No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Two Problems in New Indo-Aryan
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
The following two problems, though different in other respects, have this in common—that they at first glance invite an easy, though phonologically unsatisfactory, explanation, whereas their solution is to be sought in other directions. My attention was called to them through my studies of some Himachali1 dialects.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 1957 , pp. 329 - 333
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1957
References
page 329 note 1 I propose calling the southern branch (including Kuḷuī in the north and Sirmaurī and Jaunsārī in the south) of West Pahāṛī by this term.
page 329 note 2 Kishṭ. zi is valuable in showing that the j/(d)z element in Jauns. ejo, etc. is not the relative pronoun, as Kishṭ. z is not the reflex of OIA y-.
page 330 note 1 The common nominal ending -o has been added as in Nepāli yo ‘this’ (see Turner, ND, s.v.).
page 330 note 2 The loss of the initial vowel in ٭ijao or ٭ajao may be due to influence from parallel forms, g. Braj jao after yao.
page 330 note 3 Or the forms without j/(d)z may come from OIA eṡa, Ap. eho (see Turner, ND, s. yo), which would account for the e- in eu, eo and, through influence from these words, in ezo. On the other hand, there are numerous Himāchalī words with e from OIA i.
page 333 note 1
A similar contamination is, as shown by Turner (
BSOAS, VIII, 2–3, 1936,Google Scholar 801 foll.), found in Niya 
‘is’ and AMg. hokkhaï, Bhojpurī hokh- ‘to be, become’ from ho-and a verb coming from OIA kṡeti ‘to stay’