Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T10:02:30.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imperfect and Preterit in Tocharian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

George S. Lane
George S. Lane*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

[The Proto-Tocharian imperfect, based on IE optative formations, is preserved in Kuchean (Toch. B) but lost in Turfanian (Toch. A) except for two relics, the imperfects of the verbs ‘be’ and ‘go’. The remaining Turfanian imperfects are in origin identical with preterit formations found in Turfanian or in Kuchean or in both, which are all derived from IE perfects and aorists.]

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 29 , Issue 3: July-September , September 1953, pp. 278 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © 1953 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 For further details of the palatalization, cf. Lg. 21.81 ff.

2 For the convenience of the reader who may want additional information not pertinent to this paper, the numbering of classes (whether present, preterit, subjunctive, or optative) follows the system advanced by W. Krause, Westtocharische Grammatik, Band 1. Das Verbum (Heidelberg, 1952; abbr. Krause).

3 Krause 255 and 222 respectively.

4 Cf. Sieg, Siegling, and Schulze, Techarische Grammatik (abbr. SSS) 384 ff.

5 Cf. Krause 103-4, 113-4.

6 Pedersen, Tocharisch 204 f. ; W. Couvreur, BSL 39.247 f.

7 Krause, Journal of Celtic studies 1.24 ff. Cf. also Pedersen, VKG 2.348.

8 Several of these forms are of course assumed for the particular verbs for the sake of uniformity of comparison.

9 Cf. Buck, Introduction to the study of the Greek dialects2 112.

10 Op.cit. 384 ff.

11 Cf. SSS 385 fn. 1 ; Couvreur, Hoofdzaken van de tochaarse klank- en vormleer 66 ; Pedersen, Tocharisch 178.

12 Loc.cit.

13 Kleine Schriften 239 ff. = Sitzungsberichte der preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften 1924 166 ff.

14 Op.cit. 176.

15 Cf. Prokosch, A comparative Germanic grammar 176 ff., with literature.

16 Cf. Lg. 24.307-8.

17 On the identity of the Indo-European perfect with the Hittite ḫi-conjugation, cf. Sturtevant, Comp. gramm. of the Hittite language2 131 ff.

18 Cf. Sturtevant, op.cit. 129-30; Couvreur, Revue des études indo-européennes 1.89 ff.

19 Cf. Krause 83.

20 These are Krause's Class Ib, but SSS Ia.

21 Krause 10 ff.

22 Cf. Krause's list 181 ff.

23 Op.cit. 180.

24 The question of the identity of the 2nd sg. ending Kuch. -sta, Turf. (ä)ṣt with Lat. istī need not concern us here; cf. Krause, loc.cit.

25 Lg. 14.28-9; Pedersen, Tocharisch 219.

26 Krause's remark (180) that palatalization is unknown in the Kuchean preterit of Class III is in general true, but initial ly occurs.

27 Lg. 21.22, 23.

28 Op.cit. 180.

29 Krause 167-8.

30 Op.cit. 179-80.

31 Cf. Brugmann, Grdr.2 2.3.158 ff.; Buck, Comp, gramm, of Gk. and Lat. 269.

32 In such a case then PIE ъr (or or before vowel, however we write it) fell together in its development with PIE o and a. The etymology that I proposed in Lg. 14.29 (connection with Lat. garriō ‘chatter‘), is therefore to be abandoned, as is also that of Van Windekens, Lex. étym. 37.

33 Cf. Krause 166 Anm. 1.

34 Krause 165 (§164) compares these last-mentioned preterits, karṣṣa, kälypawa, comyāwa, memyas, with Baltic preterits like Lith. temptaũ (to tempiù, tem̃pii 'stretch'), tapiaũ (to tampù, tàpti 'become'), as formations in -yā. I prefer the standard view (as in Brugmann, Grdr.2 2.3.176-7), that these Baltic forms are also ē-stems, not yā-stems; cf. sg. 2 tempeī, 3 tem̃pė, pl. 1 tem̃pėme, 2 tem̃pėte. They are then indeed comparable to our Tocharian formation, but only in the way that I have indicated.

35 Tocharisch 170.

36 Couvreur (Hoofdzaken 66) may be right in suspecting that we are actually dealing here, at least in part, with preterits and not with imperfects. In fact, while throughout this paper I have accepted the classification as imperfect or as preterit as I found it in SSS or Krause, I am not at all sure that when all texts are eventually analyzed such a classification will hold for Turfanian.