow: Verner, Genrikh K. (= Werner, Heinrich) 1990. Kottskii iazyk. Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, pp. 176-315. Rostov-na-Donu: Izdatel’stvo Rostovskogo Universiteta. Starostin, Sergei, Anna Dybo, and Oleg Mudrak, with —, 1997. ‘Eniseiskie iazyki’. In: Volodin, Aleksandr P., Nikolai assistance of Ilya Gruntov and Vladimir Glumov 2003. B. Vakhtin, & Aleksandr A. Kibrik (eds.), Iazyki mira. Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages, vol 1-3. Paleoaziatskie iazyki. Moscow: Indrik, pp. 169-177. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Vietze, Hans-Pieter, Erich Mater, and Herwig Zeuner 1969. Tekin, Talat 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Blooming- Rückläufiges Wörterbuch zu Mangḥol un Niuca Tobca’an. ton: Indiana University and The Hague: Mouton and Co. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. —, 1993. Hunların dili. Ankara: Doruk Yayınları. Vovin, Alexander 2000. ‘Did the Xiong-nu Speak a Yeniseian —, 2003. Orhon Türkçesi Grameri. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Language?’ Central Asiatic Journal 44.1: 87-104. Dizisi 9. Istanbul. —, 2002. ‘Did the Xiong-nu Speak a Yeniseian Language? Tenishev, Edgem R. (ed.) 1968. Tuvinsko-russkii slovar’. Mos- Part 2: Vocabulary’. In: Alice Sārközi and Attila Rákos cow: Sovetskaia enciklopediia. (eds.), Altaica Budapestinensia MMII. Proceedings of the —, 1976. Stroi saryg-iugurskogo iazyka. Moscow: Nauka. 45th Permanent International Altaistic Conference. Buda- Tietze, Andreas 2002. Tarihi ve Etimolojik Türliye Türkçesi pest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences & Eötvös Loránd Lugatı. Cilt 1: A-E. Istanbul & Wien: Simurg and Öster- University, pp. 389-394. reichliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. —, 2004. ‘Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Old Turkic Ting, Pang-hsin 1975. Chinese Phonology of the Wei-Chin 12-Year Animal Cycle’. Central Asiatic Journal 48.1: Period: Reconstruction of the Finals As Reflected in Poe- 118-132. try. Taipei: Academia Sinica. —, 2005. ‘Koguryǒ and Paekche: Different Languages or Dia- To, Soo-hee 1977. Paekcheǒ yǒngu. n.p.: Paekche munhwasa. lects of Old Korean?’. Journal of Inner and East Asian —, 1987-2000. Paekcheǒ yǒngu. I-IV kwǒn. Seoul: Paekche Studies, 2.2: 107-140. munhwa kaebal yǒnguwǒn. —, 2006. ‘Why Manchu and Jurchen look so non-Tungusic?’ —, 2005a. Paekcheǒ yǒngu. Seoul: Cheinaenssi. In: Juha Janhunen, Alessandra Pozzi, and Michael Weiers —, 2005b. Paekcheǒ ǒhwi yǒngu. Seoul: Cheinaenssi. (eds.) Tumen jalafun jecen akū, Manchu Studies in Honor Vajda, Edward 2001. ‘The role of position class in Ket verb of Giovanni Stary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 255-266. morphophonology’. Word 52.3: 369–436. —, 2007. ‘Korean Loanwords in Jurchen and Manchu’. Althai —, 2003. ‘Ket verb structure in typological perspective’. Lan- hakpo 17: 73-84. guage Typology and Universals 56.1/2: 55–92. —, 2013. ‘From Koguryǒ to T’amna: Slowly riding to the South —, 2004. Ket. Languages of the World/Materials 204. Munich: with speakers of proto-Korean’. Korean Linguistics, 15.2: LINCOM EUROPA. 222-240. —, 2008. ‘Losing semantic alignment: From Proto-Yeniseic to Werner, Heinrich (= Verner, Genrikh K.) 2002. Vergleichendes Modern Ket’. In: Donohue, Mark & Wichmann, Sören Wörterbuch der Jenissej-Sprachen. B. 1-3. Wiesbaden: (eds.), The Typology of Semantic Alignment, 140-161. Harrassotitz. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —, 2004. Zur jenissejisch-indianischen Urverwandschaft. —, 2009. ‘Loanwords in Ket’. In Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tad- Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. mor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: a compa- —, 2005. Die Jenissej-Sprachen des 18. Jahrhunderts. Wiesba- rative handbook, pp. 471–494. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. den: Harrassowitz. —, 2010. ‘A Siberian Link with Na-Dene Languages’. In James —, 2014. Die Jenissejer unter den fruhen Volkern Zentrala- Kari and Ben Potter (eds.), The Dene-Yeniseian Connection, siens. Munich: Lincom.

001_98847_JAS_2016.indb 144 18/05/16 15:26