Актуальные вопросы тюркологических исследований

563 Actual Problems of Turkic Studies 25 The witness is I, Šakyaba. 26 The witness [is I, ....] 27 [The witness is I, ....] Šinsi. The phrase 5 yanu ḏ bičig is undoubtedly derived from Uig. yanut bitig “receipt document.” The ductus of yanu ḏ = Y’NWD should be regarded as almost similar to that of Uig. yanu ḍ = Y’NWD as displayed above (see Fig. 4) 14 . Mong. yanud ~ yanu ḏ is further attested in a Qara-Qota Mongolian fragment, M1-060 (F270:W1) [21. P. 62]. The text of a single line was not edited in MDQ, though we can safely decipher it as ene yanu ḏ morin ǰ il-ünyanu ḏ bui “this receipt ( yanu ḏ = Y’NWD ) is the receipt of (the taxes paid in) the Horse year” (Fig. 5). Here yanud ~ yanu ḏ = Y’NWD is written as if YYWD’N , though it should be compared with Uig. yanu ḍ = Y’NWD. Furthermore, this text attests that Mong. yanud too could stand alone for “receipt” as Uig. yanut did. Now with these attestations, we may reconsider another Qara-Qota Mongolian fragment M1-019 (F42:W1), which was edited in MDQ as No. 68. The editors read line 4 of the text as aqa vab ṯ an noy[an ....] “[my?] elder-brother, officer Vabtan.”Here the ductus like V’PT’N well suggests the reading vab ṯ an [Fig. 6].However, I would revise it as YNW-T’N ~ Y(’)NW-T = yanu-d ~ yanud , and consider that it was a mistake for Y’NWD ( = Uig. yanut ~ Mong. yanud ), which was frequently written in a confusing ducts as if Y’NWD’N, as shown above. If that is the case, the text in question may be possibly read otherwise as a̤neyanu-t ö(g)[be?] “[we?] gave this receipt” 15 . Summing up, we can observe that the Qara-Qota Mongolian texts accepted many loanwords and calque s from Uigur-Turkic, most of which concern those used in the contract documents or economic transactions. They clearly display the Uigur influence on the Mongolian socio-economic cultures. 14 MDQ, 62, read the first word yanu ḏ as V’BD’N = vabtan and interpreted it as a personal name. However, such interpretation does not fit to the context, the last part of which (lines 23–27) does not mention to the named Vabtan. That would be rather prob- lematic, if Vabtan should have been a key person “to issue this document ( 5 bičigög- )” among those concerned with this contract.We cannot accept the proposal by Bai 2014, to interpret vabtan as “legal, based on the law,” based on a hypothetical combination Uig. vap (< Chin. 法 fa ) and Mong. + tan ~ + tai (comitative). 15 It might be also possible that Uig. yanut ~ yanu ḍ =Y’NWD was mistakenly read and pronounced as Y’NWD’N = yanudan or Y’BD’N = yapdan , which were orthographically fixed in Mongolian.