BOOK REVIEWS 177

does justice to the nature of the text as an anonymous, accreted piece ofliterature, wherefore I believe that this work is not, or will not prove to be,the last word on the PK.

Seminar für Orientalistik HORST BRINKHAUS

Abteilung für IndologieLeibnizstr. 10D-24 118 KielDeutschland

Adams, Douglas Q., A dictionary of Tocharian B [Leiden Studies in Indo-European 10]. Amsterdam: Atlanta, Rodopi, 1999. pp. xxxiv, 830. ISBN90-420-0435-5.

1. PREFACE AND AIMS OF THE DICTIONARY

According to Adams, the purpose of his dictionary is twofold. It isintended to be a dictionary in the ordinary sense as a work of refer-ence for synchronic Tocharian B lexicography, and at the same time itpurports to be an etymological dictionary of Tocharian B “and thus an aidto understand the place of Tocharian within the Indo-European family”(p. i). Such a multi-purpose dictionary certainly has been on every Indo-Europeanist’s wish list for a long time now, especially in view of therestricted value of van Windekens’ etymological dictionary.1 CertainlyAdams dictionary intends to be the long awaited replacement for andupdate on van Windekens’ work, and certainly in trying to lay the philo-logical groundwork for each article Adams attempts to link up to thetradition founded by Emil Sieg, Wilhem Siegling, Wolfgang Krause andWerner Thomas. It is therefore perhaps not entirely fortuitous that theTocharian moto (Tocharian B Karmavibhanga fragment F K 8 a2) withwhich Adams finishes his preface (on p. vi) is repeated from WernerThomas, 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 deretymologischen Forschung auf dem Gebiete des Tocharischen. In: Manfred Mayrhofer,Martin Peters, Oskar E. Pfeiffer (Hrsg.), Lautgeschichte und Etymologie. Wiesbaden 1980.394–411, and Werner Winter, Lg 57,4 (1981), 935–941 and ZDMG 132,2 (1982), 399–402.

Indo-Iranian Journal 46: 177–189, 2003.© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

178 BOOK REVIEWS

of Adams’ dictionary is seriously impaired by numerous shortcomingsconcerning both the synchronic and the diachronic treatment of Tocharian,listed in the following sections on the bibliography (§2), the notationalsystem (§3), Tocharian philology (§4), Tocharian grammar (§5), Tocharianlexicography and etymology (§6), and Tocharian historical phonology(§7).

2. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography contains gross distortions of titles and references.

Adams changes the names of journals: Instead of Tocharian and Indo-European Studiesone reads Journal of Tocharian and Indo-European Studies (p. xiii, line 28, and p. xix, line39) or Tocharian Indo-European Studies (p. xv, line 41). Instead of Münchener Studienzur Sprachwissenschaft one reads Münchener Studien der Sprachwissenschaft (p. xviii,s.v. Melchert 1989). Adams goes even so far as to invent completely new titles: Onp. 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 anddanken (p. xvi s.v. Krause 1956), Wortbilding (p. xxi s.v. Schmidt 1980), Die Forschungdes Tocharischen (p. xxv, 1st line), to name just a few. Even the names of scholars are notexempt from continuous misspellings, cf. e.g., “Sielging” instead of “Siegling” (p. xv),“George Cardon” instead of “George Cardona” (p. xvi s.v. Kimball 1987), “GuntherNeumann” instead of “Günther Neuman” (p. xxi), “K. H. Schmidt” instead of “K. T.Schmidt” (p. 238 s.v. kwıpe).

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 “Hethitischeund indogermanisch”, p. xi s.v. Emmerick, nom. “Österreichischen Akademie” [abstractedfrom “Nachrichten der Österreichischen . . .”], p. xvi, s.v. Krause 1961 “Nachrichten denAkademie der Wissenschaften . . .”, p. xix s.v. Pedersen 1944 “Zur tocharische Sprach-geschichte”, 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 weit-eren . . .”, 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 d’une drame . . .”, p. xxs.v. Pinault 1990 “le manuscrits”) and Dutch (p. xi s.v. Couvreur 1964 “Niewe” [Nieuwe]).

An embarrassing vacillation occurs in refering to Pinault’s editions of the caravan passesas 1986 on p. xix, as 1987 on p. xxxii, and again as 1986 on p. xxxiii.

The bibliography presented by Adams on pp. vii–xxxi is as long asis to be expected for an etymological dictionary, but nevertheless it isincomplete. Those familiar with Tocharian studies will miss many standardarticles, such as Werner Winters’ important book-length article on theTocharian numerals, s. Werner Winter, Tocharian. In: Jadranka Gvozdan-ovic (ed.), Indo-European Numerals. Trends in Linguistics, Studies and

BOOK REVIEWS 179

Monographs 57. Berlin, New York 1992. 97–161, occasionally referredto as Winter 1991 or 1992 by Adams, but most researchers consultingAdams’ dictionary will not be able to identify this citation. The sameholds for “Schmidt 1986: 94” on p. 209 s.v. kauke (only by consultingHilmarsson, Materials 1996: 117 have I been able to identify this refer-ence), and for “Ringe 1988–90: 1–05 [sic! read 105]–115” on p. 290, s.v.täk-, again absent from the bibliography (= Ringe, Die Sprache 34 (1998–90), 59–123). The same goes for other standard monographs in the field.Thus, no mention is made of Pinault’s introduction to Tocharian (Georges-Jean Pinault, Introduction au tokharien. LALIES 7. Paris 1989. 3–224) andof Ringe’s 1996 book on Tocharian historical phonology, which as Adamshas remarked himself in Language 74 (1998), 615 is “an important newsurvey of Tocharian historical phonology”.

3. NOTATIONAL SYSTEM

When it comes to giving the attestations of Tocharian B forms, Adamsdispenses with the otherwise customary indication of the local origin ofthe fragments. As has been known ever since Winter’s pioneering articleon the Tocharian B dialects (JAOS 75 (1955), 216–225, KZ 75 (1957),233–237, cf. Ringe 1987 for a recent summary), the identification of thedialect type is a necessary prerequisite to determine the Tocharian B accentwhich is morphophonemic and therefore of importance for the synchronicanalysis of Tocharian nominal and (especially) verbal forms.

4. TOCHARIAN PHILOLOGY

One would wish that the shortcomings were confined to formal errorsonly! What is much worse is the gross misrepresentation of the stateof Indo-European and Tocharian studies in October 1998 (= date of thepreface, p. vi). Being selective about secondary literature of course doesnot inevitably have to be disadvantageous. After all, sheer doxography isnot what one expects in the work of a specialist in the field. But what onecertainly would expect of a specialist and a dictionary is the intention todocument the achievements of the discipline as thoroughly as possible. Inthe worst of all cases the failure to inform about the latest research maylead to severe setbacks in the understanding of Tocharian texts:

180 BOOK REVIEWS

p. 131, 1st line, wrong translation of A 215 okäm pätstsar “set outmore [?]” [sic !]. For the correct interpretation of the passage see WernerThomas, Tocharische Maitreya-Parallelen aus Hami. Sitzungsberichteder Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main Bd 27 Nr. 1. Stuttgart 1990, a title againnot 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, à partir d’ une nouvelleoccurrence dans le Maitreyasamiti-Nat.aka. In: Papers in honour of Prof.Dr. Ji Xianlin on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Bd 1. Peking. 145–162.

On p. 205 (s. v. mäs- “go”) Adams adheres to the older interpretationof B 108 a5 mas[c]e[r] as suppletive sbj. 2pl. act. of yä-/mäs- “go”,thus ignoring Schmidt’s convincing demonstration that we rather havea vernacular variant of the otherwise amply attested yamascer “youguys are doing”, see K. T. Schmidt, Bemerkungen zur westtocharischenUmgangssprache. In: Annemarie Etter (Hrsg.) o-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift fürErnst Risch. Berlin, New York 1986. 635–649.

The entry wkanmo “drinking” on p. 614 is a ghost word based on amisdivision of the text in B 274. The correct division has been knownsince 1985, see Klaus T. Schmidt, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der tocharischenVerbalmorphologie. In: Grammatische Kategorien. Wiesbaden 1985. 424–234, an important article again not listed in the bibliography. According toSchmidt, op. cit. 432 the passage B 274 b5 MQ sam. tkewkänmonwaññe isto be understood as sam. tke + ewkän-me + onwaññe “Er wird ihnen dasAmr◦ ta-Heilmittel zu trinken geben”. The finite verb form ewkäm. belongsto the paradigm of the separate root B auk-, A ok- “to give to drink”, whichcan be set up for Tocharian, see Hackstein 1995: 338f.

In the light of the gross misrepresentation of research on Tocharian, itis even more disconcerting to see that the situation is not any better forthe other IE languages. Major standard etymological dictionaries are notincluded in Adams’ bibliography, e.g.:

Manfred Mayrhofer, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen.Heidelberg 1992ff.

Albert Lloyd, Rosemarie Lühr & Otto Springer 1998: EtymologischesWörterbuch des Althochdeutschen Bd II. Göttingen, Zürich.

BOOK REVIEWS 181

5. TOCHARIAN GRAMMAR

p. xxxiii: In his documentation of the Tocharian gender and numberproperties of nouns, Adams decides to use a confusing wealth ofaltogether six different notations: (1) nf., (2) n. [f.pl.], (3) n. [m.sg.],(4) nnt., (5) n. pl., (6) n. pl. tant. All of these terms are quite unwieldyand sometimes even erroneous as in the case of (2) n. [f. pl.] “nounwhose 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 genderseems inappropriate in the absence of any comment on the traditionalterminology, especially in view of the dictionary’s claim to be a work ofreference also for non-Tocharianists.

p. 383, s.v. B pik- “write, paint”: Adams teaches that the root hasa thematic present in Tocharian B as before in Tocharian HistoricalPhonology and Morphology 64 and 68, ignoring Schmidt’s demonstration1985: 426 that the present stem is athematic.

p. 587, s.v. warp- “surround” is wrongly separated from p. 594 wärp-“partake”, the meanings assigned to both roots are not entirely correct.The basic meaning seems to be “embrace”. Used figuratively wärp- mayalso mean “perceive/enjoy” and “comprehend intellectually”, cf. Lat.comprehendere, German begreifen, erfassen. For the etymology see nowDriessen, On the etymology of lat. urbs. JIES 29 (2001), 41–68.

p. 597, s.v. 1wäs- “be dressed in . . .”, Adams fails to mention that thepresent stem of the root is attested in 3pl. middle yäskem. trä, see Hackstein1995: 264ff.

6. TOCHARIAN LEXICOGRAPHY AND ETYMOLOGY

p. 19, s.v. amok∗: the translation of B 605 b1 as “since Dh. has commandedthe arts to be written” is misleading. The English rendering of amokäntaas “arts” distorts the actual sense, amokänta refers to the preceding writingexercises, and the sets of dvadasaks. arı-s, see Sieg/Siegling 1921, prefacep. v!

182 BOOK REVIEWS

p. 25, incomplete entries such as “alase ‘?’ G-Qa5” do not make muchsense.

p. 129, s.v. B auk “snake, serpent”, as for non-Tocharian cognates seeJoshua Katz 1999 in Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins, Innsbruck1999, 317ff. Adams cites as cognates Av. aži- (p. 129) and OCS ježÞ(p. 130) both from PIE ∗h1egwhi-, one can add Greek ε

,χις “viper”. As for

the historical phonology (B auk from PT ∗æuk with labial metathesis) <

PIE ∗h1ogwhi/u- one should compare Ringe 1996: 127 and Kim, TIES 8(1999), 164.

p. 140f, B kapyare is translated by Adams as “worker, laborer”. However,“intermediary agent” is more adequate a translation, see Pinault 1994:100f.

p. 150, B katk- “be glad” can quite plausibly be reconstructed as ∗ká-t-sk-< ∗ga(h2) dh-ske/o- < ∗ga(h2) dhh1-ske/o- < ∗geh2 dhh1-ske/o- “inGlanz = Freude versetzen”, for the details see HS 115 (2002), 8.

p. 181, kucaññe“ kusiññe “Kuchean” is the self-designation of theWest-Tocharians and can be connected with PIE ∗ku�iti- “white” as hasbeen suggested by Pinault 1989: 22 and others. Despite Adams’ claim(TIES 9 (2000), 20 Fn. 41) that kusiññe instead of expected (constant)∗kuci◦ would rule out a connection with PIE ∗ku�iti- on formal grounds,the etymology can be upheld since Toch. B -c- (the regular palatalizedallophone 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 alow register of Toch. B.

p. 186ff, s.v. kuse “who . . .” [add: “what”]: kuse goes back to ∗kwusoaccording to Adams (p. 187). However, a reconstruction of the inter-rogative relative kuse as PIE∗kwis so(s) is to be preferred since PIEinterrogative/(restrictive) relative ∗kwis clearly is the functional analogueof the Tocharian pronoun and since nothing stands in the way of derivingkuse from ∗kwis-so(s), see Ringe 1996: 66, Hilmarsson 1996: 196f and forthe treatment of the final vowel HS 114 (2001), 32f. The protoform PIE∗kwoso posited by Klingenschmitt, TIES 4 Suppl. vol. 4, p. 348 Fn. 66 isout of the question because the Tocharian evidence unequivocally atteststo a development PIE ∗kwo- > PT ∗kæ- > B ke-, A ka-, see Kim, TIES 8(1999), 149f.

BOOK REVIEWS 183

p. 189f, s.v. kektseñe “body”, cf. now Pinault, Tocharian A kapsañi,B kektseñe. In: H. Eichner, H. C. Luschützky (Hrsg.), CompositionesIndogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler. Prag 1999. 457–478.

p. 289, for B täm. ts- “scatter, disperse” I would suggest a connection withLatin tundere.

p. 345, s.v. B ste and stare, as many others before, Adams erroneouslyassignes B ste and stare to PIE ∗steh2-, see HS 114 (2001), 26–28.

p. 357, s.v. B pärsare “?”: the meaning of B pärsare was narroweddown to “headache” by Jean Filliozat, Fragments de textes koutchéensde médicine et de magie, Paris 1948, Emil Sieg, KZ 72 [1955], 72, 76,and J. W. Broomhead, A textual edition of the British Hoernle Steinand Weber manuscripts, Cambridge 1962, vol. II 163 s.v pärsarem.“headache, migraine?”. (Broomhead’s edition is not mentioned in Adams’bibliography.) Adams’ decision not to translate the term at all meansa setback because the medical prescriptions associated with B pärsarefit with “headaches” quite well. In fact both the medication (“oils andalcohol”: FII W 3a3 and 37a3 mo(ts)tsa, 38 b1 kwäñcı tas. s. e s. alype “oilof sesame”) and its application (embrocation, forehead and temples: W3a3 as[ne] yamas. s. älle) find their analogues in many nature cures of thepresent day against headaches.

p. 382, B päst “away, back”, for the etymology, semantics and syntax, cf.TIES 7 (1997), 45–50.

p. 384, pikul “year”, no mention of Joshua Katz, Homeric Formula andthe Tocharian Word for “Year”: A Transferred Epithet. Glotta 72 (1994),151–168, cf. recently Georges-Jean Pinault, Tocharian Languages andPre-Buddhist Culture. In: Victor H. Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age and EarlyIron Age Peoples. Volume I. Washington 1998. 361: abstract verbal nounmeaning “ripening”, resultative noun “ripeness, maturity”.

p. 400f, B pest “(particle) used with verbs with perfectivizing force”: themeaning of B pest can be rendered more precisely as “away, off”, seeTIES 7 (1997), 46.

p. 405, according to Adams B postäm. occurs either as adverb “finally,afterwards” or as an indeclinable adj. “latter”: however, it would be more

184 BOOK REVIEWS

precise and correct to determine the word as a preverb and postposition,see TIES 7 (1997), 45–50.

p. 407, B pyak- “strike (downwards)”, no mention of Hackstein 1992[1993]: Eine weitere griechisch-tocharische Gleichung: Griechischπτη

�ξαι und toch. B pyaktsi. Glotta 70. 136–165.

p. 425, B plant- “rejoice, be glad”, Adams accepts the connection withLatin splendere, and describes the latter as a “denominative verb builton an old nominal formation [a gerund?] ∗spleh1-ndo-” implying thatthe Latin gerundival suffix -ndo- can be directly projected back intoIndo-European. This however is not so. The Latin gerundival suffix-ndo- rather goes back to metathesized ∗-dn-o- (the Latin unda-rule< PIE ∗ud-na), an exocentric derivative of the abstract noun type in∗-don/dn-, cf. Gr. µακεδνóς ← ∗µακεδων “length”, s. GerhardMeiser, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre, Darmstadt1998, 228. Beyond that, the proposed etymology of B plant- presupposesa 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 anovice. The canonical age of novices was not below 15 . . ., so “puerile” isnot appropriate as a translation.

p. 446, s.v. maka “many, much”, Adams fails to mention the shortmonograph by W. Thomas, Zur tocharischen Syntax, Adverbiales A mak,B maka. Stuttgart 1995 which contains important information on thesynchronic syntax of maka. For the historical phonology see Ringe 1996:161.

p. 451f, s.v. mäkte “how . . .”, mäksu “which, who”: The first syllable maycontain the Tocharian prefix mä- which can be identified with the a localparticle PIE ∗me- “(with)in, on”, for which compare the literature givenby Matzinger, Die Sprache 40,2 (1998), 114 Fn. 26 and Balles, HS 112(1999), 139f with further references. In this case, B mäkte, mäksu wouldbe early univerbations of PIE ∗me- “(with)in, on” and ∗kwid tod “what”,∗kwis so(s) “who(m)”, as for the preposing of PIE ∗me see the positionalrule given in TIES 7 (1997), 55. Alternatively, ∗me could be seen as anablaut variant of the interrogative stem ∗mo- which is residually found inAnatolian.

BOOK REVIEWS 185

p. 467, s.v. -me, cf. now Joshua Katz, Archaische Keltische Person-alpronomina. In: Wolfgang Meid (Hrsg.), Sprache und Kultur derIndogermanen, Akten der 10. Fachtagung der IndogermanischenGesellschaft. Innsbruck 1998. 283.

p. 522, s.v. ys.uwar “friendly, friendliness”, Adams ignores Pinault’sthorough study of the meaning and the etymology of the word: Préhistoirede tokharien B ys. uwar, in W. Smoczynski (ed.), Kuryowicz MemorialVolume. Part One. Cracow 1995, pp. 191–205.

p. 543, s.v. lakutse “shining, bright, brilliant”, the etymology is opento alternative suggestions. Toch. B lakutse (and syncopated laktse)may conceal an original PIE compound ∗luki-dh3o-, which would thenbe somewhat reminiscent of Lat. lucidus and lucifer. PIE ∗luki-dh3o-> PToch. ∗luki-tsæ- (1) > ∗l�kw�-tsæ- (2) > ∗l�ku-tsæ-, as for (1)“labialization of velars by adjacent pre-PT ∗u”, see Ringe 1996: 127 andKim, TIES 8 (1999), 161f.

p. 586, s.v. wap- “weave”: read Sanskrit unábdhi instead of unábhdhi.

p. 587, s.v. wark- “shear”: Adams lists A wärks. antañ under this heading,but Adams does not give the meaning of A wärks. antañ (Skt. patayantikah.dharmah. , cf Hackstein 1995: 81ff) nor does he explain why A wärks. antañshould belong to a Tocharian root meaning “shear”.

p. 646ff, s.v. s. añ: Adams terms s. añ as an “adj.”. However, it is moreappropriate to analyze s. añ as the genitive-dative of the reflexive pronounwhich is functionally equivalent to a possessive adjective. Furthermore,Adams analyses s. añ as a reshaping of “PIE ∗s(e)we” (bottom of p. 647).To my mind another scenario carries much more conviction. TocharianA preserves the reflexes of a) PIE orthoton acc. ∗su�é and b) enclitic PIEacc. ∗se: a) PIE orthoton acc. ∗su�é 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 caseform by the addition of PT ∗-yi. More details of this analysis have beenset out in a paper which is currently in press in TIES 10 (2002).

p. 648, s.v. s. ap: Adams is mistaken in setting up an extra lemma s. ap“more”, cf. below ad p. 667.

186 BOOK REVIEWS

p. 651, B s. arya “beloved”: much better than the etymology advanced byAdams is the connection of Toch. B s. arya- (Pinault 1989: 58) with Arm.kceri “uncle” < ∗su�esrii�o-.

p. 667, unaccented s. pä can be derived from PIE ∗h1eti épi and further beequated with Skt. atyápi “furthermore, in addition”, cf. accented s. ap ands. pak, Toch. B LP 15a5 ed. Pinault 1987: 90 s. ap ma tärkanat “Do not allowmore [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. TIES7 (1997), 52–55.

p. 718f spe “near by”, for the etymology, semantics and syntax, cf. TIES7 (1997), 39–42.

p. 729, tsa, according to Adams an “emphasizing particle”. A plausibleetymological connection can be drawn with PIE ∗do(h3) “give!” (rootaorist impv. 2sg.) used as an affirmative particle just like Lat. (ce)do, Ital.dai, Russ. da(va)j. The details have been set out in HS 114 (2001), 32–39.

p. 731, s.v. tsak- “pierce, bite”: no mention is made of Ringe’s convincingconnection with Lat. fıvere, s. Ringe 1988–90: 71.

p. 740, s.v. tsuk- “suck (out)”, for the meaning and etymology cf.Hackstein 1995: 143ff, the etymological connection with PIE ∗deu�k-“draw, pull” (LIV2124) can be upheld, for the semantic shift compareFrench traire “to milk” from Latin tractare, as for Tocharian A tskuntem.macar “foster mother” (MSN 21[III.1]b6, s. Ji/Winter/Pinault 1998: 144)compare its German synonym Ziehmutter!

7. TOCHARIAN HISTORICAL PHONOLOGY

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

BOOK REVIEWS 187

exceptions). Cases in point are for instance the development of ∗a intoTocharian (§7.1.), which is crucial for the explanation of certain importantmorphemes in the Tocharian verbal system, and the development of the IEdentals into Tocharian (§7.2.). A decision in favor of one of the theoriesmeans to have to rewrite the history of that part of the verbal system andto revise the pertinent etymologies accordingly.

7.1. PIE ∗a (∗eh2) in Tocharian

p. 421f, s.v. B procer “brother”: The widely accepted sound-by-soundequation with Goth. broþar = PIE ∗bhreh2ter is rejected. Adams does notaccept the sound law according to which ∗a yields rounded -o- in TocharianB, and -a- in Tocharian A. Instead, he creates an ad-hoc sound law, mutualrounding of ∗a . . . e . . . to Toch. B o . . . e. Adams flatly discounts B proceras 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 claimcertainty about the fate of PIE ∗-a-” (Lg. 74, 3 (1998), 616) and that thepassing of ∗a into Toch. B o was possibly confined to labial enviroments.This line of reasoning however can be shown to be inconclusive becausethe same reservation would then also have to apply to Adams’ alterna-tive 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). 29–45 and EduardHermann, Lautgesetz und Analogie, Berlin 1931, p. 14), but at the sametime it is true that kinship terms are equally prone to preserve archaisms.And finally, the proposed constraint of the rounding of ∗a in Proto Toch. Bis invalidated by counter evidence, provided for instance by Hilmarsson’setymological identification of soktatse with sagire (self-contradictorilyaccepted by Adams himself later on in his dictionary, p. 701f) and byPinault’s convincing etymology (JIES Monograph 26 (1998), 365) ofToch. B omotruññais. s. e “southern” with PIE ∗meh2- “good” (Lat. manus,OIr. maith, Cymr. mad “gut”) and adverbial ∗meh2-tr◦ - “timely”, cf. Lat.maturus. A semantic identification 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 plant- with Lat. splendere(p. 425) and from the etymological entries starting with ts- (e.g., Toch. Btsik-, tsäk-, tsär- p. 738f, 733, 736), Adams presumes that PIE ∗d- and ∗dhmay yield both Toch. ts and t. Within the framework of Adams theory, PIE∗d, ∗dh is supposed to have a twofold reflex in Tocharian, yielding ts before

188 BOOK REVIEWS

front-vowels and t before non-front vowels in the course of the so-calledfirst palatalization (Adams 1986: 40f, and Language 74 (1998), 616). This,however, is problematic for a number of reasons. Recent surveys of therelevant material have reached the conclusion that prevocalic PIE ∗d isthe only source of Toch. prevocalic ts while PIE ∗dh, ∗t yield t in bothTocharian languages (Winter, IF 67 (1962), 16–35, Ringe 1996: 146f,Hackstein, HS 114 (2001), 18–20), but I cannot go into much detail here.Suffice it to point out possible counterexamples to the dental develop-ment hypothesized by Adams, showing that the passage of PIE ∗d into anTocharian affricate did not occur only before front vowels: Toch. B tsän-“to flow” (PIE ∗deh2-n-, dh2-n- oder ∗deh2- “to flow”, cf. HS 114 (2001),20 §2.1.1. and see Janda, Eleusis, Innsbruck 2000: 295f on �oσει-δα -ων), and the Tocharian affirmative particles B -tsa, A -a-ts(a-) < ∗do-,descending from the PIE root aorist imperative ∗do(h3) “give!”.

8. SUMMARY

All the details and shortcomings listed above create the impression of avery hasty and therefore somewhat premature publication. As a result,Adams’ dictionary cannot yet be regarded a decisive improvement overvan Windekens’ etymological dictionary, let alone replace Hilmarsson’smaterials. It is to be hoped that a second completely and thoroughly revisedand improved edition will render a much better service to Tocharianstudies. After all, Adams himself surely has the potential necessary to domuch better. In the meantime, however, anybody concerning himself withTocharian etymology is well advised to consult the works (and indicesprovided therewith) of Jörundur Hilmarsson, Georges-Jean Pinault, DonRinge, Klaus T. Schmidt, Werner Thomas, Werner Winter and others.The discipline of Tocharian studies badly needs more joint efforts both topromote itself and to promote advances in the study of Tocharian languageand philology. A certain trend in Tocharian studies turns out to be espe-cially counter-productive and harmful in this respect: to ignore the workof fellow-researchers, a most unfortunate development also pointed outrecently 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].

BOOK REVIEWS 189

Hackstein, Olav: 1995, Untersuchungen zu den sigmatischen Präsensstammbildungen desTocharischen. Göttingen [Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht].

Hackstein, Olav: 2001, Studien zur Grammatikalisierung in älteren indogermanischenSprachen (Lat. da, date, aksl. daždÞ, dadite, toch. B pete, petso/petes und die Affirm-ativpartikeln alat. cedo, (ak)sl. da, toch. B tsa). Historische Sprachforschung, 114,15–42.

Hackstein, Olav: 2002, Uridg. ∗CH.CC > ∗C.CC. Historische Sprachforschung, 115, 1–22.

Hackstein, Olav: 2002 [in press], Reflexivpronomina, Präverbien und Lokalpartikel inindogermanischen Sprachen. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, 10.

Hilmarsson, Jörundur: 1996, Materials for a Tocharian Historical and EtymologicalDictionary. Ed. by Alexander Lubotsky and Guðrún þórhallsdóttir with the assist-ance of Sigurður H. Pálsson. Reykjavík, Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands (TIES,Supplementary Series, 5).

Ji, Xianlin, Winter, Werner and Pinault, Georges-Jean: 1998, Fragments of the TocharianA Maitreyasamiti-Nat.aka of the Xinjiang Museum, China. Berlin, New York.

LIV2 = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Unter der Leitung von Helmut Rix und derMitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp,Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage. Wiesbaden 2001.

Pinault, Georges-Jean: 1989, Introduction au tokharien. LALIES 7, 3–224. Paris.Pinault, Georges-Jean: 1994, Aspects du bouddhisme pratiqué au nord du désert du Takla-

makan, d’ après les documents tokhariens. In: Bouddhisme et cultures locales. Actesdu colloque franco-japonais de septembre 1991 édités par Fukui Fumimasa et GérardFussman, 85–113. Paris, École française d’ Extrême-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, 358–371. Washington.

Pinault, Georges-Jean: 1998, Remarques sur le fragment tokharien B 74 et sur quelquesautres textes. Die Sprache, 40(2), 161–178.

Ringe, Don: 1987, On the Prehistory of Tocharian B Accent. In: Calvert Watkins (ed.),Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill, 254–269. Berlin, New York [de Gruyter].

Ringe, Don: 1998–1990, Evidence for the Position of Tocharian in the Indo-EuropeanFamily? Die Sprache, 34, 59–123.

Schmidt, Klaus T.: 1985, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der tocharischen Verbalmorphologie. In:Grammatische Kategorien, 424–234. Wiesbaden [Reichert].

Martin-huther Universität OLAF HACKSTEIN

Halle-WittenbergDeutschland