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
This dissertation investigates the linguistic contacts between Tocharian A and B and Khotanese and Tumshuqese, four languages once spoken in the Tarim basin, whose manuscripts can be dated from the... Show moreThis dissertation investigates the linguistic contacts between Tocharian A and B and Khotanese and Tumshuqese, four languages once spoken in the Tarim basin, whose manuscripts can be dated from the 5th to the 10th c. CE. It offers the first comprehensive analysis of the Khotanese and Tumshuqese loanwords in Tocharian A and B. One of the conclusions of this dissertation 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. In fact, it is possible to distinguish this group of loanwords from the loanwords from Old Steppe Iranian, an unidentified Old Iranian language only known from loanwords into Tocharian, by means of precise sound correspondences. Moreover, the relative chronology of the Khotanese and Tumshuqese loanwords in Tocharian allows a unique glimpse into the linguistic prehistory of the two Eastern Middle Iranian languages. Show less
The two languages once spoken in the oases in the North of the Tarim basin, Tocharian A and B, have preserved many Iranian loanwords. These belong to different chronological layers and are of... Show moreThe two languages once spoken in the oases in the North of the Tarim basin, Tocharian A and B, have preserved many Iranian loanwords. These belong to different chronological layers and are of different dialectalorigins. Whereas the oldest layers are now most likely seen as belonging to an unattested Old Iranian dialect, more recent layers have not yet been studied in detail. In this respect, the vocabulary of medical texts represents an important field of enquiry. Most terms come from Middle Indian, but a significant number are of Middle Iranian origin. This component, mostly ingredients and technical vocabulary, seems to be largely of Khotanese origin. The article introduces the material and examines possible scenarios for historical transmission and contact between the North and the South of the Tarim Basin. Show less
The allegorical Middle Dutch text, Een gheestelijc casteel [A Spiritual Castle], encourages readers to mentally construct a precious castle in which they will be able to receive Christ. The... Show moreThe allegorical Middle Dutch text, Een gheestelijc casteel [A Spiritual Castle], encourages readers to mentally construct a precious castle in which they will be able to receive Christ. The description of the castle provides a mnemonic image that readers could use during prayer and meditation. Although the author makes no direct reference to Luke 10:38, the allegory is authorized by the exegesis of this Biblical passage: Mary is the castle in which Jesus has entered and she keeps the active and spiritual life, symbolized by Martha and Mary Magdalene, in perfect balance. The Middle Dutch text likely originated around 1460 in the Brussels convent of Jericho (Regular Canonesses). In the last decade of the fifteenth century, the text, now adapted for a lay audience, was printed in Antwerp by Govaert Bac. He was an important member of the Antwerp guild of St Luke, the professional association of painters and printers that also included Antwerp’s principal chamber of rhetoric. The attractive architectural allegory and exercise presented in Bac’s booklet finds parallels in contemporary paintings of Mary and the Christ Child, who are often either portrayed in a landscape with a castle-like architectural structure clearly visible in the background or within a castle-like building. In the former compositions the castle can be viewed as a reflection or ‘echo’ of Mary as a castle (the painting thus portrays two castles) while at the same time functioning as a reminder to those familiar with the meditative image of the spiritual castle to pursue their spiritual skopos. The latter images could be seen as portraying a castle (Mary) within a castle (building), similar to Mary (or the womb) within a room, or even Jan van Eyck’s Madonna in the Church. Show less
The present work constitutes the first complete description of a previously neglected type of Pāzand found in several passages of the Bundahišn text as contained in the Munich manuscript M51. The... Show moreThe present work constitutes the first complete description of a previously neglected type of Pāzand found in several passages of the Bundahišn text as contained in the Munich manuscript M51. The orthographic and phonological analysis presented here focuses on the Pāzand version of chapter 13 on animals, the longest specimen at our disposal. After a systematic description of the pāzandization system, a comparison with the already known pāzandization techniques (based mainly on the manuscripts L19 and M63) is conducted, with a view to defining the distinguishing features of the two systems. In the analysis, the importance of the BundahišnPāzand for the manuscript tradition of the Bundahišn and for the transmission of Zoroastrian writings in general is outlined. Show less
The present paper consists of the first edition, translation and commentary of a Manichaean Sogdian bifolio, whose photos are preserved in the Nachlass of Academician Carl H. Salemann at the... Show moreThe present paper consists of the first edition, translation and commentary of a Manichaean Sogdian bifolio, whose photos are preserved in the Nachlass of Academician Carl H. Salemann at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, RAS (St. Petersburg). The present location of the bifolio is unknown. One joining fragment has been found in the Berlin Turfan collection during the preliminary work on this edition. Two relatively long portions of Manichaean didactic treatises are extant and do not correspond to any known text. The first (I) is a Lehrtext on the duties of Manichaean monks living in a monastery. The second (II) contains the fourth and part of a fifth question, followed by answers, of a catechetical text concerning the fate of the body and of the soul after death. Show less
