Chapter 6 Linguistic Relationships in Kinnaur II: Language Contact between Sino-Tibetan and Indo-Aryan

In: The Linguistic Landscape of the Indian Himalayas
Author:
Anju Saxena
Search for other papers by Anju Saxena in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open Access

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

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

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.

d155303993e239356

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

lamʊkʰ

Kinnauri Pahari

kʰak

mu

Kotgarhi

mu, jāt

mu, mū̃h

Kotguru

jāt

mū̃h

Pahari, Shimla varieties

mukʰṛo

Pahari, Solan variety

Siraji, Outer

jāt

muh

Sirmauri

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

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

d155303993e240834

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

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)

d155303993e241602

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: b ‘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

V aux

V

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.

d155303993e242826

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.

1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

As described in Chapter 2, a set of IA nouns in Kinnauri take the adaptive marker -aŋ.

5

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.

6

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.

7

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.

8

Another West Himalayish language spoken in Himachal Pradesh, Gahri (Bunan), also has a similar form: somra ‘Monday’ (D.D. Sharma 1989).

9

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.

10

The data in Table 65 come from the digital South Asian dictionaries available online at http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/ (including Turner 1966), from the South Asian IDS/LWT lists available at https://spraakbanken.gu.se/en/projects/digital-areal-linguistics (Borin et al. 2013), and from Bailey (1908, 1920), except for Chinali (D.D. Sharma 1989) and Jaunsari (Satish 1990). Here, as elsewhere in this volume, I have retained the original transcription but normalized the language names. In some cases a language may have a way of unambiguously referring to ‘yesterday’ or ‘tomorrow’, for instance, by adding a modifier to the basic word, e.g., Bangla gatakāla ‘yesterday’ : āgāmīkāla ‘tomorrow’. Crucially however, the basic word may be used on its own meaning either ‘yesterday’ or ‘tomorrow’, and in such cases must be disambiguated by the context. This is similar to English words like grandmother or brother, which may, but do not have to, be further specified using maternal/paternal or little (younger)/big (older), respectively.

11

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 http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/, and the South Asian IDS/LWT lists at https://spraakbanken.gu.se/en/projects/digital-areal-linguistics (Borin et al. 2013).

12

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.

13

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): http://stedt.berkeley.edu/search (see also Matisoff 2003). The data in Table 68 come from my own fieldwork.

14

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’.

15

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.

16

In a vigesimal system, an alternative way of expressing 50 is as ‘two and a half twenties’.

17

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’).

18

Gahri (D.D. Sharma 1989), too, exhibits the vigesimal system: niza ‘twenty’, nissa (< nis+niza [two+twenty]) ‘forty’, sum-niza ‘sixty’, pi-niza ‘eighty’.

19

eːk biː tsaːr [one (×) twenty (+) four] is also used for ‘24’.

20

While Kanashi (source: own fieldnotes) exhibits both systems—decimal and vigesimal—Raji (source: Shree Krishan 2003) has borrowed the IA numerals from seven onwards.

21

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).

22

The information about Kotgarhi is from Hendriksen (1986) and the information about the remaining IA languages is from Bailey (1908, 1920).

23

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.

24

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.

25

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.).

26

The same seems to be also the case with the evidential interpretations in the finite verb.

27

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.

28

Gender agreement in the agentive nominalizer is presumably IA > ST.

  • Collapse
  • Expand