О некоторых редких и малоизвестных военных терминах в монгольских летописях XVII в.

Abstract

Goals. The study attempts etymological analyses of several rare military terms attested in 17th-century Mongol chronicles. The following terms are specifically touched upon in the article: aγuraγ ~ aγuruγ ‘base camp’, bayirildu- ‘to battle each other, fight a battle’, bulγaldu- ‘to fight each other or together’, čaγuraγul- ‘to send on a military campaign’, ide- ‘to capture and plunder (a city)’, nengde- ‘to attack unexpectedly’, niγtarqa- ‘to be in close order’, toyin ‘(military) camp’. All these terms are either totally unattested in the dictionaries of written Mongolian, or used with unique or rare meanings in sources, and reflect important features of military structure in the era of the Mongol Empire. Materials and methods. The paper analyzes three Mongol chronicles of the 17th century, namely: Quriyangγui Altan tobči ‘Brief Golden Summary’ (ca. 1604 to 1634, or mid-to-late 17th century), Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur ‘The Jewel Translucent Sūtra’ (ca. 1607), and Altan tobči ‘Golden Summary’ by Blo-bzaṅ bstan-’jin (ca. 1651 to 1655, or late 17th – early 18th century). The work employs a number of research methods inherent to comparative-historical linguistics and textology. Results. The article presumes the Mongol Empire’s military structure still remained more or less efficient — with some modifications — when the examined Mongol chronicles were being compiled, but completely lost its relevance in subsequent times. In view of this, only a small number of medieval military terms have survived in modern Mongolic languages, sometimes greatly changed in meaning (aγuraγ ~ aγuruγ), used only as obsolete forms (bulγa/bulγaldu-) or bound morphemes (ča’ur). Conclusions. The paper suggests some of the terms are of foreign origin and bear obvious traces of the intensive areal contacts between Mongolic and neighboring languages, notably Turkic (aγuraγ ~ aγuruγ, bulγa(-), toyi/n), Tungusic (nen(g)de-), and Khitan (ča’ur) ones. Some are attested as hapax legomena in individual chronicles (bayirildu-, čaγuraγul-, niγtarqa-), while others articulate highly specific meanings that have no parallels in our sources, and thus either correspond to the semantics of the donor forms (toyi/n) or possibly reflect the influence of local dialects of that time (ide-).