No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
Of all the literary languages of Asia, the one to which in this country least attention has been paid is perhaps the language of the Mongols. No grammar or dictionary of any importance has ever been compiled in English; the study of the Mongolian language has in fact been almost monopolized by Russian and Scandinavian scholars, although some valuable contributions to the same cause have been made also by French, German, and Japanese scholars, published, however, in their own languages.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , February 1928 , pp. 689 - 702
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1928
References
page 689 note 1 O. 
1836.
page 689 note 2 Schmidt, I. J., Grammatik der mongolischen Sprache, St. Petersburg, 1831.Google Scholar
page 689 note 3 O. 
1835.
page 689 note 4 Ramstedt, G. J., “Das Schriftmongolische und die Urgamundart,” § 18. Journal de la Sooiété Finno-ougrienne, xxi, 2. Helsingfors, 1902.Google Scholar
page 689 note 5 The relation between this system of transcription and the modern pronunciation in the eastern Khalkha dialect will be found throughout his paper “Das Schriftmongolische”.
page 690 note 1 In the Mongolian language words may be divided into two classes: front-vocalic words and back-voealic words. To the latter belong the words which contain one at least of the vowels, a, o, and u, and to the former all the remaining words. This is equivalent to saying that the front vowels e, ö, and ü, never appear with the back vowels a, O, and u, in the same word. The consonants q and g. are found only in the back-vocalic words.
The accent.—According to I. J. Schmidt the accent falls in general on the first syllable of a word of two or three syllables (Grammatik, §§ 26, 27). This theory has been opposed by J. S. Kowalewski (
, §§ 27, 28), A. Bobrovnikov (A. 
§§ 20, 21,22, 
1835), and others (Ramstedt, Das Schriftmongolische, § 59), who maintain that it is usually the last syllable of the word that carries the accent. This offers us a very interesting problem, particularly when we reflect upon Dr. Ramstedt's remark that there is hardly another language in which the first syllable is so strongly accented as present-day Eastern Mongolian (Das Schriftmongolische, § 59). With him M. Rudnev is in entire agreement (A. 
1903–4 
1, ctp. 23, 
1905; also 
§ 51, CTP. 197, 
1911).
While the first syllable seems to have always been accented as it is to-day, I would reserve this question of the accent as open to further study.
page 694 note 1 According to Dr. Ramstedt this imperative form is also used for a command given to more than one person (Ramstedt, G. J.: “Über die Konjugation des Khalkhamongolischen,” S. 61. Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne, xix. Helsjngfors, 1903).Google Scholar
page 695 note 1 For the final vowel of this word Kowalewski gives a, but I have here followed Schmidt and Dr. Ramstedt (Ramstedt, G. J., “Zur Verbstammbildungslehre der mongolisch-türkischen Sprachen,” S. 65. Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne, xxviii. Helsingfors, 1912).Google Scholar
page 695 note 2 This may be read über (Pelliot, Paul: “Les mots à H initiale, aujourd'hui amuie, dans le mongol des xiiie et xive siècles, p. 231. Journal Asiatique, tome ccvi, 2, avril-juin, 1925.Google Scholar Paris; also 
ctp. 117).
page 695 note 3 This may be read gemekü (Zur Verbstammbildungslehre, S. 32, 55).
page 696 note 1 Schmidt reads this word doratai. I have here followed Kowalewski.
page 696 note 2 Kowalewski reads the diphthong in this word 00, but Dr Bamstedt is in favour of OU (Das Schriftnwngolische, § 58).
page 698 note 1 This may be read übesüben.
page 699 note 1 No mention is made of this verb form either by Schmidt or by Kowalewski, but A. Bobrovnikov treats it, together with the -basu-form and several others, under the “subjunctive mood” (
§ 65, 5, ctp. 62). While giving it the name the “concessive gerund”, M. Rudnev is of opinion that one should not regard it as an individual and independent verb form (
ctp. 223), since it also appears in the unconnected form -ba (or -be) ču, which serves to show that the form in question is nothing other than the indicative preterite in -ba (or -be) followed by the particle čl. He also gives an example in which ču precedes the -ba-preterite (
, ctp. 49).
page 699 note 2 Following Kowalewski (
, ctp. 20) M. Rudnev reads this mün kü (
, ctp. 73), but Dr. Ramstedt prefers mön to mün (Ramstedt, G. J.: “Mogholica. Beiträge zur kenntnis der Moghol-sprache in Afghanistan,” S. 34. Journal de la Sociélé-Finno-ougrienne, xxiii, 4. Helsingfors, 1905).Google Scholar
page 699 note 3 The usual transliteration of this word is beye, but the form bei·e is here used to show how the word is written.
page 700 note 1 I do not agree with Kowalewski's interpretation of this phrase, viz. “onb 
from the garment (
dp. 259). This would make the word sine lose its force, for even an old coat, if kept in a scented box, would equally give out the odour of the scent.
page 700 note 2 Kowalewski reads this word togor-, but I have here followed Dr. Ramstedt (Zur Verbstammbildungslehre, S. 25, 69).
page 701 note 1 According to Kowalewski the first sentence ends with this word which he considers to mean 
it is said, they say (
ctp. 261), and rightly it should be so treated. But I venture to regard the word Sonustamui in the present context as a sort of gerund hanging on the following passage ker … sedki. An interesting observation by Dr. Ramstedt bearing on the -mui-ending will be found in his paper “Über die Konjugation”, pp. 76, 77.
page 701 note 2 The verb endings -yu (or -yü) and -ye (or -ye) (in the present transliteration -i·a (-i·e), see (20)) have been considered by most grammarians as independent forms, but Dr. Ramstedt feels inclined to treat them as one, under the name of “Voluntativ”, their primary meaning being that of the German auxiliary verb “sollen” (Über die Konjugation, S. 73).