 So, I think Mark said yesterday that he is kind of a third category, so I think I'm a fourth category. I'm a historical phonologist and a philologist, but for the wrong languages. So, the goal of this talk, or the goals of the talks, the goals of the talk are testing the text as a guide reconstruction using non-words for ancient European languages, which will mainly be Tukarian, since I'm a specialist in Tukarian, but also because most of the stuff seems to be from Tukarian or Eastern Tukarian when we look at the ancient time. Testing means looking again with the new reconstruction at non-words that most of them already in one way or the other being suggested, and I picked the reasons of the ones that I think that are kind of, that they would speak. Well, why Tukarian? Tukarian is the European language that used to be close to the speakers of Chinese. As you will see at various historical stages, which we'll actually see in the long run. The other goal is testing hypothesis concerning the geographical and semantic areas of European and Chinese linguistic context, and so there will be a little bit talk. I will talk a little bit about cultural things and just a little bit about archaeological things and about where there are no non-words where people are expecting them. These are the European languages in their old distribution, I guess I'm preaching to the choir. Everybody knows the European, but Tukarian, of course, is the language most to the East. Almost everyone now in the European studies agrees on kind of this model. So Anatolian was the first language to split off and walk into what today is Turkey. And Tukarian, the second, to split off fairly early going into the real mountains. I think, though I personally think that these dates are a little bit too early, I also think that Tukarian is much closer to the other languages than Anatolian is. And also there is a huge difference between Anatolian and the other languages, including Tukarian, but that's something that we can discuss later if you want. What's to know, discovered at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, spoken from antiquity into the Middle Ages in today's Western China, the manuscript tailed from the 4th to the 13th century, but probably Tukarian died out as a spoken language around the 10th century. So we actually have a lot of dialectic variations in Tukarian, which is the bulk of our evidence. Identified as Indo-European fairly quickly in 1998. Okay, it's of course Indo-European and I thought I put in a cognitive set just to basically get me in the group mood, because cognitive sets in Silo T. Bettner are not that nice. If your partner is saying that. So, the nice Indo-European language, I give you the three flagship languages, Sanskrit, Greek and Latin, and English there, and these are all super cognates. We have nice sound changes that basically get you almost all the forms without any analogical meddling or anything else. Okay, what else is to know? So up until the mid-1990s, that's kind of a sociological point that has to be made, because up to this day, Tukarian is the most understudied Indo-European language for the reconstruction, for itself, because most of the texts are actually not translated and a lot of the vocabulary is not understood. So up until the 1990s, most manuscripts were almost inaccessible in the hands of specialists that did not want to share them with anybody else. This is anecdotal, but it has to be mentioned. People published actually papers saying, I read this and this word in this unpublished manuscript and it confirms this and this theory about Indo-European, but nobody actually saw this manuscript. And usually people didn't even say what the actual word might have meant in the context. But this is how it used to be for quite a long time, after the first two decades that were just heroic, in a sense, with the Sigan-Siglin deciphering the language and recognizing it as Indo-European and publishing the first edition. So up until recently, only a very few text editions, basically the best text edition that we have is made by Xiaoshan Pinot, Yanarinta and Qi Xianglin. The Maitreya Samitinata got it dug up in the 70s in Xinjiang. That's basically the only edition that you would call an edition. You have a text, you have a translation, you have a glossary and you have the photos of the text, I mean that's great. Up until a couple of years ago, only a very few useful handbooks that changed drastically over the last decade. Since 2011, there is the comprehensive edition of two-carrying manuscripts, K-TOM or C-TOM, if you prefer, at the University of Vienna, where I'm working. And what we do is basically trying to make all the manuscripts accessible to everyone, so they get glossed, they get translated when we can. We find the parallels because most of the two-carrying texts are Buddhist in nature and so on. So basically, even if you have no understanding or even interest in European, you can use this web page to find useful data if you want. And it's still in the process, but I gave a talk about this project one year ago, and there I said we have 8,000 manuscripts now in the database and now it's one year later and we have 11,000 manuscripts, well fragments, in the database. And there are still things being dug up in this edition. So this is all the two-carrying fragments, exactly datable to the 4th century, and also people were allowed to rip apart and make C-14 analysis, and it roughly confirms the date, but C-14 analyses are always plus, minus, 50, 250 years, but roughly confirms both the paleographic data that was suggested. Well, most of you know, it's the terrarium basin, let's zoom in here. So these are the main finds, but so basically the northern part was the old Silk Road and what seems to become the new Silk Road when we believe the president of China. Sorry, so the red one indicates two-carrying A and the brown one is two-carrying B, and you see it even from the end, and I think now there's even a manuscript from Kropotan. So it was spoken around the terrarium basin. Why is two-carrying important even if you're not an Europeanist? Well, because probably this guy was half two-carrying, it was one of the most important translators for Buddhist texts, and this guy was maybe the most important of them all. So basically two-carrying played a vital role in transmitting Buddhism from India to China and from Sanskrit into Chinese. Okay, so where do the two-carriers come from? That's the never-ending debate, and we don't know. But the theories are now. Basically, the Xiongnu started a fight up here and the Yuzhe or Rujhe, which was probably some confederacy of different tribes, moved up here. And why do we notice, because we have Chinese historians, but also when we reach this point here, becoming the Kushan Empire, we have also Western historians telling us about it. But otherwise it's not... I mean, we can assume that there was some relation with this kind of migration that pushed two-carriers from either here or here into the terrarium basin. Yeah, that's the whole thing all over again. There's the Kushan Empire, so basically the Rujhe were pushed by the Xiongnu to establish this Kushan Empire. And this was a mixture of, as probably everybody knows, the Greek and Iranian and maybe two-carrying people and a lot of other people. So going back in time, what people in Indo-Pia now believe is that we can kind of pinpoint the pre-proto-to-carry with the Athanas civil culture. Yeah, I don't know. Artifacts don't speak, jeans don't speak, so they're always a little bit skeptical with these arguments, but it should be mentioned. And actually this is from a genetic paper. But as I said, artifacts don't speak, and near to mommies. Good. There's the general tendency now in the European-affiliated circles to say, as Qusminia does, in the Eurasian steppes, mythology will transport and force-creating go back to the 4th millennium BC. Northern Chinese population may have received metal, wheeled, barley, wheeled vehicles, the sheep, and the birds from the Athanas civil tribes who came from the west. The words for all these were borrowed into Chinese from Indo-European, presumably Tocharian, quoting or referring to the famous Puliplank paper. Well, let's look at this. So, Indo-European word for metal, Heyes. The Chinese word for metal, Krem, copper, also Heyes. It's to carry in Piliplaka, which means shining thing, or Chinese, long. Again, Heyes, also bronze, Krem, or young. Silver, Hergento, this actually seems to be a kind of middle outcome of this form. And people have suggested that these forms are related, but I don't see it. And then the word for gold, that we have in Tocharian, the word for gold in Chinese, or for fine gold in Chinese. And I don't see any relations here. If you do, please tell me. I'm happy to learn. Let's look at the cereals, wheat with gants, which is Tocharian, Kanti, bread, mürök. Maybe the other form, mürök, was also barley, I mean, kind of a wheat. But anyhow, there's no relation whatsoever. The sheep, no relation whatsoever. The forests, no relation whatsoever. But people have said, well, maybe it's related with this mark theme. And actually, at the beginning of all comparison of Indo-European and Chinese is one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Leibniz, who already compared what we have as Meere with the Chinese form. But this doesn't work. Of course, there's an M and there's an R, and there's an M and there's an R, but that's not enough. And then this word is special, because it's only tested in Germanic and Chaoptic. So, yeah, let's look at the wheel. So you see, this is basically the tested wheel terminology. Wagon, wheel, axle, yoke, et cetera. And you see, so Indo-Iranian has basically all this terminology. Anatolian has only this for the yoke. And Tuquerin only has a wheel or, I mean, basically it's the word for wheel, but it became the word for chariot. So, here you have this nice list from Anthony and Ringe with the most important word. So chariot, wheel, axle, I guess that's fill, if I'm not mistaken, axle and convey, so transport in a vehicle. Let's briefly look at Chinese. So there are these two words for chariot, maybe, maybe, maybe. This can be from something Indo-Iranian. Iranian has chakra and Sancturitas chakra, and some pro-form could maybe give this, but if there's no other conclusive evidence, we can't really tell. Wheel, run, axle, ruk. Then knave, cork, and here again, maybe, maybe, maybe this is a shortened form of the Tuquerian kokale, but then again from the meaning wheel or chariot to knave, that's not the best semantic change that I would come up with. Tsus, drive, Nuvaz, chariot, cork, so you can see there's not much Indo-European borrowings going on there. As I said, maybe here, maybe here, but the evidence is not really conclusive. Good. Now let's look at wheel to carring onwards in old Chinese, so this is also in Lorenz and Bilsburg, so this funny plant. We're going back to Anguache, which itself is a long word from pro-Iranian or some older Iranian, Anguache. Then there's the honeybird, and maybe we have to discuss this later a lot, but basically there are two proposals, so me from Middle Chinese myth, from old Chinese myth that's in Lorenz and Bilsburg's inventory or as Guillaume suggested from Middle Chinese myth, from old Chinese myth. So Guillaume would take it, is ingenious from Melit, which is not tested directly into carring, which would be a nice Indo-European form, and a pre-proto-to-carring Melit could give us the required myth. But I have to say, in my opinion, and it might be fundamentally wrong, but a proto-to-carring myth seems also possible, and I could imagine the Chinese speakers heard what proto-to-carring actually turned into then, in to-carring the myth. So if I hear a myth as a Chinese myth, I might come up with myth as my form. But this would suggest that the to-carring yu, which was kind of a bard, I was a little bit different from the old Chinese yu, because if the both were swans, we would expect that a proto-old Chinese form would actually be spelled, or pronounced wrong. Then there's the word for arrow. I was very happy, and I thought, yeah, I discovered a long word by myself, and then I saw the truth law already had it. But I think that's probably right. So Tsain, which is still a test in to-carring, is a Tsain arrow, which in turn is from proto-Iranian, and so we see that basically the Chinese form has to have come by a to-carring, where already the change from weapon to arrow happened. Okay, this is actually my fault. There is this word, krat, wound fabric. Everybody who wore a pullover made of out of wool without nothing underneath can see the association of krat. And it actually is there in proto-to-carring. There's a krat, kait, to-carring, krat, to-carring, kratzu, meaning rag, and probably as far as we can tell from the text, woollen rag, it occurs in a very strange context where Buddhist monks are basically, they're told that when they have special needs, they should use a rag to satisfy these needs. Yeah, that's the fun of to-carring philology. But it is related to, of course, probably to scratch and German kratzen, which is just funny. Good. That's why here I made a question mark, the goose. Well, maybe. At least one of the goose is the grey one that a fellow Austrian Nobel Prize winner took a lot of pride and caring. It actually was domesticated somewhere in the Middle East and gradually shifted to Asia. And we would probably have a pre-proto-to-carring from Konto giving kentze goose. Then we would actually have evidence for an old O-grade, which would fit actually nicely with the Germanic data and also the Sanskrit data, so hamsa, and of course our word for guns and goose. But I'm not quite sure about this one. Old Chinese no words into caring. Kru. And that's an old one, but that's a fantastic one, I think, because it can't possibly be from Middle Chinese. So it has to be from Old Chinese and that's a really nice thing. And this could give us also the best clue, pardon the pun, concerning the time and space of the linguistic context between Chinese and to-carry and speakers. There are genetic, I'm not talking about mummies, there are genetic investigations on the rice in Xinjiang and it seems the rice came to Xinjiang 2,000 years ago. But this means that the word was borrowed earlier somewhere where the Chinese already cultivated rice. And I mean the next, the closest thing I can think of in pre-Tin times is maybe Kanto. And incidentally, this might also be the home of the Roger in the centuries before the Qing Dynasty. And then there are a lot of measures, this is one of them. And they also, so to-carry basically is, it collapses all distinctions. So Proto-Indo-Pine had tea, de-he, and everything was collapsed into tea. So basically they didn't care about our superscripts. This example is nice in so far because we have these vows that lead to this pelletilization. And the pelletilization of the tea in Proto-To-Carry would give us a cheer, and that's quite nice. And this also confirms that this thing is old Chinese because this thing would probably end up as shuck. Yeah, basically that's what I'm just saying. But that's also this one. And the same thing, I mean, to-carry and collapsed D&T. We have this pelletilization happening in Proto-To-Carry, giving us shuck. And again, the same thing. This cannot be from the middle Chinese one. Then this word. A lot of ink has been spilled about this word. But I think that we should actually take it from old Chinese in some way. Why would Proto-Turkey Tumen not work? Because Tumen would probably pelletilize the tea in Proto-To-Carry, which would lead to kind of Tumen. And then in To-Carry we do Charme. And we don't have these ones. And some people said, well, but we have the U. And it's true there are spellings with Tumane in the literature. So not a full U. But when you actually look at the evidence, they are fairly late. So that all these forms are Tumane and Tumane. Again, another measure. I think it's possible when we reasonably suggest that the global stop, since we did not have a global stop at the end of words, they substituted the word. And we would get, this would then lead to Proto-Carry and form Tau, which would exactly give Tau in To-Carry. Then from an old calendar system with Ra, the 12th month. And this must be from old Chinese. And also we can read a lot of discussions about these measure words and maybe someone will come up with a phonological explanation that will contradict nine. But this seems also very old. Okay, then that's a little bit boring. So there are middle Chinese long words in To-Carry. So Kai, cover. Kao, bolt of umbilical silk. So Kao, white raw silk. Then Chana, from Qian. So this is a middle Chinese form and things are different here in the phonology of To-Carry at that time. Then Shang, again another measure. Oops, okay, this wasn't. Then Zun, also a measure. Then Zen, blue probably. This is a class like this would probably end up, so our ending up like this in To-Carry. So that's not a big problem. Then the word for sauce. Xiang, also there. What else? Then this one, the Xiang-Kong, straight from the middle Chinese. Xueliang, grain text, also from the middle Chinese. Sima, to the Marshall. Then this is a quite nice thing. So To-Carry doesn't have an age. And I think that this writing suggests that this was already something like a phu, like fu-ti-ama. And the only way they came up with because they don't have an F was to write a strange age and the hu to imitate the phai. Yeah, late long words are kind of like that because they can't come from the middle Chinese forms. And they look like imitations of things that are already very old, but I'm not quite sure how we can really, really get them to work. So I would be happy about input and also xiao, recede, xiao, which also cannot really come from the middle Chinese form. And I think that's it. Thank you.