The Khüis Tolgoi inscription is written in a special variety of the Brāhmī script which was uninterpretad so far, especially because of half a dozen special signs. Their decipherment and the text in transliteration and transcription is presented in this paper. The linguistic features of the inscription show strong similarities to the Mongolian and Para-Mongolian which is also true for the morphology as is shown by A. Vovin, Interpretation of the Hüis Tolgoi inscription (for the time being discussed sub: https://www.academia.edu/s/07da0d7bfb/interpretation-of-the-huis-tolgoi-inscription ). The inscribed stone belongs to the 7th cent. as is argued by E. de la Vaissière, The historical context to the Hüis Tolgoi inscription (uploaded on academia.edu ). As fourth paper will be uploaded M. Ölmez, On the discovery, the whereabouts, condition of the stones, and our expedition.

This is conference paper from 60th PIAC. Already published in JA by D. Maue and A. Vovin too. This is printed form of our joint research:

This article is a sequel to the interpretation of the Khüis Tolgoi inscription published in the previous issue of the Journal Asiatique. The Bugut inscription is at least twenty years older than the Khüis Tolgoi inscription, being probably erected in 584 AD but no later than 587 AD. It is a quasi-builingual, with two inscriptions on the same stone: Sogdian that has been extensively studied before by Kliashtornyi, Livshits, and Yoshida, and the inscription in Brāhmī, that has not been properly studied before (only wild speculations regrding the identity of its language without any attempt to discuss the data have been published so far). Based on Dieter Maue's reading, which was greatly facilitated by 3D photography, I was able to interpret the inscription and to establish the identity of its language, which turned out to be essentially the same as the language of the Khüis Tolgoi inscription: an early Mongolic language, quite closely related to the Middle Mongolian of the thirteenth-fourteenth century in spite of 600 years that separate them. This discovery has many important consequences for linguistic history and history of Central Asia, among which the most important are: first, the fact that the oldest language on the steppe of the "Ataic" type is Mongolic, and not Turkic, and second that this Mongolic language was the official language of the first Turkic khaganate, which in its turn explains why we have no inscriptions in Old Turkic before the second khaganate.

The present article deals with the earliest known sources on a Mongolic language discovered in 2014 by the international team Dieter Maue (Germany), Mehmet Ölmez (Turkey), Étienne de La Vaissière and Alexander Vovin (both France) on two inscriptions. The importance of this discovery is threefold: first, it gives us a glimpse of the earliest Mongolic language, predating by more than six hundred years the hitherto known earliest monument in a Mongolic language; second, in spite of the fact that the language of the inscriptions is somewhat close to Middle Mongolian, it provides the evidence of certain features that were previously only suggested for reconstructed forms of Mongolic; and finally, it significantly changes our general understanding of the mediaeval ethnolinguistic history of Central Asia.

The Khüis Tolgoi inscription (early 7th c. AD), originally located in the vicinity of Tsetserleg city, nowadays in the basement of the National Museum of Archeology, Ulaanbaator, is written in a Mongolic language that is reasonably close to Middle Mongolian of 13-14th c. AD, but predates the latter by six centuries. The importance of this discovery is two-fold: first, it turned out that the oldest written language of the "Altaic" type on the steppe is Mongolic, and not Turkic. Second, it radically changes our existing notions about the language contacts in Central Asia and their directions.

Türklükbilimciler arasındaki, Birinci Türk Kağanlığından kalma Türkçe bir yazıt bulunmadığı genel sanısı, Kağanlığın resmi (yazı) dilinin ne olduğu konusunda alanda bir "boşluk" yaratmıştır. Bu boşluk ilkin, çok zayıf ve yetersiz bir temel olarak tek ve yalnızca bir tane yazıta dayanılıyor olsa da, Birinci Türk Kağanlığı döneminden kalma biricik yazıtlar olduğu sanılan Bugut ve Hüis Tolgoy yazıtlarından (iki dilli) Bugut yazıtının Soğdca bölümüne bakılarak Soğdca ile doldurulmak isteniyordu. Fakat yakın zamanda, daha önce okunamayan, Bugut yazıtının Brāhmı̇ ̄ yazılı bölümünün ve yine Brāhmı̇ ̄ yazılı Hüis Tolgoy yazıtının bir tür erken Moğolca ya da Moğolca-benzeri dil (ilgili araştırmacıların savıyla, Ruan-Ruanca) olarak yorumlanıp okunmasıyla birlikte, Birinci Türk Kağanlığı için Soğdcanın yanında ikinci bir resmi dil daha savlandı: Ruan-Ruan İmparatorluğunun devlet dili "yazılı imperyal Moğolca". Ancak, bu makalede ortaya serdiğimiz "yeni gerçek" şudur ki Birinci Türk Kağanlığı Türkçe yazıtlar bırakmıştır, yani, "meydan hiç de boş değildir". Dolayısıyla, Birinci Türk Kağanlığının resmi dilinin ne olduğu konusunda herhangi bir boşluk yoktur. Türk oyma yazısı daha Birinci Türk Kağanlığının kuruluşunda (MS 552) bile kullanımdaydı, ve o dönemden kalma, var olan oyma yazılı Türkçe belgeler temelinde, Birinci Türk Kağanlığının resmi/yazı dili tartışmasız biçimde ("yazılı imperyal") Türkçe idi. Açar Sözcükler: Tsetsüüh Çatı Kiremiti Yazıtı (MS 552), Kara Katu Yazıtı (MS 593), Birinci Türk Kağanlığının Resmi Dili.

Proceedings of the 60th Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIAC) August 27 – September 1, 2017 Székesfehérvár, Hungary, Vol 52 (2018), printed in 2019. ISBN: 9789633066638 (printed) ISBN: 9789633066645 (pdf) ISSN: 0133-4239 Contents Preface .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Tatiana Anikeeva Turkic Manuscripts and Old-Printed Books of the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages: Exploring the History of Oriental Studies in Russia ................................... 9 Chen Hao Bark: A Study on the Spiritual World of the Early Türks .............................................. 15 Oliver Corff Nations and Rivers: Their Status and Name in the Qingshi Gao Reflections on the Draft History of Qing as a Source ......................................................................................... 21 Balázs Danka A language behind the script A case study on the Pagan Oɣuz-nāmä ...................... 29 Mihály Dobrovits The Ogur Turks in Chinese records .................................................................................... 35 Hsiang-Tai Kao The field research on the Manchu inscriptions in Beijing ............................................. 41 Bayarma Khabtagaeva Some notes on kinship terminology in Yeniseian ............................................................ 47 Kyoko Maezono Japanese and Mongolian Usages of the Chinese Writing System ............................... 57 Dieter Maue – Mehmet Ölmez – Étienne de la Vaissière – Alexander Vovin The Khüis Tolgoi inscription ................................................................................................ 73 Rodica Pop The “five eyes pattern” tavan nüden hee ............................................................................ 91 Maria Magdolna Tatár Bortz and Membrok, etymology of two Cuman names from the 13th century ..... 107 Hartmut Walravens Józef Kowalewski’s Letters to Bernhard Jülg .................................................................. 117 Tana Wu One Language behind Two Different Scripts* ................................................................ 135 Hülya Yıldız New Reading Proposal on the Eastern Face, Nineteenth Line of the Bilgä Qaγan Inscription .............................................................................................................................. 147

This is the draft version of a text read at the PIAC 2017 conference in Hungary. It should be read in relation to the parallel articles of Dieter Maue, Mehmet Ölmez and Alexander Vovin.

This is a draft version of one of the the four papers presented in a joint panel on the Hüis Tolgoi Inscription from Mongolia (currently in the National Institute of Archeology, Ulaanbaator) with my colleagues Dieter Maue, Mehmet Ölmez, and Étienne de la Vaissière on August 31, 2017 in conjunction with 60th meeting of PIAC in Székesfehérvár, Hungary. My colleagues' papers will be uploaded to Academia.edu shortly, and currently we are working on a co-authored article.