1 Introduction
The language varieties which can claim a non-recent presence in Kinnaur represent two language families, Sino-Tibetan (ST) and Indo-Aryan (IA), the largest subbranch—in terms of number of languages—of the Indo-Iranian primary branch of Indo-European. In Chapter 5, we investigated the genealogical relationships among the ST varieties of Kinnaur. In this chapter, we will also bring Kinnauri Pahari (see Chapter 4)—a language from the Western Pahari subbranch of IA—into the comparison, where we will examine some instances of linguistic similarities between Kinnauri (ST) and Kinnauri Pahari (IA)—both spoken in the Sangla region in Kinnaur. We will occasionally extend the comparison to other IA and ST languages spoken outside Kinnaur, with a view to elucidate contact and even areal phenomena as a component of the linguistic ecology of Kinnaur.
2 Language Contact in Kinnaur
Kinnaur presents several layers of language contact, both across and within language families. Traditionally, language contact was direct, happened in a local context, and came about through trade, administrative interaction and religion. Today, we are witnessing another layer of linguistic influence, that of the increasing dominance of Hindi (IA), the official language of Himachal Pradesh as well as one of the two national languages of India. With the changing socio-cultural conditions and a growing awareness among the locals about Hindi as a medium for social mobility, it is increasingly becoming the inter-community language. An even more recent and more global contact phenomenon is the growing importance of English (India’s other national language).
Hindi and English are seen as modern languages, associated with acquiring status-bearing jobs and higher social status, whereas local languages (Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari alike) are associated with a traditional, non-modern life-style. Further, because of the development of modern mass media (e.g. television and streamed media) locals in the villages are now regularly exposed to the official state-level and nationally dominant languages to an unprecedented extent. This means that the previously dominant role of Kinnauri is increasingly being taken over by Hindi. The younger generation of Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari speakers increasingly use Hindi as their lingua franca—the function earlier served by Kinnauri1—and frequently mix their native language with Hindi and Indian English words (see Chapter 1).
In sum, the language situation in Kinnaur is such that we would expect to find that language contact has played a significant role in the development of its languages. This certainly holds for the two linguistic varieties spoken alongside each other in the Sangla region in Lower Kinnaur whose mutual interaction is in focus in this chapter: the ST language Kinnauri (described in Chapter 2) and the IA language Kinnauri Pahari (described in Chapter 4). In the following sections we present some lexical and grammatical features shared by Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari against expectations, given their genealogical affiliations, in order to throw some light on the traditional (non-recent) contact situation in this area.2
3 Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari: Shared Linguistic Features
3.1 Lexicon: Names of the Days and Months
The names of the days and months as well as the system used in dividing a year into months are quite similar in Kinnauri to that of the names and the calendar system found in Kinnauri Pahari and also in the IA languages of the plains (i.e., outside the Himalayan region).3
Table 60 shows that the names of the days of the week in Kinnauri4 have similar counterparts in IA languages and that the names in Kinnauri are very different from those of Navakat.
Table 60
The days of the week in Kinnauri and Indo-Aryan
Gloss |
Kinnauri |
IA correspondences |
Navakat |
---|---|---|---|
(K: Kotgarhi; hin: Hindi; san: Sanskrit)5 |
|||
Monday |
suãraŋ, sʋaːraŋ, suŋaːraŋ |
swāːr (K); somvaːr (hin) |
ʣà ndàʋa |
Tuesday |
maŋglaːraŋ |
muŋgǝɭ (K); maŋgalvaːr (hin) |
ʣà mígmar |
Wednesday |
budaːraŋ |
būdː (K); budhvaːr (hin) |
ʣà làkpa |
Thursday |
brespot |
brēst (K); braspativaːr (hin) |
ʣà fúrʋu |
Friday |
ʃukaraŋ |
ʃūkːǝr (K); ʃukravaːr (hin) |
ʣà pásaŋ |
Saturday |
ʃonʃeres |
ʃɛ̄nʃǝr, ʃǝnɪcːǝr (K); ʃanivaːr (hin); |
ʣà pénba |
śanaiścaraḥ (san) |
|||
Sunday |
tʋaːr, tʋaːraŋ |
twaːr (K); itvaːr (hin) |
ʣà ɲìma |
As was the case with the days of the week, the terms for months in Kinnauri are also very similar to the terms used in those IA languages where the Hindu religion is prevalent (see Table 61). Here we find not only similarities in the forms of the names of the months, but also in the way in which the year is divided into months. The first column (“Period”) describes how a year is divided into months in both Kinnauri and in Kinnauri Pahari; the second column provides the Kinnauri terms and the third column provides corresponding month names in some IA languages.
Similar borrowing of the Hindu calendar system and names for the week-days is also found in some other West Himalayish languages, e.g., Kanashi (own fieldwork data), Darma (Willis Oko 2019: 467), and marginally also in Tinani (see below).
Table 61
The calendar system in Kinnauri and IA languages
Period |
Kinnauri |
IA correspondences (kjo: Kinnauri Pahari; K: Kotgarhi; hin: Hindi; san: Sanskrit) |
---|---|---|
Mid March–mid April |
ʧetraŋ |
ʧɛtaːr (kjo); tsɛtːǝr (K); ʧɛtram (hin); caitraḥ (san) |
Mid April–mid May |
b(ʰ)aiʃakʰaŋ, beʃakaŋ |
baːʃaː (kjo); bǝʃɛ̄ː (K); vɛʃaːkh (hin) |
Mid May–mid June |
ʤeʃʈaŋ |
ʣeʃʈh (kjo); ʣēʈːh (K); ʤjesṭ (hin); jyaiṣṭhaḥ (san) |
Mid June–mid July |
aːʃaraŋ |
aːʃaːr (kjo); ʃāɽ, ʃāːɽ (K); āṣāḍhaḥ (san) |
Mid July–mid August |
ʃonaŋ |
ʃaːmaːn (kjo); ʃauɳ (K); ʃraːvaŋ (hin); śrāvaṇaḥ (san) |
Mid August–mid September |
b(ʰ)adraŋ |
baːdrɔ (kjo); bʿɔ́dːǝr (K); badhɔ (hin) |
Mid September–mid October |
indramaŋ, indromaŋ |
indrɔmaːŋ (kjo); sɔ̄ːɟ (K); āśvayujaḥ (san) |
Mid October–mid November |
kaːtiaŋ |
kaːti (kjo); katːɪ (K); kaːrtik (hin) |
Mid November–mid December |
mokʃeraŋ |
mɔgʃri (kjo); maŋgʃǝr, maghar (hin); mārgaśirāḥ (san) |
Mid December–mid January |
poʃaŋ |
poʃ (kjo); pōʃ (K); pɔʃ (hin); pauṣaḥ (san) |
Mid January–mid February |
maːŋ |
maŋ (kjo); māgː (K); maːgh (hin) |
Mid February–mid March |
pʰagnaŋ |
phāgːəɳ (K) |
Table 62
The calendar system in Navakat and Tinani
Period |
Navakat |
Tinani |
---|---|---|
January |
ndàʋa tàŋbo |
kunza la, kunzla |
February |
ndàʋa ɲíʋa |
püɳa la, püɳla |
March |
ndàʋa súmba |
ʦugzu la |
April |
ndàʋa ʒìʋa |
breʃu la |
May |
ndàʋa ŋáʋa |
heʦim la |
June |
ndàʋa ʈùkpa |
sur la |
July |
ndàʋa dùnba |
ʃelik la |
August |
ndàʋa gétpa |
mi ʃak |
September |
ndàʋa gúʋa |
maŋrar |
October |
ndàʋa ʧúʋa |
kjurla |
November |
ndàʋa ʧúkʃikpa |
minʣugla |
December |
ndàʋa ʧúɲiːʋa |
binʈu la |
Distinct from this, two other ST languages of Himachal Pradesh for which we have the relevant data—Navakat and Tinani6—exhibit both a different division of the year into months (“Period”) and naming of the months (“Navakat” and “Tinani”), as shown in Table 62.7 The Navakat naming system, where the months are simply numbered, is also found in Tibetan. Interestingly, while Tinani has not borrowed the IA calendar system (Table 62), it has borrowed the names of the weekdays (Table 63). For further details, see Saxena and Borin (2022b).
Table 63
The weekdays in Tinani
Tinani |
IA correspondences (K: Kotgarhi; hin: Hindi) |
|
---|---|---|
Monday |
sombar(e)8 |
swāːr (K); somvaːr (hin) |
Tuesday |
məŋgaɽ(e) |
muŋgǝɭ (K); maŋgalvaːr (hin) |
Wednesday |
budd(e) |
būdː (K); budhvaːr (hin) |
Thursday |
brespət(e) |
brēst (K); braspativaːr (hin) |
Friday |
ʃukk(e)r(e) |
ʃūkːǝr (K); ʃukravaːr (hin) |
Saturday |
ʃənʧar(e) |
ʃɛ̄nʃǝr, ʃǝnɪcːǝr (K); ʃanivaːr (hin) |
Sunday |
aitʋər(e) |
twaːr (K); itvaːr (hin) |
To summarize, the terms for the days of the week and months as well as the calendar system in Kinnauri are very similar to that found in many IA languages. Singh (1990: 248) describes how the village gods were claimed to have more Hindu affinities in the Lower Kinnaur region, and more Buddhist affinities in Upper Kinnaur. He suggests that the Hindu and Buddhist characteristics that we see today in modern Kinnaur are secondary developments, which are superimposed on the earlier—pre-Hindu and pre-Buddhist religion of the ethnic population in Kinnaur. Keeping in view the socio-cultural factors involved, it is very likely that, in this case, the IA influence on Kinnauri comes either through religion or through some other channel, and not directly from Kinnauri Pahari.
3.2 Lexicon: Words for Past and Future Time Adverbs
ST languages tend to have distinct words for past and future time adverbs (i.e., for terms corresponding to the English yesterday and tomorrow; day before yesterday and day after tomorrow). This is illustrated in Table 64 with examples from some West Himalayish languages, including Kinnauri.9
Distinct from this, in many IA languages the same term is used for both past and future time adverbs (e.g. Hindi kal, Assamese kali, Punjabi kala and Rajasthani kyāla are all used in these languages for both ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’). However, Kinnauri Pahari has separate sets of terms for past and future time adverbs (e.g., hiːdz ‘yesterday’, kaːle ‘tomorrow’; see also Table 65),10 just as in Kinnauri—though the terms are different in the two languages.
At first glance, one might be tempted to conclude that Kinnauri Pahari has borrowed this feature from Kinnauri, but this is not borne out by the distribution of this feature across IA. There are several Western Pahari languages as well as some languages in other subfamilies of IA, which exhibit this pattern (e.g., Marathi kaːl ‘yesterday’, ud̪jaː ‘tomorrow’; Kashmiri yēwa, kāl ‘yesterday’, pagāh ‘tomorrow’) (see the emphasized items in Table 65).
Further, Sanskrit, which represents the older stage of the contemporary IA languages, had this distinction; terms such as hīdz ‘yesterday’ and shūī ‘tomorrow’ (see Table 65) are related to the Sanskrit forms hyas ‘yesterday’ and śvas ‘tomorrow’, which have disappeared from IA languages such as Hindi, but are retained in some modern IA languages.
Table 64
Past and future time adverbs in West Himalayish (ST)
Language |
‘yesterday’ |
‘tomorrow’ |
‘the day before yesterday’ |
‘the day after tomorrow’ |
---|---|---|---|---|
Byangsi |
nyaːrɛ |
nimjaː |
hrija |
sɯmjaː |
Chaudangsi |
nyarə |
məci |
hrajya |
ninjya |
Darma |
niməŋ |
khəi |
hrijya |
niŋjya |
Gahri |
yaː |
acci |
giwa |
|
Kanashi |
muɖ |
naːb |
riːd |
romi |
Pattani/Manchad |
èreg |
mùtaŋ |
túrag |
ɲúrag |
Raji |
byarə |
kəllə |
||
Rongpo |
nyaːr |
oro |
thamiŋ |
baːgya |
Kinnauri |
meː |
naːb |
riː |
romi |
Tinani |
eki(ɂ) |
muntaŋ |
tuʃar |
njurgja |
Table 65
Past and future time adverbs in IA languages. Boldface indicates lexical differentiation of past and future time reference
Language |
‘yesterday’ |
‘tomorrow’ |
‘two days ago’ |
‘the day after tomorrow’ |
---|---|---|---|---|
Assamese |
kali |
|||
Awadhi |
kālh, kāl, kallhi |
|||
Gujarati |
kāl |
|||
Hindi |
kal |
|||
Kashmiri |
yēwa, kāl |
pagāh |
||
Marathi |
kaːl |
ud̪jaː |
||
Punjabi |
kallh, kall, kallu |
|||
Prakrit |
kalaiṁ, kalliṁ, kalhiṁ |
|||
Rajasthani |
kyāla |
|||
Western Pahari |
||||
Bhalesi |
hī |
kāla |
parē |
tsōŭth |
Baghati |
kal |
kaḷkā |
pōrshū |
|
Bilaspuri |
kăl |
părsū |
||
Bilaspuri, Southern |
kăl |
părsū̃ |
||
Chambeali |
kal |
parsū |
||
Chinali |
hi |
šui |
pǝre |
pǝšui |
Handuri |
kăl |
părsū |
||
Jaunsari |
beyä |
dotiyä |
||
Jubbal, North |
hīz |
ōrshī |
phrēz |
pōrshī |
Jubbal, South |
hījo |
dōtte, jīshī |
phŏrzŏ |
pŏrshī |
Kinnauri Pahari |
hiːdz |
kaːle |
pɔːʃi |
pʰɔridz |
Kiunthali |
hījō |
dōtē |
phrěʣō |
pōshūē |
Koci, Kuari |
bĭau |
dōutī |
phŏrēdz |
pōshī |
Koci, Rohru |
hīzz |
kāllā |
phrēz |
pōrshī |
Koci, Surkhuli |
hīdz |
kālle |
phărīdz |
pōrshī |
Kotgarhi |
hīdzē |
kāllē |
pŏrshē |
pŏrshē |
Kotguru |
hīdzē |
kāllē |
phŏrŏz |
pŏrshē |
Mandeali |
kāl |
parsī |
||
Mandi Siraji |
kāl |
părshī |
||
Padari |
hī |
shūī |
parē |
tlĕan |
Rampur |
hīdz |
kalle |
phrez |
porsho |
Siraji, Inner |
hīdz |
shūī |
pŏrshī |
pharz |
Siraji, Outer |
hīj |
kāllā |
phŏrŏz |
pŏrshē |
Siraji, Suket |
hīdz |
kāllā |
phărdz |
pŏrshī |
Suketi, Eastern |
hīdz |
kăl |
phărdz |
pŏrshī |
An overview of past and future time adverbs in IA (and ST) languages is presented in Figure 19. It shows that among the IA languages outside the Himalayan region the normal system is the use of the same form for both, while the use of separate forms for ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’ among IA languages is more frequent in the Himalayan region, where they are in contact with ST languages.
One plausible conclusion could be that the contact with ST languages has favored a preservation of the older system in a number of Western Pahari languages, as seen in Table 65 (the boldfaced items). Once again, this seems to be an areal feature, and not a phenomenon exclusive to Kinnauri Pahari.

Figure 19
Words for past and future time adverbs (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = same; ■ = different)

Figure 19
Words for past and future time adverbs (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = same; ■ = different)
Figure 19
Words for past and future time adverbs (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = same; ■ = different)
3.3 Lexicon: Words for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’
Many IA languages have a lexical item which is used for both ‘face’ and ‘mouth’ (Table 66).11 Table 66 includes IA languages from different sub-branches. It shows that the majority of these languages (21 languages) exhibit a polysemous item expressing both ‘face’ and ‘mouth’. The six languages where this polysemy is not attested all belong to the Western Pahari branch of IA (see the Western Pahari section at the bottom of Table 66).
Unlike IA languages, ST languages (both inside and outside Kinnaur) typically have two separate terms for ‘face’ and ‘mouth’ (Tables 67 and 68). In our sample of 25 ST language varieties, only three—Tabo, Tibetan and Zeme—show evidence of this polysemy, reflecting two reconstructed Proto-Sino-Tibetan items *zyal ‘face, mouth’ and *s-muːr ‘mouth, face’, both of which have reflexes with both meanings at least in Written Tibetan.
In general in ST languages the reflexes of *zyal typically mean ‘face’, ‘cheek’, etc., while those of *s-muːr tend to mean ‘mouth’, ‘lip(s)’ or the like. It is worth keeping in mind here that the meaning of the proto-item has been assigned on the basis of the sum of attested meanings in the daughter languages. Thus, it is far from certain that the ‘mouth’–‘face’ polysemy is original to Sino-Tibetan.
Semantically, the meaning extension from ‘mouth’ to ‘face’ is not surprising. According to Wilkins (1996) this is the expected direction of semantic shift. With body-part terms, the semantic development is always from the part to the whole, and never the other way around (i.e., from ‘face’ to ‘mouth’ in this case). In Wilkins’s data, this particular semantic change is attested only in Sino-Tibetan (Wilkins 1996: 276). Still, it does not happen in languages as a matter of course; most languages seem not to have this particular polysemy. But it is widespread among the IA languages.12
This semantic shift is extremely rare among ST languages. The IA language Kinnauri Pahari is similar to Kinnauri and other ST languages in this respect (Tables 67 and 68).13
Note that while the term for ‘face’ in Kinnauri Pahari (mu) is etymologically related to the IA term for ‘face’ (see Table 66), the term for ‘mouth’ (kʰak) is a borrowing, most probably from Kinnauri. kʰa ‘mouth’ is found in many ST languages.
The non-polysemy that we observe here between ‘face’ and ‘mouth’ in Kinnauri Pahari distinguishes Kinnauri Pahari from the IA pattern, where ‘mouth’ and ‘face’ are usually the same.14 At the same time, note that several other IA languages (spoken outside Kinnaur), too, exhibit the Kinnauri Pahari/ST pattern (see Table 66)—most of them concentrated in the Himalayan region (see Figure 20).
Table 66
Words for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’ in IA languages. Boldface indicates that separate terms are used for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’
‘Mouth’ |
‘Face’ |
||
---|---|---|---|
Bangla |
ānana |
||
Bhojpuri |
mũh |
||
Chinali |
mùh, šunṭh, šunḍ |
muh |
|
Gujarati |
mɔḍhũ, mɔ̃ḍũ |
||
Hindi |
mu |
||
Kashmiri |
ȧsi |
||
Maithili |
mũh |
||
Marathi |
ānana |
||
Nepali |
mukʰa |
||
Oriya |
ānana, muhã, muhañ |
||
Pali |
assa, ānana, mukha |
Āsa, mukha |
|
Punjabi |
mū̃h |
||
Pashai Dardic |
dōr |
||
Prakrit |
assa, muha, vayaṇa |
||
Rajasthani |
mūṇḍō |
||
Sanskrit |
múkha |
||
Sindhi |
mũhũ |
||
Sinhalese |
muya, muva |
||
Western Pahari |
|||
Bhadrawahi |
āsh |
tuttar |
|
Jaunsari |
mü |
lamʊkʰ |
|
Kinnauri Pahari |
kʰak |
mu |
|
Kotgarhi |
mu, jāt |
mu, mū̃h |
|
Kotguru |
jāt |
mū̃h |
|
Pahari, Shimla varieties |
mû |
mukʰṛo |
|
Pahari, Solan variety |
mû |
||
Siraji, Outer |
jāt |
muh |
|
Sirmauri |
mû |
Table 67
Words for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’ in ST languages outside Kinnaur. Boldface indicates indicate that the same term is used for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’
‘Mouth’ |
‘Face’ |
|
---|---|---|
Angami |
útiê, úmé |
zʰie |
Ao |
tepang |
tecʰek |
Apatami |
àgung |
nyímo |
Bhramu/Baram |
anam |
mik |
Bunan |
ag, aʔ |
mod |
Byangsi |
aː |
ŋɔ, wamyɛ |
Chaudangsi |
ak |
hu-mɛ̃ |
Darma |
ʔa |
womi |
Gahri |
aːʔ |
mot |
Kanashi |
khakaŋ |
toŋ, ʃakal |
Ladakhi |
zʰa, kʰa |
rdong |
Mishimi |
tʰrímbim |
nyâ |
Pattani |
ǝs, a, ǎ |
mod |
Raji |
khǝbɛ-ru |
bāŋā, mhǝŋ |
Tabo |
kʰa, ɕāl |
ɕāl, ŋōndōŋ, dōŋ |
Tibetan |
kha ‘mouth’; z̀al ‘mouth, face’; mur ‘mouth, face’ |
gdoŋ, gdong pa ‘face, countenance’; bźin ‘face, countenance’; z̀al ‘mouth, face’; ŋo, ŋos ‘face, countenance, air, look’; mur ‘mouth, face’ |
Tinani |
a, ǝs |
mod |
Tod |
kʰa |
doŋ |
Zeme |
mi mui |
mi mui |
To summarize this linguistic feature, the data presented here suggest that IA and ST languages typically display two separate patterns in this regard. The typical IA pattern is to have the same form used for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’, whereas the typical ST pattern is to have two separate terms for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’. The IA Kinnauri Pahari (and also some other Western Pahari languages) are similar to the ST languages in this regard, where Kinnauri Pahari has borrowed kʰak ‘mouth’ from ST and has restricted the use of its own lexical item (mukʰ) for ‘face’. As this development is also found in some other Western Pahari languages, once again, this is not a case of an isolated loanword in Kinnauri Pahari, rather the influence is more pervasive.
Table 68
Words for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’ in Kinnauri Pahari and ST varieties in Kinnaur. Boldface indicates that separate terms are used for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’
‘Mouth’ |
‘Face’ |
|
---|---|---|
Kinnauri Pahari (IA) |
kʰak |
mu |
ST Kinnauri varieties |
||
Kinnauri |
kʰakaŋ |
to |
Chitkul |
kʰaku |
mʊkʰaŋ |
Sairako |
kʰakaŋ |
to |
Nichar |
kʰakaŋ |
to |
Pooh |
kʰa |
ŋonan |
Navakat |
kʰá |
ŋòdaŋ |

Figure 20
Words for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’ (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = same; ■ = different)

Figure 20
Words for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’ (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = same; ■ = different)
Figure 20
Words for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’ (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = same; ■ = different)
3.4 Lexicon: Convergence15 in the Numeral System
It is a well-established fact that in the late stages of Proto-Indo-European the numeral system was a consistent decimal system, where higher decades (e.g. 20, 30, 40, 50, 100) were derived etymologically from the word for 10 by the principle 2 × 10=20, 3 × 10=30, 10 × 10=100 etc. (Winter 1992). This late PIE decimal system was inherited into Proto-Indo-Iranian, and it has carried on in the modern IA languages. The decimal system is found in many modern IA languages. But there are some modern IA languages which display a modified version of the vigesimal counting system (a vigesimal-decimal system where 50, for example, is derived by 2 × 20 + 10).16
In the Himalayan region, one finds occasional instances of the vigesimal numeral system.17 Both Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari display this pattern, as shown in Table 69.
Table 69
Vigesimal numeral system in Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari18
Gloss |
Sangla Kinnauri |
Kinnauri Pahari |
IA (K: Kotgarhi; hin: Hindi; san: |
---|---|---|---|
Sanskrit) |
|||
1 |
id |
ɛk(k) |
eːk (K) |
2 |
niʃ |
dui |
dui (K), d(u)ve (san) |
3 |
ʃum |
trɔn |
cɔːn (K); trīṇi (san) |
4 |
pə |
ʦaːr |
tsaːr (K), catvāraḥ (san) |
5 |
ŋa |
pa̴ːʦ |
paːndz (K), pañca (san) |
7 |
(s)ʈiʃ |
saːt |
sātː, sāːt (K), sapta (san) |
10 |
se |
dɔʃ |
dɔʃ (K), daśa (san) |
11 |
sigid |
gjaːraː |
gɛːra (K); ekādaśa (san) |
15 |
soŋa |
pandraː |
pɔndra (K); pancadaśa (san) |
20 |
niʣa |
biːʃ, ɛisa |
bīː, viṃśati (san) |
21 (20 + 1) |
niʣo id |
ɛisa ɛk |
kɔ̄j (K) |
22 (20 + 2) |
niʣo niʃ |
ɛisa dui |
bāj (K), dvāviṃśati (san) |
23 (20 + 3) |
niʣo ʃum |
ɛisa rɔn |
tēj, tēj bīː (K) |
24 (20 + 4) |
niʣo pə |
ɛisa ʦaːr |
tsɔbi (K)19 caturviṃśati (san) |
30 (20 + 10) |
niʣo se |
ɛisa dɔʃ |
|
31 (20 + 11) |
niʣo sigid |
ɛisa gjaːraː |
ikkattis (hin) |
40 (2 × 20) |
niʃniʣa |
duibiːʃɔ |
|
50 (2 × 20 + 10) |
niʃniʣo se |
dʋeːsa dɔʃ |
pǝdza (K), pancaśat (san) |
60 (3 × 20) |
ʃumniʣa |
trɔnbiːʃɔ |
|
80 (4 × 20) |
pəniʣa |
ʦaːrbiːʃɔ |
|
100 |
ra |
ra, sɔ |
ʃɔ̄ː (K), śatam(san) |

Figure 21
Numeral systems (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = base 10; EQ25BC = base 20)

Figure 21
Numeral systems (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = base 10; EQ25BC = base 20)
Figure 21
Numeral systems (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = base 10; EQ25BC = base 20)
Some observations can be made here. First, both Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari exhibit the vigesimal system. However, while the basic system is the same in both these languages, the forms are not borrowed, only the constructions. Second, among the Western Pahari (IA) languages included in Figure 21, it seems that the numerals and the numeral system in Baghati, Kiunthali, Koṭgarhi and Inner Siraji are very similar to that of Hindi (Bailey 1908, 1920). Koṭgarhi (Hendriksen 1986) and Chinali (D.D. Sharma 1989) are the only languages in my material which show traces of a vigesimal system, even if the forms are built on IA material (Chinali: bῑ ‘twenty’, dui bi ‘forty’, dui bio das ‘fifty’, trāi bi ‘sixty’, trāi bio daš ‘seventy’), even though the default system in Koṭgarhi seems to be the decimal system.
According to Mazaudon (2010), in the Sino-Tibetan language family, the vigesimal system is found in languages only in or close to the Himalayas.20 Among the IA/Iranian languages, the vigesimal system is found not only in the Himalayan region, but it is also found in Central Asia; it is also found in many Iranian languages, in Caucasian languages (Edelman 1999). Both Mazaudon (2010) and Edelman (1999) suggest contact as a possible origin for the vigesimal system in these languages. Thus, to summarize, there is some contact factor involved, but it seems to extend beyond Kinnaur, and also beyond the Himalayas (so far as IA languages are concerned).
3.5 Lexicon/Grammar: the Agentive Nominalizer
Apart from the clear cases of contact-induced changes where the direction of influence is clear, there are also some examples of language change where the two languages have become more similar to each other than they are to their genealogically related languages.
The two languages have a very similar way of forming deverbal agent nouns, as illustrated in Table 71. Further, both languages make a gender distinction here, which is otherwise very uncharacteristic of ST languages.
Table 71
Deverbal agent nouns in Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari
Gloss |
Kinnauri |
Kinnauri Pahari |
---|---|---|
‘beggar (m)’ |
un-ʦjaː |
maŋg-dɔ-sjaː |
‘dancer (m)’ |
ʧaː-ʦjaː |
naʦ-dɔ-sjaː |
‘dancer (f)’ |
ʧaː-ʦeː |
naʦ-di-seː |
There is at least one other ST language (Pattani) where -ʦa is used as the agentive nominalizer. In Navakat, the nominalizer -(k)an occurs in similar constructions instead (see Chapter 3 for details). Similarly, Western Pahari languages such as Jaunsari (Satish 2000), too, use a different marker: gɪt-ärɪ ‘singer’ (cf. git ‘song’, gitɪänä ‘to sing’).
This is a clear case of borrowing, but the direction of borrowing is unclear. Note that the Kinnauri Pahari agentive forms contain the element -dɔ/-ndɔ : -di/-ndi. This is the habitual-aspect form, originating in a present participial marker (see Chapter 4). This seems to suggest that the agentive nominalizer in Kinnauri Pahari is a later addition, suffixing to the already participial IA form.
Furthermore, the agentive nominalizer in both languages makes a gender distinction, where -ʦjaː/-sjaː occurs with masculine head nouns and -ʦeː/-seː occurs with feminine head nouns. While there are instances of systematic gender distinctions being made in ST languages, at least in the derivational system (e.g. -pa/-po for male referents vs. -ma/-mo for female referents, found in Navakat and to some extent in Kinnauri), the particular formal means used here are telling. Many IA languages express the masculine–feminine distinction through the use of forms ending in -a/-o in the masculine, contrasting with forms ending in -i/-e in the feminine.21 It is possible, that even if the agentive nominalizer itself is the result of ST influence on Kinnauri Pahari, the gender distinction in the agentive nominalization in Kinnauri is due to IA influence.
Table 71
Past/perfective = past participle in some IA languages of the Himalayas
Language |
Past |
Perfective |
Past PTCP |
---|---|---|---|
Bhales |
V-to |
V-to aux |
V-to/tuo |
Bilaspuri |
V-ea |
V-ea aux |
– |
Gadi |
V-ea |
V-ea |
V-ea |
Kangṛi |
V-ea |
V-ea |
V- |
Kotgarhi |
pst ptcp |
pst ptcp |
pst ptcp |
Kishṭawari |
V-mut |
V-mut |
V-m |
Paḍari |
V-ta |
– |
V-ta |
Poguli |
V-tumut aux |
V-tumut aux |
V-tumu |
Punchi |
V-ea |
V-ea aux |
– |
Rambani |
V-tumut aux |
V-tumut aux |
V-tumu |
Tinauli |
V-ea |
V-ea aux |
V-e |
3.6 Grammar: Perfective and Imperfective Aspect Markers
ST and IA languages in general exhibit two different patterns with respect to the historical source of their modern perfective and imperfective aspect markers. In IA languages this is frequently the participial forms, where the present participial form is reanalyzed as the present/imperfective/habitual aspect marker and the past participial form is reanalyzed as the past/perfective aspect marker. Like a typical IA language, Kinnauri Pahari, too, has reanalyzed its participle forms as aspect markers: -indɛ functions as the perfective aspect marker and as the past participle marker, and -(n)dɔ/-(n)di functions both as the habitual aspect marker and as the present participial marker. This is also corroborated by the other Western Pahari languages presented in Tables 71–72: the neighboring IA varieties have past/perfective markers which are the same as the past participle forms (Table 71) and the present/imperfective aspect markers are the same as the present participle markers (Table 72).22
Table 72
Present/imperfective = present participle in some IA languages of the Himalayas
Language |
Present Ind. |
Imperfective |
Present PTCP |
---|---|---|---|
Bhadrawahi |
– |
V-to aux |
V-to |
Bhales |
V-tau |
V-tau aux |
V-tau |
Gadi |
V-da |
V-da |
V-da |
Kangṛi |
V-da |
V-da |
V-da |
Eastern Mandeali |
V-daa |
V-daa aux |
V-daa |
Kishṭawari |
V-an aux |
V-an |
V-an |
Kului |
part+s |
– |
– |
Mandi Siraji |
V-ã |
V-ã aux |
V-ã |
Paḍari |
V-na |
V-na aux |
V-na |
Pangwali |
V-ta |
– |
– |
Poguli |
V-ti aux |
V-ti aux |
V-ti |
Punchi |
V-na aux |
V-na aux |
V-na |
Rambani |
V-(a) aux |
V-(a) aux |
V-(a) |
Siraji |
V-(a) aux |
V-a aux |
V-a |
Distinct from this, the modern past/perfective and present/imperfective/habitual aspect markers in most ST languages do not come from participles, but from other kinds of nominalization.
Additionally, those ST languages which do exhibit participle-based forms are predominantly spoken in geographical regions where they have been in contact with IA languages for a long time (Saxena 1997b); see Figure 22. This is also the case with Kinnauri. In Kinnauri the two perfective markers are a reduplicated form of the verb and -is, which coincide with the past participle forms (see Chapter 2, Section 4.5.2.2). The habitual (imperfective) aspect markers are -ts and -id, which are the same as the present participle forms (see Chapter 2, Section 4.5.2.3).
Based on these data, some generalizations can be made: While the IA languages consistently show one pattern, where the past participial form and past/perfective aspect markers are the same, among the ST languages, only a few languages (e.g. Thami, Rai, Kinnauri, Kanashi) show the “IA” pattern (i.e., where the perfective aspect marker is the same as the past participial form.); other ST languages retain their indigenous path of grammaticalization. Returning to Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari, once again, we find that while the two languages have become more similar with regard to the mechanism used, the forms are not borrowed. Further, once again, this contact-induced feature is not restricted to Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari, rather it displays a wider geographical footprint.

Figure 22
Past/perfective same as participle (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = yes; ■ = no)

Figure 22
Past/perfective same as participle (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = yes; ■ = no)
Figure 22
Past/perfective same as participle (blue/darker = IA; red/lighter = ST; EQ25B2 = yes; ■ = no)
3.7 Grammar: the 1pl Inclusive–Exclusive Distinction
Both Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari makes the inclusive–exclusive distinction in the first person plural pronouns:
Kinnauri |
Kinnauri Pahari |
|
---|---|---|
1pli |
kiʃa |
taːmɔri |
1ple |
niŋo |
aːmɔri |
The inclusive–exclusive distinction is brought forth, at times, in discussions on “South Asia as a linguistic area” (e.g. Southworth 1974; Emeneau 1980; Masica 1991, 2001). Among the IA languages, at least the following languages have been mentioned in the literature as having this distinction: Marathi, Gujarati, Sindhi, some Rajasthani varieties, and the Tirupati dialect of Saurashtra (Southworth 1974; Emeneau 1980; Masica 1991, 2001; Osada 2004). In the same vein, it has been pointed out that all three varieties of Marathi, Kannada and Urdu spoken in the Kupwar village exhibit this distinction, where Marathi is suggested to have influenced Kannada and Urdu (Gumperz and Wilson 1971).23 The presence of this distinction in IA is generally assumed to reflect an areal feature, with Dravidian as the most likely source (Masica 1991).24 Further, all the IA languages with the inclusive–exclusive distinction discussed in the literature exhibit the same path in developing this distinction, where they are said to have reanalyzed the reflexive pronoun as the inclusive form (Masica 2001; Osada 2004).
LaPolla (2005) presents an overview of the inclusive–exclusive distinction in ST languages based on an examination of 170 languages. Out of these, 69 languages make this distinction in one way or another., and it is found in almost all sub-groups today. LaPolla (2005) claims that this distinction cannot be reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan or for the mid-level reconstruction, rather each individual sub-group seems to have developed this distinction independently.
Kinnauri Pahari seems to be unique among the Western Pahari languages in having this distinction in personal pronouns, a feature which it shares with the coterritorial but unrelated language Kinnauri (Chapter 2),25 as well as with Navakat (Chapter 3). Further, unlike other IA languages, which have this distinction, in Kinnauri Pahari the reflexive form (ap sg, apori pl) shows resemblance, if any, with the 1ple pronoun (aːmɔri)—and not the 1pli pronoun (taːmɔri).26
Once again, we see here that while Kinnauri Pahari and Kinnauri share a pattern, they use two different sets of forms.
3.8 Grammar: the Finite Verb System
Finally, the finite verb system in Kinnauri is structurally similar to the system typically found in IA languages, where the grammatical categories of tense and aspect generally are given separate expression. This is distinct from the system found, e.g. in Navakat, where tense and evidentiality are expressed by portmanteau morphs.27
4 Summary
The results of the investigation of the linguistic structures discussed in this chapter can be summarized as in Table 73. The terms MAT (replication of linguistic matter, i.e., linguistic form or substance) and PAT (replication of linguistic linguistic pattern or structure) are due to Matras and Sakel (2007).
Except for the inclusive–exclusive feature, irrespective of the direction of influence, the spread of features is wider than just restricted to the contact between Kinnauri and Pahari Kinnauri in the Sangla region.
In the contact situation which I have presented here, Kinnauri is the locally dominant language, and Kinnauri Pahari is in the subordinate position. Thus, one would expect to find lexical borrowing from Kinnauri in Kinnauri Pahari, while Kinnauri should show evidence of structural influence from Kinnauri Pahari. As we see in Table 73, this does not hold completely. Which is the dominant language and which is the less dominant language in a contact situation can be a bit more complicated.
One language can be both the superstratum language and substratum language at the same time, in relation to different languages. This seems to be the case in the Indian Himalayan region—where Kinnauri has the superstratum role in relation to Kinnauri Pahari, but it has the substratum role in relation to other IA languages of the plains (including Hindi), which are also used in Hindu religious contexts. This probably accounts for the seeming bidirectionality of influence which we have observed here.
Table 73
Borrowing between Kinnauri (ST) and Kinnauri Pahari (IA)
Type of borrowing |
Feature |
Direction |
---|---|---|
MAT and PAT |
Names of the days and months |
IA > ST |
Agentive nominalizer |
unclear28 |
|
PAT (and partly MAT) |
‘mouth’/‘face’ |
ST > IA |
PAT only |
‘yesterday’/‘tomorrow’ |
ST > IA |
Source of aspect markers |
IA > ST |
|
The finite verb structure |
IA > ST |
|
Inclusive–exclusive distinction |
ST > IA |
|
Convergence of PAT |
Higher numeral system |
— |
In order to understand the linguistic structure of a language, we need to take into consideration its context, its function. In the same way, when investigating contact-induced changes in a location, we should also take into consideration the linguistic and social structure not only at the micro-level (the village), but also the larger region in which it is embedded, to get a better understanding of the language changes which we are observing at the micro-level.
In all the instances where Kinnauri exhibits the “IA” pattern, it distinguishes itself from Navakat (also spoken in Kinnaur). This again confirms the conclusions from Chapter 5. If one were to plot isoglosses for the ST languages of Kinnaur, they will divide the region into at least two parts, where the Sangla area as a whole (or Kinnauri in particular) and Navakat will end up separated by a large number of isoglosses; it is very likely that the isoglosses delimiting Kinnauri will group it with other West Himalayish languages such as Kanashi.
Kinnauri and Kinnauri Pahari are the means of communication in respective “in-group” contexts. Kinnauri is traditionally the lingua franca of this region, a practice which continues to date among older people.
Although calling it “non-recent” glosses over the fact that we still do not know much about the linguistic prehistory of this area. For example, different clans among the Kinnauri speakers in the Sangla region are said to have migrated into Kinnaur from different parts of lower Himachal Pradesh. In some cases the members of these clans are still known by the names of the villages in lower Himachal Pradesh which they are said to have migrated from.
Indus Kohistani (Zoller 2005) which belongs to the IA Northwestern zone, spoken in northern Pakistan has a division of the year into months which is similar to English or Tibetan, but with its own terms. The words for the days of the week, too, are strikingly different in Indus Kohistani from other IA languages such as Hindi.
As described in Chapter 2, a set of IA nouns in Kinnauri take the adaptive marker -aŋ.
Kotgarhi, like Kinnauri Pahari, belongs to the Western Pahari subbranch of IA, and is used as a stand-in for Kinnauri Pahari in this table. Hindi, too, is an IA language. The Kotgarhi and Sanskrit data presented in this chapter are from Hendriksen (1976, 1986). When data is from a secondary source, its original language name and transcription is retained in this chapter. Hindi data is from my own native-speaker knowledge of the language.
Tinani data in this chapter come from my own fieldnotes collected during 1988–1994 and the data that were collected in my research project Digital documentation of Indian minority languages (funded by the Swedish Research Council 2003–2005) in collaboration with the Central Institute of Indian Languages. I would like to thank our language consultants, especially Mr. Rajesh Thakur and Mr. Nandlal for their enormous knowledge and patience and co-operation.
The names of the months, provided here, occur frequently in everyday Navakat speech, but the Navakat names of the days provided in Table 63 are seldom used in modern times in everyday speech. According to my language consultant (Padam Sagar), reference to days is not so common in everyday speech in Nako. Reference to day names occur mostly in the speech of schooled adults or school-going children, who tend to use the corresponding Hindi names instead. Some other ST languages, e.g. Lotha (Acharya 1983), Tangkhul Naga (Arokianathan 1987) and Angami (Giridhar 1980), too, have the Tibetan/English calendar system.
Another West Himalayish language spoken in Himachal Pradesh, Gahri (Bunan), also has a similar form: somra ‘Monday’ (D.D. Sharma 1989).
Sources of information for Table 64: Byangsi (S.R. Sharma 2003a); Rongpo (S.R. Sharma 2003b); Gahri (D.D. Sharma 1989); Raji (Shree Krishan 2003), and Chaudangsi and Darma from the STEDT database. The data on Kanashi, Pattani and Kinnauri are from my fieldnotes.
The data in Table 65 come from the digital South Asian dictionaries available online at
Sources for the data in Table 66: Turner (1966): Bhojpuri, Gujarati, Maithili, Oriya, Pali, Prakrit, Pashai Dardic, Sindhi, Sinhalese. Chinali is from D.D. Sharma (1989). Jaunsari is from Satish (1990). Information about the remaining languages comes from the digital South Asian dictionaries at
Indeed—and with reservations for incomplete data—it seems that the item described in The Pali Text Society’s Pali–English dictionary (Rhys Davids and Stede 1921–1925) as “Ānana (nt.) [Vedic āna, later Sk. ānana from an to breathe] the mouth; adj. (- ˚) having a mouth Sdhp 103; Pgdp 63 (vikaṭ˚)” may have had its meaning extended to ‘face’, too, in, e.g., Bangla and Oriya, in analogy with the reflexes of mukha.
Sources: for Table 67 Darma (Willis Oko 2019), Ladakhi (Bettina Zeisler p.c.), Raji (Shree Krishan 2003), Tabo (Roland Bielmeier p.c.), Kanashi, Gahri and some Tinani information are from my own fieldnotes. Some Tinani data was collected in the project Digital documentation of Indian minority languages in collaboration with the Central Institute of Indian Languages. The information about the remaining languages in this table comes from the online Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus (STEDT):
It is important to point out here that the focus here is only on the fact that these IA languages have a same/similar form for ‘mouth’ and ‘face’. This does not, however, rule out that some of these languages also may have separate terms for ‘face’ and ‘mouth’, e.g. Hindi ʧehera, which means only ‘face’.
Note that the term “convergence” is used here slightly differently from at least some usages of this term in the literature, notably Hickey (2010: 15) and Matras (2010), who both use the term “convergence” to refer to a change in a contact situation, which has emerged as a consequence of a combination of language internal and language external (i.e. contact) factors, where both these two factors have converged to give one result. Here we require that the system which we find in these two languages is distinct from the system that is found in either of the two concerned languages. It is the third system which has emerged.
In a vigesimal system, an alternative way of expressing 50 is as ‘two and a half twenties’.
The vestiges of the old barter system prevalent until today in temples in Kinnaur suggest that even that was based on 20. The system is called rekʰaŋ; the word itself is an IA loanword (rekʰa ‘line’).
Gahri (D.D. Sharma 1989), too, exhibits the vigesimal system: niza ‘twenty’, nissa (< nis+niza [two+twenty]) ‘forty’, sum-niza ‘sixty’, pi-niza ‘eighty’.
eːk biː tsaːr [one (×) twenty (+) four] is also used for ‘24’.
While Kanashi (source: own fieldnotes) exhibits both systems—decimal and vigesimal—Raji (source: Shree Krishan 2003) has borrowed the IA numerals from seven onwards.
Even though the gender category in these languages is inherited from Old IA (and through it from Proto-Indo-European), these endings themselves are specific IA innovations (Masica 1991: 222).
The information about Kotgarhi is from Hendriksen (1986) and the information about the remaining IA languages is from Bailey (1908, 1920).
The WALS article on the inclusive–exclusive distinction in independent pronouns (Cysouw 2013) includes some South Asian languages, viz. Brahui (Dravidian), Burushaski (Isolate), Hindi (IA), Kannada (Dravidian), Ladakhi (ST) and Mundari (Munda), among which only Ladakhi and Mundari show this distinction. It is mentioned that standard Kannada has lost this distinction—usually reconstructed for Proto-Dravidian—due to IA influence.
Contrary to this general view, Osada (2004) argues instead in favor of a purely language-internal development of this distinction in IA languages. He proposes the following historical internal development: reflexive pronoun > 2.h pronoun > 1pli pronoun. He bases his analysis on the facts that the reflexive pronoun (Sanskrit ātmān ‘self’) occurs in many IA languages as a 2.h pronoun, and in the IA languages with the inclusive–exclusive distinction, this pronoun functions as the inclusive pronominal form.
Kinnauri in its turn shares this feature with most of the other West Himalayish languages, at least with Pattani, Chhitkuli, Kanashi, Tinani, Gahri, Darma, Chaudangsi and Johari. Source: D.D. Sharma (1989), except for Kanashi (my fieldnotes). This distinction is prevalent in ST languages (LaPolla 2005). Among the IA languages of the north this feature exists in only one other language: Prasun, a language of Nuristan (Claus Peter Zoller, p.c.).
The same seems to be also the case with the evidential interpretations in the finite verb.
Evidentiality is, however, found in both Kinnauri and Navakat, though the two languages have distinct evidential forms. Evidentiality is less developed in Kinnauri as compared to Navakat.
Gender agreement in the agentive nominalizer is presumably IA > ST.