Announcements

  • The Zotero library underlying the CEToM bibliography is now public and can be viewed here.
  • We would like to thank Prof. Dr. Thomas Oberlies and Pratik Rumde from the Seminar für Indologie und Tibetologie of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen for providing our project with scans of the nachlass of Wilhelm Siegling. The nachlass includes letters to and from Siegling throughout his career that are of great importance to the history of the field of Tocharian studies. This material will be published on CEToM, accompanied by transcriptions of the letters, in the course of 2024.

print

Work in progress

THT 88

Known as:THT 88; B 88; Bleistiftnummer 2339; THT 1924
Cite this page as:Melanie Malzahn. "THT 88". 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-tht88 (accessed 22 Feb. 2024).

Edition

Editor:Melanie Malzahn

Provenience

Main find spot:Šorčuq
Expedition code:T III Š 75.3; T III Š 93
Collection:Berlin Turfan Collection (BBAW)

Language and Script

Language:TB
Linguistic stage:classical
Script:classical

Text contents

Title of the work:Araṇemijātaka
Text genre:Literary
Text subgenre:Jātaka/Avadāna
Verse/Prose:prose; verse
Meter:M21_21_18_13

Object

Manuscript:Araṇemi α
Leaf number:20-1
Material: ink on paper
Form:Poṭhī
Number of lines:6

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[k](·) ntwo ko yna meṃ pa rna lna ṣṣi ne || tu meṃ du rmu khe brā hma ṇe u tta re śa ma śkeṃ ka rwā ṣṣai wi tsa kai sa ra ska re tso paṃ ne si ñcai ṣo rpo ri [t]e (– – –)
a2mo rmeṃ au «ntsa» nte ne ścī re ma ka stsi • ta ne ña ke u tta ri śa ma ś(·)e ntse kā lpsa pai ne meṃ e tte klo yo ma ne a lye ka kca wa rtto ṣṣe ma kū ltsa ta trā ppa
a3rmeṃ rū psa klā ya ma rsā ne ke ○ ne mra kwe yo psa ne || ta ne ru dra śa rme brā hma ṇe • po rtsai sa u [tta] (·)[e] (–) ṣkeṃ e ṅko rmeṃ tsa k[a] tsai
a4keṃ tsa o rka ntai yä rtta ne || tu ○ lye lya ko rmeṃ vṛ kṣa vā si ke ña kte śle māṃ tsa lyñe śa no śwe s̝s̝aṃ la r[i] (– –) l[k]a nai mā ṣe kaṃ ñe
a5wä nta rwa¯ ¯ts spa rkā lye [ā] (– –) [p](·) ñca ga ti ne || ykā kcwi śa mā ne pā ce rwlo vi pṇu ntaṃ tsra a mā skai yā mtsi sū e rka tte • (–) kno cwi soṃ śke la laṃ
a6ṣkeṃ ai nā ki cai¯ ¯mp brā (– – –) r[t](·)e nne śle tre meṃ : pi l[ko](·) ·ñmā la ṣkeṃ lkā s̝s̝a nme ta ṅsa sa¯ ¯m mñcu ṣke la reṃ pā ta rra¯ ¯mt : mā w[a] ks[a]¯ ¯s̝ cwi[¯] [¯]m[p]
b1ma ske tra wa ste co¯ ¯mp [l](·) (– – – –) [ly]m[i](·) spo rto tra pā ce rcwi[¯] [¯mp] [ku] rā rlū wo [tu] y[ä] kne s(·) kw[ä] snā tra snai ka rsto • kwā ta rne ta ṅsa śau śaṃ ne cwī
b2yku wa toṃ yke nta ne wo l[o] (– –) mw[e] nte lwā sā tsra s̝pa se ni¯ ¯k co¯ ¯mp ka lpa s̝s̝aṃ ñśa meṃ wä tko ṣkrui lkā ce rñī so śke : p[ts]ā rwa ṣṣa tne ñi yke
b3ne ytā ri ne mpe lyai 2 || ś(·) ○ na ñä kte ñña we s̝s̝aṃ ma kte pā ce rwa lo cwi co¯ ¯mp la kle śa la kā s̝pa [ñ](·) (– –) kle su ste || vṛ kṣa
b4vā si ke ñä kte we s̝s̝aṃ pa ○ ñä ktaṃ ñe pe rne ṣṣe a kā lksa ri nsā te ne mā tra ṅko ya ma sne [p]· (– –) k(·) la kle¯ ¯ñä a ra ñce ni
b5ttaṃ we sa ñno pe rne sa sū toṃ la kle nta lkā s̝s̝aṃ || te we we ñ(·) rmeṃ ltai¯ ¯s ña kte ne || o mno ña ke to ttī ke po staṃ yne [ma] ne brā hma ṇi u tta reṃ
b6[mñcu] ṣkeṃ ā ke ma ne ca ndra mu khi lā nte ya po yne klā nte ne • tu meṃ brā hma ṇa grā mne yai po rmeṃ a ka la lyi ru dra mu kheṃ pu ro hi teṃ [w]e (·)[ā]

Transcription

a1 n1 k(a)ntwo koynameṃ parna lnaṣṣi-netumeṃ durmukhe brāhmaṇe uttare«ṃ» śamaśkeṃ kärwāṣṣai witsakaisa räskare tsopaṃ-ne siñcai ṣorpor ite – – –
a2 n1n2 mormeṃ auntsante-ne ścīre makästsitane ñake uttari śamaś(k)entse kālpsa painemeṃ ette kloyomane alyekä kca warttoṣṣe makūltsa tatrāppa-
a3 -rmeṃn3 rūpsa klāya {m/p}ärsā ärsā{n/t}e ke«ṃ»ne mrakwe yopsa-netane rudraśarme brāhmaṇeportsaisa utta(r)e(ṃ) (mñcu)ṣkeṃ eṅkormeṃ tsakatsai
a4 n4 keṃtsa orkäntai yärtta-netu lyelyakormeṃ vṛkṣavāsike ñakte śle māṃtsalyñe śanoś weṣṣäṃ lari(ya) (pā)lka nai mā-ṣekaṃñe
a5 n5 wäntarwats sparkālye ā(ke) (॥) p(a)ñcagatine
1a ykāk cwi śamāne ; pācer wlo ; vi{p/ṣ}ṇuntaṃts ra ; amāskai ; yāmtsi erkatte
1b (ya)k no cwi soṃśke ; lalaṃa6ṣkeṃn5n6 ; aināki caimp ; brā(hmaṇi) ; (yä)rt(t)en-ne śle tremeṃ :
1c pilko(s=) (ā)ñmālaṣkeṃ lkāṣṣän-me ; taṅsa sam mñcuṣke lareṃ pātär ramt :
1d wa ksa cwimp ; b1n6n7n8 mäsketrä ; waste comp l(aklene) (1)
2a (kä)lymi(ṃ) sportoträ ; pācer cwimp ; kurār lūwo tu yäknes(a) ; kwäsnāträ snai kärsto
2b kwātär-ne taṅsa ; śauśaṃ-ne ; cwī b2n8n9n10 ykuwa toṃ ; ykentane ; wolo(ktär) – mw ente
2c lwāsāts ra ṣpä senik comp kalpäṣṣäṃ ; ñśameṃ wätkoṣ krui lkācer ñī so«ṃ»śke :
2d ptsārwaṣṣat-ne ; ñi ykeb3nen10n11 ; ytārin= empelyai 2 ॥
ś(a)na ñäkteñña weṣṣäṃ makte pācer walo cwi comp lakle śalaṣpä ñ(ake) (lä)klesu stevṛkṣa-
b4 -vāsike-ñäkte weṣṣäṃ pañäktäṃñe perneṣṣe akālksa rinsāte-netraṅko yamas-ne p(o) – – k· läkleñ arañce ni-
b5 -ttaṃ wesäñ no pernesa toṃ läklenta lkāṣṣäṃ ॥ te weweñ(o)rmeṃ ltais ñakteneom no ñake tott īke-postaṃ ynemane brāhmaṇi uttareṃ
b6 mñcuṣkeṃ ākemane candramukhi lānte yapoyne klānte-netumeṃ brāhmaṇagrāmne yaipormeṃ akalṣälyi rudramukheṃ purohiteṃ we(ñ)ā-
-(re)

Translation

a1 [His] tongue was hanging [lit. going] out of his mouth. Thereupon the Brahmin Durmukha jabs the boy Uttara sharply with a reed root. After they had (put?) a ... [piece of] cloth (?) (onto his eyes/legs?), they began to chase him hard.
a2 Because of the boy Uttara’s [mis]treatment—collapsing from [his] feet he fell, when he had tripped over some forest root, onto his face
a3 —mud sputtered there from the ground [and] permeated it [= the face/cloth?].
a3+ Thereupon the Brahmin Rudraśarma grabbed the (pri)nce Utta(ra) by the ... [and] dragged him to and fro across the thorny ground.
a4 Having seen this, a Tree god spoke with sorrow to his wife:
a4+ “[My] love! Behold the inconstancy of things [and their] non-lasting end!”
a5 || In [the tune] pañcagati || Still [his] father, the king, is alive. It is with difficulty [only] that he may be treated disdainfully, even by Viṣṇus.
a5+ [And] yet his tender little son those dastardly Brahmins drag [about] with furor.
a6 With a look begging for compassion that prince looks at them, full of love, as [he would look at] his dear father,
a6+ but not a single one of them is to him protection in that s(uffering)!
b1 1.
b1 In [every] (di)rection his father turns; like a sea eagle he is keening incessantly. Full of love he calls him [and] cries for him. Where he [= the king] tarr(ies) (walking?) to the places treaded by him [= Uttara], he even entrusts onto the animals [saying]:
b2 "if you see my little son that has been separated from me, do comfort him in my stead on [his] terrible road!”
b3 2.
b3 The Goddess speaks: “The father, the king, himself has brought to him this suffering: Why is he unhappy now?”
b3+ The Tree-god speaks:
b4 “Because of his wish for the dignity of a Buddha he has given him up. Do not blame him!
b4+ Because of pain ... [his] heart is breaking com(pletely?).
b5 But [it is] for [all] our sakes he endures [lit. sees] such suffering.” Having said this, the two gods went away. There, however, the Brahmins, going step by step in the meantime, leading the prince Uttara, now brought him to the land of the king Candramukha.
b6 Thereupon the pupils, having entered the Brahmin village, spok(e) to the Purohita Rudramukha:

Other

a2+ Dort jetzt durch des Knaben Uttara Verhalten(?) ihm unter die Füße fallend [und] an irgendeiner Waldwurzel hängengeblieben, fiel sie(?) auf das Gesicht; ein wenig(?) spritzte auf die Erde [und] drang in sie ein. (Schmidt 1974: 132)
a4+ O dear!, look at the impermanence of the things [and their] ultimate disappearance! (cf 102; 317) (Peyrot 2013b: 350)
a6+ With a pitiful look that prince looks at them with love, as at a dear father. Yet there is not any protection for him in his sorrow. (cf 102) (Peyrot 2013b: 367)
b1+ Er ruft ihn voll Liebe [und] schreit nach ihm, an den von ihm [scil. Uttara] betretenen Orten verweilt er ... (Schmidt 1974: 276)
b1+ In [alle] Richtungen wendet sich sein Vater; [wie] ein Meeradler[tier] so wehklagt er ohne Unterlass. Er ruft ihn voll Liebe [und] schreit nach ihm. (Schmidt 1974: 95, 155-6, 279, 383)
b2+ If you see my little son, who is separated from me, console him on [his] awful road on my behalf [lit. in my stead]! (cf 102; 317–318) (Peyrot 2013b: 319)
b2+ Wenn ihr mein von mir getrenntes Söhnchen seht, [so] tröstet es an meiner Statt auf dem schrecklichen Weg! (Schmidt 1974: 193, 507)
b3 Sein Vater, der König, selbst hat ihm jenes Leid gebracht. (Schmidt 1974: 390)
b4 Do not blame him! (Peyrot 2013b: 305)
b5 Da aber jetzt brachten die Brahmanen, zunächst Schritt für Schritt gehend, den Prinzen Uttara führend, ihn in das Land des Königs Candramukha. (Schmidt 1974: 392)

Commentary

Philological commentary

Continues THT 87, continued on THT 89 after a gap the length of a leaf. The translation basically follows Schmidt 2001: 316-8.
Some signs have been copied without diligence, e.g., märsā-ne for pärsāte in a3, sparkālye for spärkālye, śamāne for śāmane, and vipṇuntaṃts for vipṇuntaṃts in a5, lwāsāts for lwasāṃts in b2, ākemane for akemane in b6, etc.; often anusvāra is misssing, geminates are spelled with a single consonant or clusters are simplified (yamas-ne for yamast-ne in b4). The meter is also often incorrect.
n1 A parallel passage now suggests a kind of textile or garment for the meaning of ṣorpor (not "bowl", which is the traditional interpretation triggered by ite "full"), see Schmidt 2001: 316 with fn. 93 and 94 and Pinault 2004a: 259. Due to the broken context and due to the fact that the hapax siñcai is not clear, the passage is not entirely certain. Schmidt 2001: 316 (who then must have had access to the now lost piece) wants to read in[eś] (eṃṣ)[k](e yā)mormeṃ instead of i[t]e and translates "after they had (pul)led(?) down a ... hood (?) into [his] ey(es)". Whether this is correct can only be verified when the missing piece has been found; note that ‹na› and ‹ta› are usually kept clearly apart in this manuscript, so that Sieg/Siegling's reading i[t]e, should not be dismissed easily, even if the sign [t] was read with some uncertainty. Differently, Pinault 2004a: 259f. restores siñcai ṣorpor ite (cewsa yā)mormeṃ and translates "having put trousers on him completetly provided with thorns", refering to similar punishments known from Indic literatures.
n2 kālp from Skt. kalpa- here means ‘(mis)treatment'. The reading ‹wa› in warttoṣṣe is clear, the form seems to be a mistake for wärttoṣṣe. There are many misspellings in this fragment.
n3 The function of the dot after brāhmaṇe is unclear and probably just a mistake.
n5 According to Sieg/Siegling, the meter has 21|21|18|13 syllables (a+b: 8/7/6; c: 9/9; d: 7/6). Very often the pādas have incorrect numbers of syllables.
n6 Pāda 1c has one syllable too many.
n8 The second colon of pāda 2a has one syllable too many; Thomas Sieg and Siegling 1983: 242 suggests to read tu-yknes(a). Sieg/Siegling read śauśaṃ-ne in pāda 2b; since the original fragment is missing, it is difficult to judge whether this is a typo for śauśäṃ-ne or a misspelling in the manuscript.
n9 The verbal form wolo(kträ) has already been restored by Krause 1952: 286. Schmidt 2001: 317 with fn. 100 claims that in the akṣara 〈mw〉 the 〈w〉 had been erased on purpose; he also reads and restores (tu)-maṃnte or (tu)-maṃnte "from there onwards"; however, this is impossible because the adverb mante in the meaning "from ... onwards" requires the ablativ, while the compound with the neuter te pronoun has the second member mant (te-mant "in this way"), never °mante. To be sure, the 〈w〉 may also simply be faint due to damage to the manuscript; as for the vowel above the akṣara, I also follow Sieg/Siegling in reading [e], because the sign as been attached on the left side over the 〈m〉, while an anusvāra would have been placed right in the middle over the sign. I follow the separation ente "where, if" propsoed by Stumpf 1971: 135f. °mw then can only be a sandhi form for °mu or °mu; Stumpf proposed yanmo "gehend" = "auf der Wanderung", while Thomas seems to propose an adverb "traurig".
n10 Both cola of pāda 2c have one syllable too many.
n11 The second colon of pāda 2d is one syllable too short, the missing syllable may be restored by restoring the sandhi form ytārine.

Remarks

According to Sieg/Siegling, a nearly completely leaf. Today, however, the right-most part with the margin is missing, and perhaps some smaller pieces. The fragment THT 88 is the largest completed by THT 1924 to its left side. The leaf was carelessley restored before putting it under the current glas frame: a small piece at the beginning of line a 1 and line b 6, respectively, has been glued in the wrong way, so it has to be turned upside down; around the margins some folds are turned the wrong way.
There is now a lacuna in line a1 between lnaṣṣi and m(·)eṃ, while Sieg/Siegling read clearly lnaṣṣine || tumeṃ, and it looks like part of the paper has been wrongly folded to the other side; the fragments join right in the middle of ‹du›; the attested fragment ends with si. In line a2 the fragments join right in the middle of ‹ña›, the leaf ends with ‹wa›. In lines a3 the fragments join somewhere in the middle of the string hole, the leaf ends with ‹utta›, while the upper part of a following vowel sign e is still visible. In line a4 the left fragment reads up until ||, while the akṣara ‹tu› read by Sieg/Siegling is missing; the leaf ends with ‹lar[i]›. The left piece in line a5 ends with ‹lye›, an edge from the verso side with part of the ‹la›-sign has been folded over the verso side; the right fragment starts with part of the ‹pa› and ends with the dot. In line a6 the left piece ends with ‹brā›, the right starts with ‹rt(·)e›; in three places the paper has been wrongly folded so that the correct text is now to be seen on the photo of the verso side: the nn of r[t](·)enne, the middle of the akṣara ‹lkā› of lkāṣṣänme, and the lower part of the ‹ka› of mñcuṣke; the fragment ends with ‹rra›. In line b1 the framents do not join, the left fragment ends before the lacuna, the beginning of the right fragment is the correct place to put the small fragment mentioned in line a6, right where one can still see traces of the ‹[ly]mi› and ‹so› read by Sieg/Siegling; over the ‹ka› of kärtso a small piece showing the lower part of a ‹ka› has been wrongly glued; the fragment ends with kwātärne. In line b2 the left fragment ends with ‹wol[o]›, the right continues after the lacuna and ends with ‹ptsā›. In line b3 the fraction falls into the string hole, the remains of a sign visible after ś(·) must belong to a different piece; the right fragment ends with ñ(·). In line b4 the fraction again falls into the string hole, the right fragment ends with [p]·. In line b5 the fragments join completely at the beginning of lkāṣṣäṃ, the right fragment ends with yne, but the e-sign is lost now. In line b6 the u of mu from candramukhi seems to have been folded wrongly to the other side, the fragments join after lānte, the right fragment ends with ‹rudramu›.

Linguistic commentary

n4 Here we seem to have a phrase vṛkṣavāsike ñakte (lit. "a god inhabiting a tree"), while in b4 the Tree-god is a compound vṛkṣavāsike-ñäkte of the type kauṃ-ñäkte 'Sun-god'. But note that ñakte may also be simply a misspelling for ñäkte, since there are many errors in this text.
n7 Note the monophthong -o in snai kärsto for snai kärstau; the same monophthongized form is attested in THT 85 a 1, which belongs to the same manuscript, and there it is also at the end of a sentence. Accordingly, the form rather attests to a real monothong and is not simply due to a misspelling.

Alternative linguistic/paleographic classifications

Tamai 2011 C5
Tamai 2011 C14

References

Online access

IDP: THT 88, THT 1924; TITUS: THT 88, THT 1924

Edition

Tamai 2007a: №1924; Sieg and Siegling 1953: 25-26

Translations

Carling 2000: a2 a3 (223), a3 (80), a3 a4 (50, 180), b2 (91), b2 b3 (90, 94, 96), b5 (330), b5 b6 (101); Couvreur 1954c: a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 (102); Hackstein 1995: a6 (250), b3 (314); Krause 1952: a5 (39), b4 (27); Thomas and Krause 1964: a2 a3 (52), a4 a5 (52), a5 (52), b1 b2 (52), b4 (53); Meunier 2013: a4 a5 (167); Peyrot 2013b: a4 a5 (350), a6 b1 (367), b2 b3 (319), b4 (305); Pinault 2004a: a1 a2 a3 a4 (259f); Schmidt 1974: a2 a3 (131f), a2 a3 (132), b1 (383), b1 b2 (95, 155f, 276, 279), b1 b2 (276), b1 b2 (95, 155-6, 279, 383), b2 b3 (193, 507), b3 (390), b5 (392), b5 b6 (392); Schmidt 2001: a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 (316-318); Sieg and Siegling 1983: a2 (241), a3 (241), a5 (241), b2 (242), b4 (242); Thomas 1952: a5 (34); Thomas 1954: a5 (745); Thomas 1957: a1 (48f), a1 a2 a3 a4 (91), a2 (49), a3 a4 (196), b3 b4 b5 (181), b5 b6 (91); Thomas 1958: b4 (302); Thomas 1967b: a5 (24); Thomas 1967c: b5 (175); Thomas 1968: a6 (204); Thomas 1969: a3 (257), a3 a4 (257); Thomas 1969b: b4 (54); Thomas 1970: a5 (278); Thomas 1972: b1 (456); Thomas 1973: b6 (80); Thomas 1975: b4 (310); Thomas 1979b: a2 a3 (43), b5 b6 (45); Thomas 1979d: a4 (151); Thomas 1981: b4 (494); Thomas 1983: b5 b6 (32)

Bibliography

Carling 2000

Carling, Gerd. 2000. Die Funktion der lokalen Kasus im Tocharischen. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Couvreur 1954c

Couvreur, Walter. 1954c. “Koetsjische literaire fragmenten uit de Berlijnse verzameling (naar aanleiding van Sieg & Siegling’s Tocharische Sprachreste).” Handelingen VIII der Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis, 97–117.

Hackstein 1995

Hackstein, Olav. 1995. Untersuchungen zu den sigmatischen Präsensstammbildungen des Tocharischen. HS Erg.-Heft 38. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

IDP

“The International Dunhuang Project: The Silk Road Online.” n.d. http://idp.bl.uk.

Krause 1952

Krause, Wolfgang. 1952. Westtocharische Grammatik, Band I. Das Verbum. Heidelberg: Winter.

Meunier 2013

Meunier, Fanny. 2013. “Typologie des locutions en yām- du tokharien.” Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 14: 123–85.

Peyrot 2013b

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.

Pinault 2004a

Pinault, Georges-Jean. 2004a. “Zum Tocharischen in der Turfanforschung.” In Turfan Revisited — The First Century of Research into the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road, edited by Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst and et al., 17:256–63. Monographien zur indischen Archäologie, Kunst und Philologie. Berlin: Reimer.

Schmidt 1974

Schmidt, Klaus T. 1974. “Die Gebrauchsweisen des Mediums im Tocharischen.” PhD thesis, Universität Göttingen.

Schmidt 2001

Schmidt, Klaus T. 2001. “Die westtocharische Version des Araṇemi-Jātakas in deutscher Übersetzung.” In De Dunhuang à Istanbul. Hommage à James Russell Hamilton, edited by Louis Bazin and Peter Zieme, 299–327. Silk Road Studies 5. Turnhout: Brepols.

Sieg and Siegling 1953

Sieg, Emil, and Wilhelm Siegling. 1953. Tocharische Sprachreste. Sprache B, Heft 2. Fragmente Nr. 71-633. Edited by Werner Thomas. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Sieg and Siegling 1983

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.

Stumpf 1971

Stumpf, Peter. 1971. Der Gebrauch der Demonstrativ-Pronomina im Tocharischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

TITUS

Gippert, Jost, Katharina Kupfer, Christiane Schaefer, and Tatsushi Tamai. n.d. “Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS): Tocharian Manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan Collection.”

Tamai 2007a

Tamai, Tatsushi. 2007a. “A preliminary edition of unpublished texts from the Berlin Turfan Collection.” Thesaurus indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien (TITUS): Tocharian manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan collection. http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/tocharic/tht.htm.

Tamai 2011

Tamai, Tatsushi. 2011. Paläographische Untersuchungen zum B-Tocharischen. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 138. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen.

Thomas 1952

Thomas, Werner. 1952. Die tocharischen Verbaladjektive auf -l. Deutsche Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung 9. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Thomas 1954

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 1957

Thomas, Werner. 1957. Der Gebrauch der Vergangenheitstempora im Tocharischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Thomas 1958

Thomas, Werner. 1958. “Zum Gebrauch des prohibitiven mar bzw. im Tocharischen.” Central Asiatic Journal 3: 289–308.

Thomas 1967b

Thomas, Werner. 1967b. “Besteht ein formaler Unterschied zwischen N. und Obl. Sg. m. bei den wtoch. Verbaladjektiven?” Die Sprache 13: 20–30.

Thomas 1967c

Thomas, Werner. 1967c. “Zu wortverbindendem toch. A śkaṃ/ B ṣpä.” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 81: 161–80.

Thomas 1968

Thomas, Werner. 1968. “Zur Verwendung von toch. A oki/B ramt und A mäṃtne/B mäkte in Vergleichen.” Orbis 17: 198–231.

Thomas 1969

Thomas, Werner. 1969. “Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch von toch. A ptāñkät [B pañäkte, pudñäkte], A koṃ [B kauṃ]: A koṃñkät [B kauṃñäkte] usw.” Orbis 18: 235–68.

Thomas 1969b

Thomas, Werner. 1969b. “Toch. B pañäkti Gen. Sg.?” Sprache 15: 53–58.

Thomas 1970

Thomas, Werner. 1970. “Zu einer stilistischen Besonderheit im Tocharischen.” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 84: 254–80.

Thomas 1972

Thomas, Werner. 1972. “Zweigliedrige Wortverbindungen im Tocharischen.” Orbis 21: 429–70.

Thomas 1973

Thomas, Werner. 1973. “Zur Bedeutung des Tempuswechsels von Präteritum zu Präsens im Tocharischen.” Indogermanische Forschungen 78: 78–94.

Thomas 1975

Thomas, Werner. 1975. “Zum Problem des Prohibitivs im Indogermanischen.” In Dialogos. Für Harald Patzer zum 65. Geburtstag von seinen Freunden und Schülern, edited by Justus Cobet, Rüdiger Leimbach, and Ada B. Neschke-Hentschke, 307–23. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Thomas 1979b

Thomas, Werner. 1979b. Formale Besonderheiten in metrischen Texten des Tocharischen: Zur Verteilung von B tane/tne “hier” und B ñake/ñke “jetzt”. Abhandlungen d. Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 15. Mainz: Verlag d. Akad. d. Wissenschaften und d. Literatur.

Thomas 1979d

Thomas, Werner. 1979d. “Zur Verwendung von A śla, B śale, śle im Tocharischen.” Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 150–73.

Thomas 1981

Thomas, Werner. 1981. “Indogermanisches in der Syntax des Tocharischen: Zum Ausdruck eines Gebotes und Verbotes.” In Festschrift der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 481–97.

Thomas 1983

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 and Krause 1964

Thomas, Werner, and Wolfgang Krause. 1964. Tocharisches Elementarbuch, Band II. Texte und Glossar. Heidelberg: Winter.