The small corpus of authentically Hunnic lexemes came down to us in two unequal sections bound with the European arena and China. The western vocabulary reported by Priscus and Jordanes number 3 words that for the last 150 years remain a subject of inconclusive outcome; the Caspian Huns' vocabulary numbers 5 clearly Türkic words. The Chinese sources in part stem from the Han era and in part from the post-Han period after 2nd c. AD,  E.G.Pulleyblank inventoried 278 Hunnic words.¹ Aside from the proper names, almost all simple Hunnic words have old Türkic prototypes identified by reconstruction over all Türkic languages (Table 1), the common Türkic words like Tangry (sky, Heaven) - the Pra-TürkicTangry, rong - Pra-Türkic headquarters, orun - place, throne, kyngrak - sword, a large knife; many archaic Türkic words did not reach the modern Türkic languages.² An only survived complete Hunnic phrase has attracted attention for more than a century; it remains a point of contention in some quarters, and recognized as clearly Türkic in other quarters. The problem of the Hunnic phrase is a part of a larger contention, the equivalency of the Chinese rendition 匈奴 initially Romanized as Hsiung-nu, etc  (Wade–Giles) and then as Xiongnu (Pinyin) with the historical Huns. With some episodic contentions, that problem was solved with the identification of the Hsiung-nu/Xiongnu events in the Chinese history with the native alphabetic forms for the Huns in Indian and Sogdian sources. The last alphabetic identification was established by W.B. Henning in 1948.³ By now, the consensus on equivalency of the Hsiung-nu/Xiongnu with the Huns, and on equivalency of the Hunnic and Türkic languages are generally unequivocal, but numerous specific aspects are still waiting for permanent conclusion. The only surviving Hunnic phrase had been extensively studied from the phonological aspect, leaving out much to be addressed. The mighty and useful tool of phonology studies but a single property of a very complex phenomena of language, and falls far short from its description.

The Hunnic phrase is documented in the Jin-shu (History of Jin Dynasty), ⁴ its exploration involved nearly all who-is-who's in Sinology, Japanology, and one Türkic Turkologist. A significant handicap for the scholars was that their native languages were not Türkic, and their work was purely scholastic, missing an innate feeling of the language. That probably was a reason for a florid exploratory path, quite imaginative detours, and a dotty methodology. The first explorers aimed their scope to the main task at hand, that is to identify the linguistic origin of the phrase; the work of the later explorers was essentially limited to grammatical refinement to precisely grammaticize what was said, and a search for alternatives. However, the oracles are known for their legendary imprecision, and it is reasonable to expect overt and implicit meanings with depth and spice.

Given that the Hunnic phrase came with the situational narrative, with the translation of the phrase and its lexicon, and with phonetical rendering, the whole puzzle should nicely fit between a dinner and a bedtime. Just translate the full phrase into major languages in and around China, cursory compare the results, weed out the obvious incompatibles, and hone the remains. Not a big deal compared with the heroics of the Rosetta stone and Mayan texts, it is rather like crossing a street versus climbing the Everest. Of the three stems, the first two ( sü, army , tut-, capture) were recognized at the first attempt to read the divination (1902, K.Shiratori), the third ( til -, depart, set out) was recognized 20 years later (1922, G.J.Ramstedt), and the following 90 years were spent on attempts to reconcile the identified Türkic backbone with the B.Karlgren's phonetical reconstructions published in 1923 and taken too literally, or to refute the Türkic identification by playing on scholarly discrepancies. After the full lexicon of the oracle was identified as Türkic by 1922, chances for any other languages dropped to nil. With acutely pinpointed semantics, a chance phonetical and semantical coincidence of a whole phrase with any other unrelated language is statistically impossible. Apparently, the K.Shiratori and G.J.Ramstedt's pre-Karlgren phonetizations were more beneficial for reading the Türkic phrase, they must have been closer to the V.Taskin's reading (1990). The publication of V.Taskin, translator of Late Antique Chinese annals, whose first language was Chinese, re-established phonetical value of the phrase, and allowed to read the phrase in Common Türkic with no emendations (Süčy tiligan, Pugu qüitudan or Süči tiligan, Pugu'yu tutan). The V.Taskin's reading cleared problems that ensnarled generations of Karlgren-bound phonologists. The weakness of the phonological reconstructions first proposed by B.Karlgren is obvious, it reliably misguided those who mistook reconstruction for a fact.

The B.Karlgren's reconstruction of the Middle Chinese phonetization by comparative method was numerously revised, at each turn giving phonologists a fresh formulation of the problem, it was further developed into the Middle and Old Chinese, it was complemented by direct sources of rhyme dictionaries, known terminology, and toponyms. Shi Le's events took place at the tumultuous time of transition from the Old to the Middle Chinese, when the old rhymes did not rhyme any more, and the old non-rhymes were somehow riming. That discouraging situation was helped with the publication of S.Starostin's work (1989) that detailed phonetic changes for every 300-years slice. In retrospect it is clear that for a particular candidate language, with the known phrase and its lexicon, with the roots identified in 1902, a reverse engineering of the archaic Chinese phonetics would be a much easier and productive task. The task would be to trace how would the archaic Chinese at the end of the 4th c. AD phoneticise a Türkic phrase like the Süči tiligan, Pugu'yu tutan. Such exercise would help to elucidate the implied changes in the Türkic and Chinese phonetics. Once the Türkic phonetics has been identified, either the K.Shiratori's or the G.J.Ramstedt's reading and translation could have served as a good starting point.

A synopsis of the readings across the 20th century is shown in the Table 2, each column lists Name, Base language, Phonetic reconstruction, Transliteration, Translation:

Chinese annals provide consistent and numerous attestations for the affiliations of the Hunnic language, which in today's nomenclature would be called a Türkic language. The K.Shiratori's 1902 work was in accord with the annalistic attestations, it had established a foothold for the Türkic-based reading, and was further confirmed by G.J.Ramstedt. However, politically that was contrary to the apprehensions of the still agglomerating nation-states across Eurasia, it was repeatedly questioned in various aspects, mostly on purely phonological grounds accenting formal adherence to the B.Karlgren's phonetical reconstructions. Remarkably, none of the challengers could suggest any viable alternative. L.Ligeti (1960) suggested Ket or Enisei Ostyak;⁵ E.G.Pulleyblank at one time (1963) along with harsh critic of the previous results, suggested a Kangar, Kuchean, or Eniseian alternatives. Neither L.Ligeti nor E.G. Pulleyblank proposal had anything to add to the prior reconstructions. E.G. Pulleyblank encountered strong criticism, including that of L. Potapov (1969)⁶ , and later repudiated his own hypotheses. His follower A.Vovin (2000)⁷ did make a suggestion that approximates B.Karlgren's reconstructions, with one out of 3 stems not present (army), and two others composed of unattested asterisked roots (*- ek , go out, and *- kt , catch). Since the historic Eniseans were widely dispersed forest foot hunters, they did not need or have the military terminology of the Hunnic oracle. According to A.Vovin, he received positive accolades for his work, and the “previous Turkic interpretations of the aforementioned sentence do not match the Chinese translation (read: phonetization - Ed.) as precisely as using Yeniseian grammar”. This work is invariably mentioned in popular reference sources, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu#Yeniseian_theories. Thus, according to A.Vovin, today we have two sentences in two different linguistic families that are semantically identical (except for the missing “army” in the Enisean alternative) and phonetically sound about the same, a miracle of the modern linguistic technology handling the Türkic poetry of the 4th AD. Almost per Sinatra “if you made it in linguistics you can make it anywhere”, and in tune with G.Doerfer's sour observation that with loose linguistic methodology, the phrase can be restored in any language, from Akkadian to Eskimo.⁸

From a psychological point, the Enisean development is most curious. The Eniseians are no more, they do not have a people that claims to be their descendent. In that respect, they share their status with numerous other peoples that are no more: Goths, Kurlandians, Avars, Enisei Kirgizes, Polabians, Prussians, Burgundians, Gasconians, etc. And because nobody claims them as their ancestors, they are out of a limelight. That the Eniseans surfaced from the utter obscurity is a most curious event. An infinitely small group of Paleosiberian hunters suddenly became candidates on having one of the largest empires of antiquity, whose possessions, military aptitude, and language extended from Manchuria to Rhine, who collected tribute from Rome and China, who for almost 150 years successfully fought off the Arab Caliphate, whose trident tamga covers most of the Eurasia. This phenomenon is a stark contrast with the other forgotten peoples. In view of the wide Hunnic and Türkic historical background, it appears that the mentality underlying the adventurous phonologic schemes has nothing to do with the Eniseans, that they were used to associate Huns with anybody but the Türkic nations. In other words, it appears to be grounded in primitive implicit nationalistic and imperial notions of not exactly scientific causes. Such drives tend to fabricate their own facts and furnish their own science.

A century was spent to find suitable Hunnic grammatical forms, way more than it took to declare as being Indo-European some much more obscure languages with uncertain phonetics and no positively translated words or phrases. The kernel of the conundrum, the credulity of phonetical reconstructions for the Hunnic phrase were not assessed at all, albeit it is a common knowledge that no approximation and no reconstruction would ever perfectly render an alien speech. Without testing other alternatives, any exploration is only partial, any results are inconclusive. Even today, with the codified Romanization, the Romanized transcriptions of the Chinese renditions of the well-known terms remain disputable subjects of the scientific works. Even today, the codified Romanizations of Wade–Giles and Pinyin are phonetically different, and since 1902 various Romanization systems underwent numerous revisions. The absence of codified phonetization in the 4th c. China, the uncertainty of the Chinese vernacular in the Later Zhao state, and the uncertainty of the Jie dialect should have created much wider range of possibilities than that accepted by the phonologists. The major semantical differences between voiced th, unvoiced th, alveolar s and hissing s may appear to a Chinese ear as f, t, z, or s, and even sh and ch, depicted with a range of different renditions, and these examples are just the sibilant parts of speech. What a difference Romanization can make is exemplified by V.Taskin's phonetization (Süčy tiligan, Pugu qüitudan) vs. E.G.Pulleyblank's phonetization (sûx-kēh Θe(t )s-let/le(t )s-kanbuk-kok/(g)δokgōh-thok/Θok-tañ) vs. B.Karlgren's  phonetization  (siu-k'i  t'i-li-kang puh-koh k'ü-t'u-tang). A switch to the modern Pinyin would only further exacerbate the problem. Without an axe to grind, which reading does the violence and which one is righteous is a mute point since there is no calibration standard.

A  separate unannounced problem is the polysemy. The Chinese, Türkic, and English languages have homonyms with different meanings and the same or close phonetics. The G. Clauson's dictionary lists up to 15 meanings; the Chinese reportedly has characters with excess of 100 meanings. Even for a native ear, the puns are not always readily apparent, and may remain so without an erudite explanation. In  case of the Türkic til -, in addition to go out, it means desire, wish, intend, and such. Thus, the phrase, correctly understood, also reads semantically “If the army would intend, ...”, “When the army would aspire, ...”,  “If army would ever wish, ...”,  “As soon as the army would ever desire, ...”,  “Army only needs to fancy, ...”, and such variations. The til - also forms verbal notions of tell, order, achieve (desired), occur, beg, ask, seek, and others. The til - might have been tel- to begin with, the phonetic difference is nominal. Mechanically applying the recorded translation, while ignoring semantical play of the words, may achieve a secondary objective, that is to find a suitable grammatical expression, but would completely miss the boat on the reasons why, of many couplets, this one survived for 300 years before entering Chinese annals to reach us. The melody, drumbeat, ringing, and rhyme of the couplet may have been less popular than its funny puns that ignited laughter and made it legendary among the Hunnic people. Numerous expressions have survived through the millennia due to their unexpiring sagacity, but the beauty and nuance of a pan are rarely translatable.

These aspects are not addressed within the narrow phonological interests. It should not take another century to get from canvassing real and unreal phonetics to the 1600 years-old poetic prophecy.

The historical canvas of the oracle is described in every work that addressed linguistic side of the prophecy. The synopsis of the story is: The King Shi Le came from a Hun family of Hoh. In 328 sparked a war between a general Shi Le and Liu Yao, the Emperor of the Former Zhao state. After defeating Shi Le's army at Gao-Hou, Liu Yao came to Luoyang, and besieged a town Tszinyon (pinyin: Jingyon) near the Gao-Hou. Shi Le wanted to come to the Luoyang's aid, but high officials were persuading him not to do that. Then Shi Le turned for advice to Fotu Den (aka Buttocho 佛図澄, pinyin: Fu Tucheng; Wade–Giles: Fu T'u-ch'eng,  ca. 235-348), who said in Jie language, referring to the sound of bells at the pagoda (alternatively, “then the priest swung a gong, pointing to its jingle”):

According to the explanations, süčy means “army”, tiligan is “send”, “move"; pugu is “Hu's title Liu Yao had”, and qüitudan is “seize”, “catch”. And a translation of the whole phrase is also given: “Move the troops, will catch Liu Yao”.⁹

Altogether, the phrase and explanations can be rendered in Anglicized transcription and literal translation:

In V.S.Taskin transcription, the phrase is concise and readily recognizable even in modern Türkic. The phrase may sound obsolete, in some Türkic languages some expressions are not in common use any more, but the Türkic grammar is perfectly intact. Like the phrase of the type “The zex would have xyzed the door wide” can be conceptually understood even without familiarity with who is Zex and what is the “xyz” action, to the Türkic speaker the whole phrase sounds undoubtedly natural “If you do this, you' d get that”. Some relexification in some Türkic languages may present several cognition problems, but across the 42+ documented languages of the Türkic group most of the phrase would sound ordinary, even if somewhat distorted.

In modern Turkish, the phrase is practically the same:

A likelihood that for the archaic phrase, of all possible phonetizations the modern Chinese phonetics would accidentally coincide with that phrase expressed in the modern Türkic, i.e. the most likely candidate for the Hunnic phrase, is approaching an absolute zero. The very fact of such auspicious correspondence should have become a cause célèbre and raise doubts about the sweeping applicability and accuracy of the B.Karlgren-based reconstructed forms. In accordance with the Türkic syntax, the modifying affix of the verb in predicate inflects the noun, which dictates that the morpheme 劬 qú be combined with the noun 僕谷 Púgǔ, modifying the parsing of the Chinese rendition to 僕谷劬 Púgǔqú. A need for this correction has already been established by G.J. Ramstedt (1922), B.Karlgren (1923), and L.Bazin (1948). The parsing error occurred during the initial parsing by the Chinese editors of the original non-parsed text.

In accordance with the Türkic SOV syntax, each of the two sentences of the phrase ends with a verb. The function of the particle 劬 qú in the sentence is discussed below. The modifier 支 zhī (chi) in the compound 秀支 Sü chi is an accurate rendition of the Türkic standard nominal agent affix represented in the Turkish language with the affix -çi/-cı/-cu (-chy/-ji). The function of the particle 支 zhī (chi) in the sentence is discussed below. Of the suggested grammatical alternatives, the accuracy of the V.S. Taskin phonetical rendition favors an acceptance of the agent affix function for this modifier. The original selection of the Chinese characters to phonetize the Hunnic phrase chose syllables that now read the ending as ŋ (n_g). The Chinese transcription may or may not have truly reflected the Hunnic usage of the final -n/ŋ. Among the modern Türkic languages, the tendency is to replace the velar ŋ with dental n, but the attested pre-13th c. Türkic widely used ŋ both phonetically and semantically, e.g. - dïn vs. - dïŋ (in English din “noise” vs ding “ringing”). With these qualifications, the phonetical reading of the Hunnic phrase in Türkic and English rendition is:

From the comparisons, it is clear that G.J. Ramstedt and L.Bazin were closest in their reconstructions, they correctly parsed the phrase, but both failed to use the standard Türkic future conditional transitive affix 'yu ( 'gyu in the Hunnic Ogur dialect). A. vonGabain (1950) should be given credit for coming closer to the conditional form, because semantically the you will be snatched (2nd p. sing) is just another form of (he, Pugu, + fut. cond.)'d be captured (3rd p. pass. sing.) ~ Pugu'yu tutan without a need to adhere to the Kalgren's phonetics, since the tut-  “capture” had already been established. In the modern Turkish the verb “seize, capture” survived in the form tutar, in Azeri it survived as tutan; 1, 700 years ago it had a form tutan /tudan in the Hunnic language. This is supported by the rhyme tiligan - tudan of the poem, it definitely made it memorable and remembered. Since the word tutan in Chinese records is a hapax, that can't be proved or disproved, but the conjecture appears to be well supported.

Any linguist and non-linguist alike would observe the amazing continuity of the vocabulary and grammatical affixes between the Hunnic and Türkic languages:
Sü = army
-či = agent affix to form profession or occupation
tilek- = to wish¹⁰ . The stem til - in the sentence is discussed below.
-gan = past participle, 3rd p. sing., perf. tense verbal affix
Pugu = Türkic title/rank, with few interpretations. The word Pugu in the sentence is discussed below.
-'yu /-'gyu = future conditional verbal transitive affix
tutan- = “capture” in 3rd person future tense;
-dan /-tan = locative directional verbal affix “from, out of”¹¹

Each grammatical form and each word is known from the new and old Türkic dictionaries, and from the common speech. In casual use, the modern Turkish replaced the noun sü “army” with synonymous kara for “land army”, but retained a derivative of the sü, a sübaci “army head”, lit. “commander of the army”; it also replaced the verb tiligan (tiligar) with synonymous çık -, these are the substantial dialectal modifications to the 1, 700-year old phrase.

The function of the particle 支 zhī (chi) and its allophones is a denominal agent affix to produce agent noun:  footballer -futbolcu, army-man (trooper) - karaci, belt-maker - bölci, coach-maker, coach-driver - koçci, etc. In the context of the oracle message, süci is “army-man” and “army commander”, directly referring in 3rd. p. sing. to Shi Le and his position of the army commander. All explorers, starting with K.Shiratori and ending with A.Vovin, tried to make sense out of 秀支 Pin. Xiù zhī, Wade-Giles Hsiu chih. For the Türkic speakers that combination is no puzzle, it is apparent that it stands for Süči , phonetical süchi, meaning army-man, army-trooper, army commander. Polysemy exists in any language, and needs to be considered in any analysis. In the context of the message, the “army going” and “army commander going” are synonymous, the Chinese annals constantly use similar terms as interchangeable. In today's lingo they are also synonymous and interchangeable, e.g. “Patton advanced” means “Patton's tank army advanced” and “Patton ordered his tank army to advance”. In a polysemous situation that precludes precision, reconstruction can not be an attempt to be absolutely precise. We can be positive about the root word, that 秀 Xiù (Sü) means 軍 “army”. K.Shiratori identified siu-k'i as Old Turkic sön-güš “fight” (OTD form  süŋüš), a derivative of the sü “army, troops” (like a war vs. to war), J.Ramstedt suggested dative case “to army”, an object, not a subject of the verb, like (send) to the army; L.Bazin suggested accusative case (an object). These readings may be phonologically and morphologically acceptable, but semantically and syntactically they conflict with the active form “(If) Army set out, ...”, where the “army” is a subject, and with the normal flow of Türkic phrase, they appear artificial and conflict with the clear reading Xiù zhī/Sü chi that does not involve artificial phonetical reconstructions. VonGabain (1950) suggested unattested *särig “army”, a form of attested ĉärig “troops, army”, an artificial Kalgren-driven phonological construct with a phantom ĉ- > s- alteration for the sake of superficial phonological conformance. In the following discourse, the term army-man is used as an only suitable English equivalent.

The word spelled tiligan might as well be tilegan, teligan, or telegan, the phonetical difference is nominal, but the stems tal-, täl - (təl-), tel -, til -, and tïl- produce numerous semantical meanings. The verbal affix -gan (-gän/-kän) is past participle, 3rd p. sing., simple and perf. past tense, forming notions like He/she did/had done (had eaten, had moved out). The suffix - gan conveys a notion of “time” and “motion”, indicating the time of the action, the time component being equally important to that of the action.¹² In English and Türkic languages, the past participle and accusative are regularly used in conditional sense with reference to the future time ( I buy the house, and it would be remodeled; Had she have seen the house, she would buy it). In the oracle, the past participle forms the conditional sense with dependent clause (If) army had moved, then...; (If) commander had wished, then.... Of the attending linguists, only the first one, K. Shiratori, explicitly perceived the conditional form of the expression, although indirectly it is present in the Chinese translation and in all readings.

The literal meanings of the stems homophonic with tiligan are:
tel-/del-/teş- (tesh) “pierce, punch, break through” => (If) army-man (would) have broken through, then...
til-/dil-  “slice” => (If) army-man (would) have sliced through, then...
tïl-, tïlïq-  “tell”, “talk” => (If) army-man (would) have told (i.e. ordered), then...
tile-/dile- “seek, desire, ask”  (Turkish dilek -)  => (If) army-man (would) have sought, then...;   => (If) army-man (would) have desired, then...; => (If) army-man (would) have asked (i.e. ordered), then...
til- ïčɣn- “let out, release, emit, excrete, unleash, turn loose”  => (If) army-man (would) have unleashed, then...
*tal-/taş-/daş- (tash/dash) “dash” => (If) army-man have dashed, then...
*talïq-/tašïq-  “go out” => (If) army-man (would) go out (on a campaign), then...

Two more suitable meanings of the root tal - could be explored, although they are known only from their derivatives, talbïn-/talpïn- “to thresh, shake” ( => would have shaken...), and talïm “rapacious, brash, brave”  ( => would have braved...). They can be restored as verbal roots carrying semantics of the derivatives. However, these unattested verbal roots would add little new substance to the above list.

 

All of them are phonetically and semantically sufficiently close to the substance of the Chinese translation, but none of them matches exactly the part Army+affix move out.  G.J.Ramstedt’s interpretation of the second word as the imperative form of *tal'ïq - “go out”, an older form of OT tašïq - “to go out”, is important, albeit perhaps illusory discovery. The word *talïq- is theoretically possible (e.g. pair tel-/teş- “pierce”), but it has not been attested, and may lead astray as do the other speculative asterisked hypotheses. The same is the case with unattested *tal- vs. attested but unsuitable taş-/daş-. The paired til- ïčɣïn- “let out, unleash” would be an ideal direct fit if not for the inlaut č (ch).¹³ Like in the case with the  G.J.Ramstedt’s *tal'ïq -, it could be explained away using some imagination, but then it would remain unattested. The main problem with unattested root is that agglutinative language is using every root to create a large nest of derivatives, and chances that all of them would uniformly disappear in all languages are bordering on improbability. Except for til- ïčɣïn-, the other homonyms convey the meaning of move out only in a figurative sense, although in each case they are fully applicable to the military movements of the army or of the army-man. With these qualifications, the most credible verdict appears to be that all 7 (8 counting form tïlïq-) candidate words are equally possible, but which one was in fact used in 329 AD can't be corroborated. In such case, the phonetical reconstructions can't be held as evidence. Of the 7/8 nearly equal choices, the preferred choice appears to be the indirect Süči (Süchi) tiligan = (Had) army-man ordered (into action, move out, etc.), ..., or its allophone Süči (Süchi) tïlïgan = (Had) army-man told (ordered into action, move out, etc.), as most accurately matching the annalistic text phonetically, grammatically, and semantically. This choice is also predicated on the pun of the dependent clause discussed below. The choice for tiligan is either direct but an unattested root, or attested but indirect equivalent. Since it is unknown whether the Chinese translation was of a lit. word or translation of indirect semantics of the notion “move out”, a preference for unattested lit. root is not warranted.

The reading of the entire oracle contains only the above one ambiguity. With the presence of all other lexical, grammatical, and morphological elements accurately matching that phrase in the modern Türkic languages, this ambiguity does not present a problem for conclusive identification of the Hunnic-language prophecy with the Türkic linguistic family. Moreover, the idiosyncrasies contained in the phrase allow to suggest a more precise affiliation of the Hunnic language with the Ogur branch.

A brief synopsis of the events in the Hunnic world may help to further narrow affiliation. According to a common Türkic tradition, the ruling elite was a marital union of a dynastic paternal and dynastic maternal tribes. The paternal dynastic tribe was Luanti, the maternal dynastic tribe of old was Qiang (Huyan 呼衍, Kiyan), later (before 200 BC) supplanted by Sui/Hui  (pin. 須 Xu). The male head of the maternal dynastic tribe was an equivalent of today's Prime Minister and Chief Judge, a head of the state executive branch nor eligible for succession to the throne. However, in 58 BC the Huns split four ways, and ineligible Huhanye, a head of the maternal dynastic tribe Sui/Hui became a Shanuy of the Southern Huns. Since then, the former maternal dynastic tribe became a paternal dynastic tribe of the Southern Huns, and Jie were a branch of the Southern Huns. Following identification of the Sui/Hui with Uigurs, and with the Uigurs belong to the Karluk linguistic branch of the Ogur trunk, there is a good probability that the Jie Huns belonged to the Karluk linguistic branch.

All explorers uniformly accepted the Türkic title/rank 僕谷 Pugu with few variations, Bügü /Bögü “wise” (Ramstedt), Buγuγ “deer” (VonGabain), Buγuγ (Shervashidze), Bokuk (Tekin). The early Türkic titulature used names of the sire animals as title-names, they came to us as Buga/Boga “Sire Bull”, Buɣra “Sire Camel”; T.Tekin supported the OT title Bokuk with a citation Boquq Xan in Juwainï and Buɣuɣ Xan in Chavannes-Pelliott.¹⁴ The Bügü/Bögü “wise” was also widely used in the early Türkic titulature. The Buɣu “deer” as a title has not been attested. In their Enisean explorations, neither E.G.Pulleyblank nor A.Vovin offered an Enisean term or explication for Pugu. For the Türkic readings, the part 劬  qú/k'ü//g'tu/kü/chu of the annalistic expression 劬禿當 qú tū dāng meaning “seize” was interpreted as an accusative suffix - g belonging to the previous word, i.e. bögü-kü and similar variations. There are no corroborating annalistic translation of the title Pugu, and the readings Bügüg and Bokuk are equally plausible. The alternate is the conditional form of the dependent clause Buguqüi or Bügüqüi, which in the modern Turkish is conveyed with an affix -yi/-iyi/-yu, an equivalent of the English would and 'd. This appears to be a preferred choice: the Puguqüi =Bugu'd (be captured), ..., or its close homophone Bügüqüi =Bügü'd (be captured), most accurately matching the annalistic text phonetically, grammatically, and semantically. This choice is consistent with a passive voice of the dependent clause. This choice is also predicated on the pun of the dependent clause.

 A homophonic pug/buk is also “poop, excrement, shit”.¹⁵ Pugu is not only a title/rank of Liu Yao, pug/buk is also a noun poop and a verb poop. As a noun, Pugu's title semantically rings as poop. The pagoda bells urged Go, get that Poop (Shit, if it sounds better )!, stated in a proper grammatical form Poop'd be captured. As a verb, the dependent clause has a second figurative homophonic form Pug quitudan “scared his poop”. The predicate form quitudan =  qui- + -tu + -dan < qui- synonym of qorq - “to fear, to freak”¹⁶ + -tu (-ti; -tï, -tü, -di, -dï, -du, -dü) 3rd p. objective past. finite form with a notion “(He) has done (the action)” + -dan (-tan) locative directional verbal affix “from, out of”. Alternatively, quitudan is “scare out of” =  quiut- + -dan  < quiut - is “to scare, to spook + -dan (-tan) locative directional verbal affix “from, out of””. Mahmud Kashgary cites an example Ol atig quiutti “He scared a horse”.¹⁷  The English idiom “scared his ass”, or closer “scared the shit out of him” is a calque of the expression  qüitudan. This expression originates from a Türkic proverb “scare your own poop” which means Do not try to scare me, first try to scare you own poop. With the first part the verb is heard as tilek - “to wish” with the affix -gan, the verb tilek - becomes tiligan “having wished”, past participle 3rd p. sing., perf. tense.¹⁸ The part Süčy tiligan rings as “Army commander having wished”. The whole phrase rings: Süčy tiligan, Pug qüitudan = (Should only the) Army commander having wished, Pugu would shit himself (lit. will have scared his poop). This ringing homophonic message of the poem was completely missed by the ancient Chinese and non-Türkic-speaking modern phonologists. Having they've heard it, they would add two more words to the attested Hunnic vocabulary.

The word 禿當 tutan is 3rd person future tense of tut- “capture”, with the future conditional clause formed by the affix yi/iyi/yu, with the Ogur prosthetic consonant -gyi, it forms the future passive voice of “capture”, will be captured.  J. Benzing¹⁹ and G. Clauson²⁰ commented on the verb tut- with opposing etymologies that did not challenge the reading. The affix -dan/-tan is a locative directional verbal affix “from, out of”. In English, such directional indications are conveyed by postpositions away, out, up, down, etc. A very approximate English equivalent would thus be will be captured down, will be caught up, will be seized away, etc.

The jolly tenor of the whole phrase is in its flamboyant homophonic punning.

Thus, the oracle relays wonderfully multifaceted form carrying three messages:

First and foremost, it translates the sacred toll of the bells into the human language, reflecting the bells' rhythm and rhyme. Melodically, the verse follows a five-syllable metrical pattern, or pentameter, typical for the Türkic ancient poetry.²¹ The prophecy is singing.

Secondly, the oracle says that the sacred bells are urging on:
Army commander would go,
(He) would capture Pugu.

Thirdly, the oracle says that the bells are reassuring:
Army commander having wished (desired),
Pugu would shit himself (out of scare).

A permutation of all 5 credible meanings of the verb tiligan, plus the 3 meanings of the word Pugu, plus the meanings of word and particle qui, illustrate the awesome bouquet of the meanings an audience would hear. It can be visualized how afterward, the Shi Le courtiers were debating the prophecy, with each one coming up with his own version of what he has heard from the fleeting magical event, and trying to argue that his version was the true one. Remarkably, all versions convey the same message, that is, just go and do it, whether it is a move to slice, a move to break through, an order to move, a rush-dash, or just wish to act. The predicted outcome also ends up with the same climax, that is, Pugu would shit his pants, or Pugu would be captured. The final decision was fateful, in case of a mishap all advisors would have lost everything including their heads, and to swing a crowd of conservative advisors to completely reverse their position needed nothing less than a tangible miracle. The toll of the sacred bells, at a right place and at a right time, with a magical prophecy that translated the message of the toll to the Hunnic language, was exactly that miracle. It made Shi Le a Celestial ruler of the Celestial Empire. The miraculous event was duly documented in the diaries of the “Later Zhao” (the euphemism in Chinese dynastic nomenclature), and finally, some 300 years after the events, it was immortalized in the history book compiled in 648 under Fang Xuanling of the Tang Empire. Then, starting with K.Shiratori, the bells were reverberating for the whole of the 20th century, and they still are ringing their jolly song.

Unlike a litany of peculiar names, titles, nouns, toponyms, and a few verbs associated with the Hunnic language, the Fotu Den's oracle provides a unique insight into the Hunnic language. A phrase, unlike isolated words, carries a load of linguistic traits that define a language better than a collection of detached lexemes. The Fotu Den's oracle demonstrates agglutinative and SOV typology, morphological structure and pinpointed affix morphemes, syntax, lexicon, semantics, polysemy, homophony, metrical pattern, and the phonology that far exceed the narrow scope examined by the 20th c. phonologists. The verdict on the Türkic affiliation of the Hunnic language reliably rests on the firm foundation of a complex of the linguistic traits, it can be contested, but can't be disputed. The substantial body of the documented linguistic evidence unequivocally testifies to the Türkic affiliation of the Hunnic language. That body of linguistic evidence is corroborated by a mass of interdisciplinary evidence form such diverse sources as archeology, literature, history, biology, and lately genetics.

Notes

1 Pulleyblank E. G., 1963
2 Dybo A.V., 2013
3  Henning W.B., 1948
4  Fang Xuanling, 648
5 Ligeti L., 1960, p. 23.
6 Potapov L.P., 1969, p. 7 on
7 Vovin A., 2000
8 Doerfer Gerhard, 1963, p. 96
9 Taskin V.S., 1990, Materials on the history of nomadic peoples in China. 3rd - 5th cc. AD. Issue 2. Jie, p. 820, translation of Fang Xuanling, Jin-shu, Peking, Bo-na, 1958, Ch. 95, pp. 12-b-13-a
10 OTD, 1969, p. 560
11 OTD, 1969, p. 664
12 Akar Ali, 2003
13 OTD, 1969, p. 675
14 Chavannes E., Pelliot P., 1913 , p. 413
15 OTD, 1969, p. 112
16 OTD, 1969, p. 464
17 Mahmud Kashgari, 1070, vol. 2, p. 326
18 Mahmud Kashgari, 1070, vol. 1, p.412
19 Benzing Johannes, 1959, pp. 685-695
20 Clauson Gerard, 1962, p. 107, note 2
21 Khatipov Gosman, 1975, pp. 108-135

References

Bazin Louis, (1948), Untexte proto-turc duIV^e siècle: ledistique Hiong-nou du 'Tsin-chou' (A proto-Türkic text of the 4th c.: the Hsiung-nu couplet of “Chin-chou”), Oriens, 1, pp. 208-219.
Benzing Johannes, (1959), Das Hunnische Donaubolgarische und Wolgabolgarische (Danube Bulgarian and Itil Bulgarian Huns), Fundamenta I (1959), pp. 685-695
Chavannes E., Pelliot P., (1913), Türkische Turfan-Texte II//J A, 1913, 197
Clauson Gerard, (1962), Turk, Mongol, Tungus, Asia Major, VIII (1962)
Doerfer Gerhard, (1963), Türkische und monlgolische elemente im Neupersischen, I (1963), p. 96
Dybo A.V. (2013), Xiongnu , Huns. Who are they? Lecture given October 24, 2013, http://polit.ru/article/2013/12/01/dibo/ (in Russian)
FangXuanling (648), Jin-shu. Peking, Bo-na, 1958, Ch. 95, pp. 12-b-13-a
Gabain, von, Annemarie, (1950), Besprechungen (review of Bazin)//Der Islam, 29, pp. 244-246.
Khatipov Gosman, (1975) “Shigyrtozeleshe”, Tatar Publishing, Kazan, , . pp. 108-135
Henning W.B., (1948), The Date of the Sogdian Ancient Letters, BSOAS, 1948, pp. 601-615 [315]
Karlgren, B. (1922), The reconstruction of Ancient Chinese, T'oung Pao 21: 1–42
Kashgari Mahmud, (1070), Türki suzlardevoni (Devon lugot it-türk)//Tashkent, 1960, vol. 1, p.412.
Ligeti L., (1960), À propos des éléments 'altaïques' de la langue hongroise, Acta Linguistica, XI (1960)
Old Türkic Dictionary (OTD), (1969), Leningrad, Science
Potapov L.P., (1969), Ethnic composition and origin of Altaians, Science, Leningrad, 1969
Pulleyblank, E.G. (1984), Middle Chinese: a study in historical phonology, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, ISBN 978-0-7748-0192-8.
Pulleyblank E. G., (1963), “ The consonantal system of Old Chinese: Part II, Appendix: The Hsiung-nu Language”. Asia Major. IX (1963), pp. 239-265
Shiratori K., (1902), Über die Sprache der Hiungnu und der Tunghu-Stämme (On the language of the Hiungnu and Tunghu tribes)//News of Imperial Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Vol. XVII, No 2, pp. 1-32, pp. 6-7.
Ramstedt G. J., (1922), Zur Fragenach der Stellung destschuwassischen (On the question of the position of the Chuvashian), JSFO, XXXVIII. 1, p. 31
Starostin, S.A., (1989), Reconstruction of ancient Chinese phonological system, Moscow//Старостин, S.A., Реконструкция древнекитайской фонологической системы. Москва, 1989
Taskin V.S., (1990), Materials on the history of nomadic peoples in China. 3rd - 5th cc. AD. Issue 2. Jie, p. 820, synopsis of Fang Xuanling. Jin-shu. Peking, Bo-na, 1958, Ch. 95, pp. 12-b-13-a
Vovin A., (2000), Did the Xiong-nu Speak a Yeniseian Language?, Central Asiatic Journal 44-1, 2000, pp. 87-104.
Ali Akar, (2003), The suffix -gan, http://www.tubar.com.tr/TUBAR%20DOSYA/pdf/2003GUZ/t5.ali%20akartbar.pdf (In Turkish)