INTRODUCTORY REMARKS TO THE TRANSLITERATION
TRANSLITERATION OF THE TUMSHUQESE
UMSHUQESE
MAN
MANUSCRIPTS AND INSCRIPTIONS
“Since 1935, when Sten Konow´s pioneering essay on what we now call Tumshuqese
appeared, much progress has been made in the field of both Central Asian research and
Iranian studies. In addition, the Tumshuqese text base has increased substantially, so
that we now have at our disposal more than 50 manuscript leaves, more or less
fragmentary, consisting partly of civil documents and partly of Buddhist literary texts.
Most of them are not yet published and are only poorly understood.
The present situation is thus at once both unsatisfactory and challenging, and it is for
this reason that we, the subscribers, during the Berlin Turfan Conference of September
2002, decided to mount an operation at international level, with the aim of acquiring a
deeper insight into Tumshuqese, one which would include an examination of historical
and social contexts and contexts relating to the history of art. ...
The main and central target of the project will be an edition and re-edition of the
manuscripts and a grammatical and lexical analysis, which it is hoped will lead to a more
adequate understanding and translation of the texts. It is not intended that the work
shall be done behind closed doors - the risk here would be that the results would never
see the light. As the work progresses it is to be accessible to all enquirers, whether they
are simply interested or willing to contribute to it.” (From the Circular, September 2002,
by Mauro Maggi and Dieter Maue)
The first sub-goal is attained in the shape of the transliteration of all known Tumshuqese
texts. A few things need some remarks: the handling of the so-called foreign signs (A),
the apparatus criticus (B), and non-self-explanatory signs and symbols (C).
A. The
The „foreign signs“
In Tumshuqese texts, a number of signs is met with which are not known from Sanskrit or
Tocharian. They were named “Fremdzeichen” in Konow 1935, and “new signs” in Konow 1937.
The first appellation is adopted here. They find themselves assembled in an alphabet chart (1). As
far as possible, their value is described and the transliteration symbols are listed (2). To facilitate
the parallel use of the previous editions the there used transliteration symbols are added (3).
1. Alphabet chart1
1
From DTA TS 05 side b.
No.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
2. Presumable values2 and transliteration symbols of this edition
No. Description Transliterat-
ion symbol
1 voiced dental sibilant z
2 voiced guttural fricative g1
3 voiced guttural 3 g2
4 voiced retroflex sibilant ẓ
5 not yet determined x5
6 not yet determined x6
7 voiced dental fricative d1
8 not yet determined x8
9 not yet determined x9
10 voiced palatal sibilant ź
11 bilabial semivowel v1
12 guttural fricative with non-dental sibilant χš
Apart from no. 12, there are three groups:
- Indexed
Indexed x (x5, x6, x8, x9): x stand for unknown value, the index no. is the current no. of
the list;
- Indexed letters
letters other than x (g1, g2, d1, v1): the respective letter shows to which
unindexed transliteration symbol the foreign is next related;
- non-
non-indexed letters (z, ẓ, ź): the basis letter z indicates the voiced correspondent of s,
thus z – s, ẓ - ṣ, ź – ś.
3. The foreign signs in previous editions4
2
Uncertain features in italics. – A provisional outline in D. Maue; “Konows Zeichen Nr. 10”, D.
Durkin-Meisterernst et al. (eds): Turfan revisited ... Berlin 2004. 208-212.
3
By which feature g1 distinguishes from g2, is unclear.
4
For the sigla s. below B 2. In this special context, other publications (handbooks, grammars etc.) are
not accounted for.
No. K1 K2 B1 H Skj1 Skj2 Skj3
1 z z z z z z
2 γ gy g’ ǥ gy/2- j́/ġ
3 -- -- =2 3- γ/j́/
ġ
4 ź ź ź ź ź ź
5 ẓ́5 źy ṟṟ ẓ́ ž ž
6 ẓ ẓ ẓ ḵẖ ẓ
7 ḏ6 ḏ ḏ ḏ ḏ δ ḏ
8 -- -- =4 ź /8- ź
9 -- --
10 γw gw gw? s̄́ gw γ/ḫ
7 w
11 dz dz dz dz dz β
12 χš χṣ xš xš xš ḫš
Comments:
blanco sign not considered;
-- the author supposes that the sign does not appear in the texts;
=4 the author holds that the sign is a variant of the specified sign.
B. The apparatus criticus
1. Generalities
5
“Oder vielleicht ṣ́” (o. c. 10).
6
Stop as against fricative written by <d>.
7
Konow´s „reading gw is not yet confirmed.“ (o. c. 153)
It is intended to give the apparatus criticus (a. cr.) a simple and lucid form. Therefore all obvious
errors, either misreadings or misprints, of previous editors have been disregarded. It would not
make any sense to mention a variant “kha” where the manuscript undoubtedly reads “kho”, or
“vye”, which originated from the typesetter´s incapacity to decipher the author´s handwritten
“rye” correctly.
The foreign signs, their value and transliteration have been treated above (A). There were and
still are different opinions (some of them certainly outdated) on their interpretation and
representation, which can be comprehended from the above diagram. It would be superfluous to
record meticulously in the a. cr., e. g. that what we transliterate v1 was written dz by Konow and
the others. Whosoever disagrees about v1 is, of course, free to replace v1 by dz etc.
Variants, more precisely: different opinions about how a sign should be read, will be notified
together with the siglum of the respective edition. For example, the main text reads “u”, by
footnote is referred to “ru H”. This means that all editors read “u” except for Hitch 1985, who
read “ru” instead. As the graphemes <u> and <ru> are homographs, the case is undecidable by
means of palaeographical arguments. Depending on the scribe, the same can be true for c and v, t
and n.8 In other cases, the poor state of preservation or negligent writing leads to divergent
readings.
2. The sigla of the editions9
B1 B. 1958
B2 B. 1968
Bk B. 1950
E Emm. 1985
H Hitch 1985
K K1 and K2, or Kk and K2
K1 K. 1935
K2 K. 1947
Kk K. 1941-1942
P Peyrot 2007
Pi Pinault 1987
Skj1 Skjærvø 1987
Skj2 Skjærvø TS
Skj3 Skjærvø 2002.
Signs and symbols10
C. Signs
⊙ space left blank for the string hole
8
The Karmavācanā ms alone (Text no. 16) has clearly distinct forms of t and n.
9
For the bibliographical data s. Tumshuqese manuscripts. A provisional handlist, at the end.
10
Regrettably the Central Asia philologists have no common editorial standard. Idiosyncrasies, esp.
in the use of the brackets, cause avoidable misunderstandings.
+ equivalent of 1 akṣara
× part of an akṣara
... text of undefined extent
*fra-bar- reconstructed word or form
a 1. italics in transliteration, transcription, glossaries: uncertain reading
2. elsewhere: according to the conventions of the editors
(i) 1. in foreign language texts: normalizing addition, e.g. b(i)śa-, ms
spelling <bśa->
2. in translations: phraseological or commentarial complement
((a)) added inter lineas
[] loss
[ba] 1. lost text restored by conjecture
2. phonetic value
[[a]] deleted by the scribe
{a} deleted by emendation
<a> 1. restored by emendation
2. graphematic representation in the ms, generally not marked in the
apparatus
a<b a comes from, or is a direct borrowing of b
a << b a comes from, or is a borrowing of b through an intermediary
/a/ phonological value
°erja° abridged quotation leaving out the text before and after erja
r recto, obverse
v verso, reverse
kh, ch etc. aspirate consonants in contrast to ligatures with consonantal h, e. g. th
vs. th (t+h)
*****
***
*
