[There are some cases where clear pictures of NSAA influences in Magar also are visible. But such cases would not allow Nepali only claim the score, for Nepali is not the single NSAA-body to have been closely associated with Magars since yores. Despite such common NSAA-impact on Magar some particular instances supply vivid proofs of reciprocity of give and take between these two languages (Nepali and Magar). But, as my problem in this article is only to show Magar influences on Nepali, I am deliberately avoiding to gather numerous proofs of reciprocity, which would have been equally meaningful to deal with.]
By Balkrishna Pokhrel
 |
| Five Magar girls, from the Himalayas in their traditional costume, the cultural representatives of the entire Magar peoples of the Himalayas and beyond. |
About thirty-five years ago when I had to teach language to Tribhuvan University students in the department of Nepali, I was of the opinion that of all the
Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal Newari was the one, which had lent a
considerable number of useful words to Nepali. But it was much more amazing
when evidence came to appear surprisingly otherwise. In fact, the more I
inclined to identify the Tibeto-Burman borrowings in Nepali the more my
previous put-for-words-were thoroughly dumb-founded, because to my knowledge
now Magar evidence pinnacle the acme of such borrowings. It is normal and
natural to expect a lot of Magar elements being accommodated in the Nepali
vocabulary, because of all the tribes in Nepal Magars are the people who were
the first to come into contact with the Khas people to whom use of Nepali, then
simply known as Khas-Kura (i.e. Khas –speech), was confined. Even nowadays
Magars maintain the most unique proximal neighborhood with the speakers of
Nepali, who have lost their communal nomenclature after their annexation to the
Nepali brotherhood, and after they erroneously smelt a sign of derogation in the
once very proud name (viz. Khas) of their distant ancestors.
Now all the time I am fully
confident of the fact that the prolonged duration of co-existence of the
lingual duo (Magars as well as Nepali) might have left the deepest impact on
either side. Here my attempt would be to show as to what extent Magar has
influenced Nepali, and not to show the other way round.
It would not be unreasonable to
repeat that my continuous findings have enabled me to state that no other
Tibeto-Burman speech than Magar has played a vital role in giving Nepali a
typical shape up to the extent where it differs from other New South Asian
Aryan (NSAA) sisters. Let us keep it into our mind that Magars, not Newari as I
thought previously, is the forerunner in lending Tibeto-Burman features to
Nepali. In my recently completed book Nepali Nirvacan Bhag-3 (“Origin of Nepali
Word – Part 3”), I have shown, more than 25 percent of the entries
worth-seeking their Magar origin. In this dinky attempt, I have endeavored to
analyze the role played by the Magar elements in the area of Nepali
conjugations. Such a role is comparatively most apparent in forming the simple
present. Nepali has deviated from its NSAA-sisters in this respect. On the way
to their eastward movement speakers of Nepali might have come into contact with
Magars. The more they rushed eastward the more they were closer to Magars. That
is why the westernmost dialects of Nepali are least influenced by Magar whereas
the easternmost ones are extremely affected. The intermediate dialects
demonstrate the character in between.
To make understand this hitherto
unnoticed language-mystery the author has chosen on the one hand Hindi,
Maithili and Bengali as Nepalese’s NSAA-sisters whereas Baitadli and Jumli as
its far western and central dialects, respectively. The duo (Magar and Nepali),
of course, constitutes the nuclei of sample-sources. Instead of calling the
literary dialect of Nepali by the name of ‘Nepali’ I have preferred to call it
‘Standard Nepali’ (St. Nep). If special heed is paid the comparative study
based on these speeches is enough to convince one how the eastward movement of
the Nepali speakers gradually increased the tendency of Magarization in their
language. The main purpose of my present article is to invite the distinguished
scholars to deal with the reciprocal give and take between the linguistic duos
in a compact form by exemplifying some instances of Magarization in Nepali
simple present. To make the problem better convincing Rominzation of the basic
counterparts of the source-speeches I have preferred the spoken patterns rater
than the spelt ones.
There are some cases where clear
pictures of NSAA influences in Magar also are visible. But such cases would not
allow Nepali only claim the score, for Nepali is not the single NSAA-body to
have been closely associated with Magars since yores. Despite such common
NSAA-impact on Magar some particular instances supply vivid proofs of
reciprocity of give and take between these two languages (Nepali and Magar).
But, as my problem in this article is only to show Magar influences on Nepali,
I am deliberately avoiding to gather numerous proofs of reciprocity, which
would have been equally meaningful to deal with.
I have chosen ten verbal roots
from all the source speeches mentioned above. The roots are serialized below:
- Ö Jāt - (do)
- Ö si - (die)
- Ö phin - (cook)
- Ö dathup (beat)
- Ö dinh - (get)
- Ö dā - (keep)
- Ö te - (say)
- Ö se - (hear)
- Ö jyā - (eat)
- Ö binh - (send)
All over this
article these serial numbers will be carefully maintained in order to
facilitate to grasp the problem properly. Below we are enlisting all the
counterparts from all the source-source speeches accordingly to the same number
of serializing. For this, it is better to abbreviate the names of all the sources-speeches-
H. (Hindi),
B. (Bengali), MTH. (Maithili), BTD. (Baitadli), J. (Jumli), SN. (Standard
Nepali), and M. (Magar). Below is the list of ten roots from all the
source-speeches.
S.N. H. B MTH BTD. J. SN. M.
ENG.
1.
Ö kar- Ö kar- Ö kar- Ö gar- Ö gar- Ö gar- Öjāt- do
2.
Ö mar- Ö mar- Ö mar- Ö mar- Ö mar- Ö mar- Ösi- die
3.
Ö pakā Ö rān- Ö rān- ÖpakanÖpakanÖpakāuÖphin- cook
4.
Ö mār- Ö mār- Ö mār- Ö pit Ö pit Ö pit Ö dathup beat
5.
Ö pā Ö pā Ö pā Ö pau- Ö pau- Ö pāu Ö dinh get
6.
Ö rakh- Örākh- Örakh- Örākh- Örākh- Örākh- Ö dā keep
7.
Ö kah Ö bol- Öbajh- Öbhun Öbhun Öbhan Ö te- say
8.
Ö sun- Ö son- Ö sun- Ö sun Ö yun Ö xun Ö se- hear
9.
Ö khā- Ö khā- Ö khā- Ö khā- Ö khā- Ö khā- Ö jyā eat
10. Ö
bhej- Öpathā-Ö
pathā-ÖpathauÖpathaÖpathāuÖ bhnh send
Table: Ten Verbal Roots from the
Source Speeches
To fulfill the desired objective
I have selected the simple present examples in the third person only. As Magar
conjugation does not respond to the number or the gender variation our
materials to justify the claim of Magar impact comes to be conveniently handy,
as for example Magar ‘Jātle’ (<Öjāt; serial No. 1)
bears four separate meanings (he does, she does, men do, women do) which can
only be differentiated with the help of context. Unless the situation is known
one is helpless to discern as to which of the four meanings the form ‘jātle’
is denoting. The same is true with other verbal forms also.
Now step-by-step I intend to cite
the simple present (third person) forms of all the verbal roots in all the
source-speeches chosen herein.
1.
‘do’- root forms
H. kartā hai; B. karite
che; MTH. Karit chai; BTD. Garancha; J. gaddo
cha (for an older gardo cha); SN. Garcha; M. jātle
(does).
In all the
cases the structural meaning is ‘doing is’ (i.e. – ing +is), except
in Magar and standard Nepali where this (does’) structurally is ‘do is’ (i.e.,
root +is). Here Magarization is distinctly traceable in the standard Nepali
‘root +is’ form
2.
‘die’ - root forms
H.
martāhai; B., marite che; MTH.marait chai; BTD. Marancha; J.
maddocha(for an older mordocha); SN. Marcha; M. sile
(dies).
Here also all
are functionally ‘dies’ and structurally ‘dying is’, but exceptionally standard
Nepali and Magar are, although functionally ‘dies’, but structurally ‘die is’.
3.
‘cook’ – root forms
H. pakātā hai; B.
rānite che; MTH. rannit chai; BTD. Pakauncha; J. pakauno
cha; SN. Pakāũcha; M. phinle (cooks).
Here Magar is left alone
to bear the ‘cook is ‘form. Nepali shows kinship with other NSAA-sisters
by choosing ‘cooking is ‘ form instead of the ‘cook is’ as is found in
Magar. It is important to keep into mind that Nepali simple present does not
share affinity with Magar ‘root + is’ form if the concerning root is
unlocked (i.e., if it ends with a vowel). In such unlocked roots Nepali simple
conjugates structurally with the device ‘-ing + is’ which is a regular
tendency of its NSAA-sisters.
4.
‘beat’- root forms
H.
mārtā hai; B. mārite che; MTH. mārāit chai; BTD. pitancha;
J. pitto cha (for an older pitto cha); SN. pitcha; M.
datauple (beats).
As the Nepali root is a locked one it accepts
‘beat is’ structure, which I have taken as token of Magarization. Its NSAA-sisters
are ‘beating is’ as is usual to them.
5.
‘get’ – root forms
H.
pātā hai; B. pāite che; MTH. pābait chai; BTD. pauncha; J.
pauno cha; SN. pāucha; M. dinhle (gets).
As all the
unlocked roots this one (primary Ö pā-with secondary Ö pāu-) also shares
affinity with other NSAA-sisters. Here also Magar is left alone to represent
the ‘root + is’ structure.
6.
‘keep’ – root forms
H.
rakh tā hai; B. rākhite che; MTH. rakhit chai; BTD.
rākhanche; J. rākhno cha; SN. rākhcha; M. dāle (keeps).
As in other
locked roots, here also Nepali deviates from its NSAA-sisters and joins close
familiarity with Magar. Obviously here also the structure is, as in Magar,
‘root + is’ (keep).
7.
‘say’ – root forms
H.
kahtā hai; B. bolite che; MTH. bājhait chai; BTD.
bhunan-cha; J. bhunno cha; SN. bhancha; M. tele (says).
One should not
be confused seeing ‘tele’ of Magar very akin to ‘tells’ of English,
because this is quite accidental. Etymologically this form (tele) is an
innovation of an older ‘dele’ (says). It so appears that in the say –
form also Nepali favors the Magar counterpart.
8.
‘hear’ – root forms
H. suntā
hai; B. sonite che; MTH. sunait chai; BTD.
sunancha; J xunno cha; SN. suncha; M. sele (hears).
Here also
agreement between Nepali and Magar structures is beyond dispute.
9.
‘eat’ – root forms
H. khatā
hai; B. khāite che; MTH. khāit chai; BTD. kāncha; J.
khāno cha; SN. khāncha; M. jyāle (eats).
Here again
Magar is left alone with the structure ‘root + is’ because in other
speeches it is structurally antagonism is such cases between Nepali and Magar
is due to the unlocking of the Nepali root. In this particular case the
concerning Nepali is root Ö khā- is clearly unlocked.
10. ‘send’-
root forms
H.
bhejatā hai; B. pāthāito che; MTH. pathābait chai; BTD.
pathaun- cha; J. pathauno cha; SN. pathāũcha; M. binhle
(sends).
No Magar
impact on the standard Nepali is seen here because as an unlocked root Nepali
does not accept ‘root + is’ structure even sporadically.
Some necessary remarks
1. In the
spoken Calcutta dialect of Bengali there forms like kƆocche (does), mƆcche (dies), rānche (cooks), mācche (beats),
pāche (gets), rākhche (keeps), bƆlche (says),
sonche (hears), khācche (eats), pathācche (sends), etc. But these are not
the cases of ‘root +is’ forms. There are two strong arguments that can
defy the conception of their resemblance with ‘root +is’ structure. One
argument is that their resemblance with ‘root +is’ structure is
surfacial, because they function in Bengali as the present continuous. These
are doubtlessly the modified developments of “-ing +is” forms, owing to
the rapid phonological harmony, underwent a puzzling sound-change and, thus,
came to resemble with ‘root + is’ forms. Another argument is that
Bengali depends on uncompounded forms (khāe: eats; kƆre:
does; bƆle: says, etc.) to express
simple present. Actually the history of every ‘-ing + is’ goes to
present continuous in all the NSAA-speeches. But gradually in all speeches the
present continuous is surrendering to the simple present. In Nepali, Baitadi,
Jumli and Maithili such surrender is complete while in Bengali it is in the
process. To close up the dialogue a few words are adequate to state that
whether blended (like kƆcche) or
unblended (like kƆrite che)
Bengali examples are far away from the process of Magarization.
2. There are two types of
unlocked roots in Nepali- one type having a secondary root, and the other type
denying such secondaries.
Only a very
few unlocked roots in Nepali do not have secondary counterparts. Some of such
scant ‘merely primary’ unlocked roots are – Ö jā- (go), Ö khā-
(eat), Ö
phu- (unfasten),Ö chu- (touch), etc. Our concerning conjugation of
these roots are jāncha (goes), khāncha (eats), phuncha (unfastens), chuncha
(touches), respectively. Distinctly these forms manifest ‘- ing +is’
structure, against ‘root +is’ structure. Had they been ‘root + is’ forms
they would have appeared as jācha, khācha, phucha, and chucha
respectively, which sound ridiculous even to hear.
There are a lot of verbs
with unlocked roots having secondary roots in Nepali. Of these a few are shown
below.
Primary roots Secondary roots
Ö gā-
(sing) Ö gāu
– (sing)
Ö ā –
(come) Ö āu –
(come)
Ö
nuhā- (take bath) Ö
nuhāu – (take bath)
Ö suhā
– (suit) Ö
suhāu – (suit)
These are two
types (primary and secondary) of roots are not equipotent or equivalent. Mostly
primary roots are seen forming past tense (khā-yo): he ate, āayo: he came, and
working as imperative (gā: you just do sing, ā: you just do come, etc.).
The secondary roots are seen forming types like simple present, e.g. gāũcha
(he sings), āũcha (he comes), etc. This, of course does not belong to the ‘root
+is’ structure.
3. Secondary
roots belonging to the unlocked class have the peculiarity that they have two
alternative ways of conjugation in forming simple present. They never differ in
meaning, e.g.
First Alternative - Second Alternative
gāũcha
(sings) gāũdacha
(sing)
āũcha
(comes) āũdcha
(comes)
nuhāũcha
(takes bath) nuāũdacha
(takes bath)
Suhāũcha
(suits) suhāũdacha
(suits)
It is needless to say
that both the alternative types have relation with (ing +is) structure.
4. It has been
made clear already that locked roots in Nepali are the only instances where ‘root
+ is’ structure is detected. But such roots are also of two types – the
first with two alternative forms and the second with three alternative forms.
There is not a single locked root in Nepali, which may show only one
alternative in simple present. This unveils that the number of alternative
simple present forms in locked roots ranges from two to three. Such roots being
locked by a voiced consonant give us only two synonymous alternative simple
present forms, whereas the roots being locked by an unvoiced consonant give us
three forms of the same categorical strength. Following examples are enough to
make the fact clear.
A.
Locked roots with two alternatives
Ö gar
– (do)
(a)
garcha (does) –root+ is
(b)
gardcha (does) – - ing+ is
Ö bhan – (says)
(a)
bhancha (says ) – root + is
(b)
bhandacha (says) – - ing + is
Ö chod – (quit)
(a)
chodcha (quits) – root +is
(b)
choddacha ( quits) - -ing + is
B.
Locked roots with three alternative
Ö sak
– (can)
(a)
sakcha (he can) – root+ is
(b)
sakdacha (he can) – ing + is
(c)
saktacha (he can) – ing + is
Ö nāc – (dance)
(a)
naccha (dances) – root + is
(b)
nacdacha (dances) –ing+ is
(c)
nactacha (dances) – ing + is
Ö pit (beat)
(a)
pitcha (beats) – root + is
(b)
pitdacha ( beats) – ing + is
(c)
pittacha (beats) – ing + is
Of all the locked and unlocked
roots only those bearing simple present forms with ‘root + is’ structure
are found affected by Magarization. On the contrary those simple present forms
manifesting ‘- ing + is’ structure are firmly tenacious towards their
normal NSAA- attitude.
Conclusion
No Magarization is traceable in
Hindi, Bengali and Maithili simple present, as they absolutely refute the construction
based on ‘root + is’ structure. Similarly, in this regard Nepal spoken in
Baitadi and Jumla is also free from its tendency. This means that Nepali
speakers (Khas or Parbate people) were not in close contact with the Magars so
long as they did not cross the Karnali Zone. It does not suggest that no Magar
abodes were over there. Certainly Magars were indigenous there too, but there
social contamination was perhaps not so effective there. There is proverb in
Nepali – magarko bihemā khas nāsti, khasko bihemā magar nāsti (“There is no
Khas guest in the wedding ceremony of a Magar, and vice versa”). The
proverb seems to have emerged when the two people were not good (or even bad)
neighbors.
The moment Khas people with their
kura (speech) moved eastward from
their ancient habitat (now commonly known as Baisi) Magar influence on their
tongue gradually became more and more frequent. Such influences are worth
detecting in grammar as well as in vocabulary.
But despite the enormous Magar
impact on Nepali it still inherits NSAA characters in a satisfactory degree. An
un-debatable exemplification is born by numerous ‘ing + is’ simple
present forms of the third personal verbs in Nepali. This hitherto neglected
linguistic fact may inspire our scholars to carry on a similar study on a
larger scale, on convergence of Nepal language with Magar as a result of their
proximity.
* The author is one of the renowned linguists of Nepal. This paper was presented at the 17th Annual
Conference of the Linguistic Society of Nepal, November 27, 1996, Biratnagar,
Morang and was later published in Journal of Nepalese Studies Vol. 1 No. 2 1996. Royal Nepal Academy, Katmandu, Nepal
 |