Deducing loanwords in Nuristani languages

Every language borrows words from another language. The Nuristani languages are no exception - in fact, they have a long history of borrowing words from other languages, particularly the Indo-Aryan languages. In fact, borrowing from Indo-Aryan very likely stems back to the Middle Indo-Aryan period. There are also likely borrowings from Bactrian (Halfmann 2023), and within Nuristani, Prasun has a sizable layer of Katë borrowings.

For practical reasons, we will exclude more recent loanwords from Arabic/Persian and European languages. In addition, since Indo-Aryan loanwords make up the majority of earlier loanwords in Nuristani languages, we will focus on them unless specified otherwise. To indicate a borrowing, the symbol <= will be used.

(For abbreviations and sources, see this post.)

What counts as a borrowing

Because Nuristani languages are only known since the 19th century, identifying earlier borrowings requires knowing the prehistory of these languages. This requires deducing regular correspondences in inherited words (as mentioned in earlier posts of this blog). If the reflex diverges from what is expected in an inherited word from Proto-Indo-Iranian or shows Indo-Aryan sound developments, then we can be sure that the word was borrowed from Indo-Aryan. An example is Katë (W/NE) šol "stable" <= OIA śālā-.

There are some diagnostic criteria, some of which were mentioned above, that can reliably prove a word was loaned at some point.

1. Presence of /l/

The presence of /l/ in a given Nuristani word almost always implies that the word was loaned. Special care must be taken for Prasun, since PIIr. *d regularly became /l/. However, not all cases of /l/ in Prasun are inherited; such as Pr. šal "stable" (<= earlier Katë *šāl <= OIA śālā-). There is one important exception to this, however, for the Nuristani words for "lick":

PIIr. *riȷ́ʰ-a- "to lick"

> Ash. (S) <leiź-i′e->

> Kt. (W/NE) lëzé-, (SE) lij̈ë́-

The same PIIr. source gave OIA lihati, but the Nuristani words show the inherited development of *ȷ́ʰ as /j̈/ (/dz/) or /z/, so the words above cannot be Indo-Aryan loanwords and must be treated as inherited. Halfmann (2023, 2025) posits for some Indo-Aryan borrowings a sound correspondence of Kt. /ř/ ~ other Nuristani /l/ <= *l, assigning it to an earlier loanword layer. The reflexes, however, uniformly show /l/, suggesting that this is a secondary, post-Proto-Nuristani development.

2. OIA ś ~ Nuristani š

This correspondence set occurs in many Nuristani words. Since OIA ś comes from PIIr. *ć as mentioned above, the inherited correspondence would involve a reflex of Proto-Nuristani *ċ (/*ts/). Words that show this correspondence set, such as Kt. (NE/SE) šařë́ "turban" <= OIA śāṭa-ka-, must be treated as Indo-Aryan loanwords. The correspondence of OIA ṣ with Nuristani š, however, can occur in inherited words, such as Kt. (SE) kaňë́štë "younger" ~ OIA kaniṣṭha-ka- (both < PIIr. *kaništHa-ka-).

However, keep in mind that Ashkun /š/ corresponding to OIA /ś/ may occur in inherited words (via *ċ > *s > š arising from secondary palatalization before /i/), such as Ash. (S) <š′iːṭ> "fertilizer" ~ OIA śákṛt "dung" (both < PIIr. *ćakr̥-t- "dung"), as revealed by other Nuristani cognates containing /ċ/, such as Kt. ċiṭ "manure".

3. OIA śr ~ Nuristani ṣ

This is similar to the second criterion, where the native correspondence would involve a reflex of Proto-Nuristani *ċr. Examples include NKal. üṣǘk "tear" <= OIA aśru-ka- (Kt. (SE) ac̣ǘ is inherited from PIIr. *Haćru-ka-.)

4. Intervocalic retroflex /ṇ/ in Katë

The presence of this sound in Kt. always implies a loanword. In contrast to Nuristani /ṣ/, which can occur in inherited words from the PIIr. sequence *rš, an equivalent development cannot be assumed here, since the sequence *rn developed into /r/ via earlier *rr (eg. Kt. (SE) por "leaf" < PIIr. *parna-.)

In fact, Kt. words containing /ṇ/ go back to earlier /*ṇḍ/, as attested in examples such as Kt. koṇ "arrow" <= OIA kā́ṇḍa- "section, stalk, arrow" and Kt. (W) lavë́ṇ "slave" <= OIA *lavaṇḍa- (cf. Hindi-Urdu lauṇḍā "boy, slave".)

For other languages, the presence of retroflex /ṇ/ does not necessarily imply a loanword, such as Ash. (S) <kaṇ′ist> "younger" < PIIr. *kaništHa-ka-.

Katë loanwords in Prasun

Similar to the Indo-Aryan borrowings, Prasun has a large number of Katë loanwords. The following diagnostic criteria below reliably prove that a Prasun word was borrowed from Katë, even if the Katë word itself is inherited from Proto-Indo-Iranian:

1. Preservation of etymological single stops

Prasun is well known for undergoing lenition of all single stop consonants, including *d > /l/. There are some inherited words which start with a single stop, but they can be explained as reductions of earlier consonant clusters, such as Pr. kim- "to thresh" < PIIr. *krāmH- "to step". Cases in which these stops are retained are usually taken as loanwords from Katë, such as Pr. kaṭ "strength" <= earlier Kt. *kāṭ (> Kt. koṭ) and kaṭ'ǝ ~ kǝṭ'ǝ "beam" <= earlier Kt. *kaṭë́.

2. Kt. stressed /o/ ~ Pr. stressed /a/

This correspondence set, found in stressed position and derived from earlier *ā, typically implies a loanword. In native Prasun words, *ā yields /ə/ in stressed position, such as Pr. nəm "name" < PIIr. *Hnāman-. Two examples already stated above include Pr. kaṭ "strength" <= earlier Kt. *kāṭ and Pr. šal "stable" <= earlier Katë *šāl.

3. Preservation of ċ and č from PIIr. single *ć and *č

Closely related to the first criterion, words that show such reflexes are considered loanwords from Katë. Examples include Pr. čam "skin" < earlier Kt. *čām and Pr. iškiċ "moustache" < earlier Kt. *keċ "markhor hair".

In native Prasun words, /ċ/ and /č/ go back to earlier consonant clusters, such as Pr. mǝč "man" < PIIr. *marti̯a- "man, mortal" and Pr. -yoċ- "to hew" < PIIr. *taćš-a-. An exception seems to be Pr. čpu < PIIr. *čatu̯āras, which shows devoicing adjacent to /p/ < *tu̯.

References

  • Halfmann, Jakob (2023). Lād "law": a Bactrian loanword in the Nuristani languages. London: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies.
  • Halfmann, Jakob (2025). The Diversification of Indo-Iranian and the Position of the Nuristani Languages. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Proto-Nuristani *ã justifiable on the basis of the Comparative Method?

One phoneme mentioned in Halfmann (2025) is the presence of * ã in Proto-Nuristani reconstruction. The relevant mention of this claim is found in page 94: With this in mind, the word for ‘wool’ can be reconstructed as either PNur. *warnaka-/*warrãka- or *wərnaka-/*wərrãka-, but certainly not as *ūrnaka- as would be required for a parallel with the Indo-Aryan development. Here, we will try to justify the existence of a distinct Proto-Nuristani vowel phoneme * ã by looking at the cognate sets below, and determine if any of the Proto-Nuristani reconstructions above agree with the application of the Comparative Method: Sources For practical reasons, only attested forms alongside a Proto-Indo-Iranian reconstruction will be cited below. Richard Strand's website (https://nuristan.info/lngFrameL.html) will be used alongside sources for Ashkun (Morgenstierne 1929, 1934), Katë (Halfmann 2024), Prasun (Buddruss & Degener 2017), Nuristani Kalasha (Degener 1998, Tāza 2017), and Tregami...
Read more

Preliminaries on Nuristani comparative reconstruction: Single consonant correspondences

The Nuristani languages are a group of Indo-Iranian languages spoken in the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan and small parts of Pakistan. Compared to Indo-Aryan and Iranian, Nuristani is first attested only in the 19th century, and has absorbed a large amount of Indo-Aryan loanwords since the Middle Indo-Aryan period. The Nuristani languages are Ashkun, Katë, Prasun, Nuristani Kalasha, and Tregami. The position of the Dameli language is unknown within Nuristani or Indo-Aryan; it has a large number of Nuristani-derived vocabulary. While there is a serious and urgent need for further research, especially with the groundbreaking works of Georg Morgenstierne and Jakob Halfmann, it is best to start with the principles of the Comparative Method, a powerful tool for analyzing language relationships. The comparative method  The comparative method analyzes the sound correspondences of two (or more) related languages or dialects, and uses that to establish hypothetical earlier forms to es...
Read more

Preliminaries on Nuristani comparative reconstruction: Consonant clusters

In this post, we explore the historical development of consonant clusters in the Nuristani languages. The last two posts covered single consonant and vowel correspondences. However, similar to vowel developments, consonant clusters have not received much attention before Halfmann (2025)'s recent book on the position of the Nuristani languages. This post will attempt to find regular reflexes of Proto-Indo-Iranian consonant clusters in the Nuristani languages. Some of these were already discussed by Halfmann (2025). Due to lack of information, not all Proto-Indo-Iranian consonant clusters are represented here, though that may change with further research. Sound correspondences We will start with normative (excluding conditioned reflexes) consonant cluster correspondences for the Nuristani languages, based on clearly inherited forms. For practical reasons, only attested forms alongside a Proto-Indo-Iranian reconstruction will be cited below. Richard Strand's website (https:...
Read more