International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 JEAL brill.com/jeal A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language: the Brāhmī Bugut and Khüis Tolgoi Inscriptions Alexander Vovin EHESS/CRLAO, Paris sashavovin@gmail.com Abstract The present article deals with the earliest known sources on a Mongolic language discovered in 2014 by the international team Dieter Maue (Germany), Mehmet Ölmez (Turkey), Étienne de La Vaissière and Alexander Vovin (both France) on two inscriptions. The importance of this discovery is three-fold: first, it gives us a glimpse of the earliest Mongolic language, predating by more than six hundred years the hitherto known earliest monument in a Mongolic language; second, in spite of the fact that the language of the inscriptions is somewhat close to Middle Mongolian, it provides the evidence of certain features that were previously only suggested for reconstructed forms of Mongolic; and finally, it significantly changes our general understanding of the mediaeval ethnolinguistic history of Central Asia. Keywords Mongolic – Middle Mongolian – ethnolinguistic history – linguistic reconstruction – documentary evidence 1 Introduction Until very recently it was believed that the earliest monument in Mongolic (excluding Para-Mongolic Khitan of of the tenth–twelfth centuries) was the Chinggis Stone (1224 or 1225 AD). However, in 2014 an international expedition, including Étienne de La Vaissière (EHESS, France), Dieter Maue (independent scholar, Germany), Mehmet Ölmez (Istanbul University, Turkey), and the author of these lines, assisted by a team of two experts in © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/25898833-12340008 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 163 3D photography under the leadership of Tobias Reich (Germany), undertook a field trip to Mongolia to study the Khüis Tolgoi and Brāhmī Bugut inscriptions. Consequently, a thorough study of these inscriptions, including the history of their discovery and research (Mehmet Ölmez), historical context (Étienne de La Vaissière), paleography and reading (Dieter Maue), as well as the identification and interpretation of the underlying language (Alexander Vovin) was, or is, going to be published (La Vaissière 2018, Maue 2018, 2019, Ölmez 2018, 2019, Vovin 2018, 2019). The Khüis Tolgoi inscription consists of two stones. The first, bigger stone (Plate 1) is today located in the basement of the Museum of the Institute of Archeology (Mongolian Academy of Sciences), and the second smaller stone near the entrance to the same Museum, well exposed to elements and harsh Mongolian weather. Ditto for the Bugut stone, with Sogdian and Brāhmī inscriptions found on the same stone (Plate 2), which is currently located in the courtyard of the Arkhangay provincial museum in Tsetserleg. Unlike the inscription in Brāhmī, the Sogdian Bugut inscription has been thoroughly studied (Kliashtornyi & Livshic 1971, 1972, 1972; Yoshida 1999, 2006, 2018). We were not the pioneers who discovered these Brāhmī inscriptions ourselves. But there have been no serious attempts of reading them and attempting to identify the language, although all possible wild guesses ranging from “the language of the Huns” to “Sanskrit” were made. It is not the place to engage into the discussion of the history of discovery and exploration of these two Brāhmī inscriptions, as it has already been done by my colleague and friend Mehmet Ölmez (2018, 2019); any interested reader should address himself/herself to these two excellent articles. The Bugut inscription is dated by 584 AD (most likely), but no later than 587 AD, and the Khüis Tolgoi inscription must have been erected sometime between 604 and 620 AD. The direction of writing is the most unusual: while the normal organization of the Brāhmī script is in horizontal lines running from left to right, in these inscriptions we have vertical columns running from right to left. It turned out that the language underlying these two Brāhmī inscriptions is Mongolic, quite closely related, although not quite identical to Middle Mongolian of the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries. Although the differences in vocabulary are sometimes tantalizing,1 especially in the Khüis Tolgoi inscription, the Mongolic nature of the morphology now lies beyond any reasonable doubt. It seems that the language we are dealing with here can be identified as the Ruan-ruan language, the language of the steppe Empire that immediately 1 But as the reader will see below, most of the vocabulary in the Bugut inscription is reconstructed at least partially, so there might have been a case of an inevitable “Mongolization”. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 164 Plate 1 Vovin The Brāhmī Bugut inscription © dieter maue 2018 PLATE 2 Brāhmī Bugut inscription (fragment) © TDAY 1987 preceded the First Turkic khanate, as suggested by Étienne de la Vaissière (2018).2 From now on I am going to adopt tentatively Étienne de la Vaissière’s hypothesis and call the language of the Brāhmī Bugut, Keregentas and Khüis Tolgoi inscriptions “Ruan-ruan”. The exploration of this exciting new field has just started. This is far from being a last word on the reading and interpretation of the inscriptions: like it happened with monuments in Old Turkic, 100+ years from now the yet unborn scholars will be still discussing them and offering their interpretations. The source of materials is also far from exhausted. The reading of the second Khüis Tolgoi stone is not possible without the help of 3D-photography. In 2014 we could not perform it due to circumstances beyond our control. There are also 2 This certainly reopens the problem of identification of the traces of an unknown Central Asian language found as loanwords in Old Turkic that I have previously christened as ‘Ruanruan’ (Vovin 2004, 2010). International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 165 PLATE 3 Khüis Tolgoi inscription (stone one) © Alexander Vovin 2018 two very short inscriptions in the same vertical Brāhmī script found on two balbals in Keregentas in Eastern Kazakhstan. It is quite clear that the last word on both inscriptions is the title qaɣan, which is useless for language identification. Maue and I have a difference of opinion how to explain the preceding dar-pu on stone one and šim-pun on stone two. While Maue believes that these are the names of qaɣans, I think that they are likely to be verbal forms ending in the past adnominal form -pu(n), related to Khitan -boń/-bun. At the very least, it probably shows that the Mongolic language in question was spoken or used on a much wider territory than just Central Mongolia. Finally, the possibility of further discoveries of monuments will always remain.3 3 A detailed discussion with references of the morphology and the vocabulary, accompanied by philological commentaries where necessary, is provided column by column of the Khüis Tolgoi and the Brāhmī Bugut inscriptions in Vovin (2018) and Vovin (2019), respectively. I will not repeat it here, concentrating instead on the representation of the Ruan-ruan language as a system. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 166 2 Vovin Phonology The existing material is clearly insufficient for the complete description of phonology, so only partial observations can be made. 1. Preservation of the initial PM *p-. The Ruan-ruan language has the evidence really written in stone that MM h- goes back to p-: pa[ran] ‘person, people, population’ (Bu 13),4 cf. MM haran ‘id.’, pü[ker] ‘ox’ (Bu 9), cf. MM hüker ‘id.’, pü[ne]ken ‘fox’ (Bu 9), cf. MM hünegen ‘id.’ 2. PM initial *b- seems to be preserved intact: bar- ‘to take’ (Bu 3, KhT 1: 6), cf. MM, WM bari- ‘id.’, bayi- ‘to be’, ‘to stand’ (KhT 1: 3), cf. MM bayyi- ‘id.’, bo[tuɣ]ńa ‘camel calf’ (Bu 10), cf. EMM botuqan ‘id.’ and WMM botaɣa ~ botaɣan ‘id.’ 3. The fate of PM medial *-p- and *-b- seems to be much more complex, or at the very least I was not able to figure it out completely. I am able to present here only very preliminary observations. 3a. PM *-p- seems to be preserved between two identical vowels: [puru] pu ‘like a flood, heavily’ (Bu 6), cf. EMM huru’u ‘id.’, qapa ‘surrounding’, ‘enclosure’ (Bu 3), cf. MM qa’a-, WM qaɣa- ‘to enclose’, [šina] pa ‘domain’ (KhT 1: 10), cf. MM šina’a ‘id.’, or becomes -w- when the vowels are not identical: tuwa, tribal name (KhT 1: 4, 1: 7, 1–9). 3b. PM *-b- either stays intact or becomes -v-/-w-: ab[V]- ‘to take’ (Bu 8), cf. MM, WM ab- ‘id.’, kebir ‘steppe’ (Bu 13), cf. EMM ke’er ~ keher ‘field’ (MNT §56, §195, HYYY 2b.2), WMM keyēr ‘steppe’ (Mu 94), kehēr ‘desert’ (IM 439), Ašvar ‘Ïšbara’, p.n. (Bu 6). 3c. Sequences *-aɣu- and *-apu- become just -o- without any traces of vowel length marked in the script: dolu- ‘to listen’ (KhT 1: 3), cf. Preclassical WM daɣula- ‘id.’, MM da’u ‘voice’, ǰilo ‘stone’ (KhT 1: 4), cf. MM čila’un, WM čilaɣun ‘id.’, but the sequence *-egü- metathesizes and remains intact: düge ‘younger brother’ (KhT 1: 5), cf. MM de’ü, WM degü ‘id.’, while *-epü- contracts to -ü- without any traces of vowel length marked in the script: tün-, oblique stem of tere ‘that’ (KhT 1: 7), cf. WMM tǖn-, EMM te’ün- ‘id.’5 4. There are no palatalizations ti > či and di > ǰi as in MM and all later varieties of Mongolic: biti ~ bitig ‘inscription’ (KhT 1: 1, 1: 4), cf. MM, WM bičig 4 For the textual addresses of the Bugut, Khüis Tolgoi, and Keregentas inscriptions the following notation is used: Bu 2 = the Bugut inscription, column two, KhT 1: 3 = the Khüis Tolgoi, first stone, column three, Ke 1 = the Keregentas inscriptions, first stone. 5 Compared to the simplistic treatment of PM *Vɣ/gV and *VpV as *VɣV in Poppe (1954: 60–76), cf. the much more appropriate analysis revealing all the complexities involved in Janhunen (2003: 7), Rykin (2018), and Khabtagaeva (2018). International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 5. 6. 7. 167 ‘writing’, ‘inscription’, digi- ‘to die’, ‘to pass away’ (KhT 1: 1, Bu 3), cf. Khitan tege- ~ tige- ‘id.’, pügtig ‘saved’ (?). KhT 1: 4, 1: 8, cf. OT bögtäg, Sogdian βwɣtk ‘id.’, energetic verbal suffix -ti- (MM -či-) in ndü-t[i]-ǰü ‘created with all their strength and’ (Bu 3). There are very few words with initial nasals. Most likely, it is a trick played on us by the limited nature of the material, but the possibility that it is due to Turkic influence cannot be excluded, although there are no examples of *m- > b- and *n- > d- > y- in the extant corpus. There are considerable vowel elisions, including vowels in the first syllables that leads to the formation of secondary word-initial consonant clusters: qra- ‘to look’ (KhT 1: 4), cf. MM qara- ‘id.’, drö ‘law, rule’ (KhT 1: 6), cf. MM törö, WM törü ‘law, principle, rule’, ndü- ‘to create’ (Bu 3), cf. MM nödü- ‘to build’ (MNT §249, §265), gle- ‘to speak’, ‘to talk’ (Bu 3, 16), cf. MM kele- ‘id.’ (MNT §85, §229, etc.). 6a. The sequence *CarV- becomes *Car-: bar- ‘to take’ (Bu 3, KhT 1: 6), cf. MM, WM bari- ‘id.’, dar- ‘to defeat’ (Bu 4, Ke 1), cf. MM, WM daru‘id.’, ǰar- ‘to hurry’ (Bu 5), cf. WMM ǰāra- (Mu 204) ~ EMM yāra- ‘id.’ (HYYY 18b.8), ǰar- ‘to send’ (Bu 7), cf. MM ǰaru- ‘id.’ tar- ‘to scatter’ (Bu 5), cf. MM tara-, tar- ‘to scatter’. One example is attested with *Cala-: tal- ‘to plunder, to capture’ (Bu 6), cf. MM tala- ‘id.’, although a variant t[ala-] (Bu 9) also seems likely, but is impossible to determine due to the script erosion. 6b. There are also other vowel reductions in the second syllable: tüg- ‘to be enough’ (KhT 1: 7), cf. MM tüge- ‘id.’, tüš- ‘to entrust’, ‘to support’. KhT 1: 7. Cf. EMM tüši- ‘to entrust’, ‘to rely upon’, possibly also ‘to support’. Note that the palatalization si > ši must have occurred before the vowel reduction. 6c. There is a regular final vowel reduction in the nomen perfecti -qs ~ -ks in Khüis Tolgoi, but not in Bugut, cf. MM -qsa(n) ~ -kse(n) : törö-ks ‘was born’ (KhT 1: 1, 1: 8, 1: 9), uqa-qs ‘realized’ (KhT 1: 2), ǰa-qs ‘promised’ (KhT 1: 3), [a-]qsa ‘was’ (Bu 14). Like Khitan and unlike the rest of Mongolic, the Ruan-ruan language may have been a “palatalizing” language, e.g. -ńAr, plural marker (KhT 1: 1, 1: 3, 1: 5, 1: 7, 1: 9), although there is also a non-palatalized variant -nAr (KhT 1: 4, Bu 2, 9 (twice), 17),6 cf. MM and WM -nAr, -iń, genitive marker (KhT 9), cf. MM -Un, -yin, -īn and WM -Un, -yin, qoń[i]y ‘sheep’ (Bu 10), MM and WM qonin ‘id.’, bo[tuɣ]ńa ‘camel calf’ (Bu 10), cf. EMM botuqan 6 The equal number of examples of -ńAr and -nAr most likely suggests that we are dealing here with free graphic variation. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 168 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Vovin ‘id.’ (MNT §78) and WMM botaɣa ~ botaɣan ‘id.’ (Mu 25, 122, 270) ńele- ‘to join’ (KhT 1: 4), cf. EMM neyile-, WMM neile- ‘id.’, Ańaqay, p. n. (KhT 1: 2), cf. Anagwai 阿那瓌 in the Early Middle Chinese transcription. There is an internal variation between voiceless and voiced consonants in one word: ɣačar ‘land, earth, place’ (Bu 5) ~ qaǰar (Bu 13), cf. MM ɣaǰar, qaǰar, WM ɣaǰar ‘id.’ In addition, voiced consonants in the Ruan-ruan language may correspond to voiceless in MM and WM: gle-, [ge]l[e]- ‘to talk’ (Bu 3, 16), cf. MM, WM kele- ‘to talk’, ‘to speak’, drö ‘law, rule’ (KhT 1: 6), cf. MM törö, WM törü ‘law, principle, rule’, ǰilo ‘stone’ (KhT 1: 4), cf. MM čila’un, WM čilaɣun ‘id.’, küǰü ‘strength’ (Bu 15), cf. MM, WM küčü(n) ‘id.’, ergin ~ irgin (spelled härgin), title (KhT 1: 6), cf. OT erkin ~ irkin ‘id.’ Although s and š are differentiated in the script, they are clearly in complementary distribution, with š occurring before i and s elsewhere:7 sa- ‘to live’, ‘to dwell’, ‘to reside’ (Bu 1), cf. Khitan sa-, MM sa’u-, WM saɣu‘id.’, bodisatva ‘Bodhisattva’ (KhT 1: 1, 1: 8), ksan ‘regnal year’ (KhT 1: 7), cf. Tumshuqese χsana- ‘id.’, kṣırı ‘country’ (KhT 1: 2, 1: 6), cf. Tumshuqese χšera ‘id.’ šim- ‘to die (of an illness?)’ (Ke 2), cf. Khitan s.em.ii- ‘to die of an illness’, but we might expect just the meaning ‘to die’ in the language of Keregentas, [šina]pa ‘domain’ (KhT 1: 10), cf. MM šina’a ‘id.’, šińi ‘new’ (KhT 1: 1, 1: 8), cf. MM šine ~ šini, WM šine ‘id.’ Thus, there is only one phoneme, /s/. The initial y- is not attested in the extant corpus. Final -g shows three different reflexes: -g, -Ø, and -v. Examples: biti ‘inscription’ (KhT 1: 1, 1: 4), bitig ‘inscription’ (KhT 1: 9, 1: 11), cf. MM, WM bičig ‘writing’, ‘inscription’, čiv < čig ‘time’ (Bu 1), cf. MM, WM čaɣ ‘id.’, pügtig ‘saved’ (?) (KhT 1: 4, 1: 8), cf. OT bögtäg, Sogdian βwɣtk ‘id.’, tüg‘to be enough’ (KhT 1: 7), cf. MM tüge- ‘id.’, türǖg ~ türüg ‘Türk’ (KhT 1: 5, 1: 10). There are clearly seven vowels: a, u, o, i, e, ü, ö. The initial ö- is not attested in the extant corpus, and the evidence for the initial o- is either speculative or based on the reconstructions: o[l]- ‘to receive’ (Bu 14), cf. MM ol- ‘to receive, to find’, [ordu] ‘camp’ (Bu 6), cf. MM, WM ordu ‘id.’, [o]ro- ‘to enter’ (Bu 2), cf. MM, WM oro- ‘id.’ The Brāhmī script suggests the existence of one more vowel, ı, but its phonological status remains obscure. There is a vowel harmony that is likely to be of a palatal nature. There are two cases of lowering u > o: qato ‘khatun’ (KhT 1: 5), cf. OT qatun, Sogdian xtwn ‘id.’ ǰalo- ‘to direct’ (KhT 1: 10), cf. MM ǰalu- ‘to direct’, ‘to make straight’. 7 One exception: Ašvar ‘Ïšbara’ (p.n.) (Bu 6). International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 15. 3 169 There are sporadic changes of i to a: ǰa- ‘to promise’ (KhT 1: 3), cf. EMM and WMM ǰa’a-, EMM ǰi’a- ‘to promise’ (the verb may be morphologically complex in mainstream Mongolic), taɣa ‘enemy’ (Bu 4), cf. MM dayyin < *daɣïn ‘id.’, taya- ‘to worship’ (KhT 1: 6), cf. EMM tayi- ‘id.’ In addition, there is also one reverse case with a change of a > i: čiv < čig ‘time’ (Bu 1), cf. MM, WM čaɣ ‘id.’ Morphosyntax 3.1 General Notes The Ruan-ruan language is clearly OV, with a clear preference for SOV, although OSV is also attested. It is agglutinative, with no prefixes and only suffixes. The argument structure is nominative/accusative. There are three major classes of words: nominals, including nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and numerals (but not a single numeral is attested in the extant corpus), verbs, and particles. Dependent clauses are linked to the main clause either directly by adnominal forms of verbs, or by constructions involving adnominal forms of verbs plus dependent nouns. There are no relative pronouns. Adjectives seem to be a subclass of nouns, as they can take plural or case marking (only genitive in our limited materials). Nouns have categories of plurality and case. Verbs have categories of tense, voice, mood, and probably aspect. Verbs differentiate between non-final forms (converbs), adnominals, and finite forms. There is a certain overlap between the last two. The tense of a converb is determined by the tense of a finite verbal form, i.e., tense markers are used only in finite forms. 3.2 Nouns: Singular Marking A few words in Mongolic have a special singular form in -n. Already in MM it could be segmented mostly only on the diachronic level. In the Ruan-ruan language there is only one clear case in which this form can be analyzed as synchronic: (1) … darqa-n8 b[i]ti-be … official-SING write-PAST … official wrote (KhT 1: 11) 3.3 Nouns: Plural Marking There are three plural suffixes in the Ruan-ruan language: -nAr ~ -ńAr, -d, and -s. There is a functional difference between Ruan-ruan -nAr ~ -ńAr, on the one 8 Cf. the plural form darqa-d on line ten of KhT. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 170 Vovin hand, and the Mongolic plural marker -nAr with its Khitan counterpart -ńər ~ -ńəń, on the other. In both Mongolic and Khitan these suffixes are limited in usage, being reserved only for animate nouns: in MM for kinship terms and deities and in Khitan for humans (Shimunek 2017: 264). Meanwhile, in the Ruan-ruan language -nAr ~ -ńAr can be used with both animates and inanimates, see the following examples: (2) [Ta]dpar qa čoɣ-nar [o]ro-[ɣa]-ǰu Tadpar qaɣan noble-PLUR enter-[CAUS]-CI Tadpar qaɣan made the nobles enter, and … (Bu 2) (3) pü[ker]-ner Tadpar t[ala]ox-PLUR Tadpar captureTadpar [will] capture oxen … (Bu 9) (4) te[mē] iŋi-ner [a]č[i]-sar-ǰu male.camel female.camel-PLUR load-?-CI loading male and female camels … (Bu 17)9 (5) biti-ńer qaɣan inscription-PLUR qaɣan qaɣan of the inscriptions (KhT 1: 1) (6) b[i]ti ǰilo-nar qra-nya-ɣuń inscription stone-PLUR look-?-NML looking at the inscription stones (KhT 1: 4) (7) q[a]ɣa[n-u] qato-ńar düge-d qaɣa[n-GEN] qatun-PLUR younger.brother-PLUR khatuns and younger brothers of the qaɣan (KhT 1: 5) (8) tuwa-ńar qaɣan törö-ks tribal.name-PLUR qaɣan be.born-NPF the qaɣan of Tupas was born (KhT 1: 9) The plural suffix -d appears to be used more frequently in the Bu inscription, but among four reliable examples, two come from the KhT inscription, because 9 Note that in this example only the second (and the last) member of the list is marked with plural. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 171 by the strange stroke of fate, in most cases in the Bu inscription nouns preceding the plural suffix -d are completely eroded (although the suffix itself is not). It seems that the usage of this suffix is restricted to animate nouns and may be animals. Numerous lacunae in the Bu inscription, if one analyses them contextually, invite an educated guess that this is indeed the case, but, of course, we will never know. (9) … nabu-d bo[tuɣ]ńa-s qoń[i]y [i]r[e-y] … nabu-PLUR camel.calf-PLUR sheep come-NP … nabu, camel calves [and] sheep, which …, came, and … (Bu 10)10 (10) čekēr-d [a]-qsa empty-PLUR [be]-NPF [they] were empty (Bu 14) (11) q[a]ɣa[n-u] qato-ńar düge-d qaɣa[n-GEN] qatun-PLUR younger.brother-PLUR khatuns and younger brothers of the qaɣan (KhT 1: 5) (12) darqa-d ǰaya bifree.man-PLUR happy befree men were happy (KhT 1: 10) There is also a denominal suffix -čU- that denotes members of a certain social group. It is used before the plural suffix -d. There is only one example of it in the corpus: (13) … +-čU-d-pAr dar-p-ta taɣa a[y]u-?-?C[-VOICE]-ču … X-SGS-PLUR-INSTR defeat-PAST-LOC enemy be.afraid-?-?-CI … when defeated by members [of a certain group], enemies were afraid, and (Bu 4) The plural suffix -s also occurs only once in our corpus: (14) … nabu-d bo[tuɣ]ńa-s qoń[i]y [i]r[e-y] … nabu-PLUR camel.calf-PLUR sheep come-NP … nabu, camel calves [and] sheep, which …, came, and … (Bu 10) 10 Nabu is likely to be a name of some animal, for which there are no etymologies in other Mongolic languages. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 172 Vovin 3.4 Nouns: Case Marking The nominative case is left unmarked (-Ø). The unmarked form can also fill the function of the (indefinite?) accusative case. The marked accusative case will be discussed below. I will start with unmarked examples of both the nominative and the accusative: (15) [Ta]dpar qa-Ø čoɣ-nar-Ø [o]ro-[ɣa]-ǰu Tadpar qaɣan-NOM noble-PLUR-ACC enter-[CAUS]-CI Tadpar qaɣan made the nobles enter, and … (Bu 2) (16) pü[ker]-ner-Ø Tadpar-Ø t[ala]ox-PLUR-ACC Tadpar-NOM captureTadpar [will] capture oxen … (Bu 9) (17) te[mē]-Ø iŋi-ner-Ø male.camel-ACC female.camel-PLUR-ACC loading male and female camels … (Bu 17) [a]č[i]-sar-ǰu load-?-CI (18) … qaɣan-Ø buda qaɣan-u uqa-qs-Ø uqa-ǰu qaɣan-NOM Buddha qaɣan-GEN realize-NPF-ACC realize-CI qaɣan … knows lord Buddha’s knowledge, and … (KhT 1: 2) (19) … darqa-n-Ø b[i]ti-be … official-SING-NOM write-PAST … official wrote (KhT 1: 11) The marked accusative appears as -pī in Bu, and as -ı in KhT.11 The examples of marked accusative are as follows: (20) … pa[ra-n] qora-pī kebi[r] qaǰar[-a] … per[son-PLUR] poison-ACC steppe land[-LOC] … people [received?] poison at the steppe lands (Bu 13) (21) qaɣan ksan-ı ǰula-ba qaɣan regnal.year-ACC shine(?)-PAST [it] illuminated qaɣan’s reign (KhT 1: 7) 11 Attested only in words with [+back] vocalism, therefore there was likely also a front -i in words with [−back] vocalism. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 173 (22) bod-ı beg-ey-ńer bayyı-Ø dolu-ǰa-ǰu tribe-ACC beg-?-PLUR be/stand-NP listen-COOP-CI begs stand and listen to the tribe (KhT 1: 3) The genitive forms in the Ruan-ruan language—as in MM—show considerable allomorphic variation depending on the last segment of the stem: -U after -n stems (two cases of -Un in KhT), -Un after consonant stems (one case of -iń in KhT), and -n after vowel stems (not attested in Bu). Examples: (23) Ašvar-un [ordu]-da Ïšbara-GEN [camp]-LOC at Ïšbara’s [camp] (Bu 6) (24) šińi-n bodisatva new-GEN Bodhisattva new Bodhisattva (KhT 1: 1) (25) … qaɣan-Ø buda qaɣan-u uqa-qs-Ø uqa-ǰu qaɣan-NOM Buddha qaɣan-GEN realize-NPF-ACC realize-CI qaɣan … knows lord Buddha’s knowledge, and … (KhT 1: 2) (26) türǖg qaɣan-un drö taya-ǰu türk qaɣan-GEN rule worship-CI [they] worshiped the rule of Turk qaɣan (KhT 1: 5~6) (27) tün-ü tüš-n[] tuwa he-GEN entrust/support-ADN tribal.name Tupa whom he supported/entrusted (KhT 1: 7) In example (24) the genitive functions as a copula, while in example (27) it marks the subject of the dependent adnominal clause. Possession can be also expressed by simple juxtaposition without any case marking. See examples (5), (6), (8), and (21) above. There are two locative markers attested in the corpus: -dA that appears in both Bu and KhT, and -dU, which is peculiar for Bu. Examples: (28) … [Tad]par Muɣan qaɣan sa-nām (?) čig-dü … Tadpar Muɣan qaɣan reside-PRES time-LOC … when Tadpar and Muɣan qaɣans resided [together] (Bu 1) International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 174 Vovin (29) … +-čU-d-pAr dar-p-ta taɣa a[y]u-?-?C[-VOICE]-ču … X-SGS-PLUR-INSTR defeat-PAST-LOC enemy be.afraid-?-?-CI … when defeated by members [of a certain group], enemies were afraid, and (Bu 4) (30) Ašvar-un [ordu]-da Ïšbara-GEN [camp]-LOC at Ïšbara’s [camp] (Bu 6) (31) qaɣan-un [sina]pa-da qaɣan-GEN domain-LOC at qaɣan’s domain (KhT 1: 9~10) The instrumental case marker -pAr is attested only in Bu. Examples: (32) … +-čU-d-pAr dar-p-ta taɣa a[y]u-?-?C[-VOICE]-ču … X-SGS-PLUR-INSTR defeat-PAST-LOC enemy be.afraid-?-?-CI … when defeated by members [of a certain group], enemies were afraid, and (Bu 4) (33) ke[n-ü] ɣ[a]r-[pa]r who[-GEN] hand-INSTR by whose hands (Bu 15) (34) … bül[e]-k[ü]-per [qa]-d [qa]ɣan … churn-NF-INSTR prince-PLUR qaɣan … by churning, princes and qaɣan (Bu 18) The ablative case marker -č is attested only in Bu. There is only one example: (35) ken irg[e]-č who people-ABL who from the people (Bu 12) The comitative case marker -tU (also known as the formative of possessive adjectival nominals) is attested only in Bu. Unfortunately, there is only one example where the noun before this marker is not eroded: (36) küǰü-tü ke[n-ü] ɣ[a]r-[pa]r strength-COM wh[o-GEN] hand-INSTR by whose strong hands (Bu 15) International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 175 3.5 Nomen Actoris Nomen actoris in -či is attested only in KhT. Unfortunately, there is only one example in which the noun before the suffix is fully readable: (37) toɣo-ɣun pügtig-či … count-NML salvation-NA counting … those who attained salvation (KhT 8) 3.6 Pronouns There are only two pronouns attested in the corpus: the oblique stem tün- of the demonstrative *te-re ‘that’, functioning as a third person personal pronoun, and the interrogative pronoun ken ‘who’. Examples: (38) tün-ü tüš-n[] tuwa he-GEN entrust/support-ADN tribal.name Tupa whom he supported/entrusted (KhT 1: 7) (39) ken irg[e]-č who people-ABL who from the people (Bu 12) (40) ke[n-ü] ɣ[a]r-[pa]r who[-GEN] hand-INSTR by whose hands (Bu 15) 3.7 Adjectives As I have already mentioned above, adjectives in the Ruan-ruan language are essentially nouns with qualitative semantics. There are just few of them in the extant corpus, and two of them can take a case marker or a plural marker like all other nouns. In (42), the comitative form functions as an adnominal adjective. (41) čekēr-d [a]-qsa empty-PLUR [be]-NPF [they] were empty (Bu 14) (42) küǰü-tü ke[n-ü] ɣ[a]r-[pa]r strength-COM wh[o-GEN] hand-INSTR by whose strong hands (Bu 15) International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 176 Vovin (43) šińi-n bodisatva new-GEN Bodhisattva new Bodhisattva (KhT 1: 1) (44) darqa-d ǰaya bifree.man-PLUR happy befree men were happy (KhT 1: 10) 3.8 Verbs: General Verbal forms in the Ruan-ruan language can be roughly divided into three major groups: finite forms (also including adnominal forms most of which can also function as finite), converbs, and nominalized forms. Voices are expressed by suffixes that are always found in a non-final position, in other words, they must be followed by another suffix in order to create a complete grammatical word form. 3.9 Verbs: Finite Forms The present tense marker in -nam is attested only once, but it seems to express a praesens historicum: (45) … [Tad]par Muɣan qaɣan sa-nām (?) čig-dü … Tadpar Muɣan qaɣan reside-PRES time-LOC … when Tadpar and Muɣan qaɣans resided [together] (Bu 1) Past tense in -bA is the most frequent past tense form in our corpus, although as a predicative it occurs only in KhT, cf. the examples below. In (48) -bA seems to be followed by the distant past in -ǰ. (46) … darqa-n b[i]ti-be … official-SING write-PAST … official wrote (KhT 1: 11) (47) qaɣan ksan-ı ǰula-ba qaɣan regnal.year-ACC shine(?)-PAST [it] illuminated qaɣan’s reign (KhT 1: 7) (48) ubi-ǰ ǰalo-ba-ǰ ?-DPAST direct-PAST-DPAST [he] did X. [He] directed [them] (KhT 1: 10) International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 177 In contrast to MM and other Mongolic languages, where this function is preserved only rudimentarily (Vovin 2019, note 2 to column 4), in the Ruan-ruan language, besides being predicative, the past form in -bA can also function as an adnominal/nominalized form: (49) … +-čU-d-pAr dar-p-ta taɣa a[y]u-?-?C[-voice]-ču … X-SGS-PLUR-INSTR defeat-PAST-LOC enemy be.afraid-?-?-CI … when defeated by members [of a certain group], enemies were afraid, and (Bu 4) (50) tüg-ǰü uqa-ba-r-ńar … be.enough-CI realize-PAST-NML-PLUR … are enough and those who realized … (KhT 1: 7) There are also the variants -va- and -bī (in Bu only). It is not clear whether -bī is a cognate of MM feminine past in -bi, as the preceding context is completely eroded in Bu 2. (51) … ǰ[ar]-va-r ǰan[ti-ǰu] … … send-PAST-NML hi[t-CI] … … hit the messengers, and … (Bu 7) The nomen perfecti (in Poppe’s terminology) in -qsa ~ -kse is essentially a past adnominal form which can also function predicatively. In KhT it consistently undergoes an apocope: -qsa ~ -kse > -qs ~ -ks. There is only one example in Bu. Examples of the finite predicative usage: (52) čekēr-d [a]-qsa empty-PLUR [be]-NPF [they] were empty (Bu 14) (53) ksırı Ańaqay [.?.]-ıtı-n ǰa-qs country Ańaqay [title/-V-ıtı-n?] promise-NPF promised to country’s Ańaqay [title?] (KhT 1: 2–3) (54) tuwa-ńar qaɣan törö-ks tribal.name-PLUR qaɣan be.born-NPF the qaɣan of Tupas was born (KhT 1: 9) International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 178 Vovin Only one example of the nominalized usage is attested: (55) … qaɣan buda qaɣan-u uqa-qs uqa-ǰu qaɣan Buddha qaɣan-GEN realize-NPF realize-CI qaɣan … knows lord Buddha’s knowledge, and … (KhT 1: 2) There are only two identical examples of the adnominal usage: (56) šińi-n bodisatva törö-ks qaγan new-GEN Bodhisattva be.born-NPF qaγan a qaγan, who was born as a new Bodhisattva (KhT 1: 1–2, 8) The preterite -lU[pA] is attested only once in Bu in a nominalized form: (57) qapa bar-ǰu gle-lü[pe]-r surrounding take-CI talk-PRET-NML shut [themselves] in and talked (Bu 3) kü EP The deductive present in -yU is attested only once in KhT as ki-yü ‘do-DED. PRES’ from the verb ki- ‘to do’, ‘to make’ in a context that is significantly eroded and, therefore, resists an analysis. The distant past in -ǰ is attested only in KhT. It seems to occur with three verbs, but only one of them, ǰalo- ‘to direct’ is understood, while the two others, igbi- (KhT 1: 6) and ubi- (KhT 1: 10, see the example below) are opaque. (58) ubi-ǰ ǰalo-ba-ǰ ?-DPAST direct-PAST-DPAST [he] did X. [He] directed [them] (KhT 1: 10) The nomen futuri suffix -[q]uy ~ -k[ü], which functions as a marker of a presentfuture tense is attested only in Bu. The [+back] -[q]uy is attested on column 10 with the previous stem eroded, while the [-back] -k[ü] appears only once in the nominalized function: (59) … bül[e]-k[ü]-per [qa]-d [qa]ɣan … churn-NF-INSTR prince-PLUR qaɣan … by churning, princes and qaɣan (Bu 18) The adnominal form in -n ~ -n[] is not found as a productive form in mainstream Mongolic languages, but an adnominal -n is attested in Khitan. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 179 (60) … [di]gi-n qa-n … die-ADN qaɣan12 … the qaɣan, who passed away (Bu 3) (61) … ɣačar aru tar-ǰu ǰar-n[]… … land back scatter-CI hurry-ADN … … hurried to scatter in the back of the land … (Bu 5) In (61), as also in (62), the adnominal form is likely to be used in a predicative function, or, alternatively, there was a locative case marker -A after -n that is eroded. (62) tün-ü tüš-n[] tuwa he-GEN entrust/support-ADN tribal.name Tupa whom he supported/entrusted (KhT 1: 7) 3.10 Nominalizers There are four nominalizers in the Ruan-ruan language: -r, -čA, -ɣuń ~ ɣun, and -ɣol. The first one is shared by both Bu and KhT, the second one is found only in Bu, and the last two are specific for KhT. (63) … [q]u[ri]-r ndü-t[i]-ǰU … gather-NML create-EVS-CI … creating gathering with all their strength (Bu 3) (64) qapa bar-ǰu gle-lü[pe]-r surrounding take-CI talk-PRET-NML shut [themselves] in and talked (Bu 3) kü EP (65) … [puru]pu tal-u-ǰa-r … [heavi]ly plunder-COOP-NML … the fact that [they heavi]ly plundered together (Bu 6) (66) … ǰ[ar]-va-r ǰan[ti-ǰu]… … send-PAST-NML hi[t-CI]… … hit the messengers, and … (Bu 7) 12 In EMM qan ‘qaɣan’, ‘emperor’ (MNT §123, §125, §126, §127, §152, §155, §160, §174, §177 etc.) can be a phonetic variant of qa’an ~ qaqan. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 180 Vovin (67) tuwa pUrO-r čeči-re Tupa sin(?)-NML stab-CF In order to exterminate [their] sins, Tupa (KhT 1: 4) (68) tüg-ǰü uqa-ba-r-ńar … be.enough-CI realize-PAST-NML-PLUR … are enough and those who realized … (KhT 1: 7) (69) … [qa]-d ab[V]-ča … … [prince]-PLUR take-NML … … taking [prince]s … (Bu 8) (70) b[i]ti ǰilo-nar qra-nya-ɣuń inscription stone-PLUR look-?-NML looking at the inscription stones (KhT 1: 4) (71) toɣo-ɣun pügtig-či … count-NML salvation-NA counting … those who attained salvation (KhT 8) (72) ksırı ergin bar-ɣo[l] country erkin take-NML country’s erkins and collectors (KhT 1: 6) 3.11 Verbalizers The verbalizers -lA and -či[l]i[A]- occur only in Bu on columns sixteen and twelve, respectively, but the nominal stems preceding them are eroded. The first one is probably cognate to the general MM and WM verbalizer -lA, and the second to the MM and WM quality verbalizer -čilA-. 3.12 Converbs There are several converbs in the Ruan-ruan language, the most frequent being the converbum imperfecti in -ǰU, which as well as the converbum praeparativum in -rUn, and the nomen praesentis in -yi (functioning only as a converb-like form in Khitan) are shared by Bu and KhT, although the last one is only reconstructed in Bu. The converbum modale in -n and the converbum finale in -rA are attested only in KhT, while the converbum perfecti in -’Āt occurs only in Bu. The converbum imperfecti in -ǰU denotes successive actions. Examples: International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 181 (73) [Ta]dpar qa čoɣ-nar [o]ro-[ɣa]-ǰu Tadpar qaɣan noble-PLUR enter-[CAUS]-CI Tadpar qaɣan made the nobles enter, and … (Bu 2) (74) … [q]u[ri]-r ndü-t[i]-ǰü … gather-NML create-EVS-CI … creating gathering with all their strength qapa bar-ǰu gle-lü[pe]-r surrounding take-CI talk-PRET-NML shut [themselves] in and talked (Bu 3) kü EP (75) … qaɣan buda qaɣan-u uqa-qs uqa-ǰu qaɣan Buddha qaɣan-GEN realize-NPF realize-CI qaɣan … knows lord Buddha’s knowledge, and … (KhT 1: 2) (76) bod-ı beg-ey-ńer bayyı-Ø dolu-ǰa-ǰu tribe-ACC beg-?-PLUR be/stand-NP listen-COOP-CI begs stand and listen to the tribe (KhT 1: 3) (77) türǖg qaɣan-un drö taya-ǰu türk qaɣan-GEN rule worship-CI [they] worshiped the rule of Turk qaɣan (KhT 1: 5~6) The converbum modale in -n indicates an action that is either closely consecutive or practically simultaneous with the following action. Examples: (78) biti-ńer qaɣan inscription-PLUR qaɣan The qaɣan of the inscriptions digi-n šińi-n bodisatva törö-ks qaγan die-CM new-GEN Bodhisattva be.born-NPF qaγan passed away and qaγan who was reborn as new Bodhisattva (KhT 1: 1–2) (79) tuwa pUrO-r čeči-re pügtig ńele-n Tupa sin(?)-NML stab-CF saved join-CM In order to exterminate [their] sins, Tupa joined the saved, and (KhT 1: 4) International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 182 Vovin (80) Niri qaɣan türüg qaɣa[n] giǰi-n Niri qaɣan türk qaɣan follow-CM [they] followed Niri qaɣan, qaɣan of Türks, ubi-ǰ ǰalo-ba-ǰ ?-DPAST direct-PAST-DPAST and [he] directed them (KhT 1: 10) The converbum perfecti in -’Āt is attested once (Bu 12) after a verbalized stem with a nominal root that is eroded. The converbum praeparativum in -rUn indicates the reason for the following action. Examples: (81) kö[be’ü-d] [ge]l[e]-r[ü]n so[n-PLUR] [sa]y-CP as the sons said (Bu 16) (82) darqa-d ǰaya bi-rün free.man-PLUR happy be-CP because free men were happy (KhT 1: 10–11) The nomen praesentis in -yi can be reconstructed twice in Bu, and it is attested once in KhT, where it merges with the preceding -yI of the stem. Unlike MM, where -(U)yi can function as both a converb and a verbal noun, in the Ruanruan language -yi functions only as a converb, like -i in Khitan (Kane 2009: 149–150): (83) bod-ı beg-ey-ńer bayyı-Ø dolu-ǰa-ǰu tribe-ACC beg-?-PLUR be/stand-NP listen-COOP-CI begs stand and listen to the tribe (KhT 1: 3) The converbum finale in -rA introduces the purpose of an action: ‘in order to …’: (84) tuwa pUrO-r čeči-re pügtig ńele-n Tupa sin(?)-NML stab-CF saved join-CM In order to exterminate [their] sins, Tupa joined the saved, and (KhT 1: 4) International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 183 3.13 Voice Markers The causative voice marker -ɣa- can only be reconstructed on the basis of context, but the cooperative voice marker -ǰa- is actually attested. (85) … [puru]pu tal-u-ǰa-r … [heavi]ly plunder-COOP-NML … the fact that [they heavi]ly plundered together (Bu 6) (86) bod-ı beg-ey-ńer bayyı-Ø dolu-ǰa-ǰu tribe-ACC beg-?-PLUR be/stand-NP listen-COOP-CI begs stand and listen to the tribe (KhT 1: 3) 3.14 Particles The only particle attested in the corpus (only in Bu) is the emphatic particle kü. Examples: (87) … [di]gi-n qa-n ert[e] k[ü] … … die-ADN qaɣan earlier EP … … the qaɣan, who passed away, earlier … (Bu 3) (88) qapa bar-ǰu gle-lü[pe]-r surrounding take-CI talk-PRET-NML shut [themselves] in and talked (Bu 3) kü EP (89) … o[l-ɣa-ba] kü čekēr-d [a]-qsa … recei[ve-CAUS-PAST] EP empty-PLUR [be]-NPF … were made to receive … and were empty (Bu 14) 3.15 Khitan-Related Specific Morphology Besides the adnominal -n ~ -n[] discussed above (see the examples (60)–(62)), there is also the Ruan-ruan past adnominal form that does not occur in mainstream Mongolic, but is attested in Khitan. It appears exclusively in Keregentas inscriptions: -pu ~ -pun, apparently related to Khitan past adnominal -buń: (90) dar-pu qaɣan defeat-PAST.ADN qaɣan Defeated qaɣan (Ke 1) International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 184 Vovin (91) šim-pun qaɣan decease-PAST.ADN qaɣan Deceased qaɣan (Ke 2) 4 Vocabulary A [a-] ‘to be’. Bu 14. Cf. MM a- ‘id.’ ab[V]- ‘to take’. Bu 8. Cf. MM, WM ab- ‘id.’ [a]č[i]- ‘to load’. Bu 17. Cf. MM ači- ‘to load’, ‘to put a load on’. Ańaqay, p.n. KhT 1: 2. aru ‘back’. Bu 5. Cf. MM, WM aru ‘id.’ Ašvar, Ïšbara, p.n. Bu 6. a[y]u- ‘to be afraid’. Bu 4. Cf. MM, WM ayu- ‘id.’ B bar- ‘to take’. Bu 3, KhT 1: 6. Cf. MM, WM bari- ‘id.’ bayi- ‘to be’, ‘to stand’. KhT 1: 3. Cf. MM bayyi- ‘id.’ beg-ey ‘bek-?’. KhT 1: 3. Cf. OT beg ‘bek’ < EMC paek 伯 ‘elder’. biti ‘inscription’. KhT 1: 1, 1–4. See also bitig. Cf. MM, WM bičig ‘writing’, ‘inscription’. biti- ‘to write’. KhT 1: 11. bitig ‘inscription’. KhT 1: 9, 1–11. See also biti. bod ‘tribe’. KhT 1: 3. Cf. OT bod ‘id.’ Bodisatva ‘Bodhisattva’. KhT 1: 1, 1–8. bo[tuɣ]ńa ‘camel calf’. Bu 10. Cf. EMM botuqan ‘id.’ (MNT §78) and WMM botaɣa ~ botaɣan ‘id.’ (Mu 25, 122, 270). buda ‘Buddha’. KhT 1: 2. bül[e]- ‘to churn’. Bu 18. Cf. EMM büle- ‘id.’ Č čeči- ‘to stab’. KhT 1: 4. Cf. EMM seči- ‘to stab’. čekēr ‘empty’. Bu 14. EMM čekēre ~ čekērei ‘id.’ (MNT §96, §104). čiv < čig, ‘time’. Bu 1. Cf. MM, WM čaɣ ‘id.’ čoɣ ‘noble’. Bu 2. Cf. EMM čoɣ-tai (MNT §115), čoɣ-tu (PP 27.1) ‘brilliant’, ‘splendid’, ‘magnificent’. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 185 D dar- ‘to defeat’. Bu 4, Ke 1. Cf. MM, WM daru- ‘id.’ darqan ‘free man’, ‘official’. KhT 1: 10, 1–11. Cf. EMM darqan, PLUR darqa-d ‘free man’, ‘official’. dA + ×ıɣ +, unclear. Bu 16. digi-, [di]gi- ‘to die’, ‘to pass away’. KhT 1: 1, Bu 3. Cf. Khitan tege- ~ tige- ‘id.’ dolu- ‘to listen’. KhT 1: 3. Cf. Pre-classical WM daɣula- ‘id.’, MM da’u ‘voice’. drö ‘rule’, ‘law’, ‘principle’. KhT 1: 6. Cf. MM törö and WM törü ‘id.’ düge ‘younger brother’. KhT 1: 5. Cf. MM de’ü, WM degü ‘id.’ E ert[e] (spelled hert[e]) ‘early’, ‘earlier’. Bu 3. Cf. MM, WM erte ‘id.’ < OT erte ‘early’, ‘in the morning’. ergin ~ irgin (spelled härgin), title. KhT 1: 6. Cf. OT erkin ~ irkin ‘id.’ G gle-, [ge]l[e]- ‘to talk’. Bu 3, 16. Cf. MM, WM kele- ‘to talk’, ‘to speak’. [g]iǰi- ‘to follow’. KhT 1: 10 (possibly [k]iǰi- ‘to approach’). Cf. MM giǰi-/ kiǰi- ‘id.’ Ɣ ɣačar ‘land, earth, place’. Bu 5. See also qaǰar. Cf. MM ɣaǰar, qaǰar, WM ɣaǰar ‘id.’ ɣ[a]r ‘hand’. Bu 15. Cf. MM, WM ɣar ‘id.’ I igbi- (spelled higbi-), unclear. KhT 1: 6. iŋi- ‘female camel’. Bu 17. Cf. WMM ingen ‘id.’ [i]r[e]- ‘to come’. Bu 10. Cf. MM ire- ‘id.’ irg[e] (spelled hirg[e]) ‘people’. Bu 12. Cf. MM and WM irge ~ irgen ‘id.’ J ǰa- ‘to promise’. KhT 1: 3. Cf. EMM and WMM ǰa’a-, EMM ǰi’a- ‘to promise’. ǰalo- ‘to direct’. KhT 1: 10. Cf. MM ǰalu- ‘to direct’, ‘to make straight’. ǰal[va]- ‘to connect’. Bu 11. Cf. EMM ǰalqa- ‘id.’ (MNT §114) and WMM ǰalqa- ~ ǰalɣa- ‘id.’ (L 1272, Mu 200). ǰan[ti]- ‘to hit’. Bu 7. Cf. MM ǰanči- ‘id.’ ǰar- ‘to hurry’. Bu 5. Cf. WMM ǰāra- (Mu 204) ~ EMM yāra- ‘id.’ (HYYY 18b.8). ǰar- ‘to send’, Bu 7. Cf. MM ǰaru- ‘id.’ ǰaya ‘to be happy’. KhT 1: 10. Cf. EMM ǰaya’an ‘id.’ International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 186 Vovin ǰilo ‘stone’. KhT 1: 4. Cf. MM čila’un ‘id.’ ǰula- ‘to shine’ (?). KhT 1: 7. Cf. MM ǰula ‘light’, ‘torch’ < WOT *ǰula (EOT yula) ‘id.’ ǰ[], unclear. KhT 1: 11. K kebir ‘steppe’. Bu 13. Cf. EMM ke’er ~ keher ‘field’ (MNT §56, §195, HYYY 2b.2), WMM keyēr ‘steppe’ (Mu 94), kehēr ‘desert’ (IM 439). ken, ke[n] ‘who’. Bu 12, 15. Cf. MM ken ‘id.’ ki- ‘to do’, ‘to make’. KhT 1: 9. Cf. MM ki- ‘id.’ kiǰi- ‘to approach’. KhT 1: 10. See giǰi-. kö[be’ü] ‘son’. Bu 16. Cf. MM köbe’ü(n), WM köbegü(n) ‘id.’ ksan ‘regnal year’. KhT 1: 7. Cf. Tumshuqese χsana- ‘id.’ kṣırı ‘country’. KhT 1: 2, 1: 6. Cf. Tumshuqese χšera ‘id.’ kü, k[ü], emphatic particle. Bu 3, 14. Cf. MM kü ‘id.’ küǰü ‘strength’. Bu 15. MM, WM küčü(n) ‘id.’ M me[de]- ‘to know’. Bu 8. Cf. MM mede- ‘id.’ Muɣan, p.n. Bu 1. N nabu, name of some animal (?). Bu 10. ndü- ‘to create’. Bu 3. Cf. MM nödü- ‘to build’ (MNT §249, §265) Nīrı, p.n. KhT 1: 5, 1–10. Ń ńele- ‘to join’. KhT 1: 4. Cf. EMM neyile-, WMM neile- ‘id.’ O o[l]- ‘to receive’. Bu 14. Cf. MM ol- ‘to receive, to find’ [ordu] ‘camp’ Bu 6. Cf. MM, WM ordu ‘id.’ [o]ro- ‘to enter’. Bu 2. Cf. MM, WM oro- ‘id.’ P paɣ, unclear. KhT 1: 11. pa[ran] ‘person, people, population’. Bu 13. Cf. MM haran ‘id.’ pars tiger? Or Persia? Bu 23. pAlksI-, unclear. KhT 1: 6. puɣan, unclear. KhT 1: 9. [puru]pu ‘like a flood, heavily’. Bu 6. Cf. EMM huru’u ‘id.’ International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 187 pUrO- ‘to sin’ (?). KhT 1: 4. No apparent Mongolic parallels. pügtig ‘saved’ (?). KhT 1: 4, 1–8. Cf. OT bögtäg, Sogdian βwɣtk ‘id.’ pü[ker] ‘ox’. Bu 9. Cf. MM hüker ‘id.’ pü[ne]ken ‘fox’. Bu 9. Cf. MM hünegen ‘id.’ Q qa, ‘qaɣan’, ‘supreme ruler’, ‘emperor’, see also qaɣan. Bu 2. Cf. EMM, Khitan qa ‘id.’ qa, unclear. KhT 1: 11. qaɣan, [qa]ɣan ‘qaɣan’, ‘supreme ruler’, ‘emperor’. Bu 1, 11, 18; Ke 1, 2; KhT 1: 1, 1–2 (twice), 1–5 (three times), 1–7, 1–8, 1–9 (twice), 1–10 (twice). qaǰar ‘land, earth, place’. Bu 13. See also ɣačar. Cf. MM ɣaǰar, qaǰar, WM ɣaǰar ‘id.’ qan, ‘qaɣan’, ‘supreme ruler’, ‘emperor’, see also qaɣan. Bu 3. qapa ‘surrounding’, ‘enclosure’. Bu 3. Cf. MM qa’a-, WM qaɣa- ‘to enclose’. qato ‘khatun’. KhT 1: 5. Cf. OT qatun, Sogdian xtwn ‘id.’ Ultimately from Xiong-nu *qa-tu-n. qońiy ‘sheep’. Bu 10. Cf. MM qonin ‘id.’ ? > OT qoń ‘id.’ qora ‘poison’. Bu 13. Cf. WMM qora ‘id.’ (Mu 302) and EMM qoro ‘id.’ (MNT §67). qra- ‘to look’. KhT 1: 4. Cf. MM qara- ‘id.’ [q]u[ri]- ‘to gather’. Bu 3. Cf. MM quri- ‘id.’ S sa- ‘to live’, ‘to dwell’, ‘to reside’. Bu 1. Cf. Khitan sa-, MM sa’u-, WM saɣu- ‘id.’ Š šim- ‘to die (of an illness ?)’. Ke 2. Cf. Khitan s.em.ii- ‘to die of an illness’, but we might expect just the meaning ‘to die’ in the language of Keregentas. [šina]pa ‘domain’. KhT 1: 10. Cf. MM šina’a ‘id.’ šińi ‘new’. KhT 1: 1, 1–8. Cf. MM šine ~ šini, WM šine ‘id.’ T Tadpar, [Tad]par, [Ta]dpar, p.n. Bu 9, 1, 2, 11. taɣa ‘enemy’. Bu 4. Cf. MM dayyin < *daɣïn ‘id.’ tal- ‘to plunder, to capture’. Bu 6. Cf. MM tala- ‘id.’ t[ala]- see tal-. Bu 9. tar- ‘to scatter’. Bu 5. Cf. MM tara-, tar- ‘to scatter’ ? < OT tar- ~ tara- ‘to scatter’, ‘to disperse’. taya- ‘to worship’. KhT 1: 6. Cf. EMM tayi- ‘id.’ te[mē] ‘male camel’. Bu 17. Cf. EMM teme’en, EMM and WM temegen, EMM temē (ZYYY 377), WM temē (IM 448). International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 188 Vovin toɣo- ‘to count’. KhT 1: 8. Cf. EMM to’o-, WMM tō- ‘id.’ törö- ‘to be born’. KhT 1: 1, 1–8, 1–9. tU[], unclear. KhT 1: 8. tuwa, tribal name. KhT 1: 4, 1–7, 1–9. tüg- ‘to be enough’. KhT 1: 7. Cf. MM tüge- ‘id.’ tün-, oblique stem of tere ‘that’. KhT 1: 7. Cf. WMM tǖn-, EMM te’ün- ‘id.’ türǖg ~ türüg ‘Türk’. KhT 1: 5, 10. tüš- ‘to entrust’, ‘to support’. KhT 1: 7. Cf. EMM tüši- ‘to entrust’, ‘to rely upon’, possibly also ‘to support’. U ubi-, unclear. KhT 1: 10. uqa- ‘to realize’. KhT 1: 2 (twice), 1–7. Ü ügbü (spelled hügbü), unclear. KhT 1: 3. +/[+]/-/X/[] +bakro, unclear. Bu 22. +sA[], unclear. KhT 1: 11. +tir, unclear, Bu 21. [+]ksA-či, unclear. KhT 1: 6. -gtīr, unclear. Bu 11. Xa+, unclear Bu 8. []IksA[], unclear. KhT 1: 8. 5 Texts 5.1 Brāhmī Bugut Inscription: Transcription and Glossing 1. … [Tad]par … Tadpar 2. … + + bī + +-tu [Ta]dpar qa čoɣ-nar o]ro-[ɣa]-ǰu + + … + +-PAST + +-LOC Tadpar qaɣan noble-PLUR enter-[CAUS]-CI + + 3. … [di]gi-n … die-ADN Muɣan Muɣan qa-n qaɣan qaɣan qaɣan (h)ert[e] earlier sa-nām (?) reside-PRES k[ü] + + EP + + čig-dü time-LOC [q]u[ri]-r gather-NML International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 189 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language ndü-t[i]-ǰü create-EVS-CI qapa surrounding bar-ǰu take-CI gle-lü[pe]-r kü talk-PRET-NML EP 4. … +-čU-d-pAr dar-p-ta taɣa a[y]u-?-?C[-voice]-ču … X-SGS-PLUR-INSTR defeat-PAST-LOC enemy be.afraid-?-?-CI 5. … + + + ɣačar … + + + land 6. … [puru]pu … [heavi]ly 7. … -tU + + -Un … -COM + + -GEN 8. … [qa]-d … [prince]-PLUR 9. … -nAr … -PLUR pü[ne]ken fox 10. … -[q]uy … -NF nabu-d nabu-PLUR 11. … [qa]ɣan-u … qaɣan-GEN +-gtīr +-gtīr ǰal[va-y] Tadpar +? conne[ct-NP] Tadpar +? 12. … -či[l]i[A]-’Āt … -QV-CPF ken who (h)irg[e]-č … people-ABL … 13. … pa[ra-n] qora-pī … per[son-PLUR] poison-ACC 14. … o[l-ɣa-ba] kü … recei[ve-CAUS-PAST] EP čekēr-d empty-PLUR 15. … + -t[U] + … + -COM + ke[n-ü] ɣ[a]r-[pa]r wh[o-GEN] hand-INSTR (h)aru back tar-ǰu scatter-CI ǰar-n[] + + hurry-ADN + + tal-u-ǰa-r/ǰu plunder-COOP-NML/-CI ǰ[ar]-va-r send-PAST-NML [h]ab[V]-ča take-NML Ašvar-un Ïšbara-GEN ǰan[ti-ǰu] hi[t-CI] Xa + Xa + pü[ker]-ner ox-PLUR me[de-ǰ]ü + + + + kn[ow-i]ng + + + + Tadpar Tadpar bo[tuɣ]ńa-s camel.calf-PLUR küǰü-tü strength-COM [ordu]-da + + [camp]-LOC + + kebi[r] steppe t[ala]capture- qoń[i]y sheep [i]r[e-y] come-NP qaǰar[-a](?) land[-LOC](?) [a]-qsa + [be-]NPF + International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 190 Vovin 16. … + + -lA … + + -VBL(IMP) kö[be’ü-d] son-PLUR 17. … + -d-[U]n … + -PLUR-GEN te[mē] male.camel 18. … + + + bül[e]-k[ü]-per … + + + churn-NF-INSTR [ge]l[e]-r[ü]n say-CP dA + ×ıɣ + dA + ×ıɣ + iŋi-ner female.camel-PLUR [qa]-d prince-PLUR [a]č[i]-sar-ǰu load-?-CI [qa]ɣan qaɣan 19. Completely eroded. 20. Completely eroded. 21. … + tir + + … Glossing impossible. 22. … + bakro Glossing impossible. 23. … ra pars? tiger?/Persia? 24. Completely eroded. 5.2 Brāhmī Bugut Inscription: Tentative Translation 1. … when Tadpar and Muɣan qaɣans resided [together] 2. … Tadpar qaɣan made the nobles enter, and 3. … the qaɣan, who passed away, earlier … creating gathering with all [their] strength shut [themselves] in and talked. 4. … when the enemies were defeated by members [of a certain social group], [they] were afraid, and 5. … hurried to scatter in the back of the land … 6–7. … the fact that [they heavi]ly plundered together / [They heavi]ly plundered together, and at Ïšbara’s [camp] with … [he?] hit the messengers of X-GEN. 8. … taking princes … knowing … 9–10. … Tadpar will capture X-PLUR, foxes, and oxen … nabu (?), camel calves [and] sheep, which …, came and 11. … connecting to qaɣan’s X, Tadpar … 12. … after making N into V, who from the people … 13. … people … poison at the steppe lands 14. … were made to receive … and were empty … 15. … by … by whose strong hands 16. … do X! As sons said … 17. … loading male and female camels of X-PLUR, and 18. … by the churning, princes [and] qaɣan 19–22. [Completely or almost completely eroded, no interpretation is possible] 23. … tiger? / Persia? … 24. [Completely eroded, no interpretation is possible]. 5.3 1. Khüis Tolgoi Inscription (Stone One): Transcription and Glossing biti-ńer Inscription-PLUR šińi-n new-GEN 2. qaɣan qaɣan qaɣan qaɣan bodisatva Bodhisattva buda Buddha digi-n die-CM törö-ks be.born-NPF qaɣan-u qaɣan-GEN uqa-qs realize-NPF International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 191 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language uqa-ǰu realize-CI 3. ksırı country [?]-ıte-n [title-iten?] / Vite-CM bod-ı tribe-ACC 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. ǰa-qs promise-NPF beg-ey-ńer beg-?-PLUR bayyı-Ø be/stand-NP b[i]ti ǰilo-nar inscription stone-PLUR qra-nya-ɣuń look-?-NML tuwa pUrO-r tribal.name sin(?)-NML čeči-re stab-CF [+] q[a]ɣa[n-u] qato-ńar [+] qaɣa[n-GEN] qatun-PLUR nīrı Niri qaɣan qaɣan -un -GEN drö rule pAlksI-r ?-NML 7. Ańaqay Ańaqay türǖg türk pügtig saved ńele-n join-CM düge-d younger.brother-PLUR ksırı country (h)ergin title/people bar-ɣo[l] take-NML (h)igbi-ǰ ?-PAST tüg-ǰü be.enough-CI uqa-ba-r-ńar realize-PST-NML-PLUR qaɣan qaɣan ǰula-ba shine(?)-PAST tün-ü he-GEN tuwa tribal.name []IksA[] ? tU[] ? hügbü +? ?? qaɣanqaɣan- taya-ǰu worship-CI [+]ksA-či ?-NA dolu-ǰa-ǰu listen-COOP-CI tüš-n[] support-ADN toɣo-ɣun count-NML šińi-n new-GEN bodisatva Bodhisattva [+]l[][+] ? ki-yü do-DED.PRES pügtig-či salvation-NA törö-ks be.born-NPF un ? ksan-ı regnal.year-ACC qaɣan qaɣan bitig-iń inscription-GEN puγan ?? International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 192 Vovin tuwa-ńar tribal.name-PLUR 10. [sina]pa-da domain-LOC Niri Niri qaɣan qaɣan qaɣan qaɣan törö-ks be.born-NPF türüg türk qaɣan-un qaɣan-GEN qaɣa[n] qaɣan giǰi-n ubi-ǰ ǰalo-ba-ǰ darqa-d ǰaya bifollow-CM ?-DPAST direct-PAST-DPAST free.man-PLUR happy be11. -rün bitig [+]sA[] paɣ [+ +] ǰ[] [?] darqa-n b[i]ti-be qa -CP inscription ? ???? official-SING write-PST ? 5.4 Khüis Tolgoi Inscription (Stone One): Tentative Translation 1–3. Qaɣan [of] the inscriptions died and when a new qaɣan, who was [re] born as a new Bodhisattva, knows lord Buddha knowledge, and promises … the country’s Ańaqay [title], begs stand and listen to the tribe together … 4. Looking at the inscription stones, Tupa [people] in order to exterminate [their] sins joined the saved 5. … qaɣan’s wives [and] younger brothers, [and] Niri qaɣan, qaɣan [of] Türks 6. worshiped the Law, and country’s erkins and collectors … 7. are enough and those who realized that qaɣan’s regnal years were shining, and Tupa whom he supported/entrusted 8. counting … those who attained salvation … qaɣan who was [re]born as a new Bodhisattva 9–11. do … of the inscription … the qaɣan of Tupa was [re]born. In the qaɣan’s domain, [they] followed Niri qaɣan, qaɣan of Türks and … [He] directed [them]. As the free men were happy, inscription … official wrote … 5.5 Keregentas Inscriptions: Transcription, Glossing, and Translation Stone One dar-pu qaɣan defeat-PAST.ADN qaɣan Defeated qaɣan Stone Two šim-pun qaɣan die-PAST.ADN qaɣan Deceased qaɣan International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 6 193 Conclusion I trust that the most innovative and revolutionary linguistic part of the discovery of the Ruan-ruan language is that the first ‘Altaic’-type language attested on the steppe by a continuous text is not Old Turkic, but Mongolic. It now places Mongolic as a textually attested language family in the late sixth century and makes it about ten years older than Koreanic that has the first continuous text attributed to 594 or 596 AD. For the sake of the comparison, the first Old Japanese text is dated only by 697 AD, and the first OT text by 713 AD. Tungusic Jurchen texts are not attested before the twelfth century. Abbreviations Languages EMM MM OT PM WMM Eastern Middle Mongolian Middle Mongolian (both Eastern and Western) Old Turkic Proto-Mongolic Western Middle Mongolian Linguistic Terms adn caus ci com cond coop cf cp cpf ded.pres dpast ep evs instr loc nf np Adnominal Causative Converbum imperfecti Comitative Conditional Cooperative Converbum finale Converbum praeparativum Converbum perfecti Deductive present Distant past Emphatic particle Energetic verbal suffix Instrumental Locative Nomen futuri Nomen praesentis International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 194 npf nml nom past plur pres pret qw sgs sing vbl Vovin Nomen perfecti Nominalizer Nominative Past tense Plural Present tense Preterite Quality verbalizer Social group denominal suffix Singular Verbalizer Primary Sources Khitan Hsiao Hui-lian.Can Langjun Xiao Dilu Yelü Jue Yelü Pusuli Yelü Xiang-wen Inscription on the canopy of Hsiao Hui-lian muzhi ming, 1080 AD Inscription, 1134 AD Xiao Dilu Fushi muzhi inscription, 1114 AD Yelü Jue muzhi ming inscription, 1071 AD Yelü Pusuli muzhi inscription, 1105 AD Yelü Xiangwen muzhi inscription, 1091 AD Middle Mongolian Arǰ Aruɣ Bur HS HYYY IM Ist KMQB L MNT PP Qaz Sub YY ZYYY Wall Inscriptions from Arǰai Grotto Inscription of Prince Aruɣ, 1340 AD Ɣayiqamsiɣ burqan-u arban qoyar ǰokiyangɣui, 14th c. The edict of Hai-shan, 1305 AD Hua-yi yi-yu, 1389 AD Ibn Muhannā vocabulary, 14th c. AD Istanbul vocabulary, 14th or 15th c. AD Kitad Mongɣol Qarilčaɣan-u Bičig (Sino-Mongolian Documents), 14th c. AD Leiden vocabulary, 1343 AD Mongol niuča tobca’an, ca. 1240 AD ‘Phags-pa texts, 13th–15th c. AD Hamdullāh al-Qazwini, 14th c. AD Subhāṣitaratnanidhi, 14th c. AD Yi-yu, 16th c. AD. Zi yuan yi-yu, 13th c. (?) AD International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 195 References and Further Reading Bazylxan / Базылхан, Н. 2005. Қазақстан тарихы туралы түркі деректемелері [Turkic data on the history of Kazakhstan], II том: Көнетүрік бітіктастары мен ескерткіштері (Oрхон, Eнисей, Tалас). Алматы. Baxter, William & Laurent Sagart. 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bazin, Louis. 1950. Recherches sur les parlers T’opa (5e siècle après J.C.). T’oung Pao 39. 228–329. Benveniste, Émile. 1929. Essai de grammaire sogdienne. Deuxième partie: morphologie, syntaxe et glossaire. Paris: Librarie orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Bolučilaɣu et al. 1985. [A vocabulary of Eastern Yughur]. Hohhot: Nei Menggu Daxue Chubanshe. Boodberg, Peter A. 1936. The language of T’opa Wei. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 1. 167–185. Chen, Sanping. 2005. Turkic or Proto-Mongolian? A note on the Tuoba language. Central Asiatic Journal 49(2). 161–173. Chinggeltei 清格尔泰 & Wu Yingzhe 吴英喆 & Jiruhe 吉如何. 2017. 契丹小字再研究 [A new research on the Khitan Small Characters], vols. 1–3. Hohhot: Nei Menggu Daxue Chubanshe. Clauson, Sir Gerald. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Diyarbekirli, Nejat. 1979. Orhun’dan geliyorum [I am from Orkhon]. Türk Kültürü, Sayı 198–199, cilt XVII, Nisan–Mayıs 1979. 321–384 (1–64). Edel’man, Joy I. 2015. Этимологический словарь иранских языков, vol. 5: l–n. Moscow: Nauka, Vostočnaja literatura. Gharib, B. 2004. Sogdian Dictionary (Sogdian-Persian-English). Teheran: Farhangan Publications. Godziński, Stanisław. 1985. Język śriedniomongolski. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Janhunen, Juha. 1985. Proto-Mongolic. In: Juha Janhunen (ed.). The Mongolic Languages. London: Routledge. 1–29. Kane, Daniel. 2009. The Kitan Language and Script. (Handbook of Oriental Studies VIII.19.) Leiden: Brill. Khabtagaeva, Bayarma. 2018. The role of Ewenki *VgV in Mongolic reconstructions. In: Ákos B. Apátoczky & Christopher P. Atwood & Béla Kempf (eds.). Philology of the Grasslands: Essays in Mongolic, Turkic, and Tungusic Studies. Leiden: Brill. 174–193. Kljaštornyj / Kляшторный, Сергей Г. & Владимир A. Лившиц. 1971. Согдийская надпись из Бугута. Страны и народы Востока 10. 121–146. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 196 Vovin Kljaštornyj / Kliashtornyi, Sergei G. & Vladimir A. Livshic. 1972. The Sogdian inscription of Bugut revised. Acta Orientalia Hungaricae 26(2). 69–102. Kljaštornyj / Kляшторный, Сергей Г. & Владимир A. Лившиц. 1978. Открытие и изучение древнетюркских и согдийских эпиграфических памятников Центральной Азии. Археология и этнография Монголии. Novosibirsk: Nauka. 37–60. La Vaissière, Étienne de. 2018. The historical context to the Khüis Tolgoi inscription. Journal Asiatique 306(2). 153–157. Ligeti, Lajos. 1970. Le tabghach, un dialect de la langue sien-pi. In: Lajos Ligeti (ed.). Mongolian Studies. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 265–308. Maue, Dieter. 2008. Three languages on one leaf: On IOL Toch 81 with special regard to the Turkic part. BSOAS 71. 59–73. Maue, Dieter. 2018. Khüis Tolgoi: Signs and sounds. Journal Asiatique 306(2). 129–139. Maue, Dieter. 2019 (forthcoming). The Brāhmī Inscription on the Bugut Stele. Journal Asiatique 307(1). Ölmez, Mehmet. 2018. The Khüis Tolgoi inscription: On the discovery, the whereabouts, condition of the stones, and our expedition. Journal Asiatique 306(2). 125–127. Ölmez, Mehmet. 2018 (forthcoming). The Brāhmī Bugut inscription: On the discovery, the whereabouts, condition of the stones, and our expedition. Journal Asiatique 307(1). Ōsawa, Takashi & Suzuki Kōsetsu & R. Munhutoruga. 2009. モンゴル国現存遺跡・突 厥碑文調査報告. In: Бичээс II / Biçeesu II: 2006 оноос 2008 оны Монгол улс дахь Түргийн бичээс ба эртний дурсгалыг судлах экспедицийн илтгэл. Улаанбаатар хот 2009. Poppe / Поппе, Николай Н. 1925. Монгольские названия животных в труде Хамдаллаха Казвини. Записки коллегии востоковедов 1. 195–208. Poppe, Nicholas. 1955. Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies. Helsinki: Société Finno-Ougrienne. Poppe, Nicholas. 1957. The Mongolian Documents in ḥP’ags-pa Script. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Poppe, Nicholas. 1964. Grammar of Written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1991. Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: UBC Press. de Rachewiltz, Igor. 2004–2013. The Secret History of Mongols: Translated with a Historical and Philological Commentary, vols. 1–2 (2004), vol. 3 (2013). (Brill’s Inner Asian Library 7.) Leiden: Brill. Róna-Tas, András & Berta Árpád. 2011. West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian, vols. 1–2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rykin, Pavel. 2018. Reflexes of the *VgV and *VxV groups in the Mongol vocabulary of the Sino-Mongol glossary Dada yu / Beilu yiyu (Late 16th–Early 17th Cent.). In: International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197 A Sketch of the Earliest Mongolic Language 197 Ákos B. Apátoczky & Christopher P. Atwood & Béla Kempf (eds.). Philology of the Grasslands: Essays in Mongolic, Turkic, and Tungusic Studies. Leiden: Brill. 308–330. Sartkožauly / Сартқожаұлы, Қаржаубай. 2003. Орхон мұралары [Orkhon monuments]. Астана. Schuessler, Axel. 2009. Minimal Old Chinese and Later Han Chinese: A Companion to Grammata Serica Recensa. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Shimunek, Andrew. 2017. Languages of Ancient South Mongolia and North China. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Tumurtogoo, Domiin. 2006. Mongolian Monuments in Uighur-Mongolian Script (XIII– XVI Centuries). Taipei: Academia Sinica. Tumurtogoo, Domiin. 2010. Mongolian Monuments in ’Phags-pa Script. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Tumurtogoo / Төмөртогоо, Домийн. 2014. Монгол хэлний үгийн бүтцийн толь [A dictionary of the Mongolian word structure]. Ulaanbaatar: Xel zoxiolyn xüreelen. Vovin, Alexander. 2004. Some notes on Old Turkic 12-year animal cycle. Central Asiatic Journal 48(1). 118–132. Vovin, Alexander. 2007. Once Again on the Tabgač Language. Mongolian Studies 29. 191–206. Vovin, Alexander. 2010. Once again on the Ruan-ruan language. In: Mehmet Ölmez et al. (eds.). Ötükenden Istanbul’a: Türkҫenin 1290 Yɩlɩ. Istanbul. 27–36. Vovin, Alexander. 2013. Old Turkic loanwords in the Khitan language. In: Hatice Șirin User & Bülent Gül (eds.). Yalım Kaya Bitigi: Osman Fikri Sertkaya Armağanı. Ankara. 621–625. Vovin, Alexander. 2018. An interpretation of the Khüis Tolgoi inscription. Journal Asiatique 306(2). 303–313. Vovin, Alexander. 2019 (forthcoming). Groping in the dark: The first attempt to interpret the Bugut Brāhmī inscription. Journal Asiatique 307(1). Wu, Yingzhe (吴英喆) & Juha Janhunen. 2010. New Materials on the Khitan Small Script. Folkestone: Global Oriental. Yoshida, Yutaka 吉田豊. 1999. Bugut Inscription. In: Moriyasu Takao 森安孝夫 & Ochir Ayudai (eds.). モンゴル国現存遺蹟碑文調査研究報告 [Provisional report of researches on historical sites and inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998]. Osaka: Hōyū shoten. 122–125. Yoshida, Yutaka 吉田豊. 2006. ブグト碑文研究 [A study of the Bugut inscription]. 2006 年度言語学特殊講義. Yoshida, Yutaka 吉田豊. 2018 (forthcoming). The historical context of the Bugut Stele on the basis of the Sogdian inscription and Chinese sources. Journal Asiatique 307(1). Žoldasbekov / Жолдасбеков, Мырзатай & Kаржаубай Сарткожаулы. 2006. Атлас Орхонских памятников. Alma-Aty: Kül Tegin. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 162–197