The second edition of A Dictionary of Tocharian B includes substantially all Tocharian B words found in regularly published texts, as well as all those of the. A dictionary of Tocharian B first appeared in and has been a standard work ever since. It combines very successfully and practically a diachronic. A Dictionary of Tocharian B is the first major dictionary of either Tocharian language to appear. It attempts to include all known Tocharian B words.

Author: Shaktisho Shakabei
Country: Papua New Guinea
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Video
Published (Last): 19 May 2015
Pages: 140
PDF File Size: 17.41 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.60 Mb
ISBN: 454-7-56082-608-4
Downloads: 45905
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dashicage

But the meaning, and hence the etymology, is most speculative.

A Dictionary of Tocharian B (2 Vols.)

For another, see H: We have here a remarkable Balto-Slavo-Tocharian correspondence. Semantic parallels are assembled by Buck Neither suggestion carries conviction.

Not a designation for Tocharian A as has occasionally been supposed. See also ke u. The second edition of A Dictionary of Tocharian B includes substantially all Tocharian B words found in tochharian published texts, as well as all those of the London and Paris collections published digitally digital publication of the Paris collection is still incompleteand a substantial number of the Berlin collection published digitally.

The alternation of – ll – and – ly – in the feminine does not follow the pattern of palatalization in third person pronouns or the adjectives in – tstse where the feminine is strictly unpalatalized. Nor does it match the privatives in – tte masculine: The overall approach is decidedly philological.


In Greek we see generalization of the stem vowel originally proper to the singular, e. This is not the type of word that one expects to be borrowed and, moreover, such a theory does not account for the stem formation. In a parallel text H Tochariab voicing and aspiration of the initial consonant cannot be determined on the basis of the Hittite and Tocharian evidence. Extra-Tocharian connections are less certain than sometimes assumed.

One would expect – tstse rather than – tse. For a suggestion, VW: With the vowel o – we have: Librarian administrators click here. As always the initial consonant of the reduplicating syllable in Tocharian agrees in palatalization or its lack with the initial consonant of the root.

A Dictionary of Tocharian B – Douglas Q. Adams – Google Books

Other suggestions seem less likely. He also takes the Tocharian B forms as borrowings from Tocharian A–an impossible solution to my mind as, inter tocharoanthere is no tot attested in Tocharian A. See ente and intsu. Each word is given in tochaarian its various attested morphological forms, in its variant spellings, and discussed semantically, syntactically where appropriateand etymologically.

It is difficult to reconstruct the original paradigm for this word. Not with Hilmarsson b: Conversely Greek shows a full-grade of the second syllable and the Germanic forms zero-grade. It has been heavily, and confusingly, corrected or perhaps better, revised by a second hand, presumably to provide a more intelligible rendition. Much less likely is Hilmarsson’s suggestion H: Most likely the A form has been borrowed or at least influenced dictionry the B word. For the Tocharian, see Adams a: Both semantic identification and etymology are Pinault’s He was co-author with James P.


In Tocharian we have a semantic shift from physical possession to mental possession. See also er-ersnaand erepate. See also possibly olyi. Krause and Thomas give in their grammar, but not in their lexicon, the TchA acc.

All words except proper names are provided with example contexts. See also eye and aiyye. Further connections are obscure. For another suggestion see H: A Dictionary of Tocharian B: The preceding entry would appear to be the verbal adjective of the same verb. In both languages the plural of this noun is analogical.

Certainly not with VW: We should note particularly those forms with a t -suffix of some sort: None of these explanations is particularly compelling tochagian either the semantic or morphological point of view.

In none of these cases is the formal or semantic equation exceptionally strong. See also Hilmarsson, The situation with regard to extra-Tocharian connections is confused too. Alternatively as Melchert suggests p.

A dictionary of Tocharian B

Perhaps with VW I entreat thee and call to thee with a wish! One should note with Melchert that the – it occurs with both thematic and athematic nouns. If so, it would strengthen VW’s comparison A Dictionary of Tocharian B.: