Talk:Shatuo

Linguistic confusion

In the section Shatuo#Chuy_Shatuo is a claim attributed to a book by Yuri Zuev that "Šada" is the Persian word for 'hundred', which isn't true; that would be صد sad. The only language that has šada for 'hundred' is Karelian, which is over on the Russian border with Finland. Persian sad derives from Middle Persian sad < Old Persian θata- < Proto-Iranian *catám < Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćatám. No šada anywhere in the Iranian languages.

Can anyone tell what Zuev was thinking by this apparently erroneous statement? Or was his writing somehow garbled on the way into Wikipedia? I could not get a look at the book in the citation.

Beyond that remains the semantic question of how "sand masses", i.e. "desert" is supposed to derive from "hundred." Hundred (yüz) is of course a significant number in Turkic history as a military formation. What's it doing here linked with sand masses and desert? User:Erminwin, if you could please explain your edit of last month? As it stands, it's very unclear. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Johanna-Hypatia. I should have written "or, according to Zuev, comparable to alleged Persian "Šada"". I do not have access to the Russian original of Zuev's book Early Turks, so possibly the translator had mistranscribed. This is the relevant passage from page 146:

"The regal surname of the Western Türkic initially Manichean Chigil tribe (< compare Persian chihil "forty") was Shato (Persian ~Shada "Hundred"), they founded a Hou-Tan state (923-936) in the Northern China, and adopted a Chinese surname Li. Its famous founder Li Keün was from the "Dragon" tribe [Malyavkin, 1974, p. 100, Li Fan, ch. 425, p. 3458-3459].

— Zuev, Early Türks: Essays of history and ideology

For the time, being, I'm temporarily hiding Zuev's claim, pending removal. Signed: Erminwin (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That title in the original Russian is Ранние тюрки: очерки истории и идеологии. Алматы: Дайк-Пресс, 2002. 338 с. + вкл. 12 с. I'd like a look at it... Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, what do you know, I found it. A scan of the Russian book is on some web site called s155239215, but Wikipedia won't let me post the link there because that site is blacklisted. You can find it with Google easily enough. The relevant passage is on page 256. I plan to examine it and see what can be learned. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The s155239215 site is blacklisted because it advances fringe pan-Turkist pseudoscience. Zuev's scholarship is... sloppy. Shatuo 沙陀, in Middle Chinese /ʃˠa dɑ/, could not both transcribe Sanskrit Sart (as Zuev asserted in "Horses, Tamgas of the Vassal Princedoms") and be comparable to Persian صد sad or pseudo-Persian Shada (as asserted in "Early Turks").Erminwin (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sloppy is right. Here is the passage in question (Ранние тюрки: очерки истории и идеологии p. 256–257), with a rough translation. The alphanumeric codes must refer to an index of Chinese characters.

Слово чигиль (ср.перс. čihil "сорок") вначале было обозначением манихейской консорции — "школы" в стране Аргу. Впостледствии оно стало обозначением тюркских племен, принявших манихейство. Первым из них были чигили, базировавшиеся в долине реки Кунгес в западной части СУАР КНР. Позже в чигильской (кит. чуюз) среде выделяется группа, называвшаяся С9188, 3538 чжу-се/ся/е (чтение второго иероглифа различно). Другая (или та же самая) группа называлась С6836б 12026 шато (<śa-dá<šada). Термин šada отмечен как манихейский (Haneda 1932, с. 3, 7). В уйгурских документх онизвестен как sada и восходить к иранскому sada и восходит к иранскому sada/sata "сто". Шато (шада) считалось названием официальным, но императоры-шато недолновечного государства Позднее Тан (923-936 гг.) считали, что их племя называется С9188, 3538 чжусе (Се Цзюйчжэн, гл. 4, с. 20, л. 1а). Оба термина равнозначны, и чтение второго названия воспринимается на тюркской языковой почве: чжу-се <t'si̯u-zi̯a <ĵüz~jüz "сто". Такая реконструкция подтверждается сторонним, прото-монгольским киданьским обозначениеи этой династии jaut "сто" (кит. чжаодин).

The word Chigil (cf. Pers. čihil “forty”) was originally a designation of the Manichaean consortium — a “school” in the country of Argu. Subsequently, it became the designation of the Turkic tribes that adopted Manichaeism. The first of them were Chigils, based in the Kunges river valley in the western part of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of China. Later, a group called C9188, 3538 chu-se/sya/e stands out in the Chigil (Chinese chuyuz) environment (readings of the second character differ). Another (or the same) group was called C6836b 12026 Shato (<śa-dá <šada). The term šada is noted as Manichaean (Haneda 1932, p. 3, 7). In Uyghur documents it is known as sada and goes back to Iranian sada / sata "hundred". Shato (Shada) was considered the official name, but the Shato emperors of the short-lived Later Tang state (923-936) believed that their tribe was called C9188, 3538 chuse (Xie Juzheng, ch. 4, p. 20, 1a). Both terms are equivalent, and the reading of the second name is discerned on the basis of Turkic linguistics: chu-se <t'si̯u-zi̯a <ĵüz ~ jüz "hundred". This reconstruction is confirmed by a third party, the proto-Mongol Khitan designation of this dynasty as jaut "hundred" (Chinese zhaoding).

Deriving Chigil from chihil is debatable, and Zuev even contradicts himself elsewhere on the etymology. (I laughed to see yet another theory: اين چه گل است īn chih gil ast? 'What is this mud?' Good job, Erminwin.)

Now it's clear that Zuev was playing around with Iranian etymology. If you look at the word for hundred in the different Iranian languages, only Bactrian and Ossetian have that second vowel. Zuev just magicks a second vowel into his Persian to make it fit. That dog won't hunt. Plus how easily he exchanges s and š as though the difference didn't matter. They were distinct phonemes in Old Turkish and Old Uyghur.

The other question about sand and desert turns out to be completely separate from this, but the two got mixed up by mistake.

In fairness to Zuev, he did adduce the Turkish word yüz and even demonstrated a connection with Khitan jau(t). The Khitan word for hundred is jau; I'm guessing the -t represents a Mongolic plural ending. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

By chu-se possibly Zuev means 屈射 Qūshè. Even so, there's no way 屈射 reflects Turkic yüz er. I don't know how Zuev could have recontrusted as 屈射's pronunciation as t'si̯u-zi̯a (circular reasoning to fit Zuev's own conjecture about the link between 屈射 Qūshè & Turkic yüz er; because they superficially sound similar?); the ethnonym's pronunciation would have been in Middle Chinese (Karlgren) *kʰi̯uət̚-d͡ʑʰi̯aH. 屈射 had already been attested in Sima Qian's Shiji, 屈射's pronunciation would have been: in Later Han Chinese *kʰut-źa(k) ~ *kʰut-ja(k) and in Old Chinese *khut-mlak (Schuessler 2007). Citing Schuessler (2007) may appear unfair to Zuev (who'd passed away in 2005), yet Zuev should have known that languages change overt ime & 屈射's pronunciation in Late Han Chinese would be far phonetically different from Mandarin.Erminwin (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)