Gripla - 01.01.1975, Blaðsíða 201

THE EAST TOCHARIAN PERSONAL PRONOUN 197
(á) Within the language in question. This is brought about on the
one hand by changing or extending the function of an extant form
and on the other hand by developing a new form.
(b) By borrowing.
Here it is worth noting that this is a question of the lst person.
From the point of view of the modem European languages where
honorific usage occurs mainly in the 2nd person this may seem
strange. But honorific usage is also well known in the lst person and
there are in fact indications that it may have originated in the lst
person.5
Mention was made above of the theory that nas had developed
within East Tocharian as an honorific form. But it is also possible
that it was borrowed, viz. from West Tocharian fiaé. At first it may
have been used as an honorific form in East Tocharian, changing its
function later in that the opposition ordinary/honorific was replaced
by the opposition feminine/masculine.
(2) The second possibility is that the distinction between masculine
and feminine was introduced into the lst p. sg. in East Tocharian.
This distinction is rarely encountered in the 2nd p. sg., but it occurs
in the Semitic languages, in the West Caucasian Abchaz and Abaza,
and, e.g., in Khasi, a language of Assam. But in the lst p. sg. it is
very uncommon indeed.0
It is, however, found in Andi, an East Caucasian language of
5 According to E. Benveniste, Problémes de linguistique générale, Paris 1966,
234-236, the semantic complexity of especially the lst person plural was instru-
mental in bringing about the use of plural for one person; see also The Pronomi-
nal Dual in lcelandic, 15-16, 34-35 etc. On the occurrence of the honorific lst
person in Sanskrit, see Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik III, Göttingen 1930,
453, and in Chinese, R. A. D. Forrest, The Chinese Language, London 1948, 189.
6 Ed. Hermann thought that the East Tocharian distinction was due to Tibetan
influence. According to him the Tibetan lst p. sg. is bdag, but alternative forms
masc. kho vo, fem. kho mo. It seems rather doubtful whether the masc. and fem.
forms are pronouns at all; it is more likely that they are honorifics as commonly
found in several oriental languages, e.g. Japanese. In any case such an influence is
also doubtful for historical reasons as pointed out by W. Krause. See Eduard Her-
mann, ‘Sieg, Siegling, Tocharische Sprachreste, I. Band, Die Texte,’ KZ L (1922),
309-310. [Review], W. Krause, ‘Zur Frage nach dem nichtindogermanischen Sub-
strat des Tocharischen,’ KZ LXIX (1951), 191-192.