The Turkic and Mongol words in William of Rubruck's Journey (1253-1255)
Larry Clark, Indiana University, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol.93, No 2, (Apr.-June., 1973), pp 181-189.
...With tumen our survey is completed, and a summary of our identification can be made. The following words are only Turkic: ayran, *kam, karakumis, kumis, soyur, su, yam, yastuk. One could also add to this list the words kulan and kurut, but the fact is that these were early borrowed by the Mongols, so that Rubruck need not have recorded them as Turkic. Also to be considered is the ambivalent nature of the words kaptarayak, which is Turkic, but restricted largely to Mongol, and nasich (~nashich), which is Persian, but is found in identical forms in Coman and Mongol. The words which are only Mongol are bokta and *darasun, to which tang may be added, keeping in mind its Tibetan origin. Four words are Turko-Mongol: bal, orda, toyin, tumen.
Viewed in one way, all but three of Rubruck's words could potentially have been recorded from Turkic speakers. This brings to mind a statement of Pelliot's to the effect that, since Rubruck's vocabulary is essentially Turkic and not Mongol, the international language current at the beginning of the Mongol Empire was Turkic. 74 (Pelliot, "Le pretendu mot "iascot" chez Guillame de Rubruck," p.919).
Another nice example of selective quoting by Akskl. Why don't you give just one more sentence from Mr. Clark?
I am not at all certain that such an important conclusion should be based upon such meager evidence. It is well to recall that the vocabulary of Rubruck's predecessor, Plano Carpini, contained 9 Mongol words as opposed to only 2 certainly Turkic words, and 4 Turko-Mongol words. (Sinor, Carpini, p. 551; Professor Sinor here counts orda among the "purely Turkic" words, whereas I include it among the Turko-Mongol words.) Clearly, just the opposite conclusion to Pelliot's could be reached on the basis of Carpini alone.
Edited by yan, 11 May 2009 - 01:37 PM.