Emergence of a New Written Culture:
The use of Hebrew script among the Krimchaks
and the Karaim
Zsuzsanna Olach
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
University of Szeged
Abstract. Conversion to a religion usually has a positive impact on the written culture
of a given community. The conversion may or may not result in the adoption of a new
writing system. In the Turkic world, we find examples for both cases. The Karaims,
by their conversion into Karaitism, adopted the Hebrew script. They used the Hebrew
alphabet up till the beginning of the 20th century in their everyday life for writing; for
example, private letters and secular and religious texts in Karaim.
Another Turkic speaking group, the heterogeneous Rabbanite community of Krimchaks
(whose majority is of Sephardic origin) also used the Hebrew script to write their
vernacular.
Some characteristics of the writing systems of the Karaim and of the Krimchaks have
been described, but no comparative research has thus far been carried out. In this study,
the peculiarities of the Hebrew alphabet used by both Turkic speaking peoples will be
discussed and illustrated. For instance, the new characters, which were introduced in
order to indicate specific Turkic phonetic values, and the ways the same Hebrew vowel
sign or letter is used in the different Krimchak and Karaim manuscripts.
Cultures can be classified based on actions taken to reproduce culture through the
generations. There are cultures in which the knowledge of one’s ancestors is passed
down through rites; i.e., the repetition of the rites is the main component in the
reproduction of the culture. In other cultures, knowledge is preserved in sacred texts;
i.e., interpretations of the canonical texts are the foundations of cultural cohesion
(Assmann 1999, 87–91).
Judaism falls under the latter type. In 70 CE, the Second Temple was destroyed
in Jerusalem; i.e., the place where the rites could have been repeated disappeared.
Since then, the holy text, the Hebrew Bible, has been the transmitter of the ancient
traditions in Judaism. The language and the script of the Hebrew Bible, therefore, are
both considered sacred.
The content of this article was presented at the Baltic Alliance for Asian Studies (BAAS) Conference
2014 held in Vilnius (Lithuania) between April 3 and 4, 2014. I am indebted to Professor Tapani Harviainen and Professor András Róna-Tas for their beneficial comments and suggestions.
I S S N 2 4 2 4 - 6 0 2 6 . AC TA O R I E N TA L I A V I L N E N S I A 1 3 ( 2 0 1 6 ) : 6 1 – 7 8
62
ZSUZSANNA OLACH
This paper discusses the way in which Judaism reached the Turkic peoples and
the effects it had on their culture. Examples will also be provided to illustrate how the
Hebrew script was used by the Turkic peoples.
Since Karaim is the most documented extant Turkic language to have used the
Hebrew script and the Karaim are the only Turkic group still practising their ancient
faith, the paper will mainly focus on the characteristics and the history of the Hebrew
script used by the Karaim. A discussion of the history of the Hebrew script in general
and its use among the Karaim in particular will shed light on the possible reasons for
the use of certain vowel signs and letters in Karaim texts and of the disappearance of
the Hebrew script from the Karaim communities.
Judaism among the Turkic peoples
Although Judaism has not been a prevalent religion among the Turkic-speaking
peoples, both mainstream Judaism and Karaitism have been represented by some
Kipchak Turkic groups. In the late eighth and early ninth centuries, the ruling
house of the Khazar Kaghanate converted to Judaism, most probably to Rabbinic
Judaism (Golden 1998, 223). Khazars were a Turkic people with their empire in the
territory of the North Caucasus and the lower Volga delta between the seventh and
ninth centuries (Golden 1980, 58–67). Since the sources written by the Khazars are
very limited (see Golden 1980, 121–2), the Hebrew script used by them will not be
covered in the paper.
The Krimchaks were also followers of Rabbinic Judaism. Jews migrated from
the Byzantine Empire to the Crimea in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Sephardic
Jews who migrated to the Crimean Kaghanate in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries
and Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe together compose the Krimchak nation.
Their language and culture has almost disappeared since World War II; now the
traditional Krimchak lifestyle is only exemplified by Krimchak cuisine and feasts.
The Krimchak community has dispersed throughout the world: a few hundred
Krimchaks live still in the Crimea; the rest have settled in Russia, Ukraine, Israel
and the USA (Kizilov 2009, 68).
Karaitism is represented by the Karaim of Eastern Europe. The Karaim have
three main communities: the Crimean, Halich and Trakai Karaim communities.
Linguistically, Karaim is considered a highly endangered language, since only its
Trakai variety is spoken and the other two varieties, the Halich and Crimean varieties,
can be regarded as extinct.1 The religion of the Karaim is based on Karaitism,
1 Speakers of Crimean Karaim shifted to Crimean Tatar in the nineteenth century (Jankowski
2003, 123). The Halich Karaim variety is spoken by a few elderly ladies (Csató 2002, 135). The
Trakai variety has, however, approximately 50 speakers (Csató 2006, 395).
E M E R G E N C E O F A N E W W R I T T E N C U LT U R E
63
which was influenced by Islam early on and later by Christianity (Zajączkowski
1961, 28–29).2
The main difference between Rabbinic Judaism and Karaitism lies in the
recognition of the post-biblical traditions. Karaite Judaism, which arose in the ninth
century in present-day Iraq, only accepts the Tanakh and excludes the Mishna, the
Talmud and the rabbinic traditions (Nemoy 1978, 603–4).
The circumstances and the date of the Krimchaks’ conversion to Rabbinic Judaism
and that of the Karaim to Karaitism are unknown (Golden 1998, 222–3; Polinsky
1991, 123).
The history of the Hebrew script3
In Judaism, the Hebrew language is considered the medium of the sacred text, and
therefore the language itself is also regarded as holy (Weitzman 2001, 71). For writing
in Hebrew, the Phoenician-based palaeo-Hebrew script was first used up to the third
century BCE, when it was altered by the Aramaic script. The Aramaic script had been
used for secular purposes before the third century, but after that the new script was
also employed for Torah scrolls, i.e., for religious purposes (Birnbaum 1954–7, 70–5;
Yardeni 2002, 44–50). By that time, the general Aramaic script had become modified.
This script, which is called Square Hebrew, spread in all Jewish communities and
became the standard for Jewish book hand. The structural development of Square
Hebrew ended around the tenth century (Birnbaum 1954–7, 174).
Vocalisation was introduced in the late seventh and early eighth century CE. Of
the three main vocalisation types—Palestinian, Babylonian and Tiberian—only the
Tiberian type is still in use (Gaur 2001, 222–3; Yardeni 2002, 93–5).4
Religions, as well as the alphabets used for sacred texts are, in general, considered
conservative. So what might account for the substitution of the palaeo-Hebrew script
with the Aramaic script used for the Scriptures? Birnbaum claims that the change
was introduced by religious leaders. The shift was motivated by a desire to separate
from the Samaritans, or as Epiphanius (ca. 315–403) puts it, “in order that the seed
of Abraham should thereby be distinguished from the rest of the nation”. The sources
usually name Ezra as the person who carried out the substitution of the script, meaning
that the change took place between 458/7 and 428/7 BCE (Birnbaum 1954–7, 74–5).
2 The Karaim reject any definition which binds them or their religion to Judaism. See more on
this question and on their religion in Harviainen 2003b.
3 The term “Hebrew script” in Hebrew (ktb ʻbry) means the palaeo-Hebrew script (Birnbaum
1954–7, 126). The term used in this paper refers to the script mentioned as ʼswrit in the Talmudic
sources, i.e. a modified version of the Aramaic script (see the discussion).
4 For more about the different types of vowel marks, see Diringer (1953, 264–6).
64
ZSUZSANNA OLACH
In the Middle Ages, cursive hands also developed from Square Hebrew. In the
beginning, the cursive hand was not really different from Square Hebrew but seemed
much more like a simplified Square. The first cursive written documents occurred
in the eleventh century, but Birnbaum assumes that this form of writing had evolved
long before (Birnbaum 1954–7, 176).
Furthermore, in the course of time, with the spread of Judaism, not only cursive
hands emerged, but also different types of Hebrew scripts, e.g., the Negeb script, the
Ashkenazic and Karaitic types.
No uniform Karaitic type of writing exists, but different types that developed
regionally out of Jewish types can be observed. The first Karaite manuscripts—from
Egypt—show similarities with the writings of the local (Rabbinic) Jewish type. Even
later, when the differences are more significant, the Rabbinic influence can still be
detected. The Karaitic types of Hebrew script can be classified as Southern Karaitic,
Yevano-Karaitic, Northern Karaitic and Parso-Karaitic (Birnbaum 1954–7, 312–6).
The Karaim manuscripts represent the Northern Karaitic type, which derived
from the Yevano-Karaitic type in the Crimean region. However, the influence of
the Ashkenazic type is noticeable, especially in sources written with cursive script
(Birnbaum 1954–7, 316).
Main characteristics of the Hebrew script
used by the Turkic peoples
The communities of the Karaim and Krimchaks used Hebrew script to write down
their own Turkic vernacular. Although the basis for the orthography of both Turkicspeaking groups is the same, i.e., the Hebrew alphabet, differences in the use of the
Hebrew characters can be observed. In the following, I will demonstrate how the
Hebrew script was used in the different Turkic communities: differences, regularities
and exceptional cases will be illustrated.5
Sources used for the investigation
The following Karaim sources were used for the present examination: Halich Karaim
poems published by Grzegorzewski (1903 and 1917); a Halich Karaim translation of
biblical texts published by Olach (2013); partial texts published by Kowalski in 1929;
a Trakai Karaim translation of the Book of Proverbs published by Firkovičius (2000);
5 In this article, the description of the Hebrew sciprt is based on the Tiberian tradition. Besides
certain links to the Tiberian tradition, the pronunciation of Hebrew among Karaim shows traces of
the Sephardic tradition as well, see more in Harviainen 2013b, 453–7. In the future, the connection
between the pronunciation of Hebrew and the use of Hebrew script for writing Turkic must be studied in details.
E M E R G E N C E O F A N E W W R I T T E N C U LT U R E
65
a translation of Psalm 91 into Trakai Karaim published by Csató (2011); Crimean
Karaim religious texts published by Sulimowicz (1972) and Jankowski (1997), and
private letters in Lutsk Karaim published by Németh (2011).
The Halich Karaim religious poems published by Jan Grzegorzewski in 1903 were
written in the nineteenth century. The authors of the poems are Abraham Leonowicz,
Josef Mordkowicz and Jakob Josef Leonowicz (Grzegorzweski 1903, 72–3). The two
poems published in Język łach-karaitów were written by Josef Ben Jeshua and Josef
ben Shemuel in the seventeenth century (Grzegorzewski 1917, 25, 30).
The Halich Karaim translation of the biblical texts published by Olach forms
parts of a family bible which is in the possession of the Abrahamovich family, who
originally lived in Halich. It is handwritten and contains the Five Books of Moses and
the Haphtarot, the reading portions from the writings of the prophets on Sabbaths and
feasts (Olach 2013, 10–2).
Some fragments of Karaim Bible translations written in the Hebrew script were
published by Kowalski: the beginning of Genesis from a manuscript written in 1723
in Deraźnia; fragments of the Book of Job: a fragment in Trakai Karaim translated
by Zacharja Mickiewicz in 1904, another fragment in Trakai Karaim translation
published by Radloff, a further portion in Trakai Karaim translated by Pinachas
Malecki, a fragment in Halich Karaim translated by Josef Mordkowicz between 1824
and 1830, and a portion translated into Crimean Karaim, quoted from the Gözleve
Bible (1841); fragments of translations of the Song of Songs in Halich Karaim and in
a Crimean Karaim translation of the Gözleve edition (1929, 282–9).
Short parts of four different Trakai Karaim translations of the Lamentations were
presented by Zajączkowski (1932). One of the translations was made by Izajasz
Rojecki in 1848, the other was created in 1860 by Levisz Ławrecki, and another one
was composed by Jozef Łobanos in 1929. No author and date of the fourth translation
is known (Zajączkowski 1932, 183, 186–7).
The translation of the Book of Proverbs from Hebrew into Trakai Karaim was
compiled in 1798 by Shelumiel, the son of the aged priest Shemuel, in Salocius,
Lithuania. According to Firkovičius, it is unclear whether the text was originally
translated by him or whether it was only a rewritten version of an earlier translation
(2000, 169–70).
Csató published the Trakai Karaim translation of Psalm 91 (2011). The manuscript
is kept at the Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences.
Prayers translated into Crimean Karaim were published by Sulimowicz in
1972. Besides the Karaim texts in transcription, the article contains the copy of the
manuscript as well (Sulimowicz 1972, 65–76).
Jankowski published the Crimean Karaim translation of the following biblical
texts: Genesis 1:1–18; 6:9–18; 17:8–19; Deuteronomy 32:1–51; Lamentations 4:11–
66
ZSUZSANNA OLACH
15, 21. The manuscript of these texts is kept in the Rylands Library collection in
Manchester. Jankowski published the texts with a transliteration and transcription,
using a transliteration system that makes it possible to reconstruct the Hebrew
orthography (1997).
Two fragments of prayers for the Day of Atonement translated into Lutsk Karaim
were published by Jankowski (2011). The prayers were composed of biblical
quotations in 1940; and the manuscripts were kept in the National Museum in
Halich (Jankowski 2011, 158). Copies of the manuscripts are attached to the article
(Jankowski 2011, 166–7).
Letters and circulars written in Lutsk Karaim were published by Németh (2011).6
Most of the 16 letters were written in the nineteenth century; only three of them were
penned in the early twentieth century. Out of the 16 letters, six are vocalised and four
are partly vocalised (Németh 2011).
As for Krimchak, there were only a limited amount of texts written in the Hebrew
script at my disposal. All the features demonstrated in the following are based on the
short texts published by Ianbay (2000) and the description given by Chernin (1988).
Furthermore, I used Erdal and Ianbay’s publications, in which they provide an account
of the use of the Hebrew script in the Book of Ruth (1998) and the Book of Miracles
and Wonders (2000).
Ianbay (2000) discusses the orthographic features of Krimchak translations of the
books of later prophets, namely the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos,
Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, and presents the beginnings and the ends of each book
in Hebrew script. Examples will be quoted from Ianbay’s article (2000) and from the
Book of Ruth (Ianbay, Erdal 1998).
Vocalisation
Biblical Hebrew distinguishes between reduced, short, changeable long and
unchangeable long vowels, which are clearly indicated through the use of different
vowel signs and their combinations (see the table below (Lambdin 1971, xiii–xxv)).
The Krimchak and the Karaim sound system, however, only contain short vowels
(Polinsky 1991, 133; Pritsak 1959, 327). Therefore, naturally, the quality of the Hebrew
vowel signs does not overlap the quality of the Krimchak and Karaim vowel signs.
In vocalised Krimchak texts, the front and back labial vowels, i.e., o ~ ö and u ~ ü
are not distinguished (Erdal, Ianbay 2000, 41). The Hebrew combination ḥṓlem +
6 It must be noted that the Lutsk Karaim letters are different from the rest of the documents
used in the present study by being secular texts (private letters).
E M E R G E N C E O F A N E W W R I T T E N C U LT U R E
67
Ta bl e 1. Hebrew orthography
Hebrew orthography
páṯaḥ ַ
qā́meṣ ָ
səḡōl ֶ
ṣērê ֵ
hîreq ִ
ḥṓlem ֺ
qibbûṣ ֻ
Value of the vowel in Hebrew7
short a
changeable long a
short e (open)
changeable long e (closed)
short i
changeable long o
short u
Combinations with yōḏ ‫י‬
səḡōl combined with a yōḏ ‫ֶי‬
unchangeable long e (open)
unchangeable long e (closed)
ṣērê + yōḏ ‫ֵי‬
hîreq combined with yōḏ ִ ‫י‬
unchangeable long i
ḥṓlem + wāw ‫וֹ‬
šûreq ‫וּ‬
Combinations with wāw ‫ו‬
unchangeable long o
unchangeable long u
Reduced vowels
ḥāṭēp̄ páṯaḥ ֲ
ḥāṭēp̄ səḡōl ֱ
šəwā
reduced a
reduced e
reduced vowel
wāw is used to represent o and ö, whereas šûreq denotes u and ü,7e.g., ‫אֶנּול׳גֹוּכ‬
‫כּוֹג׳לוּנֶא‬
köŋlüne8 ʻto her heartʼ, ‫ןָל׳גֹוא‬
‫ בּוּלָאײ‬bulay ʻthus, this wayʼ (Ianbay,
‫ אוֹג׳לָן‬oγlan ʻboyʼ and ‫ײאָלּוּב‬
Erdal 1998, 7, 13).9
As for Karaim, we must consider the phonetic differences between the Karaim
varieties. In modern Halich and Lutsk Karaim, due to the change ö > e, ü > i, there are
no front labial vowels represented, e.g., ‫צְניִציִא‬
‫ אִיצִינְצִי‬icinci ‘third’ < üčünčü ʻthirdʼ in Halich
Karaim (Pritsak 1959, 327; Olach 2013, 24), ‫יִנְריֵלְזיֵס‬
‫ סֵיזְלֵי ְרנִי‬sezłerńi ‘words (ACC)’
10
< sözlerni ‘words (ACC)’ (Németh 2011, 372). In the Crimean Karaim translation
7 The value of Hebrew vowels can change according to stress patterns; see, for instance, the
rules of vowel reduction (Lambdin 1971, xix–xx). For more, see the chapter “Sound and spelling” in
Lambdin 1971, xv–xxviii.
8 Since the use of the Hebrew script is discussed in the present study, in the quoted examples,
the original transcription systems used by the different authors were maintained, except in the case
of Halich Karaim and those texts which have no transcription at all.
9 In the fragments published by Ianbay, the quality of labials are not plainly marked, e.g. ‫ סוז‬söz
‘word’, ‫םיִרַלְטְסוד‬
‫ כורגון‬körgün ‘look!’, ‫ בו‬bu ‘this’ (2000, 8–9).
‫ דו ְס ְט ַלרִים‬dostlarïm ‘my friends’, ‫ןוגרוכ‬
10 The present study focuses on the orthographic features of manuscripts written in modern
Karaim varieties. Thus, the characteristics of manuscripts written earlier and / or in the period of
transition, i.e. before and during of ö > e and ü > i started to operate, will not be discussed here.
68
ZSUZSANNA OLACH
of biblical texts published by Jankowski, the distinction is not indicated in the nonvocalised parts; i.e., wāw is used to represent the vowels o, ö, u and ü. In vocalised
vowel sign ḥṓtexts,
lem or
by ḥṓ lem + wāw, whereas šûreq indicates the vowels u and ü (Jankowski
however, the vowels o and ö are signified by the Hebrew vowel sign ḥṓlem or by
+ wāw,
whereas
šûreqforʼ
indicates
the vowels
ü (Jankowski
4, 6), e.g.,
1997, 4, 6), ḥṓlem
e.g., ‫אוּצוּן‬
üčün
ʻbecause,
(Kowalski
1929,u and
287),
‫ בוֹשַ טְ לִ יקְ לַר‬1997,
bošatłyqłar
‫ אוּצוּן‬üčün ʻbecause, forʼ (Kowalski 1929, 287), ‫ֹוב‬
‫רַלְקיִלְטְַקשלַר‬bošatłyqłar
‫בוֹש ְטלִי‬
ַ
‫ןּוצּוא‬
‘remissions’,
‫ּולּוק‬
of’,of’,
‫הַמּורּוי‬
júrúmá
‘to‘to
walk’
‘remissions’, ‫ימיזְנִ י‬
ִ ִ‫ כוֹגְ ל‬kóŋlimizni ‘our
‘our heart
heart(ACC)’,
(ACC)’,‫קוּלוּ‬
‫קוּלוּ‬qułu
qułu‘slave
‘slave
‫ה‬
ַ‫יוּרוּמ‬
júrúmá
‫יוּרוּמַה‬
(Sulimowicz 1972, 65).
walk’ (Sulimowicz
1972,Karaim
65). has a well-developed set of signs for indicating the distinction.
Trakai
In vocalised texts, the Hebrew vowel sign combination ḥṓlem + wāw is the usual
Trakai Karaim has a well-developed set of signs for indicating the distinction. In vocalised
notation for the vowel o and šûreq represents the vowel u. Trakai Karaim uses
vowelvowel
sign sign
combinations
withḥṓyōḏ
front
labial
vowels.
the vowel
texts, the Hebrew
combination
lemto+ indicate
wāw is the
usual
notation
forThus,
the vowel
o
ö is written with yōḏ + ḥṓlem + wāw, and yōḏ + šûreq signifies the vowel ü, e.g.,
and šûreq represents
vowel u. Trakai
Karaim
uses
combinations
with2011,
yōḏ to
‫ַיה‬
ְ‫לַיגַיסִינ‬the
‫ כיוֹ‬kölägäsindä
‫ֹויכ‬
‫היַדְניִסיַגיַדל‬
ʻin its
shadowʼ
andvowel
küčlü
ʻstrongʼ (Csató
15).
‫ּוילְצצליּויכוּ‬
ְ ‫כיוּ‬sign
indicate front labial vowels.
therepresentation
vowel ö is written
yōḏin+Krimchak
ḥṓ lem +and
wāw,
and yōḏ +
Ta bl eThus,
2 . The
of labialwith
vowels
Karaim
šûreq signifies the
vowel ü, e.g., Value
‫ַיסינְ דַ יה‬
ִ ‫ כיוֹלַיג‬kölägäsindäCrimean
ʻin its shadowʼ
‫ כיוּצְ ליוּ‬küčlü
Hebrew
Trakai andHalich
Lutsk
of the vowel
Krimchak
Karaim
Karaim Karaim Karaim
in Hebrew
ʻstrongʼ (Csató 2011, 15).
ḥṓlem ֺ
changeable long o
–
o, ö
o
o
o
qibbûṣ ֻ
short u
u
–
u
u
u
Combinations with wāw ‫ו‬
unchangeable
Table 2. The representation
of
labial
vowels
in
Krimchak
and o,Karaim
ḥṓlem + wāw ‫וֹ‬
o, ö
ö
o
o
o
long o
unchangeable
Hebrew
Value
of the
Krimchak u,Crimean
šûreq
‫וּ‬
ü
u, Trakai
ü
u Halich u Lutsk u
long u
Combinations with yōḏ ‫י‬
orthography vowel in
Karaim
Karaim Karaim Karaim
ḥṓlem + wāw +
–
–
–
ö
–
–
yōḏ
Hebrew
šûreq + yōḏ
–
–
–
ü
–
–
orthography
ḥṓ lem ֺ
changeable
–
o, ö
o
o
o
The case of the vowels a, e and ä is rather complicated. In Krimchak, the vowel a
longbyo either the vowel sign páṯaḥ or the vowel sign qā́meṣ in vocalised texts,
is indicated
e.g., ‫ ַור‬var ʻthere is/areʼ, ‫ןָצאָק‬
‫ַש ַלרִים‬
ְ ‫ַק ְרד‬
‫ קָאצָן‬qačan ʻwhenʼ (Ianbay, Erdal 1998, 6, 10) and ‫םיִרַלְשַדְרַק‬
qibbûṣ ֻ qardašlarïm
short‘my
u brothers’ (Ianbay
u
– The vowelusign combination
u
u + ‘ā́lep̄
2000, 8).
qā́meṣ
‫בָּארָאבּ‬
‫ וָאר‬var ʻthere is/areʼ (Ianbay,
occurs as well, e.g., ‫ָאר‬
‫ראָּבאָראָּב‬barabar
ʻtogetherʼ and ‫ראָו‬
Erdal 1998, 6). In the translation of the Book of Ruth, the open ä is written with the
vowel sign
səḡōl, whereas
closed
e is signified by the vowel sign ṣērê, e.g., ‫א׳ֶגֵג‬
‫גֵגֶ׳א‬
Combinations
withthe
wāw
‫ו‬
geǧä ʻnightʼ (Erdal, Ianbay 2000, 41; Ianbay, Erdal 1998, 6).11 In Krimchak prayers,
ḥṓ lem + wāw unchangeable
o, ö
o, ö
o
o
o
‫וֹ‬
šûreq ‫וּ‬
11 In the Book of Ruth, Erdal and Ianbay only use e in the transcription; however, the idea that
the two different
long ovowel signs, ṣērê and səḡōl, represent probable phonetic differences is introduced
(1998, 6).
unchangeable
long u
u, ü
u, ü
u
u
u
E M E R G E N C E O F A N E W W R I T T E N C U LT U R E
69
also used in the first syllable in the Crimean Karaim praye
‫ גֶ ְלדִי‬geldi ‘(they) came’
Ianbay does not distinguish ä and e in her transcription, see ‫יִדְלֶג‬
written with səḡōl and ‫אַדְנִלֵא‬
his hand’ written
with ṣērê.(Sulimowicz
Consider also1972,
the 66). Just
‫ ֵא ִלנְדַא‬elinde ‘in
deliligimiz
‘our madness’
use of páṯaḥ for writing e-sound in ‫אַדְנִלֵא‬
elinde ‘in his hand’. Further examples:
‫ֵא ִלנְד‬Crimean
also used in the first syllable in‫ַא‬
the
Karaim prayers, e.g., ‫ סֶ נִ י‬seni ‘you (ACC)’, ‫ז‬
indicated
by(Ianbay
the vowel
sign
e.g., ‫ מֵ נְדַ ן‬mendän ʻfrom
‫םיַלְײֵא‬
eyleyim
‘I
shall
do’,
‫אַזיִס‬
size
‘to
you
(PL)’
2000,
8). pa
The
combination
‫ַא‬
‫ז‬
‫ִי‬
‫ס‬
‫ֵא ְײלַים‬
́ ṯaḥ,
also
used
in
the
first
syllable
in the Crimea
ṣērê +deliligimiz
yōḏ is used‘our
as well,
e.g., ‫יִצְטַעַריֵש‬
ʻjudgeʼ
Erdal
‫(צִי‬Sulimowicz
‫ ֵשי ַר ַע ְט‬šeraatči
madness’
1972,
66). (Ianbay,
Just like
the 1998,
vowel6),a, the vowel
1929, 287), ‫ בִ לָן‬bilán ‘with’, ‫ אֵ ִשטְ מַ ִדכ‬eśitmádik ‘we didn’
‫ַר‬
‫ אֵיג‬eger ‘if’ (Ianbay 2000, 8).
‫רַגיֵא‬
deliligimiz ‘our madness’ (Sulimowicz 1
by the
voweltexts,
sign only
pá ṯaḥ,
‫ מֵ נְדַ ן‬mendän
ʻfrom
meʼoccurs
in theinBook
In indicated
the Crimean
Karaim
thee.g.,
Hebrew
vowel sign
ṣērê
the of Job (Kow
1972, 65). In final position, the vowel ä is written either
vocalised parts, and it represents the vowel e in the first
syllable.
ṣērê,
thepá ṯaḥ, e.g., ‫דַ ן‬
indicated
by Besides
the vowel
sign
1929, 287), ‫ בִ לָן‬bilán ‘with’, ‫ אֵ ִשטְ מַ ִדכ‬eśitmádik ‘we didn’t hear’ in the prayers
(Sulimo
vowel sign səḡōl is also used in the first
syllable
in
the
Crimean
Karaim
prayers,
e.g.,
sign pá ṯaḥ/qā́ meṣ and ‘ā́ lep̄ , e.g., ‫ ֵּכצַ א‬kečä ʻnightʼ (Kowal
1929,
287), ‫ לָן‬1972,
ִ‫ ב‬bilán66).
‘with’,
‫ אֵ ִש‬eśitm
‘you65).
(ACC)’,‫ז‬
‘our madness’
(Sulimowicz
Just ‫טְ מַ ִדכ‬of
aim prayers, e.g., ‫יִנֶס‬
‫ סֶֶסנִני‬seni
‘you
(ACC)’,
‫ גִ ִמז‬position,
ִ‫ דֶ לִ ל‬deliligimiz
‫ִי‬
1972,
In final
the vowel
ä is written
either with
the combination
the v
word
‫ כוֹכְ גָא‬kókgá
‘to the
sky’;
with pá ṯaḥ/qā́ meṣ
like the vowel a, the vowel ä is indicated
byof’,
the vowel
sign páṯaḥ,
e.g.,
‫ןַדְנֵמ‬
‫ ֵמנְדַן‬ormendän
1972, 65). In final position, the vowel ä i
66). Just like theʻfrom
vowel
the
vowel
ä is
meʼa,
in
Book
of Job
(Kowalski
1929,
‘with’, ‫כִדַמְטִשֵא‬
‫לָן‬ʻnightʼ
‫ ִב‬bilán (Kowalski
‫ְט ַמדִכ‬1929,
‫ֵש‬
ִ ‫ א‬eśitmádik
sign
pathe
meṣ
and
‘ā́ lep̄ , e.g.,
‫ּכֵצַ א‬287),
kečä‫ןָלִב‬
287), ‫ סוֹזִינַא‬śóziná ‘t
́ ṯaḥ/qā́
‫ַה‬
‫ג‬
‫ז‬
ְ
‫י‬
ִ‫ב‬
bizgá
‘to
us’,
‫ָה‬
‫ג‬
‫ז‬
ְ
‫י‬
ִ‫ב‬
bizgá
‘to
us’
(Sulimowicz
1972, 65
‘we didn’t hear’ in the prayers (Sulimowicz 1972, 65). In
final
theand
vowel
ä is
sign
páposition,
ṯaḥ/qā́ meṣ
‘ā́ lep̄
, e.g., ‫ ֵּכצַ א‬kečä
dän ʻfrom meʼ in the Book
of
Job
(Kowalski
word
of’,
‫גָא‬the
ְ‫ כוֹכ‬combination
kókgá ‘to the
or with
pá ṯaḥ/qā́ meṣand
+ hē,
e.g.,
‫יוּרוּמַ ה‬
‘to w
written
either
with
of sky’;
the vowel
sign páṯaḥ/qā́meṣ
‘ā́lep̄,
e.g.,
‫אַצֵּכ‬
‫ ֵכּ‬júrúmá
The vowel a is generally indicated with‫צַא‬the
Hebrew vow
ʻnightʼ
(Kowalski 1929, 287), ‫ַא‬
‫אַניִזנֹוס‬
word of’, ‫ כוֹכְ גָא‬kókgá
kókgá ‘to
‫ סוֹזִי‬śóziná ‘to theword
‘to the
the sky’; or wit
‘we didn’t hear’ kečä
in the
‫גַה‬prayers
‫ בִ י ְז‬bizgá(Sulimowicz
‘to us’, ‫ בִ י ְזגָה‬bizgá ‘to us’ (Sulimowicz 1972, 65–6).
‫ַה‬
‫ג‬
ְ
‫ז‬
‫ִי‬
‫ב‬
‫ָה‬
ֿ
‫ְג‬
‫ז‬
‫ ַיזִיקְ לִ יבִי‬jazyqły ‘
sky’; or with páṯaḥ/qā́meṣ + hē, e.g., ‫ַה‬
‫רמּוי‬ʻtheir
‫יוּרוּּו‬
‫ הַמ‬júrúmá
walk’, ‫הַגְזיִב‬
bizgá ‘to
us’, 287),
‫הָֿגְזיִב‬
fathers‘to(ACC)ʼ
(Kowalski
1929,
‫ַה‬
‫ג‬
‫ז‬
ְ
‫י‬
ִ‫ב‬
bizgá
‘to
us’,
‫ָה‬
‫ג‬
‫ז‬
ְ
‫י‬
ִ‫ב‬
bizgá
‘to us’ (Sulim
en either with the
combination
of the vowel
bizgá
‘to The
us’ (Sulimowicz
1972, 65–6).
vowel a is generally
indicated with the Hebrew vowel sign pá ṯaḥ, e.g., ‫ אַ טַ ל ִַרין‬ata
(Sulimowicz
sign com
‫ַלרִין‬vowel
‫אַ ַט‬
The vowel a is generally indicated our
withfathers’
the Hebrew
vowel sign1972,
páṯaḥ,65).
e.g.,The
‫ןיִרַלַטַא‬
The vowel a is generally indicated with
tʼ (Kowalski 1929, 287), ‫ סוֹזִינַא‬śóziná ‘to the
ʻtheir
fathers
(ACC)ʼ
287), ‫ִי‬
‫ ַייַזזִיִיקְְקלִלי‬jazyqły
ִ ‫ אַ טַ ל ִַר‬atalarymyzny
atalarïn
ʻtheir
fathers
(ACC)ʼ(Kowalski
(Kowalski1929,
1929, 287),
‫יִלְקיִזַי‬
jazyqły ‘sinful’,
‘sinful’, ‫ימזְנִג‬
‘ā́ lep̄ is used, in general, in final position, e.g., ‫למַ מַ קַ א‬
atalarymyznyŋ
‘of our
fathers’ (Sulimowicz 1972, 65).ʻtheir
The vowel
combination
fatherssign
(ACC)ʼ
(Kowalski 1929, 287
ḥ/qā́ meṣ + hē, e.g.,
‫ יוּרוּמַ ה‬júrúmá
‘to walk’,
our
fathers’
(Sulimowicz
1972,
65).
The
vowel
sign
combination
pa
+‫‘ ק‬ā́ lep̄ or qā́ m
páṯaḥ + ‘ā́lep̄ or qā́meṣ + ‘ā́lep̄ is used,
in
general,
in
final
position,
e.g.,
‫אַקַמַמְליִק‬
‫ַא‬
‫ ́ק‬ṯaḥ
‫ִי ְל ַמ ַמ‬
(Sulimowicz 1972, 65). Rarely, the combination
qā́ meṣ +
our fathers’
(Sulimowicz
1972, 65). The
the combination
qā́meṣ
z 1972, 65–6). qyłmama(q)qa ‘for not doing’ (Sulimowicz 1972, 65). Rarely,
‘ā́ lep̄ is used, in general, in final position, e.g., ‫ קִ ילְ מַ מַ קַ א‬qyłmama(q)qa ‘for not d
+ hē occurs in back words in final position,
ałdyŋah ‘in
‘in front
front of
ofyou’
you’ (ibid.).
position,e.g.,
e.g., ‫ אַ לְ ִדגָה‬ałdyŋah
‘ā́ lep̄ is used, in general, in final posit
ebrew vowel sign(ibid.).
pá ṯaḥ, e.g., ‫ אַ טַ ל ִַרין‬atalarïn
(Sulimowicz 1972, 65). Rarely, the combination qā́ meṣ + hē occurs in back words in
Similarly,
in the Trakai
Similarly, in the Trakai Karaim sources,
the opposition
of the Karaim
vowels esources,
and ä isthe opposition
(Sulimowicz 1972, 65). Rarely, the comb
‫ י‬jazyqły ‘sinful’, ‫ימזְנִג‬
ִ ‫ אַ טַ ל ִַר‬atalarymyznyŋ ‘of
position,
‫ אַ לְ ִדג‬ałdyŋah
‘in front of you’
(ibid.).
signified
by ṣērêe.g.,
and‫ָה‬páṯaḥ,
but in combination
with yōḏ,
i.e., ṣērê + yōḏ indicate the
by ṣērê and pá ṯaḥ, but in combination with yōḏ, i.e., ṣē
vowel
e
and
páṯaḥ
+
yōḏ
represent
the
vowel
ä,
e.g.,
‫ןיִנאיַציֵכ‬
nightʼ‘in front of yo
‫ִין‬
‫נ‬
‫ַיא‬
‫ כֵיצ‬kečänin
sign combination pá ṯaḥ + ‘ā́ lep̄ or qā́ meṣ +
position,
e.g., ‫גָה‬ʻof
‫ אַ לְ ִד‬the
ałdyŋah
Similarly,
in
the
Trakai
Karaim
sources,
the
opposition
of
the
vowels
e and ä is sign
from Psalm 91 (Csató 2011, 15). Further
vowels
combinations,
e.g.,ä,ṣērê,
pá ṯaḥ
+ yōḏand
represent
the vowel
e.g.,səḡōl
‫ כֵיצַ יאנִ ין‬kečänin ʻ
g., ‫ קִ ילְ מַ מַ קַ א‬qyłmama(q)qa
‘for are
notonly
doing’
Similarly, in the Trakai Karaim source
and səḡōl + yōḏ,
used sporadically.
by ṣērê and pá ṯaḥ, but in combination with yōḏ, i.e., ṣērê + yōḏ indicate the vowel e
2011,in 15).
Further
vowels
and combinations,
The vowel sign páṯaḥ is usually used
Trakai
Karaim
to indicate
the vowel a, e.g., ṣērê, sə
n qā́ meṣ + hē occurs in back words in final
by
ṣērê
and
pa
ṯaḥ,
but in combination w
́
e.g., ‫ַא‬
mai̭+a yōḏ
ʻto meʼ
in the Book
of Jobä,translated
(Kowalski
‫ ַ́מי‬ṯaḥ
pa
represent
the vowel
e.g., ‫יאנִ ין‬by
ַ‫כֵיצ‬Pinachas
kečänin Malecki
ʻof the nightʼ
from Psalm 91 (C
sporadically.
1929,
285).
The
Hebrew
vowel
sign
qā́meṣ
occurs
rarely,
often
next
to
the
consonant
d.).
pá ṯaḥ + yōḏ represent the vowel ä, e.g., ‫ין‬
Further
vowels
e.g.,
ṣērê,
y, e.g.,2011,
janijdan
ʻfrom
yourand
sideʼcombinations,
in Psalm 91 (Csató
2011,səḡōl
15). and səḡōl + yōḏ, are only
‫ָײנִ ְײדַן‬15).
The vowel sign pá ṯaḥ is usually used in Trakai Karaim
The Halich
sources display the greatest 2011,
variety15).
in Further
signifying
a- and
opposition of the vowels
e and äKaraim
is signified
vowels
and combinatio
sporadically.
e-sounds. The e-sounds are indicatedmai̭
with
the
following
Hebrew
vowel
signs
and
a ʻto meʼ in the Book of Job translated by Pinachas M
ḏ, i.e., ṣērê + yōḏ
indicate theṣērê,
vowel
e and
sporadically.
combinations:
səḡōl,
ṣērê
+
yōḏ
and
səḡōl in
+ Trakai
yōḏ.
Certain
tendencies
canthe
be vowel a, e.g
The vowel sign pá ṯaḥ is usually used
Karaim
to indicate
Hebrew
signcombinations.
qā́ meṣ occurs
rarely,
often next to th
observed in the use of the different vowel
signsvowel
and their
The
Hebrew
kečänin ʻof the nightʼ from Psalm 91 (Csató
The vowel sign pá ṯaḥ is usually used
vowelmai̭
signs
combined
areofthe
usual
forms used
for writingMalecki
e-sounds,(Kowalski
whereas 1929, 285).
a ʻto
meʼ inwith
the yōḏ
Book
Job
translated
by Pinachas
ʻfrom your sideʼ in Psalm 91 (Csató 2011, 15).
., ṣērê, səḡōl and səḡōl + yōḏ, are only used
mai̭ a ʻto meʼ in the Book of Job translate
Hebrew vowel sign qā́ meṣ occurs rarely, often next to the consonant y, e.g., ‫ ָײנִ ְײדַ ן‬jan
The Halich Karaim sources display the greatest variety
Hebrew vowel sign qā́ meṣ occurs rarely,
ʻfrom your sideʼ in Psalm 91 (Csató 2011, 15).
e-sounds are indicated with the following Hebrew vowels s
70
ZSUZSANNA OLACH
ṣērê and səḡōl without yōḏ only occur in certain lexical and grammatical forms, e.g.,
‫ כֵיצֵיא‬kece ‘night’, ‫ֵשי ְמלֶירִי ְמנִי‬
ִ ‫ ר‬reśimlerimni ‘my statues (ACC)’ and ‫ ֶטנְרִי‬tenri ʻGodʼ
(Olach 2013, 31–7). The vowel sign páṯaḥ is not used to represent the vowel ä.
The vowel signs and their combinations ṣērê, səḡōl, ṣērê + yōḏ and səḡōl + yōḏ
occur in vocalised texts written in Lutsk Karaim. The vowel e is usually signified by
the vowel sign ṣērê or ṣērê + yōḏ, e.g., ‫ זֵרֵט‬zeret ‘cemetery’ and ‫ נֵיצֵי‬nece ʻseveralʼ
(Németh 2011, 378), ‫ אִיזְֵלנִיז‬izleniz ‘seek! (PL)’, ‫ פִֿיכִי ְר ֵלרִים‬fikirlerim ‘my thoughts’
(Jankowski 2011, 166). The vowel sign səḡōl and the vowel sign combination səḡōl +
yōḏ are only used in a few words: ‫ ֶטנְרִי‬tenri ʻGodʼ, ‫ עֶשוֹוי ְצכֵי‬Ešwowičke ʻto Ešwowičʼ
and ‫ כֶי ְל ֶמ ְײדִי‬ḱełmejđi ʻit has not comeʼ (Németh 2011, 378, 384, 397). In the Lutsk
Karaim prayers, the use of səḡōl and səḡōl + yōḏ is not exceptional: ‫ אֶי ְק ֶט ְמלִיק‬ektemlik
‘pride’, ‫ִיװ ֶר ְטסֵן‬
ְ ‫ א‬iwretsen ‘if you teach’, ‫ סֶינְדֵידִיר‬sendedir ‘is in You’ (Jankowski
2011, 166–7).
The graphic representations of a-sounds show great variation in both Halich
Karaim and Lutsk Karaim materials: páṯaḥ, páṯaḥ + ‘ā́lep̄, qā́meṣ and qā́meṣ + ‘ā́lep̄,
Ta bl e 3. The representation of a-sounds and e-sounds
Hebrew
orthography
páṯaḥ ַ
qā́meṣ ָ
səḡōl ֶ
ṣērê ֵ
Value of the
vowel in
Hebrew
short a
changeable
long a
short e (open)
changeable
long e (closed)
Krimchaks
Crimean
Karaim
Trakai
Karaim
Halich
Karaim
Lutsk
Karaim
a
a, ä
a
a
a
a, o
a, ä
a
a
a
ä
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
Combinations with yōḏ ‫י‬
səḡōl + yōḏ ‫ֶי‬
ṣērê + yōḏ ‫ֵי‬
unchangeable
long e (open)
unchangeable
long e (closed)
páṯaḥ + yōḏ
páṯaḥ + ‘ā́lep̄
‫ַא‬
–
qā́meṣ + ‘ā́lep̄
‫ָא‬
–
–
–
e
e
e
e
–
e
e
e
–
–
ä
–
–
a
a
a
a
a
a
Combinations with ‘ā́lep̄ ‫א‬
–
(only
–
in final
position)
–
(only
a
in final
position)
position)
The graphic representations of a-sounds
show great variation in both
E M E R G E N C E O F A N E W W R I T T E N C U LT U R E
71
Lutsk Karaim materials: pá ṯaḥ, pá ṯaḥ + ‘ā́ lep̄ , qā́ meṣ and qā́ meṣ + ‘ā
In Hebrew,
the vowel‘let
signthem
hîreq
signifies
the
short‘soul’
i, whereas
the combination
of hî
qozlasïnlar
teem’
and ‫אן‬
ָ‫ צ‬dzan
in Halich
Karaim (Olach
20
e.g., ‫ קוֹזְַלסִינְלָר‬qozlasïnlar ‘let them teem’ and ‫ צָאן‬dzan ‘soul’ in Halich Karaim (Olach
indicates
the
long villageʼ
i. Sinceand
no long
vowels
in Krimchak
and 20
Ka
2013, 24–31)
as wellas
as‫ ן‬unchangeable
saładanʻfrom
ʻfrom
villageʼ
bołhajexist
ʻshould
beʼ
ָ‫ָןָד‬
‫ַס ָסַלדל‬saładan
‫בוֹלְ גַאײ‬
bołhaj
ʻshould
beʼ (Németh
(Németh 2011, 380, 381). The vowel sign páṯaḥ is the most used variant. It seems
two forms
represent
no
distinction
inrepresent
length.
On
theItofother
hand,
Turkic lan
vowel
sign
isposition
the most
used variant.
seems
that as
the
w
́ ṯaḥ
that the allographs
with
‘ā́lep̄
in pa
medial
a kind
prominence
ininallographs
certain words.
general, front
i and
back ï are
distinguished
in spoken
languages.
position
represent
a kind
of prominence
in certain
words. So the question
In Hebrew, the vowel sign hîreq signifies the short i, whereas the combination
of hîreq +the
yōḏtwo
indicates
unchangeable
long i.and
Since
no long
vowels exist
in
types ofthe
i-sounds
in Krimchak
Karaim
manuscripts
correspond
to the tw
Krimchak and Karaim, the two forms represent no distinction in length. On the
other hand,forms
as in Turkic
languages
ininvestigation
general, front
ia-sounds
and back
ï aree-sounds
distinguished
in written fo
in Table
Hebrew?
The
shows
that
the different
3. The
representation
ofclearly
and
spoken languages. So the question arises: do the two types of i-sounds in Krimchak
represent
graphic
variants. Even
therewritten
are twoforms
ways in
of writing
i-sounds, the di
and Karaim
manuscripts
correspond
to theif two
Hebrew?theThe
investigation clearly shows that the different written forms only represent graphic
of these do not correspond to the possible distribution of the front i and back ï, e.g., ‫ּכ‬
variants. Even if there are two ways of writing the i-sounds, the distribution of these
do not correspond
possible
and back(Ianbay,
ï, e.g., ‫ִיכּ‬
‫ כִּיבּ‬1998, 7, 1
ʻlikeʼ, ‫יט‬toִ‫ ִײג‬the
yigit
ʻyoungdistribution
manʼ andof‫יץ‬the
ִ‫ קִ יל‬front
qïlïč i ʻswordʼ
Erdal
kibik ʻlikeʼ, ‫ ִײגִיט‬yigit ʻyoung manʼ and ‫ קִילִיץ‬qïlïč ʻswordʼ (Ianbay, Erdal 1998, 7,
14
10), ‫ִאגְלַײם‬iglayïm
iglayïm‘I‘I shall
shall cry’, ‫ ִא ְשלַריג׳יז‬išleriŋiz
išleriŋiz ‘your
‘your works’,
‫דוסטְְס ְלט ִַל‬
‫דו‬
works’,‫ִים‬
‫ַררים‬
ְ dostlarïm
dostlarïm ‘my friend
‘my friends’, ‫ בִיר‬bir ‘one’ in Krimchak (Ianbay 2000, 8–9); ‫ גִיבִּי‬gibi ʻlikeʼ and ‫אַ ַט ַלרִין‬
‘one’fathers
in Krimchak
8–9);
‫ גִ יּבִ י‬gibi
ʻlikeʼ
‫ אַ טַ ל‬atalarïn ʻthe
‫ִַרכיןִיבִיכ‬kibik
atalarïn ʻtheir
(ACC)ʼ in(Ianbay
Crimean2000,
Karaim
(Kowalski
1929,
287);and
ʻlikeʼ and ‫ אָ ָט ָלרִין‬atałaryn ʻtheir fathers (ACC)ʼ in Trakai Karaim (Kowalski 1929,
(ACC)ʼ in Crimean Karaim (Kowalski 1929, 287); ‫ כִ יבִ יכ‬kibik ʻlikeʼ and ‫ אָ טָ ָל ִרין‬atała
285); ‫ִיװ ְלדִילֶיר‬
ִ ‫ ט‬tiwildiler ‘they are not’, ‫ ַק ִטנְגָא‬qatïnġa ‘to the woman’, ‫ אִיצִינְצִי‬icinci
‘third’ and fathers
‘wein
went
out’ in
Halich (Kowalski
Karaim (Olach
2013,
24);‫ֶיר‬
and
‫ צִי ְקטִיק‬cïqtïq
‫ב‬
(ACC)ʼ
Trakai
Karaim
1929,
285);
‫ִי ִדיל‬
ְ‫יװצל‬
ִ ְ‫ֵישינ‬
ִ‫ ִט‬tiwildiler
‘they
beśińći ʻfifthʼ and ‫ קִירְק‬kyrk ʻfortyʼ in Lutsk Karaim (Németh 2011, 378).
‫ קַ טִ נְ גָא‬qatïnġa ‘to the woman’, ‫ ִאיצִ ינְ צִ י‬icinci ‘third’ and ‫ צִ יקְ טִ יק‬cïqtïq ‘we went out’
Consonants
Karaim (Olach 2013, 24); and ‫ישינְ צִ י‬
ִ ֵ‫ ב‬beśińći ʻfifthʼ and ‫ קִ ְירק‬kyrk ʻfortyʼ in Luts
Basically, the Krimchak and Karaim consonants in the manuscripts correspond to the
(Németh
2011, 378).
Hebrew originals.
Therefore,
I will not go into a detailed description of the manner in
which consonants are represented in Krimchak and Karaim here. Only a few special
features will be mentioned.
Hebrew offers an option to indicate fricative consonants. When a dot called
Consonants
a dagesh is used in a consonant letter, it means the consonant is pronounced as a
plosive, i.e., b, p, d, t, k and g. When the dot is missing, the pronunciation changes to
a fricative, i.e., v, f, δ, θ, χ and γ.
16
In Turkic manuscripts written with the Hebrew alphabet, the dagesh is usually not
used. However, it can be found in the Krimchak text published by Erdal and Ianbay
and in the Crimean Karaim text in the Gözleve edition, e.g., ‫ סוב‬suv ʻwaterʼ and
‫ַשקָא‬
ְ ‫ בּ‬bašqa ʻotherʼ in Krimchak (Ianbay, Erdal 1998, 10, 13) as well as ‫ קוּ ַבטִי‬kuwatï
ʻits strength’ and ‫ גִיבִּי‬gibi ‘like’ in Crimean Karaim (Kowalski 1929, 287). See also
the table of consonant letters used in the Book of Ruth in Erdal, Ianbay (1998, 14).
BookBook
of Ruth
in Erdal,
Ianbay
(1998,
14). 14).
of Ruth
in Erdal,
Ianbay
(1998,
Besides,
an apostrophe-like
markmark
called
a geresh
following
the consonant
is employed
in in
Besides,
an apostrophe-like
called
a geresh
following
the consonant
is employed
ZSUZSANNA OLACH
72
the Krimchak
textstexts
to and
indicate
the texts
fricatives
γ and
e.g.,
‫ָאגָ׳אנָא‬
‫ָ׳אנאַ ְז‬azγana
‘a little’
and and
are usually indicated
in Krimchak
with va and
short
line
the Krimchak
to Karaim
indicate
the fricatives
v χ,
and
χ, γ f,and
f, e.g.,
‫ אַ ְזג‬azγana
‘a little’
ִ ְ‫ פֶ׳נ‬use
ֶ‫ ִדיא‬efendi
‘mister,
sir’
(Ianbay,
ErdalErdal
1998,
13),
‫ לרי‬the
‫כ׳אן‬
‘the ‘the
kingskings
of’, ‫רמג׳א‬
‫( או‬baš)
led a rāp̄ eh.‫די‬Its
however,
rather
(see
below
ְ‫ פֶ׳נ‬is,
ֶ‫ א‬efendi
‘mister,
sir’ inconsistent
(Ianbay,
1998,
13),
‫ לרי‬xan-larï
‫ כ׳אן‬xan-larï
of’, ‫רמג׳א‬
‫( או‬baš)
Besides, an apostrophe-like mark called a geresh following the consonant is
employed
the Krimchak
texts
to‫סאפ׳אר‬
indicate
the fricatives
χ,written’
γ and
f, e.g.,
‫גָ׳אנָא‬2000,
ְ‫אַז‬5–6, 5–6,
urmaγa
‘forin‘for
bowing
down’,
‫סאפ׳אר‬
safarsafar
(etildi)
‘it was
written’
(Ianbay
2000,
9). The
s tasteʼ in Halich
Karaim).
urmaγa
bowing
down’,
(etildi)
‘itv and
was
(Ianbay
9). The
Fricative
azγana ‘a little’ and ‫ ֶאפֶ׳נְדִי‬efendi ‘mister, sir’ (Ianbay, Erdal 1998,
13), ‫לרי‬consonants
‫ כ׳אן‬xan- are usually ind
combined
the
letter
gîmel
denotes
also
the
nasal
e.g.,
‫‘ג׳‬itַ‫ ט‬taŋ
withconsonants
rāp̄ eh isgeresh
mainly
common
in‫אורמג׳א‬
Karaim
and
Krimchak
(bêṯ
+ texts
rāp̄
ehwith
geresh
combined
with
the
letter
gîmel
denotes
also
the ‫סאפ׳אר‬
nasal
sonorant
ŋ, e.g.,
‫‘ טַ ג׳‬dawn’
taŋ ‘dawn’
larï
‘the
kings
of’,with
urmaγa
‘for
bowing
down’,
safar
ive
are
usually
indicated
in (baš)
Krimchak
and
Karaim
asonorant
short
lineŋ,(etildi)
Fricative
consonants
are
usually called
indicated
in eh.
Kri
above
the
consonant
a rāp̄
nts
areare
usually
indicated
in
Krimchak
and
Karaim
texts
with
a
short
line
nants
usually
indicated
in
Krimchak
and
Karaim
texts
with
a
short
line
was written’ (Ianbay 2000, 5–6, 9). The geresh combined with the letter gîmel denotes
(Ianbay,
1998,
12),is,
‫ניג׳‬
‫ײג׳‬
(Ianbay
2000:2000:
6).
+ rāp̄ eh =
‫)פ‬,(Ianbay,
but Erdal
the
of however,
kap̄
+‫ײג׳‬
rāp̄iyeŋ-niŋ
eh ‘of
= ‫ֿכ‬the
can
onlyLord’,
be
Erdal
12),
‫ניג׳‬iyeŋ-niŋ
‘ofLord’,
the
(Ianbay
6).
eēhconsonant
called
rāp̄ combination
eh.
Its1998,
use
rather
inconsistent
(see
below
the
also thea nasal
sonorant
ŋ,
e.g.,
‘dawn’
(Ianbay,
Erdal
12), ‫ניג׳‬
‫ טַג׳‬taŋ
‫ ײג׳‬iyeŋ-niŋ
above
the 1998,
consonant
called
atatuwu
rāp̄ eh.ʻits
Itstasteʼ
use is,
indicated
Krimchak
Karaim
texts
with
a inconsistent
short
line
written
form
of
in how
Ha
called
a in
rāp̄
eh.eh.
Its Its
useand
is, is,
however,
rather
inconsistent
(see
below
the
ant
called
a rāp̄
use
however,
rather
(see
below
the
Fricative
d in Krimchak‘ofand
Karaim
texts with
a short
line consonants are usually indicated in Krimchak and Karaim te
the
Lord’,
(Ianbay
2000,
6).
A
further
feature
can
be
observed
in
Krimchak.
The
letter
gîmel
is
written
with
a
dot
to
Crimean
Karaim
and
Lutsk
Karaim
texts
to
indicate
fricative
χ,
e.g.,
A
further
feature
can
be
observed
in
Krimchak.
The
letter
gîmel
is
written
with
a
dot
to
orm of tatuwu ʻits tasteʼ in Halich Karaim).
written
form
of
tatuwu
ʻits
tasteʼ
in
Halich
Karaim).
h.uwu
use
is,
however,
rather
inconsistent
(see
below
the
A
further
feature
can
be
observed
in
Krimchak.
The
letter
gîmel
is
written
with
a
Fricative
consonants
are
usually
indicated
in
Krimchak
and
Karaim
texts
with
a
short
line
The
set
of
consonants
with
rāp̄
eh
is
u Its
ʻitsʻits
tasteʼ
in
Halich
Karaim).
tasteʼ in Halich Karaim).
is, however, rather inconsistent (seeabove
belowthetheconsonant called a rāp̄ eh. Its use is, however, rather inconsis
dot
to
indicate
the
affricate
ǰ,
e.g.,
ǰan
‘soul’
(Ianbay,
Erdal
1998,
indicate
the
affricate
ǰ,
e.g.,
‫ָן‬
‫ג‬
ֺ
ǰan
‘soul’
(Ianbay,
Erdal
1998,
11),
‫ו‬
ֺ‫קוײג‬
qoyju
‘herdman’
‘good’ (Sulimowicz
66),
χasta
ʻsickʼ
indicate
theis1972,
affricate
ǰ,‫ֿכאסטא‬
e.g., ‫ָן‬in
‫ ֺג‬ǰan
‘soul’
(Ianbay,
Erdal
11), ‫ קוײגֺ ו‬qoyju ‘herdman’
etyaχšy
of consonants
with
rāp̄ eh
mainly
common
Karaim
and(Németh
Krimchak
(bêṯ1998,
+ rāp̄ eh
The
set
of
consonants
with
eh‫ג‬,is(see
mainly
Halich
Karaim).
12
the
consonant
called
a
rāp̄
eh.
Its
use
is,
however,
rather
inconsistent
=
‫ֿב‬,
gîmel
+
rāp̄ rāp̄
eh =
pēh
+below
rāp̄comm
ehthe
=
ants
with
rāp̄rāp̄
eh
is above
mainly
common
in Karaim
and
Krimchak
(bêṯ
+
rāp̄
eh
onants
with
eh
is mainly
common
in
Karaim
and
Krimchak
(bêṯ
+
rāp̄
eh
‘herdman’
(Ianbay
2000,
6).
written form of tatuwu ʻits tasteʼ in Halich Karaim).
araim).
12 6).‫ין‬
2000,
6).
those
who
act’,
‫ָר‬
ִ
‫ל‬
‫יס‬
ְ
ִ‫ג‬
ָ‫ס‬
sahysłaryn
‘their
thoughts’
12
(Ianbay
2000,
elyłuwcułarha
+ rāp̄ eh =(Ianbay
‫ג‬,‘topēh
+
rāp̄
eh
=
‫)פ‬,
but
the
combination
of
kap̄
+
rāp̄
eh
=
‫ֿכ‬
can
only
be
Fricative consonants are usually indicated in= Krimchak
and
Karaim
texts+with
a = ‫)פ‬, but the co
‫ֿב‬,‫ ֿכ‬gîmel
+be
rāp̄
eh = ‫ג‬, in
pēh
rāp̄ eh
is
in‫)פ‬,
Karaim
and
Krimchak
(bêṯ
eheh
form
of tatuwu
ʻits
tasteʼ
Halich
Krimchak,
Crimean
Kara
‫ג‬,=mainly
pēh
+ rāp̄
eh eh
= written
‫)פ‬,
but
the
combination
of of
kap̄
+a+in
rāp̄
eh
=Its‫=ֿכ‬Karaim).
can
only
‫ג‬, pēh
+common
rāp̄
=line
but
the
kap̄
+rāp̄
rāp̄
can
only
be
seteh
of
consonants
with
rāp̄
ehobserved
is mainly
common
in Karaim
and
Kri
above
thecombination
consonant
rāp̄eh.
use
is,
however,
rather inconsistent
y common in short
Karaim
and
Krimchak
(bêṯThe
+ called
rāp̄
Certain
signs
only
occur
in
Krimchak
texts,
such
as
dā́
leṯ
+
rāp̄
eh
=
‫ֿד‬
in Krimchak,(see
Crimean
Karaim
and
Lutsk
Karaim
texts
to
indicate
fricative
χ,
e.g.,
below
the
written
form
of=with
tatuwu
ʻits
tasteʼ
in Halich
Karaim).
observed
in
Krimchak,
Crimean
Karaim
and+Lutsk
= Crimean
‫)פ‬,Crimean
but theKaraim
combination
+Karaim
rāp̄ eh
‫ֿכ‬tocan
only
The
setofLutsk
ofkap̄
consonants
rāp̄
eh eh
isbemainly
andcombination
Krimchak
(bêṯ
rāp̄
‫ָא‬in
‫ סָ=ג‬Karaim
‘to
you’,
‫ יַֿכְ ִשי‬yaχšy
‘good
k,
andand
Lutsk
Karaim
texts
indicate
fricative
e.g.,
chak,
Karaim
texts
to
indicate
χ,
e.g.,
=
‫ֿב‬,
gîmel
+ rāp̄
=
‫ג‬,fricative
pēhcommon
+χ,rāp̄
eh
‫)פ‬,saŋa
but the
of kap̄
+ eh
rā
t the combinationThe
of set
kap̄of+consonants
rāp̄ eh = ‫ ֿכ‬with
can
only
be
rāp̄eh
is
mainly
common
in
Karaim
and
Krimchak
(bêṯ
+
ea following
Hebrew
letters
with
rāp̄
eh
are
only
used
by
authors
in
the
‘to you’, ‫ יַֿכְ ִשי‬yaχšy ‘good’ (Sulimowicz 1972, 66), ‫ ֿכאסטא‬χasta ʻsickʼ (Németh
‫ָא‬but
‫סָ ג‬thethe
saŋa
‘to 2011,
you’, 382),
‫י‬kap̄
‫ש‬
ִ ְ‫יַֿכ‬kap̄
‘good’
raim
Lutsk
Karaim
texts++to
indicate
fricative
χ,
e.g.,
gîmel
rāp̄
eh1972,
=
‫ג‬, pēh
rāp̄Krimchak,
eh=
=‫)ֿפ‬,‫)פ‬,
combination
of
rāp̄
‫(ֿכ‬Sulimowicz
can to
only
be
rāp̄
e=
h(Sulimowicz
=‫ֿב‬,‫ֿב‬,
gîmel
rāp̄eh
=
++‫ֿכאסטא‬
rāp̄eh
but
combination
+yaχšy
=eh
‫= קִ ֿכ‬qyłuwcułarha
‫ָא‬rāp̄eh
‫ַרג‬+ְ ‫צוּל‬
ְ‫ילוּֿב‬
‫’י‬,
‫ ִשייַֿכְ ִש‬yaχšy
‘good’
1972,
66),
‫ֿכאסטא‬
χasta
ʻsickʼ
(Németh
ְ‫ַֿכ‬and
‫ י‬yaχšy
‘good’
(Sulimowicz
66),
χasta
ʻsickʼ
(Németh
observed
in
Crimean
Karaimofand
Lutsk
Karaim
texts
indic
d Lutsk Karaim texts to indicate fricative
χ, e.g.,
yin ‫ָא‬+‫ ְַרג‬rāp̄
‫ ז‬toonly
represent
ž‘toand
sā́
rāp̄ eh
indicate
be observed
inmeḵ
Krimchak,
Karaim ś,and
Lutsk
Karaim texts to
2),
‫ צוּל‬eh
ְ‫=ילוּֿב‬
ִ‫ק‬can
qyłuwcułarha
those
who+ act’,
‫ין‬Crimean
‫=ָר‬
ִ ‫יסל‬
ְ ‫ גִס‬to
ָ‫ ס‬sahysłaryn
‘their
thoughts’
2011,
382),
‫ָא‬indicates
‫(ג‬Jankowski
‫ל ְַר‬a‫צוּ‬labial
ְ‫ילוּֿב‬
ִ‫ק‬vowel
qyłuwcułarha
‘to
those
who
od’
1972,
66),
χasta
(Németh
observed
in‫ֿכאסטא‬
Krimchak,
Karaim
and
Lutsk
Karaim
texts
to
indicate
fricative
χ,
e.g.
12 Ianbay
transcribes
the
word
but
use
wāw
clearly
indicates
in final
12‘to
Ianbay
transcribes
the
word
as
but
theof
use
of
wāw
clearly
a labial
vowel
in position.
final
position.
2011,
166).
Certain
signs
o
‫ילוּֿבְי‬
ִ‫ ק‬qyłuwcułarha
those
who
act’,
‫ין‬as‫סָ ִָרג‬qoyji,
‫יסיןל‬
ְ Crimean
ִ‫יסג‬
ָ‫ ְס‬qoyji,
sahysłaryn
‘their
thoughts’
ִ‫(ק‬Sulimowicz
qyłuwcułarha
‘to
those
who
act’,
‫ָר‬
ִ ʻsickʼ
‫ל‬saŋa
ִ‫‘ג‬to
ָ‫ ס‬the
sahysłaryn
‘their
thoughts’
‫י‬
‫ְש‬
ִ
‫כֿ‬
ַ
‫י‬
indicate
fricative
χ,
e.g.,
saŋa
you’,
yaχšy
‘good’
(Sulimowicz
1972,
66),
‫ָא‬
‘to
you’,
‫ש‬
ִ
ְ‫ַֿכ‬
‫י‬
yaχšy
‘good’
(Sulimowicz
1972,
66),
‫ֿכאסטא‬
χa
mowicz 1972, 66), ‫ ֿכאסטא‬χasta ʻsickʼ (Németh
neʼ 2011,
and ‫יֿבײר‬
‫כֿאסטא ס‬
śiwer
ʻdear,
belovedʼ
(Németh
2011,
397,
376).
ski
166).
Certain
signs
only
occur
in
Krimchak
texts,
such
as
dā́
leṯ
+
rāp̄
eh
=
‫ֿד‬
χasta
(Németh 2011,
382),
‘to
those
who act’,
‫(בְֿצוּ ַל ְרגָא‬Jankowski
‫ קִילוּ‬qyłuwcułarha
166).
signs
only
occur inHK
a ‘to
thosesigns
who
act’,
‫ין‬saŋa
‫ִָר‬occur
‫ל‬ʻsickʼ
‫יס‬
ְ ִ‫ג‬in
ָ‫ ס‬sahysłaryn
thoughts’
‫גָא‬only
ָ‫ ס‬occur
‘to
‫ ִשי‬texts,
ְ‫‘יַֿכ‬their
yaχšy
‘good’
(Sulimowicz
1972,
66),
‫ֿכאסטא‬
χasta
tāw
+ Certain
rāp̄who
eh =
‫ֿת‬. The
6).
Certain
only
Krimchak
such
dāְ́‫ילוּֿב‬
leṯ
+qyłuwcułarha
rāp̄
eh eh
=2011,
‫=ֿד‬and
166).
Certain
signs
inyou’,
Krimchak
texts,
such
dā́
+ rāp̄
‫‘ ֿד‬to
2011,
382),
‫ָא‬
‫ַרג‬as
ְ ‫צוּל‬as
ִ‫ק‬leṯ
those
act’,
‫ין‬ʻsickʼ
‫ל ִָר‬following
‫יס‬
ְ ִ‫(סָ ג‬Németh
sahysła
172011,
17
sahysłaryn ‘their
thoughts’
(Jankowski
166). Certain
signs
only occur
ose who act’, ‫יסל ִָרין‬
ְ ִ‫ סָ ג‬sahysłaryn
‘their
thoughts’
eh eh
was= used
in following
masoretic Hebrew
and older
manuscripts,
andare
it is
stillused
usedby authors in the
+āp̄rāp̄
‫ֿת‬. The
letters
with rāp̄ eh
only
and
tāwwho
+ rāp̄eh
rāp̄
eh =
=
The
following
Hebrew
letters
in Hebrew
Krimchak
texts,
dā́leṯ
+
rāp̄eh
=
and
tāw
+
following
sThe
occur
in
Krimchak
texts,
such
asrāp̄
leṯare
rāp̄
ehused
= by
‫ ֿד‬by
2011,
382),
‫ָא‬with
‫ַרג‬
ְ ‫ל‬with
‫צוּ‬rāp̄
ְ‫ילוּֿב‬
ִ‫ק‬dā́
qyłuwcułarha
‘to
those
‫ֿתָרין‬.
ִ ‫ל‬Karaim
‫יס‬
ְ occur
ִ‫ סָ ג‬sahysłaryn
‘their
thoughts’
Lutsk
za
+
rāp̄
eh w
=
following
letters
eh
are
only
used
authors
in
the
‫ֿת‬.only
The
following
Hebrew
letters
eh
only
authors
inact’,
the
́ yin
(Jankowski
2011,
166).
Certain
signs
only
invariety:
Krimchak
texts,
such
ccur in Krimchak
texts,
such
as
dā́
leṯ
+
rāp̄
eh
=
‫ֿד‬
Hebrew
letters
with
rāp̄eh
are
only
used
by
authors
in
the
Lutsk
Karaim
variety:
záyin
+
sraim
which
were/are
characteristic
of
medieval
Hebrew
and
Yiddish
are
variety: zá yin + rāp̄ eh = ‫ ז‬to represent ž and sā́ meḵ + rāp̄ eh = ‫ ס‬to indicate ś,
Lutsk
Karaim
variety:
yinsuch
+ ʻno,
rāp̄
= ‫ז‬+to
Hebrew
ehrepresent
are2011,
only
by
in
́ žadnyj
166).
Certain
signs
only
in Krimchak
texts,
as eh
dā́
leṯ
rāp̄represen
eh
=us
rāp̄eh
žused
indicate
ś,ś,e.g.,
e.g.,
ʻno,
‫ז‬za
žadnyj
noneʼ
and
‫יֿבײר‬
‫ֿדס‬
: zá yin
+letters
rāp̄
ehwith
=(Jankowski
‫=ז‬rāp̄
to‫ ז‬to
represent
ž and
sā́sā́meḵ
meḵ
++
rāp̄
eh=the
=
to‫ס‬occur
indicate
ety:
zá yin
+ rāp̄
eh
represent
žand
and
sā́ authors
meḵ
+rāp̄eh
rāp̄
eh
to
indicate
ś, ‫אדנײ‬
and
tāw
rāp̄
eh
‫ֿת‬.‫=ס‬The
following
Hebrew
letters
with
rāp̄
eh are
only
letters with rāp̄ eh are only used by authors
in +the
,‫ ז‬double
wāw
and
double
yōḏ,
see
below.
śiwer ʻdear,
376).
žadnyj ʻno, noneʼ and ‫ סיֿבײר‬śiwer
ʻdear, belovedʼ
belovedʼ(Németh
(Németh2011,
2011,397,
397,
376).
e.g.,
‫ זאדנײ‬with
žadnyj
ʻno,
noneʼ
and
‫יֿבײר‬by
‫ ס‬śiwer
ʻdear,
b
hno,
= noneʼ
‫ ז‬toand
represent
ž‫ ס‬and
sā́+
meḵ
+
rāp̄
eh(Németh
=(Németh
‫ס‬following
to indicate
ś,397,
and
tāw
rāp̄belovedʼ
eh
= ‫ֿת‬.
The
Hebrew
letters
are
only
used
authors
the
The
mark
eh
use
noneʼ
‫יֿבײר‬
‫ס‬The
śiwer
ʻdear,
2011,
397,
376).
and
‫יֿבײר‬
śiwer
ʻdear,
belovedʼ
2011,
376).
diacritical
mark
rāp̄eh
was
used
in
masoretic
and
older
manuscripts,
and
Lutsk
Karaim
variety:
za
yin
+
rāp̄
ehrāp̄
=
‫ז‬eh
todiacritical
represent
ž andrāp̄
sā́
meḵwas
+inrāp̄
́
represent ž and sā́ meḵ + rāp̄ eh = ‫ ס‬to indicate ś,
ds showsmark
a number
variations.
In Turkic
texts,
single
andwere/are
double
iacritical
rāp̄
ehofwas
used
in masoretic
and
older
manuscripts,
and
it is still used
it belovedʼ
is still
used
in Yiddish.
Certain
letters
which
characteristic
of medieval
The
diacritical
mark
rāp̄
was
used
in
masoretic
‫ סי‬śiwer
(Németh
2011,
397,
376).
Lutsk
variety:
za
yin
+
rāp̄
eh
=
‫ז‬
to
represent
žinand
sā́ meḵ
+ehrāp̄
ehletters
= ‫ ס‬to
indicate
́
Yiddish.
Certain
which
wereś
rk
rāp̄rāp̄
ehʻdear,
waswas
used
in masoretic
and
older
manuscripts,
and
it
is
still
used
mark
eh
used
in Karaim
masoretic
and
older
manuscripts,
and
it
is
still
used
e.g.,
‫אדנײ‬
‫ז‬
žadnyj
ʻno,
noneʼ
and
‫יֿבײר‬
‫ס‬
śiwer
ʻdear,
belovedʼ
ʻdear, belovedʼ
(Németh
2011,
397,
376).
Hebrew and Yiddish are used in Turkic texts, e.g., double wāw and double yōḏ,
see (Németh 2011
and
bêṯ with
rāp̄ eh
are used
to represent
v-sounds,
e.g.,, inHebrew
Trakai and Yiddish are
h. Certain
letters
which
were/are
characteristic
of medieval
in
Yiddish.
Certain
letters
which
were/are
character
sed
inwhich
masoretic
and
and
it and
is Hebrew
still
used
below.
e.g.,older
‫אדנײ‬
‫ז‬manuscripts,
žadnyj ʻno,
noneʼ
‫יֿבײר‬
‫ס‬
śiwer
ʻdear,
belovedʼ
(Németh
2011,
used in
in
Turkic
texts,
e.g.,,
double
wāw
were/are
characteristic
of of
medieval
and
Yiddish
are
netters
letters
which
were/are
characteristic
medieval
Hebrew
and
are
The
diacritical mark rāp̄Yiddish
eh was
used
masoretic
and397,
older376).
manuscript
asoretic and olderThe
manuscripts,
and
it
is
still
used
writing
of
v-sounds
shows
a
number
of
variations.
In
Turkic
texts,
single
its
payment
(ACC)ʼ
and
‫צוּ‬
‫טוּרוּב‬
ְ
ְ‫אוֹל‬
olturuβču
ʻdwellerʼ
in
Psalm
91
urkic texts, e.g.,, double wāw and double yōḏ, see below.
used
inare
Turkic
texts,
e.g.,,
double
wāw
double
re/are
characteristic
of
medieval
Hebrew
and
Yiddish
areinrāp̄eh
The
diacritical
mark
rāp̄
was
masoretic
andto
older
manuscripts,
and and
it isshows
still used
The
writing
of v-sounds
a yō
n
e.g.,,
double
wāw
andand
double
yōḏ,
see
below.
s, e.g.,,
double
wāw
double
see
below.
and
double
wāw
andyōḏ,
the
letter
bêṯeh
and
bêṯused
with
used
represent
v-sounds,
Yiddish.
aracteristic of medieval Hebrew and in
Yiddish
areCertain letters which were/are characteristic of medieval Heb
ur
‘heavy’,
‫זוּן‬
‫װ‬
ְ
ַ‫א‬
awzun
‘its
mouth
(ACC)’
and
‫וּבוּ‬
‫ט‬
ַ‫ט‬
tatuwu
vs.
‫ֿבוּ‬
‫וּ‬
‫ט‬
ַ‫ט‬
‫ְטוּרוּבְצוּ‬
‫ אוֹל‬olturuβču
e.g., inshows
TrakaiaKaraim
payment
(ACC)ʼ
andand
writing of v-sounds
number‫ין‬of
In Turkic
texts,
single
double
‫ַיװ‬
ִ ‫ל‬variations.
‫ טיוֹ‬tölewin ʻits
The
writing
of medieval
v-sounds
showsbêṯ
a number
vari
w and double
yōḏ,
see
below.
innumber
Yiddish.
Certain
letters
which
were/are
characteristic
of
Hebrew
are
wāw
and
andYiddish
bêṯofwith
ounds
shows
a
number
of
variations.
In
Turkic
texts,
single
and
double
v-sounds
shows
a
of
variations.
In
Turkic
texts,
single
and
double
used
in
Turkic
texts,
e.g.,,
double
wāw
and
double
yōḏ,
seeand
below.
‘itsletter
mouth
ְ awzunthe
ouble yōḏ, seeʻdwellerʼ
below. in Psalm 91 (Csató 2011, 15); ‫ אַווּר‬awur ‘heavy’, ‫אַװזוּן‬
ich
(Olach
2013,
40);
and
‫ ילֵיװ‬used
ֵ‫ ט‬tełew
ʻpaymentʼ
and ‫ קַ רוּב‬e.g.,, in Trakai
theKaraim
letter bêṯ
and bêṯ
with
eh are
represent
v-sounds,
(ACC)’
and
vs.
tatuwu
‘its
taste’
in Halich
Karaim
(Olach
2013,
‫וּבוּ‬
‫טַט‬rāp̄tatuwu
‫וּבֿוּ‬double
‫טַט‬to
wāw
the Karaim
letter
bêṯ
bêṯ
with ʻits
rāp̄ eh
are use(
ofbêṯ
variations.
In
Turkic
texts,
single
and
double
used
Turkic
texts,
e.g.,,
wāw
and
double
yōḏ,
see
below.
‫ַיװין‬
ִ and
‫טיוֹל‬
tölewin
payment
bêṯ
andand
bêṯ
with
rāp̄
ehin
are
used
to to
represent
v-sounds,
e.g.,,
inand
Trakai
rnumber
bêṯ
with
rāp̄
eh
are
used
represent
v-sounds,
e.g.,,
in
Trakai
The
writing
of
v-sounds
shows
a
number
of
variations.
In Turkic
text
of variations.40);
In Turkic
texts,
single
and
double
and
tełew
ʻpaymentʼ
and
karuw
ʻanswerʼ
vs.
karuw
ʻanswerʼ
in
‫ֵיװ‬
‫ל‬
‫ֵי‬
‫ט‬
‫ַרוּב‬
‫ק‬
‫בֿ‬
‫קרו‬
in Lutsk
Karaim
(Németh
390).
Furthermore,
‫י‬karuw
‫ַיװ‬
ִ ‫ טיוֹל‬ʻanswerʼ
tölewin ʻits
payment
(ACC)ʼ
and ‫צוּ‬2011,
‫טוּרוּב‬
ְ
ְ‫אוֹל‬
olturuβču
ʻdwellerʼ in Psalm 91
Karaim
‫ַיװין‬
ִ ‫טיוֹל‬
ʻits payment
(ACC)ʼ
and ‫צוּ‬
hewin
rāp̄
are
used
to
represent
v-sounds,
e.g.,,
in Trakai
Lutsk
Karaim
(Németh
390).
Furthermore,
theof
combination
ofInthe
letter
bêṯ ‫ווּר‬
andsingle
The
writing
v-sounds
aʻdwellerʼ
number
variations.
Turkic
texts,
and
double
(Csató
2011,
‘heavy’,
win
ʻitseh
payment
(ACC)ʼ
and
‫טוּרוּבצוּ‬
ְ ‫צוּ‬of‫טוּרוּב‬
ְ‫אוֹל‬
olturuβču
Psalm
ʻits
payment
(ACC)ʼ
and
ְ 2011,
ְ‫אוֹל‬
olturuβču
in
Psalm
91tölewin
wāw
andshows
theʻdwellerʼ
letter
bêṯinand
bêṯ 91
with
rāp̄
eh
are 15);
used
toַ‫ א‬awur
represent
v-sou‫וּן‬
are used to represent v-sounds, e.g.,,
in Trakai
a
geresh
also
occurs
in
Krimchak,
e.g.,
aruvlan‘to
become
pure’
(Ianbay,
tter
bêṯ
and
a
geresh
also
occurs
in
Krimchak,
e.g.,,
-‫ַנ‬
‫ל‬
‫׳‬
ְ‫רוּב‬
ָ‫א‬
aruvlan011, 15); ‫ אַ ווּר‬awur ‘heavy’, ‫ אַ ְװזוּן‬awzun ‘its mouth (ACC)’ and ‫ טַ טוּבוּ‬tatuwu vs. ‫טַ טוּֿבוּ‬
2011,
‫‘אַ ווּר‬its
awur
‘heavy’,
‫זוּן‬
‫ אַ ְװ‬awzun
‘its(
t awur
(ACC)ʼ
andErdal
‫זוּןצוּ‬
‫טוּרוּב‬
ְ wāw
olturuβču
ʻdwellerʼ
Psalm
91
the
letter
bêṯ
andinbêṯ
with
ehʻits
are
used
represent
v-sounds,
e.g.,,
in Traka
tatuwu
taste’
Karaim
‫ווּרא‬
‘heavy’,
‫זוּןװ‬
ְ 1998,
ַ‫װא‬awzun
‘its‘its
mouth
(ACC)’
and
‫וּבוּ‬tölewin
‫וּבוּט‬
ַ‫ט‬rāp̄
vs.
‫טַֿבוּטוּֿבוּ‬15);
ַ‫ א‬awur
‘heavy’,
ְ ְ‫אוֹל‬
ַ‫א‬and
awzun
mouth
(ACC)’
‫ט‬tatuwu
ַ‫(ט‬Csató
tatuwu
vs.
‫וּ‬to
‫(טַ ט‬ACC)ʼ
13).
Karaim
‫ַיװ‬
ִ ‫ל‬and
‫טיוֹ‬
payment
and
‫טוּרוּבצוּ‬
ְ in Halich
ְ‫אוֹל‬
olturuβču
ʻd
ʼ and ‫טוּרוּבצוּ‬
ְ
ְ‫ אוֹל‬olturuβču
ʻdwellerʼ in
Psalm‫ין‬91
,tsErdal
13). Karaim (Olach 2013, 40); and ‫ טֵ ילֵיװ‬tełew ʻpaymentʼ and ‫קַ רוּב‬
taste’1998,
in Halich
‘its
in ʻanswerʼ
Halich Karaim
2013,
‫װזוּן‬
ְ ַ‫ א‬awzun
‘its (Olach
mouth
(ACC)’
and
‫וּבוּ‬word
‫ֵיװטַ ט‬tatuwu
vs.
‫ֿבוּ‬the
‫טוּ‬ʻpaymentʼ
ַ‫ ט‬tatuwu
Karaim
‫ין‬2013,
‫ַיװ‬
ִ ‫טיוֹל‬
tölewin
ʻits
(ACC)ʼ
and
‫צוּ‬
‫טוּרוּב‬
ְ taste’
ʻdwellerʼ
in Psalm
12
vs.
‫ֿב‬in‫(קרו‬Olach
karuw
ʻanswe
Halich
Karaim
40);
and
‫ל‬as
‫ י‬2011,
ֵ‫ט‬qoyji,
ʻpaymentʼ
‫רוּב‬
ַ‫ק‬karuw
in
Halich
Karaim
(Olach
40);
and
‫ֵיװ‬
‫ל‬payment
‫י‬tełew
ֵ‫ ט‬tełew
and
‫רוּב‬
ַ‫אוֹלְק‬
Ianbay2013,
transcribes
the
but
use
of wāw
clearly
indicates
a labial‘its
vowel
(Csató
15);
‫ווּר‬
ַ‫ א‬awur
‘heavy’,
‫זוּן‬
‫אַ ְװ‬olturuβču
awzun
mouth
(ACC)’
and91
‫בוּ‬
wzun ‘its mouth
(ACC)’
and
‫וּבוּ‬
‫ט‬
ַ‫ט‬
tatuwu
vs.
‫ֿבוּ‬
‫וּ‬
‫ט‬
ַ‫ט‬
final
position.
ins
palatised
consonants
due to Slavic
influence
1959,
328).
nswerʼ
vs. ‫קרוֿב‬
karuw ʻanswerʼ
in Lutsk
Karaim(Pritsak
(Németh
2011,
390). Furthermore,
ʻanswerʼ
‫ קרוֿב‬karuw
ʻanswerʼ
Lutsk
2013,
40);
and
‫ֵיװ‬
‫טֵ יל‬Karaim
tełew
ʻpaymentʼ
and
‫רוּב‬
ַ‫אַ ְק‬karuw
(Csató
2011,
15);
‫ווּר‬tatuwu
ַ‫ א‬awur
‘heavy’,
‫זוּן‬390).
‫װ‬
awzun
‘its mouth
(ACC)’
andof
‫וּבוּ‬
‫ טַ ט‬tatuwu
vs.
‫טוּֿבוּ‬K
thevs.
combination
the
letterinbêṯ
and
aַ‫ט‬
‫קרו‬
karuw
ʻanswerʼ
in
Lutsk
(Németh
2011,
390).
Furthermore,
. (Olach
‫קרוֿב‬
karuw
ʻanswerʼ
in
Lutsk
Karaim
(Németh
2011,
Furthermore,
‘its
2013, 40); and ‫ טֵ ילֵיװ‬tełew ʻpaymentʼ
and ‫רוּב‬
ַ‫ ק‬taste’ in Halich Karaim (Olach 2013, 40); and ‫ טֵ ילֵיװ‬tełew
e palatalised
systematically
represented
by yōḏ
ination
of the consonants
letter bêṯ andare
a geresh
also occurs
in Krimchak,
e.g.,,in-‫ אָ רוּבְ ׳לַנ‬aruvlanthe
combination
of
the
letter
bêṯ(Ianbay,
and a geresh
also
werʼ
in bêṯ
Lutsk
Karaim
(Németh
2011,
390).
Furthermore,
‘itsalso
taste’
inin
Halich
Karaim
(Olach
2013,
40);‘toand
‫לֵיװ‬Lutsk
‫ טֵ י‬pure’
tełew
ʻpaymentʼ
and
‫רוּב‬oַ‫ק‬
become
Erdal
1998,
ethe
letter
andand
a tatuwu
geresh
also
occurs
Krimchak,
e.g.,,
-‫ַנ‬
‫ל‬
‫׳‬
ְ‫רוּב‬
ָ‫א‬
aruvlanletter
bêṯ
a geresh
occurs
in
Krimchak,
e.g.,,
-‫ַנ‬
‫ל‬
‫׳‬
ְ‫רוּב‬
ָ‫ א‬aruvlankaruw ʻanswerʼ vs. ‫ קרוֿב‬karuw
ʻanswerʼ
in
Karaim
(Németh
2011
Lutsk Karaim (Németh 2011, 390). Furthermore,
me pure’ (Ianbay, Erdal 1998, 13).
E M E R G E N C E O F A N E W W R I T T E N C U LT U R E
73
Spoken Karaim contains palatalised consonants due to Slavic influence (Pritsak
1959, 328). According to Pritsak, the palatalised consonants are systematically
represented by yōḏ in Trakai Karaim and partly in Halich Karaim texts (Pritsak 1959,
326). If we consider how the examples provided by Pritsak are written in the Trakai
Karaim translation of the Book of Proverbs, we see the following:13
Ta bl e 4. The function of the Hebrew letter yōḏ in Trakai Karaim texts
Words in Pritsak’s transcription
d’äyiń ʻuntil, tillʼ
Words occurring in the Book of Proverbs
‫ֵד ִײן‬
üśt’uńa ʻontoʼ
‫איוּסְטיוּנַיא‬
öź ʻselfʼ
‫איוֹז‬
It is clear that there is no yōḏ following the consonant z in öź ʻselfʼ, after the
consonant s in üśt’uńa ʻontoʼ or after the consonant n in d’äyiń ʻuntil, tillʼ. This means
that the palatalisation is not indicated in the text or only partly. If the yōḏ does not
indicate palatalisation, then it functions as a part of the vowel; i.e., the yōḏ is the
element of the vowel sign combination that represents ä in d’äyiń ʻuntil, tillʼ, it is part
of the vowel ö in öź ʻselfʼ, and it forms part of the vowel ü in üśt’uńa ʻontoʼ. If the
yōḏ functions to indicate palatalisation, it is not indicated consistently in the Karaim
texts. The most obvious case can be observed in Lutsk Karaim materials, where yōḏ
serves a clear palatalisation function; however, it occurs only once in the word ʻGodʼ
in letter no. 5: ‫ טֵינְירִי‬teńri ʻGodʼ (Németh 2011, 377). In Halich Karaim texts, the
palatalisation is not indicated at all.
History of the Hebrew script
among the Turkic peoples
The notion that conversion to a religion results in the establishment of the alphabet of
that particular religion is generally accepted. Since there is no written historical evidence
for a conversion to Judaism among the Turkic-speaking peoples, no circumstances of
the introduction of the Hebrew script into the Turkic groups are known.
However, it is not only the lack of historical sources that poses challenges in the
study of the Turkic-Hebrew script, but also, for example, in the case of the Krimchaks,
the shortage of materials published in their language and of scholarly studies on the
use of the Hebrew script in it. It is thus an important task to locate additional sources
and make them available for future investigations into the Krimchak language and
orthography.
13
Examples were taken from Pritsak 1959, 332–3.
74
ZSUZSANNA OLACH
The history of the Hebrew script used in Turkic-speaking groups is much better
documented in the Karaim communities; i.e., the most publications in the Hebrew
script are available in Karaim and it is the changes in the orthography used by the
Karaim that can best be examined. Therefore, in the following, I describe the history
of Karaim orthography and the key factors that shaped its development.
In the Middle Ages and up to the beginning of the nationalist movements in the
nineteenth century, the collective identity was usually based on religion, e.g., the
self-identification of the Krimchaks was yehudi ʻJewsʼ or srel balalarï ʻchildren of
Israelʼ until the end of the nineteenth century, when they started to call themselves
Krimchaks (Zand, Kharuv 2007, 357). Similarly to the Krimchaks, the Karaim used
religion-based terms for themselves, such as yehudim ʻJewsʼ or yehudim qaraʼim
ʻKaraim Jewsʼ (Harviainen 2003a, 642).
Certain changes in Karaim self-identification ensued in the early nineteenth
century after most of the Karaim communities fell under the control of the Russian
Empire with the partition of Poland in 1772, 1793 and 1795.
In 1795, the Crimean Karaim sent a delegation to St Petersburg to request an
exemption from the double taxation levied on Jews in the Russian Empire. Claiming
that they were Karaites, they succeeded in persuading the Russian authorities to
exempt the Karaim from paying double taxes (Harviainen 2003a, 648).
In 1827, the Karaim again sent a delegation to St. Petersburg to be released from
the military service expected of Jews in return for paying a special tax. The process
continued with the official separation from the administrative bodies of the Rabbanite
Jews in 1837 with the establishment of the Karaim Spiritual Consistory (Harviainen
2003a, 649).
The nationalist movement in nineteenth-century Europe also influenced the
Karaim movement,14 as captured in their desire to seek out their origins, which
prompted them to turn to their Turkic roots and to strengthen their Turkic selfidentification. Shifting from a religious minority to an ethnic minority caused many
changes, for instance, in their attitude to the Karaim language. Soon the Karaim started
to publish in their vernacular, e.g., Zemerler, a collection of Karaim canonical and
semi-canonical poetry and the literary almanac Onarmach ʻDevelopment, Successʼ.15
Moreover, their Karaim language was introduced into the ceremonies held in kenesa,
the house of prayer (Harviainen 2003a, 650).
The growing gap between Rabbanite Jews and the Karaim and the change in selfidentification and attitude towards the Karaim language also caused changes in their
attitude towards the Hebrew script that the Karaim had used for centuries.
14
Harviainen calls this period “Emancipation” (2003a, 648–51).
For publications in Karaim language, see Walfish (2003). For a periodisation of Karaim literature, see Shapira (2003, 665–6).
15
E M E R G E N C E O F A N E W W R I T T E N C U LT U R E
75
First, the Crimean Karaim community switched from the Hebrew orthography.
They shifted from Karaim to Crimean Tatar—and also to Russian—during the
nineteenth century. They had therefore lost their ability to read the Hebrew script by
that time. They also introduced the Cyrillic alphabet for writing Karaim texts (Csató,
Nathan 2007, 211). The first publication with the new alphabet was a book of poems
(Yrlar ʻPoemsʼ) written in 1904 by Kobiecki, a Russian officer of Karaim descent,
in the Trakai Karaim variety (Shapira 2003, 676). The new literacy tradition still
continues among the Karaim of Russia.
Halich and Trakai Karaim communities used Hebrew script up to Soviet times,
but they also developed a Latin script based on Polish orthography (Csató, Nathan
2007, 212). Among the first publications in this alphabet was a journal, the Karaj
awazy edited by Aleksander Mardkowicz from 1931 on, and a dictionary, the Karaj
sez-bitigi ʻKaraim Dictionaryʼ published also by Aleksander Mardkowicz in 1935.
World War II prompted new changes in Karaim orthography. Lithuania fell
under the supremacy of the Soviet Union, and thus the medium of education became
Lithuanian and Russian. Since then, the Trakai Karaim community started to use
Cyrillic orthography. In order to escape Russian control, many members of the Halich
Karaim community migrated from their homeland to Poland during the Soviet period
and continued to use the Polish-based Latin alphabet (Csató, Nathan 2007, 213).
The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in another change in the Karaim
orthography as the Lithuanian-based Latin orthography was created in the Karaim
community of newly independent Lithuania, e.g., Karaj koltchalary (ʻPrayers of
Karaimʼ) edited by Mykolas Firkovičius and published in 1993, Mień karajče
ürianiam (ʻI learn Karaimʼ) written by Mykolas Firkovičius and published in 1996.
Nowadays, the Karaim are not literate in the Hebrew script.
Conclusions
The history of the Karaim and the history of Karaim orthography show an interesting
parallelism with the European nationalist movements that started in the nineteenth
century. At the outset, the Karaim movement had a religious background, since the
desire to be dealt with separately from the Rabbanite Jews in the region motivated
the first actions.
Later, however, the movement entered the domain of ethnic issues. This was, on
the one hand, inspired by representatives of the Russian authorities who, in 1839,
put a number of questions related to the origins of the Karaim and their faith to the
Karaim Spiritual Consistory (Harviainen 2003c: 880). This change in the Karaim
movement was also the result of influence from the surrounding societies with whom
the Karaim had constant and close contact. As Harviainen states: “it would be a real
76
ZSUZSANNA OLACH
miracle if the Karaims … had remained untouched by other national movements [in
Europe—Zs. O.]” (2013a, 53).
Although the theory of a Khazar origin was first deeply investigated by Abraham
Firkowicz, who was entrusted by the Karaim to ascertain the answers to questions
from the Russian authorities, according to Troskovaite, it was Seraja Szapszal who
played the most important role in the formation of a pure Turkic self-identification
among the Karaim (2013, 217).
It is also remarkable how the orthography reflects a parallel history with Karaim
self-identification. As long as the Karaim regarded themselves as Karaite believers,
the Hebrew language and the Hebrew script played an almost exclusive role in
Karaim written culture. The strengthening of Turkic self-identification, however, had
a weakening effect on the importance of the Hebrew language and thus on the use of
the Hebrew script.
Nevertheless, it would be narrow-minded to disregard the role of contemporary
political and historical circumstances in the process of shifts in orthography. For
instance, the language, religion and minority policy of the Soviet Union contributed to
the disappearance of religious practice, e.g., among Krimchaks, and to the dispersion
of communities—including those of the Karaim. As a result, the Turkic vernacular
vanished among the Krimchaks and that of the Karaim has become extremely
endangered.
References
Assmann, Jan 1999. A kulturális emlékezet. Írás, emlékezés és politikai identitás a korai magaskultúrákban, trans. by Zoltán Hidas from German Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift,
Erinnerung und politische Identität in fr-hen Hochlulturen, Budapest: Atlantisz Könyvkiadó.
Birnbaum, Salomon A. 1954–7. The Hebrew script, Vol. 2: The plates, Leiden: Brill.
Chernin, Vladimir Yurevich 1988. “Krymčakskoe proiznošenie ivrita”, in Sinxronija i diaxronija v lingvističeskix issledovanijax, Vol. 2, ed. Vera I. Podlesskaya, Moskva: Akademija
Nauk SSSR, 166–74.
Csató, Éva Á. 2002. “The Karaim language in Halych”, in Halych Karaims: History and culture, Materials of International Conference, Halych, 6–9 September 2002, ed. Leonid
Novochat’ko, Oleksandr Fedoruk, O. Beregovśkij, Lviv, Halych: Vidavnictvo, 135–9.
——— 2006. “The smallest group of Turkic-speaking people”, in The Turkic speaking world.
2000 years of art and culture from Inner Asia to the Balkans, ed. Ergun Çagatay, Munich:
Prestel Verlag, 384–403.
——— 2011. “A typological coincidence: Word order properties in Trakai Karaim biblical
translations”, in Puzzles of language. Essays in honour of Karl Zimmer, Turcologica 86, ed.
Bengisu Rona, Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1–18.
Csató, Éva Ágnes, David Nathan 2007. “Multiliteracy, past and present, in the Karaim communities”, in Language Documentation and Description, Vol. 4, ed. Peter K. Austin, London:
Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project, 207–30.
E M E R G E N C E O F A N E W W R I T T E N C U LT U R E
77
Diringer, David 1953. The alphabet. A key to the history of mankind, Watford: William Brendon
& Son (first published in 1949).
Erdal, Marcel, Iala Ianbay 2000. “The Krimchak Book of Miracles and Wonders”, Mediterranean
Language Review 12: 39–141.
Firkovičius, Mykolas 1996. Mień karajče ürianiam, Vilnius: Danielius.
——— 2000. Šelomonun mašallary, Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları 771, Ankara: Ankara
Üniversitesi Basımevi.
Gaur, Albertine 2001. “Semitic scripts”, in Concise Encyclopedia of Language and Religion, ed.
John F.A. Sawyer, J. M.Y. Simpson, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 220–6.
Golden, Peter 1980. Khazar Studies. An Historico-Philological Inquiry into the Origins of the
Khazars, Vol. 1, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
——— 1998. “Religion among the Qıpčaqs of Medieval Eurasia”, Central Asiatic Journal 42:
180–237.
Grzegorzewski, Jan 1903. “Ein türk-tatarischer Dialekt in Galizien: Vokalharmonie in den
entlehnten Wörtern der karaitischen Sprache in Halicz”, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 146: 1–80.
——— 1917. “Caraimica: Jẹzyk Łach-Karaitów: Narzecze południowe (łucko-halickie)”,
Rocznik Orientalisticzny 1–2: 252–96.
Harviainen, Tapani 2003a. “The Karaites in Eastern Europe and the Crimea: An overview”, in
Karaite Judaism. A guide to its history and literary sources, Handbook of Oriental Studies
1: 73, ed. Meira Polliack, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 634–55.
——— 2003b. “The Karaites in contemporary Lithuania and the former USSR”, in Karaite
Judaism. A guide to its history and literary sources, Handbook of Oriental Studies 1: 73, ed.
Meira Polliack, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 827–54.
——— 2003c. “Abraham Firkovich”, in Karaite Judaism. A guide to its history and literary
sources, Handbook of Oriental Studies 1: 73, ed. Meira Polliack, Leiden, Boston: Brill,
875–92.
——— 2013a. “The rise of Karaim cultural nationalism”, Karaite Archives 1: 45–58.
——— 2013b. “Karaite pronunciation tradition: Modern”, in Encyclopedia of Hebrew language
and linguistics, Vol. 2, ed. Geoffrey Khan, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 453–7.
Ianbay, Iala 2000. “New data on the literature and culture of the Krimchaks”, Manuscripta
Orientalia 6, 4: 4–13.
Ianbay, Iala, Marcel Erdal 1998. “The Krymchak translation of a Targum Šeni of the Book of
Ruth”, Mediterranean Language Review 10: 1–53.
Jankowski, Henryk 1997. “A Bible translation into the Northern Crimean dialect of Karaim”,
Studia Orientalia 82: 1–84.
——— 2003. “On the language varieties of Karaims in the Crimea”, Studia Orientalia 95:
109–30.
——— 2011. “Two prayers for the Day of Atonement in translation into the Luck-Halicz
dialect of Karaim”, in Eastern European Karaites in the last generations, ed. Dan D. Y.
Shapira, Daniel Lasker, Golda Akhiezer, Mikhail Kizilov, Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute,
156–70.
Kizilov, Mikhail 2009. The Karaites of Galicia. An ethnoreligious minority among the Ashkenazim,
the Turks, and the Slavs, 1772–1945, Studia Judaeoslavica 1, Leiden, Boston: Brill.
Kowalski, Tadeusz 1929. Karaimische Texte im Dialekt von Troki, Kraków: Polska Akademja
Umiejętności.
78
ZSUZSANNA OLACH
Lambdin, Thomas O. 1971. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, New York: Darton Longman and
Todd.
Mardkowicz, Aleksander 1935. Karaj sez-bitigi. Słownik karaimski. Karaimisches Wörterbuch,
Łuck: Drukarnia Richtera.
Németh, Michał 2011. Unknown Lutsk Karaim letters in Hebrew script (19th–20th centuries).
A critical edition, Studia Turcologica Cracoviensia 12, Kraków: Jagiellonian University
Press.
Nemoy, Leon 1978. “Karaites”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 4, ed. Emeri van Donzel,
Bernard Lewis, Charles Pellat, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 603–8.
Olach, Zsuzsanna 2013. A Halich Karaim translation of Hebrew biblical texts, Turcologica 98,
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Polinsky, Maria S. 1991. “The Krymchaks: History and texts”, Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 63:
123–54.
Pritsak, Omeljan 1959. “Das Karaimische”, in Philologiae turcicae fundamenta, Vol. 1, ed.
Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel, Zeki Velidi Togan, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 318–40.
Róna-Tas, András 1998. “Turkic writing systems”, in The Turkic languages, ed. Lars Johanson,
Éva Á. Csató, London, New York: Routledge, 126–37.
Shapira, Dan 2003. “The Turkic languages and literatures of the East European Karaites”, in
Karaite Judaism. A guide to its history and literary sources, Handbook of Oriental Studies
1: 73, ed. Meira Polliack, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 657–707.
Sulimowicz, Józef 1972. “Materiał leksykalny krymskokaraimskiego zabytku językowego
(druk z 1734 r.)”, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 35: 37–76.
Troskovaite, Dovile 2013. “Identity in transition: The case of Polish Karaites in the first half of
the 20th century”, Codrul Cosminului 19, 2: 207–28.
Walfish, Barry D. 2003. “Karaite press and printing”, in Karaite Judaism. A guide to its history and literary sources, Handbook of Oriental Studies 1: 73, ed. Meira Polliack, Leiden,
Boston: Brill, 925–59.
Weitzman, Michael 2001. “Judaism”, in Concise Encyclopedia of Language and Religion, ed.
John F.A. Sawyer, J.M.Y. Simpson, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 68–72.
Yardeni, Ada 2002. The book of Hebrew script. History, palaeography, script styles, calligraphy
& design, London, New Castle: The British Library, Oak Knoll Press.
Zajączkowski, Ananiasz 1932. “Przekłady Trenów Jeremjasza w narzeczu trocko-karaimskiem”, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 8: 181–92.
——— 1934. “Przekłady Trenów Jeremjasza w narzeczu trocko-karaimskiem (tekst i
słowniczek)”, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 10: 158–77.
——— 1961. Karaims in Poland. History. Language. Folklore. Science, Warszawa: Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Zand, Michael, Dan Kharuv 2007. “Krimchaks”, in Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 12, 2nd ed., ed.
Fred Skolnik, Michael Berenbaum, Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 357–60.
Zsuzsanna Olach, Ph.D. ([email protected]), researcher, MTA-SZTE Turkological Research Group
*: Egyetem u. 2, 6722 Szeged, Hungary