A Dictionary of Tocharian B

980 Pages·2013·8.421 MB·English

by  Douglas Q. Adams

A Dictionary of Tocharian B
Revised and Greatly Enlarged
10
LEIDEN STUDIES IN INDO-EUROPEAN
Series edited by
R.S.P. Beekes
A. Lubotsky
J.J.S. Weitenberg†
A Dictionary of Tocharian B
Revised and Greatly Enlarged
Douglas Q. Adams
Amsterdam - New York, NY 2013
Second edition, revised and greatly enlarged
The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO
9706: 1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents -
Requirements for permanence”.
ISBN Volume 1: 978-90-420-3672-7
ISBN Volume 2: 978-90-420-3673-4
Set ISBN (Volume 1 and 2): 978-90-420-3671-0
E-Book ISBN: 978-94-012-0936-6
©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2013
Printed in The Netherlands
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ........................................................................................................... vii
Abbreviations and Symbols ................................................................................. xiii
Dictionary A-TS ................................................................................................... 1
English-Tocharian B reverse index .................................................................... 815
Index verborum ................................................................................................... 877
Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 933
INTRODUCTION

Purpose
In this second edition of A Dictionary of Tocharian B its purpose remains
twofold. Firstly, it is a dictionary, in the ordinary sense, of Tocharian B (or, more
properly, Kuchean, the language of Kucha and the Kuchean Kingdom), attested
from the fourth through at least the ninth centuries of our era along the northern
rim of the Tarim Basin, in the Turfan basin to the northeast, and with outlying
finds on the southern rim of the Tarim basin and in Dunhuang in Gansu. Thus
the dictionary’s entries have been glossed with enough detail, and provided with
sufficient grammatical explanation and examples, that the user can employ it
profitably in reading and interpreting actual Tocharian B texts. The dictionary
attempts to treat fully the currently known Tocharian B vocabulary, including for
instance all proper names and a host of rare technical terms borrowed from
Buddhist (Hybrid) Sanskrit. Secondly, it is an etymological dictionary of the
language and thus an aid to understanding the place of Tocharian within the Indo-
European language family. Defining, translating, and etymologizing, particularly
in a language as fragmentarily known as Tocharian B, are not exact sciences;
readers are cautioned to take the question marks and “possibly’s,” etc., at full
value and should, no doubt, add many of their own.
In the fifteen years since the publication of the first edition, those interested in
Tocharian have witnessed a flourishing of Tocharian studies. Available to me
now, but not in the nineties, are the full inclusion of words appearing in the
Karmav(cid:1)cana and in Broomhead’s edition of the British Library texts.
Revolutionizing the field are the re-edition of the British Library texts, published
on-line by the International Dunhuang project, and the on-line publication of the
Berlin collection as part of TITUS. These published pictures and texts have
supplied the dictionary with a not inconsiderable group of new words and filled
out the paradigms further of scores of words already in the first edition. Together
with texts published more conventionally, particularly by Pinault from the Paris
collection, these new sources have produced an increase of almost exactly 20% in
the dictionary’s entries. An even grander revolution is under way in the form of
the Comprehensive Edition of Tocharian Manuscripts (CEToM) project just
begun in Vienna which aims to make digitally accessible all Tocharian
manuscripts, wherever their physical location may be. The first fruits thereof
have been included here.
Among an increasing list of books and articles published on Tocharian topics
(semantics, grammar, etymology), three major works must be singled out:
Pinault’s Chrestomathie Tokharienne: Textes et Grammaire (2008), Peyrot’s
Variation and Change in Tocharian B (2008), and Malzahn’s The Tocharian
Verbal System (2010). Particularly the latter two are “game-changing” for
Tocharianists. Peyrot, building on the earlier, and neglected, work of Stumpf, has
demonstrated conclusively that Tocharian B has an internal history. We have
viii Introduction
texts dating from the fifth, perhaps even the fourth, century AD until at least the
9th century. Not surprisingly, the language shows significant linguistic develop-
ment within that period. One result for the dictionary is that the examples in the
various entries have been reordered so as to put the earliest attestation first and
the later ones last. An incomplete search for earlier, or later, attestations has been
made so as to show a certain sense of historical development, but more needs to
be done in this area before we truly have a dictionary of Tocharian B “on
historical principles.” Malzahn’s encyclopedic discussion of the Tocharian verb
has informed every verb entry in the dictionary and made many of them better
and more complete. In almost all cases where we originally differed, I have
conformed the dictionary to her work. There are a few places where our under-
standing of the facts differ, however (e.g., auk-), and there are a few (some
fifteen) ‘late arrivals’ (e.g., kwänt-, (cid:1)äp-, wey-), so the Tocharianist still has to
read both works.
Other improvements have included the complete redoing of the definitions of
botanical terms, both as to the provision of an English equivalent and the
provision of a Linnaean name. In many instances there is more than one English
name and/or more than one competing Linnaean name. Often I have given more
than one competing Linnaean name where they occur. Obsolete Linnaean names
are sometimes added parenthetically, preceded by “aka.” The reader should
always keep in mind that botanical classification is never fixed but always
evolving.
On the etymological side, scores of etymologies have been revised or
reconsidered. I have been able to take into account the wonderful new series of
Indo-European etymological dictionaries coming out of Leiden (the Slavic,
Hittite, Iranian, Latin, Celtic, Greek, and Armenian ones having appeared and
been incorporated into this work). The Carling, Pinault, Winter dictionary of
Tocharian A has been fully taken into account, insofar as it has been published.

How to Read an Entry
Entries in this dictionary may consist of the following parts: (1) the lemma
itself (in bold), (2) designation of word class (in parentheses), (3) gloss, [and, in a
second paragraph] (4) morphological information, (5) textual examples and text
references, (6) run-on entries, (7) special notes (preceded by the symbol (cid:1)), (8)
etymological notes (preceded by the symbol (cid:2)), and (9) cross-references ((cid:3)).
Not all entries of course contain each of these parts: the shape of the lemma is
dependent on the type of word in question; in the case of uninflected words for
instance there will of course be no morphological information. All citations to
the London and Berlin texts (save those published in Tocharische Sprachreste)
have been updated so as to give and their current Berlin press marks (THT) and
London press marks (IT, short for IOL Toch).
(1) Words in Tocharian B may be divided formally into two groups: those
with inflection and those without. For the latter group, composed of prepositions,
postpositions, adverbs, particles, most numbers, and a small number of
adjectives, the shape of the lemma is a simple matter—it is the sole form of the
word. Inflected words, nouns, verbs, and most adjectives, are, of course, a bit
Introduction ix
more complicated. Nouns and adjectives are normally given in their nominative
singular form (nominative singular masculine in the case of adjectives). If the
nominative singular (masculine) is not actually attested, its probable form is
reconstructed and given with a following asterisk. Occasionally, when only the
plural (less often the dual) is attested (and particularly when there is some
likelihood that the noun in question is a plurale or duale tantum), the nominative
plural (dual) is taken as the appropriate lemma. Verbs are given in their root
form and thus end in a hyphen. (Occasionally other words are known only
fragmentarily and they will also end in a hyphen.)
(2) The designation of the class of the word is fairly simple in the case of
most parts of speech. For nouns and verbs it is more complex. For nouns an
indication of gender is given where it is known (nouns may be masculine,
feminine, or neuter—the latter being nouns with masculine concord in the
singular and feminine concord in the plural). For verbs there is an indication of
transitivity, transitive or intransitive (with the understanding that a transitive verb
may always be made intransitive by passivization). Verbs that are marked as
both are those with an underlying intransitive “Grundverb” and a derived
transitive causative (which in turn may be passivized). The semantic subset to
which a particular causative belongs (according to the analysis of Malzahn
[2010]) is indicated by a superscript number.
(3) As suggested above, the gloss is intended to be relatively specific (and
thus more likely to provoke correction). The gloss may also include on occasion
particular set phrases or idioms of which the lemma forms a part. The numerous
botanical terms (almost always from some medical formula, are supplied with the
parenthetical notation, “a medical ingredient” or sometimes simply “MI”).
(4) For inflected words the attested inflected forms are given between square
brackets. (The universe of attested forms is substantially complete for texts
published in books and articles; it is not complete for texts published on-line by
THT or IDP.) In the case of nouns attested forms are given in the order:
nominative singular, genitive singular, accusative singular, nominative dual,
genitive dual, accusative dual, nominative plural, genitive plural, accusative
plural. The numbers, singular, dual, and plural, are separated by slashes. If a
form is not attested, its place is taken by a hyphen. Thus for raso (n.[m.sg.])
‘span’ we have “[raso, -, raso/rsoñc, -, -/rsonta, -, -]” indicating that in the
singular both the nominative and accusative are attested but no genitive, while in
the dual and plural only the nominatives are as yet found. For pat (nnt.) ‘st(cid:4)pa’
we have “[pat, ptantse, pat//-, -, ptanma]” indicating that all three forms of the
singular are attested but there are no dual forms and only the accusative plural is
attested for that number. Where known, the vocative form is given, in paren-
theses, after the corresponding accusative, thus for wa(cid:2)amo (nm.) ‘friend’ we
have “[wa(cid:5)amo ~ w(cid:6)(cid:5)mo, wa(cid:5)amontse ~ w(cid:6)(cid:5)montse, wa(cid:5)amo(cid:7) (voc. wa(cid:5)ama)/
/wa(cid:5)amoñ ~ w(cid:6)(cid:5)moñ, w(cid:6)(cid:5)mo(cid:7)ts, w(cid:6)(cid:5)mo(cid:7)].” This latter entry illustrates another
possible complexity, the existence of alternative forms. Where alternative forms
are known, they are given separated, as here, by a swung dash. The lack of an
attested alternative, as in the genitive and accusative plural, of course does not
mean that such did not exist. In this, and similar cases, the second (or only)
x Introduction
alternative is one found exclusively in poetry. Underlyingly the noun is
/w(cid:6)(cid:5)ä(cid:8)mon-/ and appears always in prose, and presumably in speech, as
[wa(cid:5)ámon-]; when metrically necessary the stress may shift, giving [w(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:5)mon-].
The inflected forms of the adjective are shown in exactly the same way, though
they will have both masculine and feminine forms and thus the potential array of
forms is doubled and each part preceded by a “m.” for masculine or an “f.” for
feminine as needs be.
Verbs are of course more complex yet, but follow the same basic format,
though the three divisions are the first, second, and third persons rather than
nominative, genitive, and accusative. Thus for the present-stem forms of pär-
‘bear (away), carry (off); take up; wear’ we have “[A -, -, parä(cid:7)//-, parcer,
pare(cid:7); AImpf. //-, -, priye(cid:7); nt-Part. preñca; m-Part premane; Ger. pralle]”
indicating that in the present active (a combination which is unique in not being
explicitly marked in the dictionary) the third person singular and the second and
third persons plural, in the active imperfect the third person plural is known,
while of the non-finite forms belonging to the present-stem we know both the nt-
and m-participles as well as the gerund. (As an adjectival form the gerund is
given in the masculine singular nominative; if the masculine singular nominative
is not actually attested, it is reconstructed and given with a following asterisk.)
Where securely known, the underlying place of the stress is also given for each
paradigm. One should also note that in the case of verbs the inflected forms and
examples are divided among the attested tenses and moods.
(5) The textual examples have been chosen to illustrate the various meanings
of the word and to give some idea of the collocations into which it may enter.
Unsystematically, examples have also been chosen to highlight a word’s presence
in Archaic ([4th and] 5th centuries AD) or Early Tocharian B (6th century). To
emphasize the time depth of the attestation of Tocharian B, all exemplifying texts
have been “dated” where possible by the addition of Peyrot’s designation of
linguistic periods. (Classical Tocharian B texts are attested from the beginning of
the 7th century onward. To include, with greater regularity, attestations in Late
or Colloquial Tocharian B [7th-9th centuries] is a desideratum of the next
edition.) In poetic texts some attempt has been made to include verse
punctuation (: and •) and verse numbering, which may be read as “here ends
(cid:2)loka/stanza such-and-such”), since those punctuation marks so often delimit
syntactic units of some sort. The translations are designed to maximize the
possibilities of one-to-one correspondence with the Tocharian B original, even at
the sacrifice of elegance or even, at times, ordinary English word order. Words
inserted for the sense in the English but which have no Tocharian B
correspondent are placed in square brackets (except for articles and other “little
words” which are added without comment). Particular care is taken to cite all the
attested Buddhist (Hybrid) Sanskrit (B[H]S) equivalents of Tocharian B words,
since so much of our knowledge of Tocharian B vocabulary comes from the fact
that a majority of our Tocharian B texts are translations of B(H)S originals.
(B[H]S is an admittedly unsatisfactory cover-term which takes in a wide variety
of Sanskrit and somewhat Sanskritized Middle Indic used by Buddhists but no
simple equivalent can be substituted. In most cases we have no idea the exact