Johnson
had said that he could repeat a complete
chapter
of the “The Natural History of Iceland”
from
the Danish of Horrebow, the whole of
which
was exactly thus:-“CHAP,LXXII.
Concerning snakes.
There are no snakes to
be
met with throughout the whole Island”
Boswell,
Life of Johnson, at 13 April 1778.
For
an area that can be named with Justice the cradle of linguistic science and at
the same time a museum of languages (diachronically as well as synchronically
speaking).South Asia presents a rather depressing picture when one surveys the
current trends there in language studies generally and in general linguistics
specifically – only slightly less depressing than the late V.S.Sukthankar (1941)
found it to be in addressing the Philology section of the 10th All
India Oriental Conference. “We read with pardonable pride” he says, “the ecomiums
lavished by foreign scholars on the great grammar of Pānini and we are complacent
enough not to realize that these very ecomiums are at the same time the most crushing
indictment of his unworthy descendants, who have shamefully neglected the study
of this important subject”- and while saying this, he has both “medieval and modern
times” in mind (pp.595,596).
The
great divide between ancient and modern times in this field as in many others
in South Asia is of course the coming of scholarly contact with the West. The
classical period in ancient times that saw the rise of linguistic science is undoubtedly
the one associated with Pānini, his predecessors, successors and collaterals
–among these last, one must not forget to include the author of Tŏlkappiyam,
founder of the Tamil grammatical tradition. In this connection it is customary
to speak of the munitrayam – Pānini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali. Sukthankar rightly
questions this – great as the achievement of the latter two is as expositors of
Pānini, it remains essentially derivative. The brilliance of Pānini’s
achievement in the field of descriptive grammar – Chomsky (1965), p.v) willingly
credits him with “a fragment of …a ‘generative grammar’ in essentially the contemporary
sense of this term” – should not blind us to the not inconsiderable gains in other
field of linguistics. Articulatory phonetics still owes some of it’s technical
terms – some disguised as loan translators – to the Šiksās and the pratiŠākhyas. On
more than one occasion, modern investigations have vindicated the ancient Indians
observations over against their modern critics like Whitney. Etymology or nirukta
was largely speculative and fragmentary in those pioneer attempts. One must not
forget, however, that some of these etymologies were in reality thinly disguised
attempts at semantic dissection and must be evaluated as such. Moving to Prakrit
as opposed to Sanskrit etymology, the picture is more creditable – the Prakrit
grammarians did take the first momentous step in historical and comparative linguistics,
namely, recognizing sets of systematic phonemic correspondence between historically
related languages. Curiously enough, we have no theoretical treatises
that will ground these practical achievements onto a system of generalizations.
( I say curiously because the picture is quite the opposite in certain other fields-
the ancient Indians, for example, produced some brilliant treatments of poetics,
but there is no literary criticism of specific texts worth the name.) The nearest
one comes to general linguistics is in some treatises on the philosophy of language-notably
Bhartrhari’s Vākyapadiya, an exposition of the sphota theory
of language-and in semantic discussion on the powers of words(ŠabdaŠaktiö) by logicians of the Nyāya school
and by the students of poetics. All in all, it was not nobody should be credited
with being the first to have a particular linguistic insight until after one has
made sure that no Indian has anticipated him centuries earlier. Only, one must
not forget that one may have to dig out tons of inferior commentarial ore before
coming across such nuggets of gold.
The
first scholarly contact with the modern west took the shape of western antiquarians
seeking the help of a Hindu pandit or a muslim maulavi in exploring the rich treasures
of traditional learning. This remained (and unfortunately still remains) an unequal
and therefore limited encounter. But the antiquarian bias thus given to language
studies in modern India is still with us. We have to wait for the first university
trained generation of Indian scholars to come up and play in the deliberations
of the Asiatic Societies of Bengal and Bombay and receive their training in the
universities of Germany, England, and France. Indian antiquary was founded
in Bombay in 1872 as “a journal of oriental research in archeology, epigraphy,
ethnology, geography, history, folklore, languages, literature, numismatics, philosophy,
religion etc.” Linguistic studies –or philogical studies as they were then called-
were to remain so tucked away in Indology throughout the first period (1877-1919)
of South Asian linguistics, which opens with the inauguration of the Wilson Philological
Lecture series at the University of Bombay by the Indo- Aryanist R.G.Bhandarkar,
the Indian co-founder with the John Beames, A.F. Rudolf Hoernle, and Bishop Robert
Caldwell of the modern study of South Asian Languages. Although there were Indian
sanskritists in the modern sense before him – Ram Mohan Roy, the father of Modern
Indian Awakening for example, if no other- Bhandarkar was the first Indian to
study modern philosophy. The complexion of linguistic studies was decidedly historical:
the focus was on phonology and morphology:; the horizon was exclusively Indo-European,
if not Indo-Iranian, if not Indo-Aryan, if not limited to Sanskrit. This state
of affairs was to continue more or less unchanged in the next period also; Sukthankar
(1941, p.598) had good cause to continue to animadvert on his generation which
was “so conservative- that it never occurs to any one of us to study any language
outside our special, hallowed system of languages”. Hindus would have no interest
ordinarily in Arabic and Persian; Muslims in Sanskrit; North Indians in Dravidian;
non-Parsis in old and middle Iranian. The so called adivasi languages would
be left to missionaries and European officers; interest in languages outside South
Asia- even in Greek and Latin and Tibetan and Chinese-would be minimal.
The next period (1919-54), which may be conveniently dated from the publication
of Jules Blotch’s La Formation de la langue marathe, shows improvement
in one important respect. The rather wholly, vaguely romantic synthesis represented
by Max Müller’s lecture
on the science of language(1862-66), so pleasing to the new- found Indian
national consciousness in it’s idolization of Sanskrit, finally lost it’s grip.
The Juggrammatikers’ revolution finally caught up with South Asian Linguistics.
Around 1919, a number of things happened. The University of Calcutta founded a
chair for Comparative Philology in 1913; I.J.S Taraporewala was the first Indian
to be appointed to it (in 1917). In 1921 the University of London awarded a young
Indian, Suniti Kumar Chatterji, D.Litt for his work on the The origin and development
of the Bengali language done at the newly founded School of Oriental Studies.
Chatterji held the Calcutta professorship from 1922 to 1952 and put India on the
International map of linguistics to follow. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
was founded at Poona in1917 and was the venue in 1919 of the first Oriental conference.
P.D Gune’s Introduction to comparative philology was first
published in 1918 and was to be the staple English reading of generations
of young Indian philologists along with A.C.Woolners Introduction to Prakrit
(1917) Otto Jespersons’s Language (1922), Joseph Vendryes’s Le language (1921, English translation
1931), and I.J.S.Taraporewala’s Elements of the science language(1931). Jules Bloch, L.P Tessitori,R.L.Turner
in the West and Chatterji, Siddeswar Varma, Baburam Saksena, Dhirendra Varma,
L.V.Ramaswamy Aiyar, Balakrishna Ghosh, Muhammad Shahidullah, in India represent
the next generation in South Asian linguistics. Sir George Abraham Grierson- representing
a fine tradition of administrators turned scholors- completed his monumental LSI
(1903-28) in this period with the assistance of Sten Konow. It began to show
it’s impact- the teeming non-literary dialects of “cultivated languages” and the
“uncultivated languages” finally came into their own. The Reverend T.Grahame Bailey
and Chatterji introduced the International Phonetic Alphabet to the philologists
(respectively in A Panjabi phonetic reader 1914; and in A Brief sketch
of Bengali phonetics 1921). Finally, we must note the accentuating of a trend
that was already present in the first period and even earlier. The rise of modern
literatures in the regional languages in the 19th century, the standardization
of anew prose medium (the ancient literatures being predominantly in verse), the
practical needs of the European officers and the missionaries, the growing importance
of the regional consciousness- all of these converged to make the need felt for
standard grammars and dictionaries. These were necessarily bilingual at first
(grammars in English, the dictionary glosses in English); later grammars written
in the respective languages and* later unilingual dictionaries remained on the
whole innocent of linguistics of any brand till the next period. The dates of
these broadly reflect the uneven time-spread of the British conquest, of regional
cultural developments, and of the weaning away from English. (The dates of the
influential text books on linguistics in the regional languages may also be compared
with these.)
The holding, in 1954, of the first separate meeting on the
Linguistic Society of India (founded in 1928 at the 5th Indian Oriental
Conference at Lahore) marks the beginning of the contemporary phase in South Asian
Linguistics. The coming of independence to India in1947 transformed the very complexion
of scholarly contact between Indians and the rest of the world. The 1953 conference
of linguists and Indian educationists presided over by Sir Ralph Turner at Deccan
College, Poona expressed the need for an intensive training programme in India
for young linguists who could then take up a fresh linguistic survey of the country
based on first-hand field study. The Language Project (1954-59) at Deccan College
made this desideratum a reality; since 1960, the summer school of Linguistics
have continued under other auspices. Indian linguistics was finally ready to catch
up with the Saussure-Sapir-Bloomfield revolution in linguistics. The newly founded
Linguistic Research Group of Pakistan under the energetic stewardship of Anwar
S.Dil held the First Pakistan Conference of Linguists at Lahore in 1962.Ceylon
is feeling the impact of the new linguistics. The newly founded Tribhuvan Unversity
at Kathmandu, NeÖpal
has provision for Indology and linguistics. Though universities in this area have
been accepting dissertations on linguistic subjects for a long time, Calcutta
was still the only South Asian university center in 1954 offering a regular course
in the subject. There are now over 15 universities that offer some course in linguistics.
Linguistics has been put back on the map of Indian scholarship. There is also
a practical motivation for this study- the so called language problems of South
Asia, especially the need for expanding, updating, and diversifying language teaching
facilities. The danger of unscholarly motives like regional or national chauvinism
creeping into language studies is very real but is probably not a serious threat.
A welcome feature of the present situation is that linguistics has started attracting
recruits from fields other than language teaching, literature, and cultural history.
In addition, there are research groups interested in language at the science institutes
at Bombay and Bangalore.
We
are now ready to take an overview of the organization of South Asian linguistic
studies which will enable one to place a given work against its institutional
background.
At
one extreme are facilities organized by foreigners primarily fro their own use
either in their own countries or on south Asian soil. London, Oxford, Cambridge,
Edinburgh, Paris, G Öttingen,
Heidelberg, Berlin, Rome, Leningrad, Pennsylvania, Yale, Wisconsin, Chicago, Cornell,
Berkeley, Texas, Tokyo are some of the important university centers. The Netherlands,
Portugal, Norway, China, Munda Language
project of the University of Chicago, Ecole francaise d’Extrême-Orient, South
Asia Institute of Heidelberg that also operated in India. South Asians of course
have benefited considerably from these foreign efforts.
Nearer
home are works written for the benefit of European officials in colonial India
and Ceylon and of Christian clergy, missionaries, and Bible translators a coming
from the west. The role of missionaries centers like Serampore, Tinnelvelly, Mangalore
, Madras, Goa, Ranchi is notable. We owe the works of Caldwell, H.Gundert, Ferdinand
Kittel, and A.H.Arden on Dravidian languages in the first phase to this activity.
Foreign agencies for klpromoting English, French, or German language studies in
South Asia also belong here.
On
a more disinterested plane is the scholarly activity of British and, later, Indian
officials in the various governmental agencies like the Linguistic Survey of India,
the Anthropologicl Survey of India, the Census of India, the Tribal departments
in Maharashtra, Madhyapradesh (and the Central provinces and Berar), Bihar, Orissa,
and Assam. Many British administrators and army officers also carried on scholarly
activity as an act of supererogation.
Indian
scholarly agencies with a clearly international orientation – involving the use
of English in publication outlets and the association of visiting foreign scholars
for example- are the universities a departments of philology or linguistics and
associated research institutes (for example, Calcutta, Poona, Annamalai, Agra,
Saugor, Osmania, Delhi, Kerala universities; Deccan college); endowed lecture
series (notably Wilson philological lectures at Bombay); specific projects (Sanskrit
dictionary at Deccan College, Sinhalese dictionary at Colombo); department of
foreign and classical languages and literatures; the Oriental and Indological
research institutions (fro example Pune, Baroda, Madras Hoshiarpur institutes;
Asiatic Societies of Bengal (At Calcutta), of Pakistan (at Dacca) and of Bombay;
Bharatiya vidya Bhavan); and the agencies associate with Hindu, Buddhist, Jain
Islamic, and Zoroastrian studies. Arya Samaj and other reformist movements have
promoted and influenced humanistic studies. Arya Samaj and the reformist movements
have promoted and influenced humanistic studies. Then we must not forget scholarly
forums like the Linguistic Society of India, the All-India Oriental Conference,
or more local bodies like the linguistic circle of Delhi, the Philological society
of Calcutta.
The
crop of language problems have naturally given rise to numerous governmental and
non-governmental agencies like the language promotion departments (Central Hindi
Directorate at Delhi, Panjabi Language Department at Patiala, the three central
institutes of English, Hindi, and Sanskrit; agencies tackling the problem of teaching
Hindi and other modern Indian languages to Indians as second languages (Rashtrabhasha
Prachar Samithi, Wardha; Maharashtra Rashtrabhasha Sabha, Poona; Dakshina Bharat
Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras; Antarbharati, Poona; and others); agencies tackling
the problem of teaching English(apart from the Central Institute of English there
are other bodies at Bombay, Allahabad etc, Dacca was center where Michael West
worked); and the various terminology-producing bodies attached to the Government
and the universities and Independent ones like the late Dr.Raghu Vira’s International
Academy of Indian Culture (at Nagpur, later Delhi). Although foreign cooperation
has had a part to play in some of them, these agencies are obviously oriented
towards specific local needs.
For
years to come, there is no prospect that linguistic work published in South Asian
languages will be read on a large scale outside the particular speech communities,
let alone outside South Asia. Work in Hindi may be a partial exception – non-Hindi
speaking Indians sometimes publish in Hindi. The work of the regionally oriented
bodies have served to counteract the immense and sometimes crippling prestige
of Sanskrit. Such are the language of literature departments in the regional languages
in universities and colleges; the various Sahitya Parishads and similar bodies
(Nagari Pracharini Sabha, Anjuman- I Taraqia Urdu, Vangiya Sahitya Parishad, Maharashtra
sahitya Parishad, Srilanka Sahitya Mandalaya, Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academy,
Jammu and Kashmir Academy of Arts, Cultures and Languages, Gujrat Vernacular Society,
Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad, Tamil Sangam and others); and regionally oriented
research enterprises(Bihar Research Society, Kamrup Anusandhan Samiti, Vidarbha
Samshodan Mandal, and others) and publishing ventures (like Maharashtra Kosha
Mandal, Rajasthan Oriental series, Southern Languages book Trust). It must be
mentioned, though, that some of those do publish in English or Hindi.
At
the other extreme, away from this network institutions, not all of which will
be equally useful to linguistic studies, stand some relatively lonely efforts.I
have in mine the work of persons like L.V.Ramaswamy Aiyar, Vishwanath Kashinath
Rajwade, Kishoridas Vajpeyi, Vasudevashastri Abahyankar, G.K.Modak Shastri, Sitaram
Lalas. The fate of purely traditional pandits and maulavis has on the whole been
on of playing third or fourth fiddle. The world will be the loser if individual
efforts against heavy odds remain neglected.
In
the third or contemporary phase we have become so accustomed to the competition
of the rival models of language description that younger linguists are apt to
forget the vastly different picture that prevailed when these models did not hold
the stage. Of course, South Asian Linguistics does not have it’s exhibits of classical
American descriptions, Pike- tagmetics, Lagacre-tagmemics, Harris- transformationalism,
Chamsky-generativist presentations, Firthian studies, Halliday-inspired systemic
grammars, even glossematic studies. Structuralism has some historical-comparativist
work to it’s credit in the Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, and Munda fields. (South Asian
linguists have little contribution to make to the Indo-European or even to the
Indo-Iranian field).
Dialect
comparisons, however and descriptions, however and descriptions of earlier stages
preserved in written texts still remain unaffected by structuralism. There have
been some frequency counts and information theory has been applied, but glottochronology
and computational linguistics are still not in the picture. Out of the hyphenated
branches, sociolinguistics has made real headway. The mathematician-Indologist,
D.D.Kosambi, has an early critique of Zipf to his credit. In experimental phonetics,
one must mention a sizable quantity of London-style kymography and photography
and palatography done at London, Edinburgh, Prague, Agra, and Poona; some spectrographic
work done mostly abroad; and a whole succession of papers and monographs published
by C.R.Shankaran of Poona and his associates centering around the alpha-phoneme
and alpha-phonoid theory. Only recently there have been stray papers dealing specifically
with linguistic theory- M.A.Mehendrales’s studies in the theory of internal construction,
or D.N.Shankar Bhat’s studies in the nature of language change and divergence,
for instance. The problem of devising suitable equivalents in Indian languages
of technical terms in linguistics found in English has exercised many linguists
and non-linguists; and the fruits of their own labors have appeared as dictionaries
or glossaries attached to books.
Most
of the book-length treatments of general linguistics that have appeared in South
Asia either in English or in south Asian languages in the second hand the third
phases(very few before that) are essentially derivative text books trying to cover
the whole field then known or to cover a sub-branch like phonetics or semantics.
By and large, however one has to infer the general conception of language underlying
the mass of specific studies untouched by structuralism in the absence of explicit
methodological or theoretical discussions.
The
general orientation thus revealed has already been suggested in the historical
review of the three periods. For comments on specific text books on general linguistics
and its branches written in South Asian languages, other articles in this volume
may also be consulted. Some general observations may be made here.
(1)
Surprisingly enough there have not been many significant attempts
to relate the work of Pānini or other ancient grammarians to modern linguistics,
or to reassess their work, or to make explicit the assumptions underlying it or
to apply their methods to contemporary languages. There are no neo-Pānians.
(2) Expectably
the dominant orientation in the first and the second periods was historical. Books
purporting to be on general linguistics or semantics. And yet, there is ground
for suspecting that the classical historical doctrine of sound change and anology,
intrinsic and extrinsic forces, inherited and revived or borrowed traits, language
split and partial convergence through borrowing and substratum influence has not
really seeped through. Too often there is loose talk of language and dialect mixture
without any effort to determine paternity: too often there is a refusal to follow
through the implications of a historical finding; too often there is amateur etymologizing;
too often there is a failure to distinguish between genuine sound change and sound
substitution in tatsama revival. Not too often but often enough to be disturbing,
there is an explicit or implicit rejection of the whole historical assumption-one
still comes across brave attempts to derive even Arabic or Tamil from Sanskrit.
The reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European is suspected to be an attempt to dethrone
Sanskrit from natural position as the mother of all languages. Most of the textbooks
show a very perfunctory treatment of comparative reconstruction.
(3) The Indian
penchant for synthesis or desire to displease nobody often results in cheerful
conflation of disparate or even conflicting elements. A recent grammar of Hindi,
to take a relatively trivial example, postulates with the moderns a direct and
an oblique case, at the same time recognizing the seven Sanskrit-like cases with
their case endings! The more recent text-books or doctoral dissertations will
garnish an essentially traditional plan with a sprinkling of allophones and morphemes.
There is an all too great readiness to read into ancient lore anticipations of
modern ideas.
(4) A closely related
failing is an insufficient sense of context, of logical interrelatedness. Statements
of Western and Indian “authorities” will be torn out of context- particularly
definitions- only to be piled up irrelevantly to parade the author’s learning
or to be commandeered to support his statement. There is no sense of an ongoing
discipline with provisional syntheses, palace revolutions, and new theories necessitating
a total renovation and reassessment of all the existing ideas. If an American
tyro will behaves if there was no linguistics before Chomsky or if a Continental
conservative will behave as if there was no linguistics after Brugmann or whoever,
the Indian’s sense of continuity (which is not such a bad thing after all) can
run away with his sense of methodological rigor. The vague psychologizing about
the origin and growth of languages of the first period is carried over into the
second period after the Junggrammatikers had made some impact without any sense
of incongruity.
(5) The weakness
of such scholarly apparatus as bibliography, index, references has been frequently
noted in reviewing South Asian work. The editing of journals and monograph series
is lackadaisical- a far cry indeed from the briskness and the meticulous attention
to style in all senses of a Bernard Blotch. The stratified power structure of
the South Asian academic community hamstrings an editor as it does a would be
candid reviewer.
(6) The general plan of typical South Asian textbook
on linguistics can be formalized somewhat as follows:
(i)
(a) What is language?
(b) What is linguistics?
(c) history of linguistics
(ii) (a) Articulatory phonetics (basically
that of Sanskrit and English)
(b)
Phonetic change
(c)
Word-building, inflection, word- classes
(d)
Sentence analysis
(e)
Semantic change (often with an excursus on ŠabdaŠakti)
(iii)
(a) Origin of language
(b)
Growth of a language
(c)
Causes of change
(d)
Language variation in time, space, and social strata
(e)
Structural and genetic classification of languages
(f)
Linguistic paleontology (i.e. the reconstruction of pre-history from linguistic
evidence) and comparative reconstruction (perfunctory treatment)
(iv)
(a) Indo-European family; centum and satem ; Grimm’s Law and
Verner’s
Law
(b)
Languages of India
(c)
Old, Middle, and New Indo-Aryan
(d)
Languages of the world
This scheme
is no doubt over-formalized –the four main divisions shown will normally thoroughly
interlard each other.
(7) South Asian
linguistics is of course an ambiguous term: it can refer either to work by South
Asian linguists or to work about South Asian languages. While the comments so
far (from (1) to (6) were directed at the former, the ones that follow (from (7)
to (9) are very often applicable also to the work of western scholars on South
Asian languages.
The
general plan of the description of a language or dialect or a given historical
stage of a language preserved in written texts can be formalized somewhat as follows:
(i) Phonology
*(a)
The alphabet: letters and their articulatory classification (sometimes
with a capsule introduction to articulatory
phonetics)
*(b)
Accent and intonation (perfunctory treatment )
*(c)
Sandhi rules
(ii) Word
grammar
(a) Parts
of speech
(b) Survey from
nouns to interjections, under each of the following headings: subclasses *categories
of inflection *derivation, uses in a sentence of the inflected form including
concord and government
(c) Word
building* derived words *reduplicated word* composite words
(iii) Sentence grammar
(a) The analysis
of a simple sentence (after the logician Alexander Bain’s English grammar)
(b) Complex and
compound sentences
(c) Word
order
(iv) (a) Orthography (If
a written language)
(v) (b) Punctuation
(If a contemporary language)
(b)
Versification
(c) Figures of speech
(e)
Etymology (being a capsule history of the language)
An
obelisk marks optional elements, an asterisk indicates heavy reliance on the model
of Sanskrit. Incidentally, looking at (ii) and (iii) here, it would seem that
the so called word-and paradigm model is better termed the paradigm-and use model
to bring out it’s partial viability in comparison with item and arrangement and
item- and process models.)
(8) The general
plan of the history of a cultivated language (often tagged on to a history of
literature and often prefaced with a capsule introduction to linguistics) can
be formalized somewhat as follows:
The
Origin and Development of the X language
(i) Origin:
place in the family, earliest surviving written records; epochs in the history
(ii) Vocabulary
elements : for example, for modern Indo-Aryan
language: tatsama, tadbhava, desi, and foreign (i.e known cultural
borrowings)
(iii) Phonology: the sound
correspondences between contemporary X and the languages listed in (ii), possibly
with a reverse index
(iv) Morphology : derivatives affixes and their etyma,
reduplication, composition, inflectional affixes and their etyma; numerals, pronouns,
particles and their etyma(morphology usually arranged by parts of speech)
(v) Dialects
(vi) Script and orthography
An
obelisk marks optional elements.
(9) The general
plan of an entry in a unilingual or bilingual dictionary is somewhat as follows:
(i) Entry
word in the local script
(ii) Transliteration
in Roman or Devanagari
(iii) Origin tag- Sanskrit,
Persian, English etc.
(iv) Part of speech tag
(v) Subclass tag-
gender of a noun, transitivity of a verb
(vi) String of glosses
(* with some punctuational structuring
(vii)Idioms
with glosses
(viii)
Citations from literary texts
(ix) Etymology
An
obelisk marks optional elements.
We
have a long way to go. We can begin to adopt the words of Goethe cited by Sukthankar
1941, p.609) by acquiring what we have inherited – from our own past as well as
from the rest of the world.
REFERNCES
Chomsky,
A. Noam, Aspects of the theory of syntax. (Cambridge, Mass, 1965).
Sukthankar,
V.S., “The position of linguistic studies in India”. Proceedings of the 10th
All India Oriental Conference 593-609 (1941). Deliverd 1940. Reptd Bharātiya
vidya 2.23-35 (1942); Sukthankar
memorial edition 2. 386-99 (Bombay: Karnatak, 1945).
COLOPHON
This
was published in Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 5, Linguistics
in South Asia, The Hague: Monton, 1969, p 532-42.
Editor
: Thomas A.Seboek1.Soviet
and East European Linguistics Associate Editors:Paul L.Garvin, Horace Lunt,
Edward Stankiewicz Assistant Editor: John R.Kreuger 1963,XII+606 pp.f 70-/$20.00 2.Linguistics
in East Asia and South East Asia Associate
Editors: Yuen Ren Chao, Richard B.Noss, Joseph K. YamagiwaAssistant
Editor: John R.Kreuger 1967.
XX + 979 pp.f150-$42.00 3.Theoretical
Foundations Associate
Editors: Charles A. FergusonAssistant
Editor: Albert Valdman 1966
XII + 537pp. f 60-/$17.15 4.Ibero-American
and Caribbean Linguistics Associate
Editors: Robert Lado, Norman A.McQuown, Sol SaportaAssistant
Editor: Yolanda Lastra 1968.
XVIII+660 pp. 5.Linguistics
In South West Asia and North Africa Associate
Editors: Charles A. Ferguson,Carleton T.Hodge, Herbert H.PaperAssistant
Editor: John R.Kreuger, Gene M.Schremm 6.Linguistics
in Sub-Saharan Africa Associate
Editors: Jack Berry, Joseph H.GreenbergAssistant
Editor: David W.Crabb,Paul Schachter 7.Linguistics
in Oceania Associate
Editors: J.Donald Bowen, Isidore Dyen, George W.Grace, Stephen
Wurm Assistant
Editor: Geoffrey O’Grady 8.Linguistics
in Western Europe Associate
Editors: Einar Haugen, Werner WinterAssistant
Editor: Curtis Blaylock 9.Linguistics
in North America Associate
Editors: William Bright, Dell Hymes, John Lotz, Albert H.Marckwardt,
Jean Paul Vinay 10.Diachronic,
Areal, and Typological Linguistics Associate
Editors: Henry M.Hoengiswald, Robert E.Longacre 11.Linguistics
and Adjacent Arts and Sciences Associate
Editors: Arthur S.Abramson,Dell Hymes, Herbert rubenstein, Edward stankiewczAssistant
Editor:Bernard Spolsky 12.Index
to Current trends in Linguistics, Vols 1-12, volumes 6-`3 are in preperation |
