国立情報学研究所 - ディジタル・シルクロード・プロジェクト
『東洋文庫所蔵』貴重書デジタルアーカイブ

770   275. LOP

what we are to understand by « domestic brazil-wood » (the word domesce is left out by RR, 280) ; YULE'S interpretation ( Y, II, 276), « the brazil we make use of », which follows the reading of FA, cannot be retained; only MOULE'S version, « cultivated brazil-wood », makes good sense. Yet I was in doubt about the correctness of F and Z, until I noticed that both «verzino dimestico » and « verzino salvatico » occur in Pegolotti (ed. EVANS, 295, 296). Although Polo does not use the word « domesce » in the chapter on « Lambri », he gives there (Vol. I, 376) a description of what certainly is the process of cultivating brazil-wood. In modern times, the brazil-wood of Malabar is both wild and cultivated (cf. Y, it, 380).

275. LOP

job VL   TAI, TAS, V, VA,   lope VB

lop F, Fr, t, FB, L, LT, P,   Z; R   loup FA

For « Lop », the modern Charkhlik (arhlïq), on the southern side of the Lop-nOr, cf. STEIN, Serindia, index, 1546. The etymology is unknown, but the name, with an initial n-, goes back

to pre-T'ang times. Hsüan-tsang'sEJg   Na-fu-po, *Navapa, of the 7th century, is a sanskri-
tization of *Nop, which is written Nob in Tibetan documents of c. 800. A colony from the Lop

region, which settled in the 6th cent. west of Qomul (see « Camul »), was known as 4Vg   Na-chih,
*Napcïq, in T'ang and Sung times, and its name is still Lapcuq (cf. my paper in JA, 1916, I, 117-120). F. W. THOMAS (BSOS, vIII, 793-794; and cf. BAGCHI, Deux lexiques sanskrit-chinois, II, 360) has proposed to see another transcription of *Nap6ïq in the « Dapici » of a « Saka » (Khotanese) document of the 10th cent. The correspondence would be satisfactory if we could account for the absence of the final guttural consonant in Khotanese.

Navapa presupposes the form « Lop », with -p, and the name is thus spelt by Polo; the Tibetan Nob proves nothing, as the Tibetan script admits of no final -p. On the other hand, our Lop-nor is a Mongol form (with Mong. nôr, « lake »), and theoretically there is no -p in Mongolian, so that we ought to transcribe Lob-nor; the transcription in Chinese texts of the 13th cent. renders Lob; but the Turkish local pronunciation is now Lop-nor.

Postal stages were established at   Lo-pu (Lob) in 1282 and 1286 ( YS, 12, 3 b; 14, I a).

The city of I. Pu or   f. Ko-pu, near Gärcän (see « Ciarcian »), in a Ming itinerary (China Review,

v, 233) is probably a misreading for   j. Lo-pu, Lob (Lop).

In JA, 1916, I, 119, I had proposed to trace the name Lop (or Lob) to Han times, and to reco-

gnize it as the first element in the name of the kingdom of ti   Lou-lan (sometimes written
Lao-ian) ; this suggestion must be abandoned. We know now, from other sources, that the native name of Lou-Ian must have sounded *Krorân (or *Grorân?) ; cf. TP, 1931, 459-460. This would confirm the otherwise theoretical view that fl lou was pronounced as *glau in Han times; but then the same would hold good for 4 lao (*lâu < *glâu), and the conclusion would be that, contrary to the usual opinion, lao is probably not a purely figurative character (« an enclosure for

oxen »), but is phonetically connected with   niu (*ngj2u), « ox » (? cf. Tib. glad., « ox »).