Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:12:32.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Indo-European Languages of Eastern Turkestan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

T. A. Sinclair
Affiliation:
University College, Southampton

Extract

Just east of the Pamir mountains, and to the north of the great plateau of Tibet, lies the little-explored country of Chinese or Eastern Turkestan. In that country, towards the end of the last century, two hitherto unknown languages were discovered by European explorers and translated by European scholars. Several nations took part in the investigation, and the material discovered was amicably distributed among English, French, German, and Russian philologists. The material to which I refer, the precious sources from which our knowledge of these languages is obtained, consists partly of engraved wooden tablets, but chiefly of documents written on a kind of paper which has been miraculously preserved in the extreme dryness of the sand for some 1,300 years—just like the eggs of the dinosaur recently discovered not so very far from this region, and which, we are told, have been there for ten million years. No such antiquity can be claimed for our documents, which are, in fact, distressingly late. Historical references contained in them seem to show that both languages existed at least as late as the seventh century A.D., when they disappeared. The most striking fact about these languages is that, though very different the one from the other, they both clearly belong to that great Indo-European family to which Greek, Latin, English, Sanskrit, Persian, and so many of the languages of Europe belong.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1924

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.)

References

page 120 note 1 The evidence is more fully discussed in an article in the Classical Review, Vol. XXXVIII., 1112, 1923, p. 159Google Scholar.

page 121 note 1 See Journal Asiatique, 1911–1913 passim.

page 122 note 1 E.g. Chinese cha-men (monk), Kuchean (Tok. B) ṣamane, Skt. ¸ramaṇa; Chinese po-ye-pi (at fault), Kuchean (Tok. B) pāyti, Skt.pāyantika. See Journal Asiatique, 1913. July–December, pp. 317 sqq.

page 124 note 1 Charpentier, it is true, holds that Tokharian is a Keltic language, chiefly because of the medio-passive endings in r; but it is hardly safe to assert that any language belongs to the Keltic branch which shows no trace of the loss of p, nor of the change I. -E. ē > Kelt. i.

page 125 note 1 But the fact that the Turkish name for it was toxri may perhaps be a justification of the name. See Classical Review, Nov.–Dec., 1923, p. 160.