The history of exploration of the Hunnic phrase documented in the Jin-shu (History of Jin Dynasty) [Fang Xuanling. Jin-shu. Peking, Bo-na, 1958, Ch. 95, pp. 12-b-13-a] lists nearly all who-is-who's in Sinology, Japanology, bystanders nearby, and a dearth of Turkologists. That probably was a reason for a florid exploratory path, quite imaginative detours, and a dotty methodology. Given that the Hunnic phrase came with the situational narrative, translation of the phrase and its lexicon, and phonetical approximation, an uninitiated onlooker would think that the whole puzzle would 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 achievements of the Rosetta stone and Mayan texts, it is rather like crossing a street versus climbing the Everest. In reality, of the three stems, the first two (sü, army, tut-, capture) were recognized at the first attempt to analyze the divination (1902, K. Shiratori), the third (til-, depart, set out) were 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 Karlgren's phonetical reconstructions published in 1923 and taken too literally. Apparently, the K. Shiratori and G.J. Ramstedt's pre-Karlgren phonetizations were more beneficial for reading the Türkic phrase, they must have been close to the V. Taskin's reading. The weakness of the phonological reconstructions first proposed by Karlgren is obvious, but they reliably fooled those who in their linguistic explorations tend to cling to a rail. It is reasonable for the first explorers to limit their scope to the main task at hand, that is to confirm the Türkic origin of the phrase; but for the later explorers to limit their scope to the scope of their predecessors is amiss. The 1990 publication of V. Taskin, whose first language was Chinese, re-established the phonetical value of the phrase, and allowed to read the phrase in Common Türkic with no emendations (Süčy tiligan, Pugu qüitudan ~ Süči tiligan, Pugu'yu tutan). The V. Taskin's reading clears problems that ensnarled generations of Karlgren-bound linguists.

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 linguistic grounds accenting formal deviations from the Karlgren's phonetical reconstructions. Remarkably, none of the challengers could suggest any viable alternative.  E.G. Pulleyblank, for one, at one time (1963) along with harsh critic of the previous results suggested a Kangar, Kuchean, or Eniseian alternative. Neither his own proposal, nor that of L. Ligeti had anything to add to the list of suggested reconstructions. E.G. Pulleyblank encountered strong criticism, including that of L. Potapov (1969), and later repudiated his hypotheses. His follower A. Vovin (2000) did make a suggestion that approximates Karlgren's reconstructions, with one out of 3 stems not present (army), and two others of unattested asterisked consonant concoctions (*-ek, go out and *-kt, catch). Since the Eniseans were widely dispersed forest foot hunters, they did not capture anybody, and correspondingly could not have a word for it. 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 absolutely identical (except the missing word “army” in the Eniseian version) and sound phonetically exactly 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”.

From a psychological point, this 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 that status with numerous other peoples that are no more: Kurlandians, Avars, Enisei Kirgizes, Polabians, Prussians, Burgundians, Gasconians, etc. And because nobody claims them as their ancestors, nobody cares. That the Eniseians surfaced from the utter obscurity is a most curious event. An infinitely small group of Paleosiberians suddenly became candidates on having one of the largest empires of antiquity, whose possessions and language extended from Manchuria to Rhein, who collected tribute from Rome, and who successfully fought the Arab Caliphate for almost 150 years, whose trident tamga covers most of the Eurasia. This is a stark contrast with the other forgotten peoples. It appears that the mentality underlying the adventurous linguistic scheme has nothing to do with the Eniseians, that the people who used them were ready to associate Huns with anybody but the Türkic nations. In other words, it appears to be grounded in primitive racism fed by nationalistic and imperial notions exemplified by Arian Nations, Nazism, and other not exactly scientific causes. Such drives tend to fabricate their own facts on the ground and furnish their own science.

A century was spent to find suitable Hunnic grammatical forms, much more than it took to pronounce as Indi-European some way more obscure languages with uncertain phonetics, and no accurately translated words or phrases. The kernel of the conundrum, the phonetical reconstructions, for the Hunnic phrase were not assessed at all, they were as much above suspicion as the proverbial Caesar's wife, albeit it is a common knowledge that no approximation and no reconstruction would ever perfectly render an alien speech. Without testing alternatives, any exploration is only partial, any results are inconclusive. Even today, with 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 considered by the linguists. 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, and then depicted with a range of different renditions, and these 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-kan buk-kok/(g)δok gōh-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. Which one does the violence and which one is righteous is a mute point if there is no axe to grind.

A  separate unannounced problem is the polysemy. Like Chinese, like Türkic, and like English, languages have homonyms, denoting different meanings by the same (or close) phonetics. The G. Clauson's dictionary lists up to 15 meanings; the Chinese reportedly has in excess of 100. 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 pun, 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 many others. It might have been tel- to begin with, the phonetic difference is nominal. Mechanically applying the selected translation, while ignoring the semantical play of the words, may achieve a posed secondary objective, that is a finding of a suitable grammatical expression, but would completely miss the boat on the reasons why, of many couplets, this one entered the Chinese annals to reach us. The melody, drumbeat, ringing, and rhyme of the couplet may have been less popular than its numerous 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 pan are rarely translatable.

These aspects are unlikely to be addressed within a narrow phonological interests. Hopefully, it would take less than another century to get from chewing on the real and unreal phonemes to the 1600 years-old poetic prophecy.

Page numbers are shown at the beginning of the page in blue. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and not noted specially, are shown in (blue) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers. Diacritics may need verification against the original.

As is known in the circles of Turkic and Altaic studies, in Chin-shu, the Chinese history of the Chin dynasty, there occurs a Hunnic (Hsiung-nu) couplet or sentence mentioned in connection with an event which took place in Lo-yang in 329 A.D. The passage at the end of which the Hunnic text is given with an accompanying word-for-word Chinese translation was first published by Shiratori². It reads as follows:

Der König Shi Lo stammte aus einer Familie der Hiung-nu Hoh. Als er einst im Begriff war mit dem feindlichen König Liu Yao Krieg zu führen, warnten ihn alle seine Vasallen, indem sie behaupteten, dass der Krieg für ihn unglücklich enden würde. Shi Lo fragte den Priester Fo-t'u-teng, welcher im Jahre 310 n. Chr. aus Indien nach der damaligen Hauptstadt Chinas Lo-yang gekommen war und bei Shi Lo in grösser Achtung stand, wie man cs mit dem Krieg halten soli.e. Da schwang der Priester eine ringförmige Schelle und deutete ihren Klang (The King Shi Lo came from a Hunn family of Hoh. When once he was going to lead a war against his enemy king Liu Yao, all his vassals warned him that the war would end badly for him. Shi Lo asked the priest Fo-t'u-teng, who in 310 AD came from India to the then capital of China Lo-yang and was held by Shi Lo in great respect, what should we do with the war. Then the priest swung a gong, pointing to its jingle):

Dieses siu-k'i bedeutet auf hohisch “Armee” (Here siu k'i in Hunnic means “army”),
t'i-li-kang “auszichen” (t'i-li-kang means “move out, set out”),
puh-koh ist der Rang des Liu Yao und  (puh-koh is the Liu Yao rank)
k'ü-t'u-tang bedeutet “gefangen nehmen” (k'ü-t'u-tang means “capture”).
Aus dem Ganzen ergiebt sich also der folgende Sinn: Wenn man (in dem Krieg) auszicht. so kann man Liu Yao gefangen nehmen (The whole, therefore, has the meaning: If you set out (to the war), you'd capture Liu Yao)².

Shiratori was the first scholar who attempted to interpret this short Hsiung-nu text in terms of Turkic. He identified siu-k'i as Old Turkic sön-güš “fight”, t'i-li-kang as Chagatay tolgan- “to move around, circle”, puh-koh as Old Turkic bö-dig “the throne (acc.)”, k'ü- as Old Turkic kop “wholly, completely”, and t'u-tang as Common Turkic tut- “to catch, seize”.

It goes without saying that all these identifications with the exception of t'u-tang = are wrong (süŋüš “fight, war, encounter” is a derivative of sü “army, troops”, i.e. the stem is correct)

Ramstedt who became interested in this Hsiung-nu text interpreted the individual words in it as follows³:

1     siu-k'i = OT sükä (sü 'fighting army, fight”, -ka dative suffix);
2     t'i-li-kang or t'ai-li-kang = tal'ïqïn or tal'ïqan  (OT tašïqïn) “go out!”;
3     puh-koh = OT bögü “wise” (used as the title of the rival leader) or ügä (an Old Turkic high rank);
4     kü- = OT -g (accusative suffix belonging to the previous word) (i.e. bögü-kü);
5     t'u-tang = the imperative form of Turkic tut- “to seize, capture”.

Under the light of these identifications, Ramstedt's interpretation of the Hunnic couplet can be given as follows:

sükä tal'ïqïn or (tal'ïqan) “zieh aus zum Krieg” (pull out to the war) und
bügüg (or ügüg) tutan “fange den Bügü” (catch the Bügü)

1) K. Shiratori, “über die Sprache der Hiungnu und der Tunghu-Stümme”. IZl'cstija illlJ'cratorskoj akadclllii lIauk. T. XVII, No 2 (1902), 01-032.
2) K. Shiratori, op. cit., pp. 6-7.
3) G. J. Ramstedt. “Zur Frage nach der Stellung des tschuwassischen”, JSFO, XXXVIII. 1 (1922). p. 31.
2

Ramstedt’s interpretation of the second word of this Hunnic text as the imperative form of *tal'ïq-, i.e., the older form of OT tašïq- “to go out”, is a very important (but illusory) discovery. According to him, the Ho language, i.e., the Hunnic dialect in which this couplet had been uttered was very close to Old Turkic, but obviously it was an /l/ language like present-day Chuvash. Ramstedt who was understandably happy to find an older form with /l/ of OT tašïq- in this text dating from the first half of the 4th century pointed out that the time gap between Hunnic *talïq- and Old Turkic tašïq- was long enough for the occurrence of the sound change *1' > š he assumed for Turkic.

The first attempt to interpret the Hunnic text after the appearance of Karlgren's dictionary was made by the well-known French Turkologist Louis Bazin⁴. Bazin first gave the ancient pronunciations of the 10 Chinese characters transcribing the Hunnic couplet. They read:

siôg tieg t'iei liəd kâng b'uok kuk g'tu tuk tâng

Bazin interpreted this text as follows:

süg tägti ïdqan “envoyez l'armée à l'attaque” (send the army to attack),
boquɣïɣ tutqan “capturez le commandant” (capture the commander). ¹

As is seen, Bazin's interpretation is quite different from that of Ramstedt's. According to Bazin:

l. the first sign represents *süg, i.e., a word which is identical with the accusative form of Old Turkic sü “army”;
2 the second and third signs stand for *tägti “attack”, a hypothetical deverbal noun in -ti derived from OT täg- “to attack”;
3 the fourth and fifth signs should be read and understood as *ïdqan, an older (Proto-Turkic) 2. p. plural imperative form in *-qan of the verb ïd- “to send”;
4 the sixth, seventh and eighth signs represent *boquɣïɣ, the accusative form of the title *boquɣ meaning “leader”;
5 finally, the last two signs transcribe *tuqtan, which is the metathetical form of an original *tutgan, i.e., the older imperative form in -qan of the verb tut- “to capture”.

Prof. Gabain, who reviewed Bazin's interpretation, criticized his views as follows:⁵

l  According to the Chinese translation, not only the first sign, but the first two signs mean “army”;
2 The suffix -ti forming nouns from verbs is a comparatively new suffix in Turkic;
3 According to the Chinese translation, not only the fourth and fifth signs (戾剛 Pin. li gang), but the third, fourth and fifth signs (替戾剛 Pin. ti li gang) mean “to go out”;
4 The older form of the Old Turkic 2. p. plural imperative suffix -ïn/-an could not be *-qan;
5 Bazin's interpretation of the second line as *boquɣïɣ tutqan is based on the assumption that here we have two metathetical forms (i.e., -ɣï  instead of -ïɣ and *tuqtan instead of tutqan), which is unlikely.

After criticizing Bazin in this way, Prof. Gabain herself made an attempt to interpret the Hunnic couplet. Gabain's interpretation is, “mit starkem Zweifel am letzten Wort” (with strong doubt on the last word), as follows:

särig tïlïtqan “Du wirst das Heer herausführen” (You will lead the army out),
buɣuɣ kötürkän “du wirst den “Hirsch” entführen” ("you'll get the '“deer” captured).

As is seen, Gabain reads the first two signs meaning “army” as *särig. She maintains that this could be a dialect form of Old Turkic ĉärig (Or a Chinese ear heard some form of ĉärig as särig... Or a lisping intermediary recited it... Or a scribe knew better... Literature is full of references to the scribes' errors... If you can get from Sir-jibun to endlessly repeated  Silzibul, Dizabul, and Dizavul, to held any phonetical form as canonized is being too pious. In fact, ĉärig, sü, and süŋüš are synonymous in the context of the message. You can take the army to the enemy, or you can take the fight to the enemy. Same difference.)

In other words, she believes that a sound change ĉ- > s- similar to the change in Sagay and Koibal might have taken place in this particular dialect of Hunnic. It goes without saying that such a view can hardly be accepted; for the sound change ĉ- > s- in Khakas (and Bashkir) is only a recent development in Turkic. To think that the same change might have occurred also in Proto-Turkic times would be anachronistic.

Gabain accepts Ramstedt's interpretation of the third, fourth and fifth signs with the only difference that she sees here a verbal stem *tïlït-, i.e., the causative form of a hypothetical *tïlï-, instead of Ramstedt's *talïq- or *tïlïq- (= OT taŝïq-). She thinks that what we have here is not an intensive stem in -q- as in OT taŝïq- ( < taŝ+ïq-), but a causative stem in -t- as in *taŝït-  < taŝ + ï- “herausgehen” (go out)). It should be said that this is not very convincing, because OT taŝïq- is a direct derivative in +ïq- derived from the noun taŝ “outside, exterior”, but not an intensive stem in -q- derived from a hypothetical *tas+ï-.

Finally, Gabain's interpretation of the eighth, ninth and tenth signs as *kötükrän, i.e. a metathetical form of an original  kötürkän “du wirst entführen” (you will be snatched) is indeed very doubtful, as she herself admits. In connection with this, it must be emphasized that that kötür- means “to raise, lift”, not “to capture, seize”.

4) Louis Bazin, “Un texte proto-turc du IV^e siècle: le distique Hiong-nou du 'Tsin-chou'”, Oriens, 1 (1948), pp. 208-219.
5) Annemarie von Gabain, Besprechungen (review of Bazin), Der Islam, 29 (1950), pp. 244-246.
3

Benzing who took the Hunnic text in hand after Gabain did not attempt to read and interpret it, but he contented himself with summarizing Ramstedt's, Bazin's and Gabain's readings and interpretations⁶. Nevertheless, Benzing could not himself take away from stating that the two words of the Hunnic text could be identified rather safely: t'uk-tâng clearly represents *tuqta- “festhalten” (capture) which is identical with Mo. toqta- “anhalten” (stop, persist, last, holt, continue) and OT tut- “halten” (hold) (for the sound correspondence, cf. Mo. aqta “Wallach” (gelding) = OT at “Pferd” (horse)) ; siôg (tieg ?) might belong to OT sü “army”, but whether the text is in Turkic, or Mongolian, or Tungus could be understood only after an elegant interpretation of the remaining words⁷.

Benzing's reading of the signs t'uk-tâng as *tuqta- and his equating this verb with Mo. toqta- (better toɣta-) and Turkic tut- is very interesting.

This view of Benzing, however, has been criticized rather severely by Clauson⁸. According to Clauson, “Mo. toqta- means not 'to grasp' but “to be immobile, fixed, still, permanent; to decide, settle a matter”. Furthermore, Clauson claimed that the equation Mo. aqta “gelding” = Trk. at “horse” could not be correct, since “Mo. aqta is not old Mongolian at all, it is a 13th century loan word, from Persian axta, the Past Passive Participle of axtan 'to geld'”.

The Hunnic couplet in Chin-shu has recently been touched by Ligeti, Pulleyblank and Doerfer.

As is known, Ligeti, the eminent Hungarian scholar, has always been skeptical about the Hsiung-nus being the ancestors of Turks. He rather believed that the Hsiung-nu were the ancestors of Kets or Yenisei Ostyaks. Consequently, he stated that the so-called Hunnic text in Chinshu was not in Turkic or Altaic, but it was in the Ho language as understood clearly from the passage⁹.

Pulleyblank who has recently dealt with the problem of the identification of the Hsiung-nu and their language also touched the problem of the language of the so-called “Hsiung-nu couplet”¹⁰. On the several attempts made to interpret this couplet Pulleyblank commented a follows:

“On the supposition that the Hsiung-nu spoke Turkish a number of attempts have been made to interpret the couplet in term of Turkish (in recent times we may note the attempts of Ramstedt 1922, Bazin 1948, an Gabain 1949). None of these interpretation can be considered very successful since all do more or less violence to the phonetic value of the Chinese characters and to the explanation given in the accompanying Chinese text.”^ll

He then gave the ancient pronunciations of the Chinese characters used in the transcription of the Hsiung-nu couplet. Pulleyblank's reconstruction of the Hsiung-nu text is as follows:

秀支 sûx-kēh 替戾剛 Θe(t )s-let/le(t )s-kan “army” “go out” 僕谷 禿劬當 buk-kok/(g)δok gōh-thok/Θok-tañ “Liu Yao's rank” “capture”

Pulleyblank did not attempt to add to the list of suggested reconstructions, at least for the present. But he nevertheless remarked that -ñ was a common verbal ending in Yenisseian, especiall in Konish, thus implying that the Hsiung-nu of the Chinese sources spoke a language of the Yenissei family, i.e., not early Turkic or any form of Altaic.

In the same year, Doerfer, after reproducing Ramstedt's, Bazin's, and Gabain's interpretations, which differ greatly from one another, ironically claimed that the so-called Hunnic text could even be read and interpreted in terms of Akkadian (and he actually did this).¹²

6)   Johannes Benzing. “Das Hunnische. Donaubolgarische und Wolgabolgarische”. Fundamenta I (1959). pp. 685-695.
7)   J. Benzing, op. cit., p. 687.
8)   Gerard Clauson, “Turk, Mongol, Tungus”, Asia Major, VIII (1962), p. 107, note 2.
9)   L. Ligeti, “À propos des éléments 'altaïques' de la langue hongroise”, Acta Linguistica, XI (1960), p. 23.
10) E. G. Pulleyblank. “The consonantal system of Old Chinese: Part II, Appendix: The Hsiung-nu Language”. Asia Major. IX (1963), pp. 239-265.
11) Pulleyblank, op. cil., p. 264.
12) Gerhard Doerfer, “Türkische und monlgolische elemente im Neupersischen”, I (1963), p. 96.
4

Most recently, in his long article dealing with the language of the Huns, Doerfer has maintained the same negative and ironic attitude and claimed that the so-called Hunnic text might even be read in the Eskimo language!¹³

 

After this rather long introduction, I now would like to offer my interpretation of the Hunnic couplet in Chin-shu dating from the 4th century. As will be seen, my interpretation is mostly identical with that of Ramstedt (the first line and the last word of the second line). I also partly agree with Bazin on his interpretation of the rival Hsiung-nu leader's title. Here is my interpretation:

1 秀支 Karlgren siôg tieg, Pulleyblank sûx-kēh “army”. The first sign is in all probability nothing but the Old Turkic word for “army”, i.e., sü as Ramstedt, Bazin and Benzing rightfully assumed. The diphthong iô in Karlgren's reconstruction and the long û in PuIleyblank's transcription suggest that OT sü had a long ü. As a matter of fact, OT sü is spelt süü in some Uigur texts. Therefore it is very probable that this word had a long ü. As for the second sign, Kalgren's and Pulleyblank's reconstructions of this sign are quite different from one another. If Pulleyblank's reconstruction is correct we may then assume that the first two signs meaning “army” stand for an original *sükä, i.e., the dative form of OT sü. The reconstruction of the first two signs as *sükä “to the army (on campaign)” fits the reconstruction of the following three signs (see below).

2 替戾剛 Karlgren t'iei liəd kâng, Pulleyblank Θe(t)s-let/le(t)s-kan “go out”. As I have already mentioned, Ramstedt reconstructed these three signs as *tal'ïqïn or *tal'ïqan and regarded this as the older form in /l/ of OT tašïqïn “go out!” (2nd person plural imperative of OT tašïq- “to go out”). I completely agree with Ramstedt on this very interesting and rightly assumption of his. Only, I am of the opinion that the second form suggested by Ramstedt, i.e., tal'ïqan fits better the ancient phonetic value of the fifth sign: kâng = -qan. It is also very probable that the Hunnic or Proto-Turkic word underlying these three signs is not *talïqan, but *tïlïqan. Thus, the first line reads as follows: sükä talïqan (or *tïlïqan) “Go out against the army (on campaign) !” (vs. original “If (army + affix) set out [to the war],...).

Here it should be reminded that OT sü “army” was also used with the meaning “an army (on a campaign)”, or directly “fight, battle, war”. Observe the following example: q(a)n sükä b(a)rmïŝ y(a)ɣïɣ s(a)nĉmiŝ “A khan went to the army (i.e., in war) and routed the enemy” (Irk Bitig, XXXIV).

3 僕谷 Karlgren b'uok kuk, Pulleyblank buk-kok/(g)δok “Liu Yao's rank”.

Ramstedt assumed that the underlying word here could be OT bügü “wise”. Gabain thought that OT buɣu “male deer, stag” plus the accusative suffix -ɣ i.e., buɣuɣ would make a better reconstruction for the signs b'uok-kuk.

Bazin who read this title *boquɣ put forward an entirely different theory. According to him, this title which occurs together with the OT title tutuq “military governor” in the Bilgä Kagan inscription (southern side, line 10) could be the prototype of the Old Ottoman title boɣ “commander” : *boquɣ > *boɣuɣ > *bo'uɣ > *bōɣ > boɣ¹⁴.

Putting aside the discussion of the possibility of such a phonetic development for the time being, it should be noted that the signs b 'uok-kuk in the Hsiung-nu couplet might have been underlying an old title like *boquq or bōquq, a form which actually occurs in the sources related to Old Turkic : ,boquq xan in Juwainï, buɣuɣ in the phrase tänrikän uyɣur buɣuɣ xan in Thomsenfestschrift, Borur Qan in Chav.-Pell., JA 1913, 197 (Türkische Turfan-Texte II, p. 413).

Under the light of the discussion above, I read the first two signs of the second line as *boquq or *bōquq, thinking that only a form like *bōq could be the prototype of Old Ottoman boɣ (cf. OT āq > Old Ottoman aɣ, Az. aɣ, etc.). The element -uq in *bōquq can best be explained as a diminutive or endearment suffix (cf. Uig. ögük “Mütterchen” (mother, dimin., ~ mommy)).

13) Gerhard Doerfer, “Zur Sprache der Hunnen”. CAJ, XVII (1973), pp. 1-50 (his remarks on the Hunnic couplet: p. 4).
14) L. Bazin, op. cit., p. 211. For the pronunciation of Old Ottoman boɣ with /o/ see Redhouse and Ș. Sami, and for its use synonymously with baŝ “head, leader, chief” see Tarama Sozlügü.
5

4 禿劬當 Karlgren glu t'uk tâng, Pulleyblank gōh-thok/Θok-tañ “capture”.

The first sign can be reconstructed as *ɣï, i.e., the Hunnic (Proto-Turkic) accusative suffix corresponding to the Old Turkic accusative suffix -(ï)ɣ. As is known, the Old Turkic accusative suffix  -(ï)ɣ goes back to an older *-ɣï  which corresponds to Written Mongolian accusative suffix -yi going back to an older *-ɣï/-gi. The suffix *-ɣï/-gi with a short narrow vowel in final position could easily develop into a form like -ɣ/-g (i.e., a form which is identical with the Old Turkic accusative suffix -ɣ/-g : balïq-ɣä/balïq-ïɣ “the city”.

The last two signs of the second line, i.e., t'uk-tâng in Karlgren's reconstruction, obviously stand for an original *tuqtañ corresponding to Old Turkic tutan. As is generally known, OT tut has a dissyllabic variant tuta- (cf. MK tut- “to seize, capture”, but tutam “a handful” / tuta-m, tutaŝï” “continuously” / tuta-ŝ-ï, etc.). It is obvious that Common Turkic tut goes back to an older *tuta-, and this, in its turn, probably to a still older *tuqta- (cf. Turkic bat- “to go down, sink” = Mo. baɣta- id.).

Thus, the second line of the Hunnic couplet in Chin-shu reads, in my opinion, as follows:

bōquq-ɣï tuqtañ “capture the Bokuk !”

My reconstruction of the whole couplet could then be given as follows:

sükä talïqañ (or *tïlïqañ), “Go out to the army (on campaign)
bōquqɣï tuqtañ ! (and) capture the Bokuk !”