Some observations on the linguistic situation in the Tarim Basin oasis towns during the first millennium of the Common Era

IF 0.1 3区 历史学 0 ASIAN STUDIES Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae Pub Date : 2022-01-07 DOI:10.5617/ao.9392
Claus Peter Zoller
{"title":"Some observations on the linguistic situation in the Tarim Basin oasis towns during the first millennium of the Common Era","authors":"Claus Peter Zoller","doi":"10.5617/ao.9392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the first millennium of the Common Era, Indo-Aryan (Niya Prakrit), Iranian (Khotan Saka) and Tokharian (Kentum Indo-European) languages were spoken in the oasis towns at the edge of the Tarim Basin. Many of the speakers of those languages were Buddhists and many written documents in these languages address Buddhist topics. The aim of the article is twofold. First: to show that the representatives of the three language families (Niya, Sakian,Tokharian) displayed tendencies towards a linguistic area. This concerns mainly certain phonetic trends but also some shared vocabulary and perhaps the morphological feature of an l-past grammeme shared by Tocharian and several Indo-Aryan languages. Second: to show that some of those phonetic trends must originate in dialects of Old Indo-Aryan that were different from Vedic Sanskrit. The second topic is closely related with the theory of a distinction between Outer and Inner Languages in Indo-Aryan. Niya Prakrit, closely related Gāndhārī and the modern Dardic and Nuristani languages are all part of the Outer Languages as against Inner Languages like Vedic Sanskrit or Hindi. It seems that for some time texts in Gāndhārī language were brought to China, where they weretranslated into Chinese before the same happened with Buddhist texts in Sanskrit. Niya Prakrit, on the other hand, was particularly a language of administration and perhaps nobody’s mother tongue. However, its use as a lingua franca must have facilitated the flow of Buddhist literature from India to China.","PeriodicalId":44092,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5617/ao.9392","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the first millennium of the Common Era, Indo-Aryan (Niya Prakrit), Iranian (Khotan Saka) and Tokharian (Kentum Indo-European) languages were spoken in the oasis towns at the edge of the Tarim Basin. Many of the speakers of those languages were Buddhists and many written documents in these languages address Buddhist topics. The aim of the article is twofold. First: to show that the representatives of the three language families (Niya, Sakian,Tokharian) displayed tendencies towards a linguistic area. This concerns mainly certain phonetic trends but also some shared vocabulary and perhaps the morphological feature of an l-past grammeme shared by Tocharian and several Indo-Aryan languages. Second: to show that some of those phonetic trends must originate in dialects of Old Indo-Aryan that were different from Vedic Sanskrit. The second topic is closely related with the theory of a distinction between Outer and Inner Languages in Indo-Aryan. Niya Prakrit, closely related Gāndhārī and the modern Dardic and Nuristani languages are all part of the Outer Languages as against Inner Languages like Vedic Sanskrit or Hindi. It seems that for some time texts in Gāndhārī language were brought to China, where they weretranslated into Chinese before the same happened with Buddhist texts in Sanskrit. Niya Prakrit, on the other hand, was particularly a language of administration and perhaps nobody’s mother tongue. However, its use as a lingua franca must have facilitated the flow of Buddhist literature from India to China.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公元一千年塔里木盆地绿洲城镇语言状况的观察
在公元的第一个千年里,印度-雅利安语(Niya Prakrit)、伊朗语(于阗Saka)和托哈里语(肯特姆印欧语)在塔里木盆地边缘的绿洲城镇中被使用。许多说这些语言的人都是佛教徒,许多用这些语言写的文件都涉及佛教主题。这篇文章的目的有两个。第一:表明三个语系的代表(尼雅语、萨基语、托哈里语)表现出对一个语言区域的倾向。这主要涉及某些语音趋势,但也涉及一些共同的词汇,也许还有吐火罗语和几种印度雅利安语共有的l-past语法的形态学特征。第二:表明其中一些语音趋势一定起源于与吠陀梵语不同的古印度雅利安方言。第二个主题与印度雅利安人的外部语言和内部语言的区分理论密切相关。Niya Prakrit,密切相关Gāndhārī和现代达尔达语和Nuristani语言都是外部语言的一部分,而不是吠陀梵语或印地语等内部语言。似乎有一段时间,Gāndhārī语言的文本被带到中国,在那里它们被翻译成中文,而梵文的佛教文本也发生了同样的事情。另一方面,尼雅语是一种特别的行政语言,也许不是任何人的母语。然而,它作为通用语的使用肯定促进了佛教文献从印度流向中国。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
A Study of the Vocabulary in al-Qavânîn al-Kulliyya li-Ẓabṭ al-Luġat at-Turkiyya Clitic Third in Hittite: Variation and Development Sound Change or Analogy? Palatalisation in the Plural Paradigm of the Khotanese i-declension Identity, Clothing, and Criminal Mobility in Early Modern Ottoman Society Two Old Uighur Vajracchedikā Sūtra Fragments from the National Library of China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1