The Austric family of Indian languages
This article has been extracted from |
NOTE: While reading please keep in mind that all articles in this series have been scanned from a book. Invariably, some words get garbled during Optical Recognition. Besides, paragraphs get rearranged or omitted and/ or footnotes get inserted into the main text of the article, interrupting the flow. As an unfunded, volunteer effort we cannot do better than this.
Readers who spot errors in this article and want to aid our efforts might like to copy the somewhat garbled text of this series of articles on an MS Word (or other word processing) file, correct the mistakes and send the corrected file to our Facebook page [Indpaedia.com] Complete volumes of the LSI are available on at least 3 websites (Joao, Archive, UChicago), against which errors can be corrected.
Secondly, kindly ignore all references to page numbers, because they refer to the physical, printed book.
The Austric family
In the year 1906 there appeared in Brunswick a little book by Pater W. Schmidt entitled ` Die Mon-Khmer-Volker, ein Bindeglied zwischen Volkern Zentralasiens und Austronesiens ' which at once attracted the attention of students of language and of ethnology. The author's researches into the languages known as Mon, Khmer, and Khasi had already established his reputation as a skilled and, at the same time, as a sober philologist, and in this work new and far-reaching views, based on solid and wide learning, were enunciated. These dews up to the present time have not been seriously challenged.
Pater Schmidt here proved the existence of a great family of languages hitherto not recognized, which, although the languages composing it are spoken by a comparatively small number of people, is spread over an area wider than that occupied by any other group of tongues. Its speakers are found scattered over Nearer and Further India, and form the native population of Indonesia, Melanesia, and. Polynesia, including Madagascar and New Zealand. It extends from Madagascar, off the coast of Africa, to Easter Island which is less than forty degrees from the coast of South America. In the North, traces of it were discovered in Kanawar in the Panjab, and its southern limit included New Zealand. West of Easter Island it covers the whole Pacific Ocean, except Australia (including Tasmania) and a part of New Guinea.
This ` Austric Family,' as he named it, he divided into two sub-families, the ` AustroNesian ' and the ` Austro-Asiatic.' The former included the languages of Madagascar, Indonesia, and the islands of the Pacific, while the latter included languages scattered over Nearer and Further India. The annexed map, based on that in Pater Schmidt's work, shows their respective localities.
The only Austro-Nesian languages politically connected. witb India. aU! Sal6n.spoken by a tribe of sea--gipsies inhabiting the isllmds of the Mergui 8a.I8a. Arohipelago and the adjacent pa.rt.a of the Malay Penin6ulo. and Malay spoken in the same locality". These languages consequently did not fall
The Aunstro-Asiatic sub-fa.m.ily is much more strongly represented. in India. There
is first the great Mon-Khmer Branch spoken in Further India.
of which we have three representatives in Burma, in tbe shape
of Mon, Bn ancient litera.ry llmguage now spoken in 'l'bat.on and Amherst. Bnd Palaung
the Sakei and the Semang. Like Khmer these are spoken outside the limit;., of Briti!:lh India.. Nieoooreae al80 belong. to this branch. and seems to form a connecting link between the M~41l languages and MOn.
None of the above languages fell within t he opera.tions of the Survey, but going north we come to Khlsi, 80 M6n-Khm~r la.nguage spoken. in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills of Assam. This W&8 fully dea.lt with in the Survey. It/lstandard dialect has been often dcscribed.audmoreover possesses a. small Iitera.ture with 'which it has been end0:Wed. by the local missionaries. Khiiai is more or less isolated a.like from its cousins of Burma and from those of India, und hM struck out on somewlmt independent lines a.part from MOil, Nicobarese, und MUQQ.ii, which are mutually more closely connected. than any of t hem is with Kha,si. With its three dia.lects of Lyng-ngam, Bynteng, and War, in addition to the standard form of
The resemblances in the vocabularies of Rbisl and of ~be dialects of tbe PUlalWgWa
group aettle the question. But the resemblance is not; only one of vocabulary. The
construction of the Mon and of the Khasl Iw.ntenoo b the same. The various
component parts are put in the saMe order, and the order of thought of the speakers is
thns shown to be the same. Like Mim and other members of t he bmncb, and unlike the
other Indo-Chinese ~guages by which it is surrounded., KhAsi has no tones.' On the other'
hand, it differs from the other Mon-Khmer languages in possessing the so-called articles,
which are wanting in other member8 of the branch. and in ha.ving grammatical gender.
Here we must leave the matter in the hands of the ethnologist<>. It will be interesting
to see if allY connexion of tribal customs can be tmced, and if the MOns or Palaungs
still retain surviva.ls of the matriarchal state of society which is so characteristic of the
Khiisls. The Palaungs . at any rate, trace their origin to a princess, and not to a
Prince.leaving Assam we pass to Central India. where we find the Munda languages
Districts of the Central Provinces and in Mewar. we find another Unopec:i6ed • MUl;ltfii. language. Kurku,l which is said to TOTJ.L • 2,87".71'>3 3,~ have two dialects,-Muw8si and NahaU, but, as stated above (p. 28), the latter is much mix:ed with other forlllS of speech and is on the verge of disappearing altogether. The other MUI}4i Ian.:.oouages are less important. They are spoken in the neighbourhood of Kherwilri or to its South. The principal are Khariii.. Juiltlg. Savant, and Gadabi. and they aooaU more or less mixed forms of speech. Kbariii is mostly spoken ill the Ra.nchi District of Chota Nag-pur, and has all the cha.racteristics of a language that is dying out and is being superseded by an Aryan form of speech. Aryan principles pervade its grammatical structure and its vocabulary. and it is no longer a typical Mu.Q4i language. It has been compared to a palimpsest, the original writing on which cau only with difficulty be recognized. JuAitg is very similar. It is spoken by the J uAllgs or Pa-tuis of the States of Keonjhar and Dhenkanal in Orissa. These people are probably the lowest in the ~e of civilization of a ll the Mu~4& tribes. Till quite recently the women of the tribe did not even sew fig-leaves together to make themselves aprons. A bunch of leaves tied. on in front and another behind was all that was claimed. by the most exacting demands of fashion. and this costume was 'renewed as occasion required. when the fair wearer went to fetch cattle from the wood which , pl'Oviflf'.d her millinery.' Attempts have been made to introdu.ce the wearing of loin-cloths, but I know not with what success. The most soutb~rn forms of Mtu,tc!io speech are those SpOken by the Savaras and the Gadabis of North-East Madros. '1'be former have becn •identified with the Suari of Pliny aDd the Sabarae of Ptolemy. A wild tribe of the same name is mentioned in Sanskrit literature, even so ~ back as late Vedic times, tllI inhabiting the Deccan, so that the name, at least. can boast of great antiquity. Their JanguagfJ is (,f considerable i nterest, u.od since it was discussed. in Volume IV of the Survey a series or excellent Readers in it have been prepared by Mr. Rama.murti for the Madras
Government Unfortunately, as the explanations are all in Telugu, they are of little use to European. students. The Ia.ngu.a.ges of the MUJ;l4& Bnwch must once have been spoken over a much greater area of India than their present habitat. In the
North by Aryan or Tibeto~Burman tongues. In each case, however, they have left their mark. As for the Dravidian languages, it is very probable that the rules for the harmonic sequence of vowels, which form so prominent a feature of Telugu are due to their influence,' and, to the North of Chota. Nagpur, the extraordinary complexity of the verbal conjugation of the Aryan Bihari is equally probably due to the same cause.'
Another interesting point is tha.t MUQ.4A numeration is vigesimal. 'I'he speakers count by twenties, not by tens as we and other Europeans do. But among the peasantry of Northern India vigesimal countiugis quite usual. lnstead.of saying 'fifty,' they say ... two score MId ten, ' instead. of 'sixty' they say' three scorf'.,' and so on. This m1ght be a case of mere comcidence, but that it is really an old MU(l4a. survival is shown by the 'fact that kuri,thewordusedallovel•Nori.hernIndiafor'ascore',isalm08tcertainlya 'Y0rd of M~4a origin. But it is in the Himalaya that these MUQ.4a. survivals are most apparent. _ At the present day, the MUJ,l4is have themselves survived as a recognized people only in the wild hill-country of Centrn.l India, and it is in accordance with this that they should also have survived for a longer time in the forests of the Himalaya than on the Aryanized plaiDS of Northern India.
In the Himalaya, from North~East Assam to the North-East Panjab, the grea.t mass of the inhabitants speaks various fOI'ms of Tibet.o-Burman tongues. Most of these are quite pure of their kiDd and possess all the peculiarities proper to that form of speech. But between Darjiling, north of Bengal, and Kanawa r, north of Simla ill the Panjab, there is a series of scattered tribes speaking langua.."'e&, called in the Sur'vay' 'Complex Pronominalized.' Most of them belong tQ the group Cll.lled by Hodgson "Kirinti', but there a.re also others not mentioned by him. These Ia.nguages are all Tibeto~Burman, or belcng to some group closely allied to the Tibeto~BurmaD, bnt through them all there runs a peculiar strnin which it is impossible not t9 recognize as MUI,l4ii. once attention is drnwn to it.' These Complex: Pronomina.lized languages are many in number, and will be further dealt with when we come to the coI18ideration of the Tibeto~B~rman languages. Suffice it here to say that the ~ost western is proba.bly Kan4wri, spoken in the Simla Hills, though thel1~ are doubtfnl ca.ses even further west.
The Munda languages were first recognized. as a separate group, distinct from the Dravidian, in the yes.1' 1854 by the late Professor Max MiUlel' in his famous 'Letter to Chevalier Bunsen Qn t he -Classification of the Turanian La.nglmoaes,' and received its :ua.me 'MuiJ4ii.' from him• . .As stated on page 14, in the comity of scholarship it has ever been an established rule that the first discoverer of any fact, whether it be a newly descriOOd. flower, a neWly
described mineral. or So newly described group of languages. should ha.ve the right to 'give it its name. and that that name should be employed. by other students unless and until it has been proved to be entirely false and mislOOding. Unfortunately this comity was not observed in the present case. 'lwelve years later. Sir George Campbell, no doubt unwittingly,. ignored the name already given by Max Maller, a.nd proposed to call these Ja.nguages 'Kolarian'\ because, as he imagined, the word' Kul,'- a common triba.l name of the MW;l(jil people,-was derived from an older form ' Kolar,' which hea.ppa.rently connected with the Kolar District of Mysore in Southern India, and looked upon as identica.l with the Kanarese word kallal' meaning 'thief.' There is a.bsolutely no foundation for this supposition, and this name • Kolarian' is not only bMed. upon a fantastic error, but is, in itself. objectionable as seeming to suggest a. connexion with the word • Aryan' which does not exist;
It is admit¥- that, with our present knowledge. it might be possible to suggest a '!ether name thau that given by Max Muller, and more than one such have been suggested ; but, 80 far as India. was concerned. only two names were possible. Sir George Campbell's a.uthority brought 'Kolarian' into a certain vogue during the latter ha.lf of the last century; hut the word was 80 manifestly incorrect and misleading that I have had no hesitation in refusing to employ it. and in using the only name which students. in t be ordinary comity of scholarship, should follow, by revertmg to the name origmally giveu by the discoverer of the group.
The Munda languages belong to the class known as 'agglutinative,' u.nd exhibit the Geueral oharaoter of the typical peculial'ities of such forms of speech to an extraMu .... 4A la.npagee. ordinary degree. The only tongue with which I can compare them is Turki. I have already referred to Malt: Maller as the first identifier of thll< group of tongues. Let me here quote what he sa.ys about theTurki language of CentmIAsia.;-
are complete in themselveG, a.nd every syllable of which contributes ita fixed quota. to the general signification of the whole. One.example of the UBe of these suffixes, taken from S&nt.ili, must suffice. The word dal me&1l8 • strike,' and from it we get dal-ooho-alantoAen- tae-till-a-e, which sign.i.fies • he, who belongs to him who belongs to me. will continue Jetting himself be struck.' If we insert the syllable po in the middle of the root, so that we get dapal, the beating becomes reciprocal, and we have a light, so that daptJocAo- okan.-tahen-toe.-tiR'-a-e means < he, who belongs to him who belougs to me, will continue letting himsalf he caused. to fight.'. Again, if we substitute akao-a.n for aka1l. the same pugnacious individual with a string of owners will, with less disinterestedness.
continue causing to fight only for himself. Not only ma.y we, but we must employ this posy of speech. if. for instance. my slave's son was too often getting himself entangled in affrays. i'he best idea. of the enormous Dumber of complex ideas which ca.n thus 00 formed according to the simplest rules ma.y be gained from the fact that the coujt1o'"80tion of the verb ' to strike: in the third p61'8On singular alone, occupies nea.fly 8. hundred po.g68 in Mr. Skrefsrud's SantAll Grammar. Among other characteristics of the "M1ll;1.4a l&nguages we Ill&y mention the following. As in the Indo-Chinese languages, fina.loonson&nta are often checked, orpronounood. without the offglide. thus forming what ~ often called by Chinese seholars the < a brupt' or < entering tone.' Sneh consona.nts are as cha.racteristic of Cantonese as t hey al'6 of MUQ4a. a.nd are common, 80 fa.r liS I a.m aware in all the languages of the Mon-Khmi'ir branch of Austro-Asia.tic speech! Although l:ll8.8Culine and feminine nouns are distingu~ hed, there are only two real gendefS. one for 8011 animate and the other for a il iuo.nima.te objects. Nouns have three numbers, a. singula.r, a dual, a.ud a. plural, t he dual and plural numbers being indica.ted by suffixing the dual or plum!. respectively, of the third personal pronoun to the noun.
Short forms of a.ll the p61'8Onal pronouns are freely used, in each C8B8 as verba.l suffixes. The dual and pluml of the fi.rst personal Ilronoun ha.ve each two forms, one including the persona.dd.reslfed, a.nd the other excluding hiro. If, when giving orders to your cook, you say, 'we lihaU dine &t half past seven', you must be careful to use alB for' we,' not abotJ; or else you will invite your servant,. also to thc meal, which might give rise to awkwa.rdness. As in ma.ny other eastern languages. participial formations are used. instead of relati.ve pronouns. • The deer which you bought yesterday' would be rendered. 'the yesterday deer bought by you.' Root!> a.re modified in meaning not only .by suffixes, but &180 by infixes, as in da-pa-l mentioned above. The logical form of a. MUQ4i sentence is altogether. different from that of Aryan Ia.ngtl8oo"'Cfl, and hence it is impossible to divide it into the J?f'rts of lipeech with which w~ are familiar. say, in English. The nearest thing that it has to what we caJl a verb merely calls up an idea, but is unable to make any assertion. The ftnal assertion is made , by one of the DlO6t cha.racteristic features of MUQ4A gramn:u\l', 80 particle known as < th~ categorical 0: By its form, tho sentence first unites the represented ideas into a mental picture. and then, by a further effort, affirms ita reality. In English we 8I).y "John came:' A Santili would fiNt call up a picture of John having come, 80Ild then, by adding the categorical a. would assert that th~ picture was 80 fact.
would contain a verb in the subjunctive or optative mood. MW).¢\, with wb&t is really better logic. relega.tea subjunctive and relative to what may be called the incomplete verb in compa.ny with wha.t are with us participles. gerunds, and infinitives, and forms the ooly complete and reeJ. verb by the addition of the categorical o. As in the case of several other unoivilized or semi-civilized tribes, the namoa which lf~ .. or)(["44&~ we give to ma.ny MW)4i tribes are not those by which their members call themselves, but those which we ha.ve adopted from their Aryan-speaking neighbours. Most of the tribes simply call themselves ' men', the aa.me word with rue.lectic variations, Kol, Kora. Kur-ku (merely the plural of Kin), Htr. Htri-kO (another plural), or 110. being used nearly univeraa.lly. The Indian Aryans have adopted in one caae the word • KOI' as a sort of generic term for any of these non-Aryan tribes, and have identified t.he word with a si.mi1&rly spelt Banakrit tenn signifying' pig: a piece of etymology which, though ha.nliy in a.coor&nce with the idess of Eul'Opetm science, is infinitely comforting to those that apply it. The Raj of these Kol8' i8 a. 8ubject of legend over la.rge tmcts of .tbe south side of the Gangetic va.lley, where not one !l6nt.ence of MUl14a origin has been heard for genera.tion8. The name is perha}18 a.t the bottom of our word' coolie,' and of the names of one or more important ca."Ites wbicb would indignantly deny their MUQ4i origin.
