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.
For the beings dwelling ..., this share of life is for evil death. Within long we too will give
[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
[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
from 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,
[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
should be intelligent, also having paid attention to this truth: [it is] fleeting like a bubble. [Only] who out of selfishness in deceptive carelessness
has swallowed the bait of thirst might run after him. 4. In all three births there is no place where there
would 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:
try 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,
so that you will not also burn ... in the horrible saṃsāra that is turning again [and] again. (6.)
(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.
Pay thus attention to this: this sea monster of death swallows all [and] is cutting off the wishes of all. Not yours,
not ours [is] such horrible distress: there is nobody in the world who could be redeemed from that. 2.
Pay careful attention to the nature of the saṃsāra and [the fact that] the human birth [form] is very difficult to attain.
What grief have you caused? Wherein have you [pl.] been powerless? You should keep to the morals, so that you get out of sorrow. (3.)
[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.)
a1, beginning: the restoration (sportomāne saṃsārne) of Krause and Thomas, TEB II: 61 is excluded by the manuscript. a1potkne: almost certainly a mistake for potke, i.e. pautke. a1s(e): the restoration s(u) of TochSprR(B) II: 185 is excluded by the manuscript. a3tsets[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 ...'. a6tattārmeṃ :: the dots are placed not to the right, but on top of and under the akṣara ‹rmeṃ›. a9yene: the dual is remarkable. Perhaps it refers to the two types of persion described in strophe 4. a9pyamttsait\: 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 mā, 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. b2tsrelle 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. b2t(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›.
The script of the fragment has archaic features: ‹s̝a› 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.
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).
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 -ä: 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, ToSu: 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〉.
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).
Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS): Tocharian Manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan Collection. Transcriptions prepared by Christiane Schaefer, transliterations by Tatsushi Tamai and 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
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 Sun, 2015-04-19, 14:43:48.
Page last edited on Wed, 2014-09-10, 18:38:05, by Melanie Malzahn. Version 71. Page created on Sat, 2012-03-17, 18:50:07, by Automatic conversion.