The Hunt For Foreign Words in The Gveda Author(s) : RAHUL PETER DAS Source: Indo-Iranian Journal, July 1995, Vol. 38, No. 3 (July 1995), Pp. 207-238 Published By: Brill

THE HUNT FOR FOREIGN WORDS IN THE ṚGVEDA
Author(s): RAHUL PETER DAS

Source: Indo-Iranian Journal , July 1995, Vol. 38, No. 3 (July 1995), pp. 207-238
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/24662226
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Indo-Iranian
Journal
This content downloaded from

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RAHUL PETER DAS
THE HUNT FOR FOREIGN WORDS IN THE RGVEDA
F. B. J. Kuiper has recently published a work purportedly

exactly is 'Aryan' in the Rgveda.1 This is a subject, of gre
Indian Studies, whose ramifications extend even to presen
political conflicts in South Asia. Now the author of the st
so well-known and respected that his views on the matte
only to attract much attention, but also to exert great influe
figure prominently in future discussion. In view of this, it d
necessary to examine the premises on which the study is
methodology employed in it critically. The following lines
this. Though what they state are basically my own though
been influenced by much that was very unselfishly convey
several scholars in various countries, who read through an
preliminary drafts; however, the deductions from such co
relation to my own thoughts are entirely my own responsibi
faults and oversights are to be attributed to me only. I ha
requested Professor Kuiper to write a rejoinder to accomp
written, and he was, in his usual gentlemanly manner, gr
so. The editors of this journal were kind enough to acquie
both articles together, which should benefit interested sch
An apter title for Kuiper's work would have been "Foreig

Rgveda", as that is what it is primarily concerned with. K
been an indefatigable prospector for 'foreign' elements in
especially in Vedic and above all in the Rgveda,2 particula
to be of Austro-Asiatic origin (though he has backed off f
earlier views; cf. e.g. his p. 18),3 and it might incidentally be
examine whether Western efforts such as his may not ha
stood in non-scholarly circles and thus contributed to the
rampant (though happily — still — non-violent) 'Austro-A
India4 in the same manner as linguistic statements by We
ultimately led to the virulent, and often violent, politicise
South India.5 It is indeed mainly this potential for misund
led me to my examination of Kuiper's work.
Most, though not all, of the supposedly foreign element
work are words and their phonetic structures. It seems a f
Indo-Iranian Journal 38: 207-238, 1995.

© 1995 Kluwer Academic Printed
Publishers.
in the Netherlands.

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
208 RAHUL PETER DAS
the oldest Indo-Aryan tongue(s) known

words not of Indo-Iranian or 'Aryan' or
geographic, personal and tribal names
The attempts of many early scholars to
each and every Vedic word, especially
to awkward concoctions and contortion
words. That does not however automat
words are foreign — they might be, bu
to find a clear Indo-European etymolog
an Indo-European origin is impossible. I
knowledge not a single case in which a
confirming the foreign origin of a Rgv
word, which may be due to the fact tha
against) such foreign origin are often n
thorough research, but rather (often wist
possibility of foreign words (especially
still seems to be just this: a possibility.
attention to Colin P. Masica's contention
Hindi 80 percent of the terminology [o
"The surprising thing is that only a sma
either Dravidian or Austroasiatic, even
after postulated borrowing lasting thou
Against this background, one is liable
of it being "an obvious fact" "that a no
vocabulary, even from the earliest per
European origin" (p. I).7 It is true that t
(mostly phonetic, particularly with rega
which latter are however a bit puzzling8
it seems that these criteria are mostly d
deemed to be foreign, i.e. we seem to h
other independent criteria are given or
deemed to be foreign, from which the c
are derived, are taken to be foreign in
sion that the chief reason is that an Ind
seem to readily present itself10 (indeed
where this is clearly stated11), though
words still might be, according to Kuipe
9).12 Such a mode of argumentation is
quences. Thus e.g. Werba 1992 has recen
words which to Kuiper are undisputably

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
THE HUNT FOR FOREIGN WORDS IN THE RGVEDA 209
of speech-forms which followed sound patterns approximating to tho

known to us from Middle Indo-Aryan;13 such considerations would s
be irrelevant to Kuiper, because in accordance with the statement in
these words would be 'foreign' regardless of other explanations.14
As regards cases in which an etymological link with Indo-European
seems to be lacking, this apparent lack may indeed point to an origin
is non-Indo-European or non-Indo-Aryan (the two are not synonyms,
though Kuiper seems to treat them as such, or at any rate he does no
far as I can see — consider loans from non-Indian Indo-European sou
On the other hand, it may simply be an indication of our ignorance a
an actually existing link with Indo-European. Such being the state of a
statements on the definitive categorisation of a word, even if based o
etymologising experience, seem in many cases to be nothing more th
reiteration of one's personal belief, be they ever so forceful.15
This is, to give an example chosen at random, also true as regards
jâskamadâ-, whose "foreign character" according to Kuiper "cannot
denied" (p. 25);16 no sort of evidence is given, either I.e., on p. 57 (to
I.e. refers us) or on p. 69, which merely holds the variant jàhkamadâ-
"probably due to scribal conventions of much later times", a statemen
which is not substantiated either. Similarly, one does wonder why "th
be no doubt that these variant readings [i.e. pispala- etc.] for RV Paip
pippala- etc. are secondary" (p. 61).17 Kuiper also contends that the
common noun pippala-(pippala-) is later than the proper noun, the fo
being confined to New Indo-Aryan, but this disregards the fact that
according to many of our dictionaries it is precisely the former mean
which is older, namely Vedic (incidentally, pippali- is often used in m
texts to denote the seeds of madanaphala-)\ to my knowledge, this p
has not been examined yet. All of which does make Kuiper's remarks
pispala-/pippala- appear to be rather apodictic. There are scores of s
statements in the book, all of more or less problematic nature. Attent
may also be drawn to p. 63, where the use of words for "mother" as
interjections in both Old Indo-Aryan and Tamil is taken to suggest an
etymological relationship between these inteijections.18 But in actual f
use of words for "mother" and "father" as inteijections is a pan-South
phenomenon,19 which one could use as an argument for cultural diffu
but hardly for etymology.
In this connection it might be well to recollect how Paul Thieme (w
whom Kuiper often does not see eye to eye) once characterised the
historic linguist", namely as a sort of detective hunting for clues, which
puts "together into a meaningful whole, discovering the secret of thei

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
210 RAHUL PETER DAS
disposition by relating them to a hypoth

looking for further clues and testing th
fit, all the while correcting and complem
changing — his initial conception. ... It
hypothetical assumption is related to th
clues" (Thieme 1964, p. 585).20
And this is exactly where we come to t
nature and significance are the clues at
chief arguments for the 'foreignness' of
fit into the scheme of Vedic, mostly, th
morphological grounds. But what do we
more precisely Rgvedic? One of the firs
is how far we can trust our printed tex
mately all our arguments must rest. Th
disposal are usually taken to be quite tru
so? While it is of course true that this t
codified version of the corpus at a certa
probably been handed down to- us faithf
necessarily follow from this that this ho
have recently drawn attention to a case
(Das 1987b, pp. 99f.) and there must be m
Given the fact that it is often seemingly
assume great importance in the course o
which should not be neglected. It thus s
over a century of scholarly study of th
critical edition of its text,23 such efforts h
commentaries; Friedrich Max Miiller's re
ness of the Rgvedic tradition in the pre
seems, hardly ever been questioned.
But even when we at some time in the future obtain a critical edition of
the text, this will be an edition not of the Rgveda, but of one recension,
namely that of the Säkala(ka)s. It should be obvious that statements made
on the Rgveda can in actual fact be taken to be valid only after the com
parison of different recensions; of course this is not possible at present
(except sporadically, when stray parts of other recensions have survived),
but then we should at least be honest enough to acknowledge this, and not
make statements on the Rgveda as such, as is usually done — in spite of the
fact that the problem of different recensions is by no means unknown.24
Another factor, on which work has been done, but which nevertheless
seems to be largely neglected now, is the scholarly tampering with the text

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
even in olden times. Finally, we have unintentional tampering due

modes of speech to reckon with too, and maybe also due to other,
unknown factors. Whatever the sources of such potential tamperin
cannot afford to neglect the possibility of the latter leading not only
'standardisation', i.e. a harmonisation with what we Indologists ten
regard as the 'standard', but also to the opposite, namely what ma
analogously called 'de-standardisation'.
This leads to another problem, namely that of 'dialects'. Though
does mention this problem off and on, he does not on the whole s
take it into account in the course of his deliberations. This is all the more
surprising because he refers to Witzel 1989 in his study. Against this one
could point out that Witzel is concerned mostly with later Vedic. But before
Witzel's long study we find, in the very same book (Caillat 1989), three
other studies concerned precisely with the Rgveda,25 and one wonders why
Kuiper has not even discussed the questions they have raised, even though
they are very relevant in the context.26 For if we have different tongues to
consider, then obviously we will also have to take different phonetic,
morphological and semantic factors into account and cannot simply regard
our data as one homogeneous mass, especially when confronted with
problematic words.27 All this is apart from the fact, which we should always
keep in mind too, that in spite of all homogenising tendencies doubtlessly
present within a language, true 'consistency' in language structures may
more likely than not be but wishful thinking on the part of linguists.28
i nere is a wnoie complex or prooiems to consiaer nere, mngmg on iour
factors: What tongue(s) did the poets usually use? What tongue(s) did they
compose their hymns in? What tongue(s) did the reciters usually use? What
tongue(s) did the compilers usually use? When we consider later redactors
and a chain of transmission in different linguistic environments for individual
hymns, things become even more complicated.29 Of course this does not
mean that things must indeed have been so complicated, but the possibility
cannot be simply brushed aside.30 Furthermore, there are different speeds
of linguistic development in individual tongues to consider, so that linguistic
criteria do not necessarily lead to sound absolute chronologies.31
Of course Kuiper is aware of all these problems,32 which are after all
nothing new to Vedic scholars33 and have led to various efforts to come to
terms with them,34 but his individual arguments do not seem to pay much
attention to them. Thus we have statements like the following on p. 56: "For
chronological reasons one cannot assume RV + gusp- > Mind. *gupph- >
AV (hyper-Sanskritic)35 gulp h-, since gulph- occurs as a variant reading of
guspitâ- in Saunaka and is, at any rate, the common form in the Sütras. If

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
212 RAHUL PETER DAS
gusp- and gulph- cannot stand for Mi

remains is to take both as adaptations
1955: 160), which also accounts for gu
change p/ph is in itself an indication
we find, incidentally, that the mentio
precisely because words in which this
taken to be foreign: "DEDR contains o
and 6 Indo-Aryan reconstructions wit
with initial ph, which can all be expla
Since aspirate surds did not occur in
about the Indo-Aryan origin of the a
example of the circulus vitiosus ment
discussion of "the 'intrusive' r and r"
similar; applying some of these argum
that New Indo-Aryan lät is older than
being a hyperurbanism of the former.
Here it might be well to consider tha
different in character from more mo
Granth of the Sikhs or the Old Easte
collection. Especially the latter is highly
we clearly have evidence of oral litera
which has undergone changes in the c
on the one hand we today have these s
standardised and probably influenced
the other hand we know that the relev
often radically — different readings f
Unless we hold that the Vedic compila
are unique in this regard, we simply c
developments in connection with them
traditional mode of handing down Ved
such tendencies, but that would not h
cation and/or the application to them
apart from the question of the trustw
down the texts (on which see above).
Against this background, the rather d
attempts to explain problematic words
matic. Of course Kuiper may be quite
been less apodictic. But then Kuiper i
Aryan" influence in Rgvedic society:
standing its very particular nature, a

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
non-Aryan names of persons, families and peoples who took part in

social life, we can be sure that this is only the tip of the iceberg" (p.
Here again Kuiper may quite possibly be right, but we may be allowe
remark that, since many of the "foreign" names seem to be so only b
no Indo-European etymology seems to present itself readily (pp. 6f.),
does raise questions as to the worth of their testimony.38
Particularly problematic is the treatment of Kânva-. On p. 16 we r
"The name Kânva-, however, can hardly be explained from *kmvâ-,
phonetic development of rn to an does not occur in the Rigveda (see
80)." P. 80 tells us that the strongest argument for this change would
Kânva-, which word has however been shown on p. 16 to be foreign.
back to p. 16. Here we indeed find this name being deemed foreign o
other grounds too, namely because the author of the "main source" o
Emusa-Myth "is said to be" (my italics) a Kanva, and Kuiper has no
that this myth is "non-Aryan" (cf. on this note 3). Since some later t
the Kanvas abrähmana- and asrotriya-, and because in one passage o
Aitareya-Brâhmana abrähmana- is an epithet given to Kavasa Ailüsa
is to Kuiper "non-Aryan", the deduction is that "as early as the oldes
torical period ... the Kanvas must have been called in from an indig
tribe as sorcerers and must have brought this particular myth with them
(pp. 16f.). As further proof we are offered the name Prâskanva-, obv
analysed as *prâ-kkanva- (cf. p. 67), in which "pra seems to be a San
zation of *për-" (p. 43);40 because "a) skr- is only attested after pari-
sam-, b) pra-kr- does not explain the name, and c) there is no eviden
rn > an in the Rigveda (p. 79)" (ibid.), which latter (on which see al
39) brings us back to square one.
But at least the arguihents relating to the name Praskanva are relev
here (even though we can not be sure that the phonetic similarities o
two names are indeed due to their etymological relationship); the arg
regarding Kavasa Ailüsa is however hardly relevant, because calling
"non-Aryan" abrähmana- does of course not mean that anyone calle
abrähmana- "non-Brahmin" is thus automatically "non-Aryan" too. S
need hardly be emphasized that an "Aryan" is not necessarily a Brah
the weakness of such reasoning is self-evident. Thus even if Kavasa A
were in fact "non-Aryan", it would not follow from this that this would
apply to the Kanvas too. But even the "non-Aryan" nature of Kavas
is doubtful. The main argument as regards this alleged "non-Aryan"
hinges on Kavasa Ailüsa being called däsyäh putrah. Kuiper takes dä
refer to a woman of the non-Aryan Däsas; however, he does not ev
sider the meaning "servant, slave" of dàsâ- already found in the Samh

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
214 RAHUL PETER DAS
and neither the meaning "enemy".41 M

"foreigner" here,42 this would not aut
have to mean "non-Aryan" (cf. note 4
But Kuiper also offers us linguistic a
Ailüsa's name is "non-Aryan". These a
the first part of the name, it is unclea
Kavâsa- is at all related to what seems
whose meaning and stem-form are bot
confidently taken to mean "gaping, o
and joined with a Dravidian family of
kavar, taken to go back to an original
branching off and bifurcated structur
various connotations). Phonetically, th
Dravidian */ precisely due to the assum
from Dravidian, which in their turn a
phonetic correspondences, which is cle
Semantically, Dravidian "branching" w
(postulated!) Vedic "opening wide" with
and — if the later evidence has been g
since according to Kuiper the Vedic t
else a more general "wide open" would
or changed in its meaning in the Dravi
original connotation, but been preser
problematic, quite apart from the prob
language families. What one also misse
rationale for 'borrowing' an adjective
language; the only one I can think of
female genitals, but then its use in th
problematic. The whole is not made an
Sanskrit kapâta- and kaväta-, since thi
door, but to its covering (of wood, as
opening) "door", also "door panel". Wh
postulated here? If however the conne
mentioned is nevertheless still regard
grounds, would not a derivation on sem
the meaning "shard; shell-like enclosur
equally feasible, since phonetically thi
Dravidian ("non-Aryan") etymology o
Exploring quite another avenue, We
has been formed due to haplology fro

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
spond to * Kavâvrsa(n)- in the Hochsprache. As such, the name w

formed on the same lines as kaväri- and kavàsakhà-\ however, the
mology, of which especially this latter aspect is appealing, is offer
apodictically, and does not go into the problem of the possible rel
adjectival kavâs(a)- (see above). The difficulty is that the personal
Kavâsa-, being simply mentioned as a name, with no other contex
evidence which might have helped to determine its meaning, does
lend itself to a semantic analysis, which means that, unless it shou
out to be related to adjectival kavâs(a)- (but how can we determine
which however is itself of unclear meaning, we have precious littl
for conducting such an analysis of the word, as also for examining
feasibility of the occurrence of haplology. Thus this etymology to
ultimately not be proved unless new material turns up, though at
does have the advantage of operating with far lesser suppositions
postulates than Kuiper does.
As regards the second part of the name, Ailüsa- is regarded as
from Dravidian by Kuiper 1968, pp. 78ff. only because he simply
it with sailüsä-, so as to show that in Vedic an initial cJs could be
which he takes to be a Dravidianism. Why the two words are, apa
this wish to prove their Dravidian origins, at all to be connected
clearly stated and seems to be quite arbitrary. Thus on pp. 79f. w
is possible that at that time the descendance of his [i.e. Kavasa's] f
considered respectable enough but the patronymic Ailüsa- also p
problems. Judging from this patronymic his father's name must h
*Ilüsa- . . . the occurrence of sailüsa- beside Ailüsa- reminds us of the
apparently [sic] parallel case of sirimbitha- and Irimbithi-, which occurs as a

name of a Vedic poet in the Sarvànukramanï of the Rigveda." Thus the only
reason for considering the two words forming the first pair to belong
together at all is the second pair of words, in the case of which latter the
arguments for their belonging together are problematic too.45 As it is, one
could actually just as well consider non-Vedic, but nevertheless Aryan
derivations of Ailüsa- from the animal names eda- or ena- (which says
nothing about the derivation of these words); if Ailüsa- is indeed a
patronymic (as seems probable, but is not certain), then it could just as well
have come from *Elüsa- (or something similar). But this is just an aside,
and does not alter the other arguments set forth above.
It seems that we can therefore quite rightly say that the origin of the
name of Kavasa Ailüsa is unclear, which also means that we cannot simply
confidently hold it to be "non-Aryan", at least not without further proof.
Even the fact that the first part of the name has an odd number of syllables,

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
216 RAHUL PETER DAS
even though it denotes a male, and is thus n

of the Grhyasütras (cf. Bosch 1990, pp. 2
there are many clearly ultimately Indo-E
number of syllables in Vedic and also late
whether such later injunctions are relevan
also do not know how far such normativ
bearing on actual daily life, a problem of
Dharmasästra and similar texts are becom
all that as it may, let us for the sake of a
Kuiper's derivation of the name. Now Ku
that sailùsâ- is a vrddhi derivative of a n
follow Kuiper's argument on ailùsa- and s
same term, then it would follow that the
the name of a non-Aryan tribe, i.e. that
his ancestors on his father's side too is/a
not then ask ourselves why only the non
of his mother should be commented upo
difficulty too, but merely passes over it
[on the mother] is accordingly in full har
from his name, that he was of non-Arya
apparently well-known in the circles of b
only stress the t/ôsf-nature of his mother."
already quoted above, remarking on the "
"considered respectable". But if a non-Ar
able, why should, by contrast, a non-Ary
commented upon? Or must we postulate
nymic here? That clearly requires explan
origin neither a patronymic nor a metron
(such as "Atilla the Hun"), then too we ul
problem of why only the dnsi-nature of
This is just another difficulty occasioned
Kuiper's characterisation of Kânva- as fo
to be highly speculative. On the other ha
the manuscripts of the Orissan version o
Atharvavedasamhitä (Witzel 1984, p. 231)
mention.47
The name Ambarisa- is for Kuiper "a clear case" of a "foreign" word, on
the grounds that "the phoneme Pol ranks it among the many foreign words
with h in the Rigveda (A[lt]i[indische ]Gr[ammatik].I: 184), and the element
-ïsa-, apparently a suffix, occurs in 'einige meist etymologisch dunkle

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
Wörter' (including class, ambarïsa- 'frying pan', see AiGr.II/2: 462)"

However, the characterisation of several words with b as "Fremdwör
I.e. first is arbitrary; the most we can honestly say is that their etymolo
unclear. Moreover, a word does not necessarily have to be borrowed
because a sound or sounds in it are of 'foreign' origin, for phonologi
borrowing or influence does not necessarily entail lexical borrowing
And even if many words with b were indeed "Fremdwörter", it woul
follow from this that every unexplainable word with b is "foreign". In th
context we also cannot overlook the already ancient interchange of b
v;48 it may ultimately not be relevant here, but this aspect first needs
examining. Again, the suffix -isa- may occur in several etymologicall
unclear words, but that alone does not mean that such words, of wh
some at least can hardly be termed non-Indo-European (e.g. rjïsâ-, m
are "foreign". There are also other questions: What is the relation of
name to the later ambarïsa-, whose meaning is assumed to be "fryin
Is there any connection with âmbara-, which is already Rgvedic? If
A mû b-n/Mij oKaii! fV\ic
Finally, we cannot overlook the fact that this name appears t

three other clearly Indo-Aryan names, all four characterising t
man whose name is also Indo-Aryan. This alone would suffice
anyone sceptical of claims that one of these five names, of whi
Indo-Aryan, is not Indo-Aryan; at the very least, one would def
for solid proof to substantiate this claim. As we have seen abov
proof Kuiper offers us are ultimately vague feelings pertaining
ness. Here again Kuiper may be right, but his arguments can ha
this. Thus one must at this stage label as rash his statement on
was apparently quite possible to give a non-Aryan name to a so
family in which Indo-Aryan names were the rule", especially w
the far-reaching consequences this statement obviously has.
The only case in which we have more than what seems to the
sceptical) reader a feeling, based on etymological unease, for re
name held to be "foreign" by Kuiper as perhaps indeed being so
Balbütha Taruksa, who is called a Däsa. However, even then we
with problems, as the discussion above on Kavasa Ailüsa (see es
shows. But even if this name should be "non-Aryan", would it s
prove the existence of a massive number of non-Aryan bearers
culture?
No one is however going to deny that the Vedic Aryans met non-Aryan
But who were these? Though Kuiper himself draws attention to "other
languages, which have disappeared in the three thousand years that separat

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
218 RAHUL PETER DAS
us from that time" (p. 5), in actual fact

Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic. This is in
have not a single bit of uncontroversial
Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic speakers in
statement on interaction with Dravidian
times is, in the light of our present kno
which may be justified, but equally well
the oldest Vedic texts referring to fair
engaging in fierce fights with black-ski
tally, quite likely not Dravidians!) nativ
among nineteenth and early twentieth
might perhaps also reflect racist prejud
challenged today.50 Of course this does
this subject may not lead to acceptable r
more than what in the face of the diffi
to Indo-Aryan, and the even greater, w
ties with regard to Dravidian and Austr
mostly to mere assertions (however forc
Many of the studies in this field use me
parts of the world, could with ease prov
Romance languages is nothing but the
equivalent), as part of a "Mediterranean
am also writing nothing new when I poi
literature on the subject is composed no
rehash of the views of others, taken at
One of the chief causes of methodical unsoundness m this connection is
the tendency of many scholars to pay little attention to the internal deve
ment of the language group with which comparison is being carried out,
resulting in material for comparison being drawn from all sorts of individ
languages of the group without regard to factors of time and distance.54
Kuiper himself, whilst in gentlemanly fashion withholding all comment,
draws attention to a most instructive case on p. 19: "Whereas Hillebrand
identified them [the Panis] with the Parnoi, Gurov 1987: 34 argues that
they were a Dravidian tribe. He points to Pani and Paniek in the mytholog
of the Raj Gonds of Adilabad [!] and proposes Dravidian etymologies for
Pani-, bekanâta- etc."55 In any case, Kuiper is clearly aware of this proble
and attempts to take it into account by often referring not to individual
later languages, but to (reconstructed) Proto-Dravidian or Proto-Austro
Asiatic, but again and again we find slips such as on p. 46, where palàsâ-
compared with (modern!) Santali palhi, or on p. 24, where kalka- is

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
regarded as "clearly a borrowing from Kann. [i.e. Kannada] kalak

'mixture' (DEDR 1299). Elision is frequent in Kannada"; this allege
borrowing is then used to make the claim that "since Skt. kalka-
attested from Räm. 2.85.68f., Yäjn., Sus'r. and Dasak. onwards (and
meaning 'falsehood' since Mhbh.), Kann, kalka must date from at
beginning of our era", which on the face of it seems to be a beaut
of a circulus vitiosus, unless Kuiper has here withheld information
matters he regards as being too obvious to merit comment. As re
studies mentioned above in general, apart from the disregard of s
of time and distance, there more often than not also seems to be a
of semantic problems. At least on the side of Indo-Aryan we at tim
attempts in some of these works to conduct comprehensive philol
studies for determining the meaning of a word, though more often th
this aspect is neglected; in the case of Dravidian and Austro-Asiat
mentioned aspect is almost never paid attention to, what is written
dictionaries being as a rule accepted without questioning, without
at conducting comprehensive semantic studies not only in the indi
languages concerned, but also in the context of the language grou
whole.56 The situation with regard to morphological studies is only
better. But how can comparisons lead to acceptable results when t
of what is being compared is not clear? The whole is made even w
the fact that we can in a great many cases, especially when no old
the language used for comparison is available, not be sure that wh
regard as typical for a certain non-Indo-Aryan language is not in a
something that developed due to the influence of Indo-Aryan; in t
context attention may be drawn to Andronov 1979. In other word
actually be comparing Indo-Aryan data with Indo-Aryan (and no
Indo-Aryan) data without being aware of this;57 eagerness to find
Aryan material in Indo-Aryan often serves to cloud our vision wit
to this possibility.
Moreover, if we are to pursue the subject of loans from non-In
sources, we cannot afford to let our investigations stop at the bor
South Asia. Firstly, we know that much of the Rgveda is connecte
area where influences from outside South Asia must have been pr
Secondly, we know that there was an infiltration58 of Indo-Aryans
outside South Asia;59 some of the hymns might quite possibly eve
from this pre-South-Asian period (and may have undergone unkn
changes in the process of transmission) and might theoretically ex
current during their composition. Then again there is also the pos
that loans (maybe affecting only individual 'dialects')60 stemming f

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
220 RAHUL PETER DAS
outside South Asia only gradually (and m

into the language of the hymns from (th
possible source for the influx of foreign
sidered, except in a few cases, when atten
But the non-Indo-European, culturally do
Middle East have rarely been considered,6
sort of cultural contact is a strong possib
Indo-Aryans (or their forefathers) were
vis-à-vis the mighty dominant cultures o
the Santals are with respect to Bengali cu
This latter brings us to another aspect o
dismissive of Paul Thieme's remarks on the differences between "educated"
and "popular" speech (as Thieme calls them) (p. 4). However, when one
culture has a domineering position with respect to another, and when
people who originally belonged to the latter try to adapt to the former, one
inevitably has a situation in which those forced to adapt are mostly at the
receiving end of any interchange that takes place, and will as a rule partake
of the new culture at first only in its 'common' or Vulgar', but not in its
'high' form,63 unless they achieve positions within the dominating culture
which allow them to play a role within its latter form.64 As such, the
question of bilingualism within what from the point of view of (largely
monolingual?) members of the dominating culture are only peripheral
adjuncts to their culture is largely irrelevant as long as people from this
'periphery' do not move into the 'mainstream'.65 True, some sort of influence
might be expected from the 'periphery', especially in cases where the
'mainstream' has no established equivalent which would first have to be
supplanted; in the case of words, for instance, one can quite well envision
the 'mainstream' borrowing terms for concepts or things previously unknown
which it finds itself confronted with. But when one comes to terms for well
established concepts, body parts, common activities, substances, weapons or
the like, one must look for the rationale of a supposed supplantation of an
already existing term in the language connected with the dominant culture
by a foreign word. For we must ask why someone speaking a language
which someone else tries, with varying degrees of success, to emulate,
should take up to him 'foreign' words used by the person trying to emulate
him, and then use these in his dealings with his own kind, who then in their
turn emulate him. 'Dialects' in such cases do not pose such great problems,
as speakers of 'dialects' too may be part of the dominant 'high' culture, in
which there may be ample provision for interchange between its divergent
speech forms.

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
These are developments which are known and have been studied al
the world,66 so that one does wonder why they are usually not consid
relevant when postulating foreign' South Asian influences in Rgvedic
especially on so massive a scale as Kuiper does. The possibility of the
influences being present must depend on its being shown that (non-A
people from outside the fold of Vedic culture indeed not only became
of this, but were right in its 'mainstream'. Of course this is what actually
happen in the course of history, but the point here is that we cannot
assume that this was already so at this early stage. Kuiper however d
not give us any relevant proof or even discuss the problem from this
but goes the opposite way in that he uses what in his eyes is the mass
presence of foreign elements in the Rgveda to postulate a massive pr
of "non-Aryans" within the folds of Vedic culture. However there are
have seen above, hardly any independent criteria on which to establis
supposed foreign presence, they seeming in actual fact to be derived f
notions on "non-Aryan" influence which they ultimately are supposed
prove — which means that here again we end up with a circulus vitio
The question of loans from outside South Asia, especially Middle
Eastern ones, is different, for here the dominant culture can hardly h
been that of the Indo-Aryans (on the question of language see also no
65). As such, for the early Vedic period at least this promises to be a
likelier source for possible foreign words than sources from within So
Asia itself (with the exception of names of plants, persons, tribes etc.
well as substances and appliances new to the Aryans), and should as
receive more attention than has yet been accorded it.
To sum up: there are so many problems connected with the subject
postulated foreign influences (more especially, in this case at least, fo
words) in the Rgveda, that it appears to be very rash to offer decided
statements on the subject, at any rate for the present.67 I am aware of
fact that what I have written above is apt to be seen as an attempt to
confusion, but the fact is that this confusion does actually exist, and i
duty as scholars to face this squarely and honestly (as Kuiper too doe
several times, seeming then however to change his mind ever so often
arbitrarily come down on the side of one opinion or the other). Thou
part of human nature in general to seek answers to everything, and th
to those of us bent on finding answers the short span we are allowed
on this earth tends to generate impatience in this regard, we all, or at
rate those of us aspiring to search impartially for knowledge, should p
in all humility and humbleness acknowledge that there are ultimately
mysteries which either will forever remain unsolved to all of us, or w

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
222 RAHUL PETER DAS
we as individuals cannot hope to see t

ing us might. If we acknowledge this
we as individuals cannot hope to find
will be more careful in our deliberatio
ourselves to create an answer for ever
be there or not.69 Otherwise, our delib
like those of the over-eager person o
say in their commentaries70 on Harib
âgrahï bata ninïsati yuktim tatra yatr
1 his does not ot course mean that w

effort, but merely that we should not
our vision. And we might also do well
efforts, harmless and merely 'academ
out to be powerful weapons in the han
them, and thus potentially bear the se
NOTES
1 F. B. J. Kuiper: Aryans in the Rigveda. Amsterdam/Atlanta (Editions Rodopi

(Leiden Studies in Indo-European 1.) iv, 116 pp. ISBN 90-5183-307-5. When pag
are cited below without any additional bibliographic information, they refer to th
2 Following customary practice, I use this term, though of course what is actuall
the Rgvedasamhitä.
3 The Emusa-Myth referred to I.e. is however still called "a non-Aryan myth" on
though the reason for this characterisation remains ultimately unclear, especially
possible explanations have still not yet been examined in detail or refuted by Ku
most of Kuiper's arguments in this regard are, as in the study being discussed h
words taken to be "non-Aryan", but on which the only thing we can at this stage
certainty is that their origins are unclear. On this myth see also my remarks in
p. 3 039. Though some of the remarks I.e. (e.g. on the geographic origin of the K
be too confident (they may, but may as well not, be correct), the arguments for
examining the myth from an Iranian perspective still stand. (From this point of v
myth might be "foreign", but not necessarily "non-Aryan".) Cf. in this regard als
1989, pp. 93f. (where a study by Kuiper is utilised too); see too notes 8 and 46
Pirart 1989. On the cleaving of the rock as a Mithraic act and a Tibetan paralle
Kvaeme 1986. On the boar Emusa cf. too Flattery/Schwartz 1989, pp. 134ff. (A
Das 1987a referred to above, please note that the reference in note 12 on p. 22
to the Hoshiarpur Atharvaveda edition in note 64, and that note 62 on p. 35 sh
correctly be: "Here we probably have one hook standing for many, or only one o
is being used to 'tear out the lustre'.")
4 See on this e.g. Das 1987c and Das 1988—1990.
5 Cf. on this development e.g. Irschick 1969, pp. 276ff., Klimkeit 1971, pp. 64f
Rajanayagam (esp. pp. 135ff.). A side-effect of this 'Dravidianism' has been the ef
connect Dravidian with or show the Dravidian origins of such disparate languag

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
Japanese, Polynesian languages, Mandingo and the like (not to mention the still unk
language(s) of the Indus culture; cf. note 51). These efforts may seem quaint, but the
fact rather irritating, as much valuable time has to be wasted in convincing the gulli
they have been had. Happily, such tendencies are dying out, and are anyway finding
fewer takers among scholars; however, there are still a few diehards like Clyde Ahm
Winters (Chicago) (whose articles even the otherwise serious Central Asiatic Journal
published), who finds Dravidian loanwords all over the world, and whose latest esca
include the 'proof of Tocharian A and B being not only influenced by, but maybe e
originating from Dravidian. It is interesting that among the non-Dravidian scholars m
vehemently advocating such theories there is a disproportionately large number of N
Americans, which seems in keeping with tendencies such as those to be observed e.g
Joseph H. Greenberg's 'world etymologies', motivated in part seemingly by consider
of domestic politics and cultural conflicts which are very often incomprehensible to
non-Americans (on this cf. also Hock 1993b, whence we leant that non-acceptance o
Greenberg's notions on methodological grounds has by certain North American sch
been branded as showing "Eurocentrism"). Attention may also be drawn to the love
models, overarching theories and generalisations, more often than not based, or so i
rate seems, on scanty primary data, which appears to be, though of course not typic
of North America, particularly wide-spread there. I personally have heard many no
American scholars sneer at this as an application to scholarship of 'quick fix' and fa
principles of what outsiders (doubtless themselves generalising) perceive to be the A
way of life. Though quite unkind, such statements may serve as typical examples sh
how such methods, clearly widely accepted, may appear to people with different cul
(and political?) backgrounds. On this subject cf. also Das 1991. But it must be poin
that such tendencies are not confined to Sooth Asian or Sprachbund Studies, and th
Americans in general have no call to be complacent, as evinced by the criticism, dir
against Dutch scholars of Malay poetics, of Sweeney 1992, p. 101b: "... the insatia
to classify, codify, compartmentalize and to impose categories where none may exist
reveals more about the ways of modern scholars than about the tradition." But irres
of whom this criticism is directed against, it should be kept in mind by all modern
6 This latter extract: Masica as quoted by Kuiper.
7 It must however be pointed out that when Kuiper makes a statement like this he
relies on his own studies of the issues concerned, and does not simply uncritically r
what somebody else has publicised on the subject, just because it seems to fit some
ceived notion; Kuiper's information is rarely second-hand and taken on trust. This f
be highlighted, because methodical unsoundness of this sort is unfortunately quite
spread in similar studies, and not made any better by statements such as, e.g., that
has "shown convincingly", in a "masterful study", that such-and-such a word derives
such-and-such a language group, when it is quite clear that the person making such
statement has not only not bothered to (or cannot) examine the cited views critically
also is not able to critically evaluate the general trustworthiness of the authority cit
is the least that can be expected in such a case. Now of course it is necessary to tak
secondary literature into account, and to do so in as comprehensive a manner as pos
but there is a difference between calling attention to the discussions found in such l
and simply accepting what is said in this literature at face value and without further
just because it suits one's convictions. I could cite examples galore, but refrain from
as it would serve no purpose here. I may however be permitted to point out that ev
work regarded as authoritative, which as a rule refrains from speculation and usually
contents itself with a nescio in difficult cases (Velze 1938), makes several decided st
especially on the Austric nature of names, even though the author admits to his "co
unfamiliarity with the Austro-Asiatic and Dravidic speeches" (p. 17).

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
224 RAHUL PETER DAS
8 See pp. 12—14. Against Deshpande's assertion t

is actually post-Rgvedic, Kuiper argues that on the
sandhi with retroflexes characteristic of the Rgve
retroflexes were perceived to be more ancient tha
Vedic tradition itself. In conclusion he says (p. 1
evidence that the retroflexes must have penetrate
Vedic') period must consequently seem to stand un
retroflexes are indeed "pre-Vedic" (for which the
if one follows Hock 1993a, p. 229), then not only
run counter to the theory of increased retroflexio
presupposed by many scholars, but the question a
they can have been taken from if they "penetrate
source, for this presupposes that the "pre-Vedic"
contact with South Asian peoples using retroflexe
extremely great difficulties on geographic ground
not very probable, and retroflexes in Indo-Aryan
have to deduce that either we have here a develop
result of contact with peoples outside South Asia
remain. I write this not by way of an attempt to r
show what difficulties they may create. As it is, it
retroflexes is much more complex than has so f
150ff. (also pp. 148f.), Hock 1993a, pp. 226ff. and
draws particular attention to East Iranian in this
9 See also p. 5: "Regardless of whether an [Indo-
not, I would still maintain, on the basis of general
of the words sorted out as such in early publicati
be about etymologies but about some criteria for
about their frequency in the Rigveda
10 Kuiper takes pains to point out (e.g. pp. 1; 5; 89
etymology, but with the criteria for distinguishin
"non-Aryan" is in fact already an etymologising s
give us the exact derivation), but nevertheless spe
origin. "Etymology" is, in all the English dictiona
investigation of the derivation/formation/origin/
words, as well as the accounts/facts relating to th
ments on the 'foreignness' of words. It would pro
more clearly what "etymology" in statements suc
11 "Thus äni- 'linchpin' has been listed as a foreig
borrowed from Dravidian or not (DEDR App. 10)
cannot be explained as an Indo-Aryan word."
12 Kuiper also makes ample use of the argument o
several cases in which this seems plausible, such as
or smgavera- (cf. pp. 82f., especially for the latt
but in many of the other cases the argument of h
because the word is a priori assumed to be foreign
13 The latest studies on this problem I know of
142ff.
14 In this context note also the interesting remar

mine): "There remains, it is true, the question as t
word non-Aryan. This is a technical problem, whi
attempt has been made to sift out more or less me

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
elements in the Rijgjvedic vocabulary, this has not yet been the subject of a general discus
sion. Nor could it possibly be otherwise because hardly any Vedologist is equipped for this
kind of research." To my knowledge, the "technical problem" alluded to above has not to
date been dealt with by Kuiper in any manner other than the one described here. Thus the
statistical account of 'foreign' words containing retroflexes in the Samhitäs of the Rgveda an
Atharvaveda which follows I.e. upon the passage quoted above is based on criteria quite
unknown; it even seems to me that "of ... doubtful origin" and "foreign" are regarded as
synonyms: "... in the oldest books of the Rigveda (FE—VII) there occur about 35 words of
foreign or doubtful origin which contain a retroflex." This impression is strengthened by the
fact that in what follows upon this statement we only find mention of "foreign" words, i.e. "of
. . . doubtful origin" seems to have been lost sight of in the course of the discussion.
15 Attention may in this connection also be drawn to p. 47: "The use or non-use of gerunds
has long been an important item in typological studies. In the Indian context the idea that
the Indo-Aryan gerunds, just as well as their counterparts in the Munda languages, are
caiques of the Dravidian would seem to be obvious, but if one denies this origin (as Tikkanen
is inclined to do), the problem remains the same: the model must have been a foreign
language." Why must there have been a model? (On this question cf. now also Migron
1991-1993.)
16 This word is of particular interest to me personally because I proposed an Indo-Aryan
etymology for it: Das 1987b, p. 98.
17 Cf. in this regard also I.e. in note 22, and note also the Tibetan loan-word pi-spal, drawn
attention to by Kuiper himself.
18 The fact that the "mother" words themselves are phonologically similar is not mentioned
as an argument in its own right — happily, as this would at once throw up the question of
similar words in other language groups, e.g. Semitic, too.
19 In New Indo-Aryan mostly varieties of mälmä and bäbä/bäp or the like; for Old Indo
Aryan cf. also Das 1991, p. 745a.
20 On what we may call linguistic 'detective work' cf. also Schmalstieg 1990. pp. 369ff. and
Watkins 1990.
21 Though it may seem silly to do so, I feel compelled here to confess that some modern
publications do call forth the urge to point out the obvious, namely that the Vedic texts were
not composed with modern scholars and their problems in mind. In this regard it may also
be mentioned that one at times also finds a tacit or even express characterisation of these
texts as being written. On this point attention may also be drawn to Falk 1990, Bright 1990,
pp. 130-146, Hinüber 1990, Falk 1992b.
22 Cf. also e.g. Das 1988a, pp. 95f., where attention has been drawn to a case of 'correction'
by editors which may in fact be a distortion of evidence.
23 See in this regard also Witzel 1992, p. 615 (esp. note 27).
24 One of the first scholars to seriously tackle the problem of different recensions was
Alfred Hillebrandt, though to him the Säkalaka recension was still mostly (though not
always) the Rgveda. Since his contributions have by and large been forgotten today, I would
like to take this opportunity to give him his due; see Hillebrandt 1987, p. 640 sub "Rgveda,
Rezensionen des". Attention has recently been drawn again to Hillebrandt's pioneering work
by Witzel 1992, pp. 615f.
25 Pinault 1989, Elizarenkova 1989, Pirart 1989.
26 See now also Hock 1993a.
27 The problem of intentional speech mutilation seems to be irrelevant for the Rgveda,
though it would probably be wise not to lose sight of it completely. Such speech is of course
known to be a characteristic of the Diksita, but also of the Vrätya (see e.g. Falk 1986, pp.
46ff.). In this connection attention may also be drawn to the conclusion of Falk 1986 that
the Vrätya originally represented a certain cyclical state of the Vedic student, in which he

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
226 RAHUL PETER DAS
roamed about as a member of a sodality, after which

Das 1991, pp. 75252; 753s3; 767); the sodalities also in
sexual intercourse according to Falk 1986, p. 30; 89f
have been unknown to Hock 1991a, pp. 12Iff. and H
brähmana 17,1,9 cited there cf. also Falk 1986, pp. 4
28 Cf. in this regard also Hock 1992a.
29 We must also reckon with the possibility that the i
language may not yet have developed at the time we a
the remarks, made in another context, of Elizarenko
stressed that the RV is an entity only as a text reveale
text which is primary from the ontological view-point
On the other hand, Hock 1991a opines (p. 123): "In fa
ritual purity can be traced back as far as Rig-Vedic
30 There is, as is well known, also a strong possibility
their mother tongue in Vedic times were within the f
31 Cf. in this regard also Hinüber 1991, esp. p. 183:
that languages do not develop at any predictable let al
impossible to use linguistic evidence alone in solving c
finding an absolute or only a relative date of any part
most favourable circumstances. It may be helpful, tho
evidence in those discussions."
32 Note e.g. p. 28: ". . . the existence of a 'vulgar Vedic' by the side of the 'Hochsprache'
cannot be denied ...".
33 At the very least since Hermann Oldenberg's famous "Prolegomena" of 1888, reprinted
as Oldenberg 1982.
34 One of the most radical approaches being that of A. Esteller, who in many articles has
propagated the idea of the Rgvedic "palimpsest". Note also the theory of Mitra 1984
referred to in note 36.
35 Though he here argues against it, this is otherwise a favourite term of Kuiper's; cf. note
12.
36 Incidentally, Witzel 1992 once (p. 614) refers approvingly to similar views from Kuiper's
work being discussed here, but without examining them. Kuiper's theses, formulated over a
long span of years and finally bundled in the work being discussed here, have in general
gained wide uncritical acceptance (cf. in this regard also the remarks in note 7). Thus e.g.
Southworth 1974, p. 218 states: "Kuiper's evidence (see his paper in this volume [i.e. Kuiper
1974]) points to an early stage of convergence which is less extreme than that observed
later, and which suggests social integration at the highest social levels. It is difficult to see
how non-IA features could appear in the ritual language of that period, unless original
speakers of non-IA languages or their descendants were included among the participants in
rituals (and perhaps even among the composers of the hymns themselves). This implies close
social contact, though not necessarily social equality, between 1A speakers and some IL
(indigenous languages) speakers." This is then followed by speculation on the nature of the
close social contact, which — note — is not just postulated, bilt taken to be a fact. Taking
such close social contact for granted can lead to some extremely queer results, a case in
point being Staal 1992, pp. 664ff., where from the mere fact that certain priests face certain
directions during the Soma ritual, the author derives complicated patterns of "indigenous"
and "alien" rituals and officiants. These speculations, presented with no supporting evidence,
are stated as if they were plain facts. Even the development of the Sämavedic chants, to
which importance is attached in this context, is not considered worthy of any sort of
scholarly investigation, or at least mention of some such investigation, as also not the
question of the relation between modern and ancient chants. In this connection I would like

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
to draw attention to a critical study of the relationship between Sàmavedic and la

songs, namely Falk 1992a (like Staal 1992 also in Hoek/Kolff/Oort 1992), wher
on p. 157: "Die komplexen 'musical phrases or motives' der Jaiminlyas dagegen m
Folgeentwicklung verstanden werden. Ihre heute 33 svaras umfassende Liste v
lationen in teils sonst ungeläufigen Termini ist das beste Zeugnis dieser Entwick
seems to be diametrically opposed to the statements of Staal 1992, who clearly t
Jaiminlya system to be evidence of ancient Dravidian influence on the Vedic sacr
obviously because the Jaiminlyas are today confined mostly to South India. Falk
also of the opinion that his investigation permits the deduction that the chants c
traditional today are definitely not identical with the original. Whether these ded
justified or not, they show that matters cannot be decided by mere apodictic stat
of the sort offered by Staal 1992. (As regards Sàmavedic chants, attention may
drawn to Mitra 1984, where we find the ingenious theory that the Grämageya ch
originally "Prakrit", i.e. that their form in the Sämaveda is closer to their original f
the "Sanskritised" form today regarded as original, even though this latter may a
time be the Rgvedic form too.)
37 "On the whole, however, the foreign character of the names will not be ques
does not of course prove anything, but is merely an apodictic statement.
38 The same applies to the very condensed version of the arguments given here
in Kuiper 1991, p. 110.
34 Actually, whatever the value of the other arguments Kuiper adduces may be,
regarding the "phonetic development of m to an" can hardly be taken to speak a
derivation not accepted by him, which is after all based on our here having a ca
"volkssprachlicher Lautung" (Mayrhoffer 1992, p. 293), i.e. not of the usual (or,
betten predominant) language of the hymns.
40 This "non-Aryan" prefix is supposed to be present in prakankatâ- too (p. 43
of any sort is given for this statement, except that the word is connected with k
which however does not tell us anything of relevancy for this alleged Toreignnes
have proposed quite a different etymology of this word (Das 1985a, p. 273). (On
kankd- see also Mayrhofer 1992, p. 810.)
41 Which is clearly not the same as "non-Aryan"; even if we consider "barbarian
modern sense, i.e. "uncivilised"), then this could theoretically refer to someone n
Vedic and/or having a different religion, but nevertheless "Aryan".
42 On this meaning of the word see also Witzel 1992, p. 614.
43 Cf. also Mayrhofer 1992, p. 327.
44 A thorough semantic study is to my knowledge lacking.
45 The original Dravidian word from which sailusâ- is taken to derive is even he
picked up an Austric prefix on the way and, as ku-silava-, been borrowed by Ind
again; one looks in vain for cogent reasons which would make such a developmen
several linguistic boundaries and with several basically unclear actual or postulat
elements plausible.
46 I may also add that, if we should take dàsâ- to refer to non-Vedic peoples (wh
assumption one may, as we have seen above, very well contest), we would still h
whether dàsâ- then refers to such peoples generally or is the name of (a) certain
may point out too that in both cases these Däsas, who not only to Kuiper, but al
scholars, are non-Aryan, have been deemed to be pre-Vedic speakers of Indo-Ary
recent, very controversial theory (Parpola, A. 1988), and Schetelich 1991, though
agreeing in all with Parpola, too tends to see non-Vedic Aryan enemies of the V
in them. On the other hand, the Däsas are by some maintained to have been the
the Indus culture, thus also by the quite controversial Matas 1991, pp. 37ffi; 151
connection of the Däsas with the "City State" is however very speculative (thoug

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
228 RAHUL PETER DAS
impossible), especially if Rgvedic pur- indeed ref

the like (as is generally supposed) and not to a cit
matter of controversy, and becomes even more c
theories (scholarly ones, not what one often find
the Indus culture with Indo-Aryan speakers; see
1986 (cf. also Chakrabarti 1993, p. 132). This sho
have here. All of which should not however ma
points out) there are also Iranian etymological co
evidence (see on this Mayrhofer 1992, pp. 723f.
word to refer to certain tribes or peoples, speak
3); one could also argue that both Iranian and In
been called so.
47 I might also draw attention to the explanation for Caraka- given by Einoo 1982/83; it is
very similar to the one proposed for Kânva— and Caraka- clearly derives from J car.
48 "Weitreichend ist der Austausch zwischen b and v. Im heutigen Indien ist die Unter
scheidung beider Laute meist aufgegeben und wird in Nordindien ausser Kasmir b auch für
v . .., umgekehrt im Süden v für b gesprochen .... Dadurch ist auch die schriftliche
Überlieferung der alten Texte getrübt.... Immerhin hat schon in der altern Sprache in
einzelnen Fällen Austausch zwischen b and v stattgefunden ..(AiGr.I, i.e. Wackernagel
1957, §161) (see also Debrunner 1957, p. 101).
49 As regards the Dravidians, things may be even more complicated than the two alter
natives usually considered: migration to the North and being pushed back to the South. Cf.
the imaginary case of scholars, without any knowledge of recent migrations, a few hundred
years from now puzzling over the presence of Santals in northern Bengal and Assam and in
the Sundarbans of southern Bengal and linking them with non-Munda Austric groups like
the Khasis long living in North-East India, the whole hypothetically made even more com
plicated by the fact that a lingua franca today in use among various Austric and Dravidian
tribes who have migrated to the Sundarbans is Sadani, at home in Bihar, though this seems
to be in the process of being supplanted by Bengali (see Mukhopadhyay 1976, pp. 31—37).
50 Thus e.g. Schetelich 1991 holds that krsnä tvâc refers not to any actual skin colour, but is
mythological terminology; whether or not one accepts the mythological explanation, one
would in any case do well to keep in mind parallels such as the reference to Italians in
Southern German as "darker" (cf. Hock 1991c, pp. 573f.), even though it might be a brown
haired, grey-eyed German referring to a blue-eyed, blond Italian. As regards anäs-, the
traditional Indian explanation of this as an-äs- "mouthless" (seil, probably: "of incomprehen
sible speech") is the meaning generally accepted today, though Levitt 1989 is of the opinion
that a-näs- "noseless" (which previous Western Indologists preferred) too could have a non
literal connotation, namely "untrustworthy, false".
51 Levitt 1989, p. 49 even holds that "a considerable period of contact with Dravidians mus
have elapsed before composition of the Rgveda"-, unfortunately, he does not tell us in which
geographical area this is supposed to have taken place. The number of publications,
particularly by Indian and North American scholars, on the contacts between Vedic Aryans
and Dravidians (or pre-Dravidians) is by now legion, and that the Indus culture too is taken
to be Dravidian by many such publications is well-known (cf. also note 5). Clearly, such
speculation is facilitated by the more or less complete lack of uncontroversial evidence,
either for or against such assumptions; the rise of the 'Austro-Asiaticism' already referred to
at the beginning of this essay has now added a new facet to all this, and it is most interesting
to see how the Indus culture is being ever more vehemently taken to be Austro-Asiatic by
the proponents of this theory (actually, I already relish the prospect of sitting back and
enjoying the scholarly fight likely to break out soon between 'Dravidianists' and 'Austro
Asiaticists' on this issue).

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
52 Cf. also Das 1985a, p. 27881. In a similar vein, Emeneau 1967, p. 179 (-= Language
32.1956, p. 9) opines: "It has been pointed out by others . .. that modern Indo-Aryan, like
Dravidian, adds the same inflexional (case) morphemes to distinct stems for singular and
plural, which is unlike general Indo-European inflexional practice. This is convincing and to
be interpreted as evidence of borrowing from Dravidian, even though similar structure is
seen in Tocharian [!)." And, one might add, in Persian (ketäbrä, ketäbhärä) and English
(man's, men's). (Cf. in this regard also Burrow 1973, p. 236: "A further problem is repre
sented by Hittite. In this language the nominative plural has a form of its own, and likewise
the accusative ... but for the gen. dat. there appears normally a form identical with the gen.
sg., and otherwise the inflection is undeveloped. It is uncertain to what extent this is due to
Hittite innovation, but it may be an indication that the plural inflection in IE is a later
development than the singular.") On the subject of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan I may draw
particular attention to Hock 1984 (unfortunately not utilised by Kuiper), which supplements
Hock 1975 and also has further bibliographical information; see also Hock 1991b, Hock
1992a, Hock 1992b and Hock, forthcoming. As regards the subject of method, I may also
be permitted to quote the following from Smith 1980, p. 7: "(The Bengali Snake Goddess]
Manasä remains very much a puzzle. This helps explain some of the highly speculative
theories which have been devised about her. Traditionalists have found 'prototypes' of
elements of the myth in the Veda, older puränas, Pali and Jain scriptures; those taking an
anthropological approach have tried to connect Manasä with shadowy deities in other parts
of India and even beyond. The temptations of such approaches were brought to mind while I
was reading Greece in the Bronze Age (Emily Vermeule, University of Chicago Press, 1972)
and noticed that among the names of obscure deities listed on a Linear B tablet found in
Pylos (p. 292), a certain goddess Manasa was mentioned. The Cretan snake cult, snake
goddess and snake tubes sprang to mind and one could see how, despite the gap of centuries
and kilometers, an enthusiastic diffusionist could attempt to connect this Manasa with the
bengali Manasä." See also note 67 below.
53 A good example is Thomason/Kaufman 1988, pp. 139ff., where we have very decided
statements based solely on a quite small sampling of secondary sources, and seemingly little
inclination to indulge in independent, in-depth analysis or critical evaluation. Particularly
irritating is the repetition on p. 141 of the argument of Klaiman 1977, pp. 311—313 that
the negative verbal conjugation in Bengali is Dravidian, due to fairly recent influence of
Dravidian at that (Klaiman 1977, p. 316: "The evidence suggests fairly recent (since ca. 800
A.D.) but long term LA-D convergence in eastern India"). Since the authoress seems to be out
of her depth as regards the internal historical development of Bengali and also Indo-Aryan
in general (I remarked on this in Das 1988b, p. 338, also p. 334), I thought that it would be
best to pass this article over in silence (though I did remark on one particular in Das 1985b),
but it seems that in this case too one will have to invest a lot of time in setting things aright
(cf. note 5), even though only a short glance at Turner 1966, no. 7091 (p. 407) shows that
what we have in the Bengali negative copula Jna(h) goes back at least to early Middle Indo
Aryan and is found in various parts of South Asia (see also Tagare 1987, p. 313, whence w
learn that the negative copula is present in all three types of Apabhramsa: Western, Southern
and Eastern). Thommen, §20 (pp. 18f.) even opines that it is already Old Indo-Aryan; he also
draws attention to other verbs similarly employed. This is a phenomenon which Brugmann
1902—1904 §871,6 called "Univerbierung", in this case the fusion of the negative particle
with the verb it preceded, which is known from other Indo-European languages too, e.g.
Latin neglegö, nequeö, nesciö (beside non sciö), nölö. The — already Indo-European —
preverbal positioning of the negative particle facilitating this is found in most New Indo-Aryan
languages; the postverbal position to which the Germanic languages have shifted became
widespread in Bengali probably only in the eighteenth century (Mojumder 1973, p. 255
wrongly points to the nineteenth century and presupposes English influence), the preverbal

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
230 RAHUL PETER DAS
position being confined to certain verbal moods.

particle is not confined to Bengali (in which we
or Marathi and Konkani; examples (chosen quite
Bhojpuri (Tiwari 1960, pp. 181 f.; 178), Bundeli
1962, p. 122f.), which latter is very interesting b
negative particle in the compound. But the to my
with the negative to be found in New Indo-Ary
complete negative conjugation for all verbs made
is assimilated to the vowel of the first syllable o
see also p. 140 and p. 383: "Amongst the Easter
prefixing the negative as an integral part of the
conjugation is a characteristic feature of Assame
of the New Indo-Aryan languages furthest remov
it is also highly unlikely (though of course we ca
is lacking) that things were different in previous
negative verbs in Indo-Aryan has, as far as I kno
remarks so far, not of any systematic study. Mat
but, this not being the place for a detailed discus
will have to suffice here. The evidence from Old
whether there were true conjugated negative verb
cognates was in use, or both. Moreover, the New
simply be connected with Old Indo-Aryan Jas (
Jbhu have been considered). We also have non-c
its cognates, found also in Bengali: nàhï (today
Bengali have become obsolete. In the cal.it bhäsä
ments given rise to nei (showing non-presence/n
sentence) and ni (postverbally negating certain p
1977, I.e. seems to be unaware of. This non-conj
connected with Old Indo-Aryan nästi, näsit, nä
82ff.; cf. in this regard also Guru 1966, §227, p
donom ä sak'te haim, vahä 'na' se keval nisedh a
hai); it is also worth considering whether several
no decided statements, much less comparisons, ca
maze of problems in detail. But instead of doing
very decided and clearly offhand remarks, but cr
Bengali of the extreme East with Tamil of the ex
modern forms of these languages. And this sort o
then any wonder that Thomason/Kaufman 1988
as applied to South Asia are apt not to be taken s
54 On the importance of the factors of space and
Katre 1968, pp. 82ff. Cf. in this regard also Hock
mainly with syntax. But even taking into account
avail if one already has a bee in one's bonnet. Thu
that South Dravidian, Munda, Bengali (and Assa
follow different patterns and that the appearanc
different periods of time, but then nevertheless t
(much misused) theory of the South Asian lingui
each of the non-Dravidian developments represen
pattern, followed by a generalization of the patte
assimilation, raising, fronting, and complete assim

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
would indeed be recognized, including most of the eastern and southern parts of the Indian
subcontinent.'1 Why then, one may ask, bother with individual evaluations of different
languages at all, if differences are of no account anyway?
55 If we are indeed to come down to this level of argumentation, then I would, for comic
value, prefer the argument of an Indian scholar presented in 1984 at the Sixth World
Sanskrit Conference in Philadelphia, who opined that the Panis were obviously the Pathäns
a fact which was self-evident, since "even today these are known as miserly persons".
56 See with regard to such problems of time and distance and semantics e.g. the remarks in
Das 1985a. Cf. also Das 1986, as well as Hock 1984, pp. 89f.
57 I have given an example of this in Das 1987d, pp. 248f.
58 The often used word "invasion" for this process is clearly not appropriate in this context
Cf. in this regard also Schetelich 1991, pp. 152ff., as well as Witzel 1992, pp. 613f.
59 It must be pointed out that we have so far got no clear, undisputed archaeological
evidence for this process. However, the distribution and development of Indo-European,
both overall and in individual details, as well as the literary documentation of the eastward
spread of the Indo-Aryans within South Asia itself, preclude an autochthonous developmen
on South Asian soil, though this is of course not at all to the liking of modern Indian ultr
nationalists.
60 Such loans need not necessarily be present in Iranian languages too.

61 Though there are of course exceptions, as for instance Porzig 1927, Karttunen 1989, pp.
22—31, or the literature referred to by Mayrhofer 1956—1980, H, p. 574 and HI, pp. 476;
774. The question of possible loans from the source mentioned is also of relevance for non
linguistic fields; cf. in this context too Das 1984, p. 237, Black 1989, pp. 96f. and Parpola,
S. 1993 (the latter relies very heavily on the controversial writings of his brother Asko
Parpola). Windisch 1909, pp. 202ff. however points out that it is not very probable that the
Aryans, once they were in India, were influenced to any large extent by the civilisations of
the ancient Middle East, if at all, and Witzel 1992, p. 617 (col. a) too seems to be sceptical
with regard to the possibility of such outside influences when he writes that "there has been
no indication of a direct influence of ancient Mesopotamia on Vedic India and apart from
some indications of trade during the period of the Indus civilization, we have no evidence of
such relations so far". But that does not say anything on the state of affairs before the Vedic
Aryans entered India, and Windisch 1909 (I.e.) too expressly differentiates between probable
influence on the Aryans before and after their entering India. I may however also point out
that Witzel 1992, I.e. (col. b) draws attention to another factor not to be lost sight of, namely
the possibility of "the development of new concepts in the contact zone with the settled
peoples of the Bactro-Margiana archaeological complex during the last centuries of the third
millennium B.C."
62 There is also the possibility of other non-Indo-European sources (e.g. from East or
Central Asia) being relevant, though here we will probably have to be careful and differen
tiate between the different strata of Old Indo-Aryan. Cf. in this context also the remarks of
Witzel 1992, p. 617 (col. b).
63 I am aware that the terminology used here might be considered controversial, but am at a
loss as to what other terminology to use.
64 The "sacrality" of a speech, to which Thieme too refers, is not necessarily relevant in this
context, though it may be; cf. also note 29.
65 This may mean that the once peripheral adherents of the culture give up their old
language, but such need not necessarily be the case. Retention of the original language is of
course even more to be reckoned with in cases in which a culture is dominated by another
one, but not absorbed into this.
66 In this connection I would like to draw particular attention to the works of Hugo

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
232 RAHUL PETER DAS
Schuchardt, particularly those in Schuchardt 197

Schuchardt 1928, pp. 150ff.). For an appreciation o
introductions to the works mentioned.
67 I hasten to add that this is meant as general criticism in the light of tendencies observable
in many writings on the subject, and is not directed particularly at Kuiper, who on the whole
weighs his pros and cons carefully, though the assumptions on which such weighing is carried
out are, as the foregoing shows, not uncontroversial. With regard to the other writings just
mentioned, I would like to draw particular attention to Hock 1993b, with its very pertinent
methodological remarks. I may also quote a famous Indo-Europeanist and linguist, who,
though he firmly believed that languages in immediate contact influence each other (cf. e.g.
pp. 104ff. of op. cit. below), was at the same time well aware of the dangers lurking in the
uncritical application of this notion to linguistic studies: "Die Vorgänge sind nicht so einfach
wie sie den Pionieren zu sein schienen, und wie man sie zunächst fassen mußte, um überhaupt
die Arbeit in Angriff nehmen zu können" (Wackernagel 1953, p. 126). Another equally
famous linguist remarked sarcastically: "There are those who seem to hold that a language is,
as it were, always watching its neighbors, ready to imitate whatever in them it sees to be
worthy of imitation. If, for example, the Persian uses an / to connect a noun with its
qualifying adjective, the construction must be modelled on a Semitic one; if the Rumanian or
Scandinavian has a suffixed article, its suggestion came from Turkish or Finnish speech, and
so on" (Whitney 1971, p. 186). See also Lewy 1929, pp. 156ff., Friedrich 1968, Lidén
1929, as well as note 52 above.
68 Where lack of such carefulness can lead one to is amply demonstrated e.g. by Shafer
1954, which abounds in learned, but in the end arbitrary identifications of tribes and
peoples mentioned in the Mahäbhärata (with at times quite embarrassing results, as e.g. on
p. 134: "Tibetans are described in the New Tang History as painting their faces red, and on
this basis I have classified the Tämraliptakas as Tibetans"), the whole woven into a grand
theory in which the upstart Aryan Pändavas usurped the place of the Austric Kauravas/
Kurus (who only had an Aryanised upper class) and then had to subdue a rebellion by the
combined might of all the non-Aryan people oppressed by them, the Mahäbhärata being the
history of this rebellion, which bears a strong resemblance to the Great Mutiny of 1857
against the British, who had by then usurped the place of the Moghuls. (Incidentally,
Mayrhofer 1992, p. 371 is wrong in stating that Shafer 1954, p. 321 cites W. Kirfel to show
that Küru- is an autochthonous name; Kirfel merely postulated that the modern Kulu is a
descendant of Küru-, without touching the etymology of the latter, whereas the arguments
for a non-Aryan origin of the name are Shafer's own.)
69 In this connection it may be worthwhile to recollect the cautionary remarks on
methodology by Dauses 1990 (esp. pp. 87ff.).
70 Tarkarahasyadïpikà and Laghuvrtti respectively.
71 A nice example illustrating the truth of this subhäsita is found in Sjoberg 1992, p. 517; I
am quoting the relevant passage with my remarks in square brackets: "Hock (1975) [— Hock
1975] advanced what on the face of it seems a devastating set of criticisms of the arguments
for Dravidian influence during this period. But a closer examination of his statements reveals
that he relied almost entirely upon linguistic data (what else do we have?] that are divorced
from any historical sociocultural setting. For example, where the evidence for non-Aryan
influence seems clear, Hock invoked a Munda source rather than a Dravidian one. In so
doing he ignores the fact that the Mundas have been [sic!; how does he know?] small,
fragmented [no evidence is given for both characterisations] preliterate [how typical of a
modern Western arm-chair intellectual to consider this of relevance!] groups whose cultural
influence and power have been limited at best [could be so, but do we have proof for the
Vedic age?]. On the other hand, the Dravidians have long been the dominant and most
numerous of the non-Aryan peoples of India [also in Vedic times?|. By the time of the first

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
recorded contacts of Aryans with Dravidians — in South India [sic!] over two thous
ago [i.e. at least a thousand years after the Rgvedic age] — some of these Dravidians
developed a 'great tradition' of their own that was close to being a true civilization [
factors of time and distance make this irrelevant in the context, but even so one wo
about the criteria associated with such terminology; a corollary of this statement is,
incidentally, that only so-called civilized peoples are to be considered in such contex
have focused upon Hock's arguments in order to highlight some of the errors that c
when one reasons concerning linguistic data basically without reference to the cultu
[of which, as regards contacts with non-Aryans, we know as good as nothing, so tha
cannot refer to it, quite apart from the fact that wc also do not know for sure wher
Dravidians were present in Vedic times] within which linguistic change occurs. For
does not exist within a cultural vacuum [an insightful platitude!]." This shows nicely
can get the result one wishes to get if one only wishes hard enough (I call this the "
wish upon a star'-process"); or, to put it differently, Dravidians were in contact wit
Aryans and influenced them because that's the way it had to be. (My remarks conc
the passage quoted, not the problem in general.) I may add that the author does not
(cannot?) give us any independent analysis of the primary data collected by Hock, o
analyse Hock's arguments, but simply quotes, at random, a few secondary sources s
things similar to what he is saying (on this cf. also note 7); sadly, one has come to
this in 'studies' of this sort.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andronov, M. 1979: "Borrowed Structures in Language Systems." Prac

Indian Journal of Linguistics 6, pp. 7—17.
Black, J. A. 1989: "The Babylonian Grammatical Tradition: The First Gr
Sumerian." Transactions of the Philological Society 87, pp. 75—99.
Bosch, Lourens P. van den 1990: "Some Reflections on the Concept of
Indian Texts." In: Hans G. Kippenberg, Yme B. Kuiper, Andy F. San
of Person in Religion and Thought. Berlin/New York (Religion and
229-277.
Bright, William 1990: Language Variation in South Asia. New York/Oxford.
Brugmann, Karl 1902—1904: Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. Strassburg.
Burrow, T. 1973: The Sanskrit Language. New and revised edition. London.
Caillat, Colette 1989 (ed.). Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes. Paris (Publicatio
l'Institut de Civilisation Indienne, Série in-8°, Fasc.55).
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1986: "Further Notes on the Aryan Hypothesis in Indian Archaeo
In: K. C. Varma, M. C. Bhartiya et al. (ed.). Rtambharä. Studies in Indology (Achar
Udaya Vira Shastri Felicitation Volume). Ghaziabad 1986, pp. 74—77.
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1993: "(Review of:] Sayid Ghulam Mustafa Shah, Asko Parpola
Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. 2. Collections in Pakistan. Helsinki 1991."
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series 3, pp. 131—132.
Das, Rahul Peter 1984: "(Review of:] G. U. Thite. Medicine. Its Magico-Religious Asp
according to the Vedic and Later Literature. Poona 1982." Indo-Iranian Journal 27
232-244.
Das, Rahul Peter 1985a: "Altindoarisches käca- '(Joch-)Strick; Joch' und die Sip
tamilisches kä 'Stange; Joch'." Die Sprache 31, pp. 256—278.
Das, Rahul Peter 1985b: "Bengali and Dravidian Stress." In: Jens-Peter Köster
Miszellen X. Hamburg (Beiträge zur Phonetik und Linguistik 50), pp. 95—99

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
234 RAHUL PETER DAS
Das, Rahul Peter 1986: "Dravidischer Einfluß b

tischer Passive? — Einige methodologische Üb
IranistikW/Xl. pp. 5—20.
Das, Rahul Peter 1987a: "On the Identification
Dominik Wujastyk (ed.). Studies on Indian Me
Oriental Studies 2), pp. 19—42.
Das, Rahul Peter 1987b: "Ai. allklava- und Ver
Das, Rahul Peter 1987c: "[Review of:] Parimal C
sambhäbanä. Kalikätä 1985." Die Sprache 33,
Das, Rahul Peter 1987d: "More Remarks on the
Anthropos 82, pp. 244—251.
Das, Rahul Peter 1988a: Das Wissen von der Le
yurveda kritisch ediert, übersetzt und kommen
Meulenbeld zu seinem Verzeichnis 'Sanskrit Names of Plants and their Botanical
Equivalents'. Stuttgart (Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 34).
Das, Rahul Peter 1988b: "On the English Translation of the Srikrsnakirtana." Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 138, pp. 332—348.
Das, Rahul Peter 1988—1990: "[Review of:| Parimal Chandra Mitra. Santhali: The Base of
World Languages. Calcutta 1988." Die Sprache 34, pp. 250—251.
Das, Rahul Peter 1991: "On the Subtle Art of Interpreting." Journal of the American
Oriental Society 111, pp. 737—767.
Dauses, August 1990: Theorien des Sprachwandels. Eine kritische Übersicht. Stuttgart.
Debrunner, Albert 1957: Jakob Wackemagel. Altindische Grammatik. Nachträge zu Band I
von Albert Debrunner. Göttingen.
Einoo, Shingo 1982/83: "Zum Namen Caraka-." Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 8/9,
pp. 169—170.
Elizarenkova, T. Y. 1989: "About Traces of a Prakrit Dialectal Basis in the Language of the
Rgveda." In: Caillat 1989, pp. 1—17.
Elizarenkova, T. Y. 1992: " 'Wörter und Sachen'. How much can the language of the Rgveda
be used to reconstruct the world of things?" In: Hoek/Kolff/Oort 1992, pp. 128—141.
Emeneau, M. B. 1967: Dravidian Linguistics/,] Ethnology and Folktales. Collected Papers.
Annamalainagar (Linguistics Department Publication 8).
Falk, Harry 1986: Bruderschaft und Würfelspiel. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklungsgeschichte
des vedischen Opfers. Freiburg.
Falk, Harry 1990: "Goodies for India. Literacy, Orality, and Vedic Culture." In: Wolfgang
Raible (ed.). Erscheinungsformen kultureller Prozesse. Jahrbuch 1988 des Sonderfor
schungsbereichs "Übergänge und Spannungsfelder zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlich
keit". Tübingen, pp. 103—120.
Falk, Harry 1992a: "Sämaveda und Gändharva." In: Hoek/Kolff/Oort 1992, pp. 142—163.
Falk, Harry 1992b: "AÀ 5.3.3: Nollikhya nävalikhya." Indo-Iranian Journal 35, pp. 1—17.
Flattery, David Stophlet / Schwartz, Martin 1989: Haoma and Harmaline. The Botanical
Identity of the Indo-lranian Sacred Hallucinogen "Soma" and its Legacy in Religion,
Language, and Middle Eastern Folklore. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1989 (University
of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 21).
Friedrich, Johannes 1968: "Zufällige Ähnlichkeiten in aller Welt." In: Manfred Mayrhofer
(ed.). Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde. Gedenkschrift Wilhelm Branden
stein (1898—1967). Innsbruck (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 14), pp. SOS
SOS.
Guru, Kämltäprasäd 1966 (Samvat 2022): Himdi vyäkaran. Eighth reprint Kâsî (Sâstrlvijnân
gramthlmälä 1).
Hellmann-Rajanayagam, Dagmar 1992: 'Tamilen, Tamilsprache und Tamilidentität =

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
Tamünationalismus?" In: Dagmar Hellmann-Rajanayagam, Dietmar Rothermund

Nationalstaat und Sprachkonflikte in Süd- und Südostasien. Stuttgart (Beiträge zur
Südasienforschung 149), pp. 127—156.
Hillebrandt, Alfred 1987: Kleine Schriften herausgegeben von Rahul Peter Das. Stut
(Glasenapp-Stiftung 28).
Hinüber, Oskar von 1990: Der Beginn der Schrift und frühe Schriftlichkeit in Indien
Stuttgart (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz. Abhandlungen
geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1989, 11).
Hinüber, Oskar von 1991: "Linguistic Considerations on the Date of the Buddha."
Bechert (ed.). The Dating of the Historical Buddha. Die Datierung des historischen
Buddha. Part 1. Göttingen (Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung 4,1), pp. 183—19
Hock, Hans Henrich 1975: "Substratum Influence on (Rig-Vedic) Sanskrit?" Studies i
Linguistic Sciences 5(2), pp. 76—125.
Hock, Hans Henrich 1984: "(Pre-)Rig-Vedic Convergence of Indo-Aryan with Drav
Another Look at the Evidence." Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14(1), pp. 89
Hock, Hans Henrich 1988: "Finiteness in Dravidian." Studies in the Linguistic Scien
18(2), pp. 211-233.
Hock, Hans Henrich 1991a: "Dialects, Diglossia, and Diachronie Phonology in Ear
Aryan." In: William G. Boltz, Michael C. Shapiro (ed.). Studies in the Historical
Phonology of Asian Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia (Current Issues in Lingui
Theory 77), pp. 119—159.
Hock, Hans Henrich 1991b: "On the Origin and Early Development of the Sacred
Syllable Om." In: Perspectives on Indo-European Language, Culture and Religion
in Honor of Edgar C. Polomé. Volume 1. McLean, Virginia (Journal of Indo-Eur
Studies Monograph 7), pp. 89—110.
Hock, Hans Henrich 1991c: Principles of Historical Linguistics. 2Berlin/New York.
Hock, Hans Henrich 1992a: "Reconstruction and syntactic typology: A plea for a dif
approach." In: Garry W. Davis, Gregory K. Iverson (ed.). Explanation in Histor
guistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 84), pp. 10
Hock, Hans Henrich 1992b: "[Review of:] Bertil Tikkanen. The Sanskrit Gerund. A
chronic, Diachronie and Typological Analysis. Helsinki 1987." Kratylos 37, pp.
Hock, Hans Henrich 1993a: "A Critical Examination of Some Early Sanskrit Passa
Alleged to Indicate Dialectal Diversity." In: Bela Brogyanyi, Reiner Lipp (ed.). C
tive-Historical Linguistics: Indo-European and Finno-Ugric. Amsterdam/Philadelp
(Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 97), pp. 217—232.
Hock, Hans Henrich 1993b: "Swallow Tales: Chance and the "World Etymology"
'swallow, throat'." In: Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Ling
Society. Volume 1: The Main Session. Compiled and edited by Katharine Beals,
Cooke, David Kathman, Sotaro Kita, Karl-Erik McCuIlough, David Testen. Chica
(CLS 29), pp. 215-238.
Hock, Hans Henrich forthcoming : "The Genesis of Sanskrit Retroflexion: A Spec
Reconsideration." Paper first presented on 1.4.1992 at the 202nd Meeting of the
American Oriental Society at Cambridge, Mass., 29.3—1.4.1992, and then at var
Indian universities, now being revised for publication.
Hoek, A. W. van den /Kolff, D. H. A. /Oort, M. S. 1992 (ed.): Ritual, State and His
South Asia. Essays in Honour of J. C. Heesterman. Leiden/New York/Köln (Mem
the Kern Institute 5).
Irschick, Eugene F. 1969: Politics and Social Conflict in South India. The Non-Brah
Movement and Tamil Separatism, 1916—1929. Berkeley/Los Angeles.
Jaiswal, M. P. 1962: A Linguistic Study of Bundeli (A Dialect of Madhyadesa). Leid
(Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 8).

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
236 RAHUL PETER DAS
Kakati, Banikanta 1987: Assamese, its Formation and D

the history and philology of the Assamese language,
Degree of the Calcutta University in 1935. Revised a
Goswami. 4Gauhati.
Karttunen, Klaus 1989: India in Early Greek Literature. Helsinki (Studia Orientalia 65).
Katre, Sumitra Mangesh 1968: Problems of Reconstruction in Indo-Aryan. Simla.
Klaiman, M. H. 1977: "Bengali Syntax: Possible Dravidian Influences." International Journal
of Dravidian Linguistics 6, pp. 303—317.
Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim 1971: Anti-religiöse Bewegungen im modernen Südindien. Eine
religionssoziologische Untersuchung zur Säkularisierungsfrage. Bonn (Untersuchungen zur
Allgemeinen Religionsgeschichte, Neue Folge 7).
Kuiper, F. B. J. 1948: Proto-Munda Words in Sanskrit. Amsterdam.
Kuiper, F. B. J. 1968: "Sailüsa- and KusTlava-." In: Manfred Mayrhofer (ed.). Studien zur
Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde. Gedenkschrift Wilhelm Brandenstein (1898—1967).
Innsbruck (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft 14), pp. 77—84.
Kuiper, F. B. J. 1974: "The Genesis of a Linguistic Area." In: Franklin C. Southworth,
Mahadev L. Apte (ed.). Contact and Convergence in South Asian Languages. Trivandrum
— International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 3 (upto p. 245), pp. 135—153.
Kuiper, F. B. J. 1991: "The New 'Mayrhofer'." Indo-Iranian Journal 34, pp. 105—120.
Kvaerne, Per 1986: "The 'Water-Miracle' in Tibet." In: Eivind Kahrs (ed.). Kalyänamiträrä
ganam. Essays in Honour of Nils Simonsson. Oslo (Instituttet for sammenlignende kultur
forskning, Series B: Skrifter 70), pp. 159—164.
Levitt, Stephan Hillyer 1989: "What Does 'Noseless' Mean in the RgvedaV Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 70, pp. 47—63.
Lewy, E. 1929: "[Review of:] P. W. Schmidt. Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachkreise der
Erde." Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermani
schen Sprachen 56, pp. 142—159.
Lidén, Evald 1929: "Zufälliger Gleichklang." Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung
auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 56, pp. 223—226.
Matas, Enric Aguilar i 1991: Rgvedic Society. Leiden/New York/Kobenhavn/Köln (Brill's
Indological Library 2).
Mayrhofer, Manfred 1956—1980: Kurzgefaßtes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen.
Heidelberg.
Mayrhofer, Manfred 1992: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. I. Band.
Heidelberg.
Migron, Saul 1991 — 1993: "Catena and climax in Vedic prose." Die Sprache 35, pp. 71 —
81.
Mitra, Räjyesbar 1984: Bed'gäner präkrt'rüp. Kalikätä.
Mojumder, Atindra 1973: Bengali Language. Historical Grammar. Part II. Calcutta.
Mukhopadhyay, Sankarananda 1976: A Profile of Sundarban Tribes. Calcutta.
Oldenberg, Hermann 1982: Metrische und textgeschichtliche Prolegomena zu einer kritischen
Rigveda-Ausgabe. Reprint Wiesbaden (Koelner Sarasvati Serie 3).
Parpola, Asko 1988: "The Coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the Cultural and
Ethnic Identity of the Däsas." International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 17 (2), pp.
85—229, and Studia Orientalia 64, pp. 195—302.
Parpola, Simo 1993: "Cultural Parallels Between India and Mesopotamia: Preliminary
Considerations." L'Ancien Proche-Orient et les Indes. Parallélismes interculturels religieux.
Colloque franco-finlandais les 10 et 11 novembre 1990 à l'Institut finlandais, Paris.
Ancient Near East and India. Intercultural Religious Parallels. The Franco-Finnish
Symposium 10—llth Nov. 1990, The Finnish Institute, Paris. Helsinki (Studia Orientalia
70), pp. 57-64.

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
Pinault, Georges-Jean 1989: "Reflets dialectaux en védique ancien." In: Caillat 1989
35-96.
Pirart, Eric 1989: "Avestique et dialectologie rgvédique." In: Caillat 1989, pp. 19—
Porzig, Walter 1927: "Kleinasiatisch-Indische Beziehungen." Zeitschrift für Indologi
Iranistik 5, pp. 265—280.
Schetelich, Maria 1991: "Ehe 'schwarzen' Feinde der Arya im Rgveda." Altorientalisc
Forschungen 18, pp. 151—162. <English summary: "The Problem of the 'Dark
(Krsnä Tvac) in the Rgveda." In: Ashin Das Gupta, Sunil Sen Gupta, Suniti K. P
(ed.). M. M. Vidhusekhar Sästri Commemoration Volume II. Santiniketan 1990
Bharati Annals, New Series 3), pp. 244—249. >
Schmalstieg, William R. 1990: "A few issues of contemporary Indo-European lingui
Philip Baldi (ed.). Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. Berlin/New
(Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 45), pp. 359—374.
Schuchardt, Hugo 1928: Hugo Schuchardt-Brevier. Ein Vademecum der allgemein
wissenschaft. Zusammengestellt und eingeleitet von Leo Spitzer.2 Halle (Saale).
Schuchardt, Hugo 1979: The Ethnography of Variation. Selected Writings on Pidgin
Creoles. Edited and Translated by T. L. Markey. Ann Arbor.
Schuchardt, Hugo 1980: Pidgin and Creole Languages. Selected essays. Edited and
by Glenn G. Gilbert. Cambridge/London/New York/New Rochelle/Melboume/
Schwarzschild, L. A. 1991: Collected Articles of L. A. Schwarzschild on Indo-Arya
1979 compiled by Royce Wiles. Canberra (Faculty of Asian Studies Monograph
Series 17).
Shafer, Robert 1954: Ethnography of Ancient India. Wiesbaden.
Sjoberg, Andrée F. 1992: "The Impact of Dravidian on Indo-Aryan: An overview." In: Edgar
C. Polomé, Werner Winter (ed.). Reconstructing Languages and Cultures. Berlin/New
York (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 58), pp. 507—529.
Smith, W. L. 1980: The One-Eyed Goddess. A Study of the Manasä Martgal. Stockholm
(Stockholm Oriental Studies 12).
Srivastava, Dayanand 1962: Nepali Language. Its History and Development. Calcutta.
Staal, Frits 1992: "Agni 1990. With an Appendix by H. F. Arnold." In: Hoek/Kolff/Oort
1992, pp. 650-676.
Southworth, Franklin C. 1974: "Linguistic Stratigraphy of North India." In: Franklin C.
Southworth, Mahadev L. Apte (ed.). Contact and Convergence in South Asian Languages.
Trivandrum — International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 3 (upto p. 245), pp. 201—
223.
Sweeney, Amin 1992: "Malay Sufi Poetics and European Norms." Journal of the American
Oriental Society 112, pp. 88—102.
Tagare, Ganesh Vasudev 1987: Historical Grammar of Apabhrarhsa. Reprint Delhi/
Varanasi/Patna/Madras.
Thieme, Paul 1964: "The Comparative Method for Reconstruction in Linguistics." In: Dell
Hymes (ed.). Language in Culture and Society. A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology.
2New York, pp. 585—598.
Thomason, Sarah Grey / Kaufman, Terrence 1988: Language Contact, Creolization, and
Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London.
Thommen, Eduard 1903: Die Wortstellung im nachvedischen Altindischen und im Mittel
indischen. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der hohen philosoph.
Fakultät der Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen. Gütersloh.
Tischler, Johann 1990: "[Review of:] Parpola, A. 1988." Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen
ländischen Gesellschaft 140, pp. 397—398.
Tiwari, Udai Narain 1960: The Origin and Development of Bhojpuri. Calcutta (The Asiatic
Society Monograph Series 10).

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC
238 RAHUL PETER DAS
Turner, R. L. 1966: A Comparative Dictionary

York/Toronto.
Velze, Jacob Antoon van 1938: Names of Persons in Early Sanscrit Literature. Utrecht.
Wackernagel, Jacob 1953: Kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben von der Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Göttingen.
Wackernagel, Jakob 1957: Altindische Grammatik. Band I. Lautlehre. Reprint Göttingen.
Watkins, Calvert 1990: "Etymologies, equations and comparanda: Types and values, and
criteria for judgment." In: Philip Baldi (ed.). Linguistic Change and Reconstruction
Methodology. Berlin/New York (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 45), pp.
289-303.
Werba, Chlodwig H. 1992: "Prakritic Wordforms in the Rgvedasamhitâ." Wiener Zeit
für die Kunde Südasiens 36, pp. 11—18.
Whitney, William Dwight 1971: Whitney on Language. Selected Writings. Edited by M
Silverstein. Cambridge, Mass.
Windisch, Ernst 1909: Buddha's Geburt und die Lehre von der Seelenwanderung. Le
(Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der Königlich Sächsischen G
schaft der Wissenschaften 26,2).
Witzel, Michael 1984: "Zu den Namen vedischer Säkhäs (Materialien zu den vedisc
Schulen, 2)." Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 10, pp. 231—237.
Witzel, Michael 1989: "Tracing the Vedic Dialects." In: Caillat 1989, pp. 97—265.
Witzel, Michael 1992: "Alfred Hillebrandt Reconsidered." Journal of the American
Society 112, pp. 611—618.

47.30.172.204 on Mon, 06 Jul 2020 01:46:45 UTC

The Hunt For Foreign Words in The Gveda Author(s) : RAHUL PETER DAS Source: Indo-Iranian Journal, July 1995, Vol. 38, No. 3 (July 1995), Pp. 207-238 Published By: Brill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Hunt For Foreign Words in The Gveda Author(s) : RAHUL PETER DAS Source: Indo-Iranian Journal, July 1995, Vol. 38, No. 3 (July 1995), Pp. 207-238 Published By: Brill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE HUNT FOR FOREIGN WORDS IN THE ṚGVEDA

Author(s): RAHUL PETER DAS

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/24662226

This content downloaded from

THE HUNT FOR FOREIGN WORDS IN THE RGVEDA

F. B. J. Kuiper has recently published a work purportedly

An apter title for Kuiper's work would have been "Foreig

Indo-Iranian Journal 38: 207-238, 1995.

This content downloaded from

the oldest Indo-Aryan tongue(s) known

This content downloaded from

of speech-forms which followed sound patterns approximating to tho

This content downloaded from

disposition by relating them to a hypoth

This content downloaded from

even in olden times. Finally, we have unintentional tampering due

This content downloaded from

gusp- and gulph- cannot stand for Mi

This content downloaded from

non-Aryan names of persons, families and peoples who took part in

This content downloaded from

and neither the meaning "enemy".41 M

This content downloaded from

spond to * Kavâvrsa(n)- in the Hochsprache. As such, the name w

apparently [sic] parallel case of sirimbitha- and Irimbithi-, which occurs as a

This content downloaded from

even though it denotes a male, and is thus n

This content downloaded from

Wörter' (including class, ambarïsa- 'frying pan', see AiGr.II/2: 462)"

Finally, we cannot overlook the fact that this name appears t

This content downloaded from

us from that time" (p. 5), in actual fact

This content downloaded from

regarded as "clearly a borrowing from Kann. [i.e. Kannada] kalak

This content downloaded from

outside South Asia only gradually (and m

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

we as individuals cannot hope to see t

1 his does not ot course mean that w

1 F. B. J. Kuiper: Aryans in the Rigveda. Amsterdam/Atlanta (Editions Rodopi

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

8 See pp. 12—14. Against Deshpande's assertion t

14 In this context note also the interesting remar

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

roamed about as a member of a sodality, after which

This content downloaded from

to draw attention to a critical study of the relationship between Sàmavedic and la

This content downloaded from

impossible), especially if Rgvedic pur- indeed ref

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

position being confined to certain verbal moods.

This content downloaded from

60 Such loans need not necessarily be present in Iranian languages too.

This content downloaded from

Schuchardt, particularly those in Schuchardt 197

This content downloaded from

Andronov, M. 1979: "Borrowed Structures in Language Systems." Prac

This content downloaded from

Das, Rahul Peter 1986: "Dravidischer Einfluß b