^{page 182 note 1} Stein, M. Aurel, “Explorations in Central Asia, 1906–8,” in Geographical Journal for July and 09, 1909Google Scholar (“Reprint”).

^{page 182 note 1} Stein, loc. cit., pp. 29 seqq.

^{page 183 note 1} As to paper from East Turkestan cf. Wiesner, J., “Ein neuer Beitrag zur Geschichte des Papiers” (Sitzungaber. der kais. Akad. der Wiss., Wien, Philos.-hist. Kl., cxlviii, 1904Google Scholar).

^{page 184 note 1} See especially LeCoq, A. v., “Köktürkisches aus Turfan” (Sitzungsber. Kgl. Preusa. Akad. Wiss., 1909, pp. 1047 aeqq.)Google Scholar, and V. Thomsen, “Ein Blatt in türkiseher Runenschrift aus Turfan” (ibid., 1910, pp. 296 seqq.).

^{page 184 note 2} Cf. v. Le Coq, loc. cit., pp. 1050, 1052.

^{page 184 note 3} Cf. v. Le Coq, loc. cit., pp. 1050 seq.; Thomsen, loc. cit., p. 299.

^{page 184 note 4} Cf. v. Le Coq, loc. cit., pp. 1054, 1059; Thomsen, loc. cit., p. 298.

^{page 185 note 1} Cf. also Houtsma, , Ein türkisch-arabisches Glossar, Leiden, 1894, pp. 25 seqqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 185 note 2} M. A. Stein, loc. cit., p. 30.

^{page 186 note 1} An ö which was first written has run and has been blackened over, after which a new ö was written.

^{page 186 note 2} Written thus between the lines; to be inserted in 1. 8 after bir.

^{page 186 note 3} The missing character has run; it resembles č if anything, not g.

^{page 184 note 4} At the end of the line, after i, there is no character, but either, a blot of ink or a character (n ²?) which had been commenced and then effaced.

^{page 184 note 5} Or clerical error for üčün?

^{page 188 note 1} Or “for the sake of horses”?

^{page 190 note 1} M. A. Stein, loc. cit., pp. 39 seqq.

^{page 191 note 1} As in other sources, s ² is often written after ï instead of s ¹; thus always in the verbal affix -mïš. After ï n ² likewise sometimes occurs for n ¹, and, before ï, y ² for y ¹, e.g. y ²is² = yïš (XVII, p. 25).

^{page 192 note 1} The only corresponding instance that I know of, which, however, can scarcely be interpreted similarly, is that from a Christian fragment from Turfan, published by Coq, v. Le (“Ein christliches und ein manichäisches Manuskriptfragment in türkischer Sprache aus Turfan,” Sitzungsber. Kgl. Preuss. Akad., 1909, pp. 1206Google Scholar, 1207), in which one of the two chapter headings preserved has the addition “This is good” (ädü ol) and the other “This is evil” (yavtaq ol). DrCoq, v. Le translates it: “dies ist gut, übel (anzuhören).” As here on p. 101Google Scholar, “this book is good (to read, for obtaining wisdom from).” Furthermore, the above-mentioned final decision is usually preceded by the words: “(he or it) says. Know ye this.” As these words occur also when no such decision is added, and, on the other hand, are often separated from it by repeated punctuation marks or a blank space, I think that they do not really preamble the final decision, but only mark the conclusion of the story itself. As to the subject for tir, “(he or it) says,” or “(they) say”, I do not know, for example, whether it is the author or the principal person in the paragraph in question who is meant. In the translation I have omitted this word throughout.

^{page 193 note 1} Zenker, , Dictionnaire Turc-Arabe-Persan, Leipzig, 1866, i, p. 29Google Scholar (referring to Hindoglu), and referring to Zenker, , Radloff, also, in his Wörterbuch der Türlc-Dialecte, i, p. 1370Google Scholar. (The possibility of there being a connexion between our ïrq and the yïr or ïr, “a song,” which occurs in several Turkish languages—should this occur to anybody—must be definitely dismissed.)

^{page 193 note 2} Hence ïrïmla-, ïrïmda-, “tell fortunes”; ïrïmči, “a soothsayer.” Compare also Altai, Teleutic, Kirghiz, etc., ïrïs, “fortune, chance.” See Radloff, , Wörterbuch, i, pp. 1368Google Scholar, 1370; Verbitzki, V., Slovar' altaidcago i aladagskago narêčiy tiurlcskago yazïka, Kasan, 1884, p. 458 seqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 194 note 1} Professor F. W. K. Müller, of Berlin, to whom I had orally mentioned the contents of this remarkable book before the signification of ïrq had become clear to me, immediately advanced the supposition that it might probably be a dream-book of similar nature to those known from the Chinese.

^{page 194 note 2} Cf. Inscriptions de 'Orkhon déchiffrées Thomsen, par Vilh., Helsingfors, 1896, p. 96Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 1} MS. qod|muq.

^{page 199 note 1} MS. ογϊ, υγϊ, no doubt clerical error for ογιϊ.

^{page 199 note 2} The writer has omitted the lower oblique line in k.

^{page 200 note 1} MS. odγur, which cannot be right.

^{page 201 note 1} i.e. yontda.

^{page 202 note 1} See the note to this paragraph.

^{page 202 note 2} MS. tii.

^{page 203 note 1} MS. urupnïn, read urup (a)nïn, or better urup[(a)n:] (a)nïn.

^{page 203 note 2} The MS. has t(a)γïγ, “the mountain,” which makes no sense whatever. I have supposed that it is a clerical error for (a)tïy, “a horse.” The writer has perhaps first written tγ, i.e. (a)t(ï)γ, which he afterwards intended to alter to the more distinct (a)tïγ, but then he forgot to efface the first γ.

^{page 205 note 1} The writer had here begun to rewrite the first 3–4 lines of paragraph XLVIII. He has, however, carefully scraped it out again and written this paragraph above it; but that which had first been written is still faintly discernible beneath the new script.

^{page 206 note 1} MS. without separation, topuul|γnča:, which must be three words.

^{page 206 note 2} MS. o|o.

^{page 207 note 1} MS. ötin, which I suppose to be a clerical error for ögütin.