a north-western karaim manuscript found in lutsk – a case of dialect ...

Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 129 (2012)DOI 10.4467/20834624SL.12.010.0599MICHAŁ NÉMETHJagiellonian University, Cracowmichal.nemeth@gmail.comA NORTH-WESTERN KARAIM MANUSCRIPTFOUND IN LUTSK – A CASE OF DIALECT MINGLING?*Keywords: Karaim dialects, critical edition, dialect mingling, dialectal affiliationAbstractThe question of dialect mingling in Karaim has been raised by several authors. We knowthat there was continual contact between members of most Karaim communities duringat least the last three centuries, but we know little about the intensity of the discussedphenomenon. Manuscripts reflecting the spoken language serve as our only source ofknowledge. One must, however, be careful when editing them since not every manuscriptthat contains linguistic material referring to more than one Karaim dialect is tobe treated as proof of dialect mingling. The present paper presents a critical edition ofa Karaim manuscript written in 1868 which contains both north- and south-westernelements, and aims to answer the question whether this document can be treated asa relevant example of dialect mingling.1. Preliminary remarks**The document edited in this paper belongs to a modest but significant collectionof Western Karaim manuscripts stored in Warsaw (in private hands) 1 and is heldthere under the catalogue number 43 II . Most of the materials edited to date from* I would like to express my sincere thanks to Anna Sulimowicz (Warsaw), who providedme with access to the manuscript. I am also very grateful to Mariola Abkowicz (Wrocław/Poz nań), Adam Dubiński (Warsaw), Mariusz Pawelec (Opole) and, again, Anna Sulimowicz(Warsaw) for their help in tracing back a number of important facts concerning the senderand addressee, and their family members’ biography. Finally, I am also indebted to AdamDubiński (Warszawa) for making available to me a typewritten draft of Dubiński (1985).1Cf. Dubiński (1985).

140 MICHAŁ NÉMETHthis collection (in Németh 2010 and 2011) were written exclusively in south-westernKaraim. The only exception in this group of manuscripts is the document analysedin Németh (2010), in which we find four fragments written in two dialects: two paragraphsin south-western Karaim and the other two in the north-western dialectwith eastern Karaim elements. All these paragraphs are the work of four differentand unknown authors.Similarly to the document mentioned above, the text presented in this paperexhibits some instances of dialect mingling – it contains a number of evident southwesternfeatures even though it was written by a north-western Karaim speaker.Fortunately, we know the identity of the author as he signed the document. The manuscriptis a private letter.What makes the above somewhat more complex is that Mardkowicz (1933: 7–8)published a transcription of the present manuscript in which he altered most ofthe north-western Karaim characteristics in such a way to appear as if they hadbeen written in his native south-western dialect. In our commentaries attachedto the linguistic material we have therefore additionally made a comparison betweenthe original manuscript and Mardkowicz’s edition (letter III in his article).Mardkowicz’s decision to alter the linguistic features of the manuscripts heread should be explained as an attempt to compile exemplary linguistic materialas a model to be followed by what was then a new generation of Karaim speakers.In Németh (2009) we presented a detailed description of this practice and interpretedit as a key aspect of the Karaim language purism movement characteristicof the interwar period.2. General description of the manuscriptThe cream-coloured sheet is folded into two halves and thus consists of four pages.The letter itself is written on the first two 175 × 220 mm pages in Karaim semicursivescript (based on Hebrew script). The text of the letter is partly vocalised,clearly legible, written in light grey ink and in one hand. It was composed in Odessaon 17 July 1868, i.e. 29 July 1868 according to the Gregorian calendar.3. The author’s and the addressee’s identitiesUnlike some of the other Karaim letters written in the same period as the one currentlybeing edited, we know the exact name of the author. He is Jehoszafat son ofZacharja Kapłanowski, 2 a citizen of Odessa at the time the letter was written. He wasborn in Trakai around 1813, and died probably in Odessa after 1886 (see below).2We have cited the personal names of Karaims in contemporary Polish orthography. We do sofirst of all because this practice is widespread in Karaim studies and, secondly, so as to avoidthe question of whether to transcribe, transliterate or translate first names of Hebrew origin aswell as bypass the dilemma of whether to Anglicise the first names and surnames or instead to

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 141From the present letter we know that he was already living in Odessa and dealingwith the community’s financial affairs in 1868. His father, Zacharja the son of IzaakKapłanowski (born 1759, died 1831 in Trakai) used the title of rabbi and judge, had fivesons, all of whom were born in Trakai. Worth mentioning is the fact that one of theauthor’s brothers was Boaz (or Bogusław) Izaak Kapłanowski (born around 1814,died 1898 in Trakai) – the first to officiate as the hakham of Trakai (from 1863 on).The entire Kapłanowski family was living in Trakai until at least 1834, i.e. the yearwhen they were listed in the census record list (Ревизская сказка) prepared between21 st and 28 th May (see AGKŁ). The author was registered there as a 21 year-old marriedman, the father of a six year-old Josif who later, in 1869 opened his own photographer’sshop in Trakai before he eventually moved to Warsaw. Apart from thesedetails our knowledge of the life of Jehoszafat Kapłanowski is fairly scant. What wedo know is that in 1872 he signed Izaak ben Solomon’s posthumously publishedOr ha-Levanah הלבנה)‏ ‏,אור printed in Zhytomyr) as a member of the Karaim communityof Odessa, and that in 1886 he also published there a 50 page-long prayerbook entitled (in present-day Russian orthography) Друг людей: Нравоучениека раим. юношеству с приведением текстов великих писателей священ. книг(publishing house: Типография Францова), see Omeľčuk (2006: item nr. 23226).The year 1886 is the last date attested in his biography.The addressee of the letter, Icchak the son of Zarach Bezikowicz, was born around1807 and died after 1872. He lived in Lutsk and officiated there as the gabbai, i.e. treasurer.He appears in the census record list prepared in Lutsk in 1834 as a 26 year-old marriedman and a father of two daughters. The census prepared 24 years later (see AGKŁ)informs us that he had seven children – four daughters and three sons. Those sons ofhis who are worthy of mention here are Zarach (born 1835) and Mordechaj (born 1842),who later also became Odessan citizens. In 1904 Mordechaj composed a letter fromOdessa on paper with a printed letterhead stating the following: Магазинъ заграничной обу ви З. Безиковича въ Одессѣ, Екатеринин. ул., д. Вагнера. Фирма сущ.съ 1860 г. (see Németh 2011: 235). This would mean that the shoe shop was most probablyestablished by his brother Zarach, who, nota bene, also signed the above-mentionedcopy of Or ha-Levanah from 1872, and was listed there as an Odessan citizen, too.4. TranscriptionIn the transcription we attempted to reconstruct the phonetic level of the letter’scontent. However, we have marked the palatality of consonants in north-westernforms only where it is phonologically relevant. South-western forms are transcribedin the way they would probably have been pronounced in Lutsk Karaim. The Slavonicinterpolations are transcribed according to their original sound. The Hebrew fragmentsembedded in the Karaim text are transliterated and quoted in italic letters.transcribe them on the basis our phonetic transcription. We have put forward our argumentsin favour of a Polish-orthography-based presentation of proper names in Németh (2011: 19).

142 MICHAŁ NÉMETHHebrew abbreviations are explained in the commentaries. The translation of thewhole text, including all Hebrew fragments, is provided in chapter 5. We have notedthe differences between Mardkowicz’s reading and the original text in every casewhere Mardkowicz’s system of transcription clearly points to a different reading.In other words, we show where our transcription differs and not where our transcriptionsystems are different. This means that discrepancies which would not have beenreflected anyway in Mardkowicz’s article are not noted separately. For instance, he didnot note the palatality of ḱ in front of -e-, which means that kenesa in Mardkowicz’sarticle equals ḱenesa in our transcription.Page 1[1] bh 3[2] 1868. juł 4 17. ph bʿwdssʿ[3] ʾhwby ydydy kmʿ5yṣḥaq hgbʾy, bn kmhr 6 zrḥ hnbwn bzyqwwyṣ zl 7[4] wkl hqhl hqdwš dy Łucka! 8[5] Burunhu iiǵiń kahałnyn 18. podpisba 9 kabuł eip, yštyrdyχ 10 aχča 11[6] 300. rubeł da ijik kawodunuzha. r 12 Jeszua Szemoel jazdy ḱi kabuł ei oł[7] aχčany. 13 Eḱińi iik ḱei mana kahałyjyzdan 14 5. podpisba ḱi üaiar 15[8] oł ü 16 juź 17 rubełny, da jazyłhan ḱiḿaŕǵa, 18 da ḱi beraχa eŕii qq 19Aeśńiń 20[9] da tabu eaar 21 ndraŕi 22 üuń, 23 da ḱi doẃerennost ijii. Bu bary jaχšy 243‏ּבְ‏ עֶ‏ זְ‏ רַ‏ ת הַ‏ ‏ׁשֵ‏ ם Hebr. An abbreviation of ב֜‏ : ה֜‏‘with the Lord’s help’.4M: ijuł. The lack of a word-initial aleph ‏:יולpoints to a reading with j-.5prob- The abbreviation stands most ‏:כמע׳ably for Hebr. ד מַ‏ עֲ‏ לַ‏ ת ‘honourable ‏ּכְ‏ ב ‏ֹו sir’or, perhaps, ‏ּכְ‏ בֹוד מִ‏ נּוחָ‏ תֹו עֵ‏ דֶ‏ ן ‘the honourablerepose of which is Eden’ (for the latterinterpretation see Munkácsi (1909: 187) andNémeth (2011: 344)).6‏ּכְ‏ ב ‏ֹו ד מַ‏ עֲ‏ לַ‏ ת Hebr. An abbreviation of ‏:כמהר׳חָ‏ רַ‏ ב רַ‏ ‏ּבִ‏ י7זִ‏ כְ‏ ר ‏ֹו נ ‏ֹו לִ‏ בְ‏ רָ‏ כָ‏ ה Hebr. : An abbreviation of ז֮‏ ל‘honourable sir and the Rabbi’.‘may his memory be blessed; of blessedmemory’.8The Hebrew heading was translated byMardkowicz (1933: 7) in these words: 1868 jiłda,17 ijul da. Adeste. Siwerim k. m. Jicchakoł gabbaj, uwłu ribbi Zarachnyn oł akyłłynyn,Bezikowicz da bar oł aziz dzymatŁuckada. The translation is faithful to theoriginal.9spell- writing follows the פ ‏ֹו דְ‏ : The פִ‏ י ס בָ‏ אing of Pol. podpis ‘signature’ and Russ.подпись id. even though the actual pronunciationreflects -tp- in both cases. See alsothis word repeated in line 7 below.10M[ardkowicz]: ystyrdyk.11M: achca.12רַ‏ ‏ּבִ‏ י ‏’‏sir‏‘רַ‏ or ב Hebr. An abbreviation of ‏:ר׳‘rabbi’.13M: achcany.14M: kahałynyzdan.15M: iliśtiłer.16M: ic.17M: jiz.18M: kimłerge.: An abbreviation standing for Hebr.‘Holy Community’. Repeatedalso in line 16. M: kahałyna.20M: Adesnin.19ק֝‏ ק֝‏קְ‏ הִ‏ ‏ּלָ‏ ה קְ‏ ד ‏ֹו ‏ׁשָ‏ ה21M: etedłer.22sa- solemn promise; 2. נֶ‏ ‘1. דֶ‏ ר Hebr. ‏:נדרלריcred donation’ used with the plural andpossessive suffix. The word is repeated inline 22. M: nederłeri.23M: icin.24M: jachsy.

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 143[10] kyłynhan da jazyłhan. Da anyn üuń 25 ḱi bahasyz 26 har ńeŕśańi 27 kyłmawaχtynda[11] da kołajły. To hanuz iźńiń 28 kahałda yštyryłhan 29 aχčadan 30 62. rub. ksp 31[12] 20. rub. eŕik Łuckadan ḱeǵań 32 karajłarha, 33 rl 34 Hugelǵe 35 Sułtańskiha 36[13] da öźǵaaŕińa, 37 hocaałyχ 38 ḱeḿa 39 jołłaryna. 7 rub. bołdu hocaa,[14] a kałhan 35. rub. ijaḿiń 40 kołuja 41 kawodujnun ałej 42 ńeik 43 gabbajnyn. Daha 44[15] ijaḿiń 45 45. rub. kołuja 46 kawodujnun, kajsy aχčany 47 iji mana rʾš hḥkmym 48[16] Nachamo Babowicz ndr 49 pogoŕeecar 50 üuń 51 yštyryłhan 52 qq 53 Akjarnyn rl[17] Sewastopoda. Isanamen 54 ḱi kawoduj rast baharsyn 55 ḱi bary kyłynhej 56dohrułuχba, 57[18] ḱi ḱiiǵa e 58 bołmahej 59 krywda [~ kriwda] 60 üaḿaḱa 61 aχčany. 62 Zatym 63kabuł eip bu[19] śeḱśań 64 rubełny, jazarsyz 65 kahałdan ir iik rʾš hḥkmym Babowiczḱa 66ałłatadohon 6725M: icin.26M: bahasiz.27M: nerseni.28M: biźnin.29M: ystyryłhan.30M: achcadan.31ֱּ silver; 2. money’. The word ‘1. ‏ּכ סֶ‏ ף Hebr. ‏:כסףwas used in Lutsk Karaim, too (cf. Németh(2011: 295, s.v. ḱesef). M: kesef.32M: kełgen.33plu- Suffixes indicating the ‏:קראי לרגאral dative case are attached to Kar. karajid. (a plural formקָ‏ רָ‏ אִ‏ י ם Hebr. ‘Karaim’ -łł- change is a resultof assimilation or hypercorrectness, cf. thedissimilation of ‐łł- > -ŋł- in north-western

144 MICHAŁ NÉMETH[20] ḱi Aeśań 68 kabuł eijiź 69 335. rub., a qq 70 Akjarnyn 45. rub., bary ḿeńim 71kołum[21] ašyra 72 da tabu eaŕśiź 73 χaχamha 74 kyłhan jaχšyłyχłary 75 üuń. 76Page 2[22] Eḱińi iik jazarsyz 77 qq Akjarnyn, tabu ea 78 ndraŕi üuń. 79 Üuńu 80[23] iik jazarsyz 81 mana ḱi kabuł eijiź 82 80. rubełny, da jazynyz ḱeimo aχča 83[24] öźǵa 84 kahałłardan, da ńeeḱi 85 kajsy kahałdan. oajiź 86 jazuwčuha 87 buaχčadan 88[25] ḱi jaχšy 89 jazhej 90 iikar 91 χaχam Babowiczḱa, 92 da Akjarha. Da eŕijiź 93beraχa[26] ałarha. Ḱeŕak 94 bołma wenčny ałarha ḱiḿar 95 kyładłar 96 jaχšyłyχ, 97 to –[27] eḱińide for jaχšyłyχka 98 možna 99 spoewaceḿa. 100 Akjarha adresńi jazyjyz 101[28] kahałnyn adyna: Sewastoposkomu karaimskomu obščestwu. 102 A Ǵoźaaǵa 103[29] jazynyz: χaχamu 104 Babowiczu. Hali ałłatamyn 105 kawodunuzha ńe 106 üuń 107jazamyn 108 –Karaim, e.g. ułłu > uŋłu. (Kowalski 1929:xxxii). Cf. footnotes 105, 139.68M: Adesten.69M: ettiniz.70M: translation missing.71M: menim.72M: asyra.73M: etersiz.74man; wise, learned חָ‏ .1‘ כָ‏ ם Hebr. ‏:חכם גא2. hakham (rabbi)’ used with the Karaimdative case suffix -ha. M. chachamha.75M: jachsyłykłary.76M: icin.77M: jazarsiz.78M: ete.79M: icin.80M: icińci.81M: jazarsiz.82M: ettiniz.83M: achca.84M: eźge.85M: netekli.86M: tełeniz.87M: jazuwcuha.88M: achcadan.89M: jachsy.90M: jazhaj.91M: bitikłer.92M: Babowiczke.93M: beriniz.94M: kerek.95M: kimłer.96M: kyładyłar. Mardkowicz probably replacedthe word with its less colloquialvariant. The non-abbreviated form wouldbe kyładyrłar.97M: jachsyłyk.98M: jachsyłykka.99The word-final ḥōlām tells us that the ‏:מֹוזְ‏ נֹוword should be interpreted as the Russ.можно being transliterated and thereforethe word-final vowel should be read as -a.M: mozna.100M: spodiewacetme.סֵ‏ י װַ‏ סְ‏ ט ‏ֹו לְ‏ פ ‏ֹו סְ‏ כֹו מ ‏ּו ק א ר י מ ס כֹו מ ‏ּו אֹו101M: jazynyz.102בְ‏ שְ‏ צֵ‏ י סְ‏ טְ‏ ו ‏ּו:Russ. Севастопольскому караимскомуобществу ‘to the Association of Karaimsin Sevastopol’.103The Trakai Karaim name (not attestedyet) of Yevpatoria. M: Gezłewge. In KRPS(p. 684) the Crimean Karaim form Kozlüvis noted (s.v. Козлÿв).104lead- KarT. χaχam ‘Karaim spiritual ‏:חכמוer’ with the Russian dative case ending. M:chachamu. Cf. footnote 74.105M: anłatamen. Cf. our commentary attachedin footnote 67.106M: ne.107M: icin.108M: jazamen.

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 145[30] kawodunuzha ŧiwił χazzanha? Ḿeń 109 sahyš 110 eaḿiń, 111 ńeik 112 ḱuu 113juaŕi 114 Karaimaŕńiń 115[31] Łuckada, hali kahał čyχtyłar 116 yšwbłarha, 117 to bołmast ḱiḿǵa 118 ḱeḿa 119ḱenesaha[32] da ḿiśḱińik sartyn bołmasty ḱiḿǵa 120 oaḿa 121 χazzanha ḱi oł efiłła 122 eḱej.[33] A zatym yštyrynyp 123 kahał sahyšeijiź 124 može 125 kyłarsyz 126 bułej, 127 ḱi bu 80.rubełdan[34] χoć 128 ńeeḱie 129 bereśiz 130 χazzanha, ḱi efiłła 131 eḱej ḱenesada ḱikapałmahej 132[35] ḱenesa, bu 133 ḱenesa kapałsa, to kahał artyk sanałmast kahałba. Zatymkyłyjyz 134[36] akyłyjyzha 135 ḱoŕa 136 ńeik 137 jaχšyraχ 138 da mana de ałłatynyz 139 ńe 140 kyłdynyz,bo ḿeń 141[37] dostunuz da yšrʾl, 142 ḱajḿiń 143 ḱi kahał bołhej 144 kahałba.[38] iiḱi śoźaŕi 145 karandašyjyznyn. 146 wʾtm šlwm wkl hqhl hqdwš[39] šlwm – lmgdwl wʿd qṭn: dwrš twb lyšrʾl, yhwšpṭ bkr 147[40] zkryh hgbyr whdyn zl qplnwwsky 148109M: men.110M: sahys.111M: etemen.112M: necik.113M: kiwdi.114M: jiwłeri.115M: karajłarnyn.116M: cyktyłar.117‘settlement, inhabited יִ‏ ‏ּׁשּוב Hebr. ‏:ישובלרגאplace, inhabited land’ in Karaim pluraland used with the Karaim dative case suffix.M: isuwłarha.118M: kimge.119M: kełme.120M: kimge.121M: tełeme.122Cf. efiŋła in Kowalski (1929: 261).123M: ystyrynyp.124M: sahys etiniz.125M: moze.126M: kyłarsiz.127M: bułaj.128M: choc.129M: neteklide.130M: berisiz pro beresiz. A misprint. Here,we postulate a clear south-western readingsince probably this was the intention of theauthor.131M: tefiła.132M: kapłamahaj.133M: bo. The word-final shūrūq ‏(-ּו)‏ is clearlyvisible.134M: kyłynyz.135M: akyłynyzha.136M: kere.137M: necik.138M: jachsyrak.139M: anłatynyz. Cf. our commentary in footnotes67 and 105.140M: ne.141M: men.‘Israel’. M: Jisraeł.143M: kłejmen.144M: bołhaj.145M: sezłeri.146M: karyndasynyznyn.147The abbreviation most probably ‏:בכר׳142רָ‏ יְִש אֵ‏ ל Hebr. ‏:ישראלstands for Hebr. ‏ּבֶ‏ ן ‏ּכְ‏ ב ‏ֹו ד רַבִּ‏ י ‘the son ofthe honourable Rabbi’.148The last two sentences and the signaturewere translated by Mardkowicz (1933: 8)into south-western Karaim in these words:Bitikli sezłeri karyndasynyznyn da siźgebazłyk da bar oł aziz dzymatka bazłyk ułłudankicigedejin. Kłewci jachsyny jisraełlikke.Jehosafat uwłu ribbi Zacharjanynoł gewirnin da oł danjannyn Kapłanowski.The translation is faithful to the original.

146 MICHAŁ NÉMETH5. TranslationWe tried to follow the Karaim syntax as strictly as possible. However this was,naturally, not always possible. Therefore, the line numbers in the translation servemerely as guidelines for the reader. Additions in square brackets serve the purposeof facilitating the reading and contain fragments that are not present in the sourcetext. The equals signs in square brackets introduce explanations. Alternate translationsare indicated with a tilde, also enclosed in square brackets.Page 1[1] With the Lord’s help 149[2] 17 th July 1868, here, in Odessa[3] My beloved friend, honourable sir Icchak the gabbai, the son of the honourablesir and the wise Rabbi Zarach Bezikowicz of blessed memory[4] and the whole holy community of Lutsk![5] After we had received the first letter of the community with 18 signatures,we collected[6] 300 roubles and sent [those] to you. Sir Jeszua Szemoel wrote that he receivedthat[7] money. The second letter from your community arrived to me with 5 signatures[informing] that those three hundred roubles had been divided[8] and [letting me also know] among which persons [had the money beendivided], and [informing me] that blessings are given [~ greetings are sent]to the holy community of Odessa[9] and thanks [are sent] for the sacred donation, and [informing] that theauthor i zation had been sent. All this is well[10] done and written, also since you take care of each affair to be done in time[11] and appropriately. So, additionally, from the money collected in ourcommunity, from 62 silver roubles, we gave[12] 20 roubles to [those] Karaims that came from Lutsk, i.e. to Hugel, Sułtański[13] and others, for their travel expenditures. There were 7 roubles inexpenditures[14] and the remaining 35 roubles I send to your hands as the gabbai. Additionally[15] I send 45 roubles to your hands, which money was sent to me by the chiefhakham[16] Nachamo Babowicz 150 as a sacred donation for the victims of the fire,collected by the holy community of Akjar, 151 i.e.‘with the Lord’s help’ used usually in the collocationsucced!’. ‘With the Lord’s help, we shall achieve and ‏ּבְ‏ עֶ‏ זְ‏ רַ‏ ת הַ‏ ‏ׁשֵ‏ ם נַ‏ עֲ‏ שֶ‏ ה וְ‏ נַ‏ צְ‏ לִ‏ יחַ‏150Tauride and Odessian hakham in the years 1855–1879. Born 1799, died 1882 (see Eľjaševič II 9).149‏ּבְ‏ עֶ‏ זְ‏ רַ‏ ת הַ‏ ‏ׁשֵ‏ ם Hebr. An abbreviation of ב֜‏ : ה֜‏151Sevastopol. The Crimean Karaim name of אָ‏ : ק ײַ‏ א ר

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 147[17] in Sevastopol. I believe that you will properly take care [of the money] inorder that everything be done justly[18] in order not to let anyone suffer an injustice when dividing the money.Subsequently, after you have received these[19] eighty roubles, write from [= in the name of] your community a letter to thechief hakham Babowicz explaining[20] that you have received 335 roubles [sent] from Odessa, and 45 roubles [sent]from the holy community of Akjar, all via my hands,[21] and [in this letter] you will thank the hakham for all the good [he had] done.Page 2[22] You will write another letter to the holy community of Akjar expressing yourthanks for [their] sacred donation. A third[23] letter you will write [informing] me that you have received the 80 roublesand write whether the money [sent][24] from the other communities has arrived, and how much [arrived] fromwhich [= each] community. Pay the scribe from this [amount of] money[25] in order to write the letters well to hakham Babowicz and to Akjar. And giveblessings [~ send greetings][26] to them. One must be appreciative of those who do good deeds, then[27] another time one may expect good deeds, too. Address [the letter to] Akjar to[28] the name of the community: Sevastoposkomu karaimskomu obščestvu 152 .And [the letter to be sent to] Kozlüv 153[29] write [= address] to hakham Babowicz. Now I [will] explain to you why I write[30] to you [and] not to the hazzan. I wonder: when [= after] the houses ofKaraims [had] burned down[31] in Lutsk, the [members of the] community left to [other] settlements, 154so there will be no one who could come to kenesa[32] and because of the poverty there will be no one to pay for the hazzan to saya prayer.[33] So when [the members of] your community assemble, consider whether youwould do it this way: [whether you would] give from these 80 roubles[34] at least some amount to the hazzan, in order to let him pray in the kenesa[and] not to close[35] the kenesa; if this kenesa closes, then the community will no longer count asa community. Thus act[36] according to your reason, as well as possible, and inform me what you did,because I: Russ. Севастопольскому караимскому обществу‘to the Association of Karaims in Sevastopol’.153The Crimean Karaim name of Yevpatoria, see KRPS 684.154Perhaps the use of Hebr. יִ‏ ‏ּׁשּוב ‘settlement, inhabited place, inhabited land’ in the sentencesuggests that the author of the letter points to non-native Karaim settlements.152סֵ‏ י װַ‏ סְ‏ טֹו לְ‏ פֹו סְ‏ כֹו מ ‏ּו ק א ר י מ ס בְ‏ כֹו מ ‏ּו שְ‏ אֹו צֵ‏ י סְ‏ טְ‏ ו ‏ּו

148 MICHAŁ NÉMETH[37] am a friend of yours andof the whole Karaim community, 155 I want the communityto be a community.[38] [These were] the written words of your brother, and peace to you and to theentire holy community,[39] peace to both great and small: the one who seeks [= wishes] good for thewhole Karaim community, Jehoszafat, son of the honourable Rabbi[40] Zacharja Kapłanowski, master and judge of blessed memory6. Commentaries and conclusionsGeneral grammatical and orthographic featuresThe language of the edited text reflects a rather good command of Karaim. It containsa relatively small number of Slavic loanwords or calques. As an example of the lattersee e.g. bołmasty ḱiḿǵa oaḿa ‘there will be no one to pay’, cf. Russ. не будет комуплатить or Pol. nie będzie komu płacić id. The Karaim expression follows wordfor word its Slavonic counterpart, including the use of the dative case in ḱiḿǵa.The spelling used in the document is quite regular; the few sporadic irregularitiesכבודונוזגא , כבוו are insignificant, cf. e.g. the word kawodunuzha ‘to you’ noted asin lines 6, 29, and 30, or the word iik ‘letter’ written three כבודּונּוזגא and דונוז גאtimes as 23] [7, 22, ביטיק 156 and once ביטיכ as 157 [19]. The main spelling rules do notdiffer markedly from those seen in Lutsk Karaim texts presented in Németh (2011:101–105). 158 In fact, we can safely state that there are no considerable differencesbetween the “standard” orthography (i.e. the set of the most commonly used rules)applied in Lutsk in the 19 th century and the “standard” orthography used by (at leastsome of the) authors from Trakai in this period – at least as far as the handwrittentexts are concerned.Case suffixes and, if followed by a case suffix, the plural suffix are occasionallyקראי [5], signature’ podpisba ‘withפ ‏ֹו דְ‏ פִ‏ י ס בָ‏ א e.g. written separately from the stem,.[17] Sevastopol’ Sewastopoda ‘in סֵ‏ י װַ‏ סְ‏ ט ‏ֹו פ ‏ֹו ל ד א ,[12] Karaims’ karajłarha ‘to לרגאThis practice is well known from Crimean Karaim texts and also from Lutsk Karaimmanuscripts (cf. e.g. Jankowski 1997: 5, 2009: 23; Németh 2011: 125).Palatal consonants are not denoted with separate diacritics. The only palataland non-palatal consonant pair which is fairly consistently distinguished is k and ḱ.155The use of this word in this context remains not entirely clear to us. The proposed ‏:ישראלtranslation (Israel referring to the whole Karaim community) seems the most probable.156Numbers in square brackets indicate the line number the respective form is attested in.157The use of the word-initial variant of kaph word-finally is a rare but still known phenomenonobserved in manuscripts written in Karaim semi-cursive, see Németh (2011: 103, 110).158The only additions to the description in Németh (2011) are, firstly, that the word-initial ö- iswritten using the letters aleph, yodh, and waw ‏,(איו)‏ while the letters aleph and waw ‏(או)‏ areused to render the word-initial ü-, and, secondly, that in the texts edited in our previouswork (2011) there is no example of noting with daleth, zayin and a diacritic mark similarto the cantillation sign called geresh above it, i.e. with ‹ ‏,‹דז֜‏ see. י װַ‏ צֵ‏ י טְ‏ מָ‏ א spoewaceḿaסְ‏ פ ‏ֹו ד ז֜‏ ֶwenčny ‘appreciative’ [26].וְ‏ דזֶ֜‏ ינְ‏ צְ‏ נִ‏ י ‘to expect’ [27] and

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 149The first one is denoted with koph ‏(ק)‏ – with the sole exception of כֹולּום kołumלַ‏ שְ‏ מַ‏ כ טָ‏ א eg. cf. ‏,(כ)‏ ‘my hand’ [20]. Its palatal counterpart is denoted with kaphüaḿaḱa ‘when dividing’ [18] or ‏ּובְ‏ ד ‏ּו ḱuuכ ‘burned down’ [30].Worth mentioning are those words which are seemingly exceptions to this rule.First of all, since in the word-final position k cannot be palatalized, the notationof this consonant in this position may vary. Thus we find ביטיכ ~ ביטיק iik ‘letter’[19, 7, respectively], or ניציכ ~ ניציק ńeik ‘as’ [30, 36, respectively] in the text.This phenomenon is also known from Lutsk Karaim manuscripts. Secondly, therule described above concerns only native words. In loanwords the notation is notso strict, cf. e.g. kawodunuzha ‘to you’ noted as כבודונוזגא [6], i.e. according to theHebrew orthography, or sewastoposkomu and karaimskomu written in line 28 asand ‏,קארימסכֹומּו respectively. Lastly, we should remember that inconsonant clusters, occasionally not all consonants were palatalized as a resultof consonant harmony; this depended on one’s idiolect. Seen in this light, the notationביטיק לר may reflect iikar (line 25), and not necessarily iiḱar, and thereforeshould not be treated as an exception, either.אּוסֵ‏ י װַ‏ סְ‏ טֹו לְ‏ פֹו סְ‏ כֹו מ ‏ּוDialectal affiliation of the linguistic data by means of orthographic analysisWe claim that the letter was written in north-western Karaim not only because theauthor had his roots in the community of Trakai, but also because even thougha number of words could be read in up to three different ways, i.e. as though theyhad been written in the north-western, south-western, or even in the eastern dialectof Karaim, the clear and regularly applied orthographic rules presented below ultimatelydisambiguate the transcription and allow us to postulate a north-westernreading in every seemingly ambiguous instance.First of all, a is always noted in the word-final position with aleph, while wordmediallyit is never written plene 159 – with the sole exception of words of Hebrew originin which the author follows the original spelling. Secondly, this, juxtaposed with thenotation of e, which is always noted in these positions with yodh or with yodh precededby tzere, allows us to postulate KarT. ´a in every position where there would be a correspondinge in the south-western (and eastern) dialect – except for the first syllable,where *e remains e in north-western Karaim. 160 Thirdly, the letters shin and samekh areused regularly to distinguish between š and s, respectively, which allows us to reject thesouth-western reading of those words in which etymologically KarL. s = KarT. š.As a consequence, the regularity of the spelling allows us to draw reliable conclusionsregarding the phonetic level of the text and to make a thorough comparison of159There is no trace of any distinction between writing -a- with aleph and -´a- (i.e. an -a- afterpalatalized consonants) with vowel signs only, which is the case in J. Lobanos’s translationof the Book of Lamentations prepared in 1929 (Zajączkowski 1934: 187).160We encountered one instance of an irregular notation of e, and that is in the word-initial position:the word eḱej is written as איטכיי and אטכיי in lines 32 and 34, respectively. This, however,has no impact on the dialectal affiliation of the text, since, as we mentioned, *e remains e inall three dialects in the first syllable.

150 MICHAŁ NÉMETHthe linguistic material, in order to dispel any doubt as to the dialectal affiliation of theauthor’s native tongue. Below, the phonetic, morphophonemic and morphologicfeatures of the letter’s language are grouped into six categories:The largest group comprises words the writing of which allows for three possibleways of transcription, i.e. theoretically we are unable to assign them to dialectalsubgroups. Without giving multiple examples unnecessarily, let us refer here onlyto מינים [20] which may cover KarT. ḿeńim, KarL. meńim and KarC. menim ‘my’and יזדי [6] which simply stands for Kar. [= KarTLC.] jazdy ‘he wrote’.The second largest group features exclusively north-western-type words. It seemsimportant to mention that items assigned to this group are only slightly outnumberedby the group of words listed first (see table 1). This shows that north-westernelements clearly predominate in the manuscript. We can safely say that based onthe following sifting criteria reflected distinctly by the writing:1) the *e > ´a change in the front-vowel environment (except the first syllable):סגיש איטמין 15], [14, send’ ‘I א ijaḿiń ײַ‏ מִ‏ י ן a. in the present tense marker, e.g. insahyš eaḿiń ‘I wonder’ [30];טבּו איטדלר [7], divided’ üaiar ‘they אולשטילר e.g. b. in personal endings,tabu eaar ‘they thank’ [9];לַ‏ üa­ שְ‏ אּו מַ‏ כ טָ‏ א [8]; (pl.)’ ḱiḿaŕǵa ‘to whom כימלרגא e.g. c. in case suffixes,ḿaḱa ‘when dividing’ [18];איוזגלרינא [8]; (pl.)’ ḱiḿaŕǵa ‘to whom כימלרגא e.g. d. in the plural suffix,öźǵaaŕińa 161 ‘to others’ [13];[31]; כֵ‏ י ḱeḿa לְ‏ מָ‏ א e.g. e. in the deverbal nominal suffix -ḿa,f. in the *-e converb marker, e.g. תבו איטא tabu ea ‘expressing thanks’ [22]; seealso argument no. 11) below;2) the *aj > ej change:a. in the optative mood marker in לְ‏ מַ‏ גֵ‏ ײ kapałmahej קַ‏ פַ‏ ‘may not be closed’ [34],which is the only fully vocalised optative mood form; see 14b) below;b. in ב ‏ּול ײֵ‏ bułej ‘this way, in this manner’ [33];3) the *ŋ > j change:ט י ‏ֹו לַ‏ ײִ‏ ז [27], ‘write’ jazyjyz יזײז e.g. a. in the 2 nd pl. imperative mood marker,oajiź ‘pay’ [24];b. in the 2 nd pl. possessive suffix, e.g. קהלײזדן kahałyjyzdan ‘from your community’[7], אקילייז גא akyłyjyzha ‘to your reason’ [36];כבודוײ [14], hands’ kołuja ‘to your כ ‏ֹו ל ‏ּוײָ‏ א e.g. c. in the 2 nd sg. possessive suffix,kawoduj ‘you, sir’ [17];4) the -adohon 162 present participle ending used in the converbial meaning inałłatadohon ‘explaining’ [19]; cf. KarL. -adohac converb marker and אללטדוגון161The initial ö-, as such, testifies against a south-western reading. In light of the -a- in the subsequentsyllables, however, the form cannot be read in an eastern Karaim manner, either.162We have not referred here to all possible suffix variants if it was not necessary; these can easilybe checked in the grammars.

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 151‐adohan present participle marker (see e.g. Zajączkowski 1931: 29); eastern Karaimlacks this suffix (see e.g. Prik 1976: 121–124);5) the -ḿiń personal ending, e.g. in ײַ‏ מִ‏ י ן ijaḿiń א ‘I send’ [14, 15], סגיש איטמין sahyšeaḿiń ‘I wonder’ [30]; for further details see 14a) below;6) word forms characteristic of western Karaim that also include northern features,e.g. יחשירק jaχšyraχ ‘better’ [36] – the comparative suffix -raχ is notused in eastern Karaim (Prik 1976: 84) and both -χ- and -š- point to northwesternphonetics, cf. KarL. jaksy id.; ḱu- ‘to burn’, e.g. in ‏ּו בְ‏ ד ‏ּו ḱuuכ ‘burneddown’ [30], cf. KarL. ḱiv- ‘to burn’, KarC. küj- id. (Aqtay I 642); נרסאני ńeŕśa‘affair, thing’ [10], cf. KarL. nerse id., Crimean Karaim lacks this word; tabu e-‘to thank’, e.g. in תבו איטא tabu ea ‘expressing thanks’ [22], cf. KarL. tabuete id.; אוצונצו üuńu ‘third’ [22], cf. KarL. ićińći id. and KarC. üčünǯü id., seealso argument no. 14d); yštyr- ‘to collect’ attested e.g. in אישטירדיק yštyrdyχ‘we collected’ [5], cf. KarL. ystyrdyk id.Thirdly, the manuscript contains numerous elements which bear phonetic and morphologicfeatures that suggest a non-eastern Karaim origin, i.e. they point to a westernKaraim form overall. Additionally, this group includes a couple of lexical items aliento eastern Karaim and shared by western dialects. Here we should mention:7) the present optative mood marker (KarT. -hej and KarL. -haj with alternatingvariants), e.g. תפילה איטכײ efiłła eḱej ‘may he pray’ [32]; this suffix does notexist in eastern Karaim (see e.g. Prik 1976: 145; Aqtay I 42);8) the -dłar abbreviated 3 rd pl. personal ending (< -dyłar < -dyrłar) in the presenttense forms, e.g. קילדלר kyładłar ‘(lit.) they act’ [26], טבּו איטדלר tabu eaar ‘theythank’ [9]; this type of verb-shortening is alien to eastern Karaim as the 3 rd singularand plural personal endings lack the -dyr component (see e.g. Prik 1976:128–129; Aqtay I 38);9) the -t and -ty abbreviated 3 rd sg. personal endings (< -tyr) in the negated futuretense forms, e.g. בֹולםט bołmast ‘it will not be’ [31]; such abbreviated forms donot exist in eastern Karaim for the same reason mentioned in 8) above (see e.g.Prik 1976: 138–139; Aqtay I 40); see also 22) below;10) the -ba instrumental case suffix, e.g. ל בָ‏ א kahałbaקה ‘(lit.) with the Karaim com-podpisba ‘with signature’ [5]; eastern Karaim lacks thissuffix, cf. KarC. bilen ~ ilen ~ blen ~ bilan ‘postp. with; together with’ (see e.g.Prik 1976: 151–152; Aqtay I 36) and the KarC. comitative and instrumental casesuffix (or clitic) -lan ~ -len (Aqtay I 36);11) the -´a converb marker, e.g. תבו איטא tabu ea ‘expressing thanks’ [22]; this formof converb is rarely found in eastern Karaim, and when used, it usually appearsin double constructions (see Prik 1976: 122);12) the enclitically used mo interrogative particle attested in כילדימו ḱe imo ‘whetherit arrived’ [23]; it is not characteristic of eastern Karaim, cf. KarC. my ~ mi usedin this role (see e.g. Prik 1976: 157; KRPS 408; Aqtay I 467–468);13) the genitive form of the 1 st pl. personal pronoun: ביזנין iźńiń ‘us’ [11], cf. KarL.biźin ~ biźńin id. and KarC. bizim id. (Prik 1976: 107; Aqtay I 550);פ ‏ֹו דְ‏ פִ‏ י ס בָ‏ א ,[37 ,35] munity’

152 MICHAŁ NÉMETH14) the reading is ambiguous but suggests a non-eastern Karaim form in the followingcases:a. ‏:-מין if not vocalised, the 1 st sg. personal ending written in this way mightreflect all possible western-Karaim variants, i.e. KarT. -ḿiń ~ -myn and KarL.-men; see, however, argument no. 5) above for a vocalised example; in easternKaraim the personal ending -m is used in this meaning;b. ‏-גײ and ‏:-ֿגײ written this way, the optative marker with a zero suffix indicatinga 3 rd sg. personal ending can stand for all suffix variants that can be attachedto voiced word-ending in the western dialects, namely KarT. -hej (~ -haj) ~‐ǵej and KarL. -haj ~ -gaj ~ -hyj ~ -ǵej ~ -hej; see, however, 2a) above fora vocalised example; this suffix is absent from eastern Karaim;-: the derivative suffix building nomina actoris written thus can be readboth as KarT. -uwču and KarL. -uwcu in ‏ּובְ‏ צ ‏ּו גַ‏ א jazuwčuha יַ‏ ז ‘to the scribe’[24]; in the eastern dialect this suffix has, however, high non-labial vowels, i.e.the word in question sounds jazyvčy in Crimean Karaim (see KRPS 217);d. ‏:-נצי this kind of notation of the ordinal number suffix can be read bothas KarT. -ńi and KarL. -ńći in eḱińi ‘second’ [7, 22], but definitely not asKarC. -nǯi, since the letter tzade would be an unusual notation of ǯ in thatdialect (see Sulimowicz 1972: 43–44; Jankowski 1997: 4), cf. KarC. ekinǯi id.(KRPS 657; Prik 1976: 89);15) words absent from the eastern Karaim lexicon or highly untypical of it:a. native words: ביטיק iik ‘letter’ [7, 22, 23], oł ‘1. he; 2. that’, cf. KarC. o id.(KRPS 423; Prik 1976: 96, 99);b. Polish or Ukrainian loanwords: חֹוץ χoć ‘at least’ [34] < Pol. choć id., י možeמֹוזֵ‏‘perhaps’ [33] < Pol. może id., Ukr. може id., סְ‏ פֹודזֶ֜‏ יװַ‏ צֵ‏ יטְ‏ מָ‏ א spoewaceḿa‘to expect’ [27] < Pol. spodziewać się id. (used with karT. e- ‘here: auxiliary‏ּובְ‏ צ ‏ּו .cverb’ with the deverbal nominal suffix -ḿa), דזֶ֜‏ ינְ‏ צְ‏ נִ‏ י wenčny וְ‏ ‘appreciative’[26] < Pol. wdzięczny id.;c. other loanwords: for ‘times (expressing multiplication)’ i change; cf. KarC. učun ~ üčün id. (KRPS 587;

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 153Levi 1996: 27, s.v. для; Aqtay I 724) and KarC. jüz ~ juz id. (Levi 1996: 100, s.v.сто; Aqtay I 752);יחשי [21], through’ ‘(postp.) via, אַ‏ ašyra שִ‏ י רָ‏ א e.g. 18) reflexes of *š noted with shin,jaχšy ‘good’ [25]; in south-Western Karaim we should expect s in this position,which is usually, but not exclusively, noted with samekh; still, as we mentionedabove, the distinction between s and š is highly regular in this manuscript;cf. KarC. ašyra id. (KRPS 93), KarC. jaχšy id. (KRPS 241);19) the word written as כְ‏ סַ‏ ן in סֵ‏ י line 19, which can theoretically be deciphered bothas KarT. śeḱśań ‘eighty’ and KarC. seksan id. However, a Crimean reading is lesspossible in light of the letter kaph, which is very regularly used in our letter for‏.(כֹולּום palatal ḱ (cf., however, kołum ‘my hand’ in line 20 noted asAll of the four groups mentioned thus far do not provide evidence against a northwesternKaraim reading. Even if in a number of cases a south-western or easternreading could theoretically also be possible, the great preponderance of TrakaiKaraim features and the biography of the author make a north-western readingin these cases the natural and logical choice.There are, however, certain words that deserve particular attention since theyinclude evident non-north-western features. Among these elements there are twoforms which are undoubtedly of south-western-type, three words which are morecharacteristic of the south-western than the eastern Karaim lexicon, and somemorphologic features that are unquestionably non-north-western. This group isbased on an observation of the following features:20) the *-ŋ- > -n- change (as opposed to *-ŋ- > -j- in Trakai Karaim):a. in the 2 nd pl. imperative mood marker: אללטיניז ałłatynyz ‘inform (im pe rat.2.pl.)’ [36], יזיניז jazynyz ‘write’ [23, 29];b. in the 2 nd pl. possessive suffix in the following forms: דוסטונוז dostunuz ‘yourfriend’ [37], כבודונוזגא ~ כבודונוז גא ~ כבודּונּוזגא kawodunuzha ‘to you’ [6, 29,30, respectively];c. in the dative form of the 1 st singular personal pronoun מנא mana ‘to me’[7, 15, 23, 36];d. in the 2 nd plural personal ending in a past tense form: קילדיניז kyłdynyz‘you did’ [36];21) the *-e- > -e- change in the present tense marker: in the word ביריסיז bereśiz‘you give’ [34]; yodh cannot stand for -a- which would be expected in northwesternKaraim; 163בו־ 22) the -ty abbreviated 3 rd sg. personal ending (< -tyr) in the negated future tense form[35]; (as)’ ‘it will not count סַ‏ נַ‏ sanałmast לְ‏ מַ‏ סְ‏ ט bołmasty ‘it will not be’ [32] and לםסטיthis process of abbreviation does not exist in eastern Karaim for the same reason163It is also possible that the letter yodh in this position is used in the role of a diacritic mark notingpalatality in KarT. eŕaśiź id. This role of yodh has been described by (Zajączkowski 1934: 184ff.)and Németh (2011: 124). However, this would be the only case in this manuscript for such anorthographic role of this letter, which would be surprising in light of the great number ofpalatalized consonants not noted this way.

154 MICHAŁ NÉMETHas mentioned in 9) above (see e.g. Prik 1976: 138–139; Aqtay I 40); additionally, innorth-western Karaim the variant -t (

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 155of most Karaim communities was constant during at least the last three centuries,but we know little about the intensity of the discussed phenomenon. Manuscriptsreflecting the spoken language serve as our only source of knowledge in this case.One must, however, be careful when editing them, since not every manuscript thatcontains linguistic material referring to more than one Karaim dialect is to be treatedas proof of dialect mingling.This is the case, for instance, with the manuscript edited in Németh (2011: 249–261),which is preserved in the same private collection under the catalogue number 51 II .Though written by a south-western Karaim speaker, it contains a number of easternKaraim elements. The reason for this, however, is that the author conveyed the contentof another letter sent from the Crimea and quoted it extensively. He tended toalter the phonetic shape of the words to make them sound south-western Karaim.However, many Crimean lexemes that are not characteristic of that dialect remainedin the text unchanged. Putting these facts together, we can hardly claim that thelanguage of that letter is a sample of a dialectally mixed text.When we take a closer look at the south-western elements in the edited manuscriptwe can see that most of them appear in those fragments in which the authoraddresses his words directly to the recipient of the letter. This is especially conspicuousin lines 22–23, 29–30, 36–37. It seems, then, that the author wrote his letter innorth-western Karaim but wanted, at the same time, to make it sound somewhatmore south-western Karaim and for this purpose used, somewhat inconsistently,a few Lutsk Karaim interpolations. As a result of this inconsistent practice we canfind such pairs of north- and south-western elements as e.g. jazyjyz [27] vs. jazynyz[23, 29] or kawoduj [14, 15, 17] vs. kawodunuz [6, 29, 30].Such a scenario seems all the more possible as we know that the author left Trakaiat the age of 21 at the earliest, settled down in Odessa, and thus must have knownthe addressee’s sons or even the addressee himself. It is hard to imagine that a smallgroup of Karaims in such a town as Odessa would not have known each other inperson. This also means that the author was familiar with the sound differencesbetween his own and the south-western dialect.Consequently, we believe that the language of the letter cannot be treated as a relevantexample of dialect mingling.7. Glossarya, b, , c, ć, č, , d, , đ, ʒ, , ǯ, , e, f, g, ǵ, h, , χ, i, j, k, ḱ, l, ł, ,m, ḿ, n, ń, o, ö, p, ṕ, r, ŕ, s, ś, š, , t, , ŧ, u, ü, v, , y, z, ź, ž, a) Appellatives33] [14, 28, א ♦ (Slav.) a ‘and, and besides’אַ‏ [28] דִ‏ י נָ‏ א dat: ad ‘name’ ♦ poss.3.sg,[27]אַ‏ דְ‏ רֵ‏ י סְ‏ נִ‏ י acc: adres ‘address’ (Slav.) ♦aχča ‘money’ ♦ nom: [5, אחצא 23] ♦ acc:abl: ♦ [18] אחצאני 15]; [7, אחצא ני[24 ,11] אחצא דן

156 MICHAŁ NÉMETHakył ‘reason, sense; mind’ ♦ poss.2.pl,[36] אקילייז גא dat:[26] אלרגא dat: ałar ‘they’ ♦[14] אליי ♦ way’ ałej ‘so, in a suchאללטמין praes.1.sg: ałłat- ‘to explain’ ♦♦ [36] אללטיניז imperat.2.pl: ♦ [29][19] אללטדוגון conv:artyk (with negative verb) ‘any more’ ♦[35] ארטיק[21] אַ‏ שִ‏ י רָ‏ א ♦ through’ ašyra ‘via,בַ‏ הָ‏ סִ‏ י ז praes.2.pl: baχ- ‘to take care’ ♦[17] בגרסין fut.2.sg: ♦ [10]20] [9, 17, ברי nom: bary ‘everything, all’ ♦[34] ביריסיז praes.2.pl: ber- ‘to give’ ♦♦ See eŕ-.ברכה nom: beraχa ‘blessing’ (Hebr.) ♦[8, 25][36] בו ♦ ‘because’ boboł- ‘to be’ ♦ inf: בֹולמא [16] ♦ praet.3.sg:[31]; בֹולמסט imperat.3.sg: ♦ [13] בולדו♦ [37] בֹולגיי opt.3.sg: ♦ [32] בולמסטי[18] בולמֿגיי opt.3.sg: neg,35] [33, בּו 24]; [9, 18, בו nom: bu ‘this’ ♦בּו לֵ‏ י י ♦ manner’ bułej ‘this way, in this[33][5] בּורונגּו nom: burunhu ‘first’ ♦♦ [12] בירדיק praet.1.pl: eŕ- ‘to give’ ♦imperat.2.pl: בירייז [25] ♦ See ber-.בירילדי praet.3.sg: eŕi- ‘to be given’ ♦[8][19] ביר ♦ ‘a’ irביטיק [19]; ביתיכ nom: iik ‘letter’ ♦ביטיק לר nom: (-i)] ♦ pl, 38 23; [7, 22,[25] ♦ poss.3.sg, acc: ביטיגין [5] ♦ ~iśoźar ‘written words’ [38][11] ביזנין gen: iź ‘we’ ♦[31] ציקטילר praet.3.pl: čyχ- ‘to leave’ ♦25, [6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 23, 24, דא ♦ ‘and’ da32, 36, 37][15] דַ‏ ‏ֿגָ‏ א ♦ ‘additionally’ daha36] ‏,‏‎27‎‏]דֵ‏ י ♦ too’ de enclit. ‘as well,דוגרּולוק־ instr: dohrułuχ ‘justice’ ♦[17] ‘justly’ ~ba ♦ [17] בא[37] דוסטונוז nom: dost ‘friend’ ♦ poss.2.pl,doẃerennost ‘authorization’ (Russ.) ♦[9] ‏ֹדוויריננֹוסט nom:e 1. particle introducing negation usedenclitically; 2. generalising particle ♦‏[‏‎18‎‏]דֵ‏ י ;[34] די27] [7, 22, איכינצי nom: eḱińi ‘second’ ♦e- auxiliary verb (in compound verbs) ♦praes.1.sg: איטמין [30] ♦ praes.3.pl:conv: ♦ [22] איטא conv: ♦ [9] איטדלראיטטייז praet.2.pl: ♦ 18] [5, איטיפ♦ [21] איטרסיז fut.2.pl: ♦ 23] [20,opt.3.sg: [32, איטכיי 34] ♦ See kabułe-, sahyš e-, tabu e-, efiłła e-.for (expressing multiplication) ‘times’[27] ‏ֿפֹור ♦ (Pers.)gabbaj ‘gabbai, treasurer in a Karaim com-[14] גבאי ניִ‏ ן gen: munity’ (Hebr.) ♦31] [29, הלי ♦ ‘now’ hali[11] הנוז ♦ ‘additionally’ hanuz[11] הר ♦ ‘every’ harהו־ nom: hocaa ‘expenditures’ (Hebr.) ♦[13] צאהhocaałyχ ‘money for expenditures’[13] הוצאה ליִ‏ ק nom: (Hebr.) ♦χaχam ‘Karaim spiritual leader’ (Hebr.)♦ [21] חכם גא dat: ♦ [25] חכם nom: ♦[29] חכמו : russ datχazzan ‘Karaim clergyman, hazzan’34] [30, 32, חזן גא dat: (Hebr.) ♦[34] חֹוץ ♦ (Pol.) χoć ‘at least’15] אִ‏ [14, ײַ‏ מִ‏ י ן praes.1.sg: ij- ‘to send’ ♦♦ praet.3.sg: איידי [15] ♦ praet.1.pl:[6] איידיק[9] איילדי praet.3.sg: iji- ‘to be sent’ ♦[17] איסנמין praes.1.sg: isan- ‘to believe’ ♦25] [9, יחשי ♦ ‘well’ jaχšy[36] יחשירק ♦ ‘better’ jaχšyraχיח־ nom: jaχšyłyχ ‘good, good things’ ♦יח־ nom: ♦ pl, poss.3.sg, [26] שיליק[27] יחשיליק כא dat: ♦ [21] שיליק לרי♦ [29] יזמין praes.1.sg: jaz- ‘to write’ ♦יזר סיז fut.2.pl: ♦ [6] יזדי praet.3.sg:יזייז imperat.2.pl: ♦ 22] [19, יזרסיז [23];[25] יזגיי opt.3.sg: ♦ 29] [23, יזיניז [27];

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 157יַ‏ ז [24] ‏ּובְ‏ צ ‏ּו גַ‏ א dat: jazuwču ‘scribe’ ♦יזילגן perf.part: jazył- ‘to be written’ ♦[8, 10]יוללרינא dat: joł ‘journey’ ♦ poss.3.pl,[13][30] יובלרי nom: ju ‘home’ ♦ pl, poss.3.pl,[8] יוז nom: juź ‘hundred’ ♦kabuł (Ar.) see kabuł etkabułe- ‘to receive’ (Ar.) ♦ praet.3.sg:קבול איט־ praet.2.pl: ♦ [6] קבול איטטיconv: ♦ [20] קבּול איטטייז [23]; טייז[5] קבּול איטיפ ;[18] קבול איטיפkahał ‘community; Karaim (religious)קהל nom: community’ (Hebr.) ♦♦ 28] [5, קהל נין gen: ♦ 37] [31, 33, 35,24] [19, קהלדן abl: ♦ [11] קהל דא loc:♦ pl, abl: קהל לר דן [24] ♦ poss.2.pl,ק ה ל בָ‏ א instr: ♦ [7] קהלייזדן abl:[35, 37][24][14] קלגן perf.part: kał- ‘to remain’ ♦kapał- ‘to be closed’ ♦ neg, opt.3.sg:[35] קפלסא cond.3.sg: ♦ [34]karaj ‘Karaim (person)’ (Hebr.) ♦ pl,dat: קראי לרגא [12] ♦ See karaim.karaim (used in plural) ‘Karaim (per-קראימלרנין gen: son)’ (Hebr.) ♦ pl,[30] ♦ See karaj.קר־ gen: karandaš ‘brother’ ♦ poss.2.pl,[38] נדשייזניןkawod (with possessive suffix) ‘sir’[17] כבודּויי nom: (Hebr.) ♦ poss.2.sg,כבו־ [15]; כבודויינון gen: ♦ poss.2.sg,כבודונוז dat: ♦ poss.2.pl, [14] דויינּון[30] כבודּונּוז גא ;[6] כבודונוזגא ;[29] גא♦ [20] כֹולּום nom: koł ‘hand’ ♦ poss.1.sg,קַ‏ י יְ‏ סִ‏ י ;[15] קייסי nom: kajsy ‘which’ ♦קַ‏ פַ‏ לְ‏ מַ‏ גֵ‏ י י‏[‏‎14‎‏]כ ‏ֹו ל ‏ּו ײָ‏ א ;[15] כולוײא dat: poss.2.sg,קֹו לַ‏ ײְ‏ לִ‏ י ♦ ‘appropriately’ kołajłyכְ‏ רִ‏ י װְ‏ דַ‏ א nom: krywda ‘injustice’ (Ukr.) ♦[11][18]♦ [10] קילמא inf: kył- ‘to do, to act’ ♦praes.3.pl: קילדלר [26] ♦ praet.2.pl:♦ [33] קילרסיז fut.2.pl: ♦ [36] קילדיניזimperat.2.pl: קילייז [35] ♦ perf.part:[21] קילגןקילינגיי opt.3.sg: kyłyn- ‘to be done’ ♦[10] קילינגן perf.part: ♦ [17]כֵ‏ י לְ‏ מָ‏ א inf: ḱe- ‘to come; to arrive’ ♦[31] ♦ praet.3.sg: [7, כילדי 23] ♦ perf.[12] כילגן part:ḱenesa ‘kenesa, Karaim temple’ (Ar.) ♦♦ [31] כנסה גא dat: ♦ [35] כנסה nom:[34] כנסה דא loc:[26] כירך ♦ ‘necessary’ ḱeŕak[13] כיטמא inf: ḱe- ‘to travel’ ♦כי ♦ (Pers.) ḱi 1. ‘that’; 2. ‘to, in order to’[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 32, 33,‏[‏‎34‎‏]כִ‏ י ♦ 37] 34,ḱim ‘who’ ♦ pl, nom: כימלר [26] ♦ dat:[8] כימלרגא dat: ♦ pl, 32] [31, כימגא[18] כישיגא dat: ḱii ‘someone’ ♦[37] כליימין praes.1.sg: ḱa- ‘to want’ ♦[36] כורא ♦ to’ ḱoŕa ‘according‏[‏‎30‎‏]כ ‏ּובְ‏ ד ‏ּו praet.3.sg: ḱu- ‘to burn’ ♦[23] מו ♦ particle mo interrogative‏[‏‎33‎‏]מֹוזֵ‏ י ♦ (Slav.) može ‘perhaps’מֹוזְ‏ נֹו ♦ (Slav.) možna ‘one can, one may’[27]מנא dat: ♦ [30] מיֵ‏ ן [36]; מין nom: ḿeń ‘I’ ♦[20] מינים gen: ♦ 36] [7, 15, 23,מיסכינ־ nom: ḿiśḱińik ‘poverty’ (Ar.) ♦[32] ליכńe ‘what’ ♦ [29, ני 36]; ~ üuń ‘why’ [29]36] [14, ניציק [30]; ניציכ ♦ ‘as’ ńeik[10] נרסאני acc: ńeŕśa ‘affair, thing’ ♦ניטיקלי ♦ much’ ńeeḱi ‘how many, how[24, 34]♦ 32] [6, 8, אול nom: oł 1. ‘he’; 2. ‘that’ ♦[10] אנין gen:öźǵa ‘other’ ♦ nom: איוזגא [24] ♦ pl,[13] איוזגלרינא dat: poss.3.sg,פֹודפיס instr: podpis ‘signature’ (Slav.) ♦[5] פֹודְ‏ פִ‏ יס בָ‏ א ;[7] באpogoŕeec ‘victim of fire’ (Russ.) ♦ pl,[16] פֹוגֹורֵ‏ ילֵ‏ יץ לר nom:[17] רסט ♦ (Pers.) rast ‘rightly’

158 MICHAŁ NÉMETHרוב׳ nom: rub. abbrev. ‘rouble’ (Slav.) ♦[11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20] ♦ See rubeł.♦ [6] רוביל nom: rubeł ‘rouble’ (Slav.) ♦רובילדן abl: ♦ 23] [8, 19, רובילני acc:[33] ♦ See rub.סגיש praes.1.sg: sahyš e- ‘to wonder’ ♦סֿגישיטייז imperat.2.pl: ♦ [30] איטמין[33]sahyše- see sahyš esanał-‘to be counted’ ♦ neg, fut.3.sg:[35][32] סרטין ♦ of’ sartyn ‘becausespoewace- ‘to expect’ (Slav.) ♦ inf:סַ‏ נַ‏ לְ‏ מַ‏ סְ‏ ט[27] סְ‏ פֹודזֶ֜‏ יװַ‏ צֵ‏ יטְ‏ מָ‏ א[19] סֵ‏ י כְ‏ סַ‏ ן nom: śeḱśań ‘eighty’ ♦[38] סיוזלרי poss.3.sg: śoź ‘word’ ♦ pl,טבו איט־ praes.3.pl: tabu e- ‘to thank’ ♦♦ [21] טבּו איטרסיז fut.2.pl: ♦ [9] דלר[22] טבו איטא conv:טו ♦ case’ to 1. ‘so, thus’; 2. ‘then; in that26] [11, טֹו ♦ 35] [31,efiłła e- ‘to pray’ (Hebr.) ♦ opt.3.sg:[34] תפלה איטכיי ;[32] תפילה איטכייoa- ‘to pay’ ♦ inf: טיולמא [32] ♦ im pe-[24][30][8] אוץ nom: ü ‘three’ ♦אּוצון 29]; [10, 16, 21, 22, אוצון ♦ ‘for’ üuń[9] ♦ anyn ~ ḱi ‘since’ [10]; ńe ~ ‘why’[29][22] אוצונצו nom: üuńu ‘third’ ♦üa- ‘to divide (between)’ ♦ praet.3.pl:[7] אולשטילר[18]וחטינ־ loc: waχt ‘time’ (Ar.) ♦ poss.3.sg,[10] time’ ~ynda ‘in ♦ [10] דאwenčny ‘appreciative’ (Pol.) ♦ nom:[26]אישטיר־ praet.1.pl: yštyr- ‘to collect’ ♦[5] דיקyštyrył- ‘to be collected’ ♦ perf.part:16] [11, אישטירילגןט י ‏ֹו לַ‏ ײִ‏ ז rat.2.pl:טִ‏ י װִ‏ י ל ♦ ‘not’ ŧiwiłא ‏ּו לַ‏ שְ‏ מַ‏ כ טָ‏ א loc: üaḿak ‘dividing’ ♦וְ‏ דזֶ֜‏ ינְ‏ צְ‏ נִ‏ יאִ‏ י שְ‏ טִ‏ י ־ conv: yštyryn- ‘to assemble’ ♦[33] רִ‏ י נִ‏ י פזטים ♦ (Ukr.) zatym ‘subsequently’זַ‏ [33] טִ‏ י ם ;[35 ,18]b) Geographical namesAeś ‘Odessa’ ♦ gen: אדסנין [8] ♦ abl:[20][22];[16] ♦ dat:אַ‏ דֵ‏ ס טַ‏ ןאַ‏ ק יָ‏ א ר נִ‏ י ן gen: Akjar ‘Sevastopol’ ♦אָ‏ ק ײַ‏ א ר נִ‏ י ן אָ‏ ק ;[20] יַ‏ א ר נִ‏ י ן[27 ,25] אַ‏ קיָ‏ אר גא[28] גוזלוואגא dat: Ǵoźaa ‘Yevpatoria’ ♦Łucka ‘Lutsk’ ♦ nom: לוצקא [4] ♦ loc:[12] לוצקא דן abl: ♦ [31] לוצקא דאסֵ‏ י װַסְ‏ טֹוו loc: Sewastopo ‘Sevastopol’ ♦[17] פֹול דאAbbreviationsabl. = ablative ‖ acc. = accusative ‖ Ar. = Arabic ‖ conv. = converb ‖ dat. = dative ‖enclit. = enclitics ‖ fut. = future tense ‖ gen. = genitive ‖ Hebr. = Hebrew ‖ imperat.= imperative mood ‖ inf. = infinitive ‖ instr. = instrumental ‖ Kar. = Karaim(no dialectal affiliation possible) ‖ KarC. = eastern (Crimean) Karaim ‖ KarT. =north-western (Trakai) Karaim ‖ KarL. = south-western (Lutsk) Karaim ‖ lit. = literally‖ loc. = locative ‖ neg. = negation ‖ nom. = nominative ‖ opt. = optative mood ‖PBHebr. = Post Biblical Hebrew ‖ perf.part. = perfect participle ‖ Pers. = Persian ‖pl. = plural ‖ Pol. = Polish ‖ poss. = possessive ‖ praes. = present tense ‖ praet. =past tense ‖ Russ. = Russian ‖ sg. = singular ‖ Slav. = Slavonic ‖ Ukr. = Ukrainian

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 159ReferencesAGKŁ = Archiwum Gminy Karaimskiej w Łucku [in private collection].KSB = Mardkowicz A. 1935. Karaj sez-bitigi. Łuck.KRPS = Baskakov N.A., Šapšal S.M., Zajončkovskij A. (eds.) 1974. Karaimsko-russko-poľskijslovaŕ. Moskva.Alcalay R. 2000. The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary. [vol. 1–3]. Tel-Aviv.Aqtay G. 2009. Eliyahu Ben Yosef Qılcı’s Anthology of Crimean Karaim and Turkish Literature.Critical Edition with Introduction, Indexes and Facsimile. [vol. 1–2]. [= Yıldız Dilve Edebiyat Dizisi 8]. İstanbul.Dubiński A. 1968. Batı Karaim dilinde bazı leksik farkları. – XI. Türk Dil KurultayındaOkunan Bilimsel Bildiriler. Ankara: 209–216.Dubiński A. 1985. Karaimskie rukopisi iz kollekcii Ju. Sulimoviča v Varšave. – AbdurachmanovG.A., Chodžiev A.P. et al. (eds.) Tjurkskoe jazykoznanie. Materialy III vsesojuznojtjurkologičeskoj konferencii, Taškent 10–12.IX.1980. [non vidi, typewritten draft used].Taškent: 20–24.Eľjaševič B.S. 1993. Karaimskij biografičeskij slovaŕ (ot konca XIII v. do 1960 g.). [= InstitutÈtiologii i Antropologii RAN. Materialy k serii “Narody i kuľtury”. Vypusk 14. Karaimy.Kniga 2]. [parts I–II in one volume]. Moskva.Grzegorzewski J. 1916–1918. Caraimica. Język Łach-Karaitów. – Rocznik Oryentalistyczny 1.2:252–296.Jankowski H. 1997. A Bible Translation into the Northern Crimean Dialect of Karaim. –Studia Orientalia 82: 1–84.Jankowski H. 2009. Two Crimean Karaim Financial Registers of the 18 th Century. – ArchivumOttomanicum 26: 17–39.Józefowicz G. 2008. Słownik polsko-karaimski w dialekcie trockim. Troki, Wilno, Warszawa,Wrocław, Gdańsk, Nashville.Kowalski T. 1929. Karaimische Texte im Dialekt von Troki. [= Prace Komisji OrjentalistycznejPolskiej Akademji Umiejętności 11]. Kraków.Levi B.Z. 1996. Russko-karaimskij slovaŕ. Krymskij dialekt. Odessa.Mardkowicz A. 1933. Jedi bitik. – Karaj Awazy 6: 6–10.Munkácsi B. 1909. Karäisch-tatarische Hymnen aus Polen. – Keleti Szemle 10: 185–210.Németh M. 2009. Errors with and without Purpose: A. Mardkowicz’s Transcription ofŁuck Karaim Letters in Hebrew Script. – Studia Linguistica Universitatis IagiellonicaeCracoviensis 126: 97–106.Németh M. 2010. North-Western and Eastern Karaim Features in a Manuscript Found inŁuck. – Mańczak-Wohlfeld E., Podolak B. (eds.) Studies on the Turkic World. Kraków: 75–94.Németh M. 2011. Unknown Lutsk Karaim Letters in Hebrew Script (19 th –20 th Centuries).A Critical Edition [= Studia Turcologica Cracoviensia 12]. Kraków.Omeľčuk V.Ju. (ed.) 2006. Knyha v Ukrajini (1861–1917). [PDF edition, compiled by PetrovS.J. and Petrov S.S.]. Kyjiv.Prik O.Ja. 1976. Očerk grammatiki karaimskogo jazyka (krymskij dialekt). Machačkala.Sulimowicz J. 1972. Materiał leksykalny krymskokaraimskiego zabytku językowego (drukz 1734 r.). I. – Rocznik Orientalistyczny 35.1: 37–76.Zajączkowski A. 1931. Krótki wykład gramatyki języka zachodnio-karaimskiego (narzeczełucko-halickie). Łuck.Zajączkowski A. 1932. Sufiksy imienne i czasownikowe w języku zachodniokaraimskim (przyczynekdo morfologji języków tureckich). Les suffixes nominaux et verbaux dans la langue

160 MICHAŁ NÉMETHdes Karaïms occidentaux (contribution à la morphologie des langues turques). [= PraceKomisji Orjentalistycznej Polskiej Akademji Umiejętności 15]. Kraków.Zajączkowski A. 1934. Przekłady Trenów Jeremiasza w narzeczu trocko-karaimskiem. –Rocznik Orientalistyczny 8: 181–192.AcknowledgementThis project was financed by the Polish National Science Centre (Narodowe Centrum Nauki),grant number DEC-2011/03/D/HS2/00618.☞

A North-Western Karaim manuscript found in Lutsk – a case of dialect mingling? 161Facsimile[1] [1][2] [2][3] [3][4] [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] [14][15] [15][16][17] [17][18][18][19][19][20][20][21] [21][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][16]Page 1/2

162 MICHAŁ NÉMETH[22] [22][23][23][24] [24][25][25][26] [26][27] [27][28][29] [29][30][30][31] [31][32] [32][33] [33][34] [34][35] [35][36] [36][37][37][38][38][39] [39][40] [40][28]Page 2/2