National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

> > > >
Color New!IIIF Color HighRes Gray HighRes PDF   Japanese English
0316 Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1
Notes on Marco Polo : vol.1 / Page 316 (Grayscale High Resolution Image)

New!Citation Information

doi: 10.20676/00000246
Citation Format: Chicago | APA | Harvard | IEEE

OCR Text


300   158. CINGHIS

Even in Turkish, and for words which do not belong to the « palatal » class, we find in the late Uighur redaction of the legend of Oyuz-khan (? Uyuz-khan) such forms as lung (< tang), 5a!garun (< ta. garun), 5aptilar (< taptilar) ; cf. TP, 1930, 270, 342, 347. In the middle of the 13th cent., the Mongolian name of Chinghiz-khan's eldest son Jö6i was known in Turkish circles as Tösi, writen 5 z ; Tögi in Juwaini, and « Tossuc » and « Tossuccan » (— *Tossu-can) in Plan Car-pine (Wy, 58, 65). A similar direct passage Turk. tängiz > Mong. Cingis is far from impossible.

But an intermediary form *tingiz is so much the more acceptable since a first -i- vowel is attested in some Turkish dialects. In Turkish the word is tängiz in Kâsyari (BROCKELMANN, 203),

« tengis » (= tengiz) in the Codex Cumanicus (KuuN ed., 38, 88), cay. j4 tengiz (or tingiz ?; not tängiz as in RADLOV), late Uigh., Kar., Turki tängiz, Kirgh. teit iz, Tel., Kmd, Alt. t?Mis,

yuzz   dingiz (Ber, I, 6), Krm. ddrtiz, Osm. jf d?Miz, Kaz. di4iz (RADLOv, III, 1045, 1055,
1661, 1667, 1756). An uncertainty in the nature of the first vowel is moreover traceable in the very name Ginggis. The Armenians wrote it «Gangz» _ *Gangiz, which explains Hethum's « Changuis » and « Canguis ». A first a vowel occurs also in Ricoldo da Montecroce's « Camiustan » (< *Canguiscan), and in the cognate corrupt forms of San Antonino and Chaucer. Even now, the Moghols of Afghanistan pronounce it «Cângiz xàn» (RAMSTEDT, Mogholica, 25).

The transcriptions of « Cinggis» in Persian, Arabic, Turkish, and Armenian are also note-

worthy on account of the final -z, when these languages possess both s and z; there is on the contrary no z in the Mongol language. Now, when transcribing Mongol words ending in -s, the -s has been retained in Persian, Armenian, etc., for instance, in qaraunas (see « Caraunas »), in « Nangias » (see « Mangi »), in käriyäs (the name of the place where horses were kept under guard outside the camp) ; why should the case be different with « Cinggis » ? On the other hand, if we suppose that « Ginggis » was borrowed from a palatalized form of tängiz, the -z of the transcriptions Cingiz, Cangiz would be traceable to the original foreign word. It may even be that at first the Mongols used this borrowed word with a final -z. Although there was no z in Mongolian, the Mongols could pronounce it, and the letter z existed in the Uighur script which the Mongols made their own. At the end of a word, later Mongol usage wrote for -s the Uighur -s or the Uighur -z, indifferently; but this need not have been the original practice when they first wrote their Ian. guage in Uighur script. Now, the only document in the Mongol language which is an original dating as far back as Chinghiz-khan's lifetime is the so-called « stone of Chinghiz-khan » preserved at Leningrad, which was engraved c. 1225. It begins with the name of Chinghiz-khan, but the final letter of the first word is the final Uighur -z, not -s. Although it may have already been used by the Mongols in the value of -s, I do not dismiss the possibility that the form intended was actually « * Cinggiz » (in the archaic Mongol dialect of the Moghols of Afghanistan, « Cângiz » has a final -z). Whatever the case may be, the script itself may have helped in the change from

*Cinggiz (< *Tinggiz) to Cinggis. No attention need be paid, however, to the occurrence of would-be Turkish word 'irigiz, « great », « powerful », in RADLOV's dictionary (III, 2117). This word is to be found only in Chinghiz-khan's name, and by oversight it was taken over from Abn'l-Ghàzi, where this Mongolian, not Turkish, form is followed by the explanation given by RADLOV.

By a remarkable coincidence, Ibn Ba%%ûlah, when speaking of Chinghiz-khan, always calls

him   Tängiz (III, 22-27, 40, 57, 86; Iv, 258, 300). I have heard the opinion that this was due