Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 61
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
________________
OCTOBER, 1932 ]
BOOK NOTICE
201
Archiv Orientálns, vol. IV, No. 1, Apr. 1932. — may have lastod seventy or eighty years, or at In an essay on the study of Central Asian loan. most a century. In the absence of historical data words (pp. 79-91), following the lead given by it is not possible to say with certainty when this Conrady in tracing the origins of loan words in change in the political situation occurred. "In Chinese borrowed from more western sources, M. my opinion," he writes, “it is very probable that Pavel Pouchs shows how, with the help of texts after the fall of the 3rd dynasty of Ur (c. 2235 recovered in recent years from different sites in B.C.) Assyria becamo dependent on the dynasty Eastorn Turkestan, many points of contact may of Isin, with which the dynasties of Lars and be traced between Tokharian and Uigur and also Babylon quarrelled later on for political influence. between Tokharian and Soghdian and other Central | The relative weakness of the Isin and Babylonian Asian languages. He cites a number of Uigur dynasties of this period generally allowed the words that evidently appear to have been borrowed Assyrian princes to play & more important part from Indian sources, noting also parallels in several in Asia Minor than in the time of the powerful cases from Soghdian, Mongolian and Eastern dynasty of Ur...... Personally I am inclined Iranian. A few examples may be quoted : to think that it was perhaps during the reign
Uigur akad, Tokharian A dledd, Sanskrit aloridam ; of the Assyrian patési Ilušuma, & contemporary Uigur akbar, Tokharian A akgar, Sanskrit aksaram; and adversary of tho Babylonian king Sumua. Uigur intri, Tokharian A indri, Sans. indriyam ; bum (c. 2105-2092 B.c.) that the Assyrians took pos. Soghdianam'wtr, Tokharian A odmulra, Sans. session of Asia Minor." Dr. Hrozný proceeds to samudrah [not admurah, as printed]: Tokharian discuss three Indo-European-Hittite names found A daam, E. frânian *dysan, Sans. deanam (not in the inscriptions, namely, Labarša, Varpa and drânam, as printed].
Anita, who are described as princes (rubáum). In the same issue (pp. 112-117) the learned The importance of these names, he points out, President of the Research Section publishes a short
lies in the fact that, though their Indo-European paper entitled "Assyrians and Hittites in Asia
etymology be not always quite clear, they represent Minor about 2000 B.C." While no historical the oldest Indo-European linguistic material that inscription has been found among the thousands
we know. of cuneiform tablots recovered from Kultépé which
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Oct. 1931.might shed light upon the political situation in
This issue contains the fifth instalment of Prof. Asia Minor under the domination of the Assyrians,
one F. W. Thomas's important notes on "Tibetan
F. wo know therefrom that Sargon of Aseur (c. 2040 ! Documents concorning Chinese Turkestan," the D.c.) was the sovereign of the Assyrian merchants
subjecte dealt with being (a) the Dru-gu (Great who tradod there. It has been suggested that
Dru-gu and Drug-cun; the Dru-gu cor and tho the reference is merely to autonymous commer.
Bug-cor the Dru-gu and Ge-sar; the title Bog-do): cial colonies; but Dr. Hrozny is of opinion that
(6) the Hor; (c) the Phod-kar. Dr. Thomas seems it may be concluded with much probability from
to come to the conclusion that the Dru-gu pro
vince was, under the Tibetan administration, tho the inscriptions of Kanes that the Assyrians were
old Shan-shan kingdom, and that the Bug-cor mastors of the country, and that the princes (rubdum,
was Kan-su, probably including the Sa-cu region etc.) also mentioned, hardly counted. He con
as far wost as Lop-nor. He regards Ge-sar (Kesara) siders that the names recorded, marking some
as & dynastic name. three generations, suggest that this domination
C. E. A.W.O.
BOOK-NOTICE. CRITICAL STUDIES IN THE PHONETIC OBSERVATIONS , defective- fault that is, unfortunately, common
or INDIAN GRAMMARIANS, by Siddheshwar Varma. to nearly all our Hindu fellow-scholars. (James G. Forlong Fund, vol. vii); xiii+190 pp. Profesor Varma has made a most extensive London : the Royal Asiatic Society, 1929. study of Indian phonetical and grammatical lite. This is an important and interesting work, in
rature. Not only have the PrátiśAkhyas, Panini
and his succMors, and a long series of other gram which has been undertaken the first wholesale
marians yielded up most of their secrets to attempt to throw the light of modern linguistics
him, but of sixty-five Sikşds known to him by name and phonetics upon the acuto obeervations of the
he has studied no less than fifty; and, although native Indian grammarians. Its author, Professor
the results seem sometimes to be rather barren, Siddheshwar Varma, is a man of well-known there is no doubt that he has made important finds philological and linguistic achievements, besides during his exploration of this largely virgin soil. being an expert phonotician. And he generally He is also thoroughly at home in the Middle Indian shows himself quito at home in European grammaand modern dialects, the phonetic developments tical literature, though we must raise a mild protest of which he has often very happily compared with against his way of quoting it, which is often highly the statements of the Sanskrit phoneticians.
