Search Results
This paper focuses on Kalbak-Tash Inscriptions Nos XX, XXI and XXII which belong to the group of the Mountainous Altai Inscriptions. It provides an analysis of the problematic issues of these three inscriptions having emerged in previous studies, as well as to some new reading proposals for some parts of the inscriptions. The words kara and égil in Inscription No. XXI are interpreted as “commoner, an ordinary person”; and the word igen “deer” (< Old Turkic ingen “she-camel”) in Inscriptions No. XX and No. XXI is explained with the correspondence of Old Turkic teve “camel” = Yakut taba “reindeer”. In addition, the study lays emphasis on the fact that the antepenultimate sign of Inscription No. XXII could be s 1, and the word asŋar- which includes this sign could be interpreted as “(he) stopped (work) on the affair and sat down”. Another proposal which is put forward for Inscription No. XXII is that the signs g 2 t 2 r 2 are explained as éget er “servant, retainer”.
In the Yenisei inscriptions, as in Old-Turkic inscriptions in general, a great number of place names occur. However, Old-Turkic toponyms have not been studied satisfactorily. In this article emphasis has been laid on the word qatun mentioned in the inscriptions of Uyuk-Turan (E 3), Aldıı-Bel I (E 12), Aldıı-Bel II (E 72) and Novosyolovo (E 144). Having dealt with the meanings attributed to this word by previous researchers, it has been concluded that qatun in these inscriptions does not mean ‘the wife of the khan’ or ‘woman’, as hitherto supposed, but it refers to the river Katun. Furthermore, the name tarlay, which is often used together with qatun, denotes the river Tarlak.
In Turkic, hendiadys has an important place as a method that is used for the emphasis of an expression. In addition to Old Turkic inscriptions, hendiadyses, which are often used in Old Uyghur texts, still survive in contemporary Turkic languages. In this article, the hendiadys of yogun yolpa i.e. ‘unmannerly, cumbersome, rude, ugly’ which appears only once (hapax legomenon) in Old Uyghur texts, and never in works from other periods, will be studied in comparison to examples from contemporary Turkic languages. The etymology of the two words yogun and yolpa which form the hendiadys will be investigated. The first element of the hendiadys, yogun, ‘intense, rude, rough, ugly’ has already been the subject of various studies. The other element of the hendiadys, the word yolpa, which does not appear in any other text, is analysed in this article.
One of the significant problems with Old Turkic inscriptions is that it is not known by which peoples’ or tribe’s Turkic language the inscriptions were written in. Although among the clans and persons who wrote and erected the large inscriptions of the Turkic and Uyghur Khanates, those of Köl Tegin, Bilge Kaghan, Şine Usu, Tariat, Tes and Karabalghasun I were identified, the peoples or clans having erected the other inscriptions are mostly unknown. The most serious problem encountered by researchers in consideration of the tribal seals present in the inscriptions is the uncertainty whether the seal belonged to the tribe that wrote or erected the inscription, or the tribe that was in power at that time.
This paper investigates the inscriptions of the Uyghur Khanate. Our scrutiny is based on the examination of the peculiarities of the Uyghur Khanate inscriptions which cannot be observed in any other inscriptions of Mongolia, Yenisei, Altai and Kyrgyzstan. By substituting these peculiar words with other words to be found in other inscriptions, an attempt has been made to prove that these words are Uyghur dialectal words. After an inquiry whether the words were used subsequent to the runic period, etymological suggestions concerning the words have also been put forward.
[Old Turkic inscriptions] I. İstanbul : Devlet Basımevi . Orkun , Hüseyin Namık 1941 . Eski Türk Yazıtları [Old Turkic
. Malov , S. Je . [Малов, С. Е.] 1959 . Памятники древнетюркской письменности Монголии и Киргизии . Москва–Ленинград : Издательство Академии Наук СССР . Orkun , Hüseyin Namık 1936 . Eski Türk Yazıtları [Old Turkic Inscriptions] I . İstanbul
. Malov , S. Je. [малов, С. Е.] 1951 . Памятники древнетюркской письменности: Тексты и исследования . Москва – Ленинград : Издательство Академии наук СССР . Orkun , Hüseyin Namık 1936 . Eski Türk Yazıtları [Old Turkic Inscriptions] I . İstanbul
, A. M . [Щербак, А. М.] 1964 . ‘Памятники рунического письма енисейских тюрок.’ Народы Азии и Африки 4 : 140 – 151 . Şirin , Hatice 2016 . Eski Türk Yazıtları Söz Varlığı İncelemesi [Vocabulary Analysis of Old Turkic Inscriptions
, Hüseyin Namık 1994 . Eski Türk Yazıtları [Old Turkic Inscriptions] . Ankara : Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları . Ōsawa Takashi 1999 . ‘Tes Inscription.’ In: Moriyasu Takao & Ayudai Ochir (eds.) Provisional Report of Researches on Historical
Turkic Inscriptions . Beijing , Zhong yang min zu da xue chu ban she . Giles , H. A. ( 1912 ): A Chinese–English Dictionary . Shanghai–London , Kelly and Walsh (2nd
