Tocharian and the West (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
Naukovy Visnyk of South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky: Linguistic Sciences
The history of legal lexis dates back to the ancient times of ancient peoples. The study of legal language enables the reconstruction of Indo-European ritual-legal ancients at verbal, linguistic levels. Archaic societies had no legal culture, instead, the norms of customary law of ancient societies were referred to as “pre-law”, which included syncretism of law, religion, myth, poetry, and morality. The syncretic ritual and legal consciousness of the ancient peoples in the pre-state period and in the early state formations has its specific reflection in a language that receives such a definition as “the language of law”. The system of “language of law” of Indo-European peoples is partly outlined in today’s scientific survey by describing changes in the semantics of legal lexis in the Indo-European languages, based on the analysis of the distinguished evolutionary models of semantics (EMS) in the Germanic, Slavonic and Iranian languages. The evolutionary model of semantics is a metho...
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 Dual in Tocharian. From Typology to Auslautgesetz
2018
This study examines the inflectional morphology of the dual in Tocharian nouns, adjectives, and pronouns and traces their development from PIE. Chapter 1 examines the synchronic usage and distribution of dual forms in both Tocharian languages, including restrictions on the use of dual nouns without the numeral ‘two’ and the decline in the usage of dual vis-à-vis plural forms of nouns and adjectives. Chapter 2 reviews the reconstructed endings of the nominative/accusative dual for the various inflectional classes of PIE, as well as traces of the dual in Anatolian. The follow- ing three chapters are concerned with the morphology of the nominal dual in Tocharian: Chapter 3 presents the Tocharian data for nouns, organized into six groups according to ending and inflectional pattern, as well as adjectives and pronouns, and Chapter 4 gives the PT recon- struction for each ending. Chapter 5 then examines the development of dual morphology from PIE to PT, including the evolution of the adjectival endings and the origins of the dual suffix TB -ne, TA -(ä)ṃ. Finally, Chapter 6 discusses at length the consequences of the dual endings for the evolution of PIE word-final sequences in Tocharian, in particular sequences of vowel + laryngeal, with potential consequenc- es for the protolanguage itself. Chapter 7 summarizes the results of the preceding chapters and raises questions for future research.
Sorin Paliga, Lexikon proto‑borealicum et alia lexica etymologica minora [2007]
Fundația „Evenimentul”, București, 2007
Cuvânt înainte Volumul de fa!" este al patrulea din seria ini!iat" în 2006 de Editura Funda!iei Evenimentul, cu sprijinul generos al Rosal Grup, f"r" de care nu ar fi putut vedea lumina tiparului în condi!ii grafice deosebite. Astfel, am reu#it s" adun"m, în patru volume succesive, ceea ce a# considera opera lingvistic" major": 1. Lexiconul etimologic al elementelor autohtone (traco!dace) ale limbii române, în contextul în care mo#tenirea arhaic" înc" nu #i!a g"sit locul cuvenit în lucr"rile dedicate istoriei limbii române; 2. $ influen!ele romane #i preromane (trace, ilire) asupra limbilor slave de sud; 3. aproape toate studiile majore de lingvistic" #i de antropologie, publicate-de!a lungul anilor-în diverse reviste de specialitate, din !ar" #i de peste hotare. Acest al patrulea volum cuprinde, în primul rând, lexiconul proto!boreal, elaborat pe baza materialului oferit de lingvistul rus Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, cu multe adnot"ri #i complet"ri, mai ales referitoare la mo#tenirea traco!dac" a limbii române. Acest lexicon completeaz", în fapt, primul volum al acestei serii. Ipoteza lui Andreev nu este nici nou", nici original": cândva, în preistorie, va fi fost un conglomerat etno!lingvistic, numit conven!ional proto!boreal, din care, ulterior, s!au dezvoltat limbile indo!europene, limbile uralice #i limbile altaice, probabil #i limba coreean". Bojan &op (Slovenia) #i Illi%-Svity% (Rusia, Uniunea Sovietic" pe atunci) luaser" în considera!ie o asemenea ipotez", ca s" nu mai amintesc de ipoteza lui Delitzch, avansat" pe la final de secol XIX, care sugera o înrudire primordial" dintre limbile indo!europene #i limbile semite (ipotez" neconfirmat", deocamdat" cel pu!in). Nimeni îns" nu a reu#it, în opinia noastr", s" adune un material a#a de vast #i a#a de conving"tor cum a f"cut Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8 N. D. Andreev. Consecin!ele pentru studierea preistoriei europene sunt extraordinare: înrudirea dintre limbile indo!europene face parte dintr!o "înrudire etno!lingvistic"" mult mai ampl" a majorit"!ii limbilor vorbite în spa!iul euro!asiatic. Am prezentat lucrarea, într!o form" abreviat", la Congresul Interna!ional al Slavi#tilor, Ljubljana, august 2003; aceast" form" final" a dedic"m viitorului congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor, ce urmeaz" a fi organizat de Universitatea din Skopje, Macedonia, în septembrie 2008. Al doilea lexicon al volumului de fa!" cuprinde o list" neexhaustiv", dar ampl", a elementelor autohtone ale limbii române care fac dovada existen!ei unei spirante velare (unii lingvi#ti prefer" s" o numeasc" laringal") în limba traco-dac". Odat" acceptat" existen!a acestui fonem specific, consecin!ele pentru studierea mo#tenirii autohtone se pot modifica radical. Al treilea lexicon cuprinde ceea ce noi consider"m a fi cele o sut! de r!d!cini de baz! ale limbii proto!slave. Este, desigur, o selec!ie subiectiv". Am dorit s" subliniem aici caracterul eterogen a ceea ce se nume#te adesea "limba proto!slav"" sau, mai degrab" incorect, "slava comun"". De fapt, nucleul slav arhaic este bazat, cum încearc" s" arate #i acest lexicon, pe elementele de tip sud!baltic, c"rora li s!au ad"ugat elemente vest iranice #i nord trace (a#a numitele idiomuri proto!slave A, B #i C, respectiv, conform categoriz"rii încercate recent de Aleksandar Loma, tot la amintitul congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor de la Ljubljana) precum #i, ulterior, elemente germanice #i vechi române#ti (protoromâne#ti). În fine, lexiconul minimal al divinit!"ilor lituaniene reia lista publicat", acum ceva ani, ca addendum la traducerea lucr"rii lui Algirdas Julien Greimas, Despre zei !i despre oameni. Fiind primul #i, deocamdat", singurul lexicon mitologic lituanian ap"rut în România, apreciem c" poate fi util unei largi categorii de cititori, fie #i "rupt" de corpul traducerii amintite. Sorin Paliga, iunie 2007 Cuvânt înainte / Foreword __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 Foreword This volume is the fourth in the series initiated in 2006 by Evenimentul Foundation Publishers, and with the generous support of Rosal Group, without which these books could not be published in such beautiful conditions. The four volumes gather together what I may label the major linguistic and anthropological works: 1. The Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian, issued at a moment when the archaic heritage of Romanian has not yet found its proper place in the history of the Romanian language; 2. Romance and Pre!Romance (Thracian, Illyrian) influences on South Slavic; 3. Almost all the major studies in linguistics and anthropology, issued over years in various scientific journals, in Romania and abroad. This fourth volume includes, first of all, the Proto!Boreal lexicon, based on the works and analysis of the Russian linguist Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, with many adnotations and additions, especially referring to the Thracian heritage of Romanian. Thus, this volume complements the first of the series. Andreev's hypothesis is not perhaps new or original: some time in prehistory there must have been an ethno!linguistic group, conventionally labelled Proto!Boreal, out of which the Indo!European, Uralic and Altaic languages later emerged, probably Korean as well. Bojan &op (Slovenia) and Illi%!Svity% (Russia, or Soviet Union at that time) considered such a hypothesis, to say nothing of Delitzch's hypothesis, advanced in the 2 nd half of the 19 th century, which assumed a primordial relationship between the Indo!European and Semitic languages (unconfirmed, at least so far). In our opinion nobody else has succeeded in gathering together such a rich and Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 10 convincing material as Andreev did; and the consequences for the study of European prehistory are outstanding: the Indo!European relationship is just a chapter in a vast and older relationhip of most Euro!Asianic languages.
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’.
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.
Lexikon proto‑borealicum et alia lexica etymologica minora
2007
Cuvânt înainte Volumul de fa!" este al patrulea din seria ini!iat" în 2006 de Editura Funda!iei Evenimentul, cu sprijinul generos al Rosal Grup, f"r" de care nu ar fi putut vedea lumina tiparului în condi!ii grafice deosebite. Astfel, am reu#it s" adun"m, în patru volume succesive, ceea ce a# considera opera lingvistic" major": 1. Lexiconul etimologic al elementelor autohtone (traco!dace) ale limbii române, în contextul în care mo#tenirea arhaic" înc" nu #i!a g"sit locul cuvenit în lucr"rile dedicate istoriei limbii române; 2. $ influen!ele romane #i preromane (trace, ilire) asupra limbilor slave de sud; 3. aproape toate studiile majore de lingvistic" #i de antropologie, publicate-de!a lungul anilor-în diverse reviste de specialitate, din !ar" #i de peste hotare. Acest al patrulea volum cuprinde, în primul rând, lexiconul proto!boreal, elaborat pe baza materialului oferit de lingvistul rus Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, cu multe adnot"ri #i complet"ri, mai ales referitoare la mo#tenirea traco!dac" a limbii române. Acest lexicon completeaz", în fapt, primul volum al acestei serii. Ipoteza lui Andreev nu este nici nou", nici original": cândva, în preistorie, va fi fost un conglomerat etno!lingvistic, numit conven!ional proto!boreal, din care, ulterior, s!au dezvoltat limbile indo!europene, limbile uralice #i limbile altaice, probabil #i limba coreean". Bojan &op (Slovenia) #i Illi%-Svity% (Rusia, Uniunea Sovietic" pe atunci) luaser" în considera!ie o asemenea ipotez", ca s" nu mai amintesc de ipoteza lui Delitzch, avansat" pe la final de secol XIX, care sugera o înrudire primordial" dintre limbile indo!europene #i limbile semite (ipotez" neconfirmat", deocamdat" cel pu!in). Nimeni îns" nu a reu#it, în opinia noastr", s" adune un material a#a de vast #i a#a de conving"tor cum a f"cut Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 8 N. D. Andreev. Consecin!ele pentru studierea preistoriei europene sunt extraordinare: înrudirea dintre limbile indo!europene face parte dintr!o "înrudire etno!lingvistic"" mult mai ampl" a majorit"!ii limbilor vorbite în spa!iul euro!asiatic. Am prezentat lucrarea, într!o form" abreviat", la Congresul Interna!ional al Slavi#tilor, Ljubljana, august 2003; aceast" form" final" a dedic"m viitorului congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor, ce urmeaz" a fi organizat de Universitatea din Skopje, Macedonia, în septembrie 2008. Al doilea lexicon al volumului de fa!" cuprinde o list" neexhaustiv", dar ampl", a elementelor autohtone ale limbii române care fac dovada existen!ei unei spirante velare (unii lingvi#ti prefer" s" o numeasc" laringal") în limba traco-dac". Odat" acceptat" existen!a acestui fonem specific, consecin!ele pentru studierea mo#tenirii autohtone se pot modifica radical. Al treilea lexicon cuprinde ceea ce noi consider"m a fi cele o sut! de r!d!cini de baz! ale limbii proto!slave. Este, desigur, o selec!ie subiectiv". Am dorit s" subliniem aici caracterul eterogen a ceea ce se nume#te adesea "limba proto!slav"" sau, mai degrab" incorect, "slava comun"". De fapt, nucleul slav arhaic este bazat, cum încearc" s" arate #i acest lexicon, pe elementele de tip sud!baltic, c"rora li s!au ad"ugat elemente vest iranice #i nord trace (a#a numitele idiomuri proto!slave A, B #i C, respectiv, conform categoriz"rii încercate recent de Aleksandar Loma, tot la amintitul congres interna!ional al slavi#tilor de la Ljubljana) precum #i, ulterior, elemente germanice #i vechi române#ti (protoromâne#ti). În fine, lexiconul minimal al divinit!"ilor lituaniene reia lista publicat", acum ceva ani, ca addendum la traducerea lucr"rii lui Algirdas Julien Greimas, Despre zei !i despre oameni. Fiind primul #i, deocamdat", singurul lexicon mitologic lituanian ap"rut în România, apreciem c" poate fi util unei largi categorii de cititori, fie #i "rupt" de corpul traducerii amintite. Sorin Paliga, iunie 2007 Cuvânt înainte / Foreword __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 9 Foreword This volume is the fourth in the series initiated in 2006 by Evenimentul Foundation Publishers, and with the generous support of Rosal Group, without which these books could not be published in such beautiful conditions. The four volumes gather together what I may label the major linguistic and anthropological works: 1. The Etymological Lexicon of the Indigenous (Thracian) Elements in Romanian, issued at a moment when the archaic heritage of Romanian has not yet found its proper place in the history of the Romanian language; 2. Romance and Pre!Romance (Thracian, Illyrian) influences on South Slavic; 3. Almost all the major studies in linguistics and anthropology, issued over years in various scientific journals, in Romania and abroad. This fourth volume includes, first of all, the Proto!Boreal lexicon, based on the works and analysis of the Russian linguist Nikolaj Dmitrievi% Andreev, with many adnotations and additions, especially referring to the Thracian heritage of Romanian. Thus, this volume complements the first of the series. Andreev's hypothesis is not perhaps new or original: some time in prehistory there must have been an ethno!linguistic group, conventionally labelled Proto!Boreal, out of which the Indo!European, Uralic and Altaic languages later emerged, probably Korean as well. Bojan &op (Slovenia) and Illi%!Svity% (Russia, or Soviet Union at that time) considered such a hypothesis, to say nothing of Delitzch's hypothesis, advanced in the 2 nd half of the 19 th century, which assumed a primordial relationship between the Indo!European and Semitic languages (unconfirmed, at least so far). In our opinion nobody else has succeeded in gathering together such a rich and Lexica Etymologica Minora __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 10 convincing material as Andreev did; and the consequences for the study of European prehistory are outstanding: the Indo!European relationship is just a chapter in a vast and older relationhip of most Euro!Asianic languages.