Gripla - 01.01.1975, Blaðsíða 204

200
GRIPLA
These instances of borrowed pronouns may not be as singular as
they appear at first sight. An example of a case in point may be the
relatively recent expansion of the German pronouns Sie, lhnen etc. in
honorific use, superseding the older Ihr, Euch etc.
(2) To assume that a loan-word was brought from West into East
Tocharian is apparently in agreement with what is known about these
peoples. For example writing was first developed for West Tocharian
and was later adopted for East Tocharian, indicating the direction of
cultural influence.12 The usual direction for loan-words is in fact
from West into East Tocharian.13
(3) Another aspect of the problem is whether the distinction
ordinary/honorific preceded the distinction feminine/masculine, cf. II
(1) and (2) above. A priori this may seem likely because the former
distinction is very common in the world’s languages whereas the latter
is extremely rare.
It is, however, possible that another feature of Tocharian grammar
may throw some light on this. In the Tocharian noun flexion a dis-
tinction is made between animate and inanimate; thus in East Toch-
arian the gen. sg. in -ap and a certain obl. sg. are reserved for the
animate, or higher, class. An exception is, e.g., sam ‘wife’, pl. nom.
snu, showing an ending otherwise reserved for the inanimate, or
lower, class.14 It is possible that this feature is connected with the
origin of the distinction in the pronouns, which accordingly should
have been between feminine and masculine from the outset.15
Sprachgeschichte. By Didrik Arup Seip, revised and extended by Laurits Saltveit,
Berlin 1971,’ Language 50 (1974), 577. [Review].
12 W. Krause, Tocharisch, Handbuch der Orientalistik IV, 3, Leiden 1955, 7.
13 Holger Pedersen, Zur tocharischen Sprachgeschiclite, Det Kgl. Danske
Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser XXX, 2, K0benhavn
1944, 31.
14 W. Krause, ‘Zur Frage nach dem nichtindogermanischen Substrat des Tocha-
rischen,’ 193.
15 It has been assumed here that the distinction is in fact between feminine/
masculine and not between ordinary/honorific. The lack of texts precludes any
certainty in this matter, and, besides, it is possible that the texts do not represent
accurately the colloquial usage. In this context it would of course be an advantage
to know the social conventions which prevailed among the East Tocharians. But
leaving this aside, the dividing line between the two possibilities may not be very