The Turkic and Eastern-European linguistic background of the etymology of Hung. tábor ‘(military)...

Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 67 (1), 43–73 (2014) DOI: 10.1556/AOrient.67.2014.1.3

0001-6446 / $ 20.00 © 2014 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

THE TURKIC AND EASTERN EUROPEAN BACKGROUND 1

OF THE ETYMOLOGY OF HUNG. TÁBOR (MILITARY CAMP) 2

MICHAŁ NÉMETH 3

Zakład Filologii Węgierskiej Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 4 ul. marsz. Józefa Piłsudskiego 13, PL 31-110 Kraków 5

e-mail: [email protected] 6

This article offers an etymological discussion of the relationship of the Hungarian word tábor ‘(mili-7 tary) camp’ and its cognates, present in a wide range of European and Asian languages, to Turkic 8 (above all Chagatai and Ottoman) dapkur ~ tapkur ‘1. troop; 2. saddle girth; etc.’. The main reason 9 as well as aim for revisiting the etymology of Hung. tábor is to prove that the claim that the first 10 written occurrence of the Hung. word in appellative meaning dates back to 1383, is erroneous. In the 11 present paper attempt is made to refute the latter assertion by thorough philological argumentation. 12 This circumstance invalidates the arguments formerly put forward to weaken the word’s Czech ety-13 mology (< Cz. Tábor ‘Mount Tabor’). 14

Key words: etymology, Hung. tábor ‘military camp’, Turkic dapkur ~ tapkur ‘troop’, Turkic in Hun-15 garian, Hungarian in Turkic sources, Turkic historical linguistics, Mongolic historical linguistics. 16

1. Introduction 17

The debate on the etymology of Hung. tábor and its cognates in the surrounding lan-18 guages has a long history. Let us summarise its most important details here. 19 The debate can be reduced to the question whether the word is ultimately of 20 Turkic or of Czech origin. Those who claim it is of Turkic origin tend to link it with 21 Tkc. dapkur ~ tapkur, which is attested among others in the meanings ‘troop’, ‘girth; 22 saddle girth’ in a number of Turkic languages (the whole range of meanings of the 23 word will be analysed below), and which, according to this theory, could have devel-24 oped into tabur in Oghuzic. The latter, in turn, could have served as a source for 25 Hung. tábor. Generally speaking, this etymology was supported by Lokotsch (1927, 26 p. 156), Melich (1935a, 1935b), Gy. Németh (1935a, 1935b), Pais (1935a, pp. 304–27 307; 1935b, pp. 610–613; 1954, 1955), TESz (1976, vol. 3, pp. 818–819), Ligeti 28

Michał

Notatka

This is a final draft, originally sent for the author's proof, supplemented with a table of corrigenda sent back to the typesetter. Additionally, this PDF contains the English translation of Polish, Hungarian, and Czech titles quoted as references. I have received the publishers agreement to make this PDF file availavle for public. Eventually, the page numbers did not change in the article's final form, nevertheless I ask the reader to consult the original publication if needed for scholarly work. It can be found on the website of Akadémia Kiadó, on www.akademiai.com.

Michał

Podświetlony

43–74

44 MICHAŁ NÉMETH

Acta Orient. Hung. 67, 2014

(1986, pp. 103, 204), EWUng (1993–1994, p. 1468), TLH (2011, vol. 2, pp. 837–1 841) – to mention the most important authors only.1 2 Tkc. tapkur, in turn, is considered to be of Mongolic origin, cf. WMo. dabχur 3 ‘row, tier, layer, stratum; storey of a building’ (Lessing 1960, p. 214). More specifically, 4 the general argumentation goes as follows: Mo. dabkur ‘double, layer, row’ > Tkc. 5 dapkur ~ tapkur, the meaning of which evolved in two directions: (1) ‘double’ > ‘new 6 tax over the old; special tax’, and (2) ‘double’ > ‘girth, a double strap’ > ‘a (second) 7 storey of a building consisting of several rows and layers (used with a preceding nu-8 meral)’ (TLH 2011, vol. 2, p. 839). It is difficult, however, to summarise the general 9 opinion on how the meaning of ‘troop’ of tapkur and, later on, the meaning ‘military 10 camp’ of Tkc. tabor ~ tabur developed. The authors of TLH (2011, vol. 2, pp. 839–11 841) offer a survey of various interpretations proposed so far by several authors and 12 accept the following semantic development: ‘row’ > ‘line’ > (‘corral’ >) ‘encampment’ 13 ~ ‘troop’ (p. 840). 14 On the other hand, the proponents of the Czech etymology consider Hung. 15 tábor to be a loanword from Cz. tábor ‘military camp’, an appellative that is believed 16 to originate from the Czech place name Tábor, which in turn is of Biblical origin,2 17 i.e. the name of the fortified town where the so-called Taborite movement gained 18 strength. Later on, according to this theory, the name of this stronghold acquired the 19 appellative meaning ‘camp; military camp’. This view was represented, above all, by 20 Pekař (1932), Titz (1932), Havránek (1955), and Machek (1968). 21 The most important argument against the Czech etymology was that the Hun-22 garian word had been attested twice before the Taborite movement began (1223/1338 23 and 1383) whereas the Turkic etymology was questioned on the grounds that an 24 Oghuzic word could not have possibly reached Bohemia so early. The supporters of 25 the Czech etymology also argued, and rightly so, that the clear Biblical origin of the 26 place name Tábor speaks in favour of it. 27 In the present paper an attempt is made to reinterpret the relationship between 28 the Hungarian word and the Turkic forms that were hitherto quoted as its etymologi-29 cal counterparts. Additionally, some remarks are presented here as far as the earliest 30 Hungarian attestations of tábor are concerned. Let us start with the latter one. 31

2. The Unreliability of the Hungarian Data from 1223/1338 and 1383 32

2.1. 33

As mentioned above, the main argument against the Czech etymology is that the 34 word is attested in Hungarian from much before the Hussite wars (which started in 35

1 Gy. Németh (1953, 1955) changed his view expressed in 1935, but his last two papers

about tábor contain a critique of the Turkic etymology rather than supportive arguments in favour of the Czech one.

2 Cf. Mount Tabor, the place of the Transfiguration of Jesus; it had a strategic value: wars conducted in its area are mentioned two times in the Old Testament, see Judges 4:6–15, and Hosea 5:1; additionally it is mentioned three times, in: Samuel 10:3, Chronicles 6:77, and Psalms 89:12.

Please give title to 2.1 (see 2.2 & 2.3).

TURKIC AND EASTERN EUROPEAN BACKGROUND OF THE ETYMOLOGY OF HUNG. TÁBOR 45


1419) and the expansion of the Hussite movement in the 15th century. There are two 1 such attestations, as a personal name and as an appellative, namely: 2 3 1223/1338: Gregorius filius Thabor […] (Fehértói 2004, p. 749) 4 1383: Anno Domini 1383 Hungari dicti Thabor in Hungarica lingua, in Latino exer-5

citus et congregacio bellancium, ulciscentes fraudem commissam vastant Ma-6 zoviam (Kętrzyński 1888, p. 894).3 7

2.2. Remarks ad 1223/1338 8

The attestation from 1338 (in a copy of a Hungarian document from 1223) contains 9 the personal name Thabor.4 However, the surname can also be explained as an appli-10 cation of the Biblical Hebrew name tabor ‘(Mount) Tabor’ (Koehler – Baum-11 gartner 1985, p. 1017), similar to the surname Bethleem ~ Bethlehem ~ Bethlem ~ 12 Bethlen (etc.) known in Hungarian sources from 1151 on (see Fehértói 2004, p. 121: 13 per manus Odonis filii Bethleem episcopi ecclesie [sancti Martini]), which is an evi-14 dent example of the Hebrew geographical name bet leḥem ‘Bethlehem’ 15 (Koehler – Baumgartner 1985, p. 124) being used as a surname. Obviously, it might 16 have entered Hungarian via Mediaeval Latin. Consequently, no Czech or Turkic ety-17 mology is needed to explain the surname Thabor. 18

2.3. Remarks ad 1383 19

This seems to be the only attestation of the word in its appellative meaning in the 20 European languages that originates from before the beginning of the Taborite move-21 ment in 1420. OPol. tabor ‘castra curribus cincta’ is first attested in 1424 (SStp 22 1982–1987, vol. 9, p. 80), MHG taber, teber has been known since 1462–1465, in 23 the meaning [in contemporary orthography] ‘befestigung, befestigter ort, bes. befes-24 tigtes lager, wagenburg’ (Lexer 1876, vol. 2, p. 1383), Cz. tábor is probably first recorded 25 in 1431 in this appellative meaning (but the first reliable data go back to 1486, see e.g. 26 Havránek 1955, pp. 8–9; Király 1955, p. 226), in Slovak sources tábor ‘1. zhromažde-27 nie, sústredenie vojska [= concentration of troops]; 2. miesto sústredenia vojska [= the 28 place of troops’ concentration]’ first appeared in 1594 (HSSJ 2005, vol. 6, p. 9). 29

3 As far as the Hungarian etymological dictionaries are concerned, the date 1383 was

thought to be the oldest one, e.g. in Bárczi (1941, p. 297) and TESz (1976, vol. 3, p. 818). EWUng (1993–1994, p. 1468) notes the date “1223/?”.

4 Let us merely mention that this personal name is recorded only once in pre-14th century sources; Kázmér (1993, p. 1036) records it three times for the period between the 14th and 17th cen-turies (in northern Hungarian sources). These numbers appear to be surprisingly low – especially when compared to Old Polish sources dating back to the 15th century: Thabor is attested there more than 20 times as a surname (for the first time in 1431), see Taszycki (1977–1980, vol. 5, p. 145).

46 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


But the Hungarian data from 1383 claimed to be attested in Annales mansio-1 nariorum Cracoviensium has a severe weakness, which makes it absolutely unreli-2 able. This record was first mentioned in the Hungarian scholarly literature by Melich 3 (1935, p. 540), who was informed about these annals by Albin Gombos (1873–1938), 4 a Hungarian historian, and was repeated persistently by later authors. The case is that 5 Melich did not know (or did not inform the reader) that the annals in question had 6 been written in the 16th century based on one of the copies of the so-called Święto-7 krzyski Annals (Rocznik świętokrzyski nowy, 15th century). The latter fact was already 8 stated in Kętrzyński’s (1888, p. 890) foreword to the edition of Annales mansionario-9 rum Cracoviensium, and was also remarked upon by Gy. Németh (1953), Havránek 10 (1955) and Király (1955). Importantly, let us emphasise it again, it is not a copy of 11 the Świętokrzyski Annals, but was merely based on it. 12 Additionally, from Kętrzyński’s (1888, p. 890) description we also know that 13 there are a great number of differences between the entries in Annales mansionario-14 rum Cracoviensium and the available copies of the Świętokrzyski Annals (today we 15 know of 11 manuscripts, one of which was destroyed during the Second World War, 16 see Rutkowska-Płachcińska 1996, pp. XI, XX–XLVIII). This means that either the 17 source in question was based on an unknown copy of the Świętokrzyski Annals which 18 was fundamentally different from all the other copies, or that the content of the 19 Świętokrzyski Annals was treated negligently by the 16th-century authors of Annales 20 mansionariorum Cracoviensium. Obviously, the latter is much more probable. 21 Moreover, Kętrzyński (1888, p. 890) lists the entries that contain the relevant 22 differences; we find among them the entry with the attestation of tábor (in this group 23 there are entries for the years 1082, 1239, 1248, 1266, 1277, 1288 and 1383). Further-24 more, in his edition, Kętrzyński highlighted the differences between the Annales… 25 and its source. Kętrzyński’s entry looks therefore as follows (those fragments which, 26 according to Kętrzyński (1888), were not there in the Świętokrzyski Annals are writ-27 ten here in bold italic letters): 28

Anno Domini 1383 Hungari dicti Thabor in Hungarica lingua, in Lati-29 no exercitus et congregacio bellancium, ulciscentes fraudem commis-30 sam vastant Mazoviam 31

Indeed the relevant fragment in the Świętokrzyski Annals, as given in (1) Bie-32 lowski (1878, p. 82) and (2) Rutkowska-Płachcińska (1996, p. 72)5 reads: 33

(1) Anno 1383 Ungari vastaverunt Mazoviam 34 (2) Item anno millesimo CCCLXXXIII Ungari Mazoviam vastaverunt 35

Additionally, the two original manuscripts stored in the Jagiellonian Library 36 under the catalogue numbers (3) Rkps BJ 228 III (microfilm catalogue number: 37

5 Importantly, in her edition Rutkowska-Płachcińska (1996) took into consideration all the

available sources of the annals in question and commented on them very carefully. The fragment that contains the definition of Thabor appears in none of them.



P-871) and (4) Rkps BJ 7112 I (microfilm number: P-1004) feature the following in 1 the relevant places [we resolve here the abbreviated Latin endings]: 2

(3) Millessimo CCCLXXXIII ungari vastaverunt mazoviam 3 (Rkps BJ 228 III, folio 239 vo, right column, see Figure 1) 4 (4) Anno Domini m. CCCLXXXIII hungari mazoviam devastaverunt 5 (Rkps BJ 7112 I, folio 12 vo, upper sheet, see Figure 2) 6

7 Figure 1 Figure 2 8

2.4. Conclusion 9

The conclusion is obvious: the fragment containing Thabor in Annales mansionario-10 rum Cracoviensium is an addition dating back to the 16th century and therefore can-11 not serve as an argument against the Czech etymology. 12 The original fragment (Ungari vastaverunt Mazoviam) refers to the military 13 expedition of the joint Hungarian and Polish forces of Sigismund of Luxemburg 14 (1368–1437; King of Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia, and Holy Roman Emperor) 15 against Siemowit IV the Duke of Masovia (see e.g. Moszczeńska 1925, p. 141). 16 Consequently, for all we know, the first reliable record of Hung. tábor in the 17 meaning ‘military camp’ dates back to 1490 (in a document written in Latin, see 18 OklSz 1902–1906, p. 949). The Hungarian historical-etymological dictionaries, 19 namely TESz (1976, vol. 3, p. 818) and EWUng (1993–1994, p. 1468), note the 20 meaning ‘camp; military camp’ from 1519 on, i.e. from the date of the first attestation 21 of the word in a Hungarian text (in the so-called Jordánszky-kódex which contains 22 translations of Biblical texts, see JordK 1888, pp. 63a, 38, 49, 43, etc.; the word ap-23 pears there many times and means ‘camp’, ‘camp of armed people’). 24

3. The Turkic Linguistic Data 25

3.1. 26

The above facts considerably weaken the arguments of those who claim that the Czech 27 etymology is improbable, but they do not prove that the Turkic etymology is false. 28 Let us take, then, a closer look at the relevant Turkic data. Since the number of the 29 respective Turkic lexemes and the meanings they were recorded in is vast, and since 30 they present a very complex system, we will present them and comment on them 31 group by group. 32

Please give title to 3.1.

48 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


3.2. Middle Turkic Data 1

According to the most recent etymology presented in TLH (2011, vol. 2, pp. 837–2 841), Hung. tábor is arguably of Middle Turkic origin. The entry contains the follow-3 ing sketch (we have resolved the abbreviations for better comprehensibility): 4

TÁBOR [tābor] ‘camp, military camp’ | 1223/1338 ? Personal name 5 Thabor [tābor], 1383 thabor [tābor] ‘army, troop’, 1519 ‘camp’ | tābor 6 < *tabur ← Middle Turkic tabur ‘army, military camp’ < *tabgur < 7 *tabkur ← Mongolic dabkur | Middle Turkic tapkur, tabur ‘(military) 8 camp’. 9

This Middle Turkic etymology is based on the following data (see TLH 2011, 10 vol. 2, p. 837): 11

(a) Armeno-Kipchak 12

1957: tabor ‘camp (retranché derrière les voitures) | Wagenburg’ (Deny 1957, p. 72) 13 1968: tabor ‘camp, encampment’ (Schütz 1968, p. 145) 14 1972: tabor ‘camp retranché’ (Tryjarski 1972, p. 727) 15

(b) Chagatai 16

1862: dapqur ‘hadrend, sor [= battler order, battle line]’ (Vámbéry 1862, p. 60) 17 1869: tapqur ‘отрядъ войска, посылаемый для рекогносцировки или грабежа’ 18

(Budagov 1869, vol. 1, p. 719) 19 1869: dapqur ‘saf ve alay’ (Vel’jaminov-Zernov 1869, p. 254) 20 1876: tabor ~ tabur ‘verschanztes Feldlager, Wagenburg’ (Zenker 1876, vol. 1, p. 21

595) 22 1870: tapqur ‘troupe; détachement; imposition extraordinaire’ ~ dapqur ‘botte; 23

bouquet; troupe, rangée de troupes’ (Pavet de Courteille 1870, pp. 192, 314) 24 1881: tabqur ‘arabalar birbirine zincirle kuşadılup kale şekline girmiş istihkam’ 25

(Šejχ Sülejmān 1881, p. 97, after TLH and Kúnos 1902) 26 1902: dapqur ‘deste, bölük | Truppe, Heer’ ~ tabqur ‘arabalar birbirine zincirle kuşa-27

dılup kale şekline girmiş istihkam; tabur | eine aus zusammengebundenen Wa-28 gen errichtete Wagenburg; Lager’ (Kúnos 1902, pp. 56, 182) 29

1905: tapqur ‘zur Recognoscirung oder zum Rauben ausgeschickte Truppenabtei-30 lung’ (Radloff 1905, vol. 3/1, p. 953) 31

1960: tapkur ~ tabur ‘camp, encampment’ (Clauson 1960, pp. 49, 64, 87) 32 1970: dapqur ‘saf ve alay, tabur’ (Atalay 1970, after TLH) 33

(c) Ottoman Turkish 34

1971: tabur ‘istihkâm; ordugâh’ (TarS 1971, vol. 5, p. 3696) 35



3.3. Remarks on the above Armeno-Kipchak Data 1

In Armeno-Kipchak only the form tabor is attested always with an -o- in the second 2 syllable which is, in general, quite unusual for Turkic native words. Its oldest attesta-3 tion goes back to the 17th century, i.e. the period when Armeno-Kipchak was under 4 very strong Polish and Ukrainian influence (for a detailed overview of Polish lexical 5 influences on Armeno-Kipchak, see Stachowski 2010). The most probable and most 6 obvious explanation would be, then, that Arm.-Kipch. tabor is a Polish (or less proba-7 bly Ukrainian) loanword, and therefore cannot represent the Middle-Turkic lexical 8 stock, cf. OPol. (1424) tabor ‘castra curribus cincta’ (SStp 1982–1987, vol. 9, p. 80) 9 and OUkr. тáбір ~ тáбор ESUM (2006, vol. 5, pp. 499–500). Such a borrowing 10 channel is all the more probable that there are a number of similar loanwords of Polish 11 (or Ukrainian) origin in Armeno-Kipchak, cf. e.g. Arm.-Kipch. oboz ‘camp’ (Deny 12 1957, p. 64; Schütz 1968, p. 138; see also p. 62: nemič obozu ‘Polish camp’) < Ukr. 13 обоз, MPol. obqz id., Arm.-Kipch. šanec ‘mound, earthwork’ (Schütz 1968, p. 145) 14 < (M)Pol. szaniec [š-] id., Arm.-Kipch. obrona ‘defence, protection’ (Schütz 1968, 15 p. 138) < (M)Pol. obrona id., Arm.-Kipch. okop ‘trench’ (Schütz 1968, p. 139) < 16 (M)Pol. okop id. 17

3.4. Remarks on the above Chagatai Data 18

As far as the Chagatai data are concerned, let us first of all remark that the form 19 tabor ~ tabur ‘1. camps entouré de chariots, barricade, parc d’artillerie | verschanztes 20 Feldlager, Wagenburg, Barrikade; Artilleriepark; 2. bataillon, armée, troupe, grand 21 nombre d’hommes | Bataillon, Heer, Truppe, Heerhaufen, Menschenhaufen’ that we 22 find in Zenker’s dictionary (1876, vol. 1, p. 595) certainly cannot be classified as 23 Chagatai. TLH quotes the word under the abbreviation “AChagZ” which stands for 24 “the Chagatai material (= “to”) of Zenker’s dictionary”, but in Zenker (1876, vol. 1, 25 p. 595) it has the qualifier “t” (= Fr. turc), not “to” (= turc-oriental). Zenker certainly 26 refers to an Ottoman word here. A Chagatai word form with -b- instead of -pk- would 27 also be suspicious because the -pk- > -b- change was claimed to have taken place in 28 an Oghuzic language (see Ligeti 1986, p. 103; TLH 2011, vol. 2, p. 839) even though 29 such a form is conceivable in the light of the heterogeneity of the Chagatai material. 30 The same applies to the data we find in Muḥammad Mahdī Χan’s Chagatai–31 Persian dictionary called Sanglaχ (1759) where tabur and tabkur ~ 32 tapγur are treated as variants of one and the same word, but both tapkur and tabur 33 are classified as “Rūmī”, i.e. as Ottoman words in Sanglaχ (see Clauson 1960, pp. 34 49, 64, 87; facsimile: 151 v, cf. p. 9). The latter information, however, is skipped in 35 TLH, thus the “AChagS” abbreviation qualifying tabur and tapkur as Chagatai in 36 Sanglaχ is an oversight. To be more precise, in Sanglaχ we find Ott. tabur ‘camp, en-37 campment’, Ott. tapkur ~ dapkur ‘group of people; troop’, and Chag. tapγur ‘addi-38 tional, usually fiscal obligation, often imposed by force’. 39

50 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


Table 1. Native Armeno-Kipchak and Chagatai tabor (~ tabur) and tapkur 1 (~ tabkur ~ dapkur) mistakenly recorded in the meaning ‘military camp’ 2

and ‘troop’ in the scholarly literature 3

There is There should be Arm.-Kipch. Chagatai Arm.-Kipch. Chagatai

tabor tapkur tabor tapkur tabor tapkur tabor tapkur ‘military

camp’ + + + ? see below

‘troop’, ‘battle order’

+ +

3.5. Remarks on the Ottoman and Chagatai Data 4

Moreover, the reliability of the Chagatai and Ottoman forms with word-medial -pk- 5 or -bk- recorded in the meaning ‘camp, encampment’ raises serious doubts, too. In 6 fact, it could be reasonably argued that the meaning ‘military camp, encampment’ was 7 erroneously assigned to Chag. tapkur ~ tabkur ~ dapkur and Ott. tapkur by Ottoman-8 speaking authors. It may well be that Ott. tabor ~ tabur ‘fortification, stronghold; 9 military camp’ (see e.g. TarS 1971, vol. 5, p. 3696, the Ottoman and Chagatai lin-10 guistic material is shown below in detail) was confused by Ottoman authors with 11 Chag. and Ott. tapkur ‘saddle girth, surcingle etc.’ (see e.g. Pavet de Courteille 1870, 12 p. 314; TarS 1971, vol. 5, p. 3742), which resulted in assigning the additional meaning 13 of ‘military camp’ to Chag. and Ott. tapkur in a number of dictionaries. 14 But before we present the way the confusion of these Ottoman and Chagatai 15 words could have taken place, we need to present the whole of Ottoman (and Turkish) 16 linguistic data we have at our disposal, and comment on them where needed. 17

(a) tabor ~ tabur 18

17th century: Ott. ~ tabur ‘istihkâm; ordugâh’ (TarS 1971, vol. 5, p. 3696) 19 1680: Ott. ~ tabor ~ tabur ‘(ex Polon.) castra curribus vallata, exercitus | 20

Plunderwägen, Kriegsläger’ (Meninski 1680, vol. 2, pp. 3062, 3088) 21 1790: Ott. ‹tabour› tabur ‘procession’ (VigS 2002, p. 268) 22 1863: Ott. tabur ‘bataillon; légion; division; corps d’une armée; colonne de 23

marche ou d’attaque; grand nombre (d’hommes), troupe’ (Mallouf 1863, vol. 24 1, p. 729) 25

1869: Ott. tabor ‘(изъ иллирійскаго) лагерь окруженный повозками; паркъ 26 артиллерійскій; вообще лагерь христіян[скаго] войска, въ противуполож-27 ность мусульманскаго , нынѣ употребляется въ значеніи бата-28 льона’ (Budagov 1869, vol. 1, p. 720) 29



1876: Ott. tabor ‘1. bir alay olan bin nefer; 2. kale olan şekilde turan asker kale; 1 3. sabıkta biri birine bağlı arabalardan yapılmış meteriz; Macar tabor, Fransızca 2 tanbur’ (Vefik 1876, p. 739) 3

1876: Ott. tabor ~ tabur ‘(illyrisch tábor) 1. camps entouré de chariots, barri-4 cade, parc d’artillerie | verschanztes Feldlager, Wagenburg, Barrikade; Artil-5 leriepark; 2. bataillon, armée, troupe, grand nombre d’hommes | Bataillon, 6 Heer, Truppe, Heerhaufen, Menschenhaufen’ (Zenker 1876, vol. 2, p. 595) 7

1880: Ott. tabur ‘a battalion; a column (of march or attack); a certain large num-8 ber (of people)’ (Redhouse 1880, p. 636) 9

1886: Ott. tabur ‘1. anciennement camp retranché formé par des âraba ou cha-10 riots reliés ensemble au moyen de chaines et ayant la figure d’un parallélo-11 gramme; de là: barricade; parc d’artillerie; 2. troupe de soldats; bataillon com-12 posé de mille hommes’ (de Meynard 1886, vol. 2, p. 250) 13

1890: Ott. tabur ‘1. (originally) a camp surrounded with carts chained together 14 for defence; 2. a battalion of about 800 men; 3. a body of troops formed in a 15 solid square’ (Redhouse 1890, p. 1218) 16

1905: Ott. ~ tabur ‘1. вагенбургъ, военный обозъ | die Wagenburg6; 17 2. баталіонъ, состоящій изъ 1000 человѣкъ | ein Bataillon aus 1000 Mann’ 18 (Radloff 1905, vol. 3/1, p. 978) 19

1968: Tksh. tabur ‘battalion, (arch.) camp surrounded with carts chained to-20 gether for defence’ (Redhouse 1968, p. 1075) 21

1988: Tksh. tabur ‘1. dört bölükten kurulan, bir binbaşının komutasında bulunan asker 22 birliği; 2. düzgün sıralar durumunda art arda dizilmiş insan topluluğu’ (TS 1988, 23 vol. 2, p. 1398) 24

(b) tapkur 25

15th century: Ott. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ dapkur ~ tapkur in: 26 tapkur kolanı ~ dapkur kolanı ‘eyer üstünden aşırılarak bağlanan kolan, aşırma 27 kolan’ (TarS 1971, vol. 5, p. 3742) 28

17th century: Ott. tapkur ‘tabur, katar, sıra, dizi’ (TarS 1971, vol. 5, pp. 3741–29 3742) 30

1680: Ott. tapkur ‘cingula superior, seu supra ephippium’ (Meninski 1680, vol. 31 2, p. 3061) 32

1869: Ott. ~ tabqur ~ tapqur ‘подпруга, которою затягиваютъ чап-33 ракъ, ~ подпружный ремень’ (Budagov 1869, vol. 1, p. 720) 34

1876: Ott. ~ dapkur ~ tabqur ‘1. tapkur kolanı; 2. kadim etrak beyninde 35 arabalar birbirine zincirle kuşadılup dört yüzlü kale şekline girmiş istihkam’ 36 (Vefik 1876, p. 738) 37

1886: Ott. tabkur ~ dapkur ‘(écrit aussi ) sangle, ceinture; enceinte de pa-38 lissades; chez les anciennes tribus turques, enceinte de chariots attachés en-39

6 This attestation is attributed to Crimean (Ottoman). Radloff quotes here his Proben der

Volksliteratur (Radloff 1896, p. 58), but in the place which he cites there is no trace of tabur.

52 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


semble de façon à former une sorte de redoute carrée. – Comparer avec 1 tabour’ (de Meynard 1886, vol. 2, p. 250) 2

1890: Ott. tapqur ‘1. (originally) a camp surrounded with carts chained together 3 for defence’ (whence , q.v.); 2. a line or circle of horses tethered; 3. girth 4 or surcingle’ (Redhouse 1890, p. 1218) 5

1905: Ott. tabγur ‘1. поясъ | der Gürtel; 2. заборъ изъ кольевъ | die Palissaden-6 Einzäumung’ (Radloff 1905, vol. 3/1, p. 980) 7

1905: Ott. ~ tapqur 1. поясъ | der Gürtel; 2. заборъ изъ кольевъ | die Pa-8 lissaden-Einzäumung; 3. рядъ, линия, особенно лошади или другой скотъ, 9 выстроенный въ рядъ | die Reihe, die Linie, besonders Pferde oder anderes 10 Vieh in Reihen aufgestellt; 4. вагенбургъ | die Wagenburg’ (Radloff 1905, 11 vol. 3/1, pp. 953–954) 12

1968: Tksh. ~ ~ ~ dapkur ~ tapkur ‘1. (arch.) a row, a line, 13 a row of horses or cattle tethered in a line; row of carts chained together wheel 14 to wheel as a defence in time of danger; 2. camp surrounded with carts chained 15 together for defence; 3. girth or surcingle’ (Redhouse 1968, p. 1095) 16

1978: Tksh. dial. tapkır ~ tapkur ‘bölük, manga, dizi, kafile’ (DerS 1978, vol. 10, 17 p. 3827) 18

19 At this point the data found in TarS (1971, vol. 5, pp. 3741–3742), namely 20 Ott. tapkur ‘tabur, katar, sıra, dizi’, requires a few comments. The word form 21 tapkur has two entries in this dictionary. The meaning ‘saddle girth’ of tapkurII (for 22 tapkurI see below), more precisely ‘eyer üstünden aşırılarak bağlanan kolan, aşırma 23 kolan’, raises no doubts as the entry is based on 7 various sources dating from the pe-24 riod between the 15th to the 19th centuries in which the word is attested 11 times. 25 But the meanings ‘stronghold, military camp [= Tksh. tabur]; train of wagons or ani-26 mals; convoy (of military vehicles) [= katar], row, line [= sıra, dizi]’ of tapkurI are 27 far from reliable as all of them are based on a single 17th-century source, i.e. Evliya 28 Çelebi’s Seyahatname. The fragment in question goes as follows (after TarS 1971, 29 vol. 5, p. 3742): 30

Asker-i Tatar içre Âl-i Cengiz’den beri bir dahi var kim bunlar bir sefere 31 gitseler on iki ot ağaları ileriyle kılağuz tayin olunup. On iki adet tapkur 32 ( ) olup yani asker on iki katar yol olup dere ve tepe ve geçitler gelse 33 on iki katar asker birbirlerinin atlarından asla münfek olmazlar. Amma 34 Kalga Sultan sefere atlansa elli bin asker olup cümle sekiz adet tapkur 35 ( ) asker olur. 36

[= Among the Tatar armed forces there is a rule dating back to the era of 37 Genghisids, namely the following: when they set off for war they assign 38 twelve Otagasıs for leaders. They form twelve tapkurs, i.e. the army 39 forms twelve columns, and none of the military columns separates from 40 their horses by any means, even if there are valleys, mountains, or 41 mountain passes on their way. When, however, the Kalga Sultan sets 42 off for war, there are fifty thousand soldiers that form eight tapkurs.] 43



Based on this description we definitely should reconstruct the meaning of tap-1 kur to have been ‘military line’, or ‘troop’, but not ‘military camp’. It seems that the 2 meaning ‘tabur’ added by the authors of Tarama Sözlüğü is redundant and appears 3 there just because the word forms tabur and tapkur, referring to similar, yet distinct 4 military terms, were confused by previous authors, cf. e.g. the data we find in Vefik 5 (1876, pp. 738, 739). The difference becomes clearer if we turn to one of the oldest 6 descriptions of Ott. tabur prepared by the same person, i.e. by Evliya Çelebi (after 7 TarS 1971, vol. 5, p. 3696): 8

Serhat lisanında tabur ( ) ana derler ki bayır sahrada ve yahut bir 9 buhayre veya nehir kenarında bir iki yüz bin düşman topraktan kale 10 yapıp ve kaırlar kazıp içinde mütehassın olurlar. 11

[= In the language of the frontier, [a place] on a wide plain, on a hill, on 12 a lake shore, or on a riverbank, where one or two hundred thousand of 13 enemy [soldiers] are encamped in an earth stronghold with moats dug, 14 is called tabur.]7 15

The conditions for a blend were good: the words tapkur and tabur are phoneti-16 cally similar to each other, they co-occur in the Ottoman dictionaries, the meanings 17 ‘troop’ and ‘military camp’ are relatively close to each other, and the meaning ‘mili-18 tary camp’ may not have been commonly known as it was often labelled “archaic”. 19 Importantly, it was Ottoman authors who ascribed the meaning ‘military camp’ 20 to Chag. and Ott. tapkur for the first time (except for Kúnos, but his work is a re-edi-21 tion of Šeyχ Süleymān’s Chagatai dictionary). We have already mentioned Sanglaχ in 22 which Chag. tapkur appears in one entry along with Ott. tapkur and tabur. Vefik 23 (1876, p. 739) notes Ott. tabur ‘military camp surrounded by carts tethered 24 together’ and links it etymologically to tapkur (explaining it as tabqur 25 muhaffefi ‘a short form of tabqur’). Moreover, the meaning ‘(in the ancient times 26 [= Chagatai? – M.N.]) a quadrangular fort-like stronghold surrounded by carts chained 27 together’ of Ott. ~ tapkur noted by him (Vefik 1876, p. 738) was copied 28 by the authors of Chagatai and other Ottoman dictionaries. This follows from the fact 29 that the relevant definitions are quoted or translated word for word in Šeyχ Süley-30 mān’s (1881, p. 97), Kúnos’s (1902, p. 182), de Meynard’s (1886, vol. 2, p. 250), and 31 Redhouse’s (1890, p. 1218) dictionaries. Furthermore, we can clearly read in the in-32 troduction to the latter dictionary that A. Vefik Pasha helped the author in collecting 33 the Ottoman data (see also Gy. Németh 1953, p. 440). Moreover, among the sources 34 used by Radloff to compile his dictionary we find Vefik (1876) and Redhouse (1890), 35 see Radloff (1893, vol. 1/1, p. XVII). Although the latter was remarked upon already 36 by Gy. Németh (1953, pp. 439ff.), his view was ignored by a number of subsequent 37 authors. 38

7 The other source shown in TarS (1971, vol. 5, p. 3742) is a beit from Atai Nevizade’s

divan of 1634, the meaning of which is not entirely clear to us: “Sonra idüp canib-i tabura azm / Şah-ı cihan eyledi âheng-i rezm”. The Persian izafet canib-i tabura azm ‘to the high side of the huge tabur’ shows, however, that it is most probably a stronghold described there.

54 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


The relevant Chagatai data we find in Šeyχ Süleymān (1881), Kúnos (1902, p. 1 182), and Atalay (1970) seems unreliable even more so because of the material from 2 this language provided by a number of other lexicographic sources prepared by non-3 Turks. None of these record the meaning ‘camp’; see Scheme 2 below. 4 To sum up: the meaning ‘military camp’ is ascribed to tapkur only in those 5 dictionaries (1) which were authored by speakers of (Ottoman) Turkish, (2) which 6 were simple re-editions of dictionaries authored by (Ottoman) Turkish-speaking 7 authors, (3) and the relevant entries of which were complied with the assistance of 8 (Ottoman) Turkish-speaking authors or based on their dictionaries. 9 Schemes 1 and 2 illustrate what has been said above. Arrows link dictionaries 10 that influenced one another, dashed lines indicate probable but not absolutely certain 11 connections, arrows with heads on both ends indicate blends. Вамб. stands for 12 Vámbéry (1867) in Budagov (1869), Dsch. V. stands for Vámbéry (1867) in Radloff 13 (1893–1911), Dsch. P.d.C. stands for Pavet de Courteille (1870) in Radloff (1893–14 1911). 15 Based on the above linguistic material, some additional remarks are due. 16 Firstly, in Atalay’s (1970; another Turkish author) edition of Abuška the word 17 tabur is added to the explanation of Chag. dapqur that we find in Vel’jaminov-Zernov 18 (1869, p. 254; an earlier edition of Abuška), very probably as a result of the influence 19 of Šeyχ Süleymān’s (1881), Kúnos’s (1902), or Vefik’s (1876) dictionaries. 20 Secondly, the meaning ‘camp surrounded with carts’ attributed to Ott. tapkur 21 by J. W. Redhouse (1890, p. 1218) later on found its way to the contemporary editions 22 of his dictionary, i.e. to post-1928 Turkish, cf. Redhouse (1968, p. 1095): ~ 23

~ ~ tapkur glossed, among others, as ‘(arch.) camp surrounded with 24 carts chained together for defence’, which is the same definition which is found under 25 tabur in both editions. 26 Thirdly, even though the meaning ‘imposition extraordinaire’ recorded by Pavet 27 de Courteille (1870, p. 192) surprises at first sight, it corresponds well with WMo. 28 dabχur ‘1. row, tier, layer, stratum; storey of a building; 2. double; twice’ (Lessing 29 1960, p. 214; for further meanings see below) used as a loanword not only in Cha-30 gatai (cf. Chag. tapγur ‘additional, usually fiscal obligation, often imposed by force’ 31 noted in Sanglaχ), but also in Persian sources dating back to the Ilkhanid period 32 (13th–14th centuries) in the meaning of ‘Steuer für die Aufschichtung (von Gebäu-33 den)’ and ‘Sondersteuer; Steuer, die […] auf die gewöhnliche Steuer aufgeschichtet, 34 ihr zugeschlagen wird’ as documented by Doerfer (1965, vol. 2, p. 431). 35 Finally, the word tapkur used in the meaning ‘paresseux | faul’ that we can 36 find in Pavet de Courteille (1870, p. 192) and, after him, in Radloff (1905, vol. 3/1, p. 37 953) is, in all probability, not a cognate of the etymologised word. Pais (1935, p. 38 302) and Gy. Németh (1953, p. 441, fn. 1) connected it to Tkc. tap- ‘to find’ and 39 argued that the word acquired the meaning ‘lazy’ most probably due to the semantic 40 change ‘inventive’ → ‘able’ → ‘lazy’ (or similar). Even though this raises serious 41 morphological (it is difficult to explain -kır) and semantic doubts, these meanings are 42 relatively well attested in the Turkic languages, see Bashk. tapqyr ‘находчивый, 43 остроумный’ (BashkRS 1958, p. 507), Nog. tapkyr id. (NogRS 1963, p. 324), Kzk. 44

1935a or 1935b or 1935a,b ?



tapqyr ‘pojętny, zdolny, lotny [= clever, able, bright]’ (SKazP 2011, p. 455), Uzb. 1 tåpqyr ‘находчивый, сметливый’ (UzbRS 1959, p. 444). 2 Table 2 below illustrates the meanings in which tabor ~ tabur and tapkur ~ 3 tabkur ~ dapkur are recorded in Ottoman and Chagatai dictionaries. We have written 4 in italic letters those data which seem to be unreliable. We have not taken into account 5 those meanings which are obviously homonymous, as e.g. ‘lazy’ etc. 6

3.6. A Brief, Partial Summary 7

As a result of what we have said so far, we must state that MTkc. tabur proposed for 8 the etymon of Hung. tábor has in fact never existed. Consequently, the scheme pre-9 sented for instance in TLH’s entry should be supplemented with another reconstructed 10 word, *tabur, which leads to an etymology consisting of a chain of asterisked forms 11 and raises a number of questions (those unasked yet will follow below). Taking into 12 consideration the above additions, the entry in TLH would look as follows: 13

TÁBOR [tābor] ‘camp, military camp’ | 1223/1338 Thabor [tābor] ‘per-14 sonal name’, 1519 ‘camp’ | tābor < *tabur ← MTkc. *tabur ‘army, mili-15 tary camp’ < *tabgur < *tabkur ← Mo. dabkur 16

We have tried also to illustrate that the meanings of tapkur and tabur have been 17 most probably confused in the first Chagatai and Ottoman dictionaries written by Ot-18 toman-speaking authors and later on the erroneously established meaning ‘military 19 camp’ entered a number of other dictionaries. It can be reasonably argued that Ott. 20 and Chag. tapkur was never used in this meaning. 21 We comment below on the possibility of a twofold development: *bk > 1) *bg 22 > b; 2) *pk. 23 We shall, however, remember, that this alone does not prove that these two 24 words are not cognates. If we take a look at Table 2, we see that they were recorded 25 in a few different but very similar meanings, namely (1) Ott. tabur ‘barricade’ and 26 Ott. tapkur ‘palisade’, (2) Ott. tabur ‘troop; battalion’ and Chag. tapkur ‘troop’, and 27 (3) Ott. and Chag. tapkur ‘saddle girth’. 28 Below, let us examine step by step the relationship between these two word 29 forms and between the various meanings they are attested in. 30

4. The Relation between tabur and tapkur 31

If we are to argue in favour for kinship between these two words, we have to explain 32 above all the -bk- > -b- change. This, however, seems to be a somewhat difficult task. 33 Firstly, it may be reasonably doubted whether forms with -bγ- have ever existed, 34 which was already remarked upon by Ligeti (1986, p. 103). This seems important since, 35 from the phonetic point of view, the elision of -γ- is much more probable than that of 36 -k- (or -q-). Although we find some works that quote Ott. tabγur (see Radloff 1905, 37

56 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Scheme 1. Interconnections of early Ottoman and Chagatai dictionaries with reference 44 to the meaning ‘military camp’ of Chag. and Ott. tapkur and its variants 45

Šeyχ Süleymān (1881, p. 97) Chag. tapqur

‘arabalar bir birine zincirle kuşadılup dört vechelü kale

şekline girmiş istihkam; tabur’

Redhouse (1890, p. 1218) Ott. tapqur

‘(originally) a camp surrounded with carts chained together for defence’

(whence , q.v.) Kúnos (1902, p. 182)

Chag. tabqur ‘arabalar birbirine zincirle

kuşadılup kale şekline girmiş istihkam; tabur | eine aus

zusammengebundenen Wagen errichtete Wagenburg; Lager’

Radloff (1905, vol. 3, pp. 953 – 954) Ott. ~ tapqur

‘вагенбургъ | die Wagenburg’

Vefik (1876, p. 738) Ott. ~ tapqur

‘kadim etrak beyninde arabalar birbirine zincirle kuşadılup dört yüzlü kale şekline girmiş istihkam’

de Meynard (1886, vol. 2, p. 250) Ott. ~ tabqur

‘chez les anciennes tribus turques, enceinte de chariots attachés ensemble de façon á former une sorte de redoute carrée. – Comparer avec

tabour’

Vefik (1876, p. 739) Ott. tabur

‘1. bir alay olan bin nefer; 2. kale olan şekilde turan asker kale; 3. sabıkta biri birine bağlı

arabalardan yapılmış meteriz’

cf. “tabur = tabqur muhaffefi”

cf. the same explanation and cross-reference, and Ott. kadim etrak beyninde = Fr. chez les

anciennes tribus turques

cf. literatim the same explanation

cf. literatim the same explanation

cf. the same explanation and cross-reference

Atalay (1970) Chag. dapqur

‘saf ve alay; tabur’



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Scheme 2. Interconnections of Chagatai dictionaries authored by non-Turks 44 with reference to Chag. tapkur and its variants 45

Vámbéry (1862, p. 60) Chag. dapqur

‘hadrend, sor [= battle order, battle line]’ Vámbéry (1867, p. 253)

Chag. tapqur ‘eine Truppenabtheilung, die auf

Recognoscirung oder Raub ausgeschickt wird | détachement

de l’armée, envoyé pour faire une reconnaissance ou pour piller’

Budagov (1869, vol. 1, p. 719) Chag. tapqur

‘отрядъ войска, посылаемый для рекогносцировки или грабежа’

Vel’jaminov-Zernov (1869, p. 254) Chag. dapqur

‘saf ve alay’

cf. d-, -pq-, and the meaning

Pavet de Courteille (1870, p. 192) Chag. tabqur

‘troupe; détachement; imposition extraordinaire; paresseux’

Pavet de Courteille (1870, p. 314) Chag. dapqur

‘botte; bouquet; troupe, rangée de troupes; corroie qu’on passe

le milieu de la selle’

cf. “Вамб.”

Kúnos (1902, p. 56) Chag. dabkur

‘deste, bölük | Truppe, Heer’

Radloff (1905, vol. 3/1, p. 953) Chag. tapqur

‘отрядъ, отправленный на рекогносцировку или на грабежъ |

zur Recognoscirung oder zum Rauben ausgeschickte Truppenabteilung’

cf. “Dsch. V.”

Radloff (1905, vol. 3/2, p. 1643) Chag. ~ dapqur

‘1. ( ) ‘полкъ, отрядъ, войско | das Regiment, der Heerhaufe, das Heer’

2. ( ) ‘поясъ, опояска | der Gurt, der Gürtel’

cf. the meaning, and d-

Radloff (1905, vol. 3/1, p. 953) Chag. tapqur ‘лѣнивый | faul’

cf. “Dsch. P.d.C.”

Atalay (1970) Chag. dapqur

‘saf ve alay; tabur’

cf. the meaning

58 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


Table 2. Words tabor ~ tabur, tapkur ~ tabkur ~ dapkur 1 in Ottoman and Chagatai dictionaries 2

Ottoman Turkish and Turkish Chagatai Meanings tabor ~ tabur tapkur tabor ~ tabur tapkur

‘mil. camp, stronghold’

TarS (17th century/1971)

Clauson (1759/1960)Meninski (1680) Budagov (1869)

Vefik (1876) Zenker (1876)

de Meynard (1886) Redhouse (1890) Radloff (1905)

Redhouse (1968)

Clauson (1759/1960)

Vefik (1876)

de Meynard (1886) Redhouse (1890)

Redhouse (1968)

Clauson (1759/1960)

Šeyχ Süleymān (1881)

Kúnos (1902) Atalay (1970)

‘barricade’ Vefik (1876)

Zenker (1876) de Meynard (1886)

‘palisade’ de Meynard (1886) Radloff (1905)

sent for re-connaissance

Vel’jam.-Zernov (1869) Pavet de Cour. (1870)

Kúnos (1902) Radloff (1905) Atalay (1970)

any troop Vámbéry (1867) Budagov (1869) Radloff (1905)

battalion, regiment, vel sim.

Mallouf (1863) Zenker (1876)

Redhouse (1880)

of 1000 men

Vefik (1876) de Meynard (1886)

Radloff (1905) TS (1988)

of 800 men Redhouse (1890)

‘troo

p’

formed in a solid square

Redhouse (1890) TS (1988)

‘mil. line’ Vámbéry (1867)

Vefljam.-Zernov (1869) Atalay (1970)

‘group of people’

Mallouf (1863) Zenker (1876)

Redhouse (1880) TS (1988)

‘procession’ Viguier (1790)

‘row of horses’ Redhouse (1890) Radloff (1905)

Redhouse (1968)

‘row of people or vehicles’ DerS (1978)

‘girth; saddle girth’

TarS (15th century/1971)

Meninski (1680) Budagov (1869)

Vefik (1876) de Meynard (1886) Redhouse (1890) Radloff (1905)

Redhouse (1968)

Pavet de Cour. (1870) Radloff (1905)

‘a kind of tax’ Pavet de Cour. (1870)



vol. 3/1, p. 980 and, after him, VEWT 1969, p. 132), it seems to not be convincingly 1 supported by linguistic sources. The only such form is tapγur attested in Sanglaχ 2 (see Clauson 1960, f. 151v of the facsimile).8 3 Furthermore, the loss of the velar stop was considered to be a typical Oghuzic 4 feature (cf. e.g. Ligeti 1986, p. 103). There are, however, no similar examples to sup-5 port it. Räsänen (1949, p. 156) quotes Gyula Németh’s (1935) early etymology and 6 explains the alleged alternation of tapkur ~ tabur as a parallel to the well-attested 7 loss of the initial consonants in some suffixes in the Turkic linguistic world (cf. e.g. 8 the perfect participle suffix -gan ~ -qan (etc.) vs. -an or the dative case suffix -ga ~ 9 -ka (etc.) vs. -a), but in the chapter entitled Konsonantenhäufungen, Räsänen (1949, 10 p. 224) does not take a pk > bg > b change into consideration. Since the above-men-11 tioned loss of suffix-initial consonants is especially visible in the Oghuzic languages, 12 some authors considered the loss of -k- in tapkur to be a typical Oghuzic feature, too. 13 A counterargument against equating these two phenomena is that one of them 14 is a process based on “regular loss” of a suffix-initial segment, while the other would 15 be a phonetically motivated loss of a consonant in a lexeme.9 In our view, these must 16 be treated as two separate and totally different processes. 17 Indeed, the the segment -bk- must have been simplified in Turkic, but it is a 18 devoicing -bk- > -pk- that would have taken place, rather than an elision of -k-. We 19 can find its traces e.g. in Meninski’s (1680, vol. 2, p. 3061) dictionary, where he tran-20 scribes ‘saddle girth’ as tapkur. The same is the case in Budagov’s (1869, vol. 21 1, p. 720) dictionary: Ott. ~ id. is transcribed only as tapqur. All in all, we 22 did not find any analogical examples of a -bk- > -b- change. 23 We must also remember that ‹bk› (no matter in which writing) is merely a 24 graphic representation of a sequence whose actual pronunciation must have been [pk]. 25 Consequently, if the segment -pk- were to be simplified it surely would have been 26 changed into -p- and not -b-, which, in turn, could not have become voiced in inter-27 vocalic position in an Oghuzic language (cf. e.g. Ott. kapu ‘door’). For this reason 28 we cannot accept -bk- > -b- and -bk- > -pk- > -p- > -b- as a possible chain of phonetic 29 changes in this word. 30 Finally, if we agree that the meanings of tapkur and tabur should be separated 31 from one another, it will be safe to say that there existed: 32 33 (a) Ott. tapkur ‘1. line; row of people, horses or vehicles; convoy; 2. saddle girth’, and 34 (b) Ott. tabor ~ tabur ‘1. military camp surrounded with carts chained together; 35

stronghold; 3. battalion; a troop of 800 or 1000 soldiers formed in a solid square’. 36

8 Let us merely mention that among the Turkic equivalents of the above-mentioned WMo.

dabχur forms with -bk- are rarer than those with -pk-: the present day Turkic languages reflect only forms with word-medial -pk- (refer to Tables 2 and 3).

9 The segment -kur cannot be explained as a suffix, which was proved in TLH (2011, vol. 2, p. 838). Moreover, Gyula Németh’s (1935, p. 546) early opinion that tapkur is a compound word consisting of tap ‘das Passende, Zusammengehörige, die Fuge’ and qur ‘Gürtel, Kreis, Linie, Um-zäumung, Rand’ does not seem plausible, either, for both structural and semantic reasons. We will, however, make use of the latter word below.

60 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


Consequently, explaining the (-pk-) ~ -bk- > -b- change will be an even more 1 challenging task, because it is expected to have taken place along with the ‘troop, 2 etc.’ > ‘military camp, etc.’ change. In other words: we must assume that the phonetic 3 and semantic changes co-occurred. 4

Table 3. The distribution of the segments -pk-, -bk- and -bγ- 5 in the Ottoman and Chagatai data10 6

Ottoman Chagatai

-pk-

TarS (1971) Meninski (1680) Budagov (1869)

Vefik (1876) Redhouse (1890) Radloff (1905)

Vámbéry (1862) Budagov (1869)

Vel’jaminov-Zernov (1869) Pavet de Courteille (1870)

Kúnos (1902) Radloff (1905) Clauson (1960) Atalay (1970)

-bk- TarS (1971) Vefik (1876)

de Meynard (1886)

Šeyχ Süleymān (1881) Kúnos (1902)

-bγ- Radloff (1905) Clauson (1960) 7 Finally, two questions remain: firstly, why would tabur evolve from the rarer 8 form with -bk- (to say nothing of the fact we mentioned above, namely that a -bk- > 9 -b- change is highly improbable); in other words: why there are no forms with -p- 10 among its cognates, i.e. forms like *tapur < tapkur? Secondly, if the loss of -k- (or 11 -q-) was a phonetically-motivated process, then why did not the (-pk- ~) -bk- > -b- 12 change affect Ott. tapkur ‘saddle girth etc.’? 13

5. Is Ottoman tabur a Slavonic or a Hungarian Loanword? 14

We can state fairly confidently that MTkc. tabur ~ tabor hardly existed apart from 15 Armeno-Kipchak (in which it is beyond any doubt a Slavonic loanword) and Otto-16 man Turkish sources. But is Ottoman tabur ~ tabor also a Slavonic loanword then? 17 This indeed suggests that – just like the Armeno-Kipchak form – Ott. tabor ~ 18 tabur might be a loanword and have nothing to do with Ott. and Chag. tapkur. This 19 assumption is also consistent with a number of comments made by various authors 20 over the years. 21

10 In the case of discrepancy between the authors’ transcription and the original spelling in

Arabic letters, we follow the authors’ transcription. TarS, even though published in 1971, contains the oldest data.



First of all, the idea of François à Mesgnien Meninski that the word is of Polish 1 origin (see Meninski 1680, vol. 2, p. 3062: ex. Polon.) cannot be entirely neglected in 2 the light of the long-lasting wars between the Ottoman Empire (along with its ally, 3 the Crimean Khanate) and the Polish – Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th century 4 (i.e. during Evliya Çelebi’s lifetime). Two hundred years later, Budagov (1869, vol. 1, 5 p. 720) and after him Zenker (1876, vol. 2, p. 595) qualified tabor ~ tabur as of “Illyrian” 6 origin – which meant south-Slavonic in those times. As a matter of fact, the word 7 could have been transmitted by ‘south-Slavonic’ languages from Hungarian during 8 the wars conducted with the Ottoman Empire. The latter standpoint is represented by 9 Rocchi (2005, p. 120; 2010, pp. 123–124), although, he suggests that Ott. tabur ‘mili-10 tary camp’ is a Rückwanderer from Hungarian since, in his view, Hungarian tábor is 11 probably of “Turkic-Mongolian” origin. Also Leschber (2011, p. 55) treats Ott. tabur 12 ‘military camp’ as a reborrowing from Hungarian. Importantly, in Gy. Németh (1953, 13 pp. 434–435) we find several other historical descriptions from the Ottoman period 14 which show that the word tabur was used in the meaning of ‘enemy military camp, 15 stronghold’, also in the form ~ astabur, which, as argued by Gy. Németh 16 (1953, pp. 435–436), reflects Hung. az tábor, i.e. the Hungarian word used with the 17 definite article az.11 18 This combined with the stronger (than it has been considered to be so far) po-19 sition of the Czech etymology makes the “Eastern-European” provenance of Ott. 20 tabur ~ tabor (and also of Hung. tábor) quite convincing. 21

6. Semantic Developments 22

There are some points difficult to explain as far as the semantic development of the 23 words tapkur and tabur is concerned – not only if tabur is to be interpreted as a word 24 that developed from tapkur. This was already pointed out by Ligeti (1986, p. 103), yet 25 with no details provided. He mentioned that the semantic difficulties are insurmount-26 able, but offered no explanation and did not refute the Turkic etymology of Hung. 27 tábor. 28 The semantic development which allegedly led to the meaning of ‘military 29 camp’ has so far been explained in several ways. The Middle Turkic etymology sug-30 gests the following: Mo. ‘double’ > Tkc. ‘girth, a double strap’ > ‘belt’ > (‘corral’ >) 31 ‘encampment’ (TLH 2011, vol. 2, pp. 839–840). 32

11 Németh’s idea should be neither dismissed nor overestimated; astabur appears in descrip-

tions of military operations conducted by the Ottoman armies in Hungary – we shall, however, re-member that unless vocalised, the phonetic value represented by the letter alif must remain specu-lative.

Even though the distribution of the two forms of the Hung. definite article, with az used be-fore words beginning in vowels and a (< az) before those beginning in consonants, was observed already in the Old Hungarian period, this distinction was applied irregularly far beyond the Middle Hungarian period. Thus, MHung. az tábor is by no means surprising.

62 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


Such an interpretation, however, may be reasonably doubted for two reasons. 1 Firstly, the meaning ‘a double strap’ does not seem to be attested in the Turkic and 2 Mongolic languages. Secondly, no decisive proof can be found that the meaning ‘cor-3 ral’ existed in the desired period, even though there are a few words with a similar 4 sense in three contemporary Turkic languages of the Volga region, see: TatM. tabăr 5 ‘Hirtenlager mitten an einem Sommertage, zu den heissesten Stunden, am Fluss, wo 6 das Vieh im Wasser steht, um sich abzukühlen’ (Kecskeméti 1965, p. 40), TatK. tabyr 7 ‘1. ток [= (probably) ‘mud floor’]; 2. лежбище, место отдыха и водопоя для скота; 8 3. говорится о чем-л. затоптанном: ягоднике, грязном поле в доме и т. д.’ (TTDS 9 1969, p. 392), and Chuv. tapă ~ tapăr ‘1. (dial.) место отдыха и водопоя скота 10 в полуденное время; 2. водопой (место у воды, где в жару поят и дают отдых 11 скоту); 3. время водопоя; 4. стадо, табун лошадей’ (Ašmarin 1937, vol. 13, pp. 12 189–190, s.v. tapă; ČuvRS 1961, p. 386, s.v. тапăр; ČuvRS 2003, p. 129, s.v. 13 tapăr). These Tatar and Chuvash words, however, might be explained in two ways. 14 On the one hand, they may be interpreted as words derived from the onomatopoeic 15 stem tap- ‘to trample, to stamp, to tread’ used across all the Turkic languages, as as-16 serted by Egorov (1964, p. 230) with reference to Chuv. tapăr ‘место отдыха и водо-17 поя скота в полуденное время’, cf. Chuv. tap- ‘1. топать, притопывать; 2. пинать; 18 3. лягаться’ (Egorov 1964, p. 230), TatK. tap- ‘топтать, мять’ (TTDS 1969, p. 398, 19 s.v. тапау), TatM. tapta- ‘treten’ (Kecskeméti 1965, p. 41).12 On the other hand, they 20 may also be treated as loanwords from Russ. dial. тáбор, as asserted in Fedotov 21 (1996, vol. 2, p. 173; he argues that Chuv. tapăr might also be of Russian origin, but 22 offers no specific etymon). The reduced articulation of the second syllable in the 23 Volga-Turkic languages might be a proof of the latter. The existence of such Russian 24 dialectal meanings of тáбор as ‘место загона овечьей отары’ (SRNG 2010, vol. 25 43, p. 204) or тáбырь ‘стадо оленей’ (Vasmer 21987, pp. 6–7; SRNG 2010, vol. 43, 26 p. 208) makes this interpretation even more possible.13 27 Consequently, two links of the above-mentioned chain of semantic changes 28 should be asterisked, so that Mo. ‘double’ > Tkc. *‘a double strap’ > ‘girth’ > ‘belt’ > 29 *‘corral’ > ‘encampment’, which makes such an explanation uncertain. 30 The comparative Turkic data has been presented in Table 4. 31

6.1. Tkc. tapkur 32

Given the formal and semantic problems mentioned above, let us propose the follow-33 ing etymological scenario for Tkc. tapkur (see also Scheme 3 at the end of the pre-34 sent paper): 35

12 We set aside the question of whether these word forms are internal borrowings, e.g. from

Chuvash. 13 According to Šipova (1976, pp. 298–299) in the light of the stress falling on the first syl-

lable of Russ. lit. тáбор it would be much more natural to etymologise it as a loanword from Hung. tábor rather than from a Turkic language. In Vasmer (1958, vol. 3, p. 66) and (21987, p. 7) Russ. lit. тáбор is described as a Turkic loanword “via Polish or Hungarian mediation”.

Does it mean second edition, or vol. 2?



Table 4. The meanings of tabor, tapkyr, and tabyr 1 in other than Ott. and Chag. Turkic languages 2

Meanings tabor tapkyr tabyr

‘gipsy camp; camp’

TatK. Bashk. Kirg. Nog. Kklp. Kmk. Trkm.

‘cattle camp; watering place for

cattle, a place where cattle have rest during summer’

TatM. TatK. Chuv.

‘herd of horses’ Chuv. ‘watering time’ Chuv.

‘times (expressing multiplication)’

Tat. TatK. Bashk. Chuv. Uzb. Tuv.

‘period of time’ Chuv. ‘stage, phase’ Chuv. ‘a place on the opposite side’

Bashk.

‘girth; saddle girth’ KarC. Gag.

3 6.1.1. WMo. dabχur ‘1. row, tier, layer, stratum; storey of a building; 2. double; 4 3. consisting of several rows and layers (used with a preceding numeral); 4. twofold; 5 5. pregnant14; 6. twice; 7. in pairs’ (Lessing 1960, p. 214) was borrowed 6 7 (a) in the meaning ‘2. double; 4. twofold; 6. twice’ into Tuv. dakpyr ~ dapkyr used 8

in iji dapkyr ‘двукратный’ (Rassadin 1980, p. 60; TuvRS 1955, pp. 132, 135); 9 subsequently, the form dakpyr ~ dapkyr gained within Turkic the meaning 10 ‘times (expressing multiplication)’ based on such collocations as iji dapkyr, 11 cf.: Bashk. tapqyr ‘раз’ (BashkRS 1958, p. 507), Chuv. tapχўr ‘раз’ (Ašmarin 12 1937, vol. 13, p. 203, s.v. тапхăр; ČuvRS 1961, p. 387; RČuvS 1972, p. 342, 13

14 For other examples of the meanings ‘two’ and ‘pregnant’ being related in the Mongolic

languages, see Poppe (1955, p. 244).

64 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


s.v. раз),15 TatK. tapqyr (used with a preceding numeral) ‘разъ’ (Bu-1 dagov 1869, vol. 1, p. 719, s.v. табмакъ; Radloff 1905, vol. 3/1, pp. 952–2 953, s.v. тапkырII), Tat. tabqyr ‘разъ’ (Budagov 1869, vol. 1, p. 720, s.v. 3

тапкуръ), Uzb. tåpqyr ‘раз’ (UzbRS 1959, p. 444), and 4 5 (b) in the meaning ‘1. row, tier, layer, stratum; storey of a building; 2. double; 6

twice’ into Chag. tabqur ‘imposition extraordinaire’ (Pavet de Courteille 7 1870, p. 192), Chag. tapγur ‘additional, usually fiscal obligation, often 8 imposed by force’ (Clauson 1960, f. 151v of the facsimile), cf. Pers. tāpqūr 9 ‘Schichtsteuer = Zusatzsteuer für verschiedene Zwecke’ (Doerfer 1965, vol. 2, 10 pp. 429–431). 11

12 6.1.2. The question remains how the meanings ‘mil. troop’ and ‘saddle girth etc.’ of 13 Tkc. tapkur evolved. Although it is valid to speculate that WMo. dabχur ‘row, tier, 14 layer, stratum’ was borrowed into Chag. dapqur in the modified meaning of 15 ‘[Hung.] hadrend, sor [= battle order, battle line] | [Tksh.] saf [= line of soldiers]’ 16 (Vámbéry 1862, p. 60; Vel’jaminov-Zernov 1869, p. 254) and, as a next step, it ac-17 quired the meaning ‘troop’ and also, as a result of a specific semantic evolution, ‘saddle 18 girth’, there seems to be a less complex (though not simple) explanation for these se-19 mantic developments in Turkic. 20 21 6.1.3. I would like to suggest a blend with Tkc. qur, which has all the necessary miss-22 ing meanings and which could have been easily confused with tapkur. The word16 23 has been well-attested in Turkic since the Old Turkic period, cf. OTkc. qurI ‘пояс, 24 кушак’ (DTS 1969, pp. 466–467), OTkc. qurIII ‘ряд, очередь, последовательность, 25 раз’ (DTS 1969, p. 466),17 OTkc. qur ‘колчан’ (Ščerbak 1997, p. 143),18 but is even 26 better attested in Chagatai, the following meanings have been recorded: Chag. 27 qur ‘[Hung.] 1. pajtás, egyenlő társ [= fellow, equal companion]; arany vagy ezüst öv 28 [= golden or silver belt]’ (Vámbéry 1862, p. 84); Chag. qur ‘Wache, Regierung, 29 Schutz, Aufsicht, Regierungsrath, Gürtel, Einfassung, Umzäunung, das äussere Band 30 des Zeltes’ (Vámbéry 1867, p. 316); Chag. qur ‘1. ceinture; 2. arme, garde, dé-31 fense, espèce de rebord de bois qui règne le long d’un mur; 3. charbon ardent; 4. cercle 32 de gens qui sont en fête; 5. semblable, pareil; 6. ornement de forme arrondie d’or ou 33

15 The question remains how the meanings ‘period of time’ and ‘stage, phase’ of Chuv. тап-

хăр (ČuvRS 1961, p. 387; ČuvRS 2003, p. 129) and the meaning ‘a place on the opposite side’ of Bashk. tapkyr (BashkRS 1958, p. 507) evolved. They appear only in Chuvash and Bashkir, respec-tively.

16 Or “words” if we are to treat them as homonyms. The relation between the meanings that follow in this paragraph is, however, of lesser importance as far as the mechanism of contamination is concerned.

17 OTkc. qurII ‘положение, чин, достоинство, ранг’ (DTS 1969, p. 467) seems to be of no relevance here.

18 We ignore the question of the relation between OT qur ‘times (expressing multiplica-tion)’ and WMo. dabχur ‘double; twice; twofold’ as well as between OT qur ‘quiver’ and WMo. qurči ‘the one who carries a quiver’ (Ščerbak 1997, p. 143).



d’argent qu’on met sur un couvercle; 7. piège’ (Pavet de Courteille 1870, p. 425), 1 Chag. qur ‘Gürtel; in der Runde sitzen; Rand; Wächter; Falle’ (Kúnos 1902, p. 134, 2 s.v. kor) (other sources contain no additional meanings). 3 4 6.1.4. To sum up, the Chag. word form qur is attested in the following meanings: 5 ‘1. fellow; 2. (golden or silver) belt; outer belt of a tent; 3. round ornament made of 6 gold or silver; 4. weapon; 5. guard; defence; 6. border; 7. (wooden) fence; 8. trap; 7 9. a group of celebrating people; 10. similar; 11. government, control; 12. coal’. Although 8 some of these meanings certainly point to homonymic use, but nevertheless the fol-9 lowing blends could have taken place: 10 WMo. dabχur19 ‘1. row, tier, layer, stratum; storey of a building; […] 3. con-11 sisting of several rows and layers (used with a preceding numeral)’ (> Chag. dapqur 12 *‘row’) ↔ 13 14 (a) ↔ Chag. qur ‘2. belt’ > Chag. dapqur ‘saddle girth’ (Pavet de Cour-15

teille 1870, p. 314), the reflexes of which we find in Ottoman and, consequently, 16 in Gagauz, cf. Gag. tapkyr ‘подпруга’ (GagRMS 1973, p. 458). Ott. dapkur ~ 17 tapkur (in: tapkur kolanı ~ dapkur kolanı) ‘eyer üstünden aşırılarak bağlanan 18 kolan, aşırma kolan’ (TarS 1971, vol. 5, p. 3742), in turn, was loaned into KarC. 19 as tapkyr ‘подпруга | [Pol.] popręg [= saddle girth]’ (KRPS 1974, p. 513, s.v. 20 тапкъыр), 21

22 (b) ↔ Chag. qur ‘4. weapon; 5. guard; defence’ > Chag. dabqur ~ ~ 23

dapqur ~ tabqur ~ tapqur ‘mil. line (of soldiers); mil. troop’, 24 see Vámbéry (1862, p. 60; 1867, p. 253), Pavet de Courteille (1870, pp. 192, 25 314), Vel’jaminov-Zernov (1869, p. 254), Kúnos (1902, p. 56), Radloff (1905, 26 vol. 3/1, p. 953). A similar semantic change is to be observed in Pol. szereg 27 ‘row; a number of people’ < Hung. sereg ‘mil. troop, army; crowd’ < Tkc. čärig 28 ‘mil. troop, army’ (see e.g. TLH 2011, vol. 2, pp. 716–719). 29

30 6.1.5. Ott. tapkur ‘a line or circle of horses tethered’ (Redhouse 1890, p. 1218; Rad-31 loff 1905, vol. 3/1, pp. 953–954) and Tksh. dial. tapkır ~ tapkur ‘a row of people or 32 vehicles’ (DerS 1978, vol. 10, p. 3827) might be a reflex of Chag. tapqur ‘mil. line’. 33 34 6.1.6. Additionally, Ott. tapkur ‘palisade’ (de Meynard 1886, vol. 2, p. 250, Radloff 35 1905, vol. 3/1, pp. 953–954) seems to be a remnant of a blend between Chag. tapqur 36 ‘mil. line (of soldiers)’ and Chag. qur ‘wooden fence’. What makes the blend all the 37 more probable is Ott. kur ‘duvar taşlarında bir tek sıra, dizi’ (YTarS 1983, p. 144). 38 The meaning ‘palisade’ of Ott. tapkur should not be linked to the meaning ‘bar-39 ricade’ of tabur ~ tabor mentioned above, as the latter was always found in the sense 40 ‘military camp surrounded with carts chained together’ (see Vefik 1876, p. 739, Zenker 41 1876, vol. 2, p. 595, and de Meynard 1886, vol. 2, p. 250). These two meanings, ‘pa-42

19 It is highly probable that the Mongolian word was widely known among the Turkic tribes

during the Mongol (middle Turkic) period for its fiscal meaning of ‘tax’ we mentioned above.

66 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


lisade’ and ‘barricade’, are always attested for different forms, hence the same argu-1 ments are valid as in 4.1 above. 2

6.2. Tkc. tabur 3

Based on the above, we see that Tkc. tapkur has a very solid Turkic and Mongolic 4 background, while Ott. tabur ~ tabor does not. It seems reasonable, then, to separate 5 these two words from each other and postulate the following scenario for Tkc. tabor 6 ~ tabur. 7 8 6.2.1. MPol. tabor ‘military camp; camp; gipsy camp’ > ORuss. тáбор id. (Vasmer 9 21987, p. 6). As a next step, the latter, Russ. lit. тáбор ‘camp’ > Bashk. tabor ‘та-10 бор, таборный’ (BashkRS 1958, p. 498), Kklp. tabor ‘цыганский табор’ (KKlpRS 11 1967, p. 993) Kirg. tabor ‘1. стан; 2. цыганский табор’ (RKirgS 1957, p. 847, s.v. 12 табор; it is not noted in KirgRS 1965), Kmk. tabor ‘табор, таборный’ (KumRS 13 1969, p. 297), Nog. tabor ‘табор, таборный’ (NogRS 1963, p. 324; see also Nog. 14 цыганлар таборы ‘цыганский табор’), TatK. tabor ‘табор, таборный’ (TatRS 15 1966, p. 506; see also TatK. tabor tormyšy ‘таборная жизнь’), Trkm. tabor ‘табор, 16 таборный’ (TrkmRS 1968, p. 610; see also Trkm. цыганларын таборы ‘цыганский 17 табор’), Tuv. tabor ‘цыганский табор’ (RTuvS 1980, p. 575).20 Russ. dial. тáбор ~ 18 тáбыр could have yielded the Kazan and Misher Tatar forms, as well as Chuvash 19 tabyr-type forms meaning ‘cattle camp; watering place for cattle, a place where cattle 20 have rest during summer etc.’, however, as we already mentioned, internal derivation 21 from Tkc. tap- ‘to trample, to stamp, to tread’ cannot be excluded in this case either). 22 23 6.2.2. MPol. tabor ‘military camp; camp’ > OUkr. тáбір ~ тáбор ‘1. a place for a 24 temporary military camp; 2. gipsy camp; 3. a place of gathering of a large number of 25 people’ (ESUM 2006, vol. 5, pp. 499–500; SUM 1979, vol. 10, p. 9). 26 27 6.2.3. MPol. tabor ‘military camp’ > Arm.-Kipch. tabor id. (see e.g. Schütz 1968, 28 p. 145). 29 30 6.2.4. MHung. tábor ‘military camp’ or MPol. tabor id. > Ott. tabur ~ tabor id.21 31 The Hung. word could have been borrowed into Ottoman via south-Slavonic, espe- 32 33

20 An indirect argument in favour of Russian origin of these forms is their absence from those

Turkic languages that had no contact with Russian, cf. the Uygh. equivalent of Russ. тáбор, namely köč, cf. also lolilar köči ‘цыганский табор’ (RUjgS 1956, p. 1254).

21 There is a small group of other Ottoman military terms of Hungarian origin that provide analogy, see Fekete (1930, pp. 263–264). The chronology, however, would rather suggest Polish origin, as the first Ottoman data originates in the 17th century, i.e. the period of intensive military operations between the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Ottoman Empire. But since the last Hungarian–Ottoman wars took place in the 17th century, after a nearly 350-year-long period of war, this argument cannot be decisive.



cially given Cr. tâbor ‘1. logor; 2. bataljon turske vojske pod komandom binbaše’, 1 the stress in which according to Skok (1973, vol. 3, p. 429) points to Hungarian and 2 not Turkish origin. The -o- in the second syllable of some of the Ottoman Turkish 3 words also corroborates the loanword scenario. However, the Arabic script does not 4 disambiguate the reading of the letter wāw (و) in the word forms quoted by Meninski 5 (1680, vol. 2, pp. 3062, 3088), Budagov (1869, vol. 1, p. 720), Vefik (1876, p. 739), 6 and Zenker (1876, vol. 2, p. 595). 7 ‘Battalion, regiment’, ‘a troop of 800/1000 soldiers’, ‘group of people’, and 8 ‘barricade’ are secondary meanings that evolved from ‘military camp’, i.e. ‘military 9 camp’ > ‘a place of defence of a (large) group of people’ > (a) ‘group of people’ ~ 10 ‘troop’, (b) ‘barricade’. 11 12 6.2.5. In Ottoman, tabur ~ tabor ‘1. military camp; 2. group of people’ was confused 13 with Ott. tapkur ‘1. girth; 2. row of people or vehicles; 3. palisade’, as a result of 14 which tabur came by the meaning ‘procession’, while tapkur gained the meaning ‘mili-15 tary camp’. The latter meaning was later erroneously copied into Chagatai diction-16 aries. 17 18 6.2.6. Ott. tabur noted in the meaning ‘a body of troops formed in a solid 19 square’ by, and only by Redhouse (1890, p. 1218) seems to be a reflex of Chag. 20 dabqur ~ ~ dapqur ~ tabqur ~ tapqur ‘mil. line (of soldiers); 21 mil. troop’ influenced by Ott. tabur ‘military camp surrounded by carts tethered to-22 gether’. 23 24 6.2.7. The tabur-type forms (with -u-) that we find in some Balkan languages are 25 most probably Rückwanderers from Ott. tabur, cf. e.g. Bulg. табур ‘military camp’ 26 or Gr. ταµπούρι id. noted in Skok (1973, vol. 3, p. 429). 27

7. Conclusions 28

According to the view expressed in this article the word tabur cannot be explained as 29 a variant of tapkur for phonetic, morphological and semantic reasons. 30 As far as the Turkic languages are concerned, tabur in the sense ‘military 31 camp’ appears only in Ottoman (from the 17th century on), and seems to be of Polish 32 or Hungarian origin. In the meaning ‘camp; gipsy camp’ it is found in Tatar, Bashkir, 33 Kirghiz, Nogai, Kumyk and Turkmen and is of Russian origin there. The meanings 34 ‘1. cattle camp; watering place for cattle; 2. watering time; 3. herd of horses’ show up 35 only in Tatar and Chuvash, i.e. only in the Volga region, and seems to result from a 36 specific semantic development (which is visible in Russian dialects, too). In other 37 words, tabur has no significant Turkic background.22 38

22 Pais’s (1955) view, according to which the Hungarian word belongs to the so-called sec-

ond layer of Turkic loanwords (i.e. loanwords of Coman or Pecheneg origin) and is to be explained

68 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


Tapkur has a wide range of meanings that are not necessarily to be explained 1 as originating from one Mongolic source. According to the current article an impor-2 tant part of them appeared as a result of a blend with Tkc. qur. 3 The personal name Tabor, the name of the Czech town Tábor, as well as the 4 homophonous appellatives in Czech, Hungarian or Polish must be treated separately. 5 The personal name Tabor may well be of Biblical origin (via Mediaeval Latin), simi-6 larly to other names, surnames and the place name Tabor. The latter must have ac-7 quired the appellative meaning ‘camp; military camp’, which spread across Central 8 and Eastern Europe. 9 It should be added that if one analyses the personal names attested in Poland 10 during the 15th century, it turns out that many of them belonged to persons born long 11 before the movement of Taborites. Moreover, those persons were apparently Catholics 12 (e.g. officials of the Church in north-eastern Poland), thus it is rather improbable that 13 they were named after a stronghold famous for a heretical movement. What these 14 two proper nouns share is the ultimate origin only. 15 Consequently, if we agree to treat the surnames and the appellative in the 16 meaning ‘camp, military camp’ separately, we see that there is no attestation in the 17 latter meaning from before the Taborite movement. This invalidates the arguments 18 that weakened the Czech etymology. 19 It should also be remarked that in the European warfare the use of military 20 camps built up of wagons chained together was considerably enhanced by the Hussite 21 soldiers. Among others, they were armed with additional bombards, mortars, and 22 were reinforced by a row of arquebus shooters in order to support the Hussite infan-23 try in the battlefield (Borkus 1984, pp. 77–79). This reinforces the Czech etymol- 24 ogy. 25 The etymology of the two words may be outlined as follows: 26 27 28 29 30

———— as derivative in -ur (?) from Tkc. tap- ‘to find’, does not hold for semantic, morphological and phi-lological reasons. The data Pais collected in his articles (1935a, 1935b, 1954, 1955) contain a num-ber of mistakes and erroneous interpretations; he often juxtaposes homonymous stems, identifies suffixes mistakenly, ascribes the meanings of reciprocal derivatives to the stems themselves, treats Mongolic words as native Turkic ones, presents far-reaching semantic changes, ascribes meanings mistakenly to words (e.g. by misinterpreting the entries in Radloff’s dictionary), etc.

Furthermore, there is no trace either of a tabur-type word or of verbal base tap- as used in the meaning ‘erwerben, erhalten’ (this would be the crux of his etymology) in the language of Codex Comanicus (see e.g. Radloff 1887, p. 49) and other Middle Kipchak sources (see e.g. Arm.-Kipch.: Grunin 1967, p. 406; Tryjarski 1972, p. 737; Kar.: KRPS 1974, p. 513; Mam.-Kipch.: Za-jączkowski 1954, p. 73).

Finally, at first sight Kar. konar orun ‘a place for overnight stay’ ← kon- ‘to spend the night’ and toχtar orun ‘place of rest, place of stay’ ← toχta- ‘to rest, to stay’ (Zajączkowski 1932, p. 98) might serve as an analogy for a hypothetical evolution Kipch. tap- ‘to find’ → *tabur orun ‘?’ → tabur ‘?’, but this must be rejected for semantic (there are no relevant meanings for tap-) and morphological reasons (the expected suffix should have sounded -ar).



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Scheme 3. General sketch of borrowing routes 28

Abbreviations in Scheme 3 29

AT = additional tax || B = belt || Br = barricade || C = camp; gipsy camp || D = defence, guard || Dbl 30 = double || GN = geographical name || Gr = group of people || L = mil. line || LH = a line or circle 31 of horses tethered || MC = military camp || P = palisade || PN = personal name || Pr = procession || 32 R = row|| S = storey || SG = saddle girth || T = times (expressing multiplication) || Tr = troop || TrR 33 = troop, troop sent for reconnaissance || W = weapon || WF = wooden fence 34

Abbreviations 35

Arm.-Kipch. = Armeno-Kipchak || Bashk. = Bashkir || Bulg. = Bulgarian || Chag. = Chagatai || 36 Chuv. = Chuvash || Cr. = Croatian || Cz. = Czech || dem. pron. = demonstrative pronoun || Fr. = 37 French || Gag. = Gagauz || Gr. = Greek || Hung. = Hungarian || Kar. = Karaim || KarC. = Crimean 38 Karaim || Kirg. = Kirghiz || Kklp. = Karakalpak || Kmk. = Kumyk || Kzk. = Kazakh || Med.Lat. = 39

Cz. Tábor GN Med.Lat. Tabor GN

Cz. tábor MC MHG taber MC

Hung. tábor MC, C Pol. tabor MC, C

Hung. Tábor PN Pol. Tabor PN

Ukr. тáбір MC, C Russ. тáбор MC, C Arm.-Kipch. tabor MC Ott. tabor, tabur

MC, Gr, Pr, Br, Tr

Bashk., Kirg., Kklp., Kmk., Nog., TatK., Trkm., Tuv. tabor C

Ott. dapkur, tapkur SG, LH, P

[confused in dictionaries]

Chag. dapqur, tapqur SG, L, TrR

Chag. qur B, D, W, WF

Chag. tapqur, tapγur AT

WMo. dabχur R, S, Dbl

Bashk., Nog., Kzk., Uzb. tapkyr T

Tuv tapkyr, takpyr Dbl

Pers. tapqur AT

Hebr. tabor GN

70 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


Mediaeval Latin || lit. = literary || MHung. = Middle Hungarian || mil. = military || Mam.-Kipch. = Mamluk-Kipchak || MHG = Middle-High-German || Mo. = Mongolic || MPol. = Middle Polish || MTkc. = Middle Turkic || Nog. = Nogai || OPol. = Old Polish || OTkc. = Old Turkic || Ott. = Otto-man Turkish || OUkr. = Old Ukrainian || PN = personal name || Pol. = Polish || Tat. = Tatar || TatK. = Kazan Tatar || TatM. = Misher Tatar || Tkc. = Turkic || Tksh. = Turkish || Tuv. = Tuvan || Uzb. = Uzbek || WMo. = Written Mongolian

References

Ašmarin, N. I. (1928–1950): Thesaurus linguae Tschuvaschorum. Slovar’ čuvašskogo jazyka. Vols 1–17 [vol. 13: 1937]. Kazań–Čeboksary.

Atalay, B. (1970): Abuşka Lûgatı veya Çağatay Sözlüğü [Abuşka Lûgatı – a dictionary of Chagatai]. Ankara.

BashkRS 1958 = Achmerov, K. Z. – Baishev, T. G. – Bikmurzin, A. M. – Kayumova, U. M. – Sayar-galeev, B. S. – Teregulova, R. N. (eds) (1958): Baškirsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva.

Bárczi, G. (1941): Magyar szófejtő szótár [Hungarian etymological dictionary]. Budapest. Bielowski, A. (1878): Rocznik świętokrzyski [Świętokrzyski Annals]. In: [Joint work] Monumenta

Poloniæ Historica. Vol. 3. Lwów, pp. 53–118. Borkus, J. (1984): Magyarország hadtörténete. I. A honfoglalástól a kiegyezésig [Warfare in Hun-

gary. I. From the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin until the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867]. Budapest.

Budagov, L. Z. (1869–1871): Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ turecko–tatarskich” narečij so vključeniem” upotrebitel’nejšich” slov” arabskich” i persidskich” i s” perevodom” na russkij jazyk”. Vols 1–2. Sanktpeterburg”.

Clauson, G. (1960): Sanglax. A Persian Guide to the Turkish Language by Muhammad Mahdī Xān [Facsimile Text with an Introduction and Indices by Sir Gerard Clauson]. London.

ČuvRS 1961 = Sirotkin, M. Ja. (1961): Čuvašsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. ČuvRS 2003 = Skvorcov, M. I. – Skvorcova, A. B. (22003): Slovar’ čuvašsko–russkij i russko–ču-

vašskij. Čeboksary. Deny, J. (1957): L’Armeno-Coman et les « Ephémérides » de Kamieniec (1604–1613). Wiesbaden. Doerfer, G. (1963–1975): Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. Vols 1–4 [vol.

1: 1963; vol. 2: 1965; vol. 3: 1967; vol. 4: 1975]. Wiesbaden. DerS = Aksoy, Ö. A. (ed.) (1978): Türkiye’de Halk Ağzından Derleme Sözlüğü [A comprehensive

dictionary of Turkish dialects]. Vol. 10. Ankara. DTS = Nadeljaev, V. M. – Nasilov, D. M. – Tenišev, Ė. R. – Ščerbak, A. M. (1969): Drevnetjurkskij

slovar’. Leningrad. Egorov, V. G. (1964): Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ čuvašskogo jazyka. Čeboksary. ESUM = Mel’nyčuk, O. C. – Kolomijec’, V. T. – Lukinova, T. B. – Pivtorak, G. P. – Skljarenko, V. G. –

Tkačenko, O. B. (eds) (2006): Etymolohičnyj slovnyk ukrajins’koji movy [An etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. Vol. 5. Kyjiv.

EWUng = Gerstner, K. – S. Hámori A. – Zaicz, G. (eds) (1993–1994): Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen. Budapest.

Fedotov, M. R. (1996): Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ čuvašskogo jazyka. Vols 1–2. Čeboksary. Fehértói, K. (2004): Árpád-kori személynévtár (1000–1301) [Personal names used during the rule

of the Árpád dynasty (1000–1301)]. Budapest.



Fekete, L. (1930): Az oszmánli-török nyelv hódoltságkori magyar jövevényszavai [The Ottoman Turkish loanwords in Hungarian from the period of Ottoman rule]. Magyar Nyelv Vol. 26, Nos 1–2, pp. 257–265.

GagRMS = Baskakov, N. A. (ed.) (1973): Gagauzsko–russko–moldavskij slovar’. Moskva. Grunin, T. I. (1967): Dokumenty na poloveckom jazyke XVI v. (sudebnye akty kamenec-podol’skoj

armjanskoj obščiny). Moskva (Pamjatniki piśmennosti Vostoka III). Havránek, B. (1955): Původ slova tábor „ležení” [The origin of the word tábor ‘military camp’].

Naše řeč Vol. 38, Nos 1–2, pp. 2–12. HSSJ = Majtán, M. – Kuchar, R. – Skladaná, J. (eds) (1991–2005): Historický slovník slovenského

jazyka [A historical dictionary of the Slovakian language]. Vols 1–6. Bratislava. JordK = Toldy, F. – Volf, Gy. (eds) (1888): A Jordánszky-kódex bibliafordítása [The Bible transla-

tion of the Jordánszky-codex]. Budapest (Régi Magyar Nyelvemlékek 5). Karácson, I. (ed.) (1904): Evlia Cselebi török világutazó magyarországi utazásai (1660–1664)

[Travels in Hungary of the Turkish traveller Evliya Çelebi (1660–1664)]. Budapest. KarRPS = Baskakov, N. A. – Šapšal, S. M. – Zajončkovskij, A. (eds) (1974): Karaimsko–russko–

pol’skij slovar’. Słownik karaimsko–rosyjsko–polski. Moskva. Kázmér, M. (1993): Régi magyar családnevek szótára. XIV–XVII. század [A dictionary of old Hun-

garian family names. 14th–17th centuries]. Budapest. Kecskeméti, I. (1965): H. Paasonen’s tatarisches Dialektwörterverzeichnis. Helsinki (JSFOu 66). Kętrzyński, W. (1888): Annales mansionariorum Cracoviensium. In: [Joint work] Monumenta Po-

loniæ Historica. Pomniki dziejowe Polski. Vol. 5. Lwów, pp. 890–896. Király, P. (1955): Prof. Havránek über die Herkunft des Wortes tábor. ALH Vol. 5, Nos 1–2, pp.

225–226. KirgRS = Judachin, K. K. (1965): Kirgizsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. KklpRS = Baskakov, N. A. (ed.) (1958): Karakalpaksko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. Koehler, L. – Baumgartner, W. (1985) Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden. KumRS = Bammatov, Z. Z. (1969): Kumyksko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. Kúnos, I. (ed.) (1902): Šejχ Sulejman Efendi’s Čagataj-Osmanisches Wörterbuch. Verkürzte und

mit deutscher Übersetzung versehene Ausgabe. Budapest (A Magyar Néprajzi Társaság Ke-leti Szakosztályának Kiadványai 1).

Leschber, C. (2011): Lehnwege einiger Orientalismen und Wörter eurasischer Herkunft im Rumäni-schen und den sonstigen Balkansprachen. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 16, pp. 33–61.

Lessing, F. D. (ed.) (1960): Mongolian–English Dictionary. Berkeley–Los Angeles. Lexer, M. (1872–1878): Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch. Vols 1–3 [vol. 1: 1872; vol. 2:

1876; vol. 3: 1878 = Nachträge zum Mittelhochdeutschen Handwörterbuch]. Leipzig. Ligeti, L. (1986): A magyar nyelv török kapcsolatai a honfoglalás előtt és az Árpád-korban [The

Turkic connections of the Hungarian language before the Conquest and during the rule of the Árpád dynasty]. Budapest.

Lokotsch, K. (1927): Etymologisches Wörterbuch der europäischen Wörter orientalischen Ursprungs. Heidelberg.

Machek, V. (1968): Etymologický slovník jazyka českého [An etymological dictionary of the Czech language]. Praha.

Mallouf, N. (1863): Dictionnaire Turc–Français. Vols 1–2. Paris. Melich, J. (1935a): A tábor szóról [On the word tábor]. Magyar Nyelv 31, pp. 168–177. Melich, J. (1935b): Über das ungarische Wort tábor. Ungarische Jahrbücher 15, pp. 529–540. Meninski = à Mesgnien Meninski, F. (1680): Thesaurus Linguarum Orientalium Turcicae, Ara-

bicae, Persicae. Vols 1–3. Vienna [new edition by Ölmez, M. & Stachowski, S. İstanbul 2000].

72 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


de Meynard, B. A. C. (1881–1886) Dictionaire Turc–Français. Vols 1–2 [vol. 1: 1881; vol. 2: 1886]. Paris [new edition: Amsterdam 1971].

Moszczeńska, W. (1925): Rola polityczna rycerstwa wielkopolskiego w czasie bezkrólewia po Lud-wiku W. [The political role of the chivalry of Greater Poland during the interregnum after the rules of Louis I of Hungary]. Przegląd Historyczny 25, pp. 33–159.

Németh, Gy. (1935a): A török tabur szó eredete [The origin of the Turkish word tabur]. Magyar Nyelv 31, pp. 178–181.

Németh, J. [= Németh, Gy.] (1935b): Über den Ursprung des türkischen Wortes tabur. Ungarische Jahrbücher 15, pp. 541–547.

Németh, J. [= Németh, Gy.] (1953): Neuere Untersuchungen über das Wort tábor ‘Lager’. Acta Lin-guistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 3, pp. 341–446.

Németh, J. [= Németh, Gy.] (1955) Die Herkunft des ung. Wortes tábor. Acta Linguistica Acade-miae Scientiarum Hungaricae Vol. 5, Nos 1–2, p. 224.

NogRS = Baskakov, N. A. (ed.) (1963): Nogajsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. OklSz = Szamota, I. – Zolnai, Gy. (1902–1906): Magyar oklevél-szótár. Régi oklevelekben és egyéb

iratokban előforduló magyar szók gyűjteménye. Pótlék a Magyar nyelvtörténeti szótárhoz [Hungarian Charter-dictionary. A collection of Hungarian words that appear in old charters and other documents. An addition to the Historical dictionary of Hungarian]. Budapest [re-print: 1984].

Pais, D. (1935a): Az urális és altaji tap ‘fogni’ szócsalád [The Uralic and Altaic word-family of tap ‘to grab’]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények Vol. 49, Nos 1–3, pp. 295–313.

Pais, D. (1935b): Die Wortfamilie des uralischen und altaischen tap ‘fassen’. Ungarische Jahrbü-cher 15, pp. 601–619.

Pais, D. (1954): Magyar tábor, török tapqur [Hungarian tábor, Turkish tapqur]. Magyar Nyelv 50, pp. 167–169.

Pais, D. (1955): Hongrois tábor ‘camp’, turc tapqur. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hun-garicae Vol. 5, Nos 1–2, pp. 219–223.

Pavet de Courteille, A. (1870): Dictionnaire turk-oriental. Paris. P[ekař], J. (1932) [a not entitled contribution to the history of Cz. tábor]. Český Časopis Historický

38, pp. 637–640. Poppe, N. (1955): Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies. Helsinki (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen

Seuran Toimituksia 110). Radloff, W. (1887): Das türkische Sprachmaterial des Codex Comanicus. St.-Pétersbourg. Radloff, W. (1893–1911): Versuch eines Wörterbuches der Türk-Dialecte. Vols 1–4 [vol. 1/1–2:

1893; vol. 2/1–2: 1899; vol. 3/1–2: 1905; vol. 4/1–2: 1911]. St. Petersburg. Radloff, W. (1896): Proben der Volksliteratur der nördlichen türkischen Stämme. VII. Theil. Die

Mundarten der Krym. St. Petersburg. Rassadin, V. I. (1980): Mongolo-burjatskie zaimstvovanija v sibirskich tjurkskich jazykach. Moskva. Räsänen, M. (1949): Zur Lautgeschichte der türkischen Sprachen. Helsinki (Studia Orientalia 15). RČuvS = Egorov, V. G. (1972): Russko–čuvašskij slovar’. Čeboksary. Redhouse, J. W. (1880): Redhouse’s Turkish Dictionary, in Two Parts, English and Turkish, and

Turkish and English. London. Redhouse, J. W. (1890): A Turkish and English Lexicon. Constantinople. Redhouse, J. W. (1968): Yeni Türkçe– İngilizce Sözlük [New Turkish–English dictionary]. İstanbul. RKirgS = Judachin, K. K. (1957): Russko–kirgizskij slovar’. Moskva. Rocchi, L. (2005 [2007]): Turcohungarica. Elementi magiari diretti e indiretti nella lingua turca.

Plurilinguismo 12, pp. 89–127.



Rocchi, L. (2010): The Hungarian Linguistic Material in Evliya Çelebi. Studia Etymologica Craco-viensia 15, pp. 113–125.

RTuvS = Monguš, D. A. (1980): Russko–tuvinskij slovar’. Moskva. RUjgS = Iliev, A. – Kibirov, Š. – Ruziev, M. – Cunvazo, Ju. (1956): Russko–ujgurskij slovar’.

Moskva. Rutkowska-Płachcińska, A. (1996): Rocznik Świętokrzyski [The Świętokrzyski Annals]. Kraków

(Pomniki dziejowe Polski. Seria II 12). Schütz, E. [= Schütz, Ö.] (1968): An Armeno-Kipchak Chronicle on the Polish–Turkish Wars in

1620–1621. Budapest (Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica 11). SKazP = Aqtay, G. – Jankowski, H. (2011): Słownik kazachsko–polski [Kazakh–Polish diction-

ary]. Kraków. Skok, P. (1971–1973): Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika [An etymological dic-

tionary of the Croato-Serbian language]. Vols 1–3 [vol. 1: 1971; vol. 2: 1972; vol. 3: 1973]. Zagreb.

SRNG = Sorokoletov, F. P. – Myznikov, S. A. – Kovalenko, K. I. – Magin, I. A. (eds) (1965–): Slovar’ russkich narodnych govorov. [Vol. 43: 2010.] Sankt-Peterburg.

SStp = Urbańczyk, S. (ed.) (1953–2002): Słownik staropolski [Dictionary of Old Polish]. [Vol. 9: 1982–1987.] Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk–Łódź.

Stachowski, S. (2010): Polonizacja języka ormiańsko-kipczackiego [The Polonisation of Armeno-Kipchak]. LingVaria 10, pp. 213–227.

SUM = Bilodid, I. K. – Burjačok, A. A. – Gnatjuk, G. M. (eds) (1970–): Slovnyk ukrajinśkoji movy [A dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. [Vol. 10: 1979.] Kyjiv.

Ščerbak, A. M. (1997): Rannie tjurksko–mongolskie jazykovye svjazi (VII–XIV vv.). Sankt-Peter-burg.

Šeyχ Süleymān [Buharī] (1298 [after Hiǧra, i.e. 1881]): Luġat-i Čaġatay ve Turkī-yi Osmanī [A dic-tionary of Chagatai and Ottoman Turkish]. İstanbul.

Šipova, E. N. (1976): Slovar’ tjurkizmov v russkom jazyke. Alma-Ata. TarS = Aksoy, Ö. A. – Dilçin, D. (eds) (1963–1977): XIII. Yüzyıldan Beri Türkiye Türkçesiyle Ya-

zılmış Kitaplardan Toplanan Tanıklariyle Tarama Sözlüğü [Research lexicon with refer-ences, compiled from books written in Turkish used in Turkey from the 13th century to the present time]. Vols 1–8. Ankara.

Taszycki, W. (1965–1983): Słownik staropolskich nazw osobowych [A dictionary of the Old Polish personal names]. Vols 1–6 [vol. 5: 1977–1980]. Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk.

TatRS = Golovkina, O. V. (ed.) (1966): Tatarsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva. TESz = Benkő, L. – Kiss, L. – Papp, L. (eds) (1964–1984): A magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szó-

tára [A historical-etymological dictionary of the Hungarian language]. Vols 1–4. Budapest. Titz, K. (1932): Tábor. Listy filologické 59, pp. 245–257. TLH = Róna-Tas, A. – Berta, Á.† (with the assistance of Károly, L.) (2011): West Old Turkic. Turkic

Loanwords in Hungarian. Vols 1–2. Wiesbaden (Turcologica 84). TrkmRS = Baskakov, N. A. – Karryev, B. A. – Chamzaev, M. Ja. (eds) (1968): Turkmensko–russkij

slovar’. Moskva. Tryjarski, E. (1968–1972): Dictionnaire arméno-kiptchak d’après trois manuscrits des collections

viennoises. Vols 1/1–4 [vol. 1/1: 1968; vol. 1/2: 1968; vol. 1/3: 1969, vol. 1/4: 1972]. War-szawa.

TS = Eren, H. (1988): Türkçe Sözlük [A dictionary of Turkish]. Vols 1–2. Ankara. TTDS = Machmutova, L. T. (ed.) (1969): Tatar tĕlĕnĕŋ dialektologik süzlĕgĕ [A dialectological dic-

tionary of the Tatar language]. Kazan. TuvRS = Pal’mbach, A. A. (ed.) (1955): Tuvinsko–russkij slovar’. Moskva.

74 MICHAŁ NÉMETH


UzbRS = Borovkov, A. K. – Akabirov, S. F. – Magrufov, Z. M. – Chodžachanov, A. T. (eds) (1959): Uzbeksko–russkij slovar’. Moskva.

Vámbéry, Á. (1862): Abuska. Csagatajtörök szógyűjtemény (török kéziratból fordította Vámbéry Ármin. Előbeszéddel és jegyzetekkel kísérte Budenz József) [Abuška. A Chagatai Turkic glossary (translated from a Turkish manuscript by Ármin Vámbéry. Foreword and com-ments by József Budenz)]. Pest.

Vámbéry, Á. (1867): Ćagataische Sprachstudien enthaltend grammatikalischen Umriss, Chresto-mathie und Wörterbuch der ćagataischen Sprache. Leipzig.

Vasmer, M. (1953–1958): Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vols 1–3 [vol. 1: 1953; vol. 2: 1955; vol. 3: 1958]. Heidelberg.

Vasmer, M. [= Фасмер, М.] (1986–1987): Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Vols 1–4 [vols 1–2: 1986; vols 3–4: 1987]. Moskva.

Vefik, A. (1876): Lehǧe-i ‘Osmānī [The Ottoman language]. [İstanbul]. VEWT = Räsänen, M. (1969): Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen. Hel-

sinki (Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XVII/1). VigS = Stachowski, S. (2002): Lexique turc dans le Vocabulaire de P.F. Viguier (1790). Kraków. Vel’jaminov-Zernov, V. V. (1869): Dictionnaire djaghataï– turc. St. Petersbourg. YTarS = Dilçin, C. (ed.) (1983): Yeni Tarama Sözlüğü [The new Research lexicon]. Ankara (Türk

Dil Kurumu Yayınları 503). Zajączkowski, A. (1932): Sufiksy imienne i czasownikowe w języku zachodniokaraimskim (przyczy-

nek do morfologji języków tureckich). Les suffixes nominaux et verbaux dans la langue des Karaïms occidentaux (contribution à la morphologie des langues turques). Kraków (Prace Komisji Orjentalistycznej Polskiej Akademji Umiejętności 15).

Zajączkowski, A. (1954): Słownik arabsko–kipczacki z okresu Państwa Mameluckiego Bulġat al-muštāq fī luġat at-turk wa-l-qif}āq. Vocabulaire arabe-kiptchak de l’époque de l’État Mamelouk Bulġat al-muštāq fī luġat at-turk wa-l-qif}āq. IIème partie. Le verbe. Warszawa.

Zenker, J. Th. (1866–1876): Türkisch–arabisch–persisches Handwörterbuch. Dictionnaire Turc–Arabe–Persan. Vols 1–2 [vol. 1: 1866; vol. 2: 1876]. Leipzig.

Corrigenda

Page/line or footnote umber

There is There should be Remarks (to the typesetter)

43/4–6 Zakład Filologii Węgierskiej Uniwersytetu

Jagiellońskiego

Institute of Linguistics, Department of Hungarian

Philology, Jagiellonian University

43/14 Cz. Tábor Cz. Tábor 44/19 strength strength in 1420 44/33 2.1. 2.1. Introductory remarks 47/12 against the Czech

etymology in this etymological

discussion

47/26 3.1. 3.1. Introductory remarks 52/8 1. ‘1.

54/10 Schemes 1 and 2 illustrate what has been said above.

Schemes 1 and 2 illustrate what has been said above.8

Based on the linguistic material presented in them, some additional remarks are

due.

54/16 Based on the above linguistic material, some

additional remarks are due.

Move to line 54/10, see

above. 54/10–15 Arrows link dictionaries that

influenced one another, dashed lines indicate

probable but not absolutely certain connections, arrows

with heads on both ends indicate blends. Вамб. stands

for Vámbéry (1867) in Budagov (1869), Dsch. V.

stands for Vámbéry (1867) in Radloff (1893–1911), Dsch. P.d.C. stands for Pavet de

Courteille (1870) in Radloff (1893–1911).

Move to footnote number

8, see 54/10 above.

54/38 Pais 1935 Pais 1935a 55/26 but very similar but similar

58/table, first row,

third column

Clauson (1759/1960)

Vefik (1876)


Redhouse (1968)

Clauson (1759/1960)

Vefik (1876)


Redhouse (1968)

59/18 the the the 60/8 Finally, two Finally, three

60/13 etc.’? etc.’? Thirdly, why there are

no dabur-type forms? 61/2 ex. ex

61/18 article az.11 article az.11 Moreover, tabur ‘stronghold of Christians’ often appears in Çelebi’s descriptions of Hungary

(Karácson 1904: 125–127)

61/26 insurmountable not insurmountable 62/13.

lábjegyzet/ 3 sor

21987, p. 7 21987, vol. 4, p. 7

62/34 (see also Scheme (in paragraphs 6.1.1.–6.2.7.; see also Scheme

64/27 in Chagatai, the in Chagatai, where the 66/12 p. 993) Kirg p. 993), Kirg

The Turkic and Eastern-European linguistic background of the etymology of Hung. tábor ‘(military)...

Documents

Transcript of The Turkic and Eastern-European linguistic background of the etymology of Hung. tábor ‘(military)...