В. Г. Гузев. Избранное

488 В. Г. Гузев. Избранное: К 80-летию time that they can be considered as more or less phantastic: r ( r 2 , är = är “man”); l ( l 2 , äl = äl “hand”); v , T ( t 1 , at = at “horse”); n ( n 2 , än cf. the verbal stem en - “to step downwards”); G , G ( γ , aγ , possibly = aγ “net for fishing”); X , { , (š = äšik “door, tent door”) 1 . Later E. D. Po1ivanov repeated the idea about the ideographic origin of Y and q signs and pointed out an important feature of ideograms — the ability to function in isolation without vowels, for denoting the corresponding word: aj “moon”, oq “arrow” 2 . It might be added that the sign b behaves in the same way: adb äb + dä (Mogilan, 32) “(the troops were) at home”. E. D. Polivanov noticed another way of the emergence of the signs, when the initial phoneme of a phonetic word is denoted by its word-sign, e.g. stick symbolizing a lance (Turkic süŋü) is used as the sign for the palatalized al- lophone of the /s/ 3 . The device meant here is called acrophonic. It is well known in grammatology in connection with the genesis of the Old Semitic alphabet. In the case of the sign in question it is very likely that in the primary syllabary according to the terms of the system, it represented the syllable /äs/. It can well be supposed that there are a number of other OTRS signs which might have arisen by the same (acrophonic) way, e. g. the sign S for the syl- lable /as/ once could have symbolized hair, sač in Turkic. The sign of moon, the sign of lance as well as the sign for the word äd “property, livestock” discovered by A. Róna-Tas 4 occur among the Turkic tamgas (ancient, tribl and property signs) which form a foundation for the A. Schifners’ hypothesis of tamga-origin of Turkic runs which was further developed by N. A. Aristov, N. G. Mallitzkij, D. N. Sokolov and .supported by LA. Batmanov 5 . It appears from the above that the indigenous origin of the runiform signs might have been different but the unevenness of their evolution, the influence of various factors, especially, that of the material ( wood, stone, paper, etc.) for writing (carving, incising) on, could have resulted in a complicated situa- tion: one part of them can easily be interpreted while the other part has been transformed beyond recognition. It is noteworthy that no serious scholars were attracted to pictorial or acro- phonic ways of the Turkic runs origin nor agreed with the idea about the indig- 1 Thomsen V. op. cit., p. 79. 2 Polivanov E. D., op.cit., p. 178. 3 Ibid. 4 A. Róna-Tas, op. cit., p. 9. 5 See: Аманжолов А. С. Проблема происхождения тюркского рунического алфа- вита «Казак тiлi мен эдебетi. 8-шыгуы. Алматы, 1976. Р. 60; К генезису тюркских рун, р. 82.