No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Uigurica from dunhuang
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
Since the early years of this century, there has been a steady flow of publications containing editions of Uigur texts found in the Turfan region and brought to Germany. Not so the Uigur MSS of Dunhuang, which are kept in London and Paris. A good start was made by Le Coq, Thomsen and Pelliot in 1911–1914. Twenty years later, Bang, Gabain and Rachmati published the ‘Sūtra of Eight Heaps’. Another forty years were to elapse before the appearance of further material. Moriyasu mentions hundreds of MSS found in the cave which was given the number 181. There have, on the other hand, been multiple editions: The ‘ Story of the Two Princes’ was edited three times; recently, an Uigur text in Tibetan script was published—twice.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 251 - 257
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1988
References
1 Bang, W., von Gabain, A. and Rachmati, G. R., ‘Das buddhistische Sūtra Säkiz yükmäk (= Türkische Turfantexte, VI)’. Sitzungsberichte der Preuβischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1934: 93–192.Google Scholar
2 Zieme, P. and Kara, G., Ein uigurisches Totenbuch, Budapest, 1978Google Scholar; Tekin, Ş., Buddhistische Uigurica aus der Yüan-Zeit, Budapest, 1980.Google Scholar
3 Moriyasu, T. ‘ Uigurugo bunken (Uigurica from Tun-huang)’, Kōza Tonkō, 6, 1985, 3–98.Google ScholarA few of the MSS are published there, but the vast majority are just mentioned. An edition of the rather extensive Abhidharma-kośa-bhāsya-tīkā-tattvārtha-nāma is being prepared by Kōgi Kudara.Google Scholar
4 First by Huart, , then by Pelliot, , and most recently by James, Hamilton: Le Conte bouddhique du Bon et du Mauvais Prince en version ouïgoure, Manuscrits ouïgours de Touen-houang, Mission Paul Pelliot, Documents conservés a la Bibliothéque Nationale, iii, Paris, 1971.Google Scholar
5 Maue, D. and Röhrborn, K., ‘Ein “buddhistischer Katechismus” in alttiirkischer Sprache und tibetischer Schrift’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, 134, 1984, 286–313 and 135, 1985, 68–91Google Scholar; Moriyasu, T., ‘Etude sur un catechisme bouddhique ouigour en ecriture tibetaine (P.t. 1292)’, Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters, Osaka University, xxv, 1985, 1–85.Google Scholar
6 Hamilton, J. (ed.), Manuscrits ouigours du IXe–Xe siecle de Touen-houang, 352 pp. + map, Paris, Peeters, 1986. BFr. 2800.Google Scholar
7 With some unwarranted ‘normalizations’: yarhka- appears here as yarhgka-, presumably because it was a + kA- derivate from yarlig. yokaru *yok+garu becomes yokkaru in this book; I would write bodisavt or bodisivt but not bodisavat.Google Scholar
8 Mentioned in n. 4. The lexicon of this text is not merely repeated here, but corrected as well: see e.g. the lemmata är, ätiz-, itür-, uβiat- and batatu.Google Scholar
9 Erdal, M., ‘The chronological classification of Old Turkic texts’, Central Asiatic Journal, XXIII, 1979, 164–5.Google Scholar
10 Kudara, K., ‘ Guan Jing—critique of a Uigur fragment of the Guan wu-liang-shou jing’, Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū, 35, 1979, 33–56Google Scholar; Zieme, P., ‘A new fragment of the Uigur Guanwuliangshoujing’, Ryūkoku Daigaku Bukkyūbunka kenkyūshū, kiyo 20, 1982,20–9Google Scholar; Temir, A., Kudara, K. and Rohrborn, K., ‘ Die alttiirkischen Abitaki-Fragmente des Etnografya Miizesi, Ankara, Turcica, xvi, 1984, 13–28 + V pis.Google Scholar; Sertkaya, O. and Rohrborn, K., ‘ Bruchstiicke der altturkischen Amitābha- Literatur aus Istanbul’, UAJb, N.F., 4, 1984, 97–117Google Scholar; Zieme, P. and Kudara, K., Uigurugo no kanmuryojukyū (Guanwuliangshoujing in Uigur), Kyūto, 1985.Google Scholar
11 ‘Uigurische Sukhāvatīvyūha-Fragmente’, AoF, 12, 1985, 129–49.Google Scholar
12 No. 360 in the tripifaka of Taishō, vol. XII, 265c ff.Google Scholar
13 Sertkaya, O. F., ‘Eski Türk atasözleri üzerine’, Elfin Armağam, Ankara, 1983,284Google Scholar, quotes the same proverb from Republican Turkish.Google Scholar
14 We quote the brilliant translation of Robert, Dankoff, Wisdom of royal glory, Chicago, 1983.Google Scholar
15 Or: ‘ whatever was his due’, if we read al-gu+sm instead of alkosin, Hamilton‘s ‘alqusin’Google Scholar
16 Actually, the editor writes βam, this β corresponding to v in the work of others. I have tacitly transposed all quoted transcriptions to my (equivalent) mode.Google Scholar
17 The graphemes wv often appear to represent back vowels in these texts. In any case, the editor's interpretation also demands the word to have posterior vowels.Google Scholar
18 In Mongolian (as in Russian and German), words written with final voiced consonants are in fact realized with voiceless finals. This is true also of tunγaγ, discussed above.Google Scholar
19 For these latter uses, cf. Mundy, C. S., ‘Evet, evet ki and geyise’, pp. 118 f. in Studia Altaica (Festschrift Poppe), Wiesbaden, 1957.Google Scholar‘Yes’ appears to have been absent from Proto-Indo- European and Proto-Semitic as well. In a letter dated 13 March 1987, Dr. Sims-Williams has reminded me of’ the Sogdian word for “yes”, attested in Christian texts as dp't [δāpāt], which Henning, BSOAS, XXVIII, 2, 1965, p. 253, n. 72, tentatively analysed as δ- “with” + “p't “bravo!”.‘ While d ‘p’ t has the same meaning as Ottoman dvdt etc., the phonetics of borrowing into Turkic would be far from clear in this case: a change of #δ> #y may have taken place in Proto- Turkic (the river Δàïξ, in Turkic yayik; yog’ funeral feast’ appearing as Soyia in Byzantine sources; Mongolian comparative evidence) but is excluded within Orkhon and Uigur Turkic, not to speak of further development to θ. What “p't itself would have become (and signified) in Uigur is a different question. All this demands further elucidation.+#y+may+have+taken+place+in+Proto-+Turkic+(the+river+Δàïξ,+in+Turkic+yayik;+yog’+funeral+feast’+appearing+as+Soyia+in+Byzantine+sources;+Mongolian+comparative+evidence)+but+is+excluded+within+Orkhon+and+Uigur+Turkic,+not+to+speak+of+further+development+to+θ.+What+“p't+itself+would+have+become+(and+signified)+in+Uigur+is+a+different+question.+All+this+demands+further+elucidation.>Google Scholar
20 Altorientalische Forschungen, VII, 1980, 197–245, 12 pl.Google Scholar
21 This text also writes /rj/ with the character K: Cf. busanmanlar written as PWS'NMKL'R in line 5.Google Scholar