¹ Bang, W., von Gabain, A. and Rachmati, G. R., ‘Das buddhistische Sūtra Säkiz yükmäk (= Türkische Turfantexte, VI)’. Sitzungsberichte der Preuβischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1934: 93–192.Google Scholar

² Zieme, P. and Kara, G., Ein uigurisches Totenbuch, Budapest, 1978Google Scholar; Tekin, Ş., Buddhistische Uigurica aus der Yüan-Zeit, Budapest, 1980.Google Scholar

³ Moriyasu, T. ‘ Uigurugo bunken (Uigurica from Tun-huang)’, Kōza Tonkō, 6, 1985, 3–98.Google ScholarA few of the MSS are published there, but the vast majority are just mentioned. An edition of the rather extensive Abhidharma-kośa-bhāsya-tīkā-tattvārtha-nāma is being prepared by Kōgi Kudara.Google Scholar

⁴ First by Huart, , then by Pelliot, , and most recently by James, Hamilton: Le Conte bouddhique du Bon et du Mauvais Prince en version ouïgoure, Manuscrits ouïgours de Touen-houang, Mission Paul Pelliot, Documents conservés a la Bibliothéque Nationale, iii, Paris, 1971.Google Scholar

⁵ Maue, D. and Röhrborn, K., ‘Ein “buddhistischer Katechismus” in alttiirkischer Sprache und tibetischer Schrift’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, 134, 1984, 286–313 and 135, 1985, 68–91Google Scholar; Moriyasu, T., ‘Etude sur un catechisme bouddhique ouigour en ecriture tibetaine (P.t. 1292)’, Memoirs of the Faculty of Letters, Osaka University, xxv, 1985, 1–85.Google Scholar

⁶ Hamilton, J. (ed.), Manuscrits ouigours du IX^e–X^e siecle de Touen-houang, 352 pp. + map, Paris, Peeters, 1986. BFr. 2800.Google Scholar

⁷ With some unwarranted ‘normalizations’: yarhka- appears here as yarhgka-, presumably because it was a + kA- derivate from yarlig. yokaru *yok+garu becomes yokkaru in this book; I would write bodisavt or bodisivt but not bodisavat.Google Scholar

⁸ Mentioned in n. 4. The lexicon of this text is not merely repeated here, but corrected as well: see e.g. the lemmata är, ätiz-, itür-, uβiat- and batatu.Google Scholar

⁹ Erdal, M., ‘The chronological classification of Old Turkic texts’, Central Asiatic Journal, XXIII, 1979, 164–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Kudara, K., ‘ Guan Jing—critique of a Uigur fragment of the Guan wu-liang-shou jing’, Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū, 35, 1979, 33–56Google Scholar; Zieme, P., ‘A new fragment of the Uigur Guanwuliangshoujing’, Ryūkoku Daigaku Bukkyūbunka kenkyūshū, kiyo 20, 1982,20–9Google Scholar; Temir, A., Kudara, K. and Rohrborn, K., ‘ Die alttiirkischen Abitaki-Fragmente des Etnografya Miizesi, Ankara, Turcica, xvi, 1984, 13–28 + V pis.Google Scholar; Sertkaya, O. and Rohrborn, K., ‘ Bruchstiicke der altturkischen Amitābha- Literatur aus Istanbul’, UAJb, N.F., 4, 1984, 97–117Google Scholar; Zieme, P. and Kudara, K., Uigurugo no kanmuryojukyū (Guanwuliangshoujing in Uigur), Kyūto, 1985.Google Scholar

¹¹ ‘Uigurische Sukhāvatīvyūha-Fragmente’, AoF, 12, 1985, 129–49.Google Scholar

¹² No. 360 in the tripifaka of Taishō, vol. XII, 265c ff.Google Scholar

¹³ Sertkaya, O. F., ‘Eski Türk atasözleri üzerine’, Elfin Armağam, Ankara, 1983,284Google Scholar, quotes the same proverb from Republican Turkish.Google Scholar

¹⁴ We quote the brilliant translation of Robert, Dankoff, Wisdom of royal glory, Chicago, 1983.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Or: ‘ whatever was his due’, if we read al-gu+sm instead of alkosin, Hamilton‘s ‘alqusin’Google Scholar

¹⁶ Actually, the editor writes βam, this β corresponding to v in the work of others. I have tacitly transposed all quoted transcriptions to my (equivalent) mode.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The graphemes wv often appear to represent back vowels in these texts. In any case, the editor's interpretation also demands the word to have posterior vowels.Google Scholar

¹⁸ In Mongolian (as in Russian and German), words written with final voiced consonants are in fact realized with voiceless finals. This is true also of tunγaγ, discussed above.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For these latter uses, cf. Mundy, C. S., ‘Evet, evet ki and geyise’, pp. 118 f. in Studia Altaica (Festschrift Poppe), Wiesbaden, 1957.Google Scholar‘Yes’ appears to have been absent from Proto-Indo- European and Proto-Semitic as well. In a letter dated 13 March 1987, Dr. Sims-Williams has reminded me of’ the Sogdian word for “yes”, attested in Christian texts as dp't [δāpāt], which Henning, BSOAS, XXVIII, 2, 1965, p. 253, n. 72, tentatively analysed as δ- “with” + “p't “bravo!”.‘ While d ‘p’ t has the same meaning as Ottoman dvdt etc., the phonetics of borrowing into Turkic would be far from clear in this case: a change of #δ> #y may have taken place in Proto- Turkic (the river Δàïξ, in Turkic yayik; yog’ funeral feast’ appearing as Soyia in Byzantine sources; Mongolian comparative evidence) but is excluded within Orkhon and Uigur Turkic, not to speak of further development to θ. What “p't itself would have become (and signified) in Uigur is a different question. All this demands further elucidation.+#y+may+have+taken+place+in+Proto-+Turkic+(the+river+Δàïξ,+in+Turkic+yayik;+yog’+funeral+feast’+appearing+as+Soyia+in+Byzantine+sources;+Mongolian+comparative+evidence)+but+is+excluded+within+Orkhon+and+Uigur+Turkic,+not+to+speak+of+further+development+to+θ.+What+“p't+itself+would+have+become+(and+signified)+in+Uigur+is+a+different+question.+All+this+demands+further+elucidation.>Google Scholar

²⁰ Altorientalische Forschungen, VII, 1980, 197–245, 12 pl.Google Scholar

²¹ This text also writes /rj/ with the character K: Cf. busanmanlar written as PWS'NMKL'R in line 5.Google Scholar