Gripla - 01.01.1975, Blaðsíða 200

196
GRIPLA
(c) East Tocharian nas is of uncertain origin, but is sometimes con-
sidered to represent an IE lst p. pl. obl. form, cf., e.g., Lat. nös.3
If the derivation in (c) is correct it follows that Proto-Tocharian
has preserved both the IE nom. and obl. forms. The function of the
obl. form has subsequently been changed in East Tocharian, in all
probability as follows: pl. obl.> honorific sg. > masc. In West Toch-
arian the form has accordingly been lost. It is, no doubt, possible to
envisage such a development, but this explanation has not met with
much approval.
II
It may be worth while trying a different approach to this problem.
It is not unreasonable to assume that at an earlier stage the system of
pronouns was the same in both West and East Tocharian:
SINGULAR PLURAL
W.T. nas W.T. wes
E.T. nuk E.T. was
This system would represent the situation in Proto-Tocharian and
agrees with the etymology set forth in I (b) above.
The development leading from the Proto-Tocharian system to the
East Tocharian one may be explained in two slightly different ways,
as follows:
(1) The distinction between ordinary and honorific usage was in-
troduced into East Tocharian. In other languages where this has hap-
pened the new honorific forms have developed along different lines:4
ein f. *mene-k'°á zu nuk fiihren konnte; A nás bleibt schwierig,’ Jochem Schindler,
‘Lane, George S.: On the Interrelationship of the Tocharian Dialects, in Ancient
Indo-European Dialects, ed. by Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel, Berkeley and
Los Angeles 1966,’ Die Sprache XIII (1967), 94-95. [Review]. It may not be ad-
visable to postulate three-syllable forms for these pronouns, although some paral-
lels can be found, e.g. Gr. eycoye, Greenlandic uvanga.
3 Walter Petersen, ‘Tocharian Pronominal Declension,’ Language XI (1935),
204.
4 For some examples see Helgi Guðmundsson, The Pronominal Dual in Ice-
landic, University of Iceland Publications in Linguistics 2, Reykjavík 1972, 99-
105.