Problems of econstruction

in Indo-Aryan
SUMITRA MANGESH KA TRE
INDIAN INS TTUTE OF ADVANCED STIJDY . SI MLA
1968
-------------------------- -------- -
PREFACE
THE six 'ectures presented here were delivered between 21 st
and 23rd October 1967 at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
Rashtrapati Nivas. Simla as Visiting Professor during a Seminar on
Language and Society in India organised by the IIAS in the second
half of October. It was a privilege to be able to present my lectures
to some of the distinguished participants of this Seminar and the
scholars attached to the IIAS during a busy fortnight. However. due
to the fact that I was required to leave Simla earlier than originally
anticipated. these lectures had to be compressed and delivered on
three successive days by combining the subject matter of two lectures
on each day. Consequently in the presentation I could not deal
with as many problems as would have been desirable. and perhaps
some of the clarity which was the main objective of these lectures
might have been sacrificed. I profited considerably from the lively
discussions that these lectures evoked, in spite of their technical
nature. and I enjoyed being with friends specialising in many dis
ciplines of study.
I had the privilege of delivering a course of seminar lectures on some
of these problems of reconstruction in Indo-Aryan at the Summer
Institute organised by the University of Illinois at Urbana towards
the close of June this year. T he genesis of these lectures lies in my
being originally requested by the School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, to review the fascicles of Sir Ralph
Turner's Comparative Dictionary of Indo-Aryan Languages.
Subsequently during the Spring of 1966 I was on an educational tour
of United States and during my stay in the University of Texas at
Austin, delivered two courses of lectures on the diachronic study of
i
F.-l
I
Indo-Aryan and a descriptive study of the Languages of South Asia.
Some of these problems dealt with here force fully impinged themselves
on me in the course of discussions with my pupils in U.S.A. and else
where, and when I received an invitation from Dr. Nihar Ranj an
RAY to deliver a course of six lectures at the lIAS this year
I thought this would be a good subject to choose. particularly
in the conlext of the rather tremendous importance given to the
language situation in our country. It was a pleasant surprise to me.
therefore, when I learnt that Dr. R ay was organising a special
Seminar on LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY IN INDIA. and I re
quested him to arrange my series of lectures during that seminar
so that I would have the advantage of judging the reaction of
scholars specialising in other fields to the linguist's way of looking
at languag
p
The vig rous discussions at the sessions of the seminar
and persona! exchanges at other times provided a suitable background.
If I have failed to elicit a proper response the fault mllst be entirely
mine. not that of linguistics. which has a great responsibility in
the Indian situation.
The publication of a work of such capital impol'tance as that
of Sir Ralph Turner on a Comparative Dictionary of the Indo
A ryan Languages has made my task comparatively easier. Trained
in his school and nurtured in the tradition which he and Jules
Bloch established in E urope, I have also had the uruqu'e privilege
of ushering in a new era in linguistic study in our country through
my connection with Deccan College. with collaboration of a new
generation of linguists from Europe and United States during the
past two decades. Standing somewhat as a bridge between these two
complementary approaches it has been my task in these lectures to
spell out problems on comparat ive re(;onstruction, taking my material
primarily from Indo-Aryan and the work of Sir Ralph Turner,
but occasionally also from other pioneers such as T . Burrow and
M.. B. E meneau and F. B. ]. K uiper in the field of D ravidian
and MUI)c;lii studies. Where required ~ have also added personally
II
collected material not recorded by t
T hough these lec,tures are pri ma
basic knowledge of comnarative ;
a bearing on wider problems whi
CUt go\"ernmenls and educationists
arc our great region",] languages t
to be enriched) How can Hi ndi. t
develop according to the dlreclivE
351 of the Consl ilul ' :m? The l i n ~
has not been properly evaluated.
S/!n of India which was
achievement of this counl ry
century, II (. "11 languages
into that great tradition which is
mode"n advanced nations and arl
structure or vocabulary, But they.
distance from the common vernaCl
substandard and dialectal forms ~
no place in the standard lexiCOn!
encourages them to become media
to universi;" levels and the reorgani
emphasises their use as languages
not national languages within their 0\
distance between the majority of sp
It is essential that this distance be
process of education. But linguistic hi
sufficient to standardise th"m over I
the country. The forces and che
communication are of such varied 1
legislate for a common stanrlard.
of conscious enforcement of nonn
to take a lesson {. ,)111 history. and
for the enrichment of our
coll ected materia l not recorded by these earlier authori ties.
Though Ihese lectures are primarily addressed to those who' have
hasic knowl edge of comparati e and modern lingui sti cs they have
a bearing on wi der problems whi h are eng .. ~ n the attention of
our governmeni s and educationists and even creative writers. l-fow
arc our grei'.t regional languages to be modernised ? Ho ,/ are Ih"y
to be E' nri ched) How can Hi ndi. the official language of the U nion .
develop according to the directive principles enunciated in s ct;un
35 1 of the Constitufon? T he linguistic wealth that India possesses
has not heen properly evaluated. in spi te of the great Lingu;s lic
SlI r of India wl1i ch was probabl y the first Ul11que
achievement of thi s country I!1 the beginning of this
cenlury. (, modern languages have been gradually grOWing
into that great t r ~ d i t i o n which is characteristic of the Ian u ::Ies of
mode'" advanced nations and are not inf'rior to them In their
structure or vocabulary. But they, as languages f culture. are at a
dislance from the common vernaculars of the peopl e, and the
substandard and dialectal forms which are rich and varying find
no place in the standard lexicons. While our educational policy
enccurages them to become media of communication from school
to universi;" levels and the reorgani sation of states on linguistic basis
emphasises their use as languages of admi nistration, they are still
not national languages within their own sphere because of this linguisti c.
distance belween the majority of speakers and the minority of elites.
It is essential that this distance be annihilated, through a widening
process of education. But ling\.istic history shows that these steps are not
sufficient to standard; se them over the whole length and breadth of
the country. The forces and choices that impinge on linguistic
communication are of such varied character that it is impossibl e to
legislat e for a common standard. D ifferences will persist in spite
of conscious enforcement of norms. What is more important is
to take a lesson i ( Jrn hi story, and in applying linguistic techniques
for the enrichment of our languages we discover for ourselves the
111
l
i
processes which have been in existence III the shaping of our
linguistic history.
It is often argued that while most linguistic change is a result
of an unconscious process which affects the transmission of the
language from generation to generation, no one can predict what
would be the result of language planning and language engineering.
In so far as vocabulary items are concerned, we may cite the
history of American English. A merican Speech, the journal which
records the specific use of new expressions, indicates the varying
fate of new coinages. Most of these have a very limited life. If
creation of words must be taken recourse to. we might remember
the analogy given by Pataiijali in his Mahcibhci:rya: when you
wish to make use of pots and pans you can go to a potter and
ask him to supply these items , and if not in stock, he can manufacture
them; but if you wish to express yourself you do not go to a
lexicographer and ask him to manufacture expressions which are
not already admitted in the actual lexicon of the people. It is
precisely in this context that a comparative reconstruction of Indo
Aryan, Dravidian or - in fact of all the three side by
side will indicate the manner in which through an unconscious process
of his torical choice of intruding forms each linguistic subarea has
developed and enriched its own particular field. This knowledge.
l am sure, wi}) be extremely useful to the language planner and
language engineer, for he will have before him not only what the
Sanskrit and modern literary languages have achieved by way of
lexemes in their total lexicons, but through what processes such
enrichment has been achieved. And if in this process, he also acquires
the additional information regarding the unrecorded wealth which
is reposing in the substandard and dialect forms, and applies the
same technique of comparative reconstruction he will discover the
main lines of development which have affected linguistic forms in
this country. The chief trouble is that those who have been mainly
concerned with coining of new expreSSIons have failed to take their
IV
inspiration from the achievements
course of history, the most im
'language of gods' which has a(
a continuing process of sanskritis
from Sanskrit which il
through sllch a process of assim
subcont:nent anc1 in its tuPJ ;nf
expreSSlOn.
The process of nat ionalisiug
redeeming of expressions curren
recogni l ing them within standal'!
conscious process of education, 5
standardised language of culture
aimosl nil by this two-fold proc
must be first attained before \\'
language. This is true of H.ndi
is 0 ften 'foreign' to speakers 0
Once this nationalisation process
up of a link-language within a m
to its lowest complexity.
What these lectures, therefOr!
which arise in the comparative
strict utilisation of basic factoTl
or parametres, as a part and parc
but also some applications of thes
languages and equip them for tt
upon to perform. I have myself de
to this type of application in tl
subject: comparative linguistics 0 '
by the Indian Institute of Advu
T here now remains the
gratitude to many friends who
In the first place I must refer
inspiration from the achievements of Ollr languages themselves in the
course of hist ory, the most impor tant in this being Sanskrit. the
'langua ge of gods' which has achieved it s development in Ind ia by
a continuing process of sanskritisalion. We may take our inspira tion
from Sanskrit which becamc a ran-I nd ian language of cuhu re
through sllch a process of assimilatin the variegated cu liure of the
suhcont :ll cnl and in it, turn inA\l E' ll': ing the of cult ure al ('
exrrCSSlon.
rrocess of nationali sing our regional languaaes inv0lves the
redeemi ng of expressions current in the various dialects anel
within standard or substnndard usage through a
(cnscious pro(ess of education, so that the gulf belween the highly
standardised language of culture and the vernacul ar is redLl ed to
almosl nil by this two-fold procedure. This role of our languages
must be fir st attained before wc can think of shaping the link
language. This is true of Hindi itself , for wi thin Its own territory it
is often 'foreign' to spea kers of substandard forms alld di a le,: ts
Once thi s nationali sat ion process has been accomplished the selti\1g
ur of a link-language within a multilingual si tuation will be rertuced
to il s lowest compl exity.
What these lectures, therefore. indicate are not only problems
which arise in the comparative reconstruction of Indo-Aryan. on
stricl utilisation of basic fa ctors of space-time-societ y coordinates
or parametres, as a part and parcel of modern linguist ic approaches.
but also some applications of these principl es in lrying to shape our
languages and equip lhem for the new tas\.;s they will be
upon to perfor m. I have myseH desisted from extending my approach
to thi s type of application in the scholarly interest of my mam
subject: comparative linguistics on which I was invited to speak
by the' Indian Insti tute of Adva.n d S tudy.
There now remains the pleasant duty of acknowle ging my
gratitude to many friends who have made these lectures possible.
In the first place I must refer here to my old friend Dr. Niha r
v
R anjan R ay, D irector of liAS. for his kind invitation to give
this course of lectures in Simla during the current academic year
of the Institute, and for the excellent arrangements he made for
the Seminar on Language and Society. I cannot forget his hospitality
and sunny smile which havt. made the lIAS a warm centre of
activity and fruitful research despite the inclement weather and
intellectual isolation of Simla, and his able band of co-workers who
have made the Institute what it is today. I must thank my young
friends Braj and Yamuna K acchru, products of the Deccan
C ollege Language Project and currently in charge of the Summer Instit
ute at the University of Illinois. Urbana. for inviting me to conduct a semi
na r on Indo-Aryan during June 1967. To G ordon and Anna Fair
banks. sometime visiting Deccan College ( 1955-56. 1958-59) on the
anguage Project, and my hosts at Illinois University lowe a
lot; many of the problems dealt with here were worked out at their
temporary residence at Campaign-Urbana during the Summer Institute.
Fairbanks has been engaged on problems of controlled reconstruction
fer a number of years sillce he first came to Deccan College in 1955 and
we may hope to get a modern diachronic study of Indo-Aryan
from him shortly, giving us resolutions of some of the moot problems
of both phonology and morphology. My stay with him has been
memorable. and my regret is that I have not been able to show him
the typescript of these lectures before pubrication and benefit from
his friendly criticism. To my colleagues in Deccan College '1nd
elsewhere in India. - -for they have spread to every nook and corner
of this country and have even gone to Europe and United States,
I am deeply beholden. I have profited greatly by discussions with
them and they have participated with me without complaint year
in and year out since 1955 when we have been conducting the
Summer Schools of Linguistics without a break. It is my proud
privilege. therefore, to dedicate this small volume to my colleagues in
the field who have shared with me in this unique opportunity of
building lip a new tradition of linguistic studies in our country.
VI
Some of us. of the older generati
it is to the younger scholars that
ment of a Teal Indian school of lin
in our own tradition from th gre
that from Europe and Americ .
I must not fail to record h
assistance I have received from
the printers in carrying out such
too many errors.
18th December 1967
VII
Some of us, of the older generation, have had their field day, and
it is to the younger scholars that I look forward to the develop
ment of a real Indian school of linguistics, assimilating the best that is
in our own tradition from the great Piil)ini and T olkappiyanar with
that from Europe and America.
I must not fail to record here my great appreciation of the
assistance I have received from all members of the lIAS and of
the printers in carrying out such complicated typography without
too many errors.
18th December 1967
S. M. KATHE
VII
CONTENTS
Preface
Abbreviations
Vlll
Introduction
On the Process of Reconstruction 19
Misch-Reconstruclion or the P rocess of Contamination 34
On Controll ed Historical Reconstruction 49
Defective W ord Forms in Indo-Arya n 60
On Some Appli cations of Reconstruction 82
click here to order online