Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hqlzj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-24T15:55:53.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Tumshuqese Karmavācanā text1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

P. O. Skjærvø
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Tumshuqese is the name proposed by Emmerick, on the analogy of “Khotan: Khotanese”, for the language spoken in the region of Tumshuq, on the northern edge of the Tarim basin in the Xinjiang Uigur Autonomous Region of China. It is closely related to — though in many respects more archaic than — Khotanese, a Middle Iranian language (like Sogdian, Bactrian, Khwarezmian, Middle Persian and Parthian), the language of Khotan, a country and city on the southern border of the Tarim basin (see, e.g. Emmerick, 1979, 1–5).

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 119 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 77 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1987

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, H. W., 1937, “Hvatanica [I]”, BSO(A)S, VIII, No. 4, pp. 923–36.Google Scholar
Bailey, H. W., 1950, “The Tumshuq Karmavācanā”, BSOAS, XIII, No. 3, pp. 649–70, 809–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, H. W., 1958, “Languages of the Saka”, in Handbuch der Orientalistik I, IV,Google Scholar
Iranistik 1, pp. 131–54.Google Scholar
Bailey, H. W., 1960, ed., Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, II, V.Google Scholar
Saka documents, I, London.Google Scholar
Bailey, H. W., 1967, Khotanese Buddhist texts, London; revised edition Cambridge, etc., 1981.Google Scholar
Bailey, H. W., 1969, Khotanese texts, i–iii, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bailey, H. W., 1967, Khotanese texts, vi. Prolexis to the Book of Zambasta, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bailey, H. W., 1968, Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, II, V.Google Scholar
Saka documents, text volume, London.Google Scholar
Bailey, H. W., 1979, Dictionary of Khotan Saka, Cambridge, etc.Google Scholar
Bailey, H. W., 1982, The culture of the Sakas in ancient Iranian Khotan, Delmar, New York. (Columbia lectures on Iranian studies 1.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgerton, F., 1953, Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit grammar and dictionary. I. Grammar, New Haven [Delhi, etc., 1970].Google Scholar
Emmerick, R. E., 1968, Saka grammatical studies, Oxford.Google Scholar
Emmerick, R. E., 1971, ed., Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, II, V.Google Scholar
Saka documents, V. London.Google Scholar
Emmerick, R. E., 1977, “The Confession of Acts”, in Varia 1976, Téhéran and Liège, pp. 87–115. (Acta Iranica 12.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmerick, R. E., 1979, A guide to the literature of Khotan, Tokyo. (Studia philologica buddhica. Occasional Paper series III.)Google Scholar
Gershevitch, I., 1961, A grammar of Manichean Sogdian, Oxford.Google Scholar
GMS = Gershevitch, 1961.Google Scholar
Härtel, H., 1956. Karmavācanā, Formulare für den Gebrauch im buddhistischen Gemeindeleben aus ostturkestanischen Sanskrit-Handschriften, Berlin. (Sankrittexte aus den Turfanfunden III.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitch, D., 1981, Central Asian Brahmi palaeography: the relationships among the Tocharian, Khotanese, and Old Turkic Gupta scripts, M.A. thesis, Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
Humbach, H. and Skjærvø, P.O., 1983, The Sassanian inscription of Paikuli, part 3.2. Commentary by P. O. Skjævø, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
KBT = Bailey, 1951 [1981].Google Scholar
Konow, S., 1935, “Ein neuer Saka-Dialekt”, SPAW, hist.-phil. Kl., 1935, xx, Berlin, pp. 1–54 [772–823].Google Scholar
Konow, S., 1942, “Note sur une nouvelle forme aberrante du khotanais”. Journal asiatique 233, 1941–1942, pp. 83–102.Google Scholar
Konow, S., 1947. “The oldest dialect of Khotanese Saka”, Norsk Tidsskrift for Srogvidenskap XIV, pp. 156–90.Google Scholar
KT, i–iii = Bailey, 1969.Google Scholar
KT, vi = Bailey, 1967.Google Scholar
Lamotte, É., 1981, Le traité de la grande vertu de sagesse de Nāgārjuna (Mahā-prajñāpāramitāšāstra), i–ii, Louvain-la-Neuve (reprint of the 1949 edition).Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. N., 1976, The Buddhist Sogdian texts of the British Library, Téhéran and Liège. (Acta Iranica 10.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SGS = Emmerick, 1968.Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, N., 1973, “A note on Bactrian syntax”, Indogermanische Forschungen LXXVIII, 95–99.Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, N., 1981, “Notes on Manichaean Middle-Persian morphology”, Studia iranica X, No. 2, pp. 165–76.Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, N., 1983, “Chotano-sogdica”, BSOAS, XLVI, No. 1, pp. 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjærvø, P. O., 1981, “The Old Khotanese fragment H 147 NS 115 and remarks on Old Khotanese hamdärväto, patīśu, vya and ya”, BSOAS, XLIV, No. 3, pp. 453–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjærvø, P. O., 1985, “Khotanese v- < Old Iranian *dw-”, BSOAS, XLVIII, No. 1, pp. 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sum = Sumukhadhāraṇī in KBT, pp. 135–143.Google Scholar
Thomas, W., 1964, Tocharisches Elementarbuch, II, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Vajr = Vajracchedikā-sūtra in KT, iii, pp. 20–29.Google Scholar