1877.] 
of Eastern TurJcistdn. 
249 
It is plain that the Osmanli terminations are merely survivals of the 
primitive affixed pronouns.* 
In no ease can it be allowed that such a series of dissimilar syllables is 
really one tense, or that they are parts of the verb “ to be.”f An examina¬ 
tion of the Yarkand and Kashghar dialects accounts for them in another 
way; and even were this not the case, analogy is against such irregularities 
of form in a Turkish verb, no sign even of a common root being apparent 
in the different persons. 
Thus, if the Ouigour (Kashghar) form of Turkish does not possess 
such a Verb Substantive as im “ I am” (as M. de Remusat justly says), so 
neither does the Osmanli. There is no element in these Osmanli tenses 
which does not exist independently in the so-called Ouigour or Eastern 
Turkistani. Though I have taken Remusat’s words as my text (because 
they themselves suggest the comparison with a more primitive dialect), yet 
it would seem that many Grammarians are under the same misapprehension 
with regard to the supposed Osmanli substantive verb. The pronominal 
affixes have become so blended in the verbs, as almost to lose all trace of 
their origin, and what is this but a long step towards inflection. 
Thus in the varied dialects of that wide-spread tongue which is spoken 
over 70 Degrees of Longitude, extending from under the shadow of the 
Great Wall of China and the head waters of the Yellow River almost to 
the shores of the Adriatic, we see a whole volume in the history of lan¬ 
guage unrolled before us. Nearly every stage in the development of speech, 
between the monosyallabism of China at one end and the highly developed 
inflectionalism of Europe at the other, can be studied in the dialects spoken 
by that Turkish race which forms a link between the extreme East and the 
extreme West of the Old World. 
It is hoped that an account, however imperfect, of the more Easterly 
or primitive form of this tongue will not be without interest to students. 
In the following pages it will be noted that the Perfect Participle 
has been written with a p, whereas in the Extracts it will be found to 
end in a ( b ). But it must be remembered that the Turki writers 
* If it be urged that besides the use of the syllables im, sen , &c., as verb-termi¬ 
nations, they are also used with substantives and adjectives, &c., in the sense of the 
verb “ to be” ; this may be paralleled by the Eastern Turki usage by which pronouns 
are affixed (without any verb) to substantives and adjectives and other pronouns, and 
yet do not cease to be pronouns : e. g. Tcichik-man “ I (am) small” ; TurJc-san, “ thou 
(art) a Turk;” shu-man, “I (am) he”. The verb “ to be” is simply ‘ sous-entendu’ 
in these cases. 
t The present tense of irmaJc “to be” would be ira-man or irur-man, irur-san , 
&c. This tense is found in old books. 
