THE EARLIEST ATTESTED TURKIC LANGUAGE THE CHIEH 羯 (*KƗR) LANGUAGE OF THE FOURTH CENTURY A.D.
ANDREW SHIMUNEK – CHRISTOPHER I. BECKWITH – JONATHAN NORTH WASHINGTON – NICHOLAS KONTOVAS – KURBAN NIYAZ
Abstract
The recent revival by Étienne de la Vaissière1 of the idea that the Huns of European history are to be identified with the Hsiung-nu of Chinese history is based partly on Chinese and Sogdian accounts of the sacking of the cities Yeh and Loyang in the early fourth century AD.2 One of the key pieces of evidence not discussed by de la Vaissière is a prophecy recorded in Chinese transcription, which has been interpreted variously by previous scholars, who have proposed to identify the text linguistically with one or another language.3 Close reexamination based on a more accurate reconstruction of the Chinese and on careful attention to the Central Eurasian linguistic evidence allows the text to be accurately read and precisely identified as an archaic form of Turkic close to the earliest attested texts in Old Turkic.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND this has been taken by him as crucial evidence that the Huns of the West are to be equated with the Hsiung-nu The idea that the Huns were the same as the Hsiung- of some centuries earlier in the East, Chinese historians’ nu 匈奴 (Xiongnu), long ago rejected by most historians records of the events tell us specifically that the foreign of Central Eurasia,4 has been revived in a recent article people responsible for the deed were the Chieh 羯 or by Étienne de la Vaissière. He argues that it is confirmed *Kɨr, not the Hsiung-nu.6 inter alia by the Sogdian ‘ancient letters’, the second of According to the Chin shu 晉書, the official dynastic which refers specifically to the capture of Yeh and history of the period, a *Kɨr army led by Shih Hu, a Loyang in 307 and 311 respectively and identifies the general and relative of Shih Le,7 captured Yeh in 307. people responsible for the sacking as “Xwn”, that is, In 311, the *Kɨr and others, including Liu Yao 劉曜 (a “Hun(s)” 5 whereas, according to de la Vaissière, the Hsiung-nu by ancestry) captured and sacked Loyang. Chinese sources identify them as Hsiung-nu. Although After many more adventures, captures, and sackings, in 328 Shih Le himself captured Liu Yao at Loyang and later executed him. In relating the events of 328, the Chin 1 de la Vaissière (2005a). shu fortuitously preserves an actual sentence in the *Kɨr 2 See also de la Vaissière (2005b: 43-45). language, transcribed in Chinese characters and provided 3 These include the Turkologists Annemarie von Gabain and Louis Bazin, who conclude that the language is Turkic, and much more with glosses and a translation. The historical context for recently the East Asianists E.G. Pulleyblank and Alexander Vovin, who it is that Shih Le was unsure whether or not he would be conclude that the language is Yeniseic. The latter two scholars’ judge- ment is apparently based above all on the putative similarity of the modern name Ket to the ‘Early Middle Chinese’ form of the name 6 Although this ethnolinguistic group is said by the Chinese histo- Chieh 羯 in the traditional Chinese reconstruction system, ✩kɨat (Pul. rians to be “a branch of the Hsiung-nu”, the same statement is made 154: ‘people subject to the Xiongnu’). However, the Chinese recon- in Chinese histories about more or less all northern peoples from late structions used by the latter are not accurate enough for them to have Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages; the Turks, for example, are also drawn correct conclusions about the text or the name Chieh. said to be “a branch” or “descendants” of the Hsiung-nu. It has long 4 See for example the discussion by Sinor (1990: 177-178). been accepted among Sinologists familiar with early Chinese sources 5 The relevant portion is translated by Nicholas Sims-Williams: on early Central Eurasia that such claims cannot be taken at face value. “And, sirs, the last emperor, so they say, fled from Luoyang because of Besides, if the people really were Hsiung-nu, the Chinese would undoubt- the famine, and fire was set to his palace and to the city, and the palace edly have called them Hsiung-nu, not *Kɨr. Note also T’an Ch’i-hsiang, was burnt and the city [destroyed]. Luoyang (is) no more, Ye (is) no who argues that the Chieh were not ‘Hsiungnu’ (T’an 1987). For more! Moreover … as far as Ye, these (same) Huns [who] yesterday more on the historical context and significance of the events, names, were the emperor’s (subjects)! And, sirs, we do not know wh[ether] the and linguistic identifications mentioned here, see Beckwith (2011). remaining Chinese were able to expel the Huns [from] Changan, from 7 Shih Le 石勒 (274-333 A.D.) was the founding emperor of the China, or …”
Journal Asiatique 303.1 (2015): 143-151 doi: 10.2143/JA.303.1.3085124
998065.indb8065.indb 143143 55/08/15/08/15 13:4013:40 144 ANDREW SHIMUNEK, CHRISTOPHER I. BECKWITH, ET AL.
able to capture his rival Liu Yao, who had attacked means ‘army’, *tererkaŋ means ‘go out’, *boklug is Liu Loyang. Shih therefore asked a Buddhist monk, Fo-t’u Yao’s foreign title, and *gutuktaŋ means ‘capture’.12 This 13 Ch’eng (佛圖澄), for his advice. In his reply, the monk means ‘army go out, capture [Liu] Yao.’ produces two sentences in the Chieh language, which we As for the mention of ringing bells in this passage, the discuss in the following section. Chin shu states that Ch’eng had an unusual skill: “He was able to tell fortunes by listening to bell chimes.” (能聽鈴 14 I. THE CHIN SHU PASSAGE 音以言吉凶). Additional confirmation of this is given on the following page of the text, in an explicit example: This passage has been studied or commented on by 澄曰 :「昨日寺鈴鳴云，明旦食時當擒段末波 」。 many scholars, including Shiratori (1902: 6-7), Ramstedt (1922: 30-32), Bazin (1948), Wright (1948: 322, n. 6), “Ch’eng said, ‘Yesterday the temple bells rang, saying von Gabain (1950), Benzing (1959: 686-687), Pulley- “Tomorrow morning at breakfast-time you will catch Tuan Mo-po”.15 blank (1962b: 264-265), Krueger (1962), Tekin (1993), Vovin (2000), Dybo (2007: 76-82), and others.8 Due to Accordingly, Fo-t’u Ch’eng’s response to Shih Le’s the numerous erroneous interpretations in these previous request is perfectly clear in the context of the text of the studies – including fundamental problems with the inter- Chin shu. pretation of the Chinese text (in the majority of these studies), not to mention the interpretation of the Chieh sentence transcribed in Chinese characters – we have II. THE MIDDLE CHINESE AND OLD CHINESE READINGS relied on our own translation of this passage, and present OF THE CHARACTERS a new analysis of the Chieh sentence, based on an Considering the dates of these events, this *Kɨr text updated reconstruction of the early northeastern Middle must have been transcribed in a variety of Early Middle Chinese dialect in which the sentence was transcribed. Chinese (EMC),16 i.e. Chinese as spoken during the period The relevant passage of the Chin shu which contains of Northern and Southern division, roughly from the fourth the *Kɨr sentences is presented below, with our English to sixth centuries AD. The strongest evidence for Early translation: Middle Chinese phonology is the corpus of Chinese tran- 及曜自攻洛陽, 勒將救之, 其群下鹹諫以為不可。勒以訪 scriptions of foreign languages dating roughly to the 澄, 澄曰:「相輪鈴音云: 秀支替戾岡, 僕谷劬禿當。」此 period of Northern and Southern division.17 One must 羯語也, 秀支, 軍也。替戾岡，出也。僕谷, 劉曜胡位 also carefully consider the phonology of the following 9 也。劬禿當, 捉也。此言軍出捉得曜也。 period, Late Middle Chinese (Sui-T’ang Middle Chinese), When [Liu] Yao himself attacked Loyang, [Shih] Le was going to save it (i.e. the city), [but] all of his retainers 12 It is likely that Fo-t’u Ch’eng gave the oral Chinese translation remonstrated that this was impossible. [Shih] Le visited of the sentence as a whole, but it is highly unlikely that the monk [Fo-t’u] Ch’eng, and Ch’eng10 said: “The bells on the uttered this sentence and then gave a word-by-word gloss. The glossing high minister’s [chariot] rang,11 saying ‘*su keter erkan and segmentation of the individual wordforms is almost certainly a later addition by someone else, presumably whoever recorded the *Kɨr sen- .’” This is in the *Kɨr language; bokluggu tuktaŋ 羯 *suke tence in Chinese. The glossing and segmentation of individual *Kɨr words in the Chin shu must therefore be carefully reexamined. 8 There is at least one additional work that discusses this text, 13 This English sentence is a literal translation of the Early Middle namely Шервашидзе, И. Н. (1986) Формы глагола в языке тюркских Chinese translation of the *Kɨr sentence. рунических надписей (Тбилиси: Мецниереба). Unfortunately, we 14 Chin Shu 95: 2485. were unable to obtain a copy of this work. 15 Chin Shu 95: 2486. The Tuan 段 (*dɔr/*dʊr/*dɔn/*dʊn) were a 9 Chin Shu 95: 2485. branch of the *Serbi (Hsien-pei), q.v. Shimunek (2013). 10 The character 澄 also has the reading teng; it is possible that his 16 Note that “Early Middle Chinese” as used here is different from name should be read Fo-t’u Teng instead of Ch’eng. The Chin Shu 晉 Pulleyblank’s usage of the term “Early Middle Chinese” to denote “the 書, chüan 95, states that Fo-t’u Ch’eng is a T’ien-chu person (T’ien-chu standard [dialect of Middle Chinese] underlying the [Ch’ieh Yün]” of jen 天竺人). This T’ien-chu is a dialect word for ‘India’ or Indic peoples 601 AD (Pulleyblank 1991: 2). In our usage, Middle Chinese as spoken in general. In the Old Chinese dialect in which the word was originally during the Sui-T’ang period is termed “Late Middle Chinese” and the transcribed, t’ien 天 (central Old Chinese *tʰin) must have been read preceding period is “Early Middle Chinese”, i.e. the language of the *hin so that *hin-du or *hin-duk 天竺 renders the name Hinduk(a) (cf. period of Northern and Southern division, lasting from approximately Pulleyblank 1962a: 108; Pelliot 1914: 412). See Wright (1948) for a the 4th century AD through the 6th century. The tradition-based theo- biography of Fo-t’u Ch’eng/Teng. retical ‘Middle Chinese’ presented in Pulleyblank (1984, 1991, etc.) 11 Vovin (2000: 93) translates 相輪鈴音云 as “It is said in Xian[g] corresponds roughly to attested Sui-T’ang Late Middle Chinese. lun Lingyin…,” assuming 相輪鈴音 to be the name of a text. However, To avoid confusion with our Early Middle Chinese and Pulleyblank’s the meaning is completely clear from the Chin shu text. In addition, if own “Late Middle Chinese”, we call his “Early Middle Chinese” sim- 相輪鈴音 were known to be a book title the editors of the Chung-hua ply “Middle Chinese” or “MChi” herein. shu-chü edition of the Chin Shu would have marked it as such with a 17 For Northeastern Early Middle Chinese phonology see Beckwith wavy line. (2007) and Shimunek (2013).
998065.indb8065.indb 144144 55/08/15/08/15 13:4013:40 THE EARLIEST ATTESTED TURKIC LANGUAGE 145
✩ h and the preceding period, Late Old Chinese (Ch’in-Han The character 替 (t’i4) is reconstructed as t ey3 Old Chinese).18 (Pul. 305) for theoretical Middle Chinese. ‘Old Chinese’ The strongest reliable sources for the reconstruction readings include *thijlts (Bax.) and *thēh (Sta. 567). of Late Middle Chinese are transcriptions in Old Tibetan, We propose Northern EMC *tʰey. ✩ Khotanese Brahmi, and Old Uygur, which have been The character 戾 (li4 ~ lei4) is reconstructed ley3 ~ studied in detail by Takata (1988, 1993), Csongor (1952, ✩let (Pul. 189, 194) for theoretical LMC. ‘Old Chinese’ 1954, 1960, 1962), Coblin (1995), Takeuchi (2008), and readings include *C-rets (Bax. 773) and *r(h)īć (Sta. others. The dominant, unperiodized ‘Old Chinese’ recon- 572). Considering the fact that theoretical LMC coda ✩t structions include Schuessler (1987), Starostin (1989), (including *t from OChi *ts) corresponds to r in attested Baxter (1992), and Sagart (1999). Beckwith (2002, 2007, Late Middle Chinese in foreign segmental transcriptions, etc.) has developed a scientific linguistic methodology we reconstruct Northern EMC *ler. Northern Wei tran- for the historical-comparative reconstruction of Old Chi- scriptions of Taghbach provide further evidence of this nese and foreign languages transcribed in Chinese. coda *r in Northern Early Middle Chinese.21
In reconstructing the EMC readings of the characters The last character of the first clause, 岡 (kang1), is ✩ transcribing the Chin shu *Kɨr data, we have placed the reconstructed as MChi kaŋ1 (Pul. 103). Note also attested greatest emphasis on the foreign segmental transcriptions LMC in Khotanese Brahmi transcription 剛 kām ~ kau of LMC when they exist, although it has been necessary (Tak 386-387). ‘Old Chinese’ reconstructions for 岡 to take the dominant unperiodized ‘Old Chinese’ (Bax., include *kaŋ (Bax. 758) and *kāŋ (Sta. 584). Note also Sch., Sag., Sta.) and theoretical ‘Middle Chinese’ (Pul.) ‘Old Chinese’ 鋼 *akaŋ (Sag. 236). The reconstruction of reconstructions into consideration. Old Chinese non-labial nasals is still a matter of uncer- tainty. In many instances it is not clear whether a given 1. The first clause: [秀支替戾岡], glossed as ‘army go word had alveolar *n, velar *ŋ, or something else. We out (軍出)’ represent this ambiguity with a capital *N (distinguished from small caps [ɴ], the standard IPA grapheme for
The first character, 秀 (hsiu4), is read in Middle Chi- uvular nasals). The northern variety of EMC in which ✩ nese as suw3 (Pul. 347). No foreign segmental transcrip- the Chieh sentence is transcribed appears to have been tions are known. Various proposals exist for unperio- fairly conservative, and is likely to have retained the Old dized ‘Old Chinese’ readings of the word, including Chinese neutralization of *n and *ŋ. Thus, we recon- *bs-hlu(ʔ)-s (Sag. 240), *sljus (Bax. 798), and *slhuʔh struct 岡 Northern EMC *kaN. (Sta. 555). We propose *suw/*su as the northern EMC 19 reading of this character. 2. The second clause: [僕谷劬禿當], glossed as ‘cap- The second character, 支 (chih1), is read in theoretical ture Yao ( )’ ✩ 捉得曜 MChi as tɕi1 (Pul. 404) and the attested LMC form is transcribed in Old Tibetan as ཅ་ི ci [tśi] (Tak. 328-329). The first character, 僕 (p’u2), is reconstructed for theo- ‘Old Chinese’ readings include *kje (Bax. 809), and more retical MChi as ✩bəwk/✩bawk (Pul. 243), and is attested in correctly, *ke (Sta. 567). It has been shown that this char- Old Tibetan transcription as བག་ོ bog [bʊk] (Tak. 418-419). acter was read *ke in northern varieties of EMC.20 ‘Old Chinese’ reconstructions include *bok (Bax. 781) and *bōk (Sta. 560). We propose northern EMC *bok.
The second character, 谷 (lu4), has several readings. 18 See Beckwith (2002, 2007, etc.) for the periodization of Old The reading lu4 is attested for northern frontier dialects; Chinese. note the Hsiung-nu title 谷蠡王 luli king.22 Theoretical 19 Vovin (2000: 96) criticizes Bazin (1948) for connecting 秀 with MChi ✩ləwk (Pul. 201). ‘Old Chinese’ *Cə-lok (Sag. 236). Old Turkic sü ‘army, soldiers’ on the grounds that the vocalism of the Old Chinese form does not permit it, and also argues, following Baxter No foreign segmental transcriptions of this reading are (1992), that the Old Chinese form had coda *-s. While this is possible known. We reconstruct Northern EMC *luk. for Old Chinese, we are in fact not dealing with Old Chinese, but a The character 劬 (ch’ü2) is reconstructed for MChi as northern dialect of Early Middle Chinese (ca. 4th to 6th c.). It is clear ✩ gu1 (Pul. 260). There are no known foreign segmental from evidence on other languages of this period that the phonology of transcriptions. The word is reconstructed as ‘Old Chinese’ this variety of Middle Chinese differed greatly from the usual tradi- tion-based reconstructions of ‘Old Chinese’ and Pulleyblank’s work on *gju (Sch. 498), corrected to *gu. We propose Northern Late Middle Chinese (‘Early Middle Chinese’ in his terminology). EMC *gu. While we have evidence of Early Middle Chinese *-s in numerous transcriptions of foreign words and titles and even in Byzantine Greek transcriptions of Türk names attesting a word-final sibilant (cf. Beck- 21 Shimunek (2013) presents an analysis of the Northern Wei Chinese with 2009), it is highly likely that many of the *-s codas proposed in transcriptions of T’o-pa (*Taghbach, Old Turkic tabγač), a Hsien-pei the literature in fact never existed. (*Serbi) language. 20 Beckwith (2007), Beckwith (2009: 382). 22 Pulleyblank (1991: 201).
998065.indb8065.indb 145145 55/08/15/08/15 13:4013:40 146 ANDREW SHIMUNEK, CHRISTOPHER I. BECKWITH, ET AL.
The character 禿 (t’u1) is reconstructed for MChi as two very different languages. No two languages share the ✩thəwk (Pul. 311). No known foreign segmental transcrip- same phonotactic constraints, and quite often, even closely tions exist. The dominant reconstructions of unperiodized related languages differ greatly in their phonology. The ‘Old Chinese’ (i.e. Bax., Sag., Sta., and Sch.) do not treat morphological and syllabic segmentation of the *Kɨr this word. Northern EMC *thuk. wordforms do not correspond exactly to their Chinese
The last character of the clause, 當 (tang1), is recon- transcriptions. Bazin (1948) was basically right to sup- structed for theoretical LMC as ✩taŋ (Pul. 72) and is pose there is not a direct, one-to-one correspondence attested in Old Tibetan transcription as ཏང་ tang ~ དང་ between the syllables of the Chinese transcription and the dang ~ ཏ་ོ to (Tak. 386-387). Unperiodized ‘Old Chinese’ Chieh forms they approximate, although the details of his readings include *tāŋ (Sta. 614) and *taŋh (Sch. 113). reconstruction and the Chinese reconstructions he was Northern EMC *taN. using were flawed. As early as Pelliot (1915), it was recognized that the 3. The Chieh ethnonym syllable boundaries of Chinese transcriptions of foreign languages often do not match up with the syllable bound- The Chin Shu passage uses several words to denote aries of the original language. In his study, he identifies the Turkic people in whose language the sentence was a number of Middle Chinese transcriptions of Old uttered by Fo-t’u Ch’eng. First they are referred to as 匈 Tibetan in which codas in the Middle Chinese transcrip- 奴 “Hsiung-nu”, then 羯 Chieh, and they are also tions can represent syllable onsets or the initial segments referred to as 胡 “Hu”. There is clearly a mix-up of of onsets in the Old Tibetan originals, e.g. the title of the terms. It is a well-known fact among Sinologists that Tibetan emperor Khri Srong Lde Brtsan ཁྲྀ་སྲོང་ལྡེ་བརྩན་ is Chinese scholars were often of the habit of using old transcribed in Chinese as [乞黎蘇籠獵贊] Ch’i-li Su-lung words in their texts to add literary and historical weight Lieh-tsan (MChi ✩kʰɨy-lɛy-sʊ-ləwŋ-liap-ʦan).24 to their work. It is clear from the Chin shu text that the We should thus ignore the boundaries of Chinese actual ethnonym of this people was Chieh and that they phonotactics and lay everything out in a string,25 taking are explicitly distinguished from the Hsiung-nu. The into account the fact that certain Chinese segments could term “Hsiung-nu” appears in numerous texts as a generic represent multiple foreign sounds, e.g. it has long been term denoting northern non-Sinitic peoples, and “Hu” is recognized that Chinese l can represent foreign lateral used in reference to Indo-Europeans, Uyghurs, Mongols, or rhotic segments. Foreign -n and -ŋ were recorded as and many other non-Sinitic frontier peoples.23 what was pronounced in Middle Chinese -n or -ŋ, but not The character transcribing the Chieh ethnonym, 羯 necessarily in regular correspondence, perhaps due to ✩ (chieh2), is reconstructed for theoretical MChi as kɨat frontier dialect interference, where there was evidently (Pul. 154). For ‘Old Chinese’, we have the following only *N, as in Old Chinese.
related reconstructions: chieh2 竭 is given as *gjat (Bax. When interpreting any segmental script or wholistic 768) and chieh2 偈 is given as *khrjat (Bax. 768) and writing system’s transcription of a foreign language, we *khrat (Sta. 576). As shown by Takata (1988, 1993) and must always take into consideration the phonological and others, attested Late Middle Chinese has a coda [r] cor- morphological typology of the area and possible lan- responding to ✩t in the traditional reconstruction. Thus, guages involved. Most non-Sinitic languages spoken we must reconstruct ✩kiar for the theoretical Middle Chi- today in the region relevant to this study not only have nese reading of the character 羯, which must have been few, if any, diphthongs, they have vowel harmony, too. read similarly in Early Middle Chinese. This could have This means that the diphthongs of the Chinese values of transcribed foreign forms such as *kɨr or *ker, the former the characters should be understood as Chinese attempts being more likely for a Turkic language. Thus we recon- to represent foreign single vowel segments. Consider the struct *Kɨr as the Chieh endonym. analyses in Figures 1 and 2.
III. INTERPRETING THE TRANSCRIPTION 24 Pelliot (1915: 6). The MChi readings given by us here are taken from Pulleyblank (1991), with slight revision (for his ✩ɔ we use ✩ʊ, as In his study of the Chieh transcriptions, Vovin claims the foreign segmental transcriptions of LMC suggest). that “the possibility of incorrect segmentation is almost 25 As another example of the syllable and morpheme boundaries of non-existent” (2000: 96). However, we are dealing with Chinese-transcribed foreign utterances not matching up with those of their Chinese transcriptions, note certain early 17th century Mandarin transcriptions of Early Modern Mongolian in the text Pei Lu K’ao 北 虜考, e.g. *gər-in *ʊnĭ (yurt-GEN rafter) ‘rafters of a yurt’, transcribed 23 See Beckwith (2009: 393, n. 25) for more on the ethnonym in Chinese as [圪利努你] (MSC kə-li-nu-ni) and glossed as ‘rafters “Hu” and its wide scope of reference. See also note 6. (椽子)’ (PLK 9968: 7a).
998065.indb8065.indb 146146 55/08/15/08/15 13:4013:40 THE EARLIEST ATTESTED TURKIC LANGUAGE 147
Sigla: *erkan: OTrk ärkän (or possibly erkän) ‘temporal clause 1 = Northern EMC values; marker’27. 2 = typologically likely foreign segments that could be tran- This *Kɨr word is significant in that it does not con- scribed by this variety of Chinese; 3 = foreign segment form to the vowel harmony system posited for Old Turkic. values intended by the Chinese transcription; 4 = reconstruction of the foreign form, with individual word- *boklug [僕谷] ‘Liu Yao’s Hsiung-nu title’28 forms identified; *-(g)u [劬] (accusative): OTrk -(X)g29 ~ -nI 5 = morphological segmentation of the foreign sentence. N.B.: Asterisks have been removed here to improve readability. If the word *boklug were attested in Old Turkic, the accusative form would be either *boklugug or *boklugnu, depending on the dialect. There is a certain amount of 秀支替 戾 岡 literature on the two forms of the accusative in Old Tur- h 1 suw ke t ey leyr kaN kic. 30 Given our reconstruction of the *Kɨr sentence, 2suketel e r k aN however, it is possible that -(X)g and -nI are later forms i r i l q of */-gI/ and */-(I)n-gI/, respectively. This hypothesis 3suketererkan requires the positing of a pre-Old Turkic suffix */-(I)n/. 4 su keter erkan This hypothetical suffix may be responsible for a number of other alternations we see in Old Turkic, such as the 5 su ket-er er-kan
Figure 1. 27 Erdal notes the construction AORIST + ärkän in Old Turkic: “The -Ur form is… governed by ärkli (runiform inscriptions) or ärkän (the rest of Old Turkic) to form the kernel of temporal clauses. The follow- 僕谷劬禿當 ing sentence shows it in three different functions, governed by ärkän, 1 bok luk gu thuk taN qualifying a head referring to time, and governed by a postposition: kaltï män öŋrä uzun asankïlïg yolda bodisatvlar yorïkïnda yorïyur 2bok l o k g o tuk taN ärkän burxan kutïŋa katïglanur ugurda kaltï alp är čärigkä tägir täg u q r u q ʁ u o q isig özümin äsirkänčsizin titip ïdalap bo montag sukančïg nom ärdinig g g Ø g bošgundum tuttum (Suv 395,4-10) ‘While I was previously walking on ʁ ʁ ʁ the bodhisattvas’ path along the world-age-long road and at a time when I was striving towards buddhahood I grudgelessly gave up my 3bokluggutuktaŋ life as, for instance, a valiant man goes to the army, and learned and 4 bokluggu tuktaŋ kept this treasure of a sutra which is lovely to such an extent’” (285). Note also “bo nomka kertgünmägüči tïnlïg yorïyu turur ärkän ök ölüp 5 boklug-gu tukta-ŋ bargaylar ‘Creatures who do not believe in this teaching will suddenly die right [where they’re standing].’” (254). Figure 2. 28 The word might be analyzable. The *bok [boq] element could be a borrowing from Chinese ‘slave’, i.e. early Middle Chinese 僕 bok. In that case, the *Kɨr suffix *-lug / *-luk [谷] could be cognate to OTrk IV. THE RECONSTRUCTED TEXT -lIG ‘having X’ or -lIK ‘having the quality of X’, i.e. ATrk *bok ‘slave (?)’ ← ? MChi 僕 bok ‘slave’, with *boklug meaning approximately either ‘one having slaves’ or a pejorative ‘slavish one’. However, the The above analysis allows us to reconstruct the *Kɨr DTS does not attest an Old Turkic word cognate to *bok or *boklug, sentence as follows: and we have not been able to find reflexes in the modern Turkic lan- guages. The Middle Chinese word, with morphological modification, 秀 支替戾岡, 僕谷 劬 禿當 can be found in Serbi-Mongolic languages. Note Late Kitan *bawl *su-Ø kete-r erkan boklug-gu tukta-ŋ [暴里] ‘vile person (惡人)’ and Middle Mongol bo’ol ‘slave’, reflexes army-NOM leave-AOR TEMP boklug-ACC capture-2PL.IMP of Proto-Serbi-Mongolic *bɔɣul ‘slave’ (Shimunek 2013), which is ‘When/as the army goes out, capture the Boklug!’ probably a reanalysis of MChi 僕 bog ‘slave’ with a Serbi-Mongolic plural suffix *-Ul. This would seem to support the view (Zhengzhang (1991: 161; cf. Beckwith 2008: 173-174) that OChi and EMC had underlyingly voiced obstruent codas, although the voicing in Ser- V. R ECONSTRUCTED WORDFORMS AND COMPARATIVE bi-Mongolic could have resulted from its intervocalic position there. TURKIC ANALYSIS The MChi word was also borrowed into Japanese, where it serves today as the typical masculine first person singular pronoun, boku 僕 (ぼく). Nevertheless, it is probable that the Chinese gloss is correct – i.e., that *su [秀] ‘army (軍)’: OTrk sü ‘id.’ *boklug is Liu Yao’s Hsiung-nu title, in which case the word cannot *ket- ‘go out (出)’: OTrk ket- ‘leave, depart’ presently be analyzed because the linguistic identity of Hsiung-nu has not been established, despite many proposals. *-er (aorist): OTrk -Ar ~ -Ur ~ -Ir ~ -yUr ~ -r (aorist)26 29 Erdal (2004: §2.24) uses /X/ to indicate a reduced vowel of some sort that surfaces differently based on rules that are not yet well understood. 26 Erdal (2004:131). 30 See Erdal (2004: 170) for the distribution of the two forms.
998065.indb8065.indb 147147 55/08/15/08/15 13:4013:40 148 ANDREW SHIMUNEK, CHRISTOPHER I. BECKWITH, ET AL.
“pronominal /n/” found in the oblique stems of demon- the opposite, i.e. early Serbi-Mongolic loanwords into strative pronouns in Old Turkic. Note Table 1, adapted Archaic Turkic, with the unstressed non-initial short vowels from Erdal (2004: 199). in open syllables lost by the attested Old Turkic period. Some verbs in Tatar (but not in closely related Bash- ‘this’ ‘these’ ‘that’ ‘those’ qort) take an unpredicted epenthetic low vowel in their Nom. bo bolar ol olar aorist form (the normal is an epenthetic high vowel), Gen. munuŋ ~ monuŋ bolarnɨŋ anɨŋ olarnɨŋ which may be a retention of pre-Old Turkic short low vowels which otherwise underwent apocope. In the case Dat. muŋar ~ muŋa bolarqa aŋar ~ aŋa olarqa of the verb tut-, the Tatar verb stem tot- ‘hold, catch, Acc. bunɨ ~ munɨ bolarnɨ anɨ olarnɨ seize’ has the aorist form tot-ar, not the otherwise pre- Loc. bunta ~ munta bolarta anta olarta dicted, regular *tot-ɨr (attested in Bashqort, where all Abl. muntɨn bolardɨn antɨn olardɨn verbs take /-Ir/). The same holds true in Turkish, where all but 13 monosyllabic verb stems, including tut-, take /-Ar/ Instr. munun anɨn in the aorist, e.g. tut-ar. The rest take /-Ir/, as do polysyl- Equ. bunča ~ munča anča ~ anɨča labic stems. This corroborates the hypothesis that there 32 Dir. (bärü) aŋaru olarʁaru was a final low vowel in pre-Old Turkic. There may also be indications of these reduced short Simil. munɨlayu anɨlayu vowels in Khotong, a highly moribund or possibly now Table 1. dead Turkic language of northeastern Mongolia, once spoken in Uws province and documented in the late 19th *tukta- ‘capture (捉得)’: OTrk tut- ‘capture, grab, catch’ and early 20th centuries by Potanin and Vladimirtsov & 33 Aside from the *Kɨr sentence, there is good reason to Samoilovich (1916). Note the Khotong forms in Table 2: reconstruct *tukta- as the predecessor of Old Turkic tut- pre-Old Turkic 31 gloss Old Turkic Khotong ‘capture, grab, catch’. There are two elements which (Proto-Turkic?) differ from the Old Turkic form, and we will treat each ‘one’ bir birĭ 34 *birĭ of those independently: ‘three’ üč üčü̆ *üčü̆ • The final vowel /a/ is not attested in Old Turkic, but ‘five’ bes ~ bis ~ biš bešĭ *besĭ ~ *bisĭ appears in the *Kɨr sentence. That there were pre- ‘mouth’ aʁɨz oːză (also ‘lips’) *aʁză Old Turkic word-final short vowels that underwent ‘riding at *[hat ~ aht]36 ată *ahtă ~ *hată apocope (i.e. deletion) has long been assumed by many horse’35 Turkologists (Róna-Tas 2006: 72-73). There are a signif- ‘eye’ köz gözä̆ *gözä̆ ~ *közä̆ icant number of Turko-Mongolic lexical correspondences that appear to demonstrate a preservation of word-final ‘fire’ ot otă *otă short vowels of these words in Mongolic. Note the fol- Table 2. lowing exemplary etymologies:
(1) MMgl anda ‘sworn brother’ < PMgl ↔ PTrk *andă 32 Johanson notes traces of short stem-final vowels in the aorist > OTrk and ‘oath’. forms of “conservative languages such as Turkish”, and quotes the (2) MMgl düri ‘form, shape, complexion’ < PMgl ↔ forms sağar ‘milks’, atar ‘throws’, alır ‘takes’, sever ‘loves’, gelir PTrk *ðüŕĭ > OTrk yüz ‘face’. ‘comes’, bilir ‘knows’, durur ‘stands’, verir ‘gives’, okur ‘reads’, and güler ‘laughs’ (2006: 90, 116). (3) MMgl ikir ‘twins’ < PMgl ↔ PTrk *ikeŕ ~ *ikiŕ 33 The Khotong forms presented here are our interpretations of the (cf. Chuvash yĕkĕr and Hungarian iker ‘id.’) > OTrk Cyrillic phonetic transcriptions given by Vladimirtsov & Samoilovich ikiz ‘twins’. (1916: 274-276): [бĭр i] ‘one (одинъ)’, [ÿчÿ̆ ] ‘three (три)’, [бешĭ ] ‘five (4) MMgl bora ~ boro ‘gray’ < PMgl ↔ PTrk *boŕă > (пять)’, [озӑ̄ ] ‘lips, mouth (губы, ротъ)’, [атӑ] ‘horse (лошадь)’, OTrk boz ‘gray’. [гöзä̆ ] ‘eye (глазъ)’, [отӑ] ‘fire (огонь)’. The pre-Old Turkic recon- (5) MMgl ere ‘man, male’ < PMgl ↔ PTrk *ärä̆ > OTrk structions are our own. är ‘man’. 34 The form actually given by Vladimirtsov & Samoilovich is “bĭ ri” (бĭ рi) (1916: 274), but this is very likely an error for *[birĭ ]. These are usually considered to be Old Turkic loan- 35 On the specific meaning of the Old Turkic word, Clauson states: words into Mongolic, but given the phonology they may be “at ‘horse’; nearly always with the implication of ‘riding horse’” (Clauson 1972: 33). 36 Old Tibetan and Late Middle Chinese transcriptions of Old Tur- 31 Tekin (1993: 52) comes to the same conclusion as we do in his kic clearly indicate that the spoken language had a laryngeal fricative reconstruction of Chieh *tukta-. We learned of his paper only after we had */h/ which was not represented in Old Turkic runiform script or Old arrived at that conclusion. The fact that we independently attained nearly Uygur script. This segment is transcribed in Old Tibetan script vari- identical results further supports the validity of this particular reconstruction. ously as ཧ [h] or འ [ɦ].
998065.indb8065.indb 148148 55/08/15/08/15 13:4013:40 THE EARLIEST ATTESTED TURKIC LANGUAGE 149
• The /k/, as part of a /kt/ cluster before the final vowel facts and problems both internal to Turkic and involving that was lost can also be reasonably reconstructed inde- Mongolic cognates into a coherent theory about the pre- pendently of the *Kɨr sentence. There are Mongolic history of Turkic phonology. cognates where we find a */kt/ cluster lost in Turkic. For *-(V)ŋ (2p. imperative): OTrk -(V)ŋ43 example, Middle Mongol aqta ‘gelding’37 corresponds to, and appears to be the same word as, Old Turkic at Kɨr *tukta-ŋ is cognate morpheme by morpheme to ‘riding horse’.38 Furthermore, this word appears in a OTrk tut-uŋ. number of Turkic daughter languages as /aht/ (e.g. Tuvan, Tofa,39 and Yogur40) and in Khalaj as /hat/.41 We propose the following evolution of this cluster: VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
(6) MMgl aqta /agtʰa/ ‘gelding’ < PMgl ← PTrk *akta The Chieh 羯 *Kɨr language is an archaic form of ‘horse’ > pre-OTrk *ahtă (cf. Yogur , Tuvan ) ~ aht aht Turkic spoken in North China at least two and a half *hată (cf. Khalaj hat, Khotong ata) > attested OTrk at ‘riding horse’.42 centuries before the foundation of the Türk Empire, and four centuries before the appearance of the first Old Thus, Old Turkic tut- has the following etymology: Turkic texts – the Orkhon inscriptions – and the T’ang Chinese transcriptions of Old Kirghiz.44 It is, nevertheless, (7) PTrk *tukta- ‘capture, catch’ > *tuhtă - (cf. Tuvan tuht- very close to Old Turkic. and its cognates in other varieties of Sayan Turkic) > Furthermore, historical considerations suggest that *Kɨr OTrk tut- ‘capture, grab, catch’. was a dialect of the Hun language, or at least a language The identification of this form not only helps shed of the Hun confederation, speakers of which apparently light on the *Kɨr sentence, but brings together known arrived in north China as part of the great migrations better known from European history, where the historically well- known Huns included some who evidently spoke a Turkic aχta] ‘cas- dialect or language, as attested in part by the Turkic names] اخته The word is also found in Pashto and Hazaragi 37 trated’. The authors thank Rakhmon Inomkhojayev (Indiana Univer- 45 sity) for mentioning the Pashto form (p.c., 2011). The Hazaragi form of Attila’s sons. Neither group of Huns can be connected is from Malistani (1993). For more on the western Middle Mongol with the centuries-earlier Hsiung-nu historically or linguis- elements in Hazaragi, see Shimunek (2010). The Middle Mongol word tically. The Chin shu text clarifies that the xwn “Huns” was also borrowed into Tungusic, e.g. Jurchen and Manchu akta, mentioned by the Sogdians were not Hsiung-nu but Huns Ewenki akta- ‘to castrate a reindeer’, akta ‘castrated reindeer’ and who spoke an archaic Turkic language. aktakii in some dialects (with the Ewenki zoonym suffix -kii), Solon akta ‘castrated bull’, Ewen aat- ‘to castrate’, Negidal aktawcaa ‘cas- trated reindeer’, and the innovative forms Nanai xakta- ‘to castrate’ and Abbreviations and symbols Uilta (“Orok”) xakta ‘castrated reindeer’ (Rozycki 1994b: 15; Tsint- sius et al. 1975: 26; Vasilevich 1958: 21; Tsintsius 1982: 189; Onenko 2.PL second-person plural 1980: 446b). Rozycki considers this an Iranic element in Mongolic, ACC accusative case ultimately from Persian akhta ‘castrated, gelding’, from the verb akhtan AOR aorist ‘draw out, unsheathe, castrate, geld’ (1994a: 74). The directionality of ATrk Archaic Turkic the loan is probably Iranic → Turkic → Mongolic → Tungusic, i.e. Persian akhta ‘gelding’ → PTrk *akta → PMgl > MMgl aqta ‘gelding’ Bax. Baxter 1992 → Tungusic ‘castrate’ ~ ‘castrated reindeer’. DTS Древнетюрский словарь 38 Tekin (1977) proposes this correspondence. The fact that we EMC Early Middle Chinese (ca. 4th to 6th c.) independently proposed the same correspondence before learning of GEN genitive case Tekin’s article illustrates the validity of this analysis. IMP imperative 39 Rassadin (1971: 157). LMC Late Middle Chinese (i.e. Sui-T’ang Chinese, ca. 7th to 40 Yogur [aht ~ hat] ‘horse (馬)’ (Ch’en 2004: 29). 9th c.) 41 Khalaj [haˑt ~ hat] (Doerfer & Tezcan 1980: 127). MChi Middle Chinese 42 Another possible Turkic-Mongolic loan correspondence MMgl Middle Mongol (although semantically problematic) has been proposed by Tekin (1977: 36-37; 1993: 52-53), which we revise as: Unattested MMgl MSC Modern Standard Chinese *baqta- or */bagtʰa-/ in our phonemic transcription (cf. attested WMgl baγta-) ‘fit in, have enough room for, be included’ < PMgl ← ? PTrk 43 “In some texts, -(X)ŋ is exclusively used for polite address to the *bakta- > pre-OTrk *bahtă - > OTrk bat- ‘go down, set (of the sun), singular… in others, -(X)ŋ is also used for addressing more than one etc.’ Phonologically conservative reflexes of pre-Old Turkic *bahtă - person. The Orkhon inscriptions… use -(X)ŋ… for the plural as well” include Yogur [baht ~ pat] ‘lose sth (丟失)’ (Ch’en 2004: 29) and Tofa (Erdal 2004:237). [baht-] (in Rassadin’s transcription system, b̭aъt=), glossed as ‘to go 44 See Laufer (1917: 369), Wittfogel and Fêng (1946: 150, n. 12), down, descend (спускаться); to set, of luminaries (сесть, о светилах); and Boodberg (1936: 171) for some of the known Chinese transcriptions to descend from a mountain (спускаться, с горы); and to dive, sink, of Old Kirghiz. plunge, submerge (погружаться)’ (Rassadin 1971: 160). Note also 45 Beckwith (2011). Kyrgyz бат- /bat-/ ‘to fit (somewhere)’ (Yudakhin 1985: 116). 46 Following Beckwith (2007, 2009, etc.)
998065.indb8065.indb 149149 55/08/15/08/15 13:4013:40 150 ANDREW SHIMUNEK, CHRISTOPHER I. BECKWITH, ET AL.
NOM nominative case BOODBERG, Peter A. 1936. The language of the T’o-pa Wei. OChi Old Chinese Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1(2): 167-185. OTrk Old Turkic CH’EN TSUNG-CHEN 陳宗振 2004. Hsi-pu Yü-ku-yü yen-chiu 西 PLK Pei Lu K’ao (ch. 227 of Mao Yüan-i 1989) 部裕固語研究 [A Study of West Yogur]. Peking: Chung- PTrk Proto-Turkic kuo min-tsu she-ying i-shu ch’u-pan-she 中國民族攝影藝 Pul. Pulleyblank 1991 術出版社. Sag. Sagart 1999 COBLIN, W. South 1995. Two notes on the London Long Scroll. Sch. Schuessler 1987 Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Sta. Starostin 1989 University of London 58(1): 104-108. Tak. Takata 1988 CSONGOR, B. 1952. Chinese in the Uighur script of the T’ang TEMP temporal marker period. AOH 2: 73-121. WMgl Written Mongol —, 1954. Some more Chinese glosses in Uighur script. AOH [ ] phonetic transcription, including those in Chinese and 4: 251-257. other foreign scripts —, 1960. Some Chinese texts in Tibetan script from Tun-huang. / / phonemic transcription AOH 10: 97-140. * reconstruction based on mainstream historical-compar- —, 1962. Chinese glosses in Uighur texts written in Brahmi. ative linguistic methods AOH 15: 49-53. ✩ reconstruction based on traditional Chinese 反切 fan- DOERFER, Gerhard & Semih Tezcan 1980. Wörterbuch des ch’ieh spellings or rhymes46 Chaladsch (Dialekt von Charrab). Bibliotheca Orientalis - morpheme boundary Hungarica, 26. Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó. < language-internal change DTS = Наделяев, В. М., Д. М. Насилов, Е. Р. Тенишев, ← loanword or borrowing between different languages А. М. Щербак 1969. Древнетюрский словарь. (directionality known) Ленинград: Наука. ↔ loanword or borrowing between different languages Dybo = Дыбо, А.В. 2007. Лингвистические контакты (directionality unknown) ранних тюрков: Лексический фонд. Москва: Восточная / separates two or more equally plausible forms (in recon- литература. structions) ERDAL, Marcel 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill. ~ variation between two or more wordforms (free or FANG Hsüan-ling 房玄齡 1974. Chin Shu 晉書. Peking: Chung- conditioned variation) hua Shu-chü 中華書局. VON GABAIN, Annemarie 1950. Louis Bazin: Un texte proto- e References turc du IV siècle. Der Islam 29: 244-246. JOHANSON, Lars & Éva Á. CSATÓ (eds.) 2006. The Turkic Lan- BAXTER, William H. 1992. A Handbook of Old Chinese Phono- guages. New York: Routledge. logy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. JOHANSON, Lars 2006. The history of Turkic. In: Johanson & BAZIN, Louis 1948. Un texte proto-turc du IVe siècle. Oriens Csató. pp. 81-125. 1(2): 208-219. JSPS = The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 2008. BECKWITH, Christopher I. 2002. Review of The Roots of Old The Muqaddimat al-Adab: A Facsimile Reproduction of the Chinese by Laurent Sagart. In: Anthropological Linguistics, Quadrilingual Manuscript (Arabic, Persian, Chagatay and Vol. 44, No. 2 (Summer 2002). pp. 207-215. Mongol). Tokyo: The Alisher Navoi State Museum of Lite- —, 2007. Koguryo, the Language of Japan’s Continental Rela- rature and The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. tives: An Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study KRUEGER, John R. 1962. The earliest Turkic poem. Journal of of the Japanese-Koguryoic Languages, with a Preliminary the American Oriental Society 82(4): 557. Description of Archaic Northeastern Middle Chinese. KURIBAYASHI Hitoshi 栗林均 2003. “Ka-i yakugo” (kōshubon) Revised Second Edition. Leiden: Brill. First Edition, 2004. Mongorugo zen tango, gobi sakuin 「華夷訳語」(甲種本) —, 2008. Old Chinese loanwords in Tibetan and the non-unique- モンゴル語全単語·語尾索引. Sendai 仙台: Tōhoku ness of ‘Sino-Tibetan’. In: C.I. Beckwith, ed., Medieval Daigaku Tōhoku Ajia Kenkyū Sentā 東北大学東北アジ Tibeto-Burman Languages III. Halle: IITBS GmbH, 161- ア研究センター. 201. —, 2009. “Genchō hishi” Mongorugo Kanjion’yaku, bōyaku —, 2009. Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia Kango taishō goi 「元朝秘史」モンゴル語 漢字音訳· from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton: Princeton 傍訳漢語対照語彙. Sendai 仙台: Tōhoku Daigaku Tōhoku University Press. Ajia Kenkyū Sentā 東北大学東北アジア研究センター. —, 2011. Huns and Turks. Paper presented at the Central Eura- LA VAISSIÈRE, Étienne de 2005a. Huns et Xiongnu. Central Asia- sian Colloquium, Indiana University, on March 30, 2011. tic Journal 49(1): 3-26. Audio file available from the IAUNRC website:
998065.indb8065.indb 150150 55/08/15/08/15 13:4013:40 THE EARLIEST ATTESTED TURKIC LANGUAGE 151
MALISTANI, Tariq 1993. Farhang-i ibtidā’ī-i millī-i hazārah: STAROSTIN = Старостин, Сергей А. 1989. Реконструкция bi-inzimām-i tarjamah bih fārsī-i ingilīsī / Hazaragi-Dari/ древнекитайской фонологической системы. Mos- Farsi-English: A Preliminary Glossary. Quetta. cow: Nauka. MAO Yüan-i 茅元儀 1989. Wu Pei Chih 武備志. Chung-kuo TAKATA TOKIO 高田時雄 1988. Tonkō shiryō ni yoru Chūgo- ping-shu chi-ch’eng 中國兵書集成, 27-36. Peking: Chieh- kugoshi no kenkyū 敦煌資料による中国語史の研究. fang-chün ch’u-pan-she 解放軍出版社 [originally published Tōkyō: Sōbunsha. in the early or mid-17th century]. —, 高田時雄 1993. Chibetto moji shosha Chōkan no kenkyū ONENKO = Оненко, С. Н. 1980. Нанайско-русский словарь / (honbunhen) チベット文字書寫「長巻」の研究(本文編). Нанай-лоча хэсэнкуни. Москва: Издательство Tōhō Gakuhō 東方學報 65: 380-313. “Русский язык”. TAKEUCHI YASUNORI 武内康則 2008. Burāhumī moshi de PELLIOT, Paul 1914. Les noms propres dans les traductions onchō wo fushita kanbun kyōten ni tsuite: Hokudai D020 chinoises du Milindapañha. Journal Asiatique, ser. II, 4: Kongōhannyaharamitsukyō ブラーフミー文字で音注を 379-419. 附した漢文経典について : 北大 D020『金剛般若波羅 —, 1915. Quelques transcriptions chinoises de noms tibétains. 蜜経』. Kyōto Daigaku Gengogaku Kenkyū 京都大学言 T’oung Pao, Second Series, 16(1): 1-26. 語学研究 27: 169-188. PULLEYBLANK, Edwin G. 1962a. The consonantal system of Old T’AN CH’I-HSIANG 譚其驤 1987. Chieh K’ao 羯考. In: Ch’ang- Chinese (Part I). Asia Major, New Series, 9(1): 58-144. shui-chi 長水集. Peking: Jen-min ch’u-pan-she 人民出版 —, 1962b. The consonantal system of Old Chinese (Part II). 社. pp. 224-244. Asia Major, New Series, 9(2): 206-265. TEKIN, Talât 1993. Hunların dili. Ankara: Doruk Yayınları. —, 1984. Middle Chinese: A Study in Historical Phonology. —, 1977. Ön Türkçede ünsüz yitimi. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Yıllığı 1977: 35-51. —, 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early —, 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Uralic and Altaic Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Series, Vol. 69. Bloomington: Indiana University. Vancouver: UBC Press. TSINTSIUS et al. = Цинциус, В. И. 1975. Сравнительный RAMSTEDT, G. J. 1922. Zur Frage nach der Stellung des словарь тунгусо-маньчжурских языков: Материалы Tschuwassischen. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne к этимологическому словарю. Том I-II. Москва: 38: 1-34. Издательство “Наука”. RASSADIN = Рассадин, В. И. 1971. Фонетика и лексика TSINTSIUS = Цинциус, В. И. 1982. Негидальский язык. тофаларского языка. Улан-Удэ: Бурятское книжное Ленинград: “Наука”. издательство. VASILEVICH = Василевич, Г. М. 1958. Эвенкийско-русский RÓNA-TAS, András. 2006. The reconstruction of Proto-Turkic словарь. Москва: Государственное издательство and the genetic question. In: Johanson & Csató, pp. 67-80. иностранных и национальных словарей. ROZYCKI, William 1994a. Primary *h- in Mongol: The evidence VLADIMIRTSOV & SAMOILOVICH = Б. Владимiрцовъ, А. considered. Central Asiatic Journal 38: 71-79. Самойловичъ 1916. Турецкiй народецъ хотоны. —, 1994b. Mongol Elements in Manchu. Indiana University Ura- Посвящается Г. Н. Потанину. Записки Вост. Отдел. lic and Altaic Series, Volume 157. Bloomington: Indiana Имп. Русс. Арх. Общ. 265-290. University Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies. VOVIN, Alexander 2000. Did the Xiong-nu speak a Yeniseian SAFIULLINA = Сафиуллина, Ф. С. 2002. Карманный Татарско- language? Central Asiatic Journal 44(1): 87-104. Русский и Русско-Татарский Словарь. Казань: Тарих. WARIKOO, K. and SHARAD K. Soni (eds.) 2010. Mongolia in the SAGART, Laurent 1999. The Roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam: 21st Century: Society, Culture and International Rela- John Benjamins. tions. New Delhi: Pentagon Press. SCHUESSLER, Axel 1987. A Dictionary of Early Zhou Chinese. WASHINGTON, Jonathan North 2011. Phonological unfaith- Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. fulness of Turkic /n/ in initial position. 12th Annual Confe- SHIRATORI, K. 1902. Über die Sprache der Hiungnu und der rence of the Central Eurasian Studies Society. September Tunghu-Stämme. Извѣстія императорской академіи 15-18, 2011, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. наукъ 17(2): 1-33. Presentation handout. SHIMUNEK, Andrew E. 2013. The Serbi-Mongolic Language WITTFOGEL, Karl A. and FÊNG Chia-shêng 1946. History of Family: Old Chinese, Middle Chinese, Old Mandarin, Chinese Society: Liao (907-1125). Transactions of the and Old Tibetan Records on the Hsien-pei (Xianbei) Lan- American Philosophical Society, New Series 36. Philadel- guages and their Relationship to Mongolic, with Notes on phia. Chinese and Old Tibetan Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation. WRIGHT, A. F. 1948. Fo-t’u-teng: A biography. Harvard Journal Indiana University, Department of Linguistics and Depart- of Asiatic Studies 11(3/4): 321-371. ment of Central Eurasian Studies. YUDAKHIN = Юдахин, К. К. 1985. Киргизско-русский —, 2010. Mongolic elements in the Hazaragi language of словарь / Кыргызча-орусча сөздүк. Фрунзе: Главная Afghanistan and their value for reconstructing western редакция киргизской советской энциклопедии. Middle Mongol. In: Warikoo & Soni, pp. 29-45. ZHENGZHANG SHANGFANG 1991. Decipherment of Yue-Ren-Ge SINOR, Denis 1990. The Hun period. In: Denis Sinor, ed., The (Song of the Yue boatman). Cahiers de linguistique Asie Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Cambridge: Cam- Orientale 2: 159-168. bridge University Press, 177-205.
998065.indb8065.indb 151151 55/08/15/08/15 13:4013:40