Phonological evidence and scenarios for the historical development of the Munda Branch
Felix Rau / University of Cologne
Munda vs. Southeast Asian AA
| Munda | “Mon-Khmer” | |
|---|---|---|
| Grammar | Synthetic | Analytic |
| Word Order | Head-last: OV, Postp | Head-first: VO, Prep |
| Phrases | Falling (initial) | Rising (final) |
| Words | Falling (trochaic) | Rising (iambic/monosyll.) |
| Affixation | Pre/infixing, suffixing | Pre/infixing or isolating |
| Timing | Isosyllabic/Isomoric | Isoaccentual |
| Fusion | Agglutinating | Fusional |
| Syllables | (C)V(C) | (C(ə̆))+(C)V́(ː/V̯)(C) |
| Consonants | Stable/Assimilating | Shifting/Dissimilating |
| Tonality | Level (rare) | Contour (frequent) |
| Vowels | Harmonizing/Stable | Reducing/Diphthongizing |
How did the Munda languages become the way they are?
- Basic assumptions
- shift from a SEA-AA type to the current state
- Shorto’s MKCD as a working hypthesis for pAA
- Focus on the phonological aspects of this change
- Position Proto-Munda in this development
- Propose a tentative relative chronology
- Evaluate the Rhythm Shift Scenario
- Caution: Work in progress!
Proto-Munda
(based on Rau & Sidwell 2015)
Consonant inventory
| Ci | Cj | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p | t | c | k | ˀp | ˀt | ˀc | ˀk | ||
| b | d | ɟ | g | ||||||
| m | n | ɲ | ŋ | m | n | ɲ | ŋ | ||
| w | l,r | j | w | l,r | j | ||||
| (s) | (h) | ||||||||
Consonantism
Proto-AA *k → Proto-Munda *k/*ˀk
| Proto-AA *k | → | Proto-Munda | Munda lanuages | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *ɗaːk | ‘water’ | *daaˀk | Gorum: ɖaʔ, Kharia: ɖaʔ, Gtaʔ: nɖiaʔ, Santali: ɖak', Korku: ɖa |
|
| *ka(a)p | ‘to bite’ | *kaˀp | Gutob: op, Gtaʔ: haʔ, Santali: hap', Korku: khap |
|
| *klaʔ | ‘tiger’ | *kə1la | Gorum: kulaʔ, Gutob: gikil, Gtaʔ: ŋku, Santali: kul, Korku: kula |
|
Vowel inventory
- /i, e, a, o, u/ (Kharia, Mundari, Ho, Korku, Gorum, Remo, Juang, Gutob)
- /i, e, æ, a, o, u/ (Gtaʔ)
- /i, e, ɛ, a, ɔ, o, u/ (Santali)
- /i, e, ɛ, ɨ, ə, a, ɔ, o, u/ (Sora)
Proto-Munda
Pinnow (1959):
| i | ɨ | u | iː | uː | ||
| ɛ | ə | ɔ | ɛː | əː | ɔː | |
| a | aː |
Proto-Munda
Rau & Sidwell (2015):
| i/I | u/U | |
| E | ə/Ə | O |
| a/A |
Vocalism 1
| Proto-AA | → | Proto-Munda | Munda lanuages | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *ɗaːk | ‘water’ | *daaˀk | Gorum: ɖaʔ, Kharia: ɖaʔ, Gtaʔ: nɖiaʔ, Santali: ɖak', Korku: ɖa |
|
| *t1iːʔ | ‘hand’ | *tiiˀ | Gorum: siʔ, Sora: siʔ, Gutob: titi, Gtaʔ: nti, Santali: ti, Ho: tiː, Korku: ʈi |
|
| *taːɲ | ‘to weave’ | *taɲ | Gorum: taɲ, Gutob: taɲ, Kharia: taɲ, Gtaʔ: tæ, Santali: teɲ, Mundari: teŋ |
|
Vocalism 2
| Proto-AA | → | Proto-Munda | Munda lanuages | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| *juəŋ | ‘foot’ | *ɟə2ŋ | Gorum: zḭŋ, Sora: ɟʔeːŋ, Remo: suŋ, Juang: iɟiŋ, Gtaʔ: nco, Santali: jaŋga |
|
| *d2raŋ | ‘horn’ | *də1raŋ | Gorum: ɖeraŋ, Remo: ɖeruŋ, Kharia: ɖereŋ, Gtaʔ: ɖiraŋ, Santali: ɖereɲ, Mundari: ɖiriɲ |
|
| *j[n]ŋəl | ‘fuel’ | *sə1ŋə3l | Gorum: aŋal, Sora: aŋəl, Remo: suŋo, Kharia: soŋol, Gtaʔ: sua, Mundari: seŋgel |
|
Vocalism discussion
- remain a challenge
- Harmony: *d2raŋ → *də1raŋ → (*ɖiraŋ) → ɖiriɲ
- reduction of vowel inventories happened late
- over 25 correspondence sets (so far)
- identifying remains proto-phonemes problematic
- determining the phonological properties of the proto-phonemes difficult
Changes to phonology
- loss of /ʔ/, final /s/, ...
- pre-glottalisation of syllable/morpheme-final obstruents
- loss of vowel length
- loss of diphthongs
- 8-10 vowel inventory
Proto-AA Clusters
| Structure | Example | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pAA | pMunda | pAA | pMunda | ||
| CCVː1C | CV1CV1VˀC | *bluːʔ | ‘thigh’ | *buluuˀ | bulu |
| CCV1C | CəCV1C | *d2raŋ | ‘horn’ | *də1raŋ | ɖeraŋ |
| C1C2VC | C2VC | *[p]ri(ə)l | ‘hail’ | *ari2l | arel |
| C1C2VC | C1VC | *cʔaːŋ | ‘bone’ | *ɟa(aˀ)ŋ | ɟaŋ |
Post-Proto-Munda Prosodic Restructuring
| Proto-AA | Proto-Munda | Santali | Gutob | Gorum | *klaʔ | ‘tiger’ | *kə1la | kul | gikil | kulaʔ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Individual developments
| Santali: | *kə1ˈla → | *ˈkəla → | *ˈkula → | kul | |
| Gutob: | *kə1ˈla → | *ˈkəla → | *ˈkila → | *ˈkil → | gikil |
| Gorum: | *kə1ˈla → | *kəˈlaʔ → | kuˈlaʔ |
Prosodic structures
- general LH pattern in content works Kharia
- diversity of accent patterns in modern Munda languages
Prosodic Change
- Initial clusters are dissolved (pMunda)
- Diphthongs disappear (probably pMunda)
- Vowel length is lost (probably pMunda)
- Syllable weight remains relevant
- *WˈW → ˈWW/WˈS (*kəˈla → *ˈkəla/*kəˈlaʔ)
Gtaʔ Word Phonology
| Gtaʔ | Proto-AA | Proto-Munda | |
|---|---|---|---|
| tma/tmi | ‘new’ | *t1miʔ | *tə1mi |
| bri | ‘stone’ | *[b]riəl | *bərƏl |
| nɖiaʔ | ‘water’ | *ɗaːk | *daaˀk |
| ŋku | ‘tiger’ | *klaʔ | *kə1la |
Restructuring in Gtaʔ
| pAA | pMunda | Gtaʔ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *bluːʔ → | *buluuˀ → | bulu | ‘thigh’ | ||
| *d2raŋ → | *də1raŋ → | ɖiraŋ | ‘horn’ | ||
| *klaʔ → | *kə1la → | *ˈkula → | *kul → | ŋku | ‘tiger’ |
| *t1miʔ → | *tə1mi → | *təmi → | tmi | ‘new’ | |
| *[b]riəl → | *bə1rƏl → | *biril → | *biri → | bri | ‘stone’ |
Rhythm Shift Scenario
“holistic oppositeness [...] could be the result, after many millennia, of a simple change of Munda from a rising to a falling rhythm.”
Rhythm Shift Scenario
- shift from rising to falling rhythm
- rising to falling phrase rhythm
- iambic to trochaic word rhythm
- following changes
- restructuring of syllable structure
- loss of vowel length
- morphological changes (prefixing → suffixing)
- syntactic changes (head-first → head-last)
Problems for the Rhythm Shift Scenario
- Primacy of rhythm shift?
- Independent development in individual languages
- Remaining rising patterns all over the branch
- Reintroduction of iambic patterns in Gtaʔ
Conclusions
- The situation is more complex than the broad narrative of Donegan & Stampe suggests.
- The rhythm shift seems to have happened far less consistently than other changes (e.g. word order).
- The rhythm shift seems to have happened after Proto-Munda and possible even late in the development of some of the branches
Thank you!
(f.rau@uni-koeln.de)