THT 295
| Known as: | THT 295; B 295; Bleistiftnummer 2557 |
|---|---|
| Cite this page as: | Michaël Peyrot. "THT 295". In A Comprehensive Edition of Tocharian Manuscripts (CEToM). Created and maintained by Melanie Malzahn, Martin Braun, Hannes A. Fellner, and Bernhard Koller. https://cetom.univie.ac.at/?m-tht295 (accessed 06 Oct. 2024). |
Edition | |
| Editor: | Michaël Peyrot |
Provenience | |
| Main find spot: | Kizil Ming-öy |
| Specific find spot: | Rothkuppelraum |
| Expedition code: | T III MQ 1 |
| Collection: | Berlin Turfan Collection |
Language and Script | |
| Language: | TB |
| Linguistic stage: | archaic |
| Add. linguistic characteristics: | hypercorrect |
| Script: | archaic |
Text contents | |
| Text genre: | Literary |
| Text subgenre: | Kāvya |
| Verse/Prose: | verse |
| Meter: | 4343 (4x) |
Object | |
| Manuscript: | Pustaka |
| Material: | ink on paper |
| Form: | Poṭhī |
| Size (h × w): | 7.5 × 21.5 cm |
| Number of lines: | 8 ~ 10 |
Images
Images from idp.bl.uk by courtesy of the International Dunhuang Project, the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, and the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin – Orientabteilung.
Transliteration
| a1 | (– –) ·[ra] (– –) ·w· [e] – [w]sa [ṣ]ṣ· ñc[a] nts· o no lme(·)¯ ¯ts p[o] tk[ne] [s]· st(·) ś· la ṣṣ[e] sru ka lyñe ntse yo l[o] p[i] : mā w[a] l[ke] – – /// |
|---|---|
| a2 | (–) ·m· po tke ś[o] la ṣṣe wsa ske mā ne e mpe lye saṃ sā ra ṣṣai kwa ṣṣai ne : 1 te ntse s̝a rmtsa kre ñśa mnā tsre lla ññe ṣṣe pu wa rsa /// |
| a3 | – [ñcä] tse ts[ä] rkko¯ ¯s̝ e ṅa lyñe sā pa rsko s̝a re ri no rmeṃ s̝a ñśa mnā mai ta ri ka¯ ¯[śc] ke ke so¯ ¯s̝ : e nte mā e ṅä la ññe mā ra ·r· /// |
| a4 | r[e] nmeṃ 2 spo rto mā ne sāṃ sa rne s̝a ññe śo mo kuse ka tra : s̝a rma nma sā śe śśa nmo¯ ¯s̝ a lyau ce mpa yä neṃ krui na n[au] ta [r]m[e](·) |
| a5 | s̝a rma nma¯ ¯ts na no ya [n]eṃ wai ptā rcai : s̝a ññeṃ śā mnāṃ ntse ṅä lyñe mā s̝pa pa lko s̝[ma] ske ntra 3 ce nts[n]o pe s[ta] yku we rmeṃ kuse (–) |
| a6 | ta ko¯ ¯ī śle pa lsko pa ○ lycä pa lycra we ru ra¯ ¯mt te ke śe mpreṃ ta ttā rmeṃ : tse re kwa cce la ṅwce ne s̝a ññä ññe ṣṣe [a] |
| a7 | ka lksa : yo kai ṣṣe śvā lnu ko wä kuse ce¯ ¯u po staṃ ma ko ytra 4 po nta ta rya cme la ne ma nta i ke ne sa su : e nte – |
| a8 | ñu ta ko ynta spo rto mā ne saṃ sā rne tsa kṣtra śai ṣṣe e mpe le ñya tse ṣṣe ce¯ ¯u pu wa ne snai sai mwä ste ta lla wse [te] (–) |
| a9 | – ntsi pa skā ya 5 po lla kle nta ke ṣṣe ñcai ce¯ ¯u s̝a pye ne sai mpya mttsai¯ ¯t a ñma lā ṣkai ka ṣṣi ntse a kṣo ṣkre nta ·e |
| a10 | [lai] k[ne] ma k·e ma s̝a[¯] [¯][p] ts[r]e lye ṣṣe ts[ś]i t[ra] na no [na] no e m[p]e l[y]e s·o r·o [m]a ·e – [sā] r·e /// |
| b1 | /// (–) – – ·[y]· – – (– –) ·[k]· – nts· [i] – – – ·[y]· ·ts· (–) ·[r]· (– – – –) ·[r]· – – (– – – – –) /// |
| b2 | – [ksa] e ṣe śma lñe nta ne mce kpo staṃ tsre lle [a] ke te maṃ we ñña su ta [r]ne ñä kt[eṃ] ntsña kt[e] p[ū] dñä kte [1] t· – |
| b3 | – śa maṃ pte sa sru kā lle ṣṣe mā d[ā] rse po ntaṃ nu k[n]aṃ po ntaṃ ntso a ka lka nta ka rsto ca : mā ye sa ñ[ma] |
| b4 | – sa ñka se maṃ¯ ¯nt ñya ○ tse e mpe le mā su ne sa śai ṣṣe ne kuse ksa ce nme tsa lpau ytra 2 saṃ sā [ra] |
| b5 | nts[e] s̝a ññä ññe pte ○ stve ke śa a nai śai śa mñe [cm]e ltse yä nma lyñe o lypo tse s̝pa wai me ne |
| b6 | ku[ce] twe me ntsi ya ma sta kuce ne ye smā cä mpa mo[¯] [¯][ñ] pa pā ṣṣo rññe e ñci ta rma pi lyñi tve la kle meṃ |
| b7 | (–) s̝a ññä ññe ṣṣe mai mtsā ñi po a ñmsa s̝a pwe we ño¯ ¯r ne mce kpya mñi śle o ko pi ka me nt[s]i [a] |
| b8 | (–) – me ntsi sā krui wi ka lle ta ko¯ ¯ī la kle ye sa ñseṃ we sra no ṅe me ntsi ne ya mye mye sa ñ·e /// |
Transcription
| 1c | b2n10n11n12 (kuse) ksa eṣe ; śmälñe nta ; nemcek postäṃ ; tsrelle ake |
|---|---|
| 1d | te mäṃ weñña ; sutärne ; ñäkteṃnts ñakte ; pūdñäkte 1 |
| 2a | t(e) (tve) b3 (ke)śä ; mäṃ ptesä ; srukālleṣṣe ; mādār se |
| 2b | pontäṃ nuknaṃ ; pontäṃntso ; akalkänta ; kärstoca : |
| 2c | mā yesäñ ma ; b4 (we)säñ ka ; se mäṃnt ñyatse ; empele |
| 2d | mā su nesä{ṃ} ; śaiṣṣene ; kuse ksa cenme{ṃ} ; tsälpauyträ 2 |
| 3a | saṃsāräb5ntse ; ṣäññäññe ; ptes tve keśä ; anaiśai |
| 3b | śamñe cmeltse ; yänmalyñe ; olypotse ṣpä ; waimene |
| 3c | b6 kuce twe mentsi ; yamästä ; kucene yes mā ; cämpämoñ |
| 3d | papāṣṣorññe ; eñcitar ; mäpi lyñi= tve ; läklemeṃ b7 (3) |
| 4a | ṣäññäññeṣṣe ; maimtsā ñi ; po añmsa ṣäp ; weweñor |
| 4b | nemcek pyam ñi ; śle-oko ; pika mentsi ; ab8n13(ñmameṃ) |
| 4c | mentsisā krui ; wikalle ; takoī läkle ; yesäñ seṃ |
| 4d | wes rano ṅe ; mentsine ; yamyem yesäñ ; (r)e(kisa) (4) |
Translation
| a1 | For the beings dwelling ..., this share of life is for evil death. |
|---|---|
| a1+ | Not within long we too will give [our] share of life, dwelling in the horrible saṃsāra village. |
| a2 | For this reason the good people are tormented [in] their hearts by the fire of separation [and] frightened by passion. Having left behind their relatives they went to the extinguished place (= the nirvāṇa), where [there is] no passion and no separation from the dear ones. |
| a4 | 2. Who is the relative of whom in the turning saṃsāra? If they go with eachother, bound by causes, when the causes have disappeared they go separate ways again |
| a5 | and have no eye for the passion of their relatives [anymore]. 3. |
| a5+ | After they have gone away, which rational being would he be who would, considering as truth "(it is) fleeting like a bubble", in deceptive carelessness, out of a wish for relatives, having swallowed the bait of desire, chase after him (i.e. his relative)? |
| a7 | 4. In all three births there is no place where there would be any cessation in the turning saṃsāra. |
| a8 | The world burns in the horrible fire of distress. |
| a8+ | The miserable one who [is] without help and stay: try to get out of it! |
| a9 | 5. And from the extinguisher of all sorrows you both should seek refuge, from the good law taught by the compassionate teacher, so that you will not also burn ... in the horrible saṃsāra that is turning again [and] again. |
| a10 | (6.) |
| b2 | (What)ever coming together [it is], having to be separated afterwards is certainly the end. So spoke in the sūtra the Buddha, the god of gods. 1. |
| b2+ | Pay thus attention to this: |
| b3 | this sea monster of death swallows all [and] is cutting off the wishes of all. |
| b3+ | Not yours, not ours [is] such horrible distress: |
| b4 | there is nobody in the world who could be redeemed from that. 2. |
| b4+ | Pay careful attention to the nature of the saṃsāra and [the fact that] the human birth [form] is very difficult to attain. |
| b6 | What grief have you caused? Wherein have you [pl.] been powerless? You should keep to the morals, so that you get out of sorrow. |
| b7 | (3.) [This is] what I have said with all my soul in judgment of my own nature. Make me certainly fruitful! |
| b7+ | Drive away grief from my soul! |
| b8 | If this sorrow of yours could be driven away by grief, then we would also in [our] grief act (according to) your (word). (4.) |
Other
| a4+ | Who is in the turning saṃsāra the relative of someone else? If they are bound by causes, they go together with each other, [but] when the causes have disappeared they go separate ways again and have no eye for the clinging of their relatives [anymore]. (cf 274) (Peyrot 2013b: 386) |
|---|---|
| a6+ | Wer in trügerischem Leichtsinn aus Selbstsucht den Köder Durst verschlungen [hat], dürfte d[ies]em nachlaufen. (Schmidt 1974: 275) |
| a9+ | Und zu dem alle Leiden auslöschenden, zu dem nehmt Zuflucht, ihr beiden, zu dem von dem mitleidigen Lehrer verkündeten guten Gesetz, damit ihr auch nicht verbrannt werdet (in eben solchem Feuer) der Trennung in dem sich wieder [und] wieder drehenden schrecklichen (Saṃsāra). (Schmidt 1974: 134, 434) |
| b4 | Niemand ist in der Welt, der da etwa aus dieser (Not) erlöst werden könnte. (Schmidt 1974: 117) |
| b6 | You should keep to the morals, so that you get out of sorrow. (Peyrot 2013b: 366) |
Commentary
Linguistic commentary
| The language of the fragment is archaic, i.e. archaic-I in the sense of Peyrot 2008. /ə/ is mostly written ‹ä›, irrespective of the accent, and ‹ā› for /a/ is found in unaccented position as well as ‹a› in accented position. For statistics, see the tables in Peyrot 2008: 34–36. Other late features, such as ṣc for śc or the diphthong eu are not found. | |
| A striking peculiarity of this fragment is the spelling ‹ṅ› for ‹ṅk› before vowel: a3 eṅalyñesā; a3 eṅäläññe; a5 eṅälyñe; b8 ṅe (cf. Peyrot 2008: 178–179). Although this phenomenon is rare, it is not unique and clearly confined to archaic texts, compare IOL Toch 22 a5, IOL Toch 80 b4, and m-tht2381h b4. | |
| Mobile -o is found once, b3 pontäṃntso, against eight times final -ä: a3 (arä)ñcä, a3 pärskoṣä, a5 pestä, a7 nukowä, a9 krentä, b3 ptesä, b5 keśä, b6 yamästä. | |
| Unexpected gemination is often found: a2 kwaṣṣaine, a3 tsetsärkkoṣ, a9 pyamttsait (probably not to be read pyamntsait in this archaic text, cf. Peyrot 2008: 155–157), a9 lläklenta, b2 weñña; and perhaps a9 keṣṣeñcai (cf. Peyrot 2013b: 567–568). On the other hand, the spelling of n before t as ‹ṃn› seems to be regular and need not indicate gemination: a5 śāmnāṃnts, b2 ñäkteṃnts, b3 pontäṃntso, b4 mäṃnt. Remarkably, no gemination is found in a4, a8 sportomāne for sporttomane. | |
| "Stretching" with unusual ä-epenthesis is found in the following cases: a2 saṃsāräṣṣai, a2 tsrelläññeṣṣe, a3 eṅäläññe, b4–5 saṃsāräntse. | |
| Instead of a verbal noun a gerund is found two times: a10 tsrelyeṣṣe, b3 srukālleṣṣe. Also b2 tsrelle could syntactically be interpreted as a verbal noun. However, correct verbal nouns are more frequent: a1 srukalyñentse, a2 tsrelläññeṣṣe, a3 eṅalyñesā, a3 eṅäläññe, a5 eṅälyñe, b2 śmälñe, b5 yänmalyñe. | |
The scribe seems to have had no opposition between o and au, as the two are mixed up in writing. Most frequent is o for au: a1 potkn(e) (for pautke), a2 potke, a2 śoläṣṣe, a4 śomo, b3 kärstoca. The reverse spelling au for o is also found: b4 tsälpauyträ. There is only one case of au for archaic au: a4 nanauta(r)meṃ. Also, the scribe does not seem to have had the archaic diphthong ew other than in ceu, since au is found for archaic ew in a4 alyaucempa. | |
| Unlike o and au, e and ai are distinguished regularly. Two exceptions are a2 empelye for empelyai and a9 añmalāṣkai for añmalāṣkeṃ, both perhaps morphological rather than phonological mistakes. | |
| The word mant is spelled mäṃ in b2, b3, but mäṃnt in b4. | |
| Anusvāra has to be added against the manuscript in the following instances: a7, b4 nesä〈ṃ〉, b4 cenme〈ṃ〉. |
Philological commentary
The script of the fragment has archaic features: ‹s̝a› is open; ‹ ma› has a cross; ‹ na› is a triangle with one angle down (pace Sieg and Siegling 1953: 185, ‹ ma› and ‹ na› are clearly distinct). However, ‹ma› is mostly closed and ‹ka› and ‹a› are not archaic; ‹o› has a short stroke up. All in all, the script is archaic, but of a relatively late type. | |
| ‹pa› is mostly closed on top, but still distinct from ‹ṣa›, whose horizontal closing bar is lower than the top of the vertical strokes. | |
| ‹v› for ‹w› is found three times: a7 śvāl, b5, b6 tve. | |
| Both poems are in a rather regular 4 x 7 ¦ 7 metre, apparently without indication of the tune name. In view of the irregular writing, it is striking that the metre is regular almost throughout. Small irregularities are a3 ente mā eṅäläññe with 3+4 instead of 4+3 and b2 nemcek postäṃ tsrelle ake with 4+4 instead 4+3, probably to be read as nemcek postäṃ tsrell= āke (see also the text notes above). [a1] – – ·rä – – ·w· e – ¦ wsäṣṣ(e)ñcants(o) onolme(ṃ)ts [1a] potkne s(e) st(e) ś(o)läṣṣe ¦ srukalyñentse yolopi : [1b] mā walke (kca wes rano ¦ ai) [a2] (y)m(o) potke śoläṣṣe [1c] wsäskemāne empelye ¦ saṃsāräṣṣai kwaṣṣaine : 1 tentse ṣärmtsa kreñ= śamnā ¦ tsrelläññeṣṣe puwarsa [2a] (ṣäñ a) [a3] (rä)ñcä tsetsärkkoṣ ¦ eṅalyñesā pärskoṣä [2b] rerinormeṃ ṣäñ śamnā ¦ maitär ik〈e〉śc kekesoṣ : [2c] ente mā eṅäläññe ¦ mā ra (ts)r(elle la) [a4] renmeṃ 2 sportomāne sāṃsarne ¦ ṣäññe śomo kuse k〈e〉t ra : [3a] ṣärmänmasā śeśśänmoṣ ¦ alyaucempa yäneṃ krui [3b] nanautarme(ṃ) [a5] ṣärmänmats ¦ näno yaneṃ waiptār cai : [3c] ṣäññeṃ śāmnāṃnts eṅälyñe mā ṣpä pälkoṣ mäskenträ 3 cents no pestä ykuwermeṃ ¦ kuse (su) [a6] takoi śle-pälsko [4a] pälycä-pälyc ra weru ramt ¦ te keś empreṃ tättārmeṃ : [4b] tserekwacce läṅwcene ¦ ṣäññäññeṣṣe a [a7] kalksa : [4c] yokaiṣṣe śvāl nukowä ¦ kuse ceu postäṃ mäkoyträ 4 ponta tärya cmelane ¦ mänta ike nesä〈ṃ〉 su : [5a] ente (a) [a8] ñu takoy nta ¦ sportomāne saṃsārne [5b] tsäkṣträ śaiṣṣe empele ¦ ñyatseṣṣe ceu puwa〈r〉ne [5c] snai saim wäste tallaw se ¦ te(meṃ) [a9] (lä)ntsi päskāya 5 po lläklenta keṣṣeñcai ¦ ceu ṣäp yene saim pyamttsait [6a] añmalāṣkai käṣṣintse ¦ akṣoṣ krentä (p)e [a10] laikne [6b] mäk(t)e ma ṣäp tsrelyeṣṣe ¦ tsśiträ [6c] näno näno empelye ¦ s(p)or(t)oma(n)e (saṃ)sār(n)e (6) [b1] – – – – – – – ¦ – – – – – – – [1a] – – – – – – – ¦ – – – – – – – [1b] [b2] (kuse) ksa eṣe śmälñe nta ¦ nemcek postäṃ tsrelle ake [1c] te mäṃ weñña sutärne ¦ ñäkteṃnts ñakte pūdñäkte 1 t(e tve) [b3] (ke)śä mäṃ ptesä ¦ srukālleṣṣe mādār se [2a] pontäṃ nuknaṃ pontäṃntso ¦ akalkänta kärstoca : [2b] mā yesäñ ma [b4] (we)säñ ka ¦ se mäṃnt ñyatse empele [2c] mā su nesä〈ṃ〉 śaiṣṣene ¦ kuse ksa cenme〈ṃ〉 tsälpauyträ 2 saṃsārä [b5] ntse ṣäññäññe ¦ ptes tve keśä anaiśai [3a] śamñe cmeltse yänmalyñe ¦ olypotse ṣpä waimene [3b] [b6] kuce twe mentsi yamästä ¦ kucene yes mā cämpämoñ [3c] papāṣṣorññe eñcitar ¦ mäpi lyñi= tve läklemeṃ [b7] (3) ṣäññäññeṣṣe maimtsā ñi ¦ po añmsa ṣäp weweñor [4a] nemcek pyam ñi śle-oko ¦ pika mentsi a [b8] (ñmameṃ) [4b] mentsisā krui wikalle ¦ takoi läkle yesäñ seṃ [4c] wes rano ṅe mentsine ¦ yamyem yesäñ ·e /// [4d] | |
| n1 | , beginning: the restoration (sportomāne saṃsārne) of TEB II: 61 is excluded by the manuscript. |
| n2 | potkne: almost certainly a mistake for potke, i.e. pautke. |
| n3 | s(e): the restoration s(u) of Sieg and Siegling 1953: 185 is excluded by the manuscript. |
| n4 | tsets[ä]rkkos̝\: Sieg and Siegling 1953: 185 read tsetsarkkos̝\. |
| n5 | : It is clear that pälycä-pälyc ra weru ramt is a quote or the content of a thought. According to the punctuation in TEB II: 61 (where no translation is given), their interpretation is approximately 'Might he who has gone away [from] them be with this thought: "[it is] fleeting like a bubble", also having paid true attention to this?' However, it is questionable whether śle pälsko can be interpreted that way; one would rather have expected kete takoī se pälsko. Therefore, śle-pälsko is more likely to be a compound with the meaning 'intelligent' (see Adams 2013a: 680). It is much more likely that the syntax here is the same as in THT 278 b1: "Who, endowed with reason, would he be who..." Thus, we're dealing with one big sentence, not two separate ones. In my translation, I have assumed a rather free word order in the relevant line, taking pälycä-pälyc weru ramt as the content of the following empreṃ (alternatively, it could be te, i.e. 'having paid true attention to this: ...'), and ra 'also' with the second half of the pāda. |
| n6 | : perhaps an alternative translation could be: '[Only] who out of the selfish wish for deceptive easiness has swallowed ...'. |
| n7 | tattārmeṃ :: the dots are placed not to the right, but on top of and under the akṣara ‹rmeṃ›. |
| n8 | yene: the dual is remarkable. Perhaps it refers to the two types of persion described in strophe 4. |
| n9 | pyamttsait\: sic, with regular final ‹t›. |
| n10 | (kuse): the restoration is uncertain. Ink traces can be discerned, but the manuscript is very abraded here. TEB II: 62 restore mā, which would give something like: 'There is (not) any coming together at all – having to be separated afterwards is certainly the end.' I find this interpretation a little less logical. |
| n11 | tsrelle ake: the reading ‹lle› is not obvious, since there is also an ā-stroke, and the akṣara ‹a› has been added later. Therefore, the original text was probably tsrell= āke, which would also make the metre fit. |
| n12 | t(e tve): this restoration is uncertain. The akṣara trace actually remaining is much smaller than is needed for ‹tv›, but perhaps the manuscript is abraded. In any case, the restoration t(usa) in TEB II: 62 is excluded by the manuscript. |
| n13 | (r)e(kisa): restoration according to Sieg and Siegling 1953: 186. The restoration is uncertain because an element under the ‹ñ› can be discerned that would perhaps rather point to ‹ñ[ñ]e› than ‹ñ[r]e›. |
Remarks
| Although the leaf is damaged on all edges, it is virtually complete. Unlike in Sieg and Siegling 1953: 185–186, the edges are not indicated with "///" if there are no akṣaras missing. No leaf number is preserved. Possibly, it is a independent leaf, as it contains exactly one poem of 6 strophes on one side (here side a) and exactly one poem of 4 strophes on the other side (here side b). The interline and character spacing is irregular, obviously as a consequence of the scribe's effort to fit the poems nicely on one side each. There seems to be no way to decide which sides were originally to be the recto and verso. |
Alternative linguistic/paleographic classifications
| Peyrot 2008 | A1 |
| Malzahn 2007a | A5 |
| Tamai 2011 | A3 |
| Tamai 2011 | C14 |
References
Online access
Edition
Sieg and Siegling 1953: 185-186; TEB II: 61-62
Translations
Carling 2000: a2 (164), a2 a3 (136), a2 a3 (91), a7 (244), a8 (137); Hackstein 1995: a1 (218), a2 (218), a2 a3 (193), a10 (90), b8 (134); Krause 1952: a2 a3 (35); TEB II: a4 (61), a5 (61); Meunier 2013: a6 (147), a9 (144); Peyrot 2013b: a4 a5 (386), b4 b5 b6 (366), b6 (366); Schmidt 1974: a6 a7 (275), a9 a10 (134, 434), b4 (117); Sieg and Siegling 1983: b4 (248); Thomas 1952: a2 a3 (55), a10 (55), b2 (55), b5 (52), b8 (31); Thomas 1954: a8 a9 (720); Thomas 1957: a4 a5 (274), a6 a7 (292); Thomas 1958a: b4 b5 (166); Thomas 1967c: b4 b5 (174), b7 (172); Thomas 1970a: a7 a8 (466), b4 (466); Thomas 1979d: b7 (151); Thomas 1983: a2 a3 (22), b5 (20); Thomas 1986: a4 a5 (136), a10 (141); Thomas 1997: a7 (78), b3 (89)
Bibliography
Adams, Douglas Q. 2013a. A dictionary of Tocharian B. Revised and greatly enlarged. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Carling, Gerd. 2000. Die Funktion der lokalen Kasus im Tocharischen. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Hackstein, Olav. 1995. Untersuchungen zu den sigmatischen Präsensstammbildungen des Tocharischen. HS Erg.-Heft 38. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
“The International Dunhuang Project: The Silk Road Online.” n.d. http://idp.bl.uk.
Krause, Wolfgang. 1952. Westtocharische Grammatik, Band I. Das Verbum. Heidelberg: Winter.
Malzahn, Melanie. 2007a. “The most archaic manuscripts of Tocharian B and the varieties of the Tocharian B language.” In Instrumenta Tocharica, edited by Melanie Malzahn, 255–97. Heidelberg: Winter.
Meunier, Fanny. 2013. “Typologie des locutions en yām- du tokharien.” Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 14: 123–85.
Peyrot, Michaël. 2008. Variation and change in Tocharian B. Vol. 15. Leiden Studies in Indo-European. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Peyrot, Michaël. 2013b. The Tocharian subjunctive. A study in syntax and verbal stem formation. Vol. 8. Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Schmidt, Klaus T. 1974. “Die Gebrauchsweisen des Mediums im Tocharischen.” PhD, Universität Göttingen.
Sieg, Emil, and Wilhelm Siegling. 1953. Tocharische Sprachreste. Sprache B, Heft 2. Fragmente Nr. 71-633. Edited by Werner Thomas. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Sieg, Emil, and Wilhelm Siegling. 1983. Tocharische Sprachreste. Sprache B. Teil I: Die Texte. Band 1. Fragmente Nr. 1-116 der Berliner Sammlung. Edited by Werner Thomas. Neubearbeitet und mit einem Kommentar nebst Register versehen v. Werner Thomas. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Tamai, Tatsushi. 2011. Paläographische Untersuchungen zum B-Tocharischen. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 138. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen.
Thomas, Werner, and Wolfgang Krause. 1964. Tocharisches Elementarbuch, Band II. Texte und Glossar. Heidelberg: Winter.
Thomas, Werner. 1952. Die tocharischen Verbaladjektive auf -l. Deutsche Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung 9. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Thomas, Werner. 1954. “Die Infinitive im Tocharischen.” In Asiatica. Festschrift Friedrich Weller. Zum 65. Geburtstag, gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, edited by Johannes Schubert and Ulrich Schneider, 701–64. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
Thomas, Werner. 1957. Der Gebrauch der Vergangenheitstempora im Tocharischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Thomas, Werner. 1958a. “Zum Ausdruck der Komparation beim tocharischen Adjektiv.” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 75: 129–69.
Thomas, Werner. 1967c. “Zu wortverbindendem toch. A śkaṃ/ B ṣpä.” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 81: 161–80.
Thomas, Werner. 1970a. “Zu einigen Besonderheiten der tocharischen Syntax.” Orbis 19: 452–72.
Thomas, Werner. 1979d. “Zur Verwendung von A śla, B śale, śle im Tocharischen.” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 150–73.
Thomas, Werner. 1983. Der tocharische Obliquus im Sinne eines Akkusativs der Richtung. Abhandlungen d. Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 6. Mainz: Verlag d. Akad. d. Wissenschaften und d. Literatur.
Thomas, Werner. 1986. “Zur Stellung von toch. A nuṃ, B nano ‘wieder’ innerhalb des Satzes.” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 99: 117–46.
Thomas, Werner. 1997. Interpretationsprobleme im Tocharischen. Unflektiertes A puk, B po “ganz, all, jeder”. Vol. 3. SbWGF, XXXV. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Gippert, Jost, Katharina Kupfer, Christiane Schaefer, and Tatsushi Tamai. n.d. “Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS): Tocharian Manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan Collection.” http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/tocharic/thtframe.htm.
