irano-tocharica et tocharo-iranica
TRANSCRIPT
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studieshttp://journals.cambridge.org/BSO
Additional services for Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies:
Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here
IranoTocharica et TocharoIranica
XAVIER TREMBLAY
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies / Volume 68 / Issue 03 / October 2005, pp 421 449DOI: 10.1017/S0041977X05000248, Published online: 25 November 2005
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0041977X05000248
How to cite this article:XAVIER TREMBLAY (2005). IranoTocharica et TocharoIranica. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 68, pp 421449 doi:10.1017/S0041977X05000248
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/BSO, IP address: 147.8.31.43 on 27 Apr 2013
Bulletin of SOAS, 68, 3 (2005). 421–449. © School of Oriental and African Studies. Printed in theUnited Kingdom.
Irano-Tocharica et Tocharo-Iranica1
XAVIER TREMBLAY
University of Cologne
I. Introduction and survey of the studies
Tocharian is the name of two closely related Indo-European languages ofChinese Turkestan: Tocharian A, once spoken in the kingdoms of Agni andTurfan-HamI-BešbalIq (texts have so far been discovered only in and aroundAgni and Turfan), and Tocharian B, the language of the mighty kingdom ofKuïa (and for this reason often called Kuchean). The extant manuscripts, over-whelmingly of Buddhic contents and written in Bramhmi, date from the fourthto the eleventh centuries AD.
Although they did not belong to the Iranian family, it has been clear sincetheir very decipherment (cf. section 7.xv), and clearer still since the mid-1930s,that both Tocharian languages contained numerous Iranian loans. Neverthe-less, no fully satisfactory report has appeared to date. The earliest report(Hansen 1940) could only reckon with a Sogdian and a Khotanese stratum andhas been partly superseded by three breakthroughs:
(1) A third stratum of Iranian loanwords, where OIran. *a was matchedby TB e, ascertained by Krause (1955), was imputed to Bactrian byWinter (1971). But Schwartz (1974, 408 ff.) confuted this identification,and Schmidt (1983) proved eventually that this layer was already OldIranian, predating most Tocharian vocalic sound laws (in particular thesyncope and apocope, the monophthongizations, etc.).
(2) Schwartz (1974) discerned a genuine Bactrian component in theTocharian vocabulary; his Bactrian forms, mostly conjectured, at timeswith astonishing prescience, were confirmed twenty years later by thediscovery of a Bactrian archive at Romb and Gom zgamn (Sims-Williams2000).
(3) The reconstruction of Tocharian historical phonetics.2
Unfortunately the only monograph dedicated to the topic (Isebaert 1980),despite its invaluable bibliography and its numerous lucky hints, refrained (e.g.
1 I: ‘Jungawestisch sanatt’, Sprache XXXVIII, 1996, 14–29; II: ‘Numératifs et compréhensifs
dans le Vidrevdart’, StIr XXVI, 1997, 157–72; III: ‘Sur parsui du Farhang-i- rOim...’, StIr XXVII,1998, 188–204; IV: ‘Avestique h3acaruruuarsnhem, h3acarururm et sogdien c’r-’ Sprache XXXIX, 1997,123–7; V: ‘Bildeten die iranischen Sprachen ursprünglich eine genetische Familie oder einenSprachbund innerhalb des indoiranischen Zweiges?’, forthcoming in: Sprachkontakt undSprachwandel, Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft; VI: ‘Ist die Aktiv-endung 3Pl -arra in einigen ostiranischen Sprachen inneriranische Entwicklung oder indoger-manisches Erbe?’, forthcoming in: MSS LXII, 2003; VII: ‘La toponymie de la Sogdiane et letraitement de *xq et *fq en iranien’, StIr XXXIII, 2004, 113–49; VIII: ‘Sogdien et Avesta’, forth-coming in: rErarn ud Anerrarn, Festschrift for Boris Marshak, ed. DMatteo Comparetti, Venice; IX: ‘DieBildung des chotansakischen agentiven Präteritums’, H
srd aar mánasar , Cvophnk ctatei k 70-letno
co dkr pokdehnr ppofeccopa L. G. Gepzehvepga, Studies presented to Professor Leonard G.Herzenberg on the occasion of his 70th birthday, ed. N. Kazanskij, St. Petersburg, 112–22.
Abbreviations: TB = Tocharian B; TA = Tocharian A; and PT = Proto-Tocharian, the recon-structed ancestor of both. BS: Buddhist Sanskrit; EMC: Early Middle Chinese; OC: Old Chinese.Before Sogdian forms, the letter B indicates a Buddhist provenance, M a Manichaean one, X aChristian one, S writing in Sogdian alphabet. A partly analogical evolution is denoted by ≥ or ≤,derivation by an arrow → or ←. I warmly thank Professor Sims-Williams for his numeroussuggestions and corrections, and Professor K. T. Schmidt for his help with Tocharian matters. Allresponsibility for the opinions expressed remains my own.
2 The reconstruction of the sound evolutions and the symbols used from Proto-Tocharian toTA and TB in general adhere to those of Klingenschmitt (1975; 1994).
422 XAVIER TREMBLAY
p. 42) from identifying the donor language of the loan words, contenting itselfwith an undifferentiated ‘Middle Iranian’, thus blurring from the very begin-ning the statement of regular sound equivalences between Iranian andTocharian words. Isebaert’s dissertation, however, unfortunately remainsunpublished.3
Understandably perhaps, Iranian etymologies have attracted Tocharolog-ists less than Indo-European ones: Van Windekens’ dictionary includes only aselection (‘choix de mots empruntés à d’autres langues asiatiques’) and doesnot seem to have referenced the Iranological literature since the 1950s;Thomas’s sampling (1985, 130–36) is still narrower and does not deal withperiodization. The latest etymologicum (Adams 1999) underestimates theIranian component in Tocharian loan words: not only are obvious Iranianloan words provided with an Indo-European etymology, but earlier authorsare often ignored if they were not recorded by Van Windekens.4 Even whenthey are taken into account, Adams sometimes prefers adventurous Indo-European etymologies to better established Iranian ones5 and is content toassert the source as ‘some Middle Iranian’ without greater accuracy.6
It is thus useful to gather and to organize the loan words according to theirepoch and dialectal provenance. The following list does not encompass all ofthe loan words that have been proposed (Isebaert (1980; 1991) is more com-plete); it avoids for instance: putative loan words, the exact preform of whichis nowhere attested; Wanderworte and onomatopoeia.7 Names have been con-sidered only sparingly. For each etymology, I have tried to indicate the primusinuentor and significant contributions; their mention does not preclude minordivergences in the phonetic reconstruction or the etymology.
II. Iranian loan words in Tocharian
1. Loan words from Old Iranian, most probably from Old Sakan8
This stratum can be identified by the following criteria:
(1) Sound correspondences between TA and TB are similar to the inheritedvocabulary.
(2) Old Iranian stem-finals were preserved and transferred to correlativeTocharian declensions. The Iranian a-stems were thus converted intoTocharian thematic stems: (1.viii) kertte or (1.xvi) retke are declinedlike kokale ‘wagon’decl. type v.9
(3) No Iranian syncope or apocope.
3 Thus it was not referred to in Adams (1999): e.g. see TB aqnkarnmi (here 9.ii), TB kesDe (1.ix).4 E.g. kamartike (7.iii) p. 141, pärkaru (10.iii) p. 373 and spaktarmD (7.viii) p. 714 without paying lip
service to Schwartz (1974, 411); lastarqnk (7.iv) p. 546 without reference to Bailey KT VI, 316 orSchwartz (1974, 399 ff.); TAB ñars, TB ñyars ‘desire’ (9.xiv) p. 273 disregarding Van Windekens(1949, 149); TB pärmaqnk ‘hope’ (7.ix) p. 374 pace Schwartz (1971, 303); onmimD (7.xvi) overlookingIsebaert (1991, 142); kurkamäsDsDe (8.i) is related directly (p. 184) to Skt. ku qnkuma-, not to the closerIranian counterparts.
5 E.g. for TB retke p. 540 (here 1.xvi), TB kararsa ‘forest’ p. 142 (here 5.ii), antarpce p. 15 (here9.iv), mot (9.viii) p. 475; waipte (1.v) is said to have an ‘unclear etymology’ p. 613.
6 E.g. TB perne (1.xii) p. 397 despite Schmidt (1983); TB mar lo ‘from some variety of Iranianwhere *-d- gave -l-’ (evidently Bactrian, recognized since Winter (1971, 219); cf. 7.v); akar lk isascribed to Sogdian without consideration of Schwartz (1974, 406 f.) (who argued for a Bactrianorigin; 7.i).
7 Like TB mewiyo ‘tiger’, matching Khot. muya-, Sogd. myw, but also Chinese miao ‘cat’.8 To designate the Iranian language sub-family that includes Khotanese, Tumshuqese and
probably Waxi, as well as Trümmersprachen such as Kanh3aki (the language of Kar shcar prior toIslamization), or Saaka (cf. § II.2), it is preferable to coin the term ‘Sakan’ so as not to cause confu-sion with the historical peoples called Saka in Achaemenid and Greek sources; we know nothing ofthe tongue they spoke.
9 The declension types mentioned follow Krause and Thomas (1960, 118–44, § 158–212).
423IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
(4) OIran. *a was matched by PT *a (> TA a, TB e). This equivalence sug-gests that the preform of TA a, TB e was actually an open mid-vowel,and not a palatal *e or a central [Λ]. Apparent exceptions are in accor-dance with Tocharian rules: in Proto-Tocharian three successive ‘a’s(*CaCaCa) were dissimilated to CaCäCa or to *CaCaCä.10 Anothercause for replacing Iranian -a- in the final syllable through PT ä wasthe integration into neuters (cf. 1.xv and xviii).
(5) OIran. *a r was matched by PT *a r (> TAB a r), not by PT *å (> TA a, TBo).
(6) OIran. *i and *u were matched by PT *ä (> TAB ø), but some labia-lizations (1.xi, xv, xviii) point that *u became instead wä uel sim.However, OIran. *u did not umlaut PT *a in the loan words fromIranian: *paratu- > PT *paratwä > TB peret (1.xi), not *porotwä > TB†porot, as opposed to *doru- > PT *orwä > TB or ‘tree’.
(7) Old Iranian diphthongs were taken over as such (and conserved in TB).
The earliest borrowings from Iranian thus were absorbed into Tocharianafter the u-umlaut and the rounding of Pre-Tocharian *ar in PT *å, but beforethe separation of Tocharian A and B, the Tocharian reduction of *Ib and *uband the syncope of *ä, as well as before all Iranian apocopes andmonophthongizations.
Notable consonantic equivalences are as follows:
(a) PIE *gf
(and probably *kf
as well) > TB ts (cf. 1.vi). The word for‘weapon’ was taken over at a very early stage, as the PIE palatals werestill affricates in Old Iranian,11 either dental *c [ts] *j [dz] or prepalatalones *ç, *3a.
(b) PIE *kf
uf > TAB cuw (1.ii). This equivalence points to an immediate
preform *ïauf.. The Sakan dialects (Khotanese, Tumšuqese, Waxi) are the
only Iranian languages where prepalatals *kf
> PII *ç and *gf
(h) > PII *3a(h)
did not evolve to dentals before waw (*kf
uf > *çuf > Khot. ÿÿ, Tumš. ÿ,
Waxi š; *gf
(h)uf > Khot. ÿ12). This treatment thus constitutes a shibbolethfor the origin of the loan words.
(c) OIran. *t′ was palatalized in PT c in (1.i) *abi-ifam ti- > PT *apiyamcä, butno palatalization took place in the later loan word 1.xix: *uf Irδikam- > PT*witsäakå > TB witsako (not PT †wa iÿäakå > TB †yiÿako), nor in 1.v*huf
aipataifai > PT waipätai, not †waipacai; cf. 1.xxi. The first wave ofborrowings from Iranian is thus coeval with the obsolescence of thepalatalization rules in Tocharian: some still underwent them, other didnot.
(d) In the late OIran. loan word 1.xix, Early MIr. δ (< *t) appears as TABts, at least before an *i. It is unclear whether this *δ was rendered asPT *d (which was subsequently affricated like all inherited ‘*d’s)13 ordirectly as *ts/*dz. Early MIr. *dD /δD /lD (cf. (g)) was not affricated.
10 Isebaert (2003, 116 f.).11 Schmidt (1983, 763).12 Khot. bisasaa-, Tumsh. bisaa- ‘all’, Ved. vísava-, Av. vispa-; Khot. bisaarar- ‘tongue’ < *uf ia3huf arkar, Av.
hizuua. Waxi shach ‘dog’ < *acuf achi; yash ‘horse’ < *áacuf a-. Cf. Morgenstierne, IIFL II 46 f. §69.13 With Ringe (1991, 109 f.; 1996, 141; 146). This author inferred from witsako that palataliza-
tion (which witsako did not undergo) had preceded affrication (which witsako underwent). Since tsmay actually be a direct approximation of *d, Ringe’s chronology loses its basis. The evidence pro-vides no basis for a decision on whether the earliest Iranian loan words entered Tocharian beforethe devoicing of obstruents, except if 1.xxi is an Iranian loan word. Evidence for affrication *d>tsoutside the word-initial also becomes slender.
424 XAVIER TREMBLAY
(e) OIran. *�if > TB cc (1.iv). This equivalence is again ambiguous: onemay posit an intermediate stage PT *ty > cc with palatalization, or elsethat cc is an approximation of *� (cf. the special palatalization of *�if> tDhtDh [tD�D?] in Khot. hatDhtDham - > LKhot. haksDam-, ha
b:ksDam -?14).
(f) PIE *l > IIr. *l > PT *r (1.x, xi). In the provider, all or most *‘l’s hadturned to *r.
(g) OIran. *rd > TAB lt (1.x, xvii), but *rt > TB rt (1.viii). This equiva-lence presupposes that in the Iranian dialect which supplied Proto-Tocharian with the relevant vocabulary, *rd and *rt had evolved at adifferent pace, *rd becoming something like *dD ,15 *δD or *lD , whereas *rtwas retained or did not go further than *rtD or *rdD . Whereas *rd > lD isfairly common in Iranian languages (lD is attested in Sanglerïi-Iškašmi16
and is to be postulated for the ancestors of Yidca-Munh3i,17 Or rmùrD i18
and Khotanese, but not of Waxi19), the divergence of treatmentbetween *rt and *rd is not met with in Sanglerïi and Or rmùrD i (althoughit may well be that the reflexes of *rt and *rd were still distinguished atearlier, undocumented, stages).
(h) OIran. f > p PT (1.xii).(i) OIran. *h > PT ø (1.iv, v, xiii).
List
(i.) *abi-ifam ti- (Khot. byam ta- ‘memory’) > PT *apiyamcä > TA opyamc, TBobl. epiyac ‘remembrance’ uel sim. (epiyac käl- ‘remember’, epiyacyäm- ‘recall to someone’) (Andreas apud Hansen 1940, 151).
(ii.) *h2eékf
·ufon- ‘cutting edge’20 > Old Sakan *aïa ufabn- (> Khot. hIrÿÿabna-‘steel’21). A nasalized variant *anïaufan-22 was borrowed in Chor.hnïw23 and PT *anïwamn- > TA añcwamsD i ‘in steel’, TB eñcuwo, iñcuwo‘steel’24 [decl. VI] (Bailey 1957, 55 f., modified).
(iii.) *bamgá-, m. (Gamth. acc. bamgem Y.51,1, Ved. bhamgáhD ) > PT *pamka >TA pamk, TB pamke, pl. pamkenta ‘share’.
(iv.) *hufaipa�ifa- > PT *waipacca > TB waipecce ‘possession’ (Schmidt1983, 760–62).
(v.) *hufaipataifai ‘for oneself’ > PT *waipätai > TB waipte ‘separately’(Schmidt 1983).
(vi.) *3aainu- ‘weapon’ (cf. Av. zaernamu- ‘baldric’) > PT *tsainä > TB tsain,pl. tsainwa (decl. type I.2, *u-stem) (Schmidt 1983, 763).
14 See Sims-Williams (1992, II, 67) (according to whom hatDhtDhar- is issued from *srshtart- > *
srtashtar-
through metathesis).15 Professor Sims-Williams brings to my attention the rendering Uighur koltI < Skt. kotDi.16 Morgenstierne (IIFL II, 318 f.).17 Morgenstierne (IIFL II, 81).18 Morgenstierne (IIFL I, 331).19 Ved. spárdhate ‘vies’, Khot. 3Pl spalarri ‘twitch’, Waxi spardenh3 ‘flea’; Av. sard- ‘year’, Khot.
sali-, Waxi wuserd ‘this year’.20 Etymology Klingenschmitt (2000), who without cogent reason disjoins the Sakan vocables
from the other Iranian ones.21 With aïauf > isasa in a trisyllabic word (in a disyllabic one we find asasaa- ‘horse’ < *áacufa-) as in
*fra-a3ufarba- ‘distaste’ > hisaau ‘loss of appetite’, *pati-a3ufarra- > pisaarra- ‘disgusting’.22 The nasalization may be spontaneous (for instance through anticipation of the second syl-
lable) or brought about by a look-alike with the synonymous *han-darna- ‘wrought metal, alloy’ >PN ‘Andaanakoz’, Oss. ændon ‘iron’ (Skt. lex. samD -dhaarna- ‘foundry’).
23 Since *kf
uf > *acuf > *hcuf (> Khot. sasa, Waxi sh) is typical for Sakan dialects, Chor. hnhcw ‘arrow-head’, hnh3w ‘iron tip’ (MacKenzie KG, V, 64) must be borrowed from one of them (the trueChoresmian treatment is to be seen in ’spny ‘iron’). The initial h in hnhcw is either a ‘cockney’ aspi-ration, as in hrs- ‘bear’ < *
srsha- (cf. Henning 1956, 431), or a closer assimilation to *handarna- ‘alloy’
(cf. previous note).24 Bailey (1957, 55–7); Tremblay (2001, 22 n. 35, with lit.).
425IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
(vii.) *kanaka- ‘flax garment’ (Digor gænæ, Iron gæn ‘flax, hemp’;*kana-bha- > Khot. kumD bam , Sogd. kynp’ ‘flax’) > PT kanakä > TAkanak, TB kenek ‘flax or cotton garment’ (Isebaert 2003, 116 f.).
(viii.) karta- ‘knife’ (Av. kareta-, Sogd. krt, Yacnorbi kort, etc.) > PT*karta > TB kertte, pl. kercci ‘sword’ (decl. type V.1b) (VanWindekens 1963, 486).
(ix.) *kaša- ‘armpit’ (Av. kaša-, Pehl. kš ‘shoulder’, *upa-kaša- > Sogd.’pkš-, Yacnorbi pakaš, Šucni bih3um ) > PT *kasDa > TA kasD , TB kesDe‘fathom’ (decl. type V.1a) (Isebaert 1980, 84 f.).
(x.) *marda- ‘head’ (Ved. mùrdhán-) > *madDa- (Khot. mala- ‘rock’,kamala- ‘head’) > PT *malta > TA *malt, from which TA malto,maltw ‘first’, malto winu ‘at first’ is a derived adjective *maltawu >*maltawä with *-ufont-suffix like parno to parämD (1.xii).
(xi.) *paratu- ‘axe’ (> Khot. acc. sing. padDu; Oss. færæt) > PT *paratwä >TA porat, TB peret (Lidén 1916). The same word, either undera more archaic form *palatu- (cf. ��a����z), or with a later shape*padDu-, also yielded Uighur baltu ‘battled axe’.
(xii.) *(s)farnah- > PT *parna- > TA paräm, TB perne ‘glory’ (decl. typeV.1) (Hansen 1940, 151). In the TA compounds after a stem-finali of the previous member, the word assumes a form oÿparämD(puttiÿparämD ‘dignity of Buddha’, arrarntiÿparämD ‘dignity of Arhat’);this typical ‘rukip’-alternance must have originated in Iranian com-pounds and integrated Tocharian with them, puttiÿparäm beinganalogical to compounds such as *kauf išfarnah- (Sogd. Kwyfrn) >PT *kawiÿparna.25 Tocharian thus indicates that the Iranian etymonbegan with *s/h (> š after i). The initial (other Iranian dialects f /Av. xv also after ‘rukip’, whereas ancient *huf groups become š.xv ≤*šuu: pouru.xvarenah- ≠ pouruš.xvar�ra-) cannot originate in *suf >Ir. *huf .26 But on the contrary an initial *sf is considerable, *sfarnahbeing cognate with Vedic visDpulindgakarahD RV I,191,12; visDphulíndga-SaB ‘clinkers’, sphulindgini- ‘one of the seven tongues of the fire’ <*sph2l
sH-n-.27 Since a group *šf was by no means less unstable than
*sf, both could evolve in Av. xv, so that the underlying form ofxvarenah- can be *šfarnah- as well as *sfarnah-, a fact which wouldexplain why this vocable remains unchanged after ‘rukip’ sounds.
Already Middle Iranian formation, but still Proto-Tocharian phonetics:
(xiii.) *ainahaka- ‘evil’ > PT *ainarka > TA enark, TB ainake (pl. ainamki)‘common, vile’.
(xiv.) *kapaïi- ‘garment flap’ (Middle Pers. kp’h ‘gown, mantle’, Arm.kapak ‘short coat’, Khot. khapa- ‘dress’) > PT kapacä > TB kepec(Isebaert 2003, 118 f.).
(xv.) *pusãka- (Parth. pwsg, Arm. psak) > *pwäsakä > *päsakwä > TApsuk (pässark is either a later loan from Sogdian ’ps’k, or from TBpässakw), TB pässakw, nom. plur. pässakänta ‘garland’ (decl. typeIII.1d) (Hansen 1940, 153).
25 Klingenschmitt (1975, 149 n. 1).26 Lubotsky (1999, 312; 2003, 192).27 Tremblay (2000, 194), with rejection of Lubotsky’s explanation (1998; 1999, 191–5) through a
pan-Iranian borrowing from Scythian *farnah- ‘plenitude’ (Ved. párinDas-, m.), and Elfenbein (2001,490).
426 XAVIER TREMBLAY
(xvi.) *rata- (Oss. rad, Russ. pam ) → Early MIr. *rataka- ‘line of battle’> PT ratäka > TA ratäk, TB retke, pl. recci ‘army’ (decl. type V.1b)(Schulze 1932, 232).
(xvii.) *spardaka- ‘zeal’ > *spadDaka- > PT *spaltäka > TB speltke (decl.type V.1), whence a denominative verb spar lkäsk- was derived.
(xviii.) perhaps *šundika- ‘fauces’ (> Khot. sDumD ca- ‘beak’, Waxi šendikLorimer, šendDg Steblin-Kamenskij ‘gums of mouth’; NPers. šand‘beak’, Ved. ÿunDdDa- ‘tusk’;28 Iranian and Indian both apparentlyborrowed from an unsettled substrate) > PT *sDwän(t)äkV 29 >*sDän(t)äkwä > TA sDùbndk-, TB ablative plural (integrated into theneuters with -anma-plural, decl. type II.2) sDändw-anma-memD (Hansen1940, 156).
The following vocable was imported slightly later, still before the syncope,but after the Early Middle Iranian monophthongization of *ai (> *i as inKhotanese) and after the Early Middle Iranian lenition of intervocalic *t:
(xix.) *ufaitIbkar - ‘root’ (Av. vaer iti-, *ufaitarkar- > Digor wedagæ, Khot.barga-) > *wiδIbkar > PT *witsäkå > TB witsako (Meillet 1912, 1913,399; Bouda in Krause (1951, 194); Winter (1971, 222)).
The following correspondence is a calque rather than a mere loan:
(xx.) The designation of the ‘king’ is strikingly concordant in PT*wälarnt- > TA wäl, Obl. larnt; TB walo, Obl. larnt and in Old Sakan*ufr-ant- > Tumš. GSg ride, Khot. *rufãnt- > nom. sing. rre, acc.rrundu. Both are the expected particip of an aorist *uf leh2?- ‘to reign’(TAB wlarw- ‘to control’, Khot. vara- ‘excellent’, cf. Old Irish follna-‘to rule’, Lat. ualeo, Middle Welsh gwaladr ‘chief’30). Albeit thesubstance of both words is thus inherited, it can hardly be due tochance that only these two neighbouring languages turned thisparticiple into a royal title. Either the Tocharian word or (lessprobably) the Sakan one must be a calque.
In a few examples, an Old Iranian etymology is as plausible as the morecommonly acknowledged Indo-European one:
(xxi.) Old Iranian *grs
dá- ‘house’ (Av. gereδa- ‘dævic cave’, Ved. grs
há-) >plurale tantum TB kercci, OPl kerciyemD ‘housing, palace’ accordingto Joki (1973, 269) and Isebaert (1980, 88). Now Tocharian departsfrom the Iranian form in two respects: the equivalence OIran. r
s >
TB er is not trivial and kerciye- is an -(i)ifo-stem. According to afirst explanation, which leaves the first objection unaddressed, anadjective *karciya- was derived in Proto-Tocharian from *karta <*grs
da- (as a matter of fact, -iye-stems are frequent as adjectives
28 The following facts militate against a direct borrowing of the Sakan word from Indian: 1. Themeanings diverge; 2. The word for ‘beak’ is attested in Persian; 3. It is enlarged by an -ika-suffix inKhotanese and Waxi; 4. The Khotanese word has sD , not sa. If the Iranian word were a borrowingfrom Indian, it must be a very early one. The Indian lexeme was later borrowed in Sogdian B shnth‘trunk’, and through Dardic (Khowar shurn, Tir. shunDdD ‘lip’), in Shucni shand < *shundar, Pararch i PaDshto sh burnDdD‘lip’.
29 For *nd(h) > PT n cf. Ringe (1996, 43 f.).30 Old Irish flaith ‘sovereign’ < *uf labti- belongs to a different root *uf lat-, Ved. vrabta-, Av.
uruuata- ‘order’, Uruuatatr.nara- ‘who commands the men’, Sogd. ’rwtprnc, Bact. RgdoQaro BD
al 9 ‘who commands with glory’ and perhaps Bact. brgdaco ‘sovereign’ < *abio or *upaouf rartaifa-+ -aka-.
427IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
only), which eventually ousted its related substantive. A secondsolution, which would solve both problems, is that PT *karciya-was borrowed from a vr
sddhied collective31 *gardiifa- (instead of the
expected *h3ardiifa-). If kercci were an Iranian loan word, it wouldhave been introduced after inherited *d had become PT ts (ÿ withpalatalization). However, an inherited vocable *ghortiifo- (Lat.hortus ‘garden’) or *ghordhiio- (Gothic gards ‘house’) is equallypossible (Adams 1999, 196; cf. Ringe 1996, 47 f.).
(xxii.) OIran. *parzu- ‘face’ (Oss. -vazug ‘-sided’, Khot. parysa- ‘face’, etc.)> PT *parswä ‘wall, side’ > TA posamD ‘under, beside’, TA pos
qi, TB
obl. plur. posD iyamD - ‘wall’. Conversely Fraenkel (1932, 229) derivedit from PIE *pusiifeh2, cf. Lithuanian pùsed. TB obl. plur. pausDkemD‘ribs’ (?), which Adams (1999, 407) also relates to PIE pus-, mightbe a loan from some unknown Iranian dialect (*parsuka- > Khot.par lsua-).
The forms (ii), (xi), (xviii) and (xx) were most probably borrowed from OldSakan: they are exclusively attested in Khotanese and/or exhibit a typicallySakan form; the reflexes of OIran. *rd and *rt found in (viii), (x) and (xvii) arealso consistent with a Proto-Khotanese origin (but they do not require it). Thelenition of *t in (xix) excludes Sogdian. A case may be made for a Parthianorigin for (xv), for the vocable has thus far only been found in that dialect. Themain (or the unique?) source for the early borrowings in Tocharian shouldhence be a Sakan dialect.32
2. Loan words from Primitive Khotanese (stage 1)
Borrowing from Sakan continued after the discoloration of *i and *u to PT *e.These later borrowings may be recognized from different equivalences:
(a.) Early Middle Iranian *u > PT, TB u (not PT ä > TB ø; 2.iii).(b.) Early Middle Iranian *#i > PT *ya > TB ye. All palatal or labiovelar
vocalic initials in Proto-Tocharian received an initial onglide: *h1ud·r-on‘aquatic’ > *wäran ≥ *wärän > TA wär, B war ‘water’; *h1ek
f
ufo- > PT*yäkwa > TA yuk, TB yakwe ‘horse’. Thus *induka- was bound to take aninitial y- in Tocharian. Moreover, if PIE *i had already been reducedto ä when Proto-Tocharian borrowed *hinduka-, then there were fewpossibilities to represent an initial *i: *yi° must have been unavailablesince pre-Tocharian *i (> PT *i) was very rare in word-initial position.*#Yä- was probably unsuitable for a full initial vowel, cf. *n
s > PT *än,
but *#ns- > PT *#an (e.g. *n
skf
-ufo- > TB endkwe ‘man’). The bestequivalence was probably PT *#ya-, as if from pre-Tocharian *#er°.
(c.) (OIran. *ai >) Early Middle Iranian *i > PT, TB i (2.i).(d.) (OIran. *au >) Early Middle Iranian *or > PT, TAB o (2.ii).(e.) But Iranian *ã > TA a, TB e as previously.
The loan words may be assigned to Primitive Khotanese, since the monoph-thongization Old Iranian *ai > i is similar to Khotanese and all vocables areattested in that dialect.
(i.) *axšainaka- (Khot. asDsDänaa-) ‘dove’ > PT *akšinaka > TBeksD inekäññe ‘pertaining to a dove’. (Schwentner 1956).
31 For the type cf. Wackernagel (AIG II:2 821 § 660; 818 f. § 656c).32 Pinault (2003, 245) connects some of these vocables to Proto-Ossetic; I do not see what com-
mends this opinion.
428 XAVIER TREMBLAY
(ii.) Perhaps Old Iranian *yauna- ‘place, course’ (Av. yaona-, yaonor .xvita-‘<fox> who runs well’, Khot. gyùna- ‘course, time’, Sogd. ywn, etc.) >PT *yona > TA yomD ‘trace, footprint’, yoñi ‘path’, TB nom. sing.*yoñiya ‘path, zone, caravan’ (Van Windekens 1972, 48; Isebaert1980, 143; another possibility is an inherited vocable from PIE*ifeh2nu-, Lat. ianus).
(iii.) *(h)induka- ‘Indian’ (Khot. indua-, Yidγa Idγ) > *yantuka- > TByentuke (Schmidt 1983, 764 f.).
After the separation of Tocharian A and B, both continued to borrow fromIranian, but following different sound-equivalences from the previous ones:
(a.) Ir. ã > TAB arb (for ar cf. 3.iv; 5.ii; ix; 6.v; 7.ii, etc.).(b.) Ir. ar > TAB ar (save for palatalizations and labializations).33
(c.) Ir. i > Toch. ä, i without syncope (cf. 3.iii, 4.iii, 5.v).(d.) Khot. ä > TAB i (5.vi) without syncope.(e.) Khot. NSg -ä# > TA always -ø, B -ø (4.iii, 5.x, xiii), -e (5.iii, vi, 10.xiii,
xv) or -o (3.ii, iii, iv). If it were significant that -o predominates in theolder stratum of loan words from Khotanese, this distribution wouldindicate that *-ah evolved in Khotanese from [-e] (> Tocharian -o) to[-beD ] -ä and then later back to [-e] or [-e
s] and eventually -ø.
(f.) Prim. Khot. *-ifä > A -e, B -i (cf. 3.i).(g.) Khot. -ar > A -e, B -iye (5.i; viii). This equivalence is interesting, since
it would suggest that the nom. sing. B -iye (< *-ih2on-s?), which oftenalternates with the ending B -o < *-eh2 (Krause and Thomas 1960,133), has encroached on it.
(h.) VrC > rVC (5.iii).(i.) OIr. *VpV > VϕV > TAB ø (4.ii).
3. Loan words from Primitive Khotanese (stage 2)
(i.) *parrifa- ‘debt, to be paid’ > Prim. Khot. *perifä (> Khot. pera-) > TApare, TB peri (a loan word from Old Iranian *pãr(if)a- would havebeen TB †per(iy)e). (Meillet in Meillet and Lévi 1916, 159; identifiedas Khotanese by Adams 1999, 396).
(ii.) *parsa- ‘sending’ (Late Khot. pab
sa- ‘missive, messenger’ uel sim.; Arm.parsem ‘send out’) > TA pärs, TB parso. Because of the ending andthe semantics (writing did not spread in Central Asia before the firstcentury BC) this can hardly be a loan from Old Sakan. Also borrowedin Tibetan par-ÿa (Bailey 1979, 224).
(iii.) *pi�ä ‘price’ (> Khot. piha-) > TB pito (Bailey, KT VI, 1967, 196).(iv.) *tuufam-karä (> Khot. ttumD gara-) > TB tvarndkaro ‘ginger’ (Bailey 1937,
913).(v.) *çriratart-akar- > Khot. *ÿiratartakar-34 (> Khot. ÿÿädDarar- ≥ ÿÿädDaar-) >
TA ÿrittartak 270 a 8 ‘happiness’ (Pinault 1997, 135) with re-etymo-logicization after Skt. ÿri- ‘jewel’.
4. Words of Saaka (Indo-Scythian) origin
A tantalizing sub-group of loan words seems to originate ultimately from aSakan dialect which was not the forebear of Khotanese: *uf isah puqra- >
33 TA nabpemD ‘person, people’ cannot be borrowed from Sogd. n’b ‘people’, pace Bailey (1947,149).
34 For the phonetics cf. Emmerick and Skjærvø, SVK I, 117.
429IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
*guÿaQura- (4.ii) stands aloof from Khot. bisiviraa-.35 This Sakan dialect hasbeen identified as the language of the Saaka (Indo-Scythians) who conqueredIndia, and probably of the Kušarn family as well.36 Saaka loan words are morenumerous in Garndharri and Krorainic, but some also, indirectly, reached Agnior Kuhca. Besides #uf i > gu, sound laws differing from Khotanese are: OIran.*ai > e (≠ Khot. i, cf. 1.xix, 2.i), -ants > -ar (≠ Khot. -e).
(i.) OIran. *chazdahufants (Garthic acc. chazdro.nhuuantem)37 > Saaka *chazbar> Tumšuqese cazba, Kror. cojhbo.38 Bailey (1947, 149; 1949, 127)recognized tentatively the same word in TA cospar 303 b 1, [co]spar 302a 8, which is attested in verse colophons of the Maitreyasamiti,among dedicatories with predominantly non-Tocharian names:
302 b 8 ... Co]spar ♦ Saeri ♦ KarttumD tarmots Larra[t. .. ]kiñ arElark parno rAkk[.]arc HkuttemD -warm parnots nar [ÿi. .. ‘Cospar SaeriQatun, the righteous39 Larrat [...] Elläg, the honourable Aq[.]arc,Xutren-barm, the honourable la[dy...’ (colophon at the end ofChapter IV40).303 a 5–b 2 [mai]treyasamit postäk ÿparlmemD pekamät was pukis[(a6) .. .] Oppatyuti Saeri Kar ttumD tarmots Larrat HkhuttemD -WarmNarcci Elar [|k . . .]r e Pai Teqnkohkh || 4 || karswac purccamosD wasD narckiwasämD parrccate [(a8) ...]r(s)[ñ]i Pontoko Pessarl DSetsyarmD tuqnk tarpenu poñÿ kälpimträ [c. 30 syllables41 (303 b 1)] Cospar WräntarrMäkkot/ntsi ÿlak Reuwänt nunark Oppal[ 5 syllables ] ÿlak || 6 ||
We have written the excellent Maitreyasamiti-book for all [. ..]Upadyoti, Saeri Qatun, the righteous Larrat, Xutren-barm, Narzhci,Ellä[g...] Bai Tengox || 4 ||. For the(ir) weal, the distinguished ...lords, our ??adorned42 [.. .] Pontoko, Pessar l, hSej-yarn, love whereverall of us may obtain (it)43 [. ..] Cospar Vryantar, Mäkkot/ntsi aswell as Rrew-b and and also Oppal (probably final colophon).
Such name lists from Central Asia included dedicatories frommultiple origins, cf. the Sogdian spouse of the probably Turk author
35 Albeit the treatment *uf i > gu- is attested elsewhere in Khotanese: Emmerick (1968, 230 f.).36 Lüders (1913, 406–27); Konow (1916; 1929, xlix sqq); Bachhofer (1941, 247–50); Bailey
(1949, 121–8); Maricq (1958, 396); Harmatta (1994) (some identifications doubtful, but mostcomprehensive onomastic collection); Tremblay (2001, 138 n. 234).
37 For the connection of the Krorainic with Avestan, see Henning (1936, 12 n. 6) and apud Bur-row (1937, 91). Pirart’s (1984) further comparision with Ved. canoodhara- ‘satisfied, gracious’ is some-what hampered by the fact that the expected outcome of *kn
rHsodheh1·(e)s-ufent- would have been
†karzdarsnhuuant-. One may suppose a slightly different pre-form *knrHsodhh1·es-ufent- and admit a
laryngeal loss in the first compound member and an analogical remodelling of the initial after*chanah- ‘pleasure’. Since chazdronhuuant- designates most probably the lay patron of the sacrifice, itmay have been a title (‘gracious’ uel sim. following Pirart’s etymology) as early as Garthic times.Werba’s (1986, 356–61) emendation is arbitrary.
38 Bact. fafobo Sig. 68 has an unsettled meaning, pace Humbach (1969, 71).39 Tocharian adjectives are never embedded in Turkic names, so that the adjectives tarmots
‘being according the dharma, dharmavati’ (Winter 1963, 245 n. 16), parno, parnots were probablyepithets, preceding the names to which they pertained.
40 Pinault (1999, 197 f.). This colophon has no Uighur counterpart in the HamI and Sängimmss.
41 The main part of padas 5, 6a and the beginning of pada 6b are wanting.42 If parrccate is from Skt. paricchada- ‘adorned, furniture, attendants, train’. This is a mere
guess.43 Cf. the parallel 253 b 7 cañäk tuqnk was kälpimträ ‘may we obtain such love’. But one might
prefer to understand Tuqnk as a personal name and translate tar penu poñsa kälpimträ as ‘wherever allof us may be’, with a passive translation of the medium of kälp- (see Schmidt 1974, 242 f.).
430 XAVIER TREMBLAY
of the introduction of our Tocharian A Maitreyasamiti44 or the colo-phon of the Marhrnarmag M 1. Female names apparently predominateas in the Sogdian colophon of P 8 (Benveniste 1940, 217 f.). Some ofthem adhered to Indian and Tocharian traditions: Upadyoti, Larrat,45
Pontoko,46 perhaps Oppal[ ‘Lotus-’. But most names are Iranian,especially Sogdian: HkhuttemD -Warm = S *xwt’ynh-b’m ‘Queen-Glow’,which would rather be expected among Manichees, Reuwänt47 = S*Rywbnt ‘Servant of the Rich God’ (cf. Rywbntk), and probablyNarcci < *Nazu hci- or *Narz-i hcar-, a hypocoristic built on *narzu- ‘deli-cate’.48 DSetsyarmD looks Bactrian (*þifiiano ‘becoming good boon’, cf.þifco BD Q 14, etc. < *xhsih3a-ka- and iano ‘favour’); in any case, *h3 >j [dz] is not Sogdian. Pessar l cannot belong to Sogdian nor to Agnean,where ar appears in the ultima of dissyllabic words only after a shortvowel (ä, u, i). The hypocoristic suffix -(a)la- is found in Khotanesenames;49 the radical might be either *vaisa- ‘servant’ (cf. the gentilicialAv. Varesaka-, Khot. Bisaka- P 2786, 21650) or *paisa(h)- ‘adorned’(cf. Sogd. Pys’kk Anc. Lett. II 60). Turkic are Elark (Elläg ‘king’, elegin Bramhmi) and probably Pai Te qnkohkh (Bay ‘rich’; the second partremains obscure: tayanguq ‘little Chamberlain’?; cf. t’y’kw as a nameMOTH 18.5), rather than Chinese.51 Qatun was frequently applied towomen’s names: cf. Yipar-cazan-barm Xatun, Ductarn-sharh RatnakYimar Xatun, Wartan-barm Xatun, etc. in M 1 (Müller 1912, 15);Saeri52 KarttumD was thus a lady. Wräntarr is impossible to elucidatefrom Tocharian; since cazba was typically a Tumshuqese title, Wräntarrmight be the comparative of Tumsh. bri, briyi ‘dear’ < *friifa- (cf. thename Brika H 149 add. 121 II 14), Khot. *bry barntara- ‘dearer’(bry barntama- ‘dearest’ < *friifarna-tama-). Tumshuq was a vassal ofKucha, but the fragment T III M 146 (Konow 1935 n. VIII), in abroken context, mentions ‘subjects of Agni’. TA cospar , althoughultimately from ‘Saaka’, might thus have been transmitted to Agnithrough Tumshuq.
(ii.) *uf isah puqra- > *gusaaQuhra- ‘prince’ > Kuchar Sanskrit gausaura- andfurther Garndharri gusaurakehi (Bailey 1980, 27), Kror. gusaura-, Shinagushpur r, Burushaski gushpuhr (titles), Tibetan Gau-saa-ra (Bailey 1947,149 ff.; 1950, 391–3).
44 Schmidt (2002, 261; 264); this lady bore a splendid Mazdaean name Nanemarñc ( = SNnym’nch).
45 Probably a derivative of *larr, the hitherto unattested TA match of TB larre ‘dear’, from whichother names were derived, for instance LarrisDka ‘darling’. The ending -at might be Skt. -ati.
46 Recalling the name KwemD toko found in one of the documents edited by Huang Wên-pi 1958,plate 74 (Schmidt 1978; Pinault 1987, 85–94). Schmidt suggested an analysis KwemD -toko ‘having therun of the dog’ (Wolfgang); but one might favour Pont-oko-, KwemD t-oko- with meanings ‘earningall profit’, ‘earning a firm profit’. Anyway, it is difficult to read pont oko with incongruence ‘totaefructum’.
47 Professor K.T. Schmidt tells me that Reuwänt might also be a Tocharian noun, meaning‘Wealthy’ uel sim. (*reh1-ufent-).
48 Cf. Sogd. n’zwk, n’z’kk Anc. Letter IV,3 and the names N’z Semirechie (Chwolson II 197),OPers. in Elam. Na-su-uk-ka, MPers. N’dwk, N’cwky and especially N’cydy.
49 E.g. Savakalai Ch 00269, 43 (KT II 42), Makali Achma 3 (KT II 62), Sinili Achma 4; see alsoDegener (1989, 305 § 49.2) (-la- for -laka-).
50 However, the evidence for the development i > Late Khot. [e] (Emmerick 1979, 249) is weak.51 Pai ‘White’ (LMC *pfiaryk), translating Toch. Kuci (like Po, the name of the Kuchean royal
family in Chinese annals), was a common name in Kuchar (see e.g. Trombert et al. (2000, 50; 133))but one expects a rendering *paihkh, cf. Emmerick and Pulleyblank (1993, 51). Otherwise a namewith a chinese second part like Teng-ku (cf. tynk DTS A 17) would be worth considering.
52 Khotanese or Tumhsuqese name *acriri-kar- (Khot. sasaira-), meaning ‘Bona’?
431IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
(iii.) *zainika- (Khot. ysinia-) > *zrenicä ‘ordered’ (> Kror. jhenigaa- ‘underthe care of’, Khot. Skt. ysenikarmD (Skjærvø 1991)) > TAB senik ‘order’(Krause and Thomas I 55 § 27.3; Bailey, KT IV, 116; phraseologicalmatches Schmidt (1996, 277); Pinault (2003, 272)).
The following suffix issued from Saaka or from Primitive Khotanese:
(iv.) The Tocharian B hypocoristic suffix -sake, -sDke has no convincingIndo-European etymology.53 Two explanations from Iranian havebeen endeavoured: (1) The names of the Kusharn kings contained, con-spicuously, a gentilitial marker -(er)shka- which was most probablyextracted from *Hufaishtaka- ‘eldest’ (Av. Huuor ishta-) > HuvisDkaOogþko and from its antonym (rebuild after *Hufaishtaka- throughrhyme-analogy) *Kanaishtaka- ‘youngest’ > KanaisDka Kangþko andhence extended54 to the names of most of the later Kusharn kings(Henning 1965, 84):55 *Vasu(-deva or the like) + -eshke > VajhesDkaBafgþko;56 outside the Kusharn family it is attested as the name of anofficial contemporary to Kanishka, Kofcaþki SKm 21–22 = b 25,derivated from Kujula-. The onomastic metaplast thus generated,*°a-ishta-ka- > -(er)shke, may have been borrowed by Khot. Tumsh.-saka-, TB -sake, -sDke as a diminutive suffix (Klingenschmitt 1975,149 f.) in the same way as the Germanic anthroponymic suffix -ron-intruded on Late Latin (Old French Hue(s), obl. Huon; Karle(s),obl. Karlon, etc.), diffused among other names (Moise, obl. Moisan),triggered the apparition of a feminine counterpart -arn- (anita ‘aunt’ ≥ante, obl. antain) and eventually became a French diminutive suffix(aiglon, chaton, mulon ‘little mole’, cruchon), a function it did notassume in Germanic.57 *-(er)shke may have reached Kuhca throughKhotanese or Krorainic and there is no firm evidence for any directKusharn influence upon Kuhca. (2) If one demurs from admitting thata suffix originated ultimately from but one foreign name,58 Sims-Williams (2003, 237–9) derived Bactrian -gþko, Khot. -saka- and Toch.-sake from syncopated *-i hca-ka- in an unknown Iranian language.Although this development could be vindicated for Khotanese(Sims-Williams himself refers to Khot. jsicar- + -kar - → jisakar- ‘girl’),the resorting to a facile undetermined tertium ex quo, and the g of the
53 Klingenschmitt (1994, 371, n. 106) has suggested a double diminutive *-ke-ko- but as long asno simple diminutive *-ko- is attested this hypothesis remains gratuitous.
54 Such false analyses are not uncommon in onomastics: from Wan av or Hean av a suffix -an av wasabstracted, which spread in ‘Orman av (Masson, OGS III 16). The homeric names Ai
,neiaaz’ and
‘Ermeiaaz entailed the refection in some names of the complex suffix -e(f) raz (Myc. °e-wa, chypr. ku-pe-re-wa) as -eiaaz (Masson, OGS III 149 ff.).
55 The Kuhsarn infant’s name SadasDkanDo in Senavarman’s inscription is too different to containthe same suffix, pace Bailey (1980, 26). Does it mean ‘crushing hundreds’ (phl. hskyn-)?
56 The initial B° rather than O° points to an Indian name in Vasu- as in Bafodgo (with s > [z]-jh- as in majhe) with Humbach (1966, 43) than to *Varzihsta- ‘Strongest’ with Henning (1965, 83 f.).
57 Meyer-Lübke II 499. Another example is the Armenian patronymic (Abrahamean, etc.), eth-nic and taxonomic (epikurean), compositional (k‘sanamean ‘twenty years old’) and collective(xozean ‘herd of swine’) suffix -ean, abstracted through erroneous analysis from relatively rare Ira-nian names in -iarn < *-iif-arnarm (Bartholomae, MIM V, 14–17; Schmitt 1983, 103; -ean cannot origi-nate from *-i-h3on- pace Olsen (1999, 388) since it would have become †-iwn, cf. the abstracts in-t’iwn from *-ti-h2-on-).
58 However, a name can become fashionable after just one person, e.g. Philippe after the Frenchkings Philippe Ier and Philippe II Auguste. Though the Apostle is seldom mentioned and noromance attached to the Macedonian king, this name spread to Spain (Felipe, from French) andGermany (Philipp of Suabia 1177†1208), and patterned the reshaping of the Germanic nameFilbert in Philibert.
432 XAVIER TREMBLAY
Bactrian names, which is left unaccounted for, are moot points in theexplanation.
As a whole, direct contacts between Tocharian and Saaka are hardly evi-denced by these four loan titles, which were kinds of Wanderworte in CentralAsia.
5. Tocharian borrowed from Khotanese in the historical epoch
(i.) auskar- > TA osDke, TB oskiye ‘house’.59 TA osD° instead of expectedos° and TB os° instead of aus° were brought about by their similarappearance to TA wasDt, TB ost ‘house’.60 Moreover, the initial o°could be accounted for if the word was borrowed from (Early) LateKhotanese, where it would have sounded like [csk°].61
(ii.) OIran. *kara-sqraifa- ‘scattering of twigs’ (cf. Av. uruuarro.straiia-;for *°sqr° > Khot. sDsD cf. *vasqra- > hvarsDsDa- ‘grass’) > Khot. kararsasaä‘creeper, vine’ > TA karrarsa, TB kararsa ‘forest’ (Iran.-Toch. connectionBailey 1947, 149; etymology mine).
Some debate has been stirred upon the possibility of sDsD and sD being palatal-ized in sasa and sa. Whereas Konow (1932, 38) explicitly rejected it, Bailey (herequoted from his Dictionary 1979) accepted both treatments *sh(a)if > sa–
b and
*sh(a)if > sasa (without attempting to reconcile them). Whereas most of them donot stand up to scrutiny (e.g. duraosaa
b- and khanDaosaa
b- pp. 161 ff., cf. SVK II
60 ff.; disasa- ‘throw’, actually < *daisaifa-;62 marsaa- ‘dwelling’ p. 330; hatisa-, haisa-‘give’ pp. 448 ff., actually < *fra-haizaifa-, cf. Chor. rxyzy- ‘to yield’;hob
saäb
‘finger’ p. 501; hvasDar ‘juice from meat’ < *hu-ashifaka-? p. 505, perhapsrather *huf
srzifa- ‘something to savour’) or rest on a shaky basis (pyausaar
bka-
‘bud’? < *pati-aushifa- ? p. 253; hausaa ‘a food’ < *fra-aushifa-? p. 501; masapa‘road’ < *amashifa-pada-?), others are still attractive (see below).
Let us at first consider cases where sD(sD) is not palatalized: to the contraryof inherited or secondary clusters st, groups *sht, *acsht, *act, *ksht and secondaryclusters sDtD arising from syncope were not raised to sat by subsequent *-i- or*-aifa-: infinitives pyur sDtDe ‘to hear’ < *patiogushtaifai, kesDtDe ‘to think’ < *kacashtaifaiand spesDtDä ‘to see’ < *spacataifai, 3Sg husDtDä ‘grows’ < *uxshati, arsDtDia- ‘thumb’< *angushtika-, musDtDi- ‘fist’ < *mushti-; hence visat- ‘to place’ should continue*auf iostaifa-, not *auf ioshtaifa-, pasati- ‘end’ *patiosti-, not *patioshti-.
OIran. word-internal *sh was not palatalized by *-aifa- either. The uniquereflex of 3Sg °Vshat(a)i is (unpalatalized) sDdD . Emmerick (1968) subsumes all thepresent stems in -sD under the middle and, as a matter of fact, ysursDdD e ‘approves’< *zushatai (Ved. jusDáte), pasusDdD i ‘becomes hoarse’ < *patiosaushat(a)i (Oss.sosæg ‘silent’), hur sDdD e ‘dries out’ < *haushatai (Av. subj. haoshar taercha) are or mightbe middle. But sD isDdDä, 3Pl sDsDaidä KT III 84, 45, sDaide Si 21.17 (131r3) = KT I 64(SVK I 118 ff.) ‘takes hold of, clings’ is unambiguously active < *srishati,*srishanti (Av. subj. srishar iti ‘to tie’) and ttäsDdDä ‘cuts’ < *tashati (rather than*tashti) corresponds to an active tantum present outside Khotanese. Thepreforms of bersDdDä ‘to split’ (intrans.) and harsDdD i ‘to burst’ (trans.) may be*uf ioraishatai and *fraoraishati but no other Indo-Iranian language matches
59 Emmerick apud Hilmarsson (1986, 70).60 Adams (1999, 127 ff.).61 The monophthongization of au to [c] occurred early in the transition from Old to Late
Khotanese, since it is already attested in the Chinese Vajracchedikar, written in Khotanese Brarhmi,which otherwise documents a rather Old Khotanese vowel system (Emmerick and Pulleyblank1993, 45 ff.).
62 Tichy (1979, 217–9).
433IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
exactly or unambiguously the Khotanese form: Ved. rísDyati, Av. irishiieiti ‘totake damage’ are intransitive; their transitive counterpart is built on the caus-ative stem (Ved. resDáyati, Av. subj. rareshaiiart
r, probably Sogd. zrysh-, Chor. rys-
‘to burst’ and Oss. Digor resun); Ved. subj. résDar t AV IV 35,1, a remodelling ofthe Aor. Subj. resDat RV VII 20, 6 and hence no true parallel to the Khotanesepresent, shows however how a present *raisha- could make its way. Thus thephonetic rule is that * brVshat# > * brVDzat was syncopated to * brVDzt# > sDdD before thedemise of *Dz, in the active as well as in the middle, that is without perceptiblepalatalizing effect of the active ending -ti. However, the two presents ke
bitä
‘thinks’ (< *kasha- according to Emmerick (1968, 22)) and heb
itä ‘sends’ (<*fraoisha- Emmerick (1968, 154)) do not square with the treatment *Vshat(a)i >Khot. sDdD ; moreover, the initial velar and the active endings in ke
bitä are isolated
in the whole Indo-Iranian family. All these seeming irregularities can be ac-counted for if ke
bitä ‘thinks’ is actually an iterative *kashaifati and if likewise
heb
itä continues *häzD idi < *fraoaishaifa-ti (Av. pairii-aershaiieiti +VN 62). A furtherexample of the sound change *shaifa > *zD > ø might be
barye ‘ground’ if from
< *ar oshaifa- ‘what can be inhabited’.63 Thus word-internal *sh was weakened toKhot. *zD (and hence to zero if no syncope interrupted the process) before *aifaand before *i as before any non-palatalizing sequence.
However sD and sDsD seem to be palatalized by three surroundings: (1) OIran.*sh was palatalized by an immediately following yod before it was sonorizedand weakened between vowels to *zD : musasaa ‘pilferers’ Z 22,136 < *mushifu-,64
Ved. musDnD ar ti, musDaryáti; ggursata- ‘flesh’ < *gaush-t-ifa-; albeit the initial is irregu-lar, LKhot. bisai (OKhot. *bisasaa-) ‘buttermilk’ can hardly be dissociated fromyacnorbi meshin, Ved. armíksDar- and might derive from *micashifa- (*‘mixed’) ora collective *maicashifa-. (2) OIran. *pati-fsharna- (cf. Yidca ráshan, fshtna- ‘sole’)resulted in pasasaarna- ‘sole of the foot’ with palatalization through a preceding i(cf. *°i°-shfarnah- > TA °isaparämD 1.xii). (3) saana ‘group of dwellers’ might pointto a palatalization of initial *sh through *aifa if its meaning were sure enough towarrant the etymology *shaifana-. In the same way the derivation *kara-sqraifa-> *kararsDsDaifa- > *kararsDsD iifa- > kararsasaa- can be explained.
Since *sh was palatalized prior to its weakening to *zD by an immediatelypreceding yod, but not by *aifa, whereas initial and geminate *sh(sh) was pala-talized by *aifa, palatalization through yod occurred earlier than that attriggered by *aifa.
(iii.) khargga- > TAB (TB > TA) krarke ‘filth’ (Van Windekens 1949,269).
(iv.) tvamD danä > TA twantamD ‘reverence’ (Konow 1945, 207 ff.).(v.) parrgyiña- > TA parsaimD ‘treasury’ (Bailey 1947, 149), integrated into
the -in- stems. The equivalence rgy > sa recalls some advanced orLate Khotanese resolutions of OIran. groups r + palatal: ar ljs- >
bimD js
bimD ‘song’ KBT 152,15; gge
bilsarre Z 2,164 > geisarre Z 20,56 ‘they
revolve’; *arzana- > *alysana- [alzana] > LKhot. arb
ysamD ‘millet’,balysa- ‘Buddha’ > ba
bysa-, be
bysa-. In some vocables the dropping of
l was regular even in Old Khotanese, e.g. (theorical *ufart-sac-aifa- >)*gge
bilsasaindi > *gge
bisasaindi ‘they make revolve’ (a contrario dalsa- ‘to
fasten’ < *darzaifa-).
63 Tremblay (2000, 192); aliter Maggi, in SVK III 23.64 Nomina agentis in -ifu- can be derived from any root (e.g. Av. Vaiiu- *‘blower’, darshiiu- ‘bold’,
etc.) but they are not frequent; hence *musifu- may be a rhyme-formation to *tar ifu- ‘robber’ (Av.tariiu-). Another, more remote, possibility would be that the preform of musasaa, scil. *mushifu- or*mushifa-, were a remodelling of *mushar ifú/á-, a nomen agentis derived from the *-ifa-present *mushar ifá-(Ved. musDaryáti; for this type cf. Wackernagel, AIG II:2, 81 f. § 24ba, 843 § 681).
434 XAVIER TREMBLAY
(vi.) mäsDsDa- > TA misDi,65 TB misDe ‘field, ksDetra’,66 Garndharri misDa- (Bailey,1956, 35).
(vii.) Khot. mrarhar - ‘pearl’ > TA wrok, TB *wrarkro, obl. wrarkai ‘oyster-shell, pearl’ (Van Windekens, 1972, 49 f.). The Khotanese word(attested from Z 22,253 onwards) is somewhat unclear and mighthave been taken over from MPers. mwhrg, NPers. muhrah. In anycase the Tocharian conforms tightly to Khotanese.
(viii.) sDvakar ‘pill’67 > TB sDpakiye, pl. sDpakaimD ‘pill’ (Bailey 1947, 149).(ix.) hays- ‘to conduct, bring’ > TAB ars- ‘to bring’ (Van Windekens 1974,
226, without dialectal attribution).
It was assumed (e.g. Hansen 1940, 143; Konow 1945, 211 ff.) that mostSanskrit loan words entered into Tocharian through Khotanese, before it wasrealized that most of the innovative phonetic treatments were already attestedin Garndharri (Bailey 1946; Brough 1962). E.g. Skt. t > Garndh. *d > TAB r; Skt.c > Garndh. j > a3 [zh] (then > y) > Khot. TAB sa, Sogd. zh;68 the obscure r of TAkarsDarr TB kasDarr ‘brown cloth garb’ < Skt. karsDarya- is also Krorainic (kasDara).Khot. saña- ‘expedient, plan’ is more probably a loan word from Garndh. saña-, samD ña- < Skt. samD -jñar - ‘idea’ (from which Tocharian AB sDarñ, TB sarñ ‘skill’will be independently borrowed), than the Garndharri and the Tocharian aretaken over from the Khotanese word.69 Similarly, Bailey 1937, 905 assumedthat TA kartäk, TB kattarke ‘householder’ had been borrowed from Skt.gsrhastha- through the Sogdian B k’rt(’)k. Adams (1999) still posits a media-
tion through Khotanese ggartDhaa- (though OIran. *-aka- is not represented by-ak in the Tocharian loan words from Khot., cf. 2.i). In fact, thereis no need for an Iranian intermediary (Bailey 1946, 791 f.): TA kartäk, TBkattarke can be directly issued from Garndharri grahatha ShahbazgarDhi 12.1 >*gatDha- (ghahaatDhehi Khotan Dharmapada 32) → *gatDhaca-.
Notwithstanding a few Indian loan words in Tocharian still seem to havetransited through Khotanese or a Khotanese pronunciation:
(x.) Skt. usDnisDar - > Khot. usDnD ira- > TA usDnD ir ‘caul’. Perhaps directly fromGarndharri.
(xi.) Skt. bhiksDusamD gha- > Khot. bilsamD gga- > Late Khot. *bib
samD gga-> TA pissaqnk ‘monk congregation’.
(xii.) Skt. makara- > Khot. mardara- > TA martarr, TB mardarr ‘sea-monster’(Bailey 1937, 913).
6. Tocharian loan words from Parthian
Another fairly early Middle Iranian provenance for borrowings in Tocharianseems to have been Parthian (cf. 1.xv and 7.xiv):
(i.) Parthian —’mwg > TAB (probably TB > TA) amok ‘art’ [decl. typeIIId] (Sieg and Siegling, 1921, V n. 2; Sieg et al., 1931, 12 n. 1).
(ii.) *kauzhdaka- > Parth. *kroshk (phl. kwshhhhhk) > TB kosDko ‘hut’ (VanWindekens 1972, 46).
65 Pinault (2003, 267).66 Meaning Schmidt (1980, 411).67 ‘Suppository’ according to Emmerick and Skjærvø, SVK II, 147 f., but this meaning does not
tally with Tocharian.68 TA armarsa ‘minister’, because of its sa, cannot be borrowed from Khot. armarca-, but both were
acquired from Garndh. amaca (< Skt. amartya-). TB armarc could be either from Khot. or directlyfrom Garndh.
69 Sims-Williams, per litteras, pace Konow (1932, 179) and Bailey (1979, 417).
435IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
(iii.) *marnifa- ‘servant’ (Parth. m’n, Old Persian marniya- ‘servant’ ≠ Sogd.dm’n ‘house’) > TA marññe, TB mañiye [decl. type V.1a].
(iv.) *pati-baifa- ‘honour’ > Parth. *patib (Arm. pativ ≠ Sogd. X ptbypahtbai70) > TB *peti aw > peti ‘flattery’ (Pedersen 1943, 18). The inher-ited vocables TB paut- ‘to honour’, TA poto ‘respect’ < *bhoudh-e-h2
‘attention’ are unrelated. The equivalence TB e = Parth. a seems atfirst sight to point to an Old Iranian loan word, but this is out of thequestion for the reduction of the final. Thus either the word wasborrowed before PT *a evolved into TB e, or Parth. a might havebeen slightly umlauted in *æ (albeit palatalization never becamephonematic and was not marked in the script).
(v.) Old Iranian *pati-frarna- > Parthian *patiharn ‘window’ (Arm.patuhan, cf. for *fr > h in Parthian dialects Arm. hawatk‘ ‘creed’ <Parth. < *frarufat, Arm. patuhas < *pati-frarsa-71) > TA partsäqnk-, TBpats(ts)ar qnk- (Isebaert 1979, 174–6; Tremblay 2001, 26 n. 38). *Fr > halso occurs in Khotanese, but not in the middle of words(ar ofrars-aifa- > aurarsasa- ‘to inform’).
7. Tocharian loan words from Bactrian
Compared with the still little-known Bactrian vocabulary, numerous loanwords into Tocharian can be identified, a fact which goes hand-in-hand withthe impact of the Kušamn, later Chionite-Kidarite, then Hephthalite kingdomson Central Asia.
Final -o seems to have represented a still audible [e], since it is representednot only by TB -ø (7.iv, vii, viii, x, xii), but also by -e (7.ii, vi) or -o (7.v, ix) and-(o) (7.i). Moreover, TB akar lk(o), lastarqnk and pärmaqnk are accented on thelast syllable and must thus have been borrowed as *arkaralkä, *larstarankä,*pärmäankä.72
Whereas Tocharian A and Tocharian B borrowed independently 7.i and7.iii, the Tocharian A forms of 7.viii and 7.ix exhibit the typical Kucheanaccent-bound redistribution of vowel qualities (gar > a, äa > a) and must hencehave come through the mediation of Tocharian B, although spaktarnik wasadapted to the Tocharian A inflexion.
Bact. a is matched by TAB ar in all words (7.i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii), Bact.internal i by TAB ä (7.iii, ix), Bact. internal o mostly by TAB u (7.vi, x) exceptin 7.v, where it is represented by TB ar : thus this borrowing seems to haveoccurred at an earlier phase of Bactrian, when the first vowel of *madu- wasnot yet discoloured or umlauted to o. Likewise, the equivalence Qro- > TBpär- indicates that Qro- represented something like [fre] or [frr
s]. Such a reduc-
tion can only be explained if these syllables were unaccented. It means that theBactrian accent did probably not lie automatically on the first syllable.
In what follows only Tocharian words with attested Bactrian preform areadduced (for loan words from Bactrian see Schwartz (1974); Sims-Williams(1996, 650); Sims-Williams apud Tremblay (2001, 24 f. n. 37)):
(i.) acalco ‘wish’ > TA arkar l, TB akar lk(o) ‘wish’.(ii.) arlo ‘side, bank (of a ditch)’ > c. 600 AD *ardo > TB arrte ‘canal’.
70 Pace Isebaert (1981, 366 f.), Sogd. M ptfry ‘honour’ is another word, traditionally explainedas from *patiofri-, but as a borrowing from Bact. pidoQaro by Sims-Williams (2004a, 541 n. 8).
71 Nyberg (1931, 217); for the etymologies cf. Hübschmann (1895 n. 525); Benveniste (1958, 63).72 Schwartz (1974, 410).
436 XAVIER TREMBLAY
(iii.) kamirdo ‘chief’, *kamirdico > TB kamartiki ‘chiefs’; TA karkmärt‘power’ has been influenced through kark- ‘call (for)’ (Pinault 2003,262–6).
(iv.) lastano ‘judgement’ > Kror. lastana, Khot. larstana ‘dispute’,*lastacco > TA larsta qnk, TB lastar qnk ‘executioner’s block’.
(v.) molo > TB marlo (K.T. Schmidt), oblique marla ‘wine’ (Winter 1971,219; cf. 9.viii).
(vi.) sabolo > TB sapule /sampúle/ ‘pot’ (Sims-Williams 1997; cf. Isebaert1991, 146 f.).
(vii.) sarlaro (quoted BD 222) ‘leader’ > salaro > TB Salarr (king ofKucha, 5th century.).
(viii.) *spaxtano > TAB (TB > TA) spaktarmD ‘service’; *spaxtanico (>spaxniio ‘having to obey’) > TB spaktanike ‘servant’ > TAspaktarnik.
(ix.) Qromicco (< Old Iranian *fraomanifu-ka-) > TB pärmaqnko/pärmäanko/> TAB pärmaqnk ‘hope’.
(x.) xþono ‘regnal year’ (< xrónoz) > TB ksDumD , ksDumD ne, ksDuntsa (andTumšuq. loc. xshane, Khot. loc. ksDurnD ä, i3aa ksDunami KI 661,1, isaaksDunami CIInd. II,1 87,1).
A few Tocharian names can be linked up from Bactrian:
(xi.) A doubtful case is Kärmäqnk (Schmidt 1978) which recalls the familyname Kirmvcano BD ag 13 f., and which ends in a Bactrian-likefinal -ä qnk < *-arnaka-.
(xii.) About TA SD etsyarmD cf. 4.i.
In the following cases, another Iranian dialect stands also as a possibleprovider:
(xiii.) Bact. afano ‘worthy’ or Khot. arsDahna- ‘worthy, arhant’ > TA arsDarmD ,TB arsDarmD ‘worthy’ (Konow 1932, 118). If the Khotanese73 and/or theTocharian words were borrowed from Bactrian, they would provideevidence for a Bactrian religious influence over Serindia.
(xiv.) Parthian qnyg or Bactrian *kanico (≠ Sogdian knc) > TA karnik-arñc-‘girl’.
(xv.) Suffix *-arna-chi > Sogd. -’nc or Bact. -anfo (attested at least inrakþafanfo Hephthalitenfragment 7,4 ‘eine RamksDasi’) > femininesuffix TAB -arñc (recognized by F.W.K. Müller as early as 1908(p. 47 n. 1)). Professor Sims-Williams points out to me that the attes-tation of -arñc in the possibly Bactrian, but not Sogdian loan wordkarnikarñc- (7.xiv) could be evidence for a Bactrian origin of the suffix-arñc; but -arñc was a productive suffix in Tocharian, which wasadded to all kinds of nouns, mostly Sanskrit loan words (A arrarnt-arñc ‘arhati’, pretarñc ‘larva’, warskarñc ‘female follower’ ← warsak‘upamsaka’), but also inherited stems (mäsakitarñc- ‘princess royal’).74
Whereever *karnik may have originated, it could be superseded by abetter marked kanikarñc. (Cf. also 9.xiii, 9.xv and 9.xvi.)
73 Weber, 1985. However, Emmerick and Skjærvø, SVK III 24, have suggested that arsDanD a- ‘wor-thy’ might be a development of the expected †algyana-/aljana- (*fra-sparh3aifa > hasDpalgya Z 22,191‘make bloom!’; tcabaljätä ‘scatters’ < *barh3aifati, buljäte Z 12,41, once buljsäte KT V 179 1b5‘honours’ < *b
srh3aifati) or †aljsana- (arljsindä ‘they sing’ < *arhca-). Perhaps *arh3anifa- > *aljana-
[alb
dhzana] > *alsDana- [alhzana] > arsDanD a- [ar hzanDa]? The meaning of arsDarnD a- ‘worthy, arhat’ does notmake it prima facie attractive that it be borrowed from Bactrian.
74 Sieg et al. 1931, 30 f. § 53.
437IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
The following putative loan word is doubtful, for it involves an unattestedBactrian form (more of this kind have been set forth by Schwartz (1974)):
(xvi.) TAB onmimD ‘remorse’ has no straightforward PIE etymology andthe homonymy between TA and TB would indicate that both wereborrowed. Isebaert’s (1991, 142) proposal, OIran. *anu-manifu-, isattractive, but it would appear as TA †onma/imD , TB †enmeñi. To thecontrary, the Bactrian outcome of *anu-manifu-, viz. *onmino, wouldactually yield the attested forms.
8. Tocharian loan names from Middle Persian
Tocharian seems to have borrowed from Middle Persian as well, but as yet,only anthroponyms have been spotted (K.T. Schmidt, p. 763): e.g. theManichaean name (so probably later than 763 AD) Isasaaparke < * mIshu-bag ‘Jesus-God’.75 The kingdoms of Agni and Kuhca did not have contact with the Sasa-nian Empire and, notwithstanding the case of migrants from the Sasanianempire (for instance Manichaeans, or Mazdaeans fleeing the Muslim occupa-tion—both categories probably without much impact in the BuddhistTocharian milieu), received Persian influxes only through Bactrian mediation.The newly edited Bactrian Documents attest a heavy influence of SasanianPersia upon onomastics owing to the Kušamno-Sasanian occupation.
In a few uncertain cases a Persian origin might be argued for anappellative:
(i.) Phl. kwlkm, Sogdian kwrknph P.3, 173; 271, Khot. kurkuma- > TB*kurkam, adj. nom. plur. kurkamäsDsD i, kwärkamasDsD i ‘saffron’ (Laufer1916, 474; 1919, 321 n. 2; Bailey 1937, 913). Wanderwort, but theform squares with the Iranian, not with Skt. ku qnkuma-. Since saffronis grown in Persia, *kurkam seems a good candidate for a loan wordfrom Persian, but probably through a (Sogdian?) intermediary.
(ii.) NPers. tumarn, turmarn ‘10,000, myriad’ > TA tmarmD , TB tumarne (Laufer1915, 272). Although tumarn has a possible etymology within Iranian(tu-marn- ‘might’?76 or from tuwarn ‘mighty, wealthy’ through dissimila-tion?77), the attestation of the vocable in New Persian only, whereas ithas been abundantly documented in Turkic since the Orkhon inscrip-tions (twmn > Yakut tümän, Mongol tümen, Manchu tumen), makes itlikely that it came to Persian from Turkic.78 But TA tmarmD , TB tumarnecan hardly emanate from Turkic, since Tk. tümän would be reflectedby TAB †tumemD . Now the Turkic word in its turn seems to be a loanfrom Chinese wàn ‘10,000’ < P EMC *muanh < OC *tman uel sim.79
The origin of the Tocharian numeral as well might in fact turn out tobe Chinese.
9. Tocharian loan words from Sogdian
After the collapse of the Bactrian-speaking Hephthalite empire, Sogdianbecame, as the chancellery-language of the Türk Empires, the most influential
75 D. Weber apud K. T. Schmidt, 1978.76 Bailey, KT VII, 120, with semantic parallels. One would rather expect turmarn (which is also
attested, but cannot be the ancestor of TA tmarmD , TB tumarne; but some apparent derivatives of Ved.tavi- < *teuh2- ‘to inflate, be strong’ have a short ub (tub rá-, tubamra- ‘strong’, lat. tubmrere).77 Cf. Horn, in GIP I:2, 60 § 24.5.78 Doerfer, TMEN II, 632–42.79 Pulleyblank apud Clauson (1972, 507).
438 XAVIER TREMBLAY
Iranian language; but some loan words must have been borrowed earlierthrough the merchant and peasant colonies of Sogdians scattered throughoutthe Tarim basin.
(i.) Sogd. *azhi-kirs
m ‘snake-worm’ (Sogd. BMX kyrm) > Uigh.”c’kr(’)m, TB acakarm ‘snake’ (Hansen 1940, 142).
(ii.) Sogd. X ’ngm’n C1 236 ‘assembly’, ’ngm’ny’ ‘publicly’, B’nkm’ny ‘public’ an
sgmarner > TB ankarnmi ‘commonality’
(Isebaert 1980, 66 f., but without the Sogd. match).(iii.) OIran. *angu-h3atu- (Khot. amD gusDdD ä, Parth. > Armen. anguzhat,
etc.) > Sogd. *anguzhat > *angwazht (such metatheses are typi-cal for Sogdian) > TB aqnkwasD(t) ‘Asa foetida’ (Laufer 1915,274 f.; 1919, 361; Bailey 1937, 913).
(iv.) Sogd. B ’ntp ‘fever’ (< *han-tapah-, Waxi andav, Yidca idou‘fever’) > TB antarp-ce ‘fire-brand, torch’ (admitting that -ce isa pronoun; Hansen 1940, 145). If -ce is not the demonstrativebut belongs to the word, one has to assume a slightly differentorigin, *han-tapti- > Sogdian *antafch.
(v.) OIran. *arma- > Sogd. ’rmyh ‘still’ > TB arm ‘silence’. Themeaning of Bact. armau- ‘to be resident’ < *arma-arh- is moreremote and Khot. i
K
rmä is an unclear hapax.(vi.) OIran. *ishtiia-zemah ‘brick of earth’ (Av. ×zemor ishtiia- V.8,10)
> Sogd. *’yshc(z)m > TB isacem ‘clay’ (Tremblay 2001, 27 n.3880). Only in Sogdian did *tif become ch (Gershevitch 1954 §275).
(vii.) Sogd. X ’zhwn [arzhrop ] ‘life, child’ > TA aco ‘embryo’.(viii.) X mdw-, BM mwd- > TB mot ‘wine’ (cf. 7.vi).(ix.) Sogd. rymh, Yacnobi rem ‘excrement’ (Khot. rrima-, with a
different vowel) > TA rem ‘dust’ uel sim. (Poucha 1944, 94).(x.) *hcifarta- ‘felicitous’ > Sogd. B sh’t ‘wealthy’ > TA saart, TB saarte
(Poucha 1932, 91; Bactrian þado ‘satisfied’ is semanticallymore remote).
Sogdian is only one of two putative sources for the following words (cf.1.xv):
(xi.) About the Tocharian suffix -arñc cf. 7.xv.(xii.) OIran. *- bar-ufan-ifa- > Primitive Khot. *-aunifa-/*- Donifa- (>
Khot. -auña-, -urña-) or Sogd. -(’)wny -oni > denominalabstract-suffix TA -une, -one, TB -auñe (Poucha 1935, 260;more probable than the intricate derivation from PIE byKlingenschmitt (1994, 366–9), which, to the contrary, shouldprove exact for TB -ñe).
(xiii.) *marnifarka- > Sogdian B myn’k > TAB menark ‘example;like, similarly to’ (Hansen 1940, 150). The probable equivalentminaco Hephthalitenfragment IX.1 (Yarxoto), (x)[w’]bmyn’gy(n)d[ M 1224 v 15 ‘they are like a dream’ (Sims-Williams 2004b, 332) has a different vowel. To be true, asound-change g > i is documented in a few examples (*ufaina->) ogn- ‘see’ > oinimo Hephthalitenfragment VI, 5, (*hufarnaifa->) xogn- ‘declare’ > xoinado BD F 14, U 22 > xondauo V 36,taddgio ‘and him’ > tadiio ab 15 (if it does not mean ‘and thisone’ as in B 8); the relation between sglosico BD U 16 and
80 Aliter Pinault (2002, 323 ff.), who fails to mention the previous literature.
439IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
silco BD N 19 ‘kind of wine’ is uncertain. But this late reduc-tion is as yet attested almost uniquely in the vicinity of avowel or semi-vowel in which g tended to fuse: besides abgor‘without’, no variant †abior is attested (except perhaps inabiskabddico ‘without right of protest’, for which other ety-mologies can be advanced); mgno ‘us’, afdgbido ‘with cogni-zance of’ or abugbindo ‘detached’ have no by-forms †mino,†afdibido or †abibindo, etc.
(xiv.) Sogd. or Parth. ny’z ‘need’ > TAB ñars, TB ñyars (VanWindekens 1949, 149; 302).
(xv.) Sogdian B pyr- ‘to believe’, *pyr’k81 or Bactrian vrgr- ‘tobelieve’, *vr graco > TAB perark ‘believer’ (Lévi 1933, 35 f.). AKhotanese origin is excluded by the divergence in the firstvowel (Khot. pir- ≠ TAB per°).
(xvi.) Sogdian pwst’k or Bactrian pvstaco ‘document, writ’ (< OP*paufastaka-, also borrowed in Skt. pusDtDaka-) > TA postak,postäk, TB postak.
(xvii.) Sogd. s’n or Khot. sarnä > TB sarmD ‘enemy’ (Konow 1935, 35).
Sogdian names can also be detected:
(xviii.) About TA HkhuttemD -Warm, Reuwänt and Narcci cf. 4.i.(xix.) *Shyrm’nc ‘good-looking’ (fem.; cf. Nnym’nch Sogdica 7 VI 12
‘looking like Nanai’) > Sa irmarñca (Schmidt 1978).(xx.) *Shyrc or *Shyryc (fem.) ‘good’ > DSirecca (fonds Pelliot; quoted
by Schmidt 1978).
The following three proposals are highly speculative; they are onlymentioned here because no better proposal has been made:
(xxi.) Perhaps *t barp barkyar ‘disk’ (Sogd. M tpwwk M 688.2 = Sogdica48 p. 2 ‘tambourine’, NPers. taburk ‘large wooden platter’; per-haps Chor. t’bk, NPers. tarba ‘pan’, if it does not belong to√tap ‘to heat’) > TA tarparki, B taparkye ‘mirror’ (Bailey 1963,86; Schwartz 1974, 405, with another etymology).
(xxii–xxiii.) Sogd. (?) *zdarnk- (< *uz-darna-ka-, Av. uzdarna- ‘wall’) > TADstar qnk, TB star qnk ‘palace’ and *ska(t)k(í) (syncopated82 from*uskataka- < *uska-kata-ka- ‘superstructure’, cf. Munh3i ishkiac,Waxi iskakút ‘roof’) > TAB skark ‘balcony’ (Isebaert 1980,44).
Let us finally mention an alleged, but illusory, Sogdian loan word:
(†xxiv.) The Sogdian word ’mydry, often connected83 with TA misD i, TBmisDsD i ‘city, people’ and with the first member of TA msDapantimD‘army general’, is in fact the name of the god Miqra.84
81 The attested homonym Sogd. B pyr’k P. 16, 45 means ‘gift’ (Sims-Williams (1983a, 44), whointerpreted it as a loan word from Turkic beleg ‘gift’; cf. also bergü ‘gift, tax’).
82 As in *zanaka- > X zng ‘sort’, *narifaka- > nyrk ‘male’; *zarifaka- ‘yellow’ > zyrk-cshmy ‘withyellow eyes’; *padakar- > M pdk’, X pdk’ ‘law, judgement’; and perhaps ’sprck’ attributive SCE 42;503, NASg ’sprcky P.2,609; 1068; 1127; 6,35; 12,57 ‘clever’ espr(a)ck- < *spragaka- or *spr(a)ctaka-< *sfr(a)xtaka- (to Old English sprecan, Old High German sprehhan?).
83 Since Bailey (1958, 45 f.): Van Windekens (1976, 633); Adams (1999, 464).84 Gershevitch (1959, 35).
440 XAVIER TREMBLAY
10. Loan words from Middle Iranian, but without further dialectal assignation
(i.) Old Iran. *abza- > TA ars ‘goat’, TB asD iye ‘caprine’ (Van Windekens1964, 590 f.).
(ii.) Eastern Old Iran. *faru- ‘many’ (with f after *fraifah- ‘more’: Khot.pharu), *farufu- > *farcu-85 (> Sogd. crf, Waxi caf) or *faruka- >MIr. *furk- (> Shucni fuk) > TA p burk ‘totality’ (suppletive of pont-‘all’ in the nominative).
(iii.) Bactr. Qrocaoo M frc’w, Sogd. B prc’w / brc’w or Parth. frg’w‘riches’ > TA pärko, TB pärkaru ‘earning’ (Schwartz 1974, 404).
(iv.) TAB käsDsD i [decl. type IIIe] and Uigh. ksh’y ‘master’ has been recog-nized as an Iranian loan word since Poucha (1932, 83) andanalysed as derivative of *kaisha- ‘doctrine’ (Bailey, KT IV 13 n. 2)or *kashai
K
a- ‘think’ (Khot. keb
itä; Hansen 1940, 147; Konow, 1945,209 f.), but the exact affiliation remains unclear. Sogd. M qyshyktM 140 v 5 kreshikt ‘heretics’ < *kaishiifaka- stands apart phoneticallyand semantically. The phonetics of the Tocharian and the Uighurvocables would tally well with a Khotanese provenance, whereOIran. *ai was depalatalized to *a (> Khot. a, ä) before *zD 86 andwhere *-ika- and *-iifa- evolved in -ia-stems. Unfortunately, Khot.ksD ia- ‘teacher, master’ is a ghost-word (Skjærvø, SVK III, 44 f.).
(v.) OIran. *kanha- ‘article in iron’ (Vedic kamD sá- ‘cauldron’; used asoronym in Av. Kanha- and the Sogdian toponym Kanka ‘Stone-city’, translated in Chinese Shih ‘stone’87) > TA kar qnk- ‘vajra’,88 whichis a kind of metallic harpoon.89 More probable than *h2k
f
ron-go-,a formation comparable to OPers. aqanga-.
(vi.) Perhaps Middle Iranian *kuchat bark ‘tower’ (Ved. ut-kucant- ‘sichkrümmend’, MPers. M n-gwc- ‘to bow’ (Henning 1933, 182),maybe Sogd. Kwcnth ‘Xoh3ent’ < *‘Meander’ and Khot. us-kuj- ‘torise against’,90 PPP us-kujätä) > TA kuccatark, TB kucatark ‘tower,balcony’ (Isebaert, 1980, 76).
(vii.) Sogdian *kwncyt (Uigh. küncit), Parth. *kunchit (Arm. knchit,MPers. kwncyt) or Primitive Khot. *kunchita- (Khot. kumD sjata) >TAB kuñcit ‘sesam’ (Meillet 1911, 125; 150; Bailey 1937, 913;Wanderwort, but the Toch. agrees with the Iranian).
(viii.) The suffix -ek of TB ñemek ‘harvest’, frequent in Iranian loan words,makes Isebaert’s (2003, 117 f.) connection with the Iranian root
85 Sims-Williams (1983a, 48 f.). The form *farfuu- might proceed from contamination of *faru-and its oblique cases stem *farfu- (Av. pauruua NPl m. Yt. 10,80, NSg f. V.2,24) as in Gk. poulua z,p avlupoi Epich. 61 < *ποlf- × *ποlυ-.
86 Sims-Williams (1990, 293 n. 56).87 For the meaning of the toponym cf. Pulleyblank, 1962, 247; Aalto 1977; for its etymology
Humbach, 1958, 77; Tremblay, 2004, 126 f.88 Bailey apud Pulleyblank (1962, 247 f.), who still somewhat twisted the sense ‘vajra’ to ‘stone’.89 Rau (1973, 43).90 The 3Sg uskusade Z 11,50 points at first sight to a preform *kuh3ifatai (Sims-Williams 1983b,
359; in Emmerick and Skjærvø, SVK III, 122), with the voiced variant of the root which co-existedwith the voiceless in Choresmian mncwzyd ‘he screwed up’ < *hamohcauh3aifa- (MacKenzie, KG I 542)vs. mnkwcyd ‘slumbered’ < *niokauhcaifa-, ’kwcyd ‘submerged’ < *arokauhcaifa-. However, uskusade mayattest the same confusion of the stem-final as in vataysde Z 17, 12 ‘flows down’ < *tahcatai, forwhich two explanations are possible: on the one hand, uskusade might be an analogical refitting of*uskusate after the prevocalic stem uskuj- following the pattern dasDde, dagyarre ‘ripen’ < *dah3-ifa-. Onthe other hand, uskusade might share the Late Khotanese voicing of sat in sad (Emmerick 1968, 192).The Book of Zambasta was copied after the seventh century and some later wordings have creptinto the text.
441IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
*ifam- ‘to take, crop’ attractive, but *nioifam-aka- should probablyhave become in Eastern Old Iranian *nifarm- > TB †ñarm- or havebeen replaced through the inchoative present stem *nifars- > Sogd.’ny’s-. A derivative from the passive *nioifam-ifa- > *nyberm- (Ved.yamyáte, Chor. mzym(y)d ‘became exhausted’ < *uzoifamifa-,whereas Sogdian employed in the same meaning, with a differentstem yms) would be less problematic.
(ix.) OIran. *paifushka- ‘butter’ (e.g. Or rm. pisk) > Parthian, Bactrian orSogdian *preshk > TB pesDke (Menges 1965, 131).
(x.) *tapast ‘carpet’ (Arm. tapast(ak), MPers. tpst) > TA ISg tapäs-yo(Isebaert 1980, 90).
Verbs and suffixes as well have been borrowed (cf. 5.ix):
(xi.) Middle Iranian *ufanka- ‘cry, shout’ (Phl. w’nk ‘voice, sound’, Arm.vang, vank, Bal. gwarnk, Khot. byrumgga- ‘abuse’ < *abi-vanka-,Sogd. BM wnxr < *ufanxra-, verb *ufanchaifa- > Khot. py-rumD j- ‘todeny’) > TA wa qnk- ‘to prattle’.
(xii.) Perhaps OIran. arg-/arh3- ‘to be worth’ > TB arrk- (Pst. V arrkar-),*arh3ah- > arrc- (Pst. XII denomin. arrcäññ-) ‘it is necessary’.
(xiii.) Khotanese -ia- < *-ica-, Sogdian -yk or Parthian -yg > TA -ik, TB-ike.
A Middle Iranian origin can be more or less attractively argued in thefollowing cases:
(xiv.) Old Iranian *kasu-uf ish- ‘bubonic’, lit. ‘<illness> with bits of pus’(Av. kasuuish-) > Khot. *kasvä (?) > TB karswo ‘dermatosis, «leper»’(Lidén 1916). The derivation from PIE *kas-ufo- (Hilmarsson 1996,107, Lat. carnus) is a more distant possibility.
(xv.) Old Iranian *sagra- > MIran. (MPers. M sgr ‘satiated’, Khot. sira-‘satisfied’) > TA sarkär, TB *sarkre, plur. sakreñ ‘happy, auspicious,BS bhadra-’ (Isebaert 1980, 46). If these words were from Iranian,a Primitive Khotanese extraction (stage 2; § 3) or a Bactrian onewould be in accordance with the sound equivalence Iran. a > TABar and the integration into the e-stems (cf. 5.iii, vi; 7.ii, vi). Notwith-standing, the etymology through PIE *sakro-, Lat. sacer (Pisani,1941, 159) is more widely received.
(xvi.) OIran. xumba- ‘bowl’ (MPers. xumb, Av. xumba-, with aspirationmetathesis from *kumbhá-) or Ved. kumbhá- > TA kump ‘jar’(Isebaert 1980, 218; 1991, 146).
Finally, there is a probably illusory loan word from Iranian:
(†xvii.) An Iranian origin of TA kritarmD , TB perlative kritarntsar 250 a 3,adj. krätaññe 600 b 4, krätanike SI P/2 a 4 has been alleged sinceIsebaert (1980, 68 f.).91 But no plausible Iranian source is attested.Bact. kirdano ‘worship’, which has been assumed to be the origin
91 Pinault (2003, 271) misrepresents this author’s opinion by stating that ‘Isebaert (1980: 68–9)sums up the position, without choosing between an Iranian and an Indian origin’, whereas Isebaertactually asserted: ‘staat niets de herleiding van AB kritarn “(pregnant) daad = weeldaad” tot Mir.*kirtan < *k
srtanai “handelen, doen” (in Part. kyrdn, Mperz. qyrd) in de weg’, relegating the alter-
native proposals to small type: ‘Niet onmogelijk is de suggestie van W. P. Schmid (mededeling van9–10–1979): Indisch prototype *krita- n. “daad, zaak”, pl. kritarni. Minder aantrekkelijk is eenontletning uit Skt. kridD ana- “jeu, amusement, sport” ’.
442 XAVIER TREMBLAY
of TAB kritarmD ,92 is a vox nihili since Professor Sims-Williamsinforms me that he no longer believes his reading kD iDrDdD aDnD(�D)Rabatak 9 (cf. Sims-Williams, 1998, 82). Moreover, the initial krit°or krät° differs from Bactrian kird° (cf. kamirdo ≥ karkmärt 7.iii),although it may be due to sanskritization. The Sogdian ’krt’n con-forms more closely with the Tocharian form, but because of itspejorative connotation can hardly be deemed as lying at its incep-tion. The group krät°/krit° of TA kritarmD , TB krätarnike might be anapproximation of the retroflex of Late Khot. kidD arna- KBT 75,14‘deed’ (< OKhot. kädD ägarna-) if it sounded similar to [kydD aarn].93 Inany case a metathesis Khot. kVrC > Toch. krVk is attested inkhargga- > krarke 5.iii. But as Sims-Williams points out, theKhotanese word always designates an evil deed, at least in theSauraqngamasamamdhisumtra, the Saqngham tDasumtra and the Book ofZambasta. Moreover, the meaning of TA kritarmD , TB *krätarmD isnot securely established. The contexts where TA kritarmD , TB krätarmDare attested allowed more than one possibility pertaining their im-port, so that the exegets fluctuated between acceptations ‘will’ (e.g.Couvreur 1946, 606 n. 70; 1947, 345; 348, 567; 1955–56, 71; K. T.Schmidt 1974, 456), ‘behaviour’ (Thomas 1979, 50) and ‘gooddeed’ (Isebaert 1980, 68). Pinault (2003, 271), relating kritarmD andakritarnikarñä Maitreyasamiti YQ 1.44 1/2 a1, now deciphers themeaning of the second vocable as ‘ungrateful’ and hence infers thatof the positive as ‘gratitude’. However, the contexts where kritarmDis attested do not fit in with the newly proposed meaning as aptlyas Pinault (2003, 273) would wish:
TA 62 b 2: [kusne] pikträ märkampal kritarmD yasD säm ptarñäktes;kos ne postkamD aksDari tprenäk wyäräs sas yarmträ ‘he who writesthe law, he does a/the kritarmD to/of Buddha; how many lines<are> in the book, as <many> convents one will have foundedfor himself’. Here the context points to good deed and merit,not to manifested gratitude.
TB 250 a 3 ceu kritarntsa ñake sDsDe{k} kärstar s[n]ai/// ‘throughthis kritarmD , he <a Boddhisattva> has destroyed forever [an?]un[...’. ‘Gratitude’ makes queer sense.
Thanks to a Sanskrit parallel, Pinault (2003, 274–6) himself, after Couvreur(1947, 345; 1948, 567), unravels the meaning of TB krätanike in SI P/2 a 4 as‘devoted, willing’ (BS tatparahD ), which only a strained argumentation allowshim to reconcile with ‘gratitude’. Moreover, the parallel between theTocharian and the Sanskrit is imperfect and not too much weight can be laidupon it.
This semantic mismatch prompts a re-examination of the meaning ofakritarnikarñä. It has been metaphrased through Uighur s’wyncsz ’wtlysz bwlwrlrsäwincsäz utlïsaz bolurlar, lit. ‘they are without joy and gratitude’ (MaitrHami
92 Tremblay (2001, 25 n. 37) and Pinault (2003, 273–7). The same author p. 284 regrets thatI ‘wrongly attributed’ the etymology to Prof. K. T. Schmidt. In the relevant section, I onlyacknowledged to this author the knowledge of the (so far unpublished) form B akritaññe. Anyway,the hypothesis that kritarmD might be an Iranian loan word was not new (cf. n. 91).
93 Accentuation, according to Maggi 1992, 90, who quotes a similar case of syncope in panarha-> LKhot. pneha ‘beak’.
443IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
III, 3a11). This is a possible translation of Skt. aksrtajña- ‘ungrateful’ (U IV 40,
184 f.), but nevertheless a clumsy one, since utlïsaz was enough. One gainsthe impression that the Tocharian Vorlage of the Uighur meant in itself ‘joy’,but that the Uighur exeget understood it contextually (doubtless correctly)as ‘gratitude’ and cumulated in his translation the literal meaning and thecircumstantial one. Now the meaning ‘joy’94 fits the other passages:
TA 62 b 2 ‘he who writes the law, delights Buddha’.TA 68 a 5 karrunyo kritarnyo ‘with compassion and joy’, YQ 1.2 [II.1] b 3
karrumD kritarmD rendered Skt. karunDa- muditar- (K.T. Schmidt).TB 250 a 3 ‘through this bliss, he has destroyed forever...’.The contextual acceptance ‘ungrateful’ of akritarnikarñä was doubtless facili-
tated by a scholarly re-etymologicization through Skt. aksrtajña-, already bor-
rowed in TB aksrtajñe 230 b 2. However, the n95 and the long ar in TB krätanike
/krätamníke/ and TA akritarnikarñä cannot be easily explained from (a)ksrtajña-.
If the correct meaning of AB kritarmD is ‘joy’, its origin must be sought else-where. In fact, a genuinely Tocharian origin may be proposed on the basis ofthe new meaning, as a possessive-locative derivative *k
f
rsd-o-h1/3n-96 > PT
*kärtarn- ‘that which is in the heart’. Animate *-n-stems are mostly reflected byTocharian declension types TB VI.1 kälymiye, obl. kalymi ‘regio caeli’ (<*kf
li·m men, *kf
li·men-ms) and riye, obl. ri ‘city’ (< transposed *ufr-ih2-on, obl.
*ufr-ih2-(n-)ms),97 VI.2-3 okso, obl. oksai, pl *oksaiñ ‘ox’ (< *h2uksron) and
kantwo, obl. kantwai (*dnsgf
hufeh2-n-) and have contributed to the type V.1(e qnkwe, obl. e qnkwemD ‘man’ < NSg *n
skf
-ufo-s, ASg *nskf
-ufo-n-ms
, as in theGermanic ‘weak declension’ of adjectives), but the accusative *°n-m
s > PT *-
nän > TAB -mD entailed the transfer of some -n-stems to the declension typeV.3: a conspicuous illustration thereof is TA NOSg tkamD , B kemD ‘earth’ ≤ PT OSg*tkarnän < ASg *dhg
f
h-on-ms
≤ ASg *dhegf
h·om-ms
. There is thus nothing excep-tional in -o-h1/3n-m
s > PT OSg *-arnän ≥ TAB NOSg -armD . The initial *k
f
srd- > PT
*kärt- was reshaped in *käryät- > TAB krit- after the derivation base *kf
srdifeh2-
(orn) ‘heart’ (cf. kardiaa) > PT *karyo > TA kri, pl. käryarñ ‘will’, TB pl. käryarñ‘hearts’.98
11. Concluding remarks
The Iranian impingement upon Tocharian has been deep and long-lasting: itbegan in the Proto-Tocharian period—albeit in its relatively late stages, as forinstance *a had already become *ar (cf. also n. 14), Iranian loan words inTocharian being not so ancient as the oldest in Uralic—and lasted probablyup to the end of our documentation, spanning more than a thousand years.Iranian is the most common source of loan words in Tocharian after Sanskrit,and the oldest identifiable foreign words in Tocharian are Iranian. For aTocharian word of unknown origin, the hypothesis of an Iranian loan wordmust systematically be weighed.
94 I owe this determination of the meaning of kritarmD to Professor K. T. Schmidt.95 Pinault (2003, 276–8).96 Because of the difference of quantity of the vowel, the final °tarmD does not seem to be related
to the adjectival suffix *-taññe (/-taäññe/) fem. obl. -taññai in yritaññai ‘of lamb’, awamD n[t]añai‘of ewe’ and a few more words (Schmidt 1997, 246).
97 The enigmatic NSg -iye, which has been traced to an awkward accumulation of two nomina-tive finals *-en-en (Hilmarsson 1989, 90) might in fact have developed from *-ih2-on, since theobliques of *-en- and *ih2-on-stems were bound to fall together (*-en-m
s > *-äynän > PT *-äyän >
TAB -i and *-ih2-ms > PT *-iyän or *-ih2-n-m
s > *-iynän > PT *-iyä). Conversely, TA kälyme might
be the direct outcome of *kf
li·mren > PT klyämayn. On the sporadical prepalatalization of -n- >-yn- cf. Winter (1989).
98 Hilmarsson (1996, 100); another derivative of *kf
erd- is proposed by Pinault (1993, 174–9).
444 XAVIER TREMBLAY
The influence reached almost all semantic spheres; particularly well repre-sented are the vocabularies of warfare (1.ii, vi, viii, xi, xvi) and society or poli-tics (1.iii, iv, xii, xiii, xvii, xx; 3.i; iii; 4.ii–iv) among the oldest, i.e. Sakan, loanwords (layers 1–4), and among the Bactrian ones (7.iii, iv, vii, viii, x), but ‘core’vocabulary (1.v, xviii; 2.ii; 7.i; xiv; 9.v; ix; xiii; 10.ii), verbs (5.ix; 10.xi, xii) andsuffixes (4.iv; 7.xv; 9.xii; 10.xiii) were also borrowed at all epochs. Althoughwriting came from India, the relevant vocabulary was partly Iranian (3.ii;9.xvi).
The language with the most durable influence is undoubtedly Khotanese(and its kins), a fact which indicates that Tocharian and Khotanese werealready neighbouring in c. 500 BC. No loan word in Tocharian involves a geo-graphically remote Iranian language (such as Old Persian or Ossetic) or anundifferentiated Proto-Iranian stage: the geography of loan words is in accor-dance with the situation we may surmise from the historically documentedsituation. The number of loan words is sufficient to exclude the possibility thatthis conclusion might reveal a preconceived superimposition of known historyto linguistic facts. Thus the Iranian loan words do not provide evidence for anysignificant prehistorical migration; this does not imply that such a migrationdid not occur, but simply that Tocharians do not seem to have made contactwith Iranians before they reached the Tarim basin.
III. Tocharo-Iranica: Tocharian loan words in the Iranian languages
With the exception of Tumšuqese, which stood under Kuchean supremacy andis better investigated elsewhere, Tocharian loan words have thus far beendetected with any plausibility only in Khotanese.
(i.) TA poke or TB *poko ‘arm’ > Khot. puka- ‘cubit’ (Van Windekens1947, 307).
(ii.) TB yolo ‘evil’ (< *h1édufol-oru/n, Hittite idarlu-) > Khot. yola- (an ear-lier form of the Toch. *yäwalo spread in Uighur yablaq, Karšcariyawlarq).
(iii.) Probably TA salat ‘creeper’ > Khot. soläta-.
Abbreviations
AM: Asia Major. Leipzig, Vienna, London, then Princeton.AMAW: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz,
Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse.Stuttgart.
APAW: Abhandlungen der (königlich-)Preußischen Akademie derWissenschaften. Berlin.
ArOr: Archív Orientalní. Prague.CAJ: Central Asiatic Journal, Wiesbaden.IBS: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.IF: Indogermanische Forschungen. Berlin.IIJ: Indo-Iranian Journal. Dordrecht.JA: Journal Asiatique. Paris.JAOS: Journal of the American Oriental Society. New Haven.JIES: Journal of Indo-European Studies. Washington.JRAS: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
London.KZ: Zeitschrift für vergleichende (since 1988: historische)
Sprachforschung. Berlin, later Göttingen.
445IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
MSL: Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris. Paris.MSS: Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. Munich, later
Dettelbach.NTS: Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap. Oslo.SÖAW: Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften. Vienna.S.O.R.: Serie Orientale Roma.SPAW: Sitzungsberichte der (königlich-)Preußischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Berlin.TIES: Tocharian and Indo-European Studies. Reykjavík, since 1997
Copenhagen.TPS: Transactions of the Philological Society. London.ZDMG: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft.
REFERENCES
Aalto, Pentti. 1977. ‘The name of Tashkent’, CAJ, XXI, 193–8.Adams, Douglas. 1999. A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam.Bachhofer, Leonard. 1941. ‘On Greeks and Saakas in India’, JAOS, LXI, 1941, 224–61.Bailey, (Sir) Harold W. 1937. ‘Ttaugara’, BSOS, VIII, 883–921.——. 1946. ‘Gamndhamri’, BSOAS, XI, 764–97.——. 1947. ‘Recent work in Tocharian’, TPS, 1947, 126–53.——. 1948–1951. ‘Irano-Indica’ I: BSOAS, XII, 1948, 319–32; II: BSOAS, XIII, 1949, 121–39; III:
BSOAS, XIII, 1950, 389–409; IV, BSOAS, XIII, 1951, 920–38.——. 1956. ‘Iranian misDsDa, Indian bija’, BSOAS, XVIII, 32–42.——. 1957. ‘Aduersaria Indoiranica’, BSOAS, XIX, 49–57.——. 1958. ‘MisDsDa suppletum’, BSOAS, XXI, 40–47.——. 1963. ‘Arya IV’, BSOAS, XXVI, 69–91.——. 1979. Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge.——. 1980. ‘A KharosDtDri inscription of SenDavarma, king of OdD i’, JRAS, 1980, 21–9.Bartholomae, Christian. MIM: Zur Kenntnis der mitteliranischen Mundarten I–VI =
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften 1916, vol. VII:9; 1917,vol. VIII:11; 1920, vol. XI:2; 1922, vol. XIII:6; 1923, vol. XIV:3; 1924/1925, vol. XV:6.
Benveniste, Émile. 1940. Textes Sogdiens. Mission Pelliot III, Paris.——. 1958. ‘Mots d’emprunt iraniens en arméniens’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique, LIII, 55–
71.Brough, John. 1962. The Garndharri Dharmapada. (London Oriental Series VII.) Oxford.——. 1970. ‘Nugae Indo-Sericae’, W.B. Henning Memorial Volume, London, 81–8.Burrow, Thomas. 1937. The Language of the KharosDtDhi [sic] Documents from Chinese Turkestan.
Cambridge.Chwolson, Daniel. I: Syrisch-nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie, Mémoires de
l’Académie impériale des sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg VIIe série, xxxvii:8, 1890; II:‘Syrisch-nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Neue Folge’, Bulletin del’Académie impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg Ve série, VI, 1897.
CII: Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum.Clauson, Sir Gerard. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford.Couvreur, Walter. 1946. ‘Le caractère sarvamstivamdin-vaibhamsDika des fragments tochariens A d’après
les marques et épithètes du Bouddha’, Le Muséon LIX, 577–610.——. 1947. ‘Zum Tocharischen II. Die Flexion der tocharischen Nominalstämme B -e : A Null’,
Revue des Études Indo-Européennes IV, 340–65.——. 1948. ‘Tochaars. Overzicht van de tochaarse Letterkunde’, Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-
Egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux X, 561–71.——. 1955–56. ‘Bemerkungen zu Pavel Pouchas Thesaurus linguae tocharicae dialecti A’, La
Nouvelle Clio VII–VIII, 67–98.Degener, Almuth. 1989. Khotanische Suffixe. (Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien xxxix.) Stuttgart.Doerfer, Gerhard. TMEN: Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, I–IV.
Wiesbaden, 1963–1975.DTS: Documents turco-sogdiens du IXe–Xe siècle de Touen-Houang. (CII Part II Inscriptions of the
Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia, vol. III Sogdian, 3.)London, 1990.
Elfenbein, Josef. 2001. ‘Splendours and Fortune’, in Maria Gabriela Schmidt and Walter Bisang(eds), Philologica et Linguistica, Historia, Pluralitas, Universitas, Festschrift für HelmutHumbach zum 80. Geburtstag. Trier, 485–96.
Emmerick, Ronald Eric. 1968. Saka Grammatical Studies. (London Oriental Series XX.)London[-Oxford].
——. 1979. ‘The vowel phonemes in Khotanese’, in Bela Brogyanyi (ed.), Festschrift for OswaldSzemerényi. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science,Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 11, I.) 239–50.
446 XAVIER TREMBLAY
Emmerick, Ronald Eric and Edwin G. Pulleyblank. 1993. A Chinese Text in Central Asian BrahmiScript. S.O.R. LXIX. Rome.
Emmerick, Ronald Eric and Prods Oktor Skjærvø. SVK: Studies in the Vocabulary of KhotaneseI–III, SÖAW CDI, CDLVIII & DCLI. Vienna, 1982–97.
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1932. ‘Zur tocharischen Grammatik’, IF L, 1–20; 97–108; 220–31.Gershevitch, Ilya. 1954. A Grammar of Manichaean Sogdian. Oxford.——. 1959. The Avestan Hymn to Mithra. Cambridge.GIP: Grundriß der Iranischen Philologie (ed. Wilhelm Geiger and Ernst Kuhn). 2 vols, Strasbourg
1895–1904.Grünberg, A. L. and I. M Steblin-Kamenskij. 1988. La Langue Wakhi, 2 vols. Paris.Gs. Bailey: Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples (ed. N. Sims-Williams). Proceedings of the British
Academy CXVI. Oxford, 2003.Gs. Van Windekens: Studia Etymologica Indoeuropaea Memoriae A.J. Van Windekens (1915–1989)
Dicata (ed. Lambert Isebaert). (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta XLV). Louvain, 1991.Hansen, Olaf. 1940. ‘Tocharisch-iranische Beziehungen. Ein Beitrag zur Lehnwortforschung
Ostturkestans’, ZDMG, XCIV, 139–64.Harmatta, Janos. 1994. ‘Languages and scripts in Graeco-Bactria and the Saka kingdoms’ and
‘Language and literature in the Kushan Empire’, in History of Civilizations of CentralAsia, vol. II The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250(ed. J. Harmatta). Paris: Unesco, 397–440.
Henning, Walther B. 1933. ‘Das Verbum des Mittelpersischen der Turfanfragmente’, ZII, X, 158–233.
——. 1936. ‘Neue Materialien zur Geschichte des Manichäismus’, ZDMG, XC, 1–18.——. 1938. ‘Argi and the «Tokharians»’, BSOS, IX, 545–71.——. 1949. ‘The name of the «Tocharian» language’, AM N.S. I, 158–62.——. 1956. ‘The Khwarezmian language’, Symbolae in honorem Zeki Velidi Togan, Zeki Velidi
Togan’a Armahgan. Istanbul, 421–36.——. 1965. ‘Surkh-Kotal und KanisDka’, ZDMG, CXV, 75–87.Hilmarsson, Jörundur. 1986. Studies in Tocharian Phonology, Morphology and Etymology. With
Special Emphasis on the O-Vocalism. Diss. Reykjavík.——. 1989. The Dual Forms of Nouns and Pronouns in Tocharian. (TIES Supplementary Series I).
Reykjavík——. 1996. Materials for a Tocharian Historical and Etymological Dictionary. (TIES Supplemen-
tary Series V). Reykjavík.Huang Wên-pi [Huang Chung-liang]. 1958. T’a-li-mu p’ên-ti k’ao-ku chi (Archaeological report of
the Tarim Basin), K’ao-ku hsueh chuan k’an-ting-chung (Archaeological ResearchesReport Series, Special issue) D 3, Archaeological Institute of the Chinese Academy ofSciences. Peking, 1958.
Hübschmann, Heinrich. 1895. Armenische Grammatik. I. Teil: Armenische Etymologie. Leipzig.Humbach, Helmut. 1958. ‘Zur Textgeschichte des jüngeren Awesta’, MSS, III2, 73–9.——. 1966–67. Baktrische Sprachdenkmäler. 2 vols. Wiesbaden.——. 1969. ‘Bactrian seals’, MSS, XXV, 65–74.Isebaert, Lambert. 1979. ‘Zum tocharischen Namen des Fensters’, KZ, XCIII, 174–6.——. 1980. De Indo-Iraanse bestanddelen in de Tocharische woordenschaat. Ph.D. Katholieke
Universiteit te Leuven.——. 1981. ‘Études étymologiques’, Orbis, XXVIII, 1979, 365–8.——. 1988. ‘Adnotamenta Irano-Tocharica’, Studia Indogermanica et Slavica, Festgabe für Werner
Thomas zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Peter Kosta et al.), (Specimina Philologiae Slavicae,Supplementband 26). Munich: Sagner, 1988, 137–40.
——. 1991. ‘Quelques considérations sur les emprunts iraniens en tokharien. Le traitement desdiphtongues’, Gs. Van Windekens, 141–50.
——. 2003. ‘Trois mots iraniens en tokharien’, Iranica Selecta, Studies in Honour of ProfessorWojciech Skalmowski (ed. A. van Tongerloo), (Silk Road Studies VIII). Turnhout.
Joki, Aulis. 1973. Uralier und Indogermanen, Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne CLI.Helsinki.
K: Bernhard Karlgren, ‘Grammatica Serica Recensa’, Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiq-uities XXIX, 1957, 1–332.
KI: KharosDtDhi Inscriptions discovered by Sir Aurel Stein in Chinese Turkestan. Part I Transcribed andEdited by A.M. Boyer, E.J. Rapson, and É. Sénart; Part III Transcribed and Edited by E.J.Rapson and P.S. Noble, Oxford, 3 vols. 1920–29.
Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1975. ‘Tocharisch und Urindogermanisch’, Flexion und Wortbildung, Aktender V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.–14. September 1973.Wiesbaden, 148–63.
——. 1994. ‘Das Tocharische in indogermanischer Sicht’, Tocharisch, Akten der Fachtagung derIndogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, September 1990. (ed. Bernfried Schlerath), (TIESSupplementary Series IV), 310–411.
——. 2000. ‘Mittelpersisch’, Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik, Arbeitstagung derIndogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen (ed. BernhardForssman and Robert Plath). Wiesbaden, 191–229.
Konow, Sten. 1916. ‘Indoskythische Beiträge’, SPAW, 1916, 787–827.——. 1929. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. Vol II, Part I: KharoshtDhi Inscriptions with the
exception of those of Asaoka. Calcutta: Government of India, 1929.——. 1932. Saka Studies. (Oslo Etnografiske Museum Bulletin V.) Oslo.
447IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
——. 1935. ‘Ein neuer Saka-Dialekt’, SPAW, 1935, 772–823.——. 1945. ‘Notes concerning Khotanese’, NTS, XIII, 199–224.Krause, Wolfgang. 1951. ‘Zur Frage nach dem nichtindogermanischen Substrat des Tocharischen’,
KZ, LXIX, 185–203.——. 1955. ‘Sprachliche Beziehungen des Tocharischen zu Nachbarvölkern’, ZDMG CV, *68–*69.Krause, Wolfgang and Werner Thomas. Tocharisches Elementarbuch. Vol. I: Grammatik, 1960.
Vol. II: Texte und Glossar, 1956. Heidelberg.KT: (Sir) Harold Bailey, Indo-Scythian Studies, being Khotanese Texts I–VII. Cambridge, 1947–
1985.Laufer, Berthold. 1915. ‘Three Tokharian bagatelles’, TP, XVI, 272–81.——. 1916. ‘Loan-words in Tibetan’, TP, XVII, 403–52.——. 1919. Sino-Iranica. Chinese Contributions to the History of Civilization in Ancient Iran (Field
Museum of Natural History Publication 201.) = XV:3.Lévi, Sylvain. 1913. ‘Le “Tokharien B”, langue de Koutcha’, JA XIth series, II, 1913, 311–80.——. 1933. Fragments de Textes Koutchéens. Paris.Lidén, Ewald. 1916. Studien zur tocharischen Sprachgeschichte. Lund Universitat Årsskrift.Lorimer, Col. D.L.R. 1958. The Wakhi Language. London: SOAS.Lubotsky, Alexander. 1998. ‘Avestan xvarenah-: the etymology and concept’, Sprache und Kultur,
Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Innsbruck, 22.–28. September1996 (ed. Wolfgang Meid). IBS XCIII, Innsbruck, 479–88.
——. 1999. ‘Avestan compounds and the RUKI-rule’, Compositiones Indogermanicae in MemoriamJochem Schindler (ed. Heiner Eichner and Hans Christian Luschützky). Prague, 299–322.
——. 2003. ‘Scythian elements in Old Iranian’, Gs. Bailey, 189–202.Lüders, Heinrich. 1913. ‘Die Saakas und die «nordarische» Sprache’, SPAW, 1913, 400–27.MacKenzie, David Neil (KG). ‘The Khwarezmian glossary’ I, BSOAS, XXXIII, 1970, 540–49; II,
BSOAS, XXXIV, 1971, 74–90; III, ibid., 314–30; IV, ibid., 521–37; V, BSOAS, XXXV,1972, 56–73.
Maggi, Mauro. 1992. Studi sul Sistema Accentuale del Cotanese. Unpublished PhD, Naples.Maricq, André. 1958. ‘La grande inscription de KanisDka et l’étéo-tokharien, l’ancienne langue de la
Bactriane’, JA, CCXLVI, 345–440.Masson, Olivier. OGS: Onomastica Graeca Selecta. I–II, Nanterre, 1990. III, École pratique des
Hautes Études, Hautes Études du monde gréco-romain XXVIII. Geneva, 2000.Meillet, Antoine. 1911. ‘Remarques linguistiques sur les documents tokhariens de la mission
Pelliot’, JA, XIe série, XVII, 449–64.Melliet, Antoine and Sylvain Lévi, 1, 12/1, 13. ‘Remarques sur les formes grammaticales de
quelques textes en tokharien’ I, MSL, XVIII, 1–33; 381–423.Meillet, Antoine and Sylvain Lévi. 1916. ‘Notes sur le koutchéen’, MSL, XIX, 158–62.Menges, Karl. 1965. ‘Zu einigen ural-altajisch-toxarischen Wortbeziehungen’, Orbis, XIV, 126–37.Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1890–1902.Morgenstierne, Georg. IIFL: Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages I–IV, Oslo, Instituttet for
sammenlignende kulturforskning, Serie B: Skrifter, vol. XI, XXXV, XL and LVIII, 1929–1973.
MOTH: James Hamilton. Manuscrits Ouïgours du IXe–Xe Siècle de Touen-Houang. Paris[-Louvain],1986.
Müller, F.W.K. 1908. Uighurica [I], APAW, 1908:2.——. 1912. Ein Doppelblatt aus einem manichäischen Hymnenbuch (Mahrnâmag). APAW, 1912:5.Nyberg, Henrik. 1931. ‘Einige Bemerkungen zur iranischen Lautlehre’, Studia Indo-Iranica,
Ehrengabe für Wilhelm Geiger. Leipzig, 213–18.Olsen, Brigitte. 1999. The Noun in Biblical Armenian. Berlin.P: Edwin G. Pulleyblank. 1991. A Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese,
Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver.Pedersen, Holger. 1943. ‘Tocharische Beiträge’, Revue des Études Indo-Européennes III, 17–19; 209–
13.Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1987. ‘Notes d’onomastique koutchéenne’, TIES, I, 77–97.——. 1993. ‘Tokharien A mälkärtemD et autres mots’, TIES, VI, 133–88.——. 1997. ‘Nouvelle lecture du fragment A 270 du Maitreyasamiti-NamtDaka’, TIES, VII, 121–41.——. 1998. ‘Tocharian language and pre-Buddhist culture’, The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
Peoples and Eastern Central Asia (ed. V. Mair). JIES Monograph Series XXVI, 1998,358–71.
——. 1999. ‘Restitution du Maitreyasamiti-NamtDaka en tokharien A: Bilan provisoire et recherchescomplémentaires sur l’acte XXVI’, TIES VIII, 189–240.
——. 2002. ‘Toch. B kucaññe, A kucimD et Skr. Tokharika’, IIJ XLV, 311–45.——. 2003. ‘Tocharian and Indo-Iranian’, Gs. Bailey, 243–84.Pirart, Éric. 1984. ‘Gâthique cazdmonDghuuanD tem’, IIJ XXVII, 1984, 48–9.Pisani, Vittore. 1941. ‘Appunti di tocarico’, Glottica Parerga I, Reale Istituto Lombardo di Scienze
e Lettere, Rendiconti, Classe di Lettere, LXXV, 157–71 (also separately paginated).Poucha, Pavel. 1932. ‘Zur mittelasiatischen Lehnwortkunde’, ArOr IV, 1932, 79–91.——. 1935. Review of S. Konow, Saka Studies, ArOr VII, 258–60.——. 1944. ‘Die synchronische Stellung des Tocharischen und die Frage nach der idg. Heimat’, KZ
LXVIII, 83–98.Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1962. ‘The consonantal system of Old Chinese’, Asia Major N.S. IX, 1962,
58–144 and 206–65.
448 XAVIER TREMBLAY
Rau, Wilhelm. 1973. Metalle und Metallgeräte im vedischen Indien, AMAW 1973: 8, Wiesbaden.Ringe, Don Jr. 1991. ‘Evidence for the position of Tocharian in the Indo-European family?’, Die
Sprache XXXIV, 1988–90, 59–123.——. 1996. On the Chronology of Sound Changes in Tocharian. I: From Proto-Indo-European to
Proto-Tocharian. American Oriental Series LXXX. New Haven.Schmidt, Klaus T. 1974. Die Gebrauchsweisen des Mediums im Tocharischen. Dissertation.
Göttingen, 1969.——. 1978. ‘Beiträge zur tocharischen Personennamenkunde’, unpublished communication in the
Thirteenth International Congress of Onomastic Sciences, Cracow, August 21–25, 1978(quoted with the author’s permission) [the Proceedings of the Congress were published byKazimierz Rymot, Breslau–Warsaw–Cracow–Danzig–·odz, Ossolineum, 2 vols, 1981].
——. 1980. ‘Zu Stand und Aufgaben der etymologischen Forschung auf dem Gebiete desTocharischen’, Lautgeschichte und Etymologie, Akten der VI. Fachtagung derIndogermanischen Gesellschaft Wien, 24.–29. September 1978 (ed. Manfred Mayrhoferet al.). Wiesbaden, 394–411.
——. 1983. ‘Zu einigen der ältesten iranischen Lehnwörter im Tocharischen’, Studia LinguisticaDiachronica et Synchronica Werner Winter .. . oblata (ed. Ursula Pieper and GerhardStickel). Berlin, 757–68.
——. 1996. ‘Das tocharische MaitreyasamitinamtDaka im Vergleich mit der uigurischen Maitrisimit’,in R.E. Emmerick et al. (eds), Turfan, Khotan und Dunhuang, Vorträge der Tagung“Annemarie v. Gabain und die Turfanforschung”, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie derWissenschaften, Berichte und Abhandlungen I, Berlin, 269–78.
——. 1997. ‘Liebe und Sexualität im Spiegel der tocharischen Sprachzeugnisse’, in MichaelaOfitsch (ed.), Eros, Liebe und Zuneigung in der Indogermania, Akten des Symposions zurindogermanischen Kultur- und Altertumskunde in Graz (29.–30. September 1994), Graz,227–62.
——. 2002. ‘Bemerkungen zum Einleitungsteil des osttocharischen MaitreyasamitinamtDaka’, inMehmet Ölmez and Simone-Christiane Raschmann (eds), Splitter aus der Gegend vonTurfan, Festschrift für Peter Zieme, Türk Dilleri Ara¦rmalarI Dizisi XXXV, Istanbul andBerlin, 257–64.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1983. ‘Iranisches Lehngut im Armenischen’, Revue des Études ArméniennesXVII, 73–112.
Schulze, Wilhelm. 1932. ‘Toch. ratäk’, KZ LIX, 212.Schwartz, Martin. 1971. ‘On the vocabulary of the Khwarezmian Muqaddimatu l ’Adab, as edited
by J. Benzing’, ZDMG CCXX, 1970, 288–304.——. 1974. ‘Irano-Tocharica’, Mémorial Jean de Menasce, in Ph. Gignoux and Ahmad Taffazzoli
(eds), Louvain, 399–411.Schwentner, Ernst. 1956. ‘Toch. B eksD inek “Taube”’, KZ LXXIII, 238.Sieg, Emil and Wilhelm Siegling. 1921. Tocharische Sprachreste. I. Band. Die Texte. Königlich
Preußische Turfanexpeditionen, Berlin and Leipzig.Sieg, Emil, Wilhelm Siegling and Wilhelm Schulze. 1931. Tocharische Grammatik, Göttingen.Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 1983a. ‘Chotano-Sogdica’, BSOAS XLVI, 40–51.——. 1983b. Review of R. E. Emmerick and P. O. Skjærvø, Studies in the Vocabulary of Khotanese
I, Vienna, 1982, BSOAS XLVI, 358–9.——. 1990. ‘Chotano-Sogdica II: Aspects of the development of nominal morphology in
Khotanese and Sogdian’, Proceedings of the First European Conference of Iranian Studiesheld in Turin, September 7th–11th, 1987 by the Societas Iranologica Europaea, I: Oldand Middle Iranian Studies, ed. Gherardo Gnoli and Antonio Panaino, S.O.R. LXVII,Rome, 275–96.
——. 1992. Sogdian and other Iranian Inscriptions of the Upper Indus. CII, Part II Inscriptions ofthe Seleucid and Parthian Periods and of Eastern Iran and Central Asia, vol. III Sogdian,1, London, 2 vol.
——. 1996. ‘Nouveaux documents sur l’histoire et la langue de la Bactriane’, CRAI 1996, 633–54.——. 1997. ‘Four Bactrian economic documents’, Bulletin of the Asia Institute XI, 3–15.——. 1998. ‘Further notes on the Bactrian inscription of Rabatak, with an Appendix on the names
of Kujula Kadphises and Vima Taktu in Chinese’, Proceedings of the Third EuropeanConference of Iranian Studies held in Cambridge, 11th to 15th September 1995, Wiesbaden,I, 79–92.
——. 2000. Bactrian Documents from Northern Afghanistan. I: Legal and Economic Documents,Nour Foundation, Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press.
——. 2003. ‘Ancient Afghanistan and its invaders: linguistic evidence from the Bactrian documentsand inscriptions’, Gs. Bailey, 225–42.
——. 2004a. ‘The Parthian abstract suffix -yft’, in J. H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-European EuropeanPerspectives, Studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo-Davies, Oxford, 539–47.
——. 2004b. ‘Two Bactrian fragments from Yar-khoto’, in Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst et al.(eds), Turfan Revisited—The First Century of Research into the Arts and Culture of the SilkRoad, Monographien zur indischen Archäologie, Kunst und Philologie XVII, Berlin,325–332.
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 1991. ‘YsenikammD ’, in Gs. Van Windekens, 281–4.Steblin-Kaminskij, I. M. 1999. Qtnmololjeckni clobaps baxahckogo rzqka [I. M. Stebline-
Kamensky, Ethymological [sic.] Dictionary of the Wakhi Language], Saint-Petersburg.Thomas, Werner. 1979. Formale Besonderheiten in metrischen Texten des Tocharischen: Zur
Verteilung von B tane/tne “hier” und B ñake/ñke “jetzt”. AMAW 1979: 15, Wiesbaden.
449IRANO-TOCHARICA ET TOCHARO-IRANICA
——. 1985. Die Erforschung des Tocharischen (1960–1984), Schriften der WissenschaftlichenGesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main,Geisteswissenschaftliche Reihe 5, Stuttgart.
Tichy, Eva. 1979. ‘Semantische Studien zu idg. 1. *deikf
“zeigen” und 2. *deikf
“werfen”’, MSSXXXVIII, 171–228.
Tremblay, Xavier. 2000. Review of R. E. Emmerick and P. O. Skjærvø, Studies in the Vocabularyof Khotanese III (Vienna, 1997), IIJ XLIII, 191–6.
——. 2001. Pour une histoire de la Sérinde. Le manichéisme parmi les peuples et religions d’AsieCentrale d’après les sources primaires, SÖAW CDXC, Vienna.
——. 2004. ‘La toponymie de la Sogdiane et le traitement de *xq et *fq en iranien. Essais degrammaire comparée des langues iraniennes VII’, Studia Iranica XXXIII, 113–49.
Trombert, Éric, Ikeda On and Zhang Guangda. 2000. Les manuscrits chinois de Turfan. FondsPelliot de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris Institut des Hautes Études Chinoisesdu Collège de France.
Van Windekens, Albert-Joris. 1947. ‘Le problème tokharien et l’hypothèse de M. Sten Konow’,NTS XIV, 305–12.
——. 1949. ‘Études iraniennes et tokhariennes I–II’, Muséon LXII, 125–50; 261–74.——. 1963. ‘Études de phonétique tokharienne IV’, Orbis XII, 463–8.——. 1964. ‘Sur quelques mots tokhariens provenant de langues asiatiques indo-européennes et
non-indo-européennes’, Orbis XIII, 589–97.——. 1972. ‘Sur quelques termes indo-iraniens empruntés par le tokharien’, IIJ XIV, 46–51.——. 1974. ‘Sur quelques éléments indo-iraniens dans le vocabulaire indo-iranien’, Orbis XXIII,
224–8.——. 1976. Le Tokharien confronté avec les autres langues indo-européennes, Louvain, 3 vol., esp.
vol. I: ‘La phonétique et le vocabulaire’.Wackernagel, Jacob, AIG: Altindische Grammatik, 3 vols, Göttingen 1896–1957.Weber, Dieter. 1985. ‘Khotansakisch amsDanD a- “wert, würdig” ’, Papers in honour of Professor Mary
Boyce II, AcIr 25, Leiden, 675–81.Werba, Chlodwig H. 1986. ‘Ghost-words in den Gamhams’, Sprache XXXII, 334–64.Winter, Werner. 1963. ‘Tokharians and Turks’, Aspects of Altaic Civilization, Proceedings of the
Fifth Meeting of the Permanent International Altaic Conference held at Indiana University,June 4–9, 1962, (ed. Denis Sinor), Indiana University University Publications. Uralic andAltaic Series XXIII, Bloomington, 1963, 239–51.
——. 1971. ‘Baktrische Lehnwörter im Tocharischen’, Donum Indogermanicum, Festgabe für AntonScherer, Heidelberg, 217–23.
——. 1989. ‘Tocharian B -aiñ : B -amñ/-amñ and related problems’, TIES III, 111–20.