The relationship between the two Orkhon inscriptions
Journal name: Acta Orientalia
Original article title: The relationship between the two Orkhon inscriptions
ACTA ORIENTALIA is a journal focused on the study of Oriental languages, history, archaeology, and religions from ancient times to the present. The journal includes articles reviewed by a senior scholar in the relevant field.
This page presents a generated summary with additional references; See source (below) for actual content.
Original source:
This page is merely a summary which is automatically generated hence you should visit the source to read the original article which includes the author, publication date, notes and references.
Even Hovdhaugen
Acta Orientalia:
(Founded in 1922 and published annually)
Full text available for: The relationship between the two Orkhon inscriptions
Year: 1974 | Doi: 10.5617/ao.5162
Copyright (license): CC BY 4.0
Download the PDF file of the original publication
Summary of article contents:
Introduction
The study of the Orkhon inscriptions, which are pivotal for our understanding of Old Turkic, presents significant challenges in accurately interpreting their language and structure. Given that these inscriptions are among the few surviving examples of Old Turkic, scholars often treat the texts as "perfect," overlooking potential errors and deviations. This analysis contributes to our understanding by addressing the relationship between two major inscriptions: K眉l Tegin (I) and Bilg盲 Kagan (II), arguing that while they share many identical sections, notable divergencies exist that warrant a critical examination.
Textual Relationship and Divergencies
One crucial aspect of the relationship between the two inscriptions is the identification of their common and divergent segments. A significant portion of the texts shares identical content, suggesting they either stem from a single source or one is a copy of the other. However, various textual discrepancies indicate that II may exhibit preferable readings over I in many instances. For example, the author discusses divergencies in the narratives surrounding K眉l Tegin and Bilg盲 Kagan, where not only the events differ but also the perspective shaping these events, implying distinct authorship or revisions.
Phonological and Orthographic Differences
The phonetic analysis of the inscriptions reveals interesting patterns, particularly in vowel usage and orthographic conventions. A notable divergence lies in the spelling and representation of certain sounds, such as the treatment of vowels in initial and non-initial positions. These differences hint at the variations in orthographic standards adopted by the scribes of I and II. The study of phonetics also points to occasional errors in the texts, likely due to the engraver's choices or scribes鈥� inconsistencies, contributing to the complexity when evaluating linguistic accuracy in the inscriptions.
Morphological and Syntactical Divergencies
The study further explores morphological and syntactic discrepancies that arise between the two inscriptions. This encompasses differences in verb forms, case usage, and structural constructs, with II frequently presenting more normalized forms compared to I. Important grammatical aspects, such as the correct use of accusative cases and the expansive treatment of phrases, highlight the difference in fluency and stylistic precision between the two texts. These variations suggest a more literary and refined presentation in II as opposed to the more colloquial and possibly less polished I.
Stylistic and Vocabulary Differences
The stylistic analysis uncovers divergent tendencies in vocabulary and overall expression within the two inscriptions. While both texts convey similar meanings, words in II often prove to be more vivid and precise than the comparable phrases in I. This distinction also finds expression in the choices of conjunctions and the structure of sentences, revealing a disparity that suggests II serves as a final, polished rendition. This careful attention to language may also indicate the potential influence of differing audiences or contexts in which each inscription was crafted.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the examination of the Orkhon inscriptions emphasizes the intricate relationship between K眉l Tegin and Bilg盲 Kagan, highlighting the textual, phonological, morphological, and stylistic divergences between the two. These discrepancies suggest not only variations in the scribes鈥� competence but also potentially different authors or purposes behind each inscription. As scholars continue to explore these inscriptions, understanding their nuances remains pivotal in unraveling the linguistic and cultural heritage of Old Turkic civilization. The findings paves the way for further exploration into how these texts reflect the historical context and societal norms of the time they were written.
FAQ section (important questions/answers):
What challenges are associated with interpreting inscriptions from a language?
Errors and deviations from standard language norms are hard to identify and prove, particularly when inscriptions represent the only existing corpus of a language or dialect.
How do the Orkhon inscriptions relate to each other?
The two Old Turkic inscriptions, known as K眉l Tegin (I) and Bilg盲 Kagan (II), share many identical segments. However, there are significant divergencies which suggest they were derived from a common source or one was copied from the other.
What issues do previous editions of the inscriptions contain?
Previous editions, like Thomsen 1896 and Tekin 1968, have overlooked many divergencies. Thomsen鈥檚 edition has misprints and questionable readings, impacting the accuracy of the inscriptions鈥� interpretations.
What does the analysis of phonology reveal about the inscriptions?
The analysis shows few errors, mainly due to engraver mistakes, with variations in spelling, especially concerning vowel signs. This reflects different orthographic systems used by the scribes.
What evidence indicates that the second inscription is more correct?
The second inscription (II) often uses correct grammatical forms, like cases and spelling, compared to the first inscription (I), which contains several errors and inconsistencies.
How are morphological differences between the two inscriptions characterized?
Divergencies in morphology between the inscriptions indicate II features more normalized language, correcting many of I's grammatical errors. This suggests II might be a revised version.
Who is believed to have authored the Orkhon inscriptions?
The author of both inscriptions is likely Bilg盲 kagan, who perhaps initially composed the text which was later inscribed by a scribe, especially noted in II where it appears more polished.
Glossary definitions and references:
Oriental and Historical glossary list for 鈥淭he relationship between the two Orkhon inscriptions鈥�. This list explains important keywords that occur in this article and links it to the glossary for a better understanding of that concept in the context of History, Linguistics, Religion, Philosophy, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism etc.
1) Error:
In dealing with the Orkhon inscriptions, one significant challenge is the difficulty in identifying errors and deviations from the standard language. This is compounded by the tendency of interpreters to treat the inscriptions as 'perfect,' which may lead to the inclusion of erroneous forms that distort the grammatical understanding of the language.
2) Tekin:
Tekin is referenced multiple times for his edition of the Orkhon inscriptions and analysis on grammatical divergencies. His work is noted for providing a partial list of differences between the two inscriptions and offers an important perspective on understanding Orkhon Turkic grammar.
3) Throne:
The word 'throne' appears in various parts of the text, emphasizing the ascent and rule of different figures. Especially in examples like II E 2, where the expression 'ascended the throne' captures important events in the historical narrative of the inscriptions.
4) Heaven:
Heaven is mentioned in key parts of the inscriptions, indicating divine favor and intervention. For instance, references to 'Heaven being gracious' underscore the belief in celestial influence on earthly events, which is a recurring theme in the inscriptions analyzed.
5) Stone:
The keyword 'stone' is central in describing the physical medium onto which the inscriptions were carved. Phrases like 'I have put on this memorial stone' emphasize the importance of inscribing and preserving the words and achievements memorialized in the inscriptions.
6) Language:
The comparative analysis of the Orkhon texts involves deep insights into the orthography and linguistic structure, revealing different orthographical patterns and morphological constructions. Discussions around spelling, phonology, and grammatical forms all underline the complexity and richness of the Old Turkic language.
7) Dialect:
Dialectal variations are considered, especially the differences in spelling and forms, like umlaut and labial assimilation of vowels. These variations help to understand the orthographical choices and influences on the language used in the inscriptions.
8) Realm:
Realm refers to territories or domains governed by the figures mentioned in the inscriptions. Phrases like 'took their realm' highlight conquests and the extent of political control exerted by the rulers featured in the texts.
9) Fire:
The word 'fire' is used metaphorically in the inscriptions to describe military prowess and intensity, as in 'came like a fire.' This vivid imagery helps illustrate the ferocity and effectiveness of the military campaigns recorded in the texts.
10) Iron:
[see source text or glossary: Iron]
11) Gate:
The term 'gate' is part of geographical descriptions like the 'Iron Gate,' which served as a landmark in the campaigns described in the inscriptions. Its significance as a strategic location is noted, adding to the historic and geographic context of the narratives.
12) Warrior:
Warrior terms are explored, especially in syntactic and etymological contexts. Variants like 'jilpagut' and 'alpagu' are used to denote brave individuals or fighters, providing insights into military terms and their origins in Turkic language studies.
13) Wisdom:
Wisdom appears in various contexts, often as a necessary attribute of leaders and their advisers. For instance, 'wise kagans' illustrates the qualities expected in rulers and their ability to lead effectively with intellect and prudence.
14) Family:
The keyword 'family' contextualizes lineage and relationships within the inscriptions. Phrases like 'one family of Tw畏ra warriors' denote the familial bonds and organized units within the socio-political structure depicted in the text.
15) Summer:
The term 'summer' is used in temporal references to describe the timing of events, such as in 'in the spring/summer we set out with the army towards the Oguz.' This situates military campaigns within the seasonal cycles of the year.
16) Blood:
'Blood' is referenced within the vivid descriptions of battles and sacrifices, exemplified by 'your blood ran like water,' which underscores the intensity and cost of the conflicts documented in the inscriptions.
17) Anda (Amda):
'Anda' is analyzed as a stylistic and syntactical element adding coherence and emphasis to sentences. Its use highlights narrative flow and the aftereffects of actions, as in 'then/there took their realm,' indicating consequential events.
18) Tona:
'Tona' is specifically referred to in contexts like 'killed at Tona tegin's funeral,' which anchors historical and narrative events within the inscriptions, showcasing key moments and figures.
19) Transformation (Transform, Transforming):
Transformation refers to changes in linguistic forms, as discussed in the context of phonological and orthographical shifts. For example, changes in the spelling of vowels and consonants illustrate transformative processes in the language.
20) Ornamentation:
Ornamentation is referenced in the context of decorating the inscriptions, highlighting the roles of artists and the aesthetic considerations. The mention of skilled work from China underscores the artistry involved in the creation of these memorial stones.
21) Communication (Communicating, Communicate, Communicated):
The text captures the communicative purpose of the inscriptions, such as messages from rulers like Bilg盲 kagan. The inscriptions serve as a means of conveying historical narratives, achievements, and directives to an audience.
22) Speculation:
Speculation is noted in discussions about the origins and authorship of the inscriptions. Debates around whether Bilg盲 kagan wrote both texts or if they were revisions by Jollug tegin highlight the speculative nature of historical reconstruction based on fragmentary evidence.
23) Realization (Realisation):
Realization here can be understood as the interpretive understanding of the inscriptions, including the identification and rectification of scribal errors. The scholars' work represents a realization of the historical and linguistic context of the inscriptions.
24) Knowledge:
Knowledge is referenced in the context of linguistic and historical analysis, showcasing the depth of understanding required to interpret these inscriptions. The scholarly work involves gathering, processing, and disseminating knowledge about the Old Turkic texts.
25) Existence:
Existence pertains to discussions on grammatical and syntactic correctness, as well as the physicality of the inscriptions. The reference to grammatical forms and the 'existence' of divine favor reflect the importance of accurately comprehending these ancient texts.
26) Deceit (Deceitful):
'Deceitful' appears in negative characterizations of opponents, as in 'the Chinese people being deceitful and tricky,' providing moral judgments within the narratives to underscore conflicts and actions against adversaries.
27) Servant:
'Servant' or servitude is indirectly referenced in contexts where individuals are made slaves, as analyzed in examples of subjugation and control by the kagan. It serves to highlight themes of power and hierarchy in Turkic society.
28) Grammar:
The keyword 'grammar' is central to much of the discussion around morphological, syntactic, and stylistic divergencies within the Orkhon inscriptions. Scholars' work includes creating a grammatical framework for understanding these historical texts.
29) China:
'China' is mentioned within the geopolitical context of the inscriptions, referencing campaigns against Chinese entities. Terms like 'Chinese people' situate the Turkic inscriptions within a broader historical and geographical setting.
30) Judge:
'Judge' can be inferred in contexts where scholars evaluate the grammaticality and correctness of certain forms in the inscriptions. For example, discerning whether a form is an error or a valid dialect variation involves judgment.
31) River:
'River' is used metaphorically in statements like 'your blood ran like a river,' highlighting the vividness and intensity of the battles and events described within the inscriptions. This figurative language enriches the narrative.
32) Space:
'Space' might refer to the physical gaps and lacunae in the inscriptions, which complicate interpretation. These gaps require careful scholarly inference to reconstruct the likely original content and linguistic forms.
33) Sound:
Sound considerations are essential in phonological analysis. Discussions around vowels, consonants, and their orthographical representations reveal the intricacies of how sounds were documented in the inscriptions.
34) Tapa:
'Tapa' is part of the term 'tapa eki jegirmi ulog s眉 s眉l盲dim,' where it indicates a direction or purpose in the campaigns. It provides a specific context for military actions against the Chinese, establishing a narrative focus.
35) Pari:
[see source text or glossary: Pari]
36) Lead:
'Lead' or leadership is captured in the narrative of kagan figures ascending the throne, directing campaigns, and organizing society. Their leadership is evidenced through actions and decisions documented in the inscriptions.