Peyrot 2016: Language contact in Central Asia: On the etymology of Tocharian B yolo 'bad' (original) (raw)
Related papers
Tocharian-Turkic lexical correspondences, I
Abstract: There are many unsolved problems and unknown aspects with regard to Tocharian-Turkic relations. The most fascinating of them are especially the Tocharian- Turkic lexical correspondences. One of these lexical correspondences is the Tocharian B kärk- ‘to hack up’ and the Karachay-Balkar Turkic kärk- ‘to hack (up), to notch’. Since the structure of the Tocharian word is unclear and there is no acceptable etymology of it, the question arises as to whether it is a borrowing from Turkic. The present study investigates whether the Turkic word is the source of the Tocharian B word. The study states that mainly on the basis of the Turkic and Tocharian morphological criteria, the Tocharian B kärk-seems to be a borrowing from Turkic.
Two Tocharian Borrowings of Oriental Origin
2013
The present paper examines the origin of two Tocharian animal names, assuming that they were borrowed from an oriental source. The Common Tocharian term for 'poisonous snake, viper' (Toch. A ārṣal, B arṣāklo) reproduces exactly the Turkic name *arsala:n 'lion', whereas the Tocharian B partākto 'camel' seems to represent a loanword from East Iranian *pardāk(u)-tā (pl.) 'leopards' (perhaps created by a contamination with Altaic *aktan-'a castrated animal'). The phonetic aspects of both derivations are unquestionable. The semantic differences may be explained by the fact that Proto-Tocharians borrowed names of two unknown exotic animals and later they wrongly identified the word with different animals, transferring the Turkish name for 'lion' into 'poisonous snake, viper' and the Iranian name for 'leopard' into 'camel'. The same process is perfectly attested in Slavonic (e.g. Polish słoń 'elephant' < Turkish (dial.) aslan 'lion'; Pol. wielbłąd 'camel' < Greek elephas, -antos 'elephant') and many other languages.
The present study is divided into two parts. In the first part two main semantic oppositions between the Indo-European terms for 'man' and 'god' are discussed: 'terrestrial' versus 'celestial' and 'mortal' versus 'immortal' respectively. In the second part the binary oppositions are applied to the relevant Tocharian terms, giving a background for discussions about alternative etymological reinterpretations of both Tocharian A oṅk, B eṅkwe 'man' and A ñkät, B ñakte 'god'. Finally, the hypothetical Phrygian and Messapic continuants of the main Indo-European term 'earth' are analyzed.
The second one to branch off? The Tocharian lexicon revisited
One popular linguistic theory states that Tocharian – much like Anatolian – has a special status among the IE languages by having branched off from the common protolanguage earlier than the remaining branches such as Indo-Iranian and Greek . Evidence for such an early split-off mainly comes from the Tocharian lexicon . In my paper I would like to reconsider the etymologies that have been put forth for such a claim.
Priscis Libentius et Liberius Novis lndogermanische und sprachwissenschaftliche Studien/ Festschrift für Gerhard Meise zum 65. Geburtstage, 2018
In this short paper I examine the lexical isoglosses connecting Tocharian, Italic and Celtic, in particular, in the field of legal and religious lexicon. I find that these are largely non-existent. This finding may shed light on the question of supposed archaisms of the legal and religious lexicon preserved uniquely in Italic and/or Celtic in the West and Indo-Iranian in the East.
minsu ana ilī u amēli lemutta takpud (Erra III:36; I:101) Evil in Cuneiform sources
Kullat ṭupšarrūti, Festschrift für Stefan M. Maul, 2023
A quest for the meaning of evil, its perception, boundaries, modes of appearance and origin occupies a significant place in world philosophy, particularly in religious thought. Theologians strive to defend God almighty vis-à-vis evil and the suffering of the individual. Their treatises are classified in the literature as theodicy, the oldest of which is the Babylonian theodicy. Translators of cuneiform texts used ‘evil’ rather freely, oblivious of the debate and the possibility that something may be lost in the translation. In this article I explore the Mesopotamian intellectuals attitude towards evil.
Tocharian AB kulyp-'to crave, desire' and the Indo-European root *leub h -1
Indogermanische Forschungen 116, 2011
The aim of the present article is to discuss the etymologies of the Tocharian AB verb kulyp-'to crave, desire' and its derivatives. We shall try to demonstrate that none of the existing etymological solutions is definitive. In this discussion we shall touch on the questions of the development of Indo-European labiovelars in Tocharian. We are convinced that the reflexes of labiovelar are secondary in this verb. Our solution supports the idea of a Tocharian verbal prefix *kä-, first proposed by Klingenschmitt (1975; 1982). Thanks to this segmentation we can offer a new etymology, based on the verbal root *leub h-'to love, desire' whose continuants are in details analyzed in all IE branches where this root is attested.
Notes on Verbal Governing Compounds in Tocharian (2018)
Verbal governing compounds (VGC) in Tocharian were discovered by Bernhard (1958) and first systematically treated by Malzahn (2012). According to Malzahn there are two main types of VGC: (1) a type that ends in TB -i TA -e built to verbal roots without a-character (TB yolo-yāmi ‘evil doing’: TB yām- ‘make, do’; TA rī-pāṣe ‘protecting the city’: TA pās- ‘protect’); (2) a type that ends in TB -a TA -ø built to verbal roots with a-character (TB yolo-rita ‚seeking evil: TB ritā- ‘seek’; TA ṣotre-lyak ‘seeing signs’: TA läkā- ‘see’). Malzahn treats the VGCs in TB -i TA -e as an innovation based on PIE bahuvrīhis/root compounds. She explains the second type in TB -a TA -ø as inherited compounds ending in *-eh2 (Gk. βουζύγης ‘yoking oxen’, Lat. agricola ‘cultivating the land’) and root compounds with second members that ended in a laryngeal. Based on new evidence this paper argues that the distribution of the Tocharian VGCs does not depend on root structure, but is connected to present stem formation. It will be shown that VGCs in TB -i TA -e pattern with thematic present stems classes, whereas VGCs in TB -a TA -ø pattern with athematic present stem classes. This morphological analysis together with recent progress in the understanding of PIE compounds in *-eh2 (Fellner&Grestenberger 2016) will shed new light on the prehistory of Tocharian VGCs. Following Fellner&Grestenberger 2016 and Fellner 2014 I argue that the VGCs in TB -a TA -ø cannot be traced back to compounds ending *-eh2 or roots nouns with final laryngeals on morphological and phonological grounds. Based on the fact that VGCs in TB -a TA -ø show the same inflection as other verbal nouns, e.g., the nt-participles (TB näkṣeñca TA näkṣant: TBA näk- ‘destroy’), I show that they have to be traced back to IE compounds that were renewed as *ōn-stems and can thus be equated with Germanic compounds of the type OHG herizogo < PGmc. *harjatugô ‘leader of the army, duke’.