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
50 L. I-IGETI A careful examination of the German glosses also reveals some new information about the Coman material of the Codex. It is conspicuous that this material contains a good many words of unknown origin, while its loanwords include several of Mongol and even Caucasian origin. The Kipehak material of the lexicon is identical in nature with the specific form of the second part, but apparently contains phonemic and lexical differences. It would be worth while working on this Coman material for purposes cemparison." 5 Miss Drüll's Germanistic arguments are very attractive for an outsider. Let me, however, add two remarks. First, Miss Drilli distinguishes 16 different hands in the German part. Isn't that a few too many cooks in the kitchen ? Second, Miss Driill maintains that the German material has Middle-High German roots (we have suspected this too), but exceptions to this rule crop up in the glosses. This can hardly come as a surprise. The German friars did not co me from one particular province, or locale, but frorq different places in the large German-speaking world. The cohesion among these friars was not rooted in their nostalgic desire to foster a certain language (even if some of them used k M Miss Driill also gives the modern Geiman meaning of the Gei man glosses found in the trilingual part (see pp. 125 —128). Her non-German readers can only be too sorry that she failed to do the same with the German glosses of the second part (pp. 107 —123). Even Grönbeeh had difficulties in reading and interpreting some German glosses. On the Mongol elements of the Coman language, see N. Poppe, Die mongoliachen Lehnwörter im Komanischen, in Németh Ar magam, Ankara 1962, pp. 331 — 340. Let us refer here only to some Mongol loan words in the vicinity of German glosses; the German interpretation of the Codex is followed by Grönbeeh's translation. E.g.: aréila- «ich scheyde; einen Streit beilegen»; teher (kiéi) «en reynlieh ma'; nett, anstandig»; elpek «óberik; tìbrig»; emegàn ten babe; alte Frau»; eremsi- «birumet sich; prahlen»; erkelen- «hae czar[t]; «weichlich, verzàrtelt sein»; keneta «gelich; plötzlich»; sergek «ein waehinde man; wachsam, wach»; seröün ( serovn ; Gr.'s reading as serövün is not convincing) «kvle; kiilil»; solayay «eyn liker; Linkshfindler»; totyar «schade; Böses, Schaden»; udà (Gr. udaa) «no; nacheinander» ; yege «breit; breit». Poppe's list fails to include daraya «eyn greve; Oberhaupt, Gouverneur. Àhnl.»; qurulta «hot; Ratsversammlung; enti in: entim «miyneS selber; Eigentum.» A Caucasian loan word: keiene «der t(oden) hu(w) (Gr.), des toden hws (Dr.)»; «Grabhiigel ( T)». This word is detectable in some cognate languages of Coman: Karachay k'eiene «Friedhof», Balkar keéene «Gruft, Mausoleum» (see G. Schmidt, Ü ber die kaukasischen Lehnwörter dea Karatschaischen in: MSFOu. LXVII, p. 468). On occasion even Grönbeeh, a wellversed scholar, had difficulties with German interpretations, and this naturally hindered the precise indentification of the related Coman words. Such is: feré «en kopicze». Kuun's explanation, koppizen «eructare» (p. 360) is unacceptable. It is not impossible that Radloff's interpretation ( Wb. IV, p. 199) «der Heuhaufen (?)» (s. v. ceren) is correct, since Balkar contains a word ceren «Garbe» (Pröhle: KSz. XV, 214). See also VI. Drimba, Quelquea mota comans précisés par leurs gloses allenades, in: Harvard Ukrainian Studies III/TV (1979-1980), pp. 205 — 214. But the three subsequent words of the Codex: (p. 162; Kuun pip. 227 — 228) say gài «des heres teyl», kölöüt, T bölöüt «des vundes teyl», yovacà «des marctes teyl» are stili a mystery. D. Drüll's semantic definitions would have been of great help here.
