歴史系総合

23 名前：名無しさん 投稿日：2005/11/20(日) 22:55:57 ID:LcCKZ1DE

1) Rašīdu-'d-Dīn (Blochet, II, 359, 1) names it [ペ] [ペ] Tīšī-ṭāīšī;
Mu'izz gives four wire to Tämür: [ペ] [ペ] Qūīk-tāišī
(cor. Qūng-tāīšī), [ペ] [ペ] (cor. [ペ] [ペ]) Ġōng-Tēmǖr, [ペ] Ṭīšwū
and [ペ] [ペ] Maqābīlān(?). Perhaps this last name represents an
original skr. *Mahābala? Does Yuan che quote *Däišū with ch. 21,
19b. [Tö-cheou, "Longevity virtuous", is a Chinese name; there are
three Tö-cheou different in only Yuan che (cf San che t'ong-ning lou,
33, 1a). Were the Mongols to return �ｺ tö by *däi, so that I would
restore the Mongolian name in the form *Däišū. I am of opinion of
reading it [ペ] of Rašīd like *Täīšī. But, in another passage of Rašīd
(Blochet, II, 584)), there are also lessons [ペ] and [ペ]. Lastly,
Mu'izz, of which the tradition is generally attached to that of
Rašīdu-'d-Dīn, written [ペ]; but the ṭ- of Rašī is often in value of
d-. I would read the form of Mu'izz *Däīšū, and would restore at Rašīd
[ペ] *Dǟīšī, if as well is as other mss. does not give by *Dǟīšū;
could the finale of the name pass to -ī under the influence of taiši =
太子 t'ai-tseu which accompanies it. *Qūik-tāiši of Mu'izz, to correct
in Qūng-tāīšī, can be only the result, houang-t'ai-tseu, >
mong. qong-taiši, carried by Tö-cheou. In writing 'phags-pa, �ｺ tö and
得 tö is transcribed dhiy, just as 特 t'ö is transcribed thiy (cf
Dragunov, in Izv. Ak. Nauk, 1930, 796). But these transcriptions
should not make us illusion; they represent a theoretical system which
is not that used actually done 特 t'ö are well employed for Däi in the
transcription of the name of Däí-Säčän (cf Yuan che, 118, 1a), and we
must wait just as �ｺ tö is returned into Persan by däi. Lastly,
Maqābīlān of Mu'izz, unknown of the Chinese texts, is also quoted by
Rašīdu-'d-Dīn. One finds it in Blochet, II, 359, 1, printed [ペ]
Maqābalīn, without indication of the lessons of the mss., but, with
the appendix, p.38, we learn that it "is restored" (up to what point?)
according to a passage of the city in note p.585; this note is
referred to the p.584^2, where Maqābalīn is indeed restored in the
text according to this passage of, and Blochet proposes to interpret
it by the sancrit Maqābalī, "Which has a great force", with one -n
final paragogic; it does not mention Maqābīlān of Mu'izz. In fact, in
Sankrit, the topic would be Mahābalin, and it is the personal singular
which is Mahābalī; it would thus not be necessary to utilize here the
so frequent paragogic Mongolian -n besides. T'ou Ki, 77, 1a-b,
compiled a short biography of Tö-cheou, -- P.P. ].

長くなったが、要するに Hambis は「徳寿」を中国名と解釈し、「徳」字に
Däi (=Dei) という音を与え、Deishu とする。モンゴル文字の綴りは deyišu
といったところか。モンゴルの皇族が中国名では不自然と思うが。