Notes on Phonological Patterns in Siraiki

Citation preview

{IMPORTANT NOTE; These are unorganized notes of a chapter from my promised book on the Siraiki derivatives of Sanskrit. This file (together with another file of the List of words i.e. some 600 plus Siraiki words) is placed on this Website Academia edu. with a purpose mainly to block the plagiarists might have had access to this material circumstantially. Please avoid utilizing this stuff in any reproduction, and if at all, please do so with proper reference to this author, Ahsan Wagha} --In this chapter, we will investigate some of the common and the contrasting features of the Sk. and NIA data applying the rules of phonetics which ‘is the study of the production of speech sounds by speakers, their perception by hearers and their properties’, and of phonology which ‘investigates the ways in which speech sounds are used systematically to form words and utterances (Katamba: 60).’ Phonology is a complex discipline involving many interpretations of the question as why and how a speaker’s mind so quickly decides to bring delicate segmental change(s) in a word during articulation. A common answer is, our cognition manages phonological adjustments to save effort. Another interesting approach which reaches us through Jensen is that of ‘conspiracies’; [shift elsewhere] --[STRESS pattern: 1. Left oriented, 2. Right shifted 3. Mobile paradigm, 4. every morpheme would be inherently high or low (i.e. dominant or recessive, as it cannot be known for sure how those features were phonetically actually manifested), and the position of the accent would be later determined in various ways in the various daughter languages (depending on the combinations of (+) and (−) morphemes), so that Vedic would certainly not be the most archaic language. -- Usually, for example, it is thought that zero-grade should be unaccented, but that is evidently not valid for PIE (e.g. *wĺ̥ kʷos 'wolf', *septḿ̥ 'seven' etc.)-- :> ‘Dybo lists several shortcomings in the traditional approach to the reconstruction of PIE accent.[6] Amongst others, incorrect belief in the direct connection between the PIE accent and ablaut, which in fact does not explain the position of PIE accent at all. Usually, for example, it is thought that zero-grade should be unaccented, but that is evidently not valid for PIE (e.g. *wĺ̥ kʷos 'wolf', *septḿ̥ 'seven' etc.) according to the traditional reconstruction. Furthermore, Dybo claims that there is no phonological, semantic or morphological reason whatsoever for the classification of certain word to a certain accentual type, i.e. the traditional model cannot explain why Vedic vṛ́kas 'wolf' is barytone and Vedic devás' deity' is oxytone. According to

Dybo, such discrepancies can only be explained by presupposing lexical tone in PIE.’] URL; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_accent accessed on 01-03-16

[Nasalization notes from Cardona: ‘A major point of contention has been whether the distinction which Pāṇini and authors of prātiśākhyas and śikhṣās make between the entities referred to by anunāsika and anusvāra has to do with a difference in the language or is a difference regarding merely how various scholars viewed the same matter. Whitney maintained the second view. He was criticized by latter scholars but his position has not been refuted definitively. In this paper, I establish that the distinction in question definitely reflects a difference in language, between nasalized vowels and nasal stops, referred to by anunāsika and a post-vocalic nasal segment, referred to by anusvāra, which had different dialectal realizations.’, p. 3] [[For a summarized quote it can be; The distinction between the Pāṇini’s terms, anunāsika and anusvāra is stated by Cardona in his abstract a paper in these words; ‘I establish that the distinction in question definitely reflects a difference in language, between nasalized vowels and nasal stops, referred to by anunāsika and a post-vocalic nasal segment, referred to by anusvāra, which had different dialectal realizations.’, p. 3. However, Cardona leaves us with a puzzle as how to differentiate between ‘nasalized vowel’ and ‘post-vocalic nasal’? That nasalized vowel is itself a v. type is confirmed in Sr. where nasalized vowels appear in absence all the three known factors: nasal c. preceding, a nsal c. following, or a historical nasal c. in Sk. root, e.g. Sr. ũ 3rd p. sg. prn. ‘he, that’ < Pk. ahu ‘-’ < asáu ‘-’ [i) among the IA derivative of Sk. source only the Sr. version has invited a compensatory nasalization, thus ũ. ii) the phonology of s > h > -̃ is evident from the Sr. medial version ũh]. ‘The development of nasals in ealy Indo-Aryan has been the object of dispute. - - Some held it to be a pervading nasalization of the preceding vowel; others, a nasal addition to that vowel.’ P.4 ; Anusavāra: ‘The Pratickhyas of the Rik and Whit Yajus are equally consistent in their recognition of an Anusavāra nasal appendage to the vowel - -’ p.4 ;

‘Thus, while Panini specifically speaks of the Anusavāra as a sound into which “m” is changed before a consonant, and while his exponder Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita speaks of it as a pure nasal sound arising from the nose, the Athravaveda Prāt. has described the same as dropping of the m and the nasalization of the previous vowel.’ P.5 ; The relevant Sk. works like Prātisākhya etc. have marked nasalization as phonetic as against Panini who saw the process as phonological, cf. p.6 ; ‘word-final –m (maḥ) is replaced by anusvāra (ṁ) before a consonant (hali) and this substitution applies not only to m but also to n (naś ca) - - -’ p.13 ; Out of his Cardona’s explainations, we can draw, that nasal v. can happen without nasal harmony condition, i.e. without occurrence of a nasal c. in the context. One of numerous rules of nasal phenomena in Sk. exhibits in this phonological alternation: ‘jigīvān lakṣam ‘winning … stake’ > jīgivāṁ lakṣam’ p.16. ]]

pervade

---[ [check and give examples in matching phonological processes ; check sañjōg̠ ‘coincidental unification’ < saṁyōga- ‘union, contact’, and confirm that in the tradition of Romanization of Skt. stuff, the ṁ or ṃ stands for nasalization of preceding vowel, i.e. ṁ = -̃.] - The Labio-dental voiced fricative v when fallen between sequence of back unrounded a i.e. between a-a > rounded v ū e.g. dava ‘two’ H., P. do ‘-’, Sr. d̠ u. - As against phonological stability of Labio-dental voiced fricative v, in the Sk. and NIA the semi vowel went through Historical phonological shift have Indo-European ] Sr. and almost all NIA retain Sk. negative prefixes a- and an- Sr. aṇakkha ‘eyeless, blind’ < anakṣá- ‘-’; aṇagghyā ‘not rated’ < anargha- ‘priceless’.

The Sk grammarian scarcely appreciate the Phonological shifts as source of morphemic multiplicity. For instance, in Sk. anta ‘end’ possibly producing an a neg. prefix ‘without’ plus anta ‘end’ > ānandá ‘happiness, joy’; but it also has a second probability i.e. ā- ‘affirmed’ + nanda ‘joy, happiness’ > ānanda. Sr. offers a strong case for the first interpretation for Sr. anand still connotes ‘endlessness, abundance. Pāṇiṇi took notice of the ‘saṁ hī tā yām’ [Lit. ‘put together in sustenance’] i.e. the supra segmental phonemes (Pāṇ: xxiv). If that means phonological variables like ‘nasalization’ etc. having phonemic value i.e. semantic properties, Sr. and other NIA also have such supra segmental phonemes in the forms of aspiration, implosives and nasalization, e.g. Lax v. nasalization being in semantic contrast with the oral Lax v. in dhũāk n. ‘smoke stain’ vs. dhuāk Adj. f. ‘washer’. [G-plosive only initial, check.] [take to the section on Aspiration, Implosives and Nasalization ?]. Stress; [Gemination, clearly added duration of a consonant equal to two, is weaker in Sr. Jukes, and other Westerners most of the time skipped accommodating gemination on in words where a native might find it obligatory. While gemination is very much present in the source i.e. the Sk. data. which indicates it became historically weaker in certain NIA including Sr. For instance, in examples below; Sr. ḇaddhaṇ / ḇannhaṇ ‘to tie’ < bandhati ‘ties’. Sr. ḇaddha ‘tied, bound’ < baddha ‘bound’. (Tur. q.v.). [Jukes records infin. of the root without gemination, i.e. ḇadhaṇ; similarly]. bukkhā ‘hungry’ Jukes, bukhá < Pk. bhukkha < bubhukṣaka ‘-’, is but realized as geminated i.e. bhukkha in Tur. (q.v.). bhbubhukkha ‘’ a same consonantal articulation held for the duration of two consonantal beats Sr. tends avoiding shows Gemination] Pāṇiṇi’s rule about ‘accentuation of suffix’ tells that this may fall on penultimate syl. subject to deviations (ibid: xxv) almost same in Sr. Pāṇiṇi has dealt with Sk. stress pattern in detail;

[Pāṇiṇi’s rules are random and not always in binary opposition (±).] ---

‘In - - - a conspiracy, a variety of different phonological processes have in common the avoidance of a given configuration. McCarthy (2005: 25, 93) in discussing conspiracies, refers to Homogeneity of Target/Heterogeneity of Process. (Jensen: 1).’

Some of the topics we will take up in this chapter are: Sk.—NIA segmental alternates and the forms of intra-NIA phonological alternations which serve semantic shift without alternation of the main body of word, the vowel and the v. length, the syllable, the stress pattern, the nasal and nasalization, the glide, the aspiration and the implosivization. These will be followed by ‘minimal pairs’ formed on the basis of plus-minus of the phonetic and the phonological features. Some Sk.—NIA phonetic and segmental alternates; The location of the morphemic difference between the words of Sk. and their resultants in the NIA, in many cases is seen in alternation of c.-clusters of the first, e.g. the cluster of -n͂ch- > -j- in Sk. pron͂chati ‘wipes off’ > NIA pu͂ jaṇ/-na ‘to wipe’. If we see the phonetic features as elements of identity of a phonetic unit, this identity is weakened when two consonants are clustered together. In many cases probably it is this vulnerability which causes elision, or alternation of the clustered sounds with the stronger sounds closer to them in place, and, or manner of articulation. As far, why the historicity of such heavily pressed together c. clusters in Sk. at first place, the possible answer is the multimorphemic formations bringing many phonetically uneven affixes together. In Pāṇiṇi’s term, the morphemic combinations are two type: the verbal stems amd the nominal suf. The second type are then divided into: (i) kṛt Lit. ‘cut, spin, do’ i.e. Primary type and (ii) taddhita ‘secondary type’ (Lit. ‘his welfare’, Mon. ‘an affix forming nouns from other nouns’ Pāṇ: xxiv, Mon: q.v.) ). ’ divided Sk. There are historical elisions in NIA where segments have been dropped without any phonological reason, e.g. Sk. ēkastha ‘standing together’ > Sr. kaṭṭha ‘together, in union’ [H., P. ekaṭṭha]. The Consonant; In his Table in Chapter 1.6 Consonents, Shackle has not registered Alveolar among places of articulation of the 46 Siraiki consonant. The reason is indirectly given in

1.8 b) where he notes as if most of Sr. consonents do not appear on exact places of articulation. These are either post-Alveolar or pre-Palatal etc. For instance, in his C.-chart 1.6, he places (and one finds it difficult to agree with, cause Sr. in many cases, makes r rhotic type) Sr. r as dental together with l. (Shackle 1976: 22) Some of the patterns in Sk.—NIA segmental alternations; Sk. vowels

>

Sr./NIA

Process if any

almost al Sk. vs. cs. are present in NIA, in one way or another, exceptions are: ṛ & lṛ. ḥ [ṛ a Close mid Central v. as in Eng ‘bird’ historically lost in major NIA]

As far phonological alternations which are historical, listed below; -kṣ

akṣi ‘eye’ > Sr., P. akh, H. ak̄̃ h ‘dit.’

NIA -kh

g

Sr. g̱

garbhiṇi ‘pregnant’ > Sr. g̱abbaṇ ‘dit.’

ḍ

Sr. ḏ (imp.)

ḍiṅga ‘defective’ < Sr. ḏ inga ‘crooked’. [The Retroflex voiced plosive i.e. ḍ is scanty in Sr. most of it in Sk. > imp. in Sr.]

ṭ

Sr. ṭ & ṛ

y

NIA j,

d

-- d,

d

Sr. ḏ ,

yatna ‘effort’ > NIA jattan (Sr. –ṇ) ‘dit.’ drāghman ‘length’ > Sr. drigh ‘dit.’ dṛśi- ‘power of seeing’ > Sr. ḏ is ‘seeing, be seen’ (ḏ ikh ‘appearance’)

du

-- ḏ , ḏ u

du, in turn < dva ‘two’ > Sr. dōṛa ‘double’

--

NIA d/Sr.ḏ

dudhāra ‘two edged’ > H., P. dohra ‘dit.’ (Sr. ḏ úhar ‘double cloth’)

dv

-- ḇ,

dva ‘two’, dvitíya ‘second’ > Sr. ḇía ‘dit.’, > H., P. d, do ‘two’

dy-

-- ̠j,

vādyatē ‘is made to sound’ > Sr. vaj̠ de ‘sounds, to sound’

-rv

-- ḇ,

charvati ‘chews’ caḇaṇ ‘to chew’

ṣ

-- sh

ś [the voiceless Dental fricative (Ө) has almost disappeared in most of NIA] spāśa- ‘fetter, noose’ > phāh, phāsi ‘noose, hanging’

s

-- h,

-sati, -sayati

-- -hā̃de, -hē̃de, trásati ‘trembles, is afraid’ > Sr. trā̃hde ‘is frightened’; trāsayati ‘makes tremble, frightens’ > Sr. tarhē̃de ‘frightens’

v

-- ḇ,

vásati ‘stays’ > Sr. ḇā̃hde ‘sits’

v

NIA/Sr. b (is rare)

v

Sr. v,

vismarati ‘forgets’ > Sr. visred̄̃ e ‘dit.’ (cf. vāsa ‘abode’ > vāsi, vasṇēk ‘inhabitant’; pakhivās (pakṣin ‘bird’ + vāsa ‘abode’) ‘one who lives in makeshift shelters, a nomad’

b

-- v,

bila ‘hole, pit’ > Sr. - vīla ‘dit.’

b

-- (NIA) b,

būra ‘powder’ > NIA dit. ‘dit.’ (Sr. ḇ, ḇūra ‘dit.’)

---

[Sk. ṣ and s > h is recurrent, e.g. máṣa ‘bean’ > Sr. mah̄̃ ‘black pulse’; Sk. má sa ‘moon, month > Sr. māh (also mah̄̃ ) ‘-’. The shift hints at assumption that ṣ/s are phonetically borne from Alveolar obstruction added on h i.e. the Glottal puff of air] Having accepted ‘effort saving’ as reason for logic Taking it for granted that phonological alternations take place o why such alternations take place lies in the rule of ‘saving articulatory effort’, to mention one, is the case of -kṣ- > -kh- where the alternation of ṣ, a weaker segment dragged from a remote place of articulation, i.e. Postalveolar to join k at the Velar point, with h a non-obstruent segment saved the effort of the main organ of speech i.e. tongue in moving from one place to the other at a distance. The question as why such clusters took place at first, has a probable answer in that these might have been brought together by historical morphemic connections during the extended word formation in the language when different morphemes—roots, stems, affixes, inflections etc.—were put together to facilitate semantic relations, e.g. in kar ‘cut, dig, do’ + man ‘think’ in karma ‘act, work’ or saṃ (-kara) ‘mixing, putting together’ + skṛt ‘spin’ in sáṃskṛta ‘put together’ [saṃskṛtam]. The vowel and the consonant; Pāṇini is extra particular about vowel sounds both in their quantity i.e. degree of length and their quality in terms of tone. A couple of quotes are reproduced below to have the idea; The vowel; “Ú -kālaḥ aC hrasva-dīrgha-plutáḥ ” (Pāṇ.2: 1.2.27: 38) ‘the vowel-sounds are short, long, extra long.’ [As against Eng., and other where unrounded back Tense v. has quality of place movement during release i.e. these are diphthongal, e.g. taught (taut) the Sk. has stable v. a feature which remains unchanged in NIA, e.g. Sk. rātṛi ‘night’ > NIA rāt ‘-’.]

The Tone; “yajña-karmáṇi á-japa-nyūṅkhá-sāmasu ” ‘in a sacrificial act, (yajña- karmáṇi) the enunciation [is monotone 33] except I (1) silent repetition (japa) (of a sacrificial formula), (2) nyūṅkhá ‘insertion’ of (0) and (3) saman ‘melody’.(ibid.: 1.2.34: 40)’, i.e. the tone in Sk. can appear at three degrees which are identified as: (i) no tone as in japa ‘silent prayer saying’, (ii) from zero level upward as in nyūṅkhá ‘pleasant voice’ [prob. > Sr. ruṇka ‘low voice singing in one’s own mood’] and (iii) high as in saman Lit. ‘breathing’, voicing in melody’. The nasals ‘(1) In vowels: = 1, i.e. ṃ (2) In consonants = 6: ṅ, ñ, ṇ, n, m, (Vedic) jñ (Pāṇ1: xi)’. [does not include NIA ñj and ṅg which are thus historically evolved] Phonology differentiates between the vowel features ‘long-short versus tense-lax’ in its intricate discussions. In this work however, these terms are used alternately. Katamba defines this feature of vowel as below; ‘Tense vowels are produced with a tongue body or tongue root configuration involving a greater degree of constriction than that found in their lax counterparts; this greater degree of constriction is usually accompanied by greater length (Katamba: 48).’

Although used alternately, the features ‘tense’ and ‘long’ are not binary phonologically; --‘This feature refers to the duration of a sound. Clearly, in purely physical terms this feature cannot be binary since length is always relative’ and length is not inherent (ibid.: 52).’

In terms of quantity, alternation in NIA of Sk. vowel from tense to lax, or reverse, seems almost irregular. Compensatory v.-lengthening is the interpretation which can be applied on few of many such processes where loss of segment(s) of a Sk. word seems compensated by increasing quantity of preceding vowel such as Sk. a in vártis ‘journey’, and vártra ‘dike, dam’ > Sr., P. vāṭ ‘dam between fields, path’ i.e. -a- is lengthened in compensation for r in -var-. Hiatus Sanskrit has a variety of processes that avoid vowel hiatus (sequence of two tense vowels in adjacent syllables) e.g.:

1. ‘Glide insertion; Sk. avoids hiatus in many ways, one is glide insertion e.g. śi-śri-é > śiśriyé ‘resort’ - - -. ’ 2. ‘Vowel deletion; (short ă deletion): After final e or o, an initial a disappears - - vane atra > vane ’tra ‘in the forest here’ - - - sas abravīt > so’bravīt ‘he said (imperf.)’ bhāno átra > bhāno ’tra ‘O sun (voc.) here - - -‘[recheck] 3. The Sk. pattern of glide insertion is ‘the i-vowels, the u-vowels, and ṛ, before a dissimilar vowel or diphthong, are regularly converted each into its own corresponding semivowel y or v or ṛ.’.

Sr. avoids Hiatus, i.e. turns one of the Tense vs. in sequence into Lax, usually, the first, e.g. Sk. āghālayati ‘rinses’ > Sr. aghālaṇ ‘to rinse’, Sk. āyāti ‘comes near’ (Pk. āyāṇa) > Sr. āvaṇ [versus P. auṇa] ‘to come’; Sk. ālāpa ‘speech’ > H., P. (music) alāp ‘pre song humming’, Sr. alā ‘voice’. R. avoiding Hiatus is also prominent in Persian loans, e.g. in Per. Adj. -ābad ‘populated, dwelling’ also used as postfix in place names, e.g. in islāmābād ‘capital city of Pakistan’ > Sr. islāmabād]. Sk. two Lax v. of same features > one Tense v., e.g. kaṭa ‘cut’ + akṣi ‘eye’ > kaṭākṣa ‘side look’. [has t be checked in NIA] The Consonants; Holding assumption of the Sk. origin of the NIA languages, it is worth reviewing some shifts from the phonetic structure of Sk. Below we discuss correspondence between such Sk. and NIA where the latter have developed segmental difference. Noticeable among these are emergence of a number of fricatives which seem historical-permanents i.e. these are not subject to in situ phonological effects: FRICATIVES; 1. f the unvoiced Bilabial fricative is a non-Sk. segment thus a borrowing. A difference has to be made between its general acceptance as loan in NIA and the partial alternation of relevant Sk. sound (in this case ph) with f. Mostly, the f appears in loan words in some of NIA, mainly the U. variety of H. In the other, the Sk. phonetic structure dominates even in loan words e.g. Ar. faqīr ‘begger’ > H., P. phaqīr (with variance). The typical Sk. ph > NIA f is, for instance, P. fit ‘bad, cursed’ < phi(ṭ)- ‘a wicked man’, yet such alternations remain infrequent. 2. z The non-Sk. voiced Alveolar fricative z is an alternation from Sk. voiced Palatal fricative j, again depending upon context, i.e. not only that the latter is

retained but in varieties of H. and some other NIA in some cases it gets the first assimilated thus Ar. zulmi ‘cruel’ > H. julmi. 3. sh Sk. has three variants of unvoiced fricative s the Alveolar, the Postalveolar and the Retroflex. The last has been lost in many NIA including Sr. The NIA which retain these Sk. fricatives do so without any modification thus Sk. bhāṣā ‘speech’ and savēla ‘in time, early’ remain NIA (H.) bhāsha ‘language’ and (Sr.) savēl (H.) sawēra ‘morning’ respectively. What emerges with recurrence is the Sr. and prob. Si. (said to have been derived from a particular Pk. historically) appear closer to original Sk. 4. kh (IPA X) The voiceless Velar fricative is a purely non-Sk., predominantly a loan-specific segment. However Sr. tends to fricativize the aspirated version of the voiceless Velar plosive kh thus Sr. khachchar 'mule', khachchir f. < khaccara. 5. gh (IPA ɣ) is the voiced version of the 4. above with similar definition. The Sk. bāga ‘garden’ > Sr. bāgh ‘dit.’ is doubtful. The grammatically explainable Sk.—NIA shifts are not only interesting but linguistically rewarding. For instance, phonological analysis of Sr., P. safna (i.e. safna ‘dream’ < Sk. svapna, in turn svap ‘sleep, dream, and dreaming’) as given below; The unvoiced segments i.e. the Alveolar fricative s and the Bilabial plosive p, especially the first, in the combination svapna, might have forced assimilation to devoicing of the voiced Bilabial fricative v thus sfapna. The general NIA tendency to split c. clusters of distant places of articulation might have caused splitting of the sf cluster to turn it safapna. Due to its auditory insignificance in the new sequence of unvoiced s, f, and p, the p might have disappeared gradually exposing the medial a to regressive nasal harmony from the dental nasal n which followed, and in turn to redundancy for being a Lax v. nasalized (cf. Nasalization infra.). To conclude, it is svapna > sfapna > safãna > safna (cf. Sr. ãpṇa, H. apna ‘belonging to, obtained by oneself’ < ap for details of which see the list of the derivatives of ap in Whiteny q.v.). As against ph > f alternations, e.g. P. fit ‘bad, curse’ < phi(ṭ)- ‘a wicked man’, p > f is rare. Phoneme and features;

A sound unit is commonly recognized as phoneme which has a ‘linguistic function - - in distinguishing (or contrasting) word meaning - - -.’ For functional difference, the economical change a speaker’s innate knowledge of linguistics brings in does not always require change of a whole speech or even a complete word but many times just change of a phoneme. As the phonemes are made of phonetic features which are binary, their plus/minus (±) in a phoneme can count for functional alternation, i.e. alternation in meaning in which case the feature will become ‘distinctive feature’ of the phoneme, e.g. Bilabial, plosive unvoiced = p in pet > Bilabial, plosive voiced = b in bet. Few more examples are given below; The Minimal features in Phoneme + Plosive, + alveolar, − voice t, + Plosive, + velar, ̶ voice k, + Plosive, + alveolar, + voice, ̶ asp. d + sonorant, + tense, − nasal ā,

Pair of the same phone + Plosive, + alveolar, + voice d, + Plosive, + velar, + voice g, + Plosive, + alveolar, + voice, + asp. dh + sonorant, + tense, + nasal a,̄̃

NIA-Pairs of words P. tin ‘three’ / din ‘day’ H. kāna ‘one-eyed’/ gāna ‘song’ Sr. dān ‘to give’ dhān ‘rice grain’ Sr. tāṛ ‘to watch’ / taṇ̄̃ ‘stretch’

(cf. Katamba: 42-50)

Some of the Indian features of OIA phonology as compared to that of the IndoEuropean (IE) languages are: the excessive presence of semantically propertied (functional) aspiration, implosives, nasalization of vowels [and casual stress] in off/on i.e. ± manner. One word becomes two words of different semantic properties with change of one sound-segment or that of just a phonetic feature. Such words are called ‘Minimal pairs’ (cf. Minimal pairs infra.). As said before, change of segment, even of a single phonological feature can bring change of meaning in words in NIA languages, more so in Sr. Major among such semantically propertied phonological features are v.-lengthening, v.-rounding, v.-nasalization, c.-aspiration, c.-implosivization, glide y insertion, gemination and stress. The nasals and the nasalization; In articulation of speech, nasal flow of voiced airstream is considerably different from the oral airflow. In Sk., the nasal speech-sounds are named Anu-nāsika and defined as ‘- - nasal uttered through the nose (as one of the five nasal consonents, or a vowel, or three semivowels y, v, l, under certain circumstances; in the case of vowels and semi vowels, the nasal mark -- is used to denote this nasalization) - -’; the nasal mark --; (am)[?], n. a nasal twang; speaking through the nose (a fault in pronunciation) (Mon: 34). [The other term, denoting nasalization of v. is Anu-savara, infra]

In Sk., assimilatory nasalization is almost absent, neither prog., nor reg. It is scarce overall, appears both on Lax and Tens vs., and is phonemic i.e. functions to separate minimal pairs, e.g: Pk. kāṃsa ‘bell metal’(Sk. kāṃsya) > Sr. kaj̄̃ a ‘-’ compared to kāsa ‘moving’, and kāsā ‘cough’ > H. khas̄̃ i ‘cough’; Sk. sakāla ‘seasonable, timely’ and Sk. saṁkāla ‘driving together’; Sk. saghra ‘strong’ in contrast with against the nasalized saṃghara ‘living in the same house’, and Sk. sakāla ‘timely, seasonable’ contrasted with saṃkāla ‘driving together’. Few examples for Sk. pattern of nasalization are: Sk. saṁmāti ‘construct’ Sk. saṁgha ‘association’ Sk. saṁdamśa ‘tongs’ > Sr. sanhā̃ ‘a two pronged tool of cobler’. Sk. sāṃdhika- ‘making hole’ > Sr. sad̄̃ hi ‘house breaker’

--. Sk. saṃmāti ‘combines’ > Pk. saṃmāi ‘is contained in’ > Sr. sãmad̄̃ ā ‘is contained in’. Panini has dwelt with many fine phonological phenomena and has also rendered some rules which remain fully relevant in modern linguistics such as these: Anusvār = nasalization of v., Visarga = aspiration of consonents, Sandhi = assimilation Nasal are consonants like m and n as in NIA man ‘heart, self’ < Sk. manas ‘mind’. Nasalization is a supra-segmental nasal effect appearing on a vowel in various phonological circumstances. etic because of a nasal consonant existing before, or in some cases, after it (Ref.?). All languages have nasal consonants with difference of type and number. The nasals in Sk. are summarized by Panini as follows; ‘(1) In vowels: = 1, i.e. ṃ (2) In consonants = 6: ṅ, ñ, ṇ, n, m, (Vedic) jñ (Pāṇ1: xi)’.

colonizer R. L. Turner verifies this in one of his observations as follows;

‘Primitive Indian as represented by the language of the Veda possessed the following nasals: ṅ, ñ, ṇ, m, ṃ. Of these ṅ and ñ are never found independently; - - - (Turner (1915: 18; cf. Writing system supra?)’. Siraiki retains all the Sk. consonents with variation in Vedic jñ (Cf. Infra).

The nasalization; [Decide whether to mark nasalization in presence of ‘trigger’ as most modern Phonologists do Cf. Hammond (8-10) [pĩn] pin, [rǣ̃n] ran. This is in contrast to Turner who marks either presence of nasal c., or that of nasalization marked as ṁ, but never both. If this work allows marking both the trigger nasal c. and nasalization, it will have to justify in terms of prominence of nasalization in Sr.] Nasalization is not frequent in Sk. and is phonemic as well as non-phonmic. One of fewer examples is ká ṃsa (ká ṃsya) ‘bell metal, made of bell metal’ > Sr. kaj̄̃ a ‘pottery made of bell metal’ in contrast to kāsa ‘cough’ > NIA khas̄̃ i ‘-’. Nasalization also appears on Lax v. as in ahaṃkāra [ahám ‘I’, kāra ‘doing’] ‘self consciousness’ > Sr. and sāṃkhaya (?). NIA nasalization rarely has origin in Sk. Most of the NIA nasalized lexemes are derived from such Sk. source words without nasal, e.g. maj̄̃ a ‘sweeping broom’ < mārja [in compound words] ‘cleaning’. Nasalization in NIA has quite of few patterns: (i) Is historical i.e. as remainder of a deleted nasal c. in Sk./Pk., e.g. Sr. kaj̄̃ ā ‘pot made of bell metal’ < kaṁsya ‘made of bell metal’., and Sr. ka͂ dha ‘call to wedding ceremony’ < kuvvāṇīta ‘sounded’, in turn < kvaṇati ‘to make any sound’. ***** (ii) Compensatory, emerged as compensation agai nst a deleted segment / sound of the source word dropped in derivation. Such dropping of nasal c., or any c. is compensated after complete disappearance of the compensated segment. , i.e. in compensatory nasalization, organs of speech will clearly stand apart. **** (iii) As part of NIA tendency for shifting from oral to nasal cavity [as baby’s initial effort to distinguish between sounds]. (iv) Directionality of nasalization in NIA is casual, i.e. it is mostly regressive, casually progressive, or even bidirectional. (dropped Mostly irregular, i.e. is not rule based strictly. (v) Is syl.-structured [in Sr. it appears on v. preceding a nasal placed in margin, ãmmã but not mā̃ (instead mā)]. An initial rule is, it appears on nucleus of first syl.

of a polysyllabic word when the second syl. is relatively stressed. [to recheck]. Or that stress which is weaker and relative in Sr. and therefore remains unmarked in most cases in orientalists’ registers spreads prog. nasalization as in saṅĩ f. ‘of animal to became ready to be milked’ is saṅĩ the contrast, the example to how absence of nasalization in minus stress cases is caṅã ‘good’ < --? > caṅār ‘good in eyes of elders’ < -- ?. [the rule for loss of g in Sk. caṅga ‘good’? > Sr. caṅã is after turning g into ṅ through nasalization > -ṅṅ- the original nasal is lost, yet there is irregularity as in vaṅgā̃ ‘bangles’< ? and -raṅga in veraṅga ‘colorlss’ against raṅã ‘I do color’ < ? which requires further interpretation.] **** And there are deviations, e.g. pā̃ ‘skin disease in animals’ < pāmán ‘-’. [contrasts like saṁga and saṅga are scribble; aspiration however makes difference thus saṁga and saṅga ‘battle, contact’ > Sr. saṅg ‘company, body of pilgrims’, Sk. saṁgha ‘association, a company’ also > Sr., P. saṅg ‘-’.] Nasalization is loose in NIA in general. In Sr., it is rampant, bidirectional and runs across word boundary. In many cases nasalization is historical in NIA, i.e. has emerged at some later stage, latter even than MIA i.e. without having trace in the source language(s), Sk. or Pk. A few cases of such rootless nasalization hard to be given a standard phonological explanation are H. ak̄̃ h ‘eye’ < akṣi ‘-’, H. phaas̄̃ i ‘fetter, noose’ < spāsa ‘-’, Sr. pū̃ ‘pus’ < pūya ‘-’ and Sr. paṇ̄̃ ‘quarter of the paṛopi a wooden pot to measure of grains’ < pataka ‘quarter of a village, or town’ also > Sr. pāṛa ‘-’. --Why v. is nasalized more frequently than other phonological shifts ? because nasals being continuants provide easy way for drastic shift of cavity without gap in sonority e.g. cā ‘take, pick’ < vāváyati ‘causes to move’ > cā̃ ‘a bird’ < cáṣa ‘blue jay, sniper’. 2. Reg nasalization in Sr reaches any v. except when blocked by any c except the nasal, or a semi v. e.g. pu͂ jaṇ(˚jhaṇ) ‘to wipe’ < Pa. pron͂chati, Pk. puṃchi, Sk. prōñchati [forms of short v. nasalization in the source languages = ṃ ] ‘wipes off’punchati ‘wipes’ vs. pūjaṇ ‘to honor, worship’ < pūjáyati ‘-’, pūraṇ ‘to fill a ditch, to bury’ < pūráyati ‘fills’ etc. --1. Nasals gets its full segmental properties when in margin of syl. thus m in Sr. thā̃ ‘place, room’ < sthāman ‘station, place’ and in ammā̃ ‘mother’ < mātṛ ‘-’ is more extensive than the m in Sr. ma ‘mother’ < mātṛ ‘-’. 2. Regressive nasalization is anticipatory and basic. Prog. nasalization is seepage.

3. There is compensatory nasalization without nasal c. around. Any c. dropped is compensated in v. articulation of which is easier through nasal cavity because velum raising is the first maneuvering we learn as baby in sucking milk. 4. There is historical nasalization in NIA without any trace of lexical nasal in source, thus random. --How c. clusters might have lead to phonological alternations over time, e.g. Sk tm > N IA p in Sk. taman > ātman ‘self’ > NIA, K., pān ‘human body’, H. āp ‘self’. ’ Many a sound segments in the highly inflectional Sk. were put together against the articulatory adjustment. Most problematic among these are the frequent c. clusters, e.g. tm- as word initial in tman ‘vital breath’ > NIA, K. pān ‘human body’, S. pāṇa ‘reflexive prn.’. A general phonological interpretation of the excessive nasalization in NIA therefore might possibly be in terms of NIA easy compensation for the elision of Sk. c. clusters. It might have been a way of skipping a Sk. complex c.combination of Oral cavity by opting for nasal cavity [as children do] thus Sk. sthāgha ‘base, bottom’ > Sr., P. thā̃ ‘pot, space’. After the general perspective given above, some traceable patterns of historicity of nasalization of NIA derivatives of Sk., although inconclusive, will be as follows; (i) Syllabic interpretation; In Sr., nasalization gets its full segmental properties when margin of a syl., e.g. ãmmã ‘mother’ < ambá ‘-’. Various derivative of this root differentiate between alternations. In the one, the nasal c. is retained without nasalizing v., e.g. Pa. ambā, in the other the preceding v. is nasalized at the cost the nasal c. as in Pk. aṃbā [i.e. ãba], and in yet other, the v. is nasalized and the nasal c. is retained as in Pk. aṃmā (cf. Tur. q.v.). This irregularity in the source languages from Sk. to Pa. to Pk. might be another factor behind maximization of the segment in the NIA like Sr. (i) Phonologically, Nasalization is a type of assimilation also called Harmony. Typically, it is anticipatory i.e. a Regressive nasalization can be marked as language specific phonological feature. The other i.e. the progressive Nasalization at its minimal degree is inescapable as the trongest of segments seeps out from a nasal c. to Onset of the immediate v. which follows it thus we hear a segmental difference in -ī- in Eng. sīd (i.e. seed) and -ī- in sīn (seen), the second having nasalization audible thus sin̄̃ (cf. Carr: ?) [Data; Sr. tikkha ‘quick, sharp’ < tikṣṇa ‘-, hot, pungent’. Sr.

There are cases of archaic Sk. nasalization i.e. where it continues from Sk. sources e.g. why should Sk. akṣi ‘eye’, spāsa ‘fetter, noose’ and pūya ‘pus’ > H. ak̄̃ h ‘-’, H. phaas̄̃ i ‘-’ and Sr. pū̃ ‘-’ respectively. However, in cases where nasalization of the NIA is rooted in the source language, is intensive in NIA in general and is rampant in Sr. As noted elsewhere, nasal(ization) is present in some derivatives whose Sk. source has no such segment at all. It thus can be inferred that at some point in the historical development of NIA (especially Sr.) nasal and nasalization was used as handy escape in dealing with c. clusters frequent in Sk., e.g.[bring proper example] [to be shifted; in Sr. Pāvanda ‘name of tribal people in the districts of Dera Ismail Khan and Dera Ghazi Khan’ [< pārvata ‘belonging to the hills’ > H. parbat ‘hill’; Tur., with Tense -ā- only, Mon. entertains both pārvata for ‘mountain’ (pārvati ‘mountain stream’), and with Lax v. parvata ‘knotty, rugged, (said of mountain)’. - , ’ with; appears is ]. By definition, nasalization is ‘always a consonant feature which is assimilated by vowels’ notes Katamba and defines it further in terms of phonological process; ‘Nasalization is a process whereby an oral segment acquires nasality from a neighboring segment. Again the articulatory motivation for this is self-evident. In order to produce a nasal segment it is necessary to lower the velum (soft palate) and allow air to escape through the nose - - to produce an oral sound, it is necessary to completely block off access to the nasal cavity by raising th velum as high as it can go. - typically some nasalization seeps through and effects an oral segment which is adjacent to a nasal (Katamba: 93).’

Nasal is seen as one of strong sound-segments. Once a nasal c. is present in the vicinity, the neighboring non-nasal segments are contaminated one way or the other; ‘To maintain an absolute distinction between oral and nasal consonants would require perfect synchronization of velic closure with the other articulatory parameters of (a) Phonation (i.e. production of voicing), (b) the Place of articulation and (c) the Manner of articulation. This is not always possible. Typically some nasalization seeps through and affects an oral segment which is adjacent to nasal. In some languages the nasalization is prominently audible (ibid.).’

In Sk., Nasalization is not only present but well attended: Pāṇiṇi divides nasals into Anunāsika (Lit. ‘after nostrils’) i.e. nasal consonant and Anusvāra (or –svara, Lit.

‘after sound’) i.e. vowel nasalized. Mon. (: 41) has defined Anusavāra as ‘- - - after sound, the nasal sound which is marked by a dot above the line, and which always belongs to a preceding vowel. Sk. orthography includes letter ṃ in its Alphabet table to mark nasalized v. As against modern linguistic tradition (of English language etc.) which treats nasalization as assimilation and retains both the segment which spreads nasality and the segment which receives it, e.g. in grand > grãnd but not *grãd (Katamba: 168), the Sk. treats it as morphemic i.e. nasalization is shown as part of segment (vowel) without trace of the source which it spreads from thus ká ṃsa ‘bell mettle’ and kāṇá ‘one eyed’ but not *ká ṃnsa and *kāṃṇá. As far the questions, whether Anusvāra is restricted to Tense vs., or also spreads on Lax vs., and whether one way, or bidirectional, it appears that orthographic evidence recognizes only reg. Anusvāra [check] restricted to Tense v. and at the cost of removal of the trigger, thus either Sr. saḡ̃ ‘spear’ or sāng ‘-’ < śaṅkú ‘peg, spike’. However, phonological principle discovers unavoidable segmental nasalization both reg. as well as prog. and on all vs. irrespective Tense, Lax. The only retrievable rule in this complex phenomena is, reg. nasalization spreads back only when the trigger i.e. Anunāsika (nasal c.) is stressed, i.e. it sits in Margin of a polysyllabic word. This Sk. pattern is present in Sr., e.g. Sr. kā̃ṇã < kāṇá, and chũmmi ‘a kiss’ < cumba ‘kissing’. **** 12-08-14 The typology of nasals and nasalization in Sk. is summarized in Paṇini under two categories: (i) Anunāsika (lit. anu- ‘after’, nasika ‘nostril’), which is a sound segment ‘uttered through the nose (as one of five nasal consonants, or a vowel, or the semivowels y, v, l under certain circumstances - - -)’ as listed above and (ii) Anusvāra (lit. anu- ‘dit.’, svara- ‘sound’), the effect of a nasal c. ‘which always belongs to a preceding vowel’. It is a penultimate vowel which is phonologically tensed in a combination, and is nasalized. Anusvāra, traditionally transcribed as ṃ/n̠ (ṃ in Tur.), or with macron —̃ above the v. as in this work, e.g. bhaṅ̄̃ ā̃ ‘share’ < bhaj, ‘divide, share’, or in some works, by underlining the nasalized segment as ṉ in b̠an̠dh ‘embankment’ < bandhá ‘bond’. According to the Sk. specific rules, nasalization is triggered by a nasal c. to appear regressively on a preceding (usually long) v. Thus nasalization in Sk. is ā-, ī-, ū- > a-̄̃ , i-̄̃ , u-̄̃ (consult Mon: Anunāsika and Anusvāra q.v.). In NIA nasalization can also take place progressively on the following v., short or long, thus a-ā, i-ī, u-ū > ã-a,̄̃ ĩ-i,̄̃ ũ-ū̃ but less regularly. Thus the set of the variants of nasal c. given above are Anunāsika, and all the rest is phonological variants of

Anusvāra. Neither the number of the Anunāsika (the nasal consonants) nor the nature of the Anusvāra (v. nasalized) is exactly same among different NIA languages. For instance, main varieties of H. lack Retroflex nasal ṇ and that of P. are short of nasalization of final v., e.g. in caṅga ‘good’ < Sk. caṅga ‘of good understanding’. The Anusvāra, i.e. nasalization, is dealt within the subject of quality and quantity of vowel in Sk. and has developed into more complex type of segments in NIA. The phonology of nasalization of vowels in NIA varies from language to language, for instance, the language in focus i.e. Sr. (and Sindhi) appear more sensitive to nasal harmony as compared to, say P. and H. where spread of nasalization in some relevant cases is either absent, or optional cf. Sr. caṅã, P. caṅga. In NIA in general, and Sr. in particular, nasalization is both way, progressive i.e. nasalizing the v. appearing after, and regressive, i.e. nasalizing the v. existing before the nasal c. There are cases like H. +nas. mā̃ ‘mother’ < mātŕ - ‘mother’ but Sr. –nas. mā < dit. ‘dit.’ where the nasal c. m does not progressively extend nasal harmony on -ā in Sr. mā. This but abides some rules: (i) Sr. does not accept nasalization in mono syl. lexemes unless nasalization was inherited from Sk. before elision and other processes of derivation e.g. Sr. nav̄̃ ã ‘name’ > na ‘-’ < náman ‘-’.before . As far nasalization in the mono syl. tū̃ (2sg prn.) ‘you’ < tvám ‘dit.’, is possibly segmental retention of the nasal m part of the source word and nasalization in Sr. kā̃ ‘crow’ prob. < karand ‘cry’ and not < kāka ‘dit.’ the general source for NIA kava ‘dit.’ etc., or the nasalization of Sr. ka,̄̃ as in many cases, will be irregular. (ii) Progressive nasalization in Sr. is also blocked by v.-length in the v. appearing immediately after the source nasal c., thus Sr. nāla ‘string for trouser’ < nāḍī ‘tubular stalk of any plant’ (Turner: q.v.) and not *nal̄̃ a. This must not be confused with Sr. mam ̄̃ ā̃ ‘mother’s brother’ < māma ‘dit.’ where nasalization is regressive originated from the medial -m-. To generalize, nasalization in Sr. appears both way progressive as well as regressive and on long as well as short v. as in nãvã ‘new’ < nava ‘dit.’ and nā̃vā̃ ‘written name’ < ná man ‘name’. What the NIA languages inherited from Sk. in feature nasalization is casual functionality of this feature, i.e. in some cases, its plus/minus brings change of meaning as in these Sk. lexemes: kas̄̃ a ‘shine’, kāsa ‘name of a cast’ and kāsā̃ ‘to cough’ (Mon. q.v.) and in NIA—Sr. tā ‘heat’ < tāpa ‘heat, glow’ and tā̃ ‘then,

consequence of, so, indeed’ < táthā ‘so, in that way’, or < tát ‘thus, then’. Another important point to register is nasalization in NIA is predominantly

historical, i.e. a latter development as many NIA derivatives having feature nasalization are derived from Sk. stems having no nasal or nasalization, e.g. Sr. mañ̄̃ ja ‘cleaning’ < mārja ‘to clean’. Nasalization in NIA is a complex Phonological process which cannot be exhaustively captured by rules. Yet, some basic patterns of nasalization can be laid down as below; >Needless to say, regressive nasalization is triggered by presence of a nasal c. in the word, which nasalizes an adjacent long v. e.g. Sr. ka͂ ṇdha ‘call to wedding ceremony’ < kuvvāṇīta ‘sounded’, and casually, a short v. e.g. Sr. ka͂ṇĩ ‘a drop of water, slight rain’ < káṇa- ‘dit.’. As far progressive nasalization, cf. above.< In some cases nasalization in a NIA word takes place where the source is not present within the lexeme, but in the root-stem in Sk., e.g. H., Sr. bud̄̃ ‘drop’ < bindú m. ‘drop, spot’. That in bud̄̃ it is nasalization and not a nasal c. can be checked through articulation of the word which will show that the tongue does not touch the Alveolar ridge or any part of the roof of mouth before reaching d [undue, delete]. For the history of bindú > bud̄̃ we can infer a chain of process: (i) assimilative alternation of -i- with -u- (ii) loss of the final v. i.e. –u compensated in lengthening of medial -u- > -ū- thus būnd and finally (iii) loss of the nasal c. -nafter nasalization of the lengthened, medial -ū- > -u-̄̃ . The process thus might have been like Sk. bindú > MIA bundu > NIA būnd > bud̄̃ . If we term the process of nasalization as assimilation, or harmony, it is fundamentally regressive, i.e. a vowel is nasalized in anticipation of a nasal c. which is to follow, e.g. H. pac̄̃ (pān̠c) ‘five’ < pánca ‘dit.’ and Sr. ka͂ ṇdha (ibid.). Progressive nasal harmony is also seen but with some intra-NIA inconsistency observed in multiple forms as in Sr. mā ‘mother’ (above), but ammã ‘dit.’ < mātṛ ‘dit.’ and Sr. samā ‘cause to sleep’ < svapayati ‘to cause to sleep’ (Mon. q.v.) as against H. mā̃ ‘dit.’ and samā̃ ‘mutual fascination, charm’ < saṃ-vanana ‘propitiating, causing mutual fondness’ (Mon. q.v.); also cf. Sr. kamā ‘to work to earn’ < karmayati ‘to employ, to work’, nikãmmā̃ ‘idle, workless’ < niṣkarman ‘inactive’ and and kaṇ̄̃ ã ‘one eyed’ < kāṇá ‘dit.’. Except for partially applicable syllabic explanation (infra.) it is irregularity governing the complex phonology of nasalization in NIA. If to form a rule, regressive nasalization is a pattern while progressive nasalization takes place in some NIA including Sr. when the source i.e. nasal c. is placed in margin of the first syl. followed by an open syl. which will receive nasalization, for example, Sr. bhánnã ‘broken’ < Pk. bhagga ‘broken’ in turn < bhajyátē ‘is broken’, but bhanāk f. ‘a breaker female, or destroys female’ i.e. no nasalization because the rhyme i.e. -āk is a closed in the margin –k. And yet nasalization remains irregular.

In NIA, nasalization is functional, i.e. the feature, in many cases, is semantically propertied (serves change of meaning) e.g. Sr. n. pā ‘quarter’ < páda ‘foot’ versus n. pā̃ ‘itch disease in animal’ < pāmán ‘skin disease’, and is more significant in Sr. vb. pres.part. 2p infl. –ed̄̃ e versus 1p infl. -ed̄̃ ẽ as in ved̄̃ e ‘he/she goes’ < vyeti ‘goes away’ versus ved̄̃ ẽ ‘you go’ < dit., ‘dit.’. Another, relatively less regular pattern is, nasalization of v. prefers close v. and accepts close-mid or open v. if unrounded. Therefore close-mid rounded nasalized i.e. ō̃ as in hod̄̃ ‘being’ < bhávati ‘becomes’, are scarce. A set of selected lexemes is placed in table below which will help reach the contrasts in nasalization in plus and minus (+/–); –nasalized

+ nasalized parallel

H. panna ‘page’ < parṇa ‘plumage, foliage(of tree)’

Sr. pannã ‘dit.’ < dit. ‘dit.’

Sr. baṇā ‘make’ < vánati ‘desires, makes ready’

Sr. bannã m. ‘bridegroom, beloved’ < vanva ‘desiring’ Sr.b̠annã (Tur. Sindhi b̠ano) ‘small bank to keep back water’ < bandhá m. ‘bond’ Sr., H. bud̄̃ ‘drop’ < bindú m. ‘drop, spot’ Sr. kũārā m. ‘unmarried’ < kumārá ‘boy’ (Mon; ku ‘deterioration, deficiency’ + māra ‘death’, ‘easily dying’ [seems problematic; may instead connote ‘with deficient chances of death’]

Sr. cũḍ ‘corner’ < cuṇdati ‘becomes small’ in turn Sr. cud ‘become fucked’ < cōdati ‘copulates’ < cunuṭ ‘narrow’, √cuṭ ‘cut off’ Sr. cũdh ‘dim sight, bleary eyes’ < culla ‘dit.’ Sr. cuḍ̄̃ a ‘woman’s hair’ < cūḍāvatī ‘plaits of hair of woman’, in turn < cú ḍa ‘protuberance, word for hair’ Sr. cuḍ̄̃ aṇ ‘to eat by biting’ < cuṭáti ‘cuts off’ Sr. bhũ, bhũh ‘chaff of grain’ < busa ‘chaff’ (Tur.) Sr. b̠ūr ‘pollen, husk of wood’ < būra ‘power’ [Add in above some clear contrast]

The nasal ñ and ṅ (ɲ and ŋ) ; With in situ phonological variations given, the Bilabial nasal consonant m, the Alveolar nasal n and the Retroflex nasal ṇ, are relatively stable as compared to the Palatal nasal ñ (IPA, ɲ) and the Velar nasal ṅ (IPA, ŋ). The IA languages vary in articulation of both the sounds. For his Bhasha, Paṇini, recognizes ñ in combination with j which precedes the first, thus -jñ-. Paṇini describes the nasals in Paṇini (7.3.79) as nasal ‘vowels = 1, i.e. ṃ, and nasal

consonants = 6, i.e. ṅ, ñ, ṇ, n, m, (and Vedic) jñ.’ (cf. supra.) About the last, i.e. jñ (and ṅg), he points to a process of phonological change in the sūtra which together with its narration reads as follows; “jñā-ján-jā” ‘the substitute morpheme jā replaces [the whole of the ref. 1.1.55 i.e. the sounds of aṅga-s, 6.4.1 of the verbal stems], i.e. 6.4.1 is aṅga – sya, and 1.1.55 is “anéka aL SIT a saravasy” - -’, implying that in the morphemes grouped as ‘aṅga’ type and as ‘anéka’ which have Sk. phonetic properties of jñ will be lost in such and such conditions [also applies on Ṅ (ṅg)]. What remains to be checked is the shift of the conditional jñ and [and gṅ > ṅ] to ñj [and ṅg] in some NIA, is not a misperception at any point (Pan2: xi, 7.3.79, 1.1.55, 6.4.1: 21, 933). In above sutra (Lit. ‘thread’) Paṇini has given a rule about the change, or loss of the Vedic -jñ-. The sutra, however, does not explain the phonetic characteristics of the segment but just phonology of its alternation. As far its presence as ñj in the NIA, at first it seems the two members of what we can call c.-cluster have swapped their positions at some point in history, i.e. the second member of the Vedic jñ appears first in ñj, for instance in Sk. sañjana ‘act of fastening’ > Sr. sañjaṇ ‘to fasten saddle on horse’s back’. As far ṅ, as in śŕ ṅga ‘horn’ > Sr. siṅ ‘dit.’, it is also referred to as member of the Paṇini’s aneka group of nasals attended in 1.1.5 and in 1.1.6 (ibid.: 4, 26). Modern Sk. grammarians, such as Macdonell2 characterize the two nasals as follows; ‘The guttural ṅ appears finally only when a following k or g has been dropped, - - - medially ṅ appears regularly only before gutturals; e.g. aṅka m. ‘hook’; aṅkháya ‘embrace’; aṅga m. ‘limb’; jáṅgha ‘leg’. (Macdonell2: 9)’

Guttural being the old term for Velar, the above explanation indicates that in Sk. Velar nasal ṅ appears immediately before k or g [which means k and g being Velar by place possibly cause regressive assimilation to turn the Alveolar nasal n in -nk-, or -ng- combinations into Velar nasal ṅ, thus -ṅk- or -ṅg-. A similar assimilation process can be assumed in the case of n +j > ñj. But it is not as simple as this interpretation. To be precise, the phonetic description of ñ and ṅ is: +palatal, +nasal = ñ, and + velar, + nasal = ṅ respectively, and as every nasal has to be, both are + voice. In conventional transcription of NIA, these are marked both as ñ and ṅ, and also as ñj and ṅg. And in some NIA these exist free from the condition of appearing before k or g, for instance, in Sr. and Si. where these serve as independent sound units thus Sr. suñ ‘deserted place’ < sūnya ‘empty’ and siṅ (above) and not suñj and siṅg (cf. Wordlist infra).

A bit doubtful but possible phonetic interpretation of the two sounds is to consider the ñj and ṅg as c.-clusters with the first segments i.e. ñ/ṅ weakened. The place of articulation of the segments ñ and j is the same i.e. the Palate. It is also same in articulation of ṅ and g i.e. Velum. The only difference is, in articulation of ñ and ṅ the Velum is raised to let the air escape through nose to turn them into nasals while in the case of j and k/g the Velum remains lowered blocking the air from going through nose thus keeping them oral. The phonetic process of ñj and ṅg thus is: each starts as nasal with the Velum raised and the air let to flow through nose but is released with the Velum lowered before the release changing the nasal ñ/ṅ to ñj/ṅg without insertion of vowel lest provide time and space required for segmental separation. Contemporary phonetics does not recognize the popular NIA ñj and ṅg as single sound units. The IPA recognizes both as pure the nasals ñ(ɲ) and ṅ(ŋ) without the features of approximation, or that of being plosive found in j and g respectively. Accordingly, these serve as independent sound units in many languages including Sr. and Si. Some languages recognize Velar nasal as ṅ but opt for the cluster in the case of Palatal nasal ñj e.g. Eng. thus king is marked in the column of pronunciation in the Eng. dictionaries as kiŋ but plunge, as plʌndz = plañj. The Sk.-Eng. texts and dictionaries have ñj/ṅg predominantly with casual accommodation of ñ/ṅ. Below we describe some more NIA-Sr. patterns in nasals and nasalization. A simple problem with ñj and ṅg is these do not fit in the basic rule of Phonetics which says a sound is one phonetic unit only if it is produced with single articulatory action as ñ(ɲ) and ṅ(ŋ) do. Plausibly, as against Sk. archaic ñ(ɲ) and ṅ(ŋ), the ñj and ṅg are latter development [successor of glide Sk. y or y-clusters] as noticed by a Sanskritist in the context of j ‘sañj = ‘hang on, attach’; j is a new palatal. (Kanta: 259).’ The case of Sk. caṅga ‘of good understanding’ > Sr. cãṅā̃ ‘good, nice’, P. caṅgā ‘dit.’ provides with interesting example of the real ṅ—ṅg alternation in Sr., Si., H., and P. etc. The internal phonological process this lexeme goes through in its Sr. (and Si.) version is possibly like this; the nasal n in original version of Sk. canga triggered both progressive and regressive harmony on almost segments: nasalized the first v. i.e. a which preceded it thus cãngā-, in harmony with the following Velar, +voice plosive g, it altered itself from nasal c. n to Velar, nasal, +voice -ṅ(IPA, -ŋ-) thus cãṅga-, nasalized the final v. i.e. ā spreading on all segments of the word except for the initial c. thus cãṅgã and finally, the features Velar and +voice preserved in ṅ itself, brought about redundancy of the Velar voiced plosive g thus

Sr. cãṅa.̄̃ The H. and P. versions fall short of most of these processes retained the Sk. caṅga only by adding quantity of the last v. ā > caṅgā. Turner (in Turner 1915 supra) noticed similar phonological process in ‘the history of the group ama > aṽa > ãva’ [‘day of the new moon, time before dawn’ < amāvāsya- ‘born on a new moon night’]. In the phonetic contrast between ñ/ṅ and ñj/ṅg (cf. suñ and siṅ above) the historicallinguists generalize the second i.e. ñj/ṅg. Masica (1991), for instance, has characterized the nasal type in ñj and ṅg as ‘the voicing of voiceless stops after nasals’ and has added a brief list of the relevant Sindhi derivatives of Sk. which is reproduced below; Skt. (for Sk.) Sk. aŋka ‘mark’ pañca ‘five’ kanṭā ‘thorn’ danta ‘tooth’ campa ‘name of tree’

H.

P.

S. (for Si.)

ā`k aŋg aŋgu pā`c pañj pañju kā’ta kaṇḍa kanḍo dā’t ḏ ̠ and ḏ ̠ andu cā’p cambā cambao (Masica 1991: 203; cf. Whitney, Turner, ibid.).

We could also follow above analysis in the Sr. saṅ ‘relation’ as mere loss of g i.e. saṅgat ‘companionship’ > saṅ but the claim for loss of j in suñ ‘desolated place’ < śūnya ‘empty’ does not confirm this view. A rather simpler explanation could be in partial assimilation of the place of articulation by assuming movement of tongue from place for n which is Alveolar to that of j and g which are Palatal and Velar respectively. This rule but fails in cases like Sr. pandh ‘distance, journey’ < panth ‘path’, and ant ‘end’ < anta ‘end’ where nothing stops tongue from properly reaching the place of articulation for n and instead compromising with –̃ > for assumed *pãdh and *ãt respectively. The explanation left with us is as against j and g, the place of articulation of t and d being in immediate neighborhood n in the sequence, no articulatory maneuvering is required. If to rephrase the problem in simpler words, it is: (i) The phonological features of ñ and ṅ when followed by Palatal plosives j and Velar plosive g respectively as in kuñji ‘key’ < kuñcikā ‘dit.’ and saṅg- ‘togetherness, company’ < saṅga ‘battle, contact’ (cf. saṅg- infra), in fact, are not the same as the perceived phonetic properties of ñ and ṅ as sound units but of their versions reduced to nasalization of preceding v. If examined through spectrographs, it should emerge that in many cases where the segments are traditionally scribed as ñj and ṅg, what materializes is

the nasalization of preceding v. and not any form of the consonant n thus kũji and sãg. This analysis, however, cannot be taken for claimed deviation from the tradition. (ii) The sound units viz. Palatal nasal ñ and Velar nasal ṅ frequently appearing in Sr. (and Si.) are independent sound units different from and in addition to the popular NIA ñj and ṅg. In the latter, segments j and g appear before release of the v. which follows them and block the effect of the preceding nasal c. from reaching the v. which follows them. To sum up, in this case, the v. before g and j is nasalized and the v. after g and j is denasalized. The proper Palatal and Velar nasals i.e. ñ and ṅ without segment j or g added to them are features found in some of the NIA, mainly Sr. (and Si.) cf. Sr. suñ and sãṅ above. The Sr. versions of P. jañj ‘wedding procession’ < jánya ‘dit.’, and raṅg ‘dye, color’ < raṅga thus are jãñ and rãṅ respectively. The ñ/ñj and ṅ/ṅg contrasts in Sr. (and Si.) also exhibit functionality (properties of semantic variation), for instance, kuñ ‘snake’s slough’ < kañcu ‘skin of snake’ but kuñj ‘put together, corner’ < kuñcana ‘contraction’ and saṅ (above) as against saṅg (above). Table below presents some more cases; [Brief; The process of Sk. raṅga and śūnya > Sr. ran and sun, nut P. rang and sunj can be summarized as this: in Sr. derivatives c. clusters -ṅg- and -ny- squeezed into single phonetic units ṅ and ñ as against P. where the following Palatal and Velar plosives g and j (< -ny-) simply dominated to freeze ṅ/ñ and block nasalization.] Table; Lexemes consisting the semantically propertied ñ/ñj and ṅ/ṅg contrasts; ñ __

ñj __

NIA


kared̄̃ īyā̃ ‘they do’. A related process is reduction in value of the syl. taking the glide i.e. -dīya-̄̃ = 1 syl. and not -di-, -ya-̄̃ = 2 syl. (cf. Syntax and the word order. supra). in Pan In Panini rve as prn.-case with multiple semantic propropertied with .used in middle which seems ‘n Sr. the v. sequences in with appearance in and e. Mid principle, The -y- appears in v. sequences, other This phonological feature we include in the Functional (semantically propertied features) features of Sr. However, glide insertion offers some grammatical patterns such as, The would syl. value of --

similar v.

f

The j development; Development of Sk. j is historical. Initially, y > j and the alternation is traceable only through the forms where y remains preserved. A general rule is, y sequenced after unrounded front, or middle v. i.e. –iy-, -ey- > -īj-. This provides Sr. with grammatical rule for construction of passive vice forms e.g., vikījaṇ ‘to be sold’ < vikṛīyāte ‘to be sold’, ḏ ivījaṇ ‘to be given’< diyate ‘is given’. But ungrammaticality of Sr. *ajat i.e. ad̄̃ e instead < Sk. áyāti ‘is to come’ is rare, (Cf. Turner (date?): 3105 for detailed analysis of y > j).

Assimilation, dissimilation and Elision; For whatever cognitive reasons, languages go through syntactic as well as phonetic and phonological change which is best recorded in the case of Indo European (IE) languages, segment by segment e.g. ‘- - because there is so little evidence for ProtoIndo-European b in the framework of obstruents, the phonological system of ProtoIndo-European was assumed to be changing (Lehmann: v).’ A general process in historical phonological change from Sk. to NIA has been that of reduction in segments which is understandable under the rule of ‘effort-saving’. Another general rule is, segments of same or nearer place and, or manner of articulation go through phonetic adjustments through processes such as: assimilation, dissimilation and elision, which are defined below; (i) ‘Assimilation - - is the modification of a sound in order to make it more similar to some other sound in its neighborhood (Katamba: 80).’ (ii) By dissimilation, ‘differences between sounds are enhanced so that sounds become more distinct make speech perception easier (ibid.: 94.’ (iii) Elision, or deletion is a way change of phonetic change where a segment ‘gets elided (is not uttered in certain cases (Carr: 41).’

If we look at the inconsistencies in the phonological features which we tried to grasp above, it is caused, mainly by one factor which is a phoneme is combination of Allophones and each Allophone tends to be sensitive to adjacent allophone. The effect Allophones accept from each other is called Assimilation (Sandhi ‘’joint’ in Panini). Carr explains assimilation with case of the English word input; ‘The nasal in input is, however, uttered as an [m]: try it and you will see that one needs to use conscious effort not to utter it this way. This is because the /n/ assimilates in place of articulation to the following stop. What this means is that we must allow that the phoneme /n/ has an /m/ allophone. (Carr: 29)’

[Come with a note on nature of v. length here] but is verified in the International phonetic alphabet (IPA)

[the subchapter Nasal and nasalization better to be taken from the file, Temp] Sr. is sensitive to nasal harmony. For example, Sk. caṅga ‘of good understanding’,

- Syllable pattern

[Sk. Letters are perceived as syl. thus ka and not as pure phonic/sound (impossible to retrieve out of syl.). The alternate for syl. is mātra (Lit. ‘measure’) weighs equal to a Pluta i.e. a Lex. v.] Syllable (syl.), is a unit between morpheme and segment. As far its relevance, it is phrased by Katamba as follows; ‘One of the most basic functions of the syllable is to regulate the ways in which lower level units (consonants and vowels) of the phonological hierarchy can combine. Knowledge of the phonological system which speakers of a language have consists in part of knowledge of the phonemes of that language and their allophones. (cf. Katamba: 164)’.

It is believed that the concept syl. and the relevant terms have been borrowed in linguistics from music where foot-metrics is assessed on the basis of syl.-count. ‘The syllable has two constituents, namely the Onset which comes at the beginning and the Rhyme which follows it (ibib: 153-5).’ The Onset can be absent from a syl., and can usually consist of a c., or a v., or more than one segment in any combination (in Sr. up to three, e.g. in vañá ‘destroy’ [three, excluding the inherent vowel in v-. ] < vināśayati ‘causes to be ruined’). The Rhyme is the second but central part of syl. which can optionally have a Margin if the syllable has one more segment in closing. Analysis of syllable informs as how words or morphemes of similar number of phonemes can be phonologically different on the basis of difference of their syllabic properties. If the syl. ends in v., it is called open syl., if otherwise, it will be marked as closed syl. (cf. ibid.). For instance, in Sr. pakkā [pʌk a ] adj. ‘cooked, ripe’ and pakā [pʌ ka] vb. ‘cook’ < pakvaka ‘cooking’, the second is different in its number of syl. which is one, than the first, which is two. The feature which causes difference is stress (cf. Stress infra.). In the first case i.e. pakkā, the Onset of first syl. consists p followed by ak to form a Rhyme with k as its Margin. The Onset of the second syl. starts from the second, unstressed part of the k (normally marked as repeated –k) followed by Rhyme a which having no Margin makes the second syl. an open one thus [pa[k]]-[k[a]] and [pak[ā]]. In the first case, it is the stress on the first syl. which forwards part of segment k to make onset of the second syl. There can be a syl. as small as a, or na which are less then, or equal to one morpheme depending on the semantic context in which they appear, and as large as Sr. bhanák adj. ‘breaker, destroyer, problematic person’ < bhagna ‘broken, torn, lost’ (cf. Katamba: ibid., for Internal structure of Word see Carr: 335). Stress; The notion accent which stems from intonation overlaps with the notion

stress. Stress is defined as ‘greater auditory prominence’ which is, a syl. receiving pitch, loudness and duration more than other syl. in a word. Such a syl. is called stressed syl. in contrast to the one which is unstressed. However, observing that every syl. in a multisyllabic word receives stress to greater or lesser degree, some linguists divided stress into primary, secondary and week, only to conclude that prominence is relational and stress is contrastive (Katamba: 221-24, 242). Phillip Carr is precise on syllables and the sequence in which ±-stress syllables take place in the English foot matrix; ‘Sequences of rhymes (and therefore syllables) consisting of a stressed syllable plus one or more unstressed syllables are said to form constituents called stress feet.’ (Carr: 215).

Languages are divided into ‘tone-languages’ and ‘stress languages’, the matter is however more complex (Katamba: 208). If the division matters, Sk. is the second type and so are NIA but with gradual historical weakening of the feature. Intricate contrasts apart, accent, stress and tone are same thing except that the tone is functional in Tone-languages in which a speaker conveys some meaning or aspect of meaning by changing the tone. And yet ‘intonation also has attitudinal function’ i.e. a speaker may use tone to express attitude (ibid: 208, 246). In presence of the notions like ‘syllable-stress’, ‘word-stress’ and ‘foot-stress’ one may like to be precise as where does stress lie?; the answer is, on the vowel. But ‘stress is not an inherent vowel feature. It is an autosegmental property of the word (Katamba: 225).’ Tied in the joint of c. and v., it is v. where stress finds expression. The dilemma that follows is, stress, which is marked in this work by way of underlining the stressed segment(s), also sounds as if placed on the preceding segment as in the case of pakka where stress which is on Rhyme of the first syl. which is a, seems having regressive effect on preceding p. By paying a little more attention one will observe that even if on p, the stress, and the p itself are realized only after the inherent v. in p is released. In other words, stress appears on the v. whether the inherent v. of p or the v. which immediately follows, i.e. the first a in pakka. Counting in reverse order, stress appears on the second last, i.e. the penultimate v. of the word pakka. This is precisely what is ruled by Panini about accentuation (stress) in the Bhsha.; ‘The general rule for accentuation of affixes is stated under 3.1.3; however, in many polysyllabic affixes it may fall on the penultimate syllable - - - (Panini2: xxv).’

After dividing the multiply inflected thus complex Sk. vb. forms into ‘preverb’ and ‘verb’ in his comparatives of Greek and Sanskrit, Ghosh has summarized the Sk. accent/stress pattern in verb as following; ‘Of several preverbs prefixed to a finite verb-form usually only the last gets the accent in Sanskrit. (Ghosh: 141).’

Contextual fluctuations apart, accentuation is realized on ‘penultimate v./syl. of the word in Sk. and the feature is retained in almost all NIA. However, with exceptions like the Mianwali, or the N variety of Sr. (and the Pashtu language), the stress in NIA is not as prominent as in Sk. To understand it further, a couple of examples form languages where stress is not on penultimate, but on ‘anti-penultimate v.’ will be relevant. The anti penultimate v. stress in Eng. as in America and Canada and in Ar. as in tarbiyat ‘training, brought up’ > NIA, Sr. penultimate v. stress thus America and Canada and tarbiyat respectively. Stress on a segment then translates into stress on the syl. and then on the word in a clause to the extent that in some cases word stress can become a factor in change in semantic properties of a word, in turn of a clause. To conclude, stress on penultimate v. is a general pattern in Sk., and NIA thus Sk. grāmdara ‘village boy’ > Sr., P. grai ̄̃ ‘dit.’, and on the same pattern, Sr. trakṛi ‘scale’, tirvanjha ‘fifty three’ (H. trippan ‘dit.’) and Sr. aṅgil-bhannã ‘one whose finger is broken’. This rule also applies on loan words but not as consistently as on original IA data hence Sr. tarbiat ‘training’, but U. tarbiat (< Ar. tarbiat). Whereas gemination (a same consonantal articulation held for the duration of two consonantal beats) e.g. -ss- in d̠assaṇ ‘to tell’ < darsáyati ‘shows’, c. cluster e.g. sr- in visraṇ ‘to become forgotten’ < visamṛi (vi- ‘without’, samṛi ‘memory’) ‘to forget, be unmindful’ and intensification of vowel e.g. -ā- in Sr. kirāṇa ‘grocery’, H. kariyāna ‘dit.’ < karayaṇa- ‘buying’ are most of the time perceived as synonymous to stress, these feature may not necessarily entail stress in principle (cf. Katamba: 170).

The typical consonant-vowel sequence in Sk. allows appearance of tense v. in adjacent syllables [hiatus?]. To an extent, this continues in most of NIA, but in Sr. and P. such sequences are avoided and altered with Tense-Lax, or Lax-Tense sequences e.g. Sk. pātāla ‘a region under earth’ > H. pātāl but Sr. and P. patāl ‘under earth’, a feature which makes part of syl.-pattern of respective languages. The feature of distinction between primary stress and secondary stress being less prominent in Siraiki, Shackle has defined this feature as follows; ‘The commonest word-pattern consists of disyllables with accented first syllable: this pattern, together with than of monosyllables, accounts for the great majority of all words. (Shackle: 28).’

--The minimal pairs; ‘When two words are identical in all respects, except for one segment, they are referred to as a MINIMAL PAIR. (ibid: 22)’

For instance, read ~ lead, rice ~ lice, mice ~ nice and card ~ guard (cf. ibid: 23). A useful method is testing the ‘distinctive features/phonemes’ by listing words in ‘minimal pairs’ where difference of only a single segment/ feature will count for functional difference of phonemes, in turn, of word to serve semantic alternation, as the difference of t and d does in Eng. bet and bed (ibid.:21-2). Distinctive feature made with alternation of phoneme is common place, e.g. Sr. ruk ‘pure, shining, gold’ < rukma ‘dit.’ and luk ‘disappear’ < luk (√luñc/lup) a grammatical term for ‘dropping out, disappearance’. A set of Sr. minimal pairs distinguished by alternation of a single feature is produced below (the implosive off/on , however scarcely counts for functional distinction); Minimal pairs; Feature

Word +feature

Word with -feature

glide y insertion

vaẽdẽ ‘you go’

vẽdyẽ ‘while going’ < vrájati ‘goes’

nasalization –̃

khāve ̄̃ ‘you may eat’

khāvē ‘he may eat’ < √khād ‘eat’

aspiration

-h

sukh ‘comfort, ease’

suk ‘dry up’

< śuṣka ‘dried’

implosive

g̠

g̠ōl ‘look for’ < gōll ‘dit.’

gōl ‘round’

< gōla ‘ball’

--

̠j

̠jau ‘pitch, wax’ < játu ‘lac’

jau ‘barley’ < yaya ‘dit.’

--

d̠

d̠ iḍh ‘one and a half’ < dvyardha ‘dit.’ ḍiḍh [ḍhiḍh] ‘belly, womb’ < ḍhiḍha ‘dit.’

--

b̠

b̠anni f. ‘forest’ < vana ‘dit.’

______

banni (also vanni) ‘bride’ < vanvá ‘desirous’

The semantic shift; One of the stems, now suf. of wide use is NIA (H.) -vād ‘speak for’ as in Brahminvād (?) < vāda ‘speech, sounding a musical instrument’, in turn < váś ‘cry’ with stems as vádaka- ‘musician’, a probable source of Sr. vāj̠a, (NIA vāja, bāja) ‘musical instrument’. There is a thin line of s/ś contrast between the Sk. √váś ‘cry’ and √vás ‘dwell’, Cf. √vása ‘will, authority, power’. --The case; [Should go into subhap Syntax] >

The Sr. Syntactic and morphological structure having reasonably shifted from that of its source language few initial aspects, among these the Pronoun (prn.), the Case, the Affixes and the initial word order in declarative sentences will be attended below. Sr Case; direct oblique possessive directional dative/accusative

1sg. m ǣ̃ -mæḏ a mæḏ o mækũ

2sg. tū̃ tãẽ/tao tæḏ a tæḏ o tækũ

1.pl 2pl. asã tusã --sāḏ a tuhāḏ * sāḏ o tuhāḏ o sākũ/asākũ tuhākũ/tusākũ (Shackle: 58)

Some other cases in Sr. can be: (i) Genitive;

̱jaṇẽ da ghoṛa ‘man’s horse’ (for basic definition, see Wilson: 8-10; for Definition see Radford: 439).

(ii) A morphophonological marker to distinguish the genitive case-forms from the possessive case-forms is where the voiced alveolar plosive d of the free morphemegenitive case da m. sg. ‘of’, di f. sg., de m. pl., diyā̃ f. pl. turn bound morphemes in the possessive case and are retroflexed and implossized when preceded by a back vowel thus –da in ud̄̃ a 3p. sg., ‘of his/her/its’ but -ḏ a, -ḏ i, -d̠ ̱ e, -d̠ ̱ iyā̃ in mæḏ a ‘mine’, tæḏ a ‘your’ sg., tuhaḏ e ‘your’ m. pl., tuhaḏ iyā̃ ‘your’ f. pl. (iii) Ablative; for example, in Sr. moho in moho alā ‘do say by/from

mouth’. (iv) Instrumental; for example, Sr. postposition nāl ‘by means of’ > case infl. -ē̃ as in akkhrē̃ bhíṛ takkarē̃ nã bíṛ ‘fight with words do not fight with blows’. (v) Certain Sk. allomorphemes having gone through both change of form as well semantic shift make it difficult to identify the connection, e.g. -vāṃ (Cf. Macdonell:181) connoting perfectness in participle became NIA bound morph -vā̃ to facilitate constructions such as the passive perfect, or the numerical adjectives lukāvā̃ ‘made hiden’ < Sk. lúpyatē ‘is lost’ and possibly is the same -vāṃ modified and attached to Sr. satvā̃ ‘seventh’ < Sk. saptamá and sātavaṃ, in turn sapta ‘seven’.

____ Conjunctions;

tā̃ ‘then, as consequence of, so, indeed, then’ < táthā ‘so, in that way’, or < tát ‘thus, then’

toṛe[-ẽ] ‘although’ < toḍati ‘to disregard’; √tuḍ ‘split’ + jo (obl. jaẽ) ‘so, so that, who’ < ya-, yasmin (for gen., loc., sg. nom) ‘so, thus, which, which’ > Sr. toṛẽjo ‘although’.

matta,̄̃ mattaṇ (negative used in conj.) ‘may, may not’ < má ‘negative of prohibition, imperative, and used + conjunctive’

vat ‘again’ (vattaṇ ‘to wander’) < vártatē ‘turns, moves’

vi ‘also, even’ < ápi ‘dit.’ > Sr. vatvi ‘yet, even, in spite of that not’ je (je inst. conditional) ‘if’ < ya- (relative prn.) ‘so that’ + kar ‘act, do’ < kṛ ‘to do, act’ > Sr. jekar ‘if this being so’

je,

as relative prn.) ‘so, so that’ < ya- (relative prn.) ‘so that’

IMPORTANT, FROM PhD; - Sk. ṭ > Sr. ṛ, kukuṭa ‘cock’ > kukkuṛ y > j, yatna ‘effort’ > jattaṇ - dv- > ḇ and b > Sr. (S.) ḇ, dva ‘’two’ > S. ḇa, Sr. ḇía - b > v, bila- ‘hole, pit’ > vīla - b > b, bubba ‘woman’s breat’ > ditto - dy- > ̠j, vādyatē ‘is made to sound’ > vaj̠de ‘sounds’ ‘to sound’ - v > v, vismarati ‘forgets’ > visred̄̃ e, - v > ḇ, vṛkká- m. ‘kidneys’ > ḇukki f. ‘kidney’ - v > b (is rare), - g > g (impl.) thus garbhiṇi ‘pregnent’ > gabbaṇ, - d > d, drāghman- m. ‘lenght’ > drigh - d > ḏ , dṛśi- ‘seeing, ability to see’ > ḏis, Sk v > NIA b,Sk. b and dv- > Sr. ḇ OIA v > NIA b a frequent occurrence, Sk. Vikrami > Bikrami, Sk. vanati ‘desiresires, gains, makes ready’ > Sr. baṇaṇ, ‘to be made’ baṇāvaṇ ‘to make’ (H. ban’na, banāna). As per findings, Sr. has very limited number of entries containing the bilabial voiced plosive b (fewer like, and the rest will be loans from Pers.Ar. stock). All the relevant Sk. roots from dv- and b went implosive i.e. b̠ which offers scope for investigation into an interesting historical development.

▬▬▬

-->> There has been little attempt to define exact phonetics of the widely occurring nasals ñ and ṅ IN Siraiki. Recognized in IPA as palatal nasal ɲ and velar nasal ŋ respectively, each appears in two orthographic forms, i.e. as ñ/ñj, and ṅ/ṅg respectively which has a reason. The NIA languages show in situ alternation between phonetic properties of ñ which is propertied with nasal sonority in both, its onset vowel and its concluding (release) vowel as in Sr. kuñ (Si. kuña) ‘snake’s slough’ < kañcuka ‘snake’s skin’ and the phonetic properties of ñj which is propertied with nasal sonority in its onset vowel but with oral sonority in its concluding (release) vowel as in Sr. kuñj ‘to put together’ < kuñcana ‘contraction’, or < kuñcati ‘to make crooked’ (Monier q.v.). In other words, in ñ of kuñ Velum or the soft plate is lowered to let the airstream pass through nasal cavity and remains lowered until end of the articulation of ñ. In ñj in kuñj the Velum is lowered at the start of the articulatory move to let the air stream pass through nasal cavity but is raised to block the nasal cavity and turn the vowel into oral type in the end. The ññj alternation is neither universal, nor is always semantically propertied in languages which have this feature. Similar is the case with the Velar nasal ŋ with transcription undifferentiated between ṅ and ṅg as in Sr. saṅaṇ ‘of animal to be ready to be milked’ < śaṅkte ‘is afraid’ in turn < śaṅk ‘doubt, fear’ and Sr. saṅg ‘togetherness, company’ < saṅga ‘battle, contact’ (cf. saṅg- infra). Going by phonetic parameters, the ñj and ṅg do not fit in definition of phonetic unit. The IPAmarking is unambiguous hence correct. The inconsistency in transcription, in not less than Turner (1966; q.v.), e.g. in L. mañ̄̃ ja ‘cleaning’ but maj̄̃ aṇ ‘to clean’ < mārja ‘to clean’ and mārjat ‘rubs, cleans’ is possibly functional thus overlooked. The data generated by these two nasals is in great volume with some interesting cases given below; Sr. n and n whether root based, or made by internal phonology of Sr. version, to check As far the nasals (and some Sr. specific sound segments such as –y), these carry semantic value, i.e. these effect change of meaning in NIA more so in Sr. Major among such semantically propertied phonological features in Sr. are v.-nasalization, v.-lengthening, v.-rounding, c.-aspiration, c.-implosivization and glide y insertion. Sr. is more sensitive to nasal harmony. For example, Sk. caṅga ‘of good understanding’, H., P. caṅga > Sr. cãṅã. What cannot be properly scribed except in

International phonetic alphabet (IPA) is the internal phonological process this lexeme went through which is, the n triggered both progressive and regressive harmony on all segments—nasalized the first a which preceded it, thus cã-, changed the Velar voiced plosive g to Velar voiced nasal -ṅ- (-ŋ-) thus cãṅ- and also nasalized the final a i.e. spreading on all segments of the word except for c. But the alternation of g with ṅ left the n, the source of the nasal effect itself redundant, i.e. no proper sound n left in cãṅã. Turner (1915: 19) noticed this in ‘the history of the group ama > aṽa > ãva’ [‘day of the new moon, time before dawn’ < amāvāsya‘born on a new moon night’] The popularly scribed, ñ and ṅ which have two different versions as we will discussed below are marked as ñj and ṅg without any differentiation between the two types i.e. ñ and ṅ and ñj and ṅg such as by Masica who characterized these nasals in the Sr. derivatives of Sk. as ‘the voicing of voiceless stops after nasals’. His examples are; Sk. aṅka ‘mark’ > aṅg pañca ‘five’ > pañj kanṭā ‘thorn’ > kanḍa danta ‘tooth’ > ḏ ̠ and campa ‘name of tree’ > camba (Masica 1991: 203; cf. Whitney, Turner, ibid.). Starting by Pāṇini, the Sk. original version of ñ appears reverse of the modern adoption ñj, i.e. in Sk. rendition is jñ of which Pāṇini does not explain phonetics, but makes a phonological note of the conditions of its loss as follows; “jñā-ján-jā” ‘the substitute morpheme jā replaces [the whole of the ref. 1.1.55 i.e. the sounds of aṅga-s, 6.4.1 of the verbal stems], i.e. 6.4.1 is aṅga – sya, and 1.1.55 is “anéka aL SIT a saravasy”, implying that in the morpheme grouped as aṅga type and as anéka which have Sk. phonetic properties of jñ will be lost in such and such conditions [also applies on Ṅ (ṅg)]. What remains to be seen is the shift of the conditional jñ and ṅ [and gṅ] to ñj and ṅg in some NIA, is not misperception at any any point (Pan2: 7.3.79, 1.1.55, 6.4.1: 21, 933). In Sr. and Si., if we see anything is loss of j and g from original jn and [gn]. .less attended problem Sk. segment origin of the reverse to by him as e Panini grouped as -jñ- will be altered with j when 6.4.1. is jana ‘now’ and - - - ján‘born’] jā will replace jñā- ján-jā’ given its phonological given noted popular type second from

What can be added is the rule is blocked by some irregular forms like panth ‘family’ < ?, ant ‘end’ < anta ‘end’ and some regular forms when the nasal preceeding the voiceless stop is itself preceded by a tense v. thus kānk ‘cry of dog’ < ?, jānc ‘judgment’ < ?, dhānta pst. ‘having had sowered’ < ?, kuhānṭ ‘camle’s hump’ < ?. The phonological behavior of the palatal nasal ñj, and the velar nasal ṅg might require some review particularly in the perspective of Sr. and Si.: (i) The ñ and ṅ when followed by Palatal plosives j and Velar plosive g respectively as in kuñji ‘key’ < kuñcikā ‘key’ and saṅg- ‘togetherness, company’ < saṅga ‘battle, contact’ (cf. saṅg- infra) in fact are not the sound sound units with the perceived phonetic properties of ñ and ṅ but their versions reduced to nasalization of preceeding v. and the lexemes may better be written as kun̠ji and san̠g. (ii) The ñ and ṅ in Sr. and Si. show phonetic properties different from the general NIA ñj and ṅg where j and g segments are heard before release of the v. which follows them, i.e. the v. before g and j is nasalized and the v. after g and j is denasalized. The proper Palatal and Velar nasals i.e. ñ and ṅ with the segments j and g added to them are Sr. (Si.)-specific as these manifest in Sr. sũñ ‘deserted’ < sūnya ‘empty’ and sãṅ ‘of animal to be ready to be milked’ < saṅk ‘doubt, fear’, vb. śaṅkte ‘is afraid’. The Sr. versions of P. jañj ‘wedding procession’ < jánya ‘ibid.’, and raṅg ‘dye, color’ < raṅga thus are jãñ and rãṅ respectively (i.e. these are minus j and g segments). But representation of NIA ñj and ṅg each as single sound units (mono-phthongs) really does not fit in the basic rule of Phonetics which says a sound is one phonetic unit if it is produced in single articulatory action which is ñ(ɲ) and ṅ(ŋ) and not ñj and ṅg as each of the latter pair exhibits combination of two clustered segments. The Sr. ñ(ɲ) and ṅ(ŋ) again are Sk. archaics retained in Sr. but modified in P. etc. as clued by an Sk. philogist in his grammatical note on a lexeme which reads; ‘sañj = ‘hang on, attach’; j is a new palatal. (Kanta: 259).’ There is alternate appearance of ṅg and ñj in NIA which is rooted in similar alternation in Sk. e.g. in NIA saṅg‘togetherness, company’ and sañj ‘put together’, sañjōg (Sr. sañjōg) ‘good chanc’ is either < saṅga ‘battle’, ‘contact with (enemy)’, or prob. < sañj ‘to cling, or stick or adhere to, or be attached to, or occupied with’. Nasal , a powerful segment seems has complex forms in Sk. an d NIA phonology, especially in Sr. .caused formatic shift in morphemes. The much adored NIA morpheme saṅg- ‘togetherness, company’, for instance, went hrough alternations due the nasal segment in it prob. Sk. saṅga ‘battle’, ‘contact with (enemy)’ is in

turn an alternative if not derivative from the relatively stable root sañj ‘to cling, or stick or adhere to, or be attached to, or occupied with’. To another possibility, saṅga is a compound formed from Sk. saṃ ‘to drive together’ and gama ‘going’ as is preserved in NIA saṅgam ‘meeting point of two streams, or paths’ and saṅg ‘company’. Similarly, Sk. saṃ- is a widely appearing stem turned pref. The NIA lexeme samāj ‘society’ but does not show a direct source in Sk. One of the possibility is in saṃvada ‘speaking together’, i.e. NIA samāj is a compound < √saṃ ‘together’ and √vac ‘to speak’ (Cf. vād supra). Lastly, exhaustive investigation into a phenomenon like nasalization remains near impossible where every rule is challenged by some irregular case as in Sr. refusing to nasalize -ā in mā ‘mother’ as against H., P. ma.̄̃ The perception that nasalization of v. is condition with tense vs. is not binding (cf. Shsackle: 201). NIA Sr. sañj Sr./H/ sañjōg Sr./H. saṅgH. saṅgam H. samāj ----

Meaning


j’ [As if Paṇini had observed the trend to loss of Sk. -jñ-.] There has been little attempt to define exact phonetics of the widely occurring nasals ñ and ṅ in Sr. Recognized in IPA as palatal nasal ɲ and velar nasal ŋ respectively, in general works, each appears in two orthographic forms, i.e. the /ñ/ as ñ and ñj, and /ṅ/ as ṅ and ṅg which has a reason. The NIA languages show in situ alternation between phonetic properties of ñ which is propertied with nasal sonority in both, its onset vowel and its concluding (release) vowel as in Sr. kuñ (Si. kuña) ‘snake’s slough’ < kañcuka ‘snake’s skin’ and the phonetic properties of ñj which is propertied with nasal sonority in its onset vowel but with oral sonority in its concluding (release) vowel as in Sr. kuñj ‘to put together’ < kuñcana ‘contraction’, or < kuñcati ‘to make crooked’ (cf. Monier q.v.). In other words, in ñ of kuñ Velum or the soft plate is lowered to let the airstream pass through nasal cavity and remains lowered until end of the articulation of ñ. In ñj in kuñj the Velum is lowered at the start of the articulatory move to let the air stream pass through nasal cavity but is raised to block the nasal cavity and turn the vowel into oral type in the end. The ñ-ñj alternation is neither universal, nor is always semantically propertied in languages which have this feature. Similar is the case with the Velar nasal ṅ (ŋ) with the usual transcription undifferentiated between ṅ and ṅg confusing, for instance, Sr. saṅ ‘of animal to be ready to be milked’ < śaṅkte ‘is afraid’ in turn < śaṅk ‘doubt, fear’ and Sr. saṅg ‘togetherness, company’ < saṅga ‘battle, contact’ (cf. saṅg- infra). Going by phonetic parameters, the ñj and ṅg do not fit in definition of phonetic unit. Their as IPA-marking as ɲ and ŋ is unambiguous hence correct and the inconsistency in transcription, in not less than Turner (1966, cf. L. kuñj ‘snakes slough’, q.v.) and Sumitra (1989) is possibly functional. The data generated by these and other nasals appears in great volume. Some interesting cases given below; ‘the second localized innovation to be noted, the voicing of voiceless stops after nasals - - - in the northwest (Punjabi, Sindhi, - - .):23.’, Masica’s rule ‘voicing of voiceless stops’ skips NIA cases like caṅga where the voiced was part of the original. It is one of the most characteristic difference between Hindi and Punjabi:’ gives table where adds S. (Si.) but ignores Sr. (his Lahnda), is for which insert Ref. as cf. Masica: 202) ], ---[Sr. b̠addhaṇ 'to tie', prs.prt. b̠adhē̃de, < badhyáte, badhnāte (Bahl:57). By adding, to the above rules, the known precept that in many forms??] ṅ--n --n ṅ—ṅg Sr. cãṅã < caṅga Sr. raṅ < raṅga NIA Meaning < Sk Meaning kuñ ‘snake’s slough’ kañcu ‘skin of snake’ kuñj ‘put together’ kuñcana ‘contraction’ 2 kuñj ‘corner’ kruñca ‘--’ kuñji ‘key’ kuñcikā ‘key’ puñ ‘charity, virtue’ púṇya ‘beneficial, pleasant’ siṅ ‘horn’ sṛṅga ‘--’ ruñ ‘desert region’ árṇya ‘foreign land’ suñ ‘deserted place’ sūnya ‘empty’ vañ ‘to go’ vraj ‘go’ --vyeti ‘goese awy’ --vañcati ‘moves’ ---(Cf. vād supra). Lastly, exhaustive investigation into a phenomenon like nasalization remains near impossible where every rule is challenged by some irregular case as in Sr. refusing to nasalize -ā in mā ‘mother’ as against H., P. ma.̄̃ The perception that nasalization of v. is condition with tense is not binding (cf. Shsackle: 201).

_________ BIBLIOGRAPHY --------------------Bibliography; Abdul Haq, Mahr (1977), Seraeki zaban aur uski hamsaya ilaqai zabanen U ‘the Siraiki language and the neighbouring regional languages’, Multan. Ahmadani, Ismail (1990), ‘Ajjar ganga par da’ ‘Flock from across the Ganges’ Sojhla, vol.3-4, Bhuttavahan, Rahimyar Kahn, pp.11-5. Akmajian, A., R. Demers, A. Farmer, R. Harnish (undated) Linguistics—an Introduction to Language and Communication, Prentice-Hall of India, New Delhi. Allen, S. W. (1953), Phonetics in ancient India, Geofery Cumberlege, Oxford University Press. Bhagavad Gita, Sargeant, Winthrop ed. (1994), State University of New York press. Phonemic Inventory of Siraiki Language and Acoustic Analysis of ... ew York Press http://www.cle.org.pk/Publication/Crulp_report/CR03_16E.pdf

Aristotle (384 BCE – 322 BCE), Poetics, The Internet Classics Archive, URL classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.html (Accessed on 02-12-2013) Ashābi, Khlish Pīr, (circa 2004), ? ? (manuscript) Carr, P. (1993) Modern Linguistics—Phonology, The Macmillan Press, London. Cardona, George (2013), ‘Development of nasals in early Indo-Aryan: anunāsika and anusvāra’ in Tokyo University Linguistic Papers (TULIP) (2013) 3-81; downloaded from - - - link - - - on

Caroe, Sir Olaf (1958, edn. 1983), The Pathan with an epilogue on Russia, Oxford Karachi. Chomsky, N. (1980) Rules and Representations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Crystal, D. (1997) Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Ernst, Carl W (2005), JRAS, Series 3, 15, 1, The Royal Asiatic Society 2005, DOI: 10.1017/S1356186304004675 Printed in the United Kingdom. Faridkoti, Ainul Haq (1972), Urdu zaban ki qadim tarikh U. ‘The ancient history of Urdu language’, Lahore. Fodor, Istvan (1984), 'Language reform of the past and in the developing countries' in Istvan Fodor and Claude Hagege ed. Language reform: history and future III (1983-90), Hamburg, pp.441-54. Giegerich, H. J. (1992) English Phonology—an Introduction, University of Cambridge, New York. Gonda, J. (1958), ‘Syntax and verse structure in the Veda’ in Sukumar Sen edt. Indian linguistics 1, Linguistics Society of India, Madras, pp. 35-43.

Ghosh, Bhatakrishna (1937), Linguistic introduction to Sanskrit, The Indian Research Institute, Culcutta. Hammond, Michael (1999 (edn. 2003), The phonology of English, Oxford University Press. Hari, Syamala (2010) ‘Consciousness, mind and matter in Indian Philosophy’ in Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, September, Vol. 1/6: 640-650, QuantumDream,

Inc, www.JCER.com Ibn al-Arabi (edn., Q. 1320; Sh. 1378), Fusūs al-Hikam ‘The Seals of wisdom’ Commentary by Sain-al Din Aili bin Muhammad al-Turkǎ, Research by Muhsin Baidar, Kitabkhwana-i Milli-e Iran. Ibn al-Arabi (Eng.) Fusūs al-Hikam ‘The Seals of wisdom’, URL; sufibooks.info/IbnArabi/fusus-al-hikam-Ibn-Arabi.pdf, accessed on Oct. 18, 2013. Ibn al-Arabi U (Urdu translation, 1073, 2012 edn.), Fusūs al-Hikam ‘The Seals of wisdom, Progressive books, Lahore. Isa Upaniṣada, Internet Link (?). Jalalpuri, S. Ali Abbas (??) Panjabi shai’ri te wadat al-wujūd ‘The Punjabi poetry and the oneness-of-existace’, (?) Jensen, John T. and Margaret Stong-Jensen, ‘Sanskrit vowel hiatus*’, www.mcgill.ca/mcgwpl/sites/mcgill.ca.mcgwpl/files/jensen2012.pdf (accessed on 01-12-2013)

Jones, William, 1786, ‘Third Anniversary Discourse to the Asiatick Society’ also published as, The Sanscrit Language, 1786. Joshi, S. D. (2009, ‘Background of the Aṣṭādhyāyī’ in Kulkarni, Amba and Gérard Huet ed. Sk. computational linguistics, Springer, Hyderabad, India. Kanta, Surya (1953 edn. 1989), A grammatical dictionary of Sanskrit (Vedic) 1-Ponetics, Munshiram Manuharlal New Delhi. Katamba, F. (1989; 1996 edn.) An Introduction to Phonology, Longman, UK. Kennedy, J. M. (?) ‘Indian philosophy’ in The Stakas or wise sayings of Bartrihai (translated fro Sk.), T. Werner Laurie, Ltd., London.

Keerio, Ayaz (2010) Acoustic Analysis of Sindhi Speech - A Precurser for an ASR System, http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/6325/1/Keerio,_Ayaz.pdf

Kulkarni, Amba and Devanand Shukl (c. 2012-13), ‘Sk. Morphological Analyser: Some Issues’, Department of Sk. Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad; www.academia.edu/.../Sanskrit. . (accessed on 07-12-2013) -- ,

--

‘Vibhakti divergence between Sanskrit and Hindi’, www.academia.edu/.../ (accessed on 07-12-2013)

Lanman, Charles Rockwell (1884, edn. 1996), A Sanskrit reader, Motilal Banarsidas Publishers, Delhi Latif, Amna (2010 circa) ‘Phonetic inventory of Siraiki language and acoustic analysis of voiced implosives’, http://www.cle.org.pk/Publication/Crulp_report/CR03_16E.pdf, (accessed on 0712-2013); http://www.slashdocs.com/ihuhrw/Sr.-amna-latif.html accessed in 2012. Lehman, W. P. (1962; 1973 edn.) Historical Linguistics—an Introduction, Holt R. And Winster, New York. Masica, Colin P (1991), The Indo-Aryan languages, Cambridge. Macdonell2, A. A. (1927, 1986 edn.) Sanskrit grammar for students, Oxford University Press, New York. Macdonell, A. A. (1994; 2004 3dn.) A Vedic Grammar for Students, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi. Payne, Thomas E. (2004) Exploring Language Structure a student's guide, [email protected] Paṇini, The Aṣṭādhyāyi of Paṇini, ed. Rama Nath Sharma (1990, reprint 2000), Munshi Ram Manuhar Lal Publishers, New Delhi. Paṇini2, (1987, edn 1989), Astadhyayi of Panini, Roman transliteration and English translation by Sumitra M. Katre, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. Pollock, Sheldon (2001), Comparative studies in society and history,

Vol.43, No.2, Cambridge University Press, April 2001:392-426) --,

(2006), The Language of the Gods in the World of Men, University of California Press, London.

Radford, A. (2004; 2006 edn.) Minimalist Syntax, Cambridge University Press. Rigveda, (-) Finder Folder, http://www.sanskritweb.net/rigveda/#L4 (a ccessed on 30 Oct. 2013

Satchidananda, Swami (1978, edn 2004), The yoga sūtra of Patanjali (text & translation), Integral Yoga Publications, Yogaville, Virginia. Shackle, C. (1976) The Sr. Language of Central Pakistan, SOAS, London. Shackle, C. and Rupert Snell (1990) H. and U. since 1800: a common reader, London. Sen, Amartya (2006), The argumentative Indian, Penguin Books, US Payne, Thomas E. Exploring Language Structure-a student's guide, [email protected] Turner, R L (1923-25), 'The Sindhi recursives or voiced stops preceded by glottle closure', BSOS, Op.Cit., pp.301-15), --

--

(1915), ‘The Indo-Aryan nasals in Gujrati’ in Journal of royal Asiatic society of Graet Britain and Ireland, (pp.1734), http”//www.jstor.org/stable/25189276.

Vivekanand, Swami (1900), ‘I Am That I Am’ in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, en.wikisource.org/Notes… Lectures/ Wagha, Ahsan (1977) The development of the Siraiki language in

Pakistan, (unpublished, in SOAS Library) Whitney, William Dwight (1885), The roots, verb-forms, and primary derivatives of the Sk. language. a supplement to his Sk. grammar, Trubner & Co Leipzig and London. Zižik (?) Zvelebil, K V (1983), 'Word borrowing and word making in modern South Asian languages: Tamil' in Fodor, Istvan and Claude Hagege ed. Language reform: history and future III, (198390), Hamburg.