Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T21:41:29.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Indo-Turcica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

H. W. Bailey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1904 Dr. H. Stönner published as an appendix to a paper on Zentralasiatische Sanskrittexte in Brāhmīschrift aus Idikutšahri, Chinesisch-Turkistān, i, a short description of a fragment of Turkish in Brāhmi script containing forty lines of text with a Chinese text on the recto side. Its interest and importance for Turkish is evident. We have here a fully vocalized fragment of Turkish. It is therefore somewhat unexpected not to find more use made of it, after the references of Professor F. W. K. Müller in Uigurica [i], 1908, in the many recent publications of Turfan texts. In a brief note, A Brāhmi Aksara, in the JRAS, 1936, 92–4, reference was made to this publication of Dr. Stönner owing to its interest for Iranian studies. Shortly after the publication of that note it was possible to reach clearer views. It had been, however, intended to await the complete publication of the fragment of forty lines. But, since inquiries have made it likely that the publication cannot be expected for a considerable time, and Iranian studies are affected, it has seemed profitable to publish a brief study of the fourteen lines (25–38) already available. They suffice to supplement and correct the earlier note.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , June 1937 , pp. 289 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 289 note 1 Sitzungsberichie der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, xliv, 1904.Google Scholar

page 289 note 2 There is now perhaps a possibility of Dialect A of the Tocharisehe Grammatilc being recognized as the language of the kingdom of Agni, see Pelliot, T'oung Pao, 1936, A propos du “tolcharien”, Sieg, SBAW, 1937, Und dennoch “Tocharisch”, Haloun, ZDMQ, 1937, 257.

page 289 note 3 The dash through the g in g is intended to range the aksara with the other new Brāhmī aksaras , etc.

page 290 note 1 Two unclear akijaras.

page 290 note 2 Added below the line.

page 290 note 3 A small blur before dhā, not an akgara.

page 291 note 1 kadeparāni = kalevarāni.

page 291 note 2 hi.

page 291 note 3 sahitau.

page 291 note 4 citāyām.

page 291 note 6 labdhvā.

page 291 note 6 -tād (Turkish renders by ablative).

page 291 note 7 vistīrna. I am indebted to M. de la Vallée Ponssin for the reading vetana.

page 291 note 8 -kād (Turkish renders by ablative).

page 291 note 9 tā for tu ?

page 291 note 10 Turkish renders by instrumental.

page 291 note 11 sutavat.

page 291 note 12 bhūsana.

page 297 note 1 g may have been fricative.

page 297 note 2 Thomsen, Samlede Skrifter, iii, 47, note 1, considered that both and were probably fricative.

page 298 note 1 In Iranian loanwords used also for Sogd. ‘moon’. Hence q was evidently not Von Le Coq gave two modified forms, SBAW 1909.

page 299 note 1 The value kk of this aksara has been adopted from its use in Sanskrit words, to avoid an interpreted transcription. It occurs in the Sanskrit word savitarkkam, Pischel, SBAW, 1905, Tafel x, 1. 4.

page 300 note 1 It is now clear that ha: represents Turkish fricative y, and initially also x, as shown by an (unpublished) Khotanese ha:ham:na, ha:ham:ni xayan, beside khaham:ni. The conjecture, BSOS, VIII, 918, that ha: might also represent q is wrong. For q, k is used. A renewed consideration of the word uha: has shown that it is actually, as first suggested BSOS, VIII, 884, note 5, a title.

page 301 note 1 If the Turks adopted g from another (presumably Iranian) language, it may have represented a there and have been adapted to their nearest equivalent in the palatal series.

page 301 note 2 Turkish g is interpreted by gy in Khot. digyirnna ‘tigin’.

page 301 note 3 The replacement of is perhaps part of a larger problem— which can only be treated adequately when all texts are available—of palatalization in later Khotanese, where we find ky-, py-, -ly-, sty- (see the published lists of Khotanese words). The Barčuq dialect seems to have reached a similar stage.

page 301 note 4 Henning has perhaps prematurely adopted the value velar y for g in ABAW, Ein manichäisches Set- und Beichtbuch, 58, note 2 (as earlier ZDMG, 90 (1936)), in comparing gi with Sogd. yy. It is better to compare first the more closely related Khotanese, which has ji.

page 302 note 1 We may see in this the name of a people, perhaps the Khoca of E 169 (maṃkuya rro īndā heinā khoca u huna cimgga supīya), with the suffix -ana, which appears also in su ana, if this is, as Henning has suggested, ZDMG, 90 (1936), 13, and as seems probable, ‘Sogdians’. It is evidently an oversight, apart from the g, to compare Turkish xayan. Chinese (Karlgren, 414 and 296) shows that the word did not have o. We know the word also in Tib. kha–gan (JRAS, 1927, 58), and, as noted above, in Khotanese khaham:ni with a. In Arabic script we have , and in script ) with the q used with a.

page 302 note 2 If it is desired to see in this word a Turkish word, the -trk'n of the Mahrnāmay 34 is comparable, if k is not a mistake for x (cf. 37), -if a form existed.