________________
M. A. MEHENDALE
the reconstruction of Rajasthani by comparing the evidence from Marwari, Mewari and Harauti. The reconstructed Rajasthani as we know had three phonemes bh, b, v occurring both initially and finally. Marwari has preserved all the three phonemes in these positions; Mewari has made one change viz. -bh > -b; Harauti has made two changes-bh > -b and - >-b. The comparison of Marwari and Mewari enables us to recover the older stage without difficulty. But comparison of Marwari with Harauti leads to a difficulty which the procedure available until now cannot solve. Different groupings of partially similar sets lead to an equal number of reconstructed phonemes. The principle that we should accept that grouping which leads to the smallest number of reconstructed phonemes cannot therefore be successfully applied. Allen has phonemicized Harauti data [bh--b, b- -6, 6- -v] as /bh--b, b--b, b--bh/ so that -vis phonemicized as -bh. The comparison of this with the Marwari data bh--bh, b- -, - -v leads to three possible combinations all giving equal number of phonemes. The point therefore is whether we can think of any method which would help us to choose one of the three alternative combinations. Ghatage's suggestion is as follows : “We should admit that reconstruction as valid which leads to the postulation of the least number of changes from the mother language into the daughter languages". This suggestion makes explicit the principle followed by the comparatists for reconstructing the phonemes of the protolanguage. On comparing the sound correspondences of the two related languages, inferences regarding the reconstruction are drawn in such a way that they involve the smallest number of phonetic changes. On comparing a correspondences : h between two languages, although the possibility that they are the reflexes of neither s nor h but a third sound is admitted, it is not entertained because it presupposes more phonetic changes.
It seems that the Rajasthani problem can be met also in a different way. The problem has arisen due to a particular kind of phonemicization [-v] as /-bh/, and on a descriptive level it may be possible to do that. When, however, we turn to comparative reconstruction and attempt extraction of sets, a set -:-bh deduced from Marwari and Harauti cognates should always remind the comparatist about the phonetic value of -bh in Harauti which is [-v]. In such cases it is suggested that while preparing the sets it would be better to restore the phonetic value to the phoneme in a particular position. It is true that allophones are not taken into consideration while attempting reconstruction. But in the cases like above an extraction of a set -v :-bh forces us to assume one change for the daughter language whereas the restoration of the allophone -v for -bh (-vi-v) eliminates this necessity. It seems therefore desirable that allophones of a phoneme need not in all cases be neglected while attempting comparative reconstruction.
Madhu Vidya/352
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
