On Tocharian Exceptionality to the centum/satem Isogloss
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like1,999 views
Tocharian was an Indo-European language spoken in ancient times in the Tarim Basin in Central Asia. While most Indo-European languages fall into either the centum or satem category based on their treatment of Proto-Indo-European palatovelars, Tocharian patterns with centum languages but also shows some satem features. This document discusses possible reasons for Tocharian's exceptionality, including language contact influencing its phonology and changes in the size and use of the Tocharian language community over time leading to changes in its phonemic inventory.
![Horizontal Transfer
Could Tocharian have been influenced by non-IE
languages, leading to the merge into [k]?](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tocharianulab2012-120423044410-phpapp02/85/On-Tocharian-Exceptionality-to-the-centum-satem-Isogloss-21-320.jpg)
On Tocharian Exceptionality to the centum/satem Isogloss
- 1. On Tocharian Exceptionality to the centum-satem Isogloss Richard Littauer MSc Saarland University | MA University of Edinburgh rlittauer.com | @richlitt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocharians
- 2. Tocharian What is it?
- 6. Centum-Satem Proto-Indoeuropean *kʷ *gʷ *gʷʰ (labiovelars) *k *g *gʰ ("plain velars") *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ ("palatovelars”)
- 7. Centum-Satem Proto-Indoeuropean *kʷ *gʷ *gʷʰ (labiovelars) *k *g *gʰ ("plain velars") *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ ("palatovelars”) Centum group kʷ gʷ gʷʰ k g gʰ
- 8. Centum-Satem Proto-Indoeuropean *kʷ *gʷ *gʷʰ (labiovelars) *k *g *gʰ ("plain velars") *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ ("palatovelars”) Centum group Satem group kʷ gʷ gʷʰ kʷ gʷ gʷʰ k g gʰ k g gʰ s z
- 12. Outline • Overall language complexity • Possible language contact • Changes in language use
- 13. Language Complexity All languages are equal.
- 14. Language Complexity All languages are equal. All languages are equally complex in different ways.
- 15. Language Complexity All languages are equal. All languages are equally complex in different ways. Language complexity differs across the board, but stays the same.
- 16. Language Complexity All languages are equal. All languages are equally complex in different ways. Language complexity differs across the board, but stays the same.
- 17. Language Complexity Overall complexity of a language may change over time. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, Sampson 2009.
- 18. Language Complexity Kupwar, India: • Urdu (IE) • Marathi (IE) • Kanneda (Dravidian) Minimal lexical and phonological borrowings.
- 19. Language Complexity Kupwar, India: • Urdu (IE) • Marathi (IE) • Kanneda (Dravidian) Minimal lexical and phonological borrowings. But syntactically: “the sentences can be seen as exact calques of each other.” (Myers-Scotton 2002, 176)
- 20. Language Complexity Tocharian has drastic changes in the: • syntax • morphology • lexically This may have influenced the changes in the phonemic inventory of the language.
- 21. Horizontal Transfer Could Tocharian have been influenced by non-IE languages, leading to the merge into [k]?
- 22. Whence the Tocharoi? Tocharian culture is referenced much earlier than the 6th century by Ptolemy, Strabo, and Apollinorus (Sinor 1963, 151). Two migration theories: • Migrated from central or west Eurasia, although archaeological evidence for such a feat is non-existent. • Migrated from the Afanasievo culture of Siberia before settling in the Tarim Basin.
- 23. Arguments against Turkic Previous suggested sources for borrowings: “nomadic pastoralists speaking Ural-Altaic languages.” (Sinor 1990) But: “the major event that led to the Turkicisation of Xinjiang was the collapse of the nomadic steppe empire of the Turkic-speaking Uighurs." (Pulleyblank 2002, 45)
- 24. Arguments against Turkic • More Indic, Dravidian, and Sino-Tibetan languages in the area. • Difficult to borrow morphology from a left-head orientated language. • Hard to choose a contact language: • Only around 5,000 attested Tocharian words, • We don’t know enough about the area.
- 25. Arguments against Turkic Tocharian continued on: • “into the period of the Tang Dynasty (AD 618-907) when the Chinese first regained the Tarim basin and then lost it in the face of Tibetan and, subsequently, Turkish incursions.” (Mallor 2000, 272)
- 26. Other Languages Mithridates VI of Pontus reputedly knew all twenty-two languages in his Anatolian empire.
- 27. Other Languages Mithridates VI of Pontus reputedly knew all twenty-two languages in his Anatolian empire. Bactrian Iranian, Khotanese Saka, Old Persian, Han, Tang, Shang, and Chou Old and Middle Chinese variants, Sogdian, Greek, Uighur and Kyrgiz Turkish, Ossetic, Avestan, Tai, Prakrit, Tibetan, Kuchean, Bu rushaski, Scythian, and Cimmerian (Pulleyblank 2002)
- 28. Maintaining Distinction Ma’a: • Has one idiosyncratic phoneme, a voiceless lateral fricative: • “to emphasize the differentness of their other language, they sometimes introduce it into Bantu words.” (Thompson 2001)
- 29. Maintaining Distinction The velar merging might then have been used as a way of keeping distinct from other sounds in the region. In the sprachbund of Mesopotamia and central Asia, allophonic variants might have been minimalised to retain maximum distinction.
- 30. Change in Domain The merge may have occurred due a change in Tocharian in general.
- 31. Change in Domain The Tocharian population was never large, and may have been influenced by the ‘founder effect.’ (cf Atkinson 2011)
- 32. Change in Domain Research correlates phonemic inventory size with the size of the language community. (Hay and Bauer 2007)
- 33. Change in Domain Tocharian already showed signs of decaying use: Tocharian A is found almost exclusively in liturgical documents.
- 34. Change in Domain It is possible that a change in the size of the community from a larger foundation, combined with decay in use and horizontal transfer, may have led to detrition of the phonemic system.
- 35. Conclusion Tocharian may not have been susceptible to a weak dialect wave, or to a possible early branching of IE.
- 36. References • Atkinson, Quentin (2011). Phonemic Diversity Supports a Serial Founder Effect Model of Language Expansion from Africa Science 332, 346. • Hay, J., and Bauer, L. (2007). Phoneme inventory size and population size. Language 83(2): 388– 400. • Mallor, J.P., and Mair, Victor H. (2000). The Tarim Mummies. London: Thames and Hudson. • Myers-Scotton, Carol (2002). Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. • Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (2002). Central Asia and Non-Chinese Peoples of Ancient China. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate. • Renfrew, Colin (1990). Archaeology and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521386753. • Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter (ed.) (2009). Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Volume 13 of Studies in the Evolution of Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. • Sinor, Denis (1963). Introduction a` l’E tude de l’Asie Centale. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. • Sinor, Denis (ed.) (1990). The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge, UK: SMC Publishing Inc. • Thomason, Sarah G. (2001). Language Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.