print prev. next

Work in progress

THT 295

Other press marks:B 295, Bleistiftnummer 2557

Provenience

Main find spot:Qizil Miŋ-Öy
Expedition code:T III MQ 1
Collection:Berlin Turfan Collection (BBAW)

Language and Script

Language:TB
Linguistic stage:Archaic
Script:Archaic

Text contents

Text genre:Literary
Text subgenre:Kāvya
Verse/Prose:Verse

Object

Material:Ink on paper
Form:Poṭhī
Number of lines:8 ~ 10
Remarks:Although the leaf is damaged on all edges, it is virtually complete. Unlike in TochSprR(B) II: 185–186, the edges are not indicated with "///" if there are no akṣaras missing. No leaf number is preserved. Possibly, it is a independent leaf, as it contains exactly one poem of 6 strophes on one side (here side a) and exactly one poem of 4 strophes on the other side (here side b). The interline and character spacing is irregular, obviously as a consequence of the scribe's effort to fit the poems nicely on one side each. There seems to be no way to decide which sides were originally to be the recto and verso.

Images

THT 295 Recto THT 295 Verso

Images loaded from idp.bbaw.de through idp.bl.uk by courtesy of IDP Berlin, the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften and the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Orientabteilung.

Transliteration

a1(– –) ·[ra] (– –) ·w· [e] – [w]sa[ṣ]ṣ·ñc[a]nts· onolme(·)ts\ p[o]tk[ne s]· st(e) ś·laṣṣ[e] srukalyñentse yol[o]p[i] : mā w[a]l[ke] – – ///
a2(–) ·m· potke ś[o]laṣṣe wsaskemāne empelye saṃsāraṣṣai kwaṣṣaine : 1 tentse s̝armtsa kreñśamnā tsrellaññeṣṣe puwarsa ///
a3– [ñcä] tsets[ä]rkkos̝\ eṅalyñesā parskos̝a rerinormeṃ s̝añ śamnā maitar ika[śc] kekesos̝\ : ente mā eṅälaññe mā ra ·r· ///
a4(–) r[e]nmeṃ 2 sportomāne sāṃsarne s̝aññe śomo kuse kat ra : s̝armanmasā śeśśanmos̝\ alyaucempa yäneṃ krui nan[au]ta[r]m[e](·)
a5armanmats nano ya[n]eṃ waiptār cai : s̝aññeṃ śāmnāṃnts eṅälyñe mā s̝pa palkos̝ [ma]skentra 3 cents [n]o pes[ta] ykuwermeṃ kuse
a6takoī śle-palsko pa○lycä-palyc ra weru ramt\ te keś empreṃ tattārmeṃ : tserekwacce laṅwcene s̝aññäññeṣṣe [a]
a7kalksa : yokaiṣṣe śvāl nukowä kuse ceu postamakoytra 4 ponta tarya cmelane manta ike nesa su : ente –
a8ñu takoy nta sportomāne saṃsārne tsakṣtra śaiṣṣe empele ñyatseṣṣe ceu puwane snai saim-wäste tallaw se [te] (–)
a9– ntsi paskāya 5 po llaklenta keṣṣeñcai ceuap yene saim pyamttsait\ añmalāṣkai kaṣṣintse akṣoṣ krenta ·e
a10[lai]k[ne] mak·e ma s̝a[p\] ts[r]elyeṣṣe ts[ś]it[ra] nano [na]no em[p]el[y]e s·or·o[m]a·e – [sā]r·e ///
b1/// (–) – – ·[y]· – – (– –) ·[k]· – nts· [i] – – – ·[y]· ·ts· (–) ·[r]· (– – – –) ·[r]· – – (– – – – –) ///
b2– [ksa] eṣe śmalñe nta nemcek postaṃ tsrelle [a]ke te maṃ weñña suta[r]ne ñäkt[eṃ]nts ñakt[e] p[ū]dñäkte [1] t· –
b3śa maṃ ptesa srukālleṣṣe mād[ā]r se pontaṃ nuk[n]aṃ pontaṃntso akalkanta karstoca : mā yesañ [ma]
b4sañ ka se maṃnt ñya○tse empele mā su nesa śaiṣṣene kuse ksa cenme tsalpauytra 2 saṃsā[ra]
b5nts[e] s̝aññäññe pte○s tve keśa anaiśai śamñe [cm]eltse yänmalyñe olypotse s̝pa waimene
b6ku[ce] twe mentsi yamasta kucene yes mā cämpamo[ñ\] papāṣṣorññe eñcitar mapi lyñi= tve laklemeṃ
b7(–) s̝aññäññeṣṣe maimtsā ñi po añmsa s̝ap weweñor\ nemcek pyam ñi śle-oko pika ment[s]i [a]
b8(–) – mentsisā krui wikalle takoī lakle yesañ seṃ wes rano ṅe mentsine yamyem yesañ ·e ///

Transcription

a1– – ·rä – – ·w· e – wsäṣṣ(e)ñcants(o) onolme(ṃ)ts potkne s(e) st(e) ś(o)läṣṣe srukalyñentse yolopi : walke (kca wes rano ai)-
a2(y)m(o) potke śoläṣṣe wsäskemāne empelye saṃsāräṣṣai kwaṣṣaine : 1 tentse ṣärmtsa kreñ= śamnā tsrelläññeṣṣe puwarsa (ṣäñ a)-
a3-(rä)ñcä tsetsärkkoṣ eṅalyñesā pärskoṣä rerinormeṃ ṣäñ śamnā maitär ik〈e〉śc kekesoṣ : ente eṅäläññe ra (ts)r(elle la)-
a4renmeṃ 2 sportomāne sāṃsarne ṣäññe śomo kuse k〈e〉t ra : ṣärmänmasā śeśśänmoṣ alyaucempa yäneṃ krui nanautarme(ṃ)
a5ṣärmänmats näno yaneṃ waiptār cai : ṣäññeṃ śāmnāṃnts eṅälyñe ṣpä pälkoṣ mäskenträ 3 cents no pestä ykuwermeṃ kuse (su)
a6takoī śle-pälsko pälycä-pälyc ra weru ramt te keś empreṃ tättārmeṃ : tserekwacce läṅwcene ṣäññäññeṣṣe a-
a7-kalksa : yokaiṣṣe śvāl nukowä kuse ceu postäṃ mäkoyträ 4 ponta tärya cmelane mänta ike nesä〈ṃ〉 su : ente (a)-
a8-ñu takoy nta sportomāne saṃsārne tsäkṣträ śaiṣṣe empele ñyatseṣṣe ceu puwa〈r〉ne snai saim-wäste tallaw se te(meṃ)
a9(lä)ntsi päskāya 5 po lläklenta keṣṣeñcai ceu ṣäp yene saim pyamttsait añmalāṣkai käṣṣintse akṣoṣ krentä (p)e-
a10-laikne mäk(t)e ma ṣäp tsrelyeṣṣe tsśiträ näno näno empelye s(p)or(t)oma(n)e (saṃ)sār(n)e (6)
b1/// – – – ·y· – – (– –) ·k· – nts· i – – – ·y· ·ts· – ·r· (– – – –) ·r· – – (– – – – –) ///
b2(kuse) ksa eṣe śmälñe nta nemcek postäṃ tsrelle ake te mäṃ weñña sutärne ñäkteṃnts ñakte pūdñäkte 1 t(e tve)
b3(ke)śä mäṃ ptesä srukālleṣṣe mādār se pontäṃ nuknaṃ pontäṃntso akalkänta kärstoca : yesäñ ma
b4(we)säñ ka se mäṃnt ñyatse empele su nesä〈ṃ〉 śaiṣṣene kuse ksa cenme〈ṃ〉 tsälpauyträ 2 saṃsārä-
b5ntse ṣäññäññe ptes tve keśä anaiśai śamñe cmeltse yänmalyñe olypotse ṣpä waimene
b6kuce twe mentsi yamästä kucene yes cämpämoñ papāṣṣorññe eñcitar mäpi lyñi= tve läklemeṃ
b7(3) ṣäññäññeṣṣe maimtsā ñi po añmsa ṣäp weweñor nemcek pyam ñi śle-oko pika mentsi a-
b8(ñmameṃ) mentsisā krui wikalle takoī läkle yesäñ seṃ wes rano ṅe mentsine yamyem yesäñ (r)e(kisa 4)

Translation

a1For the beings dwelling ..., this share of life is for evil death. Within long we too will give
a2[our] share of life, dwelling in the horrible saṃsāra village. 1. For this reason the good people are tormented [in] their hearts by the fire of separation
a3[and] frightened by passion. Having left behind their relatives they went to the extinguished place (= the nirvāṇa), where [there is] no passion and no separation
a4from the dear ones. 2. Who is in the turning saṃsāra the relative of someone else? If they are bound by causes, they go together with each other,
a5[but] when the causes have disappeared they go separate ways again and have no eye for the passion of their relatives [anymore]. 3. Who has gone away [from] them
a6should be intelligent, also having paid attention to this truth: [it is] fleeting like a bubble. [Only] who out of selfishness in deceptive carelessness
a7has swallowed the bait of thirst might run after him. 4. In all three births there is no place where there
a8would be any cessation in the turning saṃsāra. The world burns in the horrible fire of distress. The miserable one who [is] without help and stay:
a9try to get out of it! 5. And from the extinguisher of all sorrows you both should seek refuge, from the good law taught by the compassionate teacher,
a10so that you will not also burn ... in the horrible saṃsāra that is turning again [and] again. (6.)
b1...
b2(What)ever coming together [it is], having to be separated afterwards is certainly the end. So spoke in the sūtra the Buddha, the god of gods. 1.
b3Pay thus attention to this: this sea monster of death swallows all [and] is cutting off the wishes of all. Not yours,
b4not ours [is] such horrible distress: there is nobody in the world who could be redeemed from that. 2.
b5Pay careful attention to the nature of the saṃsāra and [the fact that] the human birth [form] is very difficult to attain.
b6What grief have you caused? Wherein have you [pl.] been powerless? You should keep to the morals, so that you get out of sorrow. (3.)
b7[This is] what I have said with all my soul in judgment of my own nature. Make me certainly fruitful! Drive away grief from my soul! If this sorrow of yours could be driven away by grief, then we would also in [our] grief act (according to) your (word. 4.)

Philological commentary


Text notes

a1, beginning: the restoration (sportomāne saṃsārne) of Krause and Thomas, TEB II: 61 is excluded by the manuscript.
a1 potkne: almost certainly a mistake for potke, i.e. pautke.
a1 s(e): the restoration s(u) of TochSprR(B) II: 185 is excluded by the manuscript.
a3 tsets[ä]rkkos̝\: TochSprR(B) II: 185 read tsetsarkkos̝\.
a5-6: especially the first two pādas of the fourth strophe are difficult. It is clear that pälycä-pälyc ra weru ramt is a quote or the content of a thought. According to the punctuation in Krause and Thomas, TEB II: 61 (where no translation is given), their interpretation is approximately 'Might he who has gone away [from] them be with this thought: "[it is] fleeting like a bubble", also having paid true attention to this?' However, it is questionable whether śle pälsko can be interpreted that way; one would rather have expected kete takoī se pälsko. Therefore, śle-pälsko is more likely to be a compound with the meaning 'intelligent' (see Adams, 2DoT: 680). In my translation, I have assumed a rather free word order in the relevant line, taking pälycä-pälyc weru ramt as the content of the following empreṃ (alternatively, it could be te, i.e. 'having paid true attention to this: ...'), and ra 'also' with the second half of the pāda.
a6: perhaps an alternative translation could be: '[Only] who out of the selfish wish for deceptive easiness has swallowed ...'.
a6 tattārmeṃ :: the dots are placed not to the right, but on top of and under the akṣara ‹rmeṃ›.
a9 yene: the dual is remarkable. Perhaps it refers to the two types of persion described in strophe 4.
a9 pyamttsait\: sic, with regular final ‹t›.
b2 (kuse): the restoration is uncertain. Ink traces can be discerned, but the manuscript is very abraded here. Krause and Thomas, TEB II: 62 restore , which would give something like: 'There is (not) any coming together at all – having to be separated afterwards is certainly the end.' I find this interpretation a little less logical.
b2 tsrelle ake: the reading ‹lle› is not obvious, since there is also an ā-stroke, and the akṣara ‹a› has been added later. Therefore, the original text was probably tsrell= āke, which would also make the metre fit.
b2 t(e tve): this restoration is uncertain. The akṣara trace actually remaining is much smaller than is needed for ‹tv›, but perhaps the manuscript is abraded. In any case, the restoration t(usa) in Krause and Thomas, TEB II: 62 is excluded by the manuscript.
b8 (r)e(kisa): restoration according to TochSprR(B) II: 186. The restoration is uncertain because an element under the ‹ñ› can be discerned that would perhaps rather point to ‹ñ[ñ]e› than ‹ñ[r]e›.

Palaeography

The script of the fragment has archaic features: ‹a› is open; ‹ma› has a cross; ‹na› is a triangle with one angle down (pace TochSprR(B) II: 185, ‹ma› and ‹na› are clearly distinct). However, ‹ma› is mostly closed and ‹ka› and ‹a› are not archaic; ‹o› has a short stroke up. All in all, the script is archaic, but of a relatively late type.
‹pa› is mostly closed on top, but still distinct from ‹ṣa›, whose horizontal closing bar is lower than the top of the vertical strokes.
‹v› for ‹w› is found three times: a7 śvāl, b5, b6 tve.

Metrical analysis

Both poems are in a rather regular 4 x 7 ¦ 7 metre, apparently without indication of the tune name. In view of the irregular writing, it is striking that the metre is regular almost throughout. Small irregularities are a3 ente mā eṅäläññe with 3+4 instead of 4+3 and b2 nemcek postäṃ tsrelle ake with 4+4 instead 4+3, probably to be read as nemcek postäṃ tsrell= āke (see also the text notes above).

[a1] – – ·rä – – ·w· e – ¦ wsäṣṣ(e)ñcants(o) onolme(ṃ)ts [1a]
potkne s(e) st(e) ś(o)läṣṣe ¦ srukalyñentse yolopi : [1b]
mā walke (kca wes rano ¦ ai)[a2](y)m(o) potke śoläṣṣe [1c]
wsäskemāne empelye ¦ saṃsāräṣṣai kwaṣṣaine : 1
tentse ṣärmtsa kreñ= śamnā ¦ tsrelläññeṣṣe puwarsa [2a]
(ṣäñ a)[a3](rä)ñcä tsetsärkkoṣ ¦ eṅalyñesā pärskoṣä [2b]
rerinormeṃ ṣäñ śamnā ¦ maitär ik〈e〉śc kekesoṣ : [2c]
ente mā eṅäläññe ¦ mā ra (ts)r(elle la)[a4]renmeṃ 2
sportomāne sāṃsarne ¦ ṣäññe śomo kuse k〈e〉t ra : [3a]
ṣärmänmasā śeśśänmoṣ ¦ alyaucempa yäneṃ krui [3b]
nanautarme(ṃ) [a5] ṣärmänmats ¦ näno yaneṃ waiptār cai : [3c]
ṣäññeṃ śāmnāṃnts eṅälyñe mā ṣpä pälkoṣ mäskenträ 3
cents no pestä ykuwermeṃ ¦ kuse (su) [a6] takoi śle-pälsko [4a]
pälycä-pälyc ra weru ramt ¦ te keś empreṃ tättārmeṃ : [4b]
tserekwacce läṅwcene ¦ ṣäññäññeṣṣe a[a7]kalksa : [4c]
yokaiṣṣe śvāl nukowä ¦ kuse ceu postäṃ mäkoyträ 4
ponta tärya cmelane ¦ mänta ike nesä〈ṃ〉 su : [5a]
ente (a)[a8]ñu takoy nta ¦ sportomāne saṃsārne [5b]
tsäkṣträ śaiṣṣe empele ¦ ñyatseṣṣe ceu puwa〈r〉ne [5c]
snai saim wäste tallaw se ¦ te(meṃ) [a9] (lä)ntsi päskāya 5
po lläklenta keṣṣeñcai ¦ ceu ṣäp yene saim pyamttsait [6a]
añmalāṣkai käṣṣintse ¦ akṣoṣ krentä (p)e[a10]laikne [6b]
mäk(t)e ma ṣäp tsrelyeṣṣe ¦ tsśiträ [6c]
näno näno empelye ¦ s(p)or(t)oma(n)e (saṃ)sār(n)e (6)
[b1] – – – – – – – ¦ – – – – – – – [1a]
– – – – – – – ¦ – – – – – – – [1b]
[b2] (kuse) ksa eṣe śmälñe nta ¦ nemcek postäṃ tsrelle ake [1c]
te mäṃ weñña sutärne ¦ ñäkteṃnts ñakte pūdñäkte 1
t(e tve) [b3] (ke)śä mäṃ ptesä ¦ srukālleṣṣe mādār se [2a]
pontäṃ nuknaṃ pontäṃntso ¦ akalkänta kärstoca : [2b]
mā yesäñ ma [b4] (we)säñ ka ¦ se mäṃnt ñyatse empele [2c]
mā su nesä〈ṃ〉 śaiṣṣene ¦ kuse ksa cenme〈ṃ〉 tsälpauyträ 2
saṃsārä[b5]ntse ṣäññäññe ¦ ptes tve keśä anaiśai [3a]
śamñe cmeltse yänmalyñe ¦ olypotse ṣpä waimene [3b]
[b6] kuce twe mentsi yamästä ¦ kucene yes mā cämpämoñ [3c]
papāṣṣorññe eñcitar ¦ mäpi lyñi= tve läklemeṃ [b7] (3)
ṣäññäññeṣṣe maimtsā ñi ¦ po añmsa ṣäp weweñor [4a]
nemcek pyam ñi śle-oko ¦ pika mentsi a[b8](ñmameṃ) [4b]
mentsisā krui wikalle ¦ takoi läkle yesäñ seṃ [4c]
wes rano ṅe mentsine ¦ yamyem yesäñ ·e /// [4d]

Linguistic commentary

The language of the fragment is archaic, i.e. archaic-I in the sense of Peyrot 2008. /ə/ is mostly written ‹ä›, irrespective of the accent, and ‹ā› for /a/ is found in unaccented position as well as ‹a› in accented position. For statistics, see the tables in Peyrot 2008: 34–36. Other late features, such as ṣc for śc or the diphthong eu are not found.
A striking peculiarity of this fragment is the spelling ‹ṅ› for ‹ṅk› before vowel: a3 eṅalyñesā; a3 eṅäläññe; a5 eṅälyñe; b8 ṅe (cf. Peyrot 2008: 178–179). Although this phenomenon is rare, it is not unique and clearly confined to archaic texts, compare IOL Toch 22 a5, IOL Toch 80 b4, and THT 2381.h b4.
Mobile -o is found once, b3 pontäṃntso, against eight times final : a3 (arä)ñcä, a3 pärskoṣä, a5 pestä, a7 nukowä, a9 krentä, b3 ptesä, b5 keśä, b6 yamästä.
Unexpected gemination is often found: a2 kwaṣṣaine, a3 tsetsärkkoṣ, a9 pyamttsait (probably not to be read pyamntsait in this archaic text, cf. Peyrot 2008: 155–157), a9 lläklenta, b2 weñña; and perhaps a9 keṣṣeñcai (cf. Peyrot 2013: 567–568). On the other hand, the spelling of n before t as ‹ṃn› seems to be regular and need not indicate gemination: a5 śāmnāṃnts, b2 ñäkteṃnts, b3 pontäṃntso, b4 mäṃnt. Remarkably, no gemination is found in a4, a8 sportomāne for sporttomane.
"Stretching" with unusual ä-epenthesis is found in the following cases: a2 saṃsāräṣṣai, a2 tsrelläññeṣṣe, a3 eṅäläññe, b4–5 saṃsāräntse.
Instead of a verbal noun a gerund is found two times: a10 tsrelyeṣṣe, b3 srukālleṣṣe. Also b2 tsrelle could syntactically be interpreted as a verbal noun. However, correct verbal nouns are more frequent: a1 srukalyñentse, a2 tsrelläññeṣṣe, a3 eṅalyñesā, a3 eṅäläññe, a5 eṅälyñe, b2 śmälñe, b5 yänmalyñe.
The scribe seems to have had no opposition between o and au, as the two are mixed up in writing. Most frequent is o for au: a1 potkn(e) (for pautke), a2 potke, a2 śoläṣṣe, a4 śomo, b3 kärstoca. The reverse spelling au for o is also found: b4 tsälpauyträ. There is only one case of au for archaic au: a4 nanauta(r)meṃ. Also, the scribe does not seem to have had the archaic diphthong ew other than in ceu, since au is found for archaic ew in a4 alyaucempa.
Unlike o and au, e and ai are distinguished regularly. Two exceptions are a2 empelye for empelyai and a9 añmalāṣkai for añmalāṣkeṃ, both perhaps morphological rather than phonological mistakes.
The word mant is spelled mäṃ in b2, b3, but mäṃnt in b4.
Anusvāra has to be added against the manuscript in the following instances: a7, b4 nesä〈ṃ〉, b4 cenme〈ṃ〉.

References

IDP: THT 295, TITUS: THT 295
Edition: TochSprR(B) II: 185-186; Krause and Thomas, TEB II: 61–62.
Translation: a1 Hackstein 1995: 218; a2 Carling 2000: 164, Hackstein 1995: 218; a2-3 Hackstein 1995: 193, Krause, WTG: 35; Carling 2000: 136, Carling 2000: 91, Thomas 1952: 55, Thomas 1983: 22; a4 Krause and Thomas, TEB II: 61; a4-5 Thomas 1957: 274, Thomas 1986: 136; Peyrot 2013: 386; a5 Krause and Thomas, TEB II: 61; a6-7 Schmidt KT 1974: 275, Thomas 1957: 292; a7 Carling 2000: 244, Thomas 1997: 78; a7-8 Thomas 1970a: 466; a8 Carling 2000: 137; a8-9 Thomas 1954: 720; a9-10 Schmidt KT 1974: 134, 434; a10 Hackstein 1995: 90, Thomas 1952: 55, Thomas 1986: 141; b2 Thomas 1952: 55; b3 Thomas 1997: 89; b4 Schmidt KT 1974: 117, Thomas 1970a: 466, TochSprR(B)2: 248; b4-5 Thomas 1958a: 166, Thomas 1967c: 174; b4-6 Peyrot 2013: 366; b5 Thomas 1952: 52, Thomas 1983: 20; b6 Peyrot 2013: 366; b7 Thomas 1967c: 172, Thomas 1979d: 151; b8 Hackstein 1995: 134, Thomas 1952: 31

Editors

Michaël Peyrot

Bibliography

Adams, 2DoT

Douglas Q. Adams, 2013: A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Revised and greatly enlarged. 2nd edn. vol. I-II, Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.

Carling 2000

Carling, Gerd, 2000: Die Funktion der lokalen Kasus im Tocharischen, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Hackstein 1995

Hackstein, Olav, 1995: Untersuchungen zu den sigmatischen Präsensstammbildungen des Tocharischen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (HS Erg.-Heft 38).

Krause and Thomas, TEB II

Tocharisches Elementarbuch, Band II. Texte und Glossar, von Werner Thomas unter Mitwirkung von Wolfgang Krause, Heidelberg: Winter 1964.

Krause, WTG

Wolfgang Krause, Westtocharische Grammatik, Band I. Das Verbum, Heidelberg: Winter 1952.

Peyrot 2008

Peyrot, Michaël, 2008: Variation and change in Tocharian B, Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 15).

Peyrot 2013

Peyrot, Michaël, 2013: The Tocharian subjunctive, A study in syntax and verbal stem formation. (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 8.) Leiden / Boston: Brill.

Schmidt KT 1974

Schmidt, Klaus T., 1974: Die Gebrauchsweisen des Mediums im Tocharischen, Univ. Göttingen.

Thomas 1952

Thomas, Werner, 1952: Die tocharischen Verbaladjektive auf -l, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Deutsche Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung 9).

Thomas 1954

Thomas, Werner, 1954: "Die Infinitive im Tocharischen", Asiatica. Festschrift Friedrich Weller. Zum 65. Geburtstag, gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 701-764.

Thomas 1957

Thomas, Werner, 1957: Der Gebrauch der Vergangenheitstempora im Tocharischen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Thomas 1958a

Thomas, Werner, 1958a: "Zum Ausdruck der Komparation beim tocharischen Adjektiv", Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 75, 129-169.

Thomas 1967c

Thomas, Werner, 1967c: "Zu wortverbindendem toch. A śkaṃ/ B ṣpä", Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 81, 161-180.

Thomas 1970a

Thomas, Werner, 1970a: "Zu einigen Besonderheiten der tocharischen Syntax", Orbis 19, 452-472.

Thomas 1979d

Thomas, Werner, 1979d: "Zur Verwendung von A śla, B śale, śle im Tocharischen", Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 93, 150-173.

Thomas 1983

Thomas, Werner, 1983: Der tocharische Obliquus im Sinne eines Akkusativs der Richtung, Mainz: Verlag d. Akad. d. Wissenschaften und d. Literatur (Abhandlungen d. Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1983, 6).

Thomas 1986

Thomas, Werner, 1986: "Zur Stellung von toch. A nuṃ, B nano 'wieder' innerhalb des Satzes", Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 99, 117-146.

Thomas 1997

Thomas, Werner, 1997: Interpretationsprobleme im Tocharischen. Unflektiertes A puk, B po 'ganz, all, jeder', Stuttgart: Steiner (SbWGF XXXV, 3).

THT

Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien. TITUS. Tocharian Manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan Collection. Transcriptions prepared by Christiane Schaefer, transliterations by Tatsushi Tamai and transliterations by Katharina Kupfer. Edited by Jost Gippert, Katharina Kupfer, and Tatsushi Tamai, Frankfurt am Main, 2000-2007; at: http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/tocharic/thtframe.htm

TochSprR(B) II

TochSprR(B) II: Tocharische Sprachreste. Sprache B, hg. v. †E. Sieg und †W. Siegling, Heft 2. Fragmente Nr. 71-633, aus dem Nachlaß hg. v. Werner Thomas, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1953.

TochSprR(B)2

Tocharische Sprachreste. Sprache B. Teil I: Die Texte. Band 1. Fragmente Nr. 1-116 der Berliner Sammlung, hg. v. †Emil Sieg und †Wilhelm Siegling, neubearbeitet und mit einem Kommentar nebst Register versehen v. Werner Thomas, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1983.

http://www.univie.ac.at/tocharian/?THT 295
Output automatically generated on Wed, 2014-04-16, 15:29:53.
Page last edited on Tue, 2014-02-04, 17:45:39, by Michaël Peyrot. Version 69.
Page created on Sat, 2012-03-17, 18:50:07, by Automatic conversion.