Some questions of textual criticism of the Oirat and Mongolian translations of the Tibetan monument “Mani-Kambum” (to the problem of preparing texts for a parallel corpus)

The article examines the problems of preparing texts for loading into the parallel corpus program in Tibetan and Oirat languages using the Oirat and Mongolian translations of the Tibetan work “Mani-kambum”. One of the problems faced by compilers of the corpus using the material of old written texts is that most of the Buddhist texts in Oirat that have come down to us have undergone significant changes during rewriting. Such manuscripts are characterized by numerous deviations from the classical “clear writing” (“todo bichig”). They are characterized by various kinds of errors that concern not only the graphic design, but also affect their content. In such cases, referring to the Mongolian translations of the same Tibetan source texts allows researchers to determine whether a particular spelling of a grapheme or word is erroneous, to restore their correct spelling, and to select their correct equivalent. In the course of a comparative analysis of the Mongolian and Oirat texts of the translations of the work “Mani-kambum”, the question of their belonging to one of the two types of translation semantic or literal -was raised. A comparative textual analysis of the two translations based on the material of several chapters of the 1st section of “Mani-kambum” showed that both translations are based on the principles of literal translation, which was followed by Zaya-pandita. The omissions of some lines in the Mongolian xylograph, as well as deviations from the Tibetan text, can be explained by the use of a different copy or edition of the Tibetan text, as well as shortcomings in the work of the copyists who prepared the printed edition.