Two Tocharian Borrowings of Oriental Origin

Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 66 (4), 411 – 416 (2013) DOI: 10.1556/AOrient.66.2013.4.3 TWO TOCHARIAN BORROWINGS OF ORIENTAL ORIGIN KRZYSZTOF TOMASZ WITCZAK Faculty of Philology, Department of Linguistics and Indo-European Studies, University of Łódź ul. Lipowa 81, PL-90-568 Łódź, Poland e-mail: ktw@uni.lodz.pl The present paper examines the origin of two Tocharian animal names, assuming that they were borrowed from an oriental source. The Common Tocharian term for ‘poisonous snake, viper’ (Toch. A rṣal, B arṣ klo) reproduces exactly the Turkic name *arsala:n ‘lion’, whereas the Tocharian B part kto ‘camel’ seems to represent a loanword from East Iranian *pard k(u)-t (pl.) ‘leopards’ (perhaps created by a contamination with Altaic *aktan- ‘a castrated animal’). The phonetic aspects of both derivations are unquestionable. The semantic differences may be explained by the fact that Proto-Tocharians borrowed names of two unknown exotic animals and later they wrongly identified the word with different animals, transferring the Turkish name for ‘lion’ into ‘poisonous snake, viper’ and the Iranian name for ‘leopard’ into ‘camel’. The same process is perfectly attested in Slavonic (e.g. Polish słoń ‘elephant’ < Turkish (dial.) aslan ‘lion’; Pol. wielbłąd ‘camel’ < Greek elephas, -antos ‘elephant’) and many other languages. Key words: historical-comparative linguistics, Tocharian languages, animal names, oriental borrowings, Turkic languages, Iranian languages, semantic change. 1. Toch. A ārṣal, B arṣāklo ‘poisonous snake, viper’ < Turkic *arsala:n ‘lion’ Toch. A rṣal f. ‘venomous snake, viper, dragon’ and Toch. B (Kuchean) arṣ klo f. ‘(poisonous) snake’ are treated as unclear morphologically and etymologically (Hilmarsson 1996, pp. 42–43: “The etymology is disputed”; Adams 1999, p. 24: “Etymology unknown”). They must go back to the Common Tocharian archetype(s) * rṣ lbn- / * rṣ Clbn-,1 which belong(s) to the n-stem nouns. Three different premises suggest a borrowing from a foreign source. Firstly, the long vowel * , attested in 1 The sign C represents a guttural (or perhaps dental) consonant. 0001-6446 / $ 20.00 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 412 KRZYSZTOF TOMASZ WITCZAK the first and second syllable, represents an earlier short a-vocalism, hardly acceptable for the Indo-European language (cf. Lubotsky 1989). Secondly, the dorsal phoneme -ṣ- in the position before the plain vowel - - remains completely unexplained in the historical phonology of the Tocharian languages. It appears to render a foreign sibilant. Thirdly, the Kuchean cluster -kl- differs from Toch. A -l-. This irregular correspondence may be perhaps explained as an untypical adaptation of a secondary cluster *-tl-, but such an inconsistency suggests a loan as well. The most probable source of the borrowing appears in the Turkic languages. In his presentation of the entry arsla:n ‘lion’ Sir Gerard Clauson (1972, p. 238) quotes the following Early Turkic forms denoting ‘lion’: arsla:n, arslan, arıslan, arsalan, arsala:n, aslan, asla:n and also astlan (sic!). The Turkic word in question was borrowed into Mongolian as arslan / arsalan. It should be emphasised that the Common Tocharian archetype * rṣ lbn- corresponds phoneme-by-phoneme to the Turkic form arsala(:)n. The long vowel * in Tocharian derives regularly from the short vowel *ă, which appears in the suggested Turkic source (in two first syllables). The liquids -r- and -l- appear in the same succession and position. The Turkic sibilant -s- is rendered by the Tocharian sibilant -ṣ-, whereas the final nasal sequence seems to be identical in the Turkic and Tocharian names (Turk. -a:n, -an = Common Tocharian -bn-). What is more, the Tocharian B form arṣ klo ‘(poisonous) snake’, containing the cluster -kl-, may be easily explained by the variant Turkic form astlan (if it derives from *arstlan < *arsatlan < *arsalan). All the observations allow for the conclusion that the Turkic name for ‘lion’, *arsala:n, must be a source form for two Tocharian names for ‘poisonous snake, viper, dragon’ (Toch. A rṣal, B arṣ klo). It is obvious that the phonological aspects of the suggested derivation of two Tocharian words are unquestionable and the matter consists in explaining the semantic change of ‘lion’ to ‘poisonous snake’. Though the divergence of the meanings is frequent in case of borrowings, the semantics of the Turkic source form seems so dissimilar to that of the Tocharian borrowings, that it is hardly possible to imagine how and why the suggested change was introduced. However, we must remember that the Slavs borrowed the same Turkic appellative aslan ‘lion’ (< arslan < arsalan) to denote a quite different animal, namely ‘elephant’ (cf. Cz. slon, Russ. сл , Pol. słoń ‘id.’, ChSl. slonovьnъ ‘of ivory’). What is more, the semantic change of ‘a cat-like beast of prey’ to ‘a reptile or amphibian’ (and that in the opposite direction) is well known in the Indo-European languages, e.g. 1. IE. *pr0dos ‘leopard, panther’ (cf. Gk. πά ο , Aeolic π α m. ‘leopard’, Hittite paršanaš ‘id.’) > Indo-Iranian *pr0d- ‘leopard’ (cf. Sogd. pwrδ’nk ‘leopard’; NPers. päläng, Pashto pṛ ng ‘id.’; Khowar purdùm, Phalura purdum ‘leopard’) > Vedic pr0d ku- m. ‘snake’ (RV) next to Skt. pr0d ku- m. ‘tiger, panther’ (lex.); Lahnda parṛ m., parṛī f. ‘leopard’ (< *praḍ - or *pr0ḍ -) (MonierWilliams 1899 [1999], p. 1007; Turner 1966, p. 474, No. 8362). 2. IE. *(s)kordulos m., *(s)kordul - f. ‘lizard, newt’ (cf. Gk. ο ο m. ‘waternewt, Triton palustris’, dial. ο f. ‘a kind of lizard’; Alb. hardhël f. ‘lizard’) > OInd. ś rdūlá m. ‘tiger’ (VS.), also ‘lion’ and ‘panther, leopard’ (lex.) (Monier-Williams 1899 [1999], p. 647; Turner 1966, p. 474, No. 8362). Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013 TWO TOCHARIAN BORROWINGS OF ORIENTAL ORIGIN 413 3. OIr. nath(a)ir, gen. sg. nathrach ‘snake’, also ‘leopard, gl. pantera’ (cf. Holder 1904 [1962], p. 691) < IE. *natr-ik-s f. ‘water-snake’, cf. Lat. natrix, -icis f. ‘water-snake’, 4. OInd. vy la- m. ‘a vicious elephant’, ‘a beast of prey’, ‘snake’ (MBh.) and ‘lion’ (lex.), ‘tiger’ (lex.), ‘hunting leopard’ (lex.) (Monier-Williams 1899, p. 1038), see also Pali v l.a- m. ‘beast of prey, snake’, Singhalese val.a ‘tiger’ (Turner 1966, p. 707, No. 12212). 5. OInd. vyàṅga- m. ‘frog’ (lex.) > Romani beng ‘demon, devil’ vs. Hindi bẽg ‘frog’ (Turner 1966, p. 704, No. 12159). It is also possible to quote a number of examples with double semantics, e.g. 6. OInd. hīra- m. ‘serpent’ and ‘lion’ (lex.). 7. Vedic pr0d ku- m. ‘snake’ (RV) next to Skt. pr0d ku- m. ‘tiger, panther’ (lex.). 8. Singhalese viyala ‘snake’ and ‘tiger, panther’ (Turner 1966, p. 707, No. 12212). Examples 1 –3 demonstrate clearly that the semantic change in question appeared not only in borrowings, but also in some inherited words. It was possible when some tribes wandered (like the Tocharians) to a new territory where they became acquainted with the different fauna and utilised an inherited vocabulary to denote the newly recognised animals. The same or similar process took place when a foreign term denoting an exotic animal was introduced to the vocabulary of their own language. It occurred frequently that such a term (e.g. names for ‘lion’, ‘camel’ or ‘elephant’) was introduced with no good knowledge about its proper designate. Thus the Goths borrowed the Greek name for ‘elephant’, transferring it to denote ‘camel’. The same semantic shift appeared also in the Slavic languages. The Slavs borrowed the Turkic name for ‘lion’, but utilised it to denote ‘elephant’. It is highly probable, therefore, that the ancestors of the Tocharians borrowed an Old Turkic name for ‘lion’ and later (consciously or not) they transferred it into ‘poisonous snake’, probably the most dangerous animal in Chinese Turkestan. The Tocharian personal name rsl ṃ (Adams 1999, p. 53) is said to be borrowed from the Uyghur word for ‘lion’. However, the chronology of borrowing of this proper name is much later than that of the Common Tocharian appellative. 2. Toch. B *partākto ‘camel’ < East Iran. *pardāk(u)-tā- ‘leopards’ The Kuchean name for ‘camel’ is not directly attested. It appears only in the adjective part ktaññe (M-3b1) ‘pertaining to a camel’ (Adams 1999, p. 358), which refers to the spittle (pitkesa). The Tocharian B text, containing the two words, runs as follows: kete ñme t kaṃ tweri ruwyenträ part ktaññe pitkesa ṣarne laikanalle “whoever has the wish [that] the doors might open, [he is] to wash [his] hands with camel spittle”. The meaning of the Tocharian adjective was first established by K. T. Schmidt (1974) and accepted by most Tocharologists (e.g. Isebaert 1980, p. 66; Adams 1999, p. 358; Blažek 2008, p. 39; 2011, p. 74). According to Isebaert (1980, p. 66), the attested adjective part ktaññe allows to reconstruct the Tocharian B noun *part kto ‘camel’ (n-stem), cf. Toch. B kraykaññe Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013 414 KRZYSZTOF TOMASZ WITCZAK adj. ‘pertaining to a chicken’ vs. krayko ‘cock, chicken’. He correctly supposed that the Tocharian name for ‘camel’ was a borrowing from a Middle Iranian source and not a native word. Isebaert offered his own etymology, deriving the Tocharian term in question from an unattested Iranian form *pari-taxta-, related to Avestan pairi-taxti- ‘running around’ and the verb tačat ‘er soll laufen / he should run’. He explained the semantic motivation by analogy to the% Greek term οµα ά ο m. ‘a kind of camel’, which evidently derives from οµα% , -ά ο ‘laufend / running’ (cf. Van Windekens 1988, p. 99). A different etymology was suggested by Van Windekens (1988, p. 100), who treated the Tocharian B name for ‘camel’ as an interdialectal borrowing and derived it from a hypothetical compound *bhorto-aĝto- (liter. ‘carring a burden’, cf. Greek φ ο m. ‘ship’s freight, cargo’, Latin ctus (a perfect participle derived from the verb ago ‘to lead’). He stressed that the two primary verbs are preserved in Tocharian, cf. Toch. AB pär- ‘to carry, bear’, AB k- ‘to lead’. He believed, however, that Toch. B *part kto contains the vowel as the effect of the so called ‘équilibre vocalique’, which suggests an interdialectal borrowing from an unattested Tocharian A form **partakt. Non liquet. Van Windekens’s etymology, as well as that suggested by Isebaert, refers to an alleged reconstruction, which has no parallels in the preserved Tocharian or Iranian vocabulary. In his recently published article Blažek (2008, pp. 39–42 = 2011, pp. 74–77) tries to identify the most probable source of the Tocharian borrowing in the following East Iranian lexical material: Ossetic bajrag ‘foal’ (Abaev 1958, pp. 236–237), Yazghulami varág ‘horse’, Sanglichi worak, Ishkashim wǝrok, Roshani warč, Shughni vârğ, Sarikoli vurğ ‘id.’ (< Pamir *b raka-, cf. Morgenstierne 1974, pp. 85–86); MPers. b rak ‘riding animal’, NPers. b regī (in Š hname I, 21.27), Mod. Pers. b re ‘horse’ (Horn 1893, p. 37); Khotanese Saka b raa- ‘riding animal; vehicle’ (< Iran. *b raka-, cf. Bailey 1979, p. 278), Khwarezmian β’rcyk f. ‘animal for riding’ (< Iran. *b račī-k -). All the Iranian forms derive from the Iranian base *bar- ‘to carry, bear; be carried’, also ‘to ride’ < IE. *bher- ‘to bear, carry’. Blažek correctly emphasises that the Tocharian name for ‘camel’ (Toch. B *part kto), containing the final -to, can be easily explained as a borrowing from the East Iranian plural (or collective) form *b ra(ya)kt - ‘riding animals, horses’, cf. Ossetic (Digoron) bajrægutæ, (Iron) bajrægtæ (Abaev 1958, pp. 236–237), Yazghulami vergáθ pl. ‘horses’ (Ėdeľman 1971, p. 280). It should be noted that the plural or collective ending in *-t is common in the East Iranian languages, cf. Ossetic -tæ (Thordarson 1989, p. 469), Yazghulami -aθ (see above), Wakhi -iš-t, Sogdian -t’, Yaghnobi -t. See also the ending -tai in the Scythian and Sarmatian tribal names (Skjærvø 1989, p. 379). According to Blažek, numerous East Caucasian forms (e.g. Akusha bartken ‘deer’, Lak balčan ‘horse’, burttij ‘on horse-back’, burttijhu ‘rider’, Avar bárti ‘stallion’, Lezghin balk.an ‘horse’2) were probably borrowed from the Ossetic plural form bajræg(u)tæ. A similar Iranian source is also probable for the Ugrian forms such as Hung. dial. bergány ‘feuriges Pferd’3, Mansi pärwėn, p rėn 2 Note that Nikolaev – Starostin (1994, p. 285) derive the East Caucasian forms from the archetype *b¬altkē ‘a big hoofed animal’. 3 It is worth emphasising that the word bergány ‘feuriges Pferd’ is not attested in the latest dictionary of Hungarian dialects (Lőrinczy 1979 – 2010). Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013 TWO TOCHARIAN BORROWINGS OF ORIENTAL ORIGIN 415 ‘Zauberpferd’ (Munkácsi 1905, p. 210; Munkácsi – Kálmán 1986, p. 414). The final -n could be directly borrowed from a donor-language, perhaps from the Middle Iranian plural in -n. The Czech linguist believes that the Tocharian B *part kto ‘camel’ can represent the same etymon as names for ‘animal for riding’, attested in the Iranian, East Caucasian and Ugrian languages. However, he keeps the first -t- in the Tocharian B name for ‘camel’ with no explanation, suggesting a scribe’s error: “For the difference y instead of t there is no better explanation than the scriptor’s mistake in this hapax” (Blažek 2008, p. 40). Thus the etymology, suggested by Václav Blažek, which seems acceptable from the semantic point of view, cannot be treated as wholly convincing. In my opinion, the most probable source of Toch. B *part kto ‘camel’ seems to be the East Iranian plural form *pard k(u)-t - denoting ‘leopards’ (cf. Sogdian pwrδ’nk ‘leopard’; NPers. päläng, Pashto pṛ ng ‘id.’ < Iran. *pr0d [n]ku- with a secondary nasal infix; see also Skt. pr0d ku- m. ‘tiger, panther’ (lex.) next to Rig-Vedic pr0d ku- m. ‘snake’). The Tocharian form perfectly renders the East Iranian phonology, though the semantic aspects of this derivation are less convincing than these suggested by Václav Blažek. It cannot be excluded, however, that the final result was caused by a possible contamination with Altaic (or Proto-Turkish) *aktan- ‘a castrated animal; gelding; castrated camel’4. The development from the hybrid compound *pard k-aktan‘leopard-gelding’ by a haplology seems possible, too5. As regards analogous hybrid formatiοns, denoting some rare, exotic animals, see Gk. αµ ο-πά α f. ‘giraffe’ (liter. ‘camel-leopard’), ου ο- άµ ο m. and f. ‘ostrich’ (liter. ‘sparrow-camel’). The semantic change of ‘leopard’ to ‘camel’ was possible insofar as both these animals were hardly known to the ancestors of the Tocharians. The situation seems analogous to the unexpected change of meanings from ‘elephant’ to ‘camel’ in the Germanic and Slavic languages. Both elephants and camels belong to these exotic animals, which were not and are not native in Northern and Central Europe. Thus the interchange of the designated animals was possible. The Goths and the Slavs used the Greek name for ‘elephant’ (cf. Mycenaean Greek e-re-pa ‘ivory’, Anc. Gk. œ φα , -αν ο m. ‘elephant’, whence Lat. elephantus, -ī m. ‘elephant’) to create their own appellatives for ‘camel’ (cf. Gothic ulbands ‘camel’, Pol. wielbłąd ‘id.’). The Tocharians must have transferred the name from ‘leopard’ to ‘camel’ under similar circumstances. Abbreviations Alb. – Albanian Anc. Gk. – Ancient Greek ChSl. – Church Slavic Cz. – Czech Gk. – Greek Hung. – Hungarian IE. – Indo-European Iran. – Iranian Lat. – Latin Mod. Pers. – Modern Persian 4 According to Starostin – Dybo – Mudrak (2003, p. 280), there is a root *akt’V ‘a castrated animal’ in Altaic (cf. Mong. *agta ‘castrated; gelding’, Turkish *atan ‘castrated camel’). However, this comparison and reconstruction is rejected by Stachowski (2005, pp. 230 – 232). 5 It is not impossible that the Tocharian B word for ‘camel’, *part kto ‘camel’, which belongs to the n-stems (cf. adj. part ktaññe ‘pertaining to the camel’), was formed by a contamination of two different terms: Indo-Iranian **pard ku- ‘leopard’ and Altaic (or rather Proto-Turkish) *aktan ‘castrated camel’. Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013 416 MPers. – Middle Persian NPers. – New Persian OInd. – Old Indic OIr. – Old Irish Pol. – Polish KRZYSZTOF TOMASZ WITCZAK Russ. – Russian Skt. – Sanskrit Sogd. – Sogdian Toch. A – Tocharian A (or East Tocharian) Toch. B – Tocharian B (or West Tocharian or Kuchean) References Abaev, V. I. (1958): Istoriko-ėtimologičeskij slovar’ osetinskogo jazyka. Vol. 1. Moskva – Leningrad, Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Adams, D. Q. (1999): A Dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam – Atlanta, Rodopi. Bailey, H. W. (1979): Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Blažek, V. (2008): Tocharian ‘Camel’. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies Vol. 11, pp. 39 – 42 (Reprinted in Blažek 2011, pp. 74–77). Blažek, V. (2011): Tocharian Studies. Works 1. Brno, Masaryk University. Clauson, G. (1972): An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford, The Clarendon Press. Ėdel’man, Dž. I. (1971): Jazgulamsko – russkij slovar’. Moskva, Nauka. Hilmarsson, J. (1996): Materials for a Tocharian Historical and Etymological Dictionary. Reykjavik, Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands. Holder, A. (1904 [1962]): Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz. Zweiter Band (I – T). Leipzig, Teubner (Reprinted in 1962 in Graz, Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt). Horn, P. (1893): Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie. Strassburg, Trübner. Isebaert, L. (1980): De Indo-Iraanse bestanddelen in de Tocharsche woordenschat. Vraagstukken van fonischen productinterferentie, met bijzondere aandacht voor de Indo-Iraanse diafonen a. W. Leuven, unpublished dissertation. Lőrinczy, É. B. (ed.) (1979 – 2010): Új magyar tájszótár [A new dictionary of Hungarian dialects]. Vols I – V. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. Lubotsky, A. (1989): Against a Proto-Indo-European Phoneme *a. In: Vennemann, Th. (ed.): The New Sound of Indo-European. Berlin – New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 19 – 28. Monier-Williams, M. (1899): A Sanskrit – English Dictionary. Oxford, Oxford University Press. (Reprinted in 1999 in Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.) Morgenstierne, G. (1974): Etymological Vocabulary of the Shughni Group. Wiesbaden, Reichert. Munkácsi, B. (1905): Die Urheimat der Ungarn. Keleti Szemle Vol. 6, pp. 185 – 222. Munkácsi, B. – Kálmán, B. (1986): Wogulisches Wörterbuch. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. Nikolaev, S. – Starostin, S. (1994): A North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary. Moscow, Asterisk. Schmidt, K. T. (1974): Die Gebrauchsweisen des Mediums im Tocharischen. Göttingen, unpublished dissertation. Skjærvø, P. O. (1989): Modern East Iranian Languages. In: Schmidt, Rüdiger (ed.): Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden, Reichert, pp. 370 – 383. Stachowski, M. (2005): Turkologische Anmerkungen zum Altaischen etymologischen Wörterbuch. Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia Vol. 10, pp. 227 – 246. Starostin, S. – Dybo, A. – Mudrak, O. (2003). Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages. Vols 1 – 3. Leiden – Boston, Brill. Thordarson, F. (1989): Ossetic. In: Schmidt, Rüdiger (ed.): Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden, Reichert, pp. 456 – 479. Turner, R. L. (1966): A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London – New York – Toronto, Oxford University Press. Van Windekens, A. J. (1988): Réflexions sur l’origine de quelques termes tokhariens. Indogermanische Forschungen Vol. 93, pp. 96 – 101. Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013