117
On some Facts connected with
the Tibeto-Burman Dialect spoken in Kanawar.
By Sten Konow.
B. H. Hodgson, the indefatigable pioneer of Tibeto-Burman
philology, divided the Himalayan tribes "into two groups, distin¬
guished by the respective use of simple or non-pronomenalised, and
of complex or pronomenalised languages".
The "simple or non-pronomenalised'' languages are of the same
type as Tibetan and most Tibeto-Burman languages. Their verb
is still in all essentials a noun, and it is incapable of inflexion in
person and number.
The case is difi'erent with Hodgson's "complex or pronomenalised"
languages. They are characterized by a richly developed system
of conjugational forms , and , more especially, the person of the
subject is distinguished by means of pronominal suffixes added to
the verb.
This use of pronominal suffixes is interesting. It does not
appear to be easily explained from the point of view of Tibeto-
Burman grammar. Hodgson has already long ago pointed to the
analogy of Mu^da forms of speech, and it is a priori not impro¬
bable that the pronomenalised languages have preserved traces of
linguistic features belonging to some old non-Tibeto-Burman form
of speech. We shall have to return to this question later on.
The pronomenalised languages dealt with by Hodgson are all
spoken in Nepal. Dialects of a similar type are also found farther
to the west. The most important one is spoken in Kanawar, and
it presents so many interesting features that I feel justified in
making some remarks on the grammar of the dialect.
It is spoken in the Sutlej Valley above the junction of the
Sutlej and the Spiti River. 19,525 speakers were returned at
the last Census of 1901, of whom 19,493 were enumerated in
the native state of Bashahr.
Our information about the Kanawar dialect has hitherto been
very unsatisfactory. Vocabularies have been published by Captain
A. Gerard (JASB., xi, Part i, 1842, pp. 479 & ff.), A. H. Diack
{The Kulu Dialect of Hindi. Lahore 1896, pp. 102 & ff.), and
others. So far as I am aware, however, no account of the gram¬
matical system has been given.
The state of affairs will be very much improved when the
Kanawari materials prepared for the purposes of the Linguistic
Survey of India are printed. I have been preparing them for that
purpose, and Dr. Grierson has kindly allowed me to publish some
of my results in beforehand.
The remarks which follow are mainly based on a list of
standard words and phrases prepared for the Survey by the Revd.
A. W. Heyde. It is so complete, and it has been drawn up with
such great care that it is possible to give a short sketch of Kanawari
grammar based on it alone.
In dealing with Kanawari I shall also quote parallels from
some connected forms of speech.
In the first place we have the so-called Kanäsi, spoken in a
village called Malana in a deep and narrow glen in the Bias Valley.
Connected dialects are further spoken on the Chandrabhaga , the
Chandra, and the Bhaga. They are known under the names of
Mancati, RanglSI, and Bunan, respectively. Finally we have some
dialect spoken in the North of Almora, viz. Rankas in Malla Johar
and Malla Danpur , Därmiyä in the Patti of Darma , CaudäösT in
Patti Chaudangs , and Byänsl in Patti Byangs. All these dialects
in several respects form one distinct group.
In most essentials the phonetical system of Kanawari is appa¬
rently the same as that of western Tibetan. Vowels are both short
and long. The short a can apparently be still more shortened.
Compare writings such as (f, I; tft, what. Mr. Heyde describes
the sound intended as something like the short e in French je.
I have retained the writing but I am not quite certain as to
the exact character of the sound intended.
There are no soft aspirates, and there are also instances
of the dropping of the aspiration in hard consonants. Compare
khim, Tibetan khyim, house; klm-ö, in the house; tah, Tibetan
mthoh-ba, see.
The final g' in yunSg\ sun, is stated to be only half pronounced.
No further information is available about such sounds. The half
pronounced ^' perhaps corresponds to the semi-consonant fe' in
Mundä languages, a checked fe without the off-glide. It should in
that case properly be written fe' and not g'. Father Hoffmann, in
his Mundäri grammar, likewise uses soft consonants in order to
denote the semi-consonants of Mundari, and it requires a very well
trained ear to distinguish the actual sound.
My materials are not sufficient for me to give detailed rules
about the sounds corresponding to the different single and compound
consonants of Tibetan in such words as are common to the two
languages. Soft initials are apparently often replaced by the corre-
Sten Konow, The Tibeto-Burman Dialect spoken in Kanawar. 119
spending hard sounds, and unaspirated hard sounds often correspond
to aspirated letters in Tibetan. Compare toh, Tibetan rduh, beat;
pyä, Tibetan bya, bird ; go-lsdh, Tibetan zla-ba, moon ; tos, Tibetan s'dod-pa, sit; tun, Tibetan a^Aw/i-ia, drink; tah, Tibetan «i/Aon-5a, see, and so forth.
The Kanawari vocabulary apparently abounds in Aryan loan-
woi-ds. Compare kdnah, ear; nämah, name; petih, belly; pistih,
back; rösari, anger, and so on. Note the frequency with which
the final vowel of such words is nasalized.
The indigenous vocabulary is more closely connected with that
in use in the Tibeto-Burman languages of Assam and Purther India
than with the Tibetan one. Compare d-te, elder brother, iKhyang
a-ta; can, child, Thädo cä; khui, dog, Burmese khwe, Singpho gui,
Meitei hui, Lushei ui; ban, foot, Rengma pha; ran, give (to
others), compare Garo ron'ä, Dimäsä ri ; ke, give (to me) ; compare
Ao kwä (but ägatsah, give to him); krä, hair, Singphö karä
(Tibetan skra); gud, hand (Manchat gud, Kanäsi gut), compare
Sunwar gui, Mägar Au<, Kuki-Chin Mu<;'&aZ, head, compare Kuki-
Chin lu; rah, horse, Lai, Banjögi ran, Burmese mrah; tdkus, nose,
compare Hatigarya nätäh; türä, run (Kanäsi torat), Rängkhöl röt;
yunSg', sun, Thämi i-ni; le, tongue, Gurung, Sunwär, Murmi le,
Kuki-Chin lei; gar, tooth, compare Lushei, etc., ha, Khoiräo a-gä;
ti, water, Lushei tui, Lamgang di, Bodo dui, Lalung di, Garo ti, etc.
It will be seen that there appears to be a good many cases
in which Kanäwarl agrees with the Kuki-Chin dialects.
The correspondance with Kanäsi, Mancati, &c., is still closer.
The short table which follows registers some striking instances.
Kanäwaii Kanäsi I
Mancat Bnnan Rankas Därmiyä
\—«
■aM
•aa es ü
'S
■ä>.
n
one it it idi tiki takä takö tig ttg
two nis nis (JUi) nyia nisi nisü nis nisi
four pii pu pi pi pi pi pi pi
seven stis nyij nyi^i nhisi nisü nis nis
ear (kdnah) rad reta retsi rac racö rac rac
far vark {dur) wai wai hvänm vänam loänam wänam
field ri rhe rhi rig rai re ri rai
horse rail {ghörä) rail srahs rhä räh räh räh
water ti ti ti so-ti ti ti ti ti
I shall now proceed to make some remarks on the inflexional
system of Kanäwarl.
Nouns. — The Kanäwarl noun is of the same kind as in other
Tibeto-Burman forms of speech. It does not differ for gender, and
the number is not indicated when apparent from the context.
A suffix on, or, after vowels, n, can, however, be added in order
to form a kind of plural; thus, cimed-ön, daughters; ml-n, men.
On is probably an independent word meaning all ; compare dö-gon,
they, and Tibetan hun, all.
When a noun is used as the subject of a transitive verb, it
is put in what is usually called the case of the agent. It is formed
as in Tibetan by adding a suffix s; thus, cans Idn-sits, son-by
given, the son has given. Compare the remarks on this suffix in
Conrady's Eine indo-chinesische Causativ-Denominativ-Bildung.
Leipzig 1896, p. 44. The same suffix is also used in Kanäsi,
Raükas, &c. It also has fuller forms such as si and sai in CaudäösT ;
se and sai in ByäiisT; sö and sä in Raäkas and Därmiyä.
Numerals. — The first numerals are 1 id, 2 nis, 3 sum, 4 pii^
5 nä, 6 dug, 7 stis, tis, 8 rai, 9 sgdi, güi, 10 sad, 20 nfezä,
50 nis niezä-ü sai, 100 nä nizzä.
The most interesting point with regard to these numerals is
the fact that higher numbers are counted in twenties and not in tens.
The same is the case in Kanäsi, Mancati, Bunän, Raäkas, etc., and
also in some Nepalese dialects such as Dhimäl , Yäkhä , Khambu,
Väyu, in some Bodo dialects, etc. The common principle prevailing
in Tibeto-Burman and, on the whole, in Indo-Chinese languages is,
however, to count higher numbers in tens.
Pronouns. — The inflexion of personal pronouns in Tibeto-
Burman languages is usually simple. There are often a good many
different forms in use according to the degree of respect due to
the person adressed. The use of such forms is, however, regulated
by etiquette and not by grammar.
The state of affairs is different in Kanäwarl. The personal
pronouns of that language have different forms for the singular,
the dual, and the plural. Moreover, there are double sets of the
dual and the plural of the first person, one including and the other
excluding the person or persons addressed. Thus, —
g°', 1; nisi, I and he; kdsah, 1 and thou; nihän, I and
they ; Jeisah, I and you. ka, respectful ki, thou ; kisi, you two ;
kindn, you. do, he, she, it; dosuh, they two; dogon, they.
It is probable that the state of affairs in Kanäsi and connected
dialects is the same. I have not, however, sufficient materials to
decide the matter. On the other hand, a similar system of different
forms is met with in several Nepalese languages. Compare Babing
gö, I; gö-si, I and thou; gö-sükü, I and he; göi, I and you;
gö-kü, I and they ; ga, thou ; ga-si, you two ; ga-ni, you ; Lohorong
kä, I; kä-d, I and thou; kä-ci-kä, I and he; kä-ni, I and you;
kä-niri-ka, I and they; änä, thou; änä-ci, you two; ani-nä, you, etc.
A double set of the plural of the first person is also found in some
Sten Konow, The Tibeto-Burman Dialect spoken in Kanawar. 121
other Tibeto-Burman dialects such as e. g. Garo. On the whole,
however, it is not a feature of Tibeto-Bunnan grammar. The same
is the case with the use of a separate dual. It will be seen that
there is a close resemblance between the dual suffixes in Kanawari
and the Nepalese languages compared above. It will also be seen
that those suffixes are quite difi'erent from the numeral "two".
Verbs. — The Kanäwäri verb presents several interesting features,
and it has, in many respects, struck out new lines of its own
which are in entire disagreement with Tibeto-Burman grammatical
principles.
The Tibeto-Bunnan verb is virtually a noun. It is incapable
of a real inflexion , and it has the same form in all persons and
numbers. Some dialects show a tendency to use dilferent forms
for the difi'erent persons. This tendency is, however, in its beginning
and such forms are originally unrestricted as to person.
The state of afi'airs is quite different in Kanäwarl. The person
of the subject can be left unmarked if apparent from the context.
In other cases, it is distinguished by adding pronominal suffixes,
if the subject is of the first or second persons. The suffixes of
the singular are g for the first and n for the second person ; thus,
to-g, am; to-n, art; tö, is. A suffix n-me is used if the subject
is the inclusive dual or plural of the first person; thus, to-n-me,
I and thou, or, I and you, are. There are, moreover, some suffixes
which are used in respectful language, viz. fl for the first and
second persons, and * for the third ; thus, an. oms pai-H, me before
walk-please, walk before me; to-H, I and they are; to-s, he is. A
suffix c is occasionally used in all persons; thus, to-c, I and they
are; to-c, you are; to-c, he was, etc. I am unable to fix the actual
meaning of this suffix.
The following table registers the principal forms of the present
and past of the base to, to be, according to Mr. Heyde.
Present Past
Ordinary Kespeetful Ordinary Respectful
Sing. 1 to-g te-g; toke-g
2 to-n to-ü fe-n; foke-n te-n\ tbke-ii
3 tö to-s to-c; töke te-s; toke-s
Dual 1 exclusive to-c te-c; toke-c
1 inclusive to-n-me te; tbke
2 to-c te-c; toke-c
8 tö io-s to-c; tbke te-s; toke-s
Present Past
Ordinary Respectful Ordinary Respectful
Plural 1 exclusive to-c to-n te-c; toke-c te-n; toke-Ü
1 inclusive to-n-me te; ioke
2 to-c to-n te-c; toke-c te-n; toke-n
3 tö to-s to-c; toke te-s; toke-s
Porms such as to-c, he was, are probably indifferent with regard
to time. It is also probable that a form tB, was, is existing. I
have not, however, any information regarding the matter.
The most interesting forms in tbe above table are those of
the first and second persons singular. The pronominal suffixes g
and n are abbreviated forms of the pronouns of the two first persons.
In the case of g, it is evident that the suffix is abbreviated from
g"*, I. The suffix n, on the other hand, cannot be derived from
ka, ki, thou, but must be traced back to a form corresponding to
Thämi nä; Chepäng, Bhrämü, Bodo and Kuki-Chin dialects nari,
Khambu, Rai, etc., änä; Khäling in, and so forth.
The suffixes g and n are used in the same way in several
connected forms of speech. Compare Kanäsi go to-mi-k, I strike;
lea to-mi-n, thou strikest; Mancati shu-ga, am; shu-na, art; Cau-
däüsl se-ga-s, I struck; Rankas Ihe-n, art; Därmiyä sai-ta-n, strikest;
se-n-s, struckest, etc. Similar forms also occur in some Nepal
languages. Thus, Thämi hok-nä-du, being-I-am, I am; ne rehu-
nä-du, thee-by striking-thou-art , thou art striking; Dhimäl kä
le-ari-kä, I come-shall-I ; nä le-an-nä, thou wilt come; Limbu
cogu-n, did-I, I did; Yäkhä khetn-me-nä-nä , going-I-am, I go,
and so forth. Note the position of the pronominal suffix between
the base and the auxiliary in some of the forms quoted. It should
also be noted that some dialects such as Limbu use pronominal
prefixes in the same way, just as is the case in the Kuki-Chin
dialects. Compare Limbu gä cogu, I did; khene ke-wä, thou thou-
art; khum-chi me-wä, they they-are, and so forth.
It will be seen that the person of the subject is not, as a
rule, separately indicated when it is of the third person, at least
in the case of Kanäwarl. A similar distinction between the first
and second persons on one side and the third on the other is some¬
times also made with reference to the object. If the object is
either the first or second person, it can be indicated by inserting a
c or ci between the base and the terminations or by adding it to
the base; thus, toh-c, beat me; hando tä-ci-n, servant make-me-
please. Similarly the verb ran-mig, to give, is replaced by ke-mig
if the indirect object is of the first or the second person.
Sten Konow, The Tibeto-Burman Dialect spoken in Kanawar. 123
A reflexive or reciprocal base is similarly formed by inserting
3 or st; thus, toh-si-mig, to beat each other, or, to beat oneself;
toh-sö-to-g, I beat myself; but iöh-cö-to-g, I beat thee.
A similar complicated system of verbal forms is found in
several Nepalese languages. Hodgson has analysed two of them,
viz. Väyu and Bähing, and he justly remarks, —
"In Väyu, as in Bähing, the complete fusion of all agents and
objects with the action is tbe chief peculiarity of these tongues,
indicating their close affinity with the Ho, Sontal, and Munda
tongues".
A similar incorporation of the object in the verb is also met
with in languages such as Khambu, Limbu, etc. Compare Khambu
khodo-pika, him-said, he said to him; Limbu pi-rä-he, give me;
hip-tam-me, beat him.
The difi'erent verbal bases in Kanäwarl are all inflected in
the same way by adding the pronominal suffixes mentioned above,
if it is necessary to distinguish the person of the subject. Thus,
g<^ bi-0 to-g, I going am; ka-s töh-c-ö to-n, thee-by beating-me
art, thou beatest me. In the past tense, a suffix gg can be added
in the third person. The difi'erent forms of the past tense of the
verbs M-mig, to go, and töh-mig, to beat, will be seen from the
table which follows.
Ordinary Respectful Ordinary Respectful
Sing. 1 bi-e-g i6h-ig
2 bi-e-n bl-e-ü toh-in töh-iü
3 bi-gy bi-e-s tön-ä töh-is
Dual 1 exclusive bi-e-c ton-ic
1 inclusive bi-e
töh-ye
2 bi-e-c töh-ic
3 bi-gy bi-e-s tön-ä töh-is
Plural 1 exclusive bi-e-c bi-e-n töh-ic töh-in
1 inclusive bi-e töh-ye
2 bi-e-c bi-e-n töh-ic töh-in
3 i>ky bi-e-s tön-ä töh-is
In a similar way are formed töh-ci-g, beat-thee-I, I beat thee ;
töh-ci-e-c, you beat me; töh-ce, they beat me, or, thee; toh-si-ec,
I and they beat ourselves; töh-si-e, I and you beat oui-selves, and
so forth.
The future is formed by adding the verb substantive to the base; thus, t6h-to-g, I shall strike. If the object of a transitive
verb is of the first or the second person, or if the verb is used
with a reflexive or reciprocal meaning, to is replaced by co or so,
respectively; thus, ha-s ton-co-n, thee-by strike-me-wilt, thou wilt
strike me ; do-gon tön-so, they will strike each other, and so forth.
Pronominal suffixes are also added to the imperative. Thus,
biü, go; respectful bi-n; dual bi-c; plural bi-c, respectful bi-fl;
hi-s toh-n, thee-by strike-please, please strike; ton-c, beat me;
kisis ton-ci-c, beat me you two; kinän ton-si-c, beat each other,
and so forth.
If the action is to be performed after something else has
been done, a second suffix rä, dual and plural rac, respectful ran,
is added. The pronominal suffixes are, however, in that case the
same. Thus, töh-ci-ra-c, beat ye me; ran-rd-'n,, please give him.
The preceding remarks have revealed several facts in which
Kanäwarl deviates from the usual principles of Tibeto-Burman
grammar. The principal ones are the counting of higher numbers
in twenties; the use of a dual in addition to the plural in the
personal pronouns; the use of a double set of the dual and the
plural of the pronoun of the first person, one including and the
other excluding the person or persons addressed; the use of pro¬
nominal suffixes in order to distinguish the person of the subject
with verbs; and, lastly, the incorporation of the object in the verb
by means of a suffix.
It has been mentioned that the same characteristic features
occur in several other Himalayan dialects, in the neighbourhood
of Kanawar and in Nepal. One of them, the so-called Bunän, has
been described by Mr. Jaeschke as closely related to Kanäwarl.
The materials forwarded for the purposes of the Linguistic Survey
of India do not quite bear out this statement. The dialect now
more closely agrees with Tibetan in grammatical principles, and
the infiuence of that language has apparently to some extent changed
the general character of the dialect. The case is probably similar
with the connected dialects spoken in the north of Almora. They
are much influenced by Tibetan, but they also present many
characteristics of the same kind as those which we meet in Kanä¬
warl. They are all dialects of the type which Hodgson described
as complex, pronomenalised. He compared the use of suffixes after
verbs in order to indicate the subject and the object in Väyu
and Bähing with the corresponding use in Mundä languages.
In this respect it is of interest to note that the use of pronominal
suffixes is not obligatory, either in the Mundä- languages or in
the Himalayan dialects. In the Mundä languages, it is more common
to add the pronominal suffixes indicating the subject to the word
immediately preceding the verb. Compare Santäli drak^-te-n calak'-a.
Sten Konow, The Tibeto-Burman Dialect spoken in Kanawar. 125
house-in-I go-shall, I shall go in. This practice can be compared
with the use of pronominal prefixes with verbs in order to denote
the subject in some Himalayan languages such as Limbu and in
the Kuki-Chin dialects of Purther India.
I have already drawn attention to the fact that the pronominal
suffixes indicating the subject are often inserted between the base
and an auxiliary; thus, CaudänsT se-ga-s, I struck; se-na-s, thou
struckest; Thämi rehu-nä-du, strikest, and so forth. The same
principle also prevails in Mundä. Compare Santäli ränöd-ed-in-
taha-kan-a, hungering-I-was, I hungered.
The remaining characteristics of KanäwarT and connected forms
of speech in which they differ from other Tibeto-Burman languages,
are likewise in accordance with the grammatical principles prevailing
in the Mundä languages. Compare SantälT pä isi gäl, three twenties
ten, seventy; märä isi, five twenties, hundred; in, I; alin, I and
he; aian., I and thou; alä, I and they; abon, I and you; näl-äk'-
kan-a-ko , they show themselves; näl-ke(-ko-a-pä , saw-them-you,
you saw them, and so forth.
It will be seen that the dialects in question, which are all
Tibeto-Burman forms of speech, in several important points difier
from other languages of the Tibeto-Burman family and conform to
the practice of the Mundä languages of India. In the case of one
of them, the so-called Bunän, it seems possible to state that it has
of late come under the influence of Tibetan.
Hodgson explained the correspondance between our dialects and
Mundä by the supposition that the Tibeto-Burman and Mundä
families are related , being both derived from one and tbe same
base. Modern philology has not adopted that opinion. The facts
drawn attention to in the preceding pages, however, force the con¬
clusion upon us that Kanäwarl and connected dialects are mixed forms
of speech. They are essentially Tibeto-Burman languages. There
is, however, also a substratum of a language built up according
to the same principles as the Mundä family. It seems therefore
necessary to assume that Mundäs or tribes related to them have
once been settled in the Himalayas where traces of their language
can still be observed in grammatical features of the dialects spoken
at the present day.
This non Tibeto-Burman element can be traced in a series of
dialects along the ethnographic watershed between Tibetan and the
Indo-Aryan tribes, from Kanawar in the west, to Nepal in the east.
They are mostly found in the Central Himalayas. One of them,
the so-called DhTmäl. is spoken in the lower Himalayas. It is
probable that the element in question has once been distributed
over a larger area. It has, however, in the course of time been
restricted by the influence exercised by the Tibetans in the north
and the Aryans in the south.
The Meaning and Etymology of the Päli word abbülhesika-.
Uy Dr. Truman Michelson.
The word abbülhesika- occurs three times on p. 139 of the
Majjhima Nikäya (ed. Päli Text Society) vol. I in the following
passages : ayam vuccati bhikkhave bhikkhu ukkhittopaligho iti pi^
saiikinnaparikho iti pi, abbülhesika iti pi, niraggalo iti pi, ariyo
pannaddhaja pannabhäro visarnyutto iti pi.
Kathah ca bhikkhave bhikkhu ukkhittapaligho hoti? Idha
bhikkhave bhikkhuno avijjä pahinä hoti ucchinnamülä tälävatthu-
katä anabhävakatä') äyatirn anuppädadhammä
Kathan ca bhikkhave bhikkhu sahkinnaparikho hoti? Idha
bhikkhave bhikkhuno ponobhaviko jätisamsäro pahino hoti etc.
(as above but with masc. adjectives)
Kathan ca bhikkhave bhikkhu abbülhesika hati? Idha
bhikkhave bhikkhuno tanhä pahinä hati etc. Evarn kho bhikkhave
bhikkhu abbülhesika hoti
Neumann, Die Reden Gotamo Buddho's, Erster Band, p. 231,
renders the word "Unablenkbarer". This is not a literal translation.
As the word is not in Childer's Päli Dictionary and has not, so
far as I know, received a scientific explanation up to the present
time, I olfer the following suggestion :
■.Abbülhesika- is a possessive compound composed of abbülka-
and isikä- , meaning "whose arrow is torn out". Abbülha- ^) is
Sanskrit ä + vrdha-, the past passive participle of the Sanskrit
root bfh, Vfli "tear"; isikä- is Sanskrit isikä- (variants isikä-,
isikä- , isikä- , iäikä-). The long -it- of abbülha- points to an
original -f-, cf the Vedic analogies cited by Whitney, Skt. Gr.-^
§ 224 a. In Päli we find isikä- and Isikä-") beside isikä-. For
the last compare Präkrit isiifä- (Süyagadanga Sutta, Bombay: samvat
1936, II. 1. 16 p. 593 bottom).
1) For ana- cf. Pischel, Pkt. Gr. § 77 end.
2) That abbülha- = Skt. ävrdha- has long been know. See Kuhn,
B. z. Päli Gr. p. 15 and the literature cited there; Fausbüll, Sutta Nipäta
vol. II p. 239 under Bah. 3) See below.
