North Munda, of which Santali is the most widely spoken and recognised as an official language in India, has twice as many speakers as South Munda. After Santali, the Mundari and Ho languages rank next in number of speakers, followed by Korku and Sora. The remaining Munda languages are spoken by small, isolated groups, and are poorly described.[1]
Characteristics of the Munda languages include three grammatical numbers (singular, dual and plural), two genders (animate and inanimate), a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural pronouns, the use of suffixes or auxiliaries to indicate tense,[10] and partial, total, and complex reduplication, as well as switch-reference.[11][10] The Munda languages are also polysynthetic and agglutinating.[12][13] In Munda sound systems, consonant sequences are infrequent except in the middle of a word. The Munda languages are often interpreted as prime examples of father tongues, that the languages were passed down through generations from the paternal side, rather than the mother.
Origin
Many linguists suggest that the Proto-Munda language probably split from proto-Austroasiatic somewhere in Indochina.[citation needed] Studies by Chaubey et al. (2011), Arunkumaret al. (2015), Metspalu et al. (2018), and Tätte et al. (2019) all show that the Munda branch of the Austroasiatic family was created as the result of a male-biased linguistic intrusion into the Indian subcontinent from South-east Asia during the Late Neolithic period (Sidwell & Rau 2019 cited Tätte et al. (2019), estimate a date of formation between 3,800 and 2,000 YBPs), which carried the paternal lineageO1b1a1a into India, either from Meghalaya or from the sea.[14] These studies and analyses confirm George van Driem's Munda Father tongue hypothesis.[15]Paul Sidwell (2018) suggests they arrived on the coast of modern-day Odisha about 4000–3500 years ago (c.2000– c.1500 BCE) and spread after the Indo-Aryan migration to the region.[16][17]
Rau and Sidwell (2019),[18][19] along with Blench (2019),[20] suggest that pre-Proto-Munda had arrived in the Mahanadi River Delta around 1,500 BCE from Southeast Asia via a maritime route, rather than overland. The Munda languages then subsequently spread up the Mahanadi watershed. 2021 studies suggest that Munda languages impacted Eastern Indo-Aryan languages.[21][22]
Present-day distribution of Austroasiatic languagesAustro-asiatic dispersal map
Classification
Munda consists of five uncontroversial branches (Korku as an isolate, Remo, Savara, Kherwar, and Kharia-Juang). However, their interrelationship is debated.
Diffloth (1974)
The bipartite Diffloth (1974) classification is widely cited:
However, in 2001, Anderson split Juang and Kharia apart from the Juang-Kharia branch and also excluded Gtaʔ from his former Gutob–Remo–Gtaʔ branch. Thus, his 2001 proposal includes 5 branches for South Munda.
Anderson (2001)
Anderson (2001) follows Diffloth (1974) apart from rejecting the validity of Koraput. He proposes instead, on the basis of morphological comparisons, that Proto-South Munda split directly into Diffloth's three daughter groups, Kharia–Juang, Sora–Gorum (Savara), and Gutob–Remo–Gtaʼ (Remo).[25]
His South Munda branch contains the following five branches, while the North Munda branch is the same as those of Diffloth (1974) and Anderson (1999).
Note: "↔" = shares certain innovative isoglosses (structural, lexical). In Austronesian and Papuan linguistics, this has been called a "linkage" by Malcolm Ross.
Sidwell (2015)
Paul Sidwell (2015:197)[26] considers Munda to consist of 6 coordinate branches, and does not accept South Munda as a unified subgroup.
The Munda languages share a similar set of consonants with the Eastern Austroasiatic languages. Inherited Austroasiatic glottalized stop and nasalized consonants of Munda are noteworthy unique features in South Asia. Because of South Asian areal convergence, Munda generally have fewer vowels (between 5 and 10) than comparatively the Eastern Austroasiatic languages.[27] Additionally, Sora has glottalized vowels. Like any other Austroasiatic languages, the Munda languages make extensive uses of diphthongs and triphthongs. Larger vowel sequences can be found, with an extreme example of Santalikɔeaeae meaning ‘he will ask for him’.[28] Most Munda languages have registers but lack tones with an exception of Korku who has acquired two contrastive tones within the South Asian linguistic area: an unmarked high and a marked low.[29][30] The general syllable shape is (C)V(C),[31] and the preferred structure for disyllables is CVCV. South Munda displays tendency toward initial clusters, CCVC word shape, diphthong reflexes, with best examples are manifested in the Gtaʔ case.[32][33] Repeating above, tonogenesis in Korku and continuous CCVC/sesquisyllabic development in Gtaʔ, both of which were unfolded inside the South Asian linguistic area, seem to have nothing to do with contact-driven restructuring. Munda word shape is dictated by a general phonotactical phenomenon called bimoraic constraint: it requires free-standing nominal stems to stay either disyllabic or obtain weight at the stressed syllable, that is, monosyllabic free forms of nouns have to be expanded in order to remain heavy (Anderson & Zide 2001).[34] See ##Vocabulary for comparison.
Word prominence
Donegan & Stampe (2004) posited overarching assumptions that all Munda languages have completely redesigned their word prosodic structure from proto-Austroasiatic rising intonation, iambic and reduced vowel, sesquisyllabic structure to Indic norms of trochaic, falling rhythm, stable or assimilationist consonants and harmonised vowels, making them oppose to Eastern Austroasiatic languages at almost every level. Sidwell & Rau (2014) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFSidwellRau2014 (help) criticized Donegan & Stampe, pointing out that the overall picture appears much more complicated and diverse, and that generalizations of Donegan & Stampe are not supported by the instrumental data of the various Munda languages.[35]Peterson (2011b) describes word-rising contour in monosyllables and second syllable prominence in Kharia content words. The presence of clitics and affixes even does not drive Kharia word prosodic structure to that of a trochaic and falling system. Osada (2008) reports final syllable stress in all but CVC.CV stems in Mundari.[36]Horo & Sarmah (2015), Horo (2017) and Horo, Sarmah & Anderson (2020) found that the Sora disyllables are always iambic, reduced first syllable vowel space, and second syllable prominence.[37][38] Even CV.CCə words show final syllable prominence. Horo & Sarmah (2015) note that the Sora vowels of the first syllables are “centralized” while vowels in the second syllables are more representative of the canonical vowel space. Ghosh (2008) describes the Santali prosody that “stress is always released in the second syllable of the word regardless of whether it is an open or a closed syllable.”[39][40] His analysis was confirmed by Horo & Anderson (2021), whose acoustic data clearly shows that the Santali second syllable is always the prominent syllable with greater intensity of stress and a rising contour.[41]Zide (2008) reports that in Korku, the final syllable is heavier than the initial syllable, and within a disyllable, stress is preferentially released at the final syllable.[42] Munda overall appears to have LH pitch accent and bi-moraic word constraint patterns that they inherited from proto-Austroasiatic. Again, Donegan & Stampe (2004) claim on rhythmic holism does not conform with data presented by individual Munda languages.[43]
Morphology
Morphologically, both North and South Munda subgroups mainly focus on the head or the verb, thus they are primarily head-marking, in contrast to dependent-markingIndo-European and Dravidian families.[44] As a result, nominal morphology is less complex than verbal morphology.[45][46]Case markers on nominals to show syntactic alignments, i.e. nominative-accusative, ergative-absolutive, are largely absent or not systematically developed among the Munda languages except Korku. Relation between subject and object in clause is mainly conveyed through verbal referent indexation and word order. At clause/sentence level, Munda languages are head-final, but internally head-first in referent indexation, compounds, and noun incorporation verb complexes.[47][48] Munda head-first, bimoraic constraint-free noun incorporation is also found in Khasian, Nicobaric, and other Mon-Khmer languages.[49][50] In word derivation, besides their own innovative methods, the Munda languages maintain Austroasiatic methods in forms of reduplication, compounding, and derivational infixation and prefixation.[51] Some languages retain a dative-oblique prefix a-.[52]
North Munda
The North Munda subgroup is split between Korku and the fourteen Kherwarian languages.
Noun incorporation is often described as an ancestral Munda morphological feature and is essential to the grammar of other South Munda languages such as Sora, but the Kherwarian languages appear to have lost noun incorporation altogether. Nevertheless, rare surviving examples of noun incorporation could be found in some Kherwarian archaic registers and oral literature.
tʄeɳe-ko
bird-PL
nam-oɽaʔ-ta-n-a=ko
find-house-ASP-INTR-FIN=3PL.SUBJ
tʄeɳe-ko nam-oɽaʔ-ta-n-a=ko
bird-PL find-house-ASP-INTR-FIN=3PL.SUBJ
'the birds are getting into their nests (and trying to lay an egg)'
Korku
Unlike the Kherwarian languages with their complex verbal morphology, the Korku verb is moderately simple with modest amount of synthesis.[53] Korku lacks person/number indexing of subject(s)/actor (except third persons of locative copulas and nominal predicates in the locative case) and independent present/future tense markers.[54] Korku present/future tenses rely on the finitizer suffix -bà.[55] Present/Future tense negation can be located in either preverbal or post-verbal, but past tense negation is marked by suffix -ᶑùn.[56]
Many Korku auxiliary verbs are borrowed from Indo-Aryan. The auxiliary predicate will take TAM, voice, finiteness suffixes for the verb. Such an example would be ghaʈa- meaning 'to manage to, to find a way to' serves as the acquisitive.[57]
South Munda
Compared to North Munda, the South Munda languages are even more divergent with fewer shared morphological traits. Even the classification of Munda languages figures out that South Munda does not seem to exist as a valid taxon. However, South Munda languages retain many notable characteristics of the original proto-Munda such as prefix slots, scope-ordering of referent indexation, thus they represent the less restructured morphology of Munda, reflecting the older proto-Munda as well as proto-Austroasiatic structures.[58][59]
Kharia
In Kharia, subject markers index not only dual/plural exclusive/inclusive but also honorific status. Objects are not marked in the verb in per se. They are marked, instead, by oblique case =te.
There is a reduplicated free-standing form of each finite verb that behaves differently from simple verb stem. In the predicate, reduplicated free-standing form never marks TAM and person. Because of this, the free-standing form is used in subordination, an attributive function corresponding more or less to relative clauses. The infinitive verb form is marked by =na. The infinitive can serve as nominalizer, too: jib=na=te ‘touching’.
Non-finite class
Simple verb root
Free-standing form
live
borol
borol
open
ruʔ
ruʔruʔ
see
yo
yoyo
Similar to Hindi and Sadani, Kharia has made a calque to form sequential converbs (conjunctive participles) kon (derived from ikon, ‘do’). They denote the completion of an action before another begins.
The negation particle um attaches or fuses person/number/honorific of the subject argument.
Being a pro-drop language, Juang verbs sometimes index both two core arguments in a transitive predicate, but not frequently. If the arguments are not omitted, referent indexation is largely optional. Juang has a fairly complex TAM system that is often divided into two sets: I for transitive verbs and II for intransitive verbs. The verb ‘be’ usually does not show up in the present tense and with the presence of a predicate adjective in sentences.
Abu
Abu
muintɔ
one
dakotoro
doctor
Abu muintɔ dakotoro
Abu one doctor
'Abu is a doctor'
There are two types of negation markers: Pronominal negation markers are specific for person/number of subject or object arguments. General negation markers, such as -jena, supplant lack of first person singular negative. Negatives are ambifixative but prefer to precede the verb stem. There are double negations, i.e. combinations of two negatives. The negated verb may reduplicate itself.
apa
2DU
a-ma-ɉim-ke
2DU.SUBJ-NEG-eat-PRES.TR
ete
because
ain
1SG
kikib
RED~do
ɉena
NEG.COP
apa a-ma-ɉim-ke ete ain kikib ɉena
2DU 2DU.SUBJ-NEG-eat-PRES.TR because 1SG RED~do NEG.COP
'Because you don’t eat (it), I didn’t do it'
Noun incorporation is fossilized in lexical compounds and words like body parts being combined with the verb ‘wash’. Notice that the head precedes the incorporated object, as opposed to head-final position in normal clauses.
am
you
am-a
you-GEN
itim-de
hand:2-DEF
mi-gui-di-agan
2SG.SUBJ-wash-hand-PST
am am-a itim-de mi-gui-di-agan
you you-GEN hand:2-DEF 2SG.SUBJ-wash-hand-PST
'You washed your hand'
Gtaʔ-Remo-Gutob
The Southernmost Gtaʔ and Remo-Gutob subgroups of South Munda exhibit significant morphological convergence towards Dravidian languages. Auxiliary verb constructions are heavily employed. Doubly inflected AVCs are common in Gutob as well Gorum, reflecting Dravidian influence. Gtaʔ-Remo-Gutob apparently have lost or not developed object indexation altogether.[60] Negation in Gutob is the most complex among the Munda languages. Like other Munda languages, Gtaʔ-Remo-Gutob have lexical noun incorporation; Gtaʔ retains some instances of unproductive incorporation of body parts to the verb ‘wash’ like Juang which may fit Mithun (1984)'s type II of incorporation.
Sora-Gorum
The Sora-Gorum languages consist of Sora, Gorum, and the lesser known Juray.[61] Sora-Gorum languages display many features that are considered to be archaic that can be dated to proto-Munda. For mainstream South Asian languages like Indo-Aryan and Dravidian, the latter are exclusively suffixing, prefixes and infixes are unusual but pretty common in Austroasiatic languages, and Sora-Gorum whose prefix domain can host several pre-stem markers. The indexation paradigm in Sora and Gorum renders the fullest form of proto-Munda predicate structure as well as syntax. In practice, Sora is inclined to index only one argument. Within a transitive predicate, the object argument is ranked higher than subject; pronouns are required.
In Sora, noun incorporation is a valency-reducing effort, close to what described by Mithun's type III incorporation. Each noun has a combined form (CF), which is a compact, compressed monosyllabic form of free-standing noun that has been stripped of its functional morphology (weak suppletion) and does not adhere to bimoraic constraint. Only CFs are allowed to be in compounds with the verb stem. The resulted verb-noun incorporated compound is syntactically distinct from phrases.[62] Unlike North Munda where it is restricted to oral literature, Sora noun incorporation is in fact pervasive in daily conversations, with every noun except loan words has a possible CF to create sequences of complex verb phrases.
While the most salient effect of object noun incorporation in most polysynthetic languages is lowering the scope of the verb and turning transitive verbs into intransitive, incorporation of transitive subject/agent is considered atypical and occupies at the lowest position of the hierarchy. Because of this, the incorporation of transitive subjects had been once surmised as theoretically impossible by some linguists. Among all languages, there are few exceptional attested cases that permit such type of incorporation including some Athabaskan languages like Koyukon and South Slavey, and indeed, Sora.[63]
ɲam-kid-iɲ-te
seize-tiger-1SG.OBJ-3SG.SUBJ.IMP
ɲam-kid-iɲ-te
seize-tiger-1SG.OBJ-3SG.SUBJ.IMP
'tiger may seize me' or 'may I be tiger-seized'
mo-kul-t-am
swallow-ghost-NPST-2SG.OBJ
mo-kul-t-am
swallow-ghost-NPST-2SG.OBJ
'ghost will swallow you'
Munda lexicon and lexical relation with other Indian language families
Despite some influence from neighboring languages, the Munda languages generally maintain a solid Austroasiatic and Munda base vocabulary.[64][65] The most extreme case is Sora which has zero foreign phonemes.[64] Agricultural-related words from proto-Austroasiatic are widely shared (Zide & Zide 1976). Words for domesticated animal and plant species like dog, millet, chicken, goat, pig, rice are shared or semantically alternated. There are even specific terms for husked uncooked rice vs cooked rice vs rice (tree), as well as shared words used in rice production and processing like 'mortar', 'pestle', 'paddy', 'sow', 'grind/ground'. The majority of loan words from Indo-Aryan to Munda are quite recent and mostly came from Hindi. The Southern languages like Gutob have received considerable Dradivian lexical influence. A very small number of lexemes seem to be shared between Munda and Tibeto-Burman, probably reflecting earlier contact between two groups.[66]
It is clear that hundreds of non-Indo-European words in Vedic Sanskrit that Kuiper (1948) attributed to Munda have been rejected through careful analysis.[66] There is a surprising absence of Ancient Sanskrit and Medieval Indian borrowings of animal & plant names from Munda. Scholars believe that the Munda tribes typically occupied a marginalized and lowly socioeconomic position in the Hinduized society of Vedic South Asia, or did not participate in the Hindu caste system and had barely any contacts with Hindus at all. Witzel (1999) and Southworth (2005) proposed that the early non-Indo-European words with prefixes k-, ka-, ku-, cər- in Vedic Sanskrit belonged to a hypothetical 'Para-Munda substratum' that they believed to be part of the Harappan language.[67] This would imply that Austroasiatic speakers might have penetrated as far as the Panjab and Afghanistan in the early second millennium BC, whereas Osada (2009) refuted Witzel that those words might have been, in fact, Dravidian compounds.
The proto-forms have been reconstructed by Sidwell & Rau (2015: 319, 340–363).[68] Proto-Munda reconstruction has since been revised and improved by Rau (2019).[69][70]
Writing systems
The following are current used alphabets of Munda languages.
1 2 Kidwai, Ayesha (2008), "Gregory D. S. Anderson the Munda Verb: Typological Perspectives", Annual Review of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM], Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.265–272, doi:10.1515/9783110211504.4.265, ISBN978-3-11-021150-4
↑ Anderson, Gregory D. S. (7 May 2018), Urdze, Aina (ed.), "Reduplication in the Munda languages", Non-Prototypical Reduplication, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, pp.35–70, doi:10.1515/9783110599329-002, ISBN978-3-11-059932-9
↑ Rau, Felix; Sidwell, Paul (2019). "The Munda Maritime Hypothesis". Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (JSEALS). 12 (2). hdl:10524/52454. ISSN1836-6821.
↑ Rau, Felix and Paul Sidwell 2019. "The Maritime Munda Hypothesis." ICAAL 8, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 29–31 August 2019. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3365316
↑ Ivani, Jessica K; Paudyal, Netra; Peterson, John (2021). Indo-Aryan – a house divided? Evidence for the east–west Indo-Aryan divide and its significance for the study of northern South Asia. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 7(2):287–326. doi:10.1515/jsall-2021-2029
↑ Anderson, Gregory D.S. (1999). "A new classification of the Munda languages: Evidence from comparative verb morphology." Paper presented at 209th meeting of the American Oriental Society, Baltimore, MD.
↑ Anderson, G.D.S. (2008). ""Gtaʔ" The Munda Languages. Routledge Language Family Series. London: Routledge. pp. 682–763". Routledge Language Family Series (3): 682–763.
↑ Anderson, Gregory D S (2001). A New Classification of South Munda: Evidence from Comparative Verb Morphology. Indian Linguistics. Vol.62. Poona: Linguistic Society of India. pp.21–36.
↑ Sidwell, Paul. 2015. "Austroasiatic classification." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
↑ Horo, Luke; Sarmah, Priyankoo (2015). "Acoustic analysis of vowels in Assam Sora". North East Indian Linguistics. 7: 69–88.
↑ Horo, Luke; Sarmah, Priyankoo; Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2020). "Acoustic phonetic study of the Sora vowel system". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 147 (4): 3000–3011. Bibcode:2020ASAJ..147.3000H. doi:10.1121/10.0001011. PMID32359268.
↑ Horo, Luke; Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2021). "Towards a prosodic typology of Kherwarian Munda languages: Santali of Assam.". In Alves, Mark J.; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). Papers from the 30th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. JSEALS Special Publications 8. University of Hawai'i Press. pp.298–317.
↑ Sidwell, Paul and Felix Rau (2015). "Austroasiatic Comparative-Historical Reconstruction: An Overview." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.
Diffloth, Gérard (2005). "The contribution of linguistic palaeontology to the homeland of Austro-Asiatic". In Sagart, Laurent; Blench, Roger; Sanchez-Mazas, Alicia (eds.). The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics. RoutledgeCurzon. pp.79–82.
Further reading
Anderson, Gregory D S (2007). The Munda verb: typological perspectives. Trends in linguistics. Vol.174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN978-3-11-018965-0.
Anderson, Gregory D S, ed. (2008). Munda Languages. Routledge Language Family Series. Vol.3. Routledge. ISBN978-0-415-32890-6.
Brown, E. K., ed. (2006). "Munda Languages". Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier Press.
Donegan, Patricia J.; Stampe, David (1983). "Rhythm and the holistic organization of linguistic structure". Chicago Linguistic Society. 19 (2): 337–353.
Donegan, Patricia; Stampe, David (2002). "South-East Asian Features in the Munda Languages: Evidence for the Analytic-to-Synthetic Drift of Munda". In Chew, Patrick (ed.). Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Special Session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian Linguistics, in honour of Prof. James A. Matisoff. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. pp.111–129.
Donegan, Patricia; Stampe, David (2004). "Rhythm and the Synthetic Drift of Munda". In Singh, Rajendra (ed.). The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. De Gruyter Mouton. pp.3–36.
Newberry, J (2000). North Munda hieroglyphics. Victoria, BC: J Newberry.
Śarmā, Devīdatta (2003). Munda: sub-stratum of Tibeto-Himalayan languages. Studies in Tibeto-Himalayan languages. Vol.7. New Delhi: Mittal Publications. ISBN81-7099-860-3.
Varma, Siddheshwar (1978). Munda and Dravidian languages: a linguistic analysis. Hoshiarpur: Vishveshvaranand Vishva Bandhu Institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies, Panjab University. OCLC25852225.
Zide, Norman H.; Anderson, G. D. S. (1999). Bhaskararao, P. (ed.). "The Proto-Munda Verb and Some Connections with Mon-Khmer". Working Papers International Symposium on South Asian Languages Contact and Convergence, and Typology. Tokyo: 401–421.
Zide, Norman H.; Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2001). "The Proto-Munda Verb: Some Connections with Mon-Khmer". In Subbarao, K. V.; Bhaskararao, P. (eds.). Yearbook of South-Asian Languages and Linguistics. Delhi: Sage Publications. pp.517–540. doi:10.1515/9783110245264.517.
Anderson, Gregory D. S.; Zide, Norman H. (2001). "Recent Advances in the Reconstruction of the Proto-Munda Verb". In Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.). Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Vol.215. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp.13–30. doi:10.1075/cilt.215.03and. ISBN978-90-272-3722-4.
Jenny, Mathias; Weber, Tobias; Weymuth, Rachel (2014). "The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. pp.13–143. doi:10.1163/9789004283572_003.
Sidwell, Paul (2015). "Local drift and areal convergence in the restructuring of Mainland Southeast Asian languages: Gtaʔ (Munda) creating initial clusters/sesquisyllables". In Enfield, N. J.; Comrie, Bernard (eds.). Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia: The State of the Art. De Gruyter Mouton. pp.51–81. doi:10.1515/9781501501685-003. ISBN9781501501708. OCLC909907686.
Sidwell, Paul (2014). "Austroasiatic Comparative-Historical Reconstruction: An Overview". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. pp.221–363. ISBN978-90-04-28295-7.
Peterson, John M. (2010). "Language contact in Jharkhand: Linguistic convergence between Munda and Indo-Aryan in eastern-central India". Himalayan Linguistics. 9 (2): 56–86. doi:10.5070/H99223479.
Peterson, John M. (2011b). ""Words" in Kharia: Phonological, morpho-syntactic and "orthographical" aspect". In Heig, Geoffrey; Nau, Nicole; Schnell, Stefan; Wegener, Claudia (eds.). Documenting Endangered Languages, Achievements and perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp.89–119. doi:10.1515/9783110260021.89.
Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2014). "Overview of the Munda languages". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul (eds.). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill. pp.364–414. doi:10.1163/9789004283572_006. ISBN978-90-04-28295-7.
Jenny, Mathias (2020). "Verb-Initial Structures in Austroasiatic Languages". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul; Alves, Mark (eds.). Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective. Brill. pp.21–45. doi:10.1163/9789004425606_003. ISBN978-90-04-39695-1.
Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2020). "Proto-Munda Prosody, Morphotactics and Morphosyntax in South Asian and Austroasiatic Contexts". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul; Alves, Mark (eds.). Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective. Brill. pp.157–197. doi:10.1163/9789004425606_008. ISBN978-90-04-39695-1.
Rau, Felix (2020). "The Proto-Munda Predicate and the Austroasiatic Language Family". In Jenny, Mathias; Sidwell, Paul; Alves, Mark (eds.). Austroasiatic Syntax in Areal and Diachronic Perspective. Brill. pp.198–235. doi:10.1163/9789004425606_009. ISBN978-90-04-39695-1.
Kobayashi, Masato; Mohan, Shailendra (2021). "Munda Languages: An Overview". In Mohan, Shailendra (ed.). Advances in Munda Linguistics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp.1–22. ISBN978-1527570474.
Anderson, Gregory D. S. (2021). "On the Role of Areal and Genetic Factors in the Development of the Word-Structure and Morphosyntax of the Munda Languages". In Mohan, Shailendra (ed.). Advances in Munda Linguistics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp.22–77. ISBN978-1527570474.
Ghosh, Arun (2021). "Infixation in Munda and its Austroasiatic Legacy". In Mohan, Shailendra (ed.). Advances in Munda Linguistics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp.78–107. ISBN978-1527570474.
van Driem, George L. (2021). Ethnolinguistic Prehistory: The Peopling of the World from the Perspective of Language, Genes and Material Culture. Brill. ISBN978-9-00444-837-7.
Languages between parentheses are varieties of the language on their left.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
