É. Apor (ed.): Codex Cumanicus. Ed. by Géza Kuun with a Prolegomena to the Codex Cumanicus by Lajos Ligeti. (Budapest Oriental Reprints, Ser. B 1.)
L. Ligeti: Prolegomena to the Codex Cumanicus
PROLEGOMENA TO THE CODEX CUMANICl'S 17 somewhat less attention. Such are: borei «(person)» with a hat in place of borcci (87:27); the absence of k in the cluster of consonants indicates that the word was recorded on the basis of pronounciation. The absent-minded scribe failed to notice that he took down the word bore «liat» correctly in the next line. Also, ylias ay (72:12) «the first month of spring» in place of ile yas ay. E. Teza 2 1 made a thorough study of Kuun's edition after its publication, which Kuun answered in detail. The author appreciated the loyal criticism, and readily accepted a large number of corrections. The bulk of these errors were made through oversight, and inconsistent attention to abbreviations (sometimes retained, sometimes written out). Worse errors were the omission of words, and at times whole lines. Teza succeeded in deciphering several of the hardly readable Italian verses. From time to time, however, Teza got carried away in his zeal, imputing to Kuun the printer's errors, which had already been corrected in «Addenda et Corrigenda.» One mistake generally invites another. Let us quote a passage of the Codex (p. 95:6 17), which Kuun edited with a line-shift. He corrected the mistake at the end of his book (p. 389), but not entirely. The list also contains errors of the copier of the Codex. From the facsimile the following (83:6 18) can be read: Galanga Coligiá Choligia Ladano Ladan Ambar Mumia imfiri imfiri N. sarche Girdahan indù Oleű oliue Rugan yag Oleü sufima 0. rofatű Rugay Gul Gulaf yage 0. violatú 0. nucis Rugan yGerdohá Chox yagi Picis Cuft Samala Réqriciü (Gul, crossed) Buyu Rofa Gul Chulaf The copier's errors are: Rugay Oal, in place of Rugan yGul; Cuft (Sust in Kuun's), in place of the correct Quft (commentators on the Persian material also use this form). The second line was in fact two lines in the original, the first retained L Ladano and P Ladan, but the C equivalent was missing. C Am2 1 Emilio Teza, Un' altra occhiata al Codex Cumanieus, in Rendiconti della R. Academia dei Lindei, Classe de Scienze Morali, storiche e filologiche VI (Roma 1891), pp. 315 — 327. Kuun answered Teza's critical comments in detail in his paper, Ujabb adatok [New Data]; see supra, note 6. Kuun introduced the corrections which he accepted from Teza into his own copy, which is preserved today in the Manuscript Department of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
