Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-09-01T18:57:02.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the discovery and interpretation of overcounting in Orkhon Inscriptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2022

Chuansheng He
Chuansheng He*
Affiliation:
School of Foreign Languages, Hunan University, Changsha City, Hunan Province, China Email: hcs@hnu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The discovery of overcounting in Orkhon Inscriptions has been an important contribution by historical comparative linguistics during the nineteenth century. However, the initial interpretation of overcounted numerals in Orkhon Inscriptions by Thomsen and Radloff was not correct, resulting in serious difficulties in reconstructing old Turkic history. It was Bang and Marquart who worked out the true semantics of overcounted numerals. This article aims to present a historical overview on the discovery and interpretation of overcounted numerals in Orkhon Inscriptions. Considering that Bang and Marquart did not explicitly spell out their evidence for reaching the true semantics of these numerals, this article presents a series of arguments proving the existence of overcounting in Old Turkic based on language per se, historical facts, logical reasoning, and bilingual translation.

Keywords

OvercountingOrkon Inscriptionsdiscoveryinterpretation
Type
Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 461 - 475
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Asiatic Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Undercounting can also be applied to other systems such as the vigesimal system. Thus, in a vigesimal undercounting system, numbers are also perceived as points, from smaller ones to larger ones, but based on twenty-interval in the number line. For example, the number 27 is perceived as the seventh point after twenty in the number line. Linguistically the number 27 is expressed as twenty seven in, for example, Danish, which is a vigesimal language.

2 Reuter, O. S., ‘Urnordischer und eurasischer Zählbrauch’, Mannus-Zeitschrift für Vorgeschichte 25 (1933) pp. 353–383Google Scholar.

3 K. Menninger, Number Words and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers (Dover, 1969), p. 76.

4 Yoshitake, S., ‘The grading method of forming numerals’, Transactions of the Philological Society 39 (1940), pp. 53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 D. Stampe, ‘Cardinal number systems’, in Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, (eds) S. Muwfene et al. (Chicago, 1976), pp. 594–609.

6 T. Kaufman, Tzeltal Grammar, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1963, p. 157.

7 J. H. Greenberg, ‘Generalizations about numeral systems’, in Universals of Human Language, (eds) J. H. Greenberg et al. (Stanford, 1978), Vol. 3, pp. 249–295.

8 落合泉 (Izumi Ochiai)， ‘北・中央ヴァヌアツ諸語の嚮數法とその分佈について’ (Overcounting in North-Central Vanuatu languages and its distribution),『京都大學言語學研究』(Kyoto University Linguistic Research) 33 (2014), pp. 229–252.

9 See, for example, the following works. 泉井久之助 (Izui Hisanosuke)， ‘突厥語にぉける數詞の組織にっいて’ (On the composition of Turkic numerals),『言語研究』(Gengo Kenkyu: Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan) 1 (1939), pp. 54–59; A. von Gabain, ‘Inhalt und magische Bedeutung der alttürkischen Inschriften’, Anthropos Bd. 48, H. 3/4 (1953), pp. 537–556; A. von Gabain, Alttürkische Grammatik (Leipzig, 1950), pp. 104, Nachträge 104, 13u; G. Clauson, ‘The Turkish numerals’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1–2 (1959), pp. 19–31; G. Ehlers, ‘Notabilia zur alttürkischen Oberstufenzälung’, UAJb, N.F. 3 (1983), pp. 81–87; L. Clark, ‘The early Turkic and Sarig Yugur counting system’, in Turfan, Khotan und Dunhuang, (eds) R. E. Emmerick et al. (Berlin, 1996), pp. 17–49; M. Erdal, A Grammar of Old Turkic (Leiden, 2004), pp. 220–221.

10 Pritsak, O., ‘Die Oberstufenzählung im Tungusischen und Jakutischen’, ZDMG 105 (1955), pp. 184–191Google Scholar.

11 Z.-Z Chen and X.-C. Lei, Xibu Yuguyu Jianzhi (A Grammar Sketch of West Yugur) (Beijing, 1985), pp. 74–75.

12 Pritsak, ‘Die Oberstufenzählung im Tungusischen und Jakutischen’, pp. 184–191.

13 Abbreviations in this article are as follows: ABL: ablative case marker; CAUSE: causativity marker; ACC: accusative case marker; ConV: converb; DAT: dative case marker; INSTR: instrumental case marker; LOC: locative case marker; ORD: ordinal marker; PART: partitive case marker; PAST: past tense; PAST-1PL: first person plural past tense; PAST-1SG: first person singular past tense; PAST-3PL: third person plural past tense; PAST-3SG: third person singular past tense; PRES: present tense; PRT: participle; 1SG.POSS: first person singular possessive; 3SG.POSS: third person singular possessive.

14 Menninger, Number Words and Number Symbols, p. 76.

15 The form these numerals take is clearly undercounting, which continues in modern Turkic languages, usually without the linking morpheme artuqï. See Clauson, ‘The Turkish numerals’, p. 25.

16 The Old Turkic transliteration of (4) is based on S. M. Geng, Gudai Tujuewen Beiming Yanjiu (Studies on Old Turkic Inscriptions) (Beijing, 2005), p. 123, with my Leipzig annotation. All the other transliterations of Orkhon Inscriptions of (8–9), (13–14), (20–21), and (26–46) in the following text are based on the same book, with my Leipzig annotation. However, some modifications have been made to the spelling of Professor Geng's original transliteration according to the more recent criteria of transliterating Old Turkic. For example, yiti yiɡirmi in Geng's book is spelled as yeti yeɡirmi in this article.

17 V. Thomsen, Inscriptions de l'Orkhon Déchiffrées (Helsingfors,1896), p. 101.

18 V. Radloff, Die Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei (St Petersburg, 1895), p. 440.

19 V. Radloff, Die Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Neute Folge (St Petersburg, 1897), p. 133.

20 V. Thomsen, Inscriptions de l'Orkhon Déchiffrées (Helsingfors, 1896), pp. 119–120.

21 Ibid., p. 130.

22 Ibid., p. 176.

23 Ibid., p. 103.

24 Ibid., p. 129.

25 Ibid., p. 183.

26 Radloff, Die Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei, p. 39.

27 Ibid., p. 200.

28 Bang, W., ‘Zu den Kök Türk-Inschriften der Mongolei’, T'oung Pao 7.4 (1896), pp. 325–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Bang, W., ‘Zu den köktürkischen Inschriften’, T'oung Pao 9.2 (1898), pp. 117–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 W. Barthold, ‘Die historische bedeutung der alttürkischen inschriften’, in Radloff, Die Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Neute Folge.

30 Bang, W., ‘Zur Erklärung der köktürkischen Inschriften’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 12 (1898), pp. 34–54Google Scholar, with modification in the spelling of the numerals.

31 J. Marquart, Die Chronologie der Alttürkischen Inschriften (Leipzig, 1898), p. 29.

32 W. Bang, Vorwort, in Die Chronologie der Alttürkischen Inschriften (Leipzig, 1898), p. vi.

33 In Old Finnish, 21–29, 31–39, 41–49…, and 91–99 are all formed by overcounting, for example:

In Modern Finnish, however, overcounting only remains for numerals 11–19, with kymmentä deleted, such as yksi-toista ‘11’. More details on Finnish numerals can be found in, for example, C. Eliot, A Finnish Grammar (Oxford, 1890), pp. 48–50.

34 Radloff's 1889 dictionary refers to the Versuch eines Wörterbuches des Turk-Dialect (St Petersburg, 1889), the Chinese-Uighur dictionary refers to Gāo Chāng Guǎn Zá Zì (《高昌馆杂字》), one volume of the multilingual materials Huá Yí Yì Yŭ (《华夷译语》) compiled during the Ming Dynasty. See the next section for Gāo Chāng Guǎn Zá Zì.

35 V. Radloff, Die Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Zweite Folge (St Petersburg, 1899), p. xx.

36 Thomsen, V., ‘Turcica. Études concernant l'interprétation des inscriptions turques de la Mongolie et de la Siberie’, MSFOu XXXVII (1916)Google Scholar.

37 V. Thomsen, ‘Alttürkische Inschriften aus der Mongolei in Übersetzung und mit Einleitımg’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlândischen Gesellschaft Bd. 78 (1924).

38 Radloff, Die Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei. Zweite Folge, p. xx.

39 Also see Pritsak, ‘Die Oberstufenzählung im Tungusischen und Jakutischen’, pp. 184–191.

40 See footnote 34.

41 H. J. Klaproth, Abhandlung über die Sprache und Schrift der Uiguren (Berlin, 1812), pp. 15–16.

42 H. J. Klaproth, Abhandlung über die Sprache und Schrift der Uiguren (Paris, 1820), p. 13.

43 S. M. Geng, Huihuwen Shehui Jingji Wenshu Yanjiu (Studies on Uighur Socio-economic Documents) (Beijing, 2006), p. 233, with my Leipzig annotation and some modification in spelling; see footnote 16.

44 Sentences (23) and (24–25) below are based on S. M. Geng, Huihuwen Hamiben Milehuijianji Yanjiu (Studies on the Hami Version of Uighur Maitrisimit) (Beijing, 2008), pp. 33, 51 and 84, with my Leipzig annotation and some modification in spelling; see footnote 16.

45 Dàcí'ēn Sì Sānzàng Fǎshī Zhuàn ‘The life of Hiuen-Tsiang’，《大慈恩寺三藏法师传》(Shanghai, 2000), p. 127.

46 Y. Cui, Studies on the Uighur Xuan Zang Zhuan. Volume 6 Stored in Russia, unpublished PhD dissertation, Minzu University of China, 2017, pp. 24–26, with my modification in spelling.

47 See J. Hurford, The Linguistic Theory of Numerals (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 237–238, for an initial attempt to compositionally derive the values of overcounted numerals in Mayan languages.

48 Menninger, Number Words and Number Symbols, p. 46.

49 I consulted L. Bazin, Les Systems Chronologiques dans le Monde Turc Ancient (Budapest, 1991), which contains many examples of overcounted numerals in Yenisei Inscriptions, and found only overcounting for numbers up to 100, with the largest one being toquz säkiz on ‘79’.

50 Professor Larry Clark proposed an opposite hypothesis—the Calender Hypothesis—suggesting that Old Turks at first undercounted in a decimal system with the overcounting system being a foreign intruder, borrowed from the Chinese civil calendar system—that is, the overcounting system is a later development. We may address this hypothesis on a different occasion. See Clark, ‘The early Turkic and Sarig Yugur counting system’, pp. 17–49.

51 L. Lévy-Bruhl, Les Fonctions Mentales dans les Sociétés Inférieures (Paris, 1910), p. 163.