No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Words gain suddenly in importance when used to sustain otherwise fragile historical theories. Since historians of Central Asia are all too often apt to ignore the most elementary rules of linguistics, an erroneous treatment of a word has more than once been made the basis for a not less erroneous historical hypothesis which, in its turn, is taken for granted by other historians, reluctant if not unable to ascertain the validity of the initial statement. To give some substance to this assertion, and also to check the spread, before it is too late, of a new false etymology, I should like to study a hitherto harmless word that has suddenly assumed undue importance through some of F. Altheim's works.
page 174 note 1 Baden-Baden, 1951, p. 96.
page 174 note 2 Daa Auftreten der Hunnen in Europa (Ada Archæohgica Ac. Sc. Hungaricæ, ii, 1952, 269–276), p. 270.
page 174 note 3 ibid., p. 272.
page 175 note 1 Cf. Moravcsik, Gyula, Byzantinoturoica I–II (Budapest, 1942–1943), ii, pp. 279–280Google Scholar.
page 175 note 2 (Frankfurt am Main 1951?), pp. 66–84: Oswald Szemerényi, Südwestiranische Lehnwörter im Ungarischen und Tükischen.
page 175 note 3 A propos de la biographic ouigoure de Hiuan-tsang (JA. 1939, ii, 543–590), p. 547.
page 175 note 4 ZDMG. 82, 1928, p. xcv.
page 176 note 1 Byzantinoturcica, ii, p. 140.
page 176 note 2 ibid., p. 141.
page 176 note 3 ibid., p. 107.
page 176 note 4 Kultur- und sprachgeschichtliche Analekten (Ungarische Jahrbücher, ix 1929, 68–103), pp. 84–5.
page 176 note 5 Stammesnamen, Die petschenegischen (Ungarische Jahrbücher, x, 1930, 27–34), p. 29Google Scholar.
page 176 note 6 der Petsohenegen, Zur Kenntnis (Ko″rōsi Csoma Archivum i, 3, 1922, 219–225), p. 224Google Scholar.
page 176 note 7 és magyarok, Besenyők (Kőrōsi Csoma Archivum, 1939, 397–500), pp. 443–4Google Scholar.
page 176 note 8 JA. 1920, i, p. 25.
page 177 note 1 Studies in Korean Etymology (MSFOu. xcv, 1949), p. 95.
page 177 note 2 A magyarok eredete (Budapest 1882), p. 173. Vámbéry omitted, as usual, to give exact references; but he surely had in mind verbs like Osmanli kopmak “break out, begin (of any violent commotion or natural disturbance)” or kapmak “to snatch, to seize” (Hony-Iz).
page 177 note 3 Etymological Notes on Some Päčänäg Names (Byzantion, xvii, 1944–5,256–280), pp. 263–4.
page 177 note 4 Byzantinoturcica, ii, p. 145. See also Menges, K. H., Altaic Elements in the Proto-Bulgarian Inscriptions (Byzantion xxi, 1951, 85–118), pp. 92–3Google Scholar.
page 178 note 1 See below, p. 183.
page 178 note 2 Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme (München, 1837), p. 741Google Scholar.
page 178 note 3 Die Chronologie der alttürkischen Inschriften (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 109–110Google Scholar.
page 178 note 4 A pannóniai avarok nyelvćröl (Magyar Nyelv, xii, 1916, 97–102).
page 178 note 5 p. 100. Annales Xantenses ad.a.805, MGH.SS.ii p. 224.
page 178 note 6 Die alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Zweite Folge. (St. Pétersbourg, 1899), p. 93 et passim.
page 178 note 7 Alttürkische Inschriften der Mongolei (ZDMG. 78, 1924, 121–174), pp. 169, 170, 172.
page 178 note 8 Eski türk yazitlari I (Istanbul, 1936), pp. 116, 118, 120.
page 178 note 9 Pamjatniki drevnetjurkskoj pis'mennosti (Moskva-Leningrad, 1951), p. 64.
page 178 note 10 Chronologie, p. 40.
page 179 note 1 Vol. ii, p. 22. I have used the beautiful facsimile re-edition published by the Harvard Yenching Institute, Scripta Mongolia, i.
page 179 note 2 A honfoglaló magyarság kialakulása (Budapest, 1930), pp. 44–48Google Scholar.
page 179 note 3 Studies in Korean Etymology, p. 95.
page 180 note 1 See Brockelmann, Carl, Osttürkische Grammatik der islamischen Litteratursprachen Mittelasiens, i (Leiden, 1951), pp. 44–45Google Scholar.
page 180 note 2 Das Auftreten der Hunnen in Europa, p. 270.
page 180 note 3 Alttürkische Grammatik (Leipzig, 1941), p. 51Google Scholar.
page 180 note 4 op. cit., p. xcv.
page 180 note 5 op. cit., p. 83.
page 181 note 1 Alte türkisehe und mongolische Titel (JSFOu. lv, 1951, 2, 59–82), pp. 65–66. (Written in 1939.) The same etymology is repeated in Studies . . . p. 95.
page 181 note 2 Cf. A propos de la biographie ouigoure de Hiuan-tsang, p. 578.
page 181 note 3 Clearly the discovery by Altaists of the use of Chinese (-European) dictionaries and of the admirable reconstructions of Karlgren, have wrought havoc in Altaic linguistics. No Altaic word, not even a suffix, is safe from a sudden Chinese etymology, by which it is equated with some monosyllable or even with some compound diligently made out of two words found in a dictionary. One of the latest gems of this method is the equation (Studia Orientalia xvii, 1952, 7, p. 178) of the Turko-Mongol plural -lar, -nar (?) with Chinese 
K: *liät. (!) Why not derive then the English (?) plural -s from Chinese 
K: * śi “multitude, all” ? Quo usque tandem ?
page 181 note 4 Stammesnamen und Volker, Titulaturen der Altaischen (Ural-Altaische Jahrbileher, xxiv, 1–2, 1952, 49–104), p. 89Google Scholar.
page 181 note 5 A propos… p. 547.
page 182 note 1 Tängrim > tärim (TP. xxxvii, 5, 1944, 165–185), pp. 180–4.
page 183 note 1 As Pelliot dealt fully with previous attempts to explain teb-tengri, there is no need to take up the question again.
page 183 note 2 Pertz, MGH.SS.I. p. 192.
page 183 note 3 “Huns” in this text represents “Avars”.
page 183 note 4 A town in Pannonia, to-day Szombathely.
page 183 note 5 A town in Pannonia, on the right bank of the Danube.
page 184 note 1 A propos . . . p. 551.