Reviews Of Different Books

Page 44

290 REVIEWS of dialects which are heterogeneous in nature". This is a problem that may perhaps be of great importance for our reconstruction of the history of the West Coast dialects but which still waits further exploration. One would have liked to hear somewhat more about the relation between the standard language and the dialects (Subramoniam refers on p. 377 to "the standard forms of Malayalam" but the question as to what exactly is a standard form does not seem to be hotly disputed), and particularly about "the tribal languages of Kerala, such as the language of the Kaadars of Cochin and the Muthuvans", mentioned as being different from the dialects (p. 378). This laconic statement raises questions which remain unanswered. In conclusion, Subramoniam states that "the inadequacy of existing theoretical models is occasionally felt when they are applied to Malayalam" and expresses the hope that the younger generation may be able "to formulate an independent and comprehensive model or an alteration of the existing models for language analysis". At the end of a comparatively brief chapter on Telugu (pp. 382-393) George Kelley states that "relatively little of value on Telugu has appeared in recent years, except for the extensive work of Krishnamurti... Progress has been slow because few scholars are at work in the field." He gives a clear description of the three regional dialects and the problem of the social variants (formal and informal styles among educated speakers, educated and uneducated varieties of speech). A Telugu dialect Dictionary of occupational terms is mentioned as a unique kind of lexicography in India (but what about Grierson's pioneering work Bihar Peasant Life?). Still shorter is H. S. Biligiri's chapter on Kannada: about five pages text, with a bibliography of nine pages. ary facilities. Onon was stolen in Inde specially to be Part Three. "Other language Families" (pp. 411-477) deals with Austroasiatic. TibetoBurman and Iranian languages. The chapter on "Munda and non-Munda Austroasiatic languages" by Norman H. Zide (pp. 411-430) deals with Munda, Nihali, Nicobar and Khasi. Since this is the first time (apart from Pinnow's older Kharia-Sprache) that a survey of the whole field (with references to recent, mostly unpublished papers) is given, it is especially to be regretted that the original version of this contribution was stolen in India. The present version was written without library facilities. One may marvel that the final result is still better than one might have expected. This is largely due to David Stampe's help in providing bibliographical references. Still it is disappointing that this first account of the Munda studies should be so unsatisfactory and defective. Sudhibhusan Bhattacharya's brief survey "The Munda Languages and South-East Asia" (Bulletin, Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Simla, July 1970, pp. 23-31) does not complement it although it may be consulted alongside with it. After giving a Stammbaum diagram (in which Central Munda is grouped with South Munda, see Emeneau-Festschrift, pp. 370-377) and referring to Pinnow's studies on the relationship with other Austroasiatic languages (which is now, at last, generally accepted), Zide gives a reconstruction of the proto-Munda consonant system. As for the PM. morphology, Proto-Munda is said to have had "predominantly monosyllabic morphemes". Much depends on the extent of "predominantly". There are so many disyllabic root morphemes which Munda has in common with other Austroasiatic and even Austronesian languages (some of which may be found in Orientalia Neerlandica, p. 376f.) that it might be preferable to ascribe the predominantly monosyllabic root structure to an earlier historical stage than proto-Munda. The following sub-chapters deal exhaustively with phonology, morphology and syntax, lexicology (and semantics), etymology (with some well-founded criticisms of some explanations of Sanskrit words from Munda), vernacular literature and miscellaneous topics. In addition to the numerous unpublished American papers H. J. Pinnow's important monograph Grundzuge einer Phonetik des Mundari, Berlin, 1954 (cited in Kharia-Sprache, p. 460) should have been mentioned.