PK AS 7N
Images loaded from
The beginning until a5 is in prose. Then we have a meter of 4 x 17 (5/7/5 or 6/6/5). The text from there onwards is parallel to PK AS 7K followed by PK AS 7L. There is no punctuation in the metrical part except in line b5 pāda 4d a double dot at the end of a second colon.
a5. Note that the parallel PK AS 7K often has a slightly different wording and cola divsion. The colon division here is wrong. The first has four syllables, the second eight. In the second, however, seven syllables may be recovered by reading srukalñeṣṣe ime with sandhi (as is attested otherwise here) as srukalñeṣṣ= ime, even though this would mean sandhi over a colon boundary. That means that one would have to add a monosyllable word in the first colon, maybe a particle. In pāda 1b the second colon lacks one syllable, which can be recovered by reading the prose form olyapotse instead of olypotse.
a7. The middle part of pāda 1d is badly damaged; in any case the 1.sg. pronoun ñi is recognizable, as well as a form related to the adverb olya ‘more’. An adjective olyartse is recorded in the Manichean bilingual text with the same meaning as olyapotse (cf. Pinault 2008a: 103, 114). Hence it seems possible to restore this adjective here in a late variant. The restoration of the complement ‘self’ in the perlative makes sense with regard to the preceding sentence.
The first two colons of pāda 2b are wrong. From a syntactic point of view, ñi belongs to the finite verb, while the classical form would even be nesaṃ-ñ. Such a form would indeed make a correct first colon. Then one has to assume that in the original second colon a word with two syllables was left out by the scribe, who, in contrast, reinforced nesaṃ-ñ, maybe in the form nesañ, as a clearer nesan plus independent pronoun ñi. This was most likely even an easier interpretation to make since this redone manuscript is certainly late, and in this stage final -ñ was even depalatalized. Having done that, he had to leave out this other two-syllable word because the colon was then too long. Probably this word had been the quotative adverb te-mant = Skt. iti.
b1. The last colon of pāda 2b ends with ceṃ palsko yairoṣ. The parallel text PK AS 7K b4 gives us the genitive plural of the demonstrative and a singular PPt (yai)ru. However, one may keep the plural here assuming constructio ad sensum. There is no need to assume, pace Sieg 1938: 51, that the following verb yamaṃ should be included in this same colon. It does neither improve the meter nor the sense – even less so since, as a consequence, a further misspelling ceṃ for cai would have to be assumed.
b2. A correct meter of 6/6/5 can be recovered by resolving the sandhi form srukalyñeṣṣ= ; īme into srukalyñeṣṣe ; īme.
b5. The last colon of pāda 4b has one syllable too many, which can be repaired by reading the usual form star-ñ at the end. This is confirmed by the parallel PK AS 7L a1. The missing syllable in the second colon of pāda 4c can be recovered by reading onolmentsä at the end.
b6. The second colon of 5c is one syllable too short. One can recover the meter with the rhythm 6/6/5 by reading srukalñeṣṣe īme in the first colon. Sieg’s correction (Sieg 1938: 52) of nauṣ into nauṣäk in the second colon is unnecessary.
b7. The parallel manuscript PK AS 7L a2 reads wārwäṣṣeñca ṣek “who always urges”, which makes more sense. The form palskoṣṣe is incorrect; however, note that the parallel manuscript shows the spelling pälskoṣṣe written with 〈pa〉 and double dots instead of fremdzeichen; hence, some original manuscript from which both were ultimately copied had a mistake here.
In general, this leaf shows archaic spellings beside late forms and also many simple misspellings. It seems that a scribe who himself spoke a very advanced variant of TB (or even TA?) copied from an archaic manuscript (or even from several different ones) in order to restore the damaged leaf).
Archaic spellings: rämer (a4 beside ramer in a3), tärya (b1 for tarya), metrically preserved final -ä in colon-final position (keśä in b2 and wesä in b6) beside colon-internal skwanmantsä (b5).
Late forms: karttse (a2 bis), wärpalye (a4 for wärpalñe), tn for ntn in niṣkrama〈n〉tne (a5); gen.pl onolmens (a5 for onolments), ṣem (b6 for ṣeyem, cf. 3.pl. ṣeṃ for ṣeyeṃ in other late texts).
Sometimes it is difficult to decide, e.g., pyapyai (a4) may be a mistake for either obl.sg. pyāpyai or obl.pl. pyapyai(ṃ); quite often we have short a for ā: tätarmeṃ (a6 for tättārmeṃ); yamtsi (a6 for yāmtsi), waṣmo (a7 for wāṣmo); ma (a7, b2, b3 for mā); lare (a5, a7, b3 beside the classical form lāre b5, b6); mrauskate (b3 for mrauskāte); lkalyi (b5 for lkālyi); sale (b7 for sāle); ceṃ (b1 for ceṃts) may show cluster simplification.
Georges-Jean Pinault (in collaboration with Melanie Malzahn and Michaël Peyrot)
Date of online publication: February 2012
Lévi, Sylvain (1932) Mahākarmavibhaṅga (La grande classification des actes) et Karmavibhaṅgopadeśa (Discussion sur le Mahā Karmavibhaṅga). Ernest Leroux: Paris.
Lévi, Sylvain (1933) Fragments de textes koutchéens. Udānavarga, Udānastotra, Udānālaṁkāra et Karmavibhaṅga, publiés et traduits avec un vocabulaire et une introduction sur le «tokharien» par M. Sylvain Lévi. Imprimerie Nationale: Paris.
Meunier, Fanny (2013) Typologie des locutions en yām- du tokharien. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 14, 123-185.
Peyrot, Michaël (2013) The Tocharian subjunctive, A study in syntax and verbal stem formation. Brill: Leiden/Boston (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 8).
Pinault, Georges-Jean (2008) Bilingual hymn to Mani: Analysis of the Tocharian B parts, In , Studies on the Inner Asian Languages XXIII. Papers in Honour of Professor Takao Moriyasu on His 60th Birthday, 93-120.
Sieg, Emil (1938) Die Kutschischen Karmavibhaṅga-Texte der Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 65, 1-54.
http://www.univie.ac.at/tocharian/?PK AS 7N
Medieninhaber: Universität Wien, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft | Inhalt: Melanie Malzahn | Programmierung: Martin Braun | Design: Patricia Katharina Hoda