This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Kyrgyzstan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofKyrgyzstan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.KyrgyzstanWikipedia:WikiProject KyrgyzstanTemplate:WikiProject KyrgyzstanKyrgyzstan
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofTurkey andrelated topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating toethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChina related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
In the sectionShatuo#Chuy_Shatuo is a claim attributed to a book byYuri Zuev that "Šada" is the Persian word for 'hundred', which isn't true; that would be صدsad. The only language that hasšada for 'hundred' is Karelian, which is over on the Russian border with Finland. Persiansad derives from Middle Persiansad < Old Persianθata- < Proto-Iranian *catám < Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćatám. No šada anywhere in the Iranian languages.
Can anyone tell what Zuev was thinking by this apparently erroneous statement? Or was his writing somehow garbled on the way into Wikipedia? I could not get a look at the book in the citation.
Beyond that remains the semantic question of how "sand masses", i.e. "desert" is supposed to derive from "hundred." Hundred (yüz) is of course a significant number in Turkic history as a military formation. What's it doing here linked with sand masses and desert?User:Erminwin, if you could please explain your edit of last month? As it stands, it's very unclear.Johanna-Hypatia (talk)18:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,Johanna-Hypatia. I should have written "or, according to Zuev, comparable to alleged Persian "Šada"". I do not have access to the Russian original of Zuev's bookEarly Turks, so possibly the translator had mistranscribed. This is the relevant passage from page 146:
"The regal surname of the Western Türkic initially Manichean Chigil tribe (< compare Persian chihil "forty") was Shato (Persian ~Shada "Hundred"), they founded a Hou-Tan state (923-936) in the Northern China, and adopted a Chinese surname Li. Its famous founder Li Keün was from the "Dragon" tribe [Malyavkin, 1974, p. 100, Li Fan, ch. 425, p. 3458-3459].
— Zuev,Early Türks: Essays of history and ideology
Well, what do you know, I found it. A scan of the Russian book is on some web site called s155239215, but Wikipedia won't let me post the link there because that site is blacklisted. You can find it with Google easily enough. The relevant passage is on page 256. I plan to examine it and see what can be learned.Johanna-Hypatia (talk)02:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The s155239215 site is blacklisted because it advances fringe pan-Turkist pseudoscience. Zuev's scholarship is... sloppy. Shatuo 沙陀, in Middle Chinese /ʃˠa dɑ/, could not both transcribe SanskritSart (as Zuev asserted in "Horses, Tamgas of the Vassal Princedoms") and be comparable to Persian صدsad or pseudo-PersianShada (as asserted in "Early Turks").Erminwin (talk)03:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sloppy is right. Here is the passage in question (Ранние тюрки: очерки истории и идеологии p. 256–257), with a rough translation. The alphanumeric codes must refer to an index of Chinese characters.
Слово чигиль (ср.перс. čihil "сорок") вначале было обозначением манихейской консорции — "школы" в стране Аргу. Впостледствии оно стало обозначением тюркских племен, принявших манихейство. Первым из них были чигили, базировавшиеся в долине реки Кунгес в западной части СУАР КНР. Позже в чигильской (кит. чуюз) среде выделяется группа, называвшаяся С9188, 3538 чжу-се/ся/е (чтение второго иероглифа различно). Другая (или та же самая) группа называлась С6836б 12026 шато (<śa-dá<šada). Термин šada отмечен как манихейский (Haneda 1932, с. 3, 7). В уйгурских документх онизвестен как sada и восходить к иранскому sada и восходит к иранскому sada/sata "сто". Шато (шада) считалось названием официальным, но императоры-шато недолновечного государства Позднее Тан (923-936 гг.) считали, что их племя называется С9188, 3538 чжусе (Се Цзюйчжэн, гл. 4, с. 20, л. 1а). Оба термина равнозначны, и чтение второго названия воспринимается на тюркской языковой почве: чжу-се <t'si̯u-zi̯a <ĵüz~jüz "сто". Такая реконструкция подтверждается сторонним, прото-монгольским киданьским обозначениеи этой династии jaut "сто" (кит. чжаодин).
The wordChigil (cf. Pers. čihil “forty”) was originally a designation of the Manichaean consortium — a “school” in the country of Argu. Subsequently, it became the designation of the Turkic tribes that adopted Manichaeism. The first of them were Chigils, based in the Kunges river valley in the western part of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of China. Later, a group called C9188, 3538 chu-se/sya/e stands out in the Chigil (Chinese chuyuz) environment (readings of the second character differ). Another (or the same) group was called C6836b 12026 Shato (<śa-dá <šada). The term šada is noted as Manichaean (Haneda 1932, p. 3, 7). In Uyghur documents it is known as sada and goes back to Iranian sada / sata "hundred". Shato (Shada) was considered the official name, but the Shato emperors of the short-lived Later Tang state (923-936) believed that their tribe was called C9188, 3538 chuse (Xie Juzheng, ch. 4, p. 20, 1a). Both terms are equivalent, and the reading of the second name is discerned on the basis of Turkic linguistics: chu-se <t'si̯u-zi̯a <ĵüz ~ jüz "hundred". This reconstruction is confirmed by a third party, the proto-Mongol Khitan designation of this dynasty as jaut "hundred" (Chinese zhaoding).
DerivingChigil fromchihil is debatable, and Zuev even contradicts himself elsewhere on the etymology. (I laughed to see yet another theory: اين چه گل استīn chih gil ast? 'What is this mud?' Good job, Erminwin.)
Now it's clear that Zuev was playing around with Iranian etymology. If you look at the word forhundred in the different Iranian languages, only Bactrian and Ossetian have that second vowel. Zuev just magicks a second vowel into his Persian to make it fit. That dog won't hunt. Plus how easily he exchanges s and š as though the difference didn't matter. They were distinct phonemes in Old Turkish and Old Uyghur.
The other question about sand and desert turns out to be completely separate from this, but the two got mixed up by mistake.
In fairness to Zuev, he did adduce the Turkish wordyüz and even demonstrated a connection with Khitanjau(t). The Khitan word for hundred isjau; I'm guessing the -t represents a Mongolic plural ending.Johanna-Hypatia (talk)17:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bychu-se possibly Zuev means 屈射 Qūshè. Even so, there's no way 屈射 reflects Turkicyüz er. I don't know how Zuev could have recontrusted as 屈射's pronunciation ast'si̯u-zi̯a (circular reasoning to fit Zuev's own conjecture about the link between 屈射 Qūshè & Turkicyüz er; because they superficially sound similar?); the ethnonym's pronunciation would have been inMiddle Chinese (Karlgren) *kʰi̯uət̚-d͡ʑʰi̯aH. 屈射 had already been attested in Sima Qian'sShiji, 屈射's pronunciation would have been: inLater Han Chinese *kʰut-źa(k) ~ *kʰut-ja(k) and inOld Chinese *khut-mlak (Schuessler 2007). Citing Schuessler (2007) may appear unfair to Zuev (who'd passed away in 2005), yet Zuev should have known that languages change overt ime & 屈射's pronunciation in Late Han Chinese would be far phonetically different from Mandarin.Erminwin (talk)22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
