| Munda | |
|---|---|
| Mundaic | |
| Geographic distribution | Indian subcontinent |
| Ethnicity | Munda peoples |
Native speakers | 9–11 million (2010sest.) |
| Linguistic classification | Austroasiatic
|
| Proto-language | Proto-Munda |
| Subdivisions | |
| Language codes | |
| ISO 639-2 /5 | mun |
| Glottolog | mund1335 |
 Map of areas with significant concentration of Munda speakers | |
TheMunda languages are a group of closely-related languages spoken by about eleven million people inIndia,Bangladesh andNepal.[1][2][3] Historically, they have been called theKolarian languages.[4] They constitute a branch of theAustroasiatic language family, which means they are distantly related to languages such as theMon andKhmer languages, toVietnamese, as well as to minority languages inThailand andLaos and the minorityMangic languages ofSouth China.[5]Bhumij,Ho,Mundari, andSantali are notable Munda languages.[6][7][1]
The family is generally divided into two branches: North Munda, spoken in theChota Nagpur Plateau ofJharkhand,Chhattisgarh,Bihar,Odisha andWest Bengal, as well as in parts ofBangladesh andNepal, and South Munda, spoken in central Odisha and along the border betweenAndhra Pradesh and Odisha.[8][9][1]
North Munda, of which Santali is the most widely spoken andrecognised as an official language in India, has twice as many speakers as South Munda. After Santali, the Mundari and Ho languages rank next in number of speakers, followed byKorku andSora. The remaining Munda languages are spoken by small isolated groups and are poorly described.[1]
Characteristics of the Munda languages include threenumbers (singular, dual and plural), twogenders (animate and inanimate), a distinction betweeninclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns, the use of suffixes or auxiliaries to indicatetense,[10] and partial, total, and complex reduplication, as well asswitch-reference.[11][10] The Munda languages are alsopolysynthetic andagglutinating.[12][13] In Munda sound systems, consonant sequences are infrequent except in the middle of words.
The Munda languages are often interpreted as prime examples offather tongues since the languages were passed down through generations from the paternal, rather than maternal, side.
Many linguists suggest that theProto-Munda language probably split fromProto-Austroasiatic somewhere inIndochina.[citation needed] Studies by Chaubey et al. (2011), Arunkumaret al. (2015), Metspaluet al. (2018), and Tätte et al. (2019) all show that the Munda branch of the Austroasiatic family was created as the result of a male-biased linguistic intrusion into theIndian subcontinent fromSoutheast Asia during the LateNeolithic period (Sidwell & Rau 2019 cited Tätte et al. (2019), estimate a date of formation between 3,800 and 2,000 years ago), which carried thepaternal lineageO1b1a1a into India from eitherMeghalaya or the sea.[14] These studies and analyses confirmGeorge van Driem's Munda Father tongue hypothesis.[15]Paul Sidwell (2018) suggests they arrived on the coast of modern-dayOdisha about 4000–3500 years ago (c. 2000 – c. 1500 BCE) and spread after theIndo-Aryan migration to the region.[16][17]
Rau and Sidwell (2019),[18][19] along with Blench (2019),[20] suggest that Pre-Proto-Munda had arrived in theMahanadi River Delta around 1500 BCE from Southeast Asia via a maritime route, rather than overland. The Munda languages then subsequently spread up theMahanadi watershed. 2021 studies suggest that Munda languages impactedEastern Indo-Aryan languages.[21][22]
Munda consists of five uncontroversial branches (Korku as an isolate, Remo, Savara, Kherwar, and Kharia-Juang). However, their interrelationship is debated.
The bipartiteDiffloth (1974) classification is widely cited:
Diffloth (2005) retains Koraput (rejected by Anderson, below) but abandons South Munda and places Kharia–Juang with the northern languages:
Anderson's 1999 proposal is as follows.[23]
However, in 2001, Anderson split Juang and Kharia apart from the Juang-Kharia branch and also excluded Gtaʔ from his former Gutob–Remo–Gtaʔ branch. Thus, his 2001 proposal included five branches for South Munda.
Anderson (2001) follows Diffloth (1974) apart from rejecting the validity of Koraput. He proposes instead, on the basis of morphological comparisons, that Proto-South Munda split directly into Diffloth's three daughter groups, Kharia–Juang, Sora–Gorum (Savara), and Gutob–Remo–Gtaʼ (Remo).[25]
His South Munda branch contains the following five branches, but the North Munda branch is the same as those of Diffloth (1974) and Anderson (1999).
Paul Sidwell (2015:197)[26] considers Munda to consist of 6 coordinate branches, and does not accept South Munda as a unified subgroup.
The Munda languages share a similar set ofconsonants with the Eastern Austroasiatic languages. Inherited Austroasiatic "checked"glottalized stop (pre-glottalized articulatory) andnasalized final consonants make the Munda languages standout in South Asia. Because of South Asian areal convergence, Munda languages generally have fewer vowels (between 5 and 10) than their Eastern Austroasiatic relatives.[27][28] Additionally,Sora has glottalized vowels. Like any other Austroasiatic languages, the Munda languages make extensive uses ofdiphthongs andtriphthongs. Larger vowel sequences can be found, with an extreme example ofSantalikɔeaeae meaning ‘he will ask for him’.[29] Most Munda languages haveregisters but lacktones with an exception ofKorku, which has acquired two contrastive tones within the South Asian linguistic area: an unmarked high and a marked low.[30][31] The general syllable shape is (C)V(C),[32] and the preferred structure for disyllables is CVCV. South Munda displays tendency towardinitial clusters, CCVC word shape,diphthong reflexes, with best examples are manifested in theGtaʔ case.[33][34]
As stated above,tonogenesis in Korku and continuous CCVC/sesquisyllabic development in Gtaʔ, both of which were unfolded inside theSouth Asian linguistic area, seem to have nothing related to contact-driven restructuring in the subcontinent. It is also unclear whether they were directly connected to areal convergences in the Eastern Austroasiatic languages. Munda word shape is dictated by a general phonotactical phenomenon calledbimoraic constraint, which requires free-standing nominal stems to stay disyllabic or to obtain weight at the stressed syllable; that is, monosyllabic free forms of nouns must be expanded to remain heavy (Anderson & Zide 2001).[35][36][37] See#Vocabulary for comparison.
Donegan & Stampe (2004) posited overarching assumptions that all Munda languages have completely redesigned their wordprosodic structure from proto-Austroasiatic risingintonation,iambic and reduced vowel, sesquisyllabic structure to Indic norms oftrochaic, falling rhythm, stable or assimilationist consonants and harmonised vowels. That makes them different from Eastern Austroasiatic languages at almost every level.Sidwell & Rau (2014) criticized Donegan & Stampe by pointing out that the overall picture appears much more complicated and diverse and that generalizations of Donegan & Stampe are not supported by the instrumental data of the various Munda languages.[38]Peterson (2011b) describes word-rising contour in monosyllables and second syllable prominence inKharia content words. Even the presence ofclitics andaffixes does not drive Kharia word prosodic structure to that of a trochaic and falling system.Osada (2008) reports final-syllable stress in all but CVC.CV stems inMundari.[39]Horo & Sarmah (2015), Horo (2017) andHoro, Sarmah & Anderson (2020) found that theSora disyllables are always iambic, reduced first syllable vowel space, and second syllable prominence.[40][41] Even CV.CCə words show final-syllable prominence.Horo & Sarmah (2015) note that the Sora vowels of the first syllables are centralised and that vowels in the second syllables are more representative of the canonical vowel space.
Ghosh (2008) describes aboutSantali prosody that "stress is always released in the second syllable of the word regardless of whether it is an open or a closed syllable".[42][43] His analysis was confirmed byHoro & Anderson (2021), whose acoustic data clearly shows that the second syllable in Santali is always the prominent syllable, with a greater intensity ofstress and a risingcontour.[44]
Zide (2008) reports that inKorku, the final syllable is heavier than the initial syllable, and within a disyllable, stress is preferentially released at the final syllable.[45] The analyses inferred from databases show that despite exhibiting some variants, most Munda prominence alignments are in line with other Austroasiatic languages, with a predictable final-syllable prominence in a prosodic word. Again,Donegan & Stampe (2004) make a claim on rhythmic holism that does not conform with the data presented by individual Munda languages.[46]
Morphologically, both North and South Munda subgroups mainly focus on the head or the verb and so are primarilyhead-marking, in contrast to theIndo-European andDravidian languages, which are mainlydependent-marking.[47] As a result, nominal morphology is less complex than is verbal morphology.[48][49]Case markers on nominals to showsyntactic alignments (nominative-accusative orergative-absolutive) are largely absent or not systematically developed in the Munda languages except Korku. The relation between subject and object in clause is conveyed mainly through verbal referent indexation andword order. At the clause/sentence level, Munda languages arehead-final but internallyhead-first in referent indexation, compounds, andnoun incorporation verb complexes.[50][51]
Munda head-first, bimoraic constraint-free noun incorporation is also found inKhasian,Nicobaric, and other Mon-Khmer languages.[52][53] Inword derivation, besides their own innovative methods, the Munda languages maintain Austroasiatic methods in forms of reduplication, compounding, and derivationalinfixation andprefixation.[54]
The North Munda subgroup is split between Korku and the 14 Kherwarian languages.
Kherwarian is a large language continuum with speakers extending west to east from the Indian states ofUttar Pradesh toAssam, north to south fromNepal toOdisha. They include fourteen languages:Asuri,Birhor,Bhumij,Koda,Ho,Korwa (Korowa),Mundari,Mahali,Santali,Turi,Agariya,Bijori,Koraku, andKarmali, with the total number of speakers surpassing ten million (2011 census). The Kherwarian languages are often highlighted because their elaborate and complex templatic and pronominalized predicate structures are so pervasive that it is obligatory for the verb to encodetense–aspect–mood,valency,voices,possessive,transitivity, cleardistinction between exclusive and inclusive first-persons, and index with two arguments, including outside arguments like possessors.
| Kherwarian languages | Examples |
|---|---|
| Santali | |
| Mundari | |
| Ho | |
| Asuri | |
| Bhumij[a] | |
| Koda | |
| Korwa | |
| Turi | |
| Birhor |
Noun incorporation is often described as an ancestral Munda morphological feature and is essential to the grammar of other South Munda languages such asSora, but the Kherwarian languages appear to have lost noun incorporation altogether. Nevertheless, rare instances of noun incorporation may be found in some archaic Kherwarian registers andoral literature.
tʄeɳe-ko
bird-PL
tʄeɳe-ko nam-oɽaʔ-ta-n-a=ko
bird-PL find-house-ASP-INTR-FIN=3PL.SUBJ
"...the birds are getting into their nests (and trying to lay an egg)."
Unlike the Kherwarian languages, with their complex verbal morphology, Korku verbs are moderately simple, with a modest amount of synthesis.[55] Korku lacks person/number indexing of subject(s)/actor (except third persons of locative copulas and nominal predicates in the locative case) and independent present/future tense markers.[56] Korku present/future tenses rely on the finitising suffix-bà.[57] Present or future tense negation can be located in preverbs or postverbs, but past tense negation is marked by the suffix-ᶑùn.[58]
Many Korkuauxiliary verbs are borrowed from Indo-Aryan. The auxiliary predicate takes tense–aspect–mood, voice, and finitising suffixes for the verb. An example isghaʈa-, which means 'to manage to, to find a way to' and serves as the acquisitive.[59]
Compared to North Munda languages languages, outh Munda languages are even more divergent and have fewer shared morphological traits. Even the classification of Munda languages is controversial, and South Munda does not seem to exist as a valid taxon. However, South Munda languages retain many notable characteristics of the original Proto-Munda such as prefix slots and scope-ordering of referent indexation and so they represent the less restructured morphology of Munda and reflect the older Proto-Munda and Proto-Austroasiatic structures.[60][61]
InKharia, subject markers index not only dual/pluralexclusive/inclusive but alsohonorific status. Objects are not marked in the verb but instead by the oblique case:-te.
There is a reduplicated free-standing form of finite verbs that behaves differently from the simple verb stem. In the predicate, reduplicated free-standing form never marks tense–aspect–mood and person. That causes the free-standing form to be used in subordination, an attributive function corresponding more or less to relative clauses. The infinitive verb form is marked by=na. The infinitive can serve also as a nominaliser:jib=na=te ‘touching’.
| Simple verb root | Free-standing form | |
|---|---|---|
| live | borol | borol |
| open | ruʔ | ruʔruʔ |
| see | yo | yoyo |
Like inHindi andSadani, Kharia has made a calque to form sequential converbs (conjunctive participles)kon (derived fromikon, ‘do’). They denote the completion of an action before another begins.
The negation particleum attaches or fuses person/number/honorific of the subject argument.
Juang exhibitsnominative-accusative alignment with unmarked subject/agents and marked objects or patients.
In Juang, apro-drop language, verbs can index both two core arguments in a transitive predicate, but not frequently. If the arguments are not omitted, referent indexation is largely optional. Juang has a fairly complex tense–aspect–mood system, which is often divided into two sets: I fortransitive verbs and II forintransitive verbs. The verb "be" is usually omitted in the present tense and with a predicate adjective in sentences.
Abu
Abu
muintɔ
one
dakotoro
doctor
Abu muintɔ dakotoro
Abu one doctor
"Abu is a doctor."
There are two types of negation markers. Pronominal negation markers are specific for person/number of subject or object arguments. General negation markers such as-jena make up for the lack of a first-person singular negative. Negatives are ambifixative but usually precede the verb stem. There aredouble negations: combinations of two negatives. The negated verb may reduplicate itself.
apa
ete
because
ain
kikib
apa a-ma-ɉim-ke ete ain kikib ɉena
2DU 2DU.SUBJ-NEG-eat-PRES.TR because 1SG RED~do NEG.COP
"Because you don’t eat (it), I didn’t do it."
Noun incorporation is fossilised in lexical compounds and words like body parts being combined with the verb "wash". Note that the head precedes the incorporated object, as opposed to thehead-final position in normal clauses.
am
you
am-a
you-GEN
mi-gui-di-agan
am am-a itim-de mi-gui-di-agan
you you-GEN hand:2-DEF 2SG.SUBJ-wash-hand-PST
"You washed your hand."
The southernmostGtaʔ andRemo-Gutob subgroups of South Munda exhibit significant morphological convergence towardsDravidian languages.Auxiliary verb constructions are heavily employed. Doubly-inflected auxiliary verb constructions are common in Gutob and Gorum, which reflects Dravidian influence. Gtaʔ-Remo-Gutob apparently have either altogether lost or not developed object indexation.[62] Negation in Gutob is the most complex among the Munda languages. Like for other Munda languages, Gtaʔ-Remo-Gutob have lexical noun incorporation. Gtaʔ retains some instances of unproductive incorporation of body parts to the verb "wash" like Juang, which may fit Mithun (1984)'s type II of incorporation.
The Sora-Gorum languages consist ofSora,Gorum, and the lesser-knownJuray.[63]They display many features that are considered to be archaic that can be dated toProto-Munda. For mainstream South Asian languages likeIndo-Aryan andDravidian, the latter are exclusively suffixing, prefixes and infixes are unusual but quite common inAustroasiatic languages, and Sora-Gorum has a prefix domain that can host several pre-stem markers. The indexation paradigm in Sora and Gorum renders the fullest form of Proto-Munda predicate structure and syntax. In practice, Sora is inclined to index only one argument. Within a transitive predicate, the object argument is ranked higher than subject, and pronouns are required.
Sora:
ə-ədn-əl-gə/b/rɔɉ-l-aj
ə-ədn-əl-gə/b/rɔɉ-l-aj
1PL.SUBJ-NEG-RECP-shame/CAUS/shame-PST-1PL.SUBJ.EXCL.ACT
"We did not shame each other."
In Sora, noun incorporation is avalency-reducing effort, close to what described byMithun's type III incorporation. Each noun has a combining form (CF), which is a compact, compressed monosyllabic form of free-standing noun, which has been stripped of its functional morphology (weak suppletion) and does not adhere to bimoraic constraint. Only CFs are allowed to be in compounds with the verb stem. The resulted verb-noun incorporated compound is syntactically distinct from phrases.[64] Unlike North Munda, which resticts it tooral literature, noun incorporation in Sora is in fact pervasive in daily conversations, with all nouns other loanwords having a possible CF, which allows the creatation of sequences of complex verb phrases.
ɲem-sim-ti-n-ay
catch-chicken-NPST-INTR-1SG.SUBJ
"I’m catching chicken."
paŋ-ti-dar-iɲ-ten
bring-give-cooked.rice-1SG.OBJ.UND-3SG.SUBJ.PST
"He brought and gave me cooked rice."
bagun-ben
both-2PL
bagun-ben ə-il-le-ga-sal-n-ɛ
both-2PL 1/2PL.SUBJ.EXCL-go-PST-drink-liquor-INTR-2PL.SUBJ
"Both of you went and drank liquor."
əb-gan-suŋ-byi-na-ba
əb-gan-suŋ-byi-na-ba
CAUS-enter-house-woman-OPT-1PL.SUBJ.INCL
"Let us make the woman enter the house."
ji-lo-si-t-am
stick-mud-hand-NPST-2SG.OBJ
"Mud will stick to your hand."
While the most salient effect of object noun incorporation in most polysynthetic languages is the lowering of the scope of the verb and the converting oftransitive verbs tointransitive, incorporation of transitive subject/agent is considered atypical and occupies at the lowest position of the hierarchy. That made the incorporation of transitive subjects to have once been considered theoretically impossible by some linguists. Among all languages, there are few exceptional attested cases other than Sora that permit such type of incorporation including someAthabaskan languages likeKoyukon andSouth Slavey.[65]
ɲam-kid-iɲ-te
seize-tiger-1SG.OBJ-3SG.SUBJ.IMP
"Tiger may seize me" or "May I be tiger-seized."
Despite some influence from neighboring languages, the Munda languages generally maintain a solidAustroasiatic and Munda base vocabulary.[66][67] The most extreme case isSora, which has zero foreign phonemes.[66] Agricultural-related words from Proto-Austroasiatic are widely shared (Zide & Zide 1976). Words for domesticated animal and plant species like dog, millet, chicken, goat, pig, rice are shared or semantically alternated. There are even specific terms for husked uncooked rice vs cooked rice vs rice (tree), as well as shared words used in rice production and processing like 'mortar', 'pestle', 'paddy', 'sow', 'grind/ground'. The majority of loan words from Indo-Aryan to Munda are quite recent and mostly came fromHindi. The Southern languages likeGutob have received considerableDradivian lexical influence. A very small number of lexemes seem to be shared between Munda andTibeto-Burman, probably reflecting earlier contact between two groups.[68]
It is clear that hundreds of non-Indo-European words inVedic Sanskrit thatKuiper (1948) attributed to Munda have been rejected through careful analysis.[68] There is a surprising absence of ancientSanskrit and medieval Indian borrowings of animal and plant names from Munda. Scholars believe that the Munda tribes typically occupied a marginalized and lowly socioeconomic position in the Hinduized society of Vedic South Asia or did not participate in the Hinducaste system and had barely any contacts with Hindus at all.Witzel (1999) andSouthworth (2005) proposed that the early non-Indo-European words with prefixesk-, ka-, ku-, cər- inVedic Sanskrit belonged to a hypothetical 'Para-Munda substratum', which they believed to be part of theHarappan language.[69] That would imply that Austroasiatic speakers might have penetrated as far as thePanjab andAfghanistan in the early 2nd millennium BC. However, Osada (2009) refuted Witzel and considered that those words might have been in fact Dravidian compounds.
| gloss | Santali | Mundari | Ho | Bhumij | Korku | Kharia | Juang | Sora | Gorum | Remo | Gutob | Gtaʔ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| "hand" | ti | tīi | tī | ti | ti | tiʔ | iti | sʔi | siʔi | titi | titi | tti, nti |
| "foot" | janga | janga | – | janga | nanga | -dʒuŋ | idʒiɲ/ŋ | ɟʔeːŋ | dʒiʔiŋ | tiksuŋ | susuŋ | nco |
| "eye" | mɛd | mɛˀd | med | med | mɛd | mɔiˀɟ | ɔmɔr/d | mʔod, amad | mad | mɔd | mɔd, ̀mɔʔ | m-mwaʔ |
| "water" | daˀk | daʔ | daʔ | daʔ | daʔ | daʔ | dag | ɖaʔa | ɖaʔ | ɖaʔ | ɖaʔ | nɖiaʔ |
| "child" | hon | hon | hon | hon | kon | kɔnɔn | konon | oʔon | anon | oʔon | oʔon | – |
| "bear" | bana | bana | bana | bana | bana | bane/ai | banae | kəmbud | kibud | gibɛ | gubɔn | gbɛ |
| "tiger" | kul | kula | kula | kula | kula | kiɽo(g) | kiɭɔg | kɨna | kul(a) | kilɔ | gikil, kilɔ | ŋku |
| "dog" | seta | seta | seta | seta | sita | soloʔ | sɛlog | kənsod | kusɔd | gusɔd | gusɔʔ | gsuʔ |
| Language name | Number of speakers (2011) | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Korwa | 28,400 | Chhattisgarh,Jharkhand |
| Birjia | 25,000 | Jharkhand,West Bengal |
| Mundari (inc.Bhumij) | 1,600,000 | Jharkhand,Odisha,Bihar |
| Asur | 7,000 | Jharkhand,Chhattisgarh,Odisha |
| Ho | 1,400,000 | Jharkhand,Odisha,West Bengal |
| Birhor | 2,000 | Jharkhand |
| Santali | 7,400,000 | Jharkhand,West Bengal,Odisha,Bihar,Assam,Bangladesh,Nepal |
| Turi | 2,000 | Jharkhand |
| Korku | 727,000 | Madhya Pradesh,Maharashtra |
| Kharia | 298,000 | Odisha,Jharkhand,Chhattisgarh |
| Juang | 30,400 | Odisha |
| Gtaʼ | 4,500 | Odisha |
| Bonda | 9,000 | Odisha |
| Gutob | 10,000 | Odisha,Andhra Pradesh |
| Gorum | 20 | Odisha,Andhra Pradesh |
| Sora | 410,000 | Odisha,Andhra Pradesh |
| Juray | 25,000 | Odisha |
| Lodhi | 25,000 | Odisha,West Bengal |
| Koda | 47,300 | West Bengal,Odisha,Bangladesh |
| Kol | 1,600 | West Bengal,Jharkhand,Bangladesh |
The proto-forms have been reconstructed by Sidwell & Rau (2015: 319, 340–363).[70] Proto-Munda reconstruction has since been revised and improved by Rau (2019).[71][72]
The following are current used alphabets of Munda languages:
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
