From: mkelkar2003
Message: 41752
Date: 2005-11-05
>The above means *nothing*. It is tautological. The theory of
>
> Dear Dr. Kalyanaraman (are you not a member of this List?),
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
> wrote:
>
> > What is a substrate
>
> Check it out on your linguistic handbooks.
>
> > and what does Nahali become when it has absorbed > several layers
> from substrates?
>
> It becomes a typologically New Indo-Aryan language in which
> different layers of prehistoric, ancient and medieval substrates are
> recognizable (or non-recognizable, as in the case of the so-
> called "Proto-Nahali" substrate which some linguists also
> call "Proto-Indic").
>
> > Where is this substrate? > Can this be identified and isolated for
> all bharatiya languages?
>
> No, the "Proto-Nahali" substrate can be identifired for Nahali only.
>
> > Why should Nahali be seen to have absorbed from Marathi? Why not
> > vice-versa? Is it not possible that the formation of Marathi
> language > had its roots taken from Nahali substrate [...]?
>
> One should carefully examine Nahali word-lists to answer this query,
> but I am pretty certain that the Marathi and Hindi vocabulary (as
> well as morphological and syntactical structures) in Nahali are
> common to other New Indo-Aryan languages, and can be explained away
> as being derived from Middle Indo-Aryan, in turn derived from Old
> Indo-Aryan, in turn derived from Indo-Iranian, in turn derived from
> Proto-Indo-European. This should suffice to exclude the possibility
> of New Indo-Aryan languages having "continued", by a process of
> linguistic accretion and exchange, (see Alinei's "Palaeolithic
> Continuity Theory"!) a prehistoric Nahali substratum.
>
> > Why should Colin Masica's language x be restricted to only hindi?
> Why > not look upon this language x as the bharatiya 'substrate', the
> > proto-vedic?
>
> Masica's "Language X" is not "Proto-Vedic" -- a definition which
> means nothing to me: there is only "R.gvedic", a kind of "Old Indo-
> Aryan". R.gvedic is the language attested in the R.gveda, the oldest
> Indo-Aryan text available to us. If you wish, you can use the
> term "pre-R.gvedic" to indicate the reconstructed proto-forms of
> R.gvedic lexemes and morphemes that are no longer recognizable as
> belonging to (reconstructed) common Indo-Iranian.
>
> "Language X" is defined as a substrate that is found at the bottom
> of the agricultural vocabulary of Hindi and some neighbouring New
> Indo-Aryan languages spoken in the Gangetic plains. Some 30% of
> Hindi agricultural vocabulary are neither Indo-Aryan nor Dravidian
> nor Munda, and are, therefore, held by Masica to stem from the
> unknown substrate language he labels as "X". The vocabulary
> of "Language X" also includes some terms relating to artisans, local
> flora and fauna, clothing, household, dancing and music. The only
> traces of this substrate in the R.gveda are represented by a handful
> of words with the typical "Language X" geminates (see below).
> Therefore, no "Language X" = "Proto-Vedic".
>
> If Hindi and other Gangetic Indo-Aryan languages were studied the
> same way as Kuiper and others have studied the succession of
> historical layers in Nahali -- earliest unknown substrate ("Proto-
> Nahali"), "Para-Munda", Dravidian, Korku (North Munda), New Indo-
> Aryan (Marathi, Hindi dialects) -- one would most likely find in
> them similarly stratified layers of Masica's "Language X", "Para-
> Munda", Old Indo-Aryan, early Persian, and Greek loans, Sanskrit
> loanwords, medieval loans from Arabic, Turkish, Mongolian and
> Persian. This linguistic work has not been done to date.
>
> Here is an assessment on the "Language X" substrate made by M.
> Witzel:
>
> http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0501/ejvs0501c.txt
> << $ 2.4. Substrates of the Lower Gangetic Plains and "Language X".
>
> Next to the Mundas, there must have been speakers of other
> languages, such as Tibeto-Burmese, who have left us names such as
> kosala, kauzikI (mod. kosi), perhaps also kAzi and kauzAmbi (mod.
> kosam), from Himalayan khu, ku (Witzel 1993). In IA they also have
> left such words as the designations for cooked rice IA *cAmala and
> probably also PS zAli 'rice'.
>
> In Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar (attested in Middle and Late Vedic
> texts, c. 1200-500 BCE) another apparent substrate appears in which
> the 'foreign' words do not have the typical Para-Munda structure,
> with the common prefixes, as described above. Masica (1969) called
> this unknown substrate "language X". He had traced it in
> agricultural terms in Hindi that could not be identified as IA,
> Dravidian or Munda (or as late loans from Persian, S.E. Asia, etc.).
> Surprisingly some 30% of the terms are of unknown, language "X"
> origin, and only 9.5% of the terms are from Drav., something that
> does not point to the identity of the Indus people with a Drav.
> speaking population.
>
> However, only 5.7% of these terms are directly derived from Munda.
> Obviously, the pre-IA population of the Gangetic plains had an
> extensive agricultural vocabulary that was taken over into all
> subsequent languages. F.B.J. Kuiper has pointed out already in 1955:
> 137-9 (again in 1991: 1) that many agricultural terms in the RV
> neither stem from Drav. nor from Munda but from "an unknown third
> language" (cf. Zide & Zide 1973: 15). This stratum should be below
> that of Para-Munda which is the active language in the middle and
> late Vedic texts.
>
> Again, it has been Kuiper who has pointed the way when he noted that
> certain 'foreign' words in the Vedic substrate appear with geminate
> consonants and that these are replaced in 'proper' Vedic by two
> dissimilar consonants (1991: 67). Examples include: pippala RV
> (1.164.20,22; 5.54.12, su- 7.101.5 ) : piSpala AV (in Mss.)
> 9.9.20,21; 6.109.1,2; su-piSpala MS 1.2.2:11.7, guggulu AV, PS :
> gulgulu KS, TS, kakkaTa PS 20.51.6, KSAzv. : katkaTa TS. Kuiper adds
> many other cases of Vedic words that can be explained on the basis
> of words attested later on.
>
> In RV geminates also occur in 'onomatopoetic' words: akhkhalI-kR 'to
> speak haltingly' or 'in syllables?', cf. now Nahali akkal-
> (kAyni) '(to cry) loudly in anguish' MT II 17, L 33 (kAyni < Skt.
> kathayati 'to tell' CDIAL 2703, cf. 38) MT II 17; cf. also jaJjan-
> RV 8.43.8 etc., ciccika 10.146.2 'a bird'?, and cf. also azvattha
> 1.135.8 : azvatha a personal name, a tree, 6.47.24, with unclear
> etymology, (Kuiper 1991: 61, 68).
>
> Post-RV, new are: hikkA PS 4.21.2, kakkaTa PS 20.51.6 (MS kakuTha,
> TS katkaTa!), KSAzv in YV: kikkiTA KS, TS, kukkuTa VS, pilippilA TS
> 7.4.18.1, cf. also TS Akkhidant, prakkhidant TS 4.5.9.2, Ajjya
> 5.2.7.3. Especially interesting is the early gemination *dr >
> ll: kSullaka AV 2.32.5, TS 2.3.9.3 kSullaka, < kSudra 'small' (a
> children's word?); later on, among others, bhalla-akSa ChU4.1.2,
> bhalla Br., MBh (with variants phala, phalla! EWA s.v.); JB malla 'a
> tribe' (in the Indian desert, Rajasthan; cf. DEDR 4730), etc.
>
> Though certain geminates, especially in word formation and flexion (-
> tt-, -dd-, -nn- etc.), are allowed and common, they hardly ever
> appear in the stem of a word (Sandhi cases such as anna, sanna etc.
> of course excepted). Until the late BrAhmaNa texts, other geminates,
> especially bb, dd, gg, jj, mm, ll, but also kk, pp, etc., are
> studiously avoided, except in the few loan words mentioned above
> (pippala, gulgulu, katkaTa etc. (Kuiper 1991: 67 sqq.).
>
> It will be readily seen that Kuiper's seminal observation reflects a
> tendency that can be observed throughout the Vedic texts. Geminates,
> especially the mediae, apparently were regarded, with the exception
> of a few inherited forms such as majj 'to dive under', as 'foreign'
> or 'barbaric'. They did not agree with the contemporary Vedic (and
> even my own) feeling of correct speech (Sprachgefu"hl).
>
> However, starting with Epic Sanskrit, forms such as galla, malla,
> palla, etc. are normal and very common (however, -mm-, perhaps
> regarded as Drav.(?) remains rare); such words, in part derive from
> normal MIA developments, in part from the substrate.
>
> This tendency can be sustained by materials from various other
> sources. In the language 'X' only a few of Masica's agricultural
> substrate words that do not have a clear etymology (1969: 135)
> contain such geminates: Hindi kaith < Skt. kapittha CDIAL 2749
> (Mbh), piplI/pIplA < pippala (RV), roTI < *roTTA, roTika 10837
> (Bhpr.); karela < karella/karavella 3061, khAl < khalla 3838-9
> (Suzr.); to these one can add the unattested, reconstructed OIA
> forms (Turner, CDIAL, see Masica 1969: 136): *alla CDIAL 725,
> *uDidda 1693, *carassa 4688, *chAcchi 5012, *bAjjara (see, however,
> OIA *bAjara, 9201 bAjjara HZS: varjarI!), *balilla 9175, *maTTara
> 9724, *suppAra 13482, *sUjji/sOjji 13552. However, these words have
> come into NIA via MIA, and that their geminates may go back to a
> consonant cluster without geminates (see below, on Turner's
> reconstructs).
>
> All of these tendencies are reconfirmed by what we can discern in
> the other substrate languages. While there still are but a few cases
> in the northwest, the substrates located further east and south all
> have such geminates. (Incidentally, the northwest has retained the
> original, non-geminate consonant groups, such as -Cr-, to this day,
> cf. Khowar bhrar, Balkan Gipsy phral 'brother', W. Panj. bhrA, E.
> Panj. bh(a)rA : Hindi bhAI, etc.).
>
> In the unstudied substrate of the Kathmandu Valley (inscriptions,
> 467-750 CE, see below), geminates are found in the following place
> names: gamme, gullataMga, gollaM, jajje-, dommAna, daGkhuTTA-,
> bemmA, cf. also bhumbhukkikA (onomat. with double consonant: <
> *bhumbhum-ki-kA?); cf. also village names such as joJjon-diG, tuJ-
> catcatu, thuMtuM-rI, daNDaG-(guM).
>
> In the substrate of modern Tharu: e.g. ge~TTI, ghaTTI, TippA (?),
> ubbA; cf. also 'onomatopoetic' words such as jhemjhemiyA 'small
> cymbal or drum', bhubhui 'white scurf', gula-gula 'mild' (with the
> usual middle Vedic, OIA, Tamil, etc. form of the "expressive" and
> onomatopoetic words: type kara-kara versus older Vedic bal-bal).
>
> In modern Nahali (Kuiper 1962: 58 sqq., 1966) the following
> substrate words can be found, though apparently various types of
> consonant groups are allowed: bekki, beTTo, bokko, coggom, cuTTi,
> joppo/jappo, kaggo, kAllen, maikko, oTTi, poyye, unni. Additions to
> this list can easily be supplied now from that of A. Mundlay (MT II)
> which are not obviously from NIA include 8 aDDo, 91 attu', 182
> bekki, 203 beTTo, 221 bijjok, 232 biTThAwi, 255 buddi, etc.
>
> In the Drav. Nilgiri languages (Zvelebil 1990:63-72) there are a few
> isolated geminating words that go back to a pre-Drav. substrate,
> e.g. Irula mattu 'lip', Dekkada 'panther', muTT(u)ri 'butterfly',
> vutta 'crossbar in a house'.
>
> The Vedda substrate contains the same type of words:: cappi 'bird',
> potti 'a kind of bee', panni 'worm' (de Silva 1972: 16).
>
> Finally by way of appendix, in the isolated Andamanese language (Aka
> BIada dialect), a few consonant groups seem to be allowed, but
> hardly any geminates are found (Portman 1887): dAkkar-da 'bucket'
> p.18, kAttada, badda 'crab' 22, chetta-da 'fruit' 34, tokko dElE
> kE 'to go along the coast', chetta-da 'head' 36, sissnga kE 'to
> hiss' 38, udda 'maimed' 48, peggi 'many' 48, teggi lik
> dainga 'noise' 52, teggi lik dainga kE 'to obey' 54, molla-
> da 'smoke' 72, tekke yAbadO 'straight' 78.
>
> It can be stated, therefore, that the substrate languages outside of
> the extreme northwest indicate broad evidence for original
> geminates. Differently from IA (cf. below, on Turner's
> reconstructions), these words have not been pushed through
> the 'filter' of MIA, that means their original consonants clusters
> have not been 'simplified' (e.g. kt > tt, kS > kkh, etc.) Such
> striving for simpler syllable structure is known from many
> languages, e.g. Latin noctem > Italian notte, French nuit [nu"i], or
> O.Tib. bgryad > Tib. [y] 'eight', Jpn.-Austro-Thai *krumay > Jpn.
> kome 'rice' (Benedict), Kathmandu Valley substrate kicipriciG(-
> grAma) > Newari kisipi~Di, etc. Even then, the tendency seems
> especially strong in S. Asia and probably has worked on IA from the
> beginning, as for example in the early example AV kSullaka <
> kSudraka. In Drav. various consonant groups are allowed, including
> geminates (Zvelebil 1990: 10 sqq.:) e.g., kakku, kaccu, kaTTu,
> kattu, kappu, kammu; (cf. also the interchange p- :: -pp-/-v- :: -p/-
> u).
>
> One can therefore put the question whether this old substrate
> tendency has already influenced the Para-Munda of the RV. In Munda
> itself, such geminates are very rare (cf. Kuiper 1991: 53), and open
> syllables are common. However, there is a tendency in the Munda
> languages to eliminate consonant groups caused by vowel loss in
> prefixes (Pinnow 1959: 457); this does not cause geminates in such
> cases but is in line with the similar developments from Old to
> Middle and New IA (e.g. akSi 'eye' > akkhi > A~kh, rakta 'colored,
> red' > ratta > rAt, etc.). One may therefore explain many of
> the 'foreign' words with geminates in Vedic and post-Vedic,
> excluding Drav. loans, in the same way.
>
> For the same area that is covered by Masica's language "X", and for
> N. India in general, one may also adduce the many words in NIA that
> are not attested in Vedic, Classical Skt. or the various MIA
> languages such as Pali but that occur only in their NIA form. They
> have been collected and reconstructed by V. Turner in his CDIAL.
> These include the starred forms, appearing in their reconstructed
> OIA form, and those words that do not appear in Ved. but are more or
> less accidentally attested in late Skt. texts, and the substrate
> words dealt with by Turner. They have a typical, often non-IA
> structure, including the very common cluster -ND-, -TT-. Their root
> structure follows the following pattern. (C = any consonant, @ any
> vowel)
>
> *C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@...,
> C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@...,
> C@..., C@..., C@..., C@..., C@...
>
> In Turner's CDIAL there are only a few forms such as *Cr@..., Cr@...,
> Cr@..., Cr@..., Cl@...; this does not surprise as all reconstructed
> words have passed through the filter of MIA and have lost such
> clusters, -- except in the extreme northwest (Lahnda and Dardic).
>
> Double consonants at the end of roots may go back to complicated
> clusters that can no longer be reconstructed, for example *C@... <
> **C@... (cf. RV kSviGkA, ikSvAku, and compare Ved. clusters such as
> matkuNa, matkOTaka, kruJc). Consonant clusters with various
> realizations in pronunciation may also be hidden in many Vedic loan
> words (Kuiper 1991 : 51 sqq., Ved. cases p. 67 sqq.). >>
>
> Kindest regards,
> Francesco Brighenti