The use of hendiadys, encountered in every Turkic work even from the first written ones, is a significant way of expression strengthening, glamourizing and harmonising phrases. As Aydemir mentioned, a few examples of hendiadyses were firstly encountered in Pott’s work, who is a linguist; however, the first detailed study on the topic was done by Karl Foy. Saadet Çağatay in Uygurca’da Hendiadyoinler, presented a detailed research on especially the hendiadyses seen in Old Uighur; trying to clarify the phonetic, grammatical and semantic aspects of the hendiadyses. There will not be any mention of the other studies on the topic, but to be informed, Eski Uygurca İkilemeler by Mehmet Ölmez can be checked.

Kşanti Kılguluk Nom Bitig, a repentance text of Buddhist Uighur Literature, is a translation of a Chinese work Cíbēi dàochǎng chànfǎ, which is composed of 40 chapters. Written for redemption through repentance and to be recited in a ritual, it was copied lots of times. Mentioned first in the 2nd volume of Berliner Turfantexte, its whole text (1368 lines), translation, explanation and facsimile was published by Klaus Röhborn. Ingrid Warnke wrote a PhD thesis on the topic in 1978. In the introduction, information about the content of the text, orthography characteristics, its phonetic, morphological and syntactic value, its vocabulary and the translation method were given. Following, there is 852-line text, German translation and notes. Finally, Jens Wilkens, gathered all of the fragments in Germany, Russia, China and Japan in the 25th book of the Berliner Turfantexte and published a 4443-line text. The first volume of this two-volume study includes Chinese and Sanskrit counterparts of the names of Buddha, text and its translation. In the second volume, there is a dictionary, facsimiles and transliteration of fragments. By analysing the BT 25, the final work on Kşanti Kılguluk Nom Bitig, the hendiadyses, which had not been included yet in earlier Uighur hendiadys researches, were studied in this article. To find out different hendiadyses, the hendiadyses in question were compared with the ones in Uygurca’da Hendiadyoinler, Eski Uygur Türkçesinde İkilemeler and Eski Uygurcada İkilemeler Üzerine, and UW, UW NB I.1, UW NB II.1, UW NB II.2, OTWF, ED, DTS dictionaries alongside with the dictionary section of Altun Yaruk III. Kitap (=5. Bölüm), Eski Uygurca Din Dışı Metinlerin Karşılaştırmalı Söz Varlığı and Daśakarmapathāvadānamālā were utilised. The hendiadyses are listed with their Turkish and German meaning, the context they have been used, line number and written frequency. Most of the German translations are based on Wilken’s translations but some has been changed in accordance with TDKAlmT. The signs that were used to indicate reduced, completed or missing parts are not included due to clarity purposes. Forms like ḍ ṭ and ẓ, which show distinct spelling features in the transcription of the text, are not benefitted also. (…) is used if there is a long or completed sentence, and to clear up what is the context, whether the sentence is in harmony or not has been looked into.

The hendiadyses, which can be seen since the very first written sources of Turkic, especially in the Old Uighur period, are mentioned in the above studies. However, 201 new hendiadyses in the BT 25, the most recent work on Kşanti Kılguluk Nom Bitig, are not encountered in those studies. Those 201 hendiadyses are listed, their Turkish and German translations and example sentencesand their written frequencies are given in this study. The hendiadyses, important for understanding the Old Uighur texts and rebuilding them, are presented for the attention of those who study in this field.