languagehat.com

I was reading Mary M. Wiles’ Interview with Jacques Rivette (yes, I’m still on my Rivette kick; I recently saw his late sort-of-thriller Secret défense and posted a rant about the folly of calling it “Secret Defense” in English) and was struck by this passage:

mw: Why did you feel the need to return to the theater after La bande des quatre?

jr: After La bande des quatre, I was so pleased with the work we did with the actresses that I wanted to continue. And since they also wanted to do some theater, we got together a small group like that to work with each other on some classics; Corneille, Racine, and Marivaux, is what we were working on. And then at the end of a few months, they wanted to do a real performance, and that’s when we dropped Marivaux, which was too hard. But we kept—and we should have just kept Corneille. Because, it was already too much, Corneille and Racine. It was just that we wanted to continue to work on those classics … on Corneille, which was the driving force. And besides, the work that I did with them and with the guys who had joined them was much more interesting to me, the play by Corneille, that is, Tite et Bérénice [1670], than working on Racine’s plays, on Bajazet [1672]. Bajazet is fabulous, I can’t speak ill of Racine, but you grasp it all in the very first reading. That’s it, we said, we understand it all, but then, afterwards, what were we going to do with it? Whereas Corneille is hard, even for the French, he’s hard.

mw: You can imagine that for us …

jr: It’s like Latin for us. It isn’t French. All of those authors were fluent readers of Latin and Greek, but Corneille couldn’t read Greek, and that’s a big difference between them. Racine read Greek, and Corneille read Latin. And he read so much Latin that it’s almost Mallarmé, it’s so dense. Corneille’s Bérénice, it’s true that it’s a hard play, it’s overloaded, each verse says three things, and its characters are infinitely rich. Infinitely more things are happening between Titus and Bérénice, infinitely more things are happening in Corneille’s play than in Racine’s, where nothing happens. Bérénice isn’t the Corneille play that I like the best though, even if it’s got fabulous language. It’s fabulous as a poem, but it’s like Shakespeare for you. As a matter of fact, I gather it’s hard to translate, like Goethe is untranslatable, like Pushkin is untranslatable, like Dante is untranslatable, well, like all the major poets. I don’t know, but, in any case, it was difficult to stage.

mw: I’ve read a few of Corneille’s plays but have never seen them performed on stage.

jr: In France, I’m not the only one, once you get hooked on Corneille, you’re lost. It’s very deep. He’s an author I find very dense, so full of history, of thought. He’s a very rich author.

It makes me wish I’d kept up the French literature I studied almost sixty years ago with the imperious Mme Ruegg; we read Corneille and Racine and I loved them both, but I can no longer remember them well enough to know whether I agree with what Rivette is saying. It doesn’t matter, though; when somebody expatiates like that about literature they love, it’s the loving attention that matters, I don’t really give a damn whether they’re “right.” (I often have that reaction to Dmitry Bykov’s essays about Russian lit.) Anyway, I should give Bérénice a try.

Once, long ago, when Languagehat was a pup, Blogovia flourished, and friendly links o’erspread the world like a canopy. Now, like a region abandoned by industry, it is full of ghost towns, and all the young pups flock to the dread silos of Social Media. Every once in a while, though, one comes back to life, and such is the case of the blog of bulbul (aka Slavomír Čéplö), the much-loved bulbulistan, which has been missing in action for over a decade apart from a brief pondering of the passage of time in 2019. Now there are three posts in rapid succession: mentalist (a dive into the history and semantic range of Bulgarian пич, which reminded him of “a Slovak vulgar term for feminine genitals”), depowedlajo (an exploration of Targumic used for humorous effect in a Purim play published in Vienna in 1878 titled Reb Simmel Andrichau — I expect this will appeal to rozele among others), and now work, which begins:

So, anyway, been a while, right? How have y’all been the last *checks notes* few years? Yeah, I know, interesting times… How about instead of focusing on that shit, I show you what I have been up to since 2015 or so. Let’s start with some of the projects I have been working on that you might find interesting.

He talks about his work on HunaynNET (a project that collected all texts of classical science that were translated into both Syriac and Arabic: “The translations were then re-edited and aligned on the level of semantic and syntactic units […] The text is also tokenized and links to dictionaries and corpora are provided; and in some cases, we also provided aligned text of translations into modern languages”), Simtho (“an electronic corpus – the only one worthy of the name – of the Syriac language”), and the Zoroastrian Middle-Persian Corpus and Dictionary:

This DFG-supported ongoing project seeks to collect, annotate and analyze all available Zoroastrian texts written in Middle Persian to create a searchable corpus (in transcription) and finally an updated dictionary of Middle Persian. I was largely responsible for data processing, conversion and import, so none of what you see online is my work. The web application is still very much a work in progress, but once finished, it will be a one-stop shop for all your Zoroastrian Middle Persian needs, including manuscript images and comprehensive lexical resources.

Good stuff; congrats, bulbul, and don’t be a stranger!

For almost a decade I’ve had a copy of Jacek Hugo-Bader’s White Fever: A Journey to the Frozen Heart of Siberia hiding in the depths of the to-be-read pile to the left of my desk; it recently rose to the top, and I thought “I should read that,” so that’s what I’m doing, with great pleasure. Hugo-Bader hangs out with old hippies and the like, and has a whole section called “a small and impractical Russian-English dictionary of hippy slang,” most of which is probably long out of use (he visited Russia in late 2007). At one point he mentions “blatna music, in other words criminal, bandit, jail or prison camp music” (the book is translated from Polish, hence Polish forms like blatna rather than the Russian blatnaya), and goes on to write:

The word blatny probably comes from Yiddish, into which it passed either from the German word ‘Blut’, meaning blood, or ‘Blatt’ meaning a page, a sheet of paper, because whenever the bandits in Odessa came to rob the stores of an old Jew or a German, they stuck a revolver barrel in his face and said it was their ‘Blatt’, in other words their receipt or goods delivery document. Thus bandits came to be called blatniye in Russian.

I figured that was probably all nonsense, but it seems the Blatt idea is taken seriously, though via Yiddish rather than German; Wiktionary has “From Polish blat or Yiddish בלאַט (blat).” But the Russian version has different suggestions — they reference Yiddish blat ‘trusted,’ originally ‘illegal,’ “possibly stemming from an Old Hebrew etymon — pāliṭ “fugitive,” pālaṭ “he fled”), cf. German slang Platt ‘new member of a gang of thieves,’ platt ‘one of us, trustworthy.’” I have no idea how seriously to take any of that.

I wasn’t sure whether to post Naomi Kanakia’s The New Yorker offered him a deal, because it’s very long and wouldn’t be of much interest to someone who didn’t care about John Cheever or the strange phenomenon known as the “New Yorker story,” but if you do care about those things it’s fascinating — she goes into the whole history of the magazine’s stories and why they work (and why they’ve always been criticized), and why the magazine’s demands determined Cheever’s career. And I have a deep respect and affection for people who do a deep dive into a corpus they’re interested in so they can report on the results with authority rather than making the usual facile assumptions and moving on: “All told, I’ve probably read five hundred New Yorker stories over the last three months.” (Compare my appreciation of Vera Dunham’s In Stalin’s Time, for which she “waded through mountains of elephant shit,” and see this 2010 post linking to Slawkenbergius’ “thoughtful take on John Cheever.”) She starts off:

Two months ago, I read a seven-hundred-page collection of short stories by John Cheever. But somehow that wasn’t enough. I went on to read seven-hundred-page retrospective collections from Mavis Gallant, Alice Adams, and John O’Hara. And I still wanted more!

Normally when I get halfway through a story collection I think, “Okay…I’m done now”, but with these authors, it wasn’t like that. I wanted more. Not more of these particular writers, but more work that was like their work in some weird, indefinable way. […]

Not only were these stories similar to each other, but they also seemed quite different from other literary stories. These stories were mostly marked by their extreme restraint. They didn’t just eschew plot, they also eschewed lyricism, symbolism, surrealism, or any other devices that would call attention to themselves. Their plotlessness made them seem highbrow, but their unadorned style made them highly accessible. And I wondered how The New Yorker could’ve arrived at this unique-seeming combination of elements.

And she proceeds to the history of how the early “casuals” became short stories, and how the tastes of the first editor, Harold Ross (who “was never totally sold on the idea of publishing stories”), determined the kind of story that would become the hallmark of the magazine. If any of this sounds intriguing, give it a try and you may find yourself reading the whole thing (and perhaps developing a new respect for Cheever, who for so long was a punching bag for critics of all descriptions and who was persistently underpaid by the magazine).

The video How Far Back Can You Understand Northern English? nominally lasts twenty minutes, but it will take longer if, like me, you keep pausing it to read the footnotes. It was sent me by rozele, who says:

it’s a dialect coach called simon roper’s retrogression through cumbrian english from circa 2000 to circa 1200, followed by some overall comments, and then a subtitled (both IPA and a standard u.k. english rendering) repetition, with enough on-screen notes on his reconstruction to make me wish youtube had 10-second jump controls. i don’t know a lot of northern english dialectology, so can’t check his work, but i was quite impressed, on a bunch of levels.

one bigger-picture tidbit from the notes that was news to me, though i’m sure it’s familiar stuff to many of the hatters:

“In the north, from the Middle English period onwards, verbs agreeing with ‘thou’ tended to take the ending ‘-s’ (‘thou does’), unlike in the south where they took the ending ‘-(e)st’ (‘thou dost’). This remained true into the 20th century, and as far as I know is still true in northern dialects that retain ‘thou’.”

(which has me wondering whether the stereotyped u.s. quaker use of “does” in 2sg, which i’d always assumed was generalized from the 3rd person, is just a northernism. and it seems somehow relevant to the current singular “they are”, too.)

I learned a great deal from it, including the word gled ‘(red) kite’ (OED: “the Old Germanic form was probably *gliđon- and with o- umlaut gleđon-, < glið- weak grade of the root of *glîđan to glide v.”). At one point he discusses ingressive speech, which we covered in 2014. I was surprised how far back I could mostly understand what was being said (I think I started losing the trail around the fifteenth century), but my immersion in British cop shows has given me a head start in northern dialects — thanks, Vera, and thanks, rozele!

I was shamed by David Eddyshaw’s recent comment (“I highly recommend The English Understand Wool to the three Hatters who have not already read it”) — he, of course, had no intention of shaming me, as he could not possibly have known that I had failed to read the latest fiction by one of my favorite authors — and I have accordingly remedied my inexcusable omission. I have no intention of telling you “what it’s about”; the text itself will do that. I will quote a couple of early bits to convince you that you need to read the whole thing (it’s a short book and will take only a few hours). Here’s the opening of the novella:

—The English understand wool.

My mother sat on a small sofa in our suite at Claridge’s, from which the television had been removed at her request. She held in her lap a bolt of very beautiful handloomed tweed which she had brought back from the Outer Hebrides. She had in fact required only a few metres for a new suit.

I use the word “suit” because I am writing in English, but the French tailleur—she would naturally think of clothes in French—makes intelligible that one would travel from Marrakech to the Outer Hebrides to examine the work of a number of weavers, perhaps to establish a relationship with a weaver of real gifts. It makes intelligible that one would bring one’s daughter, so that she might develop an eye for excellence in the fabric, know the marks of workmanship of real quality, observe how one develops an understanding with a craftsman of talent. The word “suit,” I think, makes this look quite mad.

She had needed only a few metres, but she had bought the entire bolt to prevent it from falling into ignoble hands. We had stayed overnight on the way north in Inverness, where the shops were full of distinguished tweeds put to debased uses.

And here’s the start of ch. 4:

Maman was exigeante—there is no English word—in matters of protocol. Lunch, tea and dinner were served formally. English was spoken if my father was present, French if we were alone. It is important for the servants to become accustomed to the correct manner of serving; if the President of the Republic comes to dine, they must not be anxiously casting their minds back to the last important dinner. It is an advantage to them to speak both French and English flawlessly. (When they made mistakes, they were corrected.) If an opportunity arises in a great hotel, they will not be unprepared.

Maman spoke French with a pure Parisian accent. She used this in the normal management of the household; it was better for them to accustom themselves. She spoke the standard Arabic, the Arabic of television, of high-level functionaries, of international businessmen, on formal occasions where French was inappropriate. She spoke Darija, the Moroccan form of Arabic, when the servants were ill or had family problems. This was the hardest to learn because the language schools did not like to teach it, and private instructors felt they would lose face if they did not teach what was taught in schools. What she set out to do she did.

I will add that I am entirely in accord with DE’s “At several points I had to suppress an embarrassing desire to cheer out loud for the remarkable heroine, an eminently worthy spiritual sibling to Ludo.” Nobody writes like DeWitt.

I know “odd British pronunciations” is a hoary old trope, and we’ve had posts about it before, but I was struck when looking something up in my trusty BBC Pronouncing Dictionary of British Names by the density of names with unpredictable pronunciations on the spread pp. 70-71. Many of them, of course, are easy enough, e.g. Heriot [ˈherɪət] (hérriot), but around half seemed worth reproducing here:

Helwick Shoals and lightship [ˈhelɪk] (héllick)
Hely, f.n. [ˈhilɪ] (heeli)
Helyer, f.n. [ˈhelɪər] (hélli-er)
Heman, f.n. [ˈhimən] (heeman)
Heming, f.n. [ˈhemɪŋ] (hémming)
Hemingbrough [ˈhemɪŋbrʌf] (hémming-bruff)
Hemmerde, f.n. [ˈhemərdɪ] (hémmerdi)
Hene [ˈhinɪ] (heeni)
Heneage, f.n. [ˈhenɪdʒ] (hénnij) Appropriate also for the Barony of ~.
Henebery [ˈhenɪbərɪ] (hénneberi)
Heneghan, f.n. [ˈhenɪgən] (hénnegan)
Heneglwys [henˈegluɪs] (henégloo-iss)
Heneker, fm. [ˈhenɪkər] (hénneker)
Henig, f.n. [ˈhenɪg] (hénnig)
Henlere, f.n. [ˈhenlɪər] (hénleer)
Henriques, f.n. (henˈrikɪz] (henreekez)
Hepburn, f.n. [ˈheb3rn] (hébburn); [ˈhebərn] (hébbŭrn)
Hepburn [ˈheb3rn] (hébbŭrn)
Heppell, f.n. [ˈhepl] (heppl)
Hereford [ˈherɪfərd] (hérreferd) Appropriate also for Viscount ~.
Hergest Ridge [ˈhargɪst] (haargest)
Herklots, f.n. [ˈh3rklɒts] (hérklots)
Herkness, f.n. [ˈharknɪs] (haarkness)
Hermges, f.n. [ˈh3rmdʒiz] (hérmjeez)
Herries, Baron [ˈherɪs] (hérriss)
Herstmonceux, also spelt Hurstmonceux, Hurstmonceaux [ˌh3rstmənˈsju] (herstmo6n-séw); [ˌh3rstmənˈsu] (herst-mon-soo)
Hertford [ˈharfərd] (haarford) Appropriate also for the Marquess of ~.
Hertingfordbury [ˈhartɪŋfərdberɪ] (haartingfordberri)
Hervey, f.n. [ˈharvɪ] (haarvi)
Herwald, f.n. [ˈh3rwəld] (hérwald)
Heseltine, f.n. [ˈhesltain] (héssltin) Also the pronunciation of Peter Warlock, composer, for his nom-de-plume of Philip ~.
Heselton, f.n. [ˈhesltən] (hésslton)
Hesilrige, f.n. [ˈhezɪlrɪdʒ] (hézzilrij)
Hesleden [ˈhesldən] (hésslden)
Hesmondhalgh, f.n. [ˈhezməndhælʃ] (hézmənd-halsh) ; [ˈhezməndhɔ] (hézmond-haw)
Hespe, f.n. [hesp] (hessp)
Hessé, f.n. [ˈhesɪ] (héssi)
Hessle [ˈhezl] (hezzl)
Hethel [ˈhiθl] (heethl) ; [ˈheθl] (hethl)
Heugh, f.n. [hju] (hew)
Heugh, Northumberland [hjuf] (hewf)
Hever [ˈhivər] (heever)
Hewardine, f.n. [ˈhjuərdin] (héw-ardeen)
Heyrod [ˈherəd] (hérred)
Heysham [ˈhiʃəm] (hee-sham)
Heyshott [ˈheɪʃɒt] (hay-shot)
Heythrop [ˈhiθrəp] (heethrop) Appropriate also for the ~ Hunt.
Hibaldstow [ˈhɪblstoʊ] (hibblsto)
High Legh [ˈhaɪ ˈli] (hi lee)
High Wych [ˈhaɪ ˈwaɪtʃ] (hi witch)
High Wycombe [ˈhaɪ ˈwɪkəm] (hi wickem)
Higham, f.n. [ˈhaɪəm] (hi-am)
Higham, East Suffolk, West Suffolk [ˈhaɪəm] (hi-em); [ˈhɪgəm] (higgam)
Higham, Yorks. [ˈhaɪəm] (hi-em); [ˈhɪkəm] (hickam)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscountcy of [ˈhɪnʃɪŋ-brʊk] (hinshing-brook)
Hindolveston, also spelt Hindolvestone [ˈhɪndlˈvestən] (hindlvéston); [ˈhilvistən]
(hilvéston)
Hindsley, f.n. [ˈhaɪndzlɪ] (hindzli)
Hinwick [ˈhɪnɪk] (hinnick)
Hiorns, f.n. [ˈhaɪərnz] (hi-ornz)
Hippisley, f.n. [ˈhɪpslɪ] (hipsli)
Hiron, f.n. [ˈhaɪərɒn] (hiron)
Hirwaun, also spelt Hirwain [ˈhɪərwaɪn] (heerwin); [ˈh3rwɪn] (hirwin)
Hoathly, East and West [hoʊθˈlaɪ] (hoth-li)
Hodder & Stoughton, publishers [ˈhɒdər ənd ˈstautən] (hodder and stowton)
Hodghton, f.n. [ˈhɒdʒtən] (hojton)
Hoenes, f.n. [ˈhoʊnes] (honess)
Hogarth, fm. [ˈhoʊgarθ] (hogaarth); [ˈhɒgərt] (hoggart) The first is traditional for William ~, painter and engraver. The second is usual in Cumberland and Westmorland.
Hoggan, f.n. [ˈhɒgən] (hoggan)
Hoggard, f.n. [ˈhɒgard] (hoggaard)
Hoggarth, f.n. [ˈhɒgərt] (hoggart)
Hogh, f.n. [hoʊ] (ho)
Hoghton, f.n. [ˈhɔtən] (hawton)

Boy, that was a lot more work than I expected — I think I’ve got the bracketed pronunciations right, but the respelled ones in parens are catch-as-catch-can: I haven’t tried to reproduce the breves and what have you. I trust you’ll get the idea.

The excellent Trevor Joyce, source of so many things both poetic and bloggic, alerted me to this amazing passage from The kings tovvre and triumphant arch of London. A sermon preached at Pauls Crosse, August. 5. 1622. By Samuel Purchas, Bacheler of Diuinitie, and parson of Saint Martins Ludgate, in London:

O London, which art rich at home, and needest none other World, then Brittaine, how hast thou extended thy Trade into all parts of Europe?

Coeli & soli bonis omnibus donata, thou hast twice, with thy long Armes, embraced the whole Globe; art made delicate with Russian Furres; fed, when need is, with Corne from Danske, and Poland; whom the Germanes present with rare Artifices; Italians, with Silks, Stuffes, Veluets; the French and Spaniard, with Wines and Oyle; the Belgians, with Wares for thy Peace, and Warres for thy superfluous bloud; the Mountaynes of Norway, descend that thy houses may ascend; Narue and the Easterlings are thy Calkers and Riggers for thy Ships; Iseland, New-foundland, and the North-seas furnish thee with Fish; Turkie, with Carpets; Barbarie and the Negroes, with Gold, and Creatures for thy pleasure: the Northwest hath opened her various passages to thee, and if Nature denyed not, would giue the thorow-fare: Greenland melteth her huge Whale-monsters, to doe thee seruice: the Ilands, which Nature had almost lost in the Ocean, are found out by thy Mariners: the Red Sea hath been awed, and the Turks afraid, lest thou shouldst stop vp that mouth of Mahomet: the Mogoll’s, Persian’s, Moscouite’s, large Dominions are thy thorow-fare, thy Staples: Thou hast strewed thy Factories alongst the East euen to Iapan, and sowen and reaped Wealth and Honour in the Ocean. How doe the most remote parts send in their Commodities both for thy profit and pleasure? while, by the way, Saldania, Saint Augustines, Saint Helena, and other places yeeld refreshing to thy Merchants and Mariners; Siam, sendeth the Lignum Aloes, Beniamin, rich Stones; Socodanna, Diamonds; China, Raw Silke, Porcellane, Taffata, Veluets, Damaske, Muske, Sewing-gold, Embroydered Hangings; Macassar, and Patania, Bezars; Baly, Slaues for thy Merchants Indian vses; Timore, White-sanders and Waxe, Banda, Nutmegs and Oyle; the Molucca’s, Cloues; Iapan, Dyes, Salt-peeter, Siluer; Guinnee, dying-wood, Oyster-trees, Guinny-pepper; Zocotora, Ciuet-cats, and Aloes; Arabian Red-Sea-Moha, Indian and Arabian Commodities; Cambaya, Cloth, Carpets, Quilts, Spikenard, Turbith, Cinnamon; Surat, Indicoe’s Callicoes, Pintadoe’s, Chado[r]s, Shashes, Girdles, Cannakens, Treckanees, Senabafs, Aleias, Patolla’s, Sellas, Greene-ginger, Lignum Aloes, Suckets, Opium, Sal-armoniacke, and abundance of Drugges; Balsora, Pearles; Zeilon, Cinnamon; Iambe, great grain’d Pepper; as Priaman, Passaman, best Pepper, and Gold; the East of Africa, Gold and Amber-greese. These, with many more, conspire to make thee Great. Thou hast not, as of old, visited the New-world, but hast made (not Ireland alone, but) Bermuda’s frequent and populous; Virginia, to multiply in Townes and Hundreths; besides, New-England, New-found-land, and other thy Plantations; O magnae spes altera Brittaniae. Virginia! I will repeat of thee, which I said before of thy Royall Godmother, which named thee Virginia, O quam te memorem virgo? thy louely cheekes, alas, lately blushed with Virginian-English bloud: but how soone? and thy blush being turned to indignation, thou shalt wash, hast washed thy feet in the bloud of those natiue vnnaturall Traytors, and now becommest a pure English Virgin; a new other Brittaine, in that new other World: and let all English say and pray, GOD BLESSE VIRGINIA.

How rich a piece of writing! how many exotic names of wares: Pintadoe’s, Chadois, Shashes, Cannakens, Treckanees, Senabafs, Aleias, Patolla’s, Sellas! And Place-names both familiar (China) or easily recognizable (Iapan, Zeilon) and mysterious (what or where is Saldania? or Iambe?), and the rhetorickal Turnes (“with Wares for thy Peace, and Warres for thy superfluous bloud”), and the wondrous Participles (sowen!); truly one could spend hours luxuriating in Purchas his Prose.

Continuing to look through Michael Weiss’s Elementary Lessons in Tocharian B (see yesterday’s post), I was struck by a word in this passage:

In Classical Tocharian B ä and a, on the one hand, and a and ā, on the other, are in an alternation governed by the position of the stress. These rules are not yet in place in the archaic texts. In general, disyllabic words have initial stress and tri- and more syllabic words have stress on the second syllable from the left edge of the word, so-called peninitial stress. In tonic position ä becomes a and in atonic position ā become[s] a.

Who was so-called peninitial stress so called by? Not me, I didn’t remember ever encountering the word (though it turns out it occurs in a passage quoted by DM here); while I can see the rationale for it (if stress on the next-to-last syllable is penultimate, why can’t stress on the syllable after the first be peninitial?), I don’t like the word — it looks too much like penitential. It’s not in the OED, but there’s a Wiktionary page which says it’s “(chiefly linguistics),” and a Google Books search confirmed that. But I was a grad student in linguistics; why didn’t I know the word? Judging from the Google Books hits, it seems to have gotten going in the 1980s, just after I had gotten gone from the field. Are Hatters familiar with it?

Nelson Goering in a Facebook post showed an image of a footnote from Kuśiññe Kantwo: Elementary Lessons in Tocharian B by Michael Weiss (p. xx fn. 31) that I couldn’t resist posting here:

Don Ringe related the following story, which he heard from Warren Cowgill: In the early course of the decipherment “Sieg could tell from the names in a Tocharian text he was working on that it was a Buddhist text, but he couldn’t figure out which. One night he dreamt that he got up, went to his library, took a particular book, opened it to a particular page, and there was the Sanskrit parallel. Upon waking he did exactly that and found the parallel.” The story may be apocryphal, but names have often played a key role in decipherment from Grotefend’s and Champollion’s day on.

(Cowgill was the director of my ill-fated dissertation half a century ago.) Weiss’s book looks useful and readable; the preface begins:

There are now many excellent resources for learning the structure and grammar of the Tocharian languages, but there are few resources for learning to read the languages. The natural person to write such an introductory textbook would be one of the great Tocharianists, but they have better things to do. So, on the principle “fools rush in, etc.,” I’ve put together twenty lessons that will introduce the basic grammar of Tocharian B — generally regarded as the more archaic and interesting of the two languages for Indo-European purposes — and a vocabulary of about 500 words. The first ten lessons present the rudiments of the synchronic phonology, morphology, and major syntactic topics. Lessons 11-20 cover some diachronic topics and continue the presentation of the syntax. My models are the bare-bones introductory texts of yesteryear (Perry, Quin, the original Wheelock) and the excellent Sanskrit samizdat of Craig Melchert.

And here’s what he has to say about the names of the languages:
[Read more…]