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
20 L. I-IGETI Kipchak languages, Karaim, the Crimean Tatar of Kipchak origin, KarachayBalkar and other Turkish languages of the Kipchak type should be kept in mind. 2 5 The issue of the Coman dialects of the Codex continues to remain at the forefront of discussion. It has long been known that the Coman language of the Codex is not homogeneous. Grönbech was the first to show the significant deviations. His view that the Italian part recorded a different Coman dialect than the «German» part also holds grounds today. Here are some examples to illustrate the differences: kendi — kensi ; tizgi — tiz ; berkit — berk et-\ tödaq — totaq ; oqSa ovSa-; sucul cucul-\ astlan — arslan, etc. I disagree, however, with his conclusion that classifying the Coman texts into distinct dialectal groups is not feasible (Wb. 11). To my mind, the question itself is incorrectly raised. The Coman texts, just like the entire material of the Codex, changed hands several times, and contrary to earlier views, copying has to be reckoned with in the second part, too, even ifit can be proved perfectly only for certain passages. Roughly speaking, the material of the Codex can be divided into two major dialects. Sir Gerard G'lauson's method of distinguishing the items of the Codex Cumanucus in his dictionary according to the part (Italian: CCI; German: CCG) which they come from is excellent. 2 6 The correct interpretation of the Coman material of the Codex must start with the transcription. It can be contended that today's works on the Coman material of the Codex rarely give erroneous transcriptions. Seldom does a case like carcav [ciarzau] «sheet» (Grönbech, Wb. 122), correctly car Sav (or carsau) occur, which is identical with the adopted Persian word transliterated in the same way; cf. Osm. qarsaf «sheet (of a bed)» (Honv 71). Another ex2 6 For brevity's sake, I considered only some of the present-day Kipchak tongues. Tat.: Tatar of Kazan, TRS, TcUarsko-russkij alovarj, Moskva 1966. Bashk.: Bashkir, BRS, Baskirsko-russkij slovarj, Moskva 1958. Kar. T.: Karaim of Troki, T. Kowalski, Karaimische Texte im Dialekt von Troki, Kraków 1929. Kar. L: Karaim of Luck, A. Mardkowicz, Karaimisches Wörterbuch, Luck 1935. Kreh.-Blk.: Karachai-Balkar, Russko-karacaevobalkarskij alovarj, Moskva 1965. On modern Kipchak languages cf. Karl H. Menges, The Turkic Languages and Peoples. An Introduction to Turkic Studies, Wiesbaden 1968, p. 60. 2 6 Sir Gerard Clauson (An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish Oxford 1972) quotes the Coman words drawing upon Grönbech ( Wörterbuch). This dictionary is a reliable guide, since in every case it marks the later additions to the Italian part (by German or other hands) by setting the page number in cursive, the insertions in normal tvps. E.g. boS «empty» and uv «hunting» are in the Italian part but added later by Germans. Clauson marks both with CCG. With a view to ED it makes no difference that one word is not in its place in the Coman column but right after the Latin entry. It is another matter that several of the rare words of the Codex Cumanieus are missing front ED. Regrettably, the word bitik, for example, is registered both after I and G in the dictionary, while bitiv, bitüv G are separated without any reference.
