Wikipedia

Munda languages

(Redirected from Munda language)

The Munda languages are a group of closely-related languages spoken by about eleven million people in India, Bangladesh and Nepal.[1][2][3] Historically, they have been called the Kolarian languages.[4] They constitute a branch of the Austroasiatic language family, which means they are distantly related to languages such as the Mon and Khmer languages, to Vietnamese, as well as to minority languages in Thailand and Laos and the minority Mangic languages of South China.[5] Bhumij, Ho, Mundari, and Santali are notable Munda languages.[6][7][1]

Munda
Mundaic
Geographic
distribution		Indian subcontinent
EthnicityMunda peoples
Native speakers
9–11 million (2010s est.)
Linguistic classificationAustroasiatic
  • Munda
Proto-languageProto-Munda
Subdivisions
Language codes
ISO 639-2 / 5mun
Glottologmund1335
Map of areas with significant concentration of Munda speakers
Grierson's Linguistic Map of India, 1906

The family is generally divided into two branches: North Munda, spoken in the Chota Nagpur Plateau of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Odisha and West Bengal, as well as in parts of Bangladesh and Nepal, and South Munda, spoken in central Odisha and along the border between Andhra Pradesh and Odisha.[8][9][1]

North Munda, of which Santali is the most widely spoken and recognised as an official language in India, has twice as many speakers as South Munda. After Santali, the Mundari and Ho languages rank next in number of speakers, followed by Korku and Sora. The remaining Munda languages are spoken by small isolated groups and are poorly described.[1]

Characteristics of the Munda languages include three numbers (singular, dual and plural), two genders (animate and inanimate), a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns, the use of suffixes or auxiliaries to indicate tense,[10] and partial, total, and complex reduplication, as well as switch-reference.[11][10] The Munda languages are generally synthetic and agglutinating.[12][13] In Munda sound systems, consonant sequences are infrequent except in the middle of words.

The Munda languages are often interpreted as prime examples of father tongues since the majority of native speakers of the these languages tend to display the Y-chromosome haplogroup of the original linguistic founding population in higher frequencies, and that Y-haplogroup signifies the linguistic origin, rather than based on a maternal haplogroup.[14]

Origin

edit

Many linguists suggest that the Proto-Munda language probably split from Proto-Austroasiatic somewhere in Indochina.[citation needed] Studies by Chaubey et al. (2011), Arunkumaret al. (2015), Metspalu et al. (2018), and Tätte et al. (2019) all show that the Munda branch of the Austroasiatic family was created as the result of a male-biased linguistic intrusion into the Indian subcontinent from Southeast Asia during the Late Neolithic period (Sidwell & Rau 2019 cited Tätte et al. (2019), estimate a date of formation between 3,800 and 2,000 years ago), which carried the paternal lineage O1b1a1a into India from either Meghalaya or the sea.[14] These studies and analyses confirm George van Driem's Munda Father tongue hypothesis.[15] Paul Sidwell (2018) suggests they arrived on the coast of modern-day Odisha about 4000–3500 years ago (c. 2000 – c. 1500 BCE) and spread after the Indo-Aryan migration to the region.[16][17]

Rau and Sidwell (2019),[18][19] along with Blench (2019),[20] suggest that Pre-Proto-Munda had arrived in the Mahanadi River Delta around 1500 BCE from Southeast Asia via a maritime route, rather than overland. The Munda languages then subsequently spread up the Mahanadi watershed. 2021 studies suggest that Munda languages impacted Eastern Indo-Aryan languages.[21][22]

Present-day distribution of Austroasiatic languages
Austro-asiatic dispersal map

Classification

edit

Munda consists of five uncontroversial branches (Korku as an isolate, Remo, Savara, Kherwar, and Kharia-Juang). However, their interrelationship is debated.

Diffloth (1974)

edit

The bipartite Diffloth (1974) classification is widely cited:

Diffloth (2005)

edit

Diffloth (2005) retains Koraput (rejected by Anderson, below) but abandons South Munda and places Kharia–Juang with the northern languages:

Munda
Koraput
Core   Munda

Kharia–Juang

North   Munda

Anderson (1999)

edit

Anderson's 1999 proposal is as follows.[23]

However, in 2001, Anderson split Juang and Kharia apart from the Juang-Kharia branch and also excluded Gtaʔ from his former Gutob–Remo–Gtaʔ branch. Thus, his 2001 proposal included five branches for South Munda.

Anderson (2001)

edit

Anderson (2001) follows Diffloth (1974) apart from rejecting the validity of Koraput. He proposes instead, on the basis of morphological comparisons, that Proto-South Munda split directly into Diffloth's three daughter groups, Kharia–Juang, Sora–Gorum (Savara), and Gutob–Remo–Gtaʼ (Remo).[25]

His South Munda branch contains the following five branches, but the North Munda branch is the same as those of Diffloth (1974) and Anderson (1999).

Sora–Gorum Juang ↔ Kharia ↔ Gutob–Remo ↔ Gtaʔ

  • Note: "↔" = shares certain innovative isoglosses (structural, lexical). In Austronesian and Papuan linguistics, this has been called a "linkage" by Malcolm Ross.

Sidwell (2015)

edit

Paul Sidwell (2015:197)[26] considers Munda to consist of 6 coordinate branches, and does not accept South Munda as a unified subgroup.

Phonology

edit

Consonants, vowels, and syllable structure

edit

The Munda languages share similar sets of phonemes with regional languages in their respective areas.[27] Inherited Austroasiatic "checked" glottalised stop (pre-glottalised articulatory) and nasalised final consonants found in some Munda languages such as Mundari (eg. ub ("hair") is realised as [uˀb̥ᵐ]) and Kharia (eg. oreˀdʒ ("ox") is realised [ɔrɛˀɟ˺ⁿ]) may stand out in South Asia.[28] One key feature in the Munda consonants is the distinction between dental and retroflex stops (/t̪/ vs /ʈ/, /d̪/ vs /ɖ/) in lexical level exists in most Munda languages except Sora and Gorum, reflecting a general characteristic of South Asian (Indosphere) phonology.[29] Because of South Asian areal convergence, Munda languages generally have fewer vowels (between 5 and 10) than their Eastern Austroasiatic relatives.[30][31] Additionally, Sora has glottalised vowels. Like any other Austroasiatic languages, the Munda languages make extensive uses of diphthongs and triphthongs. Larger vowel sequences can be found, with an extreme example of Santali kɔeaeae meaning ‘he will ask for him’.[32] Most Munda languages lack tones with an exception of Korku, which has acquired two contrastive tones within the South Asian linguistic area: an unmarked high and a marked low.[33][34] The general syllable shape is (C)V(C).[35] Initial clusters of the prototypical Austroasiatic sesquisyllables C(C)CVC mostly appear as resyllabified in Munda languages, except Gtaʔ which is the only Munda language that allows initial clusters, eg. gsæŋ "chicken."[36][37] However, scholars skeptically consider that Gtaʔ sesquisyllabic structure might have been the result of a local secondary development.[38]

As stated above, tonogenesis in Korku and continuous CCVC/sesquisyllabic development in Gtaʔ, both of which were unfolded inside the South Asian linguistic area, which is very hostile to tone and initial clusters, seem to be local innovations and have nothing related to contact-driven restructuring in the subcontinent.[39] It is also unclear whether they had anything connected to areal convergences in the Eastern Austroasiatic languages of Mainland Southeast Asia.[38] Munda word shape is dictated by a general phonotactical phenomenon called bimoraic constraint, which requires free-standing nominal stems to stay disyllabic or to obtain weight at the stressed syllable; that is, monosyllabic free form of lexemes must be expanded (i.e. resyllabified and/or reduplicated) in order to remain heavy (Anderson & Zide 2001).[40][41][42][43] See #Vocabulary for comparison.

Munda phonemes

edit

The following table compiles lists of consonantal and vowel systems of several Munda languages, mainly from Anderson (2014), Nagaraja (1999), and many others on International Phonetic Alphabet.[44][45][46][47][48][49]

PlosivesRetroflex StopsAffricatesFricativesNasalsRhoticsLateralsGlidesVowels
Santali p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒs hm n ɲ ŋr ɽlw ja i u o e ɔ ɛ ə
Ho p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒs hm n [ɲ] ŋrlw ja i u o e (ɔ) (ɛ)
Mundari p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒs hm n ɳ ɲ ŋr ɽlw ja i u o e
Keraʔ Mundari p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒs hm n ɲ ŋr ɽlw ja i u o e
Asuri p b t d k ɡʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒs hm n ŋr ɽlw ja i u o e
Kɔɖa p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒʃ hm n ŋɾli̯ u̯ɑ i u ɔ ɛ
Birhoɽ p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒs ʃ hm n ɳ ɲ ŋr ɽlja i u ɔ ɛ
Birjia p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒs ç hm n ɲ ŋr ɽlw ja i u o e ɔ ɛ ə
Turi p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒs hm n ɳ ɲ ŋɾ ɽlʋ jɑ i u ɔ ɛ ə
Korku p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒv s hm n ɳ ɲ ŋr ɽlw ja i u o e
Kharia p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒf v s hm n ɲ ŋr ɽlw ja i u o e
Juang p b t d k ɡʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒsm n ɳ ɲ ŋrl ɭja i u o e ɔ
Sora p b t d k ɡ ʔ(t͡ʃ) d͡ʒs zm n ɲ ŋr ɽlw ja i u o e ɔ ɛ ə ɨ
Gorum p b t d k ɡ ʔs zm n ŋr ɽlja i u e ɔ
Remo p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡s d͡z t͡ʃ d͡ʒv s zm n ɳ ɲ ŋr ɽlw ja i u o e
Gutob p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡s d͡z t͡ʃ d͡ʒs z hm n ɲ ŋr ɽlja i u o e
Gtaʔ p b t d k ɡ ʔʈ ɖt͡ʃ d͡ʒs hm n ŋr ɽlw ja i u o e æ/ɛ (ɨ)

Word prominence

edit

Donegan & Stampe (2004) posited overarching assumptions that all Munda languages have completely redesigned their word prosodic structure from proto-Austroasiatic rising intonation, iambic and reduced vowel, sesquisyllabic structure to Indic norms of trochaic, falling rhythm, stable or assimilationist consonants and harmonised vowels, making them typological opposed to Eastern Austroasiatic languages at almost every level. Sidwell & Rau (2014) criticised Donegan & Stampe by pointing out that the overall picture appears much more complicated and diverse and that generalisations of Donegan & Stampe are not supported by the instrumental data of the various Munda languages.[50] Peterson (2011b) describes word-rising contour in monosyllables and second syllable prominence in Kharia content words. Even the presence of clitics and affixes does not drive Kharia word prosodic structure to that of a trochaic and falling system. Osada (2008) reports final-syllable stress in all but CVC.CV stems in Mundari.[51] Horo & Sarmah (2015), Horo (2017) and Horo, Sarmah & Anderson (2020) found that the Sora disyllables are always iambic, reduced first syllable vowel space, and second syllable prominence.[52][53] Even CV.CCə words show final-syllable prominence. Horo & Sarmah (2015) note that the Sora vowels of the first syllables are centralised and that vowels in the second syllables are more representative of the canonical vowel space.

Ghosh (2008) describes about Santali prosody that "stress is always released in the second syllable of the word regardless of whether it is an open or a closed syllable".[54][55] His analysis was confirmed by Horo & Anderson (2021), whose acoustic data clearly shows that the second syllable in Santali is always the prominent syllable, with a greater intensity of stress and a rising contour.[56]

Zide (2008) reports that in Korku, the final syllable is heavier than the initial syllable, and within a disyllable, stress is preferentially released at the final syllable.[57] The analyses inferred from fieldworks demonstrate that despite exhibiting some variants, most Munda prominence alignments are in line with other Austroasiatic languages, with a predictable final-syllable prominence in a prosodic word. Again, Donegan & Stampe (2004)'s claim on rhythmic holism does not conform with the data presented by individual Munda languages.[58]

Morphology

edit

Morphologically, both North and South Munda subgroups mainly focus on the head or the verb, thus they are primarily head-marking, in contrast to the Indo-European and Dravidian languages, which are mainly dependent-marking.[59] As a result, nominal morphology is less complex than is verbal morphology.[60][61] Case markers on nominals to show syntactic alignments (nominative-accusative or ergative-absolutive) are largely absent or not systematically developed in the Munda languages except Korku. The relation between subject and object in clause is conveyed mainly through verbal referent indexation and word order. At the clause/sentence level, Munda languages are head-final but internally head-first in referent indexation, compounds, and noun incorporation verb complexes.[62][63]

Munda head-first, bimoraic constraint-free noun incorporation is also found in Khasian, Nicobaric, and other Mon-Khmer languages.[64][65] In word derivation, besides their own innovative methods, the Munda languages maintain Austroasiatic methods in forms of reduplication, compounding, and derivational infixation and prefixation.[66]

One unusual characteristic that appears to be pervasive among the Munda languages is lexical flexibility, that is, a large number to almost entire their lexicons are precategorial, i.e. lexically underspecified for categories such as noun, verb, adjectives etc. Thus, these languages may rely more on syntax and affixes/clitics to distinguish parts of speech. Pinnow summarised the issue back in the 1960s,[67]

[...]Theoretically any word for any concept, i.e., all words, can function as a verb base. Thus, we may not speak of a verb in the Indo-European sense. This fact was recognized at an early date and is now generally known. This is true for all Munda languages, but cannot be considered distinctive of them since there are innumerable other language families in which the situation is the same.[...] This phenomenon undoubtedly goes back to very ancient times and can probably be accepted as Proto-Munda.

— Heinz-Jürgen Pinnow, 1966:101

The following elicited examples from Simdega Kharia illustrate the problem:

lebu

man

ɖel=ki

come=MID.PST

lebu ɖel=ki

man come=MID.PST

'The/A man came.'

Bhagwan

God

lebu=ki

man=MID.PST

ro

and

ɖel=ki

come=MID.PST

Bhagwan lebu=ki ro ɖel=ki

God man=MID.PST and come=MID.PST

'God became man (Jesus) and came (to earth).'

The degree of lexical flexibility are extremely prominent in North Munda and Kharia, where the lexicons may only contain an open class of contentives; whereas in other South Munda languages this phenomenon however tends to be much weaker.[68]

North Munda

edit

The North Munda subgroup is split between Korku and the 14 Kherwarian languages.

Kherwarian languages

edit

Kherwarian is a large language continuum with speakers extending west to east from the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh to Assam, north to south from Nepal to Odisha. They include fourteen languages: Asuri, Birhor, Bhumij, Koda, Ho, Korwa (Korowa), Mundari, Mahali, Santali, Turi, Agariya, Bijori, Koraku, and Karmali, with the total number of speakers surpassing ten million (2011 census). The Kherwarian languages are often highlighted because their elaborate and complex templatic and pronominalised predicate structures are so pervasive that it is obligatory for the verb to encode tense–aspect–mood, voices, transitivity, and indexation of two arguments, including outside arguments like possessors.

Kherwarian languages Examples
Santali

gəi=ko

cow=3PL.SUBJ

idi-ke-d-e-tiɲ-a

take-AOR-TR-3SG.OBJ-1SG.POSS-FIN

gəi=ko idi-ke-d-e-tiɲ-a

cow=3PL.SUBJ take-AOR-TR-3SG.OBJ-1SG.POSS-FIN

"They took my cow."

Mundari

maŋɖi

food

seta-ko=ɲ

dog-PL=1SG.SUBJ

om-a-d-ko-a

give-BEN-TR-3PL.OBJ-FIN

maŋɖi seta-ko=ɲ om-a-d-ko-a

food dog-PL=1SG.SUBJ give-BEN-TR-3PL.OBJ-FIN

"I gave the food to the dogs."

Ho

abu

1PL

hotel-te=bu

hotel-ABL=1PL.SUBJ

senoʔ-tan-a=bu

go-PROG-FIN=1PL.SUBJ

abu hotel-te=bu senoʔ-tan-a=bu

1PL hotel-ABL=1PL.SUBJ go-PROG-FIN=1PL.SUBJ

"We are going to/from the hotel."

Asuri

iŋ

I

ceŋa=ke

child=ACC

t̪owa

milk

ujuɁ-ci-l=iŋ

fall-CAUS-PST=1SG

iŋ ceŋa=ke t̪owa ujuɁ-ci-l=iŋ

I child=ACC milk fall-CAUS-PST=1SG

'I made the child spill milk.

Bhumij[a]

hɔɽɔta-ke

man.CLF-OBL

lel-(dʒaʔt)-dʒi-a=iŋ

see-PROG.TR-3SG.OBJ-FIN=1SG.SUBJ

hɔɽɔta-ke lel-(dʒaʔt)-dʒi-a=iŋ

man.CLF-OBL see-PROG.TR-3SG.OBJ-FIN=1SG.SUBJ

"I am looking at the man."

Koda

aku

They

haku

fish

ʃaʔa-ku-t̪a-a=ku

catch-3PL.OBJ-IPFV-FIN=3PL.SUBJ

aku haku ʃaʔa-ku-t̪a-a=ku

They fish catch-3PL.OBJ-IPFV-FIN=3PL.SUBJ

'Do they catch fish?'

Korwa

mene-m

NEG-2SG.SUBJ

em-ga-d-iñ-a

give-BEN-TR-1SG.OBJ-FIN

mene-m em-ga-d-iñ-a

NEG-2SG.SUBJ give-BEN-TR-1SG.OBJ-FIN

'You haven't given to me.'

Turi

sarag

sky

nilija

blue

ɲɛl-ɔʔ-ɛn=ə=ɛ

see-PST-MID=FIN=3SG.SUBJ

sarag nilija ɲɛl-ɔʔ-ɛn=ə=ɛ

sky blue see-PST-MID=FIN=3SG.SUBJ

'The sky looks (lit. is seen [as]) blue.'

Birhor

iŋ

1SG

am=ke

2SG=OBL

nel-me-kanken=ĩ

see-2SG.OBJ-IMPERF=1SG.SUBJ

iŋ am=ke nel-me-kanken=ĩ

1SG 2SG=OBL see-2SG.OBJ-IMPERF=1SG.SUBJ

"I was looking at you."

Noun incorporation is often described as an ancestral Munda morphological feature and is essential to the grammar of other South Munda languages such as Sora, but the Kherwarian languages appear to have lost noun incorporation altogether. Nevertheless, rare instances of noun incorporation may be found in some archaic Kherwarian registers and oral literature.

tʃeɳe-ko

bird-PL

nam-oɽaʔ-ta-n-a=ko

find-house-ASP-INTR-FIN=3PL.SUBJ

tʃeɳe-ko nam-oɽaʔ-ta-n-a=ko

bird-PL find-house-ASP-INTR-FIN=3PL.SUBJ

"...the birds are getting into their nests (and trying to lay an egg)."

Korku

edit

Unlike the Kherwarian languages, with their complex verbal morphology, Korku verbs are moderately simple, with a modest amount of synthesis.[69] Korku lacks person/number indexing of subject(s)/actor (except third persons of locative copulas and nominal predicates in the locative case) and independent present/future tense markers.[70] Korku present/future tenses rely on the finitising suffix -bà.[71] Present or future tense negation can be located in preverbal or postverbal positions, but past tense negation is marked by the suffix -ᶑùn.[72]

Many Korku auxiliary verbs are borrowed from Indo-Aryan. The auxiliary verb takes tense–aspect–mood, voice, and finite suffixes for the lexical verb. An example is ghaʈa-, which means 'to manage to, to find a way to' and serves as the acquisitive.[73]

South Munda

edit

Compared to North Munda languages languages, South Munda languages are even more divergent and have fewer shared morphological traits. Even the classification of Munda languages is controversial, and South Munda does not seem to exist as a valid taxon. However, South Munda languages retain many notable characteristics of the original Proto-Munda such as prefix slots and scope-ordering of referent indexation and so they represent the less restructured morphology of Munda and reflect the older Proto-Munda and Proto-Austroasiatic structures.[74][75]

Kharia

edit

In Kharia, subject markers index not only dual/plural exclusive/inclusive but also honorific status. Objects are not marked in the predicate but instead by the oblique case: -te.

There is a reduplicated free-standing form of finite predicates that behaves differently from the simple predicative base. In the predicate, reduplicated free-standing form never marks tense–aspect–mood and person. That causes the free-standing form to be used in subordination, an attributive function corresponding more or less to relative clauses. Kharia is perhaps the only Munda language that has a infinitive on predicates, =na. The infinitive can serve also as a nominaliser: jib=na=te ‘touching’.

Non-finite class
Simple verb root Free-standing form
live borol borol
open ruʔ ruʔruʔ
see yo yoyo

Like in Hindi and Sadani, Kharia has made a calque to form sequential converbs (conjunctive participles) kon (derived from ikon, ‘do’). They denote the completion of an action before another begins.

The negation particle um attaches or fuses person/number/honorific of the subject argument.

Juang

edit

Juang exhibits nominative-accusative alignment with unmarked subject/agents and marked objects or patients.

In Juang, a pro-drop language, verbs can index both two core arguments in a transitive predicate, but not frequently. If the arguments are not omitted, referent indexation is largely optional. Juang has a fairly complex tense–aspect–mood system, which is often divided into two sets: I for transitive verbs and II for intransitive verbs. The verb "be" is usually omitted in the present tense and with a predicate adjective in sentences.

Abu

Abu

muintɔ

one

dakotoro

doctor

Abu muintɔ dakotoro

Abu one doctor

"Abu is a doctor."

There are two types of negation markers. Pronominal negation markers are specific for person/number of subject or object arguments. General negation markers such as -jena make up for the lack of a first-person singular negative. Negatives are ambifixative but usually precede the verb stem. There are double negations: combinations of two negatives. The negated verb may reduplicate itself.

apa

2DU

a-ma-dʒim-ke

2DU.SUBJ-NEG-eat-PRES.TR

ete

because

ain

1SG

kikib

RED~do

dʒena

NEG.COP

apa a-ma-dʒim-ke ete ain kikib dʒena

2DU 2DU.SUBJ-NEG-eat-PRES.TR because 1SG RED~do NEG.COP

"Because you don’t eat (it), I didn’t do it."

Noun incorporation is fossilised in lexical compounds and words like body parts being combined with the verb "wash". Note that the head precedes the incorporated object, as opposed to the head-final position in normal clauses.

am

you

am-a

you-GEN

itim-de

hand:2-DEF

mi-gui-di-agan

2SG.SUBJ-wash-hand-PST

am am-a itim-de mi-gui-di-agan

you you-GEN hand:2-DEF 2SG.SUBJ-wash-hand-PST

"You washed your hand."

Gtaʔ-Remo-Gutob

edit

The southernmost Gtaʔ and Remo-Gutob subgroups of South Munda exhibit significant morphological convergence towards Dravidian languages. Auxiliary verb constructions are heavily employed. Doubly-inflected auxiliary verb constructions are common in Gutob and Gorum, which reflects Dravidian influence. Gtaʔ-Remo-Gutob apparently have either altogether lost or not developed object indexation.[76] Thus, they can only employ the dependent-marking strategy in differential argument marking. Examples of each languages:

1. Remo (Anderson, field notes)

niŋ

I

a-no

OBL-you

dʒuʔ-t-iŋ

see-NPST-1

niŋ a-no dʒuʔ-t-iŋ

I OBL-you see-NPST-1

'I see you.'

2. Gutob

niŋ

I

ta

DISC

sobu

all

paiʈi

work

niŋ

I

ɖem=oʔ=niŋ

do=MID.PST=1SG

beɖ-beɖ=niŋ

RDPL~AUX=1SG

niŋ ta sobu paiʈi niŋ ɖem=oʔ=niŋ beɖ-beɖ=niŋ

I DISC all work I do=MID.PST=1SG RDPL~AUX=1SG

'I did all the work.'

3. Hill Gtaʔ (Anderson, field notes)

ŋku

tiger

gubuʔ=kə

pig=OBL

goʔ=gə

die=EVID

ŋku gubuʔ=kə goʔ=gə

tiger pig=OBL die=EVID

'The tiger killed the pig.'

Negation in Gutob is the most complex among the Munda languages. Like for other Munda languages, Gtaʔ-Remo-Gutob have lexical noun incorporation. Gtaʔ retains some instances of unproductive incorporation of body parts to the verb "wash" like Juang, which may fit Mithun (1984)'s type II of incorporation.

Sora-Gorum

edit
A native speaker discussing information access and welfare in Juray language in 2019
A Gorum-language speaker discussing the issues with native language education due to lack of books and teachers

The Sora-Gorum languages consist of Sora, Gorum, and the lesser-known Juray.[77]They display many features that are considered to be archaic that can be dated to Proto-Munda. For mainstream South Asian languages like Indo-Aryan and Dravidian, the latter are exclusively suffixing, prefixes and infixes are unusual but quite common in Austroasiatic languages, and Sora-Gorum has a prefix domain that can host several pre-stem markers. The indexation paradigm in Sora and Gorum renders the fullest form of Proto-Munda predicate structure and syntax. In practice, Sora is inclined to index only one argument. Within a transitive predicate, the object argument is ranked higher than subject, and pronouns are required.

Gorum:

ne-aj-t-om

1SG.SUBJ-splash-NPST-2SG.OBJ

ne-aj-t-om

1SG.SUBJ-splash-NPST-2SG.OBJ

"I will splash you."

Sora:

ambin

You(Pl)

mənlen

we

a-gij-tə-len

2PL.SUBJ-see-NPST-1PL.OBJ

ambin mənlen a-gij-tə-len

You(Pl) we 2PL.SUBJ-see-NPST-1PL.OBJ

"You guys will see us."

ə-ədn-əl-gə/b/rɔj-l-aj

1PL.SUBJ-NEG-RECP-shame/CAUS/shame-PST-1PL.SUBJ.EXCL.ACT

ə-ədn-əl-gə/b/rɔj-l-aj

1PL.SUBJ-NEG-RECP-shame/CAUS/shame-PST-1PL.SUBJ.EXCL.ACT

"We did not shame each other."

In Sora, noun incorporation is a valency-reducing effort, close to what described by Mithun's type III incorporation. Every noun has a combining form (CF), which is a compact, compressed monosyllabic form of free-standing noun, having been stripped of its functional morphology, and does not adhere to bimoraic constraint. Only CFs are allowed to form compounds with verbs. The resulted verb-noun incorporated compound is syntactically distinct from phrases.[78] Unlike in North Munda where it is restricted to oral literature, noun incorporation in Sora is in fact pervasive in daily conversations, with every noun except loanwords having a possible CF, which allows the creation of sequences of complex verb phrases.

ɲem-sim-ti-n-aj

catch-chicken-NPST-INTR-1SG.SUBJ

ɲem-sim-ti-n-aj

catch-chicken-NPST-INTR-1SG.SUBJ

"I’m catching chicken."

paŋ-ti-dar-iɲ-ten

bring-give-cooked.rice-1SG.OBJ.UND-3SG.SUBJ.PST

paŋ-ti-dar-iɲ-ten

bring-give-cooked.rice-1SG.OBJ.UND-3SG.SUBJ.PST

"He brought and gave me cooked rice."

bagun-ben

both-2PL

ə-il-le-ga-sal-n-ɛ

1/2PL.SUBJ.EXCL-go-PST-drink-liquor-INTR-2PL.SUBJ

bagun-ben ə-il-le-ga-sal-n-ɛ

both-2PL 1/2PL.SUBJ.EXCL-go-PST-drink-liquor-INTR-2PL.SUBJ

"Both of you went and drank liquor."

əb-gan-suŋ-bji-na-ba

CAUS-enter-house-woman-OPT-1PL.SUBJ.INCL

əb-gan-suŋ-bji-na-ba

CAUS-enter-house-woman-OPT-1PL.SUBJ.INCL

"Let us make the woman enter the house."

dʒi-lo-si-t-am

stick-mud-hand-NPST-2SG.OBJ

dʒi-lo-si-t-am

stick-mud-hand-NPST-2SG.OBJ

"Mud will stick to your hand."

While the most salient effect of object noun incorporation in most polysynthetic languages is the lowering of the scope of the verb and the converting of transitive verbs to intransitive, incorporation of transitive subject/agent is considered atypical and occupies at the lowest position of the hierarchy. That made the incorporation of transitive subjects to have once been considered theoretically impossible by some linguists. Among all languages, there are few exceptional attested cases that permit such type of incorporation including some Athabaskan languages like Koyukon and South Slavey, and indeed, Sora.[79]

ɲam-kid-iɲ-te

seize-tiger-1SG.OBJ-3SG.SUBJ.IMP

ɲam-kid-iɲ-te

seize-tiger-1SG.OBJ-3SG.SUBJ.IMP

"Tiger may seize me" or "May I be tiger-seized."

mo-kul-t-am

swallow-ghost-NPST-2SG.OBJ

mo-kul-t-am

swallow-ghost-NPST-2SG.OBJ

"Ghost will swallow you."

Munda lexicon and lexical relation with other Indian language families

edit

Despite some influence from neighbouring languages, the Munda languages generally maintain a solid Austroasiatic and Munda base vocabulary.[80][81] The most extreme case is Sora, which has zero foreign phonemes.[80] Agricultural-related words from Proto-Austroasiatic are widely shared (Zide & Zide 1976). Words for domesticated animal and plant species like dog, millet, chicken, goat, pig, rice are shared or semantically alternated. There are even specific terms for husked uncooked rice vs cooked rice vs rice (tree), as well as shared words used in rice production and processing like 'mortar', 'pestle', 'paddy', 'sow', 'grind/ground'. The majority of loan words from Indo-Aryan to Munda are quite recent and mostly came from Hindi. The Southern languages like Gutob have received considerable Dradivian lexical influence. A very small number of lexemes seem to be shared between Munda and Tibeto-Burman, probably reflecting earlier contact between the two groups.[82]

It is clear that hundreds of non-Indo-European words in Vedic Sanskrit that Kuiper (1948) attributed to Munda have been rejected through careful analysis.[82] There is a surprising absence of ancient Sanskrit and medieval Indian borrowings of animal and plant names from Munda. Scholars believe that the Munda tribes typically occupied a marginalised and lowly socioeconomic position in the Hinduized society of Vedic South Asia or did not participate in the Hindu caste system and had barely any contacts with Hindus at all. Witzel (1999) and Southworth (2005) proposed that the early non-Indo-European words with prefixes k-, ka-, ku-, cər- in Vedic Sanskrit belonged to a hypothetical 'Para-Munda substratum', which they believed to be part of the Harappan language.[83] That would imply that Austroasiatic speakers might have penetrated as far as the Panjab and Afghanistan in the early 2nd millennium BC. However, Osada (2009) refuted Witzel and considered that those words might have been in fact Dravidian compounds.

Vocabulary

edit
Munda basic words[84]
gloss Santali Mundari Ho Bhumij Korwa Korku Kharia Juang Sora Gorum Remo Gutob Gtaʔ
"hand"titīitītitiʔi:ʈitiʔitisi:ʔsiʔtititititti, nti
"foot"jangajanga–jangadʒaŋgnanga-dʒuŋidʒiɲ/ŋdʒe:ˀŋzḭŋtiksuŋsusuŋnco
"eye"mẽ̠t'med'meɖmedmeɖmedmoˀɖɛmɔɖmo:ˀd/madmaˀdmoʔmoʔmwaʔ
"water"daˀkda:daʔdaʔda:ʔɖadaʔdagda:ʔɖaʔdak'ɖaʔnɖiaʔ
"child"honhonhonhonhonkonkononkɔnoˀo:naŋonɔ̃ʔɔ̃oʔnūhuŋo
"bear"banabanabanabana–banabane/aibanaekəmbudkibudgibɛgubɔngbɛ
"tiger"kulkula:kulakulaku:lkulakiɽoʔkiɭogkɨnakulaʔkukusagikil, kilɔnku
"dog"setasetase:tasetasɛit̪asitasoloʔselog/ˀkkənsodkusɔˀdgusɔdgusɔʔgsuʔ

Distribution

edit

Reconstruction

edit

The proto-forms have been reconstructed by Sidwell & Rau (2015: 319, 340–363).[85] Proto-Munda reconstruction has since been revised and improved by Rau (2019).[86][87]

Writing systems

edit

The following are current used alphabets of Munda languages:

See also

edit

References

edit

Notes

edit
  1. 1 2 3 4 Anderson, Gregory D. S. (29 March 2017), "Munda Languages", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.37, ISBN 978-0-19-938465-5
  2. ↑ Hock, Hans Henrich; Bashir, Elena, eds. (23 January 2016). The Languages and Linguistics of South Asia. doi:10.1515/9783110423303. ISBN 9783110423303.
  3. ↑ "Santhali". Ethnologue. Retrieved 21 January 2024.
  4. ↑ Anderson, Gregory D. S. (8 April 2015). The Munda Languages. Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-317-82886-0.
  5. ↑ Bradley (2012) notes, MK in the wider sense including the Munda languages of eastern South Asia is also known as Austroasiatic
  6. ↑ Pinnow, Heinz-Jurgen. "A comparative study of the verb in Munda language" (PDF). Sealang.com. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
  7. ↑ Daladier, Anne. "Kinship and Spirit Terms Renewed as Classifiers of "Animate" Nouns and Their Reduced Combining Forms in Austroasiatic". Elanguage. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
  8. ↑ Bhattacharya, S. (1975). "Munda studies: A new classification of Munda". Indo-Iranian Journal. 17 (1): 97–101. doi:10.1163/000000075794742852. ISSN 1572-8536. S2CID 162284988.
  9. ↑ "Munda languages". The Language Gulper. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
  10. 1 2 Kidwai, Ayesha (2008). "Gregory D. S. Anderson the Munda Verb: Typological Perspectives". Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM]. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 265–272. doi:10.1515/9783110211504.4.265. ISBN 978-3-11-021150-4.
  11. ↑ Anderson, Gregory D. S. (7 May 2018). "Reduplication in the Munda languages". In Urdze, Aina (ed.). Non-Prototypical Reduplication. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 35–70. doi:10.1515/9783110599329-002. ISBN 978-3-11-059932-9.
  12. ↑ Donegan, Patricia Jane; Stampe, David. "South-East Asian Features in the Munda Languages". Berkley Linguistics Society.
  13. ↑ Jenny, Weber & Weymuth (2014), p. 14.
  14. 1 2 van Driem (2021), p. 186.
  15. ↑ van Driem (2021), p. 187.
  16. ↑ Sidwell, Paul. 2018. Austroasiatic Studies: state of the art in 2018. Presentation at the Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, 22 May 2018.
  17. ↑ "Sidwell AA studies state of the art 2018.pdf". Google Docs. Retrieved 12 May 2023.
  18. ↑ Rau, Felix; Sidwell, Paul (2019). "The Munda Maritime Hypothesis". Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. 12 (2). hdl:10524/52454. ISSN 1836-6821.
  19. ↑ Rau, Felix and Paul Sidwell 2019. "The Maritime Munda Hypothesis." ICAAL 8, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 29–31 August 2019. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3365316
  20. ↑ Blench, Roger. 2019. The Munda maritime dispersal: when, where and what is the evidence?
  21. ↑ Ivani, Jessica K; Paudyal, Netra; Peterson, John (2021). Indo-Aryan – a house divided? Evidence for the east–west Indo-Aryan divide and its significance for the study of northern South Asia. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 7(2):287–326. doi:10.1515/jsall-2021-2029
  22. ↑ John Peterson (October 2021). "The spread of Munda in prehistoric South Asia -the view from areal typology To appear in: Volume in Celebration of the Bicentenary of Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute (Deemed University)". Retrieved 1 September 2022.
  23. ↑ Anderson, Gregory D.S. (1999). "A new classification of the Munda languages: Evidence from comparative verb morphology." Paper presented at 209th meeting of the American Oriental Society, Baltimore, MD.
  24. ↑ Anderson, G.D.S. (2008). ""Gtaʔ" The Munda Languages. Routledge Language Family Series. London: Routledge. pp. 682–763". Routledge Language Family Series (3): 682–763.
  25. ↑ Anderson, Gregory D S (2001). A New Classification of South Munda: Evidence from Comparative Verb Morphology. Indian Linguistics. Vol. 62. Poona: Linguistic Society of India. pp. 21–36.
  26. ↑ Sidwell, Paul. 2015. "Austroasiatic classification." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
  27. ↑ Anderson (2007), pp. 2–3.
  28. ↑ Anderson (2014), p. 378.
  29. ↑ Jenny, Weber & Weymuth (2014), p. 24.
  30. ↑ Jenny, Weber & Weymuth (2014), p. 30.
  31. ↑ Sidwell & Rau (2014), p. 314.
  32. ↑ Anderson (2014), p. 375.
  33. ↑ Zide (2008), p. 258.
  34. ↑ Sidwell & Rau (2014), p. 318.
  35. ↑ Sidwell & Rau (2014), p. 312.
  36. ↑ Sidwell & Rau (2014), p. 320.
  37. ↑ Sidwell (2015), p. 75.
  38. 1 2 Sidwell (2015), p. 77.
  39. ↑ Zide, Norman H. (1966). "Korku Low Tone and the Proto-Korku-Kherwarian Vowel System". In Zide, Norman H. (ed.). Studies in comparative Austroasiatic linguistics, 214-1000. London—The Hague—Paris: Mouton. pp. 214–229.
  40. ↑ Jenny, Weber & Weymuth (2014), p. 16.
  41. ↑ Sagart, Laurent (September 2011). "How many independent rice vocabularies in Asia ?". Rice. 4 (1): 121–133. doi:10.1007/s12284-011-9077-8.
  42. ↑ Sidwell & Rau (2014), p. 316.
  43. ↑ Sagart, Laurent (2022). "Language Families of Southeast Asia". In Higham, Charles F.W.; Kim, C. Nam (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Early Southeast Asia. Oxford University Press. pp. 321–338. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199355358.001.0001.
  44. ↑ Anderson (2014), pp. 376–377.
  45. ↑ Khalid, Zoya (1 August 2020). "A Phonological Sketch of Asur". Language in India. 20 (8): 252–268. ISSN 1930-2940.
  46. ↑ Shamim, Ahmed (June 2021). A Description of the Phonology and Morphology of Kɔɖa, An Endangered Language of Bangladesh (PhD thesis). City University of New York.
  47. ↑ Peterson, John M.; Minz, Abhay Sagar; Linda, Prabhat; Khan, Aribay; Kachhap, Francis Xavier; Gari, Manish (2024). "A Brief Introduction to the Turi Language of Eastern India". Bhasha. 3 (2): 263–304. doi:10.30687/bhasha/2785-5953/2024/02/005.
  48. ↑ Nagaraja, K. S. (1999). Korku language: grammar, texts, and vocabulary. Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
  49. ↑ Pradhan, Sabita; Tripathi, Arimardan Kumar; Bhagat, Akash (2022). Birhor: Language and life. Centre for Endangered Languages, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan-731235. ISBN 978-81-957226-6-2.
  50. ↑ Sidwell & Rau (2014), p. 321.
  51. ↑ Osada (2008), p. 104.
  52. ↑ Horo, Luke; Sarmah, Priyankoo (2015). "Acoustic analysis of vowels in Assam Sora". North East Indian Linguistics. 7: 69–88.
  53. ↑ Horo, Luke; Sarmah, Priyankoo; Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2020). "Acoustic phonetic study of the Sora vowel system". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 147 (4): 3000–3011. Bibcode:2020ASAJ..147.3000H. doi:10.1121/10.0001011. PMID 32359268.
  54. ↑ Jenny, Weber & Weymuth (2014), p. 38.
  55. ↑ Anderson (2014), p. 379.
  56. ↑ Horo, Luke; Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2021). "Towards a prosodic typology of Kherwarian Munda languages: Santali of Assam.". In Alves, Mark J.; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). Papers from the 30th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. JSEALS Special Publications 8. University of Hawai'i Press. pp. 298–317.
  57. ↑ Zide (2008), p. 260.
  58. ↑ Hildebrandt & Anderson (2023), p. 559.
  59. ↑ Donegan & Stampe (2004), p. 13.
  60. ↑ Sidwell & Rau (2014), p. 311.
  61. ↑ Anderson (2014), p. 381.
  62. ↑ Donegan & Stampe (2002), p. 115–116.
  63. ↑ Jenny (2020), p. 24.
  64. ↑ Anderson (2007), p. 205.
  65. ↑ Anderson (2016), p. 121.
  66. ↑ Anderson (2014), p. 382.
  67. ↑ Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen (1966). "A comparative study of the verb in the Munda languages". In Zide, Norman H. (ed.). Studies in comparative Austroasiatic linguistics. London—The Hague—Paris: Mouton. pp. 96–193.
  68. ↑ Rau (2013), p. 170.
  69. ↑ Zide (2008), p. 270.
  70. ↑ Zide (2008), p. 271–272.
  71. ↑ Zide (2008), p. 273.
  72. ↑ Zide (2008), p. 279–280.
  73. ↑ Zide (2008), p. 284.
  74. ↑ Jenny (2020), p. 25.
  75. ↑ Rau (2020), p. 229.
  76. ↑ Bashir (2016), p. 314.
  77. ↑ Sidwell & Rau (2014), p. 310.
  78. ↑ Anderson (2017a), p. 933.
  79. ↑ Hock (2016c), p. 443.
  80. 1 2 Donegan & Stampe (2004), p. 12.
  81. ↑ Anderson (2014), p. 402.
  82. 1 2 Anderson (2014), p. 403.
  83. ↑ Witzel, M. (August 1999). "Substrate languages in old Indo-Aryan". EJVS. 5 (1): 1–67. cf. reprint in: "[no title cited]". International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics (1). sqq. 2001.
  84. ↑ Rau, Felix (2019). "Munda cognate set with proto-Munda reconstructions (0.1.0) [Data set] Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics (ICAAL 8), Chiang Mai, 29-31 August 2019". Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. University of Hawai'i Press. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3380873.
  85. ↑ Sidwell, Paul and Felix Rau (2015). "Austroasiatic Comparative-Historical Reconstruction: An Overview." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
  86. ↑ Rau, Felix. (2019). Advances in Munda historical phonology. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3380908
  87. ↑ Rau, Felix. (2019). Munda cognate set with proto-Munda reconstructions (Version 0.1.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3380874
  88. ↑ "Atlas of Endangered Alphabets: Indigenous and minority writing systems, and the people who are trying to save them". 19 January 2024. Retrieved 4 February 2025.
  89. ↑ "Santali language and alphabets". www.omniglot.com. Retrieved 4 February 2025.
  90. ↑ "Ol Onal alphabet". www.omniglot.com. Retrieved 4 February 2025.
  91. ↑ "Atlas of Endangered Alphabets: Indigenous and minority writing systems, and the people who are trying to save them". 30 November 2018. Retrieved 4 February 2025.
  92. ↑ "Warang Citi alphabet". www.omniglot.com. Retrieved 4 February 2025.

Additional notes

edit
  1. ↑ Some Hinduized Munda tribes use Hindi oblique marker ke which is absent in core Munda languages.

General references

edit
Historical migrations
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Munda_languages&oldid=1353756014"