No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A new edition of the Khwarezmian phrases in the Qunyat al-Munya1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Extract
A complete and reliable edition of the Khwarezmian phrases and words in the lawbook Qunyat al-munya by Najm al-Dīn Abū RajāMukhtār b. Mahmūd al-Zāhidī al-Ghazmīnī (d. A.H. 658/1260 C.E.) has long been a desideratum but was delayed by the inaccessibility of the best extant manuscript, no. C2311 in the Leningrad Oriental Institute (cited as S in the edition under review). The Qunyat al-munya comprises a résumé of a work by Najm al-Dīn's teacher, Munyat al-fuqahā’, a compilation of legal cases that in turn were probablytaken from a still older work, the Yatīmat al-dahr by Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd ‘A;ā’ al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Raḥīm al-Tarjumānī al-Makkī al-Khuwārzmiī (d.A.H. 645/1247 C.E.). The Khwarezmian elements in the Qunya can therefore, roughly, be said to be descended from the Yatīma via the Munya. Most of the cases from the Qunya involving Khwarezmian words, as well as several from the Munya that were preserved as marginal notes in manuscripts of the Qunya, were collected by Jalāl al-Dīn al-‘Imādī around A.H. 750/1350 C.E. in a separate text (referred to as the Risāla (R) in this edition). Professor D. N. MacKenzie's recently published edition is based upon manuscript no. C2311, originally from Astrakhan, which contains both the Qunya and the Risāla.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , October 1991 , pp. 496 - 505
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1991
References
2 An Iranian language once spoken in Khwarezm/Choresmia, but now extinct.
3 Qunyat al-munya li tatmīm al-ghunya, literally: ‘The acquisition of the object of desire, for the completion of the sufficiency’.
4 Literally: ‘The object of desire of jurisprudents’.
5 Yatīmat al-dahr fatāwā ahl al–‘asr, literally: ‘The unicum of the age concerning the legaldecision of the people of the period’.
6 Not named in the manuscripts, but referred to by its discoverer, Zeki Velidi (see below) as Risālat al-alfāẓ al-khuwārazmiyya allatī fī qunyat alīmabsūṭ, literally: ‘Note of the Khwarezmian words in the large Qunya’.
7 ‘Über die Sprache der Chvarezmier’, ZDMG, xc, 1936, *30–*34.Google Scholar
8 Frejman, A. A., Khorezmijskij jazyk (Moscow-Leningrad, 1951)Google Scholar.
9 Referred to on p. 3, n. 14, but absent from the list of references on p. 130. They are: ‘Onekotorikh osob'ennostjakh arabo-khoresmijskoj pis'mennosti’, Narody Azii i Afriki, 1961, no. 4, 182–7 (= ‘a’); ‘Chastitsy v khorezmijskom jazyke’, Uchenye zapiski Leningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universileta, 305 (ser. vostokovedcheskikh nauk, 12), 1961, 81–4 (= ‘b ’ ); ‘Lichnye mestoimenija v khorezmijskom jazyke’, Uchenye zapiski Leningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 306 (ser. vostokovedcheskikh nauk, 16), 1962, 6–15 (= ‘c’); ‘Mestoimenija v khorezmijskom jazyke’, ‘Kratkie soobshchenija Instituta narodov Azii’ 67 (Iranskaja fllologija), 1963, 99–103 (= ‘ d’). The following phrases (from the Qunya) have until now been cited nowhere else: 297 = c152, 329 = a85, 331 = a86/b35/c78, 338 = a70; 352 = c82, 364 = Ml, 366 = a4/c62/c168, 371 = c27, 383 = c8, 384 = c73, 388 = a76, 395 = b37, 403 = c43, and 404 = a35/c42.
10 Henning, W. B., A fragment of a Khwarezmian dictionary, ed. MacKenzie, D. N. (London, 1971)Google Scholar.
11 BSOAS, xxxIII–xxxv, 1970–1972; cf. belowGoogle Scholar.
12 Benzing, J., Das Chwaresmische Sprachmaterial einer Handschrift der « Muqaddimat al-adab » von Zamaxš arī.I:Text (Wiesbaden, 1968.)Google Scholar
13 In ZDMG, cxx, 2, 1970, 288–304Google Scholar.
14 Especially: ‘The Khwarezmian language’, in Zeki Velidi Togan'a armaǧ an (Istanbul, 1955), 421–36Google Scholar; ‘The structure of the Khwarezmian verb’, Asia Major, n.s., II, 1955, 43–9Google Scholar; ‘Mitteliranisch’, in Handbuch der Orientalistik I, iv, I (Leiden-Cologne), 1958, 20–130Google Scholar; ‘The Choresmian documents’, Asia Major, n.s., XI, 1965, 166–79Google Scholar.
15 Benzing, J., Chwaresmischer Wortindex, ed. Z., Taraf (Wiesbaden, 1983)Google Scholar.
16 Samadi, M., Das chwarezmische Verbu(Wiesbaden, 1986Google Scholar; rev. MacKenzie, , in JRAS, 1988, no. 2, 197–9Google Scholar, and Sims-Williams, N., ‘New studies on the verbal system of Old and Middle Iranian’, BSOAS, LII, 2, 1989, 255–64, esp. 259-64)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 In Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. R., Schmitt (Wiesbaden, 1989), ch. 3.2.2Google Scholar (rev. MacKenzie, , in BSOAS, LIV, 1, 1991, 172–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 There are occasional differences between glosses without attribution to either S or R and the readings of R; for instance, in no. 142 MacKenzie gives gāh gāh va harči-gāh ki man dar āyam, while R 242rI8 has the slightly different har gāh aw harči-gāh ki dar āyam.
19 e.g., no. 9: Dictionary, p. 6a δyn'ryn; no. 19: p. 6a ‘Our MS has h'βryx’ no. 122; p. 24a (1st line) 'k'n no. 67: Mitteliranisch, p. 118, n. 1 č'pβ'd; no. 287: p. 8b (2nd line) 'stnb; no. 314: p. 37b ‘s'ryws (var. –š)’. An exception in no. 2, p. 48.
20 Thus, the etymologies already proposed by Frejman are rarely, often negatively (e.g., p. 91 and no. 124, p. 104 s.v. sp'my–), quoted by MacKenzie (e.g., ';rx ‘ < *araška–’, Frejman, 98, ditto (only arxš for araxš); *yx <Av. aēxa–, Frejman, 103; mγk <Av. maγal– ‘hole’, Frejman, p. 114; skrnk, Frejman, 68, comparison with Pers. skrh), etc. Samadi is relatively often quoted, though mostly to be rejected (e.g. s.vv. *'xy–‘to weep’:‘Samadi... makes several errors’ myθ ‘to become ’: ‘subtlety carried ad absurdum ’). The (obvious?) derivation of 'nc'n ‘ to admit, confess'from *han-zāna– was also mentioned by myself apud Samadi, 119.
21 Emmerick, R. E., Saka grammatical studies (London, 1968), 221Google Scholar; cf. also Gershevitch, I., A grammar of Manichean Sogdian (Oxford, 1954), p. 130, § 877 n. 2Google Scholar.
22 Bailey's, H. W. derivation ofśśa– from dā is impossible, that from slyā– highly improbable (Dictionary of Khotan Saka, Cambridge, 1979, 397)Google Scholar.
23 Abaev, V. I., Istoriko-ètimologkheskij slovar' osetinskogo jazyka, I (Moscow, 1958), 32Google Scholar, doubts Bailey's etymological connexion on semantical grounds.
24 Thus the ‘preverb awi-’ had better not ‘enter into’ anybody's ‘scheme’ (cf. MacKenzie, , JRAS, 1988, 199)Google Scholar.
25 In Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Ėntile Benveniste (Paris, 1975), 389–95Google Scholar.
26 cf. also Bactrian eiio < ayam, but i, fem. ia from the relative pronoun, according to N. Sims-Williams, , in Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, 235Google Scholar.
27 Also vā, shortened form of (a)bāz or < *apāk?.
28 For a recent discussion of the special relationship, if any, between Khwarezmian and Avestan, see MacKenzie, , ‘Khwarezmian and Avestan’, East and West, XXXVIII 1988 [pub. 1990], 82–92Google Scholar, where the reference to Khotanese ‘kṣī'a’, a hapax of uncertain reading and meaning must be omitted.
29 On the alternative derivation from *duš–kaiša, see MacKenzie, , ‘Khwarezmian and Avestan’, p. 91 with n. 29Google Scholar; Sims-Williams, , ‘New studies’, 260Google Scholar.
30 See Sims-Williams, N., BSOAS, XLVIII, 1, 1985, 113Google Scholar.
31 cf. the similar development, for instance, in Bashkardi; see Skjærvø, , in Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, 365Google Scholar, and Encyclopaedia lranica III, 8, 1988, 848. Note also Khwar. intervocalic š > h, see, e.g., H. Humbach in Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, p. 195, § 3.2.2.2.6.4+h,+see,+e.g.,+H.+Humbach+in+Compendium+Linguarum+Iranicarum,+p.+195,+§+3.2.2.2.6.4>Google Scholar.
32 Tafazzoli, A., in Papers in honour of Professor Mary Boyce, II (Acta Iranica, 25, Leiden, 1985), 652Google Scholar.
33 Asia Major, N.S., xi, 2, 176Google Scholar.