Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for :
- Author or Editor: Li Yong-Sŏng x
- Arts and Humanities x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
The Shors are one of the minor indigenous Turkic peoples of Siberia the majority of whom are living in the Kemerovo Oblast’. The Shor language is a conglomeration of two basically very different northern Turkic dialects, identified by river names as Kondoma Shor (the southern dialect) and Mrass Shor (the northern dialect). The Mrass dialect belongs to the azaq[/taγlγ]-group, whereas the Kondoma dialect belongs to the [ayaq/]taγlγ-group. The Shor literary language was formed on the basis of the Mrass dialect in the 1920s but soon after its formation it suffered a decline from the late 1930s to the early 1990s due to the Soviet policy of assimilation of minorities. It is now a severely endangered language. In the present paper the month names in Shor (Mrass dialect) are treated. The material is based on the fieldwork study of the Altaic Society of Korea and the testimony of month names in the Shor dictionaries. Wherever necessary, these month names were also compared with those to be found in other Turkic languages.
The second sentence of line 18 (= line 1 on the east side of the first stele) of the Tunyukuk Inscription has been amended as [: eki] süm[üz b]oltï or [biz eki sü b]oltï ‘We had two armies’. Considering the second sentence of line 17, the information from the first and second sentences of line 18 would be that the peoples around us joined us and thus the number of our soldiers, which was 2,000, increased. If that is the case, the second sentence may be hypothetically amended as [: bir] tüm[än b]oltï ‘It (= the number of our soldiers) became 10,000’ or [: eki] tüm[än b]oltï ‘It (= the number of our soldiers) became 20,000’.
This paper attempts to give new explanation for the ethnonyms bẄklI and čẄlgl (or čẄlgIl) occurring in the Türk inscriptions of Kül Tegin and Bilgä Kagan. After a thorough survey of former research the author comes to the conclusion that the two names must be treated separately, both indicating a separate country. Bökli or Bökküli (bẄklI), as was correctly supposed formerly, is undoubtedly identical with Goguryeo, a Korean state of the period. čẄlgl (or čẄlgIl) must be read as Čülüg el which may be a Turkic name for the Chinese state of Northern Zhou of Tuoba origin. On the other hand, a third ethnonym of the inscriptions, Tabgač, refers to the Northern Qi state of Tuoba origin. So it is certainly inaccurate to translate Tabgač, in a simpflified manner, as ‘China’ or ‘the Chinese’ as most researchers have done until now. Čülüg el and Tabgač were two separate Chinese states of the period.
The Šine-Usu Inscription is the most voluminous one with 50 lines among the Uighur inscriptions. Although most parts of this inscription can be well understood, many words and sentences in the south and west sides are not so. These sides are now severely damaged. W..GšNG in the 4th line of the west side has been differently interpreted by researchers. The author regards xNùx±±v W..GšNG as a misreading for xNùx±±N N..GšNG, and amends it as xNùx[vL]N N[LW]GšNG an[lu]γšanïγ, suggesting that the letter groups TKGWYILKA …… N[LW]GšNGYWwKïKILms in this line should be read as taqïγu yïlqa …… an[lu]γšanïγ yoq q͜ ïlmïš “In the Fowl year (= 757), …… allegedly he (or they) eliminated Anluγšan (= An Lushan)”.
Many parts of the Kül Tegin and Bilgä Kagan inscriptions are almost identical with each other. Although most parts of these inscriptions are well understood, some parts like the letter group
ïKIDmz in the second sentence of KT S 6 and in the last sentence of BK N 4 are not so. The letter group
ïKIDmz has been read and interpreted in various ways. The author regards
ïKIDmz as a spelling error (or an alternative spelling) for
KIDmz and suggests that it can be read as akïdmaz ‘they do not become generous / openhanded’. As a hapax legomenon, the verb akïd- ‘to become generous / openhanded’ is analysed as akï ‘generous, openhanded’ + -d- ‘a suffix making a denominal verb’.
Abstract
This paper attempts to give new explanation for the expression agrïp yok bol- occurring in 9th line of the south side of the Bilgä Kagan Inscription. After a thorough survey of former research and several Chinese sources, the authors came to the conclusion that this expression must be a euphemistic expression for being beheaded in a battle. The authors found also that kog säŋün was Guo Yingjie 郭英傑. In sum, the sentence in question is to be read as ulug oglum agrïp yok bolča kog säŋünüg balbal tikä bertim ‘When my oldest son died of a disease, I readily erected General Kog as a balbal (for him).’ The expression agrïp yok bol- is to be regarded as a euphemistic expression for being beheaded in a battle.
