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
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
Tocharian is the name given to two closely related Indo-European languages, Tocharian A and Tocharian B, known from manuscripts discovered in the Tarim basin. Despite its late attestation,... Show moreTocharian is the name given to two closely related Indo-European languages, Tocharian A and Tocharian B, known from manuscripts discovered in the Tarim basin. Despite its late attestation, Tocharian has proved to be archaic, particularly in some sections of the morphology. However, the exact relationship of Tocharian with the other Indo-European branches remains an unresolved issue. The problem is that a strong impact of language contact and internal drift has resulted in an intricate combination of archaisms and innovations that are often difficult to be disentangle.Examining the category of gender, this thesis contributes to the investigation of archaisms and innovations in Tocharian nominal morphology. It aims at providing a comprehensive treatment of the Tocharian gender system, describing how it historically derived from the Indo-European proto-language and why it typologically deviates from most of the other Indo-European languages. Show less
In this study, the formation of the Tocharian subjunctive is described, its use and meaning are analysed and its origins are investigated. The two Tocharian languages A and B are known to us... Show moreIn this study, the formation of the Tocharian subjunctive is described, its use and meaning are analysed and its origins are investigated. The two Tocharian languages A and B are known to us through Buddhist manuscripts from ca. 400-1200 CE that were found along the Northern Silk Road in Xīnjiāng, China. Tocharian A and B are closely related, and they belong to the Indo-European language family. It is argued that the Tocharian subjunctive is closest to the present as far as the endings are concerned, while the formation of its stem is rather parallel to the preterite. Thus, the subjunctive is essentially a kind of "second present" formed from the preterite stem. In main clauses, the basic meaning of the subjunctive is future: different kinds of modal readings are often possible, but they are the result of inference. In subclauses, a variety of uses is found, for instance conditionality, iterativity, uncertainty, finality and indefiniteness. The Tocharian subjunctive is derived from the Proto-Indo-European aorist stem, a perfective stem next to the imperfective present stem. The meaning of the subjunctive can be derived from that of a "perfective present", which it still is morphologically on the synchronic level. Show less
