Th e animal names in the Book of Leviticus of the Gözleve Bible (1841). Part II: Bird species

Th is paper is a continuation of a previous study that presented the names of mammal, insect, and reptile species appearing in the Book of Leviticus of the so-called Gözleve Bible. Th e present study aims to survey the rest of the animal names in the corpus, representing bird species. Th e translation shows a mixed vocabulary and therefore the distribution of the Kipchak, Oghuzic, and non-Turkic elements will be compared with their equivalents in some of the other books of the Gözleve Bible, a recently published critical edition of another Crimean Karaim Bible, and some Ottoman Turkish Bible translations.


PRELIMINARY REMARKS
This article is a continuation of Işık (2020), in which some animal names (denoting mammal, insect, and reptile species) that appear in the Book of Leviticus 1 (hereinafter referred to as Lev) of the Gözleve Bible (hereinafter referred to as Göz. 1841) were presented and compared to the Lev of the recently published critical edition of another Crimean Karaim Bible translation (hereinafter referred to as CrKB). In the Lev of the Göz. 1841, there are altogether 58 different animal names referring to mammals (20), insects (4), reptiles (5), birds (23), and the main group names of animals (6). In my previous study, 29 of 58 animal names were investigated. In this paper, 23 words that denote the bird species will be presented and compared to the Lev of CrKB.
As I mentioned in my previous study (Işık 2020: 145-146), the so-called Göz. 1841 is a complete translation of the Tanakh (without the Chronicles) into Karaim, which was printed in four volumes in Gözleve (present-day Eupatoria) in 1841 (Jankowski 2018: 51). The language of this edition was modernised by its editors to adapt it to Turkish and therefore includes mixed characteristics (CrKB I: XX). Recently, the language of this edition was discussed by certain scholars (e.g. Shapira 2003, 2013, Németh 2015, Olach 2016, Işık 2018. However, it is difficult to reach an unambiguous conclusion based on specific parts of the Göz. 1841, since the language of the whole edition is not homogenous. Nonetheless, it is possible to say that the Lev of the Göz. 1841 presents Crimean Kipchak Karaim and Crimean Turkish Karaim features 2 , and therefore shows mixed Kipchak and Oghuzic characteristics 3 . On the other hand, the principal manuscript for the CrKB translation comprises volume I and volume IV of BSMS 288, which is preserved in the Cambridge University Library in four volumes. Similar to the Göz. 1841, this manuscript contains the complete Tanakh without the Chronicles. Note that the Göz. 1841 (in the CrKB edition) was also used for some unavailable or unclear fragments of BSMS 288 since scholars opined that the general linguistic form of these translations is similar (CrKB I: XX). At the same time, the CrKB includes some other manuscripts, e.g. H 170 (Gaster) and B 282, as well as some short fragments, e.g. JSul. III.02,Baxč. 116,Evr I 143,Evr I 144,Or. Ms. 169 4 . For this article, the related examples of the Lev were taken from CrKB I: 165-217.
The present study will use similar sources to those used in the previous paper to describe the data and demonstrate the existing Oghuzic-Kipchak contrasts 5 , although here, two Ottoman Turkish Bible translations 6 will also be used to present the significant similarities that occur between Chapter 11 of the Lev translations of the Ottoman Bible translations and the Göz. 1841. 7 1 In this paper, some relevant examples from the other Books of the Göz. 1841 are also presented. However, this comparison comprises only the translation of the Pentateuch (Torah) of the Göz. 1841, as was the case with the previous paper. 2 For a description regarding the features of these dialects, see Jankowski 2015: 202-205 and for the debates on the existence of Crimean Karaim, see Jankowski 2015: 202-204, Németh 2016: 209-211, Shapira 2003 As for the distribution of these characteristics, see Işık 2018: 74. 4 The further details on the manuscripts/short fragments that were used for the Lev of the CrKB are present in the Appendix. For descriptions of the aforementioned other manuscripts and short fragments, see CrKB I: XVI-XX. 5 It is worth repeating that the examples of English and Russian Bible translations were collected from software called 'Bible Works 9' . In addition, a website (www.biblehub.com) was also very helpful in terms of viewing 29 different English Bible translations for the relevant parts of the Hebrew Bible. 6 The transcription of the forms in the Ottoman Turkish Bibles was performed by the author. 7 This comparison was not present in the previous study. For the new results from the previous data, see 3.2. One of these Ottoman Turkish Bible translations was made by Ali Bey (also known as Ali Ufkî and Wojciech Bobowski) between 1662-1664 in Istanbul. The so-called secretarial/fair copy was printed in Leiden in 1665. Although this translation was not the first translation of the Bible into Turkish, it is considered the first translation that contains the entire Bible including the Old Testament (together with Apocrypha) and the New Testament (Pawlina 2006: 34). The draft and the secretarial copies are preserved in Leiden 8 , while another fair copy together with some corrections made by Şahin ibn Kandi is preserved in Amsterdam 9 . Ali Bey's translation (hereinafter referred to as Ali Bey 1665) has been revised many times through the years (see Privratsky 2014: 22-50). One of the first attempts was made by Baron H. F. von Diez, who was assigned to lead a project by the British Bible Society in 1814. After his death in 1817, Jean Daniel Kieffer joined the project. In 1819, the translation of the New Testament was published. Later, Kieffer included the first four books of Ali Bey's Pentateuch, which had been edited by Baron H. F. von Diez, together with a revised version of the 1819 New Testament translation in his 1827 Bible edition 10 (hereinafter referred to as Kieffer 1827) in two volumes 11 (Privratsky 2014: 44).

BIRD SPECIES
In the Tanakh, the Lev specifically describes which animals are clean or unclean to eat and/or sacrifice 12 . In the Lev of the Göz. 1841, there are altogether 23 different bird names. However, with the exception of ḳumru 'turtle-dove' , and kögürčin/gögürčün 'pigeon' , all of the words occur only once throughout the book. Besides this, except for ḳumru and tor 'turtle-dove' and ḳartal and ḳaraḳuš 'eagle' , all the examples are the only words for the relevant bird species. On the other hand, the Lev of the CrKB does not show any synonyms for bird names, and therefore it presents only 21 different words. Another important point is that, except for aya 'hawk' (see 2.7.), which occurs in the Lev of the CrKB, the bird names that are identical/similar to the Biblical Hebrew forms 13 in the Lev of these two Karaim Bible translations were not attested in the most common Karaim dictionaries. Thus, such unlisted Biblical Hebrew forms will be treated as untranslated words 14 , as was the case in the previous study. Below, all the words discussed will be listed according to their occurrence in the Lev.  ' (CEDHL: 256,LVTL: 374). According to Clauson (EDPT: 671), the word kögürčgün means 'pigeon; dove' and probably goes back to the word kök 'sky' with the meaning 'grey bird' , whereas Róna-Tas (WOT I: 546-547) remarks that the word kögürčgün is probably a denominal form from kögär-/kögür-'to turn blue/grey' (cf. ESTJa 3: 58-59) with the suffix -čUk (cf. OTWP I: 357) and +gAn (cf. OTWP I: 83), and thus it is *kögürčükgän > kögürčügän > kögürčgän > kögürčän > kögärčän. However, the word kögürčgün has been attested since the 7 th century with different phonological changes in many Turkic sources, e.g. DLT III: 419 kökürçkün, CC: 157 kügürčin 'pigeon' , and Turkic languages. In the Lev of the Göz 1841, these slightly contrasting forms also show one of the main phonological differences between the Oghuzic and Kipchak languages, as the voicing of the initial plosive k->goccurs in the Oghuzic languages and also in Crimean Tatar for some words, e.g. Tur. 15 güvercin, Az. göyärčin, Trk. gögerčin, CrTat. gögerğin 'pigeon' , whereas the unvoiced initial plosive kis preserved in the Kipchak languages (TTL: 100), e.g. Kaz. kögeršin,Kir. kögüčkön,Tat. kügärčän,'pigeon' (DTMK: 113,EDPT: 713,L: 174,KEWTS: 165). In the Lev of the CrKB, the word was translated as kögürčün throughout the Book. It is worth noting that only the examples that show the Kipchak phonological characteristic (kögürčin, kögürčün) were listed in the Karaim dictionaries (CKED: 216, KRPS: 336). In conclusion, both of the Karaim translations present the Turkic words for this bird species. Nevertheless, the Lev of the Göz. 1841 demonstrates both Kipchak-Oghuzic counterparts 16 together, unlike the Lev of the CrKB. 14 Some of the animal names in the Hebrew Bible are still disputed, which therefore has caused certain problems in the Bible translations. First of all, some of the Biblical Hebrew words are not present in modern Hebrew and their definitions have remained uncertain, which might be related to the folk taxonomy of the ancient Hebrews (for further details, see Cansdale 1970, Ferguson 1974. Moreover, certain words are also hapax legomena, which causes difficulties in analysing the forms. Thus, some different preferences regarding the uncertain identification of animal names have also been followed in different Bible translations (see, e.g. some possible influence regarding names of certain animals between the Slavonic-Russian Pentateuch from the 15 th century and the Turkic [Western Kipchak] Targum of the Torah was discussed in Griščenko 2017a, 2017b). 15 It should be noted that the word gögürčin had been preserved in Ottoman Turkish (RTD I:
Finally, it should be noted that apart from Lev 11:13, the same Biblical word appears only in Deut 14:12 in the entire Hebrew Bible. However, in Deut 14:12 of the Göz. 1841, the word has remained untranslated as ‫ס‬ ‫ֶרֶ‬ ‫פ‬ [peres], unlike the example from Lev 11:13 of the Göz. 1841.

deŋiz ḳartalï
In the whole of the Lev of the Göz. 1841, there is one example (11:13) of the word ‫י‬ ‫לִ‬ ‫טַ‬ ְ ‫ר‬ ַ ‫ק‬ ‫יז‬ ‫גִ‬ ֵ ‫ד‬ [deŋiz ḳartalï] (lit. 'sea eagle 24 '), which denotes the Biblical Hebrew ‫ה‬ ‫יָּ‬ ‫נִ‬ ‫זְ‬ ‫ﬠָ‬ [ʿoznîyâ], that probably stands for 'black vulture' (aegypius monachus) (CEDHL: 468, LVTL: 695). This compound noun was not listed in the Karaim dictionaries, whereas it was attested in Ottoman Turkish (TS II: 1080) 25 , and it is still preserved in Turkish as deniz kartalı (haliaeetus albicilla) (ÖTS 2: 1160). Moreover, the Turkic word was also present in the Ottoman Turkish translations, e.g. Ali Bey 1665 23 Due to the Hebrew writing system, the vowels i, ï, and o in the word might also be read with their front/back counterparts. 24 There exist some English Bible translations that translate this unclear word as 'sea-eagle' (e.g. BST, DBT), similar to the Lev of the Göz. 1841, whereas 'black vulture' (e.g. ESV, NLT), 'buzzard' (e.g. NASB, NKJV), 'osprey' (e.g. KJB, JB2000), and 'Egyptian vulture' (e.g. CSB) can also be attested. 25 According to the dictionary, one of the earliest occurrences of the word in the written sources was from Ahter-i Kebir, which was an Arabic-Ottoman Turkish dictionary written by Mustafa Ahteri in 1545 (see references). . If the following word, čaylak, could be considered an Ottoman Turkish word (see 2.7.) that also stands for 'kite' , then the word aḳ baba might also be accepted as a specific Ottoman Turkish word denoting 'vulture' . Finally, note that the Biblical Hebrew daʾa remains untranslated in the Lev of the CrKB.

čaylaḳ
In Lev 11:14 of the Göz. 1841, the word ‫ק‬ ‫לַ‬ ‫יְ‬ ‫צַ‬ [čaylaḳ] denotes the Biblical Hebrew ‫ה‬ ‫יָּ‬ ‫אַ‬ [ʾayâ] 'falcon; kite; hawk; black kite (milvus migrans)' (CEDHL: 21; LVTL: 36). The word čaylaḳ was not attested in the Karaim dictionaries, whereas it is preserved in Turkish in an identical form, (çaylak; ÖTS 1: 908), and in Azerbaijani as çalağan (ADIL I: 439) 'kite' . In the Ottoman Bible translations, 26 It must be noted that the words kerkes, kerkez, and kerkenes with the same meaning were also attested in Ottoman Turkish sources (between the 15 th and 19 th centuries) (TS IV: 2442). On the other hand, one of the earliest appearances of the word ak baba 'vulture' is present in TLO I: 326, which was published in 1680 (see references). 27 These two possibilities were pointed out in the Turkish dictionary (ÖTS 1: 166). 28 In addition, this unclear word was also translated as 'kite' (e.g . NIV, NHEB), 'red kite' (e.g. NASB, NKJV), 'vulture' (e.g. KJB, AKJV), and 'falcon' (e.g. NLT, ESV) in some English Bible translations.  , the word çaylak derives from the Old Turkic verb çarla-/çawla-'to shout' together with the +Uk suffix, and was attested in middle Turkic Kipcak-Oghuz languages as çarlak/çawlak (see also KEWTS: 109). Although the word was not listed in Karaim dictionaries and the meaning of the Biblical Hebrew word is debated 29 , it is possible to consider the word čaylaḳ 'kite' as an Ottoman Turkish and/or Oghuzic form. In fact, the identical word is also preserved in both Ali Bey 1665 and Kieffer 1827 whereas it is not attested in the modern Kipchak languages. Thus, the meaning of the previous word aḳ baba can also be considered 'vulture' , instead of 'kite' . On the other hand, the Lev of the CrKB once again presents the word untranslated, as aya. However, unlike the previous examples, this Biblical Hebrew word was listed in the Karaim dictionaries (for all three dialects of Karaim) as айа [aya] (KRPS 50-51) meaning 'kite; hawk' (CKED: 58, KRPS: 50-51). Finally, it should be noted that the same Biblical Hebrew word appears once more in Deut 14:13. Nevertheless, it was also translated as ‫ָה‬ ‫אַי‬ [aya] in the Deut of the Göz. 1841.

baya ḳušï
In  (RTD I: 200). In fact, the word is onomatopoeic and was attested in early sources with different meanings, e.g. IrqB: 14 k(ä)kük 'eagle' , DLT II: 287 kekük 'Bonelli's eagle; a bird the bones of which are used in conjurations and sorcery 34 ' while in modern Turkic languages it denotes 'cuckoo' , e.g. Tur. guguk kuşu, Az. ġuġġu; ġuγu, Kir. kükük, Kaz. kökek, Tat. käkkük, CrTat. kükükquš. Considering that the Biblical Hebrew word has been translated as 'cuckoo/cuckow' in at least four different English Bible translations, e.g. KJB, AKJV, WBT, YLT, and the striking similarities between Chapter 11 of the Lev translations of the Kieffer 1827 and the Göz. 1841, it is highly possible that the word has been copied from the Ottoman Bible translation to the Göz. 1841 and therefore stands for 'cuckoo' instead of 'seagull; mew' . The main source for the Crimean Karaim ḳuḳu 'seagull; mew' definition belongs to Shapshal's 35 lexical material, which has mainly been used in the KRPS dictionary. The word in the KRPS dictionary was probably collected from the Lev of the Göz. 1841 or another text (which has used the Lev of the Göz.1841 as a source) and defined based on some (probably the most common 36 ) equivalents (e.g. seagull; mew) of the Biblical Hebrew word in other Bible translations (see 3.3.).
Finally, the Lev of the CrKB does not provide a Karaim translation and therefore the Biblical Hebrew šaḥaf has remained untranslated. Another important point is that the Biblical word is present only in 'seagull' , the word anġid is most probably a loanword, which differs from the Turkic word anġït/anġut 'ruddy shelduck' . 34 According to EDPT 710, the identity of the word is uncertain. However, Hauenschild claims that Kashgari's translation al-zummaǧ stands for 'cuckoo' , whereas it is often mistakenly considered to be 'sparrow-hawk' or 'merlin' (see DTMK: 101). 35 Seraya Shapsal (1873-1961 was an orientalist scholar and the last ḥakham (the highest spritual authority in the Karaim community) of the East European Karaims who played a important role in the Turkicization of Karaim ethnic identity and the language. He is one of the co-authors of the KRPS dictionary and made a large number of studies on Crimean Karaim (For further details, see e.g. Shapira 2005, Kizilov 2009. 36 In at least 19 English Bible translations, the Hebrew word has been translated as 'sea-gull' , 'gull' , or 'sea-mew' , e.g. NKJV, CSB, ISV, NAS 1977, etc. 1257), it is still preserved in other modern Turkic languages as well, e.g. Gag. doan,dyjan,Nog.,Kaz. tujγyun,HKar. tuγan,Uyg. toγan,Yak. tojon (ESTJa 3: 247,L: 169,KEWTS: 130). Note that the word duġan in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 shows the Oghuzic feature of the voicing of the initial t->das well.

ḳara bataḳ
Another unclean bird appears as ‫ק‬ ‫טַ‬ ‫בַּ‬ ‫א‬ ַ ‫ר‬ ַ ‫ק‬ [ḳara bataḳ] in Lev 11:17 of the Göz. 1841, and stands for the Biblical Hebrew ‫ְך‬ ‫לָ‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬ [šâlâk], denoting a bird of uncertain meaning 38 that is rendered by most scholars as 'cormorant' , or also as 'fish owl' (ketupa ceylonensis) (CEDHL: 662, LVTL: 978). The word ḳara-bataḳ exists in the best-known Karaim dictionaries (for Crimean Karaim) as 'tern' (CKED 290, KRPS: 363), whereas it was also referred to as 'cormorant' (TDTLM: 39) 39 . The exact word has been attested in Ottoman Turkish (RTD I: 180) in the written sources since the 16 th 37 Due to the Hebrew script form, it is also possible to read the word as uġï. 38 In some English translations it has been translated as 'cormorant' (e.g. ESV, KJB, etc.), whereas 'fisher owl' (e.g. NKJV) and 'gannet' (e.g. DBT) can also be found. 39 The source does not make distinction between Eastern and Western Karaim.  150). The word ḳara bataḳ consists of two Turkic elements: ḳara 'black' and bataḳ 'bog' . Although batak stands for 'bog' in Turkish, the form most probably goes back to batığ/batu 'act of sinking' (EDPT: 301, ESTJa 2: 80), which might refer to the cormorant diving for its prey. In fact, the Kipchak counterpart batuḳ has also been attested in KI: 16 as 'cormorant' . However, the form ḳara bataḳ does not occur in the other modern Turkic languages and well-known early sources. Thus, the Lev of the Göz. 1841 presents an Oghuzic/Ottoman Turkish lexical form for this bird species, unlike the Lev of the CrKB, which shows the untranslated Biblical Hebrew form šalaχ. It is important to note that the Biblical Hebrew word also appears once in Deut 14:17, which appears as ‫ְך‬ ‫לָ‬ ָ ‫שׁ‬ [šalaχ] in the Deut of the Göz. 1841, identical to the Biblical Hebrew form.

toyï
The word ‫טוֹײִ‬ [toyï] 'ibis' (CKED: 410, KRPS: 535) occurs once in Lev 11:17 of the Göz. 1841, and denotes the Biblical Hebrew ‫שׁוּף‬ ‫נְ‬ ‫יַ‬ [yanšûf] 'long-eared owl' (asio otus); bee-eater (merops apiaster)' (CEDHL: 260, LVTL: 386). The word toyï seems to be a unique word, which has not been attested in the other Turkic sources with the meaning of 'ibis' . However, a phonetically similar form might be the Ottoman Turkish toy 'bustard' (RTD I: 103, TS V: 3833), which also survives in modern Turkish, e.g. toy; toy kuşu 'great bustard' (otis tarda) (ÖTS 5: 4882). According to Clauson (EDPT: 449), the earlier form of toy 'bustard' goes back to tod and probably only survived in Ottoman Turkish; it was also attested in KB: 534, DLT III: 142, toy 'bustard' . Nevertheless, the word toyï in the corpus clearly denotes a different bird species, since in Crimean Karaim 'bustard' has been denoted by duvadaḳ 41 (CKED: 143, KRPS: 180), which is a different variant of the word toy and similar 'bustard' translations do not appear for this Biblical Hebrew word in Bible translations. However, with the help of the Ottoman Bible translations, light can be shed on the mystery of this Karaim word. In both Ali Bey 1665 and Kieffer 1827, the same Biblical Hebrew word has been translated as to/tu 42 , meaning 'a species of owl' . 43 ' . 42 Due to the Arabic script, the word can be read in two different ways. 43 The forms can be traced back to the to the word ‫ﺿﻮﻉ‬ [ḍuwaʿ/ḍuʿ] which was listed in an Ottoman dictionary from the 17th century in the meaning of 'male owl (bubo mas); black bird (avis nigra)' (TLO II: 3055). Similar meanings were also listed in both Arabic and Persian dictionaries as well, e.g. ‫;ﺿﻮﻉ‬ 'a species of owl; an owl' (WAED: 372, CPED: 804).
Göz. 1841. Similar to the previous example (see 2.11), it might be possible to consider that the meaning of this problematic word has been giving according to an equivalent of the original Biblical Hebrew word in other Bible translations 44 . On the other hand, in the Lev of the CrKB, the word appears in a form identical to the Biblical Hebrew word, yanšuf. Additionally, the word has also remained untranslated in Deut 14:17 of the Göz. 1841 as ‫ְשׁוּף‬ ‫ַנ‬ ‫י‬ [yanšuf], where the Biblical Hebrew word occurs for the second/last time in the entire Torah.

raḥamï
Another Furthermore, this uncertain word 47 appeared as ‫َﺧﻢ‬ ‫ﺭ‬ [raḥ(a)m] in the Kieffer 1827 48 as well, which might explain why it has also remained untranslated in the Göz. 1841, which is not usual for Chapter 11 of its Lev translation. In addition, it seems that the word raḥamï shows another copy mistake, which includes one of the Oghuzic ACC markers +(y)I (see 3.3.). It is also worth noting that the word appears as ‫ה‬ ‫מָ‬ (KRUS: 320). However, in the Lev of the CrKB, it appears as ḥasida, which is identical to the Biblical Hebrew word. In the rest of the Torah, the same word also appears once in Deut. 14:17.  68). However, in the Lev of the CrKB, the Biblical Hebrew has remained untranslated, e.g. duχifat, which is also present in Deut 14:18 of the Göz. 1841 as ‫ָת‬ ‫ִיפ‬ ‫דוּכ‬ [duχifat], where the Biblical Hebrew word appears for the second/last time in the entire Hebrew Bible. Thus, the Lev of the Göz. 1841 presents another Arabic loanword that existed in the Oghuzic area, unlike the Deut of the Göz. 1841 and the Lev of the CrKB.

tor
In the whole of the Lev of the Göz. 1841, there exist nine instances that denote the Biblical Hebrew ‫תּוֹר‬ [tôr] 'turtle-dove (streptopelia turtur); other species of columba' (CEDHL: 695, LVTL: 1023). As was noted above (see 2.2), eight out of these nine times it was written as ḳumru, whereas one example in Lev 14:30 of the Göz. 1841 displays the Biblical Hebrew form ‫תּוֹר‬ [tor]. Conversely, it was always translated as tor in the Lev of the CrKB. The word also appears once in the Gen and the Num of the Torah. However, in the rest of the Göz. 1841, the word tor never appears, and the forms similar to that used in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 can be found, e.g. Gen 15:9 ‫י‬ ִ ‫ר‬ ‫כוּמְ‬ [χümri/kümri], Num 6:10 ‫רוּ‬ ‫קוּמְ‬ [ḳumru]. Thus, Lev 14:30 contains an exceptional example in the Göz. 1841, showing more than one lexical item (that is not given in parenthesis) for the same bird species throughout the Lev.

The distribution of the bird names in the corpus
In this study, the bird names appearing in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 have been presented together with their equivalents in the Lev of the CrKB, the Ali Bey 1665, and the Kieffer 1827. Although the languages of the Göz. 1841 and the CrKB were assumed to be similar, their lexicons for the bird names in the Lev show quite many differences, since out of 21 different bird names, only five words (24%) occur in similar forms in these two Bible translations. Among these examples, the words tor and raḥamï/raḥama go back to the Biblical Hebrew forms, whereas the other three words are of Turkic origin. It is remarkable that the bird names in the Lev of the CrKB consist of a high predominance of Biblical Hebrew words. As has been discussed, the main reason for this might be related to the uncertainty of some Biblical Hebrew words for animal names in the Hebrew Bible. The Lev of the CrKB presents altogether 21 different bird names, and 16 of these words (76%) are from the Biblical Hebrew forms, e.g. tor 'turtle-dove' , peres 'bearded vulture' , ʿazniya 'black vulture' , daʾa 'eagle; vulture; kite; red kite' , aya 'falcon; kite; hawk; black kite' , taḥmas 'a kind of owl' , šaḥaf 'seagull' , kos 'a kind of owl' , šalaχ 'cormorant' , yanšuf 'long-eared owl; bee-eater' , tinšemet 'white owl; chameleon' , ḳaʾat 'pelican; little owl; jackdaw' , raḥama 'carrion vulture' , ḥasida 'stork' , anafa 'heron; egret' , duχifat 'hoopoe' , and 5 of them (24%) are of Turkic origin, e.g. kögürčün 'pigeon' , ḳara ḳuš 'eagle' , ḳuzġun 'raven' , ḳïrġïy 'hawk' , aŋḳït 'ostrich' . Among these Turkic items, the Lev of the CrKB only shows two common Turkic forms (14%) that were also attested in similar forms in Ottoman Turkish, e.g. kögürčgün 'pigeon' , ḳaraḳuš 'eagle' . Thus, it should be noted that the CrKB edition does not present any specific Oghuzic and/or Ottoman Turkish forms for the bird names throughout the Lev.
In conclusion, except for the untranslated Biblical Hebrew forms, (e.g. tor 'turtle-dove' , raḥamï 'carrion vulture'), the remaining words of the lexicon for the bird names (91%) in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 are predominantly similar to the words in Ottoman Turkish and/or the Oghuzic languages. Based on the comparison, it is quite clear that the main source for the bird names in Lev 11 of the Göz. 1841 was the Kieffer 1827, since all the words that stand for the bird species in Lev 11 of these translations are identical or extremely similar. 51 Another finding also supports this claim, since 16 of the 23 bird names (70%) were attested in the other books (Pentateuch) of the Göz. 1841 in different forms, and are almost identical to the Lev of the CrKB examples. However, these parallel forms are mostly based on untranslated Biblical Hebrew forms. Finally, together with the previous paper, 52 different words that stand for different animal species in the Lev of the Göz. 1841 were presented. Among these words, 32 of them show Oghuzic and/or Ottoman Turkish characteristics (62%), and do not appear in the Lev of the CrKB translation. Moreover, 28 of these Oghuzic words only appear in Chapter 11 (87%). Thus, Chapter 11 of the Lev in the Göz. 1841 represents an exceptional case when compared to the other chapters, since all the animal names were copied from the same parts of the Kieffer 1827. Due to this, these results once again show that it might be misleading to make far-reaching conclusions regarding the whole edition of the Göz. 1841 based on only one book, since even chapters from the same book present contrasting characteristics. Further analysis of the other Books of the Göz. 1841 might demonstrate whether these characteristics occur systematically in certain chapters or not.

An addendum to the previous study
In my previous study, the Ottoman Turkish Bible data were not compared to the Lev of the Göz. 1841. The direct connection between the Lev 11 translations of the Göz. 1841 and the Kieffer 1827 edition can also be noticed in the previous paper. However, first, I would like to make some corrections regarding the previous data. In Lev 11:29 of the Göz. 1841, I have noted the word göz tökä and claimed that it must be a type of gecko since the Biblical Hebrew form has also been translated as some type of gecko species in other Bible translations and the word tökä might refer 'tokay' gecko. However, in both Ottoman Turkish Bible editions, the word has been translated as köstebek/göstebek 'mole' 52 e.g. Ali Bey 1665 ‫َﮏ‬ ‫َﺒ‬ ‫ْﺘ‬ ‫ُﺳ‬ ‫;ﮐﻮ‬ Kieffer 1827 ‫َﮏ‬ ‫َﺒ‬ ‫ُﺳﺘ‬ ‫,ﮐﻮ‬ which is present in modern Oghuz languages as well, e.g. Tur. köstebek, Az. köstäbäk . Thus, the word should be read as göz töbä 53 . Another possible reading mistake appears in Lev 11:22 of the Göz. 1841 in relation to the word ǰurǰurï/ǰürǰüri 'cricket' . Considering that there exists a word in Turkish, cırcır [ǰïrjïr], which stands for 'cricket' , it might seem logical to read the word as ǰurǰurï or ǰürǰüri. However, based on the Kieffer 1827 example, e.g. ‫ُﺪ‬ ‫ُﺪﺟ‬ ‫,ﺟ‬ the word probably is ǰudǰud or ǰüdǰüd, 54 and denotes 'cicada' . 55 Finally, below the other animal names for species from Chapter 11 have also been presented and compared to the Ottoman Turkish Bible translations. 52 The word has also been denoted as 'mole; mole rat' in at least eight different English Bible translations, e.g. NLT, NASB, NKJV, DBT, etc. 53 Another reason for this misreading was due to the difficulty of making a distinction between the Hebrew letters ‫ב‬ [bet] and ‫כ‬ [kaf] in some parts of the Göz. 1841. Interestingly, the words göz and töbä are also written separately, lacking the final -k, e.g. ‫א‬ ‫טובַּ‬ ‫גוז‬ 54 It should be noted that the letters ‫ד‬ [dalet] and ‫ר‬ [resh] sometimes look identical in the Göz. 1841, which can cause such reading interpretation mistakes. However, it is clear that the word appears in the Hebrew script as ‫י‬ ִ ‫ג׳וּד‬ ְ ‫.ג׳וּד‬ 55 The Ottoman Turkish word was described as orak kuşu in Turkish (Efe 2017: 384), and therefore stands for 'cicada' (ÖTS 4: 3626). It is worth noting that the word ǰïrǰïr was also described as 'cicada' in another Ottoman dictionary (Toven 1927: 254) and therefore it is probably a variant of the form ǰudǰud.

Copy errors in the Lev of the Göz. 1841
In both the Göz. 1841 and the Kieffer 1827, the nouns that stand for the unclean animals between Lev 11:4 and Lev 11:29 require an ACC marker due to the Turkic case-marking system of the verbs that have been used in these verses. In Crimean Karaim texts, it is natural to see the Oghuzic ACC marker +(y)I (Çulha 2019: 87). However, it should be noted that throughout the Lev of the Göz. 1841, such Oghuzic ACC markers appear only in Chapter 11. Below, the animal names that contain Oghuzic ACC markers in the Book are shown. Although the above instances cannot be regarded as copy errors, it is possible to claim that the Kieffer 1827 has influenced the Göz. 1841 regarding such usages as well. The other examples below clearly illustrate some interesting copy mistakes, since the lexical items in the Kieffer 1827 were copied into the Göz. 1841 together with their Oghuzic ACC markers, and later the Kipchak ACC markers were also attached to these forms.  In the aforementioned verse, a different copy error is also present in three words. In Turkic languages, the structure of compound nouns usually appears as 'noun+noun+3SG.POSS' or 'noun+noun' . However, it seems that the words güneš kelerisi and yïldïz kelerisi were copied from the Kieffer 1827 into the Göz. 1841 together with their 3SG.POSS suffixes and another 3SG.POSS marker was also attached to these forms. Besides this, a 3SG.POSS marker was also attached to the Turkish word kertenkele in an unusual way, as the form is already a compound noun. Finally, the results of the present study show that five words that were listed in the Karaim dictionaries for Crimean Karaim might be incorrect according to their descriptions. Note that all these problematic words originally belong to Shapsal's lexical material 57 , and therefore to the KRPS dictionary. In the dictionary, the Karaim words have been listed together with Russian and Polish descriptions. The following is a comparison of the Russian descriptions of these problematic words to the relevant parts of a Russian Bible translation from the 19 th century (RSO 1876) in order to present a possible explanation for these disputed descriptions.
First of all, as was demonstrated, the word toyï (Lev 11:17, Göz. 1841) can be traced back to the word 'tu+yï' , which appears in the Kieffer 1827 and stands for 'a kind of owl+ACC' , whereas it was defined as 'ibis' (Rus. ибис) in the Karaim dictionaries (CKED: 410, KRPS: 535). The same Russian equivalent is also present in RSO 1876, e.g. Lev 11:17, ибис 'ibis' . The second word ḳuḳu kušï (Lev 11:16, Göz. 1841) denotes 'seagull; mew' (Rus. чайка) (CKED: 319, KRPS: 374) in the Karaim dictionaries, whereas it stands for 'cuckoo' in the Kieffer 1827. Similar to the previous example, the meaning in the KRPS matches with the Russian Bible translation, e.g. Lev 11:16, RSO 1876; чайки 'seagulls' . The next word ḳarabataḳ has been listed as 'fisher (bird); tern' (Rus. рыболова lit. 'fisher (bird)' , Pol. rybitwa 'tern') in the Karaim dictionaries (CKED 290, KRPS: 363,) whereas it represents 'cormorant' in Oghuzic languages and the Kieffer 1827. The Russian Bible translation presents the identical form in Lev 11:17 as well, e.g. RSO 1876, рыболова lit. 'fisher' . Another word has been listed as aḳ-baba ḳušï 'kite; hawk' in the KRPS: 377 58 (Rus. коршун 'kite' , Pol. jastrząb 'hawk'), whereas it denotes 'vulture' in Turkish and the Kieffer 1827. Once again, the Russian description in the KRPS has been attested in the RSO 1876 as well, e.g. Lev 11:17 коршун 'kite' . Hereby, I consider that the words toyï, ḳuḳu, ḳarabataḳ, and aḳ baba ḳušï have most probably been collected from the Lev of the Göz. 1841 (or other texts that also have used the Göz. 1841 as their source) and the meanings of these erroneous/unclear forms might have been compared to their controversial equivalents in some other Bible translations. For instance, the Russian descriptions of the aforementioned words in the KRPS also appear in the Russian Bible translation from the 19 th century mentioned above. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether Shapsal himself had analyzed the Lev of the Göz. 1841 and compared these problematic forms with other Bible translations. This is especially true considering that there are at least eight bird names that appeared in the same part of the Göz. 1841, but were not listed in the KRPS, e.g. gügürčin/gögürčün, ïronï, deŋiz ḳartalï, čaylaḳ, deve kušu, ügi ḳušu, balïḳčïn, hüd hüdi.
The final debated word is gelinčik, which was presented in the previous study (Işık 2020: 152). As was mentioned, the word gelinǰik appears in the Oghuz branch and Crimean Tatar with the meaning of 'weasel' , e.g. Tur. gelincik (ÖTS 2: 1675), Az. gälincik (ADIL II: 230), CrTat. келинчек [kelinček] (KRUS: 223) whereas there exist some common forms that stand for 'weasel' among the Kipchak languages, e.g. Kaz. küzen, Kir. küzön, Tat. közän, CrTat. küzen (DTMK: 119, EDPT: 761, L:163). However, according to KRPS: 166 and CKED: 164, the word gelinčik denotes 'mole' 59 in Crimean Karaim. Considering the strong link between the Lev translations of the Kieffer 1827 and the Göz. 1841 for animal names, the interpretation of the word as 'mole' might be incorrect. In 57 Shapsal's data are generally considered to be reliable when compared with some other materials. Nevertheless, some problematic cases have briefly been mentioned in the CKED: 9-10 as well. 58 This word was not listed in the CKED. 59 Interestingly, the Biblical Hebrew word ֶ ‫ֹלד‬ ‫ח‬ [ḥôled] (Lev 11:29) has been translated in some English Bible translations (at least eight) as 'mole; mole rat' , e.g. ESV, NKJV, NAS 1977, etc., whereas in most of the English Bible translations (at least 16) the word was denoted by 'weasel' , e.g. NIV, KJB, ASV, etc. fact, the Russian word крот 'mole' in the KRPS dictionary is present in the RSO 1876 as well, e.g. Lev 11:29, крот. Besides this, the corrected reading of the word göz töbä (see 3.2.) clearly shows that there is another word that also stands for 'mole' only a verse later. However, it should be noted that the word kelincek/kelincik has also been listed as meaning 'mole' in Halitch Karaim 60 (ESTJa 3: 18, KRPS: 302 61 ). Stachowski (KEWTS: 155) claims that the two animals have some common features which might cause such semantic developments. Ergo, it is difficult to determine the meaning of the word gelinčik in Crimean Karaim, whereas in the Göz. 1841 it clearly denotes 'weasel' . Perhaps some analysis of the Karaim texts might shed light on the issue of this word. Furthermore, possible attestations of the aforementioned erroneous forms in Karaim texts might also be significant in explaining the link between such sources.

Manuscripts and Fragments of the Lev of the CrKB
Baxč. 116 = Th is is preserved in the Russian National Library, and was copied in the 18th century. It contains fragments of the Pentateuch (Exodus 26-40, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), three books of the Five Scrolls (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations), and some parts of Psalms (1-19, 22-37, 55-57, 69-89). Only a few available leaves were employed in the Lev of the CrKB: Lev 3:10-4:7, 5:23-6:7, 8:36-10:4, 15:30-16:8. BSMS 288 = Th is is in the Cambridge University Li180brary (among the holdings of the British and Foreign Bible Society) in four volumes; volume I -203 text leaves (Pentateuch and Five Scrolls), volume II -144 text leaves (Former Prophets), volume III -155 text leaves (Latter Prophets), and volume IV -118 text leaves (Writings). Th e manuscript contains the whole Tanakh without the Chronicles. In the CrKB, only the volumes I and IV have been included as the basic manuscript. Evr I 143 = Th e available fragments consist of Lev 1:1-15 and Lev 16:4-5.