Talk:Tocharian languages/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tokharian merge

There is an entry titled Tokharian, which reads, in its entirety:

Tokharian is an extinct Indo-European language known from manuscript fragments of the 6th to 8th centuries A.D., coming from East (or Chinese) Turkestan.

Tokharian the extinct language has no relation to Iranian Tokharian (alt Tókharoi, Tukh?ra, Tuholo), which is a distinct language.

(HEADING:) References

• William R. Schmalstieg Tokharian and Baltic Lituanus (1974)

• Tokharian Pratimoksa Fragment Sylvain Levi (1913)

I have added these references to the current article and made Tokharian a redirect to this page. I did not copy in the reference to a distinct "Iranian Tokharian", as I have seen no reference that was not compativle with these Tocharian languages. If it is supported, feel free to add it in. Dpv 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Name for selves

What would Tocharian be called in Tocharian itself? Meursault2004 01:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to J.P. Mallory: possibly "Kuchean" (kuśiññe), "of the kingdom of Kucha and Agni." The native name of Agni was possibly ārśi, and one Toch A text has ārśi-käntwā, "In the tongue of Arsi". (ārśi is probably cognate to argenteus, i.e. "shining, brilliant"). According to D.Q.Adams, ākñi may be how the Tocharians may have referred to themselves, meaning "borderers, marchers" (c.f. Ukraine). dab (ᛏ) 16:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Meursault2004 14:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What evidence for Tocharian-speaking Kushans?

The page as it now stands states that Tocharian was the language of the Kushan empire. But as far as I know:

• the Kushans used the Bactrian language on their coins and inscriptions. [1] Bactrian is an Iranian language, and thus not even in the same branch as Tocharian; the Bactrian language was also, apparently, in use till about the eighth century AD, thus contemporaneously with Tocharian;

The Kushans first essentially used Greek on their coins (Vima Takto, Kujula Kadphises, Heraios) and progressively introduced language in the Kharoshthi script from the time of Vima Kadphises. PHG 22:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

True about the coins—the titles (though not the names, except perhaps Heraios) are clearly Greek: tyrranos, soter megas, etc. But there are other inscriptions in Bactrian in a variant of the Greek alphabet, e.g. [2]. —Muke Tever 05:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The earliest records of the Tocharian language are, even according to this article, from at least five hundred years after the time of the Kushan empire...

By the time of the first known artifacts (6th century), Tocharian had already split in 3 groups with rather strong differenciations. The divergence point is roughly estimated to be anterior by about 1000 years (cf "The Tarim mummies" Mallory).PHG 22:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All right, but where's the evidence that any language of Kushan was one of these branches of Tocharian? —Muke Tever 05:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove it directly, on the off chance I'm wrong, but I think this is a misunderstanding—possibly by mixing up Kuchean and Kushan? I'm willing to concede that the Kushan rulers may have been ethnically Tocharian, but what evidence states that the Kushan empire was linguistically Tocharian? —Muke Tever 17:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Muke Tever presents very sensible points. --Wetman 21:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Kushan were a tribe of the Yuezhi, who lived in the Tarim Basin around 200 BCE (Chinese historical sources, the Shiji) before their migration to the south, and are often considered to be the same as the Tocharian, who were also of the Indo-European type and resided in the same geographical area. [3], [4]. I don't think the link is 100% confirmed, so it is necessary to keep slightly cautious language. PHG 22:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

definitely a mixup, good catch! It should be Kuchean, not Kushan. The two names may be related, and there may be an ethnic connection, but there is no evidence that would allow a link of the Kushan Empire with the Tocharian language, at all. dab (ᛏ) 22:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not a mixup. There is a lot of research connecting the Kushans with the Tocharian language (Goggle "Kushan Tocharian" for a quick check + above references). Bactria was only the area of settlement of the Kushans for a century and a half (160-30 BCE) before they moved into India, so calling their language "Bactrian" seems disputable. PHG 23:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are we talking about "Kushans" as an ethnic group, or the Kushan Empire? The latter is impossible to connect with the Tocharian language, but I readily believe that "Kushan" and "Kuchean" is ultimately the same word, referring to the same ethnicity, and Tocharian was, in fact the language of the kingdom of Kucha. dab (ᛏ) 06:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In this case, the statement about the Kushan empire on this page should be replaced with an equivalent statement about the Kuchean one. If it later is shown that the Kushans, too, spoke Tocharian, it can be added additionally... —Muke Tever 02:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not know about the connection between Kushan and Kuchean, but Kushan or Kushan Empire are often connected with the Tocharian language (cf Narain A.K. "On the first Indo-Europeans: the Tokharian-Yuezhi and their Chinese homeland", also extensive discussion in "The Tarim mummies" by Mallory). Since most of these things are conjectures, maybe the phrase in the article could be more cautious, like "Tocharian may have been the language of the short-lived, yet influential Kushan empire."PHG 13:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ah, wait a minute, there is another mixup. The Kushan empire corresponds indeed to the people that the Greeks called Tokharoi. These are, however, not identical with the speakers of what we now call the Tocharian languages. This was a misinterpretation a century ago, when these languages were discovered. We need to cleanly unravel the terminology involved. This is similar to the Hittites who did not call themselves, or their language, Hittite at all. dab (ᛏ) 06:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And in this case, perhaps the statements on the Kushan Empire that refer to "Tocharian languages" should be emended as well. Actually, if the timespans are any indication, it's just as likely that it was Kushans that went north and became Kucheans, not the other way around—the Kucha article says it may have been ruled by kings from India, no? But I can't press this, as my studies are in linguistics, not ethnography. —Muke Tever 02:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Kushans originated from the Tarim Basin, where they were known to the Chinese as the Yuezhi (the name for the larger tribal group of which the Kushans were a part). They left the Tarim Basin in the 2nd century BCE as they were chased by the Xiongnu. After they built an empire in India in the 1st-3rd century, they expanded north again and occupied the western part of the Tarim Basin, including Kucha.PHG 13:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kuchean refers to Kucha, the town in the Tarim Basin/Taklamakan. The Kushans may have been of the same ethnic stock as the Kucheans, they may be the Tokharoi of Greek sources, but they were not Tocharians in the linguistic sense, since the language of the Kushan Empire was the Bactrian language. The Kushan rulers (Kanishka) adopted the Bactrian language, and it is not impossible that their former language was Tocharian, but it is not attested, afaik. Kings before Kanishka seem to have used Greek, though (c.f. Sapadbizes). It is therefore misleading to say, "the Kushans were Tocharians" leading to the false statement that the language of the Kushan Empire was Tocharian. I think it would be correct to say that the Kushan rulers' were of Saka and Tocharian stock, ruling over an essentially Iranian kingdom. It would be interesting if the names of the rulers have Tocharian etymologies, but I no nothing to indicate that they do. dab (ᛏ) 14:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dab. Do you have sources for "The Kushans adopted the Bactrian language"?. Professor Williams-Sims indeed says that "A crucial moment in the history of this language was the decision of the Kushan ruler Kanishka to adopt Bactrian as the language of his coinage. After the first issues of Kanishka, Greek disappears from the coinage once and for all, to be replaced by Bactrian." However, the reign of Kanishka is actually around 120 CE, a long time after the Kushans had moved their center of power to the Indian subcontinent (around 20 CE). Isn't hard to believe that the Kushans, a succesfull conquering people, would abandon their own original "Yuezhi" language from the Tarim Basin (probably Tocharian), and adopt the Bactrian language, more than a century after they had essentially left their temporary settlement in Bactria to move to India? I would be interested if somebody has references to a study showing that the language on later Kushan coins is indeed equivalent to Bactrian, and if there are some proof that the Kushan abandoned their original tongue for the Bactrian language. PHG 22:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do think the claim is based on the coins. They used Greek first and Bactrian later. I don't think anyone can say what language they spoke in their homes, privately. But my impression is that they were "foreign rulers" who had to adopt the local language for their everyday dealings. I don't know of any texts of the time, but they would invariably have been either in Greek or in Bactrian, and the Tocharian language is not attested, not even in fragments, until centuries later. dab (ᛏ) 07:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

fr-Wiki has a pretty good summary, fr:Tokhariens#Les_Tokhariens_s.27appelaient-ils_vraiment_ainsi_.3F, I think if we paraphrase that, we're good (or at least better off than now) dab (ᛏ) 08:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3/31/08 - Is there any known connection between the Tocharian languages/Tocharian people (as well as the Kushans) and the Hepthalites? It seems that the Hepthalites and the Kushans originated in the same geographic area, around the same time, and some of the written Tocharian examples we have appear on Hepthalite coins (Brahmic, yes?). If not, what written language is on the Hepthalite coins? Can anybody elaborate? Thank you - Myrddin_Wyllt7 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Myrddin_Wyllt7

Word list

Maybe the word list should include a sixth column, featuring reconstructed Proto-Indo-European.

I added it now. I had to use the HTML encoding for the first asterisk, since it messed up the table. I used http://www.bartleby.com/61/IEroots.html and http:/www.etymonline.com for sources. Feel free to edit, if you think the words given are way too sloppy and imprecise.

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Yuezhi"

Speaking of Hittite

I don't have much Tocharian vocab in my notes, and I'm not sure if these samples are A or B dialect. (Note some of the similarities of some words here with Hittite; also a couple curious parallels with Telugu, a Dravidian language, possibly a coincidence)

Earth - Tikam (Hittite Tekan)

Water - Wer, War (Hittite Watar; Thracian Warios)

Air - Eprer (Hittite Paras)

Wisdom - Knanmune (cf. Telugu Gnyanmem)

Joy - Suk (cf. Telugu Suqem, Sanskrit Suqa)

Life - Shol

Love (n) - Tunk

Work (n) - Wles

(These are some words I have collected samples of in as many languages as possible, for comparative purposes.) Codex Sinaiticus 16:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• By the way, if anyone is interested, I have just added a similar list of most of these same words in Saka Scythian, over at Talk:Scythian_languages. It should be apparent just from these small samples, that Scythian (Saka) and Tocharian are quite unrelated. Codex Sinaiticus 05:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting,Hittite/Tocharian homeland split into two by invading Indo-Iranians ?. (213.48.46.141)

Well, such a scenario could explain the linguistic situation, but unfortunately, there is basically no evidence to recommend that theory. The confines of the Hittite "homeland" are pretty well known from archeology, for the period ca. 1680-1180 -- at least that they certainly did not extend out into Central Asia. The Hittite Empire was overrun by Phrygians and disintegrated in 1180 BC, and the Tocharian "homeland" only appears some 2000 miles to the West, and somewhat later than that. Just the other day I posted another list in Talk:Tocharians of several more Hittite words that seem to closely match Tocharian vocab, along with a more likely explanation... Codex Sinaiticus 6 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)

I thought the "Hittites" where mostly Hurrain speaking with a invasive Hittite speaking elite.

Is Gnyanmem really a native Dravidian word? It looks like it could be from Sanskrit jnana, from a common Indo-European root (seen in English know, Russian znanie, etc.) In that case the resemblance would be natural. --Reuben 16:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Judging dead people by appearance is not always accurate

mtDNA of Scytho-Siberian skeleton Human Biology 76.1 (2004) 109-125

Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations

François-X. Ricaut et al.

Abstract The excavation of a frozen grave on the Kizil site (dated to be 2500 years old) in the Altai Republic (Central Asia) revealed a skeleton belonging to the Scytho-Siberian population. DNA was extracted from a bone sample and analyzed by autosomal STRs (short tandem repeats) and by sequencing the hypervariable region I (HV1) of the mitochondrial DNA. The resulting STR profile, mitochondrial haplotype, and haplogroup were compared with data from modern Eurasian and northern native American populations and were found only in European populations historically influenced by ancient nomadic tribes of Central Asia.

...

The mutations at nucleotide position 16147 C→A, 16172 T→C, 16223 C→T, 16248 C→T, and 16355 C→T correspond to substitutions characteristic of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a (Richards et al. 2000). The haplotype comparison with the mtDNA sequences of 8534 individuals showed that this sequence was not found in any other population.

...

The N1a haplogroup was not observed among the native American, east Asian, Siberian, Central Asian, and western European populations. The geographic distribution of haplogroup N1a is restricted to regions neighboring the Eurasian steppe zone. Its frequency is very low, less than 1.5% (Table 6), in the populations located in the western and southwestern areas of the Eurasian steppe. Haplogroup N1a is, however, more frequent in the populations of the southeastern region of the Eurasian steppe, as in Iran (but only 12 individuals were studied) and southeastern India (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh territories). More precisely, in India haplogroup N1a is absent from the Dravidic-speaking population and is present in only five Indo-Aryan-speaking individuals, four of whom belonged to the Havik group, an upper Brahman caste (Mountain et al. 1995).

...

The absence of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a in the 490 modern individuals of Central Asia (Shields et al. 1993; Kolman et al. 1996; Comas et al. 1998; Derenko et al. 2000; Yao et al. 2000; Yao, Nie et al. 2002) suggests changes in the genetic structure of Central Asian populations, probably as a result of Asian population movements to the west during the past 2500 years.

AAPA 2004

East of Eden, west of Cathay: An investigation of Bronze Age interactions along the Great Silk Road.

B.E. Hemphill.

The Great Silk Road has long been known as a conduit for contacts between East and West. Until recently, these interactions were believed to date no earlier than the second century B.C. However, recent discoveries in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang (western China) suggest that initial contact may have occurred during the first half of the second millennium B.C. The site of Yanbulaq has been offered as empirical evidence for direct physical contact between Eastern and Western populations, due to architectural, agricultural, and metallurgical practices like those from the West, ceramic vessels like those from the East, and human remains identified as encompassing both Europoid and Mongoloid physical types.

Eight cranial measurements from 30 Aeneolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and modern samples, encompassing 1505 adults from the Russian steppe, China, Central Asia, Iran, Tibet, Nepal and the Indus Valley were compared to test whether those inhabitants of Yanbulaq identified as Europoid and Mongoloid exhibit closest phenetic affinities to Russian steppe and Chinese samples, respectively. Differences between samples were compared with Mahalanobis generalized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic affinity were assessed with cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and principal coordinates analysis.

Results indicate that, despite identification as Europoid and Mongoloid, inhabitants of Yanbulaq exhibit closest affinities to one another. No one recovered from Yanbulaq exhibits affinity to Russian steppe samples. Rather, the people of Yanbulaq possess closest affinities to other Bronze Age Tarim Basin dwellers, intermediate affinities to residents of the Indus Valley, and only distant affinities to Chinese and Tibetan samples

Ambiguity

what does: "English meaning, unrelated word" mean?

Are you saying that the english word is entirely new and unrelated to any other column?

I think all three footnotes for that table need to be rewritten with less ambiguity, but I don't understand what they mean.

njaard 16:59, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

¹ = Cognate, with shifted meaning ² = Borrowed cognate, not native. ³ = English meaning, unrelated word

¹ means that the word is genetically related, but that it has mainly taken on another semantic meaning in the language given. ² means that the word is a borrowed word, and not a native word since the origin of the language, ³ means that the (English) word is genetically unrelated to the rest of the words, only giving the meaning for the sake of clarity. I am talking mainly about "genetical relationship" in the comparative linguistic sense here, hopefully my explanation would make things more clear.

This and that

Afanasevo culture has been added.

I will be returning to this page with some questions and comments, but this this leapt out at me:

The one Indo-European language that seems to hold the most similarity to Tocharian is the ancient Hittite language, which ceased to be spoken around 1000 BC

By what authority is this statement made? If anything, Tocharian is closest to German.

Suprisingly, Tocharian seems to share more vocabulary with Germanic than with any other Indo-European stock and in general its lexical and morphological closest kin seem to be with the western Indo-European languages rather than with those of the eastern rim. -- EEIC, "Tocharian Languages" --FourthAve 14:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, tell ya what - see the list of Tocharian and Hittite words I put at Talk:Tocharians (last section)... If you can come up with as many close similarities with German, I'll believe you... Codex Sinaiticus 14:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I looked. Is this "original research"?

Another niggle. Brahmi script is not an alphabet; it's a syllabary --FourthAve 14:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I found both the short Hittite glossary and the short Tocharian glossary (abt. 200 words each) on the same website -- but I admit to comparing the two myself, which is why I would be hesitant to put that list in an actual article, rather than a talk page... But I have definitely seen it in print somewhere that Tocharian is closest to Hittite, so I'm definitely not the first one to come up with that observation... I don't follow your remark about Brahmi, if it was meant for me; I don't recall ever having said anything about it one way or the other... Codex Sinaiticus 15:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Original research is IMHO, the worst problem Wikipedia has, and it is not permitted. I have hidden the statement awaiting references.--Wiglaf 15:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've just told you, it's not "original research"... I didn't come up with this on my own; the only reason I ever got the idea that Tocharian and Hittite were closest relatives is because I read it somewhere (and no, not on wikipedia - this was in a hard book several years ago)... But, you have every right to insist on a reference, so I guess I'll have to see if I can dig it up and get back to you... Codex Sinaiticus 16:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Were you reading something in support of Lord Renfrew's hypothesis? There are a couple or so misguided individuals trying to build a career on it. (65.54.155.41)

there is no academic consensus of Tocharian being 'closest' to anything. I think there are references for all other branches being considered as possible closer relatives. Just quoting one of them is misleading. (4thAve, Brahmi is an abugida, it is a matter of taste whether you call it an 'alphabet', but it is certainly descended from an alphabet). dab (ᛏ) 07:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Brahmi and Kharoshthi scrips

Richard G. Salomon does the article on the "Brahmi and Karoshthi" scrips in Section 30 (pp. 373-83) of The World's Writing Systems, edited by Peter T. Daniels and William Bright, OUP, 1996.

Salomon describes both as alphasyllabaries, i.e., a syllabary that includes a default vowel in each element. This compares exactly to the Cherokee syllabary developed by Sequoiah.

Kharoshthi (along with Brahmi) spread to Inner Asia, where is it abundantly attested around the second and third centuries in the oasis cities around the Tarim Basin ... and neighboring regions of Western Inner Asia.

--FourthAve 10:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Following-up myself, see also Brahmi.

The name "Tocharian"

From Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans, Thames and Hudson, 1989, p. 56 (the paperback edition):

The language was named Tocharian after the historical Tokharoi who were known to the Greeks to have migrated from Turkestan to Bactria in the second century BC. The full arguments for the validity of this designation and other ethnic labels that have been pinned on the creators of the manuscripts has been hotly debated for decades and comprise a remarkably large percentage of Tocharian scholarship. This will not concern us here other than to conclude that there is not a shred of linguistic evidence to indicate the people of historical Tokharistan spoke the same language found in the manuscripts of the Tarim Basin well over 1,000 kilometres to the east. Today, few if any would accept that the proper designation for these people is Tocharian but as no other alternative has ever achieved sufficiently wide approval, the earlier name, misnomer if you will, is still applied and will be used throughout this work.

--FourthAve 10:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Tocharian C

On the southern edge of the [Tarim] basin, across uninhabitable desert from the areas where Tocharian A and B are found, in the Loulan (natively Kroraina) area, we find traces of another small kingdom whose administrative language was a variety of Middle Indic (Karoshthi Prakrit) but whose native language, attested in the form of a few loanwords in the Middle Indic administrative language, looks to have been a third Tocharian language, "Tocharian C" if you will.

--JP Mallory, DQ Adams, EIEC, "Tocharian Languages", p. 591. --FourthAve 07:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Tarim Lake

See Lop Nur. The wall paintings and other archaeological remains indicate the Tocharian speakers dwelt at the lake edge. This lake largely dried up by the 1st millennium AD. Need better source. --FourthAve 07:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Tocharian and Hittite

From the phonological point of view Tocharian is distinctive in the merger of all three manners of stops (voiceless, aspirated, voiceless unaspirated) in a single series of voiceless stops. Many IE stocks merge the voiced aspirated and voiced unaspirated stops but only Tocharian and Anatolian merge all three and in Anatolian the merger is not complete in word-internal position. --EIEC, "Tocharian Languages", p. 591.

Tocharian is part of the "post-Anatolic PIE" language, and with the remaining PIE non-Anatolian languages, is quite different from Anatolian. Nonetheless, nothing prohibits Tocharian from having conserved some highly archaic features otherwise lost in the other post-Anatolic stocks.

Is this what you had in mind? --FourthAve 07:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea who Renfrew is, and I haven't had time to properly research this at a nearby University yet, but a quick Google for: [Hittite Tocharian -wikipedia] should be enough to satisfy anyone that these two languages have been demonstrably linked by numerous scholars ever since they were both 'discovered' (around the same time as it happens)... So it's hardly my original research...

One of the early linguists to make this connection was apparently: Petersen, Walter. "Hittite and Tocharian," Language 11 (1933), 12-34.

I'm not sure exactly what the motives would be in trying to establish a Germanic connection, but I've yet to see any hard evidence (vocabulary, proposed phonetic shift rules, inflectional parallels, that sort of thing). Of course, even if we assume that Toch. is directly descended from Hittite, that doesn't rule out that Germanic is a later descendant of this same stock. So it is plausible that both views are correct. The evidence already seeming to indicate that the Toch. speakers were fair-haired, is independent of any linguistic consideration. By the way, there are some linguists you can find who are just as ardent in asserting lexical evidence that the nearest spoken languages to ancient Tocharian is the Slavic family, esp. Russian. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 14:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

see Indo-Hittite, Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, Hittite language, Anatolian languages. The Indo-Anatolian theory makes the Anatolian languages a sister language family; few hold to this, however. Rather, the usual view is that the stock broke off from the remaining IE languages at a very early date, probably before 4000, perhaps earlier.

The remainder of the IE speaking stock remained together in approximate linguistic unity, undergoing a number of shared developments. The Anatolian languages, separated from the remaining stock of IE speakers, underwent independent innovations, while retaining some archaic features lost by the remaining IE-speakers.

Tocharian would seem to be the first stock to break off from the common unified center (with Germanic breaking off not too much later). The remainder of the IE-speakers (sans Tocharians, sans the by now long-gone Anatolian-speakers) remained in approximate unity, sharing additional developments lacking in Tocharian, but by this time (3500 BC?) the unity was only approximate, a chain of dialects that by ca. 3200 had probably broken into distinct languages, ancestors of the known stocks (as well as some that have left no trace).--FourthAve 16:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

More

Mallory, in In Search of the Indo-Europeans, p. 61, notes

similarities shared between Tocharian, Celtic, Italic and Hittite as essentially archaic features inherited from the Proto-Indo-European language at a very early period. These grammatical features were then replaced in later Proto-Indo-European by new forms that spread among ancestors of the Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian continuum -- the ancestors of Celtic and Italic, Hittite and possibly Phrygian to the south, and Tocharian on the east.

In a note (12), in the endnotes on p. 274, he says

Here I follow Pederson, Crossland, Adrados, Gamkredlidze and Ivanov, and others, who regard Tocharian as an archaic peripheral dialect. There are, however, many who would associate Tocharian much more closely with languages such as Germanic or Greek.... [DQ] Adams himself relates Tocharian closest to Germanic and sees no great difficulty in getting them to their ultimate homes. --FourthAve 08:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this question depends more on the scholars' estimation of the movement possibilities of the tribes at this time. I personally believe that it is erroneous to understimate the will to migrate in order to find good pastures. Just compare the cattle herding across the US during the 19th century with roughly the same technology (horses, cattle and wagons). After a few generations of movements, wars and negotiations, a tribe could probably have crossed all the distance.--Wiglaf 08:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problems with this thesis. In fact, I've made the comparison to what happened in North America -- at two levels. The first is what happened to native American cultures (particularly on the Great Plains) after the [re-]introduction of the horse: the culture was transformed from a slow-moving pedestrian culture to a swiftly mobile one. With the English-speaking Americans (as well as Canadians) we encapsulated in 100 years (vis-a-vis the American west) what took Europe thousands of years to do.

I see the Tocharaian-speakers as simply have been the first to move east, they being following much later by the Indo-Iranian stock. There were doubless others, but they have left no trace. There is nothing magical or even particularly remarkable about this.

--FourthAve 09:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The big problem with population movements in pre-history is that we have all those modern politics interfering. Just look at the discussion dab and I have had at Talk:Tocharians, where someone has racial motivations against an Eastward migration.--Wiglaf 09:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

I guess this request sounds silly among the indo-europeaninsts among us, but could someone please indicate the sounds of ñ, ś and ä. I'd normally assume that the first is a palatalized n, and that the second is a sibilant and that the third is the æ sound, but I know that such standards vary.--Wiglaf 13:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"ä" is /ɨ/. The transcription "ä" comes not from the usual value of "ä" in the Latin alphabet, but rather from the fact that in the Tocharian abugida, a consonant letter by itself had the inherent vowel "a", while a consonant letter with two dots over it had the vowel /ɨ/. User:Angr 10:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Vowels reconstruction

I assume it is a rather controversial thing (how they were pronounced), so I'd like to see explicit citation supporting the point of view that is presented in the article.--Imz 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the tablets would have contained Sanskrit loanwords, and since Sanskrit pronunciation is relatively certain among scholars, a likely pronunciation could be derived from the Tocharian spellings of these words. This was the technique used for defining a lot of Gothic pronunciation (compaing Greek loanwords), and I don't see it unlikely that similar methods would have been used in this case. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are probably probable guesses that could be derived from comparision with Indo-European cognates and related ortographies of other Brahmi abugidas. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to other Indo-European languages

Why isn't the Persian language included in the chart "Comparison to other Indo-European languages"? Badagnani 01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have Sanskrit as an Indo-Iranian language, already. I don't see the point in adding that much more cognates to the table, although it isn't such a big point for me, currently. Anyway, older Persian would be preferable to modern. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tocharian C?

Hi. Should mention of Tocharian C be included? Mallory and Mair's book on the Tarim Mummies discusses the languages of the Tarim Basin, and notes that some scholars have identified certain Tocharian words in Prakrit texts from Lop Nor right down to Niya. They cite several examples (like a word for fruit and a case ending) which hint at a third Tocharian language in the southern Tarim. They also suggest that the name of the Kunlun mountains, which is not a Sino-Tibetan or Turkic name, derives from a Tocharian-language word relating to the heavens (Cognate: Kunlun -> Celestial). 144.32.126.14 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tocharian in Manichean script

Is it really necessary to write an article about "Tocharian script" when Tocharian was written in at least two scripts Brahmic and Manichean scripts . Only mentioning the Brahmic script implies that Tocharian was only written in Brahmic. Although I think I read it was also written in Sogdian script also I can not produce citations for this feeble allegation. I suggest we merge the Tocharian script article into the Tocharian language article. Tocharian information relating to this noble language is hard to come by and such a small article can be easily incorporated into The Tocharian language article. I suggest we merge them. This should be easy because most of the information on the Tocharian script article is on the Tocharian language article .If we don’t merge then I suggest we at least change the name of the article to Tocharian scripts. Thank you I look forward to every ones suggestions. --Zaharous (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Sources

• Daniels, Peter (1996), The Worlds Writing Systems, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195079930
• Campbell, George (2000), Compendium of the Worlds Languages Second Edition: Volume II Ladkhi to Zuni, Routledge, ISBN 041520473 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)

The point is that we have separate articles on the Manichaean script (used for whatever languages it was used for, including but not restricted to Tocharian) and the Brahmic script used for Tocharian, called here the Tocharian script. I don't know whether the Tocharian Brahmic script was ever used to write any other language besides Tocharian. If the title "Tocharian script" is ambiguous, we could move the article to Tocharian Brahmic script, but only if there's evidence that published sources use that name for it. +Angr 06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why Hindustani?

I see no reason for the recent addition of Hindustani to the language comparison chart, as that language is younger than the extinction of Tocharian, and we already have two Indo-Aryan languages. Wouldn't Proto-Germanic be more relevant? Devanatha (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed Farsi and Hindustani as these are later languages and the related language of Vedic Sanskrit (which is the one that matters) is on the list. I suppose if someone really wants to distinguish India from Iran we could add Avestan. We can't use Proto-Germanic as that is a reconstructed language. The usual thing to use for the Germanic languages is Gothic. Hittite would be really nice though. Ekwos (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Language Comparison Table

The language comparison table (until my last edit) contained three contemporary languages - English, Farsi, and Hindustani. In general when one wishes to show languages as belonging to the Indo-European family one compares them to the most ancient attested members of the various groups. In this case the Indo-Iranian group is represented by Vedic Sanskrit, and there is no reason for the contemporary members of the group which are Farsi and Hindustani (one could perhaps include a word from Avestan if for some reason the word was missing from Vedic Sanskrit). In a similar vein we have Latin, and there would be no reason to include French or Spanish. English shouldn't be considered as being there to establish that the Tocharian languages are Indo-European, but is simply a convenient way of showing the meaning of the roots. The proper representative of the Germanic languages is Gothic. Please do not restore the table with Farsi or Hindustani again. Ekwos (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Tocharian C

Agree with above...Is it too early to begin citing the sources and content of the Tocharian C that is said to have been evidenced along the South of the Tarim basin? I also read that Toch C is the earliest of the two languages from which the others are derived.

Where have you read that? Mallory & Adams (in the EIEC, which is where I recall reading about that) at least state no such thing, if I remember correctly. Tocharian C is simply presumed to be a third Tocharian language independently descended from Proto-Tocharian; it seems too young (3rd/4th centuries?) and quite possibly in the wrong place, too (in the south, not the north), to be identified with Proto-Tocharian. Isn't it said to have been spoken in the Loulan region?

It's never too early to begin citing the sources! By all means, add Tocharian C if you have sources. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Resemblance

I couldn't help noticing a few stroking resemblances between Tocharian A and danish: "cow" is "ko" in both languages. "To milk" is "malk" in Tocharian A and "malke" in danish. I wonder if there are more? JoaCHIP (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably; after all, these similarities you noticed are no coincidences. In both cases, the Danish and Tocharian words are descended from the same Proto-Indo-European root. +Angr 06:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The points of resemblance specifically with Danish, however, are necessarily coincidental. It is true that Tocharian has sometimes been said to be particularly close to Germanic, but such comparisons have been made with just about every other group except Indo-Iranian (which is clearly dissimilar), and in any case Modern Danish has diverged very far from Proto-Germanic. Proto-Tocharian has completely different sound changes and morphology than Germanic, and a fortiori Danish, has. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tocharian and Hittite

I've removed the following sentence, which had been commented out almost 3 years ago for lack of sources:

The one Indo-European language that seems to hold the most similarity to Tocharian is the ancient Hittite language, which ceased to be spoken around 1000 BC.

As far as I know, Tocharian and Hittite (or more generally, Anatolian) are not particularly closely related. They do share some common properties that few or no other IE languages have, but these are thought to be retained archaisms from the protolanguage, not shared innovations, and therefore not indicative of a close relationship. (1) Hittite and Tocharian both have mediopassive forms in -r. Before the discovery of these two branches, it was thought that mediopassive -r was innovation of Italo-Celtic, but once they were discovered in H & T, it was realized that it's a retention from the protolanguage (as a result, the best argument in favor of the Italo-Celtic hypothesis disappeared, and the two are no longer considered closely related). The other thing Hittite and Tocharian have in common is the retention of -tk- (etc.) clusters unchanged in words like like *h2rtko- "bear" and *dhghem- "earth". All other languages have changed these clusters in some way, and before H & T were discovered, they were reconstructed as *kþ/gð/ghðh despite the fact that *þ/ð/ðh didn't occur in any other environments. But again, this is an archaic retention in both languages, not a shared innovation. —Angr 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Some ad-hoc examples prove nothing. Nearly ALL lexicostatistical studies including my own agree regarding Hittite being the closest neighbor of Tocharian. Thus please leave that sentence where it was. HJJHolm (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Lexicostatistical studies are not a great argument, however. Especially when they fail to respect the distinction between Hittite and Anatolian. It's like saying Gothic for Germanic – an outdated usage, and not only imprecise but nonsensical when taken literally. That said, I would like to know how lexicostatistical studies identify common retentions and differentiate them from common innovations or other sources of agreement. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought "Bi" was greek or latin for two not "Duo"

I always get confused between the two languages because of their significance in scientific vocabulary but I always thought that 1 was uni in one language and mono in the other, the same goes for 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.127.0 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Nope, Latin has 'duo', Ancient Greek had 'δύο' (which is usually transcribed as dúo). bi- is a prefix from Latin, which sometimes changed initial du- to b-, as in bis from duis. Baranxtu (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Old Latin /dw/ (spelled du/DV) has changed to b in Classical Latin completely regularly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Split

This article should be split into articles for the Turfanian and Kuchean languages. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's split, the articles should be called Tocharian A and Tocharian B, though, as those names are much more common than "Turfanian" and "Kuchean". Angr (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We need some arguments to split. Tirgil34 (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with File:QizilDonors.jpg

Hallo, I recognized that the data which was given to this picture is based on wrong information:

• 1.:It's not clear that they were Tocharians
• 2.:The term "Sassanian style" was used in the wrong context.

What have been described is the wrong picture. The right one is Fig.1 on page 8 in this document: http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp084_mummies_central_asia.pdf

The "Tocharian" Colour Plate on page 9 is not fiting to the description of Fig.1. So, the description is wrong. We need a correction of the information given in this document. I've informed the Uploader Per_Honor_et_Gloria about this problem.

- Maikolaser (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2012 (CET)

Responded at the file talk page on Commons. Kanguole 13:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The article you link calls the figures "Tocharian Knight-Donors". This site at the University of Washington, apparently reproducing the museum display card, calls them "Tocharian Princes". This article says they were Tocharian speakers. So this image seems quite relevant to this article. (The caption here didn't mention "Sassanian style".) Kanguole 17:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. Discussion at talk page on commons and at Talk:Tarim mummies.- Maikolaser (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2012 (CET)

Tocharian verbs

"In contrast, the verb verbal conjugation system is quite conservative." Okay, if you say so and cite Beekes... Nonetheless, I'm deadly curious about what Tocharian verbs look like. Can someone add a table please? Steinbach (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Euphemisms do not belong to science, they are a tool of politicians.

• Tocharian A = is a philological euphemism for Turfanian, Arsi, or East Tocharian; no relation to Tochars or Tokhars, Yuezhi, Bactrian, or Tokharistan
• Tokharian B = is a philological euphemism for Kuchea or West Tocharian; no relation to Tochars or Tokhars, Yuezhi, Bactrian, or Tokharistan

[removed text copied from Section 46 of Chapter 4, Origin of Türks and Tatars, by Mirfatyh Zakiev.]

--Tirgil34 (talk) 15:06, 14. March 2012 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Yes, Tirgil is right, generally those paintings are associated with Pseudo-Tocharians (false Tokhars). Maikolaser (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2012 (CET)

In short: there is no even one reliabe academic source which claims Tocharians were "Turks". We're all familiar with Tirgil34's Turanist agenda, the best example is his pseudo-historic claim that Scythian languages are "based on Turkic", even some Old-Persian terms despite the fact that Persian inscriptions are 1500 older then any know Turkic script. --217.24.133.219 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And talking about Maikolaser, he tried to manipulated with photo description of commons file SogdiansNorthernQiStellae550CE.jpg by changing it's date (despite reliable sources say late 6th century) just to show Sogdians as "Turks", and then he tried to manipulate ALL articles on English and other Wikipedias. Precisely the same thing Tirgil has done day earlier, by removing photo of Tocharians on all Wikipedias (there's strong posibility Maikolaser is his sockpuppet). Of course, it's all reverted. If pseudo-historic manipulation continue I'll contact all administrators related to historical articles. --217.24.133.219 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Calm down, nobody claimed that what you have mentioned. And nobody is a Turanist here. The point is that the picture has nothing to do with Tocharians, nothing more. This is consensus. Please stop vandalism and persian nationalism, Tirgil34 is right. Maikolaser (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2012 (CET)

No, he's not, the IP user is right: Tirgil34's claim that "Tocharian A" and "Tocharian B" are euphemisms is unsubstantiated bullshit and doesn't even make sense. Tirgil34 is a Turkic nationalist with a Turanist agenda who tries to deny the fact that there is not a trace of Turkic languages or peoples in ancient Europe (prior to the Hunnic invasion) and the Ancient Near East. The name "Tocharians" may originally have referred to an Iranian people, but they were not Turkic.

Based on Chinese descriptions and also the Tarim mummies, it is generally accepted that Tocharian (as well as Iranian, especially Eastern Iranian) was mainly (and originally) spoken by people with an European (and even Northern/Eastern European), not East Asian (like the original speakers of Turkic) appearance, and genetical research supports the links of presumed Tocharian- and Iranian-speakers to Europe rather than Asia. There is a perfect convergence of linguistic, archaeological, physical anthropological and genetical evidence, which all ties the origin of both Tocharian and Iranian to the west (Eastern Europe in particular), not Central or East Asia. I remember reading that there are a few mummies from the Pazyryk burials with an East Asian appearance and these could conceivably be associated with the Proto-Turkic speech community, or something close to it. Speakers of Proto-Turkic (which according to plausible estimates was spoken about 500 BC in the Altai region) likely were in contact with speakers of early (Eastern) Iranian (especially Scythian) in the Altai region and could well have taken over cultural techniques from them. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The euphemism claim is ridiculous, but the other assertion – that Tocharian A and B are unrelated to the Tokhars, Bactrians or Tokharistan – is the majority view now. Kanguole 10:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

1-Persians are and have always been a brown-semitic people and direct branch of Mesopotamian civ. 2-Persian scripts?? were written in Mesopotamian letters of course. 3-Scythian invasion to current Azerbaijan is mentioned in Greece refrences, that is why there are few similar words in current Farsi and Germanic, because of Scythian Turks presence at the area. 4-Pan-Iranism propaganda and lies begun from Pahlavi rgeime's era, there has nevr been any people, tribe, nation or language called Iranian one. Pahlavi tried to assimilate Iranian Turks and steal the history of Turkic people and force put Persians as Aryans!!

The old Tochaians means Turk speaking people like turkmenes and huna (like Kushana) and more from turan bassin, Toxi means Turani. Later sodgier, bactrian controlls the silk route in west. Last Tochaians were greek (macedonian) soldiers of Alexanders Army what married womans from lot other folks, a lot tribes have a bit european genetic from greece. The tochaian letters are an greco-semitic alphabet in brahmi format. It was a pingdin languages of silkroute in tarim bassin with vedic base with much influence from all sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.9.26.32 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Centum

Further information: Proto-Indo-European phonology

it is true that Tocharian and Anatolian are often called "centum". But it is very important to point out that they do not meet the narrow definition of centum. There is a distinction between "phonological centum" and "phonetic centum":

• phonological: has two rows of tectals, one from (plain velars + palatals) and the other from labiovelars
• phonetic: the reflexes of the palato-velars are tectal [k] and have not been fronted to [ɕ]/[tʃ]/[ʃ].

Tocharian is "centum" in the weaker, purely phonetic, sense, but it isn't any more "centum" than "satem" in the phonological sense, as all three tectal rows have been collapsed into a single one. --dab (𒁳) 14:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose to remove that centum-satem chart, which represents neither a dispersion nor is it a diachronic map. These views are simply outdated for years. HJJHolm (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, dab is incorrect here. Proto-Tocharian clearly had separate k and kʷ sounds, i.e. exactly the "phonological centum" term you use. Later, both A and B mostly merged the labiovelar into the velar, but in the meantime the labiovelar sound influenced nearby vowels leaving numerous traces, and in fact did so in a way that's different between Toch A and Toch B, which clearly indicates that the loss postdates Proto-Tocharian. Furthermore, Ringe has shown that when Proto-Tocharian had a kʷ directly preceding a voiceless consonant, it was preserved unchanged in western Tocharian B dialects. Benwing (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agni-Kuchi or Agni-Kuči

Everyone seems to use "Tocharian" for these languages, while acknowledging it is something of a misnomer. Is there any English-language literature calling them Agni-Kuchi/Kuči? Kanguole 18:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that I can see from a Google Books search. The closest I can find is "Tokharic, or Arshi-Kuchi ... as Sergent appropriately calls it" (Koenraad Elst, 1999). It would seem to be a term devised by Sergent, but not yet current in English language sources. BabelStone (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that Tocharian is the most frequent term. Nobody wants to remove Tocharian in this article. The point is that, among certain specialists, Agni-Kuchi is preferred. So there is no serious reason to refuse the mention of Agni-Kuchi. Sergent's book is one of the most recognized syntheses about Indo-Europeans (even if it is written in French). Sergent's term was Arśi-Kuči in the first edition of 1995; it was replaced by the more accurate term Agni-Kuči (č = ch) in the second edition of 2005.--Nil Blau (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I take it we agree that Sergent's term is not used in English-language works on the subject. I have not suggested that it not be mentioned, just that it be presented as what it is, a proposal by Sergent that has not achieved wide acceptance. To present it in the lead as an alternative name is to mislead readers by suggesting that the name is in use in English, the language of this encyclopedia. It is our function to describe the situation as it is, not to promote a "better" usage. Kanguole 22:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agni-Kuchi is in use in English, see: there and there (in the gray table called 'The major branches', 4th line); the term is also used in Portuguese, see there (second paragraph). And of course, it's used in French. It's mainly a question of specialized terminology, accepted in various languages. I'm OK with Tocharian, but it would be objective and encyclopedic to mention that Agni-Kuchi also exists as an alternative term.--Nil Blau (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Those examples are extremely weak. The first is an anonymous translation of a Chinese abstract, and does not use the term anyway (just Agni and Kuci as place-names). The second website appears to be a machine translation of the French WP article fr:Langues indo-européennes. We need something a bit more reliable. Mentioning Agni-Kuči in the Names section as a term proposed by Bernard is fine, but presenting it as an alternative name in the lead is undue weight and misleading. Kanguole 12:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Weak examples, but real examples. Never mind! Its isn't misleading to give in the introduction a specialized term, since it is used by one of the most reputed bibles of Indo-Europeanistics (i.e. Sergent's book). Well, I propose the following compromise. What about the following introduction? "Tocharian or Tokharian (/təˈkɛəriən/ or /təˈkɑriən/) —or more rarely Agni-Kuči—[1] is an extinct branch of the Indo-European language family,..."--Nil Blau (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I've demonstrated that these are simply not examples of usage of the term. It's not that this term is "more rarely" used; we've seen no evidence of any use at all in English-language works on the subject. A mention in the "Names" section is the appropriate place for it. Kanguole 19:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that any agreement is hard to find with you. I've made a proposal. You haven't.--Nil Blau (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I began by moving Sergent's term from the lead to the Names section,[5] and that is where it belongs. We have seen no evidence that this name is used in English-language works on the subject, even "more rarely". Kanguole 22:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You didn't "move" Sergent's term, you simply deleted it [6]. That is: you supressed additional and objective information I added about naming issues. Your behavior isn't encyclopedic. Once again: I don't refuse the term Tocharian, I don't want to move the term Tocharian in a secondary position, I only want to inform readers about an objective fact concerning an alternative naming proposal, coming from one of the most reputed books in Indo-Europeanistics. You have no right to delete such information. I've suggested a compromise, you haven't. I'm OK to write that Sergent's term is rare or anecdotic in English use, no problem. But I won't accept any anti-encyclopedic deletion.--Nil Blau (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I did move it—read the whole diff you're pointing at. That is the compromise I began with. It is not "rare or anecdotic": you have yet to produce any evidence that it is used in English-language works on the subject. Kanguole 12:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Kanguole, my dear fellow and comrade, I genereously let you impose your will. I suggest you to read this page, then, take a rest and think about the sense of your life.--Nil Blau (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nil Blau, please Assume Good Faith. Thank you. CodeCat (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

greek influence

it should be noted that the nature of the greek influence, which includes words for king and queen, is more easily explained by the presence of greek aristocrats in the area after the expansion of alexander than the difficult constructions that seem standard. as the source is very late, much later than the greek invasions, greek loan words into tocharian are not to be discounted - as they seem to be, currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.24 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hittite

Might it be appropriate to add Hittite to the table of comparison with other IE languages, given that immediately below it states that Tocharian is lexically most similar to Anatolian (by virtue of retained archaisms)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.60.202 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"Tocharians as the Greeks called them"?

It's not true that the Greeks called the speakers of these languages Tocharians. These manuscripts in the Tarim Basin oasis cities date from the 6th to 8th centuries AD, well after the Greeks were writing. It was Friedrich W. K. Müller who first called them "Tocharian" in 1907 after the manuscripts were found, because he identified their authors with the people Ptolemy described as conquering the Greco-Bactrian kingdom (1000km to the west) in the 2nd century BC. Most scholars now consider it a misnomer. The minority still arguing that the Bactrian people were originally Tocharian-speaking say they switched to Bactrian when they arrived in the area (i.e. before the Greeks encountered them). Kanguole 03:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Tocharische Sprachreste (1921)

Tocharische Sprachreste (1921)

https://archive.org/details/tocharischesprac01sieg

Rajmaan (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)