Linguistics in South Asia 9783110819502, 9789027904355

Citation preview

CURRENT TRENDS IN LINGUISTICS VOLUME 5

CURRENT TRENDS IN LINGUISTICS Edited by T H O M A S A.

SEBEOK

VOLUME

5

Linguistics in South Asia Associate Editors: MURRAY B. EMENEAU AND CHARLES A . FERGUSON

Assistant Editors: GERALD B. KELLEY AND NORMAN H . ZIDE

Assistants to the Editor: MAGDALENA ZOEPPRITZ AND TRIENNE GLOVER

1969

MOUTON THE HAGUE · PARIS

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 64-3663

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague.

In memorìam Louis Renou (1896-1966) Joseph Κ. Yamagiwa (1906-1968)

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

Forty-one distinguished scholars in residence at twenty-seven different U.S., Canadian, Mexican, European, or Australian institutions have contributed of their wisdom and expertise, time and energy, to the twelve Editorial Boards that have helped shape and continue to guide the policies of the Current Trends in Linguistics series. In this Introduction, 1 would like to pay tribute — and express deep personal thanks — to each of these colleagues: Arthur S.Abramson, University of Connecticut, Associate Editor, Vol. 12 Jack Berry, Northwestern University, Associate Editor, Vol. 7 Curtis Blaylock, University of Illinois, Assistant Editor, Vol. 9 J. Donald Bowen, University of California, Los Angeles, Associate Editor, Vol. 8 William Bright, University of California, Los Angeles, Associate Editor, Vol. 10 Yuen Ren Chao, University of California, Berkeley, Associate Editor, Vol. 2 David W. Crabb, Princeton University, Assistant Editor, Vol. 7 Isidore Dyen, Yale University, Associate Editor, Vol. 8 Murray B.Emeneau, University of California, Berkeley, Associate Editor, this volume Charles A. Ferguson, Stanford University, Associate Editor, Vol. 3, this volume, and Vol. 6 Paul L. Garvin, State University of New York, Buffalo, Associate Editor, Vol. 1 George W. Grace, University of Hawaii, Associate Editor, Vol. 8 Joseph H. Greenberg, Stanford University, Associate Editor, Vol. 7 Einar Haugen, Harvard University, Associate Editor, Vol. 9 Carleton T. Hodge, Indiana University, Associate Editor, Vol. 6 Henry M. Hoenigswald, University of Pennsylvania, Associate Editor, Vol. 11 Dell Hymes, University of Pennsylvania, Associate Editor, Vols. 10 and 12 Gerald B. Kelley, Cornell University, Assistant Editor, this volume John R.Krueger, Indiana University, Assistant Editor, Vols. 1, 2, and 6 Robert Lado, Georgetown University, Associate Editor, Vol. 4 Yolanda Lastra, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Assistant Editor, Vol. 4 Robert E. Longacre, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Associate Editor, Vol. 11 John Lötz, Center for Applied Linguistics, Associate Editor, Vol. 10 Horace Lunt, Harvard University, Associate Editor, Vol. 1 Albert H. Marckwardt, Princeton University, Associate Editor, Vol. 10

viii

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

Norman A. McQuown, University of Chicago, Associate Editor, Vol. 4 Richard B.Noss, Foreign Service Institute, Associate Editor, Vol. 2 Geoffrey O'Grady, University of Victoria, Assistant Editor, Vol. 8 Herbert H. Paper, University of Michigan, Associate Editor, Vol. 6 Herbert Rubenstein, Lehigh University, Associate Editor, Vol. 12 Sol Saporta, University of Washington, Associate Editor, Vol. 4 Paul Schachter, University of California, Los Angeles, Assistant Editor, Vol. 7 Gene M. Schramm, University of Michigan, Assistant Editor, Vol. 6 Bernard Spolsky, University of New Mexico, Assistant Editor, Vol. 12 Edward Stankiewicz, University of Chicago, Associate Editor, Vols. 1 and 12 Albert Valdman, Indiana University, Assistant Editor, Vol. 3 Jean-Paul Vinay, University of Victoria, Associate Editor, Vol. 10 Werner Winter, University of Kiel, Associate Editor, Vol. 9 Stephen A. Wurm, Australian National University, Associate Editor, Vol. 8 Joseph K. Yamagiwaf, University of Michigan, Associate Editor, Vol. 2 Norman H.Zide, University of Chicago, Assistant Editor, this volume An outline of the master plan for the series most recently appeared in my Introduction to the previous volume. In light of the latest modifications, the present status of the series is as follows: Vol. 1, Soviet and East European Linguistics, which was out of print for a time, has been reproduced in 1968 and is now available again. Vol. 2, Linguistics in East Asia and South East Asia, appeared in the Spring of 1968. Vol. 3, Theoretical Foundations, first published in 1966, is still obtainable as a whole. The chapters by Chomsky, Greenberg, and Hockett were also made available in separate booklets, and a revised version of that by Haas is about to come out (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 56, 59, 60, and 57, respectively). Vol. 4, Ibero-American and Caribbean Linguistics, appeared in the Summer of 1968. Vol. 6, Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, is, at the time of writing, in first proof stage; this book should, consequently, be out before the Fall of 1969. Vol. 7, Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa, is proceeding simultaneously with Vol. 6, and is expected to be out at the same time. Vol. 8, Linguistics in Oceania, is not far behind the last two : it is currently being typeset, and will probably be ready by the end of next year as well. Vol. 9, Linguistics in Western Europe, is now being edited. Since this book will contain some forty chapters, many of which must first be translated into English from German or a variety of Romance languages, I estimate that it cannot go to press before next Summer; still, publication in 1970 may safely be envisaged. Vol. 10, Linguistics in North America, is partially funded, and invitations commensurate with the level of support obtained so far have been issued, setting a deadline of December, 1969. Full funding is anticipated within the next three months, however,

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

ix

and, in hope of this, the book is being prepared for press by the end of 1970 ; this would mean a publication date the following Winter. The respective tables of contents of Vol. 11, Diachronic, Areal, and Typological Linguistics, and of Vol. 12, Linguistics and Adjacent Arts and Sciences, have been designed, and submitted for appropriate financing just this month. If both applications are successful, the books could appear by the Spring of 1972, although this estimate is probably too sanguine considering the presently anticipated size of Vol. 12 — up to two thousand printed pages. Each volume in the series contains an Index of Names, and most include, in addition, an Index of Languages mentioned in that book; Vol. 3 had an Index of Terms. Vols. 7 and 8, moreover, featured extensive systematic check lists of the native languages spoken in the areas covered, whether or not mentioned in the body of the book. It now seems desirable to prepare and publish a unified, detailed index to all twelve volumes in the set. The concluding volume, accordingly, will consist of at least these three parts: a topical index to the whole series; a cumulative Index of Names; and a cumulative — perhaps analytical — Index of Languages. (Such a volume must, necessarily, be put off until each of the preceding ones is at least in page proof stage.) One other volume has been recommended by members of several Editorial Boards, and is under serious consideration. The suggestion is that a volume be assembled containing treatments of every subject omitted earlier, and that this be published as a sort of an addendum to the series; in it might be printed corrigenda as well. The need for such a compilation arises from the fact that the ideal table of contents designed by the editors for a given volume is seldom fully realized: in the long process between design and publication, some invited contributors may die, others withdraw because of illness or the pressure of more urgent obligations, and still others — fortunately, very few — inexplicably fail to turn in their manuscript at all; occasionally, articles that are submitted turn out to be, alas, unpublishable. In view of these unforeseen contingencies, practically each volume suffers from lacunae, evident to the observant reader, that ought certainly to be filled. An alternative way to remedy the situation, however, would be to recommence the series — under a new Editor, I hasten to add — in a second ten-year cycle, where a special effort would be made to cover the missing topics. Perhaps the most time-consuming, tedious, yet wholly necessary aspect of my overall editorial responsibilities is to raise funds to help with the preparation of each successive volume. Three different U.S. federal agencies have so far, with admirable generosity, defrayed the ever-mounting costs of the first nine volumes. This seems the place to single out the extraordinarily valuable assistance of our Office of Education, which has awarded four contracts to date to the Indiana University Foundation, in support, respectively, of Vols. 4, 5 (USOE-OE-6-14-013), 6, and 7. As every concerned American scholar is all too painfully aware, the last, exceptionally economy-minded, Congress has vigorously chopped the proposed level of appropriations for research and education. In the concluding days of the Johnson administration, we are coasting

χ

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

on a plateau, ignorant of what may lie ahead in regard to the budgetary situation under the Nixon administration and in the next Congress, yet optimistic that the federal support of science will, over the long pull, turn upward withal. In this time of relative famine at home, it was very gratifying indeed to have just recently been granted partial support in aid of Vol. 10 by The Canada Council (as will be spelled out in my Introduction to that book). The burdens of financing the series, incidentally, are shared (beginning with Vol. 8) with the staff of the Center for Applied Linguistics, nobably John H. Hammer, for whose efforts we can all be grateful. This volume, on Linguistics in South Asia, once again exemplifies an important facet of editorial policy, first announced in Vol. 2, calling for the services of "the best and most knowledgeable collaborators available, regardless of their location or even fluency in English." The present contributors come from three continents: South Asia — Ceylon, India, and Pakistan — is heavily represented; from Europe, we welcome our first Soviet collaborator, as well as authors from Czechoslovakia, England, France, and The Netherlands; and quite a few of those now residing in the United States are themselves of Asian provenance. The fact that an increasing number of Current Trends contributors lack native competence in English continues to pose mounting problems, involving the location of competent translators and taxing the skills of our technical staff both in editing and indexing, but the principle of global distribution of authorship still seems to me paramount. The death of Louis Renou, a few days after he wrote me that "je n'estime pas nécessaire de revoir la traduction anglaise avant qu'elle soit donnée aux presses", raised special perplexities that were essentially resolved by Barend A. Van Nooten (University of California, Berkeley) ; further revisions in the manuscript were then made by Associate Editor Emeneau and in galley by Staal. The Master List of Abbreviations, Index of Languages, and Index of Names were compiled by Magdalena Zoeppritz (now at the University of Mainz). The Editor wishes to express his appreciation to her for attending to these chores and many others; her help in seeing this book through galley proof stage has been invaluable, as has that of Trienne Glover in seeing it through page proof stage. Thanks are due to the four editorial associates and the thirty-four living contributors whose work appears in the following pages, for their wholehearted cooperation; to Albert S. Storm and Julia A. Petrov, of the U.S. Office of Education, for their continuing help and understanding; and to the staff of Mouton & Co., for their responsiveness to my editorial demands, reasonable and unreasonable. I have taken the liberty of dedicating this book to the memory of Louis Renou (d. 1966) and of my old friend, Joseph K. Yamagiwa, word of whose death reached me while I was drafting these lines. Bloomington, December 24, 1968

THOMAS A.SEBEOK

CONTENTS

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION

VU

MASTER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

vin

PART O N E : INDO-ARYAN L A N G U A G E S

Sanskrit, by Thomas Burrow 3 Comparative Indo-Aryan, by Gordon H. Fairbanks 36 Middle Indo-Aryan, by Ernest Bender 46 Hindi, by Vladimir Miltner 55 Bibliographical Review of Bengali Studies, by Ksenija L. Ciáikova and Charles A. Ferguson 85 99 Marathi, by Franklin C. Southworth Gujarati, by Prabodh B. Pandit 105 Oriya and Assamese, by D. P. Pattanayak 122 Panjabi, by Kali Charan Bahl 153 Sindhi, by Lachman M. Khubchandani 201 Sinhalese, by M. W. Sugathapala De Silva 235 Nepali and Pahari, by T. W. Clark 249 Urdu, by Masud Husain Khan 277 Kashmiri and Other Dardic Languages, by Braj B. Kachru 284

PART T W O : DRAVIDIAN L A N G U A G E S

Comparative Dravidian Studies, by Bhadriraju Krishnamurti The Non-Literary Dravidian Languages, by Murray B. Emeneau Tamil, by Kamil V. Zvelebil Malayalam, by Vadasery I. Subramoniam Telugu, by Gerald Kelley Kannada, by H. S. Biligiri

309 334 343 372 382 394

xii

CONTENTS PART THREE: OTHER LANGUAGE FAMILIES

Munda and Non-Munda Austroasiatic Languages, by Norman H. Zide . . . The Tibeto-Burman Languages of South Asia, by Roy Andrew Miller . . . . Iranian Languages, by D. N. MAcKenzie

411 431 450

PART FOUR: LINGUISTICS AND RELATED FIELDS IN SOUTH ASIA

Panini, by Louis Renouf Sanskrit Philosophy of Language, by J. F. Staal General Linguistics in South Asia, by Ashok R. Kelkar Toward a Phonological Typology of the Indian Linguistic Area, by A. K. Ramanujan and Colin Masica Official Language Problems and Policies in South Asia, by Jyotirindra Das Gupta Sociolinguistics in South Asia, by John J. Gumperz The Semantics of Kinship in South India and Ceylon, by Nur Yalman . . . English in South Asia, by Braj B. Kachru Linguistic Studies in Pakistan, by Anwar S. Dil Linguistics in Ceylon, (I), by D. E. Hettiaratchi Linguistics in Ceylon, (II): Tamil, by A. Sathasivam

48] 499 532

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

760

INDEX OF LANGUAGES

771

INDEX OF NAMES

789

543 578 597 607 627 679 736 752

MASTER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAntH ACLS AcOr ADAW AIOC AION-L AL ALB ALH ALI AM AmA AMAT AnL AnnIPhO Anthropos AO AOH AR ArchL AS Av. AUC-Ph Β BDC B.E. BEFEO BhV BIHP Bo BPTJ Br. BS.. BSL BSOAS CAJ CAnthr

Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarium Hungaricae (Budapest). American Council of Learned Societies. Acta Orientalia, ediderunt Societates Orientales Danica, Norvegica, Svecica (= Le Monde Oriental, Copenhague). Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst (Berlin). All India Oriental Congress. Annali, Istituto Universitario Orientale, Sezione linguistica (Napoli). Acta Linguistica ( = Revue internationale de linguistique structurale, Copenhague). The Adyar Library Bulletin, Adyar (Madras, India). Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest). Atlas linguistique des parlers iraniens. Asia Major. New Series (London). American Anthropologist (Menasha, Wise.). Atti e Memorie dell'Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere 'La Colombaria' (Firenze). Anthropological Linguistics (Bloomington, Ind.). Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire orientales et staves (Bruxelles). Anthropos (= Revue internationale d'ethnologie et de linguistique/Internationale Zeitschrift für Völker- und Sprachenkunde, Fribourg, Suisse). Archiv Orientálni (Praha). Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarium Hungaricae (Budapest). Asiatic Researches. Transactions of the Society Instituted in Bengal for inquiring into the History and Antiquities, The Arts, Sciences, and Literature of Asia (Calcutta. 11 vols. 1799-1810; Repr. London). Archivum Linguisticum. A review of Comparative Philology and General Linguistics (Glasgow). American Speech. A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage (New York). Avestan. See pp. 3-35. Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philologica. Praha. Bengali. See p. 646, fn. 78. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute (Poona). Buddhist Era. Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient (Saigon). Bharatiya Vidyä (Bombay). Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica (Taipei). Bombay and Sind. See p. 646, fn. 78. Biuletyn polskiego towarzystwa jçzykoznawczego [Bulletin de la Société polonaise de Linguistique] (Wroclaw & Kraków). Brahui. See p. 310. see V.S. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris (Paris). Bulletin of The School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London (London). Central Asiatic Journal (The Hague & Wiesbaden). Current Anthropology. A world journal of the sciences of man (Chicago).

xiv CFS CM CT D DAb

MASTER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure (Genève). Proto-Central Munda. See p. 413. Colloquial Tamil. Dravidian. See p. 646, fn. 78. Dissertation Abstracts (formerly Microfilm Abstracts). A guide to dissertations and monographs available in microfilm (Ann Arbor, Mich.). DED Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (Oxford, 1961). DEDS Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, Supplement. D.M.K. Dravida Munnetre Kazhagam. See p. 481, fn. 1. DV English. See p. 646, fn. 78. E EI Epigraphica Indica (Calcutta). ELT English Language Teaching (London). FO Folia Orientalia. Revue des études orientales (Cracovie). Ga. Gata?. Seep. 412. Gad. Gadaba. See p. 310. GGA Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen (Göttingen). GK. Gengo Kenkyü (= Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan, Tokyo). Go. Gondi. See p. 310. Gorum. See p. 412. Go. GR Proto-Gutob-Remo. See p. 413. GRG Proto-Gutob-Remo-Gata?. See p. 413. Gu. Gutob. See p. 412. Guj. Gujarati. See pp. 3-35; p. 646, fn. 78. GUPGSJ Gauhati University Postgraduate Students' Journal (Gauhati). Hindustani. See p. 646, fu. 78. H HandVIFC Handelingen van het Vlaamse Filologencongres (Leuven). Hermanns See p. 434. HJAS Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies (Cambridge, Mass.). HK Hindu Kashmiri. See p. 291. Indian Antiquary (Bombay). IA Modern Indo-Aryan Languages of India. See p. 646, fn. 78. IA IA Indo-Aryan. IATR International Association of Tamil Research. Indo-European. IE Indogermanische Forschungen (= Zeitschrift für Indogermanistik und allgemeine IF Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin). IHQ International Historical Quarterly (Calcutta). IIJ Indo-Iranian Journal ('s-Gravenhage). IJAL International Journal of American Linguistics (Baltimore). IL Indian Linguistics (= Journal of the Linguistic Society of India, Poona). Indian English. See p. 646, fn. 78. IndE Indian English See p. 636, fn. 38. Indianness See p. 636, fn. 38. IRAL International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching/Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik in der Spracherziehung (Heidelberg). IzvANTadi Izvestija Akademii nauk Tadzickoj SSR, Otdelenie obSâestvennych nauk (Dusänbe). IzvSOsNII Izvestija Severo-Osetinskogo nauöno-issledovateVskogo instituía. Jazykoznanie (Ordzonikidze). JA Journal Asiatique (Paris). Journal of the American Oriental Society (New Haven, Conn.). JAOS JASB Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Calcutta). JASP Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan (Dacca). The Journal of Austronesian Studies (Victoria, B.C.). JAst JBORS Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society (Patna). The Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (Colombo). JCBRAS

MASTER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS JEOL

XV

Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap 'Ex Oriente Lux' [Annuaire de la Société orientale 'Ex Oriente Lux'] (Leiden). JGyLS Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society. Third Series (Edinburgh). JI JIvana. JOIB Journal of the Oriental Institute, M.S. University of Baroda (Baroda, India). JRAI Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (London). JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (London). JRASB Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal (Calcutta). Ju. Juang. See p. 412. Ka. Kannada. See pp. 309-310. K.Ga. KoijcJëkôr Gadaba. See pp. 309-333. Kh. Kharia. See p. 412. Kher. Proto-Kherwarian. See p. 413. KK Proto-Korku-Kherwarian. See p. 413. KM Proto-Koraput Munda. Ko. Korku. Seep. 412. Ko. Kota. Seep. 310. Kod. Koçlagu. See p. 310. Kol Kolami. See p. 310. Kratylos Kratylos. Kritisches Berichts- und Rezensionsorgan für indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (Wiesbaden). KSINA Kratkie soobsienija Instituía narodov Azii (Moskva). KSIV Kratkie soobscenija Instituto vostokovedenija, Akademija Nauk SSSR (Moskva). Kur. Kurukh. See p. 310. Kw. Korwa. See p. 412. KZ Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, begründet von A. Kuhn (Göttingen). Lt See p. 638. L, See p. 638. Lg. Language. Journal of the Linguistic Society of America (Baltimore). Lingua Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics [Revue internationale de linguistique générale] (Amsterdam). LL Language Learning (Ann Arbor). LPosn Lingua Posnaniensis (= Czasopiimo poiwiçcone jçzykoznawstwu porównawczemu i ogólnemu (Poznan). LRGP Linguistic Research Group of Pakistan. LSI The Linguistic Survey of India, ed. G. A. Grierson (1903-28). See p. 355. LT Literary Tamil. Luce See p. 434. M Proto-Munda. Seep. 413. Ma. Malayalam. See p. 310. Malt. Malto. See p. 310. Man Man. A Record of Anthropological Science (London). Mid. Ta Middle Tamil. See pp. 309-333. MH Modifier and head. See pp. 627-678. MH Proto-Mundari-Ho-etc. See p. 413. MHQ Modifier, head, and qualifier. See pp. 627-678. MIA Middle Indo-Aryan. Mdn. Ta Modern Tamil. See pp. 309-333. Migot See p. 434. MIO Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Berlin). MK Muslim Kashmiri. Seep. 291. MKNA Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, afdeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe reeks (Amsterdam). Morgenstierne See p. 434.

xvi MPhon MSH MSP MSS Mu. NAA N AWG

MASTER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Le Maitre Phonétique. Organe de l'Association Phonétique Internationale (London). Modem Standard Hindi. See p. 167. Modem Standard Panjabi. See p. 156. Münchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft (München). Mundari. See p. 412. Narody Azii i Afriki (= Istorija, èkonomika, kuVtura, Moskva). Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse (Göttingen). NDVS-F Nauânye doklady VysSej skoly, Filologiöeskie nauki (Moskva). NESC Journal of the National Educational Society of Ceylon. NIA New Indo-Aryan. Nishida H K See p. 434. Nishida LL See p. 434. Nishida SH See p. 434. N.k. Naiki. See p. 310. NM Proto-North Munda. See p. 413. NTS Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap (Oslo). OHRJ Orissa Historical Research Journal (Orissa). OIA Old Indo-Aryan. OLD Oriental Literary Digest. A monthly Journal devoted to the reviews on current literature in all branches of Indology and allied subjects in the field of Oriental learning (Poona). Oil. Ollari. Seep. 310. Orbis Orbis. Bulletin international de documentation linguistique (Louvain). OTa. Old Tamil. See pp. 309-333. P. Panjabi. See p. 646, fn. 78. Pa. Parji. See p. 310. Paideuma Paideuma (= Mitteilungen zur Kulturkunde, Wiesbaden). PAPhilosS Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia). PCDr. Proto Central Dravidian. See pp. 309-333. PDr. Proto-Dravidian. See pp. 343-371. Phonetica Phonetica (= Internationale Zeitschrift für Phonetik). International Journal of Phonetics (Bazel & New York). Pkt. Prakrit. PNDr. Proto North Dravidian. See pp. 309-333. Praka Prabuddhakarnataka. PSDr. Proto South Dravidian. See pp. 309-333. PV Problemy vostokovedenija (Moskva), after 1961, NAA. Q Quest. A quarterly in inquiry, criticism and ideas (Bombay). RASB Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal. RBPh Revue Beige de Philologie et d'Histoire [Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis] (Bruxelles). Re. Remo. See p. 412. RHMA = ΡΗΜΑ ΡΗΜΑ (= Mitteilungen zur idg., vornehmlich indoiranischen Wortkunde, sowie zur holothetischen Sprachtheorie (München). RENLO Revue de l'École Nationale des Langues Orientales (= Structures des langues et civilisations du monde contemporain, Paris). RHR Revue d'Histoire des Religions (= Annales du Musée Guimet, Paris). RIL Rendiconti dell'Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, Classe di lettere e scienze morali e storiche (Milano). RL Ricerche Linguistiche. Bolletino dell'Istituto di Glottologia dell'Università di Roma (Roma). RO Rocznik Orientalistyczny (Warszawa). Roerich See p. 434. Róna-Tas See p. 434. RSO Rivista degli Studi Orientali (Roma).

MASTER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Sa. SAE SAL(s) SCL SEATO Semitica SG SGTK Shafer C1H Shafer C1ST Shafer EH Shafer LL Shafer Ν Shafer PA Shafer PC Skt. SJA SL SM So. SO SO AS SovVo SPE Sprache SS Ta. Tarn. TAPS TC Te. Tel. TlJa To. Toch. AB TP TPhS TSamU TTbilU Tu. TUCLS TVB TVIIJA UAJb UCPL UCR Uray UUA UZIV UZLU

xvii

Santali. See p. 412. South Asian English. See p. 628. South Asian Language(s). See p. 639. Studii fi Cercetäri Lingvistice (Bucureçti). South-east Asia Treaty Organization. Semitica. Cahiers publiés par l'Institut d'études sémitiques de l'Université de Paris (Paris). Proto-Sora-Gorum. Seminar on Grammatical Theories in Kannada. See p. 434. See p. 434. See p. 434. See p. 434. See p. 434. See p. 434. See p. 434. Sanskrit. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology (Albuquerque, N.M.). Studia Linguistica (= Revue de linguistique générale et comparée, Lund). Proto-South Munda. Sora. See p. 412. Studia Orientalia, edidit Societas Orientalis Fennica (Helsinki). School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Sovetskoe vostokovedenie, izdat. A.N. SSSR institut voskokovedenija (Moskva). Society for Pure English. Die Sprache (= Zeitschrift für Sprachenwissenschaft, Wien). Sidat Sangaräva. Tamil. See p. 309. Tamil. See p. 646, fn. 78. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia). Tamil Culture. Telugu. See p. 309. Telegu. See p. 646, fn. 78. Trudy Instituía Jazykoznanija, Akademija Nauk SSSR (Moskva). Toda. See p. 310. Tocharian A and B. T'oung Pao (= Archives concernant Γhistoire, les langues, la géographie et les arts de l'Asie Orientale, Leiden). Transactions of the Philological Society (Oxford). Trudy Samarkandskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. Alisera Navoi (= Novaja serija, Samarkand). Trudy Tbilisskogo gosud. universiteta (= Serija filologileskich nauk Sromebi. Pilologiur mecnierebata seria, Tbilisi). Tuju. See p. 310. Transactions of the University of Ceylon Linguistic Society. Telugu verbal bases. Trudy voermogo instituía inostrannyx jazykov (Moskva). Ural-Allaische Jahrbücher (Wiesbaden). University of California Publications in Linguistics (Berkeley & Los Angeles). University of Ceylon Review. See p. 434. Uppsala Universitets Ârsskrift [Recueil de travaux publié par l'Université d'Uppsala] (Uppsala). Uâenye zapiski Instituía vostokovedenija (Moskva). Uéenye zapiski Leningradskogo ordena Lenina gosudarstvennogo Universiteta im. A. A. idanova (Leningrad).

xviii VDI v.i. VJa VKNA VLU V.S. Word WR WZKM WZKSO WZUR ZDMG ZPhon

MASTER LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Vestnik Drevnej Istorii (Moskva). See V.S. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (Moskva). Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afdeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe reeks (Amsterdam). Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo Universiteta (Leningrad). Vikram samvat. Word (=Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York, New York). See p. 481, fn. 1. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes (Wien). Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens und Archiv für indische Philosophie (Wien). Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock. Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Wiesbaden). Zeitschrift für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (Berlin). (From vol. 14, 1961 : Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung.)

PART ONE

INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGES

SANSKRIT

THOMAS BURROW

The progress of Sanskrit studies in the last twenty years is characterised by no striking new developments, but there has been a steady output of work in the various departments of phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicography, both in the form of books and separate publications and in articles published in a wide variety of journals. This output will be surveyed in the order of the above mentioned subdivisions, but to begin with works of a general nature dealing with grammar and lexicography will be discussed. The fundamental work on Sanskrit grammar, the Altindische Grammatik of Jacob Wackernagel, begun in 1896, was brought a considerable step nearer completion by the publication in 1954 of the second part of Volume Π, dealing with the nominal suffixes, by Albert Debrunner. It contains an exhaustive treatment of the entire material, so far as at present available, together with the citation of all the comparative material available from the other IE languages. As in previous volumes of the Grammatik there is also a complete record of what has been written on the subject by modern scholars. The remaining section, on the verb, is understood to be under active preparation, and it is to be hoped that it will appear in the not too distant future. The long period which had elapsed since the publication of the first volume meant that by this time it had become somewhat out of date. To remedy this situation a supplementary volume was produced in 1957 containing (1) a French translation of the original introduction by L. Renou with additional notes by him, and (2) additional notes on the first volume by Debrunner incorporating references to the literature on that section which had appeared in the intervening period. In addition a short fascicule containing additions to Vol. II, 1 (1905) was issued by Debrunner. At the same time the two volumes, which had become unavailable, were reprinted. A grammar of the Vedic language was published by L. Renou in 1952. Its object was to provide a purely descriptive account of the language of the mantras, based on the most up-to-date information available without reference to comparative IndoEuropean on the one hand or to classical Sanskrit on the other. On account of the restricted space available to the author there is no complete enumeration of forms such as are found in the standard work of Macdonnell, nor any citations of the

4

THOMAS BURROW

opinions of other scholars. It is the unusual forms in particular that attract the author's attention, and the book can be described to some extent (in the phrase that he applies to the language of the mantras) as a 'repertoire of anomalies'. The grammar supplements, rather than replaces, the standard work of Macdonell, but it is an indispensable supplement and an invaluable tool for the study of the Vedic texts. In 1956, the same author published his Histoire de la langue Sanskrite, thereby filling up a gap which had long been felt. Apart from the introduction to Wackernagel's Grammar which was necessarily concise, and a short work by Mansion (1931) which dealt also with comparative grammar and with Middle and New Indo-Aryan, there was no work dealing with the historical evolution of Sanskrit in its various stages and its position throughout the ages as a language of culture, literature, and administration. All this is traced in detail in Renou's work, to which abundant bibliographical notes are added. Renou's grammar of classical Sanskrit, which was first published in two volumes in 1930, was reissued in one volume, with additions and corrections in 1961. The linguistic study of Sanskrit in its most ancient form is based on the interpretation of the Vedic texts, the obscurities of which are being gradually cleared up. The long delayed publication of Geldner's translation of the Rgveda in 1951 (Index 1957) was a landmark in this progress. The major contribution since then is the Vedic portion of the Études védiques et panaméennes by Renou. This consists of annotated translations of the hymns of the Rgveda arranged according to deity. The translation of a considerable portion of the Rgveda is now available in this form, and it is essential to use this translation in addition to that of Geldner in studying the Rgveda. Many valuable and original remarks concerning points of grammar and vocabulary are found scattered throughout the notes on the translation. A new and fully revised edition of A. Thumb's well-known Handbuch des Sanskrit, prepared by R. Hauschild, appeared in 1958-59 (a corresponding volume containing texts and glossary had already appeared in 1953). Thumb's Handbuch (1st edition 1904, 2nd edition, with additions by H. Hirt, 1929) served the dual purpose of an elementary course of Sanskrit and an introduction to the comparative philology of Old Indo-Aryan. The revised edition follows the same plan and aims at the same purposes, but it is considerably enlarged, the bibliography is brought up to date and such changes as appeared to be necessary are introduced. At the same time the theoretical framework is on the whole conservative, and, for instance, no serious account is taken of laryngeals in treating the historical phonology. The introductory portion is very considerably enlarged, and this is much to be welcomed in spite of one or two questionable doctrines, such as the existence of 'Indians' in South Russia, their migration to India via the Mitanni country and an impossibly low date for the Aryan invasion of India and the composition of the Rgveda. The greatest need of Sanskrit studies at the present time is a new dictionary to replace the great Petersburg lexicon which becomes more and more out of date as new texts are published. This work has been undertaken by the Deccan College,

SANSKRIT

5

Poona, under the directorship of S. M. Katre with the support of the government of India. During the period covered by this survey the work of the Dictionary Department has consisted mainly of the collection of material. A list of the works to be excerpted for the dictionary has been published under the title of Minimum Programme and scholars from various parts of India and abroad are collaborating in the work. A number of unpublished Sanskrit léxica have been edited as part of the work preliminary to the dictionary and a periodical Väk appears from time to time containing various collections of material. The other main center in India for lexicographical work is the Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute, Hoshiarpur (formerly Lahore) directed by Visva-bandhu áastri. Since 1935, the Institute has been engaged in compiling and publishing a series of word-indexes covering the entire Vedic literature (Samhitäs, Brähmanas, Upanisads) and its ancillary literature (Vedängas, including Grammar). During the period under review the sections dealing with the Samhitäs (6 vols., 1942-63) and Vedängas (4 vols., 1958-61) have been completed. The sections dealing with the Brähmanas and Upanisads were published previously, but a revised edition of the former is now under preparation. In addition, the first volume of a consolidated word-index covering all the four sections has been issued (1964). A Vedic dictionary based on the word indexes is contemplated. Though somewhat cumbersome to use, the Vedic word-indexes are now an essential tool for Vedic studies as well as for studies in Sanskrit grammar. They will also constitute an essential basis for the projected Thesaurus and co-operation between the two institutes for this purpose has now been established. Another useful contribution to Vedic lexicography is the volume entitled Beiträge zur vedischen Lexicographie, by Aryendra Sharma published as Heft 5/6 of the Journal RHMA in 1959-60. It registers the words in Bloomfield's Vedic Concordance not previously treated in the dictionaries, along with detailed text-critical, philological, and etymological notes. The Practical Sanskrit Dictionary of Pandit V. S. Apte, which since its first publication in 1890 had been the standard work used in Indian schools and colleges, was republished in a revised and enlarged edition in three volumes by P. K. Gode and C. G. Karve in 1957-59. Vocabulary material from works not available at the time of the first edition, e.g. from the Arthasästra is included in the new edition. One of the major lacunae from which Indo-European as well as Sanskrit studies have suffered was the absence of an adequate etymological dictionary of Sanskrit. The only work of the kind available was the small etymological dictionary by C. C. Uhlenbeck (1898-99) in which no bibliographical information was provided. Another etymological dictionary by E. and J. Leumann of which the first part appeared in 1907 was never completed. In order to fill this gap, a new etymological dictionary was undertaken by M. Mayrhofer of which the first part appeared in 1953. Between then and 1967 nineteen fascicules have appeared bringing the dictionary up to var$ma. The completion of the work is to be expected in the next few years.

6

THOMAS BURROW

Mayrhofens work was planned in the first place as a concise etymological dictionary and although, unlike Uhlenbeck's dictionary, it provided some bibliographical information this was on a restricted scale. As the work progressed, this plan was gradually altered and the treatment of the items and the extent of the bibliography became progressively more copious. Consequently, although the epithet 'kurzgefasstes' is retained in the title, it hardly applies in the later stages of the work. It may turn out to be advisable in the long run to revise the earlier portions so that they are brought into line with the scale of the later portion of the work. In addition to bringing up to date the treatment of the basic Indo-European constituent of the Sanskrit vocabulary, Mayrhofer's dictionary also takes full cognizance of the work that has been done on the question of the loanwords from the pre-Aryan languages of India, notably Dravidian and Munda. In approving or disapproving the suggestions made in this field his attitude is judicious, and the reader is made aware of the extent of the problem. In the realm of phonetics the most important work to appear during the period was the treatise on sandhi by W. S. Allen, who had previously produced a useful work on the phonetic statements of the ancient Indian grammarians. The scope of the work is concisely stated in the subtitle as being the theoretical phonetic and historical bases of word junction in Sanskrit. It is one of the few works under review in which the terminology and methodology of modern structural linguistics is consistently applied. This particular section of Sanskrit grammar is of course one that is peculiarly suited to this kind of treatment. In addition to providing the student with a full and accurate treatment of the subject in modern terms, the book also puts forward some original theories concerning the nature of certain of the processes involved. Brief accounts of the pronunciation of Sanskrit in modern India are given by S. K. Chatterjee and K. Kunjunni Raja, the latter dealing specifically with the pronunciation of Kerala. This pronunciation naturally corresponds to that of the languages of the various regions, but according to Chatterjee 'a modern pan-Indian norm is now developing for the whole of India, and this is based on the pronunciation of Sanskrit as it obtained among the Maharashtrian and South Indian pandits and sästrins settled in Bañaras from the eighteenth century, modified by the local partdits from Eastern U.P. and Mithila'. As regards the ancient pronunciation of Sanskrit, we rely mainly on the statements of the ancient authorities, for the interpretation of which we have the above mentioned work of W. S. Allen. In the field of historical phonology notice should be taken of the conclusions reached by H. W. Bailey concerning the development of the cerebrals. It now seems clear from the evidence produced by him, particularly from Iranian correspondences, that spontaneous cerebralisation occurred in the Old Indo-Iranian period on a greater scale than was previously thought. Bailey expresses the development as follows (BSOAS, 24.480): 'In the Indo-Aryan language separated as a colonial speech by greater distance from its base, the older nt, nd single group had fissioned

SANSKRIT

7

into two: nt, nd maintained and n{, nd developed... The separation occurs in Old Indian also in single sounds'. The former development is illustrated by Sanskrit kun(ha- 'blunt', Pali kuntha- 'blunt, lame, bent', kunda- 'bent', compared with NPers. kund 'blunt', BalocI kunt 'id', and the latter by Sanskrit nada- 'reed' beside nada- in the Rgveda. The originality of the latter form is shown by Αν. ηαδα- 'reed' and Hittite nata-. This spontaneous cerebralisation is particularly common in the case of intervocalic -η-, e.g. sthüriä, marfi-, veni-, etc. In a later article the Sanskrit root mand- 'to adorn', and the words manda- mandapa- are explained in the same way. There seems little doubt now on the basis of this and other evidence that the facts are as Bailey has stated them, and it is no longer necessary, as was once customary, to assume the elision of IE -r- or -/- in finding an etymology for such words. The latter type of explanation is of course valid in some cases, but it is particularly unlikely in the cases of the groups with nasal, -nd-. Some other points of phonetic development are touched on by Bailey in his etymological articles. An alternation between m and b can be established as existing in certain word-groups, also between k and kh, and the palatalisation of k in Indo-Aryan sometimes fails to take place without any particular reason being apparent (e.g. kinva-). Except in general works on Indo-European (with which the present account is not concerned), the laryngeal theory does not figure largely in recent studies of Sanskrit. The scholar who has applied it most consistently is F. B. J. Kuiper who believes that laryngeals continued to exist into the Indo-Iranian period. In previous articles he had dealt with various aspects of this subject including an illuminating paper on the shortening of final vowels in the Rigveda. In such cases the laryngeal theory provides the most economic explanation of the facts. In the period covered by the present survey he deals, in his article published in 1961, with the shortening that appears in composition in such examples as dîdhiti- 'devotion', susuti- 'easy giving birth', carkrti- 'praise', and bhagatti- 'the gift of a portion' and maintains that the phenomenon is best explained on the assumption that a laryngeal which was still preserved at the very beginning of Indo-Aryan was elided in this specific environment. The question of aspirate sandhi (labdha-, baddha- : dhatte) is examined by J. E. B. Gray (1964) who comes to the conclusion that "the normal resolution, even within IE itself, of the group voiced aspirate plus plosive was in no way different from that of unaspirated plosive plus plosive, provided always that the element or component of aspiration could be expressed on the root syllable [dhatte] ; where it could not be so expressed (that is, where the root initial was a vowel, semivowel, etc.), then the normal resolution was that of voiced aspirate conjunct [iddha-, etc.]." R. Hiersche has discussed at length (1964) the problem of the tenues aspiratae in Indo-European, and since this is predominantly concerned with Indo-Iranian material, it deserves to be mentioned here. His treatise is largely concerned with criticism of the laryngeal theory, and in particular with that part of it which explains the IndoIranian tenues aspiratae as developments of tenuis plus laryngeal. In the case of the

8

THOMAS BURROW

groups skh, sth, sph he is disposed to see an intermediate stage between old IndoAryan and Prakrit, and cases of initial kh-, etc., are explained as Prakritisms for skh-, etc. Although this kind of development may have occurred in some of the instances quoted, the attempt to apply it consistently seems to produce greater complications and difficulties than the laryngeal theory to which it is opposed. All the same, the book, which contains a wealth of detailed discussion, is a useful contribution, and it will have to be taken into account in future discussion of the subject. Minor points of Sanskrit phonetics are discussed by Abhyankar (1958), Bright (1958), Ghatage (1961), Mehendale (1959), and Rastogi (1957). R. L. Turner (1964) has discussed evidence from the modern languages concerning the phonetic development in the word buddhi- with the conclusion that there is some evidence for the alternative development in ancient times of sibilant instead of -d-, which was then subject to cerebralisation after -u-. In dealing with phonetics mention should also be made of the Vedic chant and its connection with pitch-accent which has long been extinct in spoken Sanskrit. This chant is still preserved as a living tradition particularly in Southern India and it has been studied recently among others by J. E. B. Gray and J. F. Staal. The correlation of this evidence with that provided by Panini and the Prätisäkhyas is complicated by the fact that the tradition varies in different parts of the country, and it seems that some modifications have taken place over the centuries. It is possible that the system preserved by the Nambudiri brahmans of Malabar is the most conservative. Extensive recordings have been made of these recitations and are now available to interested students. The question of the nature of the Vedic accent has been reexamined by the two authors mentioned in the light of the more abundant evidence that has become available. There is still scope for more work in this line (and in the related field of Vedic ritual) while direct evidence is still available. How much longer the tradition can remain alive under modern conditions remains to be seen, but it is obviously advisable that as much material as possible should be recorded in the near future. In the field of nominal derivation, Vol. II/2 of the Altindische Grammatik was a landmark not only in Sanskrit but also in Indo-European studies, and it will remain an essential work of reference for many years to come. The subject is not, however, exhausted, in spite of the comprehensive nature of this work, and there is room for detailed philological and etymological studies of the individual suffixal elements and their ramifications. This is particularly so since in the older language problems of interpretation are continually present and questions of structure and linguistic history are often dependent on their solution. The principal work in this field to be reported is that of J. Manessy(-Guitton), who has made a detailed study of the suffix -s- in its various combinations. In 1961, she published a study of the nouns in -as in the Rksamhitä, and this was followed, in 1963, by a comparative study of Sanskrit and Latin in which the -s- suffix appearing in various combinations was studied. Later there appeared articles dealing with the adjectives in -as in the Rksaqihitâ and with the Sanskrit nouns in -nas. These publi-

SANSKRIT

9

cations taken together provide a comprehensive treatment of this subject, and although not all of the author's theories may commend themselves, it nevertheless forms a very useful contribution. L. Renou has dealt (1960) with the abstract derivative in -tät,-äti which constitute an interesting group, almost confined to the Veda, but amply paralleled in Old Iranian and elsewhere. Ch. Hauri (1963) has discussed in an exhaustive manner the origin of the termination -ena of the instrumental singular of stems in -a. He considers that the ending -ena has, through an intermediary stage -end (cf. the Vedic form end), replaced an earlier -anä (cf. the Vedic form and) under the influence of the termination -ebhis of the Instrumental plural. This termination -anä was transferred to the nominal ώ-stems from the pronouns, and it contains an original ending -nä added to pronominal stems in -a (cf. Av. kana, etc.). He considers the variant Vedic form of the termination, -enâ, to be due to metrical lengthening, and therefore different in nature from the pronominal forms end, end where the long vowel should be regarded as original. After stating the problem and reviewing previous opinions on it, the author proceeds to a detailed study of the termination -nä in Iranian in which the evidence of the Middle Iranian languages, which also have a considerable amount to contribute, is considered, and this is followed by a comparative study of the Indo-Iranian material. The later chapters are devoted to the Indian side, and in the first place the pronominal forms and and end and the various forms derived from them are exhaustively discussed. Then the nominal forms containing the original ending -d are discussed individually in the Vedic passages where they occur, and finally the evolution of the termination -ena is investigated. The work is a useful and solid contribution, and it can be regarded as providing a satisfactory solution of most of the problems involved. The problem of the extended stem-form of the feminine ä-stems (senáyai, senäyäs, senäyäm) has been discussed by G. Liebert (1960). The lengthened stem senäyä- is interpreted as containing an appended relative pronoun yä originally functioning, as in Iranian, and to some extent in Vedic, as a definite article. To the question as to why an extended form of such origin should appear only in these cases the author admits that he cannot provide an answer. His explanation of the termination of the instrumental singular with penultimate short vowel (senayá) is different. Here he considers that the -y- is the reflex of the final laryngeal constituent of an original long vowel (-ayâ < adâ). The locative singular termination -dm he considers to be based on an original endingless locative in -a to which has been added a final -(a)m which appears elsewhere in declension (mahyam, etc.). There are also a few shorter articles dealing with nominal declension. E. A. Makaev (1964) discusses briefly the differences between the Vedic and Sanskrit declension. W. Morgenroth examines the declension of the stems in -añc-, particularly from the point of view of stem-gradation (1960 and 1961). Nilmadhav Sen has given an account of the un-Päninean forms of the nominal declension that occur in the Rämäyana (1955). V. Ν. Toporov discusses the origin of the locative case (1964).

10

THOMAS BURROW

The field of nominal composition has come in for some attention. R. Harweg (1964) has studied the type of nominal composition that developed in later Sanskrit in which compounds of inordinate length are employed to effect a concentrated and abbreviated form of expression. The study is synchronic and structural, not historical, and it is based on the confrontation of such compounds with the 'katalysationstext', i.e. the alternative expression by inflected forms such as are used by the ancient commentators in their explanation of the texts. The treatment of the Sanskrit material is preceded by a theoretical section in which an attempt is made to define the compound on the basis of the definition of the word. The evolution of the long compound in Sanskrit was studied by L. Renou (1956) who concluded that the development of the Sütra style of composition was primarily responsible for it, which seems very likely to have been the case. J. F. Staal's article (1966) has as one of its professed objects the bridging of the gap between Sanskrit and linguistics which has grown up in recent years because of the primarily philological interests of Sanskritists and the comparative neglect of Sanskrit by most theorists of language. The subject is examined from three points of view: (1) Pänini's system; (2) the system evolved in the work of Harweg mentioned above; and (3) a system of generative syntax. Harweg's work is criticised for its neglect of Panini. S. S. Bhawe's article (1955) is concerned with applying Pänini's rules of accentuation to the interpretation of Vedic compounds. V. D. Gokhale (1957) lists the compounds occurring in the critical edition of the Mahabharata which do not conform to the rules of Panini. The composition of infinitives and gerunds with verbal prefixes is treated by B. H. Kapadia (1962). P. H. Salus (1963) investigates the origin of the dvandva. The above mentioned work of Ch. Hauri on the nominal termination -ena also dealt with many points concerning the pronouns. He has also made a detailed study of the pronoun amu- (1963), a note on which had also figured in the earlier work. His conclusion that the form of the instrumental case is the oldest, and that it is derived from a form that is represented in Iranian (amunä < avunä < avana) does not appear very convincing and it is not likely to be preferred to the more usual theory. There are a fair number of books and articles dealing with the Sanskrit verb. J. Vekerdi (1961) examines the question of the polymorphic presents in the Rgveda with the general conclusion that, apart from the fourth class which is associated with an intransitive sense (and from which the passive eventually developed), there are no aspectual or other semantic differences observable when a root makes its present stem in two or more ways. The existence of polymorphism in the present he is inclined to regard mainly as an artificial literary phenomenon and not founded in spoken usage. On the other hand, T. J. Elizarenkova, in an essay on the significance of the present bases in the Rgveda (1960), has attempted to clarify the meaning of the various present stems. She has also (1960) discussed the problem of the tenses in Old Indo-Aryan.

SANSKRIT

11

The differentiation of the present and aorist stems is considered to be of comparatively recent origin, as is the Sanskrit-Greek model of the verb in general. On the other hand the Hittite model may represent the original IE system more truly. As far as Vedic is concerned, the injunctive is regarded as a significant survival from an earlier and simpler state of affairs. As is well known, the Sanskrit future is a comparatively late development, and in the Rgveda it is still only in the process of coming into being. L. Renou has devoted an article (1961) to the future at this stage of development. The second future, based on the agent noun, is of even later origin. J. Gonda has critically surveyed what has been written on this subject (1957). The peculiar Vedic imperatives in -si have been the subject of a study by G. Cardona (1965). He concludes, and the evidence given supports the conclusion, that these forms function as part of the sigmatic aorist system and that they are correlated with the third singular subjunctives in -sat. In the cases where such forms are used in relative clauses, as subjunctives rather than imperatives, he treats them as formal imperatives used as subjunctives, and explains this extension of function as due to their close association with the subjunctives in -sat. The same subject is discussed in a later article in the same journal (1966) by O. Szemerényi. He is also concerned with the use of these forms as subjunctives in relative clauses, and he concludes from this fact that they are true subjunctives in origin, and are to be explained as abbreviated forms due to haplology (darfi < darfasi). Of the subdivisions of the Sanskrit verb the aorist has received the most attention during the period. There is a study of the aorist in the Rgveda by T. J. Elizarenkova (1960) which surveys the seven classes individually and considers the problem of the evolution of the system itself and the position of the aorist within the verbal system in general. The study is not comparative, and no parallels are cited from other IE languages, even Iranian. The method employed is rather that of internal reconstruction, and on this basis some useful insights on the development of the aorist system are provided. The treatise by J. Narten (1966) is confined to the sigmatic aorist, but it covers a wider section of literature, namely the entire corpus of pre-classical texts. The book is arranged in two parts of which the first is a survey of the four types of sigmatic aorist in order, while the second, and more extensive, part lists and discusses the sigmatic aorist forms derived from individual roots in alphabetical order. The treatment is both exhaustive and reliable, and the book will long remain an indispensable work of reference. P. Sgall has published a detailed study of the infinitive (1958), which is a useful contribution. He surveys at length the various types of infinitives, with reference to the contexts in which they occur, and also discusses some of the general questions which arise in connection with this formation. In the main, comparison with other IE languages is avoided, and the study confines itself to the analysis of the Vedic material. V. I. Kalyanov has written on the means of expressing the past tense in epic

12

THOMAS BURROW

Sanskrit (1958), and S. Levina on the finite use of participles in the language of the Mahabharata (1964). K. Hoffmann has contributed a note on the aorist of drs(1960), and M. Leumann has discussed the reduplicated aorist ajljanat (1962). M. H. F. Jayasuriya compared some Vedic verbal forms with those substituted for them in paraphrases in the Brähmanas (1957). After the publication of the works of Delbrück and Speier, Sanskrit syntax remained for a considerable time comparatively neglected. This neglect has in recent years been made good by the work of J. Gonda, who has written extensively both on syntax and on the kindred subject of stylistics. His output during the last ten years has been remarkable both in quantity and quality. In various articles he has examined the function of the cases, particularly of the accusative (1957), and the dative (1962). In the field of the syntax of the verb he has examined the question of aspect, particularly as between the present and aorist stems. This is a subject on which there is some divergence of opinion. The majority opinion, probably, is that such differences are not found outside the indicative, and that the various modal forms, present, aorist, and perfect, are, as far as meaning is concerned, more or less equivalent with each other. In the article by J. Vekerdi (1955), for instance, the absence of aspectual distinctions is emphasised. A similar position is taken up in the shorter article by L. Rocher (1958). Gonda takes up an opposite point of view and he maintains, on the basis of a wide variety of textual citations, that aspectual differences, similar to those in Greek were distinguished by the present and aorist bases of the Vedic language. In the opinion of the present writer he goes too far in reading into the Vedic texts the distinctions that apply in Greek. Gonda's most extensive work, however, deals with stylistics, particularly in connection with the Vedic texts, a field in which very little had been previously done. In his treatise on epithets in the Rgveda (1959) he examines in detail the epithets which are used in connection with the Vedic gods, Indra, Agni, etc., and also those that are used with a variety of common nouns, and on the basis of this survey attempts to define the functions of the Rgvedic epithets. In his 'Stylistic repetition in the Veda', he deals at length with a subject which has indeed attracted some attention before, but had not received anything like this exhaustive treatment. A smaller treatise (1960) deals with the subject of ellipsis, brachylogy and other forms of brevity in the speech of the Rgveda. All these works, in addition to being pioneer contributions in a neglected field, contribute a good deal also to the interpretation of the Vedic texts. Chronologically and stylistically the type of late Sanskrit developed for the purposes of scientific writing stands at the opposite pole from the Vedic language. Some works dealing with the most characteristic feature of that language have already been mentioned. In addition there is the book by P. Hartmann, dealing with the nominal forms of expression in scientific Sanskrit (1955), which examines this style and language in all its aspects. It is a very useful survey of a subject which had not been treated exhaustively before.

SANSKRIT

13

The greater number of the items listed in the ensuing bibliography are concerned with the Sanskrit vocabulary, and it is in this field on the whole that the greatest progress is to be made at this stage. There is of course a great deal to be done in collecting new items of vocabulary from works not previously exploited for lexicographical purposes. In the main this work is being done by the department engaged in the preparation of the new thesaurus, and the results of this work will appear in due course when the dictionary is published. In the meantime, a number of vocabulary collections have been published from time to time. S.C. Banerjee has published a glossary of Smrti literature (1963) which contains material supplementing the existing dictionaries drawn from these sources. Satya Vrat's linguistic study of the Rämäyana (1964) contains materials of a lexicographical nature as well as dealing with grammatical and syntactical points. G. Bechis (1963) has published a list of lexical contributions from the first book of the Rämäyana. There are a number of articles by E. D. Kulkarni which contain collections of lexicographical material, for instance a study of the vocabulary of the Yasastilaka of Somadeva (1958), and a collection of the technical terms of elephant lore (1958). M. Panse has published a list of peculiar words from the Rauhineya Carita. There are a number of lexicographical contributions to the periodical Väk by L. Renou e.g., from the Paippaläda version of the Atharvaveda. In the same periodical M. Ensink and J. A. B. van Buitenen have published a comprehensive glossary of Sanskrit from Indonesia (1964). There is an article by J. P. Vogel (1957) correcting some errors in the Sanskrit dictionaries. V. S. Agrawala has written on some words from late Sanskrit literature, from inscriptions and from Buddhist Sanskrit. F. R. Allchin discusses the Sanskrit term edüka- (Pali eluka-). H. C. Bhayani explains the late Sanskrit dvirafikä (Jambhaladatta's Vetälapancavimsati) from Guj. dordi 'a thin cord or string'. M. G. Pai explains the curious use of the term vr$ala in the Mudräräksasa in connection with Candragupta as the Sanskritisation of a Pkt. vasala- derived from Greek basileus (1960). M. Β. Emeneau (1962) has investigated the precise meaning of the term valkala'bark-cloth' with a view to removing the vagueness with regard to this term which characterizes both ancient commentators and modern translators. The greatest part of the work concerning the interpretation and derivation of words is naturally concerned with the Yedic language, in the elucidation of which steady progress continues to be made. This is achieved by a combination of contextual study and etymology. The leading exponent of this field has been L. Renou, whose Études védiques et páninéennes have been mentioned above. In addition he published (1958) a study of 35 Vedic words, and in various articles discussed individual words. Among the latter may be mentioned his treatment of puramdhi- (1958), nihäkä (1958), and svasara- (1963). The last word he interprets as *su-vasara- 'good pasture', derived from the IE root wes- 'to graze' which appears in Iranian and Hittite. On the other hand, A. Venkatasubbiah, in returning to a discussion of the same word (1964), produces some contextual evidence to show that meaning should be rather the place to which the cows return from pasture.

14

THOMAS BURROW

Among the many writings of J. Gonda there are some which are devoted to the elucidation of the meaning of Vedic words. Among these we may mention his detailed study of the word tnáyá in Four studies in the language of the Veda, and that on bhü?ati in the same work, which he interprets as meaning primarily 'strengthens'. In separate articles he has written on the meaning of Sanskrit mahas- and its derivatives, on prayata-, and on adhvara-, adhvaryu- (1959, 1962, 1965). There is also an article (1961) discussing the nature of the Indo-Iranian religious terminology. Karl Hoffmann has published a number of articles during the period dealing with the interpretation of Vedic words, e.g. grh- 'klagen', ucchvañka-¡ucchlañkha-, takman-, mrgasapha-. F. Β. J. Kuiper has discussed many words including sadhástha-, svavfs(i-, äscarya- and abhvà-. He explains svavf?¡i- as containing a root corresponding to Av. varz- 'to work', which has otherwise become extinct in Sanskrit. In the case of äscarya- there has been considerable difference of opinion. Kuiper considers that it represents a combination of the interjection â with scar- a palatalised variant of (s)krifoti, as opposed to Wackernagel-Debrunner's explanation of it as äh + carya-. On the other hand, P. Thieme (1963) considers that it represents a palatalisation of *äskhariya- (= âskhalya-), while P. Tedesco prefers to regard it as an adjectival form based on the Middle Indian aechará which develops from Skt. apsaras- (1965). The Veda and Panini are the chief fields of research of P. Thieme, and in addition the IE etymologies of Sanskrit words. His studies are characterised by a careful analysis of the contextual evidence, and the language is studied within the framework of the history of religion and institutions. Among his writings particular mention should be made of his treatise on Mitra and Aryaman (1957), in which he investigates the meaning of these gods, and also of Varuna. In rendering Varuna as 'true speech' and Mitra as 'contract' in all passages he may be considered by some to go too far in depersonalizing the Vedic gods. Another article of considerable interest is his study (1963) of the term kaumärah patih in connection with parallel expressions in Greek and Latin. W. Wüst has made considerable contributions to the study of the meaning and etymology of Sanskrit words during the period under review, most of which are published in the periodical RHMA edited by him. His articles are characterised by the richness of their bibliographical documentation as well as the exhaustive manner in which the problems are discussed. Among the words discussed by him are jimüta-, simsumära-, ulükhala-, adhrigu-, atka-, taru-, sfñka and muni-, M. Mehendale has devoted a series of articles to obscure terms occurring in the Nirukta of Yäska. The contribution that etymology can make to Vedic interpretation is particularly important in the case of Iranian on account of the close relationship between these two branches. It is therefore of the greatest importance to Sanskrit, and particularly to Vedic studies, that a large mass of documents in a variety of Middle Iranian languages — Saka, Sogdian, Chorasmian, etc. — has been discovered, published, and interpreted during the present century. Many scholars have taken part in this

SANSKRIT

15

work, but the exploitation of it from the point of view of Sanskrit studies, where it has proved to be of the greatest significance for Vedic interpretation, as well as of general problems of etymology, has mainly been the work of H. W. Bailey. Most of the articles listed in the ensuing bibliography under his name, are concerned either wholly or in part with investigations of this nature. The result has been a massive contribution to the problems of Vedic interpretation and etymology, and although the interpretations proposed may not invariably meet with approval, there is no doubt that Vedic studies have received from this source a new and revolutionary stimulus. Among the articles listed below, that on Arya and Daha (1959) may be singled out as being particularly important, dealing as it does with terms of ethnic and historical significance. The series of articles entitled Arya in the BSOAS, as well as the other articles listed, contain discussions of a very large number of Vedic words to the understanding of which the Iranian languages can contribute. Examples of such words are raphitâ- 'distressed', ághnyá epithet of the cow, áñgüsa- 'song of praise', duroça- epithet of Soma, syédu- 'mucus', sagmá- 'agreeable', yakçâ- 'apparition', súka- 'parrot', majmàn- 'power', sad- 'to treat roughly' (to be separated from sad'to sit'), sek- 'to satiate' (cf. Buddh. asecanaka-), adhïte 'studies' (χ/ai- 'to teach', Toch. AB. en- 'id.', Av. aêOra- 'teaching'), vedhás- 'master', urvárá 'cultivated ground', pipárti 'nourishes, rears' (to be equated with an Iranian par- in this sense, and therefore to be separated from pipárti 'takes across'), druna- 'bow', manda(pa)- 'covered place', viffàp- 'fiat surface,' and so forth. A number of monographs have been devoted to individual words. K. Janert studied the meaning of the word dhäsi- in the Veda (1956), interpreting it as meaning 'stream of liquid' and deriving it from the root dhan(i)- 'to run, flow'. The work was considerably influenced by Luders' ideas in his treatise on Varuna. Hans-Peter Schmidt published a study of the word vrata- in the Veda in comparison with the corresponding Av. urvàta- (1958). His belief that the Vedic meaning of the word is always 'vow' as in later Sanskrit has not met with universal approval. M. Scheller investigated the meaning of Vedic prî-, priya- in connection with the related words in Germanic (1959). Various other articles deal with individual words. Samuel D. Atkins has examined the meaning of the Vedic word pAjas- (1965), and he considers that the essential meaning of the word is 'body', with particular reference to breadth, thickness, solidity and weight. He interprets the meaning of the derivative pâjasyà- as 'ventral surface' (as opposed to Mehendale, 1962, who gave 'breast'), and derives the words from the IE root *pàg-. E. Benveniste (1964) studied the Indo-Iranian root y at-. S. S. Bhawe (1964) examined the contexts in which Rgvedic pravát- occurs in an attempt to define its meaning. N. G. Chapekar devoted a series of articles to the various Vedic words for 'man'. A. Debrunner contributed a note on the root dhan(1958), and G. Dumézil examined the much discussed terms ari-, aryamân- (1958). There was a discussion between P. E. Dumont and F. Edgerton on the precise

16

THOMAS BURROW

meaning of the terms prâr^a-, and apäna- (1957-58). T. Elizarenkova discussed the meaning of the word mäyä (1959). H. Frei made some proposals for the interpretation of Yedic utpä- (1959), and discussed the form and etymology of such words as anüpá(1960). Β. H. Kapadia studied the Vedic epithets applied to Soma (1959). R. Hiersche discussed the etymology of the divine name Varuna, the Vedic verbal form pipäya and the initial consonant group of the root khyä-, D. H. H. Ingalls surveyed the words for 'beauty' in classical Sanskrit literature (1962). V. V. Ivanov discussed asru'tear' in connection with Hittite esfyahru (1951). K. J. Janert examined the word sphya- and the corresponding Pa. phiya- from the point of view of cultural history (1964). W. Meid investigated the form and meaning of Vedic dámünas- (1958). S. F. Michalski (1957) studied the word dhásí- with conclusions different from those of K. L. Janert ('treasure' from dhä-), and also devoted a short article (1957) to the much discussed word brâhman-. There are some articles by R. F. G. Muller dealing with technical terms of Ayurveda. H. G. Narahari's note on âjaramjarîbhâva- deals with a word which although only attested in late works, nevertheless appears to be early in origin. There are articles by J. Narten discussing various Vedic words, e.g. math- (divided into two roots), abhidäsati and mfv-. V. Pisani finds a second root pü-, meaning 'to beat' in one passage of the Rgveda (1958). A. Radicchi has made a detailed study of the word rta- in comparison with the corresponding Av. aSa(1961-62). V. Raghavan proposed an explanation of the word maifdapa- in connection with the Buddhist term marida- (1957), and contributed explanatory notes on a variety of classical Sanskrit words (1960). Satya Vrat commented on the words lävartya-, kiräfa- and kähalä (1959-60). W. P. Schmid distinguished a root yâ-/î- 'to request' to be separated from yä- 'to go' (1956), and also an Indo-Iranian root nam'strike' different from nam- 'to bend'. H. P. Schmidt devoted an article to aghnya-, the Vedic epithet applied to the cow, which had also been studied by H. W. Bailey. Nilmadhav Sen drew attention to the term atfaka- 'gum, paste' in the Arthasästra, giving also the modern IA equivalents (1960). There is a study of Vedic ksoijl by E. Sluszkiewicz, and of vehát- by F. Sommer, who connects it with the root of vidhavä (1957). P. Tedesco wrote on wich- 'to glean' and on the Sanskrit and Middle Indie words for 'sinew', and also contributed some useful notes on M. Mayrhofens etymological dictionary. R. L. Turner has studied a number of words in connection with their modern IA equivalents. S. A. Upadhyaya has contributed a note on the Vedic word gadhya-. H. D. Velankar examined the significance of the terms gharma- and oman- in the Atri legend. In his study of Vedic bhü$- (1962) J. C. Wright confirms the meaning 'strengthen' which had previously been proposed by Gonda. The major work on Buddhist Sanskrit, the grammar and dictionary of F. Edgerton, was completed early in the period under review. It called forth a number of important reviews, of which those by H. W. Bailey (1955), J. Brough (1954), and V. Raghavan (1955) in particular deserve mention. Since then the most important work in this field has been the publication of texts, notably from Central Asian manuscripts, but

SANSKRIT

17

there have also been a number of articles on grammar and vocabulary. B. Rosenkranz discussed the peculiar termination -matha of the 1 pi. middle, and upheld the dubious connection of this form with Gk. -μεθα. There is an article on the use of the cases by Y. Nara (1961), and on numerals in the Mahävastu by U. Schneider (1960). G. von Simson has devoted a monograph to the style of the Buddhist canonical writings in Sanskrit (1965). The vocabulary of Asvaghosa has been studied by Y. S. Hakeda, who has listed all the items which can be ascribed to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. C. Pensa has published some notes on Buddhist lexicography (1964), and C. Regamey has published a list of words gleaned from the Kärandavyühasütra. A. Wayman (1965) has defended Edgerton's view's concerning the nature of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. The study of Jaina Sanskrit has been comparatively neglected until recent years. The Jains did not begin to use Sanskrit until much later than the Buddhists, and most of the writings concerned date from the tenth century onward. The language is extensively influenced by modern Indo-Aryan, mainly of course in the matter of vocabulary. These texts are of considerable importance for the history of the modern Indo-Aryan languages, since in a large number of cases a modern Indo-Aryan word is first attested here under a Sanskrit guise. There have been some studies published of this vocabulary. J. Deleu compiled a list of lexicographical addenda from Rajaáekhara's Prabandhakosa (1959). There are notes by E. D. Kulkarni on the language of the Samarâdityasanksepa of Pradyumnasüri. W. H. Maurer (1962) discussed the nature of Jaina Sanskrit, with reference to phonology, morphology and vocabulary on the basis of material collected from Sumativijaya's commentary on the Meghadüta. He defines the language as being a kind of Prakritised Sanskrit as opposed to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit which can more suitably be described as Sanskritised Prakrit. The most comprehensive work on the subject so far is the volume on the lexicography of Jaina Sanskrit by Sandesara and Thaker. The material for this collection is taken from the three most important of the Jaina prabandhas, and it provides a representative selection of the vocabulary peculiar to Jaina Sanskrit. In addition lists of words have been provided in the editions of certain works, notably the Brhatkathäkosa of Harisena, but a great deal of work remains to be done. In view of the large number of texts that have now been published, the time is ripe for the preparation of a major lexicographical work in this field on the Unes of the work done for Buddhist Sanskrit by Professor Edgerton. The Comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages by R. L. Turner is chiefly the concern of other sections of this work, but it also needs to be mentioned here since it is of great importance also for Sanskrit studies. Apart from the general fact that a knowledge of the future development of the Sanskrit vocabulary is of interest to the Sanskritist, as that of the Romance vocabulary to the latinist, there are also some particular reasons why the study of this later vocabulary is important. Notably, as is abundantly clear from perusing the Dictionary, there are a large number of Sanskrit words which are known only from léxica, whose genuineness is confirmed

18

THOMAS BURROW

from the evidence of their derivatives in modern Indo-Aryan. For instance the word ba?kayinï known only from léxica apart from appearing once in a sütra of Panini appears as Hindi bakainï 'cow whose milk is beginning to run dry', and thus the existence of this specialised word in active use throughout the Indo-Aryan period is assured. Such words are numerous and they are of two kinds, on the one hand genuine old Sanskrit words like the one just mentioned which on account of their specialised nature do not appear in the existing literature, and on the other hand, in the later period, words which were borrowed from the vernaculars. As already observed, the latter are particularly common in Jaina literature, but some are also to be found in the later phases of Sanskrit literature in general. The Comparative dictionary of modern Indo-Aryan is also frequently of great use in defining the meaning of Sanskrit words, particularly with reference to flora and fauna, where the meaning given in our dictionaries is often far from certain. In ascertaining such doubtful meanings the evidence of the modern languages must always be taken into account, and it will often be decisive. There has not a great deal of work been done in recent years on the non-Aryan elements in the Sanskrit vocabulary. The most recent systematic study in this field is that by F. B. J. Kuiper in the Kirfel Festschrift in 1955. In this study of Rgvedic loanwords the object of the author is 'to collect the words, the foreign origin of which seems probable on morphological or phonetical grounds, even though a convincing etymological explanation cannot be given for many of them'. A considerable list of words is produced where for the above reasons a foreign origin may be suspected, and in many cases etymologies from Dravidian or Munda are proposed. It is also pointed out that there may have existed other sources from which words may have been derived which are not now preserved. The study is confined to the Rgveda, and the numerous popular words in the Atharvaveda and other later Samhitäs, which may be suspected of foreign origin are not included. In the Dravidian etymological dictionary those Indo-Aryan words were included which the authors considered to be in all probability to be derived from Dravidian. The number of Sanskrit words thus registered was just over five hundred. Further Dravidian etymologies have been proposed by M. B. Emeneau, in several successive reviews of Mayrhofens etymological dictionary, and some further material of the same kind will appear in the supplement to DED which is under preparation. Not unnaturally there has been a certain amount of controversy concerning the question of non-Aryan loans in Sanskrit, and some scholars (e.g. P. Thieme, H. W. Bailey) have adopted a sceptical position in this respect. Alternative IE etymologies have been offered for words for which a Dravidian or Munda etymology had previously been proposed, in some cases successfully, e.g. nada- 'reed' mentioned above, but more dubiously in other cases (e.g. nira- 'water). A different approach to the question of non-Aryan influence is adopted by W. Wüst ( R H M A 3,1957) who ascribes certain apparently irregular phonetic correspondences (e.g. sâkinï ~ dôkinï) to the influence of the speakers of non-Aryan languages unable properly to render the

SANSKRIT

19

Sanskrit sounds. On these lines he derives the late (hakkura- 'lord' from Vedic sákvara- 'powerful' and provides similar analyses for a number of other words beginning with cerebral. The borrowings from Indo-Aryan into the Dravidian languges, ancient and modern, constitute a very wide field of investigation, and one that has many points of interest. A selection of such borrowed words is given in Dravidian borrowings from IndoAryan by M. B. Emeneau and T. Burrow, published as a first supplement to the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. These however are but a small percentage of the whole, and what is required ultimately is a comprehensive collection of all the material other than pure tatsamas from the South Dravidian languages. Such a compilation would be a major effort, and the time for it will be ripe when certain major lexicographical programmes for the individual Dravidian languages, which are now in progress, have been completed. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abhyankar, Κ. V., "Short e and short o in Sanskrit", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 38.154-157 (Poona, 1958). Agrawala, V. S., "Kirti, kïrtimukha and kirtistambha", Väk 5.147-151 (1957). , "Are hirodaka and andakäffha- actual words?", Indian Historical Quarterly 33.82-83 (1957). , "Notes on Sanskrit words", J AOS 79.30 (1959). , "Important words from the Purânas", Purâna 2.307-312 (Bañaras, 1960). , "A note on the word cärika in the Divyävadäna", JAOS 84.55-56 (1964). Allchin, F. R., "Sanskrit edüka-, Pali eluka-", BSOAS 20.1-4 (1957). Allen, W. S., "Some prosodie aspects of aspiration and retroflexion in Sanskrit", BSOAS 13.939-946 (1951). , Phonetics in Ancient India (Oxford, 1953). , "Retroflexion in Sanskrit: prosodie technique and its relevance to comparative statement", BSOAS 16.556-565 (1954). , Sandhi: the theoretical, phonetic and historical bases of word-junction in Sanskrit ('s-Gravenhage, 1962). Altuchow, N., Gramática Sànscrita elemental (Montevideo, 1962). Amarnâth áástri, Vaidika-svara-samikfä (Haridwar, 1964). Ammer, Κ., "Die L-formen im Rgveda", WZKM 51.116-137 (1948). , "Tvaçtar-, ein altindischer Schöpfergott", Sprache 1.68-77 (1949). Apte, V. M. "Is diti- in the Rgveda a mere reflex of aditi-T\ Bharatiya Vidyâ 9.14-22 (Bombay, 1948). , "A problem presented by the word sva-ghn-ln in the Rgveda", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institutite (Poona, 1951). , "Vrata in the Rgveda", Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, 46.56-62 and 164-172, 47.38-46, 49.176-182, 51.103-111 (Bangalore, 1955-1960).

20

THOMAS BURROW

, "Vajra in the Rgveda", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 37.292-295 (Poona, 1957). , "On drse kam and drse in the Rgveda", BDC 18.287-293 (1957). Apte, V. S., Principal V. S. Aptés practical Sanskrit-English dictionary. Revised and enlarged edition by P. V. Gode and C. G. Karve, 3 vols. (Poona, 1958). Aryendra Sharma, "Beiträge zur vedischen Lexicographie: Neue Wörter in M. Bloomfield's Vedic Concordance", RHMA, Heft 5/6 (München, 1959-60). Atkins, S. D., The meaning of Vedic aktú-, J AOS 70.24-40 (1950). , "The meaning of Vedic pâjas", J AOS 85.9-22 (1965). Bailey, H. W., "Indo-Iranian studies", TPhS 21-42 (1953). , "Buddhist Sanskrit", JRAS 13-24 (1955). , "Iranian mi$sa, India bija", BSOAS 18.32-42 (1956). , "A problem of the Indo-Iranian vocabulary", RO 21.59-69 (1957). , "Analecta Indo-Iranica", Dr. S. K. Belvalkar Felicitation Volume 1-2 (Bañaras, 1957). , "Dvärä matinäm", BSOAS 20.41-59 (1957). , "Rgveda rup-, Sogdianpatrwp", Sino-Indian Studies 5.9-10 (Santiniketan, 1957). , "Iranica et Vedica", IIJ 2.149-157 (1958). , "Mi?$a suppletum", BSOAS 21.40-47 (1958). , "Arya", BSOAS 21.522-545 (1958). , "Iranian Arya and Daha", TPhS 71-115 (1959). , "Indagatio Indo-Iranica", TPhS 62-86 (1960). , "Arya II", BSOAS 23.13-39 (1960). , "Rgvedica", Hommages a Georges Dumézil (Collection Latomus, 45) 9-13 (1960). , "Arya III", BSOAS 24.471-483 (1961). , "Cognates of püjä", ALB 25.1-12 (1961). , "Arya IV", BSOAS 26.69-91 (1963). Balasubrahmanyam, M. D., "On the accentuation of the vocative rtävjdhau in RV. 1.2.8", BDC 22.92-104 (1963). , "The accentuation of arya- in Panini and the Veda", BDC 23.94-100 (1964). Banerji, S. C., A glossary of Smrti literature (Calcutta, 1963). Basu, Dvijendranath, "On the word devara", IL 18.111-115 (1957). , "On Sanskrit words for the four quarters", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 1.25-26 (1960). , "A philological study of Vedic vräta", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 5.25-32 (1965). Bechert, Heinz,"Über eine abweichende Regelung des vokalischen Sandhi im Sanskrit", MSS 9.59-65 (1956). , "Eine eigentümliche Partizipialkonstruktion", MSS 10.54-58 (1957). Bechis, Giovanni, "Rgveda 4.19.9: ukhacchit", RIL 96.59-77 (1962). , "Contributi lessicali del I libro del Rämäyana secondo l'edizione curata dal Gorresio", RIL 97.331-394 (1963).

SANSKRIT

21

Belvalkar, S. Κ., Dr. S. Κ. Belvalkar Felicitation Volume (Bañaras, 1957). Benveniste, E., "Vedique karüdatin-", IL 16.83-85 (1955). , "Le racine yat- en indo-iranien", Indo-Iranica (Mélanges ... G. Morgenstierne) 21-27 (1964). Berger, Hermann, "Ai. sasa-; dtsch. Hase", MSS 3, 49 pp. (1953). Bhawe, S. S., "Interpretation of some Rgvedic compounds", JO I Β 4.315-329 (1955). , "Rgvedic pravát-", Indian Antiquary (Third series) 1.31-41 (1964). Bhayani, H. C., "A note on late Sanskrit dvirafikä", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal 2.93-95 (1964). Bright, William, "A note on visarga", ΒDC 18.271-273 (1958). Brough, John, "The language of Buddhist Sanskrit texts", BSOAS 16.357-375 (1954). Brown, W. N., Indological studies in honour of W. Norman Brown (New Haven, 1962). Bublakova,M.I.,"Fonologizaciacerebral'nychvdrevneindijskomjazyke",5irMÄ:iumotipologiäeskie issledovanija 60-69 (Moskva, 1962). Bucca, Salvador, "Word order and its stylistic value in the Isopanisad", Gode Commemoration Volume 2.134-137 (1960). Buddrusts, Georg, "Veda und Kaschmir", KZ 77.235-245 (1961). Burrow, T., "Sanskrit rájas-", BSOAS 12.645-651 (1947). , "Shwa in Sanskrit", TPhS 22-61 (1949). , "Some remarks on the formation of nouns in Sanskrit", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 32.19-33 (1952). , "The Sanskrit precative", Festschrift F. Weiler, 34-42 (Leipzig, 1954). , "Vedic if- 'to prosper'", BSOAS 17.326-345 (1954). , The Sanskrit Language (London, 1955). , "Sanskrit kava- and related words", IL 16.187-193 (1955). , "Skt. lubh- 'to disturb'", JRAS 191-200 (1956). , "The meaning of the Vedic word gho?ád", J AOS 76.185-186 (1956). , "An archaic verbal termination in early Indo-Aryan", IIJ 1.61-76 (1957). , "Sanskrit lexicographical notes', Dr. S. K. Belvalkar Felicitation Volume 3-11 (Bañaras, 1957). , "Sanskrit gr-lgur- 'to welcome'", BSOAS 20.133-144 (1957). , "Nirvacanäni", Annals of Oriental Research 13.2-13 (Madras, 1957). , "On the phonological history of Sanskrit k$am- 'earth', rkça- 'bear', and likfä 'nit'", J AO S 79.85-90 (1959). , "Sanskrit kfi-: Gk. φθίνω", J AOS 79.85-90 (1959). , "Sanskrit krand- 'step, stride'", BDC 20.281-287 (1960). , "A note on the etymology of Sanskrit karmära- 'smith'", ALB 25.69-77 (1961). , "Sanskrit âmoda- 'fragrance, perfume'", Indological Studies in honour of W. Norman Brown 23-27 (1962). , "On the significance of the term arma-, armaka- in early Sanskrit literature", Journal of Indian History 41.159-166 (1963).

22

THOMAS BURROW

Cardona, George, "Rgvedic srnvife", Lg. 37.338-341 (1961). , "Rgvedic árúvat", JOIB 12.1-4 (1962). , "The Vedic imperatives in -si", Lg. 41.1-18 (1965). Chanana, Devraj, "Notes on some ancient Indian words", JOIB 7.302-315 (1957-58). Chapekar, N. G., "Manu?", Bharatiya Vidyä 16.54-59 (1957). , "Nighantu words for 'man' : 1 krffi-, 2 cardani-, 3 ksitayah", Bhâratïya Vidyä 16.84-96 (Bombay, 1958). , "Nighantu words for 'man': narah", Bhâratïya Vidyä 18.56-69 (Bombay, 1960). , " Visah", Bhâratïya Vidyä 19.14-24 (Bombay, 1962). Chatteijee, S. K„ "The pronunciation of Sanskrit", IL 21.61-72 (1960). De, S. Κ., "A note on hiatus in Epie sandhi", IL 18.12-15 (1957). Deccan College, A dictionary of Sanskrit on historical principles: Minimum programme (Poona, 1961). Debrunner, Α., "Indirekte Rede im Altindischen", AO 20.120-132 (1947). , "Ai. dityavâh-, dityauhï", AO 17.110-111 (1949). , "Vedisch mä ... ïsata 'er soll nicht Macht haben'", Sprache 1.130-135 (1949). , "Das altindische Wort für die Spinne", Corolla Linguistica: Festschrift Sommer 20-25 (1955). , "Vedica", IL 16.72-82 (1955). , "Die altindische Wurzel dharty)-", IL 19.1-6 (1958). Deleu, J., "Lexicographical addenda from Räjasekhara Süri's Prabandhakosa", IL 20.180-219 (1959). Diwekar, H. R., "Matta-värani", JOIB 10.431-437 (1961). Dumézil, Georges, "A propos du problème brahmán-flamen", RHR 138.255-258, 139.122-126 (1950, 1951). , "Ari-, aryamán- : a propos de Paul Thieme "Ari- 'Fremder'" {ZDMG 107, 96-104)", JA 246.67-84 (1958). Dumont, P. E., "Indo-Aryan names from Mitanni, Nuzi, and Syrian documents", J AOS 67.251-253 (1947). , "The meaning of the Vedic word gho?ad", JAOS 75.117-118 (1955). , "The meaning of prona- and apäna- in the Taittiriya-Brähmana", JAOS ΊΊΑ(>-4Ί (1957). Durr, J. Α., "Die Zusammensetzung bei den Infinitiven und Gerundien im Rgveda", Festschrift Schubring 11-18 (1951) Edgerton, F. "The Sanskrit suffix -titha", India Antiqua: Studies presented to J. P. Vogel 109-112 (Leyden, 1947). , Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. I Grammar. II Dictionary (Yale, 1953). , "The specifying suffix -ka", Dr. S. K. Belvalkar Felicitation Volume 81-83 (1957). , "Präna and apäna", JAOS 78.51-54 (1958). Eich, Jochen, "Vedica", MSS 2.35-48 (1957). Elizarenkova, T. Ja., "O znaöenie vedijskogo mäyä", Problemy vostokovedenija 2.31-34 (Moskva, 1959).

SANSKRIT

23

, Aorist ν Rigvede (Moskva, 1960). , "On the problem of the development of the tenses in Old Indo-Aryan", XXV International Congress of Orientalists: Papers presented by the USSR delegation (Moscow, 1960). , "Znaöenie osnov prezensa ν Rigvede", Jazyki Indii 91-165 (Moskva, 1960). Emeneau, Murray B., Sanskrit Sandhi and Exercises (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1952). , "Some Indian etymologies", IL 19.70-74 (1958). , "Nägapäsa, nägabandha, sarpabandha and related words", BDC 20.291-300 (1960). , "Barkcloth in India: Sanskrit valkala-", JAOS 82.167-170 (1962). , "The dialects of Old Indo-Aryan", Ancient Indo-European Dialects 123-138 (Berkeley, 1965). Ensink, J. and van Buitenen, J. A. B., "Glossary of Sanskrit from Indonesia", Väk no. 6 (Poona, 1964). Esteller, Α., '"Sanskrit kava- and related words'", IL 17.29-38 (1957). , "The root si- to lie down", IL 20.1-44 (1959). Filliozat, J., "Sanskrit as the language of communication", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental research Institute 36.179-189 (Poona, 1956). Frei, Henri, "Carrés sémantiques (à propos de Véd. utpâ-)", CFS 16.1-22 (1958-59). , "Méthodes de reconstruction sémantique (a propos de védique anüpá-)", SCL (Omagiu Lui Al. Graur) 475-479 (Bucureçti, 1960). , "Véda et Cachemire", CFS 17.47-53 (1960). , "Trois mots singuliers', CFS 19.87-91 (1962). , "Védique kûlam berge", CFS 20.55-62 (1963). Ghatage, A.M., "Traces of short ë and ö in the Rgveda", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 29.1-20 (1948). - — , "Pronunciation of Sanskrit clusters with A", ALB 25.103-105 (1961). , "Historical linguistics and Indo-Aryan languages" (Bombay, 1962). , "Indian linguistics", BDC 21.28-37 (1963). Gokhale V. D., "Unpâninian forms and usages in the critical edition of the Mahäbhärata: 6. Compounds", IL 17.121-128 (1957). Gonda, J., "Sanskrit utsava- 'festival'", India Antiqua: Studies presented to J. P. Vogel 146-155 (Leyden, 1947). , "A propos d'un sens magico-religieux de Skt. guru-", BSOAS 12.124-131 (1947). , "Quelques observations sur l'emploi du verbe simple 'au heu d'un compose', etc. dans la langue Sanskrite", AcOr 20.167-205 (1948). , Notes on Brahman (Utrecht, 1950). , "Sanskrit bhaginï 'sœur'", AcOr 21.23-25 (1950). , "The meaning of Sanskrit nand", AcOr 21.81-90 (1951). , La place de la particule negative dans la phrase en vieil indien (Leiden, 1951). , Remarks on the Sanskrit passive (Leiden, 1951).

24

THOMAS BURROW

, Sanskrit in Indonesia (Nagpur, 1952). , Ancient Indian ojas, Latin *augos and the Indo-European nouns in -es/-os (Utrecht, 1952). , Remarques sur la place du verbe dans la phrase active et moyenne en langue sanscrite (Utrecht, 1952). , "A note on the function of the accusative as described in the handbooks", Dr. S. K. Belvalkar Felicitation Volume 72-80 (1957). , "The character of the Sanskrit accusative", Miscelánea Martinet I, 47-65 (1957). , "'Attraction' and co-ordination in the Veda", BSOAS 20.279-289 (1957). , "The uses of the particle ca", Väk 5.1-73 (Poona, 1957). , "A critical survey of the publications on the periphrastic future in Sanskrit", Lingua 6.158-179 (1957). , "Syntax and verse structure in the Veda", IL 19.35-43 (1958). , Four studies in the language of the Veda ('s-Gravenhage, 1959). , "Stylistic repetition in the Veda", VKNA 65:3 (Amsterdam, 1959). , Epithets in the Rgveda ('s-Gravenhage, 1959). , "The meaning of Sanskrit mahas- and its derivatives", JOIB 8.234-269 (1959). , "Ellipsis, Brachylogy and other forms of brevity in speech in the Rgveda", VKNA 67:4 (Amsterdam, 1960). , "Some notes on the position of the attributive adjective in early Indian prose", BDC 20.303-318 (1960). , "Some notes on the study of the Indo-Iranian religious terminology", History of Religions 1:2.243-273 (1961). , The aspectual function of the Rgvedic present and aorist ('s-Gravenhage, 1962). , "Prayata", Bharatiya Vidyä 20-21.45-51 (Bombay, 1962). , "The unity of the Vedic dative", Lingua 11.141-150 (1962). , "Adhvara- and adhvaryu-", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal 3.163-177 (Hoshiarpur, 1965). Gray, J. E. B., "An analysis of Nambudiri Rgvedic recitation and the nature of the Vedic accent", BSOAS 22.499-530 (1959). , "Aspirate sandhi", BSOAS 27.615-619 (1964). Hakeda, Yoshito S., "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit words in Asvaghoça's kävyas", JAOS 82.150-163 (1962). Hamp, Eric P., "Vedic ïmahe", IIJ 2.229-230 (1958). Hara, Minoru, "A note on the Sanskrit word ni-tya", JO AS 79.90-96 (1959). Hariyappa, H. L., "The Rgvedic word parvata", Prof M. Hiriyanna Commemoration Volume 31-37 (Mysore, 1952). Hartmann, Peter, Nominale Ausdrucksformen im wissenschaftlichen Sanskrit (Heidelberg, 1955). Harweg, Roland, Komposition und Katalysationstext vornehmlich im späten Sanskrit (The Hague, 1964).

SANSKRIT

25

Hauri, Christoph, Zur Vorgeschichte des Ausgangs -ena des Instr. Sing, der a.-Stämme des Altindischen (Göttingen, 1963). , "Der Stamm amú- 'jener' des Altindischen", KZ 78.115-125 (1963). Hendriksen, H., "On the meaning of Skr. bhavati", AcOr 20.206-215 (1948). Heimann, Betty, The significance of prefixes in Sanskrit philosophical terminology (Hertford, 1951). Hiersche, Rolf, "Zur Etymologie des Götternamens Varuna", MIO 4.359-363 (1956). , "Zur pïpâya RV viii, 29, 6.", MIO 4.364-367 (1956). , "Zur Gestalt des Anlauts der Wurzel khyä", MIO 6.105-111 (1958). , Untersuchungen zur Frage der Tenues Aspiratae im Indogermanischen (Wiesbaden, 1964). Hoens, Dirk Jan, Éânti. A contribution to ancient Indian religious terminology. I Sánti in the Samhitäs, the Brähmarias, and the Érautasütras (Leiden, 1951). Hoffmann, Karl, "Die angebliche Wurzel bhre?-', Festschrift Schubring 19-24 (Hamburg, 1951). , "'Wiederholende' Onomatopoetica im Altindischen", IF 60.254-264 (1952). , "Notizen zu Wackernagel-Debrunner, Altindische Gramamtik II, 2", MSS 8.5-24 (1956). , "Zwei vedische Wortsippen", MSS 10.59-71 (1957). , "Vedisch grh- 'klagen'", MSS 14.35-38 (1959). , "Der vedische Typus menämenam" KZ 71.242-248 (1960). , "Zum Aorist von drs-\ IIJ4.119-120 (1960). , "Ved. ucchvañka-, ucchlañka-, Pali ussañkha-", IIJ 4.111-118 (1960). , "Die Ortsnamen-Parenthese im altpersischen und vedischen", ZDMG, 110.64-73 (1961). , "AV. takman", KZ 78.89-90 (1963). , "YV. mfgasapha-, n.; AV. vitävati; Die 'Infinitive' rohi$yai, avyathi$yai\ AB. mçsyant-", KZ 78.84-88, 89-90, 90-92, 94-95 (1963). , "JB. vanäkakfäh", IIJ 9.199-200 (1966). Ingalls, D. H. H., "Words for beauty in classical Sanskrit literature", Indological Studies ... Brown 87-107 (1962). Ivanov, V. V., "Drevneindijskoje asram 'slezo, krov' i xettskoje eShahru 'slezy'", Linguistic studies in honour of Stefan Mladenov 477-483 (Sofia, 1957). , and Toporov, V. Ν., "Sanskrit", Jazyki zarubeznogo Vostoka i Afriki (Moskva, 1960). Janacek, Adolf, "Two texts of Patanjali and a statistical correspondence of their vocabularies (Justification of the statistical method and its limitations)", AO 26.88-100 (1958). Janert, Klaus J., Sinn und Bedeutung des Wortes 'dhäsi- und seiner Belegstellen im Rigveda und Avesta (Wiesbaden, 1956). , "Zur Wort- und Kulturgeschichte von Sanskrit sphya- (Pali phiya-)", KZ 79.89-111 (1964).

26

THOMAS BURROW

Jayasuriya, M. H. F., "Some Vedic verb-forms and their variants in the Brahmanas", University of Ceylon Review 15.151-165 (1957). Jhala, G. C., "The problem of the aspirate in roots like budh-, dah-, etc.", Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay 30:1.34-42 (1955). Jong, J. W., "Vitarati", 77/4.65-67 (1960). Kaljanov, V. I., "Sredstva vyraáenija pro§ed§ego vremeni ν epiöeskom Sanskrite (po materialam Mahabharaty)", Ucenye Zapiski Vostokovedenija Akademii Νauk SSSR 13.5-62 (Moskva, 1958). Kapadia, Β. H., "Vedic epithets of Soma" (Mahavidyalaya, Vallabha, 1959). , "Pastya in the Rgveda", The Vikram, Journal of the Vikram University, Ujjain (Arts) 5:3.27-31 (1961). , "The composition of infinitives and gerunds in the Rgveda", Journal of the University of Bombay 31:2.25-34 (1962). , "What is upahvara-", JOIB 12.275-281 (1963). Kephardt, C., Sanskrit. Its Origin, Composition and Diffusion (Strasburg Va. and Washington D.C., 1949). Kerns, J. and Schwartz, B., "Some duals and optatives in Sanskrit", J AOS 85.205-206 (1965). Klingenschmitt, Gert, 'harzen' im Indoiranischen", MSS 18.29-33 (1965). Krishnamoorthy, K., "Sanskrit psychological terminology", Gode Commemoration Volume 2.225-232 (Poona 1960). Kuiper, F. B. J., "Traces of laryngeals in Vedic Sanskrit", India Antiqua: Studies presented to J. P. Vogel 198-212 (1947). , Proto-Munda Words in Sanskrit (Amsterdam, 1948). , "The three Sanskrit roots añc-¡añj", Väk 2.36-99 (1953). , "Two FLgvedic loanwords", Festschrift Debrunner 241-250 (1954). ."Shortening of final vowels in the Rgveda", MKNA 17:11 (Amsterdam, 1955). , "Vedic Loanwords", Festschrift Kirfel 137-188 (1955). , "Vedic sadhástha- η. 'seat'", 77/ 1.309-311 (1957). , "Rigvedic sahasdvan-", Annals of Oriental Research, Madras 13.14-18 (1957). , "Nyañcani 'refuge' Ath. S. v. 5. 2d", 77/2.158 (1958). , "Rigvedic kirln- and krili-\ IL 19.349-362 (1958). , "Svàvrçti-, RS. 1.52.5a, 14c", 77/4.59-63 (1960). , "Zur kompositioneilen Kürzung im Sanskrit", Sprache 7.14-31 (1961). , "Äscarya-, n. 'marvel'", 77/ 5.136-145 (1961). , "Rigvedic párye divi", IIJ 5.169-183 (1961). , "Atharvavedic abhvà-, η. 'monster'", Lingua 11.225-230 (1962). Kulkarni, E. D., "The Kosa citations in commentarial literature belonging to the classical period", Väk 1.69-79; 2.130-150 (1951, 1953). , "The vocabulary of the Yasastilaka of Somadevasüri", ΒDC 18.313-335 (1958). , "Technical terms of elephant lore", IL 19.75-84 (1958).

SANSKRIT

27

, "The language of the Samarädityasanksepa of Pradyumnasüri", Proceedings and Transactions of the All-India Oriental Conference, Twentieth Session, Bhubaneshwar 2.241-253 (1961). Kunjunni Raja, K., "Kerala pronunciation of Sanskrit", ALB 25.461-476 (1961). , "Mâleya", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 2.12-14 (1961). Leumann, Manu, "Der altindische kausative Aorist ajijanat", Indological Studies ... Brown 152-159 (1962). , "Morphologische Neuerungen im altindischen Verbalsystem", MKNA 15:3 (Amsterdam, 1952). Levina, S. L., "Finitnoe upotrebljenie priöastij ν jazyke Mahabharaty", Kratkie soobSéenija Instituía narodov Azii, 68 (Jazykoznanie) 19-30 (1964). Liebert, Gosta, Das Nominalsuffix -ti im Altindischen (Göteborg; Lund, 1949), 240 pp. , "Uber das enklit. Pronomen vah als Subjectskasus im Rgveda, Lunds Univ. Arsskrift, N.F. (Lund, 1950). , "Über die Partikeln sü und tu im Vedischen", SL 5.53-88 (1951). , "Analogie oder Erweiterung? Zur Flexion der nominalen ä-Stämme im Indoiranischen", SL 14:2.95-113 (1960). , "Indoiranica 1", Orientalia Suecana 11.126-154 (1962). , "Indoiranica 2. Ai. ädhya-, ádhaka-", Orientalia Suecana 13.136-140 (1965). , "Ai. nïcaira- statt nicaih als Gebirgsname", Orientalia Suecana 13.126-135 (1965). Majumdar, A. K. 'talara', Bharatiya Vidyä 17.127-129 (1959). Makaev, Ε. Α., "Imennoe sklonenie ν Vediöeskom i ν Sanskrite", VJa 13:6.94-101 (1964). Manessy-Guitton, J., Les substantifs en -as dans la Rksamhitá; contribution a l'étude de la morphologie védique (Dakar-Paris, 1961). , "Les dérivés Sanscrits en -âc, -îc, -ûc", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists 818-826 (1962). , Recherches sur les dérivés nominaux a bases sigmatiques en Sanskrit et en Latin (Dakar, 1963). , "Observations sur les adjectifs en -u à propos de Skt. urú- \ Word 19.31-38 (1963). , "Les adjectifs simples en -as dans la Rk-samhitä", IIJ 7.258-283 (1964). , "Les noms Sanscrits en -nos", IIJ 8.171-196 (1965). Maurer, W. H., "Aspects of Jaina Sanskrit", ALB 26.131-176 (1962). Mayrhofer, M., "Altindisches", ZDMG 100.618-620 (1950). , "Etymologische Miszellen", AO 18(4).68-77 (1950). , "Beiträge zur altindischen Etymologie", ArchL 2.39-45, and 132-139 (1950). , "Sanskrit vpidám und badvam", JAOS 71.145-146 (1951). , "Der Göttername Rudra", ZDMG 103.140-150 (1953). , Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. A concise Etymological Sanskrit Dictionary (Heidelberg, 1953—). , "Zwei indische Miszellen", IL 19.31-34 (1958).

28

THOMAS BURROW

, "Vedisch kapaná", IIJ 3.141-142 (1959). , "Mongolische Pferdewörter bei einem Sanskrit-Lexicographen", Paideuma 7.274-276 (1960). , "Über Kontamination der indoarischen Sippen von ai. tak$-, tvakf-, *tvars-", Indo-iranica (Melanges ... Morgenstierne) 141-148 (1964). , Sanskrit-Grammatik (mit sprachvergleichenden Erläuterungen) (Berlin, 1965). Méhendale, Μ. Α., "Nirukta notes I: trcá-", IL 18.46-50 (1957). , "Vedic akkhala-: Pali akkula-", Dr. S. K. Belvalkar Commemoration Volume 12-15 (1957). , " Viápalá : a possible case of Vedic haplology", BDC 18.58-60 (1958). , "Nirukta notes II: the use of / in the speech of Yäska", Jnanamuktavali, Commemoration Volume in honour of Johannes Nobel 145-152 (1959). , " Yatumävant-", BDC 20.375-378 (1959). , "Nirukta notes III: on vâyasa- 'a cock' in a Vedic passage in the Nirukta", IL 19.85-88 (1958). , "Nirukta notes IV: Yäska's etymology of danda-\ J AOS 80.112-115 (1960). , "Some lexicographical notes on the Upanisads", IIJ 184-186 (1961). , "Two derivatives in -ya (pâjasyà-, lókya-)", BSOAS 25.597-601 (1962). , "Notes sur Nirukta ratharyatiti siddhah", JA 250.447-449 (1962). , "Nirukta notes VI: sanitavïtvat", IL 25.21-24 (1965). Meid, Wolfgang, "Zur Bedeutung und Bildung von altindisch dämünas-", IF 63.151-162 (1957-58). Michalski, Stanislaw F., "Brahman dans le Rgveda", AO 25.388-404 (1957). , "Vedique dhâsi-", RO 25.7-13 (1961). Morgenroth, W., "Zur Stammabstufung der altindischen Nomina auf -añc", Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Greifswald, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 9.435-440 (1960). , "Das Paradigma der altindischen Nomina auf -añc", AO 29.575-581 (1961). , "Die Sprache der Chändogya Upaniçad", Istorija i Kultura drevnej Indii 223-234 (1963). Morgenstierne, G., Indo-Iranica, Mélanges présentés à Georg Morgenstierne à l'occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire (Wiesbaden, 1964). Müller, Reinhold F. G., "Ci-, cit- cetano, cetas- in begrifflicher Bewertung durch altindische Ärzte", IIJ 3.259-281 (1959). , "On the Indian neuter", Jnänamuktävali: Commemoration volume in honour of Johannes Nobel 153-158 (New Delhi, 1959). , "Vedisch pataya- = 'fliegen lassen'?", Sprache 7.64-69 (1961). , "Dhätu-: eine Ausdrucksbestimmung in der indischen Medizin", RHMA 7.3-23 (1961). , "Antariksa-, äkäsa-, kha-\ RO 24:2.53-58 (1961). Nara, Yasuaki, "On some irregular uses of the cases in Buddhist (Hybrid) Sanskrit", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 2.5-11 (1961).

SANSKRIT

29

Narahari, H. G., "On the words karma and samsara", Vák 5.132-136 (1957). , "On the word 4 tâyin"', IL 21.108-111 (1960). , "More about äjararnjaribhäva", IL 25.25-26 (1965). Narten, Johanna, "Formüberschneidungen bei ved. vfsc-, vfj-, vfh- (bfh-)", MSS 14.39-52 (1959). , "Das vedische Verbum math", IIJ 4.121-135 (1960). , "Ved. abhidäsati", KZ 78.56-65 (1963). , "Die sigmatischen Aoristen im Veda" (Wiesbaden, 1964). , "Über die vedischen Belege von miv-", MSS 18.53-60 (1965). , "Ai. malimlu- und malimlucaIIJ 9.203-208 (1966). Oertel, H., "Ai. vilabä für vadabä und vägarä für vägurä", KZ 69.29-30 (1948). Pade, J. S., "Jambira-", Gode Commemoration Volume 3.141-150 (1960). Pai, M. Govind, "The word vr$ala- in 'Mudräräksasa'", Gode Commemoration Volume 3.141-150 (1960). Palsule, G. B., "A note on the word lâvanya", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 32.261-262 (1951). Panse, M. G., "Old Marathi avasvara and Vedic ava- y/svr", BDC 18.47-54 (1958). , "Some peculiar words from the Rauhineya Carita", Poona Orientalist 26.131 -139 (1962). , "The antiquity of the Grhyasutras", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal 1.287-290 (1963). Patkar, M. M., "Studies in Sanskrit lexicography", III Harsakirti's contribution to Sanskrit lexicography", The Poona Orientalist 22.39-51 (1957). Pedersen, H., "Sanskrit dur- et dhur", LPosn 2.1-3 (1950). Pensa, Corrado, "Note di lessicograpfia buddhista", RSO 39.61-67 (1964). Pisani, V., "On RV. vii.28.4 and a second root pu- 'to beat'", IL 19.147-148 (1958). Radicchi, Anna, "Confronti Gathico-rigvedici : aia- — rta", AM AT 26.41-160 (1961-62). Raghavan, V., "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit", IL 16.313-322 (1955). , "Mandapa, manda", IL 17.96-100 (1957). , "On some words and meanings", IL 21.122-127 (1960). Rahurkar, V. G., "The word r?i- in the Veda", BDC 18.55-57 (1958). Ram, Sadhu, "A note on the Vedic word asmeräh", ALB 27.116-117 (1963). Rastogi, M. L., "áaunaka and the abhinihita sandhi in the Rgveda", IL 18.21-29 (1957). Regamey, C., "Lexicological gleanings from the Kärans-

> -y->

#

into individual pieces, k>g,g>k,k>y,g>y,k># and g > # . The particular fragment g > k makes no sense and must be interpreted to indicate that /g/ and /k/ had coalesced. If y is written for OIA g in the West in the third century B.C., but later g is written for OIA k and k for OIA g, this does not imply, as Mehendale suggests, that a change g > k moved from the East to the West or that a change k > g travelled from the East to the Center to the West, but rather that the change k > 8 > y > # had progressed as far as the third stage first in the West and later g in the East and Center and that the writing of k for OIA g or g for OIA k in the West as late as the first century B.C. or A.D. is an archaic writing.

NEW INDO-ARYAN

In the field of later developments in the Indo-Aryan languages and the relationship of the Indo-Aryan languages to each other, a number of works deserve mention. The work of Morgenstierne with the Northwest languages is outstanding, although most of his writing is in the early part of the century. He has done excellent work on the relationship of the Northwest languages to each other and to the Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages. Another earlier, but excellent, work is Turner (1927a). This is an interesting work both from the point of view of the particular problem involved and from the point of view of methodology. Turner claims that Romani was originally a dialect of North Central India, that from here the Gypsies moved to the northwest settling among speakers of a closely related but nevertheless quite different

42

GORDON H. FAIRBANKS

Indo-Aryan speech, were influenced by this speech and subsequently moved to various parts of Europe and other parts of Asia. This is an intricate problem and one that is found relatively rarely in comparative linguistics. The study of this unusual problem in comparative linguistics is done in a highly competent manner and presented in a very clear manner. For this reason it is of interest to comparativists as a lesson in method even if their main focus is not Indo-Aryan. Franklin Southworth has done some work on comparative Indo-Aryan, although his thesis is presented from the point of view of testing the comparative method, rather than presenting research in comparative Indo-Aryan. It does, however, have a useful presentation of the relationship of Hindi, Panjabi, Marathi, and Bengali. D. P. Pattanayak also treats a small piece of comparative Indo-Aryan, the relationship of Hindi, Oriya, Bengali, and Assamese. He gives evidence for the latter three being more closely related to each other than to Hindi. This, of course, is not an unexpected result, but the documentation is interesting since it is based only on a comparative reconstruction. He further concludes that Oriya first separated from the other two eastern languages and then later Bengali and Assamese split off from each other. B. G. Misra, in his thesis, treats the development of the phonology of Hindi from Indo-European to the present. Although his major interest is the development of Hindi, he does present a good deal of evidence for the relationship of Hindi to the other Indo-Aryan languages. The most outstanding work in the field of Indo-Aryan comparative studies has been done by Sir Ralph Turner (1962ff.), which is a continuation, although greatly expanded, of his earlier Comparative and etymological dictionary of the Nepali language. The Comparative dictionary has been appearing in fascicules since 1962 and now the main text of the dictionary has been completed, but the indexes of words occurring in the dictionary are still to be published. Turner's comment about Bloch's Uindo-aryen applies at least equally to his own work "No Indianist can afford to be without it". It includes words from the widest range of Indo-Aryan languages, from the Gypsy languages, the languages of the Northwest and all the major varieties of Indo-Aryan in Pakistan, India, and Ceylon. It is unfortunate that Sir Ralph Turner has not written a comparative grammar of Indo-Aryan, since there is no one better qualified to do it, but the next comparative grammar will of necessity lean very heavily on his work and quite probably would not be possible without his Dictionary. This short survey of comparative Indo-Aryan has been meant to show to some extent the progression of Indo-Aryan comparative studies from the earliest work in the field. It has dealt only with those works that are in a sense comparative and has avoided discussing works dealing with only one language even though some of these may contribute greatly to comparative studies. It has also tried to point out a few lacunae that present and future scholars may wish to fill, although the field is a large one and much remains to be investigated that has not been mentioned here.

COMPARATIVE INDO-ARYAN

43

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following bibliography includes only those works that are comparative in their content or include a reasonable amount of comparative information. It excludes works that treat Old Indo-Aryan and those that treat the development of a specific language only. Such references will be found elsewhere in this volume. Allen, W. S., "Relationship in comparative linguistics", TPhS 52-108 (1953). , "Indo-Aryan", Phonetica 4.33-36 (1959). Alsdorf, L., "The origin of the New Indo-Aryan speeches", JOIB 10.129-146 (1960). Bailey, T. Grahame, "The languages of the Northern Himalayas, being studied in the grammars of twenty-six Himalayan dialects", Asiatic Society Monograph 12 (Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1908). Beames, John, A comparative grammar of the Modern Aryan languages of India, 3 volumes (London, 1872, 1875, and 1879). , Outlines of Indian philology (Calcutta, 1960), reprint from Indian Studies: Past and Present. Berger, Hermann, Zwei Probleme der Mittelindischen Lautlehre (Munich, 1955). Bloch, Jules, "L'intonation en Penjabi, une variante asiatique de la loi de Verner", Mélanges linguistiques offerts a M. J. Vendryes, Collection de la Société de Linguistique 17.57-67 (1925). , "Quelques désinences d'optatif en moyen-indien épigraphique et littéraire", Société de linguistiques de Paris, Mémoires 23.175-178 (1929). , "Some problems of Indo-Aryan philology", BSOAS 5:4.719-756 (1930). , Uindo-aryen du veda aux temps modernes (Paris, 1934). , Les inscriptions d'Asoka (Paris, 1950). , "Application de la cartographie à l'histoire de l'indo-aryen", Cahiers de la Société Asiatique 13 (Paris, 1963). Chatterjee, S. K., The origin and development of the Bengali language (Calcutta, 1926). , "The tertiary stage of Indo-Aryan", Sixth All-India Oriental Congress, Patna 643-654 (1930). , "Recursives in New Indo-Aryan", IL 1:1.15-44 (1931). Emeneau, M. B., "India as a linguistic area", Lg. 32.3-16 (1956). Ghatage, A. M., Introduction to Ardha Magadhi (Kolhapur, 1951). , "A problem in comparative method", IL 22.82-85 (1961). , Historical linguistics and Indo-Aryan languages (Bombay, 1962). Ghoshal, S. N., "A note on the nasals in contact with aspirates in Prakrit", JOIB 5.360-365 (1956). Goswami, Upendra, "OIA sibilants in Kämrüpi", BDC 18.309-312 (1957-58). Grierson, Sir George Α., "On the stress accent in Modern Indo-Aryan vernaculars", JRAS 139-147 (1895). , "The Pisäca languages of North-Western India", Asiatic Society Monograph No. 8 (London, 1906).

44

GORDON H. FAIRBANKS

, "The linguistic classification of Kashmiri", Indian Antiquary 44.257-270 (1915). , "Indo-Aryan Vernaculars", BSOAS 1:1.47-81 (1918) and BSOAS 1:3.51-85 (1920). , "Spontaneous nasalisation in the Indo-Aryan languages", JRAS 381-388 (1922). , "On the Old North-Western Prakrit", JRAS 849-852 (1927). , "Conjunct consonants in Dardic", BSOAS 6:2.349-368 (1931). , On the Modern Indo-Aryan vernaculars (Bombay, 1933). , Linguistic Survey of India, 11 Volumes (1903-27). Jain, Banarsi Das, "Stress-accent in Indo-Aryan", BSOAS 4:2.315-324 (1926). Katre, S. M., Some problems of historical linguistics in Indo-Aryan (Bombay, 1944). , Prakrit languages and their contribution to Indian culture (Bombay, 1945). Konow, Sten, "Note on the old North-Western Prakrit", JRAS 541-544 (1927). , "Note on the ancient North-Western Prakrit", BSOAS 8:2-3.603-612 (1936). Mehendale, Μ. Α., A comparative grammar of Aáokan inscriptions, BDC 3.225-290 (1942). , Historical grammar of inscriptional Prakrits (Poona, 1948). Michelson, Truman, "The interrelation of the dialects of the Fourteen Edicts of Asoka", J AOS 30.77-93 (1909) and 31.223-250 (1911). Misra, B. G., Historical phonology of Modern Standard Hindi: Proto-Indo-European to the present (unpublished dissertation, Cornell University, 1967). Morgenstierne, Georg, Report on a linguistic mission to Afghanistan (Oslo, 1926). , Report on a linguistic mission to North-Western India (Oslo, 1932). , "Indo-European k in Kafiri", NTS 13.225-238 (1945). , "Metathesis of liquids in Dardic languages", Festskrift til Prof. Olaf (Oslo, 1947). Pandit, P. B., "Indo-Aryan sibilants in Gujarati", IL 14.36-44 (1954). , "Historical phonology of Gujarati vowels", Lg. 37.54-66 (1961). Pattanayak, A. P., "A controlled historical reconstruction of Oriya, Assamese, Bengali, and Hindi (The Hague, 1966). Pischel, Richard, Grammatik der Prakrit Sprachen (Strassburg, 1900). Sen, Sukumar, Comparative grammar of Middle Indo-Aryan (Calcutta, 1951). , "Three lectures on Middle Indo-Aryan", JOIB (1961). Southworth, F. C., A test of the comparative method (a historically controlled reconstruction based on four modern Indie languages), unpublished dissertation, Yale University (1958). Tagare, G. V., Historical grammar of Apabhramsa (Poona, 1948). Turner, Sir R. L., "The Indo-Aryan nasals in Gujarati", JRAS 17-34 (1915). , "The Indo-Germanic accent in Marathi", JRAS 203-251 (1916). , "Gujarati phonology", JRAS 329-365, 505-544 (1921). , "The loss of vowel alternation in Indo-Aryan", Second All-India Oriental Congress, Calcutta 487-494 (1922). , "The Sindhi recursives or voiced stops preceded by glottal closure", BSOAS 3:2.301-315 (1924).

COMPARATIVE INDO-ARYAN

45

, "Cerebralization in Sindhi", JRAS 555-584 (1924). , "Middle Indian -d- and -dd-", Festgabe Hermann Jacobi 34-45 (Bonn, 1926). , "The position of Romani in Indo-Aryan", Gypsy Lore Society, Monograph no. 4 (Edinburgh, 1927a). Turner, Sir R. L., "The phonetic weakness of terminational elements in Indo-Aryan", JRAS 227-239 (1927b). , "Notes on Dardic", ÄSCMS 4:3.533-541 (1927c). , A comparative and etymological dictionary of the Nepali language (London, 1931). , "Review of J. Bloch's 'L'indo-aryen du veda aux temps modernes'", BSOAS 8:1.202-212 (1935). , A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages, fase. 1-11 (London, 1962ff.).

MIDDLE INDO-ARYAN 1

ERNEST BENDER

In his Presidential Address, "Progress of Prakrit and Jaina studies", presented to the twentieth session of the All India Oriental Conference held in Bhubaneswar in 1959, Dr. B. J. Sandesara, Director of the Oriental Institute and Professor of Gujarati at the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, made several remarks which, though directed to studies in India, are, I feel, applicable to some degree to work carried on in Präkrit and Apabhramáa researches in other countries. These remarks are: "The study of Prakrits is a comparatively neglected field in the domain of Indology. Sanskrit dramas have dialogues, but they [i.e. the Präkrit portions] are still studied generally with the help of Sanskrit Chäyä [gloss]... At least a workable knowledge of these is essential to understand and appreciate the heritage of India in original sources", (p. 3) "Only about two years back I had an opportunity to visit centers of Indological studies in Europe, the United States, and Japan, and it was a pleasure to find that nowhere a student was considered properly equipped in Sanskrit unless he had a workable knowledge of Pali and Präkrit. This is as it should be. But the position is quite different in our own country, which is the home of all the three languages as well as of the culture which nourished and enriched them. It is an irony of fate that Präkrit or the language of the people was being looked down upon, and that the same attitude has continued even to this day", (p. 4) "All the new IndoAryan languages are derived from Sanskrit through Präkrit and its later form Apabhramáa. The history of form or meaning of most New Indo-Aryan words can hardly be traced without reference to Präkrit and Apabhramsa. A large number of words is found only in Präkrit, and some grammatical peculiarities could be explained only with the help of Präkrit usage. A historical study of any of the Indo-Aryan languages cannot be undertaken without a proper study of the Präkrits, and a workable knowledge of Präkrits is expected of any serious student of these modern languages. As a person who has edited and translated Sanskrit, Prakrit and Old Gujarati texts I would like to emphasize the fact that the study of Sanskrit is incomplete without Präkrit, but a study of New Indo-Aryan languages especially in their older forms would be ridiculous without proper equipment in Präkrit". (p. 7) From my 1

The papers on "Middle Indo-Aryan" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Encyclopedia Americana delineate the scope of the term.

MIDDLE INDO-ARYAN

47

own experience I can say that I am in full agreement with Dr. Sandesara's last quote. With reference to the first quote my following observations for the period covered (c. 1946 to the present) will show — and I am confident that Dr. Sandesara will agree — that there has been a gradual increase in Middle Indo-Aryan studies in India, as well as in other countries. (It may be of interest to note that the countries of Eastern Europe, with an occasional exception, direct their interest to the earliest period of Middle Indo-Aryan, i.e. the Asokan inscriptions and Pâli, concentrating their South Asian studies on the New Indo-Aryan languages). The period is marked by the activity in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskritic studies and to a lesser degree in "Jain Sanskrit". Work in Pali, Prakrit and Apabhramsa has also increased. During the past ten or fifteen years the techniques employed in work on Middle Indo-Aryan have been those of philology, rather than of structural linguistics. For the most part, articles are concerned with etymologies and the larger studies with lexicography and the interpretation of textual content (semantics). The few Middle Indo-Aryan scholars who have worked with the differing techniques in the general field of structural linguistics have made illuminating observations. We can expect more from these in the future as training in the diiferent techniques is made available. A number of scholars are responsible for the quickening in Präkrit-Apabhramsa studies. Several names are in the forefront. One, ári Muni Punyavijayaji, the guiding light of the Prakrit Text Society. He has devoted himself to the maintenance and the preservation of ancient Jain manuscript collections and was instrumental in the creation at Pâtan of the Jinägama Prakäsini Samsad (Society for the Publication of the Jain Canon). Many scholars engaged in research are indebted to the Muni for his help in getting access to manuscript collections and his willingness to share his wealth of knowledge. He has presented his library, comprising several thousands of manuscripts, to the Bharatiya Samskrti Vidyämandir at Ahmedabad, conceived by him and brought to fruition through the benefaction of Sheth Kasturbhai Lalbhai. (The present writer is a grateful recipient of the Muni's generosity over the years). Furthermore, the Muni's own work has contributed immeasurably to Middle IndoAryan researches. Another Indian scholar devoted to Middle Indo-Aryan studies and their cultivation is ári Muni Jinavijayaji, among whose many accomplishments is the founding of the Bharatiya Vidyä Bhavan at the request of and in cooperation with ári Κ. M. Munshi. To the Muni Middle Indo-Aryan researchers are deeply obligated for persuading the late Babu Bahadur Singhi to found and patronize the Singhi Jain Series and to entrust its publication to the Bhavan. (His sons continue this generous act). The Muni is the Director and General Editor of the Series. Space does not permit us to give full recognition to all the other Indian scholars working in the field. However, certain names stand out. Among them are Suniti Kumar Chatteiji, doyen of Indological Studies in India and Emeritus Professor of Comparative Philology at the University of Calcutta, H. D. Velankar, S. M. Katre, B. J. Sandesara, Sukumar Sen, A. M. Ghatage, H. C. Bhayani, Pt. Bhojak, M. A.

48

ERNEST BENDER

Mehendale, R. Ν. Vale, A. N. Upadhye, G. V. Tagare, P. B. Pandit, V. S. Agrawala2, U. P. Shah, J. S. Jetly, R. G. Basak, K. R. Norman, Hiralal Jain, and, in Ceylon, 0 . H. de Wijesekera, S. Paranavitana, D. E. Hettiaratchi, D. J. Wijayaratne, W. M. S. De Silva, P. B. F. Wijeratne, C. E. Godakumbara, and G. P. Malalasekara. Beyond India — with unavoidable and regrettable omissions — we list the late Franklin Edgerton, M. B. Emeneau, W. N. Brown, Edward Conze, P. Tedesco, H. V. Guenther, L. Sternbach, Alex Wayman, Kun Chang, D. Seyfort Ruegg, A. K. Warder, Sir Ralph L. Turner, H. W. Bailey, T. Burrow, J. Brough, D. L. Snellgrove, 1. B. Horner, W. S. Allen, F. B. J. Kuiper, L. Alsdorf, E. Waldschmidt, W. Schubring, D. Schlingloff, H. Berger, R. Birwé, K. Bruhn, M. Mayrhofer, K. de Vreese, H. Hendriksen, H. Lüders, J. Nobel, H. Smith, D. Andersen, S. Lienhard, H. Bechert, Ivo Fiser, G. M. Bongard-Levin, T. J. Elizarenkova, V. N. Toporov, Václav Machek, A. I. Bendik, V. S. Grivnin, L. S. Schwarzschild, Y. S. Hakeda, G. M. Nagao, I. U. Iwamoto, G. H. Sasaki, Jules Bloch, A. Bareau, C. Caillat, É. Lamotte, G. Tucci, and V. Pisani. Several significant works have appeared during this period — Franklin Edgerton's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit grammar and dictionary (I have been told that it is no longer available. If so, we hope that plans are in progress for another print of this remarkable and invaluable work) ; Sir Ralph L. Turner's A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages (his Comparative dictionary of the Nepali language, I am happy to report, has been reprinted recently); work has been resumed on the Critical Pali dictionary, begun by V. Trenckner, continued by Dines Andersen and Helmer Smith (The first volume was completed in 1948. H. Hendriksen, who had been co-editor since 1944, assumed the chief responsibility after 1951, then in 1956, no longer feeling able to bear the burden alone, resigned. In accordance with his recommendations the work is continued under the direction of an Administrative Committee, consisting of L. L. Hammerich, K. Barr, and L. Hjelmslev, and a Supervisory Committee, comprising Professor Hendriksen, L. Alsdorf, I. B. Horner, H. Humbach, and G. P. Malalasekara); and the Pàli Tipifakam Concordance of the Pâli Text Society, London. At this time there come to mind several "tools of the trade" essential to the furthering of Middle Indo-Aryan studies: (1) an extensive, fully documented Prakrit dictionary (a second edition of H. D. Sheth's Päia-Sadda-Mahannavo, edited by V. S. Agrawala and D. B. Malvania, has appeared as volume number 7 of The Prakrit Text Society Series, 1963); (2) an extensive, fully documented Apabhramsa dictionary (the Critical Pâli dictionary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters provides an excellent model); (3) a comprehensive reference Apabhramáa grammar; (4) a comprehensive reference Prakrit grammar; (5) a study in depth of "Jain Sanskrit" — of inestimable value for its unique vocabulary and syntax; and (6) archives to record work done or research in progress in Middle Indo-Aryan, as well as the names of scholars participating in this field. (The writer values the bibliographies a

It is my sad duty to report that Professor Agrawala died on July 26, 1966.

MIDDLE INDO-ARYAN

49

which provided clues enabling him to assemble, directly or indirectly — too often, alas!, the latter —, the materials for this report; however he prefers to recall the successes, rather than the disappointments he encountered.) Perhaps the archives would be able to issue periodical reports of its holdings. The "Selected Bibliography" is intended to present an overall picture of the studies being carried out in Middle Indo-Aryan.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Critical Pâli dictionary, begun by V. Trenckner; Vol. II. H. Hendriksen, et. al., continuing the work of Dines Andersen and Helmer Smith (Copenhagen, 1965). V. S. Agrawala, "Näitta ... in Apabhramáa literature", JO IB 5.103-104 (1955-56). Ludwig Alsdorf, "Sahadhammiko vâdânuvâdogârayham thanam ägacchati", ZDMG 109.317-323 (1959). H. W. Bailey, "Vijaya Sängräma", Asia Major, n.s. 7.11-24 (1959). , "Buddhist Sanskrit", JRAS 13-24 (1955). , "Ariaca", BSOAS 15.530-540 (1953). , "Indo-Iranica, II", BSOAS 13.121-139 (1949-51). , "Indo-Iranica, ΠΙ", BSOAS 13.389-409 (1949-51). , "Indo-Iranica, IV", BSOAS 13.920-938 (1949-51). , "Gändhäri", BSOAS 11.764-797 (1943-46). Heinz Bechert, "Über Singhalesisches im Pälikanon", WZKSO 1.71-75 (1957). , "Grammatisches aus dem Apadäna-Buch", ZDMG 108.308 ff. (1958). Ernest Bender, review of G. V. Tagare's Historical grammar of Apabhrarpsa, Lg. 27.575-577 (1951). , review of R. N. Vale's Verbal composition in Indo-Aryan, JAOS 69.106-108 (1949). Hermann Berger, Zwei Probleme der mittelindischen Lautlehre (München, 1955). , "Bemerkungen zur Endung der 1 pl. präs. im Mittelindischen", Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 11.109-112 (1957). , "Pâli porisa 'Mensch'", WZKSO 1.76-80 (1957). Udayasimha Bhätanagara, "Apabhramáa", Éodh Patrika 1 (1947). H. C. Bhayani, "The Late MIA suffix -äna-", Adyar Library Bulletin 25.313 (1961). , "Paümacariu of Kaviräja Svayambhüdeva, 3 vols (Bombay, 1953, 1953, 1960). , "Apabhraipáa ane Pracin Gujarati", Gujarätt Sähitya Parifad Patrikä 3 (1946). R. Birwé, review of H. Berger's Zwei Probleme der mittelindischen Lautlehre, ZDMG 109.221-224 (Wiesbaden, 1959). Jules Bloch, Les Inscriptions d'Asoka (Paris, 1950). G. M. Bongard-Levin, "Ähäle", Kratkie soobSëenija Instituía narodov Azii, Moskva 57.10-20 (1961). John Brough, The Gändhäri Dharmapada (Oxford, 1962).

50

ERNEST BENDER

, "A Kharosthï Inscription from China", BSOAS 24.517-530 (1961). , "Some notes on Maitrakanyaka: Divyâvadana xxxviii", BSOAS 20.111-132 (1957). , "The language of the Buddhist Sanskrit texts", BSOAS 16.351-375 (1954). Klaus Bruhn, Sïlânkas Caupaririamahäpurisacariya (Paris, 1961). Colette Caillat, "Deux études de moyen-indien", JA 248.41-64 (1960). , review of H. Berger's Zwei Probleme der mittelindischen Lautlehre, BSL 53.2 (1957-58). Kun Chang, A comparative study of the Kajhinavastu ('s-Gravenhage, 1957). S. K. Chatterji and Sukumar Sen, A Middle Indo-Aryan reader2 (Calcutta, 1957). S. K. Chatteiji, Indo-Aryan and Hindi2 (Calcutta, 1960). Edward Conze, Vajracchedika Prajñápáramitá (Rome, 1957). A. H. Dani, Indian paleography (Oxford, 1963). J. W. de Jong, review of E. Conze's Vajracchedika Prajñápáramitá, IIJ 4.75 (1960). Κ. de Vreese, review of S. Jha's The formation of the Maithili language, J AOS 82.402403 (1962). , "Did Middle Indian know an abl. sg. m. n. in äm?", BSOAS 17.369-371 (1955). , "A Dravidian turn in Apabhramáa", JRAS 35-42 (1954). , "Dravidismen in het Pali", HandVIFC 20.96-99 (1953). , "Apabhramáa Studies I", JAOS 74.1-5 (1954). , "Apabhraipsa Studies II", JAOS 74.142-146 (1954). , "Apabhramáa Studies ΠΙ", JAOS 79.7-16 (1959). , "Apabhramáa Studies IV", JAOS 81.13-21 (1961). Josef Deleu and Walther Schubring, Studien zum Mahânisïha (Ch. 1-5) (Hamburg, 1963). Hiä-lin Dschi, "Pâli âsïyati", IF 62.2 (1956). Franklin Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit grammar and dictionary, 2 vols (New Haven, 1953). , Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, language and literature (Bañaras, 1954). , review of A Critical Pâli dictionary, vol. II, JAOS 82.90-91 (1962). , review of Pàli Tipi(akam concordance, vol. I (A-N), JAOS 80.4.367-369 (1960). , review of Jules Bloch's Les Inscriptions d'Asoka, JAOS 72.114-117 (1952). , "On editing Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit', JAOS 77.184-192 (1957). , review of Ernst Waldschmidt's Das Mahávadánasütra, JAOS 77.227-223 (1957). , "Pah and Ardhamägadhi bondi and BHS vradi 'body'", JAOS 69.229 (1949). , "The Prajfiä-päramitä-ratna-guna-samcaya-gäthä", IIJ 5.1-18 (1961). , "The nature of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit", Journal of the Ganganatha Jha Research Institute 11/12.2, 1-10 (1955). , "The Middle Indie verb system", Asiatica {Festschrift Friedrich Weller) 78-81 (1954). , "Semantic notes on Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit", Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung [Festschrift Albert Debrunner) 129-134 (1954).

MIDDLE INDO-ARYAN

51

Franklin Edgerton, "Indie causatives in -äpayati (-äpeti, ävei)", Lg 22.94-101 (1946). , "Meter, phonology and orthography in BHS", J AO S 66.197-206 (1946). Murray B. Emeneau, review of J. Brough's Gândhâri Dharmapada, J AOS 82.400-402 (1962). , "Notes on the Kälakäcäryakathä", JAOS 71.174-177 (1951). T. Ja. Elizarenkova and V. N. Toporov, "The phonemic system of Pâli, a tentative description", Lingua Posnaniensis 9.131-154 (1963). Achim Fachs, "Verfallserscheinungen in der Nominalflexion und der Kasusersatz in der Pälisprache", WZUR 11.721-735 (1962). Ivo Fiser, "The Problem of the Setthi in Buddhist Jätakas", Archiv Orientalni 22 (1954). Wilhelm Geiger, "The chronological summary of the development of the Sinhalese language", KZ 76:1/2.52-59 (1959). A. M. Ghatage, Historical linguistics and Indo-Aryan languages (Bombay, 1962). , Kahânaya-Tigarp (Kolhapur, 1951). S. N. Ghosal, "A Präkrit word and some linguistic phenomena at the background of its origin", JOIB 10.279-282 (1960-1961). , "A note on a Präkrit vocable", JOIB 7.196-201 (1957-58). , "A note on the nasals in contact with aspirates in Präkrit", JOIB 5.360-365 (1955-56). C. E. Godakumbara, "Sädhucaritodaya (An unnoticed Pâli poem)", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Ceylon Branch) (1950). Herbert Gunther, "Noun inflexion in Old Sinhalese", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (Ceylon Branch) (1949). H. Hendriksen, "Three conjugations in Sinhalese", BSOAS 13.154 (1951). , "A syntactic rule in Pâli and Ardhamägadhi", AcOr 20 (1947). S. M. Katre, Introduction to Indian textual criticism2 (Poona, 1954). F. B. J. Kuiper, "Paisäci Katäpa- 'bundle'", IIJ 6.296-297 (1963). , "The Paiàâcï Fragment of the Kuvalayamälä", IIJ 1.229-240 (1957). H. Lüders, Beobachtungen über die Sprache des buddhistischen Uricanons: aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben von Ernst Waldschmidt, ADA W (Berlin, 1954). Václav Machek, "Two contributions to the interpretation of Asokan inscriptions", The Adyar Library Bulletin 25.28-39 (1961). Manfred Mayrhofer, Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen; Fase. 1-18 (1964), Bd. I (A-Th; 1956); Bd. II (D-M; 1963); Fase. 18 (1964). , review of H. Berger's Zwei Probleme der mittelindischen Lautlehre, IIJ 1.100102 (1957). , Handbuch des Pâli, 2 vols (Heidelberg, 1951). M. A. Mehendale, "Some remarks on the language of the Original Buddhist Canon", BDC 17.157-171 (1955-1956). , Historical grammar of inscriptional Prakrits (Poona, 1948).

52

ERNEST BENDER

M. Gadju Nagao, "Connotations of the word âsraya (basis) in the MahäyänaSuträlamkära", Sino-Indian Studies (.Festschrift Liebenthal) 5.3/4 (1957). Johannes Nobel, "Über die Bedeutung der tibetischen Versionen für das Verständnis des 'buddhistischen hybriden Sanskrit'", SO 19.8 (1953). K. R. Norman, "Middle Indo-Aryan studies I", JOIB 9.268-273 (1959-60). , "Middle Indo-Aryan studies II", JOIB 10.348-352 (1960-61). , "Middle Indo-Aryan studies ΙΠ", JOIB 11.322-327 (1961-62). , "Some vowel values in Middle Indo-Aryan", IL 21.104-107 (1960). , "Some absolute terms in Ardha-Mägadhi", IIJ 2.311-315 (1958). , "Samprasärana in Middle Indo-Aryan", JRAS 44-50 (1958). Pâli Tipifakam concordance, F. L. Woodward and E. M. Hare. (London, 1952-57). P. B. Pandit, Präkrta bhä$ä (Bañaras, 1961). S. Paranavitana, Sigiri Graffiti (Oxford, 1956). Vittore Pisani, "On the origin of Präkrtam and Pâli as language designations", Belvalkar Felicitation Volume 185-191 (Bañaras, 1957). Muni Shri Punyavijayajï, AAgavijjä (Bañaras, 1957). Swarnalata Prasad, "Juncture and Aitch in Magahi", IL 20:2.118-124 (1959) [Turner Memorial Volume]. C. H. B. Reynolds, "Sigiri Graffiti and Sinhalese phonology", BSOAS 20.481 (1957). Baburam Saksena, "A suggestion to solve some etymological problems of Middle Indo-Aryan", Gode Commemoration Volume 335-336 (Poona, 1960). B. J. Sandesra and J. P. Thaker, Lexical studies in Jaina Sanskrit (Baroda, 1962). Walther Schubring, Drei Chedasütras des Jaina-Kanons (Hamburg, 1966). , Jnänamuktävali (Delhi, 1959). L. A. Schwarzschild, "The Middle Indo-Aryan prefix vo- 'off' and some phonological problems associated with it", J AOS 85.350-367 (1965). , "'First', 'second' and 'third' in Middle Indo-Aryan", JAO S 82.517-522 (1962). , "Some Indo-Aryan words meaning 'all'", J AOS 80.13-17 (1960). , "Notes on some Middle Indo-Aryan words in -11-", JAOS 77.203-207 (1957). , "Some Forms of the Middle Indo-Aryan", JAOS 76.111-115 (1956). , "Some forms of the absolutive in Middle Indo-Aryan", JAOS 76.111-115 (1956). , "Quelques adverbes pronominaux du moyen indien", JA 244.265-273 (1956). , "Notes on the declension of feminine nouns in Middle Indo-Aryan", JRAS 181-190 (1956). , "Notes on the history of the infinitive in Middle Indo-Aryan", IL 16.29-34 (1955). , "The possessive adjectives of Late Prakrt", JRAS 127-136 (1954). Sukumar Sen, Comparative Grammar of Middle Indo-Aryan2 (Poona, 1961). , "Three lectures on Middle Indo-Aryan", JOIB 11.193-216 (1961-62). , "Historical syntax of Middle Indo-Aryan", IL, vol. 13 (1953). D. C. Sircar, Indian epigraphy (Calcutta, 1966).

MIDDLE INDO-ARYAN

53

Helmer Smith, "En Marge du vocabulaire sanskrit des bouddhistes I", Orientalia Suecana 1:1/2.119 (1952). , "En Marge du vocabulaire sanskrit des bouddhistes II", Orientalia Suecana 2.119-128 (1953). , "En Marge du vocabulaire sanskrit des bouddhistes III", Orientalia Suecana 3.31-35 (1954). , "En Marge du vocabulaire sanskrit des bouddhistes IV", Orientalia Suecana vol. 4 (1955). , Saddanïti, la grammaire d'Aggavamsa (1949). , "Les deux prosodies du vers bouddhique", Bulletin de la Société Royale des Lettres des Lund 1.38-40 (1949-1950). Hargovind Das T. Sheth, Pâia-sadda-mahannava2 (A comprehensive Prakrit-Hindi dictionary). Ed. by V. S. Agrawala and D. B. Malvania. (Varanasi [Bañaras], 1963). G. V. Tagare, Historical grammar of Apabhramsa (Poona, 1948). , "Reduplication in Apabhramáa", Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (1948). P. Tedesco, "Turner's Comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages", JAOS 85.368-388 (1965). , "Notes to Mayrhofens Sanskrit dictionary", JAOS 80.360-366 (1960). , review of M. A. Mehendale's Historical grammar of inscriptional Prakrits", JAOS 71.183-186 (1951). Sir Ralph L. Turner, A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages, Vol 1 (London, 1966). A. N. Upadhye, "Marathi elements in a Prakrit drama", IL 16.147-152 (1955). , Lïlâvaï, a Romantic Kävya in Mähärätfri Präkrit of Koühala, with the Sanskrit Vrtti of a J aim author (Bombay, 1949). C. S. Upasak, The history and palaeography of Mauryan Brahmi script (Patna, 1960). P. L. Vaidya, Präkrit Grammar of Trivikrama (Sholapur, 1954). , "On the use of Präkrit dialects in Sanskrit dramas", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute 33.15-25 (1952). R. N. Vale, Verbal composition in Indo-Aryan (Poona, 1948). H. D. Velankar, Chando'nusäsana of Hemacandrasûri (A comprehensive treatise of Sanskrit, Präkrit and Apabhramsa prosody) (Bombay, 1961). V. V. Vertogradova, "A classification of Ardhamägadhi phonemes based on a classification of their distribution", Kratkie soobscenija Instituía narodov Azii, Moskva 61.125-141 (1963). Bhola Shanker Vyas, Prákrita-Paiñgalam, A text on Präkrit and Apabhramáa meters (Bañaras, 1959). Ernst Waldschmidt, Das Mahävadänasütra 2 vols (Berlin, 1953, 1956). , Das Mahäparinirvänasütra (Berlin, 1950). A. K. Warder, Introduction to Pâli (London, 1963).

54

ERNEST BENDER

P. Β. F. Wijeratne, "Phonology of the Sinhalese inscriptions up to the end of the 12th century, A.D." BSOAS 11.580-594, 823-836 (1943-48), 13.166-181 (1948-51). R. Williams, Two Prakrit versions of the Manipaticarita. James G. Forlong Fund 26 (London, 1959). F. L. Woodward and E. M. Hare, Pali Tipifakam Concordance (London, 1952-57).

HINDI

VLADÍMIR MILTNER

The importance of Hindi, the official language of India, and the fourth most spoken language of the world, increases day by day. This fact, however, is not reflected in the methodological elegance of Hindi linguistic research. For the most part the treatises on Hindi, even the newest ones, though they are fairly detailed and thorough resemble the classical works written by the founders of Hindi studies so long ago. Recently, modern linguistic methods have begun making their way into this field. The works of such great scholars as T. G. Bailey, A. P. Barannikov,1 J. Beames, S. K. Chatterji, á. S. Das, G. A. Grierson, Κ. P. Guru, R. Hoernle, S. H. Kellogg, J. T. Platts, Β. R. Saksenâ, Dh. Varmä, R. C. Varmä, and others, done before 1947, are not mentioned here. In this chapter, I focus my attention on the Hindi studies published after 1947, though they should not be looked upon as breaking with tradition. Of course, I could not get through the enormous number of linguistic studies, often of questionable quality which touch upon so many particular phenomena of the Hindi language — it is beyond my power, and, moreover, it would be of no use, I think. I shall discuss explicitly the most important ones, while the others are referred to only in the bibliography which, of course, is far from being complete. Above all, it is in India where many Hindi studies appear in many journals, such as Bharatiya Vidyä (Bombay), Bhäfä (Dilli), Hindi Review (Varanasi), Hindi-anusilan (Prayäg), Indian Linguistics (Poona), Nägripracärinl patrikä (Käsi), Sammelan patrikä (Prayäg), etc. The development of Hindi as the official language of some Indian states and of the Republic of India is dealt with in K. D. Väjpeyi's Rä$(rbhä?ä kä itihäs, M. P. Desai's The Hindi Prachar movement, and à. K. Misr's Kharïboli kä ändolan. P. Α. Barannikov's articles "O sloienii nacional'nogo jazyka xindustani" and "K voprosu o sloíenii nacional'nogo jazyka xindustani" describe merely the establishment of Hindi as a national language rather than the political situation and similar circumstances. With the elevation of Hindi, many new problems have arisen, especially in

1

Not to be mistake for his son, P. A. Barannikov.

56

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

Bengal and in the South, but also within the Hindi area proper, as is reflected in the articles "Die indische Staatssprache während der letzten fünf Jahre" by W. Rau, "The language problem of India and Pakistan" by W. N. Brown, "Les problèmes linguistiques de l'Inde contemporaine" by L. Rocher, "Language problems in the rural development of North India" by J. J. Gumperz, "The problem of a 'national' or 'official language' in India" by Senthamilan, "The future of English in India" by P. E. Dustoor, "Hind! ki samasyâê" by Srïrâjan, etc., where often very contradictory opinions may be found. Moreover, it is not always very clear what form of Hindi should be followed for the official language, as follows from the article "Râjbhâçâ kä vâstavik rüp" by R. S. Sukl. The officials have to learn their official language from such handbooks as R. V. Sïh's Hindi më sarkäri käm-käj karne kï vidhi. There are also some problems with the teaching of Hindi in the schools, as discussed by B. Bh. Sarmä in "Dvitïy bhâçâ ke rüp më hïdï kä siksan" and Harïs in "Hïdï bhäsä aur uske adhyayan — adhyäpan kï samasyâê". The question of the stratification of Hindi, of its forms and styles, and its relationship to Urdu remains still unsolved, too. Recently, a fairly keen article by R. N. Srivastav appeared, namely "K voprosu o stratifikacii jazyka xindi". Here, R. N. Srivastav criticizes the views expressed by G. A. Zograf in "Voprosy formirovanija urdu", P. A. Barannikov in "Style synonyms in modern Hindi" and "Absoljutnye sinonimy ν sovremennom xindi", E. P. CelySev in "K voprosu o putjax formirovanija i razvitija leksiki ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi" and some others, and his conception seems to be a step forward. P. A. Barannikov imagines the relationship between Hindi and Urdu to be like two branches bifurcating from the so-called "neutral" style; each of the two branches passes through common Hindi and Urdu and leads to high Hindi and Urdu, which R. N. Srivastav thinks to be oversimplified. On the other hand, E. P. CelySev classified Hindi into six levels: pure Hindi, sanskritized Hindi, common Hindi, genuine colloquial Hindi, Hindi mixed with Urdu, and pure Urdu. R. N. Srivastav objects to this quite correctly : it would be very difficult, nay impossible, to show clearly the difference between the pure Hindi and the sanskritized Hindi, or between the common Hindi and genuine colloquial Hindi. And really, E. P. CelySev could not demonstrate it in his article. Moreover, to consider Urdu as nothing but a level of Hindi does not correspond to reality. R. N. Srivastav simultaneously takes into consideration both the functional styles of Hindi and Urdu and their social levels. Thus he arrives at a fairly adequate abstract graph which comprises not only the scientific and literary language and the colloquial speech of the educated speakers, but the speech of the illiterate people and the dialects as well. He shows various degrees of relationship between Hindi and Urdu and their particular levels, respectively, and also the fact that the colloquial forms of both languages are influenced and enriched by the admixture of their literary styles and some forms from their dialects. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in obtaining "Dialect differences and social stratification in a North Indian village" by J. J. Gumperz. In another article, namely,

HINDI

57

"Formal and informal standards in the Hindi regional language area", J. J. Gumperz and C. M. Nairn discuss the position of Hindi in the Hindi area and compare it with the position of other Indian languages in their respective areas. They say correctly that contrary to Hindi, other regional languages are limited to compact, geographically well defined areas; there exists a well recognized standard in each area. This is not the case with Hindi. Therefore, the study takes as its unit of analysis not a particular style, but all forms of the standard language in the regional language area. The authors describe the social environment of the standard, its relation to local dialects, its development and function within the speech community; further, they put forward a linguistic analysis of speech variation and its relation to other factors in the social system. The historical development of Hindi is the subject of many studies, e.g. I. C. áastri's Bhárat ki äry-bhä?äe, S. Lienhard's Dal sanscrito all'hindi, Il nevârï, S. S. Narülä's Hindi aur prädesik bhä$äö kä vaijñánik itihäs and Scientific history of the Hindi language, U. Ν. Tiväri's Hindi bhäfä kä udgam aur vikäs, S. K. Chatterji's "Mutual borrowing in Indo-Aryan", P. A. Barannikov's "On the periodization of the history of the Hindi language", V. S. Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij's "O rannem periode formirovanija jazykov narodnostej severnoj Indii", N. SIh's Hidi ke vikäs më apbhräs kä yog, S. R. Caturvedï's "Hïdï kä apbhräs se koi säbädh nahï hai", etc. The books by I. C. àâstrï, S. Lienhard, and à. S. Narülä represent general outlines, but still they are original, being based mostly on their authors' own investigations. That by S. Lienhard consists of three lectures delivered in Venice, in 1961, but only the second one is immediately related to our matter. U. N. Tiväri's Hindi bhä?ä kä udgam aur vikäs and N. Sih's Hidi ke vikäs më apbhräs kä yog are full of very useful language material presented by the reliable, though a little clumsy, traditional method ; both of them are indispensable for the students of Hindi. Particular texts are analyzed in à. P. Sih's Kirtilatä aur avhafth bhäsä and Sür-pürv brajbhäfä aur uskä sähity, H. C. Bhayani's "Prince of Wales museum stone inscription from Dhar", M. P. Gupt's Räul vel aur uski bhäfä, S. Κ. Chatterji's "A study of the new Indo-Aryan speech treated in the Ukti-vyakti-prakarana", V. Miltner's Early Hindi morphology and syntax, N. Sih's Prthviräj-räso ki bhäfä, L. Dhar's Padumävati, D. N. árivastav's Tulsidäs kï bhäfä. From the viewpoint of historical importance we should direct our attention to the Räul vel and the Ukti-vyakti-prakaran, two of the earliest Hindi texts preserved; the former belongs to the 11th century, the latter to the 12th century. The text of the Räul vel (or Räur vel) was published for the first time by H. C. Bhayani with English translation and vocabulary; then it was published with a thorough morphological study by M. P. Gupt. The text appeared also in à. P. Sïh's Sür-pürv brajbhäfä aur uskä sähity and Kirtilatä aur avha((h bhä?ä, with some keen notes. As to the language of the Räul vel, the scholars are of slightly different opinions. H. C. Bhayani says that the language can be in general characterized as post-Apbhrâà, and the dialects of the respective parts in particular are predecessors

58

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

of Awdhi, Marathi, Western Hindi, Panjabi, Bengali, and Malwi. M. P. Gupt, however, thinks that the language of the whole text is to be taken for Southern Kosli (dakfin kosli) influenced in its particular parts by Western Hindi, Marathi, Old Western Rajsthani (or Gujrati), Panjabi (fakkini), Bengali (gauñ), and Malwi. á. P. Sïh supports M. P. Gupt's opinion. I do not see any great difference here. The new Indo-Aryan languages of the 11th century were just evolving out of the previous Avhatth stage; no wonder that their distinctive features had not yet developed to such a high degree as we can see it in their modern offsprings. Did we not read that Cand wrote in Hindi, in Rajsthani, in Panjabi, did we not read that the caryäs are written in Bengali, in Maithili, in Hindi? The language of the Ukti-vyakti-prakarari has been labelled as an early stage of Kosli or Eastern Hindi in its Awdhi form by S. K . Chatterji, who offered the first grammatical study of this text. Other scholars also pay attention to this important document, e.g. N. Sïh in Hïdi ke vikâs më apbhräs kä yog, U. Ν. Tiväri in Hindi bhäsä kä udgam aur vikäs, P. Sïh in Sür-pürv brajbhä?ä aur uskä sähity and in Kirtilatä aur avhatth bhä$ä. Recently, V. Miltner published a detailed study of the grammatical structure of the Ukti-vyakti-prakaran under the title Early Hindi morphology and syntax. In this pamphlet, both the morphological and syntactic structure of the Ukti-vyakti-prakarari are presented in the same way. The lists of the morphological and syntactic elements are arranged in the shape of three columns. It is the middle column where the order, either alphabetic or hierarchic, is observed ; the eventually preceding elements are written down in the first column, and the following ones are given in the third column. The morphological elements are put in rows according to their real sequence in the analyzed forms. The syntactic elements, however, follow the sequence of their syntactic hierarchy and not the word-order. This arrangement of the elements has a certain advantage: e.g. by virtue of three forms eti, etë, and teta, recorded as

0t-

-ET-

-a -i -ë

it is quite easy to predict the existence of the forms eta, teti, and tetë, which are not evident in the text, but which are undoubtedly correct. The case with the syntactic elements is similar. There are not only all the evident chains of elements, both morphological and syntactic, recorded in the study, but also all the chains that can be theoretically deduced on the basis of the material are predicted here, so that an unlimited number of new sentences not in the original corpus is projected. The sentence structure of the Ukti-vyakti-prakaran has been compared with that of the caryäs and pholä-Märü rä dühä in V. Miltner's "Old Bengali, old Kosli and old Marwari sentence structure compared". By means of some statistical methods he concluded that, with regard to the sentence structure, the relation of old Bengali to

HINDI

59

old Kosli is somewhat closer than the relation between old Marwari and old Bengali, while the relation of old Kosli to old Marwari is less close than either. The activities of John Gilchrist and others in the first half of the 19th century are described in L. S. Värsney's book Phorf Viliyam kälej (1800-1854 ï.). A very important, but still little studied, period of the development of Hindi is illustrated by G. A. Zograf in his Xindustani na rubeze XVIII i XIX vv. and "Kal'kuttskij xindustani konca XVIII v. ν osvesöenii G. S. Lebedeva". In his studies, G. A. Zograf presented us with a nice outline of the Hindi and Urdu grammar and lexicon as treated in the oldest treatises by J. J. Ketelaer (published in 1743), B. Schulz (published in 1745), the anonymous Alphabetum brammhanicum seu Indostanum Universitatis Kasi (published in 1771) and Grammatica Indostana a mais vulgar que se practica no Imperio do gram Mogol offerecida aos muitos Reverendos Padres Missionaries do ditto Imperio (published in 1778), the works by G. Hadley (published in 1772), J. Fergusson (published in 1773), J. Gilchrist (published in 1796), H. Lebedeff (published in 1801), and also the literary works by Mir, Saudä, Insä, Mir Amman, Sadal Misr, Lallü Lai, and others. Other aspects of the development of Hindi are discussed broadly in V. N. Misr's Hindi bhâçâ aur sàhity par ägreji prabhäv and L. N. Gupt's Hindi bhâçâ aur sähity ko Ärysamäj kï den. Here, however, much more attention has been paid to the literature than to the language. The description of Hindi dialects has made considerable progress, though very much work is still to be done. Many articles, both general and special, have been published in various journals and in the volume of Pâcdas lokbhâçà-nibâdhâvlï. Among other studies of the Hindi dialects I would like to mention Grämiij hïdï by Dh. Varmä, "Brajbhâçâ-vyâkaran kî rüprekhä" supplementary to P. N. Tandan's Brajbhâçâ Sür-kos, Ägrä jile kï boli by R. S. Caturvedï, Avdhl aur uskä sähity by T. N. Dïkçit, A linguistic study of Bundeli by M. P. Jaiswal, Madhydesïy bhâçâ by H. N. Dvivedi, Dakkhinï hïdï by B. R. Saksenâ, Râjsthânï bhä?ä by S. Κ. Catarjï, Rájstháni bhásá aur sähity by M. L. Menäriyä, Säkfipt räjsthäni-vyäkarari by N. D. Syâmî, Bhojpurï bhä$ä aur sâhity and The origin and development of Bhojpuri by U. N. Tiväri, and The formation of the Maithili language by S. Jhä. A great number of grammars, handbooks, and readers of standard Hindi has been published in the last two decades, e.g. A. Sharma's A basic grammar of modern Hindi, K. D. Väjpeyi's Hindi sabdänusäsan, V. Porízka's Hinditina — Hindi language course I, M. J. Harter and others' Hindi basic course, T. E. Katenina's Jazyk xindi, E. Bender's Hindi grammar and reader, L. Rocher's Leerboek van het moderne Hindi, J. J. Gumperz and J. Rumery's Conversational Hindi-Urdu, S. Neverov and others' Hindï-rûsï bâtcït, J. J. Gumperz' Hindi reader, M. J. Harter and others' Hindi basic reader, G. H. Fairbanks and others' Hindi exercises and readings, and N. H. Zide and others' A Premchand reader and Hindi newspaper reader, to mention at least some of the important ones, although they considerably differ in quality. An interesting experiment which appeared just some months ago is B. N. Kapoor's

60

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

Basic Hindi. Β. Ν. Kapoor tried to formulate a set of rules which, in his own words, "may make the beginners learn this language in a fort-night or two". His basic Hindi contains 555 pairs of words and its grammar is explained in 27 rules. However, the more concise or basic the description of a language, the more detrimental is any inadvertency of theoretic conception. And from this viewpoint, some statements of Β. N. Kapoor may evoke serious objections : for instance, his treatment of the Hindi sounds compared with the English ones without any word of caution, his conception of subject with the postpositions ko, ke, ke pas, më, and par, etc. Nevertheless, he presented us with a simple and nice form of colloquial Hindi with all its characteristic features preserved. The full control over his basic Hindi can be undoubtedly a solid basis for advanced studies (which cannot be said of S. K. Chatterji's mutilated "basic Hindi" as proposed almost thirty years ago). The Devnagri script is presented in Introduction to the Devanagari script for students of Sanskrit and Hindi by H. M. Lambert. The questions of transcription are dealt with in Zur Transkription und Transliteration des Hindi by M. Hälsig and in Transliteracni tabulky indickych pisem Indie, Pákistánu, Cejlonu a Tibetské oblasti CLE. Ch. Β. Misr discusses some new problems arisen after the reform of the Devnagri script in "Sâsodhit lipi ki katipay samasyâë". The Hindi shorthand and typewriting are treated in Hidi {äip-räifig by G. D. Gupt and in the Report of the Finalising committee with the Report of the Hindustani shorthand and Hindi typewriter standardisation committee. But this lies outside the main scope of the linguist's interest. On the other hand, though the main purpose of A. M. Ghatage's Phonemic and morphemic frequencies in Hindi was to prepare a sound basis for the construction of a shorthand system for the Hindi language and work has been carried out with this particular aim in mind, still the book is highly interesting for the linguist. It was decided to collect about 100 000 words from all the sections of modern Hindi, spoken, written, and printed; words were collected from the samples by a systematic sampling method. In the procedure of sampling, any continuous sequence of letters printed between two consecutive blank spaces was, for the purposes of collection, treated as a word; however, it was decided to treat the root forms and the case suffixes together, constituting a single institutionalized word, although they were printed with a blank space between them, so that e.g. the word prades occurs in the list in these forms (the figures denote the frequency) : prades 14 pradeéòke 3 pradesômë 1 pradeíká 5 pradeski 17

pradeske pradesko pradesmë pradesviáeske

13 7 18 1

As to the frequency of words in Hindi, the following table is of a certain interest:

HINDI

61

5 words form over 10% of the total number of words 10 „ 13% 25 „ 19% 100 „ 30% 500 „ 48% 1526 „ 64% All the rest of the words which amount to about 33 % of the total number of words have a frequency of less than ten. Out of these words, more than 11 000 words have a frequency of one only. Many Hindi dictionaries of different sizes and also of various degrees of quality have been published during the period under consideration: Bjhat hindi kos by Κ. Prasad and others, Päribhäfik sabd-sägrah (ägrezi-hindi), Xindi-russkij slovar' and Russko-xindi slovar' by V. M. Beskrovnyj, Nälandä visäl sabd-sägar by Navaljï, Νolanda current dictionary by P. N. Agrawala, and Rüsi-hindi sabdkos by V. R. are to be considered among the best ones. In this connection I cannot omit R. L. Turner's A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages, a real thesaurus, in which Hindi is not the last thing. The work and theoretical approach of the Hindi lexicographers are described in "Sovremennaja leksikografija xindi" by V. M. Beskrovnyj. R. C. Varmä in Hindi kos-racnâ, prakâr aur rüp, D. Κ. Varmä in "Kos-nirmän më áabd-kram-yojná", and Κ. C. Bahl in "Hindi më koá nirmân kï kuch samasyâë" discuss the theoretical bases of lexicography. The function of Hindi as the official language and the new tasks imposed on it in this respect caused the stormy development of the terminology, either spontaneous (as in the Hindi newspapers) or considered (as in Raghu Vira's dictionaries), but always passionate. The process is reflected in "K voprosu o sposobax peredaöi novoj terminologii ν xindi" by A. S. Barxudarov,2 Sovremennaja obSëestvenno-politiëeskaja terminologija literaturnogo xindi by E. P. CelySev, "Pâribhâçik áabdávli: sarveksan aur samasyâë" and "Prävidhik anuväd aur päribhäsik áabdávli" by R. N. áarmá, "Pâribhâçik §abdö kï samasyâ" by R. C. Varmä and A terminological lingua franca for India by S. Varma. The development of the Hindi word-stock in general is discussed in Putì razvitija leksiki sovremennogo prozaiëeskogo xindi by K. M. Nedzveckaja and "K voprosu o putjax formirovanija i razvitija leksiki ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi" by E. P. CelySev. Compare also the treatises on the formation of words, as mentioned below. Synonyms are the favorite sphere of research of P. A. Barannikov; he presented the results of his investigations in Osnovnye certy leksiceskoj sinonimii sovremennogo xindi, "Absoljutnye sinonimy ν sovremennom xindi", "Stilevye sinonimy ν sovremennom jazyke xindi", "Style synonyms in modern Hindi", "Nekotorye sluCai toponi' A. S. Barxudarov is not identical with S. G. Barxudarov, as was wrongly implied in the first volume of Current trends in linguistics, on pp. 82 (bibliography) and 587 (index).

62

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

miSeskoj sinonimii ν jazyke xindi", and "Leksiöeskaja sinonimika jazyka xindi ν osvesöenii indijskix lingvistov". Some aspects of the compounds are dealt with by §. K. Catterdii in "O nekotoryx tipax slovoslozenij ν indoarijskix jazykax" and by V. M. Beskrovnyj in "Gibridnye dvandva ν xindi" and "Hïdï dvädv samäs mê bhäsäsäkary". On phrasestructure, A. A. Davidova wrote "Nekotorye voprosy frazeologii urdu i xindi" ; she tries to classify the praseologic units, but, it seems to me, her results cannot be accepted as conclusive, though her conception is much more consistent than that of Bh. N. Tripä{h! in Hindi muhävrä kos, O. P. Gupt in Muhävrä-mimäsä, or R. N. TripâÇhl in "Muhävrö mê jan-jïvan". The non-Hindi elements in the Hindi vocabulary are the subject of the following studies: "Hybrid words in the Hindi language" by P. A. Barannikov, "Sanskritskie èlementy ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi" by A. S. Barxudarov, "Hindi áabdavli mê àgrezi se äye sabdö kä sthän" by P. Α. Bärännikov, Persian influence on Hindi by H. Bahri, "Türkisches Sprachgut im Hindustani" by O. Spies, and "Words of Arabic, Persian and Turkish origin in the Braj Satsai" by V. Miltner. Only two bigger monographs are dedicated to the semantics of Hindi, namely B. R. Saksenä's Arth-vijñán, unaccessible to me, and H. Bahri's Hindi semantics. H. Bahri's work may be characterized as purely orthodox in the philosophical sense of word. To give you an example, he interprets the word satya as sa = amfta "immortal", ta = martya "mortal", ya = "that which determines". Hence it follows, according to him, that satya means "that which determines the immortal and the mortal, the finite and the infinite". The less credible his statements, the more authoritative they are, e.g. : "/a/ is the basis of all sounds. It manifests itself in all phonemes. All vowels start with an /a/ for their articulation, and consonants are defined as sounds which cannot be uttered without the help of vowels, /a/ is an all-pervading sound. Hence it means 'all', 'pervading', 'full', 'one', 'entire' ; and, because in pronouncing it the mouth assumes the form of a cavity or O, it means 'zero', 'negation', 'absence' or 'void'." Besides, there are comparatively many etymological notes published here and there in various journals, e.g. "Two problems in new Indo-Aryan" by H. Hendriksen, "Notes on two problems in new Indo-Aryan" by J. Burton-Page, "Some aspects of the history of modern Hindi nahìn 'no', 'not'" by L. A. Schwarzschild, "Two etymologies" by G. B. Palsule, "On Indo-Aryan words for 'lid, cover' " by S. M. Katre, "The etymology of Hindi jagah: a problem in diffusion" by J. Burton-Page, "'Mushroom' and 'toadstool' in Indo-Aryan" by G. Morgenstierne, "A note on the derivation of Hindi übar khäbar" by B. R. Saksena, "Dholä-Märü ra dühä ke katipay sthalö par arthcarcä tathä sabdcarcä" by H. C. Bhäyänl, etc. Some aspects of the relative efficiencies of Indian languages by B. S. Ramakrishna and others represents, at least for the time being, a singular attempt made by Indian scholars to work with the Indian languages from the viewpoint of information theory. The authors compare here English and each of six Indian languages, namely

HINDI

63

Hindi, Marathi, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada, in two respects, that (1) given that it is possible to convey the same idea or semantical content by two different languages, which of the two is more efficient for communication, and (2) given also that it is possible to transcribe a given verbal expression or phonetic content into written symbols by two different scripts, which of the two is more efficient in the sense that it requires less time. In the appendix, telegraph codes for Indian languages are proposed; here, strangely enough, the speech-sounds are represented not only by the combinations of dots and dashes, as we know it from the Morse code, but also by a longer dash indicating prolongation of the vowels or the aspiration of the consonants, which seems to be inapplicable for practical purposes. As to the heart of the study, I wonder if the results of the semantic comparison are not biased by the choice of texts. To give a striking example, the language of the sütras would be surely much more efficient than its English translation or its translation into any known language. The degree of efficiency depends on the fact whether the expressed semantic information is or is not common in the given language. An evidence thereof can be deduced from the table in which the numbers of selective bits of information having the same semantic content in English and each of the six Indian languages are presented: the translation from English to Hindi has a difference of 243,340 bits, while the translation from Hindi to English has only 17,114 bits. As a matter of fact, the authors seem to be under a certain influence of English, so that they are inclined to neglect the characteristic features of the Indian languages. The system of the Hindi phonemes is put forward in R. C. Mehrotra's study "Hindi phonemes" with many illustrative examples taken from the standardized form of kharl boli. S. G. Rudin in his "Nekotorye voprosy fonetiki jazyka xindustani" and "OCerk fonetiki jazyka xindi" expounds almost the same more in detail, but in a somewhat different way. Both of them consider the so-called "short" and "long" vowels to be different phonemes, but R. C. Mehrotra, moreover, speaks of the phoneme of prolongation; S. G. Rudin, obviously, takes the nasalized vowels for separate phonemes, though not always consistently (e.g. i, 3, u), while R. C. Mehrotra works with the phoneme of nasalization. In general, R. C. Mehrotra's approach seems to be more abstract — and thus more adequate. The phonological systems of ten new Indo-Aryan languages, inclusive of Hindi, are typologically compared in Concerning the phonological typology of some new Indo-Aryan languages by T. Elizarenkova. The results of her phonological analysis are presented in the shape of matrices. For the purposes of comparison and as reference points, T. Elizarenkova uses two logical models: a set-theoretic union (STU) including all the phonemes occurring at least in one of the ten languages under consideration, and a set-theoretic product (STP) including the phonemes occurring in all of them. The phonological space of the new Indo-Aryan languages is defined by these two limits. The STU of the new Indo-Aryan languages consists of 77 phonemes, the STP of 16 phonemes. In order of decreasing number of phonemes, the new Indo-Aryan languages can be arranged like this :

64

VLADIMIR MILTNER

STU Gujrati Sindhi Marathi Hindi Nepali Panjabi Bengali Oriya Assamese Sinhalese STP

?

77 61 57 54 52 45] 45j 42 40 34 30 16

I

T. Elizarenkova did not confine her attention to the new Indo-Aryan languages, but also took the indisputable influence of their non-Aryan neighbours into account, at least to a certain degree. The sequences of consonants attracted the attention of K. C. Bhatia in "Consonantsequences in standard Hindi" and R. N. Srivastav in "Priroda i distribucija naöal'nyx grup soglasnyx jazyka xindi". While the former was contented with mere description drawing no conclusions, the latter arrived at some explicit conclusions; I would like to point out especially that the average frequency of the clusters represents the function of the degree of dissimilarity of their constituent phonemes. As to the formation of Hindi words, it is almost A. S. Barxudarov alone in providing us with the results of research work. After his SuffiksaVnoe slovoobrazovanie ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi, "Slovoobrazovanie ν sovremennom literturnom xindi", "Ob otmiranii prefiksacii ν indoarijskix jazykax", "Samsämayik sähityik hindi më áabd-racná", Νovosanskritskie formanty — slova-suffiksy (k voprosu o novosanskritskom slovoobrazovanii ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi), "Navsäskftiy nirmäpak tatv: sabdparsarg", and "Indoiranskie formanty -Mhi i -Sâh ν slovoobrazovanii xindi (k voprosu o grammatikalizacii persidskoj leksiki ν novoindijskix jazykax)", a complex study Slovoobrazovanie ν xindi appeared. Here, A. S. Barxudarov defines word formation as "the process of expression of a new semantical content of a word made by means of changing either its structure or its grammatical form", e.g. the substantivization of adjectives, the adverbialization of petrified case-forms, the lexicalization of syntactical phrases; he keeps separate the semantic shifts. On the whole, A. S. Barxudarov's book has some deliberately useful features, in that, firstly, it gives a reasonable classification of so many heterogeneous phenomena of word formation system; secondly, it deals with all the levels of Hindi from the highly sanskritized literary style to the everyday colloquial speech; thirdly, the matter is discussed really in detail ; and last but not least, there is a fairly large number of illustrative examples throughout the book that could form a specialized dictionary.

HINDI

65

The formation of hybrid words is analyzed in V. M. Beskrovnyj's article "Morfologiôeskoe gibridnoe slovoobrazovanie ν xindi". V. M. Beskrovnyj discusses in detail the Arabic and Persian elements, both lexical and morphological, and their free assimilation and domestication in Hindi. The historical development of the Hindi morphological system and the co-occurrence of both synthetic and analytic forms have attracted the attention of many scholars. Here, no wonder, much less attention is paid to nouns and declension. The state of things on the whole has been touched upon by A. P. Barannikov in "Fleksija i analiz ν novoindijskix jazykax". The problem of Hindi cases is generally discussed in G. H. Fairbanks' "Hindi me kärak" and very thoroughly in àivnâth's Hïdï-kârkô kä vikäs. áivnáth follows carefully the traces of the Hindi cases as far as the old Indo-Aryan stage and quotes so many fitting examples that anybody will gladly excuse his old-fashioned method. The language material found in àivnâth's book proves to be important for syntactic studies as well. The case and the postpositions are also the subject of"The concept of'case' in modern Indian languages" by S. Varma and "K voprosu o razvitii kategorii posleloga ν indoarijskix jazykax" by R. G. Xoleva. In his descriptive study "Declension and nasalization in Hindustani", Η. M. Hoenigswald shows that the seemingly aberrant nasalized case endings which are found only after vowel or semivowel, merely reflect nasalized stems. A study of Hindi phonology, thus, leads to the conclusion that, except for a few cases of suppletion, there is no need to set up irregular declensions. All alternations of phonemes observed in the paradigms of nouns and adjectives are, he says, automatic. L. M. Khubchandani compares Hindi and Sindhi declensional systems in "Noun declension in Sindhi and Hindi". One of the most problematic Hindi cases is the so-called genitive. D. Srivastav wrote "A note on the use of the genitive case in early Hindi prose", and really, it is hardly more than a note with some interesting Hindi quotations. On the contrary, V. Poñzka's "The genitive in Hindi" brings a new view on the real character of this "case". V. Poïizka critically evaluates the opinions of other scholars and then confronts the functions of kä with the functions of sä, sarikhä, jaisä, aisä, vä/ä, etc. Finally, he explains the Hindi "genitive" as a postpositional construction used adjectivally as a substitute for the lost genitive proper. The Hindi verbal system lies in the center of attention of many scholars and is, perhaps, the most discussed sphere of the Hindi grammar. V. A. CernySev is the author of Otymennye glagoly ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi, "Prostye otymennye glagoly sovremennogo xindi", and "Zvukopodraiatel'nye glagoly xindi" and G. A. Zograf wrote "Otricanija pri glagole ν xindustani". Some features of verbs in dialects are described in "Certain verb-compounds of Sanskrit and some parallel formations in Awadhi" by B. R. Saksena, "Bhojpuri verb roots" by U. N. Tiwari, and "Verbal prefixes in Bangru" by J. D. Singh. The so-called Hindi infinitives and their use are explained in P. Meile's "Infinitifs

66

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

adjectives en hindi" and in O. D. 2motova's "Glagol'nye öerty infinitiva ν xindi i urdu" and "Imennye priznaki infinitiva ν xindi i urdu". Here, O. D. 2motova, contrary to the classics of Hindi studies, does not distinguish the verbal substantive (gerundium) and the verbal adjective (gerundivum), and treats both of them together as the infinitive which, of course, has both verbal and nominal features. Still, however, it seems to me that the verbal substantive and the verbal adjective do differ substantially. From the viewpoint of morphology, the verbal substantive has no plural and feminine forms, while the verbal adjective has them. From the syntactic viewpoint, the verbal substantive can realize a subject or an object, and it cannot realize a direct attribute, but the verbal adjective cannot realize a subject or an object, yet it can realize a direct attribute; and, moreover, the verbal substantive can be expanded by an attribute, while the verbal adjective cannot. R. N. Vale's detailed Verbal composition in Indo-Aryan is based on an inconsistent conception; the author seems to have had no exact criteria. His book, however, may be very useful for cautious students because of a good deal of language material not only on Hindi (and other Indo-Aryan languages), but also on Awdhi, Bhojpuri, and Bihari. With his book, R. N. Vale provoked V. Poïizka to write his "Notes on R. N. Vale's theory of verbal composition in Hindi, Bengali, Gujarat! and Maräthi" where he weighs the positive and negative qualities of the book and notes many inconsistencies and inaccuracies. A real thunderstorm has been aroused by J. Burton-Page's "Compound and conjunct verbs in Hindi", P. Hacker's Zur Funktion einiger Hilfsverben im modernen Hindi, and S. Lienhard's Tempusgebrauch und Aktionsartenbildung in der modernen Hindi — reviews, rejoinders and surrejoinders following one another closely. As a matter of fact, the problem of verbal compositions, of the aspects and "Aktionsarten" is very complicated and each author has his own conception, his own approach, his own method. J. Burton-Page wanted to give an outline description of the verb and to relate conjunct verbs and compound verbs to each other and to the Hindi verbal system as a whole. He intended to delimit the categories of the simple verb, the compound verb, and the conjunct verb by formal criteria with no reference to any verbal notion. He does not define the terms "compound verb" and "conjunct verb" (borrowed from T. G. Bailey whom he quotes) and remarks only that "in compound verbs the second element is one of a restricted series of operators" ; the operators are listed in a table. P. Hacker's Zur Funktion einiger Hilfsverben im modernen Hindi contains the syntactic and semantic analysis of the so-called "intensives", denä, lenä, jänä, änä, papiä, ufhnä, dälnä, baifhnä, and also calnä and pänä. In his treatment, however, he seems to have fallen under the influence of semantic conceptions, though much less so than S. Lienhard. In his Tempusgebrauch und Aktionsartenbildung in der modernen Hindi, S. Lienhard tried to determine the Hindi tenses, to describe their functions and the formation

HINDI

67

of the 'Aktionsarten', and, moreover, to trace the origin and development of the system of Hindi tenses and to lay bare the foundations upon which this system has been established. In particular, he made an attempt to show that the system of Hindi tenses was derived from an earlier system of aspects which in the course of time were fixed temporally, objectified and grammaticalized. But he did not succeed. Obviously in a revenge for J. Burton-Page's sharp review of Zur Funktion einiger Hilfsverben im modernen Hindi in BSOAS 23:3.602-603 (1960), P. Hacker published "On the problem of a method for treating the compound and conjunct verbs in Hindi" where he tried to slash J. Burton-Page's "Compound and conjunct verbs in Hindi", and also to expound his own conceptions once more. J. Burton-Page confused the terms 'aspect' and 'Aktionsart', but, except for this and some minor points, his article may be considered an original contribution to the study of the Hindi verb. On the other hand, P. Hacker and S. Lienhard missed the mark — whatever is correct in their monographs had already been stated by others some time ago. Both of them seem to be at their wits' end with the material they collected. The compound and conjunct verbs are dealt with also in Sloznye glagoly ν sovremennom xindustani and "Nekotorye voprosy glagol'nogo slovoobrazovanija ν jazyke xindustani" by A. A. Davidova, "Frazeologiöeskie soöetanija 'imja+glagol (kamä, honä, denäy i sloînootymennye glagoly ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi" by V. A. Cernyäev, and "O sloinyx glagolax ν jazyke xindustani" by D. I. Elovkov, and more substantially by V. M. Beskrovnyj in "O soöetanii glagol'nyx osnov xindi s rahnâ" and "O vspomogatel'noj funkcii otymennogo glagola kharä honä ν xindi". V. P. Liperovskij focussed his attention on the verbal moods and their use in sentences in "Soslagatel'noe, uslovnoe i povelitel'noe naklonenie ν sovremennom literaturnom jazyke xindi", "Hindi mè säbhävnärth ke rüpö kä prayog", "Hindi bhâçâ më sädehärth", "Hindi bhäsä më säketärth", "K voprosu o vydelenii predpolozitel'nogo naklonenija ν xindi", and Kategorija naklonenija ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi. V. P. Liperovskij's studies are distinguished by a thorough analysis of the language material, and a reasonable, though not very modern, method of presentation. This, after all, may be said of all the Soviet studies in Hindi. V. Pofízka, in his lecture "Problém dokonavého vidu ν hind§tinë", delivered on December 13th, 1965, at the Oriental Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences in Prague, put forward some partial results of his research on the Hindi verbal aspect. He sharply criticized both P. Hacker and S. Lienhard and said that none of their own statements corresponds with the Hindi language reality. According to V. Porizka, the imperfective and perfective aspects do not coincide simply with the imperfective and perfective participles used in the analytic tenses; he demonstrated it on the sentences pardä girtä hai (imperfective aspect) and pardä (pürä, or puri tarali) gir jätä hai (perfective aspect). His study on the problem will be published soon, I hope. The application of the transformational analysis method, a unique phenomenon

68

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

in the studies of Hindi, occurred in T. Ja. Elizarenkova's "Ob assimetrii ν sisteme kauzativnyx glagolov ν jazyke xindi" and K. Ch. Bahl's An analysis of the syntax of causal verbs in Hindi and "The causal verbs in Hindi". Both scholars independently arrived at the conclusion that the traditional treatment of the causal verbs in Hindi is inaccurate and consequently wrong. As T. Ja. Elizarenkova stresses, the system of causals should be gone into along with the analysis of the activity/passivity and transitivity/intransitivity of the verbs. Two comprehensive works deserve to be mentioned here, though they have not yet been published, namely K. Ch. Bahl's A study in the transformational analysis of the Hindi verb and Y. Kachru's A transformational treatment of Hindi verbal syntax. K. Ch. Bahl's study represents an important step towards putting the tradition of Hindi grammar on a sound factual and theoretical footing. For the purpose of describing the structure of the language, the generative-transformational approach has been adopted. As the author himself says, his generative-transformational grammar has been formulated solely for the purpose of interpreting the underlying grammatical structure of compound and conjunct verbs in Hindi. K. Ch. Bahl's "explicators" are classified into eight sets of two each like this : Completion cislocative translocative Suddenness commencement termination Vehemence indeliberate deliberate Benefaction ego-benefactive allo-benefactive Precedence concern indifference Inception involvement alleviation Process cessant incessant Accomplishment cessive abilitative

a- "to come" jä- "to go" ufh- "to get up, stand" baifh- "to sit down" par- "to fall down" dâl- "to throw" le- "to take" de- "to give" rakh- "to keep" chor- "to leave" cal- "to move" nikal- "to come/go out" cuk- "to be finished" rah- "to live, remain" pä- "to obtain" sak- "to be able to"

HINDI

69

Κ. Ch. Bahl discusses in detail the opinions of other scholars, especially of K. P. Guru, A. Sharma, J. Burton-Page and P. Hacker. Y. Kachru opens her thesis with an outline of the theory and model of grammatical description upon which her study is based, and then she reviews the previous work on Hindi verbal syntax. Further, Y. Kachru discusses the sentence structure of Hindi and the sub-classes of the verb which are relevant for the formulation of the constituent structure rules, and then the rules themselves are set out. Finally, she gives some of the singulary transformations; the nominalization, adjectivalization, and adverbialization rules follow; and the heart of the study ends with the singulary transformational rules. The appendix consists of a lexicon which gives a list of Hindi verbs with their appropriate syntactic, selectional and semantic features, and lists of the other lexical categories with only their selectional features. The research work of K. Ch. Bahl and Y. Kachru introduces new methods into Hindi linguistic studies ; this is exceedingly praiseworthy and desirable. The Hindi ergative construction is touched upon in W. K. Matthews' "The ergative construction in modern Indo-Aryan" and C. Regamey's "A propos de la 'construction ergative' en indo-aryen moderne" ; with attention to its historical development is it discussed in "From OIA passive to NIA active" by V. Miltner. The functions of Hindi participles in the syntactic structure became the subject of V. Porizka's "Hindi participles used as substantives" and "The adjectival and adverbial participles in Hindi syntax", and J. Burton-Page's "The syntax of participial forms in Hindi". Other special problems are described by V. Porizka in "Deictic demonstratives in Indo-Aryan" and by V. A. Cernysev in "Opredelenie ν xindi". The sentence structure and the syntactic relationships have been analyzed by W. S. Allen in "A study in the analysis of Hindi sentence structure", Ν. V. Gurov in "Vyra2enie sub" ektno-ob "ektnyx otnosenij ν jazyke xindi ('prostye' i proizvodnye glagoly)", R. N. Sahai and V. J. Narain in "The structure of nounphrase in Hindi", and V. A. CernySev in "Bezglagol'nye konstrukcii xindi". Other studies on special syntactic problems which are well worth mentioning are V. P. Liperovskij's "Ob odnoj sintaksiòeskoj konstrukcii ν jazyke xindi", O. G. Ul'ciferov's Sloznosocinennye predlozenija ν sovremennom jazyke xindi, "SloznosoSinennoe predloienie ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi", and "Hïdï më säslist samänädhikaran väky", V. P. Liperovskij's "Sloinopodöinennoe predloSenie ν sovremennom literaturnom jazyke xindi", "Upotreblenie form soslagatel'nogo naklonenija literaturnogo xindi i urdu ν samostojatel'nom predloienii" and "Upotreblenie form soslagatel'nogo naklonenija literaturnogo xindi i urdu ν pridatoönyx predloienijax razliënogo tipa", L. G. Lozovoj's Vyrazenie uslovnosíi ν sovremennom literaturnom jazyke xindi and "Uslovnye predloáenija ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi", and finally V. A. Cerniáov's "Hindi ke sädhäran väky më svatätr kartä aur asamäpikä kriyä vàie vâkyâà". These studies brought no original viewpoints or new methodical approaches, but still they are fairly interesting for the materials gathered and the authors' discussions.

70

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

In the article "Shifts of syntactic function in Hindi : selected material from the works of Tulsîdâs", V. Miltner presented his remarks on the syntactic shifts within three levels: sentence — sentence part — grammatic word. This is connected with his general conception of sentence parts and syntactic relationships, as expounded briefly in "O distribucii ölenov predloáenija ν xindi", "The exosyntagmatic relations in Hindi sentences", "Hindi sentence structure", etc. More detailed exposition will be found in his forthcoming Hindi syntagmatics. V. Miltner's fundamental idea is that every syntactic phenomenon, i.e. any sentence part, and any relationship between sentence parts should be analyzed dialectically. From this viewpoint, when analyzing Hindi texts, he searches for the form and the content of the syntactic phenomena. Any part of sentence has its syntactic content, i.e. a syntactic function in the sentence (e.g. the predicate, the subject etc.), and its form (e.g. one of the parts of speech or so-called clauses). Also every syntactic relationship represents the dialectic unity of a content relationship (e.g. coordination, determination) and a formal relationship (e.g. association, congruence). Unlikely as it may seem, the conception proves fruitful not only in the adequate description of the syntagmatic structure of Hindi as a whole, but in the comparison of the syntactic structures of two or more texts or languages as well. The single monograph dedicated solely to Hindi syntax as such is V. A. CernySev's Sintaksis prostogo predlozenija ν xindi. This wholly syntactic study is based on a wide excerpting of the literary texts; the book gives a full treatment of simple sentence structure as it appears in literary Hindi. V. A. Cernyäev, of course, does not depart from the traditional Soviet method of narrative presentation of the matter. Moreover, some of his ideas must raise serious objections — such as his conception of syntactic relationships and sentence parts in general, and his two subjects in ergative constructions in particular. On the whole, the linguistic research of the Hindi language cannot boast of any particular new theoretical approach: in the words of K. Ch. Bahl, the grammatical treatises on Hindi lack any scientific coherence. I am very sorry to say that the absolute majority of the students of Hindi pretend not to notice the development of modern linguistic methods; this is why their works cannot play a more important role in the sphere of general linguistics and remains confined to the narrow circle of Indologists. Notwithstanding this, I believe that this state of affairs will not last for ever. BIBLIOGRAPHY The letters with diacritical marks come after those without them.

Agarwalla, N. D., A common script system (Calcutta, 1960). Agrawala, P. N., et al., 1Salanda current dictionary (Delhi, s.a.). Agrväl, á. P., Bhäsävijnän aur hindi (Ilähäbäd, 1957). , and Caturvedi, R. P., Éuddh hindi {kgrä, 1952).

HINDI

71

Allen, W. S., "A study in the analysis of Hindi sentence structure", Acta linguistica 6:2-3.68-86 (1950-51). , "Some phonological characteristics of Räjasthäni", BSOAS 20.5-11 (1957). Badhautiyä, R. L., Hindî-ratnâkar10 (Ägrä, 1962). Bahl, Κ. C , "Hindi më kos nirmän kx kuch samasyâë", forthcoming. , see also Bahl, K. Ch. , , A reference grammar of Hindi (A study of some selected topics in Hindi grammar) (Chicago, 1967). Mimeographed. Bahl, K. Ch., An analysis of the syntax of causal verbs in Hindi (Chicago, 1966). Mimeographed. , A study in the transformational analysis of the Hindi verb (Chicago, 1964). Dissertation. , "The causal verbs in Hindi", forthcoming. , see also Bahl, K. C. Bahri, H., Comprehensive English-Hindi dictionary (Benares, 1960). , Hindi semantics (Allahabad, 1959). , Persian influence on Hindi (Allahabad, 1960). , see also Bahn, H. Barannikov, A. P., "Fleksija i analiz ν novoindijskix jazykax", UZLU 98.3-17 (1949). , "Kratkij grammatiöeskij oöerk xindi", suppl. to Beskrovnyj, V. M., Xindirusskij slovar'2 (Moscow, 1959), pp. 1237-1317. Barannikov, P. Α., "Absoljutnye sinonimy ν sovremennom xindi", VLU 20:4.122-135 (1961). , "Hybrid words in the Hindi language", Hindi review 4:9.334-346, 4:10.374-385 (1959). , "K voprosu o sloienii nacional'nogo jazyka xindustani", in Naucnaja sessija 1953-54 gg., Tezisy dokladov po sekcii vostokovedceskix nauk (Leningrad, 1954), pp. 9-13. , "Leksiöeskaja sinonimika jazyka xindi ν osveSòenii indijskix lingvistov", VJa 11:2.102-107 (1962). , "Nekotorye sluCai toponimiöeskoj sinonimii ν jazyke xindi", NDVS-F3.119-127 (1960). , "On the periodization of the history of the Hindi language", Hindi review 5:9.172-184 (1960). , "O sloienii nacional'nogo jazyka xindustani", UZLU 179.237-250 (1954). , "O sloienii nacional'nogo jazyka xindustani", in Vtoraja nauënaja konferencija aspirantov-jazykovedov leningradskix sektorov Instituía jazykoznanija AN SSSR, Tezisy dokladov (Leningrad, 1953), pp. 19-21. , Osnovnye certy leksiëeskoj sinonimii sovremennogo xindi (Leningrad, 1963). Dissertation. , "Stilevye sinonimy ν sovremennom jazyke xindi", UZLU 305.109-125 (1961).

72

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

, "Style synonyms in modern Hindi", IL 22.64-81 (1961). , see also Bärännikov, P. A. Barkhüdärov, E. Es., "Navsäskjtiy nirmäpak tatv: sabdparsarg", Nâgripracârini patrikä 66.499-514 (2018 vi.). , see also Barxudarov, A. S., and Barxüdärov, A. Barnett, L. D., "Some notes on Hindi poetry in the Panjab", BSOAS 20.73-75 (1957). Barxudarov, A. S., "Indoiranskie formanty -säht i -sah ν slovoobrazovanii xindi (k voprosu o grammatikalizacii persidskoj leksiki ν novoindijskix jazykax)", in Indijskaja i iranskaja filologija (Moscow, 1964), pp. 262-278. , "K voprosu o sposobax peredaöi novoj terminologii ν xindi", KSINA 62.14-35 (1964). , Novosanskritskie formanty — slova-suffiksy (k voprosu o novosanskritskom slovoobrazovanii ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi) (Moscow, 1960). Mimeographed. , "Ob otmiranii prefiksacii ν indoarijskix jazykax", Uëenye zapiski Instituía vostokovedenija 13.63-128 (1958). , "Sanskritskie èlementy ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi", in Xindi i urdu, voprosy leksikologii i slovoobrazovanija (Moscow, 1960), pp. 5-117. , "Slovoobrazovanie ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi", Kratkie soobscenija Instituía vostokovedenija 18.34-48 (1956). , Slovoobrazovanie ν xindi (Moscow, 1963). , SuffiksaVnoe slovoobrazovanie ν sovremennom liierafurnom xindi (Leningrad, 1953). Dissertation. , see also Barkhüdärov, E. Es., and Barxüdärov, Α. Barxüdärov, Α., "Samsämayik sähityik hindi më sabd-racnä", Hindï-anusïlan 13.128139 (1960). , see also Barkhüdärov, E. Es., and Barxudarov, A. S. Bahn, H., Suddh hindi (Ilähäbäd, 1965). , see also Bahri, Η. Bärännikov, P. Α., Bhä?ä aur sähity (Väränasi, 1966). , "Hindi sabdävli më ägrezi se äye sabdö kä sthän", Nägripracärini pairikä 63.357-366 (2015 vi.). , see also Bärännikov, P. A. Bender, E., Hindi grammar and reader (Philadelphia, 1967). Bendix, Ε. H., Componential analysis of general vocabulary: the semantic structure of a set of verbs in English, Hindi, and Japanese (= IJAL 32/2, Part II, publication 41) (The Hague, 1966). Mimeographed. Beskrovnyj, V. M., "Gibridnye dvandva ν xindi", in Indijskaja i iranskaja filologija (Moscow, 1964), pp. 247-253. , "Morfologiòeskoe gibridnoe slovoobrazovanie ν xindi", in Xindi i urdu, voprosy leksikologii i slovoobrazovanija (Moscow, 1960), pp. 118-151.

HINDI

73

, "O soöetanii glagol'nyx osnov xindi s rahná", UZLU 279.81-103 (1960). , "O vspomogatel'noj funkcii otymennogo glagola khajä honä ν xindi", KSINA 62.56-60 (1964). , (ed.), Russko-xindi slovar'' (Moscow, 1957). , "Sovremennaja leksikografija xindi", VJa 8:1.104-109 (1959). , "Xindi", in BoVsaja sovetskaja ènciklopedija2, vol. 46 (Moscow, 1957), pp. 182-183. , Xindi-russkij slovar'2 (Moscow, 1959). , see also Breskovn!, Vi. Bhatia, K. C., "Consonant-sequences in standard Hindi", IL 25.206-212 (1964). Bhatt áailes, H. D., "Garhväli bhâçâ", Bhäfä 2:2.63-69 (1962). Bhayani, H. C., "Prince of Wales museum stone inscription from Dhar", Bharatiya Vidyä 17.130-146 (1957), 19.116-128 (1959). , see also Bhâyânï, H. C. Bhâyânï, H. C., "Pholä-Märü rä dühä ke katipay sthalö par arthcarcä tathä sabdarcä", Vardä 5:2.56-63 (1963). , see also Bhayani, H. C. Bogdanov, F. L., Russko-xindi razgovornik (Leningrad, 1959). "Brajbhâçâ-vyâkaran ki rüprekhä", suppl. to Tandan, P. N., (ed.), Brajbhäfä Sür-kos (Lakhnaü, 2nd vol. 1962), pp. 1922-2050. Breskovnï,3 Vi., "Hïdï dvädv samäs mê bhäsäsäkary", Nägripracärinlpatrikä 66.493498 (2018 vi.). , see also Beskrovnyj, V. M. Brown, W. N., "The language problem of India and Pakistan", in Report of the Third annual round table meeting on linguistics and language teaching (Washington, 1952), pp. 17-30. Burton-Page, J., "'Aziz' and the sack of Dvärkä: a seventeenth century Hindi version", BSOAS 20.145-157 (1957). , "Compound and conjunct verbs in Hindi", BSOAS 19.469-478 (1957). , "Notes on two problems in new Indo-Aryan", BSOAS 21.174-178 (1958). , "The etymology of Hindi jagah : a problem in diffusion", BDC 20.288-290 (1960). , "The syntax of participial forms in Hindi", BSOAS 19.94-104 (1957). Caturvedi, J. L., "Brajbhäsä aur sähity", in Päcdai lokbhäfä-nibädhävli (Patnä, 1960), pp. 213-236. Caturvedi, R. S., Agrá jile ki boli (Ilähäbäd, 1961). Caturvedi, S. R., "Hïdï kä apbhrâà se koi säbädh nahï hai", Bhäfä 2:2.11-25 (1962). Cafaiji, S. K., Ràjsthânï bhàfâ (Udaypur, 1949). , see also Cätuijyä, S. Κ., Chatterji, S. Κ., and Catterdíi, δ. Κ. * Obviously a misprint for Beskrovni, VI.

74

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

Caube, S. G., "Bhojpurï bhäsä aur sâhity", in Päcdas lokbhâfâ-nibâdhâvlï (Patnâ, 1960), pp. 23-43. Cäturjyä, S. K., Bhârat më âry aur anâry (Bhopâl s.a.). , see also Cafarji, S. Κ., Chatterji, S. Κ., and Catterdîi, S. Κ. Cernisov, V. Α., "Ädhunik sâhityik hindi ke nämdhätu aur nâmik sàyukt kriyâë", Nâgrïpracâriifi patrikà 62.8-32 (2014 vi.). , "Hindi ke sädhäran väky më svatätr kartâ aur asamâpikâ kriyä vale vâkyâs", Nâgrïpracâriifi patrikä 66.489 (2018 vi.). , "Sämänädhikaran", Hindï-anusïlan 13.166-172 (1960). , see also Cernyäev, V. Α. Chatterjee, Ν. L., "A forgotten official inquiry on the Hindi—Urdu controversy", Indian historical records commission 30:2.30-33 (1954). Chatteqi, S. K., "A study of the new Indo-Aryan speech treated in the Ukti-vyaktiprakararia", in Ukti-vyakti-prakarana of Patita Dämodara, ed. by Acharya Jina Vijaya Muni (Bombay, 1953), pp. 1-70. , "Mutual borrowing in Indo-Aryan", BDC 20.50-62 (1960). , see also Catarji, S. K., Cäturjyä, S. Κ., and íatterdZi, δ. Κ. CatterdZi, S. Κ., "Ο nekotoryx tipax slovosloienij ν indoarijskix jazykax", Problemy vostokovedenija 3.156-162 (1960). , see also Cataiji, S. K., Cäturjyä, S. Κ., and Chatterji, S. Κ. CelySev, E. P., "Κ voprosu o putjax formirovanija i razvitija leksiki ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi", Uéenye zapiski Instituía vostokovedenija 13.143-178 (1958). , Sovremennaja obScestvenno-politiceskaja terminologija literaturnogo xindi (Moscow, 1952). Dissertation. Ceraygev, V. Α., "Bezglagol'nye konstrukcii xindi", KS IN A 62.96-108 (1964). , "Èmocial'no-ocenoSnye suffiksy imen sobstvennyx ν xindi", KSINA 62.61-70 (1964). , "Frazeologiöeskie soòetanija 'imja + glagol (karnä, honä, denâ)' i sloínootymennye glagoly ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi", in Jazyki Indii (Moscow, 1961), pp. 166-226. , "Opredelenie ν xindi", in Voprosy grammatiki jazyka xindi (Moscow, 1962), pp. 87-112. , Otymennye glagoly ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi (Moscow, 1958). Dissertation. , "Prostye otymennye glagoly sovremennogo xindi", in Voprosy grammatiki jazyka xindi (Moscow, 1962), pp. 47-59. , Sintaksis prostogo predloíenija ν xindi (Moscow, 1965). , "Zvukopodraíatel'nye glagoly xindi", in Indijskaja i iranskaja filologija (Moscow, 1964), pp. 254-261. , see also Cernisov, V. A. Davidova, Α. Α., "Nekotorye voprosy frazeologii urdu i xindi", in Indijskaja i iranskaja filologija (Moscow, 1964), pp. 234-246.

HINDI

75

, "Nekotorye voprosy glagol'nogo slovoobrazovanija ν jazyke xindustani", Uëenye zapiski Instituía vostokovedenija 13.213-232 (1958). , Sloinye glagoly ν sovremennom xindustani (Moscow, 1953). Dissertation. Desai, M. P., The Hindi Prachar movement (Ahmedabad, 1957). Dhar, L., Padumävati, a linguistic study ofthe 16 th century Hindi (A vadhi)( London, 1949). Diksit, Τ. N., Avdhiaur uskä sähity (Dilli, 1954). , "Baisvârî bhäsä aur sähity", in Päcdas lokbhä?ä-nibädhävli (Pafnä, 1960), pp. 190-212. Dímáits, Ζ. M., Hindi vyäkaran kï rüprekhä (Dilli, 1966). , see also Dym§ic, Ζ. M. Dustoor, P. E., "The future of English in India", Allahabad University magazine 35.1-18 (1957). Dünicand, Hindi vyákarat.ι (Hoáyárpur, 1951). Dvivedi, H. N., Madhydesiy bhä$ä (Gväliyar, 2012 vi.). Dvivedï, H. P., "Hindi bhäsä par ek vihägam djsti", Ilâhâbàd yûnivarsi(ï hindi maigzïn 12-13.22-35 (1956). Dvivedi Samir, R., "Avdhï bhäsä aur sähity", in Päcdas lokbhàçâ-nibàdhàvlï (Pafnä, 1960), pp. 171-189. , Avdhï kos (Ilähäbäd, 1955). Dym§ic, Ζ. M., Karmannyj xindi-russkij slovar' (Moscow, 1958). , "Κ voprosu o kategorii grammatiîeskogo roda ν jazyke xindi", in Voprosy jazyka i literatury stran Vostoka (Moscow, 1958), pp. 183-198. , and íelySev, E. P., Karmannyj russko-xindi slovar' (Moscow, 1958). , see also Dímáits, Ζ. M. Elizarenkova, T., Concerning the phonological typology of some new Indo-Aryan languages (Moscow, 1963). Mimeographed. , see also Elizarenkova, T. Ja. Elizarenkova, T. Ja., "Differencial'nye èlementy soglasnyx fonem xindi", VJa 10:5.22-33 (1961). , "Ob asimmetrii ν sisteme kauzativnyx glagolov ν jazyke xindi", in Voprosy grammatiki jazyka xindi (Moscow, 1962), pp. 76-86. , see also Elizarenkova, T. Elovkov, D. I., "O sloinyx glagolax ν jazyke xindustani", in Filologija stran Vostoka (Leningrad, 1963), pp. 91-104. Emeneau, Μ. B., "India and linguistics", JAOS 75.145-153 (1955). , "India as a linguistic area", Lg. 32.3-16 (1956). Fairbanks, G. H., "Hindi më kärak", Hindï-anusilan 13.78-81 (1960). , Hindi exercises and readings (Ithaca, 1955). Ghatage, A. M., Historical linguistics and Indo-Aryan languages (Bombay, 1962). , (ed.), Phonemic and morphemic frequencies in Hindi (Poona, 1964). Gaeffke, P., Untersuchungen zur Syntax des Hindi (= Disputationes Rhenotrajectinae xi) (The Hague, 1967).

76

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

Gorodnikova, S. Κ., and KibirkStis, L. Β., Xindi-russkij ucebnyj razgovornik (Moscow, 1964). Gumperz, J. J., "Dialect differences and social stratification in a North Indian village", AmA 60.668-682 (1958). , Hindi reader (Berkeley, 1960). , "Language problems in the rural development of North India", JASt. 16.251259 (1957). , "Phonological differences in three Hindi dialects", Lg. 34.212-224 (1958). , "The phonology of a North Indian village dialect, the use of phonemic data in dialectology", IL 16.283-295 (1955). , and Nairn, C. M., "Formal and informal standards in the Hindi regional language area", I J AL 26:3.92-118 (1960). , and Rumery, J., Conversational Hindi-Urdu (Berkeley, 1962). Gupt, G. D., Hïdî (âip-râitïg (Kä§i, 2010 vi.). Gupt, L. Ν., Hindi bhâ$â aur sâhity ko Ärysamäj kï den (Lakhnaü, 1961). Gupt, M. P., Räul vel aur uski bhäsä (Ilähäbäd, s.a.). Gupt, O. P., Muhävrä-mimäsä (Pafnä, 1960). Gurov, Ν. V., "Vyraienie sub"ektno-ob"ektnyx otnosenij ν jazyke xindi ('prostye' i proizvodnye glagoly)", UZLU 279.135-151 (1960). Hacker, P., "Einiges zur Hindi-Grammatik", IIJ 6.203-230 (1963). , "On the problem of a method for treating the compound and conjunct verbs in Hindi", BSOAS 24.484-516 (1961). , Zur Funktion einiger Hilfsverben im modernen Hindi (Wiesbaden, 1958). Harls, "Hidi bhäsä aur uske adhyayan—adhy äpan ki samasyäe", Bhä$ä4 :2.42-50(1964). Harter, M. J., et al., Hindi basic course (Washington, 1960). , Hindi basic reader (Washington, 1960). Hälsig, M., "Jarman janvädi gantantr më hindi", in Rajat-jayantï-granth, Bambaï Hindi Vidyäpith (Bambaï, 1963), pp. 458-460. , Zur Transkription und Transliteration des Hindi (Berlin, 1963). Häs, Κ. L., "Nimäri bhäsä aur sähity", in Päcdas lokbhä$ä-nibädhävll (Patnä, 1960), pp. 247-266. Hendriksen, H., "Two problems in new Indo-Aryan", BSOAS 20.329-333 (1957). "Hindi — India's national language", Asia 4.583-585 (1955). Hoenigswald, H. M., "Declension and nasalization in Hindustani", J AOS 68.139-144 (1948). Imämuddin, A. M., Hindi urdù lugat (Rämnagar, 1950). , Urdu hindi lugat (Rämnagar, 1953). Jaiswal, M. P., A linguistic study of Bundeli (Leiden, 1962). Janâôek, Α., "The Hindi käran, sac and äscary as nominal nominative sentences", AO 26.197-211 (1958). Jäysväl, Μ. Β., "'Hindi' näm ki vyutpatti", Ilähäbädyünivarsifi hindi maigzïn 9.90-97 (1952).

HINDI

77

Jha, G., "Verb conjugation in Maithili", Journal of the Bihar research society 44.169176 (1958). Jha, S. D., "A bird's eye view of the Maithili language", Journal of the Bihar research society 43.67-73 (1957). Jhä, S., The formation of the Maithili language (London, 1958). Joái, H. C , "Kumäüni bhäsä aur uske âdi áry-áabd", Bhá$á 2:2.55-58 (1962). Kachru, Y., A transformational treatment of Hindi verbal syntax (London, 1965). Dissertation. , An introduction to Hindi syntax (Urbana, 1966). Mimeographed. Kapoor, B. N., Basic Hindi (Varanasi, 1965). Katenina, T. E., Jazyk xindi (Moscow, 1960). , "Kratkij oCerk grammatiki jazyka xindi", suppl. to Beskrovnyj, V. M., (ed.), Russko-xindi slovar' (Moscow, 1957), pp. 1277-1375. Katre, S. M., Introduction to modern Indian linguistics (Gauhati, 1961). , "On Indo-Aryan words for 'lid, cover'", BDC 20.369-374 (1960). Khubchandani, L. M., "Noun declension in Sindhi and Hindi", IL 25.275-280 (1964). Lambert, H. M., Introduction to the Devanagari script for students of Sanskrit and Hindi (London, 1953). Leprovski, Vi. Pi., "Hindi më säbhävnärth ke rüpö kâ prayog", Hindï-anuàtlan 13.155-165 (1960). , see also Liperovskij, V. P., Liperovski, V., and Liperovski, V. P. Lienhard, S., Dal sanscrito all'hindi, Il neväri (Venezia-Roma, 1962). , Tempusgebrauch und Aktionsartenbildung in der modernen Hindi (StockholmGöteborg-Uppsala, 1961). Liperovskij, V. P., Kategorija naklonenija ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi (Moscow, 1964). , "Κ voprosu o vydelenii predpoloíitel'nogo naklonenija ν xindi", KSINA 62.36-45 (1964). , "Ob odnoj sintakstëeskoj konstrukcii ν jazyke xindi", in Indijskaja i iranskaja filologija (Moscow, 1964), pp. 206-210. , "Sloinopodöinennoe predloïenie ν sovremennom literaturnom jazyke xindi", in Voprosy grammatiki jazyka xindi (Moscow, 1962), pp. 171-230. , "Soslagatel'noe, uslovnoe i povelitel'noe naklonenie ν sovremennom literaturnom jazyke xindi", in Voprosy grammatiki jazyka xindi (Moscow, 1962), pp. 6-46. , "Upotreblenie form soslagatel'nogo naklonenija literaturnogo xindi i urdu ν pridatoönyx predloíenijax razliínogo tipa", in Jazyki Indii (Moscow, 1961), pp. 271-315. , "Upotreblenie form soslagatel'nogo naklonenija literaturnogo xindi i urdu ν samostojatel'nom predloienii", in Jazyki Indii (Moscow, 1961), pp. 227-270. , see also Leprovski, Vi. Pi., Liperovski, V., and Liperovski, V. P.

78

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

Liperovsk!, V., "Hindi bhâçâ më säketärth", Nâgrîpracârinîpatrikâ 66.94-97 (2018 vi.). , see also Leprovskï, Vi. Pl., Liperovskij, V. P., and Liperovskï, V. P. Liperovskï, V. P., "Hindi bhäsä më sädehärth", Sammelanpatrikä 47.63-67 (1882 s.). , see also Leprovskï, Vi. Pl., Liperovskij, V. P., and Liperovskï, V. Lozovoj, L. G., "Uslovnye predloienija ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi", Ucenye zapiski Instituía vostokovedenija 13.179-212 (1958). , Vyrazenie uslovnosti ν sovremennom literaturnom jazyke xindi (Moscow, 1952). Dissertation. Maheá, M. S., "Ägikä bhäsä aur sähity", in Päcdas lokbhäsä-nibädhävll (Patnä, 1960), pp. 44-85. Matthews, W. K., "The ergative construction in modern Indo-Aryan", Lingua 3.391-399 (1952-53). Mehrotra, R. C., "Hindi phonemes", IL 25.234-246 (1964). Meile, P., "Infinitifs adjectivés en hindi", BSL 44.74-81 (1948). Menäriyä, M. L., Râjsthânï bhâçâ aur sähity (Prayäg, 2009 vi.). Miltner, V., "A note on a peculiarity in some verses of Sürdäs", AO 30.634-637 (1962). , "A zero morpheme in Hindi", BhV 25.6-8 (1965). , Early Hindi morphology and syntax (Prague, 1966). Mimeographed. , "From OIA passive to NIA active", Asian and African studies 1.143-146 (1965). , Hindi syntagmatics, in press. , "How to compare syntactic structures?", Revue roumaine de linguistique 9.513-519 (1964). , Jazyk sbírky Sedmi set strof Biháriho Lála (Prague, 1958). Dissertation. , "O distribue» ölenov predloZenija ν xindi", VJa. 12:3.37-43 (1963). , "Old Bengali, old Kosli and old Marwari sentence structure compared", AO 32.576-600 (1964). , "Old Braj morphology in the Bihâri-Satsaï", AO 30.494-504 (1962). , "Old Guijar, middle Gujrati and middle Rajsthani sentence structure compared", BhV 24.9-31 (1964). , "Shifts of syntactic function in Hindi: selected material from the works of Tulsidäs", J AOS 83.336-338 (1963). , Stavba vëty u Tulslho (Prague, 1962). Dissertation. , "The complex syntactical analysis of Hindi", IL 23.82-86 (1962). , "The double formal relationships in Hindi syntagmas", BhV 23.40-45 (1963). , "The exosyntagmatic relations", Revue de linguistique 8.13-16 (1963). , "The exosyntagmatic relations in Hindi sentence", BAF21-22.396-400 (1960-61). , "The Hindi sentence structure", JAOS 85.360-367 (1965). , The Hindi sentence structure in the works of Tulsidäs, (Delhi, 1967). , "Vëtnà stavba ve staré hindâtinë", in Orientalisticky sbornlk, materiály ζ V. vedeckej konferencie orientalistov (Bratislava, 1963), pp. 141-144. , "Words of Arabic, Persian and Turkish origin in the Braj Satsai", AO 29.658659 (1961).

HINDI

79

, "Hindi minigrammar", JAOS, forthcoming. , "The morphologic key for new Indo-Aryan languages", AO 35. 807-812 (1967). , Theory of Hindi syntax: descriptive, generative, transformational ( = Janua linguarum, series practica, xxx), in press. Mishra, Bh., Commercial Hindi for college students (Calcutta, 1953). Misr, Ch. Β., "Sààodhit lipi kï katipay samasyâë", Bhâfâ 3:3.107-108 (1964). Misr, K. D., "Büdelkhäd ki bhâsâ", ^ ¿ 3 : 3 . 1 0 2 - 1 0 4 (1964). Misr, à. K., Kharïbolï kà ândolan (Bañaras, 2013 vi.). Misr, U., "Maithilî bhäsä aur sähity", in Pâcdas lokbhâfâ-nibâdhâvlï (Pa{nâ, 1960), pp. 1-11. Misr, V. N., Hindi bhâsâ aur sâhity par âgrejï prabhâv (Dehrädün, 1963). Mixajlova, G. M., and Cernikova, S. Α., Hindijca sözlaSuv kitobi (Tashkent, 1964). Mir Fandaraskî, Α., "Zabänhä va lahyahä-i Hindustan", Revue de la faculté des lettres de VUniversité de Téhéran 6:2.81 (1958). Morgenstierne, G., "'Mushroom' and 'toadstool' in Indo-Iranian", BSOAS 20.451457 (1957). Narula, S. S., Scientific history of the Hindi language (Delhi, 1955). , see also Narülä, á. S. Narulâ, δ. S., Hindi aur prädesik bhäfäö kâ vaijñánik itihâs (Dilli, 1957). , see also Narula, S. S. Navaljï (ed.), Nâlandâ visai sabd-sâgar (Dilli, 2007 vi.). Nähtä, A. C., "Braj bhâçâ kä ek prácin vyäkaran", Bhä$ä 4:2.103-108 (1964). Näyudü, á. R., "Hindi më anusädhän kä ek aniväry äg", Annals of Oriental research 15:2.1-5 (1958-59). Nedzveckaja, K. M., Puti razvitija leksiki sovremennogo prozaideskogo xindi ("Moscow, 1953). Dissertation. Neverov, S., et al., Hindi-rûsï bâtcït (Moscow, 1960). "Official language of the Indian Union", Tamil culture 7:1.77-111 (1958). Ojha, G. K., Universal self Hindi teacher (Delhi, 1955). Palsule, G. B., "Two etymologies", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental research institute 35.219-220. Parmâr, á., "Mälvi bhâsâ aur uskä sähity", Bhä?ä 2:2.59-62 (1962). Päcdai lokbhâçâ-nibâdhâvlî (Patnä, 1960). Päthak, R. C., (ed.), Idars hïdï íabdkos (Bañaras, 1950). Pattanayak, D. P., A controlled historical reconstruction of Oriya, Assamese, Bengali, and Hindi (= Janua linguarum, series practica, xxxi) (The Hague, 1966). Pâribhâçik éabd-sagrah (âgrezï-hindï). A consolidated glossary of technical terms CEnglish-Hindi) (Delhi, 1962). Pertold, O., Hindustání rozmarrah (Prague, 1947-49). Pinnow, H. J., "Über die Vokale im Hindi", ZPhon. 7.43-53 (1953). Poïizka, V., "Deictic demonstratives in Indo-Aryan", AO 31.198-215 (1963).

80

VLADIMIR MILTNER

, "Hindi participles used as substantives", AO 18.166-187 (1950). , Hindstina — Hindi language course I (Prague, 1963). , Krâtkâ mluvnice spisovné hindstiny (Prague, 1952). Mimeographed. , "Notes on R. N. Vale's theory of verbal composition in Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati and Maräthi", AO 22.114-128 (1954). , "The adjectival and adverbial participles in Hindi syntax", AO 20.524-538 (1952). , "The genitive in Hindi", Orientaliapragensia I, AUC-Ph. 1.59-76 (1960). , "On the perfective verbal aspect in Hindi", AO 35.64-88 (1967). To be continued. Prasad, B. N., "A palatographic study of some instances of place junctions", IL 25.182-186 (1964). , "The position of the nasals in the Bhojpuri phonological system", IL 17.189-196 (1957). Prasad, K., et al., Bfhat hindi kos2 (Banäras, 2013 vi.). Prasad, Κ. D., "Maghi bhäsä aur sähity", in Päcdas lokbhäsä-nibädhävll (Pafnä, 1960), pp. 12-22. Püsan, A. P., Hindi-vyäkaran jñán (Banäras, 1951). Ramakrishna, B. S., et al., Some aspects of the relative efficiencies of Indian languages (Bangalore, 1962). Rau, W., "Die indische Staatssprache während der letzten fünf Jahre", Saeculum 6.180-185 (1955). Ray, S., Ädars vyäkaran aur racnä (Kalkattä, s.a.). Regamey, C., "A propos de la 'construction ergative' en indo-aryen moderne", Sprachgeschichte und Wortbedeutung, Festschrift A. Debrunner (Berne, 1954), pp. 363ff. Report of the Finalising committee with the Report of the Hindustani shorthand and Hindi typewriter standardisation committee (New Delhi, s.a.). Rocher, L., Leerboek van het moderne Hindi (Gent, 1958). , "Les problèmes linguistiques de l'Inde contemporaine", Revue de l'Université de Bruxelles 9.72-88 (1956). Rudin, S. G., "Nekotorye voprosy fonetiki jazyka xindustani", Uëenye zapiski Instituía vostokovedenija 13.233-265 (1958). , "Oöerk fonetiki jazyka xindi", suppl. to Beskrovnyj, V. M., (ed.), Russkoxindi slovar' (Moscow, 1957), pp. 1255-1276. Rsi, V. R., Rûsi-hindï sabdkos (Dilli, 1957). Sahai, R. N., and Narain, V. J., "The structure of nounphrase in Hindi", IL 25.111118 (1964). Sahal, K. L., "Bhäsä ke bhedak tattv", Bhä$ä 3:3.105-106 (1964). , "Päribhäsik áabdkos", Prasáriká 3:1.93-95 (1956). Saihgal, M. C., Modem Hindi grammar (Subathu, 1958).

HINDI

81

Saksena, Β. R., "A note on the derivation of Hindi übar khäbaf, BSOAS 20.507 (1957). , "Certain verb-compounds of Sanskrit and some parallel formations in Awadhi", IL 16.204-205 (1955). , see also Saksenä, B. R. Saksenä, B. R., Arth-vijñán (Patnä, 1951). , Dakkhinï hïdï (Ilähäbäd, 1952). , see also Saksena, B. R. Sampürnänand, Hamâri rätfrbhäsä (Väränasi, 2018 vi.). Satyanarayana, and Avadhnandan, Hindi-English self-instructor (Madras, 1953). Satynäräyan, M., "Hindi kä bhävi rüp", Prasärikä 2:2-3.15-17 (1955). Satyprakâà, Vyäkaran mäjri (Ilähäbäd, 1956). Schwarzschild, L. Α., "Some aspects of the history of modern Hindi nahtn 'no', 'not'", J RAS 1.44-50 (1959). Senthamilan, "The problem of a 'national' or 'official language' in India", Tamil culture 4:2.117-131 (1955). Sharma, Α., A basic grammar of modern Hindi (Delhi, 1958). Sharma, S. N., Hindi grammar and translation2 (Bombay, 1956). Sharma, Α., and Vermeer, H. J., Einführung in die Hindi-Grammatik (Heidelberg, 1963). Mimeographed. Singh, J. D., "Verbal prefixes in Bangru", IL 17.156-160 (1957). Sïh, Κ. Κ., "Nägpuri bhäsä aur sähity", in Päcdas lokbhâçâ-nibàdhâvlï (Patnä, 1960), pp. 86-99. Sïh, Ν., Hïdï ke vikäs më apbhräs kä yog2 (Ilähäbäd, 1954). , Pfthvïrâj-râso kï bhä?ä (Käsi, 1956). Sïh, R. V., Hindi më sarkârî käm-käj karne kï vidhi2 (Väränasi, 1964). Sïh, à. P., Kïrtilatâ aur avhaffh bhäfä2 (Väränasi, 1964). , Sür-pürv brajbhâfâ aur uskä sähity2 (Väränasi, 1964). Sïh 'Dinkar', R., "Hïdï kaise chüt gai?", Bhä?ä 2:2.26-36 (1962). Smékal, O., Hinditina (Prague, 1956). Mimeographed. Spies, O., "Türkisches Sprachgut im Hindustani", in Studia indologica, Festschrift für W. Kirfel zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres, ed. by O. Spies (Bonn, 1955), pp. 321-343. Srivastav, D., "A note on the use of the genitive case in early Hindi prose", IL 17.134138 (1957). Suman, A. P., "Hïdï kï vartnï më ai aur au dhvaniyô kï samasyä kä ek vaijüänik adhyayan", Bhä?ä 2:2.70-75 (1962). Svanii, Ν. D., Säkfipt räjsthänl-vyäkarari (Bikäner, 1960). àarmâ, B. Bh., "Dvitïy bhâçâ ke rüp më hïdï kä áiksan", Bhäsä 4:2.11-21 (1964). àarmâ, D. Ν., Bhäfävijnän kï bhümikä (Dilli, 1965). àarmâ, Ν. V., "Hindi-bhäsä aur uskä sähity", in Caturdasbhäfä-nibädhävli (Patnä, 1957), pp. 162-170.

82

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

áarma, R. Ν., "Päribhäsik sabdävli: sarveksan aur samasyâë", Bhäsä 4:2.34-41 (1964). , "Prävidhik anuväd aur pâribhâçik sabdävli", Bhäsä 3:3.25-29 (1964). áarma, R. V., Bhäsä aur samäj (Dilli, 1961). áarma, S. V., Navïn hindi vyäkaran (Dilli, 1955). áarma, V. M., "Hindi ki vartmän sthiti", llähäbäd yünivarsi(i hindi maigzin 14.22-30 (1958). áarma, Y. D., Prabandh-sägar3 (Dilli, 1955). áástri, D. Κ., "áabd kaise badalte häi?", Bhäsä 4:2.90-93 (1964). áastri, I. C., Bhärat ki âry-bhâsâë (Dilli, s.a.). àivnâth, Hidi-kärkö kâ vikâs (Kâsi, 2005 vi.). àrïrâjan, "Hindi ki samasyäe", llähäbäd yünivarsifi hindi maigzin 14.1-3 (1958). àrîvâstav, D. N., Tulsidâs ki bhäsä (Lakhnaü, 2014 vi.), ànvâstav, Ν. L., and Tripäthi, R. Α., Sarai hindi vyäkaran (Bañaras, 1956). áukl, R. á., "Räjbhäsä kä västavik rüp", llähäbäd yünivarsifi hindi maigzin 12-13.1-6 (1956). áukl, S., "Chattisgarhi bhäsä aur sähity", in Päcdas lokbhäfä-nibädhävli (Patnä, 1960), pp. 267-285. áukl Rasai, R. á., (ed.), Bhäsä sabd-kos (llähäbäd, 1951). Srivastav, R. N., "K voprosu o stratifikacii jazyka xindi", VLU 8.138-142 (1965). , Priroda i distribucija naëaVnyx grupp soglasnyx jazyka xindi (Leningrad, 1965). Taraporewala, I. J. S., "Linguistics in India", IL 16.153-156 (1955). Theban, L., "Schita a structurilor gramaticale fundamentale ale limbii hindi", in Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la 70 de ani (Bucharest, 1965), pp. 907-913. Tiväri, B. G., "Chatarpur aur Bädä zilö më pracalit kuch vyaktiväcak säjftäe", Bhä?ä 2:2.76-78 (1962). Tiväri, Bh. N., (ed.), Bfhat paryäyväci kos (llähäbäd, 1954). , Hindi muhävrä kos (llähäbäd, 1951). Tiväri, H. G., and Tiväri, Bh. N., Tulsi sabdsägar (llähäbäd, 1954). Tiväri, U. N., Bhojpuri bhä$ä aur sähity (Patnä, 1954). , Hindi bhä$ä kä udgam aur vikäs2 (Prayäg, 2018 vi.). , Hindi bhäsä tathä sähity (Dilli, s.a.). , see also Tiwari, U. N. Tiwari, U. N., "Bhojpuri verb roots", IL 14.64-76 (1954). , The origin and development of Bhojpuri (Calcutta, 1960). , "The pronouns of standard Bhojpuri", IL 25.227-228 (1964). , see also Tiväri, U. N. Tripäthi, R. N., "Muhävrö më jan-jivan", Prasärikä 3:1.31-34 (1956). Transliteracní tabulky indickych písem Indie, Pákistánu, Cejlonu a Tibetské oblasti CLE (Prague, 1962). Turner, R. L., A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages (London, 1962). Tandan, P. N., (ed.), Brajbhäsä Sür-koí (Lakhnaü, 1st vol. s.a., 2nd vol. 1962).

HINDI

83

Tanjan, R. C., "Hindi më prakaáan ki samasyä", Prasärikä 2:1.80-81 (1954). Udyog-vyäpär sabdâvlï (Na! Dili, 1956). Ultsiferov, O. G., "Hïdï më säslist samänädhikaran väky", Bhäfä 3:3.53-66 (1964). , see also Ul'ciferov, O. G. Ul'ciferov, O. G., Hindï-rûsï châtropyogï sabdkos (Moscow, 1962). , "SloZnosoòinennoe predloíenie ν sovremennom literaturnom xindi", in Voprosy grammatiki jazyka xindi (Moscow, 1962), pp. 113-170. , Sloinosocinennye predloíenija ν sovremennom jazyke xindi (Moscow, 1963). Dissertation. , see also Ultsiferov, O. G. Vale, R. N., Verbal composition in Indo-Aryan (Poona, 1948). Varma, S., A terminological lingua franca for India (Hoshiarpur, 1954). , "The concept of 'case' in modern Indian languages", BDC 20.387-388 (1960). , "The role of consonants in the stress and syllabication of the Ambalavi dialect", IL 25.61-66 (1964). Varma, S. K., A study in systemic description of Hindi grammar and comparison of the Hindi and English verbal groups (Edinburg, 1964). Dissertation. Varmä, D. K., "Kos-nirmân më sabd-kram-yojnä", Bhä?ä 3:3.19-24 (1964). Varmä, Dh., Grâmïri hïdïβ (Ilähäbäd, 1956). Varmä, G. P., and árivastav, A. C., Hïdï räffr-bhäsä (Ilähäbäd, 1957). Varmä, R. C., Devnâgrï urdû-hindï kos4 (Bambai, 1953). , Hindi kos-racnä, prakär aur rüp (Bañaras, 1954). , (ed.), Mänak hindi kos (Prayäg, 1965). , "Päribhäsik sabdö ki samasyä", Prasärikä 2:1.22-26 (1954). , Prämänik hïdï kos (Banäras, 2008 vi.). Väjpeyl, K. D., Hindi sabdänusäsan (Käsi, 2014 vi.). , Räjtrbhäsä kä itihäs (Kalkattä, 2007 vi.). Värsney, L. S., Phorf Viliyam kälej (1800-54 i.) (Ilähäbäd, 2004 vi.). Vermeer, H. J., "Hindi — 'enfant terrible' der Sprachwissenschaft", IgF 70.258-275 (1965). , and Sharma, Α., Hindi Lautlehre mit Einführung in die Devanagari-Schrift (Heidelberg, 1966). Mimeographed. , and Sharma, Α., Hindi-Lesebuch (Heidelberg, 1966). Mimeographed. Vira, R., ägal-säskft-hindi mahäkoi (Nägpur, 1952). , Comprehensive English-Hindi dictionary of governmental and educational words and phrases (Nagpur, 1955). , Elementary English-Indian dictionary of scientific terms (Nagpur, 1950). , The consolidated great English-Indian dictionary of technical terms (Nagpur, 1950-52). , and Gupta, G. S., A dictionary of English-Indian terms of administration (Nagpur, 1950).

84

VLADIMÍR MILTNER

, and Tamaskar, Β. G., Indian {Hindi) conventional signs for topographical maps of the Survey of India (Nagpur, 1950). Vorob'ev-Desjatovskij, V. S., "O nekotoryx zakonomernostjax razvitija ukazatel'nyx mestoimenij ν indoarijskix jazykax", Uëenye zapiski Instituía vostokovedenija 13.129-142 (1958). , "O rannem periode formirovanija jazykov narodnostej severnoj Indii", VLU 12.153-160 (1954). , Razvitie licnyx mestoimenij ν indoarijskix jazykax (Moscow-Leningrad, 1956). Xardat, M., et al., Hindi bhä$ä, Hindij tili darsligi 1-öquv jili ucun (Tashkent, 1958). Xoleva, R. G., "K voprosu o razvitii kategorii posleloga ν indoarijskix jazykax", UZLU 279.114-134 (1960). Yin-ti-yii - han-yii tz'-tien, Hindi-cM sabdkos (Peking, 1960). Zide, Ν. H., et al., A Premchand reader (Chicago, 1962). , et al., Hindi newspaper reader (Chicago, 1963). Zograf, G. Α., Jazyki Indii, Pakistana, Cejlona i Nepala (Moscow, 1960). , "Kal'kuttskij xindustani konca XVIII ν. ν osvesSenii G. S. Lebedeva", KSINA 61.142-153 (1963). , Opisanie rukopisej xindi i pandzabi Instituía vostokovedenija (Moscow, 1960). , "Otricanija pri glagole ν xindustani", Kratkie soobScenija Instituía vostokovedenija 18.73-78 (1956). , "Voprosy formirovanija urdu", Ucenye zapiski Insiiiuia vostokovedenija 13.287311 (1958). , "Xindi, urdu i xindustani (ob upotreblenii terminov)", Kratkie soobScenija Instituía vostokovedenija 18.49-55 (1956). , Xindusiani na rubeze XVIII i XIX vv. (Moscow, 1961). Zahxr, S., Urdü, hindi, hindustäni (Bambai, 1947). Zmotova, O. D., "Glagol'nye òerty infinitiva ν xindi i urdu", in Jazyki Indii (Moscow, 1961), pp. 316-342. , "Imennye priznaki infinitiva ν xindi i urdu", in Voprosy grammatiki jazyka xindi (Moscow, 1962), pp. 60-75.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW OF BENGALI STUDIES

KSENIJA L. ClZlKOVA AND CHARLES A. FERGUSON

Bengali linguistic studies during the period from immediately before independence up to the present time have been carried out most extensively in three areas, Bengal itself (both West Bengal in India and East Pakistan), the United States, and the Soviet Union. 1 Significant work has also been done in Great Britain, several other European countries, and Japan. The total published output, while fairly substantial in comparison to other Asian languages, is much less than might be expected for a language used by nearly ninety million speakers, having official status in two countries, serving as the vehicle of a large and distinguished literature, and constituting the native language of a body of scholars working in historical and descriptive linguistics since the nineteen twenties. The studies of Bengali carried out in Bengal all stem in some sense from Chatterji's monumental Origin and Development of the Bengali Language although there had been sound linguistic work before that. These linguistic studies, which flowed chiefly from the Department of Comparative Philology of Calcutta University and the Bengali Department of Dacca University, have been concerned with phonetics, dialect study, and history of the Bengali language. The Philological Society of Calcutta and the Linguistic Research Group of Pakistan have both encouraged Bengali studies, and articles on Bengali linguistics have appeared in their publications. The Linguistic Society of India has also welcomed articles on Bengali in its journal Indian Linguistics. The major names associated with Bengali studies in the subcontinent, in addition to Chatterji himself, have been Sukumar Sen in India and Muhammad Shahidullah and Muhammad Abdul Hai in Pakistan. Two substantial works produced on the subcontinent are Hai's DhvanivijMn o Banlâ Dhvanitattva and Tarapada Murkherji's The Old Bengali language and text. Besides technical linguistic works, Indian and Pakistani scholars have also produced textbooks for the study of Bengali grammar 1 This chapter had originally been planned as a full-scale review of Bengali linguistic studies by Bykova, but because of difficulties arising from the pressure of work, illness, and problems of communication, the review was not completed in time for inclusion in the volume. This briefer bibliographical study is based on materials provided by Bykova's young colleague Ksenija L. Ciiikova with some additional titles and the introductory paragraphs provided by Ferguson.

86

KSENIIA L. 0IÍIKOVA AND CHARLES A. FERGUSON

and phonology by speakers of the language in secondary schools and at the university level. Lexicographical work, on the other hand, has largely been done outside the university context. Bengali linguistic studies in the United States have mostly developed from the needs for materials to teach Bengali to Americans, and even the most technical and scholarly publications have been produced by linguists connected with teaching programs or working under contracts or grants to prepare instructional materials. The first center of Bengali research in the United States was at the University of Pennsylvania 1944-46, where Charles A. Ferguson, Rulon S. Wells, and Arnold Satterthwaite prepared classroom materials. Most of their materials remained unpublished or circulatedi η mimeographed form and are not available, although parts of a manual, Spoken Bengali, were revised and reproduced at the Foreign Service Institute some years later. Ferguson's doctoral dissertation "phonology and morphology of standard colloquial bengali" has never been published, but elaborated versions of parts of it have appeared as separate articles. The second center of Bengali linguistic research in America is associated with the name of Edward C. Dimock, Jr., who studied and taught in India in 1955 and 1956, and has since been at the University of Chicago. He and his associates have produced a series of studies and publications including the Introduction to Bengali, now published by the East-West Center Press in Hawaii, which is the most frequently-used Bengali textbook in the U.S. A considerable number of articles, mimeographed papers, and dissertations on Bengali have come from Chicago, including studies on the relationship of literary and colloquial language, and special aspects of grammar; particularly noteworthy is the unpublished dissertation of Suhas Chatterjii, "A study of the relationship between written and Colloquial Bengali." A third center in the U.S. has been at Texas A. and M. University, where Jack A. Dabbs and his colleagues have produced a number of studies relating especially to the Bengali used in East Pakistan; these are generally practical in orientation, but include dialect studies and a count of word frequency. The work done in the Soviet Union, which has come chiefly from the Institute of the Peoples of Asia of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, but also from Leningrad University, has been largely on syntax and morphology but has included general works, dictionaries, structural sketches, and textbooks for teaching Bengali in the USSR. The scholars represented by publications are E. M. Bykova, L. M. Cevkina, Β. M. KarpuSkin, I. A. Svetovidova, and V. A. Novikova. Of these, Mme. Bykova has the largest number of works: dictionary, structural sketch, monograph on syntax and articles on a wide range of topics in Bengali language and literature. The importance of the linguistic work done at London University is greater than might be suggested by the list of publications, since London has been a center for research and teaching in Bengali for many decades. For a long time W. Sutton Page's Introduction to colloquial Bengali was the only reliable textbook for the spoken language, and the Bengali section of Lambert's Introduction to the Devanagari script

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW OF BENGALI STUDIES

87

combined an analysis of the writing system and phonology in the framework of Firthian linguistics. A number of dissertations on Bengali have also been produced at London and at least one of them, Hai's study Nasals and nasalization, has appeared in published form. At the present time a newcomer to the field of Bengali studies has a number of useful basic works to guide him. There are two good structural sketches, the Bengali language handbook by Punya Sloka Ray and others, published by the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, and Bykova's Bengal'skij Jazyk in the Moscow series Languages of the People of Asia and Africa. There are useful introductory textbooks in English and Russian, those of Dimock et al. and Bykova et al., a convenient small reader, Novikova's Xrestomatija, and other reading selections in press. There are at least two valuable monolingual Bengali lexicons, the two-volume Abhidhän of Jnanendramohan Das and the small Calantikâ. Although there are no really excellent Bengali-English dictionaries, there is a serviceable Bengali-Russian one (Bykova et al. Bengal'sko-Russkij Slovak). Bengali is probably unique among South Asian languages in having two published word counts, the pre-Independence study of Chaudhury done at Dacca University under the inspiration of Michael West, and the recent more limited but more accessible one by Dabbs. In more specialized linguistic studies, Bengali is unusual in the number of descriptive and historical studies of morphology and syntax, in particular the Russian studies in the two collections of articles BengaVsky Jazyk, Sbornik and Voprosy BengaVskoj Grammatiki. Also, there are several pioneering sociolinguistic studies such as the essay by Clark on the language situation in Calcutta in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and the description of the language situation in East Pakistan by Chowdhury. Finally, the recent book of S. K. Das uses carefully worked out linguistic criteria in characterizing literary styles. As pointed out above, however, all this work is very little, compared to the need and the scholarly potential of the Bengali-speaking areas. We can hope that increasing numbers of trained Bengali linguists will undertake the numerous historical studies, dialect investigations, and descriptive analyses which the language merits.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alekseeva, Ε. Α., "O kategorii nareöija ν sovremennom bengal'skom jazyke" [On the category of the adverb in Modern Bengali], Bengal'skij jazyk 79-97 (Moscow, 1962). Ali, Saiyad Emdad, "Bärilä bhäsä o musalmän", Pravâsï 1:1 (Vaisakh, 1333 B.S. [1928 A.D.]). Anderson, J. D., A manual of the Bengali language (Cambridge, 1920). Andronov, M. S., Russko-bengal'skij slovar' (mimeo, Moskovskij Institut vostokovedenija, Moscow, 1953).

88

KSENUA L. ÖIZIKOVA AND CHARLES A. FERGUSON

Apte, Vasudeva Govinda, Báñgáli-Máráfhi ko fa2, revised by Ganesa Hari Gokhale (Poona, 1952; 1st ed. 1925). Ashraf, S. Α., and Ashraf, Α., "Bengali diphthongs", Pakistani linguistics, Shahiduîlah presentation volume (Lahore, 1966), Aoyagi, Aoyanagi, Akiyuki, "Bengarugo-no onin" [Phonetics of the Bengali language], GK 42.75-6 (1962). Bagchi, Pr. Ch., "Dohakosa", Journal of the Department of Letters, vol. 28 (Calcutta, 1935). , "Materials for a critical edition of the Old Bengali Caryapadas (A comparative study of the text and the Tibetan translation)", part 1, Journal of the Department of Letters, vol. 30 (Calcutta, 1938). Banerjea, Beerendra C., A short note on Bengali language and literature, University of Kentucky Libraries, occasional contribution no. 73 (Lexington, 1955). Banerjea, Biren, Praktische Grammatik der bengalischen Umgangssprache: mit einem bengalischen-deutschen und deutsch-bengalischen Glossar (Wien-Leipzig, n.d.). Banerji-Shastri, Anantaprasad, Evolution of Magadhi (Oxford, 1922). Basu, D., "Dubitative word 'hay(a)-to' in Bengali", IL 14.141-2 (1954). , "On the negative auxiliary in Bengali", IL 15:1-2.9-13 (1955). , "On the word 'devara'", IL 18.111-5 Bagchi Memorial Volume (1957). , "Word order of vocatives in Old Bengali", IL 21.23-31 (1960). , "Allative verb-compound in Standard Colloquial Bengali (A morpho-semitic study)", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 2.74-83 (1961). , "Affricates in Standard Bengali", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 4:2.71-6 (1963). Basu, Ganesh Charan, "Earliest Bengali Grammar written in Bengali", Indian Culture 12:3.145-57 (1946). Basu, Manindramohan, Caryäpada (Calcutta, 1943). Basu, Rajsekhar, Calantikä. Ädhunik bañgabhá$á abhidhän (saòsodhita o parivardhita navam sañskaran) (Calcutta, 1962). Basu, Suddhasattva, Báñlá bhäsär bhümikü (Calcutta, 1362 B.S. [1955 A.D.]). Bhattacharji, Somdev, An introduction to Bengali, part 2, an introductory Bengali reader (mimeo, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1961). , and Dimock, E. C., Jr. with Inden, R. and John, Α., Bengali reader: for second year students (mimeo, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1961). Bhattacarya, Ashutos, Éabda o uccäran (Calcutta, 1343 B.S. [1936 A.D.]). Bhattacarya, Gurudas, Väk pratimä (Calcutta, I960?). Bhattacarya, Narendranath, "Bängälä bhäsär utpatti", Manas o Marmavänl 533-5 (1335-36 B.S. [1928-29 A.D.]). Bhattacarya, Vijanvihari, Vägartha (Calcutta, 1966). Bykova, E. M., "Ädhunik bänglä më vidheyätmak sabda-samyog (anüdit)", HindiAnusilan, Dhizendra Varma Visefäk 147-50 (Prayäg, 1960). , BengaVskij jazyk, Jazyki narodov Azii i Afriki (Moscow, 1966).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW OF BENGALI STUDIES

89

, Excerpts from "Subject and predicate in contemporary Bengali", translated by C. P. Masica (South Asian Languages Program, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1962, for private distribution only). , "Sistema padeïej ν drevne-bengal'skom jazyke", Voprosy grammatiki bengaVskogo jazyka ["The case system in Old Bengali", Questions of Bengali grammar] 24-61 (Moscow, 1964). , Slovak k xrestomatii po bengaVskomu jazyku [Vocabulary to the Bengali reader] (Moscow, 1947). , "Slovoso&tanije ν bengal'skom jazyke" [Word combinations in Bengali], KSINA 62.109-26 (1964). , "Tagor - lingvist", R. Tagor. Kstoletiju so dría rozdenija 1861-1961 ["Tagore, the linguist", R. Tagore. To the centenary of his birth] 281-300 (Moscow, 1961). , "The system of cases in the Old Bengali language (on the problem of the development of the case system in Indo-Aryan languages)", paper presented at the 26th International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi, 1964. , Xrestomatija po bengaVskomu jazyku [Bengali reader] (Moscow, 1947). , "ZnaCenija i sintaksiöeskije funkcii padeánych form imen susöestvitel'nych ν sovremennom bengal'skom jazyke (materialy i nabludenija)" [Meaning and syntactic functions of the case forms of the noun in Modern Bengali (materials and observations)], Bengal'skij jazyk 3-53 (Moscow, 1962). , Kolobkov, I. S., and Litton, D., Ucebnik bengaVskogo jazyka dVa 1-go kursa, cast' 1-ja [Manual of the Bengali language for the first course, part 1] (mimeo, Moscow, 1955). , Kolobkov, I. S., and Litton, D., Ucebnik bengaVskogo jazyka dVa 1-go kursa, cast' 2-ja [Manual of the Bengali language for the first course, part 2] (mimeo, Moscow, 1956). Cakravarti, Cintaharan, "Bänglä abhidhän sambandhe kayekji kathä", Provasi 411-13 (àrâvaç ; 1363 B.S. [1956 A.D.]). , Bhâçâ sähitya sañskfti (Calcutta, 1960). Cakravarti, Gopalcandra, Bângâlà-Hindi sabdakoça (Calcutta, 1958). Cattopadhyay, Adityakumar, Bângâlà kävyer rüp o rag (Calcutta, 1365 B.S. [1958 A.D.]). Cattopadhyay, Sunitikumar, "Bänglä bhâçâ är bänali jäter gorär kathä", Sabuj Ρatra 12.838-63 (áravan, 1333 B.S. [1926 A.D.]). , Bângâlà bhäfätattver bhûmikcP (Calcutta, 1950; 1st ed. 1929). , Bhâfà-prakâs Bângâlà vyâkarai? (Calcutta, 1945; 1st ed. 1939; 1 Ith ed. 1957). Cattopadhyay, Sunitikumar, "Präcin Bänglä 'ähuth', 'äut' o särddhasankhyä-väcak àabdâvall", Sâhitya Parlai Patrikä 30.113-7 (1330 B.S. [1923 A.D.]). , Sarai bhâçà-prakâS bângâlà vyäkarari (nütan äkäre mudrita, sañsodhita o parivardhita sañskaran) [A comprehensive grammar of Bengali on descriptive and historical principles ; thoroughly revised and enlarged edition] (March, 1965; reprinted with corrections, 1966; 1st impression 1366 B.S. [1959 A.D.]).

90

KSENIJA L. CrêlKOVA AND CHARLES A. FERGUSON

, and Sen, Sukumar, Chätrabodh Bängälä vyákarari (Calcutta, 1356 Β. S. [1949 A.D.]). Cattopadhyay, Visnupad, "Bänlä bhäsär Srïvfddhi", Praväsi, âçârh, 313-21; srävan, 473-82 (1366 B.D, [1959 A.D.]). Caudhuri, Pramath, "Bänlär kathä", Sabuj patra 7.444-67 (Kärtik, 1327 B.S. [1920 A.D.]). Caudhuri, Ramaprasad, "Bänlä bhäsäy Pàli sabda o idyam", Sähitya Parität Patrikä 59.54-67 (1359 B.S. [1952 A.D.]). Cevkina, L. M„ "Soöetanija s poslelogami ν sovremennom bengal'skom literaturnom jazyke" [Combinations with postpositions in Modern Literary Bengali], UZIV 13.266-86 (1958). , "Sistema postpozicionnyx opredelitelej ν sovremennom bengal'skom jazyke" [The system of postpositional determinatives in Bengali], Indijskaja i iranskaja filologija 220-6 (Moscow, 1964). , "Castica 'i' ν sovremennom bengal'skom jazyke" [The particle 'i' in Modern Bengali] KSINA 62.71-8 (1964). , "Parnyje konstrukcii ν sovremennom bengal'skom jazyke" (Twin-constructions in Modern Bengali], Voprosy grammatiki bengal'skogojazyka 3-23 (Moscow, 1964). Chakravarti, P.N., "Dialects of Ränäkämärs of Birbhum", IL 15.59-62 (1955-56). Chatterji, S. K., A brief sketch of Bengali phonetics (London, 1921); reprinted from BSOAS. , The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language 2 vols. (Calcutta, 1926). , "Bärigälä bhäsär upädän o grämya sabda sañkalan", Sähitya Parisat Patrikä 144-53 (1335 B.S. [1928 A.D.]). , "Bengali origins", New Review 5.545-59 (January-June, 1937). , "Bengali phonetics", BSOAS 2:1.1-25 (1921). , Bengali self-taught: by the natural method with phonetic pronunciation (London, 1927). , "Glottal spirants and the glottal stops in the aspirates in New Indo-Aryan", In honour of Daniel Jones 407-14 (London, 1964). , "The Bengali language", Indo-Asian Culture 11:1.54-71 (New Delhi, 1962). , "The passive in Bengali", Sir Ashutosh Mookherjee silver jubilee volumes, vol. 3, Orientalia 2.617-39 (1925). , and Sen, Priyaranjan, eds. and trs., Manoel Da Assumpçam's Bengali grammar: facsimile reprint of the original Portuguese with Bengali translation and selection from his Bengali-Portuguese vocabulary, with an introduction (Calcutta, 1931). Chatterjee, Suhas, A Study of the Relationship between Literary and Colloquial Bengali, unpublished doctoral dissertation (University of Chicago, 1962). Chaudhuri, S. C , "Notes on the Rangpur dialect", IL, vol. 7.297-315 (1939). , "North Bengali dialects", IL 8.17-34 (1940). Chaudhury, M. H., Colloquial Bengali for non-Bengali learners (Dacca, 1963; second impression, 1966).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW OF BENGALI STUDIES

91

Chaudhury, Prabodh Chandra Dev, "Word frequency in Bengali and its relation to the teaching of reading", Dacca University Bulletin, no. 14 (Dacca, 1931). Chowdhury, Munier, "The language problem in East Pakistan", IJAL 26:3.64-78 (1960). , Sähitya, sañkhyátattva, bhäsätattva. Clark, T. W., "The languages of Calcutta, 1760-1840", BSOAS 18.453-74 (1956). Dabbs, Jack Α., A short Bengali-English English-Bengali dictionary2 (Texas, A&M University, 1965). , Spoken Bengali: dialects of East Bengal (Texas, A&M University, 1965). , Spoken Bengali: Standard East Bengal (Transcription) (Texas, A & M University, (1966). , Spoken Bengali: Standard East Bengal (Bengali alphabet) (Texas, A&M University, 1966). , Wordfrequency in newspaper Bengali (Texas, A & M University, 1966). Dani, Ahmad Hasan, "àrïhatta-nâgarï lipir utpatti o vikaá", Bañglá ekädemipatrikä 1:2 (Dacca, 1364 B.S. [1957 A.D.]). Das, Jnanendramohan, Báñgálá bhásár abhidhän2 (parivartita o parivardhita) [Dictionary of the Bengali language : self-pronouncing, etymological and explanatory, with appendices] 2 vols. (Calcutta, 1937). Das, Sajanikanta, "Bänglä aksare mudrita pratham bärilä abhidhän", Sähitya Pariçat Patriká 163-70 (1343 B.S. [1936 A.D.]). Das, Satyaranjan, "Some vocables from Birbhum dialect", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 4:2.91-7 (1963). Das, Sisir Kumar, Early Bengali Prose (Calcutta, 1966). Dasgupta, Bidhubhusan, and Pandit, Manu, Báñgálá bhä§ä proves (Calcutta, 1964). Dasgupta, Barindrakumar, "Bänglä bhäsätattver itihäs o Sunitikumär", Kathäsähitya (Sunltikumär Cattopädhyäy samvardhanä sankhyä) 1114-21, 1143-9 (1369 B.S. [1962 A.D.]). Dasgupta, Sudhirkumar, Bänidip [Banee-Deep: Part 3, Bengali Grammar written in accordance with the syllabi for the Higher Secondary and School Final Examination] (Calcutta, 1369 B.S. [1962 A.D.]). Datt, D. Α., and Zimin, A. S., Bengal'skij jazyk: naëalnyj kurs [Bengali language: beginning course] (Leningrad, 1935). Datta, Bhabataran, "Some hybrid synonymous compounds in Bengali", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 1:2.50 (1960). , "Onomatopoetics in Modern Bengali", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 2.84-103 (1961). , "Semi-onomatopoetic phrases with balanced vocables in Modern Colloquial Bengali", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 3:2.83-9 (1962). Datta, Mahendranath, Báñlá bháfár prasädhan (Calcutta, 1364 B.S. [1957 A.D.]). Datta, Sunanda, Rabíndra-kávyabháfá (Calcutta, 1961).

92

KSENIJA L. ClilKOVA AND CHARLES A. FERGUSON

Dattagupta, Aksayakumara, Bhäsä-viläsa abhidhäna (Calcutta, 1937). De, Anindyakumar, and Maitra, Dv., Kisor Bängälä vyäkaran (Calcutta, 1961). De, Diptilekha, Bhäfätattva sahacar (Calcutta, 1964). De, R. P., and Deva, Ashutoso, A Bengali-English dictionary of colloquial expressions (Calcutta, 1927). De, Satyavrata, Caryägiti paricay (Calcutta, 1960). Dev, Ashutosh, A comprehensive Bengali and English dictionary (Calcutta, 1951). , Nütan bängälä abhidhân2 (Calcutta, 1954). , Students' favourite dictionary (English to Bengali) : etymological, explanatory, with pronunciation, compound words, phrases, etc.13 (Calcutta, 1960). Deva, Ashutosha, Concise dictionary: English to Bengali, with pronunciations, and etymological and explanatory notes (Calcutta, 1942). Devanath, Navadvipcandra, Vyäkarari-kisalay (Calcutta, 1963). Dil, Afia, "Teaching Bengali to Urdu speakers", Pakistani linguistics {1962) 165-76 (Lahore, 1963); see also Readings in modern linguistics 119-32 (Lahore, 1964). , "A comparative study of noun phrase in Bengali and Urdu", Pakistani linguistics {1963) 153-68 (Lahore, 1964). , "Teaching Urdu to Bengali speakers", Studies in Pakistani linguistics 155-66 (Lahore, 1965). , "English loan-words in Bengali", Pakistani linguistics, Shahidullah presentation volume (Lahore, 1966). Dimock, Edward C., "Notes on stem-vowel alternation in the Bengali verb", IL 17.173-77 (1957). , "Symbolic forms in Bengali", BDC 1957 18.11-9 (1958). , "Literary and Colloquial in Modern Bengali prose", IJAL 26:3.43-63 (July, 1960). Fallon, P., A Glossary of Bengali Religious Terms (Oriental Institute, Calcutta, 1945). Ferguson, Charles Α., "A Chart of the Bengali Verb", J AOS 65.54-55 (1945). , The phonology and morphology of Standard Colloquial Bengali, unpublished doctoral dissertation (University of Pennsylvania, 1945). , "Notes on language training for the study of modern literature", Resources for South Asian language studies in the United States (Philadelphia, 1960). , "Clause negation in Bengali", paper presented at the 26th International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi, 1964. , "The basic grammatical categories of Bengali", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August 27-31,1962 881-90 (The Hague, 1964). , "The imperative system of Bengali", Pakistani linguistics, Shahidullah presentation volume 1-8 (Lahore, 1966). , and Chowdhury, Munier, "The phonemes of Bengali", Lg. 36.22-59 (1960). , and Satterthwaite, Arnold, Bengali: basic course (Foreign Service Institute, Washington, D.C., 1960).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW OF BENGALI STUDIES

93

Fowler, Murray, Review of Nasalization in Bengali by Hai, Muhammad Α., Language 38.457-60 (1962). Gangopadhyay, Radhagovinda, Bähgälä sabdasägara abhidhäna (Calcutta, 1923). Ganguli, Benimadhav, The student's Bengali and English dictionary13 (Calcutta, 1930). Ghos, H., and Sen, Sukumar, Bähglä bhä$är vyäkaran12 (Calcutta, 1958; 13th ed. 1960; 1st ed. 1946). Ghos, Haranth, Bänglä bhäsär vyäkaran, (Calcutta, 1363 B.S. [1956 A.D.]). Ghosh, Samir, "Towards a model of the compound verbs in Bengali" (mimeo, South Asian Languages Program, University of Chicago, 1962). , Towards a model of the compound verbs in Bengali (South Asian Languages Program, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1962). , Negation in Bengali (mimeo, South Asian Languages Program, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1962); paper presented to the Linguistic Society of America. Ghosh, Sree Jagadish Chandra, Adhunik Böhla Vyäkarana (Calcutta, 1956). Goswami, Krishnapada, "Linguistic notes on Chittagong Bengali", IL 8.111-62 (1940-41). , "Disguised Compounds in the Place Names of Bengal", Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 20:1-4.357-363 (1960). , "Perso-Arabie elements in place names of Bengal", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 1:2.47-9 (1960). , "Sibilants and glottal fricative 'h' in North-East Bengal dialects", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 2.108-9 (1961). Gupta, Atulcandra, Kávyajijñásá (Calcutta, 1961 ; 1st ed. 1928). Hai, Muhammad Abdul, A Phonetic and Phonological Study of Nasals and Nasalization in Bengali based on the observer's own pronunciation (University of Dacca, 1960). , "A Study of Dacca dialect", Pakistani Linguistics 105-128 (Lahore, 1964). , "A Study of Chittagong dialect", Studies in Pakistani Linguistics 17-38 (Lahore, 1965). , "A Study of the Sylhet dialect", Pakistani Linguistics, Shahidullah Presentation Volume 37-54 (Lahore, 1966). , "Bänlä svaradhvani o dhvanir vyavahär", Sähitya Patrikä (1365 B.S. [1959 A.D.]). , "Bänlär vyañjandhvani" [Bengali consonant sounds], Sähitya Patrikä 1:1.5-32 (1364 B.S. [1957 A.D.]). , "Dhvanigun", Sähitya Patrikä (1366 B.S. [1959 A.D.]). , Dhvanivijñán o Bänlä dhvanitattva (Dacca, 1964). , and Ball, W. J. L., The sound structures of English and Bengali (Dacca, 1961). Haldar, Gopal, The Chittagong dialect of Bengali (Calcutta, 1943?). Halhed, Nathaniel Brassey, A Grammar of the Bengali Language (Hoogly, Bengal, 1778).

94

KSENIJA L. 0IÍIKOVA AND CHARLES A. FERGUSON

Hudson, D. F., Teach Yourself Bengali (London, 1965). Islam, Α. Κ. M. Aminul, "Some prosodie characteristics of interword relations in Bengali", Pakistani linguistics (1963) 45-64 (Lahore, 1964). , "Compound words in colloquial Bengali", Pakistani linguistics, Shahidullah presentation volume 19-24 (Lahore, 1966). Kaji, Abdul Odud, Vyavahârik sabdako? (Calcutta, 1953). Karan, Sudhir Kumar, "South-Western Bengali", IL 15:3-4.39-45 (1955-56). , "Contai dialect of South-Western Bengali", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 2.15-23 (1961). , "South-Western Bengali and the language of Srikfçnakirtan", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 3:1.28-34 (1962). , "Some aspects of Simanta-Radhi dialect", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 4:1.32-7 (1963). Karlekar, Kalyani (Sen), Bängälä bhä?är $ik$äpaddhati4 (Calcutta, 1963). Karpuskin, Β. M., "Osnova glagola ν bengal'skom jazyke" [The basic form of the verb in Bengali], BengaVskij jazyk: voprosy grammatiki 109-46 (Moscow, 1962). , "Oboroty dolienstvovanija ν vostoönoj gruppe indoarijskix jazykov (bengali, orija, assamskij)" [Constructions debitivo or necessitatis in East Indo-Aryan languages (Bengali, Orija, Assamese)] KSINA 62.144-55 (1964). , "Sover§ennoje dejepriöastije ν bengal'skom jazyke" [The perfect adverbial participle in Bengali] Voprosy grammatiki bengaVskogo jazyka 62-95 (Moscow, 1964). , "Soöetanija soverSennogo dejepriôastija s glagolami bytija i stanovlenije slo2nyx vremennyx form glagola ν bengal'skom jazyke" [Combinations of perfect adverbial participle with the substantive verbs and formation of compound tenses in Bengali], Voprosy grammatiki bengaVskogo jazyka 96-105 (Moscow, 1964). Lahiri, Siv Prasanna, Sile{i bhä$ätattver bhümikä (Dacca, 1960). , and Summers, G. M., "Bengali section", Introduction to the Devanagari script 173-231 (London, 1953). Litton, D., Ocerk morphologii sovremennogo bengal'skogo jazyka [The morphology of Modern bengali], doctoral essay (Moscow, 1954). , Kastanajeva, O. N., and Kolobkov, I. S., Ucebnik bengaVskogo jazyka dVa 1-go kursa, cast' III [Manual of the Bengali language for the first course, part 3] (Moscow, 1959). , Kastanajeva, O. N., and Kolobkov, I. S., Ucebnik bengaVskogo jazyka dVa 1-go kursa, cast' IV [Manual of the Bengali language for the first course, part 4] (Moscow, 1959). , Russko-bengaVskij slovar', pod red. Noni Bhoumika i Subhomoja Ghoäa (Moscow, 1966). Majumdar, Atindra, Caryàpada (Calcutta, 1961). Majumdar, Mohitalal, Báñlá kavitár chandra (Haorä-jelä, 1355 B.S. [1948 A.D.]; 1st ed. 1352 B.S. [1945 A.D.]).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW OF BENGALI STUDIES

95

Mallik, Bhakti Prasad, "Phonemic analysis of the consonant clusters in Standard Colloquial Bengali", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 1:2.37-46 (June, 1960). , "Reciprocal Bahuvrihi compounds in Bharatchandra", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 2.131-4 (1961). , "Slangs of the underworld in West Bengal", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 3:2.42-54 (1962). , "Phonology of the underworld language", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 4:2.77-83 (1963). Mahalanabish, Prashantacandra, "Calti bhäsär bänän", Pravâsï 2:2.182-6 (Agrahäyan, 1332 B.S. [1925 A.D.]). Mathur, Ramesh, "Nasals and nasalization in Jaisi's Padmavata", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 2.135-8 (1961). Mazumdar, Bijay Chandra, The history of Bengali language2 (Calcutta, 1927). Miltner, Vladimir, "Old Bengali, Old Kosali and Old Marvari: sentence structure compared (a tentative analysis)" AO 32:4.576-600 (1964). Mitra, Bani, Vyákaran o racanâdarsa by Bânï Mitra (Calcutta, 1963). Mitra, Subai Chandra, Century dictionary: Bengali to English by Subai Chandra Mitra (Calcutta, 1961). , Century dictionary: English to Bengali and English (Calcutta, 1963). Mohiyud-Din, Muhammad, "General characteristics of the intonation of Bengali", Pakistani linguistics, Shahidullah presentation volume 25-36 (Lahore, 1966). Muhammad, Mansur-ud-Don, Häsi-abhidhana: Bänlä idiom sañkalan (Dacca, 1957). Muhammad, Rafiq-ul-Hasan, Äräli bähgälä abhidhána (Calcutta, 1957). Muhammad, Qazi Din, "Sentence type and verb forms in Bengali", Dacca University Studies (1964). Muhammad, Qazi Din, "Bänlä Kriyä Pader Rup", Sâhitya Patrikâ 9:1.73-114 (Dacca, 1965). Mukherji, Tarapada, The Old Bengali language and text (Calcutta, 1963). Mukhopadhyay, Amulyadhan, Bänglä chander mülsütra (Calcutta, 1962; 1st ed. 1339 B.S. [1932 A.D.]). Mukhopadhyay, Shubhendushekhar, "Bänlä lipi áañskár", Pravâsï 475-480 (áravan, 1363 B.S. [1956 A.D.]). Mukhopadhyay, Shubhendu, "Bänlä bhäsär mudraner o unnayaner sambhävanä", Pravâsï 308-10 (Agrahäyan, 1368 B.S. [1961 A.D.]). Nandi, Shefali, Bengali for foreigners (Calcutta, 1956). Pal, Animesh, "Eastern Bengali dialects: problematic theme", paper presented at the 26th International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi, 1964. , "Phonemes of a Dacca dialect and the importance of tone", JASB (1966). , "Bänlä bhâçâr rupbhed", Νatún paribes 94-104 (Vaisäkh, 1373 B.S. [1966 A.D.]). , "Bänlä bhäsär patbhümikä", Bangades 87-94 (Phälgun, 1372 B.S. [1966 A.D.]).

96

KSENUA L. 0IÍIKOVA AND CHARLES A. FERGUSON

, "Sädhu bhâçâr pakse", Medinïpur kaïej patrikä 69-75. Page, W. Sutton, An Introduction to Colloquial Bengali (Cambridge, 1934). Pattanayak, Devi Prasanna, A Controlled historical reconstruction of Orija, Assamese, Bengali, and Hindi, unpublished doctoral dissertation (Cornell University, 1961). Porizka, V., "Notes on R. N. Vale's theory of verbal composition in Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati and Marathi", AO 22.114-28 (1954). Purakayastha, M., Tripuray báñgálá bhäsä (Calcutta, 1958). Qadi, Vaiz'-ud-Din, Maktaba abhidhäna (Dacca, 1923). Quazi Din, Muhammad, The phonology of the verbal piece in colloquial Bengali, thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the University of London (London, 1961). , "Some syntactic structures in Bengali", Pakistani linguistics {1962) 153-63 (Lahore, 1963). , "A study of noun in Bengali", Pakistani linguistics (1963) 177-95 (Lahore, 1964). Ray, Jivendra Sinha, Báñlá chanda2 (parimärjita o parivardhita) (Calcutta, 1367 B.S. [1960 A.D.]). Ray, Pranabesh Sinha, "Kherwari parallelisms in Bengali", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 2.24-62 (1961). , "A mixed dialect of Bengali", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 4:2.84-90 (1963). Ray, Punya Sloka, Hai, Muhammad Abdul, and Ray, Lila, Bengali language handbook, Language handbook series, Frank A. Rice, General Editor (Washington D.C., 1966). Ray, Suprakash, Paribhä$ä ko? (Calcutta, 1958). Sableski, Julia Α., "Equational clauses in Bengali", Lg. 41:3.439-44 (1965). Sen, A. C., "East Bengali speech rhythm", IL 8.173-8 (1942-44). Sen, Murarimohan, Bhä$är itihäs (Calcutta, 1963). Sen, Prabodhcandra, "Bänlä chanda", Praväsi 2:3.303-9 (Pons, 1329 B.S. [1922 A.D.]). Sen, Shrinath, "Bhäsätattva", Praväsi 2:6.839-46 (Caitra, 1329 B.S. [1922 A.D.]). Sen, Sukumar, "Srïkjsnaklrttaner vyäkaran", Sáhitya Pariçat Patrikä 42.123-47 (1342 B.S. [1935 A.D.]). , "An early English-Bengali vocabulary", IL 8.71-92 (1940-41). , "Some Bengali etymologies", IL 8.210-4 (1942-44). , "Niya Präkrit and Bengali", IL 9.38-40 (1944-45). , "Index verborum of the Old Bengali Carya songs and fragments", IL, vol. 9 (Calcutta, 1947). , "Old Bengali texts of Caryagitikosa", IL, vol. 10 (Calcutta 1948). , Báñgálá sähitye gadya3 (Calcutta, 1949; 1st ed. 1934). , Báñglá bhä?ä vyäkaran (Calcutta, 1950; 1st ed. 1939). , Bhä?är itivftta* (parivarddhita o purarlikhita, 1950; 1st ed. 1939). , Caryägiti-padävali (Bardhaman, 1956).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW OF BENGALI STUDIES

97

, "Syncopated aspiration in Middle Bengali" 18.19-20, IL: Bagchi memorial volume (1957). Sen, Sukumar, "The position of the negative particle in Bengali", Indian Linguistics, Turner Jubilee Volume 1.100-102 (1958). , "Two Bengali etymologies", Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta 4:2.98 (1963). Sen, Yireshvar, "Bängälä bhâçâ", Pravâsï 2:1.45-6 (Kärtik, 1329 B.S. [1922 A.D.]). Shahidullah, Muhammad, "Outlines of an historical grammar of the Bengali language", Journal of the Department of Letters (Calcutta, 1920). , "Mägadhi Prakrit and Bengali", The Indian Historical Quarterly 1:4.433-42(1925). , Buddhist mystic songs (Dacca University Studies). , Les chants mystiques de Kähna et de Saraha (Paris, 1928). , The sounds of Bengali studied with artificial palate, a dissertation on experimental phonetics submitted to the Archive de la Parole, Sorbonne, Paris, 1929; unpublished paper, translated into English and revised by R. Novak (1963). , Bählä bhäsär itivrtta [A history of the Bengali language] (Dacca, 1965). , "Mun -m- ~ ν to the accent placement in proto-Gujarati; post-accentual -m- > -m-, while preaccentual -m- > -v- ("IndoAryan Nasals in Gujarati", §3). Turner's argument (that even if a language does not possess distinctive stress, and in case of Gujarati he agrees that it is so, certain changes in the phonological history of the language can be explained by postulating a stress in the proto-form) is valid, but this presupposes a systematic comparison of the New Indo-Aryan languages and ascertaining the ramifications of a distinctive stress (or stresses) in the proto-system. Historically, changes in the vowel system of Gujarati can be explained in terms of the syllabic structure of the word (P. B. Pandit, 1961); the -m- > -m- ~ ν developments can hardly be explained by stress hypothesis; there are numerous words which don't fit in this explanation and ultimately one has to resort to "borrowing" ; probably a better general statement for Gujarati would be that it is a -m- language, as against Hindi or Marathi which are -v- languages. Turner's stress hypothesis was formulated against Bloch's argument that there is no influence of stress in the development of New Indo-Aryan languages. "Dès lors il convient de considérer les variations régulières de quantité et même de timbre des voyelles, comme dependant d'un rhythme purement quantitatif" (La formation..., §32ff. cited by Turner in "Indo-Aryan Nasals", §6, p. 204). Lack of comparative work and concentration on etymology-oriented historical work has blocked any reasonable ground

GUJARATI

107

of arguments for or against this solution. Pischel's statements (R. Pischel, Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen, §141-145, 1900) on stress in Middle Indo-Aryan are mainly intended to explain certain etymologies such as loss of initial vowels in words of the type iti > tti, api > pi after an anusvära or a vowel: lam pi, anne vi, aläbu > láu, avatamsa > vaamsa etc. In these and similar examples, one may say that either the clitics had weak forms or the initial was unaccented; but there are a number of words which had an initial accent in Sanskrit which lose their initial vowel; e.g. arctffya- > ranna-, arista- > riffha-; these are better interpreted as sandhi forms (morph alternants). Wackernagel (Alt Indische Grammatik 1,268, 1896) has offered this explanation based on "sentence sandhi" for Pali iti > ti; also idha > dha, and drawn attention to Skt. mä âpeh > mä peh• Grierson ("On the phonology of IndoAryan vernaculars", ZDMG, 19.393, 1931-33), like Pischel, has used stress to explain New Indo-Aryan etymologies. This problem of historical and comparative phonology of Indo-Aryan deserves mention because of the misinterpretation of Turner-Bloch arguments by later Gujarati scholars, who assigned all changes (e.g. contraction of vowel groups in final positions, intervocalic stops > vowels, etc.) to stress placements, and conveniently shifted the "stress" to any position to explain any etymology. (See especially K. K. Shastri [1958] and Gokulbhai Patel [1951]). Turner laid the foundation of historical work in Gujarati. The main correspondences between Gujarati and Indo-Aryan were identified in his "summary of the relationship between the Gujarati and Primitive Indian sounds" printed at the end of his paper on Gujarati Phonology (1921). In a later paper (1925) he discusses the sources of Modern Gujarati ε and o in great detail and accuracy. Sir George Grierson's "On the Mughdhävabodhamauktika, and its evidence as to old Gujarati" (1902) has given a reliable sketch of old Gujarati Grammar. The text is an elementary Sanskrit grammar, written in 1394 A.D. (K. H. Dhruva presented the same text to the Oriental Congress 1893, London; he misinterpreted the text as "a grammar for beginners of the Gujarati language"; later on, Grierson pointed out the mistake); Grierson's interest in the text is spelled out in his paper: "It deals more with what we should call syntax than with the formation of words. But, as the explanations are written in the vernacular, these incidentally afford information as to what was the condition of the language of Gujarat between the time of Hemachandra (1150 A.D.) and the time of Narsingh Mehta (1450 A.D.) with whom Gujarati literature is commonly said to commence. I have therefore examined the text with some minuteness, and lay the results before the Royal Asiatic Society, as providing a valuable link between the Gauqara Apabhramäa of the Prakrit grammarian and Modern Gujarati. The close connection of this old Gujarati with the former is remarkable; and, though the materials are very incomplete, we are entitled to say that for the first time we have before us an unbroken chain of development between a Prakrit dialect and a modern Indian vernacular". From Grierson to the modern period, historical studies in Gujarati have been confined mainly to editing early texts ; this has supplied copious data for historical study.

108

PRABODH Β. PANDIT

But the data are not "history" ; historical studies of the language have hardly appeared in this period. L. P. Tessitori contributed to the historical study of Gujarati in a number of articles published in JRAS and Indian Antiquary during 1913-18. His well-known paper "Notes on the Grammar of Old Western Räjasthäni with special reference to Apabhramsa and Gujarati and Märwäri" {Indian Antiquary, April 1914-16) is the first exhaustive treatment of old Gujarati grammar in historical context. It is based on data collected from a number of manuscripts in the Regia Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence. Tessitori classified the manuscripts in four groups : (i) 1300-1400 V.S., (ii) 1400-1500 V.S., (iii) 1500-1550 V.S., and (iv) 1550-1600 V.S. He christened them "Old Western Rajasthani" (suggested by Grierson; though Grierson has earlier used the name "old Gujarati" for the language of Mugdhävabodhamauktikam), because though these works were composed in various parts of Gujarat and Märwär, they displayed considerable grammatical and stylistic uniformity; Tessitori notices Märwäri traits in some manuscripts of the later period — from his group iv; he believed that Gujarat and Märwär had one uniform speech up to that period, after which Gujarati and Märwäri split. It would be more reasonable to say that a common literary variety was superimposed on the whole region, and it was close to the later middle Gujarati and that literary tradition continued in Gujarati. The split between the dialects of Rajasthani (Märwäri is one of them) and Gujarati is earlier, and the grouping (of dialects such as Mälvi, Hadauti, Mewäti, Märwäri, Gujarati) may be different. Tessitori's etymologies lack rigour; he neglected the interplay of analogy in etymologizing the paradigms of old Gujarati; his insistence on deriving postpositions as contractions of fuller forms, such as nimitta- > md{e, karne > kanhai, *ätmanaka- > tanau etc. has vitiated his etymologies. Tessitori edited a number of Rajasthani texts; his work in the field of old Gujarati and Rajasthani is pioneering. T. N. Dave's A study of the Gujarati language in the 16th century V.S. with special reference to the ms. bälävabodha to upadesamdlâ (1935) is based on an old Gujarati commentary on Prakrit verses, composed in the late 15th century. He has given a sketch of the grammar with etymological glossary. In the derivations of old Gujarati paradigms and various terminations thereof, Dave has carefully separated the sound changes from the analogical changes and continued the historical tradition in Gujarati linguistics, well established by Turner; e.g. Turner in "Indo-Germanic Accent in Marathi" (JRAS, p. 227 fn., 1916), has already suggested 1st pi. in present tense -ie, e.g. bädhie could not be derived from bandhämo: "This may be a loan-form from another dialect, e.g. of ApabhramSa, bandhimo-mu > badhl-î... and then to distinguish it from the absolutive badhï(sic) < bandhia, the ending -ê of 3rd pi. was added". But the etymologies prevail over formulation of historical stages. Etymological guesswork, unwarranted by comparative data (which is very common in the indigenous scholarly tradition), appears in sections on post-positions, pronominal adjectives, and allied sections. Dave published, in 1948, a monograph on The language

GUJARATI

109

of Mahagujarat — An original and independent account of language based on the most up-to-date and scientific field-work carried out by the author, pp. 1-55, 1948). It was published during the period of linguistic boundaries and linguistic provinces agitation (hence the provocative subtitle), and is somewhat coloured by the enthusiasm of assigning dialects to a language: "The Bhili dialects are the result of the fusion of Gujarati and Rajasthani languages. The Bhili dialects are akin to Gujarati because Gujarati influence is more predominating in the area than Räjasthäni" (p. 54). Dialects of Gujarat are listed with some phonetic, grammatical and lexical features impressionistically assigned to each: "The Sorathi dialect has the smallest number of loanwords from any other language including Sanskrit, Urdu, Hindi, Persian and European languages" (p. 49); he offers fanciful explanations for dialect variations, such as : "In old times the inhabitants of Carotar had perhaps very close relations with Bhils and other aboriginal tribes; Carotari dialect is therefore highly saturated with the elements of aboriginal speech. The affricate pronunciation of palatal sounds, the use of 1st person of the verb for 2nd person, and the non-Aryan pronunciation of h prove the highly influenced nature of Carotari" (p. 47). The historical and phonetic statements in the rest of the book repeat those in his earlier studies, and abound in inaccuracies. Dave's paper, "The open and the closed ε and o in final syllables in Modern Gujarati" (1952), discusses the analogical extension of third person singular -e to first person plural, suggested by Turner (Indo-Germanic accent in Marathi, J RAS), and extension of inst. sg. -e of the extended nouns to unextended nouns; extension of 2nd pers. pi. -o to the future and polite imperative 2nd pers. pi. Dave does not consider that height distinction between e-ε and o-o is not distinctive in word final positions; he hears the finals as -ε and -o when they are historically developed (reflexes of old Gujarati final -ai and -au respectively) and as -e and -o when they are analogically extended. P. B. Pandit published a number of papers of historical-comparative interest in IL. It has been held that the Indo-Aryan sibilants s-s-s have merged to s in the east and s in the west and south; later on, the s in west and south splits into s and s; in his "Indo-Aryan sibilants in Gujarati" (1954) Pandit has tried to establish that s-s contrast belongs to the proto-Gujarati period; the contrast was maintained before the front vowels and y. The loss of length distinction in the high front and back vowels i and u and the introduction of height distinction in the front and back vowels e and ε, o and o is discussed in Pandit's "E and O in Gujarati" (1955); the paper gives a detailed historical account of e, ε, o and o in Gujarati. Pandit has continued this work in a larger framework in "Historical Phonology of Gujarati vowels" (1961) where intervening phonemic systems of Gujarati vowels from the Middle Indo-Aryan to Modern Gujarati are described; moreover, the change from one system to another is connected with the changes in the morphological systems. This is an effort to interpret linguistic history in terms of changing systems instead of the earlier practice of establishing individual etymologies.

110

PRABODH Β. PANDIT 3. PHILOLOGICAL-ETYMOLOGICAL

Parallel to the historical-comparative tradition of the thirties is the indigenous philological-etymological tradition, which produced a sizeable amount of literature, and though here and there one comes across brilliant philological insights in the interpretation of texts and history of language, the large bulk of this literature offers little that is of linguistic interest. Κ. H. Dhruva presented his essay on the "Mugdhävabodhamauktikam" at the Oriental Congress (London) in 1893; later on, he presented his essay "Vâgvyâpâra-" [process of speech] describing sounds of Gujarati in the style of a PrätiSäkhya (manuals of phonetics in Vedic period) ; the statements and style are bizarre, but there are some useful observations, e.g. nasalized e and o in Gujarati are always low, i.e. there is no contrast between ë-ε and · [ ± Status] -»· [ ± Deictic] -> [ ± Injunctive] -> [dr Hortative] [ ± Presumptive] -* [ ± Optative]

KALI CHARAN BAHL

175

PANJABI

(1) kïtta si jë, kïtta säi (2) kïtta siga (3) kïtta si (4) kïtta jê, kitta ï (5) kitta he (6) kitta νε (7) kitta (8) kör + da si jë, kär + da sài (9) kär + da siga (10) kär + da si (11) kär + da jë, kär + da ï (12) kär + da he (13) kär + da νε

(14) k5r + da (15) kärna si jë, kärna säi (16) körna siga (17) kârna si (18) kôraa jë, kärna ï (19) kärna hè (20) kärna νε (21) kärna (22) (23) (24) (25) (26)

kärio kär kärega käru käre

3.4.4. The treatment of compound verbs in modern Indo-Aryan languages has attracted considerable scholarly attention in the past. Emeneau lists the phenomenon among others as one of the important characteristics of India as a linguistic area.5 If we follow the discussion of this problem in Modern Standard Hindi from the account given in the chapter on Hindi by Vladimir Miltner in this volume, we can easily see that the investigation of compound verbs seems to have reached a dead end. Unless any important break-throughs are made regarding the grammatical nature of compound verbs, it seems, we have no choice but to follow the suggestion made by Paul Hacker.® No such debate has occurred about the compound verbs in MSP. Of the three grammatical descriptions we have mentioned earlier, Duni Chandra follows the traditional line of not giving an appropriate description with examples, Bahl lists verb sequences not mentioned in any grammatical discussion of MSP. In the absence of any discussion and suitable examples, Bahl's list is of no help. Gill and Gleason's description is probably the only one which can be used as a basis of discussion about the nature of the problem. 5

Μ. B. Emeneau, "India as a linguistic area", Lg. 32:1.3-16 (1956). * Paul Hacker, in his paper "On the problem of a method for treating the compound and conjunct verbs in Hindi", BSOAS 24:3.489-526 (1961), says that "Whether or not an explicative is used, depends on the intention or mental attitude of the speaker or writer; the intention or mental attitude stands in a definable response-relationship to situation and context — though it is not mechanically determined by the situation, for the facts of intention and selection imply a freedom of option — and the mode of expression selected is sometimes meant to call forth certain responses in the hearer or reader". To follow this suggestion, a super-grammar of compound verbs would have to be written, based on the native speakers' intention or mental attitude as the only feature determining the occurrence or nonoccurrence of subsidiary verbs in the MSP sentences, unless the stalemate about the category of compound verbs can somehow be broken.

176

KALI CHARAN Β AHL

In their description of Verbal Phrases, Gill and Gleason enumerate the following kinds of phrase bases: (1) Single verb stems, simple or causative, and including most of the verb stems that are described below as having special functions. me ja- / -nda ä VP Ί am going' (2) Certain constructions consisting of a noun or an adjective and a verb stem. The verb stems involved are from a limited list of specialized stems; the noun or adjective elements are much more diverse. The combinations often require lexical treatment as units, and are all more or less conventionalized. me ónu piar kar- / -da ä VP Ί love her' (/piar/ is a noun meaning 'love'. /k§r-/ is a verb stem, in isolation typically meaning 'do'. The combination /piar kSr-/ is not wholly predictable, and should be treated as a lexical unit.) (3) A verb stem or a conjunct verb base followed by a catenative. Catenative consists of a verb stem from a restricted list and a preceding verb ending or specified lack of a verb ending. me kamm kar- / ^n lagg / -a ä Ί am going to begin to work'. (4) A verb stem — not ordinarily any longer phrase base — followed by a reinforcing unit. The latter consists of a verb stem from a restricted list and a preceding verb ending or specified lack of a verb ending. A very large number of verbs enter these constructions as first members, but the combinations are not predictable by general rule, and must be listed. The meanings of the combinations bear little if any relation to the meaning of the second element when the latter is used alone, but generally differ from that of the first element only by some kind of strengthening. (5) Certain compounds consisting of two verb stems, generally of very similar or nearly synonymous meaning. We would restrict the use of the term compound verb to a variety of verbal bases which are grouped by Gill and Gleason in the classes (3) and (4) above. Here we shall discuss these two types of compound verbs while examining the distinction between catenative combinations and reinforcers. As the above noted definitions imply, the distinction between verbal phrases

PANJABI

177

involving catenative combinations as well as reinforcers can be expressed by means of the following rule.

Catenative Comb. -»• (end) Catenative The examples and the table of catenative combinations given on page 204 indicate that the category of catenative combinations is not only an ill conceived category, it is a kind of dumping ground where verb phrases having a variety of underlying structures have been dumped together without offering any justification whatsoever. Perhaps one should not expect any theoretical justification for an interpretation in a grammar which is written for a lay reader who is not sophisticated in linguistics but this contention does not permit a grammarian to ignore a major portion of the data and present conclusions giving the impression that the description is exhaustive. Since Gill and Gleason have freely made use of printed textual materials, all they had to do was to pick up any one of the books listed by them among the works quoted and see how many different types of verb sequences which occur on almost every page of these books have been left out. Below we give a few examples of these verb sequences. Visnu dàtt cà(( pà({ ütth khalötta 'Vishnu Datt quickly got up' ó dôvë kòre phSj· ke kàsse picche logg ture

'They both holding their horses (...) began following the marks on the grass' tosi pSe rávo, thakk gae hòvoge 'You keep lying, I think you are tired' asi khá- makhá toànnu pire + sän ä kïtta

'We came here to put you to a lot of trouble' moiì4e nu kori di mó màsti cardi j a rái si

té hòr séb pollada jä rèa si 'The boy found himself falling deeper and deeper under the spell of her charm and everything else was gradually ceasing to exist for him' By including the verb sequences left out by Gill and Gleason, we can reexamine the category of catenative combinations. The table of catenative combinations contains verb sequences of the following types. (a) compound verbs with reinforcers. (i) verb stem+reinforcers like sSk-, ρε-, rSkkh-, chStfâ- etc. (ii) verb stem + aspect ending+reinforcers

178

KALI CHARAN BAHL

(b) verb stem + infinitive ending + verb (i) -n l3gg-, dein) -na ρε-, câ-, (iii) -nò ré- and so on. (c) ya-passive (d) verb stem+perfective ending + kirie) nonfinite perfective and imperfective + finite verbs (f) verb sequence consisting of verb stem + pä- 'to put' for which we cannot find any example either in the grammar or elsewhere. All the verb sequences other than those in the subgroup (a) are sentence embeddings of one sort or the other, or could be interpreted as singulary transforms of the underlying deep structures. Having clarified the fact that the category of catenative combinations is not needed in MSP grammar, we will now concentrate upon the compound verbs involving reinforcers. A compound verb, as it has been defined by Gill and Gleason, means a complex verb phrase consisting of a verb stem followed by one or the other of a limited number of verb stems. The term reinforcer used by Gill and Gleason refers to the limited number of verbs which have also been called "subsidiaries", "operators", "explicators" and so on by grammarians describing other standard modern Indo-Aryan languages. The general idea has been that the subsidiary verbs modify or add to the meaning of main verbs. It has also been observed that "The combinations of verb stems and reinforcers which occur are not easily predictable, and must be treated as complex lexical units". So under the circumstances the task of the grammarian is (a) to identify the subsidiary verbs, and (b) to formulate rules for the generation of simple as well as compounds verbs. These observations about the grammatical nature of compound verbs lead us to formulate a rule such as the following. Verb Phrase -* Verb ((Ending) Subsidiary) Tense This rule and the table of verbs and their subsidiaries as given by Gill and Gleason on pp. 206-210 seem to be a sufficiently adequate solution based on the observations above. Another improvement over the previous formulations was made in the direction of systematization of the subsidiary verbs on the basis of their semantic contribution in compound verbs. The following list of subsidiaries along with the labels given by Bahl constitutes such an attempt. According to Bahl all the subsidiaries can be divided into eight sets of two each. The members in each set are semantically opposed to each other while having the common feature of the set. 1. Completion cislocative translocative

ájä-

PANJABI

179

2. Suddenness

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

commencement termination Vehemence indeliberate deliberate Benefaction ego benefactive alio benefactive Precedence concern indifference Inception involvement alleviation Process incessant cessant Accomplishment phenomenal abilitative

Otthbetthplsô{{ΙεdërèkkhcfaddcSllnikalrécôkkhòsSkk-

This progress in our understanding of the phenomenon of compound verbs in MSP, as we have outlined above, leaves many questions unanswered, and is far from being satisfactory. The grammatical interpretation of compound verbs as consisting of a primary verb optionally juxtaposed with a subsidiary verb, fails to explain the situations where the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a subsidiary verb in a sentence is obligatory. Below, we give a few sentences where dropping of the subsidiary verb in each case yields a nonsentence. ó elk mär ke pbttje jô pêa

'He gave out a shrill cry and fell down on the ground' *ó cík mar ke pbnje gëa bèffhi bè((hi me SD calli sâ

'While sitting (here), I was about to fall asleep' *bèfthi bè((hi me sótti sâ vïsnu dStt haràn ré gëa

'Vishnu Datt was surprised ...' *vfsnu dstt haràn rèa sarkär mèri έ majâl hò sâkkadi ε toàdçlipSrja hò ke

'Sir, being a subject of yours, I cannot dare to do so' * sarkär meri έ majal hbndi ε toàddi pSrja hò ke

180

KALI CHARAN Β AHL

mèri säkal badal cükki sí 'My appearance (i.e. expressions on my face) had completely changed' *meri SSkal bsdali si do gSllä ne mère dïl nu khusi père ascSrj nâl pàr ditta 'Two things filled my heart with a pleasant surprise' *dö galla ne mère dïl nu khusi pare ascSrj näl parea The obligatory occurrence of subsidiary verbs, as in the above sentences, may be compared with their obligatory nonoccurrence in the following sentences. The substitution of simple verbs in these sentences with the same verbs and their permissible subsidiary verbs as listed by Gill and Gleason, will yield nonsentences. es ISi ó pâfhak ate âlocak dövä dia n3jarä vice khSra Otarda he 'For this reason he is proven to be honest in the eyes of his reader and critic both' ös de kheál vice ó hàr sSrat puri kSran di samSrtha rSkkhada si 'In his opinion he was capable of fulfilling every condition' — m l Os nu peär kSrdi sä Ί loved him' Sjj bére dinä picchö dèkkhea ε tënnu Ί have seen you today after a long time' par mèra vicär gabt nikalea 'But my idea turned out to be wrong' The occurrence of these two kinds of nonsentences — one without subsidiary verbs and the other with subsidiary verbs — raises serious doubts about the correctness of the analysis of the compound verbs. This means that in order to correctly interpret the structure of sentences, we must ask ourselves entirely different kinds of questions, i.e. we should concentrate on the relationship between a verb and its subsidiary alone rather than bringing the simple verb in the picture too. By delimiting the scope of our enquiry to a verb and its possible subsidiaries on the basis of maximum dependence between the two, we can also state the grammatical conditions under which a verb occurs alone. So far the grammarians have tried to do the opposite of this with the obvious result that our enquiry has reached a dead end. Traditional grammarians' sole concern was the understanding of the semantic proliferation of verbs by means of the subsidiaries. The attainment of this goal is feasible if we take another look at what the traditional grammarian had to say about the problem. Without going into all the details of the approach, we shall try to explore the implications of the traditional grammarians' observation that "the subsidiary verbs modify or add to the meaning of the main verb". The assigning of a grammatical interpretation to this observation by means of the rule Verb Phrase -*Verb ((End) subsidiary) Tense), assumes that the lexical content of a main verb can be abstracted

PANJABI

181

from the contextual semantic definitions of a compound. One way to verify this assumption is to look into a dictionary of MSP. We can take the verb rèkkh- as an example. The Panjabi dictionary published by Ludhiana Mission gives the following semantic definitions for this verb: to keep; to put, to place, to set, to lay down, to station; to have, to hold, to possess, to reserve, to save; to apply, to ascribe, to impute; to take into employ; to receive, to accept All the above semantic definitions of this verb, while implying the lexical content of this verb, are based on the individual occurrences of this verb in various contexts. None of these semantic definitions corresponds to the lexical content of the verb rèkkh- by itself as is assumed in the rule assigning an interpretation to the traditional semantic observation. The above noted semantic definitions of the verb rèkkh- are by no means exhaustive and can be multiplied a great deal, which means that the search for the lexical content of the verb rèkkh- is going to prove to be a futile attempt. Gill and Gleason's (1962, p. 205, section 7.4) following observation As reinforcers their function is essentially to strengthen the meaning of the preceding verb stem, and these reinforcing verbs contribute very little specific meaning to the whole. can also be cited as additional evidence in favor of our argument. The conclusion which emerges from the discussion above is that there is no way to understand the nature of modification of the meaning of the main verb by means of a subsidiary verb without first knowing what the meaning of the main verb (i.e. the lexical content in our sense of the term) really is. Instead of trying to abstract the lexical content of verbs from their semantic definitions in order to grammatically understand the phenomenon of their modification by the subsidiaries, we believe useful results can be obtained if we concentrate on the kinds of grammatical contexts which form part of the various semantic definitions of verbs as given in the dictionaries. Let us examine the following few sentences with the verb rèkkh- with or without the subsidiaries /ε- and de-, All the semantic definitions of the underlined verbs as contained in the glosses of the sentences can be grouped into three distinct categories as follows : (1) münde ne katâb mëj te ràkkh litti 'The boy put the book on the table' (2) münde ne kstâb mëj te ràkkh ditti 'The boy put the book away on the table' (3) münde ne katâb mëj te ràkkhi 'The boy kept the book on the table' (4) one toàddi katâb te Skkh ràkkhi hòi | 'He has an eye on your book' (5) âne säreä vice mèri ïjjdt ràkkh litti 'He upheld my prestige in the presence of everybody'

182

KALI CHARAN BAHL

(6) ône mènnu säriä gSllä vSlìd nèrec ràkkhea 'He kept me in the dark about everything' (7) àrie sâri gSll yäd ràkkhi 'He remembered the whole incident' (a) in sentences (1-3) the semantic definitions of the verb ràkkh- involve dependence between the adverb mëj te 'on the table' and the verb, (b) in sentences (4) and (5) they are based on the dependence between the verb and the action noun phrases katâb te Skkh and mèri ïjjat, and (c) in the last two sentences the verb ràkkh is an incomplete verb and its two semantic definitions are based on the complements nërec and yäd. The grammatical environments which form part of the semantic definitions of this verb also imply the possibilities of occurrence or nonoccurrence of the subsidiaries /ε- and dë- with the verb ràkkh- in the sentences above. The occurrence vs. nonoccurrence of these two subsidiaries with the verb ràkkh- in the seven sentences given above can be plotted as follows : sentence no.

/ε-

dë-

1-3

ι

±

4

—

—

5

±

6

—

7

±

—

—

—

The occurrence of + ' s and —'s in the above table is the outcome of some systematic regularities about the occurrence or nonoccurrence of subsidiaries in MSP sentences. Below we shall state some of these regularities. (1) The grammatical environments which form the basis of the semantic definitions of verbs also condition the occurrence vs. nonoccurrence of subsidiaries with these verbs. (2) All the semantic definitions of any MSP verb listed in a dictionary as well as any others which can be added to this list, fall into three categories on the basis of the dependence between the verb and (a) the adverb, (b) the action-noun phrase, or (c) the complement. These three possible categories of meanings of verbs may be termed primary, secondary, and tertiary respectively. All the semantic definitions of the primary category are concrete, those in the secondary category are less concrete than those in the primary category. The semantic definitions in the tertiary category are generally so abstract that they resemble the ones in the other two categories only metaphorically. The semantic definitions of the primary category are also relatively less context sensitive than the other two. Those in the secondary category are generally more

PANJABI

183

context sensitive than the ones in the primary category, and finally the ones in the tertiary category are most context sensitive of all. A quick review of the verb entries in a relatively sizable monolingual dictionary of MSP will confirm this view. (3) The grammatical environments of the primary category permit the occurrence vs. nonoccurrence of the maximum number of subsidiary verbs compatible with any given verb. The grammatical environments of the secondary category generally do not permit the optional occurrence of marked members of the eight pairs of subsidiaries as listed earlier in this section, i.e. dë-,jâ- etc. as opposed to IE and ä- respectively. In these environments the occurrence of the marked members is always obligatory if they are compatible with the verb, whereas the unmarked members may occur optionally. The grammatical environments of the tertiary category are like those of the secondary except that the number of choices available in the former are severely restricted. All possible combinations of verb stems and subsidiaries can be predicted in terms of the three major grammatical environments mentioned above. By building this element of predictability into a base component of MSP grammar, rules for the generation of verbs (with or without subsidiaries) can be formulated without any appeal to the lexical content of verbs or of the subsidiaries.7

4. LEXICOGRAPHY

4.1. Some important contributions have been made to MSP lexicography by the Language Department, Panjab, as well as by some individual scholars. The Language Department has reprinted the bilingual dictionary of Panjabi published by The Ludhiana Mission in 1854, Maya Singh's Panjabi-English dictionary (1895) and several other important works like Mahâna kosa (Kanh Singh Nabha). They also undertook the compilation of a monolingual dictionary of Panjabi as well as a bilingual dictionary (Panjabi-Hindi) of the language. The first two volumes of the former and the first volume of the latter have already been published. Along with these a fairly good dictionary of Panjabi idioms has been published by Panjab University Publication Bureau, Chandigarh. The first volume of another dictionary of Panjabi entitled Paramànika panjâbï kosa compiled by Professor Kartar Singh has also appeared. Since all the works which belong to the period under review have appeared only in parts, it is not possible to evaluate them systematically. Nevertheless we shall try to discuss their contents on the basis of some broad general principles followed by these lexicographers. 7

For further discussion on this problem see the author's A reference grammar of Hindi (The University of Chicago, 1967 mimeographed).

184

KALI CHARAN BAHL

Unlike the grammarians, lexicographers have made extensive use of the existing lexicographical data on Panjabi in compiling their dictionaries. All the dictionaries attempt to provide a maximum coverage of the language. The emphasis on maximum coverage of the lexical stock, in the absence of any strong lexicographical tradition and due to the present state of the MSP grammar, has not permitted these lexicographers to do a systematic depth analysis of the language. We can understand the nature of this lack of depth from two points of view — (a) organizational and (b) inherent. One need not go into any theoretical linguistic basis for an understanding of these two kinds of lack of depth. By organizational lack of depth we mean the various problems involved in the manner in which a lexicographer assembles the lexical information about a language, systematically processes it and imposes upon these data an organization which in his opinion is best suited for the purpose of its presentation to the user of the dictionary. Inherent lack of depth concerns some general lexical properties of a language. An understanding of these lexical properties will enable the lexicographer to set up certain organizational procedures in advance. Looked at from these two points of view one can say that dictionary making in Panjabi, irrespective of the sizes of these works, has not gone very far yet. Below we shall talk about the general lexical properties of MSP. A discussion of these properties will lead us to organizational matters. 4.2. If we compare the voluminous dictionaries of MSP with the relatively smaller ones, i.e. of the kind put out for use in high schools, it is obvious that the major difference between these two kinds of dictionaries is not in the amount of information given in them, or in the number of entries with some attention paid to grammar. Dictionaries of all sizes list almost all the verb stems of the language, they also list the majority of adjectives but differ greatly in the number of noun entries. This means that the verbs (and along with them the adjectives) are far outnumbered by the nouns which are an open-ended class of words. The language neither borrows verbs nor has any lexical devices for coining new ones with the exception of a few denominalized as well as deadjectivalized verb stems. These denominalized and deadjectivalized verb stems occur mostly in the literary language, and their extent still remains undetermined. At present we have no way of knowing whether these dictionaries report such verbs adequately or not. New nouns, on the other hand, are being constantly introduced into the language by borrowing as well as by coining from the existing stock by means of several suffixes. To compensate for this apparent lack of verbs, the language employs certain syntactic devices such as compounding of verbs, the so called conjunct verbs, and so forth. The semantic proliferation of verbs by means of compounding is ever on the increase, and is little understood by the grammarians. The lexicographers too give them a very superficial treatment. Since we have already discussed this matter we need not go into it again. The so called conjunct verbs of grammarians involve two distinct devices which Panjabi (and other modern Indo-Aryan languages as well) employs for the generation of new verbal concepts. These devices are the use of (a) action noun phrases and (b)

PANJABI

185

complements with verbs.8 The list as well as text frequency of these two devices is so high, one cannot help wondering about the manner in which the grammarians interpret their underlying structure, and the lexicographers ignore them. It can be systematically demonstrated that the more a verb occurs with action noun phrases and complements, the more its semantic definitions become context dependent. This kind of dependence between the semantic definitions of verbs and their sentence contexts can be termed loss of lexical content of verbs. Exactly the opposite of this process of loss of lexical content of verbs is happening to the nouns, i.e. the nouns add to the list of their semantic definitions by occurring in more and more action noun phrases. A few examples of action noun phrases with the verb mar- 'to kill' and some sentences containing the noun kheâl 'idea, thought' are given below to illustrate these points. noun noun noun noun noun noun noun

te nSjer mârte chi((a märte châppa mârnu àkkh mârnu búa mârnu ûkhera märnu tir mâr-

noun noun noun noun noun

nu sStjgel märnu bölliä márda näs märdi mStt märdijän mâr-

noun

vice chäl márcokeri mârISpaß märdSm mär(àvâ märcík mär-

'to take a quick look at' 'to sprinkle (water etc.)' 'to raid' 'to wink one's eye (in gesture)' 'to slam the door on someone' 'to put forth a counter-argument' 'to shoot an arrow (metaphorically) at someone' 'to chain someone' 'to tease' 'to spoil, to destroy' 'to utterly confuse someone' 'to torment' 'to jump into' 'to sit with legs crossed' 'to emit flames' 'to take a breath' 'to cry loudly' 'to give out a shrill cry'

• The following pair of sentences contains the action noun phrase mon di badali and the complement badali, both followed by the verb hòmón di dilli badali hò gai ë "Mohan has been transferred to Delhi (without any commitment as to whether he is still working at his present place of employment or not)" món dilli badali hò gëa ε "Mohan has been transferred to Delhi (where he is working now)" The term 'conjunct verb', as it is applied, would have us interpret the two grammatically as well as semantically different occurrences of badali and hò- as a single conjunct verb badali hò-.

186

KALI CHARAN Β AHL

'memory, thought' mènnu apparie bScceä da kheäl onda si

'memory' ... par nëm pallan da kheäl ä jäti otte ó kämm

vice hör ligan näl jô{ jända

'looking after' ρυηηο harpäl da bära kheäl rakkhadi sì

'thought' harpäl ne kheäl kltta

...

'idea'da kheäl si όηα 'respect, attention' tósi mèri ornar da jarür kheäl käroge

Above we have discussed and illustrated some very obvious general properties of nouns and verbs in Panjabi. Similar problems can be seen where lexicographers treat the so called synonymous nouns. Below we reproduce the entries for the nouns jagg, jSgat, jahän from the second volume of the monolingual dictionary of Panjabi published by the Language Department, Panjab. jagg — jagat — jahän —

jahän, sansâr, donia jagg, jahän, sansâr, dvnìa jagat, sensär, donia, sariifi

The definitions above have created a vicious circle which a user of this dictionary can never break. The absence of any contexts of occurrence of these synonymous definitions makes the situation even worse. For the sake of argument one can say that the nouns like jagg, jagat, jahän etc. are somewhat difficult to handle, and it would be too much to expect from the lexicographer of Panjabi that he should resolve these vicious circles at the present stage of Panjabi lexicography. But there are in the language a lot of synonymous nouns like the following which are quite distinct in their meanings in everyday parlance litt, mg

'leg'

jal, päni

'water'

karód, güssa, ró

'anger'

but not so defined by the lexicographers. The existence of such synonyms in other modern Indo-Aryan languages has led some scholars to call such words style synonyms.9 Another kind of lack of depth analysis can be illustrated by one or two examples of nouns derived from other nouns. We can take the nouns bScpan, bScpana and • See f o r instance P. A. Barannikow, "Style synonyms in Modern Hindi", IL 22.64-81 (1961). Almost all the synonymous groups of Hindi words cited and discussed by Barannikow in his article are semantically distinct.

PANJABI

187

möndpana which are derived from the nouns bScca 'child' and mónda 'boy' respectively. The bilingual dictionary published by Ludhiana Mission gives the following meanings for these nouns. On closer examination one finds that 'childhood' moridpana 'childhood, childishness' these meanings not only fail to bring out the essential difference between these two nouns, but also miss a great deal more information which is pertinent to the occurrence of these nouns in sentences. In the variety of Majhi dialect spoken by the author of these pages, the noun bScca means 'a child, i.e. a boy or a girl' unless one needs to be very specific about the sex of the child. In that case the noun bScci 'a female child' will be used. The noun môrida 'a boy' has no feminine counterpart, not even metaphorically, and thus always means 'a boy'. Further the noun möiftfa can mean a boy anywhere from a newly born male child to a boy who is on the verge of becoming a man. The abstract noun moi^dpana occurs in sentences in action noun phrases as well as adverbially with some postpositions, and always means 'boyishness', i.e. an act unworthy of a person who is a male and does not necessarily have to be a boy. The nouns bècpan and b3cpana derived from bécca can mean either 'childhood' or 'child-like or childish behavior'. The former meaning is restricted to the adverbial environment and the latter to its occurrence in action noun phrases. The two nouns bScpan and bScpana are not in complete free variation as the dictionary entry suggests. The boyish behavior of a person can be a serious matter whereas the childish behavior may or may not be. Not only does this dictionary lack all this information about these nouns, it also gives a piece of information which will create problems for the user of the dictionary rather than helping him interpret the meaning of the sentence on hand. Examples of the kinds discussed above can be multiplied in any number to show the lack of depth analysis in the dictionaries of the language. 4.3. In the present state of Panjabi grammar as well as lexicography, we should not expect much from the lexicographers by way of grammatical information. Our earlier discussion, we believe, has sufficiently indicated the desirability of considerably more grammatical information than the mere indication of the parts of speech in the dictionary. Strangely enough, the lexicographers seem to indicate the gender of nouns and the voice of verbs without noticing the fact that many nouns as well as verbs are being used in the language in genders and voices respectively which differ from what they think should be the case. Examples of these variations abound in the printed texts of Panjabi. 5. LEXICOLOGICAL STUDY

5.1. To the best of our knowledge no systematic lexicological study of the vocabulary of MSP has been made so far. Nevertheless, one can find some scattered discussion

188

KALI CHARAN BAHL

which is of lexicological relevance in studies dealing with language problems and the history of the language. Below we shall try to summarize some of the relevant features of this discussion. Some scholars of MSP have gone beyond the usual classification of words into tatsama, ardhatatsama and tadbhava etc., and have grouped the entire vocabulary of the language along the following lines: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Sanskrit tatsamas Ardhatatsamas Prakrit tadbhavas Brajabhasha tadbhavas Tadbhavas Borrowed — (a) from Perso-Arabic, (b) others including English, French, Portuguese, as well as words of undetermined origin

This classification, though discussed in Sant Singh Sekhon (1961), is more useful from the standpoint of the lexicological study of MSP and should not be confused with the normal usage of the terms in the contexts of historical studies of modern IndoAryan languages. 5.2. While discussing the influence of Sanskrit on MSP, Sekhon remarks that the tatsama words are not borrowed in Panjabi in the manner it is done in the other languages, i.e. without altering their spelling forms. Sekhon seems to confuse the alteration in the spelling forms of tatsama words in literary writings with the assimilation of these words in speech, but his enumeration of the kinds of spelling alterations is convincing enough. The spelling alterations listed by Sekhon are reproduced below in a somewhat abbreviated form but essentially in the manner and the order he has given. (1)

SK Kf SK rakfä SK sükfama SK lakfana

-> ->

MSP Kh, Ch MSP rakhiä MSP sükhama MSP lacchana

Sekhon lists spelling variants of these acceptable MSP forms also e.g. rakhafa, sükhaíama, and lakasana respectively. In his opinion these variant forms are incorrect because they are not considered standard. His example SK lakçana -*• MSP lacchana, however, is of questionable relevance here. (2) (i) SK — Cya # SK râjya SK saubhägya (ii) SK — ya# SK mänaniya

-* #

MSP — Ca# MSP räja MSP subhäga MSP — 0 # MSP mänani

PANJABI

189

SK rátfríya MSP rasafarï SK — ya φ MSP — ya φ SK saundarya -*• MSP saimdaraya SK aisvarya -*• MSP aiévaraya tadbhava j -* tatsama y (3) MSP jatana -* MSP yatana MSP jugga -> MSP yugga This change does not apply to words like MSP sanjoga (SK sarpyoga), MSP sanjama (SK samyama). tatsama ν tadbhava b (4) MSP vacana MSP bacana MSP videsi MSP badesi tatsama s tadbhava s (5) desa MSP desa dosa MSP dosa The graphic symbol á is thought to represent SK s as well as s. tatsama iy (6) (i) tadbhava e nema niyama tatsama äv (Ü) tadbhava äu bháti bháva (iii) tadbhava au tatsama αν bhavan bhauna cávala caula tatsama ν tadbhava u (7) svaraga suraga svatantara sutantara tatsama # Cr-, # Cartatsama φ Cr — (8) prakása, parakása prakäsa — rana -*• — rana (9) carona -* carana kärana -*• kárarut Short vowels are retained without dropping or lengthening, as in (10) anusära,parivaratana. In tadbhavas where short vowels do not occur, primarily at the beginning of words, they are written, e.g. kallä -*• ikallä, taralok -> tiraloka etc. Incorrect spellings of some words are changed to conform to their (11) original forms, e.g. prasinna -*• prasanna, nimasakär -*• namasakära etc. In a few cases, the older spellings are retained as in MSP nimaratä —< 1. The presence of nasality further complicates the [gay-ro] rHN ι problem of syllable boundaries : e.g. sâhïlo '3rd eldest', pahêlo 'yellow' : I ·—• , I ; [sa-i-lo\

7.4 Morphology Though none of the grammars mentioned above were explicitly designed as studies of Nepali morphology, they contain in their various paradigms sufficient material to serve às a basis for a study of the morphological structure of the different categories of the Nepali word. 7.5 Syntax Korolev has included in his book a synopsis of certain features of Nepali syntax; but exigencies of space compelled him to keep his descriptive statements short and precluded him in most cases from giving more than one example. The sentence and prose material in Introduction to Nepali contains many examples illustrative of a wide variety of syntactical features. These are commented on individually in the grammatical notes, and where considered necessary consolidated in fairly systematic descriptions. They embody such syntactical features as person, number and gender concord categories, verb + verb and verb + postposition compounds, and clause and sentence structures. Attention is also drawn to differences between spoken and written Nepali, and to the growing influence of Hindi on concord categories and sentence structures. It is a marked characteristic of the Nepali sentence that clause linking is effected by the use of infinitives and participles and seldom by conjunctions, which are more commonly employed for comparable functions in Hindi, and which under the influence of Hindi are slowly infiltrating the written language. Noun clauses, which in English are operated by that, adjectival clauses which are operated by 74

Korolev, op. cit. 21.

NEPALI AND PAHARI

269

relative pronouns, etc., and adverbial clauses which are operated by the conjunctions when, after, until, i f , though, because, so that, etc., are operated in Nepali by infinitives or participles, some with and some without inflectional and postpositional suffixes. In this respect Nepali syntax differs from the syntax of Hindi and other modern languages of north India, but it does resemble that of Newari. When Newari grammar has been adequately described, it is to be hoped that comparative Nepali-Newari studies will be undertaken. 7.6 Grammar of the Pahäri languages Little linguistic work has been written on the Pahäri languages. A grámmar of Newari was published in 1*952 by Pusparatna Sagar.74 The hand-book on Thulung Räi by Agamsinga Devasä Rai contains some paradigms; and some grammatical information can be extracted from Cemjong's Limbu dictionary. R. Shafer has published two diachronistic and comparativist studies on the 'Himalayish' dialects;75 and J. BurtonPage a short but important article on two features of Gurungkura.7® (a) Newari. Pusparatna's Newari grammar, which is written in Newari, is intended for the instruction of Newar school children. Parts of it have some value for scholars fot reference purposes, provided they can work in Newari. The phonology section is worthless. It is based on the assumption that, as the same script is used for both Sanskrit and Newari, the two languages share a common phonology, and that what is true for Sanskrit is true for Newari. No attempt has been made to study the sound system of Newari. Yet even the most casual listening has raised questions which must be answered before even an elementary phonological statement can be made. How valid for instance is the retention in the orthography of the t and t vargas? The morphology section, though also based to a large extent on Sanskrit, is more helpful. Nouns and pronouns are paradigmatically analysed in the eight cases of Sanskrit, though it appears that there are only five forms which are formally disparate. The division of nomináis into two notional categories, pränväcak 'animate' and apränväcak 'inanimate', is reasonable because it can be justified on morphological grounds. The analysis of the verb is interesting. It makes distinction of three tenses, present, past and future, and of two persons. There is no formal distinction of number. The verb is divided structurally into ten classes, the principle of differentiation being thepratyaya 'suffix morpheme'. The pratyayas are -ne, -le, -ye, -te, -lape, -ke, -nahe, -yeke, -te (? —take or -teké), -lape. There is some obvious overlapping in this classification, i.e. between «

Puçparatna "Sägar", Subodh Nepal BhOfü Vyäkaran (Kathmandu, 1952). R. Shafer, 'Classification of some languages of the Himalayas', Journal of the Bihar Research Society 36:3-4 (1950); and 'East Himalayish' BSOAS 15:2 (1953). w J. Burton-Page, 'Two Studies in Gurungkura: I. Tone; H. Rhotacization and Retroflexion BSOAS 17: 1 (1955). 76

T. W. CLARK

270

the 5th and 10th, and between thosepratyayas which have a -ke constituent, the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th. These four have in common certain morphological features which do not occur in any of the other classes; and moreover, they also seem to share a common semantic function which the author describes as preranärthak 'causative'. A sextuple classification would therefore seem to accord more closely with the formal evidence. The syntax section is short and unsatisfactory, being based almost entirely on parsings taken whole from Nesfield's grammar of English. (b) Thulung RäL Devasä Räi's hand-book on Thulung Rä! contains many pronoun-cum-verb paradigms. The verbs have three tenses, present, past and future, a feature they have in common with Newari and Limbu; and both pronoun and verb have three numbers, singular, dual and plural, and three persons. (c) Limbu The verbal entries in Cemjong's dictionary comprise four formally differentiated items: e.g. Limbu

Nepali

English

pekmä (v. int.) pek pe peklo

jänu jäncha gayo jänecha

Togo pr.t. p.t. f.t.

This formulation suggests that Limbu has a tense system of three. It is not possible to tell whether the Limbu verb distinguishes person, number and gender, except that if the choice of Nepali equivalents is significant, it might be permissible to assume that the forms pek,pe,peklo are 3rd person singular, and possibly masculine. Pronouns are not set out in paradigms, but sample checkings of some of the entries reveal the existence of a number of formal distinctions. 1st Person

2nd Person

Limbu

Nepali

Limbu

Nepali

f angä \ingä añgáin ani anige

ma

hene

timï timlläl

mero hämlharü häml hâmîlâï häml dui häml duiko

henein henchí henchige henige

timro timi dui timi duiko timlharüko

anchi anchige

271

NEPALI AND PAHARI

3rd person Limbu

Nepali

hune hunein hurtchi hunchige

u, tyo usko tini dui tint duiko

This sample establishes that the pronoun distinguishes three persons, at least two cases, and three numbers, singular, dual and plural. The introduction to Cemjong's dictionary contains two notes designed to throw some light on the Limbu language, one on its syntax, the other on the difference between the spoken and written styles.77 (a) 'In Nepali majänchu, in Hindi maijätä hü, in English I go, are the usual expressions. In Kirâti (the author frequently uses this word as a synonym for Limbu) ingä pekkä is the equivalent of ma ma jänchu, or 11 go, that is to say that I occurs twice, kepekä can be understood as meaning you go, but in talking hene kepekä is said : you you go. Similarly in Nepali ma jänna, in Hindi mai nahî jätä, in English I do not go, the negative comes only once. In Kiräti it is ingä men pekkäna. Here the negative comes twice, as though it were II do not not go.' This statement is difficult to disentangle. Take the first sentence, ingä — I;pek — go; but what is -käl The dictionary does not give it. If -kä is a 1st person suffix, as it well may be, then the Limbu does not differ in this respect from Nepali, which has ma Τ jän- 'go' -chu '1st person suffix', or from Hindi either. The dictionary gives insufficient information to resolve the second point, ingä men pekkäna·. ingä — I; men — hoina, no ; pek — go ; -kä — ? 1st person suffix ; -na, not given. If -na is a negative suffix, a case may have been made out for a double negative men and -na. (b) 'When writing a word it is usual to increase it by means of a circumlocution (badhäera ghumäerd).' The following examples are given to illustrate this difficult statement. Spoken tansäkpä mam or manavä näpml yäpml thänbenamenchin "

Limbu Dictionary, Intro. 6-7.

Written toronditänsän or talagenatänsän menchämagenayäpmi or menchamagenanämanäpml

nällgenthänben or sisägemienchin

(sky) (man)

(young person)

272

T. W. CLARK

Comment is impossible ; but I suspect that there is something wrong in the last example. thänbena is glossed as young boy; menchin as young girl·, whereas näligenthänben is glossed as young man of marriageable age, and sisägenmenchin as young woman of marriageable age. It may therefore be that the comparison is not between semantic equivalents. Should not thäiibenamenchin be translated children, on the model perhaps of Nepali ketäketi, literally young boy-young girl, which definitely means children. 8. TOWARDS STANDARDIZATION OF NEPALI

8.1 The debate on the reform of the Nepali language was joined shortly after the 1950 revolution, and it has attracted an increasing number of participants until today, when their number is legion and, as one scholar puts it, every new contributor has a new set of proposals.78 The aspects of language which are under discussion are restricted almost entirely to vocabulary and spelling. There is no argument about grammar in spite of a number of recent innovations. It is significant also that the debate is concerned only with the Nepali language, even though many of the participants are mother-tongue speakers of one of the Pahäri languages. The reason is not far to seek. Speakers of the various Pahäri languages, including the Newars, have now accepted in principle the fact that Nepali is the national language. They know too that it is the language which they themselves must use in conversation with members of other tribes. There are indications that when any of the Pahäri people move away from their native habitat they tend in time to lose their own language and adopt Nepali. The large Newar community in Darjeeling has Nepali as its mother-tongue, and none of them today speak or even understand Newari. Some of the smaller tribes have already lost their ancestral language, and others appear likely to do so in the. generations to come. This is not to say that Nepal will in the foreseeable future become a one-language state; but it is clear that Nepali is increasing at the expense of the Pahäri languages. Its present primacy is incontestable and virtually uncontested. 8.2 Vocabulary In 1950, the Nepalese did not possess the words necessary to express the new concepts of the modern world into which they were so shortly to move; and vocabulary expansion was inevitable. Most of the new words are being borrowed or adapted from Sanskrit; but there is growing resentment against the amount of borrowing and the purposes to which some of the new loans are being applied. Pahäri speakers, principally the Newars who have strong views on the subject, complain that Pahäri vocabulary elements which have been in common use in Nepali for generations are now being quite unnecessarily eradicated and replaced by Sanskrit words, which are 78

Hrdaycandrasimha Pradhän, 'Nepali bhâçâ', Nepali bha§ä 62ff, ed. Mahanda Säpkotä (Káthmandu, 1964).

NEPALI AND PAHARI

273

unintelligible to any but the few scholars who are trying to introduce them. It is part of their case that when a Pahärl word is in use in Nepali it should be preserved. They further argue that their languages are Nepalese languages, and that before a word is borrowed from Sanskrit, enquiry should be made to ascertain whether or not a suitable word exists in any of their languages. These arguments have found support among mother-tongue speakers of Nepali. Puskar áamáer expressed the view that 'where vocabulary does not exist it may be necessary to borrow from Sanskrit, but before that is done we should look at Newari and the other Nepalese languages.79 He put forward the same claim for native Nepali words that Newar scholars are advancing for Newari. 'Where Nepali words exist they should be preserved.' He alleged in this connection that there was a growing tendency on the part of Sanskriteducated Nepalese to divide the Nepali vocabulary into 'polished' and 'unpolished' categories ; and to despise native Nepali words as 'unpolished' and replace them by Sanskrit borrowings. He cited as examples the preference in some quarters for patij paini 'husband/wife' as against lognejsväsni or joi[poi; for jivita 'alive' as against jiüdo. Some of Puskar Samáer's contentions have been taken up by the newly formed Purist (jharrobäd*0) movement, which numbers among its members many Kathmandu Nepalese and Nepalese residents in Bañaras. The purpose of the Purists seems to be to campaign against excessive borrowing from Sanskrit and to repudiate the denigration of Nepali words as gäule 'pertaining to avillage'. An eminent writer has coined a slogan: sänä sänä väkya; madhur madhur êàbda, which may be translated 'short sentences and pronounceable words'. 81 It appears also that Sanskritic neologisms are being artificially constructed to replace English words which are current in ordinary Nepali speech: e.g. nirjhar lekhnl for phäunten pen 'fountain pen'; väspäyan for relgädl 'railway train'; dvicakri for bäiskal 'bicycle'. One writer notes that an attempt is now being made to concoct a Sanskritism for täipräitar. This particular type of reform seems to be following the same lines as its counterpart in India, where too it met with a mixed reception. Hrdaycandrasimha Pradhân comments somewhat caustically: 'If we manage to acquire somebody's inventions we should keep his name for it, if only as a sort of reward for the inventor'.82 Pokharel, who has written much on reformist movements, agrees: 'It is better to borrow the original name for a thing than to make one up artificially'.83 Yet so far has the Sanskritization of the vocabulary of written Nepali advanced that Puskar Samser was provoked to exclaim that 'to read Nepali nowadays one needs a Sanskrit dictionary'. 8.3 Spelling The situation with regard to spelling reform is no less confused than that of vocabulary reform, but the participants are less actuated by personal and communal 78 80 81 82 M

Puskaráamáer, 'Nepâlîko mäyä märyaw?' [Have we forgotten Nepali?], Nepäll Bhäqä 23,v.s. fn.78. Bâlkrçna Pokharel, Nepält bhäsä ra sähitya 38 ff, v.s. fn. 26. Bhimnidhi Tiwari, 'Nepäll Sähityik Bhäfä', Nepäll Bhä$ä 30. Hrdaycandrasimha Pradhân, op. cit. (fn 78) 68. v.s,, (£n. 80).

274

T.W. CLARK

emotions. A proposal has been made to set up a committee to examine spelling problems, but this step has not, so far as I am aware, been taken.84 It is a matter, however, which might be regarded as falling under the prerogative of the Royal Nepal Academy. The editors of the Academy's dictionary did examine certain aspects of the problem, but they failed to seize the opportunity of doing for Nepali what Johnson's dictionary did for English in the 18th century. So the debate continues, but without promise of a definite conclusion on any of the many issues which need to be decided. Puskar áamser pleaded for simplification; but his plea was ignored. He recommended, for instance, the adoption of a single spelling where multiple choices now exist. His choice for the verb to descend was orlanu.85 The Nepali iabda-koí has four separate entries : orlanti, orlinu, orhlanu, orhlinu. He advocated culo 'fire-place'. The Sarhksipta Nepali koi enters this word as cühlo(cülo); the Nepali iabda-kos as cuhlo; leaving the writer to choose between cuhlo, culo, cühlo, culo. There are at present two main schools of thought on spelling, and their recommendations, which are listed in full in one of Pokharel's essays,86 are based respectively on the following two principles: (i) to retain the syllabic (aksarätmak) nature of the script while removing anomalies; and (ii) to convert the script to the lettered (yarnätmak) principle while removing anomalies. aksarätmak (a) to retain the long ï and ü forms and discontinue the use of the short forms. (This is the reverse of Turner's proposal.) (b) to retain s and discontinue the use of J and s. (c) to reject special forms for r and 1 in conjuncts : e.g. instead of i f i l f ö r * to write

«TO,

cjlf,

W P i f t ·

(d) to use the halanta (viräm) sign with the following consonants when they occur as the first member of a conjunct character: 5·,

low central vowel (e.g., HK: gS:(h 'an eagle'; dah 'ten'; kdhvi 'tea'; MK: gä:\h, dah, kahvi); (iii) central vowel -> back vowel (e.g. HK: ma:] 'mother'; MK: mo:J); (iv) initial back vowel -> central vowel (e.g. HK: o:lav 'potatoes'; MK: a:lav). (b) Consonants: (1) ν —• ph (e.g. HK: kho:(h)vur 'left'; ho:{h)vur 'wife's parents' home'; MK: kho:phur, ho.phur). 2. Lexical variation : Lexical variation is determined by the sources of lexical items. A number of registers (e.g., legal, business) with very high frequency of Arabic and/or Persian items are shared by both the communities. Note, however, the following differences : H K : kru.d 'anger'; gandun 'betrothal'; kho:s 'cup'; tha:l 'dish'; ροη] 'a good deed'; paji.r 'hubble bubble'; nleni 'meat'; sorig 'paradise'; darim 'religion'; mahra: 'sir'; pa:ph 'sin'; madre:r 'sugar'; siri: 'sun'; havah 'wind'; MK: gasi, nisa.n1, pla:li, tra:m\ sava:b, hoki, na:(i, (or ma:z), janath, di:n, haz, gonah, khand, akhta:b, va:v). 3. Morphological variation. Morphological variations are of two types. First, those which differ in their source. That is, some morphemes of Arabic and Persian are more frequent in MK than in HK and, on the other hand, a large number of morphemes from Sanskrit are used only by HK speakers. Second, those which show the presence, in one community, of a morpheme which is disappearing (or has disappeared) in the speech of the other community. Note, for example, that in MK ,8

Cf. Μ. Α. Κ. Halliday et. al., The linguistic sciences and language teaching 77 (London, 1964). " Only in final position. Note also the following observation of Morgenstierne (1941): "An important feature of Kshm. [Kashmiri] phonology is the aspiration of final tenues, especially, but not exclusively, in the pronunciation of Hindus".

KASHMIRI AND OTHER DARDIC LANGUAGES

293

hargah has been preserved as a conjunction, but in HK it is fast disappearing — at least in Srinagar HK.

3.2.

Phonetics and Phonology

The earlier analyses of the phonetics and phonology of Kashmiri are of two types. First, those studies on phonetics which are written from pedagogical motivations. Second, those that involve discussions of both phonetics and phonology. 1 shall discuss some of the more recent ones here. The aim of Bailey's work (1937, p. 1) is "to describe the sounds of Kashmiri and to suggest an accurate, but not too elaborate, method of transcription ..." It presents the phonetics of Kashmiri essentially from a pedagogical point of view. Firth's (1939) transcription, as he says, presents a "tentative analysis" (1939, p. 67) of Kashmiri sounds. Commenting on it, Morgenstierne (1941, p. 82) says: ...this must be regarded more as an analysis of a bit of Kshm. [Kashmiri] 'parole' than as a record of the phonemic system of the 'langue' ... Morgenstierne (1941, p. 82) presents a critical survey of the earlier works on Kashmiri phonetics and phonology. He has made some very interesting observations on different phonological problems of Kashmiri. It is, however, difficult to follow his analysis as his system of transcription is rather complicated. Kelkar and Trisal (1964) have given an analysis of the word phonology of Hindu Kashmiri using the structural framework. Kachru's 30 two, more or less identical, analyses present the following phoneme inventory of the language: 1. Consonant inventory: Consonants have been grouped under the following manner series : (a) Stops (i.e. /p ph b, t th d, t th SDr. 0-; PDr. *c2- > SDr. c-¡s-. But no member of the Central Dravidian subgroups, which preserve *c, bears independent testimony to the existence of two types of *c by showing contrastive developments. Secondly, in a number of instances, doublets occur in South Dravidian itself with and without 14 "Dravidian studies I", BSOAS 9.711-722 (1938), "Dravidian studies II" (Notes on the interchange of short e and o with 1 and u in South Dravidian), BSOAS 10.289-297 (1940), "Dravidian studies III" (Two developments of initial k- in Dravidian), BSOAS 11.122-139 (1943), "Dravidian studies V" (Initial y- and ñ- in Dravidian), BSOAS 11.595-616 (1946). " "Some Dravidian words in Sanskrit", TPhS [1945] 79-120 (1946); "Loan words in Sanskrit", TPhS [1946] 1-30 (1947).

COMPARATIVE DRAVIDIAN STUDIES

317

*c. On the whole it appears, when we look at the different dialects of Gondi showing all the stages of s- > h- > 0-, that this is a change still in progress, moving from the southern to the central region. A similar change, s- > h-, is also attested in Sinhalese from the 2nd century A.D. (p. 146).1β On the basis of a proper name Satiya puto (= Satiya putra) in an Asokan Inscription (3rd cent. B.C.), which later occurs in Puranänüru as Atiya mm (man < *makan 'son' corresponding to Skt. putra-), Burrow dates the change *c > 0 to a period intermediate between the 3rd cent. B.C. and "the time of the earliest Tamil classics". Since c- < *k- in the environment of front vowels was not affected by c- > 0-, the latter change must have taken place before the beginning of palatalization in South Dravidian, which was also shown to have taken place prior to the early Sangam age in Tamil. He therefore attributes the changes *c > 0 and *k- > c- to the early pre-Christian era with the latter change operating after the completion of the former. Burrow also notes a number of instances of the alternation of c-/i- in Dravidian, contrasting with the above two developments. Emeneau (1953b) shows by extensive illustration that Toda represents PDr. *c- by t-, and PDr. *k- remains Toda k- before front vowels unlike Tamil which palatalizes it. In a recent paper Burrow (1968) affirms that a PDr. [r] is represented by zero in Kurukh and Malto and not by -c-/-s- as understood before. In their recent descriptions of Parji, Kui, and Kuvi, Burrow and Bhattacharya discuss the reflexes of Proto-Dravidian phonemes in these languages, particularly those of *c, *? M , */ [r], and */." Emeneau (1961) has recently noticed a new correspondence in which Kurukh, Malto, and Brahui have k- (rarely kh-) followed by back high vowels u and «, when South and Central Dravidian have c-¡s- ( < *c-), alternating with t-. The groups he quotes are summarized in the following reconstructions: SDr. and CDr. *cu(*cum*cur*cur- (perhaps related with the above) *cer-¡*cur-¡*cor*cal-j*cel*cêr-/*câr*câyjcëy-

NDr. *ku{- 'to burn, to be hot' *kum- 'to carry, support' *kur- 'to whirl, curl' *kur- 'to shrink, shrivel up' *ker*kel*kër*key-

'to insert' ( > Br. kal 'water spring') 'near' 'to die'

" Also see P. B. F. Wijeratne, "Phonology of the Sinhalese inscriptions up to the end of the tenth century A.D.", BSOAS 11.592-593 (1945). The author shows how s > h has been in operation in Sinhalese from the earliest time, in Old Sinhalese h > 0 in some cases. In modern times "forms with s and h exist side by side", but this latter h of MSg. does not disappear (ibid., p. 593). " T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya, The Parji language 1-8 (Hertford, 1953); "Some notes on the Kui dialect as spoken by the Kuttia Kandhs of north-east Koraput", IIJ 5.118-135 (1961); "Notes on Kuvi with a short vocabulary", IIJ 6.232-289 (1962).

318

BHADRIRAJU KRISHNAMURTI

His conclusion is that PDr. *c- is velarized in North Dravidian when followed by high back vowels, u and ü. The only counter-examples are the onomatopoeic ones, PDr. *cut-V- 'to sniff up' and *cümp- 'to suck'. He also discusses the possibility of PDr. *c > NDr. k- before ejë to explain the remaining cases. E. Annamalai (1968) collects many common Dravidian etyma from DED with *kï-, *kë involved in onomatopoeic expressions, in which *k- > c- does not occur in Tamil, Malayalam, and Telugu as expected. In his "Brahui and Dravidian comparative grammar" Emeneau traces Brahui vowels to Proto-Dravidian sources (1962d, pp 7-20). He has further discovered that, in the initial syllable of a word, e and ë do not contrast in Brahui, perhaps under the typological influence of the surrounding Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian languages. He observes that the Proto-Dravidian mid-vowels *e *o are either raised to i u or lowered to α in most cases in Brahui ; also PDr. *o > Br. δ. The conditioning factors of these varied developments are still not known, though one can see that the changes were working towards a typological goal of gradual elimination of contrast between e and ë, and o and δ induced by the surrounding Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages under conditions of extensive bilingualism. The other vowels generally retain the Proto-Dravidian qualities. Krishnamurti's "Telugu verbal bases" (1961) has a wider coverage than the title suggests. He presents a comparative phonology for Dravidian (pp. 6-132), keeping Telugu as the center of attention. Some of the problems treated originally under phonology include the question of voiced stops in Dravidian, the development of initial consonant clusters and d-, r-, r-, /- through metathesis and vowel contraction in Telugu and other Central Dravidian languages (§§ 1.121-159) and several developments resulting from the loss of vowels in unaccented syllables (§§ 1.180 ff., 2.9-21). Earlier, Krishnamurti (1958b) dealt with the problem of merger of PDr. *i- *u- with *e- *o- in Proto-South-Dravidian in the environment [-Ca. In another article (1955) he has systematically treated the alternation of long and short vowels in Dravidian and observed that *(C)VC fell together with *(C)VC- when followed by a -V in the next syllable. In cognates having the syllable types (C)VC and (QVC-V-, the (C)VC type was shown to be older. In another paper (1958a) he has extensively discussed the reflexes of PDr. *? in each of the Dravidian languages. 18 4.3. Morphology: Compared to the progress made in the area of comparative phonology, work done in comparative morphology is frustratingly meagre and slow. L. V. Ramaswami Aiyar (1947) adds a footnote to Emeneau's article "The Dravid18 Burrow and Emeneau prefer to transcribe this as *r (perhaps a voiced retroflex frictionless continuant) on the grounds that it has never been a sibilant. My reasons for using *z instead of *r are mainly typographical, because it is decidedly a retroflex consonant, and all retroflexes are indicated by a subscript dot. Secondly Skt. f (retroflex voiceless sibilant) is replaced by ; in Early Tamil borrowings in the intervocalic position. The sound in question is definitely unlike a trill or an affricate in any of the languages in which it still obtains. Though the choice of ? or [ to represent this Proto-Dravidian sound is arbitrary, I thought it would make more sense to use a symbol which looks like a member of the retroflex series.

COMPARATIVE DRAVIDIAN STUDIES

319

ian verbs 'come' and 'give'" supporting, with the authority of traditional grammatical works and modern usage, Emeneau's statement on the distribution of the irregular Tamil verbs va- 'to come (to 1st or 2nd person)', ta- 'give (to 1st or 2nd person)'. He says that "Malayäjam, still preserves the Tolkäppiyam usage; ... taru and varu are used with the first and second persons and kofu and eel invariably with the third person". In his paper on "Dravidian kinship terms" (1953a), Emeneau discusses an interesting morpho-syntactic phenomenon in Dravidian, which he calls "inalienable possession". Constructions of certain kinship terms involve a pronominal base in plural denoting literally "our", "your", "their", etc. used attributively to a following kinship stem "brother, sister, father, etc.", both constituting a morphological complex, like Ta. eñkai 'my sister' (from em- 'our', kai 'sister'), etc. He illustrates this phenomenon in Tamil, Kota, Gondi, Kolami, Kuvi, and Kurukh, and justifiably sets up "inalienable possession" of kinship terms as a Proto-Dravidian trait. In Kolami, however, it is found to be a syntactic feature. We can add to the list also Telugu and Konda which also invariably use plural possessives mä-, mï- as attributes to terms denoting (near) kinsmen, "father, mother, brother, sister", etc. But here the construction is clearly syntactic; e.g. Te. mä anna, Kon«Ja mä anasi 'my (lit. our) elder brother', Te. mä amma, Koncja mä yäya 'my (lit. our) mother'. In another article, of 1957, Emeneau speaks of the role of analogy in sound substitution in the forms of numerals for 1 to 3 in Dravidian. Kota eyd 'two' had d instead of the expected -d from PDr. *ir-an{-, on the analogy of the final consonant in od 'one' ( < *on-t), and münd (< *mü-nt). This article is of particular importance in accounting for the irregular phonological developments presented by numerals in some of the Dravidian languages. He wonders if numerals should be considered "non-cultural" items as Swadesh claimed, and shows several instances of borrowing the so-called basic numerals 1 and 2 from one language to another in Dravidian. Comparatively this article is significant inasmuch as Emeneau reconstructs the protoforms for most of the numerals from 1 to 10. A more recent contribution by Emeneau (1960) seeks to explain comparatively the demonstrative pronouns (? adjectives) in Brahui, dä (proximate), δ (intermediate), and ë (remote). Emeneau traces Br. δ to PDr. *u-l*ü (intermediate between *i/*i 'this' and *α/*ά 'that'), and Br. ë to either PDr. *a/*ä or to PDr. *ë (because of Kui having both a and e for different degrees of "remoteness" from the speaker). Br. dä- is matched with Malto ηά [ηά-] 'that one (here)', because PDr. *n- = Malto η-, Br. d-. Emeneau also identifies the existence of PDr. *ϊ (proximate) in a declinable enclitic pronoun -i. The only difficulty in accepting Emeneau's equation Malto ηά = Br. dä- is that Brahui seems to have a conditioned split of PDr. *n- > d- before the Proto-Dravidian front vowels *f and *ë(*e = Br. a), and n- elsewhere.19 The exceptions are few and etymologically 19

I have discussed this development in my forthcoming paper "Dravidian nasals in Brahui". Br. dä 'this' looks so strikingly similar to Pashto dä 'this' that it seems much simpler to consider it a straight borrowing from Pashto (see D. A. Shafeev, A short grammatical outline of Pashto 34-35 [Bloomington, 1964]).

320

b h a d r i r a j u krishnamurti

doubtful. The reconstruction of *e as a fourth demonstrative purely on the basis of Kui and Brahui evidence is also questionable, for there are still unexplained aberrations in vocalism in most of the nonliterary languages. I would recall my suggestion of reconstructing a laryngeal (or h- type of sound)20 in the demonstrative and interrogative series for Proto-Dravidian, viz., *iH-, *uH-, *aH-, *ya¡eH-, in which the laryngeal element presumably holds a clue for the unexpected vocalism in Kui, Kuvi (also the unexpected h- here), and Brahui. Note that in low class Telugu of Telangäna, gì, gä, gë are the counterparts of f, ä, ë of the other dialects. A parallel development of *H to g occurs in colloquial Tamil, e.g. OTa. eHku 'steel', Modern Ta. eggï 'id.'. In his "Brahui and comparative Dravidian grammar", Chapter III (pp. 21-45), Emeneau comparatively traces the history of a class of ten verb stems in Brahui with final n/r- alternation. The njnn- allomorphs occur before the infinitive suffix -ing, and the rjrr- allomorphs occur before present non-finite -isa and probable future -δ ( + personal suf&xes), and the imperative 2 sg. {000 aooe}. There are further details not mentioned here. The stem alternants are (1) hunn-jhur- 'look', (2) tón-¡tór 'hold', (3) pän-lpär- 'say', (4) kann-\kar- 'do', (5) dann-\dar- 'cut', (6) tin-jtir- 'give', (7) ha-tin-jha-tir- 'bring', (8) bann-\bar- 'come', (9) mann-jmar- 'become', (10) arm-\ar'be'. Of these (1) hum-¡hur-, (9) mann-jmar-, and (10) ann-\ar- are traced to PDr. *un-/ut- ~ r- and *man-¡mat- ~ r-, and *an\ân- ~ r- (r- ?) respectively, with n/ralternation of Brahui proceeding from a similar alternation of *n/*f ~ *r in ProtoDravidian. The «-allomorphs of (2) (5) (6) (7) and (8) have been considered analogical formations, because the r-allomorphs are accountable comparatively and not the n-allomorphs. Similarly the /--allomorph par- of (3) pân-jpâr- is analogical, since pan- is traceable to PDr. *pânjpan-V-. In set (4) one of the allomorphs is kë-, traceable to PDr. *key 'do', but the remaining allomorphs kar-jkann- are traceable to Sindhi and Lahnda (Indo-Aryan) kar- and Balochi (Iranian) kan-. This chapter eminently illustrates the parallel roles of analogy and borrowing in bringing about regularization in the paradigms even of basic verbs such as "come" "eat" "do". In a recent publication, Kamil Zvelebil (1964), while presenting a tagmemic description of the language of a 6th century Tamil prose inscription found in the village Pajlankôvil in the Tanjore district, attempts reconstruction of the proto-forms of 88 Tamil roots segmented from the text of the inscription (pp. 21-32). Emeneau's unpublished paper "The South Dravidian languages" read at the Kuala Lumpur Tamil Conference (1966) aims at a thorough comparison of past-tense formation as the basis for a genetic subgrouping of the South Dravidian languages, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Kodagu, Toda, and Kota. Emeneau's article on noun formatives (to be printed) *-kulij*-kuni, *-tal-ay, and -uf in South Dravidian is a contribution to derivational morphology, which calls for a great deal of work with more extensive coverage. Krishnamurti's Telugu verbal bases, Chapter II, deals with several aspects of 80

Review of "A Dravidian etymological dictionary" (Oxford, 1961) in Lg. 39.556-564, see fn. 4.

COMPARATIVE DRAVIDIAN STUDIES

321

derivational morphology of Dravidian, which include, among others, a morphophonemic analysis of the root and formative elements in Proto-Dravidian, a description of syllable adjustments that have taken place in different languages consequent on loss of unaccented vowels of the root and suffix morphemes. The possibility of some formative suffixes having an original grammatical function has been suggested (§§ 2.38, 84ff.). In a recent article on "Dravidian personal pronouns" (Krishnamurti, 1968), he has made an attempt to explain certain phonological and morphological problems in reconstructing the proto-forms of words meaning "I, we (excl.), we (ind.), you (sg.), you (pi.)". For the 1st person he reconstructs for Proto-Dravidian, sg. *yân/(y)ën Τ , pl. *yâml(y)ëm (excl.), *ñámjñém (inclusive). *âj*ë do not contrast after *y or *ñ on well-attested evidence. PDr. *mm is further interpreted as a phonemic representation of morphophonemic *n-yâm 'you and we (excl.) = we (incl.)', in which n- is a bound allomorph of the 2nd person pronominal root *nï-n 'you' (sg.), *nl-m 'you' (pl.). Another singular form *nän was formed from *ñám, on the analogy of *yäm : *yän. The Proto-Dravidian sets *yän : *yäm : : *Mn : *ñám were formally symmetrical but functionally defective, because *yân and *Mn do not have a functional distinction parallel to their formally related pair in plural, *ydm : *Mm. This anomalous "system" in Proto-Dravidian triggered several readjustments in the subgroups and languages that inherited it. In terms of such theoretical possibilities, all the comparative data have been examined and accounted for. P. S. Subrahmanyam (1964) draws on comparative evidence to explain the Parji past-stem formative -« (e.g. ko-ii- from koy- 'reap') as arising from an older -nd(< *-nt-) palatalized to -ñj-, after palatal vowels or semivowels. The Parji stemformative -k-m- in the present tense is equated with the non-past complex -kk-um of a class of Old Tamil finite verbs, e.g. Pa. kák-m-en (root kä-p/kä-t- 'to wait for'): Ta. kä-kk-um (root kä- 'id.'), and Subrahmanyam reconstructs *-kk-um- for Proto Dravidian, a feature which South Dravidian and Paiji of Central Dravidian inherited and retained. Another article by the same author (1965) shows parallels between Tamil and Kui in employing overt oppositions in the derivative suffixes in the formation of intransitive and transitive stems. 4.4. Etymological studies: A basic tool for intensive comparative work on any language family is a dictionary of cognates based on a rigorously worked out system of phonological correspondences. A new era in comparative Dravidian began in 1961 with the publication of Burrow and Emeneau's monumental work, A Dravidian etymological dictionary (Oxford, 1961). This fulfils the greatest need in the field felt by every serious student of comparative Dravidian since Caldwell and it has already given a thrust to research in Dravidian, judging from the fact that there has hardly been an article or publication since 1961 which has not liberally drawn on the materials collected and organized in this work. The dictionary has 4,572 numbered entries (pp. 1-385), followed by word indexes for individual languages (pp. 387-574), an index of English meanings (pp. 585-604), and an index of flora (pp. 605-609).

322

BHADRIRAJU KRISHNAMURTI

Since it is the first work of its kind, the authors have deliberately refrained from giving reconstructions for each group of etyma constituting an entry. However, they have covertly suggested such reconstructions by the very manner they have arranged the entries, which follows the order of Proto-Dravidian phonemes with the Tamil alphabetical order imposed on it. Certain etymological groupings are tentative and need further discussion and elucidation, but a large number of them stand. A supplement was issued by the authors in 1962 (Emeneau, 1962c) which consists of 336 entries, each representing a group of words identified as common Dravidian borrowings from Indo-Aryan. Strictly speaking, this is a complement rather than a supplement, for its scope is grouping non-native cognates which need to be identified and eliminated in an etymological dictionary. A second supplement has been projected and is to be published shortly, which will contain additional groupings and corrections detected and listed since the publication of the work in 1961. One of the significant features of this dictionary has been its broad coverage of languages, materials on some of which have been brought to light for the first time; the vocabularies of Toda, Kota, and Koçlagu from Emeneau's unpublished field notes were first published in the dictionary. The field trips of Burrow and Bhattacharya in Central India in 1950-51,1957-58, and again in 1964-65 and in 1966have enriched the dictionary, in making available new and additional lexical material from Parji, Kolami, Ollari, Gadaba, Naiki, Gondi, Kui, Pengo and Manda. The last two have been discovered since the publication of the dictionary in 1961, and the forthcoming second supplement includes cognates from these two. A work in comparative Dravidian lexicography was published by the University of Madras in 1959 (Sethu Pillai, 1959). This is planned broadly on the lines of Carl D. Buck's A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages (Chicago, 1949), and confines its sources to the major languages of South India, viz., Tamil, Malayalam, Rannata, Telugu, and Tulu. There are 2,000 entries semantically classified under 22 sections, such as heavenly bodies, cardinal points, mountains, sea, etc. This is not thoroughly a comparative dictionary in the sense we understand it, since synonyms which are not cognates have also been cited in many places, and the editors have not paid much attention to phonetic correspondences in their selection of "cognates". Krishnamurti (1961) Part II (pp. 277-503) has a large etymological index comprising 1,236 primary verbal bases in old and modern Telugu with reconstructions. In the wake of the publication of DED, Emeneau has discovered new correspondences between Brahui and the other Dravidian languages, which he set forth in a recent article (1962b). Burrow and Bhattacharya's descriptive accounts of Parji, Kui, Kuvi, Gadaba, and Gondi include etymological vocabularies (the ones published since 1961 have references to DED entries);21 so does Bhattacharya's work on "Naiki of Chanda". 22 " See fn. 17; also by the same authors "A comparative vocabulary of the Gondi dialects", Journal of the Asiatic society 2:2-4.73-251 (Calcutta, 1960), "Gadaba supplement", IIJ 6.45-51 (1962). " S. Bhattacharya, "Naiki of Chanda", IIJ 5.85-117 (1961).

COMPARATIVE DRAVIDIAN STUDIES

323

4.5. Language contact: Burrow's "Dravidian studies VII" (1948) includes a further list of 315 items from Sanskrit which he traces to Dravidian sources. Chapter VIII of The Sanskrit language (London, 1958) deals with the "non-Aryan influence on Sanskrit" (pp. 373-388) and summarizes his earlier researches on Dravidian loans in Sanskrit with a long list of borrowed items and etymologies from Dravidian. In his "Linguistic prehistory of India" (1954), Emeneau examines the current hypotheses of Aryan and Dravidian contacts based on archeological and linguistic evidence, and submits a list of 13 early Sanskrit loanwords from Dravidian with copious etymological notes. Another field in which Emeneau has done considerable research during the past decade is the "linguistic area" hypothesis. Though this work is seemingly outside the scope of comparative Dravidian, it has far reaching consequences for our understanding of the prehistory of Dravidian and helps in sorting out genetic phenomena from areal or diffusional ones. His first elaborate formulation of the hypothesis occurs in the paper "India as a linguistic area" (1956), in which he speaks of several parallel phonological and morphological features between Dravidian on the one hand and Indo-Aryan (and also Mun• ¡k/kir, we should probably notice the existence of a root kil (kirp-, kirr-) 'to be able', cf. kirpu, kerpu 'strength, power, ability, act', Ma. kelpu strength,power, To. ki§- (kid-) 'to be able' (Dravidian Etymological Dictionary 1307); two facts should be observed in connection with this verb: first, it occurs only in Ta. -Ma. and To., that is, in pre-Tamil, and, second, it can be used suffixed to other verbs to indicate ability. *• Among other papers of Andronov dealing with the evolution of Tamil grammatical forms, one should notice his "On the future tense base in Tamil", Tamil Culture 8:3.186-192 (1959). 26 Among other interesting works produced by A. Sathasivam one should first of all mention his unpublished Oxford dissertation The structure of the Tamil verb (1956), and his paper "Accentual system of Old Tamil", Te.Po.Mi.Manivilä Malar 401-420 (Kövai, 1961), with a somewhat improbable conclusion that, in modern Tamil, accent is "phonetic or expressive in character" whereas in Old Tamil "accent was phonemic". 27 E.g. Te.Po.Mi.Manivilä Malar {Kövai, 1961), a felicitation volume for Prof. T. P. Meenakshisundaran, or Dr. R. P. Sethu Pillai Silver Jubilee Commemoration Volume (University of Madras, 1961).

TAMIL

355

1958), or A. Chidambaranatha Chettiar, Tamilôcai [The sound of Tamil] (Madras, 1955). Unfortunately, the majority of indigenous Tamil scholarship lacks in the necessary rigor and precision in investigation and presentation. A very important monograph written in Tamil, dedicated to derivation and related problems, is V. Venkatarajulu Reddi's Tamilccollamaipu (Word formation in Tamil [Madras, 1956]), in which the author expounds the hypothesis of long stops being derived from consonant clusters. In 1954, Suniti Kumar Chatteqi published an extremely important paper entitled "Old Tamil, Ancient Tamil and Primitive Dravidian".28 In this deep and exhaustive article he suggested a periodization of the development of Tamil (Primitive Dravidian, c. 1500 B.C. > South Dravidian, c. 600 B.C. > Ancient Tamil, c. 300 B.C.-400 A.D. > Period of transition, 400-600 A.D. > Old Tamil or Centamiz, c. 600 A.D. to 1350 A.D. > Middle Tamil, c. 1350-1800 A.D. > New or Modern Tamil, after 1800), and a solution of the problems of intervocalic stops ; he also suggested that the language of the original Sangam literature, composed in "Ancient Tamil", was gradually changed linguistically to the Cen-tamiz we now have. It is in fact impossible to agree with any one of the theses proposed in the paper. The periodization and the terminology are unnecessarily complicated and incorrect. However, the paper acted as a thought-provoking and powerful stimulus for other scholars to disprove its conclusions.

5. DIALECTOLOGY

Under this paragraph I shall deal with what may be called "horizontal" dialectology, i.e. with dialects in terms of space coordinates. Differences among local and regional dialects are mentioned in ancient Tamil texts, grammars, and commentaries. As far as the modern period is concerned, J. Vinson speaks about "phonetic variations in the popular pronunciation of Tamil",29 the LSI (4.298) mentions Tamil dialects and describes the speech of groups which might speak a dialect of Tamil but, on the other hand, they might be independent members of the Dravidian family. The matter is still far from clear.30 The first serious and detailed dialectological paper in Tamil linguistics is Jules Bloch's "Castes et dialects en tamoul", Mémoires de la société linguistique 16.1-30 (Paris, 1910). There is a long gap between this excellent paper dealing mostly with Brahmin Tamil, and between the next serious contribution to Tamil dialectology by Kamil Zvelebil, based on field work performed in India in 1958.31 28

IL 14 (1954); reprinted with revision in Tamil Culture 5:2.148-174 (1956). "Les variations phonétiques de la prononciation populaire tamoul", Centenaire de l'École des langues orientales vivantes 115-126 (Paris, 1895). 80 Yerukala or Korava, Iruja, Kasuva, Kaikâçlï, Burgage}'· " "Dialects of Tamil I", AO 27.272-317 (1959). For a survey of the prehistory of Tamil dialectology, see ibid. 272-280. ae

356

KAMIL V. ZVELEBIL

At approximately the same time, perhaps slightly later, Bright and Ramanujan collected their data which they published in 1961 and 1962 in Chicago. K. Kanapathi Pillai described the Jaffna dialect of Tamil (1958) and M.S. Andronov published a small volume in Russian on spoken Tamil and its dialects (1962), and henceforward we may speak of full-fledged modern Tamil dialectology. The thickest bundle of isoglosses runs — as one may expect — between the continental dialects of Tamil and the dialects of Ceylon. In 1958, K. Kanapathi Pillai described the Jaffna dialect in IL 19.219-227 (1958). Zvelebil published some material on Trincomalee and some on Jaffna in 1959 and I960,82 but his main contribution to Ceylon Tamil is a paper published recently in ///9:2.113-138 (1966) under the title "Some features of Ceylon Tamil". In 1962, M. Shanmugam Pillai published "A Tamil dialect of Ceylon" in IL 23, and S. Thananjayarajasingham "Some phonological features of the Jaffna dialect of Tamil", University of Ceylon Review 20:2.292-302.33 For a historical treatment of some important aspects of Ceylonese Tamil one should consult the extremely interesting paper by F. B. J. Kuiper, "Note on Old Tamil and Jaffna Tamil", IIJ 5:1.52-64 (1962). According to the present state of our knowledge, we may distinguish at least among four local sub-dialects of Ceylonese Tamil: North (with Jaffna as the center), North East (Trincomalee), South East (Batticaloa), and possibly Colombo (a mixed variety); as to the Jaffna sub-dialect, there are indications that it may be a hypersystem of a number of local and social microsystems. The Batticaloa dialect is the most marginal major dialect of Tamil and, at the same time, the most literary-like one. There is also no doubt that there exists some specific and important linguistic relationship between Western Tamil dialects, Ceylonese Tamil and Malayalam, which has remained a puzzle so far. As far as the continental dialects are concerned, the most important work performed up to this time is that of Bright and Ramanujan,34 Zvelebil, Andronov, and Subramoniam.35 Zvelebil's series is, as a collection of data, and as a pioneer work of its kind, very valuable; however, the first four papers leave much to be desired in the nature of rigor and simplicity of description. The interpretation of the phonemic system of Tamil in these papers is inconsequent and inaccurate. " Cf. "Dialects of Tamil I", AO 27.286-296 (1959), "Dialects of Tamil II Appendix", AO 28.220-224 (1960), "Notes on two dialects of Ceylon Tamil", Transactions of the Linguistic Circle of Delhi 28-36 (1959-60). Cf. with these descriptions K. Kanapathi Pillai, "The Jaffna dialect of Tamil: A phonological study", IL 19.219-227 (1958). 88 Cf. also his paper "The verbal noun in the Jaffna dialect of Tamil", Transactions of the University of Ceylon Linguistic Society 43-60 (1964). 34 Bright, W., and Ramanujan, A. K., A study of Tamil dialects, mimeo., Committee on South Asian Studies (University of Chicago, 1962); A survey of Tamil dialects, mimeo. (University of Chicago, 1961). A. K. Ramanujan is at present engaged in an intensive analysis of Tamil "horizontal" and "vertical" dialects, and in working out a definitive statement on some of these problems. ,δ V. I. Subramoniam, A descriptive analysis of a dialect of Tamil, an unpublished dissertation on the Nañcilnáfu (Nagercoil) dialect of Tamil.

TAMIL

357

Andronov's Razgovornyj tamil'skij jazyk i ego dialekty (Moskva, 1962) is so far the only published monograph summary on Tamil dialectology, and as such, it is quite useful and rather important. However, Andronov's data are gathered mostly from what has been called "eye-dialects",8® and as such, some of them are not very reliable; also, one can hardly accept some of Andronov's opinions (e.g. about the definite existence of a full-grown standard colloquial of Tamil). A very detailed, useful and important contribution to Tamil dialectology has been published recently in Malaysia: Rama Subbiah, A lexical study of Tamil dialects in Lower Perak (Department of Indian Studies Monograph Series, University of Malaya [Kuala Lumpur, 1966]). This excellent work, based on the analysis of the speech of 46 informants, male and female, of different castes, gives an index of 561 items, and a very interesting introduction (13-122) dealing in several chapters with such topics as the historical and social background of the informants, with the methods of the survey, with the differences between the speech-forms of men and women, with regional variations, etc. It is undoubtedly the most important single contribution to Tamil dialectology so far, and the only thing one may criticize is (apart from a certain lack of rigor and consistency in formulations and presentation) a rather meagre and incomplete bibliography (215-216). At the present time, intensive collecting of material seems to be taking place, performed by young Indian and American linguists of the Universities of Chicago, Kerala, and Annamalai. There are signs that we may soon expect monographic studies of various dialects in the nature of complete descriptions as well as a comparative dictionary of Tamil. 6. SOCIOLINGUISTICS

Since Tamil is a language which typically manifests the diglossia situation as well as differences in speech which correlate with differences in social hierarchy,87 the interest in "vertical" dialects of Tamil may be observed quite early.38 In the contemporary period, the field was opened by R. P. Sethu Pillai's important study "Tamil — literary and colloquial", Annals of Oriental Research of the University of Madras 2:2 (1944-45), 3:1-2 (1945-46), describing on 60 pages phonological and morphological differences typical for "the gulf between literary Tamil and colloquial Tamil". The study is very rich in material. The next important paper was published by M. Shanmugam Pillai in 1JAL 26:3.27" The spellings which are used in written literature to indicate that the speaker is using folk speech ; they may represent actual differences between geographical dialects, cf. H. A. Gleason, An introduction to descriptive linguistics 20.22 (New York, 1956). " Cf. C. A. Ferguson, "Diglossia", Word 15.2 (1959). Also, "Linguistic diversity in South Asia", Introduction, IJAL 26:3.1-18 (1960), and Kamil Zvelebil, "Spoken language of Tamilnad", AO 32.237-264 (1964). 39 Classical in this respect is the paper by Jules Bloch, "Castes et dialects en tamoul", Mémoires de la société de linguistique 1-30 (Paris, 1910).

358

KAMIL V. ZVELEBIL

42 (1960) under the identical title: "Tamil — literary and colloquial"39 — "a comparative study of the differences in phonology and in noun inflection between two distinct styles of Tamil", the literary Tamil (LT) and the colloquial Tamil (CT). According to its author, LT and CT have the same inventory of phonemes (28), but "the word final allophone of /n/ "is [n] in LT and [ ~ ] in CT, and the two styles show a number of differences in the distribution of phonemes. Shanmugam has, I think for the first time, clearly stated that CT has no final consonant with the exception of final /n/. R. P. Sethu Pillai's and M. Shanmugam's papers are the point of departure for a number of subsequent articles dealing with various sociolinguistic aspects of Tamil and published within the next five or six years. The most important contribution to the solution of these problems is contained in the papers of M. Andronov,40 W. Bright, A. K. Ramanujan, 41 M. Shanmugam42 and K. Zvelebil.48 The two most systematic and clear discussions of the problem have so far been presented by Bright-Ramanujan (1962, 1964) and Zvelebil (1964). In "Sociolinguistic variation and language change", Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., 1962 (The Hague, 1964), Bright and Ramanujan had classified caste differences in Tamil vocabulary into two types (type A: one caste has a loanword and the other a native word, type B: both castes have native terms); phonological differences are again of two types (first type is that of loanwords in which Brahmin preserves non-native phonology, while nonBrahmin assimilates, second type involves native words, where non-Brahmin innovates in native material); they have also shown that in Tamil, as in Kanarese, there is widespread literacy among the Brahmins, and that "the formal written style seems to have retarded the less conscious processes of innovation". 89

Although M. Shanmugam does not quote R. P. Sethu Pillai's paper anywhere in his article. Cf. M. S. Andronov, "Razgovornyje formy tamil'skogo glagola", KSIV 29.16-25 (1959), Razgovornyj tamilskij jazyk i ego dialekty (Spoken Tamil and its dialects [Moskva, 1962]) and "O sootnoshenii pis'mennogo tamil'skogo jazyka s razgo vornym i o xronologii tamil'skix jazykovyx form" [On the relation between literary and colloquial Tamil and on the chronology of Tamil linguistic forms], KSINA 62.3-13 (1964). 41 Cf. also W. Bright, "Linguistic change in some South Indian caste dialects", I JAL 26:3.19-26 (1960), "Social dialects and language history", Current Anthropology 1.424-425 (1960), W Bright and A. K. Ramanujan, A study of Tamil dialects, mimeo. (Chicago, 1962), A. K. Ramanujan, Spoken and Written Tamil: The verb, mimeo. (Chicago, 1963); a short but important introduction states that every educated speaker of Tamil controls at least one of the Informal dialects in addition to Written Tamil. "One has yet to meet even an illiterate speaker of Tamil-as-a-first-language who does not have some form of W. potentially present" (2). 42 M. Shanmugam Pillai, "Caste isoglosses in kinship terms" (manuscript) ; "Merger of Literary and Colloquial Tamil", AnL 7:4.98-103 (1965), a short but important paper with rich data and an important conclusion which may be fully agreed with : ..."the present is a period of transition where CT tries to come into its own, to be adopted as the medium for writing..." But "the Tamils are not yet psychologically prepared to accept Spoken Tamil as 'good' Tamil" (102). 4S Cf. also his papers "On finite verb terminations in Colloquial Tamil", AO 31.109-118 (1963), "The vowels of Colloquial Tamil", AO 31.225-229 (1963), "A few notes on Colloquial Tamil", Tamil Culture 10:3.37-47 (1963) and "Colloquial Tamil as system", Tamil Culture 11:1.92-95 (1964). 40

TAMIL

359

Κ. Zvelebil in his "Spoken language of Tamilnad" AO 32.237-264 (1964) tries to deal as exhaustively as possible with the basic problems of "horizontal" and "vertical" dialects of Tamil, to point out the main questions facing the scholar in this field, and to suggest some hypotheses concerning the diachronic solution of some of the problems. He distinguishes nine main types of Tamil: the Literary Standard, used in formal and platform speech and in writing, the common colloquial, the Colloquial Standard in statu nascendi used in ordinary speech among educated Tamils of nonBrahmin origin, Brahmin Tamil (vs. local non-Brahmin dialects), Northern Tamil, Western Tamil, Eastern Tamil, Southern Tamil, Ceylon Tamil and koccai proper in the narrow sense of the term (a distinct vulgar social style). The doctoral thesis of K. Ranganayaki on A comparison of Written and Spoken Tamil (Madras University, 1963?) is unfortunately inaccessible to me. 7. SYNTAX

By papers dedicated to the problems of Tamil syntax I mean here such papers and studies which describe the ways in which words and suprasegmental morphemes are arranged relative to each other in utterances (the "tactic" aspect of syntax), in which they function in utterances (the "functional" aspect of syntax), and/or studies which set up a system of rules that in some explicit manner assigns structural description to sentences.44 Even by these rather broad criteria, comparatively only very little work has been done on the syntax of Tamil. There is much deep and serious interest in syntactic problems on the part of A. K. Ramanujan (University of Chicago) who is at present engaged in working out a theory of Tamil syntax based on the transformational generative approach. There is also lively interest in syntax among the students and colleagues of V. 1. Subramoniam at the University of Kerala. Unfortunately, it seems to be the fate of many rather important syntactic works on Tamil to remain unpublished. This ill-fated tradition was started by K. Zvelebil's Studies in early Old Tamil syntax — The syntax of Narrimi (unpublished dissertation, Oriental Institute [Prague, 1959]).45 Rama Subbiah's A syntactic study of Spoken 44

I emphatically do not believe in the intrinsic necessity of a morphology-syntax division, which, according to my opinion, does not really exist in "langage" and not even in many concrete "langues"; in many languages it is certainly possible to conceive and describe hierarchical structuring as involving distribution of lower-level units into higher level units — e.g. morphemes built into words built into phrases built into clauses etc. ... into paragraphs, discourses etc., according to a basically identical or homogenous principle and pattern (cf. R. E. Longacre, "Some fundamental insights of tagmemics", Lg 41.65-76, [1965]). On the other hand, there are languages, in which words have well definable boundaries and are built out of smaller elements by certain patterns but are put together into higher constructions by different patterns (this seems to be the case in Tamil). Hence, in such languages, it may be convenient and customary to distinguish between morphology and syntax. However, it is not necessary; in other words, I do not think that the grammatical system itself (even of such languages) is "composed" of two subsystems, morphology and syntax. 46 For some of the results and conclusions reached in this work which is based on a thorough linguistic analysis of the 401 stanzas of Narrioai (a classical Tamil anthology of poems, ca. lst-3rd cent. A.D.), cf. Κ. Zvelebil, "Lectures on historical grammar of Tamil", Annals of Oriental Research of the University of Madras 18:2.13-16 (1963).

360

KAMIL V. ZVELEBIL

Tamil (thesis at the University of London, 1965) and P. Arunachalam's History of Tamil syntax (thesis at the University of Malaya) followed suit and have remained unpublished so far. Much syntactic material may be found in S. A. Pillai's unpublished Generative grammar of Tamil (University of Chicago, 1963). The first papers on Tamil written by K. Zvelebil dealt predominantly with syntactic problems. 4 · So did a number of his shorter papers which followed in 1957 and later.47 In Andronov's articles, there is also much to be found which deals with the functional aspects of syntax (whereas Zvelebil's interest was directed more to the tactic problems of Tamil grammar).48 One paper is dedicated to a comparison of word order in Tamil and Hindi.4® Varadarajan's paper "The analytic tendency in Tamil", Annals of Oriental Research of the University of Madras 13-22 (1956) traces step by step the "analytic growth in Tamil syntax". Zvelebil's more recent papers "How to handle the structure of Tamil", AO 30.116142(1962)50and "Towards a taxonomic and generative grammar of Tamil" AO 33.602613 (1965) try to demonstrate the usefulness of tagmemic theory and method applied to Tamil. A detailed and concrete application of tagmemic procedures may be also found in his monograph Tamil in 550 A.D. 32-49 (Prague, 1964). S. Agesthialingom's paper "Structural ambiguities of Tamil", IL 26. 8-17 (1965) investigates some phenomena found in the phrase and sentence structure of Tamil and tries to explain them on the basis of transformational theory and methodology. However, due to the inadequacy of the theory itself, the explanation is not convincing; it does not answer the basic, nagging question: perratäy means "the mother who bore (someone)"; perratäy may also mean "the mother who was borne (by someone)". Both are absolutely identical in segmental and suprasegmental units, there is no difference in form, and yet there may be a difference in function (meaning). It may be true (and probably is) that the two functions result from different transformations : transform. 1) täy perräl -> perratäy, transform. 2) täyaip perräl -* perra täy. But when derived, the two became formally identical, and the only possibility of selecting and recognizing one of the two functions (meanings) is to take into account the context. 8. LEXICOLOGY, ETYMOLOGY, SEMANTICS

As may be expected, there has always been a lively interest in these questions, notably in etymology and semantics — the two fields of linguistics which are so inviting and 46 "The enclitic vowels l-ä, -