Download Full Altaic languages history of research survey classification and a section of comparative grammar 1st Edition Michal Schwarz PDF All Chapters

Download the Full Version of textbook for Fast Typing at textbookfull.
com
Altaic languages history of research survey

classification and a section of comparative
grammar 1st Edition Michal Schwarz
https://textbookfull.com/product/altaic-languages-history-
of-research-survey-classification-and-a-section-of-
comparative-grammar-1st-edition-michal-schwarz/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWNLOAD NOW
Download More textbook Instantly Today - Get Yours Now at textbookfull.com

Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.
Comparative Grammar of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and

French: Learn & Compare 4 Languages Simultaneously 1st
Edition Mikhail Petrunin
https://textbookfull.com/product/comparative-grammar-of-spanish-
portuguese-italian-and-french-learn-compare-4-languages-
simultaneously-1st-edition-mikhail-petrunin/
textboxfull.com
An Introduction to Survey Research, Volume I: The Basics

of Survey Research 2nd Edition Emeritus L. Cowles
https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-survey-research-
volume-i-the-basics-of-survey-research-2nd-edition-emeritus-l-cowles/
textboxfull.com
WHO classification of female genital tumours WHO

Classification of Tumours World Health Organization
Classification of Tumours International Agency For
Research On Cancer
https://textbookfull.com/product/who-classification-of-female-genital-
tumours-who-classification-of-tumours-world-health-organization-
classification-of-tumours-international-agency-for-research-on-cancer/
textboxfull.com
The History of Social Movements in Global Perspective: A

Survey 1st Edition Stefan Berger
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-history-of-social-movements-in-
global-perspective-a-survey-1st-edition-stefan-berger/
textboxfull.com
The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research 1st Edition David
L. Vannette
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-survey-
research-1st-edition-david-l-vannette/
textboxfull.com
The Holocaust and the Nakba A New Grammar of Trauma and

History Bashair Bashair
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-holocaust-and-the-nakba-a-new-
grammar-of-trauma-and-history-bashair-bashair/
textboxfull.com
The greening of architecture a critical history and survey

of contemporary sustainable architecture and urban design
Phillip Tabb
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-greening-of-architecture-a-
critical-history-and-survey-of-contemporary-sustainable-architecture-
and-urban-design-phillip-tabb/
textboxfull.com
A Cross Section of Psychological Research: Journal

Articles for Discussion and Evaluation 2nd Edition Andrea
K. Milinki
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-cross-section-of-psychological-
research-journal-articles-for-discussion-and-evaluation-2nd-edition-
andrea-k-milinki/
textboxfull.com
Dialogue argumentation and education history theory and

practice 1st Edition Baruch B. Schwarz
https://textbookfull.com/product/dialogue-argumentation-and-education-
history-theory-and-practice-1st-edition-baruch-b-schwarz/
textboxfull.com
Altaic Languages
Masaryk University Press

Reviewed by Ivo T. Budil
Václav Blažek
in collaboration with
Michal Schwarz and Ondřej Srba
Altaic Languages
History of research, survey, classification
and a sketch of comparative grammar
Masaryk University Press

Brno 2019
Publication financed by the grant No. GA15-12215S
of the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR)
© 2019 Masaryk University Press
ISBN 978-80-210-9321-8
ISBN 978-80-210-9322-5 (online : pdf)
https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-9322-2019
5
Analytical Contents
0. Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. History of recognition of the Altaic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.1. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Turkic languages . . . . . . . . . 15
1.1.1. Beginning of description of the Turkic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
1.1.2. The beginning of Turkic comparative studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.1.3. Old Turkic language and script – discovery and development of research . . . . . 22
1.1.4. Turkic etymological dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.1.5. Turkic comparative grammars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.1.6. Syntheses of grammatical descriptions of the Turkic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.2. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Mongolic languages . . . . . . . 28
1.2.0. Bibliographic survey of Mongolic linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.2.1. Beginning of description of the Mongolic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.2.2. Standard Mongolic grammars and dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1.2.3. Mongolic comparative and etymological dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.2.4. Mongolic comparative grammars and grammatical syntheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.3. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Tungusic languages . . . . . . . 33
1.3.0. Bibliographic survey of the Tungusic linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.3.1. Beginning of description of the Tungusic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.3.2. Standard descriptions of the Tungusic languages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.3.3. Tungusic comparative grammars and dictionaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.4. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Korean language . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.4.1. First descriptions of Korean lexicon and grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.4.2. Korean-Japanese comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.4.3. Korean within Altaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.5. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Japonic languages . . . . . . . . . 37
1.5.1. First Japanese lexicons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.5.2. Early European and American lexicons and grammars of Japanese . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.5.3. Description of Ryukyuan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.5.4. Historical phonology and internal reconstruction of Japanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.5.5. Relic Japonic traces in the Korean Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.5.6. Japanese-Korean comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.5.7. Japanese within Altaic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1.6. Formulation of the Altaic hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.6.0. Bibliographic survey of Altaic linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.6.1. Early period – 17–19th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1.6.2. First classic generations – optimists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6
1.6.3. First classic generation – skeptics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1.6.4. Second optimistic generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1.6.5. Second skeptic generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1.6.6. First realistic generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
1.6.7. Second realistic generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
1.6.8. Third generation – realistic optimists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2. Distribution and demography of the living languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

2.1. Turkic languages – survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.2. Mongolic languages – survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
2.3. Tungusic languages – survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.4. Korean language – survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.5. Japonic languages – survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3. Models of classification of the Altaic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3.1. Classification of the Turkic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.2. Classification of the Mongolic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.3. Classifications of the Tungusic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.4./5. Koreanic & Japonic classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.6. Altaic classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4. Etymological analyses of the main ethnonyms or choronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

4.1. Ethnonym Türk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.1.1. Primary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.1.2. Etymology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.2. Ethnonym Mongol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.2.1. Primary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.2.2. Etymology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
4.3. Ethnonym Tungus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.3.1. Early attestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.3.2. Etymology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.4.1. Choronym Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
4.4.2. Choronym Joseon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4.5.1. Choronym Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
4.5.2. Ethnonym Wo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
5. Sketch of the comparative phonetics of the Altaic family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

5.1. Survey of the Turkic comparative phonetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
5.3. Survey of the Tungusic comparative phonetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
7
5.3.1. Correspondences among consonants in the Tungusic languages . . . . . . . . . . . 165

5.3.2. Corespondences among the consonant clusters in the Tungusic languages . . . 167
5.3.3. Correspondences among vowels in the Tungusic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
5.4. Comparison between the Altaic branches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
5.4.1. System of Gombocz, Ramstedt and Poppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
5.4.2. System of Illič-Svityč and Cincius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
5.4.3. System of Starostin and his followers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
5.4.4. System of Robbeets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
6. Nominal case system in the Altaic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

6.1. Nominal case system in the Turkic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.1.1. Nominal case system in the Bulgar-Čuvaš languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.1.2. Nominal case system in the Oghuz languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.1.3. Nominal case system in the Kypčak languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
6.1.4. Nominal case system in the Karluk languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.1.5. Nominal case system in the South Siberian Turkic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6.1.6. Nominal case system in the North Siberian Turkic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6.1.7. Nominal case system of the reconstructed Turkic protolanguage . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6.2. Nominal case system in the Mongolic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6.3. Nominal case system in the Tungusic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
6.5. Nominal case system of Old Japanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.6. Altaic protolanguage system of nominal cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
7. Altaic pronominal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

7.1. Personal pronouns in the Altaic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
7.1.1. Personal pronouns of the Turkic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
7.1.2. Personal pronouns of the Mongolic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
7.1.4. Personal pronouns in Korean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
7.1.5. Personal pronouns in Old Japanese and Ryukyu dialects
(without the number distinction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
7.1.6. Altaic protolanguage system of personal pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
7.1.7. Survey of partial microsystems of the Indo-European personal pronouns . . . . 207
7.2. Probably inherited Altaic demonstrative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
7.3. Altaic interrogative pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
8. Altaic Numerals in etymological perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

8.0. Methodological approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
8.1. Turkic Numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
8.1.1. Survey of forms of the Turkic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
8
8.1.2. Sources of the Turkic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

8.1.3. Comparative-etymological analysis of the Turkic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
8.2. Mongolic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
8.2.1. Survey of forms of the Mongolic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232
8.2.2. Sources of the Mongolic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
8.2.3. Comparative-etymological analysis of the Mongolic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
8.2.4. Comments on the Mongolic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
8.3. Tungusic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
8.3.1. Survey of forms of the Tungusic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
8.3.2. Sources of the Tungusic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
8.3.3. Comparative-etymological analysis of the Tungusic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
8.3.4. Comments on the Tungusic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
8.4. Koreanic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
8.4.1. Survey of forms of the Koreanic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
8.4.2. Sources of the Koreanic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
8.4.3. Comparative-etymological analysis of the Koreanic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
8.4.4. Comments on the Koreanic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
8.5. Japonic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
8.5.1. Survey of forms of the Japonic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
8.5.2. Sources of the Japonic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
8.5.3. Comparative-etymological analysis of the Japonic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
8.6. Cardinal numerals in the Altaic daughter protolanguages and their probable
cognates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
8.6.1. Cardinal numerals “1” – “10” and “100” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
8.6.2. Decads in five Altaic branches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
8.7. Systems of cardinal numerals in ‘Palaeo-Siberian’ languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
8.8. Conclusion on the Altaic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
8.8.1. Survey of Cushitic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
9. Abbreviations and Used symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
10. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

9
0. Preface
There are at least three one-volume monographs devoted specifically to the biblio-
graphic information about the Altaic linguistics in its time: Benzing 1953a; Poppe 1965;
Rachewiltz & Rybatzki 2010, but these are only about the core Altaic branches, viz.
Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic (only Poppe had also included Korean). As the fourth
one could be named the collective monograph Altajskie jazyki, ed. by Kononov, Sanžeev,
Varduľ (1993), which is rather exceptional, since it summarizes both the bibliographic
and grammatical information about the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, Japanese
(and even Ainu), and Altaic in general.
The present monograph, for simplicity henceforth called Manual (although this
word does not appear in its title) concentrates on development of linguistic research in
the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic and Japonic branches, first descriptive, later
comparative. Special attention is paid to history of both the partial and general models
of classification, overview of etymologies of the main ethno– and choronyms and the
process of establishing the phonetic correspondences within and among the individual
branches. For illustration of the common heritage the nominal and pronominal case sys-
tems were chosen as examples of the stable subsystems. A history of etymological analy-
sis of the Altaic numerals is mapped in detail, including new solutions.
Our Manual originated in the cooperation of three linguists. Michal Schwarz
came first with the idea to prepare a manual summarizing the state-of-the-art of Altaic
diachronic linguistics, which was transformed into a successful grant project (2015) to
finance publication of the Manual. His field of linguistic interests is the languages of the
Far East, and their interferences with sociolinguistic consequences. Ondřej Srba, a spe-
cialist in both the literary and spoken languages of Central Asia and Far East, served as
a universal consultant for questions connected with the Chinese historical sources and
Mongolic and Manchu languages and literatures. Václav Blažek, who is responsible for
the present shape of the text, concentrates on comparative linguistics in general, particu-
larly on Indo-European etymology, but is also interested in questions of relations of the
Indo-Europeans with their neighbors in Eurasia in the past. All three of us were influ-
enced by various scholars, who gave us stimuli to be interested in Altaic linguistics in
general or partially. For Ondřej Srba it was his teachers of Khalkha and Classical Mon-
gol languages, Veronika Zikmundová and Jugderiin Lubsangdorji. Michal Schwarz was
introduced to the problems of Central Asiatic history through the travelogues of Pavel
Poucha and into Central Asiatic philology by his first teacher of Chinese, Mirek Čejka.
The second impulse came from his Ph.D. supervisor, Václav Blažek, who inducted him
into problems of mutual interactions of Central Asiatic languages in past and present,
and the third one from the Koreanist and historian, František Honzák, who stimulated
10
him to write ‘{History of} Mongolia’ (Schwarz 2010), realized during his course of
Khalkha Mongol in Mongolia, and later transformed into the more detailed ‘History of
Mongolia’, written in cooperation with O. Srba (Srba & Schwarz 2015). Václav Blažek,
when he came to study mathematics and physics at Charles University in Prague in
1978, contacted first Vladimír Skalička (1909–1991), a former student of G.J. Ramst-
edt in Helsinki (1931/32), who was interested especially in typology of the Altaic (and
many other) languages. Further it was Pavel Poucha1 (1905–1986) and Jaroslav Vacek2
(1943–2017), both interested (among others) in the Mongolic languages. Very important
were personal contacts with Eugene Helimski3 (Evgenij Xelimskij) and Sergei Starostin
beginning of 1985 till their unexpected deaths in 2007 and 2005, respectively, plus their
colleagues Anna Dybo and Oleg Mudrak till the present time, and Karl H. Menges in
1987, 1988 and 1996. In the same year 1996 Marek Stachowski (Kraków) stimulated
him to prepare an article about the Altaic numerals for a newly founded journal Studia
Etymologica Cracoviensia. Still before its publication in 1997 it was read by Karl H.
Menges, Roy Andrew Miller and Gerhard Doerfer. Already in 1989 Václav Blažek met
Alexander Vovin, who at that time still maintained the Altaic relationship including Ko-
rean and Japanese. The second meeting was realized in 2013 and continues in the form
of exchange of contributions. Although Vovin changed from pro-Altaist into anti-Altaist
at the turn of the new century, his publications always brought, and continue to bring,
new and original solutions. For this reason they belong to the most frequently quoted
bibliographic items here, together with works of Gerhard Doerfer. And finally in 2000
Václav Blažek got acquainted with Martine Robbeets. This contact, first supported by
meetings at various conferences and in Leiden, was finally transformed into a regular co-
operation in 2017, when Martine Robbeets invited the whole author team of the Manual
to her Transeurasian project. For a collective monograph we have prepared the chapters
about pronouns and numerals. They were originally written for our Manual, but the final
shapes of results for each of the publications are different in agreement with rather dif-
ferent conceptions, although the chapters are naturally based on the same material. The
Transeurasian project of Martine Robbeets is admirable not only for its broad scope,
multidisciplinary approach, and depth of purpose, but also for cooperation of scholars of
different opinions concerning the Altaic relationship without any prejudices, e.g. the op-
timist Anna Dybo vs. skeptic Volker Rybatzki. We feel the offer to participate as a great
honor too, but on the other hand, we want to finish our obligation to make the results in
both monographs more or less complementary.
1 See Schwarz & Blažek 2007.

2 See Oberfalzerová 2013; Schwarz & Blažek 2017.
3 See Blažek 2008b.
11
In the beginning of the Manual there were five series of articles, which became
direct or indirect impulses for the origin of the book. As first should be named the review
articles of important studies devoted to the Altaic etymology (Blažek 1987: Ramstedt’s
Korean etymologies from his heritage; 2005/2007: EDAL; 2006–07[2008]: Robbeets
2005). As second should be mentioned the informative articles devoted to the Mon-
golic, Turkic and Tungusic languages, their distribution, demography of their speakers,
surveys of main models of their classification, elementary phonetic correspondences,
plus basic bibliographies, all in Czech (Schwarz & Blažek 2010 {in English 2013},
2011, 2012 respectively). In the present monograph the geolinguistic and demographic
information from the articles is replaced by the most recent data from the 21st edition
of Ethnologue (2018), and classifications, tables of phonetic correspondences and bib-
liographic data are significantly expanded, updated, and supplemented by the sections
devoted to development of comparative phonetics in Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, and
finally Altaic. In the third set of articles the nominal and personal pronominal case sys-
tems in all described Altaic languages were summarized, analyzed and on the basis of
sequential reconstruction projected into partial protosystems and finally into the hypo-
thetical common protosystem (Blažek & Schwarz 2014, 2015b: both in Czech; 2015c:
Mongolic personal pronouns in English). The fourth group of articles is devoted to nu-
merals, their internal structure and external comparisons identifying borrowings and in-
herited forms, first Altaic (Blažek 1997; included in Habilitationschrift – Blažek 1999,
102–140; republished in Transeurasian Linguistics, Vol. IV, ed. by Martine Robbeets,
London: Routledge 2017, 26–65); further Korean (Blažek 2013), Mongolic & Tungusic
(Blažek & Schwarz 2015a), Turkic (Blažek 2018: in Czech). The chapter Numerals in
Manual represents a radically remade, supplemented and updated version of these con-
tributions. Finally, the articles of the fifth group bring especially bibliographic informa-
tion about history and development of Altaic linguistics, reflected in writings of great
scholars like Karl H. Menges (Dolgopolsky & Blažek 2000), Sergei Starostin (Bengtson
& Blažek 2005), Eugene Helimski (Blažek 2008b), Anna V. Dybo (Schwarz & Blažek
2014), Gerhard Doerfer (Schwarz & Blažek 2015), or as a partial survey devoted to an
individual branch such as Tungusic (Blažek & Schwarz 2018). They should be supple-
mented by the philological study about the so-called Čingis-Stone by Srba (2012) and
‘History of Mongolia’ by Srba & Schwarz (2015), both in Czech.
These preparatory studies partially anticipated the contents of the Manual:
History of the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, Japonic and Altaic com-
parative linguistics.
Geographic and demographic survey of the modern Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic,
Korean and Japanese & Ryukyu languages.
Models of classification of the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, Japonic
languages, plus Altaic in general.
12
Etymological analyses of the main ethnonyms or choronyms: Türk, Mongol,

Tungus, Korea, Japan & Wo.
Survey of the phonetic correspondences of the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic lan-
guages, plus Altaic in general, according to various authors.
Nominal case system in the Altaic languages.
Pronominal case system in the Altaic languages.
Altaic Numerals in etymological perspective.
Detailed bibliography.
Although the monograph is intended as a synthesis comparing different ideas,
hypotheses, etymologies of various scholars or even schools, there are passages or whole
chapters, where besides summarized data and existing solutions new ideas or etymolo-
gies are proposed, namely in the chapters about the ethnonyms, nominal & pronominal
case systems and numerals. On the other hand, the historical surveys of development of
individual Altaistic disciplines are also new. And the same ambition was applied to bib-
liographic data – besides the mapping of the early beginnings of all studied disciplines
the most recent titles known to us are included. Most of the titles are written in European
languages, including Slavic or Hungarian languages, but we have also included the im-
portant titles in Turkish, Khalkha Mongol, Korean, Japanese and Chinese.
We should also explain, what one should not expect in the Manual, and why. It
does not include comparative lexical data, illustrating phonetic correspondences. These
data were already summarized by the classics Ramstedt (1957a) and Poppe (1960), sup-
plemented by Miller (1968, 1970, 1975a, 1987), Street (1980a, 1985), modified by Sta-
rostin (1991) and his team (EDAL 2003; Mudrak 2008), and reanalyzed and reinterpret-
ed by Robbeets (2005b, 2008, 2014a, 2016a, 2017a). Any new analysis would require
a new monograph reviewing the preceding studies, but this has convincingly been done
just by Martine Robbeets. There is also nothing about word formation. Again, this was
already covered in the classics such as Ramstedt (1912, 1952/1957b) and Poppe (1972).
And finally, the Altaic verb is quite disregarded here. Besides the classic contributions
of Ramstedt (1933–1935, 1952/1957b) there is a long series of impressive studies by
Martine Robbeets, which shift the comparative analysis of the Altaic (Transeurasian
in her terminology) verb to a new and higher quality (Robbeets 2007b, 2007c, 2010,
2012, 2014c, 2014d, 2015, 2016a, 2017g). We also did not include the information about
scripts of the literary languages. This was done very well already by Poppe (1965) and
Rachewiltz & Rybatzki (2010), plus Róna-Tas (1991) for Turkic. Finally, the questions
of hypothetic external relations of the Altaic languages are not solved here, perhaps
with the exception of bibliographic references to the position of Ainu, whose affiliation
in Altaic proposed by Patrie (1982) was convincingly criticized by Street (1983) and
Xelimskij (1984). We prefer the inclusion of Ainu in Austric (cf. Gjerdman 1926; Vovin
1993; Bengtson & Blažek 2009).
13
Several notes about terminology: We use the traditional term ‘Altaic’ in its broader sense,
i.e. ‘Macro-Altaic’, as a common ancestor of five branches, Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic,
Koreanic and Japonic, and parallelly as designation of the language macrofamily con-
sisting of these five branches. The term ‘Transeurasian’ was introduced by Martine Rob-
beets, while ‘Altaic’ returned according to her to Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, i.e. ‘Mi-
cro-Altaic’. This solution is more logical and in principle resembles the situation with
the Austronesian family, originally called ‘Malayo-Polynesian’ from the time of Wilhelm
von Humboldt (1836–39). The term ‘Austronesian’ was introduced by Wilhelm Schmidt
in 1899 as more or less synonymous. Robert Blust (1978) returned ‘Malayo-Polynesian’
into play, but in the narrower sense, as the Austronesian languages without the pre-
Chinese languages of Taiwan (Formosa). Let us mention that another representative of
the Leiden school of comparative linguistics, George van Driem, offered the parallel
term ‘Trans-Himalayan’ for Sino-Tibetan (2001). We keep the traditional term (Altaic)
as an expression of our honor to the classical scholars like Castrén, Ramstedt and Poppe.
The term ‘Turkic’ means for us the whole family including Bulgar-Čuvaš. The innova-
tive mainstream after separation of the Bulgar-Čuvash branch is called Late Common
Turkic by us. Following Janhunen, we prefer the term ‘Mongolic’ with the same ending
as ‘Turkic’ and ‘Tungusic’. We find Kitan to be an integral member of the Mongolic fam-
ily and use the term Para-Mongolic only to quote or comment on Janhunen’s ideas. We
prefer ‘Tungusic’ to ‘Manchu-Tungusic’ or ‘Tunguso-Manchurian’. ‘Koreanic’ means
Modern Korean including Chejudo, Late & Early Middle Korean and the Old Korean
fragments from the states of Silla, Paekche (Baekje) and Koguryŏ (Goguryeo). ‘Japonic’
summarizes the modern Japanese dialects (including Hachijo) developed from West or
East Old Japanese with the border line going through Nagoya, Ryukyuan dialects and
the Japanese-like substratum relics from the southernmost Korean Cheju Island and Old
Korean states Koguryŏ, Paekche, Silla, etc.
Concerning transcription, we usually keep the orthography of the primary sourc-
es. For transcription of Modern Chinese appellatives and proper names the pinyin system
of romanization is applied, for Japanese the revised Hepburn system, for Korean Re-
vised Romanization. On the other hand, we write the proper names in Slavic languages
and almost all glottonyms with č, š, ž and not ch, sh, zh. The exceptions are some well-
established language-names as Manchu, Jurchen, or some glottonyms from the Chinese
milieu as Hezhen.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful for the manifold help of scholars already named, especially to Martine
Robbeets, Alexander Vovin, Anna Dybo, Oleg Mudrak, Sergej Starostin†, Eugene He-
limski†, Karl H. Menges†, Roy A. Miller†, Aaron Dolgopolsky†, Jaroslav Vacek†, Pavel
14
Poucha†, and Vladimír Skalička†, for exchange of sources and ideas. For the same reason
should be mentioned Vladimír Pucek, Bela Brogyanyi, Marc Miyake, Oľga Mazo, Ilja
Gruntov, Sonya Oskolskaya, Georgij Starostin, Julija Normanskaja. No less important
were discussions about various aspects of the genealogical classification of languag-
es, guided in a broader context of genetics and archaeology with Paul Sidwell, Alexis
Manaster-Ramer, Roger Blench, Harald Hammarström, George van Driem, Peter Bell-
wood. Valuable were also discussions with some eminent Indo-Europeanists4, who were
or are interested in methodological or concrete questions about the Altaic relationship,
concretely Eric P. Hamp (1920–2019), Leonard Gercenberg (1934–2012), or Frederik
Kortlandt (*1946). Our sincere thanks belong to the reviewer, Ivo Budil. But the first
reader, evaluator and corrector is John Bengtson. Without his help our English would re-
main barbarous. And we would also express our deep thanks for technical collaboration
to the editor Dan Šlosar, Václav Švehla and Daniela Zitková from Pb-Tisk and Radka
Vyskočilová from MUNI-Press.
4 Let us mention that the generally respected Indo-Europeanist Jochem Schindler was also active in
Altaic comparative linguistics (Schindler 1966). But this tradition goes all the way back to Holger
Pedersen (1903).
15
1. History of recognition of the Altaic languages
1.1. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Turkic languages
1.1.0. Bibliographic survey of Turkic linguistics
As the best surveys of Turkology may be recommended (in chronological order) e.g.
Benzing 1953a, 61–131; Poppe 1965, 23–73; Gadžieva, Levitskaja & Tenišev 1981;
Stachowski 2008; Rachewiltz & Rybatzki 2010, 5–135.
1.1.1. Beginning of description of the Turkic languages
The earliest descriptions of the individual Turkic languages may be arranged according
to the languages which were used for these lexicographic5 or grammatical works.
Arabic
The first known Turkic lexicographic study originated directly in the Turkic milieu with
regard to origin of the author, Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī. In reality, he compiled his “Com-
pendium of the Turkic Dialects” (Dīwān luġāt at-Turk) in the center of Islamic culture,
Baghdad, in 1072–1076, where he moved after travelling through many countries of the
then Turkic world in the late 1060s. His Dīwān contains more than 7,500 Turkic (more
precisely Karakhanid) lexemes with their Arabic equivalents. See e.g. Brockelmann
1928; Dankoff & Kelly 1982–85.
The grammarian and theologian Abū Ḥayyān al-’Andalusī completed the com-
pendium of the Mamluk-Kipčak lexicology, morphology and syntax under the title Kitāb
al-’idrāk li-lisān al-’Atrāk [Book of The Realization of the Language of the Turks] in
1335 (edited by Ahmet Caferoğlu, Istanbul: Evkaf Matbaası, 1931; cf. Ermers 1999,
305; Pendse 2015, 36). The Kipčak-Oghuz lexical material also appears in the so-called
‘Rasūlid Hexaglott’ (compiled for the sixth Rasūlid king of Yemen, al-Malek al-Afḍal
al-ʿAbbās who reigned 1363–1377), consisting of c. 1,800 entries in Arabic, Persian,
Turkic (Kipčak-Oghuz), Middle Greek, Cilician Armenian, and Middle Mongol – see
Golden 2000. Some other lexicographic works from the Mamluk era in the 14th cent.
are Bulġat al-muštāq fī luġat at-turk wa-l-qifǯāq [Book written for those which wish
to learn Turkish and Kipčak languages] by ‘Abd Allāh Ǧamāl al-Dīn al-Turkī Abū
5 A comprehensive survey of the Turkic lexicology was compiled by Eminoğlu 2010. Cf. also Loewen-
thal 1957.
16
Muḥammad (see Zajączkowski 1954–1958), and Ad-Durrah al-muḍī’ah fī al-luġah al-
Turkīyah [The luminous pearl of the Turkish Language] (cf. Zajączkowski 1965, 1969;
Ermers 1999, 40; Pendse 2015, 38). The manuscript Tuḥfah al-zakīyah fī al-luġah al-
Turkīyah [Precious jewel of the Turkish language], containing both Turkish grammar
and lexicon consisting of c. 3,600 words organized as nouns, verbs, etc., was probably
completed in the end of the 15th cent. (see Halasi-Kun 1942; Turkish translation by Ata-
lay 1945; cf. also Fazylov, Zijaeva & Kononov 1978, and Pendse 2015, 37).
Persian6
There are several manuscripts of Persian-Turkish dictionaries compiled during 14th-16th
cent., e.g.
Ṣeḥāḥ al-ʿAjam by Faḵr-al-Dīn Hendūšāh b. Sanjar Naḵjavānī (c. 1330; ed. Ḡ.-Ḥ
Bīgdelī, Tehran, 1982).
Wasīlat-al maqāṣed by Ḵaṭīb Rostam Mawlawī (compiled 1497);
Toḥfa-ye Šāhedī, a short dictionary in verse composed in 1514 by Ebrāhīm b. Ḵodāydede
Šāhedī Qūnawī (died 1550);
Ṣeḥāḥ-e ʿajamīya or Seḥāh al-ʿAjam by Moḥammad b. Pīr-ʿAlī Bergavī (died 1573).
This dictionary was originally a Persian-Arabic lexicon with interlinear Turkish transla-
tion.
Turkish
In spite of its Arabic title the first, and for long time the only, grammar of Turkish written
in Turkish is Muyassiratu-l-ʕulūm, from Berġamalī Qadrī (1530).
Chinese
During the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) there were compiled several glossaries of non-
Chinese languages, together designated 華夷譯語 Huá-yí-yì-yǔ, including Old Uyghur
dated to the 15th cent. (see Ligeti 1966, 1969).
Manchu
Probably in 1792, during the Manchurian Qing dynasty, a five-language dictionary, in
Europe called Pentaglot, was completed. Its Chinese name 御製五體清文鑑 Yù zhì wǔ tǐ
Qīng wén jiàn means “Imperially-Published Five-Script Textual Mirror of Qing”. There
the lexicons of five important languages of the Qing Empire are summarized, Manchu,
Tibetan, Mongol, Turki (= post-classic Čaghatai), and Chinese. See Corff et al. (2013).
6 <http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dictionaries>.
17
Latin
The text called Codex Cumanicus, whose origin may be dated to 1292/3–1295, con-
sists of two parts: (a) ‘Interpretor’s Book’, containing a comparative sketch of Latin,
Persian and Cumanic grammar, plus Italo-Latin, Persian and Cumanic glossaries; (b)
‘Missionaries’ Book’ in Eastern Middle High German, bringing a collection of Cumanic
puzzles, sermons, psalms, etc. Part (a) was probably compiled by Venetian or Genoese
merchants, the authors of part (b) were probably German Franciscans. Further see e.g.
Kuun 1880/1981; Grønbech 1942; Golden 1992; Garkavec 2006.
Probably the first printed information about the Turkish language for European
readers was mediated by the Croatian priest of Slovene origin, Bartolmej Georgijević
(1506–1566), who spent nine years in Turkish captivity after the battle by the Mohács
(1526). In the book Pro fide Christiana cum Turca disputationis .. there are a brief Turk-
ish-Latin glossary arranged according to semantic fields (fol. 21–24), a fictitious dia-
logue between a Turk and a Christian (fol. 25), and numerals (fol. 26–28). The book De
Turcarum moribus epitome (1553, 1558, 1560) explains many Turkish terms in context
of Muslim religion, habits, etc.
During the 17th cent. the number of lexicons and grammars written in Latin
grows. The first European compendium of the Turkish language, consisting of grammar,
texts and Latin-Turkish & Turkish-Latin vocabularies, was published by Hieronymus
Megiser in Leipzig & Wrocław in 1612. The second influential Turkish grammar was
published by the orientalist André Du Ryer in Paris (1630, 1633; see also Hamilton &
Richard 2004). He was followed by Francesco Maria Maggio (Roma 1643, 1670). In
1670 the first Turkish grammar in the British Isles was published by William Seaman
in Oxford. The most extensive compendium of the Turkish (plus Arabic and Persian)
lexicon, including grammar, in the 17th cent. was published by the French (natural-
ized in Poland) Franciscus à Mesgnien Meninski (Franciszek Meniński) in Vienna in
1680–1687. He learnt Turkish, when he accompanied the Polish ambassador to the High
Porte in 1653. Later he moved to Vienna and became interpreter to the Emperor of Aus-
tria. His Turkish grammar was published again in 1756 and dictionary in 1780–1802.
A witness of value of his lexical data follows from the fact that the Turkish material from
his Lexicon was published by Stanisław Stachowski & Mehmet Ölmez once more in
2000. Johann Christian Clodius published his Turkish grammar and lexicon in Leipzig
in 1729 and 1730 respectively.
Italian7
Italian is the first living West European language, which served for both grammatical
and lexicographic description of Turkish. The first grammar was written by Philippo
7 See Kurtböke 1994.

18
Argenti in Constantinople already in 1533 (cf. Rocchi 2007), the second one by Pietro
della Valle in Iṣfahān in 1620. The first Turkish-Italian glossary was included in the
anonymous text, called Opera a chi se delettasse de saper domandar ciascheduna cosa
in turchesco, which was printed in 1525 and again 1530 (see Adamović 1975). The
second lexicographic work, again an anonymous text called Vocabulario nuovu – Ital-
iano e Greco, Italiano e Turco, & Italiano e Tedesco, was printed in Venetia in 1567(?),
1574, 1580, 1587, 1599 (see Adamović 1976). The third one is a part of the manuscript
Vocabolario italiano e arabesco, con alcuni Dialoghi in turchesco e in greco moderno,
also dated to the 16th cent. (see Rocchi 2016). The first real dictionary of Pietro Fer-
raguto (1611) remained as a manuscript (see the modern edition of Rocchi 2012). The
same may be said about the dictionary of Arcangelo Carradori (1650; edited by Rocchi
2011). There are at least three Italian-Turkish printed dictionaries from the 17th cent.,
namely Giovanni Molino 1641; Bernardo Da Parigi 1665; Antonio Mascis 1677. Es-
pecially the dictionary of Bernard de Paris, known in Italy as Bernardo Da Parigi (1665),
represents a valuable contribution to the Anatolian Turkish lexicon, which was not at-
tested elsewhere (cf. Rocchi 2015). Remarkable is the notice from the subtitle about
translation from a French original by Pietro d’Abbauilla, but it is not known, if Bernard
de Paris had really finished his French-Turkish dictionary.
French
Similarly, in France the first Turkish grammar was published in Latin by André Du Ryer
already in 1630, while the first French grammar was edited a century later by the Jesuit
Jean-Baptist Holdermann (Constantinople 1730). It was the first book printed in Latin
letters in Turkey, followed by Jean-François Viguier (Constantinople 1790). His Turk-
ish grammar Joseph de Preindl (Berlin 1790) supplemented by a vocabulary. The Greek
Georges Rhasis published a French-Turkish dictionary in Saint Petersburg (1828–1829).
The Armenian born in Istanbul, Artin Hindoğlu, is the author of two other French-
Turkish & Turkish-French dictionaries (Vienna 1831 & 1838), besides his grammar of
Turkish spoken in Istanbul (Paris 1834), which was translated from his German original
(Vienna 1829). Practically at the same time appeared the French-Turkish dictionaries of
Thomas-Xavier Bianchi (Paris 1831, 1843), Turkish-French by Jean Daniel Kieffer
& Thomas-Xavier Bianchi (Paris 1835) and French-Arabic-Persian-Turkish by Alex-
andre Handjéri (Moscow 1841). The French translation of Davids’ grammar of Turk-
ish was edited in London in 1836. It is interesting that the British orientalist James W.
Redhouse published his Turkish grammar first in French (Paris 1846) and only later in
English. In 1869 in Saint Petersburg Vladimir Véliaminof-Zernof published his French
version of Čaghatai-Turkish dictionary. He was followed by Abel Pavet de Courteille,
who called Classical Čaghatai Turk-Oriental in his dictionary.
19
English
Although the first British grammar of Turkish was published by William Seaman al-
ready in 1670, it was written in Latin, and so the priority of the first Turkish grammar in
English belongs to Thomas Vaughan in 1709. The second Turkish grammar in English
was written by 20–year-old Arthur Lumley Davids and published in 1832, three weeks
before his death. His mother Sarah Davids prepared the French translation of his Turk-
ish grammar (1836). James W. Redhouse is the author of several Turkish grammars
(e.g. 1855, 1884a), besides the English-Turkish & Turkish-English dictionary (1856)
and English-Turkish dictionary for Turks (1860, 1884b). Robert Barkley Shaw (1877
= 1878, 1880) as first brought more detailed information about grammar and lexicon of
Turki (New Uyghur).
German
The first Turkish grammar and lexicon published in German speaking countries was
written in Latin by Hieronymus Megiser (born in Stuttgart) and printed in Leipzig in
1612. And so the first Turkish grammar written in German probably became the book
of the Armenian Artin Hindoğlu, published in Vienna in 1829. The first dictionary of
Turkish with German equivalents (Lexicon Latino-Turcico-Germanicum) was edited by
Johann Christian Clodius in Leipzig 1730. From the 19th cent. German was frequently
used by orientalists of different mother languages. Let us mention especially the publica-
tions of the Hungarian Herrmann (Ármin) Vámbéry: his German-Turkish dictionary
(1858), or studies devoted to Čaghatai (1867) and the Sart variety of Uzbek (1890),
followed by Ignaz Kúnos’ edition of Čaghatai-Turkish dictionary (1902), besides Azer-
baijani studies of Karl Foy (1903–1904). Other numerous titles written in German are
discussed in the comparative section below.
Russian8
If Western and Central Europe was oriented toward Turkish as the most important Turkic
language on its border, in Russia a Turkic language with the highest number of speakers
was (and is) Tatar. The first Russian-Tatar vocabularies were compiled already in the
17th-18th cent., but they remained as manuscripts (see Nugman 1969). Probably the
first printed handbook of Kazan Tatar in Russian was the dictionary and brief grammar
edited by Sahit Xalfin (Kazań 1785). His grandson Ibragim Xaľfin (1809) continued
in his work. Josif Giganov (Sanktpeterburg 1801a, 1801b, 1804) concentrated on the
language of the Siberian Tatars from Tobolsk. Another Tatar grammar was published by
Aleksandr Trojanskij (Sanktpeterburg 1814). Trojanskij is also the author of the two-
volumed Tatar dictionary (1833–1835). A new grammar of Kazan Tatar was published
8 See Kononov 1972/1982; 1974/1989.

20
by the Armenian Lazaŕ Z. Budagov in Tbilisi (1844). S. Kukljašev (1859) edited a vo-
cabulary to Tatar textbook. Nikolaj I. Iľminskij published his Tatar phonology (1859)
and participated in preparation of a Tatar-Russian dictionary with N. Ostroumov & A.A.
Voskresenskij (1892). Voskresenskij (1894) published a Russian-Tatar dictionary, like-
wise Abdülkayyum Nâsirî (1892, preceded by his Tatar-Russian dictionary from 1878)
and S.M. Ganiev (1897).
The first Turkish dictionaries were published in Russia by Georges Rhasis in
Saint Petersburg (1828–1829) and by Alexandre Handjéri in Moscow (1841), but both
in French. Lazaŕ Z. Budagov edited his handbook of Azerbaijani in Moscow in 1857.
In 1850s and 1860s a missionary Nikolaj I. Iľminskij, a disciple of the founder of
Turkology at Kazan University, Mirza Alexandr Kazem-Bek, published several impor-
tant studies devoted to various Turkic languages from both descriptive and comparative
points of view. First was the edition of Babur-nameh written in Čaghatai (1857), which
became a base of his study about Čaghatai declension (1863b). Further materials of
Kazakh {called by him Kirgiz} (1860–61), Turkmen (1863a; see Blagova 2005), Altai
grammar (1869), followed by the Altai/Oirot dictionary of Verbickij (1884). Vladimir
V. Veľjaminov-Zernov published the Russian version of a Čaghatai-Turkish dictionary
(Saint Petersburg 1868). The first handbook of Čuvaš in Russian, containing the gram-
matical rules and vocabulary, was published by Višnevskij (1836). A Čuvaš-Russian
dictionary was edited by N.I. Zolotnickij (Kazań 1875), including the external com-
paranda from other Turkic or neighboring Fenno-Ugric languages. After him it was es-
pecially N.I. Ašmarin, who was interested in Čuvaš (1898, 1902), including the biggest
of all dictionaries of Čuvaš (1928–1950). A series of Uzbek dictionaries was published
by Išaev (1880), Nalivkin & Nalivkina (1884) and Lapin (1895) – in the first two cases
the glottonym Sart was used. Iš-Mehmet Bukin (1883) completed probably the first
Kazakh dictionary with later expanded versions (1894, 1897, 1899), yet not differentiat-
ing Kazakh from Kirgiz. In the same year 1893 M.V. Moxir edited a Kumyk-Russian
dictionary, while a Russian-Kumyk dictionary was edited by M.G. Afanasjev. Vasilij
Katarinskij (1899) published a Baškir-Russian dictionary.
Hungarian
Hungarian orientalists and linguists usually used German in the 19th cent. and Latin
earlier, but there are several titles written in Hungarian too, e.g. Čaghatai dictionary
(1862) or Turkic Etymological Dictionary (1877) by Ármin (Hermann) Vámbéry,
both later published also in German, or Kazan Tatar dictionary and grammar by Gábor
Bálint (1876, 1877), Čuvaš studies and Turkic elements in Hungarian by József Budenz
(1862–1863; 1873) and the same two topics by Bernát Munkácsi (1887–1890a/b) and
the Finnish Heikki Paasonen (1908; 1913). Wilhelm Pröhle is the author of Baškir
linguistic studies (1903–1905).
21
1.1.2. The beginning of Turkic comparative studies
The beginning of comparative Turcology can be traced to multiple wordlists compiled or

collected by the first authors, who tried to map the linguistic situation in inland Eurasia
from the end of the 17th century. Comparisons of these wordlists allowed these pioneers
to determine the apparently genetically related language groups and borders between
them, namely e.g. Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic. Let us repeat the most important results
in chronological order.
Witsen (1692; quoted according to the 2nd edition from 1705) recorded 556
Crimea-Tatar words (pp. 578–583) and 63 Yakut words, including numerals 1–20, 30–
100, plus the Paternoster with a Dutch translation (pp. 677–78). He mentioned the re-
lationship of the Yakut language with other Turkic languages (Witsen 1705, 884): waer
langs, als mede op de Vlieten die in de zelve Zee uitstorten, de Jakuti zich ophouden,
die een Tartersch Volk zijn, en een zeer gebrooke Tartarische Spraek spreken. “Along it
and along the rivers emptying into this sea there are Yakuts living, who are a Tartarian
people. They speak a strongly broken Tartarian language.” Strahlenberg (1730; Eng-
lish edition 1738) compared three Turkic wordlists, Siberian Tatar (Tobolsk, Tiumen,
Tara), Yakut and Čuvaš, and stated that the Turks as Uzbeks & Kirgizes and Turkmens
used the same dialects as the Siberian Tatars, Yakuts and Čuvaš’ in the appendix Har-
monia linguarum to his book An Historico-geographical Description of the North and
Eastern Parts of Europe and Asia. Fischer used the lexical data of 9 Turkic languages
in his Vocabularium Sibiricum (1747), namely ‘Bucharisch’ (originally an Uzbek dia-
lect, which was Tatarized in Siberia), Čulym Turkic, ‘Tschat-Tatarisch’ (spoken around
Tomsk), Čuvaš, Tobol-Tatar, Šor, Teleut, Kazan-Tatar, Khakas. Fischer (1747/1995,
31) judged that ‘Tschuwaschen – ihre sprache hat mit der tatarischen vielen gemein,
ist aber ihrem ursprung nach tschudischen.’ In his Linguarum totius orbis vocabularia
comparativa, I-II, Pallas (1787–89) collected the lexical material consisting of 273 lex-
emes, plus numerals, of 20 Turkic languages or dialects, namely Turkish, Tatar of Ka-
zan, Tatar Meščeriak, Tatar Baškir, Tatar of Taurida (= Crimea), Tatar of the Caucasus,
Tatar of Tobolsk, Tatar of Čatsk, Tatar of Čulym, Tatar of Enisei, Tatar of Kuznetsk,
Tatar of Baraba, Kangat, Teleut, Bukhara, Khiva, Kirgiz, Trukhmen, Yakut, plus sepa-
rately Čuvaš, included between the Čeremis (= Mari) and Votyak (= Udmurt) languages.
Adelung (1806, 495) included Čuvaš among the Turkic languages. He explicitly wrote:
‘Unter den 200 {Tschuwassischen} Wörtern im Müller sind wenigstens 60 Tatarisch.
Auch der grammatische Bau ihrer Sprache weicht von der Tatarischen nur als Mundart
ab.’ Klaproth (1812–14) published wordlists of the Turkic languages from the Cauca-
sus, namely Kumyk and Karačai, and described the language and script of the Uyghurs
(vol. II, pp. 481–576; cf. Menges 1968/1995, 2), demonstrating the Turkic affiliation of
Old Uyghur. In 1822 he also published the Old Uyghur vocabulary. Probably Klaproth
22
(1828) first demonstrated that Čuvaš was a Turkic language, comparing several dozen
words in Čuvaš with counterparts in Tatar and some other Turkic languages. Rémusat
(1820, 249–329) studied the historical circumstances of appearance of the Uyghurs and
also offered a brief grammatical sketch of their language. Schott wrote about Čuvaš
(1841, with the French translation 1876b; 1843a), Yakut (1843b), Old Uyghur (1874,
1876a). Kazem-Bek (1839, 1846; German translation 1848) presented probably the
first comparative grammar of the Turkish languages or in his perspective, dialects of
one common Turkic language. Its German translation was very popular in Western Eu-
rope during the 19th century. He compared Osman Turkish, Azerbaijani, and Tatar of
Kazan, Orenburg and West Siberia, i.e. the representatives of the Oghuz and Kipčak
branches. Böhtling (1851), thanks to his erudition in Sanskrit, was able to apply the
methodological approach developed for the Indo-European family to Yakut in Turkic
context. Iľminskij (1861) prepared for his Turkologic lectures an intruductory course,
which was in reality also a sketch of a comparative grammar of the Turkic languages.
Iľminskij (1865) analyzed specific phonetic correspondences between Čuvaš and other
Turkic languages. Budagov (1869–1871) published the first comparative dictionary of
the Turkic languages. Rather surprising is his universal use of the Arabic script for tran-
scription of all compared Turkic languages. He was followed by Vámbéry, the author
of the first attempt at a Turkic etymological dictionary (Hungarian 1877; German 1878).
His dictionary was organized on the root pattern, as in Arabic or Sanskrit lexicons. The
main deficiency was a frequent etymological incompatibility of many forms included in
the same lemma. The choice of languages was also rather limited: Old Uyghur, Čaghatai,
Yakut, Altai/Oirot, Osman Turkish regularly, and Čuvaš, Kazan Tatar, Kazakh, Kirgiz,
Azerbaijani and Turkmen occasionally. For this task Vámbéry prepared earlier several
lexicographic and comparative studies devoted to Čaghatai (Hungarian: 1862; German:
1867) and Old Uyghur (1870a, 1870b). In a special monograph, where he discussed re-
flexes of the Turkic culture in lexicon, Vámbéry (1879) anticipated the method Wörter
und Sachen.
1.1.3. Old Turkic language and script – discovery and development of research
The Swedish Philip Johan Tabbert, better known as Strahlenberg (1730), mediated
the first information about a runic-like inscription on stones on the bank of the Yenisei.
Not until the end of the 19th cent. was the number of described inscriptions sufficient
to be deciphered, also with help of some bilingual texts, in which the second language
was Chinese. The successful decipherment was realized by the Danish scholar Vilhelm
Thomsen in 1893 and fully presented in 1896 and 1916. His rival Wilhelm Radloff
summarized his results and comments of other Turcologists in 1895, and in 1897 he
added the first Old Turkic grammar and later further studies (1909–1912). This discov-
23
ery of the oldest epigraphic Turkic language founded a new discipline in Turkology,
Runic studies. After Radloff’s grammatical sketch came Annemarie von Gabain with
her Alttürkische Grammatik, published three times, in 1941, 1950 and 1974. Till 1969,
when Drevnetjurkskij slovar’ appeared, it also offered the best Old Turkic glossary. Af-
ter 1950 several new grammatical descriptions were published, in alphabetical order
e.g. Ajdarov 1971; Erdal 1991, 2004; Kondratjev 1981; Kononov 1980; Kormušin
2008; Nasilov 1961; Tekin 1968, 2003, besides studies analyzing the inscriptions or
runiform script, e.g. Brockelmann 1952; Clauson 1970; Kormušin 1997; Kyzlasov
1990; Malov 1959; Pritsak 1980; Scharlipp 1994; Ščerbak 2001. The Old Turkic lexi-
con was best summarized in Drevnetjurkskij slovar’ by V.M. Nadeljaev, D.M. Nasilov,
Ė.R. Tenišev & A.M. Ščerbak (Leningrad: Nauka 1969) and by Sir Gerard Clauson
in his An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish, (Oxford: Clarendon
Press 1972).
1.1.4. Turkic etymological dictionaries
Besides many others Radloff also wrote two studies devoted to comparative phonol-
ogy of Turkic (1882; 1901). Most important is his comparative Dictionary of the Tur-
kic languages (1893–1911), which serves till the present time. The Armenian Bedros
Kerestedjian (1912/1971) compiled material for an etymological dictionary of Turk-
ish. But his attempt is worse than incompetent. There are no comparanda from other
Turkic languages, while parallels from Sumerian, Akkadian or Basque belong to those
most beloved by the author. In recent time several modern Turkish etymological dic-
tionaries were published, e.g. Eyuboğlu 1988/1991/1995/1998/2004; Eren 1999b;
Tietze 2002–2010; Nişanyan 2007; Kanar 2010. There are etymological dictionar-
ies9 also for some other individual Turkic languages: Azerbaijani – Əhmədov 1999;
Baškir – Garipov and Garipov & Nafikov 2007–2009; Nafikov 2008; Čuvaš – Egorov
1964; Fedotov 1996; Gagauz – Rajki 2007 (only a very laconic comparative vocabu-
lary, available online); Kazan Tatar – Axmetjanov 2001; Kirgiz – Sejdakmatov 1988;
Tuva – Tatarincev 2000–2008; Yakut – Popov 2003; see also Kałużyński 1995 and
Stachowski 1993 for Dolgan. A relatively comfortable situation may also be observed
in the case of the etymological dictionaries of the Turkic languages as a whole. There
are dictionaries of Räsänen (1969–1971); Clauson (1972); Sevortjan (1974: vowels;
1978: b; 1980: v, g, d), Sevortjan & Levitskaja (1989: ǯ, ž, j), Levitskaja, Dybo, &
Rassadin (1997: q), (2000: k), Levitskaja, Blagova, Dybo & Nasilov (2003: l, m, n, p,
s). These dictionaries differ in their conceptions. Räsänen operated with proto-Turkic re-
constructions and sought mutual relations between lexemes, including external relations
9 See https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etimoloji_l%C3%BC%C4%9F%C9%99t
24
in frame of Ramstedt’s and Poppe’s Altaic theory and his own Uralo-Altaic hypothesis.
In this perspective it is a real etymological dictionary. Its weakness consists in incom-
plete lexical material and limited information about primary sources. On the other hand,
the dictionary of Clauson should be better called comparative, while Sevortjan stands
between Räsänen and Clauson. Clauson limited his dictionary to Old and Middle Turkic
languages, only with occasional comparanda from modern languages10. He quoted sys-
tematically the primary sources of epigraphic and literary monuments, including their
chronologic determination. There are minimal attempts at any etymological explanation
and no external comparisons with respect to his well-known negative position on the
Altaic theory (naturally, with exception of some borrowings). Sevortjan et alii offer a de-
tailed information about sources not only of the Old and Middle Turkic languages, but
every quoted form from modern Turkic languages is also accompanied by bibliographic
data. If the first volumes, written still by Sevortjan, contain only etymologies mediated
from other authors, the more recent volumes also bring some etymological solutions by
new authors in the context of discussion of existing etymological attempts. Let us men-
tion that the “Old Turkic Dictionary” (Drevnetjurkskij slovar’; abbreviated as DTS) by
Nadeljaev, Nasilov, Tenišev & Ščerbak (1969) has the same conception as Clauson’s
dictionary, but it is not designated as etymological. In any case, in etymological research
it is useful to combine the strong features of all four dictionaries. With regard to the big
impact of the Turkic languages on their neighbors it is important to study the Turkic bor-
rowings in the neighboring languages. A textbook example of a study of this type is the
four-volumed compendium Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen by
Gerhard Doerfer (1963–1975), usually abbreviated as TMEN, which may be used with
great benefit as an etymological lexicon of the lexemes discussed. Probably the most
recent study mapping the Turkic influence on a non-Turkic language one should mention
West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian by Berta & Róna-Tas (2011), follow-
ing the classical study of Gombocz (1912).
1.1.5. Turkic comparative grammars
The recent developments in the field of a comparative grammar of the Turkic languages
(or part of them) began with two scholars, the Turkish linguist Emre and Finnish linguist
Räsänen, who published their own comparative phonetics of the Turkic languages in the
same year 1949. Six years later the phonetic study by Räsänen was translated into Rus-
sian (1955a). The author himself continued in his effort and in the same year published
his comparative morphology of the Turkic languages (1955b). Similarly Ščerbak after his
10 The most recent Old Uyghur dictionary of Röhrborn, better to say both beginnings (1977–1998; 2010–
2015), bring no comparative material even in the frame of Turkic.
25
comparative Turkic phonetics (1970) also added his comparative Turkic morphology of
noun (1977), verb (1981) and adverbs, auxiliary words, onomatopoia (1987). The Turkic
comparative grammars from the following years are also written in Russian: Serebren-
nikov & Gadžieva (1979), Tenišev (1984: Phonetics, 1986: Syntax, 1988: Morphology,
1997 & 2001: Lexicon), with new modifications published in the first decade of the 21st
century. The original study about Čuvaš vocalism in a broader Turkic perspective from
Oleg Mudrak (1993) and more traditional Čuvaš historical phonetics by Lija Levitskaja
(2014) should be also mentioned. The new Comparative grammar of Turkic languages,
edited by Tenišev in 2002, has the subtitle “Regional reconstructions”, which indicates
the specific content of the book. It is organized into seven parts, representing partial
comparative grammars of individual Turkic branches, namely Oghuz (written by A.V.
Dybo, L.S. Levitskaja, Ė.A. Grunina), Kipčak (K.M. Musaev, A.A. Čečenov), Karluk-
Uyghur (D.M. Nasilov, G.F. Blagova), Kirgiz (Ė.R. Tenišev), Toba (I.V. Kormušin),
Yakut (O.A. Mudrak), Bulgar (O.A. Mudrak). The following volume, edited by Tenišev
(posthumously) and Dybo (2006), probably represents the most ambitious one-volumed
diachronic description of the Turkic languages. It consists of the detailed Turkic com-
parative phonetics by A.V. Dybo & O.A. Mudrak (pp. 9–227), nominal morphology by
A.V. Dybo (228–239), verbal categories by I.V. Kormušin (240–267), verbal deriva-
tion by D.M. Nasilov (268–325); Lexicon: Sky, celestial phenomena, climate by K.M.
Musaev (326–371); Geographic milieu by I.G. Dobrodomov (372–386); Flora by Ju.V.
Normanskaja (387–435); Agriculture by I.V. Kormušin (436–437); Settlement by I.G.
Dobrodomov (438–454); Dwelling by A.V. Dybo (455–476); Material culture, clothing,
war, weapons, social organization, family relations by K.M. Musaev (477–561); Spiri-
tuality and rituals by R.A. Tadinova & Ė.N. Ėkba (562–628); Symbolism of numbers,
reconstruction of fragments of texts, witness on poetic speech, metric schemes by Ė.R.
Tenišev (629–647); Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic metaphors in the Turkic languages
by A.V. Dybo (648–659); Anthroponymic system as a projection of cosmologic and
social imaginations of the early Turks by G.F. Blagova (660–765). Chronology of the
Turkic languages and linguistic contacts of the early Turks by A.V. Dybo (766–817). In
the final Appendix there is the annotated 110–word-list of all Turkic languages by A.V.
Dybo (822–859). Bibliography contains c. 800 titles (860–898).
1.1.6. Syntheses of grammatical descriptions of the Turkic languages
In the last 60 years there have been published at least five various compendia, summariz-
ing the grammatical sketches of all or most of the Turkic languages. The best Turkolo-
gists of their time participated in their authorship. Let us introduce them:
Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, Tomus I, edited by Jean Deny et alii (Wies-
baden: Steiner 1959) contains detailed descriptions of 34 Turkic languages of past and
26
present, plus some two analytic chapters, namely Classification of the Turkic languages
by J. Benzing (1–4) & K.H. Menges (5–10) and Structure et tendences communes des
languaes turques (Sprachbau) by Louis Bazin (11–20), besides the descriptive parts,
written by A. von Gabain: Das Alttürkische (21–45); Die Sprache des Codex Cumani-
cus (46–73); O. Pritsak: Mamluk-Kiptschakisch (74–80) & Armenisch-Kiptschakisch
(81–86); M. Mansuroğlu: Das Karakhanidische (87–107) & Anhang: Die Inschrift von
Semireč’e und die der Öngüt-Türken (108–112); J. Eckmann: Das Chwarezmtürkische
(113–137) & Das Tschagataische (138–160); M. Mansuroğlu: Das Altosmanische (161–
181); J. Deny: L’Osmanli moderne et le Türk de Turquie (182–238); A. Caferoğlu:
Die anatolischen und rumelischen Dialekte (239–259); G. Doerfer: Das Gagausische
(260–271) & Das Krimosmanische (272–279); A. Caferoğlu & G. Doerfer (280–307);
L. Bazin: Le Turkmène (308–317); O. Pritsak: Das Karaimische (318–339) & Das
Karatschaische und Balkarische (340–368); J. Benzing: Das Kumükische (391–406);
K. Thomsen: Kasantatarische und westsibirischen Dialekte (407–420); J. Benzing:
Das Baschkirische (421–433); K.H. Menges: Die aralo-kaspische Gruppe (Kasakisch,
Karakalpakisch, Nogaisch, Kiptschak-Özbekisch, Kirgisisch) (434–488); S. Wurm:
Das Özbekische (489–524); O. Pritsak: Das Neuuigurische (525–563); K. Thomsen:
Die Sprache der Gelben Uiguren und das Salarischen (564–567); O. Pritsak: Das Al-
taitürkische (568–597) & Das Abakan – und Čulymtürkische und das Schorische (598–
639); K.H. Menges: Das Sojonische und Karagassische (640–670); N. Poppe: Das Ja-
kutische (einschliesslich Dolganisch) (671–684); J. Benzing: Das Hunnische, Donau-
bulgarische und Wolgabolgarische (685–694) & Das Tschuwasische (695–752).
Turkologie, edited by Annemarie von Gabain (Leiden: Brill 1963; quoted ac-
cording to the expanded reedition 1982), consists of the following chapters: A. von
Gabain: Charakteristik der Türksprachen (3–26); O. Pritsak: Das Alttürkisch (27–52);
J. Benzing: Das Tschuwasische (61–71); K.H. Menges: Die sibirischen Türksprachen
(72–138); A. Temir: Die nordwestliche Gruppe der Türksprachen (161–174); A. von
Gabain: Die Südwest-Dialekte des Türkischen (174–205).
Tjurkskie jazyki, edited by N.A. Baskakov in the series ‘Languages of nations
of USSR’ (Vol II, Moskva: Nauka 1966), describes 23 modern Turkic languages spo-
ken in the territory of USSR. Namely, Čuvaš by I.A. Andreev (43–65); Azerbaijani
by N.Z. Gadžieva (66–90); Turkmen by P.A. Azimov, Dž. Amansaryev, K. Saryev
(91–111); Tatar by M.Z. Zakiev (139–154); Baraba Tatar by L.V. Dmitrieva (155–172);
Baškir by A.A. Juldašev (173–193); Kumyk by A.G. Magomedov; Karačai-Balkar
by M.A. Xabičev; Crimea-Tatar by Ė.V. Sevortjan; Karaim by K.M. Musaev; Nogai
by N.A. Baskakov (280–300); Karakalpak by N.A. Baskakov (301–319); Kazakh by
S.K. Kenesbaev & N.B. Karaševa (320–339); Uzbek by V.V. Rešetova (340–362);
(New) Uyghur by A.T. Kajdarov (363–386); Tuva by Š.Č. Sat (387–402); Yakut by
E.I. Ubrjatova (403–427); Khakas by V.G. Karpov (428–445); Čulym-Turkic by A.P.
27
Duľzon (446–466); Šor by G.F. Babuškin & G.I. Donidze (467–481); Kirgiz by B.M.
Junusaliev (482–505); Altai by N.A. Baskakov (506–522).
Tjurkskie jazyki, edited by Ė.R. Tenišev in the series ‘Languages of the World’
(Moskva: Indrik / Institut jazykoznanija Russkoj Akademii nauk 1997), consists of two
synthetic chapters devoted to Altaic languages by Ė.R. Tenišev (7–16) and Turkic lan-
guages by N.Z. Gadžieva (17–34), 15 descriptions of old epigraphic or literary languag-
es, plus extinct tribal languages, and 39 descriptions of the modern languages, includ-
ing some dialects, namely Ė.R. Tenišev: Old Turkic literary language (35–46); S. Xa-
kimzjanov: Bulgar (47–51); Ė.R. Tenišev: Hunnish (52–53); L.Ju. Turguševa: Old
Uyghur (54–63); G.A. Abduraxmanov: Karakhanid Uyghur (64–74); Ė.N. Nadžip &
G.F. Blagova: Mameluke Kipčak (75–80); Ė.A. Grunina: Oghuz of the X-XIth century
(81–88); I.V. Kormušin: The language of the Orkhon-Yenisei inscriptions (89–106);
A.M. Ščerbak: Pečeneg (107–109); A.A. Čečenov: Polovets (110–115); V.G. Guzev:
Old Anatolian Turkic (116–125); Ė.N. Nadžip & G.F. Blagova: Turki (126–137); N.Z.
Gadžieva: Khazar (138–139); Ė.I. Fazylov: Khwarezmian Turkic (139–147); G.F. Bla-
gova: Čaghatai (148–159), besides the modern languages and dialects, namely M.Š.
Širaliev: Azerbaijani (160–171); L.Š. Arslanov: Alabugat Tatar (Nogai) (172–178);
N.A. Baskakov: Altai (179–187); L.Š. Arslanov: Astrakhan Karagaš Nogai (187–193);
L.A. Pokrovskaja: Turkic languages of the Balkans (194–198); L.V. Dmitrieva: Bara-
ba Tatar (199–205); A.A. Juldašev: Baškir (206–2015); E.A. Poceluevskij: Bojnurdi
(216–223); L.A. Pokrovskaja: Gagauz (224–234); S.I. Androsova: Dolgan (235–241);
A.T. Kajdarov: Kazakh (242–253); K.M. Musaev: Karaim (254–263); N.A. Baska-
kov: Karakalpak (264–271); A.A. Čečenov & I.X. Axmatov: Karačai-Balkar (272–
285); B.O. Oruzbaeva: Kirgiz (286–297); S.R. Izidonova: Crimean Tatar (298–308);
D.I. Rebi, B.M. Ačkinazi, I.V. Ačkinazi: Krymčak (309–318); L.S. Levitskaja: Ku-
myk (319–327); N.A. Baskakov: Nogai (328–334); Ė.R. Tenišev: Salar (335–344);
Ė.R. Tenišev: Saryg Yughur (345–353); E.A. Poceluevskij: Sonkori Turkic (354–357);
M.Z. Zakiev: Tatar (357–371); V.I. Rassadin: Tofalar (372–383); Š.Č. Sat: Tuva (384–
393); A.N. Kononov: Turkish (394–411); B.Č. Čaryjarov & O.N. Nazarov: Turkmen
(412–425); A.P. Xodžiev: Uzbek (426–436); G.S. Sadvakasov: Uyghur (437–449);
S.N. Muratov: Urum (450–454); Ė.R. Tenišev: Fu-Yü Kirgiz (455–458); G.I. Donidze:
Khakas (459–469); A.M. Ščerbak: Khalaj (470–475); E.A. Poceluevskij: Khorasani
Turkic (476–479); I.A. Andreev: Čuvaš (480–490); R.M. Birjukovič: Čulym Turkic
(491–496); G.I. Donidze: Šor (497–505); L.Š. Arslanov: Yurt Tatar (Astrakhan Nogai)
(506–512); N.K. Antonov: Yakut (513–524).
The Turkic Languages, edited by Lars Johanson & Éva Ágnes Csató (London
& New York: Routledge 1998) is opened by six synthetic chapters by H. Boeschoeten:
The Speakers of Turkic Languages (1–15); P.B. Golden: The Turkic Peoples: A His-
torical Sketch (16–29); A.Róna-Tas: The Reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the Ge-
28
netic Question (67–81); Lars Johanson: The History of Turkic (81–126); A. Róna-Tas:
Turkic Writing Systems (126–137); followed by synchronic descriptions of individu-
al languages or their groups, namely by M. Erdal: Old Turkic (138–157); Á. Berta:
Middle Kipčak (158–165); H. Boeschoeten & Marc Vandamme (166–178); C. Ker-
slake: Ottoman Turkish (179–202); É.Á. Csató & L. Johanson: Turkish (203–235); B.
Brendemoen: Turkish Dialects (236–241) & The Turkish Language Reform (242–247);
C. Schönig: Azerbaijanian (248–260) & Turkmen (261–273); G. Doerfer: Turkic Lan-
guages of Iran (273–282); Á. Berta: Tatar and Baškir (283–300) & West Kipčak Lan-
guages (301–317); M. Kirchner: Kazakh and Karakalpak (318–332); É.Á. Csató & B.
Karakoç: Nogai (333–342); M. Kirchner: Kirgiz (344–356); H. Boeschoeten: Uzbek
(357–378); R.F. Hahn: Uyghur (379–396) & Yellow Uyghur and Salar (397–402); C.
Schönig: South Siberian Turkic (403–416); M. Stachowski & A. Menz: Yakut (417–
433); L. Clark: Čuvaš (434–452).
There were published yet two other useful synthetic monographs presenting
original points of view of their authors, The Turkic Languages and Peoples by Karl H.
Menges (1968; revised 1995), and An Introduction to Turkology by András Róna-Tas
(1991).
1.2. History of descriptive and comparative research

of the Mongolic languages
1.2.0. Bibliographic survey of Mongolic linguistics
There are several useful publications summarizing bibliographic information about the
Mongolic languages, namely e.g. Benzing 1953, 39–60; Poppe 1965, 79–94; Sanžeev
1981, 235–258, 344–345; Krueger & Taube 2006, 9–112; Rachewiltz & Rybatzki
2010, 136–255.
1.2.1. Beginning of description of the Mongolic languages
The first relevant information about the world of Mongols and the Far East in general
were mediated to Europe by several monks and merchants in the 13th cent.
Two Franciscan monks, Giovanni da Pian del Carpini and Benedykt Polak,
visited Qaraqorum in 1246 as envoys of pope Innocent IV to the court of Great Qan
Güyük, son of Ögedei. Both envoys described their experiences in several books, name-
ly Carpini: Historia Mongolorum; Benedykt Polak: De Itinere Fratrum Minorum ad
Tartaros “On the travel of Franciscan friars to the Tatars” and Historia Tartarorum.
29
The second journey was initiated by King Louis IX of France during the Sixth
Crusade who hoped for an alliance with the Mongols against the ‘Saracens’. In 1249 he
sent Dominican friar Andrew of Longjumeau to the court of the Great Qan. Still in the
same year, before Longjumeau’s return, Louis organized the second mission, represent-
ed again by two Franciscan monks William of Rubruck (Willem van Ruysbroeck), of
Flemish origin, and Bartholomew of Cremona. They reached Qaraqorum only in 1253,
when the Great Qan Möngke reigned. After his return in 1255, Rubruck wrote Itiner-
arium fratris Willielmi de Rubruquis de ordine fratrum Minorum, Galli, Anno gratiae
1253 ad partes Orientales.
The brothers Niccolò and Maffeo Polo, merchants from Venice, travelled to the
Mongols for the first time in 1260–1269. They met the Great Qan Qubilai in Cambaluc
(Qan-Baliq, today Beijing), who wrote a letter to the Pope with a request for scholars
knowing western sciences.
Marco Polo accompanied his father Niccolò and uncle Maffeo in their second
journey to the Mongols in 1271. They returned only in 1295. The description of this
24–year travel and sojourn in the Far East was dictated by Marco to Rustichello da Pisa,
while they were imprisoned in Genoa in 1298–1299. Rustichello wrote the book Livres
des merveilles du monde “Book of the world’s marvels”, which became a real bestseller
already in the 14th cent. and remained among the most beloved books till the 20th cent.
(For a critical analysis of the geographic, historic and linguistic data, cf. Marco Polo: The
description of the world, translated and annotated by Arthur C. Moule & Paul Pelliot.
London: Routledge 1938).
Just during the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368), founded by the Great Qan Qubilai,
appear the first works mapping the Middle Mongol language:
Chinese-Mongol vocabularies, e.g. Zhiyuan Yiyu (1264–1294) and the Hua-Yi
Yiyu (1389) – see Ligeti 1990 & Kara 1990 and Lewicki 1949–1959 respectively.
Arabic-Mongol vocabularies, e.g. Kitāb-i Majmū’ Tarjumān-ī Turkī va ‘Ajamī va
Muġalī va Fārsī, known as the ‘Leiden manuscript’ (1345) – see Poppe 1927–28; Ḥilyat
al-Insān va Ḥalbat al-Lisān of Jamāl-ad-Dīn Ibn Muhannā (first half of the 14th cen-
tury); Muqaddimat al-Adab of Abū’l-Qāsim Maḥmūd bin ‘Umar al-Zamaḫšarī (prob-
ably 15th century) – see Poppe 1938; Šamil ūl-lugha of Ḥasan bin Ḥusain ‘Imād al-
Qarāḥiṣār (early 15th century), known as the ‘Istanbul Vocabulary’ – see Ligeti 1962;
‘Rasūlid Hexaglott’ (compiled for the sixth Rasūlid king of Yemen, al-Malek al-Afḍal
al-ʿAbbās who reigned 1363–1377), consisting of c. 1,800 entries in Arabic, Persian,
Turkic (Kipčak-Oghuz), Middle Greek, Cilician Armenian, and Middle Mongol – see
Golden 2000.
Probably the first Mongol grammar appearing in Europe was written in 1663–
1672? by the French traveller, diplomat, orientalist and royal librarian to King Louis
XIV of France, Melchisédech Thévenot (c. 1620–1692). It is known under the title
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
secrets which are treasured in his breast, I come to proclaim myself
his slave, his apostle, his martyr.”
The divinity did not respond, but after a long silence, the same
voice asked:—“What does the partner of thy long wanderings
intend?”
“To obey and to serve,” answered Lorenza.
Simultaneously with her words, profound darkness succeeded the
glare of light, uproar followed on tranquillity, terror on trust, and a
sharp and menacing voice cried loudly:—“Woe to those who cannot
stand the tests!”
Husband and wife were immediately separated to undergo their
respective trials, which they endured with exemplary fortitude, and
which are detailed in the text of the memoirs. When the romantic
mummery was over, the two postulants were led back into the
temple, with the promise of admission to the divine mysteries. There
a man mysteriously draped in a long mantle cried out to them:
—“Know ye that the arcanum of our great art is the government of
mankind, and that the one means to rule them is never to tell them
the truth. Do not foolishly regulate your actions according to the rules
of common sense; rather outrage reason and courageously maintain
every unbelievable absurdity. Remember that reproduction is the
palmary active power in nature, politics, and society alike; that it is a
mania with mortals to be immortal, to know the future without
understanding the present, and to be spiritual while all that
surrounds them is material.”
After this harangue the orator genuflected devoutly before the
divinity of the temple and retired. At the same moment a man of
gigantic stature led the countess to the feet of the immortal Count de
Saint-German, who thus spoke:—
“Elected from my tenderest youth to the things of greatness, I
employed myself in ascertaining the nature of veritable glory. Politics
appeared to me nothing but the science of deception, tactics the art
of assassination, philosophy the ambitious imbecility of complete
irrationality; physics fine fancies about Nature and the continual
mistakes of persons suddenly transplanted into a country which is
utterly unknown to them; theology the science of the misery which
results from human pride; history the melancholy spectacle of
perpetual perfidy and blundering. Thence I concluded that the
statesman was a skilful liar, the hero an illustrious idiot, the
philosopher an eccentric creature, the physician a pitiable and blind
man, the theologian a fanatical pedagogue, and the historian a word-
monger. Then did I hear of the divinity of this temple. I cast my cares
upon him, with my incertitudes and aspirations. When he took
possession of my soul he caused me to perceive all objects in a new
light; I began to read futurity. This universe so limited, so narrow, so
desert, was now enlarged. I abode not only with those who are, but
with those who were. He united me to the loveliest women of
antiquity. I found it eminently delectable to know all without studying
anything, to dispose of the treasures of the earth without the
solicitation of monarchs, to rule the elements rather than men.
Heaven made me liberal; I have sufficient to satisfy my taste; all that
surrounds me is rich, loving, predestinated.”
When the service was finished the costume of ordinary life was
resumed. A superb repast terminated the ceremony. During the
course of the banquet the two guests were informed that the Elixir of
Immortality was merely Tokay coloured green or red according to the
necessities of the case. Several essential precepts were enjoined
upon them, among others that they must detest, avoid, and
calumniate men of understanding, but flatter, foster, and blind fools,
that they must spread abroad with much mystery the intelligence that
the Count de Saint-Germain was five hundred years old, that they
must make gold, but dupes before all.
The truth of this singular episode is not attested by any sober
biographer. If it occurred as narrated, it doubtless served to confirm
Cagliostro in his ambitious projects. The change which had taken
place in the adventurer since his second visit to England is well
described by Figuier. “His language, his mien, his manners, all are
transformed. His conversation turns only on his travels in Egypt, to
Mecca, and in other remote places, on the sciences into which he
was initiated at the foot of the Pyramids, on the arcana of Nature
which his ingenuity has discovered. At the same time, he talks little,
more often enveloping himself in mysterious silence. When
interrogated with reiterated entreaties, he deigns at the most to draw
his symbol—a serpent with an apple in its mouth and pierced by a
dart, meaning that human wisdom should be silent on the mysteries
which it has unravelled.... Lorenza was transfigured at the same time
with her husband. Her ambitions and deportment became worthy of
the new projects of Cagliostro. She aimed, like himself, at the glory
of colossal successes.”
The initiates of the Count de Saint-Germain passed into Courland,
where they established Masonic lodges, according to the sublime rite
of Egyptian Freemasonry. The countess was an excellent preacher
to captivate hearts and enchant imaginations, her beauty fascinated
a large number of Courlandaise nobility. At Mittau, Cagliostro
attracted the attention of persons of high rank, who were led by his
reputation to regard him as an extraordinary person. By means of his
Freemasonry he began to obtain an ascendency over the minds of
the nobles, some of whom, discontented with the reigning duke, are
actually said to have offered him the sovereignty of the country, as to
a divine man and messenger from above. The Italian biography
represents him plotting with this end in view. “He pretends,” say the
documents of the Holy Inquisition, “that he had virtue enough to
resist the temptation, and that he refused the proffered boon from
the respect due to sovereigns. His wife has assured us that his
refusal was produced by the reflection that his impostures would
soon be discovered.” He collected, however, a prodigious number of
presents in gold, silver, and money, and repaired to St Petersburg,
provided with regular passports. But the prophet soon found that a
sufficiently brilliant reputation had not preceded him, and he,
therefore, simply announced himself as a physician and chemist, by
his retired life and air of mystery soon attracting attention.
His assumption of the rôle of physician leads to a brief
consideration of the miraculous cures which have been attributed to
him. They are generally referred to a broad application of the
principles and methods of Mesmer, his contemporary. They were
performed without passes, iron rods, or any of the cumbrous
paraphernalia of his rival in the healing art; he trusted simply to the
laying on of hands. Moreover, he did not despoil his patients, but
rather dispensed his wealth, which now appeared unlimited, among
the poor, who flocked to him in great numbers as his reputation
increased. The source of this wealth is not accurately known, but it is
supposed to have been derived from the Masonic initiates, whose
apostle and propagandist he was.
Many of the miraculous cures which Cagliostro performed in
Germany spread widely, and in Russia he was soon surrounded by
the curious. Lorenza played her own part admirably; she answered
discreetly and naturally, making the most outrageous statements
with apparently complete unconsciousness. The physician-chemist,
besides his healing powers, had his reputation as an alchemist and
adept of the arcane sciences. The supposed restoration in a
miraculous manner of the infant child of an illustrious nobleman to
health exalted him to the pinnacle of celebrity, and his extravagant
pretensions, assisted, as they powerfully were, by the naïve beauty
of his wife, were beginning to be taken seriously, but the combined
result of an amour between Lorenza and Prince Poternki, Prime
Minister and favourite of the Czarina, Catherine, and the discovery
that the nobleman’s child had been apparently changed, caused
them to depart hastily with immense spoils towards the German
frontier.
They tarried at Warsaw for a time, and there the Italian biographer
tells us that Cagliostro made use of all his artifices to deceive a
prince to whom he was introduced, and who was exceedingly
anxious to obtain, with the help of the pretended magician, the
permanent command of a devil. Cagliostro puffed him up for a long
time with the expectation of gratifying this preposterous ambition,
and actually procured presents from him to the amount of several
thousand crowns. The prince at length perceiving that there was no
hope of retaining one of the infernal spirits in his service, wished to
make himself master of the earthly affections of the countess, but in
this too he was disappointed, the lady positively refusing to comply
with his desires. Finding himself thus balked in both his attempts, he
abandoned every sentiment but revenge, and intimidated our
adventurer and his wife so much by his menaces that they were
obliged to restore his presents.
The veracity of this account is not, however, beyond suspicion,
and other of his biographers represent Cagliostro proceeding directly
to Francfurt and thence to Strasbourg, into which, more wealthy and
successful than ever, he made a triumphal entry. The distinguished
visitor, the Rosicrucian, the alchemist, the physician, the sublime
count, had been expected since early morning by the bourgeois of
the old town, and the following extraordinary account in the
Dictionnaire des Sciences Occultes has been given by an
anonymous biographer.
“On the 19th of September 1780, in a public-house just outside
Strasburg, surrounded by a group of humble tipplers, who stared
from the little window at the vast crowd collected below them, there
might have been remarked the countenance of a bald and wrinkled
man, some eighty years of age, and evidently of southern origin; this
was the goldsmith Marano. Successive failures, and debts which he
did not see fit to liquidate, had forced him to leave Palermo, and he
had established himself in his former trade at Strasbourg. Like the
rest of the townsfolk he had come out to behold the phenomenal
personage whose arrival was expected, and who made a greater
sensation than many a powerful monarch. He had come by way of
Germany from Varsovia, where he had amassed immense riches,
said popular rumour, by the transmutation of base metals into gold,
for he was possessed of the secret of the philosophic stone, and had
all the incalculable talents of an alchemist.”
“By my faith,” said a hatter, “I am indeed happy since I am
destined to behold this illustrious mortal, if indeed he be a mortal.”
“’Tis asserted,” added a druggist, “that he is a son of the Princess
of Trebizond, and that he has withal the fine eyes of his mother.”
“Also that he is a lineal descendant of Charles Martel,” said a town
clerk.
“He dates still further back,” put in a rope-maker, “for he took part
in the marriage feast of Cana.”
“Beyond doubt then, he is the wandering Jew!” exclaimed Marano.
“Still better, some credible persons assert that he was born before
the deluge.”
“What hardihood! Yet suppose he is the devil.”
These notions here reproduced with fidelity, and which were
adorned by the most extravagant commentaries, were actually at
that period in general circulation among the crowd. Some regarded
the mysterious Count Cagliostro as an inspired saint, a performer of
miracles, a phenomenal personage outside the order of Nature. The
cures attributed to him were equally innumerable and unexplainable.
Others regarded him merely as an adroit charlatan. Cagliostro
himself boldly asserted that all his prodigies were performed under
the special favour and help of heaven. He added that the Supreme
Being had deigned to accord him the beatific vision, that it was his
mission to convert unbelievers and reinstate catholicism, but in spite
of this exalted vocation he told fortunes, taught the art of winning at
lotteries, interpreted dreams, and held séances of transcendental
phantasmagoria.
“But,” contended the rope-maker with much animation, “a man
who converses with angels is never the devil.”
“Is he in communication with angels?” cried Marano, struck by the
circumstances. “In that case I must see him at all costs. How old is
he?”
“Bah!” said the druggist, “as if such a being could have an age! He
looks about thirty-six.”
“Oh!” muttered the goldsmith. “What if he were my rascal? My
rascal should now be thirty-seven.”
As the hoary Sicilian ruminated over his lamentable past, he was
roused by a tumult of voices. The supernal being had arrived, and he
passed presently in the road, surrounded by a numerous cortege of
couriers, lacqueys, valets, &c., all in magnificent liveries. By his side,
in the open carriage, sat Lorenza or Seraphina Feliciani, his wife,
who seconded with all her ability the intrigues of her husband, whom
reasonable people regarded as a wandering member and emissary
of the masonic templars, his opulence insured by contributions from
the different lodges of the order.
A great shout rose up when Count Cagliostro passed before the
inn. Marano had recognised his man, and flying out had contrived to
stop the carriage, shouting as he did so—“Joseph Balsamo! It is
Joseph! Coquin, where are my sixty ounces of gold?”
Cagliostro scarcely deigned to glance at the furious goldsmith; but
in the middle of the profound silence which the incident occasioned
among the crowd, a voice, apparently in the clouds, uttered with
great distinctness the following words: “Remove this lunatic, who is
possessed by infernal spirits!”
Some of the spectators fell on their knees, others seized the
unfortunate goldsmith, and the brilliant cortege passed on.
Entering Strasburg in triumph, Cagliostro paused in front of a large
hall, where the equerries who had preceded him had already
collected a considerable concourse of the sick. The famous empiric
entered and cured them all, some simply by touch, others apparently
by words or by a gratuity in money, the rest by his universal
panacea; but the historian who records these things asserts that the
sick persons thus variously treated had been carefully selected, the
physician preferring to treat the more serious cases at the homes of
the patients.
Cagliostro issued from the hall amidst universal acclamations, and
was accompanied by the immense crowd to the doors of the
magificent lodging which had been prepared against his arrival. The
élite of Strasburg society was invited to a sumptuous repast, which
was followed by a séance of transcendental magnetism, when he
produced some extraordinary manifestations by the mediation of
clairvoyant children of either sex, and whom he denominated his
doves or pupils. The unspotted virginity and innocence of these
children were an indispensable condition of success. They were
chosen by himself, and received a mystical consecration at his
hands. Then he pronounced over a crystal vessel, filled with water,
the magical formulæ for the evocation of angelic intelligences as
they are written in the celestial rituals. Supernal spirits became
visible in the depths of the water, and responded to questions
occasionally in an intelligible voice, but more often in characters
which appeared on the surface of the water, and were visible to the
pupils alone, who interpreted them to the public.
Contemporary testimony establishes that these manifestations, as
a whole, were genuine, and there is little doubt of the mesmeric
abilities of Cagliostro, who had probably become acquainted in the
East with the phenomena of virginal lucidity, especially in boys, and
had supplemented the oriental methods by the discoveries of
Puséygur, which were at that time sufficiently notorious.
For three years Cagliostro remained at Strasburg and was fêted
continually. Here he obtained a complete ascendency over the mind
of the famous cardinal-archbishop, the Prince de Rohan. His first
care, on taking up his abode in the town, was to prove his respect for
the clergy by his generosity and zeal. He visited the sick in the
hospitals, deferentially participated in the duties of the regular
doctors, proposed his new remedies with prudence, did not condemn
the old methods, but sought to unite new science with the science
which was based on experience. He obtained the reputation of a
bold experimenter in chemistry, of a sagacious physician, and a
really enlightened innovator. The inhabitants of the crowded quarters
regarded him as a man sent from God, operating miraculous cures,
and dispensing riches from an inexhaustible source with which he
was alone acquainted. Unheard-of cures were cited, and alchemical
operations which surpassed even the supposed possibilities of the
transmutatory art.
Anything which savoured of the marvellous was an attraction for
the cardinal-archbishop, and he longed to see Cagliostro. An
anonymous writer states that he sought an interview with him again
and again unsuccessfully; for the cardinal-prince of trickery divined
even at a distance the character of the prince-cardinal, and
enveloped himself in a reserve which, to the imagination of his dupe,
was like the loadstone to the magnet. Others represent him,
however, courting the favour of the great ecclesiastic’s secretary, and
so obtaining an introduction. At the first interview he showed some
reserve, but permitted certain dazzling ideas to be glimpsed through
the more ordinary tenour of his discourse. After a judicious period he
admitted that he possessed a receipt for the manufacture of gold and
diamonds. A supposed transmutation completed his conquest of the
cardinal, and the Italian historian confesses that he accordingly
lavished immense sums upon the virtuous pair, and to complete his
folly, agreed to erect a small edifice, in which he was to experience a
physical regeneration by means of the supernal and auriferous elixir
of Cagliostro. The sum of twenty thousand francs was actually paid
the adept to accomplish this operation.
Doubtless during his sojourn at Strasburg he propagated with zeal
the mysteries of his Egyptian Freemasonry, and at length, laden with
spoils, he repaired to Bordeaux, where he continued his healing in
public, and then proceeded to Lyons, where for the space of three
months he occupied himself with the foundation of a mother-lodge,
and, according to the Italian biographer, here as elsewhere, in less
creditable pursuits. At length he arrived at Paris, where, says the
same authority, he soon became the object of general conversation,
regard, and esteem. His curative powers were now but little
exercised, for Paris abounded with mesmerists and healers, and the
prodigies of simple magnetism were stale and unprofitable in
consequence. He assumed now the rôle of a practical magician, and
astonished the city by the evocation of phantoms, which he caused
to appear, at the wish of the inquirer, either in a mirror or in a vase of
clear water. These phantoms equally represented dead and living
beings, and as occasionally collusion appears to have been well-
nigh impossible, and as the theory of coincidence is preposterous,
there is reason to suppose that he produced results which must
sometimes have astonished himself. All Paris at any rate was set
wondering at his enchantments and prodigies, and it is seriously
stated that Louis XVI. was so infatuated with le divin Cagliostro, that
he declared anyone who injured him should be considered guilty of
treason. At Versailles, and in the presence of several distinguished
nobles, he is said to have caused the apparition in mirrors, vases,
&c., not merely of the spectra of absent or deceased persons, but
animated and moving beings of a phantasmal description, including
many dead men and women selected by the astonished spectators.
The mystery which surrounded him abroad was deepened even
when he received visitors at home. He had lived in the Rue Saint
Claude, an isolated house surrounded by gardens and sheltered
from the inconvenient curiosity of neighbours. There he established
his laboratory, which no one might enter. He received in a vast and
sumptuous apartment on the first floor. Lorenza lived a retired life,
only being visible at certain hours before a select company, and in a
diaphanous and glamourous costume. The report of her beauty
spread through the city; she passed for a paragon of perfection, and
duels took place on her account. Cagliostro was now no longer
young, and Lorenza was in the flower of her charms. He is said for
the first time to have experienced the pangs of jealousy on account
of a certain Chevalier d’Oisemont, with whom she had several
assignations. Private vexations did not, however, interfere with
professional thaumaturgy, and the evocation of the illustrious dead
was a common occurrence at certain magical suppers which
became celebrated through all Paris. These were undoubtedly
exaggerated by report, but as they all occurred within the doubtful
precincts of his own house of mystery, they were in all probability
fraudulent, for it must be distinctly remembered that in his normal
character he was an unparalleled trickster, that the genuine
phenomena which he occasionally produced were simply
supplements to charlatanry, and not that his deceptions were aids to
normally genuine phenomena.
On one occasion, according to the Mémoires authentiques pour
servir à l’histoire du Comte de Cagliostro, the distinguished
thaumaturgist announced that at a private supper, given to six
guests, he would evoke the spirits of any dead persons whom they
named to him, and that the phantoms, apparently substantial, should
seat themselves at the banquet. The repast took place with the
knowledge and, it may be supposed, with the connivance of
Lorenza. At midnight the guests were assembled; a round table, laid
for twelve, was spread, with unheard-of luxury, in a dining-room,
where all was in harmony with the approaching Kabbalistic
operation. The six guests, with Cagliostro, took their seats, and thus
the ominous number thirteen were designed to be present at table.
The supper was served, the servants were dismissed with threats
of immediate death if they dared to open the doors before they were
summoned. Each guest demanded the deceased person whom he
desired to see. Cagliostro took the names, placed them in the pocket
of his gold-embroidered vest, and announced that with no further
preparation than a simple invocation on his part the evoked spirits
would appear in flesh and blood, for, according to the Egyptian
dogma, there were in reality no dead. These guests of the other
world, asked for and expected with trembling anxiety, were the Duc
de Choiseul, Voltaire, d’Alembert, Diderot, the Abbé de Voisenon,
and Montesquieu. Their names were pronounced slowly in a loud
voice, and with all the concentrated determination of the adept’s will;
and after a moment of intolerable doubt, the evoked guests
appeared very unobtrusively, and took their seats with the quiet
courtesy which had characterised them in life.
The first question put to them when the awe of their presence had
somewhat worn off was as to their situation in the world beyond.
“There is no world beyond,” replied d’Alembert. “Death is simply
the cessation of the evils which have tortured us. No pleasure is
experienced, but, on the other hand, there is no suffering. I have not
met with Mademoiselle Lespinasse, but I have not seen Lorignet.
There is marked sincerity, moreover. Some deceased persons who
have recently joined us inform me that I am almost forgotten. I am,
however, consoled. Men are unworthy of the trouble we take about
them. I never loved them, now I despise them.”
“What has become of your learning?” said M. de —— to Diderot.
“I was not learned, as people commonly supposed. My ready wit
adapted all that I read, and in writing I borrowed on every side.
Thence comes the desultory character of my books, which will be
unheard of in half a century. The Encyclopædia, with the merit of
which I am honoured, does not belong to me. The duty of an editor is
simply to set in order the choice of subjects. The man who showed
most talent in the whole of the work was the compiler of its index, yet
no one has dreamed of recognising his merits.”
“I praised the enterprise,” said Voltaire, “for it seemed well fitted to
further my philosophical opinions. Talking of philosophy, I am none
too certain that I was in the right. I have learned strange things since
my death, and have conversed with half a dozen Popes. Clement
XIV. and Benedict, above all, are men of infinite intelligence and
good sense.”
“What most vexes me,” said the Duc de Choiseul, “is the absence
of sex where we dwell. Whatever may be said of this fleshly
envelope, ’twas by no means so bad an invention.”
“What is truly a pleasure to me,” said the Abbé Voisenon, “is that
amongst us one is perfectly cured of the folly of intelligence. You
cannot conceive how I have been bantered about my ridiculous little
romances. I had almost confessed that I appreciated these puerilities
at their true value, but whether the modesty of an academician is
disbelieved in, or whether such frivolity is out of character with my
age and profession, I expiate almost daily the mistakes of my mortal
existence.”
Amid these marvels, Cagliostro proceeded with the dearest of all

his projects, namely, the spread of his Egypto-masonic rite,[AN] into
which ladies were subsequently admitted, a course of magic being
opened for the purpose by Madame Cagliostro. The postulants
admitted to this course were thirty-six in number, and all males were
excluded. Thus Lorenza figured as the Grand Mistress of Egyptian
Masonry, as her husband was himself the grand and sublime Copt.
The fair neophytes were required to contribute each of them the sum
of one hundred louis to abstain from all carnal connection with
mankind, and to submit to everything which might be imposed on
them. A vast mansion was hired in the Rue Verte, Faubourg Saint
Honoré, at that period a lonely part of the city. The building was
surrounded with gardens and magnificent trees. The séance for
initiation took place shortly before midnight on the 7th of August
1785.
On entering the first apartment, says Figuier, the ladies were
obliged to disrobe and assume a white garment, with a girdle of
various colours. They were divided into six groups, distinguished by
the tint of their cinctures. A large veil was also provided, and they
were caused to enter a temple lighted from the roof, and furnished
with thirty-six arm-chairs covered with black satin. Lorenza, clothed
in white, was seated on a species of throne, supported by two tall
figures, so habited that their sex could not be determined. The light
was lowered by degrees till surrounding objects could scarcely be
distinguished, when the Grand Mistress commanded the ladies to
uncover their left legs as far as the thigh, and raising the right arm to
rest it on a neighbouring pillar. Two young women then entered
sword in hand, and with silk ropes bound all the ladies together by
the arms and legs. Then after a period of impressive silence,
Lorenza pronounced an oration, which is given at length, but on
doubtful authority, by several biographers, and which preached
fervidly the emancipation of womankind from the shameful bonds
imposed on them by the lords of creation.
These bonds were symbolised by the silken ropes from which the
fair initiates were released at the end of the harangue, when they
were conducted into separate apartments, each opening on the
Garden, where they made the most unheard-of experiences. Some
were pursued by men who unmercifully persecuted them with
barbarous solicitations; others encountered less dreadful admirers,
who sighed in the most languishing postures at their feet. More than
one discovered the counterpart of her own lover, but the oath they
had all taken necessitated the most inexorable inhumanity, and all
faithfully fulfilled what was required of them. The new spirit infused
into regenerated woman triumphed along the whole line of the six
and thirty initiates, who with intact and immaculate symbols re-
entered triumphant and palpitating the twilight of the vaulted temple
to receive the congratulations of the sovereign priestess.
When they had breathed a little after their trials, the vaulted roof
opened suddenly, and, on a vast sphere of gold, there descended a
man, naked as the unfallen Adam, holding a serpent in his hand, and
having a burning star upon his head.
The Grand Mistress announced that this was the genius of Truth,
the immortal, the divine Cagliostro, issued without procreation from
the bosom of our father Abraham, and the depositary of all that hath
been, is, or shall be known on the universal earth. He was there to
initiate them into the secrets of which they had been fraudulently
deprived. The Grand Copt thereupon commanded them to dispense
with the profanity of clothing, for if they would receive truth they must
be as naked as itself. The sovereign priestess setting the example
unbound her girdle and permitted her drapery to fall to the ground,
and the fair initiates following her example exposed themselves in all
the nudity of their charms to the magnetic glances of the celestial
genius, who then commenced his revelations.
He informed his daughters that the much abused magical art was
the secret of doing good to humanity. It was initiation into the
mysteries of Nature, and the power to make use of her occult forces.
The visions which they had beheld in the Garden where so many
had seen and recognised those who were dearest to their hearts,
proved the reality of hermetic operations. They had shewn
themselves worthy to know the truth; he undertook to instruct them
by gradations therein. It was enough at the outset to inform them that
the sublime end of that Egyptian Freemasonry which he had brought
from the very heart of the Orient was the happiness of mankind. This
happiness was illimitable in its nature, including material enjoyments
as much as spiritual peace, and the pleasures of the understanding.
The Marquis de Luchet, to whom we are indebted for this account,
concludes the nebulous harangue of Cagliostro by the adept bidding
his hearers abjure a deceiving sex, and to let the kiss of friendship
symbolise what was passing in their hearts. The sovereign priestess
instructed them in the nature of this friendly embrace.
Thereupon the Genius of Truth seated himself again upon the
sphere of gold, and was borne away through the roof. At the same
time the floor opened, the light blazed up, and a table splendidly
adorned and luxuriously spread rose up from the ground. The ladies
were joined by their lovers in propria persona; the supper was
followed by dancing and various diversions till three o’clock in the
morning.
About this time the Count Cagliostro was unwillingly compelled to
concede to the continual solicitations of the poor and to resume his
medical rôle. In a short time he was raised to the height of celebrity
by a miraculous cure of the Prince de Soubise, the brother of the
Cardinal de Rohan, who was suffering from a virulent attack of
scarlet fever. From this moment the portrait of the adept was to be
seen everywhere in Paris.
In the meantime, the cloud in his domestic felicity, to which a brief
reference has been made already, began to spread. A certain
adventuress, by name Madame de la Motte, surprised Lorenza one
day in a tête-à-tête with the Chevalier d’Oisemont. The count at the
time was far away from Paris, and the adventuress promised to keep
the secret on condition that Lorenza should in turn do all in her
power to establish her as an intimate friend in the house, having free
entrance therein, and should persuade Cagliostro to place his
knowledge and skill at her disposal, if ever she required it. The result
of this arrangement was the complicity of Cagliostro in the
extraordinary and scandalous affair of the Diamond Necklace. When
the plot was exposed, Cagliostro was arrested with the other alleged
conspirators, including the principal victim, the Cardinal de Rohan.
He was exonerated, not indeed without honour, from the charge of
which he was undoubtedly guilty, but his wife had fled to Rome at his
arrest, and had rejoined her family. He himself began to tremble at
his own notoriety, and grew anxious to leave France. He postponed
till a more favourable period his grand project concerning the
metropolitan lodge of the Egyptian rite.[AO] A personage, calling
himself Thomas Ximenes, and claiming descent from the cardinal of
that name, sought to reanimate his former masonic enthusiasm; but
the vision of the Bastile seemed to be ever before his eyes, and
neither this person, nor the great dignitaries of the Parisian lodges,
could prevail with him. In spite of his acquittal he nourished
vengeance against the Court of France, and more than once he
confided to his private friends that he should make his voice heard
when he had passed the frontier. He prepared to depart, and one
day his disconsolate adepts learned that he was on the road to
England.
Once in London he recovered his energy. He was received with
great honour; many of his disciples from Lyons and Paris followed
him. The English masons invited him to the metropolitan lodge, and
gave him the first place, that of grand orient. He was entreated to
convene a masonic lodge of the Egyptian rite, and consented with
some sadness, for the memory of the brilliant Paris lodge which he
had been on the point of founding was incessantly before him. He
could not console himself for the fall of that beautiful and long-
cherished plan, which had cost him so much study, pains, and
preaching.
It was from this discreet distance that Cagliostro addressed his
famous Letter to the People of France, which was translated into a
number of languages, and circulated widely through Europe. It
predicted the French Revolution, the demolishment of the Bastile,
and the rise of a great prince who would abolish the infamous lettres
de cachet, convoke the States-General, and re-establish the true
religion.
The publication was intemperate in its language and revolutionary
in its sentiments, and close upon its heels followed his well-known
quarrel with the Courrier de l’Europe, which resulted in the exposure
of the real life of Cagliostro from beginning to end.
Dreading the rage of his innumerable dupes, and extreme
measures on the part of his creditors, he hastened to quit London,
disembarked in Holland, crossed Germany, took refuge in Basle,
where the patriarchal hospitality of the Swiss cantons to some extent
reassured the unmasked adept. From the moment, however, of this
exposure, the descent of Cagliostro was simply headlong in its
rapidity. Nevertheless, he was followed by some of his initiates, who
pressed him to return to France, assuring him of the powerful
protection of exalted masonic dignitaries. In his hesitation he wrote
to the Baron de Breteuil, the king’s minister of the house, but, as it
chanced, a personal enemy of the Cardinal de Rohan. Considering
Cagliostro as a protégé of the prince, he replied that if he had
sufficient effrontery to set foot within the limits of the kingdom, he
should be arrested and transferred to a prison in Paris, there to await
prosecution as a common swindler, who should answer to the royal
justice for his criminal life.
From this moment Cagliostro saw that he was a perpetual exile
from France, and feeling in no sense assured of his safety even in
Switzerland, he left Basle for Aix, in Savoy. He was ordered to quit
that town in eight and forty hours. At Roveredo, a dependency of
Austria, the same treatment awaited him. He migrated to Trent, and
announced himself as a practitioner of lawful medicine, but the
prince-bishop who was sovereign of the country discerned the
cloven hoof of the sorcerer beneath the doctor’s sober dress, and
showed him in no long space of time his hostility to magical
practices. The wandering hierophant of Egyptian masonry,
somewhat sorely pressed, took post to Rome, and reached the
Eternal City after many vicissitudes. Here, according to Saint-Félix
and Figuier, he was rejoined by his wife; according to the Italian
biographer, Lorenza had accompanied him in his wanderings, and
persuaded him to seek refuge in Rome, being sick unto death of her
miserable course of life. The former statement is, on the whole, the
most probable, as it is difficult to suppose that she left Italy to rejoin
Cagliostro at Passy, and she appears to have returned to him with
marked repugnance. She endeavoured to lead him back to religion,
which had never been eradicated from her heart. He lived for some
time with extraordinary circumspection, and consented at last to see
a Benedictine monk, to whom he made his confession. The Holy
Inquisition, which doubtless had scrutinised all his movements, is
said to have been deceived for a time, and he was favourably
received by several cardinals. He lived for a year in perfect liberty,
occupied with the private study of medicine. During this time he
endeavoured to obtain loans from the initiates of his Egyptian rite
who were scattered over France and Germany, but they did not
arrive, and the sublime Copt, the illuminated proprietor of the stone
philosophical and the medicine yclept metallic, came once more, to
the eternal disgrace of Osiris, Isis, and Anubis, on the very verge of
want.
His extremity prompted him to renew his relations with the
masonic societies within the area of the Papal States. A penalty of
death hung over the initiates of the superior grades, and their lodges
were in consequence surrounded with great mystery, and were
convened in subterranean places. He was persuaded to found a
lodge of Egyptian Freemasonry in Rome itself, from which moment
Lorenza reasonably regarded him as lost. One of his own adepts
betrayed him; he was arrested on the 27th of September 1789, by
order of the Holy Office, and imprisoned in the Castle of St Angelo.
An inventory of his papers was taken, and all his effects were sealed
up. The process against him was drawn up with the nicest
inquisitorial care during the long period of eighteen months. When
the trial came on he was defended by the Count Gætano Bernardini,
advocate of the accused before the sacred and august tribunal, and
to this pleader in ordinary the impartial and benign office, of its free
grace and pleasure, did add generously, as counsel, one Monsignor
Louis Constantini, “whose knowledge and probity,” saith an unbought
and unbuyable witness (inquisitorially inspired), “were generally
recognised.” They did not conceal from him the gravity of his
position, advised him to refrain from basing his defence on a series
of denials, promising to save him from the capital forfeit, and so he
was persuaded to confess everything, was again reconciled to the
church; and being almost odoriferous with genuine sanctity, on the
21st of March 1791 he was carried before the general assembly of
the purgers of souls by fire, before the Pope on the 7th of the
following April, when the advocates pleaded with so much eloquence
that they retired in the agonies of incipient strangulation, Cagliostro
repeated his avowal, and as a natural consequence of the unbought
eloquence and the purchased confession, the penalty of death was
pronounced.
When, however, the shattered energies of the advocates were a
little recruited, a recommendation of mercy was addressed to the
Pope, the sentence was commuted to perpetual imprisonment, and
the condemned man was consigned to the Castle of St Angelo. After
an imprisonment of two years, he died, God knows how, still in the
prime of life, at the age of fifty.
Lorenza, whose admissions had contributed largely towards the
condemnation of her husband, was doomed to perpetual seclusion in
a penitentiary. The papers of Cagliostro were burned by the Holy
Office, and the phantom of that institution keeps to the present day
the secret of the exact date of its victim’s death. It carefully circulated
the report that on one occasion he attempted to strangle a priest
whom he had sent for on the pretence of confessing, hoping to
escape in his clothes; and then it made public the statement that he
had subsequently strangled himself. When the battalions of the
French Revolution entered Rome, the commanding officers,
hammering at the doors of Saint-Angelo, determined to release the
entombed adept, but they were informed that Cagliostro was dead,
“at which intelligence,” says Figuier, “they perceived plainly that the
former Parlement de France was not to be compared with the
Roman Inquisition, and without regretting the demolished Bastile,
they could not but acknowledge that it disgorged its prey more easily
than the Castle of Saint Angelo.”
The personal attractions of Cagliostro appear to have been

exaggerated by some of his biographers. “His splendid stature and
high bearing, increased by a dress of the most bizarre magnificence,
the extensive suite which invariably accompanied him in his
wanderings, turned all eyes upon him, and disposed the minds of the
vulgar towards an almost idolatrous admiration.”
With this opinion of Figuier may be compared the counter-
statement of the Italian biographer:—“He was of a brown
complexion, a bloated countenance, and a severe aspect; he was
destitute of any of those graces so common in the world of gallantry,
without knowledge and without abilities.” But the Italian biographer
was a false witness, for Cagliostro was beyond all question and
controversy a man of consummate ability, tact, and talent. The truth
would appear to lie between these opposite extremes. “The Count
de Cagliostro,” says the English life, published in 1787, “is below the
middle stature, inclined to corpulency; his face is a round oval, his
complexion and eyes dark, the latter uncommonly penetrating. In his
address we are not sensible of that indescribable grace which
engages the affections before we consult the understanding. On the
contrary, there is in his manner a self-importance which at first sight
rather disgusts than allures, and obliges us to withhold our regards,
till, on a more intimate acquaintance, we yield it the tribute to our
reason. Though naturally studious and contemplative, his
conversation is sprightly, abounding with judicious remarks and
pleasant anecdotes, yet with an understanding in the highest degree
perspicuous and enlarged, he is ever rendered the dupe of the
sycophant and the flatterer.”
The persuasive and occasionally overpowering eloquence of
Cagliostro is also dwelt upon by the majority of his biographers, but,
according to the testimony of his wife, as extracted under the terror
of the Inquisition and adduced in the Italian life:—“His discourse,
instead of being eloquent, was composed in a style of the most
wearisome perplexity, and abounded with the most incoherent ideas.
Previous to his ascending the rostrum he was always careful to
prepare himself for his labours by means of some bottles of wine,
and he was so ignorant as to the subject on which he was about to
hold forth, that he generally applied to his wife for the text on which
he was to preach to his disciples. If to these circumstances are
added a Sicilian dialect, mingled with a jargon of French and Italian,
we cannot hesitate a single moment as to the degree of credibility
which we are to give to the assertions that have been made
concerning the wonder-working effects of his eloquence.”
But the Inquisition was in possession of documents which bore
irrefutable testimony to the extraordinary hold which Cagliostro
exercised over the minds of his numerous followers, and it is
preposterous to suppose it could have been possessed by a man
who was ignorant, unpresentable, and ill-spoken. Moreover, the
testimony of Lorenza, given under circumstances of, at any rate, the
strongest moral intimidation is completely worthless on all points
whatsoever, and the biassed views of our inquisitorial apologists are
of no appreciable value.
I have given an almost disproportionate space to the history of
Joseph Balsamo, because it is thoroughly representative of the
charlatanic side of alchemy, which during two centuries of curiosity
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!
textbookfull.com

Download Full Altaic languages history of research survey classification and a section of comparative grammar 1st Edition Michal Schwarz PDF All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download Full Altaic languages history of research survey classification and a section of comparative grammar 1st Edition Michal Schwarz PDF All Chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download Full Altaic languages history of research survey classification and a section of comparative grammar 1st Edition Michal Schwarz PDF All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download the Full Version of textbook for Fast Typing at textbookfull.

Altaic languages history of research survey

Download More textbook Instantly Today - Get Yours Now at textbookfull.com

Comparative Grammar of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and

An Introduction to Survey Research, Volume I: The Basics

WHO classification of female genital tumours WHO

The History of Social Movements in Global Perspective: A

The Holocaust and the Nakba A New Grammar of Trauma and

The greening of architecture a critical history and survey

A Cross Section of Psychological Research: Journal

Dialogue argumentation and education history theory and

Masaryk University Press

Masaryk University Press

© 2019 Masaryk University Press

1. History of recognition of the Altaic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.6.3. First classic generation – skeptics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2. Distribution and demography of the living languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3. Models of classification of the Altaic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

4. Etymological analyses of the main ethnonyms or choronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

5. Sketch of the comparative phonetics of the Altaic family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

5.3.1. Correspondences among consonants in the Tungusic languages . . . . . . . . . . . 165

6. Nominal case system in the Altaic languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

7. Altaic pronominal system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

8. Altaic Numerals in etymological perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

8.1.2. Sources of the Turkic numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

9. Abbreviations and Used symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

10. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

1 See Schwarz & Blažek 2007.

Etymological analyses of the main ethnonyms or choronyms: Türk, Mongol,

1. History of recognition of the Altaic languages

1.1. History of descriptive and comparative research of the Turkic languages

1.1.0. Bibliographic survey of Turkic linguistics

1.1.1. Beginning of description of the Turkic languages

7 See Kurtböke 1994.

8 See Kononov 1972/1982; 1974/1989.

1.1.2. The beginning of Turkic comparative studies

The beginning of comparative Turcology can be traced to multiple wordlists compiled or

1.1.4. Turkic etymological dictionaries

1.1.5. Turkic comparative grammars

1.1.6. Syntheses of grammatical descriptions of the Turkic languages

1.2. History of descriptive and comparative research

1.2.0. Bibliographic survey of Mongolic linguistics

1.2.1. Beginning of description of the Mongolic languages

Amid these marvels, Cagliostro proceeded with the dearest of all

The personal attractions of Cagliostro appear to have been

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

You might also like