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 19 Ave ücmalcnin ìcabagi tiriliknin agaii jemiSSin bisga tejirdin Jesusne Icacan tuurdunn Ave ucmagnir) cibavi tiriliknir] ayaci YemiSirj bizga teyirdir) Yesusn'i qican tuwurdui). The two editions differ in other respects ÍIS well. In his notes appended to the text, Bang published Kuun's and Radloff's incorrect, or allegeldy incorrect readings, adding to them his frequently caustic remarks; Drimba's notes, on the other hand, c arry the precisely copied form of the Codex in every case that he considered unusual or in need of comments. We have r.ow plunged into the midst of the problems of the Turkish material of the Codex. There is no denying that most of the efforts done in the past century were concentrated on this areaLet me mention here only the most outstanding works of an immensely rich bibliography: A. v. Gabain's two small monographs devoted to the evaluation of the Coman language and literature; Grönbech's facsimile edition and dictionary; Drimba's book containing the best edition and interpretation to date of the «German» part; J. Németh's short paper clearing up some basic aspects of Coman phonology.

2

3 The Mameluk-Kipchak grammar-dictionary and other contemporary linguistic records, as weil as the Armenian-Kipchak tongue, deserve increased attention.

2

4 The present -day descendants of one-time 2

3 A. v. Gabain, Die Sprache des Codex Cumanicus, in: Philologiae Turcicae FuiAamenta I, Wiesbaden 1959, pp. 46—73; Idem, Komanische Literatur, in: Fundamevta Tl, pp. 243 — 251. On Grönbech's facsimile edition ef. note 20. K. Grönbech, Komanisches Wörterbuch, Türkischer Wortindex zu Codex Cumanicus, in Monumenta Linguarum Asiae Maioris, Subsidia Vol. I. Kopenhagen 1942. VI. Drimba, Syntaxe cornane, Bucuresti — Leiden 1973. J. Németh, Die Inschriften des Schatzes von Nagy-Szent-Mikló. Budapest 1932 (Bibliotheca Orientális Hvngarica II), pp. 51 — 59. 2

4 Sources of the mentioned Mameluk-Kipchak data: AL: Anonym of Leiden, Houtsma, Ein türkisch-arabisehes Glossar, Leiden 1894; a more recent edition of this work: K. KurySzanov, Issledovanie po leksike «Tjurksko-arabskogo slovarjah, Alma Ata 1970. The date of this dictionary is not, as Houtsma, and after him, KurySzanov, thought, 1245, but rather 1343 (cf. B. Fleming: Der Islam 44, 1948, pp. 226-229). Idr.: A. Carferoglu, Abű Hayyán: Kitáb al-ldrák li Hsán al-Atrák, Istanbul 1931. Bub: A. Zajaczkowski, Bxdgat al-rnustaq fi luqat ut-turk ma-1-qiffàq, Vocabulaire arabe-kiptchak, Warsaw 1958. Tuh.: Tuhfat-az-zakiyya, ed. Besim Atalay, Istanbul 1945, E. I. Fazylov-M. T. Zijaeva, Taskent 1978. Qaw.: Qawanin: S. Telegdi, Eine türkische Grammatik in arabisdter Sprache aus dem XV

. Jhdt

: Körösi Csorna Archívum I. Erg. Bd., 1937, pp. 282 326. Dur.: Durrat al-maudi'a fi-l-lugat at turkiya, ed. A. Zajqezkowski in: Pocznik Orieritalistyczny XXIX (1965), fase. 2, pp. 67-116; XXXII (1969), fase. 2, pp. 19-61. There are Kipchak features in the Turkish material (unpublished) of the Tetraglot dictionary of the Rasulids of Yemen (cc. 1365). On Armeno-Kipehak cf. Ed. Tryjarski, Dictionnaire arméno-kiptchak, tome I, fase. 1 — 4, Varsovie 1963—1972.