Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-b5k59 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T10:18:18.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tocharian Pronominal Declension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Walter Petersen
Walter Petersen*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Tocharian possesses three paradigms of demonstrative pronouns which are characterized by m, n (written -m when final), and s (alternating with ). Compare SSS 168 ff., who rightly maintain that these three paradigms go back to a single kernel. It is also clear that this kernel is the IE stem ∗to- ∗tā- with s-forms in the nom. sing. masc. ∗so, fem. ∗sā. On the other hand the interpretation of the three characteristic consonants as being added particles (SSS 28 f.) cannot be upheld when It is realized that some of these forms correspond in their entirety to IE forms of the same meaning. Thus tērm, the fem, oblique of the first series, is identical with the IE acc. fem. ∗tā-m; and to, the nom. pl. fem, of the third series, is the IE ∗tās of Skt. tāh, Goth, ōs, Lith. tõs. Instead of seeing particles in these elements -m and -s, which from the Tocharian point of view seem secondary additions, we must therefore interpret as IE inheritances as many of the entire forms as possible, and then the others can be understood as formed analogously to these. However, the more precise history of these paradigms can be understood only in the light of the history of the Tocharian nominal declension, for the demonstrative paradigms are the result of the influence of Tocharian nominal paradigms on the inherited pronominal forms of the nominative and accusative (Toch. oblique).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 11 , Issue 3-Part1 , September 1935 , pp. 196 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © 1935 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 SSS here and below stands for Schulze-Sieg-Siegling, Tocharische Grammatik.

2 That IE ā is occasionally represented by Toch. o, which usually develops from an IE u-diphthong, is shown by poke ‘arm’: Skt. bāhú-h, Gr. πχvs (Dor. πχxvs) < IE ∗bhāĝhu-s. The conditions under which this takes place are not known, cf. Fraenkel, IF 50.7; and Petersen, Lang. 9.16.

3 Apparently Tocharian, like Germanic languages, kept intact in monosyllables (probably because usually tonic) certain sounds which dropped in other final syllables, at least when not accented. With the retention of -m and -s in tām and tos contrast, e.g., kukäl ‘wheel’ = Gr. κκλos, ñom ‘name’ = Lat. nõmen. Of course it is not certain whether such apparently perfect correspondences were not at some time subject to analogies which can not longer be traced. At all events the establishing of certain phonetic laws for Tocharian final syllables must wait till the B-dialect can be systematically consulted.

4 The Tocharian word would point to an IE ∗-gno-s with weak root-grade. The reason for the long initial ā- is not clear.

5 The long ā of pācar = IE ∗pēr, Gr. πατ ρ is evidently due to the influence of macar = IE ∗mātēr, Gr. Dor. μτηρ. So also chācar ‘daughter’, with its long ā opposed to IE ∗dhuĝh ēr, Gr. θvγ τηρ. Whether, conversely, the short a of pracar opposed to the long ā of IE ∗bhrātēr, Gr. φρ τηρ ‘clansman’ is due to ar ‘sister’ (> ∗ä ar) is more than dubious because of the dissimilar phonetic structure of the latter.

6 The initial palatal ñ is here due to the following i.

7 In this case -is evidently comes from IE -eĩs or -oĩs, the regular i-stem ending. Whether this is the only source of the i of -is, the most common ending for the genitive singular, is not clear.

8 Of this explanation I consider the first part practically certain, namely the origin of temi from contamination of ∗tāmi and ∗te; for -e is a common fem, ending also for nouns and adjectives, and a fem. gen. ∗te of the demonstrative might be merely a case of the common extension of nominal endings to pronouns. It is not so certain, however, what was the origin of this -e.

9 SSS 178 ff.

10 Except for its strong root-grade kumsam coincides sound for sound with the Skt. gé-cchā-mi and, after subtraction of the -m < IE ∗-mi, with Gr. β -σκω, IE ∗kō.

11 Under unknown conditions the labial element of IE labio-velars is lost in Tocharian, e.g., kärn- occurs beside kum- < ∗gem-, and päk- beside puk- < ∗pek-, cf. Skt. pac-, Gr. πσσω, Lat. coquo. See also Lang 9.20 f.

12 SSS 162 ff.

13 Only (see above) the genitive singular of demonstrative pronouns appears to be based on the oblique.

14 Since there is no unambiguous evidence for an IE ∗n alongside of ∗n (cf. Lang. 6. 181), it is better to assume that ∗nos is also the source of Toch. nä , for there are also other instances in which IE o seems to change to Toch. ä. See the discussion above concerning the demonstrative forms säm and täm.

15 Cf AJP 51.262 f. for the possibility of -om being the original gen. pl. ending.