Between Fact and Fantasy: Early Sources on Oirat Historical Dialectology
The article presents the results of a linguistic analysis of three early sources on Oirat historical dialectology, Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh (Compendium of Chronicles, completed between 1306 and 1311) and the Mongol chronicles Sir-a tuγuǰi (Yellow History, between 1651 and 1662) and Erdeni t...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Российской академии наук, Калмыцкий научный центр
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | Oriental Studies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://kigiran.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/3350 |
| _version_ | 1811256710774390784 |
|---|---|
| author | Pavel O. Rykin |
| author_facet | Pavel O. Rykin |
| author_sort | Pavel O. Rykin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The article presents the results of a linguistic analysis of three early sources on Oirat historical dialectology, Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh (Compendium of Chronicles, completed between 1306 and 1311) and the Mongol chronicles Sir-a tuγuǰi (Yellow History, between 1651 and 1662) and Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur (The Jewel Translucent Sūtra, c. 1607). The author concludes that these sources substantially differ in terms of their linguistic value and reliability. The early historical accounts of Oirat lexical differences, provided by Rashīd al-Dīn and the unknown author of the Sir-a tuγuǰi, are most likely to have been obtained from unreliable external sources and based on hearsay evidence, orally transmitted by non-Oirats, at best, only passingly familiar with the Oirat language and its actual features. Both authors probably heard something about distinctive lexical features of the Oirat dialects of their time, but they hardly had a clear idea of what these features were and how to explain them in an adequate manner. On the contrary, the ‘Oirat fragment’ contained in the Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur seems to be much closer to fact than to fantasy. It presents a deliberate and quite reliable attempt to introduce some features of the Oirat dialects spoken at the turn of the seventeenth century. In the absence of earlier internal evidence of the linguistic differences between the Mongolic languages, this may be the oldest known representation of dialectal data in the Mongolian literary tradition. The evidence is of special importance because it includes morphophonological (an innovative colloquial shape of the clitics ni ~ n̠i < *inu and la ~ =la < *ele) and morphosyntactic (the progressive/durative in ‑nA(y)i), rather than lexical, features, which seem to have been considered Oirat by the early seventeenth-century author(s) of the chronicle. These features look more genuinely Oirat, at least for the early 17th century, although their modern distribution is certainly rather wide and non-specific. It may be assumed that the information on Oirat dialects that the Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur contains may have been obtained from an Oirat, or, at least, from an individual well-versed in the language of the time. Thus, one cannot overestimate the importance of the chronicle as a highly valuable source on historical dialectology of Mongolic languages. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T17:44:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-7f7d0843bf1c42f887c2bd88bb2a4ecf |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2619-0990 2619-1008 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T17:44:16Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | Российской академии наук, Калмыцкий научный центр |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Oriental Studies |
| spelling | doaj.art-7f7d0843bf1c42f887c2bd88bb2a4ecf2022-12-22T03:22:42ZengРоссийской академии наук, Калмыцкий научный центрOriental Studies2619-09902619-10082021-12-0114510461075http://doi.org/10.22162/2619-0990-2021-57-5-1046-1075Between Fact and Fantasy: Early Sources on Oirat Historical DialectologyPavel O. Rykin0https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7566-9591Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of SciencesThe article presents the results of a linguistic analysis of three early sources on Oirat historical dialectology, Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh (Compendium of Chronicles, completed between 1306 and 1311) and the Mongol chronicles Sir-a tuγuǰi (Yellow History, between 1651 and 1662) and Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur (The Jewel Translucent Sūtra, c. 1607). The author concludes that these sources substantially differ in terms of their linguistic value and reliability. The early historical accounts of Oirat lexical differences, provided by Rashīd al-Dīn and the unknown author of the Sir-a tuγuǰi, are most likely to have been obtained from unreliable external sources and based on hearsay evidence, orally transmitted by non-Oirats, at best, only passingly familiar with the Oirat language and its actual features. Both authors probably heard something about distinctive lexical features of the Oirat dialects of their time, but they hardly had a clear idea of what these features were and how to explain them in an adequate manner. On the contrary, the ‘Oirat fragment’ contained in the Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur seems to be much closer to fact than to fantasy. It presents a deliberate and quite reliable attempt to introduce some features of the Oirat dialects spoken at the turn of the seventeenth century. In the absence of earlier internal evidence of the linguistic differences between the Mongolic languages, this may be the oldest known representation of dialectal data in the Mongolian literary tradition. The evidence is of special importance because it includes morphophonological (an innovative colloquial shape of the clitics ni ~ n̠i < *inu and la ~ =la < *ele) and morphosyntactic (the progressive/durative in ‑nA(y)i), rather than lexical, features, which seem to have been considered Oirat by the early seventeenth-century author(s) of the chronicle. These features look more genuinely Oirat, at least for the early 17th century, although their modern distribution is certainly rather wide and non-specific. It may be assumed that the information on Oirat dialects that the Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur contains may have been obtained from an Oirat, or, at least, from an individual well-versed in the language of the time. Thus, one cannot overestimate the importance of the chronicle as a highly valuable source on historical dialectology of Mongolic languages.https://kigiran.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/3350mongolic languagesoirat dialectshistorical linguisticshistorical grammarhistorical lexicologyfolk linguisticsphilology |
| spellingShingle | Pavel O. Rykin Between Fact and Fantasy: Early Sources on Oirat Historical Dialectology Oriental Studies mongolic languages oirat dialects historical linguistics historical grammar historical lexicology folk linguistics philology |
| title | Between Fact and Fantasy: Early Sources on Oirat Historical Dialectology |
| title_full | Between Fact and Fantasy: Early Sources on Oirat Historical Dialectology |
| title_fullStr | Between Fact and Fantasy: Early Sources on Oirat Historical Dialectology |
| title_full_unstemmed | Between Fact and Fantasy: Early Sources on Oirat Historical Dialectology |
| title_short | Between Fact and Fantasy: Early Sources on Oirat Historical Dialectology |
| title_sort | between fact and fantasy early sources on oirat historical dialectology |
| topic | mongolic languages oirat dialects historical linguistics historical grammar historical lexicology folk linguistics philology |
| url | https://kigiran.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/3350 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT pavelorykin betweenfactandfantasyearlysourcesonoirathistoricaldialectology |