Tocharian B Research Articles

On the etymology of Tocharian A śemäl ‘domestic animal’

Abstract The Tocharian languages show an extensive array of animal names, some of which are still in want of an etymology or even a precise definition. In this paper, I undertake an in‑depth study of the Tocharian A (TA) noun śemäl, which has been translated as ‘goat’, ‘sheep’, or ‘small livestock’. First, I examine every instance of this lexeme within the Tocharian corpus to establish the precise meaning. This study confirms that śemäl refers to domestic animals regardless of their size, as well as animals used in sacrificial rituals. In the second part of the paper, I review previous etymological proposals, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses with respect to phonology, morphology, and semantics. I then propose my own account of the etymology of śemäl as an appurtenance derivative of an abstract derived from the well‑attested Proto‑Indo‑European item *ḱéi̯‑mo‑ ‘(at) home’, also reflected in Germanic (PGmc. *haimaz), Balto‑Slavic (reshaped as an ā‑stem in OCS sěmьja f. ‘family’), and, if the form to be reconstructed is actually *tḱéi̯‑mo‑, also in Indo‑Iranian (Skt. kṣema‑ m./n. ‘secure living’). TA śemäl, derived with the appurtenance suffix *‑lo‑ from an *-i-stem abstract, would have meant ‘belonging to the household’, hence the meaning ‘domestic (animal)’.

З ІСТОРІЇ ІНДОЄВРОПЕЇСТИКИ: ДОСЛІДЖЕННЯ ТОХАРСЬКИХ МОВ І ГЕНЕАЛОГІЧНА КЛАСИФІКАЦІЯ

The task of the article is to reveal the peculiarities of the study of “dead” Tocharian languages in their connection with other Indo-European languages at all levels of the language system in linguistics of the XIX — early XXI centuries. It is noted that the discovery and study of Tocharian A and Tocharian B, qualified as centum languages, played an important role in improvement of the genealogical classification of Indo-European languages. The study of Tocharian languages are briefly described in the studios of W. Krause, W. Thomas, A. J. van Windekens, D. Q. Adams, V. V. Ivanov, T. V. Gamkrelidze, S. A. Burlak, etc. The connections of Tocharian A and Tocharian B with Celtic, Italiс, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Thracian-Phrygian, Hittite, Armenian languages are revealed. There is also traced Tocharian non-Indo-European influence of agglutinative language (W. Krause). The author of the article gives a brief description of the Tocharian languages at the phonological, lexical, morphological and syntactic levels. The archaic features of the Indo-European dictionary have been preserved in the Tocharian languages. It is concluded that the place of Tocharian languages among other Indo-European languages has not yet been clearly defined. It is necessary to emphasize the importance of the facts of Tocharian A and Tocharian B for researchers of other groups of Indo-European languages, to review a lot of statements of Indo-European studies.

The Root *dheh1- ‘Put, Pose; Make, Act’ in Old Greek and Italic on the Indo-European Background

The development of root *dheh1- is considered, previously in Greek and Italic. This root, as also some other with laryngeal auslaut, is developed into a stem with auslaut *¬-k-, whose origin is disputable. Probably, it appeared as a glide, a result connection of two laryngeals (in 1 Sg. perfect), and originally characterized its “strong” forms. This glide is spread on the stem of aorist, and became a marker of active singular. In some other roots it spread on the whole verbal paradigm in all tenses. The verbal stem in Italic is formed with this *-k- – the variant with full grade in preterit, and derived present with zero grade and suffix *-io-; then a stative verb with suffix -ē-. Traces of the same morphological process are attested also in Germanic language; in Tocharian languages there are stems with -k-, what replaces an old laryngeal. The morphological and semantic archaisms of the root *dheh1- is argued

Ancient Genomes Reveal Yamnaya-Related Ancestry and a Potential Source of Indo-European Speakers in Iron Age Tianshan

Recent studies of early Bronze Age human genomes revealed a massive population expansion by individuals-related to the Yamnaya culture, from the Pontic Caspian steppe into Western and Eastern Eurasia, likely accompanied by the spread of Indo-European languages [1-5]. The south eastern extent of this migration is currently not known. Modern-day human populations from the Xinjiang region in northwestern China show a complex population history, with genetic links to both Eastern and Western Eurasia [6-10]. However, due to the lack of ancient genomic data, it remains unclear which source populations contributed to the Xinjiang population and what was the timing and the number of admixture events. Here, we report the first genome-wide data of 10 ancient individuals from northeastern Xinjiang. They are dated to around 2,200 years ago and were found at the Iron Age Shirenzigou site. We find them to be already genetically admixed between Eastern and Western Eurasians. We also find that the majority of the East Eurasian ancestry in the Shirenzigou individuals is-related to northeastern Asian populations, while the West Eurasian ancestry is best presented by ∼20% to 80% Yamnaya-like ancestry. Our data thus suggest a Western Eurasian steppe origin for at least part of the ancient Xinjiang population. Our findings furthermore support a Yamnaya-related origin for the now extinct Tocharian languages in the Tarim Basin, in southern Xinjiang.

Surveying the Tocharian B Lexicon

Surveying the Tocharian B Lexicon

Najdawniejsze zapożyczenia chińskie w językach tocharskich

Tocharian tribes—of Indo-European origin—settled along the northern edge of the Tarim Basin (now 新疆 Xinjiang, China) around 2000 BC. Living on the ancient trade route leading from China to Europe, they controlled an important section of the Silk Road, running along the Taklamakan Desert (塔克拉玛干沙漠) for about three millennia. The Tocharians were the first Indo-Europeans who came into contact with a Sino-Tibetan population, in particular—with Chinese tribes. The author analyses the oldest Chinese borrowings which entered the two Tocharian languages in the Old Chinese period (1000–200 BC), as well as in the epoch of the Han Dynasty (206 BC–220 AD) and in the Early Middle Chinese period (ca. 600 AD). The Tocharians adopted various achievements of Old Chinese civilization, e.g. the terms for ‘rice’ (Toch. AB klu ← OCh. 稻), ‘brandy’ (Toch. B śak(u)se ← OCh. 粟酒), ‘lamp’ (Toch. AB cok ← EMCh. 燭), ‘pot’ (Toch. B lwāke ← OCh. 陶壶), or ‘abacus’ (Toch. B ṣipāṅkiñc ← EMCh. 數盤工句). They also took over Chinese names of measures and units that proved useful in trade, e.g. Toch. B cāk ‘hundred quarts’ (← OCh. 石), Toch. B cāne* ‘cash’ (← OCh. 錢), Toch. B tau ‘ten quarts’ (← EMCh. 斗), Toch. B ṣaṅk ‘a measure of volume’ (← EMCh. 升). The term for a larger settlement (Toch. A ri, B riye ‘town, city’ ← OCh. 里 ‘village, community’) was also borrowed in the Old Chinese era, as was the name of the last month of the year (Toch. B *rāp ← OCh. 臘). In the early phase of the Middle Chinese period, Tocharian tribes also borrowed the Chinese name of a beautifully-colored exotic bird (Toch. A yāmutsi, B yāmuttsi ‘a kind of waterfowl’ ← EMCh. 鸚鵡子 ‘parrot’).

Review of Adams (2013): A dictionary of Tocharian B: Revised and greatly enlarged

Review of Adams (2013): A dictionary of Tocharian B: Revised and greatly enlarged

Surprise at length of Tocharian nouns

Abstract The Tocharian languages exhibit many examples of the lengthened grade in roots of nominal stems. We find forms that, on the one hand, descend from PIE paradigms in which lengthened grades are expected given our current understanding of ablaut patterns, e. g. TA śanweṃ ‘jaws’, which descends either from an acrostatic u-stem or from a PIE denominative o-stem that denoted appurtenance and was formed by vṛddhisation. On the other hand, there are lengthened grades in Tocharian nouns that do come as a surprise as is the case with TB ñem/TA ñom ‘name’, if this goes back to a protoform PIE *h₁nḗh₃-mṇ. These unexpected lengthened-grade forms will be discussed especially in the context of the so-called Narten system.

Body and soul: the reflexive in Tocharian

Both Tocharian languages have a noun meaning ‘self, person’ which is used also as reflexive pronoun: TB āñme , TA āñcäm . This noun is the match of Skt. ātman -, which is used in the philosophical sense in Buddhist texts. Vis-à-vis the usage of Skt. ātman - as reflexive pronoun, Toch. uses the phrase TB ṣañ āñm , TA ṣñi āñcäm , the first element of which is the possessive reflexive (‘one’s own’) referring to all persons and numbers. No fully satisfactory account of the etymology of CToch. * āñcmæ (> TB āñme , TA āñcäm ) has yet been presented. It is proposed to derive it from a binomial phrase meaning ‘breath’+‘flesh, body’, hence ‘whole body, person’. PIE etymologies of the two components are provided. This phrase would be parallel to Old Turkic ät’öz ‘(own) body’ and ‘self’, the second element of which ( öz ) is used also as reflexive pronoun. Then the Tocharian development of the reflexive pronoun is evaluated from a typological point of view. It appears that CToch. had selected as reflexive a noun referring to the person, the whole body, which served also to render the Skt. term ātman - in Buddhist texts. The specific reflexive pronoun was made through using in combination the reflex of the PIE stem * s u̯ é (actually the genitive form matching the possessive * s u̯ ó - of other languages) in order to make an emphatic or heavy reflexive, CToch. * ṣäñ āñcmæ ‘one’s own self’, that was generalized

Apie galvos pavadinimą baltų ir tocharų kalbose

ON DENOMINATION OF A HEAD IN THE BALTIC AND TOCHARIAN LANGUAGESSummaryThe paper aims to reveal a striking parallel between the Baltic and Tocharian languages in denomination of a head: in Baltic as well as in Tocharian lexemes of a head are cognate to those of an end, cf. Lith. galvà, Latv. gal̃va, OPr. galwo, gallū “head”: Lith. gãlas, Latv. gals “end”, OPr. acc. sing, gallon “death” (: Lith. gélti „sting, bite, ache”, Latv. dzel̃t “prick, sting, stitch”) and Toch. В āśee “head” : Toch. B āke, A āk “end” (: IE *aḱ- “scharp, pointed, acute”).

Explanations in the contact between Altaic and Tokharian

Explanations in the contact between Altaic and Tokharian

Toward a History of PIE N-Stems in Tocharian

s, they were at times conflated, e.g., Tocharian B ymiye (and also yamo*?). (When used as agent nouns or as adjectives this class shows replacement of the nominative singular by the accusative.) There are other nouns of this class in both Tocharian languages which show Back Vowel Umlaut and manifest no trace of original palatalization of the root final consonant, e.g., B sopiye* net, olyiye* ship, molyiye* struggle (both with superficial palatalization of /1/ before /i/, see Adams, forthcoming), or B proskiye [ A praskil fear. It is possible that such nouns show a Proto-Indo-European *-uHen-. The loss of laryngeals left *-iHenand *-uH nas *iyenand *uwen-. At that time *-iyencould be segmented as *-i-yenrather than *-iy-enand such an analysis would lead to the replacement of *-uwenby *-uyen-. The latter develops regularly to [AB] -ibut with no palatalization of the preceding consonant and backing and rounding of any susceptible preceding vowel. A trace of the original u(H)stem may be seen in B prari finger (from *p(e)roruyen< *p(e)riruHen-) but plural nominative praroi (from *p(e)rrruHnes). Tocharian A shows this word without a n-extension, i.e., sg. prar (< *p(e)riru), pl. praru* (< *p(e)rorwd). As an adjective we have B arkwi [A arkil white, pl. nom. arkwimn (for *arkwih), pl. acc. arkwindarn, all from *arguyen(< *arguHen-, cf. Latin argatus clear, significant) with the accusative singular again as a nominative. (Proto-Indo-European *u gives Tocharian B /o/ when subject to Back Vowel Umlaut, /wd/ when absolutely initial or after /k/, and /a/ elsewhere.) 8 Except in adjective stems in -r-, the -m is (secondarily ?) lost. 9 The final -e (in Tocharian B) from Proto-Indo-European *-oH is surprising. One might more readily have expected *-a This content downloaded from 207.46.13.159 on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 04:41:01 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 442 Journal of the American Oriental Society 100. 4 (1980) When we turn our attention to n-stem adjectives in Tocharian, we find that, aside from small, residual examples (see notes 7 and 10), there is abundant evidence for two formerly productive types: one corresponding to our nominal class (2), and one to class (5). The evidence is most explicit for class (2) which includes several adjectives in Tocharian B and one or two in Tocharian Aall based on Proto-IndoEuropean *-mon-/-men-, e.g., Tocharian B klyomo [A klyomj noble. In Tocharian B the vowel *-6of the nominative singular has been extended throughout the masculine paradigm. In Tocharian A, though the declension has been assimilated to that of the ntstems, we see traces of Proto-Indo-European *-ein, for instance, the acc. sg. m. klyomant. The feminine in both languages is also based on ProtoIndo-European *-men-, with the addition of *-ain Tocharian A and of *-yain B, e.g., B klyomfia, A klyomi .M. Class (5) adjectives, however, appear to have been the productive declension in Proto-Tocharian and, insofar as they survive, they have become assimilated to their thematic (i.e., strong) counterparts. The usual result of this conflation of strong and weak for the masculine adjective was the retention of the strong nominative singular (i.e., no preceding palatalization) and the weak accusative singular (i.e., with preceding palatalization and, in Tocharian B, the extension of the vowel -e[from either PIE *-eor *-o-] at the expense of-a[from PIE *-e-] ). Thus, in the singular, we have the following developments: SINGULAR Proto-Tocharian Toch. Toch.

Characteristics of the Buddhist Tokharian Texts (I)

Characteristics of the Buddhist Tokharian Texts (I)

Tokharian Studies in Germany

Tokharian Studies in Germany