Turcologists will all be extremely grateful to Mr. Sinor for his paper on Qapqan in JRAS., Pts. 3 and 4, 1954. It is most important that “delousing” operations of this kind should be performed before delusions get too firm a grip on the public mind. With his general thesis that the word is purely Turkish and not Iranian I wholeheartedly agree, but, with respect, I do not agree with his suggested etymology, and I should be grateful for an opportunity to make some supplementary observations.
page 74 note 1 See N.Y. Bichurin's Sobranie Svedeniy o Narodakh obitavshikh v Sredney Azii v drevnie vremena, p. 221 of the 1951 reprint.
page 75 note 1 I, 102, of the printed text, I, 111, of Atalay's translation.
page 75 note 2 III, 306, of the printed text, III, 416, of Atalay's translation.
page 75 note 3 Bang and Raohmati, Die Legende von Oghuz Qaghan, p. 19.
page 75 note 4 Rashid-ad-Din, Sbornik Letopisey; Moscow-Leningrad, 1952.
page 75 note 5 It is doubtful whether uḏ-, as an ordinary verb, was current in the Uyğur dialect; the only certain occurrences are of the Gerund uḏu, used as a conjunction meaning “thereafter, thereupon”.
page 76 note 1 I, 292–4, of the printed text, I, 350–3, of Atalay's translation.