Proto-Munda language

Proto-Munda is the reconstructed proto-language of the Munda languages of South Asia. It has been reconstructed by Sidwell & Rau (2015). According to Sidwell, the Proto-Munda language split from Proto- Austroasiatic in Indochina and arrived on the coast of Odisha around 4000 – 3500 years ago.^[6]

Proto-Munda
Reconstruction of	Munda languages
Region	Possibly Mahanadi River Delta and adjacent coastal plains[1][2][3]
Era	c. 2000 – c. 1500 BCE[4]
Reconstructed ancestor	Proto-Austroasiatic
Lower-order reconstructions	Proto-North Munda[5] Proto-Kharia Proto-Juang Proto-Sora-Gorum-Juray Proto-Gtaʔ Proto-Gutob-Remo

Reconstruction

The following Proto-Munda lexical proto-forms have been reconstructed by Sidwell & Rau (2015: 319, 340-363).^[7] Two asterisks are given to denote the tentative, preliminary state of the proto-language reconstruction.

Gloss	Proto-Munda
belly	**(sə)laɟ
big	**məraŋ
to bite	**kaˀp
black	**kE(n)dE
blood	**məjam
bone	**ɟaːˀŋ
to burn (vt.)	**gEˀp
claw/nail	**rəmAj
cloud	**tərIˀp
cold	**raŋ
die (of a person)	**gOˀj
dog	**sOˀt
to drink (water)	**uˀt, **uˀk
dry (adj./stat.)	**(ə)sAr
ear	**lutur, **luˀt
earth/soil	**ʔOte
to eat	**ɟOm
egg	**(ə)tAˀp
eye	**maˀt
fat/grease/oil	**sunum
feather	**bəlEˀt
fire	**səŋal
fish (n.)	**ka, **kadO(ŋ)
fly (v.)	**pEr
foot	**ɟəːˀŋ
give	**ʔam
hair (of head)	**suˀk
hand	**tiːˀ
to hear/listen	**ajɔm
heart, liver	**(gə)rE, **ʔim
horn	**dəraŋ
I	**(n)iɲ
to kill	**(bə)ɡOˀɟ
leaf	**Olaːˀ
to lie (down)	**gətiˀc
long	**ɟəlƏŋ
louse (head)	**siːˀ
man/husband, person/human	**kOrOˀ
meat/flesh	**ɟəlU(Uˀ)
moon	**harkE, **aŋaj
mountain/hill	**bəru(uˀ)
mouth	**təmOˀt
name	**ɲUm
neck	**kO, **gOˀk
new	**təmI
night	**(m)ədiˀp
nose	**muːˀ
not	**əˀt
one	**mOOˀj
rain	**gəma
red	**ɟəŋAˀt
road, path	**kOrA
root (of a tree)	**rEˀt
sand	**kEˀt
see	**(n)El
sit	**kO
skin	**usal
sleep	**gətiˀc
smoke (n.)	**mOˀk
to speak, say	**sun, **gam, **kaj
to stand	**tənaŋ, **tƏŋgə
stone	**bərƏl, **sərEŋ
sun	**siŋi(iˀ)
tail	**pata
thigh	**buluuˀ
that (dist.)	**han
this (prox.)	**En
thou/you	**(n)Am
tongue	**laːˀŋ
tooth	**gənE
tree	**ɟiːˀ
two	**baːˀr
to walk, go	**sEn
to weave	**ta(aˀ)ɲ
water	**daːˀk
woman/wife	**selA, **kəni
yellow	**saŋsaŋ

Proto-Munda reconstruction has since been revised and improved by Rau (2019).

Morphosyntax

Syntactic shift

Although the modern Munda languages show a standard head-final subject–object–verb (SOV) order in unmarked phrases, most scholars believe that proto-Munda was head-first, VO like proto-Austroasiatic. The first linguist to noticed this peculiarity, Heinz-Jürgen Pinnow (1959, 1960), observed strong traceable evidence for a proto-Munda VO order. VO order has been found in compounds, noun incorporation verbal morphology in the Sora^[8]-Gorum languages, and to a lesser extent in Gutob, Remo, Kharia, and Juang. By any given verb conjugations, the Munda verbs (including Kherwarian (Santali, Ho,...) and Korku) always show internal head-first, V-P order, with two main overall syntactic orders of transitive verbs: A-V-P and V-P-A, corresponding to Austroasiatic clausal syntaxes SVO and VOS. Most Munda compounds are also head-first and right-branching, with new loan words from Indian languages following the Indian norm of head-final and left-branching.^[9][10]

Remo:

gui-ti

wash-hand

gui-ti

wash-hand

'wash hand'

Sora:

ɲen

1SG

dʒum-te-ti-n-ai

eat-banana-NPST-INTR-1SG.SUBJ

ɲen dʒum-te-ti-n-ai

1SG eat-banana-NPST-INTR-1SG.SUBJ

'I am eating banana'

Juang:

ba-ama-gito-ke

1DU.SUBJ-NEG-sing-PRES.TR

ba-ama-gito-ke

1DU.SUBJ-NEG-sing-PRES.TR

'We two don't sing'

Gorum:

ne-r-ab-so’ɟ-om

1SG.SUBJ-NEG-CAUS-learn-ACT:2SG.OBJ

ne-r-ab-so’ɟ-om

1SG.SUBJ-NEG-CAUS-learn-ACT:2SG.OBJ

'I didn’t teach you'

Winfred Lehmann (1973) reviewed,^[11]

"If we examine further evidence provided by Pinnow, we note that Munda contains VO characteristics. It has VO order in compounds (Pinnow [1960], 97); it also provides examples of NG [noun-genitive] order and of prefixes. Since the Khmer-Nicobar languages are consistently VO, I assume that it was the Munda languages which were modified syntactically... We may conclude that Proto-Austroasiatic was VO and non-agglutinative in morphological structure."

— Lehmann, 1973:57

Pinnow (1963, 1966) proposed that proto-Munda was SVO and that was the syntax of proto-Austroasiatic, which was also highly synthetic like Munda, whereas he attributed analytic and isolating typological features in modern Mon-Khmer to language contact in the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area.^[12] Disagreeing with Pinnow, Donegan & Stampe (1983, 2004) argued that proto-Munda was VO but non-agglutinative like its sister languages in Southeast Asia. According to Donegan & Stampe, there are some characteristics of the Munda languages such as head-marking and polysynthesis that are so distinct and attributable to neither Dravidian and Indo-Aryan influence.^[13] They believed that Munda synthesis and SOV order were clearly not stimulated just by language contact within the South Asian linguistic area, but by internal restructuring that caused the Munda word prosody to shift its rhythmic patterns from typical Austroasiatic rising, vowel reduction, iambic stressed to falling, vowel harmony, trochaic stressed profile, thus reversed the clausal syntactic structure and triggered word agglutination.^[14]

For the reason why the Munda languages keep head-first order in compounds and polysynthetic morphology, Donegan & Stampe (2002) believed that words, like the verb-noun compounds, are more resistant to internal changes of rhythms and ordering than phrases.^[15] Donegan & Stampe (2004) carefully stated that their explanation for the Munda rhythm-initiated synthesis drift does not include polysynthesis, and Donegan & Stampe (2002) also termed the Munda polysynthetic morphology as 'idiomatic and (older) morphology.' Stanley Starosta (1967) explained that, during its early formation stage when Munda was still head-first SVO, verb-noun incorporation was facilitated as seen in modern Sora, but then it did a syntactic shift to head-final SOV and added more morphology. The polysynthetic verb phrases thus had become crystalized since that time. Sora verbs may incorporate another indirect object, but the theme argument would fall within the scope of different oblique arguments; the oblique noun is showed in thematic position. Sora also can incorporate transitive subjects and form verb serializations with incorporated nouns. Since the Sora NIs function like the mirror images of typical well-studied polysynthetic languages, it was suggested by Mark Baker that Sora simply operates the opposite way to the head movement theory proposed by the polysynthesis parameter.^[16]

Donegan & Stampe's prediction of Munda synthetic shift caused by change of rhythmic holism is contested by Horo & Anderson et al. (2017, 2020, 2022). Field acoustic researches on various Sora and Santali dialects show that both languages have consistently second-or-last-syllable prominence with clear iambic patterns (first light syllable, followed by a second heavy stressed syllable) in disyllabic and tetrasyllabic words (Horo & Anderson 2022).^[17][18]

Proto-Munda predicate

Anderson and Zide (2001, 2007)

Gregory D. S. Anderson & Norman Zide (2001, 2007) reconstructed the head-marking bound predicate of Proto-Munda with A-V-P order as following:

Proto-Munda Predicate (Zide & Anderson 2001)

Slot	+4	+3	+2	+1	core	-1	-2	-3
role	SUBJ	NEG	RECIP/CAUS	DERIV	verb stem	PASS/INTR	TRANS/TNS	OBJ

Rau (2020)

Felix Rau (2020) concludes that Proto-Munda predicate structure was verb-medial SVO,^[19] though he suggests that it might have been less inflected with fewer bound elements, which may cause the Munda predicate development to become divergent later.^[20]

Proto-Munda Predicate Clause

Slot	+6	+5	+4	+3	+2	+1	core	-1	-2	-3
role	SUBJ	MOD/ASP	NEG	RECIP	CAUS	DERIV	verb stem	ASP	[other voices]/valency	OBJ
reconstruction (Rau 2020:231)		*A *O *Vj *mO	*əˀt *Um	*kƏl	*Oˀp	**bə- **tA- **A-		*=lə Perf *=tə Imperf	*n MID *ˀt ACT

At some points during their early development in South Asia, due to either language contact led to adoptions of South Asian areal features or internal rhythmic changes, the Munda languages presumably made a syntactic shift from head-first, prefixing SVO to head-final, suffixing SOV.^[21][22] Proto-North Munda restructured all prefixes and prepositions into suffixes. The situation is quite different in South Munda languages, especially Juang, Gtaʔ, and Sora-Gorum, where the original proto-Munda prefix slots are well-preserved, but later additional developments of their predicates are mostly suffixes or enclitics.^[23]

Noun phrase (NP) order

Proto-Munda NPs appear to follow proto-Austroasiatic order: [quantifiers] noun [modifiers], whereas modern Munda languages, following South Asian norms, have restructured NP moderately by placing [modifiers] to precede the head noun, while keeping the original proto-Austroasiatic NUM CLF N order like Bahnaric, Vietic, Katuic, Aslian, Nicobarese, and Khasian.^[24]

Origin of Munda referent indexation

Munda pronominal affixes and clitics are reduced, derivable forms of pronouns.^[25] Based on reconstructed proto-Munda pronouns by Pinnow (1966), he argued that the Munda verb gradually attached to its free pronouns and became pronominalized. The evidence suggests that the development of pronominalization in Munda occurred separately and varying among the Munda subgroups.^[26] Thus, Munda pronominalized indexation possibly has parallels with some Eastern Austroasiatic languages in the Aslian and Katuic, where prosodically weak resumptive pronouns are used to mark agreement with subjects/agents, but not with objects.^[27] The Khasian languages also mark agreement with gender of subject, but not with person and number. Object and patient indexation in Munda were secondary developments.^[28]

In the past, some linguists suggested that some Tibeto-Burman languages in the Himalayas like the Eastern Kiranti languages got their pronominalization from either Munda or Indo-European languages to explain the remarkable similarity between Munda and Tibeto-Burman. However, since the reconstruction of proto-Munda pronouns by Pinnow (1965) and proto-Tibeto-Burman person affixes by van Driem (1993), it appears that the pronominalization of two groups are inherently different and unrelated to each other in terms of functions and structures, and that two groups developed their own referent indexation system independently. Bauman (1975) also convincingly articulated that verbal pronominalization is a native trait of Tibeto-Burman itself rather than being influenced by Munda. Pronominalized Tibeto-Burman languages have elaborate morphosyntactic case-marking system on nominals to show alignments between arguments, i.e. ergative-absolutive or nominative-accusative, a feature that many Munda languages fundamentally lack or not well-developed. Today the view of Munda substratum on Tibeto-Burman has been abandoned by linguists.^[29]

Noun incorporation

According to Anderson (2014, 2017, 2021), Munda syntactic noun incorporation is very archaic and may be the oldest feature of Austroasiatic morphology, with cognates are attested in across every subgroup,^[30] but the status of noun incorporation in proto-Munda still difficult to determine. Rau notes that "it is possible that some sort of incorporation was already present in proto-Munda and worked along the lines attested in modern Sora."^[31]

See also

• Proto-Austroasiatic language

References

1. Rau, Felix; Sidwell, Paul (2019). "The Munda Maritime Hypothesis". Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (JSEALS). 12 (2). hdl:10524/52454. ISSN 1836-6821.
2. Rau, Felix and Paul Sidwell 2019. "The Maritime Munda Hypothesis." ICAAL 8, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 29–31 August 2019. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3365316
3. Blench, Roger. 2019. The Munda maritime dispersal: when, where and what is the evidence?
4. Rau & Sidwell (2019:35)
5. Anderson (2020:160)
6. Sidwell, Paul. 2018. Austroasiatic Studies: state of the art in 2018 Archived 2019-05-03 at the Wayback Machine. Presentation at the Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, 22 May 2018.
7. Sidwell, Paul and Felix Rau (2015). "Austroasiatic Comparative-Historical Reconstruction: An Overview." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
8. Baker (1996:32)
9. Donegan & Stampe (2002:114–116)
10. Donegan & Stampe (2004:6)
11. Lehmann, Winfred P. (March 1973). "A Structural Principle of Language and Its Implications". Language. 49 (1). Linguistic Society of America: 47–66. doi:10.2307/412102. JSTOR 412102.
12. Donegan & Stampe (2004:7).
13. Donegan & Stampe (2004:12-13)
14. Donegan & Stampe (2004:26-27)
15. Donegan & Stampe (2002:116)
16. Baker (1996:33)
17. Horo, Luke; Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2021). "Towards a prosodic typology of Kherwarian Munda languages: Santali of Assam.". In Alves, Mark J.; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). Papers from the 30th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. JSEALS Special Publications 8. University of Hawai'i Press. pp. 298–317.
18. Horo, Luke; Anderson, Gregory D. S.; Singha, Aman; Sonowal, Ria Borah; Gomango, Opino (2023). "Acoustic phonetic properties of p-words and g-words in Sora". Proceedings of (Formal) Approaches to South Asian Linguistics 12: 144–167.
19. Rau (2020:227)
20. Rau (2020:225)
21. Rau (2020:228)
22. Anderson (2021:46)
23. Rau (2020:230)
24. Anderson (2021:42)
25. Rau (2020:220)
26. Rau (2020:221)
27. Anderson (2020:183–184)
28. Rau (2020:222)
29. LaPolla, Randy J. (2019). "A note on the history of the term "pronomenalisation"". Linguistics of the Tibeto‑Burman Area. 42 (1): 143‑147. doi:10.1075/ltba.00005.lap. hdl:10356/145086.
30. Anderson (2021:37)
31. Rau (2020:209)

Further reading

• Alves, Mark J. (2020). "Morphology in Austroasiatic Languages". In Lieber, Rochelle (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.532.
• Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2007). The Munda verb: typological perspectives. Trends in linguistics. Vol. 174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-018965-0.
• Anderson, Gregory D. S., ed. (2008). Munda Languages. Routledge Language Family Series. Vol. 3. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-32890-6.
• Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2020). "Proto-Munda Prosody, Morphotactics and Morphosyntax in South Asian and Austroasiatic Contexts". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul; Alves, Mark (eds.). Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective. Brill Publishing. pp. 157–197. doi:10.1163/9789004425606_008.
• Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2021). "On the Role of Areal and Genetic Factors in the Development of the Word-Structure and Morphosyntax of the Munda Languages". In Mohan, Shailendra (ed.). Advances in Munda Linguistics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 22–77. ISBN 1527570479.
• Baker, Mark C. (1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509308-9. OCLC 31045692.
• Donegan, Patricia J.; Stampe, David (1983). "Rhythm and the holistic organization of linguistic structure". Chicago Linguistic Society. 19 (2): 337–353.
• Donegan, Patricia; Stampe, David (2002). "South-East Asian Features in the Munda Languages: Evidence for the Analytic-to-Synthetic Drift of Munda". In Chew, Patrick (ed.). Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, in honour of Prof. James A. Matisoff. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. pp. 111–129.
• Donegan, Patricia; Stampe, David (2004). "Rhythm and the Synthetic Drift of Munda". In Singh, Rajendra (ed.). The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 3–36.
• Ghosh, Arun (2021). "Infixation in Munda and its Austroasiatic Legacy". In Mohan, Shailendra (ed.). Advances in Munda Linguistics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 78–107. ISBN 1527570479.
• Rau, Felix (2020). "The Proto-Munda Predicate and the Austroasiatic Language Family". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul; Alves, Mark (eds.). Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective. Brill Publishing. pp. 198–235. doi:10.1163/9789004425606_009.