This work contains the first systematic investigation of the linguistic contacts between Tocharian A and B and Khotanese and Tumshuqese, four languages once spoken in the Tarim Basin, in today’s... Show moreThis work contains the first systematic investigation of the linguistic contacts between Tocharian A and B and Khotanese and Tumshuqese, four languages once spoken in the Tarim Basin, in today’s Xīnjiāng Uyghur Autonomous Region in Northwest China. The main part of the book is devoted to determining a corpus of reliable Khotanese and Tumshuqese loanwords in Tocharian: new borrowing etymologies are proposed, and some old correspondences are rejected. The discussion of the individual loanwords often involves a fresh examination of the text passages where they occur, and, in some cases, it offers lexical insights regarding a variety of neighbouring languages (Chinese, Middle Persian, Parthian, Sogdian, Gāndhārī and Old Uyghur). A detailed phonological, morphological, and semantic analysis of the corpus follows, with a view to determine the phonological correspondences, the relative chronology of the loanwords and possible historical scenarios of cultural exchange. One of the results of this investigation is that the influence of Khotanese and Tumshuqese on Tocharian was much more extensive than previously thought and it spanned over almost two millennia, from the early Iron Age until the extinction of the four languages at the end of the first millennium CE. Show less
During their migration from the Eastern European steppes to the Tarim Basin, the ancestors of the Tocharians must have come into contact with speakers of different languages, which may have... Show moreDuring their migration from the Eastern European steppes to the Tarim Basin, the ancestors of the Tocharians must have come into contact with speakers of different languages, which may have influenced the early Tocharian language. Early Uralic has been identified as possibly having been the source of such influence, especially in the domain of phonology and nominal morphology. In a 2019 article, Michaël Peyrot focused specifically on pre-Proto-Samoyed influence on Tocharian, proposing among other things a comparison of the vowel systems. I will discuss this comparison and give an alternative interpretation. Three difficulties remained with Peyrot’s comparison regarding details of 1) the relative chronology of Tocharian sound changes, 2) the mechanism of change, and 3) the relative chronology of sound changes in Samoyed. After addressing these problems in more detail, I conclude that a different vowel comparison is possible, so that the hypothesis that pre-Proto-Tocharians were in contact with pre-Proto-Samoyed substrate is still plausible. Show less
