"Knowing" Words in

Indo-European Languages

The first systematic theory of the relationships between human languages began when Sir
William Jones, "Oriental Jones," proposed in 1786 that Greek and Latin, the classical languages
of Europe, and Sanskrit [Sãskr.ta, ], the classical language of India, had all descended
from a common source. The similarities between the languages had already been noted in 1768
by Gaston Cœurdoux, who informed the French Academy. The evidence for this came from (1)
the structure of the languages -- Sanskrit grammar has detailed similarities to Greek (and, as
would later be seen, Avestan), many similarities to Latin, and none to the Middle Eastern
languages, like Hebrew, Arabic, or Turkish, interposed between Europe and India [note] -- and
(2) the vocabulary of the languages. Thus, "father" in English compares to "Vater" in German,
"pater" in Latin, "patêr" in Greek, "pitr." in Sanskrit, "pedar" in Persian, etc. On the other hand,
"father" in Arabic is "ab," which hardly seems like any of the others. This became the theory of
"Indo-European" languages, and today the hypothetical language that would be the common
source for all Indo-European languages is called "Proto-Indo-European." The following table
shows a genealogy for two "knowing" roots, which in modern English turn up as "know" and
"wit."
Words that are related to each other by descent from a common source are called "cognates."
English "wise" and Sanskrit "veda" are thus cognates. Note that descent can become confused
when words are subsequently borrowed. English has borrowed "idea" and "agnostic" from
Greek, "video," "visa," and "cognition" from Latin, "vista" from Spanish, etc.
Another striking example of cognates are all the following words for "is" -- modern French and
Persian pronunciation is given in parentheses. By a series of simple steps, we see the relationship
between "is" in English and "ast" in Persian.

Traditionally, all Indo-European languages were divided into "centum" and "sat m" languages,
after the Latin and Avestan words for "100," respectively. This is an "isogloss" (like an
"isotherm" or "isobar" in meteorology) that distinguishes languages where, in certain
environments, an Indo-European k has remained a k and where it has turned into an s or ch (and
g to j, etc.), that is, velars are palatalized into sibilants or affricatives (e.g. Latin rex/regis,
"king," Sanskrit raja). Most importantly, the Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit, Persian, etc.) and Slavic
languages are "sat m"
languages. However, this English German French Latin Greek Sanskrit Persian
particular isogloss is now est ast
no longer taken to reflect is ist est esti asti
(ê) (ê)
a fundamental division in
descent. In the chart
above, Russian, the principal Slavic language, will be seen to be more closely related to German
and to Latin than to Sanskrit; and Greek, a "centum" language, is more closely related to Sanskrit
(perhaps) than to the others. What has happened is that more features have been taken into
account and the overall greater similarities between Greek and Sanskrit outweigh a lesser point
that Sanskrit seems to share with Slavic languages. On the other hand, the whole picture of
branching descent, while perhaps appropriate for organic evolution, may not be as appropriate
for languages, which can borrow features from even unrelated languages in geographical
proximity. The Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, because of their geographical proximity (in
Southern Russia), thus may well have shared a certain sound change, even while retaining closer
affinities to other groups.

The following chart demonstrates a way other than descent to look at the relationships of these
languages. I originally saw a diagram like this when I took an Indo-European linguistics class
with Raimo Anttila at UCLA in 1970. I recently found a similar diagram in The Oxford
Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World by J.P. Mallory and
D.Q. Adams [2006, p.73]. Unfortunately, Mallory and Adams actually do not discuss the
individual isoglosses. The
present diagram is thus based
on one by Thomas Pyles and
John Algeo [1993], though I
have added the tenth gloss for
the reason given below.

What we see here looks very

much like a dialect map of
languages that occur near
each other and so exchange
influences with adjacent
languages. The theory that
goes with it is called the
"wave model," that innovations spread out across the field like waves in a pond. The line marked
#1 in red surrounds the Sat m languages. The line marked #2 in blue surrounds Greek and the
Italic languages (like Latin), where we have voiceless sounds for Indo-European voiced
aspirates, i.e. ph in Greek and f in Latin for Indo-European bh (Germanic languages have b).
The line marked #3 in light green surrounds the Italic and Celtic languages, which have passive
forms of the verb in -r, e.g. Latin laudor, "I am praised" (active laudô). The line marked #4 in
light purple surrounds the "North-West" group of languages, which share some common
vocabulary that does not occur elsewhere among Indo-European languages. The line marked #5
in dark green surrounds the south-eastern languages that have a prefixed vowel in the past tense
or aorist, e.g. Greek élipon, "I left" (present leípô). The line marked #6 in gray surrounds
northern languages where (according to Pyles and Algeo) "medial schwa [an indefinite vowel,
traditionally written " "] was lost." The line marked #7 in orange surrounds the western
languages that share some common vocabulary not found elsewhere. The line marked #8 in light
blue surrounds northern languages that have a dative plural in -m, e.g. Gothic dagam, "to/for
days" (nominative singular dags, dative singular daga -- Modern German now has -n in the
dative plural, den Tagen, but -m in the [masculine/neuter] singular, dem Tag), or Russian
dnyam, "to/for days" (nominative singular dyen [with the final "soft" sign], dative singular
dnyu). The line marked #9 in dark purple surrounds the Indo-Iranian languages, i.e. the Indic
and Iranian, where (according to Pyles and Algeo) "schwa became i" -- though there are many
features that unite the Indo-Iranian group, including vocabulary items, e.g. the god Mitra in
Sanskrit and Mi ra in Iranian (Avestan, Persian). Finally, the line marked #10 in yellow
surrounds Greek and Armenian, where Mallory and Adams say, "[T]here were close contact
relations between Greek and Armenian" [p.79].

In a dialect map, we are usually looking at variations across a language that geographically stays
in place. With the diagram for the Indo-European languages, we may be looking at fossil
evidence of when the languages were dialects of a language in a particular geographical area,
probably Eastern Europe, stretching down into the Balkans and out into the Ukraine. From the
Ukraine, the Indo-Iranian group took off across the Steppe (following Tocharian). Once
separated, the language groups can experience changes that will not be reflected in any other
related languages, for instance that the Indic group acquires the retroflex consonants that figure
in the unrelated Dravidian languages but not elsewhere in Indo-European, or that New Persian
(like Urdu) borrows a large vocabulary from Arabic, a consequence of Iranians converting to
Islam. The absence of Tocharian and the Anatolian languages (Hittite, Luvian, etc.) from the
diagram is significant. Tocharian, from people who advanced across the Steppe all the way to
China and ultimately show up in India as the Kushans, could be expected to orginate from the
east side of the language community and thus most likely be a Sat m language. But it wasn't. It
thus may well be that Tocharian speakers left the dialect area before palatalization occurred in
the Sat m languages. Hittite, the earliest attested Indo-European language, and its related
Anatolian languages, seem to have left the dialect area even before Tocharian. Hittite retains
very archaic features of Indo-European, like laryngeals (or pharyngeals, though exactly what
these were is still unclear -- they would be like sounds that still exist in Arabic, and are to be
found the earliest in Ancient Egyptian), but then it is missing many features that may have
developed later in the dialect area.
Greek, Sanskrit, and Closely Related Languages

Dialects of Greek

The Pronunciation of Greek

Tense and Aspect in Greek

The Spread of Indo-European and Turkish Peoples off the Steppe

The Germanic Languages

The Slavic Languages

Philosophy of Science, Linguistics

Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of History

History of Philosophy, Indian Philosophy

History of Philosophy

Home Page

Copyright (c) 1998, 2000, 2008, 2010 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

Greek, Sanskrit,
and Closely Related Languages
The Sanskrit language whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more
perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined then
either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in
the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong,
indeed, that no philosopher could examine them all three, without believing them to
have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.

Sir William Jones (1746-1794), speaking to the Asiatick Society in Calcutta, February 2, 1786.
The following chart zeroes in on the relationship between Greek and Sanskrit [ ], with the
closely related Iranian and other Indo-European steppe languages, and the modern descendants
of them all. Greek can be seen to radiate into a number of dialects, later to be consolidated into
the koinê or "common" dialect of the Hellenistic period. The name Yuèzhi, "Moon Tribe," was
given by the Chinese to an Indo-European group who came off the eastern end of the steppe.
Latter, under pressure of Turkish or Mongol peoples -- especially a defeat by the Hsiung-nu in

170 BC -- they fell back into the Tarim Basin (the "Lesser" Yuèzhi, ) and

Transoxania (the "Greater" Yuèzhi, ). The latter eventually descended into India, as
the Kushans (1st century AD). The texts that survive in the Tarim Basin, in languages usually
called "Tocharian," attest this obscure branch of Indo-European [note]. The Iranian group of
languages also includes that of a people, the Saka, who had previously (1st century BC) also
ended up in India, providing the benchmark historical era for India (79 AD). Otherwise we see
several modern descendants of Iranian languages, from Modern Persian and Kurdish all the way
to the unique survivor of the North Eastern group, Ossetian, in the Caucasus (though this is now
North West of the others). Iazyges were settled in Britain by Marcus Aurelius, and Alans spread
across Gaul and Spain after crossing the Rhine in 407 AD. Although students of both Greek and
Latin may be impressed with their similarities, Latin does not have a dual number, a middle
voice, or an aorist tense, which both Greek and Sanskrit share. These features, and others, draw
Greek away from Latin, to be more closely associated with the Indo-Iranian languages. In
general, this is the most conservative branch of the Indo-European languages. My Indo-European
linguistics professor at UCLA said once that you can get a sort of "instant Proto-Indo-European"
by combining Greek vowels and Sanskrit consonants.
East of the Caspian Sea, the Indo-Iranian group of languages came down into the Middle East
and India. The furthest penetration west into the Middle East was by the Mitanni, who provide
the earliest texts using Vedic gods and other Indo-European words. The Mitanni, however, do
not last all that long, and it is Persian and Avestan (the language of the Zoroastrian book, the
Avesta) that produce most of the Indo-Iranian inscriptions and literature. A difference in
pronunciation of the name of the Vedic god Mitra is indicated in the chart, between India, the
Mitanni, and Persian. Meanwhile, the Ârya had descended into India, c.1500 BC, the first Indo-
European group to do so (before the Sakas & Kushans). As discussed elsewhere, the Ârya
plunged India into its Dark Ages, until around 800 BC, when an alphabet was borrowed from the
Middle East.
 The map shows the present distribution of the Indo-
Iranian languages, from Kurdistan to Sri Lanka. Ossetic
(Ossetian) is all the remains of the former Iranian
presence on the Steppe, being derived from Scythian
and Alan, which used to dominate the European Steppe
in and around the Ukraine. The Sakas, who were on the
Asiatic Steppe, are long gone, though their invasion of
India is remembered there. The Dravidian languages,
which are not Indo-European, are shown because their
outliers bespeak their former presence in the North, as
well as the South, of India, while features of Dravidian
languages (like the retroflex sounds) influenced the Indic languages, starting with Sanskrit itself.

The word ârya, which later simply meant "noble" in Sanskrit, was of course used in European
theories of the "master race," the "Aryans" -- as we even see in the writings of Friedrich
Nietzsche. This had one curious consequence. Airya was the form of the same word in Avestan,
and Irân is its modern Persian descendant. When Shâh Rezâ Pahlavi heard that the "Aryans"
were supposed to be the master race, he thought, "Hey! That's us!" The official name of his
country was then changed from Persia to Irân. This ended up being an unfortunate move for him.
In World War II, he was more than a little sympathetic for the "Aryans" of Nazi Germany, and
the result was that he got overthrown and Irân was occupied by British and Russian forces.

In the Indian Dark Ages, a sacred oral literature developed, the Vedas. The language of the
Vedas can then be called the Vedic language, and Indian history from c.1500 down to c.400 BC
can be called the Vedic Period. Even though the Vedas could be written down after 800 BC, they
have always been taught and remembered orally, and have always been thought of as essentially
sound -- in contrast to Jewish beliefs about the Tôrah and Moslem beliefs about the Qur'ân, that
they were essentially written. The Vedas are still taught orally.

Once the Vedas came to be written, a disturbing thing was soon noticed. The spoken language
was diverging from the written language. Language, indeed, changes all the time, but this may
not be noticed in an oral tradition. When it was noticed, the reaction was horror, for the belief
was that the Vedas had to be remembered with absolute accuracy for them to be ritually
effective. The result was an effort to describe and fix the language of the Vedas so that it would
never change again. The process culminated about 400 BC with the grammar of Pân.ini.

The language that resulted was tidied up a bit and not precisely identical to the surviving
language of the Vedas. It was called Sam.skr.ta, , Sanskrit, which means "prepared,"
"cultivated," "polished," "correct." The language based on Pân.ini can be called "Classical
Sanskrit," and that of the Vedas "Vedic Sanskrit." Classical Sanskrit remained the language of
religion, philosophy, and high literature in India for centuries, and survives today as the
indispensible language of religion and serious scholarship.

Meanwhile, the spoken language had not only changed but split up into dialects that eventually
grew into separate languages. These new spoken languages are called "Prakrits," from Prâkr.ta,
"natural," "ordinary," "common," "vulgar." The first examples of written Prakrit words are in
Sanskrit texts where someone is speaking, e.g. from a Once Born caste, who is not allowed to
speak Sanskrit. Eventually, however, some Prakrits developed their own literature. When the
canon of essential Buddhist texts was set down in Sri Lanka, the Prakrit Pâli was used -- hence
the "Pâli Canon." That has suggested to some that the Buddha himself spoke Pâli, but this does
not seem to have been the case. The Buddha probably spoke Mâgadhî.

From the Prakrits, most of the modern languages of India are derived. The exceptions are the
languages of the Dravidian group, largely spoken in the south. Some examples of Dravidian
languages, and discussion of the relationship of Hindi to Urdu, can be found elsewhere.

The oldest alphabet used in India was the Brâhmî script. Later, other alphabets developed, like
Kharos.t.hi; but Sanskrit is written in an alphabet especially designed
by the grammarians for it:  Devanâgarî. This is
also used with some modern languages, like Hindi,
and is the source for many more, including the
alphabets for Burmese, Thai, and Cambodian. Actually,
Devanâgarî is not a true alphabet but a syllabary. It writes syllables, and it
does so on the basis of a couple of odd conventions. For one thing, even though Sanskrit has
many consonant clusters, every syllable is written ending with a vowel. This means that all the
consonants, even ones from preceding words, are piled on to the beginning of the following
syllable.

The word Sanskrit itself has three syllables. Most Devanâgarî letters have a
horizontal line on top and a vertical line at the right. The plain form for each letter
automatically is read with the vowel a. In the word at right, therefore, reading from
left to right, we first have the letter s, which is read sa. Over it is a dot, transcribed
as an "m" with an underdot, which stands for the nasal sound found as the "n" in
the French word on [/õ/]. This is very common in Sanskrit. The second syllable in
the word is skr., where the r is given an underdot to show that it is a vowel. Both "r" and "l" can
be vowels in Sanskrit -- though no longer in Hindi (r. is prounced ri). The basic form of the
syllable is the letter k. Attached to the front of it is the letter s, which we've already seen, without
its vertical stroke, and under it is attached a hook that indicates the vowel r.. For the final
syllable we write t, which is given the vowel a. A short final a, it should be noted, is not
pronounced in Hindi:  thus, Sanskrit words like yoga and names like Arjuna can now actually
be found pronounced yog and Arjun.

Another Sanskrit word to consider might be that for the supreme Being of the
Upanishads:  Brahman. Here there are two syllables and a final consonant. In
inflection, the final n is ordinarily going to be lost or written with the following
syllable; but we can add a diacritic to show that it is without a vowel. In the first
syllable, bra, there is a little complication. R, even when it is a consonant and not
a vowel, is written more like a vowel, with a diacritic. The basic form of b is a
loop with a line through it. The r is indicated with a diagonal stroke attached to
the bottom of the loop. The vowel a is then understood. An r that precedes, rather than follows,
another consonant, is written with a hook at the top of the letter. The second syllable, hma, poses
another problem. H is one of the letters that does not have a vertical line at the right, as it is
shown written independently below Brahman. Combining h with m requires running them
together, as shown. The form of this combination is conventional and cannot always be
predicted. It must simply be learned. The full form of m can be seen in the next example, below.
Finally, the absence of a vowel on the final n is indicated with the diagonal stroke at the bottom
of the vertical line.

Next, we can examine a whole sentence. This is the famous tat tvam asi, "Thou
are that," one of the four Great Sentences of the Upanishads. This consists of
three words, but four syllables, where the final consonant in the first two words
is attached to the first syllable of the following word. Ta is familiar. The second
syllable, ttva, involves a conventional combination. When two t's are stacked
on each other, one straightens out into a horizonal line. This can be seen in the
tta combination given below the sentence. Va itself is just a loop, like b without
the line through it (the similarity is no accident; v and b were both recognized
as "labials," i.e. letters that use the lips). The third syllable is ma, where we simply write the
form for m, with the understood vowel. Finally, the form for s is familar, but this time we must
indicate that it has the vowel i rather than the vowel a. This is done by adding another vertical
line to the left of the letter and connecting it to the letter with the loop at the top.

Finally, we might consider the sacred syllable Om, as found in the Mân.d.ûkya
Upanis.ad. Here, at left, we have the independent form of the letter a with a diacritic
(vertical line and stroke) indicating that it has the vowel o (originally au). M follows
with the diacritic indicating no vowel. A more compact form of the word, however, can
be written. If the m is considered to be the nasalized m., it can simply
be written with a dot over the o. The m is a real m, but everybody
knows that anyway, so the more compact form can be written for
convenience.

Since the syllable Om is written down frequently, for good luck and as a
blessing, it is not surprising that abbreviated forms have developed. In the one at
right preserves recognizable parts of the fully written (though already reduced) form.

Some more examples of Devanâgarî writing can be seen in the essay on karma.

In many Sanskrit words, like the name of the Mân.d.ûkya Upanis.ad, it will be noticed that the
letters t, d, n, and s may have underdots (written on the line here,
i.e. t., etc.). These are a separate order of letters from ordinary t,
d, n, and s. The ordinary t, etc. are what in linguistics are called
"dentals," because the tongue touches the teeth (#1 in the
diagram). The underdot t., etc., are called "retroflexes," because
the tongue curls up towards the roof of the mouth (#3 in the
diagram). This makes for very distinctive sounds, which Sanskrit
and the descendants of the Vedic language share with Dravidian
languages, but not with any other Indo-European languages.
Curiously, t, d, and n in English are not true dentals. The tongue
touches the gums above the teeth, the alveolus, rather than the
teeth (#2 in the diagram). This makes them "alveolars" rather than dentals. In India, this sounded
to people more like the retroflexes than like the dentals. English words borrowed into Hindi, like
"doctor," are thus pronounced with the retroflexes -- d.oct.or. At the same time, Hindi has lost
separate n. and s. sounds. N. occurs as a dental n, and s. occurs as an ordinary palatal sh (often
written for Sanskrit as an "s" with an acute accent on it). The name of Krishna in Sanskrit is
Kr.s.n.a, but this then is just pronounced in Hindi as, of all things, Krishna.

At right is the entire Devanâgarî

syllabary. In an alphabet
invented by grammarians, it is
not surprising to see it laid out
according to phonetic principles.
Thus, the alphabetical order
begins with the vowels, then runs
through the diphthongs, the
stops, the semi-vowels, the
sibilants, and finally h. The
vowels, when syllabic, have
independent forms; when not,
they are, as we have seen,
indicated with diacritics.

The stops, which means sounds

where the vocal tract closes, pose
some pronunciation challenges.
K is pronounced as in English
skit, and kh as in English kit.
This is the difference between an
unaspirated and an aspirated
stop -- one has no breath coming
out, the other does. Similarly, t is
pronounced as in English stop, and th as in English top. The "th" sounds in English "thin" or
"that" do not occur in Sanskrit. P is pronounced as in English spot, and ph as in English pot.
"Ph" is never pronounced f. Sanskrit c is like the ch in English, but is unaspirated, making it
unfamiliar. The voiced stops (g, j, d, d., & b), where vocal chords vibrate, all also have their
corresponding aspirates. In sounds like gh, jh, etc., however, the breath coming out is also
voiced. Consequently, the voiced "aspirates" are also called murmur stops, since the sound is
more like murmuring than breathing. These are sounds rarely seen in other world languages.

Several of these phonetic characteristics of Sanskrit can also be found in the

(unrelated) Mandarin Chinese. Notice that "swastika" is a word from Sanskrit
(svastika). In the Nazi version, the top bar points to the right. In India, or in
Buddhism, the top bar tends to point to the left, but traditionally this is not always
the case and both right and left handed swastikas can be found. It was not just a
coincidence that the Nazis liked this symbol. They saw themselves as the heirs of
the Ârya.

"Knowing" Words in Indo-European Languages

Dialects of Greek

The Pronunciation of Greek

Tense and Aspect in Greek

The Spread of Indo-European and Turkish Peoples off the Steppe

The Germanic Languages

Philosophy of Science, Linguistics

Philosophy of Science

History of Philosophy, Indian Philosophy

History of Philosophy

Home Page

Copyright (c) 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved

"Knowing" Words in Indo-European Languages, Note

A conspicuous feature of Indo-European grammar is the original extensive inflection of nouns

English German Greek Latin Russian Sanskrit and verbs. In the table are the cases
that occur in the inflection of nouns
  Voc Voc Voc Voc in a selection of Indo-European
languages.
Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom Nom
Gen Gen Gen Gen Gen Gen The vocative (Voc) occurs when
someone is being addressed -- which
Acc Acc Acc Acc Acc Acc is why Shakespeare has Caesar say
Brute rather than Brutus when
  Dat Dat Dat Dat Dat
  Abl   Abl
Ins Ins
 
Loc Loc
addressing Brutus. The nominative (Nom) is the subject of a sentence. The genitive (Gen) can
mean possession, "of" or "from." The accusative (Acc) is the direct object of a sentence or
motion towards. The dative (Dat) is the indirect object or means "to" or "for." The ablative (Abl)
means "from" or motion away from. The instrumental (Ins) is the agent for the passive voice or
the means. And the locative (Loc) means "at" or the location of something.

All these languages actively inflect nouns and adjectives for case, gender, and
number, except English, where there is only a remant of the system, mainly in the Sumerian
pronouns. Thus, he/his/him, she/her/her, and it/its/it, give us the most complete Absolutive
inflection that English still possesses. Sanskrit, on the other hand, retained nearly
the full Proto-Indo-European system, including inflection for the dual number Ergative
(like Greek) as well as the singular and plural.
Genitive
Except for the vocative, German still has the same cases as Greek, but there is a Locative
great deal of ambiguity in the case endings, whose identity must often be
determined from context. See the discussion of Nietzsche's language. As Dative
prepositions come to be used more extensively, they can have different meanings
when used with different cases, or they can be fixed to take a particular case, Comitative
which happens a lot in German. In English, all prepositions simply take the Ablative
accusative, though in usage people are often confused and use the nominative "I"
with prepositions after a conjunction (e.g. "between you and I"). Terminative

It is always important to keep in mind, not only what something is, but what it Directive
isn't. Indo-European languages, with cases like nominative and accusative, are Equative
not "ergative" languages, like Basque, languages in the Caucasus, or Sumerian
(which beats out Sanskrit with ten cases for its nouns, as seen at right). In an
ergative language, the subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a transitive verb take the
same case, the "absolutive." The subject of a transitive verb then takes the ergative case. While
this all seems strange, the division is natural enough. Only the subject of the transitive verb is
actually doing something (Greek érgon is "work") to something else. The difference between
nominative-accusative languages and ergative-absolutive serves to mark fundamental differences
in language families.

Return to Text

Greek, Sanskrit, and Closely Related

Languages, Note

The word "Tocharian" is often said to be used

"as the result of a mistaken identification"
[Winfred P. Lehmann, Historical Linguistics,
Third Edition, Routledge, 1992, 1997, p.81].
The word was taken from Greek historians
who were talking about a people, the Tokharoi, of the Fergana Valley (in the headwaters of the
Jaxartes [Syr Darya] River, between the Pamirs and the Tian Shan mountains) who converted to
Buddhism and migrated to India. This does sound like the Kushans, but may have nothing to do
either with them or the Lesser Yuèzhi of the Tarim Basin.

Now, however, it turns out that among the Tocharian manuscripts is one written in Uighur,
which is close to Turkish and represents the next wave of nomadic migrants into central Asia
(c.600 AD). The Uighur text says that it was translated from a language called twghry -- the lack
of vowels is an aritfact of Uighur using the alphabet from Syriac, which, like Arabic and
Hebrew, typically doesn't write vowels. Twghry looks close enough to Tokharoi to now properly
motivate the identification. So it must not have been mistaken after all.

Return to Text