ᠬᠦᠢᠰᠦᠲᠣᠯᠣᠭᠠᠢ ᠶᠢᠨ ᠪᠢᠴᠢᠭᠡᠰᠦ ᠶᠢ ᠲᠠᠶᠢᠯᠠᠬᠤ ᠨᠢ — ᠠᠯᠧᠺᠰᠠᠨᠳᠧᠷ ᠸᠣᠸᠢᠨ （ᠠᠩᠭ᠍ᠯᠢ ᠬᠡᠯᠡ ᠪᠠᠷ）

Presented​ ​August​ ​31,​ ​2017​ ​at​ ​60​th​​ ​PIAC,​ ​Székesfehérvár,​ ​HUNGARY ©Alexander​ ​Vovin,​ ​2017 INTERPRETATION​ ​OF​ ​THE​ ​HÜIS​ ​TOLGOI​ ​INSCRIPTION (Draft​ ​version) Alexander​ ​VOVIN EHESS/CRLAO,​ ​Paris IamgoingtopresentbelowatentativereadingandinterpretationoftheHüisTolgoiinscription (hereafter HTinscription). Thisworkwouldnot bepossiblewithout thepioneeringworkby DieterMaueonthedecipherment ofitswritingsystem, whichwasalsogreatlyaddedbythe efforts of the team of specialists in 3-D photography that accompanied us on our 2014 expedition​ ​to​ ​Mongolia. Althoughatthisstageitisnotpossibletoprovideacompletereadingandinterpretation oftheHTinscription,slightlygoingaheaditseemsbeyondreasonabledoubtthatitisinsome formof Mongolic. It also appears that the language of the inscription, although it can be conditionallytermedasavarietyofPara-Mongolic,ismuchclosertothemainstreamMongolic languages, such as Middle Mongolian and modern extant Mongolic languages than to Serbi-Khitan, althoughtherearesomefeaturesthatthelanguageoftheHTinscriptionshares 1 withthelatter. It isnecessarytonotethat theHTinscriptionismonolingual,whichcertainly opensthegatesfortheguess-workandspeculations,someofwhichcertainlywillbecorrected by​ ​the​ ​following​ ​generations​ ​of​ ​scholars. As was already mentioned by my colleagues, the HTinscription (or inscriptions?) consistsoftwostones, onepreservedinthebasementoftheNationalArcheologicalInstitute, andtheotherplacedneartheentrancetothebuilding.Certaincircumstancespreventedusfrom reading​ ​and​ ​photographing​ ​the​ ​text​ ​on​ ​it. LINE​ ​2-1 2 Transliteration: b​ı̣ tị̄- ñ​a̤r kagan dig î​n​ ​​ ​​š​ị̄ñı̣-n bodi-satva to̤ro̤-x Tentative​ ​transcription: biti[g]-ńar​ ​​ ​qaɣan​ ​​ ​digin​ ​​ ​šińe-n​ ​​ ​bodi-satva​ ​​ ​törö-k Morphemic​ ​analysis: inscription-PLUR​ ​​ ​qaɣan​ ​​ ​tegin​ ​​ ​new-GEN​ ​​ ​Bodhi-sattva​ ​​ ​be.born-NOM.FUT Notes 1. ​bı̣tị̄,kagan,digîn​, and​bodi-satvaseemtobeforthemostpartunproblematic,buttheyalso provide​ ​no​ ​information​ ​on​ ​the​ ​genetic​ ​affiliation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​language. 2. ​-ńarisprobablytheMongolicpluralmarker ​-nAr​,butthereisafunctionalproblemwiththis interpretation. InMMitisalwaysusedwitheitherkinshiptermsofwithdeities.Khitanplural 1 TherewasanunprecedentedgrowthofKhitanstudiesintheWestalone,withthreesignificantmonographs published​ ​in​ ​the​ ​recent​ ​years:​ ​Kane​ ​2009,​ ​Wu​ ​&​ ​Janhunen​ ​2010,​ ​and​ ​Shimunek​ ​2017. 2​ ​The​ ​first​ ​number​ ​indicates​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​the​ ​stone,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​second​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​a​ ​line​ ​on​ ​it. 1 marker ​-ńər ~-ńəńisalsousedfornounsdentinghumans(Shimunek2017:264).Thus,inboth 3 MongolicandKhitanthesesuffixesarelimitedinusage,beingreservedonlyforanimatenouns. However, crosslinguisticallythefunctional changesinpluralmarkersarenotunknown.Thus, forexample,WOJ ​-raoriginallyusedtobeaneutralpluralmarker,usedbothwithanimateand inanimate nouns, but virtually acquired pejorative usage with animate nouns in Middle (Classical) Japanese (Vovin 2005: 93). In the similar fashion, WOJ plural marker ​-tati for animatenounsgraduallybecamehighlyrestrictedhonorificpluralmarkerinMJ(Vovin2005: 100). The plural marker ​-​n​dömöwasrestrictedtoanimatenounsdesignatingpeopleinWOJ (Vovin2005:98),butinMJitsdescendantform​-domoisusedwithbothanimateandanimate nouns​ ​(Vovin​ ​2003:​ ​41). 3. ​šińe-n‘new’isthesecondwordthat ishighlydiagnostic,clearlypointingtotheMongolic direction. Brāhmī probably stands for [i] or [ı], as notedbyMaue, sointhiscaseit is probablysafetotranscribeas[i],although[e]cannotbecompletelyruledout.Evenifthe formis to be read ​šini​, cf. EMM​šini 失​你‘new’ (MNT§265), although the majority of attestationsindicate​šine​,cf.​šine​nullnullnullnull​(QubIV:43),WMM​šineﻪﻨﯿﺷ(Mu334).Cf.Khitan*šɛn (Langjun7: 6), thusphoneticallyHTformisclosertomainstreamMongolic. Thefinal ​-nis likely​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a​ ​genitive. AsfarasIcantell, therearenoclear-cutcasesoftheadnominalusageofgenitivein MM.​ ​Thus,​ ​e.g.: Tümet​ ​irgen-​ü​​ ​oki-t Tümet​ ​people-​GEN​​ ​girl-PLUR​ ​(MNT​ ​§241) canbeinterpretedas‘girls ​whoareTümetpersons’or‘girls ​ofTümetpeople’.Meanwhile,in Khitan, asnotedbyShimunek, agenitivecasemarkercanbeusedasanadnominal marker, albeit​ ​this​ ​function​ ​is​ ​restricted​ ​to​ ​the​ ​cases​ ​when​ ​it​ ​is​ ​preceded​ ​by​ ​a​ ​numeral​ ​(2017:​ ​260),​ ​e.g. tau​-un​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​​ ​u.ur five​-GEN​​ ​​ ​division the​ ​Five​ ​Divisions​ ​(lit.:​ ​divisions​ ​​that​ ​are​​ ​five)​ ​(Yelü​ ​Xiang-wen​ ​7:​ ​15-16) 4.Bodhi-sattvaiseitheragivennameoftheTurkic​qaɣanfromtheFirstKhanate,orBuddhist Bodhi-Sattvacouldalsobemeant here, asthetext maybeahistorical,butwiththereligious overtones. 5. ​to̤ro̤-xislikelytobeMongolic​törö-kü‘tobeborn’,nomenfuturi,butnotthetranscription ofthetribal nameTürük(laterTürk).Both​törö-k[ü]‘willbeborn’and​türüg‘Türük’appear morethanonceintheHTinscription, theformeronlines2-1,2-8,and2-9,andthelatteron lines2-5and2-10intheirspecificcontexts.Whatisevenmoreimportant,isthefactthatthey havenot onlydifferent vocalism, but alsothedifferencebetween ​-xfor ​törö-k[ü]​,and​-gfor Türüg.​ ​Both​ ​these​ ​discrepancies​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​explained​ ​as​ ​a​ ​simple​ ​free​ ​variation. 6. TherearethreetypicallyMongolicmorphologicalmarkersonthisline:plural ​-ńAr​,nomen futuri​ ​​-x​​ ​​ ​i​ ​raising:​ ​*šine​ ​​ ​šińi​ ​‘new’​ ​in​ ​line​ ​2-1. 6. ​dolumustbeacognatetoMM​dolu’an‘seven’,withoutthenumericalsuffix*-pan(​-’anin intervocalic​ ​position).​ ​Cf.​ ​Khitan​ ​​dalʊ​​ ​‘id.’​ ​with​ ​a​ ​different​ ​vocalism. 7. ​h​ügbüisaninterestingcase.ThelanguageoftheHTinscriptionhasboth​p-and​b-​,sounlike MM, ​h-or ​h​-cannotbeareflexofproto-Mongolic*p-.Isuspectthatiteitherdenotesinitial​g- or​ ​​Ɂ-​.​ ​However,​ ​there​ ​are​ ​no​ ​apparent​ ​MM​ ​cognates.​ ​The​ ​last​ ​word​ ​on​ ​this​ ​line​ ​is​ ​unreadable. 8.Asintheprevioustwolines,thereisplentyofMongolicmorphologyinline2-3:accusative​-ı (cf. MMaccusative ​-i​), converbummodale ​-n​, nomenfuturi ​-qu​,pluralsuffix​-ńAr(thistime following an animate noun), and converbumimperfecti ​-ǰu​. Thelast threehasbeenalready discussedabove. Asforthefirsttwo,notethattherearenoaccusative​-ıor ​-iandconverbum modale​ ​​-n​​ ​in​ ​Khitan. LINE​ ​2-4 Transliteration: b[ı̣]tị̄ jị̄lo̤-na̤r kra-nya-gu-ñ tunullwa̤ punullro̤-r cı̣cị̄-ra̤ pügtîg ña̤la̤n Tentative​ ​transcription: b[i]tī[g] jīlo-nar q[a]ra-n[V]ya-ɣuń tuwa punullro̤-r čiči-rä pügtîg ńele-n Morphemic​ ​analysis: inscription​ ​​ ​stone-PLUR​ ​​ ​look-?-NML​ ​​ ​tribal.name​ ​​ ​?-NML​ ​​ ​stab-CONV​ ​​ ​?​ ​​ ​join-CONV Notes​: 1. ​jị̄lomust berelatedtoMM​čila’un‘stone’(withpossiblevoicingof ​č-inanintervocalic position), and ​-nar is a plural suffix. Notethat thistimewehave ​n-​, not ​ń-​, possiblyunder influence of the final ​-noftheprecedingwordthat itselfelided(however, cf. also ​qato-ńar ‘qaɣan’swives’ rı̣ kaga n​​ ​​ ​türüg​ ​​ ​[ka]ga[n]​ ​​ ​[]​ị̄jı̣- n​ ​​ ​​r​ubī-j ja̤ lo̤ ba̤-j darka- d​ ja̤y bı̣ Tentative​ ​transcription: pada-​ ​​ ​​Ni​ri​ ​​ ​qaɣa​n​​ ​​ ​türüg​ ​​ ​[qa]ɣa[n]​ ​​ ​[k/g]​īǰi-​n​ ​​ ​ubī-ǰ​ ​​ ​ǰa​lo-​ba-ǰ​ ​​ ​darqa-​d​​ ​​ ​ǰay​ ​​ ​bi Morphemic​ ​analysis: be.cut-(?) Niri qaɣan türk qaɣan approach/follow-CONV ?-PST direct-PST-PST free.man-PLUR​ ​​ ​happy​ ​​ ​be Notes​: 1.Thereisalacunaafter ​pada-​.ThereisWM​ada-‘tobestubbed,tobecut’,butasfarasIcan tell thewordisnot attestedmost importantlyeitherinMM(therefore,wecannotconfirmthe presence, or the absence of an initial ​h- *p-) or in WMprior to seventeenth century. Therefore,​ ​this​ ​identification​ ​remains​ ​dubious. 2. Wehavealreadymet TurkicqaɣanNiriinline2-5,so​Ni​riqaɣa​ntürüg[qa]ɣa[n]doesnot require​ ​any​ ​commentary. 3.[]​īǰi-​nlookslikeaverbalformendinginconverbummodale​-n​,butestablishingtheidentity oftherootmightbedifficult,althoughMM​[g]iǰi-‘tofollow’(MNT§253),​[k]iǰi-‘toapproach’ (MNT​ ​§195)​ ​seem​ ​to​ ​be​ ​the​ ​only​ ​candidates. 4.​ ​The​ ​root​ ​​ubī-​​ ​does​ ​not​ ​have​ ​any​ ​parallels,​ ​but​ ​on​ ​distant​ ​past​ ​​-ǰ​​ ​see​ ​the​ ​note​ ​6​ ​to​ ​the​ ​line​ ​2-6. 5. ​ǰalo-ba-ǰ mayconsist oftheroot ​ǰalo-(cf. WM​ǰalu-‘todirect’, ‘tomakestraight’), past 9 tense​ ​​-bA​,​ ​and​ ​distant​ ​past​ ​​-ǰi​. 6.​ ​​darqa-d​​ ​is​ ​a​ ​plural​ ​form​ ​of​ ​​darka-n​​ ​‘free​ ​man,​ ​official’. 7. ​ǰa̤ylookslikeacognatetoEMM​ǰaya’an‘happy,blessed’(MNT§66,§194,§248),where -’an​​ ​is​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a​ ​suffix. 8.​ ​​bi​​ ​is​ ​a​ ​cognate​ ​to​ ​MM​ ​​büi​​ ​‘to​ ​exist’​ ​(MNT​ ​§18,​ ​§35,​ ​§44,​ ​etc.),​ ​(Mu​ ​105,​ ​110,​ ​139,​ ​etc.). 9.ThereareseveraltypicallyMongolicmorphologicalmarkersonthislineaswell:converbum modale​ ​​-n​,​ ​distant​ ​past​ ​​-ǰ​,​ ​past​ ​​-bA​,​ ​and​ ​plural​ ​suffix​ ​​-d​. LINE​ ​2-11 9​ ​Not​ ​attested​ ​in​ ​Pre-Classical​ ​WM​ ​(Tumurtogoo​ ​2006)​ ​or​ ​in​ ​MM. 9 Transliteration: [​ ​​ ​​ ​]​r​un​​ ​​ ​b​i​tig​ ​​ ​[+]s​ä​g​ ​​ ​​ ​p​ag​ ​​​ ​[​ ​+​?​​ ​+​?​​ ​]​​ ​​​ ​j[]​ ​[​ ​+​?​​ ​​ ​+​?​ ] darka-n b[] tı̣ b​a̤ ka Tentative​ ​transcription: [e’]​ün​​ ​​ ​b​i​tig​ ​​ ​[+]s​ä​g​ ​​ ​p​ag​​ ​​ ​[​ ​+​?​​ ​+​?​​ ​]​ ​​ ​ǰ[]​ ​​ ​[​ ​+​?​​ ​​ ​+​?​​ ​]​ ​​ ​darqa-n​ ​​ ​b[i]ti-​b​e​ ​​ ​qa Morphemic​ ​analysis: this​ ​​ ​inscription​ ​​ ​?​ ​​ ​?​ ​​ ​?​ ​​ ​?​ ​​ ​?​ ​​ ​official-SING​ ​​ ​write-PST​ ​​ ​? Notes​: 1.​ ​The​ ​last​ ​line​ ​is​ ​in​ ​a​ ​very​ ​poor​ ​state​ ​of​ ​preservation,​ ​but​ ​it​ ​looks​ ​like​ ​a​ ​signature​ ​of​ ​a​ ​scribe. 2.Isubstitute​e’forthefirstlacuna.Theresultingformis​e’ün-​,anequivalenttoEMMoblique stem ​e’ün- of the demonstrative pronoun ​ere‘this’. Likely, this is a reductionof ​e’ün-ü​, a genitive​ ​form​ ​of​ ​​ere​. 3.​ ​​bitig​​ ​is​ ​‘inscription’,​ ​see​ ​also​ ​lines​ ​2-1,​ ​2-4,​ ​and​ ​2-9 4. ​darqa-nissingularformof ​darqa-‘official, freeman’thatwehavealreadyseenasplural darqa-d​​ ​on​ ​line​ ​2-10. 5. ​biti-beisthepasttenseformof ​biti-‘towrite’.Therestofthelineisundecipherableatthe present​ ​moment. 6. OnlytwoMongolicmorphological markersappearonthisline: singular ​-nandpast tense suffix​ ​​-bA​. TENTATIVE​ ​PARTIAL​ ​TRANSLATION 1-3. qaɣan [and] prince [of] the inscriptions. When qaɣan, whowill be[re]bornasanew 10 Bodhisattva,knowslordBuddhaknowledge,andpromisestothecountry’sAńaqay[title],begs, standforthetribe, andpromisingseven[times]…​4.Lookingattheinscriptionstones,Tupa [people], …inordertostab…joining…​5. …qaɣan’swives[and]youngerbrothers,[and] Niriqaɣan,qaɣan[of]Türks ​6.worshipedtheLaw,andcountry’serkinsandcollectors…​7.is enoughandtherewereenoughofthosewhorealizedthat qaɣan’sregnalyearswereshining. Tupa​8.people…counting…qaɣanwhowillbe[re]bornasanewBodhisattva​9-10.…ofthe inscription…Tupapersonsbeingcut fromtheqaɣanwhowillbe[re]bornasaqaɣan,[they] followedNiri qaɣan, qaɣanofTürksand…[He]directed[them]. Freemenwerehappy. ​11. Official​ ​…​ ​wrote​ ​this​ ​inscription​ ​… COMPARATIVE​ ​CHART​ ​OF​ ​HÜIS​ ​TOLGOI​ ​AND​ ​MONGOLIC/KHITAN MORPHOLOGY marker Hüis​ ​Tolgoi MM Pre-Classical​ ​WM Khitan genitive​ ​after​ ​​-n​​ ​stems -U​ ​~​ ​-Un -U​ ​~​ ​-nU -U -en genitive​ ​after consonantal​ ​stems -Un​ ​~​ ​-iń -Un -Un -un,​ ​-en, genitive after vowel stems -n -n -n -n,​ ​-on,​ ​-un accusative -ı​ ​~​ ​-i -i​ ​~​ ​-yi -i​ ​~​ ​-yi -Ø plural​ ​suffix -ńAr -nAr -nAr -ńer​ ​~​ ​-ńeń plural​ ​suffix -d -d -d -d singular​ ​suffix -n -n -n -- 10​ ​This​ ​is​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a​ ​carry-over​ ​from​ ​the​ ​first​ ​stone. 10 nomen​ ​actoris -či -či -či -- converbum​ ​modale -n -n -n -- converbum contemporale -ǰU -ǰU -ǰU -ǰ​ ​~​ ​-č converbum​ ​finale -rA -rA -rA -- nomen​ ​futuri -x -qu​ ​~​ ​-kü -qu​ ​~​ ​-kü -- past -bA -bA(i) -bA(i) -beń distant​ ​past -ǰ *-ǰi -ǰuqui​ ​~​ ​-ǰüküi -- deductive​ ​present -yU -yU -yU -- nominalizer -ɣuń​ ​~​ ​-ɣun -’Un -ɣun​ ​~​ ​-gün -- nominalizer -r -r -r -- nominalizer -ɣol -’Ul -ɣul​ ​~​ ​-gül -- functionally unclear verbal​ ​suffix -n[V]yA- -- -- -- I believe that the chart above clearly demonstrates that the language of the HT inscriptionshowsmuchmorefeaturescommonwithmainstreamMongolicthanwithKhitan. Thisalsomakessensegeographically,sincetheHTinscriptioncomesfromtheterritorymuch more​ ​to​ ​the​ ​North​ ​than​ ​the​ ​home​ ​territories​ ​of​ ​Serbi​ ​and​ ​Khitan​ ​were. Certainly,wehavesufficientlexicaldifferencebetweenthelanguageofHTandthefirst monumentsinMM.Butthisalsoshouldcomeasnosurprise,giventhefactthatmorethanhalf of a millenniumseparates these texts, as well as the hard-core reality (sorely missed by Nostraticistsandotherlong-rangers)that thelexiconrepresentsthemostunstablepartofany language. SOME NOTES ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE NON-SOGDIAN PART OF THE BUGUT​ ​INCRIPTION ItotallyagreewithMauethatinspitebeingabilingualtext,thisisamuchhardernuttocrack thantheHTinscription.AlthoughitiswritteninthesameBrāhmīscript,Iseenosimilaritiesor no commonalities with the language of HT inscription, except may be for a converb contemporale ​-ǰU​, butonesimilarityprovesnothing.Theinscriptionisalsomuchshorterthan theSogdiantext,soitisnotaRosettastonebyanystandards.Iwouldnotbeaspessimisticas Mauetocall thedecipherment completelyhopeless. Ilargelysuspectthatthelanguageofthe non-Sogdian part of the inscription might be Ruan-ruan but I would not attempt its deciphermentbeforeIfinishdiggingoutbitsandpiecesofthisenigmaticlanguagefromtheOT sourcesandacquiringagoodworkingknowledgeofSogdianthatIcurrentlydonothave.The latternecessityisduetothefactthatanyreadingsoftheSogdianpartoftheinscriptionprovide solelythetranslation, but not themorphemicanalysis,whichisthecrucialhelpingpartinthe decipherment​ ​of​ ​any​ ​unknown​ ​bilingual​ ​portion. CONCLUSION Itrust that themost innovativeandrevolutionarylinguisticpartofourpresentationisthatthe first‘Altaic’-typelanguageattestedinthesteppebyacontinuoustextisnotOT,butMongolic. ApartfromthefactthatitnowplacesMongolicasatextuallyattestedlanguageinthelatesixth orearlyseventhcenturyandmakesitacontenderamong‘Altaic’-typelanguageswithKorean that hasthefirstcontinuoustextattributedto594or596AD.Forthesakeofthecomparison, thefirstOldJapanesetextisdatedonlyby697AD,andthefirstOTtextby713AD.Tungusic 11 Jurchen​ ​texts​ ​are​ ​not​ ​attested​ ​before​ ​the​ ​twelfth​ ​century. Thisdiscoverycanalsopotentiallyreverse,atleastinsom