Anda di halaman 1dari 14



does justice to the nature of the text as an anonymous, accreted piece of literature, wherefore I believe that this work is not, or will not prove to be, the last word on the PK. Seminar fr Orientalistik Abteilung fr Indologie Leibnizstr. 10 D-24 118 Kiel Deutschland

Adams, Douglas Q., A dictionary of Tocharian B [Leiden Studies in IndoEuropean 10]. Amsterdam: Atlanta, Rodopi, 1999. pp. xxxiv, 830. ISBN 90-420-0435-5.


According to Adams, the purpose of his dictionary is twofold. It is intended to be a dictionary in the ordinary sense as a work of reference for synchronic Tocharian B lexicography, and at the same time it purports to be an etymological dictionary of Tocharian B and thus an aid to understand the place of Tocharian within the Indo-European family (p. i). Such a multi-purpose dictionary certainly has been on every IndoEuropeanists wish list for a long time now, especially in view of the restricted value of van Windekens etymological dictionary.1 Certainly Adams dictionary intends to be the long awaited replacement for and update on van Windekens work, and certainly in trying to lay the philological groundwork for each article Adams attempts to link up to the tradition founded by Emil Sieg, Wilhem Siegling, Wolfgang Krause and Werner Thomas. It is therefore perhaps not entirely fortuitous that the Tocharian moto (Tocharian B Karmavibha nga fragment F K 8 a2) with which Adams nishes his preface (on p. vi) is repeated from Werner Thomas, Tocharisches Elementarbuch II, Heidelberg 1964, p. 8 and idem, Die Erforschung des Tocharischen, Wiesbaden 1985, p. xi. Unfortunately, however, as will emerge from the following sections, the informative value
1 See the review of van Windekens by K. T. Schmidt, Zu Stand und Aufgaben der etymologischen Forschung auf dem Gebiete des Tocharischen. In: Manfred Mayrhofer, Martin Peters, Oskar E. Pfeiffer (Hrsg.), Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Wiesbaden 1980. 394411, and Werner Winter, Lg 57,4 (1981), 935941 and ZDMG 132,2 (1982), 399402.

Indo-Iranian Journal 46: 177189, 2003. 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.



of Adams dictionary is seriously impaired by numerous shortcomings concerning both the synchronic and the diachronic treatment of Tocharian, listed in the following sections on the bibliography (2), the notational system (3), Tocharian philology (4), Tocharian grammar (5), Tocharian lexicography and etymology (6), and Tocharian historical phonology (7).


The bibliography contains gross distortions of titles and references.

Adams changes the names of journals: Instead of Tocharian and Indo-European Studies one reads Journal of Tocharian and Indo-European Studies (p. xiii, line 28, and p. xix, line 39) or Tocharian Indo-European Studies (p. xv, line 41). Instead of Mnchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft one reads Mnchener Studien der Sprachwissenschaft (p. xviii, s.v. Melchert 1989). Adams goes even so far as to invent completely new titles: On p. xxi, line 30f, Adams refers to the 6th Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Lautgeschichte und Typologie [read Etymologie!]. Typing errors are all-pervasive, e.g., Gedankschrift with a mixture of gedenken and danken (p. xvi s.v. Krause 1956), Wortbilding (p. xxi s.v. Schmidt 1980), Die Forschung des Tocharischen (p. xxv, 1st line), to name just a few. Even the names of scholars are not exempt from continuous misspellings, cf. e.g., Sielging instead of Siegling (p. xv), George Cardon instead of George Cardona (p. xvi s.v. Kimball 1987), Gunther Neumann instead of Gnther Neuman (p. xxi), K. H. Schmidt instead of K. T. Schmidt (p. 238 s.v. kw pe). In general, Adams is rather poor at the grammar of non-English titles. On a regular basis, German case forms are ungrammatical or mutilated: p. xv s.v. Jasanoff 1979 Hethitische und indogermanisch, p. xi s.v. Emmerick, nom. sterreichischen Akademie [abstracted from Nachrichten der sterreichischen . . .], p. xvi, s.v. Krause 1961 Nachrichten den Akademie der Wissenschaften . . ., p. xix s.v. Pedersen 1944 Zur tocharische Sprachgeschichte, p. xxii s.v. Schmidt Zu einigen Archaismus, p. xxix s.v. Thomas 1971 Bemerkungen zu der sanskrit-tocharischen Bilinguen, s.v. Thomas 1974 Zu einige weiteren . . ., s.v. Thomas 1978b Zur Behandlung von inlautendes . . ., p. xxiii s.v. Stumpf Die Gebrauch der Demonstrativ-Pronomina in Tocharischen. The same goes for French (p. xviii s.v. Naert lexicaus, p. xix s.v. Pinault 1984 Fragments dune drame . . ., p. xx s.v. Pinault 1990 le manuscrits) and Dutch (p. xi s.v. Couvreur 1964 Niewe [Nieuwe]). An embarrassing vacillation occurs in refering to Pinaults editions of the caravan passes as 1986 on p. xix, as 1987 on p. xxxii, and again as 1986 on p. xxxiii.

The bibliography presented by Adams on pp. viixxxi is as long as is to be expected for an etymological dictionary, but nevertheless it is incomplete. Those familiar with Tocharian studies will miss many standard articles, such as Werner Winters important book-length article on the Tocharian numerals, s. Werner Winter, Tocharian. In: Jadranka Gvozdanovi c (ed.), Indo-European Numerals. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and



Monographs 57. Berlin, New York 1992. 97161, occasionally referred to as Winter 1991 or 1992 by Adams, but most researchers consulting Adams dictionary will not be able to identify this citation. The same holds for Schmidt 1986: 94 on p. 209 s.v. kauke (only by consulting Hilmarsson, Materials 1996: 117 have I been able to identify this reference), and for Ringe 198890: 105 [sic! read 105]115 on p. 290, s.v. tk-, again absent from the bibliography (= Ringe, Die Sprache 34 (1998 90), 59123). The same goes for other standard monographs in the eld. Thus, no mention is made of Pinaults introduction to Tocharian (GeorgesJean Pinault, Introduction au tokharien. LALIES 7. Paris 1989. 3224) and of Ringes 1996 book on Tocharian historical phonology, which as Adams has remarked himself in Language 74 (1998), 615 is an important new survey of Tocharian historical phonology.


When it comes to giving the attestations of Tocharian B forms, Adams dispenses with the otherwise customary indication of the local origin of the fragments. As has been known ever since Winters pioneering article on the Tocharian B dialects (JAOS 75 (1955), 216225, KZ 75 (1957), 233237, cf. Ringe 1987 for a recent summary), the identication of the dialect type is a necessary prerequisite to determine the Tocharian B accent which is morphophonemic and therefore of importance for the synchronic analysis of Tocharian nominal and (especially) verbal forms.


One would wish that the shortcomings were conned to formal errors only! What is much worse is the gross misrepresentation of the state of Indo-European and Tocharian studies in October 1998 (= date of the preface, p. vi). Being selective about secondary literature of course does not inevitably have to be disadvantageous. After all, sheer doxography is not what one expects in the work of a specialist in the eld. But what one certainly would expect of a specialist and a dictionary is the intention to document the achievements of the discipline as thoroughly as possible. In the worst of all cases the failure to inform about the latest research may lead to severe setbacks in the understanding of Tocharian texts:



p. 131, 1st line, wrong translation of A 215 okm ptsts ar set out more [?] [sic !]. For the correct interpretation of the passage see Werner Thomas, Tocharische Maitreya-Parallelen aus Hami. Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann-Wolfgang-GoetheUniversitt Frankfurt am Main Bd 27 Nr. 1. Stuttgart 1990, a title again not included in the bibiliography. On p. 200, s.v. B kaiyye: Adams ignores Georges-Jean Pinault 1991: Note sur le sens du substantif ke du tokharien A, partir d une nouvelle occurrence dans le Maitreyasamiti-N at . aka. In: Papers in honour of Prof. Dr. Ji Xianlin on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Bd 1. Peking. 145162. On p. 205 (s. v. ms- go) Adams adheres to the older interpretation of B 108 a5 ma s[c]e[r] as suppletive sbj. 2pl. act. of y-/ms- go, thus ignoring Schmidts convincing demonstration that we rather have a vernacular variant of the otherwise amply attested yama scer you guys are doing, see K. T. Schmidt, Bemerkungen zur westtocharischen Umgangssprache. In: Annemarie Etter (Hrsg.) o-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift fr Ernst Risch. Berlin, New York 1986. 635649. The entry wkanmo drinking on p. 614 is a ghost word based on a misdivision of the text in B 274. The correct division has been known since 1985, see Klaus T. Schmidt, Beitrge zur Kenntnis der tocharischen Verbalmorphologie. In: Grammatische Kategorien. Wiesbaden 1985. 424 234, an important article again not listed in the bibliography. According to Schmidt, op. cit. 432 the passage B 274 b5 MQ sam . tkewknmonwae is to be understood as sam . tke + ewkn-me + onwae Er wird ihnen das ta-Heilmittel zu trinken geben. The nite verb form ewkm Amr . belongs to the paradigm of the separate root B auk-, A ok- to give to drink, which can be set up for Tocharian, see Hackstein 1995: 338f. In the light of the gross misrepresentation of research on Tocharian, it is even more disconcerting to see that the situation is not any better for the other IE languages. Major standard etymological dictionaries are not included in Adams bibliography, e.g.: Manfred Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg 1992ff. Albert Lloyd, Rosemarie Lhr & Otto Springer 1998: Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Althochdeutschen Bd II. Gttingen, Zrich.




p. xxxiii: In his documentation of the Tocharian gender and number properties of nouns, Adams decides to use a confusing wealth of altogether six different notations: (1) nf., (2) n. [], (3) n. [], (4) nnt., (5) n. pl., (6) n. pl. tant. All of these terms are quite unwieldy and sometimes even erroneous as in the case of (2) n. [f. pl.] noun whose gender in the plural is feminine and whose gender in the plural [read: singular!] is unknown. Also, Adams practice to use (4) nnt. instead of the customary term genus alternans/alternating gender seems inappropriate in the absence of any comment on the traditional terminology, especially in view of the dictionarys claim to be a work of reference also for non-Tocharianists. p. 383, s.v. B pik- write, paint: Adams teaches that the root has a thematic present in Tocharian B as before in Tocharian Historical Phonology and Morphology 64 and 68, ignoring Schmidts demonstration 1985: 426 that the present stem is athematic. p. 587, s.v. w arp- surround is wrongly separated from p. 594 wrppartake, the meanings assigned to both roots are not entirely correct. The basic meaning seems to be embrace. Used guratively wrp- may also mean perceive/enjoy and comprehend intellectually, cf. Lat. comprehendere, German begreifen, erfassen. For the etymology see now Driessen, On the etymology of lat. urbs. JIES 29 (2001), 4168. p. 597, s.v. 1 ws- be dressed in . . ., Adams fails to mention that the present stem of the root is attested in 3pl. middle yskem . tr, see Hackstein 1995: 264ff.


p. 19, s.v. amok : the translation of B 605 b1 as since Dh. has commanded the arts to be written is misleading. The English rendering of amoknta as arts distorts the actual sense, amoknta refers to the preceding writing exercises, and the sets of dv ada sa -s, see Sieg/Siegling 1921, preface ks . ar p. v!



p. 25, incomplete entries such as al ase ? G-Qa5 do not make much sense. p. 129, s.v. B auk snake, serpent, as for non-Tocharian cognates see Joshua Katz 1999 in Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins, Innsbruck 1999, 317ff. Adams cites as cognates Av. ai- (p. 129) and OCS je , (p. 130) both from PIE h1 egwh i-, one can add Greek viper. As for the historical phonology (B auk from PT u k with labial metathesis) < PIE h1 ogwh i/u- one should compare Ringe 1996: 127 and Kim, TIES 8 (1999), 164. p. 140f, B kapy are is translated by Adams as worker, laborer. However, intermediary agent is more adequate a translation, see Pinault 1994: 100f. p. 150, B k atk- be glad can quite plausibly be reconstructed as k-t-sk < ga(h2 ) dh h1 -ske/o< geh2 dh h1 -ske/oin < ga(h2 ) dh -ske/oGlanz = Freude versetzen, for the details see HS 115 (2002), 8. e Kuchean is the self-designation of the p. 181, kucae kusi iti- white as has West-Tocharians and can be connected with PIE ku been suggested by Pinault 1989: 22 and others. Despite Adams claim e instead of expected (constant) (TIES 9 (2000), 20 Fn. 41) that kusi iti- on formal grounds, kuci would rule out a connection with PIE ku the etymology can be upheld since Toch. B -c- (the regular palatalized allophone of Toch. B -t-) is known to have a dialectal variant -s -, which according to K. T. Schmidt (MSS 59 (1999), 111) is also assigned to a low register of Toch. B. p. 186ff, s.v. ku se who . . . [add: what]: ku se goes back to kw uso according to Adams (p. 187). However, a reconstruction of the interrogative relative ku se as PIE kw is so(s) is to be preferred since PIE interrogative/(restrictive) relative kw is clearly is the functional analogue of the Tocharian pronoun and since nothing stands in the way of deriving ku se from kw is-so(s), see Ringe 1996: 66, Hilmarsson 1996: 196f and for the treatment of the nal vowel HS 114 (2001), 32f. The protoform PIE w k oso posited by Klingenschmitt, TIES 4 Suppl. vol. 4, p. 348 Fn. 66 is out of the question because the Tocharian evidence unequivocally attests to a development PIE kw o- > PT k- > B ke-, A ka-, see Kim, TIES 8 (1999), 149f.



p. 189f, s.v. kektsee body, cf. now Pinault, Tocharian A kap sai, B kektsee. In: H. Eichner, H. C. Luschtzky (Hrsg.), Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler. Prag 1999. 457478. p. 289, for B tm . ts- scatter, disperse I would suggest a connection with Latin tundere. p. 345, s.v. B ste and stare, as many others before, Adams erroneously assignes B ste and stare to PIE steh2 -, see HS 114 (2001), 2628. p. 357, s.v. B prsare ?: the meaning of B prsare was narrowed down to headache by Jean Filliozat, Fragments de textes koutchens de mdicine et de magie, Paris 1948, Emil Sieg, KZ 72 [1955], 72, 76, and J. W. Broomhead, A textual edition of the British Hoernle Stein and Weber manuscripts, Cambridge 1962, vol. II 163 s.v prsarem . headache, migraine?. (Broomheads edition is not mentioned in Adams bibliography.) Adams decision not to translate the term at all means a setback because the medical prescriptions associated with B prsare t with headaches quite well. In fact both the medication (oils and alcohol: FII W 3a3 and 37a3 mo(ts)tsa, 38 b1 kwc tas .s .e s . alype oil of sesame) and its application (embrocation, forehead and temples: W3 a3 a [ne] yamas s .s . lle) nd their analogues in many nature cures of the present day against headaches. p. 382, B pst away, back, for the etymology, semantics and syntax, cf. TIES 7 (1997), 4550. p. 384, pikul year, no mention of Joshua Katz, Homeric Formula and the Tocharian Word for Year: A Transferred Epithet. Glotta 72 (1994), 151168, cf. recently Georges-Jean Pinault, Tocharian Languages and Pre-Buddhist Culture. In: Victor H. Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples. Volume I. Washington 1998. 361: abstract verbal noun meaning ripening, resultative noun ripeness, maturity. p. 400f, B pest (particle) used with verbs with perfectivizing force: the meaning of B pest can be rendered more precisely as away, off, see TIES 7 (1997), 46. p. 405, according to Adams B postm . occurs either as adverb nally, afterwards or as an indeclinable adj. latter: however, it would be more



precise and correct to determine the word as a preverb and postposition, see TIES 7 (1997), 4550. p. 407, B py ak- strike (downwards), no mention of Hackstein 1992 [1993]: Eine weitere griechisch-tocharische Gleichung: Griechisch aktsi. Glotta 70. 136165. und toch. B py p. 425, B pl ant- rejoice, be glad, Adams accepts the connection with Latin splend ere, and describes the latter as a denominative verb built on an old nominal formation [a gerund?] spleh1 -ndo- implying that the Latin gerundival sufx -ndo- can be directly projected back into Indo-European. This however is not so. The Latin gerundival sufx -ndo- rather goes back to metathesized -dn-o- (the Latin unda-rule a), an exocentric derivative of the abstract noun type in < PIE ud-n length, s. Gerhard -don/dn-, cf. Gr. Meiser, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre, Darmstadt 1998, 228. Beyond that, the proposed etymology of B pl ant- presupposes a development PIE d > Tocharian t which is questionable, see below 7.2. p. 442, s.v. malyak(k)e, according to Adams adjective, and glossed as youthful, puerile; on the actual sense (young man) see Pinault 1994: 107f, cf. fragment B PK DA M. 507 (8) b2 where malyake designates a novice. The canonical age of novices was not below 15 . . ., so puerile is not appropriate as a translation. p. 446, s.v. m aka many, much, Adams fails to mention the short monograph by W. Thomas, Zur tocharischen Syntax, Adverbiales A m ak, B m aka. Stuttgart 1995 which contains important information on the synchronic syntax of m aka. For the historical phonology see Ringe 1996: 161. p. 451f, s.v. mkte how . . ., mksu which, who: The rst syllable may contain the Tocharian prex m- which can be identied with the a local particle PIE me- (with)in, on, for which compare the literature given by Matzinger, Die Sprache 40,2 (1998), 114 Fn. 26 and Balles, HS 112 (1999), 139f with further references. In this case, B mkte, mksu would be early univerbations of PIE me- (with)in, on and kw id tod what, kwis so(s) who(m), as for the preposing of PIE me see the positional rule given in TIES 7 (1997), 55. Alternatively, me could be seen as an ablaut variant of the interrogative stem mo- which is residually found in Anatolian.



p. 467, s.v. -me, cf. now Joshua Katz, Archaische Keltische Personalpronomina. In: Wolfgang Meid (Hrsg.), Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen, Akten der 10. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft. Innsbruck 1998. 283. p. 522, s.v. ys . uwar friendly, friendliness, Adams ignores Pinaults thorough study of the meaning and the etymology of the word: Prhistoire de tokharien B ys . uwar, in W. Smoczynski (ed.), Kuryowicz Memorial Volume. Part One. Cracow 1995, pp. 191205. p. 543, s.v. laku tse shining, bright, brilliant, the etymology is open to alternative suggestions. Toch. B laku tse (and syncopated laktse) may conceal an original PIE compound luki-dh3 o-, which would then be somewhat reminiscent of Lat. l ucidus and l ucifer. PIE luki-dh3 o w > PToch. luki-ts- (1) > l k -ts- (2) > l ku-ts-, as for (1) labialization of velars by adjacent pre-PT u, see Ringe 1996: 127 and Kim, TIES 8 (1999), 161f. p. 586, s.v. w ap- weave: read Sanskrit unbdhi instead of unbhdhi. p. 587, s.v. w ark- shear: Adams lists A wrks a under this heading, . ant but Adams does not give the meaning of A wrks a (Skt. p atayantik ah . ant . dharm ah a . , cf Hackstein 1995: 81ff) nor does he explain why A wrks . ant should belong to a Tocharian root meaning shear. p. 646ff, s.v. . sa: Adams terms . sa as an adj.. However, it is more appropriate to analyze . sa as the genitive-dative of the reexive pronoun which is functionally equivalent to a possessive adjective. Furthermore, Adams analyses . sa as a reshaping of PIE s(e)we (bottom of p. 647). To my mind another scenario carries much more conviction. Tocharian A preserves the reexes of a) PIE orthoton acc. su and b) enclitic PIE acc. se: a) PIE orthoton acc. su is continued in Toch. A s . u to oneself, hither, b) enclitic PIE acc. se was expanded to se-m in Proto-Tocharian, and served as the basis for the derivation of a new genitive-dative case form by the addition of PT -y i . More details of this analysis have been set out in a paper which is currently in press in TIES 10 (2002). p. 648, s.v. . sap: Adams is mistaken in setting up an extra lemma s . ap more, cf. below ad p. 667.



p. 651, B s . arya beloved: much better than the etymology advanced by Adams is the connection of Toch. B s . arya- (Pinault 1989: 58) with Arm. ri uncle < su esrii o-. kc e
p. 667, unaccented s . p can be derived from PIE h1 eti pi and further be equated with Skt. atypi furthermore, in addition, cf. accented s . ap and s pak , Toch. B LP 15a5 ed. Pinault 1987: 90 s ap m a trkanat Do not allow . . more [to pass through]!, B HMR 3 b6 tane s pak pete there, give more !. .

p. 712f, snai without, for the etymology, semantics and syntax, cf. TIES 7 (1997), 5255. p. 718f spe near by, for the etymology, semantics and syntax, cf. TIES 7 (1997), 3942. p. 729, tsa, according to Adams an emphasizing particle. A plausible etymological connection can be drawn with PIE do(h3 ) give! (root aorist impv. 2sg.) used as an afrmative particle just like Lat. (ce)do, Ital. dai, Russ. da(va)j. The details have been set out in HS 114 (2001), 3239. p. 731, s.v. ts ak- pierce, bite: no mention is made of Ringes convincing connection with Lat. f vere, s. Ringe 198890: 71. p. 740, s.v. tsuk- suck (out), for the meaning and etymology cf. Hackstein 1995: 143ff, the etymological connection with PIE deu kdraw, pull (LIV2 124) can be upheld, for the semantic shift compare French traire to milk from Latin tractare, as for Tocharian A tskuntem . m acar foster mother (MSN 21[III.1]b6, s. Ji/Winter/Pinault 1998: 144) compare its German synonym Ziehmutter!

In the course of the reconstruction of phonological developments, it is normal for Indo-Europeanists to have preconceptions of certain phological developments and to test them on the grounds of the attested materials. The material either bears out such theories or it does not. In case it does not, we are facing one of several alternatives, either a) to reject the proposed sound-law altogether or b) to declare the examples not tting the rule as analogical and secondary or c) to revise the theory (rene the conditioning factors viz. nd additional sound-laws to account for the



exceptions). Cases in point are for instance the development of a into Tocharian (7.1.), which is crucial for the explanation of certain important morphemes in the Tocharian verbal system, and the development of the IE dentals into Tocharian (7.2.). A decision in favor of one of the theories means to have to rewrite the history of that part of the verbal system and to revise the pertinent etymologies accordingly. 7.1. PIE a ( eh2 ) in Tocharian p. 421f, s.v. B procer brother: The widely accepted sound-by-sound er is rejected. Adams does not equation with Goth. broar = PIE bh reh2 t accept the sound law according to which a yields rounded -o- in Tocharian B, and -a- in Tocharian A. Instead, he creates an ad-hoc sound law, mutual rounding of a ... e . . . to Toch. B o . . . e. Adams atly discounts B procer as evidence for the development of a on the basis of his conviction that one word, possibly with affective meaning, is too slim a basis to claim certainty about the fate of PIE -a - (Lg. 74, 3 (1998), 616) and that the passing of a into Toch. B o was possibly conned to labial enviroments. This line of reasoning however can be shown to be inconclusive because the same reservation would then also have to apply to Adams alternative suggestion of the mutual rounding of a ... e . . . to Toch. B o . . . e. Beyond this, it is true that kinship terms are prone to mutual remodelling (see Werner Winter, Folia Linguistica III 1/2 (1969). 2945 and Eduard Hermann, Lautgesetz und Analogie, Berlin 1931, p. 14), but at the same time it is true that kinship terms are equally prone to preserve archaisms. And nally, the proposed constraint of the rounding of a in Proto Toch. B is invalidated by counter evidence, provided for instance by Hilmarssons etymological identication of soktatse with s agire (self-contradictorily accepted by Adams himself later on in his dictionary, p. 701f) and by Pinaults convincing etymology (JIES Monograph 26 (1998), 365) of anus, Toch. B omotruais .s . e southern with PIE meh2 - good (Lat. m timely, cf. Lat. OIr. maith, Cymr. mad gut) and adverbial meh2 -tr m aturus. A semantic identication of good and right and southern can be found with other IE and non-IE languages as well. 7.2. PIE dentals in Tocharian As becomes clear from Adams connection of pl ant- with Lat. splend ere (p. 425) and from the etymological entries starting with ts- (e.g., Toch. B tsik-, tsk-, tsr- p. 738f, 733, 736), Adams presumes that PIE d- and dh may yield both Toch. ts and t. Within the framework of Adams theory, PIE d, dh is supposed to have a twofold reex in Tocharian, yielding ts before



front-vowels and t before non-front vowels in the course of the so-called rst palatalization (Adams 1986: 40f, and Language 74 (1998), 616). This, however, is problematic for a number of reasons. Recent surveys of the relevant material have reached the conclusion that prevocalic PIE d is the only source of Toch. prevocalic ts while PIE dh, t yield t in both Tocharian languages (Winter, IF 67 (1962), 1635, Ringe 1996: 146f, Hackstein, HS 114 (2001), 1820), but I cannot go into much detail here. Sufce it to point out possible counterexamples to the dental development hypothesized by Adams, showing that the passage of PIE d into an Tocharian affricate did not occur only before front vowels: Toch. B tsnto ow (PIE deh2 -n-, dh2 -n- oder deh2 - to ow, cf. HS 114 (2001), 20 2.1.1. and see Janda, Eleusis, Innsbruck 2000: 295f on o - o-, ), and the Tocharian afrmative particles B -tsa, A -a-ts(a-) < d descending from the PIE root aorist imperative do(h3 ) give!.

All the details and shortcomings listed above create the impression of a very hasty and therefore somewhat premature publication. As a result, Adams dictionary cannot yet be regarded a decisive improvement over van Windekens etymological dictionary, let alone replace Hilmarssons materials. It is to be hoped that a second completely and thoroughly revised and improved edition will render a much better service to Tocharian studies. After all, Adams himself surely has the potential necessary to do much better. In the meantime, however, anybody concerning himself with Tocharian etymology is well advised to consult the works (and indices provided therewith) of Jrundur Hilmarsson, Georges-Jean Pinault, Don Ringe, Klaus T. Schmidt, Werner Thomas, Werner Winter and others. The discipline of Tocharian studies badly needs more joint efforts both to promote itself and to promote advances in the study of Tocharian language and philology. A certain trend in Tocharian studies turns out to be especially counter-productive and harmful in this respect: to ignore the work of fellow-researchers, a most unfortunate development also pointed out recently and rightly criticised by Georges-Jean Pinault in Die Sprache 40 (1998), 161ff, 172! Let us hope for more cooperation. REFERENCES
Adams, Douglas Q.: 1986, Tocharian Historical Phonology and Morphology. New Haven, Connecticut [American Oriental Society].



Hackstein, Olav: 1995, Untersuchungen zu den sigmatischen Prsensstammbildungen des Tocharischen. Gttingen [Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht]. Hackstein, Olav: 2001, Studien zur Grammatikalisierung in lteren indogermanischen Sprachen (Lat. da, date, aksl. dad, dadite, toch. B pete, petso/petes und die Afrmativpartikeln alat. cedo, (ak)sl. da, toch. B tsa). Historische Sprachforschung, 114, 1542. Hackstein, Olav: 2002, Uridg. CH.CC > C.CC. Historische Sprachforschung, 115, 1 22. Hackstein, Olav: 2002 [in press], Reexivpronomina, Prverbien und Lokalpartikel in indogermanischen Sprachen. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, 10. Hilmarsson, Jrundur: 1996, Materials for a Tocharian Historical and Etymological Dictionary. Ed. by Alexander Lubotsky and Gurn rhallsdttir with the assistance of Sigurur H. Plsson. Reykjavk, Mlvsindastofnun Hskla slands (TIES, Supplementary Series, 5). Ji, Xianlin, Winter, Werner and Pinault, Georges-Jean: 1998, Fragments of the Tocharian A Maitreyasamiti-N a.taka of the Xinjiang Museum, China. Berlin, New York. LIV2 = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Unter der Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kmmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auage. Wiesbaden 2001. Pinault, Georges-Jean: 1989, Introduction au tokharien. LALIES 7, 3224. Paris. Pinault, Georges-Jean: 1994, Aspects du bouddhisme pratiqu au nord du dsert du Taklamakan, d aprs les documents tokhariens. In: Bouddhisme et cultures locales. Actes du colloque franco-japonais de septembre 1991 dits par Fukui Fumimasa et Grard Fussman, 85113. Paris, cole franaise d Extrme-Orient. Pinault, Georges-Jean: 1998, Tocharian Languages and Pre-Buddhist Culture. In: Victor H. Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples, Volume I, 358371. Washington. Pinault, Georges-Jean: 1998, Remarques sur le fragment tokharien B 74 et sur quelques autres textes. Die Sprache, 40(2), 161178. Ringe, Don: 1987, On the Prehistory of Tocharian B Accent. In: Calvert Watkins (ed.), Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill, 254269. Berlin, New York [de Gruyter]. Ringe, Don: 19981990, Evidence for the Position of Tocharian in the Indo-European Family? Die Sprache, 34, 59123. Schmidt, Klaus T.: 1985, Beitrge zur Kenntnis der tocharischen Verbalmorphologie. In: Grammatische Kategorien, 424234. Wiesbaden [Reichert].

Martin-huther Universitt Halle-Wittenberg Deutschland